HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:25:00 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: na

In article <1992Jul21.212437.25057@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>MISCONCEPTION #3:
>
>OS/2 2.0 and Windows NT are completely different
>
>NO.  Although they are not (currently) compatible with each other, on
>a feature-by-feature comparison, one will find them more alike than
>different.  The end-user, with a suite of OS/2 2.0 apps on one
>machine and a comparable suite of NT apps on the other machine, will
>notice little difference.  Below are the major differences - note how
>neither is really superior to the other - just different.

      Also add support for symmetric multiprocessing, cross-platform
compatibility, and multi-user security to the list.


>File system.  NT's proposed New File System is has more features than
>IBM's High Performance File System.  The look-and-feel should be
>similar, if not the same, to most users.

     What is the "look-and-feel" of a file-system?


>MISCONCEPTION #4 - NT is a currently available product
>
>No.  While many developers have gotten pre-release NT packages, the
>packages being shipped are not the complete NT package, as Microsoft
>specifies in their literature.

     Correct.  It's an alpha at best.

>  And they are only available to a
>select corps of developers.

     This is not my understanding.  Can you please explain?


>  Microsoft claims that the full NT product
>(including POSIX, DOS, Win-16, Win-32, and OS/2 1.x compatibility)
>will be avilable by year's end, but (to the best of my knowledge) beta
>copies of this complete system have yet to ship, so the actual release
>date will likely be later.

     Well, that depends on the length of the beta cycle, and the
stability of the beta(s).  I don't really know either, though - my
Tarot cards are in the shop being recalibrated.

					-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.
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 17:13:15 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: na
  <BrrqI9.Bn6@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <62592@cup.portal.com>
  <1992Jul23.150833.21839@vela.acs.oakland.edu>

> I jsut couldn't let this go ... from someone who has done some extensive
> 386 programming in protected mode (assembly), let me tell you that segments
> are not dead ... it's just that you can access 32-bit amounts of memory
> with each segment.  2^32 being of course slightly larger than 2^16 ...

They are dead if the OS designer wants to kill them.  For example, under
Unix and Netware 386 and a Windows VxD, they set DS to refer
to a segment whose linear address is 0, whose limit is 0xFFFFFFFF, and that
is a data segment.  They set CS to refer to a segment whose linear address
is 0, whose limit is 0xFFFFFFFF, and that is a 32-bit code segment.  SS,
ES, FS, and GS are set to DS.  

No one ever has to touch a segment register again.  The paging hardware is
used for all VM stuff.

Addresses are passed as 32 bit offsets only, with no selector.  The word
"far" is gone.

Microsoft calls this FLAT model.  I don't know what other people call it.

--Tim Smith
From: jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: PC and Mac OEs (was Re: 1 Thing Windows can do but OS/2 can't.)
Date: 28 Jul 92 01:41:05 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <SXMRP.5.0@orca.alaska.edu> SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R. Platzke) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.191536.10972@cs.hw.ac.uk> neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite) writes:
>
>>>Could you elaborate on this please ;)
>>>What are you using it for that it does not meet your needs.
>>Funny comment yes tough if you want a bit more substance....
>>Windows is just so fiddly, geeky to use and just a real pain.
>Oh well, that comment is so much more clear and specific :-)
>If you are going to badmouth Windows, please cite specific problems or areas
>where the Mac is clearly superior.
>>Give me a Mac with System 7 *ANY* day.
>>Windows only won on the PC because it had virtually no competition.
>>Gem, Deskview or Windows. Not much of a choice is there.
>As opposed to the numerous OS choices that a Mac user has?
>

And, windows and OS/2 capable machines don't cost more than many imported 
cars.  For less than half the price, you can get easily 2-3 times the 
power and features.  Also, look at the price of expansion hardware (from
drives to modems to printers to RAM) and see how expensive it is to get
a 5 year old Mac up to the modern performance levels compared to the price 
to do the same for a 5 year old pc.  Or can you add a new, faster mother-
board to a Mac?

Besides, who'd want a machine that has a butt-ugly desktop?  The windows/
dialog boxes are very drab on macs.  They need to add color to the windows,
use 2 button mice, have pull-down menus stay open on a click, and add a
way to do everything without needing a mouse.  Windows (and I would bet
OS/2) allows all of these.  Keyboard shortcuts often take much less time
than dragging the pointer to the top, opening a menu, selecting the item
and returning to the program.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: curzon@trooa.enet.dec.com (Richard Curzon)
Subject: USER PRODUCTIVITY UNDER WINDOWS
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 27 JUL 92 12:00:02    


I have heard there is a productivity gains study commissioned by Microsoft
that demonstrates the productivity gains of GUI over Character Cell. 

Anyone have pointers to this or similar studies?

	thanks...


                                Richard Curzon, Digital Equipment of Canada
				Toronto
   (from INTERNET)     curzon@trooa.ENET.dec.com 
   (from COMPUSERVE)   71371,2521  OR  >INTERNET:curzon@trooa.ENET.dec.com

Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1670 comp.os.os2.advocacy:3406
From: steveg@iplmail.orl.mmc.com (Steve Gabrilowitz)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:01:10 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Martin Marietta

In article <1992Jul23.192500.26327@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

|> >File system.  NT's proposed New File System is has more features than
|> >IBM's High Performance File System.  The look-and-feel should be
|> >similar, if not the same, to most users.
|> 
|>      What is the "look-and-feel" of a file-system?

Probably the types of operations that it can perform? (create, move, copy, delete
etc) 

Generous dose of ;-)

-- 



I think
I think I am
Therefore I am!
I think...



                            Steve Gabrilowitz
                            Martin Marietta, Orlando Fl.
                            steve-gabrilowitz@orl.mmc.com
                            Fidonet 1:363/1701 (407-380-1701)
From: bcmatusz@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Brian Matusz)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Media coverage (Electronic Engineer Times) Portability?
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:54:22 GMT
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.

[various things deleted]

>NT will be available on x86, MIPS, and soon afterwards on Alpha. All of which

Did everyone seem to forget that Sun has licensed Windows NT from Microsoft
and plans to ship Windows NT with SunOS?

Brad Wilson
(via a friend's account)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Who actually NEEDS NT?  Speak Up!
Date: 24 Jul 92 01:37:57 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Keywords: NT OS/2 Windows OS

In article <1992Jul24.011107.3619@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>
>I'd like to see what you read into the following sentence:
>programmers are people who programm computers.

      I hope I get to this one before anyone else... What I read into it
is the following:  Pete can't spell.  What the rest of the group will
read into it:  All MS programmers can't spell.


>My bet is that you though I said that IBM and McDonalds corp
>are banding together to take over the minds of all DOS users.

     McWindows?

					-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.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 hardware requirements.
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:26:05 GMT

Tim--F0O@psuvm.psu.edu writes:

>   Let's see.  On my system Windows takes up around 8 megs.  I have DOS
>4.01, which takes up just a little over 1 meg.  So we're talking let's say
>9.5 meg.  This is pretty much a minimal setup.  I don't have any "add-ons".
>   What is the amount of space os/2 needs for a minimal setup?  From
>figures I've heard it's around 16-18 meg.  I'd hardly call this comparable.

To get the same functionality under OS/2, you'd probably have to
install about 20 MB of the operating system.  Maybe more (25 MB?).

So it takes up about 15 MB more than DOS+Windows.  Oh, but don't you
use any of the DOS and Windows kludges?  I mean things like Desqview,
QEMM, 386MAX, NDW, DOG, Hyperdisk, etc.?  I think that most people
who do serious work under DOS/Windows use some of them anyway.  I
did.  That adds a few more MB's.

What's 15 MB?  PEANUTS.  I've got a GAME on my hard disk that takes
up 25 MB.  Look, if you want a real OS with advanced features, you
gotta pay for it.

After thinking about this, I can't believe anybody could think that
a measly 15-20 MB more for an advanced OS is anything but peanuts.


Steve Smith 
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: olson30@netcom.com (John Sully)
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 04:47:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: na

dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:

>In article <13652@auspex-gw.auspex.com> guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris) writes:
>>MISCONCEPTION #666 - POSIX = UNIX
>>
>>>NT plans to have POSIX (Unix) support as well.
>>
>>"POSIX support" is not the same as "UNIX support".

>Well, what is the use of POSIX support if you can't re-compile Unix
>sources to run under it?

A checklist item for US Government contracts?? 

John
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1579 comp.os.os2.advocacy:3277
From: ekl@fics.uucp
Subject: Re: PC and Mac OEs
Organization: Kvam data as
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:03:26 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.180009.6562@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>
>      Oh, that's intuitive... I thought the idea was that a GUI was
>supposed to make the computer _easier_ to use.
>      Menus are not evil.  Not necessarily, anyway.  Certainly not
>any more evil that CTRL-SHIFT-MB2-drag.
>
>					-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.

Well, if you don't remember it, it is also in the menus. The point is, if
you want to do it like described above, you can, and it may actually feel
"better". As for easier to use: What could be easier? I mean, there isn't
really any environments to compare to, are there? ;-)

Eirik
From: neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: PC and Mac OEs (was Re: 1 Thing Windows can do but OS/2 can't.)
Date: 29 Jul 92 09:00:14 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland

In article <SXMRP.5.0@orca.alaska.edu> SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R. Platzke) writes:
>
>>>Could you elaborate on this please ;)
>>>What are you using it for that it does not meet your needs.
>
>>Funny comment yes tough if you want a bit more substance....
>
>>Windows is just so fiddly, geeky to use and just a real pain.
>
>Oh well, that comment is so much more clear and specific :-)
>If you are going to badmouth Windows, please cite specific problems or areas
>where the Mac is clearly superior.

See below *

>>Give me a Mac with System 7 *ANY* day.
>
>>Windows only won on the PC because it had virtually no competition.
>>Gem, Deskview or Windows. Not much of a choice is there.
>
>As opposed to the numerous OS choices that a Mac user has?

You miss the point here. The Mac had an excellent OS from day 1. Windows,
in a 'workable' release only made it in 1989 with Windows 3. Mac owners
don't need another choice. The Mac is nice and cuddly as is and always
has been.

>-Michael R. Platzke (sxmrp@orca.alaska.edu)

Ahem !!

*Where is the Quicktime/Hypercard example I gave of things Windows can't do.

Selective editing to advance your point me thinks !!

Neil


****************************| Sig' Time |*********************************
JANET: 	  neilp@uk.ac.hw.cs   *   Neil Postlethwaite, Rm G.25, 
INTERNET: neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk   *   Dept of Computer Science,  
UUCP: 	  ..!uknet!hwcs!neilp *   Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton Campus
                              *   Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, United Kingdom.
------------------------------*-------------------------------------------
Computer Science Account      *   Phone +44 (0)31 449-5111 x4174
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tamu@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Henderson)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 hardware requirements.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:25:54 GMT

F0O@psuvm.psu.edu writes:

>In article <1992Jul22.184841.19225@polaris.async.vt.edu>,
>fred@polaris.async.vt.edu (Fred Homan) says:

>>In article <1992Jul21.195852.21303@infonode.ingr.com> bbrown@infonode.ingr.com
>>(Bailey Brown) writes:
>>>Windows takes up about half the space that OS/2 does (did, on my system).

>>        Just a small reminder that people seem to forget a lot.  Windows is
>>an operating *environment*.  OS/2 is an operating *system*.  You're comparing
>>apples and oranges.  To rightfully compare them you need to add in the
>>operating system that Windows is running over (under?).  A fair comparison
>>between Windows size and OS/2 size would be comparing NT to OS/2, which can
>>not be done at this time.


>   Who said?  All the poster was saying is that Windows takes about half

I think the point was that by the time you get rid of your windows, dos,
memory managers, and all the junk you have to use to do work arounds the disk
space will be much more comparable.  Maybe not the same, but comparable.

Todd
tamu@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu


>as much space as os/2 does.  It doesn't matter what you want to *call*
>Windows, it does take around half as much space as os/2.  And at least in
>my case, that is one of the reasons I *don't* upgrade to os/2.  I don't
>have enough space on my hard disk to install the beast.

>                                                               [Tim]
From: neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 1 Thing Windows can do but OS/2 can't.
Date: 25 Jul 92 20:33:24 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland

In article <5143@krafla.rhi.hi.is> karlth@rhi.hi.is (Karl Thoroddsen) writes:
>Sell 13 million copies.

			.. and still be CRAP.
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1591 comp.os.os2.advocacy:3302
From: laird@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Who actually NEEDS NT?  Speak Up!
Keywords: NT OS/2 Windows OS
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:13:56 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Jul27.163902.10195@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>[...] I forgot that not everyone knows
>that a LAN Manager server does not protect files from access at the
>console.

Hmmm...has something changed on me here?  or did you mean that someone
can always rip the hard drive out of the console (server) for hacking
at home?

I have HPFS386 with local security enabled, and I don't consider the
files any more accessible at the console than at any of the workstations.

--kyler
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1470 comp.os.os2.advocacy:3039
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Who actually NEEDS NT? Speak Up!
Keywords: NT OS/2 Windows OS
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:58:36 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <terryk.711556547@cc.gatech.edu> terryk@terminus.gatech.edu (Terry Kane) writes:
>
>Based on the NT conference trip report that came through comp.os.os2.*
>recently, I have to say that there really are a few very substantial
>improvements in NT over OS/2 2.0:  ACLs in the file system; individual
>user profiles (ends wife-husband bickering over system setup); the base
>includes tcp/ip; POSIX (unix) compatibility!; *forks*.  These are the
>features that stuck in my mind - they're important to me.  There are
>other features, but the above list is enough to make me actually want
>to try NT asap.

Me too, but I can't find it in any stores! :-)  I guess it's not worth
getting if I can't find it in Software: Etc.  :-) :-) :-)

>Apologies to the OS/2 die-hards (myself included) but NT could actually
>be an improvement over 2.0.  (PinchPinch) Did *I* say that? (PinchPinch)
>Microsoft doing something right??? (PinchOuch) like totally bizarre, dude.

Yes, it'll be something worth considering.  Whenever it comes out.
And assuming that OS/2 hasn't evolved into an even more robust system
by then.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: Gavin Adams <gavin.adams@lso.mts.dec.com>
Subject: Re: PC and Mac OEs (was Re: 1 Thing Windows can do but OS/2
     can't.)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d1
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:06:11 GMT



In article <1992Jul31.084804.8881@spider.co.uk> Mike Overton,
mikeo@spider.co.uk writes:
>With all the discussion about the Mac and Windows UI, just thought
>I would point out one thing -
>
>Have you ever tried to use a Mac with a broken mouse? If you haven't,
>don't bother - you can't!. And it is pretty easy to break a mouse, or
>the fragile connector they use.
>
>Mike Overton - mikeo@spider.co.uk

Let me point out one thing: Have you ever used a PC (Mac or IBM) with a
broken keyboard?  Pretty hard.  And it's easy to break a keyboard (PS/2
connector) since the connector is almost exactly the same as a Mac's
mouse connector.

--- Gavin
Gone Fission.          Visualize Whirled Peas!
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bbrown@infonode.ingr.com (Bailey Brown)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 hardware requirements.
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:58:52 GMT

smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith) writes:

>When OS/2 2.0 came out a couple months ago there was a lot of
>hoopla over "excessive" hardware requirements.  Since then I've
>noticed that OS/2's hardware requirements have been thrown in OS/2's 
>face less and less.  The same thing will probably happen with
>Windows NT.  A year and a half ago I thought 4 MB was pretty
>roomy.  Now I'm comfortable with 12.  Next year?

>I thought it was interesting that PC Computing, a home computer-
>oriented magazine, made the following hardware suggestions for
>running Windows (sidebar on p. 324, July '92):  

>   COMPONENT                     CONSIDERATIONS

>Graphics Card                Don't settle for VGA; get a Windows
>                             accelerator.  ATI's Vantage is good,
>                             but the ATI Ultra is better.  Boards
>                             based on the S3 chip, such as the Orchid
>                             Fahrenheit 1280 and the Diamond Stealth,
>                             are good choices as well.  

Well, if you want to run OS/2 2.0 with "seamless windows", you're
SOL with anything other than plain VGA.  Yep, that's right, no
8514/A or XGA drivers.

>Memory                       Get a minimum of 4 MB; 8 MB is better.

With 8 megs, 2 of which are being used by smartdrive, windows, almost
never swaps while handling my usual workload.  OS/2 2.0 swaps all
the time with the default disk cache size (256k?).

>CPU                          Get at least a 25MHz 386; a 386/33 is 
>                             better.  486/33 PCs are dropping in
>                             price and may be the best buy.  A 486 DX2
>                             is also good.

As far as I can tell OS/2 and Win 3.1 are about equivalent in speed,
except when OS/2 is swapping.

>Bus                          If you have a local-bus PC, you could have 
>                             trouble upgrading local-bus video in the 
>                             future since the standard is undecided.  
>                             EISA offers benefts over ISA but costs more.

How much does local bus help plain vga?

>Hard disk                    Get a minimum of 80 MB; 100 MB or more 
>                             is better.

Windows takes up about half the space that OS/2 does (did, on my system).

>All in all, these sound like suggestions for a great OS/2 system!

Yes, great suggestions, now if they'd have just gotten OS/2 to work
properly and had video drivers for it.

>   Steve Smith       | __|__ |    " #*&<-[89s]*(k#$@-_=//a2$]'+=.(2_&*%>,,@
><smsmith@magnus.acs. |   |   |      {7%*@,..":27g)-=,#*:.#,/6&1*.4-,l@#9:-) "
>  ohio-state.edu>    |   |   | 
>  BTW, WYSInaWYG     |   |   |                           --witty.saying.ARC  

------------
Bailey Brown                               "Above all else, confusion reigns."
Intergraph Corporation                                  
bbrown@casca.b11.ingr.com                              Procol Harum
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 10:10:04 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: na
  <1992Jul21.212437.25057@njitgw.njit.edu> <BrrqI9.Bn6@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>

Is NT fully 32-bit?  When programming under NT (no matter what I'm
writing: application, device driver, whatever the equivalent of a
Windows VxD is, etc.), will I never have my day darkened by having
to deal with a segment register?

What release of OS/2 will be fully 32-bit?

(I don't count a system as non-32 bit if it *allows* 16-bit stuff to
run, as long as there is nothing that requires anything *new* to be
16-bit.)

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy