HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rvaniwaa@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ronald J. Vaniwaarden)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Micro$oft claims a 4Q92 delivery for NT
Date: 13 Sep 92 20:12:49 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

Well, I just got my new copy of Computer Shopper and do I have some wonderful
.advocacy news!  ON page 62, there is an article: MIcrosoft Sticks Its Neck
Out---Promises Windows NT by Year-End. and here is what it says:

	Microsoft, losing none of the cockiness that goes along with being
the NO. 1 software company in the market, has stuck its neck out, saying it
expects to ship Windows NT before the end of this year.
	Shipping a software upgrade on time is often trouble enough; the
logistics get infinitely more complicated when the product in question is a
new operating system.
	But Microsoft is pulling out all the stops in order to ship its
32-bit operating system before IBM's OS/2 2.0 gains a stronger foothold in
the market.  There had been rumors that the ship date might slip into early
1993, but at press time, Microsoft reported smooth progress toward
completing the project on time.
	Microsoft also said it had lined up over 100 other software companies
to write applications for NT.  At the same time, Microsoft announced that LAN
Manager for NT would be ready to ship by December.
	Paul Maritz, the senior vice president of the company's systems
division, said Microsoft ultimately expected thousands of developers to
eventually make the commitment to the 32-bit Windows NT.  Applications
written to the Win32 specification will be source compatible between 32-bit
Intel systems, RISC systems, and multiprocessor systems.

One word in response to this:

				RIGHT!!!

I guess that probably deserves some flames but if a product is not
officially in beta testing and they expect to be able to get it out to
the public in about three and a half months when they spent more than that
amount of time beta testing Windoze 3.1, I just cannot swallow that much.
Yes, I have run Windows 3.0 and 3.1.  I could not go more than an hour
without either one dying is some fashion.  I now run OS/2 (is that only
half and operating system??? ;^))) and am able to crash it once a week if
I really try to do so purposefully.  In fact, the only reason that my
machine usually goes down is when I want to change some system configurations
like the com ports or add or subtract some device drivers.

--Ron

I'm just a grad student and noone wants to claim my opinions!!!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 11 Sep 92 23:23:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Sep11.232349.8400
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <7300@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.211055.11590@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>Also if you want to read something really sick, check out Zachman's NT bashing
>>article.... I think he's finally come completely unhinged.
>
>Oh, yeah? What, exactly, did he say that's not truthful, and that hasn't been
>said here in this very newsgroup?
>(Yes, I've read the article.)
Well Jay, earlier this week Will asked, over on Compuserve, how he could get a
copy of NT so he could give it a try.  Doesn't seem to me that he's doing a 
very good job evaluating NT before talking about it.  Perhaps he is writing 
his articles based on hearsay???  In any event, I view Will's evaluations with
considerable doubt.  

-- 
Mark Huth                         * Is it too wild to want to get into 
Mhuth@u.washington.edu            * Space someday?
Compuserve 70346,563              *
From: mitch@harlie.lonestar.org (/usr/users/mitch/.nameMitch Mitchell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: THANK YOU, Microsoft!
Date: 5 Sep 92 06:39:59 GMT
Organization: Motorcycle Riders Anonymous

LENBC@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:

>>>In article <Btz54D.1tJ@rice.edu>, amitp@rice.edu (Amit J Patel) says:
>>>>
>>>>Thank you Microsoft!  The OS/2 version of MS-Word 5.5 works beautifully
>>>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^          ^^^^^

>    Oh okay, but Amit said "OS/2 Version", I didn't know he was
>speaking about an DOS version.  Sorry Amit!, misunderstood.

    I have Windows 5.5 and it is a bound executable that runs as
    a native OS/2 application...
-- 
* mitch@harlie.lonestar.org                       Mitch Mitchell      *
* {digi| egsner | letni}!harlie!mitch       Voice Mail (214) 519-3257 *
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rvinluan@cs.cornell.edu (Rolando Vinluan)
Subject: Honestly, people...how do you find the new OS/2 ads?
Organization: Cornell University, CS Dept., Ithaca, NY
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:37:54 GMT


	C'mon guys, deep inside I know you agree with me that
the new slogan "Make OS/2 the HEART of your computer" is quite
a lame spiel, I'd say even *totally wimpy*. What incompetent agency
does IBM's TV ads anyway? Do they expect people to come up to
a computer store saying: "I want to give my computer a new heart."
Sheesh. You say they're going for the home market? Then why are
IBM's new PS/1's running Windows. If they want to draw in the power
or even just "ordinary" users, this is not the way to go.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: neves@anchor.cs.colorado.edu (NEVES RICHARD K)
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (Well, not exactly....)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:30:00 GMT

In article <92252.084812ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Andrew T. Robinson) writes:
>>For some reason Unix people (and I was one) always seem to grossly
>>over estimate how many systems run it.  All Unix systems on all machines
>>ever delivered (whether it is still in use or not) is well under
>>10 million. (DOS I believe has an installed base of around 80 million.)
>>As a matter of fact Unix's installed base is much less than that of the
>>Macintosh which has an installed base that is less than 10 million.
>>
>  That's why I put a "?" after the numbers.  First, I'm not a "unix people",
>  and secondly while the installed base may be in the hundreds of thousands,
>  many of those systems are midrange installations which can have thousands
>  of users--hundreds simultaneously.  Finally, while I believe your figures
>  I've never seen them before and they contradict what I see in the academic
>  community where people continue to move away from personal systems to
>  things like Suns, RS600s, etc.

Those numbers may be contradictary in your opinion, but  800,000 is generous. 
A while back (I can't remember when) I saw an "OS pie" with Unix and the Mac
under 500,000.  What you don't realize is how small the academic market is
compared to the mass desktop market.  Most academic users of unix have a
misconception that unix is in much wider use than it really is. Just ain't so.

I don't think anyone could deny, however, that unix will dominate in Academia
for a long time.  

Rich

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mikek@seas.smu.edu (Michael Kaply)
Subject: Re: Problems with crashes, tweaks, etc. (was: Re: Win-OS/2 performance tweaks)
Organization: School of Engineering and applied science; S.M.U.; Dallas, Tx
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 18:05:08 GMT

Hold down Ctrl-Shift-F1 after the stopwatch appears and keep them held down.
If the harddrive light goes off, lift the keys and quickly put them down   
again.

Mike Kaply
From: fche@db.toronto.edu ("Frank Ch. Eigler")
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hercules ??? Be realistic !
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:17:58 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto


ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:

>[among other silly comments]
>A GUI on a Hercules system is bullshit. [...]

Michael, have you forgotten about the original Mac?
GUIs on monochrome screens of roughly that resolution
can be quite competent.


I hope IBM puts in a Hercules driver for OS/2.  I'd
use it.
-- 

-- Frank Ch. Eigler -- Comp Eng -- <eigler@ecf.toronto.edu> --
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hercules ??? Be realistic !
Date: 10 Sep 92 04:23:59 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <92Sep9.151749edt.9077@rock.db.toronto.edu>, fche@db.toronto.edu ("Fr
ank Ch. Eigler") writes:
>
>ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:
>
>>[among other silly comments]
>>A GUI on a Hercules system is bullshit. [...]
>
>Michael, have you forgotten about the original Mac?
>GUIs on monochrome screens of roughly that resolution
>can be quite competent.

And do you still use the origional mac for anything?  I agree that the Macs
system is usable, but using the oldest monocrome macs really sucks
>
>
>I hope IBM puts in a Hercules driver for OS/2.  I'd
>use it.

Why?  They need SVGA drivers more.
>--
>
>-- Frank Ch. Eigler -- Comp Eng -- <eigler@ecf.toronto.edu> --
>
      Stacy John Behrens
      *===)-------------
From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 12 Sep 92 16:26:09 GMT
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software

>>	Why does Microsoft repeatedly insist that the version of Windows NT
>>	distributed in July, which nearly everyone assumes to be a beta,

> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>> Why would anybody think this is a beta?  Microsoft has NEVER said
>> this... and goes out of its way to make sure people know this.

jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
> Yeah, but that's marketroid-speak, which has little to no relationship to the
> real world. If it looks like a beta, walks like a beta, and quacks like a
> beta, it must be a beta, whether Microsoft recognizes that or not.

A beta usually has a complete feature set, and is released for the purpose of
testing.  The current NT release is still missing features (POSIX is one big
one), and, given the full set of development tools included (and the CD-ROM
requirement), is clearly aimed at people who want to do advance development
work, and not for the general end-user population.

Sure, you might consider it "beta-level code", but the facts are that it's
only sufficiently finished for use in development, not in end use.  *And*
it includes the SDK.

> If the WinNT schedule hasn't slipped, then I should be able to walk into a
> store no later than 31 December 1992 and buy a production copy, since, after
> all, MS's official release is still 4Q92...

Just like my local software retailer had OS/2 2.0 in stock on March 31...  B^)

>> As to the 16 meg recommended.  This is for developers.  Most developers use
>> more than 8 megs for OS/2... I'd say most use 16 megs.  (I use 20, I know
>> several people that use 32).

> Why is 16 meg recommended for developers, not for everyone? Just because
> someone isn't a developer doesn't mean that he won't use the heck out of the
> system.

No, but you know that developers *WILL* use the heck out of the system.  If
you're a Windows 3.1 developer, I wouldn't recommend any less than 8 MB!  Of
course, a non-developer power user might need more, with lots of open apps
simultaneously, but you *know* the developer will need lots of resources.

> Not really. He's simply got strong opinions, and is doing what he gets paid
> for: expressing those opinions. He's no more unhinged than you are.

And I thought that Zachmann had denounced PC Week and quite in a public huff
earlier this year (because they didn't want him praising OS/2 and denouncing
Windows).  What happened?  Is he still there?  (I don't get PC Week myself...)

[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: CSD Rumours
Date: 11 Sep 92 07:39:00 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier) writes:

>In article <1992Sep10.172820.28168@inel.gov> jar@inel.gov (Jeffry A Rich) writes:

>>I also heard that a former IBM employee has written an OS/2 optimizer program 
>that will completely analyze your installed system and do a reshuffling so that
>you gain a 50% - 150% increase in performance! This program is totally 
>icon-driven and according to inside IBM sources, is killer!! The price I heard 
>was $15.00. Sorry, no file names or addresses yet...I'm still checking on it.

>The only program I know that is $15 and performance related is OS/2 2.0
>Performance by Clear and Simple.  I have it.  I don't see a performance
>improvement.  In fact I had to back out of one of it changes because it
>"hurt" performance.  It expanded my HPFS cache from 1MB to 2MB.  Performance
>went down.

I think the original post was probably referring to the $30 offer to beta
test an IBM LAN tool for assessing performance of stations on the LAN. This
was announced recently, I don't remember the details. I suppose it could be
used on an unconnected PC, but the posting seemed to lean on features for
LAN set-ups.
 
Tom
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mpl@maths.tcd.ie (Micheal Lunny)
Subject: Re: What REXX does
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:30:52 GMT

ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Andrew T. Robinson) writes:

>>The basics of both the mentioned awk program and the grep command line
>>is regular expressions. Powerful, but not easy to master. It matches
>>unix itself, i guess...
>>
>>Eirik

>  Well, if I could reproduce APL characters here I found an APL program
>  that uses even *fewer* characters than the GREP or AWK command lines.

Aye lad, there`s the rub.  You cant reproduce them here.

>  Oh wait--here's a two-line APL implementation of UNIX! :-)

Not unless its a verbose copy coomand.

>  If AWK is so great, why do UNIX folks (or anyone else) bother with C?

Would I be correct in saying that you are hard of understanding?
(for further information look up the words interpreted and compiled
in any programming manual)

>  And if succintness is the answer, why don't they use APL? :-)

This is just a guess on my part, but is it by any chance inelegant,
unstructured and unsupported?

-- 

| mplunny@vax1.tcd.ie |  Today you achieved nothing.
|      ,              |  So today you achieved as much as most people do
| Micheal Lunny       |  in their entire lives.  Satisfied?
From: ghdai@vax1.umkc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: OS/2 advocacy
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:55:32 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City

>
>OS/2 as a multi-tasker makes Windows look sick. Having used Window 3.x for 18
>months and OS/2 2.0 for five months, there is no doubt in my mind which system
>is superior.  
>OS/2's memory protection, multi-tasking ability and superb interface (WPS) are
>three *excellent* reasons to move to OS/2. Then there is HPFS and a whole host
>of other features that make it even better.
> 
>Windows people who have *not* used OS/2 much fail completely to appreciate
>just how good these features are. They see the dull, grey desktop and
>completely miss the point. 
 
The dull, grey desktop can easily be replaced by a beautiful VGA picture or
some bitmap.  Every window's color can also be tuned to make it different
from any others'.  So, instead of the default grey, dull WPS look, the user
himself can make it look much more colorful.  Windows guys should give OS/2
more time to try and get used to OS/2's operation convention that is much
more consistent and more elagant than that of Windows.
As a desktop OS, OS/2 has more power and versatility then Win3.1 will ever

G.H. Dai
-- 
GHDai@VAX1.UMKC.Edu   |**** Happy user of only OS/2 2.0!!/HPFS entire HDD ****|
From: juan@noyles.pha.pa.us (Juan J. E. T. Noyles)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.6
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 21:44:21 GMT
Organization: The Noyles OS/2 Platform

brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu writes in article <1992Sep5.012500.2098@hellgate.utah.edu>:
> 
> 
> OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.6
> 
> Features in OS/2 2.0 GA but not in the pre-beta Windows NT
>   
> 	Can boot non-DOS systems in a VDM.
> 
I know this is kind of nit-picky, but shouldn't that be real-mode systems?  If this were DOS there'd be no
problem with it the way you say it, but it ain't DOS!

--
Has anyone seen my sanity?				Juan@Noyles.pha.pa.us
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: <None>
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 01:42:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.162238.1@vax1.umkc.edu> ghdai@vax1.umkc.edu writes:
>>In today copy of InfoWorld an artical talked about undocumented calls
>>that Microsoft is using for it products (exel, Word for Win 2.0, etc)
>>My question: Does any one have excel or Microsoft Word for Windows 2.0
>>running under OS/2?
>Both of them can be *started* under OS/2.  But I never used them further
>because I'm a WordPerfect 5.1 expert and a dBASE III specialist.

Let's bury this one.  Win-OS/2 is adapted Microsoft Windows source
code.  IBM had rights to Windows 3.x source code and continues to have
rights to Windows source code (until September, 1993, according to the
trade press).  Any "undocumented" calls get rolled right into
Win-OS/2.

IBM didn't go out and clone Windows.

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | The OS/2 FREQ. ASKED QUESTIONS LIST is avail. from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/faq.
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | Or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP").
of Chicago, 60637       | Family Values Means a Job
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 00:45:56 -0400 
From: "Peter W. De Bonte" <pd2n+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Honestly, people...how do you find the new OS/2 ads?

Thats one of OS/2's bigest problems imo.  IBM has put out the weakest
advertising effort I've ever seen.  However some people fall for it.
For instance MCI switched all thier machines to OS/2 when they started
the Friends and Family plan.

Pete W. De Bonte (x4173)                    pwd+@cmu.edu 
"Knolege is powef, Speling is unimportnt"   (but pd2n is unaceptable)
From: kushner@ux1.lbl.gov (Gary Kushner)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: When is Comdex?
Date: 13 Sep 1992 06:17:46 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Reply-To: kushner@ux1.lbl.gov (Gary Kushner)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.19


Well, I want to go and advocate!  

-Gary
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Zachaman and NT and OS/2
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:30:43 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

> 
> After that, one has a working copy and can start to enhance
> it, simplyfing the memory management, adding threads, for
> example. This is much easier than doing the port and 
> the enhancement (to make good use of the new OS features)
> at the same time. One never knows what broke the program ,
> was it the port, or was it the enhancement?
> 
> So I would call the port from Windows 2.x/3.x to NT 
> indeed trivial, at least in comparision to a port 
> to OS/2/PM or X/Motif, for example.


	I think that you along with many developers here are missing
the point.  You are not thinking of the customers in these ports.  Most
customers are going to be slow to move to upgrade their apps.  Not
that they won't upgrade them but most of our customers are primarily
concerned about their existing apps.  Even our OS/2 users are more
concerned about their Ami Pro for Windows running well than whether
there is an OS/2 version of the program.  The fact of the matter is,
these "ports" are not going to be offered free of charge.  With that
in mind, many people are going to be first interested in whether it
runs what they have and then interested if their are speicfic apps
for that environment.  OS/2 1.x suffered not from just the lack of
apps (which it did not have enough but it did have all the bread and
butter apps) but because it did not run DOS programs adequately.  
	Until the day comes when software companies can beam updates
onto the hard drive of their customers free of charge and without any
trouble, the only benefit of easy porting will be to developers who
want to port quickly and the fact that customers will have the option to
upgrade a couple months sooner than they might have otherwise.

					-Brad


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (Well, not exactly....)
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:27:39 GMT

In <1992Sep10.130029.27716@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>In article <1992Sep10.132338.8801@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>>
>>Do you mean to imply that GNU isn't freely usable?  GNU has no
>>restrictions on what you can use their product on.  If you want, you
>>can have your corporation standardize on GNU, with no license
>>violation.  The only restriction is that you can't sell it with a
>>license that gives the client less rights to the product than
>>yourself. 

>No, I'm not implying, I said it flat out.
>If you use a piece of GNU code in you're other large project, then
>you must make that projects source available.  This means that GNU
>code is largely useless in a commercial setting.  Thus it is
>not freely usable.

Well, that's not exactly true.  First, I had heard that RMS was
looking at modifying the Copyleft somewhat to help address this
problem.  Does anyone know if that has actually happened?  Second,
even if that hasn't happened, if you simply redo those parts of a GNU
tool that are actually embedded in software that they're run on (like
the libraries for GCC), the problem goes away.

And it is a semantic issue, but it is still "freely usable" -- you
simply have to comply with the license requirements, just as you do
with any other piece of software.

-- 
"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.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:5192 comp.os.os2.apps:6015
Organization: European Academic Research Network (EARN)
Date: Thursday, 10 Sep 1992 14:33:25 GMT
From: Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: SOMFIX.ZIP, WPS, drive-object, HPFS
 <pathak-080992094111@virtual.mitre.org>

From what I can see - PMSHL32 is run at priority level 2 and 3.. Some of
its threads are two, others at three. You can see that it is not a
top priority task (thank god|) by watching a startup.cmd run -- it runs
before WPS comes up..   -turgut
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy