From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 05:13:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.220244.29899@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.192938.10637@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>I definitely think you are wrong about their attempt to keep customers
>>from triple booting.  In fact, Microsoft, in the MSWIN32 forum on
>>CompuServe provides explicit instructions on how to set up for triple
>>boot with OS/2 2.0. This to me, shows a far different picture than the
>>one you are trying to paint.
>
>Please post this information here -- I'm sure programmers would be
>happy to hear about the "official" workaround.

I misspoke, it was not the MSWIN32 forum, but the WinNT forum.
The solution was basically what you said, to zero out a portion
of the boot block.  The solution was posted on November 3, just a few
days after the release of the beta.

Likewise comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32 had several solution
posted during the first week of November.  Thus, whoever those
"programmers" are, they sure must avoid normal, or even unofficial
information channels like the plague.
BTW, the solutions in c.o.m.p.win32 were different, one said something
like use boot manager to switch to DOS, then install NT, another said
to install via the dos2nt program.

As to why doesn't this work?  Well first of all why should it work?
NT is beta code and is intended only to coexist with Win3.1/DOS.
Secondly, why are you so certain that MS's move is anti-OS/2?
There may well be valid reasons why the bootstrap does this.
It is clear that you have not even asked, but have already judged MS
to be guilty.

>>BTW, I responded to your "benchmark" and haven't got an answer.
>>In particular, I would very much like to see the breakdown figures for
>>individual tests as I'm sure they will tell a different story from
>>the one global one.  Also, could you tell me where I can get the same
>>benchmark program?  I think it should be tried on different (preferably
>>non-IBM) hardware.
>
>The WinMark benchmark (Version 2.50, I'm afraid -- the figures I
>quoted were with 2.51) is available via anonymous ftp from
>ftp.cica.indiana.edu.  The latest version should be available from any
>PC Magazine download site, including CompuServe.
>
>I will give you breakdowns in the near future, with luck.  (I have to
>compare notes with the other participant, who recorded all the
>breakdowns.  I recorded the end numbers, and spent the rest of my time
>trying to make NT, in particular, look better.  If I deserve any
>credit it is for getting many of the details you see re: methodology
>into the write-up.)  I can tell you that they do not reveal too much.
>The weightings for each score are set by PC Magazine -- I certainly
>didn't choose them.  In other words, there was no inconsistency in the
>direction of the results within each category, and the weighting is
>not arbitrarily skewing the results in favor of one product or
>another.

Thanks... wish I could run the same benchmark as you though.
(I mean if I get better numbers, the OS/2 freaks will freak! :-))

>
>>I also resent the fact you cross-posted to the programmers groups and
>>c.o.o.misc.
>>Your message was clearly a biased advocacy message, but you expect
>>people that followup to only post to the advocacy group.
>>This basically means that there are people (especially in c.o.o.misc)
>>that have the wrong impression of the whole matter.
>
>The post had some technical content, hence the crosspost.  What wrong
>impression, though?  NT does not run when it sees an OS/2 Boot Manager
>ID.  NT does run if you simply change that ID to all hex zeros.  I
>don't like it one bit (no pun intended).

The wrong impression is that you explicitly said this was an intentional
plot on the part of MS to do in OS/2 users (well you weren't quite
that evil, but close :-)).  Even if MS explicitly checks for Boot Manager,
this does not necessarily imply an evil plot, there may well be specific
hardware configurations that boot manager interacts poorly with NT.
Until you at least attempt to get a response out of Microsoft, I think
you are doing people a disservice to "blame" MS.

>
>>First that "benchmark" and now this message... I'm a bit surprised...
>>it's not like you to spread FUD, Tim.
>
>If you have a disagreement with the benchmarks, please run your own.
>If you think them FUD, then you should come up with some cogent
>argument as to why the methodology was incorrect.  (Incidentally, I
>will have some additional numbers for you very shortly.)  I very
>carefully described the methodology involved and made conservative,
>qualified conclusions based on those numbers.  If you have different
>numbers you are welcome to post them (along with your methodology).

In other posts you'll find that I clarify this.  I am not saying that
running the benchmark is FUD.  What I am saying is that running
the benchmark without pointing out clearly (esp. to novices) that
you are comparing OS's in very different stages of development
is FUD.  I also suspect that a review of the intermediate results
will tell a different story -- you implied strongly that NT
had a long way to go, but if there are only problems in a few minor
areas (and my usage experience with NT says this is so), then they
don't have a long way to go.

>
>As for the follow up on the NT workaround, I posted because many
>programmers asked for the information by mail.  I also commented on
>the matter, clearing indicating I was editorializing.  You're right --
>it is not like me to spread FUD.  I do, however, editorialize on rare
>occasion, and when I do I label it.

Hmm... it seems strange that these programmers go to you rather than
the appropriate places... I assume these must be OS/2 fans?

...

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                          NeXTStep 486 is for _YOU_!!!!
University of Utah                    Microsoft needs competition, but I want
Center for Software Science          to be one of the many running Windows NT!
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373    :-) :-) :-)  NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy