HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 07:54:40 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In <1992Sep12.040230.6425@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>In article <_9vn4l+.xtifr@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:

>>by others.  If Microsoft has released NT to testers/developers, what
>>they have released is a beta, by definition.  The terms "alpha" and
>>"beta" have a long history.

>The purpose of the early release is to encourage development of apps for NT.

That's fine.  That doesn't change the fact that it's a beta.

>One can scream all one likes over the term pre-beta but come

I'm not screaming, merely pointing out that when a program is released
outside of the developers company for the purpose of testing, it is
called a beta.  I've been in software development for over a dozen
years, and I've never heard any other definition.

>I know you're all giddy about OS/2, and fine...

I'm not "giddy" about OS/2.  It was cheap, so I bought it.  It works, so
I use it.  I may well buy and use NT when it comes out.

But I'm getting sick of the line, "it's not a beta, it's a `pre-beta!!'"
Yeahright.  It wouldn't be so bad, except some MS worshippers use it to
flame the OS/2 worshippers as well as innocent bystanders.  

"Well, I know more than you do about Microsoft's official BS, and this
is not a beta, so nyahh!"  

The damn thing is a beta, by definition.  Microsoft can *call* it
anything they want, but it doesn't change what it is.  They could call
it a word processor!  And if they did some of the MS fanatics in here
would flame anyone who *dared* to call it an operating system.

This is not a way to win friends and influence people...
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Monday, 7 Sep 1992 21:20:03 EDT
From: Andrew T. Robinson <ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (Well, not exactly....)

When you get down to it, NT is really superflouous.  There is already
an operating system which has been installed on hundreds (?) of millions
of machines, has been maturing for over 20 years, and has cross-platform
support that NT will never achieve.

UNIX, and all its incarnations.

I don't think UNIX is the end-all of OS development, but a super-
comercialized product like Windows NT isn't, either.  If you're thinking
hard about Windows NT, think harder about UNIX.  UNIX and commonly
available add-ons can do everything NT can do, faster and more portably.
And UNIX is super-extensible, which means anything anyone adds to NT
that is new and novel will probably be a UNIX feature within a few
months, if it isn't already (suspect the latter :-)!

If you want a powerful OS for a moderately sized personal system,
forget about NT and buy OS/2.  If you want a powerful, fully-capable
OS for high-end personal systems, servers, and their ilk, forget about
NT again and buy UNIX.

Oh, and forget the propaganda you've assimilated about UNIX unfriendliness.
GUIs really started on a UNIX platform, and there are several mature
GUIs based on X-Windows for UNIX which are no more difficult to use
than Windows, and are nowhere near so pretentious :-)

Andy
From: mm459504@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Michael Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: wistful departure for that which works.
Summary: I liked OS/2, it just wasn't compatible.
Date: 7 Sep 92 20:22:54 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

Having had my upgrade for the last 5 or 7 months and installing it on my
computer in pracically every way imaginable, and purchasing the required 
8 meg of ram, and getting it to work correctly with most of the stuff
I use, and learning the ins-n-outs of wps, win-os2, graphics drivers, ATM,
etc and c. I'm afraid I had to remove it and trudge back to MS-DOS.

and I'll tell you why.

a) Nothing was painless
  Word perfect 4 Windows didn't work without discovering a patch for it in the
  readme file. (yeah, yeah, RTFM...but just look at ALL of the documentation 
  that comes with it. It would take several months to cover everything)
b) Unfortunately, it's 100% compatiblilty with DOS was accurate right up to
the point where I tried running games. (Wolf3d, Falocn 3.0, Links386 pro were
ALL unplayable on my 386-25 /w 8meg and 80 MegHD) And emphatically YES, I DID
try all of the variaous DOS_BOX tweakings, which brings me to my next point:
c) I had to use too much elbow grease to get anything to work. It shouldnt 
require DPMI_MEMORY_LIMIT, and SVELTE_VIDEO_SIDEWAYS = 3.5 to get something
to work correctly. This is an IBM compatible computer, 96.382% of all IBM 
compatible computers run dos....without tweaking this and booleaning that.
d) OS/2 is a fast running, protective, slick beast...but it's still a beast.
with 8Meg of ram, the swapfile averaged 8 odd meg, and os/2 with all of the apps
took another 35 meg easily. leaving me 80-8-35=37 meg to do everything. games,
productivity, data, term papers (ANY word processor these days takes 5-15 Meg,
games often take 10-25, so I had space for 1 game and 1 word processor.)

why I went back:
a) everything works
b) I now have a 150meg hard disk (stacker) and still have the 8 meg of ram to 
play with
c) boot up now takes 30 odd seconds as opposed to 2 minutes.
d) did I mention, everything works.... and with out setting DPMI_ANYTHING.

I will miss the correct and total multaskingness of OS/2, but it wasn't worth 
the other problems.

Sorry guys, OS/2 was to little (er, Too Much) too late.

Any other flaims? I can still go on about the screen modes, occasional lockups,
non adjusting pallette scemes.

Anyway, I'd like to thank you for answering my many questions about how to get
appA to work with AppB, You've been more than helpful...I think I'll go home
no and use Norton Backup...that runs correctly under DOS.


Mike

--
"You seem ah decent fellow.  Ahd hate to keel you." - I. Montoya
"Well, you seem a decent fellow.  I'd hate to die." - Wesley
mm459504@longs.lance.colostate.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bbm@po.CWRU.Edu (Brian B. Mathewson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Honestly, people...how do you find the new OS/2 ads?
Date: 11 Sep 92 03:34:49 GMT
Reply-To: bbm@po.CWRU.Edu (Brian B. Mathewson)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu



I've never seen a really good TV advertisement for a software product
before.  I'ts very difficult to sell something so complex in just 30
seconds.

I think they should sell it to people based on the fact that it can 
run just about any program, allows you to multitask, and is relatively
inexpensive.

They should come up with a few common examples that most computer
users can relate to: 

  Running a word processor while the database program finishes
    creating a report
  Formatting floppies and making backups don't hog the machine
  The Workplace Shell makes it easy for even novices to get up
    and running, copying & printing files, etc.

This is not just to sell to Windows users, of course, but especially
the more numerous DOS users, many of whom have no idea that these
things can be done.

-- 

Brian Mathewson   bbm@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu
                  bbm at Cleveland Freenet
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Let's keep the quoted material "straight"
Date: 6 Sep 92 04:24:12 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <wiegand.715613319@lido16> motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net writes:
>eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (TAN JIN MENG) writes:
>
>>Come to think of it - how can the file system code be pageable? I need
>>the file system to page in needed blocks! For that matter - is the cache
>>pageable - makes no sense if I allow this (though unlike the previous
>>case is not impossible just wierd!).
>
>Actually its not impossible if the hardware supports it (I don't believe
>Intel micro do). You need a two level address lookup with a small page
>table that is always present. This is used to page the main page table.
>This is somewhat slower than a single level lookup, but can be usefull
>for computers with very large memories where the page tables are too
>large to keep in memory.
>
>>jin meng
>>: -- 
>>:    |)  David Charlap           "TELEPHONE, n.  An Invention of the devil which
>>:   /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   abrogates some of the advantages of making a
>>:  ((|,)                          disagreeable person keep his distance."
>>:   ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Isn't it interesting how people quote my .singature when they don't
quote anything I write.  I didn't think the quote was that
interesting.

As a note to everyone, be careful about this.  I'd hate to have people
think that I wrote what Tan Jin Meng wrote.  And I'm sure he'd not
appreciate it getting mixed up, either.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "TELEPHONE, n.  An Invention of the devil which
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   abrogates some of the advantages of making a
 ((|,)                          disagreeable person keep his distance."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tdukes@eng.auburn.edu (Todd J Dukes)
Subject: Dumb Terminal Price
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 05:39:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.145449.26765@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <9zrn-ja.xtifr@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>>In <1992Sep7.204054.8470@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>

[stuff deleted]

>NT is a multiuser system... it is true that it doesn't support dumb
>terminals... but at 2,000 a set who cares?  You're aware that several

[stuff deleted]

$2000 for a dumb terminal?

I paid $3 for a zenith Z-29. (no, not new :) and I just saw an add for 
a color graphics terminal (wyse, I think, for ~$700).

I think alot of people might be interesting in running text stuff on as
cheap of terminals as they could find (inventory control, point of sale,
ect.) or use the terminals they have and are using with mainframes or
mini's when they downsize to a big PC running NT, unix, or the Multi-
user OS/2 from whoever puts it out.

I don't think I could use an Z-29 for most of the stuff I do, but I
can see where some people might have applications where it makes good
sense. I think it would be a mistake to have a multi-user OS that
doesn't support dumb terminals out of the box.

Todd

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: edwardsk@cuug.ab.ca (Kenneth Edwards 268-6500)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.6
Organization: Calgary UNIX Users' Group
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:15:33 GMT

Interesting list of features. One question - What is the New Technology
that we will receive with NT.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: schow@bqneh23.bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow)
Subject: Re: What REXX does
Organization: Bell Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:46:45 GMT

In article <92Sep9.105807edt.16825@ois.db.toronto.edu> panos@db.toronto.edu (Panos Economopoulos) writes:
>WILLS@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Cheyenne Wills) writes:
>
>>A prime example is editor macros.  KEDIT from Mansfield and EPM
>>(included with OS/2) both use Rexx as a macro language (I use KEDIT
>>and only know that EPM supports Rexx, plus there are probably other
>>editors out there that also use Rexx).
>> 
>>Anyway... a simple KEDIT macro to count the number of nonblank lines
>>is a file that is being edited follows:
>>   [example deleted along with explanation of REXX]
>
>Just for the purpose of showing how the above can be accomplished
>in a UNIX environment and without intending to pass any judgement
>regarding the merits of either environment, one can use the following
>AWK program to count the nonblank lines of a file:
>
>!/^$/  {count++}
>END    {print count}
>
> [explanation of above program deleted]
>
>In an editor like vi, one could issue the above command, either ad hoc
>
>:!awk '!/^$/ {count++} END {print count}' filename
>
>where filename could be % for the file that is currently beingedited
>or one could map a key to the above command line.
>If the shell used has a history mechanism (csh/tcsh etc.) the ! which
>is going to be interpreted by the shell should be escaped, that is
>
>:!awk '\!/^$/ {count++......

You seem to be missing the forest for the tree.

The point of REXX is that one does not have to know anything about
how to invoke awk from vi and what funny charaters to quote, etc.

If you know how to use KEDIT (or EPM), you can write a REXX macro 
that uses KEDIT commands. You don't have to learn awk and how to 
invoke awk from vi, emacs, mail, and the rest of the world. Instead,
you learn how to invoke REXX from everything (trivial) and how to
invoke everything from REXX (equally trivial). 

For the particular example of counting lines, awk happens to be 
sufficent, but REXX is a general purpose language. For example, I may
want to count the lines, but at line numbers that are prime, I want
to extract all the words and hash the words into a database. I am not
aware of any simple extension to your awk script for this. On the other
hand, it is obvious how to modify the REXX macro.

In many ways, the purpose of REXX is diametrically opposed to the
so-called "Unix paradigm". The unix paradigm wants you to learn about
a hundred filters and learn how to string lots of filters together
with wonderfully arcane scripts but in only one control flow model - the
pipe. The purpose of REXX is to tie together much bigger tools while
allowing much more flexible control flow.

--
Stanley Chow            InterNet: schow@BNR.CA
Bell Northern Research  UUCP:     ..!uunet!bnrgate!bqneh3!schow
(613) 763-2831
Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (TAN JIN MENG)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.5
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 16:47:31 GMT

Jerry Bryan <BRYAN@wvnvm.wvnet.edu> writes:
: In article <1992Sep3.234501.28636@hellgate.utah.edu>,
: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) says:
: >
: >                Advanced form of setuid().
: >                        This allows servers with appropriate privileges
: >                        to impersonate a client's identity to
: >                        so that work can safely be performed on behalf
: >                        of a client.
: 
: It seems like it would be nice to use a less emotionally loaded word
: than "impersonate".  This kind of facility is often called a
: "surrogate" facility in a security system.  A surrogate facility
: is vital to the success of servers in a secure environment.
: 
: This list is GREAT.  Keep up the good work.
I think that setuid is not a gooda idea for a secure environment. For
example, open almot any UNIX admin book and  go to the security
section... 

There are ways to do privileged operations without setuid. They may
(probably) be more inefficient but will be more secure. setuid I admit
is a clever hack - UNIX is full of clever  hacks.

jin meng
From: volker@volki.toppoint.de (Volker Heiss)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: THANK YOU, Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 15:30:39 MST
Distribution: world               
Organization: TPKI-Mailbox

LENBC@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
>
> In article <1992Sep3.130007.4089@njitgw.njit.edu>, dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David
> Charlap) says:
> >
> >[..]
> >
> >Word 5.5 isn't a PM anything.  In case you forgot, MS also makes Word
> >For DOS, which is a character-mode app.  It runs under OS/2 in
> >full-screen and windowed sessions.
> 
>     Oh okay, but Amit said "OS/2 Version", I didn't know he was
> speaking about an DOS version.  Sorry Amit!, misunderstood.

It's a family mode application! I just discoverd it, reading this thread.
And it seems to run quit fast, but there is no mouse pointer in the
graphic modes. It even runs in an OS/2 windowed session, but only in
text mode ;-)

Puls is very happy with the OS/2 mode Word! It stays at the baseline.

BTW, i'm testing this with Word 5.0.

volker
--
V. Heiss  Medusastr. 4  D-2300 Kiel 14  +49 431 734858  volker@tpki.toppoint.de


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: OS/2 PR
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Distribution: world,local
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 03:22:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.103805.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu> f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:
> 
> There were *3* OS/2 products available: Lotus 1-2-3 for OS/2, MS Word 5.5
> (the dual-mode version for DOS and OS/2, I assume), and Lotus Freelance
> Graphics for OS/2.  OS/2 itself was nowhere to be seen. :-<
> 
> By contrast, there were at least *40* Windows apps, including all the
> biggies.  Windows was on sale in both full and upgrade versions, as well
> as two different font packs, as well as an attractive $192 W4W/Excel
> bundle.  This doesn't count all the ancillary hardware like scanners and
> fax modems, whose support software runs under Windows.
> 
> The strange thing was that IBM and Apple hardware dominated the store
> floor.  The sales reps would have demo'd PS/2's for me all day, but where
> was IBM's own OS?
> 
> I hardly see how this poor PR augurs well for OS/2 as it reaches the ripe
> old age of 5 months.  The public hardly knows OS/2.

If sales-critters at your end are anything like sale-critters here, then they
sell what they *know*. If you get an OS/2 supporter among the staff - ie.
someone who knows that there is something else to sell besides Windows apps -
then the picture quickly changes. 
 
When you walk up to the counter at that shop and say....." I run OS/2 and I
don't see any apps here for it...." you are playing your part in this market.
Now, if that store wants to sell you something, they can try to get you to
down grade  ( :-) ) to Windows....or they can put in a bit of legwork and
locate the OS/2 programs you want. Now...sales-critters being what they are
they will likely try the former. 
 
But that isn't the fault of any one - MS or IBM  - that's just the nature of
sales-critters. 
 
I'm a sale-critter (sort-of), so I know *exactly* how this works. When i
arrived at my current jon 3 months ago, no one know squat about OS/2. Nor di
they see any sense in pushing it.
 
Now guess what? They all want to run it on their own systems. They now mention
to customers that they have have a choce - Windows or OS/2 - if they are
looking for a GUI....though they point out that OS/2 offers much more.
 
Quite a change in a few weeks. If OS/2 wasn't any good, though, it wouldn't be
happening.
 
NT? Sales-critters pay no attention until the boxes are on the shelf - or a
customer walks in asking for it.

So take the time and ask for OS/2 apps.   

Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | End the two-party duopoly. Vote 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for the Mixed-Member Proportional 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | (MMP) voting system on Sept. 19th. 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | Give yourself a vote that *counts*!
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 VS NT! The Future War Looms...
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:44:13 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <c0xn=8d.xtifr@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>Most users don't have, and don't want, a C
>compiler.  They want a word processor, and possibly, a spreadsheet.  And
>perhaps, a database.  And maybe some video games.

Games will make or break the home market.  Look at DOS.  The IBM-PC
was nothing more than a business computer, with Apple and Commodore
and Atari taking the home markets.  Why?  They had all the games.  The
PC became a home computer when games were released in large quantities
for it.  It took over the home market when the PC games got better
than the Apple, Commodore and Atari games.

But Nt isn't a home OS, so this point is moot.

>...And especially if NT "requires" 8 meg, the way that OS/2 "requires" 4.

If NT requires more than 8MB, it'll require 20.  Most motherboards
only have 8 SIMM sockets.  Which means pulling 4 1MB SIMMs and
replacing them with 4 4MB SIMMS.  These are expensive (about $120 each)

>People like Brian Sturgill may be able to recompile all their UNIX apps
>to run under NT, and be perfectly happy.  The majority of DOS users will
>not consider this a viable option.  DOS-compatibility is likely to be
>the true key to the relative successes of OS/2 and NT.

I'm quite happy to re-compile Unix apps for OS/2 (thanks to GCC), but
I'd never use this as a selling point.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "LECTURER, n.  One with his hand in your pocket,
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   his tongue in your ear, and his faith in your
 ((|,)                          patience."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hercules bashers - You guys just don't get it!
Date: 12 Sep 92 23:51:13 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Sep12.191654.3618@unlinfo.unl.edu>, latenser@unlinfo.unl.edu (La
tenser) writes:
>
>As the quote goes --- "You guys just don't get it"
>
>I have my choice of monitors/cards/ etc.
>
>I still prefer looking at my Herc. monitor when I have to spend extended
>time programming.  I feel less eye strain.  And yes I have it in a nice
>fast box with a 330Mb H.P. drive.  I can easily afford anything I want (I
>own 1280 x 1024 display list boards --- and do not use them).  Yes I use
>a Matrox system and 20" Hitachi monitor often --- but ONLY when I am working
>with complex CAD drawings that often exceed several meg in size.

Well, I look at a CGA quality display a good part of the day, and it KILLS my
eyes.  If your really want so save eyestrain, either get monochrome VGA or
pick your colors well.  Theses are even better supported than Herc.
>
>Windows works perfectly fine with my card --- but I have yet to see any
>software in Windows that works as well and has the power of the dos
>equivalent application  (with the single exception of MacSyma math analysis
>which does not run on dos) - so why should I use it.  OS/2 is another
>matter -- it has real possibilities.

How about Excel 4.0, Ami Pro, MathCAD 3.0, CorelDRAW...  These are MUCH better
than their DOS counterparts.  OS/2 runs all these too.
>
>The only cards I have used for any period of time that are significantly
>faster with windows are Matrox ($3000 -- and worth every penny) and the
>ATI Ultra ($399 -- and worth more I.M.H.O.).

Agreed.
>
>I might also point out that many Unix boxes come standard with monochrome
>displays and that my Herc card uses almost no environment space  --
>which does matter to some of us.  Do you guys even know the Hercules
>resolution?

You can save environment space in OS/2 by voluntarily reducing the resolution
of the card to CGA levels if you so desire.  This will get you about 700K of
conventional RAM for your DOS app.  How's that?

>>Why would I want an OS/2 driver for Hercules -- so I can abandon the kludge
>of Desqview/Windows.  Would I pay -- you bet!   Am I a nut?  - I suppose.


>
>latenser@unlinfo.unl.edu
>
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------