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   
    * Origin: Torres Vedras - Portugal (2:362/6)