🚀 go-pugleaf

sl...@unix.infoserve.net (Slang) wrote:
>How will increasing the swap file make OS/2 faster,wouldn't it just 
>increase the amount of memory available as a swap file and therefore 
>allow you to open a larger program or graphics file?I don't see how it 
>would increase the speed.For what it's worth a magazine up here in Canada 
>did extensive comparison tests between beta Win95,OS/2 and System 7.5 for 
>Mac and they determined thet Win95 is faster and less demanding than OS/2.
>Win95 is also more robust according to them but they did say that both 
>operating systems had their good and bad points.Remember though that 
>Win95 is still beta so I am sure the final product will be improved from 
>what it is now.That's my 0.02 cents worth.

I am running a beta copy at work, and I am singularly unimpressed
with it.  I have used OS/2, and I can say without qualification
that OS/2 is more robust than Win95.  It has full-fledged
multi-tasking, which is more than Win96 can say, and it is a 
single unified OS.  Win95 hides DOS from you, or rather it
tries to, but it is still there.  It is not fully back-
compatible any more than OS/2 3.0, either.  The speed improevment
over Win 3.1 is phenomenal, (I have two identical machines running
on my desktop, so I can compare easily) it's about as fast as Warp
from what I can tell.  It does multi-task, though not fully
pre-emptively, fairly well, in that disk I/O no longer halts
the machine as it did in Win3.1.  The interface is much better, 
no more of that silly Program MisManager and File MisManager.
32-bit software is quite quick on it, also.  It is a tremendous
improvement over its predecessor, and I prefer it to Windows NT,
simply b/c it is faster and has a better interface OpenGL or
no.  It's much smaller, so this is not a surprise.  

Well, whatever.  That's my take on the Final Beta.  It would
be nice if MS would start with an actual 32-bit fully pre-emptive
OS, but that hasn't happened yet.

-Rakesh