HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: 1992 in review.
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 03:17:10 GMT

jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>In article <47398@ogicse.ogi.edu> francis@ese.ogi.edu (Francis Moraes) writes:
>>kovarski@zooid.guild.org (Mark Kovarski) writes:
>>
>>:The presentation goes  into a hard sell from  there. A slide indicates
>>:that OS/2  will not even  load on 24  percent of the  machines tested.
>>:Included  in this  list are  the names  of the  failed machines: "NCR,
>>:Northgate, AT&T, Gateway,  and Dell." No model numbers  or details are
>>:given on the slides or the memo,  but there seems to be an implication
>>:that no  machine from NCR, Northgate,  AT&T, Gateway, or Dell  can run
>>:OS/2. I was  just corresponding with a fellow  who was happily running
>>:OS/2 on a Gateway 386 machine, so I wonder about these assertions.
>>
>>I have 3 different model DELL machines here, they all run OS/2 just fine.
>>Perhaps they are talking about DELL 286s. :)
>>
>>francis
>
>Well, as for the Gateway matter, I had a devil of a time installing it
>on my 386/33c, 8 MB RAM system.  After the first few abortive tries, I
>called the IBM 800 help line and, a few days later, received a call back
>from them with the information that "it won't work" on my system and
>that I should return it.  I was quite interested in OS/2, though, and
>stuck with it, turning to the net and the OS/2 list for advice, which
>finally did (had to do with using an older beta version device driver?
>for the hd).  Then the WINOS2 subsystem wouldn't install, more hassles,
>but finally got that going to.  I can see why someone could very easily
>claim that it won't install on my system with perfect justification, but
>they could add that workarounds were/are available.
>
>(Didn't really matter, though, I ended up back with DOS and Windoze
>since WINOS2 was the pits, and the WPS ugly (I know, that's only an
>opinion, some people apparently *like* it, go figure), and it while it
>didn't crash much, it still wasn't as stable as Windows 3.1).
>
>jmalloy@hamilton.edu
>


Dell is a company that tests their machines with OS/2 2.0. According to the
PCM OS/2 2.0 Compatible Systems list dated 11/10/92, the following Dell
systems work with OS/2 2.0, ES 1.0, LS 2.0 (ES=Extended Services Version
1,LS=LAN Server Version 2.0):

DELL 320 SX
DELL 325P
DELL 333D
DELL 433DE
DELL 450SE
DELL 486D/25
DELL 486P/33

For DELL 320N+, ES 1.0-N/A, LS 2.0-N/A, tested and works with OS/2 2.0.

GATEWAY2000 386SX/20C
GATEWAY2000 486/33C work with OS/2 2.0, ES 1.0, and LS 2.0.

The list is dated 11/10/92. I am certain that it is updated. The best thing is
to call IBM and inquire about the specific system in question. The list is
very long and contains most, if not all companies, I can think of.

Sincerely,
Mark K.
E-Mail: kovarski@zooid.guild.org
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mgrice@athena.mit.edu (Matthew Grice)
Subject: OS/2: a better /multimedia/ windows than windows?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:26:16 GMT

My parents want to buy a computer to replace the apple IIc.
They want a PC, and I cant change their mind, because I cant make them see
how neat SPARCstations are.

They like this tandy multimedia thing, 'sensation!,' it is called, which comes
with windows and stuff for cdrom, etc.

I dont like windows and think the whole thing is garbage.

I told them to get os.2, but they cant see the point of that either.

I want to know if I can safely tell them to get os/2 and still be able
to do everything, /everything/ that they can with windows.

I dont want to lose face at all, but am concerned that OS/2 might not be 
able to handle the multimedia type things (winmate, whatever that is,
and ms bookshelf, among others.)  Should I wait for 2.1?  

Reply via email to 89929191@uwplatt.edu
Other than my parents, I dont care about os/2.

Ohh yeah.  Anybody know about the tandy sensation and what a better buy might 
be?  It looks like a rip-off, but my parents definitely want the full mult-
media deal, and from what I hear, Tandy and msoft are pretty much the 
leaders.  

Please write.  I dont know what to say.  And what about ps/2 valuepoints?
Are they faster/ slower than others?                   ^^^^^ oops
Especially in graphics, it doesnt look like they have local bus.
Hmm.

And what do these multimedia discs cost alone?  (bookshelf, winmate, etc.)

signing out,

matt grice
89929191@uwplatt.edu
^^^^^ mail me here
mgrice@athena.mit.edu
^^^^ last resort.

  




























Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: OS/2 and NT at Comdex
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:28:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.203519.8302@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>In article <OLAVT.92Dec10113829@ulrik.uio.no> olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund) writes:
>>  We have a situation where a lot of ISV's did not believe in the
>> success of OS/2, and did not want to use resources on OS/2
>> development. Instead they decided to waist their resources on NT
>> deveolpment.
>> 
>> We might very well end up in a situation similar to Win and OS/2
>> sales, but this time the ISV's that develop for OS/2 will have
>> success, those who develop for NT will not.
>
>WARNING! Speculation follows....
 
[Very reasonable speculation deleted (Sorry Steve)]
 
>OS/2's market could be a good chance for some small companies to become bigger
>companies.

>Steve

More speculation follows:

A lot of times I've heard how small companies should develop for OS/2 2.0
because the market doesn't have the fierce competition that other markets
have.  Describe is a good example.  However, it doesn't look like any of
them are going to become a Microsoft, Lotus, or Borland on *any* platform.

Take, for example, Describe.  They have, depending on who you believe,
a poor to good product.  They've had the only OS/2 2.0 word processor for
quite some time.  But what do you think is going to happen once a well
respected name enters the market?  If Lotus does Ami for OS/2 reasonably
well, everyone needing a word processor at that point is going to buy it,
especially if they have some sort of competitive upgrade.  Too bad for
Describe.  Same thing goes for many other categories.  I know many of
the people on this group would actually spend some time comparing the
features of, say, Stacker for OS/2 and Proportional Software (or whatever
it is), but most other people won't.

     "Proportional Software?  Never heard of it.  I'll take Stacker."

They do get a boost because people may buy their products first, since
no others are available, but it doesn't seem like it will last in the
long term.  In fact, they'll probably make more money if OS/2 were a
niche market that the big players didn't bother with.  Say, 50% of
a market of 3 million vs. 10% of a market of 10 million.  (Before I get
nailed for it, let me say that the numbers above are completely made
up.)

     - Mike
 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: 5692330@mcimail.com  (Robert Gammon)
Subject: Re: \* IBM's OS/2 2.0 Scores Big \*
Nntp-Software: PC/TCP NNTP
Organization: Texas Instruments Materials and Controls Group
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:21:23 GMT

Most of a LONG discussion between Stacy and Yamanari has been deleted.  I only
wish to comment on ONE paragraph of their discussion, the remaining bit
that I have included below.

In article <1992Dec15.204144.22632@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>
   sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:

 >> In article <1992Dec13.051805.17455@wam.umd.edu>, 
 >>    rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
 >> >
 >> >In article <1992Dec12.215037.43052@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> 
 >> >   sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
 >> >
[stuff, MUCH stuff deleted]
 >> >
 >> >        SMP isn't here now (well, actually, it is--just not for
 >> >        less than $20k--Yes, Intel) but with something that it can
 >> >        run out of the box, it will be here soon at prices
 >> >        people will start to be able to afford (Hell, who'da thought
 >> >        we'd see affordable Sparc machines?  Next few months, we'll
 >> >        see a *lot* of'em).
 >> 
 >> Affordable Sparcs.  That does sound funny doesn't it?
 >> I do not think that we will see a "lot" of them in just a few months however,
 >> in a year or so though who knows?
 >> >
 >> 

Here it is.  Note, I am not in the Texas Instruments SPARC department, so this
is just what I remember reading in the same trade publications that we all have
access to (no inside info here).  The new SPARC processor announced by Texas 
Instruments is priced at about $120 (as best as I can recall), far lower than
current 486DX processors.  This is not the fastest SPARC around, it is one of
the most highly integrated.  The rest of the parts needed to put together
a complete SPARC computer cost roughly the same (with the exception of video, 
19 inch CRTs are EXPENSIVE, and the video controller is more expensive) as the
parts in a PC, in fact, why not use some PC parts (high volume, low cost).

Current SPARC machines start in the $5K-$7K range.  With this new processor, we
may see SPARC machine that start in the $3K-$4K range.  Now we are talking
price competitive with high end 486 machines, so we might consider this
machine to be affordable. 

Now the question is, who wants such a machine?  I don't, but I can see it used
in many other environments (campus, design engineering, test engineering, and
many others).

--
Regards,
Robert Gammon
(713)-274-3299       (voice)
(713)-274-2324       (fax)

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: Rude behavior on this group.
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Distribution: world,local
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 18:18:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.011644.5178@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.224536.13196@microsoft.com> craigdo@microsoft.com (Craig Dowell) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec17.074830.3234@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec16.234708.18159@microsoft.com> richs@microsoft.com (Rick Schaut) writes:
>>>>
>>>>You just flunked Economics.  It is my position that demand must be such
>>>>that vendors will be able to sell at a price which exceeds the additional
>>>>costs.  It is demand which makes the whole thing possible in the first
>>>>place.
>>>
>>>I demand to buy a computer without DOS or Windows pre-installed.
>>
>>I can trot down to my local Dodge dealer and try to get all of the options in
>>a package minus one or two.  I can demand all I want.  This won't make it 
>>happen.  
>>
>>The factory has decided what the most popular configurations are and
>>are mass producing them more cheaply than hand crafting each car from lists
>>of thousands of options.  
>>
>>
>>There is no reason that _you_ need a copy of win31 or dos5.  There are reasons
>>for companies to put them on all machines.  
>>
>>There is a demand for ready to run systems.  People are tired of installing
>>and configuring operating systems before they can do work.  There have been
>>legions of people running around in companies who's job it is to install dos5
>>and win31.  This costs money.  People can save a considerable sum of money
>>by buying computers that are ready to run.
>
Actually, there is a much more plausible explanation for the bundling.
Have any of you folks been following the FTC investigation of Microsoft?
Many PC clone vendors have liscencing deals with MS where they pay a
royalty to MS _WHETHER THEY PUT MS'S SOFTWARE ON THE MACHINE OR NOT_.
Now naturally the vendor wants to sell it to you, since the vendor has
to pay for it anyway.  I'm sure they'd be willing to give you a disk
w/out it, but they won't give you a discount, because they're already
paying for it.

-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: goyal@utdallas.edu (MOHIT K GOYAL)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.1 specifications, release date.
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:36:39 GMT

>>Here the official specs of OS/2 2.1 directly from IBM:
>>
>>- more printer drivers
>>- Windows 3.1 support
>>- native Windows 3.1 performance with 8Mb RAM machines
>>- improved performance for low memory configurations
>>- 32bit graphics engine
>>- multimedia support
>>- portable PC support
>>- CD-ROM version
>>
>>[please notice the Win31 performance and the MultiMedia, thanx IBM!]
>>
>>OS/2 2.1 will be released end february, begin march 1993.
>
>Another item that seems to have "slipped", IBM also promised good video
>driver support... I don't see this in you list?
>
Video drivers will be their.

As will CD-ROM drivers.  In fact, the generic cd-rom driver might already be 
out.

I'm not sure exactly what drivers will be their but I know that Tseng ET4000,
Trident 8900c, S3 (not sure which all chips), 8514/a, xga-2...

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Novell in Networking...
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:18:06 GMT


How much does Novell dominate the market?

Business Week: "Novell remains king of the hill in networking software.."

Raymond J. Noorda was awarded the "Lifetime Achievement" Award in the PC
Magazine "9th Annual Awards for Technical Excellence," published in the
December 22, 1992 issue of PC Magazine.

If you have this issue (December 1992), you will notice another winner by IBM.
PC Magazine gives a two thumbs up to the ThinkPad 700C, which comes
preinstalled with OS/2 2.x or DOS. The article on page 44 titles "Screen Gem:
IBM Comes Up With a Notebook Winner, reviews the ThinkPad 700C which outscored
the 1992 PC Magazine winner Toshiba T4400SXC in certain areas. Another boost
to OS/2 2.x. 

Expect to see the ThinkPad 700C on top of the list at the 1993 PC Magazine
Awards.

Mark K.
From: chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: who is brian sturgill - really?
Date: 18 Dec 1992 09:52:26 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu


Haha.  That was pretty good.  Totally believable, which is sad.

Now, maybe you should get those people on the >>rude behavior
thread to stop bickering about "passed on costs".  it is One of the most
religious arguments I have seen here, and it really doesn't matter 
a whole lot, or just seems like an argument that doesnt matter in
an OS2 group.  (i stopped reading the thread a while back, but
hell, it grows daily)


Oh, ever consider that maybe sturgill wants to work FOR microsoft,
and he posts as he does hoping someone from MS will see it, call him
up, and beg him to work for MS?

You DO have to wonder how he gets his work done.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: OS/2 stopped selling!!
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:06:08 GMT

In article <Bz5zCw.897@newsflash.concordia.ca> patrice@cenparmi.concordia.ca (SCATTOLIN patrice) writes:
> 
> 
> According to a local software store OS/2 has stopped selling. After
> looking and not seeing it on the shelves I asked if they were selling OS/2.
> The salesman said that they had one copy left in stock but it stopped selling
> a while back blaming a stop in advertising. 
> 
> Is the true around where you are? Why?
> 
> I tought that sales were picking up, I guess I was wrong.

IBM has the OS/2 elephant in every computer-related magazine I know of -
locally and from overseas.
 
There are even billboards on the road out of town (for locals: check out the
Hutt Road at Kaiwharawhara - left corner at the lights as you head north to
the Ngaurunga Gorge - right corner if you go up the Ngaio Gorge).
 
Nothing on TV or radio.....but NZ has too small a market for that.
 
Steve
 


 


-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
+64 4 478 4714                          | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Here's some Advocacy for you.
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 12:55:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.094334.21925@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2) writes:
>The good thing about OS/2 2.0 (with WPS) is that it uses four megs, which
>leaves me four megs for apps on my eight meg machine.  Although I would


	Yeah, great.  That's what I call *real* efficient programming.
	You must be kidding.  4 megs for a shell and an OS?  What a joke.


>NT for the Alphas may be successful as long as DEC still survives (and for
>as long as OS/2 3.0 does not run on Alphas ;-), but NT for the Intels seems


	Probably pretty unlikely, since the Mach3.0 OS/2 won't be around,
	even rabid OS/2 fans wil admit, until long after NT.  While I don't
	believe that NT will unseat DOS/Windows, and I do think it will
	pretty much finish off OS/2's sales, I don't think it's likely
	that OS/2 could *unseat* NT once it's the standard OS for a system.
	After all, NT offers clear advantages over OS/2, but OS/2 mach
	only catches up.


>to take too much memory.  Whenever NT can run in four megs or less...


	Are you guys nuts?  This is the same type of argument used
	by DesqView and Windows fans in the last year against OS/2.
	
	If memory really was such a big deal, you wouldn't be using 
	OS/2.  [Besides, even if you pull all 8 1 meggers and 
	pop in 3 4 meggers that's only about $420, not $600...
	and 12megs NT == 8 megs OS/2]

	Can't anyone out there make a better argument than formatting
	floppies (stupid) or 1/4th greater memory requirements?  


-- 
 Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?          
 Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?  
 ---"I despise mystics, they fancy themselves so deep, when they----
 ----aren't even superficial"    --Nietzsche   ---------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk)
Subject: Re: To brian and other interested parties
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:07:46 GMT

Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:

>In article <1g7tojINN8n7@tamsun.tamu.edu> daa7365@tamuts.tamu.edu (Diego A. Aranda) writes:
>> 
>> Gawd, I'm sorry.  I thought *.advocacy groups were for the discussion of
>> operating systems and alternative OSs.  Now I find that they're for a single
>> group of OS users to advocate their own OS, and no one else is allowed to
>> interject facts or reports about other operating system.

The REAL use for advocacy news groups has always been to get the
flame-bait/flame crap out of the important newsgroups so that people
don't have to wade through a lot of garbage to find something worthwhile
to read.  (And why am I reading an advocacy news group?  Bored I guess...)


					Todd Walk
					walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: olson30@netcom.com (John Sully)
Subject: Re: Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 05:22:26 GMT

timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:

>The following quote was pulloed off of c.o.o.misc.  I thought it
>deserved to be posted here because this is were the, umm, "polite
>discussion" is taking place and some people who don't read c.o.o.misc
>might miss it.

>-----Start of quote-----
>The reason that the NT Beta will not install with Boot Manager is NOT
>because Microsoft hates IBM, or because Microsoft wants to make your life
>miserable, or any other shadowy Microsoft conspiracy.  The reason is
>that Boot Manager plays games with the partition table.  Notably, the
>partition that NTLDR gets started from is no longer marked ACTIVE.  
>Instead, the Boot Manager partition is marked ACTIVE.  Whether or not
>you think IBM has broken the "rules" of the MBR and partition table,
>the fact is that without a lot of amazing gymnastics (like Doug Hamilton
>has outlined elsewhere) you cannot get Boot Manager and NTLDR to agree 
>on what partition should be marked ACTIVE.

IBM clearly has *not* broken the rules of the MBR and partition table.
To have a partition booted by the master boot block requires that it
be marked "active" in the partition table.  After that the partition
boot record should not care whether or not it was marked active on
the disk (this is how the DOS loader behaves and it is also how the
various UNIX loaders behave).  The NT loader is broken, and it has
been broken in a *very* deliberate fashion.

>Since installation of NT over Boot Manager will likely result in either
>an unbootable NT or an unbootable OS/2, Windows NT Setup does its best
>to prevent this.  You may consider this "sneaky" or "underhanded" if
>you like.  But the truth is that this configuration is not supported
>for a REASON that has nothing to do with marketing.
>     jvert@microsoft.com  (speaking, of course, for myself)

Actually it is probably broken because one of the brilliant, technically
advanced programmers at Microsoft didn't understand how their own DOS
bootloader worked and blew it during coding.  I still fail to understand 
why the check for the OS/2 boot manager signature is present, since the 
same problem exists with UNIX or DOS.  It still seems deliberate to me.

>-----End of quote-----

PS: Please no attribution flames here.

John
From: merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Controversial Topics
Date: 12 Dec 1992 17:02:46 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuro.usc.edu

>About the most processors I've heard of on a SMP machine is 16.  

The Alliant FX/2800 has 28 SMP processors which can either be assigned
individually to execute individual task threads or ganged in groups of
14 to simultaneously execute a single task.  Even two processors makes
a considerable difference in execution time when the application makes
good use of those processors (i.e. brlcad).
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: caliaro@avalon.physik.unizh.ch (Aurelio Caliaro)
Subject: Re: The "Major" bug in Winos2 v3.1
Organization: University of Zurich, Department of Computer Science
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 07:25:32 GMT

I think the "major" bug is another one...
when using WinWord 2, first everything works fine, then later it puts all
ComboBoxes *under* the Window that generates them!

So when one makes them drop they cannot be seen, and they can only be
changed with the Keyboard (with blind flight since mostly it doesn't even
update that one line that one always sees).

This is almost the only bug I found... the second and last one, is when
WinOS2 3.1 is trying to reboot itself :-)), then it hangs.
It is obvious that it does not work, but instead of hanging it should generate
an error or something like that.


         Aurelio Caliaro