From: bbrown@infonode.ingr.com (Bailey Brown)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 hardware requirements.
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 05:23:26 GMT

orac@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Giovacchini) writes:

>In article bbrown@infonode.ingr.com (Bailey Brown) writes:

>>Well, if you want to run OS/2 2.0 with "seamless windows", you're
>>SOL with anything other than plain VGA.  Yep, that's right, no
>>8514/A or XGA drivers.

>	Oh, then I am not running 800x600 seemless???  Then how come
> when I open a Windoze app, it still has the OS/2 desktop and when I
> move my mouse over that app, my mouse pointer changes to that white
> windoze pointer, and has all those windoze scroll bars and buttons,
> etc.  Sir, please find out what you are talking about before you post...

You don't have one of those junky Trident boards do you?  You know, the
ones with the single bank instead of two banks like a real SVGA?

>>With 8 megs, 2 of which are being used by smartdrive, windows, almost
>>never swaps while handling my usual workload.  OS/2 2.0 swaps all
>>the time with the default disk cache size (256k?).

>	Your usual workload or more than your usual workload?  And
> a 256k cache is fine.  Cache is not ment to be the main swap area, it
> is a cache.  And how did you run those Windoze apps?  If you ran them
> seemlessly and opened up several seperate sessions this might explain
> the swapping.  I also have 8 megs and rarely swap. 

I have found that a read/write disk cache of at least 1 meg makes the
machine seem much faster than it does with a small cache assuming the
the memory isn't needed to avoid swapping.  And I have a fast Conner 
200 meg IDE drive.

>>As far as I can tell OS/2 and Win 3.1 are about equivalent in speed,
>>except when OS/2 is swapping.

>	Silly, they both swap.  I like that you said they were the
> same.  OS/2 is running OS/2, DOS and Windoze and is still as fast
> as DOS and Windoze......

But what's the point of running OS/2?  I have Excel for OS/2 and Excel
for Windows, Ha5 for OS/2 and Ha5 for dos, Qedit for OS/2 and Qedit for
DOS.  I can't tell any difference between the OS/2 and non-OS/2 versions 
of these apps, so why should I use the OS/2 versions?

>>Windows takes up about half the space that OS/2 does (did, on my system).

>	OS/2 takes up 32 megs on my machine.   Windoze takes up 12
> Megs, Dos 2 megs.  So 14 Megs is DOS windoze and 18 is OS/2.  And
> OS/2 is faster and better. 

OS/2 does not run Windows apps faster than Win 3.1.  It does not
run dos apps faster than Windows either.  I get a Norton 4.0 CI
of 40.5 in straight DOS, 39.7 in a Win 3.1 DOS box, and 36.5 in an OS/2
2.0 DOS box.

>>Yes, great suggestions, now if they'd have just gotten OS/2 to work
>>properly and had video drivers for it.

>	OS/2 is fantastic.  Never had a problem with it.  And I can run
> 760x1024 [sic].  Can you???  I can also run 1024x760, 800x600 and also
> have a virtual desktop.  Can you???

Did you put in the "[sic]" yourself, or does your newsreader do it for
you?

> ================================== 
>         Paul J. Giovacchini        | Experience is that marvelous thing that 
>      ( orac@chinet.chi.il.us )     | enables you to recognize a mistake when
>       In the year XXVII A.S.       | you make it again.  -F. P. Jones
> ===================================

------------
Bailey Brown                               "Above all else, confusion reigns."
Intergraph Corporation                                  
bbrown@casca.b11.ingr.com                              Procol Harum
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1630 comp.os.os2.advocacy:3354