HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Very Impressive Service
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:43:26 GMT



I would like to thank the folks at IBM Canada who provided great support over
the last few months. At out institution we are networking several RISC/6000,
AS/400's, and VAXCLusters which are connected throughout several remotely
located building. After receiving a letter directly from Boca Raton in regards
to OS/2, I was surprised that my request for additional information on IBM's
RISC/6000 systems was also answered. It took a little bit of time but
considering the circumstances, I am greatly pleased. Thanks you again.

Sincerely,
Mark K.
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: OS/2 looking good.
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:45:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.140448.7466@c1.nkw.ac.uk> pjml@swmis.nsw.ac.uk (Pete Lucas) writes:
>Just set up a system for someone based on PS/2-77 with 9517 display, 
>16Mb RAM, Token-ring 16/4 card, OS/2 2.0, TCP/IP (1.2) for OS/2, and the
>associated X-windows server. Its really rather nifty! Showing it
>to a few people, they seem impressed.   The Workplace Shell seems a big
>selling-point to some of the lookers-on; one of them commented
> 'Its rather like my Mac, but it looks nicer!'.
>Now all i need is for their copy of OS/2 SAS to arrive, and WordPerfect 5.2 
>for OS/2, and they will be happy.  If only I could get rid of *my* old 386
>(cursed by DOS/Windows) and replace it with OS/2.....!

We're beta testing 32-bit SAS for OS/2.  (I think I can say that.
:-))  I think the target date is early spring (March/April).

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | READ the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0i, available from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
of Chicago, 60637       | [Post to ONE newsgroup only AFTER reading the List.]
Organization: Sophomore, H&SS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 04:07:03 -0500 
From: Carl B Jabido <cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...

Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.os2.advocacy: 21-Jan-93 Re: NT to be
launched at Co.. by JAMES M. BEESLEY@eos.ncs 
> Funny, I must have missed the $68 for Os/2 *GA* offer ?
> Like I said, NT is $69 for *GA* code. (actually got mine
> for $29 because at the time I ordered it, I was using the 
> OS/2 SDK!) *MUCH* cheaper than the $149 for OS/2. *PLUS*

Your use of GA is incorrect in terms of NT.  Granted, technically the NT
CD is General Availability.  However, when mentioning GA and OS/2
together, one of the connotated meanings is "final release"; not beta
release.  So fine, using your technical meaning of GA, we have GA NT
Beta for $69.  Back to the OS/2 camp, we can use your tech meaning of
GA, and here we have GA OS/2 2.1Beta, FREE (and I mean _REALLY_ free,
with Internet distribution across the WORLD)!!!!  You want networking,
get the DAP CD for less than $69, and that has Lan Man 3.0 advanced,
Netware requestor, and TCP/IP.  (Even an X Server, which NT doesn't even
know about.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 10:16:56 GMT

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>In article <MfLQlzO00iUyI6IfRc@andrew.cmu.edu> Carl B Jabido <cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.os2.advocacy: 20-Jan-93 Re: NT to be
>>launched at Co.. by Yamanari@wam.umd.edu 
>>>         What a load of crap.  36Mbytes for the "demonstration" version?
>>>         I must have missed that with the beta that runs in 12.  
>>
>>12 physical memory, but add to that a 25 meg swap file -> 37 megs.  At
>>least on my system.



>	Uh huh.  And I've gotten my OS/2 2.0 (+SP) swap fiole up to 36 megs.
>	Does that mean that OS/2 requires 52 megs of RAM?



If all of that swap space is used, yes it does! That is the whole point
of virtual memory, that if you need memory it doesn't necesarrily have
to be in ram all of the time. But needed it is, on disk or in ram.
However, I can't see how one needs a 36M swapfile on a 16M system.
Mine never get's above 2M, and I don't just sit and watch it. True,
I do not have any networking software, but how is that going to need
34M?
So, can you indicate as to why you need such a swapfile? (valid
question, NOT a flame).

Erik



-- 
Erik van Linstee   |   Delft University of Technology   |   I'll be back ... 
----
   We are god, 'cause only we can create the idea of his existence
   in our holy brains...  (Yello)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmbeesle@eos.ncsu.edu (JAMES MICHAEL BEESLEY)
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Originator: jmbeesle@c00803-247dan.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jmbeesle@eos.ncsu.edu (JAMES MICHAEL BEESLEY)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:18:53 GMT


What features of NT do I prefer to OS/2 2.x ?

1-built in Networking APIs, not an optional mix added later.
2-Multiple input queues to prevent applications from hogging I/O.
3-UNICODE support.
4-Free XLIBs (granted they are not complete) to allow porting of 
  X programs. (yes they do work-yes they are missing alot)
  (but I have yet to see them for OS/2 at a reasonable price)
5-Common interface (DOS,OS/2, and NT command shell all in one)
  (I get real tired of accidently running a DOS prog from an
   OS/2 window and having it disappear before I can see it)
6-Better interface APIs. Yeah, I know, OS/2 is great nad better and
  MS sux and... I like NTs APIs better, and it *IS* trivial to
  port Windows-16 to Windows-32.
7-The Registry.
8-The Security system. User Management services under OS/2 is
  terrible. Period.

If you want more, let me know and I'll give you more, this list is 
just off the top of my head.
                         
                              -Jim.
From: chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: IBM Ads
Date: 26 Jan 1993 12:08:27 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu


Looks like IBM has gotten back to doing ads for OS/2 fianally.

In the Feb 9, 1993 (Vol 12, N3) PC Magazine, IBM has another
one of those 20+ page ads that looks like an article.  This
one is pretty (I like they layout, and they do show pictures from
the WPS, etc).  They named it "The OS/2 Top 100"  -- ie, top 100
reasons to use/buy OS/2.

I like this ad, but I hope people don't get mad by mistaking it
for a real article.  Please post your thoughts.

-- 
Chris McClellen                  | "If at first you dont succeed... re
Georgia Institute of Technology  | #define success..." - Anon.
chris@cad.gatech.edu
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:12793 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4014
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
From: sl1yn@millville.enet.dec.com (869483 Denys Larry)
Date: 25 Jan 93 15:19:38 MDT
Reply-To: sl1yn@millville.enet.dec.com (869483 Denys Larry)
Distribution: world

In article <1993Jan25.091315.5977@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

|>
|>This is they typical reaction I get from OS/2 zealots.  I make a thought
|>out article, complete with facts and references showing that IBM 
|>has been doling out misinformation in an organized manner, and what do
|>I get?  Cracks about MS.  The vast bulk of MS-bashing in c.o.o.a has
|>no factual basis.   If if it were true, why does this let IBM off
|>the hook?
|>
|>Brian


  The "vast bulk of MS-bashing"  "has no basis".  You lay this blatent
line of bullshit on the group and YOU have the gall to criticize somebody
else for not being entirely truthful.  
  What it really comes down to is a matter of degree.  Sure, the IBM 
marketeers may spatter the shit around until its up to you ankles, but 
Microsoft will keep going until its above you nose.  There is just no
comparison between the two.
  In my opinion, Microsoft has become detrimental to the software industry.
It uses predatory tactics to hurt the diversity of companies in the
business.  It has had control of the OS market for more than a decade and
has grossly abused its power.  For the sake of other developers, Microsoft
cannot be allowed to continue its dominance.  I don't care if NT is
better than OS/2 by 30-50%.  I am going to use OS/2 or NeXTStep.  To
hell with Microsoft.  Let's see how well they do in the applications
market when they do not have their operating systems department as a 
cash cow, used to fund other projects and keep them afloat until they
finally come out with a usable version.


Larry Denys
sl1yn@paradise.declab.usu.edu

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: Re: Bugs in OS/2 v2.0, unreasonable number?
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 15:29:22 GMT

chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen) writes:
> Hmm, OS/2 may have bugs, but I have yet to see them.  I know they are out 
> there, but I have been running it since 2.0 was released, and I had
> it on a 386/25, with 8 megs ram.  It crashed quite alot, but NOT because
> of bugs in the software, rather, my 386 chip was bad.  When I got
> a new motherboard, OS/2 stopped crashing, and hasn't crashed since.

Heh.  I rarely run DOS or Windows apps on my OS/2 box (it's mostly SAS --
a 16-bit OS/2 app), but I sure see bugs.  WPS crashes, minimized apps may
or may not appear in the minimized apps folder, copying files to floppies
is inconsistent (my drive is all HPFS).  No SP, just plain GA.  I'll wait
a few more months, I suppose, to get 2.1 -- plus a few more to get IBM to
ship it to me (I got my 2.0 upgrade 10 weeks after ordering it).

Some of the Windows support is worse, but fortunately I don't need it.  Oh,
one rather clever thing to do is to run a Windows app with no main window,
like TimeFrame (it puts a little digital clock in Windows apps' title bar):
you'll get a WinOS2 session with no app at all -- and no way to exit cleanly!
Not to mention the speed (or lack thereof) of Windows-based install programs
in WinOS2 -- CADVANCE took me 3x as long to install on my OS/2 486/33 as on
a Windows 3.1 386SX/20.  Oh well...

> You call the coders of OS/2 complete morons, but I think that rather
> sums up your intelligence.

No, they're not morons.  The guys that screwed up were the management and
marketing types who released it before it was ready.  It looks like 2.1
may be what 2.0 should have been -- but not until a year after 2.0.

[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:12:02 GMT

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1993Jan19.190356.12915@cci632.cci.com> rom@cci632.cci.com (Rudynell S. Millian) writes:
>>
>>	Sources within Microsoft said the initial version will require between
>>12M and 16M bytes of memory instead of the 36M bytes required for the 
>>demonstration version.
>
>    Did you typo here?  I can't recall _ever_ hearing _anyone_, even
>the most rabid MS-basher, claim that Windows NT required 36MB
>to run.
>
>				-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.


Well, LAN Manager NT requires 16 MB of RAM from what I have read in "Computer
Craft." So I assume it will come to some very big number.

Mark K.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rom@cci632.cci.com (Rudynell S. Millian)
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Organization: [Computer Consoles, Inc., Rochester, NY
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:41:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.194427.20806@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>	
>>	I obviously can't order Brian around, but I suggest he get a copy of
>>OS/2 2.1b and write something bad about that.
>
>If you'll look at some of my other messages, you'll see I'm keeping an
>open mind about 2.1.  Further, I don't criticize people's betas; betas are
>by their very nature buggy.  The whole point is to discover the bugs
>and get them out.  Why would I criticize that?
>
>Brian
>-- 

	If it is true that you do have a soft spot in your heart for OS/2,
then now is the time to criticize it, when it is in beta. Now is the time
when criticism is constructive.
	If you use OS/2 daily, then it shouldn't be too much trouble
replacing your GA version by the 2.1b. You are an ideal beta tester, because
you use OS/2 daily and you know which bugs are there now.
	I'm looking forward to reading your report on bugs, and improvements.

R. Millian
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: gtd543a@sol.crt.columbia.edu (death)
Subject: Re: Easy programming a must ??
Organization: Purgatory
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:35:20 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Reply-To: gtd543a@prism.gatech.edu
X-Posted-From: sundial.gatech.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Joe Katnic (Joe@twistor.dialix.oz.au) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan25.124252.14512@dde.dk> tpo@dde.dk (Thomas peter Sonne Olesen) writes:
: >Another reason why I think it is important with an easy programming tool
: >is the first time programmers. A lot of young people that start to make

: This is not a barrier to learning an operating system. Look at the
: Amiga, hardly any code generation software and literally tons of
: shareware and publicware programs written by young people starting out
: on their first programs etc.

I don't think that's an appropriate analogy.  Visual BASIC, while some
may claim differently, -is- a programming language.  It's just an easy
one.  OS/2 needs easy languages, not code generators.  I, myself, find
emx great; however, C itself is confusing to the beginner.  BASIC is easy
to learn and even easier to program.  Pascal is fairly easy too...

Like one poster said, when we start seeing Borland Pascal we will
be getting serious...
--
Death: the high price of living
========================================================================
Disclaimer:  I am not bubba.
From: gkushmer@jade.tufts.edu (Greg Kushmerek)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Could OS/2 be too late to be a good thing?
Date: 26 Jan 93 02:27:45 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: Tufts University - Medford, MA

I was talking to a programmer the other day about Object-orient programming
(C++) based operating systems.  We touched on Taligent, NeXTStep, and Cairo
all asthe types of things that will become more frequently used in the
future.  

I could only wonder - is OS/2 too late to be a good thing?  I mean, object-
oriented based os' are supposed to be able to interact with programs in such
a way that all programs can "talk" or interact with each other without any 
trouble.  OS/2 provides this kind of an environment to some extent, but not
(so far as I understand it) because of it being object oriented.  Instead,
OS/2 seems to do this more as a programming accomplishment.

So with all these object-oriented os' coming out, is OS/2 never going to
get a chance to fly?  Will NT for that matter?  I mean IBM and Apple are
developing Taligent while MS is doing Cairo.  It makes me wonder: in
three to five years no one will care how well these os' (NT, OS/2) perform
when they are so archaic in the steps you need to make programs cooperate
with each other.

Then, on the other hand, I know that NeXTStep is based on the Mach Kernal and
I hear that OS/2 is moving towards being based on that kernal as well.  Would
this soften the blow of object-oriented os'?  Or would such a kernal in
OS/2 actually make it object-oriented?

I love using OS/2, and it seems to do so much.  But after talking with my
programmer friend, I could only wonder if it will only have a short 
life in the business world.

Cheers,

--gk

--

"The early worm becomes an appetizer"
			
				-EN-
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: larry@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Larry Maturo)
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Organization: Applied Research Labs, The University of Texas at Austin
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:51:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.171853.26726@ncsu.edu> jmbeesle@eos.ncsu.edu (JAMES MICHAEL BEESLEY) writes:
>
>What features of NT do I prefer to OS/2 2.x ?
>
>1-built in Networking APIs, not an optional mix added later.
>2-Multiple input queues to prevent applications from hogging I/O.
>3-UNICODE support.
>4-Free XLIBs (granted they are not complete) to allow porting of 
>  X programs. (yes they do work-yes they are missing alot)
>  (but I have yet to see them for OS/2 at a reasonable price)
>5-Common interface (DOS,OS/2, and NT command shell all in one)
>  (I get real tired of accidently running a DOS prog from an
>   OS/2 window and having it disappear before I can see it)
>6-Better interface APIs. Yeah, I know, OS/2 is great nad better and
>  MS sux and... I like NTs APIs better, and it *IS* trivial to
>  port Windows-16 to Windows-32.
>7-The Registry.
>8-The Security system. User Management services under OS/2 is
>  terrible. Period.
>
>If you want more, let me know and I'll give you more, this list is 
>just off the top of my head.
>                         
>                              -Jim.

Please post more.  It's seems to be fairly rare to hear from people who have
actually used both.

+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                                   |                                        |
| Larry Maturo                      | Opinions expressed herein must be      |
| Tactical Simulation Division      | yours, neither I nor my employer have  |
| Applied Research Laboratories     | any.                                   |
| University of Texas at Austin     |                                        |
| P.O. Box 8029                     +----------------------------------------+
| Austin, Texas 78713-8029          |                                        |
|                                   | When you're as great as I am it's hard |
| larry@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu  | to be modest, but I succeed where      |
|                                   | others fail.                           |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Microsoft confusing the public??
From: cscks@luxury.latrobe.edu.au (Kamal Shaker.)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:24:05 GMT
Organization: La Trobe University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4


In 'The Age' today, a daily newspaper, the compter section had an article
by Charles Wright, who for the last year or so has been telling us how
good windows is and how good NT will be. Never mentioning OS/2 except
for the occasional, 'it takes up almost as much space as OS/2' or something
similar. Today, be wrote an article about how microsoft is confusing the
customers by offering too many choices that overlap in the markets they're
aiming for. He then goes on to say that with NT microsoft may have bitten 
off more than they can chew. Since the people wanting to use it will
want to be able to get thier hardware with it and be able to have their
hands held. Much like the may IBM and Digital support their software
and hardware, and that Microsoft is not ready to be able to handle the 
complexity of corporate computing.

Any comments???


Kamal.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kamal Shaker,        | cscks@luxury.latrobe.edu.au or shaker@latcs1.lat.oz.au
Student Vax Cluster, | %SYSTEM-F-EXQUOTA, Alcohol quota exceeded,
La Trobe Uni,        | stomach dumped.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's enough water on earth to drown the human population 87.6 million times
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: OS/2 in other news groups.
Keywords: OS/2
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:30:47 GMT

I have been noticing a fair amount of OS/2 related discussion in non-OS/2
news groups lately.

I think this a very positive sign of the growing acceptance of OS/2
by the user community. The use of OS/2 is spreadind beyond the "power
users" into the normal computer users.

It's important that the experienced OS/2 users watch the other computer
groups to offer help and answer question for new users.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:12800 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4019
From: slug@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Date: 26 Jan 1993 00:25:22 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: magritte.cc.utexas.edu

In article <1993Jan25.091315.5977@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>This is they typical reaction I get from OS/2 zealots.  I make a thought
>out article, complete with facts and references showing that IBM 
>has been doling out misinformation in an organized manner, and what do
>I get? 

Brian-
There is a saying that goes something like this:

Statistics are like bikinis.  What they show is important, but what they hide
is crucial.

And Brian, you carefully glossed over the facts to skew them in your favor.

You criticized IBM for the exact things that you ignore Microsoft doing.

You called us zealots.  What the hell are you?  Certainly no longer an 
un-biased individual.  You have become so single-minded that you are barely
making any sense.  You used to have impartiality.  Everyone has their
favorites.  I love OS/2.  I also like DOS because it is quick and simple for
some things (like booting in a slow system, but my new system will arrive
this week).

I even like UNIX.  I would love to have the money to try NeXtStep.  In short,
I consider myself fairly impartial.  I choose OS/2 because it does fantastically
for what I need.  If NeXtStep did it better (and was as cheap, and I knew I
liked it), I would migrate.  

However, Microsoft has done nothing to earn my trust.  I even once had the
honor of turning down an interview for a summer job with them- I could not 
bring myself to work for them.

I am proud that IBM is making a damn good effort to do what we, the users, 
want.  You fail to give them credit for running most of the marathon, and
instead choose to criticize them for not making a fast enough time.

I also believe that IBM will not drop the OS/2 ball when the going gets 
tough.  The goal is to migrate OS/2 into Pink with no abandonment to the
user.  When was the last time Microsoft did that?  Are they still supporting
MS-DOS 2.0?  3.X?  4.X?  Nope- they dropped the ball and told the users to
upgrade.

IBM still supports OS/2 1.3, and gave free upgrades from 1.0 to 1.1 to 1.2 and
up to 1.3 (even to 2.0, but they are still supporting 1.3 since it *still* has
a niche market!)

Signed, a student with 4 semesters co-opping with IBM, and one who would be
proud to work for them again.

-- 
slug@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu  //  glen@cs.utexas.edu      ****  Glen A. Graham  ****
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work.  I want |  Fools wander,
to achieve immortality through not dying.   --Woody Allen    | Wise men Travel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy