Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!rochester!udel!gatech!mcnc!decvax!ucbvax!BINGVAXA.BITNET!POSTMASTER From: POSTMASTER@BINGVAXA.BITNET Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Returned Network Mail Message-ID: <8801060646.AA11495@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: 6 Jan 88 06:37:00 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 439 Your mail is being returned to you. Reason for return is: %MAIL-E-NOSUCHUSR, no such user VY7379 at node VAXA Returned mail follows: ------------------------------ Received: From CANADA01(MAILER) by BINGVAXA with Jnet id 1886 for VY7379@BINGVAXA; Wed, 6 Jan 88 01:37 EST Received: by CANADA01 (Mailer X1.24) id 1883; Wed, 06 Jan 88 01:36:59 EDT Date: Mon, 4 Jan 88 12:44:10 PST Reply-To: Info-Atari16@Score.Stanford.edu Sender: INFO-ATARI16 Discussion From: Info-Atari16 Digest Subject: Info-Atari16 Digest V88 #1 To: TODD KRISSEL Info-Atari16 Digest Monday, January 4, 1988 Volume 88 : Issue 1 This weeks Editor: Bill Westfield Today's Topics: Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare... Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare... Nothing about: Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare... Multi-tasking on micro computers Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare... Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare... Even more thoughts about multi-tasking..... Multitasking and Big Brother Re: Nothing about: Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare... Re: Multitasking?? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Dec 87 19:10:49 GMT From: uhccux!lee@humu.nosc.mil (Greg Lee) Subject: Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare... To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu In article <2673@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >In article <3256@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> davidli@umn-cs.UUCP (Dave Meile) writes: Mr. Sexton's comments don't bear repeating. It was suggested in another news group that he has a net variety of Tourette's syndrome. Would Dave Meile and others in comp.sys.arari.st please accept an apology from us amiga folks? ------------------------------ Date: 23 Dec 87 20:17:27 GMT From: Lindy!kevin@labrea.stanford.edu (Kevin Burnett) Subject: Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare... To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu In article <2673@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >>People want computers (when they want them at all) to DO SOMETHING for >>them. In the majority of cases with the Atari ST and the Amiga, that >>"something" has been: >> >> writing stuff >> filing stuff >> retrieving stuff that's been filed >> playing games >> programming all of the above > >Speak for yourself, you nit. You have no idea what *I* do, or what *I* >need. I don't believe he said anything about how YOU use your computer. And, you're asking for this comment, ASSHOLE. Last time I checked, "the majority of cases" doesn't mean 100%, does it? >>access to two programs (ala Multifinder or perhaps through a "desk >>accessory" [IBM PCs have desk accessories too, folks]) you already have >>as much power as you're ever liable to need in most environments. > ^^^^^^ > >Speak for yourself, nit. I believe he was, TWIT. >I could not go back to a single tasking computer, nor would I accept >a job programming one. Stone age. Good for you, dude. >Alright, thats it. For the last time, just because you dont want it/dont >need it/can't understand it, don't for a second presuppose others >dont want/need/understand multitasking. He said that he didn't see any arguments why multitasking is a REQUIREMENT for a microcomputer. Thinking it's useful, and liking it don't cut it. >Open mouth, insert foot. Open hand, take egg. Apply to face. Do you do that often? Perhaps you should seek therapy. >P.S. This is not a flame. This is not even a spark. If you would >like flames, I'll be glad to lay into you, you little jerk. It sure sounds like a flame to me. I'm not going to claim what I'm doing isn't. Why don't you crawl back under the rock from whence you came? Why can't people just forget this stupid argument? I bought my Atari because it does what I wanted at the time, you bought your Amiga for the same reason. Why can't you just leave it at that? When I bought my ST, the Amiga was at least $600-$700 more expensive than the ST. I didn't have that extra money. If I had, maybe I would have bought an Amiga. Maybe not. I don't need this damned "my computer is better than yours because mine does x, nyah nyah nyah" bullshit. -- Kevin Burnett Stanford Linear Accelerator Centre / Santa Clara Class of '88 Arpa: kevin@Lindy.Stanford.EDU Bitnet: KJBSF@SLACVM.BITNET Old-style UUCP: ...!decwrl!labrea!Lindy!kevin ------------------------------ Date: 23 Dec 87 20:37:29 GMT From: amdcad!amdahl!kim@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Kim DeVaughn) Subject: Nothing about: Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare... To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu _ _ _ __ ' ) ) ) / ) / _/_ / / / _ __ __ __ , / /_ __ o _ / ______ __. _ / ' (_ To: davidli@umn-cs.ARPA Subject: Multi-tasking on micro computers Dave, I totally agree with your statement: "BUT I still insist that, for the non "power user" there's no need for it." The problem is that most computer users these days, are power users. The children running games don't need "high power or multitasking" - nor do people who really don't understand what a computer can do for them. Once someone reaches the point where they really understand what a computer can do, they should be given access to all the power they need or want to complete the required task - multitasking is just another tool they might need to complete that task. The truth of the matter (bickering aside) is that there are useful things a true computer user or programmer can accomplish with multitasking that can make his/her life easier. (btw: I don't own a multitasking machine - but I do have a Sun 3/50 on my desk at work - and love it!). All these flames about what machine is "better" are total trash. Every machine, ever created, is good for "SOME" task - not every task. The truth is that some tasks can be more easily done and/or done more efficiently with multitasking. If you really want an example OK: Say you are running a mail server on your machine - you would still want to be able to do anything you normally do (editing, debugging, etc) while the mail server is running... For that, you NEED multitasking. To make small computers able to do complex tasks - multitasking is required. Multitasking is just another tool -- like more memory, RAM disks, disk storage space, tape backup devices, sidecars, magic sacs, etc., etc. To most computer professionals, multitasking is just another tool you use to complete a task - it is a fact of computing life. /joel [ arpanet to: malman@bbn.com ] ------------------------------ Date: 24 Dec 87 00:26:45 GMT From: pepper!cmcmanis@sun.com (Chuck McManis) Subject: Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare... To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu In article <3259@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> davidli@umn-cs.UUCP (Dave Meile) writes: |>Actually, the argument is "Joe Average doesn't NEED Multi-Tasking to |>accomplish the primary uses of a home computer" |> |> writing stuff |> filing stuff |> retrieving stuff |> playing games |> The degenerate case of this argument is "Joe Average User" really only needs a pencil, some paper, and a box to do the above. We are down to arguing opinions. Could we move on now? --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. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Dec 87 00:20:36 GMT From: pepper!cmcmanis@sun.com (Chuck McManis) Subject: Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare... To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu 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. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Dec 87 02:22:00 EDT From: "Welych, Gregory J." Subject: Even more thoughts about multi-tasking..... To: "info-atari16" Reply-To: "Welych, Gregory J." I just sat here reading my Info-Atari16 mail and read about 20 replies, and counter-replies. All on the subject of multi-tasking. I think that the issue is NOT joe-average-user being too dumb to use a multi-tasking environment, but that they don't have a NEED to as of yet. To whom ever said that Joe-Average-user is NEVER going to need multi-tasking, have you ever look at the future prospects??? Maybe they don't need or want to use it now ( or even know HOW to), in the future, it may be NEEDED by ANY user of a computer. I think the MAIN reason multi-tasking personal computers are not extremely popular, is due to the LACK of them on the market. Yes, I know there are some on the market now, but five years ago, name one! ( note I said personal computer and not mini's or super micros) This lack of public use (and abuse) of multi-tasking is why joe-average-user doesn't feel a NEED for it. As a side note, only the recent emergence of high-resolution graphic displays have made using a multi-tasking operating system easy enough for non-hacker types. Currently, I rarely use the multi-tasking abilities of the VAX I'm using now. The reason is NOT that I have no need or ability to use it, but that it is VERY difficult to use easily. And due to the lack of EASE-OF-USE, I haven't tried to use it to it's fullest extent where I currently sit saying, "It sure would be nice to be doing such-and-such while I'm doing so-and-so!". If the VAX had a nice, inexpensive, easily gotten, and logical graphic interface, I know I would be using the multi-tasking to the hilt! I see a day when EVERY computer had better have a multi-tasking operating system. The express need will stem from the, as of yet, unexplored uses of computers in normal human existence. I doubt many people feel the way I do, but at least to me, these are the reasons I will NEVER get another computer with-out a multi-tasking, graphic environment. Please note: The above is NOT a flame to anyone, about anything, or even just for the fun of it. It is just the expression of my thoughts on the subject. Just a thought, Greg Welych. PS: Please, people, let's not start ANOTHER "My computer is better than yours" war. I have had enough of them. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Dec 87 22:51 AST From: Subject: Multitasking and Big Brother To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu X-Original-To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu, FXDDR Another aspect in the debate over multitasking comes to mind. A few weeks ago some guy was hawking his book on a talk show...don't recall the author or the title but it was pretty much the antithesis of the "Micro Millenium" that came out a few years back. His theme on the show was that office automation most often _reduces_ the office productivity (I've seen this phenomenon mentioned in Infoworld and elsewhere so I'll assume there's some truth to it). So managers will be forced to either toss a lot of the techno-glitz and hope productivity improves, OR employ `watchdog' software to see that everybody is meeting quotas and not goofing off...he called that the `electronic sweatshop' approach. The argument went like this: Right now, PCs are still pretty slow. There is time for employees to get away from the machine for a few minutes while it calculates, sorts, or whatever. But the new generation of PCs can do several things at once, so instead of a moment's relaxation the employee will just move on to a new task. And employers will have the ability to see that they do just that. I've heard that such monitoring is being used a little already for cashiers and ticket agents. Personally, when I first used multitasking systems I thought it was great, and did a lot of simultaneous compiles and whatnot. But these days I rarely try it...seems there's always paperwork to do and journals to read while the computer is busy, so I mentally multitask. Getting the eyes off the screen (*&?!! VT-compatibles) reduces headaches too. After stopping to think about it, I don't know that I'd walk across the street to pick up a multitasking os. Kinda like quadraphonic sound...cute concept but I wouldn't pay extra for it. Having used up a week's worth of computer blasphemy in this message, I'll quit. Notes: 1) No, I didn't post to Amiga. I've lost what interest I had in that machine. 2) If you've sent me mail in the last month (or two?), I haven't been keeping up with it. I'm clearing up the backlog and hope to be caught up shortly... sorry. Don Rice FXDDR@ALASKA.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: 24 Dec 87 06:26:13 GMT From: glacier!jbn@labrea.stanford.edu (John B. Nagle) Subject: Re: Nothing about: Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare... To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu Please, could we turn down the flames a bit. On the systems that don't have multi-tasking, such as the IBM PC and the Mac, we observe people desperately fighting the operating system to get some concurrent operations going. Terminate-and-stay-resident programs, such as Sidekick on IBM PCs, were an attempt to get around the lack of multi-tasking. The attempt was only moderately successful, and such programs often interfere with each other and the program they preempt. Microsoft takes the position that such programs violate the rules of MS-DOS and has warned for years that they will not work under future versions of MS-DOS. They won't work under OS/2, but OS/2 offers multi-tasking, so they will not be needed. PC spooling programs, which must patch into interrupt locations and store into the operating system, have similar problems. (Try to get a printer spooler and a plotter spooler both running at the same time.) Even desk accessories on the Mac, which are officially supported by the operating system, are something of a kludge internally. So what we see, on the systems that don't offer multitasking, are attempts to achieve it through hacks that don't work too well. John Nagle ------------------------------ Date: 23 Dec 87 17:35:57 GMT From: ssyx!koreth@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Steven Grimm) Subject: Re: Multitasking?? To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu In article <39@lzaz.ATT.COM> bds@lzaz.ATT.COM (BRUCE SZABLAK) writes: >Frankly, if the BIOS was written re-enterantly, there would be >little difficulty in adding multitasking. It could be done for >those who use it, and those who didn't could ignore it. The ST's BIOS is re-entrant. GEMDOS is not. (I have a multiuser BBS system to prove it...) You just have to make sure that each task has its own BIOS register save area. That took me a while to figure out -- basically you switch the BIOS stack pointer in your task-switching routine, as well as the user stack pointer and all the registers. Multitasking on the ST is actually fairly trivial, as long as you don't try to use Pexec() or Pterm(). I'm working on rewriting both of those right now for the background Xmodem accessory in ST-Talk Professional. +New! Improved! Now 100% Artificial-+-+-----------------------------------+ |# # @@@ **** &&&&& $$$$$ % %| |Steven Grimm | |# # @ @ * * & $ % %+-+ ARPA: koreth@ucscb.ucsc.edu | |### @ @ **** &&&& $ %%%%%| | UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucscc!ssyx!koreth| |# # @ @ * * & $ % %+-+ ______________________________| |# # @@@ * ** &&&&& $ % %| | |"Let's see what's out there."| +-----with NutraSour(TM)! No natural colors or preservatives!------------+ ------------------------------ End of Info-Atari16 Digest ************************** -------