Re[2]: [Am-info] O/S 2 support - slightly off topic (my apologies)

[Gene Gaines]

Wow, an informed discussion with "Windows" and programming
design/structure in the same sentence.

I was getting resigned to that being a thing of the past.

Gene
gene.gaines@gainesgroup.com

On Saturday, March 16, 2002, 12:08:15 PM, madodel wrote:

> In <1016296740.550.13.camel@monster.omnifarious.org>, on 03/16/02 at 10:38
> AM,
>    "Eric M. Hopper" <hopper@omnifarious.org> said:



>>Not to get too off-topic, but one of the biggest technical problems I see
>>in Windows is its heavy reliance on threads.  In my experience using
>>threads extensively leads to low quality programs that crash or hang
>>constantly for inexplicable reasons.  Having to carefully coordinate
>>access to internal program data structures among multiple
>>non-deterministic control flows is very prone to error.

>>I, personally, advocate almost any solution before threads are brought
>>in.  They should be last resort for solving a problem.  So, I have little
>>love or respect for an OS based on its built in multi-threading support. 
>>:-)

> If you are basing that solely on windoze experience, you are viewing it
> under the worse possible light.  OS/2 users love our well threaded
> operating system and apps.  Its one of the (many) things that OS/2 users
> hate about windoze - how bad it does threading and how few windoze apps
> are multi-threaded.  Run SMP on windoze NT and you barely get any
> improvement unless you go to 4 CPUs as the operating system hogs the first
> CPU and the multiprocessor logic has a large overhead, but on OS/2 all
> apps benefit on a 2 CPU system, but multi-threaded apps benefit the most. 
> The system is noticeably snappier and more responsive.  IBM sucks as a
> corporate entity, but they can certainly program circles around m$ft.


> Mark




--