HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: maynard@esther.msc.cornell.edu (Maynard J. Handley)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hasta la Vista, OS/2
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:48:30 GMT
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center

> 	It should be able to correct for this.  Power failure should not cause
>> disk loss in any decent OS.  (Novell Netware not withstanding :) )  I've
>shut
>> down power to os/2(HPFS) in the middle of large thrash session quite a
>few
>> times.  All I get is a longer boot time as it runs chkdsk.  And maybe 1
>in 15
>> times that chkdsk fails to recover all badly allocated space.  I notice
>this a
>> a disparity between what chkdsk and dir show free.  Then all I gotta do
>is boot
>> of floppy and run chkdsk and it's all back to normal.  From what I've
>seen
>> heard OS/2 is much happier with HPFS.  The moral: give it what it wants
>:) :)
>> :)
>> 
>> 					John Stewart
>
>A power outage while in the moddle of updating a system file will result
>in
>big trouble.....but that is true of any OS. I have found that at the worst
>-
>so far - the active files at the time I kicked the plug out (big feet!)
>had
>allocation errors and - since they were usually temporary or non-essential
>-
>were easily recovered. I do see the potential for bigger problems, but
>that is
>what we should have backups for - under any OS.

No it IS NOT TRUE of any OS. There are plenty of mechanisms an OS can use
to make sure power failture doesn't corrupt data. The simplest is to create
a copy of the file, modify that, then change the name of the new file to
the old file. Still a sensitive point where you change the one filename to
the other. So the OS must be aware of the possibility that two file with
the same name could exsits because of a power crash at this point and
compare date/times or whatever.

Just because some OSs screw this up proves nothing. Do you think any
company with a mainframe would accept losing their payroll database because
the power went out and the auxiliary generators didn't kick in for some
reason?

Maynard Handley
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: OS/2, DOS, NT (Speculative) -- My Opinions
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 23:36:30 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

I sent in my postcard for the NT SDK CDROM almost 2 weeks ago. Where's
my CDROM from MS?
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
---
Given Civil Seizure, from the DEA's point of view, winning the War on
Drugs would be killing the Goose that lays golden eggs.

The Drug War is a government-sponsored, taxpayer-financed,
full-employment program for psycho/socio-paths, wannabees and
gonnabees.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: andrzej@bnr.ca (Andrzej Bieszczad)
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.,
	<2990@accucx.cc.ruu.nl>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 04:39:02 GMT

In article <2990@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:


   >of my users are running Windows 386 in 386Enh mode.

   Yes but are they running 386Enh specific programs ? Mostly their programs 
   don't need that mode (exept usefull DOS boxes).

Well, many do. Smalltalk-80, FrameMaker, Mathematica. DOS boxes are
not important, since they are much better under OS/2 2.0. I agree with
the original post that IBM should have provided full support for
Windows. They should have supported SVGA as well. They do not have to
start at the same point as Win3.0 did, since IBM is not the first -
they should use mistakes other made to learn.
As for Microsoft, Smalltalk-80/Win3.0 does not run under Win3.1
and the statement on the package said that all Win3.0 applications
will run (that is why I returned it to Microsoft).

Hopefully, the "fall" (???) CSD will fulfil everybody's dreams. If it
does not, there might be 500,000 copies of OS/2 ready to be upgraded
to Windows NT ;-) There is no hope for WIN-OS/2 running 386 Enh, though.
What a pity, I have to stick to dual boot.
--
========================================================================
Andrzej Bieszczad                     | Phone:  (613) 763-2259
Bell-Northern Research, Ltd.          | Fax:    (613) 763-3283
Dept. 9K12, P.O. Box 3511, Station C, | USENET: uunet!bnrgate!eh!andrzej
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1Y 4H7      | BitNet: andrzej@BNR.CA
========================================================================

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Distributed Systems (was: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift)
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:31:58 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Aug18.123332.20624@grebyn.com> richk@grebyn.com (Richard Krehbiel) writes:
>In article <1992Aug16.063621.3768@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>>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:
>>>> 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 ;) 
>
>Hey, everybody!  This must be an *official* *announcement* from a
>*Microsoft* *spokesman* that NT will run on a 286!!!
>
>:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) 
>-- 
Amazing what you can make people say when you delete all the context.
petesk@microsoft.com


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: allan@cs.UAlberta.CA (Allan Sullivan)
Subject: Tex Advantages (was Re: TeX an archaic religion?)
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 23:21:33 GMT

rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard M. Warner) writes:

>>
>>Maybe it "no longer rings true" at your site, but it sure as hell seems to
>>at this site, and at the other sites I've been at.  The situation may be dif-
>>ferent for scientists and engineers.  For mathematicians, however, the stan-
>>dard appears to be TeX, whether you like it or not.  As for the "current tech-
>>nology", I don't see the AMS (and the math journals) telling mathematicians
>>to submit their papers in Frame format.  I *do*, however, see them telling
>>people to submit AMS-TeX documents.
>>
>>Now, it would certainly be nice if everyone ran Framemaker, because it's a
>>damn nice program.  However, to say that TeX is merely a "religion" is simply
>>not the case.
>>
>TeX is a religion in the sense that TeX users, like yourself, keep chanting
>the mantra that it is the only way to get the output you want/desire.
>That is manure.  Many word-processors and page-layout programs can
>provide equivalent or better output than TeX.  

>TeX has two advantages in the mathematical world.  Historical inertia
>and the fact that some key publications will only accept TeX files.
>Those are the ONLY advantages of TeX.  One of these days the second
>advantage will weaken and that will soften the first.

There are several other advantages you are missing:

* TeX files can be edited on an ASCII terminal. This is relevant for
  us poor grad students with VT100s in our offices, 

* TeX is compatable across a multitude of systems. So, instead of
  being stuck using a single platform/program for all our work,
  we can use almost any system.

* TeX is free.
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Date: 19 Aug 92 12:19:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: actrix.1992Aug19.121912.21865
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <7143@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
> In article <1992Aug18.090214.14043@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
> >In article <1992Aug17.194931.17023@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> >> So why should it suddenly lose the ability to run Windows 3.0 just
> >> because it gains the ability to run Windows 3.1?
> >Not *all* Win3.0......just a few dozen programs....some of which are popular.
> 
> OK, I'm missing something. Why would something that runs under 3.0 and WIN-OS2
> break under 3.1? Did MS (gasp) introduce some gratuitous incompatibilities in
> the 3.1 API such that a 3.1-compliant WIN-OS2 breaks 3.0 programs? Why isn't
> Windoze 3.1 getting complaints about this from folks who have upgraded and
> can't do their work now? (Or is it?)
> -- 
> 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.
>   "Anything that an F-4 can outturn is not maneuverable." -- Mary Shafer

There are very definitely Win3.0 programs that will not work under 3.1.
 
Why no fuss? Some people are not happy, that I know. I found a customer who is
sticking with Win3.0 because the app he uses won't run under 3.1....he is
thinking of moving to OS/2. It's more stable, mulit-tasks better - and it will
run his app. I just wish I could remember the name of the damn thing!

The media sees Win3.1 abandoning programs as "progress". On the other hand, if
OS/2 can't run it, it has 'poor compatibility'. 
 
Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | If you don't vote for MMP on 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  September 19, 1992, then you 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  must like things the way they 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  are.....can I live with YOU?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Release dates ( was Re: superVGA (and misc top-blowing)
Date: 15 Aug 92 23:57:38 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <77766@ut-emx.uucp> varmint@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Samir Varma) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.140856.21609@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jensen.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>>I know people that swear that vi/emacs and troff/TeX are the best way to
>>word process too.... I also know these same people haven't checked out
>>the abilities of modern programs.
>>
...
>This is absolute, unadulterated, bullshit.  I've tried many modern
>WYSIWYG programs, Microsoft Word for Windows, Ami Pro, Word Perfect
>etc. etc.  And, they're all less efficient for getting the job done
>than GNU Emacs/TeX.  If you're a touch typist, there is simply no
>substitute for Emacs (or vi if you're so inclinded) and for serious
>typesetting of theses, books and papers, TeX is the best (especially
>if you are going to have any mathematics whatsoever).  I suspect that
>you've either never spent the considerable time necessary to master
>TeX and Emacs or you just haven't done anything sophisticated with your
>WYSIWYG word processors.
I am a touch typist, I used ditroff for many years.  I did my master
thesis in TeX.  I'm well aware of the differences between it and
say Word for Windows.  With the possible exception of papers of
mathematicians or near mathematicians, TeX is simply and clearly
inferior.  Word Basic (the underlying macro language of Word) is
every bit as powerful as GNU emacs's e-lisp.
My guess is that, sure you tried it, but you never really spent as
much time learning it as you did for TeX.

Were I to do something the size of my thesis again, I would undoubtedly 
use Word, Ami Pro, or Word Perfect over TeX.


>
>I suggest that you don't cast aspersions on those who don't make the same
>choices as you---who knows, they might even know a thing or two.
I did not cast aspersions on them (though I do on you)... the people
I know that says those things HAVEN'T looked.  They don't want to because
they don't want to fool with learning something new, and the other stuff
gets the job done... their choice.

In your case... if you have looked, then you should know better.
It takes hours to get pictures and stuff to line up and work well in
ditroff or TeX.  My wife is doing here Phd thesis proposal right now.
She uses Windows Draw to create her pictures, pastes them into Word 2.0.
If she needs to edit one of the pictures, double clicks on it, and
OLE brings up draw on that picture to edit, when she's finished, it's
automatically put back into place.
The only drawback she's found is the lack of good bibliography tools.
These can of course be written in Word Basic.  They probably exist
(anybody know of a good set?).

The only reason a mathematician would not want to use Word is that
drawing equations is fine for a few of them, but if you're doing
many of them, it is too tedious.  WordPerfect however allows you
to use a TeX-like approach, though it's not quite as good as TeX.
>
>Samir Varma

Brian
From: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: cset/2 orders
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:46:39 EST
Reply-To: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

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

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

Well, I received my  original set in June.  It was additional copies  we
were trying to get that stymied us.

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

This is the norm for dealing with IBM, unfortunately...

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...

RF>How far along are you with this project?

Err, I was using the Victorian  "we", here. I haven't worked at  the IBM
labs since early June.

----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.com
Software Consulting and Gator Pit | Eradicate Hunger - Eat the homeless
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
---
  SLMR 2.1a  I've got leprosy.  What's eating YOU?
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 09:02:14 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Aug17.194931.17023@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> 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?

Not *all* Win3.0......just a few dozen programs....some of which are popular.
This is in contrast to the handful of Win3.1 programs that don't run under
Win-OS/2. In both cases, we are talking about only a small number of programs.
 
Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | If you don't vote for MMP on 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  September 19, 1992, then you 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  must like things the way they 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  are.....can I live with YOU?
From: AV@vnet.ibm.com (Anton Versteeg)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 11:21:22 CET
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: superVGA  (and misc top-blowing)
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
            <SXMRP.13.0@orca.alaska.edu>

In <SXMRP.13.0@orca.alaska.edu> Michael R. Platzke writes:
>
>Remember, you were looking at a pre-beta release
>
>-Michael R. Platzke (sxmrp@orca.alaska.edu)
>
Pre-beta? Most people would call that alpha.
Also note that lots of functionality was still missing like
DOS, Windows, OS/2(?) compatibility, so it can only become bigger imho.

Anton Versteeg - IBM - Uithoorn Netherlands - TEAMOS2 NL
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Distributed Systems (was: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift)
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:01:52 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <-159819990@hpopd.pwd.hp.com> yuk@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Yuk Lun Chan) writes:
>>comp.os.os2.advocacy / petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) /  3:06 am  Aug  8, 1992 /
>>In article <-159819992@hpopd.pwd.hp.com> yuk@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Yuk Lun Chan) writes:
>>>One small question about multi-user in NT. Can I plug a dump terminal to the
>>>back of the whatever machine running NT. If a PC has 4 com ports, then four
>>>users can log on concurrently. I know there is some card allows a PC have
>>>up to 32 ports (They are running under DR ConcurrentDOS).
>>>
>>>Yuk
>
>>If there is a "server" program running to connect "shells" up the the term
>>ports, then yes.  Would you find this useful?  What apps would you run
>>in these terminals?
>
>Simple accounting, wordprocessing, education or data input etc.

Simple accounting: use an accounting book.  Keep it in a filing cabinet.
wordprocessing: use a typewriter.
education: use teachers
data input: what kind?

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.  Now your workforce
would be allowed to use WYSWIG word processing, have a far better UI
in their word processing, and so on.  Education, now you can use multimedia.


>
>>I suspect that if this is a really useful mode of interaction, someone,
>>maybe MS, will come up with this server.  Frankly, I wouldn't think
>>you would find this archaic mode of operation useful in NT.  Kind of 
>>like having front panel switches on your UNIX box.
>
>I have seen a lot of small business using dump terminals with a few Unix
>box. In current stage, they don't need window like applications. And you
>know, dump terminal (ok, with vt200, wyse emulation) are very cheap. How
>much for a Unix box + a few com cards + 100 dump terminals and
>NT box + 100 Lan cards + 100 Lan license + 100 PCs (+ 100 windows) ?

A few com cards, try 100.  yeuch.  
How much are dumb terminals.  As I said, 286 boxes are quite cheap also.
Lan cards are very cheap.  100 LAN licenses are cheap.  
So the net cost will be a bit more, the net ability of the system, though,
will be a whole lot more!!!

You give a UNIX system, which will be MAXED out in use.  The users won't be
able to use anything more complecated.  What if the UNIX box goes down.
For every hour it is down, you loose 100 man hours of work.  

With the NT system, You can use most advanced Windows software as it comes
out.  And when the main box goes down, everyone can continue to work locally.


Let me just remind you that I DID NOT SAY that NT couldn't handle login
over the serial port from a term.  I only questioned the usefulness of this.

petesk@microsoftc.om
My Opinions...


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Number of users etc.
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:59:12 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <2987@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:
>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.
In times past this has been true.  The 1,000,000 number however includes
all copies SHIPPED that were not electronically distributed. 
The number was first announced during the ZiffNet conference of IBM
big wigs, and they were quite explicit that that number was for
copies shipped, not actual sales, or number of users, etc.

>
>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.

Clearly the 1,000,000 number includes a fair bit of shelfware too...

>
>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.
I would presume that it includes the 4,500-5,000 given out at the
NT developers conference.

Brian
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
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 16:52:28 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept


In article <1992Aug21.181514.4337@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.141431.11063@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
...
>
>And as for the C compiler.  Look at other C compilers?  Watcom C/386
>sells for $700 (discount), TopSpeed sells for $500, Borland C (for
>DOS) sells for $500.  IBM's list price of $300 is abig discount.
>
>What do you want?  Free?  It'd be nice, but it ain't gonna happen

Oh, I forgot to add... WorkSet/2's list
price is $895, discounted you can get it for about $650.
That $295 offer expires September 5.  Also, $295 is not a big discount..
Academic discount of Borland C++ 3.0 with Applications frameworks
(a far superior package to WorkSet/2) was $199 when I bought
about a year and a half ago.
Borland C++ 3.1 (without applications frameworks) is still far superior
to WorkSet/2... It's current list price (I'm looking at Compuserve) is $495.
Programmer's connection will sell it to you for $299.

My guess is that list price for WorkSet/2 should be about $250, with a street
price of $120.  (Turbo C++ is $99.95 list).
This especially holds true as WorkSet/2 comes with few docs.

Brian
From: ml3q+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael H. Lambert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: TeX as Religion
Date: 18 Aug 92 06:03:40 GMT
	<1992Aug17.162631.26015@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu>
Organization: Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.os2.advocacy: 17-Aug-92 Re: Release dates
( was Re:.. Richard Warner@sjsumcs.s (2094)

   For Mathematical typesetting, Framemaker is current technology,
   TeX is an archaic 'religion' whose mantra of 'only/best mathematical
   typesetting system' no longer rings true.

Hmm, Framemaker might be worth trying then...  Should I be able to find
Framemaker source code on the same anonymous FTP sites as TeX?  What? 
Framemaker source isn't freely available?  I wonder why TeX is more
widely used in academia...

Michael H. Lambert
Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center