HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: If things had been different... (was: FCC etc)
Date: 5 Jan 93 20:30:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: shelley.1icr5gINNgh2
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes, on why there will be a 68060 but
no 68050:
>			Exactly. Marketroids.

Actually, 68060 is the logical next number.  If the number/10 is off, the
new CPU is a major new version.  If it is even, it is not.  The 010, 008,
and 012 were not that different from the 000.  The 020 was a big step up.
The 030 basically just puts the MMU on chip.  The 040 is very different
inside.  If the next one is also totally different inside, it should be
the 060, not the 050.

[About code that used the upper 8 bits of an address, because 68000 had
 24 bit addressing]
>
>	All code that practiced this broke under the 68010.

The 010 still only had 24 bit addressing, so I don't think that broke code
that did this.  The 68012 has 30 bits of address, so code would have broke
on it.  Maybe that's what you were thinking of?

>	2.  Many SW programs used an incompatible means of accessing
>	the SR (might be wrong--I haven't thought about this in 
>	years) registers through supervisor mode.  These programs broke
>	in the transition from 68000 to 68010.

If I recall correctly, the problem was that the condition codes were in
half of the status register.  Code that wanted to set condition codes
directly did so via a move to SR.  This became priveledge on the 68010,
and a new move to CCR instruction was added for user-mode access to the
condition code half of the status register.  Thus user-mode code that
tried to directly set the condition codes would trap.

However, I seem to recall that the OS could catch this and simulate it
for the user code.  Thus, this change only broke user code if the OS didn't
want to do this.

>>(I can succesfully run a 286 protected mode UNIX on a 386 and I would 
>>expect it also to run on my 486. Try that with 68K).

Yes, 286 protected mode UNIX has significant problems on a 68K.

>
>
>	99% of the compatibility pc users are so proud of comes 
>	from the fact that we're forced to use out 486, 386 and 286 machines
>	as glorified, high-speed 8 bit 8088's.

Intel: putting the 'backward' in backward-compatibility.

--Tim Smith
From: olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bill Gates:  What a weenie...
Date: 7 Jan 93 11:03:54 GMT
	<1993Jan05.141942.25511@wes.on.ca>
	<1993Jan6.065733.11591@zooid.guild.org>
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway

Opinions are different. Mark Kovarski's postings are among those that
I usually read. He is one of the few that from time to time gives
usefull information. I do not have a "kill file", since I read News
from a News server at University of Oslo. But I get a list of all new
postings, and choose to read only a few.

There must be some people who are either hired or are volunteering as
NT salesmen. They write so much, and it is only the "Pie in the sky"
promises about NT. I will not give names, but I skip your messages.

Strangely enough, I spent much more time reading the OS/2 news-groups
when there was only a few messages each day. There was many well
informed postings by people like Larry Salomon (who is again active on
the net), Bert Moshier, Tim Sipples, Larry Margolis, Kai Uwe Rommel,
and a few others (I do not remember all the names). Now it is very
much noise, and not too much usefull information. In addition to the
names given, I usually read Steve Witherspoon, David Charlap, David
Lewine and a few others.

Olav Torvund
University of Oslo
Norway
Olavt@jus.uio.no
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft using "Force"???
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 05:45:22 GMT

In article <1ikr0dINNnj0@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
>
>In a previous article, helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) says:
>
>>I'll agree, Microsoft is offering some shitty deals.  But when Microsoft
>>says "This is my best offer--take it or leave it" the vendors are quite
>>free to take it or leave it.  
>
>          And go out of business .....

WRONG!  That's idiotic.  Many businesses turned down Microsoft's offer--and
are still in business (my company happens to be one of them).  THAT is
why I find the statement "Microsoft is forcing..." because they are NOT
forcing us to do anything--they DO make a very attractive offer... but
vendors turn down the offer all the time.

So get real.

Joe
My opinions.

>-- 


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Does IBM have an Internet email address?
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:29:52 GMT

fippen@ux2.cso.uiuc.edu (J. Fippen) writes:
>	I use os2 and love the program. If IBM had an email address, I'd
>tell them directly what I like, and don't like, about the program as I
>use it each day. Can anyone help me?
>	Thanks    John Fippen
>
>


There are several officials from IBM reading this and other conferences. I
have suggested to create a newsgroup called comp.os.os2.suggestions or
something similar. This would benefit both, the users and IBM. Is anyone in
the process of taking votes for the new newsgroups?

Best Regards,
Mark K.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Carole Patton goes OS/2
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:07:06 GMT


BBS: The Soldier's Bored OS/2  713-437-2859                             
Date: 12-11-92 (15:26)             Number: 329                          
From: JIM GILLILAND                Refer#: NONE                         
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO                           
Subj: Another OS/2 supporter         Conf: (4) Os2                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember Carole Patton?  Carole Patton wrote the "Watching Windows" 
column for PC Week.  Six months ago she was as strong a Windows 
supporter as you could find.  Today, it appears that her view has 
changed somewhat.  She's conducting a series of OS/2 conferences in 20 
cities across the US.  The following quotes came from Carole on Will 
Zachman's new Canopus forum on Compuserve:                              
                                                                        
========================================================================
                                                                        
    S6/The OS Wars                                                      
    10-Dec-92  10:58:48                                                 
    carole patton 72241,336                                             
                                                                        
Fact is, I really like OS/2. And I think it's going to dominate the 
32-bit market in '93 and '94. So, what's it to ya> (g)                  
                                                                        
Just to clarify, I think NT will be good, maybe as good (or better) than
OS/2. But I don't think Microsoft is going to have a reliable version 
out till mid '94. So the question becomes, will corporations wait for 
NT? I think not...                                                      
========================================================================
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 15:49:39 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan4.003455.13434@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>You didn't answer the question!  If the FCT rules against Microsoft and Microsoft
>offers to change its ways by becomming like McDonalds, would you be satisfied?

Sure. No supplier would go for it, and MS would fold up like a house of cheap
cards.

>I've lived in many southern Indiana towns where McDonald's has a monopoly in 
>the local fast food Market.  Do you think that McDonald's is being "sleezy"
>in those small towns by forcing them not to well Wendy's burgers? Should the 
>FTC force McDonalds in small towns to sell Kentucky Fried Chicken?

McDonalds is protecting its trademarks from dilution by preventing those who
have the rights to use them - its franchisees - from selling products that
would confuse the public. Any franchisee who were to do so would be linking
McDonalds and Wendy's in the minds of the public, and that severely damages
the value of the McD trademark suite.

>Well Microsoft doesn't have monopoly marketing power in OS's either.  The
>latest figures I hear is that OS/2 is selling at a rate of 2 million copies
>a year?  That's very stiff competition.  Unix must be selling a million copies
>a year.

Listen to the MS toadies in this group: OS/2 will never succeed against
Windows. There are a LOT of folks out there who have bought that, hook, line,
and sinker.
-- 
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,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Undocumented stuff (was: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : ))
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Organization: Techn. Univ. Clausthal
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:26:59 GMT

In <1993Jan4.174101.21073@rulway.LeidenUniv.nl> leo@rulhp2.leidenuniv.nl (L. Mekenkamp) writes:
>
>>     I honestly don't know if Intel has undocumented stuff on
>>their chips, though, so the analogy is not a very tight one.
>
>Ehhhm, Intel does seem to have some *undocumented* stuff though. Wasn't there
>an instruction around that wasn't documented? And how about NeXTSTeP not workingon the Cyrix 486 (cx486DLC & cx486SLC) ?
>
Yes, there is definitely undocumented stuff in Intel processors. Most famous
is the LOADALL instruction in the 286 (there is also a LOADALL in the 386).
This instruction allows to load all machine registers from memory with a
single two-byte instruction. When this instruction was discovered, it was
possible to put the 286 from protected mode back into real mode. Using
documented features, this was only possible via a reset. XMS-Managers
like DOS HIMEM.SYS use this instruction.

Christoph
-------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------
Christoph H. Hochstaetter, Philipps-University Marburg | Universitaetsstr. 25
Internet: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de       | D-W-3550 Marburg
Bitnet  : HOCHSTAE AT DMRHRZ11                         | Germany
Fido    : 2:243/660                                    | Phone +49-6421-28-7092
Fax     : +49-6421-28-4858                             |
From: 177wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Cyrix Issue...
Date: 11 Jan 93 22:45:49 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1993Jan11.134151.12062@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
> 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.  

	I still stand by my original post (except I agree, it is a 1K
cache, not 2K).  I have read over and over again that Cyrix's 486SLC is
only called a 486 for marketting reasons and that it is still basically
a 386sx (16bit bus, 24bit address, tec) with a few added instructions.

					-Brad



> 
> -- 
>       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: os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.)
Subject: Re: Contest: Predict how many people will IBM have
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:16:53 GMT

In <1993Jan4.063046.23655@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>This person (Stewart) in a recent issue was so upset and literally called
>IBM people idiots because of some commerical of some sort where a person
>buys a present and its OS/2. He was going on and on and on (Just like 
>Mickeysoft). He usually doesn't speak very positive about OS/2 but that's
>his right. To anyone how is interested, this is his address on the Internet:

Mark, I agree, Infoworld is not pro-OS/2 by any means, but I agree with his
conclusion about the "OS/2 present" ad - it was *STUPID*.

Sometimes I think the analogy about the pool table and the operating system
war is better applied to IBM's advertisements:  occassionally they pocket
a good one, but usually they miscue.  :-/

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft and Force continued.
Date: 12 Jan 93 23:02:22 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1993Jan13.000806.27200@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
> In article <1993Jan10.233019.7187@gw.wmich.edu>, x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
> 
> |> 	One of the newer packages that MS is shelling out is Windows
> |> for Workgroups/DOS 5 for $6.  
> |> 
> |> 	In the card industry, that is called "dumping" and is illegal.
> 
> If by "dumping" you mean selling below cost then this isn't dumping.  The
> difference between the card industry and the software industry is that 
> costs a lot more money to build a card than it does to rearrange magnetic
> domains on a disk.
> 
> Even at 10 cents a copy you'd be hard pressed to consider what Microsoft
> is doing "dumping".

	I am sure I won't be the only one to mention this but there are
a lot more costs in software than copying floppies.  A lot of ManYears went
into the making of Windows 3.1.  Those Cs guys have to be paid with something.
The packaging, manuals, shipping, advertising, development come out to be
well over $6 per unit.  It is in every sense, dumping.

							-Brad


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Microsoft and Force continued.
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:03:34 GMT

In article <726695336rommel.root@jonas.gold.sub.org>, rommel@jonas.gold.sub.org (Kai Uwe Rommel) writes:
|> >|> The game store is not owned by Nintendo and the computer sellers are
|> >|> not owned by Microsoft. But then, even Mercedes Benz dealers sell used
|> >|> BMW and VW cars and vice versa.
|> >
|> >A McDonald's restraunt isn't owned by McDonald's either.
|> 
|> But it has McDonald's printed on the door. Unless it's a shop named
|> "Microsoft", MS should not try to force them not to sell competing
|> products.

What if Microsoft would "force" them to hang a "Microsoft" sign on their door
to sell MS-Dos?  Would you be happy then?

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: W4Wk threat to OS/2 receeds....!
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:24:27 GMT


Yesterday, I posted regarding W4Wk being implemented on our Novell LAN. 
 
Today it is not longer an option. When we tried it, we found that background
reception of E-mail via Da-Vinci while in our accounting app resulted in the
accounting app data files locking. 
 
To get out of it, we can re-boot the PCs, but Netware never unlocks the files.
So we had to restart the server!

W4Wk has been order *off* all PCs. 
 
We will be evaluating other group scheduling packages instead. 
 
Things sure can change in 24 hours!
 
To be fair, the whole exercise was to determine ulitimate suitability....and
W4wk was found wanting for the function it had been meant to perform in our
workplace.
 
Still. Paying hearts on the network was fun while it lasted.
 
Steve

-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand |      
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |        Space for rent.
+64 4 478 4714                          |   - cheap rates, nice location. 
**** Happy user of OS/2 b2.1 ****       |
From: rolfe@w3vh.UUCP (Rolfe Tessem)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: The sin of MicroSoft
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 05:30:51 GMT
Organization: Lucky Duck Productions
Reply-To: rolfe@ldp.com (Rolfe Tessem)
X-Useragent: SNews/2 2.0 for OS/2

petesk@microsoft.com writes in article <1993Jan10.011419.23343@microsoft.com>:
 
> The sin of the computer science community is that have too
                                                   ^object missing here

> narrow a view of what a computer should and can be. 
> Most people in the core of computer science tend to think things like
> "address space" or "processing speed" are all computers are.  They study
> algorithms and logic in order to build more powerful machines designed
> to help in the study of algorithms and logic.  A lot of them are stuck on
> ideas on how to make a computer do more than one thing at a time, but have
        ^^ can't have an idea "on" something -- probably means "of"

> absolutely no idea what those things are.  It wasn't until recently that
> the idea that "computers and people should work together" really came into
> being.  This lead to the development of user interface technology by the
> corporate sector, based on the works of Alan Kay and others at Xeros PARC
                                                                 ^^(sp) Xerox
> (These researches were tended to be on the fringe of academia, far from the
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^researches is not a noun; "research" is
			singular, taking the verb "was." 

> core research in user confusion occurring in UNIX development).

> As soon as general users started to get ahold of GUI technology,they 
                                          ^^^^^not a word, suggest "hold"
> started to develop ideas as to what computers should be used for.  The fact
> that Users and commercial software houses are starting to develop technologies
       ^^^^^capitalization?
> on their own is threatening the priesthood of academic computer science, and
> their deciples, causing them to threaten and belittle this new frontier of
        ^^^^^^^^(sp) diciples
> computer development.
> 
> This "History" brought to you by the movement to fight insane statements
> on the net with even more bizarre claims, found only on the advocacy groups.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This sentence has no verb ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
> And I wonder sometimes what would have happened if the Byzantine empire 
> hadn't squelched certain peoples in Europe during their reign.  It's been
> postulated that society would have been 100 to 500 years in advanced of
                                ^^^be^^^^                  ^^ahead^^^^
> what it was now.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^where it is now.
 
> petesk@microsoft.com
> My Opinions...

Perhaps there is a market for a Microsoft spelling and grammar checker
(running under OS/2 of course.)
 
---
Rolfe Tessem               Lucky Duck Productions
rolfe@w3vh.UUCP            96 Morton Street, NYC, NY 10014
rolfe@ldp.com              212-463-0029
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
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 21:03:23 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan4.202757.24933@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>Wait a minute!  I thought that Microsoft as a big evil monopoly could force
>them to do anything!  The above statement is an admission that Microsoft
>can't force a vendor into doing anything which the vendor doesn't think is
>in his best interest.

There's a continuum of interests; becoming a Microsoft franchisee, and
becoming subject to all kinds of rules about how they can do business laid
down in Redmond, is something no vendor would subject himself to unless there
was no alternative. The current situation is nowhere near that bad for a
vendor; it's MS' competition, and the consumers, that are getting screwed and
not even kissed.

>_Any_ company, be it Standard Oil, U.S. Steel, or Microsoft, will fold like
>a house of cheap cards if it doesn't offer its customers deals which they
>like.  And the bigger they are the harder they fall.

True, as far as that statement goes; it's possible, though, for a company to
get to a point where the forces of the free market cannot restrain them.

>The fact is that if McDonald's has the right to refuse to sell to anybody who
>won't just sell exclusivly McBurgers then Microsoft has the right to offer
>discounts to anybody willing to sell Windows exclusively.

Nope. McDonalds has the right to protect its trademarks from misuse by its
franchisees. Microsoft has no such problem; people who sell its products are
not doing so by representing themselves as "Microsoft, Inc."

K-Mart has no such problem, either; they're expected to seel things they don't
make.
-- 
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_
From: james@george.UUCP (james shoemaker)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I've got the 2.1 beta, now what do I do with it???
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 17:31:52 CST
Organization: Organization for creative time-wasting

roland@margaret (David A. Braun) writes:

> 	I just received the OS/2 2.1 beta/PDK on CD-ROM today... Can someone  
> tell me whether I can install this directly off the CD or if I will have to  
> copy it to disks?  I have a Texel 3024 CD-ROM (This is compatable, I knoow) a
> two SCSI controllers that I can use it on... a PAS-16 and a SCSI card made by
> "Storage Plus Incorporated"... any help, pleeese...
> 
> <roland> David A. Braun

        With those 2 conptrolers I think you have to make disks.  2.1 
will only install from the CD-ROM on supported controllers (Adaptec, 
IBM,Future-domain, DPT).

                                        JWS
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy