HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak)
Subject: Re: NT dreams -- was Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Mitre Corporation
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:52:08 GMT

In article <1k6d9bINN8du@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A.
Bell) wrote:
> 
> 
> In a previous article, mounil@mathworks.com (Mounil Patel) says:
> 
> Anyone who thinks that large (over 250,000) people are going to be using
> windows NT on a desktop in the first year after it is released is dreaming.
> Microsoft might release excel and stuff for NT, but who is going to use it
> when the windows 3.1 version run faster on less hardware?  What about 
> mips and alpha?  I don't think we are going to be seeing a lot of people
> buying mips computers to run excel, do you?  At this time, microsoft is

However, there are a large number of non-technical users who have mips
boxes because they need the features *NIX provides.  Since NT will provides
these features AND allow them to run mainstream applications, NT will be
very attractive to this segment of users.  Personally, I think that this
will be the only area that NT will a big impact in its first year.  People
will be reluctant to more applications off of mission-critical servers on
to an untested OS and the people running Windows 3.1 will balk at the
memory and disk requirements (just like they are balking about OS/2 now).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 04:37:35 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO

In article <1993Jan22.071800.24060@ryn.mro4.dec.com> Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com writes:
>
>In article <GHENNIGA.93Jan20231606@ampere.ampere>, ghenniga@NMSU.Edu writes:
>>However, just to put in a counterpoint to the
>>$69 point, you can get a version of OS/2 comparable to your $69 dollar
>>version of NT for FREE merely by using the command "ftp ftp-os2.NMSU.Edu"
>>and a few "mget" commands!!
>
>The $69 includes a C/C++ compiler and the first release version of Windows NT.
>Comparable offer from IBM?

Read the fine print.  You never get the released version of the 
compiler with that bargain, just the beta-piece-of-shit one.  Are
you willing to risk introducing heisenbugs in your C++ code just 
because you are too cheap to buy the production-level compiler?

[...]

>
>I have no idea what phone charges are in the US. Just for fun, how much does
>it cost to ftp OS/2? :-)

Nothing, if there is a university with anonymous FTP service 
nearby.  ;)

cpk
-- 
"The WHITE ZONE is for loading and unloading only.  If you gotta load or un-
load, go to the WHITE ZONE.  You'll love it.  It's a way of life!" --Zappa

Technology always seems to keep one step ahead of human wisdom.
From: abaker@jarthur.claremont.edu (The Evil One)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is OS/2 a dead end?
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:24:18 GMT
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711

In article <1993Jan27.053844.6159@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu
(Brian Sturgill) writes:
>Were did you get your statistic?  Sorry, but IBM's numbers do not show
>OS/2 sales rates as increasing.
>
>	Sales Rate:
>	Apr-Jul:	1 million / 4 = 250,000 per month
>	Aug-Oct:	.5 million / 3 = 167,000 per month
>	Nov-Dec:	.5 / 2 = 250,000 per month.
>
>If you consider that the later you get in the year, the more of OS/2 sales
>would be from bundling, then it's not totally unreasonable to say that
>it is decreasing, but I think the fairest classification is that the
>sales rate is flat.

I think they will pick up sharply when 2.1 is released.  Many people
I have talked to said they would get OS/2 when it supports Windows 3.1, 
mainly because of multimedia software they already own that won't run
under WinOS/2.  When 2.1 comes out people will have three choices:

	1) Buy OS/2 2.1 which includes DOS and Windows 3.1
	2) Buy DOS and Windows 3.1 (yes some people don't get
				    them preinstalled and even
				    some of those who do don't
				    get disks and manuals)

     or 3) Wait for NT to ship and hope it isn't to slow to use.

I think the obvious choics is OS/2.

Andrew

>Brian
From: roland@margaret (David A. Braun)
Subject: Re: Bugs in OS/2 v2.0, unreasonable number?
Organization: Choate Rosemary Hall
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:24:02 GMT

In article <1jfadbINN5im@cae.cad.gatech.edu> chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris  
McClellen) writes:
> In <mg.727296313@tyrolia> mg@tyrolia (Michael Golan) writes:
> 
> :z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
> 
> [SNIP]
> :programmer's tools to word processors. Amazing. Of course, when everyone
> :is moving to C++ which doens't even exist yet and 3rd party products
> :discuss MSC 7.0 compiler bugs in their documents, what can you expect?
> 
> Ahem, I believe C++ does exist, as I have been coding in it for quite
> some time.

Ditto

<roland>
From: gutz@cc49.crl.aecl.ca
Subject: Re: Beta-zoid (wuz Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...)
Organization: AECL-Research
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 12:33:44 GMT

In  <1993Jan24.155604.28247@itsmail1.hamilton.edu>  jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:

< much stuff deleted >

>  
> I understand from messages read on other services (BIX and Compuserve)
> that Windows NT has been made available on floppies (at least some have
> gotten it).  I assume they don't supply all the docs and development
> tools that the CD holds (yikes, hundreds of floppies!  I want my NT on
> 360K disks...), and I gather the Intel based NT arrives of something
> like 30 floppies (sounds like OS/2 2.x to me).
>  
> OTOH, with CD-ROM readers available for around $200 or so (admittedly
> very low end stuff, but it works!), I don't think this is quite the
> problem for most people that some would make it.  Indeed, it is much
> easier for the average Joe (!) to buy a CD-ROM reader than to get FTP
> access...
>  
> Joe Malloy / WB2RBA / jmalloy@hamilton.edu  
> Associate Professor of German / Hamilton College / Clinton, NY 
>  

Let me get this straight.  In order to use NT, Microslosh expects me to
buy about $600 worth of RAM?  OK I can handle that.

In addition you ( and possibly they ) think I should shell out another
$200 ( more like $300 ) for a CD drive.  And there's more - I'll need
to chuck my hard drive and buy a bigger one at about $400

Plus another "under $500" for NT itself! HA!

Who in the metally stable world is going to think this is cheaper than getting
OS/2 off the network for $0?  Even those that don't have access can still
buy it from IBM cheap. (The 2.1 release on floppies will be less than $150),
or even ask a computer jock (we all know one) to get it from an FTP site.

Let's figure out the totals for my system, which is a 8Mb 486 with 100Mb HD.

NT				OS/2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ram: 	$600		OS/2 2.1 release:	 $150
HD:	$400
CD:	$300
NT OS:	$499.99??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	$1699.99			 $150


Even if NT is available on floppies, AND I can get NT for $69, it still very
pricey at over $1000.

And what does NT give me that I don't already get in OS/2:?

C2 security  - Great, I can keep my wife from looking at all of those sexy
		bitmaps I use!
Networking - Now if I only had 2 machines!

Windows Interface - WOW, I'm sure all OS/2 users will agree that this is
			much better than the WorkPlace - NOT!

I'm sure NT will be a useable prduct (in time), but for me an most other
personal and business users, it will be just too damn much money to
spend on a Operationg System.  I'll keep OS/2 thanks.

NT seems to be a great product with no market.  If it's aimed at file servers
why does it need a Windows interface.  If it's an OS aimed at desktops why
is going to be so expensive?  If it's aimed a displacing UNIX on workstations,
Microsoft is mental.  UNIX is more than OS - its a religion.  I really think Gates
has lost his marbles on this one.


Steve
From: rl@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (roger.h.levy)
Subject: 2.1 install quits - now what ?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:19:21 GMT
Keywords: 2.1 beta

I ftp'd the 2.1 beta from software.watson.ibm.com, transferred the 27
disk image files to my DOS-based machine via the kermit protocol and
created the floppies.  When I install from the floppies, I seem to
sucessfully get past using disks 0-5 and reinsertion of disk 0.  Then
when instructed to remove disk 0 so the machine can reboot, my machine
appears to get stuck in a mode where it occasionally has actviity
with the HD but after about 10 minutes, finally emits the message:
	A disk read error occurred.
	Insert a system diskette and restart
	the system.
This has occurred all 3 times I attempted installation.  I specified
the HPFS for the first 2 attempts and the FAT file system for the
third attempt.  I am doing a vanilla installation, essentially taking
all the defaults and I am letting the installer format my disk.  So my
questions are:

1. After moving more than 40 MB via TCP/IP, kermit, and from my HD
   to floppies, how to I know that every last byte is error-free?
   In other words, can I have I bad diskette?
2. What do I do next?  Is there someone at IBM who wants to know
   about this?
3. My HD had been used to host a DOS5/WIN3.1 system and did so with-
   out problems.  Is there some sense in which os/2 is more demanding
   of the drive that leads to this problem?

System particulars:
	- Generic 386/40 motherboard.
	- 120 MB Seagate IDE drive.
	- 5 Mbyte of memory (I know this is thought to be too little
	  but IBM specifies 4 and I intend to move to 8.  But I had
	  5 running Windows and I wanted to see how well os/2 did
	  with 5 before definitely deciding on the increase)
	- os/2 identifies itself as Internal Revision 6.479, 92/12/09.

Thanks in advance,

Roger Levy
roger@allegra.att.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: boh@fraser.sfu.ca (Changhao Boh)
Subject: Re: Is OS/2 a dead end?
Keywords: OS/2
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:47:46 GMT

jcyr@bnr.ca (Jean Cyr) writes:

>In article <1993Jan20.191655.15293@msi.com>, bill@west.msi.com (Bill Poitras) writes: 
>|> Oh please.  Bill Gates is probably saying this because you wants
>|> everybody else to believe it.  I have heard management in MY company say:
>|> "Bill Gates says OS/2 is dead" and they believe it.

>Well you know what they say: The PC users community is a bunch of sheep, and Billy
>is their sheppard.

But there is also the saying "The others might be good, but the world runs
around IBM..."

Good Health to all.

Changhao
boh@sfu.ca
From: bjorn@joshua.ludd.luth.se (Bjorn Fahller)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Date: 21 Jan 93 15:51:03 GMT
Organization: Lule} Tekniska H|gskolas Datorf|rening - Ludd


In article <1993Jan21.101656.10681@donau.et.tudelft.nl>, linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
> 
> If all of that swap space is used, yes it does! That is the whole point
> of virtual memory, that if you need memory it doesn't necesarrily have
> to be in ram all of the time. But needed it is, on disk or in ram.
> However, I can't see how one needs a 36M swapfile on a 16M system.
> Mine never get's above 2M, and I don't just sit and watch it. True,
> I do not have any networking software, but how is that going to need
> 34M?
> So, can you indicate as to why you need such a swapfile? (valid
> question, NOT a flame).

Don't know what others have done, but I've managed to get mine up to 12-13 Mb
by using WorkFrame/2 on a 6Mb system. I've also managed to get it all the way
up to 36Mb, but that was by provocation. I tried to sort a 15Mb array of words
(No, I didn't complete the sort, I just wanted to test the system a little).

   _
/Bjorn.
-- 
Bjorn Fahller     Phone:              |
Trollnasvagen 3A  Intl:+46 920 226870 |Clever quote on vacation. Use your
S-951 61 Lulea    Natl:0920-22 68 70  |imagination.
Sweden
From: bill@west.msi.com (Bill Poitras)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Beta-zoid (wuz Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...)
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:52:57 GMT
Reply-To: bill@west.msi.com
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Gary Ng (garyng@gnct.com) wrote:
: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
: The current NT beta NEEDs CD-ROM drive because it is only released in a
: single media. However, once you can get the i386 directory on to a local
: disk, it install like a champ and leave OS2 far behind.

OS/2 comes on a CD-ROM.  The reason why you can install on floppies is
because OS/2 CD-ROM comes with disk images.  Pretty good planning on
IBM's part I think.  That helps out a lot if you don't have double the
space needed to install NT.  The most space you need on your hard disk at
one point, besides DOS, is enough space to load one disk image (1.44M)
and the loaddsk.exe program.  I still think the OS/2 route has fewer
limitations than the NT route.

--
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Bill Poitras    | Molecular Simulations Inc.    | Tel (408)522-9229       |
| (bill)          | Sunnyvale, CA USA             |                         | 
|                 | FAX (408)732-0831             | bill@west.msi.com       |
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
From: erc@netcom.com (Eric Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: command line
Date: 27 Jan 93 02:49:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1993Jan27.024919.24310
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)


I'm new to OS2 and decided to try the 2.1 beta.  One thing I notice
is that the OS2 command line won't run a DOS application in its window,
but makes a separate window for it.  I want to be able to see the output
of the DOS application, but that separate window disappears as soon as
the DOS application exits.

Is there some way to tell OS2 to run DOS applications in the OS2 command
line window?  The reason I want to use the OS2 command line window instead
of the DOS window is that some of the applications I want to run from the
command line are OS2 applications, which won't run from the DOS command
line.

For example, I decided to try EMX, and compile some C++ programs.  Gcc
won't run in the DOS window.  Some DOS programs I often use between
editing, compiling, linking, debugging, would be handy if I could invoke
them from the same command prompt, and be able to see their output.

One minor problem with EMX is that I get undefined symbols when I link,
such as istream::seekg, and other symbols multiply defined, but I assume
those problems are because I must not really have it set up right yet.

But overall I'm very impressed with OS2 and EMX, and also the FAQ, which
answered a lot of questions that were bothering me before I found it.
(But I didn't find the answer to my question above about the command line.)

The reason I decided to try OS2 is that the Microsoft compiler and
linker for NT have bugs that are hard to work around, especially when
trying to port a large C++ program to NT, and I wanted to see if OS2
would be any easier.  (I haven't really got that far yet, but it looks
good.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: NT to include OS/2 support/APIs??????
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 10:29:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.203441.1602@galaxy.gov.bc.ca> rkobenter@galaxy.gov.bc.ca writes:
>New Thread: NT to run OS/2 apps ?!
>
>Way back in June last year a senior M$ exec told me that it was originally
>planned that OS/2 1.x apps would run under NT much as Win30 apps currently
>do under OS/2 2.0. Then later near the end of last year the same exec told
>me , nope its been taken out for obvious (read: political) reasons.
>End of story.
>
>Yesterday I heard from a NT tester that guess what its back in, and its not
>just 1.3 apps, 2.0 apps will also run 'seamlessly' under NT.
>So who to believe? And why the flip flop?

[...stuff deleted...]

>Robert Kobenter

Believe neither of them.  Windows NT runs OS/2 1.x character mode
applications.  It does not run OS/2 2.0 applications at all.

     - Mike

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:37:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.153140.11328@ncsu.edu> jmbeesle@eos.ncsu.edu (JAMES MICHAEL BEESLEY) writes:
> 
> This NT takes at least 8 MB to crawl thing is starting to get
> old... With Network Support disabled (sorry my home isn't on a
> LAN yet...) NT runs fine in 8 MB.  I can run OS/2 16 bit text
> editor, a DOS game, a Windows 3.1 app, and do an NT compile all
> at once, its a little slower than the same under OS/2, but it
> works fine.  I actually believe it WILL get faster when debug code
> is removed and tuning is done...
> The requirements for "usable" OS/2 and NT are the same NOW,
> so you might as well get used to it.
>                                 -Jim. 

Well, you must have missed my post about OS/2 b2.1 on 4meg machines. It is
"usuable" - and in use. Sure, it's a bit slower than OS/2 on an 8 megs
machine, but it is still very usable in an absolute sense.
 
Steve
 
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand |      
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |        Space for rent.
+64 4 478 4714                          |   - cheap rates, nice location. 
**** Happy user of OS/2 b2.1 ****       |
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 22:49:00 -0800
From: Dave_Sichak@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: Lotus 123 for OS/2!
Comment-To: All@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: Dave_Sichak@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

ComputerWorld's January 25, 1993 issue had an article on page 8
reporting two major new products coming out soon for OS/2 2.0.  I
haven't been reading my mail lately, so I hope I"m not duplicating
someone else's posts.  But I'm jazzed to see these new apps.
 
The article states that Lotus is going to release a full blown 32-bit
version of its 1-2-3.  One nice aspect the article mentions is that
pricing will be similar in comparison to their Windows products --
OS/2 products are not seen as "premium" pricable anymore.   In other
words the message, to me at least, is that they want us to buy it. 
 
Delivery date for both Lotus 1-2-3 for OS/2 and Freelance Graphics for
OS/2 was stated to be -------the first week of February!
 
In a separate post I'll report on the new WordPerfect for OS/2 that
was announced.........
 
Cheers.
=8:|)ave

--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
From: os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:12:21 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1993Jan26.095655@cs.bham.ac.uk> jss@cs.bham.ac.uk (John Swapp-Sweet) writes:

>One could produce a ten part series on _real_ WIN apps.  You could so the same
>for OhhSlowww/2.0 but only if you break it into ten parts of 2 apps!

<Oh, great.  Just what we need in this newsgroup (notice I removed the
 cross-post to comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, to see if he read it here or
 there) - another Windows zealot (I like that word; it sounds much better
 and less derogatory than "bigot").>

"OhhSloww/2.0"???  You - a user of Windows which is just as slow as OS/2 -
calling OS/2 slow???

How come there's always the pots calling the kettles black in here???  I'm
sick of having to wade through this garbage just so I can get to the 
articles which are worth reading???

 xxxxxx   xxx
xxx  xxx  xxx                   xxx
xxx       xxx                   xxx
 xxxxxx   xxxxxxx   xxx  xxx  xxxxxxx    xxx  xxx  xxxxxxx
     xxx  xxx  xxx  xxx  xxx    xxx      xxx  xxx  xxx  xxx
xxx  xxx  xxx  xxx  xxx  xxx    xxx      xxx  xxx  xxx  xxx
 xxxxxx   xxx  xxx   xxxxxx     xxx       xxxxxx   xxxxxxx   already!!!
                                                   xxx
                                                   xxx
                                                   xxx

Eesh,
Q
-- 
Have a question for the OS/2 Programmer's Monthly (Electronic) Magazine?
Send me email and include your permission to place the question in the
mag!  The best questions of each month will be included.  More information
on "OS/2 PM Magazine" can be found in comp.os.os2.programmer! 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mike@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus)
Subject: Re: Doug Hamilton responds
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 21:23:02 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.17c by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: mike@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus)
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

In <1993Jan22.170226.25917@ncsu.edu> jmbeesle@eos.ncsu.edu (JAMES MICHAEL BEESLEY) writes:
>
>As far as 1.3s stability goes, when I was working for IBM a few
>months ago, well over 2/3s of their machines were running 1.3, and
>most had no plans to change (2/3 of the ones capable of running
>OS/2 that is). I only saw about 4 people besides myself running
>Windows, the rest had DOS and a 3270 terminal emulator. (most of the
>ones with OS/2 were using it as a 3270 emulator!)

This is certainly not true in Boca Raton! Nearly everyone runs 2.0. I think
you'll find that the further you get from Boca, the more likely it is that
people aren't running the latest version of OS/2. Why? People aren't as
involved in the product - it says nothing bad about either the people or the
product, it's just that a smaller number of them will need the newer
version to do their job!

Besides, if all people are doing is using it to log onto a mainframe, 1.3
is just fine and dandy! Don't forget that on the same hardware running
16-bit OS/2 apps, 1.3 is a lot faster than 2.0. If these people were
using Communications Manager, which is a very memory-hungry app, I can
understand why they'd be reluctant to step up to 2.0.

---
Mike Dahmus                                    PenPM Development
mike at schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com             Not an official IBM spokesman
From: woc8r@poplar.world (William Owen Carlson)
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
	<1993Jan25.134805.8050@cs.joensuu.fi>
	<1993Jan25.162456.22556@itsmail1.hamilton.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:41:41 GMT


In article <1993Jan25.162456.22556@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:


   This point about FUD, though, is either irrelevant or it cuts both ways.
   To illustrate the latter point, I might easily argue that IBM's
   delivery of "OS/2 LA" last year (or, what was it, two minutes before
   midnight on December 31, 1992? :) was a masterful stroke of FUD since
                            ^^^^

Naah...  It was way before that!!  =) =) =)

   [soapbox mode off]

   jmalloy@hamilton.edu

-=Bill=-
--
___    ___
\  \  /  /       -=Bill Carlson=-
 \  \/  /            
  \    /         INTERNET:  woc8r@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU
   \__/          BITNET:    woc8r@VIRGINIA
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy