[rescue] OT: Solaris for Intel

[joshua d boyd]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 04:38:10PM -0400, Loomis, Rip wrote:
 
> And the other progression is:
> NT 3.5 -> NT 3.51 -> NT 4.0 -> Win2K -> WinXP
> All of these are 32-bit operating
> systems that include support for useful
> features like discretionary access
> control (users/passwords/file permissions)
> along with other things that a "real"
> operating system should have. 

Don't forget NT 3.1! That was a dog if ever there was one.
 
> Fundamentally there are still too many ways
> in WinNT/Win2K that a misbehaving app can
> crash the OS, since the GUI is so tightly
> linked into the underlying kernel...but it's
> a much more stable platform than Win9x/ME.

That's because they got rid of the (well, really, they never had) big
chunk of unprotected memory between 2 and 3 gigs like 9x does.  Care to
guess where many DLLs are run?

Also, on both OSs, there are different mallocs and deallocs.  This can
cause a lot of trouble if a DLL tries to use one dealloc on memory
malloced with a different malloc call.  Err, for those non hard core
coders, this means that the dealloc call thinks that it was handed a
random address, and it bombs.

The things you learn reading Windows Developer Journal (I think that was
the title) out of boredom.

> I'm just about to finally upgrade my Win98SE
> box at home to Win2K Professional, based on
> favorable experiences with Win2K on my work
> laptop.

I wish I could convince my sister to make the jump.  She thinks it is a
bad idea since her computer is officially unsupported (she has a P-200,
and the official minimum is P2-300).

-- 
Joshua D. Boyd