From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just what exactly does os2 require?
Date: 15 Dec 92 02:59:50 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Dec12.144013.2214@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
writes:
>In article <1gcncpINN8fr@escargot.xx.rmit.OZ.AU> s914534@minyos.xx.rmit.OZ.AU (
UT) writes:
>>Hello, I'm really interested in purchasing os2 - however, I don't know what
>>sort of hardware is required for it to be usable. I have a 386-40 with a 105 M
B


(stuff deleted)
>       If you have eight megs or more, then the issue becomes storage.
>       There is currently no version of Stacker for OS/2 (there is
>       an alternative, but since I've posted at least 3 times
>       asking about it and no one has responded, I'd just forget
>       about it for now), so if you depend on Stacker or a stacker-like
>       product to make your harddisk situation bearable, then
>       forget it.
>
There are disk compression programs availlable.  Try DCF.  It isn't a well
known one but it works just fine.


>       Assuming that you want DOS and Windows (==~3.0) support,
>       you can count on dedicating somewhere between 40 to 45
>       megs of that HD to OS/2 alone.  [No flames--I am including
>       the swap file and room for it to grow--we all know what happens
>       when it runs out of space]

Why?  I've run OS/2 just fine of of a 40 meg hard drive and *never* got out of
memory errors.  That was with 4 other decent sized DOS apps on the system as
well.
>
>       Furthermore, you will _probably_ want to keep DOS and
>       Windows 3.1 around to be used via a the dual-boot
>       mechanism, because (having compared the two) WinOS2 is
>       much slower than Win31 (It's a bit faster than Win3.0,
>       and contains only [mostly] Win3.0's features--not 3.1's)
>       and it gets worse when you consider that, chances are,
>       you'll be able to get a fast video driver for Windows
>       and not one at all for OS/2. (So, another 10-15 megs
>       for that)... If you use primarily Windows software,
>       OS/2 is probably not going to satisfy you unless you
>       use 3.0 and don't mind it.
>
Not at all.  I deleted that crap off my hard drive just as soon as I confirmed
that all my apps ran just fine without needing to dual boot.  I haven't looked
back since.  As for video preformance, look at the recent video benchmarks
posted.  I hate benchmarks, but OS/2 actually outperformed Windows in video
speed and it is worth mentioning.  That statement has little basis in fact.

>       Which brings us to the next item--you didn't tell us
>       what video card you're using.  If you're using a Tseng
>       or Trident card, you're probably not going to really
>       care much, but if you're using a Diamond or ATI
>       or some other "accellerated" card, you will be very
>       frustrated to learn that Os/2 drivers for these cards
>       are either extremely out of date, buggy, or nonexistant.

ATI's work just fine.  The drivers work and there aren't too many bugs.  Also
they can run very well in 8514 which is well supported.  More FUD.

>
>       If you have not bought a card, you might consider to hold
>       off for the Radius XGA-2, which is sure to work great with
>       OS/2.

And expensive and not necissary.  If you have the money for it great, but
there are better options right now.

>
>       If you can make due with the storage problem, and have enough
>       memory to run the system well (With OS/2, the more memory, the
>       better--16 is great, 12 is fast, 8 is good, anything less
>       is a _b_a_d_i_d_e_a_)--then go ahead and try it, you'll probably
>       be pleased.
>
>       [That is, don't worry about the video card, since you can
>       always go back--the key is the other stuff, so that you can
>       get a decent evaluation of performance]

No worry about the video card.  It is important.  OS/2 supports most of todays
common hardware.  It has had less time to work out the less common stuff, but
unless you have something weird like some obscure TIGA card, you shouldn't
have too much trouble.

>--
> Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?
> Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?
> ---"I despise mystics, they fancy themselves so deep, when they----
> ----aren't even superficial"    --Nietzsche   ---------------------
>


-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy