David Lang wrote:
>part of the problem some people (including me) have with NT is how much
>hardware it take to get decent results. Yes you can get good results if
>you use a dual PII-233 with 256MB ram but if you can do the same job on a
>P-166 with 64-128MB ram with a different OS why should you go with NT? yes
>the graphics are nice but if this is a server that sits unless checked it
>is often nicer to have a machine you can telnet into to manage.
It depends on you definition of decent results. :-) I agree, NT can
sometimes be dog slow, but you have to take into consideration how the
kernel works. All user code runs in cpu ring 2 and kernel code in ring 0 -
swapping between rings have overheards. Which is one of the reasons why OS/2
(older versions anyway - I haven't had the time to play with the latest
versions of OS/2) and some other operating systems have operating system
code residing in ring 2. But IMHO the right platform for NT is MIPS and not
And how I wish for proper telnet for NT!
With NT 4 (or was it 3.5?), Microsoft moved a lot (all?) of the GDI
(Grahpics Device Interface) code into ring 2 - one of reasons I think was
that if the GDI crashes in ring 0 or ring 2 because of buggy GDI driver you
still have no display to see what happened or to correct it. This has made
NT's graphics display more "snappier" (or so they say).
It seems to me that there must be some tradeoff between how robust you can
make the o/s, vs. the resulting o/s performance. And then there are also
limitations with the CPU architecturing. Does pipelining for example work as
well with a Pentium-based CPU than a RISC-based CPU?
Talking about performance - you know which multitasking o/s gave me the best
stability and performance on my old 386 box some years ago? Linux - and that
after I've tried both Win95 and OS/2. :-)