🚀 go-pugleaf

Logi flaw alert!!!

In <DBC1y...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> rjva...@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Rob Vanden Heuvel) writes:

>When Intel Corp.'s next-generation P6 processor arrives in systems late this
>year, it will offer only meager performance gains when running Windows 95, 
>leading many PC makers -- and corporate buyers -- to bypass the new operating
>system in favor of Windows NT or OS/2 Warp. 

>Testing of the preproduction Intel microprocessor shows that Windows 95 runs 
>only about 10 percent faster on P6 than on a high-speed Pentium processor 
>because of the significant amount of 16-bit code in the operating system,
>according to leading PC makers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. 

>   Other articles spoke of the P6's performance stating that 32-bit applications
>will run as much as twice on a P6 than on a Pentium at the same clock speed
>due to the P6 being optimized for 32-bit code.  That's quite a bit better than
>the measly 10 percent increase for Windows 95 users!  By the end of 1995, the
>mighty Windows 95 will be crippling the performance of all your precious 32-bit
>Windows apps that you just spent so much money on!

...But only if you are using a P6, and consider "crippled" to mean "not twice
as fast as a Pentium."  Also, when Win95 is running 32 bit code in a 32 bit
application, it is not running 16 bit code in the compatiblity modules.  If
you switch to 32 bit applications, and 32 bit device drivers, you will not
be running very much 16 bit code.  I find the "only 10%" figure to be
specious.

>Windows 95 is a dead end
>not a fresh beginning.  Don't waste your money and your time with it.  Go for
>OS/2!

[...and later...]

>   After hearing this, it seems to me as though nobody in their right mind would
>"upgrade" to Windows 95.  So the alternatives are NT and OS/2.  Seeing as NT
>isn't really viable for the home user (unless you have a massively powerful
>system) 

If you have a P6, isn't that a "massively powerful system?"  If you don't have
a P6, does this issue matter?

>and has such compatibility problems, OS/2 is the clear choice of the
>future.

As it has been all along, availability of applications users want to run
determines whether a OS is successful, not performance.  It's never been the
other way around, I don't see why it would change in the next 10 years.

If performance was the key factor in the success and acceptance of an
operating system, we'd all be using Linux, and OS/2 and NT would be bad
memories.
-- 
%%%%%%% Mike Batchelor %%%%%%%% http://www.clark.net/pub/mikebat/www/ %%%%%%%%
  "The avalanche has already begun.  It is too late for the pebbles to vote."