🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <68600002@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>, mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
> Just compare the ease of writing full-function programs
> (defined as one that makes full use of the machine, using all its resources,
> including the screen) for MS-DOS compared to Unix (as a particularly
> strong example).

Just compare the difficulty of writing efficient, well behaved, programs
on MS-DOS as opposed to UNIX. "vi" might not be a full-function editor
by your standards, but it does have the rather significant advantage of
being fully usable over a serial link. EVen a low-speed dial-up line.

The point is that "full-function programs" defined the way you just
defined them are not desirable, let alone necessary.

I have no problem running games at full bore on my Amiga without interfering
with the multitasking.

> The defination of all the "windowing" systems I have seen prevent using
> full functionality. (Even on high-end graphics workstations, e.g. a
> top-of-the-line Silicon Graphics, different windows interfere with one
> another at the color map level.)

On AmigaDOS you can open as many "screens" at once as you like. Each screen
has its own independant bitmap, display modes, and color map. You access
screens by dragging the screen in front down as if it was just a big window,
or using front/back gadgets to reorder them.

[ I'm not saying the Amiga is the be-all and end-all of windowing machines,
  just that it makes a nice counterexample for people who claim that you
  can't get real-time response from a multitasking system. A thesis can be
  disproved by one counterexample. ]
-- 
-- Peter da Silva  `-_-'  ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter
-- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.