* Shri Shrikumar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: > > No, of course not. Different systems do different things well and > > poorly. For example: Write a "benchmark" that starts and stops 10,000 > > processes and Linux will beat Windows hands-down. Write a "benchmark" > > that starts and stops 10,000 threads and Windows will beat Linux > > hands-down (if it's not still running the process benchmark...). > > Ummmm.... out of curiosity, Why / how does windows beat Linux ? Is it > technically very difficult / impossible to have an OS that does > processes and threads very fast or has Linux CHOSEN to give more > importance to processes than to threads and why ?
Because... errm, do a university-level OS course. Unix is a time-sharing system, which means it is geared up for running multiple processes, and give each of these processes decent interactive performance. This way a university can give each student a terminal running vi, and none of them has to wait 10 minutes for their keystrokes to get processed. So in a sense yes, Linux chose to be that way. Or, rather, Berkeley chose to make Unix that way. Oh, and threads didn't exist back then IIRC. Dima -- Q276304 - Error Message: Your Password Must Be at Least 18770 Characters and Cannot Repeat Any of Your Previous 30689 Passwords -- RISKS 21.37