> Yes.
> But so does a single CPU.
> That is, if the software manufacturer used best practices.
The way you write it, it seems the OP couldn't have seen what he did:
he runs a large report query and during that time cannot use his
computer for other tasks.
Looks like even today the OS needs the applications' cooperation to
remain responsive, regardless of the multi-tasking method.
-Tom.
>> Yes.
>> But so does a single CPU.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
>Not since Windows 3.1.
david epsom dot com dot au - 23 Jan 2006 22:54 GMT
User applications are normally written to take
high priority. If you have two user applications
running, they will each run half as fast, which
is a massive slowdown.
System processes are normally written to take
low priority, which works well for small user
applications, but is poor when doing massive
long-running foreground processes.
>>> That is, if the software manufacturer used best practices.
It is not best practice to write foreground applications with low priority.
In a perfect world, computers would be infinitely powerful and infinitely
adaptive.
In the real world, software designers have to compromise between conflicting
requirements.
(david)
> The way you write it, it seems the OP couldn't have seen what he did:
> he runs a large report query and during that time cannot use his
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>>
>>Not since Windows 3.1.
Darryl Kerkeslager - 24 Jan 2006 00:31 GMT
> The way you write it, it seems the OP couldn't have seen what he did:
> he runs a large report query and during that time cannot use his
> computer for other tasks.
"Cannot use" may not be what I meant to write - more like the slowdown is
abominable. This is mainly an issue with the work computer, XPPro,
switching between the query running (v. large and run over WAN) and Word,
Outlook, Excel.
Perhaps the issue is memory or the network. When I run the report over my
LAN at home, it runs so fast that I don't notice any problem.

Signature
Darryl Kerkeslager