🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

I don't trust your "facts." How can you (or your "facts") say that the
P6 will only be 10% faster than the Pentiums of today
(P75/90/100/120/133)? That's ridiculous. If it's true, then nobody
will buy the P6, and Intel will be out of business. I don't think
Intel is that stupid.

Furthermore, the reason that people aren't using OS/2 Warp or
especially Windows 3.5 NT en masse is because they are not as
compatible with DOS and Windows 3.1x programs as Windows 95.

I used to be sympathetic to people like you (people who "promote"
OS/2) but people like you have just overdone it. I DO want Microsoft
to have competition; Microsoft should have 50% of the market and IBM
should have the other 50% of the market. Your post is "HUGE NEWS" only
to people who want Windows 95 to fail, no matter what!