Subject Out of date documentation (somewhat OT)
Author Adam
Not sure who needs to know this so sorry for the OT post.

A number of support threads have mistakenly advised or questioned
whether Classic Server is considered stable on Windows. From my
understanding, it is considered stable, and the experimental title
was mainly due to lack of performance measurements.

Googling for the classic vs superserver ibphoenix article I really
must bookmark at some point in time, I found another reference that
appears out of date.



Fully mature on Linux; still somewhat experimental on Windows.


If you're still not sure what to choose (maybe you find all this tech
talk a little overwhelming), use this rule of thumb:

* On Windows, choose Superserver.
* On Linux, just pick one or the other. In most circumstances,
chances are that you won't notice a performance difference.


Seems to imply that unless you know what you are doing dont use
classic on Windows, when the choice between classic and superserver
is really about whether you prefer the advantage of a shared cache or
the advantage of spreading the workload across multiple CPUs.