From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico de Vries.)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Why I'm sticking with Windows
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:21:20 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

In <17513.29ed5c75@ecs.umass.edu> horan@ecs.umass.edu writes:

>In article <1992Apr15.142857.27595@alw.nih.gov>, donnel@helix.nih.gov (Donald A. Lehn) writes:
>> Another perspective on why to stick to Windows.  I have 5 IBM Model 80
>> PS/2's with 2 mb ram and 80 mb hard drives.  These machines are perfectly
>> adequate Windows platforms.

>Windows itself runs poorly on 2mb.  I used it on 4mb for a while, and when
>I jumped to 8mb, it sped up noticably, so I imagine 2mb would suck.

Agreed. But if OS/2 2.0 runs Windows programs it needs more RAM than just
DOS+Windows. The difference is not very large under the same circumstances
but frows significantly if HPFS is used.

>> To upgrade to OS/2 2.0 for these machines
>> would require 4 mb ram ($600.00)

>Seems like you already have 2mb, so get another 2mb = $70. (I'd do this if
>I was using Windoze anyway).

But to run OS/2 2.0 "optimal" 6mb would do and for Windows 4mb is probably
enough (of cource this makes OS/2 2.0 faster than Windows but that is
not the issue here, the problem is extra hardware purchase).

>> and at least another 80 mb hard disk
>> ($800.00).

>Windows 3.1 I have heard (correct (not flame) me if I'm wrong) takes 10-15meg.
>OS/2 takes 15-25, but you can delete...
>- Dos       3 meg.
>- Windows  12 meg.
>- ATM       ? 
>- other stuff depending on you applications.
You can delete DOS and Windows support??? How to run their APPS then? It
has to be said about 10Mb can be saved by not installing all the applets
(like Chess etc) and tools not included in DOS+Windows too but OS/2 will
remain bigger anyway just because it includes more options and more
complex (powerfull) software.

>So I don't see why you would need an extra 80 meg drive.
An extra 80Mb is a bit much but 20Mb extra harddisk space (or 5..10Mb
is DOS+Windows are removed and the OS/2 DOS+Windows versions are used)
extra will be needed. If your harddisk is already full this means
trouble.
The problem becomes ever larger if you run Stacker. Stacker can be used
under OS/2 but only in a single task. Stacker for OS/2 2.0 will not
be here before another 3 months.

>> [PS/2 upgrades are not cheap.]  For the same $1400.00 I can
>> with DOS 5.0 and Windows included in the bundle. 
>> 
>> Although I wont have the "true" software multitasking of OS/2, I will have
>> the Windows, more than adequate flavor of multitasking, and, with 2x
>> the number of computers, be able to 'multitask' the human interface.

>If it is good enough for you, for the same price, then so be it.  But if you
>have ever tried multitasking on OS/2, you would see a world of difference.

If you need it. I personally like the robust multitasking of OS/2 2.0 
(especially the harddisk updates while the program continues at full speed)
but that alone is no reason to switch.

>> Donald A. Lehn, Ph.D.                      Phone: (301) 496-2885
>5000
>Gregg Horan


Nico E. de Vries
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
USENET: nevries@cc.ruu.nl                 FIDO      : 2:281/708.1  
VOICE : +31-3404-24931 (+31-30-316931)    FAX       : +31-30-312033 
BBS   : +31-30-341401 (Nico De_vries)     COMPUSERVE: (coming "soon")

IMPORT Disclaimer, MyPersonalOpinion;            O O  Place reserved for
Complaints about my typostyle to DEV/NUL please.  |   funny joke. Sugestions 
I work for BITECH, I don't SPEAK for BITECH.     \_/  apreciated. <== WELL ?
Xref: sparky comp.windows.ms:11979 bit.listserv.win3-l:3699