🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1783@atari.UUCP> apratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt) writes:
>ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu (Enartloc Nhoj) writes:
>>The strange thing is that i have a hard time believing that i 
>>am still considering buying an 030 that won't multitask all that
>>niffty GEM software i have on my drive.  
>
>[.. stuff explaining that it is really difficult for multitasking...]
>

>What I'm trying to say is THIS IS NOT EASY.  It's not even Moderately
>Difficult.  This is A Hard Problem.  The presence of a 68030 doesn't
>make it any easier.
>

It is for the same reasons that OS/2 isn't compatible with dos. If you have
ever written in a multitasking operating system while understanding what
it really entails, you will just smack your hand on your forehead and
yell, "yoi!" when you start to imagine how difficult writing such an
operating system would be...


Does anyone know how the hell Macintosh managed to make all their programs
work with multidesk (or was multitasking always supported on the Mac?
Please don't flame me if this is very common knowledge - my hatred for
Apple runs so deep that I haven't even touched one until quite recently...)

anyway, are there any plans for a TOS which will support task switching?
That would be a really nice feature to throw in with a TT, and isn't
very hard (just takes up disk space or memory space)...


-- 
 S. Alan Ezust aka "Depeche MoDem"       depeche@calvin.cs.mcgill.ca
 McGill University Computer Science      Disclaimer: I claim everything!
 Montreal, Quebec, Canada                (je pense que.... ) je me souviens
       "This kind of pornography is a matter of artistic creativity"