HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 8 Nov 92 16:39:11 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering

tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

>dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
>>        Q.  Is Microsoft Windows an Operating System?
>> 
>>        A.  MircoSoft Employee's say yes, and there really isn't much
>>            that anyone can do to stop them from using such a misnomer
>>            except by not using Windoze !!!
>>

>I don't want to sound like I'm defending Microsoft (someday I'm going to
>post why I think Dan Quayle with a Cobol compiler could have written
>better memory management code than the excrement that found its way
>into Windows 3.1 (if you want to deduce from this that I spent a
>long time working around a Microsoft bug, go ahead :-))), but according
>to the definition of "operating system" from most major operating
>systems textbooks, it is not a misnomer to call Windows 3.1 an
>operating system.

Only if you view it as one entity with DOS. It has been agreed on
by many sofar, on account of it missing a file system.

Windows 3.1 performs many of the duties (nearly all, but not quite)
of an OS. Not all equally well, but that is not what this
thread was about.

erik


-- 
Erik van Linstee   |   Delft University of Technology   |   I'll be back ... 
----
   We are god, 'cause only we can create the idea of his existence
   in our holy brains...  (Yello)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: jadpc2
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 15:37:52 -0800
From: Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Comment-To: Mike_Thompson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

 MT> Are others getting as frustrated with the OS/2 
 MT> environment as I.  Or have I
 MT> just been spoiled by the relative stability of large 
 MT> UNIX environments.  As I
 MT> said at the beginning, I am working with a company to 
 MT> put out a 32 bit app. 
 MT> But I am getting so frustrated that I wonder if its 
 MT> really worth the continued effort.

I think the problems you are having with PM programming will largely
be solved next year when PM moves to a multiple system message queue
model.  Right now it is still fairly easy to hog the input focus and
thus make the machine appear to hang because of the single system
input queue model inherited from Windows.  That's part of the reason
why PM programs should be written to multithread if at all possible. 
You can have one thread for manager the user interface message queue
processing and other threads to do anything complicated to keep the
user from waiting.

If you do have a problem with an app hogging the input focus, press
CTRL-ESC and wait for about half a minute.  Almost always a dialog box
will appear asking you if you want to kill the offending application.

I run a two-line BBS on my machine using OS/2 2.0 and typically go a
week or two of running 24 hours a day and processing 60-80 BBS calls
and around 20 mail calls per day between reboots.  Usually reboots are
caused by my wanting to change something in CONFIG.SYS or the
hardware, not from crashes.  But I have managed to crash OS/2 2.0. 
IPMD, the PM debugger, seems to do it more often than anything else.

 MT> between system crashes is less than 24 hours.  Trap 8, 
 MT> trad D, trap E, just
 MT> plain hung - you name it, we've seen it.  Admittedly the machine
is being
 MT> worked hard, but any UNIX system with that kind of performance
would never
 MT> survive.  (Northgate 486/33, 16 MB memory, SpeedStar 
 MT> graphics, TCP/IP 1.2.1 +
 MT> all patches, OS/2+CSD).  My machine at home, similar
configuration, traps
 MT> roughly every 2-3 days, better but it only gets used 4 hours per
day.

This sounds much worse than the experience I've had.  I would begin to
wonder about your hardware configuration.  Perhaps the bus speed is
too high or the wait states on DRAM access are set too low?


--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
From: Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Word Perfect 6.0 for OS/2 PM
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:41:22 GMT
Reply-To: Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Distribution: jadpc2
Comment-To: Tom_Haapanen@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514


 TH> Regardless of whether WP6 will use Mirrors or not, I remember
there was a
 TH> lot of noise made in the spring how OS/2 was going to be WP's
strategic
 TH> platform, and how WP for OS/2 was going to be the first platform
to go to
 TH> version 6.0.  Now it looks like the OS/2 version will ship well
after the
 TH> DOS and Windows versions.

Word Perfect decided that it would rather try to win a few more
Windows and DOS sales than to have a chance at becoming the dominant
OS/2 word processor.  Now Ami Pro will probably ship a few months
ahead of WP6.0 for OS/2.  Given the pent-up demand for OS/2
applications and Lotus having a suite of interoperating programs,
probably a lot of OS/2 users are going to be buying Ami Pro for OS/2. 
Lotus is smart to invest resources into getting the first complete
suite of 32-bit OS/2 applications to market as the company that is
first with a strong set of apps will be hard to dislodge later. 

This is probably why Computer Associates is working hard at porting so
many of their applications to 32-bit OS/2, also.  They realize there
is a market opportunity to become a #1 or #2 supplier on a new
operating system platform.


--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Windows vs. OS/2
Date: 12 Nov 92 10:18:17 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


> >In <1992Nov11.165329.5878@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
> >
> >>I've been thinking about all these arguments about which OS is "better" 
> >>(indeed whether Windows could be considered an OS or not).  So I thought that
> >>if there were people out there who could put up or shut up, I thought that
> >>perhaps we could begin to put the issue at rest.
> >
> >>So what I propose is that we get some volunteers from both the Windows and
> >>OS/2 camps to each do a "project"--for example, laying out the cover of a
> >>published magazine (say, the Nov 10,1992 issue of PC Magazine)--each 
> >>using his/her favorite operating platform, using their favorite software
> >>that runs under their favorite OS.   When they get finished, they upload
> >>it to a judging site (to be determined) where other volunteers view their
> >>work.  Then each designer basically tells us *how* they did it, and how
> >>*long* it took them to do it--we give more points for the first one
> >>submitted.
> >
> >>Naturally there are many holes in what I propose... what's to keep the
> >>designers from lying?  "I did it during my fifteen minute break"?  Well,
> >>I think we're all adults here... 
> >
> >>What does everybody think?  Is it workable?

In order to make the comparisons valuable (as to how long/difficult the tasks
are) you must remove the variability of the participants, or have enough
of them that you can be sure of the results.  For instance, if you have
two participants, one on windows,  one on OS/2, and you are doing a layout
task, make sure that their skills are equal.  Someone experienced in
layout could probably do a faster job on a 386sx/16 running OS/2 with
9 billion tasks in the background than I could running a 486/66 in
windows with no background tasks.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS not operating system, film at 11. :-)
Date: 12 Nov 1992 13:11:06 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Nov11.225957.10025@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>I would remind you that OEM's are not Forced by MS to include any MS product
>in their systems.

I guess you've missed the many posts from folks who have tried to buy machines
from companies like Gateway 2000 and Zeos without Windows installed, only to
be told that their agreement with MS requires them to include it on every
computer they sell...Personally, if I were to buy a machine, I would not buy
any that came only with Windows preinstalled.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
     We survived Jimmy Carter; we'll (probably) survive Bill Clinton.
From: scratchy.caltech.edu!kasturi (Tejaswi Kasturi)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Date: 13 Nov 1992 23:54:55 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: itchy.caltech.edu
Originator: kasturi@itchy

> Are others getting as frustrated with the OS/2 environment as I.  Or  
have I
> just been spoiled by the relative stability of large UNIX environments.   
As I
> said at the beginning, I am working with a company to put out a 32 bit  
app. 
> But I am getting so frustrated that I wonder if its really worth the  
continued
> effort.

You've been spoiled by large unix environments where everything is well  
integrated since it all comes from one source essentially (i.e. Sun makes  
and sells both the machine (which is extensively tested) and the operating  
system.  Similar for RS/6000, DECstations, Nexts, etc.)  But in the PC  
world, northgate makes the PC, Diamond makes the video card, IBM makes  
OS/2, etc.  So of course you'll have more problems, especially with such  
an all-encompassing program like OS/2 tries to be.  Have you tried running  
SCO Unix and Open Desktop on your machine?  I would be curious to know if  
it's completely stable.  And OS/2 is definitely better than running DOS +  
Windows or if you want X capability DOS + DESQview/X.  You just live with  
it. I'm running OS/2 with merely 8 megs of ram on a 486/25 with a n ATI  
VGA Wonder and it crashes about once a week.

Tejaswi Kasturi
kasturi@cco.caltech.edu
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 5 Nov 1992 19:13:24 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Nov5.165623.808@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <7714@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>A neat analogy, Fred, but wrong: what does an OS do that DOS doesn't?
>Gee, Jay, tell me what definition of 'OS' you're using.  :-)

A suite of programs that insulates application code from the necessities of
dealing directly with the hardware.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
     We survived Jimmy Carter; we'll (probably) survive Bill Clinton.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: daniel@ledaserma.cea.fr (Daniel BRAUN)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 12:52:04 GMT
Reply-To: daniel@soleil.serma.cea.fr (Daniel BRAUN)
Organization: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique

In article <1992Nov02.221621.22870@microsoft.com>, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
|> BTW: you command.com replaces/enhances part of an operating system, and thus
|> becomes part of that operating system.  

No... a command shell is not a part of the OS... it is
an application (even if you won't go far without it..)
(see for example Tannenbaum book about OS, which -i think- gives
a good idea of what is an OS..)
As an example, the C-Shell and the Bourne shell belongs to unix
environnement, but not to unix itself (ie whatever shell you run,
your OS is unix and nothing else)
A command shell is a program that gives the user an access to the OS.
An OS is a program that gives other programms an access to the machine
ressources (at least this is what i believe...)

regards

	Daniel
	
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 09:57:39 GMT

jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>In article <1992Nov05.115641.12981@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>>jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>>A neat analogy, Fred, but wrong: what does an OS do that DOS doesn't?
>>Provide protection from ill behaved applications for one. Furthermore
>>I would say concurrency should be included in the definition of
>>a modern OS.

>Provide sources for both of those, please. In particular, concurrency: Nobody

On the protection bit, Lister, Fundamentels of operating systems,
though I do not have my copy handy so I can't give more details.
I only said concurrency should be included, thereby implying it
isn't (yet).

>argued about whether or not OS/360 PCP, a single-tasking version of OS/360,
>was an OS.

See above

>Protecting itself from an ill-behaved application is something a good OS
>*should* have, but it's hardly a requirement.

Well, maybe defenitions disagree on this then.


-- 
Erik van Linstee   |   Delft University of Technology   |   I'll be back ... 
----
   We are god, 'cause only we can create the idea of his existence
   in our holy brains...  (Yello)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: Windows vs. OS/2
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 23:03:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.214418.10075@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.185049.4781@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>
>>>So what I propose is that we get some volunteers from both the Windows and
>>>OS/2 camps to each do a "project"--for example, laying out the cover of a
>>>published magazine (say, the Nov 10,1992 issue of PC Magazine)--each 
>>>using his/her favorite operating platform, using their favorite software
>>>that runs under their favorite OS.   When they get finished, they upload
>>>it to a judging site (to be determined) where other volunteers view their
>>>work.  Then each designer basically tells us *how* they did it, and how
>>>*long* it took them to do it--we give more points for the first one
>>>submitted.

(Fred McCall):
>>
>>Workable?  Yes.  Meaningful insofar as determining "better" operating
>>system?  No.  What it would give you is a measure of who (not
>>necessarily which operating system, even, mind you, but WHO) happened
>>to have the most efficient tools available and/or the most skill at
>>the selected task. 

(Joe):
>
>But I was assuming that the volunteers who chose to compete would think they
>*have* the best tools that run under their chosen operating platform.  
>But regardless, we again have the problem of what "better" means.  I thought
>(and still do) that the platform which makes me the most money is the
>"best."  But here's a more platable thought:
> 
>     "An operating system is only as good as the applications written for it."
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I would modify this.  "An operating system is only as good as the
applications it runs, and how well it runs them."

>
>If you are suggesting (in your post) that a person is unable to "win"
>because the "most efficient tools" are not available for his chosen platform,
>then I would simply say that the Operating System he chose is not as 
>good as others--yet.
...
>Hence, I think my "test" is still valid.

I would have to agree with Fred here.  Obviously not everyone has the "best"
tools for any specific task you may come up with, and the sample we  get
from this group, after weeding out those too disinterested to try, is certain
to be so small as to render a result inconclusive.  Even if the factor of
whether the best tools do or do not exist for the platform *doesn't* count,
there is still the factor of whether anyone here (who wants to try) even has
those best of tools.  These things cost money, you know, and I can't go
buy a DTP program in a vain attempt to solve the matter, assuming I care.

Second, as someone else mentioned, it would require a battery of tests to
decide which OS is best in which areas, not just one specific task.

Is there any solution?  Of course not.  This is a religious matter, doncha
know.

We could still give it a shot, though, if there're people willing to try.

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:45:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.202305.5013@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Oct30.185435.2143@cci632.cci.com> rom@cci632.cci.com (Rudynell S. Millian) writes:
>
>>In article <strobl.720403410@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>>>In <1992Oct29.194450.9856@a.cs.okstate.edu> teague@a.cs.okstate.edu (Keith Teague) writes:
>>>
>>>>Microsoft Windows (as it exists today) is clearly NOT an operating
>>>>system - any more than a DOS shell is an operating system. It is
>>>>clearly a GUI and a tool to ease user interaction with the OS, but
>>>>it is not an OS in any real technical sense.
>>>
>>>If you view at it using the usual definition of an OS as 
>>>something which manages resources (memory, cpu time, access
>>>to peripherals) and schedules tasks, Windows obviously *is*
>>>an operating system. At least, it is much more of an OS
>>>than DOS is, for example. 
>
>>	Don't get confused. You want to know if WIN is an OS or not, try this;
>
>>	Remove DOS from you HD, turn your computer off, and then try installing
>>Windows. 
>>	Hmmmm,...that didn't work. Well ignore the message you got on the 
>>screen and stick your "WIN boot disk" in and try again.
>>	What's that, you say you don't have one? Well, reinstall DOS and install
>>windows from there. Now remove ALL DOS related files and directories from your
>>HD. Now turn your computer off and turn it back on.
>
>Now take out your boot PROM.  Insert your DOS boot disk.  Try to boot
>DOS.  What?  It won't boot?  Hmmm.
>
>>	Hmmm,....Still waiting for that Windows 3.1 logo? Why won't the darn
>>thing "manage resources (memory, cpu time, access to peripherals) and schedule 
>>tasks"? Windows obviously is N O T an operating system!
>
>Well, obviously to those people who don't know what an operating
>system is, anyway.  Tell you what, find someone with an IBM 43xx
>mainframe running VM/CMS.  Remove all traces of VM from the system.
>Try to boot the CMS operating system.  What?  You say the machine
>won't come up?  Funny how that works, isn't it?
>
Now take a Novell file server and delete all the DOS stuff off the DOS
partition.  It won't boot either.  Does this mean Netware is not an OS?
I don't really know if it is or isn't-- you can't run apps on it, but it
does run bare on the hardware.  It needs DOS to boot, but once it's
running, it doesn't need DOS anymore.  (At least that's my
understanding).   I think that people have tampered a lot with the
definition of an OS these days, and that it is no longer entirely clear
what an OS is.  Since the market accepts Windows as an OS, let MS
advertise it that way.  In fact, if MS advertised it as a DOS shell/GUI,
probably better than half their market wouldn't know what they were
talking about.  So I say that they can call it whatever they want.  I'm
not going to buy it or not based on what they call.  I won't buy it
because it sucks. 
-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
From: jyri+@CMU.EDU (Jyri Virkki)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows is a Volkswagon
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:38:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.AeyYgLG00WB=1Q5Lgw
	<1992Nov5.203447.21012@access.usask.ca>
Organization: Masters student, Information Networking Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

lowey@jester.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey,159 Physics,(306) 966-4826,(306) sez:
>
> I prefer to believe Windows is a Volkswagon.  The argument that
> Windows is a Volkswagon is probably more relevant to this newsgroup
> than whether Windows is an operating system or not, and would probably
> be less boring.

Hey! I resent that! VW's are wonderful cars, cute and lovable, and
more to the point, very, very reliable. Windows is extremely
unreliable, ugly as sin and unfriendly. Please don't tarnish
the VW name!

:-)

--
Jyri J. Virkki | DoD#561 | jyri+@cmu.edu | Carnegie Mellon University | MSINI
jyri@[rummat3|rmece02].upr.clu.edu       | Use finger to obtain PGP public key
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: os/2 and security
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 21:09:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.142420.16759@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>>HAD a bug.  And note that they released the fix (free as usual) before
>>any commercial system with ACLs was released.  :-)
>
>This may come as a shock to you, but us old-timers (I'm 32) didn't just
>sit around playing with our slide rules before the IBM PC came out.  We
>had computers way back in the old days, too.  They didn't fit on our
>desks, and we thought 1200 bps was a luxury, and we though a machine
>with a megabyte of core (that's a kind of memory) was big.  And there
>were commercial systems then with ACLs.

Maybe you'd better cool your jets a little, Tim.  Chris was talking about
IBM OS/2 commercial systems using ACL's, which isn't evident from that
quote but was the implicit topic of conversation.  You should probably be 
trying to bring yourself up on what's current than revive these older
postings (like the replies you posted to some old ones of mine).

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: roland@spock.uucp (David A. Braun)
Subject: Re: How to make OS/2 look bad ...
Organization: Choate Rosemary Hall
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:32:07 GMT

In <4310@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> rvaniwaa@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ronald J. Vaniwaarden) writes:

[...]

>This is not different that MS claiming that you _can_ run Windows on a 286
>with 1 mb of ram.  Of course, noone ever does this except to prove that it
>can be done.  

Not so fast! I did that (i.e. run Windows on a 286 with 1MByte)
for years, and was quite satisfied with its overall performance.

Don't claim that nobody did something sucessfully, just because
*you* never did.

So did I, and I must say it DID work reasonably fast, it was large windows
programs which couldn't work, that evil Program Manager worked fine.

Roland.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy