kelson@ais.org (David Lewis) (02/04/91)
This is probably a dumb and already anwsered question.. but I coudlnt find it so here it does.... My neighboor just got a 3000 at work.. and everything is going pretty good with it.. except I cant seem to get the workbench 2.0 to multitask... I 'thought' it was automatically supposed to... -- Internet: Kelson@ais.org
johnhlee@fulla.cs.cornell.edu (John H. Lee) (02/05/91)
In article <588+H8*@irie.ais.org> kelson@ais.org (David Lewis) writes: > > This is probably a dumb and already anwsered question.. but I coudlnt >find it so here it does.... My neighboor just got a 3000 at work.. and >everything is going pretty good with it.. except I cant seem to get >the workbench 2.0 to multitask... I 'thought' it was automatically >supposed to... Could you give a little more information as to why you think it wasn't multitasking? Multitasking is a responsibility of the lowest system software layer, and all applications (Workbench included) always multitask (besides games that take over the system, usually by requiring you boot from them.) (Bleah. I need a better verb meaning "to participate in a multitasking environment.") ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DiskDoctor threatens the crew! Next time on AmigaDos: The Next Generation. John Lee Internet: johnhlee@cs.cornell.edu The above opinions of those of the user, and not of this machine.
jms@vanth.UUCP (Jim Shaffer) (02/09/91)
In article <7717@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >What he means is that WB 2.0 is still single-threaded. When it's doing something >like copying a file it's locked up: you get the Zzz pointer and Intuition >doesn't update windows. Huh? Way back when various magazines were printing previews of "1.4", that was one of the things they mentioned as being changed! Did it get taken back out for some reason? -- ~ From the disk of: | jms@vanth.uucp | "Glittering prizes and Jim Shaffer, Jr. | amix.commodore.com!vanth!jms | endless compromises 37 Brook Street | 72750.2335@compuserve.com | shatter the illusion of Montgomery, PA 17752 | (CompuServe as a last resort)| integrity!" (Rush)
jap@convex.cl.msu.edu (Joe Porkka) (02/10/91)
jms@vanth.UUCP (Jim Shaffer) writes: >In article <7717@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >>What he means is that WB 2.0 is still single-threaded. When it's doing something >Huh? Way back when various magazines were printing previews of "1.4", that Hm, its a little multithreaded now. It still waits for opening drawers, but you don't hafta wait after an application launch. Apparently the actual code for WorkBench is similar to the output of fortran-to-c converters -> very icky and hard to change. One of the projects is a complete rewrite, but this won't happen till some version after the (hopefully) RSN 2.0 However, I still think that the workbench under 2.0 as it is now is a GREAT DEAL better than under 1.3 -> thanks to Mike S. at cbm. It is quite usable, + theres lotsa new goodies in it for future applications to take advantage of.
dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) (02/10/91)
In article <1991Feb9.190059.26278@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> jap@convex.cl.msu.edu (Joe Porkka) writes: >jms@vanth.UUCP (Jim Shaffer) writes: >Hm, [WB2.0's] a little multithreaded now. It still waits for opening drawers, >but you don't hafta wait after an application launch. > >Apparently the actual code for WorkBench is similar to the output of >fortran-to-c converters -> very icky and hard to change. > >One of the projects is a complete rewrite, but this won't happen till >some version after the (hopefully) RSN 2.0 Since Workbench is basically a disk-based program (isn't it?) this could show up in 2.1 (or whatever). If the Workbench code is as nasty as you say, it probably should be re-written anyway. And if you're going to re-write it, why not do it right? After all, the Amiga *is* a multi-tasking machine! I'd also like to add my $.02 to the noise about getting 2.0 out. I'll wait, thank you, until C= is happy it is reasonably debugged. I've tried lots of programs, and the buggy ones don't get a second chance. As someone in comp.unix.amiga pointed out, a shell program needs to be absolutely bug free. I would submit even more so the operating system. I'm not interested in spending a dime on a buggy OS, no matter how flashy it is. I'd rather stick with 1.3. -- Dave Schaumann | DANGER: Access hole may tear easily. Use of the access | holes for lifting or carrying may result in damage to the dave@cs.arizona.edu | carton and subsequent injury to the user.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/11/91)
In article <1991Feb9.190059.26278@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> jap@convex.cl.msu.edu (Joe Porkka) writes: > However, I still think that the workbench under 2.0 as it is now is > a GREAT DEAL better than under 1.3 -> thanks to Mike S. at cbm. That's for damn sure. I was going to drop Browser after 2.0 came out, but I think one more release would be worthwhile. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
sbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz (Sleeping Beagle) (02/12/91)
jms@vanth.UUCP (Jim Shaffer) writes: > No question about that! Workbench 2.0 will be the first Workbench I'll > actually USE on a regular basis. I virtually never use Workbench now. (I > tried JazzBench 0.9 once, but it crashed too much. Is there an upgrade?) You bet, Workbench 2.0 is really neat all right... However, I have not found Jazzbench buggy. THere are a few programs it doesn't work with (like Popupmenu) but except for that it's fairly stable. As far as I know, there is no upgrade. -- ** Official Signature for Sleeping Beagle (aka Thomas Farmer)! ** sbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz || Disclaimers are for sick societies ** Thomas.Farmer@bbs.actrix.gen.nz || with too many lawyers.