Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!cbmvax!daveh From: daveh@cbmvax.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Single tasking the wave of the future? Message-ID: <2894@cbmvax.UUCP> Date: Thu, 3-Dec-87 14:09:58 EST Article-I.D.: cbmvax.2894 Posted: Thu Dec 3 14:09:58 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 6-Dec-87 18:47:02 EST References: <147@sdeggo.UUCP> Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA Lines: 31 in article <147@sdeggo.UUCP>, dave@sdeggo.UUCP (David L. Smith) says: > In article <3445@hoptoad.uucp>, gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: > franka@mmintl writes: > > > Another trend... ...is that towards individual > > > (single-user) computers. The future of multi-tasking on such machines is > > > very much in question... > > 99% of the rest of the computers will be "general purpose" and all of > > them will be running multitasking. > > I agree with John, however the ideal towards which we are striving is multi- > tasking operating systems and single-tasking processors. Admit it, don't > you hate having your processor multi-task? I'd rather have my processor multi-task, than sit in idle most of the time, as it's pretty much doing right now, with just a terminal program, a static CLI, some dormant background tasks, and a performance monitor running. At least given the choice of multitasking vs. not multitasking, given the reality of a single processor system. I would object to allowing others to steal time from my CPU, even if I'm not doing anything with it at the moment. And I certainly wouldn't mind at all if I could drop in an additional CPU and have the tasks distributed in a reasonable way over the two. But it'll be some time before I have a processor available for each individual task, so basically, I'm really happy that I can let my processor multitask. > David L. Smith -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga Usenet: {ihnp4|uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh "The B2000 Guy" PLINK : D-DAVE H BIX : hazy "I can't relax, 'cause I'm a Boinger!"