HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: What about OS/2 2.1?
Date: 15 Dec 1992 17:37:24 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak) says:

>> Is this the normal beta that they released a while ago (32-bit GRE + win31)
>> or a new full-blown 2.1 beta?  It sounds like a new one (folder opening
>> always takes a second or two, even in the normal beta I used, that's why
>> I minimize windows). 
>> 
>
>A new version of the Beta Win3.1 has been floating around internally within
>IBM for some time now.  I don't know if this beta has been released for
>general consumption.

This new beta is also supposed to be able to run windows enhanced mode
applications such as mathematica.
--
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: world
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 13:27:28 -0800
From: Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: Pricing of NT (was Re: Here's some Advocacy for you.)
Comment-To: Greg_Franklin@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

 GF> Take a look at the example of Microsoft Access.  MS priced this
database
 GF> at $695 list, but for a SUPER-SPECIAL-LIMITED-TIME they will let
you
 GF> have it for $99.

 GF> And it's *working* for them!  The shelves are bare of Access, all
the SW
 GF> stores are trying to handle the flood of orders, and MS is having
trouble
 GF> keeping up!  Unreal!  And I thought databases were an OS/2 strong
suit....

If you read the trade rags, there's also a lot of speculation that the
reason the shelves are bare is because Microsoft has stopped shipping
Access because it is buggier than a room full of cockroaches.  Check
out this week's InfoWorld for information on this.  They have an
article about it that insinuates that Access was rushed to market to
preempt Paradox for Windows and that as a result it is very buggy to
the point that it duplicates data, crashes and looses data, and screws
up indexes.



--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
From: Mahoney@emdisle.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Mahoney)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Bottom Line
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 01:26:10 PDT
Organization: The Emerald Isle BBS, Tucson, AZ (602) 749-8638

In a message of <Dec 10 11:45> (Brian Sturgill) writes to All:


 BS>I use both OS/2 2.0 GA and NT daily, I have programmed heavily
 BS>under 2.0 GA and moderately under NT.  I assure you I understand both
 BS>environments well, and OS/2 does not measure up.  I refer you to
 BS>the list I made of OS/2 vs NT features a few months ago if you
 BS>want more information.

   Not as well as you might think. I'll wait for someone who's opinions of the relative merits of NT vs OS/2 are somewhat less biased, thanks anyway.
 
--- msgedsq/2 2.1
 * Origin: The Emerald Isle * Tucson, AZ. (602) 749-8638 (1:300/14)
--  
Mike Mahoney - via FidoNet node 1:300/14
UUCP: uunet...!noao!coyote!emdisle!Mahoney
INTERNET: Mahoney@emdisle.FIDONET.ORG
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: world
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 16:35:16 -0800
From: George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: Re: BENCHMARKING Windows
Comment-To: Brian_Sturgill@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

BS>What you were comparing was an OS/2 beta that is supposed to be out
BS>this month, with a Windows NT beta that is supposed to come out 5-7
months
BS>from now.  Doubtless there will be substantial improvement in the
NT
BS>figures.

 And he also very clearly wrote "Note that Microsoft does not 
recommend using NT currently for performing benchmarking." and just 
before that he wrote "(November Professional Developer's Kit CD-ROM,
the third public Win-OS/2 3.1 beta)." 
 
___
 * MR/2 1.32 NR * THE ROAD TO SUCCESS IS ALWAYS UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10664 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3328
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 20 Dec 92 19:39:59 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Dec20.161118.6133@qucis.queensu.ca>, jardined@qucis.queensu.ca (Donald Jardine) writes:
|> 
|> Allegedly domineering practices aside, is there any real evidence that MS is
|> genuinely inefficient or hindering the industry?  The market place is a 
|> wonderful disciplinarian.

I can't think of any.  If you want to buy another operating system, you can
choose either DR DOS or OS/2, both of which will run DOS programs, and even
windows programs if you want.

|> We, as users, have choices of software, and 
|> at exceedingly reasonable prices.  IBM, to its obvious concern, 
|> is finding that out.   So will MS, if they falter either technically or
|> administratively.

Yes we do.  How can anybody make any kind of case that the users of software
or hardware are being adversly affected?

And why for God's sake do we want to invite the goverment to the party?
If Novell et all succeed in beating Microsoft into the ground with the
FTC, they will find it to be a pyrrhic victory.  The eternal rule of
justice is that "he who lives by the sword will die by the sword."

|> As an aside, I don't really give a damn who makes my software or hardware.
|> All I want is something that does what I want at the time I want it, at
|> a price that is commensurate with the benefits I get. The open marketplace 
|> is the best way we currently know to get this combination.

Amen brother!
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10668 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3329
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Discovered: Microsoft using undocumented calls in Windows NT
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 21:44:11 GMT

tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen) writes:
>sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>> The API used by PSTAT is now documented, Kai.  [...]
>> It was not documented in OS/2 1.3, however, and it didn't make it into
>> the main OS/2 2.0 documentation.  This call is important to third
>> party utilities, and I do think the corresponding call in NT should be
>> documented by Microsoft.  
>
>Cameron Myhrvald, head of Microsoft's developer relations, announced in a
>recent Infoworld (I'm pretty sure -- this is from memory!) that Microsoft
>would in fact produce documentation for the "undocumented" calls in Windows
>NT, but would still recommend against using them,
>
>Could we just put this issue to rest now, please?
>
>[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
>[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
>[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]


I have read this and other articles. They have not produced it yet. I will
tell you exactly when they will, if ever. When the FTC investigation will
mention it, Microsoft, in order to save themselves will try to produce and
publish them. They have stated they will publish them (remember: Big talk
but no action) but have not stated when.

Mark K.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: goyal@utdallas.edu (MOHIT K GOYAL)
Subject: Re: Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:24:05 GMT

>Please wait with that evil plot theories until NT is released. Why should MS
>have to make a _BETA_ install together with every other OS in the world?
>If you remember the OS/2 betas didn't even install over older OS/2 betas.
>
Actually, they did install over each other.  IBM just recommend/told you to
format before a new installation so you did not mix beta code.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT technologically a
Date: 17 Dec 92 10:21:51 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.

In article <2b27d6f4@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org>, George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org writes:
|> TG>(But perhaps I was too stupid to understand the "Logic" of some of
|> TG>the things the WPS did, like placing menus off-screen 
|> 
|>  Exactly how did you accomplish this feat? I've just tried and could
|> not repeat this feat of having WPS place menu's off-screen. Was this
|> with a beta?

No, the "March" release. In VGA res (what else?) if you placed an icon around
the vertical middle of the screen and pressed right button, the bottom of the
menu would be off the bottom of the screen. Not useful.

Of course, this may have changed because I gave up using OS/2 pretty quickly
since it was so lacking for my purposes.

|> Were you on drugs? 

I don't know how such things are taken in your country, but I personally find
that a very offensive remark.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: hermann@platon.uni-passau.de (Michael Hermann)
Subject: Re: Choice of OSes
Organization: University of Passau, Germany
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:44:06 GMT

Ooops one thing I forgot to include :

the ~46 percent number for OS/2 in the OSes (in use) table
include companies which currently run extensive tests to
evaluate OS/2 for future use.

As an afterthought... all numbers are percentages

  -Mike

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pshuang@athena.mit.edu (Ping Huang)
Subject: Re: To brian and other interested parties
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
	<1992Dec11.082028.3186@visual.spk.wa.us>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:30:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.082028.3186@visual.spk.wa.us> ssanbeg@visual.spk.wa.us (Scott Sanbeg) writes:

 > Nonetheless, I fully realize that I'm one guy and not
 > a major contributor to this group. Still, this IS an os2 group and
 > is not chartered for the type of OS wars which go on in here - no matter
 > whatever the reasoning behind continuing the wars are. As someone else
 > has posted, the comp.os.win* groups are available to anyone wanting
 > NT-specific news.

That's why .advocacy newsgroups exist under both hierarchies: so that OS
wars *AND* other kinds of discussion which do not pertain to the direct
use and operation of the respective software and applications are
segregated out. While I usually punt reading most of the articles in
this newsgroup, I don't think that asking supporters of other operating
systems other than OS/2 would improve the situation any.

IMO, in an unmoderated medium, the best way to try to change what is
being discussed is not to ask that the discussion be changed, but to
going ahead and change the discussion. If you want to see this group
live up to ".advocacy" in a different manner, then propose *YOUR* ideas
on how IBM and OS/2 users can advocate the adoption of OS/2 and
encourage ISV's to produce more OS/2 software. I for one am much more
likely to read a thread whose Subject line suggests it contains
discussion of this nature, rather than an NT-vs.-OS/2 ad nauseum flame.
If a thousand people agree with you (and I hope they are out there),
then they too will read your article and respond overwhelmingly. :)

--
Ping Huang (INTERNET: pshuang@athena.mit.edu), probably speaking for himself

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unicode - anyone knwos something ? (was Re: HPFS-386
From: Dimitri Vulis <DLVGC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Monday, 14 Dec 1992 01:49:38 EST
 <92345.112949RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at><1992Dec13.002834.2022@ludd.luth.se>
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <1992Dec13.002834.2022@ludd.luth.se>, bjorn@ludd.luth.se (Bjorn
Fahller) says:
>A remotely related subject. I read in a magazine some time ago, that ISO
>found Unicode to be obsolete and that they're working on a 32 bit character
>set. Does anyone know anything about that at all, or was I just dreaming?
>I haven't seen Unicode yet, but I have a hard time understanding how 16-bit
>shouldn't be enough for a character set.
>
>BTW, I'm also hoping that OS/2 in a very short time will incorporate Unicode
>(full out). This mess with code-pages is just not very good.
No, no, it's the other way around. ISO tried to cook up a 32-bit code called
'10636' (an allusion to ISO 636, of which ASCII is the US national version).
Being a bunch of incompetent jerks, they've failed miserably.  In the meantime,
assorted computer manufacturers (Microsoft, Xerox, et al) got together and
developed a 16-bit code called Unicode, which is pretty much finalized.
Now, OS/2 2.0 supports double-byte characters (for Japanese and the like),
but Unicode includes floating accents: you should be able to take, e.g.,
a circumflex, and place it over a Y, if you so please. I actually tried
to concoct Unicode support for PM and this is where I got stuck.

To try to answer your question, 16 bits may not be enough if, being stupid,
you try to give different codes to Chinese, Japanase and Korean symbols
that look the same.  If you agree that a single code is needed (as the people
in those countries do), then 16 bits are quite enough.

Claimer: a little input from me went into Unicode's Cyrillic part.

Dimitri
From: stimpy@nmt.edu (John Reynolds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM support
Date: 13 Dec 92 03:13:28 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech

>friends who just intalled the new ATI Ultra Pro (or whatever it's
>called) - ATI's card is so sssslllllooowww!

He must have something really hosed then because my ATI Ultra (I've
heard bad things about the Ultra Pro--don't know though :-) is
fast as hell under native windoze. Does he have the correct drivers?

-Jr



-- 
DOS...Boot sector virus!????           | #include <~os2/personal.opinion.h>
Windows...It's like a stale cookie.    | John Reynolds stimpy@jupiter.nmt.edu
OS/2..."It's like buudaah" (SNL quote) | New Mexico Tech. #10 and rising!!!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: h198@hosp.med.umich.edu  (Gene Mangum)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 XR06055 ---> OS/2 2.01.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992  16:57 EDT
Organization: Univ of Michigan Hospitals
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: condor.hosp.med.umich.edu
X-Newsreader: FTPNuz (DOS) v1.0

In Article <1992Dec17.215231.28668@actrix.gen.nz> "Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz" says:
> In article <3500@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:
  
  [Stuff Deleted]
 
> My contact at IBM says the the GA+SP (OS/2 2.0 XR06055) is likely to be
> released as OS/2 2.01.....
>  
> I asked why not 2.1 (from a marketing P.O.V. this might be "better")? 
 
  It seems to me that having fixes (as opposed to enhancements) should
  not be marketed as big (although some companies, ahem, do it :-)
> 
> He said that it would only be called 2.1 "if it warranted it."
>  
> Whatever that means. I assume that there are clearluy defined criteria chosing
> version numbers and that these would be applied to OS/2 as with any other
> product.
>  
> Insights, anyone?
  [.sig deleted]
 
  In IBM land, versions are designated by a 3-part number:
 
      x.y.x  (e.g. OS/2 2.00.1)
      | | |
      | | ---- Modification Level
      | ------ Release Number
      -------- Version Number
 
  I don't know the details, but I think whether or not you get charged
  is determined by which part changes (i.e. no charge for mod level 
  changes).
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Why Windows NT will fail -----
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:57:08 GMT

In article <8093@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.211713.23323@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>	error--even if it is obviously a typo (see the thread--
>>	*thread*--that started because some bozo misread a sentence
>>	"MS Windows (Apps)" vs. "MS (Windows apps)"..)
>Of course, it looks like you missed the original poster's followup where he
>said he wasn't as clear as he meant to be, and the other posting where someone
>else said they read it the same way I did...


	Which is why (grit teeth, accept that YES, there ARE people
	this dense out there) I decided to post a message
	making what I was writing *CLEAR* so that such confusion
	COULD NOT ARISE.
 
	Christ.
 


-- 
 Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?          
 Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?  
 ---"I despise mystics, they fancy themselves so deep, when they----
 ----aren't even superficial"    --Nietzsche   ---------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Organization: Mitre Corporation
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 21:25:17 GMT

In article <BzHuI8.Fo9@utdallas.edu>, goyal@utdallas.edu (MOHIT K GOYAL)
wrote:
> 
> >[stuff about FTC's impending decision against Microsoft]
> >
> >The decision and its likely form have been more than strong rumours on
> >the street for months now. Ho hum. Let's wait and see what
> >happens, the street expectation is that it won't be anything important
> >from an overall earnings impact perspective.
> >
> 
> What your brain failed to recognize was that the document I reposted here
> is dated 12-18-92.  It is the most current article on the case.  Every
> previous review could only guess whether or not the FCC would even find
> MS is doing something wrong, much less what they would do.
> 

The really significant item in the FTC action is that the FTC investigators
recommended that the FTC commisioners immediately seek a court ordered
injuction preventing MS from charging vendors a per CPU charge for DOS. 
This would effectively make it possible for vendors to bundle other
operating systems (DR DOS, OS/2, etc...) without still having to pay MS for
DOS/Windows.  This action is very unusual since normally the FTC draws up a
lists of requests and presents them to the corporation.  ONLY IF the
coporation is unresponsive does the FTC go to court.  I believe this is
only the third time in history that the FTC recommended court action before
trying to negotiate with a company. 

The Business Week article also speculated that one of the reasons the FTC
took such drastic actions is the MS was about to try and change the
bundling agreement to include Windows.  The current agreements only
requires the DOS be bundled with the machine and Windows is made available
at a significant discount.  Rumor had it that MS was think of forcing
vendors to bundle both DOS and Windows.

On a related note, Britain's equivalent of the FTC has been doing an
informal study on uncompetitive behaviour by MS.  I believe the British
study is concentrating on MS's bundling behaviour (the same thing that set
the FTC off) AND the premium being charged by MS for its software being
sold in Europe.  The British have stated that they are closely watching the
FTC and the FTC's actions will influence their decision on whether they
will up the status of the informal study to a full investigation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heeren Pathak                      | Millions long for immortality who do 
pathak@mitre.org                   | not know what to do with themselves
Mitre Corporation                  | on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
(617) 271-7465                     |	               	-- Susan Ertz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Mine not Mitre's.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 05:24:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.001410.22069@qucis.queensu.ca> jardined@qucis.queensu.ca (Donald Jardine) writes:
>IMHO, the FTC action is a underhanded way of saving IBM from bankruptcy.
>Inasmuch as the old anti-trust suits against IBM have been rendered null and 
>void a) by the Nixon/Reagan/Bush administrations, and b) by IBM's own
>recently acquired ability to shoot itself in the foot, it's interesting to
>note that the FTC will be in the ambivalent position of investigating one
>computer colossus with the effect of (possibly) benefitting another.
>
>However, as we all know, the only people who benefit from all this are the
>lawyers :-)

From what I have heard, IBM is not one of the ones persuing this
action against Microsoft directly. Granted they will be one of the
biggest beneficiaries, if the FTC strikes down the agreements
between MS and H/W vendors. This will give IBM room to manuever in
getting OS/2 onto more clone machines directly as an option to
customers.

Novell, Lotus, Wordperfect and several others are the ones pushing
for the FTC intervention, with Great White Father Ray Noorda in the
lead :)

But you are right. These guys may fight like jackels over the
carcass of the clone market, but the lawyers will be the ones to
make out pretty no matter the outcome :)

JMHO...

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tedc@cs.ubc.ca (Ted Chen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: ATI support of OS/2
Date: 16 Dec 1992 15:34:39 -0800
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: pacific.cs.ubc.ca

In article <kspousta.723865087@qualcom> kspousta@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Kevin Spousta) writes:
>zeglins@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gordon W. Zeglinski) writes:
>
>>I was reading the NT group and happened to stumble across an article
>>about ATI ULTRA PRO drivers.  I cannot beleive that they would have
>>drivers for and beta/alpha OS and none for OS/2.
>
>>I guess this really send us OS/2 users a message.  Tell's me not to buy
>>any of their products... Unfortunately its too late for me. :(
>
>
>I guess you haven't called ATi's BBS lately.  Lots o' drivers for OS/2..
>I seem to recall seeing a Graphics Ultra Pro driver on my last sojourn
>through their little corner of cyberspace.

I'd have to agree with Gordon.  ATI's support of OS/2 has been almost
non-existent.  There are no 32-bit Mach 8 drivers, the old 16-bit
modified 1.3 drivers suck, the Mach32 drivers suck too. Everybody seems to
recommend and use the stock 8514/a drivers to get the high resolution modes.

Releasing 32-bit Mach32 drivers for NT, before those for OS/2 2.0 REALLY REALLY
is a kick in the head.

GET WITH IT ATI!

---
Ted Chen   <tedc@ee.ubc.ca>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy