From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:44:45 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Sep27.050408.12169@nosc.mil>, discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) write
s:
>In article <1992Sep25.200526.11598@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (Dav
id Charlap) writes:
>>>The problem is that there are dreadfully few OS/2 applications that take
>>>advantage of multitasking... so that when people refer to multitasking on
>>>OS/2, they talk about disks and modems... something that can really be
>>>pooh-poohed.
>>
>>Lotus apps generally print in the background, allowing you to work on
>>other files while print formatting is going on.  There are plenty of
>>other examples as well.
>>
>
>... I stand by what I said.  There are dreadfully few apps that take
>advantage of multitasking.  A mere handful, on the PC.  This will change...
>and when it does, multitasking will be a reason to switch.  Until then,
>all it is is potential.

No you are talking about multi-threading.  Different matter altogether.
Multitasking is the system's responsibility, not the apps.  (In the vast
majority of cases, I know there are exceptions)  The nice thing about
multitasking is that the app doesn't have to know anything about the other
apps on the system.  In OS/2 and other well designed systems, the apps know
nothing about each other unless you let them, but they can be running at the
same time.  This is multitasking.  Threads on the other hand are usually the
most efficent way for a single program to do more than one thing.  (i.e. print
in the backround)
>
>[stuff deleted about a "better" download solution would be multiple
>computers]
>>
>>Your needs vs. mine.  I can't afford mutiple computers.  Apparantly,
>>you have them lying around doing nothing anyway, so it's not a
>>problem.
>
>Poor you.  But the point is, that there are better solutions in some
>instances.  Even so, downloading in the background is not a very
>popular/critical thing for most people anyway.
>
Not popular?  Reality check.  That is one of the most popular reasons to go to
a system such as OS/2.  (Whether it is the best, well, you decide)  And for
many people it certaintly is a critical thing to do.  Heck  workstations be of
much use if they couldn't do this.  (I know OS/2 isn't for workstations, but
the arguement was broader than that)
>>
>>>The power of multitasking isn't in running multiple Apps.  TASK SWITCHERS
>>>can do that just fine for the reason you mention above: no one can
>>>do more than one thing at one time with reasonable efficiency--as I wrote
>>>elsewhere: people make poor multitaskers.  *I* cannot create a spreadsheet
>>>AND write a submission at the same time... or Telemarket and balance the
>>>books at the same time.... if I could, I'd never have to hire anybody.
>>
>>But I can create a spreadsheet while my 30 page term paper is
>>printing.  No task switcher can do this.
>
>First, one does not write a thirty page term paper every day (or even
>every month).  Second, if *I* just finished writing a 30 page term paper,
>the least of my desires is to crank open a spreadsheet--the thing on my
>mind would be... Pizza (or sleep)!)!

No but I do print out fairly large documents, (Shareware manuals etc.) several
times a week.  I didn't write these but I would rather be able to do other
work while they are going.  When I am programming, this can be invaluable at
times.
>
>
>>
>>>Multitasking's power is in developing software.  Creating a solution to
>>>a problem is much easier if you can abstract it to the level of: I'll
>>>tell this process to wait for input, massage it, and pass it to this
>>>process....
>>
>>In academics.  Most people don't write their own software.  Sure, this
>>is a big source of multitasking's power, but don't blind yourself to
>>the fact that there are more mundane uses for it.  You may consider
>>print spooling and telecommunications to be a waste of a machine's
>>power, but most of us don't have or want that many computers (and
>>monitors and keyboards) on our desks at once.
>
>No, I'm talking about as a benefit for the PC industry.  The long range
>benefit of multitasking isn't "printing in the background"--heck a $49
>printer buffer is probably more useful than that (and even DOS can
>print in the background!).  The benefit is that programmers will have
>a new way of solving problems--which will result in programs that are
>an order of magnitude "more complex" than current public domain
>solutions...
>
Interesting, OS/2 as a $49 print buffer.  There is nothing long range about
multitasking.  Most operating systems have had it built in or available for
quite some time now.  The PC world is just now realizing this and is playing
catch up.  If you think that all multitasking is, is the ability to print in
the backround, (BTW that is multithreading in most cases) then you really need
to go find out what its definition is and then use a system that has it.  You
seem to have little concept of what you can do with it.

>>
>>>There is another, rambling thought that passes through the corridors of my
>>>mind: Multitasking, in the end, may be good for the Company... but how
>>>about for the Office Worker?  I can imagine some top exec going to his
>>>admin assistant and saying "I want this and this and this and this and this
>>>and this done by Lunch"--thinking the worker now has OS/NT and can
>>>multitask.  Horrible thought, huh?
>>>
>>>Show of hands, everyone, how many people think that computerization has
>>>benefitted the office worker?  (my hand is down).
>>
>>Does this mean that we should stifle the technology?  What's your point?
>>--
>
>The point, is that, in the end, aren't we simply making more fashionable
>chains for ourselves?  If you don't think it's ironic, then the effort
>was wasted on you.

Perhaps it is ironic, but I have yet to see anyone's boss who is that stupid.
(And believe me I had more than my fair share of stupid bosses)  They
generally know how fast a given task takes and aren't so idiotic as to think
that now that they have this new OS, that suddenly productivity will increase 5
fold.
>
>-> Joe <-
>
>My opinions.
>

Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------