Re: Newbie's Oracle 9i impression: it sucks

> The advantage of this (windows)
> architecture is that it is superior in true multitasking.

Hmmm!

Just fell on this one and couldn't resist. How do you explain Windows is so much superior, when you have situations like:
You're in Outlook reading youe email. You click on an URL in an email message, and while you wait for the IE window to open, you click back into Outllook to read your other emails, and it won't respond until IE finally arrives. That sucks and is in no way superior multitasking.

I'm a VMS guy. I have 500 + users on my server and even when one of the guys has an infinite loop in his program, it's hard to tell; the machine is slower a little bit, but there's no perceptible wait time. That's REAL multitasking. Process quantum has it that you'll get your share of CPU even in such situations, and even though a program takes 1 hour elapsed to finish instaed of 30 minutes when the system is very busy, a user running an interactive application will barely notice the system is slow (because it has so many users to serve).

VMS forever. Nothing beats it.

--

Syltrem
http://pages.infinit.net/syltrem (OpenVMS related web site - en français)
To reply to myself directly, remove .spammenot from my address

"Dusan Bolek" <pagesflames_at_usa.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
1e8276d6.0205232300.61fcacfb_at_posting.google.com...


> sqljoe_at_aol.com (SQLJoe) wrote in message

news:<20020522071819.21008.00000152_at_mb-fo.aol.com>...


> > Windows far exceeds Unix in multitasking. Its memory management is also

> > superior due to the fact that it is a single process\multiple thread OS

and it


> > MUST manage its memory better in order to be stable. The advantage of

this


> > architecture is that it is superior in true multitasking.

> > Unix is a Multiple Process\single thread OS and memory management is not

as


> > sophisticated nor is it as necessary. The advantage of this architecture

is


> > that there is no shared memory involved and there is little chance of

memory


> > crash.

>

> Hm, sorry I know that I'm very backward, but I still prefer

> multitasking in Unix way. For example I know that is very modern

> multitasking aproach to hang computer for a while while reading badly

> damaged CD-ROM, but I prefer the old fashioned Unix way with just one

> simple error message and no impact on rest of system.

> I also prefer that exhausting of memory will slow server, but not

> crashing or hang it.

>

> > Just what are these "must have" functionality you are referring to which

> > Windows don't have??? I don't know any functionality which Windows lacks

> > which Unix provides.

>

> Scalability, stability and performance.

> So I need an environment which can be easily transformed to 64-bit.

> I need environment which can deal with heavy load, not the one which

> must be rebooted after heavy load because memory management is not as

> good as supposed to be and cannot recover from full memory occupation.

> I need environment which run (or can be operated) even if all memory

> including swap is exhausted. How can I fix an error which caused big

> memory allocation on system, which response to exhausting swap is one

> error message and ten minute waiting for simple login or unlock

> screen?

>

> > The perception (not reality) is that Windows 2000 is unstable.

Certainly,


> > Windows NT was unstable, but Windows2000 has fixed this problem. This is

> > NOT to say it is AS stable as Unix, but it certainly isn't unstable. I

have seen


> > Windows2000 Database servers run for YEARS (2 to be exact) and they have

> > NEVER crashed. I am sure others can testify to teh same effect.

>

> Is great that we need to wait to year 2000 for feature already done in

> seventies on Unix. However I still can feel a distinct difference

> between stable and not unstable system. Is great that some system

> would not crash in normal load, but I want a system which can work

> even under heavy pressure.

>

> > Finally, XP is a client machine, and it is architecturally VERY

different from


> > Windows2000 Servers. Your IE problem is just that, an IE problem, not an

OS


> > problem.

>

> No it is not. Just read some Microsoft's papers. The same is NT Server

> and Workstation, same system with built-in limits for number of CPUs

> and some networking stuff. You can even find a doc, which tell you how

> you can switch Workstation to Server just with editing of few files.

> XP is the same as 2000, with new look and few changes "under hood".

>

> --

> _________________________________________

>

> Dusan Bolek, Ing.

> Oracle team leader

>

> Note: pagesflames_at_usa.net has been cancelled due to changes (maybe we

> can call it an overture to bankruptcy) on that server. I'm still using

> this email to prevent SPAM. Maybe one day I will change it and have a

> proper mail even for news, but right now I can be reached by this

> email.