Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!psuvax1!vu-vlsi!cbmvax!andy
From: andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare...
Message-ID: <3142@cbmvax.UUCP>
Date: 14 Jan 88 16:23:19 GMT
References: <2168@crash.cts.com> <3256@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> <892@uop.edu>
Reply-To: andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel)
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 32

In article <892@uop.edu> exodus@uop.edu (G. Onufer) writes:
>
>What are we trying to prove here?  Two similar machines (processor, memory,
>NO FLAMES ABOUT CUSTOM CHIPS!) that run many similar programs, right?  
>
>And since does the ST not multi-task?  Are you Amiga owners so brain-dead
>that you do not realize that OS-9, Idris, Minix, and a couple of custom

I really hate to add to this thread, but this comment is so
'out of it' that someone should, or the whole thing will
start all over again...

You're missing the point entirely.  The argument isn't whether
or not the ST can multitask (if you've been reading the postings
you'll note I pointed out OS-9 is on the ST) but whether or
not a computer *should* multitask.  Yes, that's right.  People
have been arguing against multitasking itself.  This has nothing
to do with what machine one is using.  Some people without
multitasking on their computers have been arguing that
it is unnecessary.

Now do you understand ?

-- 
andy finkel		{ihnp4|seismo|allegra}!cbmvax!andy 
Commodore-Amiga, Inc.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
 a rigged demo."

Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share.
I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.