home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
- Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ira.uka.de!gmd.de!strobl
- From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
- Subject: Re: How to make OS/2 look bad ...
- Message-ID: <strobl.721261132@gmd.de>
- Sender: news@gmd.de (USENET News)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: gmdzi
- Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
- References: <1992Nov7.173054.6379@wam.umd.edu> <4310@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> <strobl.721229440@gmd.de> <1992Nov8.210307.29172@muddcs.claremont.edu>
- Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:18:52 GMT
- Lines: 30
-
- In <1992Nov8.210307.29172@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
-
- >In article <strobl.721229440@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
- >>>This is not different that MS claiming that you _can_ run Windows on a 286
- >>>with 1 mb of ram. Of course, noone ever does this except to prove that it
- >>>can be done.
- >>
- >>Not so fast! I did that (i.e. run Windows on a 286 with 1MByte)
- >>for years, and was quite satisfied with its overall performance.
- >>
- >>Don't claim that nobody did something sucessfully, just because
- >>*you* never did.
-
- >I'll do you one better, Wolfgang. I ran Windows on an XT with 1 meg and a
- >Hercules card.
-
- An XT with 384 KBytes of Expanded Memory?
-
- >It blew donkey dicks, to use a colorful turn of expression.
- >Far worse than OS/2 in 4 megs (I should know). But the point here isn't
- >who's satisfied with running which OS on which class of machine. The
- >original complaint was that calling 4 megs a minimum for OS/2 is stupid.
-
- Perhaps. But calling 1024 KByte a minimum for Windows isn't. For running
- a 300 K application (or two 150 K applications) Windows on a 1M machine
- is a much better environment than OS/2 on a 4M machine. Especially
- if you hard disk is slow.
-
- Wolfgang Strobl
- #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
-