Re: Former AppleII user...

[philip@utstat.toronto.edu (Philip McDunnough)]

In article <1993Sep16.160701.23798@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kathomas@nyx.cs.du.edu (Karl Thomas) writes:
>[Talking abot how the Mac doesn't really multitask]
>
>I thought only Amiga users thought that only preemptive multitasking was
>"real" multitasking.  I'm sure I don't have to say this but I will anyway.

Well, I also am an Amiga user so...( and NeXT).

> The Macintosh does a good job of multitasking as long as all of the
>applications give up enough time or "cooperate".  I use Microsoft Works
>(yeh I know ClarisWorks is better but this was bundled with my computer),
>Soft PC, Zterm, and Hypercard mostly.  None of these apps hog the CPU so
>even my lowly Mac LCII multitasks them pretty well.  

This is like having "Switcher" built into the cpu. Well behaved programs,
in the sense of the programs being gentlemen, can be made to cooperate. The
whole point of a real multitasking OS is to deal with those that don't as
well as to have better control over the priorities various programs get. I
personally don't want some spell checker crashing a 2 day simulation.
 
Incidentally, the Amiga has its problems because tasks aren't protected in
hardware. The only multitasking OS's currently popular on micros are OS/2,
Unix,....OS-9 also multitasks as do many other OS's. But this is a very real
problem for the Mac. For years Mac users have been told they don't need
preemptive multitasking. 

[ ]

-- 
Philip McDunnough
University of Toronto
philip@utstat.toronto.edu
[Where sheep may safely graze...]