HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith)
Subject: OS/2 only on PS/2's? (Was: rift...)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 01:06:34 GMT

Yes, OS/2 1.x ran on AT's and many other vendors' machines. However, in
their product name, public statements, and advertising, _IBM_ tried 
_very_ hard to associate OS/2 with PS/2's.  Since marketer's talk tends
to be a kind of projective test for the reader, the ads did not actually
say anything untrue when read by a technically oriented user, but conveyed
a strong impression to anyone else that OS/2 ran only on PS/2's. One
series of ads tried to imply that because OS/2 was multitasking, it
REQUIRED the Micro Channel bus ('cause ordernary busses, you see, well,
hey, they're sorta like ... a one-lane dirt road ... while MICRO CHANNEL,
well folks, it's a great big multilane superhighway with room for LOTSA
cars at the SAME TIME to do different things at once, so ONLY with the
Micro Channel can you get the benefits of OS/2, which, by golly, IT can
do different things at once).

Also, IBM was trying very hard to use straight OS/2 as bait-and-switch
for OS/2 Extended Edition, which reportedly WAS buggy on non-IBM hardware.

Meanwhile: it is argued by Dustin R. Christmann that IBM, observing that
OS/2 restricted to proprietary hardware didn't do very well, changed and
decided to support it on clones. True. But for how long?  IBM's pattern
in the past is that they only do things right for a short time, then they
go back to their old ways. Take the original PC. They told Entry Systems
to go do their own thing, just as long as it wasn't too good (don't use
an 8086, it might cannibalize DisplayWriters and DataMasters).  Unimpeded
by traditional IBM thinking, even with an 8088 in it, they produced 
something quite decent and very market-oriented.  And as soon as IBM
realized they had a great big success on their hands ... not just a funny
little we-better-have-one-too niche product ... they pulled in the reins,
imposed corporate control, started changing the bus specifications to
present a moving target to competition, etc.

If OS/2 2.0 is a success, I believe that OS/2 3.0 will revert back to
being proprietary (to take full advantage of IBM's unique new line
of PW/3 (Programmable Workstations, let's get rid of Personal altogether)
products with the enormous advantages of the new Macro Channel bus, and
ultra-high-capacity 4.32 megabyte four-inch floppies).


-- 
Daniel P. B. Smith
dpbsmith@world.std.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: duffy@theory.chem.ubc.ca (Pat Duffy)
Subject: Re: What crash is a bad crash (was Re: pc week and nt)
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: comp
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 01:10:20 GMT

In article <hess.713714528@swt1> hess@swt1.informatik.uni-hamburg.de (Hauke Hess) writes:
>craigdo@microsoft.com (Craig Dowell) writes:
>
>>It's been a while since I played with the WPS, but arent the applications
>>you run under the WPS children of the shell?  Aren't they killed when
>>the shell dies? 
>
>Nope, they are not! They may use some WPS API (and thus decide to stop working
>if the WPS doesn't answer for a while), but they also may wait forever
>until the WPS is active again. Or they save your work after asking for
>the WPS without an answer. Every process in OS/2 is independent from other
>processes.
 
This brings up something I'd really really really like to see in OS/2 V2 in the
future.  It seems like most of the crashes I've had have been because the 
WPS froze up in some way and not because the kernel died a horrible death.

Therefore, I'd like to see ctl-alt-del not only flush the buffers, but present
the user with an option to either reboot the whole computer or just restart
WPS.  It'd be great to see the other applications keep going while the WPS
recylcles.  As it is now, if the WPS freezes without cycling, you may as well
have had a hard crash.

Anyone agree with me?
-- 
Patrick Duffy, duffy@theory.chem.ubc.ca 

May our nation continue to be the beakon of hope to the world.
                -- The Quayle's 1989 Christmas card. 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Rest In Peace MicroSoft
Date: 16 Aug 92 06:11:55 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Keywords: MicroSoft, Operating Systems

In article <1992Aug14.194234.5748@novell.com> chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.091301.3969@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug13.022737.17146@ccu.umanitoba.ca> rwalker@next02.cc.umanitoba.ca. (Robert Walker) writes:
>>>Bill Gates' nightmare is coming true. OS/2 is gainig momentum.
>>                                               ^^^^^^
>>
>>I have a question, did you use the DOS version of PETE.EXE, or the
>>OS/2 Version ?
>>
>
>Actually, he used the NT client-server based version.  Guess his
>client was frazzled.
>
That's what you get for using an improperly written OS/2 based client.
(I know, I wrote the OS/2 based client of PETE.EXE.  I wrote it by
running the DOS version through the Windows version, and compiling
with a public domain C compiler).

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Release dates ( was Re: superVGA (and misc top-blowing)
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:16:17 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Aug12.140856.21609@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jensen.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>Name a DOS app that does word processing nicer than the WYSIWIG
>approaches possible under Windows?

One that looks nicer or does more?

>Harder still name a DOS drawing app that does a better job than
>Windows Draw?

Lotus Freelance Graphics for DOS (they make a version that doesn't
need Windows).

>Games are still better under DOS, but I can't think of much else I'd
>miss.  (Others would miss databases, they still aren't all that available
>under Windows.)

Databases are silly in a GUI environment.  Anyone who uses database
programs knows that you can't get much done without writing code and
compiling the database code into another program.  At this point, the
interface is whatever you make it.

>  Clearly Excel 4.0 is better than any spreadsheet around
>anywhere.

Don't tell the Lotus 1-2-3 3.1 fans.

>I know people that swear that vi/emacs and troff/TeX are the best way to
>word process too.... I also know these same people haven't checked out
>the abilities of modern programs.

Many of my professors have used these.  They almost unanimously prefer
using LaTeX for their work.  It has certain features that no GUI-based
word processor can match.  Like facilities for merging a few hundred
files together, paginating, indexing, and making a contents for it.
When you include a file in a document, you can have TeX automaticly
provide the footnotes and referenes to it without writing the extra
text.  You can have very large dictionaries, etc.

Although it's a pain to learn, there are certain things that no
program does better than LaTeX.  And I'm a big Word fan.

>Certain apps are simply better in a GUI environment.

Well, they look nicer.

>Oh, one other thing... have you USED Windows 3.1... a lot of the performance
>lag you might have seen under 3.0 has gone away.

Along with real mode.  I've a few Windows 2.0 apps that I can't run
under 3.1.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Distributed Systems (was: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift)
Date: 11 Aug 92 19:55:17 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Aug11.044425.10498@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug08.020623.25501@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>
>>If there is a "server" program running to connect "shells" up the the term
>>ports, then yes.  Would you find this useful?  What apps would you run
Aha, I use the word TERM ports here!!!!!

>>in these terminals?
>>
>>I suspect that if this is a really useful mode of interaction, someone,
>>maybe MS, will come up with this server.  Frankly, I wouldn't think
>>you would find this archaic mode of operation useful in NT.  Kind of 
>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>like having front panel switches on your UNIX box.
>>
>>petesk@microsoft.com
>>My opinions.
>>
>>(I may sound a little harsh on this one, but gosh, why does everyone
>>seem to want to exist in the stone age.)
>
>Archaic?  Stone age?  You seem to be out of touch with the state of the
>art yourself.  Have you heard of X-terminals?  You just plug the
>high resolution terminal into one of your TCP/IP node and then you
>can use X-Window based programs on the *true* multi-user unix machine.
>I thought this was a real nice way to go.
>
>Can you please tell me how NT will handle these X-Windows terminals if
>at all?
>
>Min
So you're saying that I can hook an X terminal up to a TERM PORT (
serial port, comm port, RS232 port) on my machine and use it as a terminal.
Cool, if you can do it.  Can I also run X software over the TERM PORT.
Is this useful.

I stated a long time ago that NT was fully capable of doing things UNIX could
do over a network connection.  



petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
From: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: os/2 and nt
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:45:53 EST
Reply-To: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

In message <19920810.104404.346#almaden.ibm.com>, AV@vnet.ibm.com (Anton
Versteeg) writes:

AV>I think it's perfectly alright to have two (wouldn't call them double)
AV>standards here. Porting *existing* applications to OS/2 2.0 is probably less
AV>than 1% of the effort to develop a *new* Operating System.
AV>Don't you agree?

Actually, no. Given the problems that OS/2 has with supporting backlevel
OS (Windows, DOS) in addition to its own code, I'd say that the  efforts
are probably about equal. OS/2 has the advantage in terms of the  amount
of existing code; NT has the advantage of a considerably cleaner  design
without having  to maintain  the campatability  with other  systems that
OS/2 does. Obviously, OS/2 was here first. But I'd say that NT is pinned
at  about  a  year  behind  OS/2.  Given  that  NT  is considerably more
ambitious, I'd put them at about an equal footing.

And from what we've seen of NT, porting an existing Win3[01] application
to it is no worse or better than porting the same application to OS/2.

----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.com
Software Consulting and Gator Pit | Eradicate Hunger - Eat the homeless
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
---
  SLMR 2.1a  Kenneth, what's the frequency?
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: maynard@esther.msc.cornell.edu (Maynard J. Handley)
Subject: Re: Damned good recovery
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:40:57 GMT

In article <13AUG199216445457@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov>,
scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.135134.19106@msc.cornell.edu>, 
>maynard@esther.msc.cornell.edu (Maynard J. Handley) writes...
>
>>I'm a Mac user who simply follows the competition out of interest, but
>>something I wonder about. Isn't OS/2 supposed to come with HPFS which
>means
>>you can use decent filenames that use upper and lower case and spaces,
>have
>>file types attached and can be reasonably long? If so, why are you
>people
>>all using these ridiculous names like SVGADATA.PMI? Do you realize how
>>childish thsi makes your OS look? I might at some point switch to OS/2,
>but
>>certainly not while all public evidence I see of it makes it look like
>ist
>>still has all the gorgeous DOS file system features as far as the user
>is
>>concerned.
>
>OS/2 does come with HPFS, but it also supports FAT.  The support of FAT is
>>why the system files have 8.3 names files (such as SVGADATA.PMI).  
>Personally, I don't judge an OS by its filenames - I judge it by its 
>performance.

Fair enough, but I judge a COMPUTER SYSTEM to a large extent by its user
interface, and my point was that this is a sign of a user-hostile user
interface. Don't get me wrong- I want OS/2 to succeed to give Apple (and
MS) competition, but I get the impression that IBM is not serious about
user-interface. Consider, as a second example, the OS/2 icon vs the mac
icon family at different sizes and bit-depths. All small points, but
together they add up to a better user-interface. I'm not arguing about the
quality of the OS. Most people buy a system for the apps on it and the user
interface. The number of people who care about the elegance of the OS is
limited.

Maynard Handley
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jeffc@netcom.com (Jeff Cohen)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 apps (was: I've seen NT...)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 00:54:09 GMT
Organization: Hacker's Anonymous

In article <1992Aug13.123242.14212@wes.on.ca> tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen) writes:
>So, can someone point out whether some of these are actually out now that 
>we're halfway into the third quarter?  I'll list some of the ones I actually
>recognize from the 2Q92 list.  I've marked the ones I know are available
>with a '*' in the first column...  (Oh, and OS/2 1.x apps don't count!)
>
>APPS:
>	Oracle		Oracle

I think Oracle has shipped a 32-bit version for OS/2 2.0.
-- 

==============================================================================
Jeff Cohen         | Standard disclaimer:  My views are my own and may or may
jeffc@netcom.com   |                       not represent the views of IBM.
==============================================================================
From: chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rest In Peace MicroSoft
Keywords: MicroSoft, Operating Systems
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:42:34 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA

In article <1992Aug14.091301.3969@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.022737.17146@ccu.umanitoba.ca> rwalker@next02.cc.umanitoba.ca. (Robert Walker) writes:
>>Bill Gates' nightmare is coming true. OS/2 is gainig momentum.
>                                               ^^^^^^
>
>I have a question, did you use the DOS version of PETE.EXE, or the
>OS/2 Version ?
>

Actually, he used the NT client-server based version.  Guess his
client was frazzled.

---

-------------------------------------------------------
| Chris McClellen      (chris@cad.gatech.edu)         |
| "If at first you don't succeed, redefine success."  |
-------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Release dates ( was Re: superVGA (and misc top-blowing)
Date: 16 Aug 92 22:39:22 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Aug17.040320.21532@msc.cornell.edu> maynard@esther.msc.cornell.edu (Maynard J. Handley) writes:
>[Flames about quality of TeX vs Word deleted.]
>
>Can I make a comment here. I have a Mac and (as some know) am an avid Mac
>evangelist. But I use Alpha (an emacs like editor) and AMS-LaTeX (running
...
>But to say that Word and competitors can produce simple text, let alone
>math that is the equal of TeX is to reveal chronic ignorance or chronic
>lack of aesthetic sensibilities.
>
>Maynard Handley

On a Mac that may be true, even the latest version of Word on a Mac is
inferior to that under Windows... the price you pay for using a Mac I
guess.

As to the last paragraph of your tirade....  any reply that would allow me
to respond in a sufficently graphic manner would for sake of decorum need
to be done offline. Thpfft! :-)

Brian
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Memory/hardware access models
Date: 14 Aug 92 09:43:44 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Aug13.171135.19714@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>
>
>Windows programs should operate in the following manner:
>
>USER APPLICATION
>--+---------+---
>  |         |
>  |         V
>  |      ---+---
>  |      WINDOWS
>  |      ---+---
>  |         |
>  V         V
>--+---------+---
>      DOS
>----+-----+-----
>    |     |
>    |     V
>    |   --+---
>    |    BIOS
>    |   --+--
>    |     |
>    V     V
>===============
>   HARDWARE
>

I'm not going to edit your picture 'cause it's late here in redmond, but...

Are you including Windows device drivers in with the dos layer?
What about the windows memory management stuff?
What about the windows scheduling stuff?

When I get my DOS out of the box it came in, I don't have any of those
things, so I assume they are not part of DOS.  They don't call any
DOS things to do their dirty work.  So they must not be going through
DOS.  I'd expect that then, they are going around DOS, kinda making Windows
look more like a real OS, using DOS as a device driver for filesystem stuff.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: cvadrtbc@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Srikanth Viswanathan)
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Organization: California Polytechnic University, Pomona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 01:29:00 GMT
X-Posted-From: vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Aug14.182354.12338@njitgw.njit.edu>, dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes...
> 
>If everyone remebers a few years ago.  Some people stated that "if
>OS/2 runs Windows apps, why bother developing for OS/2 - just write
>for Windows 3.0 and get both markets".  
> 
>I wonder if those people will use that argument in the future when MS
>puts PM compatibility into NT.  Will they then say "if NT runs OS/2
>apps, why bother developing for NT - just write for OS/2 and get both
>markets". 

What I'm hearing a lot of is "OS/2 takes too much space, I'll just
wait for NT."  And also:  "NT will free us from DOS,  who cares if
it doesn't run a lot of DOS programs, we are going to have to give
up DOS anyway."  Then they turn around and bash OS/2 because it doesn't
run Enhanced mode programs.  

Srikanth
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of users etc.
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 14:30:47 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1684312F55.CIVENBAH@mizzou1.missouri.edu> CIVENBAH@mizzou1.missouri.edu writes:
>  
> Add  "I used to use Win3.0, but since 3.1 and OS/2 were released at about the
> same time, I got both so that I could compare them.  I did.  I now use
> Win3.1.  OS/2 just felt too 'rough' with it's many missing details and lack
> of things like SVGA drivers, printer drivers, etc.... Windows still gets the
> job done admirably well considering all the shortcomings it has (which are
> pointed out again and again by every OS/2 user alive, it seems.)"

We sell Trident SVGA video cards, so SVGA support hasn't been a problem for
our customers. We sell "normal" printers.....all of which are supported by
OS/2 (ANY printer with an Epson emulation is catered for, as are any printers
with HP emulations......plus over 100 others).
 
If you want a stable, multi-tasking OS, then OS/2 wins hands down. But, you
obviously *like* Windows. That's fine. I don't. No accounting for taste.
 
Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | If you don't vote for MMP on 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  September 19, 1992, then you 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  must like things the way they 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  are.....can I live with YOU?
From: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: ms gave up on os/2?
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:46:39 EST
Reply-To: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

In message <1992Aug14.092539.4326#microsoft.com>, petesk@microsoft.com
(Pete Skelly) writes:

PS>Okay, let me restate.  When folks on the net say that MS gave up OS/2, it
PS>sounded to me like they were implying that MS abandoned OS/2.  This was
PS>not the case.  MS gave custody of OS/2 to IBM.

Pete;

Just a few examples of the top of my head:

 -  MSC 5.1 and MSC  6.0 generated OS/2 code.  MSC 7.0 does not,  and in
    fact actually fails to _run_ under OS/2, now.

 -  Word for PM is stuck at v1.1b, with _no_ upgrade to v2.0.

 -  Excel for PM is stuck at v3.0, with _no_ upgrade to v4.0.

I'd call actively removing  support for OS/2 from  the C compiler to  be
abandonment of OS/2,  wouldn't you? And  Bill Gates has  publicly stated
that MS will  _not_ be developing  OS/2 apps, come  hell, high water  or
snowdrift, unless two million copies are sold.

Now, I can certainly understand  MS not wanting to do  _additional_ OS/2
work, but to abandon  their existing OS/2 customers  is bad form, in  my
mind. When we tried to upgrade Word for PM from v1.1a to v1.1b, we  were
sent Word for Windows v2.0, instead.

Not a flame, just an opinion.

----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.com
Software Consulting and Gator Pit | Eradicate Hunger - Eat the homeless
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
---
  SLMR 2.1a  User - a technical term used by computer pros. See idiot.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: bill@snoopy (Bill Poitras)
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Reply-To: bill@msi.com
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 03:12:38 GMT

Michael R. Platzke (SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu) wrote:
: Well, without starting a flame war, I would point out that NT has
                                                                ^^^
: built in networking (limited LANMAN and full TCP/IP), symmetrical (sp?)
: multiprocessing(okay, not much good on a single cpu 486, but still cool),
: multiple APIs (Win-16,Win-32,OS/2 1.3,POSIX), built in security (which forms
: the basis for multiple users), and other goodies.  Yeah, I've heard that
: the mythical :-) OS/2 2.1 is supposed to have much of this stuff, but when?
: In regards to that, would someone from an IBM site care to comment on the
: "offical" feature list of the next OS/2 release (not CSD).  If non-ibm sites
: wish to chip in, please list source of info (not "well some guy on the net
: said that ...").

Windows NT has Win-16, Win-32, OS/2 1.3 and POSIX today?  Full networking
today?  Really?  This is the first I have heard of it.  For you to say
that Windows NT has those features today, and turn around and call OS/2
2.1 and its features mythical, is like the pot calling the kettle black.
Hey at least OS/2 2.0 is a release product.

--
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Bill Poitras    | Molecular Simulations Inc.    | Tel (408)522-9229       |
| (bill)          | Sunnyvale, CA USA             |                         | 
|                 | FAX (408)732-0831             | bill@msi.com            |
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+