Comments on: The myth of multitasking… http://listics.com/20061207778 We're beginning to notice some improvement. Thu, 11 Feb 2024 05:48:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.7 By: Alana Posts » Blog Archive » links for 2024-01-20 http://listics.com/20061207778/comment-page-1#comment-13147 Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:45:59 +0000 http://listics.com/20061207778#comment-13147 […] Listics – Frank Paynter’s Voice and Vision… » The myth of multitasking… (tags: multitasking articles internet) […]

]]>
By: James http://listics.com/20061207778/comment-page-1#comment-10639 Sun, 10 Dec 2024 14:04:43 +0000 http://listics.com/20061207778#comment-10639 Actually in IT (where both of ‘Multitasking’ and ‘Timeslicing’ come from) they mean more or less the same thing. The same amount of work gets done – that’s constant – but the delivery schedule is different.

Multitasking: many tasks at once, so it *seems* like things are getting done faster.

Timeslicing: a way of implementing multistasking by working on many tasks at once by chopping and changing between them.

Basically, the CPU (or you for that matter) can’t do any more work than you already do, you just allocate your time in a more prioritized manner.

However, there is a downside (called “context switching” if you want to look it up on wikipedia or something). Each time you switch tasks costs you some “switching time” which _is_ _not_ _productive_. So if you’re multitasking 5 tasks you’ll lose time whenever you switch.

At the end – when all tasks are done – you’ll actually have taken longer to complete all 5 than if you’d just done them one after the other due to the lost context switching.

The more context switches the more time lost.

If you’re not careful you end up spending more time swapping from one task to another than any real work (This is usually what your PC is doing when it hangs BTW – if you have 5 programs up and running for each of your tasks, it wastes a lot of time just swapping from one to the other. The same thing can happen to humans)

The management crowd might think that ‘multitasking’ means ‘you get more done’, but what it really means is ‘high priority work gets done first, at the cost of low priority work which gets delayed’ and _overall_ productivity is lower.

Funny really, I always thought it was management’s task to efficiently allocate resources and tasks – not the workers.

Multitasking == abdication of responsiblity

]]>
By: Frank Paynter http://listics.com/20061207778/comment-page-1#comment-10496 Fri, 08 Dec 2024 13:32:00 +0000 http://listics.com/20061207778#comment-10496 Kathy Sierra has a good post on this today.
http://headrush.typepad.com

]]>
By: Winston http://listics.com/20061207778/comment-page-1#comment-10495 Fri, 08 Dec 2024 13:23:49 +0000 http://listics.com/20061207778#comment-10495 Sexy buzz-words, but in its purest sense, for most (your bro excepted) folks it is neither an achievable nor desirable goal. Back in college days I constantly studied with a small group of 3 or 4 close classmates and we always had music playing. Mostly jazz or light classics. No interference. I can still do that. But don’t introduce visual stimuli like TV or face-2-face conversation on a totally different subject. For me, it’s primarily the visual thing that doesn’t play well with other activities.

Been thinking along this line with twitter, weighing what I am or am not getting from it against the distraction it creates in doing a proper job of coming here to read your stuff and offer my meager comments.

]]>
By: jr http://listics.com/20061207778/comment-page-1#comment-10439 Thu, 07 Dec 2024 14:27:45 +0000 http://listics.com/20061207778#comment-10439 I always held a suspicion that multi-tasking comes from doing things below your interest level.

]]>