wrote in message
...
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 10:29:38 -0600

Sixteen-bit versions of Windows never did preemptive multitasking.
Thirty-two bit versions did and do, for 32-bit applications (but not
for 16-bit applications). Windows NT does it for all applications,

No, windows NT does not pre-emptively multitask.

Actually Windows 3.1 did preemptive multitasking for DOS applications.
Which was like a few weeks difference than OS/2 claimed to do so.

Win NT/2K/XP is better still, and are generally quite good
OS's, but the multitasking is still rather poor compared to several
other OS's on the market.

This is because it only multitasks, but it is not pre-emptive
multitasking. The kernel does not have complete control of each
application.

It depends on the Windows application. All DOS applications use
preemptive and 32-bit Windows uses preemptive. But 16-bit Windows
applications uses cooperative tasking (which in my experience is often
better than preemptive tasking anyway). This is true for Windows 3.1,
and Windows 9x. I'm not sure what happens under NT/2K/XP with 16-bit
Windows applications. As who runs 16-bit Windows applications anymore?

Not true. Multitasking on all the NT-based versions of Windows is
excellent.

It is very good, but it is not pre-emptive. OS/2, for one, uses
pre-emptive and it is so far ahead and superior to the way windows
works, folks would not believe it. The difference between the two is
beyond night and day.

OS/2 sucked BIG TIME for preemptive tasking Windows 3.1 applications!
Some Windows applications crashed and burned under OS/2 when the same
ran stable as a rock under the real Windows. OS/2 often multitasked
Windows applications far slower than the real Windows OS. And that is
why preemptive tasking sucks! It often gives too much CPU time to
something that doesn't need it and not enough time for one that does
need it.

To fix the flaw with preemptive tasking, OS often includes an
application priority level that one could adjust so it behaves better
with other multitasking functions. Cooperative tasking has no need for
any of this tweaking nonsense. Plus everything in the multitasking sense
often runs faster because the stupid preemptive tasking OS isn't
screwing everything up with its added CPU overhead.

The difference will prove to be in your definition. The original
definition has been absconded with by microsoft in order to make it
appear that their inferior implementation actually meets the
requirements, so if it is really important that you 'win' that's okay
with me.

Mark

You have never mentioned cooperative tasking in anything you have
posted. Me thinks you really don't know about the different methods of
multitasking and the pros and cons of each.

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