HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mikek@seas.smu.edu (Michael Kaply)
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (was: Re: Some more misconceptions...)
Organization: School of Engineering and applied science; S.M.U.; Dallas, Tx
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 18:18:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep04.180924.12738@microsoft.com> dwightm@microsoft.com (Dwight Matheny) writes:
><<  I think I said exactly that in my original posting--MS wants to
><<   force people into a particular environment.  It's definitely
><<   a business choice--I just don't agree with it.  MS has a variety
><<    of wonderful products, but in the long run I think they're slitting
><<   their own throat by saing "We only support our own operating
><<   environment."  People (will) want cross-platform support so they
>
>
>What about being the #1 supplier of apps for the Mac?? What about the 
>recent announcement that MS will develop apps for Power PC??? To me that
>says that our apps guys will develop for platforms that they think
>will make money. Look at the latest SPA data for June '92 that shows
>OS/2 apps $$ volume FALLING 75% over June '91 and Windows apps $$ volume
>increasing 155% over June '91.
>
>-Dwight
>
>Not speaking for MS.

Look at the fact that that was over a year ago.  Over a million copies of OS/2 are out there
and the phones at IBM are ringing off the hook with vendors who want to develop for OS/2.

How about PFS:Works for OS/2?
How about Micrografx Draw for OS/2?
How about Borland ObjectVision for OS/2?
How about all Lotus apps for OS/2?
How about Microsoft Mail for OS/2?

Mike Kaply
From: marten@feki.toppoint.de (Marten Feldtmann)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Hard future for OS/2 2.0 ....
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 11:15:45 GMT
Organization: Private OS/2 System

The time is counting to zero for OS/2 2.0.

Here in Germany a big computer newspaper (ComputerWoche) is VERY
sceptical about the success of OS/2 2.0. During the last weeks the
comments on this OS are getting worse.

Here are some points, the writers mentioned:

 -- OS/2 2.0  is too difficult for the end user

 -- OS/2 2.0  needs too much hardware

 -- OS/2 2.0  where are the appilications?

 -- OS/2 2.0  there's no need for multitasking

 -- OS/2 2.0  is too expensive (here in Germany)

 -- OS/2 2.0  not clear, what the long-term strategy of IBM is ..

 -- OS/2 2.0  not clear, if OS/2 is suitable for server stations


  They say, that Windows 3.1 has won the battle against OS/2 2.0 in the
market of the desktop user (= end user). For other things like network
or server purposes they are all waiting for Windows NT or are still
looking for a suitable UNIX-version ....

  Some are predicting, that 1994 the market of server-OS is shared by
Netware, NT and UNIX and no one will see OS/2 there.

 If you are a  customer today it seems to be clear: Windows 3.1 is
working, has multimedia in it, has lot's of beautiful application
(Lotus, AmiPro, Excel, Word, Freelance ............) and it's cheaper
than OS/2 2.0.

 The prices for dealers here in Germany are quite interesting:

   Windows 3.1 for about $50 (without DOS), OS/2 2.0 for about $130

 The customer price is very strange: OS/2 2.0 price is still official
placed at 440.- DM (or $300) from IBM. Other dealers (mail) offer
this OS for about 300.- DM (or $200).

 For me it's clear: OS72 is the right product for me. 

 Any comments?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: Honestly, people...how do you find the new OS/2 ads?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 05:38:11 GMT

In article <18p44pINNsg7@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
bbm@po.CWRU.Edu (Brian B. Mathewson) writes:
>
>
>I've never seen a really good TV advertisement for a software product
>before.  I'ts very difficult to sell something so complex in just 30
>seconds.
>
>I think they should sell it to people based on the fact that it can
>run just about any program, allows you to multitask, and is relatively
>inexpensive.
>
>They should come up with a few common examples that most computer
>users can relate to:
>

  I would be very impressed if the comercial had some really great
graphics along with examples of what it can accomplish for
businesses.  It could say
something like 'Commercial made with XYZ computer and ABC operating
system.'  (Please, I know there isn't really an XYZ computer, and
probably not an ABC operating system (but there was an ABC computer,
right?  ;-)    )).  If I liked the commercial, I would even think
about purchasing the system for my next upgrade.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Price of NT vs OS/2
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 03:21:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep16.020920.17629@nuscc.nus.sg> eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (TAN JIN MENG) writes:
>There's been a lot of argument in this group about prices. 
>Let me ask something...
>
>Suppose I want to set up a network of say 16 nodes plus 1 server.
>I want file/printer sharing, email and peer to peer.
>
>Does this mean that I'd have to buy 17 copies (or a licence for 17) of
>NT priced at ~$500 (== $6500)? for NT equipped workstations? And 17
>copies of OS/2 plus 1 copy of LAN Server 3.0(?) (plus TCP/IP? What's the
>equivilent anyway?) for OS/2 equipped workstations
>(I'm not sure how to price this - does the requester come automatically
>or do you have to pay for 16 copies of the requester?)?
>
>It other words does the fact that when you buy NT you get the whole kit
>and kaboodle, you end up paying much more for the NT equipped LAN?????

For NT you can get by with just the base package, though with 16 nodes,
you might want to throw some more money onto one to get some admin tools.
I don't have pricing for that package.  I would assume it won't be more
than $1,000 more.  (Just like OS/2, NT will have two levels of server
packages.) If you don't mind administering each system individually
(i.e. separate account setups), then you don't need the tools, so remove
the $1,000.

The total cost for NT:
	500*17 + 1000 = $9,500

Currently OS/2 Lan Server does not support peer-to-peer networking, but
assuming that 3.0 comes out as predicted (it's supposed to have
that feature), and that the price structure stays the same you get:

	OS/2 2.0 base package:	$195
	TCP/IP:			$200 for the first kit.
				$180 for each additional licence.
	17*195 + 200 + 16*180 = $6,395

With 16 clients, you can probably get by with the Entry-level
LAN Server package:
	Cost $795

Then for each client: $75

	Cost is 795 + 16*75 = 1,995

Total cost for OS/2:  $8,390

(All prices above were list prices.)

Keep in mind that the NT price has no discounts for quantity figured in
and that each system has full fledged RPC, local security,  E-mail,
Multimedia, etc, which the OS/2 stations won't have.

It is also possible that NT's list price will be substantially
less than $500.

>
>I confused with pricing.
>
>jin meng

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:5080 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2135
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.4
Date: 6 Sep 92 04:51:52 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep4.172600.14366@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>P.S.
>Anybody know the status of DLL creation in gcc?  I would switch if gcc
>could do DLL's.  Unfortunately my package HAS to have DLL's. It would be
>too big otherwise. (I'd get C++ then, too!!!)

I think you can do this now.

If you look in the Tools Reference for the OS/2 2.0 Toolkit under
LINK386, lookup the LIBRARY parameter for module definition (.DEF)
files.

It seems to me that you can create a .DLL from any set of .OBJ files
using an appropriate .DEF file.

In other words, it's not a function of gcc, but a function of using
LINK386 properly.  Once the .DLL file is made, run IMPLIB on the .DEF
file to get an import library.

This, of course, all assumes that gcc's objects are dll-able.  I don't
know.  Perhaps someone should run a few experiments and find out.
Under MS-C, you needed a command line switch or two to get the object
into that form, but it's conceivable that gcc produces everything in
this way.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "TELEPHONE, n.  An Invention of the devil which
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   abrogates some of the advantages of making a
 ((|,)                          disagreeable person keep his distance."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:5125 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2143
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.6
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:12:30 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep5.012500.2098@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>@	All system API calls that take strings, take UNICODE strings.
>		(ANSI wrappers are provided.)

Gee, won't "thunking" ANSI C-strings to UNICODE sap performace?  OS/2
system calls take C-strings or PASCAL strings for string parameters.
C runtime functions already exist to convert between the two.

If OS/2 has a disadvantage in thunking 16-bit calls up to 32-bits (and
vice versa), then this is a definite disadvantage.  Especially since
the current C runtime library doesn't use UNICODE strings.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "TELEPHONE, n.  An Invention of the devil which
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   abrogates some of the advantages of making a
 ((|,)                          disagreeable person keep his distance."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
From: marten@feki.toppoint.de (Marten Feldtmann)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Win-OS/2 performance tweaks
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 18:34:11 GMT
Organization: Private Site

wer5@midway.uchicago.edu writes in article <1992Aug31.225614.24375@midway.uchicago.edu>:

> I have run WINOS2 with these settings from the day I installed OS/2, and it
> takes WINOS2 35 seconds to load on my 386/33 with 16MB whereas it takes
> Win3.1 32 seconds on a 386/25 with 4MB.

 My experience: 16 seconds to start "winos2" (full screen) 
                                            on 486/33, 16MB, Adaptec 1542

                 7 seconds to start "winos2" from dos shell (full screen)
                                            on the same machine

 MF

--
Marten Feldtmann                         E-Mail: marten@tpki.toppoint.de
2300 Kiel 14,    Kieler Str. 29,   Tel.: 0431-731916,
From: eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (TAN JIN MENG)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Brian, your bias is showing ( was Re: OS/2 vs NT features
Date: 6 Sep 92 16:03:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: nuscc.1992Sep6.160334.11552
Organization: National University of Singapore

dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
: In article <1992Sep4.172454.11340@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
: >In article <wiegand.715613319@lido16> motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net writes:
: >>Actually its not impossible if the hardware supports it (I don't believe
: >>Intel micro do). You need a two level address lookup with a small page
: >>table that is always present. This is used to page the main page table.
: >>This is somewhat slower than a single level lookup, but can be usefull
: >>for computers with very large memories where the page tables are too
: >>large to keep in memory.
: 
: The 386 has provisions for multiple page tables.  I think you could
: get this scheme to work.  I believe it's used by Unix/386, since Unix
: does this on all other platforms.

i believe the Jolitz (did I get the spelling correct?) version of BSD
for the 386 has a unique use of the 386 page tables that allows efficient
lookup as well as allow the keeping of small sets of page tabless in
memory. They do this by using self referential entries in the page
table. See their series of articles in Dr. Dobbs for more details.

jin meng
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
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: 15 Sep 1992 19:33:23 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Sep15.174241.2427@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>No, I make purchase decisions on the word of people like Bill Gates,
>Lee Reiswig, and John Soyring (as always I use a grain of salt... it's
>a complex world).  Unfortunately Lee Reiswig and John Soyring have let
>me down...

...as if Bill Gates didn't when, after saying for years that OS/2 is the
strategic way to go, MS dropped all support for OS/2 and REMOVED it from
existing products. Why should we trust Bill Gates? By comparison, Lee Reiswig
and John Soyring have, at worst, made little white lies. I don't trust Gates
any farther than I can throw Redmond.

>next time I deal with IBM I'll get it in writing.

Is that true for MS as well?
-- 
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.
 "Keep in mind that Amateur Radio As We Know It Today will cease to exist
            at midnight tonight." -- Dave Newkirk, WJ1Z
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: OS/2 vs. Win3.1
From: ghdai@vax1.umkc.edu
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:30:43 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City


>> I see no reason to spend my money
>> on OS/2 2.0 apps until it's clear that OS/2 will have as many apps
>> as NT.  With the way OS/2 2.0 currently handles 16-bit windows apps
>> I see little reason why a user that uses mainly Windows apps would prefer
>> it to Windows 3.1.
>
>Well.....OS/2 as a multi-tasker makes Win3.1 look sick. *Smooth* is he word. I
>tried running SAS under Windows - 3 minute response from any other app *if* I
>could get to one! No problem under OS/2.
 
Yes, similar to SAS, Wordperfect 5.1 for DOS is hard to run and switch back
and/or to other windows.  The response became terribly slow when you started
another thing, like formatting a diskette.  BUT with OS/2, things are going
much, much, and very much smoother, thanks to its pre-emptive and multithreaded
multitasking.

>If all you do is use a GUI for cut and past and a bit task-switching.....well
>Win3.1 does that just fine. 
> 
>If you want to several thiks at the same time - both within one and/or
>multiple apps (multi-tasking multi-threaded apps), then OS/2 is King and
>Win3.1 is a waste if time.

Good point!

> 
>OS/2 is an operating system. Win3.1 is a gui with some clever memory
>management.
>
>
>Steve

G.H. Dai
-- 
GHDai@VAX1.UMKC.Edu   |**** Happy user of only OS/2 2.0!!/HPFS entire HDD ****|
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Brian, your bias is showing ( was Re: OS/2 vs NT features
Date: Mon,  7 Sep 92 15:53:44 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Sep3.164040.11566@nuscc.nus.sg>

> Come to think of it - how can the file system code be pageable? I need
> the file system to page in needed blocks! For that matter - is the cache

Why would you need the file system to page?  On most layered I/O architectures,
the file system doesn't directly control the device(s) that contain the files.
It talks to a device driver for that.  The paging software can talk to that
device driver.

You would only need the file system to page if the pages were kept in a file.
If the paging area is on a separate partition or area of the disk, then there
would be no need for the file system.

Even if the paging area is a file, I would expect the OS to find out where
it is on the disk, and then talk to it directly, bypassing the file
system (i.e., the file system is only involved to create the paging
file).  I think that this leads to simpler file system design, and also
allows for more powerful and efficient file systems, and makes deadlock
avoidance easier.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: unruh@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh)
Subject: Re: Hard future for OS/2 2.0 ....
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 06:59:40 GMT

juan@noyles.pha.pa.us (Juan J. E. T. Noyles) writes:
[Insulting rambling discourse deleted]
>--
>Has anyone seen my sanity?				Juan@Noyles.pha.pa.us
It's sure not anywhere in your post.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 VS NT! The Future War Looms...
From: Spartacus At Cuny <I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Monday, 14 Sep 1992 16:45:37 EDT
 <c0xn=8d.xtifr@netcom.com><1992Sep14.042311.18756@fcom.cc.utah.edu><1992Sep14.
 144709.24019@midway.uchicago.edu><1992Sep14.163039.363@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <1992Sep14.163039.363@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu
(Brian Sturgill) says:
>Can you explain the PC Magazine ranking system then?  What did the base
>the ranking on, and what were the numbers?  I tried to find this
>issue, but they were gone by the time I knew to look.

Direct Quote from Sept 29 issue:

     "The list ranks PC business programs according to the total
number of copies shipped to stores and resellers in the week ending
July 25, 1992.  The list is based on shipments to more than 12,000
retail locations.  It does not include sales made directly by software
publishers and cannot be interpreted as a picture of the entire
software market.  Sales information compiled by Ingram-Micro."

BTW, OS/2 Upgrade ranked #12 in this issue while the 3.1 upgrade
has fallen to #9.  Non Win3.1 upgrade is #3

-------
------------------------------+      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!"
New accounts above 8-)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: Micro$oft claims a 4Q92 delivery for NT
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 14 Sep 1992 15:57 EST  

In article <1992Sep13.213938.5221@gw.wmich.edu>, x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu 
writes...

>	Hmmm.  It sounds like FUD to me.  How can they possibly release
>a resonably bug free OS with so little beta testing?  Even little DOS 5
>was being beta's forever.  Everyone had a beta of DOS 5 and Windows NT
>is not even in wide beta yet.  They had BETTER ship it then before 93!
>Otherwise this will offer absolute proof that MS is simply trying to 
>scare people from OS/2 2.0!

One possibility is that they strip out everything that gives the beta 
testers the most heartburn and release the rest on 12/31/92.  I have yet to 
see an "official" list of the features of the initial release of NT (I tend 
to view Brian's list as "might have, some day"), which pretty much gives 
Microsoft the ability to box and ship whatever they like prior to the end
of the year.

JD
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel)
Subject: Re: Is NT vs OS/2 really the subject?
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY, 12866
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:43:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.175602.840@debet.nhh.no> si0_tb90020@debet.nhh.no writes:
>Regarding the OS/2 vs NT or vice versa discussion...
>
>
>Is really Microsoft aiming at UNIX with NT. Is it actually UNIX they are
>trying to get at?
>
>Just wondered...
>

Here's something more to ponder....  Everyone brings up the old "UNIX
is multiuser, NT is not" quote.  I've done it myself.  But now I'm
thinking - what does multiuser give me?  
	In the UNIX world, programs can execute on the server's cpu or
on the local's (quite often it's on the server's).  The advantage is
that all you need is a dumb terminal to connect to the server, and it
behaves like a desktop computer.  That was fine in the days of cheap
terminals and *expensive* PCs.
	With NT, each application runs on the local cpu, while the
server runs administrative stuff, provides common databases that can
be accessed by local nodes, and stores data and executable files.  
	So......  what's wrong with running the user programs locally,
now that PCs are cheap and plentiful enough?  As long as the server
does the coordination work, isn't that enough?  Isn't the UNIX kind of
network environment becoming outmoded?

If so (and I'm not suggesting that it is, only asking for input), then
the contest may well be between NT and OS/2.


-- 
Pierre von Kaenel	| Skidmore College	     | pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu
Math & CS Dept.		| Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 | (518)584-5000 Ext 2391
When asked his position on euthanasia, our local state rep. responded:
"I support youth all over the world."
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: When is Comdex?
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 17:38:07 GMT

In article <26271@dog.ee.lbl.gov> kushner@ux1.lbl.gov (Gary Kushner) writes:
>
>Well, I want to go and advocate!  
>
>-Gary
>


November 16-20  (Las Vegas, NV)

You're probably too late to find a hotel room though.  I could barely
find one a month or so ago.


Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 PR
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:43:51 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep14.145438.1@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> f67700241@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:
>Agreed 100%.  I wonder if NT (of all OSs) will suddenly step into the
>education market and go where IBM failed to go.

I doubt it.  A school computer store isn't the education market.
Students buying copies for themselves won't really take it.  At NJIT,
at least, there are a few PC labs, based on DOS (mostly 3.3 - one LAN
got its hardware upgraded, and is now using 5.0 this year) and Novell
NetWare (and NetWare was a recent addition - it used to be some ArcNet
network), and the rest of the computers are Suns and other Unix boxes,
with a small number of Macs around for word processing stations.

Where does Windows exist here?  NT will go there.

-- 
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