HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:17:30 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: na

In article <1992Oct9.210502.778@mdd.comm.mot.com> wu@mdd.comm.mot.com (Philip Wu) writes:
>In <1992Oct9.171907.3735@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>
>>DOS and WIN16 is not too good in the pre-beta SDK, but do you think,
>>that MS will ship the release version with poorer support for DOS &
>>WIN16 than OS/2 2.0 currently has?
>
>Maybe not Windows, but they already stated that DOS support won't be
>as good as under OS/2.  No big loss really.

     I would really, really like to see the text of the announcement
that made that statement.  Can you provide a quote?

				-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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: NT Multiuser? (WAS: MS's misconduct!)
Date: 14 Oct 92 09:14:44 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


 In article <81599@ut-emx.uucp> loflin wrote:
 > In article <1992Oct6.081922.27668@netcom.com> msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith) writes:
 > >
 > >What he is quite clearly and correctly saying is that NT AND OS/2 2.0 are not
 > >CONCURRENT multi user systems. NT allows you to set up profiles so that more
 > >than one person can use ( IF THEY WAIT THEIR TURN LIKE A GOOD LITTLE BOY /GIRL )
 > >this workstation with their files being protected
 > >from the other users. ( Hardly multi-user in the traditional sense )
 > >
 > >MArtin smith
 > >msmith@netcom.com
 > 
 > I like to phrase this as "NT is multiuser, one-at-a-time" :-)
 > 
 
 This brings something to mind.  If the console is multiuser, how do you
 make all of the support equipment multiuser.  This includes things like
 the keyboard, the mouse and most importantly, the chair in front of the
 machine.  I guess in current systems, there must be some sort of known
 rule. "Even if your system allows multiple users at
 the consoles at once, please ask the current users permission before
 you start using the console".  The machine may be multiuser, but
 the keyboard, mouse, and the chair aren't.  So, I guess even on current
 systems, everyone has to "WAIT THEIR TURN LIKE A GOOD LITTLE BOY / GIRL"
 to use the chair/keyboard/mouse/etc.  

 petesk@microsoft.com
 My Opinions...
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Date: 9 Oct 1992 19:42:54 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Oct9.171907.3735@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>DOS and WIN16 is not too good in the pre-beta SDK, but do you think,
>that MS will ship the release version with poorer support for DOS &
>WIN16 than OS/2 2.0 currently has?

If not, then why is MS only claiming to support the top 100 Windows/DOS apps?
OS/2 does a LOT better than that.
-- 
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)
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Brian is an idiot (was Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.
Date: 7 Oct 1992 13:32:24 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) says:
>In article <1as44iINN6r7@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
>>In a previous article, brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) says:
>>>I don't see how people can view this as Microsoft "abandoning" OS/2.
>>>In truth they were simply reverting to the path they had wanted all
>>>along.  They tried to bring IBM along, but Big Blue Bureaucracy was
>>>always in the way.  In the end it was switch or die.
>>
>>Brian,
>>
>>Don't be an idiot.  Just because you think that microsoft was justified
>How nice!    ^^^^^
>>in what they did does not change the fact that they abandonded OS/2.
>>Justification is one thing, it is very subjective.  But objectively,
>>it is impossible to argue that microsoft has stopped developing PM apps
>>and makes windows apps, when they had said that they were going to do
>>the exact opposite.  You can't argue with those to facts.  Whether it
>>made good buisness sense or not does not change the fact that MS 
>>abandoned OS/2!
>
>I do believe there is a difference between "abandoning" something
>because you want to, and "abandoning" because you're forced to.
>At the time Microsoft came to that decision it seem quite clear
>that IBM was acting irrationally... and that the kind of thing that
>forces partnerships to disolve.


Brian,

Both of the choices you offer above state that microsoft abandoned OS/2.
You can't argue with the fact that microsoft dropped support for os/2
from all of their best selling packages.  In English, we say that
they 'abandoned' it.  Did they do it for a good reason?  Who can say?  
In this argument, it doesn't matter.

Now for my argument.

Can someone claim that noone can say that microsoft abandoned os/2, 
and then come right back an say that microsoft did abandon os/2?  
Not without being an idiot.  

Therefore, with respect to this thread Brian, you are an idiot.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wu@mdd.comm.mot.com (Philip Wu)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:05:02 GMT

In <1992Oct9.171907.3735@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:

>DOS and WIN16 is not too good in the pre-beta SDK, but do you think,
>that MS will ship the release version with poorer support for DOS &
>WIN16 than OS/2 2.0 currently has?

Maybe not Windows, but they already stated that DOS support won't be
as good as under OS/2.  No big loss really.

Phil
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Re: Multiuser
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Organization: Techn. Univ. Clausthal
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:19:58 GMT

In  <d9mikael.718486386@dtek.chalmers.se>  d9mikael@dtek.chalmers.se (Mikael Wahlgren) writes:
> BRIAN, could you do me a favour?  Tell your friends at Microsoft that
> you need a remote login capability for Windows/NT. and tell them to
> send me the Windows/NT SDK for FREE.  I have a problem with Microsoft...
> They want me to pay 100 USD for the SDK, and I don't think it is worth
> that currently...

Mikael, why should Brian do so. You told us in c.o.m.p.win32 that you
already have a copy of the CD.

Christoph
--
Internet: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de
Bitnet  : HAMPE2 AT DMRHRZ11
Fido    : 2:243/660
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 09 Oct 92 18:16:14 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <7523@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Oct07.185046.532@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>      MS's official word is all that the rest of us have to go on - 
>>anything else is idle speculation, without supporting evidence.
>
>Only if you don't believe in evaluating a company's actions as well as its
>words. MS's actions speak louder, by far, than their words, and their actions
>all say one thing: "FUD!"

     You should know better than to use the word "all" to refer to
any topic...
     Please prove that every action ever taken by Microsoft was
designed to spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.


>MS's actions are the supporting evidence for my contention. You may choose to
>interpret them differently through your MS-colored glasses, but that won't
>change how they appear to me.

      Might I suggest that nearly every poster on this newsgroup
is wearing glasses of one shade or another?


>>     Or perhaps they're just being nice to those people developing for
>>Windows NT?  I'm not as quick to see a conspiracy here - it seems like
>>the simplest explanation is most often correct.
>
>Just like they were nice to folks who believed them the last time they said
>that a product was strategic: they charged those folks $2600, and then
>abandoned them completely.
>
>Excuse me if I'm skeptical the second time around. "Fool me once, shame on
>you; fool me twice, shame on me."

     OK - don't buy the SDK, then.  The fact that you don't want it
doesn't make the release FUD.


>>>Is _any_ qualification being done on folks who call up and order the SDK/beta?
>>>Even as little as a description of the product they're working on?
>>      Why should there be?
>
>To lend the idea that this is a developer's release some credibility, perhaps?
>I had to tell IBM about the project I'm doing to get on the list for their
>DAP...at least they're honest.

     Of course, a prospective buyer describing a project doesn't mean
that the project will ever come to fruition.  A "developer" is a person
who develops software, whether or not that software is ever released,
or ever completed.  


>>      Too lazy to gather evidence for your own arguments?  Tsk tsk...
>
>No. I'm not willing to waste $69 to bolster an argument on the net.

     Too lazy to call the number and find out if they ask for
your qualifications.  That was the original statement, wasn't it?

					-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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:28:06 GMT

petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

[Stuff deleted]

>I'm a bit curious about why people don't want networks bundled.  This is
>regardless as to whether the network is more integrated or not.

>The only two reasons I came up with as to why people wouldn't want 
>bundled network software are the following:

>1) You think the final product would be cheaper if these things were not
>   included.

>Well, I hate to say it, but software doesn't work that way.  Software
>is almost all startup up cost and and very little production cost.
>Software has no intrinsic value besides what people are willing to pay
>for it, and if what you say is true, that most people won't be using 
>the networking products, then the networking products will be worth little
>to them. They will be willing to pay what they were willing to pay for the
>orrigional WNT product, minus the value of the networking products, which
>was little or nothing.  The net price will not have changed.  All that
>will change is the possible price for the WNT with the networking, which
>may go up, because the people willing to buy it will pay more for it.

>So in asking to remove networking, you are asking to raise the price of
>the networking version, and not lower the price of the non-networked
>version.

>This is IMHO of course, and any more input, positive or negative, may be
>useful.

The large start up cost must be recovered from the product sales
if the company is to stay in business. To make money:
	selling_price > start_up_cost / number_sold

Selling price depends on both the seller and the buyer. If the seller
can't cover his costs at the price the buyer is willing to pay then
he will not produce the product. No one gives things away for free.

*Any* feature you a product has to either raise the selling cost or lower
your profit. So, either the networking feature is included in the selling
price, or Microsoft is planning on loseing money on their networking
software. Personally, I would expect the first to be true. No company
stays in business long by loseing money.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net            uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Steven R Jacobs)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
In-reply-to: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de's message of Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:51:27 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
	<1992Oct5.123847.11562@hellgate.utah.edu>
	<1992Oct5.191943.9033@ncsu.edu> <1992Oct5.192833.9767@ncsu.edu>
	<BvpC7u.6y1@rice.edu> <1992Oct7.015127.6083@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de>
Date: 7 Oct 92 07:27:01

In article <1992Oct7.015127.6083@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>
>In article <BvpC7u.6y1@rice.edu>, amitp@ruf.rice.edu (Amit J Patel) writes:
>|> In article <1992Oct5.192833.9767@ncsu.edu>, linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu
>|> (John W. Linville) writes:
>|> |> >
>|> |> >Ah... where's you sources... what makes you say OS/2 seems to be
>|> |> >catching on very well in the home market?
>|> |> 
>|> |> How about the fact that everyone that I know who has a PC capable of
>|> running
>|> |> OS/2 2.0 is doing just that?
>|> |> 
>|> 
>|> Same here... these are home computers (386/33 or higher, with 4 megs or
>|> more of memory) owned by people I know:
>|> 
>|> 	1 - DOS		[runs only games, and doesn't have Windows]
>|> 	7 - OS/2 2.0
>|> 	0 - Windows 3.1	[hmmm]
>|> 
> Really amazing. Your impressive and representative statistics
> actually convinced me, that OS/2 2.0 is the best OS. 7 out of 8
> people Amit knows are using it. WOW!!

Really amazing.  Your post was 0% signal and 100% noise.  Your attack
on Amit actually convinced me that NT is the best OS. WOW!!

People on both sides of this argument look incredibly silly.  Can we
*please* avoid the personal attacks and stick to the irrelevant?
--
Steve Jacobs  ({bellcore,hplabs,uunet}!utah-cs!jacobs, jacobs@cs.utah.edu)
"Be afraid.  Be very afraid.  I have K-10 offsuit...."
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Should I?
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:09:32 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <92279.231946RFM@psuvm.psu.edu> RFM@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>
>   I'm not sure why I'm writing; guess I need a nudge or something.
>I have a 6-week old SWAN 486/33, 8 megs RAM, 210-meg HD, local BUS
>video, etc.
>
>1. Can I swap my 3 1/2 disks for 5 1/4? Where/how?

IBM sells OS/2 on 5.25" disks.  If you have a 3.5" B: drive, they also
make a 5.25" install disk which will use B: for the rest of the disks.
Or you can swap the cables (and matching CMOS settings) and make your
3.5" drive the A:.

>2. Should I unload Windows and Norton DTW?

If you wish.  It'll waste disk space unless you plan on dual-booting
back to DOS and run Windows from there.

>3. Assuming I *can* get OS2 up & running, what about my needs
>    for expanded mem for DOS-WP51 and Lotus?

It can be emulated with DOS settings.

>4. Is there a good Book (bettter yet, a VIDEO) about installing &
>    configuring OS/2? (Pictures are worth 1k words, etc., especially
>    for getting started -- the vision thing and such-like).  Good book
>    AND a good video?

I think so, but I don't know of a title.

>5. I haven't read deeply enuf into OS2, but I gather if I use the
>   double-boot setup, I don't have to worry about my present
>   config.sys & autoexec.bat files, or do I?

Your present configuration will be backed up.  It will be restored
when you dual-boot to DOS, and will be switched back when you
dual-boot to OS/2.  In other words, don't worry.

>6. Naturally I'm going to do a complete backup before I attempt OS/2,
>   and I'll have half-a-dozen floppy boot disks, etc. If I start
>   and then decide to dump OS/2, can I de-partition my drive (it's IDE
>   so I can't low-level format), re-format the sucker, and go (sadly)
>   back to DOS?

Yes.

>7. When will IBM release WIN 3.1 work-alikes?

By the end of the year.  It'll be in the form of update disks to be
applied over an installed OS/2 2.0 system.
-- 
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"
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7246 comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32:1417
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
From: des@inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd)
Subject: Re: Multiuser (was Re: MS's misconduct!)
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 10:48:09 BST

David Charlap (dic5340@hertz.njit.edu) wrote:
: In article <KEVIN.92Oct8155038@loneranger.edscom.demon.co.uk> Kevin Broadey <kbroadey@edscom.demon.co.uk> writes:
: >
: >With NT's built-in networking and RPC capabilities you *have* got one
: >machine with 5 processors, 5 mice, 5 keyboards and 5 screens. Or 50, or
: >500.
: 
: No, you have five machines, with five processors, etc...  One console,
: and four remotely attached via the network.  Unless you consider the
: entire LAN to be one large computer.

in my expereience a LAN (or here certainly our groups portion of
it) can be considered to be one large computer because if
one machine goes down then it often either pulls the rest down
as well or makes them unusable until it is rebooted due to
the vagueries of the automounter!

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
david shepherd: des@inmos.co.uk or des@inmos.com    tel: 0454-616616 x 625
                inmos ltd, 1000 aztec west, almondsbury, bristol, bs12 4sq
                1992: celebrate the quincentenary of columbus getting lost
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.x would loose its battle against Windows NT if...
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 18:57:47 GMT

thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.154329.1557@cs.mcgill.ca>, gumby@cs.mcgill.ca (Phil PRANNO) writes:
>|> The WPS is CUA 91 compliant.

>So CUA 91 allows you to put a menu partially off-screen where you can't
>actually access some of the items?

No, that's a bug.  That should be obvious to anybody who'd bothered to
think about it rather than jumping at any opportunity to criticize OS/2.
I mean why reposition menus when they go off the side of the screen but
not when they go off the bottom.

>|> This means that there is RESEARCH and lots of it behind the entire
>|> concept.

>I think perhaps they need to go away and do a little more research...

CUA (Common User Access) is a standard developed (and updated annually)
based on research of what typical people find intuitive in an interface.
The WPS is based on CUA 91, CUA 91 is not based on WPS.  So most of the
faults you'll find in WPS are bugs, not CUA 91 guidelines (there are a
few exceptions).  If you really want to know what CUA is all about, I'm
sure one of the IBMers can post the product number for the latest CUA
guidelines.

As an alternative, you can ftp a copy of the CUA Vision demo from
ftp-os2.nmsu.edu.  It's a demo of where the CUA folks see CUA heading,
and EVERYBODY that has seen it that I know has been very impressed.
-- 
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)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: How many NT developers does it take to boil water?
Date: 09 Oct 92 04:36:45 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Oct8.150018.13649@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu wrote:

<stuff here deleted>
> 
> Preemptive multitasking is kind of silly for single-tasking
> environments, as well.  Small devices like Sharp's Wizard have no use
> for multitasking at all.  As for notebook PC's, they should be able to
> do anything their big-brother computers can do, since they're used as
> a workstation-on-the-go in most cases.
> -- 
> 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"


Alright, Alright, you guys all win.  I'll give in, and go along with
your mindless religion.
Preemptive multitasking is the second comming.
It will feed the multitudes, and bring joy to all.
It will solve all of our problems and lead us to a
utopia full of flowers and birds.......

Okay, enough ranting. 
I fear you may have misunderstood my point.  I was NOT arguing that
preemptive multitasking was bad.  I was only arguing that it was
merely another tool, such as structured programming, interrupts,
magnetic storage, etc.  There are place where it can be used, and
there are places where other things should be used.

You've been giving me examples of where preemptive multitasking is good.
Fine, I agree with you.  I can also give places where preemptive multitasking
is not good.  

Could we just admit that we are probably not disagreeing, and kill this thread.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.x would loose its battle against Windows NT if...
Date: 11 Oct 92 00:16:43 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.154329.1557@cs.mcgill.ca>, gumby@cs.mcgill.ca (Phil PRANNO) writes:
>|> The WPS is CUA 91 compliant.

>So CUA 91 allows you to put a menu partially off-screen where you can't
>actually access some of the items?

How do you get this to happen? I can't get a menu to be anywhere but
completely on-screen (ET4 card and either VGA or Orchid beta drivers).

There are things about CUA that I disagree with, but I doubt off-screen
menus are in there.

Tom
From: ekl@fics.uucp
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:56:06 GMT
Organization: Kvam data as

In article <1992Oct11.202032.10171@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>OS/2 requires more disk than the current pre-beta does.
>

On my C-drive, Windows NT occupies 37 megabytes of disk, plus a swapfile
which is set to the minimum size of 20 MB. I don't know how much your
installation of NT occupy, but it doubt it is less than os/2.

>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! :-))

Eirik
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy