HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks! (was Re: Windows NT 'Alpha')
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:21:19 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Aug20.115325.3941@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.115026.10843@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>>
>>I read in Clari news tonight that MS says that NT is ontrack for a late '92
>>delivery and that it will be going into late beta testing at the end of
>>September/October..........
>> 
>>Looks like a counter to the IBM/OS2 ad campaign, to me.
>
>In all seriousness... with the exception of the fact their DDK seems
>to have slipped, I've seen no indication they're not going to be on time.
>Why are you convenienced that NT is trash?
...
>I don't understand this attitude of OS/2
>is great (even though IBM is doing a poor job of fixing/supporting it)
>and NT can't exist or be good because it's from Microsoft.
....
>But there have been plenty of others that have said that NT is
>quite real, and looks very promising.  Do you think we're all lying?
....

Gee, what did Mr. Sturgill write that got you offended.  He quoted an
article that stated that NT would be on time.  You flew off the handle
and accused him of calling NT trash, having an attitude problem,
criticizing NT, and calling you a liar.

Did you <f>ollowup to the wrong message, forget to change the subject
(and delete quoted text) for a general flame, or are you just paranoid
of OS/2 advocates not being made to look bad?
-- 
   |)  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.
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MACH vs NT
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:28:39 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Aug12.144014.272492@cs.cmu.edu> jc70@norman.vi.ri.cmu.edu writes:
>No. This is not the same. With EMX you still have to recompile the programs to 
>run under OS/2. The API layer (I believe they are refered to as servers) Pete  
>is talking about allows you to run the binary without modification.

I'd be shocked if he meant that.  Unix binaries aren't even portable
among other Unix boxes!  A Sun executable would have to be recompiled
to run on a DecStation, etc.
-- 
   |)  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.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM wouldn't pull support for OS/2, would it?
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:18:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: mksol.1992Aug13.211824.2538
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Aug06.224528.23625@microsoft.com> craigdo@microsoft.com (Craig Dowell) writes:

>In article <1992Aug5.175151.16103@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:

>[discussion about IBM's path to OOP and strategic alliances broken, deleted]

>>With all this going on right now, why does it strike you so unusual
>>that they'll also be researching new operating systems?  NeXTStep and
>>Patriot Partners didn't fan-out.  Pink (or whatever it'll be called)
>>won't be running on Intel hardware anyway - I always thought it'll be
>>developed on the Power-PC currently being developed by Kaleida (that
>>other IBM-Apple joint venture).

>1) Pink/Taligent is a _bit_ more than researching new operating systems.
>This is a joint venture by IBM and Apple to produce and market a new
>operating system.  This is the future IBM and Apple OS (that is, if
>it ever actually works; and if IBM doesn't back out of the deal) that
>folks are promoting as a standard software platform.  They had "over
>a million lines of code written" for Pink when the venture was 
>announced.  (BTW, I would be _very_ suprised if Pink didn't run on
>680{2,3}0, 80{3,4}86 as well as RS-6000.) 

According to a book on OS/2 2.0 that I recently picked up (the one
with the Foreword by the Blue Ninja), Pink is destined to be Macintosh
System 8.  It's supposed to run on the Power PC line, Macs, and Intel
chips.  IBM is (according to the book) more responsible for porting to
RS-6000 and Intel than for any major development.  The base
development is inside Apple.

[I can't vouch for the correctness of this information -- it's just
what this particular book says.]


-- 
"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: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Let's beat GeoWorks to death again!
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:30:53 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <4cfy9cp@rpi.edu> gilem@aix.rpi.edu (Michael R. Gile) writes:
>Sorry, but you have done an injustice to geoworks.  It IS a real
>pre-emptive multitasking OS that runs on top of DOS.  It was out
>LONG before OS/2, and is very fast (will even run respectably on
>an XT)!  The only apps are unfoutunately proprietaary, but the 
>cult following is anxiously awaiting the SDK, which is supposedly
>coming out early next year.  One thing I will give them, this
>is an excellent use for all of those 286/386 machines which are
>going to be thrown away by all of us who are moving up in the 
>os world to NT, OS/2, NextStep, Solaris, and need all the speed 
>we can get

The one problem with GeoWorks is the same problem that older Mac
application have:  There is no way for the system to force "nice"
memory usage.  Meaning that if a program doesn't behave (due to bad
design or just bugs,) then it is likely to bring the rest of the
system down.

Until now, with all apps developed by GeoWorks, this hasn't been a
problem.  When the SDK ships, we'll find lots of programmers writing
GeoWorks apps - not all of them will be as careful as GeoWorks' own
programmers.  These apps will cause system failure, just like buggy
apps cause Macs and Windows machines to fail.
-- 
   |)  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.
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:39:30 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <92226.114348TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET> TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET (Turgut Kalfaoglu) writes:
>Does ANYONE have an unbiased text of the origins of MS-IBM drift?
>All I know is the nasty attitude of MS towards OS/2 and IBM in
>general, but something must have triggered that... I never quite
>understood why they sold it to IBM in the first place, either.
>Perhaps a such text can be put into the FAQ ??

Not now.  I'd expect to see it in some business texts in a few years,
though.


-- 
   |)  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.os2.advocacy
From: terryfry@access.digex.com (Terry Fry)
Subject: Re: It's OK for Windows to crash. It's not OK for OS/2 to crash.
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 05:24:54 GMT

In article <BtB326.JBJ@world.std.com> dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith) writes:
>When someone complaints that OS/2 crashes, the reply is always that
>Windows crashes more. But that's missing the point. 
>
>So then Intel designed chips with mini-like protection, and afte years of
>waiting for an OS to "unlock the power of the 286" the AT expired, and
>OS/2 was born, and the 386 replaced the 286, and OS/2 went through four
>or so revisions, and...
>
>A badly written app can still crash the OS?  Come on.  Either the thing
>is protected or it ain't.  When I was using Digitalk Smalltalk-V/PM on
>OS/2 1.2 it crashed the OS all the time.  From what I read on the
>Smalltalk SIG, it still happens now.  But it's Digitalk's fault for
>doing something wrong.  Or is it?
>

I have written for OS/2 1.x environments in assembler to C.  There
are several instances in which I can take the system down, however none
of them would be from a standard program development cycle.
Care to post specifics?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: craigdo@microsoft.com (Craig Dowell)
Subject: What crash is a bad crash (was  Re: pc week and nt)
Date: 11 Aug 92 19:06:55 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: comp

In article <BsqBvC.54J@chinet.chi.il.us> orac@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Giovacchini) writes:
>In article "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com> writes:
>
>>Hmm. We trash our 2.0 systems about as often as our 3.1 systems. For all
>>of the talk about "crash-proof" systems, we can take out the WPS without
>>breathing hard.  We've already  got one  severity 1  APAR against IBM on
>>this. Maybe when IBM ships the [insert desired season] CSD, things  will
>>improve. But at a user level, we don't find OS/2 and PM to be that  much
>>more stable than DOS and Windows.
>
>	I too can take the WPS out if I wish.  Rememebr the WPS
> is a PM application.  When the WPS goes down, PM and OS/2 still are
> functioning.  When Windows goes down, it takes the OS with it.  So,
> OS/2 and PM are very stable, its the application-GUI-WPS that has
> a bad day every so often.  :-)  So, say you are running a comm
> program, the WPS does a "Phoenix", your session is still running.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you perceive a
continuum of "crash severity." And that if the primary user interface
of your machine crashes this is somehow towards the "not too severe"
side?

It's been a while since I played with the WPS, but arent the applications
you run under the WPS children of the shell?  Aren't they killed when
the shell dies? 

Doesn't this mean I loose work when the shell dies?  I look at it as
more of a binary thing:  If I don't loose work, I'm happy.  If I loose
work I'm not happy.  I consider these arguments regarding how much of
the system is crashing, specious.  Telling me that this box is better
because the kernel keeps running, essentially "yes, you lost that six
hours work, but look at this, your download of mandog.gif is still
running" is bizarre.

I can understand keeping applications away from one another, so that
an app cannot kill the shell or other apps.  I can't understand this
explaining away WPS crashes.  It doesn't matter whether its DOS - Windows 
or OS/2 - WPS, the _combination_ must be reliable -- as the original
poster mentions.  (The aps must be considered in this too, but this
is an os group after all)

-- Craig

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.windows.advocacy
From: cmclark@dri.com (Chip Clark)
Subject: Re: IBM wouldn't pull support for OS/2, would it?
Reply-To: cmclark@drivax.mry.novell.com
Organization: Desktop Systems Group/Novell, Monterey CA/USA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 19:49:13 GMT

craigdo@microsoft.com (Craig Dowell) writes:

]It seems to me that IBM is in the midst of a strategic shift to object
]oriented systems.  Where does that leave OS/2?  This isn't a flame,
]or flame bait of any kind.  I see a lot of projecting what will happen
]to Microsoft in the future, but I see nothing about IBM.  Aren't you
]people interested in what's happening in the future of IBM OSs?  If it
]was me who was putting all of my eggs in OS/2 I'd be a little worried
]about the long term future of my OS.

]-- Craig


I have had dificulty getting hold of IBM support or in gaining interested 
contacts at either Microsoft or IBM in shared thenical support information
regarding either OS/2 or Windows 3.1.   Some of the response is "What is
Novell doing to support us?"  

Well the answer to that is simple.  I am VERY interested in cross communication
of technical information that will lead to a better understanding of all the
released products.  As a technical advisor for Novell, my job becomes easier
if I don't have to refer someone to Microsoft or IBM for an answer because, 
although it may not specifically be a DR DOS or Multiuser DOS issue, I can 
still offer valid information an get the customer back up and running.

Novell is adding to this by providing an internet user dedicated to supporting
DR DOS issues.  The address is:

drdos@novell.com

Use this address to mail your queries and see what kind of support we offer.

Then join the band wagon and help create a friendly computer community again.


Chip - 
cmclark@novell.com
Novell Desktop System Group
Technical Support
These are my opinons and only my opinions, unless you share them as well, 
which would make them our opinions, but I am not of the opinion that I can 
express your opinion as my opinion without your prior expression of said
opinion, and then my reutterance of that opinion would, in my opinion, be 
foolish unless I were expressing agreement to your opinion, and then it 
wouldn't be my opinion but your opinion to which I only agree.



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jdailey@dadd.ti.com (Jim Dailey)
Subject: Re: Release dates ( was Re: superVGA (and m
Reply-To: jdailey@dadd.ti.com
Organization: Design Automaton Div., Texas Instruments, Inc.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 13:09:22 GMT

brian%jensen.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>Name a DOS app that does word processing nicer than the WYSIWIG
>approaches possible under Windows?

WordPerfect 5.1 works just fine for me.

>Harder still name a DOS drawing app that does a better job than Windows Draw?

I like to write PostScript programs from scratch. :-)

>Games are still better under DOS, but I can't think of much else I'd
>miss.  (Others would miss databases, they still aren't all that available
>under Windows.)  Clearly Excel 4.0 is better than any spreadsheet around
>anywhere.

Can`t agree with you here, although I'll admit I've never used Excel.
However, I find it difficult to believe any spreadsheet could claim to
be *clearly better than* Quattro Pro 3.0 (or 4.0).
---
Jim  jdailey@dadd.ti.com
   TI pays absolutely no attention to me or my opinions; therefore,
   the foregoing posting cannot possibly represent TI's viewpoint.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Subject: Re: MS Gave Up (Was Re: pc week and nt)
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 13:12:40 GMT


In a previous article, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) says:

>In article <1992Aug14.195641.5478@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
>>
>>Pete, 
>>
>>God damn it, Microsoft never put up a fight to keep OS/2.  They just tried
<rant deleted>


>Ahhh, excuse me, were you there.  Were you in any of the meetings about
>the settlement, or the handing of OS/2 over to IBM.  

So what actually did happen?
From: brian@sgmlinc.com (Brian E. Travis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Win 3.1 ain't all that bad (huh?)
Date: 15 Aug 92 04:15:13 GMT

Gentle Readers,

I have been using OS/2 since the first release came out (before 
PM). I had a hiatus during the (slow, buggy, bad-smelling) 
Windows 3.0 glory days, but I was pleased when OS/2 2.0 came out.

Although it took a couple weeks to get the migration bugs worked 
out (no Stacker, no block-device support, limited display 
support), I fell in love with a real operating system again.

Bear with me...

I have a 486/50 machine. When I was at a client's site recently, 
I worked on a 486/33 machine that was *much* faster than mine. It 
was running Windows 3.1 over DOS 5.0. Since I could not believe 
that OS/2 was the speed sucker, I was about to march into the 
shop where I bought my machine when I thought that I would like 
to try this new Windows 3.1, just to make sure.

Well...I loaded Windows 3.1 on a Bernoulli, and it came up and 
worked wonderfully! It was fast, crisp, and supported *all* of 
the devices (Bernoulli, SoundBlaster, Farallon LocalTalk) that I 
had to fight to get OS/2 to recognize. The whole blasted thing 
came up in minutes, instead of weeks for OS/2.

Before the zealots start flaming me, I must say that Windows does 
not do nearly as well at multi-processing as OS/2. For example, 
my host gives up when I do communications in the background, and 
I must watch what I do when I have more than one DOS session 
running. Also, I miss the WPS, since that provides much more 
control over the workplace than even Norton Desktop 2.0. But, 
let's face it, application vendors aren't exactly in love with
OS/2, and IBM's telephone support is dismal.

But the application and device support and speed is so much 
better that I am considering staying with Win 3.1 until the stork 
brings OS/2 2.1 or Win NT.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian E. Travis                                           brian@sgmlinc.com
SGML Architect,        Managing Editor,               Tele: +1 303 680-0875
InfoDesign Corp.       <TAG> The SGML Newsletter       Fax: +1 303 680-4906
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 only on PS/2's? (Was: rift...)
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:16:42 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <BswDqy.Lwx@world.std.com> dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith) writes:

[lots of stuff implying that IBM hasn't supported clones in the past
 and that they never will in the future has been deleted]

>If OS/2 2.0 is a success, I believe that OS/2 3.0 will revert back to
>being proprietary (to take full advantage of IBM's unique new line
>of PW/3 (Programmable Workstations, let's get rid of Personal altogether)
>products with the enormous advantages of the new Macro Channel bus, and
>ultra-high-capacity 4.32 megabyte four-inch floppies).

OS/2 1.x was never prorietary.  IBM wouldn't support clones, though.
That was for Microsoft to do.  Just like PC-DOS isn't supported on
clones.  You don't see IBM trying to control the DOS market this way,
though.  If MS had marketed OS/2 1.x for the clones, things might have
been very different.  As it stands, this is what happened:

   DOS was only shipped with new systems.  If you wanted to upgrade
   DOS, MS said that they would not sell it - buy a new system.  IBM
   would sell it, but they wouldn't provide any support for a non-IBM
   system.

   OS/2 was not advertised at all.  MS sold it for a rediculous price
   (about $800 for the Standard Edition).  IBM sold it for the same
   price for the PS/2's, so they weren't much better.

Anyhow, be that as it may, I don't think IBM will revert back with
OS/2 3.0 because IBM has separated the divisions from each other.  All
throughout the company, not just in the OS/2 groups, divisions are
being allowed to compete with each other.  You see this in other
divisions: for example, RS-6000's are being priced cheaper - they
wouldn't allow this before because they would compete with the
high-end PS/2 systems - now they do compete, and PS/2's are being
priced cheaper.

-- 
   |)  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.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: os2 support
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:20:49 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Keywords: os2 ms

In article <ZH5gPB2w165w@halcyon.com> CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU writes:
>The question which has been sticking out in my mind in reading alot of 
>the threads has been:
>        Why did MS cut off support for OS/2 2.0?
> 
>  a.  Could it be that IBM cut of MS from the source code making it
>difficult to support a product?
> 
>  b.  Or could it be that MS is trying to undermine IBM and OS/2?
> 
>IMEHO I believe that A. would be more likely.  It is amazing to believ
>that for a group to be developing a product for more than five years that 
>it would all of a sudden turn into "That's IBM's product not our type 
>stuff".

     I don't think it's A.  I don't think it's B either.  In my
opinion (which is not particularly well-informed on this subject
since I wasn't involved in the OS/2 project when it was here), MS
dropped OS/2 because they realized it wouldn't be profitable.
That is ultimately the bottom line - it could be the niftiest 
operating system ever, but if IBM isn't making money on it, then
eventually their stockholders are going to question their business
practices.  (Of course, IBM is large enough that it could take a
several million dollar loss and just shrug it off.  MS would
take such a loss a _lot_ more difficultly.)


>    The other bone I have to pick with some of the posts I have read deal 
>w/direct attacks on the MS employees who post on this conference.  I have 
>seen their replys go from trying to clear up mis-concepts about a product 
>to picking apart an argument and calling people foolish and misinformed.  
>If you do not like features in their product, fine there is a way to go
>express which features you do not like.  Do not say the whole package is 
>a dog just because you do not like certain aspects of it.

     I think I can speak for the rest of the MS employees on this
group when I say "If I couldn't take the heat, I wouldn't be in
the kitchen."  People can flame away all they like - in general,
those people come out looking like bigger asses than the one's
they were flaming.

					-Phil

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: orville%weyrich@tnet.com (Orville R. Weyrich)
Subject: Re: pc week and nt
Reply-To: tnet.com!weyrich!orville
Organization: Weyrich Computer Consulting
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 05:24:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.221342.21192@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>
>MS did not give up on OS/2.  MS gave up working with IBM.  It was kind of like
>a divorce settlement.  If MS had kep't OS/2, then IBM wouldn't have given it up.
>IBM wanted the "kids" so MS gave IBM responsability for its portion of the 
>development and support for OS/2.  Why are y'all complaining that MS dropped
>you, when in truth, MS said that since MS and IBM couldn't get along any more
>IBM's getting the "kid", so you are going to have to go to IBM for your
>support of OS/2.  
>

If you want to use the "divorce" analogy, then it must have been a pretty
bloody affair -- it appears that the ex-spouse named Microsoft gave up the
kid, but also went out of its way to destroy the kid's toys out of spite
[i.e., REMOVING OS/2 support from the C-compiler, REMOVING Word for OS/2
and Excel for OS/2 from the market, etc.] MS seems to have gone far beyond
simply ceasing the development of new compilers and software for OS/2.

I personally would not "date" such a vengeful "divorcee."

orville

--------------------------------------       **********************************
Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.                          Weyrich Computer Consulting
Certified Data Processor                       POB 5782, Scottsdale, AZ 85261
Certified Systems Professional                      Voice: (602) 391-0821
Certified Computer Programmer                Internet: orville%weyrich@tnet.com
--------------------------------------       **********************************
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy