"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:%Ig8f.32451$gF4.27376@trnddc07...
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 03:15:07 GMT

and the inability of windows to pre-emptively
multitask,

Incorrect.

snip

How about offering some insight rather than just a big buzzer?

Depends on the version really, Win 3.1 and earlier didn't offer pre-
emptive multitasking,

All DOS applications ran under Windows 3.1 preemptively.

when an application was minimized it generally ground to a halt.

If the application doesn't want CPU time, it doesn't get it. This is
what makes cooperative tasking really great! I love cooperative tasking
when it is done right.

Win 9x was a big improvement over this but still mediocre. Win
NT/2K/XP is better still, and are generally quite good OS's,

That is your belief and my opinions are mixed. Take this 2595XDVD
running Windows 2000 with 192MB of RAM (its maxed out). And it can't
handle streaming audio/video anything faster than 100k. Yet the other
laptop, same thing except it runs Windows 98SE has no problems streaming
coming in at 800k or higher. So in this case, Windows 98 is better at
multitasking than Windows 2000/XP are.

but the multitasking is still rather poor compared to several other
OS's on the market. Of course any OS is a compromise, what you gain
in one area you often lose in another.

No in my humble opinion and experience.

______________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD & Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within Word 2000