HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: usdta004@mmm.serc.3m.com (Timothy S. Shea)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: nt goes "late beta" i
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:48:07 GMT
Organization: 3M - St. Paul, MN  55144-1000 US

From article <7185@lib.tmc.edu>, by jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard):
> I don't have direct experience with C Set/2 (yet), but if you deal with the
> system properly, IBM support is the best in the business - or at least that's
> my experience in the mainframe world. Somehow, I can see a version of SMP/E
> for OS/2 in the future, but that's a nit; the point is that they do respond to
> bug reports in a timely fashion. They won't tell you to upgrade your software
> to the next release just to get you out of their hair, though they may
> recommend that you do so if you're several releases behind.
> 
> All in all, IBM is a professional software and support organization, and it
> shows. Microsoft could learn a lot from them, but it appears that they're too
> proud to admit it.

IBM's mainframe support is unmatched.  We have always had great success
with support for mainframe and workstation products.  PC support?  That
is an entirely different question.

Frankly it sucks!  Try getting support for OS/2 TCP/IP, Database
Manager, or Extended Services...  Your SE has never seen the package let
alone installed it and played with it.  They tell you to contact IBM's
online support.  Contact them...  They tell you to contact your SE.  OK
fine...skip both of them go to the IBM Support Center.  Ohhh... IBM
Extended Services is not supported by IBM go to the people you bought it
from.  What?!?!  How much did we pay for this product?              

Occasionaly you will fine somebody you knows something about the product
but you have to wade through idiots who didn't know VGA was built into
IBM's own PS/2s (I spend a half explaining this to him) or somebody who
thinks that IBM's LAN Server Advanced Edition 2.0 will only work under
OS/2 2.0 because its version 2.0.  Advanced Edition will only work under
OS/2 1.3!  He wanted me to install OS/2 2.0 on my server and
reinstall...  

Microsoft is not so hot either...  The only company I know that software
support will tell you "ahh...that sounds technical...I will forward that
to somebody else and get back to you right away".  3 weeks later and 4
phone calls later...nothing.  At least IBM returns your phone calls and
at least IBM can program network software (but no one knows who supports
it...).

We are multi-billion company that has millions of dollars worth of IBM
equipment...  It would seem we would get some better support for our IBM
PC's and Software...  not so...  It is a pretty sad store when your SE
calls you to ask a question about OS/2 2.0 or IBM LAN Server...

ahhhhh!!!  I've had a bad month...

-- 
  internet: tsshea@mmm.com              timothy shea 
compuserve: 76300,1230                  Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (TAN JIN MENG)
Subject: Re: Misinformation about os2-dos HW access (was Re: I've seen NT......
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 05:34:59 GMT

This C2 talk is getting to me.

It's my impression that C2 certification applies to machine and OS
both. Why is this necessary? Well, one example is given 2 otherwise
identical machines/OS where one machine has a floppy drive you can boot 
from and another machine cannot be booted off floppy. Vast difference
in security here!

All this talk about the ability to turn off/on C2 security is
counter intuitive also (or for that matter providing a hardware on/off
switch!). This kind of thing leaves a gaping big hole in security.

I can't believe true C2 level security as discussed here is exactly very
accurate.

jin meng
From: ADUNSMUI@TOROLAB6.VNET.IBM.COM (Al Dunsmuir)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 12:18:28 EDT
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 Advocacy
Organization: IBM Canada Laboratory Ltd, Toronto, CANADA
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 3.0
Supersedes: <19920828.062212.429@almaden.ibm.com>

  This posting has been superceded by a subsequent item.

Al Dunsmuir                       Internet: adunsmui@torolab6.vnet.ibm.com
CODE Development II + TEAM OS/2      Voice: (416) 448-3315
IBM Canada Laboratory Ltd, Toronto, CANADA

OS/2 V2: Why settle for anything less?
From: byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: X is a hack?
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:37:43 GMT
Reply-To: byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

Richard Krehbiel writes

> In my Xlib reference here it shows the function calls
> XListFonts and XListFontsWithInfo.  I don't know why
> these aren't the function calls you're asking for.

XLFDs are completely inadequate for any real-world purpose
dealing with fonts, such as font menus and printer
drivers.

Also note that under X11R5, with scalable rasterizers,
XListFontWithInfo can eat time and memory, as some of
the information in the structure can only be found by
having a scalable rasterizer rasterize an entire font.

Try searching for all 12 point fonts under X11R5 with
500 scalable fonts installed and you will see what I
mean.  The hard way :-)

Scott Byer                                   NeXTMail: byer@adobe.com
Adobe Systems Incorporated               These are *my* opinions, and  
1585 Charleston Road, P.O. Box 7900        do not necessarily reflect
Mountain View, CA 94039-7900             the opinions of my employer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.4
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:06:47 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Sep4.021346.4045@news.Hawaii.Edu> tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) writes:
>Brian Sturgill writes:
>
>> Features currently in Windows NT but not in OS/2 2.0
>>
>> 	An NT user can change their environment (e.g.) PATH without
>>		having to reboot for it to take effect.
>
>??????????  OS/2 has this now, and has had it since version 1.X.  Perhaps
>you're referring to LIBPATH?  But ordinary environment variables can be
>changed on the fly.  You can even do this in plain old DOS, right?

I will clarify this in the next version.

>
>> 	Has seemless support for 16-bit Windows apps on XGA and 8514 displays.
>>
>> OS/2 2.0 will add the following in the Fall.
>>
>> 	Catch up to NT by having seemless support of 16-bit Windows
>>		apps with XGA and 8514 displays.
>
>OS/2 "has" just as much seamless support of 16-bit Windows applications
>with XGA and 8514 displays now as Windows NT does.  The drivers exist;
>they just haven't been released yet.  Because NT has also not been
>released yet, how can one catch up to the other?  If you insist on
>referring to things that exist but haven't been released yet as "catching
>up", then the entire NT package should be labelled as "catching up" with
>OS/2.  And if you consider beta testing as being "released", then note
>that the seamless XGA driver is also in beta and therefore should be
>similarly regarded as "released".  Please be more consistent.  Such
>inconsistencies reveal bias, and if one wants to be regarded as presenting
>a fair comparison, you need to avoid such bias.

You are using the word "released" in two different senses.
NT has not been "released" in the sense that it's not yet appropriate
for the general public.  However the drivers are out and available to
those that want to put up with a buggy pre-beta OS.
OS/2's drivers -- IF they currently exist (and I doubt they're ready
or they surely would be available via CompuServe) -- are simply not
there yet.

The comparison of the base packages, are from the OS/2 2.0 GA release and the
pre-release Windows NT SDK.  The list is a comparison between the features
of these two packages, and announced future plans that have a time
frame between now and the end of '94.

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jld@datascope.com (Jay L. Davis)
Subject: Re: Hasta la Vista, OS/2
Organization: Datascope Corp.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:02:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.104521.9103@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.204830.29966@msc.cornell.edu> maynard@esther.msc.cornell.edu (Maynard J. Handley) writes:
>> >
>> >A power outage while in the moddle of updating a system file will result
>> >in big trouble.....but that is true of any OS. I have found that at the
>> > worst so far - the active files at the time I kicked the plug out
>> > (big feet!) had allocation errors and - since they were usually temporary
>> > or non-essential were easily recovered. I do see the potential for
>> > bigger problems, but that is what we should have backups for - under
>> > any OS.
>> 
>> No it IS NOT TRUE of any OS. There are plenty of mechanisms an OS can use
>> to make sure power failture doesn't corrupt data. The simplest is to create
>> a copy of the file, modify that, then change the name of the new file to
>> the old file. Still a sensitive point where you change the one filename to
>> the other. So the OS must be aware of the possibility that two file with
>> the same name could exsits because of a power crash at this point and
>> compare date/times or whatever.
>> 
>> Just because some OSs screw this up proves nothing. Do you think any
>> company with a mainframe would accept losing their payroll database because
>> the power went out and the auxiliary generators didn't kick in for some
>> reason?
>
>Having just spent the past 10 years working on mainframes......I will stand by
>my statement above. I have restored enough corrupted databases and files to
>know what I am talking about.
> 
>I've worked on DOS/VSE, OS/VS1, VM, MVS/SP, MVS/XA and a few others not worth
>mentioning. If the power goes off, *every* OS is vulnerable......that's why
>people spend millions on UPS's........so the power WON'T go off.
> 

I agree. I have worked on a bunch of different operating systems and they
are all subject to corruption during a power failure. Even DOS is if
you are running a write cache.

---Jay Davis


Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:5005 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2098
From: si0_tb90020@debet.nhh.no
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.5
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:36:06 MET
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Organization: Norwegian School of Economics

In article <1992Sep3.234501.28636@hellgate.utah.edu>, brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
writes:

> #	An NT user can change their initial environment without
> 	having to reboot for it to take effect.
> 		Under NT if a user want to do the equivalent of
> 		changing their PATH environment in config.sys,
> 		they go to the Control Panel, make the edit,
> 		then logout and back in again.  This is
> 		much faster than waiting through a reboot.
> 

Under DOS:

It is no problem to change the environment on the fly. Just do it. You
only have to remember to make the same changes to the systems files for
it to have effect at bootup.

It is no problem under to chage the path from:
c:\dos;c:\windows;
to
c:\dos;c:\windows;c:\borland;c:\msc700;
on the fly on a DOS computer. What is your point here?

If you want examples, I guess most computermagazines have written an
"addpath" utility in a batch file once upon a time. If you want to make
the same changes to have a permanent effect, you also will have to change
this in your AUTOEXEC.BAT

So again...am I missing your point here.

If you want to do it on UNIX, you edit the .cshrc (in a csh environment)
or the .login, and do a 'source .login' / 'source .cshrc'

Actually, with good written TSR's that test if they have been installed
already, you really could just edit autoexec.bat and write 'autoexec' in
DOS too...

Terje Bergesen : SI0_TB90020@debet.nhh.no : terjeb@obelix.blh.no
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Why no 386 enhanced mode in win/os2
Date: 2 Sep 1992 12:58:18 GMT
Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu




I have heard that windows enhanced mode apps need to run at ring 0 
an that is why winos2 cannot run them.


Why do 386enhanced mode apps need to run at ring 0 ?



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: richk@grebyn.com (Richard Krehbiel)
Subject: Re: NT vs OS/2 features (was Re: Misinformation about os2-dos HW access)
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 11:09:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep01.010548.11230@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>GCC does do C++, however.  Probably doesn't optimize, though.

GCC surprises everyone who approaches it with those typical
pre-conceptions about what you get for nothing. :-)  In fact GCC
optimizes fairly well.
-- 
Richard Krehbiel                                 richk@grebyn.com
OS/2 2.0 will do for me until AmigaDOS for the 386 comes along...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith)
Subject: Re: superVGA  (and misc top-blowing)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:42:22 GMT

brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>Look at how snappy
>the 32-bit stuff is... it's already faster than OS/2.

Could you clarify this?  What 32-bit stuff are you running that is
faster than the equivalent 32-bit programs under OS/2?  Surely you
aren't comparing 32-bit NT stuff to 16-bit OS/2 stuff, are you?

Steve Smith
From: martin@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs OS/2 features ...
Date: 31 Aug 92 11:31:30 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

Brian Sturgill writes:
> Features currently in Windows NT but not in OS/2 2.0
> ...
> 	NTFS
> ...
> 		Volume striping

This was one of the things that sold NT to me - IBM *do* have a product that
allows this, called OASIS I, but:

	1)	It costs *more* than Windows NT (will)
	2)	Only works on Microchannel machines
	3)	Only works with IBM's SCSI adaptor
	4)	Only works with disks connected to (3)

(Or at least, this is what IBM sales told me! And the net did not contradict it)

NT's Volume striping (which also gives other simple forms of RAID):

	1)	Comes as standard in NT (Supported by the fdisk replacement)
	2)	Works on any NT machine
	3)	Works with any disk controller, SCSI, IDE, ESDI, etc
	4)	Will stripe across different disks attached to different
		kinds of controllers

NT's better structure (allowing layering of device drivers) allows this
sort of thing to be done easily. I spent lots of time going through IBM's
Device Driver documentation, and the HPFS documentation, and I couldn't work
out how to do it - so I asked the net, and noone there could give me *any*
help either!

The OASIS solution *might* have been OK if I was looking to put together one
system with that capability, but I'm not. I'm looking to sell a product that
*requires* this capability. People with NT will have this for no extra cost,
people with OS/2... Guess which system I'm now doing development for!

Martin
BTW
  NT's volume striping is *not* tied to NTFS, it goes in below the filesystem
level, and can be used with any filesystem type, NTFS, HPFS, FAT (although
I can't imagine why one would bother...), or filesystem formats that I might
design for myself. *This* is orthogonality through good design!

INTERNET: martin@minster.york.ac.uk
JANET:  martin@uk.ac.york.minster
surface:
        Dr. Martin C. Atkins
        Dept. of Computer Science
        University of York
        Heslington
        York YO1 5DD
        ENGLAND
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Misinformation about os2-dos HW access
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:21:01 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

>
>2.  As for whether or not NT is itself C2-secured, that does not appear to
>    have been tested yet.  As you have correctly stated, a formal test
>    and ratings process generally involves a hardware/OS combination, and
>    not just an OS.  
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^

Does this mean that Alpha & NT for Alpha must be tested
separately from a PC & NT for PC?

How much variation in the hardware is allowed after the test
is completed and the security is verified?  For example, if a
PS/2 Model 95 & NT is tested and approved, does this mean that
an untested PS/2 Model 90 & NT is also approved, or does the
certification require *exact* hardware matching.

Thanks in advance to anyone that answers.

-- 
====== Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ======
"I believed what I was told, I thought it was a good   .--.
life, I thought I was happy.  Then I found something  (OS/2)
that changed it all..."  --  Anonymous, 2112  [Rush]   ~--~
From: ameline@vnet.ibm.com (Ian Ameline)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 21:55:46 EDT
Subject: Re: ICC optimizes out tail-recursion!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: C-Set/2 Development, IBM Canada Lab.
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM

In article <1992Sep3.001223.29802@adobe.com>,
byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer) writes:
>Now if the optimizer would only work correctly on the rest
>of the code I'm working with...
>
>(And I *would* report the problem if I could, but seeing
>as how IPMD is so damn stable (NOT!)...  I don't have
>that kind of time to waste.)
>
   We'll be more than happy to help find the problems in CSET and IPMD,
and fix them as soon as possible thereafter. All you have to do is ask.
We can be reached at CSET2@vnet.ibm.com. If you'll send me a note with
your phone number in it, I'll get some of the debugger developers, and
a few other compiler developers on this right away.

>(Broken optimizers seem to be an IBM trait :-( )
   So is supporting our customers. Reading minds, on the other hand,
is something were working on :-)
>
>Scott Byer                             NeXTMail: byer@mv.us.adobe.com
>Adobe Systems Incorporated               These are *my* opinions, and
>1585 Charleston Road, P.O. Box 7900        do not necessarily reflect
>Mountain View, CA 94039-7900             the opinions of my employer.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Regards,
Ian.
From: gt0059e@prism.gatech.EDU (Garrett Drysdale)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why people bow and scrape before NT (long)
Date: 27 Aug 92 05:13:00 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


Brian,

It seems to me that you have some valid arguments some of the time.  But
you do a lot to damage your on credibility.  Whenever someone makes a
good point against your argument(s), it seems the best you can to is
either attack them on a personal level or resort to some smart ass BS.

Not to mention your so called statements of fact, that when pressed, turn
out to be something like, "Well I'm sure there will be lots of apps..."
(approximate quote, I doubt it's word for word but you get the idea.)

The fact is that much of the BS in this group is just *opinion* as a
*large* part of yor articles are (with some facts also).  Also you
may have noticed that this article is opinion.  You have the right to
agree or disagree with my statement on BS.

My point is (took me along time to get to it but I wanted to get plenty
of good flame material in first:) that if you have opinions, fine.
Present them as such and not as fact when you obviously can't back
them up.  (Ala the NT apps that when pressed, actually don't exist
*yet*.)

Besides who gives a flying flip if NT apps are out yet (besides developers)
I can't get NT to run them. :)

Have a nice day :)

Garrett

PS - Send all flames to File 13 -                            
PSS - Sure is boring around here without all those
	CDROM and TeX flame wars (Please not again!)

-- 
Garrett Drysdale
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt0059e
Internet: gt0059e@prism.gatech.edu
From: jt@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Sebastian Theriault)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 Advocacy
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:56:30 GMT
Reply-To: jt@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Sebastian Theriault)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <vldnw_r.xtifr@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>In <2A9CE72A.635A@tct.com> jim@tct.com (Jim Kunzman) writes:
>
>>   Proposal:  Support for fork() system call.
>>  Rationale:  This is required by POSIX and would facilitate porting
>>              several significant UNIX programs to OS/2, e.g. bash.
>
>Fork(2) can be pretty inefficient, especially if you have a big task
>which is really just trying to spawn a small task.  If you're low on
>real memory, you may end up doing some unnecessary swapping.  I'd rather
>see fork itself replaced with some a little cleaner in POSIX, but I
>probably have a minority opinion here.

Fork is inefficient only if it's implemented inefficiently. On Silicon
Graphic's Irix, the new process will only request the memory that it
needs to get it to the 'exec'. So you can fork/exec a small task from a
huge one without creating a full copy. I think it's a copy-on-modify
mechanism or something like that. I better let an Irix expert explain
this before I say something foolish.

--
Jean-Sebastien Theriault               "This is my signature quote."
jt@dcs.ed.ac.uk                                            -me
From: weinkam@fraser.sfu.ca (James Lawrence Weinkam)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: what crash...
Date: 25 Aug 92 20:36:04 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

"bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com> writes:

>In message <7167#lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay
>Maynard) writes:

>JM>Ever heard of RUNWORKPLACE=CMD.EXE?

>Sure. If you don't want to run any PM or Windows apps. Which we do.

By changing the RUNWORKPLACE to CMD.EXE you can still use PM apps
since the PMSHELL is still running.  A different line in the config sys
is used to disable the PMSHELL.  I know this since I have tried
both changes, and was still able to run PULSE.EXE after having changed
RUNWORKPLACE to CMD.EXE.  I am not sure of windows apps, but would
assume that since PMSHELL is running that dos & windows support is
possible.
 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: X is a hack? (was Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks!)
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:02:18 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Aug27.200037.6179@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.002214.12477@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>and MSC works much easily under Windows 3.1 than under OS/2 (you
>>have to use the OS/2 1.X version and not quite everything's there.)
>
>I don't know.  I installed MSC 6.0 under OS/2, and all of it was
>there.  Of course, if you try to run 7.0 under OS/2, much of it will
>be useless, but 7.0 isn't an OS/2 compiler.  I don't know what Mr.
>Sturgill was missing.

I of course meant MS C/C++ 7.0  Why would I want to use an old C compiler
when I can have C++?

Brian
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy