HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:44:36 GMT

mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth) writes:
>into the base os is a good thing for a number of reasons.  Those reasons are
>fairly obvious.  Economies of scale, standardization, making it available at 
>minimal extra cost will help all of us communicate with one another.  I'm not
>sure how you hook into the internet, but if you have a direct connect you are 
>using something as a program to connect.  If you are using a modem, you are 
>using a modem program.  I'd suggest that we'd all be better off if our 
>OS provided the tools to help us do that.  I'm not sure what business you are
>in that you don't need to communicate with your co-workers, but I'd guess that
>you will need to do so at some point in the future.  You can buy the package
>when the time comes, but if it is inexpensive enough it sure would be nice to 
>have it built in! >
>>
>>-- 

Networking is important, but it's better to keep it as an external module.
An external module can work as well as a built in feature, and is easier
to upgrade for users and upkeep for the programmers.


					Todd Walk
					walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Organization: Philipps-University Marburg
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:53:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.222025.5623@gw.wmich.edu>, x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
|> 
|> 	Well, when it comes to arguing, I don't see how you can
|> say NT supporters have any facts considering NT isn't even an available
|> product.  Most of the things NT supporters have said is "NT WILL have
|> this and NT will have that.." key word WILL.

And the key word of the OS/2 supporters is WON'T. So what's the difference?
  
|> 	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?

|> 
|> 	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++.

|> 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.

Christoph
-- 
Internet: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de
BITNET: HAMPE2@DMRHRZ11
Fido: 2:243/660
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Moving from X to Y.
Date: 29 Sep 92 08:35:53 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.

|> >I did not complain about change, I complained about inconsistency. The two
|> >buttons have similar but subtly inconsistent behaviour in this case. If you
|> >took the time to answer my question you would understand what I mean.
|> 
|> Ok, If we use a 2nd mouse button, what would you do differently?

I would have thought that it was obvious from my comments.  I would either
make them behave in *exactly* the same way, or in a completely different way,
but *not* in a slightly different way.

I've asked three times if you could explain the mouse behaviour, but you have
declined to do so. Here is the answer:

For a Short Click or a Drag, both buttons have the same behaviour except that
the right button does not cause the graphic image to "depress".

For a Long Click the left button brings up a menu, right button does nothing.
The graphic image does "depress" for the left button but then pops back up of
it's own accord before you release the button.

It is the behaviour on a click that I find so awkward. If you use the right
button, you don't get any menu if you linger too long with your finger on the
button.

Don't get me wrong, this is not a major complaint that damns OS/2 to
extinction. But it constitutes part of the reason that I (and I suspect some
other people) have reverted to Windows 3.1 despite OS/2's other superior
features.

BTW, if the behaviour I describe is a feature of the driver rather than the
WPS itself, it simply hightlights another of the problems that kept me away
from OS/2: the lack of good video drivers.
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:59:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct4.180007.28752@news.iastate.edu> TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:
>Symetric multiprocessing is the best way to do things....
>     Take for example, breathing.  We all do this in the background
>(I hope!).  At the same time, we are consciously attending our daily
>tasks.  If we take on more tasks at once, our rate of breathing
>rarely changes (except due to stress).  This would count both time
>slicing and preemptive multitasking out, leaving SMP.  Of course,
>it's still not this simple (as many AI people know).

Why SMP?  It could be asymmetric multiprocessing.  There's no hard
evidence that every neuron can assume the tasks of other neurons.



-- 
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: cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Date: 27 Sep 92 09:44:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.celTAJG00UhWI2D8Rr
Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.os2.advocacy: 27-Sep-92 I hate to tell you
this, bu.. by Elizabeth R. Brown@netco 
> So, from a Windows bigot to all you OS/2 bigots I say:  "Join us!  Feel the 
> power of the Dark Side!  Together the Universe will be ours!!  
> Mwhaahaaaaahaaa!"    ---> (:-)
I love the analogy.  Windows:OS/2::Darth Vader:Luke Skywalker!!!

Carl Jabido
cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Re: OS/2, my final analysis.
Organization: Philipps-University Marburg
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:47:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.172548.5557@gw.wmich.edu>, x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
writes:
|> 
|> 	I must disagree with you on there.  None of our custmers have
|> had any serious problems running OS/2.  NT ran stably for me too until
|> I did DOS sessions with it (of course, I didn't have many problems with
|> windows 3.0).  I have not used Cset/2 but I have programmed qute a bit
|> with Gnu C and used quite a few native os/2 programs.  I have had it
|> crash but it only happens perhaps once every other week (the type of
|> crash you mention with the register dump).

So we don't do disagree too much. You admit, that system crashes occur
once every other week, when running only a few native OS/2 apps. That is
almost the same I said, but this is not stable enough, if you seriously
want to use OS/2 machines as Network- or Database servers.

If I use OS/2 on standalone machine, I can live with a system crash once
a week. It's really no problem.

But we are using 6 servers here with more than 100 clients. If each of this
servers crashes once a week, we have one system crash a day. We really
can't afford that. It's my phone, which is ringing all the time, when I
sit there watching 30 minutes to CHKDSK on Gigabyte HDs and hope it will
suceed.

You must really admit, that this is not acceptable for running in an
business environment. 

|> But compared to the competition, windows, desqview, etc, os/2
|> is the most stable pc environment I have used.  
|> 

Right, but we don't talk about purely time-sliced multitaskers for DOS
here, but about a serious 32-bit OS capable of handling large data amounts
in an networked environment.

I really prefer OS/2 over DOS. DOS multitasking really fine under OS/2,
but we all want a 32-bit OS. The hardware we are using is capable of doing
so, since the 80386 was introduced and there is still no 32-bit OS.

Christoph
--- 
Internet: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de
BITNET: HAMPE2@DMRHRZ11
Fido: 2:243/660
From: MBAPN@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com (Peter J. Natali)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Service Pack news from IBM 10/01/92
Date: 1 Oct 92 21:05:22 GMT
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company

I am forwarding the following message.  Please do not respond directly
to me - I am NOT an IBM employee.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from ROHVM1 by ROHVM1.ROHMHAAS.COM (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 2306;
 Thu, 01 Oct 92 17:01:30 EDT
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU by rohvm1.rohmhaas.com (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with TCP;
   Thu, 01 Oct 92 17:01:29 EDT
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 4878; Thu, 01 Oct 92 17:01:49 EDT
Received: by PSUVM (Mailer R2.08) id 5015; Thu, 01 Oct 92 17:01:49 EDT
Date:    Thu, 1 Oct 92 17:01 EDT
From:    <JAL142@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
To:      MBAPN@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com
Subject: Re: Service Pack news from IBM 10/01/92

O.K. I read all the APAR's...Will the service pack let me run OS/2 on my
Computer with the CPU cache enabled?  I  discussed the problem with IBM, and
the only solution the had was that the next version (2.01? service pack?)
_might_ fix the problem.  I'm a little pissed off about the situation (my compu
ter is sloooooooowwwwwwww without cache) but their is nothing I can do except
run Windows (NOT!).  Anybody know if my problem is fixed in the service pack or
packs?

-------------------------  end of forwarded message  -------------------
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:01:54 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin) writes:

>1) Although current versions of Windows do run on top of DOS, and their
>	performance and robustness are somewhat hindered by that, Windows
>	and windows apps don't HAVE to run on top of DOS.  And in the future
>	they won't.  

>	So when people say that Windows doesn't multitask as smoothly as OS/2,
>	*right now*, they're right.  But when they suggest that this is
>	a permanent feature which will cripple Windows in the future, they're
>	wrong.  Expect to see some real product demonstrating this "pretty
>	soon now".  (Intentional vagueness cannot be clarified, sorry)

... and so on...

Gordon, I appreciate that you have contributed substantially to many
of the good things about OS/2, and in spite of IBM, in the past. But
what I now wonder is - how do you get around with that huge chip on
your shoulder and that bitter taste of sour grapes in your mouth?

Tom
From: fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multitasking (was Re: MS's misconduct!)
Date: 28 Sep 92 05:02:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.8elk9Le00WBNE1bJAa
	<1992Sep28.030142.17709@microsoft.com>
Organization: Sophomore, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

petesk@microsoft.com says:
>This is not to say that we shouldn't give the secaratary preemptive mt,
>but only that we don't lie to her and tell her it's going to solve all
>of her problems.  Let the marketing guys do that, instead.

Well at least they're starting to admit it...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: leehart@microsoft.com (Lee Hart)
Subject: Re: NSTL compares OS/2 2.0 and Windows 3.1
Date: 04 Oct 92 04:03:28 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Oct1.214843.4317@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz>, stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Stuart Woolford) writes:
> wjw1@me1.MsState.Edu (Bill Wilson) writes:
> 
> It seems to me, from reading the original post, that it implied that the
> testers were familiar with MSWindows, but not OS/2 2, which would make any
> claim of a fair 'usability test' a joke, the best test would be with a group
> of people with NO previous experience of either system, otherwise a lengthy
> familiarization time would be required before any serious testing could be
> done ( and I mean weeks.... )

Maybe you are right, but another way to think of it is that maybe the testers
should be as similar as possible to the public they are trying to represent.
For this case, slight familiarity with Windows, little with OS/2 is 
appropriate.  This test would then not say which OS is better overall, but
it would reflect what the average user would see when using the two operating
systems.

> just a comment....

Same here

Lee
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6460 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2238 comp.os.os2.misc:31572
From: olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: So much for Msoft's bluster <grin>
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:56:47 GMT
	<moore.717717658@pv34c1.vincent.iastate.edu>
	<BvBpEv.Ix3@acsu.buffalo.edu>
	<OLENDER.92Sep29084220@vivaldi.cs.colostate.edu>
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway

The good thing about the NT delay, fromOD an OS/2 users point of view,
is that it will give OS/2 2.0 more time without high-end competiotion.
The users who want a powerfull and reliable OS on their 386/486 will
have no choice but OS/2 2.0. When NT finally will be available (by the
end of '93?), there will be a lot of OS/2 2.0 users and a lot of
powerfull 32-bits OS/2 applications out there.

Olav Torvund
Oslo, Norway
Olavt@jus.uio.no
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Moving from X to Y.
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:57:33 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Sep28.024259.17479@microsoft.com>, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Sk
elly) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.194142.51868@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu wr
ote:
>
>>
>> Ahh, but I never said that it wasn't expensive.  That is another ball of wax
>> altogether.  Heck even small companies produce apps for multiple platform
>> though.  Look at the number of companies which produce DOS and Win apps.  If
>> you program in both systems, you will know that the two are so different that
>> they almost might as well be on different machines.  But companies do it
>> regularly because it is profitable.  (though expensive)
>>
>Yeah, but in this case, you can use the same machine, the same compiler,
>and maybe use products designed for this portability, like Mewel or
>something.
>
>Going between Mac and PC's is more difficult, but you can still use
>a common codebase.

True
>
>However, Going from a non-multitasking or preemptive-multitasking system
>to a non-premptive multitasking system, taking advantage of things like
>threads and such, would require quite a rewrite.  For large apps, this is
>quite an undertaking.

Also true.  Let me go on a tangent though.  Am I hearing an NT supporter claim
that it might actually be difficult to do more than a simple port from Windows
to NT?  If that is the case then hold on while I get my tape recorder...
(Pulling your chain mode off)
Seriously, you are right.  It can be difficult to do all this, but it still
can be a real money maker if that developer plays his/her cards right.  This
makes it worth every developer's while to at least consider it seriously.
>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...
>

Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 05 Oct 92 18:47:49 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <7470@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.023652.17342@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>
>>Ok, Ok, just kidding, but nobody knows what price they are going to tack
>>onto NT, and the estimated range is from $69 to your $1000.  In truth,
>>we are not ready for price haggling because noone has announce an 
>>estimated price for NT, the SDK, or anything.
>
>Remember, we're talking about NT _plus_ the C compiler and everything else in
>the developers' package. The most-often-tossed-about quote - and I seem to
>recall this one was cited as coming from MS - for just NT was "under $500",
>and I discussed in an earlier post how MS would be stupid to say that and not
>mean $499.95. I seriously doubt the development package would be less than
>another $500. My $1K number starts to look optimistic, if anything. 

     This shows a complete lack of understanding of simple economics.
Please explain why you believe that Windows NT will retail for $499.95.


>Given that, why in the world is MS selling the SDK/beta for $69? FUD, pure and
>simple.

     Just what is your definition of FUD, anyway?  Please explain how
competitive pricing of the Windows NT SDK is FUD in any way.

					-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: yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong)
Subject: Re: Os/2ers whine again
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 10:38:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.175959.4316@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>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
>-- 

In my opinion, this is all just crap.  OS/2 3.0 was meant to be a continuation,
"successor" in a way, to OS/2 2.0.  It was announced long before the formal
divorce and final break-up of IBM and Microsoft.  Unless you can convince me
Windows NT has nothing to do with OS/2 3.0, then it is pointless to say that
NT has nothing to do with OS/2.  OS/2 3.0 is not just a code name for NT.
It was what Microsoft's original vision of what OS/2 would be.

>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Service Pack news from IBM 10/01/92
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:05:53 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct2.212732.7667@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>Since it looks like most people won't be getting this till November...
>why are they bothering?

Who said November?  They said "when ready".

>The 32-bit GRE + Windows 3.1 should be coming out of beta not more
>than 1 1/2 months later.

Assuming that there are no unforseen problems in the beta program.

>Why are they bothering with the version that doesn't have the 32-bit
>GRE at all? 

We already discussed this.  Some clients didn't want it.  I don't know
why.  Since it's simple not to include that module, IBM obliged.

>I don't know how they expect that conservative corporate customers that
>have delayed their commitment to OS/2 until the bug fixes are out, will
>be likely to go to this fix anytime soon.  I mean the notice makes
>clear that they are still making changes to the SSP, including adding
>new fixes.  If they just now are adding new fixes... what difference
>will 15 days make?

It depends.  IBM has hundreds of bug reports at all times.  And
they're all in various stages of completion.  Suppose a major one only
needs 10 more days.  It may be quite worthwhile to delay the shipment.
I seriously doubt that they're beginning work on brand new APARs with
a 15 day deadline!

>Will the bug fixes for the SPP be free too?

Of course.  The SPP is a part of OS/2 2.0.

>Will new users buying 2.0 recieve a version with the fixes installed,
>or will that mean installing 30+ disks?

Yes.  When it ships, newly manufactured packages will be delivered at
the new CSD level.

>Is there a TLA for a CSD for the SPP?

Yes.  A CSD.

>This is all quite confusing... I wish the straight story would be
>told.

It was.  You didn't read it properly, I guess.
-- 
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: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Date: 1 Oct 92 21:55:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: njitgw.1992Oct1.215559.17678
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep30.170158.26323@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>Why does it have to be OS/2 and XXX???  I think it much more likely
>that the high-end war (which in 2-3 years will become mainstream) will
>be between NT, Solaris, and UnixWare (from Univel) (also possibly
>NextStep).  OS/2 had a chance, but it appears that the main bug/fix +
>Windows 3.1 will not be out till December.

So?  Until NT ships, it will be further behind ANY deadline that you
decide to drop in front of OS/2.  If OS/2 doesn't get stable before
December, it isn't significant unless NT is released before that.  And
it appears that it won't be.

You're very quick to write off IBM products due to missed deadlines,
but can you (just for once) use the same rule to measure NT by?

Your use of a pre-release developer's kit is not going to change the
market one bit.

>Yes but NT is far closer to the "ultimate OS" than OS/2 is.

Yes, and it's far closer to requiring the "ultimate computer" as well.

-- 
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"