HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: liuyu@kramden.nyu.edu (Liuyu)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IS IBM UK STILL IN THE STONE AGE???
Date: 30 Aug 92 23:43:39 GMT
Organization: New York University

sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:

>Please note the follow up.

>In article <liuyu.715128721@kramden> liuyu@kramden.nyu.edu (Liuyu) writes:
>>Oh yeah. It is very easy to blame old hardwares. But do you see other big 
>>companies not supporting for Herc? All major companies support Herc except IBM.

>First let me say that I agree with you, that IBM's OS/2 2.0 should
>support Hercules.  LAN servers, for example, don't really need color
>monitors.

>However, in my original reply I did point out that the remedy is as
>little as $25 away, which is not likely to break anyone's bank
>account.

I already broke my bank account to upgrade to 386/40 mother board. Don't 
assume everyone is rich (or poor). The money is not the point here. It's
about support.



>Also, I disagree with your assertion.  Most games, including those
>from the major players, do not support Hercules (increasingly VGA is
>the minimum, never mind CGA or EGA).  Windows NT probably will not
>support Hercules (it certainly isn't on the SDK compatibility list).
>A number of mainstream applications from major vendors do not support
>Hercules.

We are not talking about games here. I don't playing games. Including games
in this argument is not a strong move. 
Can you list some mainstream applications that do not support Herc?
I will list those do. DV, 123, wordperfect, Windows, Geoworks, paradox,
harvard graphics, dbase, Borland language series, Q&A, PFS: first series,
Autocad, mathmatica, mathcad, graphics workshop (shareware). Did I miss any?



>How do I know?  Because up until about 18 months ago I was using
>Hercules, and it was limiting.  Lots of programs I wanted to run
>didn't.  Oh, Windows does support Hercules, but rather clumsily.  One
>has to use EGA screen fonts, and the results are often less than
>satisfactory.  I ran it, but I wasn't thrilled with it.  Icons look
>stretched out; letters look squished.

It's not about how clumsy Hercules is. Hey CGA is clumsier and IBM's supporting
it. If they want to drop old cards, they should drop them all. Why drop only
competitor's? It makes me wonder if IBM will support other vendor's standard
in future.

>>ps, I think Hercules came after CGA.

>It did, and it was a brilliant hack.
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks! (was Re: Windows NT 'Alpha')
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:25:12 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Aug24.212748.15565@bcars64a.bnr.ca> schow@bqneh3.bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow) writes:
>I would really like this. People were buying old versions of Windows to
>upgrade to OS/2 2.0. Microsoft could make a lot of people buy OS/2 just
>to get a cheap NT. Sweat irony.

Sounds like what I did to get free OS/2.  I bought a copy of 1.0 for
$9 a year before GA with the expectation that it's be free-upgraded
whenever GA was.  It worked.  A month before GA, you couldn't buy a
copy of 1.0 for any price!

GA was probably the best thing for IBM to clear out their stock of old
1.0 and 1.1 packages!

And with the 1.0 box, I also got a binder, a disk envelope page for
it, and four HD disks.  Not bad for $9.

-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wjb5106@zeus.tamu.edu (Walter Barnett)
Subject: MS-Word 5.x  (was Re: THANK YOU, Microsoft!)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 02:24:00 GMT

In article <92247.180054LENBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>, <LENBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes...

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

Word 5.x for DOS is also for OS/2 (though not Presentation Manager). 
The program can start and run in an OS/2 text mode session (windowed or
full-screen).  Of course, if you have DOS support installed for OS/2 you
can also run Word in a DOS box (again, windowed or full-screen).

_______________________________________________________________________
Walter Barnett        Aerospace Engineering        Texas A&M University 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.2
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 06:56:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Sep1.000214.29640@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <a+jnr7.msmith@netcom.com> msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug31.164630.13859@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>>	
>>>	Automatic stack expansion.
>>>		I am certain that OS/2 does not do this.
>>>		OS/2 has you specify a limit on the stack size, but allocates
>>>		only one page of the stack at a time, using a guard page
>>>		technique to expand the stack.  When you hit the
>>>		stack size limit your process dies.  Why they went most
>>>		of the way, instead of all the way, I really cannot say.
>> 
>>Sorry but you are WRONG.
>
>No, I am NOT WRONG.  If you read your own quote below carefully, you'll
>see that it doesn't contradict what I said above.
>If you want to see for yourself that OS/2 does indeed set a stack limit
>per process, use the following program:

I can see your argument now. Yup it's compile time declaration of stack size 
under OS/2. 


MArtin Smith
msmith@netcom.com
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs OS/2 features (was Re: Misinformation about os2-dos HW access)
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:15:40 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep01.010548.11230@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>     C++ is a non-trivial language to support - if IBM is just
>starting now, don't expect to see anything from them for a while.
>GCC does do C++, however.  Probably doesn't optimize, though.

GCC does optimize.  There are numerous "flag" options you can set on
the command line for various flavors of optimization.  You can also
use the -O and -O2 options to get some popular sets of these
optimizations included.

Since gcc is generic, I'd assume that it's completely source-level
optimization, though.  I'd be amazed if it did assembly-level
optimizations.  Those are mostly in the libraries (which should be
hand-tuned assembly, but probably aren't).
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "TELEPHONE, n.  An Invention of the devil which
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   abrogates some of the advantages of making a
 ((|,)                          disagreeable person keep his distance."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jld@datascope.com (Jay L. Davis)
Subject: Re: OS/2, DOS, NT (Speculative) -- My Opinions
Organization: Datascope Corp.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:19:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.165357.11271@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>I'm getting a bit hot under the collar about people like you... GET THIS
>THROUGH YOUR HEAD!
>
>When you pay that $69+$20 ***, you get for that cost, and that cost alone
>the following:
>
>	Product			pre-beta*	beta*	commercial release
>	Windows NT		Yes		Yes	Yes
>	Windows NT SDK		Yes		Yes	Yes
>	Windows NT MS C/C++ 7.0	Yes		Yes	No **
>
>* There may be multiple versions shiped of these, especially the beta.
>** The final C++ will be a supported product though, besides what do you
>	expect for $90 bucks?
>*** OS/2 developers can get it for $39+$20.
>
>The same holds true for the $399 version that comes with printed docs.
>
>Microsoft is giving developers an excellent deal here, why can't you just
>accept that fact?  If you don't like the fact that IBM doesn't compete
>with it, tell IBM, I'll gladly provide you with appropriate phone numbers.
>Certainly I've told them, and while everybody there seems to agree
>it's a problem, I see no signs they're about to change.
>
>(While in the IBM EEP, I paid about $500 for the compiler and OS,
>$450 for the DOCS, and the in the end had to buy all but the OS...
>the final version of the compiler was $700 (street price) and I didn't
>bother getting new docs, as the $300 they had reduced them too was still
>way to high.)
>
>If you want to do Windows 3.X programming, $139 buys the compiler ($229 list).
>Another $150 buys as many docs as what IBM charges $300 for now.
>Conceivably MS may want to charge more for the NT final product (though
>not necessarily), but I doubt it will be a problem.  And yes I know about
>what Microsoft did with the OS/2 1.X kits... but that was then, and this
>is now.

You are missing the point. Windows NT is not a released product. You are
charging people to do your debugging. It is bad enough that so many
supposedly tested products are released and end up wasting a lot of my
time. And while $399 isn't expensive, there are many other costs
involved.

But the real question is WHY BOTHER? Right now it looks like OS/2
is well on its way to being the next base PC OS. If I am going to risk
developing for a new operating system, it is going to be OS/2 not
Windows NT. This "deal" by Mircosoft seems to be driven by one thing and
one thing only, desperation. Besides, it is much easier to convert a program
from OS/2 to Windows NT or UNIX or both than to try to convert anything
from the DOS environment (assuming the program is written well to begin
with). It would really be nice if X Windows was standard on OS/2, then
applications could move between UNIX and OS/2 extremly easily. Perhaps
someone will write an X Windows API for OS/2 and a PM API for X Windows.

Jay Davis



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: C@ security...
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:48:37 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

I especially like the requirement that two or more hackers must try to
break in to it for one to three months before it can pass the tests.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jreynold@nmt.edu (John Reynolds)
Subject: Re: Win-OS/2 performance tweaks
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:16:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.003415.17169@news.iastate.edu> TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:
>>
>>I would like to propose that a "How to Optimize OS/2" document
>>be posted to this list regularly.  It could be included in the
>>FAQ also, I guess.  I would be glad to be the keeper of such a
>>document, but my knowledge on optimizing OS/2 is not extensive.
>>With enough contributions though, I think I could put together
>>a very helpful document.  What does everyone think about this?
>>
>>I for one, and sick and tired of hearing of people bagging on
>>OS/2's performance.  With the appropriate tweaking, OS/2 can
>>fly.  Maybe if a separate document is posted to the usenet that
>>specifically deals with optimizing OS/2, more people will get
>>more out of their OS/2.
>>
>>Please contribute your ideas...
>>
>
>This sounds like a great idea!  Actually, this is the whole reason I
>started reading this group in the first place.  I think a list of
>config.sys commands would also be very helpful, as I'm not quite
>sure of what all of those commands in my config.sys do.

I'm in total agreement with this. I think I'm pretty knowledgable about
computers in general, but since OS/2 is so "new" to me, it's hard to
really get it to scream. A faq or something for performance issues
including config.sys commands, directives (what ever) would be excellent.

#include <personal opinion>
-John


-- 
Windows...It's like a stale cookie.
OS/2..."It's like butter" (SNL quote)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Advocacy
Reply-To: soh3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago 
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 04:25:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.125701.18179@nuscc.nus.sg> eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (TAN JIN MENG) writes:

>  c) support more than just the 25 line text mode and do it in the
>	settings not the mode command.

Hey, I would rather want a freely resizable os/2 window.  The full screen
app running inside it must be able to resize as the window itself is
resized.  Just as in X Windows.

Min


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wcn@cs.brown.edu (Wen-Chun Ni)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.2
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 07:18:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.000214.29640@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
 < arguments about stack allocation deleted>
>No, I am NOT WRONG.  If you read your own quote below carefully, you'll
>see that it doesn't contradict what I said above.
>If you want to see for yourself that OS/2 does indeed set a stack limit
>per process, use the following program:
>
>		#include <stdio.h>
>
>		void t(int);
>
>		void main(void)
>		{
>		t(1);
>		}
>
>		void
>		t(int n)
>		{
>		char buf[4096];
>		if (n > 10)
>			return;
>		buf[0]='\0';
>		printf("%d\n", n);
>		t(n+1);
>		}
>
>If you compile this: icc t.c
>It crashes after printing "1".
>
>If you compile this: icc /b/stack:32768 t.c
>It crashes after printing "8".
>
>If you compile this on a Unix system which has dynamic stack expansion,
>it runs just fine.

Unfortunately, I compiled the above program unsing emx except that I changed 
the number 10 to 20, and the program runs just fine. There may be
implementation differences but I am sure that your argument is 
basically wrong.

In the Red Book vol 4, p 305, there has been a detailed description
about DosCreateThread call:

  The DosCreateThread() function is enhanced in Version 2.0 to allow
  dynamic stack growth, operating system management pf stacks for
  secondary threads, and the abilitiy to create a suspended thread.

In the same book, p 177, we can also see the following

  ... _beginthread() function automatically allocates memory for
  the stack. This parameter is included merely to allow source
  compatibility with..... IBM C/2 and Microsoft C compilers...


Brian, I understand your disappointment againt OS/2 2.0's support
for your software development. But the on-the-fly arguments
on the net without solid evidence is basically irresponsible.
You may want to emphasize the superiority of NT and I acknowledge
that, but please behave like a software developer with all
proofs before you advocate.




Wen-Chun Ni
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.4
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:23:39 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

In <1992Sep3.104251.24889@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>In article <3033@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:
>>Let me start with stating this is becoming an interesting list and I
>>have learned a lot from it. I do have some problems with it however.
>>
>>It contains a mix of facts, opinions (of the author) and plans for
>>the future. The distinction between those is not made very clear. I

>Can you give me some examples of where I'm not being clear... I believe
>you, but it's not always easy for me to tell.

For example the subjects on asynchronious I/O and autoexpanding stacks
seem a bit single sided to me. Some people (Charlap and some IBM fellow?)
responded to them and I did see no changes in your list. I can imagine
you don't agree (you don't have to) but claiming unbiasness means IMO
you should at least note in this kind of cases that people have doubths
about them. Now you just have your claims withouth the arguments of the
other side. Notice I only give examples. I noticed you don't use many
of the comment of Charlap which IMO is mostly very founded comment.

>As to opinions... well unfortunately it's hard to do such a thing
>without opinions.  I am removing some of the more inflammatory stuff
>from the next revision (1.5... to be posted this evening)  if I still
>have stuff you regard as only opinions send those to me.

I have to admit you are doing very well. I couldn't do it so well myself.
I am looking forward to the new revision.

>...
>That is why I added the "!" in 1.3... if someone questions whether
>or not the point is valid, I put the "!" beside it.

I would like more details of that kind.

>Note if the "question" takes the form "NT is not out, how can you say this"
>then it is ignored.

Agreed.

>It is also possible I've accidently ignored points... if you have a good
>one, and the update to this list doesn't reflect it, send it again (and
>say it's coming again in UPPER CASE).  The volume of stuff I get is
>not small.

IBM has announced B2 security, POSIX complyance and use of the MACH
kernel to allow OS/2 on other microprocessors. That kind of information
should at least be mentioned IMO. Even if no release dates are given. After
all MS DOES give release dates but they don't say it all either. IBM is
more conservative in giving dates and promises but I would not leave them
out for that reason.

>Brian

Nico E. de Vries
_ _
O O  USENET nevries@cc.ruu.nl  FIDO 2:281/708.1  COMPUSERVE "soon" ???? 
 o   This text reflects MY opinions, not that of my employer BITECH.      
\_/  This text is supplied 'AS IS', no waranties of any kind apply.      
     Don't waste your time on complaining about my hopeless typostyle.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ICC optimizes out tail-recursion!
Date: 3 Sep 92 00:12:23 GMT
Reply-To: byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

David Charlap writes

> That's amazing.  If the compiler can detect and optimize
> out tail-recursive algorithms, then it becomes almost
> trivial to write LISP-like code under C without much of
> a performance penalty!  This could become quite useful
> in the future.

Now if the optimizer would only work correctly on the rest
of the code I'm working with...

(And I *would* report the problem if I could, but seeing
as how IPMD is so damn stable (NOT!)...  I don't have
that kind of time to waste.)

(Broken optimizers seem to be an IBM trait :-( )

Scott Byer                             NeXTMail: byer@mv.us.adobe.com
Adobe Systems Incorporated               These are *my* opinions, and  
1585 Charleston Road, P.O. Box 7900        do not necessarily reflect
Mountain View, CA 94039-7900             the opinions of my employer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: glen@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Glen Robinson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks! (was Re: Windows NT 'Alpha')
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:55:27 GMT
Organization: HP Fort Collins, CO

Brian Sturgill) responds to my response:

>>> Do people like arguing with me because I don't bow and scrap 
>>>before OS/2, 
>>>   or is there something in that package I'm missing?  
>>No, I think they do it because you bow and scrap(e) before NT.

Your following points were well taken.  The reason I said what I did was that
outside of this particular posting all I have ever heard you say about IBM
and OS/2 has been negative and all the rest of the posting I've read from you
have been filled with (only) glowing praises for microsoft.  
The effect was kind of Jekyl and Hyde, and I got the feeling you were a
paid microsoft salesman in disguise.

Glen - R
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ckincy@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: Os/2ers whine again
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 01:53:09 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

In article <1992Aug26.141740.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu> f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:

[...]

>
>It was apparent by May 1990 that OS/2 1.3 (I think that's what IBM
>was up to by then, correct me if needed) was not attracting the bulk
>of new app development.  That was almost 2.5 years of demonstrated
>lack of success, an eternity in the computer world.  MS Windows was 
>only in 2.x stage, and wasn't anything beyond a niche product.
>
>OS/2 should've kicked ass, but IBM and MS dropped the ball when they
>implemented version 1.x.  This was clear around the time Windows 3.0
>came on the scene.  Those who complain "20/20 hindsight!" virtually
>admit to jumping into the whole OS/2 thing with eyes closed.

And what do you think that people are doing with NT?  

I don't buy the stuff about "Windows is where the money is."  
If you believe this, then you also believe that since Windows 3.1 NT
is a totally and completely different thing other than the name
and the shell, NT must fail as well.

Please try to be consistent when bashing on OS/2.  You'll be a lot
more convincing.

cpk
From: fishe_jh@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Jeffrey H Fischer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (was: Re: Some more misconceptions...)
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:19:26 GMT
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore

In article <92246.153543ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> Andrew T. Robinson <ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:
>
>The level of hubris at MS is apparent in the fact that they no longer
>seem concerned with producing products that work natively with OS/2.  While
>the OS/2 installed base nowhere near approaches that of Windows, it is large
>enough to make such compatibility profitable.  The sense I get is that MS
>is not supporting OS/2 because it wants to force users already invested in
>Microsoft products to move to the environment Microsoft chooses--namely,
>Windows/Windows NT.
>
I don't want to get into the middle of this "Microsoft is good/evil"
debate, but I do want to point out that not supporting existing OS/2
products could well be profit-maximizing for Microsoft in the long run,
even if they could make short-term profits today through such support.
MS may feel that producing OS/2 products will only draw sales away from
Windows today and NT in the future.  Not only would MS like to see users
buy MS operating systems (and OS-like software), but they have a
dominant position in DOS/Windows software which is missing in OS/2
software, so encouraging purchases of Windows also spurs the sales of
other MS products.

The above is not to condone Microsoft's practice, but is just to point
out that it might not be irrational.

Jeff
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: neves@chimay.cs.colorado.edu (NEVES RICHARD K)
Subject: Re: Brian, your bias is showing ( was Re: OS/2 vs NT features
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:23:37 GMT

In article <67419@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt0059e@prism.gatech.EDU (Garrett Drysdale) writes:
>No I don't think he is saying that Brian is not politcally correct.  (Since
>when does one need to be politically correct when dealing with computers
>and software anyway???)

since this advocacy group started

>He is simply pointing out that even though Brian was trying to be unbiased,
>his preferences were still very obvious in his presentation of information
>and therefore one should screen the facts from the biased presentation
>of them.

What I got from the post:

>->>Windows NT currently doesn't have any features because it is not released.

was:

NT is not a released product => 
	comparing NT features to OS/2 features is invalid =>
		brian is biased

Thus, it is "politically incorrect" to compare the two.  Political correctness,
when taken to an extreme, detracts from the issues at hand and is counter-
productive.  I use the term to drive home the point that Brian's useful
comparison of the two OS's is being ridiculed on the basis of circumlocutory
arguments.

Rich Neves