HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com (Peter Mayne)
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Reply-To: Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 01:05:58 GMT


In article <1992Dec31.175657.29384@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>
>In <1992Dec31.010153.5064@grebyn.com> mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec30.015357.11809@ryn.mro4.dec.com> Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com writes:
>>>
>>>The reference platform for NT is MIPS, so they're "porting" it to the Intel
>>>platform, if "porting" is the right term to use in a concurrent development
>>>situation. Also, Digital are playing a significant part in the Alpha port.
>>>
>>>>-- 
>>That seems kind of strange, since Intel will obviously be far and away
>>the largest market for NT for quite some time.  I've never met or even
>>read of anyone, user or developer, who had any plans of even considering
>>running NT on anything but an Intel machine.  So why would they do it
>>this way? (Note that I'm not saying that I don't believe you, I'm just
>>questioning MS's sense in following this path)
>
>If true (I don't know from firsthand knowledge, either, but wouldn't
>be surprised), I suspect it dates back to the original ACE initiative,
>when COMPAQ and others were talking about using the MIPS R4000 instead
>of Intel chips to break the Intel stranglehold on the PC market, and
>NT was seen as the compatible OS to allow people to migrate to the
>newer, more powerful machines.  When ACE started showing signs of
>falling apart was when the deal was cut with DEC about the Alpha, I
>think. 

It's done that way to ensure that the developers don't inadvertently use any
"Intel-isms" that they might have picked up during previous work. It just
makes it psychologically easier to write a portable system, I suppose.

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: robertre@microsoft.com (Robert Reichel ms2)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 29 Dec 92 07:04:42 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Dec28.031448.13378@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>IBM was forced by the FTC to provide competitors with the specs for their
>systems in order that the competitiors be able to compete. Otherwise, the
>Amdahl and Hitachi Data systems plug-compatible mainframes would be
>inpossible. This action was a major factor in the case against IBM being
>dropped. It is very unlikely that this action would have been taken by IBM had
>the case never been brought. 

So?  Suppose this had never happened.  Would IBM be on its current
downward slide?  Yes.  Would Microsoft be the Microsoft of today?
Yes.  Would we be having this discussion?  Of course.

The point is that IBM's impending loss of dominance in the computer
industry is not due to the FTC swooping in and saving the day.  They
mishandled the microcomputer revolution and imploded all on their own.

The continual rapid mutation of the computer industry makes the entire
notion of a "monopoly" on some aspect ridiculous.  Does anyone really
think that DOS in its current form will continue to dominate the market 
5 years from now?  Competition in the OS market is much more intense
now than it was 5 years ago, and I personally expect that trend to
continue.  Any one of SunOS-NextStep-OS/2-Nt-Solaris-Pink-etc could
be the next DOS, though it is more likely that they will just each
end up with some share of the high-end market.

>Let's say it was "settled out of court".
>
>The willingness on the part of IBM to acknowledge their monopoly position and
>take steps to allow some competition had more to do with it than the
>lawyers.....but that is just my view......

Don't confuse an out of court settlment with an admission of guilt.
A company settles when it determines that the cost of continued
litigation outweighs the expected cost of the proposed settlement.

>**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".

-- 
* Happy ex-developer of OS/2 v2
* -----
* "Not even close to being a Microsoft spokesbeing"
* Robert Reichel (robertre@microsoft.com)
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bill Gates gives predictions.
Date: 2 Jan 93 22:31:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1993Jan2.223100.21939
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.

In article <1993Jan2.222330.29107@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> prs9k@brain.med.virginia.edu (Phil Scarr) writes:
>In article <1993Jan2.205359.6458@umr.edu> jdickins@cs.umr.edu (James Dickinson) writes:
>>Thats right Bill Gates hisself will be on This Week with David Brinkly on 
>>Sunday January 3 @ 9:30 here in Mo.
>>I wonder if he will be spreading FUD?
>
>If he opens his mouth... well...
>
>Reminds me of a lawyer joke:
>
>How can you tell if a lawyer is telling a lie?
>
>You can hear him speak.
>
>>
>>Jim
>
>	-Phil
>-- 

While predictions from Industry pundits are good for entertainment
value, I rank their worth, slightly above the Psychics in the
National Enquirer...


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:07:48 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <8225@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.201454.20862@microsoft.com> bobatk@microsoft.com (Bob Atkinson) writes:
>>	1. You have DR-DOS6.0, a clone of MSDOS.
>
>Don't forget: 1a. You have Windows 3.0. It works fine with DR-DOS 6.0.

    Fine.  This doesn't change anything below.


>>	2. You buy Win3.1, an MS product that was designed to 
>>		work with MSDOS. And indeed it does, as you note.
>>	3. You find that Win3.1 doesn't work with DR-DOS6.0
>>Then: 
>>	4. You complain to MS, not DR, about the problem.
>
>>See my confusion? Doesn't the problem have to do with the fidelity
>>of the MSDOS emulation done by DR-DOS? Or am I missing something?
>>I'd genuinely like to know...
>
>Yes, you're missing something. When an upgrade of an MS product doesn't work
>with another OS on the system, and when the OS is written to duplicate
>published MS-DOS functionality, then it's real hard to escape the conclusion
>that the upgrade was deliberately set up to break with the other OS...like,
>maybe, using undocumented interfaces to the OS...

     Only if you're a paranoid.  Why is it easier to ascribe the
incompatibilities to some nefarious (and utterly without evidence)
plot by Microsoft than to a bug in a competing product?  Bugs
happen all the time - nefarious plots that no one can produce
any substantiation for only happen in the Weekly World News,
alt.conspiracy, and the minds of certain Microsoft bashers.

				-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
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Date: 22 Dec 92 10:14:24 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1h4vq1INN2mj@tamsun.tamu.edu>, bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:

|> |> 
|> |> First of all Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on OS's.
|> 
|> But they would like to.

Microsoft will only be as big as its customers want to make it.

|> The whole point is that a very large company with very deep pockets can 
|> afford to sell a product at less than another company needs to stay in 
|> business. 

This is called "efficency" and "economies of scale" without which we all
would have a much lower standard of living.  

|> single programmer can create a CP/M or a DOS 1.0.  It takes a large team to
|> create an OS/2, Solaris, etc.  If the other products go out of business, 
|> the prices are sure to go up.

Well of course.  But the minute the prices get higher than what it would
cost to make a competing product (the only true definition of an
"unfair price") competetors will just come right back.


|> Microsoft has grown to a point where they are trying to take advantage
|> of their size to squeeze out smaller companies. 

Every company in the world tries to squeeze out bigger, smaller, and the same
size companies.  


|> prices will go up.  Can it happen?  I think so.  Will it happen?  Without
|> organizations like the FTC, I think it might. 

Ok, you tell me then why hasn't IBM just _dominated_ the PC clone market?

|> I believe that the strength of the country is the ability for small companies
|> to grow into large companies.  Microsoft is an excellent example.  

How many people are going to try to start a company and bust their gussets trying
to build it into a big one if they know that if they succeed the goverment
will just bust them up as a reward?

Property rights are fundimental.  Would you buy a fancy car if you lived in
a neighborhood where it would just be stolen?  Well the U.S. economy today
is a place where you can get the FTC to steal trade secrets for you if you
lobby it hard enough.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: More advertising
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:15:22 GMT

In <1992Dec29.181546.1151@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>In article <8230@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec29.155440.23938@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>>>"With an operating system that can run all of your DOS, Windows, and OS/2
>>>					^^^
>>>	Pull this word.
>>
>>You're being unnecessarily pedantic - there's NO OS that meets the criterion
>>you're holding OS/2 up to.


>	So we're agreed that using the word "all" is a lie, right?  So
>	*pull the word*.

Yes, it's a 'lie' in the same sense that any usage of the words 'all',
'every', and 'always' is a 'lie'.  Shall we delete them from the
language, or shall we instead assume that people are going to
understand the language as it is typically used?

Hell, MS-DOS won't run all does programs. MS-Windows certainly won't
run all Windows programs (OSWin runs more of them than MS-Windows
does).  Let's force them to change the name of the products, since
using those names implies that they will run those programs AND THEY
DON'T. 


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: OS/2 2.1 on IBM BBSs
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:30:40 GMT


There have been many requests from users to allows the OS/2 2.1
Beta to be distributed on IBM Bulletin Board Systems. This 
would be a good move since many more people will be able to test
the software and report back to IBM on any bugs. This has been
the case when IBM Canada released their 2.01 Beta. Immediately,
users were able to spot bugs and report them to the IBM BBS
System Operator. Could someone from IBM look into this matter?
 
This would greatly benefit IBM and the users involved!

Best Regards,
Mark K.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 00:15:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.035807.76425@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
|> You came up with one yourself.  Morton Salt.  Or did that just slip your mind?
|> How about Matashita?  (sp?)  They have a virtual monopoly on an number of
|> aspects of the consumer electronics industry.  These are monopolies because
|> the government lets them be, not because it is illeagle to compete with them.

Point one, neither Morton salt nor Matashita are 100% monopolies.  And 
point two, Mogul Morton isn't oppressing the worthy poor by high salt prices,
and neither is Matashita.  What's more neither is Bill Gates.


|> So using vague phrases like "stealing trade secrets" and "immoral laws"
|> confuses the issue any less? 

Ok, I'll be more precise.  The FTC is going to point the guns of policemen
at the head of Bill Gates and steal from him at gunpoint his undocumented
operating system calls.

What's more, the FTC is going to point guns at the heads of Bill Gate's
programmers, and at gunpoint prevent them from excercising their freedom
of speech.

I say that armed robbery is wrong no matter if I do it or the FTC does it.
I further say that threatening someone into silence is wrong if I do it
or the FTC does it.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu (RICHARD HOFFBECK)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
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, 29 Dec 1992 16:14:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.235054.0201318@locus.com>, lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:
> For this reason, I feel that if these reports are true (and I know that
> Windows 3.1 violates the DPMI standards promilgated by MS from other
> reliable sources), I can indeed blame MS.  

My impression was that the problem is that Windows doesn't impliment the entire
DPMI standard, not that it doesn't conform to the standard.

--rick

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11480 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3639
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Date: 3 Jan 1993 16:57:42 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

> If they started charging outragious prices for drilling equiptment then 
> someone else would start making drilling equiptment and get a piece of the
> action.  The only way that I can imagine that Standard Oil could possibly
> have all of the drilling equiptment is for them to produce it cheaper than
> anyone else could, in which case who cares, or for them to use guns, either
> theirs or the goverments, to stop any competitors, in which case we've got
> a problem.

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.

If you think this is good, examine the former Soviet Union.  The hypothetical
drilling equipment market above is being controlled by one entity, not subject
to market forces.  Does it really matter that this entity is a company rather
a government?

--Tim Smith
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10959 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3435
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
From: sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 21:15:32 GMT
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

In article <1992Dec26.040250.11884@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>In article <BzuFBF.8Dq@csulb.edu> sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec26.000917.7829@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>
>>>First let's clarify something. I think that if MS writes software this
>>>software is the propery of MS. Do you agree to this ? If you don't I
>>>would like to hear why. If you do, why do you think that BG is doing
>>>anything inappropriate if he trades his property with others, in
>>>what seems to him the most profitable way for MS.
>>
>>   Property rights, which may or may not be totally applicable here
>>(there are copyright issues here which are not identical to either traditional
>>property rights for more tangible property or the more absolutist principles
>>you seem to expouse) do not exempt one from established obligations of the
>>marketplace when you seek to sell or otherwise transfer said property.
>>Though this concept is contested by Libertarian types.
>
>Please answer in a definite way: Do you support a position that denies
>an individual/company from selling/buying _voluntarily_ their property
>under certain conditions ?

  I don't think I understand what you mean by 'under certain conditions'.
While I accept their right to choose to sell or not to sell their property
at their discretion, I do not accept the premise that they have an unfettered
right to sell (or, more generally, make contracts) in whatever way they see
fit independent of the laws and practices governing commercial activity in
this country. We are not discussing their right to distribute or to set
the price, but the way they interact with the market at large and an
obligation to engage in fair dealing in that marketplace.

  If all MS wants to do is contemplate the beauty of their creations they
can exercise their property rights to their hearts content. If they want to
participate in the marketplace, they will have to follow the rules that
govern it for the establishment of good order. That is what the FTC is
tasked to examine and make determinations about and MS will have plenty
of opportunity to contest, challenge, and otherwise deal with any conclusions
and actions coming from the FTC as befits their right to due process.

>
>I dont think that there is any point in continuing this discussion 
>unless we clarify this point.

   There never was any point in it. This is usenet.

-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: San Jose State University - Math/CS Dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:29:37 GMT

discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>They don't "force" the OS on anybody.  As far as I know, the hard disk is
>read/write--and the end user could quite easily reformat the drive and put
>another OS in DOS's place.  Vendors would be quite willing to install another
>DOS on the machine, even--what they may not do is lower the price of
>the system even though you decide not to buy DOS or Windows... but this is
>the vendor's choice, and includes the decision that the price of the 
>system is fixed (i.e., the prediction is that 100 systems will be sold at
>a cost of X... therefore the system price should be X*100*margin).

Your argument is specious.  I do not give a hoot if I can install another
OS.  What I care about is that I have to pay for MS-DOS even if I do
not want it.  Period.  Why should I, the consumer, have to pay for
something I do not want?  That is what MS's licensing terms to vendors
requires - ALL systems must be licensed for MS-DOS.

>But regardless of this, the end user OWNs the computer.  Microsoft (to
>my knowledge) does not have cameras that follow people around and tattle-tales
>when they uninstall DOS from the system; the operating system is hardly
>"forced" onto the buyer.  "Installed" yes, "Forced" no.

Ignorance is bliss?  Who cares if they know what I do (I do care but
that is irrelevant).  Should I be forced to pay for something even if
I do not want it?  Open up your eyes and read.  This is probably the
10th post in this thread that has pointed out this problem - MS's
licensing agreement with vendors forces a situation where every box
must have an MS-DOS license EVEN IF MS-DOS is NEVER loaded on the 
system.

>Joe
>My opinions.
From: chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot and NT
Date: 1 Jan 1993 20:29:37 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu

In <1993Jan1.223440.18968@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:

>In article <1993Jan1.204844.21889@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>>In article <1993Jan1.164345.16936@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:

[ Humor, Etc, Deleted ]
]]I know this means I'm humour impaired.....but then yer post weren't really all
]]*that* funny.....:-|.

]Oy.  Everyone's a critic.  Of course it was funny!  It was limited only
]by its, um, 'source.'  C'mon, you have to admit that it was at least as
]funny as the rest of what passes for humor around these precincts... 

Actually, it WAS funny!  Even though I share Steve's view on NT,
your article was still humorous.  Laugh it off, steve! :)

 . end of wasted bandwith .

Now its '93.  Lets see what MS and IBM do.  Maybe we should give BOTH
companies a clean slate, and then "judge" them and their products,
and put past history behind us.



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 22:53:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.153800.2223@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>	Well Rick, Since you introduced the tire analogy, lets examine
>it a little furthur. Would you consider it a convenience if you went 
>to buy a $70,000 porche, and the dealer said "Sure we will sell
>you one, and they come already equipped with $30 Uniroyal Tiger Paws, beacuse
>Uniroyal only allows us to sell Tigerpaws on the Yugos we sell if will make 
>Tigerpaws standard all cars we sell." Well Why pay the extra $120 for four
>tires that you didn't want to begin with? Of course you would want Goodyear
>VR-60's, Michellin's or Pirelli P-7's, but you have to remove the Tigerpaws, buy 
>the tires you want separately, and put them on yourself.
>                      	
>	This analogy is no different than the MS-DOG/Windoze bundling that 
>Microsoft has pressured Clone Makers into. If I wanted a Yugo with cheap tires,
>I would buy one. But I prefer OS/2, and would like to have the option of having
>it preinstalled on a machine I buy.


But, you see, it won't work.  Few people would want Uniroyal Tiger Paws on
their porche.  If, in your example, 95% of all porche buyers wanted
Tiger Paws, then the dealer would probably sign an agreement with
Uniroyal so they could get $30 tires for $8.  But since most people
want higher quality tires, the dealer dare not do such a thing as sign on
with Uniroyal.

You are right.  Your analogy is no different than MS's and the bundling
except that MOST PC buyers WANT "Uniroyal Tiger Paws" on their Porche.
In which case, it is better (in terms of profit) for the vendor to
acquire "Tiger Paws" for the cheapest amount possible.

>
>Michael Kupka
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>My Other car isn't a Yugo, and My Other OS isn't MS-DOG/WINDOZE
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>


Joe
My Opinions.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy