Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: Amiga basher Message-ID: <1991Jun17.231856.10616@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 17 Jun 91 23:18:56 GMT References: <1991Jun16.170632.22749@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1991Jun17.160936.14622@cs.mcgill.ca> Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX Lines: 87 In article <1991Jun17.160936.14622@cs.mcgill.ca> genius@cs.mcgill.ca (Michel NGUYEN) writes: > >That's what real-time process scheduling is all about. > It's clearer to me now. Any process at -1 will have maximum priority > over the other ones at > -1. No, you're not listening. ANY small I/O intensive program on any reasonable CPU uses up essentially zero CPU, whether it's at highest priority or not. So, when you're running Tetris, or I'm running JRComm, I'm running at 0%. Misconception #2: priority -1 is lower than priority 0. That is, whenever nothing else is ready to run the CPU-intensive task crunches away at data. Since nothing is in the run queue most of the time (see my PS output in a previous message: only "mandel" was ready to run), there's virtually no delay. The only problem would come from a high priority program busy-waiting. Busy-waiting is normal for Mac and IBM programs, because they were written before any real operating system was available for that hardware. But very few Amiga programs do it. > But I guess it does not > apply in your case as most of the time you seem to have a lot > (if not only) of *interactive* apps with iddle and waiting time. That's right. Not only that, but most of your IBM and Mac users are running 99% interactive applications. It's only the things they have had to do to deal with the lack of system services that makes them all CPU hogs. > You cannot throw in an intensive CPU apps into a CPU already working at 100% > and expect the same overall performance. I never said otherwise. But you *can* usefully multitask while running your long-term CPU intensive program. > I rarely download files at 2400 baud. But I work everyday. So while I work, > I work. And while you're working, unless you're extremely unusual, you're mostly running interactive programs that soak up very little CPU. > Yes it takes a "17 MIPS" machine for X-windows, but it is more than just > any window manager or process manager or GUI, it has all the system protocol > for communication and networking (Client/server), The X windows protocol is fundamentally flawed, because it puts the responsibility for basic window management tasks (repainting, menus, and so on) on the application. So the application has to duplicate O/S operations in real-time. *That* is where the flaw is. Things like menus, scroll-bars, buttons, window repainting, window moving, and so on belong in the server... not in the client or a separate window-manager program. > What are the flaws in X? "Tools, not rules" A basic flaw in the fundamental system design. > Have you ever try X in Amiga 3000UX? Windows in a 386sx is faster. Of course. It's not a 17 MIPS CPU. X: "Sometimes when you fill a vacuum, it still sucks" -- Dennis Ritchie. > Throw in Mathematica, a couple of rendering or fractal computations and > you will see how poor is ANY design. I see. I'm pointing out that the steering wheel is in the back seat and you think I'm talking about the 4 cylinder engine. My car has a 4 cylinder engine. But it doesn't have to tow around 5 tons of chrome. So it runs fine. > When you will need more than > 17 MIPS (but I doubt it considering what you do most of the time) one day, > I guess you will not upgrade to a 68040, it only shows how poor design > the 68030 is. If I need more than 17 MIPS to do some real work... not cover up bugs... I'll get it. Right now 3/4 of a MIPS is enough. > Yeah, but it took more than 7 mega years for EVOLUTION to get from > a simple Ameoba to Homo Sapiens, because of backwards compatibility. Yep. Isn't it great that we can start over again now and again with a fresh design in *our* tools. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' . 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"