The OS/2 and Windows War

Barry Nance's "Big Blue's Speed Trip" (March) sounded like it was written by a politician. OS/2 advocates are getting scared of Windows 95, just like politicians up for reelection with the polls against them. Nance states that "Warp is a more mature operating system than...Windows 95," and "Unlike Warp, Windows 95 will have a hard time running in 4 MB of RAM." Not only are these statements false but his article doesn't substantiate them. I'm running Windows 95 on a 386 with 4 MB of RAM, emulating a NetWare server. Granted, our 386 runs about one-fifth the speed of our $40,000 Compaq server, but that's pretty good for a $500 machine.

Earl and Cathy Malmrose
malmrose@cyberspace.com

What a pleasant surprise to read your thorough article on OS/2 (aka Warp). I was a reluctant convert to OS/2 when 2.0 was release d, and I wasn't prepared for the difference a robust OS would make in the day-to-day use of my computer. I went with OS/2 to use SAS Institute's Statistical Analysis System for OS/2. I stayed with OS/2 because I couldn't believe the difference it made for my DOS applications. That was on a 20-MHz 386SX with 8 MB of RAM. With Warp and 16 MB on a Pentium, it's even nicer. But the performance improvement from changing hardware pales compared to the difference that moving from DOS (and intermittent use of Windows) made. That was three years ago. Those who make the shift now will be even more favorably impressed by OS/2.

Michael S. Lundy, M.D., M.S.
76420.1554@compuserve.com