Xref: utzoo comp.sys.atari.st:6540 comp.sys.amiga:11969 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!necntc!ames!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!crash!pnet01!haitex From: haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st,comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Multi-tasking? A Nightmare... Message-ID: <2187@crash.cts.com> Date: 22 Dec 87 12:56:18 GMT Sender: news@crash.cts.com Organization: People-Net [pnet01], El Cajon, CA Lines: 138 davidli@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dave Meile) writes: >In article <2168@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: >> >> 5) Remember, what the few want today, the masses >> can't live without tomarrow! > >Ahem. In case you haven't noticed, the "masses" are NOT buying microcomputers. >They certainly aren't going to "need" multi-tasking systems, and would >probably be able to live without them (or computers, in general) quite >nicely thank you very much. > If they don't have a home computer, then they are irrelevant to the this discussion. We are talking about whether or not Multi- tasking is needed/useful/desireable arn't we. >Computer chauvenism. People will go to great lengths to "prove" that a >feature of the operating system or hardware is what makes a particular system >better. Of course, we all have a vested interest in that "proof" -- we >just don't want to believe that we bought an "outdated" computer. Hah! > So I take it your saying that you don't want to believe that your Atari-ST is an obsolete machine? What does vested interest have to do with this? Either multi-tasking is usefull or it is not! Of coarse we all have out-dated machines if your going to include the state of the art. Lets talk about the PC world, OK? > > >In article <2027@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk> pes@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Smee) writes: > >>What I am questioning is TRUE > >>multi-tasking. I've got no argument with 'carousels' of suspended programs, > >>and no problem with resident background interrupt handlers, such as print > >>spoolers. > > This whole discussion has generated a lot of heated arguments, mostly > from Amiga users who enjoy being able to multi-task, giving example > after example of how nice multitasking is. This is (hopefully) a discussion, and not an argument. > > However, practically EVERY argument given FOR multi-tasking can be ^^^^^^^^^^^ > satisfied by the 'carousel' approach that the original poster acknowledged > were a good idea. It seems to me that the practically never is a infinitly greater than NEVER. > > I'm still waiting to see if someone can come up with a use for TRUE > multitasking that a typical home user would find very handy but that > cannot be satisfied by a simple 'carousel' approach. There probably > are some, especially with message-passing, etc., but none have been > posted yet (except for people waiting for their compilers to finish -- > they just need faster integrated compilers, though :) > > Robert Gardner > What about the example I gave of two resident programs cohabitating and interacting even though written in different Languages? While you don't NEED to have multi-tasking to do this, it makes an otherwise complicated job very much easier, and therefore much more likely to be successfully accomplished. It certainly is attractive to me because it means I don't have to "share" any of my source with someone whom I may want to collaborate with. Carousels are fine for most things. However, for applications to which they are unsuited, using them can be a pain. Also, for us programmers, within a single program multi-tasking can be invaluable. For instance, If I were writing a communications package, one feature I might include would be a "secretary". The secretary would be capable of performing certain mundane tasks for the user. For instance, it could be used in conjuntion with a phone-list to re-try busy numbers periodically, and to interrupt the user if the number becomes avaiable (ie: rings). Perhaps it might be smart enough not to recall if the user input level is high, or to ask permission before making the attempt. This would all happen with no unneeded interruptions to the user. THE POINT IS THIS: As a programmer I find the idea of writing such a program as being much simpler with multi-tasking facilities than without them. If I were programming an Atari, which I take it does not have multi-tasking, I would have to consider the job to be far more difficult than it would be on the Amiga. For me, multi-processing is just another tool I can use or not use. The user might not even know it is happenning. Regaurdless of what you think of the "average users'" capability to utilize multi-tasking to their benfit one thing is certainly true; They can never use multi-tasking to their benifit if the machine they're using doesn't support it. Never! To me NEVER is an ugly word. Kind of like DEAD. This is why we Amiga people like the Amiga so much. It has a "no limits" philosophy. The fact that a machine is built around a bit more than "how can we make a machine that will ring all the right bells (sound, graphics, windows,etc...) to appeal to the uninformed masses so we can make a quick buck" philosophy so common in this industry is refreshing. Multi-tasking was included in the machine because it was feasable and thus the "no limits" philosophy demanded it. ===================================== My question for you is, what do you have against multi-tasking? Take OUR (all of us who have given testomonials) word for it that the disk swapping "nightmare" is indeed just a bad dream. This just does not happen. The switching overhead seems to be negligable. I figure you have a choice of having a thing or not having it. Isn't something better than nothing? If you don't want to use it, just turn it off! Give me an example of why it is better NOT to have mult-tasking. And one last point: large numbers of these machines are going into homes, and in those homes, are being used by children. Perhaps little 10 year old Jonny wants a computer to play games on, but a few years from now he might want to program. If so, he might be totally familiar with multi-tasking aspects of programming before he reaches High School if his computer includes it. Otherwise... Merry Christmas, Wade. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COM