HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: OS/2 because! (was NT: Why?)
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:34:15 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct10.215820.49288@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>In article <1992Oct06.000924.3557@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil L
>afornara) writes:
>>
>>     "Better shell" is an opinion.  Some people don't like the WPS.
>>Some people (gasp!) actually like the Windows interface.  The Cairo shell,
>>when it comes out, will have some people that like it.  Whatever IBM
>>comes up with next will also have its fans.
>
>This is true some people do.  However, the Windows interface doesn't even have
>sufficent power or flexibility for Windows 3.1 much less a much more powerful
>system like OS/2 or NT.

     Ahem.  In your opinion it does not.  There are plently of people
that disagree with you.


>  You seem to have misread what he said though.  Cairo
>is quite irrelevant except for FUD purposes.  It might be quite good, but it
>will not be released for a good bit of time even in beta form and thus really
>shouldn't be a serious conversation point.

     Here we go again with the vaporware debate.  If the OS/2 Win3.1 beta
is a valid discussion topic, so then is Cairo - neither is released yet,
but both have some bearing on the future of the product.
     Which will it be?  Does it have to be shrink-wrapped to be valid?

					-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: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:58:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct09.175016.290@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.152700.14409@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct05.185642.23419@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>>
>>>     How can a person prove that they are a developer?
>>
>>On IBM's questionairre for the OS/2 betas, they asked what you were
>>developing and if it would be ready to demo at COMDEX.  This had the
>>effect of turning away the non-developers, since most didn't want to
>>lie on the form.
>>
>
>     And as a result, IBM narrowed the field to people demoing software
>at COMDEX.  There are developers out there who don't have something
>ready for COMDEX - should they be excluded from a release of a product
>specifically designed to stimulate application development?

Chopped logic, Phil.  The questionnaire asked 1.)what they were developing
and 2.) *if* it would be ready for demo at COMDEX

Any developer who's product wouldn't be ready by that time would be retarded
not to sign up just because of that fact.  The only weeding that form does
is because of question 1, those people who aren't developing anything.

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:06:16 GMT

In <1992Oct09.182514.931@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>In article <1992Oct8.174049.15330@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>
>>So does MS-DOS and my 'Vette, but they have very little to DO with
>>them.  Certainly neither of them is a concurrent multi-user system,
>>and it is my understanding (because you have to be seated at the
>>console to use it) that Windows/NT is not one, either.
>>

>      Sigh.  Fred, you haven't been reading _anything_.  Please
>state a source for your contention that a user has to be seated
>at the console to use Windows NT.

	Sigh.  Phil, you haven't been writing _anything_.  Please
explain just what you've all been talking about (one user at a time at
the console on NT).  There's obviously a problem here, but it seems to
me to be more related to the verbal tapdancing coming out of Redmond
than anything else.  Can't you guys just say what you mean in the
first place instead of trying to dance around as if NT is the end all
and be all of computers?

-- 
"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.
From: richk@grebyn.com (Richard Krehbiel)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 12:26:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct08.100600.17202@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <dlcogswe.718464451@vela> dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu wrote:
>> Wrong.  Look at the Amiga.  It runs preemptively fine with 512k.  It's
>> kernel is what?  1k?  Of course, AmigaOS doesn't have all the nice
>> features of Windows like... uhhh...  well..  whatever...
>
>Oh, great, yet another "Amiga does x that other os's don't post".
>Okay, here's my response.  Amiga doesn't sell as well as DOS/NT/OS/2/MAC/UNIX.

That just goes to show that when you *aren't* fighting to build your
market, you don't *have* to to make a great product.  And you don't;
it's not cost-justifiable.

This is why Windows NT and OS/2 2.0 are good for each other, and
DR-DOS is good for MS-DOS.
-- 
Richard Krehbiel                                 richk@grebyn.com
OS/2 2.0 will do for me until AmigaDOS for the 386 comes along...
From: bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Who understands IBM any more?
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:12:08 GMT
Organization: Applied Information Systems, Chapel Hill, NC

In article <1992Oct11.180113.59811@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
> In article <3120@accucx.cc.ruu.nl>, nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) w
> rites:
>>I am a hapy user of OS/2 2.0. It is a stable, reliable environment
>>with a lot of usefull properties. For me personal the "crash protection"
>>is the most important one. It is very impressive to get rid of
>>a crashed DOS box with a click of the mouse.
>>
>>I am also interested in NT. Not as a beta product but when it becomes
>>mature. It sounds as if their task protection might become even better
>>than OS/2 2.0's. Also Cario sounds interesting. And of cource the
>>ability to run on faster platforms than Intel.
> 
> One little point.  Cairo is a non-feature.  That is pure MS marketing bype.
> It supposedly will be here in mid '94 which is one year after the OS.  That
> is ridiculous and inexcusable.  Given their marketing and their past record
> with shells, I wouldn't hold my breath for it.

I agree completely that for the immediate future, Cairo is a non-feature
and marketing hype.  Whether it ever becomes much more than that (that is,
whether it will really be that wonderful when it actually arrives) is an
open question at this point.  But why is it ridiculous and inexcusable
that it won't be out until mid-94?  If that's the timetable the developers
are on, then you aren't going to get it sped up very much by griping about
it ... read the Mythical Man Month by Brooks.

Bruce C. Wright
From: Timur.Tabi@f347.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Timur Tabi)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Video games and NT
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 00:16:00 -0500

TG>I actually prefer strategy/fantasy games, and I long for one which takes
TG>advantage of my 1280x1024 monitor. The market is there but many of the best
TG>game designers have not caught up with it yet. By the end of next year I
TG>expect to see a significant percentage of such games released for Windows.
TG>Maybe by the end 1994 they will come out for windows first!

TG>[No, sorry, I don't see many of them coming out in OS/2-specific versions]

Apparently, you don't read "OS/2 Monthly".  Check out my column.  I've got a
game like that in the works, but it still has a ways to go.
___
 * MR/2 1.31 NR * Columnist for "OS/2 Monthly"
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Video games and NT
Date: 10 Oct 92 11:24:34 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1992Oct9.095149.7017@cam-orl.co.uk>, thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:
> In article <Bvt0qI.GnM@rice.edu>, amitp@ruf.rice.edu (Amit J Patel) writes:
> |> In article <1992Oct06.182007.28815@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
> |> At any point in time, the DOS version is going to be faster than the
> |> NT version,
> 
> This is only true in the general case if the DOS version is written to handle
> all existing and future video accelerators and all existing and future audio
> hardware. Oh, and it must be able to distribute itself over multiple
> processors, symmetric or otherwise.
> 
> I actually prefer strategy/fantasy games, and I long for one which takes
> advantage of my 1280x1024 monitor. The market is there but many of the best
> game designers have not caught up with it yet. By the end of next year I
> expect to see a significant percentage of such games released for Windows.
> Maybe by the end 1994 they will come out for windows first!
> 
> [No, sorry, I don't see many of them coming out in OS/2-specific versions]


	Are you nuts???  Have you ever played a Windows game?  They are
slow and tedious.  They might be okay to play chess on but any action
game is unplayable on Wnidows even on a Diamond Stealth. 

	As long as DOS allows for direct access to the hardware, games
will always be faster on DOS than Windows.  There is a lot of evidence
that DOS games will give support to high end hardware.  For example,
Ultima 7 game with its own memory manager.

	Maybe in say 8 or 9 years the computers will be so powerful
that we will be able to play a game at a good speed but the game won't
be a windows game or an OS/2 PM game, it will still use the graphics
within the hardware (emulated at least).  Ever wonder why the Mac has
so few games?  Action games arre very lame on that platform (in my
opinion).

	But the above possibility will only happen once DOS is no
longer the primary OS of the home user.

						-Brad

=================================
Brad Wardell  **Happy OS/2 2.0 User**
Project Director
Stardock Systems (SDS)
Western Michigan University
=================================

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: <None>
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: na,local
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 07:39:03 GMT

> > >A flawed implication. Why should I, or any user, choose to use an
> > >os that is less capable, if a better one exists?
> > 
> > Because the *application* you want to run is unavailable except on
> > the less capable os?  For instance, DOS is much less "powerful" than
> > Unix, but there are some things I run on DOS that Unix (or whatever
> > weirdo variant I find) can't handle.
>  
>  Good point. If your computer use revolves around a [few] given apps
>  which don't have any equivalent on the other platform, then certainly
>  your only choice would be to stick with the system where it runs.
>  But, on the other hand, how many apps are there that have no
>  equivalent? I am sure there are many, but not _that_ many. I wouldn't
>  think the number of people who are using such 'os-locked' apps would
>  be that great. Maybe I'm completely wrong, of course. But at least at
>  this moment I can't think of anything I can do in msdos that I
>  couldn't do in unix, usually better. That's my experience anyway.

One thing I find that MS-DOS dos *much* *better* than Unix is provide an
environment for Unix device driver development!  For example, suppose you
wanted to develop an ethernet driver for a family of ethernet cards (no
one does just one card anymore).  It is going to have to be ported to
more than one Unix variant.

The obvious thing to do is to split the driver into two layers.  The top
layer deals with however your Unix talks to network cards (e.g., it is
a streams drivers for System V).  The bottom layer deals with the hardware,
and presents a hardware-independent interface to your top layer.

I find that it is best to develop the bottom layer under DOS.  Some of
the advantages are as follows:

	1. Applications get full hardware access.  By developing the bottom
	layer in an application framework under DOS, I get the quick
	turnaround time of application development, rather than the slow
	turnaround time of build-kernel-and-reboot.

	2. DOS debuggers, such as Soft-ICE, are very powerful compared to
	most Unix debuggers.

	3. Rebooting after a crash is faster.  Since hardware engineers
	never seem to make prototype cards that actually follow the interface
	specifications that those very same hardware engineers wrote, there
	is usually a stage in development where one crashes a lot, which
	is not nice with Unix.

	4. DOS development tools are often much faster than their Unix
	equivalents.  Borland C, for example, is much faster than most
	Unix C compilers.  Better turnaround time thus results.

	5. If the software under development has any chance of trashing the
	hard disk, it will be quicker to get back up under DOS than under
	Unix.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tadr@doe.carleton.ca (Tom A. D. Riley)
Subject: Re: FTP / TELNET Software for OS/2 2.x
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:34:45 GMT

In <1992Oct15.85037.19052@ms.uky.edu> jedwards@ms.uky.edu (Jonathan Edwards) writes:

>FAGER@gribb.hsr.no (Fagerland, Svein      94/96) writes:


>>I am currently running OS/2 2.01 beta and novell netware. This is really a 
>>great combination, *BUT* i need to do FTP and Telnet also, which I 
>>understand is not possible at this time.

>>SO what I an looking for is:

>>FTP software for, or compatible with OS/2 2.x
>>Telnet software -------------"--------------

>IBM sells a TCP/IP implementation for OS/2 2.0 (actually, I think it's the
>OS/2 1.x version of TCP/IP, but it runs fine under 2.0).  I believe ftp and
>telnet are included (I was running OS/2 2.0+TCP/IP+NFS over the summer and
>ftp and telnet were both there - I assume it's part of the TCP/IP package).

These are quite competatively priced compared to the stuff offered by
FTP. Particullarly if all you want is FTP and Telnet.


>You should be able to order it from 800-IBM-2255.  (That number is from
>memory.  You may want to call 800-IBM-2468 and ask them what number to
>call to order PC software...)

There are also public domain (I think) things such as NCSA Telnet
and KA9Q  . I am using NCSA Telnet and FTP under windows at work
(OS/2 is for home use for now) so it should run in a DOS session
under OS/2. 

I too would like to here comments from anyone using these things
under OS/2

Any one want to follow this up further or should it be moved to
a .networking group?
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:43:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: lib.7520
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Oct07.092552.15639@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>I assume you read the reason why I don't think this will make much of
>a difference in price....

I read it, and found it to sound a lot like the software vendor's standard
official line about why prices go up instead of down. As such, I don't buy
it, especially since it completely ignores business' mania for recovering
costs associated wwith a given product. If the networking package really were
a separate product, then it would be accounted for and charged for separately.

>Or possibly the option to not install the network, or whatever.  Fine.

...and leave absolutely no trace of it. Not a single file, not a single extra
line in CONFIG.SYS (or whatever), nothing at all.

>Any advanced OS worth it's salt will make these two things possible.
>Installable network drivers, protocols, etc.  I believe OS/2 does this,
>MS Lanman does this on many platforms, NT does this, and I think many 
>other products.  But why shouldn't some of the common protocols be
>supplied with the system, given they probably don't cost too much to
>add, and you can always not install them, or remove them.

Common according to who? This is ripe for manufacturers to declare their own
networking package common and only provide for it, regardless of market
reality.

>Just because
>MS ships Windows Write with windows didn't stop other folks from writing
>word processors.  Just because Terminal was shipped with windows didn't
>stop other from writing terminal software.  It just gives people something
>to start with.

Networking packages aren't like stripped-down versions of common software.
Including full-function TCP/IP networking in NT is like including
Weird...er...Word for Windows: nobody in their right mind would try to
compete. Why should FTP Software develop an NT version of PC/TCP, when you're
throwing in an equivalent package with the OS (and cranking up the price to
cover it)?
-- 
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.
    Vote for a REAL change on 3 November: Throw out the check-bouncing,
  tax-and-spend Democrat Congress! (obviously, not an opinion of UTHSCH)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:25:24 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Oct13.204543.14580@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu wrote:
> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> >In article <1992Oct12.202207.9735@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu wrote:
> >> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> >> 
> >> >BTW:  The product Zachmann has spent the most time criticising lately
> >> >is Windows NT.  He'd criticised it before he'd even seen it, hardly
> >> >professional in my book.
> >> 
> >> This happens to be the same reason a lot of OS/2 advocates think
> >> most of the press is either bought or off in their own world.
> >> OS/2 has gotten a lot of criticism from people who've never even
> >> seen it.
> 
> >That's why I usually take the press with a grain of salt.
> 
> Agreed.  Unfortunately, because of the difference in numbers of pro-OS/2
> and pro-Windows authors, there are quite a few people who blow their top
> when an OS/2 advocate writes unprofessionally, but are blind when a
> Windows advocate does the same thing.  I take it you are not one of them?

Actually, you may be right.  I dont' really read the opinion articles 
that much except for entertainment purposes, and I've found Zachmann to be
quite entertaining.  If you could point out some journalist who are
Windows advocates (er, IBM/UNIX/Mac) bashers who are as entertaining
as Zachmanns OS/2 advocacy (er, MS bashing), I would probably try to read
those too.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:20:56 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

(Rudynell S. Millian) writes:

>>>     OS/2 is indeed selling - but neither of us has any clue how well.
>>>We have some numbers from IBM, and we have some conflicting numbers
>>>from Microsoft.  Who's to say which is closer to the truth?
>>Agreed.

>	Don't be so gullible! Believe it or not, MS gets paid for 
>every copy of OS/2 2.0 that is distributed. (IBM has to pay MS for
>the right to support Win3.0) Now, given this fact, do you really 
>believe MS and IBM can't agree on the actual number of copies of OS/2 
>distributed? If Microsoft's accounting dept. doesn't know EXACTLY
>how many copies of OS/2 2.0 are out there, then MS is indeed lucky
>to be in business (and making a profit).

There is a gap of 6 months between the moment IBM sells a copy and
MS getting their part (and the knowledge). So by now MS knows
how many OS/2 2.0 packages has sold 6 months ago.

Nico E. de Vries  (nevries@cc.ruu.nl) |------------------*   AA   III  PPP
_ This text is supplied AS IS, no warranties of any kind |  A  A   I   P  P
| apply. No rights can be derived from this text. This   |  AAAA   I   PPP
| text is likely to contain spelling and grammar errors. |  A  A   I   P
*---------------------------( Donate to GreenPeace! )----*  A  A  III  P

"The IBM PC is still waiting for a version of the CP/M OS.", G.M. Vose, 1982.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:20:52 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct10.020012.22531@netcom.com> msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Oct09.182652.1023@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>
>>      Not that I can see.  Is UNIX without telnetd still a multiuser
>>operating system?  Is UNIX with only a single terminal attached still
>>a multiuser operating system?  The infrastructure is there in any case -
>>does the OS magically become multiuser when that second terminal is
>>plugged in?
>>
>
>No you can log more than one user in at the console via either the virtual
>terminal capability. Alt-1 Alt-2 ... will provide seperate logins. 

     Unless you are using a version of UNIX which doesn't do
virtual terminals at the console.


>Alternatively if your are seated at a console running X-Windows you can be
>logged in as different users in different windows. 

     But I didn't ask about X-Windows - I asked about UNIX in the most
general sense.  And you didn't answer the question.

					-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: kelley@vet.vet.purdue.edu (Stephen Kelley)
Subject: Que es mas macho? (was Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.)
Organization: Carps Underground, Cookies of Doom Division
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:22:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct09.044341.15025@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
- 
- Could you post evidence to support this claim (IBM was content to support
- both Windows and OS/2).
- Thanks...
- 
Uh, Pete, IBM includes an implementation of Windows 3.0 in their OS/2 product.

In addition, I'm not exactly sure what the purpose of the wacking back and 
forth about terminals is, but I'd like to point out that the 
terminal/host model of computation certainly does not require individual
RS-232 ports for each 'terminal'.