HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com (John Brock)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Reply-To: uunet!csfb1!jbrock
Organization: First Boston Corporation
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:01:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.045145.15784@tc.cornell.edu>, bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
|> In article <Bzn3M2.IvJ@csfb1.fir.fbc.com> uunet!csfb1!jbrock writes:
|> 
|> >I get the impression that you are one of those people who have elevated
|> >the free market to the status of an absolute moral value.  So you may
|> >not be willing to acknowledge one of the flaws in the free market
|> >system, which is that it is unstable, and that it is all too easy for
|> >one company to gain such an advantage in a particular market as to
|> >permanently stifle any competition.
|> 
|> What is your evidence that MS actually stifled competition ? I
|> see only more and more products for less and less prices, with IBM
|> in a good position to make the NT project go down the drain. 
|> 
|> >-- 
|> >John Brock
|> >uunet!csfb1!jbrock
|> >jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com
|> 
|> Dov
|> 

I'm not real interested in arguing the details of this particular
case.  I made a general statement about the free market system, which
is that it is flawed in that it allows monopolies, and that we try to
patch this flaw by interfering with the market.  I also said that some
people treat the free market as a moral value, and are unwilling to
acknowledge any intrinsic flaws in the free market system, and that I
suspect you are one of these people.  So I guess my question is are you
defending Microsoft because you don't think it has behaved in such a
way as to warrent interference, or because you think it is always
immoral to interfere with the free market?  If the former, then I would
be interested to know what you think Microsoft would have to do before
intervention was warrented.  If the latter, then my original suggestion
stands.  Go elect some politicians who think as you do.

-- 
John Brock
uunet!csfb1!jbrock
jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: More thoughts on ads..
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 16:29:47 GMT

It occurs to me that a computer/computer software that is advertised 
on TV or radio is in pretty bad shape.

Observation:  Never has a TV campaign, so aimed, succeeded.

Examples:  Commodore Amiga's number of ads
	   The original PS/2 and OS/2 ads (MASH)
	   Phillips CDI & Commodores CDTV (flops) 
	  

When you advertise on TV or radio you are spending a lot more to contact
a limited number of people.  How many of those listeners/watchers
have computers?  How many know jack about them?

A few ads in a some computer magazine (say, a two or three page insert
a la DesqView/X)--or all ofthe computer magazines--would deliver a much
higher hit rate than any radio or TV ad. 

And "multitasking" is not the thing to advertise.  Most people--99% of them--
can multitask adequately under Win3.1 w/4 megs and a 40mb HD (stacker or without).  The thing to push is that OS/2 is in many ways better (but let's not
lie about it) and costs no more.  Furthermore, it would be nice to see some
ads that showed real performance benchmarks for a 386sx-20 w/8 megs compared
to the same system under DOS or Win3.1.. 

Then again, maybe benchmarks aren't a good idea.


-- 
	Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
         ---  boycott == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:16:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.024105.1788@ryn.mro4.dec.com> Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com writes:
>
>
>So those (American) people who think the FTC is morally correct because
>it has the law on its side are presumably still rankled by such illegal
>activities as the Boston Tea Party, which was a protest against laws
>that were obviously moral because they existed.
>
>Taxation without representation, software without Microsoft?

Not really, because King George's executive orders reguarding the colonies,
specifically the taxes and quartering troups in private houses without
recompense were Illegal Under English Law, thus Illegal Executive
Orders.  And the Colonists were also denied constitutionally legal
redress, they were not allowed to "Cry Harold" (those who know English
History will understand the reference).
>
>(Just throwing a loop. :-)
>
>PJDM
>--
>Peter Mayne                     | My statements, not Digital's.
>Digital Equipment Corporation   |
>Canberra, ACT, Australia        | "AXP!": Bill the Cat
>

Loop-de-Loop ;->

--Lowell Morrison
--Uncle Wolf
From: ucgadkw@ucl.ac.uk (Dominik Wujastyk)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS to 'support' OS/2?
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:42:03 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

hilmera@storm.CS.ORST.EDU (Andrew Hilmer) writes:

>In article <1992Dec28.105039.6803@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> ucgadkw@ucl.ac.uk (Dominik Wujastyk) writes:
>>Yes, Microsoft Word 5.5 for DOS also runs under OS/2 2.0 (and under
>>earlier versions, back to 1.0).  The only difference I can detect
>>is that the "File" menu choice for dropping down to the operating system
>>says "DOS" and "OS/2" respectively when running under the different
>>systems.

>I suppose that it is too much to hope that W5.5 would support HPFS
>filenames.  I would rather hunt around and buy a used copy of Word
>than blow two month's rent on Describe... and I am hoping for a
>perfect solution.  Rotsa Ruck, eh?

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

Also, HPFS isn't mentioned in the docs I have; just memory and the OS 
menu choice.  (And some trivial stuff about installation.)
Dominik
From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 30 Dec 1992 19:31:41 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuron.tamu.edu

In article <1992Dec30.180456.26228@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|What Microsoft is doing with the clone makers is really just another example
|of the trendy new concept in purchasing called "Just in time" purchasing.  The
|idea is that instead of having 3 or 4 suppliers for one of your components, 
|you form a long-term relationship with a trusted supplier who will be
|your only
|source.  You save money because instead of having to keep an inventory of
|all of your supplies you're supplier will ship to you exactly what you need
|exactly when you need it.
|
|This "just in time" is spreading like wildfire because it saves money
|and makes 
|manufacturers more efficient.  EVERYBODY is doing it, not just Microsoft.

Gee, and exactly what is MS delivering "just in time"?  Permission to
copy? I don't feel this argument is valid because nothing is being
delivered.  
   -- Bruce
--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
                              |  Scrupulous Lawyer
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:40:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.124550.10847@donau.et.tudelft.nl>, linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:

|> >Look at it this way.  The only way a "big company" can put a "little company"
|> >out of business is for the customers of the little company to _voluntarily_
|> >of their _own_free_will_ to _choose_ to buy from the big company instead.
|> >In other words, it is the freewill choice of the customers which puts _any_
|> >company, big or little out of business.
|> 
|> And not the potential of a big company to produce at lower costs and
|> the consumers wish to get the cheapest product still valuable. Right
|> you are.

What do you have against a big, efficient company producing a valuable
product at a cheap price?  The only reason we have a higher standard of
living than our ancestors is that we can produce products more efficiently
and cheaper than they could.  

When goverments intervene to make it harder for companies to produce products
cheaply (which is exactly what the FTC is trying to do to Microsoft), 
they increase and perpetuate human misery by making it impossible
for poor people to buy what they need.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 04:53:08 GMT

In article <19153@mindlink.bc.ca> Ian_Upright@mindlink.bc.ca (Ian Upright) writes:
>> Phil Lafornara writes:
>>
>> Org.  : Microsoft Corporation
>>
>> >F-Fear- Fear that Using OS/2 and DOS on the same machine would be
>> dangerous.
>>
>>     It is.  DOS 6 may make your FAT partitions unreadable by
>> OS/2 or other operating systems.
>
>
>Well hell..  I won't be going near DOS 6.0 with a ten foot pole!
>Is it just me, or does microsoft *really* think that making things
>incompatable is really a "feature".. How nice..  Now thats what I call
>advancement!
>

You make my point very well: this alleged message (which is beginning to
sound like it's FUD of its own) is not likely to make any real
difference since the people you're trying to persuade (brainwash, 
some bigots would say!) aren't really your market for DOS 6.0!  

>  Origin:  Astaria Digital Enterprises             Ian_Upright@mindlink.bc.ca

jmalloy@hamilton.edu


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,fido.os2
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot and NT
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 16:43:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.101024.27080@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>
>OK. I tried to boot the now infamous NT-bearing hard disk on my 386DX/40
>with 16megs of RAM. 
> 
>It won't start. 
> 
>It must have been so corrupted from all those crashes the other day
>that now I must re-install it. 
> 
>OR......does it not like the AMD 386 CPU? Anyone know if MS and Intel
>have "fixed" NT so that it doesn't work with AMD CPU's? 
>I know MS has knobbled NT so that it won't install with OS/2 (though 
>there is an easy work-around), so the idea isn't all that far-fetched.
> 
>Any comments? Stuffed disk? or more crippled software from MS?
> 
>Steve
>
Well, yeah, it's crippled, I'm sure.  It's part of the Microsoft Evil
Plan for Total World Domination(TM) (also known as "Domination at your
Fingertips"(SM)) -- there's a hallucinogen that's released whenever you
try to boot NT; NT doesn't actually work (it's really OS/2 is disguise,
hence all your problems), but the drug usually makes users think they're
onto something New and Improved!  They're calling this their new "Drug
and Drop Technology"(R).

I think Microsoft has a great future in releasing crippled software!
Look how far it's gotten IBM! 

Hey, it just occurs to me that IBM's stock hasn't really tumbled into
the pits, it's just more of the Microsoft Marketing Magic(SM) at work! 

[Note for the humor-impaired: note the impaired humor.]

Joseph Malloy
German Department
Hamilton College
Clinton, New York

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 22:18:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.133731.2312@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>,
z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>
>        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 -
>
>        His Fat Partition was created by DOS 5.0 and he is running Boot
>Manager. DOS 6.0 Beta either looked at the Boot Manager setup or detected
>HPFS on the D: Drive. In either case he had over 150MB Free on each Partition!
>

     Well, look at it this way... we don't have to buy DOS 6.0 since
we don't even need 5.0 anymore.  And besides, anybody who has OS/2
on their machine isn't very likely to decide they want the latest
version of DOS.  I can guarantee that I won't be getting it, and
many other people I know (like my dad, who has bought DOS since
around version 2 or so) won't either because they either don't need
it or they now use OS/2.


>So The next time I hear a Micro$oftie say "IT's IBM spreading FUD not us"  The
>DOS 6.0 Beta will immediately come to mind! It's Simply BULLS**T!!!!
>

     Besides, won't IBM also have access a PC-DOS 6.0 which will be
equivalent to MS-DOS 6.0?  Just wondering.  BTW, has anybody seen
those adds for PC-DOS+Stacker+386Max?  If I was going to buy DOS
now, that's the sort of thing I would go for!!

Timothy Miller

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Information Week: OS/2, one of 1992's Top Products
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 23:26:38 GMT

In article <pathak-231292164232@virtual.mitre.org> pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak) writes:
>From Dec. 21 of information week [copied without permission]
>Article titled: 1992's Top Products and Services
>The 10 Most Likely To Succeed
>OS/2 2.0
>After years of delays and feuds with co-developer Microsoft Corp., IBM
>finally shipped its 32-bit operating system.  It was well worth the wait. 
>OS/2 2.0 is both revolutionary -- as the first 32-bit, Intel-based system
		^^^^^		          ^^^^^ ^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
	Wrong.


>-- and versatile in its ability to run multiplatform applications for DOS,
>Windows, and OS/2.  Processing 32 bits of data at a time improces
							  ^^^^^^^^
>multitasking functions and reduces system crashes compared with Microsoft's
   ^^^^		^^^	     ^^	      ^^^   ^^^     ^^^^ 
>DOS or Windows.  For instance, portable computer users of OS/2 2.0 can send
 ^^^    ^^^^^^^
 
	1.  32 bits doesn't have jack to do with 
	"improving multitasking functions
	2.  Nor does OS/2 crash less than DOS
	3.  Nor does 32 bits have to do with any of it.


>a DOS file by modem to their home offices in one window while
>simultaneously writing a letter in a Windows word processor.  The OS/2


	A windows user can do the same.  


>model will likely become a standard in corporate computing where such
>advances in flexibility and mission-critical platfroms are imperative for
>users.

	Frankly, I wouldn't hold this prediction any higher than
	I'd hold the ones you see in the enquirer.  They obviously
	don't know what the hell they're talking about.  I'm suprised
	they didn't say something like"32 bits improves the capability
	of the user interface"


-- 
	"If you can't eat sand, why the hell are you living in a desert?"
			Equality is a delusion.
	     Rule 1:  "Don't have more children than you can feed."
	      Buy American as if your job depended on it.
From: gt0040a@prism.gatech.EDU (Tom Sorensen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.1 specifications, release date.
Date: 26 Dec 92 02:31:45 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In <1992Dec23.233415.4712@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> ucgadkw@ucl.ac.uk (Dominik Wujastyk) writes:

>I'm sorry I started this sub-thread, because I made a mistake in my
>question:  I was wondering if OS/2 DOS windows would support
>VCPI, not DPMI.

Not possible- VCPI wants control of the entire system- including the ability
to pop the CPU in and out of protected mode. I doubt OS/2 would appreciate
a program poping the CPU into real mode...
       Tom Sorensen

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Sorensen              gt0040a@prism.gatech.edu
"I believe OS/2 is destined to be the most important operating system,
and possibly program, of all time." - Bill Gates, November, 1987
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: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 23:53:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.032235.18340@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:

|> Ego?  This has nothing to do with ego.  The goal of this is so that American
|> companies (plural) might *better* compete with each other as well as the world
|> market.  Giving one company an overwhelming dominance in this industry would
|> be the most anti competitive thing we could possibly do.


Hmmm..... ok, let me get this straight.  Microsoft competes so well now that
the FTC needs to take its competative advantages away because it is being
"anticompetative."  

The above sounds a lot to me like "War is peace" and "Slavery is freedom". 
Downright Orwellian.

Abraham Lincoln said it best:  "You can't strengthen the weak by weakening the
strong."
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: fles0092@rz.uni-hildesheim.de (Frank Leskova)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Reply-To: fles0092@rz.uni-hildesheim.de
Organization: Universitaet Hildesheim, RZ
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 11:30:33 GMT

In article 22124@noose.ecn.purdue.edu, helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <BzMLLx.JtD@news.iastate.edu>, TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:
>
>|> too.  The problem is that they are allowing their application
>|> developers to use calls from their OS that other developers can't
>|> use.  This gives MS applications an unfair advantage over the
>|> competitors applications.
>
>Bill Gates doesn't have to show anybody his OS calls any more than he
>has to show them his underware.

But he should - at least if he expects it to be supported by anyone else.

>|>      The question isn't a matter of ownership of the OS.  MS wrote
>|> MS-DOS, and nobody is going to argue that (I guess it depends on
>|> what I mean by 'wrote'...).  It's a question of interpreting the
>|> law.  That is what the FTC is out to do.  If the law is interpreted
>|> that MS is being unfair, then the FTC has every right to break up
>|> the company.  Period.
>
>NO NO A THOUSAND TIMES NO!!!!!
>
>If there was a law in Germany mandating that all Jews be killed would you
>said that Hitler had every right to do it, Period???

That example is not just drastic, it is absolutely misplaced.

>|>      A return, yes.  Binding contracts which allow no other
>|> alternatives, no. 
>
>Hey, Microsoft didn't hold a gun to anybody clone maker's head and
>force them to sign a contract.  Both parties voluntarily signed contracts 
>because they both thought it would benefit them.
>
>However, Microsoft's competetors are more than willing to point the guns of
>the Federal goverment at Bill Gates because they can't compete with him.
>
>
>|> competing as heavily in the applications market.  Now, though, MS
>|> has practically forced (yes *forced*) vendors to either load MS-DOS
>
>Force is the wrong word to use here.  When Bill Gates starts toting
>M-16's like the U.S. Army does, then we can start talking about force.

It seems to me that you don't know which means of force exist!
Holding a gun at someones head or using M-16's are only two.
Delaying (or even rejecting) deliveries of ordered software are other
means which have become quite "popular" (I do NOT mean MicroSoft).
And I am quite sure that there would be several other ways of
influencing the decision of signing a contract with MS.

---
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Frank Leskova        -- E-Mail: fles0092@rz.uni-hildesheim.de         --
-- Oderstr. 10 B        --   or  : fles1092@rz.uni-hildesheim.de         --
-- 3000 Hannover 71     --                                               --
-- Germany              -- Tel.  : ++49 - 511 - 51 22 16                 --
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Subject: Re: Be more creative than the FTC!
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 17:49:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.104125.29717@wraxall.inmos.co.uk> des@inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd) writes:
>Paul Penrod (furballs@sequent.com) wrote:
>: >And Novell is looking beyond Windows.  In case you missed the Business
>: >page from tomorrows Wall Street Journal, AT&T and Novell just announced
>: >that they have signed a letter of intent for Novell to purchase
>: >USL (UNIX Systems Laboratory).  I.e., if the deal goes through (they
>: >have board of director approval, but need government and USL stockholders
>: >to agree) Novell will own UNIX, lock, stock, and copyright.
>: >
>
>: Say it isn't so !!!
>
>: Well, there goes the neighborhood...
>
>'fraid it is true ... well almost ... novell are buying AT&Ts 75% share
>of USL. of course the question is, why are AT&T selling? ... the
>answer's simple ... people were complaining that one of the potential
>players in the workstation market was controlling the operating system!
>hence AT&T were selling before someone like the FTC investigated.
>

[ stuff deleted]

I did a little bit of research yesterday morning on the newswire
and confirmed the story from 2 other sources. I'd never thought I'd
see the day when UNIX stands to be raped, pillaged and burned by
the likes of Novell. If IBM or Microsoft bought it, they would at
least leave the internals alone. Oh well, time to find a new OS...

JMHO...

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 30 Dec 1992 17:20:49 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec30.162838.9739@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>From the above I conclude that you think that force is a bad thing.
>After a zillion of postings claiming that there is nothing wrong
>with force, and therefore everything is fine with the FTC forcing
>MS to change its marketing, I becoming a little confused.

It's OK for the FTC to force MS to change its marketing because this is force
in response to force...our net.libertarians will universally agree that the
initiation of force is wrong, but using force in response to someone else's
first use of force is good and necessary. MS initiated the use of force.
-- 
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.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy