HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Subject: OS/2 DOS Compatability
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:54:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.211654.28451@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <7536@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct9.171907.3735@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>>>DOS and WIN16 is not too good in the pre-beta SDK, but do you think,
>>>that MS will ship the release version with poorer support for DOS &
>>>WIN16 than OS/2 2.0 currently has?
>>
>>If not, then why is MS only claiming to support the top 100 Windows/DOS apps?
>>OS/2 does a LOT better than that.
>
>     What is OS/2's claim?  Does IBM claim 100% DOS compatibility?
>

Which DOS Phil?  As far as I know, there were incompatabilities
between every version of DOS.  Do we include DR-DOS?  Do we have to
add compatability issues when we throw in such things like QEMM?

Does it really do any good to pick at statements like this?  I think
most of us who read this newsgroup know that some programs
(Mathematica comes to mind) that won't run under OS/2.  How about if
we modify the claim above to 99.44% ?  By any measure, OS/2's support
of DOS programs is excellent, but not perfect.  Statements like this
seem to be aimed at redirecting the issue away from NT's
acknowledged limitations in DOS support.  This in turn tends to make
people discount other comments that you make that are quite valid.

   -- Bruce

--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
bdubbs@sadis01.sa.aflc.af.mil |  Scrupulous Lawyer
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jyri+@CMU.EDU (Jyri Virkki)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Date: 11 Oct 92 17:42:44 GMT
	<1992Oct11.101526.13702@netcom.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: Masters student, Information Networking Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:
> 
> >I am not willing to put up with anything less powerful than unix.
> 
> My, my, what a power user you must be! :)

A flawed implication. Why should I, or any user, choose to use an
os that is less capable, if a better one exists? The better one can
cover everything the lesser one can, and more. Even if you don't use
the extra power 98% of the time, it's still there for those 2% when
you do need it. So instead of having to go to great contortions to
overcome the limits of the bad os, you simply keep doing your work.
Which is more efficient? Me, I'll take the powerful os.

--
Jyri J. Virkki | DoD#561 | jyri+@cmu.edu | Carnegie Mellon University | MSINI
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7470 comp.os.os2.apps:7086
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Gammatech 32 (was 32bit apps list
Date: 12 Oct 92 13:16:17 GMT
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


Here is one that wasn't on the list-

    Gammatech 32 bit utilities.

The product is maturing very nicely.  The new release has a sector editor,
a varaiety of hpfs utilities such as an analyser and optimiser, and
it even has a watch dog called sentry to stop boot sector destruction.

It is a nice package.
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Date: 12 Oct 92 08:25:19 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.

In article <1992Oct9.214906.11549@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|> In <1992Oct08.184554.29579@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <1992Oct8.15852.11153@ms.uky.edu> sam@ms.uky.edu (Mike Mills) writes:
|> >>
|> >>  It is EXTREMELY useful to have
|> >>multiple users logged into separate xterms.  I can be logged into my account
|> >>in one (actually, several) windows, root in another, and operator in another.
|> >>All doing their little tasks, with their appropriate privileges.
|> 
|> >     Can each of these xterms open new windows?  Can they obscure
|> >windows owned by another user?  Can they kill windows opened by
|> >another user?  If so, how can you claim to have any kind of security
|> >if these things are allowed?
|> 
|> Yes.  No, they only show windows owned by them.  No, since they can't
|> see them they can't kill them (with root, who can kill anything, as an
|> exception because he can go out and kill the process associated with
|> the window).

Ummm. One of us is confused.  Once you have a connnection to an X server you
can do anything to that server, including getting a list of *all* the windows
and sending a KillClient to the owner of each one in turn. Or, more to the
point, you can watch the keystrokes going to all the applications and catch
passwords etc. as they are typed. You do secure the keybord each time you type
a password into an xterm, don't you?  I don't, but then I don't let other
users access my display, so I am "safe".

|> People seem to be acting as if there is one 'display' and everyone's X
|> windows must come up on it.  I've never seen things done that way.  It
|> does, however, appear to be the NT model.

I'm not sure I understand.  If you are talking about multiple screens &
keyboards, then there is complete security for both X and NT. But the
context of the above discussion was "what can you do sitting in front of a
single X/NT display?"


|> I routinely log in, su to
|> root in a single window when I need to do something as root, and the
|> rest of the time don't use that ID at all.

You can do this with NT just fine, becuase only one user is actually using the
display. xterm implements the barrier between the two userids, not the Window
System. This is the way it is supposed to be done under NT too.
From: msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 9 Oct 92 02:08:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct08.184302.29415@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.023123.20578@netcom.com> msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct07.101657.16483@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>>>Okay, I guess I've had my head in the sand or something.  I have yet to
>>>see anyone use a multiuser system as you seem to think it is.  How
>>>does one hook 5 mice up to a computer so 5 people can use it.  How does
>>>one hook 5 keyboards up.
>>>
>>>THE SCREEN DEVICE OF NT ONLY ALLOWS ONE USER TO HAVE OWNERSHIP OF IT.
>>>
>>>Everything else is pretty much multiuser.  Each process has it's own
>>>user/security context.  I can run processes on someone elses machine
>>>when they're logged on.  These processes run under my security context.
>>>
>>>What is more multiuser than that?  having 5 keyboards and 5 mice
>>>hooked up and one screen so 5 people can type on the screen at one time?
>>>
>>
>>I would tend to say you have had your head up a certain part of your anatomy
>
>     Oh, this is very clever Martin.  I suppose the expected response
>would be "Do Not!"
>
>
>>It is quite plain and simple what I mean A user has a terminal with or without
>>a mouse and with a keyboard. These are connected to the big mr server box in
>>the corner that the company paid money for When A user logs onto Mr server box
>>he gets a login session on Mr server box. 
>
>     This seems like a reasonable definition.  Windows NT will allow
>this kind of usage.
>
>
>>Have you ever used UNIX oops sorry that is both CONCURRENT MULTI-USER and 
>>ARGHH NO !!!!! preemptive multi-tasking. 
>>
>>
>>Pete if you cannot add anything constructive to these debates GTFOOH.
>
>      Well, if this isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't
>know what is.  Have I _ever_ seen a post from you that wasn't a
>flame, Martin?
>
>					-Phil

Try the my first post on this subject among others. Just because you 
do not like/agree with the staements made in that post does not make it a flame.

When Pete resorts to dumb-assed answers he can expect to be flamed.


Martin Smith
msmith@netcom.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.x will loose its battle against NT if .....
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:16:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.003603.1793@news.Hawaii.Edu> lkan@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Linus Kan) writes:
>
>o NT sells for below $199
>o NT tailored to Intel x86 platform and sells for below $99
>
>Anyone out there believes that NT would sell for about $500?
>I don't think so--it's just a gimmick!  It's an estimated price
>so that tempted users like me would buy OS/2 because it's cheap.
>Microsoft says that--do you think they'll actually sell NT for
>that price?  Think about it--if you were a sales strategist at 
>Microsoft, how much would you suggest NT sell for  in order to 
>maintain total monopoly on Intel based OS?  $500 for NT is
>quite ridiculous--it's all just a (brillant) gimmick and a false
>'add'.

Wow...this is the most retarded logic I've heard.
Did you mean this in a sarcastic manner?   Whose "brilliant" gimmick is
this?  MS's?  Oh,  I see, their gimmick is brilliant because it makes
people  go out and buy OS/2, therefore hurting NT's acceptance in the
marketplace.  Absolutely fabulous and masterful strategy.

What the hell are you talking about?
What possible gain could MS have by quoting a "quite ridiculous" price
early on, encouraging users to buy a competitor's system?

>
>I'm sure Microsoft is reading the OS/2 newsgroups and get user
>evaluations and problems plus tips and ideas so that they could
>improve their NT code.  And since NT and OS/2 are similar in code,
>Microsoft is learning its mistakes from the release of OS/2 2.0
>--us OS/2 users did all the test Microsoft needed for the NT kernel.
>I'm sure the first release of NT would have less BUGS than OS/2 2.0.
>I've had my share of bugs with OS/2!
>

Bugs are a random occurence...whereever programmer's mess up, that's where
they are.  Debugging one program contributes *nothing* to debugging another,
even if they're similar.  However, complaints about the implementation of
OS/2 could be useful to NT.  Complaints about the WPS have no
bearing on the Windows shell, though, and since MS chose to stick with that,
they gain nothing in that department either.

Sorry, I had more commentary on your letter, but I have to go.

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 09 Oct 92 18:25:14 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct8.174049.15330@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>
>So does MS-DOS and my 'Vette, but they have very little to DO with
>them.  Certainly neither of them is a concurrent multi-user system,
>and it is my understanding (because you have to be seated at the
>console to use it) that Windows/NT is not one, either.
>

      Sigh.  Fred, you haven't been reading _anything_.  Please
state a source for your contention that a user has to be seated
at the console to use Windows NT.

				-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
From: jedwards@ms.uky.edu (Jonathan Edwards)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FTP / TELNET Software for OS/2 2.x
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:50:37 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

FAGER@gribb.hsr.no (Fagerland, Svein      94/96) writes:


>I am currently running OS/2 2.01 beta and novell netware. This is really a 
>great combination, *BUT* i need to do FTP and Telnet also, which I 
>understand is not possible at this time.

>SO what I an looking for is:

>FTP software for, or compatible with OS/2 2.x
>Telnet software -------------"--------------

IBM sells a TCP/IP implementation for OS/2 2.0 (actually, I think it's the
OS/2 1.x version of TCP/IP, but it runs fine under 2.0).  I believe ftp and
telnet are included (I was running OS/2 2.0+TCP/IP+NFS over the summer and
ftp and telnet were both there - I assume it's part of the TCP/IP package).

You should be able to order it from 800-IBM-2255.  (That number is from
memory.  You may want to call 800-IBM-2468 and ask them what number to
call to order PC software...)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 07:55:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.070229.24956@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.233432.27395@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
...
>>NT's DOS support will be better than 1.X's --
>
>I would hope so...I'm not satisfied with 2.0's dos support, and anything
>less (like NT's) just ain't gonna cut it.

Well this seems to hold in _your_ set of circumstances, but given the rate
of sales of Windows apps... _your_ view is far from universal.

...
>>  Consider also the testing/maintenace burden
>>IBM is picking up for OS/2 2.0 -- DOS -- even down to the hardware
>>bits level, Windows 2.X, 3.X, Win32s, Win32.  It's possible in the
>>near future that OS/2 may run well everyone else's apps, but it mainly
>>means there is less incentive for people to make apps for the small 2.0
>>native market.
>
>First, I don't give a shit about all the testing/maintenance burden IBM's
>picking up for 2.0.  It's called service, and what's better, I'm not paying
>for it.  I got OS/2 for $49, I've gotten all the patches and the beta 
>Windows 3.1 support *and I haven't layed down another dime for any of it*.

You aren't paying for it now maybe, but eventually IBM will need to make money.

...
>More modern OS's won't be in use, cause people can't use them with their
>old stuff.

Why do you say this?  NT will support most DOS and Windows apps, reviews
of UnixWare (actually the underlying SysVR4.2 of UnixWare) have had high
praises of the speed of its Windows support.

...
>>Any major new feature in OS/2 will have to be geared to be compatible with
>>the other platforms.  Imagine they have to support two of many things already!
>>Two font systems, two multimedia systems, two sets of printer drivers.
>>What seems like a good idea at the moment, will quickly become a burden.
>>IBM would better spend its time recruiting ISV support.
>
>It'll probably take some tweaking to get some features to work across
>platforms, but not every feature they add will figure into other platforms.
>For instance, multithreading.  Multithreading is a feature of OS/2, but
>VDM's and Windows don't have or need a clue that it's there.

Win32 has threads, and IBM has said that Win32 support will be in OS/2.

...


Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
University of Utah                             United We Stand
Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:58:21 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct10.002126.22340@leland.Stanford.EDU> yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong) writes:
>In article <1992Oct05.190659.24067@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct5.141621.6764@cu23.crl.aecl.ca> gutz@cc49.crl.aecl.ca writes:
>>>
>>>Agreed, IBM, like Microsoft, can predict that cows will fall from the sky
>>>on Tuesday.  But the fact remains that OS/2 is selling - and probably better
>>>than MS could have guessed.
>>
>>     OS/2 is indeed selling - but neither of us has any clue how well.
>>We have some numbers from IBM, and we have some conflicting numbers
>>from Microsoft.  Who's to say which is closer to the truth?
>
>Just curious, how can Microsoft have any numbers regarding the sales of OS/2
>2.0?
>

     Microsoft gets royalties on every copy of OS/2 2.0 sold.  Either
IBM is currently misrepresenting the number of copies sold, or they
are cheating Microsoft out of royalties due.  Or the royalties just
haven't caught up to the ship numbers yet.  Or some combination of
the three.

					-Phil



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn)
Subject: Re: 32-bit OS/2 Apps List
Reply-To: soh3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 04:31:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.034402.14805@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>I think in the end you will have to agree with me that ISV support
>for OS/2 is weak. 
>

Brian, you seem to indulge yourself too much in this point, but don't
you think it is too early to predict?  OS/2 2.0 is out for six or seven
months now.  Compared to Windows 3.x, it is a way too short a time.  Besides,
even though the list may not be too impressive, don't you also think all the
major application developers like Borland, Lotus, WordPerfect, Computer
Associates, SAS, and others who said they are developing os/2 2.0 versions
of their apps are more than adequate for the moment?  With os/2's success,
apps developers will follow, and os/2's success is becoming more and
more apprent.  

Min
From: d9mikael@dtek.chalmers.se (Mikael Wahlgren)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:52:07 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg Sweden

>> >OS/2 does NOT have the same feature, even with OS2toYOU.  OS2toYOU only
>> >provides passworded logins.  Once the user is given a shell they
>> >have full privileges to all the system.  OS/2 has no concept of user id.
>> >NT has full fledged separate users id's with corresponding
>> >levels of privilege.

>> I don't think your knowledge about OS2toYOU is as complete as mine...:-)
>> Have you ever heard of HPFS386?  No, I thought so.

>Mikael, you surely know more about OS2toYOU than Brian, but did he say
>anything wrong about it? No, I don't think so. Also I think OS2toYOU is
>one of the finest programs for OS/2.

I just wanted him to know that I knew what OS2toYOU was, because he
said something along the line "shutup if you don't know what you are 
talking about"...

>But now to HPFS386. HPFS386 doesn't give you any concurrent multiuser
>capabilities. If a user logs on locally, a remote user using OS2toYOU
>or any other package has the same security context as the local user.

Well, if I understand it correctly, the UPM API allows you to login
a PROCESS.  Support for this is available in OS2toYOU right now (well
not in the version generally available), but I haven't had any opportunity 
to test this myself, as I haven't received Lan Server 3.0 yet (PLEASE
IBM...  When do I get the CD-ROM?).

>Also IBM used the old LAN-MAN 2.0 (not 2.1) HPFS386 and ported it to
>OS/2 2.0. So there is no real security. Just replace HPFS with HPFS386
>on the OS/2 2.0 Disk 1 and boot with it, you will get full access to
>your HPFS386 partition. The term "local security" is really misused
>here. Only the MS LANMAN 2.1 HPFS386 supports some real local security.

Well, local security wasn't exactly the issue here.  Different security
profiles between different processes are enough for the "multiuser"
capabilities.  But I hope all of you understand that I don't claim that
OS2toYOU is a good tool to convert OS/2 into a multiuser OS.  It was
not primarily intended for that kind of usage.

Mikael Wahlgren
From: rvaniwaa@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ronald J. Vaniwaarden)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: 32-bit OS/2 Apps List
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:15:29 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

In article <1992Oct14.174540.6043@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph Malloy) writes:
>Okay, will all those who are forced to use Windows 1.x and 2.x apps
>whether because of poverty (can't afford to upgrade) or because there's
>no alternative and for whom the app won't run under 3.x please raise
>your hands?
>
>I don't see any hands, folks...
>
>Joe

Actually, There are a couple of windows 2.1 shareware and freeware applications
that I regualarly run under OS/2.  One of them is a simple graphing program
for math functions.  The other is a program (made by IBM incidentally) that
will create mathematical expressions for cutting and pasting into other
documents as a picture.  These are windows 2.x apps and would crash windows
3.x often.  Yes, there are other programms that will do these applications but
these two do their simple tasks well and they are _free_.

Count at least one hand raised...

Happy computing

--Ronald Van Iwaarden

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph Malloy)
Subject: Re: Please benchmark the following... (was Re: NSTL...
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:46:56 GMT

In article <92279.172219RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> writes:
>
>Please benchmark on DOS/Win3.1 and 32bit OS/2 following "natural" actions:
>
[lots of unnatural suggestions deleted!]  
>
>That totals to 10 hours and 5 minutes (if I am not mistaken).
>
>Question 1: How long does it take to do all of that stuff on DOS/Win3.1  ?
>
>Question 2: How long does it take to do all of that stuff on 32bit OS/2  ?
>
>Maybe the NSTL-people are of help here, they did all that nice benchmarking.
>

I suppose the theory is that OS/2 2.0 would do it all more quickly.  But
in fact, the test you describe is by no means a real-world test.  Most
of us do not install new software except infrequently.  Most of us don't
need to format floppies all the time (gosh, I thought that old
shibboleth of OS/2-boosterism had finally died its graceless death!).
Most of us don't even have to move around all that much data between
different programs.  (I'm basing my observations on what I see, daily, on
this and other campuses, not on any other source.)  I think the majority
of users still stick to one task at a time and, when offered the chance
to multitask under any system, would not either want to bother to learn
a new os or really make use of it...

One of the problems both OS/2 and NT face is that they are (will be)
very complex systems that need more fine tuning than the average user
will want to bother with.  Until it's plug 'n' play with either os, DOS
and Mac system 6 will be with us...

In short, I suspect (though I do not know) that the NSTL tests probably
better reflect the actual use desktop pc's are put to in what we
laughingly call 'real life.'

-Joe
jmalloy@hamilton.edu