MULTITASKING AND OS. DISCUSSION.
(C) DENIS TOKARCHUK I DIDN'T THINK THAT THE ARTICLE ABOUT MULTITASKING PUBLISHED IN
THE PREVIOUS ISSUE WILL CAUSE AT LEAST SOME REACTION. HOWEVER, NO -
THERE WERE TWO CRITICAL COMMENTS FROM READERS. AT ONE OF THESE
WE ARE WRITING AND BUILDING OUR ARTICLE TODAY. SECOND READER, K
SORRY, I WISHED TO REMAIN UNKNOWN.
SO, J BLAST'S WORD:
DJV:''...ARTICLE ABOUT MULTITASKING AND OS. THERE IS PRETTY
ROUGH ATTACK ON THE PC (DON'T CONSIDE ME AS AN EVIL SCRIPTER, BUT IT IS NECESSARY
RESTORE JUSTICE!). THE FOLLOWING WAS SAID (MAYBE I
I AM WRONG IN THE FORMULATION, BUT THE MEANING IS THIS):
'...ON THE PC, MULTITASKING IS IMPLEMENTED PURELY BY SOFTWARE...AND
BECAUSE OF THIS, FREAKS TYPE SHIPDOSHS APPEAR...'
I WILL NOT PROTECT THE TAKE OUT - THE THING IS REALLY CLUGGY UNTIL
DISGRACES. BUT HERE'S THE REST... TO MAKE SUCH STATEMENTS,
IT IS NECESSARY TO AT LEAST CERTAINLY CLEARLY PRESENT THE SUBJECT
CONVERSATION, AI DOUBT THAT ANY OF YOU
MY EYES SAW A BRANDED DESCRIPTION OF THE X8B FAMILY PROCESSORS.
I HAVE READ THIS DESCRIPTION CAREFULLY TO
SAY THAT THESE PROCESSORS SUPPORT MULTITASKING
IT IS ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED AT HARDWARE LEVEL. ANOTHER QUESTION,
HOW THE FEATURES PROVIDED BY THE PROCESSOR ARE USED. BUT
HERE, AS THEY SAY, IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T EAT! DON'T LIKE TAKE IT OUT -
PLUG IN LINUX...''
DShT: PERHAPS I SPOKE SOMETHING INCORRECTLY ABOUT MS. BUT
LET'S MAKE A LITTLE ANALOGY. IMAGINE TWO
COOKS WHO WORK IN THE SAME RESTAURANT. THEY TWO WERE GIVEN
THE SAME INGREDIENTS WERE SET TO COOK THE SOUP. ONE WELDED
DELICIOUS SOUP - JUST TO LICK YOUR FINGERS. ANOTHER WELDED IT
A TASTY POOR THAT JUST MAKES YOU TURN UP... ACCORDING TO WHAT
WILL THE SOUP BE JUDGED ON THE RESTAURANT? NATURALLY, IT'S NOT TASTY. And
THIS TASTE SOUP WILL BE THE CAUSE OF A BAD REPUTATION AND PEOPLE
THERE WILL BE LESS PEOPLE GOING TO THIS RESTAURANT. NOW IMAGINE
THAT A RESTAURANT IS A PC, COOKS ARE OPERATING MANUFACTURERS
SYSTEMS, TASTY SOUP - LINUX, TASTY SOUP - WINDOWS.
BECAUSE OF THIS, WINDOWS WAS POOR (IN THE EYES OF SPECTRUMISTS AND (!)
PROFESSIONALS)REPUTATION OF A CUTE, AND ALL BECAUSE OF WHAT HE SAYS
'PISYUK' MEANS 'WINDOWS', SAYING 'WINDOWS' -
I MEAN PUSSY. THIS IS WHAT I THOUGHT.
DJV: ABOUT THE OS ON ZX I WILL ONLY SAY: THE QUANTITY IS ALREADY
THE NUMBER OF PROGRAMS CONSIDERABLY EXCEEDS THE EXISTING OS
WRITTEN TO WORK UNDER THEM. (BY MEMORY - XDOS, IS-DOS, PEOS,
MYTHOS...YET?) SO WHY DO YOU THINK THAT A NEW AXIS WILL ACHIEVE
ANOTHER FATE?''
DShT: SPECTRUM - THE IRON IS VERY UNPREDICTABLE AND TO IT
SOMETIMES COMPLETELY UNEXPECTED THINGS HAPPEN. LET'S TAKE THE MENTIONED
IS-DOS. IF YOU TAKE A LOOK, THIS OS IS PRETTY CLOSE - OF COURSE
NOT MORE PRIMITIVE THAN TG-DOS, BUT... AND STILL IS-DOS HAD
HAS A CERTAIN SUCCESS... AND ALSO - THE POWER OF THE SPECTRUM IS NO LONGER
COMPARABLE TO THE POWER OF THE OS, THEREFORE A CONVENIENT AND NECESSARY IS NECESSARY
A COMPARATIVELY SIMPLE SYSTEM TO HANDL
COMMUNICATE WITH BOTH DEVICES AND PROGRAMS.
DJV: ''REGARDING MULTITASKING: IT WAS CORRECTLY NOTED THAT
WITHOUT HARDWARE SUPPORT THIS IDEA IS UNSOUNDABLE. AND NO OS
IT WILL NOT HELP HERE...MUTUAL INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT TASKS LOCATED IN
IN THE SAME ADDRESS SPACE IS ALMOST INEVITABLE, AND
IT WILL BE REQUIRED TO WRITE NEW SOFTWARE, OLD SOFTWARE IN SUCH CONDITIONS
IT WILL NOT WORK (OR WELL, WHILE KILLING ALL THE REST
PROCESSES AND WITH A HIGH PROBABILITY OS, NORMAL
THE OPERATION OF WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT SYSTEM VARIABLES,
WHICH WILL NATURALLY BE IN THE GAM (WHERE ELSE WOULD THEY BE?)...''
DShT: REALLY? AND IF YOU WRITE (OR ADAPT) PROGRAMS UNDER
CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS MADE BY THE OS (REGARDING MEMORY AND
DEVICES), OR IN GENERAL ALL CONCERNS ABOUT MEMORY DISTRIBUTION AND
SHOULD HANDLING DEVICES BE RESPONDED TO THE OPERATING SYSTEM?.. YES,
IF WE WERE IMPLEMENTING A PARALLEL (SUPPLING - ME
CORRECTED) MULTITASKING (ZXT#2), THERE ARE NO CONFLICTS HERE
AVOID. BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COOPERATIVE MULTITASKING...
DJV: ''HIGH LEVEL LANGUAGE. I DON'T SEE THE POINT. WHY INVENT
BICYCLE? COMING UP WITH A COMPILER... THERE WAS QUITE A MANY ATTEMPT
IMPLEMENT A HIGH LEVEL COMPILED LANGUAGE ON ZX - PASCAL,
SI, BASICS OF DIFFERENT TYPES, FORT, ETC. NONE OF THEM
WITHstands NO CRITICISM IN THE SPEED OF THE OBTAINED CODE.
IT'S BEEN OBVIOUS TO EVERYONEWHAT IS A MORE OR LESS DECENT PROGRAM FOR
ZX CAN ONLY BE WRITTEN ON ASME.''
DSHT: NO ONE INVENTS THE BIKE. I repeat, SPECTRUM -
IT'S A QUITE PECULIAR COMPUTER AND IT NEEDS A SPECIAL
LANGUAGE. I PROBABLY EXPRESSED IT WRONG IN ZXT#2. MOST LIKELY
THIS WOULD BE SOME COLLECTION OF VARIOUS ESSENTIALS FOR PROGRAMMING
PROCEDURES THAT COULD BE REFERRED TO IN ROM, WHERE, HOW
IT IS KNOWN THAT THE EXECUTION SPEED IS SOMETHING HIGHER THAN IN RAM.
IT IS SOMETHING INCONVENIENT TO ACCESS THIS 'COLLECTION' FROM ASSEMBLY.
FOR THIS, SOME SIMILARITY OF A HIGH LEVEL LANGUAGE IS MADE
(Rather, 'Elevated') WHERE ASSEMBLY IS MIXED WITH COMMAND
INTERPRETER OF THIS VERY LANGUAGE... AFTER WRITING IN IT
PROGRAM AND AFTER ITS COMPILATION, THE SAME CODE IS RESULTED
WHO DOESN'T CARE WHERE HE IS (WHAT ADDRESS
SPACE) - THE PROGRAM SITTING IN ROM PROCESSES
(COMPILES) THE CODE RELATIVE TO THE ADDRESS WHERE IT IS LOCATED.
JW: ''AS AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF A HIGH LEVEL LANGUAGE
THE THOUGHT IS PROVIDED THAT IT WILL FACILITATE THE WRITING OF RELATIONSHIPS
PROGRAMS (THAT IS CORRECTLY CALLED). IT'S LIKELY. THIS IS ON ASME
IT IS REALLY SIMPLE TO IMPLEMENT.HOW? CREATE A TABLE OF MOVEABLES
ELEMENTS, AND WHEN LOADING, WE CONFIGURE ALL TRANSITIONS ON THIS
TABLE. ALL THAT IS NECESSARY IS THAT A UNIVERSAL LOADER LIKE THIS
PROGRAM BUILT INTO OS...''
DSHT: IMAGINE: THE PROGRAM TAKES 1OO KILOBYTES. INTERESTING
HOW MUCH MEMORY WILL THE TABLE OF MOVEABLE ELEMENTS TAKE UP? YES AND
IN GENERAL, WHO IS INTERFERING WITH INTEGRATING MODULES FOR RELOCATED PEOPLE IN THE OS?
PROGRAMS WRITTEN IN ASSEMBLY?.. IN PRINCIPLE, THAT'S WHAT I'M ABOUT
HE SAID - THE OS SHOULD BE UNIVERSAL IN ALL REGARDS. WE ARE NOT
MUST REPEAT TG-DOS'S MISTAKES, ONE OF WHICH (THE MOST
UGLY) - LIMITED OPPORTUNITIES GENERATED
UNIVERSALITY (SOMETHING I HAVE SOME STATEMENTS TODAY
IT GETS STRANGE... :)).
DJV: ''BY THE WAY. HAVE YOU SEEN GAL SOMMAPDEG 2.O? I RECOMMEND
VIEW. PRETTY GOOD OPERATING SYSTEM, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT,
AND MULTITASKING! ;))))''
DSHT: HA-HA... BUT ALTHOUGH... WHY NOT? ELEMENTS
MULTITASKING IS AVAILABLE. BUT MINUS: GAL SOMMAPDEG THING
HIGHLY SPECIALIZED...DJV: ''ALL, ENOUGH WITH THE ATTACKS. PLEASE DO NOT BE OFFENDED, I DID NOT PUT
YOUR GOAL IS TO OFFEND SOMEONE OR TO PROVE SOMETHING. ALL THIS
JUST MY THOUGHTS ON THE TOPIC YOU PROPOSED.''
DShT: Hmm... WHERE ARE THE RAIDS? THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR... THIS IS NOT EVEN
CRITICISM, BUT A CONSTRUCTIVE AND INTERESTING DISCUSSION. I THINK THAT
WE, YOU, AND ABOVE ALL SPECTRUM NEED THIS DEBATE.
LIKE AIR, IF YOU WANT... IT IS A MAJOR (IN MY VIEW) ERROR
OF OS MANUFACTURERS UNDER THE SPECTRUM - THIS IS THAT THEIR IDEAS WERE NOT
KNOWN UNTIL THE PRODUCT IS APPEARED. THEY WERE NOT DISCUSSED, NOT
THEY CRITICIZED, DID NOT ADD...
BEFORE SELLING ANYTHING, THEY USUALLY RESEARCH THE MARKET.
HIS ABILITIES, NEEDS, WISHES ARE STUDYED. ON THIS
A LOT OF MONEY IS SPENDED; MANY YEARS HAVE BEEN DEDICATED TO THIS... WHAT?
MANUFACTURERS OF OSES FOR THE SPECTRUM? THEY USUALLY SPIT ON THIS AND
BEING CONVINCED OF THE UNIQUENESS AND INDIVIDUAL NEED OF THE FRUITS
THEIR FANTASIES, THEY RELEASE -ALREADY DEAD- PROJECTS. THEY ARE
(OS PROJECTS) COME UP LIKE SNOW ON YOUR HEAD, AND DO WITH THEM
WHATEVER YOU WANT. OKAY, IF IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE FITTED INTO ROM (HOWEVER,
NORMAL OS UNDER SPECTRUM 'LOADABLE'WAY YOU CAN'T DO IT -
YOU MUST HAVE IT IN ROM). AND IF YOU NEED IT?.. THIS IS
A CERTAIN COST OF TIME AND MONEY FOR FIRMING-REFIRMING THE ROM. A
IF THE OS IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SOFTWARE MANUFACTURER? (AS IT USUALLY
AND IT HAPPENS ON THE SPECTRUM) SPENDING YOUR BLOOD ON SEWING AGAIN
ROM'S?.. SO IT IS A 'CLOSED CIRCLE' - USER
(CONSUMER) DOES NOT USE THE OS BECAUSE OF ITS POOR SOFTWARE
ENVIRONMENTS; THE SOFTWARE MANUFACTURER DOES NOT SUPPORT THE OS BECAUSE OF ITS LOW
USER RATING...
THAT'S WHY I THINK IT IS NECESSARY TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT
NEEDS AND NO NEEDS OF THE NEW OS, WHAT IT SHOULD HAVE, WHAT
NO NEED, ETC, ETC...
(TO BE CONTINUED POSSIBLY TO FOLLOW...)
SHALL WE CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION, READERS?
* * *
Share your thoughts about the article