HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 23:13:37 GMT

In article <BzpBH3.Los@csulb.edu>, sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:

|>     Anyway, MS's size and revenue is due a lot more to their presence
|> at the dawn of the microcomputer age and having the cash coes of DOS
|> and Windows to feed the other activities. 

Not really.  How many bazillion companies can you name which were there
at the beginning and which now are out of business or sold out to other
companies?

The reason Microsoft is still around is good business, plain and simple.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11252 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3559
From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Date: 31 Dec 1992 05:04:32 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuron.tamu.edu

In article <1992Dec31.032124.1762@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|In article <1hsujcINNjrq@tamsun.tamu.edu>, bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
|
||> |With OS/2 and NeXTSTEP (both of which can run DOS _and_ Windows programs)
||> |Solaris, and Pink, I don't think Microsoft has faced as many competitors
||> |in its history.
||> 
||> Agreed.  Thats why MS wants to go back to the bad old days.
|
|So basically Microsoft is being forced into lower prices because of 
|competition in the marketplace.  Things are working as they should.

You still don't get it.  As soon as the competitors are forced to
liquidate, the prices go up.  The best way for things to proceed as
they are with competitive prices is to ensure the competition remains
viable. 

I don't want MS to control.  I don't want IBM to control.  I don't
want one of the Unix variants to control.  I want them all to exist.
If the government waits until a virtual monopoly exits, it will be a
*lot* more difficult to inject competition.  The startup costs are so
large that a new effective competitor would take years (and
protection) to establish.

Its a delicate balance.  How much control should the government
establish?  We really don't want to let the big guy (guys) use their
size to prevent the little guys from getting started, but we also want
to see the big guys employ a lot of people and get a reasonable return
on their investment.

Size is power.  Power Corrupts.  Absolute Power Absolutely Corrupts.
There must be some external control.
   -- Bruce



--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
                              |  Scrupulous Lawyer
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com (John Brock)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Reply-To: uunet!csfb1!jbrock
Organization: First Boston Corporation
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:44:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.164545.28198@tc.cornell.edu>, bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec21.154910.6846@kth.se> d89-zke@dront.nada.kth.se (Zoltan Kelemen) writes:
|> 
|> >Well, the problem is that I, as a customer, don't see the alternatives
|> >to MS Windows or DOS when buying a computer. Why? Because almost every
|> >system is bundled with Windows. How on earth could I make a fair price
|> >comparison with other products, when I get Windows "free" (its price is
|> >hidden as a part of the system).
|> 
|> You have an alternative: hire few programmers to write one for you. 
|> Obviously you dont want to do it because it is too expensive. You 
|> want someone else to invest and risk his money to write one for you.
|> MS did that. Now people are claiming that it is unfair business,
|> because it was successful. 
|> 
|> Unfortunately, we are not born with a coupon that entitles us
|> for a cheap Operating System. Someone else must produce it for 
|> us at his/her own risk. And these who do are entitled to a return
|> if they succeed.  
|> 
|> >Zoltan
|> 
|> Dov

I get the impression that you are one of those people who have elevated
the free market to the status of an absolute moral value.  So you may
not be willing to acknowledge one of the flaws in the free market
system, which is that it is unstable, and that it is all too easy for
one company to gain such an advantage in a particular market as to
permanently stifle any competition.

We, as a people, acting through our government, have decided that this
is unacceptable, and that we will prevent it by interfering with the
free market system.  So you are right.  Microsoft took the risk, they
were successful, and we are going to deprive them of some of their
returns.  If you think this is immoral, well, so what?  You are not in
a position to impose your morality on the rest of us.

Of course, you have an alternative:  elect some politicians who think
as you do  :-)

-- 
John Brock
uunet!csfb1!jbrock
jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 16:03:51 GMT

From a previous post by Jeff Sicherman:

>  Oh, I think there will still be plenty of opportunities for Billy boy if
>he works at it. However, it may put a crimp in his megalomania. And I fail
>to see why we have to tailor the marketplace for the most extreme desires
>of entreprenuers if that results in being to corruption of the market and
>the detriment of consumers.

You asked what may happen as a result of FTC actions and I gave
you my answer. Read some books about successful entrepeneurs if you
don't believe me.

When I am buying software I could not care less about BG's personality
traits. I would worry about them if I wanted to be his girlfriend -:). I
am not interested in discussing any of his personality traits that
are unrelated to software writing.

The marketplace is a place where people are trading _voluntarily_. If
some government beaurocrats dictate to a software house how it should
write software it is no longer a market place, but a govermentpalace.

>  The rules are there and long established and well documented. (Bill
>could learn a few things about documented rules himself.) All he has
>to do is follow them.

Show me where it is written on the books that the same software house
cannt write both system and applications, or that a company who
writes system API must give them all to their competitors. It is
purely an _ad hoc_ invention of the FTC, based on the success of
a single a company.

>  Apparently you have developed a new philosophy of applications
>programming that I have not seen in my 20+ years of it. The best
>applications programming involves adhereing to the well defined
>interface supplied by the O/S and not mucking about with and/or in
>undocumented areas or the internals.

Wuh ? In the MS-DOS market you cannt avoid knowing a lot about
the internals of the system and the hardware. Ever heard about
writing interrupt handlers ?

Besides, you say that if something has been so for 20+ years than
it cannt be better otherwise. Did it ever occur to you that some
people are innovators and are doing things differently from their
predecessors ? That is where the danger of FTC rulings are.

>Jeff Sicherman
>up the net without a .sig

Dov
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 23:48:47 GMT

jlz@symphony.cc.purdue.edu (ChinaMan) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.212122.13214@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>MS helps you use OS/2 2.0, IBM doesn't help
>>you use NT.  This however was not Tim's message, that message made it
>>appear that MS had some evil plot to not work with OS/2.
>>
>first of all, it's not IBM's fault that NT doesn't run when OS/2 Boot
>Manager is installed...OS/2 works fine even with NT installed, so why
>should they worry about it...it's MS's responsiblity to work around
>that problem.
>
>secondly, if MS really wanna solve that problem, why don't they just
>take the code of checking for OS/2 Boot Manager out, instead of 
>advertising all around that they are giving out solution to the
>problem...what is this??  some kinda marketing to win customers?
>
>also, can you give (or make up) some clear explanation of why MS
>has these kinda codes in NT?? 
>
>--Jian



I have pointed out the problem with booting NT from OS/2 to one Microsoft
official. His response was that it was a technical problem. Mind you, this is
from the same official who was claiming that Borland was the first company to
use undocumented calls AND he also implied that Novell can not program
properly and this is the reason why DR DOS didn't function with Windows.

I think Microsoft should start producing better products than producing
nonsense and absurd statements! Like I said before, it will all come
back...

Sincerely,
Mark K.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bauwens@acs.ucalgary.ca (Luc Bauwens)
Subject: Re: SMALL Excerpt from "Windows Sources"
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 03:40:54 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <1hsq7nINNc5f@cae.cad.gatech.edu> chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen) writes:
>]
>]Why don't we all just use OS/2 for now and when Windows NT runs happily
>]in 8MB of RAM we can all swap to that? That sounds fair enough now,
>]doesn't it?
>]
>]
>
>Actually, thats a great idea.
 
Which is *exactly* what Microsoft does not want you to do...

Luc B



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: person@plains.NoDak.edu (Brett Person)
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 09:59:01 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network


I tested it, kind of.
Two words:
It sucks. 
I started installing on Saturday afternoon.  My room mate had to add memory
to the machine in order to get the install to finish properly. 

Once we got the install to finish properly, the machine would lock up during
boot.  Found that problem, fixed it.  

At 9:00 CST Tuesday evening we finally got it to boot.  Now the problem was
telling the system what kind of mouse we had.  OS/2 thinks we have a
logitech mouse - which is what we have.  NT didn't like any of the mouse
configurations we tried including the Logitech. I had no mouse control
whatsoever.  This was a serious probelm. Serious enough that I'm now in the
process of putting OS/2 back on the machine. Its 2 AM Wed. morning. 

What did NT look like?  Windows 3.1. If you are running the 3.1 beta under
OS/2 you have a good idea of what NT looked like to me.  Of course. since I
didn't have a mouse, I couldn't give a real fair test.  I probably used -
tried to use - NT for a total of one hour before I reached for the OS/2
install disks.
Gee, I'm starting to feel like Jerry Pournelle.

-- 
Brett Person
Guest Account	
North Dakota State University
person@plains.nodak.edu || person@plains.bitnet
I don't do Windows, but OS/2 does.

-- 
Brett Person
Guest Account	
North Dakota State University
person@plains.nodak.edu || person@plains.bitnet
I don't do Windows, but OS/2 does.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:50:08 GMT

In article <1i75u6INNbe4@shelley.u.washington.edu>, tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
|> > 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.

Even in that case, the total cost to drilling equiptment users of oil + drilling
equiptment must be less than any anybody else could *possibly* do it for
Standard Oil to maintain its monopoly.  

I just don't see anything wrong with a Monopoly which is a monopoly because of
low prices.

|> 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?

Yes.  A company can't enforce its will using guns--a government can.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 23:33:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.030133.75057@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
|> 
|> A monopoly doesn't need to be 100% in real life.  True that would be a
|> technical definition, but the effect is that a company with such overwhelming
|> market share gets to call the shots.

A companies _customers_ calls the shots no matter how big the company is.
Its the customers who give it the market share that it has.

|> And they should be squashed out of existance.  I don't see how the government
|> limiting the growth of a big company is worse moraly or economically than the
|> big company squashing a little company. 

Look at it this way.  The only way a "big company" can put a "little company"
out of business is for the customers of the little company to _voluntarily_
of their _own_free_will_ to _choose_ to buy from the big company instead.
In other words, it is the freewill choice of the customers which puts _any_
company, big or little out of business.

Contrast that with how a goverment puts a company out of business:  It does
so at gunpoint.  If the company resists, the goverment will use deadly force
to threaten them into complience.

I don't see why its so hard to see the difference, because the differece could
not be greater.  Its the difference between voluntary action and forced
action.  Its the difference between freedom and slavery.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: 1992 BYTE Awards
Keywords: Windows Awards
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 04:19:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.213123.9517@grebyn.com> mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli) writes:
>>They have had little nice to say about OS/2 since June. Each month it becomes
>>harder to justify to myyself spending the NZ$10 I pay for each issue.
>> 
>Does anyone else remember Ciarcia's (sp?) Circuit Cellar?  That was back
>when Byte was a techie's mag, rather than YAMM (Yet Another Microsoft
>Mouthpiece).


	Anyone else try to build the supercomputer?
 
	L-)

	<sigh>  On the same thread, can anyone recommend a good,
	*objective* "general computing" technical magazine?  I don't
	want a PC rag, I don't want a Mac rag and I don't want a UNIX
	rag--I want reports of what is going on in the computer world
	and not rediculous predictions or butt sniffing(you get it 
	with OS/2, too).  I, basically, want Byte with more diversity,
	less fluff, and no pournelle.

	Any thoughts?


-- 
       "If you can't eat sand, why the hell are you living in a desert?"

     Equality is a delusion, suffering is a fairy tale and God is a fantasy.
       Blaming society for inequality is like blaming the sky for rain.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:24:25 GMT

In <1992Dec30.153554.8759@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:

>In article <8238@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>>You're once again missing the point: if MS sells me Windows for $8 if I agree
>>to pay for a copy for every machine I sell, but triples the price if I don't,
>>then that's force. 

>Interesting logic. Ever noticed the "Buy 1 XX, get 1 YY free" 
>deals ? 

Care to connect this up?

-- 
"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.
From: gordt@cyberspc.muug.mb.ca (Gord Tulloch)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 Professional Magazine
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 17:13:24 GMT
Summary: It's free! 
Followup-To: gordt@cyberspc.muug.mb.ca
Organization: Cyberspace Online Information System
Keywords: OS/2 PROFESSIONAL

In article <1992Dec28.050801.7112@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>
>        Premiere of First-of-Its-Kind Magazine at COMDEX:
>
>                        OS/2 PROFESSIONAL
>   Magazine discusses how OS/2 has revolutionized computer use.
>
[Stuff deleted]
>
>For  details,  contact:  OS/2   Professional,  6129  Executive  Blvd.,
>Rockville, MD 20852, Phone: (301) 770-7302 FAX: (301) 770-2327.
>

Just called these guys - this mag is a freebie complimentary subscription
but they would appreciate it if you could mail them a card saying you'd
like to be added to their mailing list which is signed.  They apparently
get audited (?) to make sure they're sending the mag to people that actually
want it.  Each issue has a complimentary subscription card in it as well.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
==  Gord Tulloch           |     Voice: (204) 775-3650 (work)     ==
==  173 Antrim Road        |            (204) 663-7941 (home      ==
==  Winnipeg, Manitoba     |     Data : gordt@grpwest.muug.mb.ca  ==
==  R2K 3H9                |            gordt@cyberspc.muug.mb.ca ==
==                         |     FIDO : 1:348/207@fidonet.org     ==
--------------------------------------------------------------------
==                    Official IBM OS/2 Ambassador!               ==
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:09:45 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <wiegand.725577960@lido16> motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net writes:
>
>Have you actually tried to buy a PC? Many of the major hardware vendors
>include MS-DOS and Windows with their hardware. You get it if you want
>it or not. Why should I be forced to buy software I don't want just to get
>the hardware?

     You aren't.  There are hardware vendors that give you a choice
of operating system on the system you buy - you can always purchase
from them.  Of course, you might not get the price you want.


>The hardware vendors do this because Microsoft requires it. 
>The Microsoft contract requires payment of royalties per *computer*
>sold, not per *copy* of the software. So even if you don't want the
>software you have to pay for it.

    _One_ Microsoft contract requires royalties per computer.  Others
don't.  The OEM decides which will be more profitable for them.  So
complain to the OEM.

				-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: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Subject: Re: The Bottom Line
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 10:00:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.175139.1062@tware.com> bash@tware.com (Paul Bash) writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.230912.1065@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>>Are you just slow, or just very stubborn?  The reason NFS is included in
>>the OS/2 resource usage is because without it OS/2 doesn't have peer-to-peer
>>networking.
>>
>>Brian
>
>Excuse, me. NFS has nothing to do with OS/2 peer to peer networking. TCP/IP
>provides that capability. NFS is just piled on top of it. 
>
>-- 

Caught with your technical pants down Brian... :)


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: kwj@iastate.edu (kwj)
Subject: IBM vs. Dr. Shoe
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 16:28:24 GMT

IBM vs. Dr. Shoe                                            

Last week I saw a rerun of Married with Children in which Al Bundy
tries to set up a "shoe hotline" to answer questions about shoes. In
this episode, Al borrows $50,000 to run a series of "Dr. Shoe" ads.  Let's
see how these ads stack up against the IBM OS/2 Fiesta Bowl ad.



        IBM                                       Dr. Shoe
--------------------------              ---------------------------
Tries to sell an operating                Cheesy set design, missed
system by showing some                    cues (they catch your
guy playing pool.                         attention).

                                          An American flag waves in the
                                          background of Dr. Shoe's office
                                          
                                          Al begs you to give him a call
                                          on his shoe hotline.
                                          
                                          Al gives you a number to call
                                          him at.
                                          
                                          Al drools over a model with
                                          huge h00ters.  No soft sell here.



I still remember more of the Dr. Shoe ads than I do of the IBM ad.  IBM could
learn some things from Dr. Shoe.