thelinuxlink.net

It's rare for me to hear or read about comments regarding the apparent power of Linux's ability to multi-task. I'm always amazed at the capability my PC has of doing several things at once, and to do them efficiently. More so than when I used to use Microsoft.

For example, I can listen to tunes with XMMS, download a file through gtk-gnutella AND burn another file to a CD without a hiccup from the system.

When I'm at the office, and forced to use MS-XP, the silly thing tells me that I should not be running any other programs while I attempt to burn a CD. Something to do about the delicate burning procedure, as it tries to explain... yeah, right!

Heck, the XP system at the office even seems to have difficulty opening up an Excel file while I'm playing an .mp3 file (either the .mp3 playback "hiccups" or Excel takes a bit longer to open the file).

It just surprises me that I don't hear about multi-tasking advantages of Linux from more of its' users.

I think the main reason we don't hear more about it is that people have been fed the lie that Windows was a multitasking OS from Win95 onwards. Now, we all know better, but that's not very easy to explain without getting technical.

I suppose you're right. I know multi-tasking was a feature that we were told Win 9x was better at doing, but I never really experienced it when I used it.

I remember one time watching, as Commodore guru Jim Butterfield demonstrated what multi-tasking really looked like (I don't recall the Commodore OS he was using). I do remember wondering why my MS-Windows never performed as well as the Commodore OS... after-all it was a multi-tasking OS too.... wasn't it?

Well, I know better now.

Windows was a multitasking OS since 95... do you mean multi user OS?

I don't think MS-Windows ever was/is a very good multi-user OS. XP "tricks" you into thinking it's multi-user, but even it doesn't separate user files and settings from one another very well. Not in my opinion, anyway.

Oh agreed, even XP is a horrible multi user OS.