From: stimpy@nmt.edu (John Reynolds)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Where do you go from 486? (more opinions)
Date: 13 Dec 92 18:22:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: nmt.1992Dec13.182218.22064
Organization: New Mexico Tech


 (Bruce Weinel) writes:

>  dm> environments--are running into a CPU bottleneck.
>  dm> 
>  dm> Question: Are people really encountering a CPU bottleneck in such
>  dm> situations?  Would more compute power help them do their jobs better?
>

>  1. Windows: Spend money on VIDEO acceleration (either video card or CPU
>              [...]

Very true. Windows is quite faster with a good card and good drivers....

>  2. Unix.    Buy memory (to at least 32MB, maybe 64MB). Next speed up disk
>              controller and/or drives. Last consider increasing CPU speed.

Also very true. Disk controller would be the best thing to get if the memory
is already at 32Mb. I agree with you totally.

>  3. DOS.     Buy memory (to 16MB). Then faster disk. Then faster CPU.

On the whole, the easiest way to tap the 486 on a DOS system is to spend
the money for a caching disk-controller and load with with memory, so I
agree fully with you here. The only thing I would like you (and all of
the people feeling that Windows just won't cut it and Un*x is too expensive)
to consider is .... OS/2 2.0. That was not mentioned in your post.

While it is true that everything you said also applies to OS/2 (i.e. an
accelerator card for video--very good investment in speed, more memory,
and superfast disk drive always helps) the fact that OS/2 multi-tasks
more efficiently, makes everyday use appear to be faster, smooter, and
better than DOS or DOS + Windows (I can't argue with Un*x because it
also pre-emptively multitasks, but Un*x still has disadvantages--not
many of Joe Average User's favorite apps are available for Un*x for
less than an arm and a leg, etc.). In windows or dos, when a large
file is being transferred through a network, or a large file is being
dumped to a network printer--two common "corporate uses" (for example),
DOS is helpless to do anything else (even with the extra ram, etc.), and
windows, for all practical purposes is too slow to use--not just speculation,
I've done both where I used to work.

OS/2 on the other hand, transfers that file or spools a printing job without
affecting anything else. I'm writing this article logged into a Un*x machine
using DOS Procomm+, running several OS/2 apps, and Ami Pro 3.0 in a separate
windows fullscreen session. Everything is usable. I also practice what you
preach. I've got an ATI Ultra, 16Mb of memory, but alas, only and IDE 15ms
drive. Things are still fast.

This was not meant (although I guess it turned into) as a blatant advertisement
for OS/2 2.0, I just wish more of corporate america would seriously look at
OS/2 2.0 before investing in more wasted time with DOS or windows. Why wait
for file transfers, disks to format, or jobs to print, when you can do 
all of that and continue to be productive???


Just another view.
I'd be happy to answer questions concerning price, actual problems I've
had (because NO product is trouble-free), etc., and more importantly, the
things I've been able to productively do without problems.
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Or check out comp.os.os2.misc, comp.os.os2.apps, and comp.os.os2.networking 
for more information. Let's give this product a fair chance.

-Jr

-- 
DOS...Boot sector virus!????           | #include <~os2/personal.opinion.h>
Windows...It's like a stale cookie.    | John Reynolds stimpy@jupiter.nmt.edu
OS/2..."It's like buudaah" (SNL quote) | New Mexico Tech. #10 and rising!!!
Xref: sparky comp.sys.intel:2666 comp.sys.mac.hardware:23907 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:32934