HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak)
Subject: Re: NT delayed again??? (PC Week Nov 2)
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Mitre Corporation
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:10:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.213624.22337@fcom.cc.utah.edu>,
brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) wrote:
> 
> >If this was such common news as you seem to think.  I don't think PC Week
> >would have printed it.  Brian, maybe you were the one who was asleep and
> >couldn't differentiate between speculation and the "official" MS line.
> 
> From InfoWorld; September 28, 1992; Pages 1,107:
> 	Gates says NT might not ship until early '93.
> 	By Stuart J. Johnston
> 
> 	Windows NT is behind schedule and will likely miss its
> 	promised ship date later this year, Microsoft Corp.
> 	chairman Bill Gates admitted last week to attendees on
> 	the Agenda conference, in Laguna Niguel, Calif.
> 
> 	The 32-bit operating system might not ship until early
> 	second quarter of 1993, Gates said.
> 	[Read "early second quarter" as Spring Comdex.]
> 
> 	Many users, developers, and analysts said they would
> 	prefer the company ship a complete, bug-free product late
> 	rather than an incomplete version on time.
> 	[Like IBM did with OS/2.]
> 

Gee.  Wasn't this the same time when MS was officially stating that it
would be out in the first quarter?  From the article, Gates was saying that
it might not ship until the 2nd quarter but at the same time, MS said they
are slipping only one quarter.  Does this mean that the official MS release
dates really don't mean anything?  Could MS be using a sliding release date
to keep business from their competition???  Nah, it couldn't be that.
> 
> I eagerly await your apology.
> 

I guess I don't see what I have to apologies about.  I have been trying to
track the release of both OS/2 and NT on publically stated release dates. 
Anything else seem to start a flame war (however, I guess even official
date seem to be up for interpretation).


> >Heeren Pathak                      | Millions long for immortality who do 
> 
> Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heeren Pathak                      | Millions long for immortality who do 
pathak@mitre.org                   | not know what to do with themselves
Mitre Corporation                  | on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
(617) 271-7465                     |	               	-- Susan Ertz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Mine not Mitre's.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ckincy@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: Why does OS/2 loose out in a PC Mag comparison test?
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 05:09:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

In article <joiner.721522521@myria> joiner@myria.cs.umn.edu (Jay K. Joiner) writes:
>In <1992Nov11.162339.11015@u.washington.edu> mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth) writes:
>
>>I thought Byte did an outstanding job of reviewing OS/2 two months ago.  Very
>>professional, fairly through, and done by people with real expertise in 
>>os's. They weren't 100% in favor of os/2, but they did point out strengths and
>>weaknesses.
>
>Was this the one where the reviewer complained about the speed of finding
>a file?  If so, he was undoubtedly using the Find... button in a notebook,
>not the PMSeek app, which is blazingly fast.

What?  Are you nuts?  Why should someone have to use an app to replace
a supposed OS function?  I demand that IBM give me a fast find button,
damn it!

How the heck is someone supposed to know that they are supposed to use
an obscure application not mentioned in any documentation?  Hmmm?

cpk
[I'm pro-OS/2.  But I find that this argument goes a little bit
too far.  If the Find button is slow, then fix it!!!!]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 14:12:55 GMT

furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod) writes:
petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>>Funny, I know people who have the opposite viewpoint.  They Like DOS
>>because it stays the heck out of their way.
>>Then again, they are just embedded systems designers, and game designers,
>>and the like.
>Not true. [irrelevant anecdote deleted]

So you are saying Pete Skelly lied when he said he knew such people?
He didn't name names, so how do you know who he was thinking about?
Are you psychic?  Or do you know everyone he knows?

--Tim Smith
From: jedwards@ms.uky.edu (Jonathan Edwards)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Memory Fregmentation under OS/2
Date: 8 Nov 92 01:24:14 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

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?

If this is exactly what your friend means, he's confused.  There's nothing
about the x86 architecture that causes memory loss or excessive fragmentation.

I suspect dropped bits in the communication...
From: bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:00:17 GMT
Organization: Applied Information Systems, Chapel Hill, NC

In article <1992Nov08.105045.907@donau.et.tudelft.nl>, linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>>>
>>Fildercarb.  The BIOS is *part* of DOS... as much as a V6 is *part* of the
>>Truck my father drives.  It is not necessary that every layer in an
> 
> No its not.
> 1. You can remove DOS and there's still the BIOS, or take out the VGA
> card and the BIOS is gone. Not a very good argument, but it shows the
> BIOS and DOS are unrelated, DOS just makes use of its presence, as
> it does of any piece of the architecture it was designed for.
> 
> 2. The BIOS is not designed by Microsoft for DOS, but DOS was designed
> for the PC-architecture, using the BIOS. Argument in same class as 1.
> 
> 3. Any other PC operating system uses the BIOS for basic input and
> output. The BIOS would then be part of that operating system,
> by your own reasoning. That would make all these OS's have an 
> identical part. Not likely. More likely though is, the BIOS is
> part of the architecture the OS is designed for.
> 
> 4. You yourself just said the BIOS was part of the architecture.

The claim that the PC BIOS is part of DOS is just plain silly.  Besides
the things that Erik mentions, DOS has been adapted for machines that
do NOT use an IBM PC-compatible BIOS -- like the DEC Rainbow, for
example.  Programs that use only the DOS INT 2?h interrupts (where ? is
a number from 0-f) work just fine on such machines, thank you.

The IBM PC BIOS is part of the _IBM PC_ architecture, not a part of
MS-DOS.  The version of MS-DOS that you're most familiar with just
happens to be adapted for the IBM-PC.

Bruce C. Wright
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: btf57346@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Byron "Bohr" Faber)
Subject: Who CARES if MicroSoft makes apps for os/2?!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 02:04:53 GMT

	Well, I got my os/2 coupon book today.  I know its late, 
but I live on a campus and the book was delivered home.  But I 
took some time to look through it and was thinking that who 
cares about what MircoSoft makes for os/2.  I personally find that
the applications that are out there are VERY good for what I've seen.
I also think that the applications out are from alot of companies that
aren't 'known' in the Dos realm.  I think they have made a good 
investment in time, because they have hit os/2 at a time when very
few apps currently exist.

Why haven't any of the big companies done this? (i.e.  MICROSOFT!!)
I mean, I've seen good Borland applications, WordPerfect, and even
Lotus.  I suppose if they think os/2 will go bust it might be a good
idea.  But wouldn't they be better off if they didn't put NT head to 
head with os/2?  I mean, there will obviously be people who prefer either
interface, so why would you cut your own neck trying to kill another 
software maker by making your products incompatible with everybody
elses?

IBM already did this with the ps/2 and failed?!!!!

So then WHAT purpose does it serve but to degrade the over-all
quality of products.  I think the reason I like os/2 the most is that
it trys to run alot of different applications from different os's and
doesn't complain alot (no flame ment here) about the types of programs
in runs (in GENERAL).  Now I've heard alot about NT, and know that
it will run UNIX, or over unix?  And have heard that it will run the
same old outdated and ugly progman and filemang, but what will it be like?

From what I've seen I don't understand why MircoSoft would try to pit it
against OS/2. I'm not saying it will fail, or that os/2 will succeed, all
I'm saying putting up two obviously good Operating systems (compared to 
things like Dos) will do nothing but cause programs..

Comes to the question of:
"What does an immovable object do when it comes up against an 
immeasurable force?"   Or however it goes.

All I'll say is that I'm voting for os/2 and don't care if NT 
suceeds.   But personally... who would want to run NT, even if it
is 32-bit with some type of unix interface.  I know people who would call
that a sin.  :)  Such an insult to the usefullness of unix.

Byron Faber
-- 
Please Note:  Some Quantum Physics Theories Suggest that When the Reader   
              Is Not Directly Observing This Message, It May Cease to Exist
              or Will Exist Only in a Vague and Undetermined State.
Internet:  btf57346@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu  & btf57346@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 5 Nov 1992 16:05:57 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Nov05.115641.12981@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>A neat analogy, Fred, but wrong: what does an OS do that DOS doesn't?
>Provide protection from ill behaved applications for one. Furthermore
>I would say concurrency should be included in the definition of
>a modern OS.

Provide sources for both of those, please. In particular, concurrency: Nobody
argued about whether or not OS/360 PCP, a single-tasking version of OS/360,
was an OS.

Protecting itself from an ill-behaved application is something a good OS
*should* have, but it's hardly a requirement.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
     We survived Jimmy Carter; we'll (probably) survive Bill Clinton.
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to make OS/2 look bad ...
Date: 8 Nov 92 21:20:57 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <strobl.721229440@gmd.de>, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
> In <4310@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> rvaniwaa@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ronald J. Vaniwaarden) 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.
> 
> Wolfgang Strobl
> #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>


	I have, and do run OS/2 with 4 megs quite well on a daily
basis.  It can be done also.  I would prefer more but 4 megs is
adequate for some people.  I don't use the workplace shell to get
better performance but it is possible.  Just like I ran Windows 3.0
on a 286 with 1 meg ram and thought it was okay.  But both are 
minimums and don't run as well as most people would like.

					-Brad


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: DOS not operating system, film at 11. :-)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:12:22 GMT

In <1992Nov10.230120.20698@frog.CRDS.COM> rmk@frog.CRDS.COM (Rick Kelly) writes:

>In article <92308.115001MICHAELB@UCF1VM.BITNET> MICHAELB@UCF1VM.BITNET (Michael `Anti-Microsoft' Brunetti) writes:
>>Yes, but 90% of those who purchase computers don't know anything about them
>>and fall into marketing traps by Microsoft.

>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.

Although there are a few people who know nothing about computers, but
can still see what a completely lame system Windoze is.  Take my mother,
who just bought (with no aid or input from me, I might add) a brand new
386 machine for word-processing.  She refused to let them give her
Windoze--she may not be very technical, but she's encountered Windoze at
work, and hates it because it's so slow and awkward compared to DOS
text-mode.

OTOH, I don't think that she's ready for OS/2 either, but for other
reasons.  :-)
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | "Don't you boys know NICE songs?"
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers |                 -- Joe's mama
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
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 12:39:57 GMT

In <4334@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> rvaniwaa@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ronald J. Vaniwaarden) writes:

>In article <1992Nov9.173207.22664@spock.UUCP> roland@spock.uucp (David A. Braun) writes:
>>In <4310@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> rvaniwaa@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ronald J. Vaniwaarden) 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.
>>
>>So did I, and I must say it DID work reasonably fast, it was large windows
>>programs which couldn't work, that evil Program Manager worked fine.
>>
>>Roland.

>alright, I guess it is time for a retraction of sorts :-)

>I never ran windows on anything less than a 386/33 with 4mb and the
>performance was satisfactory.  I did use it on a 286 with 1mb and
>_I_ found the performance to be too slow 

I believe that this effect is almost independent of the memory size
you start with. You adjust your personal "working set" to the size
of the real memory you have in your machine. If you add memory to
your machine, your "working set" slowly grows until you notice
some slight performance degradation. If you remove memory (or 
switch from a 4 MByte machine to a 1 MByte machine), you'll 
notice a severe performance degradation, because reducing the
personal "working set" is much more difficult than enlarging
it. Because of that, a machine with n/2 bytes memory is 
universally observed as being almost unuseable, from the point 
of view of a machine with n bytes of memory, for all n. :-)

>and it did not multitask since
>it ran only in standard mode.  

It did not multitask *DOS* applications. Windows applications are
of course multitasked in the usual way.

>I also have used OS/2 on the 386 w/ 4mb
>and found it to be very slow and would not multitask well do to the
>huge amount of swapping.  I did not complain that the performance was too
>slow since I realized that I had the minimum amount of ram that was
>required. I now run it in 16 mb which is pure bliss. :-)))

>What I should have said is that noone runs windows 3.1 on a 286 with 1mb
>of ram and then complains that it is too slow or runs windows 3.0 on
>a 8088 with 640k and complains about speed.  For the same reason, noone
>_should_ complain about OS/2 being slow in 4mb when that is the
>minimum configuration.

Agreed.

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mandziuk@ee.ualberta.ca (Michael W Mandziuk)
Subject: OS/2 book review
Summary: "Inside OS/2 2.0" book recommendation
Keywords: books,reference,os/2
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 22:53:24 GMT

I just picked up a copy of "Inside OS/2 2.0" by Mark Minasi, et.al., New Riders
Press 1992. I think it's a very well-done book. I, like most other users of
ms-windows 3.1 was weary about taking the plunge and putting os/2 2.0 onto
my system, but the boot manager was the first reason why I did it (so I could
have both and play with both systems). After I put OS/2 on its own primary
partition, I realized that the online documentation was horrible: very
terse, not very clear, especially about the syntax of command line parameters.
So I went book shopping. I picked up the book in question and I've learned way
more than I ever could have learned from the online help. If you are having
doubts about OS/2 and the direction it's heading in, pick up this book! It 
makes you realize just how pitiful DOS really is and why the software for 
DOS is so limited. It also explains alot of technical concepts in easy to
understand terms, such as multi-threaded multitasking (an explanation for
which I have yet to come across elsewhere), memory segmentation, swap files,
and other inner workings of os/2 (thus the title). There was a marked 
absence of Windows flaming, which you may or may not like judging from the
contents of this newsgroup.In summary, if you want to know what your 
talking about when you talk about OS/2 v. Windows, read this book.
From: Larry.Burns@f3333.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Larry Burns)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Are There Published Pape
Date: 8 Nov 92 20:19:00 GMT



 harvie@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Lawrence Harvie) asked:
 
LH> I'd like to know if there are any papers the designers of OS/2
LH>wrote which explains why they did what they did in designing some piece 
LH>of the system.  This could be the High Performance File System or 
LH>any other part of OS/2 that took a new approach.  In this class,
LH>a published paper from the designers or advocates helps legitimize the 
LH>presentation.  If anybody knows of such papers, I would appreciate 
LH>any information you may have.

I cannot give much specific info, but I know there is a popular book written 
by the original team that designed and wrote OS/2.  I'm sorry I don't know 
the name, but it is a couple of years old, and should be easy to find in the
book catalogs.  Also, there are many pamphlets written by team-members.
They are somewhat technical in nature, but are intended to sell OS/2, as 
well.  These should be easily available to any IBM employee or through
IBM tech-support.  I would probably try them for references.

I hope that you will post some of your findings for the rest of us.  
Good luck.
                                   - Larry
___
 * MR/2 1.2x NR * "640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, 1981
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT delayed again??? (PC Week Nov 2)
Date: 5 Nov 92 07:48:18 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

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.
 
Has PC Week "turned" on MS? Or are they trying to "balance" their
coverage?

Tom
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: What I heard from Microsoft about NT
Keywords: NT
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:22:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.230911.11528@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>
>Now then, we have Windows/NT as the product, and what is the release
>number?  You say that it's 3.1?  Gee, where the hell were all the
>releases before that?  A first release with a MAJOR REVISION NUMBER of
>*3* is just a *BIT* unusual -- one might even say unprecedented.
>
"corrupt", "sleazy", "false and misleading",... those are the terms that
come to my mind.  
-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
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 13:09:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov8.130936.16238
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95

teague@a.cs.okstate.edu (Keith Teague) writes:
>Microsoft Windows (as it exists today) is clearly NOT an operating
>system - any more than a DOS shell is an operating system. It is
>clearly a GUI and a tool to ease user interaction with the OS, but
>it is not an OS in any real technical sense.

Please post a definition of "operating system" with references.  It
appears that you are using the term in a way that is different from
the normal use as definined in most operating systems textbooks.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Reply-To: soh3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:42:13 GMT

In article <4294@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> rvaniwaa@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ronald J. Vaniwaarden) writes:
>>...
>>Check out what it says on the Windows 3.0 5 1/4" diskettes:
>>
>>      "Microsoft(r) Windows (tm)"
>>***   "Graphical Environment"
>>[... disk number and startup instructions deleted...]
>>***   "For DOS Systems"
>>

>Well, I was one of the fools who bought the $49 windows 3.1 program and on
>my disks, it says
>
>	Microsoft(r) Windows (TM)
>	Operating System
>	...

What's the difference between 3.0 and 3.1?  I thought 3.1 was just a
bug fix of 3.0 and then the change in the label was from a graphical
environment to an operating system.  Is there really such a big
difference between these two versions such that one is just a graphical
environment and the other an operating system?  If there's not much
difference in them in terms of their operating-systemnesses, then I should
conclude that their change in label was motivated more by marketing
considerations (Pete, I think it makes difference whether you call Windows
a graphical environment or an operating system, especially when you are
faced with a formidable competitor in os/2), than by technical considerations.
The fact that Windows 3.0 was labelled as a graphical environment shows
that even Microsofties did not believe Windows was an operating system.

Also, I think Quarterdeck claims that Windows can be run better under
Desqview/X than under DOS.  Then, should we say that DOS, Desqview/X,
and Windows are all operating systems?

Min