No, no study like that has been done (to my knowledge, at least (which isn't saying much anymore:-) ). However, it would be a futile study because the ability to perform multiple tasks is entirely dependent upon how much attention an individual has to devote to performing the task. The easier it is for someone to perform a task, the more automated that behavior becomes, thus freeing attentional capacity for other tasks.
Capacity theories of attention posit that attention is a limited resource. An individual can divide that resource amongst any number of tasks, but the performance (measured as response time and number of errors) on each task will decrease as the total number of tasks increases. It's quite easy to overburden someone with just two tasks if they're both rather difficult. So really, there is no "magic number" for the number of simultaneous tasks an individual is capable of.
Sorry, but you've completely mis-remembered George Miller's research. He was researching memory span, not simultaneous tasking -- the two are quite different. Miller found that after a single presentation people could remember, on average, seven separate items, be they numbers, words, etc.
People can perform several different cognitive tasks "simultaneously." Until the skill is learned to the point where it is primarily performed via motor memory, however, it's really a serial process of attending to each task -- just like the kernel gives a few slices to each task requesting CPU time.
(Damn, I *knew* that master's in cognitive psych would pay off some day!:-)
I'd wager that your "bare modicum of exposure" has led you to a poor conclusion ("SCSI sucks"). SCSI is the most flexible and capable drive interface in wide production. It has excellent backwards compatibility and still more room for future growth (Ultra3, et. al). Yes, if you don't know what you're doing, a SCSI chain can be tough to put together correctly. But then again, so can Linux.
Geez, I wish I could totally hose a benchmark, get nailed for it, then invite outside professionals to do a better job. All the while, Mindcraft is probably still getting paid to run these benchmarks, and I doubt they're going to share the proceeds with anyone who signs up to do the "Open Benchmark" performance tuning.
If a company claims to be able to perform benchmarking studies but can't supply the expertise, it's either an advertising agency or it's defrauding it's customer, IMHO. (Since Microsoft doesn't seem to be upset with the results so far, my money is on the former.)
Wrong-o! This guy isn't trying to be deceptive, he's trying to provide a single place were all the tuning tips can be collected. He doesn't have to be a tuning geek -- in fact, I'd rather that he'd be a Web and information architecture geek so that the site has a good structure and good facilitates for information searching and retrieval.
Don't bust the guy's chops because he hasn't set a world record in the 100 m when he's running a marathon.
I recently read through this book and found it to be a very understandable guide to SQL. It's pretty easy to jump around in, too, which helps when you just need to quickly figure out one kind of query type.
However, I was pretty floored to read much of the text, verbatim, in the on-line help for Microsoft's SQL Server 6.5. I don't know which came first, but definitely spookey!
Slashdot Mirror
No, no study like that has been done (to my knowledge, at least (which isn't saying much anymore :-) ). However, it would be a futile study because the ability to perform multiple tasks is entirely dependent upon how much attention an individual has to devote to performing the task. The easier it is for someone to perform a task, the more automated that behavior becomes, thus freeing attentional capacity for other tasks.
Capacity theories of attention posit that attention is a limited resource. An individual can divide that resource amongst any number of tasks, but the performance (measured as response time and number of errors) on each task will decrease as the total number of tasks increases. It's quite easy to overburden someone with just two tasks if they're both rather difficult. So really, there is no "magic number" for the number of simultaneous tasks an individual is capable of.
Sorry, but you've completely mis-remembered George Miller's research. He was researching memory span, not simultaneous tasking -- the two are quite different. Miller found that after a single presentation people could remember, on average, seven separate items, be they numbers, words, etc.
:-)
People can perform several different cognitive tasks "simultaneously." Until the skill is learned to the point where it is primarily performed via motor memory, however, it's really a serial process of attending to each task -- just like the kernel gives a few slices to each task requesting CPU time.
(Damn, I *knew* that master's in cognitive psych would pay off some day!
Spoiler: Dreamweaver 2 wins.
I'd wager that your "bare modicum of exposure" has led you to a poor conclusion ("SCSI sucks"). SCSI is the most flexible and capable drive interface in wide production. It has excellent backwards compatibility and still more room for future growth (Ultra3, et. al). Yes, if you don't know what you're doing, a SCSI chain can be tough to put together correctly. But then again, so can Linux.
Geez, I wish I could totally hose a benchmark, get nailed for it, then invite outside professionals to do a better job. All the while, Mindcraft is probably still getting paid to run these benchmarks, and I doubt they're going to share the proceeds with anyone who signs up to do the "Open Benchmark" performance tuning.
If a company claims to be able to perform benchmarking studies but can't supply the expertise, it's either an advertising agency or it's defrauding it's customer, IMHO. (Since Microsoft doesn't seem to be upset with the results so far, my money is on the former.)
Wrong-o! This guy isn't trying to be deceptive, he's trying to provide a single place were all the tuning tips can be collected. He doesn't have to be a tuning geek -- in fact, I'd rather that he'd be a Web and information architecture geek so that the site has a good structure and good facilitates for information searching and retrieval.
Don't bust the guy's chops because he hasn't set a world record in the 100 m when he's running a marathon.
I recently read through this book and found it to be a very understandable guide to SQL. It's pretty easy to jump around in, too, which helps when you just need to quickly figure out one kind of query type.
However, I was pretty floored to read much of the text, verbatim, in the on-line help for Microsoft's SQL Server 6.5. I don't know which came first, but definitely spookey!