"Austin L. Denyer" wrote:
> > > There never was much support for OS/2. Comparatively few
> applications
> > > were ever ported, and (compared to the competition at the time) was
> a
> > > real resource hog.
> >
> > To what are you comparing it, specifically? Boot time was far quicker
> than
> > Windows, IIRC.
>
> Well, when I tried it (which was a good few years ago now) Windoze 3.1
> was king, Win95 was still a dream project called Chicago, a college
> student called Linus Torvalds had just started releasing a (then very
> basic) Minix/unix clone on an unsuspecting world, and my 486 with 8megs
> of RAM made me the envy of my colleagues. OS/2 was a slug on 8megs, and
> really needed 16megs to start performing. Now, I was living in the UK
> at the time, with RAM costing $130/meg...
I seem to recall a ZD article suggesting that OS/2 was king if it had 16
megs of ram; however, comparing OS/2 to Win3.1 is a lot like comparing
minix to unix. You get what you pay for in a sense. If you were to open
five applications in os/2 and the same five applications (or close
substitutes) in win3.1, I think you'd see os/2 just beating the snot out of
windows.
> Anyway, I'm interested in your comments, as I gave up with OS/2 fairly
> quickly and would love to hear a more informed opinion, although I think
> we ought to take this thread to private e-mail before the net.police get
> us #;-D
>
> Regards,
> Ozz.
Please don't ... I'll cheerfully add a <OT> and look forward to more
conversation on the subject.
--
Larry Hignight Descent 3 Beta tester Caldera Linux 2.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3:45pm up 27 days, 23:53, 5 users, load average: 0.11, 0.12, 0.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
