home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!rutgers!njitgw.njit.edu!hertz.njit.edu!dic5340
- From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
- Subject: Re: Couldn't stick it out...
- Message-ID: <1992Jul28.170147.16466@njitgw.njit.edu>
- Date: 28 Jul 92 17:01:47 GMT
- References: <1992Jul27.103456.1@kean.ucs.mun.ca> <mg.712256058@elan> <1992Jul27.212525.26274@infonode.ingr.com>
- Sender: news@njit.edu
- Distribution: usa
- Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.
- Lines: 22
- Nntp-Posting-Host: hertz.njit.edu
-
- In article <1992Jul27.212525.26274@infonode.ingr.com> bbrown@infonode.ingr.com (Bailey Brown) writes:
- >
- >Though I agree the multitasking in windows is probably not as good as
- >it is in OS/2 2.0, I have done some amazing things with it, such
- >as run a 500 frame MPEG movie at 15 frames/sec in a 320x240 window while
- >downloading at 2400 bps. When I tried this while downloading at
- >10,200 bps, the frame rate dropped to about 10 frames/sec, but my
- >download continued without a hiccup. I think the slowdown a was
- >due to my 386/33 being overwhelmed. A 486/33 probably could have
- >kept the frame rate a 15.
-
- Your MPEG viewer is probably a very well written program, then.
- There's nothing inherent in Windows that will cause a slowdown
- (although DOS boxes cause it serious problems). If all you have are
- Windows apps, and all disk I/O is to the hard drive, you can get ver
- good speed. Assuming the Windows apps are well written (MS
- applications are NOT this way!).
- --
- |) David Charlap "I don't even represent myself
- /|_ dic5340@hertz.njit.edu sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
- ((|,)
- ~|~ Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
-