Comparison on Performance
=========================

Microsoft Corporation on October 10th published performance numbers
comparing OS/2 Warp Beta II to a non-public Windows 95.  As we
understand, the performance numbers were pulled from many bulletin
boards due to complaints pointing out glaring inaccuracies.  The
The document is still available on the Microsoft internet server.

The performance numbers published by Microsoft are inaccurate and
unreliable for the following reasons:

 1.  The percentage numbers were 100% too high; for
     instance, if  Microsoft asserted that Windows 95 was 20%
     better than OS/2 Warp the Microsoft document calls Windows 95
     120% faster.  This error occurred 48 times in the Microsoft
     document.  Even though this has been pointed out for
     weeks Microsoft still has not corrected it.

 2.  Our tests conclude that the Windows for Workgroups (WFW)
     and Windows 95 machines must have had a 32-bit Western Digital
     controller (or equivalent) for disk access, which Microsoft's
     32-bit VFAT driver takes advantage of.  This configuration is
     not the default or the representative config in the market.

 3.  Microsoft used OS/2 Warp Beta II which was tuned for 4MB as
     were Beta I and the released product.

 4.  OS/2 Warp uses different installation parameters when
     installing on 4MB machines.  Microsoft we suspect installed
     OS/2 Warp on a machine "with greater than 4MB and then
     stripped memory to get down to a 4MB configuration."

 5.  The disk cache size for WFW was configured 4 times larger
     than the disk cache size for OS/2 Warp giving WFW a
     totally unfair advantage.

We ran performance tests comparing OS/2 Warp's performance to
Windows 3.1 and Windows for Workgroups.  Since Windows 95 is
still under Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) we were unable to do
any performance testing but we would be happy do so if Microsoft
agrees to provide us with a copy.  Our performance test found
that in many cases OS/2 Warp does outperform WFW 3.11 and Windows
3.11 in 4Mb of memory.  We used the Generally Available versions
of OS/2 Warp, Windows for Workgroups 3.11 and Windows 3.11 using
default configurations with the disk cache was set to 256Kb for
all systems.  All of the tests were run on the following machine:


               Machine Configuration
         =====================

     Machine:                      IBM PS/Value Point
     Processor:                    486DX
     CoProcessor:                  Installed
     Speed:                        25Mhz
     Hard Disk:                    Maxtor 244 Mb IDE model 7245A
     System Memory:                4Mb
     External Cache:               256Kb
      Internal Cache:              8Kb
     Video Memory:                 1024Kb
     Flash EEPROM Revision Level: L9ET30AU

Several user scenarios designed to measure OS/2 Warp's
performance against Windows 3.1 in a multiple application
environment yield better performance for OS/2 Warp in 4Mb of
memory:

     - Lotus 123 + MS Money + Winclock running concurrently
           -- OS/2 Warp is 7% faster than Windows 3.1


      - Lotus 123 + Quicken + Winclock running concurrently
           -- OS/2 Warp is 11% faster than Windows 3.1

     - Lotus 123 + Amipro + Winclock running concurrently
           -- OS/2 Warp is 7% faster than Windows 3.1


Printing in OS/2 Warp is significantly faster than in Windows 3.1

  -   Printing using Wordperfect for Windows 3.1 is
      approximately 40% faster under OS/2 Warp vs. Win 3.1 in a
      multitasking environment using the HP560C printer.
      (multitasking accomplished by downloading  a file from
      CompuServe while printing.)

  -   On an HP560C, printing using Wordperfect for Windows is
      30% faster in OS/2 Warp.

When comparing the products for read and write times you find
that OS/2 Warp is significantly faster.  We tested various record
sizes in random and sequential format attached below are some of
the results in Kilobytes per Second (Kbs).


When reading 200 Byte record in a random read and a cache of 256K

                               File Size

               256K     1M      2M      4M       8M       16M     32M
               ======================================================
WFW             148      9       7       7        6        5       4
OS/2 Warp       291     12      11      10        8        8       8
               ------------------------------------------------------
% Warp Faster   97%     33%     57%     43%       33%      60%    100%
_______________________________________________________________________


When reading 2K Byte record in a random read and a cache of 256K

                               File Size

               256K     1M      2M      4M       8M       16M     32M
               ======================================================
WFW            1566     93      78      70       62       53       40
OS/2 Warp      2319    115     102      94       93       88       79
               ------------------------------------------------------
% Warp Faster  48%      24%     31%     34%      50%      66%      97%
_______________________________________________________________________


When reading a 512 Byte record in a sequential read and a cache of 256K

                               File Size

               256K     1M      2M      4M       8M       16M     32M
               ======================================================
WFW            563      641     654     643      638      631     622
OS/2 Warp      617      682     682     707      711      697     688
               ------------------------------------------------------
% Warp Faster  10%       6%      4%     10%      11%      10%     11%
_______________________________________________________________________


When reading a 4K Byte record in a sequential read and a cache of 256K


                               File Size

               256K     1M      2M      4M       8M       16M     32M
               ======================================================
WFW            592      710     714     714      707      693     691
OS/2 Warp      2072     862     878     492      891      883     888
               ------------------------------------------------------
% Warp Faster  250%     21%     23%     -45%     26%      27%     29%
_______________________________________________________________________


When writing a 200 Byte record in a random write and a cache of 256K

                               File Size

               256K     1M      2M      4M       8M       16M     32M
               ======================================================
WFW             76       6       5       4        4        3       3
OS/2 Warp      184       8       8       7        6        5       6
               ------------------------------------------------------
% Warp Faster  142%     33%      60%     75%      50%     67%     100%
_______________________________________________________________________


When writing a 512 Byte record in a random write and a cache of 256K

                               File Size

               256K     1M      2M      4M       8M       16M     32M
               ======================================================
WFW            287      32      29      27       24       18      13
OS/2 Warp      306      39      37      35       33       33      33
               ------------------------------------------------------
% Warp Faster  7%       22%     28%     30%      38%      83%    154%
_______________________________________________________________________


When writing a 200 Byte record in a sequential write and a cache of 256K

                               File Size

               256K     1M      2M      4M       8M       16M     32M
               ======================================================
WFW            221      149     147     148      150      148     148
OS/2 Warp      314      314     221     314      310      302     301
               ------------------------------------------------------
% Warp Faster  42%      111%    50%     112%     107%     104%    103%
_______________________________________________________________________


When writing a 512 Byte record in a sequential write and a cache of 256K

                               File Size

               256K     1M      2M      4M       8M       16M     32M
               ======================================================
WFW            353      361     363     363      361       357    355
OS/2 Warp      517      620     623     373      622       623    359
               ------------------------------------------------------
% Warp Faster  46%      72%     72%     3%       72%       75%     1%

_______________________________________________________________________


To truly compare the performance of Windows for Workgroups to
Warp in 4 Meg we suggest that you compare the time it takes to
perform an everyday task on a Windows system using existing
applications and a system that has been Warped using the Bonus
Pak applications.

Scenario:  Fax a memo to a business associate and get back to
doing something else.

         Warp               Windows or Windows for Workgroups 3.11
         ====               ======================================

   1.  Open Address Book              1.  Start Application
   2.  Drag business cards onto       2.  Select File from pull down
       document                           menu
   3.  Drag document to Fax machine   3.  Select Open
   4.  Click on OK for cover sheet    4.  Select Document
   5.  Do other work                  5.  Click on OK
                                      6.  Wait for the document to open
                                      7.  Select File from pull down
                                          menu
                                     8.   Select Printer Setup
                                     9.   Select the Fax printer
                                     10.  Click on OK
                                     11.  Select File from pull down
                                          menu
                                     12.  Select Print
                                     13.  Click on OK
                                     14.  Key in phone number and
                                          cover sheet information
                                     15.  Click on OK
                                     16.  Wait until faxing is over
                                     17.  Close application
                                     18.  Do other work

We have presented performance data where OS/2 Warp performs
better than WFW and Windows 3.11.  We understand that it is
possible to create other operating environment to achieve
performance results that are desired.  The operating system you
choose really does make a difference.  We hope that you choose
the reliable, stable, proven operating system that protects your
existing investments and gives you the ability to exploit future
technology.
