HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (Well, not exactly....)
Date: 10 Sep 92 12:30:27 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <GKUSHMER.92Sep10130721@jade.tufts.edu> gkushmer@jade.tufts.edu (Greg Kushmerek) writes:
>In article <1992Sep7.194616.6632@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>   Get serious.... NT will not require 80 megs, or a 486, or a CD-ROM.
>   The released version of NT will likely take less space than a similarly
>   configured version of OS/2.  The reason is simple... NT currently does
>   not seem to need more room, and OS/2 has to support a Windows 3.1 environment
>   too.  (For example OS/2 has to have room for 2 copies of ATM fonts and
>
>
>Brian, when I was speaking to a Microsoft salesman on the phone, he told me
>that NT would require 486 systems or better.  Of course, this same guy
>is the bozo who told me they did not support Foxpro 2.0 on 360k floppies (they
>do, as I found out when I pushed him on this) and wanted to know why
>I couldn't take my 1.2M floppies and transfer the information to 360k
>floppies  - one-for-one (my "It's like fitting a gallon into a quart" 
>response came in here).
>
>So make of it what you will, and consider the source as well.

Well... I'm just assuming you misunderstood. Microsoft has never said this,
so I don't see why one of the sales persons would tell you this... unless you
asked in a strange manner. (I.E. I hear that NT requires a 486... sales person:
Yes, it runs on a 486.)

>
>--gk

To avoid futher confusion on the subject, here is a quote from the manual
that comes with the SDK.

1.2 System Requirements.

	This Preliminary Release of the Win32 SDK will run on an Intel
	80386 system or higher with at least 12MB of RAM (16MB is
	recommended) or an ARC-compatible R4000 system with 16MB
	RAM. Disk requirements are roughly 70 MB for Windows NT
	and the SDK tools, and 20 MB for the paging file.  The
	Win32 Preliminary SDK is available only on CD-ROM, and
	requires that you have access to a CD-ROM drive to
	install it. For a list of computer systems, CD-ROM
	drives, SCSI adapters and other peripherals on which
	preliminary testing has been done, see the Hardware
	Compatibility List.

	The retail release of Windows NT will require an Intel
	386 or better with 8MB or memory, or a MIPS R4000 with
	16MB of memory.

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)
From: Joe@twistor.dialix (Joe Katnic)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Suggestions to IBM
Distribution: world
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:55:22 PST
Organization: Not an Organization

In article <1992Sep10.013227.10553@news.iastate.edu> TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:
>
>1) IBM should sell all of their computers with at least the 386SLC
>   processor.
>
The PS/2 model 56 or 57 SLC pc's include the 386SLC. I also believe that
they are upgradable to the new 486SLC.

>
>2) IBM should sell all of their computers with at least *8* meg of
>   memory.
>
IBM now offers 8Mb as standard in 56SLC and 57SLC and maybe other
machines as well.

>
>3)  IBM should include OS/2 preinstalled on all of their computers
>   (I'm sure you saw this one coming...)
>
OS/2 is pre-installed on 56/57SLC, at least in Australia.
 
>
>4) IBM should come up with better VDM default settings and better
>   Win-OS/2 default settings
>
Agreed!

--

Joe Katnic                                         Joe@twistor.DIALix.oz.au
                                                (ALT: jkatnic@DIALix.oz.au)
Science - A system of Truth.                         Phone: (+619) 454 3939
Engineering - A system of Use.
From: gkushmer@jade.tufts.edu (Greg Kushmerek)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 PR
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:50:50 GMT
	<1992Sep12.103805.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Roger Mellie Enterprises, PLC

In article <1992Sep12.103805.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu> f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:

 >   The strange thing was that IBM and Apple hardware dominated the store
 >   floor.  The sales reps would have demo'd PS/2's for me all day, but where
 >   was IBM's own OS?

  
Here at Tufts, I have been trying to arrange a meeting with people in the 
Academic Computing department to discuss this exact issue.  As it goes,
IBM once appeared here to demo OS/2.  The tech rep here at Tufts (as she
told me) was impressed with OS/2 and what she saw. She called the 
big children in the head office and suggested that Tufts allow the
computer store to carry OS/2 bundled with IBM machines.

Well, the big wigs said that it wasn't going to happen and provided
no other reason.  A week later, one of the big guys was out somewhere
looking at a contract with Microsoft.  I don't know what the contract
covers.

Students may buy OS/2 if they ask for it to be ordered.  Otherwise Tufts
will not carry it in the campus store unless "market forces" call for
it to be carried.  Maybe the "market forces" would be a bit more responsive
if they knew what was available to them.  

It seems to me that as many people are exposed to serious computing for
the first time at college, OS/2 should at least be available as an
option.  Moreover, for a campus that wants its students to be computer
literate, Tufts is limiting its scope of operating systems to a 
very narrow beam.  NEXTStep 486 will not be considered.  DESQVIEW X is
not on the list; I do wonder now, however, if NT will be made available
regardless of the "market forces" and their demands.

--gk
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: gnash@ee.uts.edu.au (Greg Nash)
Subject: Re: Hercules vs OS/2
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 05:34:46 GMT

Gary.Woodman@anu.edu.au (Gary Woodman) writes:

>Dare I point out that OS/2 supports all those famous and wonderful Hercules 
>apps just the same as DOS/Win did/does? Anyone can run DOS and/or Windows 
>apps on their existing Hercules setup, and enjoy all the benefits of 
>modern operating system technology with OS/2  - they just need CGA or better 
>to launch them :-)
CGA or better? I have long been of the opinion that Hercules was a much
better option than CGA. (As long as your screen is not green!!!)
 
-- Greg Nash
From: ghdai@vax1.umkc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: OS/2 vs NT features
Summary: deleted
Keywords: abc
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:44:02 GMT
Reply-To: all
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City

I deleted the garbage I wrongly posted here.
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft claims a 4Q92 delivery for NT
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:48:22 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <14SEP199215574624@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY) writes:
>In article <1992Sep13.213938.5221@gw.wmich.edu>, x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu 
>writes...
>
>>	Hmmm.  It sounds like FUD to me.  How can they possibly release
>>a resonably bug free OS with so little beta testing?  Even little DOS 5
>>was being beta's forever.  Everyone had a beta of DOS 5 and Windows NT
>>is not even in wide beta yet.  They had BETTER ship it then before 93!
>>Otherwise this will offer absolute proof that MS is simply trying to 
>>scare people from OS/2 2.0!
>
>One possibility is that they strip out everything that gives the beta 
>testers the most heartburn and release the rest on 12/31/92.  I have yet to 
>see an "official" list of the features of the initial release of NT (I tend 
>to view Brian's list as "might have, some day"), which pretty much gives 

You guys still don't get it.  The features listed in that huge first section
_ARE_THERE_NOW_ they could use some debugging, but not more than they
have time to do.  My list of features is not based on thin air or promises
of what will be there later (except in those places where it is marked
as not there yet).  NT has that feature set _NOW_ period.
The TCP/IP is there NOW.  The peer-to-peer networking is there NOW.
The symmetric multiprocessing is there NOW.  The nifty OS features are
there NOW.  The multimedia features are there NOW. (Got the idea now? Please?)

The only questions that remain are those few that were to be added in the
fall, and the status of LAN Manager for NT.  The goals for Fall were 
fairly modest... POSIX, tape API, more drivers, finish NTFS, and get
the DOS/16-bit Windows compatibility up to snuff.  These were all clearly
in progress at the time the SDK was cut, so I see every reason
to believe they will be there in the first real beta.

As to LAN Manager... I've no idea, I haven't had direct access.
They did do some demos at the conference, but I don't trust anybody's demos.

>Microsoft the ability to box and ship whatever they like prior to the end
>of the year.
>
>JD

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:27:15 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep11.232349.8400@u.washington.edu> mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth) writes:
>Well Jay, earlier this week Will asked, over on Compuserve, how he could get a
>copy of NT so he could give it a try.  Doesn't seem to me that he's doing a 
>very good job evaluating NT before talking about it.  Perhaps he is writing 
>his articles based on hearsay???  In any event, I view Will's evaluations with
>considerable doubt.  

I find it interesting that Will didn't receive a free copy.  After
all, he's a journalist.  Other journalists in his field get evaluation
copies.  

Perhaps MS doesn't want people reviewing pre-beta releases.  Hmmm?
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "LECTURER, n.  One with his hand in your pocket,
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   his tongue in your ear, and his faith in your
 ((|,)                          patience."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: latenser@unlinfo.unl.edu (Latenser)
Subject: Hercules bashers - You guys just don't get it! 
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 19:16:54 GMT


As the quote goes --- "You guys just don't get it"

I have my choice of monitors/cards/ etc.

I still prefer looking at my Herc. monitor when I have to spend extended
time programming.  I feel less eye strain.  And yes I have it in a nice
fast box with a 330Mb H.P. drive.  I can easily afford anything I want (I
own 1280 x 1024 display list boards --- and do not use them).  Yes I use
a Matrox system and 20" Hitachi monitor often --- but ONLY when I am working 
with complex CAD drawings that often exceed several meg in size.

Windows works perfectly fine with my card --- but I have yet to see any
software in Windows that works as well and has the power of the dos 
equivalent application  (with the single exception of MacSyma math analysis 
which does not run on dos) - so why should I use it.  OS/2 is another
matter -- it has real possibilities.

The only cards I have used for any period of time that are significantly
faster with windows are Matrox ($3000 -- and worth every penny) and the
ATI Ultra ($399 -- and worth more I.M.H.O.).

I might also point out that many Unix boxes come standard with monochrome
displays and that my Herc card uses almost no environment space  --
which does matter to some of us.  Do you guys even know the Hercules
resolution?

Why would I want an OS/2 driver for Hercules -- so I can abandon the kludge
of Desqview/Windows.  Would I pay -- you bet!   Am I a nut?  - I suppose.

latenser@unlinfo.unl.edu


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: NT guys OUT!!!
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 00:32:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.202605.287@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>In article <Megtj0a00awH43B7sQ@andrew.cmu.edu> pd2n+@andrew.cmu.edu (Peter W. De Bonte) writes:
>> How can we advocate OS/2 if there is no competition?
>> Removing NT ppl would make this netgroup grind to a halt.
>> 
>> Pete W. De Bonte (x4173)                    pwd+@cmu.edu 
>> "Knolege is powef, Speling is unimportnt"   (but pd2n is unaceptable)
>
>When I started following this newsgroup, the talk was mostly about Win3.1 vs
>OS/2 2.0.......
> 
>But those Win3.1ers seem to be gone now.....probably running OS/2, eh?
> 
>Steve
>
Nope, actually most of us are doing useful things with Windows... and found
the excitement of arguing with you trailblazers getting trite...  I'd rather
sit and make money than argue...

But mind you, we're still here... keeping an "I" out for other, more
interesting arguments...

-> joe <-
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Marketing idea for OS/2
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:52:36 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <65789@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
>Here's a marketing idea for IBM to use with OS/2.  Advertize it as an
>alternative to QEMM and other such things for DOS users!  This occurred to
>me when I spent a long session of editing with MicroEmacs and compiling
>with Borland C in a full-screen DOS session.  I would guess that there are
>a lot of people who use DOS who would not want a new operating system,
>such as OS/2 or Windows, but would be interested in the memory management
>and protection of OS/2.
>
>Perhaps IBM could even make a special version that comes up with a full
>screen DOS window, and has a hot key that creates new DOS windows, and
>that by default doesn't install most of the OS/2 utilities and programs.
>This version should include them but not install them by default, so
>that the user can later add them.
>
>How much disk space would OS/2 take if you didn't have anything other than
>DOS support and certain vital OS/2 utilities, like FDISK and CHKDSK?

There already exists a package which does this.  It's called VM/386.
I forget who makes it, but I think it sells for $150.  It uses the
ALT-SysReq key (that everyone else ignores) to call up a system menu.
It creates DOS virtual machines that are so robust that they can be
individually rebooted.

Does anyone know about compatibility with DOS apps?  This has been
around for quite some time, but I only saw one ad a few years back
when it was first released.



-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "LECTURER, n.  One with his hand in your pocket,
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   his tongue in your ear, and his faith in your
 ((|,)                          patience."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT guys STAY!!! (was Re: NT guys OUT!!!)
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 03:39:10 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Sep12.165009.23586@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) writes:
> >>This is has really gone to far.
> >>Why don't all of you NT zealots start up comp.os.nt.advocacy and get the
> >>hell out of here.
> >>
> >>Or perhaps comp.os.os2.anti
> >>
> >
> >I totally agree with you.  You dammed NT guys are undermining our OS/2 groups.
> >Why not Kick yourselves out of here!!!
> 
> I disagree with both of you here.  I welcome NT guys in C.O.os2.advocacy
> (as well as MS not-a-spokesmodel employees, too, BTW).  I find that
> knowing more about NT is interesting.  Besides, if an NT guy has a
> criticism about OS/2, at least we will be able to defend OS/2.
> 
> Excuse me... let me lock the doors.  I'll lock the NT guys *in*
> before any of them escape...   ;)
> 

I agree with you for the most part, Mike. But a few minutes ago I read a
posting from someone who finished up his list of comments on NT by pointing
out that he hadn't mentioned OS/2 even once!
 
Hmmmm.....that would suggest to me that the terms of reference have been
shifting a bit too far in the direction of MS's alpha-tester's dream.

Try to mention OS/2 at least once in your posts, folks...OK? :-)
 
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | End the two-party duopoly. Vote 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for the Mixed-Member Proportional 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | (MMP) voting system on Sept. 19th. 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | Give yourself a vote that *counts*!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 11 Sep 1992 21:20:28 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Sep11.184508.28227@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>	Why does Microsoft repeatedly insist that the
>	version of Windows NT distributed in July,
>	which nearly everyone assumes to be a beta, is
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Why would anybody think this is a beta?  Microsoft has NEVER said
>this... and goes out of its way to make sure people know this.

Yeah, but that's marketroid-speak, which has little to no relationship to the
real world. If it looks like a beta, walks like a beta, and quacks like a
beta, it must be a beta, whether Microsoft recognizes that or not.

>	version. Third, Microsoft is so worried about
>	the growing momement for OS/2 that it chose to
>	put out a half-baked, incomplete version of
>	Windows NT rather than admit how badly the NT
>	schedule has slipped.
>I'm sure they released the developer pre-release in part due
>to pressure from OS/2, and also because they wanted to have
>an app base from day one.  It really bugs me to see people in
>the press criticizing this move...

Criticizing it? Far from it. Zachmann is merely calling a spade a ****ing
shovel.

If the WinNT schedule hasn't slipped, then I should be able to walk into a
store no later than 31 December 1992 and buy a production copy, since, after
all, MS's official release is still 4Q92...

>As to the 16 meg recommended.  This
>is for developers.  Most developers use more than
>8 megs for OS/2... I'd say most use 16 megs.
>(I use 20, I know several people that use 32).

Why is 16 meg recommended for developers, not for everyone? Just because
someone isn't a developer doesn't mean that he won't use the heck out of the
system.

>He sounds pretty unhinged to me.

Not really. He's simply got strong opinions, and is doing what he gets paid
for: expressing those opinions. He's no more unhinged than you are.
-- 
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.
 "Keep in mind that Amateur Radio As We Know It Today will cease to exist
            at midnight tonight." -- Dave Newkirk, WJ1Z
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: schow@bqneh23.bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow)
Subject: Re: What REXX does
Organization: Bell Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:15:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.100949.20112@wes.on.ca> tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen) writes:
>WILLS@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Cheyenne Wills) writes:
>> [example deleted]
>
>Sure, this is all English-like, but it still requires you to know the syntax.
>If you think that end users can writew these on their own ...  

I guess that depends on the users. At our site, quite a few support
staff with absolutely no training has written REXX macro of that 
complexity. Some graduate to writing very complex macros. Hell, I
have even seen hardware engineers write REXX macros :-)

>
>Surely 'grep -v "^$"' isn't any more difficult, once you get past the hurdle
>of regular expressions? 

Strange, I could swear that I have tought neophiles how to use REXX in
5 minutes. Teaching people to use regular expression is a much bigger
hurdle, then you have to teach them when to quote with which funny
character, then you have to teach then how to invoke grep (or awk,...)
from vi, mail, ... Hmm, I think I will let them use REXX.

>And the awk approach mentioned by another poster doesn't get as
>hairy as REXX for complex pattern processing tasks.

Surely you jest! Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by 
"complex pattern processing" and "hairy". I am pretty sure that
awk has a "sweet spot" where even quite complex patterns can be
expressed simply. On the other hand, "normal" end users have very
different needs, it seems to me that for the Great Unwashed End 
User, the "hairy" description is normally stuck on awk/grep 
instead of REXX.
>
 Anyway, REXX is more approachable than the Unix tools (even perl), but no
>more so than, say, Visual Basic.  Further, the OS/2 version is limited to
>the command line environment (there is a fully GUI Windows REXX available
>from a 3rd-party vendor, though).  Looks like NT is missing the scripting
>language completely, but OS/2 has some room for improvement as well...
>

This paragraph I agree with, mostly. The comparision with Visual Basic
seems strange though. The two are for different purposes and don't
have all that much in common to compare. In any case, even on the 
simple "approachability" factor, it seems to me they are about equal.

--
Stanley Chow            InterNet: schow@BNR.CA
Bell Northern Research  UUCP:     ..!uunet!bnrgate!bqneh3!schow
(613) 763-2831
Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.
From: asp@trail.sharpstone.com (Alexandre Sasha Polozoff)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would IBM consider adding these features to OS/2 ?
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 13:06:49 CST
Organization: Sharpstone Trail Productions - Austin Texas USA
Reply-To: asp@trail.sharpstone.com
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v4


In article <187t7jINN8jm@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> (comp.os.os2.advocacy), dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
> For joe avarage user, the config.sys is unreadable and the os2.ini
> files inaccessable.  The generalized registry database seems like a
> nice clean way of controlling these unruly files.  Is there any chance
> that IBM might consider adding a similar feature to OS/2, even though
> microsoft thought of it first?  It would make things easier to maintain
> for a home user.
> 

I would much rather see the Apple System Folder with Control Panels,
Extensions, etc within the System Folder.  Much cleaner and more organized.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Polozoff      512/218-1178       Internet    asp@trail.sharpstone.com
Sharpstone Trail Productions          Compuserve  73467,252
Austin, Texas USA                     OSI Network Management Products                        
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy