Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!noao!arizona!dave From: dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc Subject: Re: Multitasking workbench 2.0 Message-ID: <828@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> Date: 10 Feb 91 04:49:38 GMT References: <588+H8*@irie.ais.org> <51567@cornell.UUCP> <7717@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1991Feb9.190059.26278@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson Lines: 28 In article <1991Feb9.190059.26278@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> jap@convex.cl.msu.edu (Joe Porkka) writes: >jms@vanth.UUCP (Jim Shaffer) writes: >Hm, [WB2.0's] a little multithreaded now. It still waits for opening drawers, >but you don't hafta wait after an application launch. > >Apparently the actual code for WorkBench is similar to the output of >fortran-to-c converters -> very icky and hard to change. > >One of the projects is a complete rewrite, but this won't happen till >some version after the (hopefully) RSN 2.0 Since Workbench is basically a disk-based program (isn't it?) this could show up in 2.1 (or whatever). If the Workbench code is as nasty as you say, it probably should be re-written anyway. And if you're going to re-write it, why not do it right? After all, the Amiga *is* a multi-tasking machine! I'd also like to add my $.02 to the noise about getting 2.0 out. I'll wait, thank you, until C= is happy it is reasonably debugged. I've tried lots of programs, and the buggy ones don't get a second chance. As someone in comp.unix.amiga pointed out, a shell program needs to be absolutely bug free. I would submit even more so the operating system. I'm not interested in spending a dime on a buggy OS, no matter how flashy it is. I'd rather stick with 1.3. -- Dave Schaumann | DANGER: Access hole may tear easily. Use of the access | holes for lifting or carrying may result in damage to the dave@cs.arizona.edu | carton and subsequent injury to the user.