🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1989Aug4.173233.8259@sj.ate.slb.com> greg@sj.ate.slb.com (Greg Wageman) writes:
>In article <15627@watdragon.waterloo.edu> swklassen@dahlia.waterloo.edu (Steven W. Klassen) writes:
>>otherwise busy.  In theory this can be done on any machine.  However,
>>one which was designed with this in mind will do it much better than
>>one which was not.
[...]
>
>The reference to a machine designed from the start for multitasking is
>valid, because proper hardware design can minimize the expense of
>context-switching, provide a suitably fine-grained system clock, and
>include appropriate interrupt support for devices.  Trying to
>retro-fit multitasking into a machine not designed for it is at best a
>frustrating job whose results may not justify the effort.

I was really trying to make two points:
1) Multitasking is good, even on a single user system, since it allows
   more efficient use of the CPU through background tasks.
2) This should be designed into the system from the start so as to
   minimize the overhead.  (Greg made this one much clearer than I
   did.)

Conclusion:  The next generation of Atari machines should be multitasking
             ones.  Any hints as to whether this will happen Atari?



Steven W. Klassen
Computer Science Major
University of Waterloo