Re: Multi-Tasking on Apple IIgs?

[The Wizard of Oz <wizard@emeraldcity.gov>]

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 04:08:40 +0000, Michael Black wrote:

> 
> "Michael J. Mahon" (mjmahon@aol.com) writes:
>> The Wizard of Oz wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:57:51 +0000, Bryan Parkoff wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>    Is there a way to write assembly language that can run two applications 
>>>>at same time as multi-tasking?  It has to run first application and then 
>>>>switch to run second application at the same time.  It may be the Program 
>>>>Counter register that it can be modified.  I don't know how like Intel did.
>>>>
>>>>Bryan Parkoff
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 	I was going to ignore this thread until I thought about the possibility
>>> of co-processor cards. If a co-processor card could be active the same
>>> time as the GS processor then you could get true multi-tasking as opposed
>>> to the time slice mechanism everyone else is suggesting.
>> 
>> And, again, the software conventions assumed by most coprocessor cards
>> and the hardware assumptions for sharing memory (like nearly stopping
>> the main processor) make it very unlikely for any general multi-
>> processor scheme to be implemented--unless you do it all yourself,
>> that is.
>> 
> The cheap way to multitask is to get more than one computer.  Sort
> of doable back then, if you were doing serious enough work that 
> could warrant the price tag.  More doable as the hardware became cheap.
> Have two separate computers next to each other (or three or four if
> you've got the room) and roll your chair between them.  Remember how
> much time printing took back then, and if you had a spare computer to do
> it you could be doing other computing things at the same time.

	Sort of like the Linux Beowolf cluster. (just trying to fit it into
perspective)

> Rather than general solutions, there were sometimes fixed solutions
> for shifting the load elsewhere.  A hardware print spooler, for instance,
> meant that one could "print" something in no time, and the spooler
> would then take care of the actual printing, allowing you get get
> back to work.  I have a standalone spooler, I've never used it,
> and it has all of 64K of memory, which would have been wonderful when
> it was new and expensive.  But my laser printer has something like
> 16megs in it (and I think I could put more in there if I actually
> needed it), and of course any computer nowadays has software spooling.

	Like a LAN with different servers...

>    Michael

				Later
				Mike