Which OS is better: Windows'95, OS/2, Lin

Which OS is better: Windows'95, OS/2, Lin

Post by V. Sliounia » Sat, 27 Jan 1996 04:00:00




Quote:>When did Win95 get preemptive multitasking????
>Just wondering.

From the very beginning, actually.

Win32 app threads *are* preemptively multitasked.
And have separate input queues, too.
And do not hang the rest of the desktop in case of trouble.
And can be killed one by one or just-in-time debugged, if something
goes wrong. Just get it.

--VS.

 
 
 

Which OS is better: Windows'95, OS/2, Lin

Post by Faron Fau » Sat, 27 Jan 1996 04:00:00



Quote:

>When did Win95 get preemptive multitasking????
>Just wondering.

Windows 95 has had preemptive multitasking since day one.

Faro

 
 
 

Which OS is better: Windows'95, OS/2, Lin

Post by BOWEN JASON MICHA » Sun, 28 Jan 1996 04:00:00


So if I am running a couple of old 16 bit apps (quite a common thing)
they are all getting there own address space and they are all being
pre-emptively multitasked seperately and not in one virtual machine?
Jason



: >>
: >When did Win95 get preemptive multitasking????
: >Just wondering.

: Windows 95 has had preemptive multitasking since day one.

: Faro

 
 
 

Which OS is better: Windows'95, OS/2, Lin

Post by Terje A. Bergese » Mon, 29 Jan 1996 04:00:00




> >When did Win95 get preemptive multitasking????
> >Just wondering.

> From the very beginning, actually.

> Win32 app threads *are* preemptively multitasked.

Not too well if there is ONE Win16 app in there. Don't take
my word for it, try it. Make a 16 bit Win app that loops forever
and calls MessageBeep or something like that. On the 24M 486/75
computer I tried it on, there was *no* real responce from *any*
apps. The mouse worked thoug...:-)

---Terje

 
 
 

Which OS is better: Windows'95, OS/2, Lin

Post by V. Sliounia » Tue, 30 Jan 1996 04:00:00





>> >When did Win95 get preemptive multitasking????
>> >Just wondering.

>> From the very beginning, actually.

>> Win32 app threads *are* preemptively multitasked.
>Not too well if there is ONE Win16 app in there. Don't take
>my word for it, try it. Make a 16 bit Win app that loops forever
>and calls MessageBeep or something like that. On the 24M 486/75
>computer I tried it on, there was *no* real responce from *any*
>apps. The mouse worked thoug...:-)

That's right - because Win95 still uses the same non-re-entrant code
from Windows 3.x. This code is guarded by a single mutex semaphore, so
only one thread can be in that code - a win16 thread or one of win32
threads. But...

Win32 applications take this semaphore for a short moment, when it is
necessary to execure, say DrawText funcion. So, if there are only
32-bit apps in the system, they may loop forever. If 16-bit applicaton
runs without releasing control to the system, only threads that are
trying to get into 16-bit code will be affected.

Yes, the system doesn't multitask as well as Windows NT, but one can
develop truly multithreaded Win32 programs and run them on Win95 as
well as on Win NT without special multitasking tricks.

--valentin.

 
 
 

Which OS is better: Windows'95, OS/2, Lin

Post by Lesni » Tue, 30 Jan 1996 04:00:00



: >>
: >When did Win95 get preemptive multitasking????
: >Just wondering.

: Windows 95 has had preemptive multitasking since day one.

: Faro

Faro, Microsoft forgot to customers that pre-emptive multitasking
is only true in Win95 if you're running only 32-bit apps.

Once you run a 16-bit app...not pre-emptive anymore.
But you knew that didn't you?

IMO, a clever marketing ploy.  Users feel the need to upgrade to
32-bit apps, just so that they can take advantage of
pre-emptive multitasking.  I wish I were capable of being
so devious.  I'd be rich too...

--
/------------------------------------------------------------------

/Eng. Physics:          Colorado School of Mines        Team OS/2
/Intern Student:        Bell Laboratories               Team OS/2
/Only speaking for me.  selim sivad sevil

 
 
 

Which OS is better: Windows'95, OS/2, Lin

Post by Lesni » Tue, 30 Jan 1996 04:00:00



: >When did Win95 get preemptive multitasking????
: >Just wondering.

: From the very beginning, actually.

: Win32 app threads *are* preemptively multitasked.
: And have separate input queues, too.
: And do not hang the rest of the desktop in case of trouble.
: And can be killed one by one or just-in-time debugged, if something
: goes wrong. Just get it.

: --VS.

Caveat!  This is probably true, except when you're running
Win95, and pre-emptive multitsking is disabled by a 16-bit
app grabbing the CPU and not letting go.

And when Win95's message queue fills up, no Tasklist will
save you.

"Pre-emptive multitasking" does look nice in marketing
material <g>.

--
/------------------------------------------------------------------

/Eng. Physics:          Colorado School of Mines        Team OS/2
/Intern Student:        Bell Laboratories               Team OS/2
/Only speaking for me.  selim sivad sevil

 
 
 

Which OS is better: Windows'95, OS/2, Lin

Post by Lesni » Tue, 30 Jan 1996 04:00:00



: >>

: >>
: >> >When did Win95 get preemptive multitasking????
: >> >Just wondering.
: >>
: >> From the very beginning, actually.
: >>
: >> Win32 app threads *are* preemptively multitasked.

: >Not too well if there is ONE Win16 app in there. Don't take
: >my word for it, try it. Make a 16 bit Win app that loops forever
: >and calls MessageBeep or something like that. On the 24M 486/75
: >computer I tried it on, there was *no* real responce from *any*
: >apps. The mouse worked thoug...:-)

: That's right - because Win95 still uses the same non-re-entrant code
: from Windows 3.x. This code is guarded by a single mutex semaphore, so
: only one thread can be in that code - a win16 thread or one of win32
: threads. But...

: Win32 applications take this semaphore for a short moment, when it is
: necessary to execure, say DrawText funcion. So, if there are only
: 32-bit apps in the system, they may loop forever. If 16-bit applicaton
: runs without releasing control to the system, only threads that are
: trying to get into 16-bit code will be affected.

Like the GDI maybe?  Or...?  So, in effect the machine hangs if
any threads need to display anything on the screen.

: Yes, the system doesn't multitask as well as Windows NT, but one can
: develop truly multithreaded Win32 programs and run them on Win95 as
: well as on Win NT without special multitasking tricks.

: --valentin.

Sure, one could develop multithreaded apps for Win95, but
why bother.  Unless customers are willing to dump all
16-bit apps, they won't get the benefit of pre-emptive
tasking.

So, how much did that Office Pro 4.3 cost?

--
/------------------------------------------------------------------

/Eng. Physics:          Colorado School of Mines        Team OS/2
/Intern Student:        Bell Laboratories               Team OS/2
/Only speaking for me.  selim sivad sevil

 
 
 

Which OS is better: Windows'95, OS/2, Lin

Post by drsor » Tue, 30 Jan 1996 04:00:00



: >When did Win95 get preemptive multitasking????
: >Just wondering.

: From the very beginning, actually.

: Win32 app threads *are* preemptively multitasked.
: And have separate input queues, too.
: And do not hang the rest of the desktop in case of trouble.
: And can be killed one by one or just-in-time debugged, if something
: goes wrong. Just get it.

: --VS.

        Then why does Win95 crash so hard everytime I start doom2 or a
dos text based game?  Doesn't sound like superior multitasking and crash
protection to me..
        Just get OS/2 or Linux.. you won't have to worry about system crashes.

--
---------------------------------------------------------

     web page - http://ni.cba.csuohio.edu/~drsoran

 
 
 

Which OS is better: Windows'95, OS/2, Lin

Post by Matthew John Wil » Fri, 02 Feb 1996 04:00:00


First a quick point...  See my Newsgroups line...  Yes, it contains references
to ONLY THE RELATED NEWSGROUPS (there is a lesson to be learnt here)...

Secondly, get over it...  This type of discussion is endless, and bound to be
emotional rather than factual...  I have used HEAPS of OS's (MS-DOS, PC-DOS,
DR-DOS, Workbench (Amiga), System X (Macintosh), Windows 3.1, 3.11, 95, GEOS,
OS/2, numerous flavours of UNIX (including Linux)) and I admit that none is
inherently better than others...

For example, for sheer ease of use I prefer Amiga (with Mac a close second)
due to its simple interface (but the Amiga is kind of dead...)

On the PC (ie. Intel) front I prefer Linux and GEOS for totally different
reasons - Linux because it is UNIX (and anyone who has ever played with
UNIX knows that it has a lot of features that puts Windows, Mac etc to
shame - such as SECURITY) and GEOS because it is *ING fast (like
Windows on speed)...  But then, I don't use Linux much (no apps), and GEOS
has only limited use (limited apps)...

And at home I use a PC, rather than a Mac, simply because there are more and
better programming languages available for it (Delphi, Eiffel etc)...

So, while I believe one platform may be technically superior to others, it
inevitably comes down to what you want to do, and what will let you do it...

Stop whinging that Mac beats OS/2 beats '95 beats Linux etc etc etc...

If it works for you, congratulations...

Otherwise, keep your *y whinging antics to yourself thanks...

                                        Matthew J. Wills

PS. Flame me, see if I care...



: >The eternal question..."Why is this thread HERE?"
: >
: >Of course the answer to the subject question is obvious...to those who
: >have worked with Mac OS.  We tend to pity those poor unenlightened
: >others...
: >**Windows95 is like Macintosh84**

: **Macintosh84 is like Macintosh96**
: --
: "I'm standing in the middle of the desert        |  Colin D. Cashman
:  Waiting for my ship to come in                       |  
:  But now no joker, no jack, no king           |  Computer Science Department

 
 
 

Which OS is better: Windows'95, OS/2, Lin

Post by Sam Trenhol » Mon, 05 Feb 1996 04:00:00


Quote:>    Just get OS/2 or Linux.. you won't have to worry about system crashes.

I do get crashes on my Linux system. Not very often, and I've had up to
25-day uptimes with this beast, but I have had the following crashes this
year:

Fri Feb  2 23:06 ---> This one was mysterious
Fri Jan 12 04:50 ---> Disk activity, and POP! dead. Mysterious

These were caused by me trying to run the mach32 X with my Mach 64 card.
These are not crashes, per se, but the machine was unusuable-- I had to
hit reset:
Sun Jan  7 15:24
Sat Jan  6 15:23

Mon Jan  1 22:49 ---> This one was also mysterious

These crashes may be attributable to a slightly unstable motherboard. In
particular, I use a 30-72 pin SIMM convertor that is a bit unstable.

--

 
 
 

Which OS is better: Windows'95, OS/2, Lin

Post by Brian Downi » Wed, 14 Feb 1996 04:00:00




>>        Just get OS/2 or Linux.. you won't have to worry about system crashes.

>I do get crashes on my Linux system. Not very often, and I've had up to
>25-day uptimes with this beast, but I have had the following crashes this
>year:

>Fri Feb  2 23:06 ---> This one was mysterious
>Fri Jan 12 04:50 ---> Disk activity, and POP! dead. Mysterious

>These were caused by me trying to run the mach32 X with my Mach 64 card.
>These are not crashes, per se, but the machine was unusuable-- I had to
>hit reset:

If it is connected to a network or has a terminal it is usable and you
can reset it.

You're right when you say it doesn't crash much.  The mailserver I set up
for my dad's company (386/sx!) has only crashed once.  My fault.  I didn't
check properly in a script and started up about 200 pppd's... whoops.

It has *looks* 55 days uptime now.

-bcd
--

***                                      http://www.somat.com/~bdowning/
***                   "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your
***              calculations, if you live near him." --- J.R.R. Tolkien

 
 
 

1. Which OS is better: Windows'95, OS/2, Lin

  And I'd like to know what the hell ANY of this crap has to do with
the binaries newsgroups you're all cross-posting too.

  Get a clue.  Some machines work better for certain people, and none
of them suck if they do what you want.  If you don't like a platform,
DON'T USE IT!

  Now shut the fuck up, and stop cross-posting to irrelivant groups
(Binaries?  You people really have no aim.  I sure wouldn't wanna
clean up after you in the bathroom.)

2. Share an internet Connection

3. Which OS is better: Windows'95, OS/2, Linux

4. How to use automake?

5. scanlogd and Redhat 5.2

6. Doubt about ufsrestore

7. Windows'95 & OS/2 sux, Linux, DOS and System 7 are good

8. Multi-boot success with Windows 95, Windows NT 4, Linux, OS/2 boot manager

9. Linux OS's: What are the Linux OS's that run with Windows?

10. comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.tools.mfc,comp.lang.java.databases,comp.os.parix,comp.os.linux.embedded,comp.soft-sys.shazam