From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 06:20:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.051348.22687@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>Please post this information here -- I'm sure programmers would be
>>happy to hear about the "official" workaround.
>I misspoke, it was not the MSWIN32 forum, but the WinNT forum.
>The solution was basically what you said, to zero out a portion
>of the boot block.  The solution was posted on November 3, just a few
>days after the release of the beta.
>Likewise comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32 had several solution
>posted during the first week of November.  Thus, whoever those
>"programmers" are, they sure must avoid normal, or even unofficial
>information channels like the plague.
>BTW, the solutions in c.o.m.p.win32 were different, one said something
>like use boot manager to switch to DOS, then install NT, another said
>to install via the dos2nt program.

Is this information in the NT Frequently Asked Questions List, or some
other commonly available Internet resource?  I'm sure it would be
helpful to some.

>As to why doesn't this work?  Well first of all why should it work?
>NT is beta code and is intended only to coexist with Win3.1/DOS.
>Secondly, why are you so certain that MS's move is anti-OS/2?
>There may well be valid reasons why the bootstrap does this.
>It is clear that you have not even asked, but have already judged MS
>to be guilty.

I am suspicious.  Highly suspicious.

>Thanks... wish I could run the same benchmark as you though.
>(I mean if I get better numbers, the OS/2 freaks will freak! :-))

There comes a certain point in any description where you grant the
reader a certain minimum amount of resourcefulness.  I was under the
impression that if I said, "PC Magazine Winbench/Winmark 2.51" it
would be pretty easy to locate it, since PC Magazine is so well known
in the industry, and any moderately well stocked Windows archive would
have the benchmark code.  I don't think that unreasonable.

>The wrong impression is that you explicitly said this was an intentional
>plot on the part of MS to do in OS/2 users (well you weren't quite
>that evil, but close :-)).  Even if MS explicitly checks for Boot Manager,
>this does not necessarily imply an evil plot, there may well be specific
>hardware configurations that boot manager interacts poorly with NT.
>Until you at least attempt to get a response out of Microsoft, I think
>you are doing people a disservice to "blame" MS.

Does Microsoft's description of the workaround contain any of those
caveats about "specific hardware configurations that boot manager
interacts poorly with NT"?

>>If you have a disagreement with the benchmarks, please run your own.
>>If you think them FUD, then you should come up with some cogent
>>argument as to why the methodology was incorrect.  (Incidentally, I
>>will have some additional numbers for you very shortly.)  I very
>>carefully described the methodology involved and made conservative,
>>qualified conclusions based on those numbers.  If you have different
>>numbers you are welcome to post them (along with your methodology).
>In other posts you'll find that I clarify this.  I am not saying that
>running the benchmark is FUD.  What I am saying is that running
>the benchmark without pointing out clearly (esp. to novices) that
>you are comparing OS's in very different stages of development
>is FUD.  I also suspect that a review of the intermediate results
>will tell a different story -- you implied strongly that NT
>had a long way to go, but if there are only problems in a few minor
>areas (and my usage experience with NT says this is so), then they
>don't have a long way to go.

I believe I qualified the post more than adequately.  I do not write
marketing literature.

Nor do I necessarily know that these code releases are at very
different stages of development, or, even if so, how that would affect
results.  (Will NT get slower, for example?  Are the OS/2 numbers too
conservative, since NT's release may be approximately simultaneous
with yet another, later version of OS/2, beyond that contemplated
presently?)  I leave that up to the reader to decide, providing all
the background I can to make an informed decision.  I don't, however,
try to speculate.

The fact is that neither represents code that will be delivered at any
date that is cast in stone.  IBM has announced no date whatsoever on
that code, and Microsoft has said, "First half, 1993" -- or
thereabouts.

>>As for the follow up on the NT workaround, I posted because many
>>programmers asked for the information by mail.  I also commented on
>>the matter, clearing indicating I was editorializing.  You're right --
>>it is not like me to spread FUD.  I do, however, editorialize on rare
>>occasion, and when I do I label it.
>Hmm... it seems strange that these programmers go to you rather than
>the appropriate places... I assume these must be OS/2 fans?

How should I know?  Should I be asking for information on marital
status and sexual orientation while I'm at it?

However, if the information is in the NT Frequently Asked Questions
List (or another common Internet resource), I would be more than happy
to refer people who ask to that resource.

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0h, available from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy