🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <35F56172.9909183A@xype.com>,
  Korosec Samo <samo@xype.com> wrote:
> Stephen Macdonald wrote:
>
> > These terms often get used to varying degrees, but generally *multitasking*
> > is the apparent execution of more than one program, which *is* possible
> > with only one CPU.
>
> but not at once, you can just switch between them in certain time
> intervals,

That is what he meant by 'apparent'

> so you run a program, save registers, load other program, run it, save
> regs,
> load previous regs, continue previous program,... it's not the
> "multitasking"
> but "something-that-looks-like-multitasking"

That is multitasking, you are thinking of multiprocessing, the difference is
explained in the post you are trying to 'correct'.

>
> > On the other hand, *multiprocessing* is what you are referring to and
> > requires more than one CPU.
> >
> > You have to bear in mind that both of these have been around for a lot
> > longer than Microsoft have, Microsoft being about the last company in the
> > Universe to find out what they involve, and they may have used the terms in
> > ways to suit themselves that the rest of the industry doesn't use.
>
> use a term the user does not know about and price your product twice as
> high.
> Joe User has no clue whether he runs multitasking or not, he just like
> to
> tell the colleagues the he has a 32bit (shame) multitasking system
> running on
> his 286 now.

It would run very slow [if at all] since the 286 is a 16bit processor.

>
> > Stephen Macdonald
>
> Samo
> --
> U've been mailed by Samo Korosec, the |o' man
> http://xype.com                ICQ # 13852999
>


--
Tristan Styles

Failure is not an option
It is Standard Operating Procedure

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum