HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft blasting IBM into the dust?
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:32:23 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

STACY JOHN BEHRENS writes:

>I wrote:

>>Windows has already been released. No not NT but WfW. The produkt is so
>>damned impressive Novell started sueing MS right away. According to many
>>who have seen the produkt its network support is very impressive. Autodetect
>>of network adapters, networks etc. Tranparant integration in Windows etc.

>Novell is sueing not because it is an impressive product, but becuase
>Microsoft is trying to extend the license they have on certain Novell
>compatibility software from Windows 3.1 to WfW by claiming that they are the
>same product.  How they can claim this with a strait face is beyond me.  The
>products are quite different and easy to tell apart.  I think that MS will
>loose this lawsuit in any case.

This is a matter of view. I think the fact WfW is a competitor for Novell
Lite has do do with this. I am also pretty sure MS is going to win this
lawsuit.

>>part of WfW and will be part of NT. The fact than OS/2 lacs those
>>(available seperate, very week strategy IMO) isn't made very clear
>>in the press at all. Some misty strategy IMO.

>I think they are capable of it, but they are still going through culture
>shock.  IBM is amazed that they have a product with mass appeal.  It is taking
>them a long time to adjust to this.  MS has no current products that I am

Perhaps too long.

>aware of that don't rely at least in part on mass appeal.  They are used to
>it, IBM isn't as of yet.  As for Multimedia and networking, it has been argued
>(by me as well as others) that not everyone wants those things included with
>the base package.  I won't use them, and really don't wan't to see the price
>of the system jacked up.

I think MM and NW should be included (one could choose not to install
them) without raising the price of cource. That way a good competitor
for WfW would arive. I wouldn't mind two versions of OS/2 (with or
without networking) but no more than that.

>Stacy John Behrens

Nico E. de Vries  (nevries@cc.ruu.nl) |------------------*   AA   III  PPP
_ This text is supplied AS IS, no warranties of any kind |  A  A   I   P  P
| apply. No rights can be derived from this text. This   |  AAAA   I   PPP
| text is likely to contain spelling and grammar errors. |  A  A   I   P
*---------------------------( Donate to GreenPeace! )----*  A  A  III  P

"The IBM PC is still waiting for a version of the CP/M OS.", G.M. Vose, 1982.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell)
Subject: Re: How to make OS/2 look bad ...
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 19:16:32 GMT

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Robert Stephen Rodgers) writes:

>In article <1992Nov07.131316.20096@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>>1. Try OS/2 one a 486/33 with 4Mb of memory.


>	Note that this is still significantly more machine than the 
>	recommendation from IBM

In terms of CPU, it is significantly more.  But, this machine will be
I/O bound;  no amount of CPU increase will make this a significantly
faster machine under OS/2.

>--they recommend a "minimum" of
>	a 386SX-16 (that being the lowest 386 chip) with 4 megs.

>	If IBM wanted to get rid of this type of crap, they'd 
>	be smart enough to change the label on the box from four
>	to eight (although even six would be satisfactory)..

That would be false.  Period.  They claim it WORKS.  They also claim
that this is the smallest machine on which it works.  People shouldn't
expect it to work as well as on a machine with 40 MIPS and 16M of RAM.

I think they're working on trimming down the product, anyhow.  I don't
see the point, considering the low cost of RAM.  IBM has always been a
little short-sighted when it comes to PC hardware, though.


>>3. Mention that everything is very slow, opening a window takes
>>about 5 seconds, but add, this is due to memory problems because
>>of the 4Mb being a minimum and 16Mb would be much better.


>	See above.  This is a legitimate complain against
>	IBM's corporate IQ.  Claiming 4 megs as the minimum
>	for OS/2 is like claiming that the minimum for 
>	Windows 3.0 was an 8088 and CGA.

The minimum requirements are meant to indicate the smallest
configuration on which the code will _run_.  Obviously, IBM wants to
sell as many copies as possible and stating that 6 megs is the minimum
is false and narrows their market.  Now, I think they should indicate a
RECCOMENDED configuration (maybe they do).  But, I have no trouble with
what IBM claims as the minimum.


-- 
Dan Cogswell               Or as we say in Michigan:  "Dee-troit"


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:12:55 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Nov10.125204.11194@nenufar.saclay.cea.fr> daniel@ledaserma.cea.fr wrote:
> In article <1992Nov02.221621.22870@microsoft.com>, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> |> BTW: you command.com replaces/enhances part of an operating system, and thus
> |> becomes part of that operating system.  
> 
> No... a command shell is not a part of the OS... it is
> an application (even if you won't go far without it..)
> (see for example Tannenbaum book about OS, which -i think- gives
> a good idea of what is an OS..)
> As an example, the C-Shell and the Bourne shell belongs to unix
> environnement, but not to unix itself (ie whatever shell you run,
> your OS is unix and nothing else)
> A command shell is a program that gives the user an access to the OS.
> An OS is a program that gives other programms an access to the machine
> ressources (at least this is what i believe...)
> 
Command shell gives the machine access to the user command stream resource
;)

I can see you come from the UN*X world, though.  Back in CP/M days,
and even in DOS, the command shell was considered part of the OS,
if you will.  On mainframes, it was not.  So I guess this issue depends
on whether you are a PC biggot, or a mainframe biggot.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 8 Nov 92 16:28:12 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering

tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

>teague@a.cs.okstate.edu (Keith Teague) writes:
>>Microsoft Windows (as it exists today) is clearly NOT an operating
>>system - any more than a DOS shell is an operating system. It is
>>clearly a GUI and a tool to ease user interaction with the OS, but
>>it is not an OS in any real technical sense.

>Please post a definition of "operating system" with references.  It
>appears that you are using the term in a way that is different from
>the normal use as definined in most operating systems textbooks.

You seem to be lacking the same kind of commitment.

Erik



-- 
Erik van Linstee   |   Delft University of Technology   |   I'll be back ... 
----
   We are god, 'cause only we can create the idea of his existence
   in our holy brains...  (Yello)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: roland@spock.uucp (David A. Braun)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1: The ultimate DOS Shell
Organization: Choate Rosemary Hall
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:49:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.065307.19403@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.174255.22889@spock.UUCP> roland@spock.uucp wrote:
>> I put is simply that Windows is the ultimate DOS Shell:
>> 
>> DOS <> Windows
>>      as
>> OS/2 <> PM (WPS)
>> 
>> Can someone tell me I am really wrong in saying this?
>> 
>> Roland.
>> 
>
>DOS+Win Memory Management + Win Scheduler + Win Device Drivers ...<> Win Shell
>OS/2 <> PM (WPS)
>
>petesk@microsoft.com

No, PM has memory management, scheduling, device drivers, etc... and more.
So, the analogy is correct, or as you put it:

DOS+Win Memory Management + Win Scheduler + Win Device Drivers ...<> Win Shell
OS/2+PM Memory Management + PM Scheduler + PM Device Drivers ...<> PM Shell

Satisfied...:Windows is an OS, I think not.

Roland.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:45:39 GMT

In <1992Nov8.060603.27183@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>Regardless, several texts, DOS Power Tools by Paul Somerson (Bantam Books),
>MS-DOS Developer's Guide (Howard Sams & Company) all regard the INT 10
>routines as valid "DOS" ways of accessing the video card.

>Being able to use the BIOS to perform a task does not invalidate the
>operating system's compliance with an "OS definition."  If this were true,
>OS/2 2.0 (indeed *any* PC based operating system) would not be an
>"operating system."

>Why?  Because *all* of them use the BIOS--if only just to boot from the
>hard disk.  This is *part* of the PC-architecture.

Ah, but do they use it once they've booted?  DOS does.  UNIX doesn't.
Therefore the BIOS bears the same relationship to DOS with regard to
practically ALL the hardware that DOS does to Windows with regard to
the file system.  DOS isn't an OS under that definition, because it
DOESN'T manage the hardware -- the BIOS does it.

>Fildercarb.  The BIOS is *part* of DOS... as much as a V6 is *part* of the
>Truck my father drives.  It is not necessary that every layer in an
>operating system is "blind" to only the layer directly below it (in modern
>times, such abstraction is good design--but it is far from necessary).
>Are you saying that, for example, if you as a programmer needed to write
>a character to the screen, you should write your own video driver?  Of
>course not.

I assume that was supposed to be 'felgercarb'?  Anyway, either the
BIOS is part of DOS or it is part of the PC architecture.  Maintaining
that both are true simply doesn't make sense.  Are you shipped a BIOS
when you buy DOS?  I wasn't.  Now, DOS makes ASSUMPTIONS about the
routines in the BIOS, but that's a long way from insisting that the
BIOS is part of DOS.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: rbotimer@max.ct.gmr.com (R Douglas Botimer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows is a Volkswagon
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:08:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.203447.21012@access.usask.ca> lowey@jester.usask.ca (Kevin  
Lowey,159 Physics,(306) 966-4826,(306) 249-3232) writes:

:Windows is a Volkswagon because even though it is underpowered and has
:been around a long time, it's very popular and  gets the job done.
:
:On the other hand, Windows/NT is a "cab forward" Chrysler.  It sounds
:like a good idea, the company that made it is pushing it as a good
:idea, but we'll have to wait and see whether the hype really means
:anything in the long run.
:
:OS/2 is a Jeep.  It may not be as pretty as a "cab forward" Chrysler,
:and it may not be as popular as the VW Bug, but once you get used to
:its quirks (like four-wheel drive) you can go places you never dreamed
:possible before.

I like your analogies, but would take it a step farther.  OS/2 is like a single  
engine Cessna.  It takes a little training to fly and more skill to operate  
than Windows.  Once you learn to fly the WPS it opens up a new dimension.

NT may or may not soar climb into another dimension.  It could be a Lear or it  
could turn out to be a Bricklin.

Doug
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: gkm@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (gary.k.mc nees)
Subject: Re: Trading the threads ?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 14:01:10 GMT

In article <guy.720989221@tdsb-s> guy@mais.hydro.qc.ca (Guy Harel) writes:
>Its funny how an old technology becomes new again when integrated in a yet
[Stuff Deleted]
>Next, I`ve heard that Netware 3.1 had threads too. And then *hoooo*,
>the Sybase Kernel has thread too, next NT, then OS/2 2.0.
 
OS/2 had threads before NT was even a glimmer in Bill Gates eye.

>
>Hell, are we talking SHAREWARE or what?
>-- 
> Guy Harel
>--
> Guy Harel

Gary McNees
From: pab@po.CWRU.Edu (Pete Babic)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ......An AMIGA Owner Is My Friend
Date: 10 Nov 1992 20:11:02 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: pab@po.CWRU.Edu (Pete Babic)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, davidme@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au (David Meiklejohn) says:
>
>Why email when we have an advocacy group right here?  As for flames, I think
>that OS/2 vs Amiga is worthy of serious discussion.  It's one of the few PC
>OS's that Amiga users can't easily dismiss.

Not only that, it's one of the few PC OS's that is making me think of
switching from the Amiga. I like the huge base of Intel compatible software
and the cheap hardware. I just couldn't stand the idea of using MS-DOS, or
the horribly slow Mac OS, or the band-aid approach of Windows 3.1. OS/2 has
the right features and feel to make me feel at home as an Amiga user. Even
this newsgroup feels like an Amiga group, technically superior OS/2 up against
MS media hype for Windows...  :)

-- 
Pete Babic  -  pab@po.cwru.edu          ///
LIVE TO PARTY, SKI TO DIE!!!           ///  /\
Member of ACE                    \\\  ///  /--\MIGA  
(American Coaster Enthusiasts)    \\\/// MS-DOS or a Mac? What's that?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: richk@grebyn.com (Richard Krehbiel)
Subject: Re: ......An AMIGA Owner Is My Friend
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:57:31 GMT

In article <BxFBoK.L4J@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jj8200@meibm4.cen.uiuc.edu (Jacob W Janovetz) writes:

>   umnoor@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Nasir Ahmed Noor) writes:
>
>

>   >Well, it may seem silly to all of you but I need some material
>   >[os/2's strong points] to tell to Amiga owners.
>
>   >When I had MS-DOS, my $4000 machine was constantly put down but I
>   >knew there was nothing to defend MS-DOS/WINdows with. Now I know
>   >that OS/2 is one of the best and most rock solid system in the
>   >market but I cant list its high points in comparison with "HIS
>   >MAJESTY" *THE* AMIGA ...
>
>   >Just to give you an example, "they" say that Amiga does perfect
>   >multitasking with an OS which comes only on 2 floppies [compare
>   >with OS/2's 30+Meg, or 18 meg for base system]. Now I have no
>   >idea how to justify its enormous size.

    The Amiga does multitask at least as well as OS/2 2.0 - better
usually, partly because of the hardware design, but mostly because it
doesn't have to carry such baggage as "protection" and
"compatability"...

>   WWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAaaahhhhhh ha ha ha ha!!!! An Amiga?!?!?  AHHHh
>   ha ha ha ha... He he he... ooooh, (time passes)...  Ok, I'm much
>   better now.
>
>   All you have to do is tell them to look at how ugly the
>   "Workbench" is on the Amiga compared to a nice, faster graphics
>   environment like OS/2, then let them in on the well known fact
>   that the Amiga is a toy.

    First, it sounds like you haven't seen AmigaDOS since version 2.0
came out.  Nice, 3D-style rendering, much like Presentation manager.

    Second, be careful with those "well-known facts".  It's a
similarly well-known fact that OS/2 is a dead-end OS. :-)
-- 
Richard Krehbiel                                 richk@grebyn.com
OS/2 2.0 will do for me until AmigaDOS for the 386 comes along...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Trading the threads ?
Date: 08 Nov 92 00:26:02 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Nov5.225750.14729@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com wrote:
> In <guy.720989221@tdsb-s> guy@mais.hydro.qc.ca (Guy Harel) writes:
> 
> >Its funny how an old technology becomes new again when integrated in a yet
> >to be successful product.
> 
> >The first time I`ve heard of threads was with ENCORE UMAX BSD, a UNIX
> >variant which included threads ( pthreads or cthreads ?), optimized
> >for a multiprocessor.
> 
> >According to my sources this was first commercialized by ENCORE around 1985 
> >and,  knowing the ENCORE tradition, was probably developped from a DARPA 
> >funding around 1975...
> 
> >Next, I`ve heard that Netware 3.1 had threads too. And then *hoooo*,
> >the Sybase Kernel has thread too, next NT, then OS/2 2.0.
> 
> >Hell, are we talking SHAREWARE or what?
> 
> And if you replace "threads" with "lightweight processes" [what
> threads are generally called in a lot of the UNIX world], you will
> probably find that the whole concept goes back even further

Correct you are, and yes they have been around for a while.  Same with
dynamic libraries.  Same with many forms of security.  Yes, you could
buy this stuff 10 years ago.  It's just that you probably would have a
difficult time placing the mainframe that these systems ran on in your
house, let along on top of your desk.  In fact, the infammous "New"
workplace shell has elements, as dose the Mac and Windows systems, 
that were found in systems as far back as 1968.  Dr. Alan Kay and his
gang at Xerox were doing that stuff in the 70's.

Many of the archetectural achievements you have seen in the intel and
motorola series, as well as RISC chips have been around for 30+ years.

Yes, much of the technology in many current systems from many companies
has been around for a while.  However, remember that in the middle of the
last centure, the wheel was old, the piston was old (used in pumps), and
steam was even older.  However, putting them together in just such a
way, the steam engine was invented, which , even though made out of potentiall
old components, was new, and useful.

For those of you who have trouble with analogy:
Desktop computing is relatively old (10+ years)
Multitasking is really old ;)
Same with threads, DLL'S, GUI's, etc.
However, if you put them together in just such away, you get something
new and useful.
Add networking (old), security(old), etc.   And it adds newness to the
desktop computing model.

Now, those of you who insist in complaining that the companies in discussion
here (IBM and MS), are not really developing new things, well, you go out and
buy all of the "old" things that you are talking about, and quit complaining,
and the rest of us will go about our business of using and developing the
"new" software.

petesk@micrsoft.com
My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Win 3.1 Disks
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:07:15 GMT

In <1992Nov6.140424.12690@spock.UUCP> roland@spock.uucp (David A. Braun) writes:

>Win. 3.1 Disks...

>Microsoft(r) Windows (TM)
>        Operating System
>        ...
>        1) insert this disk in drive A.
>        2) type a: and press ENTER.
>        3) type SETUP and press ENTER.

>Well, where do I type a: from? I turn on the computer and it says:
>	"OS not found"
>So I try installing it like DOS or OS/2. I insert the 'setup' disk in drive
>and turn on the power... 'Please insert disk with OS in drive and press any
>key to continue' Hmmmm... This only kinda implies that THERE IS NO OS ON THE
>WIN 3.1 DISKS!!! ok, no arguement...

It only implies that if you think that in order for something to be an
operating system it has to boot on bare hardware.  Since there is no
such requirement for something to be an operating system, all you
proved is that it won't load itself on bare hardware.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Windows is a Volkswagon
Date: 08 Nov 92 00:39:47 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Nov5.203447.21012@access.usask.ca> lowey@jester.usask.ca wrote:
> Windows may or may not be an operating system.  I don't really care.
> I prefer to believe Windows is a Volkswagon.  The argument that
> Windows is a Volkswagon is probably more relevant to this newsgroup
> than whether Windows is an operating system or not, and would probably
> be less boring.
> 
> Windows is a Volkswagon because even though it is underpowered and has
> been around a long time, it's very popular and  gets the job done.
I must disagree, because I didn't get one of those nifty little VW
symbols in my Windows Box :(

> 
> On the other hand, Windows/NT is a "cab forward" Chrysler.  It sounds
> like a good idea, the company that made it is pushing it as a good
> idea, but we'll have to wait and see whether the hype really means
> anything in the long run.
Naaahh, It drives like on of those urban utility vehicles.  You know,
kind of like a Cherokee, or a Pathfinder.  Actually, no, more like a
grand cherokee, because you need a big engine.  

> 
> OS/2 is a Jeep.  It may not be as pretty as a "cab forward" Chrysler,
> and it may not be as popular as the VW Bug, but once you get used to
> its quirks (like four-wheel drive) you can go places you never dreamed
> possible before.

Yeah, but to take it off road, you need to find the right apps, errr, tires.
Kind of rare right now, but growing from what y'all have said.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: NT delayed again??? (PC Week Nov 2)
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:33:04 GMT

In article <hatton.721381198@cgl.ucsf.edu> hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:
>Just as an additional query - is Windows for Workgroups simply a
>grandiose title for Windows with networking (plus some other minor 
>goodies)? I haven't seen the description of the features. It may 
>be a record, but I haven't yet seen MS hype on this so far, although
>I'm sure it's on its way.

As far as I can tell, yes, it's just Windows 3.1 with networking stuff
added in.  In fact, this seems to be the gist of Microsoft's argument
that they didn't need a new liscence from Novell, because it's
essentially the same product, just with a few other things bundled.  Of
course, that's what they tell the court, but it'll be interesting to see
if they advertise it that way.
-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1: The ultimate DOS Shell
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:13:58 GMT

In <1992Nov9.174255.22889@spock.UUCP> roland@spock.uucp (David A. Braun) writes:

>I put is simply that Windows is the ultimate DOS Shell:

>DOS <> Windows
>     as
>OS/2 <> PM (WPS)

>Can someone tell me I am really wrong in saying this?

You are really wrong in saying this.  Happy?  ;-)

[You are wrong for a lot of reasons, if you look at the underlying
functionality of the pieces you're talking about there, but I suspect
most people already know that.]

>Roland.


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy