From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:02:44 GMT
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago

In article <1992Dec14.192938.10637@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>Tim, how good is you evidence that Microsoft purposely checks for
>OS/2 boot manager to be anti-OS/2?   I personally expect they
>have a good reason for it (perhaps the boot manager code interfere's with
>NT's boot manager code.

I have a clarification.  NT does install on an OS/2 Boot Manager
machine.  It just will not run, until you zero out the OS/2 Boot
Manager partition ID (using Norton or whatever).  I apologize for the
inadvertant bias in NT's favor.

I have not disassembled the NT bootstrap code to find out what the
reason for this mysterious behavior is.  However, I do think it at
least odd that NT reacts that way to an ID.  Curious, isn't it?
Coincidence?  I think not.

>I definitely think you are wrong about their attempt to keep customers
>from triple booting.  In fact, Microsoft, in the MSWIN32 forum on
>CompuServe provides explicit instructions on how to set up for triple
>boot with OS/2 2.0. This to me, shows a far different picture than the
>one you are trying to paint.

Please post this information here -- I'm sure programmers would be
happy to hear about the "official" workaround.

Much of the rest is well hashed advocacy material, and I decline to
comment on FUD, as you put it.

>BTW, I responded to your "benchmark" and haven't got an answer.
>In particular, I would very much like to see the breakdown figures for
>individual tests as I'm sure they will tell a different story from
>the one global one.  Also, could you tell me where I can get the same
>benchmark program?  I think it should be tried on different (preferably
>non-IBM) hardware.

The WinMark benchmark (Version 2.50, I'm afraid -- the figures I
quoted were with 2.51) is available via anonymous ftp from
ftp.cica.indiana.edu.  The latest version should be available from any
PC Magazine download site, including CompuServe.

I will give you breakdowns in the near future, with luck.  (I have to
compare notes with the other participant, who recorded all the
breakdowns.  I recorded the end numbers, and spent the rest of my time
trying to make NT, in particular, look better.  If I deserve any
credit it is for getting many of the details you see re: methodology
into the write-up.)  I can tell you that they do not reveal too much.
The weightings for each score are set by PC Magazine -- I certainly
didn't choose them.  In other words, there was no inconsistency in the
direction of the results within each category, and the weighting is
not arbitrarily skewing the results in favor of one product or
another.

>I also resent the fact you cross-posted to the programmers groups and
>c.o.o.misc.
>Your message was clearly a biased advocacy message, but you expect
>people that followup to only post to the advocacy group.
>This basically means that there are people (especially in c.o.o.misc)
>that have the wrong impression of the whole matter.

The post had some technical content, hence the crosspost.  What wrong
impression, though?  NT does not run when it sees an OS/2 Boot Manager
ID.  NT does run if you simply change that ID to all hex zeros.  I
don't like it one bit (no pun intended).

>First that "benchmark" and now this message... I'm a bit surprised...
>it's not like you to spread FUD, Tim.

If you have a disagreement with the benchmarks, please run your own.
If you think them FUD, then you should come up with some cogent
argument as to why the methodology was incorrect.  (Incidentally, I
will have some additional numbers for you very shortly.)  I very
carefully described the methodology involved and made conservative,
qualified conclusions based on those numbers.  If you have different
numbers you are welcome to post them (along with your methodology).

As for the follow up on the NT workaround, I posted because many
programmers asked for the information by mail.  I also commented on
the matter, clearing indicating I was editorializing.  You're right --
it is not like me to spread FUD.  I do, however, editorialize on rare
occasion, and when I do I label it.

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0h, available from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]