HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2)
Subject: Re: Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 09:36:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.034703.21181@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <Bz9w85.MrI@utdallas.edu> goyal@utdallas.edu (MOHIT K GOYAL) writes:

[...]



>>He also clearly stated that he was also using one of the more recent OS/2 2.1
>>betas...the copy from the November PDK. (which is not the most recent beta)
>
>Fine for you, someone that follows closely what version is where, but
>for someone that does not even know what a PDK is, this is far from adequate.

The Great TFS did not say "PDK", he said "Professional Developer's Kit":
:
:The following is a summary of results of the PC Magazine Winbench
:Version 2.51 benchmarking software when run under Windows 3.1 on
:DOS 5.02, Windows 3.1 NT (October public beta, CD-ROM), and OS/2 2.0x
:(November Professional Developer's Kit CD-ROM, the third public Win-OS/2
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:3.1 beta).
:



>>I'm sure this will sound familiar but...it would be nice if you would actually
>>take the time to *READ* a message before replying to it.
>
>I did read it, and while Tim did explain what the two OS version he was
>comparing were, he did so in a manner that is cryptic to those that
>don't live and breath this stuff.  I assure you there are plenty of
>people in comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy that have no idea what the November
>OS/2 PDK is.  The same holds true for people in
>comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32.

See the previous section.



>>TFS merely performed a benchmark using a copy of WinBench...probably the 
>>widely available v2.5, or the just released v3.1.
>
>And for example he failed to say what version.
>Further I have no idea how to get this benchmark.
>Enlightenment on both accounts would be appreciated.

First of all, the Great TFS *did* mention the version.  Get enlightened:
:
:The following is a summary of results of the PC Magazine Winbench
:Version 2.51 benchmarking software when run under Windows 3.1 on
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
:DOS 5.02, Windows 3.1 NT (October public beta, CD-ROM), and OS/2 2.0x
:(November Professional Developer's Kit CD-ROM, the third public Win-OS/2
:3.1 beta).
:

And if you did not know how to get this Windows benchmark, asking the
Great TFS politely is more effective than accusations.



>Brian

Mike Levis
"Brought to you by the letters O, and S, and by the number 2"
-- 
==== Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ====
::   ftp ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (128.123.35.151)    ::  .--.
::   for OS/2 software & information.  Get    :: (OS/2)
:::: the OS/2 FAQL   /pub/os2/all/info/faq :::::  ~--~
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: NT, OS/2, and Market
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:11:01 GMT

In article <2b269168@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org> George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org writes:
>BS>Do you have even the thinest shread of evidence that MS has ever
>tried
>BS>to convince ISV's not to develop for OS/2?
>
> They *took out* support for OS/2 in their MSC7 product. Support for
>OS/2 was *in* the beta of MSC7. It was *gone* from the release
>version.
>___
> * MR/2 1.32 NR * Regardless of what you may think, this is NOT a
>tagline.

Ok, so you don't buy/upgrade MSC7.  How does that force you not to
develop for OS/2?  Why is one company required to support another's
platform?  (I think it's shortsighted of MS to have done so, but that's
a far cry from claiming that they actively try to convince ISV's not to
develop for OS/2; I don't think most ISV's are stupid enough to fall for
a party line, they'll write what will sell).

jmalloy@hamilton.edu
From: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: \* IBM's OS/2 2.0 Scores Big \*
Date: 14 Dec 92 03:41:40 GMT
Reply-To: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Organization: Techn. Univ. Clausthal
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers

In <1992Dec11.222751.22817@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.084222.1405@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> admiral@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Steve C Liu) writes:
>>This is how the battle looks as I see it:
>>
>>      OS/2 2.0
>>
>>      32-bit kernel that runs on Intel processors
with 16-bit low-level device drivers

>>      Pre-emptive Multi-tasking
which is useless, since the system becomes unresponsive, when a PM app
doesn't give away CPU time due the single message queue. So this is cooperative
multitasking for PM apps. Don't ever forget that.

>>      Support for multithreading
Same as above

>>      Good crash protection
Hey, it gets better. If OS/2 has good crash protection, I don't wanna know,
what bad crash protection is. Probably a system with bad crash protection will
not boot.

>>      Object-Oriented file system
It has HPFS and FAT. If that is object oriented. CP/M also has an object
oriented file system. (drives are classes, directories are objects and the
files are the instances, come on stay serious)

>>      Runs on 386/20 w/4 megs RAM and uses 31 megs HD space
Better not try it with 4 Meg

>>      Available now
>>      Few *big commercial* apps
>>      No SMP support
>>      No built-in networking
>>      Does not have "creature comforts" like MM, SSVGA, etc.
>>      1.5 million copies shipped
>>      Price:$49-$139
>>
>>      Windows NT
>>
>>      32-bit Kernel that runs on Intel, MIPS R4000
>
>       You left out Alpha and Clipper.
And he left out, that porting to other platforms is an easy task.

[Some stuff deleted]
>
>Brian

Christoph
-------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------
Christoph H. Hochstaetter, Philipps-University Marburg | Universitaetsstr. 25
Internet: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de       | D-W-3550 Marburg
Bitnet  : HAMPE2 AT DMRHRZ11                           | Germany
Fido    : 2:243/660                                    | Phone +49-6421-28-7092
Fax     : +49-6421-28-4858                             |
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: abaker@jarthur.claremont.edu (The Evil One)
Subject: Re: Some miscellaneous questions about os/2 from early info
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:36:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.034326.1534@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU> jurlwin@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU (Jeff Urlwin) writes:
>In article <1gmd3rINNk8u@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> gupw@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Paul Wagland) writes:
>>gilem@aix.rpi.edu (Michael R. Gile) writes:
>>
>>>When I was cleaning my desk, I found some information about os/2 from
>>>back in may 1990 in MSJ.  Since it concerned os/2 2.0, I had some  
>>>questions regarding these facts to see if they were actually true when
>>>os/2 was released.
>>
>>>	1) it states that in os/2 2.0 the total code and data space available
>>>to an app is 512Kb, and that this restriction will be removed in later version.
>>>Is this really true? or is it only for console apps?  In my mind, this is 
>>>a *BIG* problem, reminds me of MSDOS.
>>
>>arrgghhhh 512 *Kb*  At least under DOS I get 640 Kb, does that mean DOS
>>is superiour??? (or that my spelling is attrocious????)
>>
>NO NO NO NO NO.  It may have been 512 MB...but not KB...  But I seriously
>doubt many of us have 512MB free on our swap drive :)

I think this is referring to RAM not swap space.  I read somewhere that 
OS/2 will support 64 Terabytes of Virtual memory and 2 or 4 Gig of RAM, 
512 meg of which is for applications.

Andrew Baker
abaker@jarthur.claremont.edu
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10669 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3330
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 20 Dec 92 21:53:47 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <BzKsJ2.Bwp@csulb.edu>, sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
|>   Now, now, try and calm down a little bit. I doubt that anything that
|> the FTC is contemplating will 'destroy' Microsoft.

One of the options that the FTC is considering is breaking Microsoft up into
several companies.  That's "destruction" in my book.

|> AT best, it will
|> just require them to try an play an little fair(er) with the other children.

I _still_ don't understand what isn't "fair" about what Microsoft is doing.
Why shouldn't Microsoft let its application programmers talk to its OS
programmers?  What is wrong with giving their own programmers an edge?

|> >How Bill Gates runs his business is nobody's business but Bill Gates's.
|> 
|>   Sorry to disappoint you, but this issue was settle quite a long time
|> ago when the robber barons ran roughshod over the economy and used
|> market power in anti-ethical, non-competitive ways.

I was wondering when someone was going to trot out a "robber baron" strawman.
Stick to the issue at hand.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: PC Magazine does an about face on OS/2
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:38:33 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <Bz0885.5yH@world.std.com> bsn@world.std.com (Brent S Noorda) writes:
> phostetl@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul G Hostetler) writes:
> 
> >The December 22nd issue of PC Magazine is quite a shocker. The columns by 
> >Michael J. Miller and Bill Machrone are suddenly extolling OS/2 and IBM's 
> >long term objectives. MS & NT are under heavy fire. The Machrone column states
> >"Windows NT is disappearing into the deepening gloom of development delays and
> >unavailability, while IBM is casting ever-longer shadows of competence, forward
> >thinking, and achievable goals." Incredible stuff. 
> 
> This issue of PC Magazine shocked me as well.  It's funny that the
> about-face came in the same issue as Zachman's final column.  Perhaps
> he resigne too soon--or not soon enough.

Maybe someone lifted the wool off PC Mags eyes and they saw the MS steamroller
bearing down on them.....
 
Alternatives.....companies can pay more for ads in MC Mag if thier products
aren't priced at commodity levels.......
 
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".
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2)
Subject: Stealth software (was Re: Why Windows NT will fail -----)
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 09:59:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.030525.31852@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
[...]


>That aside, Symantec may be doing just that, they just tend to be quiet about
>what they are developing.  They released Norton Commander for OS/2 without any
>hint that they were even working on such a beast.

Cool!  Stealth software!  I wonder how many companies are secretly
developing OS/2 apps and letting us know about it only when it is
released....  (I love pleasant surprises!!!)



>Stacy John Behrens

-- 
==== Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ====
::   ftp ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (128.123.35.151)    ::  .--.
::   for OS/2 software & information.  Get    :: (OS/2)
:::: the OS/2 FAQL   /pub/os2/all/info/faq :::::  ~--~
From: hoppie@kub.nl (Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers)
Subject: Re: Why 512MB limit in OS/2?
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 12:43:52 GMT
Organization: Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

In article <1992Dec17.064426.7111@ryn.mro4.dec.com>, pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com (Peter Mayne) writes:
|> 
|> Why does OS/2 have a limit of 512MB per application?
|> 
|> PJDM

In short: to allow for shared memory spaces and other system-related memory
maps. In the flat 32-bit model, you need to have some common virtual address space
to let processes communicate with eachother. Someone chose 512MB as an arbitrary
border. This number is not to be found anywhere in the system, except for the
memory allocation checkings, so they can elevate it at will. As soon as one
app pops up that exceeds this limit (and does not run out of swap space on a specific
machine), IBM will enlarge this number (I hope).


Jeroen

-- 
Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers, research engineer at     |  Stop connecting computers;
Infolab, Tilburg University, The Netherlands    |  start connecting people!
From: baustin@billapc.UUCP (Bill Austin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Upgrade CD-Rom installable version?
Keywords: OS/2, Install, CD-Rom
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 05:56:56 -0500
Organization: Ground Zero Group, Columbus, OH 43227

Is there an OS/2 2.x (RELEASE VERSION) on CD-Rom yet?
It would be kinda nice to be able to install (or re-install as the
case sometimes might be) from a CD-Rom instead of stacks of floppies.

If so, how much?  can it be bought at a discount for someone that
owns SEVERAL legit copies of OS/2 2.0 GA?  (15 FWIW)

Of course, A major JAB would be to say that I'd like to have a
CMS-Jumbo QIC-80 install tape instead.. but that would be too
big a hint for CMS drives to be supported directly.. 
[Yeah, I know.. CMS is supposed to be coming out with OS/2
software soon.. can't wait]

baustin
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 Application List 1/2
Date: 14 Dec 92 20:24:35 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.051119.6473@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>
>>11/23/92                Shipping OS/2 2.0 Applications                
>>                               (By Company)
>>******************************************************************************
>>
>>
>>Bitware, Software & Services        Nikon II                      61-6-2810175
>>Boffin Software                     BOFORM
>>Boffin Software                     Bufflo
>>Boffin Software                     Cobra
>>Boffin Software                     Dolittle
>                                     ^^^^^^^^
>Boy, does someone need help in choosing product names or what?  What
>Gaswat and HIPO, too?!  Is this some sort of joke padding to make the
>list look bigger than it really is?  And how many of these apps for for
>narrow vertical markets?

>>Boffin Software                     Gaswat
>>Boffin Software                     HIPO
>>Boffin Software                     Hiperflo
>>Boffin Software                     Hogo
>>Boffin Software                     Hornbil
>>Boffin Software                     Managery
>>Boffin Software                     Oilwat
>>Boffin Software                     Pakiderm

>Well, I suppose HIPO describes the size of OS/2 (or NT for that matter)
>and Pakiderm suggests OS/2 2.0's uh, um, celerity when running Windows
>Apps!

>Are we sure "Boffin Software" really exists?  I mean, their name and
>these products sound Monty Python (boy, there's a name they overlooked!)
>to me!

>>Boffin Software                     Pedriam
>>Boffin Software                     Quikie+
>>Boffin Software                     Reptild
>>Boffin Software                     Spidre
>>Boffin Software                     Trantula
>>Boffin Software                     VHLOG
>>Boffin Software                     Viperflo

As for comedy, keep your day job.
 
As for the naming system, it's every company's right to to go 
bankrupt, but the name of the product is usually the least of
their problems.
 

-- 
Tom Hatton
hatton@cgl.ucsf.edu
(415)-476-7986
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: aberno@ee.ubc.ca (Anthony Berno)
Subject: Re: Workers hate windoze, revolution at 11!  : -)
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:46:48 GMT

In article <Byyr7G.FFK@techbook.com> roc@techbook.com (Ron Christian) writes:
>In article <1992Dec2.091500.8975@usage.csd.unsw.OZ.AU> pendrith@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Mark Pendrith) writes:
>>actually, about this WYSIWYG thing.... Dennis Richie has been quoted as
>>saying "the problem with WYSIWYG is that often what you see is _ALL_ you get..."
>
>I like to put it a different way:  What you get is limited by what you
>can see.
>
>I've switched to a wizzy-wig interface (Frame Maker) simply because
>it's easier to do complex stuff, especially if you don't prepare
>docs every day.  (I don't remember half the troff stuff I used to know.)

>I can still usually spot documents created on the Mac, usually due
>to inappropriate (for business) selection of font size and type.
>There's still a lot of people out there preparing documents on
>inadequate screens, and what they get is limited by what the hardware
>lets them see.

The problem with WYSIWYG (and there are some yet, even with current
improvements) is that the language offered by the interface is still
too limited.

I just recently read an article where WYSIWYG interfaces were compared
to pidgin languages, and discussed the evolution of GUIs in relation to
the evolution of pidgins into creoles. Very interesting stuff, a lot of
food for thought.

There is no doubt that, for really huge documents, logical design
in a system like latex is completely superior to a purely WYSIWYG
system. However, graphical systems are evolving, to the point where
a fellow I know that is writing a book (and is a diehard TeX freak)
switched to Frame because he was "having too much trouble getting TeX
to do what he wanted". Graphical systems do not have to be purely
WYSIWYG - the concepts of "visible interface" and "limited capability"
are far from identical.

My prediction is that the evolution of GUI's into more sophisticated,
but nonetheless consistent and easy to learn, forms will spell the
(very welcome) death of horrid, hard to use, but currently 
indispensable language or CLI based systems such as TeX.

-Anthony
From: olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund)
Subject: Re: OS/2 and NT at Comdex
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
	<OLAVT.92Dec10113829@ulrik.uio.no>
	<1992Dec12.144341.18361@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:57:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.144341.18361@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU> jurlwin@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU (Jeff Urlwin) writes:
   >
   >   The question that remains is why?  I mean if OS/2 has shipped 1 million
   >   or 2 million or whatever numbers of copies, why haven't ISVs came around?
   >   My only guess is that OS/2 doesn't really have many desktop users, otherwise
   >   I cannot believe the market would be ignored.


I just happened to read a paper made by the Gartner Group, dated 31.
march 1992. There they said clearly that they would not recommend OS/2
deveolpment before OS/2 2.0 and IBM had proven themselves, and they
estimated that the piture would be clearer after 3 to 6 months.

I do not believe in all those consultancy companies that are putting
out estimates and prognosis. (If they were reliable, DOS would have
been dead and we would all be running OS/2 by now). But there might be
some companies that believe in what they are saying, or are applying
the same methods in their own planning. If you were taking the wait
and see attitude for a couple of months and postponed your decision
until let us say sept '92, then it is not difficult to understand why
a lot of companies not have their apps out yet.

I also think that if a company have devoted their resources to NT
development, they are now in a difficult situation. With the proven
success of OS/2 2.0, it must be tempting to develop for it, although
they would probably be late if they start now. Taking resources off
current NT projects is risky, there might still be a chance that NT
will be a success. If they change strategy now, they are running the
risk of loosing on both sides: They will be late for the OS/2 market,
and they might loose a potential NT market if they do not stick to the
NT strategy.

We will soon have a situation where if a company does not offer OS/2
applications, it will be a problem for that company and not for the
OS/2 users.

Olav Torvund
University of Oslo
Norway
Olavt@jus.uio.no
From: Joe@twistor.dialix.oz.au (Joe Katnic)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM Financial Statistics
Distribution: world
Date: 13 Dec 92 20:43:06 PST
Organization: Not an Organization

In article <1992Dec10.053241.4593@zooid.guild.org> kovarski@zooid.guild.org (Mark Kovarski) writes:
>
>Category            | Rank | 1991 Revenue | Corporation|
>--------------------+------+--------------+------------|
>Large-Scale Systems |  1   |    9,100.0   |   IBM      |
>Large-Scale Systems |  /   |       /      | Microsoft  |
>Workstations        |  2   |    2,455.3   |   IBM      |
>Workstations        |  /   |       /      | Microsoft  |
>Data Communications |  1   |    2,000.0   |   IBM      |
>Data Communications |  /   |       /      | Microsoft  |
>Midrange            |  1   |    5,870.0   |   IBM      |
>Midrange            |  /   |       /      | Microsoft  |
>Software            |  1   |   10,524.0   |   IBM      |
>Software            |  3   |    2,045.9   | Microsoft  |
>Services            |  3   |    2,018.0   |   IBM      |
>Services            |  /   |       /      | Microsoft  |

   Who Yuh Gunna Call ????????

>Personal Computers  |  1   |    8,505.0   |   IBM      |
>Personal Computers  |  /   |       /      |    /       |
>Peripherals         |  1   |   10,278.0   |   IBM      |
>Peripherals         |  /   |       /      |    /       |
>Maintenance         |  1   |    7,414.0   |   IBM      |
>Maintenance         |  /   |       /      |    /       |
>--------------------+------+--------------+------------+
>

--
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: jws@iastate.edu (James William Shoemaker)
Subject: Re: Mr Letwin and the Edsel
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:43:44 GMT

>>Perhaps a more interesting is: Will NT rival os/2 1.x in the heroic failure 
>>stakes? 
>>
>>There is reason to believe it just might. Consider the Edsel. What was its 
>>great flaw? Was it such a terrible car technically? No. It failed because 
>>all the pre-release hype ensured that no matter what the makers finally 
>>released, people were bound to be disappointed. And, if I recall correctly, 
>>this was exacerbated by a long, long delay between product announcement and 
>>product availability. Sound familiar? 
>>
>Well, actually, the Edsel was ugly.

	And the program Manager isn't?


				JWS
From: francis@ese.ogi.edu (Francis Moraes)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: 1992 in review.
Date: 17 Dec 92 04:19:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.47398
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute - Department of Env. Science and Eng.

kovarski@zooid.guild.org (Mark Kovarski) writes:

:The presentation goes  into a hard sell from  there. A slide indicates
:that OS/2  will not even  load on 24  percent of the  machines tested.
:Included  in this  list are  the names  of the  failed machines: "NCR,
:Northgate, AT&T, Gateway,  and Dell." No model numbers  or details are
:given on the slides or the memo,  but there seems to be an implication
:that no  machine from NCR, Northgate,  AT&T, Gateway, or Dell  can run
:OS/2. I was  just corresponding with a fellow  who was happily running
:OS/2 on a Gateway 386 machine, so I wonder about these assertions.

I have 3 different model DELL machines here, they all run OS/2 just fine.
Perhaps they are talking about DELL 286s. :)

francis
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy