🚀 go-pugleaf

jragosta@dca.net (Joe Ragosta) writes:

>In article <1996Jan26.192156@eigb>, luginbuh@eigb wrote:
>
>> It's not a real multitask. It's a cooperatly multitask. In this mode you have
>> a Windows 3.x platform running well with 4M, if you don't use last Micro$oft
>> memory eater products. Any way, new products will need more memory to run,
>> due to new features AND because it semms that as people get more and more 
>> memories on their computers programmers don't bother on code size.
>
>Apparently, you've swallowed the Microsoft FUD hook, line, and sinker.
>
>Repeat after me:
>Multitasking means the ability for a computer to have two tasks executing
>simultaneously (in the user's time frame--not in the computer's time
>frame). 

This is precisely the point.  MacOS doesn't have this ability, unless the
applications are willing to cooperate.  The multitasking is built into the
applications, not into MacOS.

>There are two flavors: cooperative and preemptive. Both are multitasking.

Who invented cooperative "multitasking"?

>If you'd like to argue that preemptive multitasking is superior in some
>way and have facts to support it, feel free. But your statement that MacOS
>or Win3.1 don't multitask is just plain wrong.

Is it?  Pray tell, how is MacOS multitasking the following "application":

main() { for(;;); }

An OS which cannot multitask it has no rights to claim to be multitasking,
for the simple reason that it isn't.

Yes, my example serves no useful purpose, but every experienced Mac user 
has seen real applications freezing the Mac.

Dan
-- 
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email: danpop@mail.cern.ch 
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland