HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 2 Oct 1992 19:02:51 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Sep30.094937.25572@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>If you can call the NT PDK a beta, then I can call OS/2 a toaster, 'cause
>you seem to be randomly labling things.  There are similarities between
>the PDK and a BETA of an OS, being.
>It is a pre-release of the final product.

You forgot that it's also being testes dy its users, whether MS wants to admit
it or not.

You can't call OS/2 a toaster: you can't stick bread in it and watch it turn
brown. I can call the SDK/beta a beta, because it acts like one.

>It is targeted towards developers, so it only includes things developers
>will need to develop their products.  Mainly, the core OS, a C compiler,
>tools, etc.

Whoopee. So you're only letting developers beta the developers' kit.

>It does not include all of the things that most developers will not
>need, such as management tools, Full Win/Dos compatability, Full networking,
>etc.

...you think developers won't need that... Actually, I'd be surprised if the
real reason was simpler: that stuff isn't ready yet.

>It is marketed towards developers, who may be a good source of bug-finding
>in limited areas, but not in stress-test areas, where a true beta will
>come in handy.  By limited areas, I mean that the PDK is likely to be
>used in only a few machines in an instalation, for development purposes,
>and not in a large instalation for general use.

Bwahahahahaha!!!! If it's marketed towards developers, why can any Tom, Dick,
and Harriet call up and order one?

>With that said, Thats why I like to lable the PDK the PDK, because there
>are some differences, and having a different lable helps to differentiate
>between the PDK, and a beta product.  This may become important if the beta
>ever becomes a topic of discussion so as to keep people clear as to which
>version you are talking about.

Yeah, right. The only thing that calling the SDK/beta not a beta accomplishes
is to lower expectations of how well the system should work. Why, pray tell,
is this necessary? Perhaps because it doesn't work that well? (I'll be happy
to test it, if you'll give me a CD-ROM for my computer...)

>I will support your right to label things any way you please, but I may
>not agree with you in this case, and I have stated why.

I'm not labeling it a beta out of randomness. As I've said before, it waddles
like a beta, it smells like a bets, and it quacks like a beta. That makes it a
beta in the eyes of anyone who doesn't look at it with MS-colored glasses.
-- 
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: jswang@leland.Stanford.EDU (James Shih Wang)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 05:52:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.050408.12169@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.200526.11598@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>
>... I stand by what I said.  There are dreadfully few apps that take
>advantage of multitasking.  A mere handful, on the PC.  This will change...
>and when it does, multitasking will be a reason to switch.  Until then,
>all it is is potential.
>

That is not exactly true.  If I'm not mistaken, with preemptive multitasking,
programs does not necessarily have to be written specifically to be able
to be multitasked with other programs.  That's why it is possible for a DOS
program to run as if it is the only program running, while having other
programs running in the background.

Of course, running programs that need a lot of constant user interactions
simultaneously is not really plausible.  Like running a word processor
and a spreadsheet at the same time is not something normal people would do.
However, there are programs that have long waits and you can just leave
it running in the backing while doing something else.  Like scanning entire
hard disks for viruses.  Or backing up entire harddisks onto backup tape.

>
>>
>>>The power of multitasking isn't in running multiple Apps.  TASK SWITCHERS
>>>can do that just fine for the reason you mention above: no one can
>>>do more than one thing at one time with reasonable efficiency--as I wrote
>>>elsewhere: people make poor multitaskers.  *I* cannot create a spreadsheet
>>>AND write a submission at the same time... or Telemarket and balance the
>>>books at the same time.... if I could, I'd never have to hire anybody.
>>
>>But I can create a spreadsheet while my 30 page term paper is
>>printing.  No task switcher can do this.
>
>First, one does not write a thirty page term paper every day (or even
>every month).  Second, if *I* just finished writing a 30 page term paper,
>the least of my desires is to crank open a spreadsheet--the thing on my
>mind would be... Pizza (or sleep)!)!
>

This is true if time is not an important factor for you.  If so,
How about a game of Tetris while the machine is printing?  Or less trivial
stuff like house-keeping.  Maybe checking the integrity of your harddisk.
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:46:07 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

> I totally disagree. If both OS will survive, the compatibility will be DOS
> and 16-bit Windows, maybe with this really ugly DPMI 32-bit. So developers
> will decide to write DOS and WIN16 apps to have the compatibility with
> both OS. That's not what we all desire. I greatly prefer /NT over OS/2,
> but the worst thing that could ever happen, is that both OS will survive.
> 
> Later in a year or so, when either OS/2 or /NT died, there should be some
> OS compatible with the survived OS to start competition again. But please
> not two OS, which are incompatible on the 32-bit level.
> 
> Christoph
> -- 
> Internet: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de
> BITNET: HAMPE2@DMRHRZ11
> Fido: 2:243/660

	How can you greatly prefer NT over OS/2?  You actually
liked the "pre-beta" better than OS/2?  WHY?  

						-Brad
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Moving from X to Y.
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:49:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: mksol.1992Sep30.214913.4635
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Sep30.095720.25762@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

>In article <1992Sep29.170600.12635@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com wrote:
>> In <1992Sep25.115252.6641@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>> 
>> >In article <1992Sep24.174754.26590@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com wrote:
>> 
>> >> 
>> >> >Heck, DOS offers more than most UNIX's 'cause you can boot it off
>> >> >of a 360K floppy ;)
>> 
>> One thing Pete mentioned.
>> 
>> >> 
>> >> Color me unimpressed so far, Pete.
>> 
>> >Okay, You're unimpressed. Can't be with anything but UNIX, though,
>> >'cause nothing else has really been discussed yet.
>> 
>> >petesk@microsoft.com
>> >Noone has any opinions of importance on this group, 
>> >so why should I.
>> 
>> Yet another thing Pete mentioned that I might be 'unimpressed' with.  
>> 
>> See, Pete, there were SEVERAL things in there besides UNIX.  ;-)

>Hey, no fair removing the rest of the post...You sort of got rid
>of the point of the post by removing the context.

Oh, I see.  If someone leaves the whole post in, they get roasted for
wasting badnwidth and such.  If they take out the irrelevant bits then
they've "removed the context".  Of course, the fact that Pete
COMPLAINS about both of these things should in no way be consideed as
being a barrier to him DOING both of them as well, right?

>Oh, well, that's netnews for you...

Yeah, it sure is.

-- 
"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: jurlwin@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU (Jeff Urlwin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: CSD, Service Packs, etc. How? When? Where?
Date: 3 Oct 92 20:12:30 GMT
Organization: University of Maine, Department of Computer Science

In article <ccc.3.718126754@williams.edu> ccc@williams.edu (CCC) writes:
>1) What is the CSD and what is a Service Pack?
CSD is a Corrective Service Diskette(S).  They are fixes to (in this case) 
OS/2.  The "Service Pak" is a great collection of those fixes being bundled
into a whole big release.  

>2) There are patches and bug fixes in the archives, but are those then 
>compiled into a Service Pack, for example? or do I need both?
My suggestion is, at this point, to wait for the Service Pak.  It will fix
most known bugs (maybe all, but I doubt it).  There is a list on 
software.watson.ibm.com which has all the problem reports being fixed for 
in the Service Pak, if you're curious.  

Otherwise, you could apply any of the fixes posted.  I don't recommend that
at this point, unless you're having a major problem with something.
Essentially, the Service Pak will include those plus a whole bunch more.

>3) Where does the beta come in?

It's a beta...It includes the WINOS2 3.1 stuff and I think some more (32-bit
gre...) but I coldn't tell you what else...

>4) Where can I find the CSDs, Service Packs, the beta, etc.?

I think the Service Pak will be available on INTERNET (via 
software.watson.ibm.com) COMPUSERVE and a few other non diskette methods.
It will be available via diskette also, but at a cost and a few weeks later.
(Need time to duplicated disks...:)

>5) Will there be an "official" OS/2 2.1 with the 32-bit GRE and Win 3.1 
>support soon? If so, when? 
I don't know, but I would imagine since the Beta period for this beta stuff
is slated to end Decmber 15, I'd look for it around then.

>If one procures the beta, will reinstalling be 
>necessary when the 2.1 GA comes out?
I don't know this...maybe someone here would know.  I *think* you'd be able
to "over install" the package and preserve your setup, etc.

Jeff



-- 
--------------------------------------
jurlwin@gandalf.umcs.maine.edu
From: uprao@mcl.ucsb.edu (Parik Rao)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Silence on the Windoz Front...
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:10:27 GMT
Reply-To: uprao@mcl.ucsb.edu
Organization: U.C. Santa Barbara

In <BvAv6s.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.

That is because there are multiple, new comp.os.ms-windows. groups.  They
average dozens, if not hundreds (I only read the programmer ones) of msgs
daily.
--
parik rao						       prao@cs.ucsb.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:20:05 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct4.130704.8413@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>IBM no longer sells OS/2 for $49.  I believe the current upgrade
>price is $79, and even that price applies only to Windows users.

Who doesn't have Windows?  You can get old versions for almost nothing
at computer flea markets.  Almost every computer you get includes it.
I've seen some video boards come with 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"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net (Orville R. Weyrich)
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Reply-To: uunet.uu.net!weyrich!orville
Organization: Weyrich Computer Consulting
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 08:36:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.180200.4460@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.232210.21615@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>>There are two sets of people.  Set A comprises those who want a
>>product badly enough to buy it.  Say that of set A, 75% of the
>>purchases are actually used.  Set B comprises those who don't
>>want to buy a product.  Obviously, usage in set A is much greater
>>than usage in set B, so we'll set B usage at 25%.  (These numbers
>>are completely arbitrary, and I use them only to clarify the point)
>
>     The flaw in your logic is the following:  You are taking as
>an axiom the idea that usage in set B will always be less that
>usage in set A.  I think you are probably correct - it would seem
>like common sense to me.  However, there aren't any figures to
>back up that assumption, which makes the rest of the (rather nice, 
>by the way) proof specious at best.

The assumption breaks down if Set B is more inclined to use OS/2  than Set A,
but  Set B is also less affluent than set A, and so could not  afford to 
purchase OS/2.

Under what situation could this  particular scenario occur?

	1) if Set A could  also afford to purchase UNIX and appropriate
	   hardware, and  were familiar  with such, then they MIGHT be
	   more inclined to pop a few bucks to give OS/2  a spin, but not
	   find it to their liking, and  set  it aside.

	2) if Set B were carefully selected to  be poor but eager technophiles
	   that are known to  be dissatisfied with the pre-OS/2 alternatives.

On the other hand, 

	3) Affectionados of UNIX/X might be more likely to take  a liking to
	   OS/2  than the general computing population

	4) if Set B were randomly selected, then they might be less
	   pre-disposed to run  OS/2 than Set  A, and  the purchase cost
	   would be a filter as  originally assumed.

Scenarios #1  and #3 seem  to be a wash, and there  is no  particular
reason to  favor one over  the other, so it is probable  that  these
scenarios  are not a significant influence on the discussion.

Is there any reason to believe that scenario #2 is more probable than 
scenario #4? If not,  then it would  appear that the original argument
has a high probablity  of being accurate  [in the fuzzy or  probabilistic
logic sense].



orville

--------------------------------------   **************************************
Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.                        Weyrich Computer Consulting
Certified Data Processor                     POB 5782, Scottsdale, AZ 85261
Certified Systems Professional                   Voice: (602) 391-0821
Certified Computer Programmer            Internet: orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net
--------------------------------------   **************************************
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 5 Oct 92 12:38:46 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Oct5.174604.24009@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.194717.18452@u.washington.edu> mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth) writes:
>>Jay, like you, I suppose that it would be nice if we could pick and choose 
>>the components that will be included in whatever os we decide to run.  I'd 
>>suggest that what you ask is not a trivial undertaking.
>
>I suggest otherwise.  If the system is modular (as OS/2 and NT are,
>according to IBM and MS), then it's fairly simple to package separate
>modules on separate disks and  install them separately.  IBM seems to
>have done it already.

Well at least in the case of IBM TCP/IP -- this doesn't hold... for
example sockets are not dup-able.  NFS drive folders don't work
(even though they show up).

>
>>Microsoft is attempting to meet the needs of a very large segment of
>>the market by including networking in the base product.
>
>MS is trying to meet the needs of the server market.  In that market,
>networking (TCP/IP, IPX/SPX, and/or SNA) are critical features.  In
>the home market (where OS/2 seems to be catching on very well), it
>isn't.  And it won't for a high price.

Ah... where's you sources... what makes you say OS/2 seems to be
catching on very well in the home market?

...
>>You object to the cost of NT.  However, we haven't any real idea of what the 
>>cost of NT is, as yet.  Final pricing isn't available.  The only price, so far,
>>is $69 bucks.  
>
>Do you think that's going to last beyond that GA date?  Actually, I
>should buy one of them CD's as well.  It'll get me the released
>version when it ships.  I certainly won't be getting NT for cheap
>prices when it ships out.

Sure you will... you have OS/2 2.0... there will be great offers for such
users.  You can join the great OS/2 2.0 -> NT migration that will occur
when NT ships.  1/2 :-)

>David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
University of Utah                             United We Stand
Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6800 comp.sys.intel:1843 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:26026
From: tuan@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Tuan Minh Nguyen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: 4 Oct 92 06:36:52 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

The Electrical Engineering Times quotes Bill Gates saying that he is "bullet
proof" in his support of PowerPC.
Apple will initially run System 7 on their box with Mac apps running on an
emulator until PowerPC apps are produced.
IBM will initially run AIX on their box.  The 601 chip was just officially
released.  It is supposed to be as fast or faster than the P5 and cheaper to
produce.  
For more info, check out all the trade mags.

TMN

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:49:58 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <EemFEFy00WBO88XXxw@andrew.cmu.edu> cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido) writes:
>
>I know that Joe Idiot drives the market, but OS/2 does what I need in a
>computer, without spending the thousands of investing in Unix and
>thousands more in apps.  Of course IBM has to take into account Joe
>Idiot; they are first and formost, a profit maximizing corporation,
>right?

     Agreed on all counts, except for the statement about your
computing needs, about which I know nothing.


>  I didn't take them into account.  My reply was to the fact that
>people say Win 3.1 kicks OS/2's butt simply because more people buy it. 
>Like I said, I don't care if people buy it, I don't think it's a better
>system.  The end.

     "Kicks butt" is an ill-defined phrase.  If someone is using it to
mean "sells more copies", then Windows is clearly "kicking OS/2's
butt."  If someone is using it to mean "has more users", Windows is
still the wielder of the foot.  If someone is using it to mean "has
more features", then it is Windows who's rump is being bludgeoned.

					-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: soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn)
Subject: Re: Os/2ers whine again
Reply-To: soh3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 06:48:35 GMT

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

I think it's easier to be called Toaster than OS/2 3.0 if os/2 and
windows nt did not really had nothing in common.  Just a thought.

Min
From: alex@fermat.uucp (Alex Gerbessiotis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Date: 27 Sep 92 20:25:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: das.1992Sep27.202504.8114
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University

>From: francis@vnet.ibm.com (Tim Francis)
>In article <1992Sep24.230752.5814@fcom.cc.utah.edu>,
>brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>ComputerWorld (September 21, 1992, {forget the page... in the first 20})
>>Reports the cost for the C++ as $1,800.
>>
>>Brian
>
>-tim

1) Related to the 'is pre-beta an alpha or what?" arguments and
ComputerWorld (Sep 21, 1992).

On the last page  of the same issue of  CW (in a column named 'inside lines'
or something like this), there is a quote attributed by CW to
M. Maples of Microsoft
saying something along the lines "we are  still reviewing feedbabck from ...
... the 14,000 beta-test copies of NT in  developers' hands ...".
[I don't have a copy of CW handy, but i clearly remember that there was
no pre- before the beta]

Does this imply an official confirmation that pre-beta is indeed a beta? :-)
Or is Maples refering to something else?

It is  not my intention to start a flame war, I'm just pointing to
an article.

2) On a separate note, did anyone read John Dvorak's column on
the October PC Computing?
He claims that a mole at  Microsoft has distributed copies of an
internal memo that outlines the MS strategy against OS/2. 
Among other things this memo supposedly claims that OS/2 will not load
on 24% of the machines tested (and among such machines are ones from some well
known vendors; for details read the article). No models were mentioned just
vendor names.  Dvorak verified that a machine from one of these vendor
was running OS/2 happily (and some of the  named vendors, since i read the
article, have been offering  or think of offering OS/2 on some
of their machines).

Any comments on this Dvorak article (are his claims related to this report
real or a bit exaggerated)?


3) Related to  the IBM OS/2 marketing now (from a first hand experience).

Some time last week (after Sept 14<- note the date)
i got in my mailbox, an OS/2 Solutions Coupon Book.
Among various offers there was one for Workset/2 (by the way,
C Set/2 was advertised as the definitive 23-bit !!!:-) compiler),
offering it for $600 off the regular price(how much is it by the way? I'm
asking out of curiosity, rather than of interest).
This offer was valid thru Sep 5, 1992 <-- note
the date and compare it with Sept 14:-).

With such  IBM marketing, let God and Windows NT delays
help   OS/2 :-)


Regards,

Alex Gerbessiotis
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy