HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 05 Oct 92 18:33:15 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct2.165805.9074@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.140429.7973@njitgw.njit.edu>, dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David
>Charlap) writes:
>|> 
>|> The Mach microkernel certainly allows multiple OS's to run
>|> concurrently.
>
>Yes, we all know that, since /NT is based on it. But what's IBMs
>intention by showing this demo?

      As has been said before, Windows NT is not based on the Mach
microkernel.

					-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.
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: So much for Msoft's bluster <grin>
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:51:08 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Sep29.033730.3054@ncsu.edu> linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu wrote:
> In article <1992Sep28.160233.3985@spcvxb.spc.edu> mauritz_c@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:
> >09/25 (DW) Microsoft Delays Shipments of Windows NT Operating System
> >    By Ken Yamada
> >    Dow Jones Staff Reporter
> >	
> >    REDMOND, Wash. -DJ- Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) said the first shipments
> >of its Windows NT operating system software are expected to be delayed
> >until early 1993.
> 
> ...
> 
> >    Since July, Microsoft has shipped more than 20,000 advance copies of
> >the software, called developer kits, to potential corporate customers
> >and independent software developers for testing, Walker said.  By the
>                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> 'Pre-beta'?  I don't think so.
> 
> John W. Linville

That's the problem with America these days, everyone blindly follows
what the press says.  I bet you believed that the Panama invasion was to
arrest Noriega for drug charges, too.  And you believe Zachman word for
word....

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
From: FAGER@gribb.hsr.no (Fagerland, Svein      94/96)
Subject: THE 32-bit GRE is fast !
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 09:33:29 GMT


Well. When running standard VGA and OS/2 2.01 beta the were not any 
notiseable enhansments. But then i installed the Trident 800x600 256 colour 
driver, and I really must say; my there is a great spped up.

Especially window-dragging, and repainting of the desktop is good, but 
tekstscrolling in a window could be better.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: NSTL compares OS/2 2.0 and Windows 3.1
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 06:12:34 GMT

Brian Sturgill writes:

> From a Microsoft press release:
> NSTL Rates Windows 3.1 as "Platform of Choice"
> 	National Software Testing Labs (NSTL) determined that
> the Microsoft  Windows operating system version 3.1 is the
> "Platform of Choice to Run Today's Applications" in a thorough

I wonder what NSTL considers to be "Today's Applications"?  If they had
chosen to evaluate the latest applications (today's rather than yesterday's),
they would have discovered that OS/2 32-bit applications run circles around
the 16-bit competition.

> Microsoft Windows 3.1 was
> found to outpace OS/2 in performance when running single tasks
> with Windows-based applications.

Did NSTL also compare their relative performance when running
OS/2-based applications?  Oh that's right; Windows can't run OS/2-based
applications.  Did NSTL also compare their relative performance when
running DOS-based applications?  If not, why not?  If so, why did the
Microsoft press release not mention the results?  Could it be that
OS/2 outpaced Windows and Microsoft didn't want to admit it?

> In the
> Windows-based application multitasking trials, NSTL found that
> Microsoft Windows' multitasking capabilities outperformed OS/2's
> when running more than one task at a time.

NSTL obviously didn't try to format a floppy disk while running more
than one task at a time.  Oh that's right; NSTL was only interested
in comparing what Real World users do with their computers, and we all
know that nobody formats floppy disks in the background.  I guess I'm
not a Real World user.  Did NSTL also perform DOS-based application
multitasking trials?  If not, why not?  If so, why did the Microsoft
press release not mention the results?  Could it be that OS/2
multitasked DOS applications better and Microsoft didn't want to admit it?

> In the usability category, Windows was found to be easier
> to learn because of the familiar interface of the many Windows-
> based programs on the market today. 

How does an interface become familiar unless the user has used something
like it previously?  It's like putting a Windows 3.0 user in front of
Windows 3.1 and OS/2 2.0 and asking the user which is easier to learn.
If this is representative of NSTL's testing method, then I'll avoid
paying any attention to their reports in the future.  A more proper
scientific approach would be to take new users who are not familiar with
either interface, and determining which is easier to learn.  I won't
speculate on the answer, but NSTL's method of using people who are familiar
with the "interface of the many Windows-based programs on the market today"
is simply stacking the deck against OS/2; such a method wouldn't stand up
to scientific scrutiny.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Multitasking (was Re: MS's misconduct!)next reply
Date: 01 Oct 92 10:39:06 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

I might as well jump in here too....

In article <1992Sep30.185808.3691@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> u1665462@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
> In article <8elk9Le00WBNE1bJAa@andrew.cmu.edu>, fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat) writes:
> > petesk@microsoft.com says:
> >>This is not to say that we shouldn't give the secaratary preemptive mt,
                                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^

Note, the use of the preemptive....

> >>but only that we don't lie to her and tell her it's going to solve all
> >>of her problems.  Let the marketing guys do that, instead.
> > 
> > Well at least they're starting to admit it...
> 
> I cannot agree with peteski@microsoft.com.
> 
> We are a small department, and the secretary only uses WP 5.1 and Dbase IV.
> Yet *WE NEED MULTITASKING*. Why? Becouse that is the way people work: all the
> time somebody asks the secretary for something different: an old file, Dbase
> figures, etc. All the time we have to jostle to use her machine to get
> something we thought we would not need... Being able to switch between apps. is 
> an efficiency improvement one can not underestimate!
> 
> The bottom line is this: if a job will take you 1-5 seconds to do (eg ALT-HOME
> to a new program and look up a file) it will be done. If it takes longer (DOS: 
> save, quit, start new app, open file, check, save, quit, resart old app...) 
> it will not be done.
> 
> This is the simplest co-operative multitasking (provided by Win 3.1) and it is
> essential to the smooth workflow.
You haven't mentioned why preemptive multitasking is good yet.

 Pre-emptive multitasking and memory
> protection is just the icing on the cake for such a simple user, and she is not
> even aware that in old days (Win 3.0, 3.1) an application crushing could bring
> down the whole system. She takes it now as a matter of course that it will not. 
> 
By icing on the cake, I assume you're implying it's not necessary, but a good
thing.

So far, we have yet to disagree....

> While the "power users" like myself can take full advantage of multithreading
> and multitasking by downloading in the background (my daily chore) as I write
> this and am amazed that somebody does not see the benefits of multitasking in 
> a workgroup enviroment.

Okay, so we agreed...

petesk@microsoft.com

Sorry for the lack of body in this post, but what
would you expect from me, anyway.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:04:32 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Sep30.230058.13520@msi.com> bill@msi.com writes:
>Brian Sturgill (brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu) wrote:
>: You're telling me that it does not matter to the end user how buggy
>: the product is?  OS/2 2.0's current design is a conglomeration
>: of OS/2 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 code with rewrites of significant
>: portions glued together under incredible time pressure.
>: This is not a design, it's a hack.
>: Every time you add a new feature to a hack, you introduce new and glorious
>: bugs... I hope you enjoy CSD installation.
>
>Where did you get the information was a "conglomeration of OS/2 1.0, 1.1,
>1.2, and 1.3 code with rewrites of significant portions glued together" ?
>According to _The Design of OS/2_ OS/2 2.0 was a redesign.  Any OS/2 1.x
>code used was either for drivers or compatibility code.

Well for example... the console API... everything you see when you
use a command line window... is 16-bit -- clearly that's from old code.
Are you trying to say this as well as the current 16-bit GRE didn't
come from 1.X code?  This alone confirms my statement from above.

I just looked in the OS/2 history section in _The Design of OS/2_
nothing says that my statement is false.  They do say:
	While OS/2 1.2 development was drawing to a close, Microsoft
	and IBM were also designing the 32-bit version of OS/2...

So it is clear that since OS/2 2.0 does indeed contain a large
amount of 16-bit code not used only for back compatibility... that
my statement must be true.  I mean I hardly would think that IBM
would write new 16-bit code for their new 32-bit OS!

>| Bill Poitras    | Molecular Simulations Inc.    | Tel (408)522-9229       |

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
University of Utah                             United We Stand
Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:31:27 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <92273.102825I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET>, I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET (Spartacus At
Cuny) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.012811.6658@midway.uchicago.edu>, sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu
>(Timothy F. Sipples) says:
>>** Windows enhancements (i.e. Win-OS/2 3.1 with TrueType, multimedia
>>extensions, bitmaps, and applets). (*)                    ^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Phew!...I thought Win-OS/2 wouldn't include them.  It might not
>be the MMPM/2, however its good enough until the first native
>OS/2 MM programs show up....Thanks IBM.
>
>Now my only problem is Aldus. :-(
>
>BTW...does the new 32bit GRE/Win3.1 beta have them?  I ordered friday
>but still haven't received it.

Yes it does.

>-------
>------------------------------+      All The Best,
>Reply To:                     |
>                              |      Edward Galarza,
>     I18BC@CunyVM.Cuny.Edu    |      Brooklyn College Of The
>     I18BC@CunyVM.BitNet      |      City University Of New York
>------------------------------+      "Que viva el OS/2!"
>
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting WINBENCH scores...
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:06:48 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep29.010358.13626@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>     Anyone out there know if it's possible to convince OS/2 to
>give 100% of the processor to a given task?

You mean disable multitasking?  Why would I want to do that?  If a
task needs more CPU, I just terminate other applications, and the app
will get more. 
-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:52:56 GMT

brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>In article <wiegand.718034110@lido16> motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net writes:
>>brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>>>>	How can you greatly prefer NT over OS/2?  You actually
>>>>liked the "pre-beta" better than OS/2?  WHY?  
>>
>>>But these are the minor points... the real difference is terms
>>>of the quality of the software development tools. NT's SDK comes
>>>with the NT equivalent of MSC/C++ 7.0.  My only complaint
>>>is that they haven't yet gotten the iostream library there, but
>>>I can see why that would be low priority.
>>>The point is even in its not-yet-finished state... it's better
>>>than WorkSet/2.
>>

>WHY DO YOU TWIST MY WORDS?
>>If the development tools are the main reason for prefering NT then NT
>>is in trouble.

>The topic under discussion was why two people in this group prefer
>to develop under the NT pre-beta instead of under OS/2.  Thus your comments
>below are totally off base.

Sorry if I misunderstood you. It wasn't obvious to me that you were
talking about development only. Ther are so many messages in this group
its difficult to keep track of what was said proviously.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net            uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Video games and NT
From: f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Date: 2 Oct 92 04:07:18 MST
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67700241

In article <1992Oct1.121944.5568@gw.wmich.edu>, 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
> 	I said this a bit in another post but video games are important
> to an OS.
> 	Why?
> 
> 	Because the future of computers is going to be in the home world.
>	[argument deleted]

This is a perceptive, original opinion.  I like it and tend to agree with
it.

I will disagree with the point implied by your subject line, namely that
support of DOS games is crucial for NT to enter the big time.  Have you
noticed that the latest greatest games are straining under DOS right now?
Geez, Ultima VII has a proprietary 386 memory manager!  The serious
gamers are buying NT-OS/2-caliber machines in expectations of future
releases of Wing Commander and Falcon.  CD-ROM distribution of games
with digitized sounds/scenery will be an inevitable development (prime
fred mccall flame bait :-).

Perhaps NT needs *NT*-specific games to enter the big time.

This could be the right time for SSI or Electronic Arts
to produce a "killer game" running under OS/2.  This would
do OS/2's cause much better than whining about how Aldus, Corel,
etc. won't port their Win apps to OS/2 just yet.

> 	When you respond to this, answer this please (since I may
> be flamed for saying that video games are important), do you evr
> play video games on your computer?

YES!  I have Flight Simulator, and I also have Wolfenstein and Civilization.
(Under Windows, I have a number of Wingames like Chess and Tetris.  Oh
yeah, and Solitaire too. :-)  I have had problems running the latter 2 under
my Windows setup (any MS employees have recommended PIF settings?), but FS
runs just great.

Sure, they are most definitely non-productivity applications, but
sometimes even the most productive people need a break, and a game-
friendly multitasking OS seems to be just the ticket.
-- 
Greg "Mockingbird" Franklin      Interviewer: "Sir, how do you spell relief?"
f67700241@ccit.arizona.edu               Dan: "R-O-L-A-I-D-S-E."

"[George Bush is] the most ruthless white man in the history of the planet."
	-- Richard Ben Cramer, author of _What It Takes_
"The President scores much better than Bill Clinton."
	-- Dan, comparing Bush's record of marital infidelity to Clinton's
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Date: 26 Sep 92 18:50:52 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Sep24.185006.6611@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil L
afornara) writes:
>In article <OLAVT.92Sep22195738@ulrik.uio.no> olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund)
 writes:

>>I also think that MS has to realize that they will have to offer OS/2
>>specific applications. An organisation with both Windows and OS/2 on
>>their dekstop machines, would probably prefer to use the same
>>applications across these plattforms.
>
>     I'm sure an OS/2 advocate will point out that this is already
>possible - they just run Windows apps.
>
>
>> If MS cannot deliver OS/2
>>specific versions, Word Perfect and Ami Pro will get an adgantage in
>>the word-processing market, 1-2-3 in spread-sheet, etc.
>
>      Well, they'll get an advantage in the OS/2 portion of the
>word processing market.  Time will tell how significant that portion
>really is.

Agreed.
>
>
>> IBM is
>>bundling Windows with some of their PS/1 machines because that market
>>segment today want Windows. For the same reason MS should offer OS/2
>>versions in the market segment that prefers OS/2. Unless they prefer
>>to (ab)use their position as an application vendor in the OS
>>competition .....
>
>     The decision to not produce OS/2 apps has nothing to do with
>wanting to crush OS/2.  There simply isn't the market share out there
>to justify it at this time.  Wait a year and see how OS/2 is doing
>then - if it is actually succeeding in grabbing a large percentage
>of the market, I expect you'll see Microsoft apps for it then.
>
Well, one might ask why they wan't to develop NT apps?  (I realize that that
is a stupid statement, but not much more than yours)  NT has far less of a
user base than OS/2.  A situation that isn't likely to change in the immediate
future.  MS isn't developing apps for OS/2, because it is their biggest
competition in the PC market, and they don't wan't egg on their face.  Why
would MS wish to contribute to the success of their competitors, when they own
the market?  They don't.

>                                               -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.
>


Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6835 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2318
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 3 Oct 1992 08:05:49 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Oct3.042126.17499@u.washington.edu> mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth) writes:
[about TCP/IP and X windows]
>....I'd have preferred that they be built into the os and included in 
>the price. 

I have a network at home, and TCP/IP would be a Good Thing. I don't have a
machine capable of running X clients, though. (My NCR Tower XP is too old, and
runs only SysVR2.) My father doesn't have, or intend to have, a network at
home. Should he be forced to pay for networking software he won't use?

It's kinda like ordering dinner at a Mexican restaurant: NT folks would have
everyone pay for the super deluxe dinner, regardless of whether or not the
customer is that hungry.
-- 
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)
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:26:13 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Sep28.023652.17342@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>I'd like to remind you that something is worth what people will buy it for,
>so are you saying that you'd buy NT + SDK for $1000.  Good, Now I hope to
>never hear you say that NT will loose out cause noone would pay that
>much for it, because appearently, you will.

Not only no, but hell no. (I only have $330 invested in OS/2 and Workset/2,
and my only other contemplated purchase is TCP/IP for another $200.)
I am sure, though, that Brian Sturgill will rush right out and spend whatever
MS will charge for NT and the SDK the minute a production version is
available...and there are more like him.

>Ok, Ok, just kidding, but nobody knows what price they are going to tack
>onto NT, and the estimated range is from $69 to your $1000.  In truth,
>we are not ready for price haggling because noone has announce an 
>estimated price for NT, the SDK, or anything.

Remember, we're talking about NT _plus_ the C compiler and everything else in
the developers' package. The most-often-tossed-about quote - and I seem to
recall this one was cited as coming from MS - for just NT was "under $500",
and I discussed in an earlier post how MS would be stupid to say that and not
mean $499.95. I seriously doubt the development package would be less than
another $500. My $1K number starts to look optimistic, if anything. 

Given that, why in the world is MS selling the SDK/beta for $69? FUD, pure and
simple.
-- 
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)
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6722 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2288
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:06:47 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct2.041214.16986@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>
>Don't look now, but a couple folks in comp.os.ms-windows-programmer.win32
>(including some MS employees) are calling it Windows NT 3.1.

It makes sense.  The interface is the same one that Windows 3.1 uses.
So, you can get Windows 3.1 with or without the NT.  If only it were
that simple.  I assume they'll call it Windows NT Cairo when they dump
the 3.1 interface.



-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6654 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2268