🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9833UH2@PSUVM> UH2@PSUVM.BITNET writes:
>
>Someone asks, "I'm curious.  Just how great is multi-tasking?"
>
>Now I am no wizard, but isn't the real beauty of multi-taksing a lot more
>than just being able to print in the background.  For example, device drivers,
>print spoolers, communication programs, fast database systems, and a lotta
>other keen stuff are much easier to develop and debug if they can be
>implemented as a bunch of simultaneously runnig tasks on a multi-tasking
>machine.
>
>In other words, if 6 chimpanzees, programming at random, work on a
>mu;titasking system they will produce all the worlds great programs
>a lot faster than if they were working in MSDOS.  8-)
>
>Hey--I could be wrong.

  No, you're correct.  However, if you have six lobotomized monkeys (as
opposed to six evolutionarily advanced monkeys-- humans to non-creationists
:-), all their banging still wouldn't produce something better than MS-DOS.
Keep in mind that we're talking about low-capability machines and
peripherals here-- the Amiga, ST, and especially the XT just can't support
the multi-tasking that a mini or mainframe does (just ask Henry S., who's
reading this 'cause I put "MMU" in the keyword section).  On those machines,
multi-tasking is simply a convenience, not a Great Thing which considerly
speeds up Important Tasks.  (BTW, that's personal *opinion*.)
--

 - Joel Plutchak
   uucp: {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster
   ARPA: oyster@unix.macc.wisc.edu
   BITNET: plutchak@wiscmacc

Disclaimer:
My employer isn't smart enough to have an opinion, and I just *barely* am.
The above is therefore my opinion, but just barely.