HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: richs@microsoft.com (Rick Schaut)
Subject: Re: Rude behavior on this group.
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:59:16 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Reply-To: richs@microsoft.com (Rick Schaut)
Distribution:  world,local

In article <1992Dec17.074830.3234@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.234708.18159@microsoft.com> richs@microsoft.com (Rick Schaut) writes:
>>It is my position that demand must be such
>>that vendors will be able to sell at a price which exceeds the additional
>>costs.  It is demand which makes the whole thing possible in the first
>>place.

>I demand to buy a computer without DOS or Windows pre-installed.

And if there aren't enough people who make the same "demand", then vendors
can't charge enough to cover the costs of producing a machine even without
Windows.

>>Presumably people who don't want a machine bundled with Windows can ask for
>>a machine without Windows and get a machine without Windows.  So what's the
>>problem?

>I called different computer sellers to get a machine and they would not sell
>me a computer without Windows 3.1 and DOS 5.0.

And I called a local computer store which is willing to sell a DOS only box
without Windows.  (I didn't ask about an OS/2 only box.)

>Give me a good reason why
>computer sellers will not sell computers without Win and DOS.

It's possible that there's a very good reason: it costs too much.  There
can be two basic reasons for this.  The first is that their productive
capacity may be such that selling any DOS only box is a box that isn't
sold with Windows.  Why should a seller sell a DOS only box to you at the
discount you expect when that same box, with the addition of Windows, can
be sold to someone else at a higher price?

Secondly, it's possible that firms enjoy a sufficient cost savings from
having a singular line of production to preclude breaking out a second
completion phase.  Economies of scale can actually be such that the per-box
costs of production are less under a single line than if the producer made
two different software configurations.  If this is the case, then you would
actually pay more for DOS only boxes than you pay if the manufacturer makes
only DOS+Windows boxes.  Do you have a better definition of "freebie" than
that the price is lower?

>P.S.  Did you ever buy a PC?

Yes.

Did you ever take an Economics course?


-- 
Rick Schaut
UUCP:...{uunet | uw-beaver}!microsoft!richs

Microsoft doesn't speak for me, and I don't speak for Microsoft.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: More Controversial Topics
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:49:30 GMT

In article <BzDAw1.LvD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk) writes:
>merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes:
>
>>>About the most processors I've heard of on a SMP machine is 16.  
>
>>The Alliant FX/2800 has 28 SMP processors which can either be assigned
>>individually to execute individual task threads or ganged in groups of
>>14 to simultaneously execute a single task.  Even two processors makes
>>a considerable difference in execution time when the application makes
>>good use of those processors (i.e. brlcad).
>
>Still, this isn't anything like the 150 or so processors that the original
>poster stated.
>

Here's a quote from "Computer Organization" by Hamacher, Vranesic, and Zaky,
Chap. 12, p. 483:
"	Intel Corporation produces a hypercube machine with MIMD capabilities
called the iPSC, which can have up to 128 computer nodes.  Each node contains
a 32-bit microprocessor and has general computation capability."

MIMD is multiple instruction stream, multiple data stream computing.  I.E.
each processing element has it's own instruction set that works on its
own data, which is SMP capability.

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Be more creative than the FTC!
Date: 21 Dec 92 04:29:09 GMT
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Dec20.220753.1755@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>Why don't Novel, Lotus, et al, find a more creative solution to their problem
>than just using the FTC as a club against Microsoft?  Here are some better
>alternatives:
>
>
>1.  Form a consortium with Digital Research (who makes DR DOS, a fully
>    compatible MS DOS clone) to make a Windows 3.x clone.
>
>2.  Better yet, stop developing for Windows/Dos until Microsoft does what
>    they want it to.  Power plays go both ways.  At this point Microsoft's
>    biggest nightmare would be if all of the big software houses dumped
>    Windows and Windows NT and started developing for OS/2 and Unix.
>
>3.  Cut special deals with PC clone vendors who don't bundle MS-DOS/windows.
>    If they bundle OS/2, give them discount versions of Lotus 123 for
>    OS/2 or Novel for OS/2.
>
>4.  Charge higher prices for Windows versions of their software than for
>    OS/2, Mac, or UNIX versions.  
>   
>If Windows 3.x wasn't being supported by software developers, it would be
>going nowhere.  If other software companies don't like the way that 
>Microsoft plays, then they don't have to play with Microsoft.  There are
>other games in town.

While your suggestions are valid, infact they make perfect sense,
and any reasonable person would consider them, remember that people
like Ray Noorda, and Jim Manzi run these companies. Their egos wont
let them be reasonable, and besides, when you in it strictly for
the money, every dollar counts... :)

One of these days, these turkeys will take a lesson from someone
like Phillipe Khan, who understands the market and is passionate
about his technology and giving value for the dollar. Then and olny
then can we get on with the business of producing GOOD software not
RICH lawyers.


JMHO...

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: goyal@utdallas.edu (MOHIT K GOYAL)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.1 specifications, release date.
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:35:07 GMT

>>I'm not sure exactly what drivers will be their but I know that Tseng ET4000,
>>Trident 8900c, S3 (not sure which all chips), 8514/a, xga-2...
>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Does anybody know the whole list of chips/partnumbers for the S3
>line?  Plus description of differences?  (Just curious about a
>card).
>
I know that S3 has released drivers for it 911 chip.(the most popular) to 
video card makers, and they are suppossed to fine tune them for their
particular card.

(Orchid has just released drivers for its S3 card to the public)
From: jws@iastate.edu (James William Shoemaker)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: * IBM's OS/2 2.0 Scores Big *
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:26:02 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA

> That's great, but what about real apps. Look at Excel for both. Look at
> 123 for both. Look at Microsoft word for both. (If you want to see a real
> pathetic discrepency, look at Describe vs. a good Windows word processor, like
> Amipro. Probably an order of magnitude difference). Look at how slow AutoCAD
> for OS/2 is. You get the point.

	And everybody knows how blindingly fast AutoCAD for Windows is.

				JWS
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 20 Dec 92 20:30:00 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <8194@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec20.052923.23904@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> >Yep, that's the good ol' American way of doing business alright.  If you can't
|> >compete with someone, just get the Federal Goverment to break up their 
|> >company.  The real "predatory practices" going on here are those vultures
|> >of rival companies who are waiting to pick the bones of what's left of
|> >Microsoft after the FTC's guts the carcass.
|> 
|> I had to go back to the top of this article just to see if it was being posted
|> from microsoft.com. This is some of the brown-nosiest writing I've seen in
|> some time. 

Nope--I'm not from Microsoft, I just hate to see _anybody_ torn apart by the FTC.

|>The simple fact is that MS isn't playing fair - they force
|> manufacturers to sell machines with Windows and DOS preloaded (don't believe
|> that? just try to buy one without!),

Wait a minute--they "force" manufacturers to sell Windows and DOS?  Microsoft
won't hold a gun to the head of anybody who wants to sell their machine with
DR DOS or OS/2 preloaded.  However, the FTC most certainly will hold a gun
to Bill Gate's head and escort him to the Federal Pen if he doesn't obey
their dictums.  Whose using "force" here--Microsoft or its rival companies?

|> they use undocumented OS calls in their
|> apps, and they remove features from their development tools just to hinder a
|> competing OS. Sure sounds like they're playing fair to me.

*sigh*  The OS belongs to Microsoft.  Its THEIRS.  They OWN it.  They have the
right to tell, or not to tell, anybody _anything_ about it because its not
yours, its not mine, its not the FTC's, its Microsoft's.  That's what 
"ownership" is all about.
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: To brian and other interested parties
Date: 15 Dec 92 01:54:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Dec15.015426.20650
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Dec13.210248.9991@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.091901.27462@cs.brown.edu> wcn@cs.brown.edu (Wen-Chun Ni) writes:
>>
>>   (2) Unix guys, though ignorant of what NT is, really don't care about
>>       it. Few of my classmates show interests in NT. The stereotype is
>            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>       basically from the bad image of MS (who produces, huh, MSDOS and
>>       MS-Windows). Many of the Unix guys are using workstations and
>>       they loathe the interface of MSWindows. What MS to them is a
>>       big company producing lousy software. Brian Sturgill *might* know
>>       this. Many MS employees *might* know this.
>
>Well, now, there's a standard for determing facts!  Who do your
>classmates think will win the superbowl (I'll get my bets in now!)  
>
>[deletions galore]
>>
>>Wen-Chun Ni, wcn@cs.brown.edu         (401) 863-7669
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>jmalloy@hamilton.edu
>

Care to cut me in on the action ? :):)

One thing these students don't realize, is that Unix and DOS come
from two completely separate worlds. You cant compare a 16 bit
program loader designed for a single user, with a multi-user
multi-tasking operating system. They can snivel about it all they
want, but it does not hold water in the real world.

To wit:

Because DOS is such a simplistic interface/control program in
comparision to UNIX, it takes me far less time to develope simple
applications on it that do very powerful things. When the apps want
to share their data and execution with more than one person, they
are either copied and run on a separate machine, or are managed
under something really silly like Netware. So, to a limited extent,
they can simulate distributive processing.

Now UNIX on the other hand, is designed to do just that:
distributive processing, which has very little functional use in
the single user world, though, until OS/2, I would have given my
right arm for multi-tasking. It's made to be used by Groups of
People, not just a single person.

Probably preaching to the choir here, but it really annoys me when
people start comparing things they don't understand and trumpet it
loudly as the gospel truth...

JMHO...

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT, OS/2, and Marketing
Date: 14 Dec 92 20:13:51 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <168B7F3EE.CFORDE@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca> CFORDE@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca writes:
>>In article <1992Dec8.203907.6732@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca>
>...
>>OS/2 apps can do things that Windows apps can't.  But until more are
>>available that exploit OS/2 features it doesn't matter.  MS has been
>>working very hard to convince ISV's not to develop for OS/2.  I think
>>that is a more effective tactic than marketing.  Or is that marketing
>>to the ISV's?

>Do you have even the thinest shread of evidence that MS has ever tried
>to convince ISV's not to develop for OS/2?

Removing OS2 code production from their C compiler? Or does removing 
a tool for making OS2 code not matter to an ISV? Do they write their
own compilers? No wonder it takes so long to get software out.


-- 
Tom Hatton
hatton@cgl.ucsf.edu
(415)-476-7986
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rkl@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (kevin.laux)
Subject: Re: Rude behavior on this group.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:56:39 GMT

In article <8084@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
> In article <11DEC199209480237@moose.cccs.umn.edu> rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu writes:
> >In article <1992Dec10.154850.21295@Celestial.COM>, ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones) writes:
> >> It seems that a lot of people are attacking this practice.  The following is
> >> quoted from yesterdays (Dec. 9, 1992) Seattle Times.
> [...]
> >> Microsoft contracts give significatn price breaks to large-volume
> >> manufacturers who agree to install DOS on every machine they sell.
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >The FTC's concern was not with the practice or even the pricing; but rather, 
> >the length of the contract involved. Microsoft doesn't prevent you from
> >shipping another OS with your machine.
> 
> Sure looks like they do...or at least require you to install DOS, even if you
> do ship another OS. Kinda makes it hard for a vendor to preinstall OS/2 if
> they're required to preinstall DOS.
> 
> I would expect that the FTC wants more than just cutting the length of the
> contract.

	Actually, I believe that the rub is that Microsoft requires
manufacturers to pay the licensing fee *whether or not* they install DOS
on the machine.  They're not preventing other OS's from being installed,
but just collecting royalties for DOS even when it's not installed.  That
practice would get the FTC's attention.

-- 
________________________________________________________________________________
	R. Kevin Laux				Email: rkl1@hound.att.com
	AT&T Bell Labs				Voice: (908) 949-1160
	Holmdel, NJ 07733			Fax:   (908) 949-0959
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: \* IBM's OS/2 2.0 Scores Big \*
Date: 12 Dec 92 02:19:50 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Dec11.084222.1405@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> admiral@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Steve C Liu) writes:
>This is how the battle looks as I see it:
>
>	OS/2 2.0
>
>	32-bit kernel that runs on Intel processors
>	Pre-emptive Multi-tasking
>	Support for multithreading
>	Good crash protection
>	Object-Oriented file system

     I thought OS/2 used either HPFS or FAT - what is object-oriented
about either of those?


>	Does not have "creature comforts" like MM, SSVGA, etc.

    I also thought that there was a multimedia package out for OS/2
these days.


>	Windows NT
>
>	32-bit Kernel that runs on Intel, MIPS R4000

     Also Alpha.


>	Non-object oriented file system

    NT currently supports HPFS and FAT, same as OS/2.  Also has NTFS.
I wouldn't call any of these "object-oriented", though.


>	No SMP motherboards

    Huh?  This is a deficiency in the software?


>	Price: $500 (?)

    Less that $500.  I'm guessing about $199 for the release version.
Maybe less.

				-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,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: jurlwin@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU (Jeff Urlwin)
Subject: Re: Some miscellaneous questions about os/2 from early info
Organization: University of Maine, Department of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:43:26 GMT

In article <1gmd3rINNk8u@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> gupw@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Paul Wagland) writes:
>gilem@aix.rpi.edu (Michael R. Gile) writes:
>
>>When I was cleaning my desk, I found some information about os/2 from
>>back in may 1990 in MSJ.  Since it concerned os/2 2.0, I had some  
>>questions regarding these facts to see if they were actually true when
>>os/2 was released.
>
>>	1) it states that in os/2 2.0 the total code and data space available
>>to an app is 512Kb, and that this restriction will be removed in later version.
>>Is this really true? or is it only for console apps?  In my mind, this is 
>>a *BIG* problem, reminds me of MSDOS.
>
>arrgghhhh 512 *Kb*  At least under DOS I get 640 Kb, does that mean DOS
>is superiour??? (or that my spelling is attrocious????)
>
NO NO NO NO NO.  It may have been 512 MB...but not KB...  But I seriously
doubt many of us have 512MB free on our swap drive :)

Jeff



-- 
--------------------------------------
jurlwin@gandalf.umcs.maine.edu
Organization: Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Vienna, Austria
Date: Thursday, 10 Dec 1992 11:29:49 CET
From: FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Unicode - anyone knwos something ? (was Re: HPFS-386
 <1992Dec8.131620.7416@ludd.luth.se>

Sitting in Europe, having friends and relatives scattered all over Europe
and Japan, Unicode is a very much deserved and needed feature missing at the
moment in OS/2. This is very important for exchanging documents among different
countries.

Does anyone know (maybe from IBM) when Unicode is due under OS/2 ?

---rony
P.S.: The new release of the McIntosh operating system (7.1) ***has***
Unicode implemented already (I think Apple calls it Worldscript).
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Subject: Re: More Controversial Topics
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 11:25:09 GMT

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>In article <Bz5yG0.Cqo@news.cso.uiuc.edu> walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk) writes:
>>rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>>	It is my understanding, and this means that I'm draggin it out
>>>	of my memory, which is very poor these days, that this situation
>>>	really only occurs with some high number of processors--like
>>>	150 when you're talking about the Inmos T800 transputer.  However,
>>>	the last 20 or 30 processors add sufficiently little benefit
>>>	that it becomes almost pointless to add them.
>>
>>This will happen WAY before 150 or so processors on a SMP machine.  You've
>>got to remember that the processors share a main memory, so it's memory


>	You can buy T800 cards for the PC that have 4 processors.  Each
>	processor has 4 megs of memory *of it's own*.  In other words,
>	rethink your comment.

>>bandwidth that limits power and not the # of processors you can jam
>>onto a board.  About the most processors I've heard of on a SMP machine


>	What makes you think that all processors need go on one
>	board?  A backplane with a number of seperate CPU cards
>	would (and does) do nicely.


>>is 16.  Computers with more processors basically all use a distributed


>	I've heard of 32 for <$220,000 systems.  Then, of course,
>	there's things like a Connection Machine, the N-Cube, 
>	supercomputers and so on.

The connection machine and alike are a totally different thing. They
are not stand alone computers. Also they are not capable of running
multiple processes. They are in fact processor arrays doing the
same calculation on a huge set of data. They needn't communicate
directly to one and other, and they dont' (how would you suppose
a 65536 processor Connection machine would connect it's processors?).
What you guys are talking about, are either multiprocessors,
tightly coupled or lousely, or multicomputers. Multicomputers do
not have shared memory so given an appropriate connection scheme
there can be many on a single system. Multiprocessors do have
shared memory, either one piece shared by all (tightly coupled)
or made up of the local memories of each individual processor
(loosely coupled).

>>memory setup (each processor has it's own main memory) and communicate
>>by sending messages to each other.


>	And?  You can feel free to assume that this was precisely 
>	the machine I was describing.  The Inmos transputer has special
>	communicatiosn hardware (4 ?serial links/chip) for talking
>	one chip to another.     ^ correct

Erik
-- 
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)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 Application List 1/2
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:54:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.211119.10192@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.051119.6473@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>
>>11/23/92                Shipping OS/2 2.0 Applications                
>>                               (By Company)
>>******************************************************************************
>>
>>
>>Bitware, Software & Services        Nikon II                      61-6-2810175
>>Boffin Software                     BOFORM
>>Boffin Software                     Bufflo
>>Boffin Software                     Cobra
>>Boffin Software                     Dolittle
>                                     ^^^^^^^^
>Boy, does someone need help in choosing product names or what?  What
>Gaswat and HIPO, too?!  Is this some sort of joke padding to make the
>list look bigger than it really is?  And how many of these apps for for
>narrow vertical markets?
For your information Joe, Boffin Software is a real company.  And Yes,
it is all vertical market Software.  They are a Big Name in Geologic
Software.  You know, like Oil Companies, and Engineering Geological
firms.  Yep, the ones who got the first deliveries of the CRAY and
pronounced it TOO SLOW...

--Lowell Morrison
--Uncle Wolf

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Survivability
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:42:22 GMT

In article <2b2bd42c@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org> George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org writes:
>Yam> from one another).  OTOH, it is a lot slower and somewhat
>Yam> less stable than Win3.1, and has none of Win3.1's features.
> OTOH, I am using the WinOS231 subsystem (beta) and it is faster
>in all regards compared to MS-Windows 3.1. It should be available for
>general use (released) within a month or so. On file loads/saves it's 
>faster, on scrolls it's faster, on Winbench it's faster than the MS
>product. 

	OTOH, it's not here yet, and to IBM 1 month really means
	120 days.  Go FUD yourself.

-- 
	"If you can't eat sand, why the hell are you living in a desert?"


	Nuclear redevelopment for a better world!