HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:01:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct07.205644.4204@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <7511@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>
>>This is not a criminal case, but a civil one (at least, MS can't go to jail
>>for pressuring Zachmann). In a civil case, the preponderance of the evidence
>>decides, and right now there's more evidence from Zachmann than there is from
>>MS.
>
>     Nonsense.  Zachmann has provided _no_ evidence to support his
>claims, at least that I am aware of.  Can you tell me where the
>preponderance is?
>

Phil, It seems to me that everything that happened wrt Zachmann
happened verbally and in private meetings.  When this occurs, we can
never get hard evidence.  I believe that in legal circles this is
refered to as a 'swearing contest'.  That is, each individual swears
that such and such happened.  Its up to the judge/jury to decide who is
telling the truth and that decision is inferred from reputation and
past events, not evidence.

In this case, the public is the jury and we will necessarily have a
split decision.  Personally, I lean towards believing Zachmann because
I don't see where he has anything to gain.  MS OTOH has quite a bit to
gain by having OS2 fail.

   -- Bruce


--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
bdubbs@sadis01.sa.aflc.af.mil |  Scrupulous Lawyer
From: yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong)
Subject: Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 19:23:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.202631.29392@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <92283.115743MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu> Spiro the Spiny Goldfish <MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>
>>No, it didn't have anything to do with it. The kit cost $2600 when it first
>>came out, before OS/2 1.3 was even released, and MORE THAN A YEAR before the
>>IBM-Microsoft split.
>>
>>Brian, it's obvious you don't know anything about the history of the subject.
>>Please leave the discussions to those of us who have something factual to add.
>
>According to the OS/2 1.3 press release on ftp-os2, OS/2 1.3 came
>out in October 1990, according to Dietal and Kogan, Microsoft and IBM made
>the split public in September 1990 (i.e. before 1.3 came out).  Microsoft
>would have been gearing up for the split for some time before.
>

Are you sure?  I distinctly remember that OS/2 1.3 came out right on the
heels of Windows 3.0, and for a while after putting out Windows 3.0,
Microsoft is still (at least from what they claim in public) behind the
development of OS/2.

>As to my not "knowing anything about the history of the subject"?  I seem
>to have the dates down a lot better than you do.  As to my speculation
>about the history of the price... read the sentance!
>
>	"I wonder...."
>Sounds like I'm not sure, no?
>
>>----
>>Mike Dahmus       MXD118@PSUVM  or  dahmus@cs.psu.edu
>>TEAM OS/2
>
>
>Brian
>-- 
>C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
>University of Utah                             United We Stand
>Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 11 Oct 92 10:27:00 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <wept6zC00WB3EubGRE@andrew.cmu.edu> jyri+@CMU.EDU wrote:
> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> > >  
> > > >     Why is Zachmann more credible?  He clearly has an agenda.  So do
> > > >his editors.
> > > 
> > > Because he has little to gain by making up such an incident.
> > 
> > That makes him more credible?
> > MS's gains are of an understandable nature, purely financial.
> > Zachmanns gains are of a personal nature, hardly understandable.
> > He obviously has some sort of thing to gain by slamming MS every
> > chance he gets.  He has shown this in many of his articles.  I
> 
> Wild idea: Have you ever thought that maybe he criticizes microsoft
> products because they are, in his professional opinion, trash? No,
> couldn't be, since anything produced by microsoft has, by definition,
> to be the best in it's class, therefore any criticism must be
> purely for other, hidden reasons. Right?
> 
> Disclaimer: I'm not familiar with the case. I just find it hilarious
> how people can assume 'hidden reasons' when they see their product
> being criticized, instead of entertaining the thought that maybe the
> product is simply bad.

I'd suggest you go read some of his articles.  You may see what I mean.
I'd suggest that you read them assuming both Zachmann and myself are biased,
but please be objective, and don't automatically take his side 'cause you
know I'm from MS.  And don't take my side 'cause you know he dislikes MS.

BTW:  The product Zachmann has spent the most time criticising lately
is Windows NT.  He'd criticised it before he'd even seen it, hardly
professional in my book.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...

> 
> --
> Jyri J. Virkki | DoD#561 | jyri+@cmu.edu | Carnegie Mellon University | MSINI
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7672 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2476
From: gess@knex.Gwinnett.COM (Gess Shankar)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: A gentle history of OS/2 and Windows NT.
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:13:35 GMT
Organization: Knowledge Exchange, GA, US of A

bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
 [mucho stuff deleted]

> BTW, most are mad at MS because MS is the one who sold the OS2 SDK.
> If the SDK was sold by IBM and then MS decided not to work on OS2 any
> more, I don't think it would have been held against MS nearly as much
> as the current situation.  The bottom line is that MS accepted large $
> for a promise and then didn't deliver.  If the promise would have been
> small $, it wouldn't have been nearly as big a deal.
> 

It is a little more complex than just the $2600 price tag. While this
represented a big chunk of change for many smallish companies, the cost
of making the strategic decision to develop for that platform in terms
of human resources (design, development and actual coding) took away from
other projects, which could have been 'product'ized sooner to play the
survival game. Even if MS had offered to pay back the entire $2600, still
losses would have been pretty heavy. Besides people who pushed for develop-
ment using 32bit SDK to the management had to defend their earlier decision
and in general suffered some personal setbacks (me included...;-)) Too
bad the management does not realise that if you want to be at the cutting
edge, you have to bleed some of the time.

GeSS
--
Gess Shankar      |<><>|Internet: gess@knex.Gwinnett.COM                |<><>|
Knowledge Exchange|<><>|{rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!knex!gess|<><>|
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7626 comp.os.os2.misc:32861
From: weber@rhrk.uni-kl.de (Christoph Weber-Fahr [KIT])
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: comp.os.os2.{setup,programmer.porting} re-vote?
Keywords: winhelp help os2 bug bookmark
Date: 14 Oct 92 11:50:07 GMT
Organization: University of Kaiserslautern, Germany

ochealth@unixg.ubc.ca (ochealth) writes:

>In spite of overwhelming support for creation of the two new newsgroups,
>it looks like the voting process was botched. From the earlier vote summary
>posted, it looks like it defaults to a FAIL for both newsgroups.

>Can someone who knows what they are doing rescue the vote? or re-initiate
>a new group creation?

You really should read news.groups (or at least news.announce.newgroups).

Both votes failed because lack of supporters - none got the 
100 more yes than no votes. The result was posted some days ago, more than
a month after the voting period ended.

A re-vote can take place not earlier than spring 1993 (6 Months waiting
period).

This is very unfortunate, especially in the case of the setup group,
which failed only by seven or so votes.
Next time there should be some more campaigning and (PLEASE!!!) a less 
complicated voting procedure.

Regards

Christoph Weber-Fahr

-- 
  Christoph Weber-Fahr                  |  E-Mail:  weber@rhrk.uni-kl.de 
  Universitaet Kaiserslautern,  KIT     |  S-Mail:  Postfach 3049
  Tel. 0631/205-3391                    |           D-6750 Kaiserslautern
--------------------------  My personal opinion only    ---------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:27:31 GMT

petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

>> But other than being easier to write and code for (maybe),
>> what advantage does non-preemptive multitasking have?  I say none.

>Runs on smaller hardware (see the bottom part of my last post).  Allows your
>core system to be smaller.

Wrong.  Look at the Amiga.  It runs preemptively fine with 512k.  It's
kernel is what?  1k?  Of course, AmigaOS doesn't have all the nice
features of Windows like... uhhh...  well..  whatever...

>Those two things, plus the one you mentioned (which could be argued), make
>up a pretty strong argument that preemptive mt is not the best thing
>to be used everywhere.

Please give a good example.  I can't think of one.  It's one of the main
flaws of Messy-Windows.


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


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2)
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:44:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct06.213627.3688@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
[...]
>I'm a bit curious about why people don't want networks bundled.  This is
>regardless as to whether the network is more integrated or not.
>
>The only two reasons I came up with as to why people wouldn't want 
>bundled network software are the following:
>
>1) You think the final product would be cheaper if these things were not
>   included.
>
[...]
>
>2) You're worried about using up extra space on your hard drive.
>
[...]

3) You just don't need it.

   Why pay "under $500" next year for NT when you can get
   OS/2 2.x this year for "under $195" (at the most).  For
   those that don't need/want certain features in NT (such
   as security/multi-user or networking), I cannot see any
   clear advantages that NT has over OS/2.

>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...


I already have OS/2 2.0 .  But if I didn't, all I have to do
is to call 1-(800)-3IBMOS2 and pay $149 (or $99 as an upgrade
from DOS, or $79 as an upgrade from Windows), but I would have
to do it before October 31 when this OS/2 sales promotion ends.
Or I can wait until next year to buy NT for "under $500" to
get features I don't need.  (blatant OS/2 advertising intended :)

-- 
==== Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ====
::   ftp ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (128.123.35.151)    ::  .--.
::   for OS/2 software & information.  Get    :: (OS/2)
:::: the OS/2 FAQL in dir /pub/os2/all/faq :::::  ~--~
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:17:32 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct6.073432.27066@u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>Also, did anyone try to make a legitimate Apple ][ clone?  I remember
>Franklin, but wasn't their cloning technique Mr. ROM-Burner?  I don't
>recall offhand anyone trying to make compatible Apple ][ ROMs, but my
>involvement in the Apple ][ world was slight -- I could have easily
>missed such a case.

Yes.  Franklin won the Apple suit, BTW.  Copyright law (at that time)
didn't include code burned into a ROM unless the copyright was printed
on the chip, itself.  So Franklin got away with it.

After the laws changed, however, Laser computer made the Laser-128,
which was a direct clone of the Apple //c (plus a parallel port).  I
don't think they were sued.

Laser now makes PC's.  They have a portable model that looks just like
the old Laser-128 (it's an XT) since they used the same case.


-- 
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
From: spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu (D. Robert Spexet II)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 10:41:19 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan, Mathematics Department, Ann Arbor
Distribution: world 

In article <7561@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.212507.28868@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>     The "hidden reason" crowd are those who actually believe in
>>some Microsoft/Ziff-Davis conspiracy to surpress Zachmann and his
>>ideas.
>
>Hardly. Microsoft and Ziff-Davis' reasons are transparent: MS wants to silence
>a respected critic, and ZD wants to keep getting MS ad dollars.

I must disagree with the implication that ZD simply wants to "keep getting
MS ad dollars."  While the advertising from Microsoft *is* considerable, it
is certainly nothing that cannot be replaced by someone else should Microsoft
pull its advertising.

However, I will state that, in my humble opinion, the advertising from products
designed for the "Windows platform" do make up a large portion, if not the
major portion, of ZD-publication advertising.  Furthermore, many, if not almost
all, of the ZD columnists have touted the Windows platform for the past couple
of years.  They are used to Windows, and they probably use it as their primary
working platform, just as they used DOS a few years ago.

Let me put it this way:  The "ZD perspective", as it were, is not necessarily
closely related to any working relationship that ZD and Microsoft may have.
Consider the environment, however:  You have a group of publications where
the bulk of the advertising comes from Windows-related products.  Compounding
the situation is the fact that most of the columnists use Windows (as op-
posed to OS/2, UNIX, or even DOS) as their primary working platform.  Most
of what is written in a Ziff-Davis publication appears to have been written by
someone whose primary perspective is that of a Windows user.

It is really no surprise that Zachmann no longer works there.  The platforms
that he is interested in do not appear to be the principal focus of the peo-
ple he worked for.

>-- 
>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.
>    Vote for a REAL change on 3 November: Throw out the check-bouncing,
>  tax-and-spend Democrat Congress! (obviously, not an opinion of UTHSCH)


-- 
D. Robert Spexet II, N0OKR   Internet:  spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu
Department of Mathematics    BITnet:    user68xr@umichum.bitnet
The University of Michigan   UUCP:      uunet!mailrus!math.lsa.umich.edu!spexet
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: mkahn@hopi.sedona.intel.com (Mitch Kahn)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Organization: i960(r) New Product Development, Chandler AZ
	<DOCONNOR.92Oct2081116@potato.sedona.intel.com>
	<1992Oct5.163012.19054@tandon.com> <1992Oct6.171419.9955@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:49:21 GMT

pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:

 Xref: inews.Intel.COM comp.os.os2.advocacy:6663 comp.sys.intel:877 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:10597
]
] In article <1992Oct5.163012.19054@tandon.com> tdbear@tandon.com (Tom Barrett) writes:
] In reality the Am386 is not a direct mask equivalent of the i386.
] Intel refused to share the i386 mask with AMD so AMD had to do it on
] their own. In the process of doing so, they found ways to be exactly
] logically equivalent while using much less power.  (it may also be why
] AMD was able to get to 40 MHz)
]

The 80386 was designed by Intel when power consumption and static/dynamic logic
was not an issue. When AMD borrowed the design for the basis of their 386,
design techniques- and marketing wishes- had changed. AMD chose to do a
static design, on a new, faster process. Meanwhile, Intel designed the
486DX. Why bother to go back a re-design the 386? It'll be as dead as
the 286 in a couple of years...

In retrospect, I guess we could do a 200MHz 8086 equivalent :-).

--
|  Mitch Kahn              | "I hope you know that this will go down on |
|  mkahn@sedona.intel.com  |  your permanent record..."                 |
*************************MY OWN OPINIONS*********************************
From: d9mikael@dtek.chalmers.se (Mikael Wahlgren)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:48:04 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg Sweden

brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>OS/2 does NOT have the same feature, even with OS2toYOU.  OS2toYOU only
>provides passworded logins.  Once the user is given a shell they
>have full privileges to all the system.  OS/2 has no concept of user id.
>NT has full fledged separate users id's with corresponding
>levels of privilege.

I don't think your knowledge about OS2toYOU is as complete as mine...:-)
Have you ever heard of HPFS386?  No, I thought so.

Mikael Wahlgren
From: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Subject: Re: Multiuser (was Re: MS's misconduct!)
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:52:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: solaris.1992Oct13.175205.6840
Reply-To: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Organization: Techn. Univ. Clausthal
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers

In  <KEVIN.92Oct8155038@loneranger.edscom.demon.co.uk>  kevin@edscom.demon.co.uk (Kevin Broadey) writes:
> >>>>> In article <1992Oct8.022746.17575@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de>,
> >>>>> "Christoph" == hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph
> >>>>> H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>
> Christoph> If I had to decide, between one machine with 5 processors, 5
> Christoph> mice, 5 keyboard and 5 screens or 5 machines with one
> Christoph> screen/mouse/KB/proc each, I probably would prefer the first
> Christoph> solution. If there is only one user logged in a machine with
> Christoph> 5 processors, he could have the full power of all five
> Christoph> processors. Of course you are right, that it makes few sense
> Christoph> to have a machine with 5 keyboard/mice and only one screen.
>
> With NT's built-in networking and RPC capabilities you *have* got one
> machine with 5 processors, 5 mice, 5 keyboards and 5 screens. Or 50, or
> 500.
>
> As someone once said ... the computer *is* the network.
>

Sure? I don't think, that simple multithreaded applications can run
on different machines, if they don't make explicit usage of RPC. And if so,
Shared Memory over the network is definitely slower than on a local machine.
But correct me, if I am wrong.

Christoph
--
Internet: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de
Bitnet  : HAMPE2 AT DMRHRZ11
Fido    : 2:243/660
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.
Date: 7 Oct 1992 21:20:37 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) says:

>Actually this is what Cringley (and thus I have been saying), but with
>one major exception... Windows.  Actually I like your version better,
>it makes even more sense.  From the start IBM said that Microsoft could
>have the low-end and that OS/2 would get the high-end.  I can see how
>OS/2 1.3 could cause a fight.  It also fits with what Cringely says...
>that the fight was over the fact that OS/2 should be for 386's. This
>says essentialy the same thing.  It also explains even better why
>Microsoft made the huge advertising blitz when 3.0 came out.
>They probably felt that IBM was trying to horn-in on their territory
>and wanted to make sure they guareenteed their piece.

Maybe, but it probably had a lot more to do with gaining ground
against apple.

>The two points I've been trying to make still hold though, one is that
>IBM forced (by its failure to push 2.0 over 1.X) Microsoft to leave.
>And that Microsoft did not "abandon" OS/2 2.0, the product was not even
>close to shipping at the time they left.  

Live in your delusions.....
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn)
Subject: Re: 32-bit OS/2 Apps List
Reply-To: soh3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago 
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:32:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.054854.16201@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>>>I think in the end you will have to agree with me that ISV support
>>>for OS/2 is weak. 
>>>
>>
>>Brian, you seem to indulge yourself too much in this point, but don't
>>you think it is too early to predict?  OS/2 2.0 is out for six or seven
>>months now.  Compared to Windows 3.x, it is a way too short a time.  Besides,

>Remember that the list contained not existing apps, but rather
>_existing_ and _planned_ apps.

Brian, you don't seem to get my point.  I didn't even say that the list
was satisfactory.  My point was, we don't know yet.  If one or two of
applications that will come out soon sell well, then others will be
movitated to follow... It's more like a snowballing process.  The thing is,
there may be no trigger for such a process yet.  You have been fiercely
complaining about the inadequacy of c set/2 as a development too, and yet
you are talking about the lack of isv support.  OS/2 market is, if anything,
not even born yet.  How can you tell what would happen in a year or two?
Can you even say for sure if MS hasn't started beta tests of their
os/2 2.0 products in some foreign counties as has been alleged on the net?
You never know if only because a lot is kept in secret.

>Lotus and WordPerfect pride themselves on being on all platforms.
>SAS is on multiple platforms, and their strong association with the IBM
>world make them naturals to be on OS/2.
>
>Computer Associates on have that works package there, and this is
>not surprising as they have no competition, and they're probably tired
>of losing to MS Works.
>

You might be right on these major application developers.  They may be
developing for os/2 for many different reasons.  But that can't change
the fact that these software giants will fill the os/2 software need in
the market.  Besides, their apps are not just some obscure wordprocessors
or spreadsheets.  Theirs are famous products with high name recognition.
These will fill the need of every day desktop computing.  This will be
enough to lure lots of ordinary computer users to os/2 and then the
upward spiral starts....  

Min
From: marten@feki.toppoint.de (Marten Feldtmann)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: best target platform: OS/2 1.x!?!
Distribution: world
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 08:31:23 GMT
Organization: Private OS/2 System

xtifr@netcom.com writes in article <1992Oct8.005854.1431@netcom.com>:
> 
> 
> Consider the following little table:
> 
>                              Target Environment
> Apps               DOS     Win   OS/2 1.x   OS/2 2.x   Win NT
> -------           --------------------------------------------
> DOS                Yes     Yes    1/2         Yes       1/2

 DOS seems to be the best platform !???!?!?!? :-)

 MF