home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: ocbbs.gen.nz!not-for-mail
- From: steve@hn.ocbbs.gen.nz (Steve Detoni)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.programming
- Subject: Re: Why are 32 bit better than 16 bit pgms?
- Followup-To: comp.lang.c++,comp.programming
- Date: 26 Jan 1996 10:45:54 +1300
- Message-ID: <4e8tmi$ead@hn.ocbbs.gen.nz>
- References: <30FBFFE6.1FEB@netcom.com> <4dniuk$lms@dragon.solect.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: hn.hn.planet.gen.nz
- X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
-
- Matt Gallant (gallantm@kanservu.ca) wrote:
- : In article <30FBFFE6.1FEB@netcom.com>, vain@netcom.com says...
-
- : The answer to this question can be a matter of opinion. The common answers
- : given are:
-
- : longer hog the process by not yielding on a timely basis. (There is one snag to
- : this scheme if you're running on Windows 95, and if you develop for Windows 95
- : you are sure to hear about it. This "snag" is refered to as the Win16Lock or
- : Win16Mutex.)
- Actually, pre-emptive multitasking is part of OS than the this 32bit
- magic word.
-
- Actually, come to think of it, some Windows 3.1 programs may even run
- faster because of the co-operative multitasking system employed, a
- program has the CPU for as lon as it wants and may use it to complete its
- task as soon as possible. The beauty of pre-emptive multitasking is when
- you have alot of processes that need to be served by one CPU, thus this
- system makes sure each process is able to get execution by split up CPU time
- between each. This is one reason why some OS/2 programs run slow than
- under Windows. However, without this system, such OS like Unix, VMS etc
- would not be able to run at the capcity they do ...
-
- But it must be stated that 32bits doesn't provide all these features
- (i.e. pre-emptive multitasking, multi-threading, and even to some respect
- flat memory models), its the OS.
-
- Steve.
-
-