HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: finsys@cpva.saic.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:47:03 PST
Organization: Science Applications Int'l Corp./San Diego

In article <7535@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
> In article <12292.2ad54c5c@cpva.saic.com> finsys@cpva.saic.com writes:
>>Sorry for the ambiguity.  I meant as far as system size, requirements, etc.
>>OS/2 includes a lot a features, and corresponding complexity, that seem
>>excessive for those of who simply want a good stable multitasker.
> 
> That's just it, though: OS/2 is the first really stable DOS multitasker. Even
> DESQview, which is good enough for a lot of folks, is vulnerable to a DOS
> program running amok; OS/2 isn't, by design. The system has to be a LOT more
> complex to go the last little bit. If you don't like the WPS, or HPFS, or
> other fancinesses, turn them off!
> -- 
> Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can

I realize that OS/2 is the 'first really stable DOS multitasker.'   However, as
the thread started out discussing bundling, I simply playing devil's advocate. 
OS/2 has more features and complexity than are required for a stable
multitasker ( good and useful features - granted).
                       
That's why I asked Pete about WIN32s' hardware requirements.   What I want is
OS/2 power taking up  .. say.. ~10-15 mb hardisk space.  (No, I don't have OS/2
yet[ who can I get to sign this PO], so this may be possible.)  OS/2 was design
for great things, I just don't need all of them.

Now, if OS/2 can fit in only a little more disk space than WIN3.1, and
offer all its extra power (more than just 'Crash Protection'), then IBM should
be advertising as such.  Kind of a 'Look what you get for 4mb more RAM and 7 mb
more disk space'.  With a cleaned up installation routine and such a message, I
think OS/2 would be selling even better (Not too much to hope for 2.01- fingers
crossed)

Lawrence Dee
SAIC
my opinions only
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: d9mikael@dtek.chalmers.se (Mikael Wahlgren)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:04:22 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg Sweden

hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:

>> BRIAN, could you do me a favour?  Tell your friends at Microsoft that
>> you need a remote login capability for Windows/NT. and tell them to
>> send me the Windows/NT SDK for FREE.  I have a problem with Microsoft...
>> They want me to pay 100 USD for the SDK, and I don't think it is worth
>> that currently...

>Mikael, why should Brian do so. You told us in c.o.m.p.win32 that you
>already have a copy of the CD.

Well, I don't remember exactly what I said.  I think I told in the win32
newsgroup my experiences when INSTALLING the Win NT SDK.  I don't
remember saying that MY company (the one developing OS2toYOU) owned
the Win NT SDK.  You should know that I work at different places, and
thus come in contact with software, that are not mine, and thus can't
be used for developing my own programs.

The conclusion is:  Yes, I have some experience with the Win NT SDK,
but NO, I don't own it myself.

Mikael Wahlgren

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7176 comp.os.os2.misc:32359
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Shutdown failure (?)
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:55:13 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct6.204738.2623@networx.com> mikel@networx.com (Mike Lempriere) writes:
>Okay, so how do I make  my generic C program recognize a shutdown?
>As far as I can tell, OS/2 2.0 is too stupid to send any signal
>(standard C library signal) to each running program, on either a
>desktop-shutdown, or a ctrl-alt-del.

Your generic-C program runs in a character-mode window or a
full-screen session.  The session handles this by putting up the
"Closing this window... Are you sure?..." dialog.  A PM program will
get a WM_SHUTDOWN message.

>I have a server process running at all times, and I'd like it to
>shutdown nicely.  The program just passes requests from other programs
>in/out the com port to another computer.

Give it a message queue.  I think it'll have to be a PM program,
though.  I could be wrong, though.  I haven't ever tried to put a
message queue in a VIO application.

>I'm assuming that a desktop-shutdown sends a PM msg of some sort to
>each PM process.  Is this the only way to do this?  It would be really
>annoying to have to make this little low-level thing that doesn't even
>use the screen into a full-blown PM app.

I don't know if it's possible or not.  Either way, a PM program can be
quite small.  If it doesn't have any ouput, then all you need to do is
have a WinInitialize, a WinRegisterClass, and a WinCreateMsgQueue.
Then at the end of your program, you do a WinDestroyMsgQueue and a
WinTerminate.  Your message procedure simply calls WinDefWindowProc
for all messages except for the WM_SHUTDOWN message, which you'd be
handling.  Your program opens no window, doesn't appear on the task
list, and runs normally.  The only restriction is that you send text
to the console once you're a PM app.


-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 20:26:31 GMT

In article <92283.115743MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu> Spiro the Spiny Goldfish <MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.004641.12214@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu
>(Brian Sturgill) says:
>>
>>As to the developer kit costing $2,600... you PAID that much?
>>Sheesh.. I certainly wouldn't have.
>>I wonder if the fact that they had left OS/2 2.0 related to the kit price?
>
>No, it didn't have anything to do with it. The kit cost $2600 when it first
>came out, before OS/2 1.3 was even released, and MORE THAN A YEAR before the
>IBM-Microsoft split.
>
>Brian, it's obvious you don't know anything about the history of the subject.
>Please leave the discussions to those of us who have something factual to add.

According to the OS/2 1.3 press release on ftp-os2, OS/2 1.3 came
out in October 1990, according to Dietal and Kogan, Microsoft and IBM made
the split public in September 1990 (i.e. before 1.3 came out).  Microsoft
would have been gearing up for the split for some time before.

As to my not "knowing anything about the history of the subject"?  I seem
to have the dates down a lot better than you do.  As to my speculation
about the history of the price... read the sentance!

	"I wonder...."
Sounds like I'm not sure, no?

>----
>Mike Dahmus       MXD118@PSUVM  or  dahmus@cs.psu.edu
>TEAM OS/2


Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
University of Utah                             United We Stand
Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
From: akashi@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Asaf F1 Kashi)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: OS/2 beta
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:40:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.Bw8BzA.3IG
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

Has anyone gotten the OS/2 beta to install on an EISA 486 machine and/or using
the Speedstar 24X graphics card???

I just got this machine and didn't try to install the original version yet. 
Should I?  Is there anything in particular I should do??  The install hangs at
the screen with the 3 OS/2 symbols after completing the printer installation.
(ie. before 32 bit graphics engine or Win 3.1 disks)

Help...

Asaf.
akashi@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: best target platform: OS/2 1.x!?!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:18:24 GMT

In <1992Oct09.183431.1318@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>In article <1992Oct9.013333.19999@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>>In <1992Oct08.184014.29255@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct8.005854.1431@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Consider the following little table:
>>>>
>>>>                             Target Environment
>>>>Apps               DOS     Win   OS/2 1.x   OS/2 2.x   Win NT
>>>>-------           --------------------------------------------
>>>>DOS                Yes     Yes    1/2         Yes       1/2
>>
>>>     Windows NT should get a Yes in the DOS row.  I'm not sure why you
>>>have it as 1/2.
>>
>>Because of the limited compatibility.  Same reason I put 1/2 under OS/2
>>1.x.  Actually, it could easily be argued that this row should have
>>yesses across the board.  I wouldn't have a problem with that.

>     Which limited compatibility is that?

The announcement by MS that NT will only support the "top 100 DOS apps".
I have over 100 DOS apps on my system alone.  I have no idea how good
NT's DOS support will actually be when the thing is actually released; I
have nothing to go by except MS's official statements.  For that matter,
I have no idea, except from the rumors I've heard, how good OS/2 1.x's
DOS compatibility is...

>>>    There are rumors that OS/2 2.0 may also support Win32s, but
>>>no official announcement from IBM that I am aware of.
>>
>>No idea.  I think that GUIs are for feebs and moroons, so I really
>>don't know or care.  <deliberate flamebait>  :-)

>     Flameflameflame.

Thanks, I feel so much better now.  It's such a drag to post flamebait
and have it be ignored.  Nice to know I can count on MS for *something*!
<huge grin>

Geeze, Phil keeps ignoring the meat of my posts.  Can *anyone* tell me
who is selling OS/2 1.x today?  Where can I buy it, who sells compilers
for it?  I may not want to use it on my development machine, but I still
think that it could be an excellent target environment for dedicated
workstations.  Unless it's outrageously priced.  Isn't it part of the MS
LAN Manager package?  Can't I set up a network with an NT server and
OS/2 1.x (or even 2.0) workstations?  Am I lost in a fantasy land? 
Again?  :-)

Never mind.  Having covered the controversial aspects of my thesis, I
suppose I should move the less-controversial questions to .misc or
something.
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jja@wsl.ie (John J. Allen)
Subject: Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.
Organization: Project Papyrus, AIRAID, Dublin, Ireland
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 11:22:13 GMT

brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
: But I think you miss the whole point of the chronology that I dug out.
: MS "abandoned" OS/2 BEFORE 2.0, and in fact largely because of IBM's
: resistance to 2.0.  Microsoft wanted to make the system right, but
: IBM kept clinging to its illusion that it was still in control of
: the computing market.  The decision on Microsoft's part to split

So Microsoft abandoned the system they wanted to build because IBM would
not let them, and then went on to build something else. 

Whereas after the split over IBM not wanting to build something that MS
did, IBM built it.

Your arguments are bordering on the insane.
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Date: 9 Oct 92 09:32:29 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.

In article <1992Oct8.183246.18297@njitgw.njit.edu>, dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
|> Or without administering.  I do this semi-regularly.  When I'm at an
|> x-term at NJIT, here's my setup:
|>
|> [horror story of multi logins on different machines for WM, mail, clock
|>  etc. deleted ]

It seems to me that this horrendous mess of remote logins, different userids
etc. is exactly the sort of thing that a unified system like NT would avoid.
[It there is only a single userid then the issue of multi-user capabilities
does not arise!]

For example, is it really necessary to _log in_ to a remote machine to find
out if you have mail? Personally I'd rather have a distributed mail
application that did this sort of thing for me.

I consider remote login to be a necessary evil to overcome the lack of
sensible distributed applications. NT provides the environment to fill this
gap. However, it is a *necessary* evil and so I would urge MS to provide this
in the base package.

p.s. Why are you not running xdm? The system you describe has a security hole
a mile wide.
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph Malloy)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.x will loose its battle against NT if .....
Date: 11 Oct 92 15:19:48 GMT
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY

In article <1992Oct9.044959.5646@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>In <1992Oct9.003603.1793@news.Hawaii.Edu> lkan@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Linus Kan) writes:
>
[re: NT pricing at $500?]
>
>>I don't think so--it's just a gimmick!  It's an estimated price
>>so that tempted users like me would buy OS/2 because it's cheap.
>
>That's preposterous.  Why on earth would Microsoft try to persuade
>people to buy the competitions' products?  Or did you not hear the news?
>Microsoft doesn't make or support OS/2 any more.  OS/2 2.0 is an IBM
>product.  MS is competing with IBM.  They had a little falling out, and
>are no longer on such friendly terms as they once were.

It's not at all preposterous!  MS still cashes in with license fees or
royalty payments for each copy of OS/2 2.0 sold (for DOS and Windows
emulations), right? 

No matter where you stand on this 'tastes great/less filling' issue, no
one can deny that Microsoft knows how to market and (at least with
regard to OS/2 2.0) IBM doesn't!

Joe Malloy
Der .siglose Mann...
>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Organization: Nanyang Technological University - Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:11:05 GMT

Mitch Kahn (mkahn@hopi.sedona.intel.com) wrote:
: 
: In retrospect, I guess we could do a 200MHz 8086 equivalent :-).
: 
Why no! It can be the fastest PC on earth. Given that so many people still
run DOS programs, and scientific applications like lorenz do not use a lot
of RAM.
	Lack of RAM? No bother. Use RAMDISK.
It could be the cheapest as well because the die size will be very small.

C&T  I believe is still working on one but they intend to include all the PC
support chips as well. I do not think this is a good idea because the
support chips are only meant for 8Mhz operation.

	It may be better to incorporate zero wait state at 200Mhz VGA on the
chip die and even the bios, with flag bits to disable them.

Now let us see which one is faster, RISC or CISC.

--
Othman bin Ahmad, School of EEE,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 2263.
Internet Email: eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg
Bitnet Email: eoahmad@ntuvax.bitnet
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: CSD, Service Packs, etc. How? When? Where?
Date: 10 Oct 92 20:32:47 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Oct5.182336.24690@njitgw.njit.edu>, dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (Davi
d Charlap) writes:
>In article <ccc.3.718126754@williams.edu> ccc@williams.edu (CCC) writes:

>>4) Where can I find the CSDs, Service Packs, the beta, etc.?
>
>The beta can be ordered.  IBM has a toll-free number, but I don't know
>it.
>
1-800-IBM-3040 and it is totally free.

>--
>David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
>dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
>----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
>Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
>
-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
From: jyri+@CMU.EDU (Jyri Virkki)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 10 Oct 92 18:30:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.wept6zC00WB3EubGRE
	<1992Oct10.233819.303@microsoft.com>
Organization: Masters student, Information Networking Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> >  
> > >     Why is Zachmann more credible?  He clearly has an agenda.  So do
> > >his editors.
> > 
> > Because he has little to gain by making up such an incident.
> 
> That makes him more credible?
> MS's gains are of an understandable nature, purely financial.
> Zachmanns gains are of a personal nature, hardly understandable.
> He obviously has some sort of thing to gain by slamming MS every
> chance he gets.  He has shown this in many of his articles.  I

Wild idea: Have you ever thought that maybe he criticizes microsoft
products because they are, in his professional opinion, trash? No,
couldn't be, since anything produced by microsoft has, by definition,
to be the best in it's class, therefore any criticism must be
purely for other, hidden reasons. Right?

Disclaimer: I'm not familiar with the case. I just find it hilarious
how people can assume 'hidden reasons' when they see their product
being criticized, instead of entertaining the thought that maybe the
product is simply bad.

--
Jyri J. Virkki | DoD#561 | jyri+@cmu.edu | Carnegie Mellon University | MSINI
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: OS/2 because! (was NT: Why?)
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:39:43 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct13.014915.18081@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct10.215820.49288@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>
>>>  You seem to have misread what he said though.  Cairo
>>>is quite irrelevant except for FUD purposes.  It might be quite good, but it
>>>will not be released for a good bit of time even in beta form and thus really
>>>shouldn't be a serious conversation point.
>
>>     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?
>
>There are released products and unreleased products.  Within the latter,
>there are betas, pre-betas, and gleams in the programmers' eyes.  The
>distinction between them being the expected time until release.  If Cairo
>is going to come out anytime close to when Win-OS/2 3.1 will be out, then
>we can compare it.

     So the cut-off for validity of discussion is related to the release
time of Win-OS/2 3.1?


>  Otherwise, you're telling people to wait because
>something better is going to be in half a year, or a year, or a few years,
>which is generally regarded as FUD.

     I told no one to wait for anything.  I mentioned in passing that
when the Cairo shell was released, there would be people that would
like it.  I was told that this statement was FUD.

					-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: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:51:57 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <Eeq6f=W00WB6A4qoQq@andrew.cmu.edu> jyri+@CMU.EDU wrote:
> 
> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> >  
> > I'd suggest you go read some of his articles.  You may see what I mean.
> > I'd suggest that you read them assuming both Zachmann and myself are
> 
> Anyone has a list of when and where were these published?
> 

PC Week.  Check out any of the Zachmann articles over the last few years.


petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Date: 11 Oct 92 00:54:23 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Oct07.092552.15639@microsoft.com>, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Sk
elly) writes:
>In article <7517@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu wrote:
>> In article <1992Oct06.213627.3688@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete S
kelly) writes:

>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.

Oh so, NT's networking will be a product as awesome as Windows Write.  Wow,
now I'll just have to get it.
That is a really poor analogy.  A several hundred K applette compared to a
supposedly full featured networking system.  Yeah real close.

>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...
>
-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 09 Oct 92 17:50:16 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct8.152700.14409@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <1992Oct05.185642.23419@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>
>>     How can a person prove that they are a developer?
>
>On IBM's questionairre for the OS/2 betas, they asked what you were
>developing and if it would be ready to demo at COMDEX.  This had the
>effect of turning away the non-developers, since most didn't want to
>lie on the form.
>

     And as a result, IBM narrowed the field to people demoing software
at COMDEX.  There are developers out there who don't have something
ready for COMDEX - should they be excluded from a release of a product
specifically designed to stimulate application development?

					-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