HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: philco@microsoft.com (Phillip Cooper)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 30 Dec 92 17:52:48 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1hr8q8INN5aa@cae.cad.gatech.edu> chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen) writes:
>
>Twould seem that microsoft has unleashed their net.propoganda division on
>us.  

I'm not sure what you mean Chris, but if you think that because I am an
employee of Microsoft, I have no right to comment on what I consider to
be inaccurate statements regarding Microsoft, then think again. 

Phil Cooper
From: os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM OS/2 Fiesta Bowl
Date: 24 Dec 92 14:51:56 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <697@riscy.simplot.com> rshelley@riscy.simplot.com (Robert Shelley) writes:

>Of course, but, that means OS Bowl 1 would be:
>	OS/2 v DOS

>That isn't fair though,  when dos passed the ball, all
>the players would stop!  When the center hiked the ball
>for that matter!

A friend of mine said she heard on the radio that IBM signed a contract to
allow them to sponsor some major TV event.  I am almost sure that it was a
sporting event.  Can someone confirm this?

If this is true, there would be a *definate* opportunity for OS/2 commercials
(and maybe they won't put any insomnia cures out of business).

Cheers,
Q
-- 
"If you choose not to decide, you  | "My other body is in the shop" - seen
 still have made a choice" - Rush  |  on a T-shirt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:46:08 GMT

In <28DEC199212215886@moose.cccs.umn.edu> rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu (RICHARD HOFFBECK) writes:

>In article <1992Dec23.161004.19950@Celestial.COM>, ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones) writes:
>> >|> Rival software companies have complained publicly and apparently to
>> >|> the Federal Trade Commission that Microsoft uses "predatory
>> >|> practices" in selling its operating systems. 
>>  
>> >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.
>>  
>> You have not been a victem of Microsoft'a predatory practices.  Just see
>> what happens if you come up with a clever inovation that might really cut
>> into thier profit.  I have worked for such a company.  We just talk to a few
>> companies about what we wanted to do and within 30 days got a letter from
>> the Microsoft legal department that said,
>> "Just try it, and we will sue you out of existance."
>> Our lawyer told us we were well with in our rights BUT we could not afford
>> the legal assult.  Two years later, Microsoft came out with the product.
>> Nice gut, that Gates.

>Perhaps you could give us the particulars, like the product in question and
>why MS thought that they would have a basis for litigation. There seem to
>be numerous counter-examples like Stacker, various backup utilities, disk
>compressors, etc.

Company was Microport Systems.  Product was the ability to run Xenix
binaries on our Unix system.  Microport was just starting out, had the only
Unix 286/386 product on the market (lots of Xenix and Xenix applications)
but with few Unix applications.  We could have a big jump ahead if we had access
to more applications without the apps vendors having to recompile.
Microsoft said the only way we could do this was because we had seen the
Xenix source code - not true.  The only difference in Unix binaries and
Xenix binaries was the header of the file.

FYI Microsoft had Xenix as a product prior to DOS.
-- 
INTERNET:  ray@Celestial.COM   Ray A. Jones; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!ray   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!ray   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
The probability of one or more spelling errors in this missive approaches
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.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 09:50:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.074803.1363@sequent.com>, furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod) writes:

<refering to the FTC threats against Microsoft>

|> IF this provides a setback to Microsoft, it will be a temporary
|> one. Bill Gates to his credit pours something like 27+% of the
|> revenues back into the company for R&D and Product Development. No
|> matter what the FTC does to Microsoft, that kind of cash infusion
|> will bring about good products, because they can afford to hire top
|> talent and spend the time and effort to get it right.

Ever think that Microsoft is only able to devote 27+% of its income to
R & D because it has such a big market share and because its products are
so competative?  

Just watch how fast that 27+% shrinks after the FTC clobbers Microsoft over
the head a couple of times.

|> Also, if they do split up Microsoft, the share holders will be
|> adequately compensated for the changes to take place. Bill Gates
|> wins, not matter what happens. Besides, the man likes a challenge.

Geez Louiz.  I'm sure he'll just really _love_ the challenge of trying
to compete with his right arm tied behind his back, his leggs hobbled, 
and his company gutted.

|> This also give IBM and opportunity to press their advantage with
|> OS/2 in the market place.

I totally disagree.  If Microsoft is smashed enough that all of these
whining companies feel safe developing for Windows, they will feel no
motivation at all to move developement to another OS.

The best thing for OS/2 is for Microsoft to escape this intact, because
then the other companies might just realize that if they don't want 
Microsoft to be dominant they shouldn't spend all their time developing
for Microsoft operating systems.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: 1992 BYTE Awards
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 23:53:28 GMT
Keywords: Windows Awards

In article <Dec.22.21.04.30.1992.13484@paul.rutgers.edu> hwang@paul.rutgers.edu (Hwang) writes:
> 
> 1992 BYTE Awards could be renamed Windows Awards, sponsored by
> MS. MS wins big: W4W, Windows 3.1, Execel, Visual Basic, Word, ...
> And "Potential winners of next year's BYTE Awards are already starting
> to surface. Microsoft's Windows NT and Access database manager barely
> missed being eligible for awards in 1992".
> Sorry, no OS/2. It is not one of 109 Awards winners. It is not even
> mentioned in the article..... I think it is my first year and last years of
> BYTE subscription....
 
They have had little nice to say about OS/2 since June. Each month it becomes
harder to justify to myyself spending the NZ$10 I pay for each issue.
 
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,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 21:32:59 GMT

In article <23DEC199214380967@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.172306.4445@tc.cornell.edu>, 
>bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes...
>>In article <23DEC199212080445@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> 
>>scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY) writes:
>
>Dov Bai-MSI Visitor originally wrote:
>>>>How come that no other company produced an equivalent of WIN 3.0 before
>>>>MS?  I do not say that WIN 3.0 is necessarily an outstanding technical
>>>>achievement.  What I say is that MS were the first to provide people 
>>>>with what they need to do their work.
>
>To which I replied:
>>>Maybe up until Win 3.0 companies figured that if the customer wanted a 
>>>computer with a Macintosh interface, then the customer would buy a 
>>>Macintosh ;-)  And please identify any type of work which _requires_ 
>>>Windows 3.0 to accomplish.
>
>>Ask the customers who bought it, not me. I did not purchase WIN 3.0.
>>Why are you so patronizing to people ?
>
>>Dov
>
>Patronizing?  Me?  You closed your paragraph regarding Windows 3.0 with the 
>statement that MS was the first to provide people with what they need to 
>do their work.  I replied to this by asking for the identity of any work 
>which requires Windows 3.0 to accomplish.  What I'm asking is for you to 
>put your money where your mouth is regarding MS providing people with what 
>they need to do their work.  Maybe I took your statement too literally, but 
>it kind of makes me wonder how we ever got to the 1980's without Microsoft 
>around ;-)
>
>I did some checking around my office to find out who has a copy of Windows 
>3.0 and why they bought it.  A perfect 20 for 20: it came with their system.
>These are their home systems.  Of the dozen or so PCs in our office, only 
>one has Windows installed (Version 3.1).  The reason why the one guy has 
>Windows -> all we have is 80386 based systems and he's used to using a Mac.

I apologize for being unclear about what I wrote. I did not mean that
you were patronizing toward me. I meant that you were patronizing toward
users of WIN 3.0. You asked me to provide an example for something which
_requires_ WIN 3.0. That is like asking why producing cars in a variety
of colors, when only one color may be _required_ for driving. 

The fact is that people like cars in many colors and shapes. And
successful car manufacturers were learning it very fast. The same
is about WIN 3.0. You could do many things with plain DOS. But some
people felt more comfortable with GUI. 

>JD

Dov
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Date: 22 Dec 92 09:57:09 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Dec21.3155.5804@dosgate>, richard.anstruther@canrem.com (richard anstruther) writes:
|> -> From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
|> 
|> -> |> to leverage other companies' apps out of the
|> -> |> marketplace by giving its own application programmers the inside
|> -> |> track to upcoming changes and undocumented features in the OS.
|> -> Would somebody please tell me exactly what is wrong with that?
|> -> Besides whining "its not _fair_!!!"  Microsoft owns Windows and DOS.
|> -> What Microsoft wants to reveal or not reveal isn't anybody's business
|> -> but Microsofts.
|> 
|> What's wrong with it is that it is illegal and has been for a long
|> time. 

And we're supposed to be good citizens and not protest bad laws.  After all,
its the law.

|> If you mean what is wrong with it in a moral sense, no doubt
|> a lengthy debate is possible, like it is with most moral questions.

The moral sense is exactly the one I'm refering to.  And its not lengthy
at all--when expressed in honest terms and not in bogus phrases like
"fair" and "anticompetative."  Here it is in honest English:

Microsoft's competetors are trying to use the guns of the federal goverment
to commit armed robbery of Microsoft's Trade secrets.

The fact that it is "legal" to do this doesn't make it any less heinous.
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Date: 30 Dec 92 00:57:56 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <wiegand.725663043@lido16>, wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand) writes:
|> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
|> 
|> >WRONG!  I can't believe that people actually post such inane ideas.  
|> >The agreement is like: if Joe's Clone shop ships 1000 boxes a month, Joe could
|> >ship 'em with 1000 copies of MS-DOS for $8, or he could choose NOT to
|> >abide by the agreement and purchase MS-DOS for $24 apiece. 
|> 
|> And Joe Clone would go out of business. With the small mark-up on PC clones
|> they can't just add $16 to their cost. To stay price competitive with
|> the other clone makers they *have to* accept the $8 offer. It sounds like
|> they have a choice, but the only real choice is to go out of business.

Joe Clone would be put out of business by his *customers* who would stop
buying from him--not by Microsoft.

I don't understand what the squabble is about--if Joe Clone wants to make money
selling Windows, he has to do so on terms which are agreeable with Microsoft.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 04:54:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.175117.12752@pcatsc.UUCP> palmer@pcatsc.UUCP (Doug Palmer) writes:
>
>You are *completely* missing the point. It's not the hardware vendors
>who are adversely affected by MicroSoft's predatory practices, but the
>competitor OS vendors. In effect, when MicroSoft enters into an agreement
>to tie royalty payments to units sold, they are forcing the hardware
>vendor to add the price of DOS/Windows to any other bundled operating
>system. This is an "unfair" practice in re the OS vendor, not the
>hardware vendor. They have effectively increased the cost of all other
>operating systems. That's illegal.
>
>
>-- 
>
>United States Courts                                         Doug Palmer
>Automated Training & Support Center
>7550 IH10 West, Suite 1100                     spatsc!palmer@spao.ao.gov

Doug, I think you're missing the point (although the post wasn't addressed
to me, I gotta jump in).  The other OS vendors (for example, Novell) could
quite readily offer their own incentive--even one more attractive, such
as NOT requiring a license for every computer.  Microsoft cannot (and
does not) make slaves of the vendor; the vendor at any time can simply say
"to heck with you" and NOT bundle DOS with every system (but would then
have to pay a higher price for each package of DOS he _does_ sell).

The only thing I could think of slapping MS for is "dumping" their software.
That is, Microsoft is selling their software for less than it costs to
develop, maintain, and ship it.  And I would garner that this is the real
root of the FTC investigation.  Microsoft, because of the close ties 
between the Systems and Applications divisions, could readily "give away"
Windows knowing that they'll most likely make up for the loss in the
sales of, say, Word for Windows... this is something that Novell,
IBM, et. al. *cannot* compete against.

Thus far, my own personal feeling is that THAT is what's wrong with
Microsoft's practice.  There is NOTHING wrong with a vendor bundling
DOS+Windows with each system... there is NOTHING wrong with Microsoft
having an agreement that coerces the vendor in bundling... what IS
wrong is the PRICE that Microsoft offers for such bundling; it is a
price that other OS vendors cannot hope to match.

There I said it.  Flames to /dev/nul.

joe
My opinions.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 08:16:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.035348.26595@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>A co-worker of mine in Auckland has sent me his NT-bearing hard disk to play
>with over Xmas.

You just plugged in the hard disk and want it to work right!?  I hope
your system is *EXACTLY* the same as his!
 
>I am writing this from the NT Terminal program. I have beening using the
>system for about 20 minutes and it has crashed and burned twice in that time. 
>The first time I was closing the Control Panel (having modified nothing) and
>had changed nothing. 

...Obviously, it's not.

>The swap file is 27 megabytes and can eat up to a maximum of 77 megs. I am
>running it on a 486DX/25. After NT and the swap file, I have 35 megs free on
>the 125 meg drive. I have 8 megs of 70ns RAM and the system runs very much
>like OS/2 on 4 megs with no HPFS.

NT, by itself, takes up about 35MB.  35 (NT) + 27 (swap) + 35 (free) is
not equal to 135.  You must be including the SDK in your calculation.

If the beta you tried had worked as well in its targetted minimum
configuration as a finished system (OS/2) does, I would be surprised.
After all, NT has not been optimized in terms of its memory usage.

>The second crash occurred when I tried to open the Disk Manager: the system
>locked solid and I had to hit the reset button.
>
>That was in the first 10 minutes.
> 
>So far......I miss the WPS. If you like Win3.1...then obviously you will feel
>right at home on NT......but I never did like the Win3.1 interface.
> 
>I don't hink I am in any danger whatever of becoming an NT bigot based on what
>I have seen so far. Having gone from the OS/2 2.1 beta to the NT
>beta.....there is no real comparison. 

You are using the October beta, right?  Try reinstalling it for your
machine.  Or use it on a machine where it has been installed correctly.
Or, for comparison, take your OS/2 hard drive, plug it into some other
machine, and try using it.  Or, just make another comparison later.
 
>Being an OS/2 bigot, NT would have to the *best* thing since sliced bread to
>lure me away......and right now it looks like a bag of flour. the bread is a
>long way off by the look of things.

Although it is a long way off, it wouldn't seem quite so far if you
gave it a fair evaluation.

>Bye from NT! I want to get my OS/2 drive plugged back in.
> 
>Steve

     - Mike
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: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:57:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.013842.23102@spang.Camosun.BC.CA>, dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:

|> : My point isn't that Microsoft _isn't_ holding a gun to anyone's head as much
|> : as the FTC _is_.  The antitrust laws are unjust from an abstract moral 
|> : viewpoint because they are based on the premise that the ends (hacking
|> : Microsoft down to size) justify the means (in effect, armed robbery of
|> : market share by the FTC) which is bogus.
|> 
|> Isn't that the basis for most laws which involve punitive action?

Yes! And that is exactly the reason why we should have as few laws as
is necessary.

|> : They are also unjust from a
|> : pragmatic view because they allow companies from countries like Japan to
|> : have an unfair competative advantage over U.S. industries--result:  we don't
|> : manufacure DRAM, LCD displays, Cameras, VCR's etc etc here anymore, and our
|> : factory workers "enjoy" a lower wage than Japanese factory workers
|> : do.
|> 
|> Surely the US could have legislation which discriminated against
|> imports without changing the anti-trust laws?

Two wrongs don't make a right!  Trying to fix American industry by starting
another trade war would be like proscribing arsenic to a man who is dying
from eating rat poison.  On a level playing field, Americans can compete
with the Japanese--its just that the Japanese government doesn't clobber
sucessful Japanese companies over the head when they become "too sucessful."
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Date: 23 Dec 92 14:32:15 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering

des@inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd) writes:

>Peter Mayne (pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com) wrote:


>: So those (American) people who think the FTC is morally correct because
>: it has the law on its side are presumably still rankled by such illegal
>: activities as the Boston Tea Party, which was a protest against laws
>: that were obviously moral because they existed.

>hear, hear! ... give us back our colonies :-)

Hmm, could we have New Amsterdam back then ? And the rest of
the world trade ? :-)

Erik
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 21:22:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec26.192753.23157@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>In article <1992Dec26.145826.21639@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>> >> 	You're thinking like a dos user.  It is not a bad idea to have
>> >> 	the system auto-adjust and *allow* the user to fix it when you're
>> >> 	talking about something that's suposed to be user friendly.  
>> >
>> >OS/2 ignores cache setting amount higher that 2048K.....
>> 
>> 	That's because it's stupid.  IBM should fix it, but they
>> 	have no intention of doing so.
>
>It is not a bug....it is quite intentional. Therefore, you are correct about a
>lack of intention to fix it. But it kind of ruins your theory about migrating
>a hard disk to a machine with less RAM.....


	Not at all.  Try setting a 2048k cache on a machine with 4 megs.
	Or 6.

	See where it gets you.


-- 
       "If you can't eat sand, why the hell are you living in a desert?"

     Equality is a delusion, suffering is a fairy tale and God is a fantasy.
       Blaming society for inequality is like blaming the sky for rain.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10903 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3414
From: palmer@pcatsc.UUCP (Doug Palmer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Summary: Missing the point on FTC concerns
Date: 24 Dec 92 17:51:17 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: United States Courts (pcatsc)

In article <1992Dec22.201103.28693@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.161425.0299694@locus.com>, lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:
>|> In article <1992Dec22.040237.14440@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>|> >In article <Bzn0EI.D2w@csulb.edu> sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>|> >
>|> 
>|> Lots on Standard Oil & Unfair Competition Deleted.
>
>|> MS has not kept the prices down, infact if you look at their $8 a unit
>|> for bundled Windows for Workgroups vs the $100 per station that the
>|> end user pays, you might suspect that MS is price gouging the end
>|> user shamelessly.
>
>*sigh* is anybody forcing people to buy MS DOS at $100 a copy?  Any sales
>which go on are completely voluntary between buyer and seller.  Obviously
>both parties are happy about the price or it wouldn't get sold.  If
>Microsoft and its customers are happy, why interfere with them?

You are *completely* missing the point. It's not the hardware vendors
who are adversely affected by MicroSoft's predatory practices, but the
competitor OS vendors. In effect, when MicroSoft enters into an agreement
to tie royalty payments to units sold, they are forcing the hardware
vendor to add the price of DOS/Windows to any other bundled operating
system. This is an "unfair" practice in re the OS vendor, not the
hardware vendor. They have effectively increased the cost of all other
operating systems. That's illegal.


-- 

United States Courts                                         Doug Palmer
Automated Training & Support Center
7550 IH10 West, Suite 1100                     spatsc!palmer@spao.ao.gov
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy