On 31 Jan 2007, at 14:06, Robin Gareus wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> Lars Luthman wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 13:54 +0100, Robin Gareus wrote:
>>> Cons;
>>> If "windows wants" it can perform better than a fully fledged
>>> rt-unix-kernel. - but that remains to be proven for Vista!
>>
>> Are you saying that this is true for XP? Are there any references for
>> that?
>
> maybe not for audio-apps.
>
> I once read some books about "subverting the windows kernel" - one can
> do marvelous stuff and get great performance out of it!! - only half
> kiddingly. - luckily I have not booted into XP for years and this
> "Con"
> might just be crap...
>
> however some instinct tells me that a UNIX - no matter how pre-emptive
> or tweaked - will always have more overhead than some DirectX-app.
> - but
> IMO this is irrelevant for "normal" audio apps on modern machines.. -
> memory management and -locking are more crucial..
I don't know if it's still the case, but a few years ago the NT
kernel was very heavyweight compared to the UNIX kernel, and too a
long time to do things like context switches.
- Steve
Received on Wed Jan 31 20:15:05 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jan 31 2007 - 20:15:05 EET