HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: OS/2 and booting from a 5.25 drive
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1992 13:44:14 +1000

In an epistle scribed on <Oct 01 03:19>, EJR106 opines thus:

 >   Hi.  I own two computers.  One has a 3.5" disk drive, and one doesn't.
 >Both are hardware wise capable of running OS/2.  However, I have 
 >installed OS/2 on the machine with the 3.5" drive only, and I don't know 
 >how to go about getting it onto the machine with only the 1.2M floppy.  
 >Any ideas?   I would read the manual if I had one; however, I am testing 
 > out the complementary version from IBM and it has no manuals.

Swap the disk drives.

Regards
Chris Moore

Chris@asstdc.oz.au
Disclaimer: None that makes any sense
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:43:54 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Sep29.172201.6487@tamsun.tamu.edu> bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.171757.10965@microsoft.com> adamba@microsoft.com (Adam Barr) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep26.012811.6658@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>[feature list deleted]
>>
>>Call me a cynic, but it sounds like IBM has taken the current NT
>>feature list and stated that everything on it will eventually be
>>supported in OS/2. So, how is this not FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, AND
>>DOUBT in its basest, vilest, lowest, most venal form?
>>
>Fear of what?  Uncertainty of what?  Doubt of what?  It seems to me
>that IBM is responding to healthy competition by saying they intend to
>support features that some (not all) users say they want.

     I believe that Adam is referring to a time on this newsgroup
when the statement "Windows NT has preemptive multitasking" would
have been met by cries of "FUD! FUD!".  To be consistent, it would
seem that IBM's promise to mimic Windows NT's feature set should
be met with those same cries.


>  It seems
>that IBM has a more obvious way of implementing some of the proposed
>features than MS does with NT.  Here I'm specifically refering to C2
>security which is a HW/SW combination.  Is MS going to start building
>hardware (besides mice).

     I suspect that one Windows NT is released, Microsoft will assist
hardware vendors in completing the certification process.


>BTW, does anyone know of any OS/HW combination where the HW and the OS
>were not from the same vendor?  I don't know of any, but that doesn't
>mean they don't exit.

      I can't name any either, but nothing in the certification
process requires that the hardware and software come from the same
vendor.

					-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.
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 because!!!!
Date: 6 Oct 92 11:27:47 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1992Oct06.000924.3557@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>If you tell me OS/2 has`t Win3.1 support I tell you your beloved NT simply
>>doesn`t exist. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT NOTHING.
> 
>      Interesting - what OS am I using right now, then?  It said
> Windows NT when I started it up...


	The point he is trying to make is that OS/2 has windows 3.1
support just as much as NT is available.  In p[re-release format.  I
am using Windows 3.1 under OS/2 right this moment.  I am calling using
Crosstalk for Windows (seamlessly) with windows 3.1 and the windows
3.1 clock at the bottom of the screen.  So one can equate the two
in terms of availability.  
	By Brian's argument, one could say it is taking MS 9 months
just to get the other 5% of NT done.  Remember, Brian said many times
on the net that NT is 95% complete.  (As of July).  Therefore, if
NT is released in March, (for example) then it took MS 8 months to
do 5% of NT.  Better not buy it, imagine how long it wuld take them
to fix something! (Sarcasm).


					-Brad

=================================
Brad Wardell  **Happy OS/2 2.0 User**
Project Director
Stardock Systems (SDS)
Western Michigan University
=================================


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jld@datascope.com (Jay L. Davis)
Subject: Re: NT alpha, OS/2 and CDROM
Organization: Datascope Corp.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:19:39 GMT

In article <92266.165110EJR106@psuvm.psu.edu> <EJR106@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
    <...stuff deleted...>
>   I think if I did not buy a CD ROM I would have enough money left for a 200+
>megabyte hard drive instead of 125 megabytes, which I plan to buy as a
>replacement for my current 80 megabyte drive.  Where am I better off?  I
>will only have 8 megs of RAM and I have heard that OS/2 can't perform well
>in this environment; someone running NT with the same configuration reports
>that his 396 only seldomly reports to the hard drive with the same amount of
>RAM.  So basically, I really have no idea where my money would be best spent.
>I'd like it if I could get OS/2 on CD, but I don't think this is possible.
>

Instead of replacing the 80 Meg drive, just add a second drive. Why waste
80 meg? If you need a CD-ROM for something specific, get it. Otherwise
you are better off with the disk space.

I have no problems running OS/2 with 8 meg. CD-ROMs are supported but
a CD-ROM copy of OS/2 isn`t really available yet. They do have a version
that they are selling with the Multi-Media PC and they have said that there
will be a generally available version at some point.

---Jay Davis



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ks3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kenton Shaver)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multitasking (was Re: MS's misconduct!)next reply
Date: 1 Oct 92 22:02:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.UemyLxu00VBKEiVExB
	<1992Oct01.103906.26651@microsoft.com>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

The subset of applications of a computer is
greatly expanded if preemptive multitasking
is included.  A boss would sure want it for
his/her secretary so that this secretary's
files could be BACKED UP WITHOUT HIS/HER
KNOWLEDGE! I love pre. mult. for downloading
and backup.  I'm sure there are 10,000 ways
to use it which I have not thought of!
Somebody will think of these applications,
expand the subset, and make money, that's
sure.

KWS
These are my own opinions.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6510 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2242
Organization: Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Vienna, Austria
Date: Friday, 25 Sep 1992 12:37:15 CET
From: FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Windows/NT postponed to 2nd quarter 1993


Bill Gates alledgedly announced on the "Agenda 93" conference that
NT delays. He is quoted to have said that the first beta-release of
NT will be in October (instead of September) and that he anticipates
that a general available version of NT will be released during the
"first quarter or early second quarter of 1993" (delayed from a
December 92 release).

---rony
From: z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: MS Word for OS/2 Beta in Israel!
Date: 1 Oct 92 01:17:21 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

X-NEWS: ccsvax.sfasu.edu comp.os.os2: 467
From: z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2
Subject: Word for OS/2 2.0 Beta in Israel
Date: 1 Oct 92 01:14:14 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University


The Following is from the OS2-Bitnet list
============================================================================

>Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 92 17:43:30 CDT
>Reply-To:     "IBM OS/2 Unedited Discussion List" <OS2-L%FRORS12.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU>
>Sender:       "IBM OS/2 Unedited Discussion List" <OS2-L%FRORS12.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU>
>From:         "Scott A. Sibert" <ssibert@JSUVAX.JSU.EDU>
>Subject:      M$ and os2
>To:           Multiple Recipients of <OS2-L%FRORS12.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU>


>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:

1) Microsoft does not plan to Place NT, head to head with OS/2. and
acknowledges, that OS/2 is being embraced my many people that want
more than DOS/Windows can offer.

2) NT is going to be Much Later than expected, and they are hedging their
bets in the applications Market.


Sorry for the Cross-post, I meant to send it here.

My 2 Kopeks.

Michael Kupka 

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:50:09 GMT

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

>[PC Week; September 28, 1992; Pages 1,10]
>OS/2 PDK a Boon for Developers.
>[
>The article contains a good review -- if you develop for OS/2
>and have a CD-ROM drive... you want this.

>Among many other things the PDK contains "Release-level copies of the
>OS/2 multimedia extensions and multimedia development kit."
>Is this the same stuff IBM charges $125 for?
>] ...
>The OS/2 Professional Developer's Kit is available [on CD-ROM] to members
>of IBM's Developer Assistance Program for $15 shipping and handling
>charge.  The PDK may be ordered by calling (800) 342-6672.

A few people have talked about this (the PDK).
Is it available yet? And if so, can anyone get?
Has anyone tried ordering it yet?


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net            uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Date: 30 Sep 92 04:03:40 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <RSHOLMES.92Sep27190549@rodan.syr.EDU> rsholmes@rodan.syr.EDU (Rich Holmes) writes:
>HAY MACINTOSH KICKS BUTTT !!!!!!!1!!!1!!!!!!!!!!

I see BIFF@BIT.NET has graduated from his brother's C-64 to a Mac...probably
an old, cast-off 128K version.
-- 
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)
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Moving from X to Y.
Date: 28 Sep 92 09:55:55 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.

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.

|>  I feel my original comments to your questions are still valid.

Fine, but I was looking for an answer, not just comments.

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?
From: thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:37:50 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <1992Sep29.180844.4739@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
> In article <1992Sep29.030113.15991@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Sep28.180214.3087@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>
>>>>>>But os/2 is a totally different story.  Once you install it, you
>>>>>>use it.  That's that simple.  Better dos than dos and better windows
>>>>>>than windows.  Is there in this logic, if it is a logic, not a fact,
>>>>>>at all?
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, I know at least two people, who have OS/2 2 installed on
>>>>>their machine, but almost never use it. Both have copies bought
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>via store/mail order, not free or beta copies, or upgrades.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And I know at least one person who has bought the NT pre-beta CD-ROM and
>>>>does never use it. So what? 
>>>
>>>     Read the original quote.  Wolfgang has proven Min's statement
>>>false by counterexample.  The usage statistics on the Windows NT
>>>PDK are irrelevant in this case.
>>>
>>
>>Phil, please, try to make some sense.  How can anyone prove an example
>>false by a counterexample?  An example is an example.  It can perhaps
>>be falsified by proving that the example was just made up.  But an 
>>example cannot be proven false by another example.  Understand?
> 
>      You didn't use an example - you made a statement.  "OS/2 is a
> totally different story.  Once you install it, you use it."  Your
> statement has been proven false by counterexample.  Why are you
> having a hard time understanding that?

Well, to be rigidly logical, your counterexample proves his point.
The two people you refered to do use OS/2, just not very often.
Refer to the '^^^^' above.

> 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.

Yeah right.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| Charles A. Thompson           | thompson@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu     |
| University of Kansas          | thompson@ukanvax.cc.ukans.edu    |
| .../ They call me SkiBum \... | OS/2 2.0, Bush, and Rush in '92! |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| Look for Recipe Pro(tm), an interactive recipe database...       |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 longetivity
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:01:16 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

>   BTW, I was looking at a Zeos 486/50 but after hearing a Zeos
>   employee trashing OS/2 (a platform that I am enarmored to and invested
>   in), I think I'll opt out.  This is not sour grapes, but I want to
>   purchase from a company that is a little less close minded about this
>   issue (IBM springs to mind :-).
> 
> Andy


	Well, many of the big brands are not promoting OS/2 (Dell is
though) but SDS bundles their 486-50's with OS/2 at no additional
charge.  I know, I work there.  It is a waste to put DOS on such
a machine.

						-Brad


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: Interesting Tidbit from Sept 21 PC week
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: "world"
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:29:01 GMT

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>NOTHING said on the net EVER bears any similarity to "official company
>policy" unless it is explicitly labelled as such.  This sort of tactic
>as as bad as the Microsoft 'hit squad' tactics we see around here
>sometimes, if not worse.

>Do we all really have to start putting 6-line disclaimers on all our
>postings again?

>-- 
>"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.

Sorry - but whether you like it or not what you post does reflect on the
company you work for. Any time a company name appears in a mail path or
signature what you say will affect people's opinions of your employer.

Official spokesperson or not, you should be carefull about what you post.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net            uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 07:34:32 GMT

mikegal@microsoft.com (Michael Galos) writes:
>Here, Pete, let me help. Since C.O.O.A. seems to have quite a few members
>who's PC industry history is weak enough to think that Apple invented the
>GUI and there were no computers before Un*x :-)
>Once upon a time there was a popular comm package called Crosstalk. A 
>company called SoftKlone decided to copy Crosstalk. Crosstalk's creators
>sued SoftKlone to prevent it. Thus began the practice of suing people to
>prevent cloning.
>Since then we've had quite a few of these lawsuits.
>Lotus sued just about everyone to protect their interface.
>Apple sued Digital Research because they thought GEM looked to much lik
>  a Mac.
>Ashton-Tate sued (or threatened) just about every xBase vendor to protect
>  the dBase language.
>IBM sued Eagle for cloning the PC BIOS.
>IBM implied that anyone who wanted to license microchannel would have to
>  pay back royalties on every PC or AT clone they had made.
>Apple blocked almost everyone who made an Apple ][ clone or a Mac clone.
>When Digital Research cloned MS-DOS, Microsoft didn't try to sue them
>  out of business. On the other hand, it hardly seems (in light of
>  industry history) an example of the "Dark Side" when we don't help
>  them debug their code when they have problems doing a good job in
>  cloning. After all, Windows 3.1 works fine with MS-DOS 3 which has
>  only given them about seven years to study it.

Don't forget "Microsoft sends letter to someone's employer after that person
discusses on Compuserve ~5 lines of assembly code from Windows that he had
obtained by using a debugger, warning of trade secret violations."  At least
the other companies seem to confine their legal departments to threatening
other companies, rather than going after individual programmers.

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.

--Tim Smith
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Moving from X to Y.
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:30:06 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Sep27.051049.12380@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>In article <1992Sep25.161621.24432@lmt.mn.org> elliott@lmt.mn.org (David Elliott  MIS x 363) writes:
>>discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>>
>>Once again, he's not asking you "What can you make more money with?", but
>>"What would YOU PERSONALLY prefer to use if all other things were equal?"
>>Can you honestly say that if you could make just as much money developing
>>for the NeXT as you can with Windows, that you would stick with Windows
>>because you prefer its interface to that of the NeXT?
>>

>Oh I see.  You want me to ignore reality, and pretend all things are equal?
>Well, hate to break this to you, they aren't.  And for this reason, I would
>PERSONALLY prefer to work with Windows+DOS and make money--than work with
>OS/2 2.0 and wait four or five months before I make money.

Why is it that you don't want to answer the question that was asked,
Joe?  Do you not like the answer you would give and feel unable to
defend it, or what?

>This is my last post on the subject.  It isn't funny any more.

Well, that's TWO 'last posts'.  Shall we try for three?  Must be
another one of those phrases that means something different for Joe
than it does for those who speak English.

-- 
"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.
From: jyri+@CMU.EDU (Jyri Virkki)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 26 Sep 92 20:39:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.celHfrm00WB90gisog
	<pathak-260992141946@virtual.mitre.org>
Organization: Masters student, Information Networking Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


In article <1992Sep25.164035.24984@nosc.mil>, discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
wrote:
>
> Yes!  This is the point I was trying to make!  Multitasking in and of itself
> RIGHT NOW is a curiosity--I haven't seen a really good, habitual use of
> multitasking on a desktop system that didn't seem *contrived* yet; people
> 

This is becoming ridiculous! In what kind of world do you live if to
you multitasking is some "curiosity"?  There is nothing "new" or
"curious" about multitasking, it is the norm of the computer world,
except for the small huge world of msdos-pc's.  The first time I used
an msdos machine I was apalled by the fact that the thing _didn't_
multitask.  At the time I didn't think it was possible that anyone
would produce an operating system (sic) without multitasking and
expect it to be used for anything other than games. This was TEN years
ago. In the years since I've been amazed and saddened how such trash
has been able to dominate the market. Now, for the first time there is
a real operating system available for the intel architecture in the
mass market. OS/2 is not bringing any 'innovative curiosity' to the pc
world, it is just finally doing what should've been done right over
ten years ago.  While it is still pathetic that it has taken so long,
it is always better late that never.

--
Jyri J. Virkki | DoD#561 | jyri+@cmu.edu | Carnegie Mellon University | MSINI
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy