Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw From: throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Single tasking the wave of the future? Message-ID: <439@xyzzy.UUCP> Date: 9 Dec 87 19:00:53 GMT References: <201@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> <388@sdcjove.CAM.UNISYS.COM> <988@edge.UUCP> <1227@sugar.UUCP> <151@sdeggo.UUCP> <1423@cuuxb.ATT.COM> Organization: Data General, RTP NC. Lines: 45 > mmengel@cuuxb.ATT.COM (Marc W. Mengel) >$ dave@sdeggo.UUCP (David L. Smith) >$ [...] you never have >$enough processors to handle everything, but it would be nice if you did. >$It's an _ideal_. True enough. >$The question was "Don't you hate having your processor multi-task" and the >$answers have been "No, because it has to." If it didn't have to would you >$want it to? That wasn't the question I heard, though the difference is subtle. The question I heard, implied strongly by the title and the discussion of neglecting the capability for multitasking in PC OS software, is: "Don't you hate having your processor *capable* of multitasking?" or, as I'd further paraphrase it "Don't you find the notion of 'virtual processors' useless, or at least wasteful?" And my answer is "No, because my resources are finite, and I'd rather have my capabilities degrade at the edges rather than chop off. It's no more useless or wasteful than virtual memory." >$Timesharing is a necessary evil, and we use it because we have >$finite resources. Agreed, but the evil is necessary even on "single user" workstations. > Before you decide that your system isn't as fast as you'd like it > to be because its multi-tasking, try looking at some system activity > statistics for your system. Amen. -- Sometimes I think the only universal in the computing field is the fetch-execute cycle. --- Alan J. Perlis -- Wayne Throop!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw