Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 19:27:53 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Dec26.145826.21639@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
> In article <1992Dec25.232450.19632@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
> >In article <1992Dec25.202426.19125@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
> >> In article <1992Dec25.180324.15834@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
> >
> >> 	We can assume that either NT is the same (and the original
> >> 	user, with 16 megs, has adjusted it) or that it auto-adjusts.
> >> 	If the later, then my argument is eliminated. 
> >
> >Do you know NT auto-adjusts anything? As I said in an earlier follow-up, the
> >NT I am using was originally installed on an 8 meg system......so if it
> >auto-adjusts upwards....it should auto-adjust downwords too....right? 
> 
> 	Nope--rethink.  Even if NT doesn't auto-adjust, you can bet
> 	that Mr. 16-meg-previous-owner adjusted it for his
> 	16 meg system. 
> 
> 	Get it yet?  It's not that hard.

You are the guy who seems to be having a hard time "getting it". I have spoken
to "Mr. 16-meg-previous-owner" several times about this. He just installed it.
He didn't tweak aything or fiddle with anything.......If he did, he is now
denying it.....
 
So......it was installed on an 8-meg machine.....and is running on an 8 meg
machine....or rather, is NOT running on an 8 meg machine.

> >> 	I do not know whether it does or not.  But I am *certain* 
> >> 	that if it does not, the previous owner would have fixed it
> >> 	for his 16 meg system.
> >
> >I can assure you that he did not.
> 
> 	Are you sure of that?  C'mon.

I am certain he did not because he said he did not.

> >> 	You're thinking like a dos user.  It is not a bad idea to have
> >> 	the system auto-adjust and *allow* the user to fix it when you're
> >> 	talking about something that's suposed to be user friendly.  
> >
> >OS/2 ignores cache setting amount higher that 2048K.....
> 
> 	That's because it's stupid.  IBM should fix it, but they
> 	have no intention of doing so.

It is not a bug....it is quite intentional. Therefore, you are correct about a
lack of intention to fix it. But it kind of ruins your theory about migrating
a hard disk to a machine with less RAM.....

> >> >Let me see now. Having OS/2 installed on a 6 megger and then
> >> >adjusting the memory settings of the 16 meg system would
> >> >result in the exact same setup right?
> >> 
> >> 	...only if you then took *that* setup (the one optimized for
> >> 	16) and moved it *back* to a 6 megger w/o *any* change.
> >
> >This simply wasn't the case....the NT Iam using was installed on 8 megs....ad
> >is running on 8 megs.....
> 
> 	Fine.  Let's modify it.
> 
> 	1.  Install OS/2 in 4 megs.
> 	2.  Add four megs, make necessary adjustments (i.e. you can
> 	run HPFS now, boost cache sizes)
> 	3.  Remove 4 megs,post FUD to the net about how bad the
> 	system is.

I am posting information about my experiences with the pathetic NT October
beta. Any FUD content is based on your disbelief with respect to my
experiences and the information surrounding them.
 
You can disbelieve if you like.......but that doesn't change my experience. NT
sucks big-time. That ain't FUD from where I am standing.
 
It's a fact.
 
Feel free to now construct what ever reality pleases you. I have faithfully
reported mine.
 
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".
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10870 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3407