[rescue] Mac Appliance

[Dave McGuire]

On August 3, Scott Newell wrote:
> >> Ok, so why did they go with cooperative? I don't believe it was 
> >> considered a good idea. Pre-emptive had to have been considered
> >> too "expensive" in *some* fashion...
> >
> >  I really have no idea.  I don't think it was a particularly good
> >decision, and it has resulted in some problems. 
> 
> A cooperative multitasking system is really running just a single thread of
> execution, right?  In that case, I can see that it would make a big
> difference in the UI and kernel code, as they would not need to be re-entrant.

  Cooperative multitasking is multitasking in which each process must
decide to give up control of the machine periodically...i.e.,
user-process-controlled timeslicing.  In preemptive multitasking, the
OS maintains control of the machine and "gives" each process
timeslices.

   -Dave


-- 
Dave McGuire
Laurel, MD