From: u1665462@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multitasking (was Re: MS's misconduct!)
Date: 1 Oct 92 07:10:38 GMT
Organization: The University of Melbourne

In article <1992Sep30.150810.15238@ans.net>, db3l@ans.net (David Bolen) writes:
> In article <1992Sep30.185808.3691@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> u1665462@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au writes:
> 
>>[My stuff deleted]
 
> Eeek!  Before the "other camp" jumps in on this, let me say that this isn't
> a particularly good example of a need for multitasking.  This sort of
> operation would be served just fine by a task switcher.  Where the
> multitasking aspect would come in is if some process that the secretary had
> to switch away from needed to keep running while she was performing the new
> task.  Just avoiding a shutdown of an application to start a new one up
> doesn't require multitasking.
> 
>>[More of my ramblings deleted]
 
> Double eeek!  No wonder we can't resolve a discussion about this stuff -
> now we've got memory protection and multithreading getting into the
> picture.  Let's follow those topics off in another thread (:-)).
> 
> The problem I see is that too many things are apparently getting lumped
> under the magic term of multitasking (maybe Pete had a point?  Nah... :-)).
> A system that has the capability of multitasking can offer enormous
> benefits to users (IMHO), but I think we need to be careful not to
> attribute too many things to this one feature.
> 
> And we need to realize that the basic concept of multitasking has been
> around for quite some time, both in larger systems and with PCs - I even
> wrote a print spooler for my Radio Shack Model III.  Having a more
> flexible, standard multitasking support in an OS kernel is really important
> for modern systems (again, IMHO), but it's not really something that just
> suddenly appeared with the latest systems.
> 
> --
> -- David 

Sorry, David, I have come into the thread too late to read the original
messages. I do not wish to discuss the finer points of OS multitasking,
programming, etc. I am not qualified to do that. 

I simply replied to the dismissive way some programmer treated use of
multitasking by the "PC-low life", ie a secretary. My point is simple:
secretaries are (IMHO) perfect examples of human multitaskers: often doing many
things at once, from juggling telephones to typing several letters/reports to 
entering/quering invoices in Dbase. As more and more of her/his tools of trade
are on the computer (the letters, invoices, faxes, etc.) the more the secretary
can benefit from multitasking which mimicks his/her normal work-pattern. 

The human work-pattern is (generaly) serial/cooperative multitasking: the
secretary can only answer two phones "at once" by having one on hold. However
if her serial multitasking is impeded by the computer (which may be printing,
faxing or downloading a file) then preemptive multitasking is necessary. From a
user perspective, if you can give your computer a job which will tie it up for
any length of time, multitasking is necessary so your tool (the PC) remains
usable. That is why I prefer OS/2 to Windows.

I have not seen the original post, so I may be deviating. But (IMHO) we need to
keep the behavioural science in perspective as we argue about computer science.


******************************************************************************
Sven Zagala                                      OOO     SSSS   / 2222   !!
Centre for Soviet and East European Studies    OO   OO  SS     /     22  !!
Melbourne Uniersity                            OO   OO     SS /    22   
Zagala@sov_studs.unimelb.edu.au                  OOO    SSSS /    22222  !!
******************************************************************************
From: Bertram.Moshier@f115.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Bertram Moshier)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com