HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: spexet@engin.umich.edu (Dennis Robert Spexet)
Subject: Re: Paid Microsoft employees
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 08:34:56 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: world 

In article <pkfm#fj.timbol@netcom.com> timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:
>So, just because *you* hate Windows (and Microsoft, and everything they
>make) doesn't mean that everybody else does.  (And I'm not speaking of
>Microsoft employees, either.)

Let us not confuse the issue and the questions involved.  It is not apparent
to me that Min hates Windows, Microsoft, and everything they make.  It *is*
apparent to me, however, that Min does not appreciate the insults made towards
IBM, its products, and its employees from the Microsoft personnel that have
been posting to these newsgroups.

It seems to me that what we are debating is an issue of style and corporate
etiquette, rather than Usenet etiquette.  There is really nothing that is 
"illegal" about the snide remarks and insults that have come from various
Microsoft personnel in regards to IBM things.

However, I must hasten to add that these remarks do not give a good impres-
sion of the company, its employees, or its products.  To be very blunt, I
(as a customer) must ask myself:  Why is Microsoft making degrading remarks
towards a competitor's product?  What have they to gain from this?  More
bluntly, if their product is as good as they claim it is, why are they running
around insulting and degrading their competitors in front of customers?

>
>- Mike, who doesn't work for Microsoft and can count pretty well :)


-- 
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: yeates@rtsg.mot.com (Tony J Yeates)
Subject: HPFS
Keywords: os2
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:27:37 GMT

Can anybody tell me more about OS2 high pperformance
file system?  Esp. compared with DOS FAT and OS2 FAT
(I'm waiting for them to slim their software down 
to fit on my disk :^/).  I asked the REp. and she
said that OS2 fat was different to DOS fat and said 
so,mething like "well theres no telling which is better
OS2FAT or HPFS, it just depends" although she couldn't 
say on what.

She made sound like HPFS might be for networks.... I
don't think she had a clue to be honest.



What are the Pros and cions?

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: What's wrong with Windows (Re: MS grasping at straws?...)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 02:55:46 GMT

In article <dlcogswe.711374381@vela> dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell) writes:

>Sorry, but I'll stick with using products from TALENTED programmers,
>such as those at WordPerfect, Borland, and Lotus.


Oh, and be stuck with:

- WP 4 Windows (yawn. talk about dissapointing this 5.1 fan...)
- Plan Perfect
- 123 v. 3.1 (groan) 
- Quattro Pro for Windows (Oh? When is it due?)
- 123 for Windows (now you're joking, right?)





-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:3026 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1463
From: neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
Date: 21 Jul 92 10:12:59 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland

In article <BrJMAD.41E@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> cebarton@laplace.waterloo.edu (Casey Barton) writes:
>    In the PC Magazine OS/2 advertizing section, one page depicts an array
>of applications relased for OS/2 (2.0). Among them are CorelDRAW!, PageMaker,
>Describe, ... and Microsoft Excel. It's very discrete - almost hidden behind
>the other applications. What's going on here? Is that a release for OS/2 1.3
>or earlier? Was there one? Is some ad executive being a smartass?
>
>    My understanding is that Bill Gates has stated that MS will begin
>developing for OS/2 2.0 once sales hit the 2 million mark.

Ford will start making parts for General Motors, and the Devil will Ski
to work ....


Neil


****************************| Sig' Time |*********************************
JANET: 	  neilp@uk.ac.hw.cs   *   Neil Postlethwaite, Rm G.25, 
INTERNET: neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk   *   Dept of Computer Science,  
UUCP: 	  ..!uknet!hwcs!neilp *   Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton Campus
                              *   Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, United Kingdom.
------------------------------*-------------------------------------------
Computer Science Account      *   Phone +44 (0)31 449-5111 x4174
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (CSYSPCN)
Subject: portability
Date: 22 Jul 92 18:40:05 PDT

The following appeared on compuserve in reply to one users assertion
that most of OS/2 was written in assembler.

"Brian, your understanding is wrong. OS/2 2.0 is not written mostly in
 assembler.  It is written mostly in C.  IBM rewrote much of the code
 included in Version 2.0.

 John Soyring An official IBM spokesman"

In a later post he estimates that in creating 2.0 IBM was responsible
for almost 2 million lines of new and changed code.  All of which was
written with portability in mind.
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HPFS
Keywords: os2
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:08:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: njitgw.1992Jul22.170819.22079
Distribution: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <yeates.711754057@beryl17> yeates@rtsg.mot.com (Tony J Yeates) writes:

>Can anybody tell me more about OS2 high pperformance file system?
>Esp. compared with DOS FAT and OS2 FAT (I'm waiting for them to slim
>their software down to fit on my disk :^/).  I asked the REp. and she
>said that OS2 fat was different to DOS fat and said so,mething like
>"well theres no telling which is better OS2FAT or HPFS, it just
>depends" although she couldn't say on what.

HPFS is a different format, which is not at all compatible with DOS,
although DOS boxes launched from within OS/2 can read it (with minor
restrictions) 

HPFS's advantages are:

1) The directory structure is laid out as binary-trees, so search
times for particular files is reduced exponentially.

2) There is support for long file names.  Gone are the 8.3 file names.
Your files can be up to 255 characters long (although some have
reported problems with names longer than 240 characters.)  There can
be any number of dots in the filename.  You can use mixed upper and
lower cases - although case isn't significant, it is stored and
displayed. 

3) The Extended Attributes (EA's) on files are integrated into the
file system.  On a FAT system, they are faked using the EA DATA. SF
and WP ROOT. SF files.  EA's are much less likely to be corrupted.

4) Partition sizes are virtually unlimited.  Actually there is a
limit, but it's far larger than the largest drives sold today.  I
think it's something like 16GB.  I've yet to see a drive sold with
more than 1.2GB on it.  You don't suffer the large-cluster problem
with large HPFS volumes as you do with large FAT volumes.

5) HPFS has no problems with hundreds of files in one directory.  FAT
slows down a lot in those situations.  This will be of importance to
users of BBS software or large database users.

The advantages of FAT over HPFS are:

1) FAT is DOS compatible.  If you boot a DOS disk, your OS/2 FAT
partitions are readable

2) FAT support is built in to OS/2.  If you haven't much memory, you
won't need the 512K HPFS driver to use a FAT system.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bill@snoopy (Bill Poitras)
Subject: Re: A happy user!  One more I've seen the light story!
Reply-To: bill@msi.com
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:20:12 GMT

dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
: Full-screen WIN-OS2 apps will all run in separate sessions if they are
: started from the WPS desktop.  If you want to run multiple Windows
: apps in the same full-screen session, you must start them from the
: WIN-OS2 session using Program Manager, File Manager (not included -
: import this from a Windows 3.0 installation), or other application
: which can launch programs.

This is not TRUE.  You can setup a Win-OS2 program to startup in the same
session as the first one.  Its a type of session or setting, I don't
remember which.  Check it out.

--
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Bill Poitras    | Molecular Simulations Inc.    | Tel (408)522-9229       |
| (bill)          | Sunnyvale, CA USA             |                         | 
|                 | FAX (408)732-0831             | bill@msi.com            |
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: nt, an assessment
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 04:47:44 GMT
Distribution: comp
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <wlfmndl.timbol@netcom.com>  timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:
>
> Question:  Why do you run OS/2 on your desktop?

To run my PM programs.

> Almost any answer you give will suffice for NT.

Really?  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: lai@seas.gwu.edu (William Y. Lai)
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:06:37 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.160022.28509@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) writes:
>What does MS consider selling well for OS/2?  Will MS really wait
>for OS/2 to have 2 million users before thinking of writing apps
>for OS/2?  They would have to catch up to there competition.

That's the thing.  Gordon says MS will produce apps for OS/2 when there are
two million USERS, not copies sold.  Now how the heck do you count users,
unless you monitor every one of them?  I hope MS isn't playing with words here,
since they can always claim that copies sold isn't the same as copies used,
and there is no way in hell anyone can proof usage of SW, given there is no
standard defintition of "usage."

And yes, Pete, I do use WfW 2.0 w/ OS/2, and I would much rather use a native
OS/2 version, if (or when) it ever get developed.  Same for Excel, Powerpoint,
etc., since that's my office standard, and they happen to be darn good apps.


William Lai
-- 
email: lai@seas.gwu.edu | "I want to do everything.  I want to have everything.
Dept. of Electrical Eng.|  I have a wonderful, wonderful life.  But there's so
George Washington Univ. |  much more out there.  Do I have it all?  Yes.  Do I
Washington, D.C.        |  want more?  Yeah, sure."     -Demi Moore        
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)
Subject: Re: What's wrong with Windows (Re: MS grasping at straws?...)
Reply-To: byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:31:36 GMT

Nan Zou writes

> I just love editor flame wars.  And I know some Emacs
> fanatic is going to jump into the fray soon.  ;-)

OK!  :-)  But there are several Emacs pretenders (very
poor and pitiful imitations - like Gosling Emacs) - only
one (GNU) is the real thing.

It's not a *real* editor unless it has a full Lisp
interpreter inside!

Scott Byer                                   NeXTMail: byer@adobe.com
Adobe Systems Incorporated               These are *my* opinions, and  
1585 Charleston Road, P.O. Box 7900        do not necessarily reflect
Mountain View, CA 94039-7900             the opinions of my employer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel)
Subject: Re: Is NTFS really a new file system?
Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:56:20 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.173740.17574@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>     Ahem.   Didn't someone start a thread somewhere about how
>humorless Microsoft employees are?
>
>     Maybe this group just needs smiley education.  For everyone's
>edification:  This thing :-) is called a smiley.  When you see one
>it usually means that one or more of the preceding statements was
>meant as a _joke_.

Thanks, I am well educated on smileys. Should I send you a library of
hundreds of smileys? You could equip all your postings with them, since
none of them is worth more than a smile ... and to avoid that we fall
asleep due to the one single smiley type being repeated too much ...

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

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:3247 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1566
From: neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
Date: 25 Jul 92 20:31:55 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland

In article <1992Jul23.073024.2366@unislc.uucp> thayne@unislc.uucp (Thayne Forbes) writes:
>
>Wait a minute, when did he abandon the Mac?  Also, the two big winders
>apps are Word and Excel, both of which were ported FROM the Mac.  I haven't
>seen recent releases of either for the Mac, but I suspect that the winders
>versions are currently more capable.  If that is true, I will have to 
>conceed that they are not supporting the Mac as agressively as they used to.
>On the other hand, Winders is kinda sucsessful these days, so you will
>have to forgive him for changing his resource allocation to Winders.
>

I wonder what MS Word v5 (for Mac) was then. Ribbon menus and all that sort
of stuff. Before WfW 2 aswell !!

Excel: not much call for a spreadsheet so can't remember.

Neil


****************************| Sig' Time |*********************************
JANET: 	  neilp@uk.ac.hw.cs   *   Neil Postlethwaite, Rm G.25, 
INTERNET: neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk   *   Dept of Computer Science,  
UUCP: 	  ..!uknet!hwcs!neilp *   Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton Campus
                              *   Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, United Kingdom.
------------------------------*-------------------------------------------
Computer Science Account      *   Phone +44 (0)31 449-5111 x4174
From: ekl@fics.uucp
Subject: Re: microsoft posters
Organization: Kvam data as
Distribution: comp
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:23:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.2712.2780@dosgate> "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com> writes:
>Since many of them DESIGNED and WROTE large portions of OS/2, I'd say that they
>have more than a little to contribute in any OS/2 discussions. The fact that
>you dislike Microsoft doesn't change the fact that MS has a great deal to do
>with OS/2. And as for MS posters posting "demoting" material, what do you
>call message titles like "MS grasping at straws"?
>
>---
>  SLMR 2.1a  Never show your poker buddies card tricks.
>--
>Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
>World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

Gordon Letwin is definately a person who has the knowledge to contribute
to an os/2 discussion. Unfortunatly, he has been showing more anger than
knowledge on these forums (often in response to others, though). He has
not been too much with us for a while, until these last 2 weeks or so.

When it comes to other MS employees, I seem to recall that they work on
non-os/2 related stuff, like Mac-apps. Thus, they did not DESIGN or
WRITE large portions of os/2, and they may not have much to add to
os/2 discussions. Actually, I think they participate mainly in threads
related in one way or another to microsoft, or to threads discussing
their presence in the comp.os.os2. hierarchy.

I have nothing against MS employees at .advocay, it makes life more fun.
However, I believe that they are here because IBM is IBM, and MS is MS.
I also believe that it's their own decision, and not official MS. And I
think it's OK.

Eirik
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: nt, an assessment
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:54:29 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <-159819993@hpopd.pwd.hp.com> yuk@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Yuk Lun Chan) writes:
>Normally, one can port fork() into OS/2 API if the purpose is to start up a 
>new program (exec() after fork()) or a small procedure (can use DosCreateThread
>?). But There are two problems can't be solved easily. 1. Initialised the
>main data area and then fork a number of child (The child runs the main
>routine). 2. Initialised, print out message, command line checking etc and
>then fork a child, terminate the parant, i.e. running in background.

You'd need to figure out what the program was doing in each particular
case and write special code for it.

Case 1 would be very difficult - you'd probably have to replicate some
code unless both threads branched to a common procedure entry point
immediately after the "fork".  As for initialized data area, you'd
have to make all data non-static.  This is done automatically by IBM
370 C compilers (to make code re-entrant and re-useable), but I think
you'd have to do it manually under OS/2.

Case 2 would have to be done with a procedure.  You'd create a thread
which would print out the message and do parameter checking, etc, and
then start the new process and terminate itself.

In general, it's probably easier to restructure the code around the
fork() to use OS/2 API's.

Note that new Unix systems (SVR4?  can anyone confirm or deny?) have a
spawn() operator which does the fork/exec procedure for launching
processes in one step (like DosCreateProcess).  This would be trivial
to port.

-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
From: varmint@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Samir Varma)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Why we shouldn't bash MS Employees (and other thoughts)
Date: 24 Jul 92 14:16:29 GMT
Reply-To: varmint@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Samir Varma)
Organization: Center for Particle Physics, University of Texas
Originator: varmint@huey.cc.utexas.edu

Lately there have been lots of posts attacking MS Employees and some responses
from them attacking IBM employees.  Can we please stop this?  It is not 
our (OS/2 users) interest.  Consider the following:

1)  Whether we like it or not, NT will have an impact on OS/2 and thus on its
users.  MS Employees are the primary and best source of information on the 
subject.  If we're going to keep attacking them, I wonder how many of them
are going to keep posting?

2)  Some of the MS Employees (such as Gordon Letwin) know a great deal about
OS/2.  Why don't we invite them to tell us what they know rather than attacking
them personally?  I bet Gordon knows more about the guts and philosophy of 
OS/2 than most of us so why not learn from what he knows?  In fact, why not
invite him to put up regular postings (if he has time) about some aspect of
OS/2 that he worked on?  (How about it Gordon?)

3)  If you ever feel that an MS Employee is spreading FUD then followup and
correct it.  It seems to me that this is a much better way of correcting the
FUD than attacking the Employee because if there are enough followups and 
enough instances of FUD then the credibility of that person will be about
zero.

4)  It's only an OS guys, this isn't a religious issue.  At this point in
time, OS/2 stands out as our (collective) best choice.  Maybe when NT is
released and is as good as MS claims and is stable etc. etc. it will be
the best choice.  We're consumers, dammit, not warriors and we should use
whatever's the best OS out there.  Why should we care who it comes from?
This competition benefits us, it doesn't hurt us.

5) Finally, some people (myself included) don't like some of MS's
alleged business practices.  Well, we have a good choice.  We can
simply choose not to buy MS products and write to them and tell them
why we're not doing so.  MS is in business to make money.  If people
don't buy their products then they won't make money.  It's as simple
as that.

And finally, let's lighten up guys.  This is .advocacy not .politics!

Samir Varma
From: jc70@westend.VI.CMU.EDU (Joo C. Chung)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Threads in Unix?
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:11:01 GMT
Reply-To: jc70@norman.vi.ri.cmu.edu
Distribution: comp
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Jul30.162213.2392@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu  
(David Charlap) writes:
> In article <1992Jul29.112723.6184@grail.com> dpc@grail.com (David P. Cutter)  
writes:
> 
> > Actually, SunOS introduced something called Light Weight Processing
> > - LWP (a.k.a. threads) - in SunOS 4.0.1.  System V.4.1.2 and SunOS 5.x
> > also has (will have) a threads package for multiprocessor and 
> > uniprocessor programming.
> 
> Lightweight processing (multithreading) has been discussed in CIS
> journals for quite some time now as an experimental idea.  SunOS was
> the first Unix system to incorporate them.
> 
> OS/2 was the first system to be designed with threads as a key
> component in the multitaskter.
> 
> Today, many Unix boxes are using threads.  Mach being one of the most
> prominent, using a multithreaded micro-kernel at its core.
> -- 
>    |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
>   /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
>  ((|,)
>   ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.

I apologize because what I am about to say does not belong here. But I wanted 
to clear up a misconception. Mach is the micro-kernel and that is all it is. 
Mach by itself is not an OS. Therefore Mach is not unix. Mach with the BSD 
server. 


Joo 
running on top of it could be considered a form of unix.
From: jc70@westend.VI.CMU.EDU (Joo C. Chung)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2, DOS, NT (Speculative) -- My Opinions
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:15:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Jul31.141558.231632
Reply-To: jc70@norman.vi.ri.cmu.edu
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Jul31.130931.18750@newserve.cc.binghamton.edu>  
su0911@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (David Salzberg) writes:
> 
> Here is my view point.
> 		OS/2		Win-3.1		Deskview/x	NT
> 
> OS		OS/2		DOS		DOS		NT
> GUI		PM		Windows		X windows	Windows?
> Shell		WPS		Program Man.	?		??
> Bits		32		16		16		32
> 

One note about OS/2. I thought PM and WPS were both GUIs. That WPS replaced PM 
in version 2.0. As far as I know, WPS doesn't have a shell in the same sense 
that MS Windows does. If you want to talk about Command line shells...then it
would be cmd.exe in most cases. In others it might be 4os2.exe. And then there
is ksh, sh ,rsh, and so forth.


For NT, I thought MS was planning on making a GUI called Cairo.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy