HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: slumos@unlv.edu (Steve Lumos)
Subject: Re: Tetris gripe
Organization: UNLV Computer Science
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 05:06:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.194352.13262@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>I'm surprised IBM even considered talking to SH.  Tetris has been
>around in public domain form at least a year before SH released their
>version (remember the kid from Russia who invented it?).  True, the PD
>game was only text-mode, but it still invalidates any claim on the
>concept.

Setting aside the fact that Tetris is PD and that, like you said,
somebody probably didn't do their homework at IBM, are you REALLY
suprized that IBM went to SH? I mean, look at the installation program
with the screen that says "The following Trademarks are used in this
installation program." Look at the help system and all the hypertext
links to trademarks for MS and others. I think IBM is famous for
overkill in the legal dept. 

>I'd be really disgusted if IBM had to pay royalties for a PD program.
>Unless this version was going to have SH's graphical title screens and
>stuff.

This is true. It sounds unethical that SH would try to charge IBM
considering that they probably didn't give anything to the original
author. They did put his name in the game, but that was for commercial
reasons as much as anything else I would bet.

TTYL - Steve
-- 
Steve Lumos - slumos@cs.unlv.edu
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:3382 comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32:332
From: ms-isv@ftp.UU.NET ( ISV Archive)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Subject: Re: Is NTFS really a new file system?
Followup-To: alistair@microsoft.com
Date: 29 Jul 1992 22:35:30 -0400
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.uu.net

In article <3794@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sillett@edc3jr.gsph.pitt.edu (Robert L. Sillett) writes:
>
>Now if NTFS is so different than and superior to HPFS, how could OS/2
>2.0 access the drive?  Or is NTFS really a second, more robust,
>version of HPFS?  (Obviously Microsoft still sees a use for HPFS as it
>is included in Windows NT.)

NTFS and HPFS are quite different formats on disk - in fact right
down to the representation of file names - NTFS stores filenames
in Unicode format - that's 16 bits per char

Your experience with Windows NT and installable file systems proves
that you in fact had HPFS installed (since it was readable by OS/2
upon re-boot). This could easily happen. We include FAT & HPFS for
backward compatibility with MS-DOS & OS/2 repectively, and hope
that people will upgrade to NTFS - but we don't force it.

If this posting was made as a rally for os/2, without care for the
facts reported, then comp.os.os2.advocacy is the right forum. If you
were looking to better understand Windows NT's file system, then
I might suggest posting in the comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
group. Assuming the later, I have cross posted to that group

Alistair Banks, Microsoft Systems Division
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:3171 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1527 comp.sys.acorn:8006
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.acorn,comp.sys.mac.mis
Subject: Re: New MultiTOS PC (Atari Falcon)
From: jwil1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz (TMOTA)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:51:26 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept. University of Auckland

>Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.acorn,c..p

Do you think everybody could stop bloody crossposting their pointless messages
to 10 billion different groups?

Thankyou.
-- 
_________________  "I'd like to answer this question in two ways:
  /____ _ _/_ __       First in my normal voice, and then
 // / //_//_ /_/       in a silly, high-pitched whine." (Monty Python)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: jja@wsl.ie (John J. Allen)
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
Organization: Workhorse Systems Limited, Dublin, Ireland
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 10:28:14 GMT

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
: In article <1992Jul30.205506.3722@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) writes:
: >In article <1992Jul30.200725.27897@mercury.unt.edu> mcmichel@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Lonny McMichael) writes:
: >>In article <1992Jul30.160022.28509@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) writes:
: >>>What does MS consider selling well for OS/2?  Will MS really wait
: >>>for OS/2 to have 2 million users before thinking of writing apps
: >>>for OS/2?  They would have to catch up to there competition.
: >>                                           ^^^^^
: >>
: >>Look everyone, Mike Levis can't spell either!
: >
: >Their is nothing wrong with my spelling.  Let me retype it for you, okay?
: >``They would have to catch up to they're competition.''
: >Satisfied now?
: >
: >#8^)   #8^)   #8^)
: 
:      All right - that's enough of this.  This thread is getting far
: too friendly, which cannot be allowed.  In your next post, please
: include lots of capital letters and exclamation points.  Make sure
: to intentionally misspell the name of at least one Microsoft
: product.  And please, make some disparaging comment about the
: innate incompetence of all Microsoft employees, and describe how
: everyone on the net is a corporate spokesperson.
: 
:      Obey or be punished.  We're Microsoft.  We're everywhere.
: We're under your furniture (and you really do need to vacuum under
: here every once in a while. Cough.)
: 
: 					-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.

Does Bill Gates know this guy does not have a brain. What a pile of drivel.
From: gess@knex.Gwinnett.COM (Gess Shankar)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Impressions of the July NT Release
Keywords: NT
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:18:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: knex.m0BDoB2w164w
Organization: Knowledge Exchange, GA, US of A

pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel) writes:

> I just read a post in an earlier thread that stated NT was "snappier"
> than OS/2, one reason NT will succeed.
> 
> The Internet is getting no better than reading the gossip columns in
> our *favorite* mags!
> 
> 

Oh, I don't know about that. There is some truth to that statement. As a
matter of fact, I, like some others on the net, subscribe to the theory
that one of important reasons for Win 3.1 success is '3d buttons'. In
this era, 'image is everything' and I think Microsoft, above all, knows this.
;-)

GeSS
--
Gess Shankar      |<><>|Internet: gess@knex.Gwinnett.COM                |<><>|
Knowledge Exchange|<><>|{rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!knex!gess|<><>|
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Why we shouldn't bash MS Employees (and other thoughts)
Date: 31 Jul 92 08:07:33 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <92212.112511ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> Andrew T. Robinson <ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:
>>4)  It's only an OS guys, this isn't a religious issue.
>
>Well, it becomes religious to me when I invest my company's money--at
>this time to move to OS/2--in an environment where my choice may make
>me smell like roses or excrement in less than a year.

Hey, it's only money ;) ;) ;)
Choosing a good product is one thing.  But the Religious battles
are being fought by those who've already purchased a system.  They
then spend all of their time trying to prove that it's better, whether
it is or not.  It looks bad if you choose, find you've chosen incorrectly,
and then correct your mistake.  It looks far worse if you choose, choose
incorrectly, and then try to fool yourself and other into thinking you've
chosen correctly.  You end up with a poor system, and nobody believes you
anymore. 
>
>I find OS/2 to be conceptually superior to Windows or Windows NT.
>However, if there was an alternative in the price range I'd take it.
>I'm sick of the infighting between IBM and Microsoft.  I tend to
>blame Microsoft more than IBM because I have a long happy history
>with Big Blue (well, maybe not all happy :-).  But the fact is, both
>IBM and Microsoft are actively participating in the generation of
>an extremely unstable high-end OS market, in which the wrong descision
>could cost a lot of money in the next year or so.
OOOOHHH, but the excitement that an unstable OS market causes ;)
>
>Rather than railing at IBM or Microsoft, I'll ask them to stop the breast-
>beating and merge the NT/OS-2 streams before one or both really screw over
>their adherents.  And someday pigs may fly out my.....

The market has never been all that stable.  There have been many versions of
UN*X fighting for years.  Along with VMS, MACH, VM, MVS, bla bla bla.
Heck, if they make OS/2  POSIX compliant, then all you have to do is make
your apps POSIX compliant, and I doesn't really matter which OS you have.

>
>Andy
>
>PS -- Windows NT is a dung heap.  Through it out before it stinks
>      up the place any further.
>
>PPS -- The preceding was a gratuitous inflamatory statement, and does
>      not necessarily refelct the opinions of the author.

Ohmygosh, I almost blew a gasket. ;)

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions.
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2, DOS, NT (Speculative) -- My Opinions
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:50:21 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Jul31.141558.231632@cs.cmu.edu> jc70@norman.vi.ri.cmu.edu writes:
>One note about OS/2. I thought PM and WPS were both GUIs. That WPS replaced PM 
>in version 2.0. As far as I know, WPS doesn't have a shell in the same sense 
>that MS Windows does. If you want to talk about Command line shells...then it
>would be cmd.exe in most cases. In others it might be 4os2.exe. And then there
>is ksh, sh ,rsh, and so forth.

PM is an API than supplements the OS/2 API.
The PM API allows windowing, virtual devices, etc.
A PM shell runs on top of this to manage PM and OS/2 apps.

OS/2 1.x uses a PM shell called *desktop manager*.
OS/2 2.x uses a PM shell called *workplace shell* (WPS).

-- 
       === Mike Levis    mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ===
 .--.  ::  Call 1-800-3IBM-OS2 to order OS/2 2.0!!  ::
(OS/2) ::  Upgrade $49 from Windows, $99 from DOS.  ::
 ~--~  ::: IBM's offer ends July 31, 1992!  Hurry! :::
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: portability
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:05:32 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <19920722183905CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU> CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (CSYSPCN) writes:
>In a later post he estimates that in creating 2.0 IBM was responsible
>for almost 2 million lines of new and changed code.  All of which was
>written with portability in mind.

yep.  A long-range goal is to port OS/2 to the RS-6000 workstations,
and someday to the minis and mainframes.


-- 
   |)  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: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Subject: Re: CD ROM Drives
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:34:47 GMT

>>[rest deleted]
>>
>>Although I'm a proponent of software distribution on CD-ROM, I believe that
>>its market acceptance is far less than Scott implies.  The indicated part
>>above shows this; yes, OS releases in the Unix world are usually on CD-ROM,
>>but very few third-party applications are.  In the DEC and Sun world, almost
>>all of the third-party apps come on TK-50 (DEC) or 1/4" cartridge (Sun).
>>Matlab, MATRIXx, Anvil, Unigraphics, PV-Wave, WordPerfect, etc. are all on
>>tape.  Vendors are moving to CD-ROM, but I venture a guess that it will take
>>at least three more years before the majority of workstation software will
>>be released on CD-ROM.
>
>Most workstations have, or are hooked up to machines that have tape drives.
>A tape drive, however, is not common for pc's.  To install such a system
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>in my pc would have a cost similar to that of a CDROM.  How fast would the
>change be if Workstation software was installed from floppy.  I suspect
>sysadmins would easily get a CDROM drive if the the medium was avaliable
>for distribution.
>
I suspect the penetration of tape drives is bigger than you think.
The main purpose of tape drives is, of course, backup.  It only takes
once to convince a user the value of backups - and with the size of
hard disks, most users will opt for a tpe drive over floppies.

    -- Bruce


--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
bdubbs@sadis01.sa.aflc.af.mil |  Scrupulous Lawyer
From: fred@polaris.async.vt.edu (Fred Homan)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM Market Control (was: Missing Hardware..)
Date: 22 Jul 92 18:27:27 GMT
Organization: Escape from Blacksburg, VA

In article <76075@ut-emx.uucp> drxmann@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Dustin R. Christmann) writes:
>In article <1992Jul15.210153.2223@sequent.com>, furballs@sequent.com
>(Paul Penrod) writes:
>|>One thing that does come to mind though, is that if they are
>|>successful with OS/2, and from all indications it is a growing
>|>success, they can then taylor and marry the hardware and software
>
>The only problem with this theory is that if this scenario were to take place,
>IBM would be in very hot anti-trust water with the Feds here in the US, if
>not elsewhere.  The Federal Government could make the case that IBM was at-
>tempting to control the operating system, as well as hardware on which it runs.
>Given the fact that 80x86 PCs dominate the computer market, and in this sce-
>nario, that OS/2 is the dominant OS on 80x86 PCs, I believe that the Feds could
>have a halfway decent case.
>
>However, I'm not a lawyer, so take the above with as large of a grain of salt
>as you want.

	I fail to see your logic on this point.  A trust must involve an
entire industry.  In this case we are talking about the computer industry
which is very large and nowhere near able to be controlled by IBM with a
micro line and an OS.  Perhaps they will be able to reclaim the 80x86 
*market* but that hardly means a trust is formed.


>In any case, even without the above scenario, it would still be a bad idea for
>IBM.  There are alternatives, such as the Mac, or if you're more daring, the
>Amiga or the Atari ST.

	Exactly why it wouldn't be anti-trust.  If IBM did come up with a
hardware/software mix that dominated the 80x86 market and thus made that
market expensive to buy in (Even a near monopoly raises prices to the
consumer.), then I think you would see more and more people (and perhaps
smaller companies) moving over to another micro platform.


******************************************************************************
* Fred Op                             * "Believe me, an eternity alone       *
* Fred Homan                          *  with Satan and all his hellish      *
* PO Box 232                          *  instruments of death would be a     *
* Blacksburg, Virginia 24063-0232     *  picnic compared to five minutes     *
* (703) 951-3282                      *  alone with me and this pencil."     *
* fred@polaris.async.vt.edu           *           - Edmund Blackadder, Esq.  *
******************************************************************************
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS2 Good news and Bad news (OS2 & a little windows too)
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:58:29 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1572gsINNgs0@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Nan Zou) writes:

>A couple questions I hope some knowledgable Mac folks can answer for me:
>someone told me that MacOS has memory protection, implemented by a program
>called Crash Barrier that costs $50, anyone know more about this?  If it
>truly does what it's supposed to do, why is it not more well-known?
>
>Since I've only read the first two volumes of Inside Mac, I don't know how
>AppleEvents and Publish and Subscribe works.  Anyone care to explain it to
>me?  Or at least tell me which volume of Inside Mac it's covered so I can
>check it out myself?

Perhaps you should ask comp.os.mac, or something like that.
-- 
   |)  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.
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Portable?
Date: 23 Jul 92 04:19:26 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii

Pete Skelly writes:

>> I stand by what I said earlier.  Translation increases the probability of
>> a bug being introduced, but does not guarantee it.  Phil said bugs "ARE"
>> introduced; you are saying that bugs "WILL BE" introduced.  I disagree that
>> the probability is 100 percent.

> Let me say this.  SO.
> There is also not a 100% probability that you won't sprout wings, turn blue,
> and begin reciting the Inferno by Dante in Hebrew.

So?  In case you missed the earlier part of this thread, it all started when
the implication was made that NT is less buggy than OS/2, because NT was
coded in C, whereas portions of OS/2 were translated by hand from assembly
to C.  And this is nothing more than FUD.  The biggest variable of all is
the individual programmer, and I'm quite certain that there are programmers
out there who can translate assembly to C with fewer bugs than somebody else
who writes in C directly.  The reverse is also true.  And it's also not a
matter of who has the better programmers, IBM or Microsoft, because in both
cases it's entirely possible that their best programmers aren't even assigned
to the development of OS/2 or NT.  It's the quality of the programmers who
are working on the project, and I really don't care whether IBM had to
translate some assembly to C or not.  What counts is the product delivered
to me, the customer.  This whole digression of probability statistics has
lost sight of the implications for the consumer of PC operating systems.
Stop spreading FUD, and stop trying to conceal it by going off on tangents.
If Microsoft can deliver a product with fewer bugs in less time, more power
to them.  But if their programming is as bad as their probability statistics...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: richk@grebyn.com (Richard Krehbiel)
Subject: Re: nt, an assessment
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Distribution: comp
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:07:11 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.2712.2814@dosgate> "stephen dawson" <stephen.dawson@canrem.com> writes:
>As for POSIX, it is simply an API translation, no?

Some API translation is more difficult than others.

As far as I understand, there's not a way in OS/2 to implement fork().
-- 
Richard Krehbiel                                 richk@grebyn.com
OS/2 2.0 will do for me until AmigaDOS for the 386 comes along...
From: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: portable?
Date: 30 Jul 92 22:03:54 EST
Reply-To: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

In message <1992Jul24.172245.660@njitgw.njit.edu>, David Charlap
writes:

DC>That's probably a good thing.  Portable application source is a good
DC>idea, but portable systems code is not so good.  You want the OS to
DC>make use of every ounce of processing power there is.  No high-level
DC>language can compete with the output from an expert assembly language
DC>programmer.  (To prevent flames here, yes a compiler can out-code me,
DC>but I'm not an expert assembly programmer with years of experience on
DC>one processor)

I think that  it is mainly  the WPS that's  being recoded. It  is a HUGE
bottleneck  for  the  OS.  That,  and  the (*&(*&%#$@(* solitary message
queue...

DC>True, it makes updates difficult, but that can become a policy
DC>problem.  My assembly code (what little I write) is very heavilly
DC>commented.  Sometimes a page of comments for a dozen opcodes, when I
DC>think the code isn't self-explanatory.  This, combined with
DC>appropriate use of symbols and macros can make assembly code almost as
DC>maintainable as C (sometimes more!)

Well,  handcrafted  assembler  code  will  almost  always be faster than
compiled code, especially when dealing with the complexities of multiple
threads, queues, and pipes kicking around. With assembler, you can  more
easily  allocate  only  what  you  need  and then release it immediately
after. Of course, as you say, it's not that easy to maintain.

I expect IBM (and most companies) would prefer to do the work in  higher
level languages (from a business  standpoint, it's WAY cheaper), but  in
order to get a competitive product to market, it's necessary to do major
time critical portions in assembler. Now how IBM determines what is time
critical since the  CSET/2 doesn't ship  with a profiler  is a different
matter....

----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.com
Software Consulting and Gator Pit | I'm a brain in a vat. What about you?
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
---
  SLMR 2.1a  L.A.P.D. Motto:  -- Let's leave early & beat the crowd.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Thursday, 30 Jul 1992 11:25:11 EDT
From: Andrew T. Robinson <ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why we shouldn't bash MS Employees (and other thoughts)

>4)  It's only an OS guys, this isn't a religious issue.

Well, it becomes religious to me when I invest my company's money--at
this time to move to OS/2--in an environment where my choice may make
me smell like roses or excrement in less than a year.

I find OS/2 to be conceptually superior to Windows or Windows NT.
However, if there was an alternative in the price range I'd take it.
I'm sick of the infighting between IBM and Microsoft.  I tend to
blame Microsoft more than IBM because I have a long happy history
with Big Blue (well, maybe not all happy :-).  But the fact is, both
IBM and Microsoft are actively participating in the generation of
an extremely unstable high-end OS market, in which the wrong descision
could cost a lot of money in the next year or so.

Rather than railing at IBM or Microsoft, I'll ask them to stop the breast-
beating and merge the NT/OS-2 streams before one or both really screw over
their adherents.  And someday pigs may fly out my.....

Andy

PS -- Windows NT is a dung heap.  Through it out before it stinks
      up the place any further.

PPS -- The preceding was a gratuitous inflamatory statement, and does
      not necessarily refelct the opinions of the author.
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
Date: 26 Jul 92 15:45:27 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Jul25.005338.4298@microsoft.com> gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin) writes:
>
>Microsoft will start developing for OS/2 when there are close to 2 million
>USERS of OS/2, not just when IBM starts to claim that figure, or not
>just when 2 million bundled installs have been done.  Obviously our
>apps group, like any other software company, cares about the number of
>potential customers for the product, not the real or imaginary count
>of cardboard boxes that have been printed.

Will MS start to develop NT apps when there are close to 2 million
*users* of NT?

>	gordon letwin
>	not speaking for microsoft


-- 
=== mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ===
::  Mike     .--.  The         ::
::  Levis   (OS/2) Integration ::
:::::::::::: ~--~  Platform :::::
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy