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