HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 22:17:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.054449.28590@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <1i5tblINN694@tamsun.tamu.edu> bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
>
>	DOS6 will probably not be the barnstormer that DOS5 was, simply
>	because DOS5 is more than good enough for most of the people
>	out there running DOS.  People running Windows don't need
>	to worry about most of the things dos6 offers (other than
>	disk compression), as memory management is pretty much irrelaventr
>	(and Windows seems to deliver better DOS window sizes than I ever
>	got with Desqview, and both pale next to my tweaked OS/2).  
>

That's true. The only thing that would keep many people in the DOS
market and let them throw away 5.0 is multi-tasking. Well, they
have OS/2 2.x... Reason enough.

>	DRDOS has been long rumored to be working on a protected 
>	multitasking version of DRDOS for general release that isn't
>	plagued by the incompatibilites that DR's earlier efforts
>	in that field had.  They've also ben rumored (Novell, now,
>	I guess) to be working on a Windows clone.  (Although, if 
>	"Viewmax" is to DOS5's shell that DRWindows is to Windows,
>	MS hasn't got a worry in the world).  
>

That little goodie will never fly. It is my understanding it grew
out of a hissy fit Ray Noorda threw after not getting his way with
Bill Gates, (as if most people can get their way with him). :)

Let's face it. If they want to reverse engineer Windows. Great. Let
them go for it. But, what can Novell offer in WIndows that
Microsoft can not ? Netware ? That's an amusing thought, IPX an
improvement over TCP/IP :):). True multi-tasking ? Better thread
protection ?. 

I think the answer is spelled 'O' 'S' '2'....


>	I suspect neither of these are true.  Novell would probably 
>	be happy to rid itself of the licencing and support headaches
>	and just concentrate on it's new UNIX toy.
>
>-- 

Novell does not even recognize UNIX as an OS. That's why they want
to gut unix and place it into Netware rather than the other way
around.


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 04:58:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.222359.25528@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:

>I just wanted to point out that that isn't true and that
>there are other means of driving someone else out of business.
>The large company could also decide to skip making profit for a while
>until the competition died. The small company on the other hand can not
>afford such a practice, so, even if they are equally efficient and
>maybe even of equal quality, the small company would still die on
>account of the others hugeness. (Note: this is no reference to any
>existing or past situation whatsoever)

Not so simple. Hughness is not necessarily an asset, it may be a 
liability as well, when it comes to compete with a small company. 

If a company has a monopoly, its sales volume is huge
compared to the small company. If the monoply has to reduce prices
because of a small company, it must do it on this whole huge volume 
of sales. This means a hugh loss. What it means is that if one or
few small companies manage to make make few such "guerrila attacks",
they may drive the monopolistic company out of business quite
easily. 


>Erik
>-- 
>Erik van Linstee   |   Delft University of Technology   |   I'll be back ... 
>----
>   We are god, 'cause only we can create the idea of his existence
>   in our holy brains...  (Yello)

Dov

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11111 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3517
From: palmer@pcatsc.UUCP (Doug Palmer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Summary: Helzerman still lost.
Date: 29 Dec 92 13:50:34 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: United States Courts (pcatsc)

In article <1992Dec29.010935.2947@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec24.175117.12752@pcatsc.UUCP>, palmer@pcatsc.UUCP (Doug Palmer) writes:
>
>|> You are *completely* missing the point. It's not the hardware vendors
>|> who are adversely affected by MicroSoft's predatory practices, but the
>|> competitor OS vendors. In effect, when MicroSoft enters into an agreement
>|> to tie royalty payments to units sold, they are forcing the hardware
>|> vendor to add the price of DOS/Windows to any other bundled operating
>|> system. This is an "unfair" practice in re the OS vendor, not the
>|> hardware vendor. They have effectively increased the cost of all other
>|> operating systems. That's illegal.
>
>Let me get this straight--Microsoft is offering really good deals to 
>hardware vendors.  Those deals are so good, that hardware vendors don't
>typically don't want to buy from anyone but Microsoft.  The FTC would be
>perfectly happy if Microsoft was offering _bad_ deals to hardware vendors.
>
>In other words, good deals, BAD.
>                 bad deals, GOOD.
>
>I think I understand now.

You're still lost.

Let me try to put it in a way you might understand:

	You propose an "agreement" with your girlfriend that you may
	date other women. She agrees just so long as she can accompany
	you on any such dates.

	You may not mind -- but is it fair to the other girls? Better
	yet -- is it fair that the other girls get the reputation of 
	dating some guy and his "other girl" and have no choice about
	going out on the date in the first place?

The problem here isn't that the hardware vendors "typically don't want
to buy from anyone but Microsoft." It's that MicroSoft enters into 
agreements which force the vendor to charge more to people who request
competetors products than those products would normally cost.




-- 

United States Courts                                         Doug Palmer
Automated Training & Support Center
7550 IH10 West, Suite 1100                     spatsc!palmer@spao.ao.gov
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Can anyone recommend a GO
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 13:45:56 GMT

In <3373.942.uupcb@almac.co.uk> mike.dickson@almac.co.uk (Mike Dickson) writes:

>JF..Anyone happy with windows will never be happy with os2 because their
>JF..satisfaction level is low;

>Can't really disagree with that. However, what's irritating is some
>people's insistence in comparing a glorified DOS menu/front end like
>Windoze 3.1 with a real-life Operating System like OS/2.

And here we go again.  Afer your description of what Windows is,
perhaps you should just describe OS/2 as 'god' (note the small 'g' --
we must be humble here)?

>JF..2 win comm programs, neither of which are good. Does anyone know of a good
>JF..os2 32 bit program? I'd appreciate knowing of a good one.  Thanks

>Well I don't know about 32 bit but have a look at TE/2 - it isn't exactly
>bursting with features but it works.

Now THERE is a glowing recommendation.  Gee, an OS/2 program that
works.  The way you say it, it sounds like you think that that's
unusual. 

-- 
"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
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:00:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.225225.7080@gw.wmich.edu>, x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
|> In article <1992Dec29.015526.3909@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> > In article <1992Dec27.191705.7069@gw.wmich.edu>, x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
|> > 
|> > |> 	Let's go with your logic and say that Standard Oil was not
|> > |> a monopoly.  Let's say it existed today and only controlled 60% of the
|> > |> market.  60% of a multitrillion dollar market is frightening.  
|> > 
|> > What's so frightening about that?  As long as no one is forcing people
|> > at gunpoint to buy their products, they could be put out of business
|> > overnight by their customers.  
|> > 
|> 	Because when someone dominates to such an extent, people buy it
|> because it is name brand.  AT&T was the same thing, other copanies could
|> have been started up but it was extremely difficult.

AT & T was only a monopoly because it was illegal to compete against them.
The second that it was legal to compete other long-distance carriers sprang
up and AT & T has been losing market share ever since.

|> 	Key word, voluntary.  PC manufacturers are pretty much forced to
|> include DOS and windows with their comptuers or face paying much higher prices.
|> Do you really think that Ms-DOS is cheaper by itself wholesale than Dr Dos?
|> Dr Dos at wholesale costs about $29 to MS-DOs's $34 (for our company), however
|> many customers want Windows.  But look out, Microsoft will give you a
|> special deal on Windows if you put ms-Dos and Windows on EVERY machine you
|> make.  

I don't certainly don't like it, and you don't like it, but that doesn't mean
that it is "wrong" in a moral sense.  I've used this analogy before, but
McDonalds does the same thing to their francizess--you get a discount on
beef if you only sell McBurgers.  There's nothing "wrong" with that sort of
agreement.

|> The result, you can't give the customer a choice of OS's like they
|> should.  Who's going to pay an extra $40 for Dr. DOS when MS-DOs comes
|> with the computer free?  This is wrong.

That's like saying that just because McDonalds gives their franchisess a
discount on beef that the customer is forced into only buying McBurgers
for lunch.  Not at all--you can go to Wendy's or the Colonel if you
want something different, and you can go to Dell or to IBM if you want
OS/2 preinstalled.  The computer consumer in our society has no lack of
options.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: d89-zke@dront.nada.kth.se (Zoltan Kelemen)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:49:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.202150.818@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>
>First of all Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on OS's.  If you want to
>run DOS programs and you don't want to go to Microsoft you can buy
>DR DOS from digital research.
>

Well, the problem is that I, as a customer, don't see the alternatives
to MS Windows or DOS when buying a computer. Why? Because almost every
system is bundled with Windows. How on earth could I make a fair price
comparison with other products, when I get Windows "free" (its price is
hidden as a part of the system).

The bundling of Windows was the key to its success. Back in 1990,
Microsoft started a broad attack by selling Windows 3.0 preinstalled
with many systems. That's why I am having a hard time to believe
Microsoft's statement "We were suprised by the popularity of Windows
3.0". Why were they surprised when they gave it away with virtually
every computer sold?

Zoltan
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11165 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3534
From: chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 29 Dec 1992 23:33:12 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu


Twould seem that microsoft has unleashed their net.propoganda division on
us.  
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.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, 22 Dec 1992 17:16:18 GMT

In article <1h7gj1INNitc@cae.cad.gatech.edu>, chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen) writes:

|> I disagree.  If MS is "smashed"  (somehow I doubt that it will be), then
|> Developers might panic thinking that "the end of windows" has arrived,
|> fearing that future versions (if any) won't cut it, and that those future
|> versions would show the effects of a smash.

Wait....the entire reason that the FTC is doing this is to make it easier
for other companies to develop for MS Windows.  If the FTC action 
accomplishes what it is supposed to, then everybody will feel more comfortable
developing for MS Windows and therefore any competing operating system
will be that much more disadvantaged.
From: os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Truth in advertising (Was: More advertising)
Date: 31 Dec 92 19:18:54 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Dec31.141622.6280@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>	Well, let's hear it for IBM Finland! 

>	<Doesn't change the situation in America and elsewhere
>	though.  .. Maybe a letter to IBM saying how great the
>	finland ad/packaging is would get the point across...>

I doubt it.  *Many* people both inside and outside IBM screamed about how poor
IBM's advertising for OS/2 is and we all see how much that helped.

Also, please note the subject line change; this is to avoid confusion with
what the original thread's purpose is.

Cheers,
Q
-- 
"If you choose not to decide, you  | "My other body is in the shop" - seen
 still have made a choice" - Rush  |  on a T-shirt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: des@inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 10:54:49 GMT

Peter Mayne (pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com) wrote:


: So those (American) people who think the FTC is morally correct because
: it has the law on its side are presumably still rankled by such illegal
: activities as the Boston Tea Party, which was a protest against laws
: that were obviously moral because they existed.

hear, hear! ... give us back our colonies :-)

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
david shepherd: des@inmos.co.uk                     tel: 0454-616616 x 625
                inmos ltd, 1000 aztec west, almondsbury, bristol, bs12 4sq
                1992: celebrate the quincentenary of columbus getting lost
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, 29 Dec 1992 19:28:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.050817.29522@actrix.gen.nz>, Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
|> > Abraham Lincoln said it best:  "You can't strengthen the weak by weakening the
|> > strong."
|> 
|> I think this quote is out of context.....
|>  
|> In this situation, I would state the matter in this way....:
|>  
|> "When the strong cease to protect the weak, the weak must be protected from the
|> strong." Steve Withers 1992.

I'll agree with this quote--but notice that it doesn't imply that the only way,
or even the best way, to protect the weak from the strong is to make the 
strong weak.  

|> Now since it never was Microsoft's job to protect its competitors......someone
|> else (the FTC? of DOJ?) has to keep MS from competing so well that it is
|> uneconomic for anyone to compete with them.

Well I just hope you're singing the same song when the FTC has reduced the 
competitiveness of Microsoft to the point where it can no longer compete
against Japanese software companies.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: More advertising
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 30 Dec 1992 18:07 EST  

In article <1992Dec29.181546.1151@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu 
(Yamanari) writes...
>In article <8230@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) 
writes:
>>In article <1992Dec29.155440.23938@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu 
(Yamanari) writes:
>>>>"With an operating system that can run all of your DOS, Windows, and OS/2
>>>					^^^
>>>	Pull this word.
>>
>>You're being unnecessarily pedantic - there's NO OS that meets the criterion
>>you're holding OS/2 up to.

>	So we're agreed that using the word "all" is a lie, right?  So
>	*pull the word*.

Okay, we'll pull the word "all".  How's this sound as a replacement:

	...with an operating system that runs more DOS programs than MS DOS 5,
	more Windows programs than Windows 3.1, and all OS/2 programs.

Is this better?
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 23 Dec 92 03:22:35 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Dec22.114010.23265@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, helz@ecn.purdue.edu (R
andall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.011646.3918@unvax.union.edu>, pallantj@unvax.union.edu (J
oseph C. Pallante) writes:
>
>|> The day that a couple hundred software writers in Russia or India can
>|> produce an OS like OS/2....  Is the day that BG becomes humble.
>
>My friend have you ever sat in a software class and tried to compete with
>the best and brightest students from India?  I have and let me tell you
>I have nothing but the highest regard for the kind of talent that
>India can put together.

Yes and I do just fine thank you.  Your place of national origin has little to
do with your intelligence.  I'm sorry about the arrogance, but saying that
just because someone is from another country means that they are somehow
better than you, really offends me.

>
>They've got over 700 _million_ people--it stands to reason that they've got
>over twice the number of potential great programmers that we do.

Potential is the key word.  Potential that will never be reached in the vast
majority if cases.  Think about their culture, most of the people in India
will not be computer programmers or have any job with similair status.  Sure
they may potentially be a great programmer, but that doesn't mean that they
will ever get the oppourtunity.  Unfortunate but true.

>
>To think that we can blindly bash our best software companies into the
>ground and still be number one in software is about the most extreme
>form of cultural egocentrism than I can imagine.  Wake up and smell the
>coffee!
>

Ego?  This has nothing to do with ego.  The goal of this is so that American
companies (plural) might *better* compete with each other as well as the world
market.  Giving one company an overwhelming dominance in this industry would
be the most anti competitive thing we could possibly do.

-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Subject: ms to 'support' os/2?
Reply-To: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: comp
Date: 4 Jan 93 00:31:22 EST

In message <1992Dec29.174203.9145#bas-a.bcc.ac.uk>, ucgadkw@ucl.ac.uk
(Dominik Wujastyk) writes:

DW>I'm pretty certain MS Word 5.5 doesn't support HPFS under OS/2, since
DW>it is *really* an OS/2 1.x program, and I believe HPFS only came in
DW>with 2.0. (Perhaps I'm wrong about that?)

Word 5.5 is a family mode application, meaning it runs under both OS/2
(16 bit) and DOS. There is therefore no native HPFS support, since HPFS
doesn't exist under DOS, but of course Word can still access HPFS drives
as long as the files follow FAT naming rules.

HPFS was introduced with OS/2 v1.2, back in late 1988 or so.

----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.com
Software Consulting and Gator Pit | Eradicate Hunger - Eat the homeless
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
---
  SLMR 2.1a  Wanna Be a Psychopath? Read Dianetics. Or ZMODEM.DOC.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak)
Subject: Information Week: OS/2, one of 1992's Top Products
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Mitre Corporation
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 21:50:14 GMT

From Dec. 21 of information week [copied without permission]

Article titled: 1992's Top Products and Services

The 10 Most Likely To Succeed

OS/2 2.0

After years of delays and feuds with co-developer Microsoft Corp., IBM
finally shipped its 32-bit operating system.  It was well worth the wait. 
OS/2 2.0 is both revolutionary -- as the first 32-bit, Intel-based system
-- and versatile in its ability to run multiplatform applications for DOS,
Windows, and OS/2.  Processing 32 bits of data at a time improces
multitasking functions and reduces system crashes compared with Microsoft's
DOS or Windows.  For instance, portable computer users of OS/2 2.0 can send
a DOS file by modem to their home offices in one window while
simultaneously writing a letter in a Windows word processor.  The OS/2
model will likely become a standard in corporate computing where such
advances in flexibility and mission-critical platfroms are imperative for
users.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: sstern@jmb2.jmb.com (Steven D. Stern)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: JMB Realty Corporation
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:29:09 GMT

It's been said in this thread, over and over again, that MS enjoys some
advantange due to it's dual role as an app- and OS-developer.  However,
I received the Win 3.1 beta SDK probably about the same time the apps
group did at MS (and I don't believe the one they got was any less buggy).

MS is able to control the Windows app market because, from Bill G. on down, they
believed in it and put all their effort into developing for it.  Their app
developers may have been able to talk to the Win developers in the hallways,
but I was given excellent access to the on Compuserve.  Any developer that
didn't have a Winapp ready to ship the day MS shipped Windows itself
had only him/her self to blame.

--
 +-------------------------+---------------------------------+ 
 | Steven Stern            | "Bones, quick, over here!"      |
 | sstern@jmb2.jmb.com     | "He's dead, Jim."               |
 | 70327.135@compuserve.com|                                 |
 +-------------------------+---------------------------------+

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy