HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R. Platzke)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:33:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: orca.SXMRP.15.0
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network

In article <1992Aug14.031238.18568@msi.com> bill@snoopy (Bill Poitras) writes:

>Windows NT has Win-16, Win-32, OS/2 1.3 and POSIX today?  Full networking
>today?  Really?  This is the first I have heard of it.  For you to say
>that Windows NT has those features today, and turn around and call OS/2
>2.1 and its features mythical, is like the pot calling the kettle black.
>Hey at least OS/2 2.0 is a release product.

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

NT has, I'm told, Win-32 and limited Win-16 support, today (my CD-ROM drive
has not come in so I have not had the chance to extensively test it).  In 
addtion, it has a limited version of LANMAN and TCP/IP support, 
*BUILT IN to the OS.  Inregards to OS/2 2.1, I was trying to avoid the 
typical internet rush of rumors with regards to 2.1.  The reason that I 
called 2.1 mythical is that I have yet to read announcement of such a beast 
from anything remotly resembling IBM.  I've heard a lot from various people 
who have nothing to do with IBM, but nothing from IBM itself.  This section
of the post was simply a request for information, not an attempt to blast
OS/2 (As a consumer, I would love to see an OS/2 with such features that
would really make it a contender for the next ten years, cause I love
competition).  In order to verify the information, I asked for referneces
from any non-IBM source (I am still interested in such info).  Sorry if I
came across as an anti-OS/2 bigot.


-Michael R. Platzke (sxmrp@orca.alaska.edu)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bill@snoopy (Bill Poitras)
Subject: Re: Forget marketing, bring on the games!
Reply-To: bill@msi.com
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:36:24 GMT

Tim Glauert (thg@cam-orl.co.uk) wrote:
: |> IBM should work on shipping a few "entertainment packs".  I'm sure MS
: |> will port theirs.
: 
: Why? The existing Windows entertainment packs should work out of the box on
: NT.

And OS/2 2.0 (except for the new ones requiring Windows 3.1)

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

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bpowell@osc.edu (Brian Powell)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 apps (was: I've seen NT...)
Organization: The Ohio Supercomputer Center
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:46:30 GMT

Just thought I'd mention that I just read in "acs.clari.nb.unix" that
Corel has just released Corel Draw for OS/2 2.0.  Full 32 bit.  I
think it is one version behind the Windoze release, but that it
contains several of the features that are new to the newer Windoze
version.  Plus. it is multithreaded, etc...

-- Brian
-- 

o------------------------The Ohio Supercomputer Center------------------------o
|  Brian S. Powell                                           bpowell@osc.edu  |
o------------------------"My other computer is a CRAY"------------------------o
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: superVGA  (and misc top-blowing)
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:17:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.080540.17580@actrix.gen.nz>, Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
|> You said it was shame that you had to buy the hardware to run an OS. I assume
|> you have a 486/50 with 16megs of RAM and a 200 meg hard drive sitting around
|> for NT.

As far as the *facts* are concerned, this is just plain wrong! You can run the
unoptimised NT SDK in less than this. The final release will be leaner on both
memory and disc.

As far as my opinions go, I reckon that you need at least the hardware you
describe above to run OS/2 2.0 properly. I certainly didn't run it for long on
my 8Meg 486/33, it was too slow compared to 3.1.

|> Or you can run OS/2 2.0 on a 386sx/20MHz with 6 megs of RAM.

No thank you! It was a DOG on a 386/25 with cache and 8 megs.

|> I saw NT today. *BOW WOW* If that's a desktop system, then MVS/XA is the
|> next step for the desktop!

Opinions vary. I deleted OS/2 2.0 from my system the day I saw NT running.

[I was waiting for the June CSD, but there is not much point now]
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:4054 comp.os.os2.misc:27467
From: SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R. Platzke)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Date: 16 Aug 92 00:59:45 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network

In article <1992Aug14.202253.33580@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
>Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
>Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:22:53 GMT

>In  <SXMRP.15.0@orca.alaska.edu>  SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R. Platzke) writes:
>>
>> NT has, I'm told, Win-32 and limited Win-16 support, today (my CD-ROM drive
>> has not come in so I have not had the chance to extensively test it).  In
>> addtion, it has a limited version of LANMAN and TCP/IP support,
>> *BUILT IN to the OS.

>And OS/2 has Lan Server and TCP/IP available as add-ons.  Those who want them
>can buy them.  The millions of stand-alone machines that have no use for them
>need not pay for them.

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

Yes, it does, and from what I've seen, IBM has done a damn fine job with
network support.  Howver, from my experience, those features which come built
into an OS tend to be much better supported.  I can do network support with
DOS, but it is a pain.  Windows is a bit better, OS/2 even better.  However,
I think it is likely that there will be a dramatic increase in the number of
apps the use the built in mail and other network features of NT.  In
addition, I hope to a big increase in the number of client server apps
available for NT.  It would be a big advantage for the base Mathmatica NT
program to be able to do a remote procedure call to an Alpha machine on the
network in order to handle some big calculation.  Built-in networking makes
this much more likely.  Oh yeah, its kinda nice not to have to pay for the
networking.  Although those who don't need it will have to pay for it.  Now
if we could only get hardware vendors to include networking interfaces it
would all be so much simpler...

-Michael R. Platzke (sxmrp@orca.alaska.edu)
From: AV@vnet.ibm.com (Anton Versteeg)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 15:23:14 CET
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: pc week and nt
Reply-To: AV@vnet.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Uithoorn - Netherlands
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 3.0
            <1992Aug12.221342.21192@microsoft.com>

In <1992Aug12.221342.21192@microsoft.com> Pete Skelly writes:
>
>MS did not give up on OS/2.  MS gave up working with IBM.  It was kind of like
>a divorce settlement.  If MS had kep't OS/2, then IBM wouldn't have given it up.
>IBM wanted the "kids" so MS gave IBM responsability for its portion of the
>development and support for OS/2.  Why are y'all complaining that MS dropped
>you, when in truth, MS said that since MS and IBM couldn't get along any more
>IBM's getting the "kid", so you are going to have to go to IBM for your
>support of OS/2.
>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...
>
Well that certainly isn't my impression.
If MS didn't give up on OS/2 (not that it will make much difference)
then why are no OS/2 apps from MS and are MS reprensentatives
even stating here that there won't be any in the future either.
Please stop twisting around.

Anton Versteeg - IBM - Uithoorn Netherlands - TEAMOS2 NL
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hasta la Vista, OS/2
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:18:41 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1992Aug17.143806.10701@umbc3.umbc.edu>, cs611a10@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs611a10) writes:
>    Lets take a poll: 
>         How many people have had OS/2 CRASH and TRASH??
> 	How many people have had Windows CRASH and TRASH?? Sorry, that
> should be HOW OFTEN Windows trashs your hard disk.  I have Windows 3.1
> running on 4 different machines, and all have been trashed at least once
> by Windows.  True Windows 3.1 is BETTER than 3.0, but that dont say very
> much. Now I get nervous if I try to run anything more complicated than
> WinGif and MineSweeper.

	Os/2 hasn't hurt my hard disk in the months I have been running it.
	Neither did windows 3.1 though.  However, when windows would crash, I
would occasionally lose open files which was a major pain.

	Case in point, working on a Pascal program, been saving it of course,
windows crashes and my saved file is trashed too.  (filenmame.pas 0 bytes).
	The most common windows 3.1 problem i get is when something causes
windows to crash and I was downloading a 1+ meg file off a board.  

	OS/2 to me is better if only because it does not crash on me.  Not to
mention the zillions of other things it does better than Windows.  win 3.1 is
faster in its shell than the WPS shell but I'm not about to dump something as
wonderful as OS/2 (powerful) because of a temporary speed problem.  I put up
with windows 3.0 when I had a 386sx-16 for 2 years with its speed problems.  I
can put up with the WPS of os/2 for a few months until its speed fix comes
out.\

					-Brad
From: ignacij@meishan.animal.uiuc.edu (Ignacy Misztal)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HPFS question
Date: 19 Aug 92 13:58:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: meishan.ignacij.714232715
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

jvmg9796@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (doc) writes:

>Im sorry if this is not the right group to post this in, but I would like
>to know what the advantages of the HPFS are (and the disadvantages).  I
>dont know much about it, other than that if I have dual boot set up, dos
>will not recognize an HPFS-formatted partition.  Ok, but what about an
>OS/2 dos compatibility window?  Will dos apps be able to read the HPFS
>partition then?  I would assume that if they can, they would only be able
>to recognize files which had dos-compatible names (8+3).
>So, if my assumptions are correct up to now, then the logical conclusion
>would be that unless I am going to run dual boot, there would be no sense
>in NOT formatting the partitions HPFS, since dos apps will still be able
>to use them in the compatibility window.
>Ok, now someone correct me. :)

A few weeks ago I decided to reformat my 660 Mbyte ESDI disk to HPFS.
The reasons were:
1. FAT partition cannot access >1024 cylinders, i.e., 508 Mbytes,
2. In large partitions, the samllest file always takes 8 kbytes. 
   Therefore, 20-50% space can be lost if a large number of small files
   exists.
3. Porting Unix programs is definitely easier without the 8.3 file name 
   limits.

The system installed just fine, but could not boot up thereafter.
I installed the system in a small FAT partition, and left the first for HPFS. 
The problems kept coming. First, the system stopped each time
the system was rebooted, asking to run CHKDSK. CHKDSK was not usually
finding any problem, but resulted in successful boot-ups.
Some applications could not find files that were there (all in 8.3 convention).
Finally, spell checker in Word Perfect locks the screen, although everything
has worked perfectly under FAT. After applying the HPFS patches,
the boot-up error messages went away, but not the other problems.
I don't know what the origin of my problems were. For sure, migration
from FAT to HPFS is not always painless. Hope the new edition of 2.0
will correct the HPFS problems.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ignacy Misztal			E-mail: ignacy@uiuc.edu
University of Illinois		Phone: (217) 244-3164
1207 W. Gregory Dr.
Urbana, IL 61801
----------------------------------------------------------------------
of
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith)
Subject: Re: ms gave up on os/2?
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 23:34:34 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Aug22.010205.18477@news.iastate.edu> TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:
>Hello, this is my first posting, so you may
>have to bear with me. :-)
>  A rumor in Windows Magazine has stated that
>IBM has OS/2 2.0 running on an RS-6000 machine.
>It also has many other favorable articles about
>OS/2, along with several advertisements from
>vendors who are developing for OS/2.  Maybe we'll
>see a new title for the magazine, something like
>OS/2 and windows mag.
>
>PS The magazine was the Sept. issue, I think.

Not so much a NEW title as a return to the OLD, although it used to be 
Windows and OS/2.  It is however nice to see good views in cush a magazine
must chek it out.

Martin Smith
msmith@netcom.com
From: jc70@westend.VI.CMU.EDU (Joo C. Chung)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MACH vs NT
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:40:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Aug12.144014.272492
Reply-To: jc70@norman.vi.ri.cmu.edu
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Aug12.105034.2814@wsl.ie>  writes:
> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> : What you do put is sort of an API layer, mapping the UNIX or whatever
> : system services to the MACH system services.  This is one of the advantages
> : of MACH over OS/2 because OS/2 doesn't yet have this capability.  
> 
> What about the EMX.DLL that creates a Unix(tm) like operating system
> interface. (ie. system calls) Surely that's an API layer.
> 
> Using a Microkernel simply make the kernel smaller.

No. This is not the same. With EMX you still have to recompile the programs to 
run under OS/2. The API layer (I believe they are refered to as servers) Pete  
is talking about allows you to run the binary without modification. And don't 
try to compare it to the Dos emulation under OS/2. Mach already has many more 
OSes running on top of it than OS/2. Such as VAX/VMS, BSD Unix, DOS, NextStep, 
etc........
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: is NT really NEW technology?
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:38:57 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Aug19.172059.12295@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.095521.3609@desire.wright.edu> jstewart@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>>>Yeah, whats the "alot more?".  
...
>>
>>	I guess I'd have to say Ultrix for my "allocated" unix.
>Hahaha... you kill me!!!
>
>Brian

To follow up my own posting... I'm not sure everyone will get the joke
I was laughing at, so I'll explain.

He said that Ultrix (which doesn't have most of the features listed above)
is being abandoned (ahem... users will be migrated to...) by DEC in favor of
OSF/1.  If you're not familar... OSF/1 has been a flop.. HP declined to
use it at this time as it was "too buggy and slow" and IBM puts out a
version, but says clearly it's not ready to replace AIX.

Originally the Alpha chip was to have VMS and OSF/1.  But OSF/1 is so bad
and NT so promising that DEC decided it will have all three.

My wife just got back from Siggraph... DEC was demoing an Alpha-base machine
there... it was running VMS... they talked alot about Windows NT, and from
listening to the huge number of DEC people running around the Windows NT
developer conference, it's clear that DEC is "looking for NT to save them".

BTW, SGI was showing off an top-end Indigo running Windows NT and Open GL
at Siggraph.  They said it won't be out till '94 though.  Of more immediate
interest... SGI is running ads in Doctor Dobbs Journal for an R4000-based
machine called Magnum 4000 which comes with Windows NT... the machine
(according to the ad) is shipping now.  Vaporware indeed!
(For more info call: 1-800-998-6477, the ad appears on page 52 of the September
issue.)

Sequent has also announced that they will put NT on a low-end version
of their multi-processor computers.

Brian
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hands up! Who has deleted WinOS2?
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 11:52:16 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Aug11.125406.2906@csc.ti.com> jdailey@dadd.ti.com writes:
>
> I have you both beat--I never installed WINOS2 at all!  I'm sure MS got some cash
> for it even though it has never seen (and never will see) the light of day on
> my computer (like 50% or more of the Win 3.0 and 3.1 "sales").
> ---
> Jim  jdailey@dadd.ti.com

The company I work for sells PCs with MS software (Windows), bundled. A
reasonable proportion of users only want the PC and make very limited use of
the Windows software. They don't actually delete it in most cases. They just
don't really USE it either. That isn't because they don't like it
necessarily.....they just avoid it......
 
I am surprised by the number of people who find multitasking concurrently a
conceptually challenging thing. They just want to do one thing at a time......
 
Nothing wrong with that at all.....but it proves there is still a market for
the XT and DOS 3.3.
 
Steve

-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | "But the glory kept shining
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  and bright in my eyes, 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  And the stars going round in 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  my head." R. L. S.
From: rommel@jonas.bofe.sub.org (Kai Uwe Rommel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS an OS?
Distribution: world
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 12:12:02 GMT
Organization: Private

gt0059e@prism.gatech.EDU writes in article <65337@hydra.gatech.EDU>:
> I know you all have probably heard this quote before but I will post it
> for those that have not (probably in slightly mangled form and I don't
> remember the persons name who said it.)
> 
> "DOS is a non-reentrant interrupt handler and always will be." 
> 
> or was it;
> 
> "DOS is disk based, non-reentrant interrrupt handler and always will be."
> 
> or . . .

Please see my .sig :-)

This sentence was written in a mail message by Russell Williams long
time ago, when I had some mail exchange with him, at a time when he
worked at Microsoft, I think. Quite a number of people seem to like
this .sig ... and probably some don't :-)

Kai Uwe Rommel

--
/* Kai Uwe Rommel                                      Muenchen, Germany *
 * rommel@jonas.bofe.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: jbaltz@hebrew.cc.columbia.edu (Jerry B. Altzman)
Subject: Re: It's OK for Windows to crash. It's not OK for OS/2 to crash.
Summary: user mode crashes...
Keywords: crashing.
Organization: mailer daemons association
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:31:49 GMT

In article <mcdonald.231@aries.scs.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald) writes:
>In article <BtB326.JBJ@world.std.com> dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith) writes:
>>When someone complaints that OS/2 crashes, the reply is always that
>>Windows crashes more. But that's missing the point. 
>>
>>Circa, say, 1982 or so, you had mainframes and time-shared minicomputers,
>>and you had microcomputers.  Mainframes and minis had protection systems
>>built into their hardware which the OS took advantage of.  For all
>>practical purposes, you didn't worry about a bad application crashing the
>>OS.  For example, I did software development on the same VAX that was
>>running accounting, administrative word processing, research, and was used
>>by some very high-ranking people for electronic mail.  I did it during
>>business hours.  I did every stupid think you can think of and crashed
>>my own buggy applications all the time.  But my boss let me do it, because
>>we both knew the chances of bring the OS, and the wrath of dozens of users
>>doing mission-critical stuff was essentially nil.  (I never DID crash the
>>OS, by the way).
[..some deleted, I hope I didn't delete anything important here...]

>That means that you never wrote seriously for the VAX -- you never tried
>to do the things that people do every day for PC's. If you never had
>PHYS_IO privilege and whatever else is necessary to write a device driver
>for the VAX (oh what the hell, set /priv=all) --**your experience DOES NOT 
>COUNT**.

That's not the point here. We're talking about a user-mode application
crashing the system. Sort of like deallocating a null pointer in one older
version of SunOS (but that's not a real OS, right?)

I'm sure that 
- on a vax with set /priv=all 
- or under CMS with Privilege class ABC
- or under unix with uid=0

I can crash a machine. The problem is when I'm on
- a vax without any above-level privs
- under CMS with Priv. class G
- under unix with a uid!=0

I don't want my user-level program to crash the machine.

DISCLAIMER: I haven't bought my copy of OS/2 yet. Has someone ported it to
the DEC Rainbow? :-)

>Doug McDonald

//jbaltz
--
jerry b. altzman       Relax, it's all just 1's and 0's       +1 212 854 2057 
jbaltz@columbia.edu                                      jauus@cuvmb (bitnet)
NEVIS::jbaltz (HEPNET)                    ...!rutgers!columbia!jbaltz (bang!)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Subject: Re: what crash...
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 19:18:53 GMT


In a previous article, bill.dehaan@canrem.com ("bill dehaan") says:

>In message <1992Aug11.190655.27153#microsoft.com>, craigdo@microsoft.com
>(Craig Dowell) writes:
>
>CD>It's been a while since I played with the WPS, but arent the applications
>CD>you run under the WPS children of the shell?  Aren't they killed when
>CD>the shell dies?
>
>Yes, they  are children  of the  shell, and  they _should_  die when the
>shell croaks,  but not  always. Often,  some threads  will "escape", and
>take on a life of their own (or maybe unlife, since we're talking  about
>zombie processes).

I have had the WPS crash and orphan processes, watched the wps start up
again while working on the processes, and then had everything fall back into
place once the shell had restarted.  

It definitly isn't MS Windows. 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Rest In Peace MicroSoft
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:52:02 MDT
Keywords: MicroSoft, Operating Systems
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Aug14.091301.3969@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.022737.17146@ccu.umanitoba.ca> rwalker@next02.cc.umanitoba.ca. (Robert Walker) writes:
>>Bill Gates' nightmare is coming true. OS/2 is gainig momentum.
>                                               ^^^^^^
>
>I have a question, did you use the DOS version of PETE.EXE, or the
>OS/2 Version ?

He used the Windows 3.0 version of course!...  He'd have used the 3.1
version, but IBM doesn't have the CSD/"product enhancement" ready yet.
:-)  (Please don't hurt me!)

Brian
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy