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: <440@xyzzy.UUCP> Date: 9 Dec 87 19:47:49 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> <439@xyzzy.UUCP> Organization: Data General, RTP NC. Lines: 34 Oops, I just realized that I simply repeated the Q&A Dave complained of: > throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) >>$ dave@sdeggo.UUCP (David L. Smith) >>$The question was "Don't you hate having your processor multi-task" and the >>$answers have been "No, because it has to." If it didn't have to would you >>$want it to? Sorry about that. But to answer the question directly: Clearly not. "If your program didn't have to do IO, would you want it to?" "If your OS didn't have to consume N Mb of disk space, would you want it to?" Anyhow, I view the question phrased this way a little unrealistic. Let me rephrase it again: "Other things being equal (same #processors, same #bucks of hardware), would you rather do without virtual memory or processors, or would you rather pay the extra bucks of hardware/software to support it for your personal workstation?" For a toy computer for non-essentials, I'd answer that I'd want it cheaper. For a computer for getting real work done, for real, essential-to-daily-business computing, I'd answer that I'd want the extra capability. And the reason is that a toy/non-essential computer can afford to have its capability chop off under load, but something essential to getting work done must degrade gracefully. -- Sometimes I think the only universal in the computing field is the fetch-execute cycle. --- Alan J. Perlis -- Wayne Throop!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw