From: chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
Subject: Re: superVGA  (and misc top-blowing)
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:20:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.084203.26599@cam-orl.co.uk> thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.185836.29983@novell.com>, chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen) writes:
>|> In article <1992Aug13.151742.18779@cam-orl.co.uk> thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:
>|> >|> Or you can run OS/2 2.0 on a 386sx/20MHz with 6 megs of RAM.
>|> >
>|> >No thank you! It was a DOG on a 386/25 with cache and 8 megs.
>|> 
>|> I disagree.  It runs alot faster than Win 3.1 does on my 386/25 with 8
>
>Ah! I see the problem. Unlike most users, I spend most of my time browsing the
>filing system and running applications such as Word and Excel on those files.
>Perhaps I would like OS/2 2.0 if I was a typical user who spends all his time
>formatting floppies and copying files around.
>

Not only copying files, but programming, doing communications work, and 
alot of stuff simultaneously that makes windows go crazy.  Compiling
a large application with other things running takes a long time.
You are right.  For users who just use word processors, and don't
do anything else, win 3.1 is fine.  However, multi threaded spreadsheets,
etc.  can get work done alot faster.  I run alot of apps under OS/2,
and win 3.1 just isn't good enough.

>But then, I'm the sort of person who wastes his money by buying pre-formatted
>floppies anyway.

Thats nice, but formatting/copying isn't the onl;y thing that slows
Windows down.  Since you sound like you only typically run one app at a time,
Win 3.1 is adequate for you.  

>
>
>Umm. How is it that your observations invalidate my observations?
>

Your observation that Win 3.1 is "faster" than OS/2 2.0 is what
is invalid.  I say this because I have machines that run either
OS/2 or Win 3.1, and the win 3.1 machines get slowed down massively
when more than one non-idle app is running  (non idle as in an app
that is actually doing work besides waiting for you to hit your next
keystroke (ie a WordProc waiting for the next character from keyboard)).
My whole reason for posting was because what you were saying just doesn't
hold.  However, windows is fine when it comes to running one App

>|> I bet NT will be even worse when it comes to speed, but I will have to wait
>|> for the final version to see.
>
>The SDK is already more usable than OS/2 2.0, I expect the final release to be
>better.

We'll see.  The point is, I don't care about NT.  NT could have the best
SDK in the world, but if NT doesn't sell, people don't write apps for it.
If I have to start devloping/running/maintaining NT systems, then
I will care.  The reason I don't have much confidence in NT is because
its targeted for "High-End" systems, and I feel NT will have a hard time
in other platforms.  It may take over High-End PCs, but OS/2 doesn't need
high enders, nor does Win 3.1, but OS2 is superior to Win 3.1.  Again,
this is the argument of "he who sales more wins."  However, if NT is
the great system it is supposed to be, I will switch to it.  I'm
not fighting NT just for the sake of fighting.  I am just not going
to make a commitment to an alpha product right now, and Its not
a desktop system, so it won't be in my home, and Win 3.1 won't
be in my home either.




Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy