HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Subject: Re: Good idea (was Re: The sin of MicroSoft)
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 21:23:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.091342.24701@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sorourke@lonestar.utsa.edu (Sean J. Orourke) writes:
>In article <726730251snx@w3vh.UUCP> rolfe@ldp.com (Rolfe Tessem) writes:
>>petesk@microsoft.com writes in article <1993Jan10.011419.23343@microsoft.com>:
>[tons of stuff that belongs in alt.spelling.flames and the grammar equivalent
> deleted]
>>                                ^^^be^^^^                  ^^ahead^^^^
>>> what it was now.
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^where it is now.
>>
>>> petesk@microsoft.com
>>> My Opinions...
>>
>>Perhaps there is a market for a Microsoft spelling and grammar checker
>>(running under OS/2 of course.)
>>
>
>Actually, what I always thought would be a good idea for OS/2 (or even, yuck,
>Windows) is a clipboard spelling/grammar checker.  That way no matter what you
>were running you could bring text into the clipboard and check it.
>
>

Is PETE.EXE available under OS/2 yet ? :):)

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 05 Jan 93 21:24:51 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1993Jan4.162944.29921@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <8297@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan4.004352.29449@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>>	The only clearly anti-competitive practices that MS has attempted
>>>	to engage in was the DRDOS6/Win31 problem, which was a simple
>>>	fix (MSwindows looked for DRDOS and wouldn't run with it.  There
>>>	was no *compatibility* problem.)
>>
>>Tell that to Phil Lafornara. He's called it unfounded.
>
>	Well, he's wrong.  The problem with DRDOS was that Windows
>	checked for something at startup to determine if it was an 
>	MS version of DOS (which includes the IBM version).  Windows
>	itself would work just fine, regardless of this.  (I believe
>	it was 1 identifier bit).

     Please supply a reference for this and I'll look into it.

				-Phil

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for
Date: 8 Jan 93 05:51:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1993Jan8.055127.16318
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.

In article <1993Jan08.020833.4494@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <3801.942.uupcb@almac.co.uk> mike.dickson@almac.co.uk (Mike Dickson) writes:
>>PL..>F-Fear- Fear that Using OS/2 and DOS on the same machine would be dangerous
>>PL.. It is.  DOS 6 may make your FAT partitions unreadable by
>>PL.. OS/2 or other operating systems.
>>
>>Congratulations, Phil. You may have put lots of people right off using
>>MS-DOS 6.0, irrespective of whatever the finalised code actually does.
>
>    Stacker makes your FAT partitions unreadable by OS's that
>don't have Stacker available.  This hasn't scared people off.
>The question is whether the benefits of the incompatibility are
>worth the loss in interoperability.
>
>				-Phil
>-- 

Well, besides being a larger harddisk on the cheap, does MS-DOS 6.0
do anything to extend the actual functionality of the underlying
DOS layer, or is 6.0 a collection of feature utilities ?

It used to be that when MS rolled a major revision, such as DOS
3.0, there were major functional and structural enhancements. I
dont see any talked about here. SO why the 1.0 rollover ? Why isn't
it 5.1. like it probably should be ?

No flame intended, just asking...

...Paul


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:43:19 GMT

In article <wiegand.726166042@lido16> motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net writes:
>discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>
>>Ahhhh.  But what the anti-agreement people are saying is that they DON'T want
>>MS-DOS installed.  If the MAJORITY of people thought that way, then Joe 
>>Vendor doesn't have to buy into the agreement--and sell his systems for
>>eight bucks cheaper than his competitors.  The problem is, that the MAJORITY
>>of people WANT MS-DOS and Windows... which gives Microsoft the leverage it
>>needs to "sell" their package with every computer.
>
>That's just the point. The majority who want DOS gives Microsoft enough
>leverage that they can also force DOS on the minority who don't want it.
>
>Maybe you think this is good, but I don't much like it.
                                           ^^^^^^^^^

Ah, now I see.  Because you don't like it.  I get it.  Makes sense to me.

I didn't like the fact that almost over half the populace of the U.S.
voted *against* Bill Clinton, yet he will be our president.  I don't like
the fact that of the State taxes I pay to California, the portion *I*
want isn't going to education.

In paradise, I assume, everybody can be happy... but in the real world,
there are going to be some people that get what they want and some people
that don't.  Luckily (or unluckily as the case is) some countries like the
U.S. let the MAJORITY make the decision about how things will go--and the
MINORITY have to take it (or convince the populace at large that their
way is better).  This is true in politics and MARKETING.  If the majority
of people want product A, product A should succeed.

At this time, the majority of computer users WANT MS-DOS... over 80% in
fact.  And Microsoft Windows has been in the top ten list for over 84 weeks
(Merisel figures).  If a vendor wishes to maximize his profits, he addresses
the MAJORITY market... I'm sorry that you don't "like" it, but that's the
way it is.

If you don't think that that's the way it should be (and 2 out of ten people
don't)--then convince the populace-at-large that OS/2 (or Taligent or
Unix) is the way to go... and I guarantee you, when those who desire OS/2
are a majority, the Vendors will follow suit.

Joe
My opinions/

>Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.


Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11796 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3702
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Date: 7 Jan 1993 02:53:31 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu
Keywords: economics 101

cm@cmm.ovum.ka.sub.org (Christoph Mueller) writes:
>tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>
>> If you think this is good, examine the former Soviet Union.  The hypothetical
>> drilling equipment market above is being controlled by one entity, not subjec
>> to market forces.  Does it really matter that this entity is a company rather
>> a government?
>
>Yes, it does!  There is quite a difference in how you became a monopoly.
>In the former USSR, a company was put in that position by government
>decision.  I am not sure completely but I think AT&T was put in that position
>too (at least the German Telecom is still--that's why the new AT&T or MCI are
>much better/cheaper/...).  Microsoft was never put anywhere by anything else
>than market force (that's why they are still produce good software)
>Ok, now they are in the position of a monopoly.  But as soon as they get too
>outrageous (so far they have gone far but not far enough) the competition
>will get them again (even though the competition might be handicapped).
>
>Just my $0.01 worth

However, we were not talking about Microsoft in the hypothetical drilling
equipment market.  In Microsoft terms, the equivalent would be if Microsoft
decided that they wanted a monopoly on, say, word processors, and so refused
to sell DOS or any other software to anyone who used or sold WordPerfect
or any other word processor not made by Microsoft.

If they did this (note that this has not been alleged, as far as I know.
This is just a hypothetical), would you think that this is "good" because
they used "market forces" to get this word processor monopoly, and to
keep anyone else from competing?  And if they then started producing word
processors that were not as good as others could do, just how would others
enter the market?  It'll be real hard to get any software place to carry
your better word processor if as soon as they did, Microsoft pulled all its
products from that place.

How is this any different from a government granted monopoly, in practical
terms?  Note that the monopoly under consideration (the word processor
monopoly) was *NOT* generated by producing superior products that drove
the other companies out and prevents others from entering the market.  It
was instead generated by using the monopoly in an unrelated market to
force people in the word processor market to select inferior software.

--Tim Smith

ps: remember, this is a hypothetical situtation,. put in terms of computer
companies rather than oil companies.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: Bill Gates:  What a weenie...
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:32:30 GMT

discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
[....]
: >I have watched how Microsofties like to re-define terms. They call Windows
: >an operating system. 
: 
: WAIT A MINUTE!  Windows *is* an operating system (we can start that debate
: again?)  There was no redefinition on "Microsofties" part... there seemed
: to be a redefinition on "modern OS believer's" part... the same kind of 
: people who would say "...a Stanley Steamer is not a car... now, the Ferrari
: Testarossa--THAT'S a car..."

I have no wish to get embroiled in a long-running debate again either,
*but*: I'll accept that Windows is an OS when I see somebody running
it on a system which doesn't have DOS (or DRDOS or something else) present.

--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
From: rvaniwaa@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ronald J. Vaniwaarden)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: The OS/2 VS NT game at the Fiesta Bowl
Date: 6 Jan 93 14:38:09 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

Although the CU Buffs lost yet another bowl game, there was the much less
publicized game between OS/2 and NT (it occured durring half time). The
game was very short due to the fact that NT never showed up in time.....

--Ronald Van Iwaarden

(I guess I am going to need the :-)*10^10^10)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 05 Jan 93 07:41:18 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation


    Cutting out a lot of quoted text again...

In article <1993Jan4.081223.7088@gw.wmich.edu> x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan03.075549.29578@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>
>>     We're still assuming that the message is as it was originally
>> presented - I expect that this is not a very good assumption.
>> I'll check on Monday.
>
>	Agreed, we are assuming that his quote is very close to what
>the actual message said.  But I have heard the same thing from beta
>testers also.

    The actual message has since been posted and it bears little
resemblence to what was originally quoted.  So most of this
discussion is probably moot.  Despite that, I have a couple comments
to make here.


>>     Explain, then, exactly _how_ the message is anticompetitive.
>> You can go on and on about my arrogance, but you haven't answered
>> the basic question.
>>     It all comes down to this:  Can the truth be FUD?
>> 
>	I don't think it is FUD.  It is extremely unethical and downright
>childish to have such a message.  OS/2 uses a lot of disk space.  However,
>for MS-DOS to try to persuade you to delete OS/2 is pretty close to FUD.
>A novice (and since it is in beta we can assume novices have not yet
>touched this) might worry that OS/2 shouldn't be there and delete it.
>If DOS 6 looks for NT and gives the same message I would be happy.

    Apparently DOS 6 doesn't give the message quoted for _any_
operating system, so I suspect everyone will be happy.


>>     Again.  Why is it anticompetitive?
>> 
>> 
>	Because a competing product is trying to persuade the user to
>eliminate a competitor's product.  I really don't think it is a
>stretch at all to see this.

    Let's think about this for a moment:  If a user got the
message that was originally quoted, then they had _already_
purchased OS/2 - a DOS 6 message couldn't do anything at all
to hurt OS/2 sales.
    Which is purely hypothetical, of course, as the only message
is to warn of incompatibility between file system types.

			-Phil

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date:  8 Jan 93 18:47:36 GMT

discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>In article <8328@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>Jay, there are alternatives to DOS and Windows.  IBM OS/2, Unix, Solaris,
>DR-DOS, GEM... Microsoft hardly has a monopoly.  Sure, if you want
>MS-DOS or Windows, you gotta go to Microsoft... much as if you want
>Coke (and Pepsi won't do) you gotta go to Coca Cola Company.

Unlike an operating system, soft drinks are end products.  Applications,
such as ice, does not have compatability problems that enables it to work
properly in Pepsi, while rendering it ineffective with Coke.  Coke and
Pepsi can also be drank from the same glass without difficulty.  The same
cannot be said for software applications that must bend over backward
to work under a given operating system
From: rommel@jonas.gold.sub.org (Kai Uwe Rommel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft and Force continued.
Distribution: world
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 20:48:56 MET
Organization: Private

In article <1993Jan10.003641.11144@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <726581482rommel.root@jonas.gold.sub.org>, rommel@jonas.gold.sub.org (Kai Uwe Rommel) writes:
>|> >Ever try buying a Frosty at McDonalds? 
>|> 
>|> The game store is not owned by Nintendo and the computer sellers are
>|> not owned by Microsoft. But then, even Mercedes Benz dealers sell used
>|> BMW and VW cars and vice versa.
>
>A McDonald's restraunt isn't owned by McDonald's either.

But it has McDonald's printed on the door. Unless it's a shop named
"Microsoft", MS should not try to force them not to sell competing
products.

>|> MS is trying to force independent dealers NOT
>|> to sell competing products. Microsoft does not sell Windows directly
>|> to end users.
>
>McDonald's does the same thing to its dealers.

See above.

>|> >Well, this is admittedly an extreme example, but I'll bet that there are
>|> >as many men who want to sleep with Cindy Crawford as there are PC's running
>|> >MS-DOS.  Can I set my self up as a "dealer" and use "customer demand" to
>|> >justify pimping her?  After all, she is a monopoly supplier.
>|> 
>|> You got something wrong. Your example is reversed. Compare MS to if
>|> C.C. was trying to force all men in the world to sleep ONLY with her. :-) :-) 
>|> You would flame her for forcing competing women out of the market. :-)
>
>Actually, I know a lot of women who won't sleep with a man unless she sleeps
>only with her.							   ^^^
								   he?
But there is more than one woman in the world, not only one
that tries to force ALL men to sleep only with her. Enough of this
comparison now ... :-)

Kai Uwe Rommel

--
/* Kai Uwe Rommel                                      Muenchen, Germany *
 * rommel@jonas.gold.sub.org                       Phone +49 89 723 4101 *
 * rommel@informatik.tu-muenchen.de                  Fax +49 89 723 7889 */

DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt
handler, and always will be.                -Russell Williams
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bangell@cs.utah.edu (bob angell)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 3 Jan 93 23:44:25 MST

>> I think this message and all the hoopla surrounding this is [warning,
>> about to read a possible assumption not based on actual tinkering, so
>> your mileage may vary] as follows:
>> 
>> 	DOS 6.0 has some compression schema built-in, therefore, if
>> 	OS/2 **FAT** partitions were present, it would render the
>> 	data-sharing useless (as would DRDOS and other compression
>> 	schemes).  Notice that another installed the program on a
>> 	FAT partition with all HPFS drives as the viable partitions
>> 	and may have trouble reading compressed data off of the 
>> 	DOS 6.0 partition once he evaluates and plays with it
>> 	awhile.  Why the warning was not given in the latter is a
>> 	mystery to me ....
>> 
>> So, folks [Anal-retentives should also include themselves with this
>> group if they can get a clue - just this time! 8-0], even though we
>> may not necessarily like one company or another (couldn't resist this
>> one ... "Can't we all just get along" - Rodney King after the LA
>> Riots last spring :-) :-) ) lets not jump to conclusions before the
>> verdict is in!!  Haven't the OS/2 people learned yet about true FUD
>> and false-alarm FUD's??
>
>	Let's get real for a moment, if that were the case, then would
>it be SOOOO difficult for MS to write the following message:
>	"OS/2 detected on hard disk, the compression program included
>with DOS 6.0 is not compatible with OS/2, you might consider deleting OS.2
>before proceeding."
>
>	The disk space message is fairly blunt.  I don't think anyone
>but someone pretty darn biased for MS would call it ambiguous.
>
So, just because I tend to wait for the verdict while the jury is out
that I am "pretty darn biased" towards MS?  This logic doesn't seem to
really pan out.  Part of the problem here with this discussion/thread
is that there are alot of fingers being pointed at MS without just
cause.  Fact1: Warning message vague as to the possible problem ...
just that it mentions OS/2.  Fact2: We (meaning third parties) don't
know whats been done with the new DOS 6.0 - FAT change, compression,
etc. etc. etc.  Fact3:  If you are happy with OS/2 ... why get your
panties in a wad about a new MS-DOG??

>				-Brad
 -Bob-
From: gt0449a@prism.gatech.EDU (Rob Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 4 Jan 93 06:43:33 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

Immediately upon trying to install Dos 6.0, the install program says:

"An OS/2 partition has been detected.  The OS/2 partition will not be
available under MSDOS 6.0."

Not at all threatening; just informative.
-- 
Rob Coleman ][ gt0449a@prism.gatech.edu        ][  "I think I'm going bald!"
Comp. Sci.  ][ Georgia Institute of Technology ][        -Rush/COS
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 22:28:10 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan5.205503.11199@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>Surely you're not saying that a company can do anything it likes as long
>as you can't see it?

No...I'm saying that, in the case of screws, there is likely to be no
difference to me as the consumer of the product those screws hold together.
That is emphatically not the case for operating systems.
-- 
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,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: leo@rulhp2.leidenuniv.nl (L. Mekenkamp)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization:  Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science ; Univ. of Leiden ; the Netherlands
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 17:13:06 GMT

Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 02:16:44 GMT

NEWS@noose.ecn.purdue.edu writes:
>In article <C073ME.D5I@csulb.edu>, sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>|> I agree that the reason that they are
>|> around and doing well is the way the company is run. But the reason that
>|> they are the size they are and bestride the market to the extent that 
>|> they do is that they were the sole source for a virtually essential
>|> component of all he microcomputer systems being sold, and one with a very
>|> low per unit distribution cost and essentially no need for marketing
>|> (because of its essential and often built-in nature). Plenty of companies
>|> can be well run but without a blockbuster product that the market *needs*
>|> they wouldn't succeed as MS has done.

>I've carefully read the above, and I see where you're comming from, but 
>it won't wash because you can think of lots of counter examples. 
>Digital research was the sole supplier of CP/M--a "virtually essential
>component" of all 8080 systems being sold.  Why didn't Digital Research
>grow to be as big as Microsoft?

Nice comparison! The 8080 based systems sold about just as many as the 8086/
8088 based systems.

-- Leo

Leo Mekenkamp
Leiden University, The Netherlands
Mekenkamp@RulWinWST.Leidenuniv.NL
	     ^^^
No MS connection, believe me...