HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1992 17:05:17 GMT

kmacleod@hyperdesk.com (Kenneth Macleod) writes:
> User:	How do I copy these files on this floppy that I brought from home?
> OS/2 user: Or you just open up the drives view, open up drive a and use
> mouse button two to drag the files to the c drive.

Windows 3.1: open file manager, open up drive A:, use mouse to drag the
	     files to C:.

Sorry, this one won't sell OS/2.


> Am I getting through?

Your quotes are anyway!  You left *250* lines of untrimmed quotes in the
article -- do you think you could cut back a little?

[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:12:54 GMT

In <1992Sep30.092259.6407@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:

>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>>In article <1992Sep28.232210.21615@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>>>
>>>He doesn't need evidence Phil.  A little logic will prove it.
>>>
>>>There are two sets of people.  Set A comprises those who want a
>>>product badly enough to buy it.  Say that of set A, 75% of the
>>>purchases are actually used.  Set B comprises those who don't
>>>want to buy a product.  Obviously, usage in set A is much greater
>>>than usage in set B, so we'll set B usage at 25%.  (These numbers
>>>are completely arbitrary, and I use them only to clarify the point)

>>     The flaw in your logic is the following:  You are taking as
>>an axiom the idea that usage in set B will always be less that
>>usage in set A.  I think you are probably correct - it would seem
>>like common sense to me.  However, there aren't any figures to
>>back up that assumption, which makes the rest of the (rather nice, 
>>by the way) proof specious at best.

>The proof for that axiom follows along the lines of the other proof.
>Set Y is people who want to use the software.  Set Z is people who
>don't want to use the software.  Set A is comprised entirely of people
>from set Y (else why would they buy the software?).  

Fine to this point.

>Set B is a mix
>of people from set Y and set Z.  

You can't assume this as a certitude, although I'd say it's a pretty
good bet.  Set B could presumable be an improper subset of Set A and
not actually include any people who don't want to use the software,
despite the fact that they did not actively acquire it (i.e., it came
bundled).  The fact that Set B *MAY* contain people from Set Z does
not mean that it *MUST* contain any.

Because one of your premises is falsifiable, your conclusion is
falsifiable (which I suspect is what Phil was getting at -- although
it'd be nice if the apparent results of logic training were applied a
BIT more even-handedly).

[Just by the way, technically in debate you are not allowed to falsify
the premises, as I did above -- they must be accepted as true, even if
clearly false.  So are we doing logic or debate here?]

>So usage in set B is less than usage
>in set A for the same reason in my previous proof.

Falsifiable premise leads to automatically falsifiable conclusion.
Hence, your proof is falsifiable.

-- 
"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: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: 1 Oct 92 09:26:41 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.

In article <1992Sep30.154430.26236@umr.edu>, mcastle@mcs213d.cs.umr.edu (Michael R Castle) writes:
|> The problem will be getting users to switch over to a 'better' platform when
|> they have tons of binaries that will only run on a certain machine. Joe User
|> will ask, "Will this new PowerPC run my WordStar editor?"
|> 
|> Through emulation, yes.  Won't that be slow.  Not for an interactive
|> environment like an editor.

It depends on how you look at it. The emulation, or probably translation, will
approximately double the execution time. Since your new machine will be at
least twice the speed of the old one, the application will actually run as
fast as it always did. It is, of course, slower than a native version but it
is also cheaper and you don't have to wait for it to be released (which neatly
brings us back to OS/2 again :-)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: chyang@engin.umich.edu (Chung Hsiung Yang)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 00:29:48 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: "world"

In article <wiegand.717712619@lido16> motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net writes:
>rjones@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ronald Jones) writes:
>
>>Actually doesn't IBM already have a single chip RS6000 available (the
>>220)? I think the PowerPC will be a simpler version of this chip.
>
>Actually, I believe the present RS6000 CPU takes something like 5 chips.
>Anyone know for sure?
>
	I don't know if the RS6000 was 5 chips but I think it was several
chips mounted on the same ceramic module.  They called it Multi Chip Module
(MCM), it is more of an hybrid intergrated circuit technology.  Any IBMers
out there care to comment?
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
>motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net            uunet!motcid!wiegand
>Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Date: 5 Oct 92 03:37:12 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

goyal@utdallas.edu (Mohit K. Goyal) writes:
>I am *very* curious to see how NT will run under 8megs.  I get the 
>impression from your message that 8megs is the minimum requirements,
>and we all now how well any OS runs under its minimum config.

>Will it be fully capable with 8megs, or will it have different "levels"
>like Windows has.

>Anyways, if it doesn't run well under 8megs, then I'm sure a bunch
>of people won't go for it if only because most motherboards have
>8 SIMM sockets on them and going from 4 to 8 is no big deal, but
>going from 8 to 16(the smallest leap possible) will involve selling
>all the 1megs SIMMS and buying 4megs SIMMS.

Well, not to bolster NT, but think of it this way - NT is still using the
Windows 'face' - progman, etc. This takes way less memory than WPS in
OS/2, of course because it *does* way less (and, personal opinion,
is clumsier to work with). So, I expect if IBM can make WPS work well
on a 4Mb system by some tuning, there is no reason to deny NT (using
the Win look) to do well in 8Mb. Of course, once NT acquires an OO
interface, then we'll see what the requirements are, and I suspect
that will go up, but no doubt MS will have gone to school on the WPS
and refinements. So, it may end up with reasonable requirements,
especially when you consider the time by which NT will gain an OO
interface. The definition of "reasonable" will have moved upwards
substantially by then. :-)

Tom
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 17:12:08 GMT

In article <cc#pr6n.erb@netcom.com>,
erb@netcom.com (Elizabeth R. Brown) writes:
>Well, after a brief appearance on PC Magazines "Top Retail Software" list
>OS/2 2.0 has dropped back into obscurity.  After a rapid rise it has just as
>rapidly disappeared from the charts, according to the October 13, 1992 issue
>of PC Magazine (page 31).  Items on the latest chart include:
>

[ List Deleted ]

Well, obviously PC Mag gets their information from different sources
than PC Computing does!  My October '92 edition show's OS/2 at the
number 5 spot on page 119!  In fact, it's been catching up quite
nicely (BTW, these figures are also from August).  We'll see next
month, I guess.

>
>The omitted items are all DOS related.  No OS/2, and of course no OS/2
>apps.  This list includes "total number of copies shipped to stores and
>resellers in the week ending August 8, 1992."
>
>It seems that the inclusion of OS/2 in a couple of previous lists was due to
>some sort of spike in OS/2 shipments to "fill the channel", rather than a
>trend.  Well, the channel is full now, and we shall see how well those
>puppies move at the retail level (NOT :-)
>
>Does NT need to kick OS/2's butt?  No, Windows 3.1 is already doing that.
>NT just needs to get ready to inherit the market from Windows for DOS
>when the time is right.
>
>So, from a Windows bigot to all you OS/2 bigots I say:  "Join us!  Feel the
>power of the Dark Side!  Together the Universe will be ours!!
>Mwhaahaaaaahaaa!"    ---> (:-)

Has it ever struck you as ironic that you're running a 16-bit
program on another 16-bit program on a 16-bit OS, while your
computer has a 32-bit microprocessor?  Just wondering...
From: si0_tb90020@debet.nhh.no
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: The F****NG preemtive or no preemtive debate
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:46:37 MET
Organization: Norwegian School of Economics

This thing about multitasking is over an over and done discussion. There
are many reasons for preemtive multitasking, and there are many against.
This is a religious discussion, and should be stopped RIGHT NOW!

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu (D. Robert Spexet II)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 11:06:48 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan, Mathematics Department, Ann Arbor
Distribution: world 

In article <1992Sep26.131512.23689@news.columbia.edu> hpw@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Harry P Warren) writes:
>| Since IBM and Apple together control over 50% of the market in
>| personal computers, they hope to promulgate standards more effectively
>| in tandem.
>
>I find it hard to believe that IBM and Apple together control over 50%
>of the personal computer market. Perhaps 50% of the computers that
>have been manufactured sport the IBM or Apple name but they certainly
>don't control 50% of the market today. In fact, I imagine that Apple
>and IBM's combined sales of 68040 and 486 based machines effectively
>sums to zero when compared with the number of 486 systems sold by the
>likes of Dell and Gateway. I don't see how companies that sell
>yesterday's hardware are going to set tomorrow's standards.

I disagree with several of the points you make.  Although I cannot give
hard statistics, it is certainly plausible that IBM and Apple control more
than 50% of the personal computer market.  While it is true that Gateway
and Dell do sell a lot of machines, the fact of the matter is that there are
a hell of a lot of people (businesses, schools, etc., as opposed to indi-
viduals) who will buy *nothing* but IBM and Apple hardware.  The business
market is in many ways vastly different from the individual market.  The
names IBM and Apple hold a lot of clout out there, and it translates into
sales.

(This also applies to other markets:  Educational, Research, etc.)

As far as selling "yesterday's hardware" goes, let it be said that Gateway,
Dell, etc. will probably *not* be setting the standards of tomorrow.  Their
hardware isn't advanced enough to be a standards-setter for the future.

Not many innovative things have come about in the personal computing world
that *didn't* come from IBM or Apple.  The AT bus architecture which most
people use stems directly from an IBM design.  The VGA architecture was
designed by IBM.  The windowing interface was brought to the personal com-
puting world by Apple.  The Nubus and MCA bus architectures that these com-
panies use in their machines are among the most advanced architectures in the
personal computing world.  I could name lots of things that these companies
are responsible for.

Now, what has Gateway, Dell, etc. done?  They took the existing technology
and packaged it at a cheap price.  It is my opinion, for what it is worth,
that Gateway does not do a whole lot of research and development.  Anybody
who wanted to could buy the same parts that Gateway does, and build a machine
for themselves.  There is nothing particularly innovative about what Gateway
and Dell do, except from a marketing standpoint.

>harry warren
>hpw@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu


-- 
D. Robert Spexet II, N0OKR   Internet:  spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu
Department of Mathematics    BITnet:    user68xr@umichum.bitnet
The University of Michigan   UUCP:      uunet!mailrus!math.lsa.umich.edu!spexet
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
From: kab@s1.gov (Keith Benton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:03:48 GMT
Reply-To: kab@s1.gov
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

In article 717749946@cgl.ucsf.edu, hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:
>kab@s1.gov (Keith Benton) writes:
>
>>>apps (at least according to posted info). So, let's see about a year from now
>>>how things stack up; perhaps you will not be crowing by then, but eating it
>>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>instead. :-)
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>Tom
>
>>Maybe, then again maybe not. Like the man says "Time will tell."
>
>I'm trying to fathom why you posted this - you repeated my point. Thanks.
>Maybe you should talk to Phil Lafornara - he seems to get on people's
>cases for pointless posts. Of course, now I am too. <grin>
>
>Tom

The only point to make is that no one knows how the OS war
will turn out until the war is over. It very well might be OS/2 is
the number one operating system in a year but I personally doubt it.

---
	---------------------------------------------------------
	|             Keith Benton: kab@s1.gov                  |
	| ME!?!? Speak for anyone here!?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA |
	|             Standard Disclaimers apply                |
	---------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: INTERESTING TIDBIT FROM S
Date: 01 Oct 92 18:38:13 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Sep30.194234.529@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Sep29.175027.3898@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>
>>In article <717742472.F00002@tdkt.kksys.com> Mike.Hobbs@f115.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Mike Hobbs) writes:
>>>After recieving shock-therapy, Phil Lafornara mumbled the following to All:
>
>>     I initially took the above line to be a flame - I have since seen
>>it on all of your posts, so it appears to be automatic.  Might I
>>suggest that you would get a more positive response to your posts
>>without it?
>
>Well, you haven't always been the most polite of fellows, either,
>Phil, so I guess that perhaps that cuts both ways.

     True, but that wasn't the point - he wasn't flaming, but his
software was automatically including a line that could be taken as
a flame.  I just wanted to point it out, in case he wasn't aware of
it.


>>     Of course, Zachmann's claims have zero evidence so far.  This is
>>essentially "Zachmann's word vs. his editors'".  This does not preclude
>>his accusations being true, but it seems to me that if he had any
>>proof he would have presented it already.
>
>So are you implying that the Microsoft credo is that it's ok as long
>as you don't leave any solid evidence?

     Sigh.  No, Fred.  What I am saying is that I don't tend to give
a lot of credence to unfounded accusations.

					-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.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7007 comp.sys.intel:1874 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:26228
From: westes@sti.com (Will Estes)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:36:44 GMT
Organization: Mail Group

In article <1992Oct5.162027.18862@tandon.com> tdbear@tandon.com (Tom Barrett) writes:
>In article <BvKuxG.IqB@sti.com> westes@sti.com (Will Estes) writes:
>>True maybe *unless* you happen to be using an EISA controller for which
>>the manufacturer has written a 32-bit virtual device driver that works
>>under Windows with the Windows 3.1 virtual memory 32-bit access.  
>
>I don't see the point... are you saying that if someone had an
>immediate need for this driver that they have to buy that
>particular EISA controller and an EISA system, rather than
>waiting for the equally good VL-bus controller and driver?  If
>so, then I agree.  Personally, if I could wait a few months I
>would go with the VL-bus controller and driver.

As your previous note states, you are supposed to get some performance
enhancement from *any* controller card - even a 16-bit one - if it
supports the 32-bit VxD for disk I/O.  I assume that some of this
benefit comes from the paging mechanism being able to work
asynchronously from application I/O.  It is less clear to me how much 
benefit you get in working with multiple applications that are doing
concurrent I/O.  And as everyone who uses Windows knows, this is the
single greatest source of bottlenecks.

Regarding EISA and VL-bus controllers: I never distinguished between the
two.  32-bit is 32-bit, more or less, so pick whichever you want.  The
point is that Microsoft makes the claim that a 32-bit controller (in
their example, an EISA one) that is written with a 32-bit VxD that does
32-bit I/O is going to be even faster than a 16-bit controller that uses
a 32-bit VxD to do I/O.  They don't quantify.

I was speaking with the product manager for the EISA SCSI line at
Adaptec, and he made the comment that they are not convinced (yet) that
the 32-bit VxD for EISA would perform that much faster.  They want
proof, but they are open to the idea of writing one.  So to some degree
we are speculating here about what the performance enhancement would
be.

-- 
Will Estes		Internet: westes@netcom.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: hpw@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Harry P Warren)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Reply-To: hpw@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Harry P Warren)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 13:15:12 GMT

Two brief comments on Timothy F. Sipples' informative summary of the
Chicago monthly OS/2 User's Group meeting.

| Since IBM and Apple together control over 50% of the market in
| personal computers, they hope to promulgate standards more effectively
| in tandem.

I find it hard to believe that IBM and Apple together control over 50%
of the personal computer market. Perhaps 50% of the computers that
have been manufactured sport the IBM or Apple name but they certainly
don't control 50% of the market today. In fact, I imagine that Apple
and IBM's combined sales of 68040 and 486 based machines effectively
sums to zero when compared with the number of 486 systems sold by the
likes of Dell and Gateway. I don't see how companies that sell
yesterday's hardware are going to set tomorrow's standards.

| Incidently, the naming of Pink was explained.  When IBM and Apple met,
| the Apple representatives brought several 3x5 index cards, with
| components of their key technologies written on each card.  These
| cards were tacked onto a bulletin board and were used in the
| negotiations.  The cards describing features found in OBS (Object
| Based System, the Apple follow-on to Macintosh System 7) were pink.
| OBS was then referred to as Pink, and the name stuck.

Actually, I believe that Apple's next generation operating system was
internally refered to as "pink" long before they sat down with IBM.  I
could be wrong; I guess I could go look for a reference to it in an
old MacWeek but I'm almost certian of this.

harry warren
hpw@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open letter to Gordon Letwin (long)
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:38:08 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

I bet no one would ever think that I would do this, but
I'm going to defend Gordon (how come I never notice when
he posts???  Maybe I should go back to using vn instead
of nn...), although I will do so in an odd sort of way.

Let me tell you my story:

I, too, am a successful OS/2 developer. Back in 1989,
when OS/2 1.1 was released and 1.2 was under development,
I took a coop position with IBM doing OS/2 development.
I bought Petzold's book and taught myself PM programming,
and learned all I could.  As a fast learner, I have earned
the reputation of being a quick and good PM programmer,
and I get phone calls (instead of me having to solicit
myself) from clients wanting me to perform contractual
work for them.

Unfortunately, I also earned a reputation for being quite...
uh...shall we say obnoxious?  Gordon and I used to have
fights both publicly and privately (Gordon, I still wonder
what would have happened if we would've debated at last
year's Rexx Symposium... :) , but he wasn't the only one.
Almost like the Klu Klux Klan, I vigorously pursued to
persecution of Unix and Windows developers, to the point
of writing 60+ lines of slandering and name-calling to
these OS/2 newsgroups. If you don't remember these, ask
Bert Moshier...or Timothy Sipples...or anyone else who
remembers when I used to work for IBM's T.J. Watson
Research Center.  You see, my obnoxiousness caught up
with me because it got me fired.

So much for your comments about the only posts from IBMers
being to help the customer.  If you read between the lines,
that also addresses the issue about the IBM lawyers, for
our animosity climaxed when Gordon got so upset with my
(incorrect for the most part) accusations that he
threatened legal action (remember "Lie in its worst form"
anyone?).

Now Gordon and I are friends and although you might think
me a traitor, I'm still an OS/2 programmer (and not a
Windows or NT programmer), but I would much rather spend
my energy learning than degrading or otherwise. I realize
that this is the "advocacy" group, but there is still a
lot of noise for even this group that doesn't really
need to be here.  Let's stop pointing the finger and start
concentrating on making OS/2 an even betting operating
system to use and develop for.

Cheers,
Q
-- 
"If you choose not to decide, you  | "A fool and his money are fun to go
 still have made a choice" - Rush  |  out with" - seen on a T-shirt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization: Sophomore, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 04:50:40 -0400 
From: Faisal Nameer Jawdat <fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Distribution: usa

if you're going to be really techincal about it Xerox came up with the
windowing system that forms the core of all modern gui's
apple grabbed their work when xerox cancelled the project, then used
it to make the mac and then the lisa
meanwhile the amiga and the st came out with similar ventures
also x was starting up for unix, i believe
so then you have windows 1.0 and os/2 1.0 coming out...
now you have
x - look and feel depends a lot on window manager
motif - just sort of written
mac - based on xerox foo
windows - just sort of written - very motif like
os/2 - also very motif like in look and feel but much different
operation than either motif or windows
NeXT - based on many studies
st/amiga/etc - however, no one buys them much anymore