HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ekl@fics.uucp
Subject: Re: Is WPS really better??
Organization: Kvam data as
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1992 17:46:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.133147.11085@scott.skidmore.edu> pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel) writes:
>In article <BAB.92Sep30072426@se39.wg2.waii.com> bab@se39.wg2.waii.com (Brian Button) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep29.193827.10087@scott.skidmore.edu> pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel) writes:
>>
>
>True... but I do that with Windows also.  I have icons that represent
>often used files (speadsheet, say) and when I click on them, Quatro
>comes up with that data file.

Dare I suggest that you have to create these icons manually? When WPS is
utilized, you shouldn't have to.

>I tried doing what you suggest in OS/2, but here's the problem (maybe
>you netters have a tip to overcome this..) : I'm in a word processor
>(however, it's not an OS/2 program).  I create a new document and save
>it in some directory.  When I return to the WPS, I have to create an
>icon for it, connect it to the right app, etc.  What a pain!  Perhaps
>an OS/2 app that knows about the WPS will create the icon for me -
>Okay that would be fine, no complaints.  But currently, it's not a
>smooth process.

This is indeed a problem. WPS-aware apps (of which there are almost
none, yet) will "fix" this problem.

>Problem #2:  this is something I've encountered in Windows and other
>OSs that try to be object oriented - I have data files that are
>"connected" to several apps.  I write a C++ program in my Brief
>editor.  Later I use in BC++.  Then back to Brief.  I've had some data
>files that are used in three different apps.  In WPS, I can only
>attach it to one app.  To use it in a different context, I'd have to
>click on the setting for that icon, change the related app name and
>start over.  Or, use two or more icons for the same file, but have
>each associated with a different app?  I think not.

One object type can have several "views". One may be Brief, another may
be bc++. Double clicking on the object icon selects the default "view",
To open another view, use open -> Viewname. This is what Open Settings
is doing today.

>Pierre von Kaenel	| Skidmore College	     | pvonk@skidmore.edu
>Math & CS Dept.		| Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 | (518)584-5000 Ext 2391
>
>[.... old sig has been retired.  New sig isn't ready yet. ]

Indeed the WPS has its glitches. In addition, no programs utilize what
is there. When those prorgrams appear (if?), it will be a different
ballgame, and we will realize (I hope) the beauty of the WPS.

Eirik
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:19:04 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Oct1.154607.5573@gw.wmich.edu> x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>> Christoph
>> -- 
>> Internet: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de
>> BITNET: HAMPE2@DMRHRZ11
>> Fido: 2:243/660
>
>	How can you greatly prefer NT over OS/2?  You actually
>liked the "pre-beta" better than OS/2?  WHY?  
>
>						-Brad
Well I can't speak for him, but I certain prefer the NT prebeta
over OS/2 _as a development platform_, the NT SDK beats OS/2+WorkSet/2 easily.

It is approximately as stable as 2.0 when you don't use the DOS or
16-bit parts, and NT has better features.  The documentation
is (and I know that people that haven't seen it will have trouble
believing this) BETTER than OS/2's documentation (except when using
functions in the newest areas... this info is often missing or sketchy).
I certainly have less trouble finding out what I need to know
about NT than I do _even now_ about OS/2.

But these are the minor points... the real difference is terms
of the quality of the software development tools. NT's SDK comes
with the NT equivalent of MSC/C++ 7.0.  My only complaint
is that they haven't yet gotten the iostream library there, but
I can see why that would be low priority.
The point is even in its not-yet-finished state... it's better
than WorkSet/2.

(Plus NT makes nice sounds when it beeps or I log in/out, etc (i.e. it uses my
SoundBlaster) and it comes with a CD-Player app... quite an important
development tool!) :-)

I look forward to the beta release... I suspect I can stop dual
booting Windows 3.1 then.

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
University of Utah                             United We Stand
Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 17:21:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.170636.29027@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Actually, Microsoft thought of this first (putting software directly
>on the hard drive).  Neither Microsoft nor IBM are (yet) bundling at
>this level, as far as I know, but it is being considered.

Clarification (lest I be accused of giving Microsoft credit where it
isn't deserved): the "first" is only in comparison with IBM.  More
precisely, Microsoft thought of bundling software with hard drives
(that are then installed in systems) before IBM.  However, they
weren't the first to dream up this method of software distribution --
even in the personal computer marketplace.  For example, Apple offered
(and may still offer) A/UX on a SCSI hard disk.  When you buy the hard
disk from Apple (to add to your system), you get A/UX on it (i.e. you
buy both at the same time).  A/UX was also available on floppy
diskettes -- huge numbers of them.

Of course, the real answer is to standardize on a high capacity,
rewritable, removeable disk format.  Floptical technologies are
adequate, but something with more capacity would be nice; IBM's
"mini-CD" isn't bad, but it is still too expensive for the mass
market; CD-ROM is great, but it isn't writable, and there are still
standards problems when attaching them to PCs; Bernoulli and Syquest
type systems are too expensive, especially for media.  NeXT tried, but
it still hasn't caught on.  If IBM and Apple together could ship their
systems with a standard 200 MB, 3.5 inch, speedy, autoejecting drive,
at $10 per disk and $499 per drive, I think we'd have something.

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | The OS/2 FREQ. ASKED QUESTIONS LIST is avail. from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/faq.
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | Or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP").
of Chicago, 60637       | Family Values Means a Job
From: pricec@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (price carl wayne)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Tidbit fro UNIX World
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:27:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: CS.1992Sep30.212754.26688
Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept.

I just bought the new UNIX World today (Oct 1992), and on page 16 there
is an interesting note about the OS's VARs are choosing with two pie charts
one for 1988 and one for 1992.  In short, in 1988 OS/2 was not listed 
with it's own slice MS/PC-DOS had 29% of the market and Apple had 4%.
In 1992 it shows OS/2 with 12%, MS/PC-DOS with 42%, and Apple with 5%.
This shows a huge growth of OS/2, and since OS/2 is now growing faster 
than any other time in it's history, I think that it is on the verge of
taking the market by storm.

--Carl

-- 
Carl W. Price		 	*      * Work keeps us from three evils:     * 
Computer Engineering Student	*      * boredom, vice, and need.            *
Oregon State University		*      *                                     *
pricec@prism.cs.orst.edu	*      *       ---Voltaire                   *
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 28 Sep 92 08:23:03 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Sep27.231652.54509@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu wrote:

> 
> Balony.  Shaking out bugs is *one* reason why beta's are released.  The most
> important reason at that.  Developers *do* give out beta's for evaluation
> purposes.  Look in any magazine, they have all those rotten "sneak previews"
> based on beta's.  They were given the copy by the developer in 90% of the
> cases.  If beta's were only given to a small number of developers, then how do
> you explain the NT and OS/2 beta's which can be had almost for the asking.
> (And in os/2's case, that is all it takes)

Maybe you can tell this about the OS/2 beta program, but I have yet to
hear from anyone who's seen a beta for NT.  I know a lot of folk with
the PDK though, who say it's pretty easy to get ahold of.  All you
have to do is call the developers hotline.  (just being a pain ;)

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions....
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: db3l@ans.net (David Bolen)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:48:05 GMT
	<pathak-260992141946@virtual.mitre.org>
	<1992Sep26.211039.24073@muddcs.claremont.edu>
Organization: Advanced Network & Services, Inc. - Elmsford, NY

In article <1992Sep26.211039.24073@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:

>In article <pathak-260992141946@virtual.mitre.org> pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak) writes:
>>Note, multitasking isn't just limited to computers.  People multitasking
>>(pre-emptively at times) all the time.  After all, how many people do you
>>know that sit and watch the water boil? ;-)
>
>Actually, that's more like task swapping:)  (...)

Not really - if it was task swapping, the water would stop heating up until
you looked at it again, so you'd be required to stare at it until it
boiled :-)

--
-- 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    \
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Video games and NT
Date: 06 Oct 92 18:20:07 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <wiegand.718298993@lido16> motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net writes:
>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct1.121944.5568@gw.wmich.edu> 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>>>
>>>	I said this a bit in another post but video games are important
>>>to an OS.
>>      It is far from clear that DOS will continue to be the platform
>>of choice for computer games.  Would you elborate on your reasons
>>for this statement?
>
>Games sell for less money than business programs, so need to sell
>in large numbers to make money. They must sell to the largest posible
>market, which is DOS.

     This assumes that DOS will remain the largest possible market,
which is far from clear.  It has a _tremendous_ lead right now, but
won't necessarily keep that lead forever.


>[Stuff deleted]
>
>>>	That brings us to Windows NT.  It is pretty clear from what
>>>people have said, my own experiences, and MS's announcements that NT
>>>will scarcely run DOS video games.
>
>>      This is unclear.  Windows NT will not allow applications to
>>directly access the hardware - this does not necessarily preclude
>>running DOS games.
>
>I think thae main question here is speed. Most graphichs intensive DOS
>games directly access the hardware to get maximum speed. How fast will
>these programs run under NT?

     There are other factors to consider.  As hardware becomes faster,
directly accessing the hardware will not be necessary.  Wing Commander
II on a 486/33 is too fast to play, and that exists already.

					-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: gutz@cc49.aecl.crl.ca
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Organization: AECL-Research
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:05:09 GMT


In article <1992Sep29.175707.4137@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>
>     I've removed comp.os.os2.apps from the newsgroups line - this
>isn't appropriate for that group.
>
>In article <1992Sep28.175412.9513@cu23.crl.aecl.ca> gutz@cc49.crl.aecl.ca writes:
>>
>>With all due respect to whatever position you have at MS (and I don't
>>care what it is), you are a total idiot!
>
>     That's respect?  Interesting definition.
>
>
>>  If you think 2-3 million people
>>constitutes a few special intrest groups, then you have to be brain-dead.
>
>     Even the most hardened OS/2 zealots aren't claiming 3 million
>users - most aren't even claiming 2 million.  Can you provide a 
>source for these statistics.

By the OS/2 2.0 celebrates it's first anniversary, IBM predicts 2+ million
units shipped.

>
>
>>[I run OS/2 without the Windows support stuff deleted]
>
>     This is certainly your option.
>
>
>>If you, and/or MS think I'm going to use a Windows app under OS/2 when
>>there is a native OS/2 app, you will surely miss the boat.
>
>     There isn't a native OS/2 app.  That's the point.

There sure is, but it's not written by MS.  Describe 3.0 (and soon
4.0) are excellent products.  AMI-pro is also due shortly.

>
>
>>  So drop your
>>"NT is going to take the World" attitude and admit that MS is working on
>>OS/2 apps.
>
>     I can't make any kind of official statement here, but no one that
>I know within Microsoft is working on OS/2 apps, with the possible
>exception of Lan Manager.
>

That's the official word anyway.  Would MS admit that they are working on
OS/2 apps, when they are going to try flogging a different OS sometime
in the near/distant? future?  I don't think would admit any OS/2 app
work, since this would certainly affect sales of NT whenever it arrives.

>
>>  One would have to be pretty naive to believe that MS hasn't
>>noticed the potential of OS/2 and has not started to build apps.
>
>     The potential is not clear yet.  If and when it becomes apparent
>that OS/2 2.0 will be around for a while, with substantial user base,
>I would expect some management person to make a decision on whether
>or not to produce apps for it.  At present, though, OS/2's future is
>far from clear.
>

Do you honestly think OS/2 is going to fail?  Are you so sure of NT's
success?

>					-Phil
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
>philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
>Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.

Steven Gutz
AECL Research
Chalk River Laboratories
Chalk River Ontario
Canada K0J 1J0
GUTZ@CC49.CRL.AECL.CA
From: Ian_Upright@mindlink.bc.ca (Ian Upright)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ian's Outlook on OS'es
Date: 27 Sep 92 20:23:53 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

Faisal Nameer Jawdat writes:

Ian_Upright@mindlink.bc.ca (Ian Upright) writes:
>>    It's still by far, the easiest & most complete GUI around (contrary to
>>    popular belief do to many pig-headed people) Unfortunately, "Third-Party"

> your article forgot NeXT's which have what many consider to be the
> easiest graphical interface by far
> I can't get too excited about any graphical interface which doesn't
> support minimisation of windows
> as for poular, NeXT seems to have a smaller user base than my family
> :-)

Ian Upright replies:

Really??  Sure I did:


IU> The real winner?  Probably still Win 3.1..  :(  Where are we headed?  The
IU> future doesn't look good no matter where we turn..  Maybe Taligent
IU> will be a whole lot better.  Maybe NextStep 3.0 will cost $150 and we'll
IU> all go to that instead.

I prefer the way System 7 does it as opposed to minimising anyways.. The icon
you've minimised is usually burried underneath several overlapping windows, and
it's really a pain in the butt!  System 7's features of "Hide All Other
Windows", and the like, make things really a whole lot easier, and less
cluttered.  I wish OS/2 had some similar features.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:09:59 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Sep29.030535.16189@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>Speaking of minesweeper, I just tried minesweeper that came with
>os/2 GRE and win-os/2 3.1.  Assuming that it is the same minesweeper
>as the one included in original Windows 3.1, I'd say the freeware
>minesweeper for os/2 2.0 is much harder to solve than win 3.1 version.
>When you have experience with the former, windows version is not a
>fun anymore.
>

      Yeah, I heard that OS/2 solitaire was a lot harder, too.

      Brian, you should add this to the OS/2 2.0 features list:
"Minesweeper a lot more difficult."  Definite selling point there.

					-Phil

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
From: tzs@milton.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why OS/2 **WILL** fail
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:20:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Sep29.192001.23582
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

>	To put bluntly, with Windows, we get calls from people who
>simply want to move some program from a disk to their hard drive.
>With OS/2, they don't have such problems, they just pick up the folder and move
>it onto the desktop or to another folder eentually.  It is MUCH easier
>to use than Windows.

Yeah, moving files.  I've written a VxD for a blockdev device for Windows
(this is offered as evidence that I am not a complete moron), yet I got
stuck the other day when I wanted to move a program to a floppy to take it
to another machine.

OS/2, however, does not get off entirely.  I've written an ADD for OS/2
(again, this is offered as evidence that I am at least sentient), and when
I tried to copy a file to a floppy from WPS shell, the following happened:

	1. The icon appeared when I opened the A: drive.

	2. When I moved the floppy to another machine, the program was
	not on the floppy.

	3. When any other floppy was placed in the A: drive, the icon for
	the program would show up.

The Macintosh is more intuitive (then again, I've used a Mac for about seven
years, so I may have simply forgotten its oddities).

Oh, yeah.  I finally just opened an OS/2 command window and copied the
program that way.  That worked.  The saving grace for OS/2 is that when
WPS does something that is not what I expect, if I read the documentation
to figure out what happened, it makes sense, and seems reasonable (i.e., it
might not be the way I'll do things when I write my OS, but it seems a good
way to do things), whereas when Windows and I disagree about things, and I
then see what I'm supposed to do, I don't end up thinking that it was
reasonable.

--Tim Smith
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6890 comp.sys.intel:1857 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:26114
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)? [really P5 & P6 == RISC]
From: stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Stuart Woolford)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:43:26 GMT
 <1992Oct4.113937.2434@leland.Stanford.EDU> <1992Oct5.211000.9779@odin.corp.sgi.com>
Organization: University of Auckland, New Zealand.

mash@mash.wpd.sgi.com (John R. Mashey) writes:

>In article <1992Oct4.113937.2434@leland.Stanford.EDU>, yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong) writes:

>|> You never know. the 80x86 chips just keep on getting better.  The P5, P6 chips
>|> looks like they will be on par performance wise with some of the fastest
>|> RISC chips.  The line is probably going to hang around a while, even though
>|> we may not necessarily like INTel's stranglehold on the chip market.

>Now, it might be nice to restate this more correctly as:
>	"Intel marketing says that P5, P6 will will on a par with
>	the fastest RISC chips."
>Some facts might be useful (please correct me if any of the below are wrong).

While this is not a solid fact..It is a close as I have heard....( and is from
memory ), so take it with the required grain of salt...

I have heard ( I think it was in a BYTE article, and from other people.. ) that
the P5 has run one of the major FP Benchmarks ( Wheatstone, Linpack, I cannot remember ) at 66MFlops for a 66MHz clock speed, if this is even close to true,
then I think it will be a contender, and these 'facts' were attributed to a
report from Intel's Hardware people, NOT Salesmen. They also stated that the
maximum cycles for a FP Instruction was 3 cycles, and there were 2 Integer
Pipelines....

and remember    !!!!These are not facts, just what I have heard!!!!


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz


			>>>>In VI Where Available<<<<
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:32:42 GMT

sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:

>In article <BvD7qz.HHM@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk)
> writes:
>>Pink, right now anyway, is sort of dead.
>>...But there is a decent chance you could be using a PowerPC mac that will
>>run as fast as a P5 and cost <$2000 before the end of next year  (and
>>a OS/2 shell to run on the same computer by 1st Q '94).
>>
>Pink dead?  Present evidence please.  Quite frankly all the indicators from
>press releases from Apple and IBM indicate that it is quite healthy.  In
>addition,  your statement about the "PowerPC mac" is quite baseless.  First,
>there has only been one set of prototypes finished.  Supposedly they are right
>on schedule.  (anyone know what the schedule is?)  Second, by your own
>admission, stapling an OS on a chip takes time.  They are claiming mid-'94 as
>an intended goal.  (At least that was what I heard last.  Could have changed)
>In any case, while I do like the Mac OS, I don't think that it would be the
>most appropriate system for a chip of that power.  (Sort of like MS-DOS on a
>P5, really kind of a waste)  Third, run as fast as a P5 and be under $2000?
>That statement is just plain silly.  P5 speed machines won't sell that cheap
>for a long time, so why should a theoretically equivilant PowerPC chip?  That
>doesn't make sense.

IBM and Apple have recently said that talingent will work on future tech.
to be used in the Mac sys 8 and OS/2 ver 3 (not their exact words, but
close enough).  Pink may be brought out as an OS, but later than initially
planned.  If pink is brought out it will be able to run mac, dos, win,
and os/2 progs. with an OS module (seperately purchased) for each.
PowerPC chips are expected to start mass production in mid. '93, and
maybe sooner (although since there isn't an OS yet, who cares?).
The 603 chip to be put in computers < $2000 will run ~2x the speed of a
486/50 (rumor).  There is already talk in the mac community that sys 8
(pre-emptive, mem. prot., micro-kernaled) will be out the end of Dec. '93,
although Apple won't say anything more than mid '94.


					Todd Walk
					walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy