🚀 go-pugleaf

Your mail is being returned to you.
Reason for return is:
%MAIL-E-NOSUCHUSR, no such user VY7379 at node VAXA
Returned mail follows:
------------------------------
Received: From CANADA01(MAILER) by BINGVAXA with Jnet id 1886
          for VY7379@BINGVAXA; Wed,  6 Jan 88 01:37 EST
Received: by CANADA01 (Mailer X1.24) id 1883; Wed, 06 Jan 88 01:36:59 EDT
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 88 12:44:10 PST
Reply-To:     Info-Atari16@Score.Stanford.edu
Sender:       INFO-ATARI16 Discussion <INFO-A16@CANADA01>
From:         Info-Atari16 Digest <Info-Atari16@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject:      Info-Atari16 Digest V88 #1
To:           TODD KRISSEL <VY7379@BINGVAXA>

Info-Atari16 Digest   Monday, January  4, 1988   Volume 88 : Issue 1

This weeks Editor: Bill Westfield

Today's Topics:

                  Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare...
                  Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare...
          Nothing about:  Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare...
                   Multi-tasking on micro computers
                  Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare...
                  Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare...
             Even more thoughts about multi-tasking.....
                     Multitasking and Big Brother
        Re: Nothing about:  Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare...
                          Re: Multitasking??

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Dec 87 19:10:49 GMT
From: uhccux!lee@humu.nosc.mil  (Greg Lee)
Subject: Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare...
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu

In article <2673@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton)
 writes:
>In article <3256@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> davidli@umn-cs.UUCP (Dave Meile) writes:

Mr. Sexton's comments don't bear repeating.  It was suggested in another
news group that he has a net variety of Tourette's syndrome.  Would Dave
Meile and others in comp.sys.arari.st please accept an apology from
us amiga folks?

------------------------------

Date: 23 Dec 87 20:17:27 GMT
From: Lindy!kevin@labrea.stanford.edu  (Kevin Burnett)
Subject: Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare...
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu

In article <2673@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton)
 writes:
>>People want computers (when they want them at all) to DO SOMETHING for
>>them.  In the majority of cases with the Atari ST and the Amiga, that
>>"something" has been:
>>
>>    writing stuff
>>    filing stuff
>>    retrieving stuff that's been filed
>>    playing games
>>    programming all of the above
>
>Speak for yourself, you nit. You have no idea what *I* do, or what *I*
>need.
I don't believe he said anything about how YOU use your computer.
And, you're asking for this comment, ASSHOLE.
Last time I checked, "the majority of cases" doesn't mean 100%, does it?

>>access to two programs (ala Multifinder or perhaps through a "desk
>>accessory" [IBM PCs have desk accessories too, folks]) you already have
>>as much power as you're ever liable to need in most environments.
>                  ^^^^^^
>
>Speak for yourself, nit.

I believe he was, TWIT.

>I could not go back to a single tasking computer, nor would I accept
>a job programming one. Stone age.

Good for you, dude.

>Alright, thats it. For the last time, just because you dont want it/dont
>need it/can't understand it, don't for a second presuppose others
>dont want/need/understand multitasking.

He said that he didn't see any arguments why multitasking is a REQUIREMENT
for a microcomputer.  Thinking it's useful, and liking it don't cut it.

>Open mouth, insert foot. Open hand, take egg. Apply to face.

Do you do that often?  Perhaps you should seek therapy.

>P.S. This is not a flame. This is not even a spark. If you would
>like flames, I'll be glad to lay into you, you little jerk.
It sure sounds like a flame to me.  I'm not going to claim what I'm doing
isn't.  Why don't you crawl back under the rock from whence you came?

Why can't people just forget this stupid argument?  I bought my Atari
because it does what I wanted at the time, you bought your Amiga for the
same reason.  Why can't you just leave it at that?  When I bought my ST,
the Amiga was at least $600-$700 more expensive than the ST.  I didn't have
that extra money.  If I had, maybe I would have bought an Amiga.  Maybe not.

I don't need this damned "my computer is better than yours because mine does
x, nyah nyah nyah" bullshit.
--
Kevin Burnett
Stanford Linear Accelerator Centre / Santa Clara Class of '88
Arpa: kevin@Lindy.Stanford.EDU        Bitnet: KJBSF@SLACVM.BITNET
Old-style UUCP: ...!decwrl!labrea!Lindy!kevin

------------------------------

Date: 23 Dec 87 20:37:29 GMT
From: amdcad!amdahl!kim@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Kim DeVaughn)
Subject: Nothing about:  Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare...
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu


     _ _ _                        __
    ' ) ) )                      /  ) /            _/_
     / / / _  __  __  __  ,     /    /_  __  o _   /  ______  __.  _
    / ' (_</_/ (_/ (_/ (_/_    (__/ / /_/ (_<_/_)_<__/ / / <_(_/|_/_)
                        /
                       '

                                      _  _      /
                     _/_             // //     /
                     /  __     __.  // //     '
                    <__(_)    (_/|_</_</_    o

/kim


--
UUCP:  kim@amdahl.amdahl.com
  or:  {sun,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,ihnp4,uunet,oliveb,cbosgd,ames}!amdahl!kim
DDD:   408-746-8462
USPS:  Amdahl Corp.  M/S 249,  1250 E. Arques Av,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086
CIS:   76535,25

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 23 Dec 87 22:28:29 EST
From:     Joel Malman <malman@FRED.BBN.COM>
To:       davidli@umn-cs.ARPA
Subject:  Multi-tasking on micro computers

Dave,

I totally agree with your statement:

"BUT I still insist that, for the non "power user" there's no need for it."

The problem is that most computer users these days, are power users.   The
children  running  games  don't need "high power or multitasking" - nor do
people who really don't understand what a computer can do for them.   Once
someone reaches the point where they really understand what a computer can
do, they should be given access to all the power  they  need  or  want  to
complete the required task - multitasking is just another tool they  might
need to complete that task.

The truth of the matter (bickering aside) is that there are useful  things
a  true  computer user or programmer can accomplish with multitasking that
can make his/her life easier. (btw: I don't own a multitasking  machine  -
but I do have a Sun 3/50 on my desk at work - and love it!).

All  these  flames  about what  machine is "better" are total trash. Every
machine, ever created, is good for "SOME" task - not every task. The truth
is  that  some  tasks can be more easily done and/or done more efficiently
with multitasking.

If you really want an example OK: Say you are running  a  mail  server  on
your machine - you would still want to be able to do anything you normally
do (editing, debugging, etc) while the mail server is running... For that,
you NEED multitasking.

To  make  small  computers  able  to  do  complex  tasks - multitasking is
required.  Multitasking is just another tool  --  like  more  memory,  RAM
disks,  disk  storage  space,  tape  backup devices, sidecars, magic sacs,
etc., etc. To most computer professionals, multitasking  is  just  another
tool you use to complete a task - it is a fact of computing life.

/joel

[ arpanet to: malman@bbn.com ]

------------------------------

Date: 24 Dec 87 00:26:45 GMT
From: pepper!cmcmanis@sun.com  (Chuck McManis)
Subject: Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare...
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu

In article <3259@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> davidli@umn-cs.UUCP (Dave Meile) writes:
|>Actually, the argument is "Joe Average doesn't NEED Multi-Tasking to
|>accomplish the primary uses of a home computer"
|>
|>    writing stuff
|>    filing stuff
|>    retrieving stuff
|>    playing games
|>

The degenerate case of this argument is "Joe Average User" really only
needs a pencil, some paper, and a box to do the above. We are down to
arguing opinions. Could we move on now?

--Chuck McManis
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis   BIX: cmcmanis  ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Dec 87 00:20:36 GMT
From: pepper!cmcmanis@sun.com  (Chuck McManis)
Subject: Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare...
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu

In article <8155@prls.UUCP> gardner@prls.UUCP (Robert Gardner) writes:
>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 :)

The major difference between carouselling (I love that term) and true
multitasking is efficiency. You alluded to these above however the
conditions where this is a win are greater than just the compile/edit
cycle mentioned. Basically you keep the CPU busy and get more work done.

The other advantage to true multitasking is the transparency of it. When
you program this becomes self evident. No special steps are needed to
run two tasks simultaneously, and flexibility is enhanced. A really nice
example is Carolyn's Pallete Tool. This runs as a separate task and can
be run with any other program to provide a color adjuster. Plus you don't
have to go through hoops/special startup sequences etc like you do with
DAs. It doesn't make it better, it demonstrably makes it more efficient over
the long term.

Anyway, it is a hell of a lot easier to not use than it is to simulate when
it isn't built in. My whole case on 'picking a computer' is based on what
it *can* do versus what it was *designed* to do.

Simply put, rating two computers can be done rationally.

If any program that can be written on computer A, can be identically
duplicated on computer B. And, a program can be written on computer
B that *cannot* be identically duplicated on computer A. Then, computer
B can be said to be *more capable* than computer A.

If any program that can be written on computer A, can be identically
duplicated on computer B. And, the program on computer B is consistently
faster than computer A. Then, computer B can be said to be *more powerful*
than computer A.

If any program can be written for computer A, that computer B cannot
duplicate, and any program can be written for computer B that computer
A cannot duplicate. Then these two computers can only be compared while
specifying the limits of the comparison.

Once again, I would like to see a comp.sys.compare newsgroup.


--Chuck McManis
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis   BIX: cmcmanis  ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Dec 87 02:22:00 EDT
From: "Welych, Gregory J." <gjwelych@sunrise.acs.syr.edu>
Subject: Even more thoughts about multi-tasking.....
To: "info-atari16" <info-atari16@score.stanford.edu>
Reply-To: "Welych, Gregory J." <gjwelych@sunrise.acs.syr.edu>

I just sat here reading my Info-Atari16 mail and read about 20 replies,
and counter-replies. All on the subject of multi-tasking.

I think that the issue is NOT joe-average-user being too dumb to use
a multi-tasking environment, but that they don't have a NEED to as of yet.
To whom ever said that Joe-Average-user is NEVER going to need multi-tasking,
have you ever look at the future prospects???  Maybe they don't need or
want to use it now ( or even know HOW to), in the future, it may be
NEEDED by ANY user of a computer. I think the MAIN reason multi-tasking
personal computers are not extremely popular, is due to the LACK of
them on the market. Yes, I know there are some on the market now, but
five years ago, name one! ( note I said personal computer and not mini's or
super micros) This lack of public use (and abuse) of multi-tasking is
why joe-average-user doesn't feel a NEED for it.

As a side note, only the recent emergence of high-resolution graphic
displays have made using a multi-tasking operating system easy enough
for non-hacker types. Currently, I rarely use the multi-tasking abilities
of the VAX I'm using now. The reason is NOT that I have no need or ability
to use it, but that it is VERY difficult to use easily. And due to the lack
of EASE-OF-USE, I haven't tried to use it to it's fullest extent where
I currently sit saying, "It sure would be nice to be doing such-and-such
while I'm doing so-and-so!". If the VAX had a nice, inexpensive, easily
gotten, and logical graphic interface, I know I would be using the
multi-tasking to the hilt!

I see a day when EVERY computer had better have a multi-tasking operating
system. The express need will stem from the, as of yet, unexplored uses
of computers in normal human existence.

I doubt many people feel the way I do, but at least to me, these are the
reasons I will NEVER get another computer with-out a multi-tasking,
graphic environment.

Please note: The above is NOT a flame to anyone, about anything, or even
             just for the fun of it. It is just the expression of my
             thoughts on the subject.

Just a thought,
Greg Welych.

PS: Please, people, let's not start ANOTHER "My computer is better than yours"
    war. I have had enough of them.

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 23 Dec 87 22:51 AST
From: <FXDDR%ALASKA.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu>
Subject:  Multitasking and Big Brother
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
X-Original-To:  info-atari16@score.stanford.edu, FXDDR

Another aspect in the debate over multitasking comes to mind.  A few weeks
ago some guy was hawking his book on a talk show...don't recall the author
or the title but it was pretty much the antithesis of the "Micro Millenium"
that came out a few years back.
His theme on the show was that office automation most often _reduces_ the
office productivity (I've seen this phenomenon mentioned in Infoworld and
elsewhere so I'll assume there's some truth to it).  So managers will be
forced to either toss a lot of the techno-glitz and hope productivity
improves, OR employ `watchdog' software to see that everybody is meeting
quotas and not goofing off...he called that the `electronic sweatshop'
approach.  The argument went like this:
  Right now, PCs are still pretty slow.  There is time for employees to
  get away from the machine for a few minutes while it calculates, sorts,
  or whatever.  But the new generation of PCs can do several things at
  once, so instead of a moment's relaxation the employee will just move
  on to a new task.  And employers will have the ability to see that they
  do just that.

I've heard that such monitoring is being used a little already for cashiers
and ticket agents.

Personally, when I first used multitasking systems I thought it was great,
and did a lot of simultaneous compiles and whatnot.  But these days I
rarely try it...seems there's always paperwork to do and journals to read
while the computer is busy, so I mentally multitask.  Getting the eyes
off the screen (*&?!! VT-compatibles) reduces headaches too.  After stopping
to think about it, I don't know that I'd walk across the street to pick up
a multitasking os.  Kinda like quadraphonic sound...cute concept but I wouldn't
pay extra for it.
Having used up a week's worth of computer blasphemy in this message, I'll quit.
Notes:
1) No, I didn't post to Amiga.  I've lost what interest I had in that machine.
2) If you've sent me mail in the last month (or two?), I haven't been keeping
   up with it.  I'm clearing up the backlog and hope to be caught up shortly...
   sorry.
Don Rice
FXDDR@ALASKA.bitnet

------------------------------

Date: 24 Dec 87 06:26:13 GMT
From: glacier!jbn@labrea.stanford.edu  (John B. Nagle)
Subject: Re: Nothing about:  Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare...
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu

     Please, could we turn down the flames a bit.

     On the systems that don't have multi-tasking, such as the IBM PC and the
Mac, we observe people desperately fighting the operating system to get some
concurrent operations going.  Terminate-and-stay-resident programs, such as
Sidekick on IBM PCs, were an attempt to get around the lack of multi-tasking.
The attempt was only moderately successful, and such programs often
interfere with each other and the program they preempt.   Microsoft takes
the position that such programs violate the rules of MS-DOS and has warned
for years that they will not work under future versions of MS-DOS.  They
won't work under OS/2, but OS/2 offers multi-tasking, so they will not be
needed.

     PC spooling programs, which must patch into interrupt locations and
store into the operating system, have similar problems.  (Try to get
a printer spooler and a plotter spooler both running at the same time.)
Even desk accessories on the Mac, which are officially supported by the
operating system, are something of a kludge internally.

     So what we see, on the systems that don't offer multitasking, are
attempts to achieve it through hacks that don't work too well.


                    John Nagle

------------------------------

Date: 23 Dec 87 17:35:57 GMT
From: ssyx!koreth@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Steven Grimm)
Subject: Re: Multitasking??
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu

In article <39@lzaz.ATT.COM> bds@lzaz.ATT.COM (BRUCE SZABLAK) writes:
>Frankly, if the BIOS was written re-enterantly, there would be
>little difficulty in adding multitasking. It could be done for
>those who use it, and those who didn't could ignore it.

The ST's BIOS is re-entrant.  GEMDOS is not.  (I have a multiuser BBS
system to prove it...)  You just have to make sure that each task has
its own BIOS register save area.  That took me a while to figure out --
basically you switch the BIOS stack pointer in your task-switching
routine, as well as the user stack pointer and all the registers.
Multitasking on the ST is actually fairly trivial, as long as you don't
try to use Pexec() or Pterm().  I'm working on rewriting both of those
right now for the background Xmodem accessory in ST-Talk Professional.

+New! Improved! Now 100% Artificial-+-+-----------------------------------+
|#   #  @@@  ****  &&&&& $$$$$ %   %| |Steven Grimm                       |
|#  #  @   @ *   * &       $   %   %+-+ ARPA: koreth@ucscb.ucsc.edu       |
|###   @   @ ****  &&&&    $   %%%%%| | UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucscc!ssyx!koreth|
|#  #  @   @ * *   &       $   %   %+-+     ______________________________|
|#   #  @@@  *  ** &&&&&   $   %   %| |     |"Let's see what's out there."|
+-----with NutraSour(TM)!  No natural colors or preservatives!------------+

------------------------------

End of Info-Atari16 Digest
**************************
-------