Article View: comp.sys.atari.st
Article #23073Re: Some realism in the flame wars, please!
From: Richard M. Venable
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:27
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:27
40 lines
2857 bytes
2857 bytes
In article <rwa.727736721@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> rwa@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Ross Alexander) writes: >wells_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz (Steve Wells) writes: > >>OS/2 does NOT HAVE 'TRUE' multitasking! >>Multi-tasking is running 2 or more processes AT THE EXACT SAME TIME! >>You can't do this without a chip to do it, or without halving the >>speed of the machine for each extra process! (e.g. every program >>you wish to multi-task!) > >This is a use of the term `multi-tasking' with which I was not >previously acquainted. In fact, the entire field of Computing Science >is not aquainted with it. You are describing multi-processing. Have >you considered taking a few CS courses? Just basic survey courses >would be helpful, by the sound of your posts. They're easy credits; So, Mr. CS Expert, why don't YOU tell all us ignorant folks what TRUE multitasking is, instead of blasting somebody who at least has part of it right? Why not explain why "multiprocessing" keeps being invoked here, when essentially single processor systems are being discussed? I always thought Unix was a multitasking operating system, since it can run 2 or more processes simultaneously. True, it is unequal sharing due to process priorities, and there is also overhead to consider, but one component of multitasking is certainly the ability to run 2 or more processes (or tasks) at the same time, at least as it appears to the user. Sure, this has to be time-sliced on a single processor system so it's only apparently simultaneous, but the comment on halving the time should have given you a clue that multiprocessing was not being discussed. The Falcon may have a couple coprocessors, but I wouldn't characterize it as a system capable of TRUE multiprocessing, so I can't understand why people keep bringing it up. If you have something useful to contribute, please do so; but sniping at someone who doesn't have your obviously superior background in Computer Science without sharing your expertise seems a bit nasty, IMHO. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rick Venable | "Eschew FDA/CBER Biophysics Lab | Obfuscation" rvenable@helix.nih.gov | -- the Phantom Nerd -----------------------------------------------------------------
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1993Jan23.192742.2177@alw.nih.gov>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!nih-csl!helix.nih.gov!rvenableReferences:
<727299604.AA01101@contrast.wlink.nl> <1jdi6vINN57c@golem.wcc.govt.nz> <rwa.727736721@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!nih-csl!helix.nih.gov!rvenable From: rvenable@helix.nih.gov (Richard M. Venable) Subject: Re: Some realism in the flame wars, please! Message-ID: <1993Jan23.192742.2177@alw.nih.gov> Sender: postman@alw.nih.gov (AMDS Postmaster) Organization: National Institutes of Health, Bethesda References: <727299604.AA01101@contrast.wlink.nl> <1jdi6vINN57c@golem.wcc.govt.nz> <rwa.727736721@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:27:42 GMT Lines: 41