HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drxmann@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Dustin R. Christmann)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hercules is obsolete--Upgrade!
Date: 3 Sep 92 07:30:34 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

Frankly, I think this has to be one of the STUPIDEST arguments ever brought
forth in c.o.o.a, which is no small feat.  If we applied the same reasoning
in other areas of the OS, OS/2 would still be 16-bit.  In the name of real pro-
gress in the area of operating systems on the PC, they decided to leave the
286 behind.  A pretty smart move when it's hard to even find a new 286 nowa-
days.  Many 286 owners will scream bloody murder, but I say "Tough cookies."
As the proud ex-owner of a Timex/Sinclair 1000, an Atari 800XL, and an Amiga
2000, I have come to realize one thing: computers are lousy investments.  Even-
tually old technologies (including Hercules) have to be left behind, and you're
stuck with obsolescence.  Deal with it.

IBM decided that it wasn't worth their effort fiscally to support Hercules.
Why?  Because the number of people that actually believe that Hercules is suf-
ficient for a (mostly) 32-bit OS with a GUI and who would be horrically upset
if it weren't supported doesn't even constitute a pimple of the face of market
share.  I don't even think that they were that wild about supporting CGA or
EGA, and judging from reports about a buggy CGA driver in 2.0, it shows.
However, do you see a great hue and cry from the marketplace? NO.  If anything,
quite the opposite, that 2.0's SVGA support is not quite there yet.

IMHO, VGA is the MINIMUM video standard that should be bothered with in an OS
like 2.0.  And I'll bet you one thing: when NT comes out, it sure as hell isn't
going to be trumpeted as supporting EGA or CGA.  I'd be surprised if VGA
weren't the minimum required video for NT.  And frankly, I wouldn't blame MS
one damn bit.

The computer industry is about progress, and to hell with 10-year-old mono-
chrome video standards.  But then, that's why Bill Gates is worth several bil-
lion.  He is more concerned with 1995 than 1985, and so should you.

Sheesh.

As an aside, I'm continuing to read Gordon Letwin's _Inside OS/2_.  One thing
that strikes me is that even though the book predates 1.0 by a few weeks, a
surprising number of concepts outlined are still pertinent four years later,
which begs the question:

If GL is working on NT and NT is relatively bug-free at GA, will it truly be
as bad-ass as the MS guys are saying?  I think that the possibility is there.
However, for the time being, they don't sell possibilities at my local compu-
ter store, and I'm going with OS/2.
-- 
Thanx,			|   Team OS/2	| Internet: drxmann@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
Dustin R. Christmann	| (I was there) | Bitnet: DRXMANN@UTXVM
  Editor-in-chief of the ARAPOUT: All the news that is fit to print...NOT!
	Alpha Rho Chapter - Alpha Phi Omega - The University of Texas
"My grandmother started walking five miles a day when she was 60.  She's 93 to-
day -- and we don't know where the hell she is."	-- Ellen DeGeneres
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wjb5106@rigel.tamu.edu (Walter Barnett)
Subject: OS/2 is a best seller.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:33:00 GMT

OS/2 is on this month's best seller list in PC-Magazine.  Note that the 
fine print indicates the sales include only shipments to distributors 
and retailers, direct sales are not included.  This might be the start 
of Big Bill's worst nightmare coming true...

_______________________________________________________________________
Walter Barnett        Aerospace Engineering        Texas A&M University
From: kab@s1.gov (Keith Benton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 is a best seller.
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:12:50 GMT
Reply-To: kab@s1.gov
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

In article 722@almaden.ibm.com, ADUNSMUI@TOROLAB6.VNET.IBM.COM (Al Dunsmuir) writes:
>In <3SEP199217331080@rigel.tamu.edu> Walter Barnett writes:
>>OS/2 is on this month's best seller list in PC-Magazine.  Note that the
>>fine print indicates the sales include only shipments to distributors
>>and retailers, direct sales are not included.  This might be the start
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>of Big Bill's worst nightmare coming true...
>>
>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>Walter Barnett        Aerospace Engineering        Texas A&M University
>>
>Walter,
>
>  Note that the sales through IBM's 1-800 numbers (including upgrades)
>fall into the "direct sales" catagory and are _not_ included.  Think about
>where OS/2 would be on the list if those numbers were added in... <g>
>rer
>Al Dunsmuir                       Internet: adunsmui@torolab6.vnet.ibm.com
>CODE Development II + TEAM OS/2      Voice: (416) 448-3315
>IBM Canada Laboratory Ltd, Toronto, CANADA
>
>OS/2 V2: Why settle for anything less?

Uh isn't that what he said?
---
---------------------------------------------------------
|             Keith Benton: kab@s1.gov                  |
| ME!?!? Speak for anyone here!?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA |
|             Standard Disclaimers apply                |
---------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks! (was Re: Windows NT 'Alpha')
Organization: Canon Information Systems Research Australia
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 09:57:17 GMT

brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>X is a hack, so no Unix ever really fit the bill.

There *are* other window systems that sit on UNIX. Anyone remember
AT&T's UNIX PC? Did multi-tasking windows etc... years ahead of any
Microsoft product. How about the HP portable UNIX machine that looked
like a small portable sewing machine? That also had a window system on
it. X became popular because its free.

-- 
Andy Newman (andy@research.canon.oz.au)		"int - God's own type"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Draw - Word 2.0 OLE
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:15:25 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <tdukes.920827121257@alva.ee.eng.auburn.edu> tdukes@eng.auburn.edu (Todd J Dukes) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.002214.12477@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>>W.R.T. Windows my wife would strongly disagree... the 8514 driver
>>doesn't support seemless windows, OLE between Draw and Word 2.0 doesn't
>>work, and things were generally slow (this on a 486SX with 8 megs, she
>
>I have used OLE with Draw and Word 2.0 quite a bit and only had trouble 
Thanks, but I meant Micrographix Windows Draw, not Microsoft Draw.
The requirements that came with the "corrective service" also said that
Windows 3.1 was required.

Brian
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Fork() rationale?
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:27:51 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Aug28.180531.27912@adobe.com> byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer) writes:
>Chris Waters writes
>> Fork(2) can be pretty inefficient.
>
>vfork() already exists in most Unix implementations, and
>is exactly what is required when spawning a small task.

If you've got to replace fork() with vfork() in source code anyway,
you might as well replace it with DosExecPgm() and get it over with.
The only usefulness of fork() existing is to compile Unix sources
_WITHOUT_ modifying them.

(The purpose of bringing it up was for the purpose of porting Unix
 sources, not for using it in new OS/2 code, right?)
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
From: jwhite@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Joseph White)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (was: Re: Some more misconceptions...)
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:30:05 GMT
Organization: Annapolis Detachment, CARDEROCKDIV, NSWC  Code 2723 
	      (formerly David Taylor Research Center, Annapolis MD)

In article <1992Sep4.065306.27627@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.022844.29044@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>>discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

[discussion on anology of car+parts = os+apps vs car+gasoline=os+apps
deleted for brevity]

>>That analogy doesn't quite work since an automobile and its parts are
>>one and the same.  An operating system and application software are not.
>
>No both things are "parts" in the sense that an OS+APPS is a customer's
>solution.  The "Apps" in question wouldn't even EXIST if Microsoft didn't

Actually the anology of car+parts = OS+apps, does not hold.  You are
missing something, that IMHO is obvious and necessary.  Because you
didn't/can't see it, you think that it does hold.  The correct anology
is:  carbody+parts+gasoline = computer+os+apps

The carbody = the computer, because in and of themselves, they do nothing
except look pretty.

The engine+transmission(drivetrain),etc = the OS for the computer, since
each is the part(engine) that makes the respective carbody/computer
have the ability to do something other than just look pretty.

gasoline=apps, because they are what make's the carbody+parts/computer+os
USEFUL.

Joe White
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc
From: tdukes@eng.auburn.edu (Todd J Dukes)
Subject: SPOOL size
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:49:49 GMT

Is there any way to limit the size of the file created by SPOOLing 
the printer. I printed out a rather large document (~160 pages) and
the SPOOL file ate up all the space on my hard drive. Then OS/2 gave
a warning about write fail writing to the SPOOL file. I waited a while
and then pressed the Retry button. OS/2 locked up. I have to ctrl-alt-del.

I looked in the on-line reference, but didn't see anything. Is there any way
to prevent this besides not printing large files. It seems like OS/2 should be
able to block a printing process until the SPOOL file goes down a bit.

Thanks 

Todd Dukes

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:4816 comp.os.os2.misc:28846
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Tuesday, 1 Sep 1992 07:32:44 EDT
From: Andrew T. Robinson <ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Win-OS/2 performance tweaks
 <1992Aug30.174627.3153@nmt.edu> <1992Aug31.171344.42686@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
 <1992Aug31.225614.24375@midway.uchicago.edu>

>>To tweak your Win-OS/2, set the following DOS settings of your
>>Win-OS/2 program object:
>>
>>DOS Full Screen enabled
>>DPMI_MEMORY_LIMIT:  3
>>EMS_MEMORY_LIMIT:  0
>>VIDEO_RETRACE_EMULATION:  OFF
>>XMS_MEMORY_LIMIT:  64
>>VIDEO_SWITCH_NOTIFICATION:  ON
>>IDLE_SENSITIVITY:  100
>>IDLE_SECONDS:  10
>>HW_ROM_TO_RAM:  ON
>>DOS_UMB:  ON
>>VIDEO_8514A_XGA_IOTRAP (if available):  OFF
>>
>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.
>
>Taking the advantages of HPFS, more memory, and processor speed into
>consideration, this implies that Win3.1 loads much faster on equivilent
>hardware.
>

  WINOS2 loads in 52 seconds on my PS/2 55SX with 16mb (excuse me,
  15872k) of memory.  I didn't do a benchmark before I changed the
  settings, but things were speeded up significantly (I'd already
  changed the video settings according to the README suggestions).
  Thanks Tim!

  The fact that WINOS2 loads in less than twice the time on a machine
  that is (according to the Norton scale) about 3-4x less powerful than
  a 386-33 makes me a little suspicious of your results.  I can't believe my
  microchannel (as superior as it really is to ISA/EISA/etc.) makes
  that much of a difference, espescially since I have a slow drive from
  hell and loading WINOS2 in 16mb is essentially a big sequential disk
  read.

  I also can not believe, on the other hand, that WINOS2 could ever load
  more quickly than Windows (tm) on identical hardware configurations.
  The native operating system, running standalone, should be faster than
  in a virtual machine.  That's not the point, though.  OS/2 really does
  run Windows programs (on my machine) at a very acceptable "speed" at
  the same time it runs OS/2 and DOS applications.  And even though I
  don't torture my OSs, I feel safe in saying that OS/2 is a significantly
  more stable platform for running ill-behaved DOS applications than
  Windows is/ever will be.

  I wish people would stop worrying about Windows compatibility and
  write OS/2 versions of popular programs, instead.  OF course, we can't
  expect Microsoft to do this out of sheer sour grapes, but I personally
  can live without MS.

Andy
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Andrew T. Robinson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Misinformation about os2-dos HW access (was Re: I've seen NT......
Date: 26 Aug 92 12:51:07 GMT
Organization: University of Maine System

Question...

Is it difficult or impossible under 80x86 architectures to create
"real" virtual machines which simulate the environment of the host
processor?

For example, each user of an IBM VM/SP (VM/ESA now, sorry :-) system has
a simulated IBM 370 system at his disposal, complete with virtual devices
such as printers, disks, console, etc.  You *can* dedicate real devices
to a virtual machine, but in general not in a way that will compromise
the whole system.  It is practically impossible for a VM user to
compromise the system, even though he has access to hardware.

It was always my impression that OS/2 does this for DOS boxes.  I.e.,
each DOS box is a *virtual* 8086 machine, and the so-called direct
hardware accesses are in general filtered by OS/2 (i.e., intercepted,
checked for possible integrity violations, and simulated if necessary).
Indeed, the IBM documenation implies this in several places.  If OS/2
doesn't do this, I'm very dissapointed.

Ultimately, however, I'm dissapointed that they are not presenting 80386
virtual machines instead of 8086 virtual machines.  Why is that?

Andy
From: glen@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Glen Robinson)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:14:53 GMT
Subject: Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks! (was Re: Windows NT 'Alpha')
Organization: HP Fort Collins, CO
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy

Brian Sturgill writes:
>
>   Do people like arguing with me because I don't bow and scrap before OS/2, 
>   or is there something in that package I'm missing?  I'd gladly find ...
No, I think they do it because you bow and scrap(e) before NT.

Glen - R
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: X is a hack? (was Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks!)
Organization: Canon Information Systems Research Australia
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 04:23:43 GMT

brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>It's a glue-on on top of Unix (i.e. it's not well integrated).  I purports
>to be a GUI, but has a fair number of standard features missing.

X does nothing of the sort. It is a window system. No GUI policy is
dictated by X. BTW I'm not that fond of it either but at least lets
keep the fact straight.

Now back to the argument...

-- 
Andy Newman (andy@research.canon.oz.au)		"int - God's own type"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: NT Products
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:06:11 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Aug31.202727.6357@news.iastate.edu> TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:
>Everybody keeps talking about how NT products are going to be able
>to run on win 3.1 machines.  My question is how are they going to be
>able to do this if they want to be multithreaded?  It seems to me
>that the only way to do this would be to scale down their software
>to run in win 3.1.  If this is true, isn't NT just running windows
>3.1 apps?  Seems pretty pointless to me...
>
Threads will be "faked" in software under 3.1, there will be thread, but
the threads won't be dispatched via the operating system, but rather within
the application.  This, for example, is how SysV4.2 has threads.  It works
but isn't as smooth as having the threads dispatched by the OS.  It should
work fine for those users that "task-switch" rather than "multi-task" in the
truest sense, and of course this is mainly what 3.1 is good at anyway.
If you want to know more about Win32s, look in the MSWIN32 forum on CompuServe
there is a list of functions in Excel spreadsheet and CSV formats that
describes what will work under Win32s and what won't.

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           :-) :-) :-)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: ICC optimizes out tail-recursion!
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 07:58:30 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In <1992Sep3.001223.29802@adobe.com> byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer) writes:

>(Broken optimizers seem to be an IBM trait :-( )

Hmmm....as a proud owner of MSC 5.0 (and 5.1) and 6.0 (and 6.0a), I can
assure you that this is not *exclusively* an IBM trait!  Both the 5.0
and 6.0 compilers *would not build* our main apps correctly if
optimization was turned on.  We even shipped some stuff built with 6.0,
because it *seemed* to be working.  At first.  Needless to say, our
customers were not happy, and neither were we.  FedEx, on the other
hand, was quite happy.  :-(

MSC 6.0a is still working fine.  But I, personally, wouldn't use 7.0 on
a bet, even if it did run under OS/2.  Twice-burned....
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
From: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: shells
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:54:58 EST
Reply-To: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

In message <1992Aug25.043958.38086@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
<margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

Q>I've never tried RUNWORKPLACE=CMD.EXE, but I recently posted how to
Q>use EPM as a replacement shell, and EPM is a PM program; I don't see
Q>why you couldn't use other PM programs.  And while I don't normally
Q>use Windows, I did test all the Shell menu items (which included one
Q>for WINOS2) and had no problem firing up Windows apps inside the WINOS2
Q>session.

I agree. However, running EPM as our PM shell (or Tetris, or many  other
suggested options) simply isn't feasible in our environment. More's  the
pity. What we were/are looking for is a stable desktop shell; preferably
something along the lines of the v1.3 shell or (even better) a WPS  with
a greater level of stability than the GA release.

----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.com
Software Consulting and Gator Pit | Eradicate Hunger - Eat the homeless
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
---
  SLMR 2.1a  If it ain't broke yet, let me have a shot at it.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Os/2ers whine again
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:47:16 GMT
  du><1992Aug26.091123.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu> <19920826.094220.545@almaden.ibm.com>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67700241

In article <19920826.094220.545@almaden.ibm.com>, AV@vnet.ibm.com (Anton Versteeg) writes:
>In <1992Aug26.091123.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu> Greg Franklin writes:
>>  You gambled $1000 on the (remote) possibility of a
>>successful OS/2 1.x.  The rest of us hoarded it until MS Windows came
>>along.  Don't blame MS for the choices of a free market.
>>
> Speak for yourself please. You must be one of the 'happy few'.
> It is funny that the best thing that happened to OS/2 was MS
> abandoning it. MS (or BG) blundered here IMHO. Perhaps they can
> get some time in Bloopers?

It will be a blooper if IBM can rally enough developers and other
fans to its side against Win NT.  Then I'll say that IBM did the
right thing in sticking by OS/2 while MS dumped it.

But it would be a ringing indictment of IBM if OS/2 2.0, with a
year's head-start on NT, got blown away in market share by NT.
I mean, it isn't behemoth Microsoft against Itty Bitty Machine
Corp. here.  IBM is the biggest computer company on the planet.
Am I being asked to "root for General Motors"?

>>You can't blame MS for that.  Blame the software developers who
>>supposedly believed the "bad publicity," trashed such an
>>*obvious* winner in OS/2, and developed software for such an *obvious*
>>dog as Windows 3.1/NT.  (note sarcasm)
> 
> The only sarcasm I can find in your statement is that first you talk
> about a free market, and now you accept that the press isn't free.

OS/2, in my estimation, has received very little "bad" publicity.  It
received glowing publicity at first, because of its capabilities.  It
then received *little* publicity, because OS/2 users were too few to
make advertising OS/2 software worthwhile.  It's the developers' fault
for keeping OS/2 down, not MS's.

Here in the U.S, the press & market are free.  So far the OS/2ers have
done a good job via word-of-mouth of promoting OS/2.  Better than IBM
has done, to tell the truth.  (I think IBM should include Steve Withers
as the star of a man-on-the-street interview series, "Why I Chose OS/2".)

Rest assured, if the bulk of Windows developers feel constrained by
writing apps for the Win API, they will probably junk it.  I don't
feel they've reached that point yet.  To a user today (me being a
sample), Windows apps simply are not THAT inferior to OS/2 apps.  Yet.
-- 
Greg "Mockingbird" Franklin      Interviewer: "Sir, how do you spell relief?"
f67700241@ccit.arizona.edu               Dan: "R-O-L-A-I-D-S-E."
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy