🚀 go-pugleaf

Steven Grimm writes:
>Summary: It's great for techies, but...

In article <8908021826.AA05333@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> 01659@AECLCR.BITNET (Greg Csullog) writes:
>Jumping between apps is OK on the ST. Running multiple, CPU intensive apps
>is silly.

>I think people will not use multitasking much at home for a long time.  The
>reason is simple.  Most people, especially those who aren't especially computer
>literate, only use highly interactive programs.  You can only interact with
>one program at a time.
Well, in a strict sense yes. But things are changing, rapidly. IPC (Interproces
s Communication) has been around on large systems for a long time. It's making
its way into the micro arena. Why? Because multitasking is available for micros
now.

One of many scenarios: You buy a database that comes with a public message
port, and you have a terminal program that has one too. You also have a
HyperC*rd like program that has one. You build a data retrieval system
that has a very pretty, and highly customisable front end. Without having
to write a lot of code to do so. In fact, if you have a faint grasp of basic
then it's within the realm of possibility.

Customisable, modular software that allows a person to take a systems
approach to using a computer. And it's available now.

Would your average user do this? Sure, if it's easy enough to do.

>Task *switching*, on the other hand, is very useful.
Multibinder and the like are stopgap measures against the real thing. They
are very wasteful of resources. Wouldn't it better to have an OS that has
this stuff built in from scratch?

Do not underestimate the value of multitasking. It allows a computer to
work the same way people work. Very few times in life is an individual
doing just _one_ thing.

--hal
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Hal Meeks                 "Some people gauge their successes
                            by other people's failures."
 hgm@ccvr1.ncsu.edu