From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Biased Reviews From ZD
Date: 24 Jul 92 05:18:19 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <0fN5021t1byH01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, rwb00@loon.as (Robert W Beverid
ge) writes:
>
>In article 41844@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu, sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
 writes:

>
>> Also, most Windows programs don't run much slower in OS/2
>>if any.  (At least the ones I've seen and used)  Also in about a month, that
>>should end for good.  (32-bit graphics)
>
>Well, I'm interested in other opinions on this - other postings I've seen seem
>to say that Windows applications are slower under OS/2, as do the benchmarks
>published by PC Magazine (which I realize is run by the devil). As for 32-bit g
raphics, aren't you one of the people who complained about others touting
>features of NT which don't yet exist ? 32-bit graphics and SVGA seemless suppor
>are not available today.

Ahh, the old not availlable today saw.  I'm a big OS/2 fan (suprise, suprise)
and I get tired of hearing people say this about NT.  Yes, support is not
availlable today.  That does not prevent your applications from running
however and there is 800x600 seamless support.  And no I am not one of the
people complaining about NT not being availlable today.  That matters very
little to me.  I am interested in finding out if it provides significant
reasons for me to switch from OS/2.  To this end I have asked some questions
about its supposed capabilities.  This is not, however, participating in all
this vaporware nonsense.

>Well, If I was happy with DOS, I wouldn't use Windows. And if I wasn't interest
ed
>in the future, I wouldn't be reading this news group. Thinking about the future
>doesn't mean running a new, more powerful operating system at the expense of my
>current applications. I don't run UNIX on my home PC because there aren't any
>applications for it that are as good as my Windows apps. The same goes for OS/2
>applications. But if OS/2 runs my Windows apps as well as Win 3.1 does, then it
 makes
>sense for me to switch. If my applications run worse (slower, no seemless SVGA)
>under OS/2, then it doesn't make sense to switch.
>

Last I heard, It was tough to run Windows without DOS.  If you are happy with
Windows, then you had better be happy with DOS because they are permanently
joined at the hip.  Also, running OS/2 does not come at the expense of your
current applications.  In most cases they should run just fine.  There are
exceptions to this, but not very many.  Are you saying, that you'll abandon a
much better system, because you might get marginally better speed for
one particular kind of application, in a less powerful system?  There is much
more to performance than raw speed, and the OS often plays a big role in this.
Don't you run any DOS applications?  Even the biggest Windows users I know use
at least a few.  These will get better overall performance than in DOS orr
Windows.   I forget if you mentioned trying OS/2, have you?  I certaintly
don't like to depend on others view points for what is acceptable speed and
performance.  If you haven't, then you really don't know do you?  I know I
didn't, for my machine.  Some people seem to have gotten really rotten
performance, I have gotten quite good performance.  (translation, no
significant slowdown)  This seems to be quite different for everyone, but
unless you try it, you simply don't know.

                                            Stacy John Behrens
                                            *===)-------------