HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: WP 32 bit?? Plus a note on Brian's retirement.
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:19:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: matd.rhoward.721606767
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute

tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen) writes:

>lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (m.l. gore) writes:
>> Wow, that's funny:  A WP rep was at my store last week and told me that WP
>> 6.0 for OS/2 (as is *should* be called), will be full 32 bit. They are not
>> going to release ot for a while. He hinted that they are incorp[orating Wp
>> Presentations into the PM edition of WP, though it sounded more like an
>> idea.

>Regardless of whether WP6 will use Mirrors or not, I remember there was a
>lot of noise made in the spring how OS/2 was going to be WP's strategic
>platform, and how WP for OS/2 was going to be the first platform to go to
>version 6.0.  Now it looks like the OS/2 version will ship well after the
>DOS and Windows versions.

>What happened?

I got to thinking about this one...

Is it perhaps buggy or lack of good developer's tools (compiler, etc.)?
That can slow anyone down....

Robert
--
| Robert L. Howard              |   Georgia Tech Research Institute     |
| robert.howard@matd.gatech.edu |   MATD Laboratory                     |
| (404) 528-7165                |   Atlanta, Georgia  30332             |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "See, when the GOVERNMENT spends money, it creates jobs; whereas when |
| the money is left in the hands of TAXPAYERS, God only knows what they |
| do with it.  Bake it into pies, probably.  Anything to avoid creating |
| jobs." -- Dave Barry                                                  |
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dirtboy@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Matthew B Gross)
Subject: Re: How to make OS/2 look bad ...
Summary: Dos/Windows vs. Os/2 
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 00:50:09 GMT

Q:  Is Windows an operating system?

A:  Who cares!  Most of the people on this news group are using OS/2 and we
know how good it is, so don't worry about the Windows freaks!


One other thing about windoze vs OS/2:  PC/Computing's Oct. 92 issue
compared OS/2 2.0 to windows 3.1.  While runnign single tasks, performance
was comparable between each platform.  With a task in the background, OS/2
ouperformed Windows on 3 out of five tests using windows apps.  On the tests
where windows won, OS/2 either came in about the same, or a lot slower.  The
point is that OS/2 can handle background jobs much better than Windows 3.1.
What comes with Windows NT is yet to be seen, but from the way previous
Microsoft products have looked, I would hold off till NT 1.1 comes out,
while I think purchasing OS/2 2.0 is a good idea (not waiting for 2.1).  As
(I think) most of us have seen, IBM and many 3rd party people have been very
quick to come out with upgrades and fixes.  During the time I used Windows
3.1, I never once heard of Microsoft issuing bug fixes or minor upgrades.
Although IBM support in general is fairly flaky, it certainly seems better
than windoze support.  That's all for now.

Dirt Boy

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:48:29 GMT

In article <7736@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <7734@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov5.165623.808@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>Gee, Jay, tell me what definition of 'OS' you're using.  :-)
>>A suite of programs that insulates application code from the necessities of
>>dealing directly with the hardware.
>
>[Gack. Here I go, following myself up again...]
>
>I need to add that it runs unassisted on a given machine architecture.
>

What do you know about bat guano?

>Thus, to use an example posted here previously, CMS isn't an OS because it
>requires VM to run. The PC's BIOS is part of the PC architecture, so depending
>on it doesn't remove the OS-ness of OS/2 or DOS.
>
>Basically, the idea is that the OS is what you load onto an otherwise useless
>machine to make it useful for mundane things like payroll programs so they
>don't have to deal with disk geometries and controller error codes in order to
>find out how much to make out my next paycheck for.
>-- 

Jay, you didn't cite a bliographical reference.  I trust then that all your
above definitions are just Your Personal Opinion--and therefore can be
regarded as so much bat guano.

No valid textbook or C.S. paper has made "unassisted" a requirement for
an operating system, at least no paper *I've* seen--if you find one and
cite it, I'll think your opinion credible.

>Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: roland@spock.uucp (David A. Braun)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1: The ultimate DOS Shell
Organization: Choate Rosemary Hall
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 22:43:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.232259.10487@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.194931.26955@spock.UUCP> roland@spock.uucp wrote:
>> In article <1992Nov10.065307.19403@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>> >In article <1992Nov9.174255.22889@spock.UUCP> roland@spock.uucp wrote:
>> >> I put is simply that Windows is the ultimate DOS Shell:
>> >> 
>> >> DOS <> Windows
>> >>      as
>> >> OS/2 <> PM (WPS)
>> >> 
>> >> Can someone tell me I am really wrong in saying this?
>> >> 
>> >> Roland.
>> >> 
>> >
>> >DOS+Win Memory Management + Win Scheduler + Win Device Drivers ...<> Win Shell
>> >OS/2 <> PM (WPS)
>> >
>> >petesk@microsoft.com
>> 
>> No, PM has memory management, scheduling, device drivers, etc... and more.
>> So, the analogy is correct, or as you put it:
>pardon me, but when I work on PM here, that's not how I saw it.
>
>> 
>> DOS+Win Memory Management + Win Scheduler + Win Device Drivers ...<> Win Shell
>> OS/2+PM Memory Management + PM Scheduler + PM Device Drivers ...<> PM Shell
>> 
>> Satisfied...:Windows is an OS, I think not.
>I think so.
Announcing the new ultimate OS: WPS... Faster than a cray on an 8088.


-- 
main () { //      TRAVELLER, BEYOND LIES MID-WORLD...

 !!!"ARRAY EXCEEDS 64K, PLEASE MAKE DATA ELEMENT SMALLER"!!!
 !!"Out of Conventional memory... High memory... Upper memory
 Extended memory... Expanded memory..."!! !!"UNRECOVERABLE APPLICATION ERROR"!!
 Well it worked with DOS, and it doesn't with OS2...  Must be
 the OS... The fact that the BIOS was HARDWIRED incorrectly couldn't
 have anything to do with it, Right?     -----Roland of Gilead-----   }
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT delayed again??? (PC Week Nov 2)
Date: 11 Nov 92 09:07:54 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <hatton.720949698@cgl.ucsf.edu> hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:
>>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

>That's a ridiculous assertion.  In fact I was one of the first, if not THE
>first to post that NT would be delayed (actually I seem to remember one person
>beat me to it).

Well, it seems to me you listed several publications you have subscriptions
to, and they have had articles concerning pertinent topics that you have
omitted, including info that casts MS in a less than favourable light.
 
Small example - you claimed that the upcoming Unix OS releases would be 
contenders against OS/2; in the Oct 12 InfoWorld, they cite Univel as
giving end-user pricing for UnixWare: single-user version, $495. But, 
nice gotcha, if you want Windows emulation (part of OS/2) it's a separate
module - price $995. I don't remember you quoting the $1500 UnixWare 
price at any time since then. Could it be because the pricing clearly 
makes UnixWare *not* a contender?
 
Plus articles on the FTC investigation of MS - I don't remember seeing
you post about that; criticism of MS about ODBC and non-Windows software,
etc. You seem to be a tad selective in the "tidbits" you put up. And 
caliming to be first on the delay of NT - ok, but I think you knew there
would be a flurry of postings on that, so yours would have reduced 
impact. Hardly balances the scoresheet.

Tom
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1: The ultimate DOS Shell
Date: 10 Nov 92 06:53:07 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Nov9.174255.22889@spock.UUCP> roland@spock.uucp wrote:
> I put is simply that Windows is the ultimate DOS Shell:
> 
> DOS <> Windows
>      as
> OS/2 <> PM (WPS)
> 
> Can someone tell me I am really wrong in saying this?
> 
> Roland.
> 

DOS+Win Memory Management + Win Scheduler + Win Device Drivers ...<> Win Shell
OS/2 <> PM (WPS)

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
From: yuan1@husc10.harvard.edu (Nina Yuan)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why does OS/2 loose out in a PC Mag compariso
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:47:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Nov10.164736.17317
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Nov9.143118.8745@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>
>Just look on top of PC Magazine, "The independant..." They have started
>putting it there very recently. I don't know if they do any quality,
>independant reviews. I was really surprised to see, even Microsoft

Just to be picky...I think PC Magazine has called themselves the
"Independent Guide to IBM Personal Computers" or whatever for at least
7 years, when I started reading it (back when DOS 2.0 and the XT were
hot stuff) in 1985.

However, I don't read them anymore.  :)

A pretty happy OS/2 user...
-nhy



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nina H. Yuan                               "It's a miracle that curiosity
Harvard College                             survives formal education."
yuan1@husc.harvard.edu                                  - Albert Einstein
From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: Re: WP 32 bit?? Plus a note on Brian's retirement.
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:00:33 GMT

lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (m.l. gore) writes:
> Wow, that's funny:  A WP rep was at my store last week and told me that WP
> 6.0 for OS/2 (as is *should* be called), will be full 32 bit. They are not
> going to release ot for a while. He hinted that they are incorp[orating Wp
> Presentations into the PM edition of WP, though it sounded more like an
> idea.

Regardless of whether WP6 will use Mirrors or not, I remember there was a
lot of noise made in the spring how OS/2 was going to be WP's strategic
platform, and how WP for OS/2 was going to be the first platform to go to
version 6.0.  Now it looks like the OS/2 version will ship well after the
DOS and Windows versions.

What happened?

[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:31:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov9.203102.5435
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95

Erik van Linstee writes:
>OS still stands. I do however have to adjust my statement that
>if there is a filesystem it should be managed by the OS, which
>should read, if there is disk device it should be managed by the
>OS.

Ah, and now we reach what Windows does in enhanced mode.  Windows
grabs INT 13h requests at the point where they would be passed to
the BIOS ROM and handles them in a VxD (the BlockDev driver).
Thus, the disk hardware is under direct control of Windows (note: it
doesn't have to be -- if no VxD understands the hardware, Windows will
pass the request to the BIOS, much the way OS/2 makes use of the INT 13h
BIOS if no ADD is available for a given controller).

So, because I agree with you (mostly) that the disk should be managed
by the OS, but that the filesystem does not need to be managed by the
OS, I find the use of DOS for filesystem irrelevant to determining if
Windows is an OS (it is relevant to determining if it is a *good* OS,
but we haven't got to that yet).

One reservation I have, though, is that I don't agree that the OS should
manage the disk in all cases.  On hardware where the DMA accesses are
routed through the MMU, and where selective access to I/O devices can
be granted, I think the OS designer should consider granting control
of the disk hardware directly to a priveledged process.  The OS should
limit itself to setting up the DMA controller for that process and
dealing with the memory management hardware.  The process should
handle understanding the disk controller.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: hurnik@aix.rpi.edu (Kevin James Hurni)
Subject: Help w/VGA programs in OS2 2.0
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 05:20:33 GMT

   I have seen other people post that Wolfenstein 3D works fine in OS2/2.0
However, I can't even run it in a DOS windows (or full-screen).  Also,
all of the games that I have (Martian Memorandum, Falcon 3.0, etc.) Run
slower than molasses running up hill in january in a DOS session under
OS/2 2.0.  Are there any suggestions as to how I can get these programs
to run and run well under OS/2.  (I'm running a 386/40 w/8 megs RAM
and a 210meg HD at 16ms.)  Please email:  hurnik@rpi.edu
Thanks

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Trading the threads ?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:57:50 GMT

In <guy.720989221@tdsb-s> guy@mais.hydro.qc.ca (Guy Harel) writes:

>Its funny how an old technology becomes new again when integrated in a yet
>to be successful product.

>The first time I`ve heard of threads was with ENCORE UMAX BSD, a UNIX
>variant which included threads ( pthreads or cthreads ?), optimized
>for a multiprocessor.

>According to my sources this was first commercialized by ENCORE around 1985 
>and,  knowing the ENCORE tradition, was probably developped from a DARPA 
>funding around 1975...

>Next, I`ve heard that Netware 3.1 had threads too. And then *hoooo*,
>the Sybase Kernel has thread too, next NT, then OS/2 2.0.

>Hell, are we talking SHAREWARE or what?

And if you replace "threads" with "lightweight processes" [what
threads are generally called in a lot of the UNIX world], you will
probably find that the whole concept goes back even further


-- 
"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.
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:31:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Nov10.213118.2328
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.

In article <1992Nov10.073710.16991@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>Ah, but do they use it once they've booted?  DOS does.  UNIX doesn't.
>
>(The above is talking about the BIOS)
>
>There is a third possibility, which is what OS/2 does: use the BIOS
>if there is no driver available.  OS/2 is perfectly happy to use INT 13h
>for disk access, but if it finds an ADD that uses the disk controller,
>OS/2 stops using the BIOS and uses the ADD instead.
>
>This is such a sensible way to do things, I do not understand why
>everyone (e.g., Unix) doesn't do this.  Sure, it's not as fast to
>use the BIOS, but for many people it would be fast enough, and it
>lets the user use the OS with their hardware without having to wait
>for the OS vendor or the disk controller vendor to write a special
>driver.
>
>--Tim Smith

There are several issues to consider as to why using a BIOS is not
necessarily advisable.

1. Speed. ROM is usually slower than RAM. Many applications spend a
great deal of time diddling with the hardware in some form of I/O,
eg: Video, Disk, Clock, Memory, etc. Presuming an average ROM to be
around 100 ns, and a fast RAM of 60 ns, it's qwick to deduce that
if a program spends a majority of it's time doing I/O, then the
performance would drop to almost 60% of what it could be if those
routines were held in the faster RAM. Then you have to add the
overhead of the bus, plus any layered code overhead due to
programming and the OS, etc. and the performance hits pile up very
quickly.

2. Standards. IBM set the standard for the PC BIOS. Not everyone
follows it. Other manufacturers who make non-IBM compatible
hardware have their own ideas about what a BIOS is and how it
should be executed. Apple, for instance, has gone so far as
embedded many of their system calls in ROM for the Macintoy.

3. Before the IBM PC came onto the market, Firmware BIOS's were not
all that common. Unix had developed internal code to handle
hardware issues, and over time this code has been refined to the
point that portability has become less of a concern.

4. Reentrancy. The IBM PC BIOS is non-reentrant. This hinders
multi-tasking, multi-threading. This is not to say that someone
could or has written a reentrant BIOS.


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rkobenter@galaxy.gov.bc.ca
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Win and OS? DOS and OS? 
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:43:19 -0800
Organization: BC Systems Corporation

RE: IS wINDOWS AND os OR AN oPERATING eNVIRONMENT ?

Yesterday a 'director' of M$ was here in town and gave an all day
forum on Client Server Technology, inevitably MS puts up the
slide of their OPERATING SYSTEMS and they say:

1978ish : XENIX
1981    : DOS
1984/5  : Windows
1987    : OS/2

The director then goes on to discuss factors which determine a 'good'
operating system:
- takes full advantage of the underlying hardware
- shields the programmer from hardware details
- provides 'substantial' increases in programmer productivity.

He then described DOS up to Version 5 as being 'only a File System'
(ie: BIOS), with the advent of DOS 5.0 , DOS added EMM and thus became
a true operating system... hmmm, but wait..

he then threw up a slide  under the title 'Is It An Operating System'

DOS is shown as only having the BIOS,
Windows <3.0 adds EMM, GUI, IPC and Tasks layers.
Windows = 3.0 adds 24bits (ie: 80286 8+16)

So according to this M$ director, what did OS/2 add to the picture...

- API
- THREADS
- 32 bit support.

Now leading up to NT what is missing from OS/2 ..

- portability
- RISC support
- fault Tolerance
- Multi processor support
- Certifiable Security
- 'legacy' support...

I would argue the last point since OS/2 2 'can' run Windows 2.x programs
..can Windows 3.1 do that?????

I have said this before, M$ are masters at leaving us with a warm and 
happy feeling afterwards, if IBM does not get off of the 'grey elephant'
advertising mentality then it was all for not...

robert
victoria bc Canada
rwkobent@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca
--------------------------------The opinions expressed are my own and not
                                those of my employers (leider gottes)...
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS not operating system, film at 11. :-)
Date: 8 Nov 92 14:54:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov8.145440.16931
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95

In article <strobl.720740723@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>Sorry, couldn't resist. OS/2 (any version) is a better operating
>system than Windows/OT is, IMHO. But it isn't better just because it
>*is* an operating system. What do you say?

I say OS/2 2.0 is better than Windows OT.  However, I say OS/2 1.x is
worse than nearly anything in existence, including Windows OT.   I
offer one item to support my point and then rest my case:

	bimodal device drivers

--Tim Smith
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Date: 14 Nov 92 03:20:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Nov14.032039.11251
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.

In article <BxoLpL.C3p@news.iastate.edu> TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.164155.14309@msc.cornell.edu>,
>tommy@msc.cornell.edu (Mike Thompson) writes:
>>
>>Are others getting as frustrated with the OS/2 environment as I.  Or have I
>>just been spoiled by the relative stability of large UNIX environments.  As I
>>said at the beginning, I am working with a company to put out a 32 bit app.
>>But I am getting so frustrated that I wonder if its really worth the continued
>>effort.
>
>     I'm not a programmer, but I sincerely appreciate you trying to
>put out software in the barren wasteland of OS/2 applications.  From
>what I've heard from others on this and other bboards, programmers
>have had some difficulties programming for OS/2.  As a user, though,
>I have been extremely happy about the lack of crashes on my machine
>(even without the SP) and others have also been impressed with OS/2.
>     Once again, thanks for trying to put out a native OS/2 app.
>
>Timothy Miller

I second that motion. 

Not to denegrate the severity or legitimacy of the complaint,
because they are real and I have complained bitterly myself at OS/2
over similar things, but it sounds like growing pains; those of the
OS undergoing maturity, and those of us who have to live through
it. Windows 3.X raises similar complaints over bugs, and stupid
design in some corners, but after all was said and done, it made
the task of finishing much sweeter; especially since it was not
going to be repeated anytime soon. I hope you press on and finish
the task. You will probably find the satisfaction well worth it,
plus the knowledge gained will make you that much more expensive.


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy