Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!tektronix!tekcrl!tekgvs!toma
From: toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Why unix doesn't catch on
Keywords: multitasking
Message-ID: <4937@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM>
Date: 13 Apr 89 18:46:39 GMT
References: <1922@dataio.Data-IO.COM> <101000047@hpcvlx.HP.COM> <199@isctsse.UUCP> <2038@holos0.UUCP>
Reply-To: toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 19

In article <199@isctsse.UUCP> pajerek@isctsse.UUCP (Donald Pajerek) writes:
>Previous multitasking approaches have failed in many ways. For example,
>Windows will only multitask Windows applications; OS/2 will only multitask
>OS/2 applications.  Besides, any multitasking at all on less than a 386
>processor is impractical for performance reasons.

Rediculous!   There have been commercial multitasking/multiuer systems
around for years on machines less powerful.  PDP-8s had TSE which supported
16 users on a machine certainly less than 1/10th the speed.

I wrote a successful multitasking application on a Z80, and even implemented
a multiuser multitasking (multiple tasks per user) Forth environment
on a Z80 (3 users).

If you need at least a 386 for multitasking, your tasks are too big!

Tom Almy
toma@tekgvs.labs.tek.com
Standard Disclaimers Apply