HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jardined@qucis.queensu.ca (Donald Jardine)
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Organization: Computing & Information Science, Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:03:14 GMT

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy

I believe in free speech, apple pie, mom, etc,. but this thread IMHO misses the
point. 
 
1.  Everyone, everywhere, in all things, promises more than is eventually
provided.  Esp. politicians, programmers, software companies, even, mirabile
dictu, MS and IBM. Surprise, surprise.

2.  The number of applications, copies shipped, users, complaints, bugs, and 
general rants, should be wieghted by the relative importance of the 
customers who use/make them.  It's probably more important to 
the sucess of Windows, NT, OS2 etc. that large
corporations accept and use them than that the technocrat 
community praise them. A cogent example is Unix.  There are many more copies 
of DOS than of Unix, and those DOS machines are doing lots of useful, 
profitable work.

3. I really don't care whether there are 100 or 1100 apps available for OS2.  
What I want to know is: can I (dare I) bet my company on this software base? 
That is not entirely answered by an exhaustive (and exhausting) list of 
alleged defects, deficiencies, and general imcompetence.  See item 1 above. 

If I were in charge of strategic software planning for a corporation, 
I would look at those items to be sure, but I 
would temper that evaluation strongly by other factors, such as 
interoperability, suitability to my corporate environment, 
estimated longevity of the software architecture, cost of acquisition 
and support, ability to grow, and above all reliability and ease of use.  
I would not be interested in dealing with a system that is fragile, hard to
configure, too expensive (both hardware and software), or functionally weak.
or one without an obvious growth path to handle advanced 
application environments.

4. Only those of us lucky enough to work in a University can 
afford the luxury of operating system use and evaluation for its own sake.  

Real people in the real world have to get real work done in real time. 




Donald Jardine, Software Technology Laboratory, Comp. Sci. Dept.,
Queen's Univ. Kingston Ont. Ph (613) 545 6070 Fax (613) 545 6513

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak)
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Mitre Corporation
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:48:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.000003.7111@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu
(Yamanari) wrote:
> 
> 
> 	Regardless, 8 or 12 megs?  So what?  Memory is cheaper than 
> 	anyone who remembers the $200/1 meg prices of just a few
> 	years ago can believe--and it's only going to get cheaper.  
> 	In any case, 8 megs doesn't look all that much smaller than 12
> 	or 16 when you're talking to someone who runs with 2 and feels
> 	blessed when they have four.
> 
> 	The memory argument is no more valid than it was when used by 
> 	Win users as an argument against OS/2.  You all sound like a bunch
> 	of new-age "No one could ever need 640k"-ers.  How many OS/2 users
> 	out there are running with more than 8 megs?  I'd say a whole lot
> 	of'em.  
>

There is a small problem.  Many motherboards have ONLY 8 Simms slots.
Upgrading to 8M is relatively cheap since one can use 8 1M Simms. 
Upgrading
to >12M requires using 4 4M Simms which aren't very cheap.

Despite how cheap memory may be, people have problems spending money for
it.  People are used to the 640K limit and small applications.  Remember,
people were having a fit because OS/2 required (*gasp*) 6-8M, they will
probably go balistic when NT require 8-12M.

> 
> 	Obviously, they're not.  They claim the "demonstration" version
> 	of NT requires 36 megs of memory--obviously, they're confusing memory
> 	with disk space.  And the 200 megabyte HD suggestion is just that--
> 	and it's common sense.  Windows and OS/2 apps aren't getting any 
> 	slimmer--if anything, they're becoming *amazingly* bloated.  
> 

Even though disk space is getting cheaper, many people have small disks so
disk space is an issue.  I have been advising people to buy 200M disks but
many people decide to "save" money and get a smaller disk.  Then there disk
fills up and buying another disk is fairly expensive so they get by.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heeren Pathak                      | Millions long for immortality who do 
pathak@mitre.org                   | not know what to do with themselves
Mitre Corporation                  | on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
(617) 271-7465                     |	               	-- Susan Ertz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Mine not Mitre's.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: fiv2@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Fidel I Villa)
Subject: OS/2 Advertisement in the US Figure Skating
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 23:16:32 GMT


What is that blurry red, blue, green, yellow, black with another
blurry word IBM in the middle? Oh it's OS/2.

IMHO, it's good to stick with the logo but in such a case it must
be readable. My suggestion is replace the one on the left with
one HUGE word OS/2 (bold Avant-Garde) and color it RED with a white
background. Look at the other ads (VISA, Sudafed, Leggs, Evian), they
are very recognizable.

IBM, are you listening?

In the first place, the current OS/2 logo, again IMHO, is dull? How about
a nationwide contest to design a logo? The winner will receive an OS/2
upgrade for life. :-)

- F. Villa
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:12852 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4038
From: 177wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:18:20 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1993Jan25.091315.5977@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
> In article <1993Jan25.000734.63146@cc.usu.edu> sl1yn@avon.declab.usu.edu (869483 Denys Larry) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan25.064002.3937@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>>	[A hell of a lot of bitching about IBM deleted here.]
>>
>>
>>  That was very nice bit of ranting, Brian.  Now how about a similar 
>>article about the lies and distortions of Crapsoft...er, Microsludge...er,
>>damn, just can't get it right...Microsoft.  You could break it up into
>>a four or five part series.
>>
> 
> This is they typical reaction I get from OS/2 zealots.  I make a thought
> out article, complete with facts and references showing that IBM 
> has been doling out misinformation in an organized manner, and what do
> I get?  Cracks about MS.  The vast bulk of MS-bashing in c.o.o.a has
> no factual basis.   If if it were true, why does this let IBM off
> the hook?
> 
> Brian
> -- 
> C. Brian Sturgill                  Windows, WfW, Windows NT and some OS/2 2.0
> University of Utah                 information available via anonymous ftp to
> Center for Software Science        easy.cs.utah.edu. Also all my Tidbits posts.
> brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373     Windows NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679


	Ahem, I wasn't going to butt in here but after reading through
your argument I can't understand how you could get so mad at IBM
about saying that windows 3.1 support would be here by year's end but
never seem to be critical of Microsoft for blatantly lying about the
NT ship date.  The ship date was 1992.  It was in every magazine.  
They (MS) not only missed the deadline but it looks like it will be
late 1993 (September is my guess when it ACTUALLY gets released).  Now,
how can anyone say that Microsoft couldn't have known they would miss
a December 1992 shipping date when they turn out to be 7 months behind?

						-Brad


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 04:45:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.120703.11014@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>If the Koreans and Japanese were doing what MS is doing, they would be up on
>dumping charges faster then you can say "monopoly".


	But not, of course, IBM who is giving away the beta and selling the
	equiv to the MS extras for $15?



-- 
	Attempts to lessen the burden of proof in rape trials are an assault 
        	on our civil liberties.  Support equality, not revenge. 
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	Pyramid schemes are illegal unless you're the US government.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: world
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 93 18:52:00 -0800
From: George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at
Comment-To: 177wardell@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

17>at 8 megs but not very well and decently at 12 megs.  But the
problem here
17>is, most motherboards only have 8 simm slots on them.  This means
if you
17>want to make the jump from 1 meg simms to 4 meg simms you have to
go
17>right to 16 megs and find someone to buy your old 1 meg simms which
is

        This is exactly what happened with my machine and the machines
        of 3 of my friends who when to OS/2. Going from the purchased
4
        meg setup to a user installed 4 more megs was as simple as
        purchasing 4 simms. Going to the next logical choice is NOT 12
        megs, since the proprietary memory card is expensive, but
rather
        to 16 megs. It is not an option any of us have chosen yet.

 * SLMR 2.1a * I'm in shape ... round's a shape isn't it?

--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
From: f67709907@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: AmiPro for OS/2 (was Re: Impressions of OS/2 2.1 Beta)
Date: 22 Jan 93 21:18:35 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67709907

In article <93020.170902ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET>, ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:
> In article <1993Jan16.165115.7298@gw.wmich.edu>, 177wardell@gw.wmich.edu says:
>>        I am not quite as thrilled about that.  I would prefer to be
>>able to associates *.zip with an icon file also instead of the just
>>the associated program.  Think about it, all your AmiPro docs will have
>>little AmiPro icons.  This is more than a bit confusing for some people.
>>
> I think if AmiPro will be a PM program it should create docs with their own
> icon and perhaps comments, history and what else fits into 64k of extended
> attributes.

I think Ami Pro for PM will be a straight port of the Windows version, and
will languish on version 3 while Lotus cranks out versions 5 and beyond
for Windows.

That is, if Lotus ever does release a PM version.  They certainly won't
take advantage of OS/2 EAs, long file names, or threading, or any of the
good stuff OS/2 has.

P.S.: Where is Stacker OS/2 now?  Talk about vaporware....
-- 
Greg Franklin
f67709907@ccit.arizona.edu
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is OS/2 a dead end?
Date: 21 Jan 1993 14:34:03 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, Gary.Woodman@anu.edu.au (Gary Woodman) says:

>In article <1jkg58INNj3f@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:

>>>Douglas A. Bell (dab6@po.CWRU.Edu) wrote:
>>>: >Gates: It's certainly a dead end.  That's indisputable.
>>>: >Nobody would dispute that it's a dead end.

>>Bill Gates is going to lose a lot of credibility over this one.

Now if Bill Gates said that OS/2 doesn't stand a chance against windows,
people might have taken him seriously, but as it is, several major 
corporations have all ready decided to go with OS/2, making Billy the
wonderkin Gates sound like an idiot.  BP America and Price Waterhouse
have decided to standerdise on OS/2.  Obviously anyone who looks at the
press can see that there are not only people who dispute that OS/2 is
a dead end, but are willing to more their entire company to the platform.
-- 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bugs in OS/2 v2.0, unreasonable number?
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:11:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: muddcs.1993Jan25.221126.25215
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711

In article <1993Jan23.014747.6553@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>	holes that allow the machine to lock up--even post SP--at least
>	twice a week (more if I'm programming) randomly.  If I refrain from
>	using DOS or Windows programs, I have no problems.  
>
>	I like what they've done, but I would have settled for reduced 
>	DOS and Win compatibility if OS/2 was bulletproof.  It's not, and
>	that bugs me.  This is 1993.  There is no valid excuse for the
>	lackluster crash protection we've got--and it really drives me
>	up the wall that IBM *trademarked* "Crash Protection".. 

Out of curiosity, have you turned off IOPL in your config.sys?  In theory, it
should prevent some of the lockups due to giving DOS programs I/O privileges.
I'm wondering if it works in practice, but I don't have enough crashes to make
any meaningful data.  There is also the option to list specific program names
after the IOPL= statement to give only those programs you've determined "well-
behaved" I/O privileges, so it is a workable solution if it's a solution at
all.

Ted

P.S. I prefer the compatibility with the option to restrict it, rather than
not having the compatibility option at all.  Stupid trademark, though:).
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: steveg@iplmail.orl.mmc.com (Steve Gabrilowitz)
Subject: Re: IBM steals OS/2
Organization: Martin Marietta
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:11:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.230751.9360@sierra.com>, paul@sierra.com (Paul Stratton) writes:

|> "Lets not spread true FUD here!  OS/2 wasn't developed by IBM, it was
|> stolen BY IBM from Microsoft.  Microsoft invented OS/2."

I've seen this term FUD thrown around quite a bit on this group, and from the
context I've pretty much got a flavor of what it means.  I'm still curious
though, what *exactly* does it mean?  It looks like an acronym perhaps?  What
does it stand for?

-- 



I think
I think I am
Therefore I am!
I think...



                            Steve Gabrilowitz
                            Martin Marietta, Orlando Fl.
                            steve-gabrilowitz@orl.mmc.com
                            Fidonet 1:363/1701 (407-380-1701)
From: 177wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is OS/2 a dead end?
Date: 22 Jan 93 18:43:32 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <88S502P933A401@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, rwb00@avon.as (Robert W Beveridge) writes:
> 
> In article 29418@bnr.ca, jcyr@bnr.ca (Jean Cyr) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan20.191655.15293@msi.com>, bill@west.msi.com (Bill Poitras) writes: 
>>|> Oh please.  Bill Gates is probably saying this because you wants
>>|> everybody else to believe it.  I have heard management in MY company say:
>>|> "Bill Gates says OS/2 is dead" and they believe it.
>>
>>Well you know what they say: The PC users community is a bunch of sheep, and Billy
>>is their sheppard.
> 
> Is OS/2 a dead end ? Well lets see...
> 
>   o it has fewer users than the Amiga
>   o there are essentialy no native applications for it (I know people are claiming
>     a thousand applications exist, but when I walk into CompUSA or Egghead, I
>     don't see any...)
>   o IBM has never had a successful PC software product
>   o IBM is also committed to another operating system, based on "Pink",
>     that seems to fill the same role as OS/2
>   o the PC industry is undergoing something of a boom, primarily because of OS/2s
>     prime competitor, Windows. An awful lot of new and successful software products
>     have the words "..for Windows" in their titles.
>   o many of OS/2 strengths, such as good multitasking, appeal more to the limited
>     population of technical types - the Mac and Windows environments strength is
>     in user-interface details and application availability, which is more
>     important to the "average" PC user - who does word processing of databases
>     and such.
> 
> Sounds to me like a niche product at best, a dead end at worst...
>  
>   
>     
	No, a Sun Sparcsation is a niche product.  A product that sells
2 million copies in 9 months is quite mainstream.  Windows 3.0 had very
little support in its first 9 months.  I should know, I was a Windows
3.0 fanatic at the time and people largely ignored my requests at putting
Windows file areas and message areas on BBSes (now they do).  A year
from now we should know.  If OS/2 has sold 5 million copies by the end
of 1993 I would say OS/2 is definitely more than a niche product.  
	4 million Amiga users, 2 million os/2 users.  Amiga launched in
85 so that's 4 million/8 years ago so 500,000 a year.  OS/2 is getting
almost 3 million a year.  Pretty weak comparision I would say.  Not
to mention that one is hardware and the other is an OS that is available
for the most widely used computing platform in the world.

						-Brad



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: roland@margaret (David A. Braun)
Subject: Re: OS2: PAS-16 beta drivers? TRANTOR SCSI on PAS drivers???
Organization: Choate Rosemary Hall
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:29:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan18.234333.17718@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu>  
mpearson@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Matthew Pearson) writes:
> Someone mentioned the following..
> 
> 1. There are PAS-16 -beta- drivers for OS2 out there.. if so WHERE ARE
> THEY!! I WANT EM!!!!
> 
> 2. The SCSI on the PAS is a Trantor SCSI interface... if so WHAT model
> is it compatible with.. and are there drivers for OS2 for it.. even in
> BETA?
> 
> I am beta-testing OS2 2.1 and the MMPM/2 2.1 .. I could REALLY use these
> drivers.. EVEN if they are only BETA..
> 
> PLEASE send me ANY info you have on them...
> 
> Matt

Ditto, I am sitting here with a PAS-16 and a Texel CD-ROM that I just bought  
and CAN'T USE!  Also, what about SB compatibility, That's BS from  
MediaVision... I cannot use my PAS-16 as an SB in OS/2... Then what's it worth  
to me??

<roland>
From: lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (BRIAN PAUL VAN LIEU)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:26:57 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

>>      [A hell of a lot of bitching about IBM deleted here.]
>>
>>
>>  That was very nice bit of ranting, Brian.  Now how about a similar
>>article about the lies and distortions of Crapsoft...er, Microsludge...er,
>>damn, just can't get it right...Microsoft.  You could break it up into
>>a four or five part series.
>>
>
>This is they typical reaction I get from OS/2 zealots.  I make a thought
>out article, complete with facts and references showing that IBM
>has been doling out misinformation in an organized manner, and what do
>I get?  Cracks about MS.  The vast bulk of MS-bashing in c.o.o.a has
>no factual basis.   If if it were true, why does this let IBM off
>the hook?
>
>Brian
>--
>C. Brian Sturgill                  Windows, WfW, Windows NT and some OS/2 2.0
>University of Utah                 information available via anonymous ftp to
>Center for Software Science        easy.cs.utah.edu. Also all my Tidbits posts.
>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373     Windows NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679
>
    Wrong Brian. The point is you put down OS/2-actually, I feel you really
    just want to attack IBM (this is you right, but be logical)-, and you do
    not balance the scales properly. MS has its fair share of screwups, and
    questionable press. I know its hard to tell with all of the crap being
    written about NT. The last 4 writeups on magazines on NT had nothing but
    praise. Two did not even mention OS/2 as a comparabe system.

    I am not saying IBM has not tainted anything. If they have, yes, I want to
    know about it. But don't be so defensive if people question you about NT.
    I would love to gather up the data on NT, and post something similat, but
    the truth is that I have neither the time, nor the resources to do it.

    You *always* seem to dig up any dirt on OS/2, but put no effort in
    clarifying some of the MS crap.

    If you are not going ot be fair, expect some harsh criticism.

    Your post, however, I though to be quite interesting, and I do not doubt
    that some, if not most might be true...

                                                    cheers,

                                                    bvl
-- 

  Brian P. Van Lieu
  Lehigh University-AXP
  lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu

            OS/2 2.0...anything else is just a DOS.
From: bjorn@ludd.luth.se (Bjorn Fahller)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Beta-zoid (wuz Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...)
Date: 24 Jan 93 13:48:16 GMT
Organization: Lule} Tekniska H|gskolas Datorf|rening - Ludd

In <strobl.727876597@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>The current NT prerelease doesn't require a CD-ROM, either. If you
>have ftp access, you'll most probably have temporary access to a
>Unix workstation with a CD drive, too. Mount the CD, ftp the contents

Eh, what? I do? This isn't meant to be any kind of bashing of anything,
but I do wonder about your conclusion. I guess there probably y are
a few workstations with CD drives here on the campus, maybe, but I
certainly don't know where or how to get to them, if they exist.

Believe it or not, but at this place, we even have ol' VAX 11/750s running.
No sign of a CD drive.

   _
/Bjorn.
-- 
Bjorn Fahller     Phone:              |
Trollnasvagen 3A  Intl:+46 920 226870 |Clever quote on vacation. Use your
S-951 61 Lulea    Natl:0920-22 68 70  |imagination.
Sweden 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bill_Moore@mindlink.bc.ca (Bill Moore)
Subject: Windows as QWERTY
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 01:39:59 GMT

        An interesting sentence from Hugh Kenner's review of the new book
about Bill Gates in the February BYTE:
                                    If we're stuck with Windows, seemingly,
the way we're stuck with the           QWERTY keyboard, how that came about
still makes an engrossing                 narrative.
Seems like a very apt comparison.

Are we STUCK with windows?


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
e-mail: Bill_Moore@mindlink.bc.ca * I've been absolutely terrified every
fax: 604-254-0934                 * moment of my life and I've never let
voice: 604-254-0934               * it keep me from doing a single thing
__________________________________* that I wanted to do. Georgia O'Keefe

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy