🚀 go-pugleaf

Nevin ":-]" Liber (nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU) wrote:
: In article <19950904.1178078.10576@olympus.net>, dons@olympus.net (Don
: Schmelling) wrote:
: 
: > Nevin ":-]" Liber (nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU) wrote:
: > : In article <19950903.1175360.FCDB@olympus.net>, dons@olympus.net (Don
: > : Schmelling) wrote:
: 
: > : >I do not think of all
: > : > end-users as dumb, just the ones that are.
: 
: > : It sure as heck sounds like you consider someone dumb if they don't agree
: > : with your *opinion*.
: > You just do not know me well enough to make an assertion such as this.
: 
: Oh?  Why is it that I'm not allowed to make a public opinion about you,
: while you are allowed to have a public one about me, as evidenced by your
: remark:
: 
: > I would expect someone with an email address that ends in .edu to
: > be more sensible than this.
: 
: You ought to practice what you preach.  You certainly don't know me well
: enough to make an assertion such as this.
perhaps.
: 
: > I had an end-user walk into a computer lab once and say,
: > "How come the computer is not doing anything?"
: > I said, "Well it has to be powered up first."
: > I definately consider that a dumb end-user.
: 
: Again, in your *opinion*.  Paraphrasing *your own words* again, you don't
: know that person well enough to make an assertion such as this.
: 
: In my opinion (and I get to have one, since I don't subscribe to your
: theory that I am unqualified to comment, since that too is an assertion
: presented without justification), that is a scared user, not a dumb user. 
: And why shouldn't they be?  In their eyes, they could potentially be
: destroying tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment by touching
: that machine.  Sure, you may claim to know better, but you certainly
: weren't born with that knowledge.
Sorry but they were not "scared" they just did not figure it out.
Well, I guess I use more logic in my approach to things than some people.
I do give them some credit for asking though.
: 
: > Would the same
: > person consider asking why their car does not go anywhere if
: > they had not put the key in the ignition and started the car?
: 
: Think back to the very first time you drove a car.  Weren't you just a
: little apprehensive?  Were your parents irresponsible enough to just hand
: you the keys that day hoping you'll figure it out on you own, or did they
: train you/enroll you in a driver's education class for a few weeks/months
: before they would let you risk their $10-50K car/$1-2K insurance rate/your
: life?  Would you be willing to give the keys to your car to a 14 year old
: kid who has never been behind the wheel of a car and let them go drive it
: unsupervised?  If not, why not?  If so, put your car where your mouth is.
Because in the State of Washington, if I remember correctly you must be 15
to get a learners permit.  A learners permit means you must have a licened
driver with you when you drive.
Sure I was scared, sure I was apprehensive, that did not make any differance.
I use my fear and my apprehensive fears as a motivator not a distractor.
: 
: > : > So do you feel good about making up a number like 99%???
: > : > Maybee 99% in your shop, but not worldwide.
: > : 
: > : Roughly speaking, 80-90% of the machines out there run DOS and Windows. 
: > : Another 8-15% of them are Macintoshes running System 6 or 7.  None of
: > : these have PMT yet (with the possible exception of Win95, depending on
: > : whether or not you believe the hype).  Everything else is in the noise. 
: > : What number do you come up with?  Maybe 5% of the machines out there have
: > : a PMT OS, and that is being very, very generous.
Suddenly this is not 99%
: 
: > Have you included mainframes, mini computers, super computers, etc into
: > your numbers?
: 
: Yup.  They are in the noise.  Plus, most of the industries are trying to
: move away from them towards workstations because the maintenance costs are
: too darn high.  Why are they so high?  Because the customer base is small.

Most industries?
Common break it up to companies.  I think a vailid claim is some companies.
: > Also just because the majority of Personal Computers may run CMT
: > does not mean that it is the best solution or that PMT is not
: > indispensable.
: 
: Definition of indispensable:  essential, absolutely necessary (source: 
: Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary).  Proof that PMT isn't
: indispensable:  Assume PMT is indispensable.  We've been using personal
: computers w/o PMT for nearly two decades.  The world hasn't ended, and we
: still manage to get our jobs done.  PMT is neither essential nor necessary
: to do computing.  Therefore, PMT is *not*indispensable.  Q.E.D.
Sorry this proves nothing, except flawed reasoning.
: 
: As for your other point, sure there are specialized applications where PMT
: is more desireable than CMT; I've never asserted otherwise.  You still
: haven't even given one example where PMT is essential and absolutely
: necessary (the definition of indispensable) and CMT and interrupts
: absolutely, positively, would not work at all, let alone shown it for
: every single computing application in existence, which was your original
: assertion.  You seem to weaken it every time you post.
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                  A joke!????
PMT is indespensiable.  I obviously do not agree with your usage of
the word indespensible.  Like I have said just because the majority of
people do not find it indespensible does not make it indesponsible.
An os itself is many programs, so at best a CMT os could run a very
limited number of programs faster.  Most computer users have more than
one thing to do.
: > CMT is not real multitasking, oh sure it may possibly multitask some
: > applications, but it is not true multitasking.  To get true multitasking
: > you need something like PMT.
: 
: Great.  You are just another person who gets all of his knowledge from
: reading Usenet.  I suppose the religion you belong to is the one true
: religion, too.  Can you cite even one source in a respected computer
: journal / book that equates PMT with "true" multitasking?  I can cite you
: sources on concurrent programming and operating systems (eg: Greg Andrews
: book the Principles of Concurrent Programming) that talk about and use the
: words cooperative multitasking, and they don't consider it to be "false"
: or "fake" multitasking (nor do they mention DOS, Windows, or the
: Macintosh).  I've been asking anyone on Usenet to cite a source for three
: years now; no one has yet done it.

Sorry I got my information from attending college and from working.
The lectures and discussions on multitasking I attended came to that
conclusion.  They also came to the conclusion that PMT was
a multitasking algorithm, and that while CMT could multitask in a best
case scenario, that if a task took over the cpu for any length of time
without relenquishing the cpu, then you are not multitasking anymore.

My religion or lack of has nothing to do with it.

I find it humerous that some people have the same attitude you describe.
I however, am not one of them.

: The NewsWatcher FAQ sums up this "true" multitasking crap very succinctly:
Why do you call the NewsWatcher FAQ a reliable source?
: 
: |    "True" is a term invented in the UNIX community, where it is defined to
: | mean "like we do it on UNIX", as in "true multitasking", "true threading",
: | and "the one and only true operating system".
: | [...]
: | Neither is "true" and neither is "false". Each has advantages and
: | disadvantages.
The last part is very valid.  However PMT has more advantages than CMT.
I can not really think of any advantages CMT has over PMT.
: 
: I have a little secret for you:  the only difference between CMT and PMT
: is how tasks get swapped; ie, the whether scheduling is under application
: control or OS control.  Neither solution is perfect.  CMT apps have to
: guess about what the rest of the system is doing; PMT OSes have to guess
: about what all the apps are doing.  Some PMT schedulers, such as the one
: in Copland, will be better at doing this, since the apps will cooperate by
: telling the OS exactly what kind of task it is (UI, CPU-bound, etc.);
: schedulers rarely get this right using heuristics alone (such as the Unix
: scheduler).

You have a secret for me.  I do not think so.  I already know the differnces
between PMT and CMT.  Those differences are why many data processing professionals
consider CMT not to be a working model of multitasking, because one app
can have the cpu for *long* periods of time consecutively.  This by anyones
definition has suddenly lost its multitasking ability.
Because the whole point to multitasking is quickly swapping processes to give
the illusion of multiple processes running at the same time.
: 
: > If you are running a large app in it takes
: > more than I would say 1/2 sec of cpu time consecutively without passing
: > the cpu to another task than you are not multitasking, you are
: > running one task at a time.
: 
: If you only have one CPU you are only running one task at a time;
: everything else is an illusion.  Since when did 1/2 a second become the
: definition of what is/is not a multitasking system??

Obviously PMT is really an illusion but it has been accepted by the
data processing community that PMT is a multitasking algorithm.
Consider a typical quantum of 100 miliseconds according to an os book.
Now the same source said 500 milliseconds was too high.
So I figured that would be a good starting place.

: Right now on my Mac, I am doing two concurrent file transfers via
: Anarchie, printing a document, letting Eudora fetch my email, playing an
: audio CD, surfing the Web with Netscape, and writing this message waiting
: for some of the other stuff to finish (I need the files to do some work). 
: Oh, and did I mention that I have a clock in the menubar merrily going
: along, and it gets resynced via NTP every hour, just like those big PMT
: Unix boxes?  I suppose I could go into my office and do this on a PMT
: system with 3x as much horsepower as my Mac at about 5x the initial cost
: (not counting the maintenance / lab staff), but the UI response is
: pathetic compared to my Mac (and I'm the only one on the damn machine),
If you are talking about a multiuser unix system, then it is doubtfull
you are the only user on the machine, and if you are did you check
to see how many jobs were being run in the background?  A multiuser
system has more system overhead than a single user machine.  This means
you may have to wait at times.
: and the tools take much more work on my part to do the same job.

Big deal I run four or five different programs doing FTP at the same time,
while reading my e-mail, sending replies, reading usenet newsgroups.
running as many different clocks, and virus checks, and associated programs
as I like.  With my amiga all of the processes get some cpu time.  On
a computer that uses CMT some processes may not get any cpu time,
for long periods of time.
My Amiga does not need any more horsepower to achive PMT than your Mac
does.
: 
: So, why don't you tell us *how* PMT is going to make our lives oh so much
: better, instead of emptily asserting it without proof or justification
: that it will.
PMT makes it possible to do more tasks in less time.  Getting work done
quicker is the direct impact that PMT would have in your wounderful life.

I have given you all the proof you need to make a vaild decision.  However,
you seem to have decided that your mind is already made up.
If you do not like my proof then go get a BSCS degree and talk to me then.
I do not have time to go look up everything out of books just for you.

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