Dug out my old/. account so I don't post as an AC by default.
What I mean is that the compiler that ships with Visual C++ is *not* the compiler used to build Windows 2000. The Win2K buildlab uses a custom compiler. I'm not sure of it's origin - it may be based off the compiler shipped with Visual C++, but it is certainly not the same compiler.
of course Glide is faster. It's written for a single hardware architecture. If MS optimized DX7 for nVidia and only nVidia architecture, it'd be faster than Glide. You're comparing apples to oranges.. if you want to compare API speeds, that's fine -- but you also need to consider their features and support (Glide is dying, face it -- it won't happen right away, but developers are moving away from it). If you want to compare 3DFX and NVIDIA and Matrox cards, you need to compare them running a common app under a common API. Saying a 3DFX card is faster under Glide than the nVidia is under DX is meaningless.
Windows 9X supports 1 processor because of its DOS heritage.
Windows NT has theoretical support for up to 256 processors. The limits in the various flavors (Workstation, Server, Adv. Server, etc) are put in there for licensing reasons (I think). Workstation licences you to 2 procs, Server gives you 8 (I think) and Adv. Server lets you have more than 8. However, if you want to use more than 8 procs you have to write your own HAL.
Dunno if anyone else notices this, but it seems that alot of Linux-fans are poo-pooing the fact that the benchmarks were "run on systems that NT is designed to run better on" or "Run on systems designed for NT." Then they turn around in their next post and suggest running the benchmarks on a 386SX/25 with 4 megs. Umm, how isn't that doing exactly the same thing -- tailoring the hardware to a system Linux is designed to run on. Hell, we don't even support 386s.
Re:Linux is not the fastest. No excuses.
on
NT vs. Linux: Again
·
· Score: 1
I'm running a Win2K machine (workstation, not a server) at work. It's got one of the builds just after Beta3, and I have yet to see a crash.
Slashdot Mirror
What I mean is that the compiler that ships with Visual C++ is *not* the compiler used to build Windows 2000. The Win2K buildlab uses a custom compiler. I'm not sure of it's origin - it may be based off the compiler shipped with Visual C++, but it is certainly not the same compiler.
JD
of course Glide is faster. It's written for a single hardware architecture. If MS optimized DX7 for nVidia and only nVidia architecture, it'd be faster than Glide. You're comparing apples to oranges.. if you want to compare API speeds, that's fine -- but you also need to consider their features and support (Glide is dying, face it -- it won't happen right away, but developers are moving away from it). If you want to compare 3DFX and NVIDIA and Matrox cards, you need to compare them running a common app under a common API. Saying a 3DFX card is faster under Glide than the nVidia is under DX is meaningless.
Windows 9X supports 1 processor because of its DOS heritage.
Windows NT has theoretical support for up to 256 processors. The limits in the various flavors (Workstation, Server, Adv. Server, etc) are put in there for licensing reasons (I think). Workstation licences you to 2 procs, Server gives you 8 (I think) and Adv. Server lets you have more than 8. However, if you want to use more than 8 procs you have to write your own HAL.
Dunno if anyone else notices this, but it seems that alot of Linux-fans are poo-pooing the fact that the benchmarks were "run on systems that NT is designed to run better on" or "Run on systems designed for NT." Then they turn around in their next post and suggest running the benchmarks on a 386SX/25 with 4 megs. Umm, how isn't that doing exactly the same thing -- tailoring the hardware to a system Linux is designed to run on. Hell, we don't even support 386s.
I'm running a Win2K machine (workstation, not a server) at work. It's got one of the builds just after Beta3, and I have yet to see a crash.