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: 5 Jan 1993 15:36:49 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan5.011546.28910@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>??  Microsoft computers ??  You mean Clones?

No, Microsoft computers. What? You mean Microsoft doesn't build computers? My
point exactly:

>My example about not being able
>to buy a PS/2 without OS/2 I think is germain.  Is IBM as guilty as Microsoft
>in your eyes?

No, because IBM (and HP, and Sun, and...) builds computers. Microsoft doesn't.
IBM can put whatever it wants on IBM computers; that's one basis for
competition. Gateway 2000 can choose to put MS-DOS and Windows on all their
computers if they wish, but it's not right for MS to force them to...yet
that's exactly what's happening.

>Of course.  But he doesn't have the right to do it at any arbitrary price
>he wants.  In a just and fair society, if you want something that someone
>else has, you're going to have to cut a voluntary deal with them.

True. The problem is the coercive nature of the deal MS wants you to cut with
them.

>That's like saying that I'm trying to exercise undue control over a house
>I didn't build when I forbid you from filling your living room with my
>furniture.  If you want my furniture you'll have to buy it from me--and
>if I say that you must fill every room with my furniture or I won't sell it
>too you that's my business, not the FTC's.

No, that's restraint of trade, and coercion, and wrong, and illegal.
-- 
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.
      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of all Fears_
From: francis@ese.ogi.edu (Francis Moraes)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Advocacy Starting Here
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:09:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.48142
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute - Department of Env. Science and Eng.

z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:

>Advocacy starts here. With the NT release drawing closer, what effect would a
>late ( and I speculate, a worst case scenario ) May - June Release of OS/2 2.1
>have if 2.1 really is Rock Solid, Better (faster, and  more stable) Windows 
>than Windows?

I know a MS-Windows developer who drops by every so often here to look at my
OS/2 system and say, ``It sure would be nice to develop for this; too bad
it's lost [the battle of OSs?].''  In most people's eyes OS/2 is not even
an option; it doesn't even occur to them to use it. The ones who do know
about it tend to be of the ``winner take all'' philosophy of the OS war.

If OS/2 2.1 can come out 3 months before Windows-NT then it has a shot at
gaining a much higher profile. Then again, if it gets the kind of coverage
that it has been getting in magazines (``A much better product than Windows
but not as good as NT _will_ be'') it will continue to be one of the many
lesser known OSs for the 386.

If OS/2 2.1 comes out about the same time or later than NT then it will
depend upon how much people like NT. If they don't like it (which is unlikely
given how much they tend to like the beta) then OS/2 will gain more and more
attention. If they do, then OS/2 will be relegated to the side-panel coverage
that DV/X is currently getting in most PC mags.

Interestingly, Geos was a much better program than MS-Windows and you
see what has happened to it (or rather don't see). The _only_ thing OS/2
has going for it is IBM. But I admit that this is a pretty good thing to
have in your favor. If it hadn't been for IBM's clout then OS/2 would not
even be covered in magazines anymore. I found it interesting that after
PC Magazine did a review of Windows and OS/2, finding Windows the better
operating environment (because of the greater number of application and
the fact that Windows 3.1 was faster running them than OS/2 2.0), within
a month or two they had almost a whole issue where they slobbered all over
OS/2. There is no doubt that they were trying to placate IBM, no doubt in
my mind at least. :)

Francis Moraes
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Does IBM have an Internet email address?
Date: 5 Jan 1993 17:16:31 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan05.161041.31200@watson.ibm.com> cnadler@vnet.ibm.com (Cliff Nadler) writes:
>Append it here. These newsgroups are shadowed inside IBM, and most good ideas
>are passed along to development (especially if we want them ourselves <g>).

Amen. I've gotten responses from inside IBM to posts I've made here, and all
evidence is that IBM is very interested in what we on Usenet have to say - and
that explicitly includes upper management in the OS/2 shop.

(BTW, when an IBMer says "append", Usenetters can read "post" - IBM's internal
conferencing system uses "append" instead.)
-- 
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.
      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of all Fears_
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.)
Subject: Re: More thoughts on ads..
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 13:58:55 GMT

In <1993Jan3.162947.6596@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>It occurs to me that a computer/computer software that is advertised 
>on TV or radio is in pretty bad shape.

>Observation:  Never has a TV campaign, so aimed, succeeded.

>Examples:  Commodore Amiga's number of ads
>	   The original PS/2 and OS/2 ads (MASH)
>	   Phillips CDI & Commodores CDTV (flops) 
>	  

>When you advertise on TV or radio you are spending a lot more to contact
>a limited number of people.  How many of those listeners/watchers
>have computers?  How many know jack about them?

Well, gee, Microsoft seems to think that radio is adequate:

"What is the capital of uh...Pakistan?
 What color is Kryponite?
 How much did Orson Wells weigh?"

"What does this have to do with personal computers?"

"Well, what do you know about ________?"

"I know it's great for the Windows operating system."

For those of you who *haven't* heard this commercial (I suspect these are
few), this is a commercial for the Microsoft mouse.  What about the
commercial that ran last year for approximately 2 weeks (I think) for
Microsoft Excel for Windows?  And something tells me that I've heard a
Windows ad once or twice also.

My point is that, as you can see from the sample of the commercial above,
the users didn't *have* to know "jack" about personal computers.  The
commercial told them everything they needed to know.  Not only that, but
the damn thing was *funny*.

So I say that IBM should stop ignoring this form of media and start attacking
it.

Cheers,
Q
-- 
"If you choose not to decide, you  | "My other body is in the shop" - seen
 still have made a choice" - Rush  |  on a T-shirt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT Destined to Succeed??
Date: 6 Jan 1993 20:17:43 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) says:

>In <1993Jan5.234912.7841@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn) writes:
>>Is NT really bootin up on 8 meg systems?  Is there anybody who has
>>personal experience with this?
>
>Yes, I have tried it. Ok, admitted, the performance is very poor on 8 MB.
>But always remember, Windows NT contains lots of debug code and is not
>speed optimized yet.
>
>I tried an OS/2 2.0 beta 6.30x and installed TCP/IP and LAN-Server on it.
>This is the configuration you can compare to Windows NT. I had a 27 MB
>swapfile on a 16 MB machine. Now, that I am using the OS/2 2.0 GA, the
>same configuration with even the database manager installed, I have
>a swapfile of only 5 MB.

While the swap file space may have changed quite a bit, I can't say that
there was a big difference in performace between the 6.30x betas and the
GA product, (which is only version 6.307, after all).

>If you run OS/2 2.0 GA (release version) on an 8 MB machine with TCP/IP
>and LAN-Server, the performance is really bad.

I don't know about lan server, but with tcpip and the netware requester,
os/2 2.0 runs fine in 8 meg.  If I run something big, like run win/os2
or borland c++, I start to swap heavily, but if I'm just running dos 
wordperfect and some telnet sessions, the wps responce it isn't measurably 
worse than my system with 16 megs after booting up.  
Boot-up does take about twice as long with only 8 megs.

And don't forget, for the adventurous lot, you can always run os/2 without
the workplace shell but with pm.  This shaves about 2 megs off of the
memory requirements.

-- 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: oecheruo@mothra.syr.EDU (Okechukwu Chima Echeruo)
Subject: Re: 32 Bit HPFS
In-reply-to: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu's message of 3 Jan 93 23:29:26 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University
	<1993Jan3.072341.4792@news.columbia.edu>
	<1993Jan3.232926.3100@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 13:24:00 EST

In article <1993Jan3.232926.3100@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:

   What you describe is multiple serial users, and for that LAN Server
   would be overkill.  Instead, I suggest you take a look at PC/DACS from
   Pyramid.  They were running an OS/2 Solutions Coupon Book special of
   $49 for it, and perhaps that price is still available.  From the
   limited information I have on it, and from the few reports I've heard,
   it's a very nice package.


I have to disagree here with Tim.
What you appear to be saying about 32bit device driver support is that well
it is not really "needed" and that having system-wide 32bit device drivers
will not improve os/2 performance especially with regard to network/HD 
devices.

I am suprised that this is the prevailing IBM attitude. While Microsoft is
playing up the "32bitness" of WindowsNT (vapourware), IBM is telling anxious
OS/2 users that 32bit is not all that great. Personally, If I want to run
a hybrid 32/16bit OS I can always switch back to Windows 3.1

If IBM cannot fully support the 32bit design of it's own product how does
it expect ISVs to come running out with native 32bit OS/2 2.0 applications
and device drivers?

As for the HPFS386, I encourage IBM to include that as part of the basic
OS/2 2.x package. I hope the current HPFS is not still 16bit (286?) code.
Secondly, Access control lists of some kind become *very* important once
a PC is connected to a peer-peer network. Face it, very many desktop systems
are going to become connected and not developing such support for the base
OS/2 (and adding it on only as part of a Network OS) is short-sighted. Lastly,
Microsoft has already delivered it's 32bit HD device driver as well as .VDD's
for peer-peer networking for windows for workgroups.

Before Windows becomes a true 32bit,premptive OS, IBM has to take the 32bit 
ball and run!
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	        	----- Chima Oke Echeruo -----
    oecheruo@rodan.acs.syr.edu		oecheruo@sugrfx.acs.syr.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Microsoft and Force continued.
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:08:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.233019.7187@gw.wmich.edu>, x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:

|> 	One of the newer packages that MS is shelling out is Windows
|> for Workgroups/DOS 5 for $6.  
|> 
|> 	In the card industry, that is called "dumping" and is illegal.

If by "dumping" you mean selling below cost then this isn't dumping.  The
difference between the card industry and the software industry is that 
costs a lot more money to build a card than it does to rearrange magnetic
domains on a disk.

Even at 10 cents a copy you'd be hard pressed to consider what Microsoft
is doing "dumping".
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows NT vs OS/2: Does NT worth the wait?
Date: 11 Jan 93 14:05:17 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.

In article <1993Jan8.184328.19074@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>, stoen@katana.pcpd.hou.compaq.com (Rick Stoen) writes:
|> The following is part of a chkdsk from a machine running the October
|> beta release. The installation was straight from the CD onto a blank
|> NTFS partition.

Did you installed the SDK? We were talking about the *OS* alone.

|>    111722 kilobytes total disk space.
|>     76776 kilobytes in 541 user files.
|>
|> The virtual memory screen reports the minimum swap file size to be 43
|> meg and the maximum is 93 meg. BTW the machine has 32M of physical RAM
|> installed.

Wow! Is the "Minimum Allowed" really 43Meg? If so, NT is inconsistent about
it's memory usage, since my 20Meg machine has a Minimum Allowed of only 2Meg.

But wait a minute! If the disk space is 111722 (i.e. 109Meg) and the maximum
swap size is 93Meg, the OS *can't* take more than 16Meg!!!

If 111722 is the *free* space, I don't understand why the maximum swap is only
93Meg. My figures are 147922 and 144Meg respectivly, i.e. you can use all the
free space for swap.

I'm very confused!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: How many Nobel Prizes has IBM won?
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 05:11:56 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO

In article <8335@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.183131.19591@umr.edu> ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) writes:
>>Yah, but someone could win [a Nobel prize] for Peace if they could figure out 
>>how to create an OS that satisfies OS/2, Windows, Unix, **AND**
>>Amiga bigots.  :)
>
>They have. It's called OS/2.

As much as I like OS/2, I'll have to say *bzzt*.  :)

Maybe OS/3 will achieve that goal.  ;)

>( :-)e+10... )

Considering the stuff *you* post to this group, you're going to need
more than 1e+10 :)....more like 10^(1e+10). :)

cpk
-- 
"The WHITE ZONE is for loading and unloading only.  If you gotta load or un-
load, go to the WHITE ZONE.  You'll love it.  It's a way of life!" --Zappa

Technology always seems to keep one step ahead of human wisdom.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bill@snoopy (Bill Poitras)
Subject: Re: SGI-GL in Windows NT??
Reply-To: bill@west.msi.com
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:19:57 GMT

Peter Mayne (pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com) wrote:
: 
: This is correct. It will be included in NT version 2.

When will that be :-)

--
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Bill Poitras    | Molecular Simulations Inc.    | Tel (408)522-9229       |
| (bill)          | Sunnyvale, CA USA             |                         | 
|                 | FAX (408)732-0831             | bill@west.msi.com       |
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mortenk@dhhalden.no (MORTEN KNUDSEN)
Subject: Re: OS/2 in 4 megs.  Useable.
Organization: Ostfold College
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:31:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.105506.7127@gw.wmich.edu> x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
>Subject: OS/2 in 4 megs.  Useable.
>Date: 6 Jan 93 10:55:06 EST
>	Everyone seems to say that OS/2 is simply unusable in under
>8 megs ram on the computer.  This is not the case.  If you want to use
>OS/2 2.0 on a 4 meg machine (which I have done many times) you simply
>don't want to use the work place shell.  Its the workplace shell that
>eats up so much memory that 4 meg systems are too slow.  
>
>	If you have 4 megs, do the following:
>
>	change in your config.sys the line where it says
>run workplace=...pmshell.exe to cmd.exe.
>
>	Next create a startup.cmd in your root directory.  If you
>like text modes, then have it stay start /fs cmd.exe and you will
>get a fullscreen OS/2 session.  If you want a graphical shell still,
>get Norton Commander for OS/2.  It comes with a menu program and a fairly
>slick file manager that takes up very little memory.  With this, you
>can run OS/2 quite well and still run your DOS, Windows and OS/2 files.
>This set up makes OS/2 run about as well as Windows 3.1 runs on a
>386 with 2 megs of memory. (To compare).  4 megs with the Workplace shell
>on is virtually useless.   Also, do not use the HPFS.
>
>	8 Megs is still better of course but 4 megs is not useless if you
>aren't afraid of modifying your config.sys
>
>							-Brad
>
First of all, WPS what I like most about OS/2 2.0. It just beats the 
hell out of both progman and NDW. Secondly, a 386 w/2M (to me, at least) 
is pretty much useless. If I had only 2-4M I'd rather use descview or 
something.
From: kjb@calmasd.prime.com (Ken Brucker)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 Computer Search
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:35:12 GMT
Organization: Computervision, San Diego CA

In article <1993Jan5.201132.17054@athena.mit.edu>, mgrice@athena.mit.edu (Matthew Grice) writes:
> I'm a UNIX guy myself, but my parents are looking for a new computer
> and I thought you would like to know what it is like to deal in
> an os/2-hostile market.

 [ ... misc deleted about how difficult it can be to get what you want and
       not what the saleslug wants to sell you ... ]

> 
> That's what it is like, folks.  You want OS/2, you buy IBM ( if you 
> dont understand DOS/Windows/ISA/x86 (which I dont))

Or you could find someone that does know something about OS/2 and system
configureation to help configure a system that doesn't come straight from IBM,
probably save quite a bit of $$$ and get the system much sooner.

Ken
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**  Ken Brucker -- VMS/Ultrix Systems Programmer/Mangler -- Computervision
 **  kjb@calmasd.Prime.COM  
  **  Practice Random Kindness and Senseless Acts of Beauty
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: SGI-GL in Windows NT??
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:10:29 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY) writes:

>In article <1993Jan7.063446.28539@ryn.mro4.dec.com>, 
>Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com writes...

>>This is correct. It will be included in NT version 2.

>This would be fascinating, since the initial release of NT will be version 
>3.1 ;-)

I think he means the release that follows Win NT 3.1, which will likely
be available about the time you have great-grandchildren :-) 
-- 
Tom Hatton
hatton@cgl.ucsf.edu
(415)-476-8693
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: SGI-GL in Windows NT??
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:06:54 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:

>In <8368@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>In article <dlcogswe.726380388@vela> dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell) writes:
>>>A guy I work with told me today the Microsoft has bought the rights to
>>>include SGI-GL with Windows NT and will be including it in an upcoming
>>>release!  This is quite an  advantage over OS/2 and brings NT to
>>>workstation level, in my opinion.  If NT will have GL standard, I will
>>>most likely be switching over from OS/2.
>>
>>OK...what is SGI-GL, and what's so great about it?

>SGI-GL is the Graphics-Library, Silicon Graphics is using on their work-
>stations. I personally have no experience with it, but the people, that
>are using it here on IRISes and INDIGOs are very satisfied.
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks for making the point - it's the HARDWARE that SGI has that makes
the software look nice. I shudder to think of all those polygons being
massaged on a 486 with a (S)VGA, presuming that kind of config is even
supported.


-- 
Tom Hatton
hatton@cgl.ucsf.edu
(415)-476-8693
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: lmalloy@abacus.bates.edu (Laura G. Malloy)
Subject: Re: Bill Gates:  What a weenie...
Organization: Bates College, Lewiston, Maine
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:38:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.175430.26032@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>lmalloy@abacus.bates.edu (Laura G. Malloy) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan4.060918.23367@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>>
>>[deleted: comments about Billy boy's TV apppearance]
>>>
>>>And he mentioned that "We hire smart people." When I saw Mr. Letwin's
>>>picture the first time, I thought I have seen Jesus! In order to
>>>create a _GOOD_ product, everybody has to be involved. One "smart"
>>>person doesn't help, it's a group effort. Hey, Microsoft had the source
>>>code rights to V7 for years and they still can't produce a multitasking
>>>DOS. This should tell people something.
>>>
>>
>>While I agree that Bill Gates didn't do a very intelligent job in the
>>interview, I fail to see what insulting Gordon Letwin (whom I have never
>>seen or met) has to do with anything.  Pretty darn gratuitous -- it
>>undercuts the probity of your comments.
>>
>>Joseph T. Malloy / jmalloy@hamilton.edu 
>>Associate Professor of German / Hamilton College / Clinton, New York 
>
>
>Mr. Letwin's believe is that he is the god of software development. On several
>times he pointed this out. Furthermore, you might not like what I said, but
>once again, you can skip the message.

I've seen only a very few of Letwin's postings and what I read didn't
seem so awful (he's no less cocky than any number of people in many,
many different Usenet groups!), but maybe he is a PITA.  Still,
questioning his ability on the basis of his apparent appearance strikes
me as rather jejeune.  And mentioning him at all -- since he was hardly
the subject of the matter in question -- was entirely gratuitous, IOW, a
cheap shot. 
>
>So, die Moral von der Geschicht, halbe Eier rollen nicht?

Ich antworte mit einem (gehofften!) Wortspiel: Das ist ja nur die
Haelfte der Wahrheit dieser Eierkoepfe!  

Tschuess!
>
>Best Regards,
>Mark K.

Joe

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Subject: Re: SGI-GL in Windows NT??
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date:  8 Jan 93 20:39:21 GMT

bill@snoopy (Bill Poitras) writes:

>Peter Mayne (pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com) wrote:
>: 
>: This is correct. It will be included in NT version 2.

>When will that be :-)

My impression is NT ver. 2 is short for NT 2000 [A.D.]  ;-b