Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Milan Shah who wrote (48941)	7/25/2001 11:30:21 AM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Win9x "multitasking" is a bit obscure. My impression is that the main problem with Win9x is the dumb old FAT file system. I think it more or less requires disk i/o to be synchronous at the OS level. This makes any multitasking that is available sort of a joke. I also figure the FAT file system is mainly responsible for what I find to be the worst feature of the Win9x line, the tendency for the OS to fall to pieces on disk over time, necessitating reinstallation. Needing to reboot daily or worse is bad enough, needing to reinstall the OS every few months is just bizarre.

To: Milan Shah who wrote (48941)	7/25/2001 6:59:33 PM
From: Neil Booth	Respond to of 275872

I believe you are wrong here. Win9x multitasks by expecting each app to be "well behaved" and yeild control back to the OS No, that was Win3.1. Win9x is preemptive, I'm certain. You're thinking about the difference between so-called 16-bit and 32-bit apps (a misnomer). 32-bit apps don't need to yield; 16-bit ones would do within their VM, but that VM is 32-bit and scheduled just like any other process. Whether the O/S freezes or has problems in its network stack is a separate issue. Neil.