HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Biased Reviews From ZD
Date: 25 Jul 92 18:56:25 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Jul24.175623.26866@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil
Lafornara) writes:
>In article <bcgm#lk.jeffc@netcom.com> jeffc@netcom.com (Jeff Cohen) writes:
>>In article <1682C6AE3.CIVENBAH@mizzou1.missouri.edu> CIVENBAH@mizzou1.missouri
.edu writes:

>>Borland's ObjectVision 2.0 for OS/2 2.0 is now shipping, and it's 32-bits.
>>Lotus will ship 32-bit OS/2 versions of all their products.  I've seen a
>>demo of a beta version of Freelance by a Lotus rep, and I was impressed.
>>32-bit versions of 1-2-3 and AmiPro are also forthcoming.  So is
>>WordPerfect 6.0.  No, they're not in the stores yet, but they are
>>coming.
>
>     So with the exception of ObjectVision, all of the above are
>vaporware, yes?  And with the logic usually used on this group, none
>of them should effect any decisions made today, correct?
>
>    Sorry, couldn't resist.  This whole double standard thing is
>just too annoying.
>
>                                       -Phil

Well, they aren't out, nor have they been preannounced with the sole intention
of disrupting the competitors sales, so at least by my definition, they are
not v-ware.  There is one significant diference between the two systems, OS/2
is a final version OS with few native applications.  NT has an alpha release
and *no* native applications.  Now don't get me wrong, I'm as sick of the
"OS/2 is here now" argument as anyone else, but until NT is released, or is
very, very close to being released, it isn't really a double standard.  Is NT
v-ware?  I really could care less.  I'm going to try it when it arrives, (I
really don't care when 'cause it doesn't affect me now) and I'll see for
myself how good it is then.  I personally like to use the best system
availlable to me, and OS/2 even without lots of native apps, is the best
system availlable for my machine.

                                                        Stacy John Behrens
                                                        *===)-------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: des@frogland.inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd)
Subject: Re: Impressions of the July NT Release
Keywords: NT
Organization: INMOS architecture group
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 15:53:50 BST

In article <Brv5t9.BMq@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>, cebarton@napier.waterloo.edu (Casey Barton) writes:
>    IBM's marketing division could give Douglas Adam's "Sirius Cybernetics"
>marketing division a run for the money, any day.

i always thought that that was where he got the idea from ... remember
douglas adams is (or at least used to be) a macintosh fanatic.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
david shepherd: des@inmos.co.uk or des@inmos.com    tel: 0454-616616 x 625
                inmos ltd, 1000 aztec west, almondsbury, bristol, bs12 4sq
		"i speak latin to god,   spanish to men,   french to women 
		 and german to my horse."             - charles v of spain
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pshuang@athena.mit.edu (Ping-Shun Huang)
Subject: Macintosh Crash Barrier (Was: Re: OS2 Good news and Bad news)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 07:54:30 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.210902.99900@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:

 > Crash Barrier is a pretty good program.  It tries to trap errors and correct
 > them if it can.  Doesn't always work, but it is pretty good.

What kind of trapping does it perform? Is it somewhat akin to what
Microsoft added to Windows 3.1 to try and verify more system call
parameters rather than assume that they are valid? I can't see that it
could perform real memory protection without replacing a good bit more
of the System x.x memory management innards than I would have thought an
INIT (I'm assuming that is the form Crash Barrier takes) could do.

--
Ping Huang (INTERNET: pshuang@athena.mit.edu), probably speaking for himself
From: "stephen dawson" <stephen.dawson@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: nt, an assessment
Date: 27 Jul 92 03:39:21 EST
Reply-To: "stephen dawson" <stephen.dawson@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

richk@grebyn.com (Richard Krehbiel)  writes

>As for POSIX, it is simply an API translation, no?

RK>Some API translation is more difficult than others.

RK>As far as I understand, there's not a way in OS/2 to implement fork().

Post the definition of fork() and I will demonstrate an OS/2
implementation.

    STEPHEN         Look through the Windows and you will see OS/2!
    ^^^^^^^    :-)  Walking and chewing gum at the same time.

 stephen.dawson@canrem.com
 Entered 07-26-92 at 9:24pm in Downsview, Ontario

 * DeLuxe2/386 1.25 #3969 * Every culture has myths about creation.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: ajross@husc9.harvard.edu (Andrew Ross)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM MARKETING
Date: 25 Jul 92 06:02:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc9.ajross.712044156

rdixon@gemini.cs.nps.navy.mil (robert dixon) writes:

>  I'm curious exactly how IBM is expecting to achieve any market
>penetration with this kind of marketing. The latest PC Shopper seemed
>to think that OS/2 was mainly a way for IBM mainframe customers to
>connect to IBM mainframes, with the small business and home market as
>sort of an afterthought, which would certainly explain my experiences
>here.

>  I'm interested in others' comments/experiences with this.

This has been my experience, too.  My local Egghead does stock OS/2, or
rather stocked it.  I was in today and noticed it was no longer on the
shelves.  WOW, I thought, could they have sold out?  Nope.  The store
manager had taken it off the shelves because all he had were the upgrade
packages and he wasn't sure if IBM was still honoring the upgrade pricing.

I was actually under the impression that the prices were good until the
end of the month.  Regardless, though, I place the blame here with IBM. 
Store managers cannot be trusted to actually know anything about the
software they stock--I think most of us would agree with this.  Somehow,
IBM had failed to make clear to this man (or the rest of us for that
matter) what exactly the deal was with their upgrade pricing.  Someone had
better get on the ball.

Andy Ross
ajross@husc.harvard.edu
                                                   that's right, no .sig
From: bill.dehaan@canrem.com (bill dehaan)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: ibm development kit
Date: 22 Jul 92 02:42:51 GMT
Reply-To: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

Luc Bauwens writes:

LB>So, now that MS is selling their NT SDK for $69.00, is IBM
LB>going to further lower the price of their equivalent for
LB>OS/2 (the Workset /2 or something like that)?

Probably not. The SDK  cost is for the  alpha and beta systems,  NOT for
final product. You're paying to be a beta tester, just like OS/2 LA.

LB>Last time I heard, it was still $300 (CDN $399.00), which is
LB>still too steep for an occasional user like me.

I doubt an occasional user would seriously NEED CSET/2, Workframe/2, and
the developer's toolkit. Unfortunately, there really isn't anything  yet
to compare to Visual Basic for OS/2. Tackling OS/2 and PM is nontrivial;
the cost of the tools are not unjustified.

LB>Talking marketing, so far I have been unable to ascertain
LB>whether there would be a further (unlikeley?) academic
LB>discount on that price...

No educational discount is listed on the announce material.

LB>Of course, the campus store is only mildly interested about
LB>IBM, doesn't carry that stuff, doesn't know it exists and
LB>wouldn't even get it for me...

You can order it  direct. Or, if you  just want to hack  around, why not
grab the GCC package?

LB>So, next I called their business support (800-465-7999?)
LB>and they didn't know either...

Funny, they knew  when I called  last week. What  precisely did you  ask
them for?

----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.com
Software Consulting and Gator Pit | I'm a brain in a vat. What about you?
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
---
 ~ SLMR 2.1a ~ Sincere, erudite, and appropriate responses will not be t
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pap@tempel.az05.bull.com (Pierre Perret)
Subject: Re: Impressions of the July NT Release
Keywords: NT
Reply-To: pap@myths.az05.bull.com
Organization: Bull HN Information Systems Inc., Phoenix Product Division
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 23:09:18 GMT

In article <qxR-Pz+@engin.umich.edu>, kcurtis@inthehat.engin.umich.edu (Keith Curtis) writes:
|> 
|> >I'd say you've got bigger problems with your machine than NT.  I installed 
|> >NT on a 386-33 with only 8 Meg, and it runs about the same as OS/2 2.0, except
|> >for the size of the paging file.
|> 
|> 
|> I'm comparing NT to Windows 3.1.
|> 
|> I load up telix.  the screen updates and the communication are way too
|> slow.  Sometimes it will take 5 seconds or more before what I type appears on
|> the screen.
|>
|> The Win-16 apps probably run at about the speed of a 286, not an 8086.  I
|> can't speak for OS/2, but it is not nearly as fast as Win3.1. I was able to
|> format a floppy, though, without slowing my system down.

So, if I get it right, you have gotten yourself a copy of the July Developper
Kit prerelease and you are using it to evaluate the support of Win 3.1 and DOS
applications.

HAHAHAHAHA! Thanks for such a good joke!

-- 
- Pierre Perret -    Phone: (602) 862-5448   FAX: (602) 862-6105
                  Internet: P.Perret@az05.bull.com
                Compu$erve: 73757,2337     BIX: pierre_perret
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell)
Subject: Re: What's wrong with Windows (Re: MS grasping at straws?...)
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 11:52:39 GMT

ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:

>Eh? I LIKE Edlin. For editing short batch files theres nothing
>quicker.

Well, that pretty much discredits anything further you say.  

I suppose you like command.com and GW-Basic, too.

-- 
Dan Cogswell
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: portable?
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:22:45 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Jul22.2712.2781@dosgate> "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com> writes:

>Boy, you got that right. However, from what I've seen, exactly the opposite
>is happening. Our IBM rep says that they are currently rewriting a lot of
>the C code to optimized assembler to nail some of the performance complaints.

That's probably a good thing.  Portable application source is a good
idea, but portable systems code is not so good.  You want the OS to
make use of every ounce of processing power there is.  No high-level
language can compete with the output from an expert assembly language
programmer.  (To prevent flames here, yes a compiler can out-code me,
but I'm not an expert assembly programmer with years of experience on
one processor)

True, it makes updates difficult, but that can become a policy
problem.  My assembly code (what little I write) is very heavilly
commented.  Sometimes a page of comments for a dozen opcodes, when I
think the code isn't self-explanatory.  This, combined with
appropriate use of symbols and macros can make assembly code almost as
maintainable as C (sometimes more!)


-- 
   |)  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.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:3384 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1656
From: bauwens@acs.ucalgary.ca (Luc Bauwens)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What's wrong with Windows (Re: MS grasping at straws?...)
Date: 30 Jul 92 03:06:12 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <156t63INNd7q@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Nan Zou) writes:
>
>What's wrong with vi?  I LIKE vi!
>

Good Dr. Freud, where are you when we need you :-)?

(And, yes, I use vi, not emacs on those Unix machines.  But I had rather
use the Edit that comes free with DOS and Qbasic.  Or good old m
that came with MS fortran 5.0 -but not 5.1 :-(.  Or the Wordstar subset
that came with Turbopascal -the only thing I ever did with Turbopascal).

Luc B
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: Why we shouldn't bash MS Employees (and other thoughts)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 09:26:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In <76507@ut-emx.uucp> varmint@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Samir Varma) writes:

>4)  It's only an OS guys, this isn't a religious issue.  

Beg pardon?  This sentence doesn't scan.  :-)

Next you'll be trying to tell us that our preference in editors isn't a
religious issue!  :-) :-) :-)
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: pc week and nt
Date: 30 Jul 92 18:09:39 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: comp

In article <199229.2712.3006@dosgate> "stephen dawson" <stephen.dawson@canrem.com> writes:
>
>In addition to Will Zackmann, Jim Louderback and Jamie Lewis throw
>up big cautions about NT and suggest that delivery is due, at best,
>in 2Q 1993. Given that Microsoft has committed to a 1992 delivery,
>this will be very embarrassing.
>

What?!  Will Zackmann didn't like NT?????  And I always though he gave
objective views of products.  Like the time he told everyone to go out
and buy a Word Processor not because it was good, but because It'd keep
MS from making money.  As for the other two authors, well, you can't
complain too loudly about a pre-beta products.  And no one can predict
the future (i.e. release date), especially someone not directly involved
in the product.  

petesk@microsoft.com
These are MY opinions.
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: pc week and nt
Date: 31 Jul 92 10:44:32 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

In <1992Jul30.180939.18612@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

>In article <199229.2712.3006@dosgate> "stephen dawson" <stephen.dawson@canrem.com> writes:
>>
>>In addition to Will Zackmann, Jim Louderback and Jamie Lewis throw
>>up big cautions about NT and suggest that delivery is due, at best,
>>in 2Q 1993. Given that Microsoft has committed to a 1992 delivery,
>>this will be very embarrassing.
>>

>What?!  Will Zackmann didn't like NT?????  And I always though he gave
>objective views of products.  Like the time he told everyone to go out
Your next text does prove the oposite.

>and buy a Word Processor not because it was good, but because It'd keep
>MS from making money.  As for the other two authors, well, you can't
You seem more biased than you claim Zachman to be.

>complain too loudly about a pre-beta products.  And no one can predict
>the future (i.e. release date), especially someone not directly involved
>in the product.  
People ate Microsoft who ARE involved in a product (e.g. Windows 3.0)
have shown not to be capable of predicting dates etc. Some outsiders
have already shown to be more capable to do that.

>petesk@microsoft.com
>These are MY opinions.

Nico E. de Vries
_ _
O O  USENET nevries@cc.ruu.nl  FIDO 2:281/708.1  COMPUSERVE "soon" (tm)
 o   This text reflects MY opinions, not that of my employer BITECH.      
\_/  This text is supplied 'AS IS', no waranties of any kind apply.      
     Don't waste your time on complaining about my hopeless typostyle.

"Unfortunately, the current generation of mail programs do not have checkers
 to see if the sender knows what he is talking about" (A.S. Tanenbaum)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: grumpy@jpradley.jpr.com (Jeff Markel)
Subject: Re: Media coverage (Electronic Engineer Times) Portability?
Reply-To: grumpy@jpradley.UUCP (Jeff Markel)
Organization: Unix in NYC
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 12:11:20 GMT

In article <711756169.3791@minster.york.ac.uk> martin@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
>Hauke Hess says:
>
>> > | Available on non-X86                                        X
>> 
>> OS/2 will be available on non X86 this fall.
>
>Ah now! This is rapidly becoming my biggest problem with OS/2 (1 month ago
>I was classed around here as an OS/2 fanatic, so don't think I started
>prejudiced against OS/2 - in fact the opposite is true!)
>
>Ok, so OS/2 will be on `non x86' machines this fall. I have no reason to
>disbelieve this. But *which* non x86 machines will it be? Will it be open
>architecture machines based around CPUs that anyone can buy, and hence clone,
>or will it be on RS6000 based machines? Will RS6000 chips be available to
>clone manufacturers? Or will IBM and Apple be the only people making these
>machines? Neither company are well known for producing low cost machines.
>
>NT will be available on x86, MIPS, and soon afterwards on Alpha. All of which
>can be bought by anyone, and built into machines by anyone - hence there is
>likely to be competition between these machine manufacturers which will keep
>the price down (how much less does a clone cost than a PS/2?). Of course
>the RS6000 *might* also be easy to buy, and assuming IBM don't have awkward
>conditions (a la microchannel liciencing) we might get RS6000 clones too,
>but then what is to stop Microsoft, or some enterprising 3rd party, from
>porting NT to the RS6000? (Note that DEC are doing the port to Alpha, not
>Microsoft) 
>
>
>Martin
>INTERNET: martin@minster.york.ac.uk
>JANET:  martin@uk.ac.york.minster
>surface:
>        Dr. Martin C. Atkins
>        Dept. of Computer Science
>        University of York
>        Heslington
>        York YO1 5DD
>        ENGLAND


Ahh - but RS6000 chips will be available to all comers from Motorola, or so
IBM says.  They're already having other companies sell OEM'ed RS6k's, and when
the "Power PC" chips are available from Motorola, anyone'll be able to buy 'em.

We'll have to see about DEC porting NT to the Alpha, since that 
(dis)organization can't even make up its mind on what flavor of Unix to sell.
As for MIPS, I suspect that the R4000 will be appearing in very few OEM
boxes now that SGI bought them out.


                        Jeff Markel

Jeffrey Markel | uucp:     jpradley!argos!markel   | Argos Computer Systems Inc
KD2HN          | internet: grumpy@jpradley.jpr.com | 110 W. 32nd Street 
(212)594-5400  | amprnet:  kd2hn@kd2hn.ampr.org    | New York, NY 10001
===============================================================================
		Bush/Quayle - The ticket of/by/for the ethically challenged
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin)
Subject: Re: Paid Microsoft employees
Date: 21 Jul 92 23:31:40 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Jul15.061138.1074@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>I want point out one last thing:  Have you ever seen an IBMer either
>defending os/2 or attacking windows or windows nt.  

This is yet another in an endless series of examples of people who either:

	1) have no idea of what has gone before, but make authoratative
		statements as if they were knowledgable, or
	2) have very selective memories

Here are some quotes of IBM employees disparaging Microsoft and microsoft
products:

	Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
	From: dwl@watson.ibm.com (David W. Levine)
	Subject: Re: Seamless Windows Worry (Long, sorry!)
	Sender: news@watson.ibm.com (NNTP News Poster)
	Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 04:10:47 GMT
	Organization: IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
	
	...
	
	This is where OS/2 2.0 wins big over Windows. There's a genuine operating
	system controlling the machine, not a souped up program loader and 
--------------------------------------- ^^^^^^^^
	filesystem (eg DOS)
	
	David W. Levine      -- IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
	dwl@watson.ibm.com   -- (914) 784-7427 
	

This IBM employee disparages DOS by calling it a "souped up program loader".


	From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
	Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
	Subject: Re: Sad news for IBM and OS/2
	Sender: news@watson.ibm.com (NNTP News Poster)
	
	> but unless you have any evidence
	> that NT will be late, why assume it will be?
	
	Perhaps you missed the post (<1992Feb22.062238.21937@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>)
	containing quotes from various Microsofties swearing that the retail
	version of NT would be shipping in mid-92?  When you say "why assume it
	will be late", you really have to specify "late according to *which* date".
	:-)

	> Development on NT has gone very well; for a while (when OS/2 2.0 was
	> still at MS) there was speculation as to which would ship first.
	
	Perhaps, but in what year?  :-)
	

	> What is now NT Windows was once NT OS/2, or OS/2 3.0.  It was the
	> next logical step,
	
	Yes, *OS/2 3.0* was the next logical step.  Unless MS flip-flops again,
	and NT will run *all* my OS/2 programs (which means PM), then NT is
	of no use to me.

	> Certainly Windows apps get higher priority.
	Sure - they need higher priority because they're not multi-threaded.  :-)

	Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

This posting contains a series of disparagements and snide remarks.
He ridicules NT shipping dates, and ridicules Windows programs.  He
accuses MS of flipflopping.
Path: microsoft!uunet!uunet!think.com!linus!philabs!castle!scifi!watson!yktnews!admin!news
    From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
    Subject: Re: New York Times article - What's going on?
    
    In  <1992Mar1.010225.6024@midway.uchicago.edu>  sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
    
    > What are all the 286 owners going to run?  :-)
    
    I've been running OS/2 1.x for years.  Why would I want to downgrade
===============================================================^^^^^^^^^
    to Windows?  :-)
    
    Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)