??? 01/16/07 19:21 Modified: 01/16/07 20:47 Read: times |
#130923 - If Windows were truly multi-user/multitasking ... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
it wouldn't be so difficult to STOP a process.
Every time I run my virus checker, which I do frequently, any process I start, including simply bringing up the task list to stop a process, takes 3-5 minutes. I run defrag every night, so that's not the reason. After every reboot, the first delete file operation takes 2-3 minutes and disallows any other operation to occur. That's not a sign of any sort of multitasking, time-sliced, cooperative, or anything else. The box in question, BTW has a 2 GHz CPU and 2 GB of ram. RE |
Topic | Author | Date |
doubt about ports | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
and one more doubt | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Programming the PC | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Off Topic | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Wrong forum | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Win ports | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Bad practice... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Bad practice | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
some thoughts | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Do not hard-code adresses! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
You need to tell us more ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
MS-DOS | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
why? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Misunderstanding ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Not quite so | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
a parallel in '51 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Sharing | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
OK, the sad facts | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
MS-DOS will allow and do anything the PC can do | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
...and the reason is ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
If Windows were truly multi-user/multitasking ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
it's broken | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
So much for the "Good Old Days" | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Yes, and the ones that worked, worked really well | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
The Right one![]() | 01/01/70 00:00 |