Who has faster multitasking OS/2 or Linux or Windows XP

adamis · 03-12-05, 03:42 AM

Who has faster multitasking and multithreading OS/2 or linux
or Windows XP?

Daneel Olivaw · 03-12-05, 06:49 AM

Windows XP, but not by much. I'm saying that because HT seems to have a better support on winXP. And its no big deal IMO. However, if you compile your own kernel, then Linux prabably comes out on top.

9point9 · 03-12-05, 05:17 PM

Doesn't that make it processor dependant? I'm running on Athlon XP so no HT.

You've left the Windows option as XP but I wouldn't be suprised if 2003 Server is better at it. Windows 2000 Pro will be just as good at multitasking as XP Pro seeing how they're underneath very similar. Win2K has less clutter though so will be faster.

rewt · 03-13-05, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9point9

Win2K has less clutter though so will be faster.

The major drawback of Win2k however is the lack of security. No support for DEP, among other things, that the latest service packs provide for both XP and Server 2003

rflair · 03-13-05, 07:01 PM

Thier was a report where the creator of linux talked about the way windows handled mutitasking and actually said there were advantages to the way windows does some of its multitasking chores. I tried googling for the reoprt but it hits nothing solid (lots of crap), it was actually a great read, talked about the way linux and windows are structured compared to each other.

Daneel Olivaw · 03-21-05, 12:55 PM

Probably the way the wait/sleep queue is implemented.

SuLinUX · 03-22-05, 11:33 AM

By the way, Windows is not true multi-tasking since it doesn't use your memory/CPU correctly between apps. Linux splits CPU time between apps correctly and also memory is assigned much better and not wasted. Windows also uses the prefeching of apps to make it seem faster. The amiga did multi-tasking way before Windows just incase you though Windows did.

Daneel Olivaw · 03-22-05, 10:49 PM

edit: -scratch one post- realized it made no sense after some thought...

I have no clue how the multitasking is implemented under WinXP, however, I have a fair idea of the theory for Linux since I study and program under Linux... but it just seems to me Linux is less responsive than WinXP, just a bit. But that could just be because my WinXP is pretty tweaked and not cluttered at all, whereas I never gave my FC3 installation as much attention.

oldsk00l · 03-22-05, 11:42 PM

BSD beats em all, the kernel scheduler is noticeably better than in Linux. imho XP is probably the worst at "multitasking" out of the options here.

Leviathan · 03-25-05, 04:21 AM

I don't think you can nominate a definite winner there.
Don't know much anything about OS/2 or BSD, but the Windows Scheduler is geared more towards short response time than the Linux Scheduler (shorter timeslices) which also means there are more task-switches => more time wasted switching tasks.
Also, Windows has a mechanism to give UI-Threads higher priority so user interaction is again more responsive than on Linux (and propably most other OS) at the cost of raw processing power.
Besides, Windows has had working Kernel-Preemtion since Windows NT so all drivers for WinNT/Win2k/WinXP can be properly preempted.
Linux on the other hand has introduced Kernel-Preemtion only with v2.6 and there are still some drivers that don't work properly if they are preempted so it's adviced to not use that feature. (Quote: "Say Y here if you are feeling brave and building a kernel for a desktop, embedded or real-time system. Say N if you are unsure.")

Depending on Application, each system has its advantages.

oldsk00l · 03-25-05, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leviathan

I don't think you can nominate a definite winner there.
Don't know much anything about OS/2 or BSD, but the Windows Scheduler is geared more towards short response time than the Linux Scheduler (shorter timeslices) which also means there are more task-switches => more time wasted switching tasks.
Also, Windows has a mechanism to give UI-Threads higher priority so user interaction is again more responsive than on Linux (and propably most other OS) at the cost of raw processing power.
Besides, Windows has had working Kernel-Preemtion since Windows NT so all drivers for WinNT/Win2k/WinXP can be properly preempted.
Linux on the other hand has introduced Kernel-Preemtion only with v2.6 and there are still some drivers that don't work properly if they are preempted so it's adviced to not use that feature. (Quote: "Say Y here if you are feeling brave and building a kernel for a desktop, embedded or real-time system. Say N if you are unsure.")

Depending on Application, each system has its advantages.

Funny thing is though, is the short response time it seems no one really wants. I remember Linus Torvalds talking about it and it just hasn't been an issue people want improved.

About the BSD KSE, here's a good read.

http://www.freebsd.org/kse/

SuLinUX · 03-26-05, 12:17 PM

Well Windows is designed to be a desktop OS from the out set and has advantages, Linux on the other hand was not.

I did a experiment in Linux and The GIMP 2.2.4, opened 4 of the same picture (around 80Mb with 10 layers) and applied a motion blur to one layer of each picture at the same time.

See picture below, which shows true multitasking, multithreading abilities of both Linux and The Gimp 2.

03-12-05, 03:42 AM	#1
adamis Registered User Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 1	Who has faster multitasking OS/2 or Linux or Windows XP Who has faster multitasking and multithreading OS/2 or linux or Windows XP?

03-12-05, 06:49 AM	#2
Daneel Olivaw Northwood hugger Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Montreal Posts: 1,244	Re: Who has faster multitasking OS/2 or Linux or Windows XP Windows XP, but not by much. I'm saying that because HT seems to have a better support on winXP. And its no big deal IMO. However, if you compile your own kernel, then Linux prabably comes out on top. __________________ -Intel Core2 Duo 4300 (3.0GHz) \| Asus P5N-E SLI \| 6GB Corsair CVS PC2-5300 \| GF8800GT 512MB \| Western Digital 1TB Raid0 \| Antec SLK2600AMB \| Antec Earthwatts 500W -Intel Pentium4 2.4C (3.4GHz) \| Asus P4P800 Dlx \| 2GB Crucial Rendition PC-3200 \| GF6800LE 128MB \| Seagate 200GB \| Antec Overture II \| Antec TruePower 2.0 480W Mild agnosticism —the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say "I don't know, but maybe you do."

03-12-05, 05:17 PM	#3
9point9 Registered User Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 23	Re: Who has faster multitasking OS/2 or Linux or Windows XP Doesn't that make it processor dependant? I'm running on Athlon XP so no HT. You've left the Windows option as XP but I wouldn't be suprised if 2003 Server is better at it. Windows 2000 Pro will be just as good at multitasking as XP Pro seeing how they're underneath very similar. Win2K has less clutter though so will be faster.

03-13-05, 07:01 PM	#5
rflair W OOO OOO Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: T.O. Canada Posts: 714	Re: Who has faster multitasking OS/2 or Linux or Windows XP Thier was a report where the creator of linux talked about the way windows handled mutitasking and actually said there were advantages to the way windows does some of its multitasking chores. I tried googling for the reoprt but it hits nothing solid (lots of crap), it was actually a great read, talked about the way linux and windows are structured compared to each other.

03-21-05, 12:55 PM	#6
Daneel Olivaw Northwood hugger Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Montreal Posts: 1,244	Re: Who has faster multitasking OS/2 or Linux or Windows XP Probably the way the wait/sleep queue is implemented. __________________ -Intel Core2 Duo 4300 (3.0GHz) \| Asus P5N-E SLI \| 6GB Corsair CVS PC2-5300 \| GF8800GT 512MB \| Western Digital 1TB Raid0 \| Antec SLK2600AMB \| Antec Earthwatts 500W -Intel Pentium4 2.4C (3.4GHz) \| Asus P4P800 Dlx \| 2GB Crucial Rendition PC-3200 \| GF6800LE 128MB \| Seagate 200GB \| Antec Overture II \| Antec TruePower 2.0 480W Mild agnosticism —the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say "I don't know, but maybe you do."

03-22-05, 11:33 AM	#7
SuLinUX Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: UK Posts: 847	Re: Who has faster multitasking OS/2 or Linux or Windows XP By the way, Windows is not true multi-tasking since it doesn't use your memory/CPU correctly between apps. Linux splits CPU time between apps correctly and also memory is assigned much better and not wasted. Windows also uses the prefeching of apps to make it seem faster. The amiga did multi-tasking way before Windows just incase you though Windows did. __________________ AthlonXP 2600+ / nForce2 Asus A7N8X-X / PNY GeForce FX5900 Ultra / 1024Mb Samsung Ram /nForce Sound / Hansol 920D Plus 19" monitor / Lite-On 32x12x40 / 2x Maxtor HD 40Gb/80Gb / nVidia 7174 driver / Gnome 2.10.1 / Kernel 2.6.11.9 / Slackware 10.0

03-22-05, 10:49 PM	#8
Daneel Olivaw Northwood hugger Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Montreal Posts: 1,244	Re: Who has faster multitasking OS/2 or Linux or Windows XP edit: -scratch one post- realized it made no sense after some thought... I have no clue how the multitasking is implemented under WinXP, however, I have a fair idea of the theory for Linux since I study and program under Linux... but it just seems to me Linux is less responsive than WinXP, just a bit. But that could just be because my WinXP is pretty tweaked and not cluttered at all, whereas I never gave my FC3 installation as much attention. __________________ -Intel Core2 Duo 4300 (3.0GHz) \| Asus P5N-E SLI \| 6GB Corsair CVS PC2-5300 \| GF8800GT 512MB \| Western Digital 1TB Raid0 \| Antec SLK2600AMB \| Antec Earthwatts 500W -Intel Pentium4 2.4C (3.4GHz) \| Asus P4P800 Dlx \| 2GB Crucial Rendition PC-3200 \| GF6800LE 128MB \| Seagate 200GB \| Antec Overture II \| Antec TruePower 2.0 480W Mild agnosticism —the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say "I don't know, but maybe you do."

03-22-05, 11:42 PM	#9
oldsk00l Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 1,663	Re: Who has faster multitasking OS/2 or Linux or Windows XP BSD beats em all, the kernel scheduler is noticeably better than in Linux. imho XP is probably the worst at "multitasking" out of the options here. __________________ The Adama maneuver was incredible, go watch Exodus pt 2.

03-25-05, 04:21 AM	#10
Leviathan Registered User Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 11	Re: Who has faster multitasking OS/2 or Linux or Windows XP I don't think you can nominate a definite winner there. Don't know much anything about OS/2 or BSD, but the Windows Scheduler is geared more towards short response time than the Linux Scheduler (shorter timeslices) which also means there are more task-switches => more time wasted switching tasks. Also, Windows has a mechanism to give UI-Threads higher priority so user interaction is again more responsive than on Linux (and propably most other OS) at the cost of raw processing power. Besides, Windows has had working Kernel-Preemtion since Windows NT so all drivers for WinNT/Win2k/WinXP can be properly preempted. Linux on the other hand has introduced Kernel-Preemtion only with v2.6 and there are still some drivers that don't work properly if they are preempted so it's adviced to not use that feature. (Quote: "Say Y here if you are feeling brave and building a kernel for a desktop, embedded or real-time system. Say N if you are unsure.") Depending on Application, each system has its advantages.

03-26-05, 12:17 PM	#12
SuLinUX Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: UK Posts: 847	Re: Who has faster multitasking OS/2 or Linux or Windows XP Well Windows is designed to be a desktop OS from the out set and has advantages, Linux on the other hand was not. I did a experiment in Linux and The GIMP 2.2.4, opened 4 of the same picture (around 80Mb with 10 layers) and applied a motion blur to one layer of each picture at the same time. See picture below, which shows true multitasking, multithreading abilities of both Linux and The Gimp 2. Attached Thumbnails __________________ AthlonXP 2600+ / nForce2 Asus A7N8X-X / PNY GeForce FX5900 Ultra / 1024Mb Samsung Ram /nForce Sound / Hansol 920D Plus 19" monitor / Lite-On 32x12x40 / 2x Maxtor HD 40Gb/80Gb / nVidia 7174 driver / Gnome 2.10.1 / Kernel 2.6.11.9 / Slackware 10.0

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Why Windows 8 could be the next Vista	News	Latest Tech And Game Headlines	0	06-15-12 10:30 AM
Like XP or Vista: how will businesses treat Windows 8?	News	Latest Tech And Game Headlines	0	06-06-12 09:10 AM
NVIDIA Brings 18 Years of Experience to Windows 8	News	Latest Tech And Game Headlines	0	06-03-12 06:20 AM
85Hz in Windows, but only 75hz in Linux?	moazam	NVIDIA Linux	1	10-04-02 04:39 AM
Linux VS. Windows XP! XP wins!	dostler	NVIDIA Linux	20	09-15-02 03:47 PM