From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NSTL compares OS/2 2.0 and Windows 3.1
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:57:41 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Oct1.051133.5806@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Br
ian Sturgill) writes:
>
>From a Microsoft press release:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>NSTL Rates Windows 3.1 as "Platform of Choice"
>       National Software Testing Labs (NSTL) determined that
>the Microsoft  Windows operating system version 3.1 is the
>"Platform of Choice to Run Today's Applications" in a thorough
>head-to-head evaluation against OS/2* 2.0, published in Software
>Digest* Ratings Report by NSTL (August 1992, Vol. 9, No. 4).  In
>an independent evaluation of both products, NSTL tested more
>than 100 PC hardware systems and ran more than 680 performance
>tests to reach its conclusion.
>       NSTL's overall rating was based on three major criteria:
>performance,  hardware compatibility and usability.  NSTL
>measured performance based on common user activities such as
>printing, scrolling and memory tasks.  Microsoft Windows 3.1 was
>found to outpace OS/2 in performance when running single tasks
>with Windows-based applications.  Microsoft Windows also
>performed almost every task more quickly than OS/2 whether the
>tester rebooted before the benchmark or reran the test.  In the
>Windows-based application multitasking trials, NSTL found that
>Microsoft Windows' multitasking capabilities outperformed OS/2's
>when running more than one task at a time.
>       Windows ran without any problems on all but one of 102
>hardware systems tested, while OS/2 had problems ranging from
>minor complications to outright incompatibility on 25 systems
>tested.  In the usability category, Windows was found to be easier
>to learn because of the familiar interface of the many Windows-
>based programs on the market today.  NSTL said that the revamped
>OS/2 interface added to users' learning curve.  NSTL also
>determined that Windows was easier to install and had superior
>documentation.
>       For information on obtaining a copy of the report, contact
>Meryl Stern at NSTL, (215) 941-9600 ext. 410.
>

First, if this ends up being a repost, please forgive me.  My terminal froze
while responding the firt time.

Now Couple of points.  First, I find it a bit suspicious that Windows could
outperform OS/2 in the multitasking part.  I am curious as to what tests they
used as well as what machines.  the results could depend very much on what
tests they used and how well optimized OS/2 was.  Second, I see no mention of
DOS performance or compatibility.  What is this, just a minor oversight?
(NOT)  DOS performance is very important and their tests are not complete
without it.  Third, their comments on learning the interface shoots my
impression of their supposedly objective testing in the foot.  What I read is
that the testers were often already familiar with Windows and thus did not
really need to learn anything about that interface.  Well no kidding they
would understand more quicker about Windows, they already have used it.  There
is a learning curve for any new system, but if you know the system already you
are past much of it.  Fourth, I find it humerous that this comes first from a
MS press release and not from the testing place itself through the usual
channels.  That too casts doubt on this report.  All in all, I am unimpressed
with the quality of this report.



>Brian
>--
>C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
>University of Utah                             United We Stand
>Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
>
-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6545 comp.sys.intel:1809 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:25682