HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:57:14 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1992Oct6.215342.4413@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de>, ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
> |> 	By that same line of reasoning, we OS/2 supporters can start
> |> saying that NT is inferior because OS/2 3.0 is going to have (and list
> |> the announced features IBM named.)...
> 
> We are talking about features, everyone can see *NOW* in the pre-release.
> Or do you think MS will remove all goodies in the release version?

	Goodies?  Bad DOS and Windows supports aren't on my list of
goodies.  It runs its own applets adequately.  My point is, it
is unfair to ASSUME that NT is going to fix the DOS and windows problems.


> 
> |> 
> |> 	Until NT is released, you guys can go ahead and play with
> |> your NT pre-release and develop need little shareware toys with it
> 
> Right you are. We can develop "need little shareware toys", whereas the
> poor guys owning C-Set/2 CSD14 can't. Not to talk about the missing
> C++.

	My C compiler is C++ and it was fre, GNU C++.  And judging
by the amount of shareware popping out all the time, a lot of other
people are having little or no difficulty programming for OS/2.
	And the OS/2 programmers know that there are a million plus
users usingg it.  The NT shareware toys can only be played with
by teh 20,000 or so developers until NT is released sometime next year.

> 
> |> and dual boot to Windows 3.1 when you want to get any serious work
> |> done but don't try to tell us that NT is "superior" until it is
> |> released and does everything MS claims.  I used the NT pre-release
> |> and thought it was rather pathetic.  But that's just my opinion.  Without
> |> a commercial release, you have no true evidence for any argument
> |> of NT vs OS/2.
> |> 
> Maybe we should also wait until the commercially released OS/2 2.0 GA
> and related products (C-Set/2, LS20) do everything IBM claims.
> 
	Again, there are a lot of other compilers.  I have made some
OS/2 programs myself and not touched C-set 2.

> Christoph
> -- 

> Internet: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de
> BITNET: HAMPE2@DMRHRZ11
> Fido: 2:243/660

=================================
Brad Wardell  **Happy OS/2 2.0 User**
Project Director
Stardock Systems (SDS)
Western Michigan University
=================================

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 27 Sep 92 10:51:50 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Sep25.160711.19236@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com wrote:
> In <1992Sep25.022544.20058@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> 
> >You don't need true multitasking for that, heck, windows can do that if
> >the separate modules are dll's.  When you enter the client window area
> >for a particular module, the processor starts executing that windows procedure.
> 
> So it's your contention that Windows doesn't do "true multitasking"
> (whatever that is when it's up and dressed and has had coffee)?
> Afraid you're wrong there, Pete.  And you should KNOW better.  You
> WORK for Microsoft.  What it doesn't do is PREEMPTIVELY multitask
> Windows applications -- however, EVENT-DRIVEN COOPERATIVE multitasking
> is still "true multitasking" so far as I can figure out; it's just a
> different sort of scheduling algorithm.

Oh, but pardon me, I am remiss.  But I ask you this, what would have happened
here in this thread if I started stating how windows is multitasking, etc.
Instead of you're one article saying I was incorrect about windows, I would
have received at least 5 replies saying that windows doesn't really multitask,
and one of those would have probably been from you.  To tell the truth,
I considered that explicetly when composing these articles, and decided
that maybe if I just talked about pre-emptive multitasking that people
would be too clouded about OS/2 vs Windows to call me on misdefining
pre-emptive multitasking with just multitasking.  But, All you other folks,
look, Fred here is saying that Windows Multitasks, and he is known to
dislike MS.  Send all email flames to him, though, 'cause that discussion
has been on the net before. 


> 
> >> Me, I want a signle homogeneous
> >> work environment that lets me get my work done without flipping around 
> >> exiting one thing and loading another thing. 
> 
> >Oh, if that's multitasking, then windows does it, right.
> 
> Yes, Windows DOES do multitasking.  Is the only reason you're so
> vehement about 'bashing' people who talk about multitasking is because
> you think Windows doesn't do it?  Man, get a grip, Pete.
Actually, no, I was just trying add my bit to the "windows is multitasking"
thread.  The only error I made was tossing in a comment to the thread
that I was so trying to avoid.  I apologize to all you net watchers for
that.

I just tend to be moderate about things in the computer
industry, and rarely does any new thing look like the cure for the common
cold, as everyone seems to be putting things like multitasking, threads,
neural nets, etc.

Multitasking is nice, object oriented paradigms are nice, parallel systems
are nice, but they are all just tools.  We have a large set of tools
to use, and any number of them can be used to help get the end users
work done.  Some are better than other for certain things, some are worse,
but nothing is best for all things.


petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:04:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.204428.5307@ans.net> db3l@ans.net (David Bolen) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.211039.24073@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>
>>In article <pathak-260992141946@virtual.mitre.org> pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak) writes:
>>>Note, multitasking isn't just limited to computers.  People multitasking
>>>(pre-emptively at times) all the time.  After all, how many people do you
>>>know that sit and watch the water boil? ;-)
>>
>>Actually, that's more like task swapping:)  (...)
>
>Not really - if it was task swapping, the water would stop heating up until
>you looked at it again, so you'd be required to stare at it until it
>boiled :-)

No, now we're getting into multiprocessing.  :):):):)

Enough!
I give.
Ted
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:47:03 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct4.230027.23627@weyrich.UUCP> uunet.uu.net!weyrich!orville writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.135558.10280@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>>So why won't MS put some of that into their Windows/DOS product?  It's
>>not the technology we're (well, most of us) complaining about but the
>>corporate attitude of deliberately withholding technology from low-end
>>products to keep the high-end stuff looking interesting.
>
>Uh, the "Old" IBM was more often accused of that than MS -- until recently,
>MS hasn't had more than one tier of products that could be competitive.

So, as soon as MS is able to, they follow in "big brother's" footsteps.

>And lets not talk about the mainframe company [not IBM] that used to sell
>a very expensive "field upgrade" that involved a technician REMOVING a jumper
>that de-tuned the system. That company has fallen onto hard times.

No, let's talk about it.  You forget that at that time nobody owned
their own equipment.  They leased it.  And they didn't lease the
hardware, they leased the throughput.  You paid by the computing/printing 
power that you were getting, not for the device.

And if every printer had that jumper removed for the same price, it
would have cost IBM more, since they'd have to service the device more
often.  And service was included in the contracts (since you didn't
own the device).

They stopped this practice as soon as companies began purchasing their
own equipment.
-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Os/2ers whine again
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:06:09 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct05.094738.9642@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>Question.  In the above paragraph, do you mean MS OS/2 2.0, or IBM OS/2 2.0.
>They are two different things.

yes.  MS OS/2 2.0 never existed.  They only released a $2600
pre-release SDK for it.  :-)


-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Keywords: Beta
Date: 2 Oct 1992 18:54:17 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Oct1.152618.22244@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>Just because I prefer NT to OS/2 I'm not allowed to post?
>Sheesh... any developer that has used both is bound to like NT better...
>it _IS_ better, and you don't have to deal with IBM.

Yeah, right. Any developer that doesn't mind the risk of seeing all his hard
work washed down the drain because MS has changed its mind yet again, and now
NT isn't their strategic direction. Not likely, you say? Their dropping OS/2
wasn't likely on 27 January 1991, either.

As for not dealing with IBM, I would call that a bug, not a feature. I've
dealt very successfully with IBM for 11 years now. They're always interested
in fixing my problem. I've never gotten a busy signal when dialing (800)
237-5511, either...not at all what folks report about calling MS.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
    Vote for a REAL change on 3 November: Throw out the check-bouncing,
  tax-and-spend Democrat Congress! (obviously, not an opinion of UTHSCH)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn)
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Reply-To: soh3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 07:16:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.211613.13084@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

>> Hey, Pete.  I thought I was just expressing my opinion.  I get flamed
>> for my opinion??????????
>
>Why not, I always do.
>Note that almost every post I've put up here has been followed by the following
>line.  So every time you've tried to flame me for something I've posted, you've
>done the same.
>

I don't think I am in the same class as you.  At least, I am not an MS
employee :)

Min


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rkl@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (kevin.laux)
Subject: Re: So much for Msoft's bluster <grin>
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:08:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.033730.3054@ncsu.edu>, linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville) writes:
> In article <1992Sep28.160233.3985@spcvxb.spc.edu> mauritz_c@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:
> >09/25 (DW) Microsoft Delays Shipments of Windows NT Operating System
> ....
> >    Since July, Microsoft has shipped more than 20,000 advance copies of
> >the software, called developer kits, to potential corporate customers
> >and independent software developers for testing, Walker said.  By the
>                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^
> 'Pre-beta'?  I don't think so.

	Then perhaps you should think again.  The *software developer kits*
are only intended for those developing WIN32 software apps.  This is *not*
a beta release as NT doesn't have all it parts quite working yet - but it is
good enough to develop and run 32 bit apps.  This lets software companies
get their products ready for when NT hits the store shelves.

-- 
________________________________________________________________________________
	R. Kevin Laux				Email: rkl1@hound.att.com
	AT&T Bell Labs				Voice: (908) 949-1160
	Holmdel, NJ 07733			Fax:   (908) 949-0959
From: ccc@williams.edu (CCC)
Subject: Shutdown failure (?)
Organization: Williams College
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 15:34:51 GMT

	I have recently started having a strange bug: when I select 
Shutdown, OS/2 asks if I really want to close the WPS (and any windows still 
open), as usual. Th drive light comes on for a short bit, then goes dark. If 
I try to shutdown again, there's no drive activity. This means I power down 
at the end of the day without a "real" shutdown; every morning I have to 
deal with CHKDSK searching my disk for errors. Why?
From: fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Date: 27 Sep 92 00:35:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.selL8qe00VAtM9N4ky
	<1992Sep26.172145.29496@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: Sophomore, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
> it still hasn't caught on.  If IBM and Apple together could ship their
> systems with a standard 200 MB, 3.5 inch, speedy, autoejecting drive,
> at $10 per disk and $499 per drive, I think we'd have something.

in all seriousness, they might be (power pc)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Organization: Philipps-University Marburg
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:55:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.041214.16986@muddcs.claremont.edu>,
jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
|> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
|> >In article <1992Oct1.154246.2250@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de>
|> ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
|> >>
|> >>Except that OS/2 3.0 is now called Windows/NT.
|> 
|> >Blech.  There is one *very* annoying thing about calling NT "OS/2 3.0",
|> IMO.
|> >It's not that OS/2 and NT are super-different systems or any dislike of the
|> >two being associated with one another, but to call NT "OS/2 3.0" is
|> >definitely a misnomer.  3.0 implies a 1.x and a 2.x.

You are right, that's why is now called /NT, after MS and IBM decided not
to develop a new OS together (not to say they started their OS war)

|> Don't look now, but a couple folks in comp.os.ms-windows-programmer.win32
|> (including some MS employees) are calling it Windows NT 3.1.

Don't blame them for it. The July PDK calls itself Version 3.1 at the startup
screen. I assume to show that this /NT is the High-End pendant to WIN 3.1

Those things are just normal. Remember Digital research called their followup
of DR-DOS 3.41, Version 5.0 to be one version number ahead MS-DOS. And MS
did something similar with their SQL-Server.

Christoph
-- 
Internet: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de
BITNET: HAMPE2@DMRHRZ11
Fido: 2:243/660
From: 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:38:59 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1992Sep26.131512.23689@news.columbia.edu>, hpw@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Harry P Warren) writes:
> Two brief comments on Timothy F. Sipples' informative summary of the
> Chicago monthly OS/2 User's Group meeting.
> 
> | Since IBM and Apple together control over 50% of the market in
> | personal computers, they hope to promulgate standards more effectively
> | in tandem.
> 
> I find it hard to believe that IBM and Apple together control over 50%
> of the personal computer market. Perhaps 50% of the computers that
> have been manufactured sport the IBM or Apple name but they certainly
> don't control 50% of the market today. In fact, I imagine that Apple
> and IBM's combined sales of 68040 and 486 based machines effectively
> sums to zero when compared with the number of 486 systems sold by the
> likes of Dell and Gateway. I don't see how companies that sell
> yesterday's hardware are going to set tomorrow's standards.
> 


	In 1991, Apple Computer held 13% of the computer market and
IBM 21% (Datamations).  
	IBM sells a lot of 486 class machines and no other vendor
sells macs.  Together, one can say that Apple and IBm control well
over 30% (Apple has moved up to 18% in 1992 but I don't have data
for IBM yet).

	But Dell, Gateway, Zeos, etc, don't even come into lpay. 
Compaq is #2 and they are no where clsoe to IBM.

					-Brad


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Subject: Re: os2 attitudes
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 15:46:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.031415.20002@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> rda758g@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (A.J. Kleinert) writes:
>Thirdly: Given the delays of NT / delays of getting software to market, 
>  exactly what goes into operating system development for OS/2 or NT?
>  If a team of programmers would produce NT in 3 years (pulling a number
>  out of the air) and the marketing guys say "No, it has to go to 
>  market in 2 years" (pulling another number out of the air) what is  
>  the case of not just doubling the number of programmers and adding 
>  a few extra for unexpected delays?  Is it an economic thing?  (ie:
>  the cost of writing the software would not make it economically viable)
>  Is it that there isn't the management/programming/productivity tools
>  around for co-ordinating such a large collection of programmers
>  efficiently?  Where is the bottleneck?

To answer you question takes a lot of explanation.  The issue is
Software Engineering and Software Economics.  Take a look at virtually
any text on Software Engineering and it will explain that productivity
in producing software decreases dramatically as you add programmers.

For a very easy read, I recomend you get a copy of "The Mythical
Man-Month" by Fred Brooks.  BTW, Brooks is the author of Brooks Law:
"Adding programmers to a late software project makes it later." 

Note I put no smileys here; I'm completely serious.

--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
bdubbs@sadis01.sa.aflc.af.mil |  Scrupulous Lawyer
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Os/2ers whine again
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:59:59 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Sep29.001937.13093@fics.uucp> ekl@fics.uucp writes:
>petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>>
>>I never said NT wasn't called OS/2 3.0, All I wanted is some pointer
>>to where there is similarity between OS/2 and NT.  If all that is similar
>>is that they may have had a similar name at one time, well, that is
>>not useful.  What is useful are things like the following.
>
>While you may not have *explicitly* said that NT wasn't called os/2 3.0,
>your original post definately made it sound like that's what you meant.

     Ah - it's good that we have a mind reader among us.  If I ever
forget what I meant in a post, can I come and ask you?


>My reply mainly showed that what is now NT was previously known as OS/2,
>with the version number 3. To me, that tells that *most* of the code
>on the PDK has anything to do with OS/2.

     The project name for NT could have been Toaster in the past -
that doesn't mean that Windows NT has anything to do with toast.

					-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
From: MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu (Spiro the Spiny Goldfish)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is WPS really better??
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:02:15 GMT
 <1992Sep29.193827.10087@scott.skidmore.edu>
 <BAB.92Sep30072426@se39.wg2.waii.com>
 <1992Sep30.133147.11085@scott.skidmore.edu>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Sep30.133147.11085@scott.skidmore.edu>, pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu
(Pierre VonKaenel) says:
>
>I tried doing what you suggest in OS/2, but here's the problem (maybe
>you netters have a tip to overcome this..) : I'm in a word processor
>(however, it's not an OS/2 program).  I create a new document and save
>it in some directory.  When I return to the WPS, I have to create an
>icon for it, connect it to the right app, etc.  What a pain!  Perhaps
>an OS/2 app that knows about the WPS will create the icon for me -
>Okay that would be fine, no complaints.  But currently, it's not a
>smooth process.

So do what  I do - shadow that directory to the desktop, and then open that
folder. Inside are icons representing ALL the files in that directory.
Double-click on one, and (with a little work on your Associations Page in
your Program object), it starts the appropriate program.

>Problem #2:  this is something I've encountered in Windows and other
>OSs that try to be object oriented - I have data files that are
>"connected" to several apps.  I write a C++ program in my Brief
>editor.  Later I use in BC++.  Then back to Brief.  I've had some data
>files that are used in three different apps.  In WPS, I can only
>attach it to one app.  To use it in a different context, I'd have to
>click on the setting for that icon, change the related app name and
>start over.  Or, use two or more icons for the same file, but have
>each associated with a different app?  I think not.

Wrong. You can associate it with more than one program object, but double-
clicking on it will open up the "first" one you associated it to. To open
the other things on it, you use the right mouse button to pull up the menu,
click on the little arrow coming out of "Open", and select from all your
choices there.

For example, on files of type "Plain Text" on my system, I now have the
following open choices: Settings, Editor, System Editor, PM Editor, FullScreen
Editor (an editor for every day of the week!). "Editor" is checked, which
means that if I double-click on the file, that's the one that loads.

----
Mike Dahmus       MXD118@PSUVM  or  dahmus@cs.psu.edu
TEAM OS/2
From: v053qpgh@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Eric W Sarjeant)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Silence on the Windoz Front...
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:10:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep28.191701.9033@s1.gov>, kab@s1.gov writes...
>In article 4oB@acsu.buffalo.edu, v053qpgh@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Eric W Sarjeant) writes:
>>Has anyone been keeping up with the OS/2 and the MS Windows newsgroup
>>fronts? As of late, I have noticed a considerable decline in the comp.
>>windows.ms group. Typically only around 10-15 messages appear daily,
>>whereas the os2 forums are constantly bustling with nearly 100 messages
>>each per day.
> 
>I think it's because comp.windows.ms has been replaced by:
> 
>		comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
>		comp.os.ms-windows.announce
>		comp.os.ms-windows.apps
>		comp.os.ms-windows.misc
>		comp.os.ms-windows.setup
> 
>and some others I don't see right now. Currently I see
> 
>		56 messages in .apps
>		53 messages in .misc
>		24 messages in .setup
> 
>so I'd say the Windows newsgroups are doing fine.

I am sorry; you're correct. Win3.x has now been classified as an operating
system and is therefore under a newly appointed newsgroup name.
==============================================================================
 Eric W. Sarjeant                    | "I am only too conscious that I have no
 sUnyaB                              |  claim to wisdom, great or small..."
 v053qpgh@ubvms.bitnet               |
 sarjeant@aol.com                    |
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy