HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 04:22:14 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In <1992Jul30.094508.29104@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

[ lai@seas.gwu.edu comments that he can understand MS not developing
apps for a competing OS ]

[ xtifr@netcom.com replies that MS *does*, after all develop for the Mac ]

>The difference is, the Macintosh is an established system.  MS has no
>obligation to write Apps for any system.

Absolutely.  OC, MS is, to some extent, rooting for OS/2 to fail, but
my point was that they *do* develop for the Mac.  I suspect that they
make far more money off of apps than OSes, and I'm sure that once they
feel that OS/2 is successful, they will develop for it.  OC, by then, it
may be too late, or it may not.  Being first counts for a lot, but so
does being good, and from all reports, Excel and Word are good apps. 
And I certainly think that MSC is an excellent compiler.

>Oh, yeah, if you really want MS apps for OS/2, get your friends together
>and complain to MS.  However, I think you should want the apps for wanting
>the apps, not to make OS/2 a success.  Seems kind of sleazy to me if you
>request MS apps just to make OS/2 more popular, and then buy other apps.

Agreed, wholeheartedly.  And I have asked MS, both on the net and
through their support line, to release MSC for OS/2.  And if they do
finally release it before I break down and buy some other compiler for
OS/2, I will be overjoyed.  But if they wait too long....

I've been a happy and satisfied owner of MSC since v4.0.  But right now,
I've got my v7.0 upgrade sitting in a unopened stack on my shelf.  I'm
still using v6.0a because I can use *it* to develop for both OS/2 and
DOS.  If I can't get any more upgrades (at least, not upgrades that are
useful to me), I will vote with my pocketbook, and compile with someone
else's compiler.

>Heck, you run apps, not operating systems anyway.  (Don't tell me you spend
>your whole day formatting floppies and running batch files, Yeuch).

I run a *lot* of batch files, actually.  :-)  But yes, I agree.  However,
I'm hardly going to be willing to use a single-tasking non-reentrant OS
for the work I do.  I need OS/2, NT or DV.  And since I already own both
OS/2 and DV, I'm not jumping with enthusiasm about the idea of buying
yet another OS, just so I can stick with the same compiler I've always
used.  Worst case, I'll go back to DV.  I don't really care that much
about the OS, but I do need decent multitasking, and I'm upset that MS
has *removed* the support for one of the multitasking systems I use. 
From what seems to be the desire to sell me yet another multitasking
system.  Thanks, but no thanks. 
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: nt, an assessment
From: jstewart@desire.wright.edu
Date: 22 Jul 92 06:22:17 EST
Distribution: comp
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <92203.091130CATHIE@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, CATHIE@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
> Stephen Dawson wrote:
> 
>   (stuff deleted)
> 
>   There will be a major OS/2 2.0 CSD in September, and a
>   multi-processor version in November.
> 
>   (more stuff deleted)
> 
> Gordon, if this happens does it mean some of us can make our flight
> reservations?  I really want lunch in Seattle.  Okay, I'll admit that I'm
> optimistic.  (For those who don't know, there was a bet made and accepted
> last March regarding this.)
> 
> 
> Cathie Burke Dager   cathie@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu   415-926-2904
> ---> the opinions expressed are mine alone and not necessarily those
>      of SLAC, Stanford University or the DOE
> ---> the above disclaimer is not mine alone and does not reflect my
>      opinion or personality

	Hey, if you go get a group picture or two label em and put em up on the
net:)  
							J. S.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: johnm@cory.Berkeley.EDU (John D. Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Paid Microsoft employees
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:56:56 GMT

In article <4hR-qD@engin.umich.edu> spexet@engin.umich.edu (Dennis Robert Spexet) writes:
[...]
>It seems to me that what we are debating is an issue of style and corporate
>etiquette, rather than Usenet etiquette.  There is really nothing that is 
>"illegal" about the snide remarks and insults that have come from various
>Microsoft personnel in regards to IBM things.

I'll interject that if y'all would step over to the news.newusers group
you'll be able to find a whole slew of periodically posted articles about
the 'proper' UseNet/Internet behavior (etiquette if you will :-).

>However, I must hasten to add that these remarks do not give a good impres-
>sion of the company, its employees, or its products.  To be very blunt, I
>(as a customer) must ask myself:  Why is Microsoft making degrading remarks
>towards a competitor's product?  What have they to gain from this?  More
>bluntly, if their product is as good as they claim it is, why are they running
>around insulting and degrading their competitors in front of customers?

This is by far the biggest issue (in my opinion of course).

To compare and contrast to companies with well established track records...
IBM not only has a very polite official posting policy, they actually live
by it too.  Microsoft has always prided itself on its aggressiveness.

Some people see the behavior of Microsoft employees as distastefully rude.
Others see it as just being very forward (read: aggressive).  There have
been many stories (with varying degrees of reliability) of Microsoft
employees either with explicit or implicit permission who have gone and
sabotaged competitors.  Look at the fiasco at Borland's Developer
Conference a month or so ago for a wonderful example.

I think that many at Microsoft have mistaken playing hardball with dirty
tricks.  It's also their choice to behave however they do and it's our
choice as consumers whether or not to support their behavior by buying
their products.

Have fun,
	John D. Mitchell
	johnm@cory.Berkeley.EDU

P.S.	I speak for my self.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:3414 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1676
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
Summary: Aaarrrggghhh! #8^o
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:55:06 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Jul30.200725.27897@mercury.unt.edu> mcmichel@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Lonny McMichael) writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.160022.28509@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) writes:
>>What does MS consider selling well for OS/2?  Will MS really wait
>>for OS/2 to have 2 million users before thinking of writing apps
>>for OS/2?  They would have to catch up to there competition.
>                                           ^^^^^
>
>Look everyone, Mike Levis can't spell either!
>
>Lonny

Their is nothing wrong with my spelling.  Let me retype it for you, okay?
``They would have to catch up to they're competition.''
Satisfied now?

#8^)   #8^)   #8^)

ObOS/2:  IBM's offer is almost over!   Upgrade to OS/2 2.0 now!
         Offer ends Friday!   Call 1-800-3IBM-OS2 now!
         $49 from Windows, $99 from DOS!  Don't miss out!


-- 
       === Mike Levis    mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ===
 .--.  ::  Call 1-800-3IBM-OS2 to order OS/2 2.0!!  ::
(OS/2) ::  Upgrade $49 from Windows, $99 from DOS.  ::
 ~--~  ::: IBM's offer ends July 31, 1992!  Hurry! :::
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bergstro@src.honeywell.com (Pete Bergstrom)
Subject: Re: OS2 Good news and Bad news  (OS2 & a little windows too)
To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Posted-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 12: 23:45 CDT
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:23:45 GMT
Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 12: 23:46 CDT

From: morton@qucdntri.ee.queensu.ca
>> Yep, I think so! I've been a staunch DOS user for many-a-year, but now that
>> I'm in Electrical/Computer Engineering, I'm more educated, and although
>> OS2/2 is pretty nifty, I want to know why wysiwyg applications still 
>> crawl on my 80386 when they were pretty fast on the 68000's. Within the 
>> next couple of months, I'm going to do some serious looking into
>> whatever Mac it is based on the 68030 and 68040. 

If you're comparing screen performance of the Mac Plus/SE type of
machine to your 386 pc, there are a heck of a lot fewer pixels to
sling around the screen.  They also are only 1 bit, rather than the
more typical 4-8 bits on pc's.

>Somebody e-mailed me about this one but I lost their address so I'll reply here.

That was probably me.

>Maybe I'm confusing a software problem with a hardware problem. I'm new to OS2
>so I've only ever used DOS/Win apps in OS2. When I see WPfW take just
>for ever scrolling,
>in OS2 just like it did in Windows, I blame it on the hardware. I
>guess this could be
>just poor programming for a poor operating system, and maybe WP for
>OS2 is good and fast.

>Could anybody comment on this? (ie. Big Windows apps are deadly slow. 
>How about actual OS2 apps? Is it a fundamental problem win Intel based machines, 
>or is DOS just a fundamentally poor OS.) 

Leaving aside the rhetorical (I assume) msdog question, app
performance all depends on what work is being done.  If you're just
moving a bitmap around the screen, OS/2 is plenty fast on my 20 MHz
386dx with 8 megs.  Look at Klondike for example.  You can pick up a
card with the mouse and wave it back and forth across the screen.
I even have a program that moves an irregularly shaped bitmap (like a
puzzle piece) in the same manner.  It works very well.

If WP4Win actually tries to recompute areas of the screen as it is
being scrolled, it is likely that it will be very slow.  If it draws
each page to a hidden bitmap and refreshes the screen from the bitmap,
it could be somewhat better.  IMHO, it takes a good design that takes
advantage of the platform to make an acceptable program.  Note: most
Mac applications follow guidelines about how to do things and only
deviate when it is deemed necessary.  

Pete
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: craigdo@microsoft.com (Craig Dowell)
Subject: Edlin is useful ( Was: Re: What's wrong with ... )
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:36:33 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <dlcogswe.711978759@vela> dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell) writes:
>ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>
>>Eh? I LIKE Edlin. For editing short batch files theres nothing
>>quicker.
>
>Well, that pretty much discredits anything further you say.  
>
>I suppose you like command.com and GW-Basic, too.

Don't you think that's a bit harsh?  There is truth in what Iskandar says.
I've worked on a lot of various Unix systems and you will always find an
ed on those systems.  You'll usually find a vi.  These are useful since
they are there.  If you don't know how to use ed or vi and you can't find
your emacs what do you do (other than quit :-).

If you are bringing up a system and don't have your favorite editor working
these little pieces of shit can be very useful.

-- Craig

P.S. I'd still use emacs to edit a short batch file, though.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ekl@fics.uucp
Subject: Re: New version of DOS coming out? (NOOO!! Anything but *that*!)
Organization: Kvam data as
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:42:19 GMT

In article <33mm!zf.xtifr@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>2.  Contrariwise, I can't imagine why anyone would need more than 80
>characters for PATH.  PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin is sufficient
>for much larger, more powerful systems.  I have an opinion of people who
>complain about only being able to have 128 characters in their path, but
>I'm far too polite to express that opinion here.  :-)
>
>Chris "Just using OS/2 'cause it's cheaper than a home UNIX" Waters
>-- 
>Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
>xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!

Those systems mentioned above generally also have the concept of
hard or soft links in the file system. Given that, a short path
will suffice.

Now, given a *big* installation, a path of 128+ characters may very
well be needed.

Eirik
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bergstro@src.honeywell.com (Pete Bergstrom)
Subject: Re: OS2 Good news and Bad news  (OS2 & a little windows too)
To: comp.os.os2.advocacy, morton@qucdntri.ee.queensu.ca
Posted-Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 16: 20:20 CDT
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:20:20 GMT
Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 16: 20:28 CDT

From: morton@qucdntri.ee.queensu.ca:

>Yep, I think so! I've been a staunch DOS user for many-a-year, but now that
>I'm in Electrical/Computer Engineering, I'm more educated, and although
>OS2/2 is pretty nifty, I want to know why wysiwyg applications still 
>crawl on my 80386 when they were pretty fast on the 68000's. Within the 
>next couple of months, I'm going to do some serious looking into
>whatever Mac it is based on the 68030 and 68040. 

Can you elaborate on the wysiwyg apps that are so slow?  I've been
using with OS/2 for some time now and don't feel that the speed of the
OS has much to do with response time.  There are several apps
available (Klondike for one) that have quite good performance for
moving a bitmap around the screen (I have a 20 MHz 386dx, SpeedStar
video adapter, 8 Megs of ram).

Another app that came with the Toolkit I just bought allows you to
drag irregular shaped bitmaps (actually, they're puzzle pieces) around
the screen and again, the responsiveness is more than adequate.  

IMHO, most of the sluggishness that people report about OS/2
applications is probably due to poor design and less than optimal
implementation.  I expect to spend some effort using threaded
processing to make my programs as responsive as possible.

Pete
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 21:44:03 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.092625.14155@cs.hw.ac.uk> neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite) writes:

>Look and feel. Mac wins hands down. There is *no* contest.

Ugh. Gag. Spew. I could go on and on about how stupid the 
Mac GUI feels these days. I could start, for instance, with
how apps in the background can obscure your drive icons 
when the Finder is in the foreground. Or how difficult it 
is to get things out of the way quickly. But I won't, because
I've done it already at least three times in the last six 
months.



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
From: gt0059e@prism.gatech.EDU (Garrett Drysdale)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why we shouldn't attack MS Employees (and other thoughts)
Date: 26 Jul 92 04:14:21 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <76534@ut-emx.uucp> varmint@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Samir Varma) writes:
>Lately there have been lots of posts attacking MS Employees and some responses
>from them attacking IBM employees.  Can we please stop this?  It is not 
>our (OS/2 users) interest.  Consider the following:
> Other  Samir Varma

k
[some stuff deleted]

jllJust because someone works for m icrosoft does not immediately make 
them an exper t on NT; just as an IBM employ is not an immediate expert on
OS2.  As far as I can tell none of the M$ employees discussinga the major OS
issues of the future are even working directly on the NT system.  Although
they may have SOME information, I doubt that they are informed of every
small byt important detail about NT developement.  (Most companies gernerally
have somewhat of a Need to Konwow (Know) policy.

(Sorry for all the typos; I just can't seem to get the hang of VI)
:i
-- 
Garrett Drysdale
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt0059e
Internet: gt0059e@prism.gatech.edu
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:3153 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1519 comp.sys.acorn:8002
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Ultimate OS/2 FTP Source
Keywords: FTP, OS/2, FREE, SOFTWARE
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:12:50 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <Jul.21.20.50.06.1992.7441@pilot.njin.net> johnt@pilot.njin.net (John Thiruvathukal) writes:
>
>The source is : SOFTWARE.WATSON.IBM.COM  and look into the pub\os2\
>directory.  There are also other goodies for other IBM os's like AIX.
>
>This is probably the best source as it is likely to get the latest
>doodads and bug fixes FIRST!

Watson has been known about for about a week here.  It doesn't have
much more than bug fixes, though.

It also has patches for IBM's other systems: AIX and some database
server (whose name escapes me).

-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM MARKETING
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 13:16:46 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Jul25.214821.10289@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith) writes:
> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
> 
> >The sales people in the shop, though, keep on selling the Windows bundles and
> >the almost never mention OS/2 when talking to customers. This is changing -
> >slowly - but the lack of applications  - today - is hindering the ability of
> >sales people to promote OS/2. 
> 
> Today I was talking to the manager of a local Bizmart here in Columbus,
> Ohio, and he said something I've always thought to be true: Even if
> there were NO OS/2 apps available now or in the future, OS/2 would
> still be worth buying and promoting simply for its DOS and Windows
> compatibility.

*I* agree with *you*. But the folks I have been talking to in the shop see it
this way: 
 
"I am just a little person. I have little requirements. I want a little
system to run my little programs." 
 
If you make OS/2 appear to be "too big" (ie. complicated, full of features)
they get scared. It's too intimidating. We don't sell all the Windows software
we could for the same reason! Windows scares hell  out of some people......
 
I spoke to several people this week for whom the DOS prompt is a modern
version of magic and mystery. 
 
I have been promoting OS/2  from the point of view of its simplicity:
 
"see the little pictures there, Ma'am? You just point this gizmo here at one
of them - push the little button two times - and watch it go!"

This appeals to some people - especially anyonw who has wrestled with a
stroppy PIF.
 
Not much you can do about ignorance........
 
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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: jja@wsl.ie (John J. Allen)
Subject: Re: OS/2 apps for OS/2
Organization: Workhorse Systems Limited, Dublin, Ireland
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 10:46:05 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.161639.5706@microsoft.com> gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin) writes:
>    2) OS/2 runs windows applications.  I hear every day how well it
>    	does so.  So who in their right minds will write apps for
>    	OS/2 PM - and only run on OS/2 - when they could write apps
>    	for Windows and run on BOTH platforms?

I hope you have the same attitude to Windows NT when it is released,
ie. don't develop NT apps as NT can run Win 3 apps & OS/2 character mode
apps.

Or don't write MAC apps as the MAC can run DOS programs.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: spexet@engin.umich.edu (Dennis Robert Spexet)
Subject: Re: OS2 Good news and Bad news  (OS2 & a little windows too)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 20:18:43 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: world 

In article <1992Jul26.233543.8897@msc.cornell.edu> maynard@ept.msc.cornell.edu (Maynard J. Handley) writes:
>...for example my SE/30 drives a color screen and the
>internal BW screen, treating the two as one large screen. When I drag a
>color window to straddle half in the B/W and half in the color screen, the
>B/W half is dithered to draw itself as best it can... 

To install a new display on a Macintosh is incredibly easy, when compared to
the tricks and hurdles that one must pass when installing a display on a PC.

I must agree with Mr. Handley's assessment of the usefulness of multiple
screens.  You haven't lived until you've used a Mac II with *4* 19-inch color
screens, each of which holds 1/4 of the Macintosh desktop.  I had it configured
to strech the desktop horizontally across all 4 screens, since they were
sitting in a row.  It's incredibly easy to do this, also.

>Maynard Handley


-- 
D. Robert Spexet II, N0OKR   Internet:  spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu
Department of Mathematics    BITnet:    user68xr@umichum.bitnet
The University of Michigan   UUCP:      uunet!mailrus!math.lsa.umich.edu!spexet
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: lai@seas.gwu.edu (William Y. Lai)
Subject: Re: O Things OS/2 has or can do that Windows doesn't or can't do. (Grammar?)
Keywords: Scroll
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 00:53:43 GMT

I have heard about this "list," but have yet to see one.  Would the official
list keeper mind posting it?  



William Lai
-- 
email: lai@seas.gwu.edu | "I want to do everything.  I want to have everything.
Dept. of Electrical Eng.|  I have a wonderful, wonderful life.  But there's so
George Washington Univ. |  much more out there.  Do I have it all?  Yes.  Do I
Washington, D.C.        |  want more?  Yeah, sure."     -Demi Moore        
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:3455 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1702
From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
Date: 31 Jul 1992 16:37:43 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University

In article <nv@byu.edu> earlyd@ee.byu.edu (David Early) writes:
>
[stuff deleted]
>
>>     	Windows playform to service the OS/2-PM platform.  That's
>                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Am I the only one who caught this sub-conscious slip???  The Windows 'playform'
>is acurate.  That is all I ever see anyone using it for: entertainment.
>
Oh come on.  The 'y' is right next to the 't' on the keyboard.  Quit
wasting time with stuff that has no bearing on the subject.  Some
of us would actually like this forum to address real issues -
advantages/disadvantages of OS/2 and comparisons with other items
existing and in development are reasonable.  

By the way, will EVERYONE please set their news posting editors to
limit line length to 70 characters or so.  This is for two reasons:

1) It is hard to read very long lines and quickly comprehend the
thought presented, and

2) Some character mode newsreaders limit the line length to 80
characters and the wrap makes reading even harder.


--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
bdubbs@sadis01.sa.aflc.af.mil |  Scrupulous Lawyer
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy