🚀 go-pugleaf

[Does Jerry Pournelle complain about "PRINT" overhead?]
[Does Jerry Pournelle dream of "PRINT" without multi-tasking overhead?]

In article <4645@ihlpg.ATT.COM>, tainter@ihlpg.ATT.COM (Tainter) writes:
> In article <492@.UUCP>, alex@.UUCP (Alex Laney) writes:
> > 
> > What about formatting a floppy while you are running  your  Word-
> > Processor, and your floppy is full? What I like is the ability in
> > Multi-tasking systems, is the ability to SUSPEND,  and  not  just
> > ABORT a program, when I need to interrupt.
> 
> Actually, this  doesn't  take  multiprocessing  (i.e.  concurrent
> running  processes).  To do it in the general case it does or one
> of the kludges like memory resident programs.

What DOES need multi-tasking in the above example (though not perfectly
spelled out) is that if I'm editing a file, the formatting requires attention
from the system as well. Not just "suspend" the word processor and do the
format.  So, whether it is implemented using TSR's or not, you do have
concurrently running processes. This is not the same as having two TSR's
that you hot-key between. There is a difference. The topic is multi-tasking,
is it useful for the typical user?, and the answer is yes, no matter how it
is implemented.

What us Amiga users say beyond that, is that multi-tasking meaning having a
task table and such, is a better implementation than using TSR's. Using TSR's
means adding more code to each program that handles hot-keys. To trap the
interrupt, etc. The Mac's implementation of Juggler looks extremely
sophisticated for what should be a simple issue: give my process some of the
CPU time.

I'll agree, it may be somewhat misleading that the Amiga advertising implies
that only the Amiga has multi-tasking. Butj, it supports it better than MS-DOS,
TOS, or Juggler. But, to explain the difference in a 30-second clip,
well ... :-)

YES, YES, this is running on ....