HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mattair@sun44.synercom.hounix.org (Charles Mattair)
Subject: Microsoft originality (oxymoron)
Organization: Synercom Technology, Inc., Houston, TX
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:15:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.023319.28964@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1h8rofINNi01@tamsun.tamu.edu> bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
>>Microsoft developed the mouse?  Tell that to Doug Englebart who did
>>develop the mouse (1965).  He did the track ball too. 
>
>In fact, there were several PC mice that predated the Microsoft mouse.
>
>>Sure, MS developed Word, but a lot of folks do NOT agree that Word is
>>the best around.
>
>Actually, they didn't.  Word was originally developed by an
>independent developer.  Microsoft bought the rights to it, at least on
>the PC.
>

Thought question for the group: has Microsoft done anything orginal besides
marketing?

Replying by Email gives consent to post to the net....
-- 
Charles Mattair		 			mattair@synercom.hounix.org
Any opinions offered are my own and do not reflect those of my employer.
Gates and Walton are the perfect reasons for a wealth tax.


-- 
Charles Mattair		 			mattair@synercom.hounix.org
Any opinions offered are my own and do not reflect those of my employer.
Gates and Walton are the perfect reasons for a wealth tax.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: NT Destined to Succeed??
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:57:08 GMT

In article <1igie4INNlsl@controversy.math.lsa.umich.edu> spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu (D. Robert Spexet II) writes:
>In article <1993Jan06.223236.11604@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>     Because it's false.  Windows NT _does_ run in 8 megs - it
>>just didn't do so for Steve when he tried it.
>
>Then in Steve's case, your statement is a falsehood, and you should clarify
>it as such.


	Steve took a copy of NT that had been installed and configured
	for a 16 meg machine and put it on an 8 meg machine 
	("almost identical") didn't change anything, and blasted it
	for crashing.  [He didn't know at the time that it had been
	installed in 16 megs, butheknew it had been running in 16 megs
	for awhile.  My copy of OS/2 was installed in 4, but now it's
	running in 16.  I *promise* that if I took my current copy and
	plopped it on a 4 meg machine (8megs being the NT minimum) it
	would crash and die.]


>When you say "Windows NT will run in 8 megabytes", perhaps you could state
>more specifically how much this is, and how strict the requirement is.  Does
>"8 megabytes" mean 8192K, or does it mean 8192+256K?  Will NT run in slightly
>less than 8192K, or does it require 8192K, or even slightly more than 8192K?


	I imagine that it's reasonable to assume that even on systems
	that steal 384k it will probably run.  I haven't seen it on
	any machines that do this that I can remember.
 

-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com (Peter Mayne)
Subject: Re: SGI-GL in Windows NT?
Reply-To: Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:16:28 GMT


In article <4126.942.uupcb@almac.co.uk>, mike.dickson@almac.co.uk (Mike Dickson) writes:
>..> It's Silicon Graphics Graphics Language.  It's one of the nicest
>..> graphics languages on the market (so I've heard -- I've never used it).
>..> What this means is NT will have 3D graphics built-in.
>
>You're damned right you've never used it. If you tried to run this on a
>486/50 you'd understand the meaning of the word 'slow'. SGI is entirely
>hardware-reliant. Today's PC's just don't have that kind of guts in them.

So we should never develop any new software ever again, because the PC
that you have on your desk is too slow? Maybe this is a good reason for
buying an Alpha PC, or a graphics coprocessor for your 486/50? So IBM should
be taken out and shot, because OS/2 runs too slowly on my 386sx/16?

>/\/\ | |< |.                                     mike.dickson@almac.co.uk
>---
> . SLMR 2.1a . Practice Deliberate Acts of Destruction and Sacrilege

Obviously.

PJDM
--
Peter Mayne                     | My statements, not Digital's.
Digital Equipment Corporation   |
Canberra, ACT, Australia        | "AXP!": Bill the Cat

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: OS/2 Application Development Tools
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 06:27:06 GMT

This is something else I came across and since it is worth mentioning,
I will post it:

============================ Cut Here ==================================

"Premier Publishing is proud to announce:

      OS/2 Application Development Tools

               by Brian Proffit


"This book is the first of its kind and a must for serious developers.  
Whether doing modifications to existing systems or writing code for an 
original application, IBM's tools expert Brian Proffit offers insight 
that is unavailable anywhere else."

"OS/2 Application Development Tools is the only source of information on
hundreds of tools including 16- and 32-bit.  Proffit details what to 
use, when to use it and why, from his own experience."

Available inside IBM as G362-0004
ISBN 1-881899-00-4
Available from Programmer's Paradise

Premier Publishing
7 Stagg Street
Stratford, CT  06497-6730
203-378-6200 Phone
203-386-1624 Fax
$22.95
From: francis@ese.ogi.edu (Francis Moraes)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I've got the 2.1 beta, now what do I do with it???
Date: 8 Jan 93 16:15:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.48244
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute - Department of Env. Science and Eng.

roland@margaret (David A. Braun) writes:

>	I just received the OS/2 2.1 beta/PDK on CD-ROM today... Can someone  
>tell me whether I can install this directly off the CD or if I will have to  
>copy it to disks? I have a Texel 3024 CD-ROM (This is compatable, I knoow) and
>two SCSI controllers that I can use it on... a PAS-16 and a SCSI card made by  
>"Storage Plus Incorporated"... any help, pleeese...

Yes, you can install it directly off the CD. Look in the instructions under
the heading: Installing the OS/2 2.1 Beta Operating System. You do need to
make two disks, but that is small compared to 29... :)

Also: I think Comp.os.os2.misc is a better place for this kind of post.

Francis Moraes

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund)
Subject: Re: MS to 'support' OS/2?
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
	<1992Dec28.105039.6803@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk>
	<1hnk8nINNuh@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU>
	<1992Dec29.174203.9145@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> <930104074555@rgam.sc.ti.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:09:34 GMT

HPFS was introduced with OS/2 1.2 (I have been using OS/2 since 1.1,
which did not have HPFS. I have never used Word 5.5, but Word 1.1 for
OS/2 does understand long file-names under HPFS. Also Excel 3.0 for
OS/2 can use long file-names with HPFS.

Olav Torvund
University of Oslo
Norway
Olavt@jus.uio.no
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: michael@amo.mit.edu (Michael Courtney)
Subject: Best Hardware for OS2
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:15:08 GMT

	I am preparing to buy a 486DX2-66 system with 8 or 16 Meg RAM
and a big hard disk, SVGA and the works.  I would like to have as 
little difficulty as possible in running OS2 2.x.  I do not mind spending
some time setting the system up and configuring everything properly, 
but I want a system that will hardly ever (once a month at most) crash
once I have it configured properly.  Is it likely that I can accomplish
this on a non-IBM system such as Gateway 2000 or Zeos?  Is this even
possible on the IBM PSValuepoint system?  How much of an advantage
does IBM hardware have when running OS2?
	Is crashing only once a month too much to ask of OS2?  Is Unix
what I really want?  
	This will be a standalone system.  I will not be running a lot
of windows apps, but when I do run one it must not crash the system.
The primary use of the system will be number crunching and writing
programs in C to do the number crunching.  I will also be writing
DOS apps with Borland C++.
	Thanks in advance for your suggestions.

Michael Courtney
michael@amo.mit.edu
From: dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: SGI-GL in Windows NT??
Date: 13 Jan 93 01:00:39 GMT
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.

hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:

>Well, it might be that the inclusion of the SGI GL in NT will benefit
>you, given your particular needs - my points remain. [1] It will either
>not be supported for (S)VGA or will be unworkably slow (for most)

3D translations done on a machine with SVGA or any other Intel-based
graphics board are going to take the same amount of time.  To alleviate
your problem with speed I would have to move to an SGI workstation.
That's impossible.

; and 
>even if that wait doesn't bother you, there's the wait for things to
>actually become *available*. NT 3.1 still lingers in beta limbo, and 
>the SGI stuff is slated for the version after *that*. Your *need* for
>3D is strong - how long can you wait for this? 

I can wait until it comes out. :-)  I'm running OS/2 2.X now and loving
it.  I have no other alternatives.

>What if OS2 has something
>included sooner? 

That's what I want!

-- 
Dan Cogswell               Or as we say in Michigan:  "Dee-troit"
From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT Destined to Succeed??
Date: 9 Jan 1993 01:25:51 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuron.tamu.edu

In article <1993Jan8.153059.24804@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:

|Sure, you can decide at installation time not to install any network
|features. I need networking here and I installed both OS/2 and NT
|with network and TCP/IP. The only thing I don't like is, when people
|compare performance of OS/2 2.0 GA without networking to Windows NT
|beta with networking and TCP/IP, which has been done here in this
|group.

Good point.  OS/2 should be compared to Win NT with or without
networking on both systems.  Now, why do you think networking impacts
performance? I can see load/initialize time will be longer, but
I don't see network programs in the background impacting performance
more or less than any other program running in the background.
   -- Bruce

--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
                              |  Scrupulous Lawyer
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: A radical idea
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1993 08:32:06 -0500

RA> out there hear this:  Goverment can produce GREAT software-- 
RA> ADA is far superior 
RA> to any bastard hack like C or C++ that AT&T (a private  
RA> industry) ever developed! 
 
I have NO experience with ADA; however, my experience with other 
seasoned programmers from the DC area is that ADA is much like the 
United States government, in that it is a large language that takes you 
a long time in to get something done.  Does this statement hold any 
truth? 
 
ADA also happens to be designed by committee.  I know for a fact that 
this NEVER works with software.  The best software is developed by lone 
wolf or small teams. 
 
I'd just like to hear some thoughts on this issue. 
 
    Kurt 
 
 * KWQ/2 1.0C * 
                                              
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:11:32 GMT

discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

[Stuff deleted]

>Likewise, vendors are out there selling MSDOS and Windows because their
>clients WANT MS-DOS and Windows. 

This assumes all users are well informed and making intelligent choices.
I would suggest that many users simply take whatever is offered by the
computer maker without researching the alternatives. So to some extent
the "demand" for MS-DOS is created by the dealers themselves.

> And because so many of them want it,
>the vendors find it profitable to get the best deal they can on it.  This
>leads to cheaper prices for the vendor, cheaper prices for ALL of the 
>clients, and bigger profits for the developer.  The only people that aren't
>happy are a minority that can't get it through their heads that the 
>resulting price of the system is usually CHEAPER than if the vendor never
>signed the agreement.

I don't see why this would lead to cheaper prices for everyone.
That's a big statement to make without some proof.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak)
Subject: Re: SGI-GL in Windows NT??
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Mitre Corporation
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:11:02 GMT

> When IBM (or someone) puts 3D graphics on OS/2, will you deride it
> then, or will you suddenly decide that the time is right, and IBM will
> produce the appropriate video drivers one day, so it's worth waiting
> for?

I don't think anyone is deriding MS for putting GL into NT.  The point is
that without having real hardware support, it is not very worthwhile.  I my
mind there are some reservations of putting GL into NT as a general purpose
3D graphics language but that really is more of a business decision, not a
technical one.

While GL is good for rendering, it isn't a very good model for animating a
3D figure.  Once the data goes into the pipe (which does all the matrix
transforms), you can't modify it.  If you want to change the image, you
need to dump the entire dataset back into the pipeline.  Granted with fast
hardware and memory I/O it doesn't take much time to push the dataset down
the pipe, but it is inefficient.

Much for SGI's business is with people that render large datasets so this
model works great for them.  In such an environment, one of the dimesions
of the dataset is time so animation is generally performed by rendering a
series of images and then cycling rapidly through them.  Is this model good
for general purpose 3D graphics?  No.  Is any model good for
general-purpose 3D graphics?  No.  The graphics industry keeps debating how
to correctly do 3D graphics.  The problem is that the best way to do 3D
depends on the context of the problem.  

Since NT is supposed to be used on multiple platforms and MS pushes it as a
general purpose OS, I question the wisdom of using GL.  It seems to me that
having GL in NT forces other computer hardware vendors to license NT from
SGI, develop the GL compatible graphics package, admit that their platform
isn't very good at doing 3D using NT, or not support NT on their hardware. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: hwhalen@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Hugh Whalen)
Subject: OS/2 is the best?
Organization: Faculty of Administration, University of New Brunswick
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:52:01 GMT

In article <C0EutC.J8w@news.cso.uiuc.edu> fippen@ux2.cso.uiuc.edu (J. Fippen) writes:
>	I see all the time information about Windows,Windows, Windows.Does this
>make sense in an os2 category?
>	The people who use Windows are those not interested in the best. They
>want something easy. Fine. They should have Windows. But for people who want
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Now, this is new. A lot of the bitching about Windows in this group is 
about how hard it is ..... system.ini, win.ini, config.sys, memory 
managers, etc.
 
>something a lot better, at least 100 times more powerful, well, they would
>be satisfied with nothing less than os2.
>	Windows is kind of for the slow types, the satisfied types, the people
>who won't put forth the effort to run os2. The people who run hard will want
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is also new. OS/2 is harder to run than Windows .... hmmmm.         

>os2 because it is the best, and because it is the program of the future.

*Sigh* I run Windows because it is *best for me*. I am just finishing 
off my doctoral dissertation (hopefully only a couple of weeks work 
left :-) )in Management Information Systems using Word for Windows, 
Excel, PowerPoint, and TrueType fonts and using OLE to connect various 
things together. Since OS/2 does not yet support TrueType or enhanced 
mode (necessary to run PowerPoint) I cannot switch to OS/2 without 
redoing a lot of work.  I also have an ATI card and I believe that 
seemless OS/2 drivers are not available for this card. When and if 
these bugs (features?) with OS/2 are corrected I *will* try it out on my 
machine. I am not an anti OS/2 fanatic but at this point in time it is 
*not* best for me and I expect it is not best for a lot of people for 
reasons similar to mine. If someone runs a lot of DOS programs OS/2 
probably would be best for them. There are many reasons why OS/2 is 
best for some individuals and they have been posted ad nauseum (sp?) 
on the net but to say that OS/2 is simply better without a qualifier 
is wrong.

As for the gratuitous insults .... I am not slow, nor easily satified, 
and I spend a lot of time and effort keeping up with various technologies

Program of the future .... well, maybe .... there's going to be lots 
of competition .... and that's best <grin> for all of us.

Hugh Whalen                     | Where all men think alike, no one
Faculty of Administration       | thinks very much.
University of New Brunswick     |               - Walter Lippmann			


DISCLAIMER: Neither UNB nor I care what the other thinks.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Computer Search
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 20:19:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.201132.17054@athena.mit.edu> mgrice@athena.mit.edu (Matthew Grice) writes:
>I'm a UNIX guy myself, but my parents are looking for a new computer
>and I thought you would like to know what it is like to deal in
>an os/2-hostile market.
>
>1)Parents wanted a Tandy Sensation.  Convinced them that they didnt.
>2)Told them they wanted a real IBM
>3)Got ready to order it, found out it might get here in march.
>4)Went to computerland.  They had 2 computers (total, not kinds)
>5)Had some idiot volunteer to deinstall os/2 and install windoze on
>  an IBM for me.  Told me os/2 needs 12M minimum RAM.  Told him to go to
>  hell.
>6)Thought about putting together a computer for the parents
>7)gave up after calling companies and asking them about os/2 drivers
>  for various parts.  They didn't have a clue.
>8)Decided to get it all from IBM--but I wait 3 months to get it.
>
>That's what it is like, folks.  You want OS/2, you buy IBM ( if you 
>dont understand DOS/Windows/ISA/x86 (which I dont))
>
>-matt

I can sympathize with your experience; however, I believe Timmothy
Sipples might be able to help you. For a while there, I believe he
kept a FAQ that included alot of references to supported hardware.
Also, you might contact IBM in Boca Raton @ (407) 443-2000. This is
the OS/2 group down there. They might be able to point you in the
right direction.

I don't have Mr. Sipples E-mail address ofhand, but keep scanning
the group. He posts quite often.

Good Luck..

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: lachlan@dmp.csiro.au (Lachlan Cranswick)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 + OS/2!! - glory screens????
Organization: CSIRO Division of Mineral Products, Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:04:39 GMT

os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.) writes:

>In <1993Jan4.124210.12897@dmp.csiro.au> lachlan@dmp.csiro.au (Lachlan Cranswick) writes:

[crap deleted]

>Lachlan, was this stuff really necessary?  This newsgroup is noisy enough
>as it is without crap like this inspiring another 1000 posts.


No Larry, it was not neccessary, 
this is why this group is called
comp.os.os2.advocacy.  Crap is
the main food of a thriving advocacy
group.

Did not Moses say to the Philistines from the Mountain top 
"go forth and rot thy brain cells by 
subscribing to advocacy groups"?
- I dont think he did .... but:-


Would the good Lord have given us advocacy groups if
he/she/it did not want mega wastage off internet bandwidth?

We don't live for ever Larry.  This universe may exist for
only another 100 or so billion years - then its all over.
I'm using the time (for better or worse) while its still there.
(why isn't time being conserved? - like oil its not a reusable
resource)


Lachlan.

(Roger Ramjets on --YAY!)

You may not believe me, but posting and reading this
crap is a lot better for me than watching Sesame street, Play School,
Postman Pat "and his black and white cat"  AAARGH - help me
kick this toddlers TV addiction.  Boy! will I be glad when my
holidays finish and I get back to work.
-- 
  Lachlan Cranswick  -  CSIRO             _--_|\  lachlan@dmp.CSIRO.AU
  Division of Mineral Products           /      \ tel +61 3 647 0367
  PO Box 124, Port Melbourne 3207        \_.--._/ fax +61 3 646 3223
  AUSTRALIA                                    v 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2)
Subject: Cyrix 486SLC (was Re: OS/2 bigot and NT)
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 07:10:36 GMT

In article <P4V5wB3w165w@george.UUCP> james@george.UUCP (james shoemaker) writes:
>        Actually the 486SLC is designed to plug into a 386SX socket.  the 
>486DLC goes into a 386DX socket.  As for compatability, I don't know 
>exactly, but I think they did implement any extensions that the 486 adds 
>except the Math.  and the cache is smaller.
>
>                        JWS

Correct.

The Cyrix 486SLC is like the 386SX externally (and therefore almost like a
286 externally), and like a 486SX internally.  It has the 486 instruction
set, 486-like instruction execution speed, as well as a 1-KB RAM cache (I
guess the 486's cache instructions have to do something...).  But it moves
memory externally 16-bits at a time, and has a 16 MB limit for RAM.

This is different from the IBM 486SLC which is just like the Intel 486SX
series but faster.

ObOS/2:  I am using a Cyrix 486SLC-25 to run OS/2 2.0 and it works for me.
-- 
======= Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu =======
::  ftp ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (128.123.35.151) for OS/2  ::  .--.
::  software & information.   Get /pub/os2/00Index  :: (OS/2)
::::::::  & /pub/os2/all/info/faq/faq20i.txt  ::::::::  ~--~
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11707 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3689