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 : Microsoft - The Evil empire -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Parik Rao who wrote (407)	12/11/1997 6:32:00 PM
From: cheryl williamson	Respond to of 1600

Parik, In response to your post, I will support my claim that MSFT's NT does NOT implement local thread scheduling, thus using extra processor time (a relatively expensive proposition), via system calls, which requires a software trap. Since you don't seem to believe what I say, I will quote from the text "Threads Primer" by Bill Lewis and Daniel J. Berg: "There are two basic ways of scheduling threads: process local scheduling and system global scheduling. Local scheduling means that all of the scheduling mechanism for the thread is local to the process--the threads library has full control over which thread will be scheduled on a LWP. In particular, this implies that no system calls are involved, hence no time-slicing. Global scheduling means that the scheduling is done by the kernel. Hence, time-slicing would be involved. Solaris implements both, POSIX allows both, while NT and OS/2 implement only global scheduling." Any locking scheme that depends on instructions native to the processor will not work on any other machine. Kernel locking is not a trivial implementation, so just how is MSFT going to make NT work properly on systems other than PC's?? Rewrite it? In that case, who is going to support multiple versions of NT?? I think you'll find that MSFT will decide either NOT to port NT to anything beyond the PC or NOT write it with these kind of dependencies. cheers, cherylw