HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: DEC bets the company on NT?  WRONG!
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 18:14:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.033435.1523@ryn.mro4.dec.com> Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com writes:
>
>In article <1993Jan7.201659.7143@gw.wmich.edu>, x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>>	Alpha is very important to DEC but believing that DEC is part
>>of Alpha is nonsense
>
>I wouldn't bet on that. Yes, Alpha is very important to DEC. However, unlike
>Intel and the x86/Pentium range, DEC is willing to licence Alpha at any
>level to absolutely anybody. Want to buy an Alpha PC? Great. Want to buy
>Alpha boards to build your own? Wonderful. Want to buy the chips to build
>your own boards? Someone's already doing it (and selling those boards). Want
>to buy the specs and build your own Alphas? You're welcome. The aim is
>not to make Alpha another proprietary chip, but to allow anybody in the
>computer industry (and in other industries, for that matter) to use
>it freely. In that sense, Digital would very much become only a part of Alpha.
>(If IBM want to put OS/2 or the Workplace OS on Alpha, you won't see me
>complaining.)
>
It's called openness, and I commend Digital on it.  However, I think
Digital is still a lot more than simply the maker of one chip-- what
about the OS offerings, the peripherals, and so on?  On the other hand,
should Alpha prove to be a flop, DEC would be likely to fare pretty
poorly in the future, but this is not the same thing as saying that
Digital is part of Alpha.

>>and the thought that NT will be running on
>>even most of the alpha based computers is simply wrong.
>
>DEC announced that NT would run on a wide range of Alpha platforms, not
>just the PC. My guess is that the faster NT takes off, the faster it will
>spread to the other platforms, but NT will not be limited to the PC.
>
But for the near future, it will be just the PC.  Your comments are
obviously slanted towards the opinion that NT _will_ take off on Alpha.
If it does, you are correct, NT will move to the more powerful Alpha
workstations.  I stated this in my original post.  However, you neglect
to consider the possibility that NT will _not_ take off on Alpha, in
which case there will be no reason for it to move to the other
platforms.

-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones)
Subject: Re: OS which beats MS-DOS and OS/2?
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:43:55 GMT

In <1993Jan9.011958.4601@cs.brown.edu> atropos@netlab.cis.brown.edu (David O'Donnell) writes:

>In article <1993Jan08.170104.16193@Celestial.COM> ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones) writes:

>>An OS superior to MS-DOS and OS/2?  They have, it runs on Intel-based CPUs
>>and on almost every other computer on the planet.  It is called UNIX.
>>  Try it, you might even like it.

>Great! Does it run Windows apps? I do so like my Norton Desktop and ProComm+
>and Word and ...

MS-Windows - NO, but a much better Windowing program, X-Windows.  And, yes,
it does run many of the DOS/windows stuff - WordPerfect, MS Word, 1-2-3, ...
Lots of other stuff (several thousand UNIX apps).  Doesn't need ProComm, comes
with tried and true communications programs built in.  My limited (none of
the X-windows, development system, text processing, networking, etc),
minimum version only comes with 495 utilities as part of the base package.
BTW, the cost per user of such apps as WordPerfect, MS Word, 1-2-3, ect., is
actually much less on UNIX than on DOS/Windows.

With the ODT (Open Desk Top) package, you can run MS DOS apps in one or more
of the windows - while still running UNIX apps in the other windows.

Obvious you haven't tried it.  Like I said, Try it, you might even like it.

>[shades of "I'm sorry, HAL, but you're just not IBM-compatible..."]

-- 
INTERNET:  ray@Celestial.COM   Ray A. Jones; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!ray   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!ray   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
The probability of one or more spelling errors in this missive approaches
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1993 17:01:04 GMT

In <1993Jan5.192014.6776@cs.brown.edu> atropos@netlab.cis.brown.edu (David O'Donnell) writes:

>In article <1i2m40INNi3p@network.ucsd.edu> 
>mbk@gibbs.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
[stuff deleted]

>If Microsoft is such a devil-incarnate, why doesn't some company produce an
>OS that runs adequately on a wide range of Intel-based CPUs and has features
>superior to MS-DOS? OS/2 Advocates, get serious; the world cannot afford to
>buy 486/33DXes with 16M of RAM and 250M hard drives just to get decent res-
>ponse.

An OS superior to MS-DOS and OS/2?  They have, it runs on Intel-based CPUs
and on almost every other computer on the planet.  It is called UNIX.
  Try it, you might even like it.

[more stuff deleted]
-- 
INTERNET:  ray@Celestial.COM   Ray A. Jones; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!ray   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!ray   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
The probability of one or more spelling errors in this missive approaches
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: A radical idea
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:49:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.172501.2370@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:

|> 	HDTV is a little different. The Cost of R&D is too great for a single 
|> US company to develop. The Government can allocate R&D funding, and may do so,
|> for US companies if a standard is decided upon.

:-) :-)  The more radical memebers of the audience would suggest that if the
Government left the R&D money in the hands of businesses, companies would
have plenty of money to develop HDTV.

We would also suggest that the same arguments for not explicitly nationalising
software in the manner suggested by the previous poster also hold for not
doing a "mini-nationalisation" of it by using the FTC to force Microsoft
into selling it the way the government likes, and not the way that Microsoft
likes.

|> The Consumer Electronics Industry is quite different from the S/W industry.
|> Most ( I Think it is around 80% ) of the world's software comes from the US.
|> We can't say the same for televisions.

Actually, most software for TV {"programs" :-) } does originate in the U.S.

I wish most hardware did though :-(  Arn't you glad our government rewards
the growth of industry by bashing it over the head and breaking it up
when it gets too successful?
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:41:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.102938.1271@yvax.byu.edu>, feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke) writes:
|> 
|> We must also remember that Apple is not publishing applications:  okay,  
|> there's Claris, but Apple's organizational connections to Claris are  
|> questionable, and Claris certainly isn't producing the #1 spreadsheet, word  
|> processor, presentation package, etc., for the Mac platform.

This kind of argument always slays me.  "What Claris is doing is OK,
because they arn't too successful at it."

The results you see all around you-- U.S. steel industry with its back to
the wall, no domestically manufactured DRAM, VCRs, Cameras.....
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: leo@rulhp2.leidenuniv.nl (L. Mekenkamp)
Subject: The MicroSoft Attitude (call me na-ive)
Organization:  Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science ; Univ. of Leiden ; the Netherlands
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 15:23:16 GMT



Dear fellow-netters,

For the past few days I've *tried* to read all the .advocacy stuff that goes
around on the net. Quite a lot of different opinions. quite a few MS-haters
too.
IMHO people do not "hate" MS for being succesfull, but rather for being
succesfull while making *not exactely* the finest pieces of software. Who
does not know the joke about MSDOS being the most widespread virus around?

The one thing that strikes me, though, is that the MS-attitude can be called
questionable. All the arguments for this statement have been posted here on
the net. I do not know if anyone knows what the main goal of Novell is, but
it is (in short) "to bring networking on a higher level". They once started
making Ethernet cards to bring the prices down. (they have stopped producing
them when the cards were more affordable).

Wouldn't it be great if MS's goal was "To bring computing to a higher level"?
(would make a great add: "MS brings computing...")
If MS would use the this strategy, there would be a lot less MS-haters, a lot
less frustrated people (AAARRGGH, that is the X-st time this week that my
MS-operating-system-based-computer has hanged himself (MSDOS helpdesk: nonono,
it's your application that misbehaved :-) )), higher level of software (Bill
G. : "We'll sue you out of existence if you are gonna sell that piece of
software before we do!"), a lot less "bags of air" ("You can stretch your
computers memory with 64Kb when upgrading to MS-DOS 5.0!" 64Kb AAAARRGGH!, my
computer has 4Mb!!!) and, because of all this, a better world to live in.

O.K., call me na-ive, crazy, a hippy, not in touch with reality, whatever,
but this "one for all" strategy surely seems to work for Novell. Mr. Gates,
if you might read this, think about it. We are all a part of this great big
community called humanity.

Yours,
Leo Mekenkamp


 /*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*\
| Leo Mekenkamp                         | I am only a humble student who    |
| Leiden University, The Netherlands    | wants to be a part of Gaia.       |
|                                       |                                   |
| Mekenkamp@RulWinWST.LeidenUniv.NL     |                                   |
|              ^^^                      | Read the "Foundation"-trilogy by  |
| No link with MS, believe me...        | Asimov, and you'll understand     |
 \*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*/
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3688 comp.os.os2.advocacy:11705
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 5 Jan 1993 20:00:18 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan5.192014.6776@cs.brown.edu> atropos@netlab.cis.brown.edu (David O'Donnell) writes:
>If Microsoft is such a devil-incarnate, why doesn't some company produce an
>OS that runs adequately on a wide range of Intel-based CPUs and has features
>superior to MS-DOS? OS/2 Advocates, get serious; the world cannot afford to
>buy 486/33DXes with 16M of RAM and 250M hard drives just to get decent res-
>ponse.

You must never have run it on lesser hardware, then; it ran fine for me on a
386SX-16 with 8 meg RAM and two 40 meg hard disks.

-- 
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.
      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of All Fears_
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3799 comp.os.os2.advocacy:12111
From: jeh@cmkrnl.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Alpha Chip (was Re: DEC bets the company on NT?  WRONG!)
Date: 11 Jan 93 23:26:22 PST
Organization: Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego, CA

In article <1993Jan11.100128.1129@cmkrnl.com>, I wrote:
> PALcode (Privileged Architecture Library) is not microcode -- though it would
> be easy to come to that conclusion from some of the early "information" that
> was printed in some of the trade magazines.  It is written in the Alpha
> instruction set.  It is loaded from a nonvolatile memory such as a PROM or a
> console boot medium.  It is used by software as if it were an extension to the
> Alpha instruction set, for example, INSQUE (actually there are two INSQUEs,
> INSQUEL and INSQUEQ).  To do this, a PALcode routine is invoked by a "call PAL"
> instruction.  Some PALcode routines are privileged and can be used only from
> kernel mode, while others (such as INSQUEx) can be used from any mode.  
> 
> PALcode is also activated in response to interrupts and exceptions.  Interrupts
> are disabled during execution of a PALcode routine. 
> 
> PALcode is also responsible for virtual address translation.  So, it is PALcode
> that defines (for example) page table entry formats. 
> 
> The VMS PALcode implements the VAX IPL scheme (IPL 0 through 31) and four
> memory access modes (User, Supv, Exec, and Kernel).  The OSF-1 and NT PALcode
> only implement User and Kernel. 
> 

Someone sent e-mail and asked a very relevant question:

>  Does this imply then that if I had say an Alpha VMS workstation, to switch
> to OSF/1 implies not just a sofwtare license purchase, but a physical
> PROM change ? ( Unless you had 2 boot devices, one for OSF and one for

good question.  No, the current Alpha products come with both VMS and OSF-1
PALcode.  The machine comes up with the VMS side active, and OSF-1 does a
"switch PALcode" instruction early in the boot process.  This instruction
activates the OSF-1 PALcode. 

I don't know how NT is going to do business.  I do know that kernel-mode code
can write to the PALcode area -- it's addressable just like any other part of
address space -- so NT might come up via a VMS-style VMB and then load its own
PALcode over the OSF-1 side, then do the switch PAL.

	--- Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA
drivers, internals, networks, applications, and training for VMS and Windows-NT
uucp 'g' protocol guru and release coordinator, VMSnet (DECUS uucp) W.G., and 
Chair, Programming and Internals Working Group, U.S. DECUS VMS Systems SIG 
Internet:  jeh@cmkrnl.com, hanrahan@eisner.decus.org, or jeh@crash.cts.com
Uucp:  ...{crash,eisner,uunet}!cmkrnl!jeh
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3714 comp.os.os2.advocacy:11849
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits 01/06/93
From: cvetp036@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:00:56 PST
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Nntp-Posting-User: cvalj001

>>   said. DOS 6.0 will likely continue to be offered, but only
>           ^^^     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>   marginally enhanced.
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> DOS marginally enhanced?  Boy, that'll be a stretch.

The only enhancement in DOS 6.0 is all those third party add-ons from Central
Point, Norton, etc.

The COMMAND.COM (which still sucks compared to 4DOS), MSDOS.SYS, and IO.SYS is
still the same.

Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3737 comp.os.os2.advocacy:11936
From: tto@aspentec.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: The sin of MicroSoft
Date: 8 Jan 93 15:32:14 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Aspen Technology, Inc. Cambridge, MA.

When I was an undergraduate in the early 70's, I, like many of my fellow
computer science students, felt a natural resentment towards IBM.  The
feeling was nicely summarized in an article that I read a long time ago.
I cannot remember who the author was and what the exact wording is; but 
the essence is that

    The sin of IBM is that they has lead the public into adopting too
    narrow a view of what a computer should and can be.

It is not that IBM has done anything illegal or immoral.  It is just that
the world would have been much better if IBM had done more, such as
spending more time in developing a decent time sharing operating system,
such as adopting an open system policy, etc, etc.  Instead, they tell
people that they should only use batch, should buy hardware and software
only from IBM, and whatever IBM does not offer is not good for your
company.  (Need I give more examples?)

Similarly, I think the same sin is now committed by MicroSoft.  Specifically,
they are leading the public into thinking that a GUI is what an operating
system is all about; and that GUI is more important than a large (> 1M) 
addressing space, more important virtual memory, more important than protection
against errant user programs, more important than pre-emptive multi-tasking,
etc.  They are also in effect saying that you should not buy software from
elsewhere because it is not guaranteed to work in the next release of the
operating system.  (Need I say why this is bad?)

History has a tendency to repeat itself.  I sometimes wondered what the
world of computing world would be like had Multics been developed for the 360.
Twenty years from now people would be wondering what it would be like if
there had been a decent operating system for the PC.

Just my $.02.

Tak.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tak To                                                    (617) 577-0310 x377
Box 45, MIT Branch PO, Cambridge, Ma 02139.                  tto@aspentec.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.apps,comp.os.ms-windows.misc
From: graeme@labtam.labtam.oz.au (Graeme Gill)
Subject: Re: Printing problems with HP Deskjet 500
Organization: Labtam Australia Pty. Ltd., Melbourne, Australia
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:16:52 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Keywords: HP Deskjet 500

In article <1993Jan6.001248.7664@eskimo.com>, fjd@eskimo.com (Frederick Dickey) writes:
> lebeld@JSP.UMontreal.CA (David Lebel) writes:
> 
> >	I've quite few problems with my HP Deskjet 500 in Windows 3.1. First

> I just bought a Deskjet 500 myself. Mine came with a note that says NOT
> to use the HP-supplied driver with Windows 3.1 but to use the one that comes 
> with Windows 3.1. Mine works great!

	Except for plotter fonts that is. It will print them but won't admit
that it prints them.

	Graeme Gill
From: jeh@cmkrnl.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Features of the Windows NT
Date: 11 Jan 93 07:29:16 GMT
Distribution: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Organization: Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego, CA

In article <1993Jan10.140244.1442@nobeltech.se>,
 dawe@nobeltech.se (Daniel Wengelin) writes:
> Having browsed through the last few hundred articles, I have found
> less facts than feelings, so the reason why I checked this newsgroup
> out is still there.

Checking comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32 might have been more fruitful. 

> I would want know what the features of the Windows NT are!

If you are seriously interested in learning about Windows NT as part of your
business (which you seem to be), why not just buy the Preliminary Windows NT
Software Development Kit on CD-ROM?  $69 US.  It includes documentation on the
CD.  It also includes all future "preliminary" kits until the actual release,
plus the actual release. 

	--- Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA
drivers, internals, networks, applications, and training for VMS and Windows-NT
uucp 'g' protocol guru and release coordinator, VMSnet (DECUS uucp) W.G., and 
Chair, Programming and Internals Working Group, U.S. DECUS VMS Systems SIG 
Internet:  jeh@cmkrnl.com, hanrahan@eisner.decus.org, or jeh@crash.cts.com
Uucp:  ...{crash,eisner,uunet}!cmkrnl!jeh
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jahonen@cs.joensuu.fi (Jarmo Ahonen)
Subject: Re: Tidbits 01/06/93
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 12:29:44 GMT

das90@ccc.amdahl.com (Danny Smith) writes:

>Well, I'm a Uniphile (tho I prefer the term "Unich") in the process of 
>jumping ship:  I think it's inevitable, since the people who PAY for 
>small computer networks will choose Win over Unix in a heartbeat.
>And Microsoft is rumored to be staffing up its sales force with
>market-oids hired away from medium-large Unix vendors.  There's a war
>brewing out there: if the Novell/USL deal goes thru, there's a chance 
>that Unix may be a factor, but USL (and SCO, OSF, et al) have had years
>to make the inroads that MS has accomplished in just under 3 (measuring
>from Win 3.0 or so).  I suspect that until Novell can convince hardware
>vendors to include Unix as a nearly-free option, Windows will dominate.

>Techical aptness has almost nothing to do with it: it's a $ issue.
>Why would a businessman invest in Unix on the desktop when WIndows comes
>nearly free?  Especially when he notices that his non-compute staff has
>taken to Windows like gangbusters already.  
>
Well... In order to respect older investments? In many cases the corporate
users (and even smaller companies) have minis/mainframes/vaxes/etc
which they still want to use. For example in a tcp/ip environment like
ours the Win4Workgroups is a non-issue. At least local MS salesmen do not
(yet at least) quarantee that it will be usefull in out net.

And the software for the older, bigger machines has been expensive and
they are in use... Why buy software again when it is in the big box and
runs fine?
 

Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu (RICHARD HOFFBECK)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Reply-To: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu
Organization: Colon Cancer Control Study, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:12:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan04.181938.25244@microsoft.com>, chriswa@microsoft.com (Chris Waldron) writes:
>  
> It appears to me that the FTC case against Mircosoft is bogus.  If one takes
> a good look at the history of Microsoft, it was IBM due to its own business
> mistakes and Microsoft's savvy, hard work, and vision that catapulted the 
> company. Microsoft's unorthodox approach to business offends the traditional 
> business ideology which is why Forbes magazine had to ask "Who can stop
> [Microsoft]?".  The FTC case is an attempt to that question.

I was wondering about the general nature of Microsofts agreement with IBM
regarding PC-DOS.  Does IBM have a flat fee license or do they also pay a per
unit royalty for PC-DOS sales?  The FTC's case would be considerably weaker
if PC-DOS is a competitor to MS-DOS.

--rick

>  
> ChrisWa.     My own words not Microsoft! 
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: atropos@netlab.cis.brown.edu (David O'Donnell)
Subject: OS which beats MS-DOS and OS/2?
Summary: I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that...
Organization: Enhanced Cybernetic Logic Operating Systems Group
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:19:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan08.170104.16193@Celestial.COM> ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones) writes:

>An OS superior to MS-DOS and OS/2?  They have, it runs on Intel-based CPUs
>and on almost every other computer on the planet.  It is called UNIX.
>  Try it, you might even like it.

Great! Does it run Windows apps? I do so like my Norton Desktop and ProComm+
and Word and ...

[shades of "I'm sorry, HAL, but you're just not IBM-compatible..."]

--Dave