HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 07:59:12 MST
From: earlyd@newt.ee.byu.edu (David Early)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University, Provo UT USA
Subject: Re: OS/2 is NOT Crashproof!




>Exactly. Brevity man, brevity. OS/2 is presently simply not ready for prime 
>time .. it be ready, it has **at a minimum ** to be able to run Windows
>3.1 programs ... every last one ... properly .. 


WHY?  I really don't give a flying leap about whether it runs Win 3.1
programs because I will NEVER, EVER buy one.  OS/2 is extremely stable
FOR MY PURPOSES...which is running DOS programs and a few OS/2 tidbits
I have picked up off the net.  

My opinion: Prime Time wasn't ready for OS/2.  When I worked out at IBM
a year and a half ago, we tried to tell the guys in Boca that OS/2 could
be great and they needed to push it...but they didn't and we can still
see the effects of IBM's marketing strategy (If you can call it that...)


>					       Second, it has to **fully**
>support all my video cards at the resolutions and modes I desire to use;
>this includes my ATI Ultra Pro Localbus in all its accelerated modes.
>It should be able to switch modes without rebooting the computer.
>It also has to get the reputation that when some company like ATI 
>comes out with a hot new video card, that card will come with drivers
>for OS/2 ... fully supported ... in the box, just as it does for Windows.
>
>Actually, we  ... the world ... can easily tell if and when OS/2 
>is a success .... when it meets that last test, its a success. That means
>that manufacturers take it seriously. Today they don't.
>
I agree...partially.  I'm not sure I trust all those 'manufacturers' to make
a choice of programs for me.  There comes a time when you have to take a chance
on something.  

Dave Early

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY, 12866
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:30:31 GMT

In article <7870@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.091208.29456@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>>advocates: "I like my system"
>>bigots:    "Your system sucks"
>
>So what about those of us who say, "I like my system, because I've tried it
>and your system, and your system sucks, and mine doesn't"?
>-- 

Well, fine.... but other people have different preferences, and they
may think your systems sucks.  But these advocates realize it's an
individual thing, and to tell someone else they're crazy is being a
bigot.  Why must you be negative toward others?  Just be happy with
what _you_ have!

-- 
Pierre von Kaenel	| Skidmore College	     | pvonk@skidmore.edu
Math & CS Dept.		| Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 | (518)584-5000 Ext 2391

"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." Oscar Wilde
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Lockheed Revamps Shuttle Worker's Software System (uses os/2)
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:44:58 GMT

In <BxvEIK.4wF@news.cso.uiuc.edu> btf57346@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Byron "Bohr" Faber) writes:

>The following is a little info I picked up from SPACENEWS.

>**********************************************************************

>Lockeed Space Operations Co. is developing a new computer software package   
>to help distribute instructions to workers who refurbish U.S. space 
>shuttle orbiters between flights.        

>The software uses the OS/2 operating system from IBM that . . . . . 

>(The text trails off to describe what os/2 is.  Basically says it
>multi-tasks and can combine text/graphics/photos)

>**********************************************************************

>So obviously when it has to be done right.

>It has to be done with os/2 !!!!!
>Personally I want to see them use it in the Space Station, but I guess
>that's dreaming.

Yep.  The Space Station computers are slated to use a special variant
of UNIX with X.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: Bertram.Moshier@f115.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Bertram Moshier)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: MN OS/2 EUG Nov. Meeting
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 14:46:56 -0600

                      Minnesota OS/2 End-user Group
                             November Meeting

Reservations requested:  Please call 612/397-6444 and register using
                         course code OS2.

When:   November 19, 1992 - 19:00 (7PM CDT) to 22:00 (10PM CDT)

Where:  IBM Building
        650 Third Avenue South (First Bank Place)
        Minneapolis, MN   55402

Agenda: Business Meeting
        Questions and Answers
        Vendor Presentation
                Lotus non-Communication Products

         Lotus will again come.  This time they will show off their
         non-communications OS/2 products (Ami-Pro, 1-2-3, and
         Freelance).

         BTW, if these products are as good as CC:Mail in providing an
         end-user object oriented interface - Microsoft is going out
         of the applications business.

        Member Presentation
                None (yet) scheduled.  Would you like to present?

Refreshments provided.  Door Prize:  None (yet).

Directions:  The IBM Building location is on Third Avenue South between
South Sixth Street and South Seventh Street.  IBM and First Bank share
the same building (First Bank Place).  You might ask directions when
registering.

Note:  Only two entrances are open - 6th Street and the skyway.

Parking:  Several parking ramps exist.

  Northstar Center - One block West of IBM.
  IBM/First Bank - Parking is expensive ($6.00 plus).
  Pillsbury Center - One and an half blocks North of IBM.
  Hennepin County Govt. Center - $2.00 after 4PM, last time I used it.


 * Origin: (1:282/115)
Lines: 31
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 08:03:51 MST
From: earlyd@newt.ee.byu.edu (David Early)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University, Provo UT USA
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!


In article <1992Nov16.034053.639@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2) writes:
>
>I have an SVGA video chip.  I tried to install an 8514 driver just to
>see what would happen.  When I booted my computer, OS/2 2.0 would not
>load.  (The 8514 driver is not compatible with an SVGA chip).
>


WAIT A MINUTE!

I have a Trident 8900C w/1meg, and I assume that this is a SVGA
chip set.  I also installed the 8514 drivers from Hobbes that
give 1024-768 resolution and have been impressed and
how much FASTER this driver is compared to the old 800-600
Trident driver retrieved from hobbes about 3 months ago.


I'm not sure I agree that 8514 drivers don't like SVGA chips...
I think the drivers have to emulate the 8514 better...


Dave Early








Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8672 comp.os.os2.misc:37430
From: mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 is NOT Crashproof!
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:27:45 GMT
Organization: UIUC SCS

In article <1992Nov23.022519.10677@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:

>Note the followup, please.

>In article <mcdonald.527@aries.scs.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald) writes:
>>OS/2 later   .... never tried it, don't intend to until its bug free

>That really doesn't seem to be all that realistic.  Every nontrivial
>piece of software is bound to have bugs of one sort or another.

Oh my not this again. Brevity. Brevity. I just didn't say "until it is
bug and problem free enough that it works OK for me". And you last
statement is PURE POPPYCOCK. There are lots of very non-trivial programs
that are bug-free. TeX for example. The latest versions of some of the
programs I have posted to the net for another. My production scientific
codes for more. Maybe **your** programs have bugs. Some of mine might.
But others don't.

>Moreover, the question of whether a given piece of software has bugs
>which impact your own use is entirely dependent on, well, you

Exactly. Brevity man, brevity. OS/2 is presently simply not ready for prime 
time .. it be ready, it has **at a minimum ** to be able to run Windows
3.1 programs ... every last one ... properly .. and this includes 
printing documents which use True Type fonts. Second, it has to **fully**
support all my video cards at the resolutions and modes I desire to use;
this includes my ATI Ultra Pro Localbus in all its accelerated modes.
It should be able to switch modes without rebooting the computer.
It also has to get the reputation that when some company like ATI 
comes out with a hot new video card, that card will come with drivers
for OS/2 ... fully supported ... in the box, just as it does for Windows.

Actually, we  ... the world ... can easily tell if and when OS/2 
is a success .... when it meets that last test, its a success. That means
that manufacturers take it seriously. Today they don't.

Doug McDonald
From: 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Is OS/2 Easier?
Date: 22 Nov 92 14:45:50 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University


	Is the WPS easy to use?

	I have read some messages saying it is very difficult to use.
One user even went so far to say "I would place WPS tenth in terms
of ease of use...right behind the dos prompt."

	
	To this end, I would argue with anyone on this topic.  To a 
new user, the WPS is vastly easier to use than Windows.  I should know,
I have installed hundreds of windows machines in the last year and a
half and nearly a hundred OS/2 setups and all of these had one thing
in common: the user was new to computers.

	For example, the #1 question I get from people concerning windows:
"I just loaded program x on my hard drive but where is it now? how do I
load it?"

	I then have to take them through the process of explaining
that the program manager is just a bunch of pictures representing programs
on the computer.  They are not really the programs.  Then I have to
show them how to put a new program in the program manager which means
(if they have windows 3.1) loading the file mananger and dragging it
to the program manager or going to file, new item, find it on the hard
drive and then place it.

	No one ever asks "where's my program" on os/2.  They go to their
drives and just find it on their hard disk.  If they want to add it
to their os/2 system folder they just makea  shadow of it but they
do not have to do that to find it relatively easy.

	I don't think anyone with any real experience with new users
who has used both environments could say that windows is "easier" to use
than the WPS.

						-Brad



Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:28:36 -0500 
From: Carl B Jabido <cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!

Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.os2.misc: 16-Nov-92 Re: OS/2 Crashproof?
NOT! by David Early@newt.ee.byu. 
> >I have an SVGA video chip.  I tried to install an 8514 driver just to
> >see what would happen.  When I booted my computer, OS/2 2.0 would not
> >load.  (The 8514 driver is not compatible with an SVGA chip).
> >
>  
>  
> WAIT A MINUTE!
>  
> I have a Trident 8900C w/1meg, and I assume that this is a SVGA
> chip set.  I also installed the 8514 drivers from Hobbes that
> give 1024-768 resolution and have been impressed and
> how much FASTER this driver is compared to the old 800-600
> Trident driver retrieved from hobbes about 3 months ago.
>  
>  
> I'm not sure I agree that 8514 drivers don't like SVGA chips...
> I think the drivers have to emulate the 8514 better...

I think you confused the Trident 1024x768 w/8514 _resources_ driver with
the actual 8514 drivers.  These are not the same.  The drivers you got
off Hobbes are specific for the T8900C chipset, i.e. they won't work
with 8514.  The only thing about the 1024x768 w/8514 resources is that
the resources defined for use by 8514 are used by the Trident driver. 
That just means that icons are 40x40 instead of 32x32, title bars are
bigger, etc.  If you go into the icon editor and choose Device->List...,
then for the default (system) icons, you can view the 8514 specific
resources.
This has nothing to do with using the real 8514 drivers.  The 8514
chipset is totally different from Trident's.

Carl Jabido
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: strider@cs.concordia.ca (GEORGAKAKIS peter)
Subject: Re: Lockheed Revamps Shuttle Worker's Software System (uses os/2)
Organization: Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:59:33 GMT

>>Personally I want to see them use it in the Space Station, but I guess
>>that's dreaming.
>
>Yep.  The Space Station computers are slated to use a special variant
>of UNIX with X.

LynxOS is being used on the Space Station.  It is a real-time
multithreaded, multitasking OS that is UNIX compatible with BSD 4.3
(source) and System V (source and binary). It is also Posix complient.
I am currently working with it for my present job which is not even
remotely related to to the Space Station.  OS/2 is better to work
with, and has better tools available.  The only problem is that it is
not real-time.  X and Motif without an enviroment (like the WPS) just
doesn't cut it.

Peter Georgakakis
strider@cs.concordia.ca
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 support is late
Date: 21 Nov 92 20:39:41 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Nov20.093958.17197@cam-orl.co.uk>, thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauer
t) writes:
>In article <1efsf4INN946@mailgzrz.TU-Berlin.DE>, lars@cs.tu-berlin.de (Lars Wit
h) writes:
>|> Thus an OS/2 Windows support user will always get the latest version
>|> of Windows a couple of months later than Windows NT users will get it.
>
>Hmm, so March to December is "a couple of months" is it?
>
>Advocates here talk about the new features OS/2, but I think it will take IBM
>a while to get them ready if it takes them 8 months to simply update an
>existing bit of OS/2 code. After all, advocates keep saying that Windows 3.1
>is just a bug fix. So why has it taken IBM 8 months to apply a few bug fixes?

Probably the same reason it took Microsoft about 2 years to apply some to
Windows.  Things never come out as fast as we would like them to.

>
>Besides, "the latest version of Windows" is Windows NT. Will OS/2 have NT
>support two or three months after NT is released?

Do you honestly regard NT as "the next version of Windows"?  I really don't
think so.  Win32 is being developed for NT.  They made a subset that will run
under Win3.1, but NT ain't Windows and vice versa.  The two are related
closely only in a few (though important) ways.  I would submit that NT is not
all that much closer than OS/2 is and is farther in a few respects.  (such as
16 bit Windows compatibility)  Calling NT the next version of Windows amounts
to little more than marketing hype.  If it was the next version, then we would
not be hearing anything about a Windows 4.0


-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From: pfr@drsrv1.hmi.de (Fritsch_Wolfgang)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: * OS/2 2.0 ATI drivers released *
Date: 16 Nov 92 07:30:02 GMT
Organization: Hahn-Meitner-Institut Berlin GmbH

kovarski@zooid.guild.org (Mark Kovarski) writes:


>The OS/2 2.0 ATI drivers have arrived
>-------------------------------------

>OS/2 2.0 specific drivers for the MACH 8 accelerator cards are currently
>available for download at the ATI Bulletin Board System. The Microchannel
>version is also available. They can be found under the filenames:

>OS2ACC.ZIP -  132077 Kbytes in length
>OS2MCA.ZIP -  131574 Kbytes in length (This is the MCA version)

...they will surely find their way to Hobbes for those people who do not
have access to BBS?

Wolfgang Fritsch
pfr@psun2.hmi.de
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8708 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2889
From: bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Workers hate windoze, revolution at 11! : -)
Date: 23 Nov 92 13:31:26 GMT
Organization: Applied Information Systems, Chapel Hill, NC

In article <1eptl8INN4j6@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, wtw@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (William T Warner) writes:
> In article <1992Nov22.022735.8357@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov21.101921.4839@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>>>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>>>And nothing looks quite so unprofessional as a letter set in a fixed
>>>>>width font printed on a dot matrix printer.  I see that and I say,
>>>>
> ...
>> ... it isn't the appearance of printed copy that matters but,
>>rather, the substance of what is communicated.  Sure, it's nice to look
>>at a neat, well-fontificated presentation, but substance ought to win in
>>the battle between illusion and reality in anything that matters (I
>>except advertising from this, of course!).
> 
> Well, what "ought" to be and what ARE are different.  A document's
> appearance is important, and telling;  if someone isn't willing
> to take the effort to produce something decent looking, it probably 
> isn't worth much.  It's the "quality" and "pride" issues, I guess...

I agree that the appearance of a document can be important, in the
sense that it should be neatly and appropriately done, that it
shouldn't have any `odd' formatting (unusual margins, etc), and
so forth.  And if you're doing an advertizing piece, fancy fonts
and fancy graphics can be really important.

But for the vast majority of business letters and documents, I
don't see why the selection of a fixed-pitch font is so horrible.
Maybe I'm just getting old, but when I see a slickly-done business
letter (as opposed to an advertizing flyer, which everyone knows
is _supposed_ to look slick and which is, after all, mass produced
and not really addressed to any particular individual), with fancy
fonts and so forth, my reaction is very often rather negative:  here
is someone who would rather spend effort on putting together a slick
looking letter rather than on the letter's contents.  And unless
you're talking about doing advertizing (and some kinds of end-user
documentation), that kind of attitude is in my experience counter-
productive in a business environment.

Now I like nicely-done graphics as well as anyone, but my feeling
is that it's _art_ and doesn't fit well in the typical _business_
letter.  (I don't consider advertizing `form letters' to be real
business letters -- they may pretend to be, but they really aren't
addressed to _me_ _personally_, and I mostly exempt them from this
generalization).

Just MHO,

Bruce C. Wright
From: rbotimer@max.ct.gmr.com (R Douglas Botimer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: COMDEX Awards
Keywords: OS/2 Awards PC Magazine Computing World
Date: 20 Nov 92 18:39:38 GMT

=====================PRESSREL   Recent IBM Press  
Releases======================

 IBM OS/2 2.0 SWEEPS TRIPLE CROWN OF PC INDUSTRY
 November 19, 1992

 LAS VEGAS, November 19 . . . IBM's OS/2* 2.0 advanced
 operating system recently received top honors from three
 flagship PC industry publications, including two awards
 presented here at COMDEX/Fall '92.

 PC/Computing on Sunday named OS/2 2.0 co-winner of the
 operating system/environment award as part of its annual
 "Most Valuable Products" (MVP) awards ceremony.  In
 selecting OS/2 2.0 for this honor, the editors of
 PC/Computing stated, "this is the operating system Windows**
 3.1 should have been."

 PC Magazine on Monday named OS/2 2.0 the best
 operating system and presented their Technical Excellence
 Award to the OS/2 2.0 development team.

 Prior to the opening of COMDEX, PC World named OS/2 2.0
 the "most promising newcomer" in its annual issue
 recognizing PC industry achievements.

 "There is a tremendous groundswell of support building
 for OS/2 and this recognition from three top PC industry
 publications is a true measure of the continued popularity
 and momentum for the product," said Lee Reiswig, assistant
 general manager, IBM Personal Software Products.  "We are
 both honored and pleased that these respected publications
 have evaluated the power and versatility of OS/2 2.0 and
 awarded us with top honors."

 OS/2 2.0 is an advanced 32-bit operating system that
 supports DOS, Windows and OS/2 applications in a single
 package.  This platform offers true, preemptive multitasking
 -- allowing concurrent execution of multiple software
 programs -- and enables users to choose from tens of
 thousands of available applications.

 *    Indicates registered trademark of the International
      Business Machines Corporation

 **   The following is a trademark of the indicated company:
      (Windows) Microsoft Corp.

 Please Note:
 Questions about the content or currency of this press release
 should be directed to your local IBM representative.