Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!simtel!news.sprintlink.net!news.zeitgeist.net!usenet From: "Amancio Hasty, Jr." <hasty@rah.star-gate.com> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.sys.intel Subject: Re: I have one thing to say about Windows '95 & FreeBSD Date: 6 Sep 1995 09:16:23 GMT Organization: TLGnet, a division of RGNet, Inc. Lines: 114 Message-ID: <42jot7$bfi@kadath.zeitgeist.net> References: <41gceu$i14@mirv.unsw.edu.au> <41m3at$vn7@lucy.swin.edu.au> <41qk39$16f@kadath.zeitgeist.net> <adtDE195B.GA1@netcom.com> <41un0e$3jm@gate.sinica.edu.tw> <adtDE4xEp.Jyn@netcom.com> <4236mc$p8g@kadath.zeitgeist.net> <MICHAELV.95Sep2004202@MindBender.HeadCandy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: rah.star-gate.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2-CURRENT i386) X-URL: news:MICHAELV.95Sep2004202@MindBender.HeadCandy.com Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:5649 comp.sys.intel:47388 Must say after reading your posting you make a very good Microsoft Salesman :) michaelv@MindBender.HeadCandy.com (Michael L. VanLoon) wrote: >In article <4236mc$p8g@kadath.zeitgeist.net> "Amancio Hasty, Jr." <hasty@rah.star-gate.com> writes: > > adt@netcom.com (Anthony D. Tribelli) wrote: > > >Is the FreeBSD community so insecure that they feel the need to create > >these contrived problems where FreeBSD can come to the rescue? > > First of all, I did not set out to create a fictitious problem. > All I wanted to do at the time was to run a "demo" that is it. > Oh, I don't know it was my first experience with Win95.5 and I am not > proclaiming to be an expert on Win95.5 . However, the fault of the real problem > lies with Win95.5 and not with me . As I said before if Win95.5 > >I'm not a Windows advocate in any way, but... I also dislike >misleading information... > >Not to be confrontational, but actually, I think the real problem lies >with you. You don't know anything about Windows 95. This isn't a >crime, but you shouldn't be slamming something you don't know anything >about. If you had been knowledgeable on Win95, you could have >side-stepped your problems in any number of ways. Your problems were >not the fault of the OS, any more than it's the fault of FreeBSD that >it won't run Linux binaries unless you compile the Linux emulation >into the kernel. You're a unix expert, give Win95 the benefit of the >doubt in its own back yard. > > >I'm sure Win95 has plenty of real flaws, could we try discussing them > >instead of this contrived crap? > > Lets see, since Win95 has multitasking does it support paging or does > all the process' space needs to reside in memory? > >It has full multitasking and full multithreading support. I don't >know how it does paging; I only know it has "virtual memory". Lets dissect this "virtual memory" a bit more: 0-4mB <--------------> 1G<------------>2GB<------------->3GB<------------->4GB 0 1 2 3 4 0 DOS, GDI, KRNL386 4MB upto 2GB Win95 Applications 2 to 3 Win16 Applications 3 to 4 System code Any Win32 application can write to the system space or to the lower 1mb region where the Graphical interface (GDI) etc resides. > Does Win95 provide pre-emptive scheduling for 32bit applications? > >Yes. Hmmm.... Sort of provided that no 16 bit application is running and it does not hang . If the 16bit app hangs all applications will eventually come to a stand still. Till you manually kill the offending process. > > Has anyone benchmark a Win95 WebServer? I am assuming that such a thing > already exists for Win95. > >I have a feeling a WebServer on Win95 would be for a very small scope. >Microsoft themselves will tell you to buy Windows NT if you want to >run anything server based larger than a small office. Glad to hear this it means that any cheap FreeBSD or Linux box can fill the Webserver market very nicely. > With tcp/ip, How fast is Win95's file sharing against something like NFS? > >I imagine it's comparable. And substantially more secure, if you have >a Windows NT machine doing site authentication. I'm sure many people >would agree that NFS is the poster boy for archaic poorly-implemented >file sharing. AFS might be a better benchmark for really good file >sharing. The reason why I mentioned NFS is because last month's edition of Network Computing rated FreeBSD NFS performance as the benchmark for the Windows NT's NFS implementations to beat. Additionally, with fast networking in FreeBSD we are achieving near total disk thruput when using NFS. > Can you use a Win95 system while the system is also a server for instance > a WebServer? Bare in mind how robust is the system from recovering from > ill behaved applications... > >Yes. It's a fully protected-mode multitasking/threading OS. (Take I would classify Windows 95 as barely "fully protect-mode" as you put it. And as a server I wouldnt trusted . Would you trust a unix system where any application can write all over the VM space? >the nit-picking somewhere else; this is an accurate summary >description of Windows 95.) I would hardly categorize your summary of Window's 95 as accurate. Later -- Amancio Hasty Hasty Software Consulting Services Tel: 415-495-3046 Cellular: 415-309-8434 e-mail: hasty@star-gate.com Powered by FreeBSD