HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: About this Hercules business (Re: IS IBM UK STILL IN THE STONE AGE???)
Date: 1 Sep 1992 16:43:58 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, liuyu@kramden.nyu.edu (Liuyu) says:

>
>Why don't you also include CGA and EGA? Are you implying GUI on CGA is
>much better? If IBM wanted to drop support on low-res video, they should
>have drop them all. 
>And you are right. Their marketing is in doubt.
>

OS/2 runs on CGA.  It is scary, but it does run.  I know
someone who ran it that way.  Cga runs in 640x200x2
and the driver is buggy.

OS/2 does not do a good job with monochrome.
Grey scale works, but the wps currently has some 
big problems with monochrome when it does the
3d effects on the buttons.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: NT Products
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:56:29 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Aug31.220520.36021@ans.net> db3l@ans.net (David Bolen) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.150612.10353@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>>Threads will be "faked" in software under 3.1, there will be thread, but
>>the threads won't be dispatched via the operating system, but rather within
>>the application.  This, for example, is how SysV4.2 has threads.  It works
>>but isn't as smooth as having the threads dispatched by the OS.
>
>Hmm - would this really work though?  I mean - one of my complaints with
>thread implementations under Unix variants that work at application level is
>that you can't block in a kernel call without blocking the entire application.
>It seems to me that a popular use of threads in an application (at least in
>my applications) is to allow a background thread to perform lengthy I/O (say
>to a printer, COM port, or disk file) without interfering with the processing
>of the main thread.  With application threads - if I block on an I/O call to
>the COM port, my entire application is blocked, no?

Well the ones I've used under Unix usually use an alarm signal to force
the thread switch, and thus (provided you program the system call properly
to restart on EINTR), things work.  I agree 100% that it's not as nice...
but it's better than nothing.  The Win32s stuff isn't out yet, as
all system calls have to go though the Win32 API, perhaps they intercept
things better than what Unix does... we'll just have to wait and see
unless one of the Microsoft folks want to comment.

>/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
> \              David Bolen             \  Internet: db3l@ans.net      /
>  |   Advanced Network & Services, Inc.   \   Phone: (914) 789-5327   |
> / 100 Clearbrook Road, Elmsford, NY 10523  \   Fax: (914) 789-5310    \
>\-----------------------------------------------------------------------/

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: X is a hack? (was Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks!)
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:06:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.023156.6801@nuscc.nus.sg> eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (TAN JIN MENG) writes:
>: About X -- one thing that distinguishes it from both NT and OS/2 is
>: its ability to run distributed, across a network (to have remote X
>: displays).  OS/2 is adding this feature, incidently, in two ways.
>: First, in the near future, OS/2 will have both X client and server
>: (only server is available now).  Second, Distributed Presentation
>: Manager has been demonstrated.
>This is the second time I've seen Distributed Presentation Manager
>mentioned - Can someone (Mr. Sipples?) give the low down?

I'll see what I can find out.  Stay tuned.

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | The OS/2 FREQ. ASKED QUESTIONS LIST is avail. from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/faq.
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | Or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP").
Chicago, 60637          | Hey GOP: The Economy, Stupid!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: Analogies (was: Microsoft bashing)
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 20:09:09 GMT

tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen) writes:

>Sorry, that's no good either: gasoline is very much a commodity, with very
>little to differentiate brands.  I don't think you'll find an appropriate
>analogy in athe automobile world.

Well, it was fun, but I think you're right.  However...

>However, consider the video/movie industry.  Sony now owns CBS, so they
>could choose to release any new Columbia movies on Sony's own 8mm format
>first, and delay the VHS-C versions until later (this is of course assuming
>that 8mm and VHS-C were to take over from VHS).  Would that be grounds for
>and antitrust suit, like some of you are proposing should be launched
>against Microsoft?

We need to modify this a little to make it fit.  First, 8mm format would
have to hold 90% of the videotape market.  VHS holds a piddly 2% or so.
Yet Sony still releases Columbia movies in VHS format.  Then VHS-C starts
going into wide testing (and it runs on most 8mm machines at that!) and
it becomes apparent Sony won't be able to match its quality for at least
a year.  Then Sony announces it will stop releasing movies in VHS or VHS-C
format, saying VHS market share is too small and it doesn't think VHS-C
is going to be all that great.  And Sony says it's working on Hi8 which
it says will blow the doors off VHS-C, if you wait a year or two.  And
all those people who paid hefty premiums to get into the Sony/Columbia
video-movie of the month club (VHS/VHS-C version) can get 10% of their
money back, or move to the 8mm/Hi8 version of the club.

>Methinks Sony and Microsoft have every right to decide on what platforms
>(whether OS or videotape format) to develop for first.

If the market is competetive, it's pretty easy to go along with that -
any company that tries to drop support for product A in hopes of increasing
its sales of product B (which competes with product A) is cutting itself
in the throat.  If Sony was still predominantly Beta, it would never
think of limiting all Columbia video releases to Beta tape in hopes of
manipulating the market - they'd wind up losing money.  But we're talking
about a near-monopoly, where the above actions aren't self-defeating,
but make unethical (trying to maintain near-monopoly) business sense.

Out of curiosity, how many copies of OS/2 2.0 did Bill Gates say would
have to sell before MS would start supporting it again?
-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu | think of something very clever 
uunet!jarthur!jokim         | to use as a disclaimer)
From: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: what crash...
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:36:11 EST
Reply-To: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

In message <1992Aug22.074516.435@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>,
mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) writes:

BD>Well, I  can run  OS/2 without  Excel. Can  you tell  me how to run OS/2
BD>without WPS?

ML>I can.  Did you read the OS/2 FAQL?

Yes, but that's running OS/2 without PM. The question is not how to  run
a command line OS/2, but rather how to run a PM OS/2 without using  WPS.
I haven't seen a way to do that.

----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.com
Software Consulting and Gator Pit | Eradicate Hunger - Eat the homeless
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
---
  SLMR 2.1a  Volume in drive C is TOO LOUD
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:4851 comp.os.os2.misc:28917
From: thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Win-OS/2 performance tweaks
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:00:39 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

>>> thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>>>Hello netters,
>>>
>>>I am running OS/2 on a 386sx-25 with 6 megs of RAM.  The time to
>>>start the Win-OS/2 desktop for me is 28 seconds.  After some tweaking
>>>(thank you Mr. Sipples), it is now 19 seconds.  Out of curiosity,
>>>I fired up Windows 3.1 (from DOS 5) on a 386dx-25 with 4 megs of
>>>RAM.  It took 22 seconds!  I couldn't believe it.  For all you
>>>OS/2 nonbelievers out there--tweak your OS/2!  I did and now my
>>>Win-OS/2 loads faster than Windows 3.1 on a better machine.  (I
>>>don't think the RAM difference makes a difference.)
>>>

Well, I've been asked to run winos2.com (to start Win-OS/2) from a 
DOS fullscreen session to make it fair with Windows 3.1, which loads
with DOS already loaded.  Previously, I loaded the Win-OS/2 program
object, which loads DOS first and the Win-OS/2.  

From an optimized DOS fullscreen session (on the same system as above--
the 386-25sx), winos2.com took 16 seconds to load Win-OS/2.  Three
seconds less that before.  Not bad for an sx.  I will hopefully be
running OS/2 on a 486 with 8 megs in the near future (2-3 weeks).
When this occurs, I can post some benchmarks for applications for 
OS/2 and Windows 3.1.  Note:  these benchmarks will be with an 
optimized OS/2, not the OS/2 that comes out of the box.  I hope
to get OS/2 really close to Windows 3.1 in application performance,
or even surpass it.  We'll see.  If I get some results from my 
meddlings with OS/2's myriad of settings, I'll try to incorporate
them into an Optimization FAQ.  

Almost forgot...in 2 or 3 weeks, the OS/2 Performance Update will 
probably be out, so I guess I'll have to install that first, and
then report back.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Charles A. Thompson               |  thompson@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu         |
|  University of Kansas              |  thompson@ukanvax.cc.ukans.edu        |
|  _Avid_ SkiBum                     |  OS/2 2.0 is for YOU!!!               |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Look for Recipe Pro(tm), an interactive recipe database, coming soon...   |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why people bow and scrape before NT (long)
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:57:45 GMT
Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany

In article <1992Aug26.121607.9974@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>Slow windows support, no superVGA support, buggy WPS, no windows 3.1 support
>(and yes I do have apps that need 3.1, occasionally munges the file system.
>Yes, I'd say I can consider the "June" CSD important to me, and to lots
>of OS/2 customers.

I hope I am right this time :-)

I think I have seen SVGA drivers for
- ET-4000
- Trident 8900
- ATI VGA Wonder ...
- not sure about Paradise

Doesn't that cover most cards except S3?

Slow Windows? Hmm, Win-OS/2 is on my 8514/A at least as fast as Windows
3.0 was. You just have to set the "Windows settings" right, two
settings. Seamless Windows? I run a total of two Windows apps, about
once per month. I can really live without seamless Windows.

We got a NT CD here finally and the docs say it does not support 8514/A
nor Trident SVGA, so I could run NT only in 640x480. You see, my mileage
varies quite a bit on OS/2 and NT from yours ...

Buggy WPS? Hmm, the Windows 3.1 machines I have to use still crash much
more often than WPS and OS/2 crash.

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: steveha@microsoft.com (Steve Hastings)
Subject: Re: Hasta la Vista, OS/2
Date: 22 Aug 92 06:04:57 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Applications Division

In article <1992Aug18.153801.9396@umbc3.umbc.edu> cs611a10@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs611a10) writes:
>  Try opening several DOS boxs at the same time.  We do work in AmiPro,
>Borland's Turbo C++ for windows, WinGIF, MineSweeper, a couple Communication
>Packages ...  WinJPG is also a good one to bring down the whole system.
>   Windows performs flawlessly UNTIL you push it to the limits.  Running
>several programs at the same time IS pushing the limits.

Strange.  At this moment I am running 6 DOS shells, 5 Windows apps, and 6
applets.  It's all multitasking smoothly.  I haven't tried to mix in a
download, but I wouldn't be surprised if that worked too.  When I use
floppies, I wouldn't say the multitasking works "smoothly" but it
certainly doesn't crash.

My machine is admittedly a fairly heavy-duty machine.  I think the most
important thing is to have lots of memory.  Windows will run in fairly
small memory, but if you want to multitask lots of stuff you will be
happier if you have more memory.  This is probably true of OS/2 also.

Whether I were running OS/2 or Windows, I wouldn't try to save money by
scrimping on system RAM.  But that's me.


P.S. You do work in AmiPro, Turbo C++, and MineSweeper?  I haven't yet
figured out how to do work in MineSweeper... :-)  I'd better try it for
a while and see what I can come up with.  :-)   (Bill Gates, demonstrating
Solitaire at the Windows 3.0 introduction, broke up the audience when he
said with a straight face "...and I can assure you that this particular
program has been very heavily tested.")
-- 
Steve "I don't speak for Microsoft" Hastings    ===^=== :::::
uunet!microsoft!steveha  steveha@microsoft.uucp    ` \\==|
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: hpw@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Harry P Warren)
Subject: Re: Tex Advantages (was Re: TeX an archaic religion?)
Reply-To: hpw@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Harry P Warren)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:55:48 GMT


|
| >* TeX is compatable across a multitude of systems. So, instead of
| >  being stuck using a single platform/program for all our work,
| >  we can use almost any system.
| 
| This is a fallacy.  There are a lot of site, platform, and implementation
| dependencies in TeX.  Each site has its macros (that they always forget to
| send with the document), each platform has something different in its flavor,
| and TeX ne LaTeX ne AMSTeX.  Then there is the horror of device
| dependencies.
| 
| >* TeX is free.
| 
| Not on your life.  TeX is very expensive - the costs are just more hidden
| than in the commercial products. 
| 

Here at Columbia University I have used TeX on a Sun, Vax, NeXT, and
Mac (all maintained by different groups) and I have not experienced
very many "implementation" or "device" dependencies nor have I run
into any substantial "hidden costs" ($32 for the TeXbook; the disk
space and memory requirements for TeX are rather trivial compared with
those for real scientific computing). Granted, I'm not a very
sophisticated TeX user and if I had to put out 50 page grant proposals
with dozens of tables, graphs, and pictures I would consider a
commercial product such as Frame. However, for writing scientific
papers TeX is without peer for its beautiful output and universal
availability. 

harry warren
hpw@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
From: liuyu@kramden.nyu.edu (Liuyu)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IS IBM UK STILL IN THE STONE AGE???
Date: 31 Aug 92 23:12:26 GMT
Organization: New York University

sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:

>>Not to put too fine a point on it but $25 for a video card doesn't cut it,
>>you still need a monitor to go with it.

>No, that is not correct.  I refer you to my original reply to the
>person asking about Hercules support under OS/2.

>(Hint: get an ATI EGA Wonder or Paradise Monochrome EGA card.)

When I have something that should have worked, why in the world should I waste
my money on another obsolete video? I'm asking for Herc support, not EGA 
support. I want a FREE driver.
If I upgrade, I get at least a SVGA. So I get my money worth.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Misinformation about os2-dos HW access
Date: 31 Aug 92 01:59:49 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Aug31.051645.17293@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <1992Aug29.185859.16477@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>>Question, why do people expect that Microsoft should have an OS, not yet
>>released, go through a many-month certification process.
>>Would it not make more sense for them to do so after the OS is generally
>>available?  Or am I just missing something?
>
>Because MS claims that their system offers a "C2-level" of security.
>This implies that they actually did some kind of testing.  The didn't.
>Their claim is misleading.  Whether they have security that could
>attain C2-level is irrelevant.  If they tested even ONE machine, their
>claims would be much more legitimate.
>
>Without testing, you can claim anything.  It doesn't mean much, except
>to the uninformed.

How do you know they have done no testing?  While I don't know either,
I do believe that before NT is released they will do testing.
Certainly C2 is simple enough they can get it 95% right, just by doing
the obvious... isn't that worth touting as a feature?

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: NT vs OS/2 features (was Re: Misinformation about os2-dos HW access)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 09:43:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In <1992Sep01.010548.11230@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>     C++ is a non-trivial language to support - if IBM is just
>starting now, don't expect to see anything from them for a while.
>GCC does do C++, however.  Probably doesn't optimize, though.

Borland should have no trouble supporting C++.  Hey, maybe we can drag
some people from Borland over here, and get them into the discussion!
:-)

As for gcc/g++, rest assured that they most definitely *do* have
optimization.  Pretty good optimization, at that.
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
From: mendels1@husc4.harvard.edu (Andrew Mendelsohn)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: OS/2's Future
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:19:03 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

I thought some of the readers might be interested in Lee Reiswig's 
talk at the Windows and OS/2 Conference in Boston last week.
He discussed the future of OS/2 as IBM sees it.  Please excuse any 
misinterpretations I may have made in the following summary.
He stated that IBM's strategy for the desktop and workstation OS's  is 
3-fold: 1) Dos on the low-end, 2) OS/2 in the middle, and 3)AIX on 
the high end.  
OS/2 will be split into 2 products, one the current desktop product 
will continue to be enhanced (Win 3.1, 32 bit GRE, improvements to 
the WPS and improvements to memory utilization so that systems 
with 4 MB RAM will really work, Pen and Multimedia extensions, 
etc.)   A second OS/2 for servers and powerful workstations is being 
built that will be portable, run under a microkernal (MACH?), and be 
seamlessly integrated with AIX (AIX will be another subsytem under 
the microkernel) so that users may use both OS/2 and UNIX 
programs from the same desktop.

The future of WPS is that it will be introduced in some form into DOS 
and into AIX (probably in the OS/2-AIX portable form) in order to 
unify the user interface.  The WPS will be continually expanded in 
capacity so that it will provide a painless transition to the Taligent OS 
interface when it becomes available for those who are interested in 
migrating to the new platform.  IBM intends Taligent to be able to 
run PM programs to protect users investments.  

Interesting echoes of MS strategy with WIN NT and CAIRO, except 
that OS/2 substitutes for Windows and CAIRO is not currently 
projected to be added to DOS (at least the rumors I read a while 
back).
andy mendelsohn
From: lance@lancea.actrix.gen.nz (Lance Andrewes)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 Win3.1 support *better* than MS!
Distribution: world
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 00:26:23 GMT
Organization: none

hamilton_b@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz writes in article <1992Aug29.194737.23120@peponi.wcc.govt.nz>:
> 
> [re the "Spring" CSD]
> Funny, I thought that seasons were calendar months, and that the shortest/
> longest days aren't involved.

Well, there's seasons and then there's seasons ...  In middle-latitudes
the climatological seasons are four three month periods.  In the
Northern Hemisphere, autumn (or "fall" to our American cussies) is
Sept/Oct/Nov.  Astronomical autumn is from the September equinox to
the December solstice.

I dare say we'll find out RSN whether the folk at IBM are farmers
at heart :-), or astronomers :-(
__
 _______  Email: lance@lancea.actrix.gen.nz
////      ZL2AJH    Wellington, New Zealand
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:4911 comp.os.os2.misc:29054
From: fritz@ra.csc.ti.com (Fritz Whittington)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Win-OS/2 performance tweaks
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:11:38 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments

In article <1992Sep2.030236.8633@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rjones@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ronald Jones) writes:
>Something to keep in mind when doing these loadtime "benchmarks":
>
>Time to load Word in Win-OS/2 = 25 sec
>
>Close Word
>
>Time to reload Word in Win-OS/2 = 12 sec
>
>No other programs running! 2 MB of HPFS cache.

Good point.  While those other benchmarks are very interesting, I
think the point is being missed.

Those of us running OS/2 probably don't generally want to run Windows
itself, what we want to run are the *apps* that we have invested in
that currently run under Windows (at least until we are able to
replace them with real OS/2 versions).  So the comparison might be how
long it takes to load a Windows application from real Windows, vs. how
long it takes when starting it in seamless mode from the WPS.  I seem
to recall that when I first installed OS/2 and was in 640x480 video
mode, that I set up PageMaker 4.0 to run seamless, and was quite
impressed with the short time it took to be ready to use, compared to
the time to do it from Windows 3.1.  (I didn't do any timings, but
recall that the time difference was really dramatic, something like
less than 10 seconds vs. about 45 seconds.)

Since I've changed video cards and am using the makeshift ET4000
drivers, I can no longer run seamlessly.  Perhaps someone with an ATI
Ultra in 8514/a mode could do some timings.  PageMaker 4.0 in
particular, when loaded under Windows 3.1, spends quite long periods
during which there seems to be no disk activity, as if it was involved
in some memory-intensive relocation/shuffling activity.  (If it's
doing a lot of calls to malloc(), for instance.)
-- 
Fritz Whittington Texas Instruments, P.O. Box 655474, MS 446 Dallas, TX 75265
    Shipping address: 13510 North Central Expressway, MS 446 Dallas, TX 75243  
fritz@csc.ti.com             Office: +1 214 995 0397     FAX: +1 214 917 7487
Since I am not an official TI spokesperson, these opinions contain no spokes.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy