??? 12/02/05 15:17 Read: times |
#104591 - Digging deeper... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Erik Malund said:
"it does have a definition" yes, so does "the cannonball express" No, I'm afraid you're wrong: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=...%20express as I stated: "Why do I use URTOS/DTOS or whatever? to stress that these thing have nothing to do with the webster definition of "real time". But they do. I quoted the Webster definition of real time in my previous post - take a look. Again, as it is a "a poor choice for what it describes" what is wrong with stating that? Nothing - what's your point? just see here: if you google for "dictionary "real time"" the first that commes up is http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/R/real_time.html which start "Occurring immediately. The term is used to describe a number of different computer features.... " so, not only I, but a dictionary entry is "wrong" Yes, you're both wrong. This is easily demonstrated by the definition of 'immediately': http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=...mmediately Show me some software you're written that responds 'without delay'. The issue is that the definition of RTOS and RT is not the same. You're right: RTOS: Real time operating system RT: Real time. An RTOS is an operating system which gives one an opportunity to write software which will run on the RTOS to form a real time system. If you use an operating system that is not 'real time' you cannot do this. You may achieve it by luck but you cannot guarantee it. Once more: The reason I keep using URTOS etc is to make darn totally absolutely sure that the point that a URTOS is NOT "real time" comes across. Nothing is real time according to your definition of real time. |