🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: comp.sys.atari.st
Article #23073

Re: Some realism in the flame wars, please!

#23073
From: Richard M. Venable
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:27
40 lines
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!rvenable
References: <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