pes@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Smee) (12/16/87)
Time for a bit of heresy, I thought. I'm well aware of what multi-tasking
does and doesn't do for you. I use it all the time on the mini's and
mainframes at work. Nice.
But, I question its usefulness (and even desireability) on typical 'home
computers' in a 'home' environment -- and let's face it, that's where most
of the Amigas and Ataris sold end up. What I am questioning is TRUE
multi-tasking. I've got no argument with 'carousels' of suspended programs,
and no problem with resident background interrupt handlers, such as print
spoolers.
So, what's my problem? Well, I think that the usenet bunch is unrepresentative
of your 'standard canonical' machine owner. Most of the machines out there
are going to be basic one or two floppy systems (including mine -- I'll just
mention in passing, that with present pricing, the cheapest way for me to
get a hard disk, by far, would be to buy a clone of an IBM PC -- and, they'd
throw in the 'computer' free :-).
I have an image of telling my machine 'make fred', and then letting it get on
with it while I do a bit of word-processing, or whatever. Only to be hit
milliseconds later with an alert box:
BACKGROUND COMPILATION NEEDS LIBRARY DISK
PLEASE INSERT LIBRARY DISK INTO DRIVE B
and, a second or two after I do that:
FOREGROUND PROCESS NEEDS AUTO-SAVE DISK
PLEASE INSERT DISK INTO DRIVE B
and so on, ad infinitum. Doesn't feel profitable somehow, and definitely
full of space for making nasty mistakes in the disk swapping.
I can't think of *any* two tasks which I do on my home machine which
take enough time to make m/p profitable, and which could co-exist sensibly
with only two floppy drives. I suspect (OPINION, MINE, MY VERY OWN) that
the same is true of the usage patterns of MOST home machines -- and, again,
I emphasize that I think this present group is unrepresentative, and very
much a minority.
(And, maybe I'll feel differently if I ever manage to save enough pennies
to buy a hard disk -- or, maybe even a couple of Meg of RAMDISK would do.)rminnich@udel.EDU (Ron Minnich) (12/19/87)
In article <2027@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk> pes@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Smee) writes: on multitasking ... > >But, I question its usefulness (and even desireability) on typical 'home >computers' in a 'home' environment -- and let's face it, that's where most >of the Amigas and Ataris sold end up. What I am questioning is TRUE >multi-tasking. I've got no argument with 'carousels' of suspended programs, > ... >I have an image of telling my machine 'make fred', and then letting it get on >with it while I do a bit of word-processing, or whatever. Only to be hit >milliseconds later with an alert box: > BACKGROUND COMPILATION NEEDS LIBRARY DISK > PLEASE INSERT LIBRARY DISK INTO DRIVE B First off, if you are telling your machine 'make fred' then you are not a typical user either. If you are using make then you probably want multitasking. Second off, i know a number of typical users of machines. These are people who do not program and just want to use their spreadsheets and appointment calendars and whatever. Once the light goes on in their heads about TRUE multitasking (NOT kludges like Switcher and 'carousels' and so on) they begin to think of things that had not occurred to ME - the alleged expert. Multitasking is natural to anyone who can walk and chew gum. Others need not apply. Which is why both Big Blue and Mac are going to emphasize multitasking in a very short time- like now. I don't know about Atari, but i wouldn't be surprised if they fell into it too. I seem to recall that a lot of people wanted (want?) OS/9 and/or Minix for the Atari- seems a natural to me. Multitasking is the future of home machines. I just read an article by a journalist who talked about computers in 2007. Much of what he described the Amiga does now, in particular a description of his home machine doing two things at once, but since he was a PC-oid ... you fill in the blanks. I just love journalists- especially when they write about computers. -- ron (rminnich@udel.edu)
wen2@husc2.UUCP (wen2) (12/19/87)
In article <2027@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk> pes@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Smee) writes: > >I can't think of *any* two tasks which I do on my home machine which >take enough time to make m/p profitable, and which could co-exist sensibly >with only two floppy drives. What?!? How about Wavebench1 and Viacom running simultaneously? :-) Alvin Wen wen@husc8.HARVARD.EDU wen@harvsc3.BITNET
andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) (12/19/87)
In article <2027@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk> pes@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Smee) writes: >I can't think of *any* two tasks which I do on my home machine which >take enough time to make m/p profitable, and which could co-exist sensibly >with only two floppy drives. I suspect (OPINION, MINE, MY VERY OWN) that >the same is true of the usage patterns of MOST home machines -- and, again, >I emphasize that I think this present group is unrepresentative, and very >much a minority. Except of course, the classic FORMAT a diskette while the terminal program is downloading the file to the ramdisk, or make a backup disk before saving the massive changes you just made to your novel... Or run a terminal program and a word processor at the same time, and produce well formatted answers as you read a BBS. I'm biased, though. No way would I want to go back to a single tasking computer for anything. -- andy finkel {ihnp4|seismo|allegra}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo." Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
bryce@hoser.berkeley.edu (Bryce Nesbitt) (12/19/87)
In article <2027@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk> pes@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Smee) writes: > >Time for a bit of heresy, I thought. Cross-posting to the ST and Amiga groups produces those nice long flames, right? >I'm well aware of what multi-tasking does and doesn't do for you. I use it >all the time on the mini's and mainframes at work. Nice. I strongly suspect you would like it on your home machine, if it was available to you. We will take as minimum configuration a 520 ST with one single-sided drive, and leave the Timex-Sinclairs w/tape drive out of this. >But, I question its usefulness (and even desireability) on typical 'home >computers' in a 'home' environment... >...So, what's my problem? [On] one or two floppy [system] >I have an image of telling my machine 'make fred', and then letting it get on >with it while I do a bit of word-processing, or whatever. Only to be hit >milliseconds later with an alert box: > > BACKGROUND COMPILATION NEEDS LIBRARY DISK > PLEASE INSERT LIBRARY DISK INTO DRIVE B >and, a second or two after I do that: > FOREGROUND PROCESS NEEDS AUTO-SAVE DISK > PLEASE INSERT DISK INTO DRIVE B First off, since you are comparing it to an Amiga, it would never ask for drive "B". More likely it would say "Insert library disk into any drive". >Doesn't feel profitable somehow, and definitely >full of space for making nasty mistakes in the disk swapping. It you put in the wrong disk it asks for the right disk. Nothing nasty happens. You seem to make the assumption that lots of disk swapping is needed to multitask. This just is not true. Don't be silly, you can put lots of useful programs on one disk. 880K is not all *that* tiny. Second off, most everyone without a hard disk on the Amiga uses a dynamically auto-sizing ram disk that will even come back if that neato-o program you just compiled crashed the system. With my 2 drive floppy-based Multitasking system I don't ever need to swap during a development cycle. The only system that has a chronic problem with disk swaps is a floppy based Macintosh. Do I find multitasking useful on a floppy system? Yes. >What I am questioning is TRUE >multi-tasking. I've got no argument with 'carousels' of suspended programs, >and no problem with resident background interrupt handlers, such as print >spoolers. One fantastic improvement is how clean things get. No kludges. It works with everything else because that is the way things are, the natural order of things. 'Carousels' are also incredibly ineffecient in terms of memory use... memory is one thing you indicated you did not have a surplus of. >But, I question its usefulness (and even desireability) on typical 'home ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >computers' in a 'home' environment... Perhaphs you are confused as to the fact the multitasking is an OPTION. You don't need to take advantage of it. Or perhaphs you think that OPTIONS are too complex for real people to contemplate? |\ /| . Ack! (NAK, SOH, EOT) {o O} . bryce@hoser.berkeley.EDU -or- ucbvax!hoser!bryce (or try "cogsci") (") U "Your theory is crazy... but not crazy enought to be true." -Niels Bohr
rex@otto.COM (Rex Jolliff) (12/19/87)
Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Keywords: In article <2959@cbmvax.UUCP> andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes: >In article <2027@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk> pes@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Smee) writes: > >>I can't think of *any* two tasks which I do on my home machine which >>... > >Except of course, the classic FORMAT a diskette while the terminal >program is downloading the file to the ramdisk, or make a backup >disk before saving the massive changes you just made to your novel... Gee.. I used to do this kind of stuff on my cbm-64. 8-) Bobsterm-Pro... great program. As for the backups, I had a dual drive to do them with at one time. >Or run a terminal program and a word processor at the same time, >and produce well formatted answers as you read a BBS. Again, bobeterm-pro had a pretty decent editor in it, not real good, but plenty of power for writing messages. >I'm biased, though. No way would I want to go back to a single tasking >computer for anything. A friend of mine said (as justification for buying his computer) that a computer is like a microwave or a VCR. You don't know if you'll even use it until you get it; and once you have it, you don't know how you got along without it. Multitasking OS's are no exception. (I haven't turned on my c64 ever since I got used to the computer at work.) I think, however, that the first time home (or other) computer user will not realize or utilize the full potential of Multitasking for quite a while. They will have enough fun just making the computer do things one at a time. >-- >andy finkel {ihnp4|seismo|allegra}!cbmvax!andy Disclaimer: I have no profitable connections with the people who sell BTP. I just think it's a great program. -- Rex Jolliff (rex@otto.UUCP, {akgua,ihnp4,mirror,sdcrdcf}!otto!rex) The Sun Newspaper - |Disclaimer: The opinions and comments in Nevada's Largest Daily Morning | this article are my own and in no way Newspaper | reflect the opinions of my employers. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - What happened to our superior space program?
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (12/20/87)
Ah that English sense of humor... In article <2027@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk> pes@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Smee) writes: > >Time for a bit of heresy, I thought. I'm well aware of what multi-tasking >does and doesn't do for you. I use it all the time on the mini's and >mainframes at work. Nice. And you still can't see the usefullness ? >I can't think of *any* two tasks which I do on my home machine which >take enough time to make m/p profitable, and which could co-exist sensibly >with only two floppy drives. I suspect (OPINION, MINE, MY VERY OWN) that >the same is true of the usage patterns of MOST home machines -- and, again, >I emphasize that I think this present group is unrepresentative, and very >much a minority. *Any two* Geesh, How about two editors ? How about five editors ? How about An editor and a c compile ? How about a modem program and a compile and an editor ? etc. etc. etc. >(And, maybe I'll feel differently if I ever manage to save enough pennies >to buy a hard disk -- or, maybe even a couple of Meg of RAMDISK would do.) Well thats just it isn't it ? The less resources you have, the more you have to know what you are doing to extract the most utility from them. I leave you to draw your own conclusion. Details on request. -- "Well they say, that Santa Fe, is more, than 90 miles away" {ihnp4!crash, hplabs!hp-sdd!crash}!gryphon!richard || richard@gryphon.CTS.COM
haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) (12/20/87)
pes@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Smee) writes: > >Time for a bit of heresy, I thought. I'm well aware of what multi-tasking >does and doesn't do for you. I use it all the time on the mini's and >mainframes at work. Nice. > >But, I question its usefulness (and even desireability) on typical 'home >computers' in a 'home' environment -- and let's face it, that's where most >of the Amigas and Ataris sold end up. What I am questioning is TRUE >multi-tasking. I've got no argument with 'carousels' of suspended programs, >and no problem with resident background interrupt handlers, such as print >spoolers. > >So, what's my problem? Well, I think that the usenet bunch is unrepresentative >of your 'standard canonical' machine owner. Most of the machines out there >are going to be basic one or two floppy systems (including mine -- I'll just >mention in passing, that with present pricing, the cheapest way for me to >get a hard disk, by far, would be to buy a clone of an IBM PC -- and, they'd >throw in the 'computer' free :-). > >I have an image of telling my machine 'make fred', and then letting it get on >with it while I do a bit of word-processing, or whatever. Only to be hit >milliseconds later with an alert box: > > BACKGROUND COMPILATION NEEDS LIBRARY DISK > PLEASE INSERT LIBRARY DISK INTO DRIVE B > >and, a second or two after I do that: > > FOREGROUND PROCESS NEEDS AUTO-SAVE DISK > PLEASE INSERT DISK INTO DRIVE B > >and so on, ad infinitum. Doesn't feel profitable somehow, and definitely >full of space for making nasty mistakes in the disk swapping. > >I can't think of *any* two tasks which I do on my home machine which >take enough time to make m/p profitable, and which could co-exist sensibly >with only two floppy drives. I suspect (OPINION, MINE, MY VERY OWN) that >the same is true of the usage patterns of MOST home machines -- and, again, >I emphasize that I think this present group is unrepresentative, and very >much a minority. > >(And, maybe I'll feel differently if I ever manage to save enough pennies >to buy a hard disk -- or, maybe even a couple of Meg of RAMDISK would do.) 1) Buy some RAM 2) Place your needed libraries and such in your new RAM. 3) Multi-task without errors. 4) Write programs which use multi-tasking to simplifiy design. 5) Remember, what the few want today, the masses can't live without tomarrow! - Wade. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COM
davidli@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dave Meile) (12/21/87)
In article <2969@cbmvax.UUCP> hedley@cbmvax.UUCP (Hedley Davis) writes: >> [deleted stuff...] >> > Examples are easy. > > You are writing a letter. You wish to import some text, but > cannot remember the filename exactly. No problem, just do > a directory from a CLI. In the letter, you are explaining > something which involves a simple calcuation ( like > the total cost of this would be ). Damn !! Where's the > calculator ? No problem, just use the calculator tool. > > The point is , in addition to what the power-users can do with > multitasking, the average user can save time and effort because > of the flexibility of the operating enviroment. With > non-multitasking systems which attempt to give you a set of > always available tools, you are extremely limited with what you > can do while in an application. With Multitasking, you can > >Hedley Of course, you don't need multi-tasking to do either of the above jobs. A desk acessory does quite nicely (whether you're using an ST, Macintosh, PC or Amiga). The "average user" would be satisfied with a desk accessory, while the "power user" will want multi-tasking. The "power user" will ALWAYS want as much as possible in the machine being used. (Which is why I think the "power user" should own a Sun or Apollo or VAX workstation and forget the piddling PC market). Now, for the "Why I don't want a multi-tasking system". (Of course, I have access to HUGE multi-user, multi-tasking systems at work...) I find that I get to do many little things around the house while I'm in a terminal session. I can catch up on my reading, prepare dinner, change record albums, everything except un-ARC files I'm downloading (which is about the only thing I'd do if I owned a multi-tasking system). If I absolutely have to locate a file, I use the capabilities of my terminal program's file selector to locate the thing and then go on doing whatever I have to do. Of course, I can also use the CLI desk accessory that I have up and running, too. Face it, most of us are (for the most part) linear beings. For single, home systems multi-tasking is a less than useful for what we bought a computer for ... writing information down, filing that information, retrieving the information and playing games. :-) -- Dave Meile (yes, I know I'm cross-posting this ... some of my best friends own Amigas, Macintoshes, IBM machines and Atari STs. They are all less powerful than the VAXstation 2000 sitting on my desk at work.)
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (12/21/87)
In article <2643@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >>I can't think of *any* two tasks which I do on my home machine which >>take enough time to make m/p profitable, and which could co-exist sensibly >>with only two floppy drives. I suspect (OPINION, MINE, MY VERY OWN) that >>the same is true of the usage patterns of MOST home machines -- and, again, >>I emphasize that I think this present group is unrepresentative, and very >>much a minority. > >*Any two* Geesh, How about two editors ? How about five editors ? How >about An editor and a c compile ? How about a modem program and a compile and >an editor ? etc. etc. etc. And it might be interesting to note that Richard here has a total of 1 (count 'em, 1) floppy drive on his A1000. I've seen him do edits and compiles and communications all on that 1 drive system, without swaps. Ever hear of a "RAM:" disk? Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd Contel Business Systems 213-323-8170
dragon@olivej.olivetti.com (Give me a quarter or I'll touch you) (12/21/87)
in article <2959@cbmvax.UUCP>, andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) says: > In article <2027@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk> pes@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Smee) writes: >>I can't think of *any* two tasks which I do on my home machine which >>take enough time to make m/p profitable, and which could co-exist sensibly >>with only two floppy drives. I suspect (OPINION, MINE, MY VERY OWN) that >>the same is true of the usage patterns of MOST home machines -- and, again, >>I emphasize that I think this present group is unrepresentative, and very >>much a minority. > Except of course, the classic FORMAT a diskette while the terminal > program is downloading the file to the ramdisk, or make a backup > disk before saving the massive changes you just made to your novel... I think that these arguments aren't representative of an *average* user, since an average user is more likely not to own a modem. Making a backup of a disk before saving changes isn't multitasking. It's context (or process) switching. In my opinion, context switching is a good thing for the average user. Why add the overhead of a multitasking system when an average user probably needs only context switching? > Or run a terminal program and a word processor at the same time, > and produce well formatted answers as you read a BBS. Reading messages and generating replies in a word processor is again a case of context switching. But then the average user doesn't call a BBS, either. Multitasking would allow reading of the messages, then the user could download a file while generating replies to the already read messages. > I'm biased, though. No way would I want to go back to a single tasking > computer for anything. Neither would I. Well, I do. But I don't think you are an average user, and I don't consider myself one. I think multitasking is a great tool for us hackers, though. > -- > andy finkel {ihnp4|seismo|allegra}!cbmvax!andy > Commodore-Amiga, Inc. > > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from > a rigged demo." > > Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. > I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors. Dean Brunette {ucbvax,etc.}!hplabs!oliveb!olivej!dragon {ucbvax,etc.}!hplabs!oliveb!dragon-oatc!dean Olivetti Advanced Technology Center _____ _____ __|__ _____ 20300 Stevens Creek Blvd. | | _____| | | Cupertino, CA 95014 |_____| |_____| |__ |_____ 'Such a strange girl, I think I'm falling in love' --The Cure
jim@coplex.UUCP (Jim Sewell) (12/21/87)
And of course there is the "My wife will beat me if I don't do so-and-so at 6:00 pm so I'd better put up my alarm clock program in the background while I play this game/write this paper." I have a friend who was one of the (if not THE) very first Amiga owner in Louisville who had a very legitimate m/t usage: 1. Running a word processor to modify a program he was writing. 2. Running Lattice to compile the code. 3. Running a previous version of the code to find deeply hidden bugs. 4. Running a terminal program to occasionally chat with his friends who were using a local system's version of forum (like CB Simulator). Sounds like a very productive use of one's time to me. I can't stand to use some of the other "home" computers from time to time that don't even have keyboard type-ahead, muchless multitasking ability. Jim Sewell Disclaimer: "These opinions "Make knowledge free!" are my own. You are free to disagree, but don't try to tell me mine are wrong."
haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) (12/21/87)
davidli@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dave Meile) writes: > >The "average user" would be satisfied with a desk accessory, while the >"power user" will want multi-tasking. The "power user" will ALWAYS want >as much as possible in the machine being used. (Which is why I think >the "power user" should own a Sun or Apollo or VAX workstation and >forget the piddling PC market). > >Now, for the "Why I don't want a multi-tasking system". (Of course, I have >access to HUGE multi-user, multi-tasking systems at work...) > >I find that I get to do many little things around the house while I'm in >a terminal session. I can catch up on my reading, prepare dinner, change >record albums, everything except un-ARC files I'm downloading (which is >about the only thing I'd do if I owned a multi-tasking system). > >If I absolutely have to locate a file, I use the capabilities of my terminal >program's file selector to locate the thing and then go on doing whatever >I have to do. Of course, I can also use the CLI desk accessory that I have >up and running, too. > >Face it, most of us are (for the most part) linear beings. For single, >home systems multi-tasking is a less than useful for what we bought a >computer for ... writing information down, filing that information, >retrieving the information and playing games. :-) > >-- Dave Meile > >(yes, I know I'm cross-posting this ... some of my best friends own > Amigas, Macintoshes, IBM machines and Atari STs. They are all less > powerful than the VAXstation 2000 sitting on my desk at work.) An example of the value of Multi-tasking: It took me 4 tries to log on to the local network I use to access UseNet. In beteen attempts I was alternating between periods of work on a program I am writing and a document which goes with it. I am running Benchmark Modula-2's EMACs editor, and it is loaded with 9 different buffered files. I am also running "ProWrite" which is loaded with my document files (only 1 right now). And of course, I am running Diga, which is the terminal package I am using to connect to the net with. Were I to be denied Multi-tasking, I would be facing re- loading all the files which are sitting in memory right now! It would be nice to use a WP to create responses to the postings, unfortunatly the local net would log me off too quickly. I have a multi-tasking machine on my desk too! It's called an "Amiga". Why complain. I figure Muti-Tasking with the Amiga vs. no Multi-Tasking with the Atari-ST is like whether or not to accept a raise from your boss vs. turning it down. Merry Christmas, Wade. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COM
ugmiker@sunybcs.uucp (Michael Reilly) (12/21/87)
In article <3243@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> davidli@umn-cs.UUCP (Dave Meile) writes: >In article <2969@cbmvax.UUCP> hedley@cbmvax.UUCP (Hedley Davis) writes: >>> [deleted stuff...] >>> >> Examples are easy. >> [deleted stuff...] >>Hedley > > [deleted stuff...] >Of course, you don't need multi-tasking to do either of the above jobs. >A desk acessory does quite nicely (whether you're using an ST, Macintosh, >PC or Amiga). I tried to cut out alot.. probably should have cut out more :-) WHAT IS AN AVERAGE USER ??????? A GAMER ??? A PROGRAMMER???? A PERSON WHO USES THIER COMPUTER FOR BUSINESS REASONS??? AVERGE TO WHO ?????? in another posting someone said average users don't call bbs's, and dont own modems.. SORRY.. why are there more BBS's now than ever, more "POWER" users no... more "average" people with more computers.... > >The "average user" would be satisfied with a desk accessory, while the >"power user" will want multi-tasking. The "power user" will ALWAYS want >as much as possible in the machine being used. (Which is why I think >the "power user" should own a Sun or Apollo or VAX workstation and >forget the piddling PC market). Do you also feel anyone who wants to drive fast should own a ferrari or lambroghini ????? even if they can't afford it??? but instead maybe just put high test gas in the old chevy chevette ?????? I FEEL ONE QUOTE SAYS IT ALL..... "The most important concept in modern operating systems is undoubtably multiprogramming. By having a number of programs in memory at the same time, the cpu may be shared among them. This scheme improves the overall efficiency of the computer system by getting more work done in less time " ---from Operating System Concepts, Peterson and Silberschatz for more, read chapter 4 of the above book.... When we had older computers, we always wanted more power, and more cpu cycles to get our work done faster. Now we have greater speed, speed that very often gets wasted because of I/O, and waiting for user input, and so on. With multitasking, the cpu is used more efficiently, and we can of course get more work done. Period. If I want I can constantly have a CPU intensive ray tracing program running, when I want my editor to run, and keep the ray tracing going, but give more cycles to the editor, I can do it, as easy as I just said it, then when my editing is done, go back and raise the priority on the ray tracer. if I couldn't do this, when my ray tracer was working, I might as well forget about my machine, and not use it for 12 to 40 hours as it completes the picture. > >Now, for the "Why I don't want a multi-tasking system". (Of course, I have >access to HUGE multi-user, multi-tasking systems at work...) > >I find that I get to do many little things around the house while I'm in >a terminal session. I can catch up on my reading, prepare dinner, change >record albums, everything except un-ARC files I'm downloading (which is >about the only thing I'd do if I owned a multi-tasking system). > >Face it, most of us are (for the most part) linear beings. For single, >home systems multi-tasking is a less than useful for what we bought a >computer for ... writing information down, filing that information, >retrieving the information and playing games. :-) > >-- Dave Meile Dave, While making dinner, lets say a steak, baked potatoe, corn, salad, and lima beans (YUCK :-( ). Do you cook the steak, then eat it, and cook the corn, and then eat it, then cook the potatoe, then eat it,then make the salad and eat it, etc. ect. etc..... ????? NO, You Cook everything at once, except of course the salad, I hate cooked salad :-), and then eat everything at once... That is NOT linear, humans are DEFINITELY not linear. The classic about walking and chewing gum, is a perfect example.... :-) > >(yes, I know I'm cross-posting this ... some of my best friends own > Amigas, Macintoshes, IBM machines and Atari STs. They are all less > powerful than the VAXstation 2000 sitting on my desk at work.) Well, just remember, the vaxstation is at work, but my AMIGAstation is at my home, right where I get MOST of my work done.... mike Disclaimer : OF course they are my ideas, who else would have them ....?? Michael Reilly University of Buffalo Computer Science CSNET: ugmiker@buffalo.CSNET INTERNET: ugmiker@{joey,marvin}.cs.buffalo.edu
joe@cbmvax.UUCP (Joe O'Hara) (12/21/87)
In article <3243@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> davidli@umn-cs.UUCP (Dave Meile) writes: >I find that I get to do many little things around the house while I'm in >a terminal session. I can catch up on my reading, prepare dinner, change >record albums, everything except un-ARC files I'm downloading (which is >about the only thing I'd do if I owned a multi-tasking system). >Face it, most of us are (for the most part) linear beings. For single, >home systems multi-tasking is a less than useful for what we bought a >computer for ... writing information down, filing that information, >retrieving the information and playing games. :-) > >-- Dave Meile Well, Dave, I must disagree that most of us are linear beings. It's true that we have often been forced into linear activities by the tools we use, but we can and do think about multiple activities simultaneously (like those "What if?" ads from H-P). Let me describe a "typical" on-line session for me. 1. Start up my modem program script to access local bulletin boards, then.. 2. Switch screens to my editor to work on my current program. Then leaving the editor up and running while I... 3. Start a compile of the program. When the modem program makes a connect, switch screens back to it. If I decide to download something, go back to (2) above. After being able to work in this mode, I'd find linear activity extremely frustrating. Now, it's certainly true that the amount of multi-tasking one can accomplish is dependent on system resources, but an Amiga with 512K and 2 floppies can do a surprising amount unless one is eating up a lot of memory for graphics display (not likely in the kinds of tasks you've mentioned). -- ======================================================================== Joe O'Hara || Comments represent my own opinions, Commodore Electronics Ltd || not my employers. Any similarity to Software QA || to any other opinions, living or dead, || are purely coincidental. ========================================================================
rminnich@udel.EDU (Ron Minnich) (12/22/87)
In article <11191@oliveb.UUCP> dragon@olivej.olivetti.com (Give me a quarter or I'll touch you) writes: > >I think that these arguments aren't representative of an *average* user, >since an average user is more likely not to own a modem. Making a backup I can't believe this discussion. Here we are, all us good hacker types, arguing that Joe Average is Too Limited, The Poor Soul, to really Appreciate the Beauty of Multi-Tasking (*cue Heavenly Choir*) You would be surprised what Joe Average can do. He is pretty smart. I have seen this any number of times: once the light goes on in Mr. Average's head, he (and she, of course) will never want to give multi-tasking up. The 'oh but desk accessories are ok' is a specious argument. Desk accessories are a kludge-o form of multi-tasking. If you want to argue that Desk Accessories are a good thing, then you are arguing FOR multi-tasking. ron -- ron (rminnich@udel.edu)
davidli@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dave Meile) (12/22/87)
In article <2168@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: > > 5) Remember, what the few want today, the masses > can't live without tomarrow! Ahem. In case you haven't noticed, the "masses" are NOT buying microcomputers. They certainly aren't going to "need" multi-tasking systems, and would probably be able to live without them (or computers, in general) quite nicely thank you very much. Computer chauvenism. People will go to great lengths to "prove" that a feature of the operating system or hardware is what makes a particular system better. Of course, we all have a vested interest in that "proof" -- we just don't want to believe that we bought an "outdated" computer. Hah! People want computers (when they want them at all) to DO SOMETHING for them. In the majority of cases with the Atari ST and the Amiga, that "something" has been: writing stuff filing stuff retrieving stuff that's been filed playing games programming all of the above Most of those who read these forums fall under the "programming" category. Of course, for programmers, multitasking can be a delight. For the person who is writing a term paper on the microcomputer, why bother? If you have access to two programs (ala Multifinder or perhaps through a "desk accessory" [IBM PCs have desk accessories too, folks]) you already have as much power as you're ever liable to need in most environments. It's totally "neat" to download a file and play chess at the same time. But I've never come across a time when it was necessary to do so. So, let's get off this kick about multitasking being a "necessity" in a computing environment. -- Dave (I play games - and write stuff) Meile
lishka@uwslh.UUCP (Christopher Lishka) (12/22/87)
Oh no...not again! I appeal to everyone's instinct to post responses
in this discussion: please make sure that your posting is not solely
on personal preferences about how you like your "tasking" on a
computer. Otherwise I fear that we will have YAMXIBTYXW (yet another
"my <x> is better than your <x>" war).
I am glad that there are people out there who enjoy *both* ends of the
"tasking" spectrum...it provides a varitey of views and choices.
However, is it really necessary to convince everyone of WHY one end of
the spectrum is better than the other? I think *both* ends
(multitasking and single-tasking) are valid, and I am glad I work on
*both* types of machines....
-Chris
--
Chris Lishka /lishka@uwslh.uucp
Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene <-lishka%uwslh.uucp@rsch.wisc.edu
"What, me, serious? Get real!" \{seismo, harvard,topaz,...}!uwvax!uwslh!lishkabarry@aurora.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (12/22/87)
In article <3243@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> davidli@umn-cs.UUCP (Dave Meile) writes: >Of course, you don't need multi-tasking to do either of the above jobs. >A desk acessory does quite nicely (whether you're using an ST, Macintosh, >PC or Amiga). ...until your desk accessories start running into one another - refusing to cohabit, wanting to grab off the same hotkeys, etc. >The "average user" would be satisfied with a desk accessory, while the >"power user" will want multi-tasking. ...until they actually get to *use* a multitasking system, and find out what they've been missing. >Now, for the "Why I don't want a multi-tasking system". (Of course, I have >access to HUGE multi-user, multi-tasking systems at work...) > >I find that I get to do many little things around the house while I'm in >a terminal session. I can catch up on my reading, prepare dinner, change >record albums, everything except un-ARC files I'm downloading (which is >about the only thing I'd do if I owned a multi-tasking system). This reminds me of a cute article I saw recently. The author was complaining about speedup boards on his IBM. No longer could he have dinner while a program compiled - barely time for a cup of coffee. But for some of us, multitasking helps rather than hinders the enjoyment of life. I do most of my compiling at the office - can't make dinner there, or play records. But with multitasking I can listen to the Amiga's music (DMCS) while I compile or, best of all, read the net :-). Or both. You see? Your mistake is using multitasking to get more work done! - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry QQQCLC NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRIC AVENUE: {hplabs,seismo,dual,ihnp4}!ames!aurora!barry
foy@aero.ARPA (Richard Foy) (12/22/87)
In article <2027@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk> pes@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Smee) writes: > >Time for a bit of heresy, I thought. I'm well aware of what multi-tasking >does and doesn't do for you. I use it all the time on the mini's and >mainframes at work. Nice. > >But, I question its usefulness (and even desireability) on typical 'home >computers' in a 'home' environment -- and let's face it, that's where most >of the Amigas and Ataris sold end up. What I am questioning is TRUE >multi-tasking. I've got no argument with 'carousels' of suspended programs, The TRUE benefit of TRUE multitasking in the home enviorment is made up of a large number of trivial advantages. I believe that I am much more like the average home user that the average participant of this net. So a few trivial examples. I am writing a letter using my favorite editor. I want to refer to something that I wrote some time ago. I don't remember when I wrote it, if it was in a letter or something else. I don't remember much about the context. In other words somewhere in perhaps half a dozen 3.5in floppies is something I would like to copy into the letter I am currently writing. What do I do? I take one of the half dozen disks, which I think may contain what I want to copy, stick in my my second drive, open a new window by using the pull down menu on my editor, start a search for some word that I might have used in the prior document, direct the search output to ram, click my editor to the front, and continue with my writing while the search process runs in the background. When the drive quits running I click its window to the front, print the search output to the screen. When I see a line that looks like it might be in the file I am looking for, I can open a new window and scroll through the file to check if it is what I want. If it is, I can open a new editor, clip the text that I want, click to my letter and paste the text in. Describing this process took far longer that doing it. But most important my train of thought doesn/t get interrupted while I search for the filed inormation. Without multitasking I would either try to recreate the old text, change my letter so I wouldn't need the data from teh hidden file, or spend a lot of MY time looking for the file. This whole process takes but a few seconds of MY time and lets the COMPUTER spend a lot of its time between my key strokes finding my data. The advantage of TRUE multitasking is that I can decide to have the computer do ANYTHING that I have any softwhere for, while I do something completly different. Another example suppose I am a real estate salesperson. I have a data base of properties available, I have some information about some prospective clients. I can do the same sort of search for properties while I am reading the information about the prospective clients. Suppose I am composing a song, I want a phrase from a song filed somewhere on a disk, I sequence through stored songs on the left spesker while I continue with the composing. I want to describe how a game works while I am sending a message to a BBS. I start up the game, without shutting down my connection to the BBS.. I am doing A...I need the results of Z... to add to A... A can be anything that my machine can do. Z can be any thing my machine can do including another A or any combination of 2 ,3 ,4 ...n, process from A....Z. Richard Foy The opinions expressed are mine alone.
gardner@prls.UUCP (Robert Gardner) (12/22/87)
>In article <2027@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk> pes@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Smee) writes: >>What I am questioning is TRUE >>multi-tasking. I've got no argument with 'carousels' of suspended programs, >>and no problem with resident background interrupt handlers, such as print >>spoolers. This whole discussion has generated a lot of heated arguments, mostly from Amiga users who enjoy being able to multi-task, giving example after example of how nice multitasking is. However, practically EVERY argument given FOR multi-tasking can be satisfied by the 'carousel' approach that the original poster acknowledged were a good idea. I'm still waiting to see if someone can come up with a use for TRUE multitasking that a typical home user would find very handy but that cannot be satisfied by a simple 'carousel' approach. There probably are some, especially with message-passing, etc., but none have been posted yet (except for people waiting for their compilers to finish -- they just need faster integrated compilers, though :) Robert Gardner
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (12/22/87)
in article <2027@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk>, pes@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Smee) says: > Xref: cbmvax comp.sys.atari.st:6756 comp.sys.amiga:12332 > But, I question its usefulness (and even desireability) on typical 'home > computers' in a 'home' environment -- and let's face it, that's where most > of the Amigas and Ataris sold end up. What I am questioning is TRUE > multi-tasking. I've got no argument with 'carousels' of suspended programs, > and no problem with resident background interrupt handlers, such as print > spoolers. You're certainly correct in assuming that if you've got one task that needs both drives to function, and you change a disk in one of them, that task is likely to complain. All that requires is a bit of forethought. However, in the very small system case, like maybe a floppy or two and 512K, you'll still find that multitasking is very nice. For example, the OS on the Amiga runs separate tasks to do lots of work for you. The mouse never slows down much under heavy loads, as the mouse handler is running at a much higher priority than most user tasks. Another nice thing is that true multitasking eliminates the need for desk accessories, and all the kludge that goes along with such items. On non- multitasking machines, a desk accessory is a special kind of program (must be specially written to be accessory, or worse, an IBM-style TSR program). And in order to get this program from within a regular one, the programmer of that regular program must call some LookForARequestForDeskAccessory() function as often as possible. With real multitasking, there's no such thing as a desk accessory; all programs are written the same way, and if memory permits, you can call up WordPerfect or Emacs just as easily as NotePad to jot down something during a compile or terminal session. If you get into programming much, you'll also find that the ability to spawn off subtasks is quite a nice thing to have around. Now, you're not going to get very far on a 512K machine doing UNIX style fork()s all over the place, but the lightweight task model you find in the Amiga OS is perfectly useful in such a context. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga Usenet: {ihnp4|uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh "The B2000 Guy" PLINK : D-DAVE H BIX : hazy "I can't relax, 'cause I'm a Boinger!"
davidli@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dave Meile) (12/22/87)
In article <7403@sunybcs.UUCP> ugmiker@sybil.UUCP (Michael Reilly) writes: >> >>The "average user" would be satisfied with a desk accessory, while the >>"power user" will want multi-tasking. The "power user" will ALWAYS want >>as much as possible in the machine being used. (Which is why I think >>the "power user" should own a Sun or Apollo or VAX workstation and >>forget the piddling PC market). > Do you also feel anyone who wants to drive fast should own a >ferrari or lambroghini ????? even if they can't afford it??? but instead >maybe just put high test gas in the old chevy chevette ?????? > Well, the "power user" will tell you to buy a ferrari if you want to race other ferrari's. The old '57 chevy just won't cut it. However, if you want to point at all the other '57 chevy cars and say "I can blow 'em out of the water", fine. Just don't expect the other '57 chevy owners to agree that it's necessary. >"The most important concept in modern operating systems is undoubtably >multiprogramming. By having a number of programs in memory at the same >time, the cpu may be shared among them. This scheme improves the overall >efficiency of the computer system by getting more work done in less time " >---from Operating System Concepts, Peterson and Silberschatz > for more, read chapter 4 of the above book.... This quote is for the "power user". I'm absolutely certain that Peterson and Silberschatz weren't considering mocrocomputers when they wrote that book. Of course, if we followed the computer science model for home computers, we'd all be programming in ADA or Modula-2, and have degrees in math to boot. :-) >> >>Face it, most of us are (for the most part) linear beings. For single, >>home systems multi-tasking is a less than useful for what we bought a >>computer for ... writing information down, filing that information, >>retrieving the information and playing games. :-) >> > Dave, While making dinner, lets say a steak, baked potatoe, corn, salad, >and lima beans (YUCK :-( ). Do you cook the steak, then eat it, and cook the >corn, and then eat it, then cook the potatoe, then eat it,then make the salad >and eat it, etc. ect. etc..... ????? NO, You Cook everything at once, except of >course the salad, I hate cooked salad :-), and then eat everything at once... > That is NOT linear, humans are DEFINITELY not linear. Heh. Gotcha. When I make dinner (let's say Coq a Vin, wild rice with herbs, a nice tossed salad, and chocalate torte...) I do the following: 1. get out the recipe for each thing 2. prepare the Coq a Vin 3. then prepare the wild rice with herbs 4. then prepare the chocalate torte 5. then prepare the tossed salad. I do NOT cook "everything at once", I prepare things in order and let them cook "off-line" (no CPU processing necessary, it's all I/O) :-) I do NOT eat "everything at once", a nicely prepared Coq a Vin requires time to savor the flavor, and I certainly wouldn't stuff a little bit of everything in at once. That is pretty much linear. You are mistaking autonomos actions for "at the same time" actions. You may THINK you can watch TV and read your homework simulataneaously (multi-tasking), but your still going to fail tomorrow's exam if if you try it. The human brain focuses on one thing at a time (conscious mind ... the nervous system automatically deals with lots of other stuff) > The classic about walking and chewing gum, is a perfect example.... :-) Walking and chewing gum are I/O intensive, and require absolutely no CPU cycles. :-) It's analagous (mildly) to reading text on your screen while Music Construction Set plays Bach (possible on both the Amiga and the Atari ST) > Well, just remember, the vaxstation is at work, but my AMIGAstation >is at my home, right where I get MOST of my work done.... > Your AMIGA is at home, and you get MOST of your work done on it. I.E. you're a power user. For you, multi-tasking is "wonderful". I write a lot at home, and multi-tasking is an unecessary fribjob to accomplish that particular task. I leave my REAL work (which requires things like UNIX and VMS and TELNET and all of those neat things) at work. -- Dave Meile
davidli@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dave Meile) (12/22/87)
In article <886@louie.udel.EDU> rminnich@udel.EDU (Ron Minnich) writes: > >I can't believe this discussion. Here we are, all us good hacker >types, arguing that Joe Average is Too Limited, The Poor Soul, >to really Appreciate the Beauty of Multi-Tasking (*cue Heavenly Choir*) Actually, the argument is "Joe Average doesn't NEED Multi-Tasking to accomplish the primary uses of a home computer" writing stuff filing stuff retrieving stuff playing games > The 'oh but desk accessories are ok' is a specious argument. >Desk accessories are a kludge-o form of multi-tasking. If you >want to argue that Desk Accessories are a good thing, then you >are arguing FOR multi-tasking. Desk accessories (and maybe context switching) are all you NEED. The argument here isn't whether multi-tasking is "neat", or that it doesn't have its uses. The argument here is whether you should choose brand XX computer "simply" because it has the capability of multi-tasking. It's a nice fribjob, but not necessary to do stuff. Lots of microcomputer owners know that, but Amiga owners somehow don't seem to feel that the other features of their computer are enough to REALLY make a home user want to buy one. Personally, if somebody is willing to give me $1000, I'd buy one. (Same deal for any microcomputer, folks .. I already have two, plus access to two others, so why buy another?) -- Dave (I write stuff) Meile
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (12/22/87)
in article <3243@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu>, davidli@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dave Meile) says: > Xref: cbmvax comp.sys.atari.st:6806 comp.sys.amiga:12456 > I find that I get to do many little things around the house while I'm in > a terminal session. I can catch up on my reading, prepare dinner, change > record albums, everything except un-ARC files I'm downloading (which is > about the only thing I'd do if I owned a multi-tasking system). You could download directly to a named pipe, de-arc that named pipe at the other end, and thus completely avoid having to store the intermediate ARC file. > Face it, most of us are (for the most part) linear beings. For single, > home systems multi-tasking is a less than useful for what we bought a > computer for ... writing information down, filing that information, > retrieving the information and playing games. :-) Well, you linear-thinking beings will be going the way of the dinosaur any day now. Evolution has brought about creatures that can walk and chew gum at the same time. And that's even before the active thinking brain kicks into gear. > -- Dave Meile > (yes, I know I'm cross-posting this ... some of my best friends own > Amigas, Macintoshes, IBM machines and Atari STs. They are all less > powerful than the VAXstation 2000 sitting on my desk at work.) Don't count on it; I've got this nice 68020 based Amiga sitting on my desk here; put our VAX 750 to shame and even give the 785 a run for its money. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga Usenet: {ihnp4|uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh "The B2000 Guy" PLINK : D-DAVE H BIX : hazy "I can't relax, 'cause I'm a Boinger!"
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (12/22/87)
<< no use for multitasking in the home >> Heck, Susan and John Averageuser don't even have to know that multitaksing is going on behind thier innocent unsuspecting backs. There are a lot of places where multitasking can be of use to us programmers and we don't even have to let the public in on our secret. Here's just an idea. How about a sooper-dooper word processor with mind boggling scrolling and true multicolumn text display, etc. What John and Susan don't have to know is that while they are hunting and pecking their way through the current screen that a sneaky little task has been spawned to compose the adjacent screens. When the Averageusers scroll up or down *poof* (!) the next screen appears virtually instantaneously. "Hey Jack, NIFTY Amiga you've got! I wonder why my Eye Bee Umm can't do that. I keep hearing about OS/2 but I just can't afford it and the 2 two-megabyte option cards its gunna take to run it. Garsh!" Case closed. Happy Holidays! --Bill
jmpiazza@sunybcs.uucp (Joseph M. Piazza) (12/22/87)
In article <3256@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> davidli@umn-cs.UUCP (Dave Meile) writes: >... If you have >access to two programs (ala Multifinder or perhaps through a "desk >accessory" [IBM PCs have desk accessories too, folks]) you already have >as much power as you're ever liable to need in most environments. With your mentality we would all still be using punch cards on one of the world's two computers. Now I see it! Multitasking means running a batch job on BOTH computers at the SAME time! You're right: it's a waste. Flip side, joe piazza --- In capitalism, man exploits man. In communism, it's the other way around. CS Dept. SUNY at Buffalo 14260 UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!jmpiazza CS: jmpiazza@cs.buffalo.edu BI: jmpiazza@sunybcs
david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- Resident E-mail Hack) (12/22/87)
In article <8155@prls.UUCP> gardner@prls.UUCP (Robert Gardner) writes: >>In article <2027@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk> pes@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Smee) writes: >>>What I am questioning is TRUE >>>multi-tasking. I've got no argument with 'carousels' of suspended programs, >>>and no problem with resident background interrupt handlers, such as print >>>spoolers. >I'm still waiting to see if someone can come up with a use for TRUE >multitasking that a typical home user would find very handy but that >cannot be satisfied by a simple 'carousel' approach. There probably >are some, especially with message-passing, etc., but none have been >posted yet (except for people waiting for their compilers to finish -- >they just need faster integrated compilers, though :) Ok, you asked for it .... here's my argument. Actually I've got two. The first being background print spooler type programs. These are handled so much more cleanly on a properly multi-tasking machine than they are on a hacked-over single task DOS ... And yes, I know that background print spooler gadgets can run on single task DOS's ... I've seen 'em in CP/M, RT-11, Mess-DOS, and many many others. But I've never been convinced that they ever ran cleanly. Anyway ... my main argument ... I'm thinking ahead some time into the future when we'll have ISDN running everywhere ... In order to handle network communications cleanly we'll need to have multi-tasking. And this isn't just communications as in start up a terminal program to call up a mainframe at work. This is also things like mail daemons and such that recieve e-mail while you're asleep (or away or whatever). For right now? Well, how about killing run-away processes? It's real nice to be able to pop up another window, do something like a "ps" to see what's going on, and kill things which need to be killed. Oh, and I don't know for certain if Amiga can do what I just said -- my 2000 hasn't arrived yet :-). But my CoCoIII with OS-9 could do exactly that. (and I did exactly that more than once). On a single task machine you simply reboot the machine. Well, that's sorta messy. But also by rebooting you lose all sorts of information you'd have been able to gain if you could only do a "ps". In short. I will never consider buying a single task machine. -- <---- David Herron -- The E-Mail guy <david@ms.uky.edu> <---- or: {rutgers,uunet,cbosgd}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET <---- <---- Winter health warning: Remember, don't eat the yellow snow!
mark@lakesys.UUCP (Mark Storin) (12/22/87)
In article <3256@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> davidli@umn-cs.UUCP (Dave Meile) writes: >Most of those who read these forums fall under the "programming" category. >Of course, for programmers, multitasking can be a delight. For the person >who is writing a term paper on the microcomputer, why bother? If you have >access to two programs (ala Multifinder or perhaps through a "desk >accessory" [IBM PCs have desk accessories too, folks]) you already have >as much power as you're ever liable to need in most environments. > I think you do the "average" computer user an injustice. He may invariably start out able to deal with only one task at a time, but eventually starts to think of things to do with his 'tool'. If there is any task that takes a significant amount of time (minutes?) then a user eventually wonders if there is something better he could be doing with his time than staring at a static computer display. Once a user begins to learn of the uses that a computer can be put to, he will start to demand more from his computer system. If all he ever needs is simple word processing or file keeping then he can find those in the simplest of computers (8-bit machines like Apples and Atari's), but if he is a professional with a job to do, he will be looking for tools that will help him do that job. Multi-tasking (and multi-user) systems are tools for people that can use them. Not everyone needs multi-tasking, but if you do, you don't want to have to go back to trying to get the job done without it. -- Mark A. Storin | These opinions are my own, Lake Systems, Milw., WI | you can't have them! UUCP: {ihnp4,uwvax}!uwmcsd1!lakesys!mark |
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (12/22/87)
In article <3256@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> davidli@umn-cs.UUCP (Dave Meile) writes: >In article <2168@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: >> >> 5) Remember, what the few want today, the masses >> can't live without tomarrow! > >Ahem. In case you haven't noticed, the "masses" are NOT buying microcomputers. I believe he meant the masses = people who buy microcomputers. At any rate, people at large ARE buying microcomputers. How many of you folks parents use or now own a computer ? See what I mean. >They certainly aren't going to "need" multi-tasking systems, and would Then whats all this OS/2 nonsense all about then eh ? >Computer chauvenism. People will go to great lengths to "prove" that a >feature of the operating system or hardware is what makes a particular system >better. Of course, we all have a vested interest in that "proof" -- we >just don't want to believe that we bought an "outdated" computer. Hah! Oh, I see. If I had a 20,000 Mhz 68090, but said it was a reason to buy THAT computer it's computer chauvenism ? Right. Next. >People want computers (when they want them at all) to DO SOMETHING for >them. In the majority of cases with the Atari ST and the Amiga, that >"something" has been: > > writing stuff > filing stuff > retrieving stuff that's been filed > playing games > programming all of the above Speak for yourself, you nit. You have no idea what *I* do, or what *I* need. >Most of those who read these forums fall under the "programming" category. >Of course, for programmers, multitasking can be a delight. For the person >who is writing a term paper on the microcomputer, why bother? If you have Why bother ? WHY BOTHER ? How bout being able to call up as many editor windows as you have memory for ? I've had 5 going at once, and thats all I ever needed, but if I have more than a megabyte I could open more. I use Apollos at work, with 2 1/2 megs on a DN300 and can only open up 18 or so edit screens. I f I had more memory there... >access to two programs (ala Multifinder or perhaps through a "desk >accessory" [IBM PCs have desk accessories too, folks]) you already have >as much power as you're ever liable to need in most environments. ^^^^^^ Speak for yourself, nit. >It's totally "neat" to download a file and play chess at the same time. Fer shure dude, like totally awesome, real rad, man. I dont like chess. I like being able to simultaneously edit, compile, link, run the program, ray-trace, run a comm program and robortoff. I have been doing this for over two years on the amiga, and 1 year on Apollo's. I could not go back to a single tasking computer, nor would I accept a job programming one. Stone age. >But I've never come across a time when it was necessary to do so. So, let's >get off this kick about multitasking being a "necessity" in a computing >environment. Alright, thats it. For the last time, just because you dont want it/dont need it/can't understand it, don't for a second presuppose others dont want/need/understand multitasking. >-- Dave (I play games - and write stuff) Meile Open mouth, insert foot. Open hand, take egg. Apply to face. (What are you going to say when 'Uncle Jack' finally gives you multi-tasking ? flame atari for delivering such a uselessm unneeded 'feature' ?) P.S. This is not a flame. This is not even a spark. If you would like flames, I'll be glad to lay into you, you little jerk. Alt.flame is the place. Flamethrowers at 20 yards. 20 19 18 . . . -- "Well, they say that Santa Fe is less than 90 miles away" richard@gryphon.CTS.COM || {ihnp4!crash, hplabs!hp-sdd!crash}!gryphon!richard
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (12/22/87)
In article <3259@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> davidli@umn-cs.UUCP (Dave Meile) writes: > >Desk accessories (and maybe context switching) are all you NEED. The ^^^ "There you go again." >Personally, if somebody is willing to give me $1000, I'd buy one. Typical Atari (ST) user. "I would have bought an Amiga if I could have afforded it." >-- Dave (I write stuff) Meile Richard (you write shit, dave) Sexton -- "Well, they say that Santa Fe is less than 90 miles away" richard@gryphon.CTS.COM || {ihnp4!crash, hplabs!hp-sdd!crash}!gryphon!richard
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (12/22/87)
In article <2673@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >Then whats all this OS/2 nonsense all about then eh ? Bad example. OS/2 *IS* nonsense. IBM found out that just about everyone who ever wanted a PC or compatible has one by now (including my Dad, maybe he'll figure out how to boot it someday.), and the only way they can make money on PC's is to make all those users think they need to spend big bucks on software, hard disks, and extra RAM to retain that "compatibility". Not only that, they then find out that even their high-speed AT-286 ain't fast enough, and they gotta upgrade to a 386. OS/2 is a plot to sell more hardware. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd Contel Business Systems 213-323-8170
haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) (12/22/87)
davidli@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dave Meile) writes: >In article <2168@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: >> >> 5) Remember, what the few want today, the masses >> can't live without tomarrow! > >Ahem. In case you haven't noticed, the "masses" are NOT buying microcomputers. >They certainly aren't going to "need" multi-tasking systems, and would >probably be able to live without them (or computers, in general) quite >nicely thank you very much. > If they don't have a home computer, then they are irrelevant to the this discussion. We are talking about whether or not Multi- tasking is needed/useful/desireable arn't we. >Computer chauvenism. People will go to great lengths to "prove" that a >feature of the operating system or hardware is what makes a particular system >better. Of course, we all have a vested interest in that "proof" -- we >just don't want to believe that we bought an "outdated" computer. Hah! > So I take it your saying that you don't want to believe that your Atari-ST is an obsolete machine? What does vested interest have to do with this? Either multi-tasking is usefull or it is not! Of coarse we all have out-dated machines if your going to include the state of the art. Lets talk about the PC world, OK? > > >In article <2027@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk> pes@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Smee) writes: > >>What I am questioning is TRUE > >>multi-tasking. I've got no argument with 'carousels' of suspended programs, > >>and no problem with resident background interrupt handlers, such as print > >>spoolers. > > This whole discussion has generated a lot of heated arguments, mostly > from Amiga users who enjoy being able to multi-task, giving example > after example of how nice multitasking is. This is (hopefully) a discussion, and not an argument. > > However, practically EVERY argument given FOR multi-tasking can be ^^^^^^^^^^^ > satisfied by the 'carousel' approach that the original poster acknowledged > were a good idea. It seems to me that the practically never is a infinitly greater than NEVER. > > I'm still waiting to see if someone can come up with a use for TRUE > multitasking that a typical home user would find very handy but that > cannot be satisfied by a simple 'carousel' approach. There probably > are some, especially with message-passing, etc., but none have been > posted yet (except for people waiting for their compilers to finish -- > they just need faster integrated compilers, though :) > > Robert Gardner > What about the example I gave of two resident programs cohabitating and interacting even though written in different Languages? While you don't NEED to have multi-tasking to do this, it makes an otherwise complicated job very much easier, and therefore much more likely to be successfully accomplished. It certainly is attractive to me because it means I don't have to "share" any of my source with someone whom I may want to collaborate with. Carousels are fine for most things. However, for applications to which they are unsuited, using them can be a pain. Also, for us programmers, within a single program multi-tasking can be invaluable. For instance, If I were writing a communications package, one feature I might include would be a "secretary". The secretary would be capable of performing certain mundane tasks for the user. For instance, it could be used in conjuntion with a phone-list to re-try busy numbers periodically, and to interrupt the user if the number becomes avaiable (ie: rings). Perhaps it might be smart enough not to recall if the user input level is high, or to ask permission before making the attempt. This would all happen with no unneeded interruptions to the user. THE POINT IS THIS: As a programmer I find the idea of writing such a program as being much simpler with multi-tasking facilities than without them. If I were programming an Atari, which I take it does not have multi-tasking, I would have to consider the job to be far more difficult than it would be on the Amiga. For me, multi-processing is just another tool I can use or not use. The user might not even know it is happenning. Regaurdless of what you think of the "average users'" capability to utilize multi-tasking to their benfit one thing is certainly true; They can never use multi-tasking to their benifit if the machine they're using doesn't support it. Never! To me NEVER is an ugly word. Kind of like DEAD. This is why we Amiga people like the Amiga so much. It has a "no limits" philosophy. The fact that a machine is built around a bit more than "how can we make a machine that will ring all the right bells (sound, graphics, windows,etc...) to appeal to the uninformed masses so we can make a quick buck" philosophy so common in this industry is refreshing. Multi-tasking was included in the machine because it was feasable and thus the "no limits" philosophy demanded it. ===================================== My question for you is, what do you have against multi-tasking? Take OUR (all of us who have given testomonials) word for it that the disk swapping "nightmare" is indeed just a bad dream. This just does not happen. The switching overhead seems to be negligable. I figure you have a choice of having a thing or not having it. Isn't something better than nothing? If you don't want to use it, just turn it off! Give me an example of why it is better NOT to have mult-tasking. And one last point: large numbers of these machines are going into homes, and in those homes, are being used by children. Perhaps little 10 year old Jonny wants a computer to play games on, but a few years from now he might want to program. If so, he might be totally familiar with multi-tasking aspects of programming before he reaches High School if his computer includes it. Otherwise... Merry Christmas, Wade. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COM
jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) (12/22/87)
Uh...one thing that a single-tasking system won't let me do is use pipes (reasonably, as opposed to the way MS-DOS emulates them). "Naive users don't use pipes," the response will come. The problem is one of education. James Jones
wheels@mks.UUCP (Gerry Wheeler) (12/22/87)
In article <3259@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu>, davidli@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dave Meile) writes: > In article <886@louie.udel.EDU> rminnich@udel.EDU (Ron Minnich) writes: > > > >I can't believe this discussion. Here we are, all us good hacker > >types, arguing that Joe Average is Too Limited, The Poor Soul, > >to really Appreciate the Beauty of Multi-Tasking (*cue Heavenly Choir*) > Actually, the argument is "Joe Average doesn't NEED Multi-Tasking to > accomplish the primary uses of a home computer" > > The 'oh but desk accessories are ok' is a specious argument. > >Desk accessories are a kludge-o form of multi-tasking. If you > >want to argue that Desk Accessories are a good thing, then you > >are arguing FOR multi-tasking. > Desk accessories (and maybe context switching) are all you NEED. > It's a nice fribjob, but not necessary to do stuff. I've been following this for a couple of days, and here's my two cents: Having used a multi-tasking OS on a PC (QNX -- not a bad system) for several years, I found that I tended to use it as a "switcher". That is, I would run one program in one virtual screen, and run another in a different screen. A hotkey is used to flip screens, up to a maximum of four. Now, QNX does offer Unix-type background tasks, but I didn't use them much. If your background compile runs amuck, it's hard to get back under control. However, I don't think anyone has considered that one program, from the user's point of view, may actually be composed of two cooperative tasks. For example, a terminal emulator can have an input task and an output task, each of which blocks when it has nothing to do. There's a case when multi-tasking is nice even when you're only doing one thing. So, my vote goes for multi-tasking. You can do full-blown power things if you want, you can do "switching" if you want, you can do just one thing if you want, but at least you have the choice. Granted, a single- tasking system is "all you need" to do work, but if the multi-tasking system can be provided for reasonable cost, would you turn it down? So, did I hear someone say they were offering a multitasking version of GEMDOS for my ST? :-) (And when will ST Minix be ready?) (And when will the price come down on ST Idris?) -- Gerry Wheeler Phone: (519)884-2251 Mortice Kern Systems Inc. UUCP: uunet!watmath!mks!wheels 35 King St. North BIX: join mks Waterloo, Ontario N2J 2W9 CompuServe: 73260,1043
davidli@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dave Meile) (12/23/87)
In article <7909@e.ms.uky.edu> david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- Resident E-mail Hack) writes: > >to be killed. Oh, and I don't know for certain if Amiga can >do what I just said -- my 2000 hasn't arrived yet :-). But >my CoCoIII with OS-9 could do exactly that. (and I did exactly Of course, you can get OS-9 (and IDRIS) for the Atari ST. So there. You can multi-task to your hearts content, regardless of the machine. BUT I still insist that, for the non "power user" there's no need for it. -- Dave Meile
davidli@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dave Meile) (12/23/87)
In article <7413@sunybcs.UUCP> jmpiazza@gort.UUCP (Joseph M. Piazza) writes: > > With your mentality we would all still be using punch cards on one >of the world's two computers. > Really, you could have come up with something a bit cruder to say. And, if you'd sent it via email, I could have deleted it without having to bother to reply via News. How many years have you owned a personal computer Joseph? Were you ever actually around when punch cards were being used? Were you around when all you could do with a personal computer was toggle switches on the front panel and bring an AM radio close to the CPU to produce "music"? Did you ever put together one of those personal computers (you know, before Radio Shack started mass production of the TRS-80 model I)? Did your network news administrator ever tell you not to impugn all those nice people who post to News? Are YOU the network news administrator? Does your school sell Macintoshes and IBM computers to students and faculty? Does it sell Amigas? Why not, if a multi-tasking microcomputer is such hot stuff? Does your Amiga run HyperCard, Joseph? Will your 68020 processor (I assume all Amiga owners own the "latest" processor for their machines) run Lotus 1-2-3? Is the Amiga being bought in Fortune 50 companies? What does this say about upper-management's desire to provide multi-tasking in the office environment? See what a load of embarassing questions can be asked, simply because you chose to use News to make some rather useless comments on my "mentality" instead of using email? (You know, Joseph, the little 'r' key on your Amiga keyboard -- you do USE your Amiga to read News, don't you?) > Now I see it! Multitasking means running a batch job on BOTH >computers at the SAME time! You're right: it's a waste. > Glad you agree. Do you have a degree in Computer Science? Is this what they teach at your University? -- David Meile Some people. Send replies via email. I may even read 'em.
derek@speedy.WISC.EDU (Derek Zahn) (12/23/87)
One particularly nice effect of having a personal computer with real
multitasking appears when software products are developed with that
capability in mind. Using this approach, a program (for instance,
a CAD package) can be written to communicate with sub-modules running
as separate processes and communicating with the "main" program via
messages.
In this fashion, modules to provide new and special-purpose features can
be developed and distributed (either by the original manufacturer or
third parties) after software is released. Users can choose whether or
not such modules are of interest to them as they are developed, and can
incorporate them into the system or not as they see fit.
Many applications could benefit from such a modular approach and although
it may be possible to achieve similar results on other machines, true
multitasking provides a powerful and aesthetically pleasing environment
for extensible software systems. As an Amiga owner and programmer, I find
that exciting.
derek
Derek Zahn @ Wisconsin
USENET: ...!{allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo,ucbvax}!uwvax!derek
BITNET: derek at wiscvm
ARPA INTERNET: derek@cs.wisc.edu
"It's much much much too hot in here."andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) (12/23/87)
In article <8155@prls.UUCP> gardner@prls.UUCP (Robert Gardner) writes: >>In article <2027@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk> pes@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Smee) writes: >>>What I am questioning is TRUE >>>multi-tasking. I've got no argument with 'carousels' of suspended programs, >>>and no problem with resident background interrupt handlers, such as print >>>spoolers. >I'm still waiting to see if someone can come up with a use for TRUE >multitasking that a typical home user would find very handy but that >cannot be satisfied by a simple 'carousel' approach. There probably With true multitasking, when my computer is doing something that takes a while, like formatting a 200 meg hard drive, recalculating a spreadsheet, balancing my checkbook :-) or anything that takes the computer a while to do, I am free to use the computer for something else. BTW, when you have a single-tasking computer, tack on some sort of 'carousel' (ie Desk Accessories, Switcher, MultiPet, or whatever), add interrupt driven background programs with limited capabilities to do print spooling, etc. , tack on multi-tasking shells that run some programs , why not go the extra mile, and clean up your world and put in true multitasking ? All the problems with TSRs, spoolers, etc. become very simple if the machine itself multitasks. I really thing this whole thing is just a strawperson argument. After all Multitasking is available for the ST too. (but not standard, like on the Amiga :-). ST owners can get OS-9, a Un*x-like multitasking perating system, right ? This argument comes down to, not on which computer is better, but on whether you wait for your computer or whether your computer waits for you. Remember, you never have to use the multitasking if you don't want to... -- andy finkel {ihnp4|seismo|allegra}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo." Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
stever@videovax.Tek.COM (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) (12/23/87)
In lots of articles, with lots of words, the debate has raged about
multitasking -- is it useful to all, or is it just for the "power
user"? (I thought *I* was a power user -- after all, I pay my
electric bill every month. . .)
The user doesn't even have to know that he is using a multitasking
system to derive benefits from it. As programmers become more familiar
with the Amiga, the use of multitasking within what looks like a "single
program" will increase.
Think of a text editor or word processor that spawns a low-priority
process to perform all I/O, passing the data back and forth to the
main module via messages. The editor can now be used on files that
are much larger than main memory, because it is no longer necessary
to have everything in memory at once. Because the I/O process can
run asynchronously, it can keep the editor supplied with the
appropriate parts of the file with no obvious delays.
This same idea could be used by game designers to reduce or eliminate
the delays associated with loading a new "room" or whatever. If
sufficient memory is available, a low-priority process can load in the
closest new piece of the landscape. Then, if the user enters the room,
the data is already in memory, requiring just a fast transfer. If the
user goes the other way, nothing has been lost -- the CPU cycles would
have been wasted otherwise (remember, we're postulating a "non-power"
user who won't run two things at once).
And yes, this could be done without multitasking, but it is easy with
multitasking. This will encourage the proliferation of programs that
use multitasking internally. And we'll all benefit -- even the
non-power users!
Steve Rice
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* JESUS Is The REASON For The SEASON! (Merry Christmas and Happy New Year) *
new: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com
old: {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver}!tektronix!videovax!steverfiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (12/23/87)
In article <3243@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu>, davidli@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dave Meile) writes: > The "average user" would be satisfied with a desk accessory, while the > "power user" will want multi-tasking. The "power user" will ALWAYS want > as much as possible in the machine being used. (Which is why I think > the "power user" should own a Sun or Apollo or VAX workstation and > forget the piddling PC market). You buying? :} Anyone is likely to get more done using a lesser, affordable tool rather than waiting until the ultimate is affordable/extant... Darn. seh
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (12/23/87)
In article <3279@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> davidli@umn-cs.UUCP (Dave Meile) writes: >Of course, you can get OS-9 (and IDRIS) for the Atari ST. So there. (You forgot the: nyaa, nyaa.) >You >can multi-task to your hearts content, regardless of the machine. BUT I >still insist that, for the non "power user" there's no need for it. i Oh, I see. I you have a singletasking operating system you are just a user, but you have a multitasking operating system and you do two things at once, you are a power user ? Such silliness. >-- Dave Meile -- "Well, they say that Santa Fe is less than 90 miles away" richard@gryphon.CTS.COM || {ihnp4!crash, hplabs!hp-sdd!crash}!gryphon!richard
joe@cbmvax.UUCP (Joe O'Hara) (12/23/87)
In article <3279@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> davidli@umn-cs.UUCP (Dave Meile) writes: >In article <7909@e.ms.uky.edu> david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- Resident E-mail Hack) writes: >> >>to be killed. Oh, and I don't know for certain if Amiga can >>do what I just said -- my 2000 hasn't arrived yet :-). But >>my CoCoIII with OS-9 could do exactly that. (and I did exactly > >Of course, you can get OS-9 (and IDRIS) for the Atari ST. So there. You ^^^^^^^^ >can multi-task to your hearts content, regardless of the machine. BUT I >still insist that, for the non "power user" there's no need for it. > >-- Dave Meile From his first posting on this subject, I wondered why Mr. Meile brought it up at all. It's not like someone asked for a poll regarding the usefulness of multitasking. His "so there." comment seems to imply a certain degree of envy of the Amiga users who like to discuss (yes, and brag too) the merits of multitasking. At least, he appears to have a need to defend himself in some way about not having it. I don't think anyone here would argue that multitasking is necessary. One doesn't NEED icons and desktop metaphors either. But advances such as these help make computers easier and more productive for non-power users. And multitasking is desirable from the systems development viewpoint as distributed processing, resource sharing, and other features become more sophisticated. Personally, I'd like to commend and thank the members of comp.sys.amiga for not degenerating this topic to the "my computer is better than yours" syndrome that Mr. Meile seems to have wanted to provoke. We all like our particular computers or we wouldn't have purchased them: that's a given assumption. And we all have different factors for making our purchasing decision. -- ======================================================================== Joe O'Hara || Comments represent my own opinions, Commodore Electronics Ltd || not my employers. Any similarity to Software QA || to any other opinions, living or dead, || are purely coincidental. ========================================================================
ugmiker@sunybcs.uucp (Michael Reilly) (12/24/87)
In article <3258@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> davidli@umn-cs.UUCP (Dave Meile) writes: >In article <7403@sunybcs.UUCP> ugmiker@sybil.UUCP (Michael Reilly) writes: >>> >>>The "average user" would be satisfied with a desk accessory, while the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Do you realize, that this whole conversation started out as, "can I multitask with a little memory", and do you also realize that things like desk accessories, and carosels (sp?) and the "multifinder", and the like all take up memory, and each process run on a system with this "fake multitasking" will take up much more memory than it would on a real multitasking machine. PERIOD. Because a machine (any machine) is made with multitasking in mind, it is designed to make efficient use of it's memory, and allows more processes to be run in a small space. That is why so much memory is needed to use multifinder on the MAC. >Well, the "power user" will tell you to buy a ferrari if you want to race ^^^^^^^^^^ WHAT the H*LL is a POWER USER, someone who can do more than one thing at a time ?????? > >>"The most important concept in modern operating systems is undoubtably >>multiprogramming. By having a number of programs in memory at the same >>time, the cpu may be shared among them. This scheme improves the overall >>efficiency of the computer system by getting more work done in less time " >>---from Operating System Concepts, Peterson and Silberschatz >> for more, read chapter 4 of the above book.... > >This quote is for the "power user". I'm absolutely certain that Peterson >and Silberschatz weren't considering microcomputers when they wrote that >book. Of course, if we followed the computer science model for home >computers, we'd all be programming in ADA or Modula-2, and have degrees >in math to boot. :-) NO dave they weren't considering microcomputers, they were considering operating systems, ALLLLLLLL operating systems. A computer is only as good as the operating system available to the user!!! If you have a SUPER-FAST computer that can do one thing at a time, and it can't even do that efficiently because of the operating system, what good is it. WE all have very fast machines (st, amiga, mac) and almost all of us USE try to get the most out of our machines, multitasking helps us do that. Also Do you agree, that Joe Average user, who doesn't know how computers work, is always expecting them to work faster. As a consultant here at the university, I ALWAYS seee begining users hit a key 7 or 8 times because as soon as they hit it the first time it doesn't respond becuase the VAX has 55 people on it...They are "POWER USERS" also, they want thier power, they want Instantaneous replies, with an efficient operating system they get them. ( at least as fast as posible ) > >>> >>>Face it, most of us are (for the most part) linear beings. For single, >> That is NOT linear, humans are DEFINITELY not linear. > >Heh. Gotcha. When I make dinner (let's say Coq a Vin, wild rice with herbs, >a nice tossed salad, and chocalate torte...) I do the following: > 1. get out the recipe for each thing > 2. prepare the Coq a Vin > 3. then prepare the wild rice with herbs > 4. then prepare the chocalate torte > 5. then prepare the tossed salad. > >I do NOT cook "everything at once", I prepare things in order and let them >cook "off-line" (no CPU processing necessary, it's all I/O) :-) yeah, and you eat COLD food.... :-( I never met a CHEF who didn't think THE most important aspect of cooking was getting the food out HOT, and NOT over cooked, this all includes timing, and timing is important in computers also > >I do NOT eat "everything at once", a nicely prepared Coq a Vin requires time >to savor the flavor, and I certainly wouldn't stuff a little bit of everything >in at once. Do you eat the WHOLE Coq a Vin, then ALL the rice, then ALL the salad, cleaning (rebooting) your plate (machine) off between courses??? Or do you put them all on one plate (window) and eat (run) them all at the same time??? come on dave, DONT LIE :-) >> The classic about walking and chewing gum, is a perfect example.... :-) > >Walking and chewing gum are I/O intensive, and require absolutely no CPU ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ are you trying to tell me the "writing stuff" and "filing stuff" you do on your computer is not ??? >cycles. :-) It's analagous (mildly) to reading text on your screen while >Music Construction Set plays Bach (possible on both the Amiga and the Atari ST) > >> Well, just remember, the vaxstation is at work, but my AMIGAstation >>is at my home, right where I get MOST of my work done.... >> > >Your AMIGA is at home, and you get MOST of your work done on it. I.E. you're >a power user. For you, multi-tasking is "wonderful". I write a lot at home, >and multi-tasking is an unecessary fribjob to accomplish that particular task. > >I leave my REAL work (which requires things like UNIX and VMS and TELNET and >all of those neat things) at work. BUT DAVE !!!!! I CAN do TELNET, on my amiga, WHILE I read text and listen to Music Construction set playing Bach, and I soon will be able to (hopefully) be running UNIX in a window on a 68020, while my 68000 is hacking away at compiling the latest version of my Bugs :-), and doing the music stuff. And the Reason I get most of my work done at home is because I can dial into the school computer, make some changes in a program, compile it on unix, and instead of doing external documentation on a project through the 1200 baud (yuck) phone line, I just flip screen around, and keep on doing it right on the amiga, While the program is compiling. With a load of 45.00 on a 785, it sometimes takes a while :-) > >-- Dave (I write stuff) Meile Dave, When I first started using UNIX, the most fantastic thing for me was the ability to just through some job in the background, and go about my other business. I was no "POWER USER" just someone trying to get some work done efficiently. mike p.s. EVERYONE, HAVE A HAPPY HOLIDAY, AND A HAPPY AND SAFE NEW YEAR... :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) Mike Reilly President of UGCSA University of Buffalo Computer Science csnet: ugmiker@buffalo.CSNET uucp: ..!{nike|watmath,alegra,decvax}!sunybcs!ugmiker BITNET: ugmiker@sunybcs.BITNET <-OR-> ACSCMPR@ubvmsc.BITNET
bakken@hrsw2.UUCP (David E. Bakken) (12/24/87)
In article <533@otto.COM>, rex@otto.COM (Rex Jolliff) writes: > > I think, however, that the first time home (or other) computer user will not > realize or utilize the full potential of Multitasking for quite a while. They > will have enough fun just making the computer do things one at a time. > I can't count how many non-technical types I've shown Amy and they have no problem comprehending what multitasking can do for them if they are given a few examples. Once the light goes on they tend to use it often. Heck, I don't even need to show then Amy - 4 or 5 well chosen sentences does the trick. Which is why I am really dissapointed (to put it mildly) that C= has not run commercials that help people to see the light. That should be easy to accomplish in a 60 second spot, maybe even in 30 seconds. Peter's commercial idea with Big Blue, Mac, Amy, and the flunky was a classical case in point. -- Dave Bakken Boeing Commercial Airplane Company uw-beaver!apcisea!tahoma!hrsw2!bakken (206) 234-2039 (generic) disclaimer: these views are my own, not my employers.
lee@uhccux.UUCP (Greg Lee) (12/24/87)
In article <2673@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >In article <3256@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> davidli@umn-cs.UUCP (Dave Meile) writes: Mr. Sexton's comments don't bear repeating. It was suggested in another news group that he has a net variety of Tourette's syndrome. Would Dave Meile and others in comp.sys.arari.st please accept an apology from us amiga folks?
kevin@Lindy.STANFORD.EDU (Kevin Burnett) (12/24/87)
In article <2673@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >>People want computers (when they want them at all) to DO SOMETHING for >>them. In the majority of cases with the Atari ST and the Amiga, that >>"something" has been: >> >> writing stuff >> filing stuff >> retrieving stuff that's been filed >> playing games >> programming all of the above > >Speak for yourself, you nit. You have no idea what *I* do, or what *I* >need. I don't believe he said anything about how YOU use your computer. And, you're asking for this comment, ASSHOLE. Last time I checked, "the majority of cases" doesn't mean 100%, does it? >>access to two programs (ala Multifinder or perhaps through a "desk >>accessory" [IBM PCs have desk accessories too, folks]) you already have >>as much power as you're ever liable to need in most environments. > ^^^^^^ > >Speak for yourself, nit. I believe he was, TWIT. >I could not go back to a single tasking computer, nor would I accept >a job programming one. Stone age. Good for you, dude. >Alright, thats it. For the last time, just because you dont want it/dont >need it/can't understand it, don't for a second presuppose others >dont want/need/understand multitasking. He said that he didn't see any arguments why multitasking is a REQUIREMENT for a microcomputer. Thinking it's useful, and liking it don't cut it. >Open mouth, insert foot. Open hand, take egg. Apply to face. Do you do that often? Perhaps you should seek therapy. >P.S. This is not a flame. This is not even a spark. If you would >like flames, I'll be glad to lay into you, you little jerk. It sure sounds like a flame to me. I'm not going to claim what I'm doing isn't. Why don't you crawl back under the rock from whence you came? Why can't people just forget this stupid argument? I bought my Atari because it does what I wanted at the time, you bought your Amiga for the same reason. Why can't you just leave it at that? When I bought my ST, the Amiga was at least $600-$700 more expensive than the ST. I didn't have that extra money. If I had, maybe I would have bought an Amiga. Maybe not. I don't need this damned "my computer is better than yours because mine does x, nyah nyah nyah" bullshit. -- Kevin Burnett Stanford Linear Accelerator Centre / Santa Clara Class of '88 Arpa: kevin@Lindy.Stanford.EDU Bitnet: KJBSF@SLACVM.BITNET Old-style UUCP: ...!decwrl!labrea!Lindy!kevin
rgr@m10ux.UUCP (Duke Robillard) (12/24/87)
In article <3280@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> davidli@umn-cs.UUCP (Dave Meile) writes: >In article <7413@sunybcs.UUCP> jmpiazza@gort.UUCP (Joseph M. Piazza) writes: >> With your mentality we would all still be using punch cards on one >>of the world's two computers. > >Really, you could have come up with something a bit cruder to say. And, if >you'd sent it via email, I could have deleted it without having to bother >to reply via News. >-- David Meile Whoa there, Dave. Joe may have been a little vicious, but he does have a point. Long ago (like, in the 60's), people figured out that multi-tasking was better than non-multi-tasking, and the only reason that personal computers didn't do it it is because they weren't powerful enough. With the latest crop of PC's (80x86, 680x0, 32xxx) that restriction is gone. It's only a matter of time before everything swaps. -- | Duke Robillard {ihnp4!}m10ux!rgr | | AT&T Bell Labs m10ux!rgr@ihnp4.UUCP | | Murray Hill, NJ This page accidentally left blank | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) (12/24/87)
[ Followups to alt.flame, where it rightfully belongs. ] Someone writes: >> I'm still waiting to see if someone can come up with a use for TRUE >> multitasking that a typical home user would find very handy but that >> cannot be satisfied by a simple 'carousel' approach. There probably >> are some, especially with message-passing, etc., but none have been >> posted yet (except for people waiting for their compilers to finish -- >> they just need faster integrated compilers, though :) >> >> Robert Gardner >> Here's a real-world example. Note that this is from the programmer's perspective, not the user's. As you will see later, this is irrelevant. The specifications are as follows: You are to design a space invaders-type game. There is one spaceship at the top of the screen, and a gun at the bottom. The spaceship moves across the top of the screen from left to right; as it does so, it "drops" letters forming words down the screen. As the user types on the keyboard, the program checks to see if the letter typed matches the one the gun is currently under. If so, the letter is shot and the gun moves one position to the right (to the next letter in the word. If they don't match, a short error signal is delivered to the user. The screen will look like this: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...<-=O=-> S P A C E W E L L C R A T H A N T H I S H A L L K I L L T H R I L L L A K E G R E A T A N P A R T D R A T S P A C E B E A T H E A R S E A D R E A A T H E R M A P T H A N F O R H E A R T | A /#\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The spaceship moves across the top of the screen at a fixed rate. When it reaches the end of the row, all the rows drop down one, and the ship returns to the left side. To make it more interesting, a range of colors in the spaceship are to be cycled, to make it look like it's spinning. The cycle rate is totally independent of any other regular rate in the program. Don't worry about winning or losing at this point; they'll complicate the issue. Now. Design this program, first on a system with multitasking, and then on a system without it. Discuss the design issues that need to be considered, and how you would address them under each environment. "Be specific; give examples." Whether or not the machine multitasks should be made invisible to the user; both versions should run the same as far as the user is concerened. -------- I designed this very program on the Amiga. I was porting the program from the Atari ST, working from the ST source code. Before posting my approach and ultimate solution to the problem, I want to see how others would address it. That is, if anyone cares..... [In the article titled "Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare...", Dec 22, 1987, ...!uwvax!umn-d-ub!umn-cs!davidli writes:] > How many years have you owned a personal computer Joseph? I don't know about Joseph, but I've been stumbling along for about eleven years now. > Were you ever actually around when punch cards were being used? Yup. IBM 1130. Didn't like it, either. > Were you around when all you could do with a personal computer was toggle > switches on the front panel and bring an AM radio close to the CPU to > produce "music"? Yup. I've even used a ASR-33 TTY. Wow. > Did you ever put together one of those personal computers (you know, > before Radio Shack started mass production of the TRS-80 model I)? No, unfortunately. I lusted after a SOL-20 myself. But then the Commodore PET came out (predates the TRaSh-80, BTW), and I wanted one of those. My first ended up being a C-64. -------- I'm still trying to discover what all this arguing accomplishes... It's fun, though..... _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape ihnp4!ptsfa -\ \_ -_ Recumbent Bikes: dual ---> !{well,unicom}!ewhac O----^o The Only Way To Fly. hplabs / (pronounced "AE-wack") "Work FOR? I don't work FOR anybody! I'm just having fun." -- The Doctor
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (12/24/87)
In article <8155@prls.UUCP> gardner@prls.UUCP (Robert Gardner) writes: >I'm still waiting to see if someone can come up with a use for TRUE >multitasking that a typical home user would find very handy but that >cannot be satisfied by a simple 'carousel' approach. There probably >are some, especially with message-passing, etc., but none have been >posted yet (except for people waiting for their compilers to finish -- >they just need faster integrated compilers, though :) The major difference between carouselling (I love that term) and true multitasking is efficiency. You alluded to these above however the conditions where this is a win are greater than just the compile/edit cycle mentioned. Basically you keep the CPU busy and get more work done. The other advantage to true multitasking is the transparency of it. When you program this becomes self evident. No special steps are needed to run two tasks simultaneously, and flexibility is enhanced. A really nice example is Carolyn's Pallete Tool. This runs as a separate task and can be run with any other program to provide a color adjuster. Plus you don't have to go through hoops/special startup sequences etc like you do with DAs. It doesn't make it better, it demonstrably makes it more efficient over the long term. Anyway, it is a hell of a lot easier to not use than it is to simulate when it isn't built in. My whole case on 'picking a computer' is based on what it *can* do versus what it was *designed* to do. Simply put, rating two computers can be done rationally. If any program that can be written on computer A, can be identically duplicated on computer B. And, a program can be written on computer B that *cannot* be identically duplicated on computer A. Then, computer B can be said to be *more capable* than computer A. If any program that can be written on computer A, can be identically duplicated on computer B. And, the program on computer B is consistently faster than computer A. Then, computer B can be said to be *more powerful* than computer A. If any program can be written for computer A, that computer B cannot duplicate, and any program can be written for computer B that computer A cannot duplicate. Then these two computers can only be compared while specifying the limits of the comparison. Once again, I would like to see a comp.sys.compare newsgroup. --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (12/24/87)
In article <3259@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> davidli@umn-cs.UUCP (Dave Meile) writes: |>Actually, the argument is "Joe Average doesn't NEED Multi-Tasking to |>accomplish the primary uses of a home computer" |> |> writing stuff |> filing stuff |> retrieving stuff |> playing games |> The degenerate case of this argument is "Joe Average User" really only needs a pencil, some paper, and a box to do the above. We are down to arguing opinions. Could we move on now? --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
jim@coplex.UUCP (Jim Sewell) (12/24/87)
In article <11191@oliveb.UUCP>, dragon@olivej.olivetti.com (Give me a quarter or I'll touch you) writes: > > I think that these arguments aren't representative of an *average* user, > since an average user is more likely not to own a modem. Oh, I don't know about that. Our Amiga club did a survey of its users, who would probably fit into most people's idea of "normal" users, and over 80% of them had modems. Granted, most of them used the modem for bbsing, but that is certainly an environment in which one could use multi-process capability, be it true multitasking or simply context switching. Amazingly enough, the RS Color Computer Club I formerly belonged to had a much-much lower percentage of modem users (on the order of around 20% if I remember correctly). Perhaps it is too much of a hassel to do a days work one step at a time? I wouldn't consider myself a "normal" user either, but something I have found quite handy is the ability to have a directory showing up on one page while trying to reorganize it on another. Jim Sewell | "Make knowledge free!" Freelance Programmer | "Anyone need a program? 8-)"
jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) (12/24/87)
In article <323@lakesys.UUCP>, mark@lakesys.UUCP (Mark Storin) writes: > If all he ever needs is simple word processing or file keeping then he can > find those in the simplest of computers (8-bit machines like Apples and > Atari's)... I agree with Mr. Storin's main point fully, and moreover think that Joe Average will, unless he's very careful, actually *learn* something about what his computer can do and take advantage of multitasking eventually, but--I think that a visit to a friend or neighbor with a CoCo 3 running OS-9 will show that one can have multitasking on an 8-bit machine. (Much less a visit to a place with a dozen folks hacking merrily away on a Gimix 6809-based computer.) James Jones
trb@stag.UUCP ( Todd Burkey ) (12/25/87)
In article <7909@e.ms.uky.edu> david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- Resident E-mail Hack) writes: >In article <8155@prls.UUCP> gardner@prls.UUCP (Robert Gardner) writes: >>I'm still waiting to see if someone can come up with a use for TRUE >>multitasking that a typical home user would find very handy but that >>cannot be satisfied by a simple 'carousel' approach. There probably >>are some, especially with message-passing, etc., but none have been >>posted yet (except for people waiting for their compilers to finish -- >>they just need faster integrated compilers, though :) Agreed...even my worst case program (hdscan) takes less than a minute to compile, so I rarely even have the urge to pop it into the background... > ... And yes, I know that background print spooler gadgets can >run on single task DOS's ... I've seen 'em in CP/M, RT-11, Mess-DOS, >and many many others. But I've never been convinced that they >ever ran cleanly. ???Why not??? I have less trouble with the automatic print spoolers on my PC clone and ST than I do on the Unix boxes at work. I can prioritize jobs, edit stuff in the queue, etc on the ST version, but those hacks are mostly fluff and rarely used...besides, I have seen those handy little standalone print spoolers going for under $50 nowadays, so that may be a better solution in the long run... >I'm thinking ahead some time into the future when we'll have >ISDN running everywhere ... In order to handle network communications >cleanly we'll need to have multi-tasking. Umm, by the time we have ISDN running everywhere, our current computers will probably be dust. By then, most of us will probably be running some variant of Unix on our machines if we want to properly utilize ISDN (i.e. we will have BIG drives, some form of USENET access ...which I can't quite picture even two years from now, since we are running about 28MBytes of messages/week now..., very high speed modems, etc.) >[There are] also things like mail daemons >and such that recieve e-mail while you're asleep (or away >or whatever). UUPC seems to work fine on the ST and I have several STadel (ST citadel) boards that poll my Unix box every couple of hours for uucp mail and the comp.sys.atari.st sections. I am sure there are a lot of Amiga systems doing the same (I recall that UUPC came out for the Amiga and Citadel is also running on the Amiga). >For right now? Well, how about killing run-away processes? On the ST OS-9 or the Multi-tasking C shell has the standard ability to do this...And on the Amiga or the ST, you can always hit reset to kill everything, but still keep the things that were out on RAM drives...(I used this feature a lot on both the Amiga and the ST in the early days of using C compilers that were released too soon.) I agree somewhat with Dave Meile on this discussion/argument. In the long run, the average user of a popular computer is not the 'BBS'-type or a person that needs anything more than a few utilities in the form of desk accessories on top of an application. Unfortunately, the IBM PC and the Mac have gained the 'average' user market, to date. Those of us with Amiga's and Atari ST's are either technical enough to appreciate and use the special features of the respective computer, or we had very, very persuasive friends who convinced us that the Amiga/ST was the best computer. The 'average' user is still the person that just buys a Mac or PC for a very specific purpose (usually for writing memos or doing spreadsheets in a business environment). They may run Lightning/Thunder (real time spelling checkers on the PC/ST) in a pseudo background manner, and have a ton of desk accessories or pop up tools, but they rarely go in for the increased complexity that a multi-tasking environment like DesqView offers on the PC. Even the carrousel approach (there, I just multi-tasked and asked my wife for a spelling check...it can also be spelled carousel) is somewhat confusing to people, but I have seen secretaries fall in love with the carrousel programs on the Mac and the ST...although not on the PC version for some reason. -Todd Burkey trb@stag.UUCP
schein@cbmvax.UUCP (Dan Schein CATS) (12/25/87)
I usually dont reply to these net wars because there is never a winner and they only surface again in 6-8 months, but..... In article <444@Lindy.STANFORD.EDU> kevin@Lindy.Stanford.EDU (Kevin Burnett) writes: >In article <2673@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >>Speak for yourself, you nit. You have no idea what *I* do, or what *I* >>need. >I don't believe he said anything about how YOU use your computer. >And, you're asking for this comment, ASSHOLE. Soap Box mode ON *** Comments like these are not needed. If you can not hold a discussion / debate in a more mature adult manner, then please do it in e-mail. I am really getting tired of adding more and more subjects to my kill file. Im sure that hidden in each of these flame throwing messages is a valid point, but in the way these point(s) are presented, its sure hard to find them. Im not asking you to stop this "my dad can beat up your dad" battle (Heck sometimes even I need a good laugh), just use a little more thought into what others think when they read your message and how your message reflects on comp.sys.amiga. Soap Box mode OFF *** -- Dan Schein uucp: {ihnp4|allegra|burdvax|rutgers}!cbmvax!schein Commodore AMIGA Bix: dschein Plink: Dan*CATS 1200 Wilson Drive phone: (215) 431-9100 ext. 9542 West Chester PA 19380 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ All spelling mistakes are a result of my efforts to avoid education :-) +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ I help Commodore by supporting the AMIGA. Commodore supports me by allowing me to form my own suggestions and comments.
droid@mcrware.UUCP (Andy Nicholson) (12/25/87)
> Of course, you can get OS-9 (and IDRIS) for the Atari ST. So there. You > can multi-task to your hearts content, regardless of the machine. BUT I > still insist that, for the non "power user" there's no need for it. > > -- Dave Meile I normally avoid religious wars, but this is too much. Just who are these mythical "non-power-users" that don't need multi-tasking. Everyone is trying to convince you that they don't exist. I'll tell you what. You show joe user what muti-tasking can do and then tell him that he is too unsophisticated to use it. Then duck. Manufacturers who underestimate buyers go out of business. If "joe user" couldn't use multi-tasking, we would not have kludgo simulations (TSR's, desk accessories, etc.). As one of my co-workers posted, it is only a matter of education. Joe user expects magic from a computer. As soon as he realizes a computer can't do two things at once, like he can, he'll be unhappy. He wants multi-tasking. And I'm not picking a bone for the Amiga over the Atari. Note my employer. We only support one of those two machines. And its not the Amiga. Sorry, no cute signature file. Andy Nicholson "Opinions expressed here were placed by Christmas elves trying to get me into trouble." Merry X-MAS!
sbauer@pnet02.cts.com (Scott Bauer) (12/25/87)
One point that has been a bit overlooked by the Desk Accessory/Pop-Up Utility
crowd -- why be forced to "make do" with the limitations that a Desk Accessory
imposes? NOT to suggest that the Desk Accessory are not useful, or that the
programming done by their authors is somehow lacking; what I DO mean is that
in a multi-tasking environment I have my CHOICE of any number of full featured
programs, all of which run together (within the limits of my systems
resources, of course.) So I can use the same word processor and outline
processor and spreadsheet and etc. that I always use, rather than one that can
run as a Desk Accessory (and thus is used mainly for just that reason.)
Scott Bauer
-----------
UUCP: {ihnp4!crash, hplabs!hp-sdd!crash}!gryphon!pnet02!sbauer
INET: sbauer@pnet02.CTS.COMwtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (12/26/87)
I agree that Susan, John and the kids Averageuser family generally does not need to do multitasking at the user level very often. I've spent quite a few hours manning a user support center that helped people deal with stuff from TRS DOS (chuckle) all the way to big multiuser Unix environments. The Averageusers almost always approach the machine in a task-switched modality. For instance, they shrink down the editor window and go browse files for the desired inclde text. It is awful difficult to browse and type into an editor simultaneously unless your've got four hands. BUT.... Writing in a task-switched environment is difficult. I've worked with writing for MS-DOS windows which is a lot like writing for the McIntosh and GEM/TOS environments. You've got to be awful careful about not stepping where you shouldn't be, behaving yourself and being a "good citizen". I find that dealing with the fluff of such an environment is not insurmountable but does detract from my productivity on addressing the desired programming end product. I much prefer working in an environment where the O/S does the dog work of being a good citizen to the system resources. Dynamic control of task priority is also much easier with a real multitasking O/S. The enduser needn't really be aware that some priority control is going on. Such a benefit to the programmer is to be able to control how much time a print spooler gets. When the user is doing hunt-'n-peck, the print priority can be high, and then knocked down when a spelling check is begun. The whole point is that while the enduser may not use the features of a multitasking O/S directly at a high level, it makes life easier for us to develop tools for the enduser. Even if the enduser tools themselves don't take advantage of multitasking, being able to develop under a multitasking envronment allows us to be more productive and shorten the lead time in delivering the product to the enduser. This means for sales (ching ching) for us; and that's what matters most, right? OK, here's an example that really can't be done without a multitasking O/S: the Mimetics Pro Midi Studio. It is diffiult to explain exactly what Pro Midi Studio is like without actually seeing it run. It is true that PMS addresses a relatively small market segment, but applications for other users just haven't been thought up yet. Happy holidays, --Bill
haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) (12/27/87)
I still have not heard one counter argument against the value
that multi-tasking has as a tool for the programmer to use to
write better programs. Perhaps the user does not see this as
multi-tasking, but benfits from it none the less. After all,
this is a powerful tool and we programmers can use it to make
what would otherwise be a difficult task an easy one. This
this translates to less expensive or more feature full programs.
I have never said that multi-tasking was "essential". However,
it is a VERY powerfull and usefull tool for both the software
developer and the user alike. And you need not use it if it is
too much for you.
As far as this OS/9 buisness goes, if it were being distributed
free then it might mean something, but from what's been said it
will be held by only a small fraction of the ST users due to its
price. Thus programmers will not be able to consider the bulk of
the ST market when depending on OS/9, and will not be likely to
do so. So much easier when its included with the basic system!
Thanks, Happy New Year,
Wade.
UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex
ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil
INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COMelg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (12/28/87)
in article <3256@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu>, davidli@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dave Meile) says: > People want computers (when they want them at all) to DO SOMETHING for > them. In the majority of cases with the Atari ST and the Amiga, that > "something" has been: > > writing stuff > filing stuff > retrieving stuff that's been filed > playing games > programming all of the above > > Most of those who read these forums fall under the "programming" category. > Of course, for programmers, multitasking can be a delight. For the person > who is writing a term paper on the microcomputer, why bother? If you have > access to two programs (ala Multifinder or perhaps through a "desk > accessory" [IBM PCs have desk accessories too, folks]) you already have > as much power as you're ever liable to need in most environments. Let's face it, even a Timex Sinclair with 16K of RAM can do all of the above (just a bit slow and limited). A boat-anchor CP/M system can also do all of the above, and would be cheaper (nowadays) besides. But I sure the hell don't like to use one after I've used BSD4.2 & other OS's that take advantage of multitasking. For example, take the term paper. I'm using an 8-bit single-tasking system right now. I set it to printing. Then I go away for 20 minutes while my NX-10 bangs away in near letter quality mode (more "near" than "letter", but that's the breaks!). That irritates me. Greatly. There's a couple of things I could do here: Use my RAM-disk and jam a software interrupt-driven spooler on my LST: device (multitasking!), go out and buy a 512K print spooler (multitasking again, although in this case with a dedicated processor), or any other number of things. All of which are multitasking. All of which are a kludge, and would be unnecessary if real multitasking was available. I remember my first computer. 5K of RAM, 16K of ROM, I was in hawg heaven, a computer all my own, to hack in 6502 assembly language on. I lusted for 16K, because with 16K, you can do anything, right? 64K? forget it, 64K was for rich folks with $2,000 to buy the latest CP/M boat-anchor (so-called because of its size and weight, in this case :-). Disk drives? Why would anybody want disk drives? I can load and save just fine with my cassette recorder! Then I moved up to a 64K machine with a disk drive. Wow. Big time now. I'll never take that 5K machine out of the closet again (even tho I expanded it to 16K). After all, it's just an obsolete toy now, right? and 64K... I can do ANYTHING! Wow, what power. Why would I want one of them fancy dandy 68000 machines, 'specially when they all cost $5,000 for 256K of RAM, and I can do everything they can, on my li'l min-anchor? I mean, I can process words, I can write programs, I can play games... they do all that, right? There's 2 points I wish to make: 1) Some features added to the computer make it more productive and easier to use (compare cassette deck to floppy drive to hard drive!). 2) Most of us are notoriously short on foresight, like I was when I thought that 64K and a floppy drive was the epitomy of computing (after all, I can do everything you can, right? I can process words, play games, etc.?). While you may not see the use of multitasking, I bet you're as foresighted now as I was 10 years ago when I thought that 16K of RAM was big-time for a microcomputer. -- Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg Lafayette, LA 70509 "There's someone in my head, but it's not me...." -PF
jim@coplex.UUCP (Jim Sewell) (12/29/87)
In article <2598@killer.UUCP>, elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) writes: [conversation ommitted] > 2) Most of us are notoriously short on foresight, like I was when I > thought that 64K and a floppy drive was the epitomy of computing (after all, I > can do everything you can, right? I can process words, play games, etc.?). > -- > Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 > {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg Lafayette, LA 70509 > "There's someone in my head, but it's not me...." -PF Speaking of being short on foresight, it was only today that I was modifying my handy dandy disk re-organizer program (Devices are a pain!) and guess what? I was trying to ^XF (save and finish up) out of Emacs and was out of disk space. How many of you have ever told an editor you were finished, fallen short of disk space, and lost everything because the editor was not taught social graces? I'm sure I'm not the only one. Solution? Use my MULTITASKING Amiga to clean out some disk space before I clicked on the retry block of the requestor. Result? I didn't kill my entire family due to the frustration of losing my program. Moral? Even though nearly anything can be simulated with proper programming on a non M-T system, it rarely is. Many programmers take short cuts which do not allow for mistakes. M-T'ing systems are like insurance in case your favorite program has problems. ================================================================================ Jim Sewell "Make knowledge free!" <*> <*> Code: 1-1A /
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (12/29/87)
In article <1374@uhccux.UUCP> lee@uhccux.UUCP (Greg Lee) writes: >In article <2673@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >>In article <3256@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> davidli@umn-cs.UUCP (Dave Meile) writes: > >Mr. Sexton's comments don't bear repeating. It was suggested in another >news group that he has a net variety of Tourette's syndrome. Ah yes, but I'm cute and have great legs. > Would Dave >Meile and others in comp.sys.arari.st please accept an apology from >us amiga folks? Don't apologize for me you nimrod. I have nothing against ST's or their owners. But Atari people who blather in comp.sys.amiga about how the amiga's features are "not needed" are fair game. If you want to flame amiga's, fine. Do it in comp.sys.not.amiga. Do it in alt.flame. But do it in this group, and you just may get a rebuttel. Do it four times and people may get testy. .sig missing in newport beach harbour Richard [kick butt and take names] Sexton
mike@ames.arpa (Mike Smithwick) (12/30/87)
In article <2027@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk> pes@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Smee) writes: > > [deleted a bunch of stuff on how "we really don't need multi-tasking" > >I have an image of telling my machine 'make fred', and then letting it get on >with it while I do a bit of word-processing, or whatever. Only to be hit >milliseconds later with an alert box: > > BACKGROUND COMPILATION NEEDS LIBRARY DISK > PLEASE INSERT LIBRARY DISK INTO DRIVE B > >and, a second or two after I do that: > > FOREGROUND PROCESS NEEDS AUTO-SAVE DISK > PLEASE INSERT DISK INTO DRIVE B > This reminds me of a joke. . . A guy goes to a doctor and says "Doc, it hurts when I do this" (he lifts an arm up, or something) So the doctor says, "well then, don't do that". If running marble-madness slows up a compile too much, don't run marble-madness. The moral of the story is, don't ask us do be limited by others "limitations". As opposed to IBM, and now even (Cr)Apple, who are now bending down to the lowest common denominator, who don't want to burden the average user with unnecessary complexity (the original closed-Mac architecture was a manifestation of this philosophy). -- *** mike (powered by M&Ms) smithwick *** "if it wasn't for venitian blinds, it would be curtains for all of us!" [discalimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]
dpvc@ur-tut.UUCP (Davide P. Cervone) (12/30/87)
In article <2187@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: > What about the example I gave of two resident programs cohabitating > and interacting even though written in different Languages? While > you don't NEED to have multi-tasking to do this, it makes an otherwise > complicated job very much easier, and therefore much more likely to be > successfully accomplished. It certainly is attractive to me because > it means I don't have to "share" any of my source with someone whom > I may want to collaborate with. I think Wade is right on target here. Multi-tasking does not have to be seen by the user to be important. On the Amiga, you can't HELP but use multi- tasking, because the operating system is using it all the time. Each disk drive has a separate "Filing System" process running (use MonProc, you'll see them), there is a separate input task running (I believe that Intuition really is an input handler, so technically, it runs as part of the input device task), each CLI window has a console task associated with it, the serial port has a separate task controlling it. Why is this important? Because it makes it so much easier to do things. For example, early on in the Amiga's life, Matt Dillon (I think) distributed a set of asynchronous file routines. These are very useful, and almost trivial to implement under a multi-tasking OS (not to belittle Matt's work - it's quite good). Or how about the Workbench? Contrary to many people's belief, the WB is NOT the operating system. It's just a program. A plain, old, ordinary program, with no special tricks or hooks. An ordinary mortal could write a program that does similar actions. Witness HackBench. I've often thought about writing a WB replacement myself. If you want to talk about disk swapping, try switching between applications on a Macintosh. It has to load the Finder every time. Why do you think theres a "mini-finder" menu option? I keep trying to pull down the "screen" and use the finder which I expect to still be running back there. I've written programs that monitor other programs (MonProc and MonIDCMP), and that run as input handlers (ClickUpFront, HeliosMouse, wKeys), and some stuff that I haven't released. These would be much more difficult without multi-tasking. Code can be made much more modular with multi-tasking, and smaller, too. Unix people should love this, because you can make programs much more like filters, except you have both ends of the pipe running at the same time, passing data via a message port, or even a PIPE: device. Functions don't have to be duplicated from program to program. For instance, if I write a program that graphs a function, I will not have to add a save-to-IFF-file option, because I already have a program that lets me select a portion of a window or screen and save it as an IFF file. That's a normal program - no special desk- accessory hooks, no special requirements about what programs I can use it with, or what ones I HAVE to have running when I use it. Don't get me wrong, desk-accessories are great (I'd never be able to use a Mac without them), but they are an attempt to achieve multi-taksing where it's not built into the system to start with. Admirable! Great stuff! Keep up the good work! But don't complain when someone offers you what you've been trying to achieve all along. > THE POINT IS THIS: As a programmer I find the idea of writing > such a program as being much simpler with multi-tasking facilities > than without them. Exactly! Right on! > My question for you is, what do you have against multi-tasking? I also wonder the same thing. Where's the beef? > Take OUR (all of us who have given testomonials) word for it that > the disk swapping "nightmare" is indeed just a bad dream. As I mentioned before, I'd hate to have to load the Workbench in from disk every time I quit using a program! I'm much happier letting it run in the background until I need it again. One last comment: (finally :-) the times I find multi-tasking the most helpful is when I WASN'T expecting to have to use it. If I'm using a word processor writing a paper, and need to check some results, I can just start up my statistical analysis program to get my answers (and I can keep on writing while it loads in of the floppy). I don't want to have to know ahead of time that I need to start up whatever carousel or special multi-tasking editor I need in order to do this. If I knew ahead of time, I'd have done the statistics before I started the word-processor! Well, I've gone on far too long as it is. Thanks for listening. > Wade. >UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex >ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil >INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COM Davide P. Cervone dpvc@tut.cc.rochester.edu dpvc@ur-tut.UUCP DPVC@UORDBV.BITNET
rnss@ihuxy.ATT.COM (Ron Schreiner) (12/30/87)
Well this subject line get my vote for the "longest-most-usless" aword of 87. If you are not clever enough to take advantage of multi-tasking then don't use it, and stop telling everyone "who needs it ? " -- Ron Schreiner AT&T Bell Labs ...ihnp4!ihuxy!rnss
steven@lakesys.UUCP (Steven Goodman) (12/31/87)
In article <2323@ihuxy.ATT.COM> rnss@ihuxy.UUCP (Ron Schreiner) writes: >Well this subject line get my vote for the "longest-most-usless" aword >of 87. If you are not clever enough to take advantage of multi-tasking >then don't use it, and stop telling everyone "who needs it ? " > > >-- >Ron Schreiner AT&T Bell Labs ...ihnp4!ihuxy!rnss AGREED! I have been reading this board on and off for some time now. This due to many users on my system whom use st's. Multi-tasking requires very little "cleverness" and the OS often does the work for you. It doesn't take long to see the advantages and use them. For me, if I had to return to a single tasking enviorment it would be like some of you having to return to a 40 column screen (bleech). Your 68000 is mot likely barely used. Why not give it abit extra in the way of jobs? Multi-tasking makes you far more productive. Useless award - this is right. I would guess that the most likely feature to be seen on all future machines will be OS's that multitask. Why the heck should you have to stop working just because your OS can't "talk and chew gum" at the same time? -- Steven Goodman | Lake Systems Milwaukee, Wisconsin | "A smart man talks, 1 (414) 744-7033 | a wise man listens" UUCP: {ihnp4,uwvax}!uwmcsd1!lakesys!steven |
mike@ames.arpa (Mike Smithwick) (01/03/88)
Distribution: na Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. In article <3243@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> davidli@umn-cs.UUCP (Dave Meile) writes: > >The "average user" would be satisfied with a desk accessory, while the Just who is this "average user" by the way?? Is there some ANSI standard committee which is formulating the official "SU 88" specs Computer Companies are supposed to follow?? >I find that I get to do many little things around the house while I'm in >a terminal session. I can catch up on my reading, prepare dinner, change >record albums, everything except un-ARC files I'm downloading (which is >about the only thing I'd do if I owned a multi-tasking system). > >Face it, most of us are (for the most part) linear beings. We are huh? Right now I'm cooking dinner, typing on my computer and listening to Prairie Home Companion on the radio. Sounds like multi-tasking to me. Don't forget that users who are running a single program could very well be multi-tasking and not know it. For instance, color-cycling in Graphic Craft spawned a subtask and operated independently. I believe that Word Perfect's printer module is a separate program from the editor, at least on the Amiga. -- *** mike (powered by M&Ms) smithwick *** "if peanut oil comes from peanuts, and olive oil comes from olives, where does baby oil come from?" --- Lily Tomlin [discalimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]
mike@ames.arpa (Mike Smithwick) (01/03/88)
[". . .which hung in the air, precisely the way bricks don't"] In article <3279@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> davidli@umn-cs.UUCP (Dave Meile) writes: > > But I still insist that, for the non "power user" there's no need for it. > >-- Dave Meile "well, I for one know, that the 'average' person just doesn't Need a telephone!" - latter 19th century "The 'average' person just doesn't need a disk drive, a cassette recorder will do just fine" - 1979 "Well, when we were designing this thing, Jay asked 'So, how much memory do you think people will put on this thing?' We all looked at each other, and said that NO ONE would ever have any need for more than 512K. So he gave the graphic chips 19 pin addressing." Dale Luck (I think) explaining the origins of Chip memory. -- *** mike (powered by M&Ms) smithwick *** "if peanut oil comes from peanuts, and olive oil comes from olives, where does baby oil come from?" --- Lily Tomlin [discalimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]
rwa@auvax.UUCP (Ross Alexander) (01/03/88)
In article <3805@ames.arpa>, mike@ames.arpa (Mike Smithwick) writes: > In article <3279@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> davidli@umn-cs.UUCP (Dave Meile) writes: > > But I still insist that, for the non "power user" there's no need for it. [ several examples of short-sighted thinking ommited for brevity] > "Well, when we were designing this thing, Jay asked > 'So, how much memory do you think people will put > on this thing?' We all looked at each other, and said > that NO ONE would ever have any need for more than 512K. > So he gave the graphic chips 19 pin addressing." > Dale Luck (I think) explaining the > origins of Chip memory. Pinouts on chips are not exactly free; they have a definite manufacturing cost and per-connection reliability implications. Engineers spend quite a bit of time juggling this scarce and valuable resource (the pins) amongst all the possible things that they might wish to ship in and out of the package. Hence all those bl**dy multiplexed address/data schemes on cpu's (almost anything from Intel last time I looked), multiplexed addresses on DRAMS, kluges to redefine pins according to system configuration (Intel again, at least on the 808[68] parts), and ghods know how many other egregious hacks over the years. I mean, most engineers understand the KISS* princple, and they don't design these horrible interfaces just for the joy of complexity [well, most of them, anyway; I have dark suspicions...]. So let's not be _too_ critical of Jay - your other examples were much more convincing. My pet peeve is that the Atari people didn't put a base-and-limit register into the big glue chip that controls the memory array(s) on the ST. If I had base and limit registers, I could get true, transparent multitasking up on the ST (which, of course, Dave Meile could ignore; that's his privilege). -- Ross Alexander, Sr. Systems Programmer & bottlewasher @ Athabasca University, alberta!auvax!rwa * KISS == Keep It Simple, Stupid!
sfr@praxis.co.uk (Stephen Rickaby) (01/04/88)
In article <886@louie.udel.EDU> rminnich@udel.EDU (Ron Minnich) writes: >In article <11191@oliveb.UUCP> dragon@olivej.olivetti.com (Give me a quarter or I'll touch you) writes: >> >>I think that these arguments aren't representative of an *average* user, >>since an average user is more likely not to own a modem. Making a backup > (and many other contributions) I think that there is an aspect of this argument which seems to have escaped many contributors: a good multitasking operating system gives the user *far more* than merely the ability to launch more than one application at a time. Principally, the application designer is able to design multitasking applications which use daemons for part of their functioning, but appear to the user as single programs, just cleverer. We all use these facilities in Un*x without thinking about it (cf. elm), but for the software designer the benefits are cleaner design of complex programs, and for the user a nicer, cleverer application (spool printing, concurrent messaging, simultaneous computation and display in complex graphics applications, etc etc). The bottom line here is that the *average user*, if there is such a person, does not have to bother to understand, or even know he is using, a multitasking opsys to benefit from it. Steve Rickaby | ,,, Praxis Systems plc | < O_O > 20 Manvers Street, Bath, BA1 1PX, UK | ==( . )== Tel: +44 225 444700 Tx: 445848 PRAXIS G | Prrrouwf, Wackwacka sfr%praxis.uuc@ukc.ac.uk | !mcvax!ukc!praxis!sfr | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- '1$x/\{{[^}]*}\}/\{<1\}/q/' ... do it in lower case, it's more polite.
cthulhu@athena.mit.edu (Jim Reich) (01/05/88)
>>Personally, if somebody is willing to give me $1000, I'd buy one. > >Typical Atari (ST) user. "I would have bought an Amiga if I could >have afforded it." > *** begin hypocritical, one-time response to arguments (a) There isn't much of a price difference (b) Protesting against having a feature is pointless -- if you don't want multitasking, just don't click that second icon and you'll never be the wiser *** end hypocrisy *** begin honesty (c) Amiga-ST arguments are pointless. The entire multitasking argument is a massive waste of vitriol, disk space and reading time. I would propose starting a "computer-wars" newsgroup and sending all of these people to there. -I- would sure as hell not be willing to moderate it though-- I don't even want to read it. I doubt anyone else wants too either. (d) I am ashamed that I even wrote a letter about this. Don't even bother responding to (a) and (b) -- I'm taking a moral stand on this one... replies will REALLY go to /dev/null, do not pass go, do not collect $200. JUST SAY NO TO FLAMES. -- Jim
knudsen@ihwpt.ATT.COM (mike knudsen) (01/07/88)
> But Atari people who blather in comp.sys.amiga about how > the amiga's features are "not needed" are fair game. > If you want to flame amiga's, fine. Do it in comp.sys.not.amiga. Do it > in alt.flame. But do it in this group, and you just may get a rebuttel. > Do it four times and people may get testy. I have a better offer for Atarians. Post your flames about how useless multi-tasking is to the Coco newsgroup comp.sys.m6809. We'd be glad to have the extra traffic. And to tell you how great it is to have a multi-tasking OS9 Level 2 with windows and graphics, all on a $129 "toy" computer from Radio Shack. I like compiling, editing 2 files, and printing all at once. And I'm reminded of this when I have to use a PClone and can't just go to another window from the program I'm running, which never seems to have a shell escape either (Shell? In MSDOS? Sorry, another OS/9 term slipped in..) -- Mike J Knudsen ...ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen Bell Labs(AT&T) Delphi: RAGTIMER CIS: <memory failure, too many digits> "Just say NO to MS-DOS!"
db@hoptoad.uucp (David Beckemeyer) (01/07/88)
In article <2209@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: > ... As far as this OS/9 buisness goes, if it were being distributed > free then it might mean something, but from what's been said it > will be held by only a small fraction of the ST users due to its > price. Thus programmers will not be able to consider the bulk of > the ST market when depending on OS/9, and will not be likely to > do so. So much easier when its included with the basic system! > So are you implying that if Multitasking were free to all users, it would be used? Say if a multi-tasking TOS compatible kernel were available free to all users of the ST. In other works a free runtime-only kernel to anybody that asks. Maybe even Atari gives it aways with each machine. Programs developed for the multitasking kernel will run on any machine with the free kernel installed. End-users get the runtime kernel free. Developers pay for a "development kit" that includes non-PD documentation and programming language interfaces. How many people would be interested in such a thing? At what price for the developers kit? If I get enough replies, I might consider making the run-time RTX program FREE. David Beckemeyer President - Beckemeyer Development Tools 478 Santa Clara Ave, Oakland CA, 94610 UUCP: ...!ihnp4!hoptoad!bdt!david
alex@.UUCP (Alex Laney) (01/07/88)
In article <2027@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk> pes@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Smee) writes: > >I can't think of *any* two tasks which I do on my home machine which >take enough time to make m/p profitable, and which could co-exist sensibly >with only two floppy drives. What about formatting a floppy while you are running your Word-Processor, and your floppy is full? What I like is the ability in Multi-tasking systems, is the ability to SUSPEND, and not just ABORT a program, when I need to interrupt. It's pretty arrogant to say that because I can't think of any, that [insert any feature] is useless! While your floppy disk configuration limits you, this still limits you in a single-task O.S. It is irrelevant to multi-tasking versus single-tasking! There are lots of tasks that even if you do a Terminate and Stay-Resident, will need you to swap disks, if you are out of room, etc. Batch files that have hard-coded drive designations will still be a problem if you have other floppys in place. -- Alex Laney alex@xicom.UUCP ...utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!xios!xicom!alex Xicom Technologies, 205-1545 Carling Av., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada We may have written the SNA software you use. The opinions are my own.
phil@titan.rice.edu (William LeFebvre) (01/08/88)
In article <3259@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> davidli@umn-cs.UUCP (Dave Meile) writes: >...The >argument here isn't whether multi-tasking is "neat", or that it doesn't >have its uses. The argument here is whether you should choose brand XX >computer "simply" because it has the capability of multi-tasking. > >It's a nice fribjob, but not necessary to do stuff. Lots of microcomputer >owners know that, but Amiga owners somehow don't seem to feel that the >other features of their computer are enough to REALLY make a home user >want to buy one. WRONG! There are other things about the Amiga besides multi-tasking that make it worth buying: outstanding color graphics (specifically, HAM mode), the versatility made possible by the "copper" co-processor (I feel that we are currently only scratching the surface), outstanding sound, reasonable price, easy interface to current video technology (making things like "desktop video" possible). I'd like to see Marble Madness! running on an Atari ST, or a Macintosh, or an IBM. I don't think it would look nearly as impressive as it dones on the Amiga---with the exception of the Mac II (which is prohibitively priced anyway). The same comment goes for Arkanoid. The Amiga is not just a game-playing machine. But the games serve as a good example of the machine's capability and potential. William LeFebvre Department of Computer Science Rice University <phil@Rice.edu>
martin@lakesys.UUCP (Martin Wiedmeyer) (01/08/88)
In article <3797@hoptoad.uucp> db@hoptoad.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) writes: >In other words, a free >runtime-only kernel to anybody that asks. Maybe even Atari gives >it aways with each machine. Programs developed for the multitasking >kernel will run on any machine with the free kernel installed. > >How many people would be interested in such a thing? At what price >for the developers kit? > From the laborious Multi-tasking discussion which has been going on here, it sounds like there may be quite a few. You're more familiar with marketing software than I, so I wouldn't hazard to suggest a price for the developers' kit. But I would caution you from pricing yourself out of the market. What good is the kernel, if there is no software to run with it? >If I get enough replies, I might consider making the run-time RTX >program FREE. > > David Beckemeyer > President - Beckemeyer Development Tools It looks like you may indeed have the right approach. I've admired your work in the past. I hope you get enough replies to start up your idea! Marty Wiedmeyer Dratted Pnews Dratted Pnews Dratted Pnews Dratted Pnews Dratted Pnews Dratted Pnews -- | Mort d'Hump - The Milwaukee Shepherd/Express | | Lake Systems, Milwaukee, WI | | UUCP: {ihnp4,uwvax}!uwmcsd1!lakesys!martin | | Disclaimer: I take the heat for my own (mis)statements..... |
pes@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Smee) (01/08/88)
Oh, <deleted>.
NO ONE SAID MULTI-TASKING IS USELESS. NO ONE WAS FLAMING ANY MACHINE FOR
HAVING IT.
I'm sorry I spoke. Yes, M/T is nice/handy/whatever, but I still haven't
been convinced that it is the be-all and end-all, particularly for most
'home users' (non-developers? come on, you know who I mean, I hope.)
In the interests of net peace and harmony, I should be reachable by any
of:
Smee at UK.AC.BRISTOL (JANET/UK)
Smee at UK.AC.BRISTOL via UKACRL.BITNET (BITNET)
Smee at BRISTOL.AC.UK thru any of the ARPA gates that support
domain addressing
or
pes at bath63 via whatever return address you can work out from the
header of this message.
Send further flames to me directly. (Some mailer enroute will probably
bounce them anyway, so I shouldn't have to read much :-)
Meanwhile, someone needs to set up an electronic mail study group, because
I tried when writing the original question to make it clear that I was
honestly seeking information, rather than trying to start another flame
war. Obviously I didn't get it right -- which appears often to be a problem
with this form of discussion. Sorry. (And, P.S., these groups are probably
not the place to discuss that. Where is?)haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) (01/09/88)
>In article <3797@hoptoad.uucp> db@hoptoad.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) writes: >>In other words, a free >>runtime-only kernel to anybody that asks. Maybe even Atari gives >>it aways with each machine. Programs developed for the multitasking >>kernel will run on any machine with the free kernel installed. >> >>How many people would be interested in such a thing? At what price >>for the developers kit? See, something productive may have actually come out of this discussion despite it's supposedly having been dead months ago! Thanks, Wade. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COM
tsl@netsys.UUCP (Tom Livingston) (01/10/88)
In article <516@ra.rice.edu> phil@Rice.edu (William LeFebvre) writes: >In article <3259@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> davidli@umn-cs.UUCP (Dave Meile) writes: >> >>It's a nice fribjob, but not necessary to do stuff. Lots of microcomputer >>owners know that, but Amiga owners somehow don't seem to feel that the >>other features of their computer are enough to REALLY make a home user >>want to buy one. Wrong! The Amiga has several nice features, so does the ST. I love my ST very much, but I'd also love to have an Amiga too! It does lots of things that the Atari can't, or won't. But, of course, We do have price in our favor. (Note: I haven't considerered the Amiga 500 yet, and it seems to be the most promising as for competeing with the ST) >WRONG! There are other things about the Amiga besides multi-tasking that >make it worth buying: outstanding color graphics (specifically, HAM >mode), the versatility made possible by the "copper" co-processor (I feel >that we are currently only scratching the surface), outstanding sound, >reasonable price, easy interface to current video technology (making >things like "desktop video" possible). I'd like to see Marble Madness! >running on an Atari ST, or a Macintosh, or an IBM. I don't think it would That's true! The Amiga does have impressive graphics -- But so does the ST, in it's own fasion. We can do 512 colors at once (yes, I know, it's dificult), but we still can. Both computers market niche's are differen't. Excuse me, how much did you pay for your Amiga? I paid $839 for an Atari 1040ST with a color monitor, mouse, DS drive, and 1 meg of memory. >look nearly as impressive as it dones on the Amiga---with the exception of >the Mac II (which is prohibitively priced anyway). The same comment goes >for Arkanoid. Aha! But the Mac II is in a completely different class... you've heared of the 68020, havent you? It'll blow the ST or the Amiga, or a normal Mac plain out of the water. > >The Amiga is not just a game-playing machine. But the games serve as a Wasn't the Amiga first designed as an exsepnsive game playing machine? Hmmm... To everyone who actaully read this blatent spew of machine bashing, I'm sorry. I really should control myself more, and so should other people. Does everyone realise how long this has been going on??? _____________ / --/ __ _______ (_/ (_) / / / <_ Livingston { decuac,ihnp4 }!netsys!tsl
exodus@uop.edu (G. Onufer) (01/12/88)
What are we trying to prove here? Two similar machines (processor, memory, NO FLAMES ABOUT CUSTOM CHIPS!) that run many similar programs, right? And since does the ST not multi-task? Are you Amiga owners so brain-dead that you do not realize that OS-9, Idris, Minix, and a couple of custom ports paid for by European firms (and not for commercial use) are _all_ multi-tasking Operating Systems (And _STANDARDS_ at that, unlike the Amiga kernal [or whatever you would like to call it]). I'd prefer to write truly portable (System V) applications than to compile, edit, and listen to a glorified music box at the same time. Summary: Both systems can multi-task, Commodore does not have a monopoly on this feature. As soon as an Amiga can make the Sun-4 obsolete, call me and I may find it worth buying. Until then, I am sick of reading Amiga owners' comments about what their computer can do and my computer supposedly cannot.
andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) (01/15/88)
In article <892@uop.edu> exodus@uop.edu (G. Onufer) writes: > >What are we trying to prove here? Two similar machines (processor, memory, >NO FLAMES ABOUT CUSTOM CHIPS!) that run many similar programs, right? > >And since does the ST not multi-task? Are you Amiga owners so brain-dead >that you do not realize that OS-9, Idris, Minix, and a couple of custom I really hate to add to this thread, but this comment is so 'out of it' that someone should, or the whole thing will start all over again... You're missing the point entirely. The argument isn't whether or not the ST can multitask (if you've been reading the postings you'll note I pointed out OS-9 is on the ST) but whether or not a computer *should* multitask. Yes, that's right. People have been arguing against multitasking itself. This has nothing to do with what machine one is using. Some people without multitasking on their computers have been arguing that it is unnecessary. Now do you understand ? -- andy finkel {ihnp4|seismo|allegra}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo." Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
harald@ccicpg.UUCP ( Harald Milne) (01/15/88)
In article <892@uop.edu>, exodus@uop.edu (G. Onufer) writes: > What are we trying to prove here? Two similar machines (processor, memory, > NO FLAMES ABOUT CUSTOM CHIPS!) that run many similar programs, right? Wrong. Unless you cripple the Amiga, to make it compatable it with the Atari ST. The simularities don't exist in hardware, much less in software. > And since does the ST not multi-task? Are you Amiga owners so brain-dead > that you do not realize that OS-9, Idris, Minix, and a couple of custom > ports paid for by European firms (and not for commercial use) are _all_ > multi-tasking Operating Systems (And _STANDARDS_ at that, unlike the Amiga > kernal [or whatever you would like to call it]). An ST can multi-task. The Amiga can run any of the above mentioned OS you feel like. What you are missing here, is the BIG picture. Which is as follows: 1) The Amiga comes box stock with a multi-tasking OS. The Atari does not. 2) IDRIS announced by Atari, and eventually System V, will NOT run a single program that currently exists for the Atari. No backward compatability. The same would go for the Amiga, if it supported deviant strains of multi-tasking OS's that aren't backward compatable. 3) Since the Amiga comes with multi-tasking, and it's obviously supported, no need to change to a new OS to achieve this. The result is, in this environment, all Amiga multi-tasking works on ALL Amiga's. It's simply compatable. > I'd prefer to write truly portable (System V) applications than to compile, > edit, and listen to a glorified music box at the same time. That's nice if you like a yucky OS like System V. Just how portable is a UNIX binary. > Summary: Both systems can multi-task, Commodore does not have a monopoly > on this feature. Agreed. > As soon as an Amiga can make the Sun-4 obsolete, > call me and I may find it worth buying. How much do you want to spend? Do you have a personal Sun at home? > Until then, I am sick > of reading Amiga owners' comments about what their computer can do > and my computer supposedly cannot. Well you are in the wrong newsgroup to discuss that topic. -- Work: Computer Consoles Inc. (CCI), Advanced Development Group (ADG) Irvine, CA (RISCy business! Home of the CCI POWER 6/32) UUCP: uunet!ccicpg!harald
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (01/16/88)
In article <892@uop.edu> exodus@uop.edu (G. Onufer) writes: > >I'd prefer to write truly portable (System V) applications than to compile, >edit, and listen to a glorified music box at the same time. Oh. I didn't know you could do that on OS-9, Idris, Minix, and a couple of custom ports which will never see the light of day :-) -- Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just {ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday." gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame
tainter@ihlpg.ATT.COM (Tainter) (01/19/88)
In article <492@.UUCP>, alex@.UUCP (Alex Laney) writes: > >In article <2027@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk> pes@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Smee) writes: >> I can't think of *any* two tasks which I do on my home machine >> which take enough time to make m/p profitable, and which could >> co-exist sensibly with only two floppy drives. I have one application I ran into at home on one of my single processing machines. I was dissassembling a rather large piece of code to find references to a particular set of routines. The disassembly output was many times as large as my available disk space put the references I needed were quite small. If I could have piped (UNIX terminology for sending the output of one process directly into the input of another process) this output into a grep (a line oriented regular expression pattern matcher) I would not have run into disk problems and would not have had to manually subdivide this work. Clearly, since he doesn't have support for it he isn't doing some of the tasks he could be doing. Daemons for many purposes could be 'in the background'. Print spooling, disk capacity monitoring, memory consolidaters, memory allocation precalculators and well as piping. Note: One of the fun things one can do with pipelines is send a chunk of text from inside a wordprocessor/editor through a formatting program as I have done with this message. > What about formatting a floppy while you are running your Word- > Processor, and your floppy is full? What I like is the ability in > Multi-tasking systems, is the ability to SUSPEND, and not just > ABORT a program, when I need to interrupt. Actually, this doesn't take multiprocessing (i.e. concurrent running processes). To do it in the general case it does or one of the kludges like memory resident programs. > Alex Laney alex@xicom.UUCP ...utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!xios!xicom!alex --j.a.tainter
stever@videovax.Tek.COM (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) (01/26/88)
In article <4645@ihlpg.ATT.COM>, J. A. Tainter (tainter@ihlpg.ATT.COM) writes: > In article <492@.UUCP>, alex@.UUCP (Alex Laney) writes: >> >> In article <2027@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk> pes@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Smee) >> writes: >>> I can't think of *any* two tasks which I do on my home machine >>> which take enough time to make m/p profitable, and which could >>> co-exist sensibly with only two floppy drives. [ rest deleted ] I was debugging a fairly large BASIC program the other night, and ran into a directory handling problem (I was using Carolyn Scheppner's code). What I needed to do was to look at the file that was being produced, but it is very difficult from BASIC. And when I got out of BASIC to do a TYPE ram:temp, my list window size was lost. Easy solution (on an Amiga 2000, with lots of memory), is to open a CLI window and push it to the background before starting up BASIC. When I want to look at the output file, I just shove the BASIC window to the back and there is the CLI prompt, staring me in the face. Simple, even for simpletons. And only on an Amiga. Steve Rice ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord! * new: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com old: {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver}!tektronix!videovax!stever
alex@venus.xicom.UUCP (Alex Laney) (02/02/88)
[Does Jerry Pournelle complain about "PRINT" overhead?] [Does Jerry Pournelle dream of "PRINT" without multi-tasking overhead?] In article <4645@ihlpg.ATT.COM>, tainter@ihlpg.ATT.COM (Tainter) writes: > In article <492@.UUCP>, alex@.UUCP (Alex Laney) writes: > > > > What about formatting a floppy while you are running your Word- > > Processor, and your floppy is full? What I like is the ability in > > Multi-tasking systems, is the ability to SUSPEND, and not just > > ABORT a program, when I need to interrupt. > > Actually, this doesn't take multiprocessing (i.e. concurrent > running processes). To do it in the general case it does or one > of the kludges like memory resident programs. What DOES need multi-tasking in the above example (though not perfectly spelled out) is that if I'm editing a file, the formatting requires attention from the system as well. Not just "suspend" the word processor and do the format. So, whether it is implemented using TSR's or not, you do have concurrently running processes. This is not the same as having two TSR's that you hot-key between. There is a difference. The topic is multi-tasking, is it useful for the typical user?, and the answer is yes, no matter how it is implemented. What us Amiga users say beyond that, is that multi-tasking meaning having a task table and such, is a better implementation than using TSR's. Using TSR's means adding more code to each program that handles hot-keys. To trap the interrupt, etc. The Mac's implementation of Juggler looks extremely sophisticated for what should be a simple issue: give my process some of the CPU time. I'll agree, it may be somewhat misleading that the Amiga advertising implies that only the Amiga has multi-tasking. Butj, it supports it better than MS-DOS, TOS, or Juggler. But, to explain the difference in a 30-second clip, well ... :-) YES, YES, this is running on ....
Michael_M_Butler@cup.portal.com (02/19/88)
Get real. DAs are just bogus fake multitasking. What Multitasking buys you in a robust OS, with some reasonable odds of not crashing, is a "MIX 'N' MATCH" approach, a la carte, versus "It'll do everything you want: err, whay would you want to do *that*?" (aka "Integrated Software Packages"). Ten months ago, as I was saying goodbye to some friends in a Minneapolis C=A dealer's sales room, I overheard a serious-sounding customer off in the far corner, talking to the salesguy: "...don't think I'll *ever* need more than two meg..." I grin. MT is the same story. Now, if only C=A had had the sense to lay some *good* "DA"-like code and utils on us, all of which used clipboards, with public availability of the critical sourcecode... Naah, never mind. They should have done that two years ago. Michael [my fancy trailer bar is at the cleaners] Butler Xanadu Operating Company / Palo Alto, CA