"Real time" depends on the CPU performance and OS/multitasking efficiency so it only applies for a particular OS with a particular CPU doing specific tasks. This phrase is more commonly used when referring to embedded systems with defined bounds. Needed Cache sizes and response times can be calculated with most embedded systems but not for general purpose computers. This is why I used the phrase "near real time" when referring to general purpose computers. The AmigaOS with Toaster was real time enough for it's purposes on the Amiga where it was not possible with much faster processors on other operating systems. Throw in some more background tasks on the Amiga (like GCC compiling in the background at low priority) and the response time may have dropped too much. Add a faster 68k processor and the background tasks may be possible again with Toaster.
I asked for a lower task priority for vbcc's vc (maybe 68k only?) to be able to compile in the background while editing. Frank Wille chose a task priority of -2 which made a huge difference in editor responsiveness (major slow down to minor slow down). I am using a CSMK3 68060@75MHz with many of the bottlenecks we talked about before removed. A slower and less efficient Amiga may not feel so responsive while compiling and editing.
Yes, at best "near real time".
That is why you threw me with your comment about Amiga multitasking being one of the best.
I've worked with embedded OS', and Amigas don't come close in terms of true real time response, consistent performance, or reliability.
