HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison)
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 16:11:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.091315.5977@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.000734.63146@cc.usu.edu> sl1yn@avon.declab.usu.edu (869483 Denys Larry) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan25.064002.3937@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>>	[A hell of a lot of bitching about IBM deleted here.]
>>
>>
>>  That was very nice bit of ranting, Brian.  Now how about a similar 
>>article about the lies and distortions of Crapsoft...er, Microsludge...er,
>>damn, just can't get it right...Microsoft.  You could break it up into
>>a four or five part series.
>>
>
>This is they typical reaction I get from OS/2 zealots.  I make a thought
>out article, complete with facts and references showing that IBM 
>has been doling out misinformation in an organized manner, and what do
>I get?  Cracks about MS.  The vast bulk of MS-bashing in c.o.o.a has
>no factual basis.   If if it were true, why does this let IBM off
>the hook?
>
>Brian
>-- 
>C. Brian Sturgill                  Windows, WfW, Windows NT and some OS/2 2.0
>University of Utah                 information available via anonymous ftp to
>Center for Software Science        easy.cs.utah.edu. Also all my Tidbits posts.
>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373     Windows NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679
And this was another famous comment brought to you by BRIAN.EXE generated
by only reading the first paragraph.  If you had controled your ire and read
the rest of the article rather than flying off the handle, you will see a
well thought out rebuttal to most of your points.  And Tim actually agreed
with you on some of yours.  It is STUPID replies like this that keep
your credibility at absolute "0".  At least in my opinion.

--Uncle Wolf
From: nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: PRO/CON on Mirrors (was Re: AmiPro for OS/2)
Date: 24 Jan 93 19:46:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.C1DIxq.9B1
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:

>>	If they want a strong response for the market, they can write
>>	an OS/2 native versionwithout using a hack like mirrors.  Then
>>	they'll see a response.  If AmiPro is a native app, you can 
>>	kiss DeScribe goodbye.  

>DeScribe does not use Mirrors, it should be noted.  DeScribe is
>already on its second iteration of its OS/2 32-bit word processor.
>They have a tremendous head start, and probably the strongest page
>layout (desktop publishing-like) feature set on the market right now.
>Lotus, on the other hand, comes to the table with a lot of marketing
>clout and what looks like a darn good product as well.

>I don't think DeScribe is going to sit still -- I suspect they'll have
>yet another release with some additional enhancements.  (They also
>offer free upgrades, by the way.)

I don't think the original poster doubted if Describe didn't use mirrors, but
basically saying that if Ami Pro doesn't use mirrors and Lotus puts some effort
into the OS/2 version, it is good enough to kill off Describe.

Compare the speed of Describe (16 bit OR 32 bit, it doesn't matter) to the
Windows version of Ami Pro. If Ami Pro can even come close to that speed (I
think they may just have a chance since the Windows version is 16 bit, and the
OS/2 version would be 32-bi) then things wont look good for Describe. And
I do not know about the US, but apparently Describe is a true OS/2 app in the
sense that it costs a fortune in other countries. Anyone know what the price
is in the US?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Date: 24 Jan 93 12:07:03 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1993Jan22.145935.3373@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> larry@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Larry Maturo) writes:
> In article <1993Jan22.071800.24060@ryn.mro4.dec.com> Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com writes:
> >
> >The $69 includes a C/C++ compiler and the first release version of Windows NT.
> >Comparable offer from IBM?

Well, on the C/C++  front, you can use the GCC or EMX C development
tools..........they cost nothing at all.....They have not been ported to NT as
far as I know....Both of these have PM libraries I have been told.
 
IBM has the WorkSet/2 on perpetual special at NZ$660 (usually NZ$1565). They
aren't giving it away like MS, granted, but it is a good deal.
 
If the Koreans and Japanese were doing what MS is doing, they would be up on
dumping charges faster then you can say "monopoly".
 
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 ****       |
From: lmp8913@zeus.tamu.edu (PRESTON, LISA M)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: BUYING OS/2
Date: 24 Jan 1993 11:41 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

-In article <1993Jan24.172353.19034@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>, gtd543a@sol.crt.columbia.edu (death) writes...
->Once you have testing the OS/2 2.1 beta, is there any way you can
->get on the registered users list?  Do I have to buy a copy of OS/2 2.0
->(which is basically disks and nothing else)?
->--
	It's worth it to get the stickers.;-)
	
	Actually the manuals aren't completely useless, and the on-line
docs are pretty good; it's just that most folks don't bother to read them.

LISA
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:12625 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3978
From: jra1746@hertz.njit.edu (joseph r anstett cis stnt)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: WINOS2 3.1 vs. Windows 3.1 -- benchmark
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:49:49 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.


IBM's former claims that OS/2 is a better Windows than Windows may not be such
a joke anymore.

I ran a benchmark on Windows 3.1 and WINOS2 3.1 fullscreen (from the current
OS/2 2.1 beta) -- specifically, "WINTACH", which measures features used in
word processing, CAD, spreadsheets, and graphics.  

The machine:  Gateway 486/66, Local Bus ATI Graphic Ultra Pro
Windows was not run with the ATI Mach 32 drivers (since equivalent drivers
don't exist for OS/2 yet) but rather the standard non-accelerated drivers,
OS/2 used the ATI non-accelerated drivers that come with 2.1.  The WINTACH
rating is an index indicating the number of times more powerful the machine
is than a base configuration reference.  Higher scores are better.

Windows 3.1 VGA (640x480x16)           5.48
Windows 3.1 Mach 32 (800x600x256)     14.79
WINOS2 3.1 VGA (640x480x256)           9.32
WINOS2 3.1 VGA (800x600x256)          11.38
WINOS2 3.1 VGA (1024x768x256)         14.63

So, for example, at 640x480, WINOS2 3.1 scores a 9.32 versus Windows 3.1's
score of 5.48, and this is even with the fact that WINOS2 used slower 256 
color drivers.  The 1024x768x256 WINOS2 speed fell just shy of Windows 3.1's
800x600 Mach 32 accelerated speed!    

"Better Windows than Windows" just may finally deliver!
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Date: 27 Jan 1993 15:50:27 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <C1Iqw7.BM9@MathWorks.COM> mounil@mathworks.com (Mounil Patel) writes:
>Microsoft will certainly come out
>with NT versions of Excel, Word and Access as soon as NT is out. These
>are packages that companies have already standardized on. They aren't
>going to want to change. Does anyone really think that MS will make OS/2
>versions of these guys? Dream on...

This is why many folks are upset at Microsoft...first they declare that OS/2
is their strategic direction, and maintain that for several years; then they
suddenly abandon the OS and its users, choosing instead to go with a system
that they don't have to share with IBM, and declare OS/2 to be a dead end.
When it refuses to die, and instead makes great strides forward both
technically and in user acceptance, MS tries to outright kill it.

Anyone who thinks I'm going to trust MS farther than I can throw Redmond in
the face of this is insane.
-- 
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.
    "begin 666 foo 266]U(&AA=F4@;F\@;&EF92X: ` end" -- Daniel Drucker
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Organization: University of Utah Computer Science
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 04:10:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.221821.7491@gw.wmich.edu> 177wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
...
>	Ahem, I wasn't going to butt in here but after reading through
>your argument I can't understand how you could get so mad at IBM
>about saying that windows 3.1 support would be here by year's end but
>never seem to be critical of Microsoft for blatantly lying about the
>NT ship date.  The ship date was 1992.  It was in every magazine.  
>They (MS) not only missed the deadline but it looks like it will be
>late 1993 (September is my guess when it ACTUALLY gets released).  Now,
>how can anyone say that Microsoft couldn't have known they would miss
>a December 1992 shipping date when they turn out to be 7 months behind?
>
>						-Brad

I'm not mad at IBM for saying that windows 3.1 support would be here
by years end (and then not meeting it).  I'm mad at them because
they made that statement, then denied they made the statement.

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                  Windows, WfW, Windows NT and some OS/2 2.0
University of Utah                 information available via anonymous ftp to
Center for Software Science        easy.cs.utah.edu. Also all my Tidbits posts.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373     Windows NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:12765 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4006
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Date: 25 Jan 1993 14:53:33 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) says:

>Can an operating system that has only 5-10 or so mass market apps 9 months
>after it is released, really be the desktop OS of the future?
>(Yeah I know, Lotus, CA, and WordPerfect will have out apps soon... whoopie!!!
>the number might hit 20!)

How many mass market apps did windows have in the first 9 month?
Not many.


>NUMBER OF OS/2 2.0 SALES

>How many times have you heard IBM telling us that rate of OS/2 sales is
>growing fast?  I can think of at least a dozen times they've said it to me.
>Until I looked at the numbers I had more or less believed them.
>
>Let's take a look at the facts:
>
>From the first quote, we have 1 million sales in 4 months.
>From the second source, we have ~.5 million more in next 3 months,
>leaving 2 months in 1992 where they had hoped for .5 million more sales.
>
>At the October conference they were saying that OS/2 sales numbers were
>increasing dramatically, but look:
>
>Sales Rate:
>
>Apr-Jul:	1 million / 4 = 250,000 per month
>Aug-Oct:	.5 million / 3 = 167,000 per month
>
>And then they projected:
>Nov-Dec:	.5 / 2 = 250,000 per month.

I know of many companies, such as Price-Waterhouse that were waiting for
the service pack before standardizing on OS/2.  If the trade rags are
right, Price-Waterhouse alone bought 25,000 copies in the beginning of
November.

Brian, yes these numbers for OS/2 are odd, but they are not unreasonable 
or unexplainable.

Throughout your post, you keep saying that IBM is unethical because you
don't believe IBM's numbers.  Sounds more like a smear campaign to me. 
--
From: z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:26:12 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1993Jan21.192423.11114@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
> In article <1993Jan19.190356.12915@cci632.cci.com> rom@cci632.cci.com (Rudynell S. Millian) writes:
>>
>>	Sources within Microsoft said the initial version will require between
>>12M and 16M bytes of memory instead of the 36M bytes required for the 
>>demonstration version.
> 
>     Did you typo here?  I can't recall _ever_ hearing _anyone_, even
> the most rabid MS-basher, claim that Windows NT required 36MB
> to run.
> 
> 				-Phil

	OK Phil, how much memory does it require? How much memory do you have
in your system running NT? This is not a flame, but why did't you correct the
poster, and state the offical requirements, rather than just say it was wrong?


Michael Kupka

	


> -- 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel)
Subject: Re: Doug Hamilton responds
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:07:53 GMT

bill@west.msi.com (Bill Poitras) writes:

>IBM is not going to have Taligent compete with OS/2, but have it be the
>next logical step.  This has been mentioned several times in interviews

That is one problem with OS/2. IBM is probably just supporting it as best they
can while they develop taligent. Many industry analysts wonder why people would
bother with OS/2 when IBM wants to move on to something else. I think IBM will
just give up on OS/2 as soon as they finish taligent, when they can start over
and hopefully this time not relive the nightmare they did with OS/2.

>view some of the higher ups.  Basically they say OS/2 will get some of
>the technology from Taligent, and eventually users can migrate to Taligent's
>OS.  It will probably be compatible with OS/2 in some fashion, much like
>OS/2 is compatible with DOS and Windows.  Hey IBM still supports OS/2
>1.3.  They probably will support OS/2 for a while.

OS/2 1.3 is not nearly as buggy and unstable as 2.0, so 1.3 owners are staying
with it. Computer enthusiasts are a big part of OS/2 2.0's market; the rest
are highly specialized vertical app users, which prefer 1.3 if they are already
using it. That's why IBM is still supporting 1.3.
From: rvaniwaa@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ronald J. Vaniwaarden)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Date: 22 Jan 93 16:18:42 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

In article <1993Jan22.071800.24060@ryn.mro4.dec.com> Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com writes:
>
>In article <GHENNIGA.93Jan20231606@ampere.ampere>, ghenniga@NMSU.Edu writes:
>>However, just to put in a counterpoint to the
>>$69 point, you can get a version of OS/2 comparable to your $69 dollar
>>version of NT for FREE merely by using the command "ftp ftp-os2.NMSU.Edu"
>>and a few "mget" commands!!
>
>The $69 includes a C/C++ compiler and the first release version of Windows NT.
>Comparable offer from IBM?
>

The comparable offer from IBM is a _15_ CD with the latest Beta version of 
OS/2, the latest version of Cset/2, the latest version of TCP/IP, lots of
goodies,...  Just the sort of thing that makes my mouth water over all those
CD ROM drives that I see advertised in Computer Shopper.  Admittedly, this
does not get you the first release of OS/2, as the first release of OS/2 is
already years past!!! and the first release of OS/2 2.0 is also almost a year
past!!  :-)  It would be nice to get the next release of OS/2 but, for 15 bucks
I would not complain.

--Ronald Van Iwaarden
From: (Roger Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM disappearing, hah (Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.)
Date: 28 Jan 1993 22:01:28 GMT
Organization: BYU
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: rm3354m1.cs.byu.edu

In article <1993Jan27.104951.13084@cs.joensuu.fi>, jahonen@cs.joensuu.fi (Jarmo Ahonen) writes:
> 
> smcl@speed.kiev.ua (Scott McLoughlin) writes:
> 
> >Howdy,
> 
> >IBM really _IS_ trying. I definitely give them credit.  But it makes them
> >all the more pathetic.  IBM is _GOING_ _DOWN_, yup, going away.  MSoft's
> >stock market value just surpassed IBM's.  Chairman John Akers was fired
> >today.  90% of IBM's profits (we now have to use past tense) were in
> >mainframe and mini sales.  They are now touting "support and systems
> >integration services" as a strategic business area. Sounds like Wang
> >a few years ago.  Unlike Wang though IBM will give birth to lots of
> >smaller nice companies. None of them are likely to compete with MSoft
> >though.
> 
> Well... I think that you should wait and see. From what I have read, I'd
> expect that MicroSoft's stock-market value is made up by *expectations*,
> as usual with stocks. If MS is going to *GROW* as fast as this far, then
> the value is OK. But remember that there is only a limited number of potential
> users for *any* computer program. Growth stops somewhere... Sales may even
> go down, even with *new* products.
> 
> Phillips (the electronics etc. manufacturer from the Netherlands) was doomed
> some years ago, or so people said. But look at that company now, not
> going to die... DIGITAL looked like going under, but Alpha seems (read: may)
> be able to save them... And did Chrysler die in the beginning of 80's?
> Naw, *BIG* companies very rarely die, they just change...
> 
> But in a few years we will see how things are going... Do not believe that
> one or two badly "red" years in a life of a company which is as BIG as IBM
> will kill it. After five years we will surely know... :-)

Also, there is more to a company than its stock-market value.  IBM still has many assets:
equipment, land, buildings, patents, wholly owned subsidiaries, etc.  If needed, they could
sell off any number of these to gain large amounts of capital to invest in the "technologies of
the future."  In contrast, I believe most of Microsoft's value is in its stock-market value.
Of course, I may not know what I'm talking about.  Just thinking out loud.

BTW, I read today that John Scully from Apple, Steve Jobs from NEXT, and Ross Perot from ??
(what's the name of his company?) are possible candidates for John Akers job.  Any of these would
make for an interesting IBM.  Any comments?

Roger Smith
-- Slave Labor (Graduate Student)

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ekl@kvamdata.no (Eirik Lygre)
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Organization: Kvam data as
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:01:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.071800.24060@ryn.mro4.dec.com> Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com writes:
>
>The $69 includes a C/C++ compiler and the first release version of Windows NT.
>Comparable offer from IBM?

The $69 does not include a release version of the C/C++ compiler. The
first release version of Windows NT is it, along with *beta* versions
of the c/c++ compiler.

IBM cannot quite match this: I paid the equivalent of USD 99 for my
copy of os/2 2.0 GA, and $15 for the C/C++ beta compiler. Of course,
I have a more usable system under os/2 than under Windows NT right
now, which may very well be worth the $45 price difference

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

Eirik

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eirik Lygre                                     Phone:    +47 4 623766
Kvam data as                                    Fax  :    +47 4 623985
PO Box 1101 Lura                                Email: ekl@kvamdata.no
N-4301  SANDNES, NORWAY
======================================================================
From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: A commant to posters
Date: 22 Jan 1993 16:26:39 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuron.tamu.edu

Will those of you who can have a large number of characters
on a screen please think of those of us who have limited displays.

Below is what a message with wide linewidths looks like to us.  Are 
you trying to communicate?  Its not working.  Even for those people 
who can format the message properly, it is difficult for the eye to
travel across the screen for wide messages.  Why do you think books
are the width they are - its because its difficult read longer lines. 

SET YOUR LINE WIDTHS TO 70 CHARATERS MAX. (so quoted messages don't
wrap) 

   -- Bruce





In article <1993Jan22.125618.10779@cu23.crl.aecl.ca> gutz@cp947.crl.aecl.ca writes:
|Something strange has been happening to me since I switched to OS/2.
I obtained my 2.0 GA last April
|and for the first 4-6 months, it was a toy, which I tinkered with at
Lunch and outside of business hours,
|much like I tinkered with Windows 3.0 when I first got it. (I love toys!).
|However, a change slowly took place in the last little while - it
happened  without me even being
|aware of it.  I slowly began to play less with OS/2 and began to use
it more during business hours.
|Now I can compile using a DOS app, and while I wait I can go off and
read  my email or news, or even
|sneak in a quick game of reversi.
|

--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
                              |  Scrupulous Lawyer
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: AmiPro for OS/2 (was Re:
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:06:50 GMT

In article <728035271.AA00000@blkcat.UUCP> Kurt.Westerfeld@f347.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Kurt Westerfeld) writes:
>On Wednesday, 01-25-93, Yamanari wrote to All  
>concerning "AmiPro for OS/2 (was Re::" 
> 
>Y>  Big whoo.  In other words, "Workplace Shell Aware" 
>Y>  is the new OS/2-speak for applications that support the 
>Y>  OS/2 equivalent of drag and drop.  A buzzword with very limited 
> 
>No, WPS aware also means a lot more.  Like dragging a *piece* of  
>your document onto the printer, or embedding (SOM > OLE) AMI data 
>in other containers, etc. 


	No, what it _implies_ is a lot more.  What it _means_ will vary
	from application to application.

-- 
Attempts to lessen the burden of proof in rape | Why not put me in your kill
trials are violent assaults on civil rights.   | file?  add: "/: rsrodger/h :j"
  =====boycott=is=coercion=is=censorship=is=closed minded=is=cowardice=====
	Pyramid schemes are illegal unless you're the US government.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bill@west.msi.com (Bill Poitras)
Subject: Re: Beta-zoid (wuz Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...)
Reply-To: bill@west.msi.com
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 03:06:39 GMT

Mike LevisOS/2 (mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu) wrote:
: Anyone can have the OS/2 2.1 beta now, for free.  If they don't like the
: beta, they lose nothing.  If they like it, they can either (1) buy 2.1 GA
: if they are not OS/2 2.0 owners, or (2) upgrade to 2.1 GA if they are OS/2
: 2.0 owners (I don't know the upgrade cost, if any).  Try before you buy.

: With the NT beta, people must spend $69 first.  If they like the beta,
: they'll get NT GA free.  If they don't like it, they're out $69.

Also the NT version REQUIRES a CD-ROM drive.  OS/2 2.1 beta doesn't.  
--
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Bill Poitras    | Molecular Simulations Inc.    | Tel (408)522-9229       |
| (bill)          | Sunnyvale, CA USA             |                         | 
|                 | FAX (408)732-0831             | bill@west.msi.com       |
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy