![[challenge entry]](/images/board_posticon_c.gif "Challenge Entry: What do acronyms really stand for?"){kind=small}
Sorry...
From the What do acronyms really stand for? challenge. See all 338 entries (closed)
(, Fri 12 Aug 2005, 21:17, archived)
I remember when theywere touting that as the worlds first multitasking operating system. I just sat there confused as I'd been using the Amiga workbench for 7 years at that point and it had been fully multitasking at all times ( unlike windows ).
(
Zoot Cadillac . do androids dream of electric sheep?,
Fri 12 Aug 2005, 21:25,
archived)
I was an Amigan too - and proud!Those OS/2 adverts were hilarious... "There's no hourglass!"
/geek
(,
Fri 12 Aug 2005, 21:26,
archived)
/geek
Actually the original release of Windows announced in 1983And it did have multitasking. Workbench 1 was released in 1985. (Last I checked)
Edit - Hmmm, seems it was November 85 for Windows and October 85 for Workbench. Oh well, one month
(,
Fri 12 Aug 2005, 21:29,
archived)
Edit - Hmmm, seems it was November 85 for Windows and October 85 for Workbench. Oh well, one month
Pfft...Fully pre-emptive multi-tasking? I doubt it. Multi-tasking does not just mean 'having more than one thing on the screen at a time'. Mind you, even that would have been difficult 'cos in Windows 1 you couldn't even overlap windows! :)
(,
Fri 12 Aug 2005, 21:35,
archived)
Multitasking simply means being able to dedicate RAM toTwo (Or more) programs at once not including that reserved for the OS. /nerd answer
(,
Fri 12 Aug 2005, 21:36,
archived)
Well in that case, my C64 could 'multi-task' too.Because it was quite feasable to have one program in one part of memory, and another program in another. Heck, using interrupts you could even get the appearance of two routines running at the same time.
No, what's needed is a decent task sheduler. Which Microsoft didn't release until 1995, and even that was still a bit ropey by the Amigas standards.
/uber-geek answer
(,
Fri 12 Aug 2005, 21:44,
archived)
No, what's needed is a decent task sheduler. Which Microsoft didn't release until 1995, and even that was still a bit ropey by the Amigas standards.
/uber-geek answer
I'm pretty sure the C64 couldn't do thatSeeing as the Amstrad couldn't either. Remember multi load games that required full rewinding and reloading of tapes to start again?
(,
Fri 12 Aug 2005, 21:45,
archived)
I'm not talking about running two programs at the same time.You couldn't load up two games at the same time, no. I was merely applying your definition "being able to dedicate RAM to two (Or more) programs at once not including that reserved for the OS".
You didn't say anything about running (or appearing to run) them both at the same time. Your definition describes something even the most primitive computers could do (given enough RAM to contain said programs).
(,
Fri 12 Aug 2005, 21:50,
archived)
You didn't say anything about running (or appearing to run) them both at the same time. Your definition describes something even the most primitive computers could do (given enough RAM to contain said programs).
Neither am I, and believe me, you'd be surprised.If it still works try this: Type up some basic code and then run a program. When it's done your code will be gone. Also, once you return to the prompt from a compiled program you have to load it from tape again. I lost a good few of my crappy little basic projects that way by forgetting to save them to disk/tape with my Amstrad.
(,
Fri 12 Aug 2005, 21:52,
archived)
Oookay...Say I was programming my C64 in assembly language. I could have one routine at one address, and one routine at another. Both seperate 'programs' and both in RAM. If I wanted to be really clever, I could switch quickly between them, giving the appearance of them both running at the same time.
The same applies to BASIC. It's still quite possible (on the C64 at least, I don't know about Amstrads) to write your program, change the area of memory that the system uses for BASIC programs, write another program and switch between the two.
Neither of these scenarios fall under your original definition.
(And games for the old 8 bit machines weren't 'compiled'. They were more than likely 'assembled'.)
Yes, I know I'm a geek. Someone kill me now.
(,
Fri 12 Aug 2005, 22:03,
archived)
The same applies to BASIC. It's still quite possible (on the C64 at least, I don't know about Amstrads) to write your program, change the area of memory that the system uses for BASIC programs, write another program and switch between the two.
Neither of these scenarios fall under your original definition.
(And games for the old 8 bit machines weren't 'compiled'. They were more than likely 'assembled'.)
Yes, I know I'm a geek. Someone kill me now.
Butwindows was not multitasking. It's just geeky IT nerds that want to perpetuate a myth. It could not multitask because it had to assign wait states to each instruction. An Amiga running at 12mhz could process more istructions per cycle than an IBM 486DX 100 simply because of the Amiga's dedicated chip architecture. ( as in a different processor for different actions such as graphics sound and maths co processing ) all of that came much, much later for the x86 PC. Also IBM would have been sued if they claimed )S/2 warp was multitasking and Windows was not it it were not so.
( Zoot Cadillac . do androids dream of electric sheep?,
Fri 12 Aug 2005, 21:40,
archived)