Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:29005 comp.sys.amiga:34033
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!rpi!crdgw1!ge-dab!peora!rtmvax!bilver!jwt!john
From: john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs AmigaDOS
Message-ID: <281@jwt.UUCP>
Date: 18 May 89 04:43:19 GMT
References: <20694@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <2655@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Reply-To: john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples)
Organization: John W. Temples, III -- Orlando, FL
Lines: 15

In article <2655@ssc-vax.UUCP> coy@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stephen B Coy) writes:
> [ about MIPS benchmarks of 386 boxes ]
>In article <20694@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>, bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) writes:
>> [ contrasting OS/2 to DOS benchmarks isn't fair ]

While I agree that comparing OS/2 to DOS benchmarks isn't really fair, what I
found far more interesting in the MIPS articles was the comparison between
Unix and OS/2.  In the single-tasking benchmarks (e.g. Dhrystone) Unix was
some 20% faster than OS/2.  This difference might very well be attributed to
Unix running 32-bit code versus OS/2's 16-bit code; I don't know.  But in the
multitasking benchmarks, Unix consistently had a 3 to 1 performance edge over
OS/2.  It sounds like OS/2 has a long way to go compete with Unix in
performance.
-- 
John Temples - UUCP: {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd}!peora!rtmvax!bilver!jwt!john