From: lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (BRIAN PAUL VAN LIEU)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just what exactly does os2 require?
Date: 15 Dec 92 01:21:21 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

>       Processor-wise, you have nothing to worry about.  You
>       might want to tell us the manufacturer and date of your
>       BIOS (but it shouldn't matter).
>
>       Anyway.
>
>       First, no one here will be able to help you unless you
>       post how much RAM your system has.  If it has 4 megs and
>       you aren't willing to expand it, forget it.  Os/2 in four
>       megs is slower than molasses in a deep-freeze.
>
>       If you have 6, you might try it, but it'll be sluggish and
>       a dissappointment.
>
>       If you have eight megs or more, then the issue becomes storage.
>       There is currently no version of Stacker for OS/2 (there is
>       an alternative, but since I've posted at least 3 times
>       asking about it and no one has responded, I'd just forget
>       about it for now), so if you depend on Stacker or a stacker-like
>       product to make your harddisk situation bearable, then
>       forget it.

        Wrong. If you read c.o.o.apps, you might find that DCF/2 is being
        re-coded because of the recent change in come OS/2 code. Translation,
        this fully compatible, 32-bit, HPFS compatible compression utility is
        *supposed* to be released around the 17 to december, but I could be
        wrong. I am looking into the product. A slide show demo of its
        features is available from hobbes in /pub/uploads. The price quote is
        $99 from the company.

>
>       Assuming that you want DOS and Windows (==~3.0) support,
>       you can count on dedicating somewhere between 40 to 45
>       megs of that HD to OS/2 alone.  [No flames--I am including
>       the swap file and room for it to grow--we all know what happens
>       when it runs out of space]
>

        Not a flame, but you can selective install and axe a *lot* of stuff you
        might not want.

>       Furthermore, you will _probably_ want to keep DOS and
>       Windows 3.1 around to be used via a the dual-boot
>       mechanism, because (having compared the two) WinOS2 is
>       much slower than Win31 (It's a bit faster than Win3.0,
>       and contains only [mostly] Win3.0's features--not 3.1's)
>       and it gets worse when you consider that, chances are,
>       you'll be able to get a fast video driver for Windows
>       and not one at all for OS/2. (So, another 10-15 megs
>       for that)... If you use primarily Windows software,
>       OS/2 is probably not going to satisfy you unless you
>       use 3.0 and don't mind it.
>

    Take this witha grain of salt. Throw OS/2 on your system, and run your win
    apps under OS/2, then dual boot to windowsm, and check them out. You
    probably won't notice much difference, unlest you load several beasts at
    the same time. You will probably find that OS/2's pure multitasking
    abilities, and *better* crach protection will outweigh any performance
    declines (if there are any...)

>       Which brings us to the next item--you didn't tell us
>       what video card you're using.  If you're using a Tseng
>       or Trident card, you're probably not going to really
>       care much, but if you're using a Diamond or ATI
>       or some other "accellerated" card, you will be very
>       frustrated to learn that Os/2 drivers for these cards
>       are either extremely out of date, buggy, or nonexistant.
>

    Correct, but you can install and use the basic configuration, which is
    normal VGA to check it out.

>       If you have not bought a card, you might consider to hold
>       off for the Radius XGA-2, which is sure to work great with
>       OS/2.
>
>       If you can make due with the storage problem, and have enough
>       memory to run the system well (With OS/2, the more memory, the
>       better--16 is great, 12 is fast, 8 is good, anything less
>       is a _b_a_d_i_d_e_a_)--then go ahead and try it, you'll probably
>       be pleased.
>
>       [That is, don't worry about the video card, since you can
>       always go back--the key is the other stuff, so that you can
>       get a decent evaluation of performance]
>--
> Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?
> Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?
> ---"I despise mystics, they fancy themselves so deep, when they----
> ----aren't even superficial"    --Nietzsche   ---------------------
>

    I run on basically the same system as you, though I haave 20 megs of RAM.
    I initially had 8 megs. Anything less (then 8 megs) is a simple waste of
    time...
                                                cheers,

                                                bvl

                                                
-- 

  Brian P. Van Lieu
  Lehigh University-AXP
  lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu

            OS/2 2.0...anything else is just a DOS.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy