HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:06:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.040854.17113@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.214057.5756@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu> rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:
>
>>I think you should dabble a bit more in economics.  MS has had ZERO to
>>do with the down-pricing of computers.  They have had little to
>>do with OS's, also.  DOS was a hack, procured from another company
>>which in turn borrowed it from a third.  The most major change was
>>the 'UNIX-ification' of DOS, i.e., they borrowed heavily from another
>>OS.  NT will be the first truly MS-written OS.  Even that has
>>borrowed heavily from others (Mach from CMU, etc.).
>
>I do not care if DOS was a hack or not. The point is that it was 
>_needed_ by people to operate their computers, and MS was the only
>company that provided it to them by the time they needed it. 
Dov, you need to study your history more.  There were three operating
systems offered by IBM when the PC was introduced.  The $49 PC-DOS,
The $395 CP/M-86, and Something called P-System (I don't remember
the price).  And of course, Unix was offered for it as well.  The
point being that IBM had a vested interest in lo-balling DOS (they thought
that they had paid for it's development).  And DOS won on low cost alone,
CP/M-86 was arguably a better OS (no inherant 640K barrier).


>
>How come that no other company produced an equivalent of WIN 3.0 before MS ?
>I do not say that WIN 3.0 is necessarily an outstanding technical 
>achievement. What I say is that MS were the first to provide people
>with what they need to do their work. 
>
Hmm, Digital research produced GEM some years before Windows 3.0, and 
computers like the "Apricot" and Amiga came with it pre-installed.
However, Digital Research under Gary Kildall had one problem, advertizing/
marketing.  They simply couldn't, as shown by their abrupt abandonment of 
their CP/M Customer base, market.

>Why is it that people has taken for granted for years that only 
>MS is capable of providing developers with APIs, and watched 
>every word that come out from BG ? Only in 1991
>IBM challenged that assumption. Why did not they challenge it a lot
>earlier ? 
>
Because, others have chalanged Microsoft, only to be litigated or 
advertized into the grave.

>Dov
>
Who Sadly Needs a History Lesson.
>

--Lowell Morrison
--Uncle Wolf (Old and Gray).


Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11411 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3620
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 2 Jan 93 12:24:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: shelley.1i41ibINN78f
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

tpurves@sygnus.uucp (Timothy Purves) writes:
>The FTC should just go and disolve themselfs. Look what happended to AT&T...
>it the best thing that could have happened for AT&T. I have been in meetings,
>where the spokesperson was literly having  orgasms on the stage, talking about
>what they were going to do, and what they could now get away with!.

You actually saw an AT&T spokesman have an orgasm on a stage?  I would expect
that the speaker would have noticed that he was getting an erection and would
have left in embarrasement before actually ejaculating in front of a bunch
of people.  Was he able to have this orgasm entirely on the basis of his
talk, or did he have to rub against the podium?  Was there much reaction
from the audience?  (I'm asking all these questions because someone literally
having an orgasm in these circumatances is so unusual, I'm curious).

--Tim Smith
From: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Re: More thoughts on ads..
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Organization: Techn. Univ. Clausthal
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 20:55:49 GMT

In <1993Jan3.190812.19767@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> prs9k@brain.med.virginia.edu (Phil Scarr) writes:
>I agree with you here.  The multitasking issue is a bit arcane for these
>folks, what IBM should have stressed was the superior crash protection,
>the improved user interface and the ability to run most existing
>software more efficiently.

Good idea, they should show this "The system has stopped" screen and a
frustrated custumer, who is trying to get this "superior qualified support"
for the "superior crash protection".

Christoph
-------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------
Christoph H. Hochstaetter, Philipps-University Marburg | Universitaetsstr. 25
Internet: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de       | D-W-3550 Marburg
Bitnet  : HOCHSTAE AT DMRHRZ11                         | Germany
Fido    : 2:243/660                                    | Phone +49-6421-28-7092
Fax     : +49-6421-28-4858                             |
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:23:59 GMT

helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

>In article <1992Dec29.124550.10847@donau.et.tudelft.nl>, linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:

>|> >Look at it this way.  The only way a "big company" can put a "little company"
>|> >out of business is for the customers of the little company to _voluntarily_
>|> >of their _own_free_will_ to _choose_ to buy from the big company instead.
>|> >In other words, it is the freewill choice of the customers which puts _any_
>|> >company, big or little out of business.
>|> 
>|> And not the potential of a big company to produce at lower costs and
>|> the consumers wish to get the cheapest product still valuable. Right
>|> you are.

>What do you have against a big, efficient company producing a valuable
>product at a cheap price?  The only reason we have a higher standard of
>living than our ancestors is that we can produce products more efficiently
>and cheaper than they could.  

Nothing really. It is just that you stated that the only way a "big company"
can etc... I just wanted to point out that that isn't true and that
there are other means of driving someone else out of business.
The large company could also decide to skip making profit for a while
until the competition died. The small company on the other hand can not
afford such a practice, so, even if they are equally efficient and
maybe even of equal quality, the small company would still die on
account of the others hugeness. (Note: this is no reference to any
existing or past situation whatsoever)


>When goverments intervene to make it harder for companies to produce products
>cheaply (which is exactly what the FTC is trying to do to Microsoft), 
>they increase and perpetuate human misery by making it impossible
>for poor people to buy what they need.

If that is what they do, then you are absolutely right. I, only
knowing of your government what I read in papers and see on the
news, can not make a judgement about that, because this impression
seems to unreal to be true.

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
From: steveha@microsoft.com (Steve Hastings)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 01 Jan 93 01:09:35 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Applications Division

In article <8244@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>It's OK for the FTC to force MS to change its marketing because this is force
>in response to force...our net.libertarians will universally agree that the
>initiation of force is wrong, but using force in response to someone else's
>first use of force is good and necessary. MS initiated the use of force.

Any libertarian will tell you that selling a product for a small amount of
money is not and never can be force.

It is force if the government says "Do as we say or we'll charge you huge
fines.  If you don't pay the fines we will shut you down and/or imprison
you."  You are advocating force in response to low prices, which is
clearly not a libertarian concept.

A libertarian will tell you that if a company can afford to sell a product
very cheaply and does so, that company is doing nothing wrong.  Hard-core
libertarians even approve of "dumping", where someone sells a product at a
loss.  (Why do they approve of "dumping"?  Selling at a loss doesn't hurt
the customer at all, only the seller.)

So what happens if MS gets 100% of the market share?  Either MS keeps
selling DOS cheap (no harm to customers) or MS tries to jack up the
price.  If MS tries that, DR-DOS will appear on the market again, or Macs
will start selling more, or OS/2 will sell more.  Or all of the above.

The assumption that MS would have 100% of the market share is suspect,
anyway, as long as OS/2, UNIX, Macintosh, etc. are all available.

The FTC may well force MS to charge more for MS-DOS.  The average person on
the street may well approve.  But you are mistaken if you think
libertarians will approve.
-- 
Steve "I don't speak for Microsoft" Hastings    ===^=== :::::
uunet!microsoft!steveha  steveha@microsoft.com     ` \\==|
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11225 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3552
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 30 Dec 1992 19:40:13 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec30.190050.26854@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
[about antitrust laws]
>Instead of whacking one of our few remaining strong industries with them, lets 
>ditch them and stop exporting jobs to countries whose companies compete with 
>each other instead of sue each other.

Right. Then we can ALL go to work for MS, just like you're evidently trying to
do. After all, there won't be another software outfit to go to work for; MS
will have sleazed them all out of business.
-- 
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.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11097 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3511
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 29 Dec 1992 19:32:00 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec29.172229.3466@microsoft.com> philco@microsoft.com (Phillip Cooper) writes:
>All right, this mis-information being spread is getting a little out of
>hand.  It is true that *one* type of licensing contract offered to system
>vendors charges royalties per computer.  It is also true that another
>type of licensing contract charges royalties per copy of OS sold.  There
>are many variations of each, and they cover just about every conceivable
>type of licensing you can imagine.  It is *completely* up to the vendor
>to choose which contract to use.  If they choose to go with the one charging
>royalties for each machine sold it is because they get larger volume
>discounts and the vast, vast majority of customers want MSDOS anyway.  

Not necessarily. For example, say that MS charges $8 per machine for the
every-machine-gets-one contract, and $20 per license for the completely
unbundled version. In each case, the vendor gets exactly the same thing: the
right to preinstall DOS and Windows on his machines and provide a book that he
gets to have printed of OS documentation.

This would be a prime case of MS forcing vendors to sell DOS and Windows with
each machine, whether or not the customer wants or needs it. (I can hear the
cries now: "But they're not holding a gun to their head!"...to which I answer
that force can be economic as well as physical.)

All that's now required is for MS to make these offers to each new computer
vendor. Guess what: instant monopoly!

(A company can have an effective monopoly with less than 100% of a market.)

>If you don't like it, complain to the hardware vendor that chose this
>licensing arrangement, rather than one which charges only for each copy
>of the OS sold.  They are the ones, after all, that made the choice.

...under severe economic pressure from MS. Practically speaking, if I want a
new machine, I have to buy it with DOS and Windows preinstalled. (Fortunately,
though, this may be changing; at least Dell is standing up to MS' pressure,
and I can always go get a PS/Valuepoint...)
-- 
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.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 30 Dec 92 18:56:08 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <8244@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec30.162838.9739@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
|> >From the above I conclude that you think that force is a bad thing.
|> >After a zillion of postings claiming that there is nothing wrong
|> >with force, and therefore everything is fine with the FTC forcing
|> >MS to change its marketing, I becoming a little confused.
|> 
|> It's OK for the FTC to force MS to change its marketing because this is force
|> in response to force...our net.libertarians will universally agree that the
|> initiation of force is wrong, but using force in response to someone else's
|> first use of force is good and necessary. MS initiated the use of force.

Why anyone would put charging $8 for Windows in the same league with 
pointing a gun at Microsoft is beyond me.  Its a downright Orwellian 
perversion of the language to use the same word "force" to describe 
both actions.

A legitimate action against Microsoft would be for its competitors to offer
the same deal to the clone makers, or a better deal.  If American business
and government would stop litigating and start competing we would see a new day.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:56:57 GMT

In <1992Dec31.010153.5064@grebyn.com> mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli) writes:

>In article <1992Dec30.015357.11809@ryn.mro4.dec.com> Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com writes:
>>
>>The reference platform for NT is MIPS, so they're "porting" it to the Intel
>>platform, if "porting" is the right term to use in a concurrent development
>>situation. Also, Digital are playing a significant part in the Alpha port.
>>
>>>-- 
>That seems kind of strange, since Intel will obviously be far and away
>the largest market for NT for quite some time.  I've never met or even
>read of anyone, user or developer, who had any plans of even considering
>running NT on anything but an Intel machine.  So why would they do it
>this way? (Note that I'm not saying that I don't believe you, I'm just
>questioning MS's sense in following this path)

If true (I don't know from firsthand knowledge, either, but wouldn't
be surprised), I suspect it dates back to the original ACE initiative,
when COMPAQ and others were talking about using the MIPS R4000 instead
of Intel chips to break the Intel stranglehold on the PC market, and
NT was seen as the compatible OS to allow people to migrate to the
newer, more powerful machines.  When ACE started showing signs of
falling apart was when the deal was cut with DEC about the Alpha, I
think. 

-- 
"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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: lachlan@dmp.csiro.au (Lachlan Cranswick)
Subject: Re: MS to 'support' OS/2?
Organization: CSIRO Division of Mineral Products, Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 21:43:59 GMT


goldstei@shrike.und.ac.za (Hilton Goldstein) writes:

>Hi,

>Are MS planning to port/write apps for OS/2 2.x?  I am particularly
>interested in MS-Word for OS/2 which is superior to the Windows 
>version 2.0a.   An MS salesman here said MS would support all
>platforms, but how much of that is truth and how much is PR???

>I am currently using the Windows product under OS/2, but it keeps 
>crashing "error in ATM", and for the other obvious reasons would 
>like an OS/2 product.

>Please email any replies - thanking you in advance...

From memory, the original box of MS Word 5.0 for DOS
say also for OS/2.  Does this imply that it
has code written to take advantage of OS/2 or as
a DOS program, it will also run under OS/2.

This "original box" was at least 3 years old? (I think)

Thanks in advance,  Lachlan
-- 
  Lachlan Cranswick  -  CSIRO             _--_|\  lachlan@dmp.CSIRO.AU
  Division of Mineral Products           /      \ tel +61 3 647 0367
  PO Box 124, Port Melbourne 3207        \_.--._/ fax +61 3 646 3223
  AUSTRALIA                                    v 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dhaliwa@ecf.toronto.edu (DHALIWAL BIKRAM SINGH)
Subject: Will it go?
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 23:27:53 GMT

I have two ST-251 hard-drives hooked into a single RLL controller on my
386-40.  Right know I have Linix (a free Unix with X-Windows) running on
my second hard-drive which I can boot to from a floppy (I have not got
around to setting up a dual boot).  My boot sector is located on my first
hard-drive which is exclusively a MS-DOS drive that has two partitions of
which only C: is Stacked, and D: is unstacked.   

After much convolusion my question is can I install OS/2 on my second 
hard-drive while still retaining DOS on my first hard-drive.  It would make
sense I suppose using OS/2's dual booter.  But should I make both HPFS
drives and get rid of DOS altogether?  Is OS/2's performance good enough
for such a task?????  

I want to retain DOS because there is nothing as seamless as DOS itself and
Windows itself.  But, from what I have read in this newsgroup OS/2 sounds
pretty good.  Right now I have 4 megs, but plan to buy 4 more megs this week.
What do you think, I plan to use the eventual platform to develop software
in C for Windows and possibly OS/2 (I can't find any good OS/2 programming 
mannuals).

-- 
 
.............................................
 Bikram Dhaliwal (dhaliwa@civ.toronto.edu) 
 Toronto        (dhaliwa@ecf.toronto.edu) 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:07:49 GMT

In <1992Dec28.201454.20862@microsoft.com> bobatk@microsoft.com (Bob Atkinson) writes:

>Lowell Morrison writes:
>>>*sigh* is anybody forcing people to buy MS DOS at $100 a copy?  
>>>
>>Effectively Yes.  The senario is this, I have a PC (It was given to me
>>by a well meaning relitive, it is loaded with DR-DOS 6.0), I need to run
>>The most wonderful word processor in the world (Word Perfect 5.2, or 
>>some other non-MS windows based word processor), I go out an buy Windows
>>3.1 (I am not stupid so I get it for $79 at Egghead on sale) and this 
>>Wonderful Word Processor.  All of a sudden I find out that Windows 3.1 won't
>>run under my version of DR-DOS, so I go back to Egghead and am forced to pay
>>full price (minus the egghead discount) for DOS.  I ain't happy with
>>Microsoft.


>I'm confused; perhaps you can help me out of my confusion.

>	1. You have DR-DOS6.0, a clone of MSDOS.
>	2. You buy Win3.1, an MS product that was designed to 
>		work with MSDOS. And indeed it does, as you note.
>	3. You find that Win3.1 doesn't work with DR-DOS6.0

>Then: 
>	4. You complain to MS, not DR, about the problem.

>See my confusion? Doesn't the problem have to do with the fidelity
>of the MSDOS emulation done by DR-DOS? Or am I missing something?
>I'd genuinely like to know...

Well, let's see if we can help you out a bit.  He has DR-DOS6 and Win3
and they play nicely together.  MS then 'upgrades' (bug fixes) Win3 to
Win31, and suddenly DR-DOS6 and Win don't play together anymore.  On
top of that, MS refuses to let DR Beta advanced copies so that they
can fix everything right "because they are the competition".

Now then, do you understand why people would wonder about it when that
kind of thing happens with a company whose direction is set by Bill
"It isn't done until 1,2,3 won't run on it" Gates?

-- 
"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.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11012 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3465
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 20:40:10 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <28DEC199211373834@moose.cccs.umn.edu> rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu writes:
> 
> Perhaps you would like to inject some facts into the discussion and provide
> the specifics about the agreement that you feel violate the anti-trust laws.
> In particular, I'd like to know the term of the agreement, the per-unit
> cost schedule; and specifically, if there were any penalty clauses that
> caused your price to rise if you included other OS software on the machine.

Unfortunately......(*sigh*) I am not at liberty to disclose this information.

> My problem is that the FTC has shown no 'fingers for the nuances' as the 
> Russians say.  They are much more at home chasing down wayward mail order
> firms or making used car dealers to tell buyers about known defects than
> they are in dealing with the finer points of industrial organization or
> anti-trust law.  That's why there is an anti-trust division at the Department
> of Justice.

> I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that anti-trust laws vary
> greatly between countries and depend to a great extent on the particular
> legal history of the specific country.

My point of contention with the original poster was on the general
acceptability of organisations like the FTC or the DOJ anti-trust crowd. The
object of supervising/regulating business in order to prevent/undo monopolies
is an idea that most people find acceptable. 
 
Yamanari did not. My detailed knowledge of the FTC is a bit dated (from the
time when I lived in Canada). I'm actually a Canadian living in new Zealand, so
my knowledge of things North American is pretty good. I have also been fairly
interested and active in number of areas of public policy through interest
groups.
 
Steve


-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
+64 4 478 4714                          | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy