home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31 / NN_1992_31.iso / spool / comp / os / mswindo / advocacy / 3651 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1993-01-03  |  1.6 KB
  1. Path: sparky!uunet!usc!usc!not-for-mail
  2. From: merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin)
  3. Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
  4. Subject: Re: Notice! OS2 will Execute Win3 programs Without having to have Win
  5. Date: 3 Jan 1993 17:11:08 -0800
  6. Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
  7. Lines: 17
  8. Message-ID: <1i82rcINNl68@neuro.usc.edu>
  9. References: <1993Jan3.215505.21543@cs.uoregon.edu> <1i7p0mINNkkc@neuro.usc.edu> <1993Jan4.005023.26661@cs.uoregon.edu>
  10. NNTP-Posting-Host: neuro.usc.edu
  11.  
  12. >Thus, if a process needs a lot of processing time to handle an event, it can
  13. >take it; but if a process doesn't need to do anything (a "background" process
  14. >wouldn't have to do much) in response it a message, it can (and usually does)
  15. >yield control almost IMMEDIATELY to the next process that has high-priority
  16. >messages pending.  In a sense, this is a form of self-imposed priority-based
  17. >scheduling.
  18.  
  19. YES!  BUT!  That works for well behaved well written Windows applications.
  20. However, when you try doing background compiles of large application source
  21. codes (200,000+ lines of C) then the lack of dynamic priority scheduling
  22. becomes particularly evident.  I am informed this is true largely of apps
  23. running in a DOS box and not of regular Windows apps.  However, working as
  24. a developer of cross system applications (OS/2 2.1, SCO UNIX, 386BSD-0.1,
  25. and maybe DOS/Win32s), the lack of preemptive dynamic process scheduling
  26. seems particularly acute.  As I understand it I have to assign percentage
  27. processor time to my background dos box and it doesn't waiver much from my
  28. fixed percentage assignment.
  29.