In article <3e04b967@news.povray.org> , "Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5com> 
wrote:

>>   It would be incredibly stupid multitasking from WinXP if it
>> assigned two extremely heavy processes to the same processor, while
>> the other processor is mostly idle.
>>   I don't believe that even MS can do things that bad.
>
> It dosnt know a process is going to be a heavy one when it decides which
> processor it will be running on, it just sticks it on the CPU that at that
> instant has less load.

No, that isn't how scheduling works.  The next process in the queue will
always be scheduled on the next processor available.  It would be a lot more
difficult to implement it any other way.  And in fact the performance
problems one may get when using the P4 SMT feature suggest that this works
the same on WinDOS.

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message