Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!yetti!geac!daveb
From: daveb@geac.UUCP (Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Defense of multi-tasking response
Message-ID: <1188@geac.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Aug-87 08:53:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: geac.1188
Posted: Thu Aug 20 08:53:37 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Aug-87 08:52:26 EDT
References: <407@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM>
Reply-To: daveb@geac.UUCP (Dave Collier-Brown)
Organization: The little blue rock next to that twinkly star.
Lines: 19
Xref: mnetor comp.sys.amiga:7579 comp.sys.mac:5754

In article <407@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM> denbeste@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM 
  (Steven Den Beste) writes:
>Most of the problems that plague UNIX and VMS come from the fact that often
>the number of highest-priority tasks which are READY are in total larger than
>the available memory - so even to service the READY queue requires memory
>swapping. The Amiga (and OS9, too, for that matter) avoids this by simply
>requiring that all tasks be memory resident at all times. 

It is interesting that Unix's papa, Multics, refused to schedule tasks to
use up "spare cycles" if by doing so the working set of the programs then
running would be unable to stay in core (source: Organic).
  This is the paged-machine equivalent of requiring all runnable programs
be core resident.
 --dave
-- 
 David Collier-Brown.                 {mnetor|yetti|utgpu}!geac!daveb
 Geac Computers International Inc.,   |  Computer Science loses its
 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, |  memory (if not its mind)
 CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 |  every 6 months.