Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!uupsi!pbs.org!TALOS!jerry
From: jerry@TALOS.UUCP (Jerry Gitomer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: (none) Was: Multitasking
Message-ID: <1401@TALOS.UUCP>
Date: 8 Mar 91 15:36:10 GMT
References: <74457@bu.edu.bu.edu> <1010002@hpmwmat.HP.COM>
Organization: NPRI, Alexandria VA
Lines: 28

mikep@hpmwtd.HP.COM (Mike Powell) writes:


		[Definitions of multitasking omitted]

>	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.

This is more dependent on the nature of the tasks being run than
on the quality of the multitasking system.  For example if
running two input/output intensive tasks there will no apparent
performance degradation, when running one processor intensive
task and one input/output intensive task there will be little
apparent performance degradation, but when running two processor
intensive tasks there will be significant apparent performance degradation.

Since most users of personal computers tend to run one
interactive task (input/output intensive) when they are
multitasking there is little apparent performance degradation,
but if the same user, using the same machine, were to run two
processor intensive tasks on the same system you would find that
the elapsed time to perform the two tasks would probably exceed
the elapsed time to perform the same two tasks sequentially.
-- 
Jerry Gitomer at National Political Resources Inc, Alexandria, VA USA
I am apolitical, have no resources, and speak only for myself.
Ma Bell (703)683-9090      (UUCP:  ...{uupsi,vrdxhq}!pbs!npri6!jerry