Xref: utzoo comp.windows.ms:5732 comp.os.os2.misc:270
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!yale!quasi-eli!cs.yale.edu!spolsky-joel
From: spolsky-joel@cs.yale.edu (Joel Spolsky)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Query: Which would you recommend? Windows? or OS2 w/ PM?
Message-ID: <26395@cs.yale.edu>
Date: 28 Sep 90 04:42:00 GMT
References: <4227@rex.cs.tulane.edu> <1990Sep24.050147.11516@chinet.chi.il.us> <90270.162249TURGUT@TREARN.BITNET>
Sender: news@cs.yale.edu
Followup-To: comp.windows.ms
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Lines: 23
Nntp-Posting-Host: hippo.zoo.cs.yale.edu
Originator: spolsky@hippo.CS.Yale.Edu

In article <90270.162249TURGUT@TREARN.BITNET> TURGUT@TREARN.BITNET (Turgut Kalfaoglu) writes:
>I consider it a generalization to say that OS/2 needs a fast 386 and an nn
>megabyte of hard disk. I have OS/2 1.1 running on a fast AT compatible, and
>it flies - I have no problems with its performance. In fact, I switch
>to DOS box and run benchmarks (SI, Landmark,etc) and they report very
>small degradation.
>Regards, -turgut


Of course they report very small degredation, because the OS/2
"compatability box" just switches off OS/2 completely. It makes no
attempt to multitask or otherwise intervene in the operation of the
DOS box like Windows does. That is why, in OS/2 (unlike Win 3 on a
386), in a DOS box, you can't cut and paste, you can't multitask, you
can't put the DOS box in a window, and you can't run more than one DOS
box. Today, this is a good argument for Windows. If and when OS/2 2.0
has multiple widowizable DOS boxes, then it will have caught up to
Windows....



Joel Spolsky
spolsky@cs.yale.edu                                     Silence = Death