HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mitch@harlie.lonestar.org (Mitch Mitchell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 4 Nov 92 14:14:49 GMT
Organization: Motorcycle Riders Anonymous

petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>So, IMHO, complaining that MS is fibbing to the market by calling Windows
>an OS doesn't understand that the market doesn't care what the technical
>definition of an OS is, and doesn't want to care about things technical
>if at all possible.  It may be that people are trying to get an ego boost
>by telling netland that they know what an OS is better than the MS marketing
>department, but I guess thats their right.

This is a first -- a programming newsgroup where someone touts the computer
'expertise' of marketdroids as support for their argument. :-> :->

Pete -- When Microsoft sells Windows as an operating system - that is when
I can buy a copy of Windows 3.1; take it home and boot/install it on a 'virgin'
hard disk; without purchasing a copy of MsDos to support it - then I'll
believe it is an Operating System (mabe :-))

Check out what it says on the Windows 3.0 5 1/4" diskettes:

      "Microsoft(r) Windows (tm)"
***   "Graphical Environment"
[... disk number and startup instructions deleted...]
***   "For DOS Systems"

I never bothered with 3.1 :-> so I can't quote from those diskettes.


-- 
* mitch@harlie.lonestar.org                       Mitch Mitchell      *
* {digi| egsner | letni}!harlie!mitch       Voice Mail (214) 519-3257 *
From: rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft blasting IBM into the dust?
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:19:50 GMT
Organization: San Jose State University - Math/CS Dept.

nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:

>Lately I have been amazed at comp.os.os2.advocacy. Most discussions
>(95%?) seem to cover "if Windows 3.1 is an OS". Very interesting probably
>but is everyone blind for what is really happening here?

>While IBM is trying to get Windows 3.1 out the door the next generation of
>Windows has already been released. No not NT but WfW. The produkt is so
>damned impressive Novell started sueing MS right away. According to many
>who have seen the produkt its network support is very impressive. Autodetect
>of network adapters, networks etc. Tranparant integration in Windows etc.

Well, WfWG has a few warts.  First, some of the supposed transparent 
networking depends on a Lan Manager server (surprise, surprise).  It 
offers some integration with Novell, but zero with VINES.  It is S-L-O-W.
It is Ok for *very simple* file sharing and printer sharing (PC Tools
8.0 also offers this for DOS users, BTW).

If any group needs to worry about WfWG it is the vendors whose bread
and butter is in the peer-to-peer LAN market, e.g., ArtiSoft, Tiara, etc.
But I don't think they are too worried, yet.  It may integrate well with
Windows, but beyond that it is a slow, limited peer-to-peer that depends
to large extent on a big brother for some of the promised features.

>Nico E. de Vries  (nevries@cc.ruu.nl) |------------------*   AA   III  PPP
>_ This text is supplied AS IS, no warranties of any kind |  A  A   I   P  P
>| apply. No rights can be derived from this text. This   |  AAAA   I   PPP
>| text is likely to contain spelling and grammar errors. |  A  A   I   P
>*---------------------------( Donate to GreenPeace! )----*  A  A  III  P

>"The IBM PC is still waiting for a version of the CP/M OS.", G.M. Vose, 1982.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:56:23 GMT

In <7714@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>In article <1992Nov4.203036.5504@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>DOS isn't an OS any more than Barbie is a prom date.

>A neat analogy, Fred, but wrong: what does an OS do that DOS doesn't?

Gee, Jay, tell me what definition of 'OS' you're using.  :-)

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Subject: Re: How to make OS/2 look bad ...
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1992 13:13:16 GMT

FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> writes:

>Here are some hints for all journalists who want to make OS/2 look bad...

[hints deleted]

Or do as the Dutch PC Magazine did.

1. Try OS/2 one a 486/33 with 4Mb of memory.

2. Observe that OS/2 has not removed Windows 3.1 of your disk
and than find it odd, because OS/2 has its own windows environment,
so you would expect OS/2 to remove everything from your system
it doesn't need.

3. Mention that everything is very slow, opening a window takes
about 5 seconds, but add, this is due to memory problems because
of the 4Mb being a minimum and 16Mb would be much better.

4. State how transport through the clipboard is a problem
since it looses many of the attributes of the original, like
font types etc. and that it arrives in the lay-out type of
the receiving program.

5. Try WP as a DOS app. to see how it behaves. Then see how you
have to mouse pointers and find that a big problem, because, if
you move the os/2 pointer out of the WP window and you double
click it might start a program instead of the WP function you
would expect! (Note: try this. Get in your car, start it and
juggle the steering wheel. You car responds to those actions,
right? Then get into your neighbours car and do the same. What?!
Your neighbours car responds instead of yours?!)

6. Expect that since OS/2 provides windows and DOS emulation
it also accepts the device drivers of those platforms.


If this doesn't proof your sillyness (if not, incompetence)
then what does. :-)

Erik



-- 
Erik van Linstee   |   Delft University of Technology   |   I'll be back ... 
----
   We are god, 'cause only we can create the idea of his existence
   in our holy brains...  (Yello)
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 5 Nov 92 11:49:26 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>In <1992Nov1.105030.7431@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:

>>In article <1992Oct30.230102.5880@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>> 
>>> >        Q.  Is Microsoft Windows an Operating System?
>>> > 
>>> >        A.  MircoSoft Employee's say yes, and there really isn't much
>>> >            that anyone can do to stop them from using such a misnomer
>>> >            except by not using Windoze !!!
>>> 
>>> Gee, I don't work for Microsoft, use OS/2, and I say that Windows 3.1
>>> in Enhanced Mode is close enough to being an operating system that
>>> it's mere quibbling to complain that it isn't.
>>> 
>>> So where does that leave you?

>>Well, Fred, now that you ask......It leaves *me* wondering why MS sells its
>>"OS" in two completely separate packages......

>A reasonable question.  One that should probably also be asked of a
>number of UNIX vendors.

>> 
>>Every other operating system I can think of comes in one bundle. Only MS would
>>make you buy two "operating systems" in order to run their "OS". 

>Never bought anything from SCO, I see.

Doesn't SCO let you buy the base operating system as one piece
and then let you extend it with networking, wordprocessing,
software develtopment and such?



-- 
Erik van Linstee   |   Delft University of Technology   |   I'll be back ... 
----
   We are god, 'cause only we can create the idea of his existence
   in our holy brains...  (Yello)
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:14:22 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <7734@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.165623.808@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>Gee, Jay, tell me what definition of 'OS' you're using.  :-)
>A suite of programs that insulates application code from the necessities of
>dealing directly with the hardware.

[Gack. Here I go, following myself up again...]

I need to add that it runs unassisted on a given machine architecture.

Thus, to use an example posted here previously, CMS isn't an OS because it
requires VM to run. The PC's BIOS is part of the PC architecture, so depending
on it doesn't remove the OS-ness of OS/2 or DOS.

Basically, the idea is that the OS is what you load onto an otherwise useless
machine to make it useful for mundane things like payroll programs so they
don't have to deal with disk geometries and controller error codes in order to
find out how much to make out my next paycheck for.
-- 
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.
     We survived Jimmy Carter; we'll (probably) survive Bill Clinton.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak)
Subject: Re: NT delayed again??? (PC Week Nov 2)
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Mitre Corporation
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:56:17 GMT

In article <hatton.720949698@cgl.ucsf.edu>, hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom
Hatton) wrote:
> 
> pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak) writes:
> >For those who are interested:
> >Page 3 in the Nov. 2nd issue of PC week has a story about how Microsoft is
> >now shipping the NT beta.  About half way down the quote Bill Gates stating
> >that NT would ship "in the first half" of 1993.
> 
> Not having a subscription, perhaps someone else can confirm this (probably
> not Brian, of course, since he seems loathe to post articles that might
> be interpreted as anti-MS, to date) - I thought I saw, passing by an
> issue of PC Week on a display, the words "Fear and Loathing" and 
> "Windows for Workgroups" or whatever the package is called.
> 

Since I wrote the original, I am not a great confirmation.  However, I
quote from the November 2, 1992 issue of Information Week, page 12, 2nd
column, first paragraph (without permission of course).  The quoted article
is a story about the Windows demo Bill Gates did on Broadway.

"Right now, however, NT is struck in rehearsal.  It was originally
scheduled for the end o this year and now is slated for mid-1993.  The
delay has given rivals such as IBM's OS/2 a substantial head start (see
accompanying story at right)."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heeren Pathak                      | Millions long for immortality who do 
pathak@mitre.org                   | not know what to do with themselves
Mitre Corporation                  | on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
(617) 271-7465                     |	               	-- Susan Ertz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Mine not Mitre's.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rvenkate@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Ravikuma Venkateswar)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:12:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:

>>
>>The Macintosh OS is more user-friendly.
>>- have you ever tried getting help on _anything_?
>>

>     As I mentioned before, compared to a CLI, it's pretty user
>friendly to the uninitiated.

But why compare it to a CLI? That makes just as much sense as comparing
a 486 to a Mac Classic.

>     Apple's computers are not actually that bad, depending on which
>ones you look at and what you want to do.  Although they claim to
>bring 'new technology' (no relation to MS :-) ) to the marketplace,
>the Motorola processors have been just keeping pace with the Intel
>processors (I'm sure many people out there will argue with me.  Feel
>free, since I don't know a lot about them).

I agree with that assessment.

>     Of course, there are also many problems with them, price being
>one of them.  If you were to buy a Mac and an IBM compat, and spend
>the same amount of money on both of them, you could get a lot more
>computer for the money (or a lot more peripherals) if you chose the
>IBM compatible.  And, you could have the same abilities as a Mac
>(multimedia, GUI,etc.).

And the fact that you can't expand much. And the starting options are
pretty limited.

>     Another major advantage of the IBM compatible is the
>applications base.  This has been slowly changing for a long time,
>though.  Many major vendors sell Mac versions of their software.
>This advantage will soon be moot.

Especially since programming for a GUI takes much more time anyway. But
personally I think it's easier to program in Borland C++ than in Think C
with classes.

>Timothy  Miller
-- 
Ravikumar Venkateswar
rvenkate@uiuc.edu

A pun is a no' blessed form of whit.
From: Gary.Woodman@anu.edu.au (Gary Woodman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to make OS/2 look bad ...
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 04:12:35 GMT
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.5.23

In article <1992Nov07.203122.23739@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:

>In fact, a 386SX-16 with 6-8Mb might very well outperform a
>486/33 with 4Mb

It does. My office machine, a 386DX-16 with 10Mb RAM, significantly 
outperforms my home machine, a 486SX-33 with 4Mb.

--
Gary.Woodman@anu.edu.au         This post made from 100% recycled electrons.
Organization: Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Vienna, Austria
Date: Thursday, 5 Nov 1992 21:38:28 CET
From: FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Are there published papers about OS/2 2.0?

Larry:

A good book is: Deitel, H.M.; Kogan, M.S.: The design of OS/2 - 32bit OS/2,
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1992. ISBN 0-201-54889-5.

Deitel is a prof who wrote a couple of books on operating systems, Kogan
is the former lead architect of 32bit OS/2.

Additionally, you can find good stuff in "IBM OS/2 Developer", formerly
"IBM Personal Systems Developer", a quarterly magazine published by IBM,
Boca Raton. It usually contains articles about different "inner" aspects
of OS/2 as well as OS/2-software from ISV (like Corel, Aldus, etc.). Telephone
orders: 1-800-WANT-OS2.

Also, there is an excellent British magazine called "Pointer", published
bi-monthly as the newsletter of the "International OS/2 User Group" located
in Great Britain (Fax: +44-285-640181). Right now they have the 22nd issue
out (September/October 1992).

Another one is "OS/2 monthly" which unfortunately is not published monthly
but at random intervals (my last issue I got stems from August !).

---rony










Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: adamba@microsoft.com (Adam Barr)
Subject: Re: Windows an OS? WHO CARES?!?!
Date: 05 Nov 92 19:01:20 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Nov3.172557.17304@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com> carty@vnet.ibm.com (Jeff Carty) writes:
>
>the aspect of this thread that I do find
>interesting is the fact that the Applications division would be producing
>a product that the company wants everyone to consider an OS!  Well, in
>and of itself, that probably means nothing.  But it reminds me of some of
>the "undocumented calls" accusations that I've seen posted here in the
>past, and gets me wondering about what is the status of the FTC thing (is
>it winding down, etc.).  I suppose that almost no one really knows yet
>(and posting rumors/speculations would be worse than silence, IMHO).
>
>Jeff

FYI, this spring Microsoft reorganized into three groups: sales,
support, and products. Within the products group there are five
divisions; the pieces of the existing applications and systems
divisions were dispersed among the five, roughly based on the
target market for their products. Please update your anti-MS
sentiment accordingly.

A single shipped product is not necessarily the work of one
division. If you take a product like Windows for Workgroups,
which includes Windows, networking, mail, and scheduling software,
it is most accurate to say that the software comes from the
products group, that's all.

- adam
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re:  How to make OS/2 look bad ...
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:58:07 GMT

In article <Joe.004z@twistor.dialix> Joe@twistor.dialix (Joe Katnic) writes:

>>	IBM's corporate IQ.  Claiming 4 megs as the minimum
>>	for OS/2 is like claiming that the minimum for 
>>	Windows 3.0 was an 8088 and CGA.
>>
>   Indeed, IBM claims you can run their mainframe OS MVS/ESA in
>   16 Meg of memory. AND yes you can boot it up. But when you
>   attempt to run something, it rapidly pages itself to sleep.
>
>   The smallest successful memory model I have run it under is
>   24 Meg.
>
>   So you see this happens all the time with IBM. 
>   I have just come to expect that memory requirements as 
>   espoused by IBM for their products are to run the product.
>   NOT to achieve any useful work.

Where've you been?  This ain't just IBM that this happens with.  See above
with Windows 3.0, and 8088, and a Herc (to do one worse than CGA).

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: DOS not operating system, film at 11. :-)
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 21:07:57 GMT

In <1992Nov8.145440.16931@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

>In article <strobl.720740723@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>>Sorry, couldn't resist. OS/2 (any version) is a better operating
>>system than Windows/OT is, IMHO. But it isn't better just because it
>>*is* an operating system. What do you say?

>I say OS/2 2.0 is better than Windows OT.  However, I say OS/2 1.x is
>worse than nearly anything in existence, including Windows OT.   I
>offer one item to support my point and then rest my case:

>	bimodal device drivers

Well, I'm looking at it from the point of view of an application
programmer, mostly. Writing device drivers for OS/2 1.x may be
painfull - I don't doubt that. But there is a lot of usefull
interface functionality in the OS/2 API (pipes, queues, threads, to
name a few) which isn't available in Windows OT. You have to use
Windows NT for that.

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
From: lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (m.l. gore)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: WP 32 bit?? Plus a note on Brian's retirement.
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:50:13 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

>Well, this is good news for the Describe folks, neither WordPerfect
>nor AmiPro will be true 32-bit apps.


    Wow, that's funny:  A WP rep was at my store last week and told me that WP
    6.0 for OS/2 (as is *should* be called), will be full 32 bit. They are not
    going to release ot for a while. He hinted that they are incorp[orating Wp
    Presentations into the PM edition of WP, though it sounded more like an
    idea.

    I wouldn't hold my breath for this: He was big on the DOS version of 6.0,m
    and its GUI. Plus, ther is 5.2 now shipping, which more of less fixes many
    of the WP for WIN bugs (who ever would have though of bugs?)


    Brian,

        I am sorry to see yopu go. THough I too have asked you to tone your
        bias down, I commend you on your recent posts (most of them, you still
        sqeeze some stuff in =} ) I do like seeing what's up with NT. I'm
        sorry you take it personally. I jsut find it funny how you suddenly
        say that your view fit elsewhere. What changed here? Besides, I still
        like hearing how NT runs DOS well, but crashes most of them. Still
        can't figure that one out. If you change your mind, just remember to
        pick up where you left off.


                                            later,

                                            bvl

-- 

  Lehigh University-AXP
  lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu

            OS/2 2.0...anything else is just a DOS.
From: dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell)
Subject: If it ain't an Operating System...
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:40:15 GMT

I really can't take any of these arguments all that seriously.  About a
year ago, I mentioned to a co-worker that Windows was an Operating
System and he looked at me like I was stupid.  I said, "If it ain't an
operating system, then what is it??"  He said, "An application program."

Ha!  An *APPLICATION PROGRAM*!!!  I thought I'd die laughing...

I really like these never-ending flame wars just  because they always
remind of that wonderful conversation...

-- 
Dan Cogswell               Or as we say in Michigan:  "Dee-troit"


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jardined@qucis.queensu.ca (Donald Jardine)
Subject: Re: NT delayed again??? (PC Week Nov 2)
Organization: Computing & Information Science, Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:21:20 GMT

In article <hatton.720949698@cgl.ucsf.edu> hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:
>pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak) writes:
>>For those who are interested:
>>Page 3 in the Nov. 2nd issue of PC week has a story about how Microsoft is
>>now shipping the NT beta.  About half way down the quote Bill Gates stating
>>that NT would ship "in the first half" of 1993.
>
>Not having a subscription, perhaps someone else can confirm this (probably

Yes, it was in PC Week, as stated above.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: jedwards@ms.uky.edu (Jonathan Edwards)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 22:31:44 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

tommy@msc.cornell.edu (Mike Thompson) writes:

>Example 2: 
>From programming, it is TRIVIAL to hang the OS.  Write a PM application and
>before starting the StdWindow, create a named pipe and wait for another process
>to access the pipe.  Hang city - the machine is long GONE!  Can't switch to any
>other application.  And try this one after loading the CSD.  SubClass the
>FrameWindow in a PM application to modify the RESIZE message.  Pass minimize
>and maximize message unchanged to original routine.  Resize works correctly,
>however, minimizing the window (only after the CSD is installed) will hang the
>sytem - full reboot time again!  With 400 MB of HPFS partitions to chkdsk, the
>mean time between debugging attempts is about 5 minutes.

>It seems odd that in a multitasking environment one can write any application
>that takes down the whole OS.  Blocked semaphores may trap your process, but
>the scheduler should allow others to run.  Is it really so hard to preempt a
>running process.

OS/2 and the scheduler aren't hung, the workplace shell is.  Programs
running in the background will still get timeslices.  (Small consolation
perhaps.)

The way it is supposed to work is as follows:  if you hit Ctrl-Esc and
the app that currently has the focus doesn't respond within a "reasonable"
amount of time, a popup is supposed to appear giving you the option of
killing the app.  I don't know the exact definition of "reasonable"
(although in my experience it seems to be "just long enough for the average
person to conclude the machine is hung solid and turn the power off") and
I don't know how to adjust the timeout...