How do you define "multitasking"?

I'm a bit surprised by the amount of regular people that think they need a quad core CPU because they frequently have 4 everyday/productivity programs open at once...

 

Your multiple choice is a bit limited so I chose all cores under load.

I think the reason why most people want 4 cores is because they want their computer/laptop to last for a while, which is why they purchase strong hardware with an eye towards the future where programs become more and more cpu demanding.

Since the most demanding tasks I do consist of gaming, I'll stick with 2 core cpu's for a while.

 

Then again, even seasoned computer vets mistaken Mb/s with MB/s.

 

I think there is a problem with this definition.
Technically, Multitasking is simply running multiple processes either by switching between each task rapidly and or utilising multi core CPU to run multiple Process.
Example of Non Multitasking OS: Original DOS
Example of Multitasking OS: All other OS.

 

I define it as more than option A, but not quite B. I have around 90-120 processes, with several of those being Chrome tabs. I "multitask" when I'm flipping through web pages in Chrome, going back and forth between Dreamweaver and Photoshop, while listening to some music in iTunes.

 

To me, multi-tasking is doing exactly that: doing more than one thing at one time --- whatever they may be. If I'm drafting a document while carrying on an IM conversation with someone, and responding to some other emails all at the same time, that's multi-tasking. Or if I'm ordering something on line while checking my bank balance and talking on Skype, that's multi-tasking.

 

No, multi-tasking has nothing whatsoever to do with multiple cores. It means that an operating system is running multiple processes seemingly "in parallel", which is usually accomplished by rapidly switching between tasks, but could also be implemented by running tasks in parallel on different processors or processor cores. Which implementation is chosen is irrelevant to the definition of multi-tasking. Note also that multi-tasking has nothing to do with what the user is doing. Windows will do muti-tasking even if the user is only running a single application, or none at all.

So answer B would be entirely wrong, but A is artificially limited.

 

I feel multitasking is running multiple things at once, switching back and forth. Like right now, I have Firefox with 3 tabs, Word, PowerPoint and Windows Media Play open.

Whether my cores are fully utilized, my computer is certainly multitasking.

 

which is why he said and or. fast switching on one core, and or utilizing multiple cores.


and yes, multitasking from a user perspective is doing more than one thing at a time. no matter how the pc reacts to it really.

 

+1 (Well, "All other OS" is too broad but I've got the point)
Even Windows 2 on the 286 system was "multitasking".

 

For me it would be having at least a dozen internet tabs open on 2 browsers, streaming hulu/movie, Pandora, buffering youtube, 8-12 office docs, explorer, and email.

And this does happen fairly often.

 

People are pointlessly debating two levels of multi-tasking; one is the definition understood by computer scientists, the other is understood by laymen and enthusiasts. They both serve their own special purposes.

 

This is my take on it too.

 

Agree with ya.

 

What are you referring to when you say multitasking? For a humans it would be A and for a computer it would be B.

 

None of the options given in the poll make much sense in either case.

 

Multitasking? Unless you have all programs running at the same time in different monitors. Going back and forth is not multitasking.. it's single tasking since you are essentially working at one program at a time. One a side note.. women can multitask, men can't.

 

If you are talking about multitasking with respect to a cpu, then that means having multiple things actually RUNNING at the same time. Having a word document op and a bunch of browser tabs is not multitasking. When you switch focus ot the word document then the browser tabs stop doing anything. Whether you have a single core CPU or quad core CPU wouldn't matter at all.

OTOH there are processes/tasks that can keep running while you switch focus to something else. You might start a big download/upload, then while that is going you switch to your word document and start writing. Now you have 2 things actually running at the same time. A multi-core processor will definitely help. With a single core, you will probably notice a big slowdown.

Here's what I do sometimes at home with my quad core processor- I'll run my browser in one window, have a big file download running in a second window, and an anti-virus scan running in a third window. With quad-core processor I don't notice that the other 2 windows are actually doing anything.

My computer at work is a dual core. When I had a single core, running autocad, I would try to open a big drawing file that would take several MINUTES, and I would switch to another window to do something else productive while waiting but with only one cpu core it was almost impossible for the second window to respond to me. Now I have a dual core and it is much better, but I've noticed that some tasks such as background plotting can still dominate 2 cores which leaves no processing power for me while I'm waiting.

 

That pretty much sums it up in my book .

 

You're not very good at adding, then. There's lots and lots of other examples of non-multitasking OS, such as the iPhone/iPOD Touch versions of OS X, and in fact all Apple operating systems before OS X.

 

Yea I know there are too many OS developed in the world so I might have missed some.
They added multitasking in OS 9 along the way.
Corrections:
Most other OS.

 

Neither.

Having 4-15 windows open such that whenever a window stops to "think" about something (run a query, load something large, etc) you shrink said window and move to the next "ready" task. Combined with cross referencing and matching between data in different windows and you have multitasking

 

Come to think of it, back in those days, it was really users who multitasked (e.g. brushing teeth or brewing coffee while waiting for computers to finish a task).

 

Multitaksing on a computer for me simply means doing stuff simultaneously, which arguably most people can and do indeed do.

As for cores, multitasking isn't related to hardware IMO. Hardware does indeed affect the intensity or the ability of a computer to multitask, but it doesn't define the term. I mean, if it's simple multitasking(i.e. none of the tasks are particularly hardware intensive), then you can multitask just about anywhere. For example, at work I create Virtual Machines, surf the internet, remote desktop onto a server, listen to music and translate documents on a P4 running XP and it's still "multitasking" by my definition.

 

encoding video while playing a 2d game and browsing the internet.

on a core 2

 

Let's see
Matlab, IDE, virtual machine, 1 console, Word, notepad, Firefox, Chrome, and windows media player....
Does it qualify as multitasking ????

Actually you know what, I work on two computers at the same time switching back on forth if you want to call that multitasking

 

Actually the iPhone OS does multitask. It's just a restriction that has been placed not to multitask 3rd party apps. It does multitask default apps though. And Jailbroken lifts the restriction of the 3rd party restriction.

Also, versions of Mac OS had multitasking.

 

MacOS9 and earlier had multitasking like the Amiga (or even Windows 3.1) had multitasking... as in, very badly. It was VERY easy for one application to screw up another and/or take down the whole machine because there was no memory protection for anything going on.

 

it's the difference between the os doing multitasking, and YOU being allowed to do it.

any os by now does it. but not everyone does allow YOU to do multitasking on it.

 

Ableton Live or Adobe something or visual studio on Tv screen , music working in the background if i am not mixing on Ableton , and on the laptop screen webpages and chat windows and folders

 

ableton doesn't multitask on export. which is why i got an i5 to speed up beyond my previous quadcore

 

The results have been quite enlightening. At the very least, it seems that it's best to avoid using this term without clearly defining it every time I use it.

By the way, for those of you who feel that the poll options are too extreme, it's meant to be that way to eliminate any potential gray area and it seems most people understood what I was getting at anyway so it worked out well in the end.

 

I used to "multitask" by running Desqview X-Windows on DOS. Of course the CPU was actually sharing its cycles between different windows since back then we only had single core CPU's. But what I was doing was multitasking no matter what definition you want to place on it. I was dialing into a bulletin board and downloading newsgroup messages in one window, while reading messages in another window. While reading in my active window I could still see the text scrolling in the background window.

 

Ah yes, but that's because technically speaking, DOS was not really an operating system in the modern sense of this word, since it did not really stay in control of your hardware. Applications would regularly shove poor old DOS aside to do their own thing, and then put it back in place once they were finished. In the case of DesqView you might say that your actual (stub-)OS that you were running was DesqView, and not DOS.

 

Well, word + adobe reader is multitasking but doesn't cause full processor load...

Creating a HDR or panorama in Photoshop (no GPU acceleration) causes full load on all cores but is in theory a single task.

Multi tasking and multi threaded are not the same - and all those people who think they need a quadcore - they used IE and something else on the old single cores all the time - I did anyway on my Pentium M and it used to run fine.

 

Of course they used IE and other stuff on their old single cores all the time, but I'm talking about the kind of people who don't even know whether they had an Intel or an AMD CPU.

When you consider how Intel and the OEMs were explaining/marketing C2Q's, it's no surprise that they would believe that you need a quad-core CPU to run 4 programs at once.

 

How were they marketing explaining Dual Cores? I never saw any advertisements for them...

 

It's not a mass marketing scheme, but store people will generally tell you that "more cores = better multitasking". While in theory, more cores DO indeed increase your PC's ability to multitask, multitasking is generally not delimited by the amount of cores you have as most people's "multitasking" aren't too CPU intensive(and if they are, people will generally not do anything else so as to speed up said intensive task).

 

It's exactly as you say. Here's a perfect example from Dell's website, I assume that this is an Intel stock image that all the OEMs are using to try and convince shoppers to pay for the CPU upgrade:

 

still, dual cores greatly enhanced multitasking experiences even in non-cpu intensive situations. and did so for a long time.

 

Yes, multi-core CPUs certainly have increased efficiency in multitasking, not so much "enabled" it.

 

i know that i5 or i7 will be alot better , but for my usage i never felt that i need a faster processor than my 2.26 dual core except when i am raring files

 

Well it depends on the scenario but I don't deny it.

However, there is a threshold limit where it won't make any noticeable difference to the end user for basic tasks and retailers don't tell you of this threshold so you end up with a user who buys an i7 for word processing and youtube.