From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: re: ms's misconduct!
Date: 09 Oct 92 09:45:26 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <oep8pXS00WB38UQo4X@andrew.cmu.edu> jyri+@CMU.EDU wrote:
> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> > 
> > > 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
> > 
> > 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.  
> 
> Didn't have it != Didn't need it. There is your fundamental flaw.

Oh, sorry, I should have said "people were able to get a good amount of
work done using it."  Need is such a subjective word.

> 
> Funny how you equate msdos with 'small & efficient'. Please learn
> a little about operating systems before making such statements.
It ran on the first IBM PC with a floppy.  Can BSD 4.x run on that same
IBM.  Actuall, I do know something about operating systems.  I learned
them at the very same institution you're at right now.  In fact, I've been
playing around with OS's since the CP/M days.

> 
> Whether you like it or not, multitasking is a fundamental aspect of an
> operating system. Multitasking has been part of OS's since times 
> immemorial (well, in computer-years) everywhere except in the intel-pc
> market. 
And the CPM market, and all of the other PC markets, and most of the
embedded system markets.  Oh, sorry, I guess you equate everywhere
with mini, mainframe, and workstations (ie, everywhere means those machines
that run multitasking operating systems).  I understand, given that's
probably what you use most.

I grew up with OS-9, which ran multitasking just fine in 64K,
> and awesomely in 512K. Unfortunately I've had to move down to the
> intel platform because that's where the market is, and I've hated
> every single minute of dealing with the trashy things microsoft dares 
> call operating systems. I've never been able to understand how anyone
> could've been so blind and so out of touch with reality as to develop
> an "os" without multitasking.
because MS was targeting the personal computer market, not the mini/mainframe
market.  personal computers do fine in allowing you to get work done
without multitasking, and it wasn't until recently that the "standard"
personal computer had enough power to make multitasking feasable.
(not to say you couldn't do it, it just wasn't worth it).
> 
> Multitasking is absolutely fundamental in an OS. Flaming won't make
> reality go away.

I guess all those years on CPM, DOS, etc nobody every got any use out
of computers at all.

> 
> > preemptive mt is one of the main flaws.  Well, why?  What things will
> > preemptive mt solve that can't be solved any other way.
> 
> You insist in trying to show that if there is any way to work around
> the limitations of a non-multitasking os, it implies it was not
> necessary to begin with. Of course you can work around limitations,
> given enough ingenuity and time, but the point is that there should
> be no reason to have to come up with clever hacks to obtain
> functionality that should be built into the OS to begin with.

That is dependent on how much you're going to use that functionality.
On systems like mainframes and workstations, you may use it a lot.
On handhelds and small pc's, you may not.  

> 
> And please stop screaming "multitasking is clearly superfluous since
> msdos has sold great without". Sure it has, since there have been
> no viable alternatives. 
I'm sorry you misunderstood me.  I was basically trying to state that
multitasking is just another tool to use in computers.  Not the only
tool.  It's not going to lead us into the promised land, cause world
peace, feed the multitudes, etc.  It may, however, make some things
easier for the programmer and user.  Notice the word "may", though.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy