HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 VS NT! The Future War Looms...
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:57:50 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <1992Sep15.180636.2944@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
> In article <1992Sep15.133444.13338@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
> 
>>
>>>WHAT SORT OF MUCK-SUCKING SWINE ARE YOU?  Please assume I've sent you e-mail
>>>with worse language describing your ancestory in an appropriate fashion.
>>>I'd actually send it, but you're probably not worth the effort.
>>
>>What a response.  Worthy of your talents...
> 
> WORTHY OF MY TALENTS ... you scum... you purposely edited out the portion
> where you gave me a choice of being a liar or a breaker of non-disclosure
> agreements.  You edited out the smiley I relunctantly put at the end.
> 
> Well obviously you're untrustworthy to discuss things with.
> I've deleted my response I had written to the things you had said above.
> 
> I ask all people on this group to not respond to any of your posts until
> you apollogize for your rude behavior on this group.

Easy, easy.  Take a chill pill.  Evidently, the iritation level (for
lack of a better term) in this newsgroup has been rising a bit.  
Relax.  I think your bias towards NT is getting under the skin of
some of the people in this group.  It is a natural reaction.  

On a side note, I do think your bias towards NT (IMHO) should 
preclude you from doing your list.  It is not fair from the start
if the creator of a comparison list is biased towards one of the
things being compared.

> 
> Brian
> -- 
> C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| 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...       |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: OS/2 PR
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Distribution: world,local
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 01:37:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.103805.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu> f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:
>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.

Something is happening, though.  If you look at the sales figures, you
find that OS/2 2.0 volume is actually getting darn close to Windows
3.1 volume, and the latter comes as a freebie with a whole lot of
systems out there.

I don't know what this all means, but, within these few months,
vendors are falling all over themselves to support OS/2.

The OS/2 2.0 rollout is beginning to resemble a disease curve (think
of a lazy S and you'll get the picture).  I think Bert Moshier was
right about the track this would take.

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | The OS/2 FREQ. ASKED QUESTIONS LIST is avail. from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/faq.
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | Or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP").
of Chicago, 60637       | Family Values Means a Job
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ckincy@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: Is NT vs OS/2 really the subject?
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 08:08:00 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

>This is not centralized computing, it is distributed computing.  A
>primitive model of how it might be is AIX's TCF facility.  Under
>TCF, running processes can be migrated from one CPU to another--either
>manually or through automatic load-balancing.   I can start a CPU-intensive
>process on my PS/2 55SX and  AIX will automatically migrate it to another
>machine in th TCF cluster with more capacity (an RS6000 or ESA9000, perhaps).
>This is more or less transparent from my standpoint, and all I see is
>RS6000 performance on an 80386SX-16 (yes, TCF can migrate between
>architectures)!   If I could do that from home, I'd probably never buy
>another computer.
>
>To me, something like TCF is much more exciting than anything NT offers.
>No if we only had fast, cheap public data networks the distributed model
>would have a chance :-).
>
>Andy

You mean something like Plan 9?

From what I hear it's still in outer space.

However, it's in a slowly decaying orbit.

Let us hope it doesn't crash and burn!

Land, baby, land!

cpk

For all those who claim UNIX to be stable:  you obviously have
never gotten nntp/tcp:  Unknown service errors when trying to post
to Usenet, have you?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 03:05:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.232349.8400@u.washington.edu> mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth) writes:
> In article <7300@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep10.211055.11590@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
> >>Also if you want to read something really sick, check out Zachman's NT bashing
> >>article.... I think he's finally come completely unhinged.
> >
> >Oh, yeah? What, exactly, did he say that's not truthful, and that hasn't been
> >said here in this very newsgroup?
> >(Yes, I've read the article.)
> Well Jay, earlier this week Will asked, over on Compuserve, how he could get a
> copy of NT so he could give it a try.  Doesn't seem to me that he's doing a 
> very good job evaluating NT before talking about it.  Perhaps he is writing 
> his articles based on hearsay???  In any event, I view Will's evaluations with
> considerable doubt.  
> 
> -- 
> Mark Huth                         * Is it too wild to want to get into 
> Mhuth@u.washington.edu            * Space someday?
> Compuserve 70346,563              *

Mr Zachmann is probably basing his opinions on the published views of others
who have seen NT. 
 
I've seen it....and the Windows progman interface was enough to give me a
negative impression right from the start. That interface was one of the
reasons why I moved to OS/2.....
 
I can do more, faster, with the WPS than with the Windows interface. Your
mileage may vary.
 


-- 
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: ekl@fics.uucp
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would IBM consider adding these features to OS/2 ?
Date: 5 Sep 92 00:39:07 GMT
Organization: Kvam data as

In article <187t7jINN8jm@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
>
>
>Looking at the list of windows NT features, the two that catch my
>eye as a user are the generalized registry and the improved ntfs.
>
>For joe avarage user, the config.sys is unreadable and the os2.ini
>files inaccessable.  The generalized registry database seems like a
>nice clean way of controlling these unruly files.  Is there any chance
>that IBM might consider adding a similar feature to OS/2, even though
>microsoft thought of it first?  It would make things easier to maintain
>for a home user.

I beg to differ. The registry database, in its current incarnation, at
least, is an inaccessible beast. Entries appear in several locations,
and are not at all self explanatory. Right now, I'll take the ascii
file approach.

>The NTFS also looks interesting.  While hpfs has a lot of similar features,
>it does have some problems such as chkdsk's that take hours, no support
>for removable media, an it is difficult to undelete files.

NTFS looks great. The specs of NTFS implies that this is one great piece
of filesystem. I would surely want to run ntfs, either under os/2 or NT.
I guess we can only wish for ibm or a third party to create a similar
filesystem under os/2. How about it -- veritas under os/2 2.0?

Eirik
From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: What REXX does
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:48:24 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <1992Sep10.151800.18159@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu> rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:
: I do scripting in both REXX and perl (I gave up awk and sed as a 
: sacrifice to some pagan deity a few years back :-) ).  The advantages
: I find in using REXX over perl/awk/sed are:  the ability of make
: stacks where I can push items onto and then pop them off when needed,

Er, uh, Perl has had "push" and "pop" operators since version 1.

: AND REXX scripts can actually be read by mere mortals [ try reading
: most perl scripts - even mine (he says with a crimson cast to his
: complexion) ].

Yeah, but that's because those durn Perl hackers like to use all those
durn counterintuitive operators like "push" and "pop"... :-)

Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 14:23:16 EDT
From: Jerry Bryan <BRYAN@wvnvm.wvnet.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.6

In article <1992Sep5.012500.2098@hellgate.utah.edu>,
brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) says:

Spelling corrections only----------------------

>                // which allow the stack extention to be done anyway.
                                          extension


>BRIEF EXPLAINATION OF WHY I SHOW THE BASIC SYSTEM PACKAGES FIRST
       explanation


>@       Allows peformance tuning by "twiddling" parameters.
                performance


>If you have correction/additions/deletetions please jump right in.  If
                                  deletions


>radition lines in this area.  Also, things from third-parties don't count.
 ????????
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jahonen@cs.joensuu.fi (Jarmo Ahonen)
Subject: ISA-boards and 16MB (was Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.4)
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 05:36:11 GMT

jim@juvat.UUCP (Jim Kunzman) writes:

>>@	NT can generically use more than 16 megs of memory.
>>		OS/2 only uses the memory above 16 megs as
>>		a form of fast cache.

>Not true.  Perhaps on ISA machines, but I don't believe it is even
>true with all ISA machines (perhaps Tim Sipples can help here).  It
>certainly isn't true on recent EISA and MC machines.  Any ISA 
>limitations would probably apply equally to NT and OS/2 since they
>both face the same hardware limitations, i.e. 16-bit DMA.

Strange. I have always thought that in many ISA-boards there is a direct
connection between memory and the processor, i.e. the limit exists
if memory is accessed via ISA but not with direct connection. 
Modern ISA-boards do use ISA only for I/O-devices etc, but not for
memory. Or that is what I thought before this thread started :-).

Could any hardware people out there clarify this?  But generally it
would seem quite strange to have space for 32MB or even 64MB on the
motherboard and then use DMA which cannot even access all that memory...
I believe that the limitation is true for ISA-boards in which the +16MB
memory on an ISA-card, but for motherboard...

And I somehow thought that 16MB requires a 24 bit DMA... How strange.

J. Ahonen
From: pfr@drsrv1.hmi.de (Fritsch_Wolfgang)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: wistful departure for that which works.
Date: 8 Sep 92 06:50:21 GMT
Organization: Hahn-Meitner-Institut Berlin GmbH

mm459504@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Michael Miller) writes:

>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.

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

>Mike

Sorry for you Mike that you couldn't play games. Probably everyone would
agree that this should be possible. But for us others who do not play games
but want to get some work done: OS/2 2.0 is all we need.

Wolfgang Fritsch
pfr@psun2.hmi.de
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 14 Sep 1992 16:14 EST  

In article <1992Sep14.153819.18091@njitgw.njit.edu>, dic5340@hertz.njit.edu 
(David Charlap) writes...
> 
>I'd give NT the same break.  If they get it "in the can" on 12/31/92,
>and it arrives in the stores a reasonable time after that (to be fair,
>I'll give it a month), I'll call it a success.

I'd call it "on time" - it will take a little more than meeting a release 
date to call it a success ;-)

JD
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk)
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (Well, not exactly....)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:18:41 GMT

neves@anchor.cs.colorado.edu (NEVES RICHARD K) writes:

>Those numbers may be contradictary in your opinion, but  800,000 is generous. 
>A while back (I can't remember when) I saw an "OS pie" with Unix and the Mac
>under 500,000.  What you don't realize is how small the academic market is
>compared to the mass desktop market.  Most academic users of unix have a
>misconception that unix is in much wider use than it really is. Just ain't so.

Your #'s are kind of old.  The are about (approx.):

	Mac:	5mil	~80% can run sys. 7, about 40% well
	IBM:	85mil	~65% can run win3.1, about 25% well
			~35% can run OS/2, about 8% well
	Unix	1.5-2mil	total of ALL types of unix machines
 
					Todd Walk
					walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
From: kab@s1.gov (Keith Benton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 VS NT! The Future War Looms...
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:23:09 GMT
Reply-To: kab@s1.gov
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

In article 161639I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET, I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET (Spartacus At Cuny) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.144709.24019@midway.uchicago.edu>, sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu
>(Timothy F. Sipples) says:
>>
>>OS/2 2.0 made Number 15 in the last PC Magazine software ranking,
>>incidently.
>
>     And climbing!  PC Magazine Sept 29..Page 31
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Or is that dropping. Last PC Mag (the one before Sept. 29 issue)
had it at the #11 spot.

>
>     OS/2 2.0 Upgrade...No. #12  :)
>
>-------
>------------------------------+      All The Best,
>Reply To:                     |
>                              |      Edward Galarza,
>     I18BC@CunyVM.Cuny.Edu    |      Brooklyn College Of The
>     I18BC@CunyVM.BitNet      |      City University Of New York
>------------------------------+      "Que viva el OS/2!"
>New accounts above 8-)


---
---------------------------------------------------------
|             Keith Benton: kab@s1.gov                  |
| ME!?!? Speak for anyone here!?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA |
|             Standard Disclaimers apply                |
---------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: adamba@microsoft.com (Adam Barr)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.4
Date: 10 Sep 92 02:10:37 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <715896405snx@juvat.UUCP> jim@juvat.UUCP (Jim Kunzman) writes:
>[quoting Brian Sturgill]
>>@	NT can generically use more than 16 megs of memory.
>>		OS/2 only uses the memory above 16 megs as
>>		a form of fast cache.
>
>Not true.  Perhaps on ISA machines, but I don't believe it is even
>true with all ISA machines (perhaps Tim Sipples can help here).  It
>certainly isn't true on recent EISA and MC machines.  Any ISA 
>limitations would probably apply equally to NT and OS/2 since they
>both face the same hardware limitations, i.e. 16-bit DMA.

All ISA cards, and some MicroChannel cards, only support 24-bit
DMA addressing, which is 16 megabytes. EISA cards and the rest of
the MicroChannel cards support 32-bit addressing.

A 24-bit card cannot address past 16M, so if it is asked to read
from or write to memory above that, it can't. On NT, in situations
where it is needed, the HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) will
do what is necessary to make the data appear to be below the 16M
boundary. What is necessary depends on the bus and processor. On
an x86 this means copying the data to a location below 16M, but
on other systems the copy is not needed.

So, driver writers can write their drivers for 24-bit DMA adapters
without worrying about it. When an app calls malloc the memory
returned can be above 16M, because even if it eventually needs to be
written to disk and the disk controller only does 24-bit addressing,
the HAL will take care of it. So, all memory can be used for anything.
This is very important on systems where the area above 16M is a
significant portion of the total memory.

Note that if the memory that needs to be DMAed to/from is below
16M, no copy is done.

I don't know what OS/2 does. I'm not sure what was meant by
a fast cache, since flushing such a cache would be impossible
(with a 24-bit DMA disk controller) without first copying the
data somewhere else below 16M. An individual driver could
certainly allocate its own space below 16M during initialization,
but I doubt current ISA drivers were written with that in mind.


- adam
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:5121 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2142
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.5
Date: 8 Sep 92 13:57:15 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep4.102640.24014@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>You are thinking only of the command line.  I'm talking about the
>system as a whole.  OS/2 has the rather annoying feature that if you
>need to change PATH such that all programs such as the WPS knows about it,
>you must reboot before it can take effect.  Nearly every package
>I've installed say as it exits to reboot because there is no better way
>to get the job done.

This is only of critical importance on a multi-user system, where it
must be on-line at all time for other users.  OS/2 is single-user, so
rebooting it isn't as much of a problem.  It's only a 10-minute loss
in time (or maybe less).  OS/2 servers might suffer from this problem,
but again, the software isn't running on the servers, so the
workstations' environments would be altered and rebooted.

But it is still a nice feature.  So long as you can still have local
environemnts. 

-- 
   |)  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
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: Micro$oft claims a 4Q92 delivery for NT
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 00:00:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In <1992Sep13.213938.5221@gw.wmich.edu> x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:

[ re: NT's lack of a beta + projected delivery date ]

>	Hmmm.  It sounds like FUD to me.  How can they possibly release
>a resonably bug free OS with so little beta testing?

Hmm, seems simple enough to me.  This "non-beta" that they've released
(which I guess nobody is supposed to test, since it's not "really" a
beta), is, of course, being tested (against MS's wishes?) by all the
people who have installed it.

Next question: is MS ignoring all bug reports from the people who have
the SDK?  If not, then I certainly don't see any reason for them to
claim the silly thing is "not a beta".  If they are, then there's no
hope for a 4Q92 release.  :-)

BTW, have they made an official announcement that NT is a
word-processor, not an operating system, yet?  :-) :-) :-)

(And where did all the MS people that used to hang out in this group
disappear to?  Did they get scared off by the realization that NT will
almost certainly *NOT* ship in 4Q92????)  :-)
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:5212 comp.os.os2.apps:6028
From: db3l@ans.net (David Bolen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: SOMFIX.ZIP, WPS, drive-object, HPFS
Date: 10 Sep 92 14:23:56 GMT
	<pathak-080992094111@virtual.mitre.org>
	<92254.143325TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET>
Organization: Advanced Network & Services, Inc. - Elmsford, NY

In article <92254.143325TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET> Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET> writes:

>From what I can see - PMSHL32 is run at priority level 2 and 3.. Some of
>its threads are two, others at three. You can see that it is not a
>top priority task (thank god|) by watching a startup.cmd run -- it runs
>before WPS comes up..   -turgut

Of course, you realize that level 3 is the "time critical" class, which is
the highest priority class on the system.  Now most of these threads do run
at delta 0, which is the lowest time critical, but still higher than any
other priority class (1,2 or 4).  Level 2 is regular and is probably for
some less important threads, but OS/2 session management and much of WPS
runs at time-critical,0 which at least on my system is the highest priority
thing running (HARDERR also runs at this level).

The only reason that startup.cmd appears to run sooner is that WPS is still
starting up in the background.  It gets started prior to WPS (I believe), but
WPS takes longer to show up.

--
-- David
--
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
 \              David Bolen             \  Internet: db3l@ans.net      /
  |   Advanced Network & Services, Inc.   \   Phone: (914) 789-5327   |
 / 100 Clearbrook Road, Elmsford, NY 10523  \   Fax: (914) 789-5310    \
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy