Windows / Unix server question - Page 2
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34

Thread: Windows / Unix server question

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    173
    My understanding was that Windows didn't support true multithreading until NT4 and Win95, and that even then the implementation was lacking (changes that Win2K/XP/2003 have improved significantly upon)
    I always thought Windows 95 did not have anywhere near a multitasking system. It emulated, sure, but thats about it though. Infact, im pretty damn sure they never really attempted to make any real steps at all towards a real multitasking OS intil CE came out.

  2. #12
    Jaded Network Admin nebulus200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,356
    Originally posted here by 三he又pe姆alist
    I always thought Windows 95 did not have anywhere near a multitasking system. It emulated, sure, but thats about it though. Infact, im pretty damn sure they never really attempted to make any real steps at all towards a real multitasking OS intil CE came out.
    No, it did multitasking...at least far better than its simulated mutlitasking in 3.1... I remember playing with it at the time that it came out...I remember being floored that I could play Doom and download something over my 14.4K modem at the same time...where it had been impossible before in 3.1

    Ok I just dated myself

    EDIT: I had seen multitasking work on other OS's at time (solaris and OS/2 warp come to mind), that was just the first time that I saw it work sort of right Like I said, there have been dramatic improvements since then...
    There is only one constant, one universal, it is the only real truth: causality. Action. Reaction. Cause and effect...There is no escape from it, we are forever slaves to it. Our only hope, our only peace is to understand it, to understand the 'why'. 'Why' is what separates us from them, you from me. 'Why' is the only real social power, without it you are powerless.

    (Merovingian - Matrix Reloaded)

  3. #13
    AO BOFH: Luser Abuser BModeratorFH gore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,177
    Pfft, I have a laptop with a 3.06GHz P4 M processor, 512 RAM and a 32 MB Nvidia Ge Force FX GO 5200 card and I play doom every day on it. I can beat quit a bit of it on Nightmare.
    Kill the lights, let the candles burn behind the pumpkins mischievous grins, and let the skeletons dance. For one thing is certain, The Misfits have returned and once again everyday is Halloween.The Misfits FreeBSD
    Cannibal Holocaust
    SuSE Linux
    Slackware Linux

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,429
    From what I've learned, Windows became true multitasking with the release of Windows 2000.
    I think the confusion comes from the fact that with a single processor, "true" multi-tasking is not possible (since the processor can't do two things at the same time; it will switch back and forth between two tasks so fast that it seems as it is, though). Since Windows-based computers traditionally only had one processor, it was thought that these systems cannot trule multitask.

    And about the server-share: from what I can find, Windows has a 50% market share in the server market (all servers combined), and *nix derivates around 40%. For web servers, it's around 20% for IIS and 70% for Apache, but the majority of Fortune-1000 companies run IIS...

  5. #15
    Jaded Network Admin nebulus200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,356
    This isn't entirely true...NT4 supported up to 4 processors.
    There is only one constant, one universal, it is the only real truth: causality. Action. Reaction. Cause and effect...There is no escape from it, we are forever slaves to it. Our only hope, our only peace is to understand it, to understand the 'why'. 'Why' is what separates us from them, you from me. 'Why' is the only real social power, without it you are powerless.

    (Merovingian - Matrix Reloaded)

  6. #16
    Super Moderator: GMT Zone nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,192
    Yes,

    Windows 3.1x was basically a GUI riding on the top of DOS. Windows 95 was an attempt at 32 bit multitasking.

    As I recall there were two problems:

    A lot of Windows programs were non-reentrant, so you would get a rather staccato multitasking. Secondly, if you ran any 16 bit applications it really ruined the multitasking performance.

    This is possibly why some people considered it to be "emulation" when it was in fact true multitasking that didn't always work too well.

    If you cannot do someone any good: don't do them any harm....
    As long as you did this to one of these, the least of my little ones............you did it unto Me.
    What profiteth a man if he gains the entire World at the expense of his immortal soul?

  7. #17
    AO BOFH: Luser Abuser BModeratorFH gore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,177
    Originally posted here by Negative
    From what I've learned, Windows became true multitasking with the release of Windows 2000.
    I think the confusion comes from the fact that with a single processor, "true" multi-tasking is not possible (since the processor can't do two things at the same time; it will switch back and forth between two tasks so fast that it seems as it is, though). Since Windows-based computers traditionally only had one processor, it was thought that these systems cannot trule multitask.

    And about the server-share: from what I can find, Windows has a 50% market share in the server market (all servers combined), and *nix derivates around 40%. For web servers, it's around 20% for IIS and 70% for Apache, but the majority of Fortune-1000 companies run IIS...

    Neggy:

    Most version fo Windows until.... 95 or NT.... Used Cooperative Multi Tasking, which would explain **** performance. Giving apps control and telling them to play fair is stupid. This could have something to do with the romour that it wasn't true multi tasking. If your OS Kenel can't control the apps, you have a problem.

    Special:

    iddqd

    idkfa

    Doom 3:

    God

    give all
    Kill the lights, let the candles burn behind the pumpkins mischievous grins, and let the skeletons dance. For one thing is certain, The Misfits have returned and once again everyday is Halloween.The Misfits FreeBSD
    Cannibal Holocaust
    SuSE Linux
    Slackware Linux

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,130
    From what I've learned, Windows became true multitasking with the release of Windows 2000.
    Nope, NT was the first preemptive multitask O.S. Win9x uses preemptive multitasking too but with a **** model, so you can just ignore tha family.
    Also, NT supports multiprocessing (more than one physical P.U.)
    Starting from NT (ignore that 9x b.s.), Windows is a preemptive multasking O.S. (there is not "true" or "false" - its a preemptive multitask or cooperative (?) multitask), and supports also multithreading - where one task (Adress space, process or whatever you name it) can create child tasks and explore a multiprocessor HW.
    Meu s癃io

    FORMAT C: Yes ...Yes??? ...Nooooo!!! ^C ^C ^C ^C ^C
    If I die before I sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to encrypt.
    If I die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to brake.

  9. #19
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    Anyone care to debunk this? Or confirm so I can go give him some credit?
    It's complete BS.

    He need to define "windows" in fact this reads circa 1995
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,429
    Here's his explanation:


    The year was 1998. The testing was for new technology for the next generation of Enterprise servers for the Justice department...

    "ALL" of the technology was beta technology I witnessed at each of these companies R&D center, to determine the next generation of systems. Now at that time Microsoft was beta testing NT 5, which later was renamed "XP". The statistics showed that Windows was no match for Unix as a server...As a matter of fact Microsoft uses Unix servers, and is developing their own version of Unix to be a player in that market.

    Now Windows has grown leaps and bounds since 1995...and could be the IT solution for a lot of companies, but I have been blessed to work on a lot of projects, where money was no object, and the price difference between systems was justified by performance and usage.

    Windows does not have a OS that would run on the equivalent of a Sun E-10000...Which is one of the most powerful systems...And they still have not found a solution for systems with over 32 processors. They are 100% idle, the OS can not access them.

    Now A lot of companies can not afford a server of this quality or price, and could use Windows and their products for their IT solution, but it won't be on government servers...cost analysts say for that kind of traffic, you will use Unix.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 Security News

     Patches

       Security Trends

         How-To

           Buying Guides