🚀 go-pugleaf

In <42tqfk$p...@news.halcyon.com>, cyg...@halcyon.com (Wayne Hixson) writes:
>In article <42q93s$f...@usenet4.interramp.com>, pp001072@interramp.comn says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>....You are right, but, so is he. OS/2 is a better multi-tasker than
>>Windows 95, but thanks to Microsofts stranglehold, it will be the future
>>aren't solid native apps..but, its too bad IBM didn't do a better job
>>on the installation procedure and user support for OS/2, because the fact
>>is its a better multi-tasker.
>>
>People keep saying "OS/2 is a better multitasker". Where's the data? PC Labs 
>just ran extensive tests on multiple machines from 4 to 32 MB and 486/33 to 
>pentium. Ran 16 and 32 bit multitasking tests on Win 95, OS/2 Warp and Warp 
>Connect, NT, win 3.1 and WfWG. Tests involved heavy disk I/O run in 
>parallel with heavy data communications. 
>
>OS/2 was NOT repeat NOT the 'better mutlitasker'! On Pentiums, performance was 
>about equal to Win 95. On slower machines, Win 95 was BETTER!!! Less 
>degradation! The results are documented in great detail in PC Magazine which 
>hit the shelves today.
>

You must have missed the TV show that tested Warp & Win95 side bye
side!. They created a batch transfer to transfer several files at high
speeds. Both Warp and Win95 completed the task in 4min 15 sec. Next they
repeated the same test but this time they loaded MS Word on both
machines. Warp still took 4 min and 15 sec to transfer the files but
Win95 took 16 1/2 minutes to complete the transfer. They even called the
MS support line and tried everything that was suggested but could not
reduce that transfer time!. I think this was on CNN but I could be
wrong. Now that you know how much slower Win95 is at multi-tasking
comunications software you can understand why Warp shines so well when
it comes to Internet operations.