On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:57:43 +0200 Massimiliano Origgi < origgi@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >"Ingo Weinhold" <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> 1) Use a cleverer strategy to place the stacks in the virtual > > > address > >> space, e.g. have heap and stack growing towards each other. > > >But I also think that we shouldn't care about that right now - that > >looks like something we should play with at a later point, when > >everything is working well. > >Then, I am in favour of Ingo's solution to have a maximum thread > > limit > >per application at which point one thread can take over the duties > > of > >more than one window (even if he has proposed that for bitmaps). > > Well, that's a nice idea and speaking of CPUs as you mentioned, the > limit > could be set to the number of CPUs available as more threads wouldn't > do any > good anyway. That's simply not true. Applying this argument on a one CPU machine, one thread per application would be sufficient, too. But BeOS proves, that pervasive use of threads significantly improves the UI responsiveness. CU, Ingo