From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 05 Oct 92 09:05:20 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Oct4.180905.27222@ms.uky.edu> sam@ms.uky.edu wrote:
> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Oct3.052735.869@leland.Stanford.EDU> jswang@leland.Stanford.EDU wrote:
> 
> >> 
> >> Actually, I think I myself tend to "multitask preemptively" a lot.  Like when
> >> I need to wait for something (for food to be cooked), I often would go
> >> off and do something else, then come back after say five minutes.  If I
> >> need to continue the wait, I'll just continue doing that something else, then
> >> return to check again after a while.  Would you consider this "mulitasking
> >> preemptively".
> >> 
> 
> >Tell you what, though, try this.
> 
> >Sit down to do something like, say, your income taxes.  Get one of those
> >kitchen timers, and set it for 5 minutes.  Do your taxes.  When the
> >bell goes off, reset the timer, and go read the newspaper.  When the bell
> >goes off, reset the timer again, and watch TV.  and so on, and so on.
> 
> >If you don't scramble your brains after a while, I'm impressed.
> 
> >Now, also, in your boiling water deal, wouldn't you much more prefer to
> >set a timer, or have some sort of an alarm that goes off when the
> >water is boiling.  I find it distracting to have to go back to check
> >on boiling water more than one or two times.
> 
> >Now, if you did have an alarm of that type, wouldn't boiling water be
> >more equivalent to sending a request to the disk controller, and then
> >servicing the interrupt it generates when it's done.
> 
> >Okay, I've gone off on sort of a tangent here, but I guess I've tried to
> >point out that preemptive multitasking is not the only method for doing
> >things in the real world, as well as in the computer world.  And in some
> >cases, it's not the best.
> 
> 
> >petesk@microsoft.com
> >My Opinions...
> 
> 
> That is an absurd analogy, and has no bearing on operating systems.

Okay, well, tell the person who started that anology, not me...

> 
> The only time preemptive multitasking is not the best method is when its not
> the method used in the operating system you're trying to sell.
IYHO of course.  Or are you deciding for the rest of us too?

> 
> IMHO, preemptive multitasking is a requirement.  Also, any OS should be
> multiuser.  This is a shortcoming in both NT and OS/2.  With machines
> becoming more and more powerful, there is an increasing need for multiuser
> operating systems, in order to take better advantage of the underlying machine.
> 

I bet I can be absurd here too.  What about the "OS" in my microwave oven,
should it be multitaskin/multiuser.  How about the "OS" in one of those
new handhelds, should they be multiuser.  What about the "OS" on a machine
controlling a conveyor belt in a factory, or a milling machine.  What about
the "OS" in a dedicated word processor.  What about the "OS" in video games.
You know, the one's you find in arcades.  Should they be multiuser.

Okay, Okay, I'll stop, but I think I've named enough computing environments
that are valid markets that don't need multiuser, and may not need 
multitasking systems.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...