🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <154@uwmacc.UUCP> gdavis@uwmacc.UUCP (Gary Davis) writes:
>     A debate over multitasking crops up occasionally, with some
>claiming it really has little use, while others insisting it is
>essential for efficient use of a computer. One argument for mutitasking
>is that it permits you to do something else on your computer while
>waiting for it to compile code or recalculate a spreadsheet.  But
>wouldn't it be far preferable to use a compiler or spreadsheet that is
>fast enough that any wait is negligeable and your train of thought is
"fast enough"? The tasks will be made more complex until they're "slow enough".
>not broken.  Multi- tasking would only slow a slow program down and
>...

Multitasking allows your computer to "keep track of" and schedule more than
one program for execution.  As you say, this can be used by a human to
place more load on a machine in order for the human's time to be used
more efficiently ("do something else while waiting for the program").

However, multitasking also allows the computer's time to be used more
efficiently (ie, printing or transferring files while waiting for input
from a human or device).  This was the original reason for multitasking
and timesharing.  Computer time used to be very expensive, remember?

A multitasking system has some kind of scheduler which decides which tasks
("processes", "programs") get processor time.  If you want to optimize the
human's time, give the human's task a high priority and only do the other
tasks when the human's task is idle (ie, spreadsheet waiting for input).

Personally, I leave everything at the same priority and let uucp and the
print spooler take their little nibbles of processor time when they wish.
If a Mac had an MMU it would be faster than this Lisa, and would be a
nice XENIX workstation (although no match for Sun3 performance).
-- 
Scot E. Wilcoxon    Minn Ed Comp Corp  {quest,dicome,meccts}!mecc!sewilco
45 03 N  93 08 W (612)481-3507 {{caip!meccts},ihnp4,philabs}!mecc!sewilco
	Laws are society's common sense, recorded for the stupid.
	The alert question everything anyway.