HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:30:50 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct2.151129.20463@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>Until NT is released, it doesn't do much good.  As for apps, we'll
>>both have to wait and see.  They're certainly not going to ship before
>>NT does, and "intent to develop" means little in this market.
>
>But NT apps are shipping even as we speak.  That's the whole point

Oh really?  What store carries them?  All I can do now is pay money in
advance to get it whenever they get around to releasing it.  NT apps
are not on the shelves of any computer store I know of, and I have not
seen them in any catalog.

>A large number of apps will ship with NT from day one.

That's not the same as "ar shipping even as we speak".  Day one hasn't
occurred yet, and won't come until June (at today's approximations).

>Already you can get versions that work with the pre-release, and
>this phenonmenon will increase as NT betas get into more and more
>hands.  Our intention is to ship the package we develop as soon
>as it's ready... why wait for NT to ship?  There will be plenty
>of potential customers in the beta program, and all it costs you
>extra is shipping them a new set of diskettes when the final
>release is made.  You get early exposure... plus a sort of extended
>beta testing.

That's crazy.  Developing a package for use with a non-beta
non-released developer's kit.

Oh well.  I wish you luck, because you're going to need it in a big
way!

-- 
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,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: mash@mash.wpd.sgi.com (John R. Mashey)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:35:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.014509.4331@intelhf.hf.intel.com>, sting@intelhf.hf.intel.com (Joe Bennett) writes:

|> 
|> Also, how many people make peripherals for the R4000 box?  Not very many.  In Wrong.
	In many cases, people use identical peripherals to PCs....

|> And if MIPS decides to keep everything in house and not license technology, then

But MIPS doesn't and never has "keep everything in house"....
-- 
-john mashey    DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer, I speak for me only, etc>
UUCP:    mash@sgi.com 
DDD:    415-390-3090
USPS:   Silicon Graphics 7U-005, 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd, Mountain View, CA 94043
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Date: 4 Oct 92 13:07:03 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Oct4.103438.629@leland.Stanford.EDU> yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong) writes:
...
>IBM seems to be courting Joe Public all right, thank you very much.  Or else
>they wouldn't be selling OS/2 for $49.

IBM no longer sells OS/2 for $49.  I believe the current upgrade
price is $79, and even that price applies only to Windows users.

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! :-))
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:07:23 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1as44iINN6r7@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
>
>In a previous article, brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) says:
>
>>I don't see how people can view this as Microsoft "abandoning" OS/2.
>>In truth they were simply reverting to the path they had wanted all
>>along.  They tried to bring IBM along, but Big Blue Bureaucracy was
>>always in the way.  In the end it was switch or die.
>
>Brian,
>
>Don't be an idiot.  Just because you think that microsoft was justified
How nice!    ^^^^^
>in what they did does not change the fact that they abandonded OS/2.
>Justification is one thing, it is very subjective.  But objectively,
>it is impossible to argue that microsoft has stopped developing PM apps
>and makes windows apps, when they had said that they were going to do
>the exact opposite.  You can't argue with those to facts.  Whether it
>made good buisness sense or not does not change the fact that MS 
>abandoned OS/2!

I do believe there is a difference between "abandoning" something
because you want to, and "abandoning" because you're forced to.
At the time Microsoft came to that decision it seem quite clear
that IBM was acting irrationally... and that the kind of thing that
forces partnerships to disolve.

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! :-))
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mikegal@microsoft.com (Michael Galos)
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Date: 05 Oct 92 08:02:17 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct04.105821.27664@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.202903.13653@ultb.isc.rit.edu> rsm8167@ultb.isc.rit.edu wrote:
>> >So, from a Windows bigot to all you OS/2 bigots I say:  "Join us!  Feel the 
>> >power of the Dark Side!  Together the Universe will be ours!!  
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 
>> The Dark Side indeed:
>> ***	Dr Dos 6.0 had compatibility problems with Windows 3.1, so they went
>> 	to MS for help. MS refused to help.
>I'm having trouble flaming you, will you help me?
>
Here, Pete, let me help. Since C.O.O.A. seems to have quite a few members
who's PC industry history is weak enough to think that Apple invented the
GUI and there were no computers before Un*x :-)

Once upon a time there was a popular comm package called Crosstalk. A 
company called SoftKlone decided to copy Crosstalk. Crosstalk's creators
sued SoftKlone to prevent it. Thus began the practice of suing people to
prevent cloning.

Since then we've had quite a few of these lawsuits.

Lotus sued just about everyone to protect their interface.

Apple sued Digital Research because they thought GEM looked to much lik
  a Mac.

Ashton-Tate sued (or threatened) just about every xBase vendor to protect
  the dBase language.

IBM sued Eagle for cloning the PC BIOS.

IBM implied that anyone who wanted to license microchannel would have to
  pay back royalties on every PC or AT clone they had made.

Apple blocked almost everyone who made an Apple ][ clone or a Mac clone.

When Digital Research cloned MS-DOS, Microsoft didn't try to sue them
  out of business. On the other hand, it hardly seems (in light of
  industry history) an example of the "Dark Side" when we don't help
  them debug their code when they have problems doing a good job in
  cloning. After all, Windows 3.1 works fine with MS-DOS 3 which has
  only given them about seven years to study it.

Additional disclaimer: I am not only not a Microsoft spokesperson, I am
also not a lawyer. History of these cases is from memory and may very
well be wrong.



-- 
==============================================================================
Declare Sub Disclaim Lib "Standards" Alias "__StandardDisclaimer" (x As Any)
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: buhr@umanitoba.ca (Kevin Andrew Buhr)
Subject: How to sell Windows users on OS/2 (was Re: OS/2 Minesweeper better than Windows)
Organization: University of Manitoba, Canada
	<1992Sep25.104157.28409@microsoft.com>
	<1992Sep29.184431.6065@microsoft.com>
	<1992Sep30.211613.13084@microsoft.com>
	<1992Oct1.171819.3169@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 03:28:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.171819.3169@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de>
ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:

>   [ In response to some yahoo who doesn't think people buy operating
>   systems for the games. ]
>
>   Believe me, there are people buying thousands of licenses for their
>   companies and all they know, that this OS has a better minesweeper.
>   Afterwards they tell their bosses, that the OS they bought was
>   much user friendlier.

Damn right!  When I want to get some Windows user running OS/2, I tell
him or her that I know this multigame package with a really slick
solitaire (that lets you cheat), a jigsaw puzzle (that'll use any
bitmap), and a wild chess game (that seems to crash whenever you're
losing ;-) ) all for eighty bucks.

After they're hooked and ask me if they can run the game system from
Windows, I say, "No... but you can run Windows from the game system."

Then I introduce them to the little "thrills" the game package
provides, like the HPFS, the WPS, and robust DOS windows.  I tell them
it has Nettrek support, too, but they have to buy an add-on (called
"TCP/IP") for $250.

Kevin Buhr <buhr@ccu.UManitoba.CA>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: goyal@utdallas.edu (Mohit K. Goyal)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:55:40 GMT

In article <1ai5sbINNi7l@uwm.edu> anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Anthony J Stieber) writes:
>In article <DOCONNOR.92Oct2081116@potato.sedona.intel.com> doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor) writes:
>>IBM is selling it's own 80386-compatable and Intel486(R)-compatable chips
>>to some Asian manufacturers. AMD sells 386-compatable chips, and Cyrix
>
>I thought IBM could only sell the Intel-licensed processors if they
>sold as part of a complete computer, or at least a motherboard.  I did
>read about IBM selling just processors in one of the rumor/gossip columns.
>--
><-:(= Anthony Stieber	anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu   uwm!uwmcsd4!anthony

It is my impression that IBM can only clone Intel chips for *internal* use.
I think they want to start selling them alone. 

Their 386SLC and 486DLC-2 (is that right?) sound like pretty good chips.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jld@datascope.com (Jay L. Davis)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Organization: Datascope Corp.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:50:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep21.165505.21510@hemlock.cray.com> gjm@cray.com (Gordon Miller) writes:
>"I believe OS/2 is destined to be the most important operating
>system, and possibly program, of all time.  As the successor to
>DOS, which has over 10,000,000 systems in use, it creates
>incredible opportunities for everyone involved with PCs."
>
>                                        - Bill Gates
>                                        November 1987
>
>
>Yep, he is a man that keeps his word.
>

He must really hate it when he's right!

---Jay Davis



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jws@iastate.edu (James William Shoemaker)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Keywords: Beta
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:27:16 GMT

> But... I develop for OS/2 also... am I not home?
> Just because I prefer NT to OS/2 I'm not allowed to post?
> Sheesh... any developer that has used both is bound to like NT better...
> it _IS_ better, and you don't have to deal with IBM.

	Funny, but as a developer one of my primary loves of OS/2 is not
to have to deal with Microsofts lack of user support.  When I have to pay $
for technical support to develop with your compiler for your operating system
I expect a little support especially from a company as large as Microsoft.

	When I have a question about my Watcom Compiler I call an 800 number
and am connected to a technition or one will call me back before the end of the
day.  I one tried to get a simple question answered by microsoft and they
informed me that I would have to buy Microsoft On-Line to get the answer.

	I haven't had to call IBM with technical questions yet, but they
can't possibly be worse than the complete lack of support from microsoft.


					JWS
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:14:36 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct04.105821.27664@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

>Ahh, this thread again.  Well, I'm quite familiar with UNIX.  I have
>a question, though.  Before X, how did you do you're multitasking.
>As I remember, you could only really have one single task in the foreground,
>and in much of the stuff I did, the background stuff just stood idle while
>waiting for me to switch to them.  This is besides system components, of
>course, such as the daemons, etc.  Frankly, I didn't use the multitasking
>capabilities of UN*X that much, even though I did major amounts of work
>on UN*X.  (I'm not counting use of system level stuff like daemons here).

I think you don't utilize what you've got until you spend a lot of
money on it.  You never started a long FTP transfer and sent it to the
background to complete while you work?  You never uncompressed a large
archive in the background?  You don't do other things while waiting
for pnews to finish posting a complete article to the Net?


-- 
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"
From: tzs@milton.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why would you want a CD (was Price of Win NT vs OS/2)?
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:08:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Sep29.190857.22722
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <jimbo.717776629@morpheus> jimbo@morpheus.wustl.edu (Jim Bowlin) writes:
>Well, I can tell you from experience why the users' might want this 
>capability. I have seen the benefits of installing large OS's using 
>network and CD technology. It greatly reduces the time and tedium   
>involved with installing >30MB programs or operating systems. Have you

However, I hope that I don't have to install the operating system very
often!  What I would like to see for large OS/2 installations is the
following:

	1. A CD-ROM that can be used to do a complete installation.

	2. A *SMALL* floppy version.  This should be at most two or three
	floppies that can install a very basic version of the system.

	3. Floppies for the entire system.

	4. Depending on the demand, tape or removable HD containing the
	entire system.

For any installation other than the first, I would then use the small floppy
version to get a very minimal system running, and then restore the rest
from a backup tape.  Note that this way, I don't have to reinstall all of
my applications.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: 880506s@dragon.acadiau.ca (James R. Skinner)
Subject: Re: Service Pack news from IBM 10/01/92
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 18:26:27 GMT


>OS/2 2.0 SERVICE PAK ADVANCE INFORMATION UPDATE

>The APAR fixes currently available for inclusion in the Service Paks
>are listed below.  
>APAR LIST (PRELIMINARY) =====================
>     For Service Pak XR06050 as of Wednesday, September 30, 1992

>APARS added since previous announcement -------
>APAR    Defect Abstract
>------- ---------------------------------------------------------
>PJ06035 MYSTIFY SCREENSAVER CAUSES A GP FAULT AND KILLS VDM
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Isn't this part of Windows 3.1?  Why is this fix in the Service Pack for 
OS/2 2.0 GA?


-- 

-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
        James Robie Skinner        |     Jodrey School of Computer Science        James.Skinner@dragon.acadiau.ca  |  Acadia University, Wolfville, NS, Canada
-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: NSTL compares OS/2 2.0 and Windows 3.1
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:27:21 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Oct1.055658.8985@ra.msstate.edu> wjw1@me1.MsState.Edu (Bill Wilson) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.051133.5806@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>  [stuff deleted]
>>In the
>>Windows-based application multitasking trials, NSTL found that
>>Microsoft Windows' multitasking capabilities outperformed OS/2's
>>when running more than one task at a time.
>
>I know that NSTL is a pretty respected testing laboratory. But this
>statement I KNOW to be pure bullshit (at least in my experience). I
...
>These are just my opinions, Brian. I don't want to become engaged in
>a flame war with ANYBODY. But your posting of this message just has
>to be answered. 

Please remember that this was from a Microsoft press release, and
thus is their "marketing interpretation" of the report.
It is however clear that Windows 3.1 beat OS/2 2.0 soundly... and
I just knew the members of the two advocacy groups would just
*love* to know about the report and its conclusions. :-)

(Anybody going to order the real thing?  If you do post a summary.)

>Bill Wilson : MSU Nuclear Engineering

Brian

P.S.  I had don't beleive the multitasking part either... but the
rest of it fits my experience.  Note... this is not the first time
OS/2 has been ranked down on multitasking.  InfoWorld's comparison
test of the two also ranked OS/2 lower on multitasking.  Maybe
there is one specific thing OS/2 does very poorly?  If anybody
calls and gets a copy of the NSTL report... check and tell us.
B.
-- 
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! :-))
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 19:46:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.131512.23689@news.columbia.edu> hpw@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Harry P Warren) writes:
...
>Actually, I believe that Apple's next generation operating system was
>internally refered to as "pink" long before they sat down with IBM.  I
>could be wrong; I guess I could go look for a reference to it in an
>old MacWeek but I'm almost certian of this.

You are correct I had heard of Pink as the internal name long before
IBM entered the picture.

>
>harry warren
>hpw@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
>

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! :-))
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: s1084369@giaec.cc.monash.edu.au (Goh (Goh Kian Soon))
Subject: Re : Virtual address space of OS/2 2.0
Organization: Monash University College Gippsland, Churchill, 3842, Australia
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 07:10:17 GMT

From monu6!bruce.cs.monash.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!sgiblab!darwin.sura.net!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!bdubbs Wed Sep 30 15:23:02 EST 1992
Article: 5341 of comp.os.os2.advocacy
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Subject: Reason to use OS/2
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 15:12:28 GMT
Status: RO

In article <1992Sep25.164035.24984@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
[multitasking comments deleted...]
>
>Yes!  This is the point I was trying to make!  Multitasking in and of itself
>RIGHT NOW is a curiosity--I haven't seen a really good, habitual use of
>multitasking on a desktop system that didn't seem *contrived* yet; people
>act as if they format 30-50 floppies every day, or download data for hours
>on end each day... I see *potential* in what multitasking offers, but it is
>the *least* of the reasons (IMHO) to switch to OS/2 (or NT).  The reason 
>being that AT THIS MOMENT, OS/2's (NT's and, yea verily, even Windows 3.1)
>much vaunted "multitasking" is really only being used as a task switcher.
>This will change, but until it does...it is not a reason TO change: because
>Multitasking for the sake of doing it makes little sense.
>
I'd like to modify the topic a bit.  There are lots of reasons to use
OS/2 right now besides multitasking.

1.  512-Mb virtual memory space.
2.  Flat memory model.
3.  Protection from other processes.
4.  32-bit processing.

I know these are available in other OS's, but to that comment I add:

5.  Most widely used operating system for PCs that has the above
available. 

   -- Bruce

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


From monu6!bruce.cs.monash.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!isc-br!tau-ceti!comtch!mstaben Wed Sep 30 15:19:52 EST 1992
Article: 5395 of comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 21:10:39 GMT

In article <pathak-260992141946@virtual.mitre.org> pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.164035.24984@nosc.mil>, discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
>wrote:
>> 
>> Yes!  This is the point I was trying to make!  Multitasking in and of itself
>> RIGHT NOW is a curiosity--I haven't seen a really good, habitual use of
>> multitasking on a desktop system that didn't seem *contrived* yet; people
...
>Note, multitasking isn't just limited to computers.  People multitasking
>(pre-emptively at times) all the time.  After all, how many people do you
>know that sit and watch the water boil? ;-)

Actually, that's more like task swapping:)  I find multitasking to be a
blessing though, especially when I'm doing something like downloading, ray-
tracing, and doing file management at the same time.

>Since the Mac (like Windows) doesn't pre-emptively multitask, my machine
>tends to "freeze" when one of my background processes start doing anything
>that requires any real processing time.  Note this isn't due to the clients
>being badly behaved, they just don't give up the CPU fast enough.  Having
>extensively used machines that do pre-emptively multitask, I find it very
>annoying when my machine hangs.  While even pre-emptive multitasking can be
>overload by running too many processes, pre-emptive multitasking tends to
>give you a lot more milage.

I agree heartily here.

I have just started to use a Mac at work.  At first, I was very impressed.
The shell has very much in common with OS/2 (although I had to do
a lot of translation -- "Aliasing...Oh, that must be shadowing."), and
since the machine was running  System 7, I was told it could multitask.
Even though it only has one mouse button :), I liked it.  Unfortunately
(for the Mac), I'm spoiled by OS/2, though.  I had to format a floppy,
so I tossed it in and expected to be able to go back to my work, like I
do in OS/2.  Instead, I got to stare at the watch icon for a little while.
Then, I was doing slide scanning and expected to be able to do explore
the system while the scanner did the work (an hour's worth).  Wrong again.
Oh well.  The Mac's a nice interface, but it still needs some OS work.
I'll stick with OS/2, even though PC's don't have some of the nice
machine architecture of the Mac.

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy