Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!widener!netnews.upenn.edu!king.mcs.drexel.edu!kblackne
From: kblackne@mcs.drexel.edu (Ken Blackney)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: All about sys 7.0 <long>
Message-ID: <1991Apr15.141202.2028@mcs.drexel.edu>
Date: 15 Apr 91 14:12:02 GMT
References: <BAUMGART.91Mar27172632@info7.esquire.dpw.com> <91087.123233EHYOUNK@MTUS5.BITNET> <1991Apr2.024426.28729@isc.rit.edu> <1991Apr13.014000.29394@sbcs.sunysb.edu> <1991Apr15.055431.7509@news.nd.edu>
Organization: Drexel University, Dept. of Math. and Comp. Sci.
Lines: 23

In article <1991Apr15.055431.7509@news.nd.edu> rcook@grumpy.helios.nd.edu () writes:
>
>On a true multitasking system like OS/2 and unix, a 10K program running 
>100 times should take up 10K, plus some overhead for each program to hold
>registers and temporary data.  Assuming 1K overhead for each program (not a 
>bad assumption for a 10K program) then you could run this program 999 times on
>a 1000K system.
>
>Robert Kelley Cook
>U. Of Notre Dame '91
>  I'm still open to job suggestions . . . 

With all due respect, the issue you are discussing is a memory manager issue,
_not_ a multitasking issue.  Windows 3.0 uses a cooperative multitasking sys-
tem much like the Mac and it offers "code sharing" as you describe.  I would
guess that the reason the Mac does not do this now is to maintain some sort
of backward compatibility with older apps.

Ken Blackney
Computing Resource Group
Office of Computing Services
Drexel University