HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (BRIAN PAUL VAN LIEU)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: \* IBM's OS/2 2.0 Scores Big \*
Date: 12 Dec 92 21:44:46 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Dec11.084222.1405@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>, admiral@jhunix.hcf.jhu.ed
u (Steve C Liu) writes:
>This is how the battle looks as I see it:
>
>       OS/2 2.0
>
>       32-bit kernel that runs on Intel processors
>       Pre-emptive Multi-tasking
>       Support for multithreading
>       Good crash protection
>       Object-Oriented file system
>       Runs on 386/20 w/4 megs RAM and uses 31 megs HD space

    Umm, not fair. Lets agree with the 8 meg minimum, OK?

>       Available now
>       Few *big commercial* apps
>
        Released yet...

    No SMP support
>       No built-in networking
>       Does not have "creature comforts" like MM, SSVGA, etc.

   Sure. MM just isn't in regular version. Why get everything and the kitchen
    sink if you don't need it?

>       1.5 million copies shipped
>       Price:$49-$139
>
>       Windows NT
>
>       32-bit Kernel that runs on Intel, MIPS R4000
>       Preemptive multitasking
>       support for multithreading
>       Built in networking
>       SMP support
>       "Creature Comforts"

    Creathure comforts? WHat, like Program Manager (hahahhahahahahahha)

>       I don't know about crash protection.

    ACtually, work is ver stable kernal, but does not like DOS apps too much.
    Win apps might be a problem.

>       Runs on 386/20 w/8 megs RAM and takes up 40-66mb HD space
>
    386-20?  This I would like to *see* (but not use ;)

    Available sometime in the future

        Still waitning, and waiting, and waiting (look, I think a bunny with a
        drum just walked across my screen)

>       Non-object oriented file system
>       No SMP motherboards
>       Unknown crash protection (probably similar to OS/2)

    Again, very stable kernal.

>       15 million copies of previous versions shipped


    Ah, I can see how MS is going to sell many copies already. Suckering
    people into thinking that NT 3.1 is related to WIndows.

    Its not! Unless you call Program Manager direct blood relationship.

    Good marketing MS, I give you that.

>       Price: $500 (?)
>
>
>Which system do I use?
>
-- 

  Brian P. Van Lieu
  Lehigh University-AXP
  lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu

            OS/2 2.0...anything else is just a DOS.
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: \* IBM's OS/2 2.0 Scores Big \*
Date: 15 Dec 92 10:12:07 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Dec12.021950.5454@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
> In article <1992Dec11.084222.1405@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> admiral@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Steve C Liu) writes:
> >This is how the battle looks as I see it:
> 
> >	Does not have "creature comforts" like MM, SSVGA, etc.
> 
>     I also thought that there was a multimedia package out for OS/2
> these days.

MMPM/2 seems likely to be included in OS/2 V2.1 due out next month.
 
Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: Windows NT: The Other side of the coin
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:30:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.083046.7233@netcom.com> timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:

>>> 9. No new shell: Windows NT comes with Program Manager.  However, the
>>>    capability exists to add other shells such as NDW.  (NDW is planned
>>>    for NT).
>>
>>This is more bad news for NT in the long term.  The point of buying GUI
>>software is to use the GUI.  I think it makes little sense of advertising,
>>say Windows 3.1, as a GUI system then having users dump the GUI for a
>>replacement!  NT inherits this bad feature from Windows, unfortunately.
>
>Actually, I don't know too many people who buy Win3.1 for Program Manager
>or OS/2 for the WPS.  Most of them buy it for the environment it gives
>them.  Usually people spend most of their time within an application,
>not sorting files around and stuff.  People buy Windows to run Windows
>apps and they buy OS/2 to run whatever.
>
This latter comment makes an excellent, overlooked point: it's what you
do with an environment that matters most.  An awful lot of OS/2 2.0
advocates advocate OS/2 2.0 (uh, is this going to turn into a palindrome 
at some point?) precisely because of it's great DOS support (and they
all use DOS programs only, don't want no steenkin Windows program, after
all).  But there's a point to it: some DOS programs did quite a bit to
make up for DOS's limitations.  As one example, take WordPerfect 5.1
("please," I hear some people muttering).  It provided the option of
'long file names' (i.e., descriptive listing of files) and background
printing (spooling built-in), things missing or rarely used in DOS
itself.  Similarly, it will be the apps for OS/2 and Windows that really
decide the game.  If NT turns out to be the finest OS every conceived by
the human mind, it won't matter if there are no apps that take advantage
of it.

Besides, Progman/Fileman and WPS are replaceable; third party vendors
galore have substitutes for the Windows interface; OS/2 needs, in my oh
so humble opinion, a substitute for the WPS as well.

jmalloy@hamilton.edu
From: platinum@montage.UUCP (Doug Swallow)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 stopped selling!!
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 20:22:26 GMT
Organization: Software Environments, Inc.

> The one local software store around here that used to carry OS/2 (they
> usually had one copy on the shelf a time, a long time, too) stopped some
> months ago.  I did see three or four boxes of it, though, a few weeks
> ago in Augusta, Maine, at a VAR reseller's shop, so it's probably still
> available.

Around Orlando, OS/2 is for sale at Office Depot and Bizmart, two large
chains of office supply stores, Service Merchandise, Sears, Babbages, and
several other local stores, too.

--
/ Doug Swallow
|Internet:   platinum@montage.uucp     |Mail: 7927 Clubhouse Estates Dr.
|CompuServe: 75776,1011                |      Orlando, Florida 32819-5026
|Phone:      407-236-0153              |Fax:  407-352-3111

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: karu@nevada.edu (NARANAPITI KARUNARATNE)
Subject: OS/2 SIG BBS in Las Vegas
Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
Distribution: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:02:22 GMT

        *********************************************
                     LAS VEGAS OS/2 SIG BBS
                          Announcement
        **********************************************

        I am glad to announce that Las Vegas PC Users'
        Group's OS/2 SIG BBS is now operational and ready
        for users to log on.

IMPORTANT:  Please note that this is an OS/2 ONLY BBS.
            Therefore, Please do not upload any non-os2
            files.  Also, you will not find non-os2 files
            on this BBS.

WHAT You Will Find:  OS/2 applications, utilities, tools,
                     system upgrades and fixes, general
                     information about OS/2, helpful hints
                     on installation and using OS/2, and SIG
                     messages.

WHO Can Access:      Access is free to everyone who will
                     agree to register and abide by rules.

NUMBER:    ***********************
           ***  702-433-5535  ***
           ***********************

Availabilty:    24 hours a day
Baud Rate:      14.4 Kbps, v.32bis with speeds upto 57,600

        We invite all PC users to call and enjoy our hospitality.
        Thank you.


	Karu Karunaratne                        Steve Lumos
	Sysop                                   Asst. Sysop

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: richs@microsoft.com (Rick Schaut)
Subject: Re: Rude behavior on this group.
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:03:16 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Reply-To: richs@microsoft.com (Rick Schaut)
Distribution:  world,local

In article <1992Dec14.022947.26005@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.200650.7979@microsoft.com> richs@microsoft.com (Rick Schaut) writes:
>>Not necessarily so.  In a competitive market, and "competitive" amply
>>describes the market for IBM compatible personal computers, vendors eat
>>those costs because passing the costs on would raise one's prices above
>>one's competitor's prices.

>True, it's not of necessity, but it is of practice.  Call up a mail
>order firm and ask them how much their system is w/o Windows, as 
>opposed to w/ Windows.  Every time I've done this, I've gotten a discount.

>[stuff about price being function of demand deleted, along with suggestion
>of people enrolling in econ classes]

The stuff you deleted was the counter argument to your claim.  To repeat,
even if you see a price differential, that doesn't mean the vendors are
"passing on" the costs of the additional software.  It means that
purchasors are willing to pay the higher price for the system with Windows
included.

There's another thing to consider.  I think you'll find that the price
differential between systems without Windows and systems with Windows is
greater than the per-machine cost of the Windows license.  If it weren't,
vendors wouldn't be willing to go through the extra hassle of installing
Windows on their systems, because they (the vendors) could make the same
profits without bothering with Windows at all.

The "I see a price differential, therefore vendors are passing on the costs
of the license agreement" argument loses all credibility when put in the
light of some basic Economic analysis.


-- 
Rick Schaut
UUCP:...{uunet | uw-beaver}!microsoft!richs

Microsoft doesn't speak for me, and I don't speak for Microsoft.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2)
Subject: Re: The "Major" bug in Winos2 v3.1
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.misc
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 08:34:31 GMT

In article <BzE9Kz.HH@utdallas.edu> goyal@utdallas.edu (MOHIT K GOYAL) writes:

[...]
>Oh yeah, apparently some major or annoying or some kinda bug with HPFS was
>discovered recently and is now fixed.
>
>The error was created when transferring HPFS from assembly to C, and was a
>very elusive bug.
>
>Sorry I don't remember what the bug is, but it was not fixed in the SP.

Maybe this is the ``Extent not found'' bug.  There is a fix at ftp-os2
called uhpfs.zip .  I got this file a few days ago.

Follow-ups to comp.os.os2.misc .

-- 
==== 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 :::::  ~--~
From: olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.1 specifications, release date.
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 09:07:42 GMT

In article <3500@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:

   OS/2 2.1 will be released end february, begin march 1993.

Why is the release date slipping until feb/march '93? Not long ago we
were told that the new version would be released before Christmas,
then it was said jaunaray, and now you say feb/march '93?

Olav Torvund
University of Oslo
Norway
Olavt@jus.uio.no

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.1 specifications, release date.
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 02:18:02 GMT

In article <3500@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:
>Here the official specs of OS/2 2.1 directly from IBM:
>
>- more printer drivers
>- Windows 3.1 support
>- native Windows 3.1 performance with 8Mb RAM machines
>- improved performance for low memory configurations
>- 32bit graphics engine
>- multimedia support
>- portable PC support
>- CD-ROM version
>
>[please notice the Win31 performance and the MultiMedia, thanx IBM!]
>
>OS/2 2.1 will be released end february, begin march 1993.


Cool!  Thanks Nico.

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: To brian and other interested parties
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 21:02:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.091901.27462@cs.brown.edu> wcn@cs.brown.edu (Wen-Chun Ni) writes:
>
>   (2) Unix guys, though ignorant of what NT is, really don't care about
>       it. Few of my classmates show interests in NT. The stereotype is
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>       basically from the bad image of MS (who produces, huh, MSDOS and
>       MS-Windows). Many of the Unix guys are using workstations and
>       they loathe the interface of MSWindows. What MS to them is a
>       big company producing lousy software. Brian Sturgill *might* know
>       this. Many MS employees *might* know this.

Well, now, there's a standard for determing facts!  Who do your
classmates think will win the superbowl (I'll get my bets in now!)  

[deletions galore]
>
>Wen-Chun Ni, wcn@cs.brown.edu         (401) 863-7669
>-------------------------------------------------------------------

jmalloy@hamilton.edu

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jws@iastate.edu (James William Shoemaker)
Subject: Re: Why OS/2 will DEFINITELY fail
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:28:38 GMT

> Come on. What do you think for what OS Corel will develop Version 4 first?
> Windows 3.1 or OS/2 2.0. Windows of course, because they still will sell
> more copies for Windows. Version 4 will not be out before 94. So it takes
> additional time to port it to OS/2 2.0. Porting to Windows NT is quite
> easy. It takes a couple of days.

	Have you read the WIN-32 DOCS?  I have read parts of them and concluded
That the Code I am responsible for will take a re-write to go to NT.  In fact
The Sample Code shipped with the Win SDK I have would usually need re-writing.

	If you followed the win-32 guidelines religeously it may port that
easily, but I have code that was written long-long before the guidelines were
released.  and I would be extremely surprised if corel does not have parts in
their code that pre-dates the guidelines.

					JWS
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: To brian and other interested parties
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:49:19 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1g7tojINN8n7@tamsun.tamu.edu> daa7365@tamuts.tamu.edu (Diego A. Aranda) writes:
> 
> Gawd, I'm sorry.  I thought *.advocacy groups were for the discussion of
> operating systems and alternative OSs.  Now I find that they're for a single
> group of OS users to advocate their own OS, and no one else is allowed to
> interject facts or reports about other operating system.

I think the make or break here is that for an advocacy group for OS/2, this
one has been fair flooded with NT info from a small number of people: maily
Brian and a few MS employees. 
 
I don't have any objection to them posting here. Again and again and again -
the same stuff....over and over. I get about 3 articles into a thread and then
ignore it from there on in....I've heard it all before. 
 
But for all the newbys, this eternal battle of what seem like canned posts is
worthwhile. It brings them up to speed. 
 
As soon as the NT group is established, I plan to take part regularly. Who
knows? I might even use it first!

> Ah, well.  I'll leave you all to advocate amongst yourselves then.  Have fun.

Can't take the heat of friction generated by swimming upstream? See ya! I got
out of soc.culture.soviet for the same reason. The turk/armenian clashes
accounted for 80% of the traffic. I asked hasan b. multu and a few others to
take their anti-turk drivel elsewhere and got heaps of abuse....

> Whatever happened to the first amendment?

Isn't that an American thing more honoured in the breach than in the
application?  :-)
 
Steve


-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rude behavior on this group.
Date: 17 Dec 1992 19:30:16 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec17.170844.23935@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> rkl@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (kevin.laux) writes:
>	My understanding is that the manufacturers are not prohibited from
>selling the machine without [DOS & Windows].  However, the terms of the licensing
>agreement require them to pay the royalty regardless of whether or not a copy
>of the software goes out with the machine.

...and so, since they're gonna pay for it anyway, they're gonna ship it. The
effect is the same: the customer is required to get it, whether or not he
wants it.

I don't want it, and will not buy a machine where I am forced to pay for it.
-- 
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.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:10:02 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Dec8.000833.11803@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>In article <1992Dec7.185443.11280@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <1992Dec2.214324.11977@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>>
>>>>>Thought:  If everyone in the world called a dog, "Cat"--Lassie would be a
>>>>>"Cat."
>>>>
>>>>Wrong thought.  Consider:  How many legs does a dog have?  If I tell
>>>>you that everyone is calling a tail a leg, now how many legs does a
>>>>dog have?
>>>>
>>>>Answer:  He had 4 legs before and he STILL has 4 legs.  Calling a tail
>>>>a leg does not make it one.  Just as calling the BIOS part of DOS does
>>>>not make it so.
>>>>
>>
>>>Again you don't get the point.  The statement was philosophical.  Does
>>>a Dog have 4 legs?  I think it has 100!  (Hypothetical society using
>>>base 2).  Another society can view the symbol/idea "leg" to mean "any
>>>appendage from a symmetrical whole"--in which case the dog has, what,
>>>six, eight?
>>
>>Again you don't get the point.  The statement illustrates that it
>>doesn't matter what 'Joe thinks'; the facts remain the facts.

>Ahhhh.  But read carefully the above exchange.  I am saying "it doesn't
>matter waht 'Joe thinks'--it matters what the society thinks."  YOU'RE
>the one that claims "if EVERYONE calls a tail a leg, the dog still has
>4 legs."--which is an incorrect statement.

Not everyone, Joe.  You're culling out that subgroup you're calling
"DOS Programmers" and then speaking for them.  First, I'm not
convinced that they all agree with you, no matter what conclusions you
try to extract from having BIOS calls described in books on DOS
programming (if they talk about the CPU, is it then a part of DOS as
well?).  What something is is not affected by someone electing to CALL
it something else.

This idiotic brand of argumentation from Joe Discar has obviously gone
on more than long enough.  It must be time to simply boilerplate a
response for postings like this one from Joe.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: aaa@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Simon Fowler)
Subject: Re: Future of OS/2 and IBM????????????
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:13:34 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Atlanta GA

In article <1992Dec17.101310.25758@wraxall.inmos.co.uk>, des@inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd) writes:
> i'm not sure whether IBM play this trick, but a company of their size
> and structure can generate voluntary redunancies by telling people that
> yes they still have a job but from tommorrow its 1000 miles away.

Companies of any size that have more than one facility can generate"voluntary redundancies" this
size. I know of at least two others that have done this recently (a lot smaller than IBM).

simon
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: who is brian sturgill - really?
Date: 21 Dec 92 04:20:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Dec21.042057.9293
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.

In article <1gtcn8INNe51@cae.cad.gatech.edu> chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen) writes:
>In <78582@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccusekh@prism.gatech.EDU (Kevin Hodge) writes:
>
>]In <1gsojaINNaqg@cae.cad.gatech.edu] chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen) writes:
>
>
>]]Oh, ever consider that maybe sturgill wants to work FOR microsoft,
>]]and he posts as he does hoping someone from MS will see it, call him
>]]up, and beg him to work for MS?
>
>]Hell, why should Microsoft hire him?  They're getting all that labor for
>]free.
>
>Well, maybe they like his multi-threading abilities!  Ah, yer right,
>them cheapskates will take anything they can get! :)
>But, Maybe.... MS is so paranoid he might turncoat on them that
>they just MIGHT hire him, cause they need ALL the help they can
>get.  Or.. something like that.  
>
>Oh, the theories are endless! let the games begin ...
>

People hired at Microsoft are expected to work. It seems Brian
spends an awful lot of time posting. Not much time for real work.
But, hey, that's entertainment. :)

JMHO...

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: KENKAHN@PKSMRVM.VNET.IBM.COM (Kenneth A. Kahn)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 05:46:43 EST
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why 512MB limit in OS/2?
Organization: Staff of IBM Fellow - IBM Personal/370
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 3.0
X-X-From: KENKAHN@PKSMRVM.VNET.IBM.COM (Ken Kahn)

In <1992Dec17.064426.7111@ryn.mro4.dec.com> Peter Mayne writes:
>Why does OS/2 have a limit of 512MB per application?
>

The 16:16 addressing scheme allows access of up to 512MB per process, since
the local descriptor tables used in this model contain up to 8192 entries,
each of which can point to a segment of up to 64KB in size.  In order to
ensure that there is no problem in coexisting 16-bit and 32-bit applications
under OS/2 V2.0, the maximum size of the process address space has been set at
512MB.  This means that all memory in the process address space can be
addressed using either the 16:16 or the 0:32 addressing scheme.  This
capability is important since it allows applications to be composed of mixed
16-bit and 32-bit code, allows 32-bit applications to make function calls to
16-bit service layers, and permits 16-bit applications written for OS/2
Version 1.x to run unmodified, effectively allowing a "hybrid" memory
management environment.

This restriction will be removed in a future release of OS/2.