HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:05:22 GMT

In <1992Sep26.170636.29027@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:

>In article <1992Sep26.165553.19232@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>>>Also, hard
>>>drive manufacturers have approached IBM with interest in selling hard
>>>drives with OS/2 2.0 preloaded.
>>Now *that's* an interesting approach.  Since Microsoft seems to have
>>cut off IBM at the vendor level when it comes to bundling operating
>>systems, IBM does one better by bundling at the hardware manufacturer
>>level.  Then both companies can proclaim "XX million copies shipped!"
>>and the numbers will finally be equitable.

>Actually, Microsoft thought of this first (putting software directly
>on the hard drive).  Neither Microsoft nor IBM are (yet) bundling at
>this level, as far as I know, but it is being considered.

Well, actually, I think this one is a 'steal' from the workstation
market.  Of course, they do it because a lot of customers simply don't
have anything that can read the installation media for the 'standard'
distribution.  

Except this sort of thing to become more common as the 'standard
distribution media' moves more and more toward CD-ROM.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:00:17 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep30.014221.22961@u.washington.edu> tzs@milton.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>Too bad Microsoft Hearts sucks.  After playing their Reversi, I hoped that
>perhaps their Hearts would be good.  Alas, it plays like an ENIAC.

By the way, is MS going to include Reversi in future releases?  I
didn't appreciate the fact that Win 3.1 didn't include it.  I'm glad
that I had a 3.0 installation of it to use.


-- 
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"
From: msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 6 Oct 92 08:19:22 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct5.151116.21671@cam-orl.co.uk> thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.180905.27222@ms.uky.edu>, sam@ms.uky.edu (Mike Mills) writes:
>|> IMHO, preemptive multitasking is a requirement.
>
>OK, I agree.
>
>|>  Also, any OS should be multiuser.
>
>OK, I agree again, for a PC/Workstation OS.
>
>|>  This is a shortcoming in both NT and OS/2.
>
>Sorry, you lost me at this point. NT is fully multi-user. What are you trying
>to say?


What he is quite clearly and correctly saying is that NT AND OS/2 2.0 are not
CONCURRENT multi user systems. NT allows you to set up profiles so that more
than one person can use ( IF THEY WAIT THEIR TURN LIKE A GOOD LITTLE BOY /GIRL )
this workstation with their files being protected
from the other users. ( Hardly multi-user in the traditional sense )

MArtin smith
msmith@netcom.com

>
>|> With machines
>|> becoming more and more powerful, there is an increasing need for multiuser
>|> operating systems, in order to take better advantage of the underlying
>|> machine.
>
>I agree. That is one reason I prefer NT to OS/2 2.0.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (TAN JIN MENG)
Subject: Re: Desynchronized Message Queues (was a thread about threads)
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 01:22:40 GMT

Oh BTW, I heard that IBM is putting in multiple message queues in OS/2.
When? Don't know... [shrug]

jin meng
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:00:28 GMT

In article <DOCONNOR.92Oct2081116@potato.sedona.intel.com>,
doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor) writes:

>IBM is selling it's own 80386-compatable and Intel486(R)-compatable chips
>to some Asian manufacturers. AMD sells 386-compatable chips, and Cyrix
>sells some chips that are close to an Intel486 (smaller cache).
>
>So what is it Intel has a monopoly on ?  Nothing. Intel just makes the
>best, fastest implementations of the "386" architecture, not the only ones.
>
>Just my own opinion, of course.
>--

     IBM's chips are Intel liscensed, I believe (only the x86 ones,
of course).  The rest (AMD, Cyrix, C&T) are true clones.  So the
IBM chips should probably be considered Intel's, too.
     From what I've heard, though, Intel is rapidly loosing their
share.  My 486 is an Intel, but my 386 is an AMD.  What can I say?
;-) ;-)
     In fact, I read in a trade rag that Intel gives vendors
incentives to print the "Intel Inside" mark on their ads, but when
people call up, they often buy AMD chips from the vendors because
they're faster *and* cheaper!
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 5 Oct 1992 20:16:48 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <19921005.102059.389@almaden.ibm.com> ameline@vnet.ibm.com (Ian Ameline) writes:
>In article <7494@lib.tmc.edu>,
>jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>I'd be willing to bet a steak dinner that Ian Ameline, or someone from his
>>shop, has _already_ emailed or spoken to Brian about this statement.
>   Ooops -- Sorry to let you down -- Didn't see this until now.

Oh well...you can make it up to me by sending me the next CSD for free.

Oh...right. They're _all_ free (at least electronically). I was thinking of MS
C there. Never mind.

(Ian, I'll see if I can't break something just so you get to fix it. :-)

>I'll send
>Brian a note, reminding him that our support group is waiting for any
>failing programs at CSET2@vnet.ibm.com. We'll be happy to give him a call
>and do our best to fix any problems that are reported to us.

Ian, once again, you prove my faith in IBM support. (John, if you're watching,
add another letter to Ian's personnel file. He does good work.) I certainly
don't expect this kind of participation and support from MS's compiler team.
-- 
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: goyal@utdallas.edu (Mohit K. Goyal)
Subject: Re: Interesting WINBENCH scores...
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:27:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.055945.29899@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>goyal@utdallas.edu (Mohit K. Goyal) writes:
>
>>Here are some WINBENCH scores I got earlier today.
>>The 2 Win-OS/2 scores are from the new beta of OS/2 2.0.
>
>>Win-OS/2 v3.1 - 3,220,615
>>Win-OS/2 v3.0 - 2,549,434
>>Windows v3.0  - 2,644,122
>
>>Both the the Win-OS/2 tests were run with no other programs running.
>
>Before people go crazy analyzing these numbers, keep in mind that a lot
>of benchmark programs get skewed under OS/2 because they assume they
>have 100% of the processor's time.  Does anyone know how WinBench times
>its benchmarks?
>-- 

Well, I know one thing.  I have an AMD 386-40 CPU and when I did the
little system stats option under WinBench, it said I had a 20mhz 386DX.
I don't know if it got fooled or anything, but it sure didn't get all
of the processor speed.  Windows 3.0 obviously got the entire 40mhz.
From: ghenniga@NMSU.Edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Review: OS/2 2.1 BETA.
Date: 27 Sep 92 17:16:39 GMT
	<1992Sep25.123257.5477@actrix.gen.nz> <dlcogswe.717433312@vela>
Reply-To: ghenniga@NMSU.Edu
Organization: New Mexico State University - Electromagnetics Group


Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>With the beta, you have both WinOS/2 3.0 and 3.1.....this suggests to me that
>the Win3.1 support may prove to be optional......lots of people don't even use
>the WinOS/2 support now.......

I'm not sure where Steve got this. I completely wiped out WinOS2 3.0 and 
installed WinOS2 3.1 and can run seamless and full screen Windows without a
problem. And, based on the border of the seamless apps they are running
with the 3.1 kernel. I'd think they'd have to be since I wiped out the
whole directory in which WinOS2 3.0 was installed and then renamed the
winos231 directory to winos2!

Gary Hennigan
---------
PhD Student, Computational Electromagnetics
New Mexico State University
email: ghenniga@NMSU.Edu
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: New DOS setting in OS/2 beta
Date: 27 Sep 92 23:01:34 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Sep25.214613.13213@njitgw.njit.edu>, dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (Dav
id Charlap) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.190856.43323@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.
edu writes:
>>Hello netters,
>>
>>An OS/2 beta note:
>>
>>There is a new DOS setting called INT_IO or something like that.
>>If set to on, interupts are possible during disk io.  If set to
>>off, interupts have to wait till disk io is done.  I set this on
>>for the Win 3.1 session, and the mouse pointer stopped freezing
>>during disk io--an annoyance in the past.
>
>Can anyone think of why you'd want to set this on?

One word.  Multimedia.  It can be very useful in keeping music or animation
from freezing on you.  In addition, if certain apps tend to have jerky mouse
movement, this might help there.

Ohh.  One thing I forgot to include in my last post.  There is Win 3.1 sound
support.  Identical to what you have with Regular Win 3.1.  I would ask that
someone else comment on the actual usability of these drivers as I do not have
a sound card.
>
>
>--
>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"
>

Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Subject: Reason to use OS/2
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 15:12:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.164035.24984@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
[multitasking comments deleted...]
>
>Yes!  This is the point I was trying to make!  Multitasking in and of itself
>RIGHT NOW is a curiosity--I haven't seen a really good, habitual use of
>multitasking on a desktop system that didn't seem *contrived* yet; people
>act as if they format 30-50 floppies every day, or download data for hours
>on end each day... I see *potential* in what multitasking offers, but it is
>the *least* of the reasons (IMHO) to switch to OS/2 (or NT).  The reason 
>being that AT THIS MOMENT, OS/2's (NT's and, yea verily, even Windows 3.1)
>much vaunted "multitasking" is really only being used as a task switcher.
>This will change, but until it does...it is not a reason TO change: because
>Multitasking for the sake of doing it makes little sense.
>
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.
2.  Flat memory model.
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

--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
bdubbs@sadis01.sa.aflc.af.mil |  Scrupulous Lawyer
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:59:06 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

kab@s1.gov (Keith Benton) writes:

>In article 717709394@cgl.ucsf.edu, hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:
>>kab@s1.gov (Keith Benton) writes:
>>
>>>But you can find Win 3.1 which is what is kicking OS/2's butt.
>>
>>Ahh, once again we see the limits of their vision. Half a year after Win3
>>came out, DOS was kicking Win's butt. Only now have Win apps overtaken DOS
>>apps (at least according to posted info). So, let's see about a year from now
>>how things stack up; perhaps you will not be crowing by then, but eating it
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>instead. :-)
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Tom

>Maybe, then again maybe not. Like the man says "Time will tell."

I'm trying to fathom why you posted this - you repeated my point. Thanks.
Maybe you should talk to Phil Lafornara - he seems to get on people's
cases for pointless posts. Of course, now I am too. <grin>

Tom
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: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:20:27 GMT

In article <BvKuxG.IqB@sti.com> westes@sti.com (Will Estes) writes:
>True maybe *unless* you happen to be using an EISA controller for which
>the manufacturer has written a 32-bit virtual device driver that works
>under Windows with the Windows 3.1 virtual memory 32-bit access.  

I don't see the point... are you saying that if someone had an
immediate need for this driver that they have to buy that
particular EISA controller and an EISA system, rather than
waiting for the equally good VL-bus controller and driver?  If
so, then I agree.  Personally, if I could wait a few months I
would go with the VL-bus controller and driver.

-- 
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.<=-
From: john.hines@scintill (John Hines) 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: RE: INTERESTING TIDBIT FR
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:44:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Scintillation BBS - Lombard, Illinois - 708-953-4922
Reply-To: john.hines@scintill (John Hines) 

-> fact, Windows works better for me.  While that may upset some OS/2
-> people, i think it's time they just wake up and smell the coffee:
-> Windows works as well as OS/2 2.0 for many of us.  Sorry 'bout that.

No problem, I guess thats why IBM included Windows in OS/2.  For me,
OS/2 makes Windows usable.
                                                                            
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: OS/2 longetivity ( was Re: Interesting Tidbit
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: "world"
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:20:26 GMT

Andrew T. Robinson <ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:

>  Personally, I'd rather the clone manufacturers got *out* of the
>  OS advocacy business.  When I buy a machine I don't *want* Zeos or
>  Northgate or Dell or whoever pre-loading an OS and software on my
>  machine--I can make that descision all by myself, thank you.  Clone
>  manufacturers should stick to selling hardware (although they should
>  be testing their hardware with all major OSs including OS/2 to ensure
>  compatibility).

>Andy

There is nothing wrong with a hardware manufacturer supplying the OS
pre-installed. Some people don't want to deal with installing it
themselves.

However, I will agree they should charge the normal price for the OS
software, and give you the option to not order it.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
From: rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel)
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 07:51:37 GMT

In article <strobl.717599866@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>In <1992Sep26.073733.16211@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn) writes:
>
>>But os/2 is a totally different story.  Once you install it, you
>>use it.  That's that simple.  Better dos than dos and better windows
>>than windows.  Is there in this logic, if it is a logic, not a fact,
>>at all?
>
>Well, I know at least two people, who have OS/2 2 installed on
>their machine, but almost never use it. Both have copies bought
>via store/mail order, not free or beta copies, or upgrades.
>
>Wolfgang Strobl
>#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>

And I know at least one person who has bought the NT pre-beta CD-ROM and
does never use it. So what? 

I think for EVERY software product there are some who get it but then
don't use it. And that percentage is perhaps about the same for all of
those products who are marketed the regular way.

The point is that (sorry to repeat that) for products given away for
free or bundled with some other product without choice NOT to get it,
that percentage will be significantly higher, e.g. Windows.

Kai Uwe Rommel

/* Kai Uwe Rommel --- rommel@informatik.tu-muenchen.de */

DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt
handler, and always will be.                -Russell Williams

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong)
Subject: Re: Moving from X to Y.
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 10:19:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.172609.13375@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Sep25.200914.8471@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>

[stuff deleted]

>>If a person says refers to a GUI as 'good' (without qualifiers) it is an
>>OPEN statement.  And 'good' becomes ambiguous without a frame of reference
>>such as "for developing for" or "for real time applications."
>
>It is only an 'open' statement to a degree.  You seem to be saying
>that because it wasn't specified, you can make it mean ANYTHING, and
>that simply isn't so for people who learned English as a first
>language. 

Or for that matter, people, like me, who learnt it as a second language.
For all I care, you can earn all the money in the world, yet be so obnoxious
that I consider you not to be a good person.

[stuff deleted]

>
>-- 
>"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: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: CPU cache and OS/2
Date: 6 Oct 1992 21:06:20 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, JAL142@psuvm.psu.edu () says:

>First, let me say that I like OS/2 very much and I run it on my own machine at
>home.  Now, here's the problem.  My CPU is an AMD386sx-25 and I have a 32K
>cache.  I had 4 megs, but I've since upgraded to 10.  When I upgraded, the CPU
>cache had to be disabled or OS/2 would crash at the logo screen.  With 4 megs,
>there never was a problem, but with 10, no luck.  I returned the new memory
>chips and got new ones, but still my computer crashes with the cache enabled.
>
>Is there a solution to this?  I suppose on of the SRAM cache chips could be bad
>but I don't think this is the case.  The BIOS I have is AMI '91, and the chip-
>set on the motherboard is Opti.  I really need this problem fixed, since the
>computer is slooowwww without caching.  Any way around this problem?  If not,
>does anyone know if the new version will fix it?

Perhaps your cache does not have enough tag ram, or perhaps the cache
needs to be expanded to 64k before more that 8 megs can be cached.

The tag ram is used to store the addresses of the areas in memory that are
cached.  If you don't have enough, you can only cache so much many
addresses.

The other problem might have to do with the way that the memory is covered.
you may need a larger cache.

On my computer, I would need to do get more tag memory and cache memory
if I wanted to cache more than 16 megs of memory, but there is a setting
in the bios which will let me turn off the cache for addresses over 16meg
if I want t avoid expanding the cache, but have more than 16 megs in the
computer.

Perhaps there is a setting in your bios that deals with an 8 meg limit.
Read over the manual that came with your motherboard, or call the people
you bought it from and see if they have any information about this.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 07:03:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.095110.4264@news.Hawaii.Edu> tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) writes:
>Phil Lafornara writes:
>
>>> If you, and/or MS think I'm going to use a Windows app under OS/2 when
>>> there is a native OS/2 app, you will surely miss the boat.
>
>> There isn't a native OS/2 app.  That's the point.
>
>I can't believe you said this.  Certainly you must know that there are
>plenty of native OS/2 apps out there.

I *think* that Phil read the question as:

	"...think I'm going to use a Windows app under OS/2 when there
	 is *AN EQUIVALENT* native OS/2 app, ..."

This makes more sense because, certainly, the existence of Describe
is not going to stop someone from using Excel 4.0 or Framemaker
(both of which, I believe, are available for Windows and not OS/2).

That said, there certainly are several native OS/2 apps out there.
However, there are far less OS/2 2.0 apps out there -- and there are
definitely many many Windows apps out there that have no equivalent
native OS/2 2.0 apps.  I think that's the point Phil was trying to make.

- Mike
"