HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:01:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.015357.11809@ryn.mro4.dec.com> Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec29.220017.16223@grebyn.com>, mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli) writes:
>>When I think about it, I think that Microsoft may have tried to
>>tackle too much at once with NT.  Just think about all the
>>subsystems/APIs that they are trying to include: DOS, 16-bit Windows,
>>Win32, Win32s, 16-bit OS/2, and POSIX.
>
>Win32s is a strict subset of Win32 that runs under Windows 3.x, not
>an NT subsystem.
>
Fine, so it's five subsystems instead of six.  Still a bit much,
wouldn't you say?

>>Networking?  Both TCP/IP and
>>SPX/IPX, right?  File systems?  FAT, HPFS, and NTFS (keeping in mind
>>that NTFS has all the security data associated with files which the
>>other two don't-- that's got to be a pain in the rear, trying to enforce
>>file system security when there may be filesystems that don't support
>>the notion present).
>
>File system security isn't enforced on FAT and HPFS.
>
So if you're interested in security, they're essentially not options,
huh?  That's interesting.  I suppose it doesn't matter that much, since
I assume that DOS programs &c can run from an NTFS partition, but that
does bring up the question-- why bother to support them at all?  I can
see FAT for floppy disks, but other than that, what's the point?  Does
NT have a dual boot feature like OS/2?
 
>>Then on top of all that add the security they're
>>building in, new multi-threaded kernel, and the fact that this is the
>>first from-scratch OS that MS has written on its own.  Not to mention
>>the fact that they are concurrently trying to port it to MIPS and Alpha.
>
>The reference platform for NT is MIPS, so they're "porting" it to the Intel
>platform, if "porting" is the right term to use in a concurrent development
>situation. Also, Digital are playing a significant part in the Alpha port.
>
>>-- 
That seems kind of strange, since Intel will obviously be far and away
the largest market for NT for quite some time.  I've never met or even
read of anyone, user or developer, who had any plans of even considering
running NT on anything but an Intel machine.  So why would they do it
this way? (Note that I'm not saying that I don't believe you, I'm just
questioning MS's sense in following this path)

>>Marc Fraioli
>>mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
>
>PJDM
>--
>Peter Mayne                     | My statements, not Digital's.
>Digital Equipment Corporation   |
>Canberra, ACT, Australia        | "AXP!": Bill the Cat
>


-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 00:26:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.204010.16860@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>In article <28DEC199211373834@moose.cccs.umn.edu> rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu writes:
>Unfortunately......(*sigh*) I am not at liberty to disclose this information.


	Can you hint?  I've heard stories about a certain printing 
	product that was made mostly obsolete with Win3.1 and 
	suspicions that MS cheated.

	Not even email?


>My point of contention with the original poster was on the general
>acceptability of organisations like the FTC or the DOJ anti-trust crowd. The
>object of supervising/regulating business in order to prevent/undo monopolies
>is an idea that most people find acceptable. 


	That's true.  I would tend to agree with the posters that 
	argued that MS did not have an undue monopoly.  Myself,
	I run DRDOS when I dual boot.  Clearly, there are alternatives
	to MSDOS.  In fact, if MS had included all of the utilities
	that DR did in DRDOS 6.0 in MSDOS5, they would have been slapped
	with so many anti=trust suits that you wouldn't be able to 
	lift the newspaper it'd be so thick.

>Yamanari did not. 


	Unfortunately, no.  This is the first time I have posted on this
	thread other than pointing out that the stock had not split,
	and that it had dropped to less than 1/3rd of the price I paid
	for my measly 5 shares. 

	*I* did not commnet on the FCC smidgen that I can remember.


>My detailed knowledge of the FTC is a bit dated (from the
>time when I lived in Canada). I'm actually a Canadian living in new Zealand, so
>my knowledge of things North American is pretty good. I have also been fairly
>interested and active in number of areas of public policy through interest
>groups.
> 
>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".
-- 
	This weakness that you've told us of, it must be very comforting
	to have some make-believe specter on which to lay your blame.

	Blaming society for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11443 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3628
From: tracer@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu (Roger M. Wilcox)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How programs get DPMI memory (was Re: FCC (sic))
Date: 3 Jan 93 04:21:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1993Jan3.042137.29882
Followup-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Organization: University of Oregon Computer and Information Sciences Dept.

>richk@grebyn.com (Richard Krehbiel) writes:
>
>>What DOS programming language or environment allows a program to wade
>>about in EMS/XMS/DPMI in the same way as conventional memory, without
>>any special knowledge or treatment?

Windows.

GlobalAlloc ... { GlobalLock ... Global Unlock ... } GlobalFree.
Easy as 3.14.  Memory is memory is memory.  Even virtual memory.

-- 
Roger *M.* Wilcox   (aka Jeff Boeing)
tracer@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu
Aleph null bottles of beer on the wall, aleph null bottles of beer, ...
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11437 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3625
From: richard.anstruther@canrem.com (richard anstruther)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: ftc and ms
Date: 27 Dec 92 16:56:11 GMT
Reply-To: "richard anstruther" <richard.anstruther@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

-> From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod) writes:

-> Does Microsoft enjoy an advantage using undocumented calls in the
-> applications. Again I say NO. There is NO advantage to using
-> undocumented calls, when those calls can/will/and do change from
-> release to release of the OS, causing the application to break in how
-> every many spots those calls were issued from. This forces the
-> programmer to go back and change things once again, and maybe if he's
-> smart, figure out how it should be done using the documented calls in
-> the first place.

Suppose the systems people warned you of upcoming changes to
the OS and invited you to drop by for a chat if you had any
concerns.  You then visited their offices and asked them not
to remove or change those undocumented calls, since your application
depended on them.  Would you have an advantage over another
programmer who used all the same undocumented calls, but who
couldn't get past security at MS's front gate?
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:22:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.175117.12752@pcatsc.UUCP> palmer@pcatsc.UUCP (Doug Palmer) writes:

>You are *completely* missing the point. It's not the hardware vendors
>who are adversely affected by MicroSoft's predatory practices, but the
>competitor OS vendors. In effect, when MicroSoft enters into an agreement
>to tie royalty payments to units sold, they are forcing the hardware
>vendor to add the price of DOS/Windows to any other bundled operating
>system. This is an "unfair" practice in re the OS vendor, not the
>hardware vendor. They have effectively increased the cost of all other
>operating systems. That's illegal.

Suppose a company X is marketing OSx for 5 years. Now comes company Y
and develops OSy. Y starts a massive advertising campaign in Magazine. As
a result of this massive campaign X must increase its advertising costs
for OSx. The result is that Y increased the costs of OSx. Should it be 
illegal for Y to advertise ? And if it did, should the FTC instruct Y
to split into applications and OS parts ?

>United States Courts                                         Doug Palmer
>Automated Training & Support Center
>7550 IH10 West, Suite 1100                     spatsc!palmer@spao.ao.gov

Dov

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:47:17 GMT

robertre@microsoft.com (Robert Reichel ms2) writes:

>Why not look at the current history of IBM: stock price at a 20 year low,
>forced layoffs, massive writeoffs, talk of a cut in the sacred dividend.  
>And this is the company that was harrassed for over 10 years by the government 
>for anti-trust violations, with nothing but a huge waste of taxpayer 
>money to show for the effort.  IBM didn't change its business practices
>one iota.

>The fact that a company who once totally dominated its industry could
>fall on the hard times that IBM has is proof enough that the market
>takes care of itself, without any "help" from the government.

This proves nothing. IBM's problems are mostly internal, not caused
by the external market. Just because one big company has problems
doesn't mean this will be true of all big companies. If IBM had been
better managed the results could have been quite different.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:32:26 GMT

In article <BzoA3B.M18@csfb1.fir.fbc.com> uunet!csfb1!jbrock writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.045145.15784@tc.cornell.edu>, bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:

>I'm not real interested in arguing the details of this particular
>case.  

Why do you post, then, to this thread ? 

>I made a general statement about the free market system, which
>is that it is flawed in that it allows monopolies, and that we try to
>patch this flaw by interfering with the market.  I also said that some
>people treat the free market as a moral value, and are unwilling to
>acknowledge any intrinsic flaws in the free market system, and that I
>suspect you are one of these people.  So I guess my question is are you
>defending Microsoft because you don't think it has behaved in such a
>way as to warrent interference, or because you think it is always
>immoral to interfere with the free market?  

I think that voluntary nonfraudulant trade between people is 
good and moral, and that morality goes hand in hand with
practicality. Of course, someone who expects a better deal but does 
not get it is getting frustrated. 

I have not heard yet about any fraudulant trade on the side of MS,
neither have I seen any shred of evidence that MS fixes prices
of software. Quite the contrary, software prices keep going down,
and new products are continuously introduced into the market by
MS and its competitors. 

Where do you disagree with me ?

If the former, then I would
>be interested to know what you think Microsoft would have to do before
>intervention was warrented.  If the latter, then my original suggestion
>stands.  Go elect some politicians who think as you do.

What is your point ? Everyone votes for the politicians she prefers.
Do you mean that I should accept as fair any law on the books just
because it is there ? Do you ? 

>John Brock
>uunet!csfb1!jbrock
>jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com

Dov
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:44:07 GMT

In article <1hpr2dINN80o@tamsun.tamu.edu>, bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:

|> How about the situation when they charge more than the minimum for a
|> "reasonable" profit, but not enough for someone else to afford the R&D
|> costs to enter the market.  Startup costs, before you have a product
|> and before you have name recognition, are not negligible.  This
|> situation keeps prices high and the end consumer pays.

|> You will probably ask: What is "reasonable"?  A fair question. 

Under your scenario above (where Standard Oil keeps prices low enough that
others are discoureged from entring the market) I would say that Standard Oil
was charging a reasonable price.  If nobody can beat your price, then you've
certainly got a reasonable price.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: MS to 'support' OS/2?
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 19:16:40 GMT

In article <laird.725985688@stable.ecn.purdue.edu> laird@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) writes:
> pshuang@athena.mit.edu (Ping Huang) writes:
> 
> >The High Performance File System existed for OS/2 1.x, although I don't
> >remember if it shipped with 1.0 or was one of the enhancements that came
> >with 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3.
> 
> I don't see any reference to it in 1.1, but I used it in 1.3.
> 
> --kyler


HPFS was intrduced with OS/2 1.2. OS/2 1.0 had Fat and OS/2 1.1 had BIG-FAT. 
 
Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand |      
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |        Space for rent.
+64 4 478 4714                          |   - cheap rates, nice location. 
**** Happy user of OS/2 b2.1 ****       | 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:24:04 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <OLAVT.92Dec22114846@ulrik.uio.no> olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund) writes:
>I think the point have been missed somewhere in this thread.
>
>If MS offer PC-makers DOS and Windows at a reasonable price for
>bundling, that is fair enough. But if that deal restrict the PC-makers
>choice of other OSs, then it is not fair. If the PC-makers have to pay
>royalty to MS for DOS and Win for every PC sold, no matter if it ships
>with DOS/Win or not, that is unfair. And it is even worse if the deal
>says that DOS/Win shall be included on every PC, even if the customer
>do not want it.

    Even with the "royalty per machine" contract that Microsoft
offers to OEMs, there is nothing that _requires_ the OEMs to
ship DOS/Windows with each machine - they'll still have to pay
a royalty on the machines that don't carry it, though.
    And, as I've said before, there are other contracts available
that don't require royalties on every machine shipped.


>The OS-vendors should be free to make a bundling offer to all
>PC-makers, but not include clauses that excludes the PC-makers to make
>bundling deals with other OS-vendors.

     To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a clause in the
Microsoft licensing contracts that restricts OEMs from putting
other OSes on their machines.


>If a clone maker says that their production line is set up in a way
>that makes it more expensive to deliver a system with a blank disk
>than with the default OS, it is fair enough.

     It's much less expensive to maintain a single production line
than two or more.  And, since most people want DOS+Windows, if
a single production line is to be used it makes sense for it
to be the one that will produce the largest number of happy
customers.


> But if the reason is that
>MS does not allow them to deliver that way, or charge royalty even if
>the default OS is not delivered, then it is unfair competition.

    Why?  Novell could cut a similar deal for DR-DOS.

				-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
Subject: OS/2 bigot meets NT: Update 2....
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 19:50:32 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Dec26.145420.21384@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
> >
> >Hi Erik. I guess our friend Yamanari doesn't know that under OS/2 any cache
> >setting higher than 2048K is ignored......
> 
> 	Now you're getting it.  Now *take that se4tting and put it on
> 	a *4* meg machine!

Well......I took the hard disk home and tried it on my 386DX/40 with 8128K. It
wouldn't run at all. It gets to just after where i enter the password and just
before the Program Manager pops up......and locks. I tried booting about 20
times.
 
My 486 at work had 8384K....and NT *just* ran......

So, 8 megs is truly the minimum. Which I find very interesting.....Having been
and MVS systems programmer for several years, I have worked with MVS on a 4-meg
4341.  

Reading the Redbooks, I am coming to understand that a lot of the big-OS
concepts that IBM has been applying for decades have gone into OS/2. Reading
the info, OS/2 sounds like a desktop MVS/XA......
 
Now I better understand why Microsoft is having trouble doing the same things
in twice the amount of memory. 
 
NT: A desktop system with an 8-meg, I-can't-run-anything-else minimum is not
on the expressway to success.........

OS/2 provides almost all - but not quite - the same services in half the RAM
and a good proportion less disk space. 
 
OK, this is the NT October beta. Fine, betas are crud. But these guys have a
long way to go in order for NT to be anything like the next desktop OS. They
aren't promoting it as such, anyway, so I guess they already know that.
 
Whereas, OS/2 keeps getting faster, tighter, and just plain *better*. The 2.1
beta I now have installed is very nice......and it hasn't crashed so
far...(even though it's a beta.....)

I think the 2.1 version of OS/2 will actually run pretty well in 6 megs. It
just feels better. I might try it in 4 megs just to see what the diference
really is.
 
BTW...I have flagged the NT beta away for now. It's just too "un-ready". Maybe
next week when I get my work machine to 16megs I'll have another go and see if
it will run....

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".
From: jdickins@cs.umr.edu (James Dickinson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Bill Gates gives predictions.
Date: 2 Jan 93 20:53:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla
Originator: jdickins@mcs213i.cs.umr.edu

Thats right Bill Gates hisself will be on This Week with David Brinkly on 
Sunday January 3 @ 9:30 here in Mo.
I wonder if he will be spreading FUD?

Jim
From: ucgadkw@ucl.ac.uk (Dominik Wujastyk)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.1 specifications, release date.
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:34:15 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium


>In article <1992Dec16.161007.23234@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>>>>>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
>>>
>>>In another posting somewhere (!) I read that 2.1 would include DPMI support.
>>>Is that so?
>>
>>OS/2 already has DPMI 0.9 support.  If you mean DPMI support in WinOS/2,
>>I would imagine that the possibility of running enhanced mode apps would
>>mean there will be Windows DPMI support.
>>
>>I don't believe it is certain yet that WinOS/2 3.1 will run enhanced mode apps
>>though.  Anyone know for sure?
>>
>>Ted

I'm sorry I started this sub-thread, because I made a mistake in my
question:  I was wondering if OS/2 DOS windows would support
VCPI, not DPMI.

Dominik
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: bobatk@microsoft.com (Bob Atkinson)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 28 Dec 92 20:05:42 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

Richard Warner writes:
>The downturn on pricing has to do with hardware competition, and has
>nothing to do with MS.  

Would the "hardware competion" have been anywhere near as intense as
we presently find without a common OS that they all share?

	Bob Atkinson
	(yes, Microsoft)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: More advertising
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 06:15:01 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO

In article <30DEC199218072507@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.181546.1151@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu 
>(Yamanari) writes...
>>In article <8230@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) 
>writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec29.155440.23938@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu 
>(Yamanari) writes:
>>>>>"With an operating system that can run all of your DOS, Windows, and OS/2
>>>>					^^^
>>>>	Pull this word.
>>>
>>>You're being unnecessarily pedantic - there's NO OS that meets the criterion
>>>you're holding OS/2 up to.
>
>>	So we're agreed that using the word "all" is a lie, right?  So
>>	*pull the word*.
>
>Okay, we'll pull the word "all".  How's this sound as a replacement:
>
>	...with an operating system that runs more DOS programs than MS DOS 5,
>	more Windows programs than Windows 3.1, and all OS/2 programs.
>
>Is this better?

'Scuse me, fellas, but the text of the ad did not commit the atrocities
you are claiming!

[BTW, James, this ain't directed at you, but I decided to reply upon
reading your article.  :)]
 
One sentence said, "With an operating system that can run all of 
your DOS, Windows, and OS/2....".
 
The other voiced it over and said "Buy OS/2", more or less.
 
Note that they *never* explicitly tied the two together.
 
Sure it's misleading.  Face it.  *All* advertising is misleading.
That's why it works.  That's why advertisers take courses in logic.
So they can learn the fallacies and put them to use.

So, shut up about it already.  :)

cpk