From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 19:29:38 GMT

  > From:  sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
  > Subject:  Re: Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!

  > In article <1992Dec14.065920.20105@cdf.toronto.edu> g1nickut@cdf.toronto.ed
    >>> u (Nick Zahariadis) writes:
  > >>Yep. If you read Tim's benchmark article you'll see that is exactly what 
  > >>they did to get everything on the same machine. Maybe someone will post t
    >>> he 
  > >>details?
  > > I nominate Timothy Sipples! Anyone wanna second that?
  > > Come on chief! Let us in on the details. The net is waiting in agony.
  > > (imagine thriller music in the background etc.) :-)
  > 
  > Here's a reply I sent by mail to someone who inquired about the exact
  > procedure.  I normally don't editorialize to such a great extent, but
  > this move really gets me going.
  > 
  > Consider this company's behavior before you decide to do business with
  > them, OK?  And please restrict your followup.
  
Tim, how good is you evidence that Microsoft purposely checks for
OS/2 boot manager to be anti-OS/2?   I personally expect they
have a good reason for it (perhaps the boot manager code interfere's with
NT's boot manager code.

I definitely think you are wrong about their attempt to keep customers
from triple booting.  In fact, Microsoft, in the MSWIN32 forum on
CompuServe provides explicit instructions on how to set up for triple
boot with OS/2 2.0. This to me, shows a far different picture than the
one you are trying to paint.

...
  > 
  > I suppose someone can flesh out the technical details a bit better
  > based on experience.  But, increasingly, the slogan, "NT: Why Bother?"
  > is hitting home.

There are many reasons to "bother" with NT (over OS/2).  Good ISV support,
security, superior file system, support for symmetric multiprocessing,
built-in networking, built-in multimedia.

OS/2 2.0 has a poor stability record and IBM has been very haphazard at
keeping it up to snuff in terms of modern specs.  For example they
are still charging $125 for Multimedia that is about the level of
Windows 3.1's MM.

BTW, I responded to your "benchmark" and haven't got an answer.
In particular, I would very much like to see the breakdown figures for
individual tests as I'm sure they will tell a different story from
the one global one.  Also, could you tell me where I can get the same
benchmark program?  I think it should be tried on different (preferably
non-IBM) hardware.

I also resent the fact you cross-posted to the programmers groups and
c.o.o.misc.
Your message was clearly a biased advocacy message, but you expect
people that followup to only post to the advocacy group.
This basically means that there are people (especially in c.o.o.misc)
that have the wrong impression of the whole matter.

First that "benchmark" and now this message... I'm a bit surprised...
it's not like you to spread FUD, Tim.

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                          NeXTStep 486 is for _YOU_!!!!
University of Utah                    Microsoft needs competition, but I want
Center for Software Science          to be one of the many running Windows NT!
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373    :-) :-) :-)  NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679