HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: Analogies (was: Microsoft bashing)
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 17:25:54 GMT

>>> That analogy doesn't quite work since an automobile and its parts are
>>> one and the same.  An operating system and application software are not.

> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>> No both things are "parts" in the sense that an OS+APPS is a customer's
>> solution.  The "Apps" in question wouldn't even EXIST if Microsoft didn't

jwhite@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Joseph White) writes:
> Actually the anology of car+parts = OS+apps, does not hold.  You are
> missing something, that IMHO is obvious and necessary.  Because you
> didn't/can't see it, you think that it does hold.  The correct anology
> is:  carbody+parts+gasoline = computer+os+apps

Sorry, that's no good either: gasoline is very much a commodity, with very
little to differentiate brands.  I don't think you'll find an appropriate
analogy in athe automobile world.

However, consider the video/movie industry.  Sony now owns CBS, so they
could choose to release any new Columbia movies on Sony's own 8mm format
first, and delay the VHS-C versions until later (this is of course assuming
that 8mm and VHS-C were to take over from VHS).  Would that be grounds for
and antitrust suit, like some of you are proposing should be launched
against Microsoft?

Methinks Sony and Microsoft have every right to decide on what platforms
(whether OS or videotape format) to develop for first.

[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Goddam the Goddam IBM C Set/2 Install!!!!!!!!!
Date: 31 Aug 92 03:25:47 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

Chapter 2 of the horror story:

I manually delete every reference to toolkt20, workframe/2 and ibmc
from my config.sys file and reboot. I still cannot delete the toolkt20
directory tree because DLLs in this unreferenced subdirectory are
being used by the system. I boot from floppy and delete the toolkt20
directory tree and any .INI files that appear to have anything to do
with toolkt20, workframe/2 and ibmc. Then I reboot and reinstall wf/2,
ibmc and toolkt20.

The install of wf/2 fails at the end with an error "reading from or
writing to <ibmsdata.ini>".

The install of ibmc fails at the end with an error copying some .PRF
file. Also, in spite of the fact that I specified "install absolutely
everything", nothing but the sample programs are copied along with
csetenv.cmd. No other files are copied into the ibmc subdirectories
although the install copying messages were displayed for (apparently)
all files.

It appears that EITHER WF/2 and IBMC can only be installed on virgin
systems OR you only get to install the software one time, after which
install never works again.

Chapter 3 of this horror story will probably be a report on my
unsuccessful attempt to re-install all of os/2.

-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
( New .sig under construction. Watch this space! )
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bauwens@acs.ucalgary.ca (Luc Bauwens)
Subject: Re: X is a hack? (was Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks!)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 04:47:35 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <1992Aug26.215035.5533@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>What I don't want is X as my default GUI.  For example to start
>IslandDraw on an HP 720 (a rather fast machine), takes longer than
>to start Windows Draw on Window 3.0, and Windows Draw has twice
>the features.
> [...]
>Note I'm not criticizing IslandDraw... this holds true for most
>Motif or OpenLook GUI apps.

True.  About GUI's, Win 3.1 is faster than OS/2 which is faster than
HPVue.  HPVue is downright sluggish.  (And on top of that, those 
Quantum drives are quite noisy; somebody on another
newsgroup was aptly telling about a bunch of squirrels merrily
engaged in eating nuts :-) *and no, it wasn't OS/2 nuts...*)

But I wonder whether it isn't an issue of design criteria: what's
your priority?  I suspect that in Windows, the GUI runs relatively
at a much higher priority than the applications, compared to OS/2,
and that the HP 9000/700 series gives even more emphasis to the
applications.  After all, those machines are designed primarily
for floating point performance; while PC's are general purpose.
And for Windows: wouldn't there be a marketing issue hidden
there somewhere.

(The other side of the coin being that cpu-intensive apps
seem to run somewhat faster under OS/2 than under Windows.)

Finally, there may be a question of memory and swapping: how
much memory does Unix and the file system require, before you
load HPVue?  If you have 16 MB only, there may be lots of swapping
going on (again, the squirrels...).

Luc B

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Advocacy
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 11:33:17 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In <2A9CE72A.635A@tct.com> jim@tct.com (Jim Kunzman) writes:

>   Proposal:  Support for fork() system call.
>  Rationale:  This is required by POSIX and would facilitate porting
>              several significant UNIX programs to OS/2, e.g. bash.

Fork(2) can be pretty inefficient, especially if you have a big task
which is really just trying to spawn a small task.  If you're low on
real memory, you may end up doing some unnecessary swapping.  I'd rather
see fork itself replaced with some a little cleaner in POSIX, but I
probably have a minority opinion here.

>   Proposal:  Loader should be fixed so that most boot errors,
>              missing drivers, etc. don't cause loading to halt
>              awaiting human interaction.
>  Rationale:  OS/2 is supposed to support mission critical
>              applications.  This means that a reboot should
>              be possible without human interaction.

This could only be done to a certain extent, OC.  If you have a missing
or corrupt OS2KRNL file, you're probably SOL.  :-)  Nonetheless, this is
an excellent suggestion.

>   Proposal:  Power loss shouldn't require human interaction
>              on reboot (chkdsk).

(Skipping the identical rational).  If you use HPFS, OS/2 *will*
automatically run chkdsk for you as it boots.  Just put the AUTOCHECK
switch on the IFS line in your CONFIG.SYS.  Try man...er...help hpfs.ifs
for more info.

>   Proposal:  IBM should supply a memory test facility to confirm
>              that OS/2 will run on a given system.

Not a bad idea, though this is an installation-time-only problem, and
thus probably not as serious as run-time problems, such as the continue-
despite-missing-drivers suggestion above.

>   Proposal:  OS/2 needs a seamless way to backup files.

Access to system files is tricky, but it certainly seems to *me* that
most DLL's should be opened in read-only mode, which should allow them
to be opened in read-only mode by other processes (such as backup
programs).  I confess that I'm a little bit confused as to why OS/2
makes it so hard to back up the boot drive.  I endorse this suggestion
wholeheartedly. 

>   Proposal:  HPFS support for large removable media.

Excellent suggestion.

>   Proposal:  Faster window opening/closing.

Certainly would be nice.  For now, I'm quite content to dump the WPS,
and boot directly into 4OS2.  The performance benefits are staggering. 
:-) 

>   Proposal:  Less disk thrashing when opening/closing windows.

Only happens to me when I have about 10 or more tasks open.  'Course,
I'm cheating.  I'm not using the WPS.  :-)

>   Proposal:  Hard and symbolic links should be supported.

YES!!!!  At the very least, symbolic.

>   Proposal:  Increase HPFS performance.

Sure, can't argue with that.  :-)
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jld@datascope.com (Jay L. Davis)
Subject: Re: OS/2, DOS, NT (Speculative) -- My Opinions
Organization: Datascope Corp.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:27:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.185043.10918@msi.com> bill@msi.com writes:
>Jay L. Davis (jld@datascope.com) wrote:
>: Well, yes. Except most people don't charge for pre-alpha software.
>: Of course, if people will pay for it, why not? Why are people 
>: falling for this? I won't.
>
>1) Alpha or Beta it doesn't matter.  The system boots, can run a 32-bit
>C++ compiler, so developers can compile most code today.  As better and
>better releases come out, more and more of a companies product will
>shape.
>
>2) People (most likely developers) pay for it so they can start building
>thier applications on it.  That way when Windows NT is finally released,
>developers will have applications ready to release.  Microsoft made the
>mistake with Windows 3.0, where there were few applications at Windows
>3.0 release time.  Don't count on them making the same mistake again.
>
>I'm not a fan of Windows NT, but I can see why Microsoft is doing what
>they are.  They are basically doing what workstation vendors do (like
>Silicon Graphics) when they are getting ready to release a new OS, they
>pass it amoung the developers, the people who keep them in business.
>
>--

A $69 offer is not geared towards developers. A developer offer
is usually made only to a limited number of developers so that
problems can be handled in a reasonable manner. Microsoft's offer
is to the general public, which is nothing more than a marketing
ploy. Keeping it on CD only keeps the cost down and the number they
sell down without affecting the publicity. I wasn't to crazy about
IBM's beta release of OS/2 to the general public either. But, of course,
Microsoft had to top them. What next, for $69 you get someone's
notes scribbled on a napkin that is going to eventually be the next
major OS?

Jay Davis


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: AV@vnet.ibm.com (Anton Versteeg)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 18:27:40 CET
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Os/2ers whine again
Reply-To: AV@vnet.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Uithoorn - Netherlands
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 3.0
            <1992Aug26.091123.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu>

In <1992Aug26.091123.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu> Greg Franklin writes:
>In article <92239.084655TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET>, Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET> writes:
>> Phil: If Microsoft is not responsible for dropping OS/2, and is
>> not responsible for my personal loss of $1000 for purchasing two
>> of their dud compilers (I thought they would continue supporting
>> OS/2 when I bought them), who is?
>
>Well, you are.  You gambled $1000 on the (remote) possibility of a
>successful OS/2 1.x.  The rest of us hoarded it until MS Windows came
>along.  Don't blame MS for the choices of a free market.
>
Speak for yourself please. You must be one of the 'happy few'.
It is funny that the best thing that happened to OS/2 was MS
abandoning it. MS (or BG) blundered here IMHO. Perhaps they can
get some time in Bloopers?

>> If they are not resposible for creating
>> bad publicity, putting pressure on magazines, and creating biased
>> "benchmarks", then who is?
>
>You can't blame MS for that.  Blame the software developers who
>supposedly believed the "bad publicity," trashed such an
>*obvious* winner in OS/2, and developed software for such an *obvious*
>dog as Windows 3.1/NT.  (note sarcasm)

The only sarcasm I can find in your statement is that first you talk
about a free market, and now you accept that the press isn't free.
Anyway, I wouldn't call the PC market before OS/2 2.0 a free market.
Also note that the *winner* NT was formerly called OS/2 3.0.

>
>P.S. I threw out my MS-DOS and am now running Win 3.1 under DR DOS, and
>I live 1000 miles away from Seattle, so no paid endorsements here....
>--

PPS I live 4000 miles away from Boca. So what?

>Greg "Mockingbird" Franklin      Interviewer: "Sir, how do you spell relief?"
>f67700241@ccit.arizona.edu               Dan: "R-O-L-A-I-D-S-E."
>
<1992Aug24.200938.14130@microsoft.com> <92239.084655TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET>

Anton Versteeg - IBM - Uithoorn Netherlands - TEAMOS2 NL
From: ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Andrew T. Robinson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: REXX is... (was: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.3)
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:40:07 GMT
 <1992Sep3.015322.15745@midway.uchicago.edu> <Bu07yD.Hw7@rice.edu>
Organization: University of Maine System

REXX is a very powerful and comprehensive system "script" programming
language.  It has access to virtually every feature of the operating
system, either directly or through installable function calls.  Those
of us who use IBM VM systems have had the luxury of REXX for close to
10 years now.  There are versions available for DOS, the Amiga, and I
believe the Macintosh.

REXX has a rich set of built-in functions for string manipulation,
system access, pretty much whatever you want.  I've used it extensively
as a rapid-prototyping language on VM for developing a variety of
applications.  I believe that OS/2 applications typically have plugs
for REXX so you can write REXX "scripts" for those applications, almost
like a 4GL.

REXX is *not* just a batch extender.  You can write batch files with
REXX, but REXX is a fully featured (albeit interpretive) programming
language in its own right, with structured control constructs, procedures
and functions, scope control, etc.

Andy
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wcn@cs.brown.edu (Wen-Chun Ni)
Subject: Re: X is a hack? (was Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks!)
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:21:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.171756.17033@msi.com> bill@msi.com writes:
>Brian Sturgill (brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu) wrote:
>: In article <47470005@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM> glen@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Glen Robinson) writes:
>: From a personal standpoint, NT is closer to what I want, as the features I
>: have always wanted was a combination of Unix and Macintosh/Windows
>: 3.0.  NT fits this bill very well. I.E. tons of neat, cheap GUI apps on
>: a "real" system.  X is a hack, so no Unix ever really fit the bill.
>: OS/2 2.0 came close, but it is not multi-user enough, and I'm not about
>: to buy into a multimedia API that no one will develop for.  It is also
>: not clear that it will have a good app base.
>: 	     	      Oops insert ^ native :-)
>
>1) Why is X a hack?
    X is not a hack. Because of the following.

    (a) If X were a hack, it should have been much more efficient.
    (b) If X were a hack, there should have existed only one 
	window manager called *Program Manager* ;-).
    (c) If X were a hack, we would have gotten a single layer
	of API, rather than the Xlib-Xt-(Motid or OpenLook or Athena)
	widgets.

    From my viewpoint, the NT kernel should be fine with me since it,
    if as advertised, might be more elegant. The untolerable thing
    happens to be the popular GUI, the MS Windows.

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:4481 comp.os.os2.misc:28164
From: bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Just wondering
Date: 25 Aug 92 15:42:17 GMT
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

Everyone / Anyone:

I had an idea on my way into work and would like your feedback.  It maybe a 
stupid idea, moderate, or right on.  I see pro and con to it.

The idea is to put OS/2 Monthly Magazine on audio tape(s) for those who 
commute daily.  Those getting on tape would also get a printed copy (if
they desired).

What do you think?

Bert. 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ckincy@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.2
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 08:31:05 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

In article <1992Sep1.000214.29640@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <a+jnr7.msmith@netcom.com> msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug31.164630.13859@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>>	
>>>	Automatic stack expansion.
>>>		I am certain that OS/2 does not do this.
>>>		OS/2 has you specify a limit on the stack size, but allocates
>>>		only one page of the stack at a time, using a guard page
>>>		technique to expand the stack.  When you hit the
>>>		stack size limit your process dies.  Why they went most
>>>		of the way, instead of all the way, I really cannot say.
>> 
>>Sorry but you are WRONG.
>
>No, I am NOT WRONG.  If you read your own quote below carefully, you'll
>see that it doesn't contradict what I said above.
>If you want to see for yourself that OS/2 does indeed set a stack limit
>per process, use the following program:

I bet you it doesn't.  I bet you that the compiler forgot to implement
the guard-page method of stack growth.  What a shame that IBM doesn't
utilize its own features in its own C compiler.  

Remember, compilers do a lot of magical stuff to your code when you
compile it.  Why do you think the executables are so large?

So, you're only half wrong.  Is it relevent?  Unlikely. =)

cpk

(I wonder if the Unix system you refer to does it through the 
compiler.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ekl@fics.uucp
Subject: Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks! (was Re: Windows NT 'Alpha')
Organization: Kvam data as
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:52:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.200938.14130@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.181514.4337@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>>
>>MS, on the other hand, enjoys dropping products.  They won't support
>>the MS-OS/2 packages they sold - they just tell you to "wait for NT".
>>They won't support Windows 3.0 - they tell you to upgrade to 3.1, etc.
>>It's not very nice to customers to be told to wait for the next
>>version of a product when you have a problem.
>
>    Hmmm... like "wait for the CSD", or "wait for the manufacturers
>to come up with SVGA drivers"?  Unless you're dealing with a
>private consultant, you usually don't get everything that you
>want in a product immediately.
>    Please - in your haste to bash Microsoft (and you usually do
>it quite well), you've come up with one of the most ludicrous
>statements I've yet seen posted to this board, and I've seen
>some real doozies.
>
>					-Phil
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
>philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
>Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.

I have called MS support complaining about bugs in the C6 compiler. I was
told to "turn off the optimizer". C6AX had the same bugs. I still did the
same thing.

It is my understanding that IBM fixes such bugs and ships updates to those
who reports them. Thus, Davids statement is not ludicrous, at least not
in respect to the update policy. 

I don't believe you enjoy dropping products, though. No programmer
enjoys seeing their product dropped.

Eirik
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (was: Re: Some more misconceptions...)
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:27:39 GMT

fishe_jh@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Jeffrey H Fischer) writes:

>I don't want to get into the middle of this "Microsoft is good/evil"
>debate, but I do want to point out that not supporting existing OS/2
>products could well be profit-maximizing for Microsoft in the long run,
>even if they could make short-term profits today through such support.
>MS may feel that producing OS/2 products will only draw sales away from
>Windows today and NT in the future.  Not only would MS like to see users
>buy MS operating systems (and OS-like software), but they have a
>dominant position in DOS/Windows software which is missing in OS/2
>software, so encouraging purchases of Windows also spurs the sales of
>other MS products.

>The above is not to condone Microsoft's practice, but is just to point
>out that it might not be irrational.

>Jeff

(Sorry if you see this twice - I think I messed up the first one)

Its not that their attitude is irrational - we just don't like it.
Microsoft seems to have a "If I can't make the rules I won't play"
attitude.

There is also some risk to Microsoft if OS/2 becomes successful dispite
their efforts. They could find themselves losing sale to applications
which have OS/2 versions.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: Brian, your bias is showing ( was Re: OS/2 vs NT features
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:24:54 GMT

In article <wiegand.715613319@lido16> motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net writes:
>eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (TAN JIN MENG) writes:
>
>>Come to think of it - how can the file system code be pageable? I need
>>the file system to page in needed blocks! For that matter - is the cache
>>pageable - makes no sense if I allow this (though unlike the previous
>>case is not impossible just wierd!).
>
>Actually its not impossible if the hardware supports it (I don't believe
>Intel micro do). You need a two level address lookup with a small page
>table that is always present. This is used to page the main page table.
>This is somewhat slower than a single level lookup, but can be usefull
>for computers with very large memories where the page tables are too
>large to keep in memory.
>

Well, wouldn't it also be possible if the page swap area is not part of 
the file system?  For example, it is its own partition (that may or may
not have an entry in the OS's filesystem).  But being its own paritition,
the OS can simply write to it in abandon when a page fault occurs.  The
code to do this would be simple and very small (aside from the administrative
structures of course).

The filesystem code itself, then, could be made swappable... although it is
highly unlikely that in any software will need so much real memory that the
OS would need to swap out something as integral as the file system.





Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: ICC optimizes out tail-recursion!
Date: 03 Sep 92 17:53:10 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Sep2.192257.27710@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>
>That's amazing.  If the compiler can detect and optimize out
>tail-recursive algorithms, then it becomes almost trivial to write
>LISP-like code under C without much of a performance penalty!  This
>could become quite useful in the future.

     You may be joking here - I hope so.

     The idea of relying on the compiler to clean up bad programming
practices is really not one that any sane person should be considering.
Aside from the fact that a slightly broken optimizer can completely
destroy you, using the constructs you mention above will make your
code damn near impossible to port to any other platform.  Even if
you plan on using OS/2 (ah - managed to slip in some OS/2 content)
for years and years, _eventually_ you'll move on to something else,
and will probably want to take your code with you.

					-Phil


     
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy