HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: NT delayed again??? (PC Week Nov 2)
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 21:36:24 GMT

In article <pathak-061192132258@virtual.mitre.org> pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.195647.656@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu
>(Brian Sturgill) wrote:
>> 
>> In article <hatton.720949698@cgl.ucsf.edu> hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:
>> >pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak) writes:
>> >>For those who are interested:
>> >>Page 3 in the Nov. 2nd issue of PC week has a story about how Microsoft is
>> >>now shipping the NT beta.  About half way down the quote Bill Gates stating
>> >>that NT would ship "in the first half" of 1993.
>> 
>> You guys must be asleep, Gates stated over a month ago that NT would be
>> delayed till 1Q or 2Q '93.  The inside betting is that it will come out at
>> Spring Comdex (early April).
>> 
>
>The only "official" announce that I have heard from MS was that NT would be
>out in the 1st quarter.  When MS made this announcement, speculation by
>just about everyone was that NT would most likely be out in the 2nd quarter
>but to my knowledge MS never "officially" made such a statement.
>
>I quote from the article (PC Week: November 2, 1992, pg 3):
>
>Meanwhile, Microsoft appears to be backing off its revised first quarter
>ship date for the 32-bit operating system.  At a conference for financial
>services customers in New York last week, Microsoft Chairmen Bill Gates
>said NT would be shipped "in the first half" of 1993.
>
>If this was such common news as you seem to think.  I don't think PC Week
>would have printed it.  Brian, maybe you were the one who was asleep and
>couldn't differentiate between speculation and the "official" MS line.

From InfoWorld; September 28, 1992; Pages 1,107:
	Gates says NT might not ship until early '93.
	By Stuart J. Johnston

	Windows NT is behind schedule and will likely miss its
	promised ship date later this year, Microsoft Corp.
	chairman Bill Gates admitted last week to attendees on
	the Agenda conference, in Laguna Niguel, Calif.

	The 32-bit operating system might not ship until early
	second quarter of 1993, Gates said.
	[Read "early second quarter" as Spring Comdex.]

	Many users, developers, and analysts said they would
	prefer the company ship a complete, bug-free product late
	rather than an incomplete version on time.
	[Like IBM did with OS/2.]


I eagerly await your apology.

>Heeren Pathak                      | Millions long for immortality who do 

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                   I strongly encourage you to mail your copy
University of Utah                     of Ross Perot's:  "United We Stand
Center for Software Science            How we can take back our country",
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373        to President-elect Clinton.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 12:11:57 GMT

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

>Erik van Linstee writes:
>>OS still stands. I do however have to adjust my statement that
>>if there is a filesystem it should be managed by the OS, which
>>should read, if there is disk device it should be managed by the
>>OS.

>Ah, and now we reach what Windows does in enhanced mode.  Windows
>grabs INT 13h requests at the point where they would be passed to
>the BIOS ROM and handles them in a VxD (the BlockDev driver).
>Thus, the disk hardware is under direct control of Windows (note: it
>doesn't have to be -- if no VxD understands the hardware, Windows will
>pass the request to the BIOS, much the way OS/2 makes use of the INT 13h
>BIOS if no ADD is available for a given controller).

>So, because I agree with you (mostly) that the disk should be managed
>by the OS, but that the filesystem does not need to be managed by the
>OS, I find the use of DOS for filesystem irrelevant to determining if
>Windows is an OS (it is relevant to determining if it is a *good* OS,
>but we haven't got to that yet).

>One reservation I have, though, is that I don't agree that the OS should
>manage the disk in all cases.  On hardware where the DMA accesses are
>routed through the MMU, and where selective access to I/O devices can
>be granted, I think the OS designer should consider granting control
>of the disk hardware directly to a priveledged process.  The OS should
>limit itself to setting up the DMA controller for that process and
>dealing with the memory management hardware.  The process should
>handle understanding the disk controller.

This *is* covered by the statement, the OS handles the hardware,
in my opinion. The way I understand your writing is, the device
requests the use of a DMA channel (being the disks) and the OS
either does or does not grant it. Once permission is granted the
device can do with the device what it wants, within the permissions
the OS gave it.
This is much like memory management, also just another piece of
hardware, where the OS manages the use of it and grants permission
to a process for using a bit, whereupon the process is in control
of what it actually does with it.

I don't think however, that this scheme (the OS granting a DMA
channel to which a disk is connected, to another device) is
to be allowed on a disk where a filesystem is present, unless
the device or process requesting the channel *is* the filesystem
manager. If you would do so, there would be no garantuee to the
integrety of the filesystem, since the other process would have
been able to corrupt it, not knowing it even did so. This does
give the filesystem a rather unique position, which would make
it preferable to have it managed either by the OS or a process
closely related to the OS, having exclusive access to the disk
device.

Erik

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:54:56 GMT

In <7736@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>In article <7734@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov5.165623.808@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>Gee, Jay, tell me what definition of 'OS' you're using.  :-)
>>A suite of programs that insulates application code from the necessities of
>>dealing directly with the hardware.

>[Gack. Here I go, following myself up again...]

>I need to add that it runs unassisted on a given machine
>architecture.

That reasonable definition just got a lot less reasonable.

>Thus, to use an example posted here previously, CMS isn't an OS because it
>requires VM to run. The PC's BIOS is part of the PC architecture, so depending
>on it doesn't remove the OS-ness of OS/2 or DOS.

Ok, so OS/2 on top of a Mach microkernel means that OS/2 isn't an
operating system (because you need the Mach kernel to run it).

>Basically, the idea is that the OS is what you load onto an otherwise useless
>machine to make it useful for mundane things like payroll programs so they
>don't have to deal with disk geometries and controller error codes in order to
>find out how much to make out my next paycheck for.

I think the 'runs unassisted' part isn't a necessary requirement for
determining OS-ness.

-- 
"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.
From: rvaniwaa@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ronald J. Vaniwaarden)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:35:57 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

In article <Bx73Kr.44D@harlie.lonestar.org> mitch@harlie.lonestar.org (Mitch Mitchell) writes:
>...
>Check out what it says on the Windows 3.0 5 1/4" diskettes:
>
>      "Microsoft(r) Windows (tm)"
>***   "Graphical Environment"
>[... disk number and startup instructions deleted...]
>***   "For DOS Systems"
>
>I never bothered with 3.1 :-> so I can't quote from those diskettes.
>
Well, I was one of the fools who bought the $49 windows 3.1 program and on
my disks, it says

	Microsoft(r) Windows (TM)
	Operating System
	...
	1) insert this disk in drive A.
	2) type a: and press ENTER.
	3) type SETUP and press ENTER.

This setup procedure implies that you have some operating system of sorts on
you computer such as OS/2.  That is, I can run Windows under OS/2 as an
application or under DOS as an application.  I tend to agree with what I
feel is the majority opinion on this subject that DOS + Windows is an 
operating system while Windows alone is not (and DOS itself can be
questionable)...

Just my $2*10^(-2) worth

--Ron
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: roland@spock.uucp (David A. Braun)
Subject: Re: What I heard from Microsoft about NT
Organization: Choate Rosemary Hall
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:36:59 GMT

>Unless NT is based on a hack of BSD4, why should we allow MS to start
>at 3.1, while the rest of the industry has the guts to start at the
>beginning?

What makes you think the rest of the industry starts at the beginning?
Do you recall a Lotus 000 through Lotus 122, for example? :-)

Also, the OS 9 people seemed to jump right in at 9 (that's because OS 9
was meant for the 6809, I believe).

Software I'm working on now is jumping from 1.6 to 3.0 without stopping
at 2.x.  (We are doing that because 1.6 was based on revision 1.6 of a
specification document, and 3.0 is based on revision 3.0 of that document.
We didn't implement a version that matched 2.x of the document, so we
aren't naming any of our versions 2.x)

For real confusion over versions, try to figure out which Unix goes
where.  Let's see...32 > 5, so Unix 32V came after System V.  No?
Well, BSD4 came before 7th Edition, right?  No?  Aaarrrgggghhhh!!!! :-)

How about Autocad which went fron version 2 (or was it 3) to release 9!
But seriously, be fair, they are just trying to show the user a connection
from their DOS shell to their new OS...

Roland.
From: robertson@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT delayed again??? (PC Week Nov 2)
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:21:47 GMT
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <hatton.720949698@cgl.ucsf.edu>, hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:
> pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak) writes:
>>For those who are interested:
>>Page 3 in the Nov. 2nd issue of PC week has a story about how Microsoft is
>>now shipping the NT beta.  About half way down the quote Bill Gates stating
>>that NT would ship "in the first half" of 1993.
> 
> Not having a subscription, perhaps someone else can confirm this (probably

 the exact quote on page 3 column 3: "Meanwhile, Microsoft appears to be
 backing off its revised first quarter 1993 ship date for the 32-bit
 operating system.  At a congerence for financial-services customers
 in New York last week, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates said NT will be
 'in the first half' of 1993"

      [. . .]
 Jim Robertson     robertson@physc1.byu.edu
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 13:52:14 GMT

rom@cci632.cci.com (Rudynell S. Millian), proposes a novel test for
operating systems, which basically consists of deleting DOS from the
machine, and seeing if the alleged operating system still works.

By this test, Netware 2.x was an operating system.  Netware 3.x,
which when running has every OS-like feature of Netware 2.x, plus
various extensions, is not an operating system.  Do you actually
claim that Netware 3.x is not an operating system?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jpierce@next11csc.wam.umd.edu (Jennifer Marie Pierce)
Subject: Re: OS/2's visibility (was: MS-Windows 3.1 - silent upgrades
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:20:46 GMT

In article <82210@ut-emx.uucp> slug@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Slugman) writes:
> I just had a look at November's Computer Shopper, and I am completely amazed
> at the absolute *lack* of mention of OS/2.
> 
> It is mentioned once, I believe, in a jest.  I think that it is VERY  
conspicuous
> that it is completely missing altogether.  They do a big spread about Windows
> workstations without even mentioning something like "by the way, these  
systems
> would also work well with OS/2".
> There is even an article titled "what NT can do for you" or something.  Some
> advertisements have "Windows NT ready" plastered on them ("Comtrade", p133)

You neglect to mention that the gist of the article "What NT can do for you" is  
that NT is not designed for the average user.  It was mentioned in this article  
that Windoze NT is going to cost about 5 times as much as OS/2.

Actually, I bought OS/2 from this November's issue of Computer Shopper.  The  
upgrade from Windoze costs $79 and you don't have to give up your Windoze  
license, just send them the title page of your Windoze user's manual.  I've  
heard retail prices for the same thing quoted as anywhere from $75 (employee  
price, but I couldn't get it because there are no "Authorized IBM PC vendors"  
in the Washington, DC area.  Strange?  Strange.  To $145, and that's for the  
upgrade only, the package w/o upgrade discount would be over $200.  From the   
University bookstore.  It would have to be special ordered, etc.  Meanwhile,  
they're having a special on Windoze 3.1.  Sheesh.
--
 Mon prince est en chemin deja      \ _____       ___  |
 Je ne sais pas comme il sera      /  |     |   | |  \ |--\ |/\ /-\ /-- o /-\
 Mais je sais qu'il viendra demain, \ |---  |   | |--/ |  | |   /-| \-\ | |-/
 Mon prince est deja en chemin.    /  |____ |___| |    |  | |   \_| --/ | \--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: lowey@jester.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey,159 Physics,(306) 966-4826,(306) 249-3232)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Windows is a Volkswagon
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:34:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: access.1992Nov5.203447.21012
Reply-To: lowey@jester.usask.ca
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Originator: lowey@jester.usask.ca

Windows may or may not be an operating system.  I don't really care.
I prefer to believe Windows is a Volkswagon.  The argument that
Windows is a Volkswagon is probably more relevant to this newsgroup
than whether Windows is an operating system or not, and would probably
be less boring.

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.

On the other hand, Windows/NT is a "cab forward" Chrysler.  It sounds
like a good idea, the company that made it is pushing it as a good
idea, but we'll have to wait and see whether the hype really means
anything in the long run.

OS/2 is a Jeep.  It may not be as pretty as a "cab forward" Chrysler,
and it may not be as popular as the VW Bug, but once you get used to
its quirks (like four-wheel drive) you can go places you never dreamed
possible before.

-- 
- Kevin Lowey (Lowey@Sask.USask.CA)
>>>>> Anonymous FTP to FTP.USASK.CA for DOS, OS/2, and Windows programs <<<<<
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: guy@mais.hydro.qc.ca (Guy Harel)
Subject: Trading the threads ?
Organization: Hydro-Quebec (DSB)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:47:01 GMT

Its funny how an old technology becomes new again when integrated in a yet
to be successful product.

The first time I`ve heard of threads was with ENCORE UMAX BSD, a UNIX
variant which included threads ( pthreads or cthreads ?), optimized
for a multiprocessor.

According to my sources this was first commercialized by ENCORE around 1985 
and,  knowing the ENCORE tradition, was probably developped from a DARPA 
funding around 1975...

Next, I`ve heard that Netware 3.1 had threads too. And then *hoooo*,
the Sybase Kernel has thread too, next NT, then OS/2 2.0.

Hell, are we talking SHAREWARE or what?
-- 
 Guy Harel
--
 Guy Harel
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Date: 13 Nov 92 09:12:08 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <BxM5o8.IDo@news.iastate.edu> TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu wrote:

>      They are pretty easy to learn to use, and they have gained a
> substantial market share.  Some of the 'bigots' you are compaining
> about are probably people who don't actually like to use computers
> (the Mac's so easy to use!  Just point at the neat little icon and
> click the button, and everything is done for you!) or people who
> don't want to learn to use a computer (including a little knowledge
> about how they work).  The rest are probably bigots.

There is a pretty easy way to differentiate between bigots and advocates.
(this works for Win/NT/OS/2/Mac/Unix/whatever)

advocates: "I like my system"
bigots:    "Your system sucks"


petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Is Microsoft blasting IBM into the dust?
Date: 9 Nov 92 21:23:54 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

Lately I have been amazed at comp.os.os2.advocacy. Most discussions
(95%?) seem to cover "if Windows 3.1 is an OS". Very interesting probably
but is everyone blind for what is really happening here?

While IBM is trying to get Windows 3.1 out the door the next generation of
Windows has already been released. No not NT but WfW. The produkt is so
damned impressive Novell started sueing MS right away. According to many
who have seen the produkt its network support is very impressive. Autodetect
of network adapters, networks etc. Tranparant integration in Windows etc.

I am both a intensive Windows 3.1 and OS/2 2.0 user. I KNOW OS/2 2.0 is
in essence better than Windows 3.1. It runs smoother, multitasks better
and protects my programs against crashing. But then again I lose stacker,
lose Windows speed, can't use my SyQuest drive (even the CSD didn't fix this)
etc. There is just less support for OS/2 2.0.

And then the apps. Of cource many PROMISED OS/2 apps. But when will they
ARIVE. And every large company knows it to be stupid NOT to develop
for NT. Developing as fast as possible for NT is the only way not to
lose much market share to Microsoft. And large companies know that. And
the (to the user) main advantage of OS/2 (more speed for 32 bit apps)
will arive soon as well. Probably sooner that 32 bit apps for NT.

More and more I begin to believe IBM is just NOT capable of doing it.
Even thought they where the first with a 32 bit OS (at least
a DOS+Windows+.. OS) in the press and in the eye of the public
the seem to lag behind Microsoft. Especially their marketting is
very disapointing. Everyone knows multimedia and networking are
part of WfW and will be part of NT. The fact than OS/2 lacs those
(available seperate, very week strategy IMO) isn't made very clear
in the press at all. Some misty strategy IMO. 

I think if IBM has any chance left at all then it is to release
a more complete OS/2 INCLUDING multimedia, LAN etc etc and to release
it in a way users can actually use. The CSD seems to take an expert to
install. I am refering to something an idiot can use. And please oh please
improve support for third party hardware a lot.

But to be fair, I don't think this will happen before it is too late.

Nico E. de Vries  (nevries@cc.ruu.nl) |------------------*   AA   III  PPP
_ This text is supplied AS IS, no warranties of any kind |  A  A   I   P  P
| apply. No rights can be derived from this text. This   |  AAAA   I   PPP
| text is likely to contain spelling and grammar errors. |  A  A   I   P
*---------------------------( Donate to GreenPeace! )----*  A  A  III  P

"The IBM PC is still waiting for a version of the CP/M OS.", G.M. Vose, 1982.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:52:51 GMT

In <7734@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

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

>A suite of programs that insulates application code from the necessities of
>dealing directly with the hardware.

And a reasonable definition it is, too.  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.

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.

Shall I continue?  ;-)

-- 
"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.
From: A_Brian_Sturgill_skeptic@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: AmiPro for OS/2
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:49:26 GMT
Reply-To: A_Brian_Sturgill_skeptic@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Distribution: jadpc2
Comment-To: Dan_Cogswell@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

>Translated:  AmiPro is NOT a Mirrors application.

 DC> How are you so certain about this?? 

I'm pretty certain because I don't believe that the product manager
for Ami Pro for OS/2 would lie when I asked him if they were using
Mirrors.  He said they were not using Mirrors.  Given that none of
their other products among 
1-2-3, Freelance, and cc:Mail will be using Mirrors, why should Ami
Pro?

I personally think that Brian is wrong about this, but he may be wrong
because the Micrografx people were wrong about it.  Perhaps at one
point the Ami Pro team did consider using Mirrors and then decided not
to use it, but didn't let the Micrografx people know this?

InfoWorld this week reported that cc:Mail for Workplace Shell would be
announced at Comdex.  I wonder if 1-2-3 and Freelance might be
announced then, too.

--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: roland@spock.uucp (David A. Braun)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"--Newsgroup
Organization: Choate Rosemary Hall
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 13:49:07 GMT

...................Yes,Yes,Yes.....................

I propose a new NewsGroup... comp.os.ms-windows.os.hmmm

All in favor? I think it is ssttuuppiidd to be arguing for
so long in os2.advocacy about whether windows is an os...
I don't think it is, but argue about it elsewhere, I just keep hitting
'return` whenever I see the subject.

Roland.