HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Date: 07 Oct 92 21:00:12 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct6.203618.4322@ncsu.edu> linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.131605.15955@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>>>It seems rather silly that NT supports symmetrical multiprocessing, and gives
>>>that power to all of one user at a time.
>>Where did you get this information from?  It's true the graphics
>>system allows only one user at the console at a time.
>>But this is not different even from X.
>
>Actually, to be precise, you could conceivably have one person with two xterms
>with one of them logged-in as one user, and the other logged-in as a different
>user.  Is that possible in the (eventually-to-be-)'shipping' NT?

     Is that a useful scenario?  Not in any way that I can see.


>>You can have background tasks executing as other users... and if you
>>provided the login program... people logged in via serial ports.
>
>'If you provided the login program....'  That is so typical of NT-advocates'
>responses to missing features:  'If it's not there, write it yourself and let
>Microsoft take credit for providing the feature.'  Come on!  Are we talking
>about NT, or Linux, Minix, and BSD386?

     The underlying architecture of Windows NT is such that it can
allow concurrent multiple users.  It provides security between those
processes.  The presence or absence of a login program doesn't change
those facts.


>For that matter, if I provide the software, I can support multiple logins and
>restricted file access on my OS/2 (or even DOS) box.  Such software is often
>referred to as a BBS.

     This is a straw-man.  We're not talking about BBSes.


>  Heck, with IBM TCP/IP for OS/2, I can even support 
>simultaneous telnet (no access restriction) and ftp (restricted access to 
>directories) sessions coming into my machine.  Can NT do that?  Oh, I forgot,
>NT, the 'server OS,' only supports TCP/IP client stuff.

     Would you care to provide a source for this little tidbit?

					-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:59:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: mksol.1992Oct13.165948.25674
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Oct12.213050.29012@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:


>>  What reason does Zachmann have for making
>>MS look bad?  Certainly not financial gain.

>     Actually, he stands to make quite a bit of money if OS/2 succeeds
>the way he has been predicting.

This is the second one of your postings where you seem to be saying
this, Phil.  It frankly simply does not wash.  Personally, I started
ignoring Zachman a long time ago, when he was continually telling us
about how OS/2 was going to take over the world, etc.  I simply didn't
think he was objective enough about things to warrant listening to.
Of course, that was back in the days when Microsoft was involved in
it, too.  If he had 'something to gain' by being right, why wait until
now to do something?

Also, just how do you expect him to "make quite a bit of money if OS/2
succeeds"?  Just because he was right ONCE, AFTER SEVERAL YEARS?
Hardly seems to me to be the foundation for a wealthy career.  After
all, if OS/2 turns out to be the success of the decade, all that will
happen is that other writers will pick up on it and start writing
about it.  Where's this bonanza for Zachman you seem to think will
occur? 

-- 
"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
Subject: Re: Unprofessional Posts from Brian S.
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 11:20:25 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Oct12.062257.18201@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>
> Think before you post.  It can work wonders.  Sure, some of the OS/2 [or
> whatever]  advocates are equally insulting and insufferable.  But just
> because you  see someone acting like a child is no excuse for acting like
> a child as well.  Think--does the world *really* need to see 40 posts
> every day covering the same damn points?  Over and over and over again?
> Will winning net.arguments do any damn good in the real world?  

Words to this effect should be posted to alt.best.of.internet.

David Charlap has given up on this group.....I only skim it now for new
threads.....the old ones get bogged down in dross within 24hours. Only the MS
employees, Brian, and a few die-hards are still here in force....
 
What a waste of a potentially useful newsgroup. Anyway...the real discussions
take place in c.o.o.m these days anyway. 
 
Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7469 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2424
Organization: Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Vienna, Austria
Date: Thursday, 8 Oct 1992 16:03:01 CET
From: FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: NT: clean design (NoT!) (was Re: OS/2 because! (was NT: Why?)

Due to the inherent complexities for developers for both, OS/2 and NT,
a statement like "NT has the cleanest design of all present operating
systems" lets the readers in the dust. Even OS/2-people in the meantime
believe this bullshit and agree that the design of NT is "clean".

So, let us name some areas where developers are affected:

-   Naming Conventions of API (NT is a mess !)
-   Logical build of the Windows-API (NT is stoneaged, due to the fact that
    Microsoft did not dare to revamp those APIs again, as they rightfully
    did when designing the window-manager part of OS/2, which as a consequence
    is much clearer structured - name-wise and the order of arguments...)
-   Interprocess-constructs: NT was built after those of OS/2
-   ...

One could go on and on and on.

Please keep in mind, that NT's design ***is*** OS/2 design. Instead of
PM Microsoft puts in some artificially enlarged Win-interface (awkwardly
defined).

One very important difference: NT does not exist as a commercial-product. It
has been announced and postponed and announced and postponed since the
beginning of 1991. It is not even betatested right now. It is not even
complete.

See, 32bit OS/2 was revamped by IBM and is designed to be portable (after
Microsoft and IBM split, IBM had to go into that direction, if they wanted
to become independent of Microsoft again).

32bit OS/2 has a clean and a modern design. NT tries to copycat it (surprise,
surprise, it was designed as being OS/2 version 3.0 !).

OS/2 is a single user operating system. If you need a multiuser version like
NT's buy the LAN-modules. If you need a portable version you can buy OS/2 by
the time NT is a stable product. If you need a symmetrical-multiprocessing
system, buy OS/2 at the time NT is a stable product (plus IBM uses a non-
proprietary micro-kernel: Mach 3; do not forget: NT's microkernel is
proprietary!). If you need a C2-capable security version buy OS/2 by the time
NT is a stable product (IBM even has B-level security in their schedules,
derived from their mainframe world, Microsoft has no working implementations
of B-level !).

So, if I use DOS or Windows, I use 32bit OS/2 as a great multitasker, which
even protects the applications from each other. With Win3.1 support (I have
a beta) for OS/2, the situtation for Windows-only user improves and encompasses
for what is available under plain DOS/Win3.1.

I did not wait until 93 or 94, I bought 32bit OS/2. I recommend it for anyone
still watching the Microsoft vapor-shows for months.

---ronz
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Infoworld extracts
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 02:42:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.175935.43845@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>Well, since a certain person on this newsgroup (who will remain 
>anonymous) :) likes to post bits of trade rag articles, I guess
>I will post one too.  Here goes.
>
>NT'S DELAYS MEAN A SECOND LOOK AND RESPECT FOR OS/2
>Infoworld, October 12, 1992
>Page 17
>
...
>1993
>OS/2  1,850,000
>NT    360,000

Despite the recent implications that I would not have posted this
article, I would have indeed done so, but apparently you get
your Infoworld before I do. :-(

I would however have added a note, thus:

	The developers pre-beta has been selling at a rate
	of nearly 10,000 copies a month.
	Assuming a very pessimistic June delivery for NT, NT
	will have six months of sales in 1993.
	25,000 developer copies have definitely shipped, let's say
	30,000 by the time they shut down the developer program.
	The beta program is supposed to add another 20,000--and
	I would assume those people will get free copies too.
	Thus NT will start with about 50,000 users.  310,000/6
	= ~52,000 per month.  Only about 5 times the rate they sold
	pre-release developer copies on CD-ROMS.  Even OS/2 1.X sold
	better than that and it didn't have any marketing effort behind it.

	Thus I believe that Infoworld has "pulled a Bush".

Brian

P.S.  Tomorrow I call Infoworld and demand that they ship my Infoworld copy
sooner on the grounds they're giving unfair advantage to OS/2 advocates! :-)
(This is a joke.)

-- 
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: soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn)
Subject: Re: 32-bit OS/2 Apps List
Reply-To: soh3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:13:42 GMT

In article <XT3JsB3w165w@gnct.com> garyng@gnct.com (garyng) writes:
>soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn) writes:
>
>> Brian, you seem to indulge yourself too much in this point, but don't
>> you think it is too early to predict?  OS/2 2.0 is out for six or seven
>> months now.  Compared to Windows 3.x, it is a way too short a time...
>
>If you are comparing Windows 3.x apps against OS/2 2.0 apps. I believe one
>have to count out all the OS2 1.x apps. to make it fair.
>
>-gary
>

In that case, shouldn't you count Windows 2.x and even 1.x apps, too?

Min


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mikegal@microsoft.com (Michael Galos)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 13 Oct 92 08:43:31 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct13.004709.5155@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>Okay, let me try.
>
>1. Get a 486/50 and load NT onto it.  (no X).
>2. Add 4 Windows machines
>3. 5 people can now run windows sessions, accessing the same data.
>   and potentially the same processing power of the 486.
>
>The only differences I really see are.
>1) The windows stations require a hard drive.

Actually, you can run Windows without a hard disk if you are connected
to a server. When setup in this configuration (using SETUP /N) there
are less than 300K on the local machine. You can even run Windows
on a diskless workstation if you want.

>2) The windows stations can run things independently of
>   the server.
>NOT: I don't know the price of X terms today, but I'd suspect
>a 386sx box isn't that much more.


-- 
==============================================================================
Declare Sub Disclaim Lib "Standards" Alias "__StandardDisclaimer" (x As Any)
==============================================================================
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:22:07 GMT

petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

>BTW:  The product Zachmann has spent the most time criticising lately
>is Windows NT.  He'd criticised it before he'd even seen it, hardly
>professional in my book.

This happens to be the same reason a lot of OS/2 advocates think
most of the press is either bought or off in their own world.
OS/2 has gotten a lot of criticism from people who've never even
seen it.
-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu | think of something very clever 
uunet!jarthur!jokim         | to use as a disclaimer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: amitp@ruf.rice.edu (Amit J Patel)
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Reply-To: amitp@owlnet.rice.edu
Organization: Rice University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:08:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.15852.11153@ms.uky.edu>, sam@ms.uky.edu (Mike Mills) writes:
|> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <1992Oct6.203618.4322@ncsu.edu> linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville) writes:
|> >>
|> >>Actually, to be precise, you could conceivably have one person with two xterms
|> >>with one of them logged-in as one user, and the other logged-in as a different
|> >>user.  Is that possible in the (eventually-to-be-)'shipping' NT?
|> 
|> 
|> >     Is that a useful scenario?  Not in any way that I can see.
|> 
|> Ok, Phil.  Have you ever administered Unix?  It is EXTREMELY useful to have
|> multiple users logged into separate xterms.  I can be logged into my account
|> in one (actually, several) windows, root in another, and operator in another.
|> All doing their little tasks, with their appropriate privileges.
|> 
|> I can't believe you are so narrow minded you cannot see a use for this.  I 
|> do this every day!!!
|> 

I'm no unix administrator, but I use this a lot, too!  I have one
account for myself, and there's one class account for the class I am a
teaching assistant for.  If I am grading work or stuff like that, I
use the class account; if I am doing personal stuff, I use my own
account.



	Amit
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong)
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 00:21:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct05.190659.24067@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.141621.6764@cu23.crl.aecl.ca> gutz@cc49.crl.aecl.ca writes:
>>In article <1992Oct01.185753.6638@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>>
>>>     IBM could predict 4 million - that doesn't change the current
>>>facts.
>>
>>Agreed, IBM, like Microsoft, can predict that cows will fall from the sky
>>on Tuesday.  But the fact remains that OS/2 is selling - and probably better
>>than MS could have guessed.
>
>     OS/2 is indeed selling - but neither of us has any clue how well.
>We have some numbers from IBM, and we have some conflicting numbers
>from Microsoft.  Who's to say which is closer to the truth?

Just curious, how can Microsoft have any numbers regarding the sales of OS/2
2.0?

>
>
>>  MS has a pathetic track record when it comes
>>to envisioning the future - The key MS's success is that they magically end
>>up in the right place at the right time - but how long will thier luck
>>continue??>
>
>     You can't seriously believe that Microsoft's success is due to
>luck.
>

Definitely, it is unfair to say that Microsoft's success is entirely due
to luck.  Microsoft have made some nice products, like Word for Windows
and Excel, which have consistent set new standards in their class of apps.

However, you must admit, Microsoft have it's fair share of luck, without
which Microsoft would not have been nearly as successful.  While DOS's ills
cannot be blamed entirely on MS (IBM's choice of PC architecture and CPU),
DOS is just a mediocre piece of work.  And half of Microsoft success (at least)
can be attributed to DOS, which happens because DR somehow missed the boat,
and Bill Gates was wise and lucky enough to be on board.  Windows is just
playing catching up on the MAC GUI, which has been around now for ten years.
Hence Windows is really technology of ten years (or more) ago, and now being
touted as the future.  So is OS/2 and NT, in a sense, but these sound better,
since honestly the necessary hardware have just appeared in the PC market for 
a while, so it's not so bad.  Then there is Multimedia standard, which until
recently is based on 286 technology.

Microsoft will always be an important contender in software development.
However, I'm not sure the type of size and success and domination is justified
entirely.  Just look at GeoWorks and Windows.  Good software doesn't always
guarantee success.  Neither does mediocre software guarantee demise.
but that's the way it is.

>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
>philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
>Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: garyng@gnct.com (garyng)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:30:42 GMT
Organization: Global Network Communication Technology Co.

xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:

> A more cogent point might be:  why not a version of OS/2 2.0 that omits
> the Windoze support.  At the same price as a Windoze upgrade.  This
> would actually make some sense, as IBM wouldn't have to pay MS the
> royalties.  I would have bought a Windoze-less OS/2 in a flash!!  I not
> only don't want MS's piece of crap on my system, I resent the fact that
> it came on the floppies.  :-)

I would say OS2 2.0 with no WPS, please give me the interface in 1.3. Well
you can choose to not install window support but WPS ... well.

-gary
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Don't Compare with Amiga!
Date: 10 Oct 92 16:41:18 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Oct10.114324.5734@gw.wmich.edu> x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>It works on a similar basis as
>Desqview (which to correct some people here, is NOT preemptive, you set
>the "ticks" for foreground and background).  

Sorry, but that alone doesn't make DV non-preemptive. It will cheerfully stop
one application in its tracks to switch to the next one, something that
Windows will not do. That attribute makes DV preemptive. The ticks settings
merely instruct the scheduler how to select the next process to run.

-- 
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.
    Vote for a REAL change on 3 November: Throw out the check-bouncing,
  tax-and-spend Democrat Congress! (obviously, not an opinion of UTHSCH)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 18:40:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.205606.11487@fics.uucp> ekl@fics.uucp writes:
>In article <1992Oct11.202032.10171@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>>OS/2 requires more disk than the current pre-beta does.
>>
>
>On my C-drive, Windows NT occupies 37 megabytes of disk, plus a swapfile
>which is set to the minimum size of 20 MB. I don't know how much your
>installation of NT occupy, but it doubt it is less than os/2.

Strange... I show 32 megs for my \winnt directory, and 33 megs for
my \os2 directory.
Note the NT figure includes its networking... my \tcpip directory
under OS/2 takes another 6 megs... so I feel quite comfortable saying
that NT currently uses less space.  The commercial release may requite
a bit more than OS/2, but not substantially so.

As to swap... currently an oddity in booting is what makes you require
that 20 megs... this will go away later.

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! :-))
From: gess@knex.Gwinnett.COM (Gess Shankar)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:04:23 GMT
Organization: Knowledge Exchange, GA, US of A

With all the arguments about the legitimacy of the statement that
Microsoft 'abandoned' OS/2 after the split, it seems to me that
there are several facets of the alleged abandonment.

One can agree with Mr Cringley, Mr Sturgill et al that Microsoft may have
had some well-founded reasons to abandon further development of OS/2 2.0.
But Microsoft is wearing so many hats. While I agree with the Microsoft
OS Maker that they wanted to go on to bigger and better things with NT
and whatnot.

But Microsoft, the toolmaker with a large customer base using their
compilers etc., also drops support for OS/2 suddenly leaving a certain
number of developers in the lurch. I didn't recall their asking their
existing C customers, if any of them are working with OS/2 and would they
be upset, if they just did not enhance the compiler etc. to keep up with
the developments in the market place. They just said, Hell with you, Go
to Borland or someone else. Or just use Ver 6. I certainly feel abandoned.

Microsoft, the application maker, of course found the OS/2 market minuscule
(though they had some good OS/2 products which could be upgraded to 32bit
incarnations). Maybe some Word users feel abandoned. Pre 3.0 Windows market
was minuscule too.

I wonder if the Microsoft languages group were an independent company,
what their decision would have been. Same goes for the App Group. A few
developers I know have switched to Borland for tools and will never
consider going back to Microsoft.

Ideal scenario for me is IBM, Microsoft, Univel, SunSoft etc. battle for
the OS market. Third party companies like Borland, Watcom, Symantec et al
fight for the tools for ALL environments that are _likely_ to succeed in
the market-place. Same with applications. I certainly will prefer not to
have to buy OS/2 only compiler from IBM, Windows/Nt only compiler from
Microsoft, but compatible tools from a third party company. Maybe FTC
will resolve the mess or probably make it worse for the poor customer
who has to pay for it all....

GeSS
--
Gess Shankar      |<><>|Internet: gess@knex.Gwinnett.COM                |<><>|
Knowledge Exchange|<><>|{rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!knex!gess|<><>|