#3.1 worth it?
15 messages in this thread
>>I could never face those black menus again
What exactly is wrong w/em? And what does 3.1's menus look like, hmm?
BTW: If I were to upgrade to WB3.1, there are a few features that would
have to be in it to make it worthwhile…
1. Threads [maybe?] (I realize coprocessors r faster, but threads r good 2
2. The ability to _FORCE_ any program to run in a window, including any
games on AmigaDOS disks.
3. The ability to disallow the closing of WB by any app running. (WB2.1
can screens to be pulled down, but they've closed WB!)
This would really spiff up the already great multitasking. If it has just
one of these, it's worth it (disallowing the WB closing is the most
important feature 2 me)
Can any 3.1 users please tell me whether it has this stuff? (I sorta feel
stupid pumping hundreds of $$$ worth of life into a possibly dead
computer, but as I've said at least a hundred times already, I plan to
stick with it!)
Intel Overdrive…off a cliff!
Nathan Jones, via amiga autopilot. –FLAME ON!–
3.x's menus are black on white; similar to Mac and Windows. They are legible no
matter what color mode and colors are in use. 2.x menus can be very illegible
when a command is highlighted.
Michael @ Soft-Logik Publishing Corp.
You can get around the app closing WB problem by running any program on WB that
opens a window on it, e.g., shell, clock, etc. WB won't close if there's an
open app window on it.
I hate, no I love to say this, but the Amiga OS has always allowed multiple
tasks per process. Only they are called Tasks, not Threads. They are actually
the same thing-They both use the same memory space of the parent and they both
create their own stack. The only difference is that OS/2 calls them Threads
while Amiga calls them Tasks. It is interesting how close they operate, even in
their invocation: DosCreateThread in OS/2 vs CreateTask in Amiga OS. But the
term Task came first, that is why such systems are called MultiTasking and not
MultiThreading.
..Andy from Harding, NJ
The more complicated they make the plumbing, the easier it is to stop-up the
drain. ….Scotty
We may get into terminology confusion here. Amiga makes a distinction between
TASKS and PROCESSES: a task is quite easy to create from another program but
has some trouble with DOS operations; a process is a heavier-duty version which
comes with full DOS superstructure.
If a user starts something via CLI/Shell or Workbench, that something will be
a process. That process in turn can spawn "children" – most often child tasks,
because they are easier to create. But a process can indeed launch another
process if it needs to do so.
When the parent program terminates, it can send a message to its child
processes and tell them to terminate, too. But it doesn't have to: the
children can survive the parent, and often do so.
I'm not sure this distinction exists outside the Amiga environment.
Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary:
TASK: a stand-alone application or a subprogram that is run as an independent
entity;
PROCESS: a program or part of a program;
THREAD: a process that is part of a larger process or program.
So a thread is defined as part of a task/process (a "child task"?). PROCESS
and TASK are not clearly distinguished (application=program? subprogram=part
of a program?).
MULTITASKING: (long definition) .. in which a computer works on more than one
task at a time. There are several types of multitasking…
MULTIPROCESSING: (definition indicates multiple processing units).
But heck, the Microsft dictionary is almost 3 years old now. I'm sure the
words have changed meaning since then.
–Jim
I'm sure Billy-Boy revamps the definition weekly to make sure is
Environment of the week looks good! <g>
Chris – Fast and Low on my '020!
Anyone know where I can get some old "Paper Lace" 45's?
Jim:
The terminolgy you present is correct, by definition, but not wholy true in
implementation. For example, it is true that an Amiga OS PROCESS is a superset
of an Amiga OS TASK. Both utilize the same TASK structure. This works the same
way in IBM OS/2, where a PROCESS is a THREAD which can launch other dependent
THREADS. An Amiga OS PROCESS is a TASK which can launch other dependent TASKS.
I have done this. Each of these OS PROCESSES (Amiga and OS/2) can also launch
other independent PROCESSES as well. This is unlike UNIX which can only launch
PROCESSES by 'forking'. Thus a UNIX process can terminate leaving the daughter
process to become a ZOMBIE process adopted by the INIT process. Whereas, an
Amiga PROCESS with a dependent TASK or an IBM OS/2 PROCESS with a dependent
THREAD, will terminate all dependent TASKS/THREADS when the parent is
terminated, alone with any PORTS or IPC mechanisms. I write programs in UNIX,
Amiga OS and IBM OS/2, and I can tell you that the general process is basically
the same between Amiga OS and IBM OS/2, but not UNIX. They are created
basically the same way, but controlled somewhat differently.
..Andy B.
Thanks for the note, Andy.
These terms sometimes get thrown around in discussions, and since it seems
that each machine has its own terminology for similar items, I thought it would
be worthwhile to toss in a note.
–Jim
Andy,
It's the multi-user nature of UNIX that all processes end up as
children (grand-children, great-great-grandchildren, etc.) of init.
Don
Andy,
BTW….a 'zombie' process in UNIX is one where it dies, but refuses to
go away. They often show up in process lists as '<exiting>' or <defunct> and
don't respond to a kill (including -9) signal. It's most often caused by
failing to close all open file descriptors or controlling terminals when
attempting to write a daemon.
Using the same family-type terminology, when a parent process dies, the
child process is 'adopted' by init or the parent's parent.
Don
Hey all,
I have but one question to ask. I have upgraded my CD32 into a full
fledged HD installed computer. If I by WB 3.1, will I need to make any
ROM changes, or is the 3.1 ROM in the CD32 the same ROM? Thanks in
advance.
Peter M. D'Angelo
Cruising Over NY on AutoPilot
From the WB, hit the "about" menu item, or from shell, do "version." What
does it say that your CD32 has for a KickStart revision?
If that is about the same as the KS being shipped as 3.1, then you don't
need a ROM upgrade.
Let us know what you find.
Dale L. Larson Intangible Assets Manufacturing (info@iam.com)
"That's the best part about being crazy. You see things no one else can see."
CD32 already has the 3.1 ROMs.
-mark=
Otto Pilot Engaged..
PMJI but good point. In "threads" OS/2ers think they have leapfrogged
everyone else who *merely* multitasks, but here's the Amiga, right in the
thick of things. As most Madison Ave. types know, taking an old product
and renaming it does wonders, sometimes.
"He tasks me."
— Kahn (STII)