NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/advocacy/11078

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 4.0 KB | 98 lines

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com!tilde.csc.ti.com!mksol!mccall
From: [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:59:28 GMT
Lines: 87

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Yamanari) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Yamanari) writes:
>>> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>>
>>>     No, but the normal cache setting for OS/2 is
>>>     a poor choice for anyone with 8 megs or more.
>>>
>>>     We can assume that either NT is the same (and the original
>>>     user, with 16 megs, has adjusted it) or that it auto-adjusts.
>>>     If the later, then my argument is eliminated.
>>
>>Do you know NT auto-adjusts anything? As I said in an earlier follow-up, the
>>NT I am using was originally installed on an 8 meg system......so if it
>>auto-adjusts upwards....it should auto-adjust downwords too....right?


>    Nope--rethink.  Even if NT doesn't auto-adjust, you can bet
>    that Mr. 16-meg-previous-owner adjusted it for his
>    16 meg system.

Oh?  The great Yamanari knows what someone who he's never even heard
of did, when the guy who got the hard drive from him doesn't?  Yeah, I
believe this.  Do you lose a lot of money betting on things you don't
know anything about, or do you just welch?

>    Get it yet?  It's not that hard.

No, it's not, but you persistently fail to 'get it'.

>>>     I do not know whether it does or not.  But I am *certain*
>>>     that if it does not, the previous owner would have fixed it
>>>     for his 16 meg system.
>>
>>I can assure you that he did not.

>    Are you sure of that?  C'mon.

Yeah, c'mon.  Yamanari knows what your friend did better than you do.

>>>     You're thinking like a dos user.  It is not a bad idea to have
>>>     the system auto-adjust and *allow* the user to fix it when you're
>>>     talking about something that's suposed to be user friendly.
>>
>>OS/2 ignores cache setting amount higher that 2048K.....

>    That's because it's stupid.  IBM should fix it, but they
>    have no intention of doing so.

No, that's because in most cases caches above 2MB aren't worth the
memory to do them (on a multitasking system) unless you have shitloads
of equally accessible memory.  Most PC type machines only have 16 MB
that the OS can use (for anything other than swap).

>>> >Let me see now. Having OS/2 installed on a 6 megger and then
>>> >adjusting the memory settings of the 16 meg system would
>>> >result in the exact same setup right?
>>>
>>>     ...only if you then took *that* setup (the one optimized for
>>>     16) and moved it *back* to a 6 megger w/o *any* change.
>>
>>This simply wasn't the case....the NT Iam using was installed on 8 megs....ad
>>is running on 8 megs.....

>    Fine.  Let's modify it.

>    1.  Install OS/2 in 4 megs.
>    2.  Add four megs, make necessary adjustments (i.e. you can
>    run HPFS now, boost cache sizes)
>    3.  Remove 4 megs,post FUD to the net about how bad the
>    system is.

Except, of course, that that's not what happened.  His friend
installed on a machine identical to his AND CHANGED NOTHING other than
adding more memory.  Either the NT on the disk was configured
correctly for his 8 MB machine, or NT auto-adjusts in which case it
would auto-adjust back down.  Now, just what part of that don't you
understand?

Get it yet?  It's not that hard.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.