Windows / Unix server question

[¤The¤Spe©ialist]

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.

[nebulus200]

Originally posted here by ¤The¤Spe©ialist
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...

[gore]

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.

[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...

[nebulus200]

This isn't entirely true...NT4 supported up to 4 processors.

[nihil]

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.

[gore]

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

[cacosapo]

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.

[RoadClosed]

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

[Negative]

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.