"Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ecmm12$rgd$03$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ivan Drago wrote:
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
< snip >
Processes and ownership are an important matter. Windows implements a
pseudo-multi-user model because it wasn't (at least initially) built for
more than a single user.
Bullshit. Win2k, XP and Vista all are from NT code base which is mutli
user, multi processor, multi tasking and multi threaded from very first
day.
Learn to read (at least very simple sentences). He (rightly) claims that
windows does pseudo-multi-user only. And he is right. Come on, sucky, tell
us how to run with 10 users (or 100 / 1000 / 10000) simultaniously on the
very same windows-box. Be precise
I believe in the server versions of Windows, multi-user is "automatic"
in the sense that you don't have to do anything special to get 10, 100, 1000
or 10000 users simultaniously on the very same windows-box. I don't recall
if I was using the 2000 or 2003 edition, but I had to do some remote
developing, and shared the same machine with 7 other developers. In the
middle of Visual Studio 2003 coding, I'd get notifications that the
administrator was changing some settings, and that I should log out, and log
back in in 5 minutes, for example. I could also text-message the other
developers (e.g. "I've just modified this directory, refresh it to see the
changes").
The desktop versions of Windows are, as you say, pseudo-multi-user. So
your statement is only true for a small subset of the Windows series of
operating systems.
- Oliver
|
|
