HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 1 Oct 92 13:55:58 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep30.201520.16617@microsoft.com> gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin) writes:
>
>1) Although current versions of Windows do run on top of DOS, and their
>	performance and robustness are somewhat hindered by that, Windows
>	and windows apps don't HAVE to run on top of DOS.  And in the future
>	they won't.  

What about all the Windows apps that make INT21h calls in order to
access the file system?  Or will future versions of the Windows-OS also
use this antiquated method?  Or will those apps become incompatible
with future versions of Windows?

>	So when people say that Windows doesn't multitask as smoothly as OS/2,
>	*right now*, they're right.  But when they suggest that this is
>	a permanent feature which will cripple Windows in the future, they're
>	wrong.  Expect to see some real product demonstrating this "pretty
>	soon now".

This would be interesting.  At one time (when MS was supporting OS/2),
Bill Gates stated that Windows would never have preemptive
multitasking because that's what OS/2 was for.  It seems to me that
they're going to leave Windows as a cooperative system, with NT being
the preemptive one.

>2) The technology.  People laud OS/2's multitasking and relative robustness
>	brought about by strong protection mechanisms.  But what they
>	don't realize is that these are not IBM features, they're Microsoft
>	features.

What's your point?  OK, I'll pat you on the back for doing a wonderful
job on OS/2 1.x.  Thanks, you convinced me that something could be
better than Windows with your OS/2 1.2 package, and I thank you quite
a bit for that.

>3) The people who originally designed every key feature of OS/2 2.0 (except
>	for the WPS, thank god) are all still here and are working on
>	superior successor products.

So why won't MS put some of that into their Windows/DOS product?  It's
not the technology we're (well, most of us) complaining about but the
corporate attitude of deliberately withholding technology from low-end
products to keep the high-end stuff looking interesting.

If this stuff (like good multitasking) was developed years ago (as it
was for OS/2 1.0 and up), why hasn't it been included in Windows yet?
After all, there've been two major revisions of Windows that it could
have been included in, and both of them made previous apps
incompatible, anyway.
-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
From: ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why OS/2 **WILL** fail
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:40:40 GMT
Organization: PGP VER2 Key Available Upon Request

[Discussion of why os/2 is not going to sell with joe user deleted]
>A good anology to this situation is the difference between your basic VHS 
>$150 VCR with a $10,000 video editing set.  CP/M-DOS vs. OS/2 2.0
> 
Oh god I hope not!!!!!!! A massive os like os/2 can NOT succede if
it is only sold to a computerphile (audiophile.. computerphile..
whatever) elite! It costs A LOT of money to create and maintain such
a system. It will only succede if it gets sold to joe user. Your
very analogy is the very logic that I originally pointed out as
being the reason why os/2 will fail.

				The jester

-- 
For some reason unintelligible to me, Lord Acton's dictum that
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely"
is rarely raised in connection with judges, who...possess power
..that comes [close] to being absolute"-Judge Bork
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: What IBM has said about OS/2 2.0
Date: 28 Sep 92 03:46:25 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Sep25.190632.23879@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com wrote:
> In <1992Sep24.234011.14732@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> 

> 
> Well, that's what it means TO YOU.  Of course, perhaps you get that
> reception because you act on it before it happens?  Pete, you are the
> bad example for Microsofties that all the legends are about.  Then you
> wonder why people think you guys act that way.
yes, badmouth me personally.  proper net ettequite dictates that you
should.

> 
> >Brian, maybe you should follow suit with these OS/2 guys and stop
> >putting real information in your posts.  And stop posting about
> >products and start flaming the companies instead.
> 
> I don't think so.  One Pete is enough.
Kindly, please, go back through my posts, and find out where I've really
ever badmouthed IBM.  Find one real case where I've blatantly badmouthed
them.  Oh, and for definition clarity, "OS/2 guys" means you people in this
group that are os/2 only.  IBM guys means people who work there.

As for real information, I put that too, and I usually get flamed.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: btf57346@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Byron "Bohr" Faber)
Subject: Impressed with IBM
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:05:55 GMT

Ok.  Three days ago I had figured I'd call IBM and see
what the OS/2 2.01 Beta was like.  I was skeptical at
the time.  From posts on the net I figured it wouldn't
be much better at all.  Within 48 hours they had 
a copy os os/2 2.01 beta in my hands (I was very suprised 
as I didn't expect it for a week or two).

Well I installed it last night and I think they have
done a great job on the 32-bit Gre, while I haven't 
really gave it a hard run yet I can tell its faster 
(don't think I'm talking Road-runner speed here).  Also,
the windows 3.1 support is awesome.  I have a 386DX/25 with
8 meg ram and the old Windows 3.0 support was poor.  The
cursor even lagged behind as winos2 got its share of the 
clock tick.  But on my machine I can just barely tell 
the difference between winos231 and The windows 3.1 that
I had run on my machine.  Over all This is just another
reason for me to love os/2.

IBM. . . keep up the good work.  

Byron Faber

-- 
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: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:43:14 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

kab@s1.gov (Keith Benton) writes:

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

Ahh, once again we see the limits of their vision. Half a year after Win3
came out, DOS was kicking Win's butt. Only now have Win apps overtaken DOS
apps (at least according to posted info). So, let's see about a year from now
how things stack up; perhaps you will not be crowing by then, but eating it
instead. :-)

Tom
From: lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (m.l. gore)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 because!  (was NT: Why?)
Date: 4 Oct 92 04:13:45 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University


>has gone right down the toilet.

    This was mine point exactly. Kudo's To Mr. Behrens for stressing the main
    beef many people have with you Brian: You are no longer objective.

    If you would criticize NT with the same enthusiasm you do OS/2, we would
    all be the better.

    Getting you facts strait wouldn't hurt too much, either (9 months for 3.1
    support....wooooooooo )

    I've said my peace. Please feel free to come back when you have regained
    you composure, or until NT come out. Either way, you would be getting a
    long break.

?
                                        later,

                                        bvl

    
-- 

   ---------------------------------
  | Brian Van Lieu                  |         Let the MS Gods know
  | Lehigh University               |     they cannot rule the application
  | lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu          |     world anymore.
  |                                 |         Tell Gates that he must make
  | ' You can't change the world    |     good on his promises for support.
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:27:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct2.012759.16083
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin) writes:
>3) The people who originally designed every key feature of OS/2 2.0 (except
>	for the WPS, thank god) are all still here and are working on
>	superior successor products.  You'll see them over the next year

Did Microsoft come up with the BASEDEV and ADD approach to supporting
third party hardware?  If so, why was it not used in Windows?  It works
better (and can deal with INT 13h drives above 81, unlike INT13.386 in
Windows).

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk)
Subject: Re: Why OS/2 **WILL** fail
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:11:24 GMT

discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>This is very true.  It is RARE that DOS ever crashes.  In fact, I remember
>watching a Mac user crash his mac with an ID=41, nonchalantly reached to the
>side of his computer and push the reset button--he commented all that it
>happened all the time, but not consistently.  I remember thinking that on a
>PC, if DOS inconsistently locked up, I would take it to the shop to figure
>out what was wrong--Mac users (and now Windows users) seem to take it in
>stride.

The MAJOR reason Macs crash is because someone is running old software
on them.  And there happens to be a lot of old interesting software 
out there.


					Todd Walk
					walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
From: mitch@harlie.lonestar.org (Mitch Mitchell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Desynchronized Message Queues (was a thread about threads)
Date: 27 Sep 92 07:10:55 GMT
Organization: Motorcycle Riders Anonymous

db3l@ans.net (David Bolen) writes:

[About single threaded message queue in PM]
>And I beg to differ about getting it to happen.  You have to be neither
>a stupid programmer, nor work very hard.  Here's a simple example - in your
>message handler, under a mouse button event, put an infinite loop.  Hit
>the button - instant hang of the system.   Now before you yell---- YES, it
>is only hanging user input.  But tell me this - how many users are not
>going to consider that with no input, their system has hung?  How many users
>are going to have to reboot?  (if the error box from Ctrl-ESC doesn't work,
>which it doesn't all the time).

>Now, the infinite loop is contrived...

   No need to contrive an example, just load a relatively large bitmap
   that requires dithering into the icon editor and you'll see exactly
   this behavior...

-- 
* mitch@harlie.lonestar.org                       Mitch Mitchell      *
* {digi| egsner | letni}!harlie!mitch       Voice Mail (214) 519-3257 *
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Moving from X to Y.
Date: 30 Sep 92 09:57:20 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Sep29.170600.12635@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com wrote:
> In <1992Sep25.115252.6641@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Sep24.174754.26590@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com wrote:
> 
> >> 
> >> >Heck, DOS offers more than most UNIX's 'cause you can boot it off
> >> >of a 360K floppy ;)
> 
> One thing Pete mentioned.
> 
> >> 
> >> Color me unimpressed so far, Pete.
> 
> >Okay, You're unimpressed. Can't be with anything but UNIX, though,
> >'cause nothing else has really been discussed yet.
> 
> >petesk@microsoft.com
> >Noone has any opinions of importance on this group, 
> >so why should I.
> 
> Yet another thing Pete mentioned that I might be 'unimpressed' with.  
> 
> See, Pete, there were SEVERAL things in there besides UNIX.  ;-)

Hey, no fair removing the rest of the post...You sort of got rid
of the point of the post by removing the context.

Oh, well, that's netnews for you...
petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Moving from X to Y.
Date: 28 Sep 92 02:42:59 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Sep26.194142.51868@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu wrote:

> 
> Ahh, but I never said that it wasn't expensive.  That is another ball of wax
> altogether.  Heck even small companies produce apps for multiple platform
> though.  Look at the number of companies which produce DOS and Win apps.  If
> you program in both systems, you will know that the two are so different that
> they almost might as well be on different machines.  But companies do it
> regularly because it is profitable.  (though expensive)
> 
Yeah, but in this case, you can use the same machine, the same compiler,
and maybe use products designed for this portability, like Mewel or
something.

Going between Mac and PC's is more difficult, but you can still use
a common codebase.

However, Going from a non-multitasking or preemptive-multitasking system
to a non-premptive multitasking system, taking advantage of things like
threads and such, would require quite a rewrite.  For large apps, this is
quite an undertaking.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6856 comp.sys.intel:1849 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:26064
From: peter@global.hacktic.nl (Peter Busser)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 22:48:37 GMT
Organization: Global Village 1

westes@sti.com (Will Estes) writes:

>In article <1992Oct2.163556.13131@tandon.com> tdbear@tandon.com (Tom Barrett) writes:
>>Actually, it is totally a waste to spend money on EISA for
>>personal computing... servers and multiuser (not
>>multiprocessing) machines excepted.

>Anyone who knows of an EISA SCSI that has a 32-bit virtual device
>driver under Windows, please let us know about it.

That's the point: there aren't any. And if they are there, they're expensive
because no one buys EISA boards.

Besides, what is this 32-bit hype about?

Greetings,
Peter Busser
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sam@ms.uky.edu (Mike Mills)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
    <1992Oct03.232108.18990@microsoft.com> <1992Oct4.180905.27222@ms.uky.edu> 
    <1992Oct05.185953.23579@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 06:12:08 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>In article <1992Oct4.180905.27222@ms.uky.edu> sam@ms.uky.edu (Mike Mills) writes:
>>
>>The only time preemptive multitasking is not the best method is when its not
>>the method used in the operating system you're trying to sell.

>    Do you honestly believe that there are _no_ situations in which
>preemptive multitasking is not the best solution?

Turning that around, what are some situations in which is not the best
overall solution?

>>IMHO, preemptive multitasking is a requirement.  Also, any OS should be
>>multiuser.  This is a shortcoming in both NT and OS/2.

>     Windows NT has preemptive multitasking and is multiuser.  Where
>is the shortcoming?

I meant that the lack of multiuser capabilities was a shortcoming; both
OS's have preemptive multitasking.

However, as I have been recently informed, NT is multiuser.  I'm not too
biased towards OS/2 to admit that is a very pleasant surprise indeed.

If MicroSoft follows through and licenses the sources to universities and
the like, then they may actually turn a few heads in the Unix realm.


<Putting my go-IBM cap back on now.>

>>  With machines
>>becoming more and more powerful, there is an increasing need for multiuser
>>operating systems, in order to take better advantage of the underlying machine.

>     I agree.  Windows NT will meet this need.

If it does, and with sources, then I will buy it, and suggest it to others.
I'd rather have the same thing with OS/2 though.  :-)


>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.


-- 
--Mike Mills              E-Mail:  sam@ms.uky.edu, {rutgers, uunet}!ukma!sam
--UK Math Sciences Dept.                  mike@ukpr.uky.edu    
--(606) 257-1429 (work) 263-0721 (home)
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: A couple of comments on NT vs. OS/2
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:36:45 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <kaz.717782748@vincent1.iastate.edu>, kaz@iastate.edu (Jimmy Buffet)
writes:
>Well, after looking over the latest NT vs. OS/2 list, I don't think IBM
>has much to worry about.  Well, that may be an exaggeration, but from
>a purely theoretical (ignoring the fact that Microsoft is very similar
>to the Roman Catholic church in the Middle Ages... :) ), OS/2 still
>looks FAR superior.  The same year Windows NT comes out with a USEABLE
>interface (let's face it:  Windows sucks), OS/2 will be based on the Mach
>III kernal!?!?!?  Besides, we already have the WPS, which, in my opinion,
>is THE future of interfaces.  I am deeply in love with it.  :)  The only
>major problems OS/2 has is drivers and apps... SO START WRITING LETTERS!
>
>Why don't we start a list of companies to bug for products...  I would
>personally like to bitch at Diamond for their driver support, and beg
>Datastorm for a PM Procomm Plus.  Sound good?

Good idea.  I volunteer to keep the list.  Please mail me any relevant info on
which companies we should get on the cases of and I will be happy to
periodically post whatever info, addresses etc. which are relevant.  This
could make it easier to find out where complain and so on.
>

>Jeff "Kaz" Kaczmarek
>

Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:45:38 GMT

In <1992Sep27.105150.2986@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

>Oh, but pardon me, I am remiss.  But I ask you this, what would have happened
>here in this thread if I started stating how windows is multitasking, etc.
>Instead of you're one article saying I was incorrect about windows, I would
>have received at least 5 replies saying that windows doesn't really multitask,

Perhaps, but those 5 replies would have been wrong.  Tell us, Pete,
are you generally in the habit of doing things simply because they are
expedient rather than because they are right?

>and one of those would have probably been from you.  

Guess again, Pete.  I'm not the sort of Genuinely Clueless Bozoid (tm)
that you seem to be, so I generally only say things to people about
things they've gotten wrong; like you getting this wrong.

>To tell the truth,
>I considered that explicetly when composing these articles, and decided
>that maybe if I just talked about pre-emptive multitasking that people
>would be too clouded about OS/2 vs Windows to call me on misdefining
>pre-emptive multitasking with just multitasking.  

Excuse me?  Would you like to translate this into English and try
again?  Whatever you're trying to say, it's pretty unclear, to say the
least. 

>But, All you other folks,
>look, Fred here is saying that Windows Multitasks, and he is known to
>dislike MS.  Send all email flames to him, though, 'cause that discussion
>has been on the net before. 

Well, if it's been on the net before, how come you got it wrong, Pete? 


-- 
"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.
From: francis@vnet.ibm.com (Tim Francis)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 15:46:25 EDT
Subject: WordPerfect Reaffirms Support for OS/2 (Again)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Reply-To: francis@vnet.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Canada Lab, WorkFrame/2 development
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM

I seem to remember reading here that Word Perfect had dropped support
for OS/2, so this seems to be a good place to post a response.
The following was just posted internally.    -tim

  In response to users who expressed concern about a press
  release announcing support for Microsoft's Windows NT,
  WordPerfect Corporation issued the following statement last
  week reaffirming their commitment to develop WordPerfect for
  OS/2:

  "Microsoft's Windows NT is getting a significant amount of
  attention from the press, and Microsoft is currently
  briefing their customers on the product as well as the way
  their other applications will support it.  As a follow-up to
  the Microsoft Developer's Conference this summer -- and to
  their announcement that they have shipped nearly 10,000
  software developer kits -- WordPerfect Corporation issued a
  statement of support for Windows NT.

  WordPerfect Corporation is a strong supporter of OS/2 and
  has issued three separate press releases in the past year
  reaffirming our commitment to develop WordPerfect for OS/2.
  Alan Ashton, president of WordPerfect Corporation, regularly
  reaffirms this support in his speeches throughout the
  country and will give it major focus at an international
  large account conference next week in Europe.  A fully
  staffed development group has been working hard on
  WordPerfect 6.0 for OS/2 and is currently involved in joint
  interface testing with IBM

  The Windows NT announcement corresponds with WordPerfect
  Corporation's strategy to develop products for a variety of
  platforms and in no way affects our strong support and
  development for OS/2."

    I spoke with the WordPerfect OS/2 Publicist, and she gave us
  approval to widely communicate this statement.