HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: SMALL Excerpt from "Windows Sources"
Date: 30 Dec 1992 14:47:53 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, timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) says:

>>This brings up a few points:
>>
>>1. Certainly one would want at least 8 meg of ram to run OS/2 well. The
>>   NT users on this group have made it clear that one would want 16 meg
>>   of ram to run NT. Are you stating that this is wrong and that one
>>   can run NT well with 8 meg of ram? If not then I don't see the
>>   problem; NT _does_ require more ram than OS/2.
>
>I didn't say that NT doesn't require more RAM than OS/2, I just said
>that it doesn't REQUIRE 16 MB (as many people like to suggest).  I only
>have a 12 MB system, so I can assure you that it doesn't require 16.
>The point is that the shipping NT should require 8 MB minimum, but this
>minimum doesn't mean the same thing as the OS/2 minimum.  As Petzold
>suggested (although he may be pushing it) NT should be much more usable 
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>in 8 MB (its stated minimum) than OS/2 is in 4 MB.

It "should be much more useable" in 8 megs?
  Because Petzold never jumps to conclusions?
  Because you listened to one too many net.rumors? 
  Because your crystal ball says it will work better?
  Because Bill Gates visited you in a dream and told you?
  Because it is stated in the US constitution?
  Because it is our God given right to have it work better?

What do you base this imperatve "should" on?

When you say that it must work much better, it makes it sound like you
are conluding a logical argument in which you offered facts and nice
things like that.  But here, you just state your opinion that that 
windows NT should work much better.  In fact, you argue this through
the entire thread with your only 'fact' being that NT seems usable to you
with 12 megs of memory, which is at best a highly subjective and mostly 
irrelevent statement.

This group is getting to an all time low for lack of factual content.
I don't even look at the 'communist' thread anymore.
--
From: rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 3 Jan 93 01:33:13 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute

jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:

>In article <1993Jan02.094926.14462@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>>>>
>>>>- OS/2 Detected! Due to the size of OS/2 you may wish to delete your OS/2 
>>>>files before installing DOS 6.0 -

>>If DOS is advanced enough to detect the presence of potential
>>disk hoggers (what does it do? Keep a database?) it should
>>certainly be smart enough to tell if there is room enough.
>>If it finds too little room, it should just say so, ....
:
>                There are a number of people, believe it or not, who try
>OS/2 2.0 and decide it's not for them 
:
>                                                 Microsoft has already
>had a package deal out in the marketplace for PS/1 (and other True Blue
>machines) that are/might be equipped with OS/2 (DOS 5 and Windows 3.1
>for a 'package' price).  This wording (which doesn't quite ring true, as
>far I as can determine, but who knows?) might just be to alert someone
>to make a decision: keep OS/2 or not?

But there is where the (alleged) FUD comes in.  Why should this 
person have to make a decision at all?  If there is enough disk
space then fine, keep quiet.  If not, let me know BUT don't go
presuming to tell me what to remove.

If I decide that OS/2 is not for me, I should also be able to decide
if it is more convenient to leave on the hard drive or trash it.

Before folks scream about anti-Microsoft sentiment how many of
you would be pleased if when installing Lotus 123 (say you want
to just try it out or something) you got a message...

Microsoft Excel detected!  You should delete this before proceeding.

I would be mad enough to package those disks right back up and
return the software.  NO VENDOR has the right to tell me what
is good for my computer...

Robert
--
| Robert L. Howard              |   Georgia Tech Research Institute     |
| robert.howard@matd.gatech.edu |   MATD Laboratory                     |
| (404) 528-7165                |   Atlanta, Georgia  30332             |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "See, when the GOVERNMENT spends money, it creates jobs; whereas when |
| the money is left in the hands of TAXPAYERS, God only knows what they |
| do with it.  Bake it into pies, probably.  Anything to avoid creating |
| jobs." -- Dave Barry                                                  |
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 03:47:03 GMT

In article <8262@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

|> You cut out the part where I explained the difference: MS isn't selling
|> anything that gains from being shipped just in time. Your analogy is fatally
|> flawed.

I appologize if I cut out something vital to your argument.  I've tried to 
scrupulously include everything.  Mea Culpa.

|> Further, I've worked for manufacturers who practiced Just in Time inventory
|> control without depending on a sole source for the items purchased. That is
|> not a central feature of the technique.

No sole sourcing isn't a vital feature of the technique, but a JIT inventory
control agreement between you and a supplier does put a new upstart supplier
at a "competitive disadvangage".  My point wasn't that Microsoft is practicing
JIT, my point (which admittadly was badly worded) was that _if_ a business
agrees to have a single source for a component, often the supplier of that
component can agree to offer it for a much reduced price, especially in
the context of a long-term JIT type of arrangement, because they know that
they will have a steady and stable customer.  _That_ of agreement between
a customer and a supplier is, as you say, "A Good Thing", and shouldn't be
made illegal no matter if the supplier is Ace nuts & bolts or Microsoft.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 14:54:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.231430.19134@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>In article <1992Dec25.180324.15834@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>> 
>> Let me see now. Having OS/2 installed on a 6 megger and then
>> adjusting the memory settings of the 16 meg system would
>> result in the exact same setup right? (If you think, wrong,
>> quit reading, this is meant for those who understand)
>> In other words, OS/2 becomes instable if you change your
>> cache settings? I find that highly unlikely, and if indeed this
>> would be the case, it shows poor programming. However,
>> I see no reason for it to be so, since, the same effect would be
>> gotten when the system becomes low on memory for other reasons,
>> like too many jobs. Response time does go down (hence the
>> poorly) but it does not affect stability. Stability is not a
>> function of memory available, so the system is most likely to
>> remain as stable or unstable as it was before the memory change.
>> I am sure this is easy enough to understand.
>> 
>> Erik
>
>Hi Erik. I guess our friend Yamanari doesn't know that under OS/2 any cache
>setting higher than 2048K is ignored......


	Now you're getting it.  Now *take that se4tting and put it on
	a *4* meg machine!


> 
>Steve
>
>-- 
>Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
>Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
>+64 4 478 4714                          | looks like we may get a more  
>**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".


-- 
       "If you can't eat sand, why the hell are you living in a desert?"

     Equality is a delusion, suffering is a fairy tale and God is a fantasy.
       Blaming society for inequality is like blaming the sky for rain.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 12:53:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.114844.23358@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.233102.14676@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu>, rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:
>|> I am hoping that Sun's new WABI pans out.  That will kill NT, severely
>|> cut into Windows, and force MS to try to stop Sun in court.  (for
>|> the uninitiated, WABI is an interface that allows any Windows program
>|> to run on any machine [CPU/OS combination] to which WABI has been
>|> ported).  You could run Ami Pro 3.0 in an X-term session on your
>|> HP workstation running HP/UX.  Take that Billy :-)
>
>I can't tell you how happy it makes me that at least ONE company is
>trying to beak Microsoft using programmers and not lawyers.  I saw in
>January's computer shopper that this is also persuading Microsoft into 
>perhaps porting Word, EXCEL, etc. to Solaris.  If IBM used this technique
>they probably could get Microsoft to port those killer aps to OS/2 too.
>

Those who can, do. Those who can't, litigate.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Subject: ms to 'support' os/2?
Reply-To: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: comp
Date: 4 Jan 93 00:31:23 EST

In message <1992Dec29.174203.9145#bas-a.bcc.ac.uk>, ucgadkw@ucl.ac.uk
(Dominik Wujastyk) writes:

DW>I'm pretty certain MS Word 5.5 doesn't support HPFS under OS/2, since
DW>it is *really* an OS/2 1.x program, and I believe HPFS only came in
DW>with 2.0. (Perhaps I'm wrong about that?)

Word 5.5 is a family mode application, meaning it runs under both OS/2
(16 bit) and DOS. There is therefore no native HPFS support, since HPFS
doesn't exist under DOS, but of course Word can still access HPFS drives
as long as the files follow FAT naming rules.

HPFS was introduced with OS/2 v1.2, back in late 1988 or so.

----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.com
Software Consulting and Gator Pit | Eradicate Hunger - Eat the homeless
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
---
  SLMR 2.1a  Wanna Be a Psychopath? Read Dianetics. Or ZMODEM.DOC.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 04:13:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.003855.26051@midway.uchicago.edu>, sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec22.120639.23608@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> >AT&T was only a monopoly because it was illegal to compete with it.  In fact,
|> >I can't name a single example of a monopoly which wasn't created by
|> >the goverment.
|> 
|> A quick look at anti-trust case history reveals several examples.
|> Without arguing the individual merits of each case, how about Standard
|> Oil or U.S. Steel?

We've already established that these weren't really monopolies but in a quick
review in 1911 when Standard Oil was broken up it controlled only 66% of
the market, and had been losing Market share for almost 20 years because of
stiff competition from Texico and Gulf.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: tracer@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu (Roger M. Wilcox)
Subject: Re: Motorola couldn't make enough 68000's
Organization: University of Oregon Computer and Information Sciences Dept.
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 04:41:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.042742.28238@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>
>I hate to re-hash arguments that have occurred over the years in other

Too late!

>newsgroups.....but my understanding is that IBM went with the Intel 8088
>because Motorola - at that time - simply could not produce the 68000 chips in
>the quantities that IBM required them. 

My understanding was that IBM, after the failure of its first microcomputer
in 1975 (it cost $5000 without disk drives!), decided that they had to be
able to build PCs out of the least expensive parts available.  This meant,
among other things, that the data bus for the yet-to-be-implemented IBM PC
would have to be eight bits wide.

Not sixteen bits wide, eight bits wide.

Intel produced an 8-bit version of their 8086 called the 8088, which (like
the 8086) had a one-megabyte addressing space and could run at the 4.77 MHz
clock speed common to most inexpensive-but-reliable microcomputer hardware
avaliable at the time.  Motorola, on the other hand, was around a year away
from producing the 68008 (their 8-bit 68000), which would certainly have been
the chip of choice for the PC had it been released earlier.

So, naturally enough, Big Blue went with Intel's latest entry into the
descended-from-the-8008 line of processors (the 8088), because it had the
required Eight Bit Data Bus.

(Now then, why *Teradata* decided to use 8086's (*not* 8088's) for their
massively-parallel DataBase Computers, instead of the 68000, is beyond me.)

-- 
Roger *M.* Wilcox   (aka Jeff Boeing)
tracer@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu
Aleph null bottles of beer on the wall, aleph null bottles of beer, ...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: More advertising
Date: 31 Dec 92 04:15:33 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Dec30.181522.5719@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Dec29.181546.1151@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>
>>	So we're agreed that using the word "all" is a lie, right?  So
>>	*pull the word*.
>
>Yes, it's a 'lie' in the same sense that any usage of the words 'all',
>'every', and 'always' is a 'lie'.  Shall we delete them from the
>language, or shall we instead assume that people are going to
>understand the language as it is typically used?

     "All", "Every", and "Always" have perfectly legitimate uses.
Advertising software is rarely one of them.


>Hell, MS-DOS won't run all does programs. MS-Windows certainly won't
>run all Windows programs (OSWin runs more of them than MS-Windows
>does).  Let's force them to change the name of the products, since
>using those names implies that they will run those programs AND THEY
>DON'T. 

     Fred, if you can show me an MS-DOS ad that says that it
runs "all DOS programs", or a Windows ad that says it "runs all
Windows programs", then I'll lobby to have the company change
it.  I have never seen such an ad - I don't honestly believe
that one exists.

				-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu (RICHARD HOFFBECK)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Reply-To: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu
Organization: Colon Cancer Control Study, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:02:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.234828.0203999@locus.com>, lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:
>  
> Besides the 1983 promise to allow ME to use more than 640K on my AT still
> is waiting to be filled by MicroSoft.  

Why should MS be responsible for IBM's promises?

>  
> I have been in this industry since the Altair was the hot kid on the block,
> and I really don't know a lot of users who are happy with Microsoft.  Such 
> statements as; "I bought this 386 with 8 megs of ram, why will this ****
> MS-Dog only allow me to use 640K without buying something else again" are 
> rampant.  People are not happy with MS, they only buy MS-DOS because it is
> effectively the only game in town, and you gotta play and pay through the
> nose for the priviledge.

It was IBM that decided to place the BIOS/Video/Disk ROM where it is, not
MS.  It was IBM that decided to go with the segmented architecture, not MS.
I'm happy with MS, they've never screwed me over as badly as the UNIX
vendors have. You think $50 is bad for DOS, try buying a 'complete' UNIX
port only to be told that the driver for your tape backup will be another
$250 or that the troff driver for your Laserjet will be $200. You really
want to be held by the short hairs, try MicroPort, SCO or any of the rest
of that crowd. Hey .. I'm still waiting for a working version of my DOS
emulator that I bought for $250 for the 286 version of UNIX V.2 back in
1986, but it was 'decommited' in 1987 without the company ever producing
a working version. I was told that was too bad but they didn't offer
refunds on decommitted products.  They wouldn't even give me credit towards
the purchase of the 386 emulator.  MS has a long way to go before they
can come close to the extortion that goes on in the UNIX market!

--rick

+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Richard Hoffbeck               INTERNET: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu |
| Colon Cancer Control Study     ATT     : (612) 627-4151         |
| University of Minnesota        CIS     : 72406,521              |
| Minneapolis, MN 55455                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Date: 22 Dec 92 10:01:20 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Dec21.154910.6846@kth.se>, d89-zke@dront.nada.kth.se (Zoltan Kelemen) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec20.202150.818@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> >
|> >First of all Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on OS's.  If you want to
|> >run DOS programs and you don't want to go to Microsoft you can buy
|> >DR DOS from digital research.
|> >
|> 
|> Well, the problem is that I, as a customer, don't see the alternatives
|> to MS Windows or DOS when buying a computer. Why? Because almost every
|> system is bundled with Windows. How on earth could I make a fair price
|> comparison with other products, when I get Windows "free" (its price is
|> hidden as a part of the system).

Like its Microsoft's responsiblity to make sure that you, as a customer,
know all about all of its competetors?  Puh-Lease.  Anybody who is going
to lay down $2k for something without checking out all of their options
deserves it if they don't get a good deal.
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 2 Jan 93 23:20:52 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1993Jan2.045054.6544@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
> In article <1993Jan02.025323.15888@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan1.133731.2312@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>>>
>>>	All this talk about FUD & Misinformation about OS/2 from Microsoft has
>>>some NEW Merit!
>>>
>>>	I Recently talked to a Beta Tester of DOS 6.0. He Runs OS/2 with 2 Hard
>>>Drives, One FAT, One HPFS. He decided to Install the DOS 6.0 Beta on the FAT
>>>Partition, and got a Message saying, and I paraphrase: 
>>>
>>>- OS/2 Detected! Due to the size of OS/2 you may wish to delete your OS/2 
>>>files before installing DOS 6.0 -
>>
>>     Interesting.  What is the problem with that?  If there was a
>>similar message that said "Autocad detected.  Due to the size of
>>Autocad you may wish to delete your Autocad files before installing
>>DOS 6.0", whould that be bad too?
> 
> 
> 	Might I offer a suggestion?  Perhaps the 
> 	warning was to prevent the user from installing the DOS6 
> 	beta using the Stacker-like disk compression program.  This
> 	would, quite simply, render OS/2 unusable.  
> 
> 	The wording, as given, doesn't say that (although "size"
> 	seems to hint) but then again, it doesn't sound like
> 	a real rendition of the error message anyway, rather, it
> 	was a screechy rendition by a fanatic.
> 
> 	In any case, why don't we wait forat least one verification
> 	before making accusations left and right.
> 
	I will add that I too heard from a good source that it gives that
exact message.  I am not going to call the FTC, but I may drop Bob Cringely
a line about it... when it pops into INfoworld, you will know who sent that
word...

> 	
> 
> -- 
> 	Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
> 
>          ---  boycott == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
> 		   	     Pain teaches.   <for mailing and other info, .plan>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:19:48 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: comp

In article <1992Dec21.3155.5804@dosgate> "richard anstruther" <richard.anstruther@canrem.com> writes:
>-> From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
>
>-> |> to leverage other companies' apps out of the
>-> |> marketplace by giving its own application programmers the inside
>-> |> track to upcoming changes and undocumented features in the OS.
>-> Would somebody please tell me exactly what is wrong with that?
>-> Besides whining "its not _fair_!!!"  Microsoft owns Windows and DOS.
>-> What Microsoft wants to reveal or not reveal isn't anybody's business
>-> but Microsofts.
>
>What's wrong with it is that it is illegal and has been for a long
>time.

    Huh?  Can you cite any federal or state law that requires an
operating systems vendor to reveal _any_ of the APIs in their
system?

				-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.