From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: Pause before you consider OS/2 (was Re: Win 3.1 not THAT great.)
Organization: Harvey Mudd College
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:04:18 GMT

Correction of more OS/2 misinformation, etc., etc.:




demillo@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Robert DeMillo ) writes:

>According to InfoWorld:

>OS/2 2.0 will *not* be compatable with Windows 3.1

OS/2 2.0 *WILL* be compatible with Windows 3.1.  Currently, it *IS* not.
They just demoed 3.1 seamless on a modified OS/2 desktop on April 7, so
I wouldn't expect more than a few months at most before it's out as a
CSD (free update/bug fix).

>OS/2 2.0 will *not* support SVGA or XGA graphics modes.

OS/2 2.0 supports CGA, EGA, VGA, XGA, and 8514 as shipped (seamless
Windows seems to be missing from 8514 but is available with VGA and
XGA).  SVGA support usually comes from the vendors who make SVGA cards,
not the software author.  Trident 8900 SVGA (w/ seamless Windows) is
already out.  ATI, Tseng, and others expected soon.

>OS/2 2.0 Windows emulation will support only one Windows application
>         per Window, and they are several orders of magnitude slower
>	 than just running in Windows. You can switch OS/2 2.0 to
>	 full screen Windows mode, and your Windows performance
>	 goes way up.

[flammable statement ahead]

"Several orders of magnitude"!!?!?!?!  GIVE ME A BREAK!  Do you think
IBM added 10^3 lines of emulation code to be run for each line of
Windows code???? 

[end flammable zone]

You can run several seamless Windows sessions and they are protected
from each other (crashing one will not corrupt the other).

Seamless screen draws are several times slower.  Everything else seems
close to Windows.  Somebody just did some benchmarks on Win-OS/2 full
screen vs. Windows 3.0/DOS and Win-OS/2 was marginally *faster*.
(Posted in comp.os.os2.misc)

>OS/2 2.0 will not support full-blown pre-emptive multitasking for
>         another 12-18 months. (Not sure what they meant by this,
>	 but it didn't smell right.)  At that time, Windows NT
>	 will be on the scene.

No No No No.

OS/2 2.0 (and 1.x) cannot multi-task in any way *except* pre-emtively.
There's just no getting around it.  If you have to run a program which
requires 100% of the CPU's time, there's no way to do it unless you
get a coprocessing card - OS/2 requests some of the CPU's time to run
itself, and because it's pre-emtive, it gets it.

I think what the above quote is supposed to be is that OS/2 2.0 will
not have multi-processor (multiple CPUs in one box) support for another
12-18 months.  The 12-18 month figure is right around what I heard.

>Moral: If you are buying OS/2 for OS/2...great. Do it..multithreading
>       is a good thing, and OS/2 has it. If you are buying OS/2 
>       'cuz you want to run mostly Windows applications in OS/2's
>       PM...you might want to rethink that.

My suggestion would be:

If you want to fully utilize your 386 or 486 *NOW*, not in a year or so,
If you waste time waiting for your apps to spell check, search, repaginate,
   or anything else that could be multi-threaded,
If you don't mind learning a very intuitive shell that many people are
   claiming is *better* than the Mac (I agree btw),
If you are willing to give up 15-32 MB of disk space for this,
If you have or are willing to get at least 6 MB of RAM,
And if you have Windows and $49 or DOS and $99,

Then get OS/2 2.0.


If you only run Windows apps (few or no DOS apps),
If you don't have or can't get the hardware requirements listed above,
If you have Windows 3.1 apps you need to run *NOW*, not in a few months,
If you like the Windows shell,
And if you don't mind an occasional crash forcing a reboot (that is,
   more occasional than under OS/2 2.0),

Then get Windows 3.1.

BTW, most of the glowing reports of 3.1's increased file manager speed
and display speed I've been reading here are exactly what I experienced
when I went from Windows 3.0 to OS/2 1.3 a year ago.
-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu | think of something very clever 
uunet!jarthur!jokim         | to use as a disclaimer)