HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 17:33:32 GMT

erb@netcom.com (Elizabeth R. Brown) writes:

>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.

Windows 3.1 has the advantage of being able to run on 2-5 times as
much of the hardware that's out there than OS/2.  One concern I had
about the hardware requirements for OS/2 was that it seemed only
people who had personally upgraded their computers, or bought a high
end computer in the past year would be able to use it effectively.
If NT were out right now, it's sales would be just as bad, probably
worse, than you seem to think OS/2's sales are.

If OS/2 is succeeding, I'd expect Windows 3.1 to outsell it for
a year or two, then as the installed hardware base becomes more
OS/2- (and NT-) capable, OS/2 sales wax as Windows 3.1 sales wane.
I personally have half a dozen friends who have seen me running
OS/2 and want OS/2, but don't have the money for the RAM and/or
hard drive upgrade.  They are still running Windows in the meantime.
The release date and functionality of NT is what could throw a
monkey wrench into all this.

Also, I don't see NT inheriting Windows' market as obvious.  From
a developer's standpoint it is (although not as simple as some MS
advocates would like you to think), but developers write programs
for multiple OSes anyway.  From a user's standpoint, Windows and
OS/2 are just different interfaces you're going to run your programs
on.  If what I've heard about the Win3.1-OS/2 beta is correct (as
fast or faster than Win3.1+DOS) users are likely to be swayed more
by which interface they prefer and OS/2 vs. NT program availability,
than which products share the same first name.  NT will run Windows
3.x programs, but so does OS/2, and to run a native NT app, you'll
still have to shell out cash just like when buying a native OS/2 app.

Please note I never said OS/2 is succeeding.  I'm greatly dismayed
at the dismal marketing OS/2 has gotten so far.  When a product that
can easily run on a 386SX with 8MB gets a rep as needing more hardware
than NT, somebody is doing something wrong.
-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu | think of something very clever 
uunet!jarthur!jokim         | to use as a disclaimer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2, my final analysis.
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:19:07 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <Be1qRB1w165w@comtch.spk.wa.us>, mstaben@comtch.spk.wa.us (Matthew St
aben) writes:
>
(lots of stuff about the good points of OS/2 deleted)

>1. OS/2 likes to crash.  I have "good days" and "bad days" with the
>   crashability of OS/2.  Of all my good days, I've had only a handful
>   of all-day link/debug cycles without having to resort to the big
>   switch.  This is _not_ A Good Thing.  Due to this susceptibility, I
>   cannot recommend it to anyone less than a hobbyist.  I can, on the
>   other hand, safely say that Windows 3.1 is a satisfying environment
>   to use.

Huh?  Sounds like yo have it backwards from me.  Until I started running this
new beta, I had *never* crashed OS/2.  I have heard of people doing it, but
still have yet to actually see one myself.  Personally, I think that Win3.1 is
for the hobbyists, but that is just an opinion, rooted in the fact that I see
it bomb on a reasonably regular basis.  OS/2 doesn't like to crash, and in *my*
experience is the most stable OS running on PC's today.  (We'll see if NT can
change that, but it is a non-issue right now)
>
>   Don't get me wrong - OS/2 is my operating system.  Its just that it
>   *takes so damn long to get back up!*.  Crashes are usually due to
>   some conflict created by the ol' memory shuffle.  [Bear Shuffle tune]
>   These shuffles come about by my rapidly switching windows and opening
>   up icon views - while wondering which window I should be in. :-|
>
Again, the only time I've gotten it to bomb is playing with the Win 3.1
support on this new beta.  (BTW I will be posting a list of bugs I've hit in
it sometime before friday)  Under normal circumstances, you shouldn't have to
reboot OS/2 except for very occasionally.  Something isn't quite right between
your system and OS/2, and it appears to be specifically your system.  (Though
this is IBM's responsibility.  I hope they are up to the task ahead of them.)


>2. (It crashed again...  )  (don't tell anyone...)
>
>3. See #2.
>
>4. HPFS is a grand idea - and I would have very little of it changed -
>   except that it is far too isolated.  Wouldn'nit be sweet if a device
>   driver was made for DOS which would allow them to see and feel HPFS
>   partitions?

Would cause more problems than it would solve probably.
>
>5. (hey!  My clock stopped! ALT-ESC, ALT-ESC.  Wiggle mouse ALT-ESC...)
Try Ctrl-Esc too!>
>
>Matt
>
>* OS/2 is a trademark of IBM.
>* Windows is a trademark of Microsoft.
>* Netware is a trademark of Novell.
>
>Any others are trademarks of their respective owners.
>
>
>mstaben@comtch.spk.wa.us
>
>- A warning to anyone, still in command...
>

Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: MS to release PM32 Word & Excel? NOT
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 23:24:38 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

I accept Microsoft's statement that no more os2 versions of Word are
planned. Can someone post the phone number of the DESCRIBE order
desk?

I accept Microsoft's statement that no more os2 versions of EXCEL are
planned. Can someone post the phone number of Borland's Quattro order
desk?
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
[.sig on vacation]
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6586 comp.sys.intel:1816 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:25726
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:55:52 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

>NT has the Kernel concept - You don't totally rewrite the OS for a different
>Chip,  just the comparitively small Kernel.
>I think this will be the true power of NT.  It will allow the user and
>manufacturer to have more freedom choosing their hardware.  The "tyranny" of
>8086 dependence will be broken.  NT will run on DECs Alpha chips and others.
>Will Pink ONLY run on PowerPC chips?  If so, then thats a shame.

I don't thiink that NT using a microkernel has anything to do with portability.
It is quite possible to write a monolithic kernel that is portable (e.g., most
current Unix kernels).  As long as the monolithic kernel is organized
reasonably, the parts that need porting should be well isolated.  It is
probably easier to botch a monolithic kernel so as to make it hard to
port, though.

--Tim Smith
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6918 comp.sys.intel:1860 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:26134
From: walls@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Gerald Walls)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:54:31 GMT
Organization: Honeywell Air Transport Systems Division

In article <BvK3s4.LqC@acsu.buffalo.edu> oistony@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Anthony M. Petro) writes:
>the last issue of electronic engineering times had some things to say 
>about this issue, including that ibm was either thinking of or 
>actually selling their processors to others on the "merest scrap" of a 
>piece of pc board, so as to fulfill the letter, if not the intent, of 
>the ibm/intel agreement.  it also goes on to say that ibm has sold a 
>significant number of their own processors to asian mboard 
>manufacturers...

ha, ha, ha, ha, ho, ho, ho, ho!!!!  that would be like licensing
the "microcode in a computer" to to someone and then suing later
saying that that didn't include any in the chips!  neither IBM or
Intel would stoop to anything like this would they?!?!?

BTW, the reason 486's are going up is that Intel can milk you and
delay the P5 until AMD gets their 486 out.  amazing how the prices
went up after the court decision and the P5 is delayed until just
about the same time that AMD is expected to finish the 486 microcode
rewrite, isn't it?

bend over.
From: 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting Tidbit from Sept 21 PC week
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:58:08 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

> Why people seem to dislike microsoft.
> 1) It's stylish to go with the underdog (sounds funny when talking about IBM)
> 2) MS is successful, and other people want some of that success
> 3) PC software is a new business, and MS is the first BIG pc software verdor.
>    People expect the business to be like other businesses they are familiar
>    with, but it's not.
> 
> Why the FTC.
> 1) Private interests have been nagging the gov't.  
>    You know, the "MS has a big pie, and I can't get a piece by writing
>                   good software, so I'll get the FTC to break them down"
> 
> petesk@microsoft.com
> IMHO of course.


	Come now, let's be honest here.  That may be true to an extent
but MS was not successful simply because they write the best software,
they simply lucked out and got to write the OS for IBM and its
compatibles.  With that cash cow, they were able to develop apps
of all kinds.  A lot of genius is indeed at MS but people don't recent
MS just out of jealousy.  MS simply has the reputation of being slimey.

						-Brad
From: fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Date: 27 Sep 92 00:31:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.MelL5fO00VAt89N3cb
	<P7y-BjA@engin.umich.edu>
Distribution: world
Organization: Sophomore, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu (D. Robert Spexet II) writes:
> 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

wasn't Nubus TI's invention (if not, who's was it - I'm pretty sure it
wasn't Apple's)
otherwise i pretty much agree with what you said

faisal

ps.  MCA is awesome.  Nothing else comes close.  Quickring is a feeble
attempt to make up for the fallacies of Nubus and the fallacies of pcs
(localbus) slots on macs in order to be like MCA.  MCA still blows the
doors off it.  You haven't lived until you've seen 160mb/s DTR's
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: ching@angelo.amd.com (Mike Ching)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 06:20:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.213914.17438@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <1afjbvINN6qc@uwm.edu> anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Anthony J Stieber) writes:
>>I don't think Intel has a monopoly on Intel 16/32 bit processors any
>>more.  AMD has been selling it's 286 processor for a long time now, any
>>286 faster than 12MHz is running an AMD, I don't think Intel never made
>>them that fast.  The AMD 386 has been out for some time now, although
>>seems to have only the 40MHz niche
>
>AMD also produces 386sx chips at 25 and 33MHz.  I believe they'll have
>486 chips out soon, as well.  BTW, the AMD 386/40 performs better than
>an Intel 486sx/25, and it's much cheaper.
>-- 
>David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
>dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
>----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
>Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"


Don't leave out the recently announced Am386sx/40 which appears to be the
most bang for the buck.

Mike Ching
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 10:23:44 EDT
From: <BJT105@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DESYNCHRONIZED MESSAGE QU

I don't know if a "pre-emptive" system message queue has any meaning..
but there is certainly a group at IBM who are interested in moving to
multiple message queues (for each process).  The motivation comes from
wanting to match NT (The programmers want to match each NT feature ASAP...
from NT vs. OS/2 reviews, multiple messages queues came out as one important
feature which can be done on the shorter term... multiprocessing and
multiple platforms being long-term), and I believe the effect would be to
eliminate the "application not responding to system requests" type message
(if you've ever gotten it), and also to eliminate some behind-the-scenes
uglyness in the single message queue implementation.

If the change is ever implemented it will be in PMWIN.DLL (in /OS2/DLL)
That is the area of code which contains the system message queue.

Bernie Thompson  --   OS/2 2.0 on 16M V-COM 386-33
looking for the Holy Grail ... one development system for every platform
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong)
Subject: Re: Multitasking (was MS's misconduct!)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 09:22:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.025600.17618@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.173913.14976@digi.lonestar.org> mmitchel@digi.lonestar.org wrote:
>> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>> 
>> >I guess you misunderstood me.  I said use one app at a time.  I don't
>> >care how many icons you have at the bottom of the screen, you aren't using
>> >them.  I don't care how many stopped jobs you have in the background, you
>> >aren't using them.  I don't care how many things are blocking on user
>> >input, 'cause if they're blocking, then you're not using them.
>> >[...]
>> >I didn't say having one app on the screen at a time.  Use to me means
>> >interacting with the app, not it's mere existence.
>> >[...]
>> >petesk@microsoft.com
>> >My Opinions...
>> 
>>    Hmm... I use multitasking a lot -- especially when I want to
>>    run an application that I don't want to interact with while it's
>>    doing the work.  For example:
>> 
>>    1. I have a little reminder utility that beeps and displays a reminder
>>       when I have appointments, meetings etc.
>> 
>>    2. When I print a document I ship it to a spooler that handles
>>       the formatting and printing then beeps me when printing is
>>       complete.
>> 
>>    3. Other computers call my computer to deliver mail and news while
>>       I am running whatever application I'm working with at the time
>>       -- and I typically don't even notice that mail/news is arriving
>>       until another program notifies me.
>
>I do these on a daily basis, on a Win31 machine (non-premptive),
>while running Word, or Solitaire, or whatever.  
>
>
>> 
>>    4. Another program updates a local database whenever information
>>       stored on other machines is changed.
>Databases I use are centralized on a server, so I don't have to do this.
>
>> 
>>    5. Last night I shuffled several directories around -- while the
>>       copying was going on I kept working on a report.
>Never had to do this.
>
>> 
>>    6. When I backup my hard drive I don't have to wait for everything
>>       to finish so I can use my computer again.
>We have a shared tape backup, so I backup over the network.  Usually
>have to go load the tape and the like, and it's pretty quick, so I don't
>really have time to start work on something else.
>
>> 
>>     I guess the primary consideration of how useful preemptive
>>     multitasking is depends a lot on your needs and imagination.
>And in many cases, preemptive mt is just one of many ways that that
>use can be covered...
>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...

Just wondering.  Why is NT a preemptive multitasking system?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: goyal@utdallas.edu (Mohit K. Goyal)
Subject: Interesting WINBENCH scores...
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 04:11:10 GMT

Here are some WINBENCH scores I got earlier today.
The 2 Win-OS/2 scores are from the new beta of OS/2 2.0.

Win-OS/2 v3.1 - 3,220,615

Win-OS/2 v3.0 - 2,549,434

Windows v3.0  - 2,644,122

Both the the Win-OS/2 tests were run with no other programs running.

I have a generic Tseng ET4000 card that scores a 6642 chars/ms under
MS-DOS v5.0 using Landmark v2.0.

I wish I had a copy of Window 3.1, so I could get a number for that too.


p.s. - I know none of you are wondering how I got my copy of Windows 3.0,
but I am going to tell you anyways.  I bought a Microsoft bus mouse about
two months ago, I don't have a 5.25" drive, so I sent in the form for a
free 3.5" disk containing the mouse drivers.  Well, when I opened the
package, out poured *eight* disks to my surprise.  1 mouse driver disk,
and 7 windows 3.0 disks!  I guess MS is giving away copies of windows 3.0
to anyone hoping that they will install it and like it enough to go and
buy the new version.  I can't imagine anyone not knowing about windows 3.0
or windows 3.1 and just installing 3.0 not knowing what to expect.  
Hmmm...I guess their are many people out their who know what Windows is
but have never tried it, so MS gives them a free copy of an older version
to try, they like it and buy the new version!  Sounds good to me!
What makes me mad is that they are write-protected!  The little tab switch
you move up and down is not their!  Oh well...

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Os/2ers whine again
Date: 01 Oct 92 18:22:26 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Sep30.155543.23468@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Sep29.005819.13419@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>
>>In article <Ielk=Ym00WBNQ1bKF8@andrew.cmu.edu> fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat) writes:
>>>
>>>How much of NT's development was funded by IBM?
>
>>      How much of OS/2 2.0's development was funded by Microsoft?
>
>
>>>Where could one find out these figures?
>
>>     One can't.  I expect you'll hear some handwavy pseudo-statistics
>>in response to your first question, but I doubt if they'll be based
>>on a shred of evidence.  The figures would be confidential.
>
>No doubt, but does anyone (besides Pete) question that there ARE such
>figures (somewhere in someone's safe)?

     You'd have to make the assumption that each company funded some
of the development of a product being release by the other company.
If this assumption were made (and I'm not making it), then the answer
to your question is yes - somewhere, someone would have the figures.

     Does anyone remember what this has to do with anything?

					-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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Forrester Research report
From: CFORDE@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 92 22:45:36 PDT
Organization: BC Systems Corporation

On page 72, of the October issue of PC Sources, there is a synopsis of
a research report done by Forrester Research of 100 Fortune 1000
companies.  It says:
 
  "... PC users who need to operate 32-bit applications will choose
   OS/2 over Windows NT ..."
   "Product delays, costly hardware requirements, and the slow
   emergence of 32-bit application users will plague NT ..."
 
There is a chart that shows Forrester's predictions of market penetration
by operating environment in 1995.  It shows OS/2 2.x with 23%, Windows
NT with 10% and Windows 4.x with 54% market share. BTW, Unix is also
predicted to have 10% of the market.
 
Have fun,
Carl Forde                            phonenet: 604-360-7130
VM Database and Development Support   bitnet  : CFORDE@BCSC02
British Columbia Systems Corporation  internet: cforde@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: C vs. Machine language
Date: 27 Sep 92 08:21:56 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

In <1992Sep25.214400.13133@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <3083@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:

>>Also notice this. The speed difference between a hand optimized machine
>>code program and C is much larger on a 8088 than on a 80486. Modern
>>microprocessors are optimized for C code, not for raw machine code.
>>Instructions in the Intel processors which are rarely used by compilers
>>are slowed down while instructions often used have been sped up. For
>>the P5 the differenc will even be smaller.

>???  No.  
Yes :-)

>Compiled code becomes machine code.  
Yes, but the machine code generated by a compiler has vertain characteristics
(in fact limitations in the set of all possible machine code programs). Modern
microprocessors are optimized for the subset of possible machine code programs
generated by compilers.

>Hand-optimized machine
>code will always run faster.  

I didn't deny this. I only said the speed difference becomes smaller. Take
for example the string oriented instructions (REP). On a 486 dumb machine
code "emulating" most REP constructions is FASTER than the REP instruction
itsself (not for all combinations!). REP is rarely generated by most
compilers.

>Of course, you may (probably will) end
>up optimizing in a very different way on a 486 than you would on an
>8088.

Correct. But the "tricks" needed to make 486 code faster are much more
automatable than the ones needed to make 8086 code faster. Also for
the P5 this will even be more the case. And for the P6 even more etc.

Since more and more code is generated by compilers processor designers
have adapted theirselves to that.

>David Charlap

Nico E. de Vries
 _ _
 O O  USENET nevries@cc.ruu.nl This text reflects MY opinions, nothing else.
  o   This text is supplied 'AS IS', no waranties of any kind apply.
 \_/  Don't waste your time on complaining about my hopeless typostyle.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Organization: Philipps-University Marburg
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:15:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.154607.5573@gw.wmich.edu>, x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
|> > I greatly prefer /NT over OS/2,
|> 
|> 	How can you greatly prefer NT over OS/2?  You actually
|> liked the "pre-beta" better than OS/2?  WHY?  
|> 

No, I meant it as I said it. I don't like the pre-beta better than
OS/2 2.0 release.

In fact the main OS, I am actually using is OS/2 2.01 beta (with
cripple Windows 3.1), because it is the better Desqview.

What I mean is the design. I don't want to repeat all these
arguments, we've heard already, like multi-processor, Windows
API-compatibility, C2 etc.

And regarding robustness: The retail version of /NT can't be less
robust than OS/2 2.0, because no one except IBM dares to sell
such pre-beta code as a release version.

Christoph
-- 
Internet: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de
BITNET: HAMPE2@DMRHRZ11
Fido: 2:243/660
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy