HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel)
Subject: Re: PRO/CON on Mirrors (was Re: AmiPro for OS/2)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: world,local
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:07:29 GMT

xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:

>If it's a lousy, buggy product, it should be relegated to the dust bin
>because it is lousy and buggy, not because it uses Mirrors.  I'm afraid
>that I don't consider this a cause-and-effect scenario.

OTher OS/2 advocates do. Their excuse for the lack of speed in OS/2 apps is 
mirrors.

[long defense of mirrors deleted]

You're position seems to be: mirrors apps are better than no apps.
But there are real problems with this. mirrors enocurages developers to spit
out a program intended for another platform via a quick hack to allow it to
work under a new platform. Some vendors who would otherwise put at least some
effort into an OS/2 version will pass that option up. 

A bigger problem is mirrors hurting OS/2. Everyone percieved of OS/2 1.x as
bad becausevendors were putting out sorry excuses for applications. If mirrors
in way made them so bad, it did did a pretty good job in helping to kill OS/2.

If this is true, that mirrors is what is making the OS/2 apps so bad, then
having mirrors apps does not help. No one wants them. And because of it, no
one will want OS/2.
From: chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bugs in OS/2 v2.0, unreasonable number?
Date: 22 Jan 1993 13:45:53 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu


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.

You call the coders of OS/2 complete morons, but I think that rather
sums up your intelligence.  Of course OS/2 has bugs, but I haven't
seen nearly as many as you would like to say there are.  I do use
OS/2 extensively, to do multiple compiles in the BG, comm tasks, etc,
but, I do not use sound cards, nor do I care about them.  Usually
hardware problems stem from the fact that a compnay decided IRQs were
not important.

I find windows unuseable, and heck, I have some dpmi programs that when
run totally unload windows from memory.  (Kind of nice to run a program,
and get a flash, and retuern to C>, and windows is gone).  I get
alot of GPFs in 3.1, and lots of UAEs in 3.0, but once again, I 
don't get many of those things under OS/2 -- some things that
cause UAEs under w3 dont cause them under win-os2!

If they are such complete and utter morons, why dont YOU try
to write your own OS, and stop bitching about your estimations of
what IBM's programmers are capable of.

Personally, I don't think OS/2 2.0 GA has "too many bugs," but then
again, I don't run networking ststuff on it... but I do some
pretty intensive stuff on it, and I dont see alot of the bugs that
some people complain about.
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: The DOS 6.0beta OS/2 message.
Date: 23 Jan 93 01:22:17 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>	Okay, here is what DOS 6.0 apparently tells you if you have 
>OS/2 installed on a FAT partition.  Judge for yourselves if you think it
>is unfair or not:

>"WARNING:   SETUP has detected OS/2 files on the drive.  Although you may
>still install MS-DOS 6.0, these files take up a large amount of disk
>space.  You may also make your OS/2 partition unusable by installing
>MS-DOS 6.0.  See GETTING STARTED in your manual for details."

Nice choice of wording; it's ambiguous enough that one can interpret that
DOS6 "take[s] up a large amount of disk space." 
 
Plus it might make the OS2 partition unusable. I'd say abort that DOS6
install, now, before things get worse.

:-)

-- 
Tom Hatton
hatton@cgl.ucsf.edu
(415)-476-8693
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: Doug Hamilton responds
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:50:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.183125.24774@sequent.com> furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod) writes:

[deletia: IBM supports big, MS supports little develpers]

>adequate room to grow, you get a high yield from the number of seeds
>planted. Instead if you scatter seeds where ever, you have to
>disperse a much higher number of seeds to get the same number of
>mature plants, and the yield is substancially lower. Now, which
>method makes more sense ?

Them's pretty big seeds IBM is planting.  To my mind, it suggests that
potential OS/2 biggies were/are wary of actually commiting their own 
resources to OS/2 and that they were willig to do so only because IBM,
recognizing the need to get some biggies on board, forked over mucho
cash (I do wish someone with actual knowledge of IBM's apparent
financial support for big developers would confirm or deny that IBM
actually does this; I'm working on things I've read in PC-Week and the
like and, while I assume it's true, I don't *know* that it's true).

I'm not arguing against the logic of planting million dollar seeds to
big development houses.  In the first place, it's IBM's money and as
long as it's legal, they can do anything they want.  And there is an
undeniable logic to doing so.  My original point, now lost, was that it
really isn't so awful of MS to have given Doug Hamilton a workstation
(or two?) on which to develop for NT, though others seemed to smell a
rat there.  IOW, it's ok when IBM does it on a large scale, it's
evil-empire time when MS does it for a small one-man shop.  In my mind,
we've got a lot of sauce for both geese and ganders here...    

To be honest, I think money is more wisely spent on the small developers
(I'm not one, so, no, I'm not trying to feather my own nest), but that's
not important here.

jmalloy@hamilton.edu
From: jurlwin@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU (Jeff Urlwin)
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Organization: University of Maine, Department of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:17:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.044519.15871@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.120703.11014@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>>If the Koreans and Japanese were doing what MS is doing, they would be up on
>>dumping charges faster then you can say "monopoly".
>
>
>	But not, of course, IBM who is giving away the beta and selling the
>	equiv to the MS extras for $15?

Ahh, but IBM is only giving away the BETA.  This does NOT "give" you a 
license to the GA versions of any of these products.  As soon as the
real version hits the streets, you no longer have a license.

Jeff
-- 
--------------------------------------
jurlwin@gandalf.umcs.maine.edu
From: slug@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Date: 26 Jan 1993 00:41:47 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: magritte.cc.utexas.edu


In article <1jq4lcINNqar@tamsun.tamu.edu>, bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
> Oh well... Physical Memory... Virtual Memory they're all the same
> arn't they?    :-)
>

Virtual Memory:  You load your data into it, and it remembers virtually
                 all of it.


-- 
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
From: linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville)
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Organization: Computer and Technologies Theme Program, NCSU, Raleigh
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:51:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.200502.2638@ncsu.edu> jmbeesle@eos.ncsu.edu (JAMES MICHAEL BEESLEY) writes:
>
>Something all you happy Beeta downloaders should realize:
>
>Use the OS/2 2.1 beta after March 31, 1993 and you are subject to
>    prosecution by IBM for illegally using copyrighted code.
>
>The NT CD-ROM deal from Microsoft (in case some of you can't 
>spell it :-)  allows you rights to the GA Level ship code and a free 
>copy when it ships.  There is a large difference between the two
>deals.

Yeah, there is a difference:  The $69 ($80+ after shipping) for NT is a whole
lot more expensive than the $0 that you pay for the 2.1 Beta.

John W. Linville

P.S.  With 2.1, I can actually run more than 8 programs at one time without
getting an 'out of memory' error, unlike what NT was (un)able to do for me.




+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   John W. Linville                 Amateur radio:  KD4KHC                   |
|   #include "std_disclaimer.h"      E-mail:  linville@catt.ncsu.edu          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: hayesb@yvax.byu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: os2 what good is it?
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:28:48 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1jrve7INNma@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, trav@wpi.WPI.EDU (Travis Charles Korthas) writes:
> FIRST OF ALL : I AM POSTING THIS FROM A FRIENDS ACCOUNT PLEASE
> SEND ALL REPLIES TO  smiley@bigwpi.wpi.edu
> 
> What the HELL is os2 good for?  I heard it was gonna be 50 meg at 
> LEAST!  That would take up almost half my harddrive space.  And for
> what???  I can do anything os2 can do with my windows!  If anyone 
> can explain this garbage to me please do.
> 
> 
> REMEMBER THIS IS NOT MY ACCOUNT DIRECT REPLIES TO
> smiley@bigwpi.wpi.edu

Try formatting two floppies (one 5 1/4" & one 3 1/2"), printing a 16 page
report from Ami Pro 
for Windows, downloading a 250K file at 9600 baud, and editing another file in
a second session of Ami Pro for windows.  At the same time.  If this sounds
like a bunch of Oscar Meyer, I dare you to try it under Windows and see what
happens.  Many times I do this many things at once (usually not formatting two
floppies though.  That was just to impress a friend of mine who wanted to see
how OS/2 was different from Windows).

If you don't need OS/2, and have only a 100 meg HD, then don't buy.  Stick with
Windows.  But if you want *REAL* power, check out OS/2. 

Bryan
hayesb@yvax.byu.edu

"Tact is the art of making someone feel at home when that's where you wish they
were."
 n
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dposey@well.sf.ca.us (David Posey)
Subject: Re: Lee Reiswig speaks!
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 06:44:14 GMT

In <1993Jan21.123925.26838@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> hwhalen@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Hugh Whalen) writes:

>In article <dposey.727599220@well.sf.ca.us> dposey@well.sf.ca.us (David Posey) writes:
>>
>>
>>Lee Reiswig addressed a special meeting of the OS/2 Bay Area Users Group
>>tonight, in conjunction with the OS/2-Windows Conference in San Jose.
>>Approximately 200 people turned up (30 minutes after the show closed) on
>>short notice. Mr. Reiswig recapped his 'Strategy Briefing', given earlier
>>in the day, and answered many questions.
>>

>[lots deleted]

>>
>>6) Advert/marketing budget for '93 is approx $100Million - massive upswing
>>   from '92. 'Event' marketing (Fiesta Bowl, etc.) will *not* be the
>>   emphasis. Focussed, content-rich print ads should be the norm.
>>   The 'OS/2 100' 23-page tear-out section is a good start!
>>

>[more deleted]

>>
>>8) The 'OS/2 cost $2Billion to develop' strawman is (direct quote follows)
>>   'utter and complete bullsh*t'. [The numbers just don't work out - Mr.
>>   Reiswigs annual budget is approx. $400 mil, including many developers
>>   not working on OS/2, marketing, etc. Somewhere in the range of $100M
>>   to $500M is more likely]
>>

>Well, this does make more sense althought I have heard the $2 Billion 
>dollar figure first in either the trade rags or business press .... I 
>think the latter. And no, I'm sure it didn't come from the net first.

>I am impressed by the advertising budget. However, one should note that 
>if OS/2 sells 2 million units next year this will be $50 per unit of 
>advertising cost alone ..... wow!!! Can anybody make a profit on 
>software that retails for what $100 (?) when advertising alone eats up 
>this much money?

>Oh, very interesting post. Thanks for the information.

>Hugh Whalen                     | Where all men think alike, no one
>Faculty of Administration       | thinks very much.
>University of New Brunswick     |               - Walter Lippmann			


>DISCLAIMER: Neither UNB nor I care what the other thinks.

Good point - what most people seem not to realize is the Mr. Reiswigs profit
center sells more than just OS/2. For instance, Communications Mgr and
Database Mgr both sell for more than $100/copy, and how many adverts have
you seen for them?

Another point - Mr. Reiswig stated that his organization was 'not a profit
drain on IBM last year', implying that his group broke even. He didn't say
what his budget was for last year, only that this years is substantially
larger. He plans to turn a profit in '93, and is hiring in both Boca and
Austin (confirmed by posts re:AGS hiring). Both trends are bucking the
current IBM standard, IMHO, and more power to him.

Regards,
David
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmbeesle@eos.ncsu.edu (JAMES MICHAEL BEESLEY)
Subject: Re: Doug Hamilton responds
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 17:02:26 GMT


As far as 1.3s stability goes, when I was working for IBM a few
months ago, well over 2/3s of their machines were running 1.3, and
most had no plans to change (2/3 of the ones capable of running
OS/2 that is). I only saw about 4 people besides myself running 
Windows, the rest had DOS and a 3270 terminal emulator. (most of the 
ones with OS/2 were using it as a 3270 emulator!)

If OS/2 2.0 is the great productivity aid, why is even IBM not
 running it ?

It needs too much memory ?  They make memory and how many times 
    have I heard OS/2 advocates say that the extra RAM is trivial 
    in cost.
Its too slow ? Naaah, OS/2 32bit is ALWAYS faster than 16 bit 
    Windows and DOS.
Wait, I know, it must be some plot by Microsoft.
or... maybe it really is that most people don't need it...
               
                             -Jim.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: NT dreams -- was Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Date: 27 Jan 1993 16:29:30 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, mounil@mathworks.com (Mounil Patel) says:

>OS/2. Everyone agrees that OS/2 delivers NT's promises today. But the one
>factor that makes OSs "mainstream" is applications that the corporate
>world is willing to standardize on.  Microsoft will certainly come out
>with NT versions of Excel, Word and Access as soon as NT is out. These
>are packages that companies have already standardized on. They aren't
>going to want to change. Does anyone really think that MS will make OS/2
>versions of these guys? Dream on...

Anyone who thinks that large (over 250,000) people are going to be using
windows NT on a desktop in the first year after it is released is dreaming.
Microsoft might release excel and stuff for NT, but who is going to use it
when the windows 3.1 version run faster on less hardware?  What about 
mips and alpha?  I don't think we are going to be seeing a lot of people
buying mips computers to run excel, do you?  At this time, microsoft is
trying to make windows NT into netware competition, and windows NT isn't
going to even put a dent into novells market share in the next 12-18 months
because when you spend $4000 for server software and hundreds of man hours
setting the thing up and it finally does run, you don't change it quickly.

At least OS/2 managed to put a dent in windows 3.1's market share!

It doesn't matter if windows nt has apps or not, if windows 3.1 and os/2
offer better performance for less money.  Windows NT is not going to
be able to compete on intel hardware, because it adds too much overhead
in comparison to the other products in the desktop market.  The only place
where NT has an edge is in the networking area, but I can't see many people
displacing netware for fileservers, or unix for peer to peer workstations in
a period of less than 2-3 years.  Windows NT is going to BOMB!

O.K. this is my opinion and this could be considered FUD.  But I still
think NT is going to be a huge failure for microsoft.  It will be worse
than windows for workgroups, because the hype has been so much greater.
-- 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: jss@cs.bham.ac.uk (John Swapp-Sweet)
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Organization: University of Birmingham
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 09:56:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.000734.63146@cc.usu.edu>, sl1yn@avon.declab.usu.edu (869483 Denys Larry) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan25.064002.3937@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
|> 
|> 	[A hell of a lot of bitching about IBM deleted here.]
|> 
|> 
|>   That was very nice bit of ranting, Brian.  Now how about a similar 
|> article about the lies and distortions of Crapsoft...er, Microsludge...er,
|> damn, just can't get it right...Microsoft.  You could break it up into
|> a four or five part series.
|> 
|>  

One could produce a ten part series on _real_ WIN apps.  You could so the same
for OhhSlowww/2.0 but only if you break it into ten parts of 2 apps!
From: hwhalen@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Hugh Whalen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: os2 what good is it?
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:16:30 GMT
Organization: Faculty of Administration, University of New Brunswick

In article <8525@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1jrve7INNma@bigboote.WPI.EDU> trav@wpi.WPI.EDU (Travis Charles Korthas) writes:
>>What the HELL is os2 good for?  I heard it was gonna be 50 meg at 
>>LEAST!
>
>You heard wrong. It'll do just fine in 20-25 meg.
>
>>I can do anything os2 can do with my windows!
>
>....except run reliably.

I run Windows and lots of different software - Wordperect, Word for 
Windows, Excel, PowerPoint, WinQVTnet, Paradox, dBase :-(, Access, 
AfterDark, Norton Desktop, Printcache, Crosstalk for Windows, Packrat 
etc. I have also run Turbo C++ for Windows, I spend an average of six 
hours a day on my machine. It has been over a month since I had a 
crash or a GPF. I run less on my home machine but I haven't had a 
crash (that I can recall) on that machine since I loaded Windows 3.1 
(about a week after it's release date). While your milage may vary it 
seems pretty reliable to me.

My $.02 worth.

Hugh Whalen                     | Where all men think alike, no one
Faculty of Administration       | thinks very much.
University of New Brunswick     |               - Walter Lippmann			


DISCLAIMER: Neither UNB nor I care what the other thinks.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2
From: tujf@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Jay F. Tu)
Subject: CD ROM Drive for OS/2 2.1 beta and future multimedia applications
Followup-To: poster
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:30:25 GMT

I am looking for a CD ROM drive with SCSI adaptor for installing
OS/2 2.1 beta and future multimedia applications.
Can anybody recommend a best-value combination for me.
Also where can I purchase the multimedia plateform/2 and what is
the price?
Thanks in advance.

Jay
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: The DOS 6.0beta OS/2 message.
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:52:30 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University



	Okay, here is what DOS 6.0 apparently tells you if you have 
OS/2 installed on a FAT partition.  Judge for yourselves if you think it
is unfair or not:

"WARNING:   SETUP has detected OS/2 files on the drive.  Although you may
still install MS-DOS 6.0, these files take up a large amount of disk
space.  You may also make your OS/2 partition unusable by installing
MS-DOS 6.0.  See GETTING STARTED in your manual for details."

	You are then given the option to abort installation.

						-Brad



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Microsoft and Force continued.
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:52:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.180153.268676@locus.com>, lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:

|> Hmm, you must have grown up in some very small towns, like a Gas Station and
|> a McDonalds??  Even the smallest towns in the California Desert have two or

In case you haven't noticed dude, Indiana ain't california :-)

|> >|> There really are not (without OS/2)
|> >|> for the 20 million PC's (for which MS has sold 1000 million coppies
|> >|> including upgrades over the last 10 years).
|> >
|> >This sentence just _slays_ me, because it is desparatly trying to assert that
|> >a) there is no alternative, and that b) OS/2 is an alternative.
|> >
|> No, my friend, you have once again misread things.  I said that there are
|> no other operating systems for the pc that rate more than a 2% or so
|> market status.  Unix, Linux, SCO, AIX386, DR-DOS together total about
|> 10% of the market,  OS/2 today constitutes probably 5% (if you have a 50%
|> on the shelf rate).  This would imply that Microsoft has an 80+% predominance
|> on the desktop.  Some would call that a defacto "M" word.  If it can be
|> proven that MS has conspired to keep these others out of the market place
|> (and that is certianly true of DR-DOS) then it is more than a Defacto
|> monopoly.  OS/2 is hurting from advertizing by Gates and other that has no
|> definable purpose than "killing" OS/2..

You want to ban free speech now too????

|> And if it _slays_ you, how come you responded.  Desperate, I think that 
|> your responses and deliberate misreading and misdirection far more
|> eloquently say FEAR and Desperation than anything I could come up with.
|> 
|> --Uncle Wolf

Now Uncle Wolf
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:12918 comp.os.os2:567
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2
Subject: Re: CD ROM Drive for OS/2 2.1 beta and future multimedia applications
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:27:32 GMT
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.

In article <1993Jan27.153506.10340@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> sci240s@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Wey Jing HO) writes:
>In <anderson.59.728062949@mayo.edu> anderson@mayo.edu (Alfred I. Anderson) writes:
>
>>In article <1993Jan22.203025.12553@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tujf@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Jay F. Tu) writes:
>>>From: tujf@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Jay F. Tu)
>>>Subject: CD ROM Drive for OS/2 2.1 beta and future multimedia applications
>>>Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:30:25 GMT
>
>>I'm currently using an NEC CDR-84 with an Adaptec 1542B and this is working 
>>just fine with OS/2 2.1 Beta (6.479).  Haven't tried it with Windows NT 
>>yet.		
>
>>(the NEC is a loaner.  I was going to order one of those but it is not Photo 
>>CD compatible).
>
>Anyone know what CD ROM player/drive is Photo CD compatible as well as
>meeting the multimedia specs and is supported under OS/2?
>
>-- 

The brand new TOSHIBA XM3401 meets the bill, and you can get it for
an attractive price if you join IBM's DAP. BTW the XM3401 wont be
shipping till mid February; at least in the NW. :(

...Paul

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------