HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sam@ms.uky.edu (Mike Mills)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
    <1992Sep25.164035.24984@nosc.mil> <pathak-260992141946@virtual.mitre.org> 
    <1992Sep26.211039.24073@muddcs.claremont.edu> 
    <1992Oct03.232108.18990@microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:09:05 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

>In article <1992Oct3.052735.869@leland.Stanford.EDU> jswang@leland.Stanford.EDU wrote:

>> 
>> Actually, I think I myself tend to "multitask preemptively" a lot.  Like when
>> I need to wait for something (for food to be cooked), I often would go
>> off and do something else, then come back after say five minutes.  If I
>> need to continue the wait, I'll just continue doing that something else, then
>> return to check again after a while.  Would you consider this "mulitasking
>> preemptively".
>> 

>Tell you what, though, try this.

>Sit down to do something like, say, your income taxes.  Get one of those
>kitchen timers, and set it for 5 minutes.  Do your taxes.  When the
>bell goes off, reset the timer, and go read the newspaper.  When the bell
>goes off, reset the timer again, and watch TV.  and so on, and so on.

>If you don't scramble your brains after a while, I'm impressed.

>Now, also, in your boiling water deal, wouldn't you much more prefer to
>set a timer, or have some sort of an alarm that goes off when the
>water is boiling.  I find it distracting to have to go back to check
>on boiling water more than one or two times.

>Now, if you did have an alarm of that type, wouldn't boiling water be
>more equivalent to sending a request to the disk controller, and then
>servicing the interrupt it generates when it's done.

>Okay, I've gone off on sort of a tangent here, but I guess I've tried to
>point out that preemptive multitasking is not the only method for doing
>things in the real world, as well as in the computer world.  And in some
>cases, it's not the best.


>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...


That is an absurd analogy, and has no bearing on operating systems.

The only time preemptive multitasking is not the best method is when its not
the method used in the operating system you're trying to sell.

IMHO, preemptive multitasking is a requirement.  Also, any OS should be
multiuser.  This is a shortcoming in both NT and OS/2.  With machines
becoming more and more powerful, there is an increasing need for multiuser
operating systems, in order to take better advantage of the underlying machine.



-- 
--Mike Mills              E-Mail:  sam@ms.uky.edu, {rutgers, uunet}!ukma!sam
--UK Math Sciences Dept.                  mike@ukpr.uky.edu    
--(606) 257-1429 (work) 263-0721 (home)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Multitasking (was MS's misconduct!)
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:27:41 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Sep28.210112.15594@ans.net> db3l@ans.net wrote:
> In article <1992Sep28.025600.17618@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Sep25.173913.14976@digi.lonestar.org> mmitchel@digi.lonestar.org wrote:
> >> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> >> 
> >> >I guess you misunderstood me.  I said use one app at a time.  I don't
> >> >care how many icons you have at the bottom of the screen, you aren't using
> >> >them.  I don't care how many stopped jobs you have in the background, you
> >> >aren't using them.  I don't care how many things are blocking on user
> >> >input, 'cause if they're blocking, then you're not using them.
> >> >[...]
> >> >I didn't say having one app on the screen at a time.  Use to me means
> >> >interacting with the app, not it's mere existence.
> >> >[...]
> >> >petesk@microsoft.com
> >> >My Opinions...
> >> 
> >>    (useful background operations:
> >>	appointments, spooling, mail/news delivery)
> >
> >I do these on a daily basis, on a Win31 machine (non-premptive),
> >while running Word, or Solitaire, or whatever.  
> 
> Alright - now you've got me confused.  Aren't you effectively using
> multitasking?  Aren't you *using* more than one app at the same time?  Your
> background jobs aren't stopped - they're running at the same time that you
> use Word or Solitaire or whatever.

Look Fred, someone else called me on this.  Dave, thank you for doing this
in a sane way without calling my mother names or anything.

The main point that I was trying, appearently unclearly, to get across is
that preemptive multitasking is not the savior of the world, as both sides
of the OS/2 and NT group tend to say.  (and UNIX guys too).  It is just
another tool, nothing more.  It is useful, but so are other things.  It is
not the only tool around to do things either.  It has its benefits
(parallel programming paradigm, etc), and its drawbacks (trying to avoid
deadlocks, critical sections, etc).

> 
> Doesn't this imply that multitasking (whether preemptive or non-preemptive)
> is a useful thing?  Isn't that somewhat opposite to what you've been saying
> in your posts recently?

BTW: I was arguing mostly from the point of view that preemptive multitasking
was not as necessary as people were pointing out.


petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 05 Oct 92 18:36:09 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <7490@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.194717.18452@u.washington.edu> mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth) writes:
>
>>You object to the cost of NT.  However, we haven't any real idea of what the 
>>cost of NT is, as yet.  Final pricing isn't available.  The only price, so far,
>>is $69 bucks.  
>
>MS employees here echo the official line that nt will be "under $500". It's
>utterly idiotic for MS to make that statement and not have the final price be
>$499.95.

     This is a very foolish statement, Jay.  There are no clear
plans for the pricing of Windows NT at this time - the "under $500" is
an estimate of the upper bound, not the lower bound.  Assuming that
it will sell for $499.95 is ridiculous - the product will be priced
to maximize profits, the way all software is.  The higher price will
not always bring the most profit.


>>As to Zachmann, I'd suggest that Will has made it clear that he does have an
>>ax to grind.
>
>If MS had put as much pressure on me as they did on him, through his
>employers, I'd have an axe to grind too. What does Zachmann have to gain by
>making this stuff up? Until I see a reasonable answer to that question - and
>I've gotten some mail from MS employees claiming that they didn't do anything,
>but no backup - I'll continue to believe Zachmann.

     Interesting - the burden of proof is now on Microsoft to prove its
innocence?  Isn't that backwards?

					-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Moving from X to Y.
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:25:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: tamsun.1992Sep29.192542.20677
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University

>|> >I did not complain about change, I complained about inconsistency. The two
>|> >buttons have similar but subtly inconsistent behaviour in this case. If you
>|> >took the time to answer my question you would understand what I mean.
>|> 
>|> Ok, If we use a 2nd mouse button, what would you do differently?

>I would have thought that it was obvious from my comments.  I would either
>make them behave in *exactly* the same way, or in a completely different way,
>but *not* in a slightly different way.

>I've asked three times if you could explain the mouse behaviour, but you have
>declined to do so. Here is the answer:

>For a Short Click or a Drag, both buttons have the same behaviour except that
>the right button does not cause the graphic image to "depress".

>For a Long Click the left button brings up a menu, right button does nothing.
>The graphic image does "depress" for the left button but then pops back up of
>it's own accord before you release the button.

>It is the behaviour on a click that I find so awkward. If you use the right
>button, you don't get any menu if you linger too long with your finger on the
>button.

Lets see if I've got this right...
On my system:

Left            = Select
Left+Hold       = Nothing
Left+Hold+Drag  = Select
Left(Double)    = Open

Right           = Menu
Right+Hold      = Nothing
Right+Hold+Drag = Move
Right(Double)   = Menu

Right+Hold+Drag+Control       = Copy
Right+Hold+Drag+Control+Shift = Make Shadow

Now the click times are adjustable.  Are we talking about the same
Workplace Shell?  :-)

--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
bdubbs@sadis01.sa.aflc.af.mil |  Scrupulous Lawyer
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dana@locus.com (Dana H. Myers)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 13:52:40 GMT

In article <21622@global.hacktic.nl> peter@global.hacktic.nl (Peter Busser) writes:
>doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor) writes:
>
>>So what is it Intel has a monopoly on ?  Nothing. Intel just makes the
>>best, fastest implementations of the "386" architecture, not the only ones.
>
>The best? The fastest? Hmmm, 1st, AMD has CMOS 386's, Intel hasn't. A CMOS chip
>draws less current which is good for notbooks. Also, lower power consumption
>means a longer lifetime.

The Intel 80386 is certainly fabricated in CMOS. It is possible the AMD 386
has a lower power consumption, but I'll wager it makes little difference in
the lifetime of the processor.

-- 
 * Dana H. Myers KK6JQ 		| Views expressed here are	*
 * (310) 337-5136 		| mine and do not necessarily	*
 * dana@locus.com  DoD #466 	| reflect those of my employer	*
 * "Dammit Bones, spare me the lecture and give me the shot!"   *
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: tzs@milton.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Miscellaneous NT information.
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:57:52 GMT

brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>A friend of mine just attended a DARPA meeting in DC... it was addressed
>by Mark Ryland of Microsoft's DC/Federal office.  Here's some of
>my friend's notes:
>
>	1. Disk buffers are first class objects whose ownership changes from
>           the OS to the application when a read is complete.  This alleviates
>           any need for copying in the device driver.

How are page faults handled?  Does the OS make sure that the buffer is
present before giving it to the disk driver?  Is the device driver given
a physically contiguous buffer, or is a scatter/gather list used?  If
there is a scatter/gather list, is it explicit, or is there something like
the Windows VxD VDMDA_Scatter_Lock service that the driver uses to get
physical addresses?  If so, can this be called in the middle of an I/O?


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: adamba@microsoft.com (Adam Barr)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:17:57 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Sep26.012811.6658@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Today IBM Chicago held its monthly OS/2 User's Group meeting.  This
>month's meeting was devoted, in large part, to a presentation by two
>OS/2 experts from Austin (mainly delivered by Don Crabtree).
>
> [stuff deleted]
>
>Now, where is OS/2 headed?
>
>In 1993 ("OS/2 2.x"):
>
>** Win32/Win32s API compatibility.  This was a surprise, frankly.  But
>it was there on the overhead transparency.
>** Security.  B2 level features will be incorporated; C2 certifiable.
>Read on.
>** Pen/PM, i.e. support for pen input devices and paradigms.
>** "Generic Client" support, meaning that network requesters from
>multiple vendors will ship in one package, and you just select which
>one(s) you want on installation.  This package will be open to all
>network suppliers.
>
>In 1993 to 1994 ("OS/2 3.x"):
>
>** DCE/RPC.  This offering will solidify and expand across all IBM
>platforms in this time frame.
>** POSIX compliance.
>** C2 certification granted.  (It takes approximately 12 months, and
>software is certified in combination with hardware.)
>** Symmetric multiprocessing (SMP).
>** Portability, based on the OSF/Mach 3.0 kernel.

Call me a cynic, but it sounds like IBM has taken the current NT
feature list and stated that everything on it will eventually be
supported in OS/2. So, how is this not FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, AND
DOUBT in its basest, vilest, lowest, most venal form?

I did remove a couple of things from the list, which were distributed
PM support (which won't be in NT since it doesn't support PM) and
something about "removing network threshholds" which didn't make much
sense). Every other item is stuff that is working *now* on NT, not
at some miraculous future time.

Of course, desipte the fact that it has every modern OS feature
that IBM claims will eventually be in OS/2, NT is still reckoned
to be "baaaad" for mysterious reasons...like the following
choice piece of nonsense:

>[The presenter noted that the OSF/Mach 3.0 kernel has advantages over
>the NT kernel, specifically, as an example, in I/O handling.]

This is more FUD, straight from the master. What the heck does it
mean? "specifically in I/O handling"...don't get too specific there
Don, wouldn't want to get tied down!! How most of the people in this
group can look at what IBM is doing and claim they have "changed" is
beyond me.


- adam
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:21:33 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <7497@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>Raw computing power is wasted if the CPU has to sit around waiting to get
>something to compute. Fast disk and fast video have just as much of an effect
>on overall performance as does a fast CPU. I shudder to think just how much
>time my 386/40 is wasting waiting on my Trident SVGA; there's a faster card in
>my future, but it's going to wait for the OS/2 driver issue to settle down.

Psst!  8514/a.


-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
From: 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT? NT?! Hahah!
Date: 27 Sep 92 22:03:44 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1992Sep24.231737.14162@microsoft.com>, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> Followup-To:In article <1992Sep22.111107.5399@gw.wmich.edu> 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 	On the same note, these users are not going to be too willing
>> to move to NT.  A typical OS/2 setup here has a 120 meg hard drive
>> and 8 megs ram.  NT won't live with that and Windows 3.x doesn't
>> cut it.  So it's OS/2 for those people and there are a LOT of them.
>> People didn't know about Windows for a long time,.  People are
>> only starting to learn about OS/2 and once they do, look out.
> 
> Go read the NT required hardware list.  (yet again, NT is predicted
> to require a 386, 8 megs of ram, and I forget how much disk space, less
> than 120, though).
> 
> petesk@microsoft.com
> My Opinions...

	I am sure NT will require quite a bit less than 120 megs of
disk space.  That wasn't what I meant, but people often find them
selves needing to have applications and other types of software on
the hard drive.  If NT is 60 megs (hypothetically) then that leaves
them with 60 megs remaining. 
	Unless NT offers some extreme benefits over OS/2, it is
not going to be worth 30 megs more disk space.

						-Brad

===============================
Brad Wardell
Systems Development Director
Stardock Systems SDS
Western Michigan University
===============================


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn)
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Reply-To: soh3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 03:05:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.104157.28409@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>
>Hey, I suspect that minesweeper is responsable for about 85% of compuer
>use, so don't discount it.  ;) ;) ;)
>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>IMHO

Speaking of minesweeper, I just tried minesweeper that came with
os/2 GRE and win-os/2 3.1.  Assuming that it is the same minesweeper
as the one included in original Windows 3.1, I'd say the freeware
minesweeper for os/2 2.0 is much harder to solve than win 3.1 version.
When you have experience with the former, windows version is not a
fun anymore.

Min
From: kab@s1.gov (Keith Benton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:43:14 GMT
Reply-To: kab@s1.gov
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

In article 10852@scott.skidmore.edu, pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel) writes:
>In article <cc#pr6n.erb@netcom.com> erb@netcom.com (Elizabeth R. Brown) writes:
>>when the time is right.
>>
>>So, from a Windows bigot to all you OS/2 bigots I say:  "Join us!  Feel the 
>                                                          ^^^^^^^^
>
>>power of the Dark Side!  Together the Universe will be ours!!  
>>Mwhaahaaaaahaaa!"    ---> (:-)
>>
>>
>>Ebbot R. Bane	            | "Your Kung-Fu is no good!  Don't pick a fight
>>Soft Images, Inc.           |  with me unless you want to get hurt kid!"
>>San Jose, CA                | _NO KILL I_ |_| "I never said that!" - Kibo.
>
>
>Well, you convinced me!   Went to my local software store, but was
>disappointed to find out that they don't carry NT, bummer :-(  Oh,
>well, I'll just have to continue using OS/2.
>
>-- 
>Pierre von Kaenel	| Skidmore College	     | pvonk@skidmore.edu
>Math & CS Dept.		| Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 | (518)584-5000 Ext 2391
>
>[.... old sig has been retired.  New sig isn't ready yet. ]

But you can find Win 3.1 which is what is kicking OS/2's butt.

---
	---------------------------------------------------------
	|             Keith Benton: kab@s1.gov                  |
	| ME!?!? Speak for anyone here!?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA |
	|             Standard Disclaimers apply                |
	---------------------------------------------------------
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Date: 7 Oct 1992 00:02:05 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Oct06.213627.3688@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>I'm a bit curious about why people don't want networks bundled.  This is
>regardless as to whether the network is more integrated or not.
>1) You think the final product would be cheaper if these things were not
>   included.

This is it, primarily. Let the folks who want to use networking amortize the
developer's R&D costs. I've got better uses for my money.

>2) You're worried about using up extra space on your hard drive.
>Delete the networking stuff off of your drive.

OK, fine...as long as you provide me a utility that removes all traces of it
from my system, and leaves the system in a state such that it might as well
never have been there.

There are two other reasons:
1) Maybe I don't want to use the vendor's network. For example, say I don't
want to do TCP/IP, but rather Novell or XNS. The vendor's network code can do
nothing but get in the way.

2) Maybe I want to use the network architecture the vendor supports, but I
can't stand the vendor's implementation for one reason or another. If I don't
like IBM TCP/IP for OS/2, I can pick up the phone and call FTP Software. I
have a choice. Why should FTP Software do networking for NT?
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
    Vote for a REAL change on 3 November: Throw out the check-bouncing,
  tax-and-spend Democrat Congress! (obviously, not an opinion of UTHSCH)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: adamba@microsoft.com (Adam Barr)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: 06 Oct 92 17:37:56 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct5.203530.4461@odin.corp.sgi.com> mash@mash.wpd.sgi.com (John R. Mashey) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.014509.4331@intelhf.hf.intel.com>, sting@intelhf.hf.intel.com (Joe Bennett) writes:
>
>|> Also, how many people make peripherals for the R4000 box?  Not very many.  In
> Wrong.
> In many cases, people use identical peripherals to PCs....

My R4000 system includes an EISA bus. It currently has four network
cards in it (3 ISA, 1 EISA) and they all work great under NT.

- adam
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Date: 03 Oct 92 02:23:23 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct1.214558.28291@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes:
>
>If, from the fact that you write articles in comp.os.os2.advocacy, WE
>assume that you were born some time ago, you wouldn't admit it, because
>someone else stated that, not you.

     Interesting theory, but unfounded.  Can you provide evidence
that I would deny my own birth?

     Sigh.  Why do people who have no skill at it continue to try and
flame me?

				-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ddulay@jarthur.claremont.edu (Daniel Dulay)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 05:58:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.030508.5441@u.washington.edu> mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth) writes:
>In article <7490@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct4.194717.18452@u.washington.edu> mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth) writes:  
>>>You object to the cost of NT.  However, we haven't any real idea of what the 
>>>cost of NT is, as yet.  Final pricing isn't available.  The only price, so far,
>>>is $69 bucks.  
>>
>>MS employees here echo the official line that nt will be "under $500". It's
>>utterly idiotic for MS to make that statement and not have the final price be
>>$499.95.
>
>I'm sure that a final price will be set before the product ships.  I'm equally 
>sure that the "pre-beta" costs 69 dollars and includes the final product.  I'm
>equally sure that 69 dollars is a reasonable price.  I'm not sure what the 
>final price will be for the shipping version, but I am sure that it won't cost
>me any more than the $69 I've already spent.  
>
What has MS done to lead you to this conclusion?  Is it in writing?  Does
this seriously mean that you beleive that you are going to be getting the
release versions of both NT *and* the compiler?  Maybe MS doesn't have
such bad marketing practices after all . . .
Better yet we should spread this info around.  MS might look bad when
it turns out that they are leaving their "pre-beta" users high and dry.

Just out of curiousity Mark, what will you do when MS charges you more
for the real beta?

>-- 
>Mark Huth                         * Is it too wild to want to get into 
>Mhuth@u.washington.edu            * Space someday?
>Compuserve 70346,563              *

Daniel Dulay
ddulay@jarthur.claremont.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy