Fwd: Re: Win95 - the REAL facts... geez anywaze

[Stuart Reynolds <stuartr -at- FIRSTGRAPHICS -dot- COM>]

-- [ From: Stuart Reynolds * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] --

> This topic is boring the multitudes and is probably disallowed.
 Uh-huh..

It is very good marketing good and bad, by MS's PR gang.  DId you al have
this much debate over Warp when it cam out?  I'd wager not.  I mad the
commment originally, as the person it was to, was looking at both and unsure
.  I *HAVE* done REAL performance test, with both operating systems and
rather than lat soemone go no speculation, as seemns to be quite a
commonality around here, I thought I would share *actual findings*.  I
tested to see which OS would better suit my needs.  I am actually a TEAM
OS/2 member.  *BUT* for the apps I run and use for biznus, I have to say,
unfortunately, that warp doesn't handle the performance as well as win '95
does.  This *IS NOT* speculative, this is based on fact as I have run it.
SO, as far as running on  an 8MB 486 with corelDRAW4.0 & 5.0, Pagmaker 5.0,
Photstyler 2.0, Word 6.0 and a few other graphic and text utils, yes folks
the RELEASE version of win'95 does it better, smoother and faster than Warp.
Yes I have had two GPF's, but then again, I had the same GPF's for the same
problem (I wanted to see if I could recreate it) under OS/2.  So, it is up
to you to decide, but I too think this is getting to be too much.  If it is
a discussion about an OS for performance improvements at our job then cool,
but not another damn OS war.. re: the mac/win one that started form a
simplke request for information....   Funny, I seem to remember a message by
someone in the list a while ago, condemming people for taking what they read
and turingin it into something that it wasn't and never started out as...yet
, that is exactly what happens here all too often.

Stui

--
  stuartr -at- firstgraphics -dot- com