13/5/'99

        /\
        |
Oh isn't it great to live in the future!
        |
        \/
At 18:04 12/05/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>I have been watching this with great interest. (Flame suit on) Isn't it
>>funny how we can miss the point and drift of into a tangent (Flame suit
>>off), one has to ask the question of what the operating system is for, and
>>is there any other way. Remembering that the requirement is to not use
>>interrupts. If this is so then the programmer will have to spend much time
>>counting instructions in order to control the task switching.
>
>Not necessarily - the task switching could be based strictly on priority,
>or round robin where a task runs to completion.
>
>Probably not very common but there might be some applications.
>
>

Yes this is so, but is it a task switcher or a mulittasking environment?
Round robin is used quite often, the time critical things are completed by
interrupt, such is the RX116 type operating system (In basic form)
It is also common to group the two together and rounf robin switch tasks
according to priority levels (Can be set by timer for example)

Dennis