3 ms·
Neither did Amiga. Also OS/2 was performant on equivalent hardware at the time.
by desiarnezjr 3y ago
Neither did Amiga. Also OS/2 was performant on equivalent hardware at the time.
- woleium 3y agoOS/2 was great! Most of the dev team went on to write Windows NT.
- mnd999 3y agoThe Amiga did have superior custom graphics chips (I guess a GPU in today's language, although entirely 2D focused) which helped a lot.
- bitwize 3y agoThe Atari ST lacked a blitter, but also had a GUI environment less miserable than Windows 2.0. Industry pundits called it the "Jackintosh", as it was Jack Tramiel's budget answer to the Macintosh.
- Narishma 3y agoOS/2 required much more resources than Windows 2, which is what we're talking about here.