Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!pacbell!att-ih!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!mcdonald
From: mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.windows.misc
Subject: Re: A/UX window systems, Mac tool..
Message-ID: <68600002@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 18 Mar 88 14:26:00 GMT
References: <3834@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Lines: 18
Nf-ID: #R:bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU:3834:uxe.cso.uiuc.edu:68600002:000:1087
Nf-From: uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!mcdonald    Mar 18 08:26:00 1988



>I also claim that an OS that is not multitasking does not automatically gain
> any significant advantage _by_not_being_multitasking.

In that I think you are seriously wrong. It gains freedom by not having the
OVERHEAD of a multitasking monitor. One does not have to worry about 
interfearing with another task. There is no need for code to PREVENT
interfearance. Just compare the ease of writing full-function programs
(defined as one that makes full use of the machine, using all its resources,
including the screen) for MS-DOS compared to Unix (as a particularly
strong example). I STILL have not heard of ANY full-function program
running on an IBM-PC using a UNIX variant (in this case, by full-function
I mean using all the bells and whistles of an EGA or VGA screen. Most
arcade-style games are examples of full-function programs.) 
The defination of all the "windowing" systems I have seen prevent using
full functionality. (Even on high-end graphics workstations, e.g. a
top-of-the-line Silicon Graphics, different windows interfere with one
another at the color map level.)