HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 6 Oct 1992 20:10:06 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Oct5.161201.20918@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>CSD's are "free", but the bugs in C Set/2 are not.  They have cost my 
>employer a great deal of my time, and cost me a great deal of stress.
>In the 12 or 13 year I've dealt with compilers, never have I had a package
>cause me so much trouble.

I'm truly sorry you're having so much grief with the C Set/2 compiler.

>Jay, I hope you
>realize the "good IBM support" you're so grandly touting was unable
>even to FedEx me the CSD.  While Ian (and others) have done as much and
>more than anyone could ask...  IBM "support" has let me down for the
>7th straight time I have tried it since starting to develop OS/2.

I don't know why this would have happened. I do know that it's atypical
compared to the 11 years of IBM support that I have experience with...once
they have a fix, they'll bend over backwards to get it to you.

>You also
>don't seem to say anything about the fact that 3 of 10 programs I
>compile with a compiler that has had 14 bug fix releases still fail when
>optimized.  This is a ridiculous track record.

What can I say?...except to note that IBM almost certainly has many, many
customers using the optimizer with no problems. Are you doing anything really
weird?
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
    Vote for a REAL change on 3 November: Throw out the check-bouncing,
  tax-and-spend Democrat Congress! (obviously, not an opinion of UTHSCH)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:22:10 GMT

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>>The point is that (sorry to repeat that) for products given away for
>>free or bundled with some other product without choice NOT to get it,
>>that percentage will be significantly higher, e.g. Windows.

>     This sounds good in theory, but once again I don't believe
>that there is evidence to support it.

He doesn't need evidence Phil.  A little logic will prove it.

There are two sets of people.  Set A comprises those who want a
product badly enough to buy it.  Say that of set A, 75% of the
purchases are actually used.  Set B comprises those who don't
want to buy a product.  Obviously, usage in set A is much greater
than usage in set B, so we'll set B usage at 25%.  (These numbers
are completely arbitrary, and I use them only to clarify the point)

When people have to go and buy a product, they will be entirely
members of set A.  Hence usuage will be at 75%.  When people are
given a product for free, they are a mix of members of both sets A
and B.  Hence usage will be ((A*75%)+(B*25%))/(A+B), which in english
means somewhere between 75% and 25%, but *ALWAYS* less than 75%.
So all other things being equal (which may or may not be the case
with Windows and OS/2, but that's not the point of the above quoted
argument) a product given away for free or bundled will always have
a lower percentage of usage than a product that must be bought.

QED
-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu | think of something very clever 
uunet!jarthur!jokim         | to use as a disclaimer)
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6892 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2334
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:18:23 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:

>Using a Microkernel is a good way to run apps from disparate operating
>systems.  Just because NT has it first (if it gets released by their
>deadline, whatever that is) doesn't mean that everybody coming
>afterwards is admitting NT's suprtiority.

>It is possible for two companies to use the same feature without one
>admitting the other's superiority.

For me the cogent point is that many of these features of NT were originally
discussed by IBM and MS as features for an advanced version of OS/2, 
ie. OS/2 3.0 - so both IBM and MS have had much of this in mind for some
time. *Nobody* is playing catch-up in that sense. 

Tom
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Service Pack news from IBM 10/01/92
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:27:31 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <92275.133827MBAPN@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> Peter J. Natali <MBAPN@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> writes:
>The following was released by IBM on 09/30/92:
>
>----------------------  Start of article  ----------------------------
>
>OS/2 2.0 SERVICE PAK ADVANCE INFORMATION UPDATE
>
>September 30, 1992
>
>This is an update to information posted September 18, 1992.
>
>The version of the Service Pak containing the 32-bit Graphics Engine
>was targeted to be available electronically at the end of September.
>IBM has been working feverishly to meet that target.  However, based
>on feedback generated by the earlier announcement and results of
>testing, we have decided to include additional fixes in the Service
>Paks.  These fixes require additional code and test time.  In addition
>to testing these fixes, IBM is performing tests on the Service Pak as
>an entity to ensure that the individual APAR fixes are compatible when
>integrated into the system.  IBM continues to make and test fixes and
>to assess the content of the Service Pak to ensure that the proper
>fixes are included and that high quality fixes are delivered.
>
>The version of the Service Pak containing the 32-bit Graphics Engine
>will be made available electronically via IBMLINK OS/2 BBS, CIS,
>NSC BBS, INTERNET, and other external sources as soon as it is ready,
>meaning that it has the proper content and the right level of quality.
>The current outlook is that it will be available prior to mid-October.
>The version of the Service Pak without the 32-bit Graphics Engine
>will be available at a later date.

Since it looks like most people won't be getting this till November...
why are they bothering?  The 32-bit GRE + Windows 3.1 should be coming
out of beta not more than 1 1/2 months later.  Why are they bothering
with the version that doesn't have the 32-bit GRE at all?

I don't know how they expect that conservative corporate customers that
have delayed their commitment to OS/2 until the bug fixes are out, will
be likely to go to this fix anytime soon.  I mean the notice makes
clear that they are still making changes to the SSP, including adding
new fixes.  If they just now are adding new fixes... what difference
will 15 days make?

Will the bug fixes for the SPP be free too?
Will new users buying 2.0 recieve a version with the fixes installed,
or will that mean installing 30+ disks?
Is there a TLA for a CSD for the SPP?

This is all quite confusing... I wish the straight story would be
told.

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
University of Utah                             United We Stand
Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jps@netcom.com (John Serafin)
Subject: Re: Interesting WINBENCH scores...
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 18:55:29 GMT

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>In article <1992Sep30.210648.18990@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep29.010358.13626@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>>     Anyone out there know if it's possible to convince OS/2 to
>>>give 100% of the processor to a given task?
>>
>>You mean disable multitasking?  Why would I want to do that?  If a
>>task needs more CPU, I just terminate other applications, and the app
>>will get more. 

>     This is in the context of benchmarks - I don't find the current
>comparisons between Windows and OS/2 to be particularly useful, since
>OS/2 can take the CPU away from the benchmark program.
>     In general practice, though, I don't think anyone would need
>to disable multitasking.  At least I can't think of a good reason to.

I have been running CPU intensive benchmarks under OS/2 and DOS recently.
The effects of Pulse, the System Clock (no second hand), idle OS/2 and DOS
command windows are all completely swamped by the granularity of 55ms
timer tick.   My benchmark has a lot of trig and other floating point math.
It may be that non-floating point CPU intensive tasks are more affected by
operating system overhead, but I doubt that it is more than 1%, which is
probably negligable for anybody.

>				-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.
-- 
John P. Serafin  |  Operating a bicycle is more like driving than riding.
jps@netcom.com   |  Operating an automobile is more like riding than driving.
From: eguerrino@email.bony.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft claims a 4Q92 delivery for NT
Date: 26 Sep 92 10:16:39 GMT
Organization: ***

Well, someone told me that as of 9/25 at around 4:00PM, Microsoft
has officially delayed NT until "early 1993". Unofficially,
the date is now march/april.
eric
eguerrino@email.bony.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Date: 28 Sep 92 10:56:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.4elpJIi00WB5AjN3oP
Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.os2.advocacy: 28-Sep-92 Re: I hate to tell
you this.. by Keith Benton@s1.gov 
> In article 10852@scott.skidmore.edu, pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre
VonKaene
> l) writes:
> >In article <cc#pr6n.erb@netcom.com> erb@netcom.com (Elizabeth R.
Brown) write
> s:
> >>when the time is right.
> >>
> >>So, from a Windows bigot to all you OS/2 bigots I say:  "Join us! 
Feel the 
>  
> >                                                          ^^^^^^^^
> >
> >>power of the Dark Side!  Together the Universe will be ours!!  
> >>Mwhaahaaaaahaaa!"    ---> (:-)
> >>
> >>
> >>Ebbot R. Bane             | "Your Kung-Fu is no good!  Don't pick a fight
> >>Soft Images, Inc.           |  with me unless you want to get hurt kid!"
> >>San Jose, CA                | _NO KILL I_ |_| "I never said that!" - Kibo.
> >
> >
> >Well, you convinced me!   Went to my local software store, but was
> >disappointed to find out that they don't carry NT, bummer :-(  Oh,
> >well, I'll just have to continue using OS/2.
> >
> >-- 
> >Pierre von Kaenel      | Skidmore College           | pvonk@skidmore.edu
> >Math & CS Dept.                | Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 |
(518)584-5000 E
> xt 2391
> >
> >[.... old sig has been retired.  New sig isn't ready yet. ]
>  
> But you can find Win 3.1 which is what is kicking OS/2's butt.
>  
> ---
>         ---------------------------------------------------------
>         |             Keith Benton: kab@s1.gov                  |
>         | ME!?!? Speak for anyone here!?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA |
>         |             Standard Disclaimers apply                |
>         ---------------------------------------------------------
I don't care if idiot Joe average out there thinks Win3.1 is better than
OS/2 because it sells more!  Win 31 will never ever ever be able to do
the things I have already done with OS/2.  Okay?  I've had Win 3.0 and
3.1 crash more often than not.  Sure Joe idiot will buy it.  Sure Joe
idiot will say it's better.

Hey, remember what mommy used to tell you?  If little Joey down the
street were to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you?

Carl Jabido
cj00@andrew.cmu.edu
From: mikegal@microsoft.com (Michael Galos)
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Date: 06 Oct 92 06:25:31 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct5.171752.23317@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <1992Oct05.080217.12694@microsoft.com> mikegal@microsoft.com (Michael Galos) writes:
>>
>>When Digital Research cloned MS-DOS, Microsoft didn't try to sue them
>>  out of business. On the other hand, it hardly seems (in light of
>>  industry history) an example of the "Dark Side" when we don't help
>>  them debug their code when they have problems doing a good job in
>>  cloning. After all, Windows 3.1 works fine with MS-DOS 3 which has
>>  only given them about seven years to study it.
>
>But MS was helping other companies debug their apps when porting from
>3.0 to 3.1.  They refused to help DR simply because that product was
>in direct competition with MS's mainstay: DOS.  Sounds a bit unfair to
>me.  If you help one company, you have to help any who ask.
>-- 

What other OS vendor did we help? We certainly did help application
vendors work under Windows. We've done that since Windows 1 and 
continue it to this day both directly through Product Support and
indirectly through open specs like Windows Open Services.

Despite my possible bias, I honestly can't think of any company that
has been more fair. Certainly not any of the companies I listed in
the post you're replying to who chose litigation over innovation.

-- 
==============================================================================
Declare Sub Disclaim Lib "Standards" Alias "__StandardDisclaimer" (x As Any)
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: db3l@ans.net (David Bolen)
Subject: Re: Multitasking (was Re: MS's misconduct!)next reply
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 11:11:47 GMT
	<8elk9Le00WBNE1bJAa@andrew.cmu.edu>
	<1992Sep30.185808.3691@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Organization: Advanced Network & Services, Inc. - Elmsford, NY

In article <1992Sep30.185808.3691@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> u1665462@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au writes:

>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!

Eeek!  Before the "other camp" jumps in on this, let me say that this isn't
a particularly good example of a need for multitasking.  This sort of
operation would be served just fine by a task switcher.  Where the
multitasking aspect would come in is if some process that the secretary had
to switch away from needed to keep running while she was performing the new
task.  Just avoiding a shutdown of an application to start a new one up
doesn't require multitasking.

>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  (...)
>
>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.

Double eeek!  No wonder we can't resolve a discussion about this stuff -
now we've got memory protection and multithreading getting into the
picture.  Let's follow those topics off in another thread (:-)).

The problem I see is that too many things are apparently getting lumped
under the magic term of multitasking (maybe Pete had a point?  Nah... :-)).
A system that has the capability of multitasking can offer enormous
benefits to users (IMHO), but I think we need to be careful not to
attribute too many things to this one feature.

And we need to realize that the basic concept of multitasking has been
around for quite some time, both in larger systems and with PCs - I even
wrote a print spooler for my Radio Shack Model III.  Having a more
flexible, standard multitasking support in an OS kernel is really important
for modern systems (again, IMHO), but it's not really something that just
suddenly appeared with the latest systems.

--
-- 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    \
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Multitasking (was Re: MS's misconduct!)
Date: 28 Sep 92 03:01:42 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <19920925.165424.262@almaden.ibm.com> francis@vnet.ibm.com wrote:
> In article <1992Sep25.203356.19393@ans.net>,
> db3l@ans.net (David Bolen) writes:
> >
> >Ok - let me describe what I consider a "really good, habitual use of
> >multitasking"...
> 
> And another -- does basic development not count?  Ever make a change to
> a header file while you're programming?  As soon as I do that, I'll
> save the file, and start a make going.  I can now go back to editing
> my source (the editor's not CPU intensive) and when I'm done, all I
> have to do is compile the one source file -- the alternative being
> only making when I'm done editing, and then waiting while all files
> affected by the header change recompile.
> 
> I guess I'm having trouble believing that anyone who's really used a
> multitasking system doubts its benefits.  Each to his own, I guess.  -tim

Development machines are one of the places where I find true
multitasking useful.  I don't doubt the benefits of preemptive multitasking,
but the benefits only show themselves in certain senarios.  A seceratary
who types things and maybe does scheduling and makes phone calls does not
need preemptive multitasking.  A developer, or a server, or a network
manager might need a preemptive multitasking system.

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.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Is portability more important than performance?
Date: 01 Oct 92 09:53:24 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

First.  Mike, marble madness is cool...


Anyway, as far as writing good optimized code, I find it generally helps
to know a lot about what kind of code your C compiler generates.  I like
to start by implementing the algorithm in C, and then viewing the C
output.  You can then force things like preloading of variables outside
of loops, loop unrolling in an efficient way, etc by just tweaking your
C code.  Precalculating in temporary variables also helps.  With this,
you can basically tighten your code as much as you can in assembly, except
for the more limited set of instructions that the C compiler will use.
Your code will continue to remain portable, as well, although it is
optimized for one machine.

Another thing that C code writers do that assembly folk don't is using
function calls in low level loops, etc.  A function call in C is
pretty expensive, especiall if you must push a large amount of large
parameters on the stack.  You can get around this by choosing your
function parameter types properly, and by minimizing the number of
times you do a function call.


Just My Observations/Suggestions
(This stuff is old hat to most of you developers, but it may be useful
for those who don't develop for a living).

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong)
Subject: Re: Moving from X to Y.
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 11:46:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.100454.25865@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.205733.33913@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu wrote:
>> 
>> Also true.  Let me go on a tangent though.  Am I hearing an NT supporter claim
>> that it might actually be difficult to do more than a simple port from Windows
>> to NT?  If that is the case then hold on while I get my tape recorder...
>> (Pulling your chain mode off)
>> Seriously, you are right.  It can be difficult to do all this, but it still
>> can be a real money maker if that developer plays his/her cards right.  This
>> makes it worth every developer's while to at least consider it seriously.
>
>yes, it can, and I hope people do eventually port there things to take advantage
>of preemptive systems.  Yeah, I know, it may have seemed that I was arguing
>against them, but really all I was arguing against is excessive use of threads
>and the like.
>

If this is the case, I don't see why this will prevent software develpers to
port programs to OS/2.

And I wouldn't worry about the excessive use of threads.  It is more work to
program concurrently (esp. since most programmers out there are probably
more used to programming in single threads) than to program single-threaded
program.  I think the real problem is, whether developers will take full
advantage of multi-threading capability, and how long it will take for them
to get used to it.

>
>> >
>> >petesk@microsoft.com
>> >My Opinions...
>> >
>> 
>> Stacy John Behrens
>> *===)-------------
>p@m.c
>m o.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.windows.advocacy,alt.politics.kibo