HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: jadpc2
Date: Mon,  9 Nov 92 14:41:20 -0800
From: Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: San Diego OS/2 User Group
Comment-To: All@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

                      San Diego OS/2 User Group
                          November Meeting

When:       November 19, 1992 - 7PM to 10PM

Where:      IBM Building
            8845 University Center Lane
            San Diego, CA 92122

            This is actually in La Jolla at the Nobel Drive
            exit off the Interstate 5 North.  The closest
            major landmark is the new Mormon temple being
            built just south of the Nobel Drive exit.


Main :      Lotus Development Corporation will demonstrate
Topic:      the 32-bit OS/2 versions of 1-2-3 (spreadsheet)
            and Freelance (presentation graphics).  These 
            two programs integrate together tightly sharing 
            a similar user interface and even substantial 
            amounts of program code such as a common charting
            module.  Although what we will be seeing is the 
            beta version of these products as of October,
            they are very close to final versions so this
            is the perfect opportunity to get a preview
            of what the release-level products will be like.

            The Lotus representative will be able to answer
            questions about other 32-bit OS/2 products in
            development by Lotus such as Ami Pro and cc:Mail.


Schedule:   * User group announcements and OS/2 news
        
            * Lotus presentation

            * Our ever-popular OS/2 question and answer
              session where you can get help and advice
              from many other OS/2 users


Directions: If you are coming from south of the UCSD area,
            take the Interstate 5 north.  Get off at the
            Nobel Drive exit right after the passing the
            Mormon temple which is under construction.
            The IBM building will be immediately in front
            of you as you are stopped at the exit stop light.

            If you are coming from north of the UCSD area,
            take the Interstate 5 south and get off at the
            La Jolla Village Drive exit.  Then head east
            until you reach Lebon.  Then take a right
            and continue until you reach Nobel.  Take a
            right onto Nobel Drive and then continue until
            you see the IBM building on your right just
            before reaching the Interstate 5 again.


Parking:    Free of charge in the IBM parking lot

Cost:       As usual, this is a free meeting open to
            anyone interested in attending, irregardless
            of any user group membership.

--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 12:53:58 GMT

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

>In article <1992Nov5.225251.14539@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <7734@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>>[An OS is:]
>>>A suite of programs that insulates application code from the necessities of
>>>dealing directly with the hardware.
>>And a reasonable definition it is, too.

>OK, I'll stick with this one; my amendment that it should be able to stand
>alone is based more on a personal impression - that an OS is something that
>turns a hunk of hardware into a running system, capable of doing useful work -
>and I'm not married to it.

>>Ok.  DOS fails the test because:
>>1) Anything doing graphics pretty much has to go straight to hardware,
>>the 'insulation' that DOS provides being so worthless.

>...but there ARE routines provided; therefore, it passes the test. I make no
>representations about the quality of the insulation provided.

Are there really? Could you specify which you mean? I can't find
any in the INT 21 list but I might have overlooked.
If you refer to other INTs, aren't these part of the device itself
(CGA, EGA, VGA)?

>>Shall I continue?  ;-)

>Sure. (But maybe by email, unless we've got some fans of this discussion...)

No, keep it public, it is at least interesting to see what others
learned/know/think.



-- 
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)
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows is a Volkswagon
Date: 6 Nov 92 14:50:06 GMT
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY

In article <AeyYgLG00WB=1Q5Lgw@andrew.cmu.edu> jyri+@CMU.EDU (Jyri Virkki) writes:
>lowey@jester.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey,159 Physics,(306) 966-4826,(306) sez:
>>
>> I prefer to believe Windows is a Volkswagon.  The argument that
>> Windows is a Volkswagon is probably more relevant to this newsgroup
>> than whether Windows is an operating system or not, and would probably
>> be less boring.
>
>Hey! I resent that! VW's are wonderful cars, cute and lovable, and
>more to the point, very, very reliable. Windows is extremely
>unreliable, ugly as sin and unfriendly. Please don't tarnish
>the VW name!
>
>:-)

Hey!  I resent your resentment!  As a long-time VW owner (66, 71, and 74
Beetles, 70 bus), I found VW products back then reliable and easy towork
on!  Windows 3.x has been just a stable at they were reliable (i.e.,
very!).  OS/2 reminds me of the little engine that couldn't!  :)

Joe
jmalloy@hamilton.edu


>
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT delayed again??? (PC Week Nov 2)
Date: 10 Nov 92 07:39:58 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli) writes:
>In article <hatton.720949698@cgl.ucsf.edu> hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:
>>Not having a subscription, perhaps someone else can confirm this (probably
>>not Brian, of course, since he seems loathe to post articles that might
>>be interpreted as anti-MS, to date) - I thought I saw, passing by an
>>issue of PC Week on a display, the words "Fear and Loathing" and 
>>"Windows for Workgroups" or whatever the package is called.

>The article was in PC week, and what it said was that MIS managers at
>large Fortune 1000 companies (at least those interviewed, I suppose),
>were very unhappy with the idea of Windows for Workgroups.  They said it
>was difficult to administer and lacking in security, and they were
>worried that since it would be sold in Egghead, users would just get a
>hold of it and install it themselves on corporate LANs, which the MIS
>guys feared would cause them to lose control over their nets and cause
>problems that they didn't know about.   The article did use the phrase
>"Fear and Loathing" to describe their response to the package.  It also
>went on to say that Novell is suing MS over it, claiming that MS didn't
>get a legal liscense to incorporate Novell's SPX/IPX protocol into the
>package.  MS claims that it's liscense for Win 3.1 covers it, because
>after all, this is Windows for Workgroups 3.1.  Basically, Novell argues
>that it's a separate product and needs a separate liscense, while MS
>claims that it's the same product, and can use the same liscense, it's
>just sold as a separate product.  On the one hand, it does sound to me
>like MS is violating their agreement with Novell, on the other, it
>sounds like Novell is being a little bit fascist (which they always are
>anyway).  Of course, with the introduction of UnixWare, Novell and MS
>are competitors, so I'm sure that's a factor too.

Thanks for the update. It sounds as though interesting times are ahead;
trying to predict which pressures are going to have the greatest effect
(especially given alliances here, joint ventures there, etc.) on the
directions that companies and products take in the next few years.
 
Just as an additional query - is Windows for Workgroups simply a
grandiose title for Windows with networking (plus some other minor 
goodies)? I haven't seen the description of the features. It may 
be a record, but I haven't yet seen MS hype on this so far, although
I'm sure it's on its way.
 
Tom
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: DOS not operating system, film at 11. : -)
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 03:21:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.001222.25542@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>
>Although there are a few people who know nothing about computers, but
>can still see what a completely lame system Windoze is.  Take my mother,
>who just bought (with no aid or input from me, I might add) a brand new
>386 machine for word-processing.  She refused to let them give her
>Windoze--she may not be very technical, but she's encountered Windoze at
>work, and hates it because it's so slow and awkward compared to DOS
>text-mode.
>
If someone gave me another copy of OS/2 (I'm not using my current copy),
in a bundle, at no extra charge, I would certainly not stand on ceremony
and "refuse" to take it even though I did not intend to use it.  I'd
gladly accept it and either hold it for a future update or, more likely,
give it to someone I thought might actually want it.  If what you say is
true, your mother, methinks, made a very short-sighted decision based,
it seems, on the incompetence of the people who configured here Windows
system at work.  I use Windoze at home, in the office, on my portable
(and in my wife's office, legal copies all!) and it simply doesn't
crash.  You mother ought to recommend to her boss that they hire better
MIS people...  (I have the NT beta, too, though no cd-rom; at they price
Microsoft if offering it for, anyone interested in this sort of thing
would be foolish not to take them up on it!). 

Joe
jmalloy@hamilton.edu


Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8248 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2586
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Some new tidbits and my "retirement" from os2.advocacy.
Date: 7 Nov 92 17:18:59 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

In <1992Nov6.080429.10588@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>This will be my last Tidbits posting that will be cross-posted to
>comp.os.os2.advocacy.  It also represents a definite slow-down, if
>not a complete halt to posts by me to comp.os.os2.advocacy.

Given most reactions to your postings I can't blame you. You DID
supply a lot of usefull information, thanks! I don't have to agree
with your opinions to be gratefull for the work.

>I've grown tired of the abuse I receive there, and the current "Is
>Windows an OS" thread is too annoying for words.  In short, I'm

Agreed. Very annoying.

>moving my efforts to comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, if you want to continue
>to see my posts, you'll need to look in that group.

I'll do that.

>In truth I believe its time I should do this anyway.
>The recent revelations about Mirrors, and who is using it have convinced me
>that I don't need to worry about the PM API.  Thus a portion of my
>interest in OS/2 has left.

Mirrors is a good too to speed up porting. It is not the end however.
One needs to rewrite some parts to really use OS/2 extentions (e.g.
like treads) and one also needs to rewrite time critical sections
in 386 code.

>their champion against the technically superior product.  Now with the release
>of Windows for Workgroups, and the release of the NT beta, I believe
>the balance has shifted, and that it is time for the OS/2 fans to
>justify themselves against Microsoft's Windows family of products.

You have always been talking about NT vs OS/2. I don't see any changes
in that from now. Do you? Most of the time you compared OS/2 to NT
anyway.

>	Mirrors leaves the app code itself as 16-bit.
>	Apps that use mirrors incur that overhead, the overhead
>	of the API translation, and the overhead of the thunking
>	from the 16-bit to 32-bit DLLs.
>	Plus they are really written for Windows, not OS/2.
>]

Not correct. At least not completely. Profecionals will use Mirrors
to speed up porting. Not to port it altogether. Excactly the
disadvantages you mention make this needed.

>[
>Well, this is good news for the Describe folks, neither WordPerfect
>nor AmiPro will be true 32-bit apps.
>]

"True" 32 bits apps is a vague statement. You can be sure important
parts of the major apps will become 32 bit. The only company I can
imagine not using real 32bit code is CA.

>Brian


Nico E. de Vries  (nevries@cc.ruu.nl) |------------------*   AA   III  PPP
_ This text is supplied AS IS, no warranties of any kind |  A  A   I   P  P
| apply. No rights can be derived from this text. This   |  AAAA   I   PPP
| text is likely to contain spelling and grammar errors. |  A  A   I   P
*---------------------------( Donate to GreenPeace! )----*  A  A  III  P

"The IBM PC is still waiting for a version of the CP/M OS.", G.M. Vose, 1982.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:56:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.220017.5830@ais.com> bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright) writes:
>In article <1992Nov08.105045.907@donau.et.tudelft.nl>, linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>>>>
>>>Fildercarb.  The BIOS is *part* of DOS... as much as a V6 is *part* of the
>>>Truck my father drives.  It is not necessary that every layer in an
>> 
>> No its not.
>> 1. You can remove DOS and there's still the BIOS, or take out the VGA
>> card and the BIOS is gone. Not a very good argument, but it shows the
>> BIOS and DOS are unrelated, DOS just makes use of its presence, as
>> it does of any piece of the architecture it was designed for.
>> 
>> 2. The BIOS is not designed by Microsoft for DOS, but DOS was designed
>> for the PC-architecture, using the BIOS. Argument in same class as 1.
>> 
>> 3. Any other PC operating system uses the BIOS for basic input and
>> output. The BIOS would then be part of that operating system,
>> by your own reasoning. That would make all these OS's have an 
>> identical part. Not likely. More likely though is, the BIOS is
>> part of the architecture the OS is designed for.
>> 
>> 4. You yourself just said the BIOS was part of the architecture.
>
>The claim that the PC BIOS is part of DOS is just plain silly.  Besides
>the things that Erik mentions, DOS has been adapted for machines that
>do NOT use an IBM PC-compatible BIOS -- like the DEC Rainbow, for
>example.  Programs that use only the DOS INT 2?h interrupts (where ? is
>a number from 0-f) work just fine on such machines, thank you.
>
>The IBM PC BIOS is part of the _IBM PC_ architecture, not a part of
>MS-DOS.  The version of MS-DOS that you're most familiar with just
>happens to be adapted for the IBM-PC.
>
>Bruce C. Wright


No.  You misunderstand me.  What I am saying is that the BIOS is just as
much a part of DOS (in the abstraction called an "Operating System") just
as much as the Network Layer is part of the Transport Layer (in the OSI
model of a networking environment) because the Transport Layer can't
*exist* without the Network Layer (at least and be runnable).

Sure the actual underlying implementation is different (e.g., the particaulr
hardware doesn't have a PC BIOS... but the ABSTRACTION is still there).

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Windoz-z-z-z-z-z-e???  Who CARES?????  :-)
Keywords: NT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 10:24:20 GMT

In <1992Nov9.230911.11528@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:


>Now then, we have Windows/NT as the product, and what is the release
>number?  You say that it's 3.1?  Gee, where the hell were all the
>releases before that?  A first release with a MAJOR REVISION NUMBER of
>*3* is just a *BIT* unusual -- one might even say unprecedented.

Watcom released their first C compiler for DOS with a version number of
6 (to emphasize that it was better than the then-current MSC 5.1).  So
it's not unprecedented, though it is usual.

All of which is apropos of squat.  Didn't this group used to have
something to do with OS/2?  My copy of OS/2 came with something called
"WinOS2", but it didn't seem to be very interesting or useful, so I
deleted it.  I wish I could send that part back, and get a refund of the
dividend paid to MS for their useless program.

10 million people have bought Windows.  10 million people in this
country have an IQ less than 87.  Coincidence?  I think not.  ;-)
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | "Don't you boys know NICE songs?"
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers |                 -- Joe's mama
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 7 Nov 92 08:31:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Nov7.083101.18909
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.

In article <1992Nov07.043530.12842@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <1992Nov05.115641.12981@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl wrote:
>> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>> 
>> >In article <1992Nov4.203036.5504@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> >>DOS isn't an OS any more than Barbie is a prom date.
>> 
>> >A neat analogy, Fred, but wrong: what does an OS do that DOS doesn't?
>> 
>> Provide protection from ill behaved applications for one. Furthermore
>> I would say concurrency should be included in the definition of
>> a modern OS.
>> 
>> Erik
>
>Funny, I know people who have the opposite viewpoint.  They Like DOS
>because it stays the heck out of their way.
>Then again, they are just embedded systems designers, and game designers,
>and the like.
>

DING! Thanks for playing Pete...

Not true. One of the paper mills I visit on occasion for process
control work trashed their plans to move off the DOS environment
into WIndows entirely. They sited as the first reason, the  expense
of configuring and updating 400 PC's to run Windows in a reasonable
fashion, and secondly, they did and internal study which showed
their productivity dropped by over 10% on the Windows machines
versus the plain DOS ones. One other side effect was that Outside
contract labor charged an average 50 to 135% more for programming
services when it came to custom window applications, citing the
additional complexity of the environment to produce the final
product.

Now, this is not a blanket mandate that Windows is bad, or OS/2 is
that much better. It is meant to point out the fact, that embedded
systems designers and game designers are not the sole realm of DOS;
else why would IBM be so meticulous about including it in OS/2? For
that matter why is Microsoft including it at all in NT, if it's
nothing more that a boot sector virus, as some clever poster so
aptly put it ?

JMHO...


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kevinc@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Kevin Crocker)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:05:22 GMT

Excuse me, but what is this thread doing in comp.os.os2.advocacy?

Kevin
--
Kevin "autark" Crocker (Athabasca University)
kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA  -or-  risk@cs.AthabascaU.CA
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Mirrors
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Distribution: jadpc2
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 03:48:42 GMT

In article <2afda3ea@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org> A_Brian_Sturgill_skeptic@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org writes:
> BS> Thus Lotus may call Ami Pro a 32-bit OS/2 2.0 app (and it will
>only run
> BS> under OS/2 2.0), but performance-wise, and especially 
> BS> feature-wise it is far from one.
>
>Really?  Then how come the product manager for AmiPro for OS/2 says it
>doesn't use Mirrors?  Perhaps this could have something to do with
>your information being *INCORRECT*?
>
>--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
> * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)

Look I'm only quoting the Micrografx rep at the OS/2 developers conference.
The Micrografx rep EXPLICITLY stated that Lotus was using Mirrors for
AmiPro and many of their other products.  He could be lying, he could
could be misinformed, or (what I think most likely) he is right.

_I_ at least have the courtesy to let people see what my sources for the
information are.  Would you like to elaborate on where your information
comes from?  I mean if you've got access to the guy personally, then
great, your information source would be better than mine.
I find it very unlikely that the Micrografx rep would explicitly lie.

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                   I strongly encourage you to mail your copy
University of Utah                     of Ross Perot's:  "United We Stand
Center for Software Science            How we can take back our country",
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373        to President-elect Clinton.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy