HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lmalloy@abacus.bates.edu (Laura G. Malloy)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 5 Jan 93 01:16:08 GMT
Organization: Bates College, Lewiston, Maine

In article <8301@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1993Jan04.041856.10899@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>     I still contend that this line of "logic" is terminally flawed.
>>Can you explain how you get from "Windows doesn't work with DR-DOS"
>>to "Microsoft intentionally put code into Windows to make it
>>not work with DR-DOS"?
>
>Because MS has quite a bit to gain and very little to lose by doing so.
>Besides, If it weren't intentional, MS would have helped to fix the problem,
>and in fact would have at least let DR test 3.1 with DR-DOS 6 on the same
>basis as any other developer. After all, not doing so runs the risk of having
>the folks who use and love DR-DOS not go out and buy Windows.
>
There's one thing that troubles me about this assumption that MS put a
code checker into Win 3.1 for the sole purpose of befuddling DR-DOS
users: if it's this easy to find out what they did, if it was as easy to
correct as I've heard it was, if it was as easy for DR to update (they
had the needed mod within hours of the Win 3.1 release), why for Pete's
(!) sake would they do something so transparent?  If this is, indeed,
what they did, they look awfully bad.  Since MS is darn good at
marketing (which I would think includes projecting a positive image of
the company), I find it difficult to believe they'd shoot themselves in
the foot so.    

Any plausible reasons why they might have had an incompatiblitiy with
DR-DOS?  

(Of course, then's there's OS/2, which was so difficult for me to
install and get running, I might assume there's code in there to check
if it's MY machine before refusing.... :)

jmalloy@hamilton.edu
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: SGI-GL in Windows NT??
Date: 12 Jan 93 07:41:54 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell) writes:
>hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:
>>I know neither the number of polygons, nor the shading algorithm, since
>>I was merely using the software, not writing it; and admittedly there 
>>was likely an element of serious CPU computation as a factor. My point is,
>>that the same thing (animation of a 3D protein model) on 486, or even
>>several 486's, without the extra video goodies the Iris (again I would
>>have to check details for the 4GX, etc.) provides in hardware, it would
>>be ludicrous. 

>The fact of life is: I own a 486-33.  I can't afford anything else.  So,
>my choices are:  (1) Use OS/2 and do 3D graphics all by myself or (2) 
>use NT with a nice 3D graphics library.  Neither configurations has
>significant hardware advantages over the other (they're the same).
>Choice (2) makes more sense for graphics work. 

>>If serious hardware comes along that helps this out, then fine; but your
>>original comment seemed to be "NT has the SGI graphics lib in software,
>>and that's enough" 

>I never said anything like that.  I'm not comparing NT to SGI Unix.  I'm
>comparing it to OS/2.  I'm comparing given the constraints of my (and
>many others') Intel-based systems.  I don't see how you can possibly
>have the idea that the inclusion of GL in NT is a bad thing.  I wish it
>came out in OS/2, since I like IBM more than Microsoft, but that's the
>breaks.

>>I think the alternatives will still
>>look more attractive.

>What alternatives be those?  Let me put it in real (i.e., MONEY) terms:
>you have $4,000 and you *need* to do some 3D graphics work.  Assuming NT
>is available with GL built-in and no special hardware processing and
>the rest of the OS industry is pretty much as it is now, what *platform*
>are you going to buy??  Are you going to give up on the project because
>your machine (NT on an Intel 486) isn't as fast as a $40,000 SGI
>graphics workstation???

Well, it might be that the inclusion of the SGI GL in NT will benefit
you, given your particular needs - my points remain. [1] It will either
not be supported for (S)VGA or will be unworkably slow (for most); and 
even if that wait doesn't bother you, there's the wait for things to
actually become *available*. NT 3.1 still lingers in beta limbo, and 
the SGI stuff is slated for the version after *that*. Your *need* for
3D is strong - how long can you wait for this? What if OS2 has something
included sooner? Not that I'm saying it will, but perhaps a call or two
might help (pause here for the predictable posts from wiseacres). Let
IBM know that this is an important consideration for you. 
 
In any case, good luck.

-- 
Tom Hatton
hatton@cgl.ucsf.edu
(415)-476-8693
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Now that we have OS/2, who cares DOS 6?
From: ghdai@vax1.umkc.edu
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:27:15 CST
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City
NNTP-Posting-Host: vax1.umkc.edu


I don't understand why many people are arguing about DOS 6.0.  Now that we
have OS/2, DOS is already history -- who cares DOS anymore?  As far as I
understand, the major features that DOS 6.0 have more than 5.0 are disk
compression and some utilities.  Many people have already had something
like Norton utilities.  And on the other hand, people who want compress
their hard disk have long had something like Stacker; and people who do not
care their disk space are using DOS 5.0 or lower.  The PC is becoming more and
more powerful so that a single task OS is going to be out of date very soon
(with the coming of the NT jerk).  In a word, any further verions of DOS
without a leap in functionality will be just junk; current versions of DOS
are already good enough.  If you want more, here you have OS/2.  Let's
talk about OS/2, use OS/2, promote OS/2, and advance together with OS/2!

Guohuan Dai
-- 
GHDai@VAX1.UMKC.Edu |** Happy user of only OS/2 2.0!!/HPFS on both HD's ****|

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com (John Brock)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft using "Force"???
Reply-To: uunet!csfb1!jbrock
Organization: First Boston Corporation
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:49:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.042406.29500@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> [...deleted...]
|> Haw haw haw.  This is the third post accusing me of not understanding
|> the meaning of the word "pressure" so I suppose the only thing to do is
|> give another English lesson.  *sigh*  Definition of pressure:
|> 
|> 1. press.ure \'presh-*r\ n 1a: the burden of physical or mental distress 
                                                         ^^^^^^^^^
|>    1b: the constraint of circumstance 2: the application of force to something 
|>    by something else in direct contact with it : COMPRESSION archaic  3: 
|>    IMPRESSION, STAMP 4a: the action of a force against an opposing force 4b: 
|>    the force or thrust exerted over a surface divided by its area 4c: 
|>    ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE 5: the stress or urgency of matters demanding attention 
|>    : EXIGENCY 6: a factor that tends to reduce a wild animal population esp. 
|>    when arising from human activity 7: atmospheric pressure 8: a sensation 
|>    aroused by moderate compression of a body part or surface
|> 
|> Every meaning of the word which is relevent to the definition of "Coerce"
|> above explicitly indicates physical force being used except for 1b: which
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Maybe we should just give this up guys.  This is clearly an ideological
argument, and Mr. Helzerman is clearly never going to acknowledge the
existence of any kind of force other than physical.

Actually I think that Mr. Helzerman is conflating the idea of force
with the idea of irresistible force.  In other words, since it is
physically possible to ignore emotional or financial blackmail, then
these things cannot be counted as "force", however painful (mentally)
the consequences may be for you.

This definition of force is certainly not the common usage, but Mr.
Helzerman is insisting on it because, well, it's convenient for the
rest of his argument.  This is typical of ideological arguments.

-- 
John Brock
uunet!csfb1!jbrock
jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: SMALL Excerpt from "Windows Sources"
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:40:04 GMT

In article <1hscqpINNdve@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
>
>In a previous article, timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) says:
>>
>>I didn't say that NT doesn't require more RAM than OS/2, I just said
>>that it doesn't REQUIRE 16 MB (as many people like to suggest).  I only
>>have a 12 MB system, so I can assure you that it doesn't require 16.
>>The point is that the shipping NT should require 8 MB minimum, but this
>>minimum doesn't mean the same thing as the OS/2 minimum.  As Petzold
>>suggested (although he may be pushing it) NT should be much more usable 
>                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>in 8 MB (its stated minimum) than OS/2 is in 4 MB.
>
>It "should be much more useable" in 8 megs?
>  Because Petzold never jumps to conclusions?
>  Because you listened to one too many net.rumors? 
>  Because your crystal ball says it will work better?
>  Because Bill Gates visited you in a dream and told you?
>  Because it is stated in the US constitution?
>  Because it is our God given right to have it work better?
>
>What do you base this imperatve "should" on?

Actually, you listed a lot of nice options (I like the one about "our
God given right), but left out the actual reason.  You know, common usage.
Kind of like "is supposed to", or "is designed to", or, well, "should".
As in "a 1995 Porche 911 should be faster than than a turtle" or "OS/2 3.0
should be better than DOS".

>When you say that it must work much better, it makes it sound like you
>are conluding a logical argument in which you offered facts and nice
>things like that.

You know, "should" is different from "must".

>But here, you just state your opinion that that 
>windows NT should work much better.  In fact, you argue this through
>the entire thread with your only 'fact' being that NT seems usable to you
>with 12 megs of memory, which is at best a highly subjective and mostly 
>irrelevent statement.

Yeah, OK, whatever.

>This group is getting to an all time low for lack of factual content.

If you'll notice, this isn't my fault.

     - Mike
From: hoppie@kub.nl (Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers)
Subject: Re: Win4Wkgrps threatens OS/2.....
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 13:41:21 GMT
Organization: Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy

In article <1993Jan11.100707.20600@actrix.gen.nz>, Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:

|> Briefly, Microsoft says that its vision for the future is to make
|> Windows for Workgroups the basic operating system that would 
|> allow any developer's application to work with just about any 
|> other application through the application programming interfaces 
|> (APIs) contained in WFW.

Nice. And of course, tomorrow all existing DOS and Windows apps will be re-written
for the use of this API and available for free, will they?

This Is Nothing New! What about DDE and OLE? If apps are written to understand
these protocols, they can chat! So what? Just include DDE/OLE in OS/2 and off
we go.

Or am I missing something important here?



Jeroen

-- 
Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers, research engineer at     |  Stop connecting computers;
Infolab, Tilburg University, The Netherlands    |  start connecting people!
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Date: 4 Jan 93 20:40:09 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <8305@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan4.005008.13699@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> >Yes.  A company can't enforce its will using guns--a government can.
|> 
|> On the other hand, a company _can_ put another company out of business. Who
|> needs guns?

A company can't put another company out of business.  Only a company's
_customers_ can either keep it in business or put it out.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison)
Subject: Re: Microsoft and Force continued.
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 18:23:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.003641.11144@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <726581482rommel.root@jonas.gold.sub.org>, rommel@jonas.gold.sub.org (Kai Uwe Rommel) writes:
>|> In article <1993Jan9.004117.29420@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>|> >|> 	In 1990, Nintendo America would often threaten not to let stores
>|> >|> sell Nintendo or Nintendo made cartridges for their popular game machine
>|> >|> if the seller stocked competing systems.  This is wrong.
>|> >
>|> >Ever try buying a Frosty at McDonalds? 
>|> 
>|> The game store is not owned by Nintendo and the computer sellers are
>|> not owned by Microsoft. But then, even Mercedes Benz dealers sell used
>|> BMW and VW cars and vice versa.
>
>A McDonald's restraunt isn't owned by McDonald's either.
Ah, I think we are in a semantic conflict here.  A McDonald's resturant is
either owned by McDonalds or Franchised by them (a limited Ownership).
In order to sell a McDonalds (a trade marked item) you must have this
liscense.  You do not need the license to sell a hamberger or a shake
except from your local city government.

No license or franchise by Microsoft is required to operate an independent
computer store.  And since Microsoft doesn't sell computers why should
that computer store be forced to sell DOS Pre-installed.  He must only
by contract, but the difference between $8 per copy under the contract
and $75 per copy from distrubution (new installation, not upgrade) argues
for jumping at the $8 price.   It may be this version of the contract
and deep discounting is illegal under the Anti-Trust laws, and if so
Microsoft should be slapped on the wrist.  If not, well, then every one
should prepair for having only MS Operating systems on their computers,
and making Billy the first Zillionare on the planet. 


<much deleted>
>
>|> MS is trying to force independent dealers NOT
>|> to sell competing products. Microsoft does not sell Windows directly
>|> to end users.
>
>McDonald's does the same thing to its dealers.
McDonald's dealers are franchies, not independents, your analogy is incorrect.

>
>|> >Well, this is admittedly an extreme example, but I'll bet that there are
>|> >as many men who want to sleep with Cindy Crawford as there are PC's running
>|> >MS-DOS.  Can I set my self up as a "dealer" and use "customer demand" to
>|> >justify pimping her?  After all, she is a monopoly supplier.
>|> 
>|> You got something wrong. Your example is reversed. Compare MS to if
>|> C.C. was trying to force all men in the world to sleep ONLY with her. :-) :-) 
>|> You would flame her for forcing competing women out of the market. :-)
>
>Actually, I know a lot of women who won't sleep with a man unless she sleeps
>only with her.
But the question is would you flame the woman if she insisted that
every man sleep with her and no other.  Not wether a woman insists that
A man only sleep with her.


--Uncle Wolf
--Lowell Morrison
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: 32 Bit HPFS
Keywords: HPFS
Date: 4 Jan 93 19:58:41 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <9HTRwB3w165w@tcscs.UUCP> zeta%tcscs@src.honeywell.com writes:
>Forgive the obvious stupid question.  With OS/2 being such multitasking,
>there would be several useful features found in networks which would be
>useful for a stand alone system as well.  Of course I dont know much about
>LAN's and such, the only multiuser OS I'm familier with is VMS.  I'm talking
>about more abilities with file sharing, especially amongst files between
>several tasks.  More so if it makes programs not normally friendly for file
>access work more reliably in a shared environment.

OS/2 has this in FAT and HPFS already.  HPFS386 adds multi-USER
features, such as security to keep each user's private files isolated
from each other.  And reference counts on open files, so you can
enforce licenses by restricting the number of users that can execute a
program at once, etc., etc.

>> Lest anyone panic, 32-bit purely for the sake of 32-bit isn't such a
>> hot idea.
>
>While this is true for the hardware, it still seems that 32-bit disk interface
>software could still increase performance.  I'm not very familier with the 
>two version file system in OS/2, other than that HPFS is very quick, and the
>FAT version is a lot faster than in DOS systems.  it seems that for some things
>HPFS is slower than a FAT system.  If it were to go 32 bit, wouldn't the HPFS
>be faster all the time?  

FAT vs. HPFS is a moot point - long filenames and built-in EA's make
the performance differences immaterial to me.

As for HPFS vs. a 32-bit recompilation of HPFS, I doubt you'll gain
much.  The bulk of the processing will still be in reading/writing
data, and that will depend on your hardware (and device drivers) not
the IFS.  The only clear advantage I can see is in making the cache
32-bit, to free it from the accursed 64K segment size.  I think the
simpler cache management will speed things up a bit.  I think the rest
of the improvements will be marginal.  But still, since HPFS386 has
already been written, it would be nice to have it around anyway.
Perhaps as an option so some can choose the HPFS16 and use less
memeory on it.
-- 
  |)  David Charlap          | .signature confiscated by FBI due to
 /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu | an ongoing investigation into the
((|,)                        | source of these .signature virusses
 ~|~
From: mike.dickson@almac.co.uk (Mike Dickson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Mic
Date: 7 Jan 93 03:32:00 GMT
Reply-To: mike.dickson@almac.co.uk (Mike Dickson)
Organization: Almac BBS Ltd. +44 (0)324 665371

JD..Because we are not like cows being led to the slaughter.  Some of us own
JD..businesses--and look at a "brother" company being harrassed without
JD..(it appears) good cause...

Absolute manure. I don't see MS getting all cut up about this 'brother
company' business when it comes to anyone else.

/\/\ | |< |.                                     mike.dickson@almac.co.uk
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . One of these days I'll do some real work...
                                                                          
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: SMALL Excerpt from "Windows Sources"
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  4 Jan 1993 16:44 EST  

In article <92Dec31.034054.14534@acs.ucalgary.ca>, bauwens@acs.ucalgary.ca 
(Luc Bauwens) writes...
>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

Oh really?  I must have missed Microsoft's "Buy OS/2 now and then buy NT 
later" campaign.  

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com (John Brock)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft using "Force"???
Reply-To: uunet!csfb1!jbrock
Organization: First Boston Corporation
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:29:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.204945.10776@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> In article <C0HtF3.7E5@csfb1.fir.fbc.com>, jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com (John Brock) writes:
|> |> In article <1993Jan7.042406.29500@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> |> |> [...deleted...]
|> |> |> Haw haw haw.  This is the third post accusing me of not understanding
|> |> |> the meaning of the word "pressure" so I suppose the only thing to do is
|> |> |> give another English lesson.  *sigh*  Definition of pressure:
|> |> |> 
|> |> |> 1. press.ure \'presh-*r\ n 1a: the burden of physical or mental distress 
|> 							       ^^^^^^^
|> 
|> Definition 1a: of pressure is a metaphorical use of the term, as in "Because of
|> all these deadlines I've been under a lot of pressure lately."
|> 
|> |> Every meaning of the word which is relevent to the definition of "Coerce"
|> |> above explicitly indicates physical force being used except for 1b: which
|>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> Notice that I said each meaning "which is relevent to the definition of
|> "Coerce".  Being under "pressure" because you have a lot to do has nothing
|> to do with Coerce.  Its just like the word "may" can be a modal (e.g. "May I
|> go out with you?") or a month.  Look at the other definitions of pressure
|> and you'll see that my point is valid.
|> 

This is *exactly* what I accused you of in the part of my post you
deleted.  You simply refuse to acknowledge the existence of any kind of
"force" other than physical force, because this allows you to assert
that coersion must involve physical threats.  You post a dictionary
definition of pressure which refers to "physical or mental distress",
and then insist that the inconvenient "mental" part of the definition
is metaphorical and irrevelent.  It's not, but what can I say?  I am
reminded of the Dead Parrot Sketch.  For most people mental distress
can feel coercive, just as physical distress can, even though it is
indeed physically possible to ignore it.  But nothing I can say can
force you to acknowledge this.

-- 
John Brock
uunet!csfb1!jbrock
jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:47:22 GMT

discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>Ahhhh.  But what the anti-agreement people are saying is that they DON'T want
>MS-DOS installed.  If the MAJORITY of people thought that way, then Joe 
>Vendor doesn't have to buy into the agreement--and sell his systems for
>eight bucks cheaper than his competitors.  The problem is, that the MAJORITY
>of people WANT MS-DOS and Windows... which gives Microsoft the leverage it
>needs to "sell" their package with every computer.

That's just the point. The majority who want DOS gives Microsoft enough
leverage that they can also force DOS on the minority who don't want it.

Maybe you think this is good, but I don't much like it.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net            uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.