Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:14166 comp.windows.misc:329 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nuchat!peter From: peter@nuchat.UUCP (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.windows.misc Subject: Re: A/UX window systems, Mac toolbox, etc Message-ID: <823@nuchat.UUCP> Date: 19 Mar 88 04:26:37 GMT References: <4129@hoptoad.uucp> <283@rhesus.primate.wisc.edu> <1710@ssc-vax.UUCP> <7670@apple.Apple.Com> Organization: Public Access - Houston, Tx Lines: 34 In article <7670@apple.Apple.Com>, goldman@Apple.COM (Phil Goldman) writes: > I think one point you are both missing out on is that preemptive multitasking > requires hardware support not available on a 68000. Do you really mean to say this? 1) I can't conceive of a processor that does not permit preemptive multitasking that would still qualify as a computer. A buddy of mine implemented a preemptive multitasker on the Apple-II, as a matter of fact. 2) I'm *using* a computer that does preemptive multitasking on a 68000 with no associated hardware support. I've been using it for a year now and am quite pleased with it. It's a *lot* more responsive than a Mac. Yes, you know the one. 3) At work we have 3 68000-based machines that run multiprocessing (yes, multiple CPUs) UNIX on 68000s. Not 68020s or 68010s. 68000. > As far as which type of multitasking is preferable, I think the answer is, a > combination of both. Even if preemption is available it is still *highly* > desirable to allow the application to notify the OS that it has nothing useful > to do for a given time period. You probably need to spend some time studying the history, theory, and practice of operating system design... or else let someone else speak for Apple. I know that there are some highly competant people there, look what they've managed to do with the Mac design. -- -- a clone of Peter (have you hugged your wolf today) da Silva `-_-' -- normally ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter U -- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.