tsouth@pro-pac.CTS.COM (Todd South) (12/24/87)
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. What world are you living in? Seems to me that most of the "masses" ARE buying personal computers. That's why prices go down! Remember general economics. :-) >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just don't want to believe that we bought an "outdated" computer.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! Hey, no denying that. I have an Apple ][ that can STILL do things no other computer can! >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. One can never have enough power. There is always an application that the computer user eventually finds too large to put into one single task. Your conceptualization here depicts everyone in the world as idiots that have neither the inclination nor the fortitude to grow or expand their own knowledge. Pretty damn stupid stance when talking to a forum of people that _by their presence in this forum_ want to learn. >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 I won't say "flame on!" because this letter is not meant to take that stance. But, I want you to consider the foolish statements that you are throwing to the people of this forum. I, personally, do not own an Amiga. But, I would love to purchase one (when I pay off the hard drive, the modem, the car, Christmas, etc.... :-) ). Why? Because the Amiga represents the first TRUE and GRANDSCALE initiative of putting a power system into the hands of the little guy at an affordable price. You sound (correct me if I am wrong) like someone that is trying to justify their buying an Atari ST. Taking that for granted, all I can say is that I feel that you should reconsider why you bought a computer, and not everyone else on THIS forum. If multi-tasking turns you off, then fine. Yet, almost every computer user I know in Hawaii gripes and complains about the fact that they cannot runs at least two tasks at the same time! (Non-Amy owners, that is) I run a bbs that works off of two ports running an emulated net. I know, you say, "What the heck is an emulated net?". It is a net that is running off of two Apple //gs's using a CMS SD80 SCSI hard drive for the networking. Now, I have NO fileserving capability built into the system at all, so everything I do on it is a complete hack I put together with software to emulate the networking of two ports into one large harddrive without crashing my directories constantly. Even when Apple Computers, Inc. gets off their butts and finally releases AppleTalk's fileserver to lowly peons like me, it will require a SEPERATE computer to run the file serving activities! This stinks, and I have been looking to get a system that will allow me to run UNIX (any version) on the Amy 2000, but have been unable to find that at present. Yet, in the long run, I WILL lok towards getting the Amy 2000 as my central home workstation because of the abilities that it will allow me in the home business that I run. That's reason 1 of a couple of thousand situations that I can think of as to why I need multi-tasking. If you would like, I can sit down and make out a semi-complete list of the first thousand. :-) Not everyone is going to play chess and download at the same time, mate. But, your assumption that the average user has no use of a multi-tasking environment is really a stagnant concept. Unfortunately, the jerks working on CD-ROMs for the Apples, Mac's, Amiga's, and whatever else all seem to take this same attitude to the personal computer user. I think the idea is that if they come out with a reasonably priced readable/writeable/ERASEable CD environment that no one will buy it because no personal user has a need for that much memory! Sounds like the same thing that they are saying, you are propagating. I still remember someone who sounded very much like you talking about computer memory a long time ago. I think he was saying something along the lines that no personal user could EVER find a need for any application that used over 64K of memory! :-) Todd South +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Todd South : Ewa Beach, HI. | The more I drink,| | Uucp: crash!pnet01!pro-simasd!pro-pac!tsouth | The more all this| | Pacific Proline (808) 499-2831 -1007 2400bd | makes sense... | +------------------------------------------------------------------+