Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!van-bc!ubc-cs!unixg.ubc.ca!cheddar.ucs.ubc.ca!ballard
From: ballard@cheddar.ucs.ubc.ca (Alan Ballard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: Word for OS/2
Keywords: tutorial
Message-ID: <1991Mar12.162532.26352@unixg.ubc.ca>
Date: 12 Mar 91 16:25:32 GMT
References: <11889@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> <1991Mar11.194615.12930@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <7643@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Sender: news@unixg.ubc.ca (Usenet News Maintenance)
Organization: Computing Services, University of British Columbia
Lines: 24
Nntp-Posting-Host: cheddar.ucs.ubc.ca

In article <7643@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> lairdkb@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) writes:
>Is Word for OS/2 incredibly slow (I use a 386DX-25 with 8MB RAM.) or have I
>simply been spoiled by XyWrite?

It's incredibly slow, at least under some combinations of hardware/software.
I've heard some people say it performs really well.  I have it on two
systems, one of which performs terribly, the other OK, though not great.
Haven't figured out the factors that make the difference yet. 
 
My first is a 16mhz 386, OS/2 1.2 SE, 12MB memory, VGA.  Works OK.
The other is  20mhz 386, OS/2 1.3 SE,  6MB memory, 8514/A.  Works terribly. 
 
I don't think the memory makes the difference... Word is too dumb to use it...
my free memory display never drops below 6MB on the first machine.

I've also noticed (via my cpu monitor), that word contains polling loops
in some cases.
 
One more example of Microsoft's lack of support for OS/2... they've done 
the bare minimum to make this run with the SMK. 
Alan Ballard                   | Internet: ballard@ucs.ubc.ca
University Computing Services  |   Bitnet: USERAB1@UBCMTSG
University of British Columbia |    Phone: 604-228-3074
Vancouver B.C. Canada V6R 1W5  |      Fax: 604-228-5116