Marcel Kilgus writes: > >>> All of this sems a like a whole lot of bother > >>Hm, it IS worse than I imagined. > > But do we have any choice? > > Hmmmm... how are your chip designing skills? :-)
If its so much bother implementing SMSQ/E on a faster (but different) processor, isnt it worthwhile revisiting the multi-processor option again? If you cant get faster processors, use more of them! In its simplest implementation, SMSQ/E mightnt need a lot of work to convert it to a multi-processor, multitasking OS. Most of the kernel could be left alone and only a new "super"-scheduler would have to be devised that would allow the distribution of tasks among the processors. No other existing software need change unless one specifically wanted to take advantage of any special multi-processor facilities. I say all this with the complete confidence of a layman. Per _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
