01659@AECLCR.BITNET (Greg Csullog) (08/05/89)
Some netters replied to my first sermon on multitasking with the classical response about doing something else while downloading files. Hell, you do not need a multitasking environment to do this, just get a hold of one of the telecom packages on the market that allows backgound file transfers. You don't need a full blown multitasking environment for something as simple as file transfers in the background!
mitchell@janus.uucp (Evan Mitchell) (08/05/89)
In article <8908041840.AA00412@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> 01659@AECLCR.BITNET (Greg Csullog) writes: >Some netters replied to my first sermon on multitasking with the classical >response about doing something else while downloading files. Hell, you do >not need a multitasking environment to do this, just get a hold of one of >the telecom packages on the market that allows backgound file transfers. > >You don't need a full blown multitasking environment for something as simple >as file transfers in the background! Your absolutely right! However, I commented about your previous sermon in the Amiga group, and about 30 or so users responded with exactly how useful multitasking is for everyone, especially non-programmers/tech types like myself! Check it out! -Evan _______________________________________________________________________________ | Evan Jay Mitchell EECS/ERL Industrial Liaison Program | | mitchell@janus.berkeley.edu University of California at Berkeley | | Phone: (415) 643-6687 | | "Think, it ain't illegal...yet!" - George Clinton | |_____________________________________________________________________________|
bill@meadow.UUCP (Bill Foster) (08/06/89)
> > Some netters replied to my first sermon on multitasking with the classical > response about doing something else while downloading files. Hell, you do > not need a multitasking environment to do this, just get a hold of one of > the telecom packages on the market that allows backgound file transfers. > > You don't need a full blown multitasking environment for something as simple > as file transfers in the background! I happen to agree 100%. If you are going to do multiasking correctly, you need the proper OS. Tos with Beckemeyer's RTX is the best I've got and is actually fairly stable until you run out of memory (very easy to do on 1 megs) This way, a getty can be polling the serial ports for a login from some RS232 device such as a remote computer via modem, thus creating a form of network. Files may be sent from machine to machine for storage/printing etc. Something along the lines of ANET-midi combined with my message networker. You may also, of course, run whatever else you want to in the background. The thing is, the OS and the getty program must be stable enough to avoid a reset for hopefully days if not weeks. We really need TOS 1.4 - my os is broken. My last set of 6 1040 roms cost me $30+tax. Microsoft sells each version of MS-DOS seperately, but theirs works. What about this german university multi-tasking RTOS????? Seems like this would be as easy to obtain as 1.4 - does it lie on top of TOS or replace the roms? BFOSTER = GEnie, WHTB33B = Prodigy {~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~} {~} <> Bill Foster <> | /|\ {~} {~} | {~} {~} /|\ | Vegetarians 4-ever {~} {~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~} {amdahl,hplabs,decwrl}!pacbell!cpro!meadow!bill
yuan@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Yuan 'Hacker' Chang) (08/06/89)
In article <8908041840.AA00412@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> 01659@AECLCR.BITNET (Greg Csullog) writes:
-Some netters replied to my first sermon on multitasking with the classical
-response about doing something else while downloading files. Hell, you do
-not need a multitasking environment to do this, just get a hold of one of
-the telecom packages on the market that allows backgound file transfers.
-
-You don't need a full blown multitasking environment for something as simple
-as file transfers in the background!
Alright! 8) If I want to run spell-checking on a document in
my word processor, heck, re-write the word processor so that it
runs in the background. After all, I don't need a full blown
multitasking environment for something as simple as spell-checking in
the background. While I'm at it, I might as well re-write my database
manager so that it'll generate reports, re-index, and sort in the
background; re-write my spreadsheet program so that it'll recalculate
in the background; re-write the CAD program so that it'll re-draw in the
background.
Hmmm, I think I'll be one old fool by the time I'm done making
changes to all these programs so that I could do something as simple as
spell-check, recalc, report generation, re-index, sort, and re-draw in the
background without needing a full blown multitasking environment. Not to
mention that my CS prof will probably hit me on the head with the complete
Unix manuals... 8)
I hope by now you'll realize that by having a multitasking
environment, both the user and the developer will not have to worry about
how to get a program to run concurrently with another, because the system
takes care of that for you.
--
Yuan Chang "What can go wrong, did"
UUCP: {uunet,ucbvax,dcdwest}!ucsd!nosc!uhccux!yuan
ARPA: uhccux!yuan@nosc.MIL "Wouldn't you like to
INTERNET: yuan@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu be an _A_m_i_g_o_i_d too?!?"jtreworgy@eagle.wesleyan.edu (08/07/89)
In article <8908041840.AA00412@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, 01659@AECLCR.BITNET (Greg Csullog) writes: > Some netters replied to my first sermon on multitasking with the classical > response about doing something else while downloading files. Hell, you do > not need a multitasking environment to do this, just get a hold of one of > the telecom packages on the market that allows backgound file transfers. > > You don't need a full blown multitasking environment for something as simple > as file transfers in the background! Well I'm sure glad I don't have to bias my purchase decisions about terminal programs, word processors, databases, and every other piece of productivity software based on whether or not it will do it's thing in the background. Because on the Amiga, you know it will. Not to mention countless other useful applications of multitasking. -- James A. Treworgy "You should have seen me with the poker man, jtreworgy@eagle.wesleyan.edu I had a honey and I bet a grand, jtreworgy%eagle@WESLEYAN.BITNET Just in the nick of time I looked at his hand" Box 5033 Wesleyan Station -Paul McCartney Middletown, CT 06475
rachamp@mbunix.mitre.org (Richard A. Champeaux) (08/07/89)
In article <8908041840.AA00412@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> 01659@AECLCR.BITNET (Greg Csullog) writes: >Some netters replied to my first sermon on multitasking with the classical >response about doing something else while downloading files. Hell, you do >not need a multitasking environment to do this, just get a hold of one of >the telecom packages on the market that allows backgound file transfers. > >You don't need a full blown multitasking environment for something as simple >as file transfers in the background! The point is that with an operating system that supports multi-tasking, you don't need special software to accomplish these tasks. Someone sent me mail telling me that they could do the things I mentioned with well written software. Well, if your OS multi-tasks, you can do it with ALL your software, not just the well written ones. Most of what I use on my Amiga is PD software. I can't imagine that a PD author would take the time to put in all of the tricks "well written software" do to emulate a multi-tasking enviroment. On the Amiga, I can spawn off a child task with less than 10 lines of code. After that it's running indepently; I don't have to take care of the task switching. I can then communicate with it through global structures, or more properly, with the Amiga's message passing system. By the way, I'm using the Amiga as an example to say "Multi-tasking is the best", I'm not trying to use multi-tasking as an example to say "The Amiga is the best." Anyways, as far as multi-tasking goes; don't knock it 'til you've tried it. Rich Champeaux (rachamp@mbunix.mitre.org) "Hey Mikey! He likes it!"
wsflinn@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Scott Flinn) (08/10/89)
In article <4522@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> yuan@uhccux.UUCP (Yuan 'Hacker' Chang) writes: >In article <8908041840.AA00412@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> 01659@AECLCR.BITNET (Greg Csullog) writes: >-You don't need a full blown multitasking environment for something as simple >-as file transfers in the background! > > Alright! 8) If I want to run spell-checking on a document in >my word processor, heck, re-write the word processor so that it >runs in the background. After all, I don't need a full blown >multitasking environment for something as simple as spell-checking in >the background. While I'm at it, I might as well re-write my database >manager so that it'll generate reports, re-index, and sort in the >background; re-write my spreadsheet program so that it'll recalculate >in the background; re-write the CAD program so that it'll re-draw in the >background. Sorry, but I can't buy it. I don't consider myself a power user, but I typically write about 15,000 lines of C code per term for my course work. I have the enormous luxury of being surrounded by workstations (microvaxen, VaxStation (2000, 3100), Suns) which I use regularly. I use X Windows, and rarely have fewer than six windows open with various combinations of shells and interactive X applications (let's see ... I'm currently working with nine). I have on occasion put all of this equipment to marvelous use (eg. in the spring, while implementing a ray tracer for a graphics course, I often had several compiles, several test tracings, LaTeX running a couple of times preparing my last minute documentation, all running together while I swapped between a couple of VI sessions). But you, sir, have me beat. My own humble brain just can't multitask as fast as your Amiga (or whatever). I can honestly say that I am completely incapable of concentrating on a spell check session (which will undoubtedly require my attention within seconds), a database session, a spreadsheet session and a CAD session. In fact, since this discussion began, I have carefully monitored my usage of multitasking while using the multivarious UNIX boxes around here, and I can honestly say that, since Greg Csullog's original article first appeared, I HAVE NOT BENEFITTED FROM MULTITASKING. I am doing task SWITCHING like its going out of style, but I just can't keep up with more than a couple of things. When I go home at night and turn on my Atari, I squint at its tiny screen, gripe about its attached keyboard, whail and moan about its buggy OS, but I have never been using a word processor and suddenly wished I could format a disk, download a file edit a spreadsheet, and play a game SIMULTANEOUSLY. I would kill for a good task switching mechanism (and enough memory to use it), but the kind of multitasking that is beyond the ability of a good task switcher (eg. Multi-Finder) would be a scarcely used luxury. This is just my opinion. I don't doubt that there are people who really do benefit from multitasking. I even find it convenient once every other month. Perhaps I have not evolved sufficiently, and will grow to need multitasking as my brain develops. But please don't assume that the only people who think they don't need multitasking are those who haven't tried it. >Yuan Chang "What can go wrong, did" >UUCP: {uunet,ucbvax,dcdwest}!ucsd!nosc!uhccux!yuan >ARPA: uhccux!yuan@nosc.MIL "Wouldn't you like to >INTERNET: yuan@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu be an _A_m_i_g_o_i_d too?!?" Cheers (and sorry for the length). -- Me: Scott Flinn / "If it doesn't fit, force it. Domain: wsflinn@watcgl.waterloo.edu / If it breaks, then it didn't UUCP: watmath!watcgl!wsflinn / fit anyway."
andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) (08/10/89)
In article <10977@watcgl.waterloo.edu> wsflinn@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Scott Flinn) writes: >I would kill for >a good task switching mechanism (and enough memory to use it), but the >kind of multitasking that is beyond the ability of a good task switcher >(eg. Multi-Finder) would be a scarcely used luxury. Seriously ? Interesting. I find my most frequently used instance of 'user level' multitasking is reading news while a compile is taking place, or when I'm doing a raytrace. (the second instance is opening another shell to get a directory of a disk I'm about to write all over :-) ) On a lower level, there's lots more going on; UUPC, NFS, I don't notice those unless I need them though) andy -- andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. The Law of Software Envelopment Every program at MIT attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those programs which cannot expand are replaced by ones which can. Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
yuan@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Yuan 'Hacker' Chang) (08/15/89)
In article <4522@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> yuan@uhccux.UUCP (That's me!) writes: > Alright! 8) If I want to run spell-checking on a document in >my word processor, heck, re-write the word processor so that it >runs in the background. After all, I don't need a full blown >multitasking environment for something as simple as spell-checking in >the background. > [same for database, spreadsheet, and CAD] In article <10977@watcgl.waterloo.edu> wsflinn@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Scott Flinn) writes: - -In fact, since this discussion began, I have carefully monitored my usage -of multitasking while using the multivarious UNIX boxes around here, and -I can honestly say that, since Greg Csullog's original article first -appeared, I HAVE NOT BENEFITTED FROM MULTITASKING. I am doing task -SWITCHING like its going out of style, but I just can't keep up with -more than a couple of things. I didn't say that I want to run a database, a spreadsheet, a CAD program, and a word processor ALL at the same time. In fact, I don't see how you got the idea that I'm adding fuel to the multitasking vs. task- switching war. 8( In the original article to which I was following up to, the author was wondering why a full-blown multitasking system should be necessary, when you could find programs that push themselves to the background. What I was trying to point out was that user programs do not have to know about being in a multitasking/switching system, because the system takes care of the details. Think what happens if TOS doesn't provide file services for user programs, and each single program must handle raw disk I/O in order to use a disk drive. -- Yuan Chang "What can go wrong, did" UUCP: {uunet,ucbvax,dcdwest}!ucsd!nosc!uhccux!yuan ARPA: uhccux!yuan@nosc.MIL "Wouldn't you like to INTERNET: yuan@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu be an _A_m_i_g_o_i_d too?!?"