home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
- Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.iastate.edu!news
- From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
- Subject: Re: NT Destined to Succeed??
- Message-ID: <C0H2xH.BvA@news.iastate.edu>
- Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
- Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
- Distribution: usa
- Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 07:17:39 GMT
- Lines: 48
-
- In article <1993Jan6.184720.321@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de>,
- hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
- >
- >I tried an OS/2 2.0 beta 6.30x and installed TCP/IP and LAN-Server on it.
- >This is the configuration you can compare to Windows NT. I had a 27 MB
- >swapfile on a 16 MB machine. Now, that I am using the OS/2 2.0 GA, the
- >same configuration with even the database manager installed, I have
- >a swapfile of only 5 MB.
-
- Actually, I feel like I can compare the OS/2 which is on my
- machine, without TCP/IP and LAN Server, to Window NT because I just
- did a base installation (probably the same thing I would do with
- NT). Do you get a choice to have these things installed, or would I
- have to go through and manually take the networking stuff out? I
- think it makes a big difference.
-
- >
- >If you run OS/2 2.0 GA (release version) on an 8 MB machine with TCP/IP
- >and LAN-Server, the performance is really bad. So to compare OS/2 and NT.
- >In a comparable configuration (Networking and TCP/IP), performance is
- >bad with 8 MB and reasonable with 16 MB. The difference is, that Windows
- >NT is not yet speed optimized, whereas OS/2 2.0 is.
- >
- >I really don't understand all that stuff about "Windows/NT eats up all
- >my memory". It really doesn't seem to me, that it is requiring more
- >memory than OS/2.
- >
- >We really have to wait, until we have the retail version of NT to compare
- >performance and HW-resource usage. Everything else is just speculation.
- >
- >Christoph
-
- Of course, I can't load NT onto my hard drive anyway, since it:
-
- 1) Won't install if Boot manager is on the disk
- 2) Doesn't come with adaptec 1522 drivers
- 3) Won't let me install the swap file onto a different disk
- until after NT's been installed
- 4) Requires to be installed on drive C: (along with the swap
- file)
-
- If these things were fixed, I'd probably give it a try on my 8
- meg machine. Until then (and probably after) I'll be more than
- satisfied with OS/2 (had to get that advocacy in there somewhere
- :-) :-) ).
-
- Timothy Miller
-
-