HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith)
Subject: Re: Number of users etc.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 03:47:55 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Aug16.005715.29881@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.105922.13684@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>>In article <1992Aug13.235913.22546@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>> >And last but not least, is the number of NT betatesters (prerelease
>>> >users) known? 
>>> Microsoft just announced that 10,000 pre-release SDK's have been shipped.
>>
>>Do they send these to people who plan to use them? Or do they just pump them
>>out to a mailing list? I get all sorts of guff coming across my desk from
>>vendors trying to get me on board with respect to their products.....
>> 
>
>      You actually have to fork over money for the SDK - I'm not aware
>of anyone receiving copies for free, or being sent unsolicited copies. 
>I would estimate that a reasonable percentage of those SDK copies went
>to people who are either considering or committed to developing
>applications for NT.  And, of course, some of them went to people who
>just wanted to take a look.  But I would also venture to say that very,
>very few of those 10,000 could be described as "shelfware."
>
>					-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.

Phil,  Everybody who attended the NT conference here in S.F. got a copy
of NT SDK gratis. Yea you had to pay for the conference but the NT SDK
was free 

Martin Smith
msmith@netcom.com

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Distributed Systems (was: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift)
Date: 16 Aug 92 06:36:21 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Aug15.021516.28359@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Aug12.220152.20876@microsoft.com>  petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>>
>> Oh, wait, you wanted to use Just enough technology to make your point.
>>
>> Well, I'd like to use technology a little more advanced.  286 machines
>> are getting quite cheap these days.  They run windows.
>
>Well, I like to use technology a little more advanced - all *mine*
>run OS/2.  :-)

Mine run NT ;) 

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ekl@fics.uucp
Subject: Re: cset/2 orders
Organization: Kvam data as
Distribution: comp
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 00:44:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.2712.3556@dosgate> "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com> writes:
>In message <19929.2712.3464@dosgate>, "robert fielder" writes:
>
>RF>Now, if Canadians take the lead in developing OS/2 2.0 apps, this
>RF>might change......why not, we had the talent to write the compiler,
>RF>didn't we?   <grin>
>
>Now if only we can manage a C++ compiler...
>
>----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
>Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.com
>Software Consulting and Gator Pit | I'm a brain in a vat. What about you?
>----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
>---
>  SLMR 2.1a  It is a tribute to mankind that we allow our teenagers to
>--
>Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
>World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

While I do not *know* anything (this is .advocay, you know...) the IBM
team doing the compilers are the ones to turn out *the* C++ compiler.
Not my words, but those of Bjarne Stroustrup, on his last visit to Norway,
which was in June this year. This has to do with the fact that this 
compiler has best support for most features of the at&t cfront 3.0.

Given that this very team use common front ends for several compilers, 
a C++ compiler for os/2 2.0 may not be too far off -- if they want to.

Eirik
From: root@mordor.com (Chris Mauritz - SysGod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Re: superVGA  (and misc top-blowing)
Date: 14 Aug 92 05:39:17 GMT
Organization: Ritz International, Inc. - Import/Export Consultants

<1992Aug13.080540.17580@actrix.gen.nz> 
<1992Aug13.151742.18779@cam-orl.co.uk> 

From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz wrote:

>In article <1992Aug13.151742.18779@cam-orl.co.uk> thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug13.080540.17580@actrix.gen.nz>, Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>> |> You said it was shame that you had to buy the hardware to run an OS. I assume
>> |> you have a 486/50 with 16megs of RAM and a 200 meg hard drive sitting around
>> |> for NT.
>> 
>> As far as the *facts* are concerned, this is just plain wrong! You can run the
>> unoptimised NT SDK in less than this. The final release will be leaner on both
>> memory and disc.
>
>OK.....now lets see how this fits in with your comments below.......
>
>> 
>> As far as my opinions go, I reckon that you need at least the hardware you
>> describe above to run OS/2 2.0 properly. I certainly didn't run it for long on
>> my 8Meg 486/33, it was too slow compared to 3.1.

This is pure, unadulterated bullshit.  Granted, I have not run any pure
"performance benchmarks" on the two, but there is no question that OS/2
2.0 is operating faster on my system (486-33mhz 8mb RAM, 100mb disk, SVGA).
Windows 3.1 not only crashed a lot, but it really bogged down my system.
I am no power user, but the percieved speed increase was noticable even
to my girlfriend who knows nothing about computers and reacted purely to
the snappier redraws and increase in program quickness.

>> |> I saw NT today. *BOW WOW* If that's a desktop system, then MVS/XA is the
>> |> next step for the desktop!
>> 
>> Opinions vary. I deleted OS/2 2.0 from my system the day I saw NT running.

Good luck.  If you're willing to wait 12-18 months for it...

>You gave up a 32-bit OS for one promised for next year? How do you apps run on
>a promise?

I agree with Steve.  Why?


Cheers,

Chris

------
Christopher Mauritz                   | You ask me to enter
root@ritz.mordor.com                  | But then you make me crawl
root%ritz.mordor.com@spcvxa.spc.edu   | And I can't be holding on...
{backbone}!rutgers!spcvxb!ritz!root   | -U2-
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks! (was Re: Windows NT 'Alpha')
Date: 21 Aug 92 15:57:19 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Aug21.182505.8140@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.202829.28984@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>>Microsoft may well "rule", and get rude (er?), but as quick as they
>>do a coallition will form against them and things will start all over again.
>
>I can see the nect generation now:  GeoWorks/586, sponsored by the
>DR/Novell/Borland consortium taking over the market forcing Microsoft
>and IBM into bankrupcy....
>
>Naaah.

How about a Novell/Borland/AT&T (USL) based one... Basically Borland
putting all its products on Univel's OS?

Brian
From: rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS count, anyone?
Date: 13 Aug 92 14:40:51 GMT
Organization: San Jose State University - Math/CS Dept.

nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:

>In <1992Aug11.155156.1466@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:

>And many more.

>>"Coming soon" OS's:
>>    Solaris (Sun-OS Unix for the 386)

>I am in the impression this has already been released. Am I missing
>something here?

No.  The problem is in the original post.  Solaris is Sun's name for their
operating system and their Windowing system together (they actually list
3 parts, listing the clients for the Windowing system as a separate
entity).  At the time Sun decided to do this, they renamed their current
OS (4.1.x) with the windowing system (OpenWindows) as Solaris 1.0.  So
in that regard, Solaris has been out for a couple of years (<a year if
you count from the name change).  The big hoopla is over Solaris 2.0,
which is Sun's SunOS 5.0 with OpenWindow 3.0.  The SPARC version came out
a little over a month ago.  The Intel port will be coming out later this
year (maybe).

Note from above that Solaris is NOT the OS.  Solaris is the OS (SunOS)
with OpenWindows and the OpenWindows clients.  

>>    MS-Windows NT
>>    MS-DOS 6.0

>After MS-DOS 5.1 that is (the one with Stacker included etc which Microsoft
>promised a while ago).

>>    NeXT Step

>You refer to the 486 version?

>>   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
>>  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
>> ((|,)
>>  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.


>Nico E. de Vries

+-----------------------+-------------------------------------+
|   Richard M. Warner   |   Internet:  rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu  |
|                       | CompuServe:  71121,2257             |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------+
|  ** DISCLAIMER:  All opinions are strictly my own.  I work  |
|                  hard enough at forming them!               |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Number of users etc.
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:59:48 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

It is my understanding that the 1,000,000 copies officially shipped
by IBM is only a subset of the number of actual users. There are
also large cooperations making internal copies (site licence), upgrades
from OS/2 1.3 (about 1,300,000 ?), pirate users etc. Does anyone want
to make estimates of those figures and the place of the 1,000,000 in
it.

Also interesting is the same for Windows 3.1. In this case (an maybe in
the OS/2 case) subtractions for "shelfware" might be needed.

And last but not least, is the number of NT betatesters (prerelease
users) known? 

Nico E. de Vries
_ _
O O  USENET nevries@cc.ruu.nl  FIDO 2:281/708.1  COMPUSERVE "soon" ???? 
 o   This text reflects MY opinions, not that of my employer BITECH.      
\_/  This text is supplied 'AS IS', no waranties of any kind apply.      
     Don't waste your time on complaining about my hopeless typostyle.

"I would admit my mistakes, if I had any ..."  (Bumper Sticker)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:33:21 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <18AUG199210153123@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu>  cvadrtbc@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Srikanth Viswanathan) writes:
>
> What is IOPL?

Go to a command prompt and type:
   HELP IOPL

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: IBM wouldn't pull support for OS/2, would it?
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 03:28:16 GMT

John J. Allen writes:

> Hell Microsoft dropped Windows 1.0,2.x,and 3.0 and IBM dropped OS/2 1.3.
>
> All good things must come to en end or be superseded, but not before their
> time as MS did with OS/2.

I believe it's incorrect to say that IBM dropped OS/2 1.3.  You can still
buy it for their 286 machines, and they still support it.  Whether there
will be any more CSDs for it is unknown.  But the latest revision was
sufficiently robust that there is probably little need for another CSD.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: OS/2, DOS, NT (Speculative) -- My Opinions
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:03:54 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Aug10.202809.608@datascope.com> jld@datascope.com (Jay L. Davis) writes:
>
>Win 4 is what will be printed on a $79 upgrade form the next time
>Microsoft needs an influx of cash. Probably to make up for NT expenses.
>
>---Jay Davis

Oh, so win4 is like all other products from all other businesses in capitalist
countries.

I see.

petesk@microsoft.com
From: "robert fielder" <robert.fielder@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: cset/2 orders
Date: 14 Aug 92 14:31:37 EST
Reply-To: "robert fielder" <robert.fielder@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

BILL DEHAAN said:

RF>IBM Canada received about 200 copies of the Technical Library last
RF>week.  All were shipped out.
RF>They expected more on Friday (Aug 7) or Monday.  How many was unknown.

BD>Oh? When I called in late July, I was given the answer I posted above.

Bill:

Stephen Dawson and I both received our Technical Libraries on
Wednesday, August 12.  44 pounds of books!

What was annoying, was that I called IBM on Wednesday, and they told
me that my order was still backordered, and would not be here for a
week or two.  This is annoying, because for the courier to deliver it
on Wednesday, there is a good chance it was shipped the day before!
Somebody didn't update their system?  NAW - I received the invoice on
Thursday, and to invoice me they had to enter the shipment.

Goes to show you, IBM has employees of varying quality, the same as
everyone else in the world.....

RF>Now, if Canadians take the lead in developing OS/2 2.0 apps, this
RF>might change......why not, we had the talent to write the compiler,
RF>didn't we?   <grin>

BD>Now if only we can manage a C++ compiler...

How far along are you with this project?

Robert

Entered on Fri  08-14-1992  10:19:55 from Brampton, Ontario, Canada
---
  DeLuxe 1.21 #502  OS/2 - Windows the way it SHOULD have been!!
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: pfr@drsrv1.hmi.de (Fritsch_Wolfgang)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: superVGA (and misc top-blowing)
Date: 20 Aug 92 08:37:39 GMT
Organization: Hahn-Meitner-Institut Berlin GmbH

gkushmer@jade.tufts.edu (Greg Kushmerek) writes:

>Personally, if my office gets a new machine like they are planning to
>do, then I will push REAL hard to get OS/2.  Then maybe I can establish
>a beachead and my co-worker down the hall will have just reason to switch and
>upgrade so that he can get some work done.

>--gk
 
I wished I could do that at my place. I love my installation of OS/2 2.0
but honestly I would not recommend it - at THIS time - to a good friend,
except he/she is fond of messing with the system. Fact is that the average
user has a right to do his/her business without being interrupted by system
problems and optimizations. We who have OS/2 installed are probably
something like pioneers and we like it. But a system problem, say, every
week is too much to ask from others to endure.

Having said that it strikes me that the average user has also another 
feature: he/she does not run multiple applications at the same time, or at
least not any critical applications. So he/she is not that likely to have
that much of a problem to start with. But anyway, I am waiting for the
next version, 2.001 or whatever it is called, before I would advertise
aggressively. Sorry, just like you have a naughty child that you love a lot
but you wait for the time that it behaves well before you praise it in
public...

Wolfgang Fritsch
pfr@psun2.hmi.de


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: cvadrtbc@vmsa.is.csupomona.edu (Srikanth Viswanathan)
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Organization: California Polytechnic University, Pomona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 06:01:00 GMT
X-Posted-From: vmsa.is.csupomona.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Aug15.011002.25592@microsoft.com>, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes...

>Back to the "who's product is vaporware argument again."  Well, as has been
>said before, If you call NT vaporware, then I can call all of those mythical
>apps that will be avaliabe for OS/2 RSN vaporware.  
> 
>MS has officially release what is in the first release of NT.  IBM has not
>released any information really regarding the next release of OS/2.

OFFICIAL RELEASE?  Isn't it a BETA?  I believe the accompanying docs with
NT state that it is not suitable for evaluation of the product that it is
only for development?  I personally agree,  I think that some of the OS/2
apps such as Ami Pro for OS/2 are vaporware.  BTW, when do you think NT will
be out?  

Srikanth
From: AV@vnet.ibm.com (Anton Versteeg)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 14:09:09 CET
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2, DOS, NT (Speculative) -- My Opinions
Reply-To: AV@vnet.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Uithoorn - Netherlands
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 3.0
            <1992Aug21.025401.23513@msi.com>

In <1992Aug21.025401.23513@msi.com> Bill Poitras writes:
>Anton Versteeg (AV@vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
>: In <1992Aug19.185043.10918@msi.com> Bill Poitras writes:
>: >I'm not a fan of Windows NT, but I can see why Microsoft is doing what
>: >they are.  They are basically doing what workstation vendors do (like
>: >Silicon Graphics) when they are getting ready to release a new OS, they
>: >pass it amoung the developers, the people who keep them in business.
>
>: It makes you wonder though why this SDK is so much cheaper than
>: the OS/2 SDK's MS used to sell for over $1000.
>
>I believe that when OS/2 first came out, MS wasn't as good at marketing
>and figured it would make its sales on the SDK.  Today it learns the best
>way to make a great product is let everyone and thier brother develop for
>your platform, and the applications sell the platform.  You cater to the
>developers, you get more apps, meaning more customers for your platform.
>

Right, but why would developers walk blindly in the MS trap?
Develop an app for NT 1.0, there comes NT 1.1, the first bug fix
release and, minor detail, none of the apps work anymore.
Where have we seen that before?
OK, it keeps you off the street for the next 3 years or so.

>--
>+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
>| Bill Poitras    | Molecular Simulations Inc.    | Tel (408)522-9229       |
>| (bill)          | Sunnyvale, CA USA             |                         |
>|                 | FAX (408)732-0831             | bill@msi.com            |
>+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
>

Anton Versteeg - IBM - Uithoorn Netherlands - TEAMOS2 NL
<any resemblance here between NT 1.1 and W3.1 is purely coincindental>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:49:31 GMT

In <1992Aug15.142241.11149@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:

>If OS/2 supports Win3.1, then a good number of Windows 3.0 apps will no longer
>run under Win-OS/2.......so it isn't a matter of deciding whether or not to
>cut a finger off....it's WHICH ONE do you cut off.

I've seen this claim made before.  I guess my question is why that is
the case.  After all, WIN-OS2 will run Windows 2.X and 1.X, won't it?
So why should it suddenly lose the ability to run Windows 3.0 just
because it gains the ability to run Windows 3.1?


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: os/2 and nt
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:46:38 EST
Reply-To: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

In message <19920813.065543.936#almaden.ibm.com>, AV@vnet.ibm.com (Anton
Versteeg) writes:

AV>I think it's perfectly alright to have two (wouldn't call them double)
AV>standards here. Porting *existing* applications to OS/2 2.0 is probably less
AV>than 1% of the effort to develop a *new* Operating System.
AV>Don't you agree?

BdH>Actually, no. Given the problems that OS/2 has with supporting backlevel
BdH>OS (Windows, DOS) in addition to its own code, I'd say that the  efforts
BdH>are probably about equal. OS/2 has the advantage in terms of the  amount
BdH>of existing code; NT has the advantage of a considerably cleaner  design
BdH>without having  to maintain  the campatability  with other  systems that
BdH>OS/2 does. Obviously, OS/2 was here first. But I'd say that NT is pinned
BdH>at  about  a  year  behind  OS/2.  Given  that  NT  is considerably more
BdH>ambitious, I'd put them at about an equal footing.

BdH>And from what we've seen of NT, porting an existing Win3[01] application
BdH>to it is no worse or better than porting the same application to OS/2.

AV>You didn't get my point.
AV>In the original post philipla from MS complained about 'double standards'
AV>in the context that people mentioned all the time that NT isn't a
AV>released product yet, while at the same time mentioning OS/2 applications
AV>that were announced to be available this year.

I thought the  point you werer  making was that  porting applications to
OS/2 was just as easy if not easier than porting to NT. Rereading it,  I
still think that's what was said.

AV>I still think this is OK given that the effort of porting applications
AV>can not be compared to the effort to develop a new operating system
AV>(designed from scratch, according to MS posts).

THAT's  true.  Applications  should  always  be  simpler  than operating
systems. Not always, but that's the theory.

AV>A second difference is that many of these OS/2 apps have an announced
AV>availability date, while NT still doesn't have an official announcement.
AV>(availability dates, contents, etc.). All I have heard is that it
AV>slipped into 1993.

Official NT ship date is still listed as 4Q92, according the our MS rep.

----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.com
Software Consulting and Gator Pit | Eradicate Hunger - Eat the homeless
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
---
  SLMR 2.1a  Home Safety Tip for Men #51: Don't iron naked.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044