HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 01:17:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.000909.16289@sequent.com> furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.194036.14489@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>>In  <1992Oct7.001053.29352@netcom.com>  xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>>> Personally, I'm waiting breathlessly for LANtastic for OS/2.  I suspect
>>> that this will be out *long* before LANtastic for NT (hmm, will there
>>> *ever* be such a product?  I seriously doubt it.)
>>
>>You can stop doubting it. NT has far superior Networking-Software built
>>in. You can compare LAN-MANAGER Networking to Novell, but what do you need
>>LANtatstic for, if you have LM Networking built into NT.
>>
>
>Why compare it to Novel ? Compare it to something worth talking
>about, such as UNIX networking, or other similar OS/Networking
>solutions that are on par with the audience NT is aimed at.

While I don't have extensive experience with Novell networking,
I do have extensive experience with TCP/IP+NFS.
It is clear that Novell-like networking is functionally superior to TCP/IP+NFS.
NFS specifically is a poor substitiute to for the file server
protocols provided by NetWare.  NetWare on a 486 is capable of providing
filesharing to 100 clients (perhaps more).  NFS on a similar box
would not nearly do this, nor does NFS provide as good of transaction
processing mechanisms.

Also NT has TCP/IP, and several third parties are already working
on NFS.

The long and short of this is that NT is easily superior to Unix
in its handling of networks.

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! :-))
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 11:57:43 EDT
From: Spiro the Spiny Goldfish <MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.
 <1992Oct6.235111.27463@netcom.com> <1992Oct7.012337.28592@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
 <1992Oct8.205928.20293@njitgw.njit.edu>
 <1992Oct9.004641.12214@fcom.cc.utah.edu>

In article <1992Oct9.004641.12214@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu
(Brian Sturgill) says:
>
>As to the developer kit costing $2,600... you PAID that much?
>Sheesh.. I certainly wouldn't have.
>I wonder if the fact that they had left OS/2 2.0 related to the kit price?

No, it didn't have anything to do with it. The kit cost $2600 when it first
came out, before OS/2 1.3 was even released, and MORE THAN A YEAR before the
IBM-Microsoft split.

Brian, it's obvious you don't know anything about the history of the subject.
Please leave the discussions to those of us who have something factual to add.
----
Mike Dahmus       MXD118@PSUVM  or  dahmus@cs.psu.edu
TEAM OS/2
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 10:15:26 GMT

In article <wepx0Eu00WB4NmaURg@andrew.cmu.edu> Jyri Virkki <jyri+@CMU.EDU> writes:
>
>brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>> Window 3.X and DOS 5.0 are not usable?
>
>You must be joking? If you seriously think those products are viable
>systems to work under, I'd have to seriously question the validity of
>your opinions regarding NT. Msdos and windows are barely usable for
>simple tasks; for serious work they are a very bad joke.

Of course, this depends on what you consider "simple tasks" and "serious
work".  If you consider atmospheric modeling and the like as "simple
tasks", then you are correct.  However, for most people, serious
work is not quite as intensive as what *you* must do.

>I am not willing to put up with anything less powerful than unix.

My, my, what a power user you must be! :)

>Given that,
>I'm sure you will agree msdos and windows are not even worth
>mentioning. (If not, it means that your computing requirements are so
>different from mine that the fact that you love NT probably means I
>will hate it).

Just because *you* don't want to put up with anything less powerful
than unix doesn't mean that msdos and windows (and OS/2) "are not even
worth mentioning".  Many many many more people use DOS, Windows, OS/2,
System 7, etc... than use the various flavors of unix.  And, contrary
to *your* personal opinion, a great deal of them do serious work.

>Jyri J. Virkki | DoD#561 | jyri+@cmu.edu | Carnegie Mellon University | MSINI

- Mike
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Reply-To: soh3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 04:08:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct09.174713.178@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>>     Nonsense.  Zachmann has provided _no_ evidence to support his
>>>claims, at least that I am aware of.  Can you tell me where the
>>>preponderance is?
>>
>>The preponderance is in the evidence of the witness himself: he's simply more
>>credible than either his employers or MS. As someone else pointed out, it's a
>>swearing contest - Zachmann's word against MS and ZD's - so the relative
>>credibility of the witnesses, as well as what they have to gain, is what
>>decides the case.
>
>     Why is Zachmann more credible?  He clearly has an agenda.  So do
>his editors.

Zachmann's gain is much smaller than MS's or ZD's loss every time he
writes in favor of os/2.  This is a very familiar situation: if one
has to choose a side, one has to choose with less self-interest.
I thought it's a common sense by now.  

>     It seems like your only measure of credibility is which party
>it would make you feel better to believe.
>
>					-Phil

Min

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong)
Subject: Re: Os/2ers whine again
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 07:06:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct05.094738.9642@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.105729.1435@leland.Stanford.EDU> yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU wrote:
>> OS/2 3.0, when Microsoft announced it at first, was to be the portable OS/2.
>> At that point, Microsoft was still behind (or so it claimed) OS/2 2.0.  It
>> presented OS/2 3.0 as a continuation of the OS/2 line, a new generation,
>> with a NT kernel that will support OS/2, DOS and Unix.  If OS/2 3.0 has
>> nothing whatsoever to do with OS/2 2.0, I wonder what Microsoft was trying
>> to do when it was naming the baby.
>
>Question.  In the above paragraph, do you mean MS OS/2 2.0, or IBM OS/2 2.0.
>They are two different things.  What useful information are you trying
>to get out of this discussion.  If you are trying to get any information
>as to whether you should buy one or the other, then I'd suggest choosing
>more relevant questions.  If you are trying to badmouth one company or the
>other, you are still not choosing your questions correctly.  What
>really do you want to know?

Firstly, I'm *not* trying to badmouth MS or anything.  If NT has anything to
do with MS OS/2 3.0 and hence OS/2, that is nothing to be ashamed of.
since MS did major parts of OS/2 2.0 and all of the original MS OS/2 3.0
anyway.  There is really no need to be defensive here.

What I'm saying is, Windows NT seems to be based on the MS OS/2 3.0 (which I
know is very different from the IBM OS/2 3.0, which is not available really
as yet), and MS OS/2 2.0 was a continuation of OS/2 2.0 (be it MS or IBM,
since the present OS/2 2.0 still contains a large part of MS design/code,
as some microsoft employee pointed out on another post).  Hence
the claim that Windows NT has nothing to do with OS/2 does not hold up.

>
>petesk@microsoft.com
> 


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 07 Oct 92 18:56:14 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct7.013107.17657@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.095659.2455@cam-orl.co.uk> thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:
>>
>>You mean like the current OS/2 2.0 "Beta"?  As everyone is keen on pointing
>>out, a "Beta" should go to a restricted number of developers who will provide
>>detailed reports on bugs and features. A "Beta" is not generally available to
>>the whole world.
>
>*Wrong*.  A beta version is for users to test unfinished code and report
>problems back to the manufacturer.  A "pre-beta SDK" is a software
>developer's kit, which is not for testing but development.

     I agree with both of your definitions.  Let's work with them
below.


>  This has been
>BS on MS's part from the beginning.  Since when did MS bother to find out
>whether someone was a developer before sending them the SDK?

     This is a straw man argument, as you point out yourself in the
next paragraph.


>"So?  MS shouldn't have to spend time asking for proof." you may say.
>No, they shouldn't.

     Therefore what you wrote before was just a waste of keystrokes.


>  But the way they've handled the SDK so far shows what
>they're really trying to do with it.

      This line is precedes the following text, which doesn't seem to
be at all related, as far as I can tell.


>  My brother is a developer for a 
>certain other company's (not IBM) product, and he wrote a driver for their
>product before they could be bothered to include him in their developers'
>program.  As such, he gets special offers and benefits, but he is under a non-
>disclosure agreement about the program.

     OK - this "other company" runs a more restrictive program than
MS.  This says nothing about Microsoft's motivations for releasing
the SDK - it just points out that different companies do things in
different ways.


>So what does this say about the pre-beta SDK?  MS doesn't care whether they
>put it in a developer's or a child's hands, as long as it's out there.

     How many of the 25,000 SDKs shipped so far were ordered by children,
do you estimate?


>I, for one, think this is a perfectly legitimate way for them to try to
>push their product, but I laugh to think of those who buy into MS's pre-beta
>BS, and try to justify it as such.  Wake up and smell the coffee.

      You have fallen miles short of proving any ulterior motivations
for Microsoft's release of the Windows NT SDK.  Your post is filled
with vague assertions, totally unsupported by facts or even further
argument.
      Care to try again?

					-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: Lowey@Sask.USask.CA (Kevin Lowey)
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Originator: lowey@jester.usask.ca
Reply-To: lowey@jester.usask.ca
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:50:36 GMT

From article <12268.2ad32149@cpva.saic.com>, by finsys@cpva.saic.com:
> 

> From what I can tell from this net, people who don't want that
> networking, security, etc. stuff should wait for WIN32s instead. Yes,
> no?  (ie those of us who simply need a stable multitasker - Desqview &
> Win 3.1 on DOS - not good enough, OS/2 2.0 - possibly too much)

Just curious, how can you have "too much" of a stable multitasker? #8-)
-- 
- Kevin Lowey (Lowey@Sask.USask.CA)
>>>>> Anonymous FTP to FTP.USASK.CA for DOS, OS/2, and Windows programs <<<<<

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: I went ahead and did it....
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:47:11 GMT

garyng@gnct.com (garyng) writes:

>> (2) Windows Incompatability...

>  OS2's Window support is kind of 'well we can run SOME window apps'. If 
>  you rely heavily on Window apps. forget about OS2

What? Have you actually used OS/2?
Name some Windows apps that *can't* run under OS/2.
Don't make statements like this unless you can give examples.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:52:46 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Oct8.212251.22488@ms.uky.edu> sam@ms.uky.edu (Mike Mills) writes:
...
>Because we maintain a large heterogenous network of Unix based machines.
>We don't want root running around doing things it doesn't need to be
>doing.  For instance, backups.  If we let root do backups on machine X to
>a remote machine Y, then machine Y must have X listed in its root .rhosts
>file.  This is unacceptable.  In our system, we let operator do backups to
>remote hosts.  This is only one example.
>
>When it becomes neccessary to be root for something, we login to the
>machine in question under our own userid and then "su" to root.  This
>keeps things accountable.
>

The examples you use aren't really valid for NT.  Backups would be
done either via mounting a remote volume and dumping it, or via
RPC, the "rsh" approach usually used under Unix is an example of
weak high-level networking features under Unix.

The "root" problem does not exist under NT.  NT has a much finer grain
of privileges than Unix does. Your user account would simply
be given the privilege/group permissions that you need.
For example my account on my home machine has precisely
the same level of privilege as the "Administrator" account
(NT equivalent of "root").  At UK, when you su to root, it asks
"Who are you?", it asks this because Unix gives you only one
privileged account... that with uid 0, traditionally called "root".
And it uses your response to allow you to have your own root "dot" files.

(Don't look so shocked... I know that at UK it asks "Who are you?" as
_I'm_  the one that added that feature to the root's .login several
years ago when I was system admin there.)

Under NT this is unnecessary as your normal user account would simply
be you to setup accounts with the desired level of privilege.
This feature when coupled with ACLs, means that "su" is not really
desirable under NT.  You could make a character mode "su", but I'm
not sure what you would do with it.
In fact, since it is possible to distinguish one system admin account
from another under NT... "su" would be an inconvenience.

>--Mike Mills              E-Mail:  sam@ms.uky.edu, {rutgers, uunet}!ukma!sam

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: d9mikael@dtek.chalmers.se (Mikael Wahlgren)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:33:06 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg Sweden

msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith) writes:

>>You can have background tasks executing as other users... and if you
>>provided the login program... people logged in via serial ports.

>The facts you tout about multi user for NT WRT remote logins are just as valid
>for OS/2 and in fact OS/2 is one better in that they are here NOW. (OS2toYOU) 

Wow!!! _MY_ program is used in a discussion of OS/2 - Windows/NT!

BRIAN, could you do me a favour?  Tell your friends at Microsoft that
you need a remote login capability for Windows/NT. and tell them to
send me the Windows/NT SDK for FREE.  I have a problem with Microsoft...
They want me to pay 100 USD for the SDK, and I don't think it is worth
that currently...

Mikael Wahlgren

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:16:13 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <7542@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Oct09.181614.609@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>
>>     OK - don't buy the SDK, then.  The fact that you don't want it
>>doesn't make the release FUD.
>
>No, but the fact that they're selling it for $69 does.

     You keep saying this, but you never back it up with evidence or
even explanation.  _Why_ is it FUD?

					-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: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Date: 11 Oct 92 09:36:15 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Oct10.231756.49561@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu wrote:

> >
> >Well, I hate to say it, but software doesn't work that way.  Software
> >is almost all startup up cost and and very little production cost.
> >Software has no intrinsic value besides what people are willing to pay
> >for it, and if what you say is true, that most people won't be using
> >the networking products, then the networking products will be worth little
> >to them.  They will be willing to pay what they were willing to pay for the
> >orrigional WNT product, minus the value of the networking products, which
> >was little or nothing.  The net price will not have changed.  All that
> >will change is the possible price for the WNT with the networking, which
> >may go up, because the people willing to buy it will pay more for it.
> 
> So no money went into developing that networking software?  If people want
> and/or need the networking, they *will* buy it.  If they don't need it, don't
> force them into it.  Are you claiming that NT would cost just as much if we
> removed networking, multiprocessing, and security features?  Of course it
> wouldn't.  In fact people would really bitch and moan about this.

Let X be the cost of development per unit sold.
Let Y be the price per unit per unit sold.

To make a profit, X < Y.

Now, who ever said that Y = f(X).  

More to the point, Y is not necessarily based on the value of X, more than
it should be more than X to make a profit.  Y is based on what the market
will pay for the product.  Simple economics.



> 
> >>So in asking to remove networking, you are asking to raise the price of
> >the networking version, and not lower the price of the non-networked
> >version.
> 
> No you are lowering the price of the non-networking version.  The costs didn't
> go into that version and so the company can't honestly claim that the
> pdevelopment price is just as much.

The price for the Non-networked version will be what people will pay for it.
People, like yourself, will not pay more for the networked version.
So, if networks are shipped with all versions, then to sell it to you,
the price should be the same as the price you would have paid for a 
non-networked version.  What's wront if the price is the same for the
networked and non-networked versions.  Then MS is eating the cost
of network development, so to speak.  Would you still complain.
If not, then why not ship everyone the networked version, at the 
cost you would have paid for the non-networked version.
Would it not then be possible that the development costs of the network
be made up by the extra sales of people who would buy NT because it
is a good networking deal.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 13 Oct 1992 13:30:06 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Oct12.212333.28784@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>     Not as much to lose as announcing "under $100" and release
>for $150.  If such an event were to ever take place, I'm sure the
>entire readership of this newsgroup would pounce on it in a second.
>In this case, it seems to me that the negative aspects of announcing
>a high upper bound greatly outweigh the negative aspects of releasing
>an upper bound that was too low.

(I think you said that backwards from what you meant...)

That kind of consideration is exactly why I think MS thought about it very
carefully and came up with their honest best estimate before saying "under
$500". Yes, I agree that if they erred, they did so on the high side, and so I
don't think that they'll price it at even $500; where we differ is that you
thinkg it's much more of a wild guess than I do. Why not make it as close as
possible to the real thing, especially if you buy Pete Skelly's argument that
software prices bear little relationship to anything anyway?

>     Of couse he does!  Zachmann is an OS/2 advocate.  If OS/2
>doesn't do well, he looks bad, his credibility suffers, and he gets
>less work.  If OS/2 does exceptionally well, he looks good, he
>gains credibility, and gets more work.  If he happens to help
>OS/2 along by spreading misinformation about products he hasn't
>even seen, so much the better.

In doing that, he's certainly not alone; look at all the MS-influenced
columnists lauding Windows 3.1 and slamming OS/2 who haven't ever looked at
OS/2. Of course, it's OK if people say good things about MS products...

Zachmann's gains, even under this scenario, are much less than he lost by
upholding his personal integrity by refusing to bow to MS and ZD pressure and
ending his relationship with ZD. It's a net loss for him.
-- 
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: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Subject: Re: I went ahead and did it....
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 11:40:55 GMT

garyng@gnct.com (garyng) writes:

>BTW, I would really like to have OS2 2.0 gurus to help me to solve my
>netware requestor problem(or have I shoot myself because I have said something
>bad about OS2 ?).


Don't worry, there's plenty of adults around here (I think) :-)

>-gary


-- 
Erik van Linstee   |   Delft University of Technology   |   I'll be back ... 
----
   We are god, 'cause only we can create the idea of his existence
   in our holy brains...  (Yello)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy