From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: SMALL Excerpt from "Windows Sources"
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 03:18:20 GMT

In article <47798@ogicse.ogi.edu> francis@ese.ogi.edu (Francis Moraes) writes:
>In reference to a post by chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
>timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:
>
>>If you look closely, you'll see that [Petzold] 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".
>>The truth is that OS/2 takes up about 30 MB, excluding swap space.  NT
>>takes up, suprise [sic]!, about 30 MB, excluding swap space.  It does require
>>more physical memory, but definitely not the 16 megs you suggest.
>
>This brings up a few points:
>
>1. Certainly one would want at least 8 meg of ram to run OS/2 well. The
>   NT users on this group have made it clear that one would want 16 meg
>   of ram to run NT. Are you stating that this is wrong and that one
>   can run NT well with 8 meg of ram? If not then I don't see the
>   problem; NT _does_ require more ram than OS/2.

I didn't say that NT doesn't require more RAM than OS/2, I just said
that it doesn't REQUIRE 16 MB (as many people like to suggest).  I only
have a 12 MB system, so I can assure you that it doesn't require 16.
The point is that the shipping NT should require 8 MB minimum, but this
minimum doesn't mean the same thing as the OS/2 minimum.  As Petzold
suggested (although he may be pushing it) NT should be much more usable 
in 8 MB (its stated minimum) than OS/2 is in 4 MB.

>2. The two systems require approximately the same amount of hard-disk
>   space. I seem to remember someone posting that NT required quite
>   a large swap file. How large is this file? On my OS/2 system it
>   is generally about 3 meg.

Currently, the swap file for NT must be at least 20 MB.  I have heard that
this is a bug, but cannot verify this.  Even so, 50 MB is much less than
90 or 100, and if the "bug" is fixed, the disk space requirements will
be about equal.

>3. Why is it that a non-NT user cannot express opinions regarding NT
>   comparisons with OS/2. I have learned a lot about NT from reading
>   this newsgroup (more than I have about OS/2 in fact) and I expect
>   that others have too (like the original poster, who may be wrong
>   about some things but seems to have been generally correct).

I didn't say he couldn't express his opinions, but posting things like
NT in 16 MB is the same as OS/2 in 8 MB means nothing when you don't
really know what you're talking about.  I've sure he's heard a lot
about NT, but not all of it is necessarily true, so making comparisons
based on faulty information is meaningless.  (Based on what he had
posted, it was obvious that much of his information was faulty).

I can say that "the F-15 flies faster than the F-14", but when I follow
that by saying things like "the F-15 flies at Mach 9", it's obvious that
I don't know what I'm talking about, so my opinion isn't worth much.
Now if I added that Chuck Yeager was ignorant because he believes
otherwise, I'd look rather silly.

>4. People who add "sic" to other people's posts should make sure they
>   have no spelling or usage mistakes in their own posts. :)

Oops. :)

>>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 [sic]
								     oops :)
>>narrow viewpoint.  But I suppose that if you say them often enough,
>>you'll start to believe them.
>
>I don't think people are _trying_ to spread misinformation about NT;
>everyone has biases, even me, and I'm almost prefect [sic]. :)
>
>Francis Moraes

     - Mike
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy