>You can't reasonably put "Windows" and "real-time" in the same sentence
>without a pretty long list of qualifications and caveats, even for >"soft" real-time. This applies to most versions of UNIX as well, though >many can be set up to do good real-time. Windows is good enough for "soft" real-time on PC's as compared to other OS's. I've built arrays of 100's of PC's crunching data and communicating through TCP/IP custom messaging(watch out for DCOM). If you need to convert 20 million lines of airflow-dynamics code that controls flight instruments from a Unix platform I would leave it in Unix. Windows still has the legacy inroads arguments that were fought through actual implementations solving real-world, real-time problems. Though to do some "real" real-time, implementing custom circuitry may be the best bet, for example visual processing in a small robot or a guidance system on a missile. For an AI implementation that requires processing large volumes of News data from the internet, sub-millisecond electronic real-time is impractical anyway. But the few KILOFLOPS you loose by using Windows verses some other OS is more than made up for in the plethora of technologies built into Windows at the relatively small price of a few hundred bucks. And many of these built-in Windows software technologies are continuously being improved and optimized through hardware acceleration. As well these built-in tools will be valuable in any AI engine especially when the AI needs to interface with the world. Do I sound like a Windows salesman? >But at the end of the day, use whatever floats your boat. This is true and many existing companies are running their operations/products successfully on other OS's. But if I were building a new PC-based AI design, just from my experience, I would jump all over Windows and it's offerings ... as well take a side glance at Lindows :) ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
