Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!fluke!mce
From: mce@fluke.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: UNIX and Mac applications on the Mac II
Message-ID: <799@sputnik.COM>
Date: Wed, 22-Apr-87 18:09:33 EST
Article-I.D.: sputnik.799
Posted: Wed Apr 22 18:09:33 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 24-Apr-87 03:51:47 EST
References: <9519@duke.cs.duke.edu> <252@rocky.STANFORD.EDU>
Sender: news@tc.fluke.COM
Distribution: world
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Lines: 21
Keywords: UNIX, Mac II, multitasking, windows

In article <252@rocky.STANFORD.EDU> ali@rocky.UUCP (Ali Ozer) writes:

> But most Mac applications are use busy-waiting in their main event
> loops, no? It might be possible to run them as tasks, but they will
> all be "cpu-hogs". It seems like most old applications will not do
> too well under a multitasking Mac II Finder.

Assuming a multitasking Mac II acts something like the SUN-3/75 I am
currently using, you can have many "CPU hogs" without any performance
degradement.  After all, if your CPU is idle, it is in a busy-wait loop
of sorts in the kernel/finder.  Certainly response is slower, but not
to the point that I can notice it.  The 68020 has a lot of horsepower.

I do suspect that Mac applications running under A/UX will be somewhat
less responsive than running under the Finder.  But that the reason
will be the overhead of running A/UX (virtual memory, context switches,
etc).


Brian McElhinney
mce@tc.fluke.com