HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 3 Jan 1993 14:42:19 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec31.034703.2036@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>No sole sourcing isn't a vital feature of the technique, but a JIT inventory
>control agreement between you and a supplier does put a new upstart supplier
>at a "competitive disadvangage".

Not if it isn't a sole source agreement.

>My point wasn't that Microsoft is practicing
>JIT, my point (which admittadly was badly worded) was that _if_ a business
>agrees to have a single source for a component, often the supplier of that
>component can agree to offer it for a much reduced price, especially in
>the context of a long-term JIT type of arrangement, because they know that
>they will have a steady and stable customer.  _That_ of agreement between
>a customer and a supplier is, as you say, "A Good Thing", and shouldn't be
>made illegal no matter if the supplier is Ace nuts & bolts or Microsoft.

No...sole source agreements are anticompetitive, and as such are Bad Things.
Suppliers who agree to reduce prices if they're the sole source are trying to
lock out other suppliers in the same market. There is no legitimate reason for
a supplier to reduce his prices just because someone agrees not to buy a part
from anyone else.

The PC operating system arena is an especially bad place for such things
simply because of MS' monopoly position. They're simply trying to consolidate
and enforce it with their mandatory per-system license.
-- 
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.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: hurnik@aix.rpi.edu (Kevin James Hurni)
Subject: NSC Bulletin Board Gone????????
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 04:08:44 GMT

  Is the NSC BBS still alive?  I have been unable to connect in the
past two days.  (I dialed 404-835-6600).  All I get is a busy signal
and after about 2 hours I can manage to get through but the line
just rings and rings and nobody answers.  I need to get the last two
diskettes for the CSD pack.  Can anyone help?  If so, Please email
hurnik@rpi.edu

Thanks.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:02:33 GMT

In <1992Dec29.194407.13490@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

>In article <1hpr2dINN80o@tamsun.tamu.edu>, bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:

>|> How about the situation when they charge more than the minimum for a
>|> "reasonable" profit, but not enough for someone else to afford the R&D
>|> costs to enter the market.  Startup costs, before you have a product
>|> and before you have name recognition, are not negligible.  This
>|> situation keeps prices high and the end consumer pays.

>|> You will probably ask: What is "reasonable"?  A fair question. 

>Under your scenario above (where Standard Oil keeps prices low enough that
>others are discoureged from entring the market) I would say that Standard Oil
>was charging a reasonable price.  If nobody can beat your price, then you've
>certainly got a reasonable price.

See any decent intermediate economics textbook for an explanation of
why this is NOT best for the industry, the consumer, or the country.
It IS best for the monopoly exerciser, of course, which is why
companies with monopoly power are willing to work so hard and cut such
corners to try to maintain it.

In other words, to be blunt, you don't know what you're talking about.

-- 
"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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: lansche@torolab6.VNET.IBM.COM (Martin Lansche)
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 10:21:59 EST
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Egghead flyerupdate
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 3.0
            <1992Dec28.150254.1894@lub001.lamar.edu>

In <1992Dec28.150254.1894@lub001.lamar.edu> airhart@lub001.lamar.edu writes:
[ Much stuff deleted ]
><Change of subject>
>And the bad press, just like with the last election, give
>them a cause and they will say anything to sell their wares.
>
>I was crazy enough to read an article (if you can call it that, it sounds
>more like a poorly disguised ad for $S NTs) by Scott Spanbauer in the
>December 1192 issue of PC World.
[ Much other stuff deleted ]
>to replace doth DOS and Windows [Windoze]. But imperfect Windows [Windoze]
Wow, I had had heard that NT was late, but you are quoting from 1192?
That makes NT 800 years late!  I guess that makes waiting for NT second
in length only to waiting for the second coming of... (or for Godot).
(Many ;-) here please).

Have a happy holidays, no matter what your religious beliefs (OS/2-ites,
fundemeNTalists, UNI(x)tarians, DOgmaticistS), and have a safe and Happy
New Year.
Cheers, from the IBM Lab in Toronto Canada (home of the AIX XL, OS/400,
S/390, and OS/2 compilers - including C Set/2, and the C++ compiler in
Beta).
Martin Lansche
  ________________________________________________________________________
   Ilu Iluvatar en kare eldain a firimoin ar antarota mannar valion :
   numessier.  Toi aina, mana, meldielto -- enga morion : talantie.
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   The father made the world for elves and mortals and he gave it into
   the hands of the Lords in the West.  They are blessed, holy and loved,
   except the black one.  He has fallen.  (J.R.R. Tolkien).
  ________________________________________________________________________
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10978 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3448
From: z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 1 Jan 93 13:37:30 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University


	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 -

	His Fat Partition was created by DOS 5.0 and he is running Boot
Manager. DOS 6.0 Beta either looked at the Boot Manager setup or detected
HPFS on the D: Drive. In either case he had over 150MB Free on each Partition!

So The next time I hear a Micro$oftie say "IT's IBM spreading FUD not us"  The
DOS 6.0 Beta will immediately come to mind! It's Simply BULLS**T!!!!

I Truely Hope This Beta Tester sends this one to the FTC!!!!

If this type of FUD and intentional Misinformation (apparently sanctioned by
management at M$ ) continues, the FTC SHOULD!!!! FINE and Split M$!!!

This is intollerable! All of the Posts claiming "Why punish someone for being
successful?", have no ground in light of this blatent attempt to halt advancement
of technology!!

Microsoft is doing what it does best, Trying (Lying) to Users of products of a
competitor!

BTW does anyone know how to Contact the FTC or IBM Lawyers? :)


Michael Kupka
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 30 Dec 92 10:45:47 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering

helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

>In article <wiegand.725667587@lido16>, wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand) writes:
>|> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>|> 
>|> >In article <1992Dec21.184359.9551@iscsvax.uni.edu>, brackin5483@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>|> >|> I got one question.  When Windows becomes the only operating system out there(
>|> >|> according to Bill) and Microsoft drives everyone else producing Windows
>|> >|> softwere in to bankruptcy.  Then what will happen to prices of operating
>|> >|> systems and application software, once Microsoft has established a monopoly?
>|> 
>|> >OK, worst case scenario--Bill Gates drives every single OS vendor right into
>|> >the ground.  Windows rules forever in a brave new world of point and click right?
>|> 
>|> >The minute that Microsoft starts charging more for Windows than it would
>|> >cost for someone else to write a clone or a competing OS Microsoft would
>|> >have competetors again.  
>|> 
>|> Not if the other companies know that as soon as their new OS hit the
>|> markets MS would drop their prices until the new company went broke.
>|> You don't enter a fight where you know the other guy is bigger and stronger
>|> than you and will pound you into the ground.

>Hmmmmnnn....that didn't seem to discourage AMD and Cyrix from entering the
>80386 clone market.  Intel could drive them out of business mearly by selling
>their processors below cost, but apparently they're more interested in
>making money than losing it.  Also, Intel is competing with them on technical
>grounds--they are doubling the speed of new processor developement.  

Doesn't Intel also try to sue them? And what about giving their new
processors names so they can be protected under copyright laws?
Thus, they are not only trying to compete on technical grounds, but
on other, totally unrelated, grounds too. Not saying this is fair or
not, it just shows the issue isn't quite as simple as it may look.

Erik


-- 
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
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:52:47 GMT

In <1992Dec29.222902.15267@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

>In article <1992Dec29.184617.11527@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>|> 
>|> As for 'pointing guns', I wasn't aware that they pointed guns at
>|> people for anti-trust violations.  They generally point LAWYERS at
>|> them.

>Wait a minute -- just because they have a division of labor
>between the guy who makes the threats (laywers) and the guy who holds the
>guns (policeman) doesn't mean that there are no guns.  The laws of this 
>country are enforced by the willingness to use physical violence against
>lawbreakers.  And that is exactly why a small, limited goverment is best.

And just because there is a division of labor between the Microsoft
royalty deal demanding royalty for all machines sold or pay a much
higher price for their product and the clone maker going out of
business doesn't mean there is no 'force', either.

>|> You seem to want to differentiate between 'force due to market
>|> position' and 'force due to law'. 

>The difference could not be greater. If you refuse to buy a copy of Windows 3.x
>nobody will point a gun at your head and make you.  Try refusing to
>obey a law--you'll be eyeball to eyeball with a man with a gun.

And try refusing Microsoft's kind offer as a small systems reseller
and you'll be out of business.  Gee, no coersion there; you can play
their way, be big enough to hit back, or not play at all.

>|> There ain't no such difference at the bottom line, son.

>I'm sure that you don't worship your bottom line so much that you would
>endorse armed robbery to improve it.

That's right, I don't.  And I don't worship the free market so much
that I would endorse the things you do in its name, either.  You just
don't seem to understand economic coersion and the way the game can be
played, sans that government you complain about doing something about
it. 

-- 
"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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 29 Dec 92 20:55:56 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <8194@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>
>some time. The simple fact is that MS isn't playing fair - they force
>manufacturers to sell machines with Windows and DOS preloaded (don't believe
>that? just try to buy one without!),

    Incorrect, Jay.  Microsoft doesn't "force" manufacturers to
sell machines with Windows and DOS preloaded.  We offer an extremely
competitive contract that specifies that royalties are paid on
all machines shipped - we also offer another contract that pays
roaylties on a per OS copy shipped, at a higher price per copy.
    I realize that you were just trying to flame, but at least
get your facts straight.
   

> they use undocumented OS calls in their apps,

    Please explain why this is unfair.


> and they remove features from their development tools just to hinder a
>competing OS.

     Does Microsoft now have an obligation to support every competing
operating system in our compiler tools?


> Sure sounds like they're playing fair to me.

     Jay, if the FTC issued a statement tomorrow that said "Microsoft
is absolutely playing fair - we've investigated them inside and out,
and found nothing wrong," would you believe it?  Or would you
continue with your foundationaless anti-MS propaganda?

					-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.
From: traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: SMALL Excerpt from "Windows Sources"
Date: 30 Dec 92 10:48:51 GMT
Organization: BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK

In article <1992Dec30.031820.21424@netcom.com> timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:
>The point is that the shipping NT should require 8 MB minimum, but this
>minimum doesn't mean the same thing as the OS/2 minimum.  As Petzold
>suggested (although he may be pushing it) NT should be much more usable 
>in 8 MB (its stated minimum) than OS/2 is in 4 MB.

One detects a certain amount of bias present when you resort to comparing a
vapourware product (the 8MB Windows NT) to an existing (but slow) product
(the 4MB OS/2 2.0).

Why don't we all just use OS/2 for now and when Windows NT runs happily
in 8MB of RAM we can all swap to that? That sounds fair enough now,
doesn't it?


-- 
Michael Traub
BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@btcs.bt.co.uk
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:43:18 GMT

bobatk@microsoft.com (Bob Atkinson) writes:
: Lowell Morrison writes:
: >>*sigh* is anybody forcing people to buy MS DOS at $100 a copy?  
: >>
: >Effectively Yes.  The senario is this, I have a PC (It was given to me
: >by a well meaning relitive, it is loaded with DR-DOS 6.0), I need to run
: >The most wonderful word processor in the world (Word Perfect 5.2, or 
: >some other non-MS windows based word processor), I go out an buy Windows
: >3.1 (I am not stupid so I get it for $79 at Egghead on sale) and this 
: >Wonderful Word Processor.  All of a sudden I find out that Windows 3.1 won't
: >run under my version of DR-DOS, so I go back to Egghead and am forced to pay
: >full price (minus the egghead discount) for DOS.  I ain't happy with
: >Microsoft.
: 
: 
: I'm confused; perhaps you can help me out of my confusion.
: 
: 	1. You have DR-DOS6.0, a clone of MSDOS.
: 	2. You buy Win3.1, an MS product that was designed to 
: 		work with MSDOS. And indeed it does, as you note.
: 	3. You find that Win3.1 doesn't work with DR-DOS6.0
: 
: Then: 
: 	4. You complain to MS, not DR, about the problem.
: 
: See my confusion? Doesn't the problem have to do with the fidelity
: of the MSDOS emulation done by DR-DOS? Or am I missing something?
: I'd genuinely like to know...

And if the fact that DRDOS's emulation is imperfect because of
information held back by Mircrosoft?

--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 16:02:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.144612.18117@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>In article <Bzwwrn.8uM@csulb.edu> sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>>
>>  You are a master at raising straw-man issues. Absolutely nobody is
>>trying to stop MS from selling its 'wares. 
>>The issue is whether MS
>>treats its distributors and other sellers fairly and equally and
>>uses practices consistent with US law. 
>>the concept of 'agreed price'
>>becomes somewhat hollow if coercion is involved.
>
>Only the US law is coersive, if it uses _force_ to limit MS from
>selling its property as it chooses to whoever chooses to buy it. 
>
This is a specious argument.  Microsoft is incorporated under the laws
of the state of Washington and the United States of America.  In seeking
Incorporation, Microsoft agreed explicitly to follow the rules and
regulations--no matter how restrictive--of those jurisdiction that
said incoropration was sought under.  To say that the rules, that MS
incorportated under, are unfair now and should be changed, even though
these are the same rules that allowed Billy Gates to make 5.5 billion
US Dollars, is a very unteniable argument.  If Bill Gates was unwilling
to live by these rules, then his incorporation should have been from
Tonga, the Lesser Antillies, or Lichtenstein.  Since he incorporated
in the United States, he has to bear the brunt of any violation of
the rules he has previously agreed to follow.

The rest deleted as irrelivant.




>>Jeff Sicherman
>>up the net without a .sig
>
>
> DOV 

--Lowell Morrison
--Uncle Wolf.
From: Mahoney@emdisle.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Mahoney)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: BENCHMARKING Windows and OS/2
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 20:39:04 PDT
Organization: The Emerald Isle BBS, Tucson, AZ (602) 749-8638

In a message of <Dec 18 11:02> (Brian Sturgill) writes to All:

>Exact numbers are not available to me yet, but on a stock IBM PS/2
>Model 57 with 16 MB of RAM and standard VGA, the relative Winmarks
>were approximately as follows:
>
>Windows 3.1 on DOS 5.02                                        100%
>OS/2 2.0x, FS Win-OS/2, Not "Optimized"                        95%
>Windows NT Beta                                                40%

 BS>One point, you were very fair about describing what you were testing, but
 BS>left out one point that might not be understood by a newcomer.
 BS>What you were comparing was an OS/2 beta that is supposed to be out
 BS>this month, with a Windows NT beta that is supposed to come out 5-7 months
 BS>from now.  Doubtless there will be substantial improvement in the NT
 BS>figures.


    The version of OS/2 he tested is the pre-load version. It's not a beta. 

--- msgedsq/2 2.1
 * Origin: The Emerald Isle * Tucson, AZ. (602) 749-8638 (1:300/14)
--  
Mike Mahoney - via FidoNet node 1:300/14
UUCP: uunet...!noao!coyote!emdisle!Mahoney
INTERNET: Mahoney@emdisle.FIDONET.ORG
From: jg3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jason Ari Goldstein)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: FTC, M$ and Compuserve
Date: 21 Dec 92 07:13:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.UfBTgtO00iV3E28W5n
Organization: Senior, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

This whole thing witht he FTC and M$ seems to have a similar sound as to
Compuserve - meaning Why is it that many companies will only give tech
support via compuserve forums?  I have been rejected from support many
times when I sent email to the businesses account from InterNet.  The
companies response is always join compuserve.  Well, I NOT paying anyone
to censor my mail.  And why should I pay when I can get something for
free.  Anyway, It makes me wonder if compuserve is giving companies a
deal to do there tech support through compuserve and part of the deal is
that they can only do it through compuserve.  That sounds very similar
to giving companies a deal to buy there OS and then saying they can only
sell there OS.  So how do I contact the FTC...  
            Later...

            Jason A. Goldstein
(or should it be J. Ari Goldstein - send in your votes)
___________________________________________
I've got a lot of good ideas...
The problem is, most of them suck!
        - George Carlin

Over, Finished, Gone, Done, Out.  (Finally)
From: chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Date: 27 Dec 1992 15:51:01 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu

In <1992Dec26.212252.8017@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>In article <1992Dec26.192753.23157@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>>In article <1992Dec26.145826.21639@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>It is not a bug....it is quite intentional. Therefore, you are correct about a
>>lack of intention to fix it. But it kind of ruins your theory about migrating
>>a hard disk to a machine with less RAM.....


>	Not at all.  Try setting a 2048k cache on a machine with 4 megs.
>	Or 6.

>	See where it gets you.


What does that have to do with his Comments?  He already stated that
he is running on the same amount of memory that the product was installed
on.  Who cares if a 2meg cache will down a 4-6 meg system?  If NT
gives 2 megs of cache on a bare minimum system, there's something
wrong with NT's installation procedure.  But, reread SW's posts --
he is using (or was using) an 8 meg machine with NT setup on ANOTHER
8 meg machine. 

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy