🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1174@cpocd2.UUCP>, howard@cpocd2.UUCP (Howard A. Landman) writes:
> You can see the problem but still don't admit it's there?  In real multitasking
> NO SPECIAL CODING IS NEEDED.  Most programs multitask AUTOMATICALLY without any
> special attention from the programmer.
> 
> Under MultiFinder, each program (except possibly the last one) must be
> specially coded to be "MultiFinder compatible" by calling WaitNextEvent instead
> of GetNextEvent (if I don't have them reversed).  Why is this a problem?
> Because it only takes one or two programs which fail to do this before
> MultiFinder fails to grant any CPU time at all to the lowest priority task.
> Why is this a problem?  Because there are lots of Mac programs out there which
> were written before MultiFinder and are still useful, but which will never be
> changed.  Companies go out of business.  Shareware authors move on to more
> lucrative pursuits.  Etc.
> 
Your posting is incorrect in stating that one needs to rewrite/recompile
applications to be MultiFinder compatible.

Having applications that call GetNextEvent instead of WaitNextEvent will not
cause your machine to not give time to backround applications.  

Using WaitNextEvent is a little bit more efficient and gives a few more 
services (such as defining a sleep time and other such stuff) that GNE
does not provide.  However, using GNE will not result in an application
that "hogs" the system.  The important thing is to call GNE/WNE as often
as possible - which is a good thing to do anyway to present a responsive
human interface to the user.

A note to all: please try to think about responses before posting them.
There seems to be an excess of followups posted as knee-jerk reactions.