From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: NT won't run in 8 megs: Try OS/2 2.1 in 4 megs!
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 09:56:15 GMT

In article <1hr7tsINN544@cae.cad.gatech.edu> chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen) writes:
> In <1992Dec29.212551.18659@netcom.com> timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:
> 
> ]If you look closely, you'll see that he says you'll want, not NEED, 8 megs.
> ]And I'd say that he's right.  I really don't see how you can make any
> ]comparisons between OS/2 performance and NT performance, since your
> ]comments show your obvious ignorance of NT.  First there's Steve Withers
> ]proclaiming that NT requires 90 megs (but at least he's tried it), and
> ]now you say it takes up "alot [sic] of that 100 meg HD, if not all".
> [ .. and so on ] 

Having not installed NT on the hard disk in question, I may have erroneously
assumed that all the 90 megs in use on the disk was NT and its swap file.
Certainly, my co-worker in Auckland who actually did the NT install told me
that he had installed nothing else on the disk........so whatever SDK's etc.,
may have been there, I considered to be "NT". Certainly, the 27meg swap file
seemed consistent with such a conclusion.....:-)
 
Without the "SDK", just how big is it? It won't even start on my 386DX/40 with
8128K, so I haven't had a chance to examine it closely. It does work on the
the 8384K 486DX/25 at work....*just*......but I haven't had time to get back
to it. That extra 256K seems to make or break the start-up.

> It doesnt run well at all in 8 megs.  If you've run it, you SHOULD know
> that.  He is definitly wrong saying one would want 8 megs for NT. 
> There is nothing wrong with my comparisons when he says they both
> perform APPROXIMATLY the same in 8 megs.  I say hes wrong.

I'd agree with you that such a statement by Petzold is not  consistent with
reality as I know it.......

> ]I don't see why certain people persist in spreading this misinformation
> ]and trying to discredit people like Petzold who simply don't share your
> ]narrow viewpoint.  But I suppose that if you say them often enough,
> ]you'll start to believe them.

I don't deal in FUD. I may make mistakes now and again......but FUD isn't my
style at all. Thankyou for pointing out that NT takes less than 90 megs of
disk space. I realise it is more likely to be 60-70 megs.....without the
SDK.... (Am I getting closer?)

> Well, he was wrong in this article.  And I dont see how my viewpoing is
> narrow by disagreeing that NT runs well in 8 megs, or at least runs
> as fast as OS/2 does in 8 megs. Your narrow viewpoint comment applies to
> both you and petzhold.  I dont share your visions of NT (ie, runs well
> in 8 megs), so therefore you  discredit me. 

NT doesn't even run in 8128K....not on the machines I have tried it
on.....maybe with FAT it might (certainly not NTFS). But then if you run it on
FAT, there goes the file security and the many performance advantages!

Just for fun, I tried the OS/2 2.1 beta on a 4meg 386DX/25 PC at work today. I
increased the diskcache to 256K - from 128K - and used FAT instead of HPFS. 
 
It ran better than V2.0 did on the same machine with 8 megs and HPFS! One or
two mid-sized apps ran fine. WinOS/2 3.1 running full-screen was faster than
Windows 3.1 on the 4meg 386DX/25 sitting next to it!!! That wasn't my view.
That was the statement made by the owner of the other machine.
 
Adding Novell support would push this marginal system into slug-land....but as
a stand-alone system on a not-very-fast machine, it was certainly usable. I
wonder what it would be like on a 386DX/40......maybe tomorrow. 
 
IBM could fairly safely release OS/2 2.1 and correctly state that 4 megs is
the minimum operational RAM requirment for a PC that is not networked. 
 
I was impressed with the progess that IBM is making OS/2 usable on a 4 meg
system.  NT, of course, isn't in the running unless MS can pull a major rabbit
out of the hat.
 
Steve




-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
+64 4 478 4714                          | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy