91_bickingd@gar.union.edu (Bicking, David) (05/05/90)
>From: steveg@umd5.umd.edu (Steve Green) >Date: 2 May 90 04:14:29 GMT { a bit deleted } ]not alow preemtive multitasking. In fact, I wouldn't call what it does ]multitasking at all. If you are running a word processor and something to ]do calculations for you, the computer will quit running the calculations ]program while you are using the word processor. This isn't multitasking at ]all. (if I'm wrong, someone correct me) I call it program swapping. The { a bit more deleted } ]Amiga is capable of running several programs SIMULTANEOUSLY. I can have my ]software to read the news. And one doesn't stop for the other. As much as ]I like the MAC interface, it is the lack of true multitasking that ensures ]that I will never buy a MAC. >You are a little confused about multitasking but the real point is about >multifinder. From a long time Mac owners point of virew, Multifinder sucks. >Surprised?? Multifinder is a lame excuse for multitasking BUT (here is comes) >it does the job most of the time. 99% of the time that I use it, I have no >complaints that it is not preemptive.. instead, and most important, I get >upset at its lack of memory protection. I hate when a non-well behaved program >trashes me out so bad that I have to reboot. >I dont believe the Amiga has memory protection either?..?? You're right, we don't have memory protection, but fortunately, the system is very well behaved, and most software will heel :) Also, there are ways to recover from a real serious crash, which will cause a GURU meditation. Now, with the release of AmigaDos 2.0, such crashing is no more,thanks to the techs at C=. The original poster was not aware that the programs in multifinder had to give up time willingly to other tasks for it to work, his application apparently didn't do than (and hence wasn't well-behaved). However, I still would never trade the preemptive amiga for Multifinder! Our OS takes care of any multitasking work, leaving the programs that much less complicated and more predictable, and it doesn't take any RAM. ]Supposedly, there is a Unix ported from an old version running on the MAC now, ]but...who wants old stuff... >Once again, you are underknowledged. AUX is a System V release 2 compliant >but has always had alot of berkeleyisms. That is, alot of what is in R4 (AMIX) >has been in AUX since it came out. As well, alot of new (non R2) stuff is >part of AUX 2.0 eventhough it is still an R2 based system. >I would be curoius to see a list of things that R4 (or AMIX) has that AUX 2.0 >does not. I tend to believe that that list would be almost empty. From what I know of Amiga UNIX, it is fully compliant with V.4 AT&T UNIX, which means it is fully compatable with Xenix, Unix, and BSD 4.3. Someone correct me if I am mistaken. This means that all the Berkeleyisms are in there, so I suspect there are things AUX/2 lacks compared to Amiga UNIX (not AMIX, since C= has permission from AT&T to use the name). I too would like to see a comparative feature list - anyone got one??? ] ]Chris Everhart ]chrise@hubcap.clemson.edu > ...did I miss any?? steveg@umd5.umd.edu -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=- "I don't want to start any Blasphemous Rumors, but I think that God's got a sick sense of humor and when I die I expect to find him laughing" Dave Bicking Single Tasking????? Just say NO!!!! Union College Box 152 91_bickingd@union.bitnet // Schenectady, NY 12308 91_bickingd@gar.union.edu \X/ Amiga -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-