Slashdot Mirror


A Multitasking GUI, Circa 1982

autospa points out a post (with video) showing off the multi-tasking abilities of the Blit terminal, developed in 1982 by Rob Pike and Bart Locanthi. Before Windows, before X, and before the Mac (but somewhat later than the Xerox Alto), the Blit terminal provided a multitasking, mouse-driven graphical interface; it took a Unix server on the other side to do the heavy lifting, though.

13 of 203 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah, but... by supersocialist · · Score: 4, Funny

    Does it run linux?

    1. Re:Yeah, but... by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 3, Informative

      It ran a protocol called Layers. About 10 years, ago, I came across a later version of the BLIT, an AT&T 610, in a back corner of a testing lab in the office I was working at the time. Being curious, I did some searching and found C source for a user-space Layers driver. Basically, it worked like the screen utility works, except that the "driver" simply multiplexed the normal tty IO over a serial link, which could be a com port, TCP or other, to the terminal, which then de-multiplexed the streams to separate windows on its display. It also had some small capability to draw shapes from commands sent to it. I never got that feature working, just the equivalent of multiple xterm windows.

      While I suppose a simple protocol like that could be useful for people who use remote shell access, I think it's easier to just run SSH in a bunch of xterm windows, leaving the multiplexing to TCP.

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
  2. cool by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't care so much if it were the first or not. It was still cool for it's time. In my mind, this one being among the first was still quite an achievement.. because if you think about it, not much has changed since then. It really hasn't. Sure the boxes are faster today, and the applications more sophisticated... but the basics of multitasking are more or less the same today.... we stand on the shoulders of giants.

    On another note, I like the look of the portrait oriented monitor. It looks to be so much better suited to documents, and probably coding, than the mostly landscape orientations that came later.

    --
    Huh?
    1. Re:cool by larien · · Score: 3, Interesting

      On another note, I like the look of the portrait oriented monitor. It looks to be so much better suited to documents, and probably coding, than the mostly landscape orientations that came later.

      I suspect you can blame the early cinema pioneers for that... they decided on a "landscape" format for movies which then became the standard for Television sets. In the 80s, most home computers (Sinclair Spectrum, Commodore 64, Amstrad 64 and even the Atari ST & Amiga) used the TV as a monitor so a generation of kids grew up assuming monitors must be in portrait layout.

  3. In Soviet Russia... by blargster · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... Linux runs it!

  4. Re:multitasking before 1982 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Multi-tasking certainly existed on the server, but you had a hard time seeing multiple things on your terminal screen. The BLIT allowed you to have multiple active windows open that and see stuff going on in all of them. It was such a nice interface that many of us wondered why people got even a little excited about Windows on a PC.

  5. only a few years after, it came to home PCs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    In 1985 the Amiga brought "real" multitasking to the home computer using masses, many years before it was available in Windows or Mac environments.

    Of course multitasking was around long before that, but I think the Amiga 1000 is what made it available to Joe Sixpack, who wasn't going to be using heavy duty Unix workstations or what ever.

    1. Re:only a few years after, it came to home PCs by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Atari did it first and better. So take that!

      ( Ah the good old days of Amiga/Atari wars, hot on the heels of the 8-bit battles.. but in the end, we all lost )

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  6. Re:1984 by thomst · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'll say. Try 1968. December 9, to be precise:

    --
    Check out my novel.
  7. Blit.app? by bennomatic · · Score: 5, Funny

    If only I could run that on my iPad, I'd be able to multitask on it, too!

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
  8. Re:multitasking before 1982 by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Interesting

    the blit seems lame after watching the 1974 Xerox Alto video, though http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYlYSzMqGR8&feature=related

  9. Amiga did *real* multitasking with the same CPU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    [The Atari ST's TOS/GEM] wasn't useless and did multitask. True it was via special applications referred to as 'accessories'. However, if you used a wedge you could stick any application in as an accessory and as long as it didn't need to write to the screen to keep running while back grounded, it worked rather well..

    Let's put this in context. That somewhat stretched, certainly limited and somewhat kludgey version of "multitasking" might sound passable compared to MS-DOS-based PCs of the same era. Not that big a feat given that mid-80s PCs were running MS-DOS, an early-1980s ripoff, er.... *port* of the 1970s 8-bit-microcomputer-era OS CP/M.

    However, the ST's main rival, the Commodore Amiga (which hit the streets at almost exactly the same time as the ST- mid-1985, and not 1984 as you state) featured full pre-emptive multitasking as a standard part of the operating system. No silly restrictions or workarounds for what was basically a single-tasking OS required, because multitasking was an integral part of the OS. You simply ran two or more programs at once and they worked- period.

    And this was "proper" pre-emptive multitasking, not the more primitive co-operative multitasking (which relied on well-written programs yielding control themselves) that even Windows 3.x was still using in the early 1990s.

    Thing is that although the Amiga was generally a more advanced computer than the ST, it had the same basic CPU- the 68000- running at similar (actually, slightly slower) speed- and to the best of my knowledge its multitasking (and other aspects of the OS) weren't reliant on the Amiga's custom hardware. So I'm pretty sure the 68000-based STs *could* have run a more advanced multitasking OS in theory, even a port of the one that the Amiga had(?!)

    But the fact was that they didn't, at least not back then, and the "multitasking" you describe was at best a restricted hack that clearly *wasn't* the best that could be done at the time.

    1. Re:Amiga did *real* multitasking with the same CPU by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And DOS programs could overwite the OS in memory ... Single tasking wasn't so hot either ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis