Author: Slater Wold
Date: 21:05:14 08/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
Why would you need to implement support for more than 1 CPU, on an edition of a "home use" operating system? That make 100% no sense to me. Of the upteenbillion people in the world, who use Windows 95, 98, or ME, how many of those people do you think have more than 1 CPU? Second question: Are we writing operating systems, and calling them "home" versions because we expect supercomputers to be running on them, or are we expecting the average computer user to be using it. Give that some thought. Also, anyone with good business sense, that could get away with running their servers on a "home" and therefore cheaper OS, WOULD. And that's what MS is stopping too. If you're going to run a business, and make money off a buisness, and conduct your business using my software, I am going to make DAMN sure you're buying the more expensive version. Because like any business, MS is out to make money. Not save the cheap asses a few dollars. MS states (and from my own knowledge) DualView _IS_ a feature of XP. Contradicting websites? No. One makes the software, and the other listens to rumors about the software. Use your good judgement about who you should believe. So let's review: No SMP in 95, 98, ME No SMP in XP. (THE HOME VERSION) Why? Home versions, and home users, don't need more than 1 CPU. If you can afford that extra CPU, you can afford to get the more expensive OS. Multi-Monitors in 98, ME Multi-Monitors in XP. Who says? Microsoft, the one actually creating and releasing the software. Not some internet guy who was probably talking to "pete stein" on the phone, when he wrote the article. I don't know if I would call this a step back. If you'd like to take a step back, install Xenix on your home or office computer. Slate
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.