From: roland@spock.uucp (David A. Braun)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to make OS/2 look bad ...
Date: 11 Nov 92 13:14:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Choate Rosemary Hall

In article <strobl.721399197@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>In <4334@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> rvaniwaa@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ronald J. Vaniwaarden) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov9.173207.22664@spock.UUCP> roland@spock.uucp (David A. Braun) writes:
>>>In <4310@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> rvaniwaa@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ronald J. Vaniwaarden) writes:
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>This is not different that MS claiming that you _can_ run Windows on a 286
>>>>with 1 mb of ram.  Of course, noone ever does this except to prove that it
>>>>can be done.  
>>>
>>>Not so fast! I did that (i.e. run Windows on a 286 with 1MByte)
>>>for years, and was quite satisfied with its overall performance.
>>>
>>>Don't claim that nobody did something sucessfully, just because
>>>*you* never did.
>>>
>>>So did I, and I must say it DID work reasonably fast, it was large windows
>>>programs which couldn't work, that evil Program Manager worked fine.
>>>
>>>Roland.
>
>>alright, I guess it is time for a retraction of sorts :-)
>
>>I never ran windows on anything less than a 386/33 with 4mb and the
>>performance was satisfactory.  I did use it on a 286 with 1mb and
>>_I_ found the performance to be too slow 
>
>I believe that this effect is almost independent of the memory size
>you start with. You adjust your personal "working set" to the size
>of the real memory you have in your machine. If you add memory to
>your machine, your "working set" slowly grows until you notice
>some slight performance degradation. If you remove memory (or 
>switch from a 4 MByte machine to a 1 MByte machine), you'll 
>notice a severe performance degradation, because reducing the
>personal "working set" is much more difficult than enlarging
>it. Because of that, a machine with n/2 bytes memory is 
>universally observed as being almost unuseable, from the point 
>of view of a machine with n bytes of memory, for all n. :-)
>
>>and it did not multitask since
>>it ran only in standard mode.  
>
>It did not multitask *DOS* applications. Windows applications are
>of course multitasked in the usual way.
>
>>I also have used OS/2 on the 386 w/ 4mb
>>and found it to be very slow and would not multitask well do to the
>>huge amount of swapping.  I did not complain that the performance was too
>>slow since I realized that I had the minimum amount of ram that was
>>required. I now run it in 16 mb which is pure bliss. :-)))
>
>>What I should have said is that noone runs windows 3.1 on a 286 with 1mb
>>of ram and then complains that it is too slow or runs windows 3.0 on
>>a 8088 with 640k and complains about speed.  For the same reason, noone
>>_should_ complain about OS/2 being slow in 4mb when that is the
>>minimum configuration.
>
>Agreed.
>
>Wolfgang Strobl
	Ok, here we go again... I did run Windows 3.1 on a 286, and I wouldn't
complain about the speed. I note that I am comparing this to the 486/33 with
8mb of ram, 256 cache which I now have. Of course the speed is different, but
you get what you pay for. I will note that by the time I installed 3.1 on the
286, it had 3mb on it. I could finally run toolbook. (it wouldn't even start
on 1mb). When I see OS/2 on an SX/16 with 4mb, I could really laugh... Although
I am again comparing this to my 486.  Maybe it's me, but with OS/2 installed
on a PS/2 55SX, not only is it pittifully slow, IT DOESN'T CORRECTLY REMEMBER
FOLDER INFORMATION.  AND, it will only boot once before I need to boot by
floppy and run makeini. I will say this, though... The machine I was running
on was a 286/16. I had an 'oppertunity' to install Windows on a 286/10 with
640k... THAT, was pitiful... even in EGA!

Roland.