Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Iconitis
Message-ID: <3786@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 10 Apr 89 14:09:25 GMT
References: <1930@dataio.Data-IO.COM> <11555@lanl.gov> <17376@cisunx.UUCP> <28683@apple.Apple.COM>
Followup-To: comp.misc
Organization: Xenix Support
Lines: 37

In article <28683@apple.Apple.COM>, austing@Apple.COM (Glenn L. Austin) writes:
> In article <3769@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
> >[comparing user problems on Macs and PCs]

> >My usual question with either of these is "why can't I shove my ^%^&%&^
> >compile into the background?".

> If you are using MPW, you certainly can!  Also, a lot of compiler writers for
> the Macs are starting to understand background tasking...

Can I shove the compiler in the background and run Photon Paint?

> Also, with a single-processor machine (like most UN*X machines), you have to
> time-slice the processor, which means either (1) the compiler runs slower, or
> (2) the current program runs slower, or (3) both 1 and 2.  In most cases, the
> answer is 3.

In most cases the answer is (4).

What's (4)?

	(4) The compiler runs a little slower and the current program
	    runs a little slower, but since each is using and waiting
	    on different resources (disk, CPU time, operator response,
	    serial ports, etc) they can be doing useful work concurrently
	    so the whole job gets finished sooner.

	    Maybe not on the Mac, where the CPU does EVERYTHING, but
	    under UNIX and AmigaOS (my current operating environenments)
	    it sure does.

Note the followup-to line. This is not appropriate for comp.lang.c.
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.

Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180.
Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.