From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:59:28 GMT

In <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:
>>
>>> 	No, but the normal cache setting for OS/2 is
>>> 	a poor choice for anyone with 8 megs or more.  
>>> 
>>> 	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. 

Oh?  The great Yamanari knows what someone who he's never even heard
of did, when the guy who got the hard drive from him doesn't?  Yeah, I
believe this.  Do you lose a lot of money betting on things you don't
know anything about, or do you just welch?

>	Get it yet?  It's not that hard.

No, it's not, but you persistently fail to 'get it'.

>>> 	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.

Yeah, c'mon.  Yamanari knows what your friend did better than you do.  

>>> 	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.

No, that's because in most cases caches above 2MB aren't worth the
memory to do them (on a multitasking system) unless you have shitloads
of equally accessible memory.  Most PC type machines only have 16 MB
that the OS can use (for anything other than swap).

>>> >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.

Except, of course, that that's not what happened.  His friend
installed on a machine identical to his AND CHANGED NOTHING other than
adding more memory.  Either the NT on the disk was configured
correctly for his 8 MB machine, or NT auto-adjusts in which case it
would auto-adjust back down.  Now, just what part of that don't you
understand?

Get it yet?  It's not that hard.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy