Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!ogicse!cs.uoregon.edu!ns.uoregon.edu!milton!stevep
From: stevep@wrq.com (Steve Poole)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: How do we change the scheduler? (Was Re: Multitasking at home...)
Message-ID: <1991May15.171830.25748@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 15 May 91 17:18:30 GMT
References: <1991Jan16.015035.10356@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <1991May10.010449.11340@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991May15.113621.22300@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Sender: news@milton.u.washington.edu (News)
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Lines: 22

In article <1991May15.113621.22300@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>But it isn't. Observed behaviour: a Mac II (which certainly has the Amiga 1000
>beat on horsepower) just doesn't run smoothly compared to the older Amigas.
>
I didn't make any claims about relative smoothness.  I've used a Mac II for
years and find that in most cases it's smooth enough.  There are plenty
of crappy apps that DON'T cooperate, but there are plenty that do.

>> An event loop in the midst of a computation intensive routine is no big deal,
>> and a standard part of a responsive, well-behaved application.
>
>Yes it is a big deal, and no it's not a standard part of any such thing. It's
>just something that Apple programmers have to do to keep the faith.

Obviously the context was within a Mac application.  No need to intentionally
misinterpret.  I've never found it to be particularly troublesome.  Clearly,
a preemptive solution would be preferable, but anyone with a modicum of
intellect can cope.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- INTEL 80x86: Just say NOP -- Internet: stevep@wrq.com -- AOL: Spoole -- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------