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: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 01:53:57 GMT


In article <1992Dec29.220017.16223@grebyn.com>, mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli) writes:
>When I think about it, I think that Microsoft may have tried to
>tackle too much at once with NT.  Just think about all the
>subsystems/APIs that they are trying to include: DOS, 16-bit Windows,
>Win32, Win32s, 16-bit OS/2, and POSIX.

Win32s is a strict subset of Win32 that runs under Windows 3.x, not
an NT subsystem.

>Networking?  Both TCP/IP and
>SPX/IPX, right?  File systems?  FAT, HPFS, and NTFS (keeping in mind
>that NTFS has all the security data associated with files which the
>other two don't-- that's got to be a pain in the rear, trying to enforce
>file system security when there may be filesystems that don't support
>the notion present).

File system security isn't enforced on FAT and HPFS.

>Then on top of all that add the security they're
>building in, new multi-threaded kernel, and the fact that this is the
>first from-scratch OS that MS has written on its own.  Not to mention
>the fact that they are concurrently trying to port it to MIPS and Alpha.

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.

>-- 
>Marc Fraioli
>mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)

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: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:00:50 GMT

In article <wiegand.725728538@lido16>, wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand) writes:
|> 
|> The rules are fixed an BG broke them. The anti-trust laws have been around
|> for a long time.

They are BAD laws.  The put American business at a tremendous disadvantage
when trying to compete with the Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore.

Instead of whacking one of our few remaining strong industries with them, lets 
ditch them and stop exporting jobs to countries whose companies compete with 
each other instead of sue each other.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ts@chainsaw.ecn.purdue.edu (Thomas Ruschak)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 06:58:05 GMT

In article <8256@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>-- 
>Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
>jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
> "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis

	I've been reading this group today, and it seems like this guy is
writing every other article. Does anyone else get the feeling that he was
scared by a large corporation as a child?

Tom
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: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 23:03:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.041934.17322@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:

|> >Pardon me, but isn't the nature of the contracts signed the business of only
|> >the people who sign it?  If they both like the contract enough to sign it
|> >then why would you possibly be against it or even care?
|> >
|> 
|> Not when those contracts affect third parties, namely *me*.  You had better
|> believe I care.  If the system that I prefer is driven out of the market by
|> such tactics, you can bet your fanny that I will be more than a little pissed.

Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but the world doesn't owe you anything.
The other two parties have no obligation to only make agreements which
_you_ like.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: craigdo@microsoft.com (Craig Dowell)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 22 Dec 92 23:50:25 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <BzKsJ2.Bwp@csulb.edu> sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>>How Bill Gates runs his business is nobody's business but Bill Gates's.
>
>  Sorry to disappoint you, but this issue was settle quite a long time
>ago when the robber barons ran roughshod over the economy and used
>market power in anti-ethical, non-competitive ways. For better or for
>worse, the country decided that there was a social and economic interest
>for the country at large in regulating corporate behavior, particularly
>when it was structured or operated in anti-competitive ways. And the government
>was given this power in the Constitution in the regulation of interstate
>commerce. Now of course, if Bill wants to just sell his 'wares in Washington,
>perhaps we can just ignore him ... he could open a little software-stand
>on a street corner in Redmond.

No.  Not possible.  You obviously don't know any of the problems involved in
doing business in Redmond.  Why, to start with, there are already little
espresso-stands on every corner in Redmond :-)

-- Craig
From: czmax@cats.ucsc.edu (Max C. Pritikin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 3 Jan 1993 23:48:37 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

	[a bunch deleted]

>     OS/2 should still work just fine, but it wouldn't be able
>to read the compressed FAT partition.  I expect that any warning
>message is intended to convey exactly this information.
	
	[some more deleted]

	Hmm, I've very eager to see the actual text of the message.
Until then there is nothing much to argue about...

	We have a bunch of people willing to flip over a supposed
evil message from the Evil Empire (TM).  (Speaking of which... Phil it 
*DOES* have a history of such things:
ie the WordPerfect Monster in MS Word 
and the limping, buggy, 123 icon in MS Excel 4.0. ) and on the 
other side we have you arguing that MS couldn't possible have shiped
a product that blantently lies about another product.

Shrug.  How about somebody scaring up the actual text??


>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.


	-Max


Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11265 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3563
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 06:36:33 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
NNTP-Posting-Host: solar.tamu.edu

In article <1992Dec31.034930.3422@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
|In article <1hqe98INNsef@tamsun.tamu.edu> bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
|>
|>Actually, I wasn't talking about Standard Oil, I was talking about MS.
|>The cost of duplicating software is negligible.  The cost of
|>developing is high.  If one company has deep pockets and no controls,
|>the potential exists for that company to dump the product (software) for a
|>period of time until the competitor goes out of business and then
|>raise the prices again.
|>
|>Has MS done this?  You bet.  How much was OS/2 1.0?  Answer: $325.
|>Why so much?  No competition.  How much was the original OS/2 PDK? 
|>Answer: $2600.  Same reason.  Did IBM go along? Yup. They were
|>partners, not competitors then.
|
|    OK, I give up.  Which of the examples above is an example
|of the underpricing you describe in your first paragraph?
|

Come on Phil.  You know better than that.  Are you saying that if
OS/2, NextStep, etc goes away through superior marketing (or other
tactics) that MS will not raise the prices?

I was describing what DID happen without effective competition.  And
what I feel will happen again without ongoing competition.
--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
                              |  Scrupulous Lawyer
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 20:59:50 GMT

z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
: 
: 	All this talk about FUD & Misinformation about OS/2 from Microsoft has
: some NEW Merit!
: 
: 	I Recently talked to a Beta Tester of DOS 6.0. He Runs OS/2 with 2 Hard
: Drives, One FAT, One HPFS. He decided to Install the DOS 6.0 Beta on the FAT
: Partition, and got a Message saying, and I paraphrase: 
: 
: - OS/2 Detected! Due to the size of OS/2 you may wish to delete your OS/2 
: files before installing DOS 6.0 -

Well, it's an 'improvement' over DOS 5.0, which absolutely refused to
install if there were other 'unknown' (i.e. OS/2 - or presumably
certain flabours of UNIX) present. I had to let DOS reformat my HPFS
partition and then reinstall OS/2. I was not amused - but then neither
was I much surprised - my immediate thought was, "typical bloody
Microsoft, can't get anything right."

--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: akennedy@mercury.ncat.edu
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.1 specifications, release date.
Organization: North Carolina A&T State University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:36:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.161007.23234@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>>>>In article <3500@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:
>>>>>Here the official specs of OS/2 2.1 directly from IBM:
>>>>>
>>>>>- more printer drivers
>>>>>- Windows 3.1 support
>>>>>- native Windows 3.1 performance with 8Mb RAM machines
>>>>>- improved performance for low memory configurations
>>>>>- 32bit graphics engine
>>>>>- multimedia support
>>>>>- portable PC support
>>>>>- CD-ROM version
>>
>>In another posting somewhere (!) I read that 2.1 would include DPMI support.
>>Is that so?
>
>OS/2 already has DPMI 0.9 support.  If you mean DPMI support in WinOS/2,
>I would imagine that the possibility of running enhanced mode apps would
>mean there will be Windows DPMI support.
>
>I don't believe it is certain yet that WinOS/2 3.1 will run enhanced mode apps
>though.  Anyone know for sure?
>
>Ted

 Ted, a recent unoffical report said that OS/2 2.1 is presently in
internal beta, and a cd-rom beta will be available for those willing to
invest $15 and call 1-800-IBM-3040 after 12/28/92 for more details. It
does have a select button for enhanced mode apps. 

The OS/2 2.1 beta is suppose to be available until 2/28/92. So the final
release will probably come in March (My best guess).  Either way I hope
the don't release until it's as stable as 1.3 was.

Seasons Greetings

Alvin

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 22:26:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.172229.3466@microsoft.com> philco@microsoft.com (Phillip Cooper) writes:
>In article <wiegand.725577960@lido16> motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net writes:
>>helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Dec20.161118.6133@qucis.queensu.ca>, jardined@qucis.queensu.ca (Donald Jardine) writes:
>>>|> 
>>>|> Allegedly domineering practices aside, is there any real evidence that MS is
>>>|> genuinely inefficient or hindering the industry?  The market place is a 
>>>|> wonderful disciplinarian.
>>
>>>I can't think of any.  If you want to buy another operating system, you can
>>>choose either DR DOS or OS/2, both of which will run DOS programs, and even
>>>windows programs if you want.
>>
>>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?
>>
>>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.
>>
>
>All right, this mis-information being spread is getting a little out of
>hand.  It is true that *one* type of licensing contract offered to system
>vendors charges royalties per computer.  It is also true that another
>type of licensing contract charges royalties per copy of OS sold.  There
>are many variations of each, and they cover just about every conceivable
>type of licensing you can imagine.  It is *completely* up to the vendor
>to choose which contract to use.  If they choose to go with the one charging
>royalties for each machine sold it is because they get larger volume
>discounts and the vast, vast majority of customers want MSDOS anyway.  
>
>If you don't like it, complain to the hardware vendor that chose this
>licensing arrangement, rather than one which charges only for each copy
>of the OS sold.  They are the ones, after all, that made the choice.

  But you are ignoring the possibility that such a tying agreement *may*
be anti-competitive and illegal under U.S. anti-trust law.


-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 3 Jan 1993 15:09:20 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan2.065805.25815@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> ts@chainsaw.ecn.purdue.edu (Thomas Ruschak) writes:
>	I've been reading this group today, and it seems like this guy is
>writing every other article. Does anyone else get the feeling that he was
>scared by a large corporation as a child?

If I had been, why would I be defending IBM??!
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
From: rwb00@avon.as (Robert W Beveridge)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Date: 22 Dec 92 21:30:17 GMT
Reply-To: rwb00@avon.as
Organization: Sun Microsystems


In article Ds0@news.iastate.edu, TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.102732.22124@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
>helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>>In article <BzMLLx.JtD@news.iastate.edu>, TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:
>>
>>|> too.  The problem is that they are allowing their application
>>|> developers to use calls from their OS that other developers can't
>>|> use.  This gives MS applications an unfair advantage over the
>>|> competitors applications.
>>
>>Bill Gates doesn't have to show anybody his OS calls any more than he
>>has to show them his underware.
>>
>
>     I don't think many people are too interested in Bill Gates'
>underwear.  I think that a lot of people are interested in seeing
>what sort of undocumented calls are in MS-DOS and MS-Windows.  And
>he doesn't have to show these undocumented calls, but when a company
>uses the undocumented calls of thier own OS to give them an unfair
>advantage, then they have be cautious because the FTC will probably
>step in.

This issue keeps coming up, but I don't get it - because:

 1) the original business week article that touched off this flame fest
    only mentioned questions about Microsoft's sales/distribution policies
    - there was no mention of undocumented DOS/Win calls being a target of
    the FTC. I know this is a favorite topic of the more paranoid OS/2ers,
    but I haven't seen anything that indicates the FTC is interested.

 2) I have yet to see a single example of an undocumented call that gives
    any Microsoft program any significant advantage.

 3) if there is a sinister Microsoft plot involving undocumented calls, it
    isn't working very well - I don't see how Microsoft has taken over any
    of the big 3 application areas - word processing, spreadsheets or
    databases.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: buhr@umanitoba.ca (Kevin Andrew Buhr)
Subject: Re: More advertising
Organization: University of Manitoba, Canada
	<1992Dec30.181522.5719@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
	<1992Dec31.041533.3989@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:11:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.041533.3989@microsoft.com>
philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
|
|	Fred, if you can show me an MS-DOS ad that says that it
|  runs "all DOS programs", or a Windows ad that says it "runs all
|  Windows programs", then I'll lobby to have the company change
|  it.  I have never seen such an ad - I don't honestly believe
|  that one exists.

Tell you what, Phil.  If you can get Microsoft to pull the "operating
system" crap from their Windows boxes, I'll help you lobby against
using the word "all" in OS/2 advertising.

Kevin <buhr@ccu.UManitoba.CA>
From: rvaniwaa@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ronald J. Vaniwaarden)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Fiesta Bowl
Date: 1 Jan 93 01:06:08 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

I encourage all OS/2 advocates to watch the Fiesta Bowl tomorrow.  I saw the
field on TV tonight and there is a very large OS/2 emblem on the field.  I
think (hope) that we can look forward to alot of OS/2 advertising during the
game tomorrow.

--Ronald Van Iwaarden
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 30 Dec 1992 20:47:52 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec30.201544.27892@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>I have ignored every argument based on name-calling--simply labeling something
>"sleazy, underhanded, etc" doesn't make it so.

...but we've shown why it's sleazy and underhanded. You say there's a choice.
Sure there is: it's a choice between paying a royalty for every machine and
going out of business because MS charges quite a bit more for the privilege of
not having to pay a royalty on every machine. Some choice.

>Does your university give a volume discount for credits?  Mine does.  At
>Purdue, You pay per credit hour until you reach 16 credits, and anything 
>above 16 is free.

I don't know, actually; I'm a mainframe systems programmer, not a student.

>They essentially have forced me into only taking credits from Purdue because 
>they won't count credits from other universities and I don't have the time
>to study at more than one anyways.
>Are they guilty of "sleazy, underhanded, anticompetitive practices?"

If they don't accept credits from other places, then, yes, they're being
anticompetitive - because they're denying you the opportunity to go take a
course somewhere else for credit, even if they don't offer a similar course.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
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: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:47:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.224608.1011@Celestial.COM>, ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones) writes:
> >> You have not been a victem of Microsoft'a predatory practices.  Just see
> >> what happens if you come up with a clever inovation that might really cut
> >> into thier profit.  I have worked for such a company.  We just talk to a few
> >> companies about what we wanted to do and within 30 days got a letter from
> >> the Microsoft legal department that said,
> >> "Just try it, and we will sue you out of existance."
> >> Our lawyer told us we were well with in our rights BUT we could not afford
> >> the legal assult.  Two years later, Microsoft came out with the product.
> >> Nice gut, that Gates.
>  
> >Perhaps you could give us the particulars, like the product in question and
> >why MS thought that they would have a basis for litigation. There seem to
> >be numerous counter-examples like Stacker, various backup utilities, disk
> >compressors, etc.
>  
> Company was Microport Systems.  Product was the ability to run Xenix
> binaries on our Unix system.  Microport was just starting out, had the only
> Unix 286/386 product on the market (lots of Xenix and Xenix applications)
> but with few Unix applications.  We could have a big jump ahead if we had access
> to more applications without the apps vendors having to recompile.
> Microsoft said the only way we could do this was because we had seen the
> Xenix source code - not true.  The only difference in Unix binaries and
> Xenix binaries was the header of the file.

Are you sure it was the source code?  Most compiler products of the time
had licenses that forbid disassembling the binary; in fact, if you did
disassemble the binary produced by the Microsoft DOS F77 compiler, there
was an embedded text comment to the effect that you weren't suppose to
be looking at the binary.  If the XENIX license had a similar clause I
would think that you'd be out of luck regardless of what the lawyers
said.

>  
> FYI Microsoft had Xenix as a product prior to DOS.

I stand corrected.

--rick

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: NTs thunking overhead more than OS/2s?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:32:33 GMT

     I was reading a little bit of Dr. Dobbs Programming Journal (or
something like that) today, and it had an article about programming
in 32 bits.  Although OS/2 is only mentioned a couple of times (it
was mostly about writing Win32 programs from 16-bit programs), what
was said about it wasn't bad.  One very interesting thing was that
it said that there was more overhead in the Windows NT thunking than
there is in OS/2's thunking.  Can this be verified?  And if this is
true, why?

Timothy Miller

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: heiland@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (david.j.heiland)
Subject: Re: More advertising
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:00:48 GMT

I'd like to see *any* new adertising from IBM for OS/2.  I can hope that 
they're saving up for a big push for the new, improved, bug-fixed, enhanced,
faster, documented 2.1.  I see the OS/2 ads in the magazines, but they're
still the same old ones from months ago.  Any new ads would help.  I know
IBM can advertise - everywhere I turn I see a ValuePoint billboard.

Going to a two page ad would be a big change - so far IBM seems set on
maintaining the same old format of graphics on the left, text on the right.
Maybe these ads work well for corporate buyers, but IBM has to realize
that home users need something more to get their attention.

--
Dave Heiland   djh@neptune.att.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy