HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: How many people are working on OS/2 and NT?
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:30:13 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1a8op5INNph0@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bbm@po.CWRU.Edu (Brian B. Mathewson) writes:
>
>I'm curious about the number of people who are working at IBM on
>OS/2 2.0 and at Microsoft on Windows, and, separately, NT.
>
>Also, how many people (and who) are working on MS/PC-DOS?
>
>Can anyone give a reasonably well-informed answer?

From my notes at the NT developers conference, and partially from
memory:
Lou Perazzoli's talk the first day.

Initial design team was around 20 people (don't remember exact number).
The implementation team started with 50 and phased in people as
the base was finished to reach 200 (this is programmers only, though I seem
to remember some of these are testers).  The total team at the time of the
conference (and I assume this counts people like technical writers)
and including testers and people making the auxilary programs and
networking and drivers, etc was 500.

As usual I have no information from IBM... perhaps at the October
developers conference they'll say something.

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
University of Utah                             United We Stand
Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: goyal@utdallas.edu (Mohit K. Goyal)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:05:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.193730.19180@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rjones@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ronald Jones) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.172133.23442@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>>In article <7497@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>>Raw computing power is wasted if the CPU has to sit around waiting to get
>>>something to compute. Fast disk and fast video have just as much of an effect
>>>on overall performance as does a fast CPU. I shudder to think just how much
>>>time my 386/40 is wasting waiting on my Trident SVGA; there's a faster card in
>>>my future, but it's going to wait for the OS/2 driver issue to settle down.
>>
>>Psst!  8514/a.
>>
>>
>Psst! Psst! xga-2
>
>1280x1024 resolution
>65,536 colors at 640x480
>1MB VRAM
>graphics coprocessor
>SVGA modes
>busmaster 
>$270 (NEP)
>ISA version available from Radius
>

Don't forget that XGA-2 can also do 65,536 colors at 800X600.

It's LIST price is $360(I think) which would make that $270 a good
street price figure.

All Radius would tell me is that the card will be out sometime in 1992.
IBM already ships a local bus implementation of XGA-2 on PS/2's.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DESYNCHRONIZED MESSAGE QU
Date: 30 Sep 92 08:49:46 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

BJT105@psuvm.psu.edu writes:

>I don't know if a "pre-emptive" system message queue has any meaning..
>but there is certainly a group at IBM who are interested in moving to
>multiple message queues (for each process).  The motivation comes from
>wanting to match NT (The programmers want to match each NT feature ASAP...
>from NT vs. OS/2 reviews, multiple messages queues came out as one important
>feature which can be done on the shorter term... multiprocessing and
>multiple platforms being long-term), and I believe the effect would be to
>eliminate the "application not responding to system requests" type message
>(if you've ever gotten it), and also to eliminate some behind-the-scenes
>uglyness in the single message queue implementation.

Well, let's get the cart behind the horse - MS and IBM were developing OS/2
together, for a while. Now just where do you think those NT features came
from - out of the blue, or maybe, just maybe, they were features intended
for OS/2 anyway? Hence IBM is including them, since they were going in 
anyway. 

Indeed, it may be that IBM is leading here - if they can implement many
of those announced plans before NT hits the shelves (when is that again,
Mr. Gates? *2nd* Quarter '93? Oh, my...) then MS is going to be scurrying
indeed. It would be extremely amusing if IBM manages to implement the
Win32 API (this compatibility was reported, no?) on OS/2 before NT is out.
Then the ads will have to include "a better NT than NT" :-)

Tom
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Silence on the Windoz Front...
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 00:00:20 GMT

In <BvAv6s.4oB@acsu.buffalo.edu> v053qpgh@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Eric W Sarjeant) writes:
>
>Has anyone been keeping up with the OS/2 and the MS Windows newsgroup
>fronts? As of late, I have noticed a considerable decline in the comp.
>windows.ms group. Typically only around 10-15 messages appear daily,
>whereas the os2 forums are constantly bustling with nearly 100 messages
>each per day.

This got me curious... I keep an longish term archive of all the
windows and OS/2 groups... so I went and did some checking.

Messages per day (I expire my archive at different rates per group).

comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy		601/60		=	10.01
comp.os.ms-windows.announce		57/150		=	 0.38
comp.os.ms-windows.apps			3126/150	=	20.84
comp.os.ms-windows.misc			968/30		=	32.26
comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.misc	648/150		=	 4.32
comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.tools	1017/150	=	 6.78
comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32	1171/150	=	 7.80
comp.os.ms-windows.setup		1423/150	=	 9.48
Total for Windows:					=	91.87

comp.os.os2				835/150		=	 5.56
comp.os.os2.advocacy			4244/120	=	35.36
comp.os.os2.apps			4438/150	=	29.58
comp.os.os2.misc			3125/30		=      104.16
comp.os.os2.networking			1470/150	=	 9.80
comp.os.os2.programmer			3132/150	=	20.88
Total for OS/2:						=      205.34

Conclusion... OS/2 users must have 22 times *** the number of problems that
Windows users do.  (Think about it... ignoring advocacy postings, most
postings are requests for information about how to solve a problem... or
how you figured out how to solve a problem.)
There are about (optimistically) 1 million OS/2 users, and about
(optimistically) 11 million Windows users.
Another possibility is that Microsoft support is better than IBM's, but
a tremendous number of OS/2 people assure me that my own personal experiences
with the two are incorrect and that IBM support is MUCH better than
Microsoft's.

***Yeah, I know... the population distribution of the net will skew things
towards OS/2 (i.e. probably a greater percentage of OS/2 users have net
access than Windows users).  Also I notice that pretty well every OS/2
group has "advocacy" postings -- OS/2 users are more defensive?  Still
it does appear that a significantly larger per user problem count
exists for OS/2.

The one that shocked me the most was the volume in the OS/2 apps group...
I mean, what would they discuss?  A quick scan of the group reveals that most
of the traffic is OS/2 installation questions and can I find an app to do
X questions.  Also a lot of Windows/DOS app -- how do I get it to run stuff.
How do I do backups is also quite popular.

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
University of Utah                             United We Stand
Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: Multitasking (was Re: MS's misconduct!)
Organization: Canon Information Systems Research Australia
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:35:49 GMT

discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>
>Thank god that someone else feels the way I do.  I was beginning to feel
>like a voice in the wilderness.  I've kept saying that "printing in the
>background, downloading in the background, waiting for mail... were
>trivial."  Why?  Because I've been doing this with *DOS* and a huge
>"TSR mess."  But--THANK GOD FOR OS/2/NT FOR THE NECESSARY OS FEATURES TO
>WRITE APPLICATIONS. 
>

I don't know if I feel exactly the same way ... I've been doing that
stuff with AmigaDOS for the last five or six years (and UNIX but
that' another story).
-- 
Andy Newman (andy@research.canon.oz.au)		"int - God's own type"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Moving from X to Y.
Date: 30 Sep 92 10:04:54 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Sep29.205733.33913@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu wrote:
> In article <1992Sep28.024259.17479@microsoft.com>, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Sk
> elly) writes:

> >
> >However, Going from a non-multitasking or preemptive-multitasking system
> >to a non-premptive multitasking system, taking advantage of things like
> >threads and such, would require quite a rewrite.  For large apps, this is
> >quite an undertaking.
Oopse, let me call myself on this before anyone else does...
I mean't non-multitasking or nonpreemptive to a preemptive system.  Hope
that makes more sense.
> 
> Also true.  Let me go on a tangent though.  Am I hearing an NT supporter claim
> that it might actually be difficult to do more than a simple port from Windows
> to NT?  If that is the case then hold on while I get my tape recorder...
> (Pulling your chain mode off)
> Seriously, you are right.  It can be difficult to do all this, but it still
> can be a real money maker if that developer plays his/her cards right.  This
> makes it worth every developer's while to at least consider it seriously.

yes, it can, and I hope people do eventually port there things to take advantage
of preemptive systems.  Yeah, I know, it may have seemed that I was arguing
against them, but really all I was arguing against is excessive use of threads
and the like.


> >
> >petesk@microsoft.com
> >My Opinions...
> >
> 
> Stacy John Behrens
> *===)-------------
p@m.c
m o.
From: Mike.Hobbs@f115.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Mike Hobbs)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: INTERESTING TIDBIT FROM S
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:19:00 -0600

After recieving shock-therapy, Phil Lafornara mumbled the following to All:

>     I'm still waiting for some description of these "sleazeball tricks."
>You are including the release of the SDK, which is a fairly straight-
>forward business decision.  Are your other tricks similar, in that
>they would only be interpreted as "sleazeball" by someone with an
>agenda?

   I know I'm going out on a limb here and that I could get my head bitten
off for making the following statements, but I've always been a fan of
adventure.

   For some evidence of MS "sleazeball tricks," might I suggest that you talk
to Will Zachmann as to why he will quit writing columns for PC Week in the
near future.  I do not know him personally, nor have I talked directly to
him, but from the rather authentic messages that I have read, (including his
9-28-92 article) I have a feeling that he will let you know of at least one
way MS has used it's power in a rather "sleazeball" fasion.

   P.S. If you are unaware of the Zachmann conspiracy, I'm sure there are
plenty of people here who can fill you in on the details.

___
 * MR/2 1.3 NR * Windows NT?  New Technology?  I don't think so...


 * Origin: (1:282/115)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:54:04 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <wiegand.718034110@lido16> motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net writes:
>brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>>>	How can you greatly prefer NT over OS/2?  You actually
>>>liked the "pre-beta" better than OS/2?  WHY?  
>
>>But these are the minor points... the real difference is terms
>>of the quality of the software development tools. NT's SDK comes
>>with the NT equivalent of MSC/C++ 7.0.  My only complaint
>>is that they haven't yet gotten the iostream library there, but
>>I can see why that would be low priority.
>>The point is even in its not-yet-finished state... it's better
>>than WorkSet/2.
>

WHY DO YOU TWIST MY WORDS?
>If the development tools are the main reason for prefering NT then NT
>is in trouble.

The topic under discussion was why two people in this group prefer
to develop under the NT pre-beta instead of under OS/2.  Thus your comments
below are totally off base.

>
>1) Most users are not software developers and couldn't care less about
>	development tools.
>
>2) There will be 3rd part developemnt tools available for both OSs which
>	will eventually negate any advantage MS has over IBM in 
>	development tools. (I know lots of people are waiting to see
>	what Borland produces).
...
>Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
University of Utah                             United We Stand
Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 07 Oct 92 00:09:04 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Oct5.230519.21736@ms.uky.edu> sam@ms.uky.edu wrote:
> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

> >> 
> >> The only time preemptive multitasking is not the best method is when its not
> >> the method used in the operating system you're trying to sell.
> >IYHO of course.  Or are you deciding for the rest of us too?
> 
> Yes, in my opinion.  But other than being easier to write and code for (maybe),
> what advantage does non-preemptive multitasking have?  I say none.

Runs on smaller hardware (see the bottom part of my last post).  Allows your
core system to be smaller.

Those two things, plus the one you mentioned (which could be argued), make
up a pretty strong argument that preemptive mt is not the best thing
to be used everywhere.


> 
> >> 
> >> IMHO, preemptive multitasking is a requirement.  Also, any OS should be
> >> multiuser.  This is a shortcoming in both NT and OS/2.  With machines
> >> becoming more and more powerful, there is an increasing need for multiuser
> >> operating systems, in order to take better advantage of the underlying machine.
> >> 
> 
> >I bet I can be absurd here too.  What about the "OS" in my microwave oven,
> >should it be multitaskin/multiuser.  How about the "OS" in one of those
> >new handhelds, should they be multiuser.  What about the "OS" on a machine
> >controlling a conveyor belt in a factory, or a milling machine.  What about
> >the "OS" in a dedicated word processor.  What about the "OS" in video games.
> >You know, the one's you find in arcades.  Should they be multiuser.
> 
> >Okay, Okay, I'll stop, but I think I've named enough computing environments
> >that are valid markets that don't need multiuser, and may not need 
> >multitasking systems.
> 
> You're right; those things don't need multiuser operating systems.  But they
> don't need NT either.

Ah, how clever, you turned my post into a slam.  It took a great leap
of logic to figure out that since I was saying the above things didn't
need multiuser or multitasking capabilities, then they don't need NT
'cause NT has those things.  But what if they need other things that NT
and only NT offers.  Not a probable thing, but a flaw in your logic.

Anyway, I'd say you are correct.  Many of those things I mentioned probably
won't requrire Windows NT, OS/2, UN*X, Amigados, VMS, etc.  So What.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 18:00:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct03.232108.18990@microsoft.com>,
petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.052735.869@leland.Stanford.EDU> jswang@leland.Stanford.EDU wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually, I think I myself tend to "multitask preemptively" a lot.  Like when
>> I need to wait for something (for food to be cooked), I often would go
>> off and do something else, then come back after say five minutes.  If I
>> need to continue the wait, I'll just continue doing that something else, then
>> return to check again after a while.  Would you consider this "mulitasking
>> preemptively".
>>
>

[   Counterexample Deleted   ]

>
>
>Okay, I've gone off on sort of a tangent here, but I guess I've tried to
>point out that preemptive multitasking is not the only method for doing
>things in the real world, as well as in the computer world.  And in some
>cases, it's not the best.
>
>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...

You're right, preemptive multitasking is not the best way to do
things in the real world.  Symetric multiprocessing is the best way
to do things.  Let's face it, our brains are not single
processing units.  They control all sorts of things to keep our
internal environment in homeostasis while we 'attend' to
our external environment.  To devaluate the brain to the state of a
single processor is very ludicrous.  To say that a person 'time
slices' is to only look at the external behavior of a person.  You
leave out the fact that millions of other processes are occuring at
the exact same time, many of which our brain controls, while we
attend to the 'real world.'
     Take for example, breathing.  We all do this in the background
(I hope!).  At the same time, we are consciously attending our daily
tasks.  If we take on more tasks at once, our rate of breathing
rarely changes (except due to stress).  This would count both time
slicing and preemptive multitasking out, leaving SMP.  Of course,
it's still not this simple (as many AI people know).
     Sorry, I just can't stand it when computers and organisms are
compared!

Timothy Miller, Biopsychologist, Dept. of Neuroscience (oops, my
secret's out!) :-) :-)

I suppose this  one requires a disclaimer!
All opinions are mine, blah blah blah...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong)
Subject: Re: Os/2ers whine again
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 09:58:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.010750.13749@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <Ielk=Ym00WBNQ1bKF8@andrew.cmu.edu> fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu wrote:
>> 
>> How much of NT's development was funded by IBM?
>> Where could one find out these figures?
>
>What is your definition of NT in the above statement.  I suspect
>very little, if any, of the code or design that is in NT now was ever written
>under contract to IBM.  And why does even that matter, btw?  Does that make
>the product any different?
>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...

Sorry Pete, but the question is about funding, *not* code or design ...
From: t9014201@phillip.edu.au
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:00:28 GMT
Organization: RMIT (Bundoora Campus)

In article <92271.152323I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET>, I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET (Spartacus At Cuny) writes:
> Today I read IBM plans to release its PowerPC chips this fall
> on the USAToday newsfeed on the freenet.  As I understand it
> these new PowerPC will run Pink in about 3 years from now.
> Pink supposedly will run OS/2 and MSDOS programs as well
> as Pink programs.
> 
> Now this brings in some curious questions about these chips
> and future Intel CPUs.  By allowing a user the freedom to run
> his/her favorite application on either platform.  I would like
> to hear some opinions (speculations) about what could users
> expect 3-4 years down the road.  Wouldn't Pink put Intel
> CPUs and PowerPC in head to head competition with each other?
> Would Intel based micros still be a viable option? What kind
> of decisions would a person expect to face four years from now
> when purchasing a new computer?
> 
> Please post on the net...I'm sure there are many people who
> are just as curious.  This subject was brought up here between
> two people and I thought it would be a legitimate question
> to bring up.
> 
> -------
> ------------------------------+      All The Best,
> Reply To:                     |
>                               |      Edward Galarza,
>      I18BC@CunyVM.Cuny.Edu    |      Brooklyn College Of The
>      I18BC@CunyVM.BitNet      |      City University Of New York
> ------------------------------+      "Que viva el OS/2!"
-- 
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.
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.
--
* Clouds...  Love...  Stars... Colours... *
                                     Greg McPherson * T9014201@phillip.edu.au
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Re: Shutdown failure (?)
Organization: Philipps-University Marburg
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:26:45 GMT

In article <unruh.718315751@physics.ubc.ca>, unruh@physics.ubc.ca (William
Unruh) writes:
|> 
|> Surely OS2 should not allow itself to be hijacked . If a program does not
|> respond, OS2 should kill that app itself ( or give you the option), not
|> sit there waiting on rude behaviour.
|> Actually, OS2 allows itself to be hijacked a bit too easily. Another
|> case is running the PMterm, when you shut down the PMterm, you get the
|> wait icon and the system gets hijacked until the PMterm has finished its
|> business. Surely OS2 should not allow that- you should be able to change
|> focus while one program continues its shenanigans. Is this a symptom of
|> the single message que?
|>
You've got it. OS/2 continues working fine :-), but with no use
for you :-(. If a PM program does not return from a message
handler, PM does not do any more, including not updating
your Console Windows or allowing keyboard input.

The only workaround is hitting Ctrl-ESC like an Arcade-Professional
then you will see some "ENTER" or "CANCEL" dialog. If you choose
CANCEL, nothing happens. If you choose ENTER, the system crashes
or other nice things. In case of PMTERM, you cannot use the COM-Port
until you reboot.
 
Christoph
-- 
Internet: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de
BITNET: HAMPE2@DMRHRZ11
Fido: 2:243/660
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy