HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf)
Subject: Re: New version of DOS coming out? (NOOO!! Anything but *that*!)
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 01:26:27 GMT

In article <33mm!zf.xtifr@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>In <1992Jul28.153134.11068@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com> darylb@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Daryl Biberdorf) writes:
>
>>I wonder which particular end-user needs they're talking about?  Maybe 
>>they'll finally lose that ridiculous 128-character PATH size limit.
>
>1.  DOS does *not* have a 128 character PATH limit.  What it has is a
>128 character input line at the prompt.  There are plenty of programs
>around that will let you edit and extend your path.  What there also are
>is *programs* that cough and gag if the PATH is over 128 characters. 
>These programs are, IMO, seriously flawed, but there they are.  Hardly
>MS's fault.

OK.  Let me rephrase my last comment:
  Maybe they'll finally lose that ridiculous 128-character input line
  limit.

Same difference, as far as I'm concerned.  The path is the one major
limiting side effect of the 128-character limit that I've run into
often.

>2.  Contrariwise, I can't imagine why anyone would need more than 80
>characters for PATH.  PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin is sufficient
>for much larger, more powerful systems.  I have an opinion of people who
>complain about only being able to have 128 characters in their path, but
>I'm far too polite to express that opinion here.  :-)

Well, there are several reasons.  First of all, each sub-path in the
path has to have a drive and a colon preprended to it.  Add 2 characters
for each one of those subbpaths (for 10 subpaths, you've already added
20 characters).  Then, add in the fact that DOS doesn't implement
links (which UNIX does).  I don't even want to *think* about dumping
every executable I've got into a single /usr/bin directory and every
library into a single /usr/lib directory.  It makes upgrading and backing
up a *royal* pain.  Sooo...in order to keep all these products in their
own directories, they all need to be in the path.

So far I've been able to dodge PATH's limitations by using SUBST, but
it still sucks, IMNSHO.

>Chris "Just using OS/2 'cause it's cheaper than a home UNIX" Waters

You haven't used a 3b1, then.  (Hey, you didn't say it needed the
horsepower of a 486 or the kitchen-sinkisms in BSD.)

Daryl
-- 
Daryl Biberdorf  N5GJM    dlb5404@rigel.tamu.edu  or  dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu
        "You're not messy.  You're organizationally impaired."
                _Real_Life_Adventures_, July 3, 1992 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: darylb@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Daryl Biberdorf)
Subject: New version of DOS coming out?  (NOOO!!  Anything but *that*!)
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:31:34 GMT

From the "Late News" section of PC Week, dated July 27, 1992, p.142:
  
  Microsoft Readies New Version of DOS
       Microsoft plans to begin beta testing a new version of DOS in August,
  sources said last week.  The version, planned for final delivery in the
  first half of 1993, will include new and enhanced utilities, not
  all of which will be in the first beta, they said.

       Microsoft Vice President Brad Silverberg last week declined to 
  confirm specific features, but said the "first version [of MS-DOS] that
  will come out is oriented toward solving particular end-user
  needs."


I wonder which particular end-user needs they're talking about?  Maybe 
they'll finally lose that ridiculous 128-character PATH size limit.

Daryl
--
Daryl Biberdorf                 |  Compaq Computer Corporation | standard
darylb@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com |  20555 SH 249  M/S 060701    | disclaimer
dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu         |  Houston, TX 77070           | applies
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Threads in Unix?
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:22:13 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Jul29.112723.6184@grail.com> dpc@grail.com (David P. Cutter) writes:

> Actually, SunOS introduced something called Light Weight Processing
> - LWP (a.k.a. threads) - in SunOS 4.0.1.  System V.4.1.2 and SunOS 5.x
> also has (will have) a threads package for multiprocessor and 
> uniprocessor programming.

Lightweight processing (multithreading) has been discussed in CIS
journals for quite some time now as an experimental idea.  SunOS was
the first Unix system to incorporate them.

OS/2 was the first system to be designed with threads as a key
component in the multitaskter.

Today, many Unix boxes are using threads.  Mach being one of the most
prominent, using a multithreaded micro-kernel at its core.
-- 
   |)  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: dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf)
Subject: Re: Utter Bozos at Microsoft?
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:28:56 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.123815.20311@csc.ti.com> jdailey@dadd.ti.com writes:
>In article 5094@microsoft.com, gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin) writes:
>>
>>Some IBM guys have been offended because they feel that I'm denegrating 
>>all IBM programmers.  By no means.  I worked with some  sharp guys there.
>>But I also worked with at least as many utter bozos.  And more often then
>
>Have you run into any "utter bozos" writing code at Microsoft?  If not, do
>you suppose there might actually be some there, lurking in the halls?

There have to be at least a few bozo programmers working at Microsoft.
Who else would have written those absolutely horrid examples of
Windows applications in the Windows 3.0 SDK?

Daryl
-- 
Daryl Biberdorf  N5GJM    dlb5404@rigel.tamu.edu  or  dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu
        "You're not messy.  You're organizationally impaired."
                _Real_Life_Adventures_, July 3, 1992 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: gupw@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Paul Wagland)
Subject: Re: What's wrong with Windows (Re: MS grasping at straws?...)
Organization: University of Western Australia
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 03:07:45 GMT

nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Nan Zou) writes:

>Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>>dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell) writes:
>>> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>>> >Eh? I LIKE Edlin. For editing short batch files theres nothing
>>> >quicker.
>>> Well, that pretty much discredits anything further you say.  
>>If you hate EDLIN......try vi!
>What's wrong with vi?  I LIKE vi!
Yayy!!!!!

>I just love editor flame wars.  And I know some Emacs fanatic is going to
>jump into the fray soon.  ;-)
And then I'll have to reply by saying:
 'Maybe Edlin isn't that bad after all...'

Paul :) :) :) :)
-- 
Paul Wagland                       | These opinions are mine and no-one elses
gupw@uniwa.uwa.edu.au   | Bingy Bingy Bingy Frogs Go round and round
------------------------+     -- Another silly quote from me  :-)
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did Microsoft abandon OS2?
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:23:52 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In <ggyyNB1w164w@knex.Gwinnett.COM> gess@knex.Gwinnett.COM (Gess Shankar) writes:

>mg@elan (Michael Golan) writes:

>> 3) IBM is now in the position it always wanted: Total control over the
>>    OS promises control over new Hardware & Standards. MS, on the other
>>    hand, can't make new hardware.
>> 
>This has been the strength of Microsoft from clone makers' view-point.
>If IBM uses this 'total control over OS' to exert control over hardware,
>Microsoft will come out smelling like roses. This has been the fear of many
>PC makers in embracing OS/2 and bundling OS/2 and so on.

The corrolary to this, OC, is that software vendors have probably been
feeling unhappy about MS's domination of the PC OS market, since they
(MS) also sell application software.  So it's quite possible that a
number of software vendors (e.g. Borland, Symantec, CA, Lotus) may jump
on the OS/2 bandwagon, simply to try to get out from under MS's thumb.
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
From: bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Porting to OS/2 2.0
Date: 24 Jul 92 00:52:03 GMT
Organization: Applied Information Systems, Chapel Hill, NC

In article <BrnvMp.JKw@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>, cebarton@lambert.waterloo.edu (Casey Barton) writes:
> Pete Skelly writes:
>> ejdeal writes:
>> >2)  You are downloading an incredible new game from your local BBS
>> >    at 9600+ BPS.  You switch over to any other task and continue
>> >    working and DO NOT LOSE ANY CHARACTERS in your COMM session!
>> 
>> You can do this in windows.  Activity on the Comm port generates interrupts,
>> which a good Comm driver will deal with and pre-empt whatever is going on.
>                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> So Windows 3.x *does* have pre-emptive multitasking! Shame on you, Microsoft,
> for keeping this such a secret...

This is a silly comment.  You're picking a single word in the article
(`pre-empt') and using it to jump to a totally wrong conclusion.

It should have been clear that what was being discussed in the article
was the comm driver software, not the task scheduler.  These are not the
same thing!  In fact, even a single-tasking system like DOS can, in
principle, deal with interrupts (communications and otherwise) quite
nicely, thank you.  (The fact that MS-DOS -- or actually the BIOS --
_doesn't_ deal with them very well is irrelevant:  if you've been around
long enough to remember things like this, just consider a system like
RT-11;  MS-DOS _could_ do as well but _doesn't_).  

Where you have the possibility of losing in Windows is if you are running
one of the comm programs that use one or another form of `sliding windows';
in that case, if the high-level comm software is locked out for a `long
enough' period of time, the entire window of packets will be transmitted,
and there may be some `dead time' on the comm line until the app gets some
CPU to read the accumulated received packets and send an acknowledgement
packet.  This also isn't the same as dropped characters, the comm driver
has just buffered them all up for the high-level code.  (In fairness, if
your priorities are sufficiently badly adjusted in OS/2 or Unix, a similar
situation can occur, but it's more likely under Windows.  I'd still say
that even under Windows it isn't likely to be a serious problem except on
very underpowered hardware -- especially machines with insufficient memory,
which won't run OS/2 or Unix well either).

Preemptive multitasking _does_ have some other benefits that can't be
minimized, but for modern comm software even cooperative multitasking
is good enough for most purposes if the comm drivers are well written.

Let's not get involved in stupid flame wars - trying to twist articles to
make them say things that were not intended is an excellent way to get
the flames started ...

Bruce C. Wright
From: "stephen dawson" <stephen.dawson@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: pc week and nt
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:53:55 EST
Reply-To: "stephen dawson" <stephen.dawson@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

In the 27 July issue of PC Week a few 'problems' with NT are
reported. It seems that as NT gets closer and closer to delivery,
the warts are being revealed and, by comparison, OS/2's teething
pains look rather trivial.

Graphics based DOS apps will not run full screen, even on Intel
based PC's.

Enhanced mode Windows apps won't run on RISC based NT.

DOS apps that try to access the hardware will not run.

Microsoft now suggests that NT will support "major" DOS and Windows
apps.

Unlike OS/2, existing device drivers will NOT be supported in
virtual DOS sessions. 3270 emulators are the major apps shutout from
NT without new drivers being written. Fax and scanner apps are also
affected.

PC Week acknowledged that OS/2 does not share most of these
limitations!

In addition to Will Zackmann, Jim Louderback and Jamie Lewis throw
up big cautions about NT and suggest that delivery is due, at best,
in 2Q 1993. Given that Microsoft has committed to a 1992 delivery,
this will be very embarrassing.

OS/2 sales have reached the 1 ,illion mark; 80 thousand in Canada.

    STEPHEN         Look through the Windows and you will see OS/2!
    ^^^^^^^    :-)  Walking and chewing gum at the same time.

 Entered 07-29-92 at 9:35pm in Downsview, Ontario

 * DeLuxe2/386 1.25 #3969 * Live long and prosper.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith)
Subject: Re: More Biased Reviews From ZD
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 03:49:24 GMT

dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:

>If you're not having problems with Windows, then stick with it.  But I
>wonder how many problems you're not having simply because you've
>changed your work-style to compensate for Windows' flaws. 
[   ]
>The OS shouldn't force you to change the way you'd like to work.

Even after running OS/2 1.3 for 6 months and OS/2 2.0 for two months
I still find myself doing things I don't have to just because I'm 
used to DOS's limitations.  I laugh at myself every time I accidentally
enter a 'mem' at an OS/2 command prompt and watch OS/2 automatically
sense it as being a DOS program and therefore automatically open up
a separate DOS window, load DOS, run 'mem' (the results of which fly
by too fast for me to even see ;-), close the DOS window, and then
return to the original OS/2 command line!  This whole process takes
only 2 seconds on my 386/33.

   Steve Smith       | __|__ |    " #*&<-[89s]*(k#$@-_=//a2$]'+=.(2_&*%>,,@
<smsmith@magnus.acs. |   |   |      {7%*@,..":27g)-=,#*:.#,/6&1*.4-,l@#9:-) "
  ohio-state.edu>    |   |   | 
  BTW, WYSInaWYG     |   |   |                           --witty.saying.ARC 
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:3319 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1604
From: neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
Date: 28 Jul 92 09:26:25 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland

In article <1992Jul27.052757.9716@weyrich.UUCP> tnet.com!weyrich!orville writes:
>
>On the other hand, MS has taken a lot of legal cr*p from Apple over "stealing"
>the Mac "look and feel". I don't blame MS from shying away from it. Actually,
>it's poetic justice for MS to make APs for the Mac look more like Windows
>than the Mac. I hope that it destroys the "Mac look and feel" for all time.
>
>Just the point of view of someone who hates software "look and feel" wars.
>

Ahh, Microsoft are occupying 'The High Ground' in this tussle are they. I
knew I could count on MS as a moral and trustworthy (I beg your pardon
that OS/2 "product for the 90's" isn't after all - tee hee - says Bill)
company.

Look and feel. Mac wins hands down. There is *no* contest.

Neil
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: What's wrong with Windows (Re: MS grasping at straws?...)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 02:51:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul15.015738.15890@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> gupw@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Paul Wagland) writes:

>Hey you forgot about their all time stroke of genius: edlin!
>
>I mean Microsoft are so proud of this baby they decided to include it
>with Doze 5.0, even though they had that perfectly pathetic full screen
>editor edit! (I know that some people actually like edit, but I don't
>blame them for it).


Eh? I LIKE Edlin. For editing short batch files theres nothing
quicker.






-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: thayne@unislc.uucp (Thayne Forbes)
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 07:30:24 GMT

From article <1992Jul22.154244.26401@njitgw.njit.edu>, by dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap):
> In article <1992Jul21.234116.3461@unislc.uucp> thayne@unislc.uucp (Thayne Forbes) writes:
> 
>>Recall that until about '86 Microsoft was making more money selling
>>Mac apps than DOS.  My guess is that Bill will not let any market
>>with 2 million users fall by the wayside.  Just MHO.
> 
> Then why did he almost abandon the Mac community?  The new MS apps for
> the Mac are direct ports of the Windows apps, and the Mac users don't
> appreciate this one bit.  The wanted Mac apps, and they're getting
> ported Windows apps.

Wait a minute, when did he abandon the Mac?  Also, the two big winders
apps are Word and Excel, both of which were ported FROM the Mac.  I haven't
seen recent releases of either for the Mac, but I suspect that the winders
versions are currently more capable.  If that is true, I will have to 
conceed that they are not supporting the Mac as agressively as they used to.
On the other hand, Winders is kinda sucsessful these days, so you will
have to forgive him for changing his resource allocation to Winders.

> 
> And why would they abandon OS/2 development.  I can understand not
> selling separate spreadsheets and word processors, but language tools?
> They had OS/2 in the package and deliberately removed it.  Surely it
> takes little effort to keep something you've had for three generations
> of the package.

Dunno.  Are you talking about the OS/2 libs in C?  I don't have a copy
of C 7.0 yet, so I don't know about that.

> 
> No, it's a bit more than pushing Windows in order to get the PC
> market.  Because he's dumping the non-Windows markets in the process.

I don't agree that he is 'dumping' the other platforms.  He announced 
just last week a new found love for Apple.  (Bill and Sculley on the
front page of the NY Times Business section.  What a cute couple.)

OS/2, he obviously doesn't need the grief, but I personally think he
will change his mind in a year or two.  Despite what I think of it, OS/2
will still be somewhat sucsessful, and Bill loves a good market.

> Many of which were quite profitable in the past.

Mac is still profitable.  Just not as significant as it was, when compared
to Winders.
> 
> So, do you want IBM's master plan (OS/2 for PC, AIX for workstation,
> and MVS for mainframe) or Microsoft's master plan (Windows, and NT for
> all) 

No comment.

>   ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.

Hey, I copied this into my .signature file, and all of my mail started
bouncing.  Is this supposed to happen?

-- 
           "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
                            -U.S. Vice President J. Danforth Quayl[e]
Thayne Forbes
thayne@unislc.slc.unisys.com
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:3256 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1569 comp.sys.acorn:8025
From: gta@st-andrews.ac.uk (Graham Allan)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.acorn,comp.sys.mac.mis
Subject: Re: New MultiTOS PC (Atari Falcon)
Date: 25 Jul 92 03:31:21 GMT
Reply-To: gta@st-andrews.ac.uk
Organization: Greyfriars mail-relay

dbh@doc.ic.ac.uk (Denis Howe) writes:

> In article <BJDBoB28w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
> wrote:
> 
> >Believe it or not, some of us don't want a 3 button mouse.
> 
> It doesn't take an expert in HCI to appreciate which part of the human
> body has the greatest amount of motor neuron processing power devoted
> to it - the hands.  Given that, Apple's (or was it Xerox's ?) and
> Mathew's choice of a one-button mouse seems most restrictive.

Apple purely to blame here, I think... Xerox used a 3-button mouse for their
Smalltalk system.

Graham
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Allan
Physics Dept, University of St.Andrews                   gta@st-andrews.ac.uk
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 13:21:19 GMT


In a previous article, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) says:

>In article <1992Jul21.212437.25057@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>>MISCONCEPTION #3:
>>
>>OS/2 2.0 and Windows NT are completely different
>>
>>NO.  Although they are not (currently) compatible with each other, on
>>a feature-by-feature comparison, one will find them more alike than
>>different.  The end-user, with a suite of OS/2 2.0 apps on one
>>machine and a comparable suite of NT apps on the other machine, will
>>notice little difference.  Below are the major differences - note how
>>neither is really superior to the other - just different.
>
>      Also add support for symmetric multiprocessing, cross-platform
>compatibility, and multi-user security to the list.


Why do Microsoft people keep spewing this crap?

Windows NT hopes to provide the above features in the future.
OS/2 hopes to provide the first two features in the future, and 
currently provides multi-user security with some add on features.

The biggest difference between OS/2 and Windows NT that I see is that
I'm running OS/2 on my computer at home right now.  All of the other
differences seem relatively minor except for the fact that OS/2 has
a vasty superior interface.

Microsoft employees sound like broken records.
They keep saying that Windows NT will be superior because some time
in the future they promise to add a few new pieces of functionality,
that are already in the works for OS/2.  

Two companies are making the same promises.
Only one has devilvered a useable product yet.

What should I choose?
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:3255 comp.os.os2.misc:25545 comp.os.os2.apps:4755
From: person@plains.NoDak.edu (Brett G Person )
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: The Ultimate OS/2 FTP Source
Keywords: FTP, OS/2, FREE, SOFTWARE
Date: 25 Jul 92 23:07:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: plains.19356
Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND

Well,  IBM now has the perfect opportunity to give OS/2 the push it
needs to succeed. 

   If they chose to, they could use it as a base to put not only
patches, but technical information to help us learn to *use* os/2.
I'd like to see some more in-depth programming examples.  I'd like to
see them at least put *some* pd stuff out there.  Maybe even n
occasional in-house tool that we might find interesting or usefull.
   On another topic.  I recently attended a Microsoft Windows 3.1
technical seminar ( for free). Is IBM doing/going to be doing the same
thing with OS/2?  

-- 
Brett Person
Guest Account	
North Dakota State University
person@plains.nodak.edu || person@plains.bitnet
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy