HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Matt_Kievit@abcd.Houghton.MI.US (Matt Kievit)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Cyrix Issue...
Distribution: world
Date: 12 Jan 93 11:08:54 EST
Organization: Amiga BitSwap Central Dispatch

In a message dated Tue 12 Jan 93  1:04, 177wardell@gw.wmich.edu wrote:

>> What we have here is a basic disagreement.  I have read in numerous
>>articles that the Cyrix 486 chip is exactly what was said above:
>>a 386sx with a 2K onchip cache and  a few extra instructions that
>>are math related.  It is NOT a 486 class processor (in terms of
>>compatibility).
> 
> 
>  The Cyrix chips _are_ 486 chips.  They have ALL of the 486 
>  instructions (bswap, etc).  
> 
>  The differences between the 486SX and the 486SLC/DLC are:
>  
>  1.  The 486 has an 8k cache, the Cyrix chips have a _1_k cache.
>   (not a 2k cache)
>  2.  The 486 uses the 486 pinout, the Cyrix chips are drop in
>  replacements for 386DX (DLC) and 386SX (SLC) chips.
>  3.  the 486 has a built in FPU.  The Cyrix chips implement the
>  FPU externally, in the FastMath coprocessor.
> 
>  Obviously, none of the above differences have anything to do with
>  compatibility with a 486SX or DX (if you add the coprocessor).  they
>  will result in performance differences, nothing more.
> 
>  If these are not "486 class processors" it is strictly a matter
>  of performance, NOT compatibility.  

 >  I still stand by my original post (except I agree, it is a 1K
 > cache, not 2K).  I have read over and over again that Cyrix's 486SLC is
 > only called a 486 for marketting reasons and that it is still basically
 > a 386sx (16bit bus, 24bit address, tec) with a few added instructions.

 >      -Brad

I have right here in front of me, Compu Shopper, October, 1992, p 171:

"The Cx486DLC comes with a 486 instruction set with 32-bit internal and
external data paths."

In other words, it's a NEARLY EXACT i486, except for the 1k cache and the
fact that it fits into a 386 DX slot..

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Matt Kievit - Michigan Tech University - In the great U.P
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


-- Via DLG Pro v0.995
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 4 Jan 1993 15:45:36 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan4.002059.13213@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>Now remember, because of your JIT agreements with ACME, even if you just order
>one trial case from 2-Guys-Garage and they turn out to be defective, you're
>whole line shuts down and you're factory workers cool their heels until because
>you've got no stock.

Let's try a slight modification: The next time I need screws, I order the same
quantity from _both_ suppliers. I try the screws from 2 Guys Garage. If they
work out, I switch; if not, I go back to the case I have in stock from ACME.
(Not palletloads, but whatever quantity I need right then.) One of the things
about business is that you have to take risks in order to gain; in this case,
we're balancing the risk of 2 Guys Garage not working out, and causing a short
drop in production, against the tremendous savings that they can provide if it
does work out.

>No amount of federal regulation is going wipe out the tremendous competative
>advantage that ACME has over 2-Guys-Garage.

Only to a businessman too stupid to work it out properly.

>When will the human race learn that FREEDOM WORKS.  Let people live their own
>lives and make their own agreements.

The problem is that the logical conclusion of this agreement is a requirement
that I buy a machine with DOS and Windows, which I neither need nor want.

>Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly position, and the very fact that they
>are trying so hard is proof that their competitors are strong enough to
>scare them.

MS has a near-monopoly, and are doing all they can, legitimately and
otherwise, to reinforce it. You hold that up as the Holy Grail. I say it's bad
for the consumer.
-- 
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.
      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of all Fears_
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 is the best?
Date: 6 Jan 1993 16:39:43 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu

In <1993Jan6.154620.29542@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>In article <1993Jan6.145201.22840@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> hwhalen@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Hugh Whalen) writes:
>>In article <C0EutC.J8w@news.cso.uiuc.edu> fippen@ux2.cso.uiuc.edu (J. Fippen) writes:


]]]os2 because it is the best, and because it is the program of the future.


]	"program of the future"  What a load.  OS/2 is the program
]	of now.  If I am still forced to be running it 5 years from
]	now, I will be sick.  My Amiga 1000 used to multitask with more
]	smoothness and power than OS/2 does on a machine that is 
]	orders of magnitude more powerful with more than 16 times
]	the amount of memory.  

Ah -- somehow I knew you were an amiga owner at some point. :-).  I used
to have an amiga 1000, and I hated it.  It did not run faster or smoother
when I ran more than one task.  I even had the PC Bridge board.  What
a piece of crap.  Please don't FUD.  If you hate OS/2 that much, and
the Amiga is SOO much better (I think Amigas aren't very good personally,
and I have used them alot, and have had to help customers that have them) --
then go back to your amiga. ;-)


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.networking
From: sorourke@lonestar.utsa.edu (Sean J. Orourke)
Subject: Good idea (was Re: The sin of MicroSoft)
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 09:13:42 GMT

In article <726730251snx@w3vh.UUCP> rolfe@ldp.com (Rolfe Tessem) writes:
>petesk@microsoft.com writes in article <1993Jan10.011419.23343@microsoft.com>:
[tons of stuff that belongs in alt.spelling.flames and the grammar equivalent
 deleted]
>                                ^^^be^^^^                  ^^ahead^^^^
>> what it was now.
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^where it is now.
>
>> petesk@microsoft.com
>> My Opinions...
>
>Perhaps there is a market for a Microsoft spelling and grammar checker
>(running under OS/2 of course.)
>

Actually, what I always thought would be a good idea for OS/2 (or even, yuck,
Windows) is a clipboard spelling/grammar checker.  That way no matter what you
were running you could bring text into the clipboard and check it.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: des@inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 13:51:37 GMT

Jay Maynard (jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan5.192014.6776@cs.brown.edu> atropos@netlab.cis.brown.edu (David O'Donnell) writes:
: >If Microsoft is such a devil-incarnate, why doesn't some company produce an
: >OS that runs adequately on a wide range of Intel-based CPUs and has features
: >superior to MS-DOS? OS/2 Advocates, get serious; the world cannot afford to
: >buy 486/33DXes with 16M of RAM and 250M hard drives just to get decent res-
: >ponse.

: You must never have run it on lesser hardware, then; it ran fine for me on a
: 386SX-16 with 8 meg RAM and two 40 meg hard disks.

you had 8 meg RAM ? you had it lucky, I only had 5 Meg RAM and it
was acceptable.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
david shepherd: des@inmos.co.uk                     tel: 0454-616616 x 625
                inmos ltd, 1000 aztec west, almondsbury, bristol, bs12 4sq
                New Year Resolution for 1993: Start using capital letters.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn)
Subject: Re: NT Destined to Succeed??
Reply-To: soh3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Sociology, Univ. of Chicago
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:07:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan04.184825.3260@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>    I don't think you're a liar.  I do think that your attempts to
>generalize your personal experience with Windows NT to sweeping
>statements about Windows NT as a whole are FUD, and I've told you
>why.

I don't remember Steve trying to make any sweeping statements about
NT.  Part of what he said was with slightly less than 8 megs of memory,
NT refused to boot and with 8 megs he managed to boot up NT but its
performance was too bad.  I don't find any FUD in these lines.  Because
his observations were so in direct contradiction to some of the posts
from NT advocates including Brian Sturgill, I found his experiment
very interesting.  It was not definitely a FUD.  Is reporting personal
experiences spreading FUD?

>>You refuse to believe anything bad about NT and ignore it. Then, since all
>>the bad things have been ruled out of order.....NT must be great! 
>
>    Let me say this:  My own personal experiences with Windows NT
>are in direct conflict with the reports that you've published here.
>I've been running it for months with no major problems.

Tell us about your configuration and let's see what's the difference.  
I hope it has more than 16 megs of memory:)

Min

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: How many Nobel Prizes has IBM won?
Date: 5 Jan 93 02:07:54 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University


In article <1993Jan5.044937.15400@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, rjones@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ronald Jones) writes:
> There is a news item in acs.clari.nb.ibm about the importance of
> basic research to the future of America. It states that in the 
> last 5 years IBM has won 2 Nobel Prizes. Does anyone know the
> total.

I believe, IBM Won one for the Scanning Tunneling Microscope.
Was it in Medicine???

> 
> BTW, how many has Microsoft won ;-) (Just to put things into
> their proper perspective!)
> 

I didn't think there was a Nobel Prize for Marketing? :)
From: z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 4 Jan 93 17:42:55 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1993Jan04.184238.2124@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
> In article <79005@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt0449a@prism.gatech.EDU (Rob Coleman) writes:
>>Immediately upon trying to install Dos 6.0, the install program says:
>>
>>"An OS/2 partition has been detected.  The OS/2 partition will not be
>>available under MSDOS 6.0."
>>
>>Not at all threatening; just informative.
> 
>      Hmm... that bears little enough resemblence to the original
> message posted here that I wonder if there might be _another_
> message that shows up.
>      But yes, I don't see how anyone could complain about that one.
> 
> 				-Phil

	No Phil, You are right, the above text is non threatening.  As
I stated earlier, the Beta tester did in fact say it said he may wish to delete
OS/2.

	If his report is not accurate, and the above statement is the only one
that is given, then there is nothing wrong with it. If that is the case then
I conceed. I am not an approved MS Beta Site, so I don't have access to the
Beta.

Michael Kupka

> 
> 
> -- 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 01:49:25 GMT

In article <wiegand.726161691@lido16>, wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand) writes:
|> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> 
|> >For the life of me, I can't understand why someone would use the word "force"
|> >to describe what is going on.  If someone offers me a deal which will put
|> >more money in my pocket and I accept it, have I been "forced?"  Economic
|> >"force" means that I get richer if I comply--physical force means that I
|> >get my brains blown out if I don't comply.  Dudes, the difference couldn't
|> >be greater.
|> 
|> Computer hardware is *very* cost sensitive. There is very little difference
|> between brand A hardware and brand B hardware. People (for the most part)
|> buy based on cost. For a hardware vendor saving a few dollars on product
|> cost may be the difference between making a profit and going out of
|> business. This isn't just a matter of making a few extra dollars for them.
|> This is a matter of survival for them. Under these condition it's quite
|> possible to *force* them to do something.

If they want to be in business selling Microsoft products which Microsoft
owns, they are going to have to do so on Microsoft terms.  

Nobody has a "right" to buy something at any price they want to!

Any society which doesn't respect the rights of ownership is doomed.  


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell)
Subject: Re: SGI-GL in Windows NT??
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 05:11:44 GMT

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

>Thanks for providing a ballpark for comparisons, but apparently Mr. Cogswell
>has all the time in the world. For myself, having brought an SGI machine
>to a crawl (4GX? Don't remember the model) doing molecular modeling, I 
>suspect that I would not be happy with the performance of NT with SGI -GL
>in software on a 486.

Molecular modelling?  How many polygons and what shading algorithm??
Seems to me you brought the CPU on the machine to a crawl, not the
graphics engine.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  If that's the case, you
wouldn't see much difference between to dissimilar machines with
comparable CPUs.

My current project (radiosity) spends most of it's time in computation,
even with the un-optimized gouraud shade routine I've written.  Could
you explain to me how having polygons in hardware would speed things up
significantly?

Of course, I'm ignorant to what else the Irises do in hardware, so
please fill me in.

And, by the way, feel free to call me Dan. 

-- 
Dan Cogswell               Or as we say in Michigan:  "Dee-troit"


Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11752 comp.os.os2.apps:9910 comp.os.os2.misc:41377
From: karlth@rhi.hi.is (Karl Thoroddsen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Better File Management??
Date: 6 Jan 93 13:17:28 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy

In <1993Jan5.202900.28196@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:

>In article <1993Jan1.213044.268@grebyn.com> mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli) writes:
>>
>>Does this mean that they have sped up the time it takes for the icons to
>>be drawn when you open a window?  This has always bugged me.

>The problem isn't in the icon draw time, but in the icon load time.
>After having written some code using bitmaps and icons, I can safely
>say that the speed to draw them is very very fast - faster than
>Windows 3.1, for that matter.  The problem with WPS is that it has to
>load the icons from each file in a folder.  This loading is what eats
>time.  I'm sure there's room for optimizing here, but it's more
>closely related to the speed to fetch EA's and resources out of files
>than to the speed of painting (which is, after all, related to the
>video driver).

Right.

I've written a Win 3.1 shell (entering BETA next month) and according
to my experience the slowness is caused by the time it takes to extract
an icon from a file.  This can optimized dramatically by using the following
two methods:  
		1) When a folder is opened only the visible icons are extracted.
	  	2) Cache the icon bitmaps.

The time it takes to draw the icon is negligible, if the icon data is present 
in memory. 


-- 

\ Internet: karlth@rhi.hi.is             \ Karl Thoroddsen University Of Iceland
 \ Respect...            , Peter Ustinov  \ Department Of Computer Science
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: eoliver@ralph.cs.haverford.edu (Erik Oliver)
Subject: Re: If things had been different... (was: FCC etc)
Organization: Haverford College Computer Science Department
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:19:31 GMT

Actually the 68060 will be coming out in '94 before/around the same time
as the new PowerPC 601 from Apple/IBM comes out.  It will actually be
faster than this bottom of the line PowerPC from the specs, although
running UNIX generally makes a machine "seem" faster than running the
MacOS, I mean compare my Quadra 950 with my NeXTStation color, when I
use my nextstation, three or four other people may be on the machine, no
problem, one my Quadra 950 I can't even format a disk at the same time I
am printing a document.  System 7.1 is better than System 6.0 but, it
needs the type of multithreading/multitasking of UNIX/OS/2 which enable
them to do more in the background and thus "seem" significantly faster.

For example, formatting disks of my NeXT never bothers me because it
occurs completely transparently, so I can continue being productive
instead of paused.

I am looking forward to getting a i486 laptop and I am working on
convincing the store to bundle OS/2 and delete every trace of Windoze,
(various expletives describing my opinion of windoze).  I personally,
think it ironic that Microsoft is assisting Apple in driving up sales of
Macs by releasing Windoze.  It seems to me that all Windoze does is
convince people of how bad DOS really is, and how nice a GUI can be, but
once they see a mac/next or anything that works well, they want that.  I
have read about OS/2's tech specs and used it briefly , I must say that
it was a true joy, zippy, clean interface, (with customizable colors
everywhere which is nice if you are like me and generally find most of
the windoze like hideous schemes annoying), and best of all consistant
usage of multiple mouse buttons in  the "finder" (WPS) my only compliant
is that they seem to have reversed the idea of drag and drop, at least
from the way NeXT's and Macs use it, instead of dragging an item to a
tool, you appear to drag a tool to an item.  But, I think I can live
with that.


-Erik
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:40:15 GMT

In article <8352@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.225440.14879@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>>If the successful candidate increased his/her employment probability
>>by becoming more marketable, went for many interviews, wrote nice 
>>resumes, convinced employers that he/she is valuable to them, would
>>you say that he/she is forcing the other candidates into unemployment ?
>
>No.
>
>If, on the other hand, the successful candidate went out and slashed the tires
>of the other candidates, making them miss their interviews, and got anonymous
>stories printed in the local papers about how they were wife-beating child
>molesters who couldn't program their way out of an infinite loop, would _you_
>say that he is forcing the others into unemployment? I would.

Of course not. That is a misuse of the word "force". I would say that
the candidate is cheating and being fraulent. Cheating is not forcing.


Dov



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Bill Gates:  What a weenie...
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 06:56:11 GMT

bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.060918.23367@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>
>>To summarize, I would strongly recommend that people at Microsoft and
>>Gates he a touch of reality. Life isn't all about Bit and Bytes. And
>>for Gates, a man who hasn't seen a woman since Sputnik, I would
>>recommend to visit the Texas Ranch, since nothing else seems to work.
>>
>>I think I have found the answer to why Gates can not get a date. This is
>>it:
>>
>>There was once a young sailor named Gates,
>>Who did the fandango on skates.
>>He fell on his cutlass,
>>Which rendered him n**less,
>>And practically useless on dates.
>>
>
>
>What an attitude. Here sits a man who built a successful company 
>from scratch, and trying to explain how he did it. Rather then 
>listening and trying to learn something, you are ridiculing
>him because his ideas dont fit your world view. Why did you bother
>viewing the interview ? Does it give you some emotional gratification
>to ridicule someone else ?
>
>
>Dov
>
>
> 


While many of you Microsoft Wingagas may not like what I posted, and your
gently feelings might not take it, I will continue to say whatever I feel
like saying. If you don't like it, feel free to take me to court.

My statements were made after observing for a LONG time Microsoft officials
and their fans. First of all, Gates' suceess came after IBM gave him the
chance to become sucessful. Don't believe me, I can name several books
that will explain it.

I have/had dealings with Microsoft and I know what their business is all
about. Gates is the same man who stated his position about several
companies in 1991 when the document in question "leaked" to several
publications. He was talking about good relationships with several
companies as well as IBM. A few months have gone by, at the NT
developer conference, he stated several times that OS/2 is the biggest
failure of all time. I know for a fact that many of you Wingagas who
talk big did not attend this conference but I did so I know what was
said. It was a few months later that this trend continued and expanded
by Ballmer appearing at a show, trying to crash OS/2 in front of
several people. Again, you probably don't know but I know. Who is the
person behind it? Gates. Furthermore, one Microsoft official,
after confronting him with a few questions, put down on SEVERAL occasions
not only IBM but Borland and Novell as well.

Like I stated before, you might not like what I said but that's because
I never gave anybody hell. I just told the truth and they all thought
it was hell.

Mark K.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:12175 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3822
From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: CS, what do they know?
Date: 13 Jan 1993 04:52:51 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuron.tamu.edu

In article <1993Jan12.225657.7224@gw.wmich.edu> x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
|
|	The CS curriculum is sure on the ball around here.  I am taking
|an operating systems class and the professor had never heard of WIndows
|NT (but did know a bit about OS/2).

Actually its not limited to your school.  You have to understand what
the objectives of the faculty in academia are.  The objectives are to
write papers and get them published.  It does not matter if the
content of the papers is meaningful or not, just the number of papers
you get published and the number of times your papers are cited.

You must understand, OS/2 and Windows NT offer no new ideas.  They are
only new implementations of old ideas.  They are "beneath" the notice
of most (not all) CS faculty.

For an interesting (and tragic) discussion, read "Imposters in the
Temple" by M. Anderson.
   -- Bruce


--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
                              |  Scrupulous Lawyer