home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: comma.rhein.de!serpens!not-for-mail
- From: mlelstv@serpens.rhein.de (Michael van Elst)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
- Subject: Re: Demo/game to OS frien
- Date: 30 Jan 1996 11:03:45 +0100
- Organization: dis-
- Message-ID: <4ekqe1$pv@serpens.rhein.de>
- References: <4ekcrb$1q9@sinsen.sn.no>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: serpens.rhein.de
-
- tbk@sn.no (Thore Bjerklund Karlsen) writes:
-
- >Hooray for multitasking.. No point keeping the system alive if you own
- >the blitter?
-
- The idea is to own the blitter only for a short time.
-
- Also, there might be system tasks that are wanted to be kept alive
- that do not use the blitter at all.
-
- >What is the difference between Forbid() and SetTaskPri(127)?
-
- The fact that Forbid() is inefficient ?
-
- But no. You are not asked to run at priority 127 all the time. You
- should do the time critical tasks at priority 127 (or even within an
- interrupt).
-
- >Two times the code.. Not fun.
-
- Well, better than half times the code and crashing.
-
- >Do you call SetTaskPri(veryhigh), LoadView(0) and OwnBlitter() not
- >shutting down the OS?
-
- Pure c0d3r-style argumentation.
-
- And no, not even that is "shutting down the OS".
-
- >Everything CAN be made OS-compatible.. But at a price.
-
- The price is to give up the c0d3r ideology.
-
- --
- Michael van Elst
-
- Internet: mlelstv@serpens.rhein.de
- "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
-