Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:28742 comp.sys.amiga:33736
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!coy
From: coy@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stephen B Coy)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs AmigaDOS
Message-ID: <2649@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: 12 May 89 22:24:35 GMT
References: <2134@iitmax.IIT.EDU> <5625@microsoft.UUCP> <5664@microsoft.UUCP>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Corp., Seattle WA
Lines: 26

In article <5664@microsoft.UUCP>, t-stephp@microsoft.UUCP (Stephen Poole) writes:
> As everyone is aware, there
> is a significant amount of overhead associated with an OS with advanced
> networking and memory management capabilities, but that megabyte or two
> of overhead most assuredly leads to far more efficient memory utilization
> and connectivity.

What about CPU overhead.  Recently I checked out the April issue of
MIPS magazine.  In it they review a few 25Mhz 386 machines.  In
doing their benchmarks they test the systems running 3 different
OS's; DOS, Xenix, and OS/2.  Looking at the benchmark results I get
the impression that system performance under OS/2 is about 40% less
than under DOS.  How good can resource management be if it consumes
40% of the CPU?  This isn't intended as an OS/2 flame.  I don't know
enough about OS/2 to flame it.  But the numbers presented by MIPS
make OS/2 look horrible.  What's the truth?  

> -- Stephen D. Poole -- t-stephp@microsoft.UUCP -- Mac II Fanatic --
> --                                                               --
> -- I'm just an Oregon Tech Software Engineering co-op at  Micro- --
> -- soft.  Believe me, nobody here pays attention to my opinions! --

Stephen Coy
uw-beaver!ssc-vax!coy

Bush knew.