HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: platinum@montage.UUCP (Doug Swallow)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 Computer Search
Distribution: world
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 06:27:08 GMT
Organization: Software Environments, Inc.

mgrice@athena.mit.edu writes in article <1993Jan5.201132.17054@athena.mit.edu>:
> 
> I'm a UNIX guy myself, but my parents are looking for a new computer
> and I thought you would like to know what it is like to deal in
> an os/2-hostile market.
>
> [terrible experiences deleted]
> 
> That's what it is like, folks.  You want OS/2, you buy IBM ( if you 
> dont understand DOS/Windows/ISA/x86 (which I dont))

Matt, unfortunately I find this to be the case no matter what question you
may ask the sales-idiot at any given store. If you don't go in having done
all your research, you hear a bunch of lies, misinformation, lack of
knowledge and/or plain stupidity. Sometimes the sales-idiot gets it right,
but usually it's because they guessed right, not because they knew.

Of course, once in awhile, a store actually hires a technologically
knowledgable individual that can hold his or her own in discussing the
capabilities and compatabilities of any given piece of hardware.


--
/ Doug Swallow
|Internet:   platinum@montage.uucp     |Mail: 7927 Clubhouse Estates Dr.
|CompuServe: 75776,1011                |      Orlando, Florida 32819-5026
|Phone:      407-236-0153              |Fax:  407-352-3111

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mattair@sun44.synercom.hounix.org (Charles Mattair)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Synercom Technology, Inc., Houston, TX
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:16:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.205926.10277@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>
>     No, it's the OEMs, who listen to the feedback from their customers.
>Right now, those customers overwhelmingly want DOS/Windows.  If
>that changes in the future, it may become economical for OEMs
>to offer other preinstalled OSes.  Right now it simply is not.
>

Nice try but wrong.  The customers say they want DOS/windows because thats all
they have heard of.  If
   . you only see glowing mentions of DOS, Windows and NT in the trade press
     and in ads.
   . OS/2 is treated as vaporware while NT is _the_ operating system for
     everything from toasters to Crays.
   . if the only bundled products you are offered are MS products.
   . the OEM pushes MS products due to the take or pay contract.
   . you get a blank stare or resistance when you ask if you can substitute.
you probably go with MS products.

MS doesn't have its market share due to any particular ability to build good,
bug free software (although DOS and Windows must be bug free based on reports
from MS).  It has it based on raw marketing skill.
-- 
Charles Mattair		 			mattair@synercom.hounix.org
Any opinions offered are my own and do not reflect those of my employer.
Gates and Walton are the perfect reasons for a wealth tax.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: oneel@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov (oneel)
Subject: Re: NT won't run in 8 megs: Try OS/2 2.1 in 4 megs!
Organization: STX/GSFC Nasa
	<1992Dec30.095615.26907@actrix.gen.nz>
	<1993Jan4.215618.18117@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:02:46 GMT


 .. A bit deleted ..

   Without the SDK, the October Beta of Windows NT requires a little over
   30 MB for its files, plus 20 MB for a swap file.  It *DOES* run on an
   8 MB machine, but is apparently having a problem with yours.


I realize this is a bit off topic, but, *WHY* does Windows/NT need 20
MB for a swap file.  What is it putting in there?  I can see the need
for 30 MB or so for executable files, but 20 MB worth of swap/paging
space?  

I do have a couple of guesses but if anyone wants to jump in and
comment feel free (not like anyone was waiting for my permission...) 

1.  The swap space doesn't expand and/or contract.  Therefore you must
allocate the worst-case size.  This is like VMS, most versions of unix
with either swap partitions or swap files, and the current version of
windows.  This does prevent fragmenting the swap file.  

2.  All read-only pages are only paged out of swap space, rather than
from their location on disk.  This means that when you run a program
it's fully copied to swap space before running.  This is a bit like
old versions of BSD.

Any other guesses, or, informed comment?

Gee, 20 MB swap and 12 MB ram.  I remember running 20 people on 2.5
meg ram and 5 meg swap *GEEZER ALERT*.

bruce, wondering what goes in 20 MB....


--
Bruce O'Neel              oneel@heasfs.gsfc.nasa.gov
NASA/GSFC/STX/Code 664
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 4 Jan 93 20:37:09 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <8302@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

|> >    This keeps getting bandied about.  No matter how many times you
|> >say it, Jay, you aren't being "compelled" to buy DOS or Windows unless
|> >there is _no_ OEM who sells a system without them.  This is clearly
|> >not that case, and so I conclude that you are either intentionally
|> >distorting the facts or are woefully ignorant of them.
|> 
|> If I decide that the Gateway 2000 486/50 is the best machine for me, and the
|> Zeos is the second best, and the Northgate is the next choice, then I'm being
|> compelled to buy DOS and Windows, because none of those systems are available
|> without them.

I know exactly how you feel!!  The best machine for me is a PS/2 but those
bastards at IBM refuse to preload Windows on it!!

So I try for my second choice, an HP-PA machine, but would you believe the
_gall_ of those guys?  They won't sell it with SunOS!!!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 04 Jan 93 05:15:25 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1993Jan2.225717.2321@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu wrote:

> 
> 	Good reasons??? Give us a good reason why NT refuses to install if
> it detects OS/2? This started with the October Beta. not with earlier ones.
> 
> If you are going to say something like well NT needs to be there first, give a
> good reason. NT is supposed to run on HPFS and FAT right?

How's this for a good reason.
Imcompatabilities between the OS/2 boot manager and the NT boot manager.
Which one get's to own the boot sector?  It seems to be a lot easier to
wrangle the OS/2 boot sector into a form compatable with the NT multiboot
manager than the other way around, unless your a professional DEBUG 
user, that is.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  8 Jan 1993 13:14 EST  

In article <1993Jan8.055127.16318@sequent.com>, furballs@sequent.com (Paul 
Penrod) writes...

>Well, besides being a larger harddisk on the cheap, does MS-DOS 6.0
>do anything to extend the actual functionality of the underlying
>DOS layer, or is 6.0 a collection of feature utilities ?
> 
>It used to be that when MS rolled a major revision, such as DOS
>3.0, there were major functional and structural enhancements. I
>dont see any talked about here. SO why the 1.0 rollover ? Why isn't
>it 5.1. like it probably should be ?

Maybe they're just trying to keep up with Novell Desktop Systems ;-)
From: chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 4 Jan 1993 12:02:41 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu

In <BUHR.93Jan2155539@ccu.umanitoba.ca> buhr@umanitoba.ca (Kevin Andrew Buhr) writes:

>In article <1993Jan02.025323.15888@microsoft.com>
>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>|  In article <1993Jan1.133731.2312@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>
>|  z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>|  [ ... MS DOS 6.0 beta prints ]
>|  >- OS/2 Detected! Due to the size of OS/2 you may wish to delete your OS/2 
>|  >files before installing DOS 6.0 -

>|      Please explain what in the above warning message is the
>|  slightest bit anticompetitive.  See if you can end your sentence
>|  with fewer than four exclamation points.

>God, Phil.  I hope you aren't serious.

He actually is.  I am starting to lose a lot of respect for MS
after reading a lot of things the MS employees say on the net.  They
are downright rude to people sometimes, especially when a user
says something like "I disagree... I think that BLAH BLAH",. and
an MS employee (remaining nameless) will usually say "get a clue!"

I find such behavior rude, and also, unprofessional.  

Secondly, statements such as the above only make microsoft look
bad.  I am not going to sit here and argue word theory to MS
employees nor the net, but seeing comments like "What is wrong
with that statement? its perfectly valid!" when the comment is
rude or suspicious (ie, Delete OS/2?, or Delete Unix, or Delete that?),
really makes some people look ignorant.  I know that to MS employees,
ms can do no wrong.  Its perfect.  However, there IS an outside world
that does look at Microsoft, and Judge.

For instance, if MSDOS said something like this on bootup:
"DOS has detected foriegn operating systems on the hard disk you
are going to install to.  Also, DOS has detected wierd data on
your DOS partitions.  You should reformat your entire disk, and use
only Microsoft products to prevent bad data from getting on your
disk"


I bet the same people would say "Whats wrong with that??"

Please, I dont want followups from MS employees.  Lets let this thread
end.  The reason I really dont want follow ups is because :
A. the poster will more than likely be rude and crass.
B. the poster will probably say "Whats wrong with that?? Prove to me
    it is wrong, or shut the heck up!"

These are my opionions, so I need not prove anything, although,
a quick check of a published API for common sense will return
some people to reality.  (attention flamers:  do not say 'You need
to get back into reality' -- that doesnt make a good flame).
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT Destined to Succeed??
Date: 4 Jan 1993 14:43:44 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, robs@hardy.u.washington.edu (Robert Suh) says:

>Well, Windows/NT does not 'lack a user base', as you put it.  Windows NT will
>run almost every Windows 3.1 app out there.

Have you tried to run mathematica for windows on windows NT for the alpha or 
mips 4000? Will it work?  No.  The reason?  

Windows NT won't support 386 enhanced mode apps on non-intel platforms.  
Does anyone know if windows NT will even support 386 enhanced mode apps on 
intel platforms?

>Another point, WindowsNT isn't
>targeted towared 'averge desktop users', Bill Gates has even said that they are
>targeting LAN Servers, Workstation users, and anyone else who needs some of the
>specs that NT offers. 

Then why does Mike Maples go around saying that windows NT is for 
desktop usage?

>>Windows NT will not be compatable, and will even have worse compatabilities
>>than OS/2, thus driving the NT user base down even more..


-----------

And as for system requirements, it only costs $120 - $150 to upgrade the
average ISA clone from 4 megs to 8 megs, but it costs $480 - $600 to upgrade
the same maching to 16 megs, because most motherboards only accept 8 simms
in two banks of 4 at a time.  So to upgrade to 8 megs, a user only has to 
buy 4 1 meg simms, while to upgrade to 16 megs, the same user has to buy 4 
4 meg simms.  Actually, this is an upgrade to 20 megs unless you can find
someone who wants to buy used simms.

So there is atleast a $300 price difference between an os/2 upgrade 
and a windows NT upgrade on a 4 meg isa configuration, and 4 megs is a
pretty standard configuration.

Now all of those machines that come with 8 megs of memory and all ready
have all of the simm strip slots filled, what are they going to cost to 
upgrade to windows nt in comparision to os/2?

-- 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: 32 Bit HPFS
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:23:07 GMT
Keywords: HPFS

sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan3.072341.4792@news.columbia.edu> mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green) writes:
>>Actually, it would seem that file protections are useful for many OS/2 users.
>>ownership, for example, is a useful concept.
>>Does OS/2 have a concept of process ownership in LAN-server?
>>I share this machine with other members of my family.
>>Furthermore, many people run a BBS on their system.
>>It would be really nice to have the added protection of file ownerships.
>
>What you describe is multiple serial users, and for that LAN Server
>would be overkill.  Instead, I suggest you take a look at PC/DACS from
>Pyramid.  They were running an OS/2 Solutions Coupon Book special of
>$49 for it, and perhaps that price is still available.  From the
>limited information I have on it, and from the few reports I've heard,
>it's a very nice package.
>
>-- 
>Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0h, available from
>sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
>Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
>of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]


Mr. Sipples,
the November 1st issue of "Datamation" reviews Pyramid's Development Corp.
PC/DACS and Net/DACS. The articles deals with security features which
companies certainly need. The product, among other things, offers mainframe
security. Fifth Generation's Micronyx division is also working with IBM to
develop a high-security log-on system for OS/2. Computer Associates are also
currently testing their version of CA-ACF2 and CA-Top for OS/2.

Best Regards,
Mark K.
E-Mail: kovarski@zooid.guild.org
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: How many Nobel Prizes has IBM won?
Date: 5 Jan 1993 19:13:23 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan5.183131.19591@umr.edu> ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) writes:
>Yah, but someone could win [a Nobel prize] for Peace if they could figure out 
>how to create an OS that satisfies OS/2, Windows, Unix, **AND**
>Amiga bigots.  :)

They have. It's called OS/2.

( :-)e+10... )
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of all Fears_
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: SGI-GL in Windows NT??
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  8 Jan 1993 13:04 EST  

In article <1993Jan7.063446.28539@ryn.mro4.dec.com>, 
Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com writes...

>This is correct. It will be included in NT version 2.

This would be fascinating, since the initial release of NT will be version 
3.1 ;-)
From: z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Will OS/2 2.1 Convert Win 3.1 Fans?
Date: 6 Jan 93 03:57:02 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University




 	We have OS/2 2.1 Beta installed and running on a machine, and I must
 say it's WIN 3.1 support is very well done. Seamless Windows is very usable,
 Multimedia is included. It was quite suprising to run Microsoft's Cinemania
 in a Win OS/2 Session, from a Creative Labs CD Rom, with both CD info, and
 Sound coming through, the SB Pro OS/2 Driver.  For a Beta, this one is
 impressive. True there are bugs, and some things need to be worked out.
 
 Perhaps one of the best things I have heard from IBM, was when John Soyring was
 asked if OS/2 2.1 would be shipping in March, Since the Beta Program is
 sheduled to end Feb 28th. He replied, That they would not give a firm date, but
 Quality was more important.
 
 Advocacy starts here. With the NT release drawing closer, what effect would a
 late ( and I speculate, a worst case scenario ) May - June Release of OS/2 2.1
 have if 2.1 really is Rock Solid, Better (faster, and  more stable) Windows 
 than Windows?
 
 Imagine, you could run Microsoft's Full Motion Video Multimedia, while doing a
 Download, running a BBS, doing a Backup, etc....
 
 And It would be possible under OS/2, not Window 3.1, and maybe NT.
 
 While on the Subject of NT vs OS/2, has anyone tried to run Dos games under NT?
 anything like Wing Commander II, F-15 Strike Eagle III, etc???
 
 While games may not seem like a reason to choose an OS, I wonder how many home
 users would choose OS/2 over NT( assuming home users would buy NT )?
 
 The Video game market is very large, and probably the Fastest Growing segment
 in personal computing. It could be a real Factor in Widespread acceptance of
 any OS outside of corporate use.
 
 BTW, any of the games mentioned above DO require a system that is already
 capable of running OS/2, if you enable all of the features.
 
 When I was at Condex, I tried Microsoft's Full Motion Video under Windows.
 Hey, It is a slick product. Just don't try to start Word for Win while it is
 running, It Chokes, coughs, and studders.
 
 IBM has a similar Multimedia Package, also very slick, and you can start Word
 for Win in a Win OS/2 session, with missing a beat.
 
 BTW Phil, and Herr Malloy. No Cheap, Rude, Crass, or unsubstantiaded rumors in
 this post. :)
 
 Michael kupka
 
 
 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Re: SGI-GL in Windows NT??
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Organization: Techn. Univ. Clausthal
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:43:12 GMT

In <8368@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <dlcogswe.726380388@vela> dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell) writes:
>>A guy I work with told me today the Microsoft has bought the rights to
>>include SGI-GL with Windows NT and will be including it in an upcoming
>>release!  This is quite an  advantage over OS/2 and brings NT to
>>workstation level, in my opinion.  If NT will have GL standard, I will
>>most likely be switching over from OS/2.
>
>OK...what is SGI-GL, and what's so great about it?

SGI-GL is the Graphics-Library, Silicon Graphics is using on their work-
stations. I personally have no experience with it, but the people, that
are using it here on IRISes and INDIGOs are very satisfied.

Christoph
-------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------
Christoph H. Hochstaetter, Philipps-University Marburg | Universitaetsstr. 25
Internet: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de       | D-W-3550 Marburg
Bitnet  : HOCHSTAE AT DMRHRZ11                         | Germany
Fido    : 2:243/660                                    | Phone +49-6421-28-7092
Fax     : +49-6421-28-4858                             |
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: SMALL Excerpt from "Windows Sources"
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:29:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.104851.13621@rtf.bt.co.uk> traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.031820.21424@netcom.com> timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:
>>The point is that the shipping NT should require 8 MB minimum, but this
>>minimum doesn't mean the same thing as the OS/2 minimum.  As Petzold
>>suggested (although he may be pushing it) NT should be much more usable 
>>in 8 MB (its stated minimum) than OS/2 is in 4 MB.
>
>One detects a certain amount of bias present when you resort to comparing a
>vapourware product (the 8MB Windows NT) to an existing (but slow) product
>(the 4MB OS/2 2.0).

Anyone can compare anything to anything.  It may not mean much, but I didn't
make the comparison to begin with, Petzold did.  I can also say that 
OS/2 3.0 will be better than Windows 3.1 -- that doesn't mean I'm biased
in favor of OS/2, does it?

>Michael Traub

     - Mike
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 4 Jan 1993 16:31:27 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan04.042526.11051@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <8289@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>OK...so either contribute some real numbers, or else admit that we're working
>>with the best information we have.
>    That "best information" is a fantasy.

Prove it. Provide evidence.

There. How does it feel to have your own intellectually dishonest tactic
turned around on you?

>    This keeps getting bandied about.  No matter how many times you
>say it, Jay, you aren't being "compelled" to buy DOS or Windows unless
>there is _no_ OEM who sells a system without them.  This is clearly
>not that case, and so I conclude that you are either intentionally
>distorting the facts or are woefully ignorant of them.

If I decide that the Gateway 2000 486/50 is the best machine for me, and the
Zeos is the second best, and the Northgate is the next choice, then I'm being
compelled to buy DOS and Windows, because none of those systems are available
without them.

>>If MS uses undocumented calls, then the app developers get advance warning
>>that the undocumented call they're using is going away, and they can hit the
>>street the minute that the new version is out with an update that will work
>>with the new version.
>    Evidence, please.  Put up or shut up, Jay.

Go straight to hell. I'm tired of posting what I see with my own eyes as
effects of MS' actions, and getting told that I haven't posted evidence.

/philipla@microsoft.com/h:j
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of all Fears_
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: world
Date: Tue,  5 Jan 93 16:06:20 -0800
From: George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for
Comment-To: Pete_Skelly@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

PS>How's this for a good reason.
PS>Imcompatabilities between the OS/2 boot manager and the NT boot
manager.
PS>Which one get's to own the boot sector?  It seems to be a lot
easier to
PS>wrangle the OS/2 boot sector into a form compatable with the NT
multiboot

        Hey Pete, that's a damn good reason. Except that this setup
        worked fine without going to the partition table in the SDK
but
        rather showed up in the October beta. No, I think a better
        explanation will have to come forward. Maybe just a bug, eh?
        Sure. Just a bug that crept in.
___
 X SLMR 2.0 X My reality check just bounced.

--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy