Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!shlump.nac.dec.com!decuac!hadron!lsw!gjc From: gjc@lsw.UUCP (Greg Casamento) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc Subject: Re: True Multitasking Message-ID: <189@lsw.UUCP> Date: 17 Feb 91 02:01:17 GMT References: <42598@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <678@tnc.UUCP> Organization: LSW, Landover MD Lines: 40 In article , mwm@pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes: > I'm not saying that a computer has to have a bulletproof OS to meet > that definition; I'm saying that the OS design has to have the _goal_ > of being bulletproof to meet that definition. I see your reasoning now...and I agree. When I first read the note I thought that you were saying that any computer which could be crashed by an application is not a real computer, but I obviosly mis- understood. > Contrary to what you might think, SOME os's are very much tied to the > computer they're on. A primary example of this would be AmigaDOS, > which has to have a 680x0 based processor, and a nice set of custom > silicon as well. Also, the OS expects to see some set of capabilities > from the hardware, and won't run without that. This is true... But, certain OS's can be ported to other platforms. > But yeah, you're right - hardware can run multiple OSs, and some of > them have being bulletproof as a goal; others don't. It can be argued > (and has been previously in this thread) that a Mac running AUX is in > some way different from a Mac running finder, as the users see > radically different behavior. > Any decent operating system/hardware design should be capable of handling application problems to an extent, but thier integrity cannot be guaranteed. Just so long as they have the goal of being bulletproof in mind, that's good enough for me. But, you never know about some OS's, after all nobody's perfect! >