From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2)
Subject: Re: Here's some Advocacy for you.
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 05:57:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.125543.27280@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.094334.21925@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2) writes:
>>The good thing about OS/2 2.0 (with WPS) is that it uses four megs, which
>>leaves me four megs for apps on my eight meg machine.  Although I would
>
>	Yeah, great.  That's what I call *real* efficient programming.
>	You must be kidding.  4 megs for a shell and an OS?  What a joke.

Actually, OS/2 GA + WPS takes 3 megs.  HPFS takes another 0.3 megs and the
hard drive cache takes another 0.3 megs.  If RAM is a concern, then HPFS
and/or the WPS do not have to be loaded.  I don't know how much memory the
WPS takes, and if it's RAM requirements have decreased since the SP.


>>NT for the Alphas may be successful as long as DEC still survives (and for
>>as long as OS/2 3.0 does not run on Alphas ;-), but NT for the Intels seems
>
>	Probably pretty unlikely, since the Mach3.0 OS/2 won't be around,
>	even rabid OS/2 fans wil admit, until long after NT.  While I don't
>	believe that NT will unseat DOS/Windows, and I do think it will
>	pretty much finish off OS/2's sales, I don't think it's likely
>	that OS/2 could *unseat* NT once it's the standard OS for a system.
>	After all, NT offers clear advantages over OS/2, but OS/2 mach
>	only catches up.

Unless NT (for the Intels, at least) can run in, say, ~4 megs (leaving 4
megs for apps on an 8 meg system), I can't see how desktop users will buy it.
Most of the people buying the NT beta are developers with large amounts of
RAM, super fast CPUs, etc.  They have lots of room for NT.  But for the rest
of us 8 megs is a magic number.  It's the minimum RAM that many people
recommend for OS/2+WPS+HPFS+multiple apps.  It's also an economic maximum
RAM for 386/486 motherboards that use a 4-way interleave.


>>to take too much memory.  Whenever NT can run in four megs or less...
>
>	Are you guys nuts?  This is the same type of argument used
>	by DesqView and Windows fans in the last year against OS/2.

Exactly.  If they said they would like to run OS/2 2.0 but their
motherboard did not support enough RAM, then of course they will stay
with what they have.

	
>	If memory really was such a big deal, you wouldn't be using 
>	OS/2.  [Besides, even if you pull all 8 1 meggers and 

Memory is not such a big deal *because* I use OS/2 2.0 .  It fits well
in 8 megs along side with apps.  It doesn't swap unless I'm running
huge programs.


>	pop in 3 4 meggers that's only about $420, not $600...
              ^^^
>	and 12megs NT == 8 megs OS/2]

Huh?  You edited the part of me saying I had a 4-way interleave motherboard!
That would be okay if you did not have a comment about the memory, but here
you tell me to get 3 SIMMs!  A 4-way interleave means I have to install my
RAM using multiples of 4 SIMMS at a time (i.e. 4 x 1 meg, 8 x 1 meg, 4 x 4
megs, etc.).  Instead of flaming you for this, I'll just say that an upgrade
from 8 megs to 12 is impossible, and 8 to 16 is too expensive.


>	Can't anyone out there make a better argument than formatting
>	floppies (stupid) or 1/4th greater memory requirements?  

[I think you mean 1/2 greater memory requirements: 8 megs * 1.5 = 12 megs]

Anyways, memory requirements is a valid argument.  If someone has 4 x 1 megs,
going to 8 x 1 megs is only ~$160 (or a little less).  But going from 8 x 1
megs to 4 x 4 megs is ~600 (or a little less).  As you can see, 8 megs is
a magic number.

-- 
==== Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ====
::   ftp ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (128.123.35.151)    ::  .--.
::   for OS/2 software & information.  Get    :: (OS/2)
:::: the OS/2 FAQL   /pub/os2/all/info/faq :::::  ~--~
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy