HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel)
Subject: Re: Hard future for OS/2 2.0 ....
Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 06:10:50 GMT

In article <716362256snx@noyles.pha.pa.us> juan@noyles.pha.pa.us (Juan J. E. T. Noyles) writes:
>marten@feki.toppoint.de writes in article <716296545snx@feki.toppoint.de>:
>> 
>> The time is counting to zero for OS/2 2.0.
>> 
>> Here in Germany a big computer newspaper (ComputerWoche) is VERY
>> sceptical about the success of OS/2 2.0. During the last weeks the
>> comments on this OS are getting worse.
>
>Well, there in Germany, people are getting killed, maimed and otherwise harassed
>because they want to live in Germany.  Why should German criticism of an American
>operating system matter to anyone?

Are you sure this belongs here? At least the USA don't give many people
a chance to try living in the US - they just don't let them in. Please
move any further discussion about this to e-mail.

Kai Uwe Rommel

/* Kai Uwe Rommel --- rommel@informatik.tu-muenchen.de */

DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt
handler, and always will be.                -Russell Williams
From: jar@inel.gov (Jeffry A Rich)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: CSD Rumours
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:28:20 GMT
Organization: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho

Hey all! I was talking to an IBM OS/2 'specialist' yesterday and heard some interesting rumours concerning the upcoming Fall upgrade to OS/2. 

This is ALL RUMOUR and probably none of it is true but it's fun to speculate anyhow!

IBM will be doing a major announcement on Sept 21st. This announcement will concern not only OS/2, but will also include their new PC Company releases. Apparently, the new 32-bit graphics engine is done along with a host of other neat features. But, get this... the Windows 3.1 support will not be ready!!! Don't blame me...I'm only a rumour-monger!

I also heard that a former IBM employee has written an OS/2 optimizer program that will completely analyze your installed system and do a reshuffling so that you gain a 50% - 150% increase in performance! This program is totally icon-driven and according to inside IBM sources, is killer!! The price I heard was $15.00. Sorry, no file names or addresses yet...I'm still checking on it.

Regards,
  JR Rich
========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: 3.1 Notice
Date: 14 Sep 92 13:20:09 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

>>
>>When I started following this newsgroup, the talk was mostly about Win3.1 vs
>>OS/2 2.0.......
>> 
>>But those Win3.1ers seem to be gone now.....probably running OS/2, eh?
>> 
>>Steve
>>
> Nope, actually most of us are doing useful things with Windows... and found
> the excitement of arguing with you trailblazers getting trite...  I'd rather
> sit and make money than argue...
> 
> But mind you, we're still here... keeping an "I" out for other, more
> interesting arguments...
> 
	Just thought I would add my two cents in on this statement...
	Our company ships a lot of PC's out with most of them having
Windows 3.1 installed on them.  But our research has shown that most
of those systems that have Windows on them use Windows to play solitaire
and run one word processor (usually Word or Ami Pro or WP for Windows).  
Everything else is shelled to DOS.  
	Since our company is responsible for many units of windows to
be shipped, I think I can safely say without bias against Windows 3.1 that
Windows 3.1 could for most people die off if a OS/2 version of tehir
favorite wordprocessor were to come out.

	Our PCs that we sell have Windows on them generally but for our
personal uses we have OS/2 since it is far superior and more productive
to use.

						-Brad



Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:5133 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2146
From: harald@vall.dsv.su.se (Harald Fragner)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.5
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:05:37 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Stockholm University, Sweden
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Brian Sturgill (brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu) wrote:
: 
: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.5

: #	Asynchronous I/O
: 		OS/2 1.X had this feature but for unexplained reasons
: 		dropped it in 2.0.  It turns out that NT's version of
: 		async I/O requires you to give it a data buffer at the
: 		time you issue the I/O request, so this form is only
: 		marginally better than simulating async I/O with threads.
: 		IBM is dropping the feature because their underlying
: 		implementation was using threads anyway.

Right, so why not just drop this issue? NT and OS/2 both have asynchronous
I/O, it's only achieved in different ways. Both ways have their
advantages.

/Harald
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:5417 comp.os.os2.apps:6158
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 14 Sep 1992 22:03:50 CDT
From: Satish Movva <U37127@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: SOMFIX.ZIP, WPS, drive-object, HPFS

In article <92247.152544RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>, FLATSCHER Rony
<RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> says:
>
>Yesterday I got somfix.zip from software.watson.ibm.com which fixes some
>troubles with the WPS. It even seems that some functions (opening folders)

I installed it after I read your note.  You are right it is  a great deal
faster BUT maybe it is because nothing shows in my objects!!!
All my drive objects, except the top most level are either empty, show
only a handful of objects or maybe a folder or two.  Even my system folder
shows only one entity and most of my other folders lost most of theirs
as well.  I am running with all the latest patches (from hobbes) except for
BLKICO (blacked out icon fix).
Looks like SOMFIX needs fixin.  I am backing out of this one!
OS/2 2.0 otherwise runs superbly on my machine.



Satish Movva                                 Bitnet: U37127@UICVM
Academic Computer Center                   Internet: u37127@uicvm.uic.edu
University of Illinois at Chicago                    satish@satish.cc.uic.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: btf57346@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Byron "Bohr" Faber)
Subject: N's in MircoSoft
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 13:35:08 GMT

It seems to me there are alot of N's in MircoSoft's New Windows 
package.

NT, NTFS...... and so on.

Well personally the only N I care about with NT is NO.

Not 
Never
Ca(N)n't


etc.

I'm sure you get my drift.

Byron Faber

Os/2 rulz.


-- 
Please Note:  Some Quantum Physics Theories Suggest that When the Reader   
              Is Not Directly Observing This Message, It May Cease to Exist
              or Will Exist Only in a Vague and Undetermined State.
Internet:  btf57346@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu  & btf57346@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: MS-Word 5.x (was Re: THANK YOU, Microsoft!)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 00:45:02 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

I don't know what I'm doing wrong; I run Word 5.5 in os/2 50 line mode
and I have great mouse except for print preview.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
RE Drug Warriors who enjoy making a "good" bust: I'm sure the Salem
Witch Hunters enjoyed their law enforcement achievements too.
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Brian, your bias is showing ( was Re: OS/2 vs NT features
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:42:00 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep3.164040.11566@nuscc.nus.sg> eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (TAN JIN MENG) writes:
>: The IFS code may well be pageable.  But it'll probably never get paged
>: out anyway, since it is necessary for so many critical features (quite
>: probably for the paging process!) that something else will get paged
>: out first.
>
>Come to think of it - how can the file system code be pageable? I need
>the file system to page in needed blocks! For that matter - is the cache
>pageable - makes no sense if I allow this (though unlike the previous
>case is not impossible just wierd!).

What if you have two different file systems?  Like one HPFS, and one
FAT.  If you use one for your swap device and don't touch the other,
it is likely that the unused .IFS would be swapped to the used volume.

-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "TELEPHONE, n.  An Invention of the devil which
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   abrogates some of the advantages of making a
 ((|,)                          disagreeable person keep his distance."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: MVOLPERS@CIPVAX.BIOLAN.UNI-KOELN.DE (Markus Volpers)
Subject: Re: MS-Word 5.x  (was Re: THANK YOU, Microsoft!)
Organization: BIOLAN - COLOGNE UNIVERSITY (FRG)
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 11:16:29 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.22

In <1992Sep7.234947.116676@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu writes:

> In article <1992Sep07.103709.118680@rrz.uni-koeln.de>, MVOLPERS@CIPVAX.BIOLAN.UN
> I-KOELN.DE (Markus Volpers) writes:
> >In <3SEP199221243001@zeus.tamu.edu> wjb5106@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
> 
> >Yes, WORD 5.5 runs fine under OS/2 2.0, but you cannot use the mouse while
> >in graphics-mode, so it's more or less useless for me. (This problem is
> >also reported in the WORD-Documentation by MS).
> >
> >Markus
> >
> So go into settings and give the program exclusive mouse control.  Should
> solve that problem.  (Unless I am reading what you are saying incorectly)
> 
>                                             Stacy John Behrens
>                                             *===)-------------
> 
>                                             
Sorry, but this doesn't solve the problem. You can't use your mouse
while in MS WORD's fullscreen graphics-mode. It did not work in 
OS/2 1.3 and it does not work in OS/2 2.0.

regards, Markus


Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:5265 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2167
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: >16Mb support
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:14:34 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep11.181421.9293@ans.net> db3l@ans.net (David Bolen) writes:
>
>Of course, that begs the question - just how does that data that is placed
>in the upper memory cache ever reach the disk.  In order to DMA the data to
>the disk to commit it, the data must be moved back down into the <16MB range,
>no?  I'm sure it's still faster than swapping, but it sounds crufty.

Of course it's moved back down to low memory.  But this can be done
during the CPU's idle cycles, when it won't affect application's
performance. 

On a system that uses extra memory as disk cache, then when you run
out of base 16MB memory, the tasks would be "swapped" to disk, being
cached in the upper memory.  When it comes time to write the data to
the disk, it can be done one disk block at a time, and during spare
CPU cycles.  It doesn't take much resources to reserve a 512-byte
static data area in low memory for this purpose.  It certainly doesn't
take much CPU to write one block to the disk.  Of course, the lazy
write algorithm will pick appropriate blocks to write, to minimize
disk-write delay.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "LECTURER, n.  One with his hand in your pocket,
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   his tongue in your ear, and his faith in your
 ((|,)                          patience."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith)
Subject: Re: Suggestions to IBM
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:40:52 GMT

You are making these suggestions to the company that

-- deliberately designed the original PC with an 8088 instead of an 8086
so that it would not be good enough to compete with the DataMaster and the
DisplayWriter

-- deliberately stuck with the 80286, introducing the 80386 only when they
were dragged kicking and screaming into it by competition from Compaq and
others, because they were afraid the 80386 encroached on AS400 turf

-- introduced the PS/2 line with a mishmash of processors, including the 80386
on the high end only

-- sells the PS/2 35SX through direct sales ONLY as part of a bundle that
includes a wretched 0.47 dot-pitch monitor, etc. etc.

In the past, IBM has consistently marked baseline configurations that are
underpowered, because a) they were more concerned with rationalizing their
product lines than giving customers the best possible product; b) traditionally
with big iron you give a good price on the processor hoping to make it up
when they need to expand memory, which encourages non-optimal memory
configurations (erring on the small side).

We will see what the new, improved IBM does. But your suggestions, while
eminently sensible, are quite uncharacteristic of what IBM's pattern has
been for the past quarter-century or so.


-- 
Daniel P. B. Smith
dpbsmith@world.std.com
From: ckincy@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: NT vs OS/2 features (was Re: Misinformation about os2-dos HW access)
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 02:49:26 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

In article <1992Sep03.174552.20957@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>      Hmm... I'm not sure I agree if your argument, but this is
>probably a religious issue anyway.  I can agree to disagree on this
>one.

Yep...you're right.  A philosophical issue.  Until someone gives me
a correctness proof. =)

(Sorry...just had to be a mushy cs type for a second. =)

[nonworking printer drivers]
>>Silly, silly Microsoft.
>
>    Let me repeat:  It's not even in beta yet.  Some of that stuff
>doesn't work.  Yet.

Well, ship them when the work, and quit waisting our time with them.
*snork*  I understand what you're saying.  Just make them work, dammit.
=)

>>What I meant to say is that the DDK (from what I understand) does not
>>support printer driver development.  That's a separate thing, Unidriver
>>I think.
>
>     Ah - I didn't know this.  Are you sure about this information?

Let's see if I can talk about this without getting into legal trouble.

I used to coop for a company in Kentucky that makes printers
(among other things).  This company sent 4 (or so) delegates to the
Win32 developers' conference in San Francisco about a month ago.
 
Now since this company makes printers, they like to make drivers for their 
printers.  So one of the delegates posed the question about printer
drivers, and someone (either Gates or Ballmer, don't remember which)
said (1) we won't create an operating system that won't print, and
(2) the method for developing printer drivers has not been worked out yet.
At first, the DDK will not support printer driver development.
 
Whether this is true or not, it's what someone representing Microsoft
said, which I got as hearsay in a department meeting.

>>[FAT vs HPFS]
>>>     I think the current caching schemes are optimized for FAT.
>>
>>Well, that's acceptable.  Besides, you guys will want to push your
>>newest stuff while keeping your installed base.  I wouldn't expect
>>anything different.
>
>     Plus it's still a pre-beta, and there's plenty of time to
>do different caching schemes for the various IFS's.

I hadn't thought of that.  Hope you're right!

cpk
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (Well, not exactly....)
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:00:28 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Sep10.132338.8801@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.151416.529@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>>What code base does Linux come from?  Is it freely usable, or is it GNU?
>
>Do you mean to imply that GNU isn't freely usable?  GNU has no
>restrictions on what you can use their product on.  If you want, you
>can have your corporation standardize on GNU, with no license
>violation.  The only restriction is that you can't sell it with a
>license that gives the client less rights to the product than
>yourself. 

No, I'm not implying, I said it flat out.
If you use a piece of GNU code in you're other large project, then
you must make that projects source available.  This means that GNU
code is largely useless in a commercial setting.  Thus it is
not freely usable.

>
>And considering that GNU stuff comes with source code, it has the
>potential to be much more "freely usable" than stuff from companies
>like Lotus and MS (who charge you extra if you install on a LAN, etc.) 
>
>Oh yes, Linux isn't a GNU product.
...
>   |)  David Charlap           "LECTURER, n.  One with his hand in your pocket,


Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)
From: hafting@Lise.Unit.NO (Helge Hafting)
Subject: Re: os/2 vs nt: an unasked question
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 17:27:24 GMT

In article <18bb67INNj2c@agate.berkeley.edu>, ucbked@athena (Earl H. Kinmonth) writes:
 > perhaps i have missed it in the discussion of os-2 vs nt, but it
 > seems to me that a great deal of net bandwidth has been expended
 > without asking one very important question:
 > 
 > how do these systems handle languages other than ascii?
 > 
 > although it is not readily apparent from usenet postings, much of the
 > world does not speak ascii, let alone english. coding for the world's
 > second largest computer market (japan) and the largest potential
 > market (china), requires software that properly handles two byte
 > coding schemes.
 > 
 > both languages are more at home with a vertical rather than left to
 > right horizontal presentation. other languages like right to left
 > horizontal presentations (hebrew). when one gets into arabic or
 > various indian languages, there are even more variations in display
 > and processing.
 > 
[deleted the rest]
Os/2 has no problems with 8-bit character sets. I don't know about 16-bit.
According to my documentation, it also support right to left text when
configured for a language that uses it.
-- 
 |  |      ^         |  |      /   ^   o
 |__| _   /|  _  _   |__| _   /|  /|   |    _   _
 |  |/_| / | / \/_|  |  |/ | /-+-/-+- /| /|/ | / \
 |  |\__/  |/\_/\_   |  |\_|/  |   \_/ |/ |  |/\_/
            __/                /              __/
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hercules ??? Be realistic !
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:41:27 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <92Sep9.151749edt.9077@rock.db.toronto.edu> fche@db.toronto.edu ("Frank Ch. Eigler") writes:
>
>ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:
>
>>[among other silly comments]
>>A GUI on a Hercules system is bullshit. [...]
>
>Michael, have you forgotten about the original Mac?
>GUIs on monochrome screens of roughly that resolution
>can be quite competent.

The Mac's 9" screen is less resolution than Hercules.  I believe it's
a 512x240 screen.  Herc mono is 720x348.

>I hope IBM puts in a Hercules driver for OS/2.  I'd
>use it.

I suggest you complain LOUDLY to Hercules corporation.

-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "LECTURER, n.  One with his hand in your pocket,
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   his tongue in your ear, and his faith in your
 ((|,)                          patience."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: gkm@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (gary.k.mc nees)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:16:49 GMT

In article <92255.172320ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Andrew T. Robinson) writes:
>From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
>>Page 134 -- Late News
>>
>>Aldus has stopped marketing and development of its 16-bit OS/2 version
>>of PageMaker and will not commit to a 32-bit version for OS/2 2.0, officials
>>confirmed last week.
>>
>>---------
>>Anybody know more?
>>
>  Nope, but in this case Aldus is the exception.  Every vendor I've called
>  is falling over themselves to support OS/2.
>
>>Also if you want to read something really sick, check out Zachman's NT bashing
>>article.... I think he's finally come completely unhinged.
>>
>  NT is a sieve.  It deserves to be bashed, just as much as OS/2 deserved/
>  deserves to be bashed :-)
>
>Andy

Also, I recently migraded to Ventura Publisher for OS/2. I have VP for 
windows 4.0. I realized that VP for OS/2 was at version 3.0 but got 
it anyway. I was startled to find that VP for OS/2 will not even support
equations. Also, according to the person at VP they are not only not
putting one out for OS/2 Ver.2.0  but they don't even support 3.0 very
well. When I got VP for OS/2 it would not install. I had to call technical
support and get a new .dll to get it to work. It has hung up several times,
something that the windows and dos versions  never did. 

Since neither VP nor Pagemaker are going to OS/2, who is?
 Gary
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (Well, not exactly....)
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: "world"
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:11:34 GMT

sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:

>>>When you get down to it, NT is really superflouous.  There is already
>>>an operating system which has been installed on hundreds (?) of millions
>>>of machines, has been maturing for over 20 years, and has cross-platform
>>>support that NT will never achieve.

>Well, I'm not a big NT fan, but who's to say that it *won't*?  It may very
>well do so in the future, (distant future) and it certaintly seems flexible
>enough to do so.  (At least in theory)

I say it won't. Does anyone really expect Microsoft to port NT to *every*
computer that presently runs Unix? Or even to most of them?

Sun, HP, IBM, Next, and Apple for example.
I'll believe it when I see it. Somehow I can't see Sun cooperating
with Microsoft so that Microsoft can take business away from them.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy