Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!apple!voder!mas1!jdn
From: jdn@mas1.UUCP (Jeff Nisewanger)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: NeXT & "threads"
Message-ID: <1477@mas1.UUCP>
Date: 28 Oct 88 01:13:49 GMT
References: <592245952.ralphw@IUS3.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU> <9772@bigtex.cactus.org> <10736@reed.UUCP> <683@muffin.cme-durer.ARPA>
Reply-To: jdn@mas1.UUCP (Jeff Nisewanger)
Organization: Measurex Automation Systems, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 52

In article <683@muffin.cme-durer.ARPA> libes@cme.nbs.gov (Don Libes) writes:
>In article <10736@reed.UUCP> tart@reed.UUCP (Stephanie Shelton) writes:
>>In article <9772@bigtex.cactus.org> james@bigtex.cactus.org (James Van Artsdalen) writes:
>>>> From: "Maria J. Jones" <mj11+@andrew.cmu.edu>
>>>> Rashid says Mach's unique features include the ability to execute
>>>> multiple activities or "threads" within a single program.
>
>>>I feel obligated to point out that Microsoft's OS/2 does this too.
>
>>And then of course there's Concurrent C.  Unix has had the ability to do this
>>for a while.  It's all a question of how you most effectively program it.
>
>In conversation, Rashid pointed out that if you have a multiprocessor
>architecture, MACH threads can really run in parallel (as opposed to
>time-slicing on a single CPU).  None of UNIX, OS/2, threads support this.
>
>Must be hell debugging.
>
>Don Libes          libes@cme.nbs.gov      ...!uunet!cme-durer!libes


Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: NeXT & "threads"
Summary: 
Expires: 
References: <592245952.ralphw@IUS3.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU> <9772@bigtex.cactus.org> <10736@reed.UUCP> <683@muffin.cme-durer.ARPA>
Sender: 
Reply-To: jdn@mas1.UUCP (Jeff Nisewanger)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Measurex Automation Systems, Cupertino, CA
Keywords: 

>>>> Rashid says Mach's unique features include the ability to execute
>>>> multiple activities or "threads" within a single program.

>>>I feel obligated to point out that Microsoft's OS/2 does this too.

>In conversation, Rashid pointed out that if you have a multiprocessor
>architecture, MACH threads can really run in parallel (as opposed to
>time-slicing on a single CPU).  None of UNIX, OS/2, threads support this.

>Don Libes          libes@cme.nbs.gov      ...!uunet!cme-durer!libes


	OS/2 threads are supported directly by the operating system
and if/when the right hardware becomes available its threads will
be distributed among the processors.


	Jeff Nisewanger
	.....apple!mas1!jdn