HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rbotimer@max.ct.gmr.com (R Douglas Botimer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows NT: The Other side of the coin
Date: 22 Dec 92 14:21:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.013552.1171@usage.csd.unsw.OZ.AU>  
pendrith@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Mark Pendrith) writes:
:In article <1992Dec17.015023.2841@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>  
mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2) writes:
:>In article <1992Dec16.215713.22059@netcom.com> timbol@netcom.com (Mike  
Timbol) writes:
:>
:>
:>
:>>Note that some of these problems also apply to OS/2 2.x (any version).
:>>I welcome other people's input on this list, especially how you see
:>>OS/2 compare in these areas.
:>>
:>>     - Mike
:>>
:>>P.S. - I apologize for posting information about NT in this group, but
:>>       I'm sure the people that have a problem with it won't mind this
:>>       particular article.
:>
:>You posted advocacy-type info about NT here, so that is okay.  Just as long
:>as no one posts discussion-type info about NT (which would belong in some NT
:>discussion group) in an OS/2 group.  Examples of NT discussion that would
:>not be welcome in this OS/2 group is like:
:>
:>   ``>Where can I get the NT beta and a pizza?
:>     >Thanks in advance...''
:>
:>   ``Oh, just call 1-800-xxx-xxxx for NT, and xxx-xxxx for Pizza Hut.
:>     Hope this helps!''
:>
:>or
:>
:>   ``>>I know what HPFS is and NTFS is, but what is ETFS?''
:>
:>   ``>Evil Timothy F. Sipples :-)''
:>
:>   ``dont mention name to me.  he very bad person.  he spread FUD
:>     about our NT.  he is fiend.  he not deserve to live in america.
:>     send him to foreign place.  i am american since born, but evil
:>     sipples must be born jupiter or sun.  who stand up to such evil?
:>     even if we chase evil sipples out of america, some NoS/2 person
:>     take his place.''
:>
:>or
:>
:>   ``>Did anyone hear about the new game applet someone wrote for NT?''
:>
:>   ``Yes, I installed it yesterday.  In this game you must battle the
:>     Evil Sipples and his band of Amigoid-like OS/2 users.  They have
:>     been blinded by the greed of IBM.  Beware:  don't be fooled by
:>     the Evil Sipples.  He "acts" nice and helpful, but be scared -- be
:>     very, very scared.''
:>
:>i.e. when two or more NT people talk to each other.
:>
:>-- 
:>==== Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ====
:>::   ftp ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (128.123.35.151)    ::  .--.
:>::   for OS/2 software & information.  Get    :: (OS/2)
:>:::: the OS/2 FAQL   /pub/os2/all/info/faq :::::  ~--~
:
:i like this very much. NT: the New Troglodytism?
:
:BTW, has anyone else noticed that there is actually almost *no* windows 
:advocacy in the ms-windows.advocacy group? you look in there every so often, 
:and see maybe 8 or so new postings a day. all the windows odvocates (this
:was a typo, but may be a freudian slip) seem to be over here!
:
:will the last windows advocate to leave please remeber to turn the lights out, 
:etc.?
:
:- Mark
:
:pendrith@cs.unsw.oz.au

Ditto!!  I'd start discussing the merits of OS/2 in c.o.o.misc, but I'm afraid  
the Windows/NT folks would follow (some beat me there :)

Doug
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:37:32 GMT

In article <8289@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

|> If MS uses undocumented calls, then the app developers get advance warning
|> that the undocumented call they're using is going away, and they can hit the
|> street the minute that the new version is out with an update that will work
|> with the new version. Lotus, for example, doesn't have that luxury. This is on
|> top of the advantage that MS developers get in the first place by knowing that
|> the call is there.

And I'll bet that Chystler dealerships are going to be the first ones with
replacement parts for the 1994 model LeBaron.  This is a non-issue.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: OS/2, Windows, & DPMI ( was Re: OS/2 2.1 specifications, release date.
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:27:58 GMT

pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak) writes:
: In article <1gt426INNf74@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A.
: Bell) wrote:
: > 
: > 
: > Saying that windows 3.1 was not a strict implimentation of the dpmi specs
: > is an understatement.  It was in direct violation of them.  Which is ironic 
: > because microsoft developed the specs to begin with.
: > 
: > The way dpmi should work is that any dpmi program should check to see if
: > there was any dpmi server running, and if so, allow it to allocate the
: > memory.  This way, more than one dpmi program could be run at the same time.
: > Windows 3.1 refuses to allow any other dpmi memory server but it's own.
: > 
: 
: Could there be any legitimate reason for this type of behaviour or is MS
: trying to prevent other people's software from working correctly with
: Windows?  If the reason is the later, it would seem yet another item for
: the FTC.....

Can't think of a single one.
: 
: -------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Heeren Pathak                      | Millions long for immortality who do 
: pathak@mitre.org                   | not know what to do with themselves
: Mitre Corporation                  | on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
: (617) 271-7465                     |	               	-- Susan Ertz
: -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting tag - do you have a date for it? I ask because:

'We face an eternity of introspection, when all through history we
have never known what to do with ourselves on a rainy Sunday.' Isaac
Asimov, The Last Trump 1955. (Funnily enough, I just reread it a
couple of days ago, which I guess is why your tag rang a bell)

--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: ts@chainsaw.ecn.purdue.edu (Thomas Ruschak)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 08:02:12 GMT

In article <1hqe98INNsef@tamsun.tamu.edu> bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
>
>Actually, I wasn't talking about Standard Oil, I was talking about MS.
>The cost of duplicating software is negligible.  The cost of
>developing is high.  If one company has deep pockets and no controls,
>the potential exists for that company to dump the product (software) for a
>period of time until the competitor goes out of business and then
>raise the prices again.

	Yep, this is the danger. Of course, the question is whether the 
public is stupid enough not to see this happening. If they're smart, they'll
support competitors, even at a slight price minus. Are they that smart?
Big Brother says they're not...

Tom
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 2 Jan 93 00:38:55 GMT
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago

In article <1992Dec22.120639.23608@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>AT&T was only a monopoly because it was illegal to compete with it.  In fact,
>I can't name a single example of a monopoly which wasn't created by
>the goverment.

A quick look at anti-trust case history reveals several examples.
Without arguing the individual merits of each case, how about Standard
Oil or U.S. Steel?

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0h, available from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]
From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 2 Jan 1993 16:18:04 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuron.tamu.edu

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
|>z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
|>>
|>>
|>>	I Recently talked to a Beta Tester of DOS 6.0. He Runs OS/2 with 2 Hard
|>>Drives, One FAT, One HPFS. He decided to Install the DOS 6.0 Beta on the FAT
|>>Partition, and got a Message saying, and I paraphrase: 
|>>
|>>- OS/2 Detected! Due to the size of OS/2 you may wish to delete your OS/2 
|>>files before installing DOS 6.0 -
|>
|>     Interesting.  What is the problem with that?  If there was a
|>similar message that said "Autocad detected.  Due to the size of
|>Autocad you may wish to delete your Autocad files before installing
|>DOS 6.0", whould that be bad too?

The problem is that it is unprofessional.  Yes, OS/2 and MS-DOS are
competitors that offer some of the same things.  No, the warning
message as stated above is not illegal or immoral.  Its just
inappropriate. 

It strikes me that most of the employees at MS are on the young side
(read that as younger than me :-) ).  They may have felt the above
message was "cute" or "funny".  They may not have considered that not
a few people would consider it "immature".  I think MS ends up looking
small and petty for such things.
   -- Bruce
--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
                              |  Scrupulous Lawyer
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com (Peter Mayne)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Reply-To: Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 02:41:05 GMT



So those (American) people who think the FTC is morally correct because
it has the law on its side are presumably still rankled by such illegal
activities as the Boston Tea Party, which was a protest against laws
that were obviously moral because they existed.

Taxation without representation, software without Microsoft?

(Just throwing a loop. :-)

PJDM
--
Peter Mayne                     | My statements, not Digital's.
Digital Equipment Corporation   |
Canberra, ACT, Australia        | "AXP!": Bill the Cat

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 2 Jan 93 01:26:23 GMT
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago

In article <1992Dec31.165527.20830@microsoft.com> philco@microsoft.com (Phillip Cooper) writes:
>And again, I say who is forcing the vendors to sell DOS and Windows with
>each machine??  Certainly it is not Microsoft.  We explicitly offer licensing
>agreements that allow them to only pay royalties on copies of the OS which
>are actually installed.  If anyone is forcing them, it is the 99% of their
>customers who *demand* MS-DOS and Windows.  

OS/2 2.0 preinstalled systems have roughly 10% market share at
present, if my estimates are correct.  That figure is also growing,
much to Microsoft's consternation, I imagine.  I suggest you revise
your figure downward as long as you're willing to claim that bundling
equals customer demand.  Methinks not.

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0h, available from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 07:37:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.215347.1614@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <BzKsJ2.Bwp@csulb.edu>, sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>|>   Now, now, try and calm down a little bit. I doubt that anything that
>|> the FTC is contemplating will 'destroy' Microsoft.
>
>One of the options that the FTC is considering is breaking Microsoft up into
>several companies.  That's "destruction" in my book.

  Hardly. The current shareholder, Billy included, will most likely get
shares in each subsidiary and there may be a holding company. What it will
accomplish is that the developers and management in each company will not
find it so natural and convenient to share information and coordination
that ought - in the context of anti-trust law - to be more generally
available and less concentrated in the hands of a single entity.

>
>|> AT best, it will
>|> just require them to try an play an little fair(er) with the other children.
>
>I _still_ don't understand what isn't "fair" about what Microsoft is doing.
>Why shouldn't Microsoft let its application programmers talk to its OS
>programmers?  What is wrong with giving their own programmers an edge?

   Because it gives them undue power over the software market as a whole
and acts detrimentally to the market for applications software in that
Microsoft leverages its unique and restricted access to information about
it's operating environments to gain an advantage in a separate market. Now
you may not see these as separate markets but that is for the FTC to decide.

>
>|> >How Bill Gates runs his business is nobody's business but Bill Gates's.
>|> 
>|>   Sorry to disappoint you, but this issue was settle quite a long time
>|> ago when the robber barons ran roughshod over the economy and used
>|> market power in anti-ethical, non-competitive ways.
>
>I was wondering when someone was going to trot out a "robber baron" strawman.
>Stick to the issue at hand.


  It's not a straw man; and no one is claiming that BG is the modern,
techno-weenie version of them. The point was that most of anti-trust
theory and law was developed during the time of the so-called 'robber
barons' as a consequence of the effect that their business and
financial practices had upon the markets and the nation as a whole.
As a consequence, it was decided that certain practices and structures
were inherently unfair and detrimental to the nations economic health
and well-being and a result of anti-competitiveness. Now you may not
understand it or agree with it but most of it is a settled issue. The
application to individual cases, however, is a matter for the Federal
regulatory agencies and the courts, where this one will also likely
be fought out. Or have they started settling these matters on usenet
now ?



-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com (Peter Mayne)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Reply-To: Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:30:52 GMT


In article <1992Dec22.060128.26352@nosc.mil>, discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>My gripe is that
>Microsoft uses UNDOCUMENTED calls--and in the same breath, tells 
>developers not to program out of spec.  Several hack shops in my area
>get around this by using the undocumented calls that are
>"blessed" by their use by Microsoft products such as Excel and Winword.
>But it is irritating nonetheless.

So just what are these undocumented calls that Microsoft products use? Are
they part of DOS or Windows?

>-> Joe <-
>My opinions.

PJDM
--
Peter Mayne                     | My statements, not Digital's.
Digital Equipment Corporation   |
Canberra, ACT, Australia        | "AXP!": Bill the Cat

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu (RICHARD HOFFBECK)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Reply-To: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu
Organization: Colon Cancer Control Study, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:21:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.161004.19950@Celestial.COM>, ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones) writes:
> >|> Rival software companies have complained publicly and apparently to
> >|> the Federal Trade Commission that Microsoft uses "predatory
> >|> practices" in selling its operating systems. 
>  
> >Yep, that's the good ol' American way of doing business alright.  If you can't
> >compete with someone, just get the Federal Goverment to break up their 
> >company.  The real "predatory practices" going on here are those vultures
> >of rival companies who are waiting to pick the bones of what's left of
> >Microsoft after the FTC's guts the carcass.
>  
> You have not been a victem of Microsoft'a predatory practices.  Just see
> what happens if you come up with a clever inovation that might really cut
> into thier profit.  I have worked for such a company.  We just talk to a few
> companies about what we wanted to do and within 30 days got a letter from
> the Microsoft legal department that said,
> "Just try it, and we will sue you out of existance."
> Our lawyer told us we were well with in our rights BUT we could not afford
> the legal assult.  Two years later, Microsoft came out with the product.
> Nice gut, that Gates.

Perhaps you could give us the particulars, like the product in question and
why MS thought that they would have a basis for litigation. There seem to
be numerous counter-examples like Stacker, various backup utilities, disk
compressors, etc.


--rick

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:02:29 GMT

helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

>In article <BzMyJn.78M@news.iastate.edu>, TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:

>|>      Quite the opposite, I often think that laws are very unfair.  I
>|> also know that fairness of a law doesn't change the fact that the
>|> law exists, and will be enforced by the government (well,
>|> sometimes...).

>Well folks lets use this opportunity to point out a bad law.

>It prevents U.S. companies from being able to pool resources to be able to
>compete in flat panel LCD displays, DRAMS and consumer electronics with the
>Japanese and Koreans, both of which have nothing like our anti-trust laws.

Actually the main problem is that these areas require large investments
that US companies aren't willing to make. The difference is that the
Japanese companies don't have to worry as much about short-term profit.

>Compare the rate of growth of the standard of living in Japan and Korea with
>that of the U.S. and you'll clearly see that something has got to change.

They are growing faster partly because they started so far behind that
improving is easier. If you look at actual standard of living the US is still
ahead. And if you look at the prices that Japanese consumers pay for goods
you will find that they pay more than US consumers. Why? Becuase Japan
doesn't have the anti-trust laws that the US has. Keep in mind that if
the anti-trust laws you don't like were removed it would lead to higher
prices for us.

>Instead of starting a new trade war, why don't we just unhobble our companies
>and let them give 'em hell?

Do you really think that establishing a monopoly will result in better
products? Just the oposite. If you reduce the competition the quality
goes down, not up. 

>Computer Software is of only a very few areas in which the U.S. Economy shines.
>It is also one of the very few areas which hasn't been regulated to death.

If you really look at the areas where we messed up it wasn't because of
regulations. US business get lazy and got pounded when the Japanese
came into the market with better products.

>Don't you all think that the U.S. Goverment and U.S. Business have a
>very adversarial relationship?  Wouldn't it be better if instead of
>working against our best companies the goverment would work with them?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net            uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 04:29:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.214302.12214@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
> In article <1992Dec24.200625.4977@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
> >
> >I am getting 4 x 4meg simms on Tuesday. As for the FUD....I am relating what
> >happened when I used NT. If it weren't true.....that might be FUD. The fact
> >is, the system needs 16megs of RAM and eats up 90megs of hard disk....whatever
> >machine you install it on.....
> 
>     Steve, I'm disappointed in you.  The above is clearly FUD - the fact
> that the Windows NT installation that you tested didn't perform well
> for you says nothing about all the other machines in the world, unless
> you feel that your single PC is somehow representative of PCs
> everywhere.  I also suspect that your copy of Windows NT was poorly
> installed - I've been using Windows NT for months now and have only
> crashed once.  And it takes less that 90MB of disk space for me.

Hi Phil
 
Just a bit of additional info: The co-worker of mine in Auckland who sent me
the hard disk with NT on it did the install. I have no idea what options he
chose....but i do know that he installed it on a system like mine almost
exactly. 
 
NT looked alright. It won't run in 8 megs, though, which rules it out for most
people here in New Zealand. Most people can scrap together the NZ$320 for an
upgrade to 8 megs from 4 megs. Most can't afford the NZ$1,280  outlay for an
upgrade to 16 megs from 8 megs (replace 8x1meg simms with 4x4meg simms).
 
We also pay 12.5% value-added tax on those amounts......
 
So, for new Zealand, Windows NT is likely to be irrelevant, as OS/2 will
provide almost all the same functionality on a machine that can be more
inexpensively attained.

That was my basic problem with NT. It offers few advantages to the ordinary
user that they can't obtain by using OS/2 - where ever they may live. Yet it
consumes considerably more in the way of resources and i can't see that
changing........not to the degree that NT will run ok on a 4meg 386DX/25 like
OS/2 2.1 does.....
 
Steve
 

-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
+64 4 478 4714                          | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".