gdavis@uwmacc.UUCP (Gary Davis) (08/12/86)
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
not broken. Multi- tasking would only slow a slow program down and
break your thought even more. Turbo Pascal and Lightspeed C show that
sufficiently fast compilers, at least, are possible, even on not
especially fast machines. And the success of these compilers suggests
that many people appreciate being able to test code out quickly in a
more interactive manner than possible with traditional compilers. The
popularity of interpreted Basic and even the relatively modest interest
in Forth, in spite of the disadvantages of these languages, also
support the idea that people prefer to program inter- actively. I
think it is even claimed in some quarters that interactive programming
is more efficient than batch programming, though I don't know if this
notion has been tested objectively. It's true, of course, that you do
need to take breaks occasionally from coding, but I would rather choose
my own times rather than have them imposed by a slow compiler.
Certainly it would be nice to be able to download or print files
in the background, though personally I find printing on a noisy
dot matrix printer a good time to stretch my legs and leave the room,
but I thought these tasks were possible on almost any computer. I once
had a DA called Multitasking Print (I think) which permitted printing
text files in the background while compiling (in Rascal). It always
worked without a hitch until a faulty disk drive destroyed my only
copy. Whatever happened to that DA, by the way, I haven't seen it
around again.jkonstan@h-sc4.harvard.edu (Joe Konstan) (08/13/86)
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 >not broken. Multi- tasking would only slow a slow program down and >break your thought even more. Turbo Pascal and Lightspeed C show that >sufficiently fast compilers, at least, are possible, even on not >especially fast machines. And the success of these compilers suggests >that many people appreciate being able to test code out quickly in a >more interactive manner than possible with traditional compilers. > (etc.) I happen to use multi-tasking all the time, and find that there ARE lots of good uses for it which just won't normally be available. Even when I am running Unix of the Vaxen here, by running the C-shell, I find myself often running a copy of rn in the background (for breaks), running a remote login, to do work on other machines, as well as an editor session, compile, etc. One of the best features that most unix programming tools have is the ability to do a shell escape and execute another program. When writing programs, I almost never leave vi, choosing instead to issue a :!make command. On my Macintosh, what I would like to be able to do easily is run LightSpeed C (which I program in) and Microsoft Word (in which I write documentation) all while also running a terminal program and the finder. For much of this, a good switcher/reamdisk and 4Meg might do, but I want to be sure that when I leave Word with a 40 page document to print, repaginate, etc., that it can do so while I work on something else, preferably notifying me when it is done. In short, I think true multi-tasking would be a great feature to add to the Mac. -- Joe Konstan konstan@endor.HARVARD.EDU konstan@h-sc4.UUCP
daveh@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (08/14/86)
> > > 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 > not broken. Multi- tasking would only slow a slow program down and > break your thought even more. Turbo Pascal and Lightspeed C show that > sufficiently fast compilers, at least, are possible, even on not > especially fast machines. And the success of these compilers suggests > that many people appreciate being able to test code out quickly in a > more interactive manner than possible with traditional compilers. The > popularity of interpreted Basic and even the relatively modest interest > in Forth, in spite of the disadvantages of these languages, also > support the idea that people prefer to program inter- actively. I > think it is even claimed in some quarters that interactive programming > is more efficient than batch programming, though I don't know if this > notion has been tested objectively. It's true, of course, that you do > need to take breaks occasionally from coding, but I would rather choose > my own times rather than have them imposed by a slow compiler. > Certainly it would be nice to be able to download or print files > in the background, though personally I find printing on a noisy > dot matrix printer a good time to stretch my legs and leave the room, > but I thought these tasks were possible on almost any computer. I once > had a DA called Multitasking Print (I think) which permitted printing > text files in the background while compiling (in Rascal). It always > worked without a hitch until a faulty disk drive destroyed my only > copy. Whatever happened to that DA, by the way, I haven't seen it > around again. Older machines are not well suited for multitasking for some of the reasons you mention. But on modern 68000 machines on up, much of the processor's bandwidth is wasted waiting for slow I/O operations to complete. No matter how fast you think your disk drive is, its still sitting still compared to the processor. Thus, you can conceivably run two or more programs at the same speed that each would run alone. Sometimes multitasking does nothing more than give you a generalized switcher; you might not likely compile and edit the same file simultaneously, but you could keep the editor in memory while compiling, or even call the compiler from the editor. Such a system also allows business types to build their own integrated package (assuming some standard file interchange format) instead of settling for weak versions available in the all-in-one style package. I've used Amiga 68000 based machines, Apollo 68010, and VAX systems with multitasking, and in every case, I've found it more productive than working on a single tasking machine, and by a long shot. -- /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Dave Haynie {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh "I gained nothing at all from Supreme Enlightenment, and for that very reason it is called Supreme Enlightenment." -Gotama Buddha These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
dlt@csun.UUCP (Dave Thompson) (08/15/86)
I used an RT with the Andrew window manager for the first time yesterday.
While Andrew certainly isn't a Mac, by the same token a Mac isn't Andrew. And
the ONE thing Andrew has that the Mac doesn't is multitasking! It does seem
much more productive to have a typescript (UNIX) window and an editor window.
You can go back and forth quickly, making a change in your editor window and
remaking your program in the typescript window. Want to see a man page? Type
the command in the typescript window and up pops another window with that info.
(I'm not sure that I like tiled windows, though.) Really NEAT!
Yes, I know LightSpeed C is fast! and that you can (sort of) run it under
switcher ... Maybe when Servant comes out there will at least be the ILLUSION
of multitasking though certainly not of the unix/vax type. I DO love my Mac(s)--
but it doesn't stop you from dreaming, does it??
--
Dave Thompson uucp: {ihnp4|hplabs|psivax}!csun!dlt
CSUN Computer Center phone: (818) 885-2790
18111 Nordhoff Street
Northridge, CA 91330sewilco@mecc.UUCP (Scot E. Wilcoxon) (08/16/86)
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.
shebanow@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Mike Shebanow) (08/17/86)
(line eater giveaway) I don't think the Amiga OS qualifies as "solid". Recently, a friend of mine spent a couple of hours on an Amiga trying to prove to me how great it was. During that time, he ran various demos, games, and graphics programs (many of them being sold commercially), and the Amiga crashed consistently. This was using version 1.2 of Intuition for the first hour, and then going back to 1.1 for the second hour. With either version of the OS, the Amiga crashed so often that my friend was rather embaressed. Maybe you use an unreleased version of Intuition??? Andrew Shebanow
morse@leadsv.UUCP (08/18/86)
Well, I think I'll add one missed item in the multitasking debate. Some
people want to have their computers control other machines, such as
heaters and air conditioners. On a non multitasking machine, the computer
would have to be dedicated to the control function.
I want my computer to be able to control the heating, lighting, and security
of my home. But I don't want to tie up my Mac full time. The only solution
is to have background processes. And the Mac will never really multitask
until it has an MMU.
--
Terry Morse (408)743-1487
{ hplabs!cae780 } | { ihnp4!sun!sunncal } !leadsv!morsedaveh@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (08/18/86)
> > (line eater giveaway) > > I don't think the Amiga OS qualifies as "solid". Recently, a friend of mine > spent a couple of hours on an Amiga trying to prove to me how great it was. > During that time, he ran various demos, games, and graphics programs (many > of them being sold commercially), and the Amiga crashed consistently. > > This was using version 1.2 of Intuition for the first hour, and then going > back to 1.1 for the second hour. With either version of the OS, the Amiga > crashed so often that my friend was rather embaressed. > > Maybe you use an unreleased version of Intuition??? > > Andrew Shebanow Version 1.2 has just been finalized, and is not yet released. Anything running under such beta software may run into bugs of any kind. While there certainly are commercial programs that crash the Amiga at times, the large majority of the ones I've seen don't do this. Several of the games out there "take over" the machine, requiring a warm reboot to get back to the OS. There are also quite a few demo programs that date back to the early days of the machine that were never completely brought up to date. Your friend is likely to have a number of these if he's got 1.2, either because he's a recognized beta tester who's kept his old demos or because he's got bootleg copies of these demos along with bootleg copies of 1.2. I repeat that I've run my office Amiga with various programs, including lots of beta software, for weeks at a time without a single crash. But then, I know what it is I'm running. -- /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Dave Haynie {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh "I gained nothing at all from Supreme Enlightenment, and for that very reason it is called Supreme Enlightenment." -Gotama Buddha These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) (08/21/86)
In article <341@csun.UUCP> dlt@csun.UUCP (Dave Thompson) writes: > >I used an RT with the Andrew window manager for the first time yesterday. >While Andrew certainly isn't a Mac, by the same token a Mac isn't Andrew. And >the ONE thing Andrew has that the Mac doesn't is multitasking! It does seem Where can I get one for $1700 ? -- Jim Budler Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (408) 749-5806 Usenet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!jimb Compuserve: 72415,1200 Once and for all: I like my Macintosh