🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8038@uunet.UU.NET> dsc@izimbra.CSS.GOV (manic pop thrill) writes
[quoting me]:
>>I *routinely* do things in parallel in different windows.  At its most
>>extreme, this means using several windows on my Sun to watch debugging
>>output from rlogin sessions running communicating network peers on
>
>i cannot speak for the original poster, but what i think he was trying
>to say was that at any one time you (the human) would not be typing
>into two editors at once, or would not be filling in two dialog boxes
>at once, or would not be typing a spreadsheet command at exactly the
>same time you are typing text into an editor.  you can be running a
>number of programs simultaneously, but at any one time you are
>interacting (using the mouse, keyboard, lightpen, etc) with at most
>one.  although there may be other windows on the screen where
>computation is going on, or data is being printed, there is only one
>window that the user is interacting with directly.

According to mail I got from the original poster, "the point is can
you _read_ [his emphasis] two screens at once, or do you just alternate".
While looking at debugging output in one window I can perceive when
the output from the network peer in an adjacent window changes.  This
is simultaneous use by any reasonable definition - but I take a much
broader definition.

The original poster's challenge was to the worth of multiple windows &
multi-tasking.  Not having these is like trying to do library research
under a one-book-at-a-time restriction.  If you have more than one
book open on your desk, you're benefiting from their simultaneous
*presence*.  Quibblers who say that since you can only *read* one at a
time, you only *use* one at a time are missing the point.
--
Dick St.Peters                        
GE Corporate R&D, Schenectady, NY
stpeters@ge-crd.arpa              
uunet!steinmetz!stpeters