>Ummmmmmmm.....no. Multiprocessing does not equal multiple >processors. Multiprocessing means Multiple Processes. The >Mac kind-of does multiprocessing. You can check this out >by first bringing up BBEdit, MacPerl, QPQ, and Netscape. >Check under the "?" area. You will see all of these things >are running on the system. They are (if you want to >stretch the actual means of the word) multiprocessing. In >my humble opinion though - what they are actually doing is >a form of timesharing. But others will probably disagree. > Sure enough, I diasagree. Back when I was in Famous Programmer's School in the early cretaceous period ('81, '82-ish) we believed these terms went with these (highly informal) definitions: Multiprocessing: Use of more than one CPU (not possible with ONE CPU), presumably for some noble computational purpose (as opposed to say, paperweights). Multitasking: More than one process running on a given single CPU. This is also known as Time-Sharing no matter how you slice it. You can't multitask on a single CPU without sharing time, unless you're in some other universe where guys like Newton and Einstein are considered idiots. Parallel processing: something cool you could do if you had more than one processor and the ability to split up pieces of a program so that those multiple processors each ran a chunk of the program (thread) simultaneously, in the interest of getting better overall performance of the WHOLE program. Analogous to having nine women be pregnant for one month and getting a baby as a result, instead of one woman pregnant for nine months and getting the same result. Except that it's do-able. Since I'm mostly lurking here, and reserve the right to be stupid, I invite others to tell me that my CS education is obsolete and everything I've said is wrong. It's important to me that I know whether or not my memory is working. Cheers, Howard ***** Want to unsubscribe from this list? ***** Send mail with body "unsubscribe" to mac-perl-request@iis.ee.ethz.ch