From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: SMALL Exerpt from "Windows Sources"
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:25:51 GMT

In article <1hq3d8INNsrq@cae.cad.gatech.edu> chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen) writes:
>
>I was looking through a brand new magazine called Windows Sources.
>I came across an editorial by charles petzold where he says This
>about OS/2 and NT:
>
>"In terms of realistic Hardware requirements, OS/2 2.0 and Windows NT
>are approximatly equivalent.  For either operating system, you'll
>want a 33-Mhz 386 or 486 with at least 8 megs of memory and a hard
>disk exceeding 100 megabytes.  That Microsoft is admitting this and
>IBM is not indicates merely that one compnay is being honest and
>the other isn't."  Windows Sources, Feb 1992, pg 99.
>
>The article goes on about MS & IBM, constanly saying "this means one
>company is good, the other isnt," and of course its MS thats good, according
>to the article.  YES, I KNOW the source is a windows magazine, but I
>just love it when they yap when they dont know what they are talking about.
>
>The above quoted paragraph shows Petzold's ignorance.

I wouldn't be so quick to call Petzold "ignorant" and I'm sure that he's
knows what he's talking about (definitely moreso than you).

>He claims 
>OS 2 2.0 NEEDS 8 megs to run.  Well, OS/2 runs in 4 megs about as well
>as NT runs in 8 megs.  NT Beta needs about 16 megs of memory, and alot
>of that 100 meg HD, if not all.  Os/2 only takes 30 megs of that 100,
>so you end up with 70 left over.  Microsoft "admitting it may
>take 8 megs" is an understatement.  It takes lots more.  Of course,
>this is yet another ZiffDavis publication, so what did we expect?

If you look closely, you'll see that he says you'll want, not NEED, 8 megs.
And I'd say that he's right.  I really don't see how you can make any
comparisons between OS/2 performance and NT performance, since your
comments show your obvious ignorance of NT.  First there's Steve Withers
proclaiming that NT requires 90 megs (but at least he's tried it), and
now you say it takes up "alot [sic] of that 100 meg HD, if not all".
The truth is that OS/2 takes up about 30 MB, excluding swap space.  NT
takes up, suprise!, about 30 MB, excluding swap space.  It does require
more physical memory, but definitely not the 16 megs you suggest.

>So, Petzold should have said OS2 needs about 8 megs, where as NT needs
>about 16 megs.  When he said 8 megs, he was stating NT's minimum, not
>OS/2's.  ANd contrary to what he thinks, you WILL want more than 8 megs
>for NT, and a 486... I ran OS/2 on a 386/20 with 8 megs, and it was
>faster than windows on a comparable machine, and my apps ran
>faster under OS/2 than under DOS  (my dos ones).  So, you dony
>need a 33mhz.  
>
>Ah well, I consider that a light article comming from a windows magazine.
>Also, its the premier issue of the magazine, and I guess it is pep
>talk for windows owners.. "Yeah guys... MS loves you all!  Buy their lame
>systems!"  Guess its just a reaffirmation for windows users that they
>are politcally correct or something.

I don't see why certain people persist in spreading this misinformation
and trying to discredit people like Petzold who simply don't share your
narrow viewpoint.  But I suppose that if you say them often enough,
you'll start to believe them.

     - Mike

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy