[5] in OS/2_Discussion
Disk hog?
pshuang@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (pshuang@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Wed Jan 15 13:42:49 1992
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 upgrade price: $95
Nntp-Posting-Host: bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1992 01:12:51 GMT
donnel@helix.nih.gov (Donald A. Lehn) writes:
>
>As far as being a better Windows than Windows, I have several friends
>that are beta testing both Windows 3.1 and OS/2 2.0 and they say that
>although OS/2 is better than Windows 3.0, It doesn't come near to being
>as fast as Windows 3.1 and since there aren't a lot of, and probably
>won't be a lot of for the near future, OS/2 2.0 specific programs, there
>is little reason why anyone should install a new operating system just
>so that they can run their current applications slower.
Good point. I don't have any personal experience about how fast
OS/2 2.0 runs Windows apps, but I would suppose that since Windows
apps were made for a 16-bit OS, the emulation (or the built-in Windows
compatibility) of OS/2 will run them more slowly. The same is true
of Windows NT--Microsoft just admitted that Windows apps will run
more slowly under NT than under plain Windows/DOS, but that's because
emulation is inherently slower.
On the other hand, it remains to be seen how much the High Performance
File System, integrated disk cache, and 32-bit graphics engine of
OS/2 2.0 will offset the slowness.
Don't forget that speed is not the only factor here, though. Reliability,
DOS multitasking, etc. have to be factored in when thinking about Win 3.1
vs. OS/2 2.0.
>By the way, how much disk space does OS/2 2.0 eat up? I've heard that it
>is about 40 mb. Is this correct? And will I be able to install OS/2 2.0,
>Word for Windows, ATM, and MS-Excel on my 40 mb laptop and still have room
>left over for data files? I can do this with Windows 3.1 and it works
>just fine.
With only 40 MB you will probably be too constrained, at least from what
I've heard. Installation will take 15-30 MB of your 40 MB (it does NOT
take 40 MB to install!!!). For your situation, I would stay with
Win 3.1; other OS/2 users might disagree, but this is a situation where
simple usability and speed are probably more important than all the
advanced features that OS/2 might give you.
15-30 MB is not much considering that Windows and DOS take up about
10 MB by themselves, and OS/2 2.0 comes with Windows 3.0/3.1 and
DOS 5.0 built in (meaning that you won't need to go out and buy them
separately and install them on top of OS/2). This means that the
extra 5-15 MB which OS/2 2.0 gobbles up offers you the following added
features:
32-bit multithreading, preemptive, multitasking OS
32-bit graphics engine
new 32-bit Procedures Language/2 REXX
80387 emulation
more applets than Windows
HPFS (High Performance File System with long filenames and extended
attributes)
better cache than Smart Drive
Windows 2.x compatibility
OS/2 1.x compatibility
OS/2 2.0 32-bit compatibility
more and better online help (namely, the Information Presentation Facility
[IPF--IBM loves fancy acronyms :] which drives the online contextual
help, OS/2 tutorial, and other online information)
object-oriented Work Place Shell configurable to look like Windows or
OS/2 PM
code which enables the booting of specific external DOS's (including
DR DOS 5.0 and 6.0) inside an OS/2 VM
far better comm program and terminal emulator
...plus tons of little things, like ability to use mouse within
DOS windows, security between Windows apps, totally configurable
colors for each separate window, use of virtual memory for running
apps...
Not bad for 5-15 MB extra. (WC2 with speech takes up 21 MB on my HD.)
Stephen M. Smith \ __|__ / " #*&<-[89s]*(k#$@-_=//a2$]'+=.(2_&*%>,,@
<smsmith@magnus.acs. \ | / {7%*@,..":27g)-=,#*:.#,/6&1*.4-,l@#9:-) "
ohio-state.edu> \ | /
BTW, WYSInaWYG \ | / --witty.saying.ARC
