Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site baylor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!shell!neuro1!baylor!peter
From: peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: Re: Amiga vs. Mac
Message-ID: <432@baylor.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 16-Aug-85 17:55:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: baylor.432
Posted: Fri Aug 16 17:55:47 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 01:27:22 EDT
References: <495@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>
Organization: The Power Elite, Houston, TX
Lines: 16

> Well, I have already seen the Amiga (at SigGraph up in MacroMind's suite)
> and beleive me, it is nothing to talk about.  The only things that it can do
> better than a Mac would make a great game, but nothing more.  To give you an
> idea; Commodore rants about their "multitasking".  I had this "multitasking"
> demonstrated for me.  It ran two processes simultaneously and they took four
> times as long as if the processes had been run consecutively.  Some
> multitasking; it's there, but no one will want to use it.

What do you want? It should take less time? Hell, you could probably run
programs faster on UNIX if it was single-tasking... if the two programs are
an editor (input bound) and a compiler (cpu bound) I dare say you'll see
a speedup.
-- 
	Peter da Silva (the mad Australian werewolf)
		UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter
		MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076