HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re:  Why does OS/2 loose out in a PC Mag comparison test?
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:48:15 GMT

In article <12NOV199210215786@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.090343.17907@news.Hawaii.Edu>, low@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu 
>(Hock-leong Low) writes...
>>Hello,
>> 
>>Recent articles in PC Magazine and PC Computing did a comparison
>>test between Windows 3.1 and OS/2 2.0.  Many of the results seem
>>to favor Windows 3.1--why is that?  Are the editorials bias or
>>what?  In one, it states that OS/2 needs max 30Meg HD space and
>>Windows max 10Meg...excluding MS-DOS which was never mentioned
>>to the reader.  And I'm sure they'll give great appraisals for
>>NT when it releases...even though it takes up 30+Meg HD.
>
>The test results tend to favor Windows 3.1 because the testing was run 
>using the IBM quoted minimum system RAM of 4 Meg.  If the basis of 
>comparison is "you have a 386 or 486 system with 4 Meg of RAM, which will 
>you get better performance from?" _and_ you restrict the performance 
>criteria to items that both OS/2 2.0 and Windows 3.1 can do, the results 
>aren't surprising.  Nor are my "personal test results" comparing OS/2 2.0 
>on my 386DX25 at home with 16 Meg of RAM with Windows 3.1 on my 386DX25 at 
>work with 2 Meg of RAM :-) (BTW: I have also run Windows 3.1 on my home 
>machine.  Its in a box in my storage closet now.)

I read the article too, and they ran it under several machine configurations
with an IBM representative at hand to tweak things.  They even ran it
on machines with 8 megs of RAM--and in many of the tests Windows 3.1
*still* came out ahead (or at least showed negligible differences).  One
should try reading the article more closely...

I personally thought that the difference was because (in some of the tests
such as the Excel test), Windows apps were second generation (Excel 4.0)
while OS/2 were "first" generation (Excel 3.0/OS2) or were running in
a Windows session.  This still does not explain why Describe for Windows
seems to run as well as (if not better than) Describe for OS/2 (considering
that Describe was originally release for OS/2).

>
>Any allegations of bias on the part of Ziff-Davis has been discussed here 
>before and I ain't gettin' in to that one.  I must say, however, that I am 
>real disappointed in PC Computing.  Having subscribed to PC Magazine on and 
>off for about five years, PC Computing appears to get the articles which 
>end up on the editor's floor (or wastebasket) at PC Magazine.
>
>JD

Was the article's comparison valid?  I thought so.  An Operating System is
only as good as the applications that run on it.  If Excel 4.0 is not
available for OS/2, then how do you compare it with Windows?  The way that
ZD did it seemed reasonable--and quite clearly showed that, all technological
advantages aside, one could reasonably expect to get work done with
Windows...  of course when mainstream OS/2 apps become available, they should
rerun the comparison.

My opinions.

Joe
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bennie@ennex5.eng.utsa.edu (Bennie Pierce)
Subject: how I crashed OS/2 (I think ?)
Organization: Univ of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 02:01:24 GMT


	I've read several posts about crashing OS/2 and most of the
methods seemed rather artifical (such as hanging in a loop forking  
processes).  However, while doing some very late night C programming I  
think I managed to crash an OS/2 full screen session.

	I was rewriting a simple DOS program that had screen control in  
it.  I decided to use the ANSI handling in the OS/2 full screen to control 
the screen.  I mistakenly entered something like : 
	fputs ("\x1B[k", stdin);    
                         ******   (compiled with C Set/2)

	Upon running the program, my screen hung, I pressed a few keys to
see if it was waiting for input and the machine began to squeal.   
Ctrl-Break did nothing neither did Break or Ctrl-C.  So I rebooted by  
C-A-D, after the system came up the the dektop had some screwed-up icons  
and I couldn't run my DOS full screen session from the desktop.  I booted  
from diskette and replaced OS2.INI with a backup copy and everything was  
OK.  Was the system crashed or just a hung session ?  How do you  
terminated a full screen session ?
From: lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (m.l. gore)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: COMDEX Awards
Date: 22 Nov 92 17:35:42 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Nov21.213610.8366@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (B
rian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Nov20.181435.17645@husc3.harvard.edu> chandoni@husc8.harvard.ed
u writes:
>>rbotimer@max.ct.gmr.com (R Douglas Botimer) writes:
>>(from an IBM press release)
>>>  PC/Computing on Sunday named OS/2 2.0 co-winner of the
>>                                         ---------
>>>  operating system/environment award as part of its annual
>>>  "Most Valuable Products" (MVP) awards ceremony.  In
>>>  selecting OS/2 2.0 for this honor, the editors of
>>>  PC/Computing stated, "this is the operating system Windows**
>>>  3.1 should have been."
>>
>>Co-winner???  What product was the other co-winner... the NT
>>beta?  Or did this competition include OS's for other machines
>>(i.e. Nextstep or System 7)?
>
>No, the co-winner was Windows 3.1, OS/2 is not sophisticated enough
>to compete with Windows NT yet, nor is Windows NT released yet.
>I read the PC/Computing article, and it was soundly based.
>Here's the piece that deals with Windows 3.1 and OS/2 2.0
>[PC/Computing, December 1992, Page 190]

    Wait...OS/2 can't compete (technically) with NT, but WIN can compete with
    OS/2? Please Brian...WIN can't hold OS/2's jock. That's mho, but your
    opinion is faulted.
    When NT is released, then you can in fact compare it to OS/2. Right now,
    all we can compare is WIN and OS/2, and frankly, we all know WIN is
    nothing compared to OS/2 as an OS.

[ quote from article]
>The truth is, all those arguments are valid. Is either Windows or
>OS/2 the ultimate operating environment? [No... that's Windows NT! :-)]

    Ahh, yes, good to see the old Brian again. My, you stayed away quite a
    while.
    We all know your opinion Brian. If you feel the need to voice it over and
    over again ,be more creative. I would like to try NT, but, he he he, MS
    can't deliver it. Sure, it will come, I have no doubts. But even now, from
    different reports of testers (yourself incl.) and Comdex, it seems that NT
    is Faaaaaaaaaaar from what it is slated to be.

    Remember, this is comp.os.os2...., not .windows-NT.

>
>Brian
>--
>C. Brian Sturgill                   I strongly encourage you to mail your copy
>University of Utah                     of Ross Perot's:  "United We Stand
>Center for Software Science            How we can take back our country",
>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373        to President-elect Clinton.
>
-- 

  Lehigh University-AXP
  lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu

            OS/2 2.0...anything else is just a DOS.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: robertk@rkrajewski.lotus.com (Robert Krajewski)
Subject: What MPW is and is not: {Was: Macintosh bigots}
Organization: Lotus Development Corporation
	<clements-191192184605@bwayman.abq.bdm.com>
	<1992Nov20.085128.13215@sequent.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: 20 Nov 92 11:58:50

In article <1992Nov20.085128.13215@sequent.com> furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod) writes:

   The point of this argument is that a generic development
   environment is not the best environment to develop in. So it's a
   feature on the MAC. That does not count in it's favor. In some
   instances, I would think it would count against it.

Have last few posters on this subject actually used MPW ? (And if C is
"functionally oriented," then I'm a Hottentot.)

MPW is not a universal compiler. It's an application that provides a
sophisicated development environment. It presents a CLI to the
developer. MPW can run scripts and offers a Unix-like API to programs
called tools. These tools can be programs like grep or compilers.

You can run different compilers in MPW. For example, there's one C
compiler and at least two C++ compilers.

MPW has conventions for object file formats so that you can do
mixed-language programming. There are debuggers that run alongside MPW
that allow mixed-language debugging. Some of these debuggers also have
features that adapt to specific language conventions. For example,
they can do C++ name demangling.

MPW is loosely integrated. In some ways, it's like using a windowed
CLI, except you also get clipboard support, integration with the rest
of the world (no "debugging screens" like Windows), and the ability to
do neat things like use an editor selection (like an Emacs region) as
standard input, or compile files without saving them. The editor is
like a standard Mac text edit window, except that there a lot of
shortcuts and features for programmers.

MPW is probably overkill for small programs. Think C and Pascal are
specialized and very self-integrated, more impressive than Borland's
IDE. And, they've been used to develop "real" applications.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8524 comp.os.os2.misc:36761
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Date: 17 Nov 92 09:17:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov17.091742.6018
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95

In article <BxuC7D.9Bt@csfb1.fir.fbc.com> uunet!csfb1!jbrock writes:
>|> This will kill any Unix system:
>|> 
>|> 	while (1) fork();
>|> 
>|> Such a thing can be done on most multitasking systems, and will kill
>|> any OS that allows user-level processes to spawn child processes.
>
>I understand why unlimited forking will kill UNIX.  What I don't
>understand is why operating systems of more recent design don't protect
>themselves from such obvious dangers.  It doesn't seem that hard to me
>conceptually.  In the above example the forks should begin to fail
>before they have eaten up all the resources that the operating system
>needs to function.  In other words, the operating system should reserve
>sufficient resources to guarantee its own operation, and it should know
>when it needs to begin turning down requests from resource hogs.  Is
>this really impossible?


It's quite possible, and Unix has done it for several years.  Only root
can take the last process.  In more modern versions of Unix, I'm pretty
sure that there is a per ID limit on the number of processes.

I'm not sure when the "only root can take the last process" came in,
though.  It wasn't in V6, but I think it was in 32V.

--Tim Smith
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: DOS not operating system, film at 11. : -)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 18 Nov 1992 17:09 EST  

In article <1992Nov18.005302.20645@itsmail1.hamilton.edu>, 
jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes...

>Not with me, you don't.  I multi-task all the time and can't live
>without it.  It's flexible, safe, crash-free...and it's Windows! With
>typo expunged, what I just said above concluded with "I'm not suggesting
>this is the *best* way to compute, only that this is how most real live
>end-users work."  See, I am not suggesting that multi-tasking is a Bad
>Thing at all, only that most people don't use it.  (I had one
>breakthrough today from a colleague who finally decided to start using
>Windows and now loves the multi-tasking of her old DOS apps, so progress
>is a-comin', albeit slowly).
[other stuff deleted]
>Joe

Not to pick a nit or anything, but which DOS apps under Windows are you 
speaking of?  It's not really clear if you're actually talking about 
"multitasking" or "task switching", although the average user might not 
know the difference anyway.

JD
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: stimpy@nmt.edu (John Reynolds)
Subject: apps vs. OS's (was Re: Workers hate windoze, revolution at 11! : -))
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 03:32:38 GMT

>Sure, an application is not an os, but it's fascinating to listen to
>people whine about the OS yet cling to the apps that run under them.  If
>the OS were so awfully bad, why bother to use the apps?  If DOS is so

Ummmm, I disagree. I've used Lotus's Ami Pro 3.0 since it was released
and 2.0 before that. I think it is a very well written, inteligent (spelling
doesn't count :-) application and I rely on it. However, I don't like 
Windows. Never did. (see .sig). So what is a person to do? I just run
Ami Pro, under win-os2 (more stable IMHO), and wait until Ami Pro for
PM, is released. Then pay money for that and junk the Windows version. 
Just because Ami Pro was originally written for Windows is not *its*
fault :)


-Jr

-- 
DOS...Boot sector virus!????           | #include <~os2/personal.opinion.h>
Windows...It's like a stale cookie.    | John Reynolds stimpy@jupiter.nmt.edu
OS/2..."It's like buudaah" (SNL quote) | New Mexico Tech. #10 and rising!!!

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8601 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2816
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Windows 3.1 support is late
Date: 20 Nov 92 09:39:58 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.

In article <1efsf4INN946@mailgzrz.TU-Berlin.DE>, lars@cs.tu-berlin.de (Lars With) writes:
|> Thus an OS/2 Windows support user will always get the latest version
|> of Windows a couple of months later than Windows NT users will get it.

Hmm, so March to December is "a couple of months" is it?

Advocates here talk about the new features OS/2, but I think it will take IBM
a while to get them ready if it takes them 8 months to simply update an
existing bit of OS/2 code. After all, advocates keep saying that Windows 3.1
is just a bug fix. So why has it taken IBM 8 months to apply a few bug fixes?

Besides, "the latest version of Windows" is Windows NT. Will OS/2 have NT
support two or three months after NT is released?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: lars@cs.tu-berlin.de (Lars With)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT: clean design (NoT!) (was Re: OS/2 because! (was NT: Why?)
Date: 19 Nov 92 11:06:12 GMT
Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany
NNTP-Posting-Host: platon.cs.tu-berlin.de

In article <92282.160301RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>, FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> writes:
...

> So, if I use DOS or Windows, I use 32bit OS/2 as a great multitasker, which
> even protects the applications from each other. With Win3.1 support (I have
> a beta) for OS/2, the situtation for Windows-only user improves and encompasses
> for what is available under plain DOS/Win3.1.
> 

You have a beta of Win3.1 support.
This will exactly be the disadvantage of OS/2:
If Microsoft releases a new version of Windows, IBM has to write a new support for Windows. Thus an OS/2 Windows support user will always get the latest version of Windows a couple of months later than Windows NT users will get it.

Lars With (lars@cs.tu-berlin.de) 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund)
Subject: Re: NT: clean design (NoT!) (was Re: OS/2 because! (was NT: Why?)
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
	<92282.160301RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>
	<1efsf4INN946@mailgzrz.TU-Berlin.DE>
	<1992Nov19.172627.6453@gw.wmich.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 10:31:57 GMT

The whole emulation issue is a question of backward compatibility and
protecting investment. I do not think that future versions will be
that important, and particulary not NT compatibility. I do not think
that we will see many NT applications that are not available in either
normal Windows versions or OS/2 versions. Microsoft has said that
there is no need to develop OS/2 applications since IBM claims that
OS/2 can run Win applications. That is of course only a part of MS
strategy for supporting Windows and to fight OS/2. But MS' statement
will be more true for NT: User applications will be made for DOS-Win,
not for NT.

I know that MS says that houndreds or thousands of applications are
being developed for NT. But that was said about OS/2 2.0 a year ago,
and we still do not see many of those applications in the market. It
is probably just as true for NT as it was for OS/2: A lot of
developers are following the NT development closely, and they say that
they will develop for it. But they will not put any effort into
development before they can see that there is a market.

MS is very good at marketing. And as part of their marketing they have
recently been giving aout prices for shareware protet to NT. But that
shareware has been available for OS/2 for a long time.

There is more than 1,5 mill OS/2-2.0 users in the market, and no NT
users. I think that the OS/2 market share will grow when the 32-bits
OS/2 programs starts comming from major software companies like Lotus,
Word Perfect, Borland etc. We will see a lot of those programs in the
near future. It makes more sense to develop for a market with a few
million users that exists, than for a market that probably will come
into existence in about a year from now.

If one compare the exististing Windows and OS/2 markets, I think that
the OS/2 market is smaller by numbers, but is more interesting in a
lot of other ways. The major part of the Win 3.x that has been sold,
has been bundlet with hardware. There has been no strategic decision
from the user, and there might be a lot of Win 3.x around that are not
in use. The OS/2 market is a more educated market that will use more
software and more advanced software. 1 mill OS/2 users will probably
buy more software than 1 mill Windows user (but of course not by a
factor that can compensate for the larger number of Win users.). I
will also think that there is much more software piracy in the Windows
market than in the OS/2 market.

Olav Torvund
University of Oslo
Norway
Olavt@jus.uio.no
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: andrewb@lynx.cs.washington.edu (Andrew Berg)
Subject: Re: Programmers are more productive under DOS than under OS/2!!!
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering Dept., Univ. of Washington, Seattle
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 19:24:23 GMT


People that are so anal as to want to get all the windows (*exactly*) right
should be fired categorically.  

BTW, anyone writing multi-user programmes _needs_ OS/2 since he can just
open the same program twice, and simulate two users accessing the same
data files.  No more of this run back and forth between two machines on
the network.  Very worthwhile.

Tim Smith (tzs@carson.u.washington.edu) wrote:
: In article <BxtBr8.ABq@rice.edu> amitp@owlnet.rice.edu writes:
: >Ever since I got OS/2, I've been playing games and messing with colors
: >and fonts instead of working.  I haven't worked on my shareware
: >programs for over three months now!!!  What should I do?  Go back to DOS?
: >
: 
: I once watched someone spend nearly an hour resizing and moving windows
: around, trying to get his work environment *exactly* *right*.  This was
: on a Macintosh, soon after they were introducted.  I believe that when
: he went to lunch, we removed most of his fonts, so that he wouldn't be
: tempted to spend a couple of hours getting everything in the *exactly*
: *right* font! :-)
: 
: --Tim Smith

--

andrewb@cs.washington.ed
From: Joe@twistor.dialix (Joe Katnic)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re:  OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Distribution: world
Date: 20 Nov 92 20:31:32 PST
Organization: Not an Organization

In article <1992Nov16.143107.11652@hubcap.clemson.edu> grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy) writes:
>sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
>
[etc]
>
>Nothing is crashproof.
>
>Mike Percy             | grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu  | I don't know about
>Sr. Systems Analyst    | mspercy@clemson.clemson.edu | your brain, but mine
>Info. Sys. Development | mspercy@clemson.BITNET      | is really...bossy.
>Clemson University     | (803) 656-3780              | (Laurie Anderson)

Indeed!
 I believe that under SMS you can limit the size of each VIO dataset.
 Further, if you choose a size that can be supported by the paging
subsystem, then MVS will not shut down.
 Further, if you tune MVS's performance via SRM to swap you out if
 your a memory hog, then the problem goes away.

 It's just a matter of tuning the appropriate parameters in the system.

 P.S. if you have automation and performance monitoring tools, then
      you can setup procedures to find the biggest user of memory
      and cancel them. 
 P.P.S. about 40% of MVS code is recovery routine to detect and then fix
      problems. A classic example is NET (VTAM). If it detects an error
      in its code, it traces the error back to the original requestor, and
      then cancels the original requestor and all associated requests.
      This allows the rest of the network to continue to work.
  
--
Joe Katnic  Perth, Western Australia  Joe@twistor.DIALix.oz.au      _--_|\ 
                                   (ALT: jkatnic@DIALiz.oz.au)     /      \
"A search for the ultimate              Phone: (+619) 474 3939 --->\_.--._/
 mathematical reality inevitably                                         v 
 creates fairy tales, not science".. E.J. Lerner.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: slumos@unlv.edu (Steve Lumos)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Organization: UNLV Computer Science
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 21:08:06 GMT

In article <sherman.722075047@foster> sherman@unx.sas.com (Chris Sherman) writes:
>Now, how does OS/2 handle crashes?  Windows?  Amiga?  Mac?

Well, it depends. If you get a trap, you get a register dump and the
option (I don't remember how, somebody tell me) of make a dump
diskette which is similar to a core file I believe. Unfortunately,
only IBM can do anything with a dump diskette.

Often when apps go down, you have options of just killing the app or
looking at a register dump and then killing the app. So there isn't
really an easy way to find out exactally what happened, but you can at
least find out where it happened...

TTYL - Steve
-- 
Steve Lumos - slumos@cs.unlv.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel)
Subject: Re: Workers hate windoze, revolution at 11!  :-)
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY, 12866
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:24:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.192552.626@grebyn.com> mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli) writes:
>In article <GERRY.92Nov13123205@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>> With
>>the exception of TeX, which I assume she doesn't use, no text based
>>editor even comes close to looking as good as the worst windows based
>>editor.   Some people are still living in the dark ages, and think of
>>computers as typewriters with built in spell checkers.  Luckily, that
>>breed will soon die off.
>>
> Sure, a windows-based editor may look
>better (I agree, although this is, of course, purely subjective), may
>having bit-mapped fonts and the overhead of a GUI also makes it slower.
>I write some pretty long documents at times, and find that most Windows
>based word processors are S-L-O-W at scrolling through them, catching
>characters as I type them, etc.  DOS text mode ones are better at this,
>since they don't have to deal with the graphics.

That's a big ten-four!  I want a text editor to do my programming in.
I don't care much for fancy fonts and proportional spacing.  A pretty
face is nice in a word processor, but an editor.....  Also, using
something like Brief is _fast_ when using quick key commands (- to
delete a line to the buffer, for example).  Having to go from the
keyboard to the mouse to click on menu items is relaxing and oh-so
nice, but s..l..o..w!

I wonder how many "power programmers" use PC GUI editors?


-- 
Pierre von Kaenel	| Skidmore College	     | pvonk@skidmore.edu
Math & CS Dept.		| Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 | (518)584-5000 Ext 2391

"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." Oscar Wilde