[eworoshow]

Demonstrating that the OS was real-ish time consisted of showing that (1) it never dynamically allocates memory, (2) it uses constant-time algorithms. More practically I did a bunch of timing to show that, under real loads, it generated responses under certain (arbitrary) thresholds. In conclusion: a process lacking even the smoke and mirrors of rigor.

[s3graham]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply your measuring process was fluff.

When I did 452 we had to do something on-screen, to demonstrate responsiveness. I did the "water demo effect" (similar to http://www.derschmale.com/demo/pixelbender-water/PixelBender...). It had to animate without hitching under load, which I guess correlates with your response timing tests (the arbitrary threshold being 60 or 30 Hz in this case).

Anyhoo, I meant "process" in terms of OS-level process, and "fluff", because mine was just lame graphical fluff. :)

btw, planning any more co-op terms before you graduate? Drop me a line.

[eworoshow]

Ah, I guess the course requirements have changed in the intervening years. We got somewhat less time to work on the OS "thanks" to renovations in the lab; none of us had time to get a full, graphical VGA display running.

That said, I think your display better demonstrates real-time-ness than my somewhat-less-than-rigorous measurements. By the time you account for all the assumptions I made to get semi-complete numbers, a working demonstration of a real-time process is far more convincing!