HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: quan@sol.surv.utas.edu.au (Stephen Quan)
Subject: Re: Bill Gates: What a weenie...
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:41:24 GMT

Hello all, I know this is diverges from the original thread, and the
comments included in this article are 100% my own, so if you find flaws
in it or it to be a naive view, then I accept that!

First of all, Bill Gates, if he is a 'weenie', he is one very rich and
successful one and there is no denying that.  I have always believe in
those times, there were big opportunities of being rich and successful
by just being the right person at the right time and at the right place.

As I see Bill Gates, before Microsoft, he could modestly claim to being
like every other person trying to make a cut in [programming?] the computer
industry.

I wish I was born 15 years earlier and it could have been me!

There is no doubt that a lot organisations today, depend on Microsoft for
their products.  That has undoubtedly increased Bill Gates worth 1000 times.

Despite all the critisms, I still think Bill Gates, today plays an essential
role in the computer industry.  Defining and redefining the software to
be used on our PCs today and tomorrow.

But whether I believe Microsoft is in total control of our software, I
denied it!  It is the consumers who choose whether Microsoft is in control
of our software through sales.  As a commercial organisation they depend
on sales.  So we control Microsoft, who control our software.

For Microsoft to succeed, I guess, they have to have a good marketting
body to maintain the interest of the computing body of today.
--
Stephen Quan (quan@sol.surv.utas.edu.au)      Tel : 002 202844 (local)
Research Fellow, Computer Scientist,          Fax : 002 240282 (local)
Centre for Spatial Information Systems,       Tel : 61 02 202844
University of Tasmania, Australia.            Fax : 61 02 240282
From: james@george.UUCP (james shoemaker)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot and NT
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 17:51:00 CST
Organization: Organization for creative time-wasting

jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

> In article <1993Jan9.012848.3728@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
> >	The one that doesn't--or *suppposedly* doesnt (I don't believe
> >	it for a second) is NeXT486.  Supposedly, it will only run on
> >	a genuine Intel 486SX or DX.  The Cyrix 486slc (?) is a full 
> >	80486 sans coprocessor (and Cyrix's external is faster than the
> >	DX's internal one).  NS486 will probably run fine--but NeXT
> >	says no.
> 
> Actually, I had thought that the Cy486SLC was a beefed-up _386_ (improved
> pipelining, on-chip cache, etc), designed to drop into a 386 socket. There ar
> 6 instructions that Intel added to the 486 beyond the 386/387 instruction set
> and NS486 makes very heavy use of at least one of them (a byte-swap
> instruction).
> 
> I'm sure that when NS486 and the Cy486SLC are both on the market, we'll find
> out for sure...
> -- 
        Actually the 486SLC is designed to plug into a 386SX socket.  the 
486DLC goes into a 386DX socket.  As for compatability, I don't know 
exactly, but I think they did implement any extensions that the 486 adds 
except the Math.  and the cache is smaller.

                        JWS
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: lmalloy@abacus.bates.edu (Laura G. Malloy)
Subject: Re: No TrueType Fonts in OS/2 2.1 ?!
Organization: Bates College, Lewiston, Maine
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:33:16 GMT

In article <19360@mindlink.bc.ca> Ian_Upright@mindlink.bc.ca (Ian Upright) writes:

>Lets not spread true FUD here!  TrueType wasn't developed by Microsoft,
>it was stolen BY Microsoft from Apple.  Apple invented TrueType.
>

Lessee, first a moral imperative: let us not spread FUD.  Then, a false
(i.e., FUD) assertion: Microsoft *stole* TrueType from Apple.  Practice
what you preach, please.

(It's not as if Apple is unwilling to litigate, now, is it?)

jmalloy@hamilton.edu
 


>
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Origin:  Astaria Digital Enterprises             Ian_Upright@mindlink.bc.ca
> BBS: (604) 852-1866, or FidoNet  :-)  1:153/513                  CANADA eh?
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:14:24 GMT

In article <8327@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.012301.29017@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>>Mearly stating that they are getting screwed isn't proof that they are.
>>Nobody has said how the consumers are getting screwed now--the only thing
>>mentioned is some vague suppositions about how its "in the future" that
>>they will get screwed when it supposedly will raise prices.  This is all
>>supposition.
>
>People who don't want or need licenses for MS-DOS and Windows are being forced
>to pay for them anyway.

Okay, Jay.  Let's say that there are two companies A and B.  A sells 
computers with DOS+Windows for $1000.  B sells computers without DOS+Windows
for $1005.  Who would you buy from?

Remember A can sell for cheaper because his sales are much higher and his
distributors therefore give him better prices for hardware... and B is slow
in realizing that most of his customers want DOS+Windows--and he charges
full-price for it (so those customers go to A who has a better deal
for such a system).

>
>Just wait until they achieve the monopoly position that they want and you seem
>to believe is their moral right. Then watch everyone get screwed.
>
>>Another unsubstantiated supposition.  Must we repeat the "name that monopoly"
>>thread?
>
>No, since you apparently refuse to accept the common definition of "monopoly".
>-- 
>Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
>jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
>      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
>              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of all Fears_


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: How many Nobel Prizes has IBM won?
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:07:25 GMT

z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>
>In article <1993Jan5.044937.15400@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, rjones@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ronald Jones) writes:
>> There is a news item in acs.clari.nb.ibm about the importance of
>> basic research to the future of America. It states that in the 
>> last 5 years IBM has won 2 Nobel Prizes. Does anyone know the
>> total.
>
>I believe, IBM Won one for the Scanning Tunneling Microscope.
>Was it in Medicine???
>
>> 
>> BTW, how many has Microsoft won ;-) (Just to put things into
>> their proper perspective!)
>> 
>
>I didn't think there was a Nobel Prize for Marketing? :)
>
>
>
>
>


IBM scientists won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1986 and 1987. Other
achievements include FORTRAN, RISC Semiconductor, magnetic storage. IBM's
patents exceed 10,000. If you are interested in research, I would recommend
the IBM System Journal or their Research and Development Journal where they
publish all of the new patents from IBM scientists. The list is rather long
every issue but it covers a lot. That's why Microsoft pays IBM millions of
dollars (over 15 Million) to use some of the IBM patents.

There are many more such as RSCS,BITNET and obviously the PC and OS/2 v2.

Best Regards,
Mark K.
From: palmer@pcatsc.UUCP (Doug Palmer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: LPT2: Bug in OS/2?
Summary: IRQ misconfiguration slows down print.
Keywords: LPT2 IRQ
Date: 8 Jan 93 15:25:54 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: United States Courts (pcatsc)

In article <1ifsisINN3s4@network.ucsd.edu> imacauslan@ucsd.edu (Ian Macauslan) writes:
>Despite (unhelpful) calls to OS/2 tech. support, I have a real strange problem
>-- any print job sent to lpt2: takes FOREVER to print under OS/2 -- like 3
>hours to print a half-page of text! Yet it DOES print eventually.  Looking at
>the LED's on my printer, it looks like OS/2 is sending a very small amount of
>data about every minute or so.
>
>This, despite years of NO such problem when I was a DOS user (including
>Windows). Indeed, if I reboot ("dual-booting") back to being a real DOS
>machine, lpt2: works perfectly, as it always has. 
>
>My set up is: Zenith 386/25 (8 MB RAM), PostScript printer on lpt1:, HP DeskJet
>on lpt2..  I have installed the service pak.
>
>My initial thought was to disable the print spooler. No discernable effect.
>Then I thought the print driver (since one of my printers is a DeskJet) -- also
>no effect.  Finally, I switched the printers (changing the printer drivers
>accordingly, of course) and even tried an Epson LQ-850 on lpt2: --    and had
>the same problem, regardless of what device wa s connected to lpt2:.
>
>I have also verified the problem exists, whether I'm printing from an OS/2
>application, WIN-OS2, or an OS2 DOS session.
>
>Any ideas?  If I can't resolve this,        Microsoft will be glad it got one
>of its long-time Windows 3.1 users back again.

No need to get that drastic.... :)

Sounds like an interrupt problem. If your LPT2 port is running on other than
IRQ5, then it will print slower than Congress can lower spending. It's
only dispatching characters on a chance poll by whatever IRQ it is using.
I've seen this also on Netware systems with misconfigured slave printers.


-- 

United States Courts                                         Doug Palmer
Automated Training & Support Center
7550 IH10 West, Suite 1100                     spatsc!palmer@spao.ao.gov
From: scratchy.caltech.edu!kasturi (Tejaswi Kasturi)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot and NT
Date: 11 Jan 1993 01:18:43 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: scratchy.caltech.edu
Originator: kasturi@scratchy

In article <1993Jan9.012848.3728@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu  
(Yamanari) writes:
> 	The one that doesn't--or *suppposedly* doesnt (I don't believe
> 	it for a second) is NeXT486.  Supposedly, it will only run on
> 	a genuine Intel 486SX or DX.  The Cyrix 486slc (?) is a full 
> 	80486 sans coprocessor (and Cyrix's external is faster than the
> 	DX's internal one).  NS486 will probably run fine--but NeXT
> 	says no.

The Cyrix 486slc does not have the full Intel 486 Instruction set and thus  
will only run 386 capable apps and not 486-specific apps.

The name 486slc is a misnomer since it is really just a 386sx with cache  
(much like IBM's 386slc chip)
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 4 Jan 93 16:36:46 GMT
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego

In article <1i2ajeINN8fu@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cd617@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stephen M. Brancati) writes:
>
>In a previous article, z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu () says:
>>
>>	All this talk about FUD & Misinformation about OS/2 from Microsoft has
>>some NEW Merit!
>>
>>	I Recently talked to a Beta Tester of DOS 6.0. He Runs OS/2 with 2 Hard
>>Drives, One FAT, One HPFS. He decided to Install the DOS 6.0 Beta on the FAT
>>Partition, and got a Message saying, and I paraphrase: 
>>
>>- OS/2 Detected! Due to the size of OS/2 you may wish to delete your OS/2 
>>files before installing DOS 6.0 -
>
>
>Hmmmmm.  One has to wonder if the DOS 6.0 Beta is kind enough to warn
>Windows NT users as well.  Anyone out there know?
>-- 
>  Stephen M. Brancati  |  The best way to ask for beer is to sing out Ubik.

One has to consider whether the install *aborted* because of OS/2, or if
the message was simply a warning.  Many install programs for Windows
gives warnings (Windows itself has a warning regarding compatibility with
Sidekick version 2.0, and Animation Works gives a warning regarding
compatibility with my current MCI video driver).

Granted, warning about disk space when 150mb are free is stretching it a
bit... but if it's just a warning, just click on the "Ignore" button and
continue on your merry way.

And also consider that the DOS 6.0 is a BETA.  I would be incredulous if
that blatant message made it to the real release.

Joe

My opinions.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: stoen@katana.pcpd.hou.compaq.com (Rick Stoen)
Subject: Re: Windows NT vs OS/2: Does NT worth the wait?
Organization: Compaq Computer Corporation
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:43:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.175913.22752@cam-orl.co.uk>, thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan7.151207.16053@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, rew3q@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Russell E. Wolfe) writes:
|> |> NT's disk space for full install: @ 60 Meg
|> |> NT's suggested swap file size:    @ 25 meg
|> |> 
|> |> These figures are from my short encounter with the NT beta
|> |> released in late october.
|> It must have been a very short encounter. My C:\WINNT is 41Meg, the swap
|> file is 15Meg and the entire drive has less than 60Meg in use.
|> 
|> (The swap file is big because I have Excel, Word, Acces and PowerPoint loaded
|> and running)
|> 
The following is part of a chkdsk from a machine running the October
beta release. The installation was straight from the CD onto a blank
NTFS partition.

   111722 kilobytes total disk space.
    76776 kilobytes in 541 user files.

The virtual memory screen reports the minimum swap file size to be 43
meg and the maximum is 93 meg. BTW the machine has 32M of physical RAM
installed.

========================================================================
|  Rick Stoen                      |      Phone: (713) 374-4514        |
|  Compaq Computer Corporation     |      EMail: stoen@compaq.com      |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|      Work hard, rock hard, eat hard, sleep hard, grow big,           |
|      and wear glasses if you need 'em...                             |
|                                The Webb Wilder Credo                 |
========================================================================
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are my own, and do not reflect
            those of my employer.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 04 Jan 93 05:27:20 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1i7u0lINNggh@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> czmax@cats.ucsc.edu (Max C. Pritikin) writes:
>
>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>
>	[a bunch deleted]
>
>>     OS/2 should still work just fine, but it wouldn't be able
>>to read the compressed FAT partition.  I expect that any warning
>>message is intended to convey exactly this information.
>	
>	[some more deleted]
>
>	Hmm, I've very eager to see the actual text of the message.
>Until then there is nothing much to argue about...

     True.  That won't stop anyone from arguing, though.


>	We have a bunch of people willing to flip over a supposed
>evil message from the Evil Empire (TM).  (Speaking of which... Phil it 
>*DOES* have a history of such things:
>ie the WordPerfect Monster in MS Word 
>and the limping, buggy, 123 icon in MS Excel 4.0. )

     Ah - these are called 'glory screens'.  They typically list
the names of the people who worked on the product, and are almost
always very, very difficult to get to - you need to turn somersaults
to see them.  I personally think they are a silly idea, and don't
know how they get through code reviews.


> and on the 
>other side we have you arguing that MS couldn't possible have shiped
>a product that blantently lies about another product.

    I will assert again that the message quoted here (which we've
all agreed is probably incorrect) doesn't contain a lie at all.


>Shrug.  How about somebody scaring up the actual text??

     I'll try on Monday.

				-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: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2)
Subject: Re: Seamless
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.misc
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 06:59:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.024630.6833@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <19356@mindlink.bc.ca> Elias_Wakan@mindlink.bc.ca (Elias Wakan) writes:
>>What is this new computer term, "seamless"?  I assume it has some sort of
>>well defined meaning.

Seamless means that a Windows program can run directly on the WPS desktop
-- this requires a seamless video driver.  Otherwise, without the seamless
driver, you can run a Windows app on a Windows desktop which is inside a
DOS window on the WPS desktop.  (Of course, a Windows app can always be run
Full-Screen, with or without a seamless driver)

>	Only if you have Trident or XGA2.

Or ET4000 or ATI or IBMVGA256c or Paradise or Video7.  See the file
tri32new.zip in /pub/os2/2.0/drivers (I think) at ftp-os2.nmsu.edu,
as well as the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0i (the Great TFS added some SVGA info).
I have a WD Paradise WD90C31 video chip and I now have 1024x768x256
drivers for WPS, Win-OS/2, and seamless.

Follow-up to comp.os.os2.setup ... er, I mean, comp.os.os2.misc .
-- 
======= Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu =======
::  ftp ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (128.123.35.151) for OS/2  ::  .--.
::  software & information.   Get /pub/os2/00Index  :: (OS/2)
::::::::  & /pub/os2/all/info/faq/faq20i.txt  ::::::::  ~--~
From: evanc@carbon.isis.org (Evan Champion)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: RFD: how about comp.sys.ibm.pc.advocacy?
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 05:18:03 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: carbon.isis.org

sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes in article <1993Jan2.035542.1244@midway.uchicago.edu>:
> comp.os.os2.misc
> comp.os.os2.advocacy
> comp.os.os2.apps
> comp.os.os2.networking
> comp.os.os2.announce
> comp.os.os2.ver1x
> comp.os.os2.programmer.misc
> comp.os.os2.programmer.porting

comp.os.os2.multimedia
comp.os.os2.hardware
comp.os.os2.newuser

are three of my ideas, for multimedia support, getting specific hardware
issues resolved and helping new users figure out what's what (we all know 
how it can sometimes be a 'different' experience, installing, configuring, 
running OS/2 <grin>).  Another one I was thinking of was a group for 
software/hardware reviews pertaining to OS/2 that people could submit for 
everyone to read.  Perhaps:

comp.os.os2.review

At any rate, you've got my vote, Tim.

Evan
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:39:46 GMT

In article <wiegand.726348062@lido16> motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net writes:
>discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>
>>Okay, Jay.  Let's say that there are two companies A and B.  A sells 
>>computers with DOS+Windows for $1000.  B sells computers without DOS+Windows
>>for $1005.  Who would you buy from?
>
>>Remember A can sell for cheaper because his sales are much higher and his
>>distributors therefore give him better prices for hardware... and B is slow
>>in realizing that most of his customers want DOS+Windows--and he charges
>>full-price for it (so those customers go to A who has a better deal
>>for such a system).
>
>The problem with this argument is that you are assuming that the present
>state of the business is the only possible alternative.
>
>Given the present Microsoft sales policies we are stuck with the
>kind of choices you give.
>
>If Microsoft offered a less rescrictive sales option company A could also
>be offering a computer without DOS+Windows for $980.
>
>Just because a choice is the best available now doesn't mean that its
>the best possible.
>

Ah... but the real culprit is that people want DOS+Windows.  And whoever
can get the best price for DOS+Windows wins (a colleague of mine undercut
my price for a short period of time because he bought another company's
liquidated stock).

And when people decide NOT to want MS-DOS + Windows (OS/2 2.1 perhaps),
then vendors won't bother signing any MLP agreements.

I cannot run a business by buying product at prices that don't exist.  I
must live in the present: so what is the best available now--IS the
best possible NOW.  Those who sign up for the MLP agree that it is the
best for now--and nobody is forcing vendors (contrary to other's beliefs)
to sign up with Microsoft.


>-- 
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: OS/2 in 4 megs.  Useable.
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 07:29:27 GMT

x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>	Everyone seems to say that OS/2 is simply unusable in under
>8 megs ram on the computer.  This is not the case.  If you want to use
>OS/2 2.0 on a 4 meg machine (which I have done many times) you simply
>don't want to use the work place shell.  Its the workplace shell that
>eats up so much memory that 4 meg systems are too slow.  
>
>	If you have 4 megs, do the following:
>
>	change in your config.sys the line where it says
>run workplace=...pmshell.exe to cmd.exe.
>
>	Next create a startup.cmd in your root directory.  If you
>like text modes, then have it stay start /fs cmd.exe and you will
>get a fullscreen OS/2 session.  If you want a graphical shell still,
>get Norton Commander for OS/2.  It comes with a menu program and a fairly
>slick file manager that takes up very little memory.  With this, you
>can run OS/2 quite well and still run your DOS, Windows and OS/2 files.
>This set up makes OS/2 run about as well as Windows 3.1 runs on a
>386 with 2 megs of memory. (To compare).  4 megs with the Workplace shell
>on is virtually useless.   Also, do not use the HPFS.
>
>	8 Megs is still better of course but 4 megs is not useless if you
>aren't afraid of modifying your config.sys
>
>							-Brad
>
>
>
>
>
>


A very good point. For those who are interested in Norton Commander/2,
check the os2.apps conference. Not to mention that it is relatively
small and requires less than 350 Kbytes of HD space. 

Best Regards,
Mark K.
From: lmalloy@abacus.bates.edu (Laura G. Malloy)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bill Gates:  What a weenie...
Date: 5 Jan 93 00:47:24 GMT
Organization: Bates College/Maine; Hamilton College/New York

In article <1993Jan4.060918.23367@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>
[deleted: comments about Billy boy's TV apppearance]
>
>And he mentioned that "We hire smart people." When I saw Mr. Letwin's
>picture the first time, I thought I have seen Jesus! In order to
>create a _GOOD_ product, everybody has to be involved. One "smart"
>person doesn't help, it's a group effort. Hey, Microsoft had the source
>code rights to V7 for years and they still can't produce a multitasking
>DOS. This should tell people something.
>

While I agree that Bill Gates didn't do a very intelligent job in the
interview, I fail to see what insulting Gordon Letwin (whom I have never
seen or met) has to do with anything.  Pretty darn gratuitous -- it
undercuts the probity of your comments.

Joseph T. Malloy / jmalloy@hamilton.edu 
Associate Professor of German / Hamilton College / Clinton, New York 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy