🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4e3uti$ah1@guava.epix.net>, wnear@epix.net (William Near) wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Jan 1996 10:49:53 -0500, Dave Nebinger articulated:
> <> So what?  There is nothing inherently wrong with cooperative multitasking.
> <> As long as developers implement their apps to properly share the CPU,
> <> the cooperative vs preemptive multitasking becomes a moot point.
> <> 
> <> However, if an application does hog the CPU, it better have a darn good
> <> reason or I throw it in the trashcan.
> 
> Are you serious? The difference between cooperative and
> preemptive multitasking becomes a moot point "IF" ALL
> programmers write their apps properly? Tell this to
> Micro$oft or, better yet, bring this argument into
> comp.sys.amiga.advocacy and be prepared to get blown away by
> everyone in there. This includes the Mac and clone advocates
> that frequent that newsgroup.

You are correct - the differences become moot only if the apps
which you use are written properly.

And M$ usually provides examples of apps which are not
very cooperative; this is something we can all attest to  ;-)

The point that you are missing is that we have choices.  If the drawing
program you are using is not cooperative enough, find one that is.  If you
don't like the M$ product you are using because it isn't cooperative, there
are other alternatives.

However, if the applications that you use are properly written and share
the CPU as much as possible, then it really doesn't matter whether the OS
uses cooperative or preemptive multitasking.

And note that this follow-up was posted not only to comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,
but also to comp.sys.mac.advocacy too.

Dave.

==========================================================
Dave Nebinger                             dnebing@epix.net
             The Alt.Sources.Mac Archivist
     <http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/alt.sources.mac/>
    <ftp://ftp.AmbrosiaSW.com/pub/alt.sources.mac/>