HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:22:53 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <SXMRP.15.0@orca.alaska.edu>  SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R. Platzke) writes:
>
> NT has, I'm told, Win-32 and limited Win-16 support, today (my CD-ROM drive
> has not come in so I have not had the chance to extensively test it).  In
> addtion, it has a limited version of LANMAN and TCP/IP support,
> *BUILT IN to the OS.

And OS/2 has Lan Server and TCP/IP available as add-ons.  Those who want them
can buy them.  The millions of stand-alone machines that have no use for them
need not pay for them.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows NT 'Alpha'
Date: 18 Aug 1992 03:09:05 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Aug17.232651.23471@tamsun.tamu.edu> bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
>I wonder just what the rationale for calling the Windows NT Beta an
>'Alpha' version is?

It lowers expectations of just what the software is capable of doing. "So what
if it doesn't do X? It's just an alpha release!"
-- 
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.
  "Anything that an F-4 can outturn is not maneuverable." -- Mary Shafer
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: terryfry@access.digex.com (Terry Fry)
Subject: Re: Hasta la Vista, OS/2
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 02:49:00 GMT

In article <qfd-Hz=@engin.umich.edu> mongoola@engin.umich.edu (Don Prior) writes:
>In article <5919@gemini.cs.nps.navy.mil> rdixon@gemini.cs.nps.navy.mil (robert dixon) writes:

>I have used both (and prefer Windows) and I have a USR Dual Standard
>modem, and I get around 1700 cps on compressed files WHILE
>multitasking..
>Certainly, if you have a 2400 baud modem, it is EASY to multitask
>while downloading even with a slow computer.
>
>IF you have a faster modem, you may need a 16550 Uart chip to help, 
>but both windows and desqview should be up to the challenge.
>
>As for OS/2... I never got it to multitask my HIGH Speed modem
>effectively..  perhaps the new Com Drivers I got from IBM the other
>day will help.

I have a HST & a AX/9624 under 1.3.1 on a 12mhz 286 and with both
running see 1600 cps transfers for the HST side with 900 for the AX.

Do that with Windows.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: dannygl@microsoft.com (Danny Glasser)
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Date: 17 Aug 92 23:10:56 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Summary: Microsoft sells OS/2 1.3
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy

In article <1992Aug14.183354.16267@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <SXMRP.12.0@orca.alaska.edu> SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R. Platzke) writes:
>>Again, just my opinion, but the OS/2 support is only for version 1.3 and I
>>think that MS included it so that they can claim that they did not drop
>>support for those OS/2 users who bought ver 1.3, they merely upgraded them
>>to NT.
>
>Interesting.  MS didn't sell 1.3.  MS stopped after 1.2.  And they're
>going to support the 1.3 API in NT.  I wonder why.  If they wanted to
>simply keep supporting loyal MS-OS2 users, they shouldn't support more
>than the 1.2 API.  I guess OS/2 1.3 was more of a success than they
>want to admit.  I have a feeling that when OS/2 2.0 apps start
>shipping, MS may well incorporate the 32-bit API in as well.  I wonder
>if they'll slip the release date for the new API or if they'll simply
>distribute it in the next release (or in a CSD pack).

The opening statement of the above paragraph is incorrect.  The MS LAN
Manager 2.1 packaged product includes a copy of MS OS/2 1.3 to run on the
server.  (I have no idea if the LM license allows you to install it on 
clients as well.)  So MS did and does sell OS/2 1.3.

Besides, there were virtually no API changes between OS/2 1.21 and OS/2 1.3
(as I recall).  The changes were LADDR support and better performance and
usability (and bug fixes).  So the amount of extra work for NT to support
the OS/2 1.3 API (w.r.t. the OS/2 1.2 API) is minimal at most.

Just wanted to clarify this one point.  Thanks for your attention.


Danny Glasser
dannygl@microsoft.com
Just a programmer, not a spokesmodel.
From: chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: is NT really NEW technology?
Keywords: NT Unix OS2 DOS Blither
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:34:08 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA

In article <1992Aug14.095638.5330@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>I didn't include the article about whether NT is really New Technology
>'cause it was rather long...
>
>1) I never said that NT couldn't user dumb terminals.
>2) I never said that the Clients must be NT machines,
>   in fact, simple windows machines are good.

Well, that means you need NT or Windows machines to take advantage
of NT's client-serve technology?  I hope this isn't the case, because
if it is, NT WILL fail.  Since NT has lan manager products, and
is able to do TCP/IP, I think that non NT/win machines could be clients,
and I certainly hope so.


>3) You will never see "NEW" technology unless you work in a research
>   station.  The "NEW" in NT is in the context of the market that it
>   is targeted for.  You may be able to find some of the features in

This is confusing.  NT stands for "NEW Technology" yet you say it has
nothing to do with being New in that regard.  Maybe they should call
it Win NM, for "Windows NEW Marketing" :)

>   X or UNIX, but to get them all, you really have to go out of your
>   way.  If you have a UNIX system with X, various DOS/WINDOWS/WHATEVER
>   emulators, I want to see you act as the MIS person.  Try managing
>   a number of these stations.

I do manage a variety of platforms.  However your statement is confusing.
I didn't say I had dos/win emulators going.  I said X servers are available
for many platforms.  The reason I said it was to enforce the point that
I don't need NT to do remote graphical apps.  I also said for NON NT
machines, if they want to do NT remote graphical apps, NT will have
to have some kind of graphics protocol, and the machine wanting
to recieve the graphics display from NT will need a "NT Display
Server."  if NT doesn't have the ability to do remote graphics
such as X, that's another strike against NT.

>
>4) If you have questions about compatability, read the portion about
>   LAN communications in the release notes, especiall the part about
>   Protocols.
>

Ok, I will, but I wonder why you justs didnt say "yes" or "no"
to my questions on it.  Perhaps you didnt read it?


>
>You say that NT will lose because UNIX and X can do a lot of the things
>that NT can do, well, I say it's the other way around.  NT can do the
>things UNIX and X can do, and MORE!!!  (blatant advertisement just
>to fan the flames ;)

Yeah, whats the "alot more?".  

However, there were other things in the post you decided to ignore.


-------------------------------------------------------
| Chris McClellen      (chris@cad.gatech.edu)         |
| "If at first you don't succeed, redefine success."  |
-------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 00:03:33 GMT

> alcocer@parc.xerox.com (Dario Alcocer) writes:
>> What would make it better, at least for developers IMHO, is to
>> have OS/2 2.0 support Windows 386 Enhanced mode programs.

nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:
> True but probably VERY hard to do.

It gets worse.  At least now IBM has source to the 386 Enhanced mode code,
and can attempt to duplicate it in WIN-OS2.

When the Win32s libraries are released (later this year?), doing 32-bit 
Windows apps for Windows 3.1 will become very much easier than now.  And
since the Win32s is not shipped with Windows (the app vendor would ship
the necessary DLLs), it would not, at least according to the press, be
covered by the IBM-Microsoft agreements.  Thus IBM would have to reverse
engineer Win32s without having any access to the source.

Of course, this is still just idle speculation...  :)

[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: weinkam@fraser.sfu.ca (James Lawrence Weinkam)
Subject: Re: HPFS question
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 17:26:51 GMT

jvmg9796@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (doc) writes:

>Im sorry if this is not the right group to post this in, but I would like
>to know what the advantages of the HPFS are (and the disadvantages).  I
>dont know much about it, other than that if I have dual boot set up, dos
>will not recognize an HPFS-formatted partition.  Ok, but what about an
>OS/2 dos compatibility window?  Will dos apps be able to read the HPFS
>partition then?  I would assume that if they can, they would only be able
>to recognize files which had dos-compatible names (8+3).
>So, if my assumptions are correct up to now, then the logical conclusion
>would be that unless I am going to run dual boot, there would be no sense
>in NOT formatting the partitions HPFS, since dos apps will still be able
>to use them in the compatibility window.
>Ok, now someone correct me. :)

This is exactly how I use os/2 and everything said is true.
The dos compatability in os/2 will be able to access the hpfs drive
but is restricted to files that have an 8.3 filename.

No correction is needed.

James
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: superVGA  (and misc top-blowing)
Date: 17 Aug 92 15:07:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.152055.391@novell.com>, chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen) writes:
|> You are right.

Thank you.

|> For users who just use word processors, and don't
|> do anything else, win 3.1 is fine.

You can do a lot more than that before you run into problems.

|> However, multi threaded spreadsheets, etc.  can get work done alot faster.

Which multi-threaded spreadsheet do you run on OS/2 which can match Excel?

|> >Umm. How is it that your observations invalidate my observations?
|>
|> Your observation that Win 3.1 is "faster" than OS/2 2.0 is what
|> is invalid.  I say this because I have machines that ...
...................................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Try a little logic on this one. Observations which you make about your machine
do not invalidate any observations that I make about my machine. I'm not
denying that OS/2 runs faster on your machines. I've never seen your machines.
But I have seen my machines and I have tried OS/2 2.0 on them. And OS/2 is
slower that Windows 3.1 in the areas which matter to me.

|> My whole reason for posting was because what you were saying just doesn't
|> hold. However, windows is fine when it comes to running one App

But that's all I was saying, so my observations DO hold.


|> [NT]t may take over High-End PCs, but OS/2 doesn't need
|> high enders, nor does Win 3.1, but OS2 is superior to Win 3.1.

Of course, in my experience both of these assertions are incorrect.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
Date: 16 Aug 92 05:44:22 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Aug14.194424.4441@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
>
>In a previous article, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) says:
>
>>>OS/2 doesn't really use the BIOS, so it CAN'T be a BIOS app.
>>
>>But OS/2 uses the BIOS as its boot sector loader, just as Win31 uses
>>DOS as it's loader, so by the logic so commonly used in this group (cynicism)
>>OS/2 Is as much BIOS app as Win31 is DOS app.
>
>But doesn't windows use int 21h for more than boot strapping?
>If it does, then it certainly uses dos as more than a bootstrap.

It uses DOS as a filesystem driver.
SO.

I'll name a few things that DOS handles.
TEXT input and output.
Memory Management
Program Loading and Unloading
Filesystem
Interrupt handlers
Installable Device drivers.

of these, windows does it's own
Memory Management
Text/Graphics input/output
Interrupts
Some of it's own device drivers.

WIndows may also use an external memory manager for 
himem.

Program loading and unloading is done by windows, except
for the initial loading of the windows software itself.

So, All in all, windows uses dos as a filesystem device
driver, and for backwards compatability for dos apps and
a few dos device drivers.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: os/2 and nt
Date: 14 Aug 92 01:41:19 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <19920813.065543.936@almaden.ibm.com>, AV@vnet.ibm.com (Anton Verstee
g) writes:
>In <1992Aug13.2712.3558@dosgate> "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com> writes:
>>In message <19920810.104404.346
>>Versteeg) writes:
>>
>>>I think it's perfectly alright to have two (wouldn't call them double)
>>>standards here. Porting *existing* applications to OS/2 2.0 is probably less
>>>than 1% of the effort to develop a *new* Operating System.
>>>Don't you agree?
>>
>>Actually, no. Given the problems that OS/2 has with supporting backlevel
>>OS (Windows, DOS) in addition to its own code, I'd say that the  efforts
>>are probably about equal. OS/2 has the advantage in terms of the  amount
>>of existing code; NT has the advantage of a considerably cleaner  design
>>without having  to maintain  the campatability  with other  systems that
>>OS/2 does.

Just out of curiosity, where did you get the idea that NT doesn't have to
maintain compatibility with other systems?  It is trying to be compatible with
even more systems than OS/2 is.  True, it looks like a somewhat cleaner
design, but I expect that NT will have its own problems, quite seperate from
OS/2's.

>>Obviously, OS/2 was here first. But I'd say that NT is pinned
>>at  about  a  year  behind  OS/2.  Given  that  NT  is considerably more
>>ambitious, I'd put them at about an equal footing.

I'm not sure they will be on equal footing because from what I can see, NT
really is designed primarilly for workstations, but will work on PCs.  OS/2
may eventually do this, but it is aimed at the Windows market exclusively at
this point.  They don't really appear to compete except for a few very high
end PC's right now.


                                            Stacy John Behrens
                                            *===)-------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
Subject: "My Opinions"
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:25:58 GMT



Just curious.  I see the Microsoft employees saying everything they say
is their opinions.

I wonder if thats truly the case.  I wonder what would happen to
an MS employeee if they posted on the net something like

"NT Sucks rocks!  This alpha version reaks!"

(same thing that would happen to IBM employees if they said
"OS2 is lame")

:)

Im just stating this as some posts seem to be trying to get petesk, etc
to say something to this effect.  Folks, even if NT sucked
(which I don't believe, even though UI dont want to use it) you'll
never get them to admit it.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Distributed Systems (was: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 02:15:16 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug12.220152.20876@microsoft.com>  petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>
> Oh, wait, you wanted to use Just enough technology to make your point.
>
> Well, I'd like to use technology a little more advanced.  286 machines
> are getting quite cheap these days.  They run windows.

Well, I like to use technology a little more advanced - all *mine*
run OS/2.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:4242 comp.os.os2.misc:27762
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:07:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: njitgw.1992Aug19.210742.22506
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <438@casemo.UUCP> keating@casemo.UUCP (John Keating ) writes:
>  o  More and more people will start building home networks.
>     (Yes, my home pc is designated as jwkiii@keating.fam  :^)
>     (No, it isn't yet registered...  :^)

Not until InterNet connections get a lot cheaper.  It is kind of silly
to have a LAN to connect the bedroom PC with the livingroom PC.  The
average homeowner can't justify the cost of a fractional T-1 line into
the house for a Net connection.

>  o  More and more computers will be sold with ethernet boards.
>     (I believe one company is already offering the ArcNet (???
>     the one with the rams.)
>     (I think Apple is now offering the choice of an Appletalk
>      or an Ethernet connection on the back of some of their
>      machines.)

Absolutely, but this will be for the office.  Corporations like it
more than home owners do.

>  o Operating systems will start including network capabilities.
>    (Did I see something re: OS/2 and just such a thing on the
>    net recently?)

I hope they continue selling them separately, or at least offer a
cheaper "no-network" version.  I don't like paying for features I'm
not going to use.

This is one of the reasons I won't install Unix at home.  It really
isn't useful without a large network to hook in to (how am I going to
get all those great PD sources into a non-networked Unix box?  I can't
afford commercial Unix software!).  And the InterNet is expensive for
an individual to connect to.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: Who's problem *are* SVGA drivers?
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 10:40:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.050907.5404@infonode.ingr.com> bbrown@infonode.ingr.com (Bailey Brown) writes:
> >2) IBM needs their programmer resources for more important things.
> >   Like fixing bugs in the WPS.  Would you like a stable interface
> 
> I don't like the WPS, and I wish IBM had spent the effort wasted
> on this buggy resource hog on the 32-bit graphics interface and
> video drivers instead.  MS realeased a "generic" SVGA driver with
> Win 3.1 and it works well on most boards.  IBM should have provided
> seamless generic SVGA, S3, 8514/A, and XGA drivers, and a stable
> PM interface instead of the WPS.  If this were the case, I'd
> still have OS/2 2.0 installed on my machine.

Well, Bailey, it just shows there is no accounting for taste. Ijust spent the
last three days on my hind legs demonstrating OS/2 for the masses. The real
Windows fans found the WPS a bit tough to come to grips with. It is too
unstructured for the way they are used to thinking about a GUI. 
 
The rest (about 80-90%), preferred the WPS. It doesn't waste precious screen
space on title bars and scroll bars. It is totally configurable. It's use is
obvious after a 2 minute demonstration. Flexibility and power shine through.
Many people - like me - don't like the Windows program manager set up. When I
saw that Windows NT looked just like Win3.1, I was disappointed. 

The WPS is proving to be one of OS/2's big selling points to those people
who haven't a clue what 32-bit adressing, x86 protected mode, and 
pre-emptive multi-tasking actually mean or why thay matter.

My 4 year old daughter took to the WPS like a duck to water. It's a winner.
 
Steve
 
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | If you don't vote for MMP on 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  September 19, 1992, then you 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  must like things the way they 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  are.....can I live with YOU?
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:23:39 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Aug18.090214.14043@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.194931.17023@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> So why should it suddenly lose the ability to run Windows 3.0 just
>> because it gains the ability to run Windows 3.1?
>Not *all* Win3.0......just a few dozen programs....some of which are popular.

OK, I'm missing something. Why would something that runs under 3.0 and WIN-OS2
break under 3.1? Did MS (gasp) introduce some gratuitous incompatibilities in
the 3.1 API such that a 3.1-compliant WIN-OS2 breaks 3.0 programs? Why isn't
Windoze 3.1 getting complaints about this from folks who have upgraded and
can't do their work now? (Or is it?)
-- 
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.
  "Anything that an F-4 can outturn is not maneuverable." -- Mary Shafer
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM wouldn't pull support for OS/2, would it?
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:26:39 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <77410@ut-emx.uucp> drxmann@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Dustin R. Christmann) writes:
>>won't be running on Intel hardware anyway - I always thought it'll be
>>developed on the Power-PC currently being developed by Kaleida (that
>>other IBM-Apple joint venture).

>Correct. From what I have heard, Pink and OS/2 development are being done con-
>currently since

>a) they are slated to run on hardware that is targeted toward different mar-
>   kets.  I, for one, am not expecting to see Pink on Intel
>   platforms.

The book on OS/2 2.0 that I have specifies that IBM's real involvement
with Pink is to port it to other architectures, including the Intel
platforms.   It sounded very much like Pink would be the IBM version
of Windows/NT, being available on a high-powered RISC processor plus
various desktop platforms.

The book also makes the statement "IBM has promised an affordable
upgrade path to Pink for OS/2 customers."  That doesn't say that OS/2
will be abandoned, but it at least provides a migration path if it is. 


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy