|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
> Sorry, Gary, even Windows NT isn't a *real* operating system.
Well, it's the closest MS had gotten up to that point. :-) Of
course, they accomplished it by hiring non-MS programmers from
Digital Equipment who had actually BUILT *very* real OS's in the
past, and didn't drag along MS preconceptions of how a computer is
supposed to work. (Answer: just like DOS. :-)
> NT does not support true process protection, preemptive
> multitasking, a decent virtual memory model or any of the
> facilities that make Unix/Linux operating systems so robust and
> smooth running.
I absolutely agree that Unix-based systems are lightyears ahead of
any Windows platform when it comes to proper OS functionality. I
started using Unix in 1976, and worked on the first releases of HP-UX
when I still worked at HP.
However, you're not giving NT full credit. I'm 99% sure NT *does*
have strong process protection. In fact Norton's Guide to NT says
"Windows NT utilizes a protected memory module. That is, it does not
let any other aplication access the memory for another application."
I'm CERTAIN it has preemptive multitasking, and Norton's agrees. (I
*use* that preemptive ability every time TS4 hangs up and, unlike on
W95, I can still access other applications! :-) NT does support VM,
of course, with full paging, but it does have to emulate some of the
DOS cruft like high/upper/extended/expanded/etc memory. Maybe that's
the the complaint you have with NT's VM?
> In the many years of using NT, the operating system has been
> nothing but a big pain in the butt. Example, if I leave my NT
> system up and running for weeks at a time (assuming it doesn't
> crash for some reason) it will eventually grind to a halt with much
> disk thrashing.
Generally I reboot my system once a week, just because it's a good
idea with ANY MS OS. But I *have* left it running for 3-4 weeks with
no problems. While it doesn't begin to touch the uptime reliability
of most Unix systems, it's a helluva lot better than any pre-NT
Windows OS, and it's good enough for daily trading use.
> Windows 2000 is basically Microsoft's first decent operating
> system, because they've finally caught up with what the Unix world
> takes for granted (i.e. protected memory spaces, preemtive
> multitasking, etc etc). It's amazing that it took them so many
> years to finally come out with something that is grownup and
> usable.
Yes, it's amazing, but I think they came out with (most of?) that
several years ago with NT 4. W2k is better, no doubt, but NT isn't
as bad as you believe.
Gary
|