From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 2 Jan 93 23:28:15 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1993Jan2.110040.19175@hellgate.utah.edu>, bangell@cs.utah.edu (bob angell) writes:
>>>>	All this talk about FUD & Misinformation about OS/2 from Microsoft has
>>>>some NEW Merit!
>  while not exactly agreeing with MicroShaft on most of what they produce,
>  I must agree that the warning could have been valid after all [see below].
> 
>>>>	I Recently talked to a Beta Tester of DOS 6.0. He Runs OS/2 with 2 Hard
>>>>Drives, One FAT, One HPFS. He decided to Install the DOS 6.0 Beta on the FAT
>>>>Partition, and got a Message saying, and I paraphrase: 
>>>>
>>>>- OS/2 Detected! Due to the size of OS/2 you may wish to delete your OS/2 
>>>>files before installing DOS 6.0 -
>>
>>>     Interesting.  What is the problem with that?  If there was a
>>>similar message that said "Autocad detected.  Due to the size of
>>>Autocad you may wish to delete your Autocad files before installing
>>>DOS 6.0", whould that be bad too?
> 
> I think this message and all the hoopla surrounding this is [warning,
> about to read a possible assumption not based on actual tinkering, so
> your mileage may vary] as follows:
> 
> 	DOS 6.0 has some compression schema built-in, therefore, if
> 	OS/2 **FAT** partitions were present, it would render the
> 	data-sharing useless (as would DRDOS and other compression
> 	schemes).  Notice that another installed the program on a
> 	FAT partition with all HPFS drives as the viable partitions
> 	and may have trouble reading compressed data off of the 
> 	DOS 6.0 partition once he evaluates and plays with it
> 	awhile.  Why the warning was not given in the latter is a
> 	mystery to me ....
> 
> So, folks [Anal-retentives should also include themselves with this
> group if they can get a clue - just this time! 8-0], even though we
> may not necessarily like one company or another (couldn't resist this
> one ... "Can't we all just get along" - Rodney King after the LA
> Riots last spring :-) :-) ) lets not jump to conclusions before the
> verdict is in!!  Haven't the OS/2 people learned yet about true FUD
> and false-alarm FUD's??

	Let's get real for a moment, if that were the case, then would
it be SOOOO difficult for MS to write the following message:
	"OS/2 detected on hard disk, the compression program included
with DOS 6.0 is not compatible with OS/2, you might consider deleting OS.2
before proceeding."

	The disk space message is fairly blunt.  I don't think anyone
but someone pretty darn biased for MS would call it ambiguous.


> 
>>If DOS is advanced enough to detect the presence of potential
>>disk hoggers (what does it do? Keep a database?) it should
>>certainly be smart enough to tell if there is room enough.
>>If it finds too little room, it should just say so, not
>>indicate anything as a potential problem. It is silly to
>>give messages like, X detected. If there are many X's which
>>one would be the problem? If there are no X's then what to
>>do? No piece of software should be a smartass, let the user
> 
> But, we might want warnings if the data is about to be hosed!
> 
> [see above].
> 
>>decide what he does and does not need.
>>
>>Erik
>>-- 
> 
> Personally, I think I will stick to DOS 5.0 and all of the other
> possible alternatives.....
> 
> -Bob-

				-Brad

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10760 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3360