HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 12:45:50 GMT

helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

>In article <1992Dec23.030133.75057@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>|> 
>|> A monopoly doesn't need to be 100% in real life.  True that would be a
>|> technical definition, but the effect is that a company with such overwhelming
>|> market share gets to call the shots.

>A companies _customers_ calls the shots no matter how big the company is.
>Its the customers who give it the market share that it has.

Hmm, so if I contact such a company, tell them what I want of them
and tell them I am a customer, they'll tell me, Yes sir, it'll
be there first thing? Nah, doesn't even look worth trying. To
simple a view maybe.


>|> And they should be squashed out of existance.  I don't see how the government
>|> limiting the growth of a big company is worse moraly or economically than the
>|> big company squashing a little company. 

>Look at it this way.  The only way a "big company" can put a "little company"
>out of business is for the customers of the little company to _voluntarily_
>of their _own_free_will_ to _choose_ to buy from the big company instead.
>In other words, it is the freewill choice of the customers which puts _any_
>company, big or little out of business.

And not the potential of a big company to produce at lower costs and
the consumers wish to get the cheapest product still valuable. Right
you are.

Erik
-- 
Erik van Linstee   |   Delft University of Technology   |   I'll be back ... 
----
   We are god, 'cause only we can create the idea of his existence
   in our holy brains...  (Yello)
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 20:06:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.033418.28702@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
> In article <1992Dec24.035348.26595@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
> >the 125 meg drive. I have 8 megs of 70ns RAM and the system runs very much
> >like OS/2 on 4 megs with no HPFS. 
> 
> 
> 	As it should.  8 megs is the NT minimum.
> 
> 	Plus, you *should expect crashes*.  Installing any OS,
> 	NT or OS/2, is not the same as just plugging in an HD 
> 	with the os installed.  It must be configured for your hardware
> 	and your motherboard.

The guy in Auckland is using the same computer I am using - same motherboard,
same I/O adapter (brand names).....
 
Also, he installed it with 8 megs of RAM....then added 8 more later.

> 
> 	I should tell you some of what you get when moving 
> 	OS/2 by backing up to tape.  

Moving the hard disk to another machine with standard components should cause
no trouble. I can understand going from IDE to SCSI would cause havoc, but in
this case, the motherboards are the same, the video card is the same, the I/O
adaptor is the same, the floppies are the same, the hard disk is the *very*
same one.

> >I don't hink I am in any danger whatever of becoming an NT bigot based on what
> >I have seen so far. Having gone from the OS/2 2.1 beta to the NT
> >beta.....there is no real comparison. 
> 
> 	Add 8 more megs and reinstall the system from scratch, then
> 	repost.  As it stands, you're FUDding.

I am getting 4 x 4meg simms on Tuesday. As for the FUD....I am relating what
happened when I used NT. If it weren't true.....that might be FUD. The fact
is, the system needs 16megs of RAM and eats up 90megs of hard disk....whatever
machine you install it on.....

My main criticisms are the size and the interface. The fact that it crashed on
an average of every 7 minutes was just adding sport to the exercise. There
were 5 of us standing there playing with it and we had a rgeat time opening
Windows wondering if this was the *the* one that would knock NT over......
 
This is advocacy. I *said* I was an OS/2 bigot! My posts on NT after an hour
or 90 minutes use are tongue in cheek anyway.
 
Don't be so defensive!
 
Have a Merry Xmas!
 
Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
+64 4 478 4714                          | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sasghw@pica.unx.sas.com (Greg Wust)
Subject: Re: IBM OS/2 Fiesta Bowl
Originator: sasghw@pica.unx.sas.com
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 18:28:28 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1992Dec24.145156.7787@panix.com>, os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.) writes:
|> In <697@riscy.simplot.com> rshelley@riscy.simplot.com (Robert Shelley) writes:
|>
|> >Of course, but, that means OS Bowl 1 would be:
|> >    OS/2 v DOS
|>
|> >That isn't fair though,  when dos passed the ball, all
|> >the players would stop!  When the center hiked the ball
|> >for that matter!
|>
|> A friend of mine said she heard on the radio that IBM signed a contract to
|> allow them to sponsor some major TV event.  I am almost sure that it was a
|> sporting event.  Can someone confirm this?
|>
|> If this is true, there would be a *definate* opportunity for OS/2 commercials
|> (and maybe they won't put any insomnia cures out of business).
|>

Yes - this is true.  But, IBM's size does them in again.  Seems they
started in contract negotiations over a year ago when Arizona was going
to vote on the Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday which caused them the loss
of the SuperBowl.  I guess IBM assumed it would either pass this time
or would not affect college's.  BUT, the referendum was voted down so
Arizona does not have a Martin Luther King Jr. holiday and because of it,
no colleges will sign up except little dunks like Arkansas Central U or
some odd one.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Wust                              SAS Institute Inc
Publications Programmer                SAS Campus Drive, Cary NC 27513
sasghw@unx.sas.com   x7012             919-677-8000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: h198@hosp.med.umich.edu  (Gene Mangum)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Egghead flyerupdate
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992  09:46 EDT
Organization: Univ of Michigan Hospitals
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: condor.hosp.med.umich.edu
X-Newsreader: FTPNuz (DOS) v1.0

In Article <1992Dec28.150254.1894@lub001.lamar.edu> "airhart@lub001.lamar.edu" says:
 
  [Stuff Deleted]
 
> Personally I avoid giving the "PRETTY COLOR" ads any preference and look for 
> the substance of the ad.  Any user that requires a flashy package to be
> convinced of the values of a program/OS/book may be in the wrong field.
 
  And it would be great if everyone was this way.   As computer nerds, we
  hopefully understand that looks are only skin deep, but many users are
  *NOT* computer nerds, they just use computers as tools/toys.   They 
  don't know what to look for.   It's kinda like buying a car.   One of
  the major selling points is the appearance, even though that flashy,
  racy, sporty car might leave you stranded in the middle of nowhere
  during a snow storm.
 
  As a side note, although my opinion is not swayed by "pretty" (at least
  when it comes to computers :-) when Windoze 3.0 came out, I thought
  "Wow, the screens really look neat.   3D and all".   After using OS/2
  for about 1.5-2 years (starting with 1.3 and the early betas of 2.0)
  I look at a Windoze 3.x screen and think "It looks so *plain*".
  [Stuff Deleted]
 
> performs functions that mere DOS dreams of." And it does what it says. I wonder
> what the NTs (Not There still) will say. Maybe, "Buy me because we are the
> world, there are no others." What kind of features will be left after Billy has
> to rush it to market because OS/2 is becoming popular with the educated class
> of computer users. 
 
  It amazes me how many Microsoft-heads there are in this industry.   IBM
  just has an image problem, and M$ feeds on it.   I talk to lots of 
  people who are knowledgable in the PC arena who, when I mention OS/2,
  react with "OS/2????  OS/2????   I'm waiting for NT!" or "I've ordered
  the NT beta (and 16 more meg and a 350M HD)".   IBM is making some
  steps in the right direction, but the M$ zealots are out in full force
  with their glazed look droning "NT...NT...I'm waiting for NT".
  [Stuff Deleted]
 
> *2 - [what, it won't run on a 286 or a lame 386sx? So what!
                                              ^^^^^
  I beg to differ.   It runs just fine on my 386SX laptop!
  [Stuff Deleted]
 
> commitment to it and will be there to stand behind it. IBM LIKES people that
> develop S/W for OS/2, because they are not trying to do it all themselves.
 
  As evidenced by things like opening the DAP to shareware developers, and
  offering the PDK.
  [Stuff Deleted]
 
> Windoze NT is STILL not there. It will work for SOME people. $S is unable to
 
  And I don't doubt that NT will be a big success.   "NT...NT...I'm waiting..."
  See the glazed stare?
  [Stuff Deleted]
 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: hwhalen@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Hugh Whalen)
Subject: IBM losing money on PC's???????
Organization: Faculty of Administration, University of New Brunswick
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:11:46 GMT


From the December 28th issue of TIME magazine:

".... IBM's growth in PCs lags far behind that of the rest of the 
industry. IBM is the only one of the top 10 PC vendors whose market 
share has declined this year. In fact IBM's PC business is in the red."

End of quote.

I find this quite shocking. I thought that the main problem they were 
having was in the mainframe area.

I have a few questions. 

First does anybody know if OS/2 is part of IBM's PC business? If so, 
could this be the reason that they are in the red? (I believe that 
someone posted here very recently that development costs for OS/2 were 
$2 billion. My recollection was that it was in the area of $200 
million .... however, I am certainly not sure of this.) If they have 
to eat the costs of OS/2 development they may never be profitable as a 
separate entity. Does anyone have any information on this?

Second, I thought the Value Point line and notebook lines of IBM PCs 
were doing very well .... does anybody have any other information?

Third, has anyone heard if this will affect the development of OS/2? 
Please not I am *not* saying that it will .... I was just wondering if 
IBM or the trade rags have said anything about this.


Hugh Whalen                     | Where all men think alike, no one
Faculty of Administration       | thinks very much.
University of New Brunswick     |               - Walter Lippmann			


DISCLAIMER: Neither UNB nor I care what the other thinks.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 05:31:45 GMT

In article <1htv10INNp6c@tamsun.tamu.edu>, bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec31.032124.1762@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> |In article <1hsujcINNjrq@tamsun.tamu.edu>, bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
|> |
|> ||> |With OS/2 and NeXTSTEP (both of which can run DOS _and_ Windows programs)
|> ||> |Solaris, and Pink, I don't think Microsoft has faced as many competitors
|> ||> |in its history.
|> ||> 
|> ||> Agreed.  Thats why MS wants to go back to the bad old days.
|> |
|> |So basically Microsoft is being forced into lower prices because of 
|> |competition in the marketplace.  Things are working as they should.
|> 
|> You still don't get it.  As soon as the competitors are forced to
|> liquidate, the prices go up. 

With OS/2 selling at a rate of 2 million copies a year, nobody is in any
danger of liquidation.  

|> I don't want MS to control.  I don't want IBM to control.  I don't
|> want one of the Unix variants to control.  I want them all to exist.

They will!!  Neither IBM nor Sun nor NeXT are in any danger of going
bankrupt.  If Novell can purchase UNiX from USL, then they surely arn't
in financial difficulties.  Word Perfect still sells more copies than
Microsoft Word.  Lotus is King of spreadsheets, and Borland just about has
the database picture locked up.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pshuang@athena.mit.edu (Ping Huang)
Subject: Re: Egghead flyer
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:54:59 GMT

In article <2b2fa33e@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org> Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org writes:

 > That's true.  I was wondering about the reason for that myself.

I was also wondering why IBM chose to put black and white ads in the
latest issues of the various rags, listing the awards OS/2 2.0 garnered
at Comdex. On one hand, color would sure have made some of those awards
look prettier and eye-catching. On the other hand, B&W can be
eye-catching by contrast to all the color. I just think they should have
made most of the ad black and white, and then maybe put "OS/2 2.0" in
gold lettering, that would have looked very impressive.

--
Ping Huang (INTERNET: pshuang@athena.mit.edu), probably speaking for himself

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:20:17 GMT

In article <BzoCzH.Ds0@news.iastate.edu>, TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:
|> >
|> >Bill Gates doesn't have to show anybody his OS calls any more than he
|> >has to show them his underware.
|> >
|> 
|>      I don't think many people are too interested in Bill Gates'
|> underwear.  I think that a lot of people are interested in seeing
|> what sort of undocumented calls are in MS-DOS and MS-Windows.  And
|> he doesn't have to show these undocumented calls, but when a company
|> uses the undocumented calls of thier own OS to give them an unfair
|> advantage, then they have be cautious because the FTC will probably
|> step in.

"unfair" is such a vague word.  


|> enacted.  I'm not really that interested in the breakup of MS, but I
|> am interested in the contracts that MS signs with PC vendors being
|> scruitinized, and revised if they are found to be in violation of
|> the rules that the FTC has set up.

We'll I am interested in the rules that the FTC has set up and some of
them I have a real problem with.  No federal commission should be able
to mandate the theft of property, but that is exactly what the FTC has
done.

|> >Hey, Microsoft didn't hold a gun to anybody clone maker's head and
|> >force them to sign a contract.  Both parties voluntarily signed contracts
|> >because they both thought it would benefit them.
|> >
|> 
|>      I agree, no guns were involved.  I'm against the nature of the
|> contracts signed.

Pardon me, but isn't the nature of the contracts signed the business of only
the people who sign it?  If they both like the contract enough to sign it
then why would you possibly be against it or even care?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Subject: Re: More advertising
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:31:40 GMT

jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>In article <1992Dec29.155440.23938@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>>"With an operating system that can run all of your DOS, Windows, and OS/2
>>					^^^
>>	Pull this word.

>You're being unnecessarily pedantic - there's NO OS that meets the criterion
>you're holding OS/2 up to.

>>	Can't we be honest?  OS/2 takes more than 30 megs of HD space

>Hahahaha. It can be installed quite nicely in less than 30.

And let me add to that that I have it up and running on a 30M partition
with a 2M swap file and 10M free space left. So I'll admit, WINOS2 is
not part of this and neither are the OS2\APPS, but then, they aren't
really part of the system.

>>	and a lot more than 4 megs of RAM.  This is part of the problem--
>>	you can't solve it by promoting the same lies.  Come on, OS/2
>>	*needs* at least 6 to function -- sluggishly! -- but 4 is a 

>It works just fine in 6. This is yet more FUD.

>>	joke (yes, I've tried it post SP).  If IBM would allow you to boot
>>	w/o the WPS, it might be better, but that pretty much makes the
>>	system useless.  (There's only so much benefit you get from OS/2
>>	wit one fullscreen prompt).

>I guess you didn't try SET RUNWORKPLACE=CMD.EXE, then, did you? It allows you
>to take advantage of everything but the WPS; in particular, you get all of the
>PM support and multitasking facilities.
>-- 
>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.
> "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
-- 
Erik van Linstee   |   Delft University of Technology   |   I'll be back ... 
----
   We are god, 'cause only we can create the idea of his existence
   in our holy brains...  (Yello)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:14:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.040237.14440@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>In article <Bzn0EI.D2w@csulb.edu> sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>

Lots on Standard Oil & Unfair Competition Deleted.
>
>I dont care what MS _might_ do. I do care about what they have
>done. 
Purchased an operating system from Seattle Software that was a translation
of CP/M to the 808x processor of questionable legality.  And sold it to
IBM as PC-DOS.

> By now, with the exception of IBM (with an early help from MS),
>nobody was able to produce as cheaply an operating system that people really 
>_wanted_, other then MS. Just take a look at the history and you will
>see how prices are becoming lower, and new applications that people 
>_want_, are being written as a result of MS-Windows. 
Is that why their upgrade policies are among the most expensive in the
industry.  My upgrade for Word cost $100, my upgrade for WP cost $35.

Dov, the price drop has nothing to do with Windows.  It simply with
more and more people purchasing software, the fixed costs can be
amortized out over more people.  And if you think Microsoft is a leader
in this, please explain how Billy Gates is now worth 5.5 Billion Dollars.
It sounds like some over charging, and preditory policies have made
Gates the worlds richest man in only a decade.


>
>If MS is capable of keeping prices down for the customer, why
>should _they_ be penalized and not the less efficient companies ? 
MS has not kept the prices down, infact if you look at their $8 a unit
for bundled Windows for Workgroups vs the $100 per station that the
end user pays, you might suspect that MS is price gouging the end
user shamelessly.  And if you look at the suits, if they don't like
the way you beat them, they either buy you, or put you out of business
in a way that has been of questionable legality since they slapped
Standard Oil on the wrist for it.


>
>>-- 
>>Jeff Sicherman
>>up the net without a .sig
>
>Dov

--Lowell Morrison
--Uncle Wolf

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10823 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3391
From: sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 23 Dec 92 07:29:26 GMT
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

In article <1992Dec23.013422.24038@sequent.com> furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod) writes:
>In article <BzoG15.21q@news.cso.uiuc.edu> walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk) writes:
>>helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>>>Ever think that Microsoft is only able to devote 27+% of its income to
>>>R & D because it has such a big market share and because its products are
>>>so competative?  
>>
>>And do you know how big this market share is?  In 1991, MS received
>>about 25% of the total profit of all software sold.  No other company
>>is even close to this amount of profit per total market sales.
>>
>
>Microsoft devotes the LARGEST amount of money percentage wise I
>have seen in a high tech company. "only 27+% of it's income to R&D"
>is a far higher percentage of it's income than most companies are
>willing to even think about, much less put to practice.
>
>Once you get the lawyers and accountants out of the spending loop,
>R&D money is what provides the products and the quality thereof.
>That's what most business people never learn, and one of the
>reasons Microsoft has become a great success story.
>
>JMHO...

    Well, I would be interested in seeing how they calculate the figures
since some of those accountants that manage to sneak into MS can have
funny ways of calculating things, especially if those couple of lawyers
tell 'em it's OK.

    Anyway, MS's size and revenue is due a lot more to their presence
at the dawn of the microcomputer age and having the cash coes of DOS
and Windows to feed the other activities. Surely, you can't, in YHO,
claim that all that R&D money has manifested itself in DOS or Windows,
considering how many years they have had to improve them when guys
with much less money have managed to produce better environments with
less resources.

   In fact, I'm hard pressed to come up with anything that MS has truly been 
an innovator on - with respect to major industry trends. They do seem to
have the ability to develop and even 'perfect' some concepts, but all that
R&D sure hasn't gone to nurturing any genius in Redmond.




-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:54:46 GMT

In <29DEC199209503697@moose.cccs.umn.edu> rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu (RICHARD HOFFBECK) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>> And since MS was the producer of SCO-Xenix
>> I don't think they come off lilly white there either. 

>Actually MS is (or was) a minority shareholder of SCO.  I don't know if they
>had any hand in the actual development of XENIX.  My impression was that they
>simply resold a relabeled 80x8x version it as MS-XENIX.

Microsoft added features to AT&T Version 7 UNIX (record locking) and sold
the product under the name Xenix (at that time vendors could not use the
name UNIX in thier product name).  This was a product of MS BEFORE  the PC
and before DOS.  Microsoft sold this in "source" form to various hardware
vendors (Altos, Radio Shack, ...).  SCO came along several years later,
bought the "source" form and resold binaries.  A real cash cow for MS.

In 1989 (?) AT&T said if you meet certian standards, you could use the name
UNIX in the product name.  Amoung those standards were System V compliant.
SCO switched to UNIX and announced they would no longer update Xenix.
-- Cash cow dies--
Microsoft buys 20% of SCO to get a piece of the action.
-- 
INTERNET:  ray@Celestial.COM   Ray A. Jones; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!ray   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!ray   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
The probability of one or more spelling errors in this missive approaches