HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:46:40 GMT

In article <8dbbhl3@Unify.Com> veit@Unify.com (Veit Irtenkauf) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.161425.0299694@locus.com>, lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:
>> Dov, the price drop has nothing to do with Windows.  It simply with
>> more and more people purchasing software, the fixed costs can be
>> amortized out over more people.  And if you think Microsoft is a leader
>> in this, please explain how Billy Gates is now worth 5.5 Billion Dollars.
>> It sounds like some over charging, and preditory policies have made
>> Gates the worlds richest man in only a decade.
>> 
>
>If Gates would have been able to get 5.5 Billion dollars out of 
>Microsoft this would mean that Microsofts totalled profits of the
>last years would be about 40 billion dollars.  Impossible.
Why?  I suspect that neither you or I have a complete picture of
MS-Financial Statements.  MS has been in the business for nearly
17 years, 40 billion in profits is quite large but not impossible,
just improbable. <grin> I consider that 20 billion over the 17 year
run is much more reasonable, but that is again a guess.

>The answer why Gates is worth so much is simple: Stock Market.
>Speculators drove up the price of Microsoft, and as its founder
>he profitted the most.  He then reinvested his profits....
And why did speculators do this?  Gates has done things like advertize
Windows NT as the Savior of Mankind for the past year and a half, and
Windows 3.n for longer than that.  Since the Windows fix (3.1) was two
years behind schedule, and NT will not ship for another 6 months or more
(most people who have seen the beta say more like 9 months to a year),
it might be taken by some that these false and misleading advertizing
practices (preditory policy?) have manipulated the stock prices.

While the SEC is not investigating MS for stock manipulation, a friend
in the SEC describes these practices of questionable legality.  But then
again, what does he know, he is only a staff lawyer..

And you are correct, at least in part, I have heard estimated that about
half of that 5.5 billion is stock run up.  (by the way, the paper value
of the stock is appearently much more, the 5.5 is the fire sale, sell it 
all estimated valuation).

--Lowell Morrison
--Uncle Wolf
stuff deleted
>
>-- Veit
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Veit Irtenkauf    Technical Marketing Manager  |  email: veit@unify.Com
>Unify Corporation                              |  voice: (916) 928-6322
>3901 Lennane Drive, Sacramento, CA 95834-1922  |    fax: (916) 928-6406


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: More thoughts on ads..
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 22:20:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.162947.6596@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>It occurs to me that a computer/computer software that is advertised 
>on TV or radio is in pretty bad shape.
>
>Observation:  Never has a TV campaign, so aimed, succeeded.
>
>Examples:  Commodore Amiga's number of ads
>	   The original PS/2 and OS/2 ads (MASH)
>	   Phillips CDI & Commodores CDTV (flops) 
>	  
>
>When you advertise on TV or radio you are spending a lot more to contact
>a limited number of people.  How many of those listeners/watchers
>have computers?  How many know jack about them?
>
>A few ads in a some computer magazine (say, a two or three page insert
>a la DesqView/X)--or all ofthe computer magazines--would deliver a much
>higher hit rate than any radio or TV ad. 
>
[deletions]

You make some good points, but there are two things to ad (pun? naw!).
First, for what little share it has, Apple seems to continue to
advertise the Mac on television and they're not exactly hurting, either.
TV ads may, indeed, work.  Second, part of what's going on with IBM's
OS/2 ad (weak it was, I am sorry to agree) is to simply make the name
familiar to people out there, sort of like planting a seed you hope will
later grow to fruition, ripen, and fall off the tree in your dealer's
shop (ok, so I get carried away, we've still got tons of fruitcake
around here!).  That's what I suspect the ad's for the Amiga, for
example, tried to do (and they are still selling them, though not many
it's still a going concern).

My two cents...

Joseph T. Malloy / WB2RBA
Associate Professor of German / Hamilton College / Clinton, New York
CIS: 76060,444 / BIX/WIX: jmalloy / jmalloy@hamilton.edu / AOL:jtmalloy

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11372 comp.os.os2.apps:9784 comp.os.os2.misc:40872
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Better File Management??
Date: 1 Jan 93 23:27:30 GMT
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.misc
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago

In article <1992Dec31.185639.29060@ultb.isc.rit.edu> jks4675@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
>A suggestion for OS/2 2.1:
>Perhaps a faster (PLEASE!!!) graphical interface for file manipulation
>is in order. It seems that the PM is very slow for that kind of stuff,
>even when no other tasks are active. 

The Workplace Shell has gotten a lot faster (based on subjective
assessments, anyway).

Also, the Win-OS/2 File Manager is now in.

Finally, there's always Norton Commander 1.0 for OS/2 -- now available
at your favorite software dealer, or directly from Symantec for $99.

>Another suggestion....
>Please make the 2.1 upgrade complete...this way I wouldn't need to load
>OS/2 2.0, then the CSD, then the 2.1 upgrade, then everything else.

Done.  That's the plan.  (CSDs will always exist, however -- some
people insist on having the latest code.)

>Maybe a sniffer like in the original DOS upgrade....
>A final suggestion, only because it's really neat.....
>Sound support for PM system activities...ie, audio greeting on bootup,
>etc.

Agreed.  Not yet in there, but definitely in the works.

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0h, available from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc
From: jks4675@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Better File Management??
Reply-To: jks4675@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:56:39 GMT

A suggestion for OS/2 2.1:

Perhaps a faster (PLEASE!!!) graphical interface for file manipulation
is in order. It seems that the PM is very slow for that kind of stuff,
even when no other tasks are active. 

Another suggestion....

Please make the 2.1 upgrade complete...this way I wouldn't need to load
OS/2 2.0, then the CSD, then the 2.1 upgrade, then everything else.

Maybe a sniffer like in the original DOS upgrade....

A final suggestion, only because it's really neat.....

Sound support for PM system activities...ie, audio greeting on bootup,
etc.

==============================================================
Jeff
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 18:03:24 GMT

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>In article <725210115snx@montage.UUCP> platinum@montage.UUCP (Doug Swallow) writes:
>>rsrodger@wam.umd.edu writes in article <1992Dec24.033418.28702@wam.umd.edu>:
>>> 
>>> In article <1992Dec24.035348.26595@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>>> >the 125 meg drive. I have 8 megs of 70ns RAM and the system runs very much
>>> >like OS/2 on 4 megs with no HPFS. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 	As it should.  8 megs is the NT minimum.
>>> 
>>> 	Plus, you *should expect crashes*.  Installing any OS,
>>> 	NT or OS/2, is not the same as just plugging in an HD 
>>> 	with the os installed.  It must be configured for your hardware
>>> 	and your motherboard.
>>                 ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>You're the one who's FUDding now.


>	Nope.  He has said himself that there is a big difference 
>	between his machine and his friends:  he has 1/2 the memory.

>	Let me give you an OS/2 parallel:

>	Install OS/2 2.0 on a 16 meg system.  Adjust the cache sizes to 
>	what is proper for a 16 megger (read: OS/2 isn't bright about 
>	this)--you know, HPFS and the whole deal.

Is it supposed to change your settings then whenever you change
your amount of memory? On what bases should it do that? Is there
some heuristic technique that allows it to choose a proper setting
by itself? Would you want a system to change the parameters you
have carefully selected? If you mean it could make a suggestion
when it finds a change, I agree, but no more than that.

>	Take this system, back it up, and put it on a 6 megger.  The 
>	system will run so poorly and be so unstable that you'd think
>	OS/2 was written by a bunch of monkeys with typewriters.

Let me see now. Having OS/2 installed on a 6 megger and then
adjusting the memory settings of the 16 meg system would
result in the exact same setup right? (If you think, wrong,
quit reading, this is meant for those who understand)
In other words, OS/2 becomes instable if you change your
cache settings? I find that highly unlikely, and if indeed this
would be the case, it shows poor programming. However,
I see no reason for it to be so, since, the same effect would be
gotten when the system becomes low on memory for other reasons,
like too many jobs. Response time does go down (hence the
poorly) but it does not affect stability. Stability is not a
function of memory available, so the system is most likely to
remain as stable or unstable as it was before the memory change.
I am sure this is easy enough to understand.

Erik
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: FTC flaming
Keywords: FTC
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:07:58 GMT

Enough already.

As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) the only thing the FTC has
said is that they are invesigating Microsoft's agreements with hardware
sellers. 

They haven't said anything about breaking up Microsoft. All you people
ranting-and-raving about "how can they bust up MS" are just using up
bandwith for no good reason. You are criticizing the FTC for something
they haven't done.

Could we at least keep the arguments on the real issues?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net            uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Summary: Expect lies in .advocacy 
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 03:34:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.035348.26595@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>the 125 meg drive. I have 8 megs of 70ns RAM and the system runs very much
>like OS/2 on 4 megs with no HPFS. 


	As it should.  8 megs is the NT minimum.

	Plus, you *should expect crashes*.  Installing any OS,
	NT or OS/2, is not the same as just plugging in an HD 
	with the os installed.  It must be configured for your hardware
	and your motherboard.

	I should tell you some of what you get when moving 
	OS/2 by backing up to tape.  


>I don't hink I am in any danger whatever of becoming an NT bigot based on what
>I have seen so far. Having gone from the OS/2 2.1 beta to the NT
>beta.....there is no real comparison. 


	Add 8 more megs and reinstall the system from scratch, then
	repost.  As it stands, you're FUDding.



-- 
       "If you can't eat sand, why the hell are you living in a desert?"
     Equality is a delusion, suffering is a fairy tale and God is a fantasy.
                 Buy American as if your job depended on it.
       Blaming society for inequality is like blaming the sky for rain.
From: os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: More advertising
Date: 31 Dec 92 19:23:12 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

Along the lines of the "Windows-in-a-trashcan" idea (good suggestion, whomever
did it...I seem to have forgotten), here's what I came up with:

<Two page mag ad>
<Page 1>

<Big bold font> "If you could buy a Porche at the same price as a
Volkswagen, which would you buy?"

<Pictured:  a balance, a la the goddess Athena, with "Porche" on one side
and "Volkswagen" on the other and a bright question mark in front of it>

<Page 2>
"...then why would you buy Microsoft Windows?"

<Pictured:  a top view of a steel garbage can like the one used outdoors,
with a Microsoft Windows 3.1 box sitting alone at the bottom>

Cheers,
Q
-- 
"If you choose not to decide, you  | "My other body is in the shop" - seen
 still have made a choice" - Rush  |  on a T-shirt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 01 Jan 93 19:14:32 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Dec31.224255.27090@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec29.194318.27886@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>> >
>> >And if the fact that DRDOS's emulation is imperfect because of
>> >information held back by Mircrosoft?
>> >
>> 
>>     Oh, this is rich.  The only way that DR-DOS could get perfect
>> MS-DOS emulation is if they had the source code.  
>
>Really? And presumably, by the same argument, the only way an AMD386
>could provide perfect emulation of an Intel 386 is if AMD had access
>to the original Intel drawings?

     Yes!  That's exactly my point.  They can get close, but they
aren't going to be 100% the same as Intel unless, well, they are
100% the same.


>Never heard of functional specifications?

   Of course I have.  This is why I can't understand when people
complain to Microsoft because DR-DOS didn't meet them exactly.

				-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: prs9k@brain.med.virginia.edu (Phil Scarr)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Commercial
Organization: Neuroclinical Trials Center, University of Virginia
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 22:53:56 GMT

In article <C074MM.CJG@ecf.toronto.edu> dhaliwa@ecf.toronto.edu (DHALIWAL BIKRAM SINGH) writes:
>At the beginning of Star Trek (broadcast nightly here in Toronto at 
>7:00 pm) IBM had a OS/2 commercial on.  The commercial revolves around
>a pool table with balls being pocketed as the announcer espouses all
>of OS/2 virtues (ie. true multitasking, GUI etc.).  I agree it is
>attention getting, and I think it is effective in its simplicity. 
>If anyone else has seen the commercial, what do you think?
>
>-- 
> 
>.............................................
> Bikram Dhaliwal (dhaliwa@civ.toronto.edu) 
> Toronto        (dhaliwa@ecf.toronto.edu) 

BLEAH!  I thought it was TERRIBLE!  Typical IBM soft-sell dreary ad.
Why is it that Apple ads show computers, Microsoft ads show computers,
but IBM ads show POOL TABLES????  How useless.  How typical.

	-Phil
-- 
PHIL SCARR        \      We are Microsoft...     /          (o) 804.243.0229
 University of    /     OS/2 is irrelevant.      \          (f) 804.243.0290
 Virginia,        \     UNIX is irrelevant.      /        prs9k@Virginia.EDU
 Neurosurgery     /     Openness is futile.      \     prs9k@Virginia.BITNET
 HP-UX is my life!\ Prepare to be assimilated... /   ...uunet!virginia!prs9k

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 29 Dec 92 19:39:28 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Dec28.232207.1612@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>
>Please try again:  Can you name a real, genuine, monopoly in _any_ country 
>at _any_ time (before or after antitrust legislation or in a country without 
>antitrust legislation) that wasn't created by a government?  You can't
>do it because there never has been such a beast.  Markets which the goverment
>stays out of are very harsh on monopolies.

     How about professional baseball or football in the U.S.?  Neither
was government created - both are monopolies.

				-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,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 19:33:50 GMT

robertre@microsoft.com (Robert Reichel ms2) writes:
: In article <1992Dec22.023401.25792@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
: >No - MS's way of doing business is the "good ol' American way". Look
: >at the early history of IBM, look at the way ITT has behaved in the world.
: 
: Why not look at the current history of IBM: stock price at a 20 year low,
: forced layoffs, massive writeoffs, talk of a cut in the sacred dividend.  
: And this is the company that was harrassed for over 10 years by the government 
: for anti-trust violations, with nothing but a huge waste of taxpayer 
: money to show for the effort.  IBM didn't change its business practices
: one iota.
: 
: The fact that a company who once totally dominated its industry could
: fall on the hard times that IBM has is proof enough that the market
: takes care of itself, without any "help" from the government.

There have been no forced layoffs as yet; IBM's 'hard times' are
doubtless still the envy of many smaller companies.

Your point though, is totally specious. The market didn't take care of
itself, IBM took its eye off the ball by completely underestimating
the impact of PCs until it was too late for them top establish the
sort of monopolistic strangehold they had over the mainframe market.

As for being 'harrassed' by the feds.... You speak of antitrust
violiations and fail to use to word alleged, so I presume you are
tacitly admitting the truth of the allegations. The waste of taxpayers
money was the government's (actually as I recall the Reagan white
house's) fault for dropping the case at the last minute.

--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
From: rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Be more creative than the FTC!
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:39:18 GMT
Organization: San Jose State University - Math/CS Dept.

helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

>Why don't Novel, Lotus, et al, find a more creative solution to their problem
>than just using the FTC as a club against Microsoft?  Here are some better
>alternatives:

Did you whine like this when MCI forced the government to break up 
AT&T?

>1.  Form a consortium with Digital Research (who makes DR DOS, a fully
>    compatible MS DOS clone) to make a Windows 3.x clone.

You would be better advised to do some research.  Novell (correct spelling)
owns DR-DOS.  Digital Research does not exist any longer.  It was 
bought by Novell and is now their Desktop systems division.

And Novell is looking beyond Windows.  In case you missed the Business
page from tomorrows Wall Street Journal, AT&T and Novell just announced
that they have signed a letter of intent for Novell to purchase
USL (UNIX Systems Laboratory).  I.e., if the deal goes through (they
have board of director approval, but need government and USL stockholders
to agree) Novell will own UNIX, lock, stock, and copyright.

>2.  Better yet, stop developing for Windows/Dos until Microsoft does what
>    they want it to.  Power plays go both ways.  At this point Microsoft's
>    biggest nightmare would be if all of the big software houses dumped
>    Windows and Windows NT and started developing for OS/2 and Unix.

Yes, but until there is a significant market, they would lose money.

>3.  Cut special deals with PC clone vendors who don't bundle MS-DOS/windows.
>    If they bundle OS/2, give them discount versions of Lotus 123 for
>    OS/2 or Novel for OS/2.

Almost every vendor bundles MS-DOS, because MS says they either bundle
with every machine or they bundle with none.  Since vendors do not
want to force their customers to go elsewhere for the OS (in which case
some of them will go elsewhere for their system), almost everybody
buying a PC compatible has to pay for MS-DOS.  This is the first practice
that the FTC is purportedly going to stop.  At that time, users
should be able to choose their own bundled OS.

>4.  Charge higher prices for Windows versions of their software than for
>    OS/2, Mac, or UNIX versions.  
>   
>If Windows 3.x wasn't being supported by software developers, it would be
>going nowhere.  If other software companies don't like the way that 
>Microsoft plays, then they don't have to play with Microsoft.  There are
>other games in town.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: SMALL Exerpt from "Windows Sources"
Date: 29 Dec 1992 23:18:04 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu

In <1992Dec29.212551.18659@netcom.com> timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:

>In article <1hq3d8INNsrq@cae.cad.gatech.edu> chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen) writes:

>I wouldn't be so quick to call Petzold "ignorant" and I'm sure that he's
]knows what he's talking about (definitely moreso than you).

Sure. Whatever.  His comments made it look otherwise.  Justify how he
can say NT runs as fast/etc as os2 does in 8 megs.



]If you look closely, you'll see that he says you'll want, not NEED, 8 megs.
]And I'd say that he's right.  I really don't see how you can make any
]comparisons between OS/2 performance and NT performance, since your
]comments show your obvious ignorance of NT.  First there's Steve Withers
]proclaiming that NT requires 90 megs (but at least he's tried it), and
]now you say it takes up "alot [sic] of that 100 meg HD, if not all".
[ .. and so on ] 

It doesnt run well at all in 8 megs.  If you've run it, you SHOULD know
that.  He is definitly wrong saying one would want 8 megs for NT. 
There is nothing wrong with my comparisons when he says they both
perform APPROXIMATLY the same in 8 megs.  I say hes wrong.


]I don't see why certain people persist in spreading this misinformation
]and trying to discredit people like Petzold who simply don't share your
]narrow viewpoint.  But I suppose that if you say them often enough,
]you'll start to believe them.

Well, he was wrong in this article.  And I dont see how my viewpoing is
narrow by disagreeing that NT runs well in 8 megs, or at least runs
as fast as OS/2 does in 8 megs. Your narrow viewpoint comment applies to
both you and petzhold.  I dont share your visions of NT (ie, runs well
in 8 megs), so therefore you discredit me.  
 

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy