> But not that much data from Windows 2000... > (when things get tough - using disk or network, there > are no data on Windows 2000 - why? > Is it too good or too bad?)
In general I thought it would be good to focus on Linux because that's where the interesting real-time patches are, and because it's possible to do apples-to-apples comparisons between Linux versions. Win2k seems to be a decent OS for soft real-time. It's preemptible so in many circumstances it'll do better than vanilla Linux (before 2.5, at least) for scheduling latency purposes. Certainly Win NT / 2k / XP are miles ahead of the Win 3.1 / 95 / 98 / Me family. If you're interested, there are some real-time experiments that I did on Win2k here: http://www.cs.utah.edu/~regehr/papers/augmented/ John
