Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!sunic!uupsi!rpi!bu.edu!att!news.cs.indiana.edu!maytag!
csg.waterloo.edu!giguere
From: gigu...@csg.waterloo.edu (Eric Giguere)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Reality check: Amiga coverage is not a right, but a privilege
Message-ID: <1990Dec13.061622.13992@maytag.waterloo.edu>
Date: 13 Dec 90 06:16:22 GMT
Sender: dae...@maytag.waterloo.edu (Admin)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Lines: 91
Posted: Thu Dec 13 07:16:22 1990
Disclaimer: Flame me, not the university.
Someday I should really read the Mac or PC groups to see if they generate
the same kind of frenzy this group does...
Various posters have asserted their offence at the lack of Amiga coverage
in industry publications. First of all, freedom of expression does not
mean that you can DEMAND someone to publish something, only that that person
is free to do so if they wish. Only the publishers can decide what they
want to publish.
Now freedom of expression means that you can express your displeasure
(yes, freedom to whine is just as important as freedom to protest) and I'm
not denying anyone's right to do so. You can be offended, but I really
don't see why you should be if you use common sense.
Publishing is a strange area, and computer magazines tend to be run in
strange ways, but there are some constants:
1. Magazines are published by companies that want a return on
their money (profit). Even if they're non-profit, they have
to have money flowing in to pay staff salaries, printing costs, etc.
2. Companies advertise in a magazine because they are looking to
target their products at the magazine's readership, or a portion
of that readership.
3. Readers buy/subscribe to a magazine because the magazine's articles
are of interest to them and/or they want to see product advertisements.
4. Articles are written either by staff members or freelancers. Some
magazines (especially the technically-oriented) will depend almost
entirely on freelance submissions.
5. A magazine's main source of income is either its advertisers or
its subscribers, but not both.
6. The editor of a magazine is not the boss, but will have day-to-day
control over editorial content.
Magazine publishing works like this: the publisher of a magazine will
set its eye on a certain type of reader and aim for a certain circulation.
If there is no advertising, then the publisher must get subscriptions and
charge large fees for those subscriptions. Otherwise the publisher phones
up potential advertisers and says "Geez, my magazine sells XXX copies per
month, the typical reader is male, age 25-40, etc. etc." Based on this
information, the advertisers pay for ads. If the publisher has done its
figures correctly, enough ads/subscriptions are sold to pay for printing
costs, overhead, salaries, etc. and still return some kind of a profit.
What about the editors? They're tools the publisher uses to create a
magazine that attracts the readers it wants. The publisher reserves
a certain amount of space in each issue for editorial content and sets
the general editorial direction of the magazine. The editors must then
find articles that fulfill that mandate and attract the desired readers.
The advertisers are then happy and keep placing more ads, and so the
cycle continues.
Finding the articles can be a challenge. If the magazine is news-oriented,
it will often use its own writing staff and a stable of regulars to
get those articles. Other magazines tend to depend on what freelancers
can offer, with perhaps some columnists and/or contributing editors to
offer some stability. Once the articles are found, of course, they then
have to be edited, typeset, etc. The mechanics are quite involved, but
they're really a separate process from the sourcing process.
Now before people flame me, I've presented a very general overview and
there are always exceptions and differences. The large corporate publishers
tend to do their magazines like I've described. A mom-and-pop operation
will probably have different motivations, but most of us only get exposed
to "professional" publications.
So, how does this all relate to the Amiga? Simple: if there are more people
using PCs, Macs and Unix, then there are going to be more articles (and
publications) devoted to those systems. A larger market means more
advertisers trying to reach the market. This makes magazines target to
that market. The writers then find themselves writing for these magazines
because there are more of them (and they probably pay better) and they
want to eat. And so the cycle continues.
The point is, there is no "anti-Amiga conspiracy". It's all a matter
of supply and demand. And it's certainly NOT censorship! Censorship is
when someone steps in and stops you from publishing what you want to
publish. You decide what you want to publish AND what you DON'T want
to publish. Freedom of expression is also freedom of omission.
News organizations do it all the time, magazines are no
different. They have to choose among articles and news items the ones
that best fit their targeted readership, otherwise they'll lose that
readership.
More Amiga coverage will happen only when the market is big enough.
Writing insulting letters to the editor won't help your case a bit.
Buying Amiga software will, as will using your Amiga for productive work
and telling others about it.
--
Eric Giguere gigu...@csg.UWaterloo.CA
Quoth the raven: "Eat my shorts!" --- Poe & Groening
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!munnari.oz.au!ariel!ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au!u3364521
From: U3364...@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Reality check: Amiga coverage is not a right, but a privilege
Message-ID: <1395@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: 13 Dec 90 08:41:15 GMT
References: <1990Dec13.061622.13992@maytag.waterloo.edu>
Organization: I.A.E.S.R., Melbourne University
Lines: 26
Posted: Thu Dec 13 09:41:15 1990
G'day,
Eric Giguere (gigu...@csg.waterloo.edu ) writes:
> [..a very good discussion about the business side of who gets what..]
> [..coverage in magazines (esp. PC industry). A little too lengthy..]
> [..to include here however. ..]
I am not disputing what you've said about why magazines will not cover
the Amiga in their magazines. I agree with your observations.
As someone mentioned earlier, the Mac enthusiasts had to yell to have
their voice heard and they too were not a commercially significant lot
in the beginning (compared to the Big Blue crowd).
The magazine coverage thread, crude as it was { <-- we hope :-) } is a
Battle Cry. :-)
> Eric Giguere gigu...@csg.UWaterloo.CA
yours truly,
Lou Cavallo.
PS: how many of us have read statements similar to "you don't need any
multi tasking", or "multimedia has yet not arrived" in PC magazines? I
realise I'm only scratching the tip of a volcano here but ...
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!
ubc-cs!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!csg.uwaterloo.ca!giguere
From: gigu...@csg.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Giguere)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Reality check: Amiga coverage is not a right, but a privilege
Message-ID: <1990Dec13.155848.8152@maytag.waterloo.edu>
Date: 13 Dec 90 15:58:48 GMT
Sender: dae...@maytag.waterloo.edu (Admin)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Lines: 30
Posted: Thu Dec 13 16:58:48 1990
In article <1...@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> U3364...@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
(Lou Cavallo) writes:
>PS: how many of us have read statements similar to "you don't need any
>multi tasking", or "multimedia has yet not arrived" in PC magazines? I
>realise I'm only scratching the tip of a volcano here but ...
Don't flame me for this, but.... most people DON'T need multitasking on
their computer. What they do need is a way to switch rapidly between
applications and/or share data. Very few people are TRULY doing two
concurrent things. (Print spooling is about the only thing I can think of
that the average user will want to do.) This is why MultiFinder on the
Mac, the ultimate kludge, is successful. It works! (Well, usually.) It's
why Windows could get away with "co-operative multitasking". It's why
the IBM world proliferates with TSRs.
BUT even so, the Amiga can offer all these capabilities BECAUSE it offers
"true" multitasking, doing so much more cleanly and efficiently. Applications
don't have to do anything special. Of course, hacker-types love it even
more because they can do other things while compiling or downloading...
As for multimedia, I think the word is overused. I gave a couple of
presentations a few weeks ago that were done with AmigaVision and shown
on a video projector. All I used were still images and those neat fades,
and it was effective enough. I could have gone for animation, sound, etc.
but it wasn't worth the extra time to do it. When people say "multimedia"
these days, they usually mean "video". Obviously the Amiga is a good choice
for this...
--
Eric Giguere gigu...@csg.UWaterloo.CA
Quoth the raven: "Eat my shorts!" --- Poe & Groening
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!ogicse!ucsd!sdcc6!sdbio2!cleland
From: clel...@sdbio2.ucsd.edu (Thomas Cleland)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Reality check: Amiga coverage is not a right, but a privilege
Message-ID: <14937@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>
Date: 14 Dec 90 02:26:58 GMT
References: <1990Dec13.061622.13992@maytag.waterloo.edu>
Sender: n...@sdcc6.ucsd.edu
Reply-To: clel...@sdbio2.ucsd.edu (Thomas Cleland)
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Lines: 42
Posted: Fri Dec 14 03:26:58 1990
Nntp-Posting-Host: sdbio2.ucsd.edu
In article <1990Dec13.061622.13...@maytag.waterloo.edu> gigu...@csg.waterloo.edu
(Eric Giguere) writes:
>The point is, there is no "anti-Amiga conspiracy". It's all a matter
>of supply and demand. And it's certainly NOT censorship! Censorship is
>when someone steps in and stops you from publishing what you want to
>publish. You decide what you want to publish AND what you DON'T want
>to publish. Freedom of expression is also freedom of omission.
>
I agree, of course, in principle. However, it has certainly not
escaped IBM and Apple (presumably separately) that the best
public relations defense against competition from
Commodore-Amiga is to actively contribute to public perception
of the Amiga as "not a serious machine". Obviously they believe
differently--Apple uses Amigas in house, and both were falling
over themselves trying to get NewTek to do a DOS-Toaster or
MacToaster. I certainly don't see it as beyond those companies
to put pressure on respected magazines to limit competitors'
coverage (vast advertising budgets are pretty convincing).
>More Amiga coverage will happen only when the market is big enough.
>Writing insulting letters to the editor won't help your case a bit.
>Buying Amiga software will, as will using your Amiga for productive work
>and telling others about it.
>
Absolutely correct. That's how the Mac got accepted by the
mainstream as a serious machine. Just overpower the pressure of
money with the irrefutability of your presence and the value of
what you have to offer.
I don't condone the "rude" part of it. But keep the letters
flowing to editors. That's how they know there's an Amiga
market out here.
>--
>Eric Giguere gigu...@csg.UWaterloo.CA
--
// / Thom Cleland / It is easier /
// / tclel...@ucsd.edu / to get forgiveness /
\X/ / ASOCC * Amiga Users' Group at UCSD / than permission... /
\____________________________________\____________________/
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!sunic!uupsi!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!
news.cs.indiana.edu!maytag!csg.uwaterloo.ca!giguere
From: gigu...@csg.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Giguere)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Reality check: Amiga coverage is not a right, but a privilege
Message-ID: <1990Dec17.034643.7021@maytag.waterloo.edu>
Date: 17 Dec 90 03:46:43 GMT
Sender: dae...@maytag.waterloo.edu (Admin)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Lines: 8
Well, I'll tell you something: a lot of writers know about the Amiga, but
a lot of them avoid the machine because of the users they encounter. Until
Amiga owners stop whining and threatening them, you won't see much more
coverage. No writers, no coverage. Simple as that.
--
Eric Giguere gigu...@csg.UWaterloo.CA
Quoth the raven: "Eat my shorts!" --- Poe & Groening
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!sunic!uupsi!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!cunixb.cc.columbia.edu!md41
From: m...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Marcus Dolengo)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Reality check: Amiga coverage is not a right, but a privilege
Message-ID: <1990Dec17.055249.7684@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Date: 17 Dec 90 05:52:49 GMT
References: <1990Dec17.034643.7021@maytag.waterloo.edu>
Sender: n...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (The Daily News)
Organization: Columbia University
Lines: 33
I read the article on the A3000UX in Byte and noticed the authors 1st paragraph
said something to the effect "old beliefs die hard" and his were "the amiga
isnt a serious machine" etc. Who was he, how many articles has he written for
any mag and usually about what? anyone have an idea? The reason why I ask is
that perhaps he does NOT know about the amiga as much as he thinks, or as
someone suggested "writers know about the amiga but exclude them because of
threats from users" <parafrased from another post>
Magazines that pretend to be a magazine of "the industry" such as Compute or
Byte <or perhaps PC World/week, assuming they do cover non ms-dos machines>
have no excuse for not covering all the machines in that market. If they do
not, they should be reminded that they have:
1: ignored a large user base
2: possibly lied to their readers by stating things that "cant be done" but
are being done by amigas.... etc. etc. etc.
3: little journalistic integrity for doing the above, and its readership should
know this.
One was to do this is to write them letters. Not threatening, not condecending
<this isnt RUN magazine you know :D> but intellegent, non flame like letters.
Id think this would be more effeective than merely saying "they can write what
they want" because while it is true, they shouldbe accurate. and by ignoring
the amiga or glossing over it, they are not being accurate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
o o | This Space For Rent //
<< m...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu >> | Amerikkka's Most Wanted \X/
/> <\ | I made up my own mind, now I want a Tshirt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chi Omega Rho Fraternity. Because Co-Ed is better.
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!sunic!uupsi!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!
emory!gatech!ncsuvx!news
From: kdarl...@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Reality check: Amiga coverage is not a right, but a privilege
Message-ID: <1990Dec17.095310.8040@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu>
Date: 17 Dec 90 09:53:10 GMT
References: <1990Dec17.034643.7021@maytag.waterloo.edu>
<1990Dec17.055249.7684@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Sender: n...@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Lines: 56
In article <1990Dec17.034643.7...@maytag.waterloo.edu>
gigu...@csg.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Giguere) writes:
> Well, I'll tell you something: a lot of writers know about the Amiga, but
> a lot of them avoid the machine because of the users they encounter. Until
> Amiga owners stop whining and threatening them, you won't see much more
> coverage. No writers, no coverage. Simple as that.
Truth. Editors of two major non-IBM-specific magazines have told me that
they cringe whenever they print *anything* on the Amiga, because they
know that they'll get tons of nasty letters telling them their "mistakes".
So it's simply much easier for them to NOT print anything on the Amiga.
No, let me rephrase that: They cease to have any desire to do so...exactly
as people here hate to read lots of flame wars. Editors are people, too.
(Especially if the letter starts: "I don't buy your stupid mag, but...":)
And in <1990Dec17.055249.7...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
m...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Marcus Dolengo) writes:
> I read the article on the A3000UX in Byte and noticed the authors 1st
> paragraph said something to the effect "old beliefs die hard" and his
> were "the amiga isnt a serious machine" etc. [...]
I'm sure he echoed the thoughts of his readers about the name "Commodore".
By admitting his previous beliefs, he lent much more credence to his new.
> Magazines that pretend to be a magazine of "the industry" [.... have]
> 1: ignored a large user base
But not a large subscriber set. Most Amigans tend to not subscribe to BYTE.
In a Catch-22 way, this means it won't get covered as much.
> 2: possibly lied to their readers by stating things that "cant be done" but
> are being done by amigas.... etc. etc. etc.
> 3: little journalistic integrity for doing the above, and its readership
> should know this.
Agreed! But you'd be surprised that most of those same magazines are always
looking for articles by those who _do_ know. Yet they get no submissions.
Another point: remember the BYTE article last year (or so) which had that
awful Amiga picture? Funny thing is, the Mac and PC people also complained
about the photos of THEIR screens, also. People need to take one giant
step back, and view articles with blinders off.
> One way to do this is to write them letters.
Exactly. Praise them for covering things that you like. Factually and
calmly correct misinformation (you'll notice that those letters get
printed quite often). Write an article if you can (if you can't, then
perhaps you know less than you thought? ;-). <generic "you", of course>
Magazines go with what's easiest to cover... and that means topics with
lots of submissions, review hardware, and easy-to-please readership.
The real world is not automagically fair. It takes work and help.
best - kev <kdarl...@catt.ncsu.edu>
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!sugar!peter
From: pe...@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Reality check: Amiga coverage is not a right, but a privilege
Message-ID: <7294@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Date: 18 Dec 90 02:39:46 GMT
References: <1990Dec17.034643.7021@maytag.waterloo.edu>
<1990Dec17.055249.7684@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <1990Dec17.095310.8040@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu>
Reply-To: pe...@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston
Lines: 34
In article <1990Dec17.095310.8...@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> kdarl...@hobbes.ncsu.edu (
Kevin Darling) writes:
> Truth. Editors of two major non-IBM-specific magazines have told me that
> they cringe whenever they print *anything* on the Amiga, because they
> know that they'll get tons of nasty letters telling them their "mistakes".
What sort of "mistakes" are we talking about here? Are we talking about people
like Jerry Pournelle? If that's the case we're better off without the coverage:
no, "any coverage is better than no coverage" is not true. The best thing Jerry
has ever said about the Amiga is that a 2000 is a tolerable video game machine.
> But not a large subscriber set. Most Amigans tend to not subscribe to BYTE.
Many of us used to. I did. I've dropped several magazines (Byte, Dr. Dobbs
Journal, etc) because they're turned into IBM-PC only rags with maybe a little
Mac coverage.
But when you like an article in a magazine, TELL THEM. I haven't read this
particular Byte, but I'll probably buy the magazine just for the article.
Something I think more to the point:
Editor are just ordinary people. When you buy stuff for the Amiga and it doesn't
work on Amiga 3000s, or on 512K Amigas, or with 68030 cards, or multitask,
you're going to get a negative opinion of the machine. AUTHORS, please do
something about this. Commodore: AmigaVision is a cute program, but how about
a runtime that'll let AmigaVision scripts run on stock 500s? "You mean I need
to buy ANOTHER 512K just to use this?"
I mean, really. You can't expect Xenon 7 (or whatever) to multitask on a 500,
but surely my 3000 can pump bits fast enough so I shouldn't have to reboot just
to play a stupid game!
--
Peter da Silva. `-_-'
<pe...@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!sunic!uupsi!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!
portal!cup.portal.com!Lee_Robert_Willis
From: Lee_Robert_Wil...@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Multitasking at home (Was Reality check: ....)
Message-ID: <37101@cup.portal.com>
Date: 20 Dec 90 02:47:43 GMT
References: <1990Dec13.155848.8152@maytag.waterloo.edu>
<1990Dec15.031131.17141@isc.rit.edu> <1990Dec18.002802.624@lavaca.uh.edu>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 23
In article <1990Dec13.155848.8...@maytag.waterloo.edu> gigu...@csg.uwaterloo.ca
(Eric Giguere) writes:
>Don't flame me for this, but.... most people DON'T need multitasking on
>their computer.
Most people *DO* need multitasking!!! They just don't know that they need
it because they've never experienced it.
Do you realize what an icredibly huge pain in the arse it is to have
to exit out of a word processor just to check whats on a disk?
Exiting program A because the user needs to a utility in program B happens
all the time in the MSDOS world. This is why MACs MultiFinder is so
popular.
True multitasking is even better, since my application can number crunch,
paginate, spell check, update databases, etc. without making me wait.
I think anyone who works with a multitasking machine for any significant
length of time will never want to go back. (Having to exit an MSDOS
program never bothered me 'til I got my Amiga)
Lee Lee_Robert_Wil...@cup.portal.com
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cbmvax!daveh
From: da...@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Multitasking at home (Was Reality check: ....)
Message-ID: <16715@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 21 Dec 90 00:09:35 GMT
References: <1990Dec13.155848.8152@maytag.waterloo.edu>
<1990Dec15.031131.17141@isc.rit.edu> <1990Dec18.002802.624@lavaca.uh.edu>
<37101@cup.portal.com>
Reply-To: da...@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 38
In article <37...@cup.portal.com> Lee_Robert_Wil...@cup.portal.com writes:
>
>In article <1990Dec13.155848.8...@maytag.waterloo.edu> gigu...@csg.uwaterloo.ca
(Eric Giguere) writes:
>>Don't flame me for this, but.... most people DON'T need multitasking on
>>their computer.
>Most people *DO* need multitasking!!! They just don't know that they need
>it because they've never experienced it.
Actually, it goes farther than that. Most people EXPECT multitasking. It's
only certain computer people who have learned to put themselves into the
extremely unnatural singletasking mindset.
Think of it this way. Workbench, Finder, whatever are metaphores for a desk
top, workbench, whatever -- essentially a work surface on which to interact
with program objects. Look at your real work surface. Did it ever occur to
you that you couldn't use a pencil or stapler just because you were currently
using the phone? Of course not! You'll find the same thing, in most cases,
doesn't occur when a computer ignorant person plays around with Workbench.
It's quite natural, for example, to click on the "Boxes" demo, then click on
the "Lines" demo. No one would ever think of it being necessary to close the
Boxes demo before opening the Lines demo unless they had learned that most
computers work that way before playing with an Amiga.
>I think anyone who works with a multitasking machine for any significant
>length of time will never want to go back. (Having to exit an MSDOS
>program never bothered me 'til I got my Amiga)
I think you're right. And the reason is, humans don't naturally singletask,
so you're much more artifically constrained in a singletasking environment
than you are in a multitasking environment. Once you get used to being
free of any unnatural constraint, you rarely welcome it back.
>Lee Lee_Robert_Wil...@cup.portal.com
--
Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests"
{uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy
"I can't drive 55" -Sammy Hagar
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!wuarchive!rex!uflorida!beach.cis.ufl.edu!cr1
From: c...@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Anubis)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Multitasking at home is great!! (Was Reality check: ....)
Summary: Definitions
Keywords: Multitasking
Message-ID: <26060@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>
Date: 22 Dec 90 22:18:29 GMT
References: <1990Dec13.155848.8152@maytag.waterloo.edu>
<1990Dec22.082240.2443@news.iastate.edu>
Sender: n...@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU
Reply-To: c...@beach.cis.ufl.edu ()
Organization: University of Florida CIS Department
Lines: 19
Hi,
I've heard Amiga's multitasking defined in so many ways it makes my
head spin. Now, I have a general idea of how things work, but could
someone with a good grasp on the topic please explain to me exactly
how Amiga's multitasking works, and why it can be given the honored
term 'true multitasking' ?
Also on this subject, where can I find a good source about the inner
workings of the Amiga? Not one of these annoying 'this is your disk
drive' books, but a real good source.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=That is not dead which may eternal lie-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
* Christoper Roth * "Machines have no
* InterNet : c...@beach.cis.ufl.edu * Conscience..."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Yet with strange eons even death may die-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!
deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!pa.dec.com!granite.pa.dec.com!mwm
From: m...@fenris.relay.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Multitasking at home is great!! (Was Reality check: ....)
Message-ID: <MWM.91Jan5225918@fenris.relay.pa.dec.com>
Date: 6 Jan 91 06:59:18 GMT
References: <1990Dec13.155848.8152@maytag.waterloo.edu>
<1990Dec22.082240.2443@news.iastate.edu> <26060@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>
Sender: n...@pa.dec.com (News)
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 27
In-Reply-To: cr1@beach.cis.ufl.edu's message of 22 Dec 90 22:18:29 GMT
In article <26...@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> c...@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Anubis) writes:
I've heard Amiga's multitasking defined in so many ways it makes my
head spin. Now, I have a general idea of how things work, but could
someone with a good grasp on the topic please explain to me exactly
how Amiga's multitasking works, and why it can be given the honored
term 'true multitasking' ?
Sigh. The term "true multitasking" was born of immature Amiga users
being worried that their machine would lose some of it's "superiority"
over other machines that had been single tasking before, but recently
acquired a non-preemptive multitasking.
It's use implies that non-preemptive multitasking is somehow "fake" or
"false". This is no more true than the claim that the Isetta isn't a
car because it uses a motercycle engine. Non-preemptive multitasking
is every bit as much "true multitasking" as preemptive multitasking.
The only thing that makes preemptive multitasking deserving of the
word "true" is some Amiga users need for reassurance that they bought
the best machine in the world.
The world would be a better place - and the image of Amiga users would
improve - if Amiga users forgot the phrase "true multitasking", and
used the correct one: "preemptive multitasking".
<mike
--
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
rpi!uwm.edu!rutgers!cbmvax!daveh
From: da...@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Multitasking at home is great!! (Was Reality check: ....)
Message-ID: <17193@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 7 Jan 91 20:34:28 GMT
References: <1990Dec13.155848.8152@maytag.waterloo.edu>
<1990Dec22.082240.2443@news.iastate.edu> <26060@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>
<MWM.91Jan5225918@fenris.relay.pa.dec.com>
Reply-To: da...@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 38
In article <MWM.91Jan5225...@fenris.relay.pa.dec.com> m...@fenris.relay.pa.dec.com
(Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes:
>In article <26...@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> c...@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Anubis) writes:
> ..and why it can be given the honored term 'true multitasking' ?
>Sigh. The term "true multitasking" was born of immature Amiga users..
It's much more far reaching than that. For example, Personal Workstation
magazine equates "true" with "preemptive" in much of their writings on
multitasking.
>The only thing that makes preemptive multitasking deserving of the
>word "true" is some Amiga users need for reassurance that they bought
>the best machine in the world.
That's silly. Preemptive multitasking has quite a few advantages, and few
disadvantages, over non-preemptive multitasking. I have seen a few limited
cases where non-preemptive multitasking makes some real sense, but in most
cases, it is the wrong solution. It makes the job of task switching
dependent on the application program being well behaved, which is just as
flawed as moving any other OS job, such as graphics support, memory management,
etc. into user programs.
>The world would be a better place - and the image of Amiga users would
>improve - if Amiga users forgot the phrase "true multitasking", and
>used the correct one: "preemptive multitasking".
I do agree, anyway, that it would be technically correct for Amiga users to
say that. However, it is far from an Amigaizm to equate the two.
> <mike
--
Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests"
{uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy
"Don't worry, 'bout a thing. 'Cause every little thing,
gonna be alright" -Bob Marley
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!spool2.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!pa.dec.com!bacchus!mwm
From: m...@raven.relay.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Multitasking at home is great!! (Was Reality check: ....)
Message-ID: <MWM.91Jan7154817@raven.relay.pa.dec.com>
Date: 7 Jan 91 21:48:17 GMT
References: <1990Dec13.155848.8152@maytag.waterloo.edu>
<1990Dec22.082240.2443@news.iastate.edu> <26060@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>
<MWM.91Jan5225918@fenris.relay.pa.dec.com> <17193@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Sender: n...@pa.dec.com (News)
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 45
Posted: Mon Jan 7 15:48:17 1991
In-Reply-To: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com's message of 7 Jan 91 20:34:28 GMT
In article <17...@cbmvax.commodore.com> da...@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
writes:
In article <MWM.91Jan5225...@fenris.relay.pa.dec.com>
m...@fenris.relay.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes:
>In article <26...@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> c...@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Anubis) writes:
> ..and why it can be given the honored term 'true multitasking' ?
>Sigh. The term "true multitasking" was born of immature Amiga users..
It's much more far reaching than that. For example, Personal Workstation
magazine equates "true" with "preemptive" in much of their writings on
multitasking.
So what's your point?
I first saw the term "true multitasking" show up when the Mac & IBM
worlds got non-preemptive multitasking; and always from Amiga users
stating how the Amiga version was better than the other guys (it is,
but implying that alternative is in some way not multitasking isn't
the way to prove it).
>The only thing that makes preemptive multitasking deserving of the
>word "true" is some Amiga users need for reassurance that they bought
>the best machine in the world.
That's silly. Preemptive multitasking has quite a few advantages, and few
disadvantages, over non-preemptive multitasking. I have seen a few limited
cases where non-preemptive multitasking makes some real sense, but in most
cases, it is the wrong solution. It makes the job of task switching
dependent on the application program being well behaved, which is just as
flawed as moving any other OS job, such as graphics support,
memory management, etc. into user programs.
So how does any of this make non-preemptive multitasking not "true"
Note to Peter Kittel: Hey, this is the San Francisco Bay Area! We've
got more than one Isetta on the roads around here. Plus a couple of
Deux Chevron's, as well as other oddball cars. I'm still waiting to
spot a 170H, though. What's interesting is that many of these cars
have stickers in the window explaining what they are, including some
history and pointers to the appropriate clubs. Parking an Isetta
perpendicularly between to cars parked parallel attracts attention to
it - especially in the Bay Area.
<mike
--
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cbmvax!daveh
From: da...@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Multitasking at home is great!! (Was Reality check: ....)
Message-ID: <17210@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 8 Jan 91 03:55:35 GMT
References: <1990Dec13.155848.8152@maytag.waterloo.edu>
<1990Dec22.082240.2443@news.iastate.edu> <26060@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>
<MWM.91Jan5225918@fenris.relay.pa.dec.com> <17193@cbmvax.commodore.com>
<MWM.91Jan7154817@raven.relay.pa.dec.com>
Reply-To: da...@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 51
In article <MWM.91Jan7154...@raven.relay.pa.dec.com> m...@raven.relay.pa.dec.com
(Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes:
>In article <17...@cbmvax.commodore.com> da...@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
writes:
> It's much more far reaching than that. For example, Personal Workstation
> magazine equates "true" with "preemptive" in much of their writings on
> multitasking.
>So what's your point?
That folks far outside the Amiga community don't consider non-preemptive task
switching to be true multitasking. After all, it is simply a matter of how
you define multitasking. It is simple to define the properties of "true
multitasking" to either include or exclude non-preemptive systems.
>So how does any of this make non-preemptive multitasking not "true"
For example, _my_ definition of "multitasking" may have as one of its properties:
A completely CPU-bound task at priority N may not completely block
tasks at priority N+d, where d>=1.
Preemptive systems will pass this test, non-preemptive systems will fail it.
Since there is no single, accepted definition of "multitasking", what will
or won't constitute "true" multitasking depends on who's definition you apply.
A very loose definition might include user-initiated multitasking systems,
such as the Macintosh "Switcher" type programs. Or possibly even things like
Mac's desk assessories or MS-DOS "TSRs". Both of those are, in fact, forms
of multitasking, albeit more limited than the user-initiated switcher, which
is more limited than the function call initiated switcher, which is more
limited than the hardware-interrupt initiated switcher. Do you draw a line as
to which is "real" and which isn't? If you don't, then you're at least being
consistent. If you are, then we're (for the sake of argument) simply at odds
over where to draw the line, not whether a line should be drawn. Which must
fall back on our personal definition of the properties of "true" vs. "false",
"simulated", "pseudo", whatever-you-call-it, multitasking.
Again, my original point was that a much larger segment of the industry counts
non-preemptive multitasking as not quite "true" multitasking. It wasn't the
Amiga folks who made it up, though you are correct in that some of them do tend
to yell too loudly about it simply to make themselves feel superior to Machine
X, often without really understanding the real differences.
> <mike
--
Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests"
{uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy
"Don't worry, 'bout a thing. 'Cause every little thing,
gonna be alright" -Bob Marley
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!bacchus!mwm
From: m...@raven.relay.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Multitasking at home is great!! (Was Reality check: ....)
Message-ID: <MWM.91Jan8110848@raven.relay.pa.dec.com>
Date: 8 Jan 91 16:08:48 GMT
References: <1990Dec13.155848.8152@maytag.waterloo.edu>
<1990Dec22.082240.2443@news.iastate.edu> <26060@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>
<MWM.91Jan5225918@fenris.relay.pa.dec.com> <17193@cbmvax.commodore.com>
<MWM.91Jan7154817@raven.relay.pa.dec.com> <17210@cbmvax.commodore.
Sender: n...@pa.dec.com (News)
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 40
In-Reply-To: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com's message of 8 Jan 91 03:55:35 GMT
In article <17...@cbmvax.commodore.com> da...@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
writes:
For example, _my_ definition of "multitasking" may have as one of its properties:
Do you draw a line as to which is "real" and which isn't? If you don't,
then you're at least being consistent. If you are, then we're (for the
sake of argument) simply at odds over where to draw the line, not whether
a line should be drawn.
Well, I do draw a line. But I don't say that one form is "true"
multitasking and the other is "fake" multitasking; the latter form
isn't multitasking at all. If the user expects programs to multitask,
and the exceptions are "broken" programs that don't - then you have a
multitasking system. If the user expects program not to multitask, and
the exceptions are magic programs (TSRs, desktop accessories,
whatever) that can run while a "normal" program runs - then you don't
have a multitasking system.
Again, my original point was that a much larger segment of the industry
counts non-preemptive multitasking as not quite "true" multitasking. It
wasn't the Amiga folks who made it up, though you are correct in that some
of them do tend to yell too loudly about it simply to make themselves
feel superior to Machine X, often without really understanding the real
differences.
Well, I managed to miss the rest of the industry doing it, so I assume
others have done the same. Amiga users dropping that usage would help
their image. Since I object to the usage, it'd also make me feel
better.
Then again, I'll could decide that "true" multitasking means "no task
can ever be completely blocked out, unless the user specifically
allows it to happen by tagging the blocked task". That makes a lot
more sense to me than just not allowing low priority tasks to starve
higher priority ones. But then the Amiga doesn't have "true"
multitasking.
<mike
--
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!bacchus!mwm
From: m...@raven.relay.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Multitasking at home is great!! (Was Reality check: ....)
Message-ID: <MWM.91Jan9173914@raven.relay.pa.dec.com>
Date: 9 Jan 91 22:39:14 GMT
References: <1990Dec13.155848.8152@maytag.waterloo.edu>
<1990Dec22.082240.2443@news.iastate.edu> <26060@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>
<MWM.91Jan5225918@fenris.relay.pa.dec.com> <17193@cbmvax.commodore.com>
<MWM.91Jan7154817@raven.relay.pa.dec.com> <17210@cbmvax.commodore.
Sender: n...@pa.dec.com (News)
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 53
In-Reply-To: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com's message of 9 Jan 91 18:45:44 GMT
In article <17...@cbmvax.commodore.com> da...@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
writes:
In article <MWM.91Jan8110...@raven.relay.pa.dec.com> m...@raven.relay.pa.dec.com
(Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes:
>Then again, I'll could decide that "true" multitasking means "no task
>can ever be completely blocked out, unless the user specifically
>allows it to happen by tagging the blocked task". That makes a lot
>more sense to me than just not allowing low priority tasks to starve
>higher priority ones. But then the Amiga doesn't have "true"
>multitasking.
While not every multitasking OS tries to get close to realtime response,
your restriction is nothing you'd expect to find in the average
multitasking system, realtime or not.
I disagree - every multitasking OS I've worked with (sans AmigaDOS)
either met that restriction, or met it if you never used the real-time
facilities. They all "aged" tasks so that a low-priority CPU-bound
task would get some cycles, even in the presence of many high-priority
cpu-bound tasks.
And in general, most of these make the fact they you are mulitasking
hidden from the programmer. That's certainly not true with TSRs, which
are a hack, or desk accessories, which have to be specially written.
But under Multifinder, one of those cooperative multitaskers, programs
have to be specially written too in order to be multitasked.
Well, defining a term based on what a programmer sees is natural for a
programmer. But then you have to explain to a non-programmer why
system P is "multitasking", whereas system NP isn't, when there is no
difference in what they see happening. I think it makes a lot more
sense to define a user interface question (and it is) in terms of what
the user sees, instead of in terms of what a programmer sees.
While what you consider to be multitasking
depends on definition, a wacky restriction designed to exclude mainly the
Amiga OS is silly, and you know it.
Yup, I know it. To me, it looks like "true multitasking" is defined to
exclude multifinder and similar hacks. I think that's silly. I think
it's sad that others have picked that useage up (I can't think of any
other reason for defining "true multitasking" that way, so ...). That
means I go on a campaign to convince people _not_ to use that term,
similar to the ongoing campaigns against "hacker" as a synonym for
"computer literate criminal" and "PC" as a synonym for "IBM or
compatable personal computer."
<mike
--
Look at my hopes, Mike Meyer
Look at my dreams. m...@relay.pa.dec.com
The currency we've spent, decwrl!mwm
I love you. You pay my rent.
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cbmvax!daveh
From: da...@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Multitasking at home is great!! (Was Reality check: ....)
Message-ID: <17289@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 9 Jan 91 18:45:44 GMT
References: <1990Dec13.155848.8152@maytag.waterloo.edu>
<1990Dec22.082240.2443@news.iastate.edu> <26060@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>
<MWM.91Jan5225918@fenris.relay.pa.dec.com> <17193@cbmvax.commodore.com>
<MWM.91Jan7154817@raven.relay.pa.dec.com> <17210@cbmvax.commodore. <M
Reply-To: da...@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 42
In article <MWM.91Jan8110...@raven.relay.pa.dec.com> m...@raven.relay.pa.dec.com
(Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes:
>Then again, I'll could decide that "true" multitasking means "no task
>can ever be completely blocked out, unless the user specifically
>allows it to happen by tagging the blocked task". That makes a lot
>more sense to me than just not allowing low priority tasks to starve
>higher priority ones. But then the Amiga doesn't have "true"
>multitasking.
Except, of course, your definition won't permit an operating system to be
support both "true" multitasking and "realtime" response. To be real time,
or even close to it, you need deterministic behavior. On the Amiga, a task
can get very close to this by bumping its priority up, since it will be
wholly unaffected by all tasks at a lower priority. Any system that gives
CPU time to lower priority tasks cannot easily guarantee that the higher
priority tasks get anything even close to realtime response.
While not every multitasking OS tries to get close to realtime response, your
restriction is nothing you'd expect to find in the average multitasking system,
realtime or not. Whereas most every general purpose multitasking operating
system would support my previous restriction. And in general, most of these
make the fact they you are mulitasking hidden from the programmer. That's
certainly not true with TSRs, which are a hack, or desk accessories, which
have to be specially written. But under Multifinder, one of those cooperative
multitaskers, programs have to be specially written too in order to be
multitasked. There are plenty of programs that can run for very long
periods of time without naturally requiring a function call. Basically, any
program that's CPU intensive, rather than interactive. My restriction is
hardly an artificial restraint. From what I've seen of them, AmigaOS, OS/2,
UNIX, VAX/VMS, Aegis, TOPS-20, RSTS, OSK, and probably a few I've missed
exhibit this expected behavior. While what you consider to be multitasking
depends on definition, a wacky restriction designed to exclude mainly the
Amiga OS is silly, and you know it.
> <mike
--
Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests"
{uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy
"Don't worry, 'bout a thing. 'Cause every little thing,
gonna be alright" -Bob Marley