HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ritz@ritz.mordor.com (Christopher Mauritz)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft blasting IBM into the dust?
Date: 13 Nov 92 13:52:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: ritz.9211133578
Organization: Ritz International, Inc. - Import/Export Consultants
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Brian Sturgill (brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu) wrote:

I thought you had decided to "go away"....sigh...

--
Christopher Mauritz                 | It's conventional in the extreme. I
ritz@ritz.mordor.com                | guess I've seen too much, because I
{backbone}!rutgers!spcvxb!ritz!ritz | don't actually find her provacative
                                    | either.   -Bowie on Madonna-   
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Windows vs. OS/2
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:50:49 GMT

In <1992Nov11.165329.5878@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>I've been thinking about all these arguments about which OS is "better" 
>(indeed whether Windows could be considered an OS or not).  So I thought that
>if there were people out there who could put up or shut up, I thought that
>perhaps we could begin to put the issue at rest.

>So what I propose is that we get some volunteers from both the Windows and
>OS/2 camps to each do a "project"--for example, laying out the cover of a
>published magazine (say, the Nov 10,1992 issue of PC Magazine)--each 
>using his/her favorite operating platform, using their favorite software
>that runs under their favorite OS.   When they get finished, they upload
>it to a judging site (to be determined) where other volunteers view their
>work.  Then each designer basically tells us *how* they did it, and how
>*long* it took them to do it--we give more points for the first one
>submitted.

>Naturally there are many holes in what I propose... what's to keep the
>designers from lying?  "I did it during my fifteen minute break"?  Well,
>I think we're all adults here... 

>What does everybody think?  Is it workable?

Workable?  Yes.  Meaningful insofar as determining "better" operating
system?  No.  What it would give you is a measure of who (not
necessarily which operating system, even, mind you, but WHO) happened
to have the most efficient tools available and/or the most skill at
the selected task. 

-- 
"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: rvenkate@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Ravikuma Venkateswar)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Macintosh bigots
Date: 11 Nov 92 01:13:36 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


Just look at the title. I mean, I don't know - are their computers _so_
superior to IBMs? Are they _so_ user friendly that an IBM user would be
able to use the "intuitive" interface instantly, never to go back to a
command prompt or the "inferior hacks" represented by OS/2 2.0 and 
Windows? Is it so much easier to program than the "inferior hacks"? Is it
really that much faster? Are Macintoshes the future of computing? NOT!!

The following lines address Windows because the bulk of their arguments
address it - OS/2 is not as well known (??) and is beneath recognition (???).

Windows is slow, kludgy, and crash-prone.
- have you ever compared something like Mathematica 2.1 for Windows
- running on a 386/25 w/10MB and Mathematica 2.1 on a Mac IIsi with 10 MB?

- have you ever seen a Macintosh crash because of lack of heap space
- (nicely demonstrated on 3MB machines with a screen saver, left to
- (themselves for about 50 minutes.

The Macintosh OS is more user-friendly.
- have you ever tried getting help on _anything_?

The Macintosh GUI can do anything that a command-line interface can, so
you don't need one.
- have you ever tried writing a script file?


You really know when you're dealing with a hard-core bigot when they start
complaining about the 3D buttons. Face it, kids - Apple is sitting pretty,
not because they make good computers (which they might or might not - it's
not the argument here) - it's because of the enormous number of bigots out
there. Eventually, though, they can't win. With cables costing more than
$50 vs. $5, with top-of-the-line computers having more than a 50% price
difference, what corporate customer is going to stick after a few years.
Considering when Windows NT and OS/2 x.0 come out on the Macintosh, and
(maybe) people start using them, they'll find out what they've been missing.

If anyone has more gripes with the Mac, post away! And maybe even cross post
this to a Mac group :-)

Flames to \dev\null .
-- 
Ravikumar Venkateswar
rvenkate@uiuc.edu

A pun is a no' blessed form of whit.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 06:43:13 GMT

In article <BxMG8q.LFD@news.cso.uiuc.edu>,
rvenkate@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Ravikuma Venkateswar) writes:
>TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:
>
>>>
>>>The Macintosh OS is more user-friendly.
>>>- have you ever tried getting help on _anything_?
>>>
>
>>     As I mentioned before, compared to a CLI, it's pretty user
>>friendly to the uninitiated.
>
>But why compare it to a CLI? That makes just as much sense as comparing
>a 486 to a Mac Classic.
>

     It does to most people in this group probably, but when a Mac
person goes to use almost any clone, DOS is what pops up when the
computer boots (except here, where Windows pops up from a batch file
and I have to quickly exit back to DOS so that the software will run
without 'violating system integrity').  This is true in most schools
and offices around the world.
     Also, the fact that many more 8088's and 286's are out there
than early Macs doesn't help, since they only have the ability to
run DOS (don't tell me about running Windows on an 8088 or 286 and
being perfectly happy, please.  Your talking to the man that ran
Wing Commander on an 8088 and tried to *play* it).  These are very
abundant in high schools and garages/atics everywhere.  When the
students see them and compare them without any (or minimal)
computing knowledge, the Mac seems much nicer.
     If these schools had the money, they could afford four 486's
(or two Macs :-)  ) with the power to run OS/2 reasonably, and the
students would get the chance to see and use the true power of the
machines, only to later learn about CLI's (if they wanted to).

     You are also right about the expandability of Macs.  There are
far more types of all sorts of peripherals available for the IBM.
One big argument I have with one of my friends is the ability to do
MIDI stuff when comparing clones and Macs.  He insists that Macs are
better at this only because he's never seen anybody use an IBM to do
it.  I have a SB Pro with MIDI and the cheap sequencer that came
with it, but my only MIDI instrument is a drum machine so I haven't
hooked it up to show him.  I have a feeling that he will never hear
the IBM MIDI capabilities, and go on the rest of his life thinking
Macs are awesome.  My point is, the IBM can do it with the right
software and hardware, just like the Mac needs the right software
and hardware.  The difference is, with an IBM, you get to choose
what hardware you're going to use, and pay a reasonable price for
it.  With a Mac, you have to use the built in stuff (which isn't all
that bad) or pay a bundle to use more quality hardware.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.0 wasn't ( was Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:40:42 GMT

In <BxHH3B.4uG@acsu.buffalo.edu> v053qpgh@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Eric W Sarjeant) writes:

>If we accepted Windows as an operating system from the traditional standpoint,
>it certainly doesn't pass the test. As far as I'm concerned, unless you can
>bootstrap your computer with it - it just isn't an os. 

Then your personal definition of 'operating system' is quite flawed.
Oh, by the way, you don't 'bootstrap computers'.  You 'bootstrap'
PROGRAMS, with the full phrase referring to this process generally
being 'bootstrap loader'.

>I will grant Windows the fact that it employs some inherent multitasking
>characteristics well beneath the surface, but they have evolved on top of
>DOS just like the API. If we can give Windows the classification of operating
>system, we can certainly give any major DOS software package a similar
>classification.

False assertion, unless those packages also virtualize the hardware
and provide a management layer for that hardware between the user and
the hardware.  

>I don't think we need to revise the definition of operating system, we just need
>to understand that the primary purpose of an operating system is to boot
>your computer. Anything it does beyond that is merely a benefit.

No, this is NOT 'the primary purpose of an operating system'.  It is not
even *A* purpose of an operating system.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: roland@spock.uucp (David A. Braun)
Subject: Windows 3.1: The ultimate DOS Shell
Organization: Choate Rosemary Hall
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:42:55 GMT

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.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: guy@mais.hydro.qc.ca (Guy Harel)
Subject: Re: What I heard from Microsoft about NT
Keywords: NT
Organization: Hydro-Quebec (DSB)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:30:54 GMT

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

>>"NT will be released in March 93 and will be called Windows NT 3.1".
>>To fool everyone who doesn't buy v1.0 of anything? Or have I missed
>>the previous releases?

>Well, we've seen indications of that previously on the net.  I think
>this is just plain silly.  I assume this is some kind of marketting
>move to make it look both more mature than it is and to keep it 'in
>step' with its baby brother, Windows 3.1.  Presumably they will roll
>versions on both of them at once to keep them in step?

Call that a fraud!

Unless NT is based on a hack of BSD4, why should we allow MS to start
at 3.1, while the rest of the industry has the guts to start at the
beginning?
--
 Guy Harel
From: Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HPFS 16/32
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:35:50 GMT
Reply-To: Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Distribution: jadpc2
Comment-To: Ken_Hildabolt@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514


 KH> All you had to do to get the 32-bit HPFS was join the Win 3.1
Beta, it
 KH> came with it. Works fine, from what I can tell.

The OS/2 2.x beta does not contain a 32-bit HPFS implementation as far
as I can tell.  It has a NE executable signature, not a LX executable
signature, which indicates it is using a 16-bit interface to the
operating system.  Now I suppose it is possible that some of the code
inside of it could use 32-bit arithmetic instructions, but as I
haven't tried disassembling it, I don't know
for sure.


--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: jadpc2
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 19:43:24 -0800
From: Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: Re: NT delayed again??? (PC Week Nov 2)
Comment-To: Heeren_Pathak@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

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

No, Microsoft is always honest.  It's just that we humans get confused
because the Microsoft gods are running on Microsoft Standard Time
where one Microsoft Day == SQRT(7) regular days for most humans.  So
they are right on schedule as always.


--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Subject: Re: DOS not operating system, film at 11. : -)
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1992 13:16:05 GMT

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

>aarono@microsoft.com (Aaron Ogus) writes:
>>I don't think the definition we got for an operating system was a very good one.
>>I think that with all the references and interpretations and high minded ideas
>>that the basic concepts were lost in the fray.

>>Operating System - definition

>>An operating system is any program or set of programs that provides a common
>>set of functionality that would otherwise be required to be duplicated in 
>>programs designed to run on a particular hardware platform.

>>IMHO Aaron Ogus (11/03/92)

>>Please tell me if there is anything you can see wrong with this definition.
>>(Email please).

>>BTW: this definition makes DOS an OS, Windows on DOS an OS, OS/2 an OS
>>     CP/M and OS, DLL's part of an OS (extensions if you like), UNIX an OS
>>     and makes no application an OS.

>Hmm, there is a command-line version of ansi.sys - ansi.com; provides 
>"functionality that would otherwise be rquired to be duplicated", runs
>like an app, look like an OS by your definition.

Come on, English isnt THAT difficult. This only makes ansi.com PART
of the operating system, not the system itself.

>Pete taught me to pick nits. :-)

>Tom


Erik
-- 
Erik van Linstee   |   Delft University of Technology   |   I'll be back ... 
----
   We are god, 'cause only we can create the idea of his existence
   in our holy brains...  (Yello)
From: warmuth@warmuth.wu-wien.ac.at
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Memory
Date: 10 Nov 1992 15:07:27 GMT
Organization: Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: warmuth.wu-wien.ac.at

In  <1992Oct30.165058.29036@spock.UUCP>  roland@spock.uucp (David A. Braun) writes:
>      How can I find out exactly how much memory OS/2 knows about on
> my system... I have gotten various free mem. viewers, but all report the
> largest free block.  I don't care what is free, but simply how much OS/2
> knows exists.

There is a small utility named 'limit'. It tells you how much memmory OS/2
sees. I think you can download it via anonymous ftp from 'ftp-os2.nmsu.edu'.

Michael
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 10 Nov 92 07:37:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov10.073710.16991
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95

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
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 13 Nov 92 18:04:57 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Nov12.175649.10295@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>In article <1992Nov11.220017.5830@ais.com> bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov08.105045.907@donau.et.tudelft.nl>, linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>>
>>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


>No.  You misunderstand me.  What I am saying is that the BIOS is just as
>much a part of DOS (in the abstraction called an "Operating System") just
>as much as the Network Layer is part of the Transport Layer (in the OSI
>model of a networking environment) because the Transport Layer can't
>*exist* without the Network Layer (at least and be runnable).

No, Joe, he took you at what you said.  By the kind of thinking you
exhibit here, the Intel CPU is also 'part of DOS'; an equally silly
assertion to the one you made, by the way.

Let's see what we can prove here with this.  Ok, if it is a given that
the BIOS is part of DOS (because it uses it), then it follows that the
BIOS is part of OS/2 (because it will use it if it doesn't find a
specialized hardware driver for a piece of hardware).  That makes DOS
and OS/2 the same thing (via the reasoning that things made of the
same bits are the same things).  Yes, very silly and violates some
logical rules.  So does the contention that the BIOS is part of DOS
and your attempt now to 'deny' what you said.

So, which has the 'better' BIOS; DOS or OS/2.  They are identical, but
one of them is better if you go by the way Joe measures 'better'.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: "richard anstruther" <richard.anstruther@canrem.com>
Subject: os/2 design papers
Reply-To: "richard anstruther" <richard.anstruther@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: comp
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:52:58 EST

Lawrence Harvie writes:

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

Have you seen Deitel and Kogan's book "The Design of OS/2"?
One of the authors was one of the people involved in the
design of OS/2 at IBM.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re:  Why does OS/2 loose out in a PC Mag comparison test?
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:21:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov8.090343.17907@news.Hawaii.Edu>, low@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu 
(Hock-leong Low) writes...
>Hello,
> 
>Recent articles in PC Magazine and PC Computing did a comparison
>test between Windows 3.1 and OS/2 2.0.  Many of the results seem
>to favor Windows 3.1--why is that?  Are the editorials bias or
>what?  In one, it states that OS/2 needs max 30Meg HD space and
>Windows max 10Meg...excluding MS-DOS which was never mentioned
>to the reader.  And I'm sure they'll give great appraisals for
>NT when it releases...even though it takes up 30+Meg HD.

The test results tend to favor Windows 3.1 because the testing was run 
using the IBM quoted minimum system RAM of 4 Meg.  If the basis of 
comparison is "you have a 386 or 486 system with 4 Meg of RAM, which will 
you get better performance from?" _and_ you restrict the performance 
criteria to items that both OS/2 2.0 and Windows 3.1 can do, the results 
aren't surprising.  Nor are my "personal test results" comparing OS/2 2.0 
on my 386DX25 at home with 16 Meg of RAM with Windows 3.1 on my 386DX25 at 
work with 2 Meg of RAM :-) (BTW: I have also run Windows 3.1 on my home 
machine.  Its in a box in my storage closet now.)

Any allegations of bias on the part of Ziff-Davis has been discussed here 
before and I ain't gettin' in to that one.  I must say, however, that I am 
real disappointed in PC Computing.  Having subscribed to PC Magazine on and 
off for about five years, PC Computing appears to get the articles which 
end up on the editor's floor (or wastebasket) at PC Magazine.

JD
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: What I heard from Microsoft about NT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:37:50 GMT

In article <guy.720988254@tdsb-s>,
guy@mais.hydro.qc.ca (Guy Harel) writes:
>
>Call that a fraud!
>
>Unless NT is based on a hack of BSD4, why should we allow MS to start
>at 3.1, while the rest of the industry has the guts to start at the
>beginning?
>--
> Guy Harel

     Well, I'm not going to comment on whether or not this is a
fraud by MS (but didn't DR DOS also skip a couple of numbers?) but
according to my July documentation, Windows NT has been called 3.1
the whole time (at least, since this documentation was printed).
It's just sort of hard to see since the words 'Preliminary Release
for Developers' are stamped over the Version number.
     I'm sure that it is meant to get people to switch over to NT
without being scared of a new environment (although it seems to be a
completely different environment).  It'll probably even work for a
lot of people who can run (and afford) it.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy