HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Who actually NEEDS NT?  Speak Up!
Keywords: NT OS/2 Windows OS
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:39:02 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Jul24.011107.3619@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.211050.21383@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:

>>>3) I like it as a development platform.
>>
>>Well, I'm not going to dictate your personal preference.  Likewise,
>>you shouldn't think everyone else will share yours.
>>
>Did I say that everyone else should share mine, no.  All I did was state
>my personal preference.  sheesh.>

No, but when "I like it" is inserted among a list of advantages for
the system, it makes me wonder...

>>>4) Any large installment where you need security/multiuser filesystems.
>>
>>OK.  OS/2 doesn't have this out of the box.  Note that the LAN Manager
>>software for it does.  And it's very bad practice to leave your file
>>servers out where people can access them from the console, anyway.
>
>What?  Where does it being bad practice to leave my file server out
>have to do with what I said.

I was just qulifying my statement.  I forgot that not everyone knows
that a LAN Manager server does not protect files from access at the
console.  The server should have its keyboard locked when not in use,
and it should be in a locked room.  (gee, I wonder who'se going to
accuse me of helping the enemy here...? :-)

>>>5) developers for any of the above.
>>
>>???  How are developers an application?  Or are you going to write an
>>application which develops other applications?  :-)  I suggest you
>>re-think this, or your eventual success will put programmers out of a
>>job! 
>
>You like reading things into what I said, don't you.  I didn't say
>no to app developers, just that developers for any of the above would
>be pretty good off using NT.  I didn't even mention the word applications.
>I just gave some examples, which is what was wanted.

You presented a list of applications for NT.  And then you include
"developers" as another item.  Perhaps its just bad English, but I
assumed you considered "developers for any of the above" to be an
application where NT would be an advantage.  Read the smilies! :-)

>I'd like to see what you read into the following sentence:
>programmers are people who programm computers.
>
>My bet is that you though I said that IBM and McDonalds corp
>are banding together to take over the minds of all DOS users.

How'd you guess.  You know, I haven't had a Big Mac in years because
of this conspiracy! :-)

-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: PC and Mac OEs (was Re: 1 Thing Windows can do but OS/2 can't.)
From: stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Stuart Woolford)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:33:56 GMT
 <SXMRP.5.0@orca.alaska.edu> <1992Jul29.090014.19136@cs.hw.ac.uk>
Organization: University of Auckland, New Zealand.

neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite) writes:

>In article <SXMRP.5.0@orca.alaska.edu> SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R. Platzke) writes:
>>
>>>>Could you elaborate on this please ;)
>>>>What are you using it for that it does not meet your needs.
>>
>>>Funny comment yes tough if you want a bit more substance....
>>
>>>Windows is just so fiddly, geeky to use and just a real pain.
>>
>>Oh well, that comment is so much more clear and specific :-)
>>If you are going to badmouth Windows, please cite specific problems or areas
>>where the Mac is clearly superior.

>See below *

>>>Give me a Mac with System 7 *ANY* day.
>>
>>>Windows only won on the PC because it had virtually no competition.
>>>Gem, Deskview or Windows. Not much of a choice is there.
>>
>>As opposed to the numerous OS choices that a Mac user has?

>You miss the point here. The Mac had an excellent OS from day 1. Windows,
>in a 'workable' release only made it in 1989 with Windows 3. Mac owners
>don't need another choice. The Mac is nice and cuddly as is and always
>has been.

>>-Michael R. Platzke (sxmrp@orca.alaska.edu)

>Ahem !!

>*Where is the Quicktime/Hypercard example I gave of things Windows can't do.

just send it MPEG..

>Selective editing to advance your point me thinks !!

Apple is working on Quicktime for Windows ( and has demo'd it.. ) but after
the system 7 debarcle ( how many years late?? ), who knows...

>Neil
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz


			>>>>In VI Where Available<<<<
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: What's wrong with Windows (Re: MS grasping at straws?...)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 02:49:40 GMT

In article <rdippold.711225655@qualcom> rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:

>You can, however, fault them in part for WP for Windows.  The skewer
>job that Microshaft pulled on WP Corp was truly classic MS tactics.


Please elaborate. 

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: tamu@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Henderson)
Subject: Re: PC and Mac OEs (was Re: 1 Thing Windows can do but OS/2 can't.)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:01:47 GMT

neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite) writes:

>In article <SXMRP.5.0@orca.alaska.edu> SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R. Platzke) writes:
>>

>You miss the point here. The Mac had an excellent OS from day 1. Windows,
>in a 'workable' release only made it in 1989 with Windows 3. Mac owners
>don't need another choice. The Mac is nice and cuddly as is and always
>has been.

In YOUR opinion!  Not everyone likes not having a CLI.  In MY opinion the
MAC is really limited because of this.  When they have an OS where I can
change directories, look at directories, and run stuff from a command line
then I might switch.  The user interface is nice, but you shouldn't be limited
to it.  By the way, I hate windows also, I use OS/2 2.0.  I just hate MAC stuff
more, because of their price, user interface, etc.  I do think the motorola
chips are probably better thou. :(    A large part of the
time I have a text window open working on something.

Todd
tamu@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu

>>-Michael R. Platzke (sxmrp@orca.alaska.edu)

>****************************| Sig' Time |*********************************
>JANET: 	  neilp@uk.ac.hw.cs   *   Neil Postlethwaite, Rm G.25, 
>INTERNET: neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk   *   Dept of Computer Science,  
>UUCP: 	  ..!uknet!hwcs!neilp *   Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton Campus
>                              *   Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, United Kingdom.
>------------------------------*-------------------------------------------
>Computer Science Account      *   Phone +44 (0)31 449-5111 x4174
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth)
Subject: Re: PC and Mac OEs (was Re: 1 Thing Windows can do but OS/2 can't.)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 23:48:02 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <29JUL199216292433@utrcv1> kac@utrcv1 (Kenneth Dreitlein Jr.) writes:
>windows, buttons, etc.  But who cares.  I care about performance.  And although
>your IBM-compatible might go faster(at times) through DOS, the performance 
>through Windows is horrible.  I use the Mac predominantly, but I occasionally
>do need to do work on Windows 3.1(not my own choice).  Just compare the
>performance of the two.  My SE/30(16MHz 68030), which is apparently equivalent
>to a 25MHz 386, runs at least twice as fast as the 33MHz 386(w/Windows) I have
>at work.  And that is assuming that the Windows program doesn't crash, which
>happens quite frequently.  


If you're so worried about performance, why are you on a mac?  I have run
a few simple "benchmarking" tasks on a 386sx/20MHz with 4MB and an 80 MB HD
and the same tasks on a mac iisi ('030/20) and found that the windows machine
was significantly faster.  While the tests weren't comprehensive, they do
contain much of the features that the average user would incorporate and need
to do.  I ran only one app at once, so there were no delays due to multi-
tasking (well, actually, I had the Clock program running on the real computer
as well).

I created a 52 by 300 cell worksheet with all cells linked to cell A1
(in Excel).  I then transferred that same spreadsheet to the mac.  I then
entered the same number into cell a1 on both machines.  I pressed enter
at the same time.  The windows machine (with 3.1 and excel 3.0) finished 
in about half the time that it took for the mac.  I then decided that it
might be due to bad coding on M.S.'s part on the mac, so I tried another
Mac spreadsheet (Wingz, unknown version # and Claris works' spreadsheet).
I changed the number to the same value on both, and found that the mac was
closer to the time required by the pc, but was still slower.  Finally, I
tried 1-2-3 for DOS and that was still even faster than any of the others.

I also created a document in Ami Pro 2.0 that was 25 pages long.  I saved
that as an ascii file, and imported into both WP for Mac (2.something) and
word for mac (5.something).  I also imported it into Ami Pro.  I then did
a search and replace of all The's in the document with the word _dog_
(OK, so this isn't done all the time, but it still tests the speed of
search and replace).  The pc was faster running Ami Pro than the Mac running
either word processor.  I then tried out W.P. 5.1 for DOS and found that faster
still.

So, in conclusion, even though these weren't the most comprehensive of tests,
they are proof positive that mac's lack the speed and power of a machine
that cost less than one-third the mac's price.  The '030/20MHz is definately
a slower chip than the 386SX/20MHz.



Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter)
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:39:51 GMT

guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris) writes:
>MISCONCEPTION #666 - POSIX = UNIX
>
>>NT plans to have POSIX (Unix) support as well.
>
>"POSIX support" is not the same as "UNIX support".

Last time I looked NT's POSIX support was POSIX.1. If you want the
functionality/command-set (IE. rm cp mv sh etc. etc. etc.) of modern
UNIX systems you need POSIX.2 support.

This will likely be done by a third party.

	fred "Read my disclaimer" walter
-- 
Disclaimer: everything I write is my *personal* opinion and does not represent
or reflect the opinion of the company which employs me.
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1588 comp.os.os2.advocacy:3294
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:46:42 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Jul23.192500.26327@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>
>     What is the "look-and-feel" of a file-system?

That you have directories which contain subdirectories and/or files.
Files are ordered sequences of bytes.  This isn't always the case -
the Mac for instance, has two file systems (MFS and HFS) which don't
fit this paradigm - MFS has no directories, and both use a forked file
structure.  If HFS was adopted as a PC file system, it'd cause
problems for many developers (if not users).

>>  And they are only available to a select corps of developers.
>
>     This is not my understanding.  Can you please explain?

At the time I wrote this, I didn't realize that NT pre-release kits
could be gotten by just anyone.  I have since been corrected.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1489 comp.os.os2.advocacy:3090
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:33:43 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <BrrqI9.Bn6@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> sanders@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Terry P Sanderson) writes:

>Minor correction. The pre-release developers kit is available to anyone today
>for $69. 

OK.  I stand minorly corrected.  Just to be fair, the OS/2 pre-release
developer's kit could be purchased from IBM as well, although it was a
bit more expensive.  But the extra expense got you free pre-release
upgrades, and the pre-release Workset/2 for complete development.


-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
From: stsshol@anteater.unocal.com (Herb Lam)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: PC and Mac OEs (was Re: 1 Thing Windows can do but OS/2 can't.)
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:08:19 GMT
Organization: Unocal Corporation
Originator: stsshol@anteater

In article <Bs5IIB.2Gz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tamu@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Henderson) writes:
>
>No, maybe there should be stupid tax on Mac users! :):)
>

Gee, I wonder what kind of tax they should put on Windows users then? :-)

Herb
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1546 comp.os.os2.advocacy:3199
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 09:08:38 EDT
From: <F0O@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 hardware requirements.

In article <1992Jul23.202605.21163@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith) says:

>Tim--F0O@psuvm.psu.edu writes:

>>   Let's see.  On my system Windows takes up around 8 megs.  I have DOS
>>4.01, which takes up just a little over 1 meg.  So we're talking let's say
>>9.5 meg.  This is pretty much a minimal setup.  I don't have any "add-ons".
>>   What is the amount of space os/2 needs for a minimal setup?  From
>>figures I've heard it's around 16-18 meg.  I'd hardly call this comparable.

>To get the same functionality under OS/2, you'd probably have to
>install about 20 MB of the operating system.  Maybe more (25 MB?).

   So what's the point?  When I caught this thread, the poster simply said
Windows takes up about half as much space as os/2.  This is true.  Can't
you at least admit Windows takes up about half as much space as os/2 without
having to come to os/2's defense?


>So it takes up about 15 MB more than DOS+Windows.  Oh, but don't you
>use any of the DOS and Windows kludges?  I mean things like Desqview,
>QEMM, 386MAX, NDW, DOG, Hyperdisk, etc.?  I think that most people
>who do serious work under DOS/Windows use some of them anyway.  I
>did.  That adds a few more MB's.

   No I don't use any.  I don't believe in add-ons if I don't need them.
I don't.  Maybe you can define for us what *serious* work under Windows
is.  I've had multiple instances of Excel running, Word running, TPW,
resource workshop and a couple other apps running at one time.  With no
add-ons *gasp* :-)  And the response was good enough.


>What's 15 MB?  PEANUTS.  I've got a GAME on my hard disk that takes
>up 25 MB.  Look, if you want a real OS with advanced features, you
>gotta pay for it.

>After thinking about this, I can't believe anybody could think that
>a measly 15-20 MB more for an advanced OS is anything but peanuts.

   15-20 Meg isn't peanuts if you have to go out and spend several hundred
bucks to buy a new hard disk.  My machine came with a 40 Meg hard disk.
There is about 4 meg left.  In order to get the 15-20 meg, I'd have to
buy a new hard disk.  True, I could buy one of those programs which gives
more space on your disk, but I dislike them for some reason.  So for me,
6 meg is alot since I don't have it.

                                                              [Tim]
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1493 comp.os.os2.advocacy:3100
From: fred@polaris.async.vt.edu (Fred Homan)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 hardware requirements.
Date: 22 Jul 92 18:48:41 GMT
Organization: Escape from Blacksburg, VA

In article <1992Jul21.195852.21303@infonode.ingr.com> bbrown@infonode.ingr.com (Bailey Brown) writes:
>>Hard disk                    Get a minimum of 80 MB; 100 MB or more 
>>                             is better.
>
>Windows takes up about half the space that OS/2 does (did, on my system).

	Just a small reminder that people seem to forget a lot.  Windows is
an operating *environment*.  OS/2 is an operating *system*.  You're comparing
apples and oranges.  To rightfully compare them you need to add in the
operating system that Windows is running over (under?).  A fair comparison
between Windows size and OS/2 size would be comparing NT to OS/2, which can not
be done at this time.



******************************************************************************
* Fred Op                             * "Believe me, an eternity alone       *
* Fred Homan                          *  with Satan and all his hellish      *
* PO Box 232                          *  instruments of death would be a     *
* Blacksburg, Virginia 24063-0232     *  picnic compared to five minutes     *
* (703) 951-3282                      *  alone with me and this pencil."     *
* fred@polaris.async.vt.edu           *           - Edmund Blackadder, Esq.  *
****************************************************************************** 
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1586 comp.os.os2.advocacy:3292
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: The NT file system
Keywords: NT OS/2 Windows OS
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:31:48 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Jul24.004544.2780@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>
>One of the neat features for those of you using dos as well, is that
>NTFS will probably allow mirrored 8.3 filenames, so you can both have
>long and 8.3 names for the same files.  Makes it really convenient to
>access a server from a dos machine, and still have long names.

OS/2 has this now (sort of).  The capability is there, in the form of
a long-name extended attribute.  You can copy long-name files to
floppy disks (or FAT volumes) using the WPS.  The name that is stored
is truncated to 8.3, with the EA's containing the long name.  When the
disk is used on a DOS machine (or from a command-prompt), you see the
short name, but when you open the disk up with the drive icon (or do a
DIR /R from a DOS emulator), you see the long name.

True, this isn't complete - it needs to be made transparant from all
shells, but the capability exists now.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: joiner@cs.umn.edu (Jay Joiner)
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:09:34 GMT

In <1992Jul22.163343.11731@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:

>OK.  I stand minorly corrected.  Just to be fair, the OS/2 pre-release
>developer's kit could be purchased from IBM as well, although it was a
>bit more expensive.  But the extra expense got you free pre-release
>upgrades, and the pre-release Workset/2 for complete development.

Its my understanding that licensing the pre-release NT CD-ROM now will get
you free upgrades all the way through the final release.  The only thing 
you won't get is the final commercial release of MSC/C++ 7.0 for NT.  That's
why the shipping is $20 for the CD-ROM without docs.

Jay Joiner
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1480 comp.os.os2.advocacy:3064
From: guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Date: 22 Jul 92 00:59:16 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Distribution: na
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara

MISCONCEPTION #666 - POSIX = UNIX

>NT plans to have POSIX (Unix) support as well.

"POSIX support" is not the same as "UNIX support".  The current POSIX
standards specify only a subset of the functionality offered by modern
UNIX systems; even if NT offers POSIX compatibility, that doesn't mean
every UNIX program out there can be built to run under it, or even that
most UNIX programs can be built to run under it.

In order to offer *that*, it'll probably have to offer:

	BSD-compatible sockets (which it may do with WinSock or whatever
	it's called) and/or TLI;

	some number of BSD and/or SV features on top of POSIX;

	one or more X11 toolkits (yes, amazing though it may be to some,
	UNIX systems *do* generally have windowing support these days);

	etc..

It may well do so, but don't jump to the conclusion that it will based
merely on it having POSIX support and on some people erroneously stating
that this means it'll be UNIX-compatible....