HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: Why would you want a CD (was Price of Win NT vs OS/2)?
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 02:15:40 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep28.185032.3845@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Sep25.005328.17332@microsoft.com> tomjo@microsoft.com (Tom Johnston) writes:
>
>>One reason that we would like to see many people with CD's
>>is that it becomes economical for us to distribute technical
>>information widely & cheaply on CD.
>
>Yes, there are a lot of reasons why VENDORS might like to see their
>customers having CD's.  Of course, having all that technical
>documentation on CD is somewhat less useful than having it on paper,
>IMHO.  Anyway, the question isn't why YOU would want us to; the
>question is why would WE want to?
>
>Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Well, if it is economical for vendors to distribute technical information on
a CD, they may do it.  If it isn't economical for them to distribute the
information on paper, then they won't do it.  Supposing the vendor does
distribute the information only on CD, that's a good reason to have a
CD-ROM (assuming you want the information, of course).

- Mike
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (TAN JIN MENG)
Subject: Diamond Speedstar support
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 01:23:01 GMT


I just got this info from the Diamond Speedstar 24X FAQ Rev 1.5 (by
Zeos). Just thought it might be of interest...

"10> Will OS/2 2.0 be supported by the Speedstar 24X card?

OS/2 drivers will be released shortly after IBM releases the 32
bit graphics engine for OS/2 in October."

Another quote ...

"Developer kits for all of Diamond's products are being assembled
as you read this. Please contact Jeff Orr at Diamond for more
information on the driver developer kits. They can be reached at
408-734-2000 voice, 408-730-5750 fax.  There will be a forum on
Compuserve coming on-line for Diamond in the near future."

jin meng
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Windows apps sold?
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:24:28 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <exujlg.146.0@exu.ericsson.se>, exujlg@exu.ericsson.se (Jon L. Gauthi
er) writes:
>At the risk of facing a wall of flame from pro-Windows people in this
>group, I pose the following question, for my own benefit:
>
>       How many Windows APPLICATIONS has Microsoft sold since the
>       release of Win 3.0? Has every sale of Windows generated a
>       sale of an MS windows application?  Or do most people use it
>       as a DOS program launcher?
>

I can't make any statements on how many they have sold, but it is a lot.  Just
look at pretty much any best seller list and MS is almost garunteed to own at
least 2-3 spots.  Actually I don't think they make make that much money from
the sale of windows itself.  As we well know they have been almost giving it
away to anyone who will take it.  Then since to really use it you need
applications, they make their real money in the sale of $200-400 applications.
Very smart business.

>E(I)nquiring minds want to know...
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Jon L. Gauthier                                 Ericsson Network Systems, Inc
>EXU/IS/TP Systems Programmer                                  P.O. Box 833875
>+1 214 997-0157                                     Richardson, TX 75083-3875
>
>Disclaimer:  "My opinions are my own - my employer would take the 5th on
>             everything I say."  Surely it's been said before!...
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
From: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Organization: Philipps-University Marburg
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:51:27 GMT

In article <BvpC7u.6y1@rice.edu>, amitp@ruf.rice.edu (Amit J Patel) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct5.192833.9767@ncsu.edu>, linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu
|> (John W. Linville) writes:
|> |> >
|> |> >Ah... where's you sources... what makes you say OS/2 seems to be
|> |> >catching on very well in the home market?
|> |> 
|> |> How about the fact that everyone that I know who has a PC capable of
|> running
|> |> OS/2 2.0 is doing just that?
|> |> 
|> 
|> Same here... these are home computers (386/33 or higher, with 4 megs or
|> more of memory) owned by people I know:
|> 
|> 	1 - DOS		[runs only games, and doesn't have Windows]
|> 	7 - OS/2 2.0
|> 	0 - Windows 3.1	[hmmm]
|> 
Really amazing. Your impressive and representative statistics
actually convinced me, that OS/2 2.0 is the best OS. 7 out of 8
people Amit knows are using it. WOW!!

Christoph
-- 
Internet: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de
BITNET: HAMPE2@DMRHRZ11
Fido: 2:243/660
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Date: 2 Oct 1992 18:13:18 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Oct2.121728.28488@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>Brian, I have seen OS/2 running very well on a 386SX/25 with 8 megs.

I ran OS/2 on a 386SX/16 with 8 meg, two MFM hard disks, and a Trident 9000
for several months. Yes, it got snappier when I put in a 386DX/40, but it
certainly was quite usable on the SX. My father is using that board now to do
OS/2 at home. He's getting familiar with OS/2 for the express purpose of
kicking Windows out of the hospital where he's manager of PC and LAN systems.
-- 
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.
    Vote for a REAL change on 3 November: Throw out the check-bouncing,
  tax-and-spend Democrat Congress! (obviously, not an opinion of UTHSCH)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn)
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Reply-To: soh3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 03:38:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct02.172250.27087@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>Last post on this topic.  At least from me.
>

Fine.  This is my last post on this topic, too.

>
>     You're missing the point - in order to prove that every copy
>of OS/2 that has been installed is in use, which was your original
>contention, you'd need to give me anecdotal evidence of _everyone_
>who has ever installed it, which is significantly more than 100
>people.  In order to prove that false, it takes only a signle
>counterexample.

Remember that I said to the effect that when you install os/2 on your
machine, you use it.  You are insisting that this statement is an
empirical proposition to the effect that I am so sure that every
copy of os/2 is in use once installed.  This is an empirical question and
my surety will be proven unfounded before a single counterexample as
you repeatedly assert.  But, there are other ways of interpreting it.
What I said, and what I tried to mean, and what I tried to communicate
was that os/2 is an operating system so that when it is installed it is
(expected to be) used.  In other words, as I repeatedly said, I was
extending the os/2's operating-systemness a little bit in my "when
installed, os/2 is used" statement.  It is, even if flawed (but I don't
still think so), a perfectly legitimate statement and although
a counterexample can show that my extension of the os/2-ness could
be somewhat far from reality it is in no way proven or disproven by
a single counterexample.

>>Again, is there any reason why Wolfgan's case is more reasonable than
>>my single case (reported in 100 different instances) in any single point
>>in time is??????????????????? 
>
>      Yes.  One is relevant, and one is not.  Your 100 statements
>won't get you any closer to proving your case.
>

How come?  An example in favor of you is relevant and sound and reasonable
and another example against your position is not????  If you continue to
argue this way, well, I am afraid we can't make sense of each other.  Sigh...

Min
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Moving from X to Y.
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:56:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: mksol.1992Sep30.215634.5030
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Sep30.125406.26088@cam-orl.co.uk> thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:

>In article <1992Sep29.192542.20677@tamsun.tamu.edu>, bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
>|> Lets see if I've got this right...

>No, you haven't. The question was "Can you explain what the two mouse buttons
>do on the icon at the top left of a window?". You have described the behaviour
>of the mouse buttons on an minimized window on the desktop.

>But this is all getting rather silly anyway. There are definite
>inconsistencies and performance problems with the WPS which put me off using
>it. Perhaps you may not have come across the problems or perhaps you do not
>mind about them, but I do and so I'm sticking to Windows 3.1 (and
NT).

Oh, speaking of inconsistencies, try this one.  Open the File Manager
and drag a file from one directory to another directory on the same
drive.  Then try it going from one drive to another drive.  I HATE
this.  They should have made them act the same.  A 'plain drag' should
have either always been copy or always been move, and not depended on
whether you were going to someplace on the same drive or to a
different drive.

BLECH!

[This is one of the few things I really actively dislike about
Windows, by the way.]


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 04:12:14 GMT

tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:

>In article <1992Oct1.154246.2250@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>>
>>Except that OS/2 3.0 is now called Windows/NT.

>Blech.  There is one *very* annoying thing about calling NT "OS/2 3.0", IMO.
>It's not that OS/2 and NT are super-different systems or any dislike of the
>two being associated with one another, but to call NT "OS/2 3.0" is
>definitely a misnomer.  3.0 implies a 1.x and a 2.x.

Don't look now, but a couple folks in comp.os.ms-windows-programmer.win32
(including some MS employees) are calling it Windows NT 3.1.
-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu | think of something very clever 
uunet!jarthur!jokim         | to use as a disclaimer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: halpin@vsg1.dsg.dec.com (Stephen E. Halpin)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 18:32:07 GMT

In article <BvKuxG.IqB@sti.com> westes@sti.com (Will Estes) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.163556.13131@tandon.com> tdbear@tandon.com (Tom Barrett) writes:
>>Actually, it is totally a waste to spend money on EISA for
>>personal computing... servers and multiuser (not
>>multiprocessing) machines excepted.
>
>True maybe *unless* you happen to be using an EISA controller for which
>the manufacturer has written a 32-bit virtual device driver that works
>under Windows with the Windows 3.1 virtual memory 32-bit access.  
  ...

Im curious about this debate.  Im ordering an EISA based system with
an EISA SCSI controller as a Windows NT development system.  Im hoping
that ATI or others will have accelerated EISA graphics cards where the
video RAM is linearly addressable in the 32-bit address space for those
operations (particularly image bashing) where a PC class accelerator
will do no good.  The theory goes that the local bus standards dont
seem to be, and I want to be able to keep all my peripherals if my
basic box kicks the bucket, and the company that makes it drives me to
another company.  With memory, disk, and video options now costing
more than the processor, power supply and box in a 50-66MHz 486DX2
system this becomes important.  EISA appears to get around some more
serious problems like the number of free interrupts in a system.  A
few extra parallel port cards may not need much bandwidth, but if
its at the point where you simply cant put them in the box even when
you have enough slots, you have a problem.  Has anyone else here
faced this type of problem?  -Steve

>-- 
>Will Estes		Internet: westes@netcom.com

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stephen E. Halpin                    halpin@vsg1.dsg.dec.com

"You might just have to waste your life just to live."  - Soul Asylum
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 30 Sep 1992 17:26 EST  

In article <1992Sep24.165920.12776@njitgw.njit.edu>, dic5340@hertz.njit.edu 
(David Charlap) writes...
>In article <1992Sep22.163135.189@hellgate.utah.edu> 
>brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>>[
>>PC Week
>>September 21, 1992
>>Page 181
>>
>>Chart
>>]
>>Large Corporations Still Favor DOS, IBM PCs
>>
>>PC Operating Systems Used
>>	DOS			66%
>>	Windows with DOS	43%
>>	Apple Macintosh		15%
>>	Unix			 5%
>>	OS/2			 4%
> 
>Note that this adds up to 156%!!!  The Windows+Dos users are being
>counted twice, since they use DOS as well as Windows+Dos.  And then
>there is 10% that is unaccounted for.
> 
>>PC Manufacturers Used
>>	IBM			28%
>>	Apple			11%
>>	Compaq			 4%
>>	HP/Apollo		 2%
>>	Sun			 1%
>>	Digital			 1%
>>
>>Based on a survey of 500 individuals who work for companies
>>that employ 5,000 people or more.
> 
>This only adds up to 47%!!  What are the other 53% of these 500
>individuals using?  Probably generic PC clones, but it's interesting
>when the vast majority of respondents is using (other) as it's
>computer. 

It almost looks like PC Week ran their survey by tabulating boxes checked 
on reader reply cards.  My guess is that the Operating System deal was 
"which PC operating systems at in use at this location, check all that 
apply" and similarly for the PC manufacturer.

JD
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 23:19:46 EDT
From: <RFM@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Why Should I?

   I'm not sure why I'm writing; guess I need a nudge or something.
I have a 6-week old SWAN 486/33, 8 megs RAM, 210-meg HD, local BUS
video, etc. System came withh DOS5 and Win3.1; I loaded Norton Desktop
for Win on top of WIN, purchased WP4Win, Lotus4Win, Procomm4Win. Sorta
blew my wad. Oh, and I bought OS/2 2.0 as well.
   After fiddling with Windows for a couple of days, I reloaded all
my DOS versions of same software on the machine, allocated a couple of megs
of RAM to emulate expanded mem (to keep WP51 and Lotus 2.3 happy), and I
now have a very fast DOS machine.  I'm running WP51, Lotus 2.3, SPSS-PC,
dBASE 4, Harvard Graphics, ProCommPlus, and Prodigy.

   This weekend I finally took the shrink-wrap off my OS/2, looked at
the box of disks (how many are there???), the bundle of manuals, and
read far enuf into one to realize that with the 3 1/2" disks that
came with the package. I had BIG problems: my A: drive is 5 1/4. When
I look at my autoexec and config.sys files and wonder what would
happen if I tried to install OS/2 over all this junk, I shudder.

    I got into this stuff 'cuz I want to multi-task -- I *NEED*
to multi-task. Right now I spend a lot of time hot-keying (under DOS)
between WP51, Lotus, dBASE, SPSS-PC, and Procomm. Lotta data analysis.

    I'm gearing up to load OS/2, I guess, and I'm hoping someone can
provide some guidance/support, and some answers. My questions:

1. Can I swap my 3 1/2 disks for 5 1/4? Where/how?
2. Should I unload Windows and Norton DTW?
3. Assuming I *can* get OS2 up & running, what about my needs
    for expanded mem for DOS-WP51 and Lotus?
4. Is there a good Book (bettter yet, a VIDEO) about installing &
    configuring OS/2? (Pictures are worth 1k words, etc., especially
    for getting started -- the vision thing and such-like).  Good book
    AND a good video?
5. I haven't read deeply enuf into OS2, but I gather if I use the
   double-boot setup, I don't have to worry about my present
   config.sys & autoexec.bat files, or do I?
6. Naturally I'm going to do a complete backup before I attempt OS/2,
   and I'll have half-a-dozen floppy boot disks, etc. If I start
   and then decide to dump OS/2, can I de-partition my drive (it's IDE
   so I can't low-level format), re-format the sucker, and go (sadly)
   back to DOS?
7. When will IBM release WIN 3.1 work-alikes?

Appreciate any/all answers/advice.w

BobM, Penn State-Harrisburg

-- I wish my machine had come pre-loaded with DOS and OS/2 instead
of DOS and Windows. But If I have OS/2, do I need DOS too?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 11:39:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.180028.13061@phillip.edu.au> t9014201@phillip.edu.au writes:

>I get the impression that the future of Operating Systems is in them being
>designed to be Hardware independent.  
>NT has the Kernel concept - You don't totally rewrite the OS for a different
>Chip,  just the comparitively small Kernel.
>I think this will be the true power of NT.  It will allow the user and
>manufacturer to have more freedom choosing their hardware.  The "tyranny" of
>8086 dependence will be broken.  NT will run on DECs Alpha chips and others.

I agree this is an attractive point about NT.

>Will Pink ONLY run on PowerPC chips?  If so, then thats a shame.
>Oh yeah, I USE OS/2 and I love it,  but i think it will die in the long run 
>if its limited to only 8086 machines.

You never know. the 80x86 chips just keep on getting better.  The P5, P6 chips
looks like they will be on par performance wise with some of the fastest
RISC chips.  The line is probably going to hang around a while, even though
we may not necessarily like INTel's stranglehold on the chip market.

>--
>* Clouds...  Love...  Stars... Colours... *
>                                     Greg McPherson * T9014201@phillip.edu.au
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Date: 4 Oct 92 22:20:25 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1992Oct2.171154.9198@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de>, ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
> |> Finally, to the schmucks who support NT, go and form your own advocacy! 
> |> In the words of Tracy Ullman..GO HOME
> 
> The discussion OS/2 vs. /NT will be there, either here or in another advocacy
> group. But this is quite typical, if you OS/2 guys feel, that we have the
> better arguments based on facts, you don't wanna here them anymore.
> 
> Christoph

	Well, when it comes to arguing, I don't see how you can
say NT supporters have any facts considering NT isn't even an available
product.  Most of the things NT supporters have said is "NT WILL have
this and NT will have that.." key word WILL.  
	By that same line of reasoning, we OS/2 supporters can start
saying that NT is inferior because OS/2 3.0 is going to have (and list
the announced features IBM named.)...

	Until NT is released, you guys can go ahead and play with
your NT pre-release and develop need little shareware toys with it
and dual boot to Windows 3.1 when you want to get any serious work
done but don't try to tell us that NT is "superior" until it is
released and does everything MS claims.  I used the NT pre-release
and thought it was rather pathetic.  But that's just my opinion.  Without
a commercial release, you have no true evidence for any argument
of NT vs OS/2.

							-Brad

===============================
Brad Wardell
Systems Development Director
Stardock Systems SDS
Western Michigan University
===============================


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Os/2ers whine again
Date: 05 Oct 92 18:38:40 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct4.103845.796@leland.Stanford.EDU> yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong) writes:
>
>In my opinion, this is all just crap.  OS/2 3.0 was meant to be a continuation,
>"successor" in a way, to OS/2 2.0.  It was announced long before the formal
>divorce and final break-up of IBM and Microsoft.

     If there was a product named OS/2 3.0 being produced, I would
agree that it would most likely be a successor to OS/2 2.0.  No such
product is in production anywhere, as far as I know.  Do you have some
other information?


>  Unless you can convince me
>Windows NT has nothing to do with OS/2 3.0, then it is pointless to say that
>NT has nothing to do with OS/2.  OS/2 3.0 is not just a code name for NT.
>It was what Microsoft's original vision of what OS/2 would be.

      And original visions are subject to change, wouldn't you
agree?

					-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: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Date: 30 Sep 92 09:10:20 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

925wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:

>	Windows NT in its current state may indeed be the future
>OS.  But that would more likely be from its name and its connection
>to the popular (if not well implemented) Windows apps.  I myself
>was an extreme Windows zealot for a long while.  I ripped on people
>who would call Windows 3.0 "Some of the nicest beta software I've seen."
>I programmed for it.  But in the end, I simply had to accept that
>it was simply a Dos shell.  Or to those that would flame that statement
>I could also put it as an extremely underpowered graphical Operating
>System.  Whichever you choose.  But Windows is popular more so because
>it is bundled with most computers (including our company's computers)
>than because it is "the best".  It has good apps out for it and is
>reasonably easy to use and does have enough power for those who only
>have 4 megs of memory or less.  

[... and a lot deleted]

I think that what sets OS/2 apart, or at least what makes it distinctive
to users, is the WPS. Yes, it's still in its infancy, and being improved.
But it offers much now, and has potential. This was what IBM was counting
on, at a guess. A new look to make OS/2 more distinctive.

MS, on the other hand, wants to maintain the Win look because they think
this will ease the transition for users from Windows. Ultimately, the
other OO projects will come up with an analogous "WPS" for NT, so the
difference will be less, but apparently the hope is that users will be
happy with the Windows "look" until then.

I guess we'll see which strategy works, but not for a while. The strange
thing is that both may work for a goodly number of people - so by, say,
this time of year in '94, life could be *very* interesting.

(Note that this perspective ignores all "salient" points about the OS's
in terms of features - but it seems to me that this is certainly a time
of style-over-substance, so in essence the look of the OS is important).

Tom

(Hey, it's just an opinion).
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware