Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:28930 comp.sys.amiga:33970
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!watmath!mks!alex
From: alex@mks.UUCP (Alex White)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs AmigaDOS
Keywords: Operating Systems, Religion WRT computers
Message-ID: <953@mks.UUCP>
Date: 17 May 89 17:38:43 GMT
References: <2134@iitmax.IIT.EDU> <5625@microsoft.UUCP> <917@mks.UUCP> <9616@watcgl.waterloo.edu> <925@mks.UUCP> <2762@csccat.UUCP>
Reply-To: alex@mks.UUCP (Alex White)
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 15

In article <2762@csccat.UUCP> jack@csccat.UUCP (Jack Hudler) writes:
>	Perhaps you need to redefine your concept of multitasking?
>	The implementation of multi-tasking under OS/2 is the 
>	'thread', it very powerful, provided you alter your concept.
>	Our PM app uses threads, and I must say it was more difficult
>	to implement our app using 'fork', however
>	it does work using this primitive form of multitasking.
I have to agree with you, for a standard application, threads may well
be more useful.
However, for your average system program (e.g. shell, editor)
fork/exec is more useful.
And somehow, it seems that there are far more of these system type
programs around than pure applications.
Virtually every application wants to allow escapes to shells, or filter
your data thru arbitrary programs.