HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thayne@unislc.uucp (Thayne Forbes)
Subject: Re: Notice! OS2 will Execute Win3 programs Without having to have Win
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Organization: HomeVax
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 06:16:53 GMT

merlin (merlin@neuro.usc.edu) wrote:
: >Thus, if a process needs a lot of processing time to handle an event, it can
: >take it; but if a process doesn't need to do anything (a "background" process
: >wouldn't have to do much) in response it a message, it can (and usually does)
: >yield control almost IMMEDIATELY to the next process that has high-priority
: >messages pending.  In a sense, this is a form of self-imposed priority-based
: >scheduling.
: 
: YES!  BUT!  That works for well behaved well written Windows applications.
: However, when you try doing background compiles of large application source
: codes (200,000+ lines of C) then the lack of dynamic priority scheduling
: becomes particularly evident.  I am informed this is true largely of apps
: running in a DOS box and not of regular Windows apps.  However, working as
: a developer of cross system applications (OS/2 2.1, SCO UNIX, 386BSD-0.1,
: and maybe DOS/Win32s), the lack of preemptive dynamic process scheduling
: seems particularly acute.  As I understand it I have to assign percentage
: processor time to my background dos box and it doesn't waiver much from my
: fixed percentage assignment.

Well, have you or have you not written a windows app.  Have you or have you
not done the compile in a dos box that you are talking about.  Most 
importantly, have you read the windows doc concerning scheduling?
Sorry, I got carried away.  Dos boxen are not windows apps.  They are not
scheduled the same as dos boxes.  

The scheduling scheme above is precisely how Window apps are treated.
Any Dos boxes are scheduled similarly, except that all Dos boxes share
the cpu equally with the entire windows environment.  Thus when you 
create the dos box (with the pif editor) you tell it how much time to
take in relation to not only Winders, but all the other dos boxen.
(For the techies, this is because these are all being run on virtual
86s, but I think there are a lot of other shenanigans going on too.)

-- 
Thayne Forbes
thayne@unislc.slc.unisys.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: DEC bets the company on NT?  WRONG!
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 04:21:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.201659.7143@gw.wmich.edu> x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.222909.20160@grebyn.com>, mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli) writes:
>> In article <1993Jan7.063028.14772@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>	Sometimes, I really wonder how much knowledge of the computer
>industry Brian really has.  Beyond his little publications and
>is Academia environment he often seems ignorant of what is really going
>on.  Speaking as someone who has a rather intimate familiarity with
>DEC (Digital) the thought of DEC betting everything on their PC running
>NT is sickening.  It is simply untrue.  As was pointed out, only the
>Alpha PC (keyword PC) will be running NT.  The other DEC Alpha based
>computers will (again, as said before) running VMS.  VMS is an 
>excellent operating system and there are VMS like OS's from DEC that
>are REAL TIME OS's.  

Brad... I am simply quoting trade rags, I did not say any of the above.
I personally do not believe that DEC is betting the farm on NT, but I do
believe that it is more important to them than you and Marc claim.

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                          NeXTStep 486 is for _YOU_!!!!
University of Utah                    Microsoft needs competition, but I want
Center for Software Science          to be one of the many running Windows NT!
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373    :-) :-) :-)  NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3711 comp.os.os2.advocacy:11836
From: chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits 01/06/93
Date: 7 Jan 1993 14:55:45 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu


Welcome back, brian!
From: merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Notice! OS2 will Execute Win3 programs Without having to have Win
Date: 4 Jan 1993 01:16:55 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuro.usc.edu

>Well, have you or have you not written a windows app.  Have you or have you
>not done the compile in a dos box that you are talking about.  Most 
>importantly, have you read the windows doc concerning scheduling?

YES.  I had missed the point about cooperative scheduling among Windows
processes -- yes they do adapt to the current job mix.  However, perhaps
I am unusual in this sense, but I think it would be nice to be able to 
dynamically schedule background compilations.  This may matter only for
the few of us actually developing Windows code; but it may be important
for some other users.

Thanks for the info -- and enlightenment.

Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: Alpha Chip (was Re: DEC bets the company on NT?  WRONG!)
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 18:22:35 GMT

In article <K8KWB1GY@cc.swarthmore.edu> eoliver@ralph.cs.haverford.edu (Erik Oliver) writes:
>One question about the alpha chip itself, I was under the impression
>that the VAX chip offers certain hardware level services that VMS
>depends upon, like restricted instructions and modes.  Does the ALPHA
>chip support these things in hardware or have they re-done VMS to
>support these things in software?
>
>-Erik

I'm not a hardware guy by any means, so someone else can probably fill
in the details/correct my misunderstandings, but this was addressed at
the Digital Open House.  Apparently the Alpha has some sort of
configurability wherein it can be customized for various OSes.  DEC folk
said that there were three different "modes" for Alpha chips to run in,
providing low level services expected by VMS, OSF/1, and NT
respectively.  I fully admit that I had no real idea what they were
talking about-- my use of the word "modes" above is incorrect, it is
simply the closest thing I can think of to describe what they said.

-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wmtwen@rw8.urc.tue.nl (Erlend Nagel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: MS-Windows help-file format
Date: 6 Jan 93 12:05:41 GMT
Reply-To: wmtwen@urc.tue.nl

Hi,

could someone on this newsgroup please mail me some information on the
exact fileformat of the helpfiles for MS-windows. I really need this
information for some help-file processing program I am planning to
write. And as this is an advocacy newsgroup surely everybody would be
willing to supply me with this information.

Please e-mail to me as I am not a regular reader of this newsgroup:
wmtwen@urc.tue.nl

Erlend.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: A thought...
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:23:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan03.080318.1044@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>
>     IBM has already waived any rights to Windows NT, so this
>discussion is probably moot.
>
I hope so.  I think that NT's greatest weakness is it's attempt to be
all things to all people, with its damn near infinite variety of
supported APIs, filesystems, and so on.  This probably accounts for most
of its obesity.  I think OS/2 is already on the wrong side of that
curve, and I'd hate to see it drift farther in that direction.  DOS
support is really all I need from it.

-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: cantor@iguana.cis.ohio-state.edu (scott eric cantor)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:25:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.143459.1267@yvax.byu.edu> sean@digaudio.byu.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.192014.6776@cs.brown.edu>  writes:
>
>>If Microsoft is such a devil-incarnate, why doesn't some company produce an
>>OS that runs adequately on a wide range of Intel-based CPUs and has  
>features
>>superior to MS-DOS?
>
>
>Because Microsoft has such a lock on the market that such an OS simply  
>cannot sell well.  DR DOS seems an able competitor to DOS, yet it has a  
>miniscule market share.

	Able competitor?  I don't think DR-DOS is a particularly valid example
of a competitive OS to MS-DOS.  Is it 32 bit instead of 16 bit?  Does it prov-
ide a flat memory model so that we can lose the segments and 1 meg limit?
What does it really give you that makes it worth the money?  I don't think a
suite of utilities bundled with it makes it a worthwhile competitor.

>--
>
>Sean Luke


[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Scott Cantor			     UNIX is a small, fast, efficient     ]
[ Ohio State University		     operating system upon which every    ]
[ Columbus, Ohio		     graduate student in the universe has ]
[ 				     played pin the tail on the donkey.   ]
[ cantor@cis.ohio-state.edu		          ---- a UNIX guru        ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3747 comp.os.os2.advocacy:11964
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: A radical idea
Date: 9 Jan 93 03:35:49 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>BTW, Nations like USSR, Poland, E. Germany, Czech, learned the hard way, just
>how much real progress can be made if there is no incentive to keep working.

Well, they got to space first, and a lot of the world's great scientists
were from the Soviet Union, so they certain seemed to be able to make
real progress.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: muzo@waffle.sns.com (muzaffer kal)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Notice! OS2 will Execute Win3 programs Without having to have Wi
Date: 6 Jan 93 01:26:09 GMT
Organization: Systems'n'Software

Systems'n'Software, Fremont, CA  94539-6669
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 17:23:28 PST
Organization: Systems'n'Software, Fremont, CA  94539-6669

merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes:

> >Thus, if a process needs a lot of processing time to handle an event, it can
> >take it; but if a process doesn't need to do anything (a "background" proces
> >wouldn't have to do much) in response it a message, it can (and usually does
> >yield control almost IMMEDIATELY to the next process that has high-priority
> >messages pending.  In a sense, this is a form of self-imposed priority-based
> >scheduling.
> 
> YES!  BUT!  That works for well behaved well written Windows applications.
> However, when you try doing background compiles of large application source
> codes (200,000+ lines of C) then the lack of dynamic priority scheduling
> becomes particularly evident.  I am informed this is true largely of apps
> running in a DOS box and not of regular Windows apps.  However, working as
> a developer of cross system applications (OS/2 2.1, SCO UNIX, 386BSD-0.1,
> and maybe DOS/Win32s), the lack of preemptive dynamic process scheduling
> seems particularly acute.  As I understand it I have to assign percentage
> processor time to my background dos box and it doesn't waiver much from my
> fixed percentage assignment.

there is a slight problem here. Under enchanted mode, dos boxes(which are 
V86 tasks) are preemptively multitasked with respect to other dos boxes 
and the system VM which happens to be the VM which runs all windows apps. 
So if you have dos apps, they are preemptive. Windows has more than one 
schedular (under enchanted mode, that is)

Muzaffer

----
muzo@waffle.sns.com  (muzaffer kal)
Systems'n'Software Free Public Access BBS --- (510)623-8652
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3716 comp.os.os2.advocacy:11858
From: chriswa@microsoft.com (Chris Waldron)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 04 Jan 93 18:19:38 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: na


I've been following this thread and it appears to me that the main position of
the FTC is the licensing of DOS to OEMs.  It appears that the paying of royal-
ties to Microsoft on systems that does not ship with MS DOS stifles the 
competitive position of other OS manufactures namely Digital Research now
own by Novell.

Having worked for a major OEM, I have first hand knowledge about these agree-
ment and sentiments towards the agreements from the OEM viewpoint.  Now that
I'm working for Microsoft I can understand their position.  However, these
are MY obsevation and opinions and it does not reflect Microsoft's corporate
position.

Most PC compatibles OEM ships their systems with DOS installed.  In fact about
98% of all PC compatible sold have DOS installed when one counts Window 
installed systems.  The latest figure that I have first hand knowledge of
was 1991: 50% DOS only system and 48% Windows.  The remaining 2% consisted
of OS/2, UNIX and no-OS.

The OEM I worked for balked at the terms of the Microsoft agreement since they
felt I was unfair to them to pay MS a royalty for no-OS systems, however MS
felt that DOS most likely would be installed on the no-OS system.  From MS
viewpoint this would reduce piracy. However when one looks at the afore-
mentioned numbers the OEM had a very weak case.

No-OS systems consist of a very small portioned of OEM sales and the balking
was merely a negotiating ploy.  What OEM would be willing to part with 98% of
their sale.  Another major point is the competitive position of DR-DOS since
this is the real cloak behind the FTC allegations against MS.  I was involved
in influencing the decision at the OEM against DR DOS.  Compatibility and
support was the major issue for my decision against DR DOS.  DR DOS has known
compatability problems with Windows and customer support of compatible DOSes 
would be an expensive nightmare for OEMs.  Also customers want ONE OS.  While
customers would be willing say to try different applications, customers do not
want the hassle of maintaining multiple OS.  This is why such OS as PC-MOS amd
DR DOS are having difficulties selling.

It appears to me that the FTC case against Mircosoft is bogus.  If one takes
a good look at the history of Microsoft, it was IBM due to its own business
mistakes and Microsoft's savvy, hard work, and vision that catapulted the 
company. Microsoft's unorthodox approach to business offends the traditional 
business ideology which is why Forbes magazine had to ask "Who can stop
[Microsoft]?".  The FTC case is an attempt to that question.

ChrisWa.     My own words not Microsoft! 
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com (Peter Mayne)
Subject: Re: Alpha Chip (was Re: DEC bets the company on NT?  WRONG!)
Reply-To: Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 01:45:57 GMT


In article <1993Jan9.182235.424@grebyn.com>, mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli) writes:
>In article <K8KWB1GY@cc.swarthmore.edu> eoliver@ralph.cs.haverford.edu (Erik Oliver) writes:
>>One question about the alpha chip itself, I was under the impression
>>that the VAX chip offers certain hardware level services that VMS
>>depends upon, like restricted instructions and modes.  Does the ALPHA
>>chip support these things in hardware or have they re-done VMS to
>>support these things in software?
>>
>>-Erik
>
>I'm not a hardware guy by any means, so someone else can probably fill
>in the details/correct my misunderstandings, but this was addressed at
>the Digital Open House.  Apparently the Alpha has some sort of
>configurability wherein it can be customized for various OSes.  DEC folk
>said that there were three different "modes" for Alpha chips to run in,
>providing low level services expected by VMS, OSF/1, and NT
>respectively.  I fully admit that I had no real idea what they were
>talking about-- my use of the word "modes" above is incorrect, it is
>simply the closest thing I can think of to describe what they said.

It's called PALcode (Privileged Architecture Library). It is *very* roughly
(repeat roughly) analagous to "write your own microcode", and the appropriate
code is loaded at boot time.

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

Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3752 comp.os.os2.advocacy:11978
From: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu (RICHARD HOFFBECK)
Subject: Re: Tidbits 01/06/93
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Reply-To: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu
Organization: Colon Cancer Control Study, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:01:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.122944.1190@cs.joensuu.fi>, jahonen@cs.joensuu.fi (Jarmo Ahonen) writes:
> Well... In order to respect older investments? In many cases the corporate
> users (and even smaller companies) have minis/mainframes/vaxes/etc
> which they still want to use. For example in a tcp/ip environment like
> ours the Win4Workgroups is a non-issue. At least local MS salesmen do not
> (yet at least) quarantee that it will be usefull in out net.

At least DEC has jumped on the bandwagon with announcements of RDb drivers
for ODBC, an RDb server for NT and hints of improved connectivity between
VMS and Windows using Pathworks.  For UNIX systems, Sun's PC-NFS has gotten
good reviews for file sharing and SUN has announced an NT version of the
NFS software. Incorporating a TCP/IP transport in W4W would be nice but
I can live with the idea of using an NT system to gateway into our VAX
cluster.

>  
> And the software for the older, bigger machines has been expensive and
> they are in use... Why buy software again when it is in the big box and
> runs fine?
>  

We get to buy most of our software over again every year :-)  We'd be
hardpressed to find or afford software as productive as Excel or Word that runs
under VMS and given that a 25Mhz 486SX clone isn't significantly more than an X
terminal, I can't justify looking at VMS based applications for anything but
our heavy duty database and statistical work. And those become more
questionable every day.  

Its just not cost effective. The only decent UNIX based software that I've seen
with a realistic price tag is the new X version of WordPerfect.  Univel
Unixware is going to be priced at $2,500 for the Applications Server version. 
NT is going to be about $500. NT will serve my PCs and talk to my VAX while
UnixWare will require either the Novell compatibility kit for the VMS server or
a third party NFS utility.  I like UNIX and I've used it since '83 but it just
isn't cost effective in today's market.  

--rick
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: The sin of MicroSoft
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 14:17:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.153214.887@aspentec.com> tto@aspentec.com wrote:

>     The sin of IBM is that they has lead the public into adopting too
>     narrow a view of what a computer should and can be.
> 

Even if it is true, why do you claim that it is _IBM's_ sin ? Where
is the obligation of IBM to teach the public coming from ? 

> Similarly, I think the same sin is now committed by MicroSoft.  

Same as above.

Dov


Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: dos is not unix
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 04:33:26 GMT

Before anyone shouts at me with a "DOS IS NOT THE PC FORM OF UNIX"
I would like to point out that I mean, DOS is to PC's what UNIX
is to workstations.  Even if something better is offered, 
users will rant about how it's inferior in some minor way and
ignore it.


-- 
      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.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bill@west.msi.com (Bill Poitras)
Subject: Re: The sin of MicroSoft
Followup-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Reply-To: bill@west.msi.com
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 05:28:32 GMT

Pete Skelly (petesk@microsoft.com) wrote:
: Most people in the core of computer science tend to think things like
: "address space" or "processing speed" are all computers are.  They study
: algorithms and logic in order to build more powerful machines designed
: to help in the study of algorithms and logic.  A lot of them are stuck on
: ideas on how to make a computer do more than one thing at a time, but have
: absolutely no idea what those things are.  It wasn't until recently that
: the idea that "computers and people should work together" really came into
: being.  This lead to the development of user interface technology by the
: corporate sector, based on the works of Alan Kay and others at Xeros PARC
: (These researches were tended to be on the fringe of academia, far from the
: core research in user confusion occurring in UNIX development).

I agree that computer science in the commercial world is getting wrapped
up in things that are just the surface of computer science.  I think
this is partly due to the education system.  I have a BS in computer
science, and I remember that most classes taught me how to program, how
to break apart a problem and solve it in a specific language.  Others
even taught me a little bit about certain technologies like compilers and
operating systems.  But it wasn't until my senior year in college that I
realized that that was only the beginning.  When I studied the analysis
of algorithms I learned really how to pick apart an algorithm regardless
of the language.  Complexity theory because an interesting subject.  My
operating systems class (the last of 3) showed me why I was studying
proofs in mathmatics classes.  It really showed me how mathematics can
really benefit computer science.

I can't really say what a university can do to improve itself, but I
think that computer science is much more than how to program in C or C++.
Perhaps I wasn't a good enough student.

I know I am going to flamed for this (where did I keep that giant
fireproof safe :-)  I am not saying that all of my professors in the
first years of my undergraduate program were bad, its just that there is
something I think the whole program lacked.  Maybe if I went on to get my
masters, I might be enlightened.  I don't know.  Maybe I might try and
find out.

--
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Bill Poitras    | Molecular Simulations Inc.    | Tel (408)522-9229       |
| (bill)          | Sunnyvale, CA USA             |                         | 
|                 | FAX (408)732-0831             | bill@west.msi.com       |
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+

Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3780 comp.os.os2.advocacy:12056