HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 22:10:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.013546.3647@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <Bzwwrn.8uM@csulb.edu>, sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>
>|>   You are a master at raising straw-man issues. Absolutely nobody is
>|> trying to stop MS from selling its 'wares. The issue is whether MS
>|> treats its distributors and other sellers fairly and equally and
>|> uses practices consistent with US law.
>
>What is "fair and equal?"  If the answer is "whatever is consistent with US
>law" then at one time slavery was "fair".  
>
>Can you be more specific as to what is fair and why Microsoft isn't?

  Other posters to this thread have recounted the *accusations* against
MS's sales practices. They remain to be proven and judged. And US anti-
trust laws adequately define the limits of what is considered fair in
the marketplace and it is my this standard that MS will be judged. It
may indeed be true that slavery was, by legal standards of the time,
fair in some arcane sense. I was making a legal claim, however, not a 
moral one so the analogy is inappropriate.

>|> the concept of 'agreed price'
>|> becomes somewhat hollow if coercion is involved.
>
>Indeed.  However, the only coercion going on here is what the FTC is about
>to do to Microsoft.  What goes on between Microsoft and its customers is
>voluntary, not coerced.

  I see, you have been a party to the negotiations and have seen the terms
and conditions of the contracts. What, no ? then you perhaps are making
speculations and assumptions like the rest of us instead of speaking from
facts.





-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Let's DUMP Mostly-Shit
From: ghdai@vax1.umkc.edu
Date: 24 Dec 92 02:18:30 CST
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City
NNTP-Posting-Host: vax1.umkc.edu

>> Saying that windows 3.1 was not a strict implimentation of the dpmi specs
>> is an understatement.  It was in direct violation of them.  Which is ironic 
>> because microsoft developed the specs to begin with.
>> 
>> The way dpmi should work is that any dpmi program should check to see if
>> there was any dpmi server running, and if so, allow it to allocate the
>> memory.  This way, more than one dpmi program could be run at the same time.
>> Windows 3.1 refuses to allow any other dpmi memory server but it's own.
>> 
>
>Could there be any legitimate reason for this type of behaviour or is MS
>trying to prevent other people's software from working correctly with
>Windows?

Probably!  This is my experience today, which may be viewed as a kind of
second evidence.

Since I am not able to find any Scanner software that works with Mustek
MFS-3000C flat-bed scanner under OS/2 for 3 months, I was "ordered" by my
boss to re-partition the hard drive of our OS/2-only machine.  I installed
OS/2 first (on logical D:) according to the suggestion of the manual.
Then I started to install Mess-DOS 5.0 to the primary partition (C:).  The
setup program insisted on formating drive D: -- it wants to take control of
every-bit of the hard drive -- annoying?  The same thing happened when I
started to install Winbloze garbage (I kicked it out 3 months ago, very
happily; however, the scanner software -- damned Picture Publisher from
MicroGrafx is a windoze program).

In comparison, OS/2 is polite.  It simply does not care other un-formatted
partitions.  Recall recently Mr. Sipples' post that NT refuses installation
on machines with OS/2 already installed?  Come on, everybody, let's DUMP
Mostly-Shit, anyway!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: robs@hardy.u.washington.edu (Robert Suh)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Date: 25 Dec 92 11:06:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Dec25.110655.27320
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Dec24.215617.10946@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
[STUFF DELETED]
>
>NT was slow on system a but performed comfortably with 32 MB RAM. On the other
>hand, on system a OS/2 flies, and I mean it. OS/2 with 32 MB is also fast,
>which is quite obvious. Did I also mention that I managed to crash NT in about
>1.5 minutes. As I said, I am not longer supporting NT due to several reasons.
>I also talked to a person who runs the recent NT and he also runs it with 32
>MB RAM. LAN Manager NT requires a minimum of 16 MB of RAM.
>
>Please, could you tell someone like me why OS/2 users should switch to NT? I
>wish I could tell you otherwise but NT has a very limited future, if any at
>all. There is *no way* in the world that you can justify telling a user to
>spend hundreds of dollars to get additional RAM with accelerator cards just to
>run NT. Just trust me, NT doesn't offer ANYTHING to a user that OS/2 doesn't.
>
>Best Regards,
>Mark K.

Well, I can name lots of reasons...

1) C2 Security - I know lots of places that Security of data on the PC or
LAN is a MUST.  Can't have someone just walk up to a PC/Node and take a look
at all the data on it.

2) Cross Platform - Wouldn't it be nice to be able to sit in front of either
a PC, MIPS, Alpha, or almost any other system (Thanks HAL ) and know that
Windows NT has the ability to run on it?  I know thats a BIG Plus for some of
the larger mixed - environment workplaces.  
 
3) Win32s - What more to say?

4) Multiuser support - Albeit, not so great as some variants of UN*X, but it's
a lot better than what OS/2 offers 'out of the box'.

etc...

And YES, I've used OS/2 v2.0 on my Home PC (386/33mhz; 8megs) for awhile.
Liked the DOS support, but I use more Windows applications than DOS, so
nothing runs Windows Apps as well as Windows 3.1. :)
(It was refreshing to be able to Download some stuff in the background,
while formatting disks in the foreground.  But Alas, I buy Pre-formatted disks
and Windows multitasking suits me fine.  :) ).

But PLEASE, don't respond to this trying to convince me and the world, that
OS/2 is more superior to Windows.  I know that OS/2 is superior in a lot of
aspects compared to Windows, but I ( and the other millions of Windows users)
find Windows perfectly acceptable. (BUT, If I ever have the need to 
format floppies in the background, OS/2 2.0 would be my first choice. <g>)

"Back, I tell you, Back.. *WHUMP* *THUMP*."
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11401 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3613
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 2 Jan 93 10:31:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: shelley.1i3qudINN359
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>>>IBM challenged that assumption. Why did not they challenge it a lot
>>>earlier ? 
>>>
>>Because, others have chalanged Microsoft, only to be litigated or 
>>advertized into the grave.
>
>Again: Only MS was efficient enough to provide these services in spite
>of high costs for advertizing and legalmen. 
>
>This only supports my previous observation, that the more efficient
>a company is, the more likely it is to be penalized by the FTC. Nice
>prize for efficiency.

What is your definition of "efficient"?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 04:58:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.232052.7082@gw.wmich.edu> x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:

[discussion of MS-DOS 6.0 beta "warning" vis-a-via OS/2 deleted]
>> 
>> 	In any case, why don't we wait forat least one verification
>> 	before making accusations left and right.
>> 
>	I will add that I too heard from a good source that it gives that
>exact message.  I am not going to call the FTC, but I may drop Bob Cringely
>a line about it... when it pops into INfoworld, you will know who sent that
>word...
>
While I doubted the accuracy of that 'warning message' in earlier posts,
I just don't know what it says.  Can anyone rustle up an MS-DOS 6.0 beta
tester and find out for sure?

jmalloy@hamilton.edu

>> 	
>> 
>> -- 
>> 	Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
>> 
>>          ---  boycott == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
>> 		   	     Pain teaches.   <for mailing and other info, .plan>


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: richk@grebyn.com (Richard Krehbiel)
Subject: DOS responsible for cheap hardware?  (was FCC etc)
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
	<1992Dec22.214057.5756@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu>
	<1992Dec28.200542.20555@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 04:05:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.200542.20555@microsoft.com> bobatk@microsoft.com (Bob Atkinson) writes:

>   Richard Warner writes:
>   >The downturn on pricing has to do with hardware competition, and has
>   >nothing to do with MS.  
>
>   Would the "hardware competion" have been anywhere near as intense as
>   we presently find without a common OS that they all share?

It's the common hardware definition that allows such a thin "OS" to
support so many applications.  DOS provides virtually no hardware
abstraction (beyond the filesystem) for applications, therefore they
are dependent more upon a common hardware definition than a common OS.

That common OS, DOS, didn't really permit any non-hardware-clone x86
computers, like the DEC Rainbow (8088+Z80, enhanced graphics & text
capabilities) or Tandy 1000 (fast 80186 PC with advanced graphics) to
succeed, did it?  We might have had more powerful hardware now if
these machines had been able to compete.
-- 
Richard Krehbiel                                 richk@grebyn.com
OS/2 2.0 will do for me until AmigaDOS for the 386 comes along...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Date: 31 Dec 92 03:49:30 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1hqe98INNsef@tamsun.tamu.edu> bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
>
>Actually, I wasn't talking about Standard Oil, I was talking about MS.
>The cost of duplicating software is negligible.  The cost of
>developing is high.  If one company has deep pockets and no controls,
>the potential exists for that company to dump the product (software) for a
>period of time until the competitor goes out of business and then
>raise the prices again.
>
>Has MS done this?  You bet.  How much was OS/2 1.0?  Answer: $325.
>Why so much?  No competition.  How much was the original OS/2 PDK? 
>Answer: $2600.  Same reason.  Did IBM go along? Yup. They were
>partners, not competitors then.

    OK, I give up.  Which of the examples above is an example
of the underpricing you describe in your first paragraph?

				-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 00:56:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.180708.1169@spang.Camosun.BC.CA>, dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
|> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> [....]
|> : We need fear Microsoft becomming a monopoly no more than we needed to
|> : fear Standard Oil.  History clearly shows that the free market was
|> : working to reduce Standard Oil's market share.  And if we don't use the
|> : FTC as a club to beat Microsoft into the ground, history will again show
|> : that the free market in computer software will work fine too.
|> 
|> Ah the great god of the free market. Tell me, does the free market
|> help to provide medical care for the entire population of the US?

This is getting off of the subject, but with the Federal Goverment paying
for over 60% of the health care, we don't have a free market in
medical care now.  

|> Does
|> the free market - so vigorously espoused by the IMF and the World Bank
|> - help to keep third world countries out of debt and to feed their
|> populations? I read this morning that the police in the Ukraine cannot
|> even drive to most crime scenes because under the fabulous free market
|> system they don't have the gas to do so.

I'm afraid that the Ukraine doesn't have a free market in policemen either. :-)

|> The free market system is another attempt by mankind to regulate
|> affairs. It is not cast in stone, it is not holy write - and it
|> doesn't work.

It doesn't provide Utopia, but that's not one of the options.  Are you saying
that the Ukraine goverment, which can't even run a police department, should
run their economy too?  :-)
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11191 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3541
From: chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 30 Dec 1992 10:18:35 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu

In <1992Dec30.074045.20489@noose.ecn.purdue.edu] helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

]|] Twould seem that microsoft has unleashed their net.propoganda division on
]|] us.  

]Unsubstantiated smears like the above are good rhetorical tactics, but
>do nothing but muddy the waters.

Please excuse the *HUMOR*.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: prs9k@brain.med.virginia.edu (Phil Scarr)
Subject: Re: os/2 bigot meets nt
Organization: Neuroclinical Trials Center, University of Virginia
Distribution: comp
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 20:26:22 GMT

In article <199225.3155.6030@dosgate> "richard anstruther" <richard.anstruther@canrem.com> writes:
>
>How many people have even seen an Alpha?  The Intel world is where
>it's at.

Ahem.  Those of us who make a living supporting RISC machines (PA-RISC
in my case) tend to disagree.  Quantity =/ Quality...  The P5 (I refuse
to use the Pent*%$ word...) is a step in the right direction, but since
my PA-RISC system is beyond even that step, there's not much to be said
for even the P5...


As for the Alpha, it is a real screamer, but given the fact that it
comes from DEC (and is rumored to have VMS in microcode (BLEAH!)) I
don't see that it has much future.

	-Phil
-- 
PHIL SCARR        \      We are Microsoft...     /          (o) 804.243.0229
 University of    /     OS/2 is irrelevant.      \          (f) 804.243.0290
 Virginia,        \     UNIX is irrelevant.      /        prs9k@Virginia.EDU
 Neurosurgery     /     Openness is futile.      \     prs9k@Virginia.BITNET
 HP-UX is my life!\ Prepare to be assimilated... /   ...uunet!virginia!prs9k

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: * FIESTA BOWL TELEVISED JAN. 1 *
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 01:29:00 GMT

12/30/92

IBM OS/2 FIESTA BOWL TELEVISED JAN. 1

The IBM OS/2 Fiesta Bowl, one of American college football's showcase
events, will be televised on most U.S. NBC-affiliated stations, as well
as on select Canadian stations, on New Year's Day, January 1, 1993.
Broadcast time is 4:30 PM (E.S.T.).  In Toronto, for example, the game
will be available on CFMT channel 47, channel 2 (Buffalo) and channel
10 (Rochester).

IBM OS/2 is sponsoring the Fiesta Bowl for the first time in 1993.  As
part of the sponsorship package, IBM's OS/2 logo will be highly visible
on down markers, at mid-field, and on player's shoulder pads.  In
addition, OS/2 television advertisements will also be prominently
featured during the broadcast.

The game, which is played in Tempe, Arizona, pits the University of
Colorado (9-1-1) against Syracuse University (9-2).
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: SMALL Excerpt from "Windows Sources"
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:09:41 GMT

In <1hscqpINNdve@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:


>In a previous article, timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) says:

>It "should be much more useable" in 8 megs?
>  Because Petzold never jumps to conclusions?
>  Because you listened to one too many net.rumors? 
>  Because your crystal ball says it will work better?
>  Because Bill Gates visited you in a dream and told you?
>  Because it is stated in the US constitution?
>  Because it is our God given right to have it work better?

>What do you base this imperatve "should" on?

Uh, you appear to be making a mistake in English usage here.  In this
case, that 'should' can be read as 'can probably be expected to', or
as 'ought to'.

>When you say that it must work much better, 

No one said that.  Rest of discussion obviated by interpretational
error on part of previous poster.

-- 
"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: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: comp
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 00:53:03 GMT

In article <199227.3155.6082@dosgate> "richard anstruther" <richard.anstruther@canrem.com> writes:
>-> From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod) writes:
>
>-> Does Microsoft enjoy an advantage using undocumented calls in the
>-> applications. Again I say NO. There is NO advantage to using
>-> undocumented calls, when those calls can/will/and do change from
>-> release to release of the OS, causing the application to break in how
>-> every many spots those calls were issued from. This forces the
>-> programmer to go back and change things once again, and maybe if he's
>-> smart, figure out how it should be done using the documented calls in
>-> the first place.
>
>Suppose the systems people warned you of upcoming changes to
>the OS and invited you to drop by for a chat if you had any
>concerns.  You then visited their offices and asked them not
>to remove or change those undocumented calls, since your application
>depended on them.  Would you have an advantage over another
>programmer who used all the same undocumented calls, but who
>couldn't get past security at MS's front gate?
>--

OK, in that situation there is a distinct advantage; however, I
still stand by my premise that you can legitimately develope
software that does everything some other app might do using
undocumented calls. Hence, the meeting would be an FYI, no apps
code would change to "fix" potential problems, and the the point is
moot. Microsoft has always said not to use undocumented calls for
the very reason you list above. Why duplicate effort needlessly ?


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: SMALL Excerpt from "Windows Sources"
Date: 29 Dec 1992 23:31:07 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu

In <1992Dec30.031820.21424@netcom.com> timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:

>In article <47798@ogicse.ogi.edu> francis@ese.ogi.edu (Francis Moraes) writes:
>>In reference to a post by chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
>>timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:
>>

>The point is that the shipping NT should require 8 MB minimum, but this
>minimum doesn't mean the same thing as the OS/2 minimum.  As Petzold
>suggested (although he may be pushing it) NT should be much more usable 
>in 8 MB (its stated minimum) than OS/2 is in 4 MB. 

I read the article differently then.  It seems he was stating that the
8 megs was a minimum if you want to run the system well.  The speed
of NT in 8 meg is comparable to the SPEED (im not talking features)
of OS2 in 4 meg right now.  (meaning: they both are slow as hell).
So when he says the minimum for both os2 and NT is 8 meg.. or rather
says youll WANT 8 megs for either system makes it sound like NT runs
just as well in 8 megs as OS2 does ("well" means speedwise).  This
(in my view) makes petzold not look so bright.  If a customer came
to me and said "Petzold said NT & OS2 run the same in 8 megs," and
I demoed both in 8 megs, Petzold would look stupid.  Maybe I read
the article different than you, but the statement he made was quite
blunt, and exactly as I originally posted.  The minimum (as petzold
seems to have defined it) for NT should actually be a bit higher than
8 megs, which meansm BOTH companies are "not being honest."






>I didn't say he couldn't express his opinions, but posting things like
>NT in 16 MB is the same as OS/2 in 8 MB means nothing when you don't
>really know what you're talking about.  I've sure he's heard a lot
>about NT, but not all of it is necessarily true, so making comparisons
>based on faulty information is meaningless.  (Based on what he had

I DID NOT SAY THAT.  Typical of people to put words in others mouths.
I SAID: "NT in 8 megs runs about as fast as OS2 in 4 megs."  Big difference
from what you claim I said.  You dont know what you are talking about.
My whole opinion was that petzold's article was garbage.  However,
I expected an NT bigot or supporter to retout my statements with the
famous "You dont know what you are talking about..You are ignorant.."
etc every time you say something they dont what to hear.


I was not spreading misinformation.  I was giving an opinion about petzold's
article.  But alas, you probably didnt care.  all you probably saw
was NT vs OS2, and that the poster uses OS2 more than NT.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy