Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hpl-opus!hpnmdla!hpmwtd!mikep
From: mikep@hpmwtd.HP.COM (Mike Powell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: (none) Was: Multitasking
Message-ID: <1010002@hpmwmat.HP.COM>
Date: 7 Mar 91 04:29:54 GMT
References: <74457@bu.edu.bu.edu>
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD). - Santa Rosa, Ca.
Lines: 35


	
	There seems to be at least a couple of definitions that can be applied
	to multitasking...

	First, there is the technical implementation of multitasking.  This
	is where most of the discussion is.

	Second, there is the USER level definition.  This is the most important
	of the two definitions for a number of reasons.  Users far outnumber
	technical 'experts'.  If fact, the technical 'experts' are a 
	subset of this user group.  Also, the advantages of a true multitasking
	environment are independant of the technical methods used to 
	implement it.

	The user definition of a true multitasking environment would be
	that the user is allowed to run multiple tasks of his/her choice
	at the same time (provided memory exists to run them).

	A good multitasking system shows little or no signs of slowdown
	when multiple tasks are run.  The degree to which this is true
	is one good measure of how well a multitasking system it is.

	When Amiga users say they have a true multitasking system, it is
	certainly true...  They can run multiple tasks of their choice
	at the same time with little or no signs of slowdown in most
	all cases.  How the Amiga does this is not really important to them.
	But the increase in productivity and enhanced utility of the
	system due to the true multitasking environment (user definition) is
	quite important to them.

	So when someone has a USER question about multitasking, be sure
	to use the user definition....  anything else is simply a diversion.

	-Mike-