From: eric@tgm.CAM.ORG (Eric Trepanier)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: OS/2 - why is it so slow?
Date: 13 Aug 92 01:46:32 GMT
Organization: SynerLogic

Hello fellow OS/2 users,

I have recently installed OS/2 on my system and I would like to share my
experiences with you.  Overall the performance is quite poor and I'm looking
for solutions/suggestions to make things a little better.

Here is my system configuration:

A no-name 386/33 clone, 128Kb cache, 8Mb memory (70ns SIMMs), a Quantum IDE
80Mb HD and an OkiData OL400 laser printer.  The motherboard has an AMI bios
dated 90/04 and the CPU is an INTEL.  Please don't blame my problems on the
hardware, I get excellent performance under DOS/Win and I have run _many_
applications and games without _ever_ encountering any incompatibilities.
The DOS benchmarks programs usually rate my machine as being a little faster
than a Compaq 386/33.  I have no other significant piece of hardware.

The worst problem are communications.  When I do telecommnunications, I
_must_ leave the telecomm app foreground or not mess with the system too
much (simple file handling in a CLI window is OK, but if I enter a full
screen WinOS2 session, I am sure to get some lost characters in the telecomm
app. resulting in protocol failure.  If the telecomm app is a DOS app, then
all the others DOS/WinOS2 tasks take a _terrible_ slowdown.  Just typing
PKUNZIP in a DOS window takes more than a minute to display the command's
usage.  OS/2 tasks do not suffer that performance loss.  This is at 2400 bps, 
as I don't have a faster modem.  From what I've heard, this is not too bad 
since OS/2 doesn't handle high-speed communications too well anyway...

The other problems are overall poor performance.  My main application, which
I use daily, is Borland C++ 3.1.  Now under Windows 3.1 with a 2Mb
smartdrive cache, we're talking about snappy performance here.  My project
usually ends up in the cache after a single compile and subsequent compiles
require virtually no disk access.  This is not so under OS/2.  It easily
takes as much as three to four times longer to compile the same thing under
WinOS2 full screen.  The scrolling in the editor window is S L O W.  That's
another thing worth noting:  As of yet, I have not found an OS/2 native
editor that is reasonnably fast under OS2 windowed shells.  If I run them full
screen, they are quite snappy, but when I run them windowed, the speed is
lousy.  Holding a key down to have it repeat is a real yawner.  DOS windows
under Windows 3.1 do not suffer this performance lost at all.

It is my opinion that Adobe fonts suck.  I would trade them in for True Type
anytime.  I realize I have no investment in ATM fonts, so this is no loss
for me while it may not be the case for others.  But believe me; try the TT
fonts for yourself and you'll see how much better, faster and better looking
they are, both on the screen and on the printer.  Someone said ATM Helv looked
better than TT Arial; I DON'T THINK SO - and I know what I am talking about!

My config.sys is pretty bare-bones.  I have not changed much from the
default created at the installation, I only set a 384Kb cache on the
IFS=...HPFS... line, instead of the default 64Kb.  The only performance
increase so far have been related to DOS settings, notably IDLE_SENSITIVITY
and other memory settings.

With all that bitching, you probably think I hate OS/2.  This is not the
case!  I like it very much.  I love the WorkPlace Shell, I find it a great
deal more powerful than the Windows File/Program Manager combo.  I also like
the HPFS a great deal more than FAT.  It is true that the multitasking of
OS/2 apps only (and _some_ DOS programs) is much better than that of
Windows.  I am a big GNU fan, and I have Emacs, GCC, UUCP & Elm all set up on
my system.  These are much harder to come by under DOS/Win and work much
less efficiently.  In fact, I wouldn't mind switching all my DOS/Win apps
for OS/2 equivalents.  I'm presently considering the purchase of DeScribe to
replace (and retire my WinWord 1.1).  I'm not sure there is anything quite
as cool as Borland C++ 3.1 available under OS/2 yet, but I will be very
tempted to buy such a product if/when one becomes avalible.

My point is: give me a little more performance here.  At least as much as I
get under DOS/Win!  Heck, this is suppose to be a state of the art 32 bit
operating system, but right now, people with a 2Mb Amiga would laugh at
seeing me being forced to suspend all activities while doing file transfers
because of the poor serial communications.


Eric
--
Eric Trepanier
eric@tgm.CAM.ORG
"Everybody has a right to believe in something.
 I believe I'll have another beer."
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc