From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Here's some Advocacy for you.
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 13:09:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.055706.23635@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2) writes:
>and/or the WPS do not have to be loaded.  I don't know how much memory the
>WPS takes, and if it's RAM requirements have decreased since the SP.


	Unfortunately, IBM made life rather difficult for those who
	choose not to use the WPS.  Stupid move, IMHO, but that's 
	life.

>megs for apps on an 8 meg system), I can't see how desktop users will buy it.


	I remember the same claims about OS/2 and 2 megs (remember--8
	months ago, the majority of systems were, by far, 4 meg 
	machines).


>RAM, super fast CPUs, etc.  They have lots of room for NT.  But for the rest
>of us 8 megs is a magic number.  It's the minimum RAM that many people


	The fact is, if you're buying a machine now the smart choice
	(no matter what OS you'll be running) is to buy it with 
	16 megs pre-installed.  (and there are a *lot* of people
	doing just that).  A year from today, it'll proabably
	be in much higher numbers.  RAM is no more a valid
	argument now than it was back in the days preceding 
	2.0.


>recommend for OS/2+WPS+HPFS+multiple apps.  It's also an economic maximum
>RAM for 386/486 motherboards that use a 4-way interleave.


	That's true, but you can always sell old RAM to help recover
	the costs of moving.  In any case, the upgrade from OS/2
	to NT can be done piecemeal.  First add ram (which makes
	OS/2 happy--boy, when you move to 16 megs the swapfile
	get's might small, and the system gets faster), then
	buy NT.  Do you honestly believe that OS/2 users with 8 megs
	aren't going to add any "because it works" (just slightly
	sluggishly)?  What else can we buy?  Video cards?  
	Until XGA-2 is out (and I'm not spending another $300
	on a video card--two in <6 months is insane) there's 
	really not many OS/2 goodies to buy.

	(Ram is a good investment for OS/2 even if you are an
	NT hater and would never consider moving--it makes
	it work better) 


>Huh?  You edited the part of me saying I had a 4-way interleave motherboard!
>That would be okay if you did not have a comment about the memory, but here
>you tell me to get 3 SIMMs!  A 4-way interleave means I have to install my


	Sorry--you're right.  Didn't read the message.

>megs, etc.).  Instead of flaming you for this, I'll just say that an upgrade
>from 8 megs to 12 is impossible, and 8 to 16 is too expensive.


	Right.  Knew this, just didn't bother with it.  That wasn't
	my point (8 to 12)--I'm pointing out that the actual hardware
	requirements between OS/2 and NT--the difference between the 
	two--is minor when you compare either to the requirements for
	running Windows3.1, which is what most people are using. 
	(Win31 w/2 megs is about == to OS/2 with 6, with 4 it's
	about equal to OS/2 w/eight).  


>Anyways, memory requirements is a valid argument.  If someone has 4 x 1 megs,
>going to 8 x 1 megs is only ~$160 (or a little less).  But going from 8 x 1
>megs to 4 x 4 megs is ~600 (or a little less).  As you can see, 8 megs is
>a magic number.


	Perhaps so.  MS claims they'll get NT down to "operable"
	in 8 megs.  I don't know if I believe that, but if they allow
	you not to bother with the things you don't need (networking)
	they might do it (and it would probably be about equal
	to OS/2 with 6).


-- 
 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've got my flame proof jacket, how about you?  
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10414 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3240