HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to make OS/2 look bad ...
Date: 11 Nov 92 03:08:23 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <strobl.721403210@gmd.de>, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>In <1992Nov10.025631.84134@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOH
N BEHRENS) writes:
>
>>In article <strobl.721229440@gmd.de>, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>>>In <4310@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> rvaniwaa@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ron
al
>>d J. Vaniwaarden) writes:
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>This is not different that MS claiming that you _can_ run Windows on a 286
>>>>with 1 mb of ram.  Of course, noone ever does this except to prove that it
>>>>can be done.
>>>
>>>Not so fast! I did that (i.e. run Windows on a 286 with 1MByte)
>>>for years, and was quite satisfied with its overall performance.
>>>
>>>Don't claim that nobody did something sucessfully, just because
>>>*you* never did.
>
>>Satisfied with Windows on a 286 with 1 meg?  You're kidding right?  I guess
>>you really liked the solitaire game.
>
>No, I never played solitare, I lack the necessary patience. But I did a lot of
>Windows programming on such a machine.

Then you have my sincerest pity and admiration for putting up with such a
beast.
>
>>Yes, on a lark I once installed Windows
>>on a DTK 286 with 1 meg of ram and a 40 meg hard drive.  It was one of the mos
t
>>pitiful sights I have ever seen.  I shudder to think what it would be like on
>>an XT.  Yes it can be done, but it *really* sucks and no claims anyone can
>>make will change that.
>
>You never used *really* slow machines, obviously. :-)
>
Ever tried a Timex Sinclair 1000?  I've got one of those sitting in a box at
home.  Now that is a *slow* computer.  A whopping 4K of RAM and a casette tape
for storage.  Hmmm... maybe we can squeeze windows on it...

>Wolfgang Strobl
>#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
>
-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT delayed again??? (PC Week Nov 2)
Date: 13 Nov 92 01:13:50 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

In <hatton.721472874@cgl.ucsf.edu> hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:

[posting of Brian]
>Well, it seems to me you listed several publications you have subscriptions
>to, and they have had articles concerning pertinent topics that you have
>omitted, including info that casts MS in a less than favourable light.
> 
>Small example - you claimed that the upcoming Unix OS releases would be 
>contenders against OS/2; in the Oct 12 InfoWorld, they cite Univel as
>giving end-user pricing for UnixWare: single-user version, $495. But, 
>nice gotcha, if you want Windows emulation (part of OS/2) it's a separate
>module - price $995. I don't remember you quoting the $1500 UnixWare 
>price at any time since then. Could it be because the pricing clearly 
>makes UnixWare *not* a contender?

Please. The man is biased. He is not payed by Microsoft to convince
people. I think you are a bit out of line here.

>Plus articles on the FTC investigation of MS - I don't remember seeing
>you post about that; criticism of MS about ODBC and non-Windows software,
>etc. You seem to be a tad selective in the "tidbits" you put up. And 
>caliming to be first on the delay of NT - ok, but I think you knew there
>would be a flurry of postings on that, so yours would have reduced 
>impact. Hardly balances the scoresheet.

I can't help finding your posting a little paranoid. Perhaps you don't agree
with Brians opinions (at least I don't agree with some of them) but this
doesn't seem very fair.


>Tom


Nico E. de Vries  (nevries@cc.ruu.nl) |------------------*   AA   III  PPP
_ This text is supplied AS IS, no warranties of any kind |  A  A   I   P  P
| apply. No rights can be derived from this text. This   |  AAAA   I   PPP
| text is likely to contain spelling and grammar errors. |  A  A   I   P
*---------------------------( Donate to GreenPeace! )----*  A  A  III  P

"The IBM PC is still waiting for a version of the CP/M OS.", G.M. Vose, 1982.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft blasting IBM into the dust?
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:13:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.191847.47990@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>
>I think they are capable of it, but they are still going through culture
>shock.  IBM is amazed that they have a product with mass appeal.  It is taking
>them a long time to adjust to this.  MS has no current products that I am
>aware of that don't rely at least in part on mass appeal.  They are used to
>it, IBM isn't as of yet.  As for Multimedia and networking, it has been argued
>(by me as well as others) that not everyone wants those things included with
>the base package.  I won't use them, and really don't wan't to see the price
>of the system jacked up.
>

Which might mean that Windows has more "bang for the buck."  I, for one,
was very pleased that I could just hook up a network (Lantastic in my case)
and have Windows recognize it--and hook up a CD-ROM drive and be able to
run applications in a DOS window (or Windows only apps--like Bookshelf
for Windows).

I was, am, really upset that OS/2 for the "upgrade" price of $49 was unable
to make use of the hardware I already had...  Windows at $49, has so far
proven to be more *useable* as far as applications are concerned (but not
BETTER)...

If IBM really wants to compete against Windows 3.1, they should consider
throwing, at least, rudimentary network support (ahhh, but if TCP/IP came
in the box, there would be no contest!) and support for up-and-coming
peripherals like CD-ROM (heck, their Ultimedia PC's *come* with CD-ROM
drives... and OS/2 out of the box doesn't support it?!)

Sure, why pay for it if you don't need it?  MS-DOS takes up 2-3 MB's on
my computer--90% of the programs I don't use.  But just because I don't
use it now, doesn't mean I won't use it later.  If MS can do it for DOS
(ala SHARE.EXE) and for Windows (built in support for networks such as
Novell and Lantastic et al), and still keep the price ($129 for Windows)
within reach, why can't IBM do the same?

>>
>>I think if IBM has any chance left at all then it is to release
>>a more complete OS/2 INCLUDING multimedia, LAN etc etc and to release
>>it in a way users can actually use. The CSD seems to take an expert to
>>install. I am refering to something an idiot can use. And please oh please
>>improve support for third party hardware a lot.
>>
>>But to be fair, I don't think this will happen before it is too late.
>>
>Stacy John Behrens
>*===)-------------

Joe

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu (D. Robert Spexet II)
Subject: Re: Workers hate windoze, revolution at 11!  :-)
Organization: University of Michigan, Mathematics Department, Ann Arbor
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:09:29 GMT

In article <GERRY.92Nov13123205@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>Loo, I don't want to insult your mon, but she's pretty stupid.  With
>the exception of TeX, which I assume she doesn't use, no text based
>editor even comes close to looking as good as the worst windows based
>editor.   Some people are still living in the dark ages, and think of
>computers as typewriters with built in spell checkers.  Luckily, that
>breed will soon die off.

Nonsense.  There are millions of people out in this world that use text-based
word-processing machines or programs to do their work.  With a decent text-
based system, you cannot tell the difference between its output and the output
from a GUI-based program.

>Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | The most foolish mistake we could possibly
>Field Robotics Center,          | make would be to allow the subjected people
>Carnegie Mellon University      | to carry arms, history shows that all
>Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | conquerors who have allowed their subjected
>(412) 268-3856                  | peoples to carry arms have prepared their own
>                                | fall. Adolph Hitler
>The opinions expressed are mine | 
>and do not reflect the official | 
>position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
>or any other organization.      | 


-- 
D. Robert Spexet II, N0OKR   Internet:  spexet@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: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 11:08:39 GMT

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>In <1992Oct31.205724.22655@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:

>>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>>In <1992Oct30.112231.3428@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:

>>>>It seems that when it comes to answering if Windows is an operating
>>>>system or not, people tend to (want to) forget basic knowledge.
>>>>Everybody starts saying things like, it performs many of the functions
>>>>of an os or, it's a better os than DOS (which implies it has already
>>>>been agreed on that it IS an os which was to be proven).

>>>>But as this poster points out, if X are the functions of an operating
>>>>system, windows is X - y (where y is at least point 1.) and since
>>>>X - y <> X, Windows cannot be an OS, even if you agree on the fact
>>>>that it performs 99% of an OS's functions, which is valid.

>>>>Arguments concerning DOS are to be ignored. You do not proof anything
>>>>about windows by disproving something else. Even though DOS does not
>>>>manage it's resource very sensible (far from it) or just plainly
>>>>sucks as an OS, that doesn't make Windows any more the OS.
>>>>Will considering that some people have no money at all, have you
>>>>more? It at best makes you feel better (but shouldn't).

>>>So, is it your contention that a computer running MS-DOS and Windows
>>>is running WITHOUT AN OPERATING SYSTEM OF ANY KIND?

>>Would you be so kind as to point out exactly between which lines
>>you read this?

>Simple.  You assert that Windows is not an operating system [I agree,
>but more later].  You then assert that DOS does less than Windows.


No I don't, I assert that DOS does it's stuff very badly and that it
sucks as an OS (if any). Yes, it does do less than windows if
you count the graphical interface and concurrenct, but those don't
make an OS, though I would include concurrency in a modern definition
of an OS.

>That implies that DOS can't be an operating system, either.  So
>running DOS and Windows together isn't an operating system, so there
>must not be one.

>Personally, I don't consider MS-DOS a real operating system, either.
>It's more of a sophisticated monitor-cum-bootstrap-loader.  Windows
>and DOS TOGETHER make an almost reasonable operating system.

True, only the bad protection and non-preemptive multitasking makes
it useless to many (me included).



-- 
Erik van Linstee   |   Delft University of Technology   |   I'll be back ... 
----
   We are god, 'cause only we can create the idea of his existence
   in our holy brains...  (Yello)
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to make OS/2 look bad ...
Date: 10 Nov 92 02:56:31 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <strobl.721229440@gmd.de>, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>In <4310@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> rvaniwaa@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ronal
d J. Vaniwaarden) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>>This is not different that MS claiming that you _can_ run Windows on a 286
>>with 1 mb of ram.  Of course, noone ever does this except to prove that it
>>can be done.
>
>Not so fast! I did that (i.e. run Windows on a 286 with 1MByte)
>for years, and was quite satisfied with its overall performance.
>
>Don't claim that nobody did something sucessfully, just because
>*you* never did.

Satisfied with Windows on a 286 with 1 meg?  You're kidding right?  I guess
you really liked the solitaire game.  Yes, on a lark I once installed Windows
on a DTK 286 with 1 meg of ram and a 40 meg hard drive.  It was one of the most
pitiful sights I have ever seen.  I shudder to think what it would be like on
an XT.  Yes it can be done, but it *really* sucks and no claims anyone can
make will change that.
>
>Wolfgang Strobl
>#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
>
-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
From: Bertram.Moshier@f115.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Bertram Moshier)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: MN OS/2 EUG Nov Meeting
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1992 12:51:46 -0600

                      Minnesota OS/2 End-user Group
                             November Meeting

Reservations requested:  Please call 612/397-6444 and register using
                         course code OS2.

When:   November 19, 1992 - 19:00 (7PM CDT) to 22:00 (10PM CDT)

Where:  IBM Building
        650 Third Avenue South (First Bank Place)
        Minneapolis, MN   55402

Agenda: Business Meeting
        Questions and Answers
        Vendor Presentation
                Lotus non-Communication Products

         Lotus will again come.  This time they will show off their
         non-communications OS/2 products (Ami-Pro, 1-2-3, and
         Freelance).

         BTW, if these products are as good as CC:Mail in providing an
         end-user object oriented interface - Microsoft is going out
         of the applications business.

        Member Presentation
                None (yet) scheduled.  Would you like to present?

Refreshments provided.  Door Prize:  None (yet).

Directions:  The IBM Building location is on Third Avenue South between
South Sixth Street and South Seventh Street.  IBM and First Bank share
the same building (First Bank Place).  You might ask directions when
registering.

Note:  Only two entrances are open - 6th Street and the skyway.

Parking:  Several parking ramps exist.

  Northstar Center - One block West of IBM.
  IBM/First Bank - Parking is expensive ($6.00 plus).
  Pillsbury Center - One and an half blocks North of IBM.
  Hennepin County Govt. Center - $2.00 after 4PM, last time I used it.


 * Origin: (1:282/115)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mrbill@leland.Stanford.EDU (William Bowen)
Subject: Re:  Why does OS/2 loose out in a PC Mag comparison test?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 92 03:58:58 GMT

In article <Bxnyq2.E03@news.iastate.edu> TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:

>...
>better.  Instead, they tried to see which operating environment
>could run windows programs better, which windows obviously won
>(probably didn't do the same tweaking I've done, since my Win-OS/2
>is as fast (sometimes faster than) windows 3.1.

Would you mind sharing your settings with us? My windows 3.1/DR-DOS 6.0
combination is _much_ faster than  OS/2 when running win apps and somewhat
faster running dos apps.

Regards,

Bill
mrbill@leland.stanford.edu
From: raffin@fhr.ma30.bull.com (Patrick Raffin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.0 wasn't ( was Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:57:48 GMT
Organization: Bull HN Information Systems Inc.

Let's take MS words for it:

.look into the *Windows* Resource Kit manual, there is a glossary at the end;

.look at the "operating system" entry;

.there are two examples of popular "operating systems":

	UNIX  and MS-DOS

--
Patrick RAFFIN, raffin@fhr.bull.com 
  __       Just a French tourist,
  \/       doesn't speak English, nor Unix
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: How to look bad yourself...
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:03:23 GMT

In <1992Nov11.131424.29225@spock.UUCP> roland@spock.uucp (David A. Braun) writes:

[64 unedited lines of quotes]

[12 lines of response]

And a Windoze user too, it seems.  Hmm, wonder if my snide comment about
the IQs of Windoze users was truer than I thought.  :-)

ObOS/2:  Yow, EPM is really quite a system, isn't it?  I wonder if
anyone has tried to write a mail/newsreader with it yet?  It certainly
has the power!  (ObAdvocacy: unlike any of the freebies that come with
Windoze!!)  :-)
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | "Don't you boys know NICE songs?"
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers |                 -- Joe's mama
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Another OS/2 Update? was: Is Microsoft...etc.
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 23:31:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.001313.13771@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
> 
> Which might mean that Windows has more "bang for the buck."  I, for one,
> was very pleased that I could just hook up a network (Lantastic in my case)
> and have Windows recognize it--and hook up a CD-ROM drive and be able to
> run applications in a DOS window (or Windows only apps--like Bookshelf
> for Windows).
> 
> I was, am, really upset that OS/2 for the "upgrade" price of $49 was unable
> to make use of the hardware I already had...  Windows at $49, has so far
> proven to be more *useable* as far as applications are concerned (but not
> BETTER)...

I have no doubt that there is a major update to OS/2 planned for release
*before* NT arrives on the market.                   ^^^^^^^

Win3.1 support has been in beta for months. MMPM/2 is already available. There
is good OS/2 faxing software and disk compression software is just around the
corner - unless Proportional Software are actually shipping product now....
 
What would it take to bundle these into an upgrade with a US$100-$150 price
tag? How much would OS/2 - shrink-wrapped - cost with basic versions of these
add-ons included? 
 
It would make on heck of a system. 
 
I have no information that this will occur other than what has been read in
this group. We are all used to Microsoft trumpeting vapourware for 2 or 3
years on the trot! IBM doesn't talk about products - generally speaking -
until they are products. Certainly, little can be obtained about
upgrades/etc., until they are about to be released. Perhaps they should change
this? I don't know. 
 
I would be a good thing, though, if the OS-buying market had a clear base-line
idea of what to expect for OS/2 in the next few months. 
 
MS has been wittering on about NT for 3 years and you still can't buy it off
the shelf.....yet the expectation of it's arrival has almost made it real. 
 
IBM will have to extend OS/2 if they want to gain a sustainable foothold in
the mass market. The extensions *are* already there. It would be nice to at
least have the option of buying them all in the one package. 
 
Basic OS/2?
OS/2 Extra?
OS/2 Extended Services?
 
Just a thought.
 
Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: What I heard from Microsoft about NT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:12:33 GMT

In <1992Nov9.173659.22724@spock.UUCP> roland@spock.uucp (David A. Braun) writes:

>>Unless NT is based on a hack of BSD4, why should we allow MS to start
>>at 3.1, while the rest of the industry has the guts to start at the
>>beginning?

>What makes you think the rest of the industry starts at the beginning?
>Do you recall a Lotus 000 through Lotus 122, for example? :-)

>Also, the OS 9 people seemed to jump right in at 9 (that's because OS 9
>was meant for the 6809, I believe).

>Software I'm working on now is jumping from 1.6 to 3.0 without stopping
>at 2.x.  (We are doing that because 1.6 was based on revision 1.6 of a
>specification document, and 3.0 is based on revision 3.0 of that document.
>We didn't implement a version that matched 2.x of the document, so we
>aren't naming any of our versions 2.x)

>For real confusion over versions, try to figure out which Unix goes
>where.  Let's see...32 > 5, so Unix 32V came after System V.  No?
>Well, BSD4 came before 7th Edition, right?  No?  Aaarrrgggghhhh!!!! :-)

Ok, somebody here would seem to be a plagiarist, since I've seen this
exact note (up to this point) with another sender listed).

>How about Autocad which went fron version 2 (or was it 3) to release 9!
>But seriously, be fair, they are just trying to show the user a connection
>from their DOS shell to their new OS...

You lost me on that last turn, but oh well.  Did they also change the
word Version to the word Release?  Anyway, somebody should probably
bash them about that, too, unless they had 6 major releases internally
that never shipped.  ;-)

-- 
"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,comp.os.os2.misc
From: tommy@msc.cornell.edu (Mike Thompson)
Subject: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:41:55 GMT

As a programmer trying to develop a 32 application for OS/2 2.0, I am 
increasingly finding it difficult to remain dedicated to OS/2 development.
I find it VERY funny that IBM should try to sell OS/2 as crashproof
operating system.  

Example 1: 
My lab machine runs IBM's TCP/IP in a networked environment.  The mean time
between system crashes is less than 24 hours.  Trap 8, trad D, trap E, just
plain hung - you name it, we've seen it.  Admittedly the machine is being
worked hard, but any UNIX system with that kind of performance would never
survive.  (Northgate 486/33, 16 MB memory, SpeedStar graphics, TCP/IP 1.2.1 +
all patches, OS/2+CSD).  My machine at home, similar configuration, traps
roughly every 2-3 days, better but it only gets used 4 hours per day.

Example 2: 
From programming, it is TRIVIAL to hang the OS.  Write a PM application and
before starting the StdWindow, create a named pipe and wait for another process
to access the pipe.  Hang city - the machine is long GONE!  Can't switch to any
other application.  And try this one after loading the CSD.  SubClass the
FrameWindow in a PM application to modify the RESIZE message.  Pass minimize
and maximize message unchanged to original routine.  Resize works correctly,
however, minimizing the window (only after the CSD is installed) will hang the
sytem - full reboot time again!  With 400 MB of HPFS partitions to chkdsk, the
mean time between debugging attempts is about 5 minutes.

It seems odd that in a multitasking environment one can write any application
that takes down the whole OS.  Blocked semaphores may trap your process, but
the scheduler should allow others to run.  Is it really so hard to preempt a
running process.

Are others getting as frustrated with the OS/2 environment as I.  Or have I
just been spoiled by the relative stability of large UNIX environments.  As I
said at the beginning, I am working with a company to put out a 32 bit app. 
But I am getting so frustrated that I wonder if its really worth the continued
effort.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy