Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!sharkey!atanasoff!jwright
From: jwright@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (Jim Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Why unix doesn't catch on
Message-ID: <978@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu>
Date: 11 Apr 89 17:36:00 GMT
References: <1922@dataio.Data-IO.COM> <101000047@hpcvlx.HP.COM> <199@isctsse.UUCP>
Reply-To: jwright@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (Jim Wright)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Iowa State U. Computer Science Department, Ames, IA
Lines: 23

In article <199@isctsse.UUCP> pajerek@isctsse.UUCP (Donald Pajerek) writes:
| Both the OS/2 and UNIX partisans believe that true multi-tasking
| is such a compelling reason, but it's only recently that systems have
| been available at a reasonable price that meet both conditions.

...only recently that *INTEL* based systems...

| Previous multitasking approaches have failed in many ways.
                                  ^ with *INTEL* processors

| Besides, any multitasking at all on less than a 386
| processor is impractical for performance reasons.
           ^ (restricting discussion to *INTEL* processors)

A certain Motorola based system has been multi-tasking since the first
day it was released, and is imminiently affordable.

And remember boys and girls, Bill Gates says you can't multi-task
with less than 4MB of memory.  :-)

-- 
Jim Wright
jwright@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu