HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: NT Destined to Succeed??
Date: 06 Jan 93 22:32:36 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1993Jan5.234912.7841@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan05.075016.28032@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan5.040741.27996@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>
>>>I don't remember Steve trying to make any sweeping statements about
>>>NT.  Part of what he said was with slightly less than 8 megs of memory,
>>>NT refused to boot and with 8 megs he managed to boot up NT but its
>>>performance was too bad.  I don't find any FUD in these lines.  Because
>>>his observations were so in direct contradiction to some of the posts
>>>from NT advocates including Brian Sturgill, I found his experiment
>>>very interesting.  It was not definitely a FUD.  Is reporting personal
>>>experiences spreading FUD?
>>
>>    Steve made several statements such as (paraphrased, as the
>>originals have expired - Steve can correct me if he objects to
>>this portrayal) "NT just doesn't run in 8 megs."  This is a
>                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Why is it so much troublesome for you?

     Because it's false.  Windows NT _does_ run in 8 megs - it
just didn't do so for Steve when he tried it.


>  This statement is an
>overgeneralization from a personal experience, and within a proper
>context it might not sound as blatant as might sound out of context.

     It is certainly an overgeneralization - this is why I objected
to it.


>If his own personal experience was such that NT didn't run with
>8 megs of memory, the above statement is not *false* and certainly
>not *blatantly false* as you think.

    Of course it is false.  All it takes is one counterexample.
I've _seen_ Windows NT running in 8MB.

				-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: kab@s1.gov (Keith Benton)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Reply-To: kab@s1.gov
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:56:15 GMT

In article 2327@ccsvax.sfasu.edu, z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu () writes:
>In article <1993Jan04.184238.2124@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>> In article <79005@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt0449a@prism.gatech.EDU (Rob Coleman) writes:
>>>Immediately upon trying to install Dos 6.0, the install program says:
>>>
>>>"An OS/2 partition has been detected.  The OS/2 partition will not be
>>>available under MSDOS 6.0."
>>>
>>>Not at all threatening; just informative.
>> 
>>      Hmm... that bears little enough resemblence to the original
>> message posted here that I wonder if there might be _another_
>> message that shows up.
>>      But yes, I don't see how anyone could complain about that one.
>> 
>> 				-Phil
>
>	No Phil, You are right, the above text is non threatening.  As
>I stated earlier, the Beta tester did in fact say it said he may wish to delete
>OS/2.
>
>	If his report is not accurate, and the above statement is the only one
>that is given, then there is nothing wrong with it. If that is the case then
>I conceed. I am not an approved MS Beta Site, so I don't have access to the
>Beta.
>
>Michael Kupka

So you take the word of a beta tester, who might or might not be wrong
but right now looks to be wrong, and start flaming away at MS. Lets see
there was talk of sending the code to the FTC and breaking up MS, and
all other sorts of ranting and raving, on the word of said beta tester.
I can see it now " Oboy heres something else we can bash MS on pant, pant."
How about saying your sorry and that you promise to hold off on the 
flamethrower trigger until you get your facts straight. That includes
all the other O/S 2 fans who jumped on this thread because they could
take a swing at MS.
Just the way I see it.
			Keith


---
	---------------------------------------------------------
	|             Keith Benton: kab@s1.gov                  |
	| ME!?!? Speak for anyone here!?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA |
	|             Standard Disclaimers apply                |
	---------------------------------------------------------
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT Destined to Succeed??
Date: 5 Jan 93 09:48:05 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.

In article <1993Jan4.111435.685@actrix.gen.nz>, Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
|> The only thing misconfigured about my  NT-crashes-constantly
|> "FUD" was your brain. NT was installed on virtually identical systems and no
|> mods were made by manual means. But it ran poorly and spent the rest of the
|> time falling over.

Steve, your evaluation of NT would carry more weight if you appeared serious
about trying NT, rather than simply booting it on a couple of machines and
then giving up. If you made no mods to the installed system, it's not
surprising that it didn't run optimally. How well did the OS/2 Beta run
without any manual mods? Why didn't you ask for some help on the appropriate
newsgroup before flaming NT on this one?

Out of interest, did NT crash constantly on the original machine, the one it
was installed on?  If so, you can't expect it to run OK on yours. If not, you
can't claim that the two machines are identical.

|> If you are going to call me a liar, fine. But I get to say I'm no liar and
|> that I don't like you calling me one in a public forum. I don't for a moment
|> expect you to be big enough to apologise......but you do owe me one.

I don't think you are being accused of lying. You are being accused of making
a half-hearted attempt to try NT (you didn't even install it yourself) and
then spreading tales on this group about how awful it is. OS/2 haters were
rightly criticised for doing this when OS/2 first came out.

|> You refuse to believe anything bad about NT and ignore it. Then, since all
|> the bad things have been ruled out of order.....NT must be great! 

There are plenty of bad things about NT. But constant crashes is not one of
them, on the vast majority of systems used by Beta testers.
From: ucgadkw@ucl.ac.uk (Dominik Wujastyk)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 in 4 megs. Useable.
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:52:41 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

kovarski@zooid.guild.org (Mark Kovarski) writes:

>x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>>4 megs with the Workplace shell is useless...

I would go further and disagree with the above.  When I first got
OS/2 I installed it on a Dell 325p with 4meg memory and a 200meg hard
disk.  It was a bit slow, but really not too bad.  It all depends
on your personal tolerances and thresholds. :-)  I didn't use the WPS
to manipulate files: using the C: drive icon was - I admit - a pain,
but it still is with 8 meg.  I used Xtree in a DOS window, which
worked fine, as usual.  For launching stuff WPS was fine with 4 meg.
And after all, you only use WPS for launching, and you spend most
time in applications which work as normal.

Dominik
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ashing@shell.portal.com (Al K Shing)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Portal Communications Company -- 408/973-9111 (voice) 408/973-8091 (data)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 09:51:44 GMT


>I'm happy with MS, they've never screwed me over as badly as the UNIX
>vendors have. You think $50 is bad for DOS, try buying a 'complete' UNIX
>

SCO wants to charge me $100 to convert 5.25 inch diskettes to 3.5 inch 
simply because I didn't get possession of the software until after 30 days
after purchase.  The software had been sitting in a warehouse, and had
never been used - all manuals and diskettes are still sealed.

OTOH, MS has sent me free upgrades to software without even asking for
proof of purchase of any kind.

Al Shing
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 4 Jan 1993 16:17:48 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan04.042648.11136@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <8290@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>Tell that to Hitachi Data Systems and Amdahl; they produce 100% System/370
>>compatible mainframes from nothing more than the published functional specs
>>(primarily, the System/370 Principles of Operation series).
>    Until someone discovers a difference.

Have you ever dealt with S/370 compatible systems? I have, and my institution
is in the process of letting bids for an acquisition that may result in our
acquiring one. I was involved with writing the RFP, and will be involved with
evaluating the bids; as lead MVS systems programmer, I will be in charge of
installing and maintaining the OS that the machine will run. Part of the bid
specs are that the system run ALL S/370 binaries with no alterations or
additions. I fully expect that HDS and Amdahl will submit bids. I've spoken to
more HDS and Amdahl customers than I care to think about, and not a single
blessed one of them has reported the slightest incompatibility. 

In short, you don't know what you're talking about. The machines _are_
completely, absolutely, positively, overnight, 100% compatible.

>>The only reason DR-DOS doesn't meet them exactly, in your view, is that there
>>are interfaces to the DOS that MS uses that aren't published.
>     Here's a question for you:  Why is Microsoft responsible for
>publishing _all_ of the interfaces to MS-DOS?

Because it's the right thing to do? Naw; after all, MS has never done that
just because it's the right thing to do...
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of all Fears_
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: The Cyrix Issue...
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:41:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.233443.7189@gw.wmich.edu> x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.023720.22106@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>	What we have here is a basic disagreement.  I have read in numerous
>articles that the Cyrix 486 chip is exactly what was said above:
>a 386sx with a 2K onchip cache and  a few extra instructions that
>are math related.  It is NOT a 486 class processor (in terms of
>compatibility).


	The Cyrix chips _are_ 486 chips.  They have ALL of the 486 
	instructions (bswap, etc).  

	The differences between the 486SX and the 486SLC/DLC are:
	
	1.  The 486 has an 8k cache, the Cyrix chips have a _1_k cache.
		(not a 2k cache)
	2.  The 486 uses the 486 pinout, the Cyrix chips are drop in
	replacements for 386DX (DLC) and 386SX (SLC) chips.
	3.  the 486 has a built in FPU.  The Cyrix chips implement the
	FPU externally, in the FastMath coprocessor.

	Obviously, none of the above differences have anything to do with
	compatibility with a 486SX or DX (if you add the coprocessor).  they
	will result in performance differences, nothing more.

	If these are not "486 class processors" it is strictly a matter
	of performance, NOT compatibility.  

-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:55:03 GMT

In article <8325@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

|> Ah, but, in that case, the customer doesn't care what screws are being used;
|> as long as the product is held together, it makes no difference to him. In
|> contrast to that, I _do_ care which OS comes on my machine (after all, this is
|> the whole purpose of this exercise), and, I presume, others would care that
|> their machine comes with DOS and Windows (though the reason completely escapes
|> me).

Surely you're not saying that a company can do anything it likes as long
as you can't see it?
From: melin@hlrz24.hlrz.kfa-juelich.de (Stephan Melin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: How many Nobel Prizes has IBM won?
Date: 5 Jan 93 09:55:10 GMT
Organization: Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH (KFA), Germany

In article <1993Jan5.020754.2330@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
[stuff deleted]
|> I believe, IBM Won one for the Scanning Tunneling Microscope.
|> Was it in Medicine???

No, it was in physics.

[stuff deleted]

Two researchers from the IBM Research Centre in Switzerland have
also won a Noble Price in physics for the discovery of HTC (high 
temperature superconductors) some years ago.

Best regards

-- 
Stephan Melin

melin@hlrserv.hlrz.kfa-juelich.de   ||    hkf418@djukfa11.bitnet

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak)
Subject: Re: SGI-GL in Windows NT??
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Mitre Corporation
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:53:53 GMT

In article <dlcogswe.726380388@vela>, dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan
Cogswell) wrote:
> 
> A guy I work with told me today the Microsoft has bought the rights to
> include SGI-GL with Windows NT and will be including it in an upcoming
> release!  This is quite an  advantage over OS/2 and brings NT to
> workstation level, in my opinion.  If NT will have GL standard, I will
> most likely be switching over from OS/2.
> 
What's the big deal?  IBM has had a license for GL for quite a few years. 
They bought this license for the RS/6000.  If GL becomes that big a deal, I
am sure it could be put into OS/2 also.

BTW, where did you come up with the notion that GL is a standard.  GL
happens to be a very popular rendering language mainly because SGI controls
a large part of the graphics market.  However, it is far from an official
standard.  In fact, there is a fair number of people who do high
performance graphics who don't like the GL rendering model.  The GL
rendering model is great for rendering but animating a rendered object is
difficult to do efficiently with GL.

> I'm pretty shocked. 

Why?  GL provides high-powered graphics on an SGI because there is HARDWARE
support for it.  Since NT is an OS, GL will be yet another way to render
images under NT.  Maybe it will form the basis of NT's 3D rendering API but
it won't provide for fast graphics unless hardware support for GL is also
available.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:51:52 GMT

discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
[....]
: I didn't like the fact that almost over half the populace of the U.S.
: voted *against* Bill Clinton, yet he will be our president.  

Welcome to 3-way politics!
: 
: In paradise, I assume, everybody can be happy... but in the real world,
: there are going to be some people that get what they want and some people
: that don't.  Luckily (or unluckily as the case is) some countries like the
: U.S. let the MAJORITY make the decision about how things will go--and the
: MINORITY have to take it (or convince the populace at large that their
: way is better).  


Actually this is not strictly true; most democracies have some sort of
built in safeguards against the 'tyranny of the majority' - e.g. laws
against discrimination based on race, creed, colour, sexual
orientation etc. which would be entirely OK if the majority of
'normal' people (whatever the hell *that* might mean) had their way.

: This is true in politics and MARKETING.  If the majority
: of people want product A, product A should succeed.

But not necessarily at the expense of product B (and C...)

: 
: At this time, the majority of computer users WANT MS-DOS... over 80% in
: fact.  And Microsoft Windows has been in the top ten list for over 84 weeks
: (Merisel figures).  If a vendor wishes to maximize his profits, he addresses
: the MAJORITY market... I'm sorry that you don't "like" it, but that's the
: way it is.

'The public wants what the public gets' (Paul Weller)

--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT Destined to Succeed??
Date: 4 Jan 1993 16:34:00 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1i7t8tINNr91@shelley.u.washington.edu> robs@hardy.u.washington.edu (Robert Suh) writes:
>Well, Windows/NT does not 'lack a user base', as you put it.  Windows NT will
>run almost every Windows 3.1 app out there.

I don't know why people keep saying this; MS certainly isn't. All they'll
guarantee is the top 100 Windows apps. If you're running something else, and
it breaks on NT, you're SOL.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of all Fears_
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: caliaro@avalon.physik.unizh.ch (Aurelio Caliaro)
Subject: Re: Best Hardware for OS2
Organization: University of Zurich, Department of Computer Science
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 08:40:44 GMT

Michael Courtney (michael@amo.mit.edu) wrote:

: 	I am preparing to buy a 486DX2-66 system with 8 or 16 Meg RAM
: and a big hard disk, SVGA and the works.  I would like to have as 
: little difficulty as possible in running OS2 2.x.  I do not mind spending
: some time setting the system up and configuring everything properly, 
: but I want a system that will hardly ever (once a month at most) crash
: once I have it configured properly.  Is it likely that I can accomplish
: this on a non-IBM system such as Gateway 2000 or Zeos?  Is this even
: possible on the IBM PSValuepoint system?  How much of an advantage
: does IBM hardware have when running OS2?
: 	Is crashing only once a month too much to ask of OS2?  Is Unix
: what I really want?  
: 	Thanks in advance for your suggestions.

Well... I do not think Unix is what you want :-) There is a 386/40 here that
runs with Unix, and it crashes at least 2 or 3 times a day :-)))))
With OS/2 I crash mostly once a day, and in many months I had just one crash
that is NOT related to a full HD (I have a very small HD). This problem should
not appear if your HD is -l-a-r-g-e-, so OS/2 is what you need :-).


          Aurelio Caliaro
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jahonen@cs.joensuu.fi (Jarmo Ahonen)
Subject: Re: I can get something done with OS/2, thanks IBM. 
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 12:18:27 GMT

jake@nora.dei.unipd.it (Luca Polo) writes:

>>4) Useful file-protection system. The method to use extended attributes
>>   to set the "read-only" bit on is primitive and I do not like it at all.
>>   It would nice to stop myself from accidentaly doing something nasty :-).
>I agree twice! (and more)
>while I was impressed for OS/2 capabilities , I was not happy to see the
>same DOS-like unregarding for file protection: it is not an impossible
>task for OS/2 developers to add a two levels protection system to OS/2:
>just a "user level" and a "supervisor level", with a password to obtain
>supervisor privileges, and the concept of "owner" of a file.
>This little add would make the tasks of a system manager quite easier:
>a lot less of worries for users who "accidentally" trash the system or
>delete programs...

True. In our environment this is, actually, a major issue. Our PC people
do not like the idea of reconfiguring/reinstalling 21+ diskette OS/2:s
every time a more than required active student f*s up a PC in the PC class.
It might even be enough to include an EA named "owned by the system" to certain
files, in which case the user could not modify them without having a proper
password. In that case program installation etc would be done as "system"
and users could do anything they can and still the system would not
be totally f*ed up like DOS+WINDOWS... Or something like that :-).

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc
From: a2509kan@cdf.toronto.edu (Damian R. Kanarek)
Subject: Re: Service pack installation question....
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:15:00 GMT

 I've got the info... thanks to all those who responded :-)

Damian

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2:520 comp.os.os2.misc:41980
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Service pack installation question....
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:53:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1993Jan11.132903.10766@tom.rz.uni-passau.de> hofstoet@vanessa.fmi.uni-passau.de (Hans Ulrich Hofstoetter) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.023919.17036@cdf.toronto.edu>, a2509kan@cdf.toronto.edu (Damian R. Kanarek) writes:
>> Hi there, all!
>> 
>>  I'm trying to obtain the service pack from hobbes for 5.25' drive....
>> I noticed that the unzipped disk files are > sizeof(5.25' disk)....
>> Am I supposed to leave those files zipped, for the installation
>> software to unzip? Help..... 

Un-zip the files to your hard drive to get *.dsk files.  Also download
and unzip the loaddskf.exe program.  Use loaddskf.exe to produce the
install disks for the service pack.

Don't worry that the .dsk files are bigger than the size of your
floppy.  They contain header information that the loaddskf.exe program
strips.  Note that these files are disk images, not program files.
They are useless until you create floppies from them.  You'll need one
floppy for each file to do this.

Once you create the SP, read the README file on disk 1 (or is it disk
0?) before doing anything.

>Where did you get the service pack from?
>Is it availible via ftp? where?

Damian got them from ftp-os2.nmsu.edu.  Look in /pub/os2/2.0/servpak
(I think).  Get the .zip files you need. there are two sets: a set of
14 files for 1.44MB floppies, and a set of 16 files for 1.2MB floppies.
-- 
  |)  David Charlap          | .signature confiscated by FBI due to
 /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu | an ongoing investigation into the
((|,)                        | source of these .signature virusses
 ~|~