HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Who's problem \*are\* SVGA drivers?
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:09:32 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <BswGoL.MwF@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>, cebarton@napier.uwaterloo.c
a (Casey Barton) writes:
>
>    Time and time again, I see people visiting this group and asking why OS/2
>doesn't have SVGA drivers. (I was one myself). People usually respond by
>telling them that SVGA drivers _do_ exist, though seamless drivers exist only
>for Trident boards. Without fail, these responses rationalize the lack of
>full SVGA support from IBM by saying that "Video drivers are the video board
>manufacturers responsibility."
>
>    That's a cop out. One of the biggest flaws pointed out about OS/2 in
>current publications is that "You'll have to run at 640x480 for the time
>being." This is going to turn people who might otherwise have made the
>purchase away. IBM *could* write the drivers themselves. So why not? They
>stand to gain alot from it.

You can call it a cop out, but it is reality.  SVGA is NOT a standard.  It is
financially impractical for any company to write device drivers for every
piece of hardware out there.  No company does that including MS and IBM.  Now
IBM should have planned ahead a little better, but they should not have to
write the drivers themselves.
>

>      Casey Barton (Mr.)   cebarton@descartes.waterloo.edu   (519)725-6861
>


                                                    Stacy John Behrens
                                                    *===)-------------

                                                    
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: superVGA (and misc top-blowing)
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:35:57 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <rhoward.713823082@matd> rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard) writes:
>brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>>I imagine if IBM actually had bothered to create a device driver kit for
>>OS/2, then there WOULD BE an ATI driver already.
>>I personally know of three different developers trying to write device/printer
>>drivers.  IBM simply does not have sample code available and the documentation
>                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>they do provide is very poor.  I don't see why you're blaming the video
>>card vendors, when IBM hasn't even provided a rudimentary DDK.
>
>Well, I can't comment on the documentation but I do seem to remember
>reading that one of the things that held up the DDK was *Microsoft*.
>Their lawyers were unwilling to let IBM put *sample code* into the
>kit.  I don't know what (if anything) was the final outcome.
>
>Robert
I've heard this too... so?  That was many months ago... why does IBM
still not have a DDK?

Brian
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: "My Opinions"
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 21:18:39 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa

In <1992Aug14.202558.6912@novell.com> chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen) writes:


>Just curious.  I see the Microsoft employees saying everything they say
>is their opinions.

>I wonder if thats truly the case.  I wonder what would happen to
>an MS employeee if they posted on the net something like

>"NT Sucks rocks!  This alpha version reaks!"

Well, I've gotten email from one MS employee (who shall remain nameless)
who prefers OS/2 to NT.  This is person has not posted to the net that
I've seen, however.  Perhaps MS employees *are* allowed to post their
opinions _as_long_as_those_opinions_match_the_official_company_position_!
:-) :-) :-)

Actually, I seem to remember seeing postings a month or so back from yet
another MS employee--one who was using, and preferred, OS/2!
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bill@snoopy (Bill Poitras)
Subject: Re: OS/2, DOS, NT (Speculative) -- My Opinions
Reply-To: bill@msi.com
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:50:43 GMT

Jay L. Davis (jld@datascope.com) wrote:
: Well, yes. Except most people don't charge for pre-alpha software.
: Of course, if people will pay for it, why not? Why are people 
: falling for this? I won't.

1) Alpha or Beta it doesn't matter.  The system boots, can run a 32-bit
C++ compiler, so developers can compile most code today.  As better and
better releases come out, more and more of a companies product will
shape.

2) People (most likely developers) pay for it so they can start building
thier applications on it.  That way when Windows NT is finally released,
developers will have applications ready to release.  Microsoft made the
mistake with Windows 3.0, where there were few applications at Windows
3.0 release time.  Don't count on them making the same mistake again.

I'm not a fan of Windows NT, but I can see why Microsoft is doing what
they are.  They are basically doing what workstation vendors do (like
Silicon Graphics) when they are getting ready to release a new OS, they
pass it amoung the developers, the people who keep them in business.

--
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Bill Poitras    | Molecular Simulations Inc.    | Tel (408)522-9229       |
| (bill)          | Sunnyvale, CA USA             |                         | 
|                 | FAX (408)732-0831             | bill@msi.com            |
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:4232 comp.os.os2.misc:27754
From: bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: OS/2 2.0 advertisements on TV
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:27:41 GMT
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

Just FYI.  This information is from my local IBM S.E.

Bert.

Contact: Keith J. Lindenburg (914/642-5363) for more information.

IBM Launches Television Campaign for OS/2 Version 2.0

White Plains, NY, August 17, 1992.  IBM's new OS/2 version 2.0 will hit the
airwaves tomorrow in an aggressive television campaign designed to raise the
visibility of the company's advanced operating system with personal computer
users.

The 30-second advertisement will run for six weeks on a variety of network
programs, including the U.S. Tennis Open, Good Morning America and 20/20,
and cable outlets such as CNN, ESPN and A&E.

"New Heart" advises, "If a computer's a the heart of what you do, OS/2
should be at the heart of your computer."

"We're always looking at ways to expand the OS/2 user base and feel
television affords us this opportunity," says Michael Coleman, vice
president, IBM's National Distribution Division.

- more -

The OS/2 2.0 print campaign continues in PC trade publications, consumer
and general press, national and local newspapers, as well as the Prodigy
on-line information service.  A new print advertisement with the headline,
"You'll Never Need One of These With OS/2" and a picture of a crash
helmet, breaks today.

The OS/2 TV and print campaigns are produced by Lintas: New York.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ekl@fics.uucp
Subject: Re: superVGA  (and misc top-blowing)
Organization: Kvam data as
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:39:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.134609.9708@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>...  Look at how snappy
>the 32-bit stuff is... it's already faster than OS/2.

That is not my experience, running both os/2 2.0 *and* windows NT on
my computer (386/40, 16 MB ram). I even give NT the advantage(?) of
running plain VGA (IT DOESN'T SUPPORT MY CARD!) while os/2 runs 800*600.

>I don't know if you were in the EEP for OS/2, but I promise the LA and
>6.304 betas were MUCH slower than the GA.  NT is already beating
>OS/2 performance-wise and NT is on FAT with unoptimized code and drivers
>AND ITS NOT EVEN IN BETA YET.

>I imagine OS/2's problem is largely due to the lack of the 32-bit graphics,
>hopefully IBM will get that out this year (it was promised for March).
>
>BTW, I'm running NT on a 33Mhz 386DX with 20 megs of memory (and before
>you say yeah sure, 20 megs no wonder... that's exactly the same size system
>I do OS/2 development on at work.)  Currently I dual boot 3.1 as the
>16-bit support under NT is still slow... about the level of the
>OS/2 LA release, though at least it is already seemless.  (LA, and for
>people with decent graphics cards, GA[the current version of OS/2]!!!;
>did/does not have seemless 16-bit Windows support.)
>
>Brian

I also have no problem with the NT beta. It is where it should be, and it
may very well be delivered around years-end.

One thing that we may very well experience, though, is that NT apps do not
take advantage of the environment. Source code compatibility with Win 3.x
is often touted as *the* main advantage of NT over os/2 2.0. To achieve
that, you cannot use things like threads etc. Thus, NT apps may end up
being only 32-bit Windows apps. OS/2 2.0 apps, though, are now being
rewritten to take advantage of the operating system. When delivered, they
will support threads etc. This means that os/2 2.0 apps *may* be better
than NT apps.

OK, so this is a bunch of speculations, but that's where the world is
today. It's gonna be a fun fall!

Eirik
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: HASTA LA VISTA, OS/2
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:24:29 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <37.335.uupcb@eabbs.uucp>  tony.waddell@eabbs.uucp (Tony Waddell)  writes:
>
> You're really short changing the capabilities of Windows 3.x.  Under
> both 3.0 and 3.1 I run at least two DOS windows, Procomm Plus for
> Windows, Excel, the clock, Microsoft Mail, and a totally non-standard
> mainframe emulation program to connect to a Unisys A-Series large
> system.  These are in my Startup folder.  This doesn't include things I
> might start up on the fly.

Heh heh.  I'm running Communications Manager with 4 host sessions; 3 OS/2
windows; INET (the TCP/IP main program); Sendmail, FTP, Telnet, NFS and
reboot daemons, EPM, LaMail, a clock, and a telephone manager.  Oh yeah -
also, LAN requester and one or two other detached programs.

And how could I forget:  RN!  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks! (was Re: Windows NT 'Alpha')
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 11:50:26 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Aug19.233003.1168@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
> In article <1992Aug19.180134.11375@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
> >In a previous article, scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY) says:
> >>In article <1992Aug17.232651.23471@tamsun.tamu.edu>, bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce 
> >>Dubbs) writes...
> >>
> >>>Please, let's call the Windows NT Beta what it is.
> >
> >It would probably be best to call the current release an SDK.
> 
> Isn't that what MS calls it?  It's the "Windows NT pre-release SDK".
> No mention of alpha, beta, or anything else.

I read in Clari news tonight that MS says that NT is ontrack for a late '92
delivery and that it will be going into late beta testing at the end of
September/October..........
 
Looks like a counter to the IBM/OS2 ad campaign, to me.
 
Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | If you don't vote for MMP on 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  September 19, 1992, then you 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  must like things the way they 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  are.....can I live with YOU?
From: AV@vnet.ibm.com (Anton Versteeg)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 17:38:13 CET
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS Gave Up (Was Re: pc week and nt)
Reply-To: AV@vnet.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Uithoorn - Netherlands
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 3.0
            <1992Aug20.013406.22269@microsoft.com>

In <1992Aug20.013406.22269@microsoft.com> Pete Skelly writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.131240.15526@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
>>
>>In a previous article, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) says:
>>
>>>In article <1992Aug14.195641.5478@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Pete,
>>>>
>>>>God damn it, Microsoft never put up a fight to keep OS/2.  They just tried
>><rant deleted>
>>
>>
>>>Ahhh, excuse me, were you there.  Were you in any of the meetings about
>>>the settlement, or the handing of OS/2 over to IBM.
>>
>>So what actually did happen?
>
>Would you believe me if I told you? ;)
>
>Let's just say it was an unfortunate disagreement
>in which both sides were responsable, but it was
>more the situation.

I'm speechless.

>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...
>

Anton Versteeg - IBM - Uithoorn Netherlands - TEAMOS2 NL
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows NT 'Alpha'
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:01:34 GMT
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


In a previous article, scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY) says:

>In article <1992Aug17.232651.23471@tamsun.tamu.edu>, bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce 
>Dubbs) writes...
>
>>Please, let's call the Windows NT Beta what it is.


It would probably be best to call the current release an SDK.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: superVGA  (and misc top-blowing)
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 12:19:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.084203.26599@cam-orl.co.uk> thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:
> 
> Ah! I see the problem. Unlike most users, I spend most of my time browsing the
> filing system and running applications such as Word and Excel on those files.
> Perhaps I would like OS/2 2.0 if I was a typical user who spends all his time
> formatting floppies and copying files around.

Having been asked to by my boss, I re-installed the Windows support in my OS/2
system and installed both Word 4 Windows V2.0 and Excel 4.0. He wants me to
provide support for customers as a backup. 

They work just fine. I open them seamlessly on the desktop. At the same time.
Performance is easiliy the same as under Windows - if not better. The installs
were flawless and no mods have been required.

> But then, I'm the sort of person who wastes his money by buying pre-formatted
> floppies anyway.

You have to if you're running Windows, otherwise it takes *forever*.

> |> I bet NT will be even worse when it comes to speed, but I will have to wait
> |> for the final version to see.
> 
> The SDK is already more usable than OS/2 2.0, I expect the final release to be
> better.

Usable? How is it more usable? Is it just the Program Manager vs. the WPS? Or
what? I have already said elsewhere I - personally - much prefer the WPS. No
accounting for taste, though.

I have found OS/2 very usable......what was your problem again?
 
Steve

-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | If you don't vote for MMP on 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  September 19, 1992, then you 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  must like things the way they 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  are.....can I live with YOU?
From: rdixon@gemini.cs.nps.navy.mil (robert dixon)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hasta la Vista, OS/2
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:06:36 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey,CA
In-reply-to: branham@binah.cc.brandeis.edu's message of 18 Aug 92 22:03:33 GMT


>that can be duplicated (a genuine bug) or was a file on you system 
>corrupted?  The details do matter and we can not guess them, only you     
>were there.  It would be nice to know if it is not too much trouble.

  I was running VP-Planner 1.0 on a Northgate 386/20 with a ?/?/89 AMI
BIOS.  Like I said in the original, an old piece of software on an old
BIOS.  My DOS stuff is still in a FAT partition, which might have made
a difference.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Dixon                          "My opinions may not necessarily
Low-Life Grad Student,              be my own . . ."
Naval Postgraduate School,
Monterey, CA                        rdixon@cs.nps.navy.mil
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hasta la Vista, OS/2
From: jstewart@desire.wright.edu
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:02:48 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1fd-J2=@engin.umich.edu>, mongoola@engin.umich.edu (Don Prior) writes:
> In article <1992Aug17.143806.10701@umbc3.umbc.edu> cs611a10@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs611a10) writes:
>>   CRASH AND TRASH!!  Too bad it happened under OS/2, but I'll bet
>>my life that it happens MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH
>>more often under Windows.  Windows is always hungry to eat my hard
>>disk.  I have to keep it tied to the wall and keep a close watch
>>on it.  If I turn my back on it for a moment, or don't watch what I'm
>>doing, its LUNCH TIME for windows (e.g. NO you can't run two DOS boxes
>>at the same time). Reboot the computer and dozens of files are trashed.
>>   Lets take a poll: 
>>        How many people have had OS/2 CRASH and TRASH??
> 
> Me!
> Hell, every few times through the dual boot it would goof up.. back to the 'ol
> 10 minute OS/2 Boot disk.  I can't imagine its that hard to have a 
> something like DUAL BOOT work.. especially considering the complexity
> of OS/2... too bad it doesn't.
> 
>>	How many people have had Windows CRASH and TRASH?? Sorry, that
>>should be HOW OFTEN Windows trashs your hard disk.  I have Windows 3.1
>>running on 4 different machines, and all have been trashed at least once
>>by Windows.  True Windows 3.1 is BETTER than 3.0, but that dont say very
>>much. Now I get nervous if I try to run anything more complicated than
>>WinGif and MineSweeper.
> 
> Well, I've NEVER had Windows trash my hard disk.. NEVER NEVER NEVER.
> I use it ALL over the place.. Work, where I install it for other people.
> My home setup which varies from a simple machine, to a Network with 
> 2 IDE drives and a big 'ol SCSI and Windows has NEVER NEVER NEVER 
> trashed my system.
> Perhaps you were hitting the RESET button while it was writing to disk?

	It should be able to correct for this.  Power failure should not cause
disk loss in any decent OS.  (Novell Netware not withstanding :) )  I've shut
down power to os/2(HPFS) in the middle of large thrash session quite a few
times.  All I get is a longer boot time as it runs chkdsk.  And maybe 1 in 15
times that chkdsk fails to recover all badly allocated space.  I notice this a
a disparity between what chkdsk and dir show free.  Then all I gotta do is boot
of floppy and run chkdsk and it's all back to normal.  From what I've seen
heard OS/2 is much happier with HPFS.  The moral: give it what it wants :) :)
:)

					John Stewart

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: is NT really NEW technology?
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:41:02 MDT
Keywords: NT Unix OS2 DOS Blither
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

...
>>You say that NT will lose because UNIX and X can do a lot of the things
>>that NT can do, well, I say it's the other way around.  NT can do the
>>things UNIX and X can do, and MORE!!!  (blatant advertisement just
>>to fan the flames ;)
>
>Yeah, whats the "alot more?".  

Over X:
	Speed.
	Size.
	Ability to list fonts.
	Printer support.
	Multimedia support.
	Pen support.
	Source and binary compatiblity with a GUI currently in the
		hands of a horde that even the most skeptical
		number at 4,000,000. (Win32s)
	OLE
	Scripted GUI testing program.

Over most X:
	Scalable fonts.
	A single defined user interface (i.e. no Motif/OpenLook wars).
	Fast hyper-text help system.


Over Unix:
	Ability to fsck gigabyte volumes in a few seconds.
	Ability to run Windows 3.X applications.
	Ability to run OS/2 1.X character mode applications.
	Base package comes with C2 security.
	Printer support such that the spooler understands the
		capabilities of the printer.
	Fully integrated internationalization abilities.
	Access control lists for most system objects.
	No system table limits (i.e. no limits on proc table size, etc.).
	Sparse address space support.
	Per process control of page attributes.
	Object-oriented, from scratch, design.
	Defined E-mail API.
	Named Pipes over networks.
	Common adapter interface for ethernet cards.
	Dynamically loadable/unloadable file system drivers.
	B-tree directory structure (large directories have fast lookup).
	Installation program easily licensable from the OS vendor.
	Cost.

Over most Unix:
	Define tape API.
	Asynchronous I/O.
	Dynamically loadable/unloadable device drivers.
	Memory mapped files.
	Ability to write platform independent device drivers.
	Threads (and corresponding syncronization methods).
	Adminstration easy enough for the average user to use.
	MicroKernel design.
	Ability to run DOS apps.
	A defined interface to system statistics and quotas.
	Symmetric multiprocessing.
	C2 level security.
	Base package contains peer-to-peer file and printer sharing.
	Global (i.e. combined I/O and VM) cache.
	Majority of kernel code pageable.
	Support for PC networks such as Novell, Banyan Vines.
	Remote booting.
	Remote installation and maintenance.
	Access Control Lists. *
	Internationalization support. *

* Repeated from above, but in the general case.

If you claim that I'm wrong about the list above and want to respond
please restrict yourself to ONE existing, named, commercial version of
Unix per message.

Brian
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: superVGA
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:04:26 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Aug10.181100.20667@news.columbia.edu> azf@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Abu Zakaria Faridatul Azlin) writes:
>I just moved into the OS/2 World (less than a month)
>but I am a long time user of WIndows.
>In windows I am used to be using the 800x600 resoultion and really liked it.
>Does OS/2 supports this  resolution? and if YES HOWWWWWW?

OS/2 supports any resolution you have a driver for.  Since there is no
standard for super-VGA, you must get the driver from your board
manufacturer.  There are many drivers available on-line from
ftp-os2.nmsu.edu, if you have FTP access - note that you can use OS/2
1.3 display drivers as well, and you may have to for now.

Note that only the Trident boards have seamless Windows drivers at the
higher resolutions.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy