s142029@fred.ucdavis.edu (05/09/91)
From ucdavis!csus.edu!wuarchive!usc!rpi!yee Wed May 8 15:59:49 PDT 1991
Article: 1281 of comp.os.os2.misc
Path: ucdavis!csus.edu!wuarchive!usc!rpi!yee
From: yee@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Crimson Avenger)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.windows.ms,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 is here! (speed of OS/2)
Keywords: OS/2?
Message-ID: <j.8ggna@rpi.edu>
Date: 8 May 91 03:29:14 GMT
References: <1991May3.171742.9966@serval.net.wsu.edu> <1991May6.170411.9423@watson.ibm.com> <1991May6.230021.24665@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Lines: 28
Xref: ucdavis comp.os.msdos.misc:2024 comp.windows.ms:11306 comp.os.os2.misc:1281
Nntp-Posting-Host: aix01srv.aix.rpi.edu
## I am very surprised that IBM is trying to sell OS/2 based on speed. WHO
## really cares if Excel for OS/2 outbeat Windows by 30 SECONDS????????????
I suppose speed doesn't matter to you. Then why use faster machines.
Why use a 386 when the 286 exist ? Why use computers when you can do it
by hand ? And if you say a difference of 30 seconds is not important, let's
consider this : A typical 386 machine executes about 4 millions instructions
per second. In 30 seconds, that would be 120 MIPS.... And how small is
120 MIPS... You better study your algorithm analysis class again ! :).
## Give me a break. OS/2 with the 32 bit mode probably runs some applications
## faster, given that the applications are re-compiled to 32 bit mode. It's
## the applications that sell the software. Say, give a 32 bit Excel vs.
## Windows 16 bit Excel and we probably know who will win the speed test.
That 's the main point of OS/2, you get true 32-bit processing. It's
what the 32-bit processors are designed for.
## They (or somebody) better stress the REAL pluses of OS/2 which is memory
## management and TASK switching. Machines have grown to the point of trying
## to run several applications at once. This is just baby stuff to try to
## outbeat Excel by 30 seconds. I just can't believe.
You 've just said it... The real pluses of OS/2 is better memory
management and TASK switching. Can Windows beat OS/2 at that... I didn't
think so...
## To make OS/2 sell: must be cheaper, upgradable, and stable. Alot of people
## had problems with OS/2 1.x and not enough printer drivers that gave it a
## bad reputation. At least they (IBM) will allow multiple DOS boxes under
## OS/2. I think 1.x you could run only 1 dos application at once, that IS
## *NOT* good for multi-tasking. I am willing to give OS/2 2.0 a chance for
## the right budget, and maybe try out a demo first. Microsoft did something
## wonderful with Windows, and maybe IBM is following that path.
Keep your eys open for OS/2 2.0. I do...
## What do I use windows for? Multi-tasking communications, applications,
## and doing program development. I would like better application protection.
Better memory management doesn't provide better application protection ?
Then tell me what protection you are talking about ?
--
## -- Robert aka Crimson Avenger (yee@rpi.edu or crimson_avenger@mts.rpi.edu)
Once a hacker, always a hacker. (usere3jp@rpitsmts.bitnet)tholen@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (David Tholen) (05/09/91)
In article <12912@aggie.ucdavis.edu>, s142029@fred.ucdavis.edu writes: > I suppose speed doesn't matter to you. Then why use faster machines. > Why use a 386 when the 286 exist ? Why use computers when you can do it > by hand ? And if you say a difference of 30 seconds is not important, let's > consider this : A typical 386 machine executes about 4 millions instructions > per second. In 30 seconds, that would be 120 MIPS.... And how small is > 120 MIPS... You better study your algorithm analysis class again ! :). Um, 4 million instructions per second (MIPS) times 30 seconds is 120 million instructions (MI), not 120 MIPS. And whether a difference of 30 seconds is important or not depends on how long the job took. If it was 31 seconds under Windows and 1 second under OS/2, that's impressive, but if it was 3000 seconds under Windows and 2970 under OS/2, then the 30 seconds difference isn't all that important (one percent speedup). I would have preferred to see the percentage increase in speed rather than a time difference.