HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: xerox@cs.vu.nl (J. A. Durieux)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: program manager lacks!
Date: 30 Aug 92 19:22:47 GMT
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam

In article <1992Aug27.180950.165@indyvax.iupui.edu> jmmadiso@indyvax.iupui.edu writes:
>what's up with the prog manager... why can't you perform file
>operations from there?

I am not exactly a fan of Windows, but this is one of their goot things
according to me: separating functional from structural organisation.
Of course their prog manager should have arbitrarily deep group structures
to make this really nice, but who knows, one day..


In article <1992Aug28.093815.3354@cs.hw.ac.uk> neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite) writes:
>This twin way of working is one of my mayor gripes about Windows. It
>is a very crap way of going about things and helps keep data files hidden
>away from applications. 

Well, one has to set up the working directory, and that should be done
automatically (actually, when an application is dragged from the file
manager into the program manager this *is* done automatically).
Apart from that, data hiding is a *good* thing.

>On the other side of the fence on the Mac, the file *is* the application
>or data double-click and run.

This works in the file manager.  Now if the file manager had an option to
show icons instead of file names..  For data files, the extension
association must be set for this to work.

>P.S. Take a look in your /windows directory. What a disgusting mess, no wonder
>     windows is such a nightmare to run.

My /windows directory is quite clean, but then I moved everything to its
own directory (.wri files to /windows/doc, .wav files to
/media/sounds/waves, application to their own directories, etc.  I am an
organisation fanatic..).
And then, I have never heard that a full directory hinders the running of
programs.  Is that the case on the Mac?
From: sammy@anagld.analytics.com (Sam Blackburn)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: program manager lacks!
Date: 30 Aug 92 16:18:26 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Computer Sciences Corporation - Systems Engineering Division

f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:

>Dude, hardware paves the way for software.  Thanks to IBM open-system
>architecture, the door has been long since open to a free market of price
>competition, hardware advances (386 and 486), and a software explosion
>that Mac bigots can't even comprehend.

True!  IBMers can shop around for the best price for a comparable system
where Apple wants to control both hardware and software prices.  This is one
big reason we can't use Apples.  Apple has discouraged people cloning their
hardware.

>The best part about the "window wars" on
>PC-compatible systems is that neither IBM or MS are sitting on their
>asses and assuming (like Apple) that everyone will have to buy what
>they're giving them.  They're *COMPETING*.

Apple is to hardware what Lotus WAS to spreadsheets.  Put out something decent
then sue anyone that comes close.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: richk@grebyn.com (Richard Krehbiel)
Subject: CD-ROMs: thoughts
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 02:11:48 GMT


The discussion of CD-ROMs (mislabelled Re: Some more misconceptions
regarding OS/2 and NT) has been the only topic of conversation on
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy for the last week.  So (as if you'd care)
here are my thoughts on CD-ROMs...

I think I understand the benefits of CD-ROMs for software publishers.
They are cheap to mass produce, certainly compared to the bevy of
floppies they replace.  They can't be copied; at least, you can't copy
a CD-ROM onto a CD-ROM, or for that matter, onto any single-volume
random-access removable media.

I can't see CD-ROM's benefit for most users.  Those with a need for
CD-ROM likely have gotten one by now.  CD-ROM isn't really fast enough
for multimedia, yet many users perceive that this is the CD-ROM's
purpose.

My own speculation: Microsoft needed to distribute NT widely and
cheaply.  They needed to do this to make NT seem "available", to draw
the attention of those who would otherwise be persuing that other
32-bit OS.  They simply chose the cheapest means.  Now, if you're a
developer of "mass-market" applications, then you're exactly the
developer Microsoft is interested in courting, and the cost of the
CD-ROM drive won't be a hindrance to you.  Otherwise your efforts will
not likely be a factor in NT's success either way, and any difficulty
you have with the distribution media is not a problem for MS.
-- 
Richard Krehbiel                                 richk@grebyn.com
OS/2 2.0 will do for me until AmigaDOS for the 386 comes along...
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (was: Re: Some more misconceptions...)
Date: 03 Sep 92 17:50:39 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: na

In article <92246.153543ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> Andrew T. Robinson <ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:
>No one asked, but here are my opinions of Microsoft:
>
>Microsoft is basically a corporate-sized ego with marketing muscle.  The
>debacle between IBM and MS with OS/2 was as far as I've ever been able to
>tell entirely an outgrowth of MS' greed, and not because there were
>technical issues that couldn't be resolved with stodgy old IBM.

     Please show evidence to support this claim.

					-Phil

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:15:03 GMT

In <1992Aug20.191505.16959@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

>In article <1992Aug20.185825.16102@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>
>>>This isn't an upgrade to a newer technology, and it is NOT cheaper for
>>>me.  It might be much more convenient for YOU, but that's Microsoft's
>>>problem, not mine.  I CANNOT WRITE TO A CD-ROM.  THEREFORE, THERE IS
>>>NO REAL REASON TO BUY ONE EXCEPT FOR ARROGANT VENDORS WHO SEEM TO
>>>THINK THEY CAN FORCE THEM ON PEOPLE.
>>
>>     Please explain to me how anyone is forcing you to buy a CD-ROM.
>>Try not to use any gratuitous capital letters or exclamation
>>points.
>>
>>					-Phil
>>

>Bet this guy was pissed off when they invented the Automobile,
>'cause he couldn't use his horse and carrage on the road anymore.

Microsoft:  Ya gotta love 'em -- cuz if you don't, they'll GET you.
Is the corporate attitude I have a problem with evident yet?  Pete is
making a GREAT example.  Gee, where's Gordon Letwin when you need him?
:-)


-- 
"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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel)
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:25:28 GMT
X-Posted-From: connection.prospect.com
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>
>>      I would agree that shipping on tape could be a viable
>>alternative.  However, I don't know much about tape drives in
>>general - is there a standard format?
>
>Several, in fact.  Hell, if you're going to dictate, DICTATE.  Send
>one floppy with device drivers for various types of tapes and the
>install program to read the tape on it.  Then format doesn't matter.
>

Really?  Tell me then, Fred, what kind of tape should Microsoft put inside
the shrink-wrapped box?  All of them?  One of them?  If the former, good luck
carrying the box home, to say nothing of paying for it.  If the latter, good
luck going to a store and finding the one you need.

This whole discussion is dumb, Fred.  What you don't realize is that by
saving themselves money, Microsoft saves their customers money.  If the
NT SDK were distributed on diskettes and paper, it would cost more than the
combined price of the CD and the drive.

>
>[This is the way UNIX typically does it.]
>

PC UNIX or workstation UNIX?  PC UNIX is normally distributed on floppy
diskettes or QIC-150 SCSI tapes only, so they also "dictate your hardware
priorities".  Workstation UNIX doesn't sell through retail channels, and each
workstation vendor typically has a single tape standard to which they adhere,
again "dictating your hardware priorities".  In the PC world, there are just
too many different tape standards.

>
>Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
>
--
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
| Jerry J. Shekhel  | Molecular Simulations | Time just fades the pages      |
| Drummers do it... | Inc.  Waltham, MA USA | in my book of memories.        |
|    ... In rhythm! |     (617) 890-2888    |              -- Guns N' Roses  |
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
|           ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry             |
|                            jerry@polygen.com                               |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy Newman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows == OS
Date: 31 Aug 92 01:46:20 GMT
Organization: Canon Information Systems Research Australia

vscarafi@eccdb1.pms.ford.com (Vincent F. Scarafino) writes:
>A good operating system *does not permit this*.

A good operating system *does* permit it but doesn't *require* it.
-- 
Andy Newman (andy@research.canon.oz.au)		"int - God's own type"
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:08:51 GMT

In <1992Aug20.185825.16102@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>In article <1992Aug18.162641.13575@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>
>>Well, my first computer HAD floppies, but let's look at that assertion
>>a minute.  By switching from tape to floppy, I got faster load times,
>>random access reads/writes, etc.  Now, what do I get from having a
>>CD-ROM that might be useful to me?  The ability to load the Windows/NT
>>SDK.  That's it.  It's not worth buying a CD-ROM drive for.

>     Well, you'd also get the ability to use all the other software
>that will be distributed on CD in the future.  Plus, you can use
>it to do multimedia stuff, you can use it to get colossally large
>shareware libraries, and you can use it to play the latest Smashing
>Pumpkins album.

Except I don't do any of that other stuff, so why should I spend money
for the ability to do it?

>>YOU CAN'T WRITE TO A FRIGGING CD-ROM!  Why is it that folks at
>>Microsoft don't seem to be able to understand that?  WHY WOULD I WANT
>>TO BUY A MASS STORAGE DEVICE THAT I CAN'T WRITE TO?

>     Apparently you don't.  Why do you insist that no one else
>would want to?  I can give you proof by counterexample - people are
>buying these devices.

I don't.  Why does Microsoft insist that any NT developer must own at
least one?

>>This isn't an upgrade to a newer technology, and it is NOT cheaper for
>>me.  It might be much more convenient for YOU, but that's Microsoft's
>>problem, not mine.  I CANNOT WRITE TO A CD-ROM.  THEREFORE, THERE IS
>>NO REAL REASON TO BUY ONE EXCEPT FOR ARROGANT VENDORS WHO SEEM TO
>>THINK THEY CAN FORCE THEM ON PEOPLE.

>     Please explain to me how anyone is forcing you to buy a CD-ROM.
>Try not to use any gratuitous capital letters or exclamation
>points.

There is the caveat of NT development in there.  So, take your
arrogant company and, well, you get the idea.  This is the way Old IBM
thought, too.  Look what happened to THEM.


-- 
"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.
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2034 comp.os.os2.advocacy:4530
From: sammy@anagld.analytics.com (Sam Blackburn)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Date: 26 Aug 92 12:29:26 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Distribution: na
Organization: Computer Sciences Corporation - Systems Engineering Division

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>Hey, I don't make 'business decisions' -- I'm just an engineer.  Other
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>people make the decisions; I just give 'em input.

That explains it.  engineer != developer
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:23:17 GMT

In <1992Aug19.225621.27070@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>In article <1992Aug19.190037.28937@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>
>>Silly me, and here all this time I always thought it was the
>>PURCHASERS who were supposed to be 'driving the market', not the
>>sellers.  As in, Microsoft would 'push' it when consumers were
>>demanding it, not Microsoft will push it on customers by offering them
>>no other alternatives, whether they want it or not.
>>

>Then don't buy the software from Microsoft (period).  If you don't like
>the SDK on CD-ROM, don't buy it.  If a lot of people don't buy it, 
>the "market" will notice--and so will Microsoft.  However, I don't think
>you'll find a whole lot of people who would want to buy a not-ready 
>version of NT for $150 (consider duplication costs, shipping costs,
>returns due to bad media, etc.).

Frankly, I have some difficulty understanding all the hype about the
whole thing in the first place.  I can't wait to see how much work
people get to go back and do over during their product development
cycle as Microsoft changes stuff under their feet as they add
functionality and find that changes to what they already have out
there are necessary.

>Put another way: if Microsoft charged $310.00 for the SDK (vice $70), but
>THREW IN a CD-ROM drive--would you "play"?  

Depends on what kind of drive it was.

>I personally find $69 for an
>SDK (including documentation(!) online) attractive.  

I might if it were a complete Beta, but it isn't.  Right now, I find
the idea of paying for what amounts to a pre-Alpha development
environment almost insulting.  I consider being required to buy new
hardware to read it to be even worse.

>If a developer doesn't
>feel like spending a one-time cost for a drive to read the disk, then he
>can wait until the "real" release, eh?

Or not buy it at all.  This is one of the many ways that Microsoft
loses themselves customers.  Perhaps one day they'll figure out that
THEY are in the business of selling US things, so THEY should be the
ones trying to please US.


-- 
"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: tguez@jade.tufts.edu (Name)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows == OS
Date: 31 Aug 92 04:14:34 GMT
	<BttrL9.Cpt@research.canon.oz.au>
Organization: Tufts University - Medford, MA

>   vscarafi@eccdb1.pms.ford.com (Vincent F. Scarafino) writes:
>   >A good operating system *does not permit this*.
Ha? Permit what?  
>
>   A good operating system *does* permit it but doesn't *require* it.
>   -- 
>   Andy Newman (andy@research.canon.oz.au)		"int - God's own type"
From: psyhtjs@unicorn.nott.ac.uk (T.Sneath)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS-DOS directory size limits (WAS: Re: program manager lacks!)
Date: 2 Sep 92 10:25:42 GMT
Organization: Cripps Computing Centre, University of Nottingham

In article <2524@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> kendall@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Stephen P Kendall) writes:
>_Microsoft MS-DOS 5.0 User's Guide and Reference_  (c) 1991 Microsoft
>	Corporation.  Page 103 (of my edition), chapter 5, in the section
>	entitled "The Directory Tree"
>
>	"You can continue to add directories at any level of the structure,
>	as long as there are no more than 512 files and directories in the
>	root directory of your hard disk. . .Other directories can hold as
>	many files and directories as needed.  However, MS-DOS runs more
>	slowly if there are more than 150 or so files and subdirectories
>	in one directory."
>
>In my experience, there is a noticable performance penalty when accessing
>a bloated directory.

Particularly if the directory is in your PATH, like the WINDOWS
subdirectory tends to be...

Regards,

Tim Sneath

*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
|        "Woke up in my clothes again this morning..." - Sting       |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   psyhtjs@uk.ac.nott.ccc.unicorn   |                               |
|         tjs@cs.nott.ac.uk          |       Jesus loves you!        |
|       tsneath@nyx.cs.du.edu        |                               |
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: st1g9@elroy.uh.edu (Lee Preimesberger)
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 01:02:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.181730.9942@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes...
# 
#So in other words, you should really have THREE CD-ROM drives, since
#much of this is reference material that you'll need to be referring to
#fairly constantly (no paper docs, remember?).  Either that, or you're
#going to have to load the stuff onto your hard drive and/or print it
#out on paper yourself.  

	Gosh.  I guess I need a few more disk drives, since I have more
than one diskette.  Hit the damned eject button and stick the next CD in!

#As for standardized, it doesn't really have to be.  Include one floppy
#with the software to read the files on the tape and device drivers for
#the common tapes.  But this is a moot point, anyway.

	Fred - there are more physically different tapes than you can shake
a stick at.  You can write device drivers until your fingertips are raw
and you won't be able to read a different tape type.

	You're quite welcome to hate CD-ROM, Microsoft, Bill Gate's hair,
Wayne Newton, or whatever makes your little heart thump.  From these
quite annoying posts you insist on deluging us with, you fail to convince
anyone of anything other than the fact you are one of the most fucking
ignorant creatures ever to rattle a keyboard.  Perhaps you should return
to *.edu-land for a refresher course - the real world seems to have done
little for you.

			  Lee Preimesberger
st1g9@jetson.uh.edu ----- Undergraduate Scum ----- University of Houston, USA
         All models over 18.  Copyright (C) 1992 LP Productions.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: vscarafi@eccdb1.pms.ford.com (Vincent F. Scarafino)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows == OS
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:31:20 GMT
Organization: Ford Motor Co.
Originator: news@pms001

This has been an interesting chain to read.  Not to useful, but very
interesting.  There have been numerous points made, many of which sparked
thoughts.  I thought the best way of responding was to put forth some ideas
*without* including any of the previous text to keep the volume down.

I believe a good operating system hides the particulars and peculiarities
of the hardware it runs on.  Instead, it provides an abstraction of the
hardware capabilities.  One of the biggest problems with IBM's MVS is that
it fails to do this.  Thus applications should not be allowed to directly
modify memory frames or disk sectors.  A good operating system *does not
permit this*.

I also believe that a good operating system is 95% *application*.  A
*trusted* application, a *protected* application, but an application
nonetheless.  Good operating systems allow their command processors to
be replaced.  (Whether they are line oriented or GUI isn't relevent.)

Someone asked if anyone knew of an operating system that didn't work
through API calls.  I know of three--MVS, GCOS, and DOS--that work 
through *interrupts*, not calls.  I happen to think that the interrupt
method is quite inferior, though popular.

There was also a question as to whether anyone knew of a *real* operating
system that left the hardware operational when it was exited.  I know of
at least one--Multics.

Sorry, but I couldn't resist the temptation to add to this madness.

Vince
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith)
Subject: Re: MS-DOS directory size limits (WAS: Re: program manager lacks!)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 01:19:21 GMT

YES, an over-full directory slows performance on the Mac.  

YES, an over-full directory slows performance on VAX/VMS.

YES, an over-full directory slows performance on MS/DOS.

In all cases the result is QUITE noticeable if there get to be, say,
several thousand files in a single directory.

The last time this happened to me was quite inadvertent.  Norton Desktop
for Windows has a misfeature called "SmartErase."  When it is engaged,
which is the default, any attempt to delete a file is diverted by Norton,
which, instead of deleting the file, moves it to a hidden directory named
"Trash" ("Trashcan" in version 2.0).  Although they've since fixed it so
that by default, files with a .TMP extension are NOT saved, originally the
default was to save ALL of them.

I was doing heavy development with Visual BASIC, which, of course, creates
and deletes bunches of .TMP files, maybe twenty per development cycle.
Norton, of course, was faithfully rescuing each of them and moving them
to the Trashcan directory.  After a few days, the disk was busily thrashing
continuously ALL the time and not much work was getting done.  When I
finally wised up to what was happening, there were more than 5,000 files
in the Trash directory!  (Only a few meg of space, but a HUGE number of
small files).

I don't know exactly what's happening in all of these cases, but my
(perhaps inaccurate) mental model is that the directories are actually
linked blocks, and the RAM buffer for each directory is a finite size,
so that everything's copacetic as long as the directory fits entirely into
one buffer, which it usually does, but quickly deteriorates once the
directory is bigger than the buffer.


-- 
Daniel P. B. Smith
dpbsmith@world.std.com