Jump to content

Talk:Process (computing)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sir Anon (talk | contribs) at 09:43, 10 March 2008 (Introduction getting too big: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconComputer science Start‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

For your merging pleasure, the following alternative definition used to be found at process:

In computing, a process is a running instance of a program, including all variables and other states. A multitasking operating system switches between processes to give the appearance of simultaneous execution, though in fact only one process can be executing at once per CPU core.

--Ryguasu 12:26 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)

I replaced the definition with the one above. Encyclopedia shouldn't be "roughly speaking" when a definition is expected File:Helix84.jpg helix84 04:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

_process

inbuilt instance of working application.

Process

Hi, just a quick note; I think this definition should be a little broader. A process is not just a computer related thing. Processes are used in business and industry (and elswhere I am sure) to achieve a desired result.

In fact it could probably be best described as "a sequence of activities intended to achieve a desired result or objective". I have a drawing somewhere that describes it admirably which I could upload as a .jpg or .gif but am not quite sure how for the moment. More soon Rossfi 03:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the article for Process and the Process (disambiguation) page. — Loadmaster 18:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is wrong

The article says: "However, if the process attempts to access code or data on disk, then it will be suspended while that content is moved into physical memory through a process known as paging."

If the process attemps to access code or data on disk... it will be blocked. Sometime later it MAY be suspended. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.115.227.20 (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Lets Not Start Terminological Wars!

One thing you need to remember is that computer programming (I still will not accept it as a science and only a borderline engineering discipline at that), like most human endeavors just "grewed." In that process, a dozen different names came to be used for the same or similar thing, or some variant thereof. I was the Chief Engineer for an OS developed for NASA (a much reduced, but real-time version of IBM's MVOS) in the late '80s, and the very first thing I had done (and it took almost 6 months of precious time) was to develop standards of terminology and naming that included a glossary of all of the terms likely to be in use on that project.

From where I sit, a 'blocked' or 'suspended' state are one and the same. I suspect that you perceive some difference or you would not have raised the issue. As I see it, there are 4 basic states: pending, actively executing, waiting execution, and suspended (blocked!?!). Only the middle two states form the queue of tasks either executing or immediately available for execution (all resources available). That's even in an OS using preemptive priority, where there may be several such queues, depending on priority. Normxxx (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Process table

Process table redirects here. What's inside a process table? --Abdull 10:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


KUDOS to the Author of "Process management in multitasking operating systems"

It could use some editing for style and clarity, but it lays out in a most succinct way, a very difficult topic, entrammeled by history and other baggage.Normxxx (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction getting too big

The introduction is getting a bit out of hand. It does have a lot of important information but it ends up being overwhelming to someone who just wants a brief overview. It should be a concise overview of the article. Some information that's in it right now is not really covered in the rest of the article and could probably be moved down. If I have time I will see if I can do something myself later on.--Sir Anon (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]