HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: 32-bit OS/2 Apps List
Date: 12 Oct 92 06:43:19 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>Worse for OS/2 1Q93
>will bring a ton of competing OS's... NT, UnixWare, Solaris 2.0 386,
>NextStep 486, etc.

Once again, opinion parades as fact. NT - 2nd quarter, per announcements
from MS (Gates, Ballmer, their cats...) Solaris - definitely not ready
for prime time according to people SunSoft has been distributing it to
so far (developers). I thought you read the trade rags - this was in
InfoWorld, I think. Next486 - slipping again as we speak, may make it
around the same time as NT, and if you think the price for Next486,
or Solaris, or UnixWare is going to be trouble for OS/2, please adjust 
your medication.

>Novell, originally a big OS/2 backer, has decidedly backed off, pushing
>it's own (Univel's) UnixWare.

Gosh, wasn't *that* a surprise. But you note they will still be supporting
OS/2, so big whoop about "backing off".

And you will note that, at least according to the designer of NT, whom
you have lauded loud and long, OS/2 is competing with Windows, not NT.
And that is no contest. It will be even less so once the Win3.1 support
convinces those hanging back that the time to move to OS/2 is upon them.

But please continue to post - we need the laughs and a one-sided debate
is no fun.

Tom
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7152 comp.sys.intel:1889 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:26396
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: MS-Windows 32-bit Disk Access (was:  PowerPC or (P5 & P6)? )
Date: 8 Oct 92 14:17:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: njitgw.1992Oct8.141723.12650
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <Bvo1t3.8HA@sti.com> westes@sti.com (Will Estes) writes:
>It's probably not hype at all.  If you've used Windows much, you know that
>any time you do significant I/O you end up blocking other tasks running
>on the system.  The reason for that is that int 13 is not re-entrant,
>and Windows can only have one task doing int 13 stuff at any one time.
>I think that maybe even Windows itself uses int 13 for the paging
>activity of Windows (someone correct me on that if it's wrong).

If course, DR has had a fully-reentrant DOS for quite some time now,
but it never sold much, for some reason.  Now if Windows would support
this (or if MS-DOS 6.0 would be made reentrant with Windows supporting
that), things would speed up a lot, and without patches to Windows.
-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:24:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: fcom.1992Oct9.012454.14262
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Oct9.003741.15136@ncsu.edu> linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville) writes:
...
>>>  Heck, with IBM TCP/IP for OS/2, I can even support 
>>>simultaneous telnet (no access restriction) and ftp (restricted access to 
>>>directories) sessions coming into my machine.  Can NT do that?  Oh, I forgot,
>>>NT, the 'server OS,' only supports TCP/IP client stuff.
>>
>>     Would you care to provide a source for this little tidbit?
>
>How about everyone on the net that I have heard speak of it (including C. Brian
>Sturgill) as well as the people that I know who have NT?

Gee you're easily confused.  What I said (in my list) was that it
does not come with telnetd or ftpd, and so on... i.e. it only comes
with the client programs.  The underlying system mechanisms and the
TCP/IP and the security mechanisms will easily support telnetd,
ftpd, etc... in fact NetManage is already shipping said daemons,
call (408) 973-7171.

Quote from their sales literature (picked up at their booth
during the July NT Developer's Conference):

	ChameleonNT is the first TCP/IP applications package to
	run on Windows NT, ChameleonNT provides an extensive set
	of TCP/IP applications: Telnet terminal emulation (VT100
	and 220), FTP and TFTP file transfer, WinMail
	object-oriented SMTP mail, domain name server, and
	extensive diagnostice tools. All applications provide a
	point-and-click user interface and allow users to cut and
	past between windows.
	...
	ChameleonNT provides both client and server TCP/IP
	applications to Windows NT workstations.
	...
	ChameleonNT is fully compatible with Chameleon for
	Windows 3. Both feature the exact same user interface,
	eliminating any need to retrain users switching from
	Windows 3 to Windows NT.
	...
	Tel: 408/973-7171, Fax: 408/257-6405

You'll also want to pick up a copy of the pre-release SDK, call
Microsoft at 1-800-227-4679.

>John W. Linville

Disclaimer: I have no relationship with NetManage or Microsoft, I
just enjoy annoying the OS/2 fanatics by providing them sales
information on products "that can't be made" for an operating
system "that doesn't exist". :-)

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
University of Utah                             United We Stand
Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Organization: Philipps-University Marburg
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:00:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.203618.4322@ncsu.edu>, linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu
(John W. Linville) writes:
|> 
|> For that matter, if I provide the software, I can support multiple logins
|> and
|> restricted file access on my OS/2 (or even DOS) box.  Such software is often
|> referred to as a BBS.  Heck, with IBM TCP/IP for OS/2, I can even support 
|> simultaneous telnet (no access restriction) and ftp (restricted access to 
|> directories) sessions coming into my machine.  Can NT do that?  Oh, I
|> forgot,
|> NT, the 'server OS,' only supports TCP/IP client stuff.
|> 

IBM TCP/IP 1.2.1 is good example for the lack of multiuser support
in both OS/2 2.0 *AND* NT. When someone TELNETs to your machine
you are asked for a password (no username) and someone who knows
the password has *FULL* access to your machine. For FTP you have
to create this TRUSERS file, which is valid for FTP and nothing
else.

I have asked several question about the multiuser features in NT
in c.o.m.p.win32, but no one from MS could clarify this exactly.
The only thing was, that there are interactive tasks and non-
interactive task. Only non-interactive task can run on a different
security level. I could not find out, what the criteria is for a
task being interactive or not.

So, I suppose, that not only OS/2 2.0, but NT too will have a lack
in multi-user capability.

Christoph
-- 
Internet: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de
BITNET: HAMPE2@DMRHRZ11
Fido: 2:243/660
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:36:19 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct12.180616.23066@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Oct09.182514.931@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct8.174049.15330@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>
>>>So does MS-DOS and my 'Vette, but they have very little to DO with
>>>them.  Certainly neither of them is a concurrent multi-user system,
>>>and it is my understanding (because you have to be seated at the
>>>console to use it) that Windows/NT is not one, either.
>>>
>
>>      Sigh.  Fred, you haven't been reading _anything_.  Please
>>state a source for your contention that a user has to be seated
>>at the console to use Windows NT.
>
>	Sigh.  Phil, you haven't been writing _anything_.  Please
>explain just what you've all been talking about (one user at a time at
>the console on NT).

     The number of users at the console has _nothing_ whatsoever to
do with an OS being multiuser.  You are well aware of this, and I'm
not sure why you keep trying to twist the definition.

				-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.
From: aaa@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Simon Fowler)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: C-quality (Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:04:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpuerca.Bw6nz2.Ltv
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Atlanta GA

In article <1992Oct15.015810.15199@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
> 
> No, I didn't use MSC 6.0... it was took buggy, I used Borland, it was
> faster, better and had C++.

Then the question should be - did you complain to Borland about the bugs in the optimizer? I
have found 2 so far - both are still in 3.1 as far as I know (since 3.1 was being shipped
while I was trouble-shooting the problems). There may be more - I have switched to porting the
code to OS/2.

simon
From: Joe@twistor.dialix (Joe Katnic)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re:  32-bit OS/2 Apps List
Distribution: world
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:30:40 PST
Organization: Not an Organization

In article <1992Oct12.043118.12809@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.034402.14805@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>>I think in the end you will have to agree with me that ISV support
>>for OS/2 is weak. 
>>
>
>Brian, you seem to indulge yourself too much in this point, but don't
[deleted]
>major application developers like Borland, Lotus, WordPerfect, Computer
>Associates, SAS, and others who said they are developing os/2 2.0 versions
>of their apps are more than adequate for the moment?  With os/2's success,
>apps developers will follow, and os/2's success is becoming more and
>more apprent.  
>
>Min

Furthermore,
 If as I suspect, the vast majority of "SALES" of OS/2 are currently going
to IBM big corporate customers - WHO WERE THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND CUA -
then they will not particularly care if the only developers were the
ones mentioned above. 

Corporations need Spreadsheets, Word Processors, Group Ware (LOTUS NOTES).
These needs are being fulfilled.
Also Connectivity to IBM mainframes is required, and guess who does
that best - OS/2 Extended Services (3270, VT100, APPN) or
Network Services/2 (APPN) both from IBM.

--

Joe Katnic                                         Joe@twistor.DIALix.oz.au
                                                (ALT: jkatnic@DIALix.oz.au)
                                                     Phone: (+619) 474 3939
                               
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 19:46:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.192305.19042@leland.Stanford.EDU> yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.202631.29392@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>In article <92283.115743MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu> Spiro the Spiny Goldfish <MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>
>>>No, it didn't have anything to do with it. The kit cost $2600 when it first
>>>came out, before OS/2 1.3 was even released, and MORE THAN A YEAR before the
>>>IBM-Microsoft split.
>>>
>>>Brian, it's obvious you don't know anything about the history of the subject.
>>>Please leave the discussions to those of us who have something factual to add.
>>
>>According to the OS/2 1.3 press release on ftp-os2, OS/2 1.3 came
>>out in October 1990, according to Dietal and Kogan, Microsoft and IBM made
>>the split public in September 1990 (i.e. before 1.3 came out).  Microsoft
>>would have been gearing up for the split for some time before.
>>
>
>Are you sure?  I distinctly remember that OS/2 1.3 came out right on the
>heels of Windows 3.0, and for a while after putting out Windows 3.0,
>Microsoft is still (at least from what they claim in public) behind the
>development of OS/2.


Dietal and Kogan The Design of OS/2 2.0: Page 17
	In September of 1990, IBM and Microsoft also announced a change
	in their development relationship: The companies decided to
	discontinue the policy of splitting development responsiblity
	for OS/2 across sites. IBM became solely responsible for the
	development of 16-bit and 32-bit OS/2, while Microsoft continued
	work on advanced OS/2 kernel technology and the Windows system.

(From ibmse13.ann on ftp-os2.nmsu.edu)
CUST-LET   IBM Announcement Letter No. ZP90-0532 dated October 30, 1990.
           See final section for details of availability and limitations.
           Title
           IBM Operating System/2 Standard Edition Version 1.3.
           IBM  Operating System/2 Programming Tools and Information Version
           1.2/1.3

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
University of Utah                             United We Stand
Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
From: RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at (FLATSCHER Rony)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: The first annual Mike Mellenger Award !!!
Date: 16 Oct 92 09:06:32 GMT
Organization: Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Vienna, Austria

Doug:

Who knows, maybe Mike Mellinger renamed hmiself to Brain Sturgill ?

The FUD out of his terminal is even better than the FUD out of Microsoft
terminals in this OS2(sic!).ADVOCACY.

Maybe IBM should give them the best DOS- and Windows-multitasker
available for PCs in 32bit for evaluation ?

---rony
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:57:28 EDT
From: Greg Fazzaro <GJF106@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: OS/2 2.0 info needed

I need some help. I have to do a proposal paper for my english class here at
PSU. I am doing it on whether someone looking ot upgrade from DOS should get
Windows 3.1 or OS/2 2.0 (the one you can buy now in stores). The paper will
deal with power, ease-of-use, user-friendliness, and hardware requirements. The
 user will be an average engineering college student. Please e-mail me your
comments on OS/2 2.0, why you like it, what it does for you, etc. Also, does
anyone know the number for IBM where I can get product literature? If you can't
 e-mail, please post a response to this article. I would like this information
ASAP, but the paper isn't do for 1.5 months.




                                            Thanks in advance,


                                                   Greg
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 because! (was NT: Why?)
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:29:52 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1992Oct12.213415.29199@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>  You seem to have misread what he said though.  Cairo
>>is quite irrelevant except for FUD purposes.  It might be quite good, but it
>>will not be released for a good bit of time even in beta form and thus really
>>shouldn't be a serious conversation point.
> 
>      Here we go again with the vaporware debate.  If the OS/2 Win3.1 beta
> is a valid discussion topic, so then is Cairo - neither is released yet,
> but both have some bearing on the future of the product.
>      Which will it be?  Does it have to be shrink-wrapped to be valid?
> 
> 					-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.

	Ahem, it is valid to be discussed if there is a real life product
that most people can get ahold of.  Cairo isn't even in alpha yet.  No
one except a few elites have even seen what it may look like.  The 3.1
code of OS/2 is in the hands of most of the people here.   We all talk
about NT and it is valid because it is a real live prodcut that a lot
of people have.  
	Let's not skew obvious valid topics with obvious non-valid.  You
are the most logical MS employee posting, but that kind of wacko logic
is not going to get you anywhere.

						-Brad
From: d9mikael@dtek.chalmers.se (Mikael Wahlgren)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:50:28 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg Sweden

brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>>>OS/2 does NOT have the same feature, even with OS2toYOU.  OS2toYOU only
>>>provides passworded logins.  Once the user is given a shell they
>>>have full privileges to all the system.  OS/2 has no concept of user id.
>>>NT has full fledged separate users id's with corresponding
>>>levels of privilege.

>>I don't think your knowledge about OS2toYOU is as complete as mine...:-)
>>Have you ever heard of HPFS386?  No, I thought so.

>Well you thought wrong.  I have heard of HPFS386, I also know that it
>is not a part of the cheap OS/2 2.0 product, but rather a part of the rather
>expensive LAN Server product.

Well, if you have heard of HPFS386, I am surprised that you can say that
"OS/2 has no concept of user id".  Even if HPFS386 is no part of OS/2
itself, it is certainly part of the concept...  If we are digging into
details, don't forget that Windows/NT doesn't have ANYTHING built in, as
Windows/NT isn't even expensive, it is non-existent.

Mikael Wahlgren
Organization: Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Vienna, Austria
Date: Friday, 9 Oct 1992 19:03:24 CET
From: FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multiuser (Re: MS's misconduct!
 <1992Oct4.180905.27222@ms.uky.edu> <1992Oct5.151116.21671@cam-orl.co.uk>
 <1992Oct5.230835.22607@ms.uky.edu> <1992Oct5.215925.6501@hellgate.utah.edu>

Brian:

About the unique NT-multi-user-features, even better than those of Unix
(you know ACLs, groups and the like). Remind you. NT is right now vapor-ware,
not available to consumers and will appear because of heavy postponements on
Microsoft's side in the second quarter of 1993 the **earliest** (probably 3rd
quarter, given Microsoft's bad track on announcing dates).

All those nifty features you cite, which truly encompass some of Unix features,
***are*** available right now for OS/2 ! One does not have to wait for NT to
come (that wait takes anyone at least half a year from now on).

If you need those features from OS/2, go out and buy the LAN-module !
Do not wait. Run for OS/2, if ***you*** really need those features !

It boils down to the fact: OS/2 today can give you multi-user-capabilities
if you need them. No need to wait for vaporware, just add the existing module.

---rony
P.S.: I find it academically (from a marketing point of view) highly
interesting how Microsoft succeeds in keeping their customers (including
computer "journalists") in the waiting room and have them hypnotically watch
at Windows-NT, now by the way called Win3.1/NT, formerly called OS/2 3.0, which
actually is already here in the 32bit OS/2 version 2.0 ! Microsoft's show is
great - to the misbenefit of their own customers. The best DOS- and Windows-
multitasker for PCs at the market **is** 32bit OS/2.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 07 Oct 92 18:24:09 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct6.081922.27668@netcom.com> msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith) writes:
>
>What he is quite clearly and correctly saying is that NT AND OS/2 2.0 are not
>CONCURRENT multi user systems. NT allows you to set up profiles so that more
>than one person can use ( IF THEY WAIT THEIR TURN LIKE A GOOD LITTLE BOY /GIRL )
>this workstation with their files being protected
>from the other users. ( Hardly multi-user in the traditional sense )
>

      Under Windows NT, processes run with a user ID and security
priveleges.  The only thing necessary to allow it to be concurrent
multiuser is a data channel - a telnetd type of program.  This is
not difficult to write.

				-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Organization: Nanyang Technological University - Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:15:54 GMT

Mohit K. Goyal (goyal@utdallas.edu) wrote:
: >486DX. Why bother to go back a re-design the 386? It'll be as dead as
: >the 286 in a couple of years...
: >
: Maybe, but for now the 386-40 is an extremely hot seller.  I'm sure AMD
: is not complaining.  Somebody just reported that AMD now makes and/or
: sells more 386 chips than Intel.
: 
: I bought it because it is extremely inexpensive, and it performs 
: *extremely* well..
: 
: 
It will be even better if AMD can increase it to 200Mhz. No need to redesign
it to RISC standard ala 486.
	Of course if they can implement one-cycle instruction execution rate,
like 486, then it will be even better. Who needs 387 anyway?

--
Othman bin Ahmad, School of EEE,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 2263.
Internet Email: eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg
Bitnet Email: eoahmad@ntuvax.bitnet
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open letter to Gordon Letwin (long)
From: robertson@physc1.byu.edu
Date: 7 Oct 92 23:15:11 -0600
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1992Oct6.123808.16803@panix.com>, os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.) writes:
> 
      [...]
> Unfortunately, I also earned a reputation for being quite...
> uh...shall we say obnoxious?  Gordon and I used to have
> fights both publicly and privately (Gordon, I still wonder
> 
      [...]
> So much for your comments about the only posts from IBMers
> being to help the customer.  If you read between the lines,
> that also addresses the issue about the IBM lawyers, for
> our animosity climaxed when Gordon got so upset with my
> (incorrect for the most part) accusations that he
> threatened legal action (remember "Lie in its worst form"
> anyone?).

  And then you go on to tell us that you got fired from IBM?
  Perhaps some of your obnoxiousness led to the firing? ? ?
  I have no idea what went on in the past but from Dec 1991 to
  present I have read much of this newsgroup (2-5 times a week).
  During this time I have only seen posts from IBM either in
  defense of misinformation about IBM products, or to help users.

  Additionally, I read with concern when Mr. Letwin wrote about
  IBM's strong arm tatics, but since the public response from an
  IBM lawyer asking for addtional information about the allegations
  has gone unanswered for many weeks.  This failure to respond leads
  me to believe that the original post from Mr. Letwin was pure FUD
  with no substance to his allegations.

      Jim Robertson
      robertson@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy