|
Re: Win98 versus 2000, XP, Longhorn, etc.
de charles 06/23/2006 02:53
On 23 Jun 2006 00:45:22 -0700, "Roger Johansson" <roger4911@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> -Serial Computing vs Multi-tasking:
>> The DOS kernel does one thing at a time and then the next. Win2k's
>> kernal and Unix's allow for true multitasking. Whether this is a good
>> thing(tm) depends on whether you are a well-organized person <g>. But
>> seriously, the raw computing power of your cpu is much more effectively
>> used in a multi-tasking environment. This means simultaneous use of
>> several apps are handled much more gracefully (no hangs) and speedily.
>
>If you have only one CPU (processor) in your computer no "real
>multitasking" is possible, there are only different software solutions
>available which allow something that looks like multitasking, with
>different degrees of success.
>
>In DOS I used Desqview for 5 years, running a BBS system simultaneously
>with my own use of the computer. So multitasking in DOS is no problem.
>
>Win2000 probably handles multitasking better than Win98 because it is a
>more modern OS but not because it uses more "real" multitasking than
>Win98.
You may be confusing multitasking with parallel processing.
refs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_multitasking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_computing
To my mind the key issue in this area is whether the OS is
cooperatively or preemptively multitasking. Since all modern OS's do
preemptive multitasking, the issue is moot today.