HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: baustin@billapc.UUCP (Bill Austin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM support
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 04:58:40 -0500
Organization: Ground Zero Group, Columbus, OH 43227

In <kevinc.724058205@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> kevinc@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Kevin Crocker) writes:
>so). I've even had a call from the video card company letting me know
>that they're working on a driver and to be patient. Hell, if it's any
>consolation, I waited longer for the Windows 3.0 driver than I've
>waited for an Os/2 driver so far - about 5 months to go. I've got to be
>patient, patient, ..... 1280 by 1024 by 16.7M will sure be nice.

Just curious, but is that a Diamond 24x that you are using?
(i.e. and that a driver is ACTUALLY being worked on?)
If it is, please post something with a 'Diamond 24x' subject line, 
it was a pure accident that I caught the above tidbit.
Thanks
baustin
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: To brian and other interested parties
Date: 14 Dec 92 10:57:14 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.

In article <1992Dec11.005130.17078@netcom.com>, xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
|> Still, I can't help but feel that the NT
|> advocates are getting carried away.  It's one thing to post an
|> occasional comment about NT vs. OS/2 on an OS/2 group.  It's another
|> thing entirely to post huge volumes of info about NT every day,
|> including many posts that don't even mention OS/2.

I don't think that is a fair characterization of this group. Only a small
percentage of messages fail to mention OS/2 (20%?). Most of the *threads*
mention OS/2 and some of those which don't are started by direct attacks on NT
or, more often, Microsoft.

It also has to be said that a number of the OS/2 vs. NT flame wars are started
by OS/2 advocates, or by failed attempts at unbiased comparisons of the two.

|> I think that
|> mentioning OS/2 should be a minimum requirement for posting on this
|> group.

Well, I think that it would be a good minimum requirement for starting a
*thread* in this group, but it is still appropriate for some OS/2-related
threads to contain non-OS/2 messages.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Unicode - anyone knwos something ? (was Re: HPFS-386
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:49:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.164804.82541@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>ISO did come up with a character set.  Unicode is a subset of the ISO
>standard.  (I forget the actual name of the ISO standard, it isn't something
>easy to remember like Unicode)  However given that there are apporximately
>23,000-25,000 characters in all the languages in the world combined and


	Well, Umm..   Chinese dictionaries that lisrt ~30k characters
	are not t*that* hard to find.  Sure, most of'em aren't used
	(or overlap with another character) but shouldn't they
	be supported?


	<are there a bunch of extra characters up there?  stupid
	poor vt100 emulator..>


-- 
	"If you can't eat sand, why the hell are you living in a desert?"

	     Rule 1:  "Don't have more children than you can feed."
	  	  Nuclear redevelopment for a better world!
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: \* IBM's OS/2 2.0 Scores Big \*
Date: 15 Dec 92 10:10:31 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Dec11.222751.22817@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
> 
> >	Available sometime in the future
> 
> 	First half of '93.

In the Dec 8th PC Mag, John Dvorak says he doesn't expect to see NT before
August '93......after speaking to some MS people at Redmond.....who are not
named, of course.

Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
From: Joe@twistor.dialix.oz.au (Joe Katnic)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re:  More Controversial Topics
Distribution: world
Date: 16 Dec 92 21:28:24 PST
Organization: Not an Organization

In article <1992Dec8.012429.22579@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
[deleted]
>
>	This always makes me think hard as to whether IBM is gettin
>	ready to dump OS/2 when the PowerPC comes out.  After all, it'll
>	already run Apple, and there really isn't much *need* to run 
>	OS/2 apps, because most of them aren't very good or are ver
>y
>	out of date.
>

   Actually, IBM is aim for the estimated 32 million 3270 dumb terminals
   that are connected to their user mainframe base.

   OS/2 is the heart and soul of the CUA compliant system management
   applications. OS/2 is increasingly being used by organisations
   to front-end their user written applications.

   I don't think that compatibility will suffer, when OS/2 eventually
   gets absorbed into whatever new comes along. IBM has a very good
   history of bringing new technology in but supporting the old
   interfaces so that users can take their time to move over to the new.
   
   Witness, DOS and Windows support in OS/2.

   No, I don't think OS/2 is going to die any time soon.

   By the way, Taligent will not produce a PINK operating system.
   They will produce technology that they will sell to IBM and APPLE
   who will incorporate that technology into existing products.

--
Joe Katnic  Perth, Western Australia  Joe@twistor.DIALix.oz.au      _--_|\ 
                                   (ALT: jkatnic@DIALiz.oz.au)     /      \
"A search for the ultimate              Phone: (+619) 474 3939 --->\_.--._/
 mathematical reality inevitably                                         v 
 creates fairy tales, not science".. E.J. Lerner.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison)
Subject: Re: OS/2 stopped selling!!
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:50:30 GMT

In article <Bz5zCw.897@newsflash.concordia.ca> patrice@cenparmi.concordia.ca (SCATTOLIN patrice) writes:
>
>
>According to a local software store OS/2 has stopped selling. After
>looking and not seeing it on the shelves I asked if they were selling OS/2.
>The salesman said that they had one copy left in stock but it stopped selling
>a while back blaming a stop in advertising. 
>
>Is the true around where you are? Why?
>
>I tought that sales were picking up, I guess I was wrong.
>
>
>-- 
>Patrice Scattolin

Hmmm, You either have a dumb sales person, or a very stupid store manager,
the Egghead's in my neck of the woods can't keep it in stock.  Of course,
Egghead does their own advertizing, and ran an add with a pretty decent 
price.  I even bought my second copy.  Now, I have TWO machines running
OS/2.  One of them was running Windoz untill this week.

--Lowell Morrison
--Uncle Wolf



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ekl@kvamdata.no (Eirik Lygre)
Subject: Re:  More Controversial Topics
Organization: Kvam data as
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:05:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.172731.8286@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>
>	Do we have to continue, or are you going to accept that you
>	quoted out of context and then made a wholly irrelavent comment
>	along the lines of, "Someone saw bills car" (no reference to color)?
>

I misunderstood your first post, as you gently pointed out. Sorry.

Eirik

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eirik Lygre                                     Phone:    +47 4 623766
Kvam data as                                    Fax  :    +47 4 623985
PO Box 1101 Lura                                Email: ekl@kvamdata.no
N-4301  SANDNES, NORWAY
======================================================================
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10450 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3249
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here's some Advocacy for you.
Date: 15 Dec 92 23:28:12 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1992Dec12.125543.27280@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
> 
>>to take too much memory.  Whenever NT can run in four megs or less...
> 
> 
> 	Are you guys nuts?  This is the same type of argument used
> 	by DesqView and Windows fans in the last year against OS/2.
> 	
> 	If memory really was such a big deal, you wouldn't be using 
> 	OS/2.  [Besides, even if you pull all 8 1 meggers and 
> 	pop in 3 4 meggers that's only about $420, not $600...
> 	and 12megs NT == 8 megs OS/2]
> 
> 	Can't anyone out there make a better argument than formatting
> 	floppies (stupid) or 1/4th greater memory requirements?  
> 
> 
> -- 
>  Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?          
>  Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?  
>  ---"I despise mystics, they fancy themselves so deep, when they----
>  ----aren't even superficial"    --Nietzsche   ---------------------


	I can think of plenty of reasons to choose OS/2 over NT!  I
can't believe that you earlier said that NT will pretty much take out
OS/2, that's ridiculous.  OS/2 wasn't "dead" even before 2.0 and in
my opinion, 1.x was pitiful.OS/2 lets me boot up to other OS's if
I want.  Very useful for programming and such.  When I do a program
in Turbo Pascal (for example) I find it very useful to not have to
reboot several times  a day when a program I am writing bombs.  Windows
and DOS would ahve caused me to reload.  Also, look at all the options
you can do with the DOS emulation OS/2 gives you.  You can make any
app think you have a lot more memory than you do.  That will be particularly
useful when DOS apps start asking for 10 megs of memory (not yet but
I already have DOS apps that require 6 megs to run).  I can have OS/2
with only 6 megs of memory running a program that requires 10.  It won't
run well but I have that option (incidentally, I have 16 megs of memory
but the point is made).
	The Windows support under OS/2 certainly is better than the
current NT beta.  Key word is beta and the OS/2 beta ran windows terribly
so I wouldn't count NT out in that area but OS/2 beta ran windows a lot
faster than NT prsently does (OS/2's windows sessions just bombed a lot).
	The subject of memory requirements has been beat to death and
I really don't think that it is THAT much of a consideration.  To most
of our customers, more than 4 megs is simply a LOT.  Os/2 wants A LOT of
memory and so does NT.  After 8 megs of memory it doesn't make much
difference to them (as far as I can tell).
	IBM support is better than MS support in my experience.  IBM
support is almost obecessive.  If you crash OS/2, they will try to fix
it and even send you a patch for it if they can.  DOn't count on MS
to do that.  
	Another and my last one for now, (and least compelling reason),
I like to play video games on my machine on occasion.  Don't ask NT
to do that at any real speed now or ever (straight from MS's rep).

						-Brad


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re:  More Controversial Topics
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:38:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.131606.4931@kvamdata.no> ekl@kvamdata.no (Eirik Lygre) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.215537.21644@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec13.172059.3430@kvamdata.no> ekl@kvamdata.no (Eirik Lygre) writes:
>>>>	...      OS/2 2.0 has *never* been 
>>>>	demoed on SMP anything, and neither has OS/2MACH.
>>		  ^^^
>>
>>>Os/2 running on the mach kernel was demoed at comex.
>>
>>	Try re-reading my sentence again and see if the underline helps.
>
>Your underline definately helps. Now try reading your sentece again and
>see if the underline helps.
>
>>>>	...      OS/2 2.0 has *never* been 
>>>>	demoed on SMP anything, and neither has OS/2MACH.
>>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>>Os/2 running on the mach kernel was demoed at comex.
>
>My comment was directed at that second part, and not the first one.
>
>Eirik
>

It is obvious, here, that the original poster meant:

    "neither OS/2 2.0 nor OS/2MACH has ever been demoed on SMP anything"

and the second poster interpreted it as: "OS/2MACH has never been demoed,
nor an SMP version of OS/2 2.0."

The first interpretation is true.  The second interpretation (as addressed
by Eirik) is false: OS/2MACH was demoed at Comdex.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: "richard anstruther" <richard.anstruther@canrem.com>
Subject: ftc and ms
Reply-To: "richard anstruther" <richard.anstruther@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: comp
Date: 19 Dec 92 21:13:33 EST

jardined@qucis.queensu.ca (Donald Jardine) writes:

-> IMHO, the FTC action is a underhanded way of saving IBM from
-> bankruptcy. Inasmuch as the old anti-trust suits against IBM have
-> been rendered null and void a) by the Nixon/Reagan/Bush
-> administrations, and b) by IBM's own recently acquired ability to
-> shoot itself in the foot, it's interesting to note that the FTC will
-> be in the ambivalent position of investigating one computer colossus
-> with the effect of (possibly) benefitting another.

You think only IBM will benefit?  I'd say Lotus, WP, Borland and
virtually every other ISV on the market would benefit from the
FTC lowering the boom on MS's alleged anti-trust habits.

We, the consumers, will in turn benefit from having a source of
OS's and applications other than Microsoft.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pshuang@athena.mit.edu (Ping Huang)
Subject: Re: PC Week's Opinion on Microsoft
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:14:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.211542.21603@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

 > I agree... except that the "logical" market isn't buying it.  IBM stock
 > has fallen to about $62 (from over 90 last year when I thought it was a
 > great buy!), Microsoft is about 90 (from last year when it was about
 > 60... and I thought it was a great buy!).

Stock market prices, while sometimes influenced by investors'
expectations of how well the companies will do strategically and in the
long run, more frequently are dominated by the short-term financial
results which are expected. IBM is taking a tremendous amount of
write-offs in order to restructure and slim down its world-wide
operations, thus very poor financial performance in the short-term, with
the expectation that in the middle-term this will reduce their operating
costs and allow them to be more competitive in a business sense.  And
I've rarely heard the "stock market" being accused of being "logical",
anyway. :) In any case, let's hope that some of this restructuring (yep,
we've been talking about for a year or more now, but Lee just got
another promotion, and the restructuring seems to be doing even the
IBM PC-level hardware side some good in the last few months) will lead
to improving prospects for OS/2's long-term competitive success....

--
Ping Huang (INTERNET: pshuang@athena.mit.edu), probably speaking for himself
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Windows NT will fail -----
Date: 12 Dec 92 20:40:55 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Dec11.150748.1212@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.133859.17949@mlb.semi.harris.com> dhumphre@comanche.ess.h
arris.com writes:
>>I pretty sure Corel has stated that they are not porting Corel Draw 3.0
>>to OS/2 because they are working on Corel Draw 4.0 for OS/2 in conjunction
>>with the 4.0 release for Windows.
>
>
>       Same as WordPerfect and WP6.0, right?  Come on, if you believe
>       that, I have some, er, beachfront property to sell you in New Mexico.

So how is this a lie?  That IS what they are doing.  I would much rather they
release a totally new version and take a little more time to do it right.  My
current apps, run so I'm in no big rush.

>
>       If Corels previous OS/2 products (from the clunky and pathetic
>       OS/2 version of 2.0 to the mutant 1/wWindows 1/2 OS/2 halfbreed
>       version 3.5) are any representation of Corels commitment to
>       OS/2m you should look elsewhere.
>
This has absolutely zero to do with their development to OS/2 2.0.  They
produced a "mutant version" in order to get something new on the market quick.
This esatblishes a presense and gives them quick market share, until they can
get their new version out. That's not a lack of commitment, that is being
smart about not losing market share by being stupid.

>
>
>--
> Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?
> Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?
> ---"I despise mystics, they fancy themselves so deep, when they----
> ----aren't even superficial"    --Nietzsche   ---------------------
>

-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Discovered: Microsoft using undocumented calls in Windows NT
Date: 14 Dec 92 00:03:47 GMT
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago

The API used by PSTAT is now documented, Kai.  To follow up on that
point, take a look at PROCS and KILLEM utilities, available via
anonymous ftp from ftp-os2.nmsu.edu.  The most recent releases
indicate that the author has changed the header to conform with the
information IBM has released on the API.

It was not documented in OS/2 1.3, however, and it didn't make it into
the main OS/2 2.0 documentation.  This call is important to third
party utilities, and I do think the corresponding call in NT should be
documented by Microsoft.  Under OS/2, utilities such as PM Slay, psPM,
PROCS, KILLEM, and others use it.

I was also mistaken on the IFS documentation.  The IFS interfaces are
documented -- the information is available for download from the
European DAP BBS, I'm told.  You may have access to that, Kai.  In any
event, programmers report on CompuServe that they are working with the
spec already.

-- 
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.]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Windows NT will fail -----
Date: 11 Dec 1992 23:29:46 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec11.225708.29290@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <8093@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>Of course, it looks like you missed the original poster's followup where he
>>said he wasn't as clear as he meant to be, and the other posting where someone
>>else said they read it the same way I did...
>	Which is why (grit teeth, accept that YES, there ARE people
>	this dense out there) I decided to post a message
>	making what I was writing *CLEAR* so that such confusion
>	COULD NOT ARISE.

Why in the precise hell are you calling me a bozo and both me and the other
poster dense for not deciphering the original poster's message in the way he
intended, even though you and he both admit he wasn't clear about it?!

Your original posting was clear to me; I understood that you mistyped. Heaven
knows I do that at times. Your namecalling is completely uncalled-for.

It is possible to hold discussions in this group without resorting to personal
attacks and namecalling; Brian Sturgill and I manage to do it on a regular
basis. Why don't you try posting without being deliberately offensive?
-- 
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.
  "All [Windows] NT has is a lot of journalists fooled." -- Brian Button
From: 5692330@mcimail.com  (Robert Gammon)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.1 specifications, release date.
Nntp-Software: PC/TCP NNTP
Organization: Texas Instruments Materials and Controls Group
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:25:40 GMT

In article <OLAVT.92Dec15100742@ulrik.uio.no> olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund) writes:

 >> In article <3500@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:
 >> 
 >>    OS/2 2.1 will be released end february, begin march 1993.
 >> 
 >> Why is the release date slipping until feb/march '93? Not long ago we
 >> were told that the new version would be released before Christmas,
 >> then it was said jaunaray, and now you say feb/march '93?
 >> 
 >> Olav Torvund
 >> University of Oslo
 >> Norway
 >> Olavt@jus.uio.no
 >> 

I can think of one reason.  Both Nico and Olav may have to wait until
February/March to get their national language versions.  U.S. (and maybe
others who can tolerate the U.S. English version) may still be on track for
late December / early January availability.

--
Regards,
Robert Gammon
(713)-274-3299       (voice)
(713)-274-2324       (fax)

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy