Hamish Moffatt wrote: > The "true multitasking" discussion is a dangerous one.
Why? Dont know... Do you mean 'fanatics'..? > Years ago Amiga users Yes, i was an Amiga user... :) And yes, most of them (me too) tried to tell others the big differences in this system... this was years ago - and at this time there was a *big* difference between Amiga and *all* the other systems. Ok, except big Un*x Systems. At least, the Amiga had a Un*x-like core and structure. > managed to convince everyone who didn't know better that the Amiga > was the only machine which had "true multitasking." If they told you that was true multitasking - they weren't precise. > As I see it, to > be absolutely purist about it, you can only multitask with multiple > CPUs. The Amiga had *more* than one CPU. Only one CPU was the *real* processor, but there was one *CPU* for the graphics, one for the sound, another one for graphics/timing and another one for data-transfer and manipulation. And between them there was real multitasking. If one owns a pc with a bunch of cards in the slots, then he has those more CPU's, too. But the question is: are those other CPU's integrated in a low layer or not. If not, the multitasking is a big joke. It's not very atomic. If yes, best ;) > Anything else is done with very rapid context/task switching. > Which is just what the Amiga did then and just what Linux does now. Yes, but... > And just what Windows does too. Regarding point #1, so Windows prioritizes > your foreground app for whatever reason -- so what? Linux has priority > scheduling too if you want to make one app run faster than another, > or chew less CPU etc. This isn't an inherently bad feature, although > it'd be nice to be able to customize priorities. ... it's the granulatity that counts. Linux seems to be very *atomic*. Amiga was more atomic. BTW it's not only nice but important to be able to change priorities of running processes. > Another problem with Windows is that Win16 has non-pre-emptive multitasking. > This means that although it still does rapid task switching, it only > task switches when each program says it has finished for that particular > time slice. Same as all the old Apple-OS's... > Win32 is pre-emptive (as are Linux etc), which means that the > kernel just up and does it. Win95 still has to non-pre-emptively multitask > 16 bit apps, but they are all run together as one 32 bit process I believe. You said it... as one 32 bit process. And the granularity is bad, too. There are differences between pre-emptive multitasking and pre-emptive multitasking. I would not say that win95 has *real* real multitasking :) > > Re: #2 -- Windows is not multiuser in the Unix sense. Citrix make a nice > WinNT 3.51 variant called WinCenter which is multiuser. Yep. > Actually, on any modern video the mouse cursor is done in hardware > as I understand it -- Windows couldn't stop that just because it crashed > unless it went trashing registers too. Yep :) Mac -- Markus Lechner (Company - LightWolf) | The Prometheus-Project [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.munich.netsurf.de/Markus.Lechner | (only for Project-Team) PGP-Public-Key(s) are available | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]