HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 03 Jan 93 00:09:51 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1i4f7sINNd8s@tamsun.tamu.edu> bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>|>z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>|>>
>|>>
>|>>	I Recently talked to a Beta Tester of DOS 6.0. He Runs OS/2 with 2 Hard
>|>>Drives, One FAT, One HPFS. He decided to Install the DOS 6.0 Beta on the FAT
>|>>Partition, and got a Message saying, and I paraphrase: 
>|>>
>|>>- OS/2 Detected! Due to the size of OS/2 you may wish to delete your OS/2 
>|>>files before installing DOS 6.0 -
>|>
>|>     Interesting.  What is the problem with that?  If there was a
>|>similar message that said "Autocad detected.  Due to the size of
>|>Autocad you may wish to delete your Autocad files before installing
>|>DOS 6.0", whould that be bad too?
>
>The problem is that it is unprofessional.  Yes, OS/2 and MS-DOS are
>competitors that offer some of the same things.  No, the warning
>message as stated above is not illegal or immoral.  Its just
>inappropriate. 

    The message quote above is _not_ the warning message in
the actual beta.  It has been "quoted" (read invented) by a
person who _doesn't_ have the beta and clearly has an agenda
in their post.  Hardly an objective source.
    When I get back to work on Monday I'll see if I can't find
out what the actual message is.


>It strikes me that most of the employees at MS are on the young side
>(read that as younger than me :-) ).  They may have felt the above
>message was "cute" or "funny".  They may not have considered that not
>a few people would consider it "immature".  I think MS ends up looking
>small and petty for such things.

     Source code at Microsoft goes through a fairly rigorous review
process - it's unlikely that something "cute" or "funny" would
make it into a final product.
     And, note again that we're talking about a _beta_ product.

				-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
From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: More advertising
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:13:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.150806.17631@panix.com>,
os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.) writes:
>
>Here's the next mag ad idea I came up with while stuck in traffic last night:
>
>(big bold font) "Why put off until tomorrow what you can do today?"
>
>(not-so-big font) At IBM, we believe that you shouldn't have to wait until
>tomorrow to use new technology, especially when it is already available today.
>
>(insert OS/2 logo)
>(caption) "Tomorrow's technology today"
>
>(fine print) OS/2 2.0 with Crash Protection(tm) provides all that you need
>with its capability to run any DOS(tm), Windows(tm), or OS/2(tm)
>application.
>
>Minimum hardware required:  Intel 80386 or compatbile CPU with 4 megabytes
>of memory.  An 80486 or compatible CPU with 6 megabytes of memory is
>recommended.  To order, call 1-800-3IBMOS2.  Available on 5.25 and 3.5 inch
>media.
>
>------------------------

     I don't know about this last part, I think many people are very
happy with OS/2 on a 386 DX of almost any speed, and some people
have said they're happy with it on SX's.  I'm also sure that a
386SLC would run OS/2 well.

     I'm kind of a sucker for MultiMedia, though.  Maybe they could
show a neat animation sequence (like those Listerine commercials)
which doesn't actually have a lot to do with business type stuff.
Then at the end, they could say something like "This brief
intermission brought to you by IBM and OS/2."  Although it wouldn't
point out all of OS/2's strong point, it would be effective at
getting people's attention.

Timothy Miller
From: fles0092@rz.uni-hildesheim.de (Frank Leskova)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Date: 22 Dec 92 11:19:04 GMT
Reply-To: fles0092@rz.uni-hildesheim.de
Organization: Universitaet Hildesheim, RZ

In article 22030@noose.ecn.purdue.edu, helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <1h4vq1INN2mj@tamsun.tamu.edu>, bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
>
>|> |> 
>|> |> First of all Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on OS's.
>|> 
>|> But they would like to.
>
>Microsoft will only be as big as its customers want to make it.

M$ will only be as big as customers have to make it, if they want
to use PCs - whose vendors have to buy M$-DOS/WIN for every PC they
sell.

>|> prices will go up.  Can it happen?  I think so.  Will it happen?  Without
>|> organizations like the FTC, I think it might. 
>
>Ok, you tell me then why hasn't IBM just _dominated_ the PC clone market?

IBM computers were to expensive compared with other PCs. On the other hand: you
didn't have to buy an IBM to use the programs written for them.

>|> I believe that the strength of the country is the ability for small companies
>|> to grow into large companies.  Microsoft is an excellent example.  
>
>How many people are going to try to start a company and bust their gussets trying
>to build it into a big one if they know that if they succeed the goverment
>will just bust them up as a reward?

Most people who start a company don't do so to put every competitor out
of business - they start companies to make their living. If they act
fair they have absolutely no reason to fear the goverment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Frank Leskova        -- E-Mail: fles0092@rz.uni-hildesheim.de         --
-- Oderstr. 10 B        --   or  : fles1092@rz.uni-hildesheim.de         --
-- 3000 Hannover 71     --                                               --
-- Germany              -- Tel.  : ++49 - 511 - 51 22 16                 --
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:27:46 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Dec22.182937.2539@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu> rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:
>discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>
>
>Your argument is specious.  I do not give a hoot if I can install another
>OS.  What I care about is that I have to pay for MS-DOS even if I do
>not want it.  Period.  Why should I, the consumer, have to pay for
>something I do not want?

     You shouldn't.  That's the beauty of the marketplace - you
don't have to buy from anyone who you don't like.


>  That is what MS's licensing terms to vendors
>requires - ALL systems must be licensed for MS-DOS.

     Incorrect.  Learn the facts, then come back.


>>But regardless of this, the end user OWNs the computer.  Microsoft (to
>>my knowledge) does not have cameras that follow people around and tattle-tales
>>when they uninstall DOS from the system; the operating system is hardly
>>"forced" onto the buyer.  "Installed" yes, "Forced" no.
>
>Ignorance is bliss?  Who cares if they know what I do (I do care but
>that is irrelevant).  Should I be forced to pay for something even if
>I do not want it?

     Unless someone is standing behind you with a gun, you probably
aren't being forced to buy anything.
      I'm getting deja vu here - are we talking about CD-ROMs again?


>  Open up your eyes and read.  This is probably the
>10th post in this thread that has pointed out this problem - MS's
>licensing agreement with vendors forces a situation where every box
>must have an MS-DOS license EVEN IF MS-DOS is NEVER loaded on the 
>system.

     And it's the 10th post to be incorrect on this same point.
Reading is well and good, but you have to make an informed choice
on whether to believe what you read - in this case, you have bought
into the (incorrect) anti-MS propaganda that Microsoft offers only
a single exclusive contract.  This is not true.

					-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
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 03:17:53 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Dec27.171726.4660@grebyn.com> mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli) writes:
> Unix machines.  I find Unix crashes to be *very* rare, even running in 8
> or 12 megs on a PC. (and BTW, I have used SCO ODT 1.1 Unix SVR3.2 on a
> 386/20 with 12megs of memory, and it performs quite well.  That's
> running X windows, TCP/IP, and NFS too.  So if NT runs as poorly as
> Steve describes in 8 megs, MS has their work cut out for them.)

Hi Marc
 
It does and they sure do.....which was one of the points in my original
post.....:-)
 
Steve

-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
+64 4 478 4714                          | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rmk@frog.CRDS.COM (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 27 Dec 92 21:43:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Charles River Data Systems

In article <1992Dec22.202026.13677@sequent.com> furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod) writes:
>In article <1h7gj1INNitc@cae.cad.gatech.edu> chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen) writes:
>>
>
>[ stuff deleted ]
>
>>If they DO get broken up, there are other software companies out there.
>>Hell, UNIX may gain some more ground if it happens.  For now,
>>sticking with OS/2 and Unix hasn't hurt me, and probably won't.  If
>>MS DOES break up, some of the smaller companies may have room to
>>grow.
>>
>
>Unfortunately UNIX isn't going to gain any ground. NOvel announced
>that will buy Unix Systems Laboratory for $335 million in stock.
>"This aquisition is being done at the urging of customers who have
>asked us to support the Unix system directly and integrate it fully
>within the Netware environment," says Raymond Noorda, Novell's CEO.
>(Reference - PRODIGY interactive personal service).
>
>If you read this statement carefully, you will notice that Ray
>wants to absorb UNIX into Netware, not the other way around. If
>this actually comes about, one of the last of the good OS
>environments will bite the dust; all because he has a hard on for
>Bill Gates.
>
>The prize that comes with Unix Systems Laboratory is AT&T copyright
>to UNIX. Oh well, I've seen good things raped and plundered before;
>just never thought UNIX would be one of them.

This would be true if AT&T was the sole supplier of UNIX.  USL makes the
main bulk of it's money selling source licenses to vars and collecting
royalties from them.  They also have ongoing bug fix programs that cost
money for var participation, and all the source packages that they sell
through the AT&T Toolchest.

There are probably 30+ vendors of UNIX for Intel boxes, and more for other
hardware platforms.  The customers who want Novell integration for UNIX will
be the ones who will buy UNIXWARE from Novell.  These are mostly customers
who have large MSDOS and Windows 3.x networks.  OS/2 is already showing that
it can neatly integrate itself into UNIX and TCP/IP networks.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:58:22 GMT

fles0092@rz.uni-hildesheim.de (Frank Leskova) writes:
: In article 22124@noose.ecn.purdue.edu, helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
: >In article <BzMLLx.JtD@news.iastate.edu>, TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:
[....]
: >|> competing as heavily in the applications market.  Now, though, MS
: >|> has practically forced (yes *forced*) vendors to either load MS-DOS
: >
: >Force is the wrong word to use here.  When Bill Gates starts toting
: >M-16's like the U.S. Army does, then we can start talking about force.
: 
: It seems to me that you don't know which means of force exist!
: Holding a gun at someones head or using M-16's are only two.
: Delaying (or even rejecting) deliveries of ordered software are other
: means which have become quite "popular" (I do NOT mean MicroSoft).
: And I am quite sure that there would be several other ways of
: influencing the decision of signing a contract with MS.

'As through this life you wander,
 You'll mweet some funny men,
 Some'll rob you with a sixgun
 And some with a fountain pen.'
	Woody Guthrie, Pretty Boy Floyd.

--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 4 Jan 1993 03:46:14 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuron.tamu.edu

In article <1993Jan4.004352.29449@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
|
|	This nonsense about the "all for all" contracts that bill 
|	companies for all of machines sold are *possibly* anti-competitive,
|	but VOLUME DISCOUNTS are not.  

I agree.  Volume discounts are reasonable and fair competition.

|
|	Just so I know, all of you people who are out there blasting
|	MS--what do you think of Intel's kickback that they give companies
|	for advertising Intel Inside?  It effectively reduces the cost of the
|	company's advertising enough that the price difference between
|	Intel chips and AMD/Cyrix chips is little enough that companies
|	just go with Intel. 

This is a good topic, but I'm not sure it belongs in OS/2 advocacy.

That said, I'll put in my two cents worth anyway.  Does Intel insist
on 100% of a company's machines be shipped with Intel CPUs for an
adversiser to say 'Intel Inside'?  I'm not sure if that's reasonable
or not. 

I might point out that the Intel and AMD/Cyrix chips do exactly the
same thing from *most* customer's viewpoint.

I will also point out that since AMD/Cyrix started competing the
prices of CPUs have come down *a lot*.  I was shocked today when I saw
in a local add an 80387, any speed, for $89.  We we bought them about
2 years ago they were >$500!  (One ! Phil :-) )

In summary, fair competition (either Intel or MS) is welcomed by all
consumers.  Unfair practices, such as dumping, hurts the consumer as
well as the competitors in the long run.
--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
                              |  Scrupulous Lawyer
From: jurlwin@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU (Jeff Urlwin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:30:00 GMT
Organization: University of Maine, Department of Computer Science

In article <21DEC199210203176@moose.cccs.umn.edu> rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu writes:
>In article <8194@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec20.052923.23904@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>> >Yep, that's the good ol' American way of doing business alright.  If you can't
>> >compete with someone, just get the Federal Goverment to break up their 
>> >company.  The real "predatory practices" going on here are those vultures
>> >of rival companies who are waiting to pick the bones of what's left of
>> >Microsoft after the FTC's guts the carcass.
>>  
>> I had to go back to the top of this article just to see if it was being posted
>> from microsoft.com. This is some of the brown-nosiest writing I've seen in
>> some time. The simple fact is that MS isn't playing fair - they force
>> manufacturers to sell machines with Windows and DOS preloaded (don't believe
>> that? just try to buy one without!), 
>
>Really, try and buy a car without tires.  I always considered it a convienence
>that I didn't have to go over to Goodyear of Firestone after I bought a car :-)
>Seriously, the charge wasn't that they forced anyone to do anything but that
>they were selling DOS at a loss to keep DR-DOS or DesqView from cutting the
>same sort of deal with the OEMs.  There was nothing in the agreement that
>said manufacturer X couldn't include product Y on their machine, just that
>they would include DOS on all of their machines.  BTW, the PC-Taylor chain
>(or at least their stores in the Twin Cities) preload their systems with
>DR-DOS and Windows.
>
>> they use undocumented OS calls in their apps, 
>
>Well I use Word and Excel for design issues, not because they are faster
>than the competition.  And has been pointed out before, if this is such
>a big advantage, why aren't Excel/Word the market leaders for their
>product catagories.
>
>> and they remove features from their development tools just to hinder a
>> competing OS. 
>
>Exactly what tools are you talking about.  This is apples and oranges.

No.  It's apples and apples.
How about support for producing OS/2 executables?  MSC 6.0x could, but
7.0 can't.

Jeff
-- 
--------------------------------------
jurlwin@gandalf.umcs.maine.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 12:06:39 GMT

In article <9212213006@ritz.mordor.com>, ritz@ritz.mordor.com (Christopher Mauritz) writes:

|> Gates.  Just remember how expensive long distance service was before the 
|> government forced a more competetive market on Ma Bell...or should I say
|> before Bill McGowan (former chairman of MCI) tricked the federal government
|> into forcing a more competetive market on Ma Bell... :-)

Agreed, but a more precise wording would be "Just remember how expensive 
long distance service was before the goverment stopped forbiding people
to compete with AT&T."  

AT&T was only a monopoly because it was illegal to compete with it.  In fact,
I can't name a single example of a monopoly which wasn't created by
the goverment.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu (RICHARD HOFFBECK)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Reply-To: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu
Organization: Colon Cancer Control Study, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:38:00 GMT

In article <8231@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
> In article <29DEC199210143369@moose.cccs.umn.edu> rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu writes:
> >My impression was that the problem is that Windows doesn't impliment the entire
> >DPMI standard, not that it doesn't conform to the standard.
>  
> Windows violates the DPMI standard in that, instead of running just the DPMI
> client portion if another DPMI server is already running, it simply refuses to
> run. You use either Windows' DPMI server or nothing.

I'm missing something here.  I'm running the DPMI drivers from QuarterDeck and
Windows with no problem, or is QEMM like 386MAX and it detects when Windows is
run and gets out of the way?

In any case, it seems more likely that MS doesn't have its DPMI act together
rather than indicate preditory behavior.  I can't see how a company bent on
using DPMI to exclude competition would end up having to license 386MAX to ship
its new C compiler.  Although, given the trashy nature of 386MAX maybe it was
all a carefully hatched plot to make all of us do our DOS development in a
Windows DOS box  ... yeah, its all starting to make sense now :-))


--rick

+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Richard Hoffbeck               INTERNET: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu |
| Colon Cancer Control Study     ATT     : (612) 627-4151         |
| University of Minnesota        CIS     : 72406,521              |
| Minneapolis, MN 55455                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Date: 22 Dec 92 17:02:59 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Dec22.111904.21256@rz.uni-hildesheim.de>, fles0092@rz.uni-hildesheim.de (Frank Leskova) writes:

|> >Microsoft will only be as big as its customers want to make it.
|> 
|> M$ will only be as big as customers have to make it, if they want
|> to use PCs - whose vendors have to buy M$-DOS/WIN for every PC they
|> sell.

*sigh* OK once more: the relationship between Microsoft and the clone makers 
is purely voluntary.  If both the clone makers and Microsoft didn't think
they could make money off the deal, neither one would sign the contract.

Similarly, the relationship between the clone makers and their customers is
purely voluntary.  Nobody can force you to buy anything from anybody.  You'll
only buy something if you think its beneficial to you.

It just happens that most people out there want MS DOS for their machines.
OF COURSE this gives Microsoft tremendous leverage in the marketplace.  But
that's not Microsoft's fault--its the customers who demand it over DR DOS
and OS/2.

|> >Ok, you tell me then why hasn't IBM just _dominated_ the PC clone market?
|> 
|> IBM computers were to expensive compared with other PCs. On the other hand: you
|> didn't have to buy an IBM to use the programs written for them.

Well you don't have to buy MS DOS to run DOS programs.  The situation is entirly
the same except for one thing:  Bill Gates was a good enough businessman to
keep the price of MS DOS always competative with his competator's OS's.
So IBM lost market share by trying to fleece the public, and Microsoft retained
market share by being competative.  

|> >How many people are going to try to start a company and bust their gussets trying
|> >to build it into a big one if they know that if they succeed the goverment
|> >will just bust them up as a reward?
|> 
|> Most people who start a company don't do so to put every competitor out
|> of business - they start companies to make their living.

If you don't have a passion to be better than everyone else you're not going
to last long.  

|> If they act fair they have absolutely no reason to fear the goverment.

Don't make me laugh.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy