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.