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