From: dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 11:56:19 GMT

petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

>In article <dlcogswe.718464451@vela> dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu wrote:
>> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>> 
>> >> But other than being easier to write and code for (maybe),
>> >> what advantage does non-preemptive multitasking have?  I say none.
>> 
>> >Runs on smaller hardware (see the bottom part of my last post).  Allows your
>> >core system to be smaller.
>> 
>> Wrong.  Look at the Amiga.  It runs preemptively fine with 512k.  It's
>> kernel is what?  1k?  Of course, AmigaOS doesn't have all the nice
>> features of Windows like... uhhh...  well..  whatever...

>Oh, great, yet another "Amiga does x that other os's don't post".
>Okay, here's my response.  Amiga doesn't sell as well as DOS/NT/OS/2/MAC/UNIX.

You missed the point.  You classified preemptive multitasking OSes as
requiring larger hardware with a larger core system.  That's false.
Period.  I gave the Amiga as an example.  You want an example under
Intel architecture?  Desqview.  Quit kicking and screaming about this
Microsoft mistake.

>Listen, You wan't smaller systems.  okay, then DOS.  It doesn't have 
>multitasking, and has been running on very small systems since Amiga was
>a glint in commodore's eye.   Or try CPM.  They didn't have multitasking.
>They didn't need it.  Software for DOS up until recently still outsold
>anything else.  

What's your point?  I don't want a smaller system.  I want a good OS.
RAM is cheap.  So are hard drives.  OS/2 works well.  I'm not waiting
for NT.  How are you [plural] going to make my life better?


>> 
>> >Those two things, plus the one you mentioned (which could be argued), make
>> >up a pretty strong argument that preemptive mt is not the best thing
>> >to be used everywhere.
>> 
>> Please give a good example.  I can't think of one.  It's one of the main
>> flaws of Messy-Windows.

>By IT do you mean that preemptive mt is one of the main flaws?  I hope not,
>cause windows uses non-preemptive mt.  

No shit.

>I suspect you mean not having
>preemptive mt is one of the main flaws.  Well, why?  What things will
>preemptive mt solve that can't be solved any other way.

Do you own a straw-man factory?  I don't think ANYBODY here would argue
that you can't solve a given problem with or without preemptive
multitasking.  The point is:  *IN GENERAL* (and I believe Windows 3.1 is
meant for general use) preemptive multitasking is beneficial to
everyday work on a computer.  You and your company doesn't have the
right to say, "cooperative works just as well."  The general consesus is
that it doesn't.

Your attitude is typical of what pisses me off about Microsoft.  "You
don't really need that.  Here, you can use <fill in Microsoft product>
and it will work fine.  You can have what you want when and if we decide
to produce it."  Examples:  the longevity of DOS, the Windows Program
Manager, 8.3 filenames, command.com, edlin, etc.  It's okay, though:
companies that don't listen to their customers end up in the same
situation the big 3 automakers are now in. 

>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...

-- 
Dan Cogswell               Or as we say in Michigan:  "Dee-troit"


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy