My 640k thread has become an OS/2 thread, so here I reboot it with an
accurate name.

I'm not opposed to OS/2. It's interesting to play with, to see what it
can do. But it's not a religion. I won't defend it at all costs, truth
be damned. Proselytizing may be tolerable when truthful, but misleading
enthusiasm that conceals the facts, is not.

Installing OS/2 is not an easy task for a typical computer user. That's
one reason why there are so few users of OS/2. Users who can install it
have technical skill above average.

I'm willing to dicusss facts about OS/2. Such as network performance. I
have one box where I can boot Windows 3.1 or OS/2 Warp 4. Both have
Netware Client installed, and connect to a Netware 5.1 server. Both run
on the exact same hardware.

I login to the Netware server and change to a directory containing the
PCBoard source code.  I start a compile of the \lib source and time it.
The compiler runs on the client, the files are on the server. It's a
good benchmark of file serving performance.

On Windows 3.1, the compile takes 10 seconds. On OS/2, 36 seconds. The
Netware Client for OS/2 is slow in comparison to DOS/Windows. It may be
Novell's fault, and not IBM's. But it's true, and makes OS/2 look bad.

--- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 250 Beta