Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!ihnp4!alberta!sask!custead
From: custead@sask.UUCP (Der cuss)
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Rabid Defense of Multi-Tasking
Message-ID: <419@sask.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Aug-86 15:27:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: sask.419
Posted: Fri Aug 15 15:27:17 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 18-Aug-86 01:15:00 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, CANADA
Lines: 34

This discussion has probably gone on too long already, but I
just can't resist.

> But seriously, the problem is not the Mac os.  It is the hardware.
> Apple was right to not try to put multi-tasking on the Mac.

Why did Apple create Desk Accessories?
Why does Apple distribute the switcher?
These are kludges to get around the lack of multi-tasking and let
you use the mac for more than one thing at a time.
In a multi-tasking system these would not exist because they would
have no reason to exist.
(DAs and the Switcher rely on the voluntary suspension of the running
program.  Multi-tasking is the INVOLUNTARY suspension of the running
program.  That is the whole difference, although it is no small thing;
it is fundamental to the whole design of the os.)

> Without an MMU, multi-tasking is dangerous.

This is absolutely correct.  It is also irrelevant.
I hope you never use a Ramdisk, or a Desk Acessory, or the Switcher!
Without an MMU, all of these are exactly as dangerous as
multi-tasking: you have more than one piece of code sharing
unprotected memory.  Program A is exactly as vulnerable
to clobbering by Program B running under the switcher as it
would be in a multi-tasking environment.

Multi-tasking would not increase (or decrease) the frequency of bombs.

Apple was WRONG to not try to put multi-tasking on the Mac.

				L. R. Custead
				Univ of Saskatchewan
				ihnp4!custead