HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: OS/2 because! (was NT: Why?)
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:41:54 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct12.224558.5783@gw.wmich.edu> x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.213415.29199@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>      Here we go again with the vaporware debate.  If the OS/2 Win3.1 beta
>> is a valid discussion topic, so then is Cairo - neither is released yet,
>> but both have some bearing on the future of the product.
>>      Which will it be?  Does it have to be shrink-wrapped to be valid?
>> 
>
>	How can you say that?  Comparing a beta released prodcut
>with something that isn't even in alpha yet?

      What, then, is the cut-off for vaporware?  Beta-released product
is OK with you apparently - how about the vague rumors of "x number of
apps will be available for OS/2"?  Now, if that same statement read
"x number of apps will be available for Windows NT", would it be
any less valid?


>  Many users here have
>the beta of the windows 3.1 support including myself, not even MS
>employees such as yourself have "Cairo".  

     Interesting that you know what software I have access to.  Have
you been going through my hard drive?

					-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: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Date: 07 Oct 92 20:53:54 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct6.123731.25876@ms.uky.edu> sam@ms.uky.edu (Mike Mills) writes:
>Thanks to everyone who explained to me NT's multiuser capabilities.  I agree
>that being able to provide security for multiple people is MUCH different
>than allowing those people to be using the machine at the same time.

     True.  Windows NT allows both.


>Thank you very much Paul and Brian for distorting the facts.  Yet another
>reason not to buy Microsoft products.

     Which facts were distorted?


>It seems rather silly that NT supports symmetrical multiprocessing, and gives
>that power to all of one user at a time.

     It allows more than one user at a time.  It seems like the
distortion of the facts is coming from you.  Would you care to 
provide a reference for your assertion that Windows NT cannot allow
more than one user at a time?

				-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: Stephen.M..Lacy@f1.n100.z60.wlink.nl (Stephen M. Lacy)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Unprofessional Posts from Brian S.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 07:19:57 -0100

Organization: Junior, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.os2.advocacy: 12-Oct-92 Re: Unprofessional
Posts fr.. by Brian Sturgill@jaguar.cs 
> it with unfounded put downs. I have however been systematically
> pointing out its flaws, and in general I have meticulously pointed out
> my sources.  The care I exhibit in this documentation is rarely
> shown by yourself or other OS/2 advocates.
> For some odd reason you believe that anyone trying to prove a case
> that NT is better than OS/2, or that IBM is not handling OS/2 well
> is inappropriate behavior.  I do not share your opinion.

And we all know that no one writes bug-free software, except for
Microsoft, of course!  Tell me another one....HA!

Steve


"I don't like much really, do I?  But what I do like, I love
passionately!" -Pet Shop Boys

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: garyng@gnct.com (garyng)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 14:39:31 HKG-8
Organization: Global Network Communication Technology Co.

sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:

> How about dumb terminals?  Granted they aren't a great way of doing things,
> but they are necissary in some cases.  This appears to be a major flaw in NT'
> support.

I can't see why a telnetd(to server terminal on the lan) or a getty type 
program(for dialin through com port) can't be written for NT. In fact, NT
solve a lot of problems concerning security. Under DOS or OS2, if a dialin
user gain access to COMMAND OR CMD, he can access everything. NT OTOH,
give protection to files through the kernel.

-gary

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7482 comp.sys.intel:1923 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:26699
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:52:55 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <MKAHN.92Oct8134921@hopi.sedona.intel.com>, mkahn@hopi.sedona.intel.com (Mitch Kahn) writes:

| In retrospect, I guess we could do a 200MHz 8086 equivalent :-).

  It's been done. Someone some years ago built an 8086 clone from
discrete ECL parts. It drew minicomputer power, and ran at about 200MHz
speed. I can't remember if it was done to attract investors, as a proof
of concent (like a master's thesis or some such) or as a real commercial
product, but I never heard anything more about it.
-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
    Keyboard controller has been disabled, press F1 to continue.
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Date: 11 Oct 92 00:55:05 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Oct10.225425.29765@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>As for the under $500 number, well, I would say that
>"under $500" means "we don't want to set a price yet", and
>not "$499.95".

Do you really think MS's marketing is that stupid? I've discussed repeatedly
here why saying "under $500" when they mean "149.95" is terrible marketing; so
far, nobody's managed to shoot down that line of reasoning.

>Wait and see what the price of NT is, then maybe you can complain.
>Until then, your complaints are based on speculation which is most
>probably incorrect.

My complaint, anyway, is based on MS's own words and reasoning that even MS
employees admit is valid. Show me how MS can do any good by saying "under
$500" and meaning $149.95, and I'll listen; nobody's done so yet.
-- 
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.
    Vote for a REAL change on 3 November: Throw out the check-bouncing,
  tax-and-spend Democrat Congress! (obviously, not an opinion of UTHSCH)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: MS says NT isn't a desktop OS. Brian seems to think it is.
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 02:59:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.182342.8061@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
> 
> I'm posting this message while running under Windows 3.1.  My machine
> has not been rebooted for a couple of days.  I almost never crash.
> My wife on the other hand, does seem to average about a crash a day
> when she's working heavily.   It is not clear that here problem
> is Windows 3.1, it seems just as likely it's her screen driver or
> Word for Windows.  That's the problem with unprotected systems, it's
> hard to tell where the problem is.  We both eagerly await the NT beta.

Where have you got the idea that NT is a desktop system, Brian? I have
attended three MicroSoft function since the beginning of August and at *each*
one they have stressed that "Windows NT 3.1" is meant to be a file-server or
high-end workstation. 
 
The most recent ocassion was last week at the Plaze INternational Hotel herein
Wellington. Andy Schouten, International Marketing Director for MS, based in
Redmond, repeated this quite emphatically. When a questioner asked him how
much it was likely to cost to upgrade frmo Windows 3.1 to Windows NT 3.1, the
questioner was told flatly that was not the upgrade path.
 
So what other conclusions we we draw? Either Microsoft is telling the truth
or they aren't. Either NT is a desktop OS or it isn't. MS says it isn't. You
say it is.
 
If NT *is* a desktop OS, then why are MS spending heaps of money flying staff
around the world to say it isn't?
 
Steve

 
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Date: 07 Oct 92 09:25:52 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <7517@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu wrote:
> In article <1992Oct06.213627.3688@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> >I'm a bit curious about why people don't want networks bundled.  This is
> >regardless as to whether the network is more integrated or not.
> >1) You think the final product would be cheaper if these things were not
> >   included.
> 
> This is it, primarily. Let the folks who want to use networking amortize the
> developer's R&D costs. I've got better uses for my money.

I assume you read the reason why I don't think this will make much of
a difference in price....

> 
> >2) You're worried about using up extra space on your hard drive.
> >Delete the networking stuff off of your drive.
> 
> OK, fine...as long as you provide me a utility that removes all traces of it
> from my system, and leaves the system in a state such that it might as well
> never have been there.

Or possibly the option to not install the network, or whatever.  Fine.


> 
> There are two other reasons:
> 1) Maybe I don't want to use the vendor's network. For example, say I don't
> want to do TCP/IP, but rather Novell or XNS. The vendor's network code can do
> nothing but get in the way.
> 
> 2) Maybe I want to use the network architecture the vendor supports, but I
> can't stand the vendor's implementation for one reason or another. If I don't
> like IBM TCP/IP for OS/2, I can pick up the phone and call FTP Software. I
> have a choice. Why should FTP Software do networking for NT?

Any advanced OS worth it's salt will make these two things possible.
Installable network drivers, protocols, etc.  I believe OS/2 does this,
MS Lanman does this on many platforms, NT does this, and I think many 
other products.  But why shouldn't some of the common protocols be
supplied with the system, given they probably don't cost too much to
add, and you can always not install them, or remove them.  Just because
MS ships Windows Write with windows didn't stop other folks from writing
word processors.  Just because Terminal was shipped with windows didn't
stop other from writing terminal software.  It just gives people something
to start with.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:00:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct09.182652.1023@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.002047.14384@ncsu.edu> linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct07.182409.29590@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>>      Under Windows NT, processes run with a user ID and security
>>>priveleges.  The only thing necessary to allow it to be concurrent
>>>multiuser is a data channel - a telnetd type of program.  This is
>>>not difficult to write.
>>
>>Is it just me?  Why do NT advocates always answer question about NT with
>>"Sure, NT can do it.  You just have to write it for yourself!"?    Isn't there
>>a flaw in that logic?
>
>      Not that I can see.  Is UNIX without telnetd still a multiuser
>operating system?  Is UNIX with only a single terminal attached still
>a multiuser operating system?  The infrastructure is there in any case -
>does the OS magically become multiuser when that second terminal is
>plugged in?
>
>					-Phil

No you can log more than one user in at the console via either the virtual
terminal capability. Alt-1 Alt-2 ... will provide seperate logins. 
Alternatively if your are seated at a console running X-Windows you can be
logged in as different users in different windows. 

BTW you do not need telnet to allow access to UNIX via the serial ports
under UNIX. 

Martin Smith 
msmith@netcom.com
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:28:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.205821.27887@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>>>     OS/2 is indeed selling - but neither of us has any clue how well.
>>>We have some numbers from IBM, and we have some conflicting numbers
>>>from Microsoft.  Who's to say which is closer to the truth?
>>
>>Just curious, how can Microsoft have any numbers regarding the sales of OS/2
>>2.0?
>>
>
>     Microsoft gets royalties on every copy of OS/2 2.0 sold.  Either
>IBM is currently misrepresenting the number of copies sold, or they
>are cheating Microsoft out of royalties due.  Or the royalties just
>haven't caught up to the ship numbers yet.  Or some combination of
>the three.

Wow, it's lucky you put in that third option.  Of course there's going
to be lag time between sales and royalty payments - do you think IBM
makes out a check to  MS every time a sale comes in?  Can you say you
know the terms of delivery of royalties in the agreement between MS and
IBM?  Has MS said anything other than "Well, we've only gotten this many
copies worth  of royalties," without specifying whether they're supposed to
have more at the present time?  I don't see MS going out and suing  IBM
for misrepresentation and non-payment of  royalties, in regard to IBM's
*publicly announced* figures.  If that isn't court-case fodder, I don't
know what is.

Your other accusations are just plain low - and if they were true, I'm sure
MS would be taking action against being cheated out of their money.  Instead,
they're just spreading BS, like you.

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 15:52:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.093615.7205@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.231756.49561@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu wrote:
>
>> >
>> >Well, I hate to say it, but software doesn't work that way.  Software
>> >is almost all startup up cost and and very little production cost.
>> >Software has no intrinsic value besides what people are willing to pay
>> >for it, and if what you say is true, that most people won't be using
>> >the networking products, then the networking products will be worth little
>> >to them.  They will be willing to pay what they were willing to pay for the
>> >orrigional WNT product, minus the value of the networking products, which
>> >was little or nothing.  The net price will not have changed.  All that
>> >will change is the possible price for the WNT with the networking, which
>> >may go up, because the people willing to buy it will pay more for it.
>> 
>> So no money went into developing that networking software?  If people want
>> and/or need the networking, they *will* buy it.  If they don't need it, don't
>> force them into it.  Are you claiming that NT would cost just as much if we
>> removed networking, multiprocessing, and security features?  Of course it
>> wouldn't.  In fact people would really bitch and moan about this.
>
[deleted stuff to save bandwidth]

>The price for the Non-networked version will be what people will pay for it.
>People, like yourself, will not pay more for the networked version.
>So, if networks are shipped with all versions, then to sell it to you,
>the price should be the same as the price you would have paid for a 
>non-networked version.  What's wront if the price is the same for the
>networked and non-networked versions.  Then MS is eating the cost
>of network development, so to speak.  Would you still complain.
>If not, then why not ship everyone the networked version, at the 
>cost you would have paid for the non-networked version.
>Would it not then be possible that the development costs of the network
>be made up by the extra sales of people who would buy NT because it
>is a good networking deal.

Pete, I think that most people think that what you pay is proportional
to what you get.  That is, if you get networking, you are paying for
it.  Perhaps a better way to license a product like NT is to use the
method DEC uses.  Ship everything because that is the convenient thing
to do, but only provide a license to USE the subsystems actually
purchased. 
   -- Bruce
--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
bdubbs@sadis01.sa.aflc.af.mil |  Scrupulous Lawyer
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: 32-bit OS/2 Apps List
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 12:01:43 GMT

In <1992Oct14.174540.6043@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph Malloy) writes:

>Okay, will all those who are forced to use Windows 1.x and 2.x apps
>whether because of poverty (can't afford to upgrade) or because there's
>no alternative and for whom the app won't run under 3.x please raise
>your hands?

Yeah, I've got a game that only runs under Win 2.x, and as far as I
know, there is no upgrade available. 

>I don't see any hands, folks...

Didn't look for very long, did you?  :-)
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: goyal@utdallas.edu (Mohit K. Goyal)
Subject: John Dvorak comment on the future...
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 05:42:10 GMT

Here is a paragraph written by OS/2 lover(for the moment) John Dvorak:

"As it now stands, OS/2 faces an uphill battle.  The failure of...Windows,
Unix, and the long-forgotten CP/M-86...shows the staying power of plain-
vanilla MS-DOS.  Fans cite the millions of installed PCs as a Rock of
Dibraltar forever maintaining the viability of MS-DOS.  Of course, 
something similar was said about the Model-T."

I'll leave it up to those of you who make a living out of reading all
the computer rags to figure out where and when he said this...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: OS/2 and True Type fonts...
Supersedes: <92283.134622HCM100@psuvm.psu.edu>
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:34:32 EDT
From: <HCM100@psuvm.psu.edu>

I am currently a Windows 3.1 user who has been lurking in the OS/2 groups
for about a month now.  I am going to be purchasing OS/2 to try it out
and have already been told that I can get a beta of OS/2.01.  My question
is this:

     I have invested alot of money on Excel 4.0, WinWord 2.0, and CorelDRAW!
     3.0.  I have also invested quite a bit in TrueType fonts.  I do not
     want to wait until Second Quarter of '93 for NT, and would really like
     to take advantage of my 32 bit processor.  Will I be able to use these
     applications with True Type in OS/2?  I have been told that OS/2
     supports Adobe Type 1 fonts, and I can (if needed) convert these TT
     fonts to Type 1, but I have an HP Laserjet Printer that can not be
     upgraded to Postscript.  What's the scoup?  I will try OS/2 now and
     try NT later and choose the better of the two.  But until then, will
     I be loosing my ingerent flexibility of using these applications in
     their native environment?

Thanks.
*  Hans C. Masing        |  "When you go in for a job interview, I  *
*  HCM100@PSUVM.psu.edu  |   think a good thing to ask is if they   *
*  Penn State MIS Dept.  |   ever press charges." - Jack Handey     *
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 11:25:54 GMT

In <1992Oct9.002047.14384@ncsu.edu> linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville) writes:

>In article <1992Oct07.182409.29590@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>      Under Windows NT, processes run with a user ID and security
>>priveleges.  The only thing necessary to allow it to be concurrent
>>multiuser is a data channel - a telnetd type of program.  This is
>>not difficult to write.

>Is it just me?  Why do NT advocates always answer question about NT with
>"Sure, NT can do it.  You just have to write it for yourself!"?    Isn't there
>a flaw in that logic?

From a nontechnical users point of view, this may look like a sound 
argument. From a programmers point of view, it doesn't.

What about the following contest, patterned after the "who writes
the shortest WIndows program which says 'hello, world'"? *)

*  What is the shortest program which enables a user to login through
   the COM port? Nothing fancy is needed, just that the program
   runs under a different user id and has the standard input and
   output of CMD.EXE connected to the COM port.

I don't know enough about the security functions in Windows
NT to do it myself, yet, but my impression after reading
through parts of the docs, is: it shouldn't be that difficult.
  
Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>

*) I did it with 17 lines, in plain C, without tricks.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: OS/2 because! (was NT: Why?)
Date: 08 Oct 92 01:05:05 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct7.110206.10854@wsl.ie> jja@wsl.ie (John J. Allen) writes:
>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>: >If you tell me OS/2 has`t Win3.1 support I tell you your beloved NT simply
>: >doesn`t exist. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT NOTHING.
>: 
>:      Interesting - what OS am I using right now, then?  It said
>: Windows NT when I started it up...
>: 
>
>Interesting - what OS am I using right now, then? It said OS/2 3.0 RS6000
>when I started it up....
>
>Prove me wrong?

     Why would I want to prove you wrong?  I could point out that
IBM hasn't announced any such product, and indeed I haven't heard even
vague rumors about such a thing, but it certainly wouldn't be proof.
     Have fun with your new OS.

				-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.