HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Rude behavior on this group.
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:59:23 GMT

In <1992Dec15.192137.6763@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> hwhalen@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Hugh Whalen) writes:

>In article <1992Dec15.183951.23430@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <1992Dec15.054239.12858@microsoft.com> richs@microsoft.com (Rick Schaut) writes:

>[enormous amount of stuff on passing through costs deleted]
>>
>>And you can bet that those costs are 'passed through', or you're
>>looking at a vendor who won't be in business very long.
>>

>Not necessarily. For example.

>Selling price of PC is $1500, cost is $1200 so profit per unit is 
>$300. Producer sells 10,000 units so profit is $3,000,000. 

An example with a 20% profit after all costs, and you call this a
'competetive environment'?  I'd like to see a clone maker of commodity
PC equipment that is clearing 20% profit per unit shipped.  Not much
competition there, or they wouldn't have that kind of profit margin.

>Producer adds in software with cost of $50. Cost is now $1250 and 
>selling price *remains*  at $1500 so profit per unit is $250. But (and 
>this is the important part) since software is now included the 
>producer sells 12,000 units. 

Based on ZERO evidence that this happens, and the complaints of a lot
of people who don't WANT the frigging software.  Once again, a
somewhat less than realistic example.

>Profit is again $3,000,000. If the 
>producer sells more than 2,000 extra units his profit will in fact be 
>higher. If he sells less than 2,000 extra units he will have made a 
>bad business decision and will make less profit. What counts is 
>*total* profit not profit per unit. Businesses make these types of 
>decisions all the time. While it may seem reasonable that costs are 
>*passed through* this is not always the case. 

In a highly competitive market, you don't have the kind of profit
margin to eat those kinds of costs.  Take that 20% profit down to
around 2%-5% and see what your numbers do.

>Cost is only one factor that a business considers when setting a 
>selling price. Other factors such as price/demand, competition, etc. 
>are often as important or more important.

You're assuming a non-competitive market that allows large initial
profit margins.  Do you really think that that's the kind of market
that PC cloners are looking at?


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: nmouawad@waterloo.edu (Naji Mouawad)
Subject: Re: ATI driver support!
Organization: University of Waterloo
	<1992Dec17.234138.6115@wam.umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:26:57 GMT



I did phone ATI in late October. This was posted here a while ago. The
tech rep I spoke too seemed an Os/2 experienced user. He basically
told me that (a) the new ATI drivers will not work with SP -- remember
that was in late October, I don't know now, and (b) they are working
on 2.0 specific drives which they will release Q293.

I am waiting.

naji.
--
     -------------------------------------------------------------------
    | Naji Mouawad  |          nmouawad@watmath.waterloo.edu            |
    |  University   |---------------------------------------------------|
    | Of Waterloo   |   "The Stranger in us is our most familiar Self"  |
     -------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Cocky Gates!
Date: 11 Dec 92 09:48:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.Mf_D1qW00iV403mgBW
Organization: Sophomore, H&SS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


Hey,
This might've been mentioned here before, but I don't read all the
messages.  (Kinda hard at 100messages/day!)

Did you hear about Gates' interview where he says that he thinks in 2
years, NT will be THE operating system of choice on workstations, where
currently, Unix is the only os?

Ha ha ha!

BTW, some guy from Unix International basically said (and I paraphrase):
Yeah right!

Carl
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jurlwin@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU (Jeff Urlwin)
Subject: Re: Why 512MB limit in OS/2?
Organization: University of Maine, Department of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:11:47 GMT

In article <BzF32B.Dpr@ecf.toronto.edu> kumarad@ecf.toronto.edu (KUMARADAS JOSEPH CARL) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.064426.7111@ryn.mro4.dec.com> Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com writes:
>>
>>Why does OS/2 have a limit of 512MB per application?
>>
>It is there to maintain compatibility with 16 bit OS/2 apps.  It will be 
>removed once 16 bit apps are a thing of the past.

Why does this 512MB seem like it's a big deal?  Who's writing an app that
needs 512MB today?  Maybe in a year or two, however ;)

Jeff



-- 
--------------------------------------
jurlwin@gandalf.umcs.maine.edu

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: Rude behavior on this group.
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Distribution: world,local
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:07:24 GMT

Jim opens up a computer store, and he sells ten machines per week.  
His distributor extends a price of $900 per machine, which he turns
around and sells for $1000.  He notices that many of his walk-ins
inquire about Windows+DOS installed (for which he charges $80 extra), and
finding that it's an "extra cost", they go to The Computer Shop Down the
Street (tm) because their price for a similarly configured system
(with software) is cheaper.

So Jim decides to "bundle" Windows+DOS with his systems... but he
cannot compete with The Computer Shop Down the Street, unless he can
get better prices.  So he signs an agreement with Microsoft so he can
sell his Windows+DOS for $50.

Week number one of his new venture, he sells his machines for $1050.  But
now, many of the walk-ins see that his price is "competetive" and buy
the system: instead of 10 machines per week, he's selling 20 machines
per week.  His distributor is happy, and extends a price of $850 per
machine after a few months.

Jim is even happier.  He lowers his price back down to $1000, and sells,
say 25 machines per week.

The above HYPOTHETICAL situation does occur, often with computer systems,
peripherals, and even lobster tails and automobiles.  It all depends, of
course, that Windows+DOS-bundled systems are more in demand than
unbundled systems (which appears to be the case in real life).

In the end, "Jim" is able to sell his machines bundled with Windows+DOS
"for free": the demand for his machines has picked up so that his
distributor has lowered his cost.  Sure, with narrow perspective one could
say "But he's CHARGING for windows."--but that's beside the point.  He
is selling a system for $1000, with Windows+DOS--for the same price as
he was selling the system without Windows+DOS.. AND MAKING THE SAME PROFIT
PER MACHINE..., also keep in mind, he is making a greater profit than he
did.

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10438 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3244
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!
Date: 16 Dec 1992 16:21:26 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec14.212122.13214@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>The post he made about booting and NT and OS/2 was unjustified, and thus
>I believe constitutes FUD. Though perhaps Tim did not know that
>MS actively tells you how to get around the problem.  After all, anybody
>with the NT SDK is supposed to contact MS through CompuServe, which is where
>the information is.  I don't see IBM explaining how to dual boot NT and
>OS/2, now do I?  Tim said to consider the behavior of the companies when
>choosing between the two OS's. 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.

Well, lessee.

First of all, OS/2 doesn't know, or care, that you have NT on the machine.

NT knows, cares, and won't install if you have OS/2 on the machine.

That counts as "helping you use OS/2 2.0"?

MS' code speaks louder than its words. If they really wanted to help, they
wouldn't have put the silly check in there in the first place!! The _only_
reason that they have to explain how to dual boot NT and OS/2 is that they put
code in NT to make it break in that environment!
-- 
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.
  "All [Windows] NT has is a lot of journalists fooled." -- Brian Button
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Once again the evil that is Timothy Sipple is vanquished !!!
Date: 14 Dec 1992 21:03:45 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) says:

>BTW, I responded to your "benchmark" and haven't got an answer.
>In particular, I would very much like to see the breakdown figures for
>individual tests as I'm sure they will tell a different story from
>the one global one.  Also, could you tell me where I can get the same
>benchmark program?  I think it should be tried on different (preferably
>non-IBM) hardware.
>
>I also resent the fact you cross-posted to the programmers groups and
>c.o.o.misc.
>Your message was clearly a biased advocacy message, but you expect
>people that followup to only post to the advocacy group.
>This basically means that there are people (especially in c.o.o.misc)
>that have the wrong impression of the whole matter.
>
>First that "benchmark" and now this message... I'm a bit surprised...
>it's not like you to spread FUD, Tim.
>
>Brian

Heaven forbid that Timothy be allowed to post such unabashed advocacy
on usenet!  I personally was too scared by the Sipple post to even 
attempt a reply.  Thank goodness that Brian Sturgil, that defender of
truth, justice and the internet way, came back out of his winter vacation
to reveal the Sipple lies for what they truely are. 

Thank you Brian, thank you.  I'd hate to be that wicked Sipple person,
boy must he be hurting.  Noone has put him in his place for a good
6 months and he must have been feeling so uppity that he even considered
attempting to to a side by side comparison of the two products, the evil,
nasty, smelly, awful OS/2 2.0 and the glorious, clean and sleek windows NT.

Oh what a foul person the Sipples is.  So foul.
-- 
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10644 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3320
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 20 Dec 1992 05:58:34 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec20.052923.23904@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>Yep, that's the good ol' American way of doing business alright.  If you can't
>compete with someone, just get the Federal Goverment to break up their 
>company.  The real "predatory practices" going on here are those vultures
>of rival companies who are waiting to pick the bones of what's left of
>Microsoft after the FTC's guts the carcass.

I had to go back to the top of this article just to see if it was being posted
from microsoft.com. This is some of the brown-nosiest writing I've seen in
some time. The simple fact is that MS isn't playing fair - they force
manufacturers to sell machines with Windows and DOS preloaded (don't believe
that? just try to buy one without!), they use undocumented OS calls in their
apps, and they remove features from their development tools just to hinder a
competing OS. Sure sounds like they're playing fair to me.

The "good ol' American way of doing business", as you put it, is being
practiced by Bill Gates, in trying to drive other software companies out of
business by sleazy, underhanded business practices. The FTC is about to come
down on him like a ton of bricks, and it's long overdue.
-- 
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: goyal@utdallas.edu (MOHIT K GOYAL)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 06:39:43 GMT

>[stuff about FTC's impending decision against Microsoft]
>
>The decision and its likely form have been more than strong rumours on
>the street for months now. Ho hum. Let's wait and see what
>happens, the street expectation is that it won't be anything important
>from an overall earnings impact perspective.
>

What your brain failed to recognize was that the document I reposted here
is dated 12-18-92.  It is the most current article on the case.  Every
previous review could only guess whether or not the FCC would even find
MS is doing something wrong, much less what they would do.

Bye.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: Ha Ha Ha (was Re: NetWare code disallowed...etc...)
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:52:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.220437.16759@netcom.com> timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:
> 
> In the United States, it was mentioned in the November 16th issue of
> PC WEEK.  "NetWare code disallowed in future Windows."  Unless I'm mistaken,
> it's now the second week of December.  Even in New Zealand. :)

Oh well.....I read about it in the clari.nb.general newsgroup. The ClariNet
newsgroup is usually up to date....though I notice that every once in while
some old articles get fed/echoed through. Newsbytes is the same service that
ZiffNet use on CompuServe....except on Internet, I don't have to pay by the
minute (NZ$0.80/minute) to read it!

Oh yeah.....OS/2 is great! (have to stay on topic.....:-))
 
Steve

 

-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: hoppie@kub.nl (Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.1 specifications, release date.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 14:06:18 GMT
Organization: Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

(stuff deleted)

|> >In another posting somewhere (!) I read that 2.1 would include DPMI support.
|> >Is that so?
|> 
|> Unless I am greatly mistaken, the current version of OS/2, the one which has
|> been out for 8 months now supports DPMI.  It is VCPI (sp?) that it doesn't
|> support.  DPMI has been there from the start.

Maybe first poster meant "Windows 3.1 rewritten such that it can use DPMI so
386 enhanced mode applications will work as well". I read that this feature
would be included with the next release.

-- 
Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers, research engineer at     |  Stop connecting computers;
Infolab, Tilburg University, The Netherlands    |  start connecting people!
From: pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak)
Subject: Re: What about OS/2 2.1?
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Mitre Corporation
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:54:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.193744.18402@muddcs.claremont.edu>,
tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) wrote:
> 
> In article <18352@mindlink.bc.ca> Jeremy_Reimer@mindlink.bc.ca (Jeremy Reimer) writes:
> >Why isn't anyone talking about the upcoming release of 2.1?  Instead of
> >pointless debates about OS/2 vs. NT... Who cares about that, this is an OS/2
> >advocacy group, people!
> 
> Excellent idea.
> 
> >
> >I haven't tried the beta yet but a friend of mine has, and he says his
> >swapfile has decreased by about 2 megs, meaning I guess that in a sense
> >memory requirements are down 2 megs!  Also the folders open properly, there
> >is no huge delay like in 2.0 (Something that Microsoft guy kept posting
> >about, as if it couldn't be fixed).
> >
> >Doesn't anyone see Win 3.1 support, lower memory requirements and faster
> >execution as a GOOD thing for OS/2?
> 
> Is this the normal beta that they released a while ago (32-bit GRE + win31)
> or a new full-blown 2.1 beta?  It sounds like a new one (folder opening
> always takes a second or two, even in the normal beta I used, that's why
> I minimize windows). 
> 

A new version of the Beta Win3.1 has been floating around internally within
IBM for some time now.  I don't know if this beta has been released for
general consumption.

BTW:  From what I understand, *some* of the Multi-media stuff will also
ship with the next update/release.  (Hopefully this means I will be able to
play regular CD's off of my CD-ROM drive).  Does anyone have any details?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heeren Pathak                      | Millions long for immortality who do 
pathak@mitre.org                   | not know what to do with themselves
Mitre Corporation                  | on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
(617) 271-7465                     |	               	-- Susan Ertz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Mine not Mitre's.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mwestr90@ursa.calvin.edu (Michael Westra)
Subject: Re: IBM support (not so bad)
Organization: Calvin College
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:46:49 GMT

You mentioned that you had to fix a dead mouse??  I had the same problem on 
a friends machine... How did you fix it ??

In my friends instance the mouse didn't work at all in windows (not surprised)
perfectly in DOS, and in OS/2 it crashed everytime we went to fullscreen
anything...


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: How many NT SPECIFIC programs have been shown at COMDEX?
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 22:06:38 GMT

In article <dposey.724051776@well.sf.ca.us> dposey@well.sf.ca.us (David Posey) writes:
>In <1992Dec10.205203.23885@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec10.060534.5766@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>>
>>>This is from PCWeek about COMDEX92 in Las Vegas:
>>>
>>>"Of more than 200 applications demonstrated at Microsoft's booth for
>>> Windows 3.1, Windows for Workgroups, Windows for Pen Computing, and
>>> Windows NT, fewer than 40 specifically tapped NT's 32-Bit
>>> architecture."
>
>>Yes, and another article posted to this group claimed there were
>>240 NT apps in the ISV booth.
>
>>The answer?  Simple.  In both cases the authors did not count for themselves.
>>I did count (though I stopped when I hit one hundred, time was pressing).
>>There were more than 40 and less than 240.
>>The "40" number comes from counting the occurences of "NT" in the booth
>>pamphlet, which as I said in my COMDEX report did not reflect all the NT
>>stuff being shown.
>
>>>
>>>Mark K.
>
>>Brian
>>-- 
>>C. Brian Sturgill                 Microsoft Windows Family of Operating Systems 
>>University of Utah                 Peer-to-peer networking, Multimedia, E-mail
>>Center for Software Science          enabled, HUGE base of applications, Object
>>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373   Linking and Embedding, (Oops! need more roo
>
>Brian, how did you determine that the products you counted 'specifically
>tapped NT's 32-Bit architecture'? Did you actually ask the vendors, or
>use some other indicator? I'm just curious if you 'counted' the same
>thing they say they did...

In fact I did ask.  Of the 100 I looked at specifically, only 5 or so
did not have at least 32-bit prototypes that they were showing.
Most had late alpha/early beta 32-bit software.
About 40 of them I talked to at length ( 1 or 2 minutes) because I had
specific interest in the products.
I spent over 3 hours in the ISV portion of the Microsoft booth.
And remember there were more than 100 present, I just ran out of time.

>
>-David


Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                          NeXTStep 486 is for _YOU_!!!!
University of Utah                    Microsoft needs competition, but I want
Center for Software Science          to be one of the many running Windows NT!
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373    :-) :-) :-)  NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: smetaniuk@dsp.trl.oz (Bohdan Smetaniuk)
Subject: Re: Can We All Get Along?
Reply-To: smetaniuk@dsp.trl.oz
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 08:22:45 GMT

From article <1992Dec7.185103.20276@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, by brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill):
> 
> You miss his whole point, he said _try_ it first.  I was a huge OS/2 fan
> until the NT developers conference.  At this conference I was for the first
> time actually able to use NT, and Microsoft was being very careful to
> say what did and did not work currently.  I cannot believe that anyone
> that understands the differences between NT and OS/2, and has honestly
> tried both would not prefer NT (they might use OS/2 a bit longer waiting
> for NT, but when NT comes out they'll switch).

So to be consistent, I assume that if OS/2 V3.0 turns out to be better than
NT you will immediately switch to it.

> ** July 6th -- The NT Dev Conf begins.  Wow did I ever misjudge NT... it's
> ** clearly superior to OS/2 2.0, and it really exists, they're giving me a
> ** copy.  Wow, I'm using on a system that's running NT... God... I only
> ** get it to crash once!  This thing's as stable as OS/2 LA (LA not GA),
> ** though the DOS and 16 bit windows support is still weak... but then
> ** they aren't even trying to come out before December.  My head slumps to
> ** the monitor screen...  I remove the OS/2 pin from my name badge.
> ** 

Why were you suprised? When NT was still OS/2 V3.0 it was supposed to be the
portable high-end version of OS/2. Thanks to Microsoft this is no longer the
case, so IBM now is forced to develop its own Version 3.0.

> ** extremely well planned... Microsoft was very open... listening to what
> ** people had to say.  Giving out net addresses of employees.  Good detail
> ** on the design of NT.  They're being very careful to say what's there
> ** now... what comes in September, what is future plans... How can I find
> ** fault with this?  They were thoughtful enough to _AIR_FREIGHT_ me the

Yet their future plans turned out to be wrong (on the shipping date of NT).
Would you have been so generous had it been IBM?
> 
> Brian
> -- 
> C. Brian Sturgill                 Microsoft Windows Family of Operating Systems 
> University of Utah                 Peer-to-peer networking, Multimedia, E-mail
> Center for Software Science          enabled, HUGE base of applications, Object
> brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373   Linking and Embedding, (Oops! need more roo

Bohdan Smetaniuk