Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.system:3931 comp.sys.mac.programmer:23229
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!caen!news.cs.indiana.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!pequod.cso.uiuc.edu!dorner
From: dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re:  Preemption good, time-slicing bad  (was Re: ...)
Message-ID: <1991Apr2.143151.2479@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 2 Apr 91 14:31:51 GMT
References: <1991Apr2.055242.21143@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Organization: University of Illinois at U-C
Lines: 16

In article <1991Apr2.055242.21143@nntp-server.caltech.edu> woody@truebalt.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) writes:
>See, you don't have to have pre-emptive multitasking to make a good system
>work well; you just have to think about the problem a tiny bit longer.

Well, almost.  EVERYBODY has to think about the problem a tiny bit longer,
or you're sunk.  How is you or I thinking about the problem a tiny bit
longer for our apps going to fix Apple's C compiler?

The weakness of the current system is that it requires EVERY program to
behave in exactly the correct manner.  Protected, preemptive systems are
much more tolerant of flaws.

(Am I STILL in this argument?  I must have lost my mind...)
--
Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office
Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu  UUCP: uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!s-dorner