HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jld@datascope.com (Jay L. Davis)
Subject: Re: OS/2, DOS, NT (Speculative) -- My Opinions
Organization: Datascope Corp.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:39:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.220354.20947@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.202809.608@datascope.com> jld@datascope.com (Jay L. Davis) writes:
>>
>>Win 4 is what will be printed on a $79 upgrade form the next time
>>Microsoft needs an influx of cash. Probably to make up for NT expenses.
>>
>>---Jay Davis
>
>Oh, so win4 is like all other products from all other businesses in capitalist
>countries.
>
>I see.
>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>

Well, yes. Except most people don't charge for pre-alpha software.
Of course, if people will pay for it, why not? Why are people 
falling for this? I won't.

---Jay Davis
From: bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Distributed Systems (was: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift)
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:16:26 GMT
Organization: Applied Information Systems, Chapel Hill, NC

In article <1992Aug11.195517.21839@microsoft.com>, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> In article <1992Aug11.044425.10498@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>Archaic?  Stone age?  You seem to be out of touch with the state of the
>>art yourself.  Have you heard of X-terminals?  You just plug the
>>high resolution terminal into one of your TCP/IP node and then you
>>can use X-Window based programs on the *true* multi-user unix machine.
>>I thought this was a real nice way to go.
>>
>>Can you please tell me how NT will handle these X-Windows terminals if
>>at all?
>>
>>Min
> So you're saying that I can hook an X terminal up to a TERM PORT (
> serial port, comm port, RS232 port) on my machine and use it as a terminal.
> Cool, if you can do it.  Can I also run X software over the TERM PORT.
> Is this useful.

I think you both know (or ought to) that the answer to this is, of
course, yes.  Now the question is whether this is useful, since
except for applications that have little comm traffic outside of
text, the amount of data that has to be shuffled over the comm
port makes using an X terminal on a serial line _very_ sluggish.

The main attraction of X terminals is that you don't have to put
big disk(s) on each one.  Most of them already have significant
CPU capabilities and often a fair amount of memory (up to 4 MB or
more).  For many purposes you don't really need a lot of the
host's CPU (much of the bit manipulation is done by the X server
running on the X terminal ... the X terminology in this regard is
"backwards" from the terminology used by most of the PC world),
but you do need its data (and the OS and apps) on its disk.

I think there will be a market for X terminal like devices for
quite some time because they don't need as much hardware as the
host CPU, but they will tend to be used more for the less CPU
intensive tasks that can't benefit too much from a complete (and
hence more expensive) workstation/PC;  but which on the other
hand can use some amount of graphics so that an old-style character
cell terminal isn't appropriate either.

But they are hardly the hottest thing around even in the X windows
marketplace ...

Bruce C. Wright
From: AV@vnet.ibm.com (Anton Versteeg)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 15:46:33 CET
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ms gave up on os/2?
Reply-To: AV@vnet.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Uithoorn - Netherlands
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 3.0

In <199222.2712.4072@dosgate> "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com> writes:
>In message <1992Aug19.2712.3910@dosgate>, "robert fielder"
><robert.fielder@canrem.com> writes:
>
>BD>I'd call actively removing  support for OS/2 from  the C compiler to  be
>BD>abandonment of OS/2,  wouldn't you? And  Bill Gates has  publicly stated
>BD>that MS will  _not_ be developing  OS/2 apps, come  hell, high water  or
>BD>snowdrift, unless two million copies are sold.
>
>RF>Bill:
>
>RF>Isn't Gates the guy who said the Microsoft would write for OS/2 as
>RF>soon as it sold enough copies?
>
>Yes. Two million was the quoted number. However, OS/2 has barely reached
>half that number,  and that's including  the original new  release spike
>and the marketing "blitz" we all know and love.
>

Barely, you say. Still it's more than most people thought possible.
By the time, NT finally hits the street, the 2 million will be
reality.

>RF>I have to wonder why anyone give this guy any credibility....
>
>Other than  the average  user and  the press,  you mean?  Gates is still
>considered _the_ major computer name  in the nontechnical press. IBM  is
>still  an  inpersonal,  faceless  corporation,  so  far  as the world is
>concerned.
>
Your world must be pretty small (or coloured).
IBM execs like John Soyring and Lee Reiswig are pretty active
giving demonstratons, appearing on BBS's, Ziffnet, etc.
Of course, they are not the face of the total IBM, as they are only
responsible for the PS buisness. But then BG has a much
easier job as MS is mainly active in the PC business.

Anton Versteeg - IBM - Uithoorn Netherlands - TEAMOS2 NL
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
From: jstewart@desire.wright.edu
Date: 19 Aug 92 09:08:46 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

> Interesting.  MS didn't sell 1.3.  MS stopped after 1.2.  And they're
> going to support the 1.3 API in NT.  I wonder why.  If they wanted to
> simply keep supporting loyal MS-OS2 users, they shouldn't support more
> than the 1.2 API.  I guess OS/2 1.3 was more of a success than they
> want to admit.  I have a feeling that when OS/2 2.0 apps start
> shipping, MS may well incorporate the 32-bit API in as well.  I wonder
> if they'll slip the release date for the new API or if they'll simply
> distribute it in the next release (or in a CSD pack).

	Nah, since when does MS do CSD's.  It'll be Win NT vs 1.1 and it'll be
a year and a half later and cost at least $80:)  Just you wait and see.

					John Stewart




> -- 
>    |)  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.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:4210 comp.os.os2.misc:27724
From: keating@casemo.UUCP (John Keating )
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:24:05 GMT
Organization: Dowty Communications, Inc.

In article <1992Aug17.201353.3278@news.columbia.edu>, mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green) writes:

> > I don't have that kind of money to spend.  IBM's package is inaccessable to
> > the typical home user who, in my opinion, is likely to have a spare machine
> > or laptop which he will want to network on occasion.  It is too bad that I
> > can't use IBM TCP-IP, since it would cost me more than it is worth to me.

In article <1992Aug18.090822.696@calmasd.prime.com>, kjb@calmasd.prime.com (Ken Brucker) replies:

> IBM, like DEC wrote the software with the intent of making a profit on it. 
> I'm not saying that I agree with their pricing structure, but I do agree that
> as an end user I should have to pay for functionality that I want.

I think what we are seeing here is a shift iin what people are expecting
from their PC's.  Now that LAN's have become populor in the workplace,
users are going to start wanting the same functionality (or close to it)
in the home.  I would imagine that a large percentage of the families
that have one computer have others, too.  Perhaps older systems, or
perhaps systems belonging to other family members.  The company that can
give the average home-user an affordable/compatable home network is going
to be making some big money over the next decade.  This might require
restructuring the pricing, but that isn't new.  I'm not sure what the
total development costs for IBM's TCP/IP was, but I'm sure it was less
than OS/2 2.0 itself.  Per dollar, OS/2 2.0 has many much more functionality
than TCP/IP.  When TCP/IP becomes mass-marketable, the price on it will
drop (or more likely, it will become an integral part of the operating
system.)

Predictions:
  o  More and more people will start building home networks.
     (Yes, my home pc is designated as jwkiii@keating.fam  :^)
     (No, it isn't yet registered...  :^)

  o  More and more computers will be sold with ethernet boards.
     (I believe one company is already offering the ArcNet (???
     the one with the rams.)
     (I think Apple is now offering the choice of an Appletalk
      or an Ethernet connection on the back of some of their
      machines.)

  o Operating systems will start including network capabilities.
    (Did I see something re: OS/2 and just such a thing on the
    net recently?)

Just my observations,

John Keating, III

-- 
    John Wllm Keating, III      | mimsy.cs.umd.edu!casemo!keating
  Dowty Communications, Inc.    | 73737.733@compuserve.com
 formerly  CASE/Datatel, Inc.   | The above message may not correspond with the
                                | views of Dowty Communications, Inc. -JWK3-
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Rest In Peace MicroSoft
Date: 14 Aug 92 09:13:01 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Keywords: MicroSoft, Operating Systems

In article <1992Aug13.022737.17146@ccu.umanitoba.ca> rwalker@next02.cc.umanitoba.ca. (Robert Walker) writes:
>Bill Gates' nightmare is coming true. OS/2 is gainig momentum.
                                               ^^^^^^

I have a question, did you use the DOS version of PETE.EXE, or the
OS/2 Version ?

petesk@microsoft.com
Just doing a marketing analysis on PETE.EXE ;)

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: cebarton@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Casey Barton)
Subject: Who's problem *are* SVGA drivers?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 02:09:57 GMT

    Time and time again, I see people visiting this group and asking why OS/2
doesn't have SVGA drivers. (I was one myself). People usually respond by
telling them that SVGA drivers _do_ exist, though seamless drivers exist only
for Trident boards. Without fail, these responses rationalize the lack of
full SVGA support from IBM by saying that "Video drivers are the video board
manufacturers responsibility."

    That's a cop out. One of the biggest flaws pointed out about OS/2 in 
current publications is that "You'll have to run at 640x480 for the time 
being." This is going to turn people who might otherwise have made the
purchase away. IBM *could* write the drivers themselves. So why not? They 
stand to gain alot from it. 

    On that note, I've a question about the latest (8/01/92) Tseng SVGA
drivers. Am I the only one having trouble with the colour mapping? At
1024x768x256, desktop dark grey comes out as a *really* ugly yellow/green.
Also, at 1024x768x16, folders and templates (normally yellow) are white, and
the Master Help Index is grey. 
-- 
      Casey Barton (Mr.)   cebarton@descartes.waterloo.edu   (519)725-6861
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2, DOS, NT (Speculative) -- My Opinions
Date: 20 Aug 92 08:07:37 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.

In article <1992Aug18.223908.2510@datascope.com>, jld@datascope.com (Jay L. Davis) writes:
|> Well, yes. Except most people don't charge for pre-alpha software.
|> Of course, if people will pay for it, why not? Why are people 
|> falling for this? I won't.

A) Because the price includes upgrades to the finished product as well as a
C/C++ compiler. It is probably the cheapest way to buy NT that you will ever
see.

B) Because, in my experience and opinion, the NT-SDK is nicer to use than OS/2
2.0.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner)
Subject: Re: OS count, anyone?
Organization: San Jose State University - Math/CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 23:17:04 GMT

gilem@aix.rpi.edu (Michael R. Gile) writes:

>R.K. writes:
>-------------
>        There's GeoWorks, a small-scale Windows-like DOS extender.  Runs
>better than Windows on slower machines.  Doesn't scale up as well, and
>as far as I know only the original company can develop apps.
>.
>.
>        Real-time multi-tasking OS'es mainly for vertical systems:
>OS-9000, QNX, Flex-OS, iRMX.
>------------

>Sorry, but you have done an injustice to geoworks.  It IS a real
>pre-emptive multitasking OS that runs on top of DOS.  It was out
>LONG before OS/2, and is very fast (will even run respectably on
>an XT)!  The only apps are unfoutunately proprietaary, but the 
>cult following is anxiously awaiting the SDK, which is supposedly
>coming out early next year.  One thing I will give them, this
>is an excellent use for all of those 286/386 machines which are
>going to be thrown away by all of us who are moving up in the 
>os world to NT, OS/2, NextStep, Solaris, and need all the speed 
>we can get

Well, your history is partially correct.  GeoWorks was out before
OS/2 version 2 but NOT before OS/2.  In fact, GeoWorks was in 
part funded by IBM as what was termed by the media as 'PM-Lite' -
a low-end version of OS/2-PM.  This was at the time that the
IBM-MS marriage first started to sour.  MS wanted Windows on the
low-end, so IBM dropped the GeoWorks stuff.  So the folks who 
were developing it took what they had and brought it to market.

Actually, these folks have been at this for a long time.  They 
once developed a TopView compatible front-end that was much better
than TopView, but since TopView sunk, well ....


>Mike G. .
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:4227 comp.os.os2.misc:27749
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: More print ads for IBM and OS/2 stuff
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:49:27 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Aug19.083903@axion.bt.co.uk> djackson@axion.bt.co.uk (Dave Jackson) writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug18.164835.10427@njitgw.njit.edu>,
>dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>|> 1) The PS/2 model 56 & 57 SLC.  No prices mentioned, but notes that
>|>    you'll be able to eventually upgrade it to a 486SLC2 processor for
>|>    $259.  The ad also states that OS/2 2.0 will be pre-installed on
>|>    it.
>Unless of course you live in the UK where the 486SLC upgrade
>will be #639, which is $1100 !!!!!!   What a bargain !!  :-(  Yes,
>that's the chip, not the PS/2 which is $1100. I was going to upgrade
>my 56SLC until I discovered the price.

I wonder how much of the difference is tariffs.  I know that the UK
has Value-Added taxes, which can double and tripple the price of
things (especially if it's manufactured in the UK).  Then there is the
additional shipping and possible government restrictions on exporting
new technologies.

Does anyone here know about international commerce WRT exporting
hi-tech items?  I wonder how much is IBM's gouging and how much is
just the cost of doing international business.
-- 
   |)  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: CIVENBAH@mizzou1.missouri.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Who's problem \*are\* SVGA drivers?
Date: 15 Aug 92 02:09:00 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri

In article <1992Aug13.230932.34468@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>
sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
 
>>purchase away. IBM *could* write the drivers themselves. So why not? They
>>stand to gain alot from it.
>
>You can call it a cop out, but it is reality.  SVGA is NOT a standard.  It is
>financially impractical for any company to write device drivers for every
>piece of hardware out there.  No company does that including MS and IBM.  Now
 
MS does include a standard 800x600x16 SVGA driver with Win 3.1.  It works
works with most of the video cards out there....  Now, why doesn't IBM have
one again?
 
Brian.
From: tar@pa.reuter.COM (Dan Tarnower)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: AAARRRGHH!!!!
Keywords: os2 installation
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:13:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Reuter:file Inc  (A Reuter Company) Palo Alto, CA

In <16AUG199200372905@cl2.cl.uh.edu> csci11ba@cl2.cl.uh.edu (451924952 NEWMAN, DANA FRANK) writes:

>I had EXACTLY the same problem, so I know how you feel.  I ordered a new
>BIOS chip, and that solved every problem I ever had with OS/2.

>(It also solved a LOT of other problems I had when I was running DOS apps,
>also, like mysterious lockups from time to time when I was using TSR's.
>I still use the same TSR's; but I havent had any problems with them since
>I got the new chip installed.)

I found the *real* source of my problem.  There is an option in my BIOS
to relocate 256k to some high address >8Meg.  This option was set on.  I
had asked the IBM rep about it, and he said to leave it alone.  When I
turned it off, I was able to reenable the cache.

I have not had any problems with any other software before.  Including
Windows.  And even with the cache on, I still find OS/2 to be slower
than Windows.  I will spend some more time with it, but so far, it is
running second in a 2 horse race.

One thing that is about to drive me crazy, is the mouse support.  Has
anyone else experienced this:  I click on a button.  Nothing happens.
I click again, the button goes down, and stays down when I release the
mouse button.  I move the mouse, and the screen button pops up.

The problem manifests itself in other areas too:  I click on a scroll bar,
and it keeps scrolling after I release the mouse button.  I have to click
on an Icon several times before it acknowledges the "double click" action.

This problem happens in the PM, and in DOS and Windows applications running
under OS/2.  It *DOES NOT* happen when I boot from DOS5 and run DOS apps
or Windows there.

Again, here is my system configuration:

386-25 (64k cache enabled :) )
8 megs of 70ns RAM
500 meg ESDI disk
BOCA SuperVGA card w/1 meg
Sound Blaster
InPort Mouse
Colorado DJ-20 tape drive (unusable under OS/2)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith)
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 17:34:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <ANDRZEJ.92Aug14233902@bcars268.bnr.ca> andrzej@bnr.ca (Andrzej Bieszczad) writes:
>In article <2990@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:
>
>
>   >of my users are running Windows 386 in 386Enh mode.
>
>   Yes but are they running 386Enh specific programs ? Mostly their programs 
>   don't need that mode (exept usefull DOS boxes).
>
>Well, many do. Smalltalk-80, FrameMaker, Mathematica. DOS boxes are
>not important, since they are much better under OS/2 2.0. I agree with
>the original post that IBM should have provided full support for
>Windows. They should have supported SVGA as well. They do not have to

SVGA support for windows is there. Full screen Win-OS2 gives you it.


>start at the same point as Win3.0 did, since IBM is not the first -
>they should use mistakes other made to learn.

What is support for OLE if not a step above 3.0 Please remember that Win-OS2
is a modified kernel that allows OLE and provides SVGA support. 


>As for Microsoft, Smalltalk-80/Win3.0 does not run under Win3.1
>and the statement on the package said that all Win3.0 applications
>will run (that is why I returned it to Microsoft).
>
>Hopefully, the "fall" (???) CSD will fulfil everybody's dreams. If it
>does not, there might be 500,000 copies of OS/2 ready to be upgraded
>to Windows NT ;-) There is no hope for WIN-OS/2 running 386 Enh, though.


If the current Windows DOS support (slower than 3.1 on the same BOX) under
NT is any indication I would not hold out hope for NT. 

>What a pity, I have to stick to dual boot.
>--
>========================================================================
>Andrzej Bieszczad                     | Phone:  (613) 763-2259
>Bell-Northern Research, Ltd.          | Fax:    (613) 763-3283
>Dept. 9K12, P.O. Box 3511, Station C, | USENET: uunet!bnrgate!eh!andrzej
>Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1Y 4H7      | BitNet: andrzej@BNR.CA
>========================================================================
>

Martin Smith
msmith@netcom.com

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:3966 comp.os.os2.misc:27386
From: heinz@edohwg.UUCP (Heinz Wrobel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:23:38 GMT
Organization: Edotronik GmbH

In article <1992Aug13.073141.16594@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>OS/2 will do for you on your 386SX/20MHz with 6Megs what NT needs a 486/50
>with 16 megs to do.

...and my A1000/7Mhz Amiga with OS 2.0 does with 1.5MB what my 386DX/24Mhz
OS/2 machine with 8MB barely does, just a lot faster... (except for memory
protection) ;-) :-)

My point is: Isn't NT too much vapor ware to really talk about it? I'll
	     never end this thread ( ;-) but isn't it too early to make
	     comparisons of any usefulness based on pre beta stuff? I
	     consider NT pre beta which makes _any_ change possible if
	     those MS guys work like other OS and SW developers...


--
Heinz Wrobel, Edotronik GmbH (ECG018)
FAX +49 89 850 51 25 / TEL +49 89 850 25 20 (HOME!&VOICE, sometimes...)
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Distributed Systems (was: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift)
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:10:58 GMT
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego


No no no no!

Sure "graphical terminals" are the preferred method of doing things, but I
can see at least two good reasons why one would prefer a "dumb" terminal
like a VT-100:

(1)  Cost.  Sure X-windows-ready terminals are coming down in price, but
     none of them are even close to the price/availability of a dumb terminal--
     even full-featured ones like DEC's and Wyse's.  If all you need is a
     dumb-text monitor, a debugger, or any I/O device requiring nothing 
     more than text, why bother spending 300% more for features that will
     never be used?

(2)  Standardization.  Yes, I know that text-terminals are far from being
     standard, but there *are* some somwhat standrd interfaces:  DEC-VT100
     and ANSI, for example, or supported fairly easily.  One could quite
     easily create a DOS box in Windows (or OS/2 for that matter, I assume)
     and do a CTTY COM1: and the dumb terminal operates quite nicely
     (for BIOS behaved software).  But how does one communicate to an
     X-terminal?  Writing software support for ANSI is a good deal easier
     than writing a driver to support X-windows, to be sure--which is why
     one normally sees ANSI drivers for free, and X-windows Server software
     for an arm and a leg.  Again, if all you need is a stupid text monitor,
     why go through the hassle?