bryce@COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU (01/01/70)
In article <20164@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> typed:
)
) [With virtual memory] The interactive job must be retrieved from
) the paging disk, and the user has to wait for that disk
) before his clicks are responded to. On a Sun 3/50 running X and Unix,
) [clicking] on a different
) window can mean a pause of as much as 3 or 4 seconds before the new
) window is ready to listen to key-strokes (Until it is ready, X will
) send the keystrokes to the old active window.)
Intuition (The Amiga User Interface) is structured such that switch would
be instant, if the program can't yet respond the events will be queued
for it.
Not a problem for either of the systems in this discussion.gary@eddie.MIT.EDU (Gary Samad) (08/18/87)
In article <3632@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (Pierce T. Wetter) writes: }Again dynamic memory allocation is impractical without an MMU unless you wish }to have processes writing into each others memory (wouldn't it be lovely if }every time a program in Unix crashed it brought down everyone else too?) Well, I'm afraid that this is going to ba a problem with Multifinder anyway, since several programs will be resident and, if one misbehaves, all might be lost. Unfortunately, this was oftwn a problem in the early days on the Amiga (nowadays, commercial software tends to be much more robust and aware of multitasking). }FLAME ON } I notice in the message header that you are posting to both the amiga }and mac newsgroups. Why? If you are a Mac user why are you bothering the }amiga owners with mac news? if you are an amiga user why are you posting }mac news since you probably don't know enough about the mac for your comments }to be relevant anyways? Regardless why do amiga people care about MultiFinder? }FLAME OFF Well, I am an Amiga owner and developer and was actually at MacExpo because I was interested in possibly porting my application to the Mac as well (ALL Amiga owners aren't religious fanatics :-). Also, I have been interested in multitasking on micros for years now and am interested in what the major manufacturers are doing in this direction. In fact, the BEST software buy of my life was DESQVIEW for the PeeCee which gave this singletasking machine multitasking capabilities. If this little company could do it (while maintaining nearly complete backward DOS compatability and including time slicing) I would have thought that Apple could do it. I had truly hoped that it had! I also posted it to the Amiga group because many are probably interested to know that they still have the multitasking lead! :-) Gary
bryce@COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU (Bryce Nesbitt) (08/19/87)
In article <> oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (David Phillip Oster) writes: > >Most Macintosh owners who read these news groups have a perfectly good >idea what multi-tasking is. After all, the software that hosts "news" >generally runs on big, multi-tasking machines. So, Amiga owners, you >don't have to keep explaining how wonderful it is. No, there is a *major* difference. Consistentley in this mini-war the incorrect comparison has been made between the Amiga and *multiuser* computers like the vax I will upload this article to. The Amiga is *multitasking*, *single-user*. This has a lot of implications, many positive, {many,some,a few} negative. >Now some substance: Most time-slice multi-tasking operating systems >guarantee that every ready-to-run job will get a chance to run, at >least once a time-interval (often a second.) This has the effect of >slowing down interactive performance: With the *multiuser* computer you don't have control. Unless you are blessed, you get as much chance at the CPU, memory and disk bandwidth as everyone else. With my Amiga I have *complete control*. First off, there are no other users that can run tasks without my approval. I chose what is loaded, and what is running. Taking a look at the task-monitor I have 22 tasks loaded. Three will use CPU as available. The editor (DME) gets time *whenever* it wants. The assembly (finished now) would get any cycles left over, and the ray-trace gets whatever the assembler can't use (due to IO operations such as disk seeks, DMA reads, whatever) This is *not* complex, and while I know the details, I don't need to worry about them. It is even less complex with a little toy I wrote and am testing at the moment. It's called "auto-pri" and injects a boost of priority into whatever task/window you click into. )))) (((( )))) With that toy, my interactive task *never* bogs down. (((( )))) (((( When I click out of my *still* recalculating spreadsheet, and into the text editor, the spreadsheet is not longer "interactive" and no longer will take time away from the editor, which is. All auto-magic. >But, users >used to a single process environment get very picky about the fine >time structure of responsiveness. Example: "If it used to begin to >respond in 3/5ths of a second, and now it takes 4/5ths of a second, >even if it finishes in half the old time, it will feel sluggish." Right. User responsiveness is a critical issue. That is why I don't _want_ a multi-user computer. 68000's or 68020's are cheap enough to give each user one... and then network them all together. Mac, IBM (mouth-soap :-), Amiga, whatever. This is the way to go. >Here is a problem that neither the current Mac or Amiga have, but may >hurt them both in the future: [virtual memory] Right. You can see the effects already on the Mac by using memory in such a way as to cause all the "purgable" items to be purged, only to be brought back in a few mements later. Newer Mac software does not suffer here near as much... this problem is on it's way out. (of course, gobs of memory helps :-) You can cause thrashing on the Amiga also if you try real hard. Just keep opening and closing disk-loaded fonts and libraries while requesting large amounts of memory. ----- |\ /| . Ack! (NAK, EOT, SOH) {o O} . ( " ) bryce@cogsci.berkeley.EDU -or- ucbvax!cogsci!bryce U Poet: "To be, or not to be?" Hacker: "$ff"
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (08/19/87)
I would just loooove to explain the use of a task monitor and scheduling
priorities to the average Mac user, who sees the computer as a means to an
end, not an end in itself. You really call this an advantage? No wonder
the Amiga's not providing a serious challenge; ease of use for
non-technocrats is what counts today.
By the way, why hasn't anyone jumped all over the silly claim that
multitasking would get rid of event loops? Event loops are an intrinsic
part of a modern graphical interface, as opposed to prompt-driven programs.
There are only two ways to program these interfaces: explicit event loops,
or a hidden (in the OS) event loop that calls event-handling routines
supplied by the programmer. Either can be implemented with or without
multi-tasking, either pre-emptive or not.
--
Tim Maroney, {ihnp4,sun,well,ptsfa,lll-crg,frog}!hoptoad!tim (uucp)
hoptoad!tim@lll-crg (arpa)bryce@COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU (Bryce Nesbitt) (08/20/87)
In article <2793@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: > > I would just loooove to explain the use of a task monitor and scheduling > priorities to the average Mac user, who sees the computer as a means to an > end, not an end in itself. You really call this an advantage? No wonder > the Amiga's not providing a serious challenge; ease of use for > non-technocrats is what counts today. The questions where asked by technocrats, and the answers given by technocrats; what did you expect? We technocrats have a forum. This is it. An important point: 1> Multitasking is an option; you are not forced to know about it or use it. The average Amiga user knows nothing of priorities, queues, schedulers, signals, messages or packets. The user does know that he~~ can start as many "tools" as he wants, and switch between them with impunity; even if they are busy doing something. "poof" When said user wishes to lean more, more is available to be learned. --------------- You are correct that Apple has done much more than Commodore-Amiga to bring the average human into the ranks of computer user, however the point you decided to pick upon is not valid. Multitasking properly applied helps people get things done simply and effectively. It also helps programmers in creating clean, elegant operating systems; but that's just the technocrat in me. :-) --------------- ~~ Some linguist should come up with a neuter personal pronoun and eliminate this sexist "he" or "she" stuff from modern literature. |\ /| . Ack! (NAK, EOT, SOH) {o O} . ( " ) bryce@cogsci.berkeley.EDU -or- ucbvax!cogsci!bryce U "Success leads to stagnation; stagnation leads to failure."
briand@tekig4.TEK.COM (Brian Diehm) (08/20/87)
>I would just loooove to explain the use of a task monitor and scheduling >priorities to the average Mac user, who sees the computer as a means to an >end, not an end in itself. Unnh, guilty as charged, yer honesty. C'mon, guys, get real. DOING THINGS with the machine is the whole point. Nerding out leads to endless discussions on the net of trivial details that don't mean a whole lot. I think I know as much as anyone about multitasking, scheduling, etc. I've done software for 17 years now, and I have a Mac at home and one at work, where I also use a lot of other systems. Today the nerd wars are Motorola vs. Intel. Back when I started it was Fortran vs. Algol. Seen with hindsight, it's all too tedious to care about. "But the Hackers, Captain! They're so damn EARNEST!!!" Which doesn't mean that what they do or say matters. If you're hacking for a hobby, that's OK. Just keep it in perspective, eh? The same advice would do some good for radical Moslem fundamentalists, or even radical Christian fundamentalists, or even radical 680x0 fundamentalists... Maybe the hackers lose sight of the objectives because really, basically, they have no reason to USE a computer for anything? -- -Brian Diehm (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply) Tektronix, Inc. briand@tekig4.TEK.COM or {decvax,cae780,uw-beaver}!tektronix!tekig4!briand
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (08/21/87)
> You are correct that Apple has done much more than Commodore-Amiga to bring > the average human into the ranks of computer user, however the point you > decided to pick upon is not valid. Multitasking properly applied helps > people get things done simply and effectively. There are more C64/C128 machines out there (over 7 million, last I heard) than Apple IIs (4-5 million), Macs (1 million), and Amigas (300-400K). So who's brought the average Joe to become a computer user? If you mention POWER user, I'd certainly have to filter out C64/C128, Apple II, and IBM PC as well; in which case, Apple has the lead. But if we're talking about useful computers of any kind, Commodore of old had the lead. Then again, if you want to talk about installed 6502 based computer systems, I think Atari had around 12 million or more of those 2600 based video games out there..... > |\ /| . Ack! (NAK, EOT, SOH) > {o O} . > ( " ) bryce@cogsci.berkeley.EDU -or- ucbvax!cogsci!bryce > U "Success leads to stagnation; stagnation leads to failure." -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga Usenet: {ihnp4|caip|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh "The A2000 Guy" PLINK : D-DAVE H BIX : hazy "God, I wish I was sailing again" -Jimmy Buffett, Dave Haynie
maiden@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (VLSI Layout Project) (08/21/87)
In article <2237@cbmvax.UUCP> daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes:
#
#There are more C64/C128 machines out there (over 7 million, last I heard)
#than Apple IIs (4-5 million), Macs (1 million), and Amigas (300-400K). So
#who's brought the average Joe to become a computer user? If you mention
#POWER user, I'd certainly have to filter out C64/C128, Apple II, and IBM
#PC as well; in which case, Apple has the lead. But if we're talking about
#useful computers of any kind, Commodore of old had the lead. Then again,
#--
#Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga Usenet: {ihnp4|caip|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh
#"The A2000 Guy" PLINK : D-DAVE H BIX : hazy
# "God, I wish I was sailing again" -Jimmy Buffett, Dave Haynie
There are more than 7 million IBM PC-type machines "out there"... if
you lump all 808x processor machines, there are more in the market than
the combined total of Commodore, Apple and Atari.
Sick, isn't it!
--
Edward K. Y. Jung
The Deep Thought Group: Searching for a better way to think.
UUCP: {seismo|decwrl}!sdcsvax!maiden
ARPA: maiden@beowulf.ucsd.edudennisg@pwcs.StPaul.GOV (Dennis Grittner) (08/21/87)
Please, this just reminds me of the famous PC/Mac wars of only a few months ago. I asked all the PC folk to post 'elsewhere' then and I'm asking all the Amiga folk to post 'over there' now. I'm quite familiar with multi-tasking and I know it's advantages ( as I'm sure do a majority of the readers of this newsgroup ) and I want those capabilities for the Macintosh. I'm quite tired of reading about 'what a wonderful computer the Amiga is', and I politely request that this stuff not be posted here. If I want to read about the Amiga, I will read that newsgroup ( same goes for PC's ). Perhaps we need a new group 'comp.flames.mineisbetterthanyours.micro.religion.talk' :-) -- Dennis Grittner City of Saint Paul, Minnesota (612) 298-4402 Room 700, 25 W. 4th St. 55102 "Let's just put Ollie, Ronnie, and the rest in jail!"
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (08/21/87)
In article <2793@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >By the way, why hasn't anyone jumped all over the silly claim that >multitasking would get rid of event loops? Event loops are an intrinsic >part of a modern graphical interface, as opposed to prompt-driven programs. >There are only two ways to program these interfaces: explicit event loops, >or a hidden (in the OS) event loop that calls event-handling routines >supplied by the programmer. Either can be implemented with or without >multi-tasking, either pre-emptive or not. Waaaaaaait a minuite. If I/O is interrupt driven, and the tasker has an 'active' and an 'idle' process queue, 'idle' processes are completely out of the loop until the interrupt routine puts it on the active queue once I/O is complete. Now I don't know if this is exactly what the Amiga does, but I can certainly envision a scheme that dosen't involve explicit 'event' loops. And as far as graphical user interfaces, if the keyboard is interrupt driven, and the mouse is interrupt driven, how is that any different from prompt- driven interfaces? You don't move the mouse, don't hit the keyboard, NO PENALTY. It's as if they aren't even there. The task waiting for a mouse or keyboard click is sitting on the idle queue out of the task loop until the interrupt routine moves it to the active queue. Unless you are considering the tasker itself as an 'event' loop, in which case it has nothing to do with graphical vs prompt interfaces. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd # cadovax!keithd@ucla-locus.arpa Contel Business Systems 213-323-8170
elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (08/22/87)
in article <2793@hoptoad.uucp>, tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) says: > No wonder > the Amiga's not providing a serious challenge; ease of use for > non-technocrats is what counts today. Uh, is that why MS-DOS machines are STILL outselling Macs by more than 2-1 margin? Because they are easy to use? 'Nuff said! Eric Green {ihnp4,cbosgd}!killer!elg
mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (08/24/87)
<Perhaps we need a new group <'comp.flames.mineisbetterthanyours.micro.religion.talk' :-) This has been seriously suggested before, and I (fool that I am) volunteered to moderate such a group. Apparently, nobody ever got around to pushing the proposal to news.group. Like abortion, my-micro-is-better-than-your-micro breaks out in the micro groups at regular intervals. Having a single place to dump this stuff would be a service to all concerned. Better yet, having an archive of this stuff would mean that anyone venturing the question "should I buy an X or a Y" can be innundated with information. So I'd like to propose a new newsgroup: comp.sys.micro.compare discussions of differences between micros I'm still willing to moderate the group. Improved descriptions and names gladly accepted. <mike -- My feet are set for dancing, Mike Meyer Won't you turn your music on. mwm@berkeley.edu My heart is like a loaded gun, ucbvax!mwm Won't you let the water run. mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
jwhitnel@csib.UUCP (Jerry Whitnell) (08/24/87)
In article <1374@killer.UUCP| elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) writes: |in article <2793@hoptoad.uucp>, tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) says: |> No wonder |> the Amiga's not providing a serious challenge; ease of use for |> non-technocrats is what counts today. | |Uh, is that why MS-DOS machines are STILL outselling Macs by more than 2-1 |margin? Because they are easy to use? Please note that according to these numbers, Apple has a 33% market share against the combined might of IBMCompaqATT... Not too shabby for a little old $2 billion dollar company that just sells ease-of-use. BTW, see the August 18 issue of PC Week for some better numbers. Even more interesting was the short article on page 12 of the same issue. The cost of using an IBM PC over a 5 yeare period averages out to $19,755. The cost of using a Mac over the same period is $14,171, a diffeerence of $5600, or almost enough to get you a Mac II :-). | |'Nuff said! | | Eric Green {ihnp4,cbosgd}!killer!elg Jerry Whitnell It's a damn poor mind that can only Communication Solutions, Inc. think of one way to spell a word. -- Andrew Jackson
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (08/26/87)
In article <1374@killer.UUCP> elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) writes: >in article <2793@hoptoad.uucp>, tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) says: >> No wonder >> the Amiga's not providing a serious challenge; ease of use for >> non-technocrats is what counts today. > >Uh, is that why MS-DOS machines are STILL outselling Macs by more than 2-1 >margin? Because they are easy to use? It's because of the large installed base and the large base of software. However, I believe that the Mac can truly be said to have MS/DOS on the run. It is also worth noting that PCs are becomimg more and more Mac-like in order to compete, if you've been keeping up with PC software developments. -- Tim Maroney, {ihnp4,sun,well,ptsfa,lll-crg,frog}!hoptoad!tim (uucp) hoptoad!tim@lll-crg (arpa)