HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong)
Subject: NT delivery date
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 00:36:35 GMT

I read in Computer Shopper that at a press conference, Microsoft says that
they are going to deliver NT by year's end afterall.

Does anyone know whether this is true?  And is the code going to be reasonably
bug free?

If the answer is positive to the above two questions, OS/2 is in *deep*
trouble.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7196 comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32:1410
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Subject: Re: Multiuser (was Re: MS's misconduct!)
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:27:43 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <KEVIN.92Oct8155038@loneranger.edscom.demon.co.uk> Kevin Broadey <kbroadey@edscom.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>With NT's built-in networking and RPC capabilities you *have* got one
>machine with 5 processors, 5 mice, 5 keyboards and 5 screens. Or 50, or
>500.

No, you have five machines, with five processors, etc...  One console,
and four remotely attached via the network.  Unless you consider the
entire LAN to be one large computer.

>As someone once said ... the computer *is* the network.

Oh, sorry.  You do.


-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NSTL compares OS/2 2.0 and Windows 3.1
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 12:41:22 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Oct6.185741.17673@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
> In article <1992Oct1.051133.5806@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Br
> ian Sturgill) writes:
> >
> >From a Microsoft press release:
> 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> >NSTL Rates Windows 3.1 as "Platform of Choice"
> >       National Software Testing Labs (NSTL) determined that
> >the Microsoft  Windows operating system version 3.1 is the
> >"Platform of Choice to Run Today's Applications" in a thorough
> >head-to-head evaluation against OS/2* 2.0, published in Software
> >Digest* Ratings Report by NSTL (August 1992, Vol. 9, No. 4).  In
> >an independent evaluation of both products, NSTL tested more
> >than 100 PC hardware systems and ran more than 680 performance
> >tests to reach its conclusion.

> are past much of it.  Fourth, I find it humerous that this comes first from a
> MS press release and not from the testing place itself through the usual
> channels.  That too casts doubt on this report.  All in all, I am unimpressed
> with the quality of this report.

I'll go you one further, Stacey. Having used OS/2 for 6-7 months now......this
"report" is a load of SHIT!
 
No other word will accurately convey how incorrect/misleading this report is. 
 
I can make a Ford Pinto go faster than a Formula One racing car....if i pull
the wheels off the latter.....or let my mother-in-law have a go at driving
them.....
 
Steve
 
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph Malloy)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:52:00 GMT

In article <wept6zC00WB3EubGRE@andrew.cmu.edu> jyri+@CMU.EDU (Jyri Virkki) writes:
>
>Wild idea: Have you ever thought that maybe he criticizes microsoft
>products because they are, in his professional opinion, trash? No,
>couldn't be, since anything produced by microsoft has, by definition,
>to be the best in it's class, therefore any criticism must be
>purely for other, hidden reasons. Right?
>
Since there is fair evidence in various reviews (and, more importantly,
in actual sales) that MS did good work with Excel and Word for Windows,
Zachmann's opinion (if your suggestion above were correct) is bunk and
he's an incompetent fool.  (Maybe he is anyway?)  No, MS ain't perfect
either, but at least they produce actual products.  Zachmann produces,
well, at best, lotsa hot air in an attempt to make himself look good.

I am not currently using OS/2 2.0 and I did try it.  I use Windows 3.1
and will try NT someday.  But this doesn't mean that I don't think OS/2
doesn't deserve a better, more thoughtful and more credible voice.  It's
just that Zachmann's was so unrealistically shrill as to be useless.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Pete.Skelly@f1.n100.z60.wlink.nl (Pete Skelly)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 08:37:49 -0100

Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Oct12.202207.9735@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu wrote:
> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> 
> >BTW:  The product Zachmann has spent the most time criticising lately
> >is Windows NT.  He'd criticised it before he'd even seen it, hardly
> >professional in my book.
> 
> This happens to be the same reason a lot of OS/2 advocates think
> most of the press is either bought or off in their own world.
> OS/2 has gotten a lot of criticism from people who've never even
> seen it.

That's why I usually take the press with a grain of salt.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: best target platform: OS/2 1.x!?!
Date: 08 Oct 92 18:40:14 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct8.005854.1431@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>
>Consider the following little table:
>
>                             Target Environment
>Apps               DOS     Win   OS/2 1.x   OS/2 2.x   Win NT
>-------           --------------------------------------------
>DOS                Yes     Yes    1/2         Yes       1/2

     Windows NT should get a Yes in the DOS row.  I'm not sure why you
have it as 1/2.


>Win                 -      Yes     -          Yes       Yes
>OS/2 1.x text       -       -     Yes         Yes       Yes
>OS/2 1.x PM         -       -     Yes         Yes        -
>OS/2 2.0 PM         -       -      -          Yes        -
>Win NT              -       -      -           -        Yes

     Technically speaking, there is no such thing as a Win NT app.
There are Win32 apps, though, and a subset of that, Win32s, will run
on Win 3.1 machines.  So, you need to eliminate that last row
and add:

Win32s		-	Yes	-	-	Yes
Win32		-	-	-	-	Yes

    There are rumors that OS/2 2.0 may also support Win32s, but
no official announcement from IBM that I am aware of.


>From this, it should be apparant that OS/2 1.x text-mode apps are
>supported on as many different platforms as Win apps are.  For apps that
>don't require graphics, (especially vertical market apps, where the
>users don't really care what OS is being used), OS/2 1.x looks like an
>excellent target to write for.  Not to mention family mode apps...

     The number of platforms an app will run on is relatively
unimportant - the overriding factor is the number of installations
it will run on.  Currently, if you want to sell a text mode app,
it is in your best interest to write it for DOS, assuming it doesn't
need anything that DOS can't provide.  MS-DOS is on lots more 
machines that even Windows is.  OS/2 1.x sold very few copies.

				-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.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7156 comp.sys.intel:1891 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:26398
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)? [really P5 & P6 == RISC]
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:04:35 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <1992Oct5.211000.9779@odin.corp.sgi.com>, mash@mash.wpd.sgi.com (John R. Mashey) writes:

| Now, it might be nice to restate this more correctly as:
| 	"Intel marketing says that P5, P6 will will on a par with
| 	the fastest RISC chips."
| Some facts might be useful (please correct me if any of the below are wrong).
| 
| Intel marketing has also said/shown publicly (small sample of many):
| 	8/89:	sample 40Mhz 486s in 4Q89 [NOT] 
| 		sample 50Mhz by YE90 [NOT] 
| 	4Q91:	~70SPECint, about 4 months after ~50 SPECint R4000s
| 		2 rounds of P5 before 2nd round of R4000s
| 		[R4000s in Crimsons started shipping 3/92 ... so
| 		P5s in production systems must have been buyable in 7/92
| 			[NOT]

The unexpected virgin: a parable

  It seems a young lady went for her yearly exam, and her doctor said to
her, "It's none of my business, but your records say you've been married
three times, yet I see that you are still a virgin."

  "Well," she said, "My first husband was a soldier, and we married just
before he went on active duty. He was killed in an accident and we never
had any time together. My second husband was an old man, and we married
only for companionship."

  "Yes, but your current husband is a young vigorious man..."

  "Oh, doctor, he's an Intel salesman, and all he does is sit on the
side of the bed, show me specifications, and tell me how good it's
going to be once I get it."

-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
    Keyboard controller has been disabled, press F1 to continue.
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:21:09 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Oct10.233819.303@microsoft.com>, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skel
ly) writes:
>In article <7538@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu wrote:
>> In article <1992Oct09.174713.178@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil
Lafornara) writes:
>> >      Still a valid interpretation.  OS/2 2.0, however, has shown
>> >that competitive pricing can really help to sell an OS - I expect
>> >Microsoft will learn something from that.
>>
>> If it has, then why did it say "<$500"? I've already shown that there's
>> nothing to gain from it, and quite a lot to lose.
>>
>> >     Why is Zachmann more credible?  He clearly has an agenda.  So do
>> >his editors.
>>
>> Because he has little to gain by making up such an incident.
>
>That makes him more credable?
>MS's gains are of an understandable nature, purely financial.
>Zachmanns gains are of a personal nature, hardly understandable.
>He obviously has some sort of thing to gain by slamming MS every
>chance he gets.  He has shown this in many of his articles.  I especially
>like the one where he told people to go out and buy a word processor that
>wasn't that great because it would keep money out of microsofts pockets.

Okay, what are his reasons?  I'm waiting...  Well, I can't think of one, and I
doubt you can either.  Therefore, I would wager that he really just doesn't
like MicroSoft.  That isn't really all that odd.  I personally often prefer
not to use MS products for reasons other than simple quality.  (I still do,
but that is besides the point)  There is a lot more that goes into a buying
descision for some people than simply which is the more powerful product.
There are a lot of reasons not to like MicroSoft, and obviously he doesn't.
This doesn't quite cut it as a hidden agenda.  MS has a lot of reason, mostly
financial, for making him look bad.  What reason does Zachmann have for making
MS look bad?  Certainly not financial gain.  Maybe he just doesn't like you
company for whatever reason.  It is his job as an editorial columnist to pick
sides of an issue and to raise discussions.  He obviously didn't pick your
side.  Too bad but it isn't going to happen every time.
>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...
>

-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 10:41:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.075509.2800@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Oct11.070229.24956@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct10.233432.27395@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>...
>>>NT's DOS support will be better than 1.X's --
>>
>>I would hope so...I'm not satisfied with 2.0's dos support, and anything
>>less (like NT's) just ain't gonna cut it.
>
>Well this seems to hold in _your_ set of circumstances, but given the rate
>of sales of Windows apps... _your_ view is far from universal.

Well, when it comes down to it, neither of our views is universal, or even
close.  I'm telling you that if you ask Joe user to choose between OS/2 and
NT, the most probable selling factors will be requirements and compatibility.
NT is not going to die because of this.  OS/2 just makes more sense for
people who don't have high-end firepower, lots of disk space, and no need
for the random app that won't work under NT.

<Me saying I've spent $49 and no more on OS/2, yet getting all fixes, etc.
deleted>

>You aren't paying for it now maybe, but eventually IBM will need to make
>money.

What are you saying?  Please make your implications clear, or dispense with
them.

>
>...
>>More modern OS's won't be in use, cause people can't use them with their
>>old stuff.
>
>Why do you say this?  NT will support most DOS and Windows apps, reviews
>of UnixWare (actually the underlying SysVR4.2 of UnixWare) have had high
>praises of the speed of its Windows support.

The speed of the OS/2's beta 3.1 support is also worth praise.  But
the reason I said the original statement is simple:  IBM and MS already
tried to put together the "more modern OS" and failed.  I believe it
was due in large part to the crappy dos support (among other things),
which killed it before it had legs to stand on.

>>It'll probably take some tweaking to get some features to work across
>>platforms, but not every feature they add will figure into other platforms.
>>For instance, multithreading.  Multithreading is a feature of OS/2, but
>>VDM's and Windows don't have or need a clue that it's there.
>
>Win32 has threads, and IBM has said that Win32 support will be in OS/2.

Good counterexample.  You paint a very dire picture of IBM's Herculean
task they have set before themselves.  I was attempting to lighten that
picture somewhat.  But, the proof is in the pudding.  We'll see how
Herculean IBM is.  They've done a damn good job so far (relatively speaking).

Ted
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7336 comp.sys.intel:1917 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:26611
From: peter@global.hacktic.nl (Peter Busser)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 00:37:09 GMT
Organization: Global Village 1

tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

>peter@global.hacktic.nl (Peter Busser) writes:
>>>Anyone who knows of an EISA SCSI that has a 32-bit virtual device
>>>driver under Windows, please let us know about it.
>>Besides, what is this 32-bit hype about?

>This "32-bit hype" is probably refering to the BlockDev/FastDisk
>system.  BlockDev is a VxD (a 32-bit flatly addressed driver that
>runs at ring 0 with full hardware access and full control over all
>processes).  It, if present, handles Windows requests for disk access.

>FastDisks are VxDs that BlockDev uses for actual hardware access.

>INT13.386 is a VxD that translates INT 13h requests to BlockDev
>requests (only for drives 0x80 and 0x81--can anyone explain why
>Microsoft arbitrarily limited it this way?).

>If a controller vendor chooses to provide a FastDisk VxD for their
>controller, then disk access can become much faster.

So I was right, it *IS* hype! It's just a normal device driver which has
a device independent part "BlockDev" and a device dependent part "FastDisk"
and which runs in 386 protected mode (if I understand your message correctly).

Gee, I thought it was something special, something new. But I was wrong, it's
just what every operating system has. Well, every operating system except the
MS-DOS/MS-Windows combo until now. Oh well, I guess that they [MS] are now back
at the same level they were when OS/2 took off.

Greetings,
Peter Busser
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:50:58 GMT

In <70002@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt4957a@prism.gatech.EDU (Belletti, Allen R.) writes:

>Is anyone here aware of attempts to produce fully functional (or even without
>the FPU), full speed "486 compatible", which will be as fast or faster than
>Intel's?  I was assuming that some of the other companies didn't have the
>fabrication technology to crap 1.2 M transistors onto a 50 MHz-rated chip, but
>I have no idea if that's really the problem...

Well, I can't speak to the 'fully functional' copy bit, but I
seriously doubt if fab technology is the problem.  In fact, I recall a
time in the not too distant past when other people were able to fab
Intel chips that would run faster than the ones from Intel foundries
(Harris, AMD, etc.).  And it's always possible to go into a
cooperative production agreement with someone who DOES have the wafer
fab capabilities, if a company finds that it lacks the production
capability it needs.

I suspect that any 'problems' with cloning the '486 exactly are
related to something other than wafer fab.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: jeff@claw.clearpoint.com (Jeffrey J. Griglack)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM is Right (Was: Re: IBM is Horrible)
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:55:57 GMT
Reply-To: jeff@claw.clearpoint.com
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Clearpoint Research, Hopkinton, MA

Can someone post the specifics of this SBPro "multimedia kit?"  I am
assuming that this is the Sound Blaster Pro board which, I heard, has
a SCSI port on it for 1 peripheral.  How is is non-standard?  What are
the advantages/disadvantages?  What does it cost?

Thanks,
--

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Jeff Griglack             |"To mess about with typewriters and latch keys    |
|jeff@claw.clearpoint.com  | and call it work!"                               |
|jeff@fang.clearpoint.com  |                          -- E.M. Forster         |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7589 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2449
From: garyng@gnct.com (garyng)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS-ethics: MS-Windows 3.1 - silent upgrades
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 01:04:03 HKG-8
Organization: Global Network Communication Technology Co.

FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> writes:

> The funny thing though is, that one can ***preemptively*** multitask Windows-
> applications by merely starting every Windows-app in its own Windows 3.1 -
> session (every Windows 3.1 session may contain as many Windows-apps cooperate
> viley as on a single DOS-Windows 3.1) !! This approach is advisable also for
> Windows-applications known to kill Windows 3.1, because under 32bit OS/2
> if such a hang appears, one merely closes (kills) that Windows 3.1 - session,
> leaving all other Windows-, DOS- and OS/2-sessions alive.
> 

don't be too sure about that, currently I am encountering problems that a simpleDOS problem(well netbios.exe from NOVELL, it is not that simple) can hang
the whole machine.

One of the claims which annoying me is that saying OS2 is 32bit protected mode
OS, so you don't have to worry about one VDM session affects the others. It
is not true(at least to my experience).

-gary

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Why I have trouble with the c.o.o.a view of Microsoft.
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:05:14 GMT

In <1992Oct16.062029.11620@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:



>Recently several people on this group have been giving me grief with
>regard to my criticism of IBM's WorkSet/2.  They point to old stories
>about MSC 6.0, and while I have no doubt those stories are true, I'd
>like to pass on an example of why I'm convinced that Microsoft is
>now different.

>Here are some excerpts from a mailing I received from Microsoft a couple
>of days ago.  The mailing was unsolicited (I assume they sent it to
>all registered users).  It contained 3 diskettes: 2 patch diskettes and
>a diskette that contains a full version of a C/C++ Browser and a trial
>version of Microsoft Test. (Typos in the letter are probably mine.)

I'm really curious, Brian.  Do you think the MS compiler people would
be acting like this if it wasn't for the competition they are working
under to try to get market share back from Borland?  Don't get me
wrong, I think it's great that MS seems to be changing, at least in
spots.  I just worry about them changing back once they have their
foot in the door.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mash@mash.wpd.sgi.com (John R. Mashey)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)? [really P5 & P6 == RISC]
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:46:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.184536.26985@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|> In <1992Oct5.211000.9779@odin.corp.sgi.com> mash@mash.wpd.sgi.com (John R. Mashey) writes:
|> 
|> >A QUIZ:
|> >With carefully-done CMOS, you can "optically shrink" from one
|> >generation of technology to the next, i.e., shrink (at least) the interior
|> >of the die uniformly, if you've been careful.  Smaller CMOS transistors are
|> >faster, so this is goodness.

|> >Can you do that as easily with BiCMOS? If not, why not?
|> >(An interesting question for both P5 & SuperSPARC).

|> Hmm, I didn't even think that this was necessarily possible for CMOS
|> anymore.  I vaguely recall seeing somewhere that feature sizes on at
Maybe it's getting there; on the other hand, I've seen R4000s in at 
least 3 different sizes, done generally with opical shrinks...

The answer on BiCMOS, according to my chip friends, is that it is more
diffiuclt, as the CMOS and Bipolar tranistors shrink at different rates,
hence some redesign is usually needed....

-john mashey    DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer, I speak for me only, etc>
UUCP:    mash@sgi.com 
DDD:    415-390-3090
USPS:   Silicon Graphics 7U-005, 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd, Mountain View, CA 94043
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy