HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: Why would you want a CD (was Price of Win NT vs OS/2)?
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: "world"
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:01:57 GMT

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>Yes, there are a lot of reasons why VENDORS might like to see their
>customers having CD's.  Of course, having all that technical
>documentation on CD is somewhat less useful than having it on paper,
>IMHO.  Anyway, the question isn't why YOU would want us to; the
>question is why would WE want to?

How about - because a $30 CD-ROM is less expensive than $500 worth
of books.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net            uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: 4389750@mcimail.com  (Robert Gammon)
Subject: 32bit GRE observations
Nntp-Software: PC/TCP NNTP
Organization: Texas Instruments Materials and Controls Group
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:16:09 GMT

I posted a message here a few days ago concerning my reactions to the
32-bit GRE in which I detailed the differences between my system at work
and my system at home, pointing out that the 32bit GRE made a big improvement
in my home system.  Some missed this point when reading my message.  I also
have the IBM WorkSet/2.  The Mahjongg Solitare game is included in WorkSet/2.
With the Trident 256 color 800x600 display driver loaded on my 386 at home,
Mahjonng is NOTICEABLY FASTER at home than on my 486 at work.

--
Regards,
Robert Gammon
(713)-274-3299       (voice)
(713)-274-2324       (fax)
(713)-274-2323       (BBS 300-9600,8,N,1)

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6956 comp.sys.intel:1865 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:26158
From: andrew@frip.WV.TEK.COM (Andrew Klossner)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:08:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: shaman.1911
Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Tektronix Color Printers, Wilsonville, Oregon


	"It is my impression that IBM can only clone Intel chips for
	*internal* use."

They can only use the Intel design as part of larger systems; they
can't sell raw chips.

So IBM now sells tiny little PC boards, each with a single chip.
I smell a lawsuit coming.

  -=- Andrew Klossner  (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com)
                       (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6429 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2233 comp.os.os2.misc:31524
From: oistony@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Anthony M. Petro)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: So much for Msoft's bluster <grin>
Date: 29 Sep 92 04:49:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <moore.717717658@pv34c1.vincent.iastate.edu>, moore@iastate.edu (Brian J Moore) writes...
>In <1992Sep28.160233.3985@spcvxb.spc.edu> mauritz_c@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:
> 
>>09/25 (DW) Microsoft Delays Shipments of Windows NT Operating System
>>    By Ken Yamada
>>    Dow Jones Staff Reporter
>>	
>>    REDMOND, Wash. -DJ- Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) said the first shipments
>>of its Windows NT operating system software are expected to be delayed
>>until early 1993.
> 
> 
>Good idea... not only does that give developers more time, but IBM won't
>have the rights to any code released after 1992...  not suprising.

i don't think this is quite the case anymore.  i forgot the details 
exactly, but i remember after the big news item broke that ibm would 
lose rights to any msoft code after 1992, there was a renegotiation of 
sorts, which said either ibm has continued rights to msoft code until 
sometime in 3q93, or until nt was released, i forget which.  

is anyone's memory more lucid than mine on this point?

tony


> 
>-- 
>   ________________________________________________________________________
>  /                                  /                                    /
> /  Brian J. Moore                  /                  moore@iastate.edu /
>/__________________________________/____________________________________/
anthony m. petro   "beethoven"    i can say what i want; i'm just an undergrad
oistony@UBVMSD.BITNET             "frame by frame,
petro@eng.buffalo.edu              death by drowning,
petro@sun.acsu.buffalo.edu         in your own
                                   in your own...
                                   analysis..."
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: <None>
From: ghdai@vax1.umkc.edu
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 05:38:39 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City


It is really great!  I just installed a newly bought box of OS/2 2.0 on the 486
machine in my laboratory, which has made my boss very impressed and very
happy.  (As to myself, I have been using OS/2 since the middle of last June
at home on my 486/33 machine on which OS/2 resides in the entire hard
drive in HPFS format.)  So i myself have become a well-experienced OS/2 user,
and a very happy user!

So, this time I formatted the hard drive of 200MB in the lab machine to HPFS,
too, washed out all the garbage including games, windoze 3.1, etc.  The machine
is an Eltech (I think it's in California).  The installation went through
very smoothly, much smoother than when I installed OS/2 at home in June.
Not a single problem occured during the process.

I subsequently copied a very large FORTRAN program that demands >5MB RAM to
hold its variables and arrays and was compiled using the Microway NDP FORTRAN-
386 compiler for OS/2 2.0 (a 32-bit OS/2 version FORTRAN compiler) on the home
machine.  It runs fine, too.

My boss has long been trying to put the code running on such a PC, but failed
because of the damned 16-bit segmented 8086 architecture.  With DOS, there
is no hope to run such a program for data analysis.  Yeah, I knew there is
DOS extender when my boss asked me to get it run on the PC.  Several guys,
including a Postdoc of my boss had tried but all failed (they did not know
DOS extender).  Well, it is turn, but a turn of success, simply due to the
advent of OS/2 2.0.

I'd like to express my sincere appreciation to IBM.  Also thank you all OS/2
supporters on the News groups for the help and reply to my questions.
From: juan@noyles.pha.pa.us (Juan J. E. T. Noyles)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is WPS really better??
Distribution: world
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 06:34:14 GMT
Organization: The Noyles OS/2 Platform

kaz@iastate.edu writes in article <kaz.717802612@vincent1.iastate.edu>:
> 
> Well, all I can say is I've used Mac system 7, Windows 3.1, DOS, Amiga DOS 2.0,
> X-Windows (Motif), and have seen Desqview/X.  All I can say is the WPS is the
> most logical, the only true object oriented, the most enjoyable, the
> most powerful, the most attractive, and the most advanced interface of them 
> all.  I am truly very, VERY satisfied (in love with) the WPS.  That alone
> is impressive, but running another OPERATING SYSTEM in a window?  It's amazing.

If you're referring to either Windows or Desqview/X, neither is an operating system.

> Seamless windows! An incredible feat.  WPS has changed the way I look at and
> use my computer
> 
> Jeff "Kaz" Kaczmarek
> 
> 
--
Has anyone seen your sanity?				Juan@Noyles.pha.pa.us
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Date: 30 Sep 92 09:31:26 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Sep29.200955.21413@ms.uky.edu> sam@ms.uky.edu wrote:

> 
> Its funny how you get so offensive about everything, Pete, especially 
> a stupid game.  Why don't you go off and do something useful for your
> company rather than spouting your mouth where you're not wanted?
Where I may not be wanted, but I do have a right to be.

> 
> Or did they hire you to do this?
No, Actually, I do this on my own to improve typing speed.  Also, it's
good to blow off steam once in a while, and where better to do it that
in a flame, err, advocacy group.



> 
> Oh.  I forgot the smiley.  ;-)
Me To. ;)

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Subject: Re: OS/2 and booting from a 5.25 drive
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 04:21:13 GMT

In article <92275.031930EJR106@psuvm.psu.edu> <EJR106@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>   Hi.  I own two computers.  One has a 3.5" disk drive, and one doesn't.
>Both are hardware wise capable of running OS/2.  However, I have installed
>OS/2 on the machine with the 3.5" drive only, and I don't know how to go
>about getting it onto the machine with only the 1.2M floppy.  Any ideas?
>   I would read the manual if I had one; however, I am testing out the
>complementary version from IBM and it has no manuals.
>
>   Thanks for any help.

Buy a 5.25" version.  Just because you have one copy of the software
does not mean you have the right to put it on as many machines as you
want.  I IBM gave you a complementary version on 3.5 disks, get them
to give you a 5.25 disk version.
   -- 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,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:57:32 GMT

xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:

>Personally, I'm waiting breathlessly for LANtastic for OS/2.  I suspect
>that this will be out *long* before LANtastic for NT (hmm, will there
>*ever* be such a product?  I seriously doubt it.)
>-- 

I ran out of breath waiting for ANY os/2 product from Artisoft a long
time ago.

FOR SALE: 1 2mbs Lantastic Starter Kit with memory upgrade cards.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
[.sig on vacation]
From: chandoni@husc8.harvard.edu (John-Marc Chandonia, , , )
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 Service Pack Delayed
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:24:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct5.102415.16088
Reply-To: chandoni@husc8.harvard.edu
Distribution: na
Originator: chandoni@husc8.harvard.edu

tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) writes:
> chandoni@husc8.harvard.edu writes:
>> It would be a major
>> blow if the long-awaited 32-bit drivers turned out to be bug-ridden,
>> as OS/2 is already being trashed weekly by magazines such as Byte and
>> PC Mag.
> 
> Um, how can a monthly like Byte trash OS/2 weekly?  How can a biweekly
> like PC Mag trash OS/2 weekly?

Sounds impossible, right?  But Byte just put out a "special issue"
dedicated to extolling the virtues of Windows (3.1 and NT) and trashing
OS/2.  Actually, the article on OS/2 stated its capabilities pretty well,
but played fast and loose with other facts.  They concluded that
since only 700,000 copies had been sold (actually >1M) and only a few
(actually hundreds) of native apps were being developed, that OS/2
would soon die out under competition from 3.1 and NT.

JMC
-- 
chandoni@husc8.harvard.edu    | I will not yell fire in a crowded classroom
John-Marc Chandonia           | I will not yell fire in a crowded classroom
Graduate Biophysics Program   | I will not yell fire in a crowded classroom 
Harvard University            | I will not yell fire ...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 03:59:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.184354.9987@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.172201.6487@tamsun.tamu.edu> bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep28.171757.10965@microsoft.com> adamba@microsoft.com (Adam Barr) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep26.012811.6658@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>[feature list deleted]
>>>
>>>Call me a cynic, but it sounds like IBM has taken the current NT
>>>feature list and stated that everything on it will eventually be
>>>supported in OS/2. So, how is this not FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, AND
>>>DOUBT in its basest, vilest, lowest, most venal form?
>>>
>>Fear of what?  Uncertainty of what?  Doubt of what?  It seems to me
>>that IBM is responding to healthy competition by saying they intend to
>>support features that some (not all) users say they want.
>
>     I believe that Adam is referring to a time on this newsgroup
>when the statement "Windows NT has preemptive multitasking" would
>have been met by cries of "FUD! FUD!".  To be consistent, it would
>seem that IBM's promise to mimic Windows NT's feature set should
>be met with those same cries.
>
My questions above haven't been answered.  Certainly saying that "Windows NT
has preemptive multitasking is FUD" is (and would have been) wrong too,
but two wrongs don't make a right.  

Query:  Does calling something FUD that is not reasonably FUD
constitute FUD?  :-)


>
>>  It seems
>>that IBM has a more obvious way of implementing some of the proposed
>>features than MS does with NT.  Here I'm specifically refering to C2
>>security which is a HW/SW combination.  Is MS going to start building
>>hardware (besides mice).
>
>     I suspect that one Windows NT is released, Microsoft will assist
>hardware vendors in completing the certification process.
>
>
>>BTW, does anyone know of any OS/HW combination where the HW and the OS
>>were not from the same vendor?  I don't know of any, but that doesn't
>>mean they don't exit.
>
>      I can't name any either, but nothing in the certification
>process requires that the hardware and software come from the same
>vendor.

Sure, I believe MS will help the hardware vendors, but it will
certainly not be painless.  Have you ever seen the arguments that can
go on -- Its the hardware's fault  -- No, its the software's fault.
These are very real problems and compounding the problems by having
differnt companies work together will be a real feat.  If MS + Some
Hardware Company (tm)  pull this off in a reasonable time period, I
will be very impressed.

  -- Bruce

--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
bdubbs@sadis01.sa.aflc.af.mil |  Scrupulous Lawyer
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:28:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: mksol.1992Sep30.162814.24703
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Sep26.194614.23242@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>In article <1992Sep26.131512.23689@news.columbia.edu> hpw@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Harry P Warren) writes:
>...
>>Actually, I believe that Apple's next generation operating system was
>>internally refered to as "pink" long before they sat down with IBM.  I
>>could be wrong; I guess I could go look for a reference to it in an
>>old MacWeek but I'm almost certian of this.

>You are correct I had heard of Pink as the internal name long before
>IBM entered the picture.

Quite true.  The story I've heard on how this came about whas that
Apple engineers sat down with a wish-list of features for the
operating system.  Those that they thought they could get done in time
for the release of System 7 they wrote on blue cards (and System 7 was
known internally as Blue).  Those that they did not think they could
complete in time for System 7 they wrote on pink cards (and the 'next'
operating system was internally called Pink).

Only at Apple!  ;-)

-- 
"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: ejohnson@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Eric R. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:45:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.023652.17342@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

>we are not ready for price haggling because noone has announce an 
>estimated price for NT, the SDK, or anything.
>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...

Why not be consistent, and make it $2600 ? ;-)

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Where have I heard this before?
Date: 5 Oct 92 09:16:06 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.

In article <1aod61INNakn@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bbm@po.CWRU.Edu (Brian B. Mathewson) writes:
|> 
|> On Windows NT:
|> 
|> "..."
|> 
|> Hmmm.  Where have I heard this before?

How about telling us where you heard this in the first place? An unattributed
quote is no use to anyone.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: db3l@ans.net (David Bolen)
Subject: Re: Desynchronized Message Queues (was a thread about threads)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:45:36 GMT
Organization: Advanced Network & Services, Inc. - Elmsford, NY

In article <1992Sep26.012039.22635@nuscc.nus.sg> eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (TAN JIN MENG) writes:

>I still don't understand.... Multitasking should still be possibly with
>or without multiple message queues. I'll take a stab at reexplaning it
>and see if I'm correct?

Yes, non-user input related stuff will still run, but for most users, the
system will appear unresponsive.

>If you have a single message queue, that means that a single application
>can block the message queue and prevent other apps from accessing the
>message queue. However, all threads NOT accessing the message queue are
>not blocked. Therefore, you only block threads in other PM apps that are
>accessing the message queue. All other threads/apps continue executing.

That's true, but think about the ramifications.  For the most part,
operation of a PC is driven by user interaction.  While jobs may be running
in the background, most processes need user input at some point.  So, by
hanging the user input, although jobs that can still run without such input
will continue, as far as the user is concerned, the machine is effectively
hung.

>If you have one queue per thread (or per window?????), then the bottleneck
>referred to above is gone.
>
>Is my interpretation right?

Yes, since if the thread responsible for one window/queue (assume they are
paired for the sake of argument) decides to go on hiatus and just take a
long time to do something, the user can switch to another window/queue and
continue to interact, without waiting for the event in the previous queue
to be completed.

Now in such a case, it's very likely that the first window will not stay up
to date on the screen since its thread is not handling other events, but it
will only affect that window, rather than the user's interaction with the
system as a whole.

--
-- David
--
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
 \              David Bolen             \  Internet: db3l@ans.net      /
  |   Advanced Network & Services, Inc.   \   Phone: (914) 789-5327   |
 / 100 Clearbrook Road, Elmsford, NY 10523  \   Fax: (914) 789-5310    \
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------/
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:11:29 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Oct2.135038.7723@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
...
>>You're saying that developers having the pre-release early won't
>>effect NT's market?  You should work for IBM... they didn't seem
>>to think that early availablity of apps was important either.
>
>Until NT is released, it doesn't do much good.  As for apps, we'll
>both have to wait and see.  They're certainly not going to ship before
>NT does, and "intent to develop" means little in this market.

But NT apps are shipping even as we speak.  That's the whole point
A large number of apps will ship with NT from day one.
Already you can get versions that work with the pre-release, and
this phenonmenon will increase as NT betas get into more and more
hands.  Our intention is to ship the package we develop as soon
as it's ready... why wait for NT to ship?  There will be plenty
of potential customers in the beta program, and all it costs you
extra is shipping them a new set of diskettes when the final
release is made.  You get early exposure... plus a sort of extended
beta testing.


>David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing

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! :-))
From: wjw1@me1.MsState.Edu (Bill Wilson)
Subject: Re: NSTL compares OS/2 2.0 and Windows 3.1
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 07:01:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.002722.14009@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>Please remember that this was from a Microsoft press release, and
>thus is their "marketing interpretation" of the report.
>It is however clear that Windows 3.1 beat OS/2 2.0 soundly... and
>I just knew the members of the two advocacy groups would just
>*love* to know about the report and its conclusions. :-)
>

Hmmm... sorry, I guess I missed the part about the report being 
Microsoft's interpretation of the NSTL report. However,  your
statement about Windows 3.1 beating OS/2 2.0 soundly.... well,
I have to add that this is only in NSTL's opinion (and yours
too, Brian :). And thank you for posting the report... but I think
we could have done without the "conclusions."  8^)

>
>P.S.  I had don't beleive the multitasking part either... but the
>rest of it fits my experience.  Note... this is not the first time
>OS/2 has been ranked down on multitasking.  InfoWorld's comparison
>test of the two also ranked OS/2 lower on multitasking.  Maybe
>there is one specific thing OS/2 does very poorly?  If anybody
>calls and gets a copy of the NSTL report... check and tell us.
>B.
>-- 
>C. Brian Sturgill

I missed the InfoWorld comparison test, so I can't say much about 
that. One point though: OS/2's multitasking ability has been rated
much better than Windows' in most of the articles I have seen. I
have rarely seen anybody make the opposite statement. But I'm glad
to see that you don't believe the multitasking bit either :)

I will call NSTL tomorrow.. but I can't promise anything, if they
want money, well, I won't be the one to get the report. (poor college
student and all that drivel, you know!)

__
Bill Wilson : MSU Nuclear Engineering
bill@end.of.his.rope.because.school.sucks.so.bad.right.now

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy