Xref: utzoo comp.sys.atari.st:6518 comp.sys.amiga:11928
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!mks!wheels
From: wheels@mks.UUCP (Gerry Wheeler)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st,comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare...
Summary: Well, let's take a sample...
Message-ID: <358@mks.UUCP>
Date: 22 Dec 87 15:26:00 GMT
References: <2959@cbmvax.UUCP> <11191@oliveb.UUCP> <886@louie.udel.EDU> <3259@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu>
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems, Waterloo, Ont.
Lines: 45

In article <3259@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu>, davidli@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dave Meile) writes:
> In article <886@louie.udel.EDU> rminnich@udel.EDU (Ron Minnich) writes:
> >
> >I can't believe this discussion. Here we are, all us good hacker
> >types, arguing that Joe Average is Too Limited, The Poor Soul, 
> >to really  Appreciate the Beauty of Multi-Tasking (*cue Heavenly Choir*)
> Actually, the argument is "Joe Average doesn't NEED Multi-Tasking to
> accomplish the primary uses of a home computer"
> >  The 'oh but desk accessories are ok' is a specious argument. 
> >Desk accessories are a kludge-o form of multi-tasking. If you 
> >want to argue that Desk Accessories are a good thing, then you
> >are arguing FOR multi-tasking.
> Desk accessories (and maybe context switching) are all you NEED.
> It's a nice fribjob, but not necessary to do stuff.

I've been following this for a couple of days, and here's my two cents:

Having used a multi-tasking OS on a PC (QNX -- not a bad system) for
several years, I found that I tended to use it as a "switcher".  That
is, I would run one program in one virtual screen, and run another in a
different screen.  A hotkey is used to flip screens, up to a maximum of
four.  Now, QNX does offer Unix-type background tasks, but I didn't use
them much.  If your background compile runs amuck, it's hard to get back
under control. 

However, I don't think anyone has considered that one program, from the
user's point of view, may actually be composed of two cooperative tasks. 
For example, a terminal emulator can have an input task and an output
task, each of which blocks when it has nothing to do.  There's a case
when multi-tasking is nice even when you're only doing one thing. 

So, my vote goes for multi-tasking.  You can do full-blown power things
if you want, you can do "switching" if you want, you can do just one
thing if you want, but at least you have the choice.  Granted, a single-
tasking system is "all you need" to do work, but if the multi-tasking
system can be provided for reasonable cost, would you turn it down?

So, did I hear someone say they were offering a multitasking version of
GEMDOS for my ST? :-) (And when will ST Minix be ready?) (And when will
the price come down on ST Idris?)
-- 
     Gerry Wheeler                           Phone: (519)884-2251
Mortice Kern Systems Inc.               UUCP: uunet!watmath!mks!wheels
   35 King St. North                             BIX: join mks
Waterloo, Ontario  N2J 2W9                  CompuServe: 73260,1043