From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 27 Sep 92 21:09:06 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Sep25.164035.24984@nosc.mil>, discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) write
s:
>In article <1992Sep25.022544.20058@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Sk
elly) writes:
>>
>>I really do think multitasking is a good thing, but by trying to imply
>>your vision of multitasking to the real world systems out there makes
>>people assume things.  They assume that you must have some sort of
>>pre-emptive multitasking system.  They assume that you should multitask
>>when at all possible.  This is wrong.  You should multitask when, and only
>>when it buys you something tangible.  Just doing it for the sake of doing
>>it makes little sense.
>>
>
>Yes!  This is the point I was trying to make!  Multitasking in and of itself
>RIGHT NOW is a curiosity--I haven't seen a really good, habitual use of
>multitasking on a desktop system that didn't seem *contrived* yet; people
>act as if they format 30-50 floppies every day, or download data for hours
>on end each day... I see *potential* in what multitasking offers, but it is
>the *least* of the reasons (IMHO) to switch to OS/2 (or NT).  The reason
>being that AT THIS MOMENT, OS/2's (NT's and, yea verily, even Windows 3.1)
>much vaunted "multitasking" is really only being used as a task switcher.
>This will change, but until it does...it is not a reason TO change: because
>Multitasking for the sake of doing it makes little sense.

Well, a good friend of mine does download for hours a day.  (He has sick
amounts of hard drive space) That doesn't really matter though.  I use
multitasking *every* day.  Invariably, I am working on something that requires
me to jump to another task.  I hate having to drop everything in order to do
this.  Also I frequently run two programs simultaneously with data links between
them for DDE.  This is not just task switching.  When I do download, most of
the time I have other things that I need to get done and thus it frees me up
for other more important tasks.  A task switcher is simply not sufficent.  I
should know, I've used them many times before.  They don't always do the job.



>Multitasking is just another tool, like the idea of a Von Neumann archetechtre
,
>>paged memory, the hard disk, linked lists, etc.
>>
>>It's won't save the world, but it can help make it a bit better.
>
>Right!  It can make it better.  I *want* to switch to a 32 bit GUI environment
>because of the potential of making programs easier to develop.  But there
>would be no point, in supporting say, NT (just to get the OS/2 boogies of my
>back), if NT is not going to be the operating system of choice.  So I'll
>wait for the market to iron out and switch to the winner.

Why?  Macs have never been the "system of choice", but I much prefer using
them to a DOS based machine.  (no flames please, simple personal preferance)
Use the system that best suits you, not the one that the market decided would
sell more copies.  I use OS/2 right now, because it is the system best suited
to my needs and tastes.  Who cares if DOS has sold more copies?  I can run
most of its stuff anyway.  By waiting for a "winner", you are only letting
other people decide which system you use.  If that suits you, fine, but then I
might wonder what you are doing on an advocacy group.
>
>But soon, real soon, we will see a series of free, but conceptually complex
>software available for these new OS's--made possible by the fact that
>a programmer now has a new tool to work out such complex problems: multitasking
.
True.

>
>>
>>petesk@microsoft.com
>>My Opinions...
>
>Just my opinions too.
>
>Joe.
>
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy