HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:16:57 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

In <1992Oct05.235608.4664@microsoft.com> gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin) writes:

>...
>INT21 calls will still be supported.  Just because you use a "DOS interface"
>doesn't mean you have to run DOS.  OS/2 1.1 and onward support INT21
>calls, at least in the DOS box, without having DOS.  We've learned our
>compatibility lesson, several times, so compatbility will be very strict,
>even more so than OS/2 2.0.

Impressive. But how can it be more compatible than with OS/2. It seems
to me VDM's are about the limit or is even better possible?

>...
>Although there's confusion with IBM's OS/2 vs. "pink" and other things
>they're playing with, MS's message to the ISVs is very clear these days -
>it's windows everything.  There's 16-bit windows - non-preemptive and
>shared address space - and 32-bit windows with preemption and individual
>address spaces.  All platforms (386 and better) will support both.  There
>is a choice of operating systems, but as far as an app is concerned there's
>only one programming environment.


Some magazines are complaining all the versions of Windows (3.1, 4.0,
NT, workgroup etc) are confusing the user. I believe PC mag or BYTE
wrote some users might prefer the "one size fits all" aproach of
IBM with OS/2 2.0. All the MS environments might be called windows
but many users have problems deciding which one they will need in 
the future. MS PR people are confusing the matter even more by
often claiming NT will be for servers only (e.g. MS Australia
claims this).

>...
>stuff like strict protection and preemption.  (Note that 32-bit windows doesn't
>require a rewrite, but it's not binary compatbile, so when the ISV produces
>a 32-bit binary version of his app he'll then have to make any changes
>necessary to deal with preemption.

But I understood MS was going to release a NT-lite to solve this problem?
Is the press misinformed on this issue? I am also wondering is MS is
going to help e.g. Borland, Watcom, Zortech, to allow their sources
to be portable to all platforms. Many people fear MS is trying to
monopolyze this segment of the market.

Nico E. de Vries  (nevries@cc.ruu.nl) |------------------*   AA   III  PPP
_ This text is supplied AS IS, no waranties 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.
From: garyng@gnct.com (garyng)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I went ahead and did it....
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 21:41:24 HKG-8
Organization: Global Network Communication Technology Co.

wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand) writes:

> garyng@gnct.com (garyng) writes:

> What? Have you actually used OS/2?
> Name some Windows apps that *can't* run under OS/2.
> Don't make statements like this unless you can give examples.
> 

Yes, I have used OS2. I am running 1.3 in a production environment and struggling with OS2 2.0 to make it work. I am afraid I have to say that every window
program can't run under OS/2(my experience only), I can't even make the base
system plus network to function yet.

Don't assume someone is OS2 basher(and make false claims) only because he said 
something bad about OS2.

BTW, I would really like to have OS2 2.0 gurus to help me to solve my
netware requestor problem(or have I shoot myself because I have said something
bad about OS2 ?).

-gary

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:19:14 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct10.022802.14508@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>In <1992Oct9.171907.3735@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>
>>DOS and WIN16 is not too good in the pre-beta SDK, but do you think,
>>that MS will ship the release version with poorer support for DOS &
>>WIN16 than OS/2 2.0 currently has?
>
>>Well, I really can't imagine that
>
>Whether you can imagine it or not, that is exactly what MS has
>announced.  They have said that NT will "only support the top 100 DOS
>apps, and the top 100 Win apps" (does anyone still have a copy of this
>press release from MS they can post or forward to me?).  The trade-off
>is supposed to be:  you get better protection and process control from
>NT.  Seems reasonable enough to me; I might even be willing to make that
>trade-off when NT is released.

     I don't believe that the quote you cite above is correct.
The key word in there is "only" - it implies that anything but
those top 100 apps will not run.  This is clearly not the case.
Windows NT will support scads of DOS apps - Microsoft will test
it extensively on the top 100, which should exercise most if not
all of the important DOS code paths.

					-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: Kurt.Westerfeld@f347.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Kurt Westerfeld)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: FTP / TELNET Software fo
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:46:18 -0500

  TA> There are also public domain (I think) things such as NCSA Telnet 
TA> and KA9Q  . I am using NCSA Telnet and FTP under windows at work 
TA> (OS/2 is for home use for now) so it should run in a DOS session 
TA> under OS/2. 
 
Yes...it should work under OS/2.  HOWEVER!  If the OS/2 IPX/ODI stack 
has initialized the network card my experience has been that DOS apps 
will fail to initialize the stack.  Specifically, I had the IBM OS/2 
TCP/IP 1.2.1 running (very well!) and then tried to initialize the same 
set of hardware in a DOS box with FTP's software.  I beleive the 
clarkson packet drivers died. 
 
What is needed for people who have investments in terminal 
emulators,etc. that work on top of a specific vendors TCP/IP are a set 
of 'virtual' clarkson and/or ndis and/or odi drivers.  VODI.SYS, 
VCLARKSN.SYS, and VNDIS.SYS!  These should stub into whatever is running 
in the OS/2 world from the VDM.  Novell has provided this capability 
with their stuff for DOSVPIX.SYS, DOSVSHELL.SYS, etc. 
 
Lets talk about virtual clarkson drivers!  I have a friend who wants to 
use Reflections 7 to talk to an HP 9000 under OS/2 DOS sessions, but 
would like to get the benefit of IBM's TCP/IP.  How should we do this? 

 * KWQ/2 1.0 *
                                  
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: westes@sti.com (Will Estes)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Organization: Mail Group
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 01:29:53 GMT

In article <23154@global.hacktic.nl> peter@global.hacktic.nl (Peter Busser) writes:
>tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>
>>peter@global.hacktic.nl (Peter Busser) writes:
>>>>Anyone who knows of an EISA SCSI that has a 32-bit virtual device
>>>>driver under Windows, please let us know about it.
>>>Besides, what is this 32-bit hype about?
>
>>This "32-bit hype" is probably refering to the BlockDev/FastDisk
>>system.  BlockDev is a VxD (a 32-bit flatly addressed driver that
>>runs at ring 0 with full hardware access and full control over all
>>processes).  It, if present, handles Windows requests for disk access.
>
>>FastDisks are VxDs that BlockDev uses for actual hardware access.
>
>>INT13.386 is a VxD that translates INT 13h requests to BlockDev
>>requests (only for drives 0x80 and 0x81--can anyone explain why
>>Microsoft arbitrarily limited it this way?).
>
>>If a controller vendor chooses to provide a FastDisk VxD for their
>>controller, then disk access can become much faster.
>
>So I was right, it *IS* hype! It's just a normal device driver which has
>a device independent part "BlockDev" and a device dependent part "FastDisk"
>and which runs in 386 protected mode (if I understand your message correctly).

Define hype, because I don't understand what your point is.  If a hard
disk controller uses FastDisk, overall system performance should improve
in these ways:

1)	paging can take place asynchronously from application I/O.
2)	applications running in different virtual machines will not 
	block the system waiting for int13h to return, instead they
	will block just their virtual machine and release control to
	other apps on the system by waiting on a semaphore.
3)	32-bit bus-mastering controllers could be written to copy
	information from the disk to extended memory directly without
	taking up CPU.
4)	Windows applications could be written to do I/O directly with
	FastDisk, thereby enabling them to do asynchronous I/O.

All of these things translate into either immediate performance
benefits, or potential benefits, for a user running multiple DOS and
Windows applications.  While it's not earth-shattering technology, it is
also not hype because it does have a real effect on overall system
performance.

-- 
Will Estes		Internet: westes@netcom.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.
Date: 09 Oct 92 18:23:15 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct8.172634.17073@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>
>IBM believes in listening to what the customers want.  IBM was quite
>content to support both Windows and OS/2.  As a matter of fact, that
>was part of IBM's long-range plan.  But MS wanted nothing to do with
>the OS/2 project that they invested so much money in, so they dumped
>it a year before they had the chance to realize any profits.  Now
>they're pushing NT, determined not to make the same mistake twice.

      Ahem.  Can you explain why Microsoft wasn't "listenting to
what the customers want" when it decided to focus its efforts on
Windows?  OS/2 was not selling - Windows 3.0 was selling in droves.
Which did the customers want?

					-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.os.os2.misc
From: mikel@networx.com (Mike Lempriere)
Subject: Re: Shutdown failure (?)
Organization: NetWorx
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:47:38 GMT

Okay, so how do I make  my generic C program recognize a shutdown?
As far as I can tell, OS/2 2.0 is too stupid to send any signal
(standard C library signal) to each running program, on either a
desktop-shutdown, or a ctrl-alt-del.

I have a server process running at all times, and I'd like it to
shutdown nicely.  The program just passes requests from other programs
in/out the com port to another computer.

I'm assuming that a desktop-shutdown sends a PM msg of some sort to
each PM process.  Is this the only way to do this?  It would be really
annoying to have to make this little low-level thing that doesn't even
use the screen into a full-blown PM app.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jedwards@ms.uky.edu (Jonathan Edwards)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs. NT
Keywords: OS/2, NT, Windows
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 12:15:33 GMT

scratchy.caltech.edu!kasturi (Tejaswi Kasturi) writes:

>The only possible reason that I may consider NT is if it has really  
>excellent TCP/IP support (i.e. I have the capability to put my PC on  
>Internet, but haven't done so because I haven't found a satisfying package  
>yet.  I've looked at DOS based packages such as PC/TCP coupled with  
>DESQview/X to create an Xterminal but that is much less stable and less  
>configurable than OS/2.  This will be frequently used (since I won't have  
>to go to my campus computer center), so I don't want to have to boot to  
>pure DOS to do it, so until OS/2 gets a good TCP/IP link I haven't  
>bothered to implement it on my PC.)

TCP/IP is available for OS/2 2.0.  IBM sells it.  (I think it's the 
OS/2 1.x TCP/IP product, but it works just fine under 2.0...)
From: rmk@frog.CRDS.COM (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Date: 9 Oct 92 07:30:30 GMT
Organization: Charles River Data Systems

In article <1992Oct5.171436.23238@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <1992Oct04.105821.27664@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>
>>Ahh, this thread again.  Well, I'm quite familiar with UNIX.  I have
>>a question, though.  Before X, how did you do you're multitasking.
>>As I remember, you could only really have one single task in the foreground,
>>and in much of the stuff I did, the background stuff just stood idle while
>>waiting for me to switch to them.  This is besides system components, of
>>course, such as the daemons, etc.  Frankly, I didn't use the multitasking
>>capabilities of UN*X that much, even though I did major amounts of work
>>on UN*X.  (I'm not counting use of system level stuff like daemons here).
>
>I think you don't utilize what you've got until you spend a lot of
>money on it.  You never started a long FTP transfer and sent it to the
>background to complete while you work?  You never uncompressed a large
>archive in the background?  You don't do other things while waiting
>for pnews to finish posting a complete article to the Net?


Obviously, he's not really "quite familiar with UNIX".

Literally every UNIX package that is sold today has virtual consoles, and
the ones that don't can use the Screen utility.

I constantly have processes running in the background that are not daemons.
Print jobs, software transfers, long compiles, long pipelines of filters, etc.
All with the ability to control process priority.

And I use a Hercules monochrome card and monitor without X.

Even V7 UNIX circa 1980 could do these things.

But I'm sure that Microsoft will have "denial of UNIX" as part of their
marketing plans for NT.
From: FLATSCHER.Rony@f1.n100.z60.wlink.nl (FLATSCHER Rony)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Multiuser (Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1992 21:03:24 -0100

Organization: Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Vienna, Austria

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: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: FTP / TELNET Software for OS/2 2.x
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:35:07 GMT

In article <tadr.719181285@keiko> tadr@doe.carleton.ca (Tom A. D. Riley) writes:
>In <1992Oct15.85037.19052@ms.uky.edu> jedwards@ms.uky.edu (Jonathan Edwards) writes:
>
>>>SO what I an looking for is:
>
>>>FTP software for, or compatible with OS/2 2.x
>>>Telnet software -------------"--------------
....
>
>There are also public domain (I think) things such as NCSA Telnet
>and KA9Q  . I am using NCSA Telnet and FTP under windows at work
>(OS/2 is for home use for now) so it should run in a DOS session
>under OS/2. 
>
>I too would like to here comments from anyone using these things
>under OS/2

Just so you know, I use KA9Q under a dos session via slip connection with
no problems.  There is an OS/2 compiled version of it, *but* it is too
buggy to be used at this point.  Hopefully they will continue to work
on it.  The dos version suffices well, though, offering ftp, telnet,
multiple concurrent sessions, and multiple outside logons,
all through one socket.

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 08 Oct 92 18:43:02 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct8.023123.20578@netcom.com> msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Oct07.101657.16483@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>>Okay, I guess I've had my head in the sand or something.  I have yet to
>>see anyone use a multiuser system as you seem to think it is.  How
>>does one hook 5 mice up to a computer so 5 people can use it.  How does
>>one hook 5 keyboards up.
>>
>>THE SCREEN DEVICE OF NT ONLY ALLOWS ONE USER TO HAVE OWNERSHIP OF IT.
>>
>>Everything else is pretty much multiuser.  Each process has it's own
>>user/security context.  I can run processes on someone elses machine
>>when they're logged on.  These processes run under my security context.
>>
>>What is more multiuser than that?  having 5 keyboards and 5 mice
>>hooked up and one screen so 5 people can type on the screen at one time?
>>
>
>I would tend to say you have had your head up a certain part of your anatomy

     Oh, this is very clever Martin.  I suppose the expected response
would be "Do Not!"


>It is quite plain and simple what I mean A user has a terminal with or without
>a mouse and with a keyboard. These are connected to the big mr server box in
>the corner that the company paid money for When A user logs onto Mr server box
>he gets a login session on Mr server box. 

     This seems like a reasonable definition.  Windows NT will allow
this kind of usage.


>Have you ever used UNIX oops sorry that is both CONCURRENT MULTI-USER and 
>ARGHH NO !!!!! preemptive multi-tasking. 
>
>
>Pete if you cannot add anything constructive to these debates GTFOOH.

      Well, if this isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't
know what is.  Have I _ever_ seen a post from you that wasn't a
flame, Martin?

					-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.os.os2.misc
From: parry@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Tom J Parry)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 info needed
Originator: parry@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:16:51 GMT

Greg Fazzaro (GJF106@psuvm.psu.edu) wrote:
> 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. 

Upgrade from DOS to Windows 3.1? An interesting way of putting it :-)
It is always important to bear in mind that Windows is an interface on top
of DOS that will Multitask in certain situations.
OS/2 is an operating system. It replaces DOS altogether and provides
emulation of DOS that in many respects is better than DOS itself. It also
provides Windows 3.0, using Microsoft code (3.1 coming RSN) that is
supposed to be better than Windows 3.0 in many respects.

Given the choice between Windoze and OS/2 I would take OS/2 every time and
you can still run all the Windows and DOS software that you want to.

-- 
Tom J Parry.
Your reality is a figment of my imagination.
From: garyng@gnct.com (garyng)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS/Win compatibility: How important is it? (was Re: OS/2 2.01 B
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:30:49 GMT
Organization: Global Network Communication Technology Co.

f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:

> 
> Now, we were talking about compatibility, right?  Let me see if I can
> sort out the issues here.  Additions/corrections welcome.
> 
> 1) OS/2s near-perfect DOS and Windows compatibility:
> 

agree on DOS but not Window.

> 2) NT's not-so-perfect DOS and Windows compatibility:
> 

What version of NT you base on ?

-gary
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 07 Oct 92 20:56:44 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <7511@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Oct05.183609.22361@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>     This is a very foolish statement, Jay.  There are no clear
>>plans for the pricing of Windows NT at this time - the "under $500" is
>>an estimate of the upper bound, not the lower bound.  Assuming that
>>it will sell for $499.95 is ridiculous - the product will be priced
>>to maximize profits, the way all software is.  The higher price will
>>not always bring the most profit.
>
>My argument is based on a simple premise: There are customers right now
>deciding on whether or not to get OS/2 or wait for NT. One consideration (of
>admittedly varying importance, but that importance is always >0) is the price
>of NT.

      I agree.  In fact, I would expect that the price will be more
than a minor factor.  OS/2's current sales are in no small part due to
the competitive upgrade from Windows.


> In the absence of firm statements from MS about the final pricing
>decision, all they have to go on is the "under $500" estimate. MS, presumably,
>knows this, and it's in their best interests to scare as few customers off as
>possible with an inflated estimate; at the same time, it would not look good
>for MS to estimate on the low side. Therefore, it's in MS's best interest to
>come up with as accurate an estimate as possible. In this context, "under
>$500" has its normal American marketing meaning: $490<x<$500.

     This is a valid interpretation.  I happen to believe that it is
incorrect, but it is at least internally consistent.  It all depends
on how important you believe price to be in the success of Windows
NT.


>>     Interesting - the burden of proof is now on Microsoft to prove its
>>innocence?  Isn't that backwards?
>
>This is not a criminal case, but a civil one (at least, MS can't go to jail
>for pressuring Zachmann). In a civil case, the preponderance of the evidence
>decides, and right now there's more evidence from Zachmann than there is from
>MS.

     Nonsense.  Zachmann has provided _no_ evidence to support his
claims, at least that I am aware of.  Can you tell me where the
preponderance is?

					-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.