HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 09:29:30 GMT

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>In article <1992Dec31.224255.27090@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>> In article <1992Dec29.194318.27886@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>>> >
>>> >And if the fact that DRDOS's emulation is imperfect because of
>>> >information held back by Mircrosoft?
>>> >
>>> 
>>>     Oh, this is rich.  The only way that DR-DOS could get perfect
>>> MS-DOS emulation is if they had the source code.  
>>
>>Really? And presumably, by the same argument, the only way an AMD386
>>could provide perfect emulation of an Intel 386 is if AMD had access
>>to the original Intel drawings?

>     Yes!  That's exactly my point.  They can get close, but they
>aren't going to be 100% the same as Intel unless, well, they are
>100% the same.

Wrong sir. If they stick to the architectural design, it doesn't matter
what they use to implement it. They could just stick it in a
ROM or PLA, as long as it meets the architectural specs., it will
fuction exactly the same as the other product.

Erik
-- 
Erik van Linstee   |   Delft University of Technology   |   I'll be back ... 
----
   We are god, 'cause only we can create the idea of his existence
   in our holy brains...  (Yello)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 23:14:30 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Dec25.180324.15834@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
> 
> Let me see now. Having OS/2 installed on a 6 megger and then
> adjusting the memory settings of the 16 meg system would
> result in the exact same setup right? (If you think, wrong,
> quit reading, this is meant for those who understand)
> In other words, OS/2 becomes instable if you change your
> cache settings? I find that highly unlikely, and if indeed this
> would be the case, it shows poor programming. However,
> I see no reason for it to be so, since, the same effect would be
> gotten when the system becomes low on memory for other reasons,
> like too many jobs. Response time does go down (hence the
> poorly) but it does not affect stability. Stability is not a
> function of memory available, so the system is most likely to
> remain as stable or unstable as it was before the memory change.
> I am sure this is easy enough to understand.
> 
> Erik

Hi Erik. I guess our friend Yamanari doesn't know that under OS/2 any cache
setting higher than 2048K is ignored......
 
Steve

-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
+64 4 478 4714                          | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 22:03:55 GMT

In article <1i3uh5INN55b@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>In article <29DEC199209332560@moose.cccs.umn.edu> rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu writes:
>>FWIW, the rumor is that BG went ballistic when he found out that the
>>applications group was using undocumented calls.  Not because they got caught;
>>but rather, because the application will quit working if that specific function
>>is removed from the next Windows release.  In effect, the applications group
>>is imposing standards on the OS group, i.e. "Remember that incredibly ugly
>>kludge you had to make to get version x.x out the door?  Well it will now haunt
>>you for life because some clown in apps decided to cut a corner".
>
>Supposedly, Apple had to put a lot of hacks in Multifinder to recognize certain
>Microsoft applications and do ungodly things to make sure that they would
>work because MS applications programmers violated a lot of rules.
>
>I wonder if any of the applications people doing Windows stuff at MS were
>the same as the people who did their Macintosh stuff?
>

  In this vein, an interesting comment appeared in the new Windows Sources
magazine on P. 192 (lower box) within a review of Windows for Workgroups,
commenting on the MAPI standard that WFWG uses.

  Quoted without permission:

  "An interesting aside to all of this is how shocked we were to find that
Excel 4.0 was a MAPI-compliant application. Excel was released around the same
time as Windows 3.0, and several months before Mail 3.0. What this says for
Microsoft's so-called Chinese wall between divisions is anybody's guess.
But we wouldn't be surprised if the FTC took interest in this latest example
of intercommunication between systems and applications divisions at Microsoft."

  Personally, I don't recall Excel 4.0 as being THAT old (back to Win 3.0).
Does anyone remember the exact release date and when the MAPI standard was
first publicly proposed/released ?


-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: francis@ese.ogi.edu (Francis Moraes)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Date: 31 Dec 92 07:55:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.47830
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute - Department of Env. Science and Eng.

helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

[mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:]
]] And try refusing Microsoft's kind offer as a small systems reseller
]] and you'll be out of business.  Gee, no coersion there; you can play
]] their way, be big enough to hit back, or not play at all.
]
]If you want to sell McDonald's hamburgers you'll have to sign an agreement that
]you won't sell Wendy's frosties from the same place.  Is McDonald's using
]"force" or anticompetitive activities here to establish domination of the 
]fast food industry?  Please!!!!

Please yourself! I can't just _decide_ to sell McDonald's hamburgers.  Fast
food chains are all either franchises or company owned. This has _nothing_
to do with the issue at hand.

Francis Moraes
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: More advertising
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:01:44 GMT

In article <30DEC199218072507@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.181546.1151@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu 
>(Yamanari) writes...
>>In article <8230@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) 
>>	So we're agreed that using the word "all" is a lie, right?  So
>>	*pull the word*.
>
>Okay, we'll pull the word "all".  How's this sound as a replacement:
>
>	...with an operating system that runs more DOS programs than MS DOS 5,
>	more Windows programs than Windows 3.1, and all OS/2 programs.
>
>Is this better?
>

	Let me ask:  Is it everyones opinion that OS/2 is sucha bad
	product that it cannot stand on it's merits alone and that we
	have to buffer these merits with blatant lies?
 
	1) OS/2 does NOT run more DOS programs than DOS5.  If it does,
	I must be doing something wrong.  For instance, Autocad doesn't
	seem to run so well. Neither does Comanche:Maximum Overkill.

	2) OS/2 might run more Windows programs than 3.1 if you include 
	ancient programs and cheezy shareware, but I don't and neither
	do most customers.  I think it's a little dishonest to
	pretend that the ability to run ancient 2.x programs outweighs
	the ability to run currently released applications.  In fact,
	incompatibility with unupdated programs is almost *assumed*,
	while compatibility with all present releases -- at the
	very least -- is implied by the word "more".

	3) Some older 16 bit OS/2 programs broke under OS/2 2.0, or
	so I've heard.  I do not stand by this last statement, but I
	am almost certain it is true.

	*Why* is it necessary to lie?  If you're going to put a qualifier
	in there, put an HONEST one, like "most".  I prefer not confusing
	people and just omitting the qualifier altogether.




-- 
	Blaming society for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
	         ---  Boycott == censorship == cowardice  ---
	Do I even need to point out that my views do not represent
	those of my employer, institution or relations?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:27:24 GMT

In article <8243@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.153554.8759@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:

>>Interesting logic. Ever noticed the "Buy 1 XX, get 1 YY free" 
>>deals ? 
>
>Sure. Nearly all of them are short-duration, promotional offers. On the other
>hand, the "Windows royalty on every machine" pricing MS wants everyone to sign
>up for is the normal way for MS to do business.

Those who can afford long-term deals do, those who cannt - stop after
a short time. Apparantly, MS feels strong enough to be able to supply
its software for a cheap price for a long time. 

>-- 
>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.
> "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis

Dov

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How programs get DPMI memory (was Re: FCC (sic))
Date: 26 Dec 92 11:41:01 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering

richk@grebyn.com (Richard Krehbiel) writes:

>In article <1992Dec25.181732.15997@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:

>>   >How about the 640k limit and how to overcome it ? Need not the 
>>   >programmer know about extended/expanded memory, DPMI/VCPI interfaces ?
>>
>>   The 640k limit is of no concern. When you write an app. and you
>>   need memory, you request it and check if you got it. You do not

>Programmers must be painfully aware of the memory managers that serve
>them.  (Ask someone who programs Windows.)  With software standards
>like EMS, XMS, and DPMI, the memory the program gets comes from a
>place as foreign to his memory map as blocks from disk.  This means
>that, unless the program so instructs the memory manager, he may not
>be able to address that memory.  It's not automatic.

>>   No, a programmer needn't know about DPMI/VCPI interfaces. If he
>>   wants memory, he requests it, he does not generally care where it
>>   comes from. The DPMI/VCPI interface should be hidden from him,
>>   unless of course he is writing his own memory management, but
>>   I can't think of a reason why an application should need that.

>What DOS programming language or environment allows a program to wade
>about in EMS/XMS/DPMI in the same way as conventional memory, without
>any special knowledge or treatment?  Only high-level, interpreted
>languages, as far as I know.

Maybe I should elaborate. I know the use of EMS, XMS, DPMI or
else is not automatic, if you are working with a bare C or
Pascal or whatever compiler. Software engineering howev is
not about compilers, memory models, or even languages until you
get to the very last stage, the implementation. Once you are
there you get to meet all those nasty properties of the target
system. However, this happens every single time you get there.
It would therefore not only make sense but be advisable to
anticipate. Meaning, don't do the same thing over and over again.
Instead, get yourself a good library, or write one. Where memory
is concerned you would typically write a memory manager that initiates
the available memory and make it available through the regular
memory allocation mechanisms. Henceforth, the programmer is no 
longer bothered with the different memory sources.

Erik
-- 
Erik van Linstee   |   Delft University of Technology   |   I'll be back ... 
----
   We are god, 'cause only we can create the idea of his existence
   in our holy brains...  (Yello)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: des@inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd)
Subject: Re: Be more creative than the FTC!
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 10:41:24 GMT

Paul Penrod (furballs@sequent.com) wrote:
: >And Novell is looking beyond Windows.  In case you missed the Business
: >page from tomorrows Wall Street Journal, AT&T and Novell just announced
: >that they have signed a letter of intent for Novell to purchase
: >USL (UNIX Systems Laboratory).  I.e., if the deal goes through (they
: >have board of director approval, but need government and USL stockholders
: >to agree) Novell will own UNIX, lock, stock, and copyright.
: >

: Say it isn't so !!!

: Well, there goes the neighborhood...

'fraid it is true ... well almost ... novell are buying AT&Ts 75% share
of USL. of course the question is, why are AT&T selling? ... the
answer's simple ... people were complaining that one of the potential
players in the workstation market was controlling the operating system!
hence AT&T were selling before someone like the FTC investigated.

also FYI, the "office of fair trading", the UK equivalent to the FTC
(i think), is to investigate the commercial practices of MicroSoft(UK).
they've had complaints from pc retailers here which, i assume, are similar
to the US ones that you have to put MS-DOS on all machines sold to
get discounts on the software.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
david shepherd: des@inmos.co.uk                     tel: 0454-616616 x 625
                inmos ltd, 1000 aztec west, almondsbury, bristol, bs12 4sq
                1992: celebrate the quincentenary of columbus getting lost
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:14:19 GMT

In article <rhoward.724964340@matd> rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard) writes:
>bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:

>The problem is that I cannot call my local clone vendor and
>get a PC with DR-DOS installed.  Why?  Because MS has used
>their enormous market presence to, in effect, force that
>PC maker to install MS-DOS on *all* PCs they make.  Even
>if they don't send out my PC with MS-DOS on it, MS gets the
>licensing fee anyway.  So if I *really* want DR-DOS, it costs
>me money (to go and purchase it), and time (because I have to
>install it over MS-DOS).  DR-DOS had better be *damn* better for
>most people to bother with that....

That is because people dont bother with a new operating system
until they clearly see the advantage of purchasing it. So it
is PEOPLE, not MS who "do" the monopoly. 

Of course there is an advantage to the company who does things 
first. But they have to do it. MS did, others did not. Is not
it fair to compensate a company who did things before everybody 
else ? I think it is. Otherwise we would have stagnation

>Robert
>--
>| Robert L. Howard              |   Georgia Tech Research Institute     |
>| robert.howard@matd.gatech.edu |   MATD Laboratory                     |
>| (404) 528-7165                |   Atlanta, Georgia  30332             |
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>| "See, when the GOVERNMENT spends money, it creates jobs; whereas when |
>| the money is left in the hands of TAXPAYERS, God only knows what they |
>| do with it.  Bake it into pies, probably.  Anything to avoid creating |
>| jobs." -- Dave Barry                                                  |
Dov
From: rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 24 Dec 92 01:01:51 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute

moncrg@aix02.ecs.rpi.edu (Gregory Donald Moncreaff) writes:

>In article <1992Dec22.234828.0203999@locus.com> lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:
>>
>>Or perhaps, I already own DOS N.n, I have to pony up $50 for an upgrade
>>that these systems resellers get for $10, gee, I think I just got
>>gouged.  Again, I ain't happy with Microsoft.  Of course, it is far
>>cheaper for me to pirate it, but then I am allowing M$ to force me
>>to become a criminal.  I ain't happy with that state of affairs again.
>>
>its probably a lot cheaper for microsoft to ship 1000 copies to one
>location than 1 copie to each of a thousand locations, therefore its
>cheaper if you order lots of them. (ever heard of volume discounts??)

So in other words, when I go to Egghead I buy their only copy of
DOS, then they call Redmond directly and order *1* copy to replace
it?  Come-on, Egghead probably sells more DOS than many clone makers.

Why can't Egghead get it for $10 a copy and under-cut everyone
else by selling it for $20?  The point is that the $10 copies
go to capture a market, the $50 copies go to people that already
want it.  Sort of how drug pushers work as a matter of fact....

Robert
--
| Robert L. Howard              |   Georgia Tech Research Institute     |
| robert.howard@matd.gatech.edu |   MATD Laboratory                     |
| (404) 528-7165                |   Atlanta, Georgia  30332             |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "See, when the GOVERNMENT spends money, it creates jobs; whereas when |
| the money is left in the hands of TAXPAYERS, God only knows what they |
| do with it.  Bake it into pies, probably.  Anything to avoid creating |
| jobs." -- Dave Barry                                                  |
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Better File Management??
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 20:31:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.210300.11314@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.185639.29060@ultb.isc.rit.edu> jks4675@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
>> A suggestion for OS/2 2.1:
>> 
>> Perhaps a faster (PLEASE!!!) graphical interface for file manipulation
>> is in order. It seems that the PM is very slow for that kind of stuff,
>> even when no other tasks are active. 
>
>The file management in OS/2 2.1 beta has been speeded up. It is fastenough for
>me.....I don't know if it will be for you. The Extended Attributes slw things
>down a bit, but that is an OK trade-off in my book, for the benefits they
>bring to the system.


	I'd like to see a full-screen file-management program along the lines
	of TI's little 30k utility, "LFM" (laptop file manager?).  quick,
	efficient, flexible.  (Needs a move command, tho).  I'm sure someone
	could write one quickly.

	(In other words, I'd like to see IBM include a number of text-based
	utilities [yes, despite slow scrolling] with OS/2 and make them
	an option..)


>> A final suggestion, only because it's really neat.....
>> 
>> Sound support for PM system activities...ie, audio greeting on bootup,
>> etc.
>
>It won't be in 2.1.....but it is in the works...so I am told.


	I hope they make *sure* that is is an option and that the
	software to do it is optionally installed.  I consider this
	stuff a *total* waste under Windows... 


>Steve
>-- 
>Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
>Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
>+64 4 478 4714                          | looks like we may get a more  
>**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".


-- 
	Blaming society for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
	         ---  Boycott == censorship == cowardice  ---
	Do I even need to point out that my views do not represent
	those of my employer, institution or relations?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:00:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.031753.13773@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>In article <1992Dec27.171726.4660@grebyn.com> mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli) writes:
>> Unix machines.  I find Unix crashes to be *very* rare, even running in 8
>> or 12 megs on a PC. (and BTW, I have used SCO ODT 1.1 Unix SVR3.2 on a
>> 386/20 with 12megs of memory, and it performs quite well.  That's
>> running X windows, TCP/IP, and NFS too.  So if NT runs as poorly as
>> Steve describes in 8 megs, MS has their work cut out for them.)
>
>Hi Marc
> 
>It does and they sure do.....which was one of the points in my original
>post.....:-)
> 
>Steve
>
I'm willing to take your word for it.  Your configuration sounds fair to
me.  When I think about it, I think that Microsoft may have tried to
tackle too much at once with NT.  Just think about all the
subsystems/APIs that they are trying to include: DOS, 16-bit Windows,
Win32, Win32s, 16-bit OS/2, and POSIX.  Networking?  Both TCP/IP and
SPX/IPX, right?  File systems?  FAT, HPFS, and NTFS (keeping in mind
that NTFS has all the security data associated with files which the
other two don't-- that's got to be a pain in the rear, trying to enforce
file system security when there may be filesystems that don't support
the notion present).  Then on top of all that add the security they're
building in, new multi-threaded kernel, and the fact that this is the
first from-scratch OS that MS has written on its own.  Not to mention
the fact that they are concurrently trying to port it to MIPS and Alpha.
I imagine that they're pretty busy, and I would be extraordinarily
surprised if NT shipped in any usable form before fall '93.  Remember,
Unix is 23 years old, and it's still maturing in some ways.

In sum: point well taken.  Microsoft better get cracking.

-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:51:50 GMT

In <29DEC199212380407@moose.cccs.umn.edu> rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu (RICHARD HOFFBECK) writes:

>In article <8231@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>> In article <29DEC199210143369@moose.cccs.umn.edu> rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu writes:
>> >My impression was that the problem is that Windows doesn't impliment the entire
>> >DPMI standard, not that it doesn't conform to the standard.
>>  
>> Windows violates the DPMI standard in that, instead of running just the DPMI
>> client portion if another DPMI server is already running, it simply refuses to
>> run. You use either Windows' DPMI server or nothing.

>I'm missing something here.  I'm running the DPMI drivers from QuarterDeck and
>Windows with no problem, or is QEMM like 386MAX and it detects when Windows is
>run and gets out of the way?

Exactly right.  QEMM simply shuts down when Windows starts, insofar as
providing DPMI services goes.  I'm sure it says this somewhere in the
manual. 

-- 
"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.os2.advocacy