🚀 go-pugleaf

Robert Cassidy (rmcassid@uci.edu) wrote:
: In article <3v1tmf$f6u@sashimi.wwa.com>, blackbob@sashimi.wwa.com (G) wrote:
:  
: > I understand how small the Macintosh was.  Preemptive multitasking
: > takes VERY little code.  The core routines are under a page long.
: > All you need is a simple scheduler (VERY short), a switch routine
: > (short), and set up the clock interrupt handler so it tells the
: > scheduler that an application has taken up too much CPU time.  And
: > you'd need a few tables to keep track of everything.  And the FS
: > and some other things would be a tad bigger.  But not too much.

: But compared to no scheduler, no switch routine, and no tables, that's a
: lot of space.

It's understandable it wasn't there in System 1, but it should have
been at least thought about and there should have been a conceptual
design for how to do it in the future.  Multitasking should have been
there with System 4 and the SE, and memory protection by the first or second
iteration of the '020 (or was it '030) that had VM hardware.

: -- 
: Bob Cassidy
: UC Irvine