HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R. Platzke)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: PC and Mac OEs (was Re: 1 Thing Windows can do but OS/2 can't.)
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:47:08 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network

In article <1992Jul27.191536.10972@cs.hw.ac.uk> neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite) writes:

>>Could you elaborate on this please ;)
>>What are you using it for that it does not meet your needs.


>Funny comment yes tough if you want a bit more substance....

>Windows is just so fiddly, geeky to use and just a real pain.


Oh well, that comment is so much more clear and specific :-)
If you are going to badmouth Windows, please cite specific problems or areas
where the Mac is clearly superior.


>Give me a Mac with System 7 *ANY* day.

>Windows only won on the PC because it had virtually no competition.
>Gem, Deskview or Windows. Not much of a choice is there.


As opposed to the numerous OS choices that a Mac user has?



-Michael R. Platzke (sxmrp@orca.alaska.edu)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: wcn@cs.brown.edu (Wen-Chun Ni)
Subject: Re: Things a Mac should do but can't (Re: 1 Thing Windows can do but OS/2 can't.)
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 04:54:51 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.023057.24197@cco.caltech.edu> nyet@cco.caltech.edu (n liu) writes:
>
>oh, a gcc/g++ port would be nice too.

GNU is boycotting Apple. So, forget it.



Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: maynard@ept.msc.cornell.edu (Maynard J. Handley)
Subject: Re: PC and Mac OEs (was Re: 1 Thing Windows can do but OS/2 can't.)
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:16:05 GMT

>>>>Could you elaborate on this please ;)
>>>>What are you using it for that it does not meet your needs.
>>>Funny comment yes tough if you want a bit more substance....
>>>Windows is just so fiddly, geeky to use and just a real pain.
>>Oh well, that comment is so much more clear and specific :-)
>>If you are going to badmouth Windows, please cite specific problems or
>areas
>>where the Mac is clearly superior.
>>>Give me a Mac with System 7 *ANY* day.
>>>Windows only won on the PC because it had virtually no competition.
>>>Gem, Deskview or Windows. Not much of a choice is there.
>>As opposed to the numerous OS choices that a Mac user has?
>>
>
>And, windows and OS/2 capable machines don't cost more than many imported
>>cars.  For less than half the price, you can get easily 2-3 times the 
>power and features.  Also, look at the price of expansion hardware (from
>drives to modems to printers to RAM) and see how expensive it is to get
>a 5 year old Mac up to the modern performance levels compared to the price
>>to do the same for a 5 year old pc.  Or can you add a new, faster
>mother-
>board to a Mac?
>
>Besides, who'd want a machine that has a butt-ugly desktop?  The windows/
>dialog boxes are very drab on macs.  They need to add color to the
>windows,
>use 2 button mice, have pull-down menus stay open on a click, and add a
>way to do everything without needing a mouse.  Windows (and I would bet
>OS/2) allows all of these.  Keyboard shortcuts often take much less time
>than dragging the pointer to the top, opening a menu, selecting the item
>and returning to the program.

Aha- another bozo shows his/her ignorance. On my Mac the windows are
colored. the buttons are 3D. The scroll-bars are double headed. The menu
bar and menu panes are colored. I have a background picture. I did indeed
add a faster motherboard to my Mac, to take it from 8MHz 68000 to 16MHz
68030. I intend to upgrade again to a 50MHz 68030 in about a month. Mac RAM
is commodity SIMMs- costs just the same as PC RAM, and cheaper than the
various proprietary SIMMs used by some PCs- eg present price is about $28
for 1MB, $100 for 4MB. Printers all cost the same since they're exactly the
same technology. Similarly for drives and modems. You could buy a VGA
monitor and use it on most Macs- most users prefer to pay the extra and get
something decent, just like discerning PC users will buy a NEC 3/4/5 rather
than a noname VGA. The same quality monitors cost the same since they're
exactly the same tubes. 

Well that about shows what you know. What will you claim next? Mac users
have to pay more for printer paper? There's a premium for Mac 3.5inch
floppies? The FCC forces modems connected to Macs to pay more for phone
line usage? If you want to criticize Macs,  do some research and get your
facts right.

Maynard Handley
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: spexet@engin.umich.edu (Dennis Robert Spexet)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 hardware requirements.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 08:21:58 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: world 

In article <1992Jul23.052326.4776@infonode.ingr.com> bbrown@infonode.ingr.com (Bailey Brown) writes:
>>	Oh, then I am not running 800x600 seemless???  Then how come
>> when I open a Windoze app, it still has the OS/2 desktop and when I
>> move my mouse over that app, my mouse pointer changes to that white
>> windoze pointer, and has all those windoze scroll bars and buttons,
>> etc.  Sir, please find out what you are talking about before you post...
>
>You don't have one of those junky Trident boards do you?  You know, the
>ones with the single bank instead of two banks like a real SVGA?

What is junk to one user is awesome to another.  The functionality of a
Trident board under OS/2 is unparalleled by most other video boards.  The
video drivers that Trident wrote have helped to make this one of the best
lines of video boards to buy for their price.  To be honest, I have an Orchid
ProDesigner IIs that I wouldn't mind trading for a Trident, if only because
there are no working drivers for it that do 1024x768x256 and Seamless Windows.

>OS/2 does not run Windows apps faster than Win 3.1.  It does not
>run dos apps faster than Windows either.  I get a Norton 4.0 CI
>of 40.5 in straight DOS, 39.7 in a Win 3.1 DOS box, and 36.5 in an OS/2
>2.0 DOS box.

Speed testers like Norton SI do not give reliable information in the OS/2
DOS boxes.  The VDM code will take away processor time from the VDM if the
box is running many speed testers.  The only way to truly compare DOS boxes
is by running genuine DOS applications in multiple DOS boxes.

>------------
>Bailey Brown                               "Above all else, confusion reigns."
>Intergraph Corporation                                  
>bbrown@casca.b11.ingr.com                              Procol Harum


-- 
D. Robert Spexet II, N0OKR   Internet:  spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu
Department of Mathematics    BITnet:    user68xr@umichum.bitnet
The University of Michigan   UUCP:      uunet!mailrus!math.lsa.umich.edu!spexet
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel)
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 16:44:40 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <1992Jul26.022802.1066@weyrich.UUCP> tnet.com!weyrich!orville writes:
>Does POSIX compatibility include a Unix style "fork"? That would be one
>feature that would give me serious cause to re-think my choice of OS/2
>in favor of NT. (IBM -- are you listening to requests for "fork"?)
>
>There is just too much Unix software that is hard to port to OS/2 because
>it lacks "fork" capability.
>
>Or is there a fundmental reason why "fork" can't be added to OS/2 without
>causing some major malfunction? If this is so, and NT isn't subject to the
>same problem, then exactly why?

OS/2 (and I think NT too) provide DLL's. Of course, many Unixes have
shared libraries too, but I don't know if they provide all the features
of DLL's. For example, DLL's under OS/2 may have shared data between
all instances. This allows to put some kind of "server" for a ressource
into a DLL with shared data and have several clients connect to it.
Now, what should happen if such a client forks? Should it be
disconnected from the DLL? Difficult. Otherwise, how could the DLL be
told that there is now an additional client? This at least is
impossible.

Now, if NT provides a POSIX layer next to to Windows (and perhaps OS/2)
layer, this POSIX layer may provide fork - but without DLL's, I guess.
DLL's would probably only be in the Windows and OS/2 API's in NT.

With OS/2, you probably expect a DosFork() :-) to be in the OS/2 API.
This will cause trouble such as that described above. Now, if a strict
POSIX layer would be provided for OS/2 (which could disallow such POSIX
apps to use other API's and restrict them to POSIX), a fork() could be
implemented. 

You can expect such POSIX layers with fork() or at least close
approximizations in the future for OS/2 to be available, I think.

Kai Uwe Rommel

/* Kai Uwe Rommel --- rommel@informatik.tu-muenchen.de */

DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt
handler, and always will be.                -Russell Williams

Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: georgem@microsoft.com (George Moore)
Subject: Re: Does NT's SMP handel processor failure?
Date: 26 Jul 92 01:45:06 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <62738@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
>
>The OS on such a system needs to be able to mark a process as having
>to run on a particular processor the next time it runs.
>

On a multiprocessor system, NT will correctly seek affinity for 
the same processor that the thread was previously executing before
the context switch.  This is primarily to better utilize the 
large instruction (and data) cache that is present in certain 
CPUs like the R4000.  Of course, if that particular processor is
busy when the original thread is ready to run, NT will try to find
another processor to restart the thread.  You loose the cache you
may have built up, but at least the thread is executing.

-George Moore
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: Windows works just fine, thank you!
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 22 Jul 1992 15:14 EST  

In article <1992Jul15.065452.10809@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, 
mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) writes...
>In article <75838@ut-emx.uucp> victor@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (V Menayang) writes:
>>-victor
>>who hasn't opened his os/2 package, yet, because
>>he found a better-working os.
> 
>If you haven't opened you OS/2 package yet, how do you know
>that something else is better working?
> 
Better yet, clue the rest of us in on what this better-working os is.

JD
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: morton@qucdntri.ee.queensu.ca
Subject: STOP YOUR BICKERING
Organization: Queen's University EE Department
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:21:11 GMT

Most serious computer users want a muti-processing OS. Who gives a damn 
whether it's made by IBM or Microsoft? Who cares whether one is 
released six or eight months before the other. My loyalty lies to the 
company that makes an OS that works well and with some sort of logic
behind it's hierarchy. If you're all really serious about using your 
machines...STOP YOUR BICKERING...and try to get something constructive 
going. 
	Stephen 		Queen's Electrical/Computer Engineering

I'm so fed up with the whole thing, I might trade my 386 in for a MAC
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Who actually NEEDS NT?  Speak Up!
Keywords: NT OS/2 Windows OS
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:55:52 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <7038@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.163006.5319@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>>For rapid processing of huge quantities of data, you may have to use
>>MVS/DB2, though.  I don't know for sure.  I know that banks use the
>>MVS/DB2 setup for their transaction facilities, and it rarely has a
>>problem keeping up.
>
>...that is, if you throw enough of a machine at it. DB2 has a reputation for
>selling 3090-600s (or whatever the equivalent ES/9000 machine is)... It does
>run very well for huge numbers of simultaneous users all accessing the same
>database, though; doing that on a network of minis or micros, no matter how
>fast their CPUs, is still largely an unsolved research problem.

Correct.  Some things are just not suited for PC hardware.  Huge
databases are one example.  For moving very large amounts of data from
here to there without doing much processing on it, there is no
computer which can match the IBM mainframe.

They are extremely common in Europe for opil refineries, because the
real-time system (RPMIS), as incovenient as it is, is about the only
thing (until recently) that could keep up with the hundreds of
variables that would be updating every second.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
From: aad35939@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (A A DeGuzman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: PC and Mac OEs (was Re: 1 Thing Windows can do but OS/2 can't.)
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:39:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.Bs9FH7.H2E
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Stuart Woolford) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>>Well a 5 year old PC (circa 1987) would be about ready for the bin. If it
>>hasn't fallen apart by now, it will be so underpowered as to be useless
>>under Windows. Yer old Mac still pushes System 7 along at a speed that would
>>put a lot of 386SX/16's and 20's with same RAM and Hard disc to shame.

>except system-7 will not run on most 5 year old mac's...

Five years ago = 1987. The SE and MacII were introduced in 1987, and System 7
can run under both (and fairly well on a MacII). It will also run on a Mac
Plus (1986), but most people tend to think that it is too slow in that
configuration.

-- 
Alan A. DeGuzman                  "I think that the surest signs of intelligent
Calculus&Mathematica               life elsewhere in the universe is that none
DISCLAIMER: "The University        of it has tried to contact us."
can't afford my opinions."                                  - Calvin to Hobbes
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: The NT file system
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:42:22 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <ycgm-qm.olson30@netcom.com> olson30@netcom.com (John Sully) writes:
>eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (TAN JIN MENG) writes:
>

>Seriously, an argument can be made that a network connection is actually 
>*less* secure than locally stored files, given that a network can be
>snooped for data, passwords, magic cookies, what have you.  The only 
>really secure system is a physically secure system, surrounded by armed
>guards, which has *no* network connections.  Not a practical alternative.


Sorry, I just have to know this. Whats a "magic cookie"?






-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bcmatusz@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Brian Matusz)
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:30:17 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.164642.12035@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.192500.26327@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>
>>     What is the "look-and-feel" of a file-system?
>
>That you have directories which contain subdirectories and/or files.
>Files are ordered sequences of bytes.  This isn't always the case -
>the Mac for instance, has two file systems (MFS and HFS) which don't
>fit this paradigm - MFS has no directories, and both use a forked file
>structure.  If HFS was adopted as a PC file system, it'd cause
>problems for many developers (if not users).

I'm realitvely sure that OS/2 also uses the forked file paradigm ...
can anyone verify this?  I have noticed on files in a DIR (from an OS/2
command line) that there are two sizes listed for some files ...
mainly I noticed that editing a file with E.EXE that has a 0 second
size causes and "unknown file type" when saving ... then you select
"Plain Text".  When editing this file again, no more questions.
And the second size is now 35 bytes.

Brad Wilson
(via a friend's account)

--
People who agree with me should be locked up!
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: PC and Mac OEs
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:00:09 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Jul28.051102.2759@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith) writes:
>
>Better yet, both the mac and windows have to stop relying on menus so
>much.  Instead, allow the user to manipulate things directly through
>the icon with popup menus that can be added to.  For example, to create
>an alias on the mac you have to choose the icon, then go to the pulldown
>menu and choose create alias.  With OS/2's WPS you create an alias
>(called a "shadow" under OS/2) by simply using the CTRL-SHIFT-MB2-drag 
>combo.

      Oh, that's intuitive... I thought the idea was that a GUI was
supposed to make the computer _easier_ to use.
      Menus are not evil.  Not necessarily, anyway.  Certainly not
any more evil that CTRL-SHIFT-MB2-drag.

					-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.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: thayne@unislc.uucp (Thayne Forbes)
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 05:36:43 GMT

From article <1992Jul23.192500.26327@microsoft.com>, by philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara):
> In article <1992Jul21.212437.25057@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
> 
>>File system.  NT's proposed New File System is has more features than
>>IBM's High Performance File System.  The look-and-feel should be
>>similar, if not the same, to most users.
> 
>      What is the "look-and-feel" of a file-system?

Looks like a file-system, Feels like a file-system,..... Must be a 
file-system.
  
  
>>MISCONCEPTION #4 - NT is a currently available product
>>
>>No.  While many developers have gotten pre-release NT packages, the
>>packages being shipped are not the complete NT package, as Microsoft
>>specifies in their literature.
> 
>      Correct.  It's an alpha at best.
> 
>>  And they are only available to a
>>select corps of developers.
> 
>      This is not my understanding.  Can you please explain?
> 
They gave a copy to me, they'll give one to anybody!  I did little
more that ask.  Granted, I do have an ongoing relationship with MS.
> 
>>  Microsoft claims that the full NT product
>>will be avilable by year's end, but (to the best of my knowledge) beta
>>copies of this complete system have yet to ship, so the actual release
>>date will likely be later.
> 
>      Well, that depends on the length of the beta cycle, and the
> stability of the beta(s).  I don't really know either, though - my
> Tarot cards are in the shop being recalibrated.
> 
> 					-Phil

Those darn Tarot cards get out of calibration so easy.  My humble opinion
is that the OS/2 partisans might be right.  It is looking like a long
beta cycle.

-- 
           "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
                            -U.S. Vice President J. Danforth Quayl[e]
Thayne Forbes
thayne@unislc.slc.unisys.com
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:06:15 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <13751@auspex-gw.auspex.com> guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris) writes:
>
>Well, the equivalent UNIX mechanism would *not* result in such a
>disconnection; "fork()" does not delete any mappings into the process's
>address space.

Right, but any subsequent exec() calls (to launch a new program) would
disconnect all mappings.  The way OS/2 DLLs are implemented, this
could be bad.  I don't think you can dynamicly un-link a DLL without
terminating the owner process.

What I wonder is how close the POSIX layer will be to the NT kernel.
In other words, will POSIX code be able to call NT API's or will there
have to be some form of DDE between two apps to get this effect.

Under OS/2, Windows and DOS code can't call OS/2 API's.  (Well, many
INT21 functions are mapped onto appropriate FAPI calls, but that's not
what I mean).  This is because they run in virtual DOS machines.

How is NT going to do POSIX without a virtual-POSIX machine?  And if
they do, can it call NT APIs.  I don't know if (or why) you'd want to,
but it'd be a neat idea.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: The NT file system
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 14:33:54 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <19920728.092057.134@almaden.ibm.com>, ADUNSMUI@TOROLAB6.VNET.IBM.COM (Al Dunsmuir) writes:
|> In <1992Jul27.193942.6938@microsoft.com> Gordon Letwin writes:
|> >In article <1682C71A7.CIVENBAH@mizzou1.missouri.edu> CIVENBAH@mizzou1.missouri.edu writes:
|> >>In article <1992Jul21.205549.16885@njitgw.njit.edu>
|> >>dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
|> >>
|> >>>What will the NT file system offer that HPFS doesn't?  I believe I
|> >>>heard something about multi-user protection, but does that make sense
|> >>>for a non-networked computer?  And OS/2 supports file protection for
|> >>
|> >>Sure, it does.  For example, how about a stand-alone computer used by
|> >>many students at a school.  Each has his homework password protected from
|> >>all other students.....
|> >
|> >This capability was designed into HPFS and implimented in the 32-bit
|> >version that I did.  The Microsoft LAN manager product makes use of it, in
|> >fact.
|> >
|> >IBM has choosen not to offer this security feature in their OS/2 release.
|> >You'll have to ask them why.
|> >
|> >   gordon letwin
|> >   not a spokesman for microsoft
|> >
|> <1682C71A7.CIVENBAH@mizzou1.missouri.edu>
|> 
|> HPFS386 _is_ shipped as part of the IBM OS/2 V2.0 Advanced LAN Server.  Like
|> MS LAN Manager, this will run on top of OS/2 V1.3 only.  The announcments for
|> LAN Server stated that work was underway to port HPFS386 to run under OS/2V2.

Good, now how about packaging HPFS386 with some admin tools as a 'secure'
file system without requiring all of the other LAN software?  I have
a single machine at home on which I would like to install something
like HPFS386.  I want to create userids for myself, my wife, etc. so
that we can each have our own files without worrying about someone
accidentally erasing or otherwise mucking with someones private stuff.
I don't need LAN drivers, printer software, etc., I only need HPFS386
and some sort of user/file admin program.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943