HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: <None>
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:55:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.035204.2337@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>
>	We have OS/2 2.1 Beta installed and running on a machine, and I must
>say it's WIN 3.1 support is very well done. Seamless Windows is very usable,


	seamless:  What hardware are you using?


>And It would be possible under OS/2, not Window 3.1, and maybe NT.


	If the programs will run, NT will multitask them dandy.  It's
	as robust a preemptive multitasker as OS/2 is.  Hopefully 
	MS learned a few things and has tried to make NT a little
	more efficient, but it's impossible to tell.  (It runs somewhat
	slower, anyway)


>While on the Subject of NT vs OS/2, has anyone tried to run Dos games under NT?
>anything like Wing Commander II, F-15 Strike Eagle III, etc???


	If this is an argument, then it's a terrible one.  There are
	a lot of new games coming out written for 386 machines that
	*will not run* under OS/2.  Comanche Maximum Overkill,
	for instance, will not run (and cannot be made to do so).  
	Neither will F-15 SE III (I think--haven't tried it myself)
	or Ultima (current and probabl any following versions).  
	Out Of This World runs *poorly* (badly).  

	That's what dual-boot is for.  


>While games may not seem like a reason to choose an OS, I wonder how many home
>users would choose OS/2 over NT( assuming home users would buy NT )?


	I don't see this as an argument--NT can dual boot too.  If
	users are after games, though, they'll just use DOS.


>The Video game market is very large, and probably the Fastest Growing segment
>in personal computing. It could be a real Factor in Widespread acceptance of
>any OS outside of corporate use.
>
>BTW, any of the games mentioned above DO require a system that is already
>capable of running OS/2, if you enable all of the features.


	True enough, but most of these 386 machine games are not
	going to work under OS/2, NT, NeXTStep, whatever.  They are
	breaking all of the rules and pushing the envelope.  True, it's
	kind of stupid, but they are already kind of slow on lesser
	hardware, and another layer in the way makes them too slow.

	Who knows?  Maybe someone will get smart and write a game 
	for OS/2 or Windows that takes advantage of the cards that
	have bitblt and other hardware functions.  We might start to see
	some decent game performance. 

	Besides, if games were the big selling point, people would
	have been buying Amigas long back.  


-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: OS/2 2.1 Beta in *Canada*
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 06:53:00 GMT

This is from the IBM Canada Bulletin Board System(s). This was posted
in early 1993. 

Best Regards,
Mark K.

---------------------------- Cut Here ----------------------------------
                                                                        
**************  OS/2 2.1 Beta Available NOW on CD-ROM   **************  
                                                                        
Many thanks to you who have made OS/2 such a huge success.  Later this  
year, we will be releasing the next version of OS/2, but for now you 
have the opportunity to try out the Beta version of OS/2 2.1.  This is  
available now through IBM Direct at 1-800-465-7999 extension 1013 for   
only $30.00.  Quanities are limited, so order now!                      
                                                                        
                       Part Number         Price                        
                                                                        
OS/2 2.1 Beta CD-ROM   BETA21              $30.00                       
                                                                        
This CD ROM contains the following features of OS/2 2.1 beta version    
                                                                        
          - Support for Microsoft** Windows** 3.1 applications          
          - Seamless support for Windows 3.1 and PM SVGA (Super VGA)    
          - Enhanced SCSI-based CD ROM support                          
          - Additional high-speed printer support                       
          - Advanced power management (APM) (except mouse support)      
          - PC Memory Card International Association (PCMIA) enabling   
          - Enhanced enabling code for pen-based systems                
          - Multimedia enabling (except software motion video)=]?       
          - Support of OS/2 as an AS/400 client                         
          - A FAX mini-application (applet)                             
                                                                        
Support and feedback will be handled through Compuserve.  All details 
are included in the package.  Beta code only available in CD-ROM through
IBM Direct.                                                             
                                                                        
Thank you for your support of OS/2.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: SGI-GL in Windows NT??
From: DEMOGRB@LUST.LATROBE.EDU.AU (Max!)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 06:43:10 GMT
Organization: La Trobe University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <8JAN199313045680@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov writes:

> In article <1993Jan7.063446.28539@ryn.mro4.dec.com>, 
> Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com writes...
> 
> >This is correct. It will be included in NT version 2.
> 
> This would be fascinating, since the initial release of NT will be version 
> 3.1 ;-)

As if that wasn't bad enough - if you select Help | About from the Program
Manager, what do you think it says?  Not real mode, not standard mode, not
enhanced mode, but - - NT mode !

BTW, a serious question - does NT have a CLI, or does it just use a DOS session
like 3.1 does ?

I can just see those Unix gurus lining up in their droves for this one! ;-)

+---------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|/\/\ax!         Gavin Baker      | Tell a man that there are a billion    |
|                                 | stars in the sky, and he will          |
|net: demogrb@lust.latrobe.edu.au | believe you - But -                    |
|cis: 100026,270                  | Tell him there is wet paint on a bench |
|bix: gbaker                      | and he has to touch it to be sure...   |
+---------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
From: os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Does IBM have an Internet email address?
Date: 10 Jan 93 16:01:30 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1993Jan10.072115.12666@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) writes:

>Would comp.os.os2.beta fit the bill?  This proposed newsgroup would
>allow beta OS/2 2.x users to trade information.  Whenever IBM comes out
>with a new beta, then this newsgroup will be busy reporting bugs.  But
>as the beta improves, posts in this newsgroup will shrink.  Then people
>can propose new OS/2 features for future betas.  In other words, OS/2
>system programmers or designers can read this newsgroup to read either
>about beta bugs or suggestions for new features, depending on the
>progress of a given beta OS/2.

How about comp.os.os2.bugs?  comp.os.os2.suggestions could be considered
useless since 1) a lot, if not all, of the material conceivably could also
be posted to comp.os.os2.misc and 2) it would probably degenerate into
another advocacy group ("Tom:  I would like 'A' to be included with OS/2",
"Dick:  get real!  'A' is so large that it would take 21 disks for it
alone!", "Harry:  *you* get real!  'A' is worth the extra space.", etc.).

Cheers,
Q
-- 
"If you choose not to decide, you  | "My other body is in the shop" - seen
 still have made a choice" - Rush  |  on a T-shirt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell)
Subject: Re: SGI-GL in Windows NT??
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:46:15 GMT

hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Thanks for making the point - it's the HARDWARE that SGI has that makes
>the software look nice. I shudder to think of all those polygons being
>massaged on a 486 with a (S)VGA, presuming that kind of config is even
>supported.

What's so bad about rendering polygons in software??  The point is, thre
functionality is there.  Whether you like the performance of it is
beside the point.  Give me slow software Gouraud shading rather than
none at all.


-- 
Dan Cogswell               Or as we say in Michigan:  "Dee-troit"


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: OS/2 Developer Magazine Information
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 06:32:11 GMT

For those of you who are interested in OS/2, I found this magazine to
be very interesting. 

=========================== Cut Here ===================================

                     ___________________________

                     IBM OS/2 DEVELOPER MAGAZINE
                     ___________________________

The IBM OS/2 Developer Magazine (formerly the Personal Systems
Developer) is a quarterly publication for OS/2 application developers.
The OS/2 Developer features a variety of technical articles,
programming tips and techniques, product reviews, development case
studies, and interviews with OS/2 industry leaders.

Vol. 4  No. 3, 1992 (Summer)    G362-0001-14

  Spotlight Feature:  OS/2 2.0 Development Team
  Tools:  Ellipse, OS/2 Enhanced Editor, SnapDump/2, WorkSet/2,
          WorkFrame/2, Developer's Toolkit, CCL/2
  Application Printing
  Class Objects in SOM
  Workplace Shell Programming
  Multimedia:  AVC Digital Video Interface, MMPM/2 Audio Subsystem
  Database:  Advanced Programming, User Exits
  LAN:  LAN Transport Layer, 32-Bit NetBIOS
  Communications:  HyperACCESS/5

Issues Available through PUBORDER

  Fall 1991      G362-0001-11
  Winter 1992    G362-0001-12
  Spring 1992    G362-0001-13
  Summer 1992    G362-0001-14  (current issue)
  Fall 1992      G362-0001-15  (shipping 10/8)

Other Information -- OS/2 Developer

  Circulation: 30,000 (ISVs, IBM Customers, IBM Internal)
  IBM Employee Subscriptions:  SLSS (via HONE System), G362-0001
  Customer Subscriptions (U.S.):  $39.95/year,  (800) WANT-OS2
  International Subscriptions: (708) 647-5960, Fax (708) 647-0537
  Advertising:  West Coast - Cathy Passage,  (415) 905-2392
                East Coast - Veronica Smith, (212) 683-9294
  Article Ideas:  Dick Conklin, Editor, CompuServe 76711,1005.

=========================== Cut Here ===================================

Here is what appeared in Vol. 4 No. 4, 1992 (Fall 1992) of "IBM OS/2 
Developer:"

  Spotlight Feature:  Borland International
                      (With looks at Borland C++ for OS/2 and 
                       ObjectVision for OS/2)
  Tools: SourceLink, Smalltalk/V PM, Synetics, AM/Workplace 
  Productivity through multitasking
  Multimedia:  MMPM/2 Developer's Toolkit, Networked Full Motion 
               Digital Video, MMPM/2 and OS/2, Advanced Multimedia,
               ActionMedia II and MMPM/2

And much more... You have all the information you need.

Best Regards,
Mark K.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris)
Subject: Re: No TrueType Fonts in OS/2 2.1 ?!
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:26:00 GMT

tennesen@mars.dgrc.doc.ca (Andy Tenne-Sens) writes:

>Although Windows 3.1 is a bunch of fixes wrapped in kluges and bound
>with chewing gum and baling wire, it does give me one thing: Word 2.0.
>This is an elegant word processor that offers true WYSIWYG, an excellent
>equation editor, and the ability to embed CorelDRAW drawings and Excel
>4.0 charts (among other things) into my documents.

>I'm disturbed, however, that a recent posting stated that IBM has decided
>not to support TrueType scalable fonts.  Does anyone out there know if
>this is so?  Will IBM depend on Adobe for scalable-font capability?
>If I run OS/2, will I still be able to use Word for Windows 2.0 and
>some kind of scalable fonts?  Will I still be able to embed equations
>and graphics into my documents?

At a recent IBM-sponsored dog-and-pony OS/2 show one of the speakers
stated flatly that IBM saw no customer demand for TrueType support, and
until such demand was visible there was little reason to expect such
support to be provided.  He didn't seem too impressed by the possibility
that this is a chicken-and-egg problem.

So far, IBM has apparently decided to use ATM as the only mechanism for
built-in scalable fonts.  Along this line, can anyone say if IBM plans
to provide an upgrade to the OS/2 ATM to bring it up to the level of
the Windows ATM version 2.5?

>If I can't get the full capabilities of Word 2.0 under OS/2, then I stand
>to lose more than to gain by switching OSs.

Don't forget that WfW 2.0 was released in late 1991, several months before
Windows 3.1 came out.  The feechur wasn't documented, but the WfW installer
checked the version of Windows it was running under, and installed the 
TrueType fonts if Windows 3.1 was present.  For 3.0 users the installer
would provide PCL and/or PostScript versions of MT Extra and Fences.

Those files are present on the WfW 2.0 distribution disks, so even if 
they don't get installed if you put up WfW 2.0 under OS/2 you can still
manually unpack them, then run the ATM control panel to complete the
process.

As far as I know, none of the applications (including WfW) have any reason
to be interested in the engine used to render the scalable fonts.  As long
as WfW can find the appropriate named font during enumeration it should be
happy without worrying about whether it's a PostScript or TrueType or
WhoKnowsWhat environment.

And no, I haven't put this on my OS/2 system yet, so all of the above
advice is in the "gee, this sounds like it might work, so send me a note
if it does" category.  If IBM would bother itself to try to market OS/2
to us I might be able to find the time to actually test such ideas...

Joe Morris / MITRE
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com (Peter Mayne)
Subject: Re: SGI-GL in Windows NT??
Reply-To: Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:34:46 GMT


In article <dlcogswe.726380388@vela>, dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell) writes:
>A guy I work with told me today the Microsoft has bought the rights to
>include SGI-GL with Windows NT and will be including it in an upcoming
>release!  This is quite an  advantage over OS/2 and brings NT to
>workstation level, in my opinion.  If NT will have GL standard, I will
>most likely be switching over from OS/2.

This is correct. It will be included in NT version 2.

>I'm pretty shocked. 

Why?

PJDM
--
Peter Mayne                     | My statements, not Digital's.
Digital Equipment Corporation   |
Canberra, ACT, Australia        | "AXP!": Bill the Cat

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:31:15 GMT

In article <1i9fgdINN2bu@shelley.u.washington.edu>, tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
|> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> |>Here's a third way for them to have all the drilling equipment: tell drilling
|> |>equipment customers that unless they purchase Standard Oil drilling equipment,
|> |>and do not purchase drilling equipment from others, they will no longer be
|> |>sold oil from Standard Oil. If they control enough of the oil market (because
|> |>they were more efficient than the competition, say), they could use that to
|> |>dominate the drilling equipment market, even though they might not be more
|> |>efficient there.
|> |
|> |Even in that case, the total cost to drilling equiptment users of oil +
|> |drilling equiptment must be less than any anybody else could *possibly* do
|> |it for Standard Oil to maintain its monopoly. 
|> 
|> Yes, but the cost of drilling equipment from someone else plus oil from
|> Standard Oil would be less than the cost of buying both from Standard Oil.

Agreed--but Microsoft isn't doing anything remotely resembling this.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: michael@amo.mit.edu (Michael Courtney)
Subject: Best Hardware for OS2
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 03:08:58 GMT


	I am preparing to buy a 486DX2-66 system with 8 or 16 Meg RAM
and a big hard disk, SVGA and the works.  I would like to have as 
little difficulty as possible in running OS2 2.x.  I do not mind spending
some time setting the system up and configuring everything properly, 
but I want a system that will hardly ever (once a month at most) crash
once I have it configured properly.  Is it likely that I can accomplish
this on a non-IBM system such as Gateway 2000 or Zeos?  Is this even
possible on the IBM PSValuepoint system?  How much of an advantage
does IBM hardware have when running OS2?
	Is crashing only once a month too much to ask of OS2?  Is Unix
what I really want?  
	Thanks in advance for your suggestions.

Michael Courtney
michael@amo.mit.edu
From: chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 4 Jan 1993 12:08:06 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu



How much you wanna bet all you have to do to read a DOS6 compressed partition
on OS/2 2.0 is to create a DOS6 Disk Image, and do a "Boot from drive A"
with the Compression drivers in the config sys?  Therefore, I think
the validity of an "OS2 detected" message would not really be necessary.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft using "Force"???
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:49:08 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.213621.18010@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com (John Brock) writes:
>
>OK - how about this. MS says you can have MSDOS for $x if you put it
>on every single system you sell, or $y (where y >>x) otherwise. If you
>decide you only want to pay $x regardless, eventually they will sue
>you for breach of contract. If the judgement goes against you and you
>refuse to pay, the police will get involved. The bottom line involves
>you being *forcibly* removed to prison by the forces (:-)) of law and
>order. Every legal demand/obligation has force implied somewhere,
>otherwise people (human nature being what it is) would ignore them
>were they not to their advantage.
>

This is a stupid argument--but I'll play anyway (since I believe that
there is "force" at work in Microsoft's agreements--but that "force" is
present in EVERY choice we make; for example, I am "forced" to work
because if I don't, the bills won't get paid and the bank will take away
my home---dammit, you're right!  We should make it illegal for banks
to take away people's homes! :) )

Let's take your illustration above and make a few changes:

OK - how about this.  BIGCO says you can have its widgets for $x if you
put it on every single car you sell, or $y (where y >>x) otherwise.  If
you decide you only want to pay $z (where x >> z) regardless...

Don't you see?  What you are saying is that you want the CUSTOMER to set
the price he pays, not the supplier (in this case BIGCO).  Heck, in
your ideal world (I would imagine) putting up the sign "We reserve the
right to refuse service to anyone" would be illegal.

If *I* wanted to sell something, I want to be able to sell it on *my*
terms.  If those terms are ludicrous--I'll sell it at 50% discount to those
people who are wearing red tennis shoes--I still want that right.

>--
>Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
>Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
>Phone: +1 604 370 4452

my Opinions
Joe
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 4 Jan 1993 20:48:53 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan4.184138.23659@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <8295@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>|> Let's try a slight modification: The next time I need screws, I order the same
>|> quantity from _both_ suppliers. 
>As far as I've heard, even the most exclusive agreements that Microsoft offers
>allow for this.  To parallel, suppose that a Clones-R-US decides to offer
>OS/2 to its customers on a trial basis.  They simply order Windows from
>Microsoft pursuant to the agreement they have with them and a case of OS/2
>from IBM.  

Actually, they simply order the case of OS/2; their agreement with MS involves
no ordering at all.
I'll agree that, in the case of this scenario, that that's a nit.

>|> I try the screws from 2 Guys Garage. 
>Clones-R-US looks at the sales figures for OS/2 vs. Windows.

OK, I'll grant that...

>|> If they work out, I switch;
>If enough of Clones-R-US customers like OS/2, then Clones offers OS/2.

Here's the catch: they still pay MS for the machines which have OS/2 on them.

>|> if not, I go back to the case I have in stock from ACME.
>If not, Clones-R-us sticks with the agreements it has with Microsoft.

OK here.

>In conclusion, if a JIT agreement doesn't restrict a savy businessman from
>trying out new suppliers, than neither does the kind of agreements which
>Microsoft offers.

Nope...MS' agreement would be like me having to buy one screw from ACME for
every screw I buy from 2 Guys Garage, knowing that those screws would never
get used.

>Righto!!!  And just as a sufficiently JIT businessman not need the FTC to
>step in, neither does a sufficiently smark Cloner.

Sorry. As long as they have to pay for DOS and Windows, even for those
machines that go out without them, the situation is unfair.

>Get thee hence to reality forsooth!!  Thou mayest buy Clones with OS/2 or
>UNIX preinstallethed!!!

(preinstallethed?? :-)
Thankfully, sone clone vendors are beginning to see the light. Many of the
major ones, though, do not.

>|> MS has a near-monopoly, and are doing all they can, legitimately and
>|> otherwise, to reinforce it. You hold that up as the Holy Grail. I say it's bad
>|> for the consumer.
>Show me a consumer whose hurt.

Tried to buy a Gateway 2000, or a Zeos, without Windows and DOS lately? You're
paying for it regardless. That's hurting the consumer.
-- 
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.
      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of all Fears_
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy