There's much more than that. There's NTP, which will keep your system clock accurate to within milliseconds without too much trouble. You can also get radio-controlled hardware clocks for installation inside the machine, as well as GPS clocks for even better accuracy. Radio-controlled clocks and NTP over broadband are grossly comparable, but GPS is more accurate still. All of these are far more accurate than the basic clock in the PC alone, which is often off by seconds per day.
-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
If you want time that is perceptibly correct (that is, no perceptible difference between the PC clock time and a reliable standard reference when you watch or listen to both), you need to reset the clock of most PCs several times _per day_, as it may be off by as much as several seconds in a day.
There's also a registry entry that can be modified to make the system synchronize more often.
-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Sixteen-bit versions of Windows never did preemptive multitasking. Thirty-two bit versions did and do, for 32-bit applications (but not for 16-bit applications). Windows NT does it for all applications, although a single MS-DOS virtual machine counts as one application (so multiple 16-bit apps running inside it are not preemptively tasked among themselves, for compatibility).
It would not grind to a halt if the current application relinquished control properly and frequently. However, all applications in the system had to be well behaved in this way, or things would stall.
It only did it for 32-bit applications, and overall Windows 9x was very poorly written.
Not true. Multitasking on all the NT-based versions of Windows is excellent. On those rare occasions when one application stalls another on an NT-based OS, it's not because of any defect in multitasking, it's because of interprocess signalling that stalls applications by (potentially poor) design. For example, the Windows Explorer is a potential source of multiple-application stalls, although the latest versions of Windows Explorer are far better behaved than the original (which was lifted from Windows 95, and was thus very poorly written).
Of course, systems such as UNIX have been successfully multitasking since the beginning, given that they were originally timesharing systems by design.
-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
This is because it only multitasks, but it is not pre-emptive multitasking. The kernel does not have complete control of each application.
It is very good, but it is not pre-emptive. OS/2, for one, uses pre-emptive and it is so far ahead and superior to the way windows works, folks would not believe it. The difference between the two is beyond night and day.
The difference will prove to be in your definition. The original definition has been absconded with by microsoft in order to make it appear that their inferior implementation actually meets the requirements, so if it is really important that you 'win' that's okay with me.
look, I post a completely relevant reply to a question and this guy comes along and whines about my post without offering up any relevant points that pertain to the question asked and then has the gall to tell me that my post is not relevant and does as he is God's gift to the NG, He gets both barrels. a dose of his own crap. I do not enjoy having to flame a troll but I will always stand my ground. If you don't want endless threads of tit for tat insults then don't troll the NG.
You guys remind me of the guy with two black eyes, you cant tell him anything cause you already told him twice.
Win 16 code on Windows 95 executes "cooperative multitasking". The application program must volunteer to pass CPU access to the next application. Furthermore Win16 code is non reentrant.
Windows 95 could only execute Win32 code using a flag called Win16Mutex so that Win32 code, designed for pre-emptive multitasking environments, would not crash in the 'mostly' Win16 environment of Windows 9x/ME.
To run Win16 applications in the preemptive multitasking environment of NT, those Win16 applications would execute under NTVDM. Therefore Win16 applications could execute in a pre-emptive multitasking environment called Windows NT.
To be a true multitasking system, all threads must be reentrant. This NT does. To be preemptive multitasking, the OS rather than the application programs must determine which code has CPU resources. This too is done by NT. Neither is done in Windows 9x. Some still confuse this difference between Windows 9x/ME and the Windows NT/2000/XP operating systems.
NT, however is not a superior real-time pre-emptive multitasking (MT) system. NT was not designed as an efficient real time OS because response to interrupts can take a millisecond. But this discussion is about preemptive MT. Windows 9x/ME is not pre-emptive multitasking. It is cooperative MT. A legacy of DOS and Win 3.1 upon which it was constructed. NT was built from scratch in the earliest 19990s to use Win32 code (code that is also reentrant) and to be preemptive multitasking. XP being only the latest version of the NT Operating System.
Some preemptive multitasking OSes take it to the next level
- real-time preemptive multitasking. NT can perform real time operations - just not fast enough - microsecond response - as some high performance systems require.
OS/2 did provide preemptive multitasking when Windows 95 could only do cooperative MT. However OS/2 has no useful graphical interface. Therefore OS/2 ended up in embedded applications such as ATMs - where the system must be more reliable - therefore system required a preemptive MT OS. Obviously Windows 9x/ME suffer from that reliability weakness. But NT is preemptive MT and has a graphical interface. NT was Microsoft's answer to OS/2 when IBM and Microsoft finally had a parting of the ways in early 1990s.
BTW, the early OS/2 that was first dem>> Sixteen-bit versions of Windows never did preemptive multitasking.
No you haven't No one person has seen all those lines of code. If you want people to believe you are privy to the inner workings of the NT kernel, you will have to explain how you found the time to read and understand so much of it that you can make such a bogus statement in the first place.
Talk is cheap on usenet. No one is impressed. Hey, for all you know, I was on the development team.
Nope. Like I said, you do not have the proper defintion, or if it makes you feel better, we are not applying the same definition.
Everyone knows NT/XP/2000 is not windows 95. Don't treat your readers like they are dummies.
Nope. Sorry.
formatting link
Hardly dead, and oh by the way, NT was built on early OS/2 code. NT and
2000 had plenty of OS/2 code in their kernel, and can even run text mode OS/2 apps. If you had seen the code...... you would know that.
I am not advocating it, I only pointed out that its multitasking was true, pre-emptive, and vastly superior to any MS product. Oh, BTW, the first versions of windows wouldn't even run a day without crashing and had more bugs than lines of code. So what does that have to do with anything?
Even worse, the
And when first released, windows was a total disaster. Again, so what? Stay in the present. At its peak in the late 90's, OS/2 was a cadillac to M$'s yugo. You can always argue app support, but technically, nothing holds a candle to OS/2. If MS was allowed to be crap for 10 years, and is now glorified, why do you think it matters that OS/2 had problems at first as well? The SIQ was the cause of just about any hang on any OS/2 system. When that was not an issue, NT could not stand up to OS/2 for stability. When Billy glued that dopey GUI onto NT, its reliability tanked.
There is a reason why OS/2 ran every ATM on the planet until the banks sold out to billy. If your ATM works, its OS/2.
OS/2 was not profitable for a lot of reasons, the largest of which came out in the MS trial, when we all learned that gates blackmailed IBM into killing it off. Again, totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.Profits do not equate to quality and features. I would take a BMW over a Ford any day, but Ford sells more product. Doesn't mean their cars are better, it just means they sell more of them. Again, so what?
According to some people's warped definition of preemptive multitasking, but NT's "idea" of it was not what preemptive really is, as demonstrated in OS/2 (not early releases, like you are whining about)
Wake up. NT WAS OS/2 as taken by gates when he split from M$ Everyone knows bill never invented anything, or wrote an OS from the ground up. He took NT from IBM as part of the parting of the ways, and found people to embellish it, except he took what you are whining about which is the versions that could not do preemptive multitasking. Shoot, he couldn't even pull the OS/2 code from the kernel until XP came around. Such a brilliant mind he has.....
Wow. Dumbest statement I ever read on usenet. Apparently, you never, ever saw OS/2 on a desktop. Most people will agree that the OS/2 Object Oriented interface is superior in every way to anything M$ has ever stolen. The OS/2 desktop is legendary. Can't believe you never saw it.......
Guess that pretty much blows any credibility you were hoping to show off around here.
No useful graphical interface. Yikes.... You really are clueless.
DBLEXPOSURE, , the hogged, backless gooseberry, and female servant of Irish stock, chafed:
Ok, go on then, care less.
You should not have posted the mad rant currently being replied to. You should have shut the f*ck up.
Wait a moment. Aren't you, by telling him not to tell you what to do, telling him what to do? Or does the simple logic in that escape you?
He did post what he thought; you took it as a jab, you retarded apeth.
Fuck you too. If anyone wants to tell you where to get off, they can. I certainly will. Get the f*ck off usenet.
Maybe you need to learn what the word public means.
Whereas you are, right?
Welcome to usenet, k0oK.
And who in their right mind is going to go back and read it?
Ha, the old k0oK line of, "Someone, somewhere, one day, may appreciate all the shit I write!"
You really must've got your fat, lard-arse walloped good and hard, eh.
-- DISCLAIMER: The content does not reflect the thoughts or opinions of either my ISP, myself, my company or employer, my friends (if any,) my goldfish or my neighbour's mad dog; don't quote me on that; don't quote me on anything; all rights reserved; the post is distribution copyrighted to the extent that you may distribute the post and all its associated parts freely but you may not make a profit from it or include the post in commercial publications without written permission from the Prime Minister of Hutt Province; other copyright laws for specific posts apply wherever noted or not noted, either deliberately, negligently, or otherwise; posts are subject to change without notice; posts are slightly enlarged to show detail; any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is unintentional and purely coincidental; hand wash only, tumble dry on low heat; do not bend, fold, mutilate, or spindle; do not pass go; do not collect $200; your mileage may vary; no substitutions allowed; for a limited time only; the post is void where prohibited, taxed, or otherwise restricted; the post is provided "as is" without any warranties expressed or implied; user assumes full liabilities; not liable for damages due to use or misuse; an equal opportunity abuse employer; no shoes, no shirt; quantities are limited while supplies last; if defects are discovered, do not attempt to fix them yourself but return to an authorised post service centre; caveat emptor; read at your own risk; parental advisory - explicit words; text may contain material some readers may find objectionable, parental guidance is advised; not suitable for children; not suitable for adults; not for human consumption; keep away from sunlight, pets and small children; limit one-per-family; no money down; no purchase necessary; to approved purchasers only; facsimiles are acceptable in South Australia; you need not be present to read this post; some assembly required; batteries not included; action figures sold separately; no preservatives added; tools not included; safety goggles may be required during use; sealed for your protection, do not use if the safety seal is broken; call before you dig; for external use only; if a rash, redness, irritation or swelling develops, discontinue use; use only with proper ventilation; avoid extreme temperatures and store in a cool, dry place; keep away from open flames, naked flames and old flames; avoid inhaling fumes; avoid contact with mucous membranes; do not puncture, incinerate, or store above 60 degrees Centigrade; do not place near flammable or magnetic source; smoking the post may be hazardous to your health; the best safeguard, second only to abstinence, is the use of a good laugh; text used on the post is made from 100% recycled electrons and magnetic particles; no animals were used to test the hilarity of this post other than Synapse Syndrome; no salt, MSG, artificial colour or flavour added; may contain traces of replies to peanuts; if ingested, do not induce vomiting, if symptoms persist, consult your humourologist; post is ribbed for your pleasure; slippery when wet; must be 18 to read; possible penalties for early withdrawal; post offer valid only in participating newsgroups; slightly higher in South Australia; allow four to six weeks for delivery; damage from hurricane, lightning, tornado, tsunami, volcanic eruption, earthquake, flood, orgasm, misuse, self-abuse, neglect, unauthorised repair, damage from improper installation, broken antenna, marred cabinet, incorrect line voltage, missing or altered serial numbers, sonic boom vibrations, electromagnetic radiation from nuclear blasts or other Acts of God are not covered; incidents owing to aeroplane crash, ship sinking, motor vehicle accidents, leaky roof, broken glass, falling rocks, mud slides, forest fire, flying projectiles or dropping the item are also excluded; other restrictions may apply. If something offends you, lighten up, get a life, and move on. All conditions apply. Not available in all stores. Facts have been changed to protect the guilty.
Oye! I was right, you don't know what pre-emptive multitasking is...... Wikipedia is not the source of all knowledge.....
It is not emulated, it is OS/2 base code that runs native. You must be aware of that.
As if bill gates would allow OS/2 emulation to be built into HIS operating system
Gates and co. did NOT write NT from scratch. They based much of it on the code developed at IBM for OS/2 when there was no mickysoft. Really, anyone who was around at the time, or who bothers to check even for a moment knows that. The only code any microsoft person ever wrote from scratch was Bob....
OS/2 has no useful graphical interface? Thanks, I will remember that one for a long time :-)
formatting link
Either way, have a nice day. No point in wasting bandwidth on the same old stuff year after year. Doesn't really matter in the long run. Take a shot back to make you feel even. No big thing.....
Microsoft did not blackmail IBM into killing off OS/2. To understand why IBM back then never wrote a single successful software product for the PC, start at the source. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. And so in
1992, what computer is on the desks of IBM top management? IBM XTs with CGA monitors. 1983 machines on Sept 1990 desks. IBM management was so technically ignorant - so educated in MBA school philosophies - that their own computers could not execute new software sold in retail stores.
This is a company that will make a successful OS?
OS/2 was just another classic example of IBM management who did not even write code. Names such as Cannavino and Akers should be on your lips. These were bean counters who could not recognize an innovation even if it bit them in the ass. It is that technical ignorance that caused difficulty for Microsoft to get IBM to endorse innovation - such as a graphical interface. IBM in 1990 even insisted on writing new OS code for the 1984 IBM AT - IBM management was that myopic. Windows 3.0 arrived May 1990.
Managers who were technically naive caused an IBM / Microsoft breakup. IBM was brainwashed into a mainframe mentality - had no appreciation of the graphical interface that was even making Apple so successful. IBM even called their PC group the Entry Systems division because they viewed the PC only as an extension of mainframes. Cannavino was even declaring his division the most profitable when it was really losing, in 1992, about $1billion per year.
The IBM Microsoft divorce, started Sept 1990, gave Microsoft development of Windows and gave IBM the development of OS/2. This separation was fully implemented by mid-1991. These were the days of Windows 3.x. OS/2 did not work well was Jan
1992. OS/2 2.0 finally arrived in 1993 about the same time that a first Windows NT was making an appearance. IOW Windows NT was created completely independent of IBM and contrary to what was posted.
After the parting, Microsoft started building two operating systems. One was a preemptive multitasking OS that used a graphical interface, worked superbly, and met the delivery schedule. I was using NT without crashes before a completely different OS named Windows 95 arrived. In fact NT engineers had to transfer to the Windows 95 group because Win 95 was so problematic.
NT worked just fine without crashing on my 486s in direct contradiction to what was posted. In fact this PC is a 486-66 Mhz PC. Why? It uses Windows NT 4.0 that executes hardware fast enough even ten years later. With Windows 9x, this 486 machine would have been scrapped long ago. That is how stable NT was even back in 1994. But again, if discussing Windows, then always state which one. Back then, two completely different Windows OSes existed. Previous posts imply all Windows OSes are same.
OS/2 could have been successful in mid 1980s. But a multitasking text oriented Operating System released in the
1990s and written in assembly language was too little too late
- and an example of what happens when top management are bean counters rather than come from where the work gets done.
IBM top management undermined OS/2 - especially its greatest anti-innovators - John Akers and Jim Cannavino. Nobody would write a new Operating System in assembly language. And yet that is exactly what IBM managers did with OS/2.
Its a tribute to IBM engineers that they were able to make OS/2 functional. But again, too little too late - or what happens when top management does not come from where the work gets done.
In 1992, OS/2 still was not doing a graphical interface because even top IBM management did not understand the concept. Worse, the first version did not yet do preemptive multitasking correctly. Too little too late. Symptoms directly traceable to inferior top management in IBM.
So how does this related to a CMOS date time clock that does not keep good time AND predates all of this?
It does preemptively multitask, and the kernel has complete control of all applications.
You're still applying the principles of 16-bit Windows and Windows 9x to the NT-based operating systems. The latter are completely different operating systems, though, rewritten from scratch, and they don't have anything in common with other versions of Windows except for the look and feel of the user interface.
It is both good and preemptive.
OS/2 is dead and gone, and although it was superior in design to the old versions of Windows, it was not superior to NT.
-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
I haven't read every line, but I've seen most of the cool stuff. It was a hobby of mine at one time.
You don't need to look at the code. Just write a program that runs in a tight loop, and run it. If you can still switch to other tasks in the system, you have preemptive multitasking. And on NT and its descendants, you can do exactly that.
No, you weren't.
I've spent part of my time writing operating systems for a living. I have the right definition.
But many of them don't seem to know much more than that, and they don't seem to realize that NT/XP/200x have nothing to do with Windows
95 at all. They are a completely separate family of operating systems.
I try to adapt as the situation warrants.
NT was built from scratch, as far as I know. There were disagreements on development directions between Microsoft and IBM, and Microsoft decided to go its own way.
You can run MS-DOS apps, too, but that doesn't mean that NT contains MS-DOS code.
I don't remember if I ever looked at compatibility stuff. I wasn't much interested in emulation.
-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.