HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: roland@margaret (David A. Braun)
Subject: Re: Win NT (Nice Try) I'll wait for V5.1
Organization: Choate Rosemary Hall
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:48:35 GMT

In article <C0v0o4.Izx@acsu.buffalo.edu> v053qpgh@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Eric W  
Sarjeant) writes:
> In article <1993Jan14.235935.13181@waikato.ac.nz>, harvey@waikato.ac.nz  
writes...
> >> But whatever the reasons, developer enthusiasm means applications for NT.   
And
> >> it's applications that sell operating systems.  
> > 
> > 
> >Wrong I think its the salespeople and the general public that buy and sell  
OS's
> >But I may be wrong.
> > 
> > 
> >All the applications in the world won't sell an OS to the people if the  
people
> >can't use the OS.

(Much Deleted) 

> If someone is going to go out and invest in a new operating system, they are
> probably going to be willing to deal with some transitional problems. But --
> they will expect os-specific software within a year or so. Don't get me
> wrong, I really enjoy what OS/2 can do, but I can't hold out much longer.
> I need Ami Pro for OS/2, and Lotus claims it can deliver this product soon.
> If I don't get it by the end of this year, I'm afraid I'll just have to
> go where the software is.
> 
> If this means going back to DOS + Win then I may just have to do that.
> 

(Much more Deleted)

I too am awaiting the release of AMI Pro for OS/2, but with the new 2.1 BETA, I  
find my pains of waiting are greatly weakened...  AMI Pro 3.0 for Windows now  
runs faster on my OS/2 machine than it runs on any of the DOS machines of the  
same caliber that I have seen... I can now live a little longer...  GET THE  
BETA IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT!!!

<roland>
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: 1993 will be a good year for OS/2
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:12:31 GMT
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.

In article <pathak-270193093226@virtual.mitre.org> pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak) writes:
>In article <1k4t5fINNkhc@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A.
>Bell) wrote:
>> 
>> have never been main stream.  I don't consider unix as a mass market
>> option.  All that leaves is windows NT.
>> 
>
>Personally, I think you are missing out one item: UnixWare.  I have yet to
>personally play around with it, but the people who have seen it say it is
>hot. 
> 

Well, once again Novell sets out to prove you can sell
refrigerators to Eskimos. :)

It may be the hot ticket, but most of the vendors and users I speak
with regularly are not in the least bit impressed. Actually USL's
SVR5.4.2 is a much better item to play with. It does make some nice
extensions to V5.4.2.

...Paul


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Date: 22 Jan 93 05:36:30 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <MfLQlzO00iUyI6IfRc@andrew.cmu.edu> Carl B Jabido <cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.os2.advocacy: 20-Jan-93 Re: NT to be
>launched at Co.. by Yamanari@wam.umd.edu 
>>         What a load of crap.  36Mbytes for the "demonstration" version?
>>         I must have missed that with the beta that runs in 12.  
>
>12 physical memory, but add to that a 25 meg swap file -> 37 megs.  At
>least on my system.

    Swap space is not memory.  If the writer of the original article
was confusing the two, he is incompetent and shouldn't be writing
even pseudo-technical stories.

			-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: pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com (Peter Mayne)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Date: 22 Jan 93 07:18:00 GMT
Reply-To: Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <GHENNIGA.93Jan20231606@ampere.ampere>, ghenniga@NMSU.Edu writes:
>However, just to put in a counterpoint to the
>$69 point, you can get a version of OS/2 comparable to your $69 dollar
>version of NT for FREE merely by using the command "ftp ftp-os2.NMSU.Edu"
>and a few "mget" commands!!

The $69 includes a C/C++ compiler and the first release version of Windows NT.
Comparable offer from IBM?

Complaints about requiring a CD drive may be riposted by complaints about
requiring the ability to ftp.

I have no idea what phone charges are in the US. Just for fun, how much does
it cost to ftp OS/2? :-)

>Gary Hennigan
>---------
>PhD Student, Computational Electromagnetics
>New Mexico State University
>email: ghenniga@NMSU.Edu

PJDM
--
Peter Mayne                     | My statements, not Digital's.
Digital Equipment Corporation   |
Canberra, ACT, Australia        | "AXP!": Bill the Cat
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: amitp@ruf.rice.edu (Amit J Patel)
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Reply-To: amitp@owlnet.rice.edu
Organization: Rice University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:22:41 GMT

In article <1jq4lcINNqar@tamsun.tamu.edu>, bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan22.053630.3315@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
|> |In article <MfLQlzO00iUyI6IfRc@andrew.cmu.edu> Carl B Jabido <cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
|> |>Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.os2.advocacy: 20-Jan-93 Re: NT to be
|> |>launched at Co.. by Yamanari@wam.umd.edu 
|> |>>         What a load of crap.  36Mbytes for the "demonstration" version?
|> |>>         I must have missed that with the beta that runs in 12.  
|> |>
|> |>12 physical memory, but add to that a 25 meg swap file -> 37 megs.  At
|> |>least on my system.
|> |
|> |    Swap space is not memory.  If the writer of the original article
|> |was confusing the two, he is incompetent and shouldn't be writing
|> |even pseudo-technical stories.
|> 
|> Oh well... Physical Memory... Virtual Memory they're all the same
|> arn't they?    :-)
|> 
|>    -- Bruce
|> 


	virtually ...

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: cwolff@intellistor.com (Clint Wolff)
Subject: Re: Is OS/2 a dead end?
Organization: Intellistor, Longmont, CO
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 18:10:23 GMT

In article <88S502P933A401@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> rwb00@avon.as writes:
>
>Is OS/2 a dead end ? Well lets see...
>
>  o it has fewer users than the Amiga

Is this really true? I seem a lot more activity in comp.os.os2.* than in
any of the amiga newsgroups.

>  o there are essentialy no native applications for it (I know people are 
>    claiming
>    a thousand applications exist, but when I walk into CompUSA or Egghead, I
>    don't see any...)

OS/2 will run most Windows 3.0 and DOS applications. The only commercial 
application I use that won't run under OS/2 is the Xilinx place and route
package. It has it's own memory manager built in to work around the limitations
in DOS.

>  o IBM has never had a successful PC software product

IBM was in bed with Microsoft for a long time. Only recently have the attempted
to branch out into PC software.

>  o IBM is also committed to another operating system, based on "Pink",
>    that seems to fill the same role as OS/2

What is "Pink" exactly (general question to everyone)... Does anyone know?
I suspect it is a replacement for OS/2 to get away from any Microsoft code
that is in OS/2.

>  o the PC industry is undergoing something of a boom, primarily because 
>    of OS/2s
>    prime competitor, Windows. An awful lot of new and successful software 
>    products
>    have the words "..for Windows" in their titles.

Again, OS/2 will run most Windows programs, better in some cases than windows.
It will also run DOS programs that Windows will not. For example any program
that requires more memory than windows will give up, or more than one DOS
program at a time.

>  o many of OS/2 strengths, such as good multitasking, appeal more to the 
>    limited
>    population of technical types - the Mac and Windows environments 
>    strength is
>    in user-interface details and application availability, which is more
>    important to the "average" PC user - who does word processing of databases
>    and such.
>

Most non-"technical types" I associate with use Windows for one reason: The
ability to run more than one program at a time. This is multi-tasking, but 
only if the foreground program is well behaved, and gives up the CPU from
time to time. 

>Sounds to me like a niche product at best, a dead end at worst...

Microsoft is certainly trying to convince the world that OS/2 is a dead end.
Only time will tell. In the meantime, I am happy running OS/2 2.1b and will
not go back to Windows.
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Clint Wolff   (303)-682-6609 <leave a message... maybe i'll call - j.walsh> |
| Staff Engineer                                                              |
| Fujitsu Computer Products of America - Intellistor Research and Development |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|          They pay me to think... As long as I keep my mouth shut.           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Date: 21 Jan 1993 16:44:49 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan21.143153.28433@ncsu.edu> jmbeesle@eos.ncsu.edu (JAMES MICHAEL BEESLEY) writes:
>Funny, I must have missed the $68 for Os/2 *GA* offer ?
>Like I said, NT is $69 for *GA* code. (actually got mine
>for $29 because at the time I ordered it, I was using the 
>OS/2 SDK!) *MUCH* cheaper than the $149 for OS/2.

Oh, yeah? Since when is NT GA? What you paid $29 for is beta code, with
Microsoft's promise to send you the first production release. Just ask anyone
who shelled out $2600 for the OS/2 SDK how solid Microsoft's promises are.

>*PLUS*
>I get Networking for *FREE* ! I don't currently need it,
>but when (if) I do, it is there.

You don't get it for free; you simply don't have the option not to purchase
it.

>I have no doubts that
>NT will be priced above OS/2 when it ships, but it will be 
>a fair amount below $500, and if it doesn't sell well, I
>have no doubt Gates will drop the price until it does...

I'd be highly surprised if that "fair amount below $500" were more than $10.
Announcing a price "below $500" and then actually selling it for much less
loses price-sensitive customers who would have waited for the lower price but
not the higher one. 

>(I also think that the quality of it will not be on par
>with OS/2 2.1, but I still like Wint-NTs features more...)

Right. You prefer a buggier system over a more robust one that has better
compatibility and a longer track record. For heaven's sakes, WHY?

>P.S. I thinks its sort of funny how when Windows users
>     complained that OS/2 wouldn't run on their 2 MB machines,
>     but windows would, the OS/2 answer was ADD MORE MEMORY 
>     AND QUIT CRYING, but now the claim is NT IS A MEMORY HOG
>     SO USE OS/2 AND QUIT CRYING... I really haven't seen that 
>     NT needs much more RAM than OS/2 2.0. It runs fine in
>     8 MB on my machine, and even has XLIBs available...

You are in the minority; most reports I've seen say that it's a real dog in 8
meg, if it runs at all. There have been many reports that OS/2 runs just fine
in 4 meg, too, a goal that's beyond the wildest wet dreams of NT bigots.
Further, you're ignoring the fact that most systems can't jump above 8 meg
without replacing all memory with at least 4 4 meg SIMMs, at a cost
approaching $500.
-- 
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.
    "I don't want to read poor Microsoft bashing. I want to read good
Microsoft bashing." -- Douglas A. Bell, in comp.os.os2.advocacy (Me too!)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:28:05 GMT

brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

[...]

>This is they typical reaction I get from OS/2 zealots.  I make a thought
>out article, complete with facts and references showing that IBM 
>has been doling out misinformation in an organized manner, and what do
>I get?  Cracks about MS.  The vast bulk of MS-bashing in c.o.o.a has
>no factual basis.   If if it were true, why does this let IBM off
>the hook?

What? Yes IBM has made mistakes, and yes they don't always want to
admit to them, but this is not the same as "doling out misinformation
in an organized manner". I don't see where you have proved anything
like this.

Brian, your continual OS/2 - IBM bashing is just hurting your own
creditibility. If OS/2 and IBM are really half as bad as you say they
will die and go away on their own without your help in killing them.

Everyone here already knows you don't like either OS/2 or IBM, how many
times do you have to tell us the same thing?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net            uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2
From: sci240s@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Wey Jing HO)
Subject: Re: CD ROM Drive for OS/2 2.1 beta and future multimedia applications
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:35:06 GMT

In <anderson.59.728062949@mayo.edu> anderson@mayo.edu (Alfred I. Anderson) writes:

>In article <1993Jan22.203025.12553@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tujf@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Jay F. Tu) writes:
>>From: tujf@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Jay F. Tu)
>>Subject: CD ROM Drive for OS/2 2.1 beta and future multimedia applications
>>Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:30:25 GMT

>I'm currently using an NEC CDR-84 with an Adaptec 1542B and this is working 
>just fine with OS/2 2.1 Beta (6.479).  Haven't tried it with Windows NT 
>yet.		

>(the NEC is a loaner.  I was going to order one of those but it is not Photo 
>CD compatible).

Anyone know what CD ROM player/drive is Photo CD compatible as well as
meeting the multimedia specs and is supported under OS/2?

-- 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Wey Jing Ho    Tel: 61-3-565-3615   E-mail : sci240s@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au<
>  Physics Dept, Monash Univ, Wellington Rd, Clayton, VIC 3168, AUSTRALIA   <
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmbeesle@eos.ncsu.edu (JAMES MICHAEL BEESLEY)
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Originator: jmbeesle@c00802-247dan.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jmbeesle@eos.ncsu.edu (JAMES MICHAEL BEESLEY)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:31:53 GMT


Funny, I must have missed the $68 for Os/2 *GA* offer ?
Like I said, NT is $69 for *GA* code. (actually got mine
for $29 because at the time I ordered it, I was using the 
OS/2 SDK!) *MUCH* cheaper than the $149 for OS/2. *PLUS*
I get Networking for *FREE* ! I don't currently need it,
but when (if) I do, it is there.  I have no doubts that
NT will be priced above OS/2 when it ships, but it will be 
a fair amount below $500, and if it doesn't sell well, I
have no doubt Gates will drop the price until it does...
(I also think that the quality of it will not be on par
with OS/2 2.1, but I still like Wint-NTs features more...)
P.S. I thinks its sort of funny how when Windows users
     complained that OS/2 wouldn't run on their 2 MB machines,
     but windows would, the OS/2 answer was ADD MORE MEMORY 
     AND QUIT CRYING, but now the claim is NT IS A MEMORY HOG
     SO USE OS/2 AND QUIT CRYING... I really haven't seen that 
     NT needs much more RAM than OS/2 2.0. It runs fine in
     8 MB on my machine, and even has XLIBs available...
                   -Jim.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2)
Subject: Beta-zoid (wuz Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...)
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:49:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.204617.23529@netcom.com> timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:
>
>Actually, his use of GA connoting "final release" is correct.  You just
>don't get it yet, but you do get it when it exists as part of the $69
>offer.  As for OS/2, you get the OS/2 2.1 beta free, but have to pay
>for the release version (unless IBM decides to give that away free, too).
>
>This is another way to look at it:  six or so months from now, the people
>with the NT beta CD will have the final release of NT for no additional
>charge.  The people with the OS/2 2.1 beta CD, or the DAP CD will have two
>outdated CDs they can't use and that's it (unless they've spent some more
>money somewhere along the line).

Try it this way:

Anyone can have the OS/2 2.1 beta now, for free.  If they don't like the
beta, they lose nothing.  If they like it, they can either (1) buy 2.1 GA
if they are not OS/2 2.0 owners, or (2) upgrade to 2.1 GA if they are OS/2
2.0 owners (I don't know the upgrade cost, if any).  Try before you buy.

With the NT beta, people must spend $69 first.  If they like the beta,
they'll get NT GA free.  If they don't like it, they're out $69.

>     - Mike
>
>(BTW, I'm not sure if the 2.1 beta has an expiration date, but in any case
>it should be outdated in six months.  Or at least I would hope so.)

Judging from the praises that the 2.1 beta has received, I have a feeling
that most people using it will be glad to buy or upgrade to 2.1 GA.


Mike Levis
President of the "OS/2 fans named Mike" Club
"I love this club so much, I changed my name from John to Mike!"
-- 
======= Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu =======
::  ftp ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (128.123.35.151) for OS/2  ::  .--.
::  software & information.   Get /pub/os2/00Index  :: (OS/2)
::::::::  & /pub/os2/all/info/faq/faq20i.zip  ::::::::  ~--~
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: gerry@pizzabox.dialogic.com (Gerry Lachac)
Subject: Oct. NT Beta *NOT* Feature Complete
Organization: Dialogic Corporation
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 15:21:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.000003.7111@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.171847.25016@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>
>>Is the Beta 'full-function', or are there things still missing?
>
>
>	Full feature was included in the latest beta.

I had heard that the Oct. Beta was full-featured too, but the cover
story on the Jan 18 PC Week claims that the feature-complete NT beta
is "slated to ship in the next four to six weeks, according to
Microsoft executives..."
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 03:01:12 -0800
From: Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: Re: AmiPro for OS/2 (was Re: Impressions of OS/2 2.1 Beta)
Comment-To: Yamanari@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

>> AmiPro for OS/2 2.0 will be full 32-bit, Workplace Shell aware,
>> multithreaded, HPFS aware, etc.  Ditto 1-2-3 2.0, Freelance
Graphics,
>> and cc:Mail.


 Y>  Well, now.  Will it use Mirrors?  What, in this context, does
 Y>  "Workplace shell aware" really mean?

I personally asked the product manager for Ami Pro if it would use
Mirrors and his reply was that it would not.  Workplace Shell aware
means that it implements drag-and-drop functionality for things like
printing and file loading.  For example, as I recall you can drag a
document onto the printer and it will be printed by Ami Pro.


--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ghenniga@NMSU.Edu
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Reply-To: ghenniga@NMSU.Edu
Organization: New Mexico State University - Electromagnetics Group
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 06:16:06 GMT


In an article rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <1993Jan19.190356.12915@cci632.cci.com> rom@cci632.cci.com (Rudynell S. Millian) writes:
>>Pricing has not been determined, but at the Windows NT Developers Conference
>>last July, company officials said NT would list for "under $500".
>
>
>	$69 if you order now.

I agree with the point of most of the rest of the post, it sounds like the
rag was comparing the upcoming Intel NT version to the version that they
were running on DEC's Alpha. However, just to put in a counterpoint to the
$69 point, you can get a version of OS/2 comparable to your $69 dollar
version of NT for FREE merely by using the command "ftp ftp-os2.NMSU.Edu"
and a few "mget" commands!!

Gary Hennigan
---------
PhD Student, Computational Electromagnetics
New Mexico State University
email: ghenniga@NMSU.Edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: Beta-zoid (wuz Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...)
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 15:56:04 GMT

In article <strobl.727876597@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>In <1993Jan24.030639.17197@msi.com> bill@west.msi.com (Bill Poitras) writes:
>
>>Mike LevisOS/2 (mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu) wrote:
>>: Anyone can have the OS/2 2.1 beta now, for free.  If they don't like the
>>: beta, they lose nothing.  If they like it, they can either (1) buy 2.1 GA
>>: if they are not OS/2 2.0 owners, or (2) upgrade to 2.1 GA if they are OS/2
>>: 2.0 owners (I don't know the upgrade cost, if any).  Try before you buy.
>
>>: With the NT beta, people must spend $69 first.  If they like the beta,
>>: they'll get NT GA free.  If they don't like it, they're out $69.
>
>>Also the NT version REQUIRES a CD-ROM drive.  OS/2 2.1 beta doesn't.  
>
>The current NT prerelease doesn't require a CD-ROM, either. If you
>have ftp access, you'll most probably have temporary access to a
>Unix workstation with a CD drive, too. Mount the CD, ftp the contents
>of the NT installation directory to your PC.  That's it.  Local 
>installation proceeds without access to the CD.
>
>--
>      o      (     Wolfgang Strobl    Wolfgang.Strobl@gmd.de (+49 2241) 14-2394
>     /\        *   GMD - Gesellschaft fuer Mathematik und Datenverarbeitung mbH
>   _`\ `_<===      Schloss Birlinghoven, P.O. Box 1316,  | #include   
>__(_)/_(_)___.-._  W-5205 Sankt Augustin, Germany        | <std.disclaimer.hpp>

I understand from messages read on other services (BIX and Compuserve)
that Windows NT has been made available on floppies (at least some have
gotten it).  I assume they don't supply all the docs and development
tools that the CD holds (yikes, hundreds of floppies!  I want my NT on
360K disks...), and I gather the Intel based NT arrives of something
like 30 floppies (sounds like OS/2 2.x to me).

OTOH, with CD-ROM readers available for around $200 or so (admittedly
very low end stuff, but it works!), I don't think this is quite the
problem for most people that some would make it.  Indeed, it is much
easier for the average Joe (!) to buy a CD-ROM reader than to get FTP
access...

Joe Malloy / WB2RBA / jmalloy@hamilton.edu  
Associate Professor of German / Hamilton College / Clinton, NY 

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy