HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: terryfry@access.digex.com (Terry Fry)
Subject: Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks! (was Re: Windows NT 'Alpha')
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 03:42:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.200938.14130@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.181514.4337@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>>
>>MS, on the other hand, enjoys dropping products.  They won't support
>>the MS-OS/2 packages they sold - they just tell you to "wait for NT".
>>They won't support Windows 3.0 - they tell you to upgrade to 3.1, etc.
>>It's not very nice to customers to be told to wait for the next
>>version of a product when you have a problem.
>
>    Hmmm... like "wait for the CSD", or "wait for the manufacturers
>to come up with SVGA drivers"?  Unless you're dealing with a
>private consultant, you usually don't get everything that you
>want in a product immediately.
>    Please - in your haste to bash Microsoft (and you usually do
>it quite well), you've come up with one of the most ludicrous
>statements I've yet seen posted to this board, and I've seen
>some real doozies.

How about "wait for NT"?  At least we have a shipping product that
works.  As for MS dropping support, the original poster has a good
point.... I have a OS/2 SDK, and two C6.00 licenses that are useless.
From: aci10@eng.cam.ac.uk (A.C. Innes)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.3
Date: 2 Sep 92 11:49:43 GMT
Organization: Cambridge University Engineering Department, England

In article <1992Sep1.222800.17703@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.3
[ A feature of NT that is lacking in OS/2 ]
>#	Asynchronous I/O
>		OS/2 1.X had this feature but for unexplained
>		reasons dropped it in 2.0.  While you can do it
>		with threads, you can also multi-task in DOS...
>		all you have to do is write the code that intercepts
>		the timer interrupt and swaps the processes.
>		Apparently the 16-bit API DosReadAsynch, DosWriteAsynch
>		still exist in thunked form.
>		Deitel and Kogan don't mention them... anybody
>		know why they're being phased out?

This is neither a flame nor a correction, but rather a simple request
for information.  Could you (anyone) please give an example or
explanation as to why asynchronous I/O is "better" (easier to use,
more efficient, whatever) than using synchronous I/O in a separate
thread?  Perhaps I simply misunderstand the reasons for wanting to do
async i/o, but why would it not be just as easy (or easier) to spawn a
separate thread to handle "background" writes or reads as to set up
signal handlers to respond to read/write completion events (presumably
by initiating more async read/writes)?  In other words, isn't async
i/o something that was provided to make up for the lack of
multi-threading, at least for one particularly useful application of
threads?

Any insight would be appreciated.

--
Andrew Innes (aci10@eng.cam.ac.uk)
Engineering Dept.
Cambridge University
Cambridge, England.
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IS IBM UK STILL IN THE STONE AGE???
Date: 31 Aug 92 01:11:09 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <liuyu.715218219@kramden> liuyu@kramden.nyu.edu (Liuyu) writes:
>It's not about how clumsy Hercules is. Hey CGA is clumsier and IBM's supporting
>it. If they want to drop old cards, they should drop them all. Why drop only
>competitor's? It makes me wonder if IBM will support other vendor's standard
>in future.

I hope IBM does not drop all the old cards; VGA and 8514/A is
five-and-a-half years old (back in the 286-is-king days).

How is Hercules a competitor to IBM?  All of IBM's computers have
video hardware built in (except Model 95, which is MCA, not AT).
I hope you don't think that the Hercules card can fit in an MCA slot.

You should contact Hercules; ask them to write drivers.

P.S.  Everyone reading this:  let each one of us make a new video
      card.  That could mean thousands of different video cards.
      Now lets demand that IBM make a driver for each of these cards.

-- 
====== Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ======
"I believed what I was told, I thought it was a good   .--.
life, I thought I was happy.  Then I found something  (OS/2)
that changed it all..."  --  Anonymous, 2112  [Rush]   ~--~
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (was: Re: Some more misconceptions...)
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 02:28:44 GMT

discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>In article <1992Sep3.182226.16745@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>>
>>companies) from the former branch.  Shouldn't the reverse be true?  Isn't
>>it unfair for companies making competing OSes if MS witholds applications
>>from those OSes simply because they compete with DOS/Windows?

>Well, although I don't condone the ethical stand that Microsoft has obviously
>made, I do see their point: is it ethical for an Automobile manufacturer to
>make automobile parts that can only fit on their models?

That analogy doesn't quite work since an automobile and its parts are
one and the same.  An operating system and application software are not.

A better analogy would be if there was one manufacturer of automobiles
that held over 90% of the market, and that manufacturer also was a major
supplier of gasoline (and thus franchised many of the gas stations).
Say that manufacturer's automobiles currently weren't technologically
up to date, and another company made automobiles which were technologically
up to date but required a slightly higher octane gasoline.  Would it be
ethical for that first company to stop production of the higher octane
gasoline to try to keep people from buying the newer cars?

-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu | think of something very clever 
uunet!jarthur!jokim         | to use as a disclaimer)
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Non-IBM experiences with OS/2?
Date: 3 Sep 92 12:38:01 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep02.183914.28059@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.135325.7248@dhw68k.cts.com> david@dhw68k.cts.com (David H. Wolfskill) writes:
>>
>>One individual -- the only one who works for my manager who has
>>undergone such a transition -- found (much to his chagrin) that his
>>migration to OS/2 required relocation of the printer that he & a few
>>others shared, since apparently the upper limit on printer cable
>>lengths in OS/2 is lower than the corresponding limit in DOS.
>>
>
>     I won't comment on the rest of your post, since I would 
>certainly be accused of bias and trying to sway your company away
>from OS/2, but the above paragraph sounds like a crock to me.
>It reminds me of the story of the knot-in-the-power-cord.

Shows what you know.  Have you ever looked through cable catalogs and
noted the maximum lengths for various speed communications and
wondered why?  When you have a cable with two-way communication,
synchronization is critical.  If the cable gets too long and/or the
speed gets too fast, the computer can not maintain sync with the
peripheral.  Since DOS uses one-way communication, it never becomes an
issue.  OS/2 uses two-way communication (it actually uses the signals
coming back from the printer), and is limited by cable length.

There's also the problems with EMI and shielding.

There's also the problem with signal loss, although this would also
affect DOS.

-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "TELEPHONE, n.  An Invention of the devil which
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   abrogates some of the advantages of making a
 ((|,)                          disagreeable person keep his distance."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs OS/2 features (was Re: Misinformation about os2-dos HW access)
Date: 2 Sep 92 12:46:23 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep1.082343.28146@umr.edu> ckincy@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) writes:
>
>So?  The differences between symmetric and asymmetric are largely
>philosophical.
>
>Unless you can show some hard evidence as to why symmetric is better.

Symmetric Multiprocessing is like virtual memory: If you've got the
hardware for it (in this case, more than one processor,) it makes
things run better.  If you don't, it is meaningless, and would just be
"turned off", hopefully also to be removed from your disk.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "TELEPHONE, n.  An Invention of the devil which
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   abrogates some of the advantages of making a
 ((|,)                          disagreeable person keep his distance."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: Just wondering
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:55:15 GMT

Crossposting, Bert?  For shame.  :-)

In article <1992Aug25.104217.10736@hemlock.cray.com> bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier) writes:
>I had an idea on my way into work and would like your feedback.  It maybe a 
>stupid idea, moderate, or right on.  I see pro and con to it.
>The idea is to put OS/2 Monthly Magazine on audio tape(s) for those who 
>commute daily.  Those getting on tape would also get a printed copy (if
>they desired).
>What do you think?

Books (or, in this case, magazines) on tape is a terrific idea, but
you left out one of the most important uses for it, namely providing
ready access to OS/2 Monthly for the blind.

If you want to pursue this avenue further you might try to persuade
IBM to bundle an audio tape of a sample issue of OS/2 Monthly with
their Screen Reader/PM sales.

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | The OS/2 FREQ. ASKED QUESTIONS LIST is avail. from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/faq.
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | Or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP").
Chicago, 60637          | Hey GOP: The Economy, Stupid!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: Microsoft Excel for OS/2's a Best Seller ?????????????
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:35:47 GMT

Samir Varma writes:

> On Page 574 of the August issue of Computer Shopper is a most interesting
> pie chart (under the heading Best Sellers):
> 
> SPREADSHEETS
> ------------
> 
> Lotus 1-2-3 (2.2/2.3) 	     26.74%
> Lotus 1-2-3 3.0	      	     26.47%
> Microsoft Excel for Windows  18.98%
> Borland Quattro Pro	     15.24%
> Microsoft Excel for OS/2     12.57%
> 
> And then they're not developing for OS/2?  
> 
> Comments anybody?

Yes.  The question is one of tense.  "developing" implies active, ongoing
work to enhance and upgrade existing applications or to create new ones.
In this case, Excel has been "developed".  Whether it is currently
undergoing further development is a question that only Microsoft can
answer, but popular opinion is that they are not currently developing any
OS/2 applications.  But that doesn't mean they didn't do some development
a long time ago.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Win 386enh - OS/2 v2.0 and NT - question?
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 11:07:08 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Aug27.123429.4419@andersen.co.uk> arb@andersen.co.uk (Phil Mellor) writes:
> I have a very strange question, maybe someone can help with.
> One of the things I see a great deal in this group is NT addicts who quote OS/2 v2.0's lack of Windows 386enh support. And that is a fact OK.
> 
> What I want to know is if NT is going to support this feature and if so how is it going to do so without affecting system security ( since, correct me if I'm wrong, these apps have to be able to access ring 0 ).
> 
> I would be very interested to find out.

Good question.......waht's the answer?
 
Steve

-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | End the two-party duopoly. Vote 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for the Mixed-Member Proportional 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | (MMP) voting system on Sept. 19th. 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | Give yourself a vote that *counts*!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wtw@coyote.WPI.EDU (William T Warner)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.3
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 03:55:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.101812.16584@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.135826.27225@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep1.222800.17703@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
...
>>>Features currently in Windows NT but not in OS/2 2.0
>>>#	Multiple growable heaps.
>>>		DosAllocMem is not equivalent, it merely allocates memory
>>>		blocks.  This API is roughly equivalent to doing malloc's
>>>		from multiple heaps.
>>
>>I fail to see why the difference is anything other than semantics.
>>It seems to me that an app would work just as well with either method.
>>What's the advantage?
>
>The advantage is you get a large piece of memory which is broken up
>and managed as is done by malloc.  When you're finished with the large
>piece of memory, you can free once the big piece, which can be more
>efficient depending on the nature of your allocation.
>DosAllocMem is only good to give you the big piece of memory, it does
>not manage it.
>Multiple growable heaps is a standard feature of other system too, for
>example Macs have had this feature for years.
>

Actually, OS/2 supports this;  it contains the "Memory Suballocation
package" consisting of functions like WinCreateHeap, WinDestroyHeap,
and WinAllocMem.  The WinAllocMem allocates items ("suballocates") from
a given heap.    Once you allocate several items, you can destroy
them all at once using WinDestroyHeap.  Take a look at the OS/2
PM API manuals.

This is a separate API from DocAllocMem, etc.  Since it's
part of PM, it was added after version 1.0 of OS/2.

Bill Warner
wtw@wpi.wpi.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: superVGA  (and misc top-blowing)
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:04:02 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Aug26.194222.549@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith) writes:
>brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>>Look at how snappy
>>the 32-bit stuff is... it's already faster than OS/2.
>
>Could you clarify this?  What 32-bit stuff are you running that is
>faster than the equivalent 32-bit programs under OS/2?  Surely you
>aren't comparing 32-bit NT stuff to 16-bit OS/2 stuff, are you?
I'm comparing running a native NT 32-bit API program with a native
OS/2 2.0 32-bit API -- which is implemented in a 16-bit/32-bit "hybrid".
That's unfortunately the best OS/2 can do.  This is fair as IBM claims
OS/2 is released.... surely they wouldn't be afraid of a comparison
with someone else's pre-beta?

>
>Steve Smith

Brian
From: AV@vnet.ibm.com (Anton Versteeg)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 13:09:16 CET
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT beta schedule slips!
Reply-To: AV@vnet.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Uithoorn - Netherlands
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 3.0
            <1992Aug27.095412.10513@wsl.ie>

In <1992Aug27.095412.10513@wsl.ie> John J. Allen writes:
>SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R. Platzke) writes:
>: In article <1992Aug26.164450.42583@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>: >From: thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
>: >Subject: NT beta schedule slips!
>: >Date: 26 Aug 92 21:44:50 GMT
>:
>: >Heard this on the Windows group...
>:
>: >The NT beta schedule has slipped to October (gasp!).  I have a feeling
>: >that I'll be posting information like this again.
>:
>:

(lines deleted)

>
>PC User Auust 1992.
>
>Microsoft states that Windows NT (for New Technology) will ship next summer
>(1992) with a full BETA this Autumn(1991).
>
>That makes it a full year late already.
>

and that it probably won't ship before summer 1993.

Anton Versteeg - IBM - Uithoorn Netherlands - TEAMOS2 NL
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.4
Date: 3 Sep 92 12:58:04 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep2.170400.10092@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>Here is a list of relevant "list" prices.
>	NT list price	 		< $500. (Source: NT dev conf, InfoWorld)
>	OS/2 2.0 list price		$195	(Src: Programmer's connection)
>	OS/2 2.0 Multimedia add-on***	$149	(Source: product announcement
>						posted to USENET.)
>	OS2 TCP/IP Base Kit**		$200    (Source: product announcement
>						found on ftp-os2.)
>      OS2 LAN Server 2.0 Entry Package*	$795	(Source: press release

There are a few more add-ons that were brought to my attention (yours
too, probably), that should be mentioned:

1) Extended Services 2.0.  This provides many API extensions.  Most
   notably, the Communications Manager - which is a very very powerful
tool for running multiple VT-series and 3270-series terminal sessions
to mainframes (via the network cards).  The LAN requester isn't
required, only an SNA-compatible computer at the other end of the
wire.  It will handle full SNA networking with SNA-compatible hosts
over EtherNet or TokenRing.  It also works with serial ports, although
it only will run one session per serial port.

SNA-compatible hosts include all IBM computers (Mainframes, Minis,
Workstations (running AIX), PC's (Runnign OS/2 ES)) and other vendors'
brands. 

2) Database Server 2.0.  This is a fully ANSI-compliant SQL server.
   It can run locally or over a LAN.  Included are preprocessors for
including SQL code in programs.

-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "TELEPHONE, n.  An Invention of the devil which
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   abrogates some of the advantages of making a
 ((|,)                          disagreeable person keep his distance."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:4893 comp.os.os2.misc:29011
From: acsander@kon-tiki.gatech.edu (Alan Sandercock)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Problems with crashes, tweaks, etc. (was: Re: Win-OS/2 performance tweaks)
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:22:34 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: USGS Spatial Data Analysis Center, Atlanta, GA

In article <EBU.92Sep2110505@vipunen.hut.fi> ebu@vipunen.hut.fi (Erik Bunn) writes:
>
>
><tweaks deleted>
>
>Argh. This finally broke my back.. 
>After I applied the tweaks, WINOS2 locked up on me. The OS itself was
>up - I could CTRL-ESC, and even move the mouse for a fraction of a
>second while the OS was opening or closing windows in the PM. So I
>restarted. When the system got up, it locked totally up in about 30
>seconds. Repeatedly. The WINOS icon would be 'in use', but would not
>show up on the task list.
>
DELETE  MATERIAL 
>Erik
Well, I applied the windows tweaks on a session last night and had
the same thing happen.  My windows program just hung the system with
exactly the same side effects that you describe above.  This is the
first problem that I have had with OS/2.  I am running on a 33MHz 486
with a 230 MByte drive and really had no complaints about the speed of
getting into windows - at least before I tried these tweaks.  Finally
I just reinstalled OS/2. There did not seem to be anything else that I
could do with a frozen mouse and keyboard.   Can anyone help with
this?

Alan Sandercock


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth)
Subject: Re: IS IBM UK STILL IN THE STONE AGE???
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 19:38:06 GMT

>No, Phil.  Just yesterday IBM air expressed a private patch to me to
>see if it would fix some minor video problems I had reported (after at
>least three phone calls from the developer responsible for that
>section of OS/2 code, who went through everything step-by-step).  The
>diskette was hand labelled and included the IBMer's direct telephone
>number.
>
>The hardware they were trying to get OS/2 2.0 to work better with?  A
>512K Trident 8900C SuperVGA adapter

Of course, Tim, the fact that you are you may well have something to do with
that.  I've had horrible success, well documented here, in attempting to get
IBM to help me with problems.  I've even phoned them, on my dime, to try to 
talk with people who might be able to help.  Hey, would you ask them how to 
get NCSA Telnet running using a 3Com507 card under os/2?  Tell them it crashes
os/2 on occasion and crashes the dos VDM on other occasions.  Works perfectly
under dos.  Tell them that I've had to remove os/2 (again) because I can't get
any answers!  Tell them that I'm heading up the database development project
here and that Microsoft bends over backwards to help me get equipment/software
working..
-- 
Mark Huth                         * Is it too wild to want to get into 
Mhuth@u.washington.edu            * Space someday?
Compuserve 70346,563              *
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: X is a hack?
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:42:54 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Aug27.212534.27425@grebyn.com> richk@grebyn.com (Richard Krehbiel) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.095754.8705@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>You're right in the sense that X was intended not as a GUI, but a base
>>for a GUI.  It falls short here too.  Why can't I get a list of fonts,
>
>The command "xlsfonts" will print a list of available fonts.  X
>applications may query the X server to obtain a list of fonts.

Name the call that one can use in X that makes it so that a Wordprocessor
can get a list of fonts suitable for the creation of a "Font" menu.
"xlsfonts" simply gives you a list of font filenames.

Any X app you have that gives you a font list has "rolled it's own".
Even X11R5 has not fixed this (when I went to USENIX this summer,
I took a tutorial that was taught by a guy from the X consortium,
I asked him this specifically, so I feel certain of my facts.).

>
>>why is there no printer support?
>
>Why is printer support necessarily a GUI feature?  The Mac system,
>Windows, etc. are more than just GUIs.  Printer support is simply not
>within the domain of X.  I take it you're saying it should be.

Ah... I see, X defines GUI, not Macintosh, Windows, Xerox or others that
came before X.  One of the original major purposes of GUI was to do WYSIWYG
software.  Printer support is essential if you want to do WYSIWYG.

In a modern sense, sound support should be included as a part of a GUI
too. To the best of my knowledge X is the only modern GUI that does not
define sound support.

>-- 
>Richard Krehbiel                                 richk@grebyn.com
>OS/2 2.0 will do for me until AmigaDOS for the 386 comes along...
				^^^
Do Amigas define printer support? I know they have sound support.

Brian