HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 4389750@mcimail.com  (Robert Gammon)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Nntp-Software: PC/TCP NNTP
Organization: Texas Instruments Materials and Controls Group
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:16:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.042126.17499@u.washington.edu> mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth) writes:

 << stuff deleted >>

>> 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. 

Please remember that MOST of the world, MOST of the users or DOS, Windows, and
OS/2 do NOT have ANY reason to talk to a UNIX host.  We do NOT want to pay for
feature.  IBM recognizes our desire, and packages the TCP/IP product separately.
With enough of you asking for this, perhaps IBM may choose to offer a bundled
product to satisfy your desires, without making all of us buy the bundled
product.  Remember that there is a whole world out there beyond the confines
of your university campus.

--
Regards,
Robert Gammon
(713)-274-3299       (voice)
(713)-274-2324       (fax)
(713)-274-2323       (BBS 300-9600,8,N,1)
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is WPS really better??
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:36:43 GMT
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711

In article <1992Oct5.170959.23160@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.210004.9396@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>>Voila!  Open up the shadowed directory and double click onto a document.
>>Your favorite Dos/Windows/OS2 editor should come up preloaded with the
>>document.  Also, any new documents will appear will automatically  have an
>>icon that is  associated with the editor.
>
>I don't think the documents get the program's icon.  They're supposed
>to, and they did under OS/2 1.3, but they don't when I do it on my 2.0
>system at home.

No, you're right, the documents usually get a document icon.  I didn't know
that 1.x let you give the program's icon to the documents of that program,
which would be nice.  Something for IBM to think about?

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (TAN JIN MENG)
Subject: Re: Desynchronized Message Queues (was a thread about threads)
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 01:20:39 GMT

tomjo@microsoft.com (Tom Johnston) writes:
: In article <eagle.717194634@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu> eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu) writes:
: >brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
: >>That is not the case at all... I had earlier posted saying that
: >>one did not need necessarily to use multiple-threads in NT as the
: >>GUI has seperate event queues per process.  The point is that
: >>one of the major problems porting to OS/2 is that you must immediately
: >>multithread your app or you block the other PM apps.
: >
: >Perhaps I don't understand this, but the last sentence here makes no
: >sense to me whatsoever.  Someone please explain why NOT using multiple
: >threads in a single program would cause other PM apps to block.
: >
: >Perhaps I don't fully understand OS/2's scheduling, but this really
: >doesn't make sense to me.
: >
: 
: Just to clarify a few things, one distinction
: between OS/2 2.0 and Windows NT is that with Windows NT, each
: thread has its own message queue.  This has several benefits
: when working with multiple applications simultaneously.
: 
: One is that you can _type ahead_ without waiting for the 
: system to catch up.  Imagine you have 2 apps open; one's 
: in the middle of something (it's currently highlighted), and
: the second is waiting for input.  With Windows NT, you can
: click on the second app & go ahead and type input without
: any concern that what you typed might go to the first app
: by mistake.
: 
: Another benefit of desynchronized message queues is that an
: app (or the system) is never blocked if another app is hung
: or busy.
: 
: tomjo@microsoft.com
: My opinions are my own

I still don't understand.... Multitasking should still be possibly with
or without multiple message queues. I'll take a stab at reexplaning it
and see if I'm correct?

If you have a single message queue, that means that a single application
can block the message queue and prevent other apps from accessing the
message queue. However, all threads NOT accessing the message queue are
not blocked. Therefore, you only block threads in other PM apps that are
accessing the message queue. All other threads/apps continue executing.

If you have one queue per thread (or per window?????), then the bottleneck
referred to above is gone.

Is my interpretation right?

jin meng
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong)
Subject: Re: So much for Msoft's bluster <grin>
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 11:05:03 GMT

In article <1668@anagld.analytics.com> sammy@anagld.analytics.com (Sam Blackburn) writes:
>olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund) writes:
>
>>When NT finally will be available (by the
>>end of '93?), there will be a lot of OS/2 2.0 users and a lot of
>>powerfull 32-bits OS/2 applications out there.
>
>Debatable.  From a developer's point of view it makes more sense to develop a
>Windows application because OS/2 can run Windows apps.  You've killed two birds
>with one stone.  This, of course, does not apply to "server" type applications.
>When NT comes out you've got an application that runs on THREE operating systems
>instead of being tied to only one with OS/2.
>

This really depends a lot on whether OS/2 becomes a viable and sustainable
platform in the end.  While uncertainty persists, most developers will develop
for Windows to be on the safe side.  But if OS/2 persists, then there will
be a market for OS/2 native apps, since these apps will run better on OS/2
than Windows.

>                                                               o
>Sam Blackburn                                                    \
>Internet:   sammy@sed.csc.com                                  \O/
>Compuserve: 76300,326                     ||====================|====||
>GEnie:      SAMMY                         ||-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-/\+-+-||
>                                          ||===================\=\===||
>                                          ||                         ||
>                                          || Kill or be killed.      ||
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 6 Oct 92 06:43:06 GMT
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711

In article <1992Oct05.183609.22361@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <7490@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>MS employees here echo the official line that nt will be "under $500". It's
>>utterly idiotic for MS to make that statement and not have the final price be
>>$499.95.
>
>     This is a very foolish statement, Jay.  There are no clear
>plans for the pricing of Windows NT at this time - the "under $500" is
>an estimate of the upper bound, not the lower bound.

	Uhhh, just so you know, Phil, lower bound means what the price will
be *at least*.  That's what it means in layman's terms, at least.

>  Assuming that
>it will sell for $499.95 is ridiculous - the product will be priced
>to maximize profits, the way all software is.  The higher price will
>not always bring the most profit.

True, higher price will not always profit, but MS hasn't seemed to have a
problem with their interpretation of a high price as a bargain...remember
all those dirt cheap SDK's for OS/2?  Personally, when MS says NT will sell
"under $500", I take that as a $500 estimate and wait for the real thing to
come out.   Assuming that it will sell for $499.95 *for the moment* is 
certainly not ridiculous, as it's the only figure MS has given us.  Talk
to your marketing department, they're the ones that said it, not us.

Ted
From: walls@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Gerald Walls)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:00:09 GMT
Organization: Honeywell Air Transport Systems Division

In article <70002@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt4957a@prism.gatech.EDU (Belletti, Allen R.) writes:
>Is anyone here aware of attempts to produce fully functional (or even without
>the FPU), full speed "486 compatible", which will be as fast or faster than
>Intel's?  I was assuming that some of the other companies didn't have the
>fabrication technology to crap 1.2 M transistors onto a 50 MHz-rated chip, but
>I have no idea if that's really the problem...

AMD already has.  they are now in the process of rewriting microcode
because Intel was able to convince a jury that a license to use
the "microcode in a computer" didn't include the microcode in
the chips.


gerald walls (walls@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com) or
             (int_walls@am.eccx.umc@esu36.cfsat.honeywell.com)

       Any opinions expressed are my own and not
         those of Honeywell or its management.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Subject: Re: Moving from X to Y.
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:24:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.095555.23259@cam-orl.co.uk> thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.235053.17987@tamsun.tamu.edu>, bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
>|> In article <1992Sep25.092040.25790@cam-orl.co.uk> I wrote:
>|> >In article <1992Sep24.144333.7760@tamsun.tamu.edu>, bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
>|> >|> In article <1992Sep24.084644.10794@cam-orl.co.uk> I wrote:
>|> >|> >Personally, I didn't find the WPS to be particularly intuitive. e.g Can you
>|> >|> >explain what the two mouse buttons do on the icon at the top left of a
>|> >|> >window? What does a drag, short click or long click do?
>|> >|> 
>|> >|> It took me about 15 minutes to figure out how the mouse works. After
>|> >|> that it was quite 'intuitive'.
>|> >Since you understand it so well, why didn't you answer my question? It was not
>|> >meant to be rhetorical. Please explain why the subtle differences in behaviour
>|> >are 'intuitive'.
>|> You are right - its not 'intuitive'. Nither is double-clicking on an
>|> icon if you've never used a GUI before.  Come to think of it, neither
>|> is pointing, pressing and dragging with the left button.  What you are
>|> complaining about is a *change* in how things work.  We are now going
>|> to *gasp* two mouse buttons.  When we change from one to two buttons,
>|> how is *anything* 'intuitive'?
>
>I did not complain about change, I complained about inconsistency. The two
>buttons have similar but subtly inconsistent behaviour in this case. If you
>took the time to answer my question you would understand what I mean.
>

Ok, If we use a 2nd mouse button, what would you do differently?

>
>BTW, I assume by your silence that you accept that putting menus partially
>off-screen is not intuitive. So the WPS does have some flaws. Why not just
>admit one more?

OK, I admit WPS has some flaws.  Now quick... Does Win 3.x have some
flaws?  :-)

   -- Bruce



--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
bdubbs@sadis01.sa.aflc.af.mil |  Scrupulous Lawyer
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: OS/2 longetivity ( was Re: Interesting Tidbit
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 18:13:35 GMT

cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:

>Douglas A. Bell writes:

>   I guess [a previous post from a Zeos employee] means that OS/2 2.0 
>   won't be bundled on ZEOS machines in the near future. ;-) 

>I talked to a tech at Northgate who happens to like OS/2 and has it
>running on several Northgate systems.  He says he's the *only* person he
>knows there who's interested in it.  A conversation with a Northgate
>salesman gave me the same impression.  Are any brands promoting it,
>rather than just tolerating it?

>Chris Brewster
>cb@cray.com

I read in INfoWorld that Dell is going to be bundling OS/2 with their 
systems.  Gateway's salesperson (I talked to them last month) claimed
they are in negotiations with IBM for bundling OS/2 as well.

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu (D. Robert Spexet II)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 20:06:55 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan, Mathematics Department, Ann Arbor

In article <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?
>otherwise i pretty much agree with the rest of you post
>(personal opinion: MCA rocks - quickring wishes it was MCA)

I believe the Nubus was originally an MIT design which was enhanced by TI.
-- 
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
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6751 comp.sys.intel:1834 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:25939 comp.benchmarks:1485
From: jwreilly@mipos2.intel.com (Jeffrey Reilly)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.benchmarks
Subject: i486sc/25 & AND386/40 (was Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?)
Summary: BAPCo, performance, SYSmark92
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:42:29 GMT
Followup-To: comp.benchmarks
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA

In article <1992Oct1.213914.17438@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>
>AMD also produces 386sx chips at 25 and 33MHz.  I believe they'll have
>486 chips out soon, as well.  BTW, the AMD 386/40 performs better than
>an Intel 486sx/25, and it's much cheaper.
>-- 

What data do you have to back up your performance claim?

At least in terms of the DOS/Business Desktop environment, I have
seen the following data:

From page 49 and 57 of the 8/92 BAPCo Report ( a newsletter put out
by the Business Applications Performance Corporation to provide
results on their SYSmark92 suite; which is an application based suite
of benchmarks):

System Model 	Compaq/M 486/25s	Rimma Technology 386-40
CPU		Intel486SX		AMD386DX
FPU		None			None
MHz		25			40
Memory		8MB			8MB	
Cache		64KB (8K on chip)	64KB
Disk		Both have Maxtor 4170E w/ WD1007V ESDI controller
Video		Integrated		Orchid Prodesigner IIs

SYSmark92	94.75			84.43

A higher SYSmark92 indicates better performance. From these numbers,
it appears that the with two fairly similar systems, the Intel486SX
perfroms about 10% better than the AMD386DX.

Jeff

Jeff Reilly			| "There is something fascinating about
Intel Corporation		| science. One gets such wholesale returns
jwreilly@mipos2.intel.com	| of conjecture out of such a trifling
(408) 765 - 5909		| investment of fact" - M. Twain
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: adamba@microsoft.com (Adam Barr)
Subject: Re: Miscellaneous NT information.
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:37:01 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Sep30.015752.23373@u.washington.edu> tzs@milton.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>>A friend of mine just attended a DARPA meeting in DC... it was addressed
>>by Mark Ryland of Microsoft's DC/Federal office.  Here's some of
>>my friend's notes:
>>
>>	1. Disk buffers are first class objects whose ownership changes from
>>           the OS to the application when a read is complete.  This alleviates
>>           any need for copying in the device driver.
>
>How are page faults handled?  Does the OS make sure that the buffer is
>present before giving it to the disk driver?  Is the device driver given
>a physically contiguous buffer, or is a scatter/gather list used?  If
>there is a scatter/gather list, is it explicit, or is there something like
>the Windows VxD VDMDA_Scatter_Lock service that the driver uses to get
>physical addresses?  If so, can this be called in the middle of an I/O?

Yes, NT makes sure the buffer is present before giving it to
the driver. A single page will be physically contiguous, but the
cache manager inside NT will attempt to readahead to prevent future
page faults (unless the driver indicates that this is not a good
idea). In that case you will get a scatter/gather list with each
piece being a physically contiguous page. Drivers are not supposed
to read the list directly, but call the HAL (Hardware Abstraction
Layer) to get the physical pieces.

I'm not sure what you mean by "in the middle of an I/O" but the
driver can request the next physical piece while he is handling
the DMA completion interrupt for the previous piece.
 
Note that "driver" is whatever file system owns the file, which
could be the network redirector if you are faulting across the
net (for example you are running an executable stored on a remote
computer -- the image is only copied across the net as pages are
needed or read ahead by the cache manager). In this case, the data
will be copied from the network card directly to the buffer that
will be executed.


- adam
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6869 comp.sys.intel:1851 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:26092
From: gt4957a@prism.gatech.EDU (Belletti, Allen R.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:41:32 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <21622@global.hacktic.nl> peter@global.hacktic.nl (Peter Busser) writes:
>doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor) writes:
>>So what is it Intel has a monopoly on ?  Nothing. Intel just makes the
>>best, fastest implementations of the "386" architecture, not the only ones.
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>The best? The fastest? Hmmm, 1st, AMD has CMOS 386's, Intel hasn't. A CMOS chip
>draws less current which is good for notbooks. Also, lower power consumption
>means a longer lifetime. Second, the Cyrix 386's use less cycles on some
>instructions than the Intel 386 so the Intel 386 isn't the fastest. Only 486's
>are better (i.e. faster) than the others (except of course for laptops).

>Conclusion: Intel doesn't make the best and fastest implementation of the 386
>architecture, unless you specifically talk about the 486.

I believe what was meant '"386" architecture' includes the 486.  Even
though the 486 is a different *implementation*, it is the same *architecture*.
And as things stand, Intel currently produces the fastest (which for most
purposes == best) "486", thus the best implementation of the '386
architecture.

Is anyone here aware of attempts to produce fully functional (or even without
the FPU), full speed "486 compatible", which will be as fast or faster than
Intel's?  I was assuming that some of the other companies didn't have the
fabrication technology to crap 1.2 M transistors onto a 50 MHz-rated chip, but
I have no idea if that's really the problem...

-- 
Belletti, Allen R.                  | gt4957a@prism.gatech.edu
Georgia Tech -- The Sunny Playground of the South!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong)
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 10:34:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.175235.3980@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>
>      The problem with your statement is this:  Joe Idiot, as you call
>him, drives the market.  All the techno-weenies in the world, myself
>included, could buy a product, and those sales would be a drop in
>the bucket compares to what "Joe Idiot" is buying.  If IBM doesn't
>intead to court Mr. Idiot, they are making a big mistake.  (I think
>that they will, eventually, though.)
>

IBM seems to be courting Joe Public all right, thank you very much.  Or else
they wouldn't be selling OS/2 for $49.

>
>>Hey, remember what mommy used to tell you?  If little Joey down the
>>street were to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you?
>
>       Depends.  Bunjee or no?
>

I wouldn't do it one way or the other.  Call me a coward, but high risk one
way, almost certain death the other.

>				-Phil
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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: jld@datascope.com (Jay L. Davis)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Beta program
Organization: Datascope Corp.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:33:44 GMT

In article <7370@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Sep17.221858.16467@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>Apparently the 10,000,000 Windows users aren't too offended by
>>the shell.
>
>Bzzt. If you get to claim 10M Windows users, then we get to claim well over a
>million OS/2 users. Those numbers are affected by the exact same
>considerations. Hell, even MS doesn't claim 10M Windows _users_, and you've
>already heard how trustworthy I think they are...
>-- 

Here is another detail: I have Windows at home and at work. I can only
be in one place at one time. Am I one Windows user or two? Of course, my
home copy will be decoration as soon as I no longer have to dual-boot
in order to run some DOS stuff (games, of course) and some Windows 3.1
Multi-media stuff.

---Jay Davis
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jja@wsl.ie (John J. Allen)
Subject: Re: OS/2 VS NT! The Future War Looms...
Organization: Project Papyrus, AIRAID, Dublin, Ireland
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 12:07:08 GMT

brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
: In the reasonably near future IBM will smack up against a Windows app wall
: as they will not continue to have source.

In the reasonably near future MS will smack up against an OS/2 2.0 app wall
as they will not continue to have source.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: MS Word for OS/2 Beta in Israel!
Date: 01 Oct 92 22:30:14 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

Sorry, I lost the attributions, but since this is just an informational
post, I don't think it matters.

> >>I made a mistake in relating something I'd heard.
> >
> >>I do apologize.  I re-read the letter and my friend said the he'd read (in
> >>InfoWorld?) that M$ was selling OS/2 in Australia and beta testing** a new
> >>Word for Windows (for OS/2) in Israel.
> >
> >>(**This is the descrepancy.  I had originally stated that M$ was _selling_
> >>the new WfW.  They appear to be _beta testing_ WfW.)
> >
> >>Can anybody confirm or deny this rumor?
> >
> >>SAS
> >
> >This is very interesting, If in fact Microslop is testing a new OS/2 version
> >Word, It would indicate one of two things:
> 
>      I think there was probably a miscommunication somewhere.  If
> whichever letter this person received actually said WfW, and he uses
> that abbreviation in his own post, then he is not necessarily talking
> about Word for Windows.

Front cover of this weeks INFO WORLD says Windows For Workgroups, Maybe
that's what your friend read.  Generally WfW was been used as an abreviation
for Windows For Workgroups.


PeteSk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy