HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ghenniga@NMSU.Edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS count, anyone?
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:00:04 GMT
Reply-To: ghenniga@NMSU.Edu
Organization: New Mexico State University - Electromagnetics Group


In an article elentanjm@nuscc.nus.sg writes:
(stuff deleted)
>: "Coming soon" OS's:
>:     Solaris (Sun-OS Unix for the 386)
>
>I thought this was out already. Minimum req. (I think) are :
>	8 MB RAM and 200MB Harddisk

Last I heard Sun had released the version for their SPARC stations but the
x86 version had been delayed 'til 4Q92 or even 1Q93.

Gary Hennigan
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
+= PhD Student, Computational Electromagnetics  | Member: Utilitarian  +=
+= New Mexico State University                  | .signature club      +=
+= Phone: (505)646-4808                          ----------------------+=
+= email: ghenniga@NMSU.Edu                                            +=
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: cvadrtbc@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Srikanth Viswanathan)
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Organization: California Polytechnic University, Pomona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:15:00 GMT
X-Posted-From: vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Aug17.201353.3278@news.columbia.edu>, mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green) writes...
> 
>Could someone please tell me which processes need IOPL?  I think I should try
>setting it to no, like I did with 1.3.

What is IOPL?  I know it's a setting in the CONFIG.SYS but what does it do?
What are the performance implications if I set it to no or yes?  Thanks.

Srikanth
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Distributed Systems (was: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 05:48:05 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  <1992Aug20.013158.22174@microsoft.com>  petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> In article <1992Aug18.123332.20624@grebyn.com> richk@grebyn.com (Richard Krehbie
> >In article <1992Aug16.063621.3768@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Ske
> >>In article <1992Aug15.021516.28359@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writ
> >>>In  <1992Aug12.220152.20876@microsoft.com>  petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly
> >>>> Well, I'd like to use technology a little more advanced.  286 machines
> >                                                              ^^^
> >>>> are getting quite cheap these days.  They run windows.
> >>>
> >>>Well, I like to use technology a little more advanced - all *mine*
> >>>run OS/2.  :-)
> >>
> >>Mine run NT ;)
> >
> >Hey, everybody!  This must be an *official* *announcement* from a
> >*Microsoft* *spokesman* that NT will run on a 286!!!
> >
> >:-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
> >--
> Amazing what you can make people say when you delete all the context.

What context was deleted?  I stated that I run OS/2 on all my 286 machines.
You evidently lost track of the context, and stated that yours run NT.  A
number of people picked up on your error and ribbed you.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: pbinder@snuffy.wa.atk.com (Peter_Binder)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: OS/2 v2.0 SVGA Support
Date: 19 Aug 92 00:06:42 GMT
Organization: Alliant TechSystems Inc.

I would like to bring up one point with the "why didn't IBM include SVGA
drivers (or help developers write them) in OS/2 v2.0." Starters, why would
IBM waste the time writing 16-bit video drivers for a 16-bit graphics 
engine, when they are working on a 32-bit graphics engine and then will
have to write 32-bit drivers. I believe this is one reason that there
is a lack of video drivers. I personally wouldn't write a 16-bit driver
now and then have to rewrite it, especially since the 32-bit graphics
engine should be out next month. Also, I've heard that OS/2 v2.01 will
come with Tseng 4000 SVGA drivers, and possibly driver support for other
cards.

Peter Binder
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Forget marketing, bring on the games!
Keywords: MicroSoft, Operating Systems
Date: 19 Aug 92 07:47:18 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.

In article <1992Aug18.215639.28386@njitgw.njit.edu>, dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
|> [Games] (as they currently stand) use
|> high-end sound and graphics, and do so by directly manipulating the
|> hardware.  These programs cause OS/2 problems, and they will certainly
|> cause NT problems, since MS has stated that NT won't try and be as
|> compatible with DOS as OS/2 is (only the "top 100" apps).

I would guess that, in strict numerical terms, there are quite a number of
games in the "top 100" apps. Can anyone confirm or deny this? Of course, if
they factor the price into the equation, the $400+ plus packages will probably
swamp the games.

|> IBM should work on shipping a few "entertainment packs".  I'm sure MS
|> will port theirs.

Why? The existing Windows entertainment packs should work out of the box on
NT.

Personally, I'd love to see "Civilization for Windows", I'd be able to see so
much more on my 1280x960 monitor!
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: <None>
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:44:04 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In regards to this controversy on whether Windows 3.1 is an OS or not.

It is NOT an operating system.  You cannot boot to Windows without DOs.

If taking over the computer's calls is the definition of an OS then 
the video game ultima 7 is an operating system just as much as windows
is.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: pc week and nt
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:13:42 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <n0@byu.edu> earlyd@ee.byu.edu (David Early) writes:
>
> 
>I doubt that Topview evolved into windows, and IBM probably didn't hand it over
>to MS.  Topview (in my understanding) was an IBM product, developed solo
>with no help from Redmond.  OS/2 on the other hand was a joint venture.  In the
>last line of your post you make OS/2 sound like MS's baby.  
>
>MS didn't 'give' OS/2 to IBM, MS gave up on OS/2 and IBM picked up the ball.
>
>David Early
>earlyd@wombat.ee.byu.edu

MS did not give up on OS/2.  MS gave up working with IBM.  It was kind of like
a divorce settlement.  If MS had kep't OS/2, then IBM wouldn't have given it up.
IBM wanted the "kids" so MS gave IBM responsability for its portion of the 
development and support for OS/2.  Why are y'all complaining that MS dropped
you, when in truth, MS said that since MS and IBM couldn't get along any more
IBM's getting the "kid", so you are going to have to go to IBM for your
support of OS/2.  

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...


Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:4224 comp.os.os2.misc:27747
From: kjb@calmasd.prime.com (Ken Brucker)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:41:16 GMT
Organization: Computervision - A Division of Prime Computer

In article <1992Aug18.234816.23736@tamsun.tamu.edu>, bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
> In article <1992Aug18.090822.696@calmasd.prime.com> kjb@calmasd.prime.com (Ken Brucker) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug17.201353.3278@news.columbia.edu>, mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green) writes:
>>
>>Let's put this into a little more of an extreme...DEC is distributing nearly
>>their entire product suite on a set of 7 CDRoms right now.  By your logic I
>>should be able to pay for the cost of the 7 disks to gain access to almost all
>>of their products since it cost them a fixed amount for the
>>development and the distribution isn't costing extra.
>>
> 
> Actually, you have all their software on those CD-ROMs. You only need
> the secret password to install product 'x' on you system.  Of course
> you have to pay for the license...
> 

Actuall, I don't.  On the VMS side I think everything may be there now, but it
certainly isn't on the Ultrix side.  For instance I still have receive Phigs on
TK50 since it hasn't made it onto the CD yet.  It is up to the project manager
to send the product distribution to the CD team for inclusion on the next CD
release.

And up until the last couple of CDs the Motif software wasn't being shipped on
CD so we were receiving seperate tapes for that too on the VMS side.

Ken

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**  Ken Brucker -- VMS/Ultrix Systems Programmer/Mangler -- Computer Vision
 **  kjb@calmasd.Prime.COM  
  **  Practice Random Kindness and Senseless Acts of Beauty
From: si0_tb90020@debet.nhh.no
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: os2 support
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:57:09 MET
Organization: Norwegian School of Economics

In article <1992Aug17.014353.593@weyrich.UUCP>, orville%weyrich@tnet.com (Orville R. Weyrich) writes:
> In article <ZH5gPB2w165w@halcyon.com> CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU writes:
>>The question which has been sticking out in my mind in reading alot of 
>>the threads has been:
>>        Why did MS cut off support for OS/2 2.0?
>> 
>>  a.  Could it be that IBM cut of MS from the source code making it
>>difficult to support a product?
>> 
>>  b.  Or could it be that MS is trying to undermine IBM and OS/2?
>> 
>>IMEHO I believe that A. would be more likely.  It is amazing to believ
>>that for a group to be developing a product for more than five years that 
>>it would all of a sudden turn into "That's IBM's product not our type 
>>stuff".
>> 
> 
> Does MS have *LESS* access to source code that they need to support
> OS/2 applications and compilers than all the rest of their competitors
> do? I rather doubt it.
> 
> So far as I know, MS *STILL* has access to all OS/2 code [till sometime in
> '93 or '94, if I understand what I have read correctly.]
> 
> And in any event, what access to source code is necessary in order to continue
> to market a product that has already been developed?
> 
> Personally, I vote for B. as being more likely.

Sure B is the right option. MS saw to its large surprice that Win30
sales rocketted. This gave them two problems: manpower, OS/2 was not
selling, and a lot of people were working on it. Win30 was selling a
lot, and they used manpower for that. Reaction: Push manpower from the
OS/2 screneto the Win30 group. Improve Win30.

Second problem: Suddenly they find that an inhouse "invention" that they
have almost exclusevly rights to is in direct competition with a product
they make "for" IBM, and IBM get all the marketing...

Terje

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald)
Subject: Re: It's OK for Windows to crash. It's not OK for OS/2 to crash.
Organization: UIUC SCS
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:29:55 GMT

In article <BtB326.JBJ@world.std.com> dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith) writes:

>When someone complaints that OS/2 crashes, the reply is always that
>Windows crashes more. But that's missing the point. 

>Circa, say, 1982 or so, you had mainframes and time-shared minicomputers,
>and you had microcomputers.  Mainframes and minis had protection systems
>built into their hardware which the OS took advantage of.  For all
>practical purposes, you didn't worry about a bad application crashing the
>OS.  For example, I did software development on the same VAX that was
>running accounting, administrative word processing, research, and was used
>by some very high-ranking people for electronic mail.  I did it during
>business hours.  I did every stupid think you can think of and crashed
>my own buggy applications all the time.  But my boss let me do it, because
>we both knew the chances of bring the OS, and the wrath of dozens of users
>doing mission-critical stuff was essentially nil.  (I never DID crash the
>OS, by the way).

>We also bought third-party software.  RS/1 from BBN was pretty fair, but
>it crashed from time to time.  Word-11 from DPD was obviously a pretty
>dumb port from a PDP-11, not especially well-done for the VAX, had
>lotsa problems. And as for Oracle...  well, anyway, the point is that
>we had buggy software of our own and "ill-behaved" software from third
>parties, and it never crashed the OS.

That means that you never wrote seriously for the VAX -- you never tried
to do the things that people do every day for PC's. If you never had
PHYS_IO privilege and whatever else is necessary to write a device driver
for the VAX (oh what the hell, set /priv=all) --**your experience DOES NOT 
COUNT**.

Believe me, its **easier** to crash a VAX (VMS) than a PC!!!!! (Because the
damn VMS is **much** harder to understand).

And it takes a **lot** longer to reboot!!

Doug McDonald
From: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: "underware"? too late
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:45:51 EST
Reply-To: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

David Charlap writes:

DC>Too late.  There is (or was) a company called "UnderWare"  They made
DC>printer ribbons that would make iron-on transfers.  You'd use a
DC>program like Print Shop (or something else that could print a
DC>mirror-image) with their ribbon(s) and end up with an iron-on transfer
DC>suitable for making T-shirts with.

Actually, there  was a  software company  called Underware,  as well. It
produced the Brief editor. They  sold out to Solution Systems  (who sold
it to someone else, who then sold it to Borland. Feh).

----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.com
Software Consulting and Gator Pit | I'm a brain in a vat. What about you?
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
---
  SLMR 2.1a  If I throw a cat out the car window, is it kitty litter?
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rwalker@next02.cc.umanitoba.ca. (Robert Walker)
Subject: Rest In Peace MicroSoft
Keywords: MicroSoft, Operating Systems
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 02:27:37 GMT

Bill Gates' nightmare is coming true. OS/2 is gainig momentum.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steven Robertson <srobert@halcyon.com>
Subject: os2 support
Originator: bbs@halcyon.com
Keywords: os2 ms
Reply-To: CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU
Organization: 2300 News & Mail Service
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 02:54:46 GMT

The question which has been sticking out in my mind in reading alot of 
the threads has been:
        Why did MS cut off support for OS/2 2.0?
 
  a.  Could it be that IBM cut of MS from the source code making it
difficult to support a product?
 
  b.  Or could it be that MS is trying to undermine IBM and OS/2?
 
IMEHO I believe that A. would be more likely.  It is amazing to believ
that for a group to be developing a product for more than five years that 
it would all of a sudden turn into "That's IBM's product not our type 
stuff".
 
    The other bone I have to pick with some of the posts I have read deal 
w/direct attacks on the MS employees who post on this conference.  I have 
seen their replys go from trying to clear up mis-concepts about a product 
to picking apart an argument and calling people foolish and misinformed.  
If you do not like features in their product, fine there is a way to go
express which features you do not like.  Do not say the whole package is 
a dog just because you do not like certain aspects of it.
 
    It would seem a little unfair to compare a pre-release package to a 
release software package.  Maybe a good comparison would be pre-release 
#1 or #2 of OS/2 2.0.  The first pre-release of OS/2 2.0 had little 
resemblance to what is currently on my desktop. 
 
                                   Steven Robertson
From: tar@pa.reuter.COM (Dan Tarnower)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: OS/2 speed (was: dvorak, pc magazine)
Date: 15 Aug 92 19:12:16 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Reuter:file Inc  (A Reuter Company) Palo Alto, CA

In <1992Aug7.125010.8106@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:

>I run OS/2 on my 386DX/40 and it works better than Win3.1 did during it's
>brief tenure. Speed is easily comparable. A guy with a 386sx/16 was posting in
>this newsgroup only yesterday saying how well OS/2 ran on it. I have seen
>Windows on a 386sx/16 and it was a pretty - slow - sight.

Well, I just installed OS/2 last night on my 386/25 (64k cache).  It used
to have a cache anyway.  I have to disable it, because OS/2 won't boot
with the cache enabled.

So far, I can't say I'm very impressed with OS/2.  My programs run
noticeably slower.  Programs that I use under Windows 3.1 in 800x600
resolution, run much (about 50%) slower.  In particular, I can sit and
watch the screen updates, and my keystrokes have a very annoying delay
before the character appears on the screen.

And what is it with the double click with the mouse?  I have yet to
click the mouse twice, and have the result I expect.  I find that I have to
start clicking, and then stop when I notice that the action is beginning.
And since the screen updates so slowly, I haven't been getting caught
clicking too long.  Also, many times when I click on a button, nothing
happens.  Even if I hold the mouse button down for a second or two.  But
when I move the mouse, the button gets pushed.

I had heard that it's possible to reboot DOS sessions without harming 
other tasks.  When I press Ctrl-Alt-Del, it reboots the whole PC.  What 
am I doing wrong?  And, how do you set up DOS sessions with different 
CONFIG.SYS files, for loading different DOS drivers.

I'm also annoyed that every task switch causes about 10 seconds of disk
activity.

This message is not intended as a flame.  I'm not a big fan of Windows,
but watching both of them run, I have to say I get better performance
from Windows.

Anyway, here's the machine I'm using:

PC clone 386/25 (disabled 64k cache)
8 megs of 70ns memory
500 meg ESDI disk with 16ms access time, and 1.875 Mbytes/Sec Xfr time
Boca Super-VGA card with 1 meg 
Colorado DJ-20 tape drive (anyway to use this under OS/2?!?!?!?!)
Soundblaster card             "    "    "    "    "    "    "

I have installed with the Dual Boot option.  I need to go back to DOS-5
from time to time, as I am involved with some projects that use the
new features of Win3.1.

I am trying to like OS/2, but I can't agree with all the claims I keep
hearing that it's faster than DOS and/or Windows 3.1.

/Dan
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: spexet@engin.umich.edu (Dennis Robert Spexet)
Subject: Re: Tex Advantages (was Re: TeX an archaic religion?)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 21:04:17 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: world 

In article <allan.714352893@st-isidore> allan@cs.UAlberta.CA (Allan Sullivan) writes:
>There are several other advantages you are missing:
>
>* TeX files can be edited on an ASCII terminal. This is relevant for
>  us poor grad students with VT100s in our offices, 
>
>* 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.
>
>* TeX is free.

And, most importantly to the readers of this group:  TeX is available for
OS/2!  emTeX, available from ftp-os2.nmsu.edu, is an awesome implementation
of TeX.  It works quite nice.  I use it all the time.


-- 
D. Robert Spexet II, N0OKR   Internet:  spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu
Department of Mathematics    BITnet:    user68xr@umichum.bitnet
The University of Michigan   UUCP:      uunet!mailrus!math.lsa.umich.edu!spexet
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bbrown@infonode.ingr.com (Bailey Brown)
Subject: Re: OS/2 only on PS/2's? (Was: rift...)
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 04:06:50 GMT

>   OS/2 was not advertised at all.  MS sold it for a rediculous price
>   (about $800 for the Standard Edition).  IBM sold it for the same
>   price for the PS/2's, so they weren't much better.

I got IBM OS/2 1.2 SE from an IBM dealer for about $200.  I don't
know where the $800 figure comes from, unless it applied to 1.0 and
1.1.  I sure didn't have that kind of money when I bought 1.2.

By the way, I ran 1.2 SE on a pretty cheesy clone 386sx/16 with 5MB.  
I never had any problems with it.  I also got PC-DOS 4.0 from
the same IBM dealer, and never ran into the bugs everyone was talking
about.

------------
Bailey Brown                               "Above all else, confusion reigns."
Intergraph Corporation                                  
bbrown@casca.b11.ingr.com                              Procol Harum
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: grumpy@jpradley.jpr.com (Jeff Markel)
Subject: Re: Distributed Systems (was: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift)
Reply-To: grumpy@jpradley.UUCP (Jeff Markel)
Organization: Unix in NYC
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 14:33:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug08.020623.25501@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <-159819992@hpopd.pwd.hp.com> yuk@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Yuk Lun Chan) writes:
>>One small question about multi-user in NT. Can I plug a dump terminal to the
>>back of the whatever machine running NT. If a PC has 4 com ports, then four
>>users can log on concurrently. I know there is some card allows a PC have
>>up to 32 ports (They are running under DR ConcurrentDOS).
>>
>>Yuk
>
>If there is a "server" program running to connect "shells" up the the term
>ports, then yes.  Would you find this useful?  What apps would you run
>in these terminals?
>
>I suspect that if this is a really useful mode of interaction, someone,
>maybe MS, will come up with this server.  Frankly, I wouldn't think
>you would find this archaic mode of operation useful in NT.  Kind of 
>like having front panel switches on your UNIX box.
>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>My opinions.
>
>(I may sound a little harsh on this one, but gosh, why does everyone
>seem to want to exist in the stone age.)
>
>
>

Hey Pete, join the real world here.  New systems do not exist in a vacuum.  
They have to deal with whatever came before.  If you want NT to take the place
of Unix, you've got to provide equivalent functionality.  My *ix boxes run
with massive numbers of dumb terminals via serial ports.  I guess you don't
want to sell to that market (which, BTW, is far far larger than the market
for networked X-terminals or other graphics systems).  We don't want to live
in the stone age; we do have to live in the here and now, unlike you guys
who seem to live in some clean, shiny-bright, unsullied-by-real-users, 
idealized future.


                        Jeff Markel

Jeffrey Markel | uucp:     jpradley!argos!markel   | Argos Computer Systems Inc
KD2HN          | internet: grumpy@jpradley.jpr.com | 110 W. 32nd Street 
(212)594-5400  | amprnet:  kd2hn@kd2hn.ampr.org    | New York, NY 10001
===============================================================================
	The New World Order is ... "Shoot to kill!"
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: gilem@aix.rpi.edu (Michael R. Gile)
Subject: Re: Hasta la Vista, OS/2
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:30:24 GMT

 poll:

>       How many people have had Windows CRASH and TRASH??
i have never had windows crash and trash, although win3.0 used
to crash regularly.  In fact, I have been using 3.1 for a while 
now and have never even had a major crash.  There are only two
programs from ms that I have had crash on me.
	the win3.x install program (that crashed and trashed:
			if i didn't have a backup, i'd still
			be reinstalling things)
	the MSC/C++ compiler (locked hard)
 
mike g (gilem@rpi.edu)