🚀 go-pugleaf

> Technically.  However, when it gets to the point of causing serious
> performance hits I cease to even call it multitasking.  An ideal
> multitasking machine would divide the available resources by half if
> running 2 processes, and execute the two in parallel in the same
> timeframe that they'd use if excecuted in a series (think electrical
> current here, I can't think of another way to describe it).  A good
> multitasking machine will take a performance hit, but one which comes
> damn near locking up like a Mac or win3.1 box is not worth using for such
> tasks.

so let me get this straight.  just divy up the available resources by 
the number of processes and execute in parallel?  if you want parallel 
then dont you need two processors?  and if you are going to divy up, 
what happens to the really important tasks that cant be interrupted, are 
time based, or just plain must be given time when they need it...like 
moving a mouse maybe?  maybe you aught to take a second look at how many 
things go on in a typical windows/mac event loop sometime?  

face it, there really are two kinds of multitasking...perhaps what you 
really mean to lament is who controls the tasks.  preemptive multi is 
controlled by the OS (tuned by the user) and cooperative multi is 
controlled by what ever program has the hackey sack at the time. :)