HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: varmint@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Samir Varma)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 is the best?
Date: 7 Jan 93 03:19:55 GMT
Organization: Center for Particle Physics, University of Texas

In article <1993Jan6.154620.29542@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>
>	IMHO, "seamless windows" was a big mistake.  I have yet to
>	see it run with any speed, even when it works.  Rather than


Gotta disagree with you here.  I'm running a bunch of stuff seamless on a 
386/25 with a crappy Trident 8800 video chip (albeit in VGA mode) and it's 
no slower on my system than win3.1 was.  (I'm running the old 2.0.1 beta).

It doesn't seem to make any difference what I'm doing in the background.
I was recently running Mathematica, JOVE, GNU Emacs, and PCPlus for Windows
in the background while using Quicken in the foreground--both seamless.
It sure worked better than under windows and the screen redraws weren't
particularly slow either.

Samir Varma
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: OS/2 in 4 megs.  Useable.
Date: 6 Jan 93 10:55:06 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

	Everyone seems to say that OS/2 is simply unusable in under
8 megs ram on the computer.  This is not the case.  If you want to use
OS/2 2.0 on a 4 meg machine (which I have done many times) you simply
don't want to use the work place shell.  Its the workplace shell that
eats up so much memory that 4 meg systems are too slow.  

	If you have 4 megs, do the following:

	change in your config.sys the line where it says
run workplace=...pmshell.exe to cmd.exe.

	Next create a startup.cmd in your root directory.  If you
like text modes, then have it stay start /fs cmd.exe and you will
get a fullscreen OS/2 session.  If you want a graphical shell still,
get Norton Commander for OS/2.  It comes with a menu program and a fairly
slick file manager that takes up very little memory.  With this, you
can run OS/2 quite well and still run your DOS, Windows and OS/2 files.
This set up makes OS/2 run about as well as Windows 3.1 runs on a
386 with 2 megs of memory. (To compare).  4 megs with the Workplace shell
on is virtually useless.   Also, do not use the HPFS.

	8 Megs is still better of course but 4 megs is not useless if you
aren't afraid of modifying your config.sys

							-Brad






Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: cptully@med.unc.edu (Christopher P. Tully,Pathology,62699)
Subject: Is OS/2 2.1 avalible yet? 
Reply-To: cptully@med.unc.edu
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:08:42 GMT

I see a lot of subjects: * OS/2 2.1 *

Is OS/2 2.1 avalible to the general public yet, or just Beta testers?
Also a friend mentioned that he thought that 2.1 was avalible by ftp
somewhere, but he didn't know where.  So if it is avalible please let
me know (I already have 2.0).

Send replys by e-mail, and I will post a summary if I get enough
requests.

Thanks in advance
Chris

---
*********************************************************************
Christopher P. Tully				cptully@med.unc.edu
Univ. of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
CB# 7525					(919) 966-2699
Chapel Hill, NC 27599
*********************************************************************
I get paid for my opinions, but that doesn't mean that UNC or anybody
                     else agrees with them.
From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Best Hardware for OS2
Date: 12 Jan 1993 15:50:03 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuron.tamu.edu

In article <1993Jan12.030858.25284@athena.mit.edu> michael@amo.mit.edu (Michael Courtney) writes:
|
|	I am preparing to buy a 486DX2-66 system with 8 or 16 Meg RAM
|and a big hard disk, SVGA and the works.  I would like to have as 
|little difficulty as possible in running OS2 2.x.  I do not mind spending
|some time setting the system up and configuring everything properly, 
|but I want a system that will hardly ever (once a month at most) crash
|once I have it configured properly.  Is it likely that I can accomplish
|this on a non-IBM system such as Gateway 2000 or Zeos?  Is this even
|possible on the IBM PSValuepoint system?  How much of an advantage
|does IBM hardware have when running OS2?

Are you planning to run as part of a network or stand-alone?  What
software do you want to run?  Do you have a lot of particular Windows
or DOS software?

Exactly how important is speed?  Would a 486-33 do?  If so, I think
you could get an IBM valuepoint for <$2000.  With an XGA grapicics
adaptor, speed probably wouldn't be that great a consideration unless
you have some particular CPU intensive software.
   -- Bruce


--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
                              |  Scrupulous Lawyer
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 01:54:27 GMT

In article <wiegand.726166042@lido16>, wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand) writes:
|> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
|> 
|> >Ahhhh.  But what the anti-agreement people are saying is that they DON'T want
|> >MS-DOS installed.  If the MAJORITY of people thought that way, then Joe 
|> >Vendor doesn't have to buy into the agreement--and sell his systems for
|> >eight bucks cheaper than his competitors.  The problem is, that the MAJORITY
|> >of people WANT MS-DOS and Windows... which gives Microsoft the leverage it
|> >needs to "sell" their package with every computer.
|> 
|> That's just the point. The majority who want DOS gives Microsoft enough
|> leverage that they can also force DOS on the minority who don't want it.

*sigh* you can buy a computer w/o Microsoft windows if you want.  Nobody is
"forced" into buying Windows.

|> Maybe you think this is good, but I don't much like it.

Hey, and the majority who wanted Intel architecture CPU's "forced" that on
me too.
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: SGI-GL in Windows NT??
Date: 9 Jan 93 21:45:57 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

5692330@mcimail.com (Robert Gammon) writes:
>hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:
> >> (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
> >> >(Jay Maynard) writes:
> >> >>dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell) writes:
> >> >>>A guy I work with told me today the Microsoft has bought the rights to
> >> >>>include SGI-GL with Windows NT and will be including it in an upcoming
> >> >>>release!  This is quite an  advantage over OS/2 and brings NT to
> >> >>>workstation level, in my opinion.  If NT will have GL standard, I will
> >> >>>most likely be switching over from OS/2.
> >> >>
> >> >>OK...what is SGI-GL, and what's so great about it?
> >> 
> >> >SGI-GL is the Graphics-Library, Silicon Graphics is using on their work-
> >> >stations. I personally have no experience with it, but the people, that
> >> >are using it here on IRISes and INDIGOs are very satisfied.
> >>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> Thanks for making the point - it's the HARDWARE that SGI has that makes
> >> the software look nice. I shudder to think of all those polygons being
> >> massaged on a 486 with a (S)VGA, presuming that kind of config is even
> >> supported.

>I work in a segment of the semiconductor industry that sells chips to people
>like SGI.  The graphics accelerator used has the MIPs equivalent of about 10
>486s, and the MFLOPs equivalent of about 25 or more 486s.  The bar is raised
>every few months, once or twice a year.  Competition between the companies
>is FIERCE.  

Thanks for providing a ballpark for comparisons, but apparently Mr. Cogswell
has all the time in the world. For myself, having brought an SGI machine
to a crawl (4GX? Don't remember the model) doing molecular modeling, I 
suspect that I would not be happy with the performance of NT with SGI -GL
in software on a 486.
-- 
Tom Hatton
hatton@cgl.ucsf.edu
(415)-476-8693
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: thayne@unislc.uucp (Thayne Forbes)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Organization: HomeVax
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 06:00:27 GMT

Randall A Helzerman (helz@ecn.purdue.edu) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan2.225225.7080@gw.wmich.edu>, x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
: 
: |> 	Key word, voluntary.  PC manufacturers are pretty much forced to
: |> include DOS and windows with their comptuers or face paying much higher prices.
: |> Do you really think that Ms-DOS is cheaper by itself wholesale than Dr Dos?
: |> Dr Dos at wholesale costs about $29 to MS-DOs's $34 (for our company), however
: |> many customers want Windows.  But look out, Microsoft will give you a
: |> special deal on Windows if you put ms-Dos and Windows on EVERY machine you
: |> make.  
: 
: |> The result, you can't give the customer a choice of OS's like they
: |> should.  Who's going to pay an extra $40 for Dr. DOS when MS-DOs comes
: |> with the computer free?  This is wrong.
: 
: That's like saying that just because McDonalds gives their franchisess a
: discount on beef that the customer is forced into only buying McBurgers
: for lunch.  Not at all--you can go to Wendy's or the Colonel if you
: want something different, and you can go to Dell or to IBM if you want
: OS/2 preinstalled.  The computer consumer in our society has no lack of
: options.

Moreover, you are completely ignoring the license agreement for Dave's
Computer shop.  They are buying DOS for not very much, in lots of
15 (if I recall correctly).  Dave is perfectly free to put any OS on
any machine.  He delivered mine with no OS at all.  Now there are
hundreds if not thousands of Dave's out there, and most of them build
as good a computer as DELL, and many if not most provide the same
level of service.  (This is my second computer from Dave.  Well, yes,
he is my brother-in-law, so what?).  It has been said before, and
largely ignored.  MS strikes LOTS of very different deals with many
different companies.  For that matter, we (Unisys) are selling DOS
and Winders, and half a dozen MS products, and I am 99% sure we are
only paying for DOS copies that are installed.

-- 
Thayne Forbes
thayne@unislc.slc.unisys.com
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: SGI-GL in Windows NT??
Date: 11 Jan 93 06:33:51 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com (Peter Mayne) writes:
>In article <hatton.726615957@cgl.ucsf.edu>, hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:
>>Thanks for providing a ballpark for comparisons, but apparently Mr. Cogswell
>>has all the time in the world. For myself, having brought an SGI machine
>>to a crawl (4GX? Don't remember the model) doing molecular modeling, I 
>>suspect that I would not be happy with the performance of NT with SGI -GL
>>in software on a 486.

>I doubt that anyone would be particularly happy, but at least it's (or will be)
>there. (How about an Alpha, though? ;-))

>Other advocaters:

>Most people seem to be thinking "GL + VGA = Yuk". Please take into
>account the fact that noone in their right minds wants VGA or CGA or
>EGA any more. SVGA at a minimum, but in X years time, when OS/2 and NT
>run on multiple platforms, there's no way that anyone will be using
>SVGA by choice. Any graphics hardware is certainly not going to be
>crippled by the necessity of VGA backwards compatibility. SGI certainly
>don't use VGA to run GL, why should OS/2 or NT platforms?

That was my point - just having a graphics lib in software available
is not enough, you are going to need some serious video hardware to 
make it livable. Of course, by the time NT+1 arrives with the software,
some *very* amazing hardware should be available. After all those
years, there better be :-) :-)

>When IBM (or someone) puts 3D graphics on OS/2, will you deride it
>then, or will you suddenly decide that the time is right, and IBM will
>produce the appropriate video drivers one day, so it's worth waiting
>for?

Same applies; and anyone who throws it in an OS is going to be playing
catch-up with what is available *now*, not in the dim distant future
when this feature is actually *available*.

>(BTW, NT *is* version 2. Version 1 was called VMS 8-> 8->)

Good one! :-)

-- 
Tom Hatton
hatton@cgl.ucsf.edu
(415)-476-8693
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 05 Jan 93 21:33:21 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <8302@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1993Jan04.042526.11051@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>In article <8289@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>>OK...so either contribute some real numbers, or else admit that we're working
>>>with the best information we have.
>>    That "best information" is a fantasy.
>
>Prove it. Provide evidence.

    I'm contacting marketing and sales about it.  More to come.


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

    Huh?  Asking for evidence for an unfounded claim is "intellectually
dishonest"?  Should I just accept everything you say on faith?


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

    No, you're still not being compelled to buy DOS or Windows.  If
you don't want them that badly, you keep working your way down the
list until you find a system that doesn't include them.
    I'm really unsure why people can't see this...


>>>If MS uses undocumented calls, then the app developers get advance warning
>>>that the undocumented call they're using is going away, and they can hit the
>>>street the minute that the new version is out with an update that will work
>>>with the new version.
>>    Evidence, please.  Put up or shut up, Jay.
>
>Go straight to hell. I'm tired of posting what I see with my own eyes as
>effects of MS' actions, and getting told that I haven't posted evidence.

    You still haven't, by your own admission.


>/philipla@microsoft.com/h:j

     Oh joy... I made it into Jay's kill file...  I guess that's
a reasonable reaction - when you realize you can't support your
own arguments, put your fingers in your ears and shout until the
other side stops talking.

				-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.os2.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:16:51 GMT

In article <8328@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.014925.29433@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>>If they want to be in business selling Microsoft products which Microsoft
>>owns, they are going to have to do so on Microsoft terms.  
>
>Not if those terms are unfair and anticompetitive. This society has decided
>that such dealings are wrong. If you don't like that, you can either work to
>get the laws changed, or move to a place that doesn't care about it.
>
>>Nobody has a "right" to buy something at any price they want to!
>
>Nobody has a right to sell things at artificial terms that force competitors
>out of business, either, in this society.
>
>>Any society which doesn't respect the rights of ownership is doomed.  
>
>Any society that allows unlimited monopolization is similarly doomed.


Jay, there are alternatives to DOS and Windows.  IBM OS/2, Unix, Solaris,
DR-DOS, GEM... Microsoft hardly has a monopoly.  Sure, if you want
MS-DOS or Windows, you gotta go to Microsoft... much as if you want
Coke (and Pepsi won't do) you gotta go to Coca Cola Company.

>-- 
>Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
>jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
>      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
>              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of all Fears_


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:59:20 GMT

In article <8313@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

|> 
|> >|> If they work out, I switch;
|> >If enough of Clones-R-US customers like OS/2, then Clones offers OS/2.
|> 
|> Here's the catch: they still pay MS for the machines which have OS/2 on them.

Just for the initial "trial case" of OS/2.  IF IBM cuts them a good enough
deal for OS/2, or if their customers buy enough OS/2, it will be worth their
while to sign up a nonexclusive deal with Microsoft.

|> >|> if not, I go back to the case I have in stock from ACME.
|> >If not, Clones-R-us sticks with the agreements it has with Microsoft.
|> 
|> OK here.
|> 
|> >In conclusion, if a JIT agreement doesn't restrict a savy businessman from
|> >trying out new suppliers, than neither does the kind of agreements which
|> >Microsoft offers.
|> 
|> Nope...MS' agreement would be like me having to buy one screw from ACME for
|> every screw I buy from 2 Guys Garage, knowing that those screws would never
|> get used.

Talk about screwing the customers!  :-) Actually if the cheaper screws worked
they'd just go with 2 Guys Garage for the whole Cahuna and phase out the use of
ACME screws.  

|> Tried to buy a Gateway 2000, or a Zeos, without Windows and DOS lately? You're
|> paying for it regardless. That's hurting the consumer.

Inasmuch as I can't buy piecemeal and assemble a computer from parts without
an OS for as little as Gateway or Zeos can ship me an assembled one with
Windows for, I really can't complain about being hurt.
From: jmcging@access.digex.com (John McGing)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Interesting nugget
Date: 10 Jan 93 03:11:35 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt MD USA
Reply-To: jmcging@access.digex.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com
Keywords: os2 advocacy,microsoft,sipples

I thought this was simply an interesting nugget <g>


Newsgroups: news.lists
Subject: Top 25 News Submitters by Site by number of articles for the last 2 weeks
Date: 8 Jan 1993 23:32:31 -0500
Organization: UUNET Communications
         No. of      % of
Rank Articles Kbytes Total  Site

  16   561     848.2  0.2%  microsoft.COM
			      11% comp.os.os2.advocacy
			      6% alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
			      6% alt.politics.bush
			      6% alt.politics.clinton
			      6% alt.politics.homosexuality
			      6% alt.rush-limbaugh

  23   410     707.7  0.2%  ellis.UCHICAGO.EDU (University of Chicago Computing Organizations)
			      24% comp.os.os2.misc
			      14% comp.lang.icon
			      5% comp.os.os2.advocacy

No one at micorsoft posts to the windows groups?

JOhn



-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
jmcging@oss724.ssa.gov  or jmcging@access.digex.com    
SSA, your FICA tax people    woodb!oss2cc!jmcging@soaf1  
J.MCGING on GEnie  70142,1357 on Compuserve
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 6 Jan 1993 15:31:23 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan5.191424.23994@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>Okay, Jay.  Let's say that there are two companies A and B.  A sells 
>computers with DOS+Windows for $1000.  B sells computers without DOS+Windows
>for $1005.  Who would you buy from?

B. It's worth $5 to me to know that none of my money is going to MS for
products I neither need nor want.

>Remember A can sell for cheaper because his sales are much higher and his
>distributors therefore give him better prices for hardware... and B is slow
>in realizing that most of his customers want DOS+Windows--and he charges
>full-price for it (so those customers go to A who has a better deal
>for such a system).

Why are A's sales necessarily "much higher" than B's? There are lots of
variables that your analysis leaves out.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of All Fears_
From: rommel@jonas.gold.sub.org (Kai Uwe Rommel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Does IBM have an Internet email address?
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:48:05 GMT
Organization: Private

In article <1993Jan05.161041.31200@watson.ibm.com> cnadler@vnet.ibm.com (Cliff Nadler) writes:
>In <C0Do0D.3Kn@news.cso.uiuc.edu> fippen@ux2.cso.uiuc.edu (J. Fippen) writes:
>>	I use os2 and love the program. If IBM had an email address, I'd
>>tell them directly what I like, and don't like, about the program as I
>>use it each day. Can anyone help me?
>
>Append it here. These newsgroups are shadowed inside IBM, and most good ideas
>are passed along to development (especially if we want them ourselves <g>).
>
>If you don't want to post it, sent me a note with the details, and I will put
>it out on an internal conference.
>
>Cliff Nadler
>IBM Federal Systems Company

Unfortunately, we often don't get feedback here about bug reports and
feature suggestions ...

Ob. feature suggestions:

- add a check mark "start maximized" next to "start minimized" on the
  session page of program reference objects

- while one can make the most often used view of an WPS object the
  default view for activation by double click, it would be VERY fine
  to always be able to open the settings of an object by double
  clicking on the object while holding down the ALT key, similar to
  the way the program properties box can be opened in Windows 3.1
  program manager icons

- move all WPS config info (object information) out of os2sys.ini into
  a separate os2wps.ini which could then (together with the desktop
  directory tree) be replicated over a network to keep a number of
  machines with exactly the same desktop or to more easily keep a
  customized desktop when replacing the installed OS/2 by a newer
  version

Kai Uwe Rommel

--
/* Kai Uwe Rommel                                      Muenchen, Germany *
 * rommel@jonas.gold.sub.org                       Phone +49 89 723 4101 *
 * rommel@informatik.tu-muenchen.de                  Fax +49 89 723 7889 */

DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt
handler, and always will be.                -Russell Williams
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mmannan@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Mohammed Mannan)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 03:45:15 GMT


Something similar happened to me, when installing MS Access on my OS/2
machine, Access replaced few dlls. Now OS/2 goes crazy when I try to
run the MS Access program, nothing short of a reboot will bring 
everything back to normal.

By the way, MS Access installation program knew where the windows
support files were located and I believe, also aware of OS/2.

Thank you,

M. Mannan