Article View: comp.os.os2
Article #199Re: Why is OS/2 a memory hog?
From: Alex White
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1989 15:11
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1989 15:11
14 lines
1074 bytes
1074 bytes
In article <3189@husc6.harvard.edu> hellerst@husc7.UUCP writes: >Your argument about fork is very restrictive. New technology is always >used in copycat ways for a while, but I submit that threads are significantly >more powerful than fork, and that many applications will be able to make >use of them to great advantage. HUH? New Technology? Threads aren't much different from the concept of multiple tasks running in the same address space, sharing one TIOT. Have you heard of OS/360 running MVT? Now, I'm not quite sure just how lightweight tasks were back then, but the concept was quite the same.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1989Nov21.151129.12991@mks.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cica!iuvax!watmath!mks.com!alexReferences:
<1989Nov15.155723.4430@mks.com> <3189@husc6.harvard.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cica!iuvax!watmath!mks.com!alex From: alex@mks.com (Alex White) Newsgroups: comp.os.os2 Subject: Re: Why is OS/2 a memory hog? Message-ID: <1989Nov21.151129.12991@mks.com> Date: 21 Nov 89 15:11:29 GMT References: <1989Nov15.155723.4430@mks.com> <3189@husc6.harvard.edu> Reply-To: alex@mks.com (Alex White) Organization: Mortice Kern Systems, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Lines: 14