HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: DEC bets the company on NT?  WRONG!
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 02:56:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.181001.7173@gw.wmich.edu> 177wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>In article <L6e2wB2w165w@student.business.uwo.ca>, pkedrosk@student.business.uwo.ca (Paul S. Kedrosky) writes:
>> x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>> 
>>> In article <1993Jan7.222909.20160@grebyn.com>, mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Frai
>>> > In article <1993Jan7.063028.14772@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.ed
>>> > [stuff from some magazine quoted by Brian deleted]
>>> > [stuff by mfraioli about his experience at a DEC Alpha show deleted] 
>>> [stuff by x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu about why Brian is wrong deleted]
>> 
>> Gee, you know sometimes I wonder why I bother to read other people's
>> posts and don't just respond to the little snippets that are left of
>> original postings by the time they've been quoted a few times; it
>> looks like so much more fun. Just think of the great stuff you could
>> come up with. 
>> 
>> Like the above little drama in real life. Where Brian Sturgill quotes
>> from an industry publication and one of the denizens of comp.os.os2.advocacy,
>> those paragons of virtuous behaviour, accuses him of being wrong . Huh? I
>> mean, huh? Call me crazy, but I had thought that when you quoted
>> someone else, scrupulously anyway, it was a little tricky to be wrong.
>> The original author, maybe, but the person who quotes the stuff?
>> 
>
>	YOu  sure went out on a limb there by  implying that Brian
>merely  quoted a publication and I (the "rightoues denizen") ripped on
>Brian's quote.  Brian added his own opinion to the end of the quote and
>that was what I ripped on him about.  

No, YOU'RE the one that's wrong.  That whole tidbit was quotes.
On those occassions where I do comment (or otherwise annotate), I
enclose my remarks between '[' and ']'.  Should [] appear in the
normal text I put them in as \[ and \].

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                          NeXTStep 486 is for _YOU_!!!!
University of Utah                    Microsoft needs competition, but I want
Center for Software Science          to be one of the many running Windows NT!
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373    :-) :-) :-)  NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3796 comp.os.os2.advocacy:12099
From: mmitchel@digi.lonestar.org (Mitch Mitchell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: The sin of MicroSoft
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:19:06 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corporation

jeh@cmkrnl.com writes:

>In article <1993Jan8.153214.887@aspentec.com>, tto@aspentec.com writes:
>> Similarly, I think the same sin is now committed by MicroSoft.  Specifically,
>> they are leading the public into thinking that a GUI is what an operating
>> system is all about; and that GUI is more important than a large (> 1M) 
>> addressing space, more important virtual memory, more important than protection
>> against errant user programs, more important than pre-emptive multi-tasking,
>> etc.  

>Windows NT:

>	- has a 4 GB virtual address space (2 GB per process, + 2 GB 
>	  system-wide)
>	- has virtual memory
>	- has protection against errant user programs
>	- has preemptive multi-tasking
>	(with round-robin scheduling within priority levels, automatic 
>	priority adjustment, including automatic resolving of dynamic
>	deadlocks, for threads in the "normal" priority range,
>	fixed priorities for threads in the "real time" priority range
>	(which is higher than "normal")

>...etc.:


   I think the original poster was commenting on MicroSoft's pushing
   Windows 3.1 *on DOS* as being the 'sin' that they are comitting -- not
   the offering of Windows NT.

   Mitch


-- 
* mmitchel@digi.lonestar.org                         Mitch Mitchell      *
* {uunet | texsun | letni}!digi!mmitchel       Voice Mail (214) 519-3257 *
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3807 comp.os.os2.advocacy:12138
From: rcmerrit@apgea.army.mil (Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit>)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: A radical idea
Date: 12 Jan 93 19:40:38 GMT
Organization: APG-Edgewood

In article <1993Jan8.153322.888@aspentec.com> tto@aspentec.com writes:
>I have a radical idea.  Let the federal government take over the rights
>of DOS-OS/2-NT by eminent domain and turn it over to a neutral organization
>like OSF.  Let this organization come up with a reasonable operating
>system that everyone can use.
>
>I don't think the government or anyone outside the software industry
>realize how much the progress of software technology (and hence the whole
>computing area) has been thwarted by this confusion.  It is vital
>to the software industry as the HDTV standard is vital to the electronics
>industry.
>
>Just a thought.
>Tak.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Tak To                                                    (617) 577-0310 x377
>Box 45, MIT Branch PO, Cambridge, Ma 02139.                  tto@aspentec.com
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------



but then again, that isn't a hot idea. You meantion HD-TV, well, HD-TV would
have been on the market years ago if it wasn't for the FCC's requirment for
it to be compatable with present NTSCT standard. (please excuse me if I got
the name wrong. :) )
If the federal government steped in and standardized operatings systems,
we'd all still be using some form of CPM or worst!

(but ofcource, most of te world still uses dos so who am I kidding?)

Rob Merritt
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com (Peter Mayne)
Subject: Re: Tidbits 01/06/93
Reply-To: Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:58:46 GMT


In article <1993Jan12.122944.1190@cs.joensuu.fi>, jahonen@cs.joensuu.fi (Jarmo Ahonen) writes:
>>Techical aptness has almost nothing to do with it: it's a $ issue.
>>Why would a businessman invest in Unix on the desktop when WIndows comes
>>nearly free?  Especially when he notices that his non-compute staff has
>>taken to Windows like gangbusters already.  
>>
>Well... In order to respect older investments? In many cases the corporate
>users (and even smaller companies) have minis/mainframes/vaxes/etc
>which they still want to use. For example in a tcp/ip environment like
>ours the Win4Workgroups is a non-issue. At least local MS salesmen do not
>(yet at least) quarantee that it will be usefull in out net.

Why is it a non-issue? TCP/IP works fine with Windows.

>And the software for the older, bigger machines has been expensive and
>they are in use... Why buy software again when it is in the big box and
>runs fine?

How much maintenance do you pay on that software? If you don't pay maintenance,
how much do you pay for an upgrade? Compare those costs against the cost of
PC software (which is usually faster, more colourful, has greater
functionality, etc, etc) and then figure out which way you'd rather go for
financial reasons.

PJDM
--
Peter Mayne                     | My statements, not Digital's.
Digital Equipment Corporation   |
Canberra, ACT, Australia        | "AXP!": Bill the Cat

Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3797 comp.os.os2.advocacy:12100
From: mmitchel@digi.lonestar.org (Mitch Mitchell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: The sin of MicroSoft
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:30:42 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corporation

petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

>In article <1993Jan8.153214.887@aspentec.com> tto@aspentec.com wrote:

>>     The sin of IBM is that they has lead the public into adopting too
>>     narrow a view of what a computer should and can be.
>> 
>> Similarly, I think the same sin is now committed by MicroSoft.  Specifically,
>> they are leading the public into thinking that a GUI is what an operating
>> system is all about; and that GUI is more important than a large (> 1M) 
>> addressing space, more important virtual memory, more important than protection
>> against errant user programs, more important than pre-emptive multi-tasking,
>> etc.  They are also in effect saying that you should not buy software from
>> elsewhere because it is not guaranteed to work in the next release of the
>> operating system.  (Need I say why this is bad?)

[petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) responds:]

>The sin of the computer science community is that have too
>narrow a view of what a computer should and can be.

>Most people in the core of computer science tend to think things like
>"address space" or "processing speed" are all computers are.

  Your missing the point Pete -- All this discussion of 'Address Space'
  and other processor technology is really about how easy it is to develop
  the new applications that help users get whatever they want from computers.

>As soon as general users started to get ahold of GUI technology, they 
>started to develop ideas as to what computers should be used for.  The fact
>that Users and commercial software houses are starting to develop technologies
>on their own is threatening the priesthood of academic computer science, and
>their deciples, causing them to threaten and belittle this new frontier of
>computer development.

  Well, speaking for my self, working with users that wanted their computers
  to do more for them has always been one of the real joys of working with
  computers and people.  Mostly people.

>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...
-- 
* mmitchel@digi.lonestar.org                         Mitch Mitchell      *
* {uunet | texsun | letni}!digi!mmitchel       Voice Mail (214) 519-3257 *
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3700 comp.os.ms-windows.apps:6713 comp.os.ms-windows.misc:5977
From: tsornas@dec5.ulb.ac.be (Thierry Sornasse)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.apps,comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Subject: Re: Printing problems with HP Deskjet 500
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:26:35 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Free University Brussels  - Belgium -  Department of Molecular Biology
Keywords: HP Deskjet 500

Hi David,

One solution could be to setup the quantity of ink used by the printer in the
PRINTER SETUP OPTION  menu.
An other thing could happend: if one of the printer's pin is not correctly secure
you can get some gap in your printout.

I hope it will help you

Good work

Happy New Year

Thierry Sornasse
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3732 comp.os.os2.advocacy:11920
From: kjb@calmasd.prime.com (Ken Brucker)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DEC bets the company on NT?  WRONG!
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:33:23 GMT
Organization: Computervision, San Diego CA

In article <1993Jan7.201659.7143@gw.wmich.edu>, x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
> 
> 	Sometimes, I really wonder how much knowledge of the computer
> industry Brian really has.  Beyond his little publications and
> is Academia environment he often seems ignorant of what is really going
> on.  Speaking as someone who has a rather intimate familiarity with
> DEC (Digital) the thought of DEC betting everything on their PC running
> NT is sickening.  It is simply untrue.  As was pointed out, only the
> Alpha PC (keyword PC) will be running NT.  The other DEC Alpha based
> computers will (again, as said before) running VMS.  VMS is an 
> excellent operating system and there are VMS like OS's from DEC that
> are REAL TIME OS's.  

In addition to running VMS, DEC also has OSF/1 as a full 64 bit operating
system.  While VMS is running on Alpha, it isn't yet taking full advantage of
the 64 bit architecture.  To make the migration from VAX to Alpha as painless
as is possible, DEC has implemented AXP VMS 1.0 using a 32 bit virtual memory
model.  A future release will allow the full 64 bit addressability.

> 	Alpha is very important to DEC but believing that DEC is part
> of Alpha is nonsense and the thought that NT will be running on
> even most of the alpha based computers is simply wrong.  The basic
> architecture of the PC is inadequate for many things including
> performance levels found in minicomputers.  Turbo channel is a much
> better alternative.

Actually DEC is intending for Alpha to become bigger than they are.  I attended
some pre-release discussions at which point they were pointing out their
traditional structure was proprietary and was available only through them.  Ie
the entire line of VAX hardware.  There was some 3rd party interest in the MVAX
chip set but it was mostly DEC making all the hardware.

DEC wants Alpha to become something like the Intel line of chips, having it
become incorporated into a wide variety of systems available from other
vendors.  It is in this respect that they are positioning DEC as a part of
Alpha and not the other way around.  A new generation Cray system is going to
be based on the Alpha chip, and there is a modeling station firm called Kubota
that has used the Alpha chip in their new box.  (I'm pretty sure I spelled
their name right :)

Ken

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**  Ken Brucker -- VMS/Ultrix Systems Programmer/Mangler -- Computervision
 **  kjb@calmasd.Prime.COM  
  **  Practice Random Kindness and Senseless Acts of Beauty
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu (RICHARD HOFFBECK)
Subject: Re: Notice! OS2 will Execute Win3 programs Without having to have Win
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Reply-To: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu
Organization: Colon Cancer Control Study, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:28:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.071526.7148@cs.uoregon.edu>, tracer@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu (Roger M. Wilcox) writes:
> Hmmm ... it sounds like this PC-SAS is a classic example of a Badly Written
> Windows Program.  

I think he was commenting on the multitasking of DOS applications. The last
press release we got from SAS indicated that there was an OS/2 native mode
version available but the Windows version wouldn't be out until spring. I
would think that the DOS version of SAS would be a particularly bad neighbor
in a non-premptive environment given the CPU intensive nature of most
stats applications. 

--rick

Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3715 comp.os.os2.advocacy:11855
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Notice! OS2 will Execute Win3 programs Without having to have Win
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 12:05:23 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1993Jan4.005023.26661@cs.uoregon.edu> tracer@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu (Roger M. Wilcox) writes:

> call to GetMessage/PeekMessage.  Process B, upon reading the event message
> in from its queue, can take AS MUCH TIME AS IT LIKES OR NEEDS to completely
> handle the event message it has just received, and will continue to execute
> without interruption until it calls GetMessage/PeekMessage again.
> 
> Thus, if a process needs a lot of processing time to handle an event, it can
> take it; but if a process doesn't need to do anything (a "background" process
> wouldn't have to do much) in response it a message, it can (and usually does)
> yield control almost IMMEDIATELY to the next process that has high-priority
> messages pending.  In a sense, this is a form of self-imposed priority-based
> scheduling.

I think I have experienced this first hand. I think of the difference between
Windows and OS/2 this way: 
 
If you try and run PC-SAS in the "background" under Windows......well, yu
better go get a coffee because "process B" is in the saddle for a long ride.
 
But running SAS under OS/2 means your disk goes clickety-click....but your
machine remains very usable - in fact little degradation in overall
performance occurs.
 
This example sums up nicely the difference in the way Windows and OS/2 handle
multi-tasking. I tried *everything* (take my word for it!) to get even a 30
second response out of Windows running SAS.
 
Steve
 
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand |      
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |        Space for rent.
+64 4 478 4714                          |   - cheap rates, nice location. 
**** Happy user of OS/2 b2.1 ****       | 
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3800 comp.os.os2.advocacy:12113
From: das90@ccc.amdahl.com (Danny Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits 01/06/93
Date: 11 Jan 93 14:09:57 GMT
Reply-To: das90@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Danny Smith)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1993Jan9.180212.29745@grebyn.com> mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.014507.2017@msi.com> bill@west.msi.com writes:
>>
>>I don't think Uniphiles will jump ship.  Not with Linux, 386BSD and other
>>solutions on the market.  ...
>...  However, Unix has so far been largely the
>domain of fairly technical users.  I think that NT and OS/2 will see
>that it remains so, more or less, but I don't think that either will be
>able to break into the technical areas where Unix has traditionally been
>dominant.

Well, I'm a Uniphile (tho I prefer the term "Unich") in the process of 
jumping ship:  I think it's inevitable, since the people who PAY for 
small computer networks will choose Win over Unix in a heartbeat.
And Microsoft is rumored to be staffing up its sales force with
market-oids hired away from medium-large Unix vendors.  There's a war
brewing out there: if the Novell/USL deal goes thru, there's a chance 
that Unix may be a factor, but USL (and SCO, OSF, et al) have had years
to make the inroads that MS has accomplished in just under 3 (measuring
from Win 3.0 or so).  I suspect that until Novell can convince hardware
vendors to include Unix as a nearly-free option, Windows will dominate.

Techical aptness has almost nothing to do with it: it's a $ issue.
Why would a businessman invest in Unix on the desktop when WIndows comes
nearly free?  Especially when he notices that his non-compute staff has
taken to Windows like gangbusters already.  
 
MS's packaging of Win4Workgroups w/ LAN hardware is brilliant.  Unix
doesn't stand a chance in that market, IMHO.
 
On the other hand, Unix will not disappear.  It's still the best way
to get an OS onto a new platform.      


Danny Smith      |   301/685-0846    |  das90@juts.ccc.amdahl.com
Amdahl Corp.     |   (Baltimore)     |
     [ Disclaimer - the above opinions are mine, and do not ]
     [ reflect Amdahl policy. (They made me say that.)      ]
-- 
Danny Smith      |   301/685-0846    |  das90@juts.ccc.amdahl.com
Amdahl Corp.     |   (Baltimore)     |
     [ Disclaimer - the above opinions are mine, and do not ]
       reflect Amdahl policy. (They made me say that.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: a722756@roper.mc.ti.com (W. Donald Rolph)
Subject: Re: DEC bets the company on NT?  WRONG!
Originator: a722756@roper.mc.ti.com
Organization: Texas Instruments / Attleboro Mass / USA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:10:10 GMT


Perhaps not, but their salesforce has been trained to presnet windows nt on Alpha
as the great new opportunity which will differentiate alpha form the rest of the
pack.  

I agree that DEC believes that windows nt is more important for alpha than the
rest pof this thread would suggest.
-- 

Regards.
 
Don Rolph  a722756@pan.mc.ti.com WD3 MS10-13 (508)-699-1263
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: buhr@umanitoba.ca (Kevin Andrew Buhr)
Subject: Re: Tidbits 01/06/93
Organization: University of Manitoba, Canada
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:47:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.063028.14772@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>   Chicago is likely to be positioned as Microsoft's low-end
>   graphical Windows client for 386-class machines, while NT will
>   serve as a high-end, secure Windows operating environment, sources
>   said. DOS 6.0 will likely continue to be offered, but only
          ^^^     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>   marginally enhanced.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

DOS marginally enhanced?  Boy, that'll be a stretch.

Kevin <buhr@ccu.UManitoba.CA>
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3808 comp.os.os2.advocacy:12139
From: rcmerrit@apgea.army.mil (Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit>)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Win NT
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:06:21 GMT
Organization: APG-Edgewood



Hmmm.. I must say that Window's NT doesn't get my gear's turning.

I've been trying to run some form of GUI multi-tasking os/enviroment on my
pc since 1989. not a long time, but awhile
I've use windows 3.0 and 3.1. I;ve had the endless joy of seeing it crash
many. many times. The hours of trying to contact microsoft to no avail.
The occastional but useless flirtation with Desqview.
The broken promishs of the forth comming windows NT..

sad story.

One day, on a lark, I bought OS/2 at a price club for $89.

I installed, expected to format my hard drive at the end of a disappointing
weekend, os/2. It work. It not only worked but worked great. Which 
surprised me because there was almost no documination for the thing. I still
have to get a descent book for the os..maybe.. It multitask with no problems
and hardly a slow down. In fact, what slow down there was, was on purpose to 
make old games playable! I had a techinical problem, I was afraid, I called
IBM and guess what.. within 6 mintues, I was on the phone with someone who knew
exactlly how to fix things!

Now, I'm not ever going back to dos/windows a-la dos. I've been waiting for
the perfect os for me and I have found it! (maybe a more perfect os with 2.1
but I'll wait)

Now, with NT's bad looks, harsh hard ware requirments, and little compatablity
with anything I own, why should I even care is NT comes out at all?

I'm certain there is alot of people like me out there. I think NT is in for
an up hill battle if not a losing one.

Rob Merritt
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 11 Jan 1993 19:30:53 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan11.102938.1271@yvax.byu.edu>  writes:
> We must also remember that Apple is not publishing applications:   
okay,  
> there's Claris, but Apple's organizational connections to Claris  
are  
> questionable, and Claris certainly isn't producing the #1  
spreadsheet, word  
> processor, presentation package, etc., for the Mac platform.  The  
FTC  
> suggests Microsoft's DOS and Windows monopoly has unfairly helped  
its  
> applications sales.
> 
And Microsoft isn't producing the number one word processor
(Word Perfect), spreadsheet (123), etc. on the PC platform.
In fact, in every major category, Microsoft has at least one
and usually two or three major competitors:  Word is up
against Word Perfect and Ami, Excel is up against 123 and Quattro
Pro, and so forth.

> The easiest way to tell unfair competition:  companies that must  
compete  
> with their sole suppliers.
> 

Why is this so?   Don't suppliers of various applications for VMS
have to compete with DEC.  Don't various companies
compete with Sun for products that run on Sun.  (Sun has a 
C compiler, for example, but others sell Sun C compilers.)
Doesn't Think C compete with the Macintosh programmers'
workbench?



--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  

Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3741 comp.os.os2.advocacy:11946