HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: robs@hardy.u.washington.edu (Robert Suh)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: -= Signature Recommendations =-
Date: 3 Jan 1993 09:04:34 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.u.washington.edu

In article <1993Jan2.202354.16020@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>                        The Funniest Lines
>                        ==================
>
>Here is a collection of Lines. You can use any of them in your
>signatures files. This list will be updated regularly. Enjoy...

[STFF DELETED] >
>"While we liked developing Windows applications, we never inhaled."     
>- Philippe Kahn, 1992

See where you stocks are heading to because of it. :)

>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>" Why are manhole covers round?
>  How many gas stations are there in the U.S.?"
>- Interview questions asked by Microsoft, 1992

Hmm, seems like standard intelligent measuring questions.  Don't know if it
really works, but I guess someone feels proud at MS. :)
(Though, I hear Hewelett Packard's questions can be brutal.)
Also, for what's it worth, I've been on a recruiting interview on MS
and they didn't ask any of those questions.  (They just asked me to spell
my name right.) :) )

>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>It takes 2.0, baby, it takes 2.0...

Better make that 2.1. 

>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>WindowError:001 Windows loaded.  System in danger.
>WindowError:002 No error . . . yet.
>WindowError:003 Dynamic linking error. Your mistake is now in every 
>                file.
>WindowError:004 Erronious error.  Nothing wrong.

You forgot ..
OS2Error:102 Huh? 

>Windows 3.1 - The Best $89 Solitaire Game You can Buy!

Well, that's true..  Though you get a pretty nice environment to boot.

>Windows NT: From the makers of Windows 3.0!

OS/2 2.0: From the makers of DOS 4!

[other tag-lines deleted, some funny, most not.] <g> 

Well, as you can see OS/2 isn't my sun-god.  And I'm not particularly an
Windows fanatic either.  So what does that make me anyways?

Answer> Lonely! :)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:23:55 GMT

In article <BzMLLx.JtD@news.iastate.edu> TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.164545.28198@tc.cornell.edu>,
>bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec21.154910.6846@kth.se> d89-zke@dront.nada.kth.se (Zoltan Kelemen) writes:

>     I think I'm seeing the argument from a different angle than
>you.  I don't see people complaining about unfair business practices
>because MS wrote DOS.  People are complaining about (as SJB so
>eloquently put it) MS making up the rules but not playing by them.
>MS makes OS's.  That's fine.  MS makes applications.  That's fine,
>too.  The problem is that they are allowing their application
>developers to use calls from their OS that other developers can't
>use.  This gives MS applications an unfair advantage over the
>competitors applications.

Nobody is forcing any other developer to write a new OS and make 
his/her new rules. If MS changes the rules, let them suffer the
consequences and die. Simply dont buy their products. It may happen 
with OS/2. But it is their business decision because it is their money. 

>     The question isn't a matter of ownership of the OS.  MS wrote
>MS-DOS, and nobody is going to argue that (I guess it depends on
>what I mean by 'wrote'...).  It's a question of interpreting the
>law.  That is what the FTC is out to do.  If the law is interpreted
>that MS is being unfair, then the FTC has every right to break up
>the company.  Period.

You are arguing circularly here. Of course the FTC has the muscles 
to affect them adversely. But does the fact that the FTC can and
may do it, make it fair ? Do you claim that laws on the books are
always fair ?

>     And to be completely honest, I think that even if MS is broken
>up into several smaller companies, it will be a largely symbolic
>act.  It probably won't affect people that much.

Do you claim that property should remain private only so long as
someone is not too successful, but if one is, it should become the 
goverment's ?

>Timothy Miller

Dov


Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10749 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3355
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 22 Dec 92 11:40:10 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Dec22.011646.3918@unvax.union.edu>, pallantj@unvax.union.edu (Joseph C. Pallante) writes:

|> The day that a couple hundred software writers in Russia or India can
|> produce an OS like OS/2....  Is the day that BG becomes humble.

My friend have you ever sat in a software class and tried to compete with
the best and brightest students from India?  I have and let me tell you
I have nothing but the highest regard for the kind of talent that
India can put together.

They've got over 700 _million_ people--it stands to reason that they've got
over twice the number of potential great programmers that we do.

To think that we can blindly bash our best software companies into the
ground and still be number one in software is about the most extreme
form of cultural egocentrism than I can imagine.  Wake up and smell the
coffee! 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:04:24 GMT

In <8261@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>In article <1992Dec30.201544.27892@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>>I have ignored every argument based on name-calling--simply labeling something
>>"sleazy, underhanded, etc" doesn't make it so.

>...but we've shown why it's sleazy and underhanded. You say there's a choice.
>Sure there is: it's a choice between paying a royalty for every machine and
>going out of business because MS charges quite a bit more for the privilege of
>not having to pay a royalty on every machine. Some choice.

>>Does your university give a volume discount for credits?  Mine does.  At
>>Purdue, You pay per credit hour until you reach 16 credits, and anything 
>>above 16 is free.

>I don't know, actually; I'm a mainframe systems programmer, not a student.

>>They essentially have forced me into only taking credits from Purdue because 
>>they won't count credits from other universities and I don't have the time
>>to study at more than one anyways.
>>Are they guilty of "sleazy, underhanded, anticompetitive practices?"

>If they don't accept credits from other places, then, yes, they're being
>anticompetitive - because they're denying you the opportunity to go take a
>course somewhere else for credit, even if they don't offer a similar course.

One point here, Jay.  In order to be anticompetitive in the same way
that MS is with their 'royalty for every machine shipped' scheme, his
university would have to offer him the choice of a) paying much more
for each class he took there if he also took classes at some other
university as well, or b) paying his university for hours he took at
ANY university, but at a reduced rate from what they would charge him
otherwise. 

Now then, does anyone know of a university that acts like THAT?  Case
closed. 

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 19:22:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.142615.3337@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
> In article <725210115snx@montage.UUCP> platinum@montage.UUCP (Doug Swallow) writes:
> >rsrodger@wam.umd.edu writes in article <1992Dec24.033418.28702@wam.umd.edu>:
> >> 
> >> In article <1992Dec24.035348.26595@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
> >> >the 125 meg drive. I have 8 megs of 70ns RAM and the system runs very much
> >> >like OS/2 on 4 megs with no HPFS. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 	As it should.  8 megs is the NT minimum.
> >> 
> >> 	Plus, you *should expect crashes*.  Installing any OS,
> >> 	NT or OS/2, is not the same as just plugging in an HD 
> >> 	with the os installed.  It must be configured for your hardware
> >> 	and your motherboard.
> >                 ^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >You're the one who's FUDding now.
> 
> 
> 	Nope.  He has said himself that there is a big difference 
> 	between his machine and his friends:  he has 1/2 the memory.
> 

The NT system was installed on an 8 meg machine. My co-worker added another 8
megs because the system was slow and unstable.
 
So, the installation system and my system are virtually identical.
 
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: slumos@unlv.edu (Steve Lumos)
Subject: Re: Be more creative than the FTC!
Organization: UNLV Computer Science
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 21:46:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.220753.1755@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>Why don't Novel, Lotus, et al, find a more creative solution to their problem
>than just using the FTC as a club against Microsoft?  Here are some better
>alternatives:
>
>
>1.  Form a consortium with Digital Research (who makes DR DOS, a fully
>    compatible MS DOS clone) to make a Windows 3.x clone.
>
>2.  Better yet, stop developing for Windows/Dos until Microsoft does what
>    they want it to.  Power plays go both ways.  At this point Microsoft's
>    biggest nightmare would be if all of the big software houses dumped
>    Windows and Windows NT and started developing for OS/2 and Unix.
>
>3.  Cut special deals with PC clone vendors who don't bundle MS-DOS/windows.
>    If they bundle OS/2, give them discount versions of Lotus 123 for
>    OS/2 or Novel for OS/2.
>
>4.  Charge higher prices for Windows versions of their software than for
>    OS/2, Mac, or UNIX versions.  
>   
>If Windows 3.x wasn't being supported by software developers, it would be
>going nowhere.  If other software companies don't like the way that 
>Microsoft plays, then they don't have to play with Microsoft.  There are
>other games in town.

Oooo, golly, why don't they just GIVE all their source code to
microsoft and leave since they obviously can't cheat well enough.

And BTW, DRDOS is not 100% compatable with MSDOS. MicroSoft works on
Windoze code until it breaks under DRDOS but not MSDOS every time they
release a new version.

I've been following your cute little thread. You are a total idiot and
I can see that you WANT MS to have a monopoly just by reading your
suggestions above. If everybody else raises their prices, people will
not stop using Windows, they will just switch to buying MS apps. I'm
sure that would just break the skums' hearts. But then, once MS is the
only company developing for Windows, I suppose you think that they
will be grateful to all the blind little lemmings like yourself and
keep their prices low...HA! 

Oh, and if MS isn't doing anything illegal, the FTC won't do anything
to them. If they are doing something illegal, they deserve to be
punished. Next time you get pulled over, feel free to tell the cop
that it is YOUR car and what you do in it is none of HIS or ANYONE
elses business. You can get a free meal that way.

-- 
Steve Lumos - slumos@cs.unlv.edu
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: 3 Jan 1993 14:43:47 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec31.040712.3797@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>     Jay, this tactic of branding everyone who doesn't agree with you
>as "trying to work for MS" is getting really tiresome.  If you can't
>address the points made in the posts, why bother to post this kind
>of drivel?

Because I cannot fathom why someone would leap to the defense of sucvh
obviously bad, monopolistic practices as MS engages in unless there's
something in it for them. You're hardly an unbiased judge of the situation.
-- 
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.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 17:21:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.105449.29832@wraxall.inmos.co.uk> des@inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd) writes:
>Peter Mayne (pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com) wrote:
>
>
>: So those (American) people who think the FTC is morally correct because
>: it has the law on its side are presumably still rankled by such illegal
>: activities as the Boston Tea Party, which was a protest against laws
>: that were obviously moral because they existed.
>
>hear, hear! ... give us back our colonies :-)
>

Are you sure you really want them back ? :):)


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: philco@microsoft.com (Phillip Cooper)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:22:29 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <wiegand.725577960@lido16> motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net writes:
>helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec20.161118.6133@qucis.queensu.ca>, jardined@qucis.queensu.ca (Donald Jardine) writes:
>>|> 
>>|> Allegedly domineering practices aside, is there any real evidence that MS is
>>|> genuinely inefficient or hindering the industry?  The market place is a 
>>|> wonderful disciplinarian.
>
>>I can't think of any.  If you want to buy another operating system, you can
>>choose either DR DOS or OS/2, both of which will run DOS programs, and even
>>windows programs if you want.
>
>Have you actually tried to buy a PC? Many of the major hardware vendors
>include MS-DOS and Windows with their hardware. You get it if you want
>it or not. Why should I be forced to buy software I don't want just to get
>the hardware?
>
>The hardware vendors do this because Microsoft requires it. 
>The Microsoft contract requires payment of royalties per *computer*
>sold, not per *copy* of the software. So even if you don't want the
>software you have to pay for it.
>

All right, this mis-information being spread is getting a little out of
hand.  It is true that *one* type of licensing contract offered to system
vendors charges royalties per computer.  It is also true that another
type of licensing contract charges royalties per copy of OS sold.  There
are many variations of each, and they cover just about every conceivable
type of licensing you can imagine.  It is *completely* up to the vendor
to choose which contract to use.  If they choose to go with the one charging
royalties for each machine sold it is because they get larger volume
discounts and the vast, vast majority of customers want MSDOS anyway.  

If you don't like it, complain to the hardware vendor that chose this
licensing arrangement, rather than one which charges only for each copy
of the OS sold.  They are the ones, after all, that made the choice.

Phil Cooper

>-- 
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
>motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net            uunet!motcid!wiegand
>Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: fippen@ux2.cso.uiuc.edu (J. Fippen)
Subject: Can anyone recommend a GOOD os2 comm program?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 18:50:46 GMT

	I run os2 and love it. I have no intention of changing. I had Win 3.1
and trashed it because it's a junk program. 
Anyone happy with windows will never be happy with os2 because their
satisfaction level is low; they are not looking for more.Unfortunately I have
2 win comm programs, neither of which are good. Does anyone know of a good
os2 32 bit program? I'd appreciate knowing of a good one.  Thanks

	John Fippen   fippen@ux2.cso.uiuc.edu
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.1 Observations
Date: 30 Dec 1992 14:19:48 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, gershon@husc11.harvard.edu (Ethan Gershon) says:

>2.1 sounds pretty good. two things:
>
>1) is there some way to change the icon assigned to associated data files.
>That is, instead of having all .DOC files pick up wp51's icon, can you
>have a data file icon assigned to that file (like the Mac)?

Yes.

>2) Do you think they will implement sounds for WPS actions (like shredding)?
>is there a driver for the standard PC speaker (like there is for win3.1)?

Not yet, but I believe it is in the works.
-- 
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10698 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3341
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 08:33:06 GMT

In article <47830@ogicse.ogi.edu>, francis@ese.ogi.edu (Francis Moraes) writes:
|> ]If you want to sell McDonald's hamburgers you'll have to sign an agreement that
|> ]you won't sell Wendy's frosties from the same place.  Is McDonald's using
|> ]"force" or anticompetitive activities here to establish domination of the 
|> ]fast food industry?  Please!!!!
|> 
|> Please yourself! I can't just _decide_ to sell McDonald's hamburgers. 

Of course not!  But by the same token, you can't just _decide_ to sell Windows
either.

You have to get Microsoft to agree to sell you Windows first.  And just as 
McDonald's can write as exclusive a contract as it wants with its franchises,
so also Microsoft can write as an exclusive a contract with the cloners.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wcn@cs.brown.edu (Wen-Chun Ni)
Subject: Re: 1992 BYTE Awards
Keywords: Windows Awards
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 04:40:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.041939.21442@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>
>	<sigh>  On the same thread, can anyone recommend a good,
>	*objective* "general computing" technical magazine?  I don't
>	want a PC rag, I don't want a Mac rag and I don't want a UNIX
>	rag--I want reports of what is going on in the computer world
>	and not rediculous predictions or butt sniffing(you get it 
>	with OS/2, too).  I, basically, want Byte with more diversity,
>	less fluff, and no pournelle.
>
>	Any thoughts?


Yes. I suggest the following:

      1. Journal of the ACM
      2. SIAM Journal on Computing
      3. Algorithmica
      4. Theoretical Computer Science
      5. Information and Computation
	 ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)


Wen-Chun Ni, wcn@cs.brown.edu         (401) 863-7669
-------------------------------------------------------------------
 I do more after 2 a.m. than most people do all day.
			 - from a T-shirt given by a friend.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pallantj@unvax.union.edu (Joseph C. Pallante)
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Organization: Union College, Schenectady, NY
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 01:17:21 GMT

I have a question....

All this debate is over:  Many, Many crashes because a PC has only
8 megs of RAM.

My question:  Why does NT crash (or OS/2 for that matter) because of lack
of enough RAM?  I would expect it to be slow because the OS would have
to manipulate the memory, do some swapping, etc...   But, if it follows
all the rules it should, theoreticaly, it should not crash.  It should
just take longer to do its job, due to the overhead of running on
a machine with little memory.

So...  NT running on mimimal memory crashes.  Now, I know what you are
gonna say, 12 megs is the minimum.  If 12 really is the minimum, you would
think that MS would have prevented it from running it in any system
under 12, right?  If they can prevent it from installing on a system
that has boot manager, surely they could prevent it from operating
on a PC with less than 12, right?

These are honest questions...  Not trying to put down NT...
I beleive OS/2 crashes more when it doesnt have enough memory also...
Just curious why it happens.

Joe
From: rmk@frog.CRDS.COM (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Date: 28 Dec 92 05:38:08 GMT
Organization: Charles River Data Systems

In article <1992Dec24.033418.28702@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <1992Dec24.035348.26595@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>>the 125 meg drive. I have 8 megs of 70ns RAM and the system runs very much
>>like OS/2 on 4 megs with no HPFS. 
>
>
>	As it should.  8 megs is the NT minimum.
>
>	Plus, you *should expect crashes*.  Installing any OS,
>	NT or OS/2, is not the same as just plugging in an HD 
>	with the os installed.  It must be configured for your hardware
>	and your motherboard.
>
>	I should tell you some of what you get when moving 
>	OS/2 by backing up to tape.  
>
>
>>I don't hink I am in any danger whatever of becoming an NT bigot based on what
>>I have seen so far. Having gone from the OS/2 2.1 beta to the NT
>>beta.....there is no real comparison. 
>
>
>	Add 8 more megs and reinstall the system from scratch, then
>	repost.  As it stands, you're FUDding.


This is an interesting observation.  I commonly move hard drives loaded with
UNIX between Intel based systems with differing hardware.  I have never had a
problem that could be attributed to this evil practice and I have been doing
it for years.


I haven't tried the same thing with OS/2, but I wouldn't expect any problem.


If you have a PC clone, and the motherboard dies leaving all the other bits
of hardware intact, then you should be able to drop another motherboard
into the machine, and boot it up again.

There are about three problems that I can think of, but they would keep the
machine from booting rather than causing a crash.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy