home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
The Arsenal Files 3
/
The Arsenal Files 3.iso
/
os2
/
perform.txt
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-11-15
|
11KB
|
246 lines
Comparison on Performance
=========================
Microsoft Corporation on October 10th published performance numbers
comparing OS/2 Warp Beta II to a non-public Windows 95. As we
understand, the performance numbers were pulled from many bulletin
boards due to complaints pointing out glaring inaccuracies. The
The document is still available on the Microsoft internet server.
The performance numbers published by Microsoft are inaccurate and
unreliable for the following reasons:
1. The percentage numbers were 100% too high; for
instance, if Microsoft asserted that Windows 95 was 20%
better than OS/2 Warp the Microsoft document calls Windows 95
120% faster. This error occurred 48 times in the Microsoft
document. Even though this has been pointed out for
weeks Microsoft still has not corrected it.
2. Our tests conclude that the Windows for Workgroups (WFW)
and Windows 95 machines must have had a 32-bit Western Digital
controller (or equivalent) for disk access, which Microsoft's
32-bit VFAT driver takes advantage of. This configuration is
not the default or the representative config in the market.
3. Microsoft used OS/2 Warp Beta II which was tuned for 4MB as
were Beta I and the released product.
4. OS/2 Warp uses different installation parameters when
installing on 4MB machines. Microsoft we suspect installed
OS/2 Warp on a machine "with greater than 4MB and then
stripped memory to get down to a 4MB configuration."
5. The disk cache size for WFW was configured 4 times larger
than the disk cache size for OS/2 Warp giving WFW a
totally unfair advantage.
We ran performance tests comparing OS/2 Warp's performance to
Windows 3.1 and Windows for Workgroups. Since Windows 95 is
still under Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) we were unable to do
any performance testing but we would be happy do so if Microsoft
agrees to provide us with a copy. Our performance test found
that in many cases OS/2 Warp does outperform WFW 3.11 and Windows
3.11 in 4Mb of memory. We used the Generally Available versions
of OS/2 Warp, Windows for Workgroups 3.11 and Windows 3.11 using
default configurations with the disk cache was set to 256Kb for
all systems. All of the tests were run on the following machine:
Machine Configuration
=====================
Machine: IBM PS/Value Point
Processor: 486DX
CoProcessor: Installed
Speed: 25Mhz
Hard Disk: Maxtor 244 Mb IDE model 7245A
System Memory: 4Mb
External Cache: 256Kb
Internal Cache: 8Kb
Video Memory: 1024Kb
Flash EEPROM Revision Level: L9ET30AU
Several user scenarios designed to measure OS/2 Warp's
performance against Windows 3.1 in a multiple application
environment yield better performance for OS/2 Warp in 4Mb of
memory:
- Lotus 123 + MS Money + Winclock running concurrently
-- OS/2 Warp is 7% faster than Windows 3.1
- Lotus 123 + Quicken + Winclock running concurrently
-- OS/2 Warp is 11% faster than Windows 3.1
- Lotus 123 + Amipro + Winclock running concurrently
-- OS/2 Warp is 7% faster than Windows 3.1
Printing in OS/2 Warp is significantly faster than in Windows 3.1
- Printing using Wordperfect for Windows 3.1 is
approximately 40% faster under OS/2 Warp vs. Win 3.1 in a
multitasking environment using the HP560C printer.
(multitasking accomplished by downloading a file from
CompuServe while printing.)
- On an HP560C, printing using Wordperfect for Windows is
30% faster in OS/2 Warp.
When comparing the products for read and write times you find
that OS/2 Warp is significantly faster. We tested various record
sizes in random and sequential format attached below are some of
the results in Kilobytes per Second (Kbs).
When reading 200 Byte record in a random read and a cache of 256K
File Size
256K 1M 2M 4M 8M 16M 32M
======================================================
WFW 148 9 7 7 6 5 4
OS/2 Warp 291 12 11 10 8 8 8
------------------------------------------------------
% Warp Faster 97% 33% 57% 43% 33% 60% 100%
_______________________________________________________________________
When reading 2K Byte record in a random read and a cache of 256K
File Size
256K 1M 2M 4M 8M 16M 32M
======================================================
WFW 1566 93 78 70 62 53 40
OS/2 Warp 2319 115 102 94 93 88 79
------------------------------------------------------
% Warp Faster 48% 24% 31% 34% 50% 66% 97%
_______________________________________________________________________
When reading a 512 Byte record in a sequential read and a cache of 256K
File Size
256K 1M 2M 4M 8M 16M 32M
======================================================
WFW 563 641 654 643 638 631 622
OS/2 Warp 617 682 682 707 711 697 688
------------------------------------------------------
% Warp Faster 10% 6% 4% 10% 11% 10% 11%
_______________________________________________________________________
When reading a 4K Byte record in a sequential read and a cache of 256K
File Size
256K 1M 2M 4M 8M 16M 32M
======================================================
WFW 592 710 714 714 707 693 691
OS/2 Warp 2072 862 878 492 891 883 888
------------------------------------------------------
% Warp Faster 250% 21% 23% -45% 26% 27% 29%
_______________________________________________________________________
When writing a 200 Byte record in a random write and a cache of 256K
File Size
256K 1M 2M 4M 8M 16M 32M
======================================================
WFW 76 6 5 4 4 3 3
OS/2 Warp 184 8 8 7 6 5 6
------------------------------------------------------
% Warp Faster 142% 33% 60% 75% 50% 67% 100%
_______________________________________________________________________
When writing a 512 Byte record in a random write and a cache of 256K
File Size
256K 1M 2M 4M 8M 16M 32M
======================================================
WFW 287 32 29 27 24 18 13
OS/2 Warp 306 39 37 35 33 33 33
------------------------------------------------------
% Warp Faster 7% 22% 28% 30% 38% 83% 154%
_______________________________________________________________________
When writing a 200 Byte record in a sequential write and a cache of 256K
File Size
256K 1M 2M 4M 8M 16M 32M
======================================================
WFW 221 149 147 148 150 148 148
OS/2 Warp 314 314 221 314 310 302 301
------------------------------------------------------
% Warp Faster 42% 111% 50% 112% 107% 104% 103%
_______________________________________________________________________
When writing a 512 Byte record in a sequential write and a cache of 256K
File Size
256K 1M 2M 4M 8M 16M 32M
======================================================
WFW 353 361 363 363 361 357 355
OS/2 Warp 517 620 623 373 622 623 359
------------------------------------------------------
% Warp Faster 46% 72% 72% 3% 72% 75% 1%
_______________________________________________________________________
To truly compare the performance of Windows for Workgroups to
Warp in 4 Meg we suggest that you compare the time it takes to
perform an everyday task on a Windows system using existing
applications and a system that has been Warped using the Bonus
Pak applications.
Scenario: Fax a memo to a business associate and get back to
doing something else.
Warp Windows or Windows for Workgroups 3.11
==== ======================================
1. Open Address Book 1. Start Application
2. Drag business cards onto 2. Select File from pull down
document menu
3. Drag document to Fax machine 3. Select Open
4. Click on OK for cover sheet 4. Select Document
5. Do other work 5. Click on OK
6. Wait for the document to open
7. Select File from pull down
menu
8. Select Printer Setup
9. Select the Fax printer
10. Click on OK
11. Select File from pull down
menu
12. Select Print
13. Click on OK
14. Key in phone number and
cover sheet information
15. Click on OK
16. Wait until faxing is over
17. Close application
18. Do other work
We have presented performance data where OS/2 Warp performs
better than WFW and Windows 3.11. We understand that it is
possible to create other operating environment to achieve
performance results that are desired. The operating system you
choose really does make a difference. We hope that you choose
the reliable, stable, proven operating system that protects your
existing investments and gives you the ability to exploit future
technology.