🚀 go-pugleaf

bgr...@daheim.ping.at (Bernhard Rems) wrote:

>Greetings,

>In his article, cyg...@halcyon.com wrote:



>>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.

>Don't let them fool you. I mean, the multitasking advantages of OS/2 are  
>that obvious, even the biggest winvocates don't deny them. Given a fair  
>setup, OS/2 is way better (and my daily experience confirms that in every  
>aspect).

The PC Labs* test setup was done with advice from IBM tech support for
the OS/2 tests. Yes, it did very well on pentiums, but so did Win 95;
However, on a Compaq Deskpro 486/33, data communications dropped from
200 kb per minute (single tasked) to about 140 kbpm when multitasked
with concurrent XCOPY activities (using FAT) and to about 100 kbpm
(using HPFS).  

I was surprised by these results. Maybe kinds of multitasking other
than these are different, I am looking forward to seeing more tests
and data in the future. 

* Ref. PC Labs, published PC Magazine 9/26/95, page 159
cyg...@halcyon.com