🚀 go-pugleaf

Nevin ":-]" Liber (nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU) wrote:
: In article <19950829.1165CF8.159DF@olympus.net>, dons@olympus.net (Don
: Schmelling) wrote:
: 
: > Perhaps someone thinks the majority of users do in fact need PMT.
: 
: Yea, right.  The majority of users have no idea what PMT is.  Heck, much
: of the self-proclaimed technical elite on Usenet have no idea what PMT
: means.  Not a week goes by where I don't see a posting saying that PMT
: will reduce the number of crashes of their machine, yet we all know that
: is due to memory protection, which is an orthogonal issue to the
: multitasking scheduler.  I'd be far more impressed if someone had an
: Of course, this doesn't stop people from thinking they need it, even if
: they don't understand what it is.  That is the power of marketing.
Dumb end-users ask a professionals opinion of what they need.
Your right most dumb end-users may not know what PMT means but
hopefully the professionals they ask do know what it means, and
that is indispensable.
: 
: > Everyone that wants to complete several tasks in the shortest amount of time
: > needs PMT, unless of course they like wasting their time...
: 
: If you want to do that, buy seperate machines.  Everything else is a
What?? Why??  I paid enough for just one computer thank you.
: compromise.   For that matter, a scheduler that does run to completion,
: only switching when blocked on a resource, is far quicker overall than
: PMT.  It isn't desireable in an interactive system, but it is more
: efficient.
nothing new here...

-------------------------------------
Don Schmelling   Port Angeles, WA USA
    A1200/540/CD + A1230 50/50/8
           OMNIA EXTARES
-------------------------------------