🚀 go-pugleaf

davidli@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dave Meile) writes:
>In article <2168@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes:
>>
>>                5)      Remember, what the few want today, the masses
>>                          can't live without tomarrow!
>
>Ahem.  In case you haven't noticed, the "masses" are NOT buying microcomputers.
>They certainly aren't going to "need" multi-tasking systems, and would
>probably be able to live without them (or computers, in general) quite
>nicely thank you very much.
>

        If they don't have a home computer, then they are irrelevant to
      the this discussion.   We are talking about whether or not Multi-
      tasking is needed/useful/desireable arn't we.  

>Computer chauvenism.  People will go to great lengths to "prove" that a
>feature of the operating system or hardware is what makes a particular system
>better.  Of course, we all have a vested interest in that "proof" -- we
>just don't want to believe that we bought an "outdated" computer.  Hah!
>

             So I take it your saying that you don't want to believe
          that your Atari-ST is an obsolete machine?

             What does vested interest have to do with this?  Either
          multi-tasking is usefull or it is not!   Of coarse we all
          have out-dated machines if your going to include the state
          of the art.  Lets talk about the PC world, OK?

> 
> >In article <2027@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk> pes@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Smee) writes:
> >>What I am questioning is TRUE
> >>multi-tasking.  I've got no argument with 'carousels' of suspended programs,
> >>and no problem with resident background interrupt handlers, such as print
> >>spoolers.
> 
> This whole discussion has generated a lot of heated arguments, mostly
> from Amiga users who enjoy being able to multi-task, giving example
> after example of how nice multitasking is.

	This is (hopefully) a discussion, and not an argument.
	
> 
> However, practically EVERY argument given FOR multi-tasking can be
	   ^^^^^^^^^^^
> satisfied by the 'carousel' approach that the original poster acknowledged
> were a good idea.

	It seems to me that the practically never is a infinitly
     greater than NEVER.

> 
> I'm still waiting to see if someone can come up with a use for TRUE
> multitasking that a typical home user would find very handy but that
> cannot be satisfied by a simple 'carousel' approach. There probably
> are some, especially with message-passing, etc., but none have been
> posted yet (except for people waiting for their compilers to finish --
> they just need faster integrated compilers, though :)
> 
> Robert Gardner
> 

	What about the example I gave of two resident programs cohabitating
    and interacting even though written in different Languages?  While
    you don't NEED to have multi-tasking to do this, it makes an otherwise
    complicated job very much easier, and therefore much more likely to be
    successfully accomplished.  It certainly is attractive to me because
    it means I don't have to "share" any of my source with someone whom
    I may want to collaborate with.
	
	Carousels are fine for most things.  However, for applications
      to which they are unsuited, using them can be a pain.  Also, for
      us programmers, within a single program multi-tasking can be
      invaluable.  
        For instance, If I were writing a communications package, one
      feature I might include would be a "secretary".  The secretary 
      would be capable of performing certain mundane tasks for the user.
      For instance, it could be used in conjuntion with a phone-list to
      re-try busy numbers periodically, and to interrupt the user if
      the number becomes avaiable (ie: rings).  Perhaps it might be
      smart enough not to recall if the user input level is high, or
      to ask permission before making the attempt.
        This would all happen with no unneeded interruptions to the
      user.
        THE POINT IS THIS:  As a programmer I find the idea of writing
      such a program as being much simpler with multi-tasking facilities
      than without them.  If I were programming an Atari, which I take
      it does not have multi-tasking, I would have to consider the job
      to be far more difficult than it would be on the Amiga.  For me,
      multi-processing is just another tool I can use or not use.  The
      user might not even know it is happenning.
      
        Regaurdless of what you think of the "average users'" capability
      to utilize multi-tasking to their benfit one thing is certainly
      true;  They can never use multi-tasking to their benifit if the
      machine they're using doesn't support it.  Never!
      
        To me NEVER is an ugly word.  Kind of like DEAD.  This is why we
      Amiga people like the Amiga so much.  It has a "no limits" philosophy.
      The fact that a machine is built around a bit more than "how can we
      make a machine that will ring all the right bells (sound, graphics,
      windows,etc...) to appeal to the uninformed masses so we can make
      a quick buck" philosophy so common in this industry is refreshing.
      Multi-tasking was included in the machine because it was feasable
      and thus the "no limits" philosophy demanded it.

                    =====================================
	 	
		
         My question for you is, what do you have against multi-tasking?
      Take OUR (all of us who have given testomonials) word for it that
      the disk swapping "nightmare" is indeed just a bad dream.  This
      just does not happen.  The switching overhead seems to be negligable.
      
         I figure you have a choice of having a thing or not having it.
      Isn't something better than nothing?  If you don't want to use it,
      just turn it off!
      
         Give me an example of why it is better NOT to have mult-tasking.
	 
         
	 And one last point:  large numbers of these machines are going 
      into homes, and in those homes, are being used by children.  Perhaps
      little 10 year old Jonny wants a computer to play games on, but
      a few years from now he might want to program.  If so, he might
      be totally familiar with multi-tasking aspects of programming before
      he reaches High School if his computer includes it.  Otherwise...

      		  
      						Merry Christmas,
						
							   Wade.
							   

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex
ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil
INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COM