HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:02:00 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Sep28.232210.21615@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>
>He doesn't need evidence Phil.  A little logic will prove it.
>
>There are two sets of people.  Set A comprises those who want a
>product badly enough to buy it.  Say that of set A, 75% of the
>purchases are actually used.  Set B comprises those who don't
>want to buy a product.  Obviously, usage in set A is much greater
>than usage in set B, so we'll set B usage at 25%.  (These numbers
>are completely arbitrary, and I use them only to clarify the point)

     The flaw in your logic is the following:  You are taking as
an axiom the idea that usage in set B will always be less that
usage in set A.  I think you are probably correct - it would seem
like common sense to me.  However, there aren't any figures to
back up that assumption, which makes the rest of the (rather nice, 
by the way) proof specious at best.

					-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: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: INTERESTING TIDBIT FROM S
Date: 05 Oct 92 18:40:29 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <7474@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.175027.3898@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>     Of course, Zachmann's claims have zero evidence so far.  This is
>>essentially "Zachmann's word vs. his editors'".  This does not preclude
>>his accusations being true, but it seems to me that if he had any
>>proof he would have presented it already.
>
>I believe Zachmann, for one simple reason: He has nothing to gain by lying.
>His editors do. He's already quit the job.

      Ah... Is Zachmann still writing?  Is his new job more lucrative
than his old?  Without some intimate details of his life, I would
assert that we can't tell what Mr. Zachmann may have had to gain from
his accusations.


>The kinds of pressure he's gotten do not lend themselves to being
>proven...how, for example, is he supposed to prove that he got a phone call
>from MS saying that they'd heard he was going to moderate his tone towards
>Windows right after he got back from a meeting with his editors where they
>told him to moderate his tone towards Windows? (The sentence from hell.) I
>have no reason to believe he _didn't_ get that phone call, simply because he
>has nothing to gain by making up the story.

     I hope you never serve on a jury - you've got the whole thing
backwards.

					-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.
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Moving from X to Y.
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:58:03 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Sep27.051049.12380@nosc.mil>, discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) write
s:
>In article <1992Sep25.161621.24432@lmt.mn.org> elliott@lmt.mn.org (David Elliot
t  MIS x 363) writes:
>>discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>>
>>Once again, he's not asking you "What can you make more money with?", but
>>"What would YOU PERSONALLY prefer to use if all other things were equal?"
>>Can you honestly say that if you could make just as much money developing
>>for the NeXT as you can with Windows, that you would stick with Windows
>>because you prefer its interface to that of the NeXT?
>>
>
>Oh I see.  You want me to ignore reality, and pretend all things are equal?
>Well, hate to break this to you, they aren't.  And for this reason, I would
>PERSONALLY prefer to work with Windows+DOS and make money--than work with
>OS/2 2.0 and wait four or five months before I make money.

Oh, so by working with DOS/Windows, your apps will magically appear now, while
it will take 5 months of work for OS/2 apps.  I get it.  Hmmm, do you have a
magic development kit I don't know about?  Gimme a break.  There is LOTS of
money to be made by developing for OS/2.  It is a system with a great deal of
potential and you probably could make more money on it then you wil with
DOS/Win.  Remember DOS/Win is an intensly competitive market just because
there are more theoretical potential buyers, doesn't mean that you are
necissarily going to sell any more.  OS/2 users are hungry for apps.  There
are already *lots* of Windows apps out there in virtually every availlable
category, but they don't wan't Win apps, they want OS/2 apps, and most
importantly, they wan't them *now*.  That means that your app will sell *now*.
It is sort of like selling something to a group that usually has what you are
selling, vs one that want what you are selling.  You tell me which is probably
going to make more money.
>
>This is my last post on the subject.  It isn't funny any more.
>
Was it ever?

>My opinions
>
>Joe
>
>>--
>>Elliott
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>davide@ramrod.lmt.mn.org   |   Did you hear about the cannibal
>>elliott@dunky.lmt.mn.org   |   who passed his brother in the forest?
>

Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bangell@cs.utah.edu (bob angell)
Subject: Re: What IBM has said about OS/2 2.0
Date: 27 Sep 92 17:50:29 MDT

In article <1992Sep26.121749.5641@wsl.ie> jja@wsl.ie (John J. Allen) writes:
>petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>: In article <1992Sep22.111233.8995@wsl.ie> jja@wsl.ie wrote:
>: > brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>: > :.......
>: > 
>: > A load of shit that I'm not interested in hearing. Please give up
>: > all this constant IBM can't make it stuff. IBM will make it, maybe not
>:                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^pro IBM
>: > on your schedule, but then I don't give a damn about your schedule.
>: > 
>: > I'm prepared to wait for something better than WindowsNT.
>:  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ANTI-MS
>: > 
>: > Also when it comes to missing ship dates Microsoft are better than most,
>:   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ANTI MS
>: > where is the NT that was supposed to ship 1Q92. 
>: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ANTI MS
>: Well I can tell you
>: > where it is, it's NotThere that's where it is.
>: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ANTI MS
>: > 
>: > Also this an and OS/2 advocacy group not an ANTI-OS/2 group.
>: 
>: Yeah, Brian, This is OS/2 advocacy, thich means, in laymans terms, 
>: ANTI-MS.  Brian, notice how jja made at least four attempts to flame
>: MS in this post.  Notice how jja also only supports IBM once, and
>: supports the OS/2 product zero times.
>: 
>: Brian, maybe you should follow suit with these OS/2 guys and stop
>: putting real information in your posts.  And stop posting about
>: products and start flaming the companies instead.
>: 
>: ;)
>: petesk@microsoft.com
>: My Opinions...
>
>Sorry to repost all of this but it is necessary.
>
>That post was not an ANTI-MS post but an ANTI-BRIAN post. Brian is
>fundamentally a PRO-MS person and I was just trying to balance things
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is bull-shit!  Brian is just trying to be objective in which software
meets all of his needs....he has told me that the WPS and other systems are
extremely rought (I agree) and other seemingly pro-MS statements, however, 
it *DOES* not make him or me pro-MS!

>out by being a PRO-IBM person.
>
>Please note that in my applcation development I support DOS,Windows and
>OS/2 so I don't have a solid BIAS towards anybody.
>

same with me.  no bias here.

>From a programming standpoint my OS/2 preferences are the PM API and
>with Version 2.0 the new WPS which has no equivalent in MS-Windows.
>
>I have no doubt the MS will come up with the goods on Windows NT,
>including an object oriented shell etc. but that does not directly
>imply that IBM are doomed, that OS/2 is dead or that I'm a gobshite
>for not going down the one TRUE path that NT is. 
>
>In fact BRIAN sounds like a UNIX pusher and we've plenty of those around 
>here with an unjustified hate of Windows, OS/2 and for that matter anything
>that is not UNIX.

regardless of how Brian sounds....what does it matter to push one OS over
another....GET A LIFE!
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:02:14 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Sep28.075137.838@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes:
>In article <strobl.717599866@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>>In <1992Sep26.073733.16211@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn) writes:
>>
>>>But os/2 is a totally different story.  Once you install it, you
>>>use it.  That's that simple.  Better dos than dos and better windows
>>>than windows.  Is there in this logic, if it is a logic, not a fact,
>>>at all?
>>
>>Well, I know at least two people, who have OS/2 2 installed on
>>their machine, but almost never use it. Both have copies bought
>>via store/mail order, not free or beta copies, or upgrades.
>>
>
>And I know at least one person who has bought the NT pre-beta CD-ROM and
>does never use it. So what? 

     Read the original quote.  Wolfgang has proven Min's statement
false by counterexample.  The usage statistics on the Windows NT
PDK are irrelevant in this case.


>I think for EVERY software product there are some who get it but then
>don't use it. And that percentage is perhaps about the same for all of
>those products who are marketed the regular way.

     I agree with your first sentence - I don't think the second has
any basis in fact that I know of.  I don't think anyone has even
investigated the phenomenon closely enough to make such a statement.


>The point is that (sorry to repeat that) for products given away for
>free or bundled with some other product without choice NOT to get it,
>that percentage will be significantly higher, e.g. Windows.

     This sounds good in theory, but once again I don't believe
that there is evidence to support it.

					-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.
From: pshuang@athena.mit.edu (Ping-Shun Huang)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: A dedicated netter
Date: 27 Sep 92 02:31:59 GMT
	<1992Sep22.173413.765@cs.brown.edu>
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Sep22.173413.765@cs.brown.edu> wcn@cs.brown.edu (Wen-Chun Ni) writes:

 > Unless there exists a *team* working for you, it's hard for me
 > to believe that so many messages in comp.os.os2.advocacy were
 > written by you. 

Oh, geez, this is getting ridiculous. It *IS* possible for people to
read c.o.o.a between compiles without having a team (conspiracy theory
taken to silliness) working for Brian to compose a gazillion replies.
[Clarinet includes in one of its messages about the clarinet hierarchy
something to the effect of there being about a million bytes of text
transmitted daily, so nobody could possibly read it all. That's
nonsense, as I am perfectly capable of reading a million bytes of text a
day. I believe Brian's explanation. Last summer I read an inordinate
number of Usenet articles while waiting for g++ to compile. :)]

Please, let's restrict discussion on this group to fruitful ways of
advocating the use of OS/2 by others, rather than pointless speculation
about why a particular developer has time to post.

Follow-ups, if any, to e-mail, please.

--
Ping Huang (INTERNET: pshuang@athena.mit.edu), probably speaking for himself
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: 3 Oct 92 17:49:09 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <BvD7qz.HHM@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk)
 writes:
>Spartacus At Cuny <I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>
>>Today I read IBM plans to release its PowerPC chips this fall
>>on the USAToday newsfeed on the freenet.  As I understand it
>>these new PowerPC will run Pink in about 3 years from now.
>>Pink supposedly will run OS/2 and MSDOS programs as well
>>as Pink programs.
>
>Pink, right now anyway, is sort of dead.
>...But there is a decent chance you could be using a PowerPC mac that will
>run as fast as a P5 and cost <$2000 before the end of next year  (and
>a OS/2 shell to run on the same computer by 1st Q '94).
>
Pink dead?  Present evidence please.  Quite frankly all the indicators from
press releases from Apple and IBM indicate that it is quite healthy.  In
addition,  your statement about the "PowerPC mac" is quite baseless.  First,
there has only been one set of prototypes finished.  Supposedly they are right
on schedule.  (anyone know what the schedule is?)  Second, by your own
admission, stapling an OS on a chip takes time.  They are claiming mid-'94 as
an intended goal.  (At least that was what I heard last.  Could have changed)
In any case, while I do like the Mac OS, I don't think that it would be the
most appropriate system for a chip of that power.  (Sort of like MS-DOS on a
P5, really kind of a waste)  Third, run as fast as a P5 and be under $2000?
That statement is just plain silly.  P5 speed machines won't sell that cheap
for a long time, so why should a theoretically equivilant PowerPC chip?  That
doesn't make sense.

>(Why do I say this?  The first test run of the PowerPC chips has been done.
>The slow part is porting the OS's).
>
>
>                                       Todd Walk
>                                       walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
>

-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:11:16 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.

In article <1992Oct4.180905.27222@ms.uky.edu>, sam@ms.uky.edu (Mike Mills) writes:
|> IMHO, preemptive multitasking is a requirement.

OK, I agree.

|>  Also, any OS should be multiuser.

OK, I agree again, for a PC/Workstation OS.

|>  This is a shortcoming in both NT and OS/2.

Sorry, you lost me at this point. NT is fully multi-user. What are you trying
to say?

|> With machines
|> becoming more and more powerful, there is an increasing need for multiuser
|> operating systems, in order to take better advantage of the underlying
|> machine.

I agree. That is one reason I prefer NT to OS/2 2.0.
Organization: Sophomore, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 21:36:14 -0400 
From: Faisal Nameer Jawdat <fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
	<1992Sep25.205114.12272@njitgw.njit.edu>

dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
> even 2.0) version of PM-Word 2.0 using WLO (or Mirrors).  Unless
> they're doing really nasty and undocumented things with Word (which
> would crash an import utility).

MS using undocumented calls?
never.... :-)
From: cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:42:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.EemFEFy00WBO88XXxw
Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.os2.advocacy: 29-Sep-92 Re: I hate to tell
you this.. by Phil Lafornara@microsoft 
> >I don't care if idiot Joe average out there thinks Win3.1 is better than
> >OS/2 because it sells more!  Win 31 will never ever ever be able to do
> >the things I have already done with OS/2.  Okay?  I've had Win 3.0 and
> >3.1 crash more often than not.  Sure Joe idiot will buy it.  Sure Joe
> >idiot will say it's better.
>  
>       The problem with your statement is this:  Joe Idiot, as you call
> him, drives the market.  All the techno-weenies in the world, myself
> included, could buy a product, and those sales would be a drop in
> the bucket compares to what "Joe Idiot" is buying.  If IBM doesn't
> intead to court Mr. Idiot, they are making a big mistake.  (I think
> that they will, eventually, though.)
>  
>  
> >Hey, remember what mommy used to tell you?  If little Joey down the
> >street were to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you?
 
>       Depends.  Bunjee or no?


I know that Joe Idiot drives the market, but OS/2 does what I need in a
computer, without spending the thousands of investing in Unix and
thousands more in apps.  Of course IBM has to take into account Joe
Idiot; they are first and formost, a profit maximizing corporation,
right?  I didn't take them into account.  My reply was to the fact that
people say Win 3.1 kicks OS/2's butt simply because more people buy it. 
Like I said, I don't care if people buy it, I don't think it's a better
system.  The end.

BTW, bungee jumping is illegal in quite a lot places now.

Carl Jabido
carl@captainjack.pc.cc.cmu.edu
cj00@andrew.cmu.edu
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:23:37 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Oct6.235111.27463@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>In <1992Oct6.022026.16559@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
...
>>In truth they were simply reverting to the path they had wanted all
>>along.  They tried to bring IBM along, but Big Blue Bureaucracy was
>>always in the way.  In the end it was switch or die.
>
>A charming sentiment.  I would believe it if it weren't for the fact
>that OS/2 2.0 is the 386-based 32-bit OS we've been waiting for for all
>these years.  MS didn't abandon (or whatever you want to call it) OS/2
>until it switched to the path that they had wanted all along.  This
>simply makes no sense.
>
>No one has publicly commented on the reasons that IBM and MS split.  (At
>least not that I've seen.)  This is still the real question.  It's *not*
>because OS/2 never gained market acceptance--though MS seems to be
>trying to spread that rumor--OS/2 2.0 is what the market was waiting
>for, and what MS originally *wanted* to produce.  Any arguments based on
>the market resistance to OS/2 1.x are clearly specious.

But I think you miss the whole point of the chronology that I dug out.
MS "abandoned" OS/2 BEFORE 2.0, and in fact largely because of IBM's
resistance to 2.0.  Microsoft wanted to make the system right, but
IBM kept clinging to its illusion that it was still in control of
the computing market.  The decision on Microsoft's part to split
probably occurred in late 1989 or early 1990.  Long before 2.0 was
delivered, and even before the success of Windows 3.0.
In fact the large advertising push given to 3.0 was likely in
hopes of causing what happened... a succesful independent OX
that would enable Microsoft to break with IBM.
Microsoft's strategy was (and is) to deliver a small-end DOS
extender that gave a GUI, and then to develop a real OS.
OS/2 in it's design is filled with half measures.
NT fills in those lacking features.
Microsoft has not abandoned OS/2 1.X users.  They even went
to the trouble to make special cross-development versions
of their compilers for them.  And you can bet that all
OS/2 users will get good upgrade offers to NT.

In truth OS/2 users should thank Microsoft for their actions.
If they had not left OS/2 development, IBM would not have been
forced to give the inventive crowd inside IBM the free hand
they had so long been denied.  Only when an embarrased IBM
had OS/2 2.0 dumped back in their lap did they commit to a
32-bit OS being THE platform of choice.
The "new" IBM would not exist were it not for Microsoft.

>Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
University of Utah                             United We Stand
Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Msoft's bluster <grin>
From: Spartacus At Cuny <I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Monday, 28 Sep 1992 20:18:23 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <moore.717717658@pv34c1.vincent.iastate.edu>, moore@iastate.edu
(Brian J Moore) says:
>
>In <1992Sep28.160233.3985@spcvxb.spc.edu> mauritz_c@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:
>>    REDMOND, Wash. -DJ- Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) said the first shipments
>>of its Windows NT operating system software are expected to be delayed
>>until early 1993.
>
>
>Good idea... not only does that give developers more time, but IBM won't
>have the rights to any code released after 1992...  not suprising.
>
 Pardon me Brian...isn't the cutoff line 9/93?
-------
------------------------------+      All The Best,
Reply To:                     |
                              |      Edward Galarza,
     I18BC@CunyVM.Cuny.Edu    |      Brooklyn College Of The
     I18BC@CunyVM.BitNet      |      City University Of New York
------------------------------+      "Que viva el OS/2!"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: Multitasking (was Re: MS's misconduct!)
Organization: Canon Information Systems Research Australia
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 02:12:29 GMT

andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy Newman) writes:
>petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>>.... A seceratary
>>who types things and maybe does scheduling and makes phone calls does not
>>need preemptive multitasking.  A developer, or a server, or a network
>>manager might need a preemptive multitasking system.
>>
>
>You're correct, the secretary doesn't need it [PMT - the scheduling
>kind :-)]  Its the people who write the applications he/she is using.
>It sures makes life easier (thank god NT, like OS/2, has the necessary
>OS features) for the developers.
>

I should clarify what I said here otherwise I'll sound just like Peter
(wouldn't want that would we :-)

By "PMT is good for the developers" I mean they don't have to design
around it or do it themselves (and end up with the god awful TSR mess
in MS-DOS). I do not mean that only developers need PMT but that by
making use of a decent OS their applications are easier to create.

-- 
Andy Newman (andy@research.canon.oz.au)		"int - God's own type"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy