🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7670@apple.Apple.Com>, goldman@Apple.COM (Phil Goldman) writes:
> I think one point you are both missing out on is that preemptive multitasking
> requires hardware support not available on a 68000.

Do you really mean to say this?

  1) I can't conceive of a processor that does not permit
     preemptive multitasking that would still qualify as
     a computer. A buddy of mine implemented a preemptive
     multitasker on the Apple-II, as a matter of fact.

  2) I'm *using* a computer that does preemptive multitasking
     on a 68000 with no associated hardware support. I've been
     using it for a year now and am quite pleased with it. It's
     a *lot* more responsive than a Mac. Yes, you know the one.

  3) At work we have 3 68000-based machines that run multiprocessing
     (yes, multiple CPUs) UNIX on 68000s. Not 68020s or 68010s.
     68000.


> As far as which type of multitasking is preferable, I think the answer is, a
> combination of both.  Even if preemption is available it is still *highly*
> desirable to allow the application to notify the OS that it has nothing useful
> to do for a given time period.

You probably need to spend some time studying the history, theory, and practice
of operating system design... or else let someone else speak for Apple.
I know that there are some highly competant people there, look what they've
managed to do with the Mac design.
-- 
-- a clone of Peter (have you hugged your wolf today) da Silva  `-_-'
-- normally  ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter                U
-- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.