HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: Moving from X to Y.
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:42:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.215634.5030@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>
>Oh, speaking of inconsistencies, try this one.  Open the File Manager
>and drag a file from one directory to another directory on the same
>drive.  Then try it going from one drive to another drive.  I HATE
>this.  They should have made them act the same.  A 'plain drag' should
>have either always been copy or always been move, and not depended on
>whether you were going to someplace on the same drive or to a
>different drive.
>
>BLECH!
>

Fred, I've reached the conclusion that you must be the most opinionated
person I've ever corresponded with.  This, in itself, is not bad.  Opinions
are what make an individual an individual.  But not being able to recognize
the *virtues* of other ideas is what makes your posts... obnoxious.  (If
anyone disagrees with me, please feel free to email me).

This "plain drag" that you're complaining about has been a feature of the
Macintosh operating system (that you've on at least one occasion, advocated
as one of the best GUIs around).  Try plain drag a file from one folder to
another (it moves it, no?).  Now try dragging it to another drive (if you 
don't *have* another driver, drag it to the floppy)--it *copies* it, neh?

And, I, for one like this just fine.  It has advantages: one cannot 
accidentally delete a file from the hard disk (if someone was just trying to
give his coworker a copy of a file).  On a PC, one cannot "accidentally"
put a file from his local partition to a partition that he doesn't normally
have access to (ie, a network drive)--and then lose his local copy.

Yes, I see your viewpoint.  You wish consistency--which, at least in this
aspect, would have its own advantages and disadvantages.  But what is one
man's trash is another man's treasure.  What is one man's bug is another
man's feature.  Either way the MMI is designed, it will upset somebody
somewhere...

Okay, okay.  My comment belongs in comp.sys.useless.philosophies....

>[This is one of the few things I really actively dislike about
>Windows, by the way.]

Thank you for your opinion.


My opinion
Joe Discar.
From: u1665462@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multitasking (was Re: MS's misconduct!)next reply
Date: 30 Sep 92 08:58:08 GMT
Organization: The University of Melbourne

In article <8elk9Le00WBNE1bJAa@andrew.cmu.edu>, fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat) writes:
> petesk@microsoft.com says:
>>This is not to say that we shouldn't give the secaratary preemptive mt,
>>but only that we don't lie to her and tell her it's going to solve all
>>of her problems.  Let the marketing guys do that, instead.
> 
> Well at least they're starting to admit it...

I cannot agree with peteski@microsoft.com.

We are a small department, and the secretary only uses WP 5.1 and Dbase IV.
Yet *WE NEED MULTITASKING*. Why? Becouse that is the way people work: all the
time somebody asks the secretary for something different: an old file, Dbase
figures, etc. All the time we have to jostle to use her machine to get
something we thought we would not need... Being able to switch between apps. is 
an efficiency improvement one can not underestimate!

The bottom line is this: if a job will take you 1-5 seconds to do (eg ALT-HOME
to a new program and look up a file) it will be done. If it takes longer (DOS: 
save, quit, start new app, open file, check, save, quit, resart old app...) 
it will not be done.

This is the simplest co-operative multitasking (provided by Win 3.1) and it is
essential to the smooth workflow. Pre-emptive multitasking and memory
protection is just the icing on the cake for such a simple user, and she is not
even aware that in old days (Win 3.0, 3.1) an application crushing could bring
down the whole system. She takes it now as a matter of course that it will not. 

While the "power users" like myself can take full advantage of multithreading
and multitasking by downloading in the background (my daily chore) as I write
this and am amazed that somebody does not see the benefits of multitasking in 
a workgroup enviroment.

********************************************************************************
Sven Zagala                                     OOO     SSSS   / 2222    !!
Centre for Soviet and East European Studies   OO   OO  SS     /     22   !!
Melbourne Uniersity                           OO   OO     SS /    22   
Zagala@sov_studs.unimelb.edu.au                 OOO    SSSS /    22222   !!
********************************************************************************
From: finsys@cpva.saic.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Future OSes (was NT? WHY?)
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:59:38 PST
Organization: Science Applications Int'l Corp./San Diego

In article <1992Sep30.154709.23163@hellgate.utah.edu>, brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
> In article <1992Sep30.142702.5553@gw.wmich.edu> 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>>> Why should I chose OS/2?
[Lots deleted]
>>	Most users that would be using an OS like OS/2 or NT are looking
>>for specific types of apps that require a 32bit OS.  These apps will
>>be out for both and out for OS/2 arguably sooner than for NT.
> 
> That's a rather narrow view point.  Three years from now NT-class OS's will
> be the mainstream.
>>						-Brad
> 
> Brian

There has certainly been plenty of discussions recently of high-end
features of both NT & OS/2.  But I've got to agree with Brad.
  A very large percentage of PCs out in the market are not networked 
and aren't powerful enough for OS/2, much less NT.  I expect DOS/Windows
(or WIN32) to be mainstream in 3 years (Look, Windows is just beginning 
to overtake DOS, and that's largely due to the lack of meaningful
upgrades to DOS programs). A wholesale move to OS/2 or NT in three years - I
think not.  Even MS and IBM aren't espousing that.
   OS/2 and NT are not going to appeal to a LOT of people for a looooong time. 
By that, I mean Joe Idiot has very little need for anything more than Windows.
OS/2 will be for those that need more stability than Windows on DOS, or need a
specific feature of OS/2.  There is plenty of market resistance to os/2 due to
h/w requirements.  NT will be worse in that regard.  There will be those
who want C-2, REXX, TCP, RPC, etc. ad nauseum, but don't confuse that for most
people.  NT will be for those who need the latest and greatest. (Yes, NT will
be better than OS/2 - with a new design and 1 more year of development - it
should be. )
    For me personally, many of the features of NT qualify as extraneous,
and will simply make the system more complex than I need or want to deal with.
Desqview/X and UNIX fall into the same category - overkill for me.
Even os/2 has more than I want, but as I need its stability to multitask,
I will probably upgrade soon.  
  I hope that all of the planned improvements to os/2 aren't integral to 
the system.  (Yes Brian, I know NT's design will make it possible to exclude
unwanted features from it's installation.)  My hope is that these OSes are 
separated into one version with every latest doodad, and one with a 
basic feature set which will fit in 20-30 mb disk space and 
8 (preferably 4) mb RAM.  Anything larger just won't be appropriate for 
home use or most small network environments.

Just some food for thought.

Lawrence Dee
SAIC, San Diego   FINSYS@CPVA.SAIC.COM
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 12:17:28 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Sep30.154709.23163@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
> 
> The machine you listed is the smallest machine I've ever used OS/2 on.
> I would hate to see your idea of slow.

Brian, I have seen OS/2 running very well on a 386SX/25 with 8 megs. Certainly
the guy who owned the machine was happy. I was a bit surprised that it didn't
lok much slower than the 486DX/25 I use at work or the 386DX/40 I use at home.
 
Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville)
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Organization: Computer and Technologies Theme Program, NCSU, Raleigh
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:36:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.131605.15955@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>Where did I distort the facts... and how am I related to Microsoft?

A better question would be 'Where haven't you distorted facts?'  At least that
one would take less time to answer.  Also, I think many of us wonder how you
are related to Microsoft....

>>It seems rather silly that NT supports symmetrical multiprocessing, and gives
>>that power to all of one user at a time.
>Where did you get this information from?  It's true the graphics
>system allows only one user at the console at a time.
>But this is not different even from X.

Actually, to be precise, you could conceivably have one person with two xterms
with one of them logged-in as one user, and the other logged-in as a different
user.  Is that possible in the (eventually-to-be-)'shipping' NT?

>You can have background tasks executing as other users... and if you
>provided the login program... people logged in via serial ports.

'If you provided the login program....'  That is so typical of NT-advocates'
responses to missing features:  'If it's not there, write it yourself and let
Microsoft take credit for providing the feature.'  Come on!  Are we talking
about NT, or Linux, Minix, and BSD386?

For that matter, if I provide the software, I can support multiple logins and
restricted file access on my OS/2 (or even DOS) box.  Such software is often
referred to as a BBS.  Heck, with IBM TCP/IP for OS/2, I can even support 
simultaneous telnet (no access restriction) and ftp (restricted access to 
directories) sessions coming into my machine.  Can NT do that?  Oh, I forgot,
NT, the 'server OS,' only supports TCP/IP client stuff.

John W. Linville


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  John W. Linville                Amateur radio:  KD4KHC                  |
|  #include "std_disclaimer.h"     E-mail:  linville@catt.ncsu.edu         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: jimbo@morpheus.wustl.edu (Jim Bowlin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why would you want a CD (was Price of Win NT vs OS/2)?
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:23:49 GMT
Organization: Washington University in Saint Louis, MO USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: morpheus.wustl.edu

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>  Anyway, the question isn't why YOU would want us to; the
>question is why would WE want to?

Well, I can tell you from experience why the users' might want this 
capability. I have seen the benefits of installing large OS's using 
network and CD technology. It greatly reduces the time and tedium   
involved with installing >30MB programs or operating systems. Have you
ever flipped 50 of 60 floppies only to be told that something didn't
install correctly and please start again? Over time OS/2 will only be-
come larger. While it is nice to hold a piece of paper in one's hand,
I think it will soon be impractical for vendors to print manuals for 
each installation. I would rather see the vendors putting more money
into debugging their code and supplying users with a good text   
retrieval program to enable sections to be printed. Anyway most people
I know don't read the manual from start to finish, instead they skim the 
section relevent to the problem at hand.  


Jim

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: Orakel@sarpih.no (Jens Kr. Kirkeb)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Organization: stfold Ingenirhyskole
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:37:19 GMT

>apparently enough people will want to run archaic (sp) stuff because PC 
>makers(i.e. Dell, Gateway, etc) are building P5 systems with ISA.  That to 
>me seems like a waste, but apparently they believe people will buy it.

Of course they will! Remember that not everybody needs a fast disk or fast 
video, just raw computing power. I would not like to have to spend more $ 
for EISA or MCA when I don't have the slightest use for it's speed.

Jens Kr. Kirkeb


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: db3l@ans.net (David Bolen)
Subject: Re: Multitasking (was MS's misconduct!)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:04:47 GMT
	<1992Sep17.233946.1@vax1.umkc.edu>
	<1992Sep20.234146.25252@microsoft.com> <unruh.717134870@physics.ubc.ca>
	<1992Sep24.104407.22643@microsoft.com>
	<1992Sep28.025600.17618@microsoft.com>
Organization: Advanced Network & Services, Inc. - Elmsford, NY

In article <1992Sep28.025600.17618@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

>In article <1992Sep25.173913.14976@digi.lonestar.org> mmitchel@digi.lonestar.org wrote:
>> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>> 
>> >I guess you misunderstood me.  I said use one app at a time.  I don't
>> >care how many icons you have at the bottom of the screen, you aren't using
>> >them.  I don't care how many stopped jobs you have in the background, you
>> >aren't using them.  I don't care how many things are blocking on user
>> >input, 'cause if they're blocking, then you're not using them.
>> >[...]
>> >I didn't say having one app on the screen at a time.  Use to me means
>> >interacting with the app, not it's mere existence.
>> >[...]
>> >petesk@microsoft.com
>> >My Opinions...
>> 
>>    (useful background operations:
>>	appointments, spooling, mail/news delivery)
>
>I do these on a daily basis, on a Win31 machine (non-premptive),
>while running Word, or Solitaire, or whatever.  

Alright - now you've got me confused.  Aren't you effectively using
multitasking?  Aren't you *using* more than one app at the same time?  Your
background jobs aren't stopped - they're running at the same time that you
use Word or Solitaire or whatever.

Doesn't this imply that multitasking (whether preemptive or non-preemptive)
is a useful thing?  Isn't that somewhat opposite to what you've been saying
in your posts recently?

--
-- David
--
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
 \              David Bolen             \  Internet: db3l@ans.net      /
  |   Advanced Network & Services, Inc.   \   Phone: (914) 789-5327   |
 / 100 Clearbrook Road, Elmsford, NY 10523  \   Fax: (914) 789-5310    \
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------/
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:49:48 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct01.185753.6638@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>     Hmm... A couple of thoughts.  If Microsoft were indeed developing
>OS/2 apps, it would be in the company's best interest to make sure
>that OS/2 users knew that these apps were coming - otherwise they
>might go out and purchase a competitor's product.  True?

It would be in their best interest.  Unless they believe that these
users can't do without MS apps.  They are trying to force the OS/2
people to get NT, and if they think there's no significant
competition, they might well keep such development a secret.

>     I'm not certain that OS/2 apps by Microsoft would really hurt
>Windows NT sales, though.  Possible but not clear yet.  It would
>provide a mixed message, though - "the future of OS's is Windows NT,
>but here's some OS/2 apps to tide you over."

If that's their message, then they should be dropping all their
non-Windows apps - like Word for DOS, etc.
-- 
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
From: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Organization: Philipps-University Marburg
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:38:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.190049.22326@news.iastate.edu>, TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu
(Timothy I Miller) writes:

|>      Well, I'll be getting the NT SDK soon enough.

I'm sure it will convince you :-)

|> Does anybody
|> have an NEC CDR-84 running OS/2 out there?  Will it work?  How about
|> any other comparable CD-ROM's out there?  It must have 300Kb
|> transfer rate, and *good* access time! 

Another fine feature of OS/2 2.0. Just take your favourite HEX-editor
have a look on CDROM.SYS in the \OS2 directory. You'll see the words
IBM and TOSHIBA there. In fact, the CDROM.SYS does not recognize any
CD-ROM, with a SCSI-Manufacturer-Id other than IBM or TOSHIBA. This
corrosponds to the information in the OS/2 README file.

Until August, they told me at IBM, that all other CD-Drives than IBM
or TOSHIBA are totally different and therefor cannot be supported now.
So patched CDROM.SYS with success on some MITSUMI, SONY and NEC drives.

In the meantime I found out, that you can use a /I switch instead of
patching. This is really a good example of IBM support.

Christoph
-- 
Internet: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de
BITNET: HAMPE2@DMRHRZ11
Fido: 2:243/660
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: So much for Msoft's bluster <grin>
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:20:13 GMT

In article <1668@anagld.analytics.com> sammy@anagld.analytics.com (Sam Blackburn) writes:
> olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund) writes:
> 
> >When NT finally will be available (by the
> >end of '93?), there will be a lot of OS/2 2.0 users and a lot of
> >powerfull 32-bits OS/2 applications out there.
> 
> Debatable.  From a developer's point of view it makes more sense to develop a
> Windows application because OS/2 can run Windows apps.  You've killed two birds
> with one stone.  This, of course, does not apply to "server" type applications.
> When NT comes out you've got an application that runs on THREE operating systems
> instead of being tied to only one with OS/2.

The only problem, Sam, is that you would have developed an app that will run
on three platforms - but is really at home only on one. This leaves you open
to competing app writers who adapt their version of the program to suit each
platform........your app will be at a disadvantage in the market.
 
I have already bought 2 PM apps over Windows equivalents and I'm looking
forward to getting hands on the CorelDRAW! 2.5 for OS/2. The Windows version
works fine under OS/2 - but I want the version best suited to my system.
 
Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mullins@convex.com (Don Mullins)
Subject: Re: Is WPS really better??
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:47:35 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In comp.os.os2.advocacy pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel) writes:

>I use both OS/2 and Windows (and of course DOS).  Maybe it's the way I
>use a shell.... but I don't find WPS superior.  Prettier looking, yes.
>As I interpret the above paragraph, [using OS/2] to move a program to
>hard disk, you need to open the drives icon and pick A:.  Then you
>drag the file to the desktop (or open the C drive, find the right
>directory, and THEN drag the file icon).  ...

>                                     ...  [Using Windows] In Windows,
>my file manager is configured to open two windows.  For one, I click
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>on A: and the other on C: (it's C by default, so I don't have to do
>anything.)  I point to the desired file on A and drag it to C.

  Is this file manager part of Windows?  If not, I think this points out one
  of the strengths of OS/2 with respect to Windows.  Note the difference
  between the OS/2 and Windows methods: the OS/2 method just requires OS/2,
  the Windows method requires DOS+Windows+"my file manager".

  If you take a new machine (no upgrade prices) like I did when I bought my
  first PC in Feburary of this year (in US $, based on Feb initial purchase
  with upgrades occuring when availible) then here is where I would stand to
  date:

  OS/2:  
  
    $139.00 for V1.3
    $  0.00 for V1.3 -> V2.0 upgrade
    =======
    $139.00

  DOS/Windows:
    $ 69.00 for DOS V5.0
    $ 99.00 for Windows V3.0
    $ 49.00 Windows V3.0 -> V3.1 upgrade (Am I remembering correctly?)
    =======
    $217.00 + cost of file manager

  Assuming that the file manager was freeware or part of Windows, what about
  all the other "DOS Extenders" that seem to be needed to get Windows
  "uasable" (memory stuff, etc.).  Having never run DOS, I don't know
  exactly what extenders it would take to make DOS+Windows "usable", but
  DOS+Windows is already more expensive ($168.00), even if the V3.0 -> V3.1
  upgrade was FREE.

  It seems that most of the people that post here in favor of Windows are not
  running their system with _JUST_ DOS+Windows+Apps.  They always need all
  these other TSRs, extenders, utilities.

  I just have OS/2+Apps on my system, and I can seem to do all these people
  can and more...

Don


--
---                     Don Mullins, mullins@convex.com
----                      Convex Computer Corporation
---                         Richardson, Texas (USA)
--