🚀 go-pugleaf

Interesting stuff.  Do you work for IBM or something, you certainly fly a blue flag over 
you house.

On the other hand.....Fortune 500 rated Microsoft at about 46 on the list.  Annual revenue 
a few billion, Market value was higher than GM for ****** sakes and GM's revenues were in 
the 30 billion range.

I think it would be a cold day in hell before you and your industry pundits are proved 
correct.  Sure MS may have some problems with P6 performance, but don't doubt that Bill 
Buddy could lull Big Blue to sleep again, and slip out Cairo.  WIN NT with Object Oriented 
interface.  It is already in Beta from what I have heard.  MS is also looking at the 
market of 75 million PC's with a WIN3.X product that are not P6's.   And don't think that 
Bill buddy doesn't have the best marketing analyists working for him - because he does.  
Bill is going to grab a major chunk of cash with this forward and backward WIN95 OS by 
serving it up to the home market, and then tweek-up NT for the next generation of chips.

I will look for these wonderful articles that you deliver to us like they are pages from 
the Bible...however, I find it hard to understand why an OS with portions of GDI and USER 
in 16 bit having only 10% performance gain on a chip with twice the transistors?  I am 
know expert but that seems to go against the grain that has been demonstrated through X86 
compatable Intel upgrades in the last few years.  Anyway, IBM OS/whatever may have the 
same problem, if it runs 16 bit apps on a P6 and yes 16 bit apps will dominate for 
sometime.  Touchdown!  Back to reality, most users are not geeks that need the latest and 
greatest performance, most of the 75 million WIN users are comfortable with their apps and 
don't want them changed.  I know my Office suite works performs fine for me under WIN95.  
I don't lose valuable minutes anymore with my P90, but then maybe that will change in a 
couple a years, and yes maybe I will have a preview edition of Cairo then.....so don't 
count Bill dead before he even tried the salmon mouse - Pathetic Python homage.

SYL,

SMD

/NEP ;-)





rjva...@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Rob Vanden Heuvel) wrote:
>Everyone interested in the "OS Wars" will surely be interested in this!
>
>The most recent PC Week had this to say about Intel's P6 chip:
>----clip----
>
>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. 
>
>Since the P6 is optimized for native 32-bit unsegmented code, running 16-bit 
>code results in continued switching of memory segments, and thus, slower
>performance, according to sources close to Intel. 
>
>An official at another top 10 PC company concurred. "The only operating systems
>appropriate for P6 platforms are those that are true 32-bit, such as NT or OS/2
>Warp," said the executive. "We will test for Windows 95 compatibility and
>certification but will not ship it with our P6 [systems]." 
>
>Meanwhile, Microsoft officials say they have no immediate plans to optimize
>Windows 95 for the P6. 
>
>---clip---
>
>
>   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!  Windows 95 is a dead end
>not a fresh beginning.  Don't waste your money and your time with it.  Go for
>OS/2!
>
>   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) and has such compatibility problems, OS/2 is the clear choice of the
>future.  Besides, a failure of Windows 95 (which is actually looking quite
>possible if people get informed in time) would mean that Microsoft would be
>dead in the water in the OS arena.  The OS/2 market will boom if people have
>any sense!
>
>
>Rob Vanden Heuvel
>
>The facts speak for themselves, I just reiterate them.