Apple felt threatened by the pending release of Windows 95. It had preemptive multitasking, and was heralded by many magazines as “easy to use as Mac”. Apple started he Copland project to respond. It was to have had live searches, full multitasking and all of Apple’s next generation technologies. The project was canned in 1996 at the behest of Gil Amelio, though many of its technologies were eventually included in the OS. Read about it at MLAgazine.
System 8 and Copland
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
as for removable media, is the microsoft way any better?
Not really. But the Amiga had it right.
being able to rip the media out in the middle of a read operation is not my idea of good design from a usability standpoint.
If a program still needed a disk after the user removed it, the Amiga would prompt for the missing volume by name. Every volume had a name as well as a hidden unique identifier, so you could even put it into a different drive.
As for the programs, well they should be able to deal with faulty disks anyway, so a suddenly removed disk shouldn’t be more of a problem.
Your code doesn’t allocate anything on the stack apart from one integer variable, so why should there be a stack overflow?
You never know what the compiler’s gonna make of it.
Don’t be silly.
Just because the scheduler gives the TM a higher priority, it doesn’t mean it copes well with CPU starvation. The issue is the offending loop offers little natural switching point.
The timer interrupt doesn’t care what kind of program it’s interrupting, so no “natural switching point” needed.
Not for the timer interrupt, of course, nor for a weighted round robin scheduler. But the fact is that if one of your processes gets caught in an infinite loop, the NT task manager will take ages to come up, the network will stop, and delicate i/o such as dvd burning will starve even if it is high priority itself. And it’s done without spanning multiple threads/processes.
Your code doesn’t allocate anything on the stack apart from one integer variable, so why should there be a stack overflow?
You never know what the compiler’s gonna make of it.
Don’t be silly.
It’s quite possible that the machine code produced when the logic has a loop may result in something that can produce a stack overflow. Just try it.
This is moot anyhow, since all there is to it is that ‘my’ code above won’t probably lock down any OS, due to int overflow, fact which I pointed out in the post just below it, on which you chose to pick about what ‘register overflow’ might be.
I thought you could still find the BSD string somewhere in win xp. Can’t remember exactly what type though.