🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <42tqfk$p...@news.halcyon.com>, cyg...@halcyon.com (Wayne Hixson)
writes:
>
> Msg-ID: <42tqfk$p...@news.halcyon.com>
> References: <42q93s$f...@usenet4.interramp.com>
> Posted: 10 Sep 1995 04:44:36 GMT
>
> Org.  : Northwest Nexus Inc.
>
> In article <42q93s$f...@usenet4.interramp.com>, pp00...@interramp.com
> 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.
>


Hmm I stopped reading Pc Magazine a long time ago. It's obvious they are
going to be "biased" toward's Microsoft and not say anything good about
OS/2. After all im sure Bill gates can afford to bribe the major Pc
magazines :-)