|
As a result of the diffusion of this matter, I have received as some readers' restlessness, comments in relation to this my reclamation. Same comments to those that I give answers and I transcribe next. COMMENT 1: Like you know, for not having concrete data about the identity from the person to who you exposed your idea, it questions the truthfulness of your history. ANSWER: The story that I wrote is a summary, but there is much more to say on this history. I know who is Mr. I.Z. to who I refer in this story. I mean, I don't remember their name and I don't know where he is, but I know who is. We were even co-workers in 1993. For what is possible to investigate in that company, where he lived and if somebody knows about him.
COMMENT 2: Not having a reliable form of checking that one of people that you observed with Mr. I.Z. was indeed Mr. Bill Gates, it makes that your history is seen even less believable. ANSWER: In those days Mr. Bill Gates didn't have the fame that today has. Obviously I didn't know him and neither I didn't know what was Microsoft. Those days then, I didn't have form of knowing that that gentleman was Bill Gates. However, their image is recorded in my memory and now I can identify him, of course those days Mr. Bill Gates was young, I am for sure he was. But, it is true that I cannot check it. The only thing that I can make, is to appeal to the decency of Mr. Bill Gates, because I suppose that he is a decent man. So that he is who admits what I say.
COMMENT 3: Dear Engineer, worries that an asseveration of this magnitude, not based with the respective documentation, far from generating a good publicity, it can damage your professional reputation, capable and highly qualified that you have been able to build deservedly along these years of professional life. ANSWER: This that I say is completely true and it is unacceptable the abuse. Also, it has me very mad the fact that I would never have found out if I had not discovered it. Reason for which I am claiming. My royalties should be recognized and respected. ¿What is it supposed that I should make? ¿To cross the arms and to feign that this never happened? COMMENT 4: The multitasking processing was not invention of Microsoft, it was invented and consequently developed by the IBM in the years 70. I suggest to see something of information in the following address: ANSWER: Evidently, the history of the computers begins with Alejandro Bool and its Symbolic Logic. One of the first computers was the famous ENIAC around the years 40. Later on it was the series DEC PDP-X. In the years of this my history (1984-85), the Center of Calculation of the Faculty of Engineering, didn't make a lot it had changed the old machine IBM of perforated cards, in which was programmed using Fortran. I am speaking of the machine IBM of perforated cards that was used in the Faculty and other institutions in Bolivia (also in many countries), as banks, INE, CENACO, until the years 1982 inclusive. I don't know which UNIX had been able to be implemented by means of perforated cards, because in those machines there was not enough memory RAM, I am speaking at most of 4 Kbytes and that is a lot for those machines. It is evident that the first commercial version of Windows was the year 1991. The question is: (if at all I was lying) ¿Why D.O.S. was developed as a monotasking system, if supposedly, an algorithm was already known able to carry out a multitasking processing? It is obvious that the history of the years 70 that you comment are not correctly interpreted. In fact, UNIX was not born just as at the moment we know it. It is important not to confuse a system multiuser with one multitasking, also based on an only microprocessor. It is true that the systems multiuser were devised there more or less by the years 50, hardly as architectures Client-Servant, based on theory of lines, but that is not multitasking. You can to confirm, what I say if you look for pictures of the hardware and of the terminals that were used in those days. It is absurd to believe that those machines, with microprocessors based on vacuum lamps, Multithread Processing could process. The integration technology to great scale VLSI (Very Large Scale Integration), chips of high integration of components, it has allowed to implement and to execute Multithread Processing. This technology VLSI has been gotten newly at the beginning of the years 80. The test of this, they are the microprocessors of 8 bits. In those that scarcely it was implementing monotasking systems and multiuser systems based on lines like originally UNIX was born. It is evident that in Internet there are enough distorted histories. But the reasoning and the logic should be our base for any serious investigation. COMMENT 5: The dates to those that you make mention 1984-85, it denotes that you had modernized knowledge of the technologies developed in the decade of the 70, but it doesn't demonstrate in way some that the invention of this technology is of your responsibility. ANSWER: Like I said, I didn't know at least what was Microsoft. In fact, I didn't know much of operative systems for not saying anything. Because of having known on O.S. I would never have given this idea in that way. So much is true this that in fact the question that Mr. I.Z. formulated me it was: ¿How could you implement a multitasking system? I responded him: ¿What is that? He responded: ¿Don't you know what is multitasking? I responded him that not, that I didn't understand much of English. Then he clarified me the multitasking meaning. I told him then, that is solved by means of a processing in parallel with several microprocessors. But he said, it is that that method limits you the number of tasks that you can execute at the same time, because it is in function of the number of microprocessors that you prepare in parallel. It was then when I had the idea of the commutation of time. COMMENT 6: UNIX yes was the first multitasking system and also multiuser that evidently are two different things. If D.O.S. was implemented as monotasking was because, for architecture PC had not still been developed the multitasking and it is so the first operating system in implementing the multitasking for PC was the OS/2 version 1.0 of the IBM. ANSWER: Firstly, we will agree on that this my reclamation is not on the invention of Multitasking. But rather, in 'like' the Multitasking processing was gotten in machines based on an only microprocessor. The concept of Multitasking I have not invented it. In fact, just as I exposed previously, the original question of Mr. I.Z. it was: ¿How could you implement a Multitasking system? This checks that the concept of Multitasking already existed previously to my idea. Now that, there are several methods to make the Multitasking processing.
This last method is the one that I am claiming. This method is based on to place in a tabulated stack the states of the microprocessor of the corresponding task and to exchange them according to the priority. (At the present time, they combine the methods 1, 2 and 3). Regarding D.O.S., the architecture PC only differs of the old Main Frame, because these last ones had several microprocessors in parallel (method 1). This meant an enormous cost for domestic users. For this fundamental reason, it was not possible to market PCs with more than one microprocessor. Also, it is more than evident that in those days Multithread Processing was not known, because definitively it didn't still exist a hardware able to process and to execute Multithread Processing. Even today in our days, with the last advances of the machines Pentium, we can observe that it becomes heavy the system. With the hardware of those days, it is ridiculous to speak of Multithread Processing. Then, with the coming of the technology VLSI at the beginning of the 80, was possible to develop the microprocessors of 8 bits, such as the family Motorola 650X, the family Intel 808X and the family Zilog Z80X among others. Then the first domestic computers arose, such as Sinclair, Timex, Atari and of course the first PC of IBM. Which even used an interpreter Basic, residing in the ROM. Basic that was originally developed by IBM. Then, this Basic migrated to disk and D.O.S. arose. But, if 'supposedly' IBM knew Multithread Processing (this it is the point of the discussion). ¿Why IBM did wait that Microsoft this implements? Simply, because the algorithm of Multithread Processing was not known. COMMENT 7: As paragraph to your arguments, it is only to remember that IBM didn't wait to that Microsoft implements the multitasking. The own IBM, was that it developed the first operating system that implemented multitasking for architecture PC of a single processor and this operating system one is the well-known OS/2 v. 1.0, you can corroborate this in different documentation, including the manual of the same OS/2. ANSWER: It is true about that there was already Multitasking Operative Systems of a single microprocessor in those days. ¿But what method did they use? This is the point dear reader. It was the method of theory of lines (method 2). Because, UNIX was conceived as system centralized exactly to be able to process lines. It was assumed that each user could execute a task at most at the same time, that which is correct. Other tasks put on in background, in fact in line as if they were other users, but with levels of priority. In essence lines. OS/2 used this same method exactly. This is obvious, because if Multithread Processing had known, OS/2 its own Windows would also have developed. Because Windows, is the logical consequence of the use of the algorithm Multithread Processing. With the hardware that existed those days, it was not possible the execution of Multithread Processing. I am the author of Multithread Processing. See for where it is seen, nobody can discuss me this, because simply I am saying the truth. This knows Microsoft perfectly. COMMENT 8: I Understand that you can have several arguments in this respect, but what is needed in this matter is evidences, which cannot be based on mere memories. ANSWER: To begin, an invention is not a 'mere' memory. About having authentic evidences. Indeed, if I had material evidences, I would take this case for the legal road and not for the public road as I am making it. Because I don't have another road. But unquestionably, Microsoft knows of where Multithread Processing came. Reason for that, I am appealing to the code of the ethics, the honor and the respect. Microsoft should show to the whole world that exists the ethics, the honor and the respect in the United States of America. I am a science man. My work deserves respect. The Intellectual Property deserves respect. I am claiming what corresponds me with all justice. Microsoft should pay me the rights of Multithread Processing. Read the Reclamation to Microsoft Read the Record of the Sent Mail to Microsoft
|
