Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!pesnta!pertec!kontron!steve From: steve@kontron.UUCP (Steve McIntosh) Newsgroups: net.micro.68k Subject: Re: 68vs86 (flame?) Message-ID: <260@kontron.UUCP> Date: Mon, 24-Jun-85 12:04:52 EDT Article-I.D.: kontron.260 Posted: Mon Jun 24 12:04:52 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Jun-85 05:43:04 EDT References: <253@kontron.UUCP> <2328@sun.uucp> Distribution: net Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA Lines: 21 > > Please don't combine the two phrases "multi-tasking" and "multi-user" > into one. They are two separate things. My workstation can run multi-user > (if somebody wants to "rlogin" to it), but isn't intended to be used that > way. It does support many tasks, though, and I'm damn glad for that. I'm a > multitasking system - my computer should be also. (I have one window > monitoring mail, one displaying the current time, one displaying a graph of > CPU utilization, one remotely logged in to "sun", one waiting to remotely > log into another machine, and another one giving a shell on my own machine.) > > Guy Harris Notice that most of what you point out as the desirable qualifies as simple monitor tasks. And at that you are obviously aware of how much "horsepower" these tasks take up - you run a utilization monitor. I have no doubts that such systems will be the "wave of the future", but if I can't turn it off when I want my machines full attention on something I consider important, I'd rather not have it. [ Personal peeve ] Also, the FNE has wondered about me, too... My programming language of choice is FORTH.