HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Moving from X to Y.
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:54:06 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.

In article <1992Sep29.192542.20677@tamsun.tamu.edu>, bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
|> Lets see if I've got this right...

No, you haven't. The question was "Can you explain what the two mouse buttons
do on the icon at the top left of a window?". You have described the behaviour
of the mouse buttons on an minimized window on the desktop.

But this is all getting rather silly anyway. There are definite
inconsistencies and performance problems with the WPS which put me off using
it. Perhaps you may not have come across the problems or perhaps you do not
mind about them, but I do and so I'm sticking to Windows 3.1 (and NT).
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net (Orville R. Weyrich)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Reply-To: uunet.uu.net!weyrich!orville
Organization: Weyrich Computer Consulting
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 23:00:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.135558.10280@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.201520.16617@microsoft.com> gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin) writes:
>
>>3) The people who originally designed every key feature of OS/2 2.0 (except
>>	for the WPS, thank god) are all still here and are working on
>>	superior successor products.
>
>So why won't MS put some of that into their Windows/DOS product?  It's
>not the technology we're (well, most of us) complaining about but the
>corporate attitude of deliberately withholding technology from low-end
>products to keep the high-end stuff looking interesting.

Uh, the "Old" IBM was more often accused of that than MS -- until recently,
MS hasn't had more than one tier of products that could be competitive.

And lets not talk about the mainframe company [not IBM] that used to sell
a very expensive "field upgrade" that involved a technician REMOVING a jumper
that de-tuned the system. That company has fallen onto hard times.

Let us hope that both the "New" IBM and MS have learned the lessons of
history and don't play any more marketing games with us. But alas, I fear
not.

orville

--------------------------------------   **************************************
Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.                        Weyrich Computer Consulting
Certified Data Processor                     POB 5782, Scottsdale, AZ 85261
Certified Systems Professional                   Voice: (602) 391-0821
Certified Computer Programmer            Internet: orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net
--------------------------------------   **************************************
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: OS/2, my final analysis.
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:24:26 GMT

brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>I can second the vote of confidence for NT here too.
>I have not had NT crash except when I play with 16-bit Windows or DOS
>apps.  An amazing record for a system at the phase of development that
>NT is in.

Just curious - except for the Windows and DOS apps - what else are you
running? There aren't any NT apps.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net            uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: tdbear@tandon.com (Tom Barrett)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Organization: Tandon Corporation, Moorpark, CA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:35:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.014509.4331@intelhf.hf.intel.com> sting@intelhf.hf.intel.com (Joe Bennett) writes:
>>intel based machine....
>
>Let me first say this disclaimer:  I work for Intel, but that in *no* way
>means I am speaking for them.  I don't even work anywhere *near* 
>the processors.

Appology accepted :)  Hey, I didn't even mind having to edit
your long lines :)

>apparently enough people will want to run archaic (sp) stuff because 
>PC makers (i.e. Dell, Gateway, etc) are building P5 systems with ISA.  

Just call us ETC :)

>That to me seems like a waste, but apparently they believe people 
>will buy it.

Actually, it is totally a waste to spend money on EISA for
personal computing... servers and multiuser (not
multiprocessing) machines excepted.

The ISA bus is still pretty darned good for a *few* slow
peripherals... especially those with FIFOs.  PC makers have
heard the cry of those who want EISA performance for their
hard drives, video, and network and have come up with local
bus products... either fully integrated on the system board or
system boards with a local bus connector which supports at
least one local bus "standard."  

If the consumers still want EISA, then they can certainly pay
the extra money... Intel, OPTi, TI, SIS all sell their EISA
chips for twice their ISA counterparts.  The OEMs then have to
charge more and the rest trickles down to the consumer.


-- 
Tom Barrett (TDBear)    tdbear@tandon.com          voice: 805-378-6207
Tandon Corporation      609 Science Drive          Moorpark, CA  93021 
Sr. HW Design Engineer  "War is Peace, No is Yes, And We're All Free!" 
-=>NOTE:  The feed to tdbear@tandon.com may be interrupted in Sept.<=-
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Date: 06 Oct 92 18:22:43 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct5.201950.27362@u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>      You're going to upgrade it anyway.  In two years your hardware
>>will be approaching obsolescence and your software will already be
>>there.
>
>I'm curious.  By what mechanism will, say, my copies of Microsoft Word 5.0
>and Microsoft Excel 4.0 on my Macintosh become obsolete in two years?

     You are misunderstanding the meaning of the word obsolete.
According to my dictionary:

obsolete -adj.  1.  No longer in use.  2.  Outmoude in design, style
	or construction.

     I am referring to the second meaning, not the first.  I know
people who are still using TRS-80s to do work.  Those machines are
obsolete, regardless.


>I did not buy Word or Excel in order to have the latest and greatest
>software.  I bought them to perform specific tasks.  There is no reason
>for me to upgrade them as long as they perform those tasks well.

     I agree.


>The same goes for hardware.  As long as my hardware for the most part performs
>the tasks for which I bought it, there is no reason to upgrade.

      I also agree.  Your hardware and software may be obsolete - they
may also be useful to you.  Of course, it's quite possible that there
may be another program or machine that would be _more_ useful to you.
Agreed?

					-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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: s1084369@giaec.cc.monash.edu.au (Goh (Goh Kian Soon))
Subject: OS/2 2.0 Virtual address space (was Re :Reason to use OS/2)
Organization: Monash University College Gippsland, Churchill, 3842, Australia
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 07:35:00 GMT

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re : Virtual address space of OS/2 2.0 [was Re : Reason to use OS/2]
Summary:
Followup-To:
Distribution: world
Organization: Monash University College Gippsland, Churchill, 3842, Australia
Keywords: Virtual address space in OS/2

I apologize for the last posting I sent, please ignored that.

    In article, <1992Sep26.151228.5399@tamsun.tamu.edu>,
bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) [Subject: Reason to use OS/2], writes :-

[ some stuff deleted]
>I'd like to modify the topic a bit.  There are lots of reasons to use
>OS/2 right now besides multitasking.

>1.  512-Mb virtual memory space.
     ^^^^^^
     I was told that OS/2 2.0 virtual address space is 4 GB per OS/2 session (
I am not sure myself). Version 2 is suppose to exploit the features of Intel
80386, which has 32 bits address bus. And if OS/2 also make use
of the segment register, it should be able to address up to 64 TB (in theory).

>2.  Flat memory model.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^
     Does this mean that Version 2.0 do away with segmentation and implement
     pure "paging".

>3.  Protection from other processes.
>4.  32-bit processing.

>I know these are available in other OS's, but to that comment I add:

>5.  Most widely used operating system for PCs that has the above
>available.

>   -- Bruce


Thanks & Best Regards

Goh

###############################################################################
# Goh Kian Soon                                                               #
# Monash University College Gippsland                                         #
###############################################################################

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Organization: Philipps-University Marburg
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:11:29 GMT

In article <92274.152722BJT105@psuvm.psu.edu>, BJT105@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
|> I think there are a couple important reasons people shouldn't "throw their
|> support" exclusively to NT or OS/2:
|> 
|> 1. They need each other.  Both OS/2 and NT will get better.  The competition
|>    between them will drive both systems to higher and higher levels of
|>    features and quality.  It is obvious that NT's feature list was driven
|>    by OS/2 ... MS will make sure that NT has everything OS/2 has, and more.
|>    And IBM is looking at NT as the baseline for OS/2 3.0.  Although we all
|>    hate dealing with two platforms, it would be a tragedy for innovation
|>    if either NT or OS/2 died.

I totally disagree. If both OS will survive, the compatibility will be DOS
and 16-bit Windows, maybe with this really ugly DPMI 32-bit. So developers
will decide to write DOS and WIN16 apps to have the compatibility with
both OS. That's not what we all desire. I greatly prefer /NT over OS/2,
but the worst thing that could ever happen, is that both OS will survive.

Later in a year or so, when either OS/2 or /NT died, there should be some
OS compatible with the survived OS to start competition again. But please
not two OS, which are incompatible on the 32-bit level.

Christoph
-- 
Internet: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de
BITNET: HAMPE2@DMRHRZ11
Fido: 2:243/660
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6778 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2309
From: mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 3 Oct 92 04:21:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct3.042126.17499
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

>OS/2 works for me now, and will have "features" that I may or may not
>want later, but that I don't have to *buy*.  Can't say that for NT, so
>NT is not superior to my thinking.  And if you think IBM is trying to
>imitate NT, then NT is trying to imitate OS/2 3.0's design.  Arguments
>about who's trying to imitate what are a waste of time, in my eyes.  It's
>who puts together the better package for *me*, or Joe user.
>
Of course, there are scads of us that do need many of the features that NT wil
provide.  I'm slowly working on getting those features with os/2, but it would
be very nice to have the features built into the os!  About 7,000 - 9,000 users
here would agree.  By the way, the TCP/IP product from IBM is very nice...as is
the X windows package (albeit a bit buggy).  Of course, they cost me an extra 
250 bucks....I'd have preferred that they be built into the os and included in 
the price. 

-- 
Mark Huth                         * Is it too wild to want to get into 
Mhuth@u.washington.edu            * Space someday?
Compuserve 70346,563              *
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ccc@williams.edu (CCC)
Subject: CSD, Service Packs, etc. How? When? Where?
Organization: Williams College
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 15:39:14 GMT

	I moved up from Windows 3.1 to OS/2 several months ago now, and 
haven't installed any bug fixes. I saw the IBM announcement, but based on 
quite a few messages I've seen posted, I have a few questions:


1) What is the CSD and what is a Service Pack?
2) There are patches and bug fixes in the archives, but are those then 
compiled into a Service Pack, for example? or do I need both?
3) Where does the beta come in?
4) Where can I find the CSDs, Service Packs, the beta, etc.?
5) Will there be an "official" OS/2 2.1 with the 32-bit GRE and Win 3.1 
support soon? If so, when? If one procures the beta, will reinstalling be 
necessary when the 2.1 GA comes out?

	Thank you very much.

kyle.f.downey@williams.edu
Williams College
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6721 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2287
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:04:29 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct1.154246.2250@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.213527.6613@hellgate.utah.edu>, brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>|> [PC Week; September 28, 1992; Page]
>|> 
>|> IBM showed OS/2, OSF/1, Unix, and DOS running as applicaitons on
>|> top of a Mach microkernel on a PS/2.  The applications were
>|> resident in the same machine but could not run concurrently.
>|> ...
>
>But this IBM attempt seems to rather poor. Non-concurrently running
>apps under different OS can easily be done...

I believe the intent is to have them all running concurrently.  This
is a demo.  Brian's speculation seems correct here, that it won't be
in a product for a few years (although I doubt it'll be five).

The Mach microkernel certainly allows multiple OS's to run
concurrently.
-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Organization: Philipps-University Marburg
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:52:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.134007.7564@njitgw.njit.edu>, dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David
Charlap) writes:
|> 
|> True. Since 16MB is enough memory for most single-user apps (unless
|> you're running NT :-)

Try running OS/2 2.0 with the features /NT has built in (LAN-Manager
and TCP/IP) and then tell me, what OS is running smoother.

Trust me, I am using OS/2 2.0 with LS 2.0 and TCP/IP 1.2.1.
I just wished, I could install more than 16 MB and in fact I can,
but this brain-damaged OS/2 denies to use more than 16MB on
ISA machines.

Christoph
-- 
Internet: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de
BITNET: HAMPE2@DMRHRZ11
Fido: 2:243/660
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 21:26:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <92271.152323I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET> Spartacus At Cuny <I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>Today I read IBM plans to release its PowerPC chips this fall
>on the USAToday newsfeed on the freenet.  As I understand it
>these new PowerPC will run Pink in about 3 years from now.
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Pink supposedly will run OS/2 and MSDOS programs as well
>as Pink programs.

What, exactly, is the point of releasing the chips now if nothing will
run on them?

>Now this brings in some curious questions about these chips
>and future Intel CPUs.  By allowing a user the freedom to run
>his/her favorite application on either platform.  I would like
>to hear some opinions (speculations) about what could users
>expect 3-4 years down the road.  Wouldn't Pink put Intel
>CPUs and PowerPC in head to head competition with each other?
>Would Intel based micros still be a viable option? What kind
>of decisions would a person expect to face four years from now
>when purchasing a new computer?

The success of the PowerPC will have a lot to do with the success/failure
of OS/2 and NT.  If NT dies, OS/2 takes off, and Pink is its successor,
then things'll depend on chip performance: Does Pink run better on Intel
or PowerPC chips?  If OS/2 dies and NT is a big hit, then other factors
come in:  Does MS port NT over to the PowerPC platform?  Of course, OS/2
and NT will probably both be in (fairly) widespread use, so things are much
more complicated.

I'd expect that most new computers in 4-5 years will be built with a
RISC chip of some sort -- the performance is simply a lot better.
The popular operating systems will be multi-platform, so people will
have a choice of CPUs.  People should be able to get OS/2, Pink, NT,
NextStep, or whatever for PowerPC, 68090, MIPS R7000, Intel P8, or 
whatever the popular chips are.

>                              |      Edward Galarza,

- Mike
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Msoft's bluster <grin>
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:47:06 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Sep28.160233.3985@spcvxb.spc.edu> mauritz_c@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:
>09/25 (DW) Microsoft Delays Shipments of Windows NT Operating System
>    By Ken Yamada
>    Dow Jones Staff Reporter
[...]
>    Since July, Microsoft has shipped more than 20,000 advance copies of
>the software, called developer kits, to potential corporate customers
>and independent software developers for testing [...]
[...]
>    Because there is such widespread testing of the new software, Walker
>said, is expecting to get a huge volureports back from
>testers, which will contribute to the delay in the product's shipping
>date. [...]

So much for the contention that the SDK isn't a beta. At least one reporter
isn't fooled, and MS staffers even admit it, in a roundabout way.

MS, quit trying to lower everyone's expectations, and just call the damned
thing a beta!
-- 
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: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:52:35 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <4elpJIi00WB5AjN3oP@andrew.cmu.edu> cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido) writes:
>
>I don't care if idiot Joe average out there thinks Win3.1 is better than
>OS/2 because it sells more!  Win 31 will never ever ever be able to do
>the things I have already done with OS/2.  Okay?  I've had Win 3.0 and
>3.1 crash more often than not.  Sure Joe idiot will buy it.  Sure Joe
>idiot will say it's better.

      The problem with your statement is this:  Joe Idiot, as you call
him, drives the market.  All the techno-weenies in the world, myself
included, could buy a product, and those sales would be a drop in
the bucket compares to what "Joe Idiot" is buying.  If IBM doesn't
intead to court Mr. Idiot, they are making a big mistake.  (I think
that they will, eventually, though.)


>Hey, remember what mommy used to tell you?  If little Joey down the
>street were to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you?

       Depends.  Bunjee or no?

				-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: bab@se39.wg2.waii.com (Brian Button)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Houston Computer Show - Where's IBM?
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:31:49 GMT
Organization: Western Geophysical Exploration Products

This Tuesday and Wednesday, Oct 6 and 7, the Small Business Computer
Expo is taking place in Houston. This show is being billed as the
largest computer show in the Southwest, and apparently IBM has no
plans to make its presence known.

There was a special section about this show in the Houston Chronicle
this weekend. There was a story on MS-Windows 3.1 on the front page, a
half-page article on it towards the end, and Microsoft has a special
Windows-Expo section on the show floor. In the entire section, there
was no mention of OS/2 whatsoever. The only IBM presence at this show
is a single booth, whose location was not even listed in the index of
exhibitors.

Since OS/2 would seem to be an ideal small-business PC platform, why
isn't IBM doing everything it can to put forth a strong presence at
this show? What is it going to take to get IBM off its collective butt
and start marketing this product? All summer long we've heard that the
ad campaign was starting Real Soon Now.

IBM, the time is now. Your window of opportunity is open wide, but
will soon start closing. Please don't let that happen.

I'll post a summary about OS/2 activity at this show later this week.
Lets hope that IBM is just keeping a low profile and is planning
something for the SBCE...

bab
--
|-----------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
| Brian Button          | email : button@wg2.waii.com                        |
| Design Engineer       |         bab@buster.stafford.tx.us                  |
| Western Geophysical   | voice : (713)964-6221                              |
| 3600 Briarpark        |                                                    |
| Houston, Texas  77042 |                                                    |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Date: 4 Oct 1992 15:45:38 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Oct04.105821.27664@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>So if MS uses undocumented calls, it's evil.  When other people do, it's not.

Exactly. The difference: MS writes the OS, and controls what is documented and
what isn't, and what's officially supposed to be used and what isn't. That
puts them in the poerfect position to gain an unfair competitive advantage.

>This is funny, just a few years ago, IBM was the evil empire in most postings.

IBM is changing its ways and becoming more responsive to its users. MS is
adopting IBM's old ways. That's why MS is becoming the evil empire.

-- 
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,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy