Xref: utzoo comp.sys.atari.st:6588 comp.sys.amiga:12055
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!pepper!cmcmanis
From: cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st,comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare...
Message-ID: <37344@sun.uucp>
Date: 24 Dec 87 00:20:36 GMT
References: <2027@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk> <22237@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <8155@prls.UUCP>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Reply-To: cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 49

In article <8155@prls.UUCP> gardner@prls.UUCP (Robert Gardner) writes:
>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 :)

The major difference between carouselling (I love that term) and true
multitasking is efficiency. You alluded to these above however the
conditions where this is a win are greater than just the compile/edit
cycle mentioned. Basically you keep the CPU busy and get more work done.

The other advantage to true multitasking is the transparency of it. When
you program this becomes self evident. No special steps are needed to 
run two tasks simultaneously, and flexibility is enhanced. A really nice
example is Carolyn's Pallete Tool. This runs as a separate task and can
be run with any other program to provide a color adjuster. Plus you don't
have to go through hoops/special startup sequences etc like you do with
DAs. It doesn't make it better, it demonstrably makes it more efficient over
the long term. 

Anyway, it is a hell of a lot easier to not use than it is to simulate when
it isn't built in. My whole case on 'picking a computer' is based on what
it *can* do versus what it was *designed* to do. 

Simply put, rating two computers can be done rationally. 

If any program that can be written on computer A, can be identically
duplicated on computer B. And, a program can be written on computer
B that *cannot* be identically duplicated on computer A. Then, computer
B can be said to be *more capable* than computer A. 

If any program that can be written on computer A, can be identically
duplicated on computer B. And, the program on computer B is consistently
faster than computer A. Then, computer B can be said to be *more powerful*
than computer A. 

If any program can be written for computer A, that computer B cannot 
duplicate, and any program can be written for computer B that computer
A cannot duplicate. Then these two computers can only be compared while
specifying the limits of the comparison. 

Once again, I would like to see a comp.sys.compare newsgroup.


--Chuck McManis
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis   BIX: cmcmanis  ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.