Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!ames!pioneer!eugene From: eugene@pioneer.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Single tasking the wave of the future? Message-ID: <3564@ames.arpa> Date: Thu, 3-Dec-87 13:03:12 EST Article-I.D.: ames.3564 Posted: Thu Dec 3 13:03:12 1987 Date-Received: Mon, 7-Dec-87 02:54:01 EST References: <201@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> <388@sdcjove.CAM.UNISYS.COM> <988@edge.UUCP> <3445@hoptoad.uucp> <147@sdeggo.UUCP> Sender: usenet@ames.arpa Reply-To: eugene@pioneer.UUCP (Eugene Miya N.) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. Lines: 19 Summary: Hell no, I won't go. In article <147@sdeggo.UUCP> dave@sdeggo.UUCP (David L. Smith) writes: >Admit it, don't you hate having your processor multi-task? Should should have typed a ;-). Sometimes, I just love forking 24 processes into the background (doing serious work) on one of our Sequents. Sometimes I complain when the load average gets over 0.15 ;-). I sometimes have to do the same thing on our VAX, (only fewer processes). I have come to the conclusion that these boxes are the way to go instead of too-loosely coupled workstations (you should have good graphical front-end, however...). From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene