Re: ultimate multitasking?
Originally posted by nate13
Ok, im no comp wiz so this may be totally wrong but... couldnt you assign a processor to different uses/ apps? And have certian apps marked to be assigned to a totally seperate processor?
ex:
#1-Core system/ finder
#2-Photoshop/ plugins
#3-Dreamweaver/ Fireworks
#4-All those other little apps (safari, mail, exct...)
but anyways, i hope apple is reading these roumer pages cause that would be a first in personal computing that would pretty much landmark apple.
Mac OS X already does something like that - but dynamically. So if App A request 100% of the CPU, OS X will give it as much as it can. If there is more than one CPU, it may give that App the entire CPU. If it requests more than one CPU, it may give it as many as it can while still giving time to other apps.
The way it does this is with threads - an application can have more than one thread, and the OS schedules threads to CPUs, so if there is more than one CPU each thread can be on a different one. Threads compete for CPU resources, so when a thread doesn't need the CPU (which is most of the time for most threads) other threads can use the CPU. Eventually even threads that monopolize the CPU can't keep it forever though, so your system is always responsive.
Originally posted by tom.96
I might be wrong, but didn't moto bring out a quad proc mac when clones were around? I have a feeling it had four 132mhz procs or something similar.
Does anyone have any info on how this machine performed with Mac apps? I know it was a long time ago, but it would be interesting to know people's experiences with this.
Please note - this is only from my memory, I may be wrong so please correct me if I am!
Daystar (which actually created the original threading implementation on Mac OS 8) produced such a box with as many as 4 (I think) 166Mhz 604e CPUs.