HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re:  More Controversial Topics
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:27:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.131606.4931@kvamdata.no> ekl@kvamdata.no (Eirik Lygre) writes:

	Just like the energizer--keeps going ang going ang going...


>Your underline definately helps. Now try reading your sentece again and
>see if the underline helps.
>
>>>>	...      OS/2 2.0 has *never* been 
>>>>	demoed on SMP anything, and neither has OS/2MACH.
>                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>My comment was directed at that second part, and not the first one.

	Lesson for the day.

	Here's a roughly parallel sentence:

	I don't have a blue car, and neither does Bill.
 
	Possible interpretations:
	 
	1.  I do not have a blue car.  Bill does not have a blue car.
		<strongest>
	2.  I do not have a blue car.  Bill, does not have a car.
		<really pushing things>.

	Now, if we include the context (a discussion of SMP--and a preceeding
	comment along the lines of NT has been demonstrated on SMP alpha
	machines or whatever) we get something like this:
 
	"Jill, she has a blue car.  I've seen Jills blue car."
	"I saw your car, the blue one.  And I've heard that Bills is blue, too."
	"No, that car is not blue.  It's green.  I do not have a blue 
	 car and neither does bill."

	Do we have to continue, or are you going to accept that you
	quoted out of context and then made a wholly irrelavent comment
	along the lines of, "Someone saw bills car" (no reference to color)?


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


	Nuclear redevelopment for a better world!
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT technologically advanced?
Date: 12 Dec 92 08:16:02 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.221736.22883@ryn.mro4.dec.com>, pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com (Peter Mayne) writes:
>|> Migration: the Alpha port of NT took three weeks. I'd say that's a
>|> reasonable view to the future.

>This is a pretty impressive statistic, given that fact the Alpha is the first
>true 64-bit machine NT has been tried on.

>Is there any official statement or document which supports this claim?

And even more to the point, where can I buy this combo, right now?
He makes it sound as if NT is "done" - why isn't it on the shelves,
for Intel boxes, if not for Alpha's? Perhaps we have a new high in 
vapour-discussion here. But it's good to know that NT is done for
both Intel (implicitly) and Alpha (explicitly) according to the above,
I guess they're just having troubles finding diskettes and shrinkwrap
for the boxes that'll be on shelves by... next June? Or Fall Comdex?
Or...
 

-- 
Tom Hatton
hatton@cgl.ucsf.edu
(415)-476-7986
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:00:06 GMT

rom@cci632.cci.com (Rudynell S. Millian) writes:

>>I am rather annoyed by the boasting about Window NT which is not
>>on the market.  And I certainly don't think Microsoft represents
>>the future of software industry.  I do believe those major software
>>developers (Lotus, Borland, etc.) should abandon windows and jump on
>>OS/2 because they are help Microsoft to bury themselves.  This fact
>>can be seen that Microsoft is the only company making money from     
>		^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Windows products.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>	It certianly seems to be that way. I think you might have stumbled upon
>a pretty good strategy here. Borland, Wordperfect, Lotus are all in bad shape,
>mainly because of Microsoft. According to PC Mag's list of best selling 
>software ( first January '93 issue ), 8 of the top 15 products are MS products.

>	If it is true that the software makes the operating system, then 
>it makes good business sense for the big three to gradually shift resources 
>to OS/2 2.x products, and away from Windows products. Being that OS/2 offers
>technical advantages over Windows, the native OS/2 2.x applications are
>bound to be more powerful. The end result will be that interest will shift
>from MS prodocts to OS/2 products, boosting OS/2's share of the market and 
>the profit margins for the big three. The big three will be free to compete
>fairly among themselves, since IBM will concentrate on developing OS/2 2.x,
>leaving the application development to application developers.
>	So how will NT fit in this scenario? DOS users, which currently form
>the largest market segment, will find that it is far less expensive to 
>migrate to OS/2 2.x than to NT. OS/2 2.x's ability to run most existing DOS
>applications will protect their investment. Most Windows users will go with
>NT, because MS will most likely make it dirt cheap for them to do so.

This is a great strategy, but first they have to wait for the general attitude
towards OS/2 to change. Lack of applications isn't the only thing the press
and others are complaining about. 
Unless they take a chance and hope the people change their mind about OS/2 in
general after seeing the great new apps. I think they should just try it.
As the preceding poster has implied, they are hurting themselves by making  
Windows more popular. If they loose against Microsoft, they should consider
starting over. No better way to start over than try a new platform, one
where MS is basically out of the picture. They can create some really nice,
advanced apps for OS/2, which would attract a DOS user more than Windows apps
will. As for NT, I do not think DOS users will be too inclined to switch to
it, so that shouldn't be a problem.

Probably the biggest obstacle to the big three taking a chance is the fact that
the strategy, whether intended or not, backfired for developers of 1.x apps.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: jlz@symphony.cc.purdue.edu (ChinaMan)
Subject: Re: Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:10:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.212122.13214@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>MS helps you use OS/2 2.0, IBM doesn't help
>you use NT.  This however was not Tim's message, that message made it
>appear that MS had some evil plot to not work with OS/2.
>
first of all, it's not IBM's fault that NT doesn't run when OS/2 Boot
Manager is installed...OS/2 works fine even with NT installed, so why
should they worry about it...it's MS's responsiblity to work around
that problem.

secondly, if MS really wanna solve that problem, why don't they just
take the code of checking for OS/2 Boot Manager out, instead of 
advertising all around that they are giving out solution to the
problem...what is this??  some kinda marketing to win customers?

also, can you give (or make up) some clear explanation of why MS
has these kinda codes in NT?? 

--Jian
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Discovered: Microsoft using undocumented calls in Windows NT
Date: 20 Dec 92 07:13:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Dec20.071345.12006
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95

In article <1992Dec12.141253.875@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>look important? I can hardly believe an educated person can show
>>so little objectivity. I am refering to your .sig of course
>			^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>and not even the fact that it is about NT, it could be any
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>other product for that matter. You seem like a child with a new
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>	I can hardly believe that an educated person can
>	show such poor grammar.

Considering that the posting was from a country where English is not the normal
language, he did quite well.  Perhaps if you look at the headers before
flaming, you would notice this.

--Tim Smith
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: WINOS2 bites (was Re: Windows NT humor)
Date: 12 Dec 92 06:33:09 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Dec11.021712.5687@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.013635.23576@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
writes:
>>>     8 months later, it is not true.  It is *pathetic*.
>>WinOS2 is still better than Win3.0!  :-)
>
>
>       So?  Win3.0 was a piece of garbage.  Does that make
>       a piece of slow garbage that's a little faster some
>       kind of impressive thing?
>
So?  Win3.1 is a slightly faster piece of garbage.  Does that...  You get my
point?

>
>>As a software developer, I'm willing to program *for* a GUI, but not
>>*under* one.
>
>
>       There are many things that a GUI does much better than a
>       command line interface.  Wordprocessing and page layout
>       are clear winners.
>
Really?  Gee, we didn't know that...  People have their prefences, leave them
alone about them.

>       (I prefer a CLI/simple, quick utils for file management,
>       regular editing and other stuff--but not for that.  And
>       a non-GUI page layout program is a contradiction in terms)
>
>
>--
> Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?
> Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?
> ---"I despise mystics, they fancy themselves so deep, when they----
> ----aren't even superficial"    --Nietzsche   ---------------------
>
-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: Why Windows NT will fail -----
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:31:34 GMT

In article <1gdfbfINNbp@controversy.math.lsa.umich.edu> spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu (D. Robert Spexet II) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.162632.1046@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>>A paradigm shift is one thing, but the mere fact of a paradigm shift
>>does not make the shift good.  The WPS is, in my opinion, a fine example
>>of making a bad thing worse.  If IBM were smart, they'd cajole Symantec
>>into making a Norton Desktop for OS/2 that looks just like the ND for
>>Windows.  I might even be tempted to try OS/2 again if that were
>>available.
>
>Symantec has just released Norton Commander for OS/2.  This is supposed to
>look and work just like Norton Desktop for Windows.
>
>I shall have to examine it myself.
>
>>
I've seen the ads and would love to see it in operation.  It seems to
lack quite a few of the things that are part of Norton Desktop for
Windows.  I gather it doesn't come with Norton backup, virus protection,
the batch file builder, the screen saver (boy, if I use OS/2 again, it'll
have to have a screen save that does not require a password (or at least
makes it optional) and some other stuff I actually do use.  Still, it's
a step in the right direction. If IBM can make WINOS2 3.1 as good as the
Microsoft product (which NEVER crashes on me, sorry, but that's true,
it's more stable for me than OS/2 was), it might be worth taking another
look: OS/2 2.x and NDfor OS/2...an idea whose time has come!

jmalloy@hamilton.edu
 

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: goyal@utdallas.edu (MOHIT K GOYAL)
Subject: Re: Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:36:05 GMT

>The very fact he is benchmarking a _first_ beta drop against a "beta" that
>is due out in a couple of weeks in my view qualifies as FUD, especially
>since he did not point out that fact.  Running the benchmark itself
>is not FUD, but to not point out the relative statuses of the OSes being
>tested is.  Also, if what I believe holds true, that NT is very

Oh please!  Maybe now we know the reason for all your insane posts...

you are BLIND!!!

Tim clearly stated that he was using a NT beta that Microsoft has said should
*NOT* be used for benchmarks.

He also clearly stated that he was also using one of the more recent OS/2 2.1
betas...the copy from the November PDK. (which is not the most recent beta)

I'm sure this will sound familiar but...it would be nice if you would actually
take the time to *READ* a message before replying to it.

TFS merely performed a benchmark using a copy of WinBench...probably the 
widely available v2.5, or the just released v3.1.

He doesn't know that NT is "not well suited" for this benchmark.

You might have gained some credibility if you had politely pointed out that
a reason for NT performing so poorly might have been ... but NOOOOOOOO...you
have to do you're usual "you don't like NT, you are a demon spreading FUD!"
speech...

Please don't play with our feelings by telling us you are going to leave this
group and then suddenly coming back.  It isn't very professional.  :)

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: richs@microsoft.com (Rick Schaut)
Subject: Re: Rude behavior on this group.
Date: 13 Dec 92 20:06:50 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Reply-To: richs@microsoft.com (Rick Schaut)
Distribution:  world,local

In article <1992Dec6.010247.4166@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>In article <1992Dec5.134858.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu> f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:
>>OS/2 may have gotten off to a better start if it had convinced machine
>>sellers to throw it in whether the customer wanted or not.  I see nothing
>>wrong or immoral about including freebies in the computer purchase.

>"Freebies"?  Any computer seller who'll give you Windows for free is non-
>existant.  If they have to pay for the software, the cost  gets passes along
>to the buyer.

Not necessarily so.  In a competitive market, and "competitive" amply
describes the market for IBM compatible personal computers, vendors eat
those costs because passing the costs on would raise one's prices above
one's competitor's prices.

Just to head off the next argument that's headed my way, I want to point
out that a correlation between system price and the price the vendor pays
for bundled software doesn't prove that the vendor is passing the costs on.
That's because the causal link cannot be established.  The higher price
that the vendor is able to charge for the system with the bundled software
is more likely to be due to consumer demand (a computer which includes
system software is more desireable than a chunk of hardware on which one
must bootstrap system software) than it is due to a vendor trying to cover
costs.


I would suggest that a good number of the readers of these newsgroups
enroll in a few Economics courses before trying to argue about the effects
of licensing agreements on computer prices.


-- 
Rick Schaut
UUCP:...{uunet | uw-beaver}!microsoft!richs

Microsoft doesn't speak for me, and I don't speak for Microsoft.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: samiam@netcom.com (Scott Moore)
Subject: Re: Why OS/2, NT, et. al. will ALL succeed
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 06:10:46 GMT

> [various sunny crap deleted]

And what if they all FAIL ? DOS is still the number one OS for PC's, and I 
can introduce you to a number of people who think windows/NT/os2/whatever
is a waste of time (it's slow - it takes too much memory, etc).
Sure, the tech heads (me included) go out and run the lastest gymcrack. But
in five years, windows 3.x (16 bit) will still be the number one GUI, by the
same tolken as DOS is/was still number one five years past the introduction
of windows.

                                        [sam]

-- 
Scott A. Moore [SAM]  | "Cash is more 
samiam@netcom.com     | important than your 
Santa Cruz, CA USA    | mother"
408-423-1624          | Allan Shugart - CEO Segate Corp.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: OS/2 and NT at Comdex
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 16:16:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.231655.12695@waikato.ac.nz> harvey@waikato.ac.nz writes:
>This is just speculation but since every body is doing it I might as well
>
>We have all read of how NT ISV's at comdex out numbered OS/2 ones by a number
>but what if given the resources of Microsoft they rounded up every company,
>group, individual that had even mentioned developing for NT and put them on
>show. (so it looked good)
>
>Wereas IBM simply let those that wanted to come along.
>
>I don't know but from what I've heard of mICrOsoFts underhanded tactics there
>just may be a grain of truth.
>
>Thanks
>Mark Harvey

Yeah, this sure makes sense: after all, IBM doesn't have nearly the
resources Microsoft has, and it sure is underhanded for the developer of
an OS to actually and actively support ISV's.  No wonder the FTC is after
them!  We can't have this sort of thing going on in the software
industry!  Yeah, that's the ticket! 

[Uh, that was a joke...]  

jmalloy@hamilton.edu
 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: Windows NT humor
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 15 Dec 1992 16:19 EST  

According to rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari):
>>	Truth in advertising?  From the company that claimed
>>	"A better Windows than Windows?" (When Windows is *obviously*
>>	3.1 and *not* 3.0).. Same companythat advertises somethingas
>>	vacuous and ambiguous as "crash protection">

	Note to Yamanari -> If you're going to paraphrase Dvorak's PC Mag
			    column, the least that you can do is reference
			    it.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Discovered: Microsoft using undocumented calls in Windows NT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 20:29:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.173406.19125@netcom.com> msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.071059.2337@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec11.054414.7325@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>>
>>>There is evidence that Microsoft continues to use undocumented calls in
>>>Windows NT, which is part of the FTC investigation. Outside developers
>>>have discovered that Microsoft uses undocumented calls in their own
>>>utilities that compete with software competitors utilities. Microsoft's
>>>Win32 Software Development Kit includes a utility called Pview. The
>>>utility uses calls such as:
>>>
>>>NtQuerySystemInformation
>>>NtQueryPerformance Counter
>>>NtQueryInformationThread
>>>
>>>The functions, although contained in NTDLL.DLL (will be included in the
>>>shipping version of NT) are all undocumented.
>>>
>>>Microsoft uses undocumented calls for their own advantage in order to
>>>enhance performance even further. This matter is part of the on-going
>>>FTC investigation.
>>>
>>>Mark K.
>>
>>
>>What is the source of this information?
>>
>>Why do you believe they won't be documented?
>>Do you really believe that all calls in a beta should be documented in advance?
>>Should Microsoft not document these after release, why do you believe
>>this will give them an unfair advantage?
>>Why do you believe that this matter is part of "the on-going FTC investigation".
>>You do realize that there are a number of undocumented calls in OS/2... does
>>this mean that IBM is unfair?
>>
>>
>>   Brian
>
>
>Firstly if you are aware of undocumented OS/2 2.0 calls please detail them.     

For example, the call that PSTAT uses to look at process.
Also IBM sell as performance monitoring package, the hooks/calls it
uses are not documented.  The are very similar to the types of
calls he's complaining about above.
Also the hooks for the installable file systems are not document.
I'm sure there are many other examples.

>
>The Beta and the DEVELOPERS SDK were released to allow developers to build 
>products for the market not to test the software ( you stated this many times)
>If this is the case then surely all calls should be documneted to allow 
>developers to develop the best prodyucts. 

Well, IBM is doing it with OS/2 too... for that matter so does most other OS's.

>
>Martin smith
>msmith@netcom.com

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                          NeXTStep 486 is for _YOU_!!!!
University of Utah                    Microsoft needs competition, but I want
Center for Software Science          to be one of the many running Windows NT!
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373    :-) :-) :-)  NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: pkedrosk@student.business.uwo.ca (Paul S. Kedrosky)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: University of Western Ontario
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 05:40:41 GMT

goyal@utdallas.edu (MOHIT K GOYAL) writes:

> >[stuff about FTC's impending decision against Microsoft]
> >
> >The decision and its likely form have been more than strong rumours on
> >the street for months now. Ho hum. Let's wait and see what
> >happens, the street expectation is that it won't be anything important
> >from an overall earnings impact perspective.
> >
> 
> What your brain failed to recognize was that the document I reposted here
> is dated 12-18-92.  It is the most current article on the case.  Every
> previous review could only guess whether or not the FCC would even find
> MS is doing something wrong, much less what they would do.

No, funny enough I did notice the date on your posting and it's still
not news. That the FTC decision was going to run against MS has been leaked
so badly that if you hadn't heard it I'd be worried. And just to set
the whole "guessing" thing straight, in case you didn't notice the BW
article is still all conjecture when it comes to the only important
issue: the form that the decision will take - which was my original
point.

Thanks for your concern about my reading ability though. It's touching.
 
> Bye.
> 

Bye.

 __________________________________________________________________________
     Paul S. Kedrosky              __/ "In a certain village in La Mancha,
    pkedrosk@business.uwo.ca      __/ which I do not wish to name, there
   University of Western Ontario __/ lived not long ago a gentleman..."
  (519) 679-2111 x5174          __/  
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: NT is missing something major:  OS/2 32-bit compatibility
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:00:21 GMT

In article <2b29ae56@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org> Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org writes:
>OS/2 2.x in some version past 2.1 will probably be able to run Win32s
>applications as IBM is rumored to have started work on this a few
>months ago.


	Is this a FOAF rumor?  An "I heard it on the net rumor?"


>I don't believe they made an "official" announcement yet, however.  I
>don't believe that Microsoft has made an "official" announcement about
>Win32s final ship date yet, either, but we all know that its coming,
>right?


	Just kidding.  I have no doubt whatsoever that OS/2 will
	support Win32s, since even NeXT has said that their 
	bridge to windows will support it.


-- 
 Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?          
 Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?  
 ---"I despise mystics, they fancy themselves so deep, when they----
 ----aren't even superficial"    --Nietzsche   ---------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc