tho### [at] trfde (Thorsten Froehlich) wrote in <395a4a62@news.povray.org>:

>In article <8F6177D69dashixpressnet@204.213.191.228> , das### [at] x-pressnet
>(daishi) wrote:
>
>> 'partially' which means win98 is cooporative......(just like mac OS,
>> not counting X of course)
>
>No, it is pre-emptive with a monolithic operating system.  If you write
>a simple application that just executes a loop lets say 10 billion
>times, will the other applications still get a share of the processor? 
>Yes, because the operating system will interrupt it after a few
>milliseconds and then switch to another application.  This is
>pre-emptive multitasking. 
>
>On a Mac with i.e. Mac OS 9 an application executing the same program
>will not share the processor with other applications until it calls the
>operating system and allows it.  This is co-operative multitasking.
>
>The difference between Win 9x and Win NT/2000 is the quality (and
>probability method) of the scheduling algorithms, but they are still
>both pre-emptive.
>In fact this is one of the major improvements in Win 9x since Win 3.x.
>
>
>     Thorsten
>
>
>PS: If you don't believe me, get any recent CS textbook on operating
>systems, and it will tell you Win 9x and NT both use pre-emptive
>multitasking :-)
>
>
>____________________________________________________
>Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
>e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
>
>Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
>

while I agree with what your saying. there was an article a while ago 
discussing NT vs win98 that said win98 was cooporative. I can't seem to 
find the article though...

win98s scheduling needs improvement then, cause compared to other multi-
tasking OSs it sucks..

Post a reply to this message