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