Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!simtel!news.kei.com!news.mathworks.com!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.seanet.com!news.seanet.com!michaelv
From: michaelv@MindBender.HeadCandy.com (Michael L. VanLoon)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: I have one thing to say about Windows '95 & FreeBSD
Date: 07 Sep 1995 07:29:50 GMT
Organization: HeadCandy Associates... Sweets for the lobes.
Lines: 122
Message-ID: <MICHAELV.95Sep7002950@MindBender.HeadCandy.com>
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>
<42jot7$bfi@kadath.zeitgeist.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mindbender.seanet.com
In-reply-to: "Amancio Hasty, Jr."'s message of 6 Sep 1995 09:16:23 GMT
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:5799 comp.sys.intel:47768
In article <42jot7$bfi@kadath.zeitgeist.net> "Amancio Hasty, Jr." <hasty@rah.star-gate.com> writes:
Must say after reading your posting you make a very good
Microsoft Salesman :)
My point was simply to clear up misconceptions.
michaelv@MindBender.HeadCandy.com (Michael L. VanLoon) wrote:
>In article <4236mc$p8g@kadath.zeitgeist.net> "Amancio Hasty, Jr." <hasty@rah.star-gate.com> writes:
> 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.
What's your point?
> 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.
This is incorrect. If a 16-bit application hangs, it can hang the
entire 16-bit framework, but that does not affect any of the 32-bit
machine. The 32-bit applications are still multithreaded and
preemptively switched. Windows NT does this much cleaner, but Windows
95 still doesn't fall down from a bad 16-bit app.
> 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.
Yes, they can. As can a cheap OS/2 box, a PowerMac, etc. My favorite
platform of choice is NetBSD, but NT is still a very capable server
platform. Again, what's your point?
> 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.
Did they say anything about problems with NT NFS implementations
reaching that goal? And, did they say which NFS vendor this was?
Microsoft doesn't include NFS with NT -- it's a third-party add-on.
Additionally, with fast networking in FreeBSD we are achieving near
total disk thruput when using NFS.
That's nice. You still have to admit NFS (a.k.a. No Fucking Security)
is not the complete model of the best file-sharing system. I'm happy
for the performance you have achieved, but there are still many other
things wrong with NFS. Speed is only one criteria for a good
file-sharing implementation.
> 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?
You can't write "all over the VM space" in Windows 95. It's memory
protection may be less than ideal, but your summary is hardly
accurate.
Additionally, nobody has attempted to push it as a server. It's a
client OS. Microsoft BackOffice server products don't run on Windows
95 and never will. Microsoft will tell you to buy NT if you want a
server. Take your choice, NT or FreeBSD, but nobody is asking you to
buy Windows 95 for a server. You do so at your own folly (much like
the continuation of this thread).
Once again: if you're so paranoid about your OS that you have to
manufacture faults in Windows 95 and spread old wives tales, then you
need a little dose of self-confidence. If you can't find real faults
in Windows 95 then you aren't trying very hard. FreeBSD is a really
great OS, and this petty nit-picking is accomplishing nothing.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Michael L. VanLoon michaelv@HeadCandy.com
--< Free your mind and your machine -- NetBSD free un*x >--
NetBSD working ports: 386+PC, Mac, Amiga, HP300, Sun3, Sun4, PC532,
DEC pmax (MIPS R2k/3k), DEC/AXP (Alpha)
NetBSD ports in progress: VAX and others...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -