HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jorgense@irisa.fr (Finn Jorgensen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: MS to release PM32 Word & Excel? NOT
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:52:23 GMT
Organization: Irisa, Rennes(FR)

In article <8ekmcl_00WB2BQ7nlE@andrew.cmu.edu>, 
sl31+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen M. Lacy) writes:

> Think of this:  Soft PC for the Mac.  It runs, lets say, WordPerfect. 
> Gee, there's no reason to __EVER__ port WordPerfect to the Mac because
> it runs just fine under Soft PC.  NOT!  Get a grip on reality.  OS/2 is
> EMULATING (in its own way) windows, thats why its slow, and thats why
> people will write OS/2 apps.  This is not even getting close to all the
> advantages of an OS/2 program to a Windows program.  

First of all, why are you so agressive ? Please calm down, even if
you believe that yo're brighter than all those "stupid programmers"
that you mention in your previous post.

You cannot compare a Mac emulating a PC with OS/2 emulating Win3.
We're not talking about the same level of emulation.
The Mac has to emulate Intel machine code. Evidently, each Intel 
instruction has to be "executed" by several Motorola ones to be
certain that the emulation is perfect. I remember seeing an 8086 
emulating a Z80. The instruction INC HL had to be translated into
PUSHF, INC BX, POPF or some such because INC HL did not set flags
whereas INC BX on the 8086 does. Thus, the emulated Z80 on a 8MHz 
8086 did not run faster than a real Z80 at 4MHz.
OS/2 emulating Win3 runs on the same hardware so there is no 
fundamental reason that the emulation should be slower than the 
real thing, like a PC clone is not necessarily slower than a real 
Big Blue. It even seems that a major part of the OS-Win environment 
is code developed by MS that IBM can use, due to some agreement. 

You may be right that people will prefer native OS/2 applications
than Win3 code running under OS/2, but not for the reasons that you
mention.

Just a bit of TOTAL BULLSHIT from another "hell of a stupid programmer",
to paraphrase S. Lacy.... 
-- 
Finn Bo Jorgensen,  E-Mail : Finn.jorgensen@irisa.fr    Tel : 99 84 72 01
IFSIC, bureau TB122, Universite de Rennes
Campus de Beaulieu, 35042 RENNES CEDEX, FRANCE
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ddulay@jarthur.claremont.edu (Daniel Dulay)
Subject: Re: Review: OS/2 2.1 BETA.
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:10:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.175823.29169@colorado.edu> kurt@alumni.cs.colorado.edu (Kurt Olender) writes:
>C
>Sender: 
>Followup-To: 
>Distribution: 
>Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
>Keywords: 
>
>I would like to verify a problem I am having with the new
>OS/2 beta.  I was running Word for Win 2.0 and noticed that
>selection boxes didn't work!?  I am referring to the selection
>boxes with the down arrow that allow one to select a new font
>or style sheet, etc. and are in the tool bar at the top of the
>screen.
>
This is a known problem (at least on the Internet).

>This seemed weird, so also tried Excel 4.0 and had the same problem
>but not with every one.  Only one of the selection boxes in Excel
>wouldn't work (trying to change the font color, I believe).
>
Are you sure.  I've had no problems w/ Excel 4.0 so far, adn I just checked
the selection box you name and it worked fine.

>Anyway, anyone else notice this or possible verify before I send
>a message to IBM.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Greg
>
>P.S. this was in a Win 3.1 session.
>                   ^^^^^^^
Don't you mean a winos2 3.1 session.:)

Daniel Dulay
ddulay@jarthur.claremont.edu
From: CIVENBAH@mizzou1.missouri.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Date: 6 Oct 92 04:21:14 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri

In article <1992Oct5.171752.23317@njitgw.njit.edu>
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
 
>But MS was helping other companies debug their apps when porting from
>3.0 to 3.1.  They refused to help DR simply because that product was
>in direct competition with MS's mainstay: DOS.  Sounds a bit unfair to
>me.  If you help one company, you have to help any who ask.
 
Why?
From: Mike.Hobbs@f115.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Mike Hobbs)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: INTERESTING TIDBIT FROM S
Date: 2 Oct 92 03:59:00 GMT

Quoth Phil Lafornara unto All:

>In article <717742472.F00002@tdkt.kksys.com>
>Mike.Hobbs@f115.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Mike Hobbs) writes:
>>After recieving shock-therapy, Phil Lafornara mumbled the following to
>>All:

>     I initially took the above line to be a flame - I have since seen
>it on all of your posts, so it appears to be automatic.  Might I
>suggest that you would get a more positive response to your posts
>without it?

   Well there is an implied :-) after the header, and I assumed that no one
would actually take it as a personal insult.  As you can see, it has been
changed (actually removed from the queue).  I suppose a :-) should have been
there, but I've never been a fan of emoticons.


___
 * MR/2 1.3 NR * My best view from a Window was through OS/2.


 * Origin: (1:282/115)
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6799 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2315
From: jst50986@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jack S. Tan)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: NSTL compares OS/2 2.0 and Windows 3.1
Date: 3 Oct 92 22:18:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BvKGnn.F5r
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) writes:

>Brian Sturgill writes:

>> From a Microsoft press release:
>> NSTL Rates Windows 3.1 as "Platform of Choice"
>> 	National Software Testing Labs (NSTL) determined that
>> the Microsoft  Windows operating system version 3.1 is the
>> "Platform of Choice to Run Today's Applications" in a thorough

[stuff deleted]

>NSTL obviously didn't try to format a floppy disk while running more
>than one task at a time.  Oh that's right; NSTL was only interested
>in comparing what Real World users do with their computers, and we all
>know that nobody formats floppy disks in the background.

Of course not.  The Real World users are running Windows, so they can't format
[effectively] in the background!  ;-)

-- 

Jack Tan                                     Sattinger's Law:
j-tan2@uiuc.edu                     It works better if you plug it in.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Os/2ers whine again
Date: 05 Oct 92 09:47:38 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Oct4.105729.1435@leland.Stanford.EDU> yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU wrote:
> In article <1992Sep29.214541.11475@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> >
> >Okay, if OS is an operating system, then it is.  IF OS is OS/2, then it's not.
> >BTW, what links does OS/2 3.0(of then) have with OS/2 2.0(of now).  Besides
> >the name, of course.  2 different companies developed them.  The code
> >is different.  The markets are different.
> >
> OS/2 3.0, when Microsoft announced it at first, was to be the portable OS/2.
> At that point, Microsoft was still behind (or so it claimed) OS/2 2.0.  It
> presented OS/2 3.0 as a continuation of the OS/2 line, a new generation,
> with a NT kernel that will support OS/2, DOS and Unix.  If OS/2 3.0 has
> nothing whatsoever to do with OS/2 2.0, I wonder what Microsoft was trying
> to do when it was naming the baby.

Question.  In the above paragraph, do you mean MS OS/2 2.0, or IBM OS/2 2.0.
They are two different things.  What useful information are you trying
to get out of this discussion.  If you are trying to get any information
as to whether you should buy one or the other, then I'd suggest choosing
more relevant questions.  If you are trying to badmouth one company or the
other, you are still not choosing your questions correctly.  What
really do you want to know?

petesk@microsoft.com
 

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 09:22:59 GMT

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>In article <1992Sep28.232210.21615@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>>
>>He doesn't need evidence Phil.  A little logic will prove it.
>>
>>There are two sets of people.  Set A comprises those who want a
>>product badly enough to buy it.  Say that of set A, 75% of the
>>purchases are actually used.  Set B comprises those who don't
>>want to buy a product.  Obviously, usage in set A is much greater
>>than usage in set B, so we'll set B usage at 25%.  (These numbers
>>are completely arbitrary, and I use them only to clarify the point)

>     The flaw in your logic is the following:  You are taking as
>an axiom the idea that usage in set B will always be less that
>usage in set A.  I think you are probably correct - it would seem
>like common sense to me.  However, there aren't any figures to
>back up that assumption, which makes the rest of the (rather nice, 
>by the way) proof specious at best.

The proof for that axiom follows along the lines of the other proof.
Set Y is people who want to use the software.  Set Z is people who
don't want to use the software.  Set A is comprised entirely of people
from set Y (else why would they buy the software?).  Set B is a mix
of people from set Y and set Z.  So usage in set B is less than usage
in set A for the same reason in my previous proof.

And please don't tell me to prove that those who want to use the
software will use it more than those who don't want to use it.

All this did bring up a thought.  IBM had a 30 day money-back guarantee
for OS/2 2.0 for a few months.  Does anyone have any figures on how
many copies were returned?
-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu | think of something very clever 
uunet!jarthur!jokim         | to use as a disclaimer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Re: OS/2, my final analysis.
Organization: Philipps-University Marburg
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:51:39 GMT

|> >2. OS/2 is *almost* stable enough to run in a so-called mission critical
|> >   environment.  It *is* stable enough to run as a network server without
|> >   its buggy graphical interface.  I've just run into one too many, and
|> >   that was two months ago.
|> > 
|> 
|> I think its about time to explode the myth that OS/2 is ALMOST stable
|> enough to have mission critical applications run on it.
|>

I fully agree. If OS/2 is stable, I don't wanna know, how an unstable
OS will behave.
 
|> During development OS/2 crashed twice.

Twice what? Twice a day? Twice a week?

Many people report that they have no problems with OS/2, but most of
them use it only for multitasking DOS-Sessions.

We have several machines (IBM PS/2 90, 16Meg) and installed OS/2,
LAN-Server, TCP/IP, Database Manager, IBM C Set/2 and the PDK
(all original IBM Products)

I have almost no time for my development work, because I am busy to
install all those bugfixes and CSDs, e.g. for the C-Compiler there
is already CSD Level 14 for a 6 month old product and it still does
not work reliable.

This of course is not a bug, but a feature, because you don't have
to take care so much, what you are coding, since the behavior of
compilant is unpredictable anyway.

Although I have installed those bugfixes, the system is still
unstable, when you do real work on it. It usually crashes once or
twice a day and I had reformat the partition twice, since I am
using OS/2 2.0

All this happens, if you really use OS/2 and don't just do DOS-Sessions
with it. 

The screen I see most is "The system has stopped + register contents +
Contact your service representative". That's fun. I have phoned to
so many SEs at IBM, but none of them even knows, what a machine register
is or the difference between segments and selectors.

I am an experienced software developer and system maintainer for more
than 10 years now. I have been working on mainframes, worstations and
PCs, but I never had to work in such an unstable and buggy environment.

And to compare OS/2 2.0 with /NT. /NT is not even in beta now, but if
you don't use the WIN16 or DOS Subsystem, it does what you expect. It
never crashed and never garbled all data on my HPFS partition. And
last but not least, the C++ Compiler produces output, that really does,
what you coded in the source.

Christoph
-- 
Internet: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de
BITNET: HAMPE2@DMRHRZ11
Fido: 2:243/660
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: MS Word for OS/2 Beta in Israel!
Date: 01 Oct 92 19:07:34 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct1.011721.1299@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>
>The Following is from the OS2-Bitnet list
>============================================================================
>
>>Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 92 17:43:30 CDT
>>Reply-To:     "IBM OS/2 Unedited Discussion List" <OS2-L%FRORS12.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU>
>>Sender:       "IBM OS/2 Unedited Discussion List" <OS2-L%FRORS12.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU>
>>From:         "Scott A. Sibert" <ssibert@JSUVAX.JSU.EDU>
>>Subject:      M$ and os2
>>To:           Multiple Recipients of <OS2-L%FRORS12.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU>
>
>
>>I made a mistake in relating something I'd heard.
>
>>I do apologize.  I re-read the letter and my friend said the he'd read (in
>>InfoWorld?) that M$ was selling OS/2 in Australia and beta testing** a new
>>Word for Windows (for OS/2) in Israel.
>
>>(**This is the descrepancy.  I had originally stated that M$ was _selling_
>>the new WfW.  They appear to be _beta testing_ WfW.)
>
>>Can anybody confirm or deny this rumor?
>
>>SAS
>
>This is very interesting, If in fact Microslop is testing a new OS/2 version
>Word, It would indicate one of two things:

     I think there was probably a miscommunication somewhere.  If
whichever letter this person received actually said WfW, and he uses
that abbreviation in his own post, then he is not necessarily talking
about Word for Windows.


>1) Microsoft does not plan to Place NT, head to head with OS/2. and
>acknowledges, that OS/2 is being embraced my many people that want
>more than DOS/Windows can offer.

     Unlikely.


>2) NT is going to be Much Later than expected, and they are hedging their
>bets in the applications Market.

     Semi-true.  Windows NT won't ship by the end of the year, as
originally expected.  "Much later" seems a bit harsh - it'll be a
couple of months out.
     The hedging the bets part I believe to be false.

				-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: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Date: 1 Oct 92 16:26:06 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Oct1.215559.17678@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.170158.26323@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>Why does it have to be OS/2 and XXX???  I think it much more likely
>>that the high-end war (which in 2-3 years will become mainstream) will
>>be between NT, Solaris, and UnixWare (from Univel) (also possibly
>>NextStep).  OS/2 had a chance, but it appears that the main bug/fix +
>>Windows 3.1 will not be out till December.
>
>So?  Until NT ships, it will be further behind ANY deadline that you
>decide to drop in front of OS/2.  If OS/2 doesn't get stable before
>December, it isn't significant unless NT is released before that.  And
>it appears that it won't be.

Why does NT have to be release before it starts cutting in
on OS/2 sales.  My guess is that the first good beta release that
has all the magazines raving about it will stop OS/2 sells dead
in its tracks.

>
>You're very quick to write off IBM products due to missed deadlines,
>but can you (just for once) use the same rule to measure NT by?

OS/2 is not only an inferior product, but IBM has repeatedly proven
that it cannot market it.  Things can change but they had better do
so fast.

>
>Your use of a pre-release developer's kit is not going to change the
>market one bit.

You're saying that developers having the pre-release early won't
effect NT's market?  You should work for IBM... they didn't seem
to think that early availablity of apps was important either.

>
>>Yes but NT is far closer to the "ultimate OS" than OS/2 is.
>
>Yes, and it's far closer to requiring the "ultimate computer" as well.

No... it's requirements (in terms of the market it's aimed at) is
actually somewhat less than OS/2's requirements.
OS/2 with TCP/IP in 8 megs is a dog.  Presumably NT will actually
run well in 8 megs in it's final release.  This cannot be know yet,
but based on experience with the pre-beta, this looks like it will
bet the case... and NT give far more features in this same memory
usage.
The idea that NT will require substantially more resources than
OS/2 is a myth.  Even believing IBM's recommended memory figures
NT doesn't require more memory on a networked system -- even
in its pre-beta form.  As the pre-beta already has 95% or more
of NT's final functionality... it's a good bet that NT will need
less memory than OS/2 2.0 when configured for equivalent functionality.

>David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
University of Utah                             United We Stand
Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6714 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2285
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows/NT postponed to 2nd quarter 1993
Date: 2 Oct 92 08:31:41 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

In <92269.123715RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at (FLATSCHER Rony) writes:


>Bill Gates alledgedly announced on the "Agenda 93" conference that
>NT delays. He is quoted to have said that the first beta-release of
>NT will be in October (instead of September) and that he anticipates
>that a general available version of NT will be released during the
>"first quarter or early second quarter of 1993" (delayed from a
>December 92 release).

Every 2 months the release date is shifted 3 months. In 2000 the
program will be announced for 2004 :-)

But seriously, I hope MS makes the right choice and delivers
a solid NT no matter the date. IMHO the market is served best
by a strong OS/2 AND a strong NT. Preferably almost compatible
(which will happen I think since OS/2 will get Win32 (1Q93?) and
NT will become OS/2 native app compatible). That keeps the
prices low and the quality high. The "real" OS/2 fans will probably
like to see NT fail but I think it is also good for OS/2 if there
is a strong competitor.

>---rony

Nico E. de Vries
 _ _
 O O  USENET nevries@cc.ruu.nl This text reflects MY opinions, nothing else.
  o   This text is supplied 'AS IS', no waranties of any kind apply.
 \_/  Don't waste your time on complaining about my hopeless typostyle.

"I own so many clocks that I need 1 hour to set them all one hour back
 for Winter time. Nevertheless it does not cost me any time."
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.windows.advocacy,alt.politics.kibo
From: kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry)
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Organization: Two rooms filled with typography, in downtown Boston
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 04:53:04 GMT

In article <cc#pr6n.erb@netcom.com> erb@netcom.com (Elizabeth R. Brown) writes:
>
>Ebbot R. Bane	            | "Your Kung-Fu is no good!  Don't pick a fight
>Soft Images, Inc.           |  with me unless you want to get hurt kid!"
>San Jose, CA                | _NO KILL I_ |_| "I never said that!" - Kibo.

Hey!  I never said that!

							-- K.
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 27 Sep 92 23:16:52 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <wiegand.717450052@lido16>, wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand) wri
tes:
>TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:
>
>[Stuff deleted]
>
>>  The NT SDK was a very good idea in that applications will
>>*probably* be out when NT comes out (especially since they're giving
>>so much time to the developers :-)  ).  The fact that the NT SDK
>>is only out for development and not evaluation is pretty much
>>irrelevent though.  For instance, can I call MS and get a beta to
>>evaluate?
>
>[Stuff deleted]
>
>You are missing the point. No one gives out betas for the purpose of
>letting you evaluate the program. They give them out to shake out
>bugs before a real release. As such, real betas are only given to
>a small number of developers who will test the code, and report
>the bugs.

Balony.  Shaking out bugs is *one* reason why beta's are released.  The most
important reason at that.  Developers *do* give out beta's for evaluation
purposes.  Look in any magazine, they have all those rotten "sneak previews"
based on beta's.  They were given the copy by the developer in 90% of the
cases.  If beta's were only given to a small number of developers, then how do
you explain the NT and OS/2 beta's which can be had almost for the asking.
(And in os/2's case, that is all it takes)
>
>Microsoft probably has a beta program in progress, but we will never
>hear about it. It would be a small number of developers who are require
>to not disclose what they are doing.

Maybe, maybe not, but if you can't back that statement up, it doesn't
accomplish much does it?
>
>--
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
>motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net            uunet!motcid!wiegand
>Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
>

Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 5 Oct 1992 14:40:41 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Oct5.002541.6252@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>And yes I do have all that in writing from MS.
>Though I only find it necessary to get things in writing, when it comes
>from  IBM... I just installed CSD0014 of Workset/2... the bloody
>optimizer STILL has too man bugs to be used.  You can take your anti-MS
>attitude and stick it if the best you have to offer as an alternate is
>IBM!  They may give you your bug fixes free, but you sure as hell need
>them!
>(Sorry... it's just that C Set/2 has just wasted yet another 12 hour's work.)

I'd be willing to bet a steak dinner that Ian Ameline, or someone from his
shop, has _already_ emailed or spoken to Brian about this statement. Could the
same be said about Microsoft? How many bugs are there in MSC 6? How much did
you spend on bug fixes for that several-hundred-dollar package?...not to
mention the fact that you can't get a functioning upgrade to the latest
version if you're an OS/2 user...
-- 
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.
    Vote for a REAL change on 3 November: Throw out the check-bouncing,
  tax-and-spend Democrat Congress! (obviously, not an opinion of UTHSCH)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy