From owner-freebsd-smp  Sat Sep 28 08:36:23 1996
Return-Path: owner-smp
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id IAA29806
          for smp-outgoing; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 08:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dyson.iquest.net (dyson.iquest.net [198.70.144.127])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA29755
          for <freebsd-smp@freebsd.org>; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 08:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from root@localhost) by dyson.iquest.net (8.7.5/8.6.9) id KAA01191; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 10:35:38 -0500 (EST)
From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net>
Message-Id: <199609281535.KAA01191@dyson.iquest.net>
Subject: Re: NT an 4 processors
To: kuku@gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de (Christoph Kukulies)
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 10:35:38 -0500 (EST)
Cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199609280818.KAA25068@gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de> from "Christoph Kukulies" at Sep 28, 96 10:18:02 am
Reply-To: dyson@freebsd.org
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-smp@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 
> Sorry for the subject - I know you are all working hard on FreeMSD SMP
> Someone here is praising NT and having it run on a 4 processor board.
> 
> Is there some striking argument against doing multiprocessing under NT?
> 
> My arguments are always:
> 
> 1) NT doesn't have remote administrability (not telnet service)
> 
> 2) NT doesn't have to plethora of tools like shells, networking tools.
>   NFS, etc. 
> 
> 3) NT doesn't have the good support that a free OS has - for whatever reasons.
> 
> 4) NT costs license fees to Bill Gates.
> 
> Any more cons?
> 
SMP doesn't help the problems with the NT VM system handling heavy loads.

John