HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 20 Dec 92 15:10:59 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

In article <8194@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>The "good ol' American way of doing business", as you put it, is being
>practiced by Bill Gates, in trying to drive other software companies out of
>business by sleazy, underhanded business practices. The FTC is about to come
>down on him like a ton of bricks, and it's long overdue.


	This is not the American way of business, as demonstrated
	by our high number of anti-monopoly laws.  The type of business
	that Microsoft is accused of practicing, if anything, seeks
	to undermine the American kind of capitalism.


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

	     Rule 1:  "Don't have more children than you can feed."
	  	  Nuclear redevelopment for a better world!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: Survivability
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:41:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.194222.17458@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>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.
>

You'd better not mention NT here again, Yami.

Ted
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10482 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3261
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rude behavior on this group.
Date: 17 Dec 1992 04:32:09 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec16.234708.18159@microsoft.com> richs@microsoft.com (Rick Schaut) writes:
>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?

The problem is that there are manufacturers out there who will not sell you a
machine without Windows. Those manufacturers claim that they are prohibited by
the terms of their licensing agreement with MS from selling a machine without
Windows. Those manufacturers will not sell me a machine unless they change
their minds. 
-- 
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.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: world
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 13:44:30 -0800
From: Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: Egghead flyer
Comment-To: George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

 GM>  It was pointed out that in the whole flyer, the OS/2 ad was the
 GM> only one in black and white. I can't verify, since I threw the
flyer
 GM> away after a few days. 

That's true.  I was wondering about the reason for that myself.



--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: hwhalen@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Hugh Whalen)
Subject: Re: Rude behavior on this group.
Organization: Faculty of Administration, University of New Brunswick
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:21:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.183951.23430@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Dec15.054239.12858@microsoft.com> richs@microsoft.com (Rick Schaut) writes:

[enormous amount of stuff on passing through costs deleted]
>
>And you can bet that those costs are 'passed through', or you're
>looking at a vendor who won't be in business very long.
>

Not necessarily. For example.

Selling price of PC is $1500, cost is $1200 so profit per unit is 
$300. Producer sells 10,000 units so profit is $3,000,000. 

Producer adds in software with cost of $50. Cost is now $1250 and 
selling price *remains*  at $1500 so profit per unit is $250. But (and 
this is the important part) since software is now included the 
producer sells 12,000 units. Profit is again $3,000,000. If the 
producer sells more than 2,000 extra units his profit will in fact be 
higher. If he sells less than 2,000 extra units he will have made a 
bad business decision and will make less profit. What counts is 
*total* profit not profit per unit. Businesses make these types of 
decisions all the time. While it may seem reasonable that costs are 
*passed through* this is not always the case. 

Cost is only one factor that a business considers when setting a 
selling price. Other factors such as price/demand, competition, etc. 
are often as important or more important.



Hugh Whalen                     | Where all men think alike, no one
Faculty of Administration       | thinks very much.
University of New Brunswick     |               - Walter Lippmann			


DISCLAIMER: Neither UNB nor I care what the other thinks.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:35:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.192938.10637@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>BTW, I responded to your "benchmark" and haven't got an answer.
>In particular, I would very much like to see the breakdown figures for
>individual tests as I'm sure they will tell a different story from
>the one global one.  Also, could you tell me where I can get the same
>benchmark program?  I think it should be tried on different (preferably
>non-IBM) hardware.
>
>I also resent the fact you cross-posted to the programmers groups and
>c.o.o.misc.
>Your message was clearly a biased advocacy message, but you expect
>people that followup to only post to the advocacy group.
>This basically means that there are people (especially in c.o.o.misc)
>that have the wrong impression of the whole matter.
>
>First that "benchmark" and now this message... I'm a bit surprised...
>it's not like you to spread FUD, Tim.
>
>Brian

Brian, this takes the cake.  Quit whining like a little child who's had their
feelings hurt, just because facts don't agree with your view  of the world.
You can run your own benchmarks (and, as you should note in the original post,
it was done with a standard PC labs windows benchmarker), but that does not
change the benchmarks that were run.  If you think that there is something
wrong with the premise, fine, point it out, but the figures are *VALID* for
that configuration.  That is NOT FUD.  That is not even bias!  Tell me how
WinBench is biased, and maybe you'll convince me.  Tim's explanation of the
circumstances surrounding the test were clear and particularly fair.  He
took pains to explain the exact situation for each test, and what precautions
were taken to prevent skew of the measurements (like making sure there was
no paging under either system, unlike an MS comparison I can think of, and
noting the fact that the NT beta is not recommended for benchmarking purposes).

If there is anyone wearing rose-colored glasses, it's you.  Now why don't
you go perform your own benchmarks to counter Tim's.  Be sure you are as
fair and thorough as he was, though, if you please. 

I think you're over-reacting because
you're afraid people have no brains and can't make proper judgments for them-
selves.  Unfortunately, instead of showing the Big Picture to others, you
end up shielding yourself from that same view.

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: world
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 16:38:18 -0800
From: George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: Re: Discovered: Microsof
Comment-To: Marc_Fraioli@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

>You do realize that there are a number of undocumented calls in
OS/2... does
>this mean that IBM is unfair?
>
MF>And I'm sure that you also realize that IBM doesn't make the
MF>best-selling apps for OS/2, as Microsoft does for Windows.  If it
did,

 Hey, it's not Microsofts fault that they know how to write good
applications programs and IBM knows squat about doing the same. 
___
 * MR/2 1.32 NR * Old MacDonald had a computer, with EIA I/O...

--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: Re: Discovered: Microsoft using undocumented calls in Windows NT
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 10:31:13 GMT

sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> The API used by PSTAT is now documented, Kai.  [...]
> It was not documented in OS/2 1.3, however, and it didn't make it into
> the main OS/2 2.0 documentation.  This call is important to third
> party utilities, and I do think the corresponding call in NT should be
> documented by Microsoft.  

Cameron Myhrvald, head of Microsoft's developer relations, announced in a
recent Infoworld (I'm pretty sure -- this is from memory!) that Microsoft
would in fact produce documentation for the "undocumented" calls in Windows
NT, but would still recommend against using them,

Could we just put this issue to rest now, please?

[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Win bigots wait for NT...and wait..and wait
Date: 15 Dec 92 10:17:52 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Dec11.031830.18215@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
> 
> I am aware of the service pack only because of what I read here on the
> net.  I am a registered owner (not user) of OS/2 2.0, indeed, IBM
> manages to send two copies of everything (like that cheesy "OS/2
> Professional" 'magazine' some weeks ago) to me.  I have yet to hear from
> them about the Service Pack.  This is no surprise, though, since it took
> them over three months to get me GA in the first place.
> 
> I figure they'll send me something about the SP just about the same time
> I read on the net that OS/2 2.1 is 'available' (which apparently is an
> IBM term meaning "I've got it and you don't" :)  It doesn't matter.
> Windows works better for me anywho.

Just for the record....I have registered a fair bit of software in recent
years and IBM is the ONLY company who have ever sent me any information about
updates.
 
I have imported a fair bit of software from US vendors. I send my registration
cards away.....but never hear another thing. I guess they don't honour
overseas registrations. On the other hand....I don't like paying a few hundrd
dollars extra in order to get the local mail-outs. 
 
The Net strikes a nice balance.
 
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".
From: rlosee@unlinfo.unl.edu (Robert Losee)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why OS/2 will DEFINITELY fail
Date: 15 Dec 1992 17:12:05 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: unlinfo.unl.edu

olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund) writes:

>In article <1992Dec15.010430.4930@ryn.mro4.dec.com> pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com (Peter Mayne) writes:

>   I sincerely hope and trust that NT will *NOT* run all DOS/Windows programs.
>   As an NT system administrator, I do not want an ordinary user running a DOS
>   disk utility and reading/writing disks directly. Neither do I want a Windows
>   program spying on messages being passed to other users' processes.

>I see no reason to disagree on that. But then it should not be
>marketed as a high end Windows 3.1 with no clues about the limitations
>(at least not in the ads that I have seen so far). If one look at they
>way MS is already advertising NT (saying that it will be available to
>end users early 1993), they try to ripe the success of Win 3.1, but
>that is a strategy that can very well backfire if NT does not have
>full backward compatibility. It does not have to be anything wrong
>with NT as a product, the problem is MS' marketing.

I'd have to agree with you Olav.  My wife supports or knows of several
hundred OS/2 systems with the State of Nebraska.  I asked her what her
thoughts were on how many others were wanting to convert to OS/2.  She
said that I had to understand that most departments could barely
afford a PC, were still running DOS, and didn't want to give up the
software they developed or software they purchased.  That's also my
impression in supporting computers where I work.  Also users are
whelmingling DOS users, most haven't even gone to Windows yet.

To capture this market share as they eventually convert over, I
conclude they are going to be looking for something that's as cheap
as possible in all catagories.  They'll want their old software to
work (so they don't have to pay for more), and want it to run on the
less expensive machines. Currently it sounds like OS/2 wins in these
criteria.  I believe MS is running a risky stategy if they don't
offer very complete and easy backward compatibility.
--
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
Robert D. Losee                 BITNET: ucas402@unlvm
University of Nebraska          Internet: rlosee@unlinfo.unl.edu
Lincoln NE  68588-0496          Phone: (402) 472-7663
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: toddc@addiction.inslab.uky.edu (Todd Caldwell)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.1 specifications, release date.
Reply-To: toddc@inslab.uky.edu
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:45:51 GMT

In article <3500@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de  
Vries) writes:
> Here the official specs of OS/2 2.1 directly from IBM:
> 
> - more printer drivers
> - Windows 3.1 support
> - native Windows 3.1 performance with 8Mb RAM machines
> - improved performance for low memory configurations
> - 32bit graphics engine
> - multimedia support
> - portable PC support
> - CD-ROM version
> 
> 
> OS/2 2.1 will be released end february, begin march 1993.

How is the upgrade going to be handled.  Buy the whole new package,  
upgrade for a small fee?  I just bought 2.0 and would hate to have fork  
out another 100+.  Thanks

Todd Caldwell
From: lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (BRIAN PAUL VAN LIEU)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: The "Major" bug in Winos2 v3.1
Date: 19 Dec 92 02:37:40 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

>I think the "major" bug is another one...
>when using WinWord 2, first everything works fine, then later it puts all
>ComboBoxes *under* the Window that generates them!
>
>So when one makes them drop they cannot be seen, and they can only be
>changed with the Keyboard (with blind flight since mostly it doesn't even
>update that one line that one always sees).
>
>This is almost the only bug I found... the second and last one, is when
>WinOS2 3.1 is trying to reboot itself :-)), then it hangs.
>It is obvious that it does not work, but instead of hanging it should generate
>an error or something like that.
>
>
>         Aurelio Caliaro
>

    Nope. This was an immediate bug found in the *first* beta, and could be
    cured by replacing a dll with a dll from the Developer's toolkit.

    Isn't this 'bug' we are speculating on supposedly coming from a beta
    version that is top secret??? How are we suposed to know?

    Just seems like a silly thread...

                                                        cheers,

                                                        bvl
-- 

  Brian P. Van Lieu
  Lehigh University-AXP
  lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu

            OS/2 2.0...anything else is just a DOS.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: lfosdal@falcon.no (Lars Fosdal)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: MS vs IBM's bug reporting/fixing
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 10:40:04 MET
Organization: Falcon Information Services AS, Oslo, Norway

hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:

[...first part of msg deleted...]

> Have you ever seen the list of "hundreds of bug fixes" that Win3.1
> corrected? No. MS doesn't feel up to publishing bugs; IBM does.

Many of these bugs (and fixes) are described in detail on the Developers
Network CDROM.  Still, I agree that IBM does a better job of publishing
bugreports and distributing fixes.

However, MS is learning, and the Developers Network program will 
hopefully improve their services in this area.  But, MS will suck 
your wallet for this service... Participating in the program costs
about 3000 NOK per year (approx. US$ 460).  This isn't much for the
corporate user, but it will probably stop "the masses" from joining.


> Tom Hatton
> hatton@cgl.ucsf.edu
> (415)-476-7986

Lars F.
--
/ Mr.Lars Fosdal, Software Developer, Financial Analysis Systems  /
/ Falcon Information Services AS, Stranden 1, N-0250 Oslo, Norway /
/ E-mail:lfosdal@falcon.no  Tel:(47-2) 831310  Fax:(47-2) 831290  /
-- All opinions are personal and does not reflect company policy --
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mph@plasma.apana.org.au (Martin Peter Howell)
Subject: Re: The Bottom Line
Organization: APANA site, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:39:05 GMT

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

>	The thing I can't believe is that you guys are making
>	such an issue of RAM requirements.  OS/2 really likes
>	~16 megs.  That's the truth.  Even if NT _requires_
>	16 megs of ram, it's really not going to make a big deal--
>	what is that, $320 for most highspeed systems?  Less,
>	soon (hopefully).  Truly, BFD.  

I think the point is that if Micro$oft want NT to be popular then 
it is going to have to fit on the hardware everyone has today,
people are not goint to upgrade their machines just to get the
same performance they would using another OS on their existing
systems.

>	Memory will not be a deciding factor.  It'sgetting
>	rediculously cheap (compare the price of four megs now,
>i	or better yet--three months ago--to the price two years
>	ago...)

Most motherbaords only have 8 simm sockets these days which means
they usually have to throw away their 1M simms and replace them 
with 4 4M simms to get to 16M.  If people have 8M in their machines
which they can run OS/2, they are not going to be happy about 
shelling out 360$ (on top of the software costs) just to run NT.
I think it is also critical for NT to be a popular system from the
mement it is released (not just when memory proces fall) otherwise,
it just extends OS/2s lead.

-Martin.
mph@plasma.apana.org.au
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Survivability
Date: 15 Dec 92 03:22:23 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.204135.18209@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>>>	OTOH, it's not here yet, and to IBM 1 month really means
>>>	120 days.  Go FUD yourself.
>>>
>>
>>You'd better not mention NT here again, Yami.

>	Technical discussions are not FUD in the same way this was--
>	as it was in response to a "what should I buy?" post--
>	telling someone to buy OS/2 because "3.1 support will be along
>	soon" is junk, and really bad advice.
> 
>	Makes about as much sense as telling them to wait for NT.  Plus
>	this guy uses mostly Windows programs, so switching to OS/2 in it's
>	current incarnation is a cruel recommendation.

A point of information - J. Soyring has been quoted in several places,
including CIS, saying that the next release is already "in press" 
going to diskette, so "soon" for OS2 is a very different animal from
the Microsoft "soon" for NT. And secondly, have you run Win apps on
WinOS231? They perform almost as fast by benchmark (Winbench) on my
machine with the first beta, which is supported by observation (only 
in some graphics areas was it detectably slower, as in watching the
Solitaire deck dance away, f'rinstance). Given some improvements I
don't find it hard to believe that the current level of the Win3.1
support could be even slightly faster. 
 
It may not be for everyone, certainly not for you, but to generalize
that further is ludicrous. Cruelty would be advising him to wait 
for NT.
 


-- 
Tom Hatton
hatton@cgl.ucsf.edu
(415)-476-7986
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: louis@oak.ucsc.edu (Louis Goldstein)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Windowed Text Sizes
Date: 11 Dec 1992 19:03:21 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: louis@arapaho.ucsc.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: oak.ucsc.edu

Can't help you with the Genoa font sizes, but to get it to open maximized, open
a window, press and hold the shift key, and maximize the window.  This will make
it default to maximized.  You can also move the window with the shift key 
pressed to change it's default position.

Louis
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.networking,comp.os.os2.programmer
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: IBM TCP/IP: how to get my own address????
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:12:59 GMT

In article <724545243rommel.root@jonas.gold.sub.org> rommel@jonas.gold.sub.org (Kai Uwe Rommel) writes:
>If I use IBM's TCP/IP, how am I supposed to get the host name/address
>of the local system? There is no gethostname() call and gethostid()
>always returns -1. Could anyone PLEASE tell me how I can solve this
>stupid problem? What else can I do (except perhaps calling
>sock_init()) before calling gehostid() to have it succeed?
>Is it me that I don't see an overly simple solution or is the
>programmer's kit of IBM's TCP/IP so bad?

Just out of curiosity, have you looked at the new 32-bit TCP/IP
headers?  They are available in the file PROGCSD.ZIP (I believe) in
/pub/uploads/sharebbs on ftp-os2.nmsu.edu.  (That's roughly correct,
anyway.)

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0h, available from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.networking
From: acifuen@tolten.puc.cl (A. C.i.f.u.e.n.)
Subject: OS2 & slip? (faq?)
Organization: Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:10:07 GMT

Hi!       
	I want to make a slip connection with OS2, and i don't know the
software i need, or where is the faq of this group (i think that
question is on the faq).
	I have experience installing slip with MSDOS, and MS-WINDOWS, i
hope someone can help me.

	Alejandro Cifuentes H.
	acifuen@tolten.puc.cl

P.S.: Sorry about english, i speak spanish :)