HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: juan@noyles.pha.pa.us (Juan J. E. T. Noyles)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT guys OUT!!!
Date: 13 Sep 92 05:16:20 GMT
Organization: The Noyles OS/2 Platform

ghdai@vax1.umkc.edu writes in article <1992Sep12.105037.1@vax1.umkc.edu>:
> 
> 
> >This is has really gone to far.
> >Why don't all of you NT zealots start up comp.os.nt.advocacy and get the
> >hell out of here.
> >
> >Or perhaps comp.os.os2.anti
> >
> >Glen - R
> 
> I totally agree with you.  You dammed NT guys are undermining our OS/2 groups.
> Why not Kick yourselves out of here!!!
> 

I must agree.  This is comp.os.os2.advocacy.  Have some respect.  Lobby for and post to comp.os.nt.
--
Has anyone seen my sanity?				Juan@Noyles.pha.pa.us
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (Well, not exactly....)
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:56:13 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Sep9.010539.933@unlv.edu> slumos@bobby.cs.unlv.edu (Steve E. Lumos) writes:
>In article <1992Sep7.222632.242113@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (m.l. gore) writes:
>) 
>)     I am tired of reading about NT, and how 'great it is'. OK, fine its not
>)     vaporware, but I don't have : a 486 processor
>)                                   80 megs of so of disk space to kill
>)                                   a CD rom drive
>)     But hey, those are just minor additions to my system that are practically
>)     standard, right.
>
>Not to mention "under $1000"! I really have trouble figureing out where the
>NT advocates are comming from. Has MS changed their mind from when they said
>NT would cost "under $1000.00"?! G'zzz, by the time NT is released, you will
>be able to get the minimum NT hardware for that much :-)

Microsoft said at the July Developers Conference that NT would list for
less than $500.  If you buy the $69 SDK now, you get the pre-beta, all
betas, and a copy of the final version (all on CD-ROMs though) for that
single $69 payment.  They also said there would be promotional offers.
It's a good bet that OS/2 2.0 users can upgrade to NT for whatever
the current Windows 3.X -> OS/2 2.0 price is at the time NT is released.


Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.5
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 20:43:03 GMT

Brian Sturgill writes:

> 	Has seamless support for 16-bit Windows apps on XGA and 8514 displays.
>		Someone said that OS/2 2.0 has this now... but I thought
>		otherwise.  Does the shipping version of OS/2 2.0 come
>		with seamless XGA support? (I'm certain it doesn't for
>		the 8514.)

Well, I've seen only one posting about this, and it was mine, so I'm going
to assume that your "Someone" is referring to me.  What I clearly said in
that posting is that OS/2 2.0 right now has just as much support for
seamless 16-bit Windows application on XGA and 8514 displays as Windows NT,
in the sense that the drivers exist for both, but neither has been released.
In the case of OS/2, it's just the drivers that haven't been released; in
the case of NT, it's the whole operating system that hasn't been released,
including the drivers.  I fully expect the OS/2 drivers to be released well
in advance of NT's release, so...

>	Catch up to NT by having seamless support of 16-bit Windows
>		apps with XGA and 8514 displays.

I would turn it around and say that NT will be catching up to OS/2.  Just
to reiterate what I said before, how can you catch up to something that
hasn't been released?  Since NT hasn't been released, you can't compare the
released versions of the two systems.  So if instead you compare the systems
as they currently exist at Microsoft and IBM, then you can't claim that OS/2
is catching up to NT with the seamless XGA and 8514 support.  I'm going to
take your word for it that NT does have seamless XGA support; at least OS/2's
seamless XGA support has been publically demonstrated, so I know it exists.

Wasn't it Microsoft who claimed that seamless support for Windows applications
couldn't be done in the first place?  If that was sincere rather than FUD,
then they must have learned a trick or two from IBM's OS/2 code, thanks to
the cross-licensing agreements.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: carty@vnet.ibm.com (Jeff Carty)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.4
Organization: IBM PSP Palo Alto, Ca.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 20:42:11 GMT

In  <1992Sep4.113709.27365@hellgate.utah.edu>  brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
> In article <3037@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) wr
> ....
> >Agreed. But why not put that in your list. Combined perhaps with some
> >relativism about the Microsoft dates. Seems more fare IMO. You can't
> >punish IBM for their less vaporish attempts IMO.
>
> Whether or not IBM is "less vaporish" is at highly subjective.
> My current favorite case in point is the "June" CSD.
>
> Brian
> --

Flame me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall IBM promising a June CSD, Brian.  I
do recall press rumours.  And, without being able to cite sources this
minute, I do seem to recall MS executives promising, proclaiming, absolutely,
that some form of Win32 and/or NT would absolutely GA in 4Q91 (then 2Q92,
then 4Q92, then 1Q93, etc....similar story with Win3.1...similar story with
Win3.0...take your pick).

Brian I know that you are a good guy doing a good list and that you hate
this kind of argument.  Please avoid taking such cheap shots (comparing
IBM's performance on bad press rumours to others' performance on *their
own* heavily-self-promoted proclamations).

Jeff
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pshuang@athena.mit.edu (Ping-Shun Huang)
Subject: Re: Would IBM consider adding these features to OS/2 ?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 03:57:26 GMT

In article <187t7jINN8jm@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:

 > For joe avarage user, the config.sys is unreadable and the os2.ini
 > files inaccessable.  The generalized registry database seems like a
 > nice clean way of controlling these unruly files.  Is there any chance
 > that IBM might consider adding a similar feature to OS/2, even though
 > microsoft thought of it first?  It would make things easier to maintain
 > for a home user.

As someone who has been spoiled with ASCII configuration files on
multiple operating systems, I like being able to look at *EXACTLY* what
is listed in the "database" and modifying it without going through a
program which might get confused by weird misformatting. (I like my
application data files that way, too, but that's another whole kettle of
fish that doesn't need cooking here. :) What I do wish IBM would provide
is a real "SYSEDIT" program which would provide a scroll list of all
existing lines in your OS/2 CONFIG.SYS and a scroll list of all other
defined commands for the CONFIG.SYS. When you double click on any of the
entries, you would get a description of what it does and typical values.
To create a new line, just drag and drop.

--
Ping Huang (INTERNET: pshuang@athena.mit.edu), probably speaking for himself

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:5128 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2145
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.8
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:56:14 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep7.172652.1686@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>#	Generalized Registry. (database as replacement for '.ini'
>	files)
>		Rather than have a "config.sys" and other initialization
>		files, all system data is put into a tree-structured
>		database.  (In this release not all programs utilize
>		this.)  OS/2 does keep some files (e.g. OS2.INI,
>		OS2SYS.INI) in a binary format to avoid parsing overhead.

And OS/2's binary .INI files aren't editable without a utility
program.  IBM provides no such program other than MAKEINI, which is
more useful for batch jobs than for casual viewing/editing.  You can
tell this lack of an editor is annoying me, since it's definitely a
pro-MS point.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "TELEPHONE, n.  An Invention of the devil which
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   abrogates some of the advantages of making a
 ((|,)                          disagreeable person keep his distance."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner)
Subject: Re: Hercules ??? Be realistic !
Organization: San Jose State University - Math/CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:46:13 GMT

fche@db.toronto.edu ("Frank Ch. Eigler") writes:

>ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:

>>[among other silly comments]
>>A GUI on a Hercules system is bullshit. [...]

>Michael, have you forgotten about the original Mac?
>GUIs on monochrome screens of roughly that resolution
>can be quite competent.

Much different monochrome, however.  Macs use 1 bit plane and dithering,
Hercules uses 2 bit-planes and shading.  I have found the shaded 
screens of Hercules much less useful than the dithered screen of the
Mac, esp. as it relates to the interface (I ran Windows 1.0, 2.x, and 3.0
on a Hercules driven video system).

>I hope IBM puts in a Hercules driver for OS/2.  I'd
>use it.
>-- 

>-- Frank Ch. Eigler -- Comp Eng -- <eigler@ecf.toronto.edu> --
From: kmacleod@hyperdesk.com (Kenneth Macleod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Brian, your bias is showing ( was Re: OS/2 vs NT features
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:07:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: bertha.416
Reply-To: kmacleod@hyperdesk.com (Kenneth Macleod)
Organization: HyperDesk Corp.

In article <1992Sep5.022310.18628@nuscc.nus.sg>, eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg
(TAN JIN MENG) writes:
|> OK. I can understand the variations possible for a paging subsystem.
|> 
|> Now the question is....
|> 
|> NT claims *everything* (but 60K of kernel) is pageable right ?
(according
|> to brian sturgill) And the file system is presumably not part of the
|> kernel right? Then I would like to know how NT does this. Sounds like
a 
|> neat trick.
|> 
|> Inquiring minds want to know....
|> 
|> jin meng

Exactly.  Since you only need to keep 60k of the kernel in memory, and 
with a 4k page, the minimum memory needed for NT is 64k.

I don't see why Brian didn't mention this on his list.

BTW, getting Brian on to this (granted interesting) list was a great
idea.
That way he's so busy dealing with it he doesn't have any time to deal
with
any other threads, keeping this group to us vs. the Microsoft
employees.

(big smilie for the humour impaired)

--

  o o|  Kenneth MacLeod, HyperDesk Corp.
  o o|  Email: kenneth@hyperdesk.com
  ---'  Phone: (508) 366-5050 x 133
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bauwens@acs.ucalgary.ca (Luc Bauwens)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 23:40:38 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <1992Sep14.184750.2475@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>>No PC is a high-end anything.
>
>That's bunk, my 486DX2 50 mhz is about 2/3's the speed of my HP 720.
>Even OS/2 PM runs faster on it than X does on my 720.
 
Hum...   Last time I tried, I found (on floating point stuff,
what workstations are designed for) my 9000/710 to be about
twice as fast as a 486DX50.  Your 720 should be another 40% faster,
which should give 2 total of 2.8, more like 1/3.

I'll grant you, however, that HP VUE is a dog; it's very slow,
even compared to OS/2 2.0 on my home computer (386/25).

Luc B



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: carty@vnet.ibm.com (Jeff Carty)
Subject: Re: Micro$oft claims a 4Q92 delivery for NT
Organization: IBM PSP Palo Alto, Ca.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 17:30:43 GMT

In  <3769@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU>  rvaniwaa@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ronald J. Vaniwaarden) writes:
> Well, I just got my new copy of Computer Shopper and do I have some wonderful
> ..advocacy news!  ON page 62, there is an article: MIcrosoft Sticks Its Neck
> Out---Promises Windows NT by Year-End. and here is what it says:
>
> ...
>
> One word in response to this:
>
>                     RIGHT!!!
>
> I guess that probably deserves some flames but if a product is not
> officially in beta testing and they expect to be able to get it out to
> the public in about three and a half months when they spent more than that
> amount of time beta testing Windoze 3.1, I just cannot swallow that much.

One might suppose that there's no reason why they can't ship a "product"
version whenever they want to!  Now, whether that product is going to have
both full function AND good stability in certain respects (DOS & 16-bit Win
emulation, for instance) is another story.  (And whether the industry is
going to not let them get away with it, if they do ship a poor or incomplete
product, is also another story.)

One might further suppose that they DON'T expect the 4Q92 release of NT to
be a smashing success, they just want to put an end to "where's the beef"
comments to lock in developers and customers, and perhaps also get going
in the high-end server market (which doesn't care about the end user stuff
like good Dos/Win emulation, object-oriented shell, etc., that OS/2 has,
and which is NT's initial target market anyway).

Then again, if one were really cynical, one could suppose this this is yet
another of MS' famous "real soon now" announcements, and in reality, right
about December we'd hear "Oops, sorry, we have to slip the schedule"...

Jeff
The usual disclaimers apply)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.5
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 22:55:35 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Sep4.142843.5998@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <xzmnbrm.msmith@netcom.com> msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith) writes:
>>One point on OLE support, OS/2 2.0 has support of OLE in WinOS2 now. This
>
>As to OLE support I mean natively.  The OLE support for Windows 3.0 is
>simply a part of compatibility with 3.0 in both OS's.
>
>>is one area where I think that OS2 has Superior support of Windows 3.0
>>as has been previously quoted. I think that to call OS2 support od Windows
>>3.0 mediocre is plainly wrong. WinOS2 is more stable and faster under OS2
>>on my system than Windows 3.0 was it also supports OLE. If this is not 
>>excellent support what is. 
>>
>>I contend that OS2 2.0 runs Windows applications better than DOS 5.0 and 
>>Windows 3.0 does. Therefore Windows 3.0 support should be superior.
>
>
>I am tempted to say that Windows 3.0 only has Mediocre support for
>Windows 3.0 programs.  OS/2's support of Windows 3.0 programs is similar
>to Window 3.0's support, one simply trades problems.  You seem
>to be quite fond of "stability", others are quite fond of seamless windows
>and speed. I think Mediocre is a good term to describe the level
>of OS/2's support.
>
>I am not sure I would use "superior" in conjunction with
>any element of OS/2 except for maybe it's DOS support.
>
>As I've pointed out before... there are reasons why one could say
>that Windows 3.0 support under OS/2 is Mediocre, and as in the
>same item I use the same criterion to evaluate NT's support as "Poor".
>If I bump up one term, I'd have to bump up the other.
>
>>
>>Martin Smith
>>msmith@netcom.com
>
>
>Brian
>-- 
>C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
>University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
>Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)

I do not care if you bump up both terms I just want to see a fair evaluation. 
WINOS2 supports Windows 3.0 without fault. Seamless integration of the 
desktop is an added bonus. If you want to compare support of for a product 
you have to evaluate the percentage of the products capabiltiy that the
NEW product supports In the case of WINOS2 it support 100% of the Windows 
3.0 feature set and if you use HPFS and full screen windows actually
performs better. 

If you want to increase both evaluations go ahead but WinOS2 is able to 
support in full screen mode ALL the SVGA drivers and most if not all 
software packages. There is little if any performance penalty doing 
day to day work. A number of magazines have conceded that WinOS2 is a 
better Windows than Windows 3.0 (PC Magazine I believe say this )

MArtin Smith
msmith@netcom.com
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Thursday, 10 Sep 1992 06:50:27 EDT
From: Andrew T. Robinson <ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is NT vs OS/2 really the subject?
 <1992Sep9.204326.6364@scott.skidmore.edu>

There are some people (myself included) who don't think the
"supercomputer on every desk" model of technology deployment
is necessarily the wave of the future.  It's wasteful of
resources and it locks people into the trap of continuous
hardware upgrades to meet the needs of ever more resource-ravenous
applications.

It's my feeling that personal systems need only enough power
to run a GUI interface quickly and easily (i.e., X-terminals), and
probably enough to run simple applications locally.  Those systems
should be connected to a network which includes powerful servers
which handle most of the processing, but are shared by all the nodes
on the network.  When more power is needed, those (comparitively)
few central nodes are enhanced, instead of everyone running out to
buy a new PC with the newest, fastest processors to run the newest,
fastest, most resource-hogging software.

This is not centralized computing, it is distributed computing.  A
primitive model of how it might be is AIX's TCF facility.  Under
TCF, running processes can be migrated from one CPU to another--either
manually or through automatic load-balancing.   I can start a CPU-intensive
process on my PS/2 55SX and  AIX will automatically migrate it to another
machine in th TCF cluster with more capacity (an RS6000 or ESA9000, perhaps).
This is more or less transparent from my standpoint, and all I see is
RS6000 performance on an 80386SX-16 (yes, TCF can migrate between
architectures)!   If I could do that from home, I'd probably never buy
another computer.

To me, something like TCF is much more exciting than anything NT offers.
No if we only had fast, cheap public data networks the distributed model
would have a chance :-).

Andy
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Thursday, 10 Sep 1992 15:36:43 EDT
From: Andrew T. Robinson <ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: What REXX does
 <16857DE60.WILLS@LSTC2VM.stortek.com>
 <92Sep9.105807edt.16825@ois.db.toronto.edu> <1992Sep10.035704.11213@fics.uucp>
 <92254.071734ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> <1992Sep10.133052.544@maths.tcd.ie>

From: mpl@maths.tcd.ie (Micheal Lunny)
>>  If AWK is so great, why do UNIX folks (or anyone else) bother with C?
>
>Would I be correct in saying that you are hard of understanding?
>(for further information look up the words interpreted and compiled
>in any programming manual)
>
  You're correct!  And thanks for clearing that up for me!

>>  And if succintness is the answer, why don't they use APL? :-)
>
>This is just a guess on my part, but is it by any chance inelegant,
>unstructured and unsupported?
>
  Like your reply (at least inelegant), you mean?  Could be :-)

Andy

PS -- I hate APL, but how can you call a language inelegant which
      can perform most operations in a single line of code?  Actually,
      APL is a lot like UNIX -- lots of obscure tools (operators)
      that combine in equally obscure ways to acheive brilliant
      results :-)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (TAN JIN MENG)
Subject: Re: Brian, your bias is showing ( was Re: OS/2 vs NT features
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 02:23:10 GMT

OK. I can understand the variations possible for a paging subsystem.

Now the question is....

NT claims *everything* (but 60K of kernel) is pageable right ? (according
to brian sturgill) And the file system is presumably not part of the 
kernel right? Then I would like to know how NT does this. Sounds like a 
neat trick.

Inquiring minds want to know....

jin meng
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS-Word 5.x  (was Re: THANK YOU, Microsoft!)
Date: 7 Sep 92 23:49:47 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Sep07.103709.118680@rrz.uni-koeln.de>, MVOLPERS@CIPVAX.BIOLAN.UN
I-KOELN.DE (Markus Volpers) writes:
>In <3SEP199221243001@zeus.tamu.edu> wjb5106@zeus.tamu.edu writes:

>Yes, WORD 5.5 runs fine under OS/2 2.0, but you cannot use the mouse while
>in graphics-mode, so it's more or less useless for me. (This problem is
>also reported in the WORD-Documentation by MS).
>
>Markus
>
So go into settings and give the program exclusive mouse control.  Should
solve that problem.  (Unless I am reading what you are saying incorectly)

                                            Stacy John Behrens
                                            *===)-------------
From: juan@noyles.pha.pa.us (Juan J. E. T. Noyles)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: net.views -- What is an "Open System"?
Distribution: world
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 15:22:56 GMT
Organization: The Noyles OS/2 Platform

mjr@hussar.dco.dec.com writes in article <1992Sep10.145509.6695@decuac.dec.com>:
> 
> [Disclaimer: This is all my personal opinion. I work for a vendor, but
> I do not speak for that vendor, nor do I set its policy.]
> 
> 
> geoff@world.std.com (Geoff Collyer) writes:
> >>	What *IS* an "Open System"??
> >
> >Gee, that sounds like my cue.  I'll give my usual commentary first and
> >then elaborate a bit.  "Open Systems" is a command; "Open" is a verb.
> >You can probably guess what vendors mean when they utter it (it's aimed at
> >your wallet).
> >
> >The last open system I used actively was a VAX 750; the hardware was
> >documented sufficiently well that one could write operating system code
> >for it (without having to beg, grovel, sign non-disclosure agreements,
> >bribe your vendor, sue your vendor, or sell your soul to the devil).
> 
> 	What makes having the hardware documented "Open"??

Since the hardware is the basis of the system, if it is not documented no one
will be able to manipulate it.  An open system, therefore, is one which is open
to manipulation by parties other than the vendor.

--
Has anyone seen my sanity?				Juan@Noyles.pha.pa.us
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: cpbaltus@cs.vu.nl (Baltus CPS)
Subject: OS/2 version 2.2?
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 08:13:31 GMT

Hi,

Yesterday i read in the Dutch magazine 'Computable' that IBM was planning to
release OS/2 2.2 (!) this month! The developers were three months ahead on
schedule so they were able to compete with Windows NT. 

Can anyone tell me more about this?

			Stefan.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science       Vrije Universiteit
				             Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Stefan Baltus.			    	    InterNet: cpbaltus@cs.vu.nl