HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Brains!  More Brains!
Date: 06 Oct 92 00:02:15 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Oct5.165921.22880@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.180007.28752@news.iastate.edu> TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:
>>Symetric multiprocessing is the best way to do things....
>>     Take for example, breathing.  We all do this in the background
>>(I hope!).  At the same time, we are consciously attending our daily
>>tasks.  If we take on more tasks at once, our rate of breathing
>>rarely changes (except due to stress).  This would count both time
>>slicing and preemptive multitasking out, leaving SMP.  Of course,
>>it's still not this simple (as many AI people know).
>
>Why SMP?  It could be asymmetric multiprocessing.  There's no hard
>evidence that every neuron can assume the tasks of other neurons.
>

     Actually, there is some evidence that the functions of a highly
damaged portion of the brain can eventually be picked up by other
parts of the brain.  It's not symmetric, and it's not really asymmetric -
it's the brain, and it's weird.

					-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund)
Subject: Re: So much for Msoft's bluster <grin>
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
	<moore.717717658@pv34c1.vincent.iastate.edu>
	<BvBpEv.Ix3@acsu.buffalo.edu>
	<OLENDER.92Sep29084220@vivaldi.cs.colostate.edu>
	<OLAVT.92Sep29165647@ulrik.uio.no> <1668@anagld.analytics.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 09:49:23 GMT

In article <1668@anagld.analytics.com> sammy@anagld.analytics.com (Sam Blackburn) writes:

 
   >When NT finally will be available (by the
   >end of '93?), there will be a lot of OS/2 2.0 users and a lot of
   >powerfull 32-bits OS/2 applications out there.

   Debatable.  From a developer's point of view it makes more sense to
>develop a Windows application because OS/2 can run Windows apps.
>You've killed two birds with one stone.  This, of course, does not
>apply to "server" type applications. When NT comes out you've got an
>application that runs on THREE operating systems instead of being tied
>to only one with OS/2.


If all the developers develop only Windows apps, then the "two birds
with one stone" attitude makes sense. But if you are running OS/2 2.0,
and you can choose between 32-bits OS/2 versions of Word Perfect, Ami
Pro and Describe, and a Windows version of Word, you (or at least most
of the users) will probably not choose Word. The same could be said
about spreadsheets, graphic software, etc. As long as your competitors
offer 32-bits OS/2 versions, then the OS/2 customers will not choose
your Windows app, even if it can run quite well on their systems.

Olav Torvund
Oslo, Norway
Olavt@jus.uio.no

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: New DOS setting in OS/2 beta
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:03:04 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep25.214613.13213@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.190856.43323@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>>Hello netters,
>>
>>An OS/2 beta note:
>>
>>There is a new DOS setting called INT_IO or something like that.
>>If set to on, interupts are possible during disk io.  If set to
>>off, interupts have to wait till disk io is done.  I set this on
>>for the Win 3.1 session, and the mouse pointer stopped freezing
>>during disk io--an annoyance in the past.
>
>Can anyone think of why you'd want to set this on?

Sorry.  I meant to ask why anyone would want to set it off.

-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bill@snoopy (Bill Poitras)
Subject: Re: A couple of comments on NT vs. OS/2
Reply-To: bill@msi.com
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:44:26 GMT

Jimmy Buffet (kaz@iastate.edu) wrote:
: Why don't we start a list of companies to bug for products...  I would
: personally like to bitch at Diamond for their driver support, and beg
: Datastorm for a PM Procomm Plus.  Sound good?  

Contacting vendors to show product insterest is a good idea.  However,
I dealt with this a couple of months ago with S3 corp about generic S3
support in OS/2 2.0.  The technical person I talked to, whose name got
out to the net, was flooded with tons of e-mail.  Some of that was
almost threatening.  If you are going to send e-mail, make phone calls
or write letters, try to be as professional and tactful as possible.
Pissing off Diamond or anybody else isn't going to help anybody.

--
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Bill Poitras    | Molecular Simulations Inc.    | Tel (408)522-9229       |
| (bill)          | Sunnyvale, CA USA             |                         | 
|                 | FAX (408)732-0831             | bill@msi.com            |
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 05 Oct 92 17:06:27 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct5.055854.17223@muddcs.claremont.edu> ddulay@jarthur.claremont.edu (Daniel Dulay) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.030508.5441@u.washington.edu> mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth) writes:
>>
>>I'm sure that a final price will be set before the product ships.  I'm equally 
>>sure that the "pre-beta" costs 69 dollars and includes the final product.  I'm
>>equally sure that 69 dollars is a reasonable price.  I'm not sure what the 
>>final price will be for the shipping version, but I am sure that it won't cost
>>me any more than the $69 I've already spent.  
>>
>What has MS done to lead you to this conclusion?  Is it in writing?  Does
>this seriously mean that you beleive that you are going to be getting the
>release versions of both NT *and* the compiler?  Maybe MS doesn't have
>such bad marketing practices after all . . .
>Better yet we should spread this info around.  MS might look bad when
>it turns out that they are leaving their "pre-beta" users high and dry.

     The SDK includes the final release of Windows NT but does not
include the final release of the compiler.

				-Phil

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 21:31:30 -0400 
From: Faisal Nameer Jawdat <fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: post
	<1992Sep25.195014.25707@muddcs.claremont.edu>

gee, what's wrong with NT's text edit that's built in
who needs word?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ekl@fics.uucp
Subject: Re: Os/2ers whine again
Organization: Kvam data as
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:06:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.214541.11475@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.001937.13093@fics.uucp> ekl@fics.uucp wrote:
>> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>> 
>>    >>>The thing on the PDK disk was formerly called OS/2 3.0?  Can you point
>>    >>>out which code on the PDK has anything to do with OS/2 please.
>> 
>> and tried to prove it wrong:
>
>Unsuccessfully...

Seems like we desagree on most things. This is only of them.

>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...

Eirik
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: OS/2, my final analysis.
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:37:02 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <wiegand.717949466@lido16> motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net writes:
>brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>>I can second the vote of confidence for NT here too.
>>I have not had NT crash except when I play with 16-bit Windows or DOS
>>apps.  An amazing record for a system at the phase of development that
>>NT is in.
>
>Just curious - except for the Windows and DOS apps - what else are you
>running? There aren't any NT apps.

Funny, the SDK seem to have a lot of them.
Compiler (C++!)  Linker, etc.
I also use the CD-Player app that came with the SDK.
The only non-NT app I regularly run is a DOS based editor... and
it doesn't seem to crash the DOS subsystem.
It's a myth that there are no NT apps... for example if I wanted to
I could replace my DOS based editor with one called Slick-Edit
and it would be a native NT app (i.e. they sell it now).

>Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.

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! :-))
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: Re: Interesting Tidbit from Sept 21 PC week
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:14:27 GMT

> jre@zeos.com writes in article <1992Sep25.133751.29649@zeos.com>:
> >    Personally I prefer the Windows interface, the OS/2 interface is too much
> > like the Mac and I can't stand that. But I do agree that this is an old
> > issue and, because its just a matter of preference, probably shouldn't be
> > debated again. Its not that I dislike OS/2, I just like Windows better.

juan@noyles.pha.pa.us (Juan J. E. T. Noyles) writes:
> Let's get something straight here.  You cannot like Windows better than OS/2,
> because Windows is not an operating system.  Regardless of what the box it
> came in says.

Our old buddy Juan is trying to fan the flames of the long-dead "Windows-is-
an-OS-no-it'snot" war ... having fun?

For that matter, I like sports cars better than two-storey brick houses, and
I prefer dark chocolate to the Beach Boys' records.  So what?

> Has anyone seen your sanity?				Juan@Noyles.pha.pa.us

Still no evidence of it, sad to say.

[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
From: Bertram.Moshier@f115.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Bertram Moshier)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: MN OS/2 EUG OCT Meeting
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 19:41:07 -0600

                     Minnesota OS/2 End-user Group
                            October Meeting

Reservations requested:  Please call 612/397-6444 and register using
                         course code OS2.

When:   October 29, 1992 - 19:00 (7PM CDT) to 22:00 (10PM CDT)

Where:  IBM Building
        650 Third Avenue South (First Bank Place)
        Minneapolis, MN   55402

Agenda: Business Meeting
        Questions and Answers
        Vendor Presentation
                Lotus Communication Products by Greg White

                Greg White (Lotus lead OS/2 product designer) will
                present the Lotus 32 bit Workplace Shell aware
                communications.

        Member Presentation
                None (yet) scheduled.  Would you like to present?

Refreshments provided.  Door Prize:  None (yet).

Directions:  The IBM Building location is on Third Avenue South between
South Sixth Street and South Seventh Street.  IBM and First Bank share
the same building (First Bank Place).  You might ask directions when
registering.

Parking:  Several parking ramps exist.

Northstar Center :  Entrance 1:  On Seventh Street between Second Avenue
South and Marquette Avenue.  Entrance 2:  On Second Avenue South between
South Sixth and South Seventh Avenue.  One block West of IBM.

IBM/First Bank :  On Seventh Street going west between Third Avenue
South and Second Avenue South.  Parking is expensive ($6.00 plus).

Pillsbury Center :  On South Fifth Street between Third Avenue South and
Second Avenue South.  One and an half block North of IBM.

Hennepin County Govt.  Center:  On Third Avenue South between South
Fifth and Sixth Street.  One block North of IBM.  Price was $2.00, last
time I used it.

Parking Ramp Block:  The boarders of this ramp are South Sixth Street,
Fifth Avenue South, Fourth Avenue South, and Fifth Street South.  It is
one block North and two block East of IBM.


 * Origin: (1:282/115)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Os/2ers whine again
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:07:50 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <Ielk=Ym00WBNQ1bKF8@andrew.cmu.edu> fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu wrote:
> petesk@microsoft.com says
> >Did IBM write any of what is now called NT?
> >Was a considerable portion of the code for NT taken from OS/2?
> >Was any portion of the code for  NT taken from OS/2?
> > 
> >Are there any other links between the two that are useful in makeing
> >business decisions?
> > 
> >If the Name is the only thing, and you're willing to make a business
> >decision based on that, well, the advertising media must love you...
> 
> How much of NT's development was funded by IBM?
> Where could one find out these figures?

What is your definition of NT in the above statement.  I suspect
very little, if any, of the code or design that is in NT now was ever written
under contract to IBM.  And why does even that matter, btw?  Does that make
the product any different?

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: Interesting WINBENCH scores...
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 05:59:45 GMT

goyal@utdallas.edu (Mohit K. Goyal) writes:

>Here are some WINBENCH scores I got earlier today.
>The 2 Win-OS/2 scores are from the new beta of OS/2 2.0.

>Win-OS/2 v3.1 - 3,220,615
>Win-OS/2 v3.0 - 2,549,434
>Windows v3.0  - 2,644,122

>Both the the Win-OS/2 tests were run with no other programs running.

Before people go crazy analyzing these numbers, keep in mind that a lot
of benchmark programs get skewed under OS/2 because they assume they
have 100% of the processor's time.  Does anyone know how WinBench times
its benchmarks?
-- 
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)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Re: Password protected folders (Was: Re: Lost a possible NT person)
Organization: Philipps-University Marburg
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:21:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct02.171717.23461@watson.ibm.com>, cnadler@vnet.ibm.com (Cliff
Nadler) writes:
|> FYI, IBM has a package available for purchase called the RESTRICTED SHELL.
|> What this package does is create a folder class that enables password access
|> and a few other features. Call your local IBM rep (not the OS/2 numbers) to
|> get more info.
|> 
What a poor attempt to reach some sort of security. All you have to do is
boot OS/2 from diskette. This RESTRICTED SHELL is exactly as useful as some
tricky batch programming in AUTOEXEC.BAT on DOS-Systems

Christoph
-- 
Internet: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de
BITNET: HAMPE2@DMRHRZ11
Fido: 2:243/660
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6977 comp.sys.intel:1867 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:26182
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:52:24 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1911@shaman.wv.tek.com> andrew@frip.wv.tek.com writes:
>So IBM now sells tiny little PC boards, each with a single chip.
>I smell a lawsuit coming.

What would the basis for a lawsuit be? If IBM is allowed to
sell their cloned 486s as part of a board and they are doing
so, where is the problem? Is there a board size or complexity
requirement?

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Happy owner of a new Mitsubishi Expo.
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:00:17 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In <1992Oct5.172005.23380@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:

>Who doesn't have Windows?

[Raises hand]  :-)

Why should I waste money on some silly GUI?  DOS-based apps still give
better performance, even if they do have a higher learning curve.

>  You can get old versions for almost nothing at computer flea markets.

Almost nothing is still greater than nothing.  I have better things to
waste my nickels on.  :-)

>  Almost every computer you get includes it.
>I've seen some video boards come with it.

I buy computers at the component level.  And I guess I'm not buying the
"right" video boards.  :-)  Not that any of this is an issue--I already
have OS/2, so I can't think of *any* reason why I would want Windoze...

It's really sad to me that Apple, one of the pioneers in creating a
CONSISTENT user interface (something that they were starting on back in
the Apple II days) got confused, and started to think that it was the
graphical aspect of their interface which made it so good.  Consistency
is the key, not graphics.  Even worse, MS (along with others) fell into
the same trap, and made a truly lame graphical shell in the hopes that
this would magically solve all user interface problems.
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bill@snoopy (Bill Poitras)
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Reply-To: bill@msi.com
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 23:00:58 GMT

Brian Sturgill (brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu) wrote:
: You're telling me that it does not matter to the end user how buggy
: the product is?  OS/2 2.0's current design is a conglomeration
: of OS/2 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 code with rewrites of significant
: portions glued together under incredible time pressure.
: This is not a design, it's a hack.
: Every time you add a new feature to a hack, you introduce new and glorious
: bugs... I hope you enjoy CSD installation.

Where did you get the information was a "conglomeration of OS/2 1.0, 1.1,
1.2, and 1.3 code with rewrites of significant portions glued together" ?
According to _The Design of OS/2_ OS/2 2.0 was a redesign.  Any OS/2 1.x
code used was either for drivers or compatibility code.

--
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Bill Poitras    | Molecular Simulations Inc.    | Tel (408)522-9229       |
| (bill)          | Sunnyvale, CA USA             |                         | 
|                 | FAX (408)732-0831             | bill@msi.com            |
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: NT people deserve a home too..but for how long??
Date: 04 Oct 92 01:21:58 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct2.145005.15945@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (m.l. gore) writes:
>
>    People like Brian (I do not mean to single you out, but you are quite
>    active), have a great knowledge for NT, and should be respected for
>    clearing up rumours about the OS. Unfortunately, sometimes their opinions
>    are extremely BIASED (sp?), and that is what is not needed around here.
>
      I almost hate to ask this, but what do you think .advocacy groups
are for, if not for bias?
      Historically speaking, .advocacy groups are created to separate
the flames out from the newsgroups that actually have some signal
in them.

				-Phil

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6855 comp.sys.intel:1848 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:26063
From: peter@global.hacktic.nl (Peter Busser)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 22:38:47 GMT
Organization: Global Village 1

doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor) writes:

>IBM is selling it's own 80386-compatable and Intel486(R)-compatable chips
>to some Asian manufacturers.

No, IBM can't do that since IBM signed a contract with Intel that it would only
use it's 386's IBM's own products. So IBM can't sell the 386 chips, but it can
sell motherboards and systems with it's own 386.

>AMD sells 386-compatable chips, and Cyrix
>sells some chips that are close to an Intel486 (smaller cache).

Don't let the number 486 fool you, the Cyrix 486 is a 386.5 and not a real
486. There are more differences than cache size!

>So what is it Intel has a monopoly on ?  Nothing. Intel just makes the
>best, fastest implementations of the "386" architecture, not the only ones.

The best? The fastest? Hmmm, 1st, AMD has CMOS 386's, Intel hasn't. A CMOS chip
draws less current which is good for notbooks. Also, lower power consumption
means a longer lifetime. Second, the Cyrix 386's use less cycles on some
instructions than the Intel 386 so the Intel 386 isn't the fastest. Only 486's
are better (i.e. faster) than the others (except of course for laptops).

Conclusion: Intel doesn't make the best and fastest implementation of the 386
architecture, unless you specifically talk about the 486.

Greetings,
Peter Busser
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ian's Outlook on OS'es
From: Spartacus At Cuny <I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Saturday, 26 Sep 1992 22:09:48 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <279@mindlink.bc.ca>, Ian_Upright@mindlink.bc.ca (Ian Upright) says:
>
>Ian's outlook on OS'es and OS/2:
>

   Well said.  Good Post.  Some minor disagreements...
however I agree with most of it.

-------
------------------------------+      All The Best,
Reply To:                     |
                              |      Edward Galarza,
     I18BC@CunyVM.Cuny.Edu    |      Brooklyn College Of The
     I18BC@CunyVM.BitNet      |      City University Of New York
------------------------------+      "Que viva el OS/2!"