At 1:26 PM -0500 5/10/98, Michael A. Stone wrote:
[snip]
>it probably uses time-sliced preemptive multitasking, because that's just
>the best general solution to running multiple programs simultaneously.
>(Apple's success with cooperative multitasking is really a fluke, based on
>their history of nearly fascist control over development technologies.
>they've kept the barn door closed and the horse inside. it's given them
>the power to do things other platforms can't, even though it's cost them
>points in the market)
Well -- it worked -- their singlemindedness means the interface has always
been seamless between software and hardware components have always "worked."
OS/2 is also, most likely, a single-user OS, so it
>probably doesn't worry about segregating areas of memory from each other,
>beyond what's necessary to keep programs from stepping on each others'
>toes.
>
>i don't know if it's capable of running multiple instances of the same
>program or not. single-user OSi usually don't bother with that, because
>it can be confusing to the end-user.. launching a separate instance of the
>word processor every time you open a document, for instance.
Well -- Win95 does this. It drives me crazy -- am I the only one? I've
never understood why it couldn't "tell" that Word was already open! Or
Netscape. I've gone down to the hidden Win95 horizontal "programs open bar"
before and have had four instances of netscape and three of Word. Too wierd.
>>And UNIX <g>
>
>time-sliced multitasking, multiuser, multiprocessing, multiprogramming.
>it's an OS designed for machines that sit in a closet somewhere and have
>umpty-odd users logged in from remote terminals at any given moment. it
>was, itself, a brutally stripped-down version of a large and almost
>literally bulletproof OS developed for the military, called Multics.
>Multics was really astonishing in its goals, for its day.
>multi-everything and most of it running in paralell.. very few assumptions
>about hardware.. hot-swappable everything: drives, processors, whatever..
>secure processing, you name it.
OK - I've heard a complaint that it (unix) isn't happy with users that
log-in and "stay in" a long time. Contrasted with a web client -- which
sends a little request and then "turns off." Is my question clear/muddy?
Comment?
>>BTW -- it's my understanding that NeXt borrowed from the UNIX architecture?
>
>i'm think so, yes. as i understand the mythology, when Jobs started the
>project to design the NeXtOS, he hired one of the original developers of
>unix. in effect he said, "okay, unix is a great OS, but it's been growing
>and changing ever since it was invented. if you could start all over
>again, knowing what you know now, what would you do?" and then they did
>it.
Hmmm... then that could be why Rhapsody has the "geek" folks salivating.
And why everyone talks about its having "sound" stable, scalable roots.
But why would I want "server-type" software on my Desktop?? I think of
server's as having a far more troublesome job -- getting requests from lots
of different "other people." My desktop PC only gets requests from Moi.
Right?
Kathy
===============================
Kathy E. Gill, Guide - http://agriculture.miningco.com/
Publisher, eNetDigest - http://www.enetdigest.com/
WWW design � writing � training - http://www.dotparagon.com/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. - Gandhi
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done
directly from our website for all our lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
