home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!caen!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!spssig.spss.com!uchinews!quads!soh3
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
- Subject: Re: Couldn't stick it out...
- Message-ID: <1992Jul28.042706.7442@midway.uchicago.edu>
- From: soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn)
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 04:27:06 GMT
- Reply-To: soh3@midway.uchicago.edu
- Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
- References: <l75b16INN8o7@spock.usc.edu> <1992Jul27.103456.1@kean.ucs.mun.ca> <1992Jul27.195510.176049@zeus.calpoly.edu>
- Distribution: usa
- Organization: University of Chicago
- Lines: 23
-
- In article <1992Jul27.195510.176049@zeus.calpoly.edu> jemenake@zeus.calpoly.edu (Joe Emenaker) writes:
- >When hearing discussions on OS/2, I've always gotten the impression that
- >OS/2's strong points do not include speed at doing one thing at a time. Its
- >strong points have always been touted as stabitlity and superior
- >multitasking.
- >
- >I'll say it right here: If you don't want your computer to multi-task,
- >don't run OS/2 because you stuff WILL be slower if you only do things one
- >at a time.
-
- I thought they were talking about loading not general performance after
- the software is loaded into memory. Thus, even if you use a single app
- at a time, if you want to run your app faster, use os/2. At least, that
- was/is my experience. I do admit that there are programs that will run
- faster on Windows, but on average, I guess os/2 will run apps faster than
- Windows. Haven't you heard of the joke that if you want to run your
- games more slowly, run it under Windows? It's not the same as in os/2.
- When SAS comes out with both os/2 and Windows versions this fall, people
- will know what to choose.
-
- Min
-
-
-