HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vpsoc@cs.UAlberta.CA (Rob Eitzen)
Subject: Re: How to make OS/2 look bad ...
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 08:31:48 GMT

The bias of some magazines is really starting to piss me off.  First the
PC Magazine propaganda, now CADalyst magazine.
The editor's article on NT brushes off OS/2 as "certainly not a
mainstream operating system for PCs", then blows off for two pages on
how wonderful NT is (note he does not say 'will be' or 'may be').  He
claims that NT is "not new technology" (so what does NT stand for, then)
and that it is "not vaporware" because the development package is out in
pre-release.
What really gets me is this description: 
     It's got DOS compatibility, Windows compatibility, built in
     networking, file security, and incredible multitasking.  How
     incredible is it?  Softsource has a 486-33 that currently runs 100
     simultaneous DOS tasks.  All of them run quite comfortably on a
     machine equipped with 28MB of RAM and a 425MB hard disk.  Try that
     with Windows"
And people complain about the minimum requirements of OS/2...
I can run 100 DOS windows with 8MB of RAM and a 125MB HD.

--
Judge Dredd                                             +--------+\ 
vpsoc@manning.cs.ualberta.ca                            |   :)   | |
DoD # 268                                               +--------+ |
In case of humor impairment, break glass.                \________\|
From: joe2@vnet.ibm.com
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 12:49:11 FWT
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Memory Fregmentation under OS/2
Reply-To: <joe2@vnet.ibm.com>
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 3.0
            <david.721459788@mlb.geomechanics.csiro.au>

In <david.721459788@mlb.geomechanics.csiro.au> David Le Blanc writes:
>umnoor@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Nasir Ahmed Noor) writes:
>
>>I use OS/2.
>
>>A friend of mine says that there is something wrong with the IBM-compatible's
>>architecture that under any operating system, memory gets badly fregmented
>>and every time a block is freed up, x number of bytes are lost. He wanted
>>to know how good [or bad] this is under OS/2. Does memory gets badly fregmented
>>under OS/2?
>
>At least you can pick your friends....
>
>Fragmentation in most operating systems is a problem, but
>it is not architecture dependent, just software dependent.
>
>The only fragmentation caused by the hardware, is the fragmentation of the
>first physical megabyte of memory due to the way I/O boards map shared
>memory blocks into a free area above 640k. Beyond this, it is all up to the
>OS to fragment or not fragment.
>
>>Thanks.
>
>>--nasir
>--
>David Le Blanc                         :


   The 386 CPU has a paging hardware, used in OS/2 V2.
This makes possible the mapping of any virtual memory to any physical
address (on a page basis), so no fragmentation possible.

-Joel Armengaud
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 11 Nov 92 03:02:45 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Nov10.125204.11194@nenufar.saclay.cea.fr>, daniel@ledaserma.cea.
fr (Daniel BRAUN) writes:
>In article <1992Nov02.221621.22870@microsoft.com>, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete S
kelly) writes:
>|> BTW: you command.com replaces/enhances part of an operating system, and thus
>|> becomes part of that operating system.
>
>No... a command shell is not a part of the OS... it is
>an application (even if you won't go far without it..)
>(see for example Tannenbaum book about OS, which -i think- gives
>a good idea of what is an OS..)
>As an example, the C-Shell and the Bourne shell belongs to unix
>environnement, but not to unix itself (ie whatever shell you run,
>your OS is unix and nothing else)
>A command shell is a program that gives the user an access to the OS.
>An OS is a program that gives other programms an access to the machine
>ressources (at least this is what i believe...)

Sorry no.  This thread has generally been inane in nature, but this is really
silly.  What earthly good is an OS if you can't use it?  The interface is most
certainly a part of the OS, and this includes the command shell.  It is one of
the most important parts of the system.  The fact that you can replace it is
totally irrelevant.  You can replace any part of the OS you want with
something else.  That changes nothing.  The whole point of an OS is to provide
some sort of interface that a human can use.  Look in any introductory
computer engineering book and they will tell you that.  Having a choice of
which command interpreter you like doesn't make it any less important to the
system.
>
>regards
>
>       Daniel
>
>
-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why does OS/2 loose out in a PC Mag comparison test?
From: CUNY/Spartacus <I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Tuesday, 10 Nov 1992 13:57:24 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <1992Nov8.182111.29298@nmt.edu>, stimpy@nmt.edu (John Reynolds) says:
>
>I've never ever seen a professional unbiased review of OS/2's capabilities
>in any of the rags. If anyone has, I'd like to know about it. OS/2 is
>getting a bum-rap in my opinion. Most of the people that I've talked to,
>use the rags opinion as 'the word' and won't budge until I bring them
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>over and show them what it can do (ala the 'why I love OS/2 thread').
>Oh well. At least we know its capabilities.....
>Cheers,
>-Jr

Yup :( I know the feeling.  Although I like OS/2, I'm getting tired
of explaining the contradictions and false & unfair statements
in the rags to people here.  Heck, I thought the press was becoming
more positive about OS/2 until I read the Windows Vs OS/2 article
in pc-mag. :(

The free betas and the inexpensive $15 CDs are great, but word
of mouth will go just so far.  Ultimately IBM has to do its own decent
advertising.  That t.v. commerical...eh well everyone knows how
bad it is, no sense bringing up that issue again.
BTW IHMO,
the Apple commericals did a nice job of putting down Windows :).

On another note, midterm season is finally over here. whew!
Now its research paper season :(
LOGOFF
OK
_

:)
------------------------------+      All The Best,
Reply To:                     |
     I18BC@CunyVM.Cuny.Edu    |      Edward Galarza,
     I18BC@CunyVM.BitNet      |      Brooklyn College Of The
     IRC: Spartacus           |      City University Of New York
------------------------------+      "Que viva el OS/2!"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1: The ultimate DOS Shell
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:22:59 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Nov10.194931.26955@spock.UUCP> roland@spock.uucp wrote:
> In article <1992Nov10.065307.19403@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov9.174255.22889@spock.UUCP> roland@spock.uucp wrote:
> >> I put is simply that Windows is the ultimate DOS Shell:
> >> 
> >> DOS <> Windows
> >>      as
> >> OS/2 <> PM (WPS)
> >> 
> >> Can someone tell me I am really wrong in saying this?
> >> 
> >> Roland.
> >> 
> >
> >DOS+Win Memory Management + Win Scheduler + Win Device Drivers ...<> Win Shell
> >OS/2 <> PM (WPS)
> >
> >petesk@microsoft.com
> 
> No, PM has memory management, scheduling, device drivers, etc... and more.
> So, the analogy is correct, or as you put it:
pardon me, but when I work on PM here, that's not how I saw it.

> 
> DOS+Win Memory Management + Win Scheduler + Win Device Drivers ...<> Win Shell
> OS/2+PM Memory Management + PM Scheduler + PM Device Drivers ...<> PM Shell
> 
> Satisfied...:Windows is an OS, I think not.
I think so.

> 
> Roland.
petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: If it ain't an Operating System...
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:05:34 GMT

In <1ddut3INN6h6@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:


>In a previous article, dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell) says:

>>I really can't take any of these arguments all that seriously.  About a
>>year ago, I mentioned to a co-worker that Windows was an Operating
>>System and he looked at me like I was stupid.  I said, "If it ain't an
>>operating system, then what is it??"  He said, "An application program."
>>
>>Ha!  An *APPLICATION PROGRAM*!!!  I thought I'd die laughing...


>Perhaps a better description would be to call windows a "dos extender".


Or to call DOS a Windows bootstrap loader and filesystem device
driver. 

-- 
"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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: OS or not, it's all in the label. 
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 06:10:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.074248.15536@news.Hawaii.Edu> lkan@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Linus Kan) writes:
>If Microsoft had started to sell DOS+Windows as one package and
>labeled the new bundle as XYZ, then there wouldn't be any debate
>if Windows 3.1 is an OS or not--package XYZ wouldn't differentiate
>between the two.  Get the point?  It's analogous to separating
>the OS/2 structure layer into several layers and arguing that
>one is an OS and the other is not. 
>
>:) lkan 


MS does do this.  You have not been keeping up with your reading :)  MS
now has available a product called "Modular Windows"--a one megabyte
ROM designed for consumer products such as Tandy's Video Information
System.  

So, now Windows is an OS?  Heck, one doesn't even need a hard disk now
to boot Windows... much less DOS.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: DOS not operating system, film at 11. :-)
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:59:57 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Nov10.230120.20698@frog.CRDS.COM> rmk@frog.CRDS.COM wrote:
> In article <92308.115001MICHAELB@UCF1VM.BITNET> MICHAELB@UCF1VM.BITNET (Michael `Anti-Microsoft' Brunetti) writes:
> >>Only 70million care about DOS.
> >>Only 10 million care about Win.
> >>Yeah, you're right, I guess that's nobody.
> >>
> >>petesk@microsoft.com
> >>(Figures are estimates)
> >
> >Yes, but 90% of those who purchase computers don't know anything about them
> >and fall into marketing traps by Microsoft.
> >
> >(Figures are estimates)
> 
> 
> And today, 90% of those individuals who buy PC clones get Windows thrown in
> the box whether they want it or not.  It is very easy to make a software
> product a best seller if the hardware customer always gets it as part of the
> standard package.

I would remind you that OEM's are not Forced by MS to include any MS product
in their systems.  They are responding to the fact that people want DOS/Win
on their systems.  The fact that OEM's want to put that Ready To Run Windows
stickers on their machines and in their adds means that they think windows
is a selling point for their machines, and that they will sell more machines
by doing so.  Suprisingly enough, many of these OEM's are still in business,
so they must know something about their market...

petesk@microsoft.com
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 8 Nov 92 16:35:40 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering

tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

>Thomas (Ted) Lilley writes:
>>Considering 1.) Windows routes file management through dos.
>>	    2.) Device drivers (which manage resources) become part
>>		of the dos kernel, not Windows.
>>and	    3.) There is no such thing as a bootable Windows disk.
>>
>>I'd say Windows doesn't meet the technical definition of an OS.
>>
>>Not to say Windows doesn't assume many of the functions of  the OS, but
>>it is not in the strict sense an OS itself.

>3) There were people who wanted to make System V for the 386 load from DOS.
>There would be a UNIX.EXE that you would run from DOS, and it would take
>over the maching and be Unix.  If that had been done, would you claim
>that Unix would not be an operating system?  For that matter, do you

You can't just generalise here. If the implementation of UNIX on
one platform doesn't meet the specs of an OS, it doesn't mean all
the other implementations of UNIX on other platforms would stop
being an OS.

It seems the main part of this thread seams to be about people
missinterpreting what to other says and faulty reasoning.

>1) I didn't know that operating systems were required to include the
>file system.  What about diskless workstations?  Or how about systems

They are not, but if a file system is present, the OS should manage
it. (Lister, fundamentals of OS's and myself :-))

Do diskless workstations not have a file system? Were do they get
there data from?

>that implement the file system in a user-mode process?

Explain.


-- 
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: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 8 Nov 92 13:57:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov8.135755.16521
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95

Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>As it stands, you still have to load a dos XMS, EMS, and <insert whatever
                                                 ^^^

Wrong.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: NT delayed again??? (PC Week Nov 2)
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:38:12 GMT

In article <hatton.720949698@cgl.ucsf.edu> hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:
>pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak) writes:
>>For those who are interested:
>>Page 3 in the Nov. 2nd issue of PC week has a story about how Microsoft is
>>now shipping the NT beta.  About half way down the quote Bill Gates stating
>>that NT would ship "in the first half" of 1993.
>
>Not having a subscription, perhaps someone else can confirm this (probably
>not Brian, of course, since he seems loathe to post articles that might
>be interpreted as anti-MS, to date) - I thought I saw, passing by an
>issue of PC Week on a display, the words "Fear and Loathing" and 
>"Windows for Workgroups" or whatever the package is called.

The article was in PC week, and what it said was that MIS managers at
large Fortune 1000 companies (at least those interviewed, I suppose),
were very unhappy with the idea of Windows for Workgroups.  They said it
was difficult to administer and lacking in security, and they were
worried that since it would be sold in Egghead, users would just get a
hold of it and install it themselves on corporate LANs, which the MIS
guys feared would cause them to lose control over their nets and cause
problems that they didn't know about.   The article did use the phrase
"Fear and Loathing" to describe their response to the package.  It also
went on to say that Novell is suing MS over it, claiming that MS didn't
get a legal liscense to incorporate Novell's SPX/IPX protocol into the
package.  MS claims that it's liscense for Win 3.1 covers it, because
after all, this is Windows for Workgroups 3.1.  Basically, Novell argues
that it's a separate product and needs a separate liscense, while MS
claims that it's the same product, and can use the same liscense, it's
just sold as a separate product.  On the one hand, it does sound to me
like MS is violating their agreement with Novell, on the other, it
sounds like Novell is being a little bit fascist (which they always are
anyway).  Of course, with the introduction of UnixWare, Novell and MS
are competitors, so I'm sure that's a factor too.
-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: DOS not operating system, film at 11. :-)
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 21:53:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.225957.10025@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>I would remind you that OEM's are not Forced by MS to include any MS product
>in their systems.  They are responding to the fact that people want DOS/Win
>on their systems.  The fact that OEM's want to put that Ready To Run Windows
>stickers on their machines and in their adds means that they think windows
>is a selling point for their machines, and that they will sell more machines
>by doing so.  Suprisingly enough, many of these OEM's are still in business,
>so they must know something about their market...
>
>petesk@microsoft.com

Of course, until just recently, there wasn't much in the way of an
alternative to DOS/Windows on PCs, as the average user didn't want Unix,
and OS/2 1.x really wasn't very useful, IMHO, so if you bought a PC, you
planned to run DOS on it, and possibly Windows.  So it made perfect
sense to bundle these with the system.  Now that choices are emerging in
terms of the OS, such as OS/2 2.0, an automatic bundle of DOS/Win is not
necessarily so desirable.
-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: How to make OS/2 look bad ...
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:18:52 GMT

In <1992Nov8.210307.29172@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:

>In article <strobl.721229440@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>>>This is not different that MS claiming that you _can_ run Windows on a 286
>>>with 1 mb of ram.  Of course, noone ever does this except to prove that it
>>>can be done.  
>>
>>Not so fast! I did that (i.e. run Windows on a 286 with 1MByte)
>>for years, and was quite satisfied with its overall performance.
>>
>>Don't claim that nobody did something sucessfully, just because
>>*you* never did.

>I'll do you one better, Wolfgang.  I ran Windows on an XT with 1 meg and a
>Hercules card.  

An XT with 384 KBytes of Expanded Memory? 

>It blew donkey dicks, to use a colorful turn of expression.
>Far worse than OS/2 in 4 megs (I should know).   But the point here isn't
>who's satisfied with running which OS on which class of machine.  The 
>original complaint was that calling 4 megs a minimum for OS/2 is stupid.

Perhaps. But calling 1024 KByte a minimum for Windows isn't. For running 
a 300 K application (or two 150 K applications) Windows on a 1M machine
is a much better environment than OS/2 on a 4M machine. Especially
if you hard disk is slow.

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: hess@rzdspc14.informatik.uni-hamburg.de (Hauke Hess)
Subject: Re: How to make OS/2 look bad ...
Organization: University of Hamburg, FRG
Date:  9 Nov 92 08:03:04 GMT

strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:

>In <1992Nov8.210307.29172@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:

>>It blew donkey dicks, to use a colorful turn of expression.
>>Far worse than OS/2 in 4 megs (I should know).   But the point here isn't
>>who's satisfied with running which OS on which class of machine.  The 
>>original complaint was that calling 4 megs a minimum for OS/2 is stupid.

>Perhaps. But calling 1024 KByte a minimum for Windows isn't. For running 
>a 300 K application (or two 150 K applications) Windows on a 1M machine
>is a much better environment than OS/2 on a 4M machine. Especially
>if you hard disk is slow.

Tell me, what application is satisfied with 150-300KB? The most recent WinFract? Minefield?
Tetris? Be honest, on a 4MB OS/2 2.0 machine, a 150-300KB application won`t do any
harm to performance, it will fly after it is loaded.

Hauke

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: clagett@ms.uky.edu (Bill Clagett)
Subject: Re: ......An AMIGA Owner Is My Friend
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:48:38 GMT
Organization: Big, Dangerous Ideas, Inc.

jj8200@meibm4.cen.uiuc.edu (Jacob W Janovetz) writes:
|umnoor@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Nasir Ahmed Noor) writes:

|>Well, it may seem silly to all of you but I need some material [os/2's strong
|>points] to tell to Amiga owners.
.
.
.
|>--nasir
|>umnoor@ccu.umanitoba.ca


|   WWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAaaahhhhhh ha ha ha ha!!!! An Amiga?!?!?  AHHHh ha ha
|ha ha... He he he... ooooh, (time passes)...  Ok, I'm much better now.

|   All you have to do is tell them to look at how ugly the "Workbench" is on
|the Amiga compared to a nice, faster graphics environment like OS/2, then let
|them in on the well known fact that the Amiga is a toy.
|.

Alternatively, you could use your computer and not really care what
your friend thinks.  He would be wrong to say that AmigaDos is superior
to OS/2.  Conversely, anyone saying that AmigaDos is without merit is
clearly uninformed.  They are very different operating systems running
on very different machines, and often appealing to very different
audiences.  Such close-mindedness is one reason for which we still have
to put up with DOS.

Bill
-- 
    clagett@ms.uky.edu    {rutgets, uunet}!ukma!clagett    bill@ukpr.uky.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: joda@cat.de (Joachim Dathe)
Subject: Re: DOS not operating system, film at 11. :)
Organization: C.A.T. Kommunikations-System
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 23:16:51 GMT


To all who are so desperately looking for a common OS definition :

This item was standardized long time ago.
According to ISO document 2382/I 1974-12-15 an operating system is:

"Software for controlling the execution of computer programs and
 that may provide scheduling, debugging, input/output control,
 accounting, compilation, storage allocation, data management,
 and related services "

(I fear I have to explain "ISO" here:
 stands for "International Organization for Standardization")

---
  Joachim Dathe (joda@cat.de)                     
  C.A.T. Kommunikations-System, Frankfurt, Germany
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy