HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2)
Subject: Re: Here's some Advocacy for you.
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 09:43:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.223616.28809@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.130541.16159@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
[...]
>>1.) Microsoft's statement that they are aiming for the top 100 apps.
>
>Microsoft did not limit itself here, that's a myth propagated by people
>such as yourself.  I mean if you want to argue on that basis, then NT

Huh?  Isn't MS aiming for the top 100 apps?

>will definitely have better back compatibility than OS/2, because Microsoft
>says that at least the top 100 will work, and IBM hasn't said that any will
>work. :-)

Ahhh, so MS *is* aiming for the top 100!

Oh yeah, what do you mean by saying "IBM hasn't said that any will work"?
Didn't you hear about the "Better DOS than DOS"?  Instead of saying how
many DOS apps OS/2 2.0 will run (a very long list!), IBM should say how
many will not run.

>>However, the fact that I won't be able to use NT, even though I'd *like* to
>>see it, speaks for itself.  (I consider myself slightly above Joe User in
>>computing power).
>
>You mean you have less than a 386 with 8 megs of memory?

The good thing about OS/2 2.0 (with WPS) is that it uses four megs, which
leaves me four megs for apps on my eight meg machine.  Although I would
like an extra two megs because I write programs using emx/gcc (my swap file
grows from a normal 4 megs to 6 megs) adding any more memory will cost at
least $600 (from 8 x 1 meg to 4 x 4 meg) due to the 4-way interleave design
of my motherboard.

NT for the Alphas may be successful as long as DEC still survives (and for
as long as OS/2 3.0 does not run on Alphas ;-), but NT for the Intels seems
to take too much memory.  Whenever NT can run in four megs or less...

>>Ted
>
>Brian

Mike Levis
Unofficial spokesmodel for OS/2

-- 
==== Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ====
::   ftp ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (128.123.35.151)    ::  .--.
::   for OS/2 software & information.  Get    :: (OS/2)
:::: the OS/2 FAQL   /pub/os2/all/info/faq :::::  ~--~
From: jack@sdf.lonestar.org (Jack Hudler)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: \* IBM's OS/2 2.0 Scores Big \*
Date: 15 Dec 92 03:23:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: sdf.BzA6qp.E4w
Organization: Best lil' ol' Pubnix in Texas

In article <1992Dec11.092401.27601@cs.brown.edu> wcn@cs.brown.edu (Wen-Chun Ni) writes:
>
>   You mean Windows 3.x? Actually, I can't see the connections between
>   Windows 3.x and the NT kernel, except for the ugly GUI. I'd rather
>   use twm under X windows.
        ^^^ TWM! you can't be serious, Motif and even OpenWindows 
has this one topped by serveral hundred kilometres!
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: OS/2 related job
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 20:10:14 GMT


This is in regards to OS/2 related jobs. The USENET conference "Tor.jobs" has
a OS/2 related job offering. If you are interested, and are in the Toronto
area, you should have a look at it.

Mark K.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:51:32 GMT

In <1992Dec15.051348.22687@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>As to why doesn't this work?  Well first of all why should it work?
>NT is beta code and is intended only to coexist with Win3.1/DOS.
>Secondly, why are you so certain that MS's move is anti-OS/2?
>There may well be valid reasons why the bootstrap does this.
>It is clear that you have not even asked, but have already judged MS
>to be guilty.

Let me see now.  It is intended only to coexist with other Microsoft
operating systems and it (for no apparent reason -- the fix is so
simply to do manually, one has to wonder just what the purpose of the
check is in the first place; you're not being exactly constructive in
that regard, either) refuses to run with OS/2 Boot Manager installed.
Just what mysterious high-tech purpose do you think that NT has for
that partition ID that it looks for THAT ONE and refuses to run if it
finds it?

>The wrong impression is that you explicitly said this was an intentional
>plot on the part of MS to do in OS/2 users (well you weren't quite
>that evil, but close :-)).  Even if MS explicitly checks for Boot Manager,
>this does not necessarily imply an evil plot, there may well be specific
>hardware configurations that boot manager interacts poorly with NT.
>Until you at least attempt to get a response out of Microsoft, I think
>you are doing people a disservice to "blame" MS.

There's this 'poor' interaction, but it works just fine if you zero
out the ID of the partition?  Come on, Brian.  Does that make sense to
you?  Do YOU have a credible explanation for why that would be the
case? 

-- 
"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: gupw@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Paul Wagland)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here's some Advocacy for you.
Date: 14 Dec 1992 00:35:03 +0800
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: uniwa.uwa.edu.au

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>In article <1gdgb9INNiia@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> gupw@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Paul Wagland) writes:
>>>	Can't anyone out there make a better argument than formatting
>>>	floppies (stupid) or 1/4th greater memory requirements?  
>>
>>OK, how about cost? A person I know who went to the NT developers
>	At least you tried.

>>conference told me that MS was saying that the single user version of NT
>>will be <$800, whil the full version would be <$1000.
>	I think you're confused.  MS has said repeatedly that the
>	price of NT would be "under $500".  I think maybe your friend
>	is thinking of some sort of developer version.

Ahh, sorry. I forgot to mention, I live in Australia, all our software
is priced way over the top, quite often running about 1.5-2.5 the US
price, the $1000 is an Aust. figure.

> 
>>me $500, that is still two and a half times as much as OS/2. And too me,
>>who has no need of networking, security features and all the rest
>>of the jazz, it isn't worth the cost.  If I neeeded it, then maybe it
>	True, the question is not only "do I need this?" 
>	(networking, which I don't need (but might be OK to have)
>	 security, which I'd like, Unicode, a better solution to 
>	 the 8.3 file name problem (dual, confusing--but better
>	 than nothing..), better Windows support and, most
>	 importantly, rock solid) 

Hmm, the 8.3 problem really only exists if you use DOS, and seeing as I
moved to a real operating system to give up that habit.... the same with
windows support, the support they give now is adequate enough for me, as
I use *VERY* few windows apps.  For me OS/2 has been solid enough, I
have yet to crash it myself, though I know it can be done it hasn't
happened to me.
Granted Networking might be be OK to have, one day, eventually, and the
security features would be nice, *BUT* as I said above, at the moment
they are not worth the extra money, and when you are a student every
cent counts.  BTW what is Unicode? I have seen some mention of it before
but don't yet know what it is.

>	The question is, if OS/2 support continues to 
>	lag and be, for the most part, nonexistant, 
>	"Do I have a choice?"

_IF_ support doesn't appear, and to a large extent I think it already
has, but if everyone stops supporting OS/2 in the future, then and only
then will I change my choice of operating system, unless MS price NT
reasonably (or give me a hefty student discount), because I won't be
able to afford NT.
-- 
Paul Wagland            | These opinions are mine and no-one elses
gupw@uniwa.uwa.edu.au   | Bingy Bingy Bingy Frogs Go round and round
------------------------+     -- Another silly quote from me  :-)
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here's some Advocacy for you.
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:15:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen) writes:
>In <1992Dec10.223616.28809@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>Ever run a Windows app under an OS/2 beta?  Anyway, NT already has a
>>better 16-bit Windows subsystem than OS/2 2.0 _GA_ does, so I think
>>you're off base here.

>I love it when sturgill does this.  He makes a general claim with no
>evidence.  Kinda like he says "NT's design/code is cleaner than everything
>else" -- as if he has seen the code of NT/OS2/every OS, and is a confirmed
>master of "clean code & design."  Im not saying he's wrong, but It
>just seems we are asked to take his omnipotent word for it. (sorry
>for the sarcasm).

It has been noted before that Mr. Sturgill has problems admitting
that some things are fact, and some are opinion, and tends to present
the latter as the former. Pointing it out hasn't helped in the past,
and tends to generate blue e-mail, so I'd say don't bother; but you
never know when the penny may drop.
 

-- 
Tom Hatton
hatton@cgl.ucsf.edu
(415)-476-7986
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 11:18:04 -0800
From: George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: Re: Windows NT humor
Comment-To: John_Bodnar@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

According to rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari):
> Truth in advertising?  From the company that claimed
> "A better Windows than Windows?" (When Windows is *obviously*
> 3.1 and *not* 3.0).. Same companythat advertises somethingas
> vacuous and ambiguous as "crash protection">

 I keep reading about this supposed "Better Windows than Windows"
claim from IBM on this net yet I've never read it in a magazine. Where
did you read of IBM promoting OS/2 2.0 as a "Better..." alternative? 

 I'm sure this quote started from somewhere, something like that
wouldn't just pop up out of the blue <g>, so does IBM still promote
OS2
that way or are you harping on something that was mentioned in an
article
18 months ago? 
___
 * MR/2 1.32 NR * "Monopoly? No, we just don't want competition."

--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Bottom Line (Re: Why OS/2 Will Fail)
Date: 12 Dec 92 02:26:14 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

daa7365@tamuts.tamu.edu (Diego A. Aranda) writes:
>Also, someone stated that Microsoft only has a record for bug-ridden OSs.
>This is nonsense.  I am sufficiently detached to admit that Windows 3.0
>was horribly bug-ridden.  I will say the Windows 3.1 is *extremely* clean,
>and that my limited experience with Windows for Workgroups suggests
>it's even cleaner.  My experience with the NT beta shows it to be rock-solid,
>and I believe DOS to be one of the cleanest and most polished systems
>yet to appear.

>Contrast this to OS/2.  Can you really, honestly, truly look me in the
>eye (so to speak) and suggest that OS/2 is bug-free?  I own a copy
>of OS/2, and I have tested it extensively.  I know OS/2 suffers from
>quite a few bugs, and possibly more than Windows 3.0.  Can you suggest
>to me that OS/2's CSD (14 disks of bug-fixes) was not itself bug-ridden?
>Before you cast these flames, please see if they apply to your own
>choice of operating systems.

Anyone who says Win3.1 is *extremely* clean, that NT is rock-solid,
and that DOS is clean and polished is either in MS marketing,
or has inhaled, if only MS smoke. I'd say the same of anyone who 
said OS2 was bug-free (with appropriate name changes).

Have you ever seen the list of "hundreds of bug fixes" that Win3.1
corrected? No. MS doesn't feel up to publishing bugs; IBM does.
Even Win3.1 comes in multiple forms, and MS only sends out fixes
for apps to people who *explcitly* ask for them, or they make you 
pay ~$50 a pop for an upgrade. The IBM fixes are free, and widely
distributed and announced. 


-- 
Tom Hatton
hatton@cgl.ucsf.edu
(415)-476-7986
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 16:47:46 -0800
From: Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: Re: More Controversial Topics
Comment-To: James_Dorcey@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514


 JD> Which leads to the question: If NT is to be compared to 
 JD> OS/2, shouldn't it 
 JD> be compared to EE and not GA?

Why, is Microsoft now going to ship NT with an SQL database manager
and mainframe communications links?


--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
From: baustin@billapc.UUCP (Bill Austin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: What about OS/2 2.1?
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 05:51:51 -0500
Organization: Ground Zero Group, Columbus, OH 43227

In <18352@mindlink.bc.ca> Jeremy_Reimer@mindlink.bc.ca (Jeremy Reimer) writes:

>Doesn't anyone see Win 3.1 support, lower memory requirements and faster
>execution as a GOOD thing for OS/2?

Yes, Yes, and Yes.

Personally, I keep an eye on the NT hype and 'news' for laughs.
I mean Seriously.. I've bought into OS/2, and thats the end of it.
*IF* I really have to jump ship to something, its going to be back
into unix (already using SCO on other machines) not into NT.

I OCCASIONALLY enjoy hearing things pro/Con about OS/2 and/or NT..
but heh, thats partly why I started using a reader that makes skipping
message topics so easy.  I can take it or leave it just as easily as
reading none of it at all.
I'm happy about OS/2, I support OS/2, and if I had bought into NT, I'd 
likely be doing likewise for it too/instead.
Personally, I'm ALL FOR added Win 3.1 support if for no other reason 
that to shut up people that keep whining about it NOT being there, 
or those whining that they need it but can't wait..etc.. Just use Win3.1
till it shows up.. then you will have a 'peace dividend' of about 15M 
when OS/2 gets it.
I'm also ALL FOR lower memory requirements.  Not because I'm tight on
memory, but because more people will be able to use it, and I'll be even
less tight on memory in prep for BIGGER applications that take full
advantage of OS/2's native modes.
FASTER is always better, except in a 35 mph zone <GRIN>
baustin
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: More Controversial Topics
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:29:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.063141.19008@netcom.com> timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:
>In article <Mf=0hT600iUxI4Poh2@andrew.cmu.edu> sl31+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen M. Lacy) writes:
>>SMP is not an
>>operating system problem, its a hardware problem.  
>
>If I have SMP hardware, can I run MS-DOS on it and take advantage of the
>hardware?  No?  Then it's a hardware problem *and* an operating system
>problem.

Yep.  I think what he meant was that, at present, we need the hardware first,
then the software.  There already exist SMP systems for the Intel platform,
but the hardware is just too out of reach for everyone around here (well,
make that average users).  SMP machines simply aren't going to be on the
average desktop for quite a while.

(i.e., quite a bit longer than it'll be to the release of NT)

SMP is fascinating technology, but it's not going to be a factor in the
desktop OS competition for years to come.

Ted
From: f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Pricing of NT (was Re: Here's some Advocacy for you.)
Date: 13 Dec 92 01:46:21 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67700241

In article <1gdgb9INNiia@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>, gupw@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Paul Wagland) writes:
>rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec12.094334.21925@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2) writes:
>> [ some stuff about memory requirements being reasonably irrelavent deleted ]
>>	Can't anyone out there make a better argument than formatting
>>	floppies (stupid) or 1/4th greater memory requirements?  
> 
> OK, how about cost? A person I know who went to the NT developers
> conference told me that MS was saying that the single user version of NT
> will be <$800, whil the full version would be <$1000.
> 
> Generally that means $799.95 and $999.95 :)
> but even being generous, and saying the cut-down version will only cost
> me $500, that is still two and a half times as much as OS/2. And too me,
> who has no need of networking, security features and all the rest
> of the jazz, it isn't worth the cost.  If I neeeded it, then maybe it
> would., _MAYBE_, but at the moment I'll let Brian have it....

Anyone who believes MS will release NT at this price is fooling himself.

Take a look at the example of Microsoft Access.  MS priced this database
at $695 list, but for a SUPER-SPECIAL-LIMITED-TIME they will let you
have it for $99.

And it's *working* for them!  The shelves are bare of Access, all the SW
stores are trying to handle the flood of orders, and MS is having trouble
keeping up!  Unreal!  And I thought databases were an OS/2 strong suit....

MS, as the OS/2 advocates note, may be scared of IBM.  But it also seems
they were scared of Borland enough to release a Pdox for Win killer early.
And it's *working*!

This experience unquestionably will affect their NT pricing strategy
wrt OS/2.  Cost will not destroy NT's performance in the market.  Some-
thing else might, but cost won't.
-- 
Greg "Mockingbird" Franklin  "People that are really very weird can get into
f67700241@ccit.arizona.edu   sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact
Keep circulating the tapes.      on history." -- Dan Quayle, on Malcolm X

"Father yes son, I want to kill you.  Mother, I want to----WUAAAAAAAAAAARGH!"
	-- Jim Morrison, waxing poetic on family values
"The President scores much better than Bill Clinton."
	-- Dan, comparing Bush's record of marital infidelity to Clinton's
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: Why 512MB limit in OS/2?
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:06:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.064426.7111@ryn.mro4.dec.com> Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com writes:
>
>Why does OS/2 have a limit of 512MB per application?

I can't give you technical details, but the 512MB limit is supposedly there
for compatibility reasons with OS/2 1.x.  They've said it will be lifted
in future versions, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Ted
Organization: University Of Toronto Computing Services.
Date: Friday, 18 Dec 1992 06:00:18 EST
From: <TED@vm.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Alternatives to ATI video.

I have been reading about ATI's lack of support for OS2
and I have decided it may be time to bite the bullet and start looking for
another video card for my PC. I figure I can always pawn off my ATI
XL card onto a windows user. I haven't really been keeping up to date
with which cards are supported with OS2 and what their relative
performance is against the XL card. Any help out there?


----------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
Ted Sikorski Supervisor Systems group         |                         |
             TED@vm.utcs.utoronto.ca          |  University of Toronto  |
             Phone 416-978-6602               |   Technology Support    |
             Fax   416-971-2085               |                         |
----------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
From: gt0040a@prism.gatech.EDU (Tom Sorensen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Why OS/2, NT, et. al. will ALL succeed
Date: 14 Dec 92 03:25:26 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

Its amazing how much disinformation and FUD goes through this group... why does
everyone assume that only ONE OS can succeed? Sure, that's how its been for
the past 10 years with DOS ruling the desktop, but why does it need to be
that way in the future?

Look at the PC market right now- its fragmenting. We've got three different
systems on the desktop- DOS, DOS/Windows, and OS/2. This really hasn't been
true before- Before Win 3.0 Windows was a joke. Essentially the same thing
for OS/2 before 2.0. Now we've got several other systems coming up, with the
biggest being Win/NT, but there's also Sun's Solaris 2.0, Novell/Destiny's
UnixWare, NeXT's NeXTStep 486, etc. Never before have users had so many options
for a desktop operating system, all of which are incredibly powerful and could
easily meet PC users needs for another 10 years.

Here's a scenario: assume that one of the above OS's doesn't capture more than
10% of the market. That's 10% of the over 110 million machines, which is
11 million users. If a vendor develops for a particular platform and captures
only 20% of the market (not too difficult, esp. for word processing, spread
sheets, etc.) then that's 2.2 million users. If the vendor makes a $20 profit
on each package, then that's 44 MILLION dollars of pure profit. Not too shabby.
I'd assume that the vendor could release a new version every year, keeping
that profit level steady.

Those numbers are probably conservative. The net effect is that vendors would
be well off to develop for ALL platforms. That means that users can choose
the platform they prefer and then pick up their applications regardless.
Furthermore, unless vendors are stupid, the data files will be platform
independent. So if users can choose any platform they want, use the apps
they like, and move their data files between OS's without any problem, why
shouldn't ALL of these OS's succeed?

Yes, there are a number of assumptions made above, but I really think this
is a very possible reality. Comments?
              Tom Sorensen


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Sorensen              gt0040a@prism.gatech.edu
"I believe OS/2 is destined to be the most important operating system,
and possibly program, of all time." - Bill Gates, November, 1987
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: More Controversial Topics
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:31:28 GMT

In <1992Dec13.215537.21644@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>In article <1992Dec13.172059.3430@kvamdata.no> ekl@kvamdata.no (Eirik Lygre) writes:
>>>	...      OS/2 2.0 has *never* been 
>>>	demoed on SMP anything, and neither has OS/2MACH.
>		  ^^^               ++++++++++++++++++++


>>Os/2 running on the mach kernel was demoed at comex.


>	Try re-reading my sentence again and see if the underline helps.

Try re-reading your sentence again and see if the underline helps.

[Geez, what a clueless Bozoid!]

-- 
"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,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy