HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 13:32:27 GMT

Thomas (Ted) Lilley writes:
>Considering 1.) Windows routes file management through dos.
>	    2.) Device drivers (which manage resources) become part
>		of the dos kernel, not Windows.
>and	    3.) There is no such thing as a bootable Windows disk.
>
>I'd say Windows doesn't meet the technical definition of an OS.
>
>Not to say Windows doesn't assume many of the functions of  the OS, but
>it is not in the strict sense an OS itself.

3) There were people who wanted to make System V for the 386 load from DOS.
There would be a UNIX.EXE that you would run from DOS, and it would take
over the maching and be Unix.  If that had been done, would you claim
that Unix would not be an operating system?  For that matter, do you
claim that Netware stopped being an operating system when they went
from version 2.x to version 3.x?  I suspect that you are along if
you do claim this.

2) But the devices are virtualized by VxDs.  This is much like the VDDs
in OS/2 that support DOS device drivers in DOS sessions under OS/2.
Surely you don't claim that if I run a DOS device driver in a DOS
session in OS/2 that OS/2 has suddenly stopped being an operating
system, do you?  If not, then you can't use DOS drivers in DOS
sessions against Windows.

1) I didn't know that operating systems were required to include the
file system.  What about diskless workstations?  Or how about systems
that implement the file system in a user-mode process?

It will be interesting to see how you classify OS/2 when IBM moves
to a Mach-based design.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 12:58:35 GMT

sasghw@pica.unx.sas.com (Greg Wust) writes:
>According to the latest ads from Microsoft found in many magazines
>including Info World, Windows Mag., and PC World, Microsoft has
>Windows 3.1 listed as an "operating system".  How do they get away
>with such a blatantly false statement in an ad?!?

What false statment?  If you would spend less time reading popular
magazines, and spend more time reading operating systems textbooks
(actually, you only have to read the first page of said books), you
would find that Windows 3.1 meets the definition of "operating
system" as given in many, if not nearly all, textbooks.

--Tim Smith
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 6 Nov 1992 01:32:42 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Nov5.225251.14539@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <7734@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>[An OS is:]
>>A suite of programs that insulates application code from the necessities of
>>dealing directly with the hardware.
>And a reasonable definition it is, too.

OK, I'll stick with this one; my amendment that it should be able to stand
alone is based more on a personal impression - that an OS is something that
turns a hunk of hardware into a running system, capable of doing useful work -
and I'm not married to it.

>Ok.  DOS fails the test because:
>1) Anything doing graphics pretty much has to go straight to hardware,
>the 'insulation' that DOS provides being so worthless.

...but there ARE routines provided; therefore, it passes the test. I make no
representations about the quality of the insulation provided.

>2) Accessing upper memory.  DOS is so braindead that it requires
>'extenders' to get outside 640k.  So much for 'insulation' on
>management of the majority of memory on the machine.

The memory above 640K is not part of the machine architecture that DOS was
designed for. Further, DOS can make limited use of that memory - just look at
RAMDRIVE.SYS, for example. Again, I make no representations about the quality
of the OS.

>Shall I continue?  ;-)

Sure. (But maybe by email, unless we've got some fans of this discussion...)
-- 
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: rvaniwaa@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ronald J. Vaniwaarden)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to make OS/2 look bad ...
Date: 8 Nov 92 00:15:57 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

In article <1992Nov7.173054.6379@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Robert Stephen Rodgers) writes:
>In article <1992Nov07.131316.20096@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>>1. Try OS/2 one a 486/33 with 4Mb of memory.
>
>
>	Note that this is still significantly more machine than the 
>	recommendation from IBM--they recommend a "minimum" of
>	a 386SX-16 (that being the lowest 386 chip) with 4 megs.
>
>	If IBM wanted to get rid of this type of crap, they'd 
>	be smart enough to change the label on the box from four
>	to eight (although even six would be satisfactory)..

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.  Anyone that does a test involving Windows runs it on a 386/33 or
better and includes the recommended amount of ram (4mb)  If one only includes
the recommended amount of ram on OS/2 test machines, one notices much better
performance.  I feel that alot of the world out there assumes that since
Windows runs well in 4mb, OS/2 should also...  Oh well, hopefully, some of
those 32bit apps from big name operators such as Lotus will be out soon and
then we can test these directly against their 16bit windows competitors.

--Ron Van Iwaarden
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 5 Nov 92 11:54:32 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>In <1992Nov04.101656.22572@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:

>>strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:

>>>In <1992Nov02.104951.18239@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:

>>I would hesitate to call DOS an OS, so I'll stick with the latter
>>and before I answer that, an API call is only counts as a point
>>in favour of windows if windows performs the function requested.
>>Then I need only say, file management.

>>Windows introduces concurrency, which DOS does not have, therefore
>>it is not the same OS as DOS. If it were to be defined as an OS
>>it would be a different one from DOS, even though it can run
>>DOS apps, as can OS/2, UNIX, XENIX and others.

>>My argument was that Windows is not an OS because it doesn't
>>do file management, or memory management at the hardware level.
>>If this is fixed I will be the first to acknowledge Windows
>>as an OS. It won't make me like non-preemptive multitasking tho.

>And so we see once again that DOS is not an OS, Windows is not an OS,
>and the questioning of whether DOS + Windows is an OS (presumably
>because they are sold separately).  Hence, we are told once again that
>a computer running DOS + Windows is running applications totally
>without an OS.

By whom? Not me for sure, I say DOS isn't a good OS, if any, and windows
is not one by itself. DOS + windows makes a good effort and can
be accepted as one (more) complete OS.
Besides a computer running applications without an OS is hardly
a novelty, in fact, there used to be nothing else, remember ?


-- 
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)
From: slq56@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: OS2 2.0-WIN 3.1
Date: 9 Nov 92 01:47:08 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

I was just curious when OS2 2.0-WIN 3.1 is supposedly going to be released?
Any info will be appreciated.  Thanks...

Frank
SLQ56@cc.usu.edu

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: os/2 and security
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 08:15:37 GMT

In <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.

This may come as a shock to you, but some of us old-timers (I'm 33, and
started programming when I was about 13--long before the introduction of
the microprocessor) have never heard of ACLs.  Kest law vee.  :-)

1200 baud?  I remember when 300 was a luxury!

Followups to comp.old.fogeys.  :-)
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | "Don't you boys know NICE songs?"
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers |                 -- Joe's mama
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: hess@rzdspc14.informatik.uni-hamburg.de (Hauke Hess)
Subject: Re: Windows is a Volkswagon
Organization: University of Hamburg, FRG
Date:  9 Nov 92 07:50:21 GMT

rbotimer@max.ct.gmr.com (R Douglas Botimer) writes:

>:Windows is a Volkswagon because even though it is underpowered and has
>:been around a long time, it's very popular and  gets the job done.
>:

>I like your analogies, but would take it a step farther.  OS/2 is like a single  
>engine Cessna.  It takes a little training to fly and more skill to operate  
>than Windows.  Once you learn to fly the WPS it opens up a new dimension.

>NT may or may not soar climb into another dimension.  It could be a Lear or it  
>could turn out to be a Bricklin.

I like this idea too, adds a real interesting dimension on the OS wars (is it or not), because
the only important thing for software is that work gets done.

I would say that because NT gets the old program and file manager, it`s a Cessna like OS/2,
but the flaps are at 100%, so that you get more speed than with a Volkswagon, you get
also a nice communication system, air condition and what a cessna can do for pilots comfort, but
it will never manage to leave the ground it tries to start from.

Hauke

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Are there published papers about OS/2 2.0?
Date: 9 Nov 92 09:32:57 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

harvie@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Lawrence Harvie) writes:
>	My name's Larry harvie. I'm a grad student at WPI and am  
>in an advanced o/s class.  Each student has present a published 
>pa paper and tlead discussion on the paper.  We have been known 
>to have been a lively group which examines papers very closely.

>	I'd like to know if there are any papers the designers of OS/2
>wrote which explains why they did what they did in designing some piece 
>of the system.  This could be the High Performance File System or 
>any other part of OS/2 that took a new approach.  In this class,
>a published paper from the designers or advocates helps legitimize the 
>presentation.  If anybody knows of such papers, I would appreciate 
>any information you may have.

If you can get the IBM Systems Journal (Vol.31[3] 1992) there are a 
couple of articles about the Workplace Shell, and OS/2.

Tom
From: stieglit@orion.oac.uci.edu (Jeff Stieglitz)
Subject: Re: Mirrors
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: jadpc2
Date: 9 Nov 92 05:33:18 GMT

 I was at a briefing for OS/2 Lotus products last week and I asked the
Ami-Pro product manager if his product used mirrors.  He said no.


--

Jeff Stieglitz                                   stieglit@orion.oac.uci.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 beta?
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:17:34 GMT

nectar@world.std.com (Jacques A Vidrine) writes:
>
>Anybody,
>
>How can I get my hands on the OS/2 2.01 beta?  I have
>four users who use OS/2 but complain because they
>experience crashes more often then they would like.
>This almost always occurs when they are running
>Windows applications.
>
>Can somebody help me out?
>
>
>Jacques A. Vidrine...	   |
>nectar@world.std.com	   | A man can be happy with any woman,
>			   | as long as he does not love her.  
>Request my PGP public key  |		- Wilde
>-- 
>Jacques A. Vidrine...	   |
>nectar@world.std.com	   | A man can be happy with any woman,
>			   | as long as he does not love her.  
>Request my PGP public key  |		- Wilde

You can either a)download it b)from Nov. 18 you will be able
to order it c)in Canada you can get it by visiting some of the
"OS meetings." As far as Applications, they should run fine
i most cases and most problems are due to the program itself
and not OS/2. I will post some text files released by IBM,
which include hints, tips, among other things. They are
rather lengthy but worth the posting.

Hope this help a little bit....

Regards,
Mark K.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dragon@ee470.ee.mcgill.ca (Ngo Bach Long)
Subject: Re:  Why does OS/2 loose out in a PC Mag comparison test?  
Organization: EE Lab, McGill University EE Lab, Montreal
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:49:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.182111.29298@nmt.edu> stimpy@nmt.edu (John Reynolds) writes:
>I've never ever seen a professional unbiased review of OS/2's capabilities
>in any of the rags. If anyone has, I'd like to know about it. OS/2 is
>getting a bum-rap in my opinion. Most of the people that I've talked to,
>use the rags opinion as 'the word' and won't budge until I bring them
>over and show them what it can do (ala the 'why I love OS/2 thread').
>
Actually, I have read two pretty favourable reviews of OS/2 2.0, both by
a certain Mark Minasi. See one of this year's Byte special issues,
"Essential Guide to Windows", p. 55, "The OS/2 Alternative", and
the September (or October) issue of Compute.

Bach
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: joiner@myria.cs.umn.edu (Jay K. Joiner)
Subject: Re: Why does OS/2 loose out in a PC Mag comparison test?
Organization: University of Minnesota
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:55:21 GMT

In <1992Nov11.162339.11015@u.washington.edu> mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth) writes:

>I thought Byte did an outstanding job of reviewing OS/2 two months ago.  Very
>professional, fairly through, and done by people with real expertise in 
>os's. They weren't 100% in favor of os/2, but they did point out strengths and
>weaknesses.

Was this the one where the reviewer complained about the speed of finding
a file?  If so, he was undoubtedly using the Find... button in a notebook,
not the PMSeek app, which is blazingly fast.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: jadpc2
Date: Sun,  8 Nov 92 15:34:02 -0800
From: A_Brian_Sturgill_skeptic@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: Mirrors
Comment-To: Brian_Sturgill@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: A_Brian_Sturgill_skeptic@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

 BS> Thus Lotus may call Ami Pro a 32-bit OS/2 2.0 app (and it will
only run
 BS> under OS/2 2.0), but performance-wise, and especially 
 BS> feature-wise it is far from one.

Really?  Then how come the product manager for AmiPro for OS/2 says it
doesn't use Mirrors?  Perhaps this could have something to do with
your information being *INCORRECT*?

--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:15:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Nov10.211559.1658
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.

In article <1992Nov10.073710.16991@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>Ah, but do they use it once they've booted?  DOS does.  UNIX doesn't.
>
>(The above is talking about the BIOS)
>
>There is a third possibility, which is what OS/2 does: use the BIOS
>if there is no driver available.  OS/2 is perfectly happy to use INT 13h
>for disk access, but if it finds an ADD that uses the disk controller,
>OS/2 stops using the BIOS and uses the ADD instead.
>
>This is such a sensible way to do things, I do not understand why
>everyone (e.g., Unix) doesn't do this.  Sure, it's not as fast to
>use the BIOS, but for many people it would be fast enough, and it
>lets the user use the OS with their hardware without having to wait
>for the OS vendor or the disk controller vendor to write a special
>driver.
>
>--Tim Smith

There are several issues to consider as to why it's not a good idea
to use a BIOS over internal code:

1. The BIOS itself. IBM set the standard. Not everyone follows it.
And Frankly, nost programs bypass it in favor of direct hardware
control. Also, other hardware manfuacturers who do not build
machines that are PC compatible have their own ideas as to what a
BIOS is and how it should be written and executed. Apple has gone
so far as to embedded a good deal of the system calls into ROM for
the Macintoy. 

2. Before the IBM PC hit the streets Firmware BIOS's were not
common. Unix had already developed internal code to deal with
hardware issues and the portability factor of those functions
became less of an issue as time went on.

3. Reentrancy. The IBM PC BIOS is non-reentrant, just like DOS.
That does not mean someone could or has written one.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (m.l. gore)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Win 3.1 Disks
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:04:34 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

>
>You're right, my computer won't boot from the Windows disks.  However, it
>also won't boot from the OS/2 installation disks.  It will boot from the
>Apple System 6 disk.  Therefore only Apple System 6 is an operating system.
>
>--Tim Smith
>
    Huh? Gee...then how did I boot my computer the opther day? The disks read
    'installation', then 'Disk 1'.

    I think you are trying to say that I can't go to any old M<S DOS machiune
    ad boot the OS/2 CMD and run it, like you can DOS. I ahve never tried this
    so I don't know if it works.

    But...once OS/2 is installed, you can boot off of floppies. IT is and OS.
    Yopu can install 10 copies of windows, and never be able to boot your
    computer without using her big brother DOS.

        Windows is a GUI environmemt with soem features that resemble an OS.
        Period. Enough of this. Its is really old.


                                                bvl
-- 

  Lehigh University-AXP
  lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu

            OS/2 2.0...anything else is just a DOS.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8210 comp.os.os2.misc:35559
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: NT BETA
From: choate@acs.harding.edu (Brad S. Choate)
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:52:50 -0500
Reply-To: choate@acs.harding.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harding University

In article <1992Nov4.142624.6527@spock.UUCP>, roland@spock.uucp (David A. Braun) writes:
>	WHERE CAN I GET THE NT BETA, I WANT TO COMPARE IT TO OS/2...
>
>Roland.

Try calling Microsoft.  They may be able to help you! ;)
Their developer's services phone number is: (800) 227-4679

Tell them Brad sent you... I doubt you'll get a discount, but you'll
really confuse them! :)

Brad
--
 Disclaimer: "I really don't care."

 |) |) /\ |\  | Brad S. Choate                  | 1314 E. Market, Apt. 6
 |) |\ || |/  | Sysop, The Lighthouse BBS       | Searcy, AR  72143
 --------_--  | choate@acs.harding.edu          | Voice Phone:  (501) 279-2584
  <||()/\|[   | V.P., Software Extensions, Inc. | The Lighthouse BBS: 279-2585
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: Windows vs. OS/2
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:44:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.185049.4781@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>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?
>
>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. 
>
>-- 
>"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
> in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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."

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.
 
An operating system can multitask, support gobs of hardware, run in 1K of
RAM, virtualize 64 gigs with only 2 megs of RAM and 50 megs of hard disk...
but if you can't accomplish *work* with it... it's next to useless.

Hence, I think my "test" is still valid.

Any takers?

-> Joe <-

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy