Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!pyramid!amiga!jimm
From: jimm@amiga.UUCP (James D. Mackraz)
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: Re: Multitasking Considered Useless?
Message-ID: <1481@amiga.amiga.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Aug-86 11:34:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: amiga.1481
Posted: Tue Aug 12 11:34:12 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 13-Aug-86 19:07:04 EDT
References: <205@bridge2.UUCP> <563@hope.UUCP>
Reply-To: jimm@homer.UUCP (Jim Mackraz)
Organization: Commodore-Amiga Inc., 983 University Ave #D, Los Gatos CA 95030
Lines: 28

>>	Come on lets get serious, You are all trying to compare a $1500
>> 	Computer with the processing power of a mini or mainframe. 
>
>So?  why shouldn't a mac be able to multi task?  Convergent
>Technology puts out a nice little Unix Box (CT's Miniframe) that
>multi tasks very nicely.  It runs on a Mc68010 (10MHz) with 1/2
>Meg. of RAM (just like the mac) and works for up to 8 users.  For
>that matter, the Amiga is supposed to multitask (I'll see it when
>I believe it -- I still think that the amiga is a toy).

The Amiga has a message-passing multitasking kernel that works great,
is very fast, in use by many programs, supports 68881 in a multitasking
environment, has no problem with the CSA 14/16 MHz 68020, and I think you
are a dink.

It is becoming apparent, though, that the protection and relocation
offered by an MMU will provide significant benefits during software
development, when running buggy programs, and in situations that
shared code is desirable without restriction on the addressing mode
of the programs.  

And another thing, one main thing that separates the Amiga with the CSA
expansion from a VAX (with which it compares in CPU benchmarks) is I/O
bandwidth.  Compared to the IWM disk controller, though, ...

		Jim Mackraz

Not representing official policy this time.