HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth)
Subject: Re:  Why does OS/2 loose out in a PC Mag comparison test?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:23:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.182111.29298@nmt.edu> stimpy@nmt.edu (John Reynolds) writes:
>I've never ever seen a professional unbiased review of OS/2's capabilities
>in any of the rags. If anyone has, I'd like to know about it. OS/2 is
>getting a bum-rap in my opinion. Most of the people that I've talked to,
>use the rags opinion as 'the word' and won't budge until I bring them
>over and show them what it can do (ala the 'why I love OS/2 thread').
>
>Oh well. At least we know its capabilities.....
>
>Cheers,
>
>-Jr
>
>
>-- 
>Windows...It's like a stale cookie.    | #include <~os2/personal.opinion.h>
>OS/2..."It's like buudaah" (SNL quote) | John Reynolds stimpy@jupiter.nmt.edu

I thought Byte did an outstanding job of reviewing OS/2 two months ago.  Very
professional, fairly through, and done by people with real expertise in 
os's. They weren't 100% in favor of os/2, but they did point out strengths and
weaknesses.
-- 
Mark Huth                         * Office 206-543-3429 
Mhuth@u.washington.edu            * Fax    206-685-9394
Compuserve 70346,563              *
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak)
Subject: Re: Word Perfect 6.0 for OS/2 PM
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Mitre Corporation
Distribution: jadpc2
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:30:28 GMT

In article <2b001062@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org>,
Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org wrote:
> 
> This is probably why Computer Associates is working hard at porting so
> many of their applications to 32-bit OS/2, also.  They realize there
> is a market opportunity to become a #1 or #2 supplier on a new
> operating system platform.

Note:  This is the strategy that MS was able to use on the Mac & Windows. 
MS Word, Excel, & Powerpoint have enough of the marketshare to pretty much
smash the rest of the competition.  The reason that MS got this marketshare
was that they were the only company that had a robust product.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: os/2 and security
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:50:51 GMT

Chris Waters writes:

> This may come as a shock to you, but some of us old-timers (I'm 33, and
> started programming when I was about 13--long before the introduction of
> the microprocessor) have never heard of ACLs.  Kest law vee.  :-)

Ah, Canadian!  (With apologies to the Firesign Theatre.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak)
Subject: Re: NT delayed again??? (PC Week Nov 2)
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Mitre Corporation
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:33:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.195647.656@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu
(Brian Sturgill) wrote:
> 
> In article <hatton.720949698@cgl.ucsf.edu> hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:
> >pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak) writes:
> >>For those who are interested:
> >>Page 3 in the Nov. 2nd issue of PC week has a story about how Microsoft is
> >>now shipping the NT beta.  About half way down the quote Bill Gates stating
> >>that NT would ship "in the first half" of 1993.
> 
> You guys must be asleep, Gates stated over a month ago that NT would be
> delayed till 1Q or 2Q '93.  The inside betting is that it will come out at
> Spring Comdex (early April).
> 

The only "official" announce that I have heard from MS was that NT would be
out in the 1st quarter.  When MS made this announcement, speculation by
just about everyone was that NT would most likely be out in the 2nd quarter
but to my knowledge MS never "officially" made such a statement.

I quote from the article (PC Week: November 2, 1992, pg 3):

Meanwhile, Microsoft appears to be backing off its revised first quarter
ship date for the 32-bit operating system.  At a conference for financial
services customers in New York last week, Microsoft Chairmen Bill Gates
said NT would be shipped "in the first half" of 1993.

If this was such common news as you seem to think.  I don't think PC Week
would have printed it.  Brian, maybe you were the one who was asleep and
couldn't differentiate between speculation and the "official" MS line.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 07 Nov 92 04:35:30 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Nov05.115641.12981@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl wrote:
> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Nov4.203036.5504@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> >>DOS isn't an OS any more than Barbie is a prom date.
> 
> >A neat analogy, Fred, but wrong: what does an OS do that DOS doesn't?
> 
> Provide protection from ill behaved applications for one. Furthermore
> I would say concurrency should be included in the definition of
> a modern OS.
> 
> Erik

Funny, I know people who have the opposite viewpoint.  They Like DOS
because it stays the heck out of their way.
Then again, they are just embedded systems designers, and game designers,
and the like.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: pshuang@athena.mit.edu (Ping-Shun Huang)
Subject: BOSTON-AREA OS/2 GALA : FREE SOFTWARE, PIZZA, TALKS, ETC.
Summary: IBM, LOTUS, et al give previews of their latest OS/2 builds.
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: comp
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 16:59:59 GMT

UPCOMING EVENTS:

FREE SOFTWARE DOOR PRIZES !   REGISTRATION NOT REQUIRED !

December 1, 1992   6:00 p.m.     (Tuesday)

YEAR END OS/2 GALA WITH DAVID BARNES (IBM, Boca Raton)

Be our guest for PIZZA and other refreshments beginning at 6:00 p.m.
Both novices and experienced users alike will enjoy hearing David
Barnes, the world's premier OS/2 demonstrator. This presentation will
discuss OS/2 with a focus on its application integration. Through
demonstration, you will see how OS/2 and the Workplace Shell can improve
your productivity by integrating your DOS, DOS/Windows, and OS/2
applications on a single desktop. Demonstrations include the use of
Dynamic Data Exchange (DDE), Object Linking and Embedding (OLE), and the
OS/2 clip-board to share data. Windows 3.1, OS/2 Multimedia extensions,
and other new developments will also be demonstrated.

Also live demos from Lotus, JP software, Sytron, etc.

January 12, 1993     7:00 p.m.      (Tuesday)

OS/2 DATA COMPRESSION; OS/2 PERFORMANCE TUNING & OPTIMIZATION:

Part 1 - Theory of data compression, architecture of Stac Electronic's
STACKER FOR OS/2, increasing the utility of fixed disks through data
compression, live demonstration.

Part 2 - Tips and techniques for matching the design of OS/2 with that
of your DOS, Windows, and OS/2 applications.  This talk will focus on
the dissection of CONFIG.SYS.

GENERAL MEETING INFORMATION

LOCATION : IBM BOSTON COMPUTER CENTER, One Copley Place, Boston, Mass.
Near Back Bay and Copley train stations.

DIRECTIONS : Mass. Turnpike East - Exit 22 (Copley Square Lane) - First
Left onto Dartmouth St - Next Left onto Huntington Ave. Enter COPLEY
PLACE PARKING on left.

FREE PARKING : Free parking when you spend $5 and have your parking
ticket validated in any restaurant or store at Copley Place, provided
you enter the garage after 5 p.m.

For more information on meetings, please telephone Marcia Gulesian at
(508) 369-3918.

--
Ping Huang (INTERNET: pshuang@athena.mit.edu), probably speaking for himself
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: os/2 and security
Date: 8 Nov 92 14:24:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov8.142420.16759
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95

xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>HAD a bug.  And note that they released the fix (free as usual) before
>any commercial system with ACLs was released.  :-)

This may come as a shock to you, but us old-timers (I'm 32) didn't just
sit around playing with our slide rules before the IBM PC came out.  We
had computers way back in the old days, too.  They didn't fit on our
desks, and we thought 1200 bps was a luxury, and we though a machine
with a megabyte of core (that's a kind of memory) was big.  And there
were commercial systems then with ACLs.

--Tim Smith
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: WIN 3.1 an OS?
Date: 5 Nov 92 12:04:51 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering

cs139121@athena.ecs.csus.edu (Todd Kepus) writes:

>This goes out to Wolfgang, Brian, Fred, and any others who continue to
>debate whether or not WIN 3.1 is an operating system.

>First, there are 3 cases...

>1. Win 3.1 is not an operating system.

>2. Win 3.1 is an operating system, but requires DOS to execute.

>3. Win 3.1 is an operating system, doesn't really need DOS at all, but
>Microsoft makes one 'need' it so they can continue to sell DOS to
>Windows users.

>Obviously, you probably wouldn't agree with case one, otherwise there
>would be no debate.  The second case is debatable, but will never be won
>because you won't convince most people on this thread that WIN 3.1 is an
>operating system AND it still needs DOS.

>What do you think about the last case?  Is it below Microsoft?

I shouldn't think so, but I don't want to attribute this solely to
MS.

>Anyways, lets assume that WIN 3.1 is an operating system.  Then we can
>compare it to OS/2.

>How do they compare?

>Well, OS/2 has preemptive multitasking, and can run almost all DOS
>applications quickly and efficiently.  For example, Borland C++ 3.1 runs
>perfectly under OS/2.  At the same time, one can be downloading from a
>BBS.  Personally, I do this quite often.

>I think that these two features ( preemptive multitasking + DOS ) coupled
>to the fact that OS/2 is indeed a stable platform is what most users
>enjoy so much about OS/2.  

Yes indeed.

>Now a little about NT...

>That doesn't mean that if NT is indeed superior that I and other users
>won't switch.  However, what we (OS/2 users) consistently hear about NT
>is that it doesn't run DOS apps as well as OS/2, and it requires more
>than 8MB of memory.  For most users, more than 8MB is too expensive.  It
>was hard enough to afford 8MB.

>Lets accept the fact that WIN 3.1 is basically an operating system.  Now
>lets compare it to OS/2.  I think that would be more suited to this
>thread.  That's why they call it advocacy.

Well, you said it all. Preemptive multitasking and good DOS support
makes all the difference with windows.



-- 
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)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1: The ultimate DOS Shell
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:58:26 GMT

roland@spock.uucp (David A. Braun) writes:

>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:

I do not know the internals of OS/2, but I don't think the PM has
memory management or scheduling, a device driver maybe.
If the PM *has* memory management, I should ask *why*! The OS/2
kernel provides the memory management and scheduling, so the
PM doesn't need it, in fact, shouldn't even have it.
You can run OS/2 without the PM (which is WPS BTW) and you
still have memory management and scheduling. In fact, when the
WPS dies on you and restarts, your apps are still running, so
that proves the memory management and scheduling for those apps
was not done by the WPS.
Still, the WPS can of course have its own memory management and
scheduling, but to what avail?
No, unless I am not aware of some idiosyncrasy in OS/2, the WPS
has no memory management or scheduling.


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)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: What's an OS?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:05:24 GMT

In <hess.720949564@rzdspc14> hess@rzdspc14.informatik.uni-hamburg.de (Hauke Hess) writes:

>discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>>Yes!  I've always said "Windows+DOS" is an OS.   Windows by itself is not
>>an OS (like OS/2 without its file manager routines is not an OS).  For
>>convenience (and to avoid further disputes) when someone says "Windows" he's
>>obviously talking about Windows running on top of DOS (when someone says
>>DOS he's talking about DOS running on a PC-compatible--even though, it is


>So MS Word 5.0 is an OS because it runs on top of DOS and allows you to access
>most printers in a convenient way?

Nope.  DOS is still controlling the hardware (the port you access the
printer through).

-- 
"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: HPFS 16/32
Organization: Choate Rosemary Hall
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:47:37 GMT

Like Mark, I have read G. Letwin's "Inside OS/2". David is right. Mr. Letwin
did design the HPFS. He is also wrong, because 32-bit HPFS is not the same as
16-bit HPFS. 

Still, I would like to congratulate Mr. Letwin providing the foundations for 
an excellent file system, which makes my DBase much faster than in native DOS, 
lets me use long filenames, is fragmentation resistant, etc... I would also 
like to congratulate Mr. Letwin on his excellent book which sold me on 
OS/2 v 1.1. 

Sice Mr. Letwin still seems to be very attached to OS/2, to the point of lurking
on the net (although he has (oops, that should read "had") the code only 20 
famous keystrokes away) and talking about version 2.0 as if it was still his, 
maybe he should join Boca Ratton?

----

WHAT!&$**%! The OS/2 2.0 GA DOES NOT INCLUDE 32bit HPFS.  It is still 16 bit
and that is why some say the OS/2 32bit Super-Fat is faster than the current
HPFS... Sure 32bit would be nice, and if you think you have it, please send
me a copy...

Roland.
From: Joe@twistor.dialix (Joe Katnic)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re:  How to make OS/2 look bad ...
Distribution: world
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:43:11 PST
Organization: Not an Organization

In article <1992Nov7.173054.6379@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Robert Stephen Rodgers) writes:
>In article <1992Nov07.131316.20096@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>>1. Try OS/2 one a 486/33 with 4Mb of memory.
>
>
>	Note that this is still significantly more machine than the 
>	recommendation from IBM--they recommend a "minimum" of
>	a 386SX-16 (that being the lowest 386 chip) with 4 megs.
>
[deleted]
>
>	See above.  This is a legitimate complain against
>	IBM's corporate IQ.  Claiming 4 megs as the minimum
>	for OS/2 is like claiming that the minimum for 
>	Windows 3.0 was an 8088 and CGA.
>
   Indeed, IBM claims you can run their mainframe OS MVS/ESA in
   16 Meg of memory. AND yes you can boot it up. But when you
   attempt to run something, it rapidly pages itself to sleep.

   The smallest successful memory model I have run it under is
   24 Meg.

   So you see this happens all the time with IBM. 
   I have just come to expect that memory requirements as 
   espoused by IBM for their products are to run the product.
   NOT to achieve any useful work.
 
   In fact, for OS/2 at work, the policy is for a 12 meg minimum.
   By time you load OS/2, Communications Manager, Lotus 123/G,
   AMI-PRO v3 (and windows), Corporate applications, Lan requester,
   etc, etc, you get the picture, there's not an awfull lot left to
   play with. 

--

Joe Katnic                                         Joe@twistor.DIALix.oz.au
                                                (ALT: jkatnic@DIALix.oz.au)
"It is easier to seek forgiveness, than it is        Phone: (+619) 474 3939
 to seek approval - SO JUST DO IT!",anon.
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: WP 32 bit?? Plus a note on Brian's retirement.
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:35:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Nov10.213527.2922
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.

In article <1992Nov10.110033.28944@wes.on.ca> 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?
>

As usual, the boys in Provo have eyes bigger than their technical
knowhow...

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: How to make OS/2 look bad ...
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 21:03:07 GMT

In article <strobl.721229440@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>>This is not different that MS claiming that you _can_ run Windows on a 286
>>with 1 mb of ram.  Of course, noone ever does this except to prove that it
>>can be done.  
>
>Not so fast! I did that (i.e. run Windows on a 286 with 1MByte)
>for years, and was quite satisfied with its overall performance.
>
>Don't claim that nobody did something sucessfully, just because
>*you* never did.

I'll do you one better, Wolfgang.  I ran Windows on an XT with 1 meg and a
Hercules card.  It blew donkey dicks, to use a colorful turn of expression.
Far worse than OS/2 in 4 megs (I should know).   But the point here isn't
who's satisfied with running which OS on which class of machine.  The 
original complaint was that calling 4 megs a minimum for OS/2 is stupid.
Well, my take on that is....get a life!  Where has that person been, with
their head stuck somewhere?  Everyone *should* know that running on 
"minimum" specs is always going to be restricting and slow, usually to the
point where you just get sick of it and go buy more hardware or dump the
software.

	That doesn't change the fact that the OS will run on those minimum
specifications.  Nowhere on Windows or OS/2 will you find minimum specs
equated with any kind of recommended setup, and usually it will be advised
against.  Perhaps IBM and MS should publish recommended requirements right
below the minimum requirements.

Ted
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT delayed again??? (PC Week Nov 2)
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:56:47 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <hatton.720949698@cgl.ucsf.edu> hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:
>pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak) writes:
>>For those who are interested:
>>Page 3 in the Nov. 2nd issue of PC week has a story about how Microsoft is
>>now shipping the NT beta.  About half way down the quote Bill Gates stating
>>that NT would ship "in the first half" of 1993.

You guys must be asleep, Gates stated over a month ago that NT would be
delayed till 1Q or 2Q '93.  The inside betting is that it will come out at
Spring Comdex (early April).

>
>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).

I get accused of everything... one fellow in the "Is Windows an OS?" madness
even thinks I'm participating in that discussion.  (To the best
of my knowledge I've never contributed an opinion... and I certainly
have not engaged in the current round of lunacy.)

>issue of PC Week on a display, the words "Fear and Loathing" and 
>"Windows for Workgroups" or whatever the package is called.

I believe the article your refering to was one about corporate network
manager fearing users would strike out on their own, as WfW was easy
enough to configure that users can do it themselves. But in a complex
corporate net, could also easily be configured to conflict.
I also think a part of this is similar to the early reactions of mainframe
admins to PCs.  Networking will probably become "easy" (i.e does not
require hordes of special staff) in less than 5 year.

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

PC Week has generally always been reasonably balanced.
The real crazy articles on either side are generally found in InfoWorld.
InfoWorld (at least since Alsop became editor-in-chief) tends to
be radical in every stance they take.

>
>Tom

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! :-))