oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (01/26/87)
In article <9833UH2@PSUVM> UH2@PSUVM.BITNET writes: > >Someone asks, "I'm curious. Just how great is multi-tasking?" > >Now I am no wizard, but isn't the real beauty of multi-taksing a lot more >than just being able to print in the background. For example, device drivers, >print spoolers, communication programs, fast database systems, and a lotta >other keen stuff are much easier to develop and debug if they can be >implemented as a bunch of simultaneously runnig tasks on a multi-tasking >machine. > >In other words, if 6 chimpanzees, programming at random, work on a >mu;titasking system they will produce all the worlds great programs >a lot faster than if they were working in MSDOS. 8-) > >Hey--I could be wrong. No, you're correct. However, if you have six lobotomized monkeys (as opposed to six evolutionarily advanced monkeys-- humans to non-creationists :-), all their banging still wouldn't produce something better than MS-DOS. Keep in mind that we're talking about low-capability machines and peripherals here-- the Amiga, ST, and especially the XT just can't support the multi-tasking that a mini or mainframe does (just ask Henry S., who's reading this 'cause I put "MMU" in the keyword section). On those machines, multi-tasking is simply a convenience, not a Great Thing which considerly speeds up Important Tasks. (BTW, that's personal *opinion*.) -- - Joel Plutchak uucp: {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster ARPA: oyster@unix.macc.wisc.edu BITNET: plutchak@wiscmacc Disclaimer: My employer isn't smart enough to have an opinion, and I just *barely* am. The above is therefore my opinion, but just barely.