HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Gigabytes (was Re: The sin of MicroSoft)
Date: 21 Jan 1993 15:15:04 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan21.095320.14831@netcom.com> erc@netcom.com (Eric  
Smith) writes:
> In article <1993Jan20.192533.20241@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>  
bjs4@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (BENJAMIN J SCHRAGGER) writes:
> >I have a few more.
> >4) Film and video post production.  with the MCC TB chip you can  
store
> 
> The biggest beneficiary of gigabytes of memory would be software
> development.  Software development is a lot more important than  
most
> people realize.  All other computer applications would be  
ridiculous
> pipe dreams without it.

Although this has a drawback, too. Someone who develops
an application on a 486/66 with 64 Meg of memory, an EISA bus,
etc., may not notice how awful his/her application really is
for someone who has to use it every day on a 386sx/20 with 
4 Meg of memory.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  

Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: 7 Re: Win NT's "bad looks"
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 00:01:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.202438.23204@netcom.com> timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:
>>>A Microsoft employee recently commented -- in one of the NeXT forums,
>>>oddly enough -- that Microsoft was planning to make significant changes to
>>>the Windows interface in a "future release" to bring it more up to par
>>>with the better interfaces now found in other GUI's.  I can't be more
>>>specific; he wasn't either.  I'd post the article, but it has expired from
>>>my news server.


	I read it.  He was talking about Cairo, not the Excel 3d buttons.


>Actually, the MS person was referring to the 3D controls, not icons.
>You'll notice that Excel 4.0 has different looking radio buttons, check
>boxes, edit boxes, etc... than regular Windows uses.


	I did note that WP4WIN's interface buttons (the up+down selectors)
	look a lot like those found on NeXTStep 2.1, but the rest of the
	interface is downright superior to the NeXT version of Wordperfect.

	<which is both buggy and lousy-interfaced... >


>>You are in the
>>same situation as other Windows users that were using the Norton
>>desktop, who have to switch back to the old PM shell with NT.  I
>>for one, would love NT, but I also like the Norton shell.
>
>It was mentioned in some magazine somewhere that NDW for NT is scheduled
>form 3rd quarter this year.


	I kind of like that, "from 3rd quarter".. I suppose this is when
	advertising starts.  Hey, cool--honesty in advertising.




		
-- 
	Attempts to lessen the burden of proof in rape trials are an assault 
        	on our civil liberties.  Support equality, not revenge. 
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	Pyramid schemes are illegal unless you're the US government.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: uad1077@dircon.co.uk (Ian Kemmish)
Subject: Re: NT shall slay UNIX
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 19:16:07 GMT

ifbb657@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) writes:


>I am interested in hearing debate about UNIX vs NT (When it comes out.).
>
>NT has one quality that UNIX has:  An innate resistance to viruses.
>Because of the protected mode execution of apps, one app cannot infect
>another unless you are running as the Administrator.  Because of this,
>most virii will be hard to spread.  I do not know about boot sector
>viruses, though.
>

Hmmm.  I had some disc rot the other week.  THis meant that write fell
over as soon as I tried to run it, under *any* circumstances.
Interestingly enough, after it had fallen over, I found it impossible
to log off or shutdown the machine (without resorting to the power
switch, I mean).  This is interesting because it is impossible in
the operating system that is described in the book `Inside NT'
This seems to imply that what is on the CD is not what is described
in the book.

The mismatch between intented and actual behaviour is the single
biggest reason that Windows 3.1 has been the worst and most expensive
(in terms of sucking up human resources) OS I have had to port to.
I do earenstly hope that Microsoft are going for quality rather
than consistency this time:-(

-- 
Ian D. Kemmish                    Tel. +44 767 601 361
18 Durham Close                   uad1077@dircon.co.uk
Biggleswade                       uknet!dircon!uad1077
Beds SG18 8HZ United Kingdom
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: The operating system of the future! - Not MS-WIndows!
From: alastair@farli.otago.ac.nz (Alastair Thomson), University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
Date: 29 Jan 93 15:45:54 +1300
Distribution: comp.sys.mac.advocacy, comp.sys.next.advocacy
Keywords: MS-Windows Bug

Just for fun, write a windows application called display.exe
Better yet, take a genuine Microsoft application, and rename it  
display.exe

Now try to run it.

Quick as a flash - Nothing happens.

Why is it that the operating system Microsoft claims will be the future  
for computing in the 90's can't run any application called display.exe!

By the way, my application called Display works fine in a Mac, Display.app  
works fine on my NeXT. A DOS display.exe even works properly. 

I'd love to know if Windoze NT has the same difficulty.

I find it quite incredible that something as simple as the name of the  
file containing the executable code should screw up the O/S so badly that  
it wont look at it.

Alastair Thomson
Department of Computer Science,
University of Otago,
Dunedin,
New Zealand

e-mail: alastair@farli.otago.ac.nz
From: ifbb657@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: NT shall slay UNIX
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:49:04 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
NNTP-Posting-Host: emx.cc.utexas.edu


I am interested in hearing debate about UNIX vs NT (When it comes out.).

NT has one quality that UNIX has:  An innate resistance to viruses.
Because of the protected mode execution of apps, one app cannot infect
another unless you are running as the Administrator.  Because of this,
most virii will be hard to spread.  I do not know about boot sector
viruses, though.

Compared to Unix, NT is relatively easy to install and use, is built for
portability, and binaries on one platform *WILL* work for another w/o
recompiling.  NT also is not built on a rickety 20 year old platform of
hacks and patches like UNIX.

UNIX is a TRUE multiple user OS though, while NT can only have one
user on at a time.

Please correct if there are any inaccuracies in my statements.


-- 
       ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu  (Douglas Floyd)
       Disclaimer:  I speak for myself        Please, no NeXTMail at this time.

Windows NT:  You either use it on your job or you do not HAVE a job.  NOT!
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Subject: Re: The sin of MicroSoft
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 21:03:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.134809.4684@arbi.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE> Ralf.Wirth@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de (Ralf Wirth) writes:
>If you think that more than 4 gigs of mem will be needed in 10 Years, and 
>OS/2 is not be able to manage it now, I tell you that there will be just
>a new complete OS or an update of OS/2 then, which will be able to manage it.

With the Mach 3 additions to OS/2 in the works, I dont foresee this
as a problem...


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones)
Subject: Re: OS which beats MS-DOS and OS/2?
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:01:19 GMT

In <1993Jan19.134034@cs.bham.ac.uk> jss@cs.bham.ac.uk (John Swapp-Sweet) writes:

>In article <1993Jan18.224838.7471@Celestial.COM>, ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones) writes:
>|> In <1993Jan14.003253.20321@cs.brown.edu> atropos@netlab.cis.brown.edu (David O'Donnell) writes:
>|> 
>|> >In article <1993Jan13.004355.21612@Celestial.COM> ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones) writes:
>|> >>In <1993Jan9.011958.4601@cs.brown.edu> atropos@netlab.cis.brown.edu (David O'Donnell) writes:
>|
>|> >I'm happy with what I have. My complaint-to-enjoyment ratio is incredibly
>|> >high.
>|> 
>|> All of the above programs will run in the "vpix" and "DOS Merge"
>|> environments under UNIX.  Added functionality with no loss.  However, if you
>|> are comfortable with just what you have, then that is where you should stay.
>|> When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.  There is are
>|> other tools in the tool box.
>|> 

>Please tell me about running windows and then hefty windows apps like Correl 3
>under "vpix".  Tell me about the pain in the arse that "vpix" is to configure
>optimally in the fist place.  Then tell me why I should double the size of my
>hard disk jsut to carry on running the same apps as before, but slower is time
>and hard disk space that much cheaper in Mercer Island?

Well, I haven't tried to run Correl 3 under vpix, so I just don't know how
it would perform.  But as far as setting up vpix, there seems to be very
little difference between setting up the UNIX  version and setting up a new
DOS box ( or maybe your dealer did that for you??).

>P.S. the _real_ cost of running MS-Word on a unix net is significantly higher
>than the _windows_ version on a dos net, minor details like the cost of the OS
>and hardware (and suport staff!) have their place in any such calculation.
Even with all those factors thrown in, it is significantly less expensive on
the UNIX box!

But enough of this, there is no way you can be convinced, so why try.
-- 
INTERNET:  ray@Celestial.COM   Ray A. Jones; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!ray   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!ray   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
The probability of one or more spelling errors in this missive approaches
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.1 Beta - A Short Report
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:28:58 GMT

In article <1jklhqINNa3c@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> unruh@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh) writes:
> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
> ]But as far as software is concerned, the only thing I have done that will kill
> ]OS/2 was try to paste a 1.5meg 300dpi Windows bitmap into a fax document using
> ]Bitfax for OS/2. My swap file grew to 16megs - which it *never* does - and
> ]filled my system partition....which then locked up the system. A 200dpi bitmap
> ]worked just fine. I suspect this is actually a capacity problem rather than a
> ]bug in any software.....
> 
> 1.5Meg should not produce 8Meg (assuming you usually run at 8meg swap)
> of swap. If it's the program it must be pretty stupid. I still suspect
> that the swap algorithm in OS2 is not optimum

It may have been because I was importing a Windows bitmap...not a PM bitmap...
This could have confused the program got it into some sort of loop....

I found out the other day that even though Bit is selling Bitfax for OS/2 for
US$99....they are selling it to OEM modem vendors for US$25 a copy. I can buy
it here in NZ for NZ$75 (about US$39) and sell it for NZ$125 (US$63ish)....

So, Bitfax for OS/2 is cheaper in New Zealand than it is in the US by about
30-40%! (*Definitely* NOT the usual case!!!)
 
I will take orders now.......:-)
 
Steve


-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand |      
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |        Space for rent.
+64 4 478 4714                          |   - cheap rates, nice location. 
**** Happy user of OS/2 b2.1 ****       | 
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: U0XH <U0XH@UNB.CA>
Subject: comp.os.nt
Organization: The University of New Brunswick
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:54:20 GMT

Sign me up!  I love the idea of COMP.OS.NT, count this as a yes vote.

 Chris
From: ifbb657@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The sin of MicroSoft
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:36:35 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
NNTP-Posting-Host: emx.cc.utexas.edu

In article <1993Jan20.190910.61013@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> bjs4@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (BENJAMIN J SCHRAGGER) writes:
->In article <1993Jan18.214509.12787@umr.edu>, ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) w
->rites:
->>
->>And 64 terabytes?!  That's *7* orders of magnitude above today.
->>We're looking at the end of the 21st century here.
->>
->>In other words, don't worry about it.  :)
->>
->With in the next three years you will see a Holographic memory Chip running at
->100 ns with a 1.25 Terabyte storage capability. So it when this little space
->puppy hits :') storage space and speed will have to be reassed to the next
->level or (order of Magnitude).  Just a note the manufacures are looking at a
->first unit drive the size of the old 5 '1/4 full hights to reenforce and then
->replace hard drives.  As they build laser access speed they want to renforce
->or replace ram.  How about a multi prossesor with 1.25 terabytes of ram space.
->NaaaaH ;).
-> 


Then for a strange reason all of your sw packages will start building
in say a built in encyloepedia (Spelling bad) and other stuff to get
-- 
       ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu  (Douglas Floyd)
       Disclaimer:  I speak for myself        Please, no NeXTMail at this time.

Windows NT:  You either use it on your job or you do not HAVE a job.  NOT!
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS-ACCESS PERFORMANCE
From: jonathon.twigg@oosight.status.gen.nz (Jonathon Twigg) 
Date: 22 Jan 93 09:11:00 GMT
Reply-To: jonathon.twigg@oosight.status.gen.nz (Jonathon Twigg) 
Distribution: world
Organization: OUT OF SIGHT BBS, Auckland, New Zealand, 64-9-298-3805

On the 01-20-93, Wailer At The Gates Of Da wrote to All about Re: 
MS-ACCESS PERFORMANCE.
A>Paradox for Windows is shipping within a 
WA>few weeks.  I suspect good
WA>pricing.
WA>


     $350 in New Zealand.




--- WinQwk 2.0 #0
From: karmira@natinst.com (Apostolos Karmirantzos)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The sin of MicroSoft
Date: 21 Jan 1993 14:26:58 -0600
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: falcon.natinst.com

jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:

>Yes, that's an unknown. I have 4 Meg on my PC. In 6 months, I may
>need 8 Meg.  I could even need 16 Meg.   I no way, no how will
>need a couple of Gigabytes.

>You are missing the orders of magnitude you're talking about. In
>your example, you talk about people who couldn't conceive others
>needing twice as much memory. But going up to 2 Gigabytes, say,
>is 1000 times more than many office user have now, and 
>500 times more than the typical PC is now sold with.  

>--
>Jim Mann            
>Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  


  Yes, but according to your estimation (going from 4 to 8  MB in 6
months), you'll need 2 GB (1000 what you have now) in 5 years!!!


-- 
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Karmirantzos Apostolos	 |E-mail: karmiran@natinst.com		     | 		
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Re: NT not multiuser, then Unix is not a competing OS
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.17e by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Organization: Philipps-University Marburg, Germany
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:48:57 GMT

In <1993Jan20.000231.8992@microsoft.com> johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall) writes:
>TO:
>Martin R. Calsyn
>Tim Glauert
>Chuck Phillips
>
>All of you make good points.  Now, what do you believe would
>be a sufficient solution?  Keep in mind that only one user will
>be allowed on the screen, so this will only be useful for
>a service (that therefore has no screen access) which is managing,
>for example, ascii terminal access thru multiplexed terminals.
>
>Is the ability to impersonate a user given name, domain, and
>    password enough, or do you need the ability to launch a new
>    program with a different access token from your own?
>
>Should any process be allowed to perform these operations,
>    or should the Administrator have to explicitly allow a
>    particular application the capability?
>
>Would an installable Service which provided a RPC hook be
>    acceptable?
>

I think getting a SID by giving a username/domain/password should be a
user right, that can be granted to users and groups (e.g. Domain Admins)
So a system service can be a TELNETD and allow logins from ASCII-Terminals.
After querying Id/Password, the telnetd can spawn a CMD.EXE under the SID
of the user.
All this is not needed, when you have only NT machines.
But if someone is on a UNIX workstation and just want to do some easy tasks
(e.g. starting a numerical job), he can't do that with RPC.

The same is true for an FTP-Daemon. Using WnetAddConnection2 with Id and
Password is not a real solution. Why not simply start a new thread or
process after login from a user with his security context.

Christoph
-------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------
Christoph H. Hochstaetter, Philipps-University Marburg | Universitaetsstr. 25
Internet: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de       | D-W-3550 Marburg
Bitnet  : HOCHSTAE AT DMRHRZ11                         | Germany
Fido    : 2:243/660                                    | Phone +49-6421-28-7092
Fax     : +49-6421-28-4858                             |
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: 7 Re: Win NT's "bad looks"
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:24:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.232704.8589@schbbs.mot.com> R12997@waccvm.corp.mot.com (Rick Heider) writes:
>------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
>In article <1993Jan19.183643.12939@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> gary@nshade.uah.ualber
>>A Microsoft employee recently commented -- in one of the NeXT forums,
>>oddly enough -- that Microsoft was planning to make significant changes to
>>the Windows interface in a "future release" to bring it more up to par
>>with the better interfaces now found in other GUI's.  I can't be more
>>specific; he wasn't either.  I'd post the article, but it has expired from
>>my news server.
>
>>I suspect he/she was talking about was the new Excel-style 3d controls which
>>are already available (uunet- 3-31.zip _somewhere_ under vendor/microsoft)
>>I've heard rumors that these will be "built in" to future Windows version.
>
>Come on, you can't really say that Excel 4.0 comes with 3D icons when
>you have to go get them off a BBS and install them yourself!  What
>happens at the next release, when they aren't available?

Actually, the MS person was referring to the 3D controls, not icons.
You'll notice that Excel 4.0 has different looking radio buttons, check
boxes, edit boxes, etc... than regular Windows uses.

>You are in the
>same situation as other Windows users that were using the Norton
>desktop, who have to switch back to the old PM shell with NT.  I
>for one, would love NT, but I also like the Norton shell.

It was mentioned in some magazine somewhere that NDW for NT is scheduled
form 3rd quarter this year.

>Rick Heider

     - Mike
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4028 comp.os.os2.advocacy:12815
Organization: Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Vienna, Austria
Date: Thursday, 21 Jan 1993 19:35:50 CET
From: FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.1 Beta - A Short Report

Gary:

Personally, I find 2.1b very stable. No cold-boots so far on my production
machine. There **are** bugs, therefore I report them, hoping that IBM
will address them for the GA version of 2.1. This is a beta, so IBM **is**
interested in bugs we find.

Actually, I dumped GA+SP and have been using 2.1b for a week, again in a
production environment. No lockups, nothing. X-Server from IBM finally works
with the palette-management for me perfectly (it was not that good in GA+SP).

---rony
From: lfosdal@falcon.no (Lars Fosdal)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Win NT's "bad looks"
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 09:44:04 MET
Organization: Falcon Information Services AS, Oslo, Norway

scott@opl.com (Scott Evernden) writes:

> In article <1993Jan19.183643.12939@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> gary@nshade.uah.ual
> >A Microsoft employee recently commented -- in one of the NeXT forums,  
> >oddly enough -- that Microsoft was planning to make significant changes to  
> >the Windows interface in a "future release" to bring it more up to par  
> >with the better interfaces now found in other GUI's.  I can't be more  
> >specific; he wasn't either.  I'd post the article, but it has expired from  
> >my news server.
> 
> I suspect he/she was talking about was the new Excel-style 3d controls which
> are already available (uunet- 3-31.zip _somewhere_ under vendor/microsoft)
> I've heard rumors that these will be "built in" to future Windows version.
> 
I would assume he was talking about the "Cairo" project which is very 
much more that subclassed controls.  We're talking about a truly object
oriented system here.  Cairo probably is MS answer to IBM/Apple's Pink.

Lars F.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy