Re: Windoze 95 is not multi-tasking, it just pretends it is multitasking.
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
Markus.Lechner@munich.netsurf.de |
Mac@munich.netsurf.de
http://home.munich.netsurf.de/Markus.Lechner | (only for
Project-Team)
PGP-Public-Key(s) are available |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: