Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:29124 comp.sys.amiga:34167 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cwjcc!hal!ncoast!allbery From: allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: OS/2 vs AmigaDOS Message-ID: <13670@ncoast.ORG> Date: 21 May 89 20:00:23 GMT References: <2134@iitmax.IIT.EDU> <5625@microsoft.UUCP> <5664@microsoft.UUCP> <2954@rti.UUCP> <2656@ssc-vax.UUCP> Reply-To: allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) Followup-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc Organization: Cleveland Public Access UN*X, Cleveland, Oh Lines: 22 As quoted from <2656@ssc-vax.UUCP> by coy@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stephen B Coy): +--------------- | processes active. Fine. But when this system overhead eats up 40 | to 50% of a 25Mhz 386 I start to have questions. +--------------- (1) Was the OS/2 system running the LAN Manager? Or the SQL server? For that matter, PM *could* affect the total *if it continues to eat cycles while the benchmark is running*. (Windows/286 does, so I don't expect PM to be any different. I/O has nothing to do with it, except insofar as PM would be scanning for a "window-switch" command or etc.) (2) Someone should run the same benchmark under PC-MOS, 386 Unix, Concurrent DOS XM, and any other multi-tasking system they can come up with and compare *those* to OS/2's numbers. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@ncoast.org uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu Send comp.sources.misc submissions to comp-sources-misc@ NCoast Public Access UN*X - (216) 781-6201, 300/1200/2400 baud, login: makeuser