Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:28747 comp.sys.amiga:33737
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!bobmon
From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs AmigaDOS
Message-ID: <20694@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Date: 13 May 89 13:09:34 GMT
Reply-To: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante)
Organization: malkaryotic
Lines: 18

coy@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stephen B Coy) <2649@ssc-vax.UUCP> :
	[MIPS tests 25MHz '386 boxes.  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? 

40% sounds a bit high, but the contrast to MSDOS isn't really fair.  MSDOS
doesn't have to do *any* resource management, in the sense that it needn't
keep track of which process has a resource (since there's only one process
at any time).  On the other hand, every TSR has to do its own management
in terms of checking whether it's safe to do disk I/O or whatever.

The amount of CPU spent in overhead is also a function of system load.
It's possible for one OS to be extremely good with a few processes but
degrade badly as it overloads, while another OS can be a bit worse at low
loads but stay pretty much the same until its memory chips begin to smoke.