HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: INTERESTING TIDBIT FROM S
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:30:00 -0600

After recieving shock-therapy, Pete Skelly mumbled the following to All:

>Why the FTC.
>1) Private interests have been nagging the gov't.
>   You know, the "MS has a big pie, and I can't get a piece by writing
>   good software, so I'll get the FTC to break them down"

   I'm not sure if you're attempting to belittle the FTC investigation by
implying that it is merely the result of competitors trying to break MS down.

If so, I have news for you, that is basically the primary function of the
FTC.  That is, to make sure that a company doesn't become so monopolistic
that it is impossible to compete with them.

___
 * MR/2 1.3 NR * Windows NT?  New Technology?  I don't think so...


 * Origin: (1:282/115)
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6739 comp.sys.intel:1831 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:25933
From: anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Anthony J Stieber)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: 2 Oct 1992 18:54:03 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <DOCONNOR.92Oct2081116@potato.sedona.intel.com> doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor) writes:
>IBM is selling it's own 80386-compatable and Intel486(R)-compatable chips
>to some Asian manufacturers. AMD sells 386-compatable chips, and Cyrix

I thought IBM could only sell the Intel-licensed processors if they
sold as part of a complete computer, or at least a motherboard.  I did
read about IBM selling just processors in one of the rumor/gossip columns.
--
<-:(= Anthony Stieber	anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu   uwm!uwmcsd4!anthony
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: Moving from X to Y.
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 05:10:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.161621.24432@lmt.mn.org> elliott@lmt.mn.org (David Elliott  MIS x 363) writes:
>discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>
>Once again, he's not asking you "What can you make more money with?", but
>"What would YOU PERSONALLY prefer to use if all other things were equal?"
>Can you honestly say that if you could make just as much money developing
>for the NeXT as you can with Windows, that you would stick with Windows
>because you prefer its interface to that of the NeXT?
>

Oh I see.  You want me to ignore reality, and pretend all things are equal?
Well, hate to break this to you, they aren't.  And for this reason, I would
PERSONALLY prefer to work with Windows+DOS and make money--than work with
OS/2 2.0 and wait four or five months before I make money.

This is my last post on the subject.  It isn't funny any more.

My opinions

Joe

>-- 
>Elliott
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>davide@ramrod.lmt.mn.org   |   Did you hear about the cannibal 
>elliott@dunky.lmt.mn.org   |   who passed his brother in the forest?


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: vick-paul@CS.YALE.EDU (Paul A. Vick)
Subject: Re: INTERESTING TIDBIT FROM S
Organization: a tiny, little division of yale.
	<1992Sep30.194234.529@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:43:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.194234.529@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>
>>     Of course, Zachmann's claims have zero evidence so far.  This is
>>essentially "Zachmann's word vs. his editors'".  This does not preclude
>>his accusations being true, but it seems to me that if he had any
>>proof he would have presented it already.
>
>So are you implying that the Microsoft credo is that it's ok as long
>as you don't leave any solid evidence?
>

No, I think he's just saying that Microsoft is, in theory, innocent
until proven guilty. Since there is only Zachmann's words backing up
the "Microsoft conspiracy," and no other hard evidence, then one can
not convict Microsoft of "sleazeball tricks." One can certainly
believe whatever one likes about Microsoft, true or untrue, and indeed
many people seem to do so, here and elsewhere.

Paul
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Vick                  | "Stands to reason? What a silly expression. Why
Internet: vick@cs.yale.edu | not 'lies down to reason'? Much easier to reason
Bitnet: VICPAUA@YALEVM     | lying down..." - Tom Baker
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6735 comp.sys.intel:1830 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:25925
From: basker@diku.dk (Tom Thuneby)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: 1 Oct 92 11:19:10 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:

>The emulation, or probably translation, will
>approximately double the execution time.

I don't think you'll be able to do a translation from the binary. Not
considering 'dirty programming' such as self-modifying code, assuming
the same representation for the processor's data type, hoping that the
new code would also fit into a 64K segment, there will still be problems.
Some programs fetch code from overlay files, as well as data from data
files. You'll have to be able to tell the difference between code and data
at translation time, and to update overlay files, and the corresponding
information about overlay module addresses and sizes. I think that it,
in general, will be undecidable what is used as code and what is used
as data.

Emulation probably won't be as fast as half the speed of the original
program. I've written a Z80 emulator for the 8086 family, and even
though it was written in assembler, the flags almost were the same
on the two processors, and the Z80 address space fitted nicely into
a 8086 segment, the emulation slowed things down by a factor of ~10.
(this is comparing a 4 MHz Z80 to the emulator running on a 4 MHz 8088
on the same architecture). For totally different architectures, the
cost would be higher (I'm reasonably confident in the effectiveness
of my code), for the same processor family, the cost would be lower.

>Since your new machine will be at
>least twice the speed of the old one, the application will actually run as
>fast as it always did. It is, of course, slower than a native version but it
>is also cheaper and you don't have to wait for it to be released (which neatly
>brings us back to OS/2 again :-)

Emulation is a nice thing, but it costs in terms of speed.  Would
you buy a $10000 workstation to run your old code as fast as a $1000
PC clone would do? If you need speed for your old code, then not
even $10000 workstations would satisfy you - you'd want native
execution on fast PC's. You would probably consider buying a new
workstation AND new software for it (if it was avaliable), but the
PC solution would be MUCH cheaper.

		Tom Thuneby (basker@diku.dk)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 00:08:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.173942.23828@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.042126.17499@u.washington.edu> mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth) writes:
>>Of course, there are scads of us that do need many of the features that NT wil
>>provide.  I'm slowly working on getting those features with os/2, but it would
>>be very nice to have the features built into the os!  About 7,000 - 9,000 users
>>here would agree.  By the way, the TCP/IP product from IBM is very nice...as is
>>the X windows package (albeit a bit buggy).  Of course, they cost me an extra 
>>250 bucks....I'd have preferred that they be built into the os and included in 
>>the price. 
>
>So that all the non-TCP/IP users (like myself) should pay for your
>installation.  No thanks.

David, I'm sorry I'm not making myself clear.  I think that networking is an
important part of the future of computing.  I think that integrating it
into the base os is a good thing for a number of reasons.  Those reasons are
fairly obvious.  Economies of scale, standardization, making it available at 
minimal extra cost will help all of us communicate with one another.  I'm not
sure how you hook into the internet, but if you have a direct connect you are 
using something as a program to connect.  If you are using a modem, you are 
using a modem program.  I'd suggest that we'd all be better off if our 
OS provided the tools to help us do that.  I'm not sure what business you are
in that you don't need to communicate with your co-workers, but I'd guess that
you will need to do so at some point in the future.  You can buy the package
when the time comes, but if it is inexpensive enough it sure would be nice to 
have it built in! >
>
>-- 
>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"


-- 
Mark Huth                         * Is it too wild to want to get into 
Mhuth@u.washington.edu            * Space someday?
Compuserve 70346,563              *
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:18:52 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep30.094937.25572@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>
>It does not include all of the things that most developers will not
>need, such as management tools, Full Win/Dos compatability, Full networking,
>etc.

Developers don't need full networking?  There won't be many networking
apps out of that's MS's attitude!  If MS wants to push networking on
the population, they're going to need good ISV support for their
network facilities, and withholding them from the SDK isn't going to
help.

No, I think they were omitted from the pre-release kit because they
weren't ready yet.
-- 
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"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.windows.advocacy,alt.politics.kibo
From: erb@netcom.com (Elizabeth R. Brown)
Subject: I hate to tell you this, but...
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 08:52:47 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Well, after a brief appearance on PC Magazines "Top Retail Software" list 
OS/2 2.0 has dropped back into obscurity.  After a rapid rise it has just as 
rapidly disappeared from the charts, according to the October 13, 1992 issue 
of PC Magazine (page 31).  Items on the latest chart include:

Rank	Product
1	Microsoft Windows 3.1 Upgrade
2	Procomm Plus for Windows
...
4	Microsoft Windows 3.1
...
9	Word for Windows 2.0 Upgrade
10	Office for Windows 2.5
11	WordPerfect 5.1 for Windows
...
13	Excel for Windows 4.0 Upgrade
14	Word for Windows 2.0
15	WordPerfect for Windows Trade Up

The omitted items are all DOS related.  No OS/2, and of course no OS/2 
apps.  This list includes "total number of copies shipped to stores and 
resellers in the week ending August 8, 1992."

It seems that the inclusion of OS/2 in a couple of previous lists was due to 
some sort of spike in OS/2 shipments to "fill the channel", rather than a
trend.  Well, the channel is full now, and we shall see how well those
puppies move at the retail level (NOT :-)

Does NT need to kick OS/2's butt?  No, Windows 3.1 is already doing that.  
NT just needs to get ready to inherit the market from Windows for DOS 
when the time is right.

So, from a Windows bigot to all you OS/2 bigots I say:  "Join us!  Feel the 
power of the Dark Side!  Together the Universe will be ours!!  
Mwhaahaaaaahaaa!"    ---> (:-)


Ebbot R. Bane	            | "Your Kung-Fu is no good!  Don't pick a fight
Soft Images, Inc.           |  with me unless you want to get hurt kid!"
San Jose, CA                | _NO KILL I_ |_| "I never said that!" - Kibo.
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:29:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: mksol.1992Sep30.162911.24792
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <QelKpaS00VAt08Y3AQ@andrew.cmu.edu> fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat) writes:

>spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu (D. Robert Spexet II) writes:
>> puting world by Apple.  The Nubus and MCA bus architectures that these com-
>> panies use in their machines are among the most advanced architectures in the
>> personal computing world.  I could name lots of things that these companies

>isn't Nubus TI's design?

Yes.

-- 
"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.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6231 comp.os.os2.misc:31318
Organization: Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Vienna, Austria
Date: Tuesday, 22 Sep 1992 17:01:37 CET
From: FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: IBM plans on future of OS/2

Right now IBM is helding 3-day-seminars for OS/2-beta-testers and
developers of OS/2-software in Europe (Dusseldorf - Germany, Budapest -
Hungary, Rome - Italy, London - Great Britain, Copenhagen - Denmark,
Paris - France).

They have developers from their labs (Monte Copeland, Paul Rogers,
Chet Heath, Jason Dickie, Michael Derwin, Giffin Lorimer, Andrew
Skates, David Kerr, Barbara Barker, George Sweeney, Steve Joyce,
Steven King, Mark Simpson, Tim Blackwood, Jeffrey Fisher, Don Neely,
Scott Snyder, Don Neely, Steve Yeamans, Rick McGuire, Mike Kogan, ...).

Every participant is given a CD-ROM containing more than 200 MB of data,
among other things: OS/2 Technical Library Documentation, RedBooks,
Multimedia docu and Toolkit, Betacode (Network Transport Services/2,
System Performance Monitor, LAN Server 3.0, 32bit Graphics Engine), demos
(DAISys, Easel, Gpf, GUILd, PROMINARE, ...), tools (...), fixes (...).
Another CD-ROM is expected for the participants including Win 3.1 code
among other things.

**** Highlights of things in 1992:
   - Bug Fixes
   - Improved Performance
   - Multithreaded VDMs
   - OEM Support
     - More Systems supported
     - OEM Preload Support
   - 32bit Graphics Engine And Palette Manager
   - 32bit Graphics Drivers (XGA, VGA, Tseng, Headland, Western Digital,
                             ATI)

OS/2 ***Post*** 1992 Goals and Enhancements **Considerations**
   - 586/P5 Exploitation
   - Symmetric Multiprocessing on 80x86
   - Memory-mapped Files
   - Security (Login, Discretionary Access Control)
   - Client-Server Support via RPC, Sockets, IPC Semaphore Event Pairs...
   - Win32(s) compatibility
   - 32Bit-PMWIN
     - relieve 16-bit limitations
     - multiple input queues
     - better GUI-performance
     - portability
   - PM OLE
   - SOM II
   - Object REXX

There is a hell of a lot more ... (3 days !)

As Microsoft loudly tells customers about future enhancements I thought
it would be just fair to replicate some (by no means all !) enhancements
IBM plans for OS/2. In all aspects IBM plans allways inclusion of portability
issues. It just proofs, that OS/2-user of today will not be left on their
own in the future. IBM **is** committed to OS/2.

---rony
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 02:04:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.154246.2250@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>
>Except that OS/2 3.0 is now called Windows/NT.

Blech.  There is one *very* annoying thing about calling NT "OS/2 3.0", IMO.
It's not that OS/2 and NT are super-different systems or any dislike of the
two being associated with one another, but to call NT "OS/2 3.0" is
definitely a misnomer.  3.0 implies a 1.x and a 2.x.  Well, from the look
of NT, it's a new substratum and design, more so than OS/2 2.0 is from 1.x.
And to say NT is OS/2 3.0 is to imply that it has had it's roots and testing in
earlier versions.  Well, maybe MS's goals have come from OS/2, but the
vehicle is not the same.  I prefer calling NT "NT" and OS/2 "OS/2".

Ted

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn)
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Reply-To: soh3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 07:37:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.174420.11778@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>But there is a difference between Windows and OS/2. One is an interface and
>>one is an operating system. I am sure many people have windows on their
>>system and never use it except maybe for one program every now and again
>>(Minesweeper springs to mind). Generally, if you have OS/2 installed on
>>your system, you are using it!
>>
>>But then again, logic like that will never stand in the way of a decent
>>dispute.
>
>     I see no logic in your statement.  All I see is the use of a
>fallacious definition and some unfounded statements.  Would you care
>to clarify, and perhaps point out your logic for those of us who
>don't see it?
>

Phil, I found that he made a very cogent argument.  What part of his
statement contains fallacious definitions and what part unfounded
statements?  

Aside from the debate whether Windows is an operating
system or not, it is really true that Windows can be installed
on a machine and not be used at all.  This has happened to me,
my brother who lives with me, and a host of others that I know.  If 
they use it at all, they use it to run a couple of apps.

But os/2 is a totally different story.  Once you install it, you
use it.  That's that simple.  Better dos than dos and better windows
than windows.  Is there in this logic, if it is a logic, not a fact,
at all?

Min

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: elliott@lmt.mn.org (David Elliott  MIS x 363)
Subject: Re: Moving from X to Y.
Organization: LaserMaster Technologies, Minneapolis, MN
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 15:07:41 GMT

discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
> In article <1992Sep25.161621.24432@lmt.mn.org> elliott@lmt.mn.org (David Elliott  MIS x 363) writes:
> >discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
> >
> >Once again, he's not asking you "What can you make more money with?", but
> >"What would YOU PERSONALLY prefer to use if all other things were equal?"
> 
> Oh I see.  You want me to ignore reality, and pretend all things are equal?
> Well, hate to break this to you, they aren't.  And for this reason, I would
> PERSONALLY prefer to work with Windows+DOS and make money--than work with
> OS/2 2.0 and wait four or five months before I make money.
>

Okay, Joe, let me come up with something a bit more closely related to your
money-centric view here.  Do you prefer to develop your Windows apps:
(a)  Using DOS;
(b)  Using Windows;
(c)  Using OS/2 and WinOS2.
Many people (on this group, at least) feel that (c) is the choice to make,
because of the improved productivity that you can get from OS/2.  Because
you're more productive, you can crank your app out faster, and make money
sooner.  Of course, You Personally may not find this to be the case, but
you might want to at least consider trying it.
 
> My opinions
> 
> Joe
-- 
Elliott
------------------------------------------------------------------------
davide@ramrod.lmt.mn.org   |   Did you hear about the cannibal 
elliott@dunky.lmt.mn.org   |   who passed his brother in the forest?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: INTERESTING TIDBIT FROM S
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:42:34 GMT

In <1992Sep29.175027.3898@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>In article <717742472.F00002@tdkt.kksys.com> Mike.Hobbs@f115.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Mike Hobbs) writes:
>>After recieving shock-therapy, Phil Lafornara mumbled the following to All:

>     I initially took the above line to be a flame - I have since seen
>it on all of your posts, so it appears to be automatic.  Might I
>suggest that you would get a more positive response to your posts
>without it?

Well, you haven't always been the most polite of fellows, either,
Phil, so I guess that perhaps that cuts both ways.

>>
>>   For some evidence of MS "sleazeball tricks," might I suggest that you talk
>>to Will Zachmann as to why he will quit writing columns for PC Week in the
>>near future.  I do not know him personally, nor have I talked directly to
>>him, but from the rather authentic messages that I have read, (including his
>>9-28-92 article) I have a feeling that he will let you know of at least one
>>way MS has used it's power in a rather "sleazeball" fasion.

>     Of course, Zachmann's claims have zero evidence so far.  This is
>essentially "Zachmann's word vs. his editors'".  This does not preclude
>his accusations being true, but it seems to me that if he had any
>proof he would have presented it already.

So are you implying that the Microsoft credo is that it's ok as long
as you don't leave any solid evidence?

-- 
"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.
From: bbm@po.CWRU.Edu (Brian B. Mathewson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Where have I heard this before?
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:12:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1aq7k9INNo47
Reply-To: bbm@po.CWRU.Edu (Brian B. Mathewson)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) says:

>In article <1aod61INNakn@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bbm@po.CWRU.Edu (Brian B. Mathewson) writes:
>|> 
>|> On Windows NT:
>|> 
>|> "..."
>|> 
>|> Hmmm.  Where have I heard this before?
>
>How about telling us where you heard this in the first place? An unattributed
>quote is no use to anyone.
>

Sorry for the confusion, but it was just a collage of statements I put
together based (loosely) on things people have said about NT.

-- 

Brian Mathewson   bbm@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu
                  bbm at Cleveland Freenet
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy