[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ProgSoc] buying computers
On 21 Jan, jedd wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 22:04, WzDD wrote:
>> It's pretty clear that MS crippled the win9x kernel. Do any form of
>> networking benchmark under 9x vs NT and even if 9x doesn't crash it'll
>> still be much slower. No-one even contemplates running a server under 9x
> Well, I'm no advocate for MS products .. but the distinction here
> is less conspiratorial than you paint it. Win9X/ME are based on
> a 16-bit operating system with minimal process management
> functionality. Ie, protecting one task from another.
Win9x has a hybrid 16/32 bit GDI, but the kernel is all 32-bit, and it's
perfectly possible to run a server that doesn't do graphics. The library
space is global, so you can stomp on libraries and screw other processes
up even if you're running all 32-bit programs, but that's got nothing to
do with how well the network stack runs. Unless the library that you
stomp is wsock32.dll I guess.
Basically though if you ran a '95 machine, ran no other process on it,
installed a 32-bit server and left the GUI alone (which is what MS
recommends even for NT), you would hardly touch GDI and there'd be no
process contention, and it would still run slow. As you say though, this
does make sense based on how the '95 code has evolved.
> Well, unless the original poster is willing to do some Photoshop (?)
> benchmarks, and then scale back to 64mb, and re-run the same
Based on my highly scientific "load and edit huge Publisher file" tests
on a 64mb Pentium-based machine, NT is superior even within that magic
I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories, though; I'm sure it's just
crappy code. :) The two registry keys to convert NT workstation to NT
server is amusing though:
the more u think ,the better u worth.
You are subscribed to the progsoc mailing list. To unsubscribe, send a
message containing "unsubscribe" to email@example.com.
If you are having trouble, ask firstname.lastname@example.org for help.