HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: d92-jhe@hemul.nada.kth.se (Johan Hellman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: How many NT SPECIFIC programs have been shown at COMDEX?
Date: 12 Dec 92 13:54:55 GMT
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

In <1992Dec11.220638.22277@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:


>>Brian, how did you determine that the products you counted 'specifically
>>tapped NT's 32-Bit architecture'? Did you actually ask the vendors, or
>>use some other indicator? I'm just curious if you 'counted' the same
>>thing they say they did...

>In fact I did ask.  Of the 100 I looked at specifically, only 5 or so
>did not have at least 32-bit prototypes that they were showing.

 Oh, so 32-bit is the only advantage with NT? A windows program can be
recompiled after a few changes for 32-bits. That doesn4t mean that it
"specifically tapps NT4s architecture". In order to do that it would
have to be multithreaded and son on.

>Most had late alpha/early beta 32-bit software.
>About 40 of them I talked to at length ( 1 or 2 minutes) because I had
>specific interest in the products.
>I spent over 3 hours in the ISV portion of the Microsoft booth.
>And remember there were more than 100 present, I just ran out of time.

 You also didn4t set any high standards for which programs
"specifically taps NT4s 32-bit architecture". Those same vendors could
have compiled the same programs for OS/2 using the Mirrors.Dll, and
would then have "specifically tapped OS/24s 32-bit architecture".
NOT!!!

/johan

-- 
+-----------------------+----------------------------+-----------------------+
! Johan Hellman         ! E-mail addresses;          ! Per aspera ad astra.  !
! Student of CS         ! d92-jhe@dront.nada.kth.se  !-----------------------!
! Royal Institute of    ! Johan Hellman at 2:201/291 ! The above opinions    !
! Technology, Stockholm ! in FidoNet (+46-8-6676206) ! are my own, as usual. !
+-----------------------+----------------------------+-----------------------+
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unicode - anyone knwos something ? (was Re: HPFS-386
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:48:04 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Dec13.002834.2022@ludd.luth.se>, bjorn@ludd.luth.se (Bjorn Fahll
er) writes:
>In <92345.112949RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at (FLATS
CHER Rony) writes:
>
>>Sitting in Europe, having friends and relatives scattered all over Europe
>>and Japan, Unicode is a very much deserved and needed feature missing at the
>>moment in OS/2. This is very important for exchanging documents among differen
t
>>countries.
>
>>Does anyone know (maybe from IBM) when Unicode is due under OS/2 ?
>
>A remotely related subject. I read in a magazine some time ago, that ISO
>found Unicode to be obsolete and that they're working on a 32 bit character
>set. Does anyone know anything about that at all, or was I just dreaming?
>I haven't seen Unicode yet, but I have a hard time understanding how 16-bit
>shouldn't be enough for a character set.
>
>BTW, I'm also hoping that OS/2 in a very short time will incorporate Unicode
>(full out). This mess with code-pages is just not very good.


ISO did come up with a character set.  Unicode is a subset of the ISO
standard.  (I forget the actual name of the ISO standard, it isn't something
easy to remember like Unicode)  However given that there are apporximately
23,000-25,000 characters in all the languages in the world combined and
Unicode supports up to about 32,000 character the ISO set isn't likely to see
much use.  The ISO standard can have up to 4,000,000+ characters.

FYI: ANSI is a subset of Unicode.

>
>   _
>/Bjorn.
>--
>Bjorn Fahller     Phone:              |The opinions above are not necessarily
>Trollnasvagen 3A  Intl:+46 920 226870 |those of... Hey! Wait a minute. Do you
>S-951 61 Lulea    Natl:0920-22 68 70  |seriously expect Me, a student, to carry
>Sweden            << space for rent >>|the official voice of the University?
>

-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: "stephen dawson" <stephen.dawson@canrem.com>
Subject: why os/2 2.0? (long)
Reply-To: "stephen dawson" <stephen.dawson@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: comp
Date: 19 Dec 92 09:28:58 EST

thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:

TG>That document from IBM contained many
TG>statements regarding OS/2 and NT that are incorrect or
TG>could mislead users.

Statements like this have 0 credibility unless accompanied by
examples.

    STEPHEN         Look through the Windows and you will see OS/2!
    ^^^^^^^    :-)  Walking and chewing gum at the same time.

 stephen.dawson@canrem.com
 Entered 12-18-92 at 7:03pm in Downsview, Ontario

 * DeLuxe2/386 1.25 #3969 * Live long and prosper.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Why Windows NT will fail -----
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:08:21 GMT

In <1992Dec11.225708.29290@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>In article <8093@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec11.211713.23323@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>>	error--even if it is obviously a typo (see the thread--
>>>	*thread*--that started because some bozo misread a sentence
>>>	"MS Windows (Apps)" vs. "MS (Windows apps)"..)
>>Of course, it looks like you missed the original poster's followup where he
>>said he wasn't as clear as he meant to be, and the other posting where someone
>>else said they read it the same way I did...


>	Which is why (grit teeth, accept that YES, there ARE people
>	this dense out there) I decided to post a message
>	making what I was writing *CLEAR* so that such confusion
>	COULD NOT ARISE.

You have met the people that dense out there, and lo, you are they.

> 
>	Christ.

Yes?

-- 
"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: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT is missing something major:  OS/2 32-bit compatibility
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:27:09 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Dec12.210021.22033@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
 writes:
>In article <2b29ae56@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org> Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidon
et.org writes:
>>OS/2 2.x in some version past 2.1 will probably be able to run Win32s
>>applications as IBM is rumored to have started work on this a few
>>months ago.
>
>
>       Is this a FOAF rumor?  An "I heard it on the net rumor?"
>
>
>>I don't believe they made an "official" announcement yet, however.  I
>>don't believe that Microsoft has made an "official" announcement about
>>Win32s final ship date yet, either, but we all know that its coming,
>>right?
>
>
>       Just kidding.  I have no doubt whatsoever that OS/2 will
>       support Win32s, since even NeXT has said that their
>       bridge to windows will support it.


IBM has made some noises about doing this.  Apparently people outside the net
have heard this too.  Check out the latest PC Magazine, page 85 second column
(Machrone's column) and he says something about the possiblity that IBM might
do this.  IBM has stated nothing official as of yet though, so I wouldn't hold
my breath.


-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From: rommel@jonas.gold.sub.org (Kai Uwe Rommel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: \* IBM's OS/2 2.0 Scores Big \*
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:57:42 GMT
Organization: Private

In article <1992Dec14.034140.4853@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>>>      Pre-emptive Multi-tasking
>which is useless, since the system becomes unresponsive, when a PM app
>doesn't give away CPU time due the single message queue. So this is cooperative
>multitasking for PM apps. Don't ever forget that.

Wrong. If a PM app's message processing thread doesn't return quickly
from processing a message, it is suspended and another one is
scheduled. If this happens to be a message-queue thread too, it will
not get any message to process, but all other threads (non-message
queue ones) continue to execute. The reason why all serious work in PM
apps should be moved from message queue threads (more specifically
such ones which have created any windows) to background threads.

>>>      Support for multithreading
>Same as above

No.

>>>      Good crash protection
>Hey, it gets better. If OS/2 has good crash protection, I don't wanna know,
>what bad crash protection is. Probably a system with bad crash protection will
>not boot.

Bad crash protection is what Windows 3.x has, i.e. protection agains
*invalid* addresses, but not against accessing valid addresses of
*other* tasks.

>>>      Runs on 386/20 w/4 megs RAM and uses 31 megs HD space
>Better not try it with 4 Meg

Better not try NT with 8 or even 16 Megs, if you really want to *work*
with NT.

>>>      Windows NT
>>>
>>>      32-bit Kernel that runs on Intel, MIPS R4000
>>
>>       You left out Alpha and Clipper.
>And he left out, that porting to other platforms is an easy task.

Yeah, as long as it's 32-bit and little-endian. Both the R4000 and
Alpha NT versions run as 32-bit OS'es on 64-bit CPU's. 

And SGI made a special little-endian version of their R4000
workstation series to run NT on, it doesn't run on the others, as far
as I have read. Apparently, R4000 machines can be designed as both
little and big endians.

Kai Uwe Rommel

--
/* Kai Uwe Rommel                                      Muenchen, Germany *
 * rommel@jonas.gold.sub.org                       Phone +49 89 723 4101 *
 * rommel@informatik.tu-muenchen.de                  Fax +49 89 723 7889 */

DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt
handler, and always will be.                -Russell Williams
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Rude behavior on this group.
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: world,local
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:11:45 GMT

In <1992Dec17.200724.3936@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>Jim opens up a computer store, and he sells ten machines per week.  
>His distributor extends a price of $900 per machine, which he turns
>around and sells for $1000.  He notices that many of his walk-ins
>inquire about Windows+DOS installed (for which he charges $80 extra), and
>finding that it's an "extra cost", they go to The Computer Shop Down the
>Street (tm) because their price for a similarly configured system
>(with software) is cheaper.

>So Jim decides to "bundle" Windows+DOS with his systems... but he
>cannot compete with The Computer Shop Down the Street, unless he can
>get better prices.  So he signs an agreement with Microsoft so he can
>sell his Windows+DOS for $50.

>Week number one of his new venture, he sells his machines for $1050.  But
>now, many of the walk-ins see that his price is "competetive" and buy
>the system: instead of 10 machines per week, he's selling 20 machines
>per week.  His distributor is happy, and extends a price of $850 per
>machine after a few months.

>Jim is even happier.  He lowers his price back down to $1000, and sells,
>say 25 machines per week.

>The above HYPOTHETICAL situation does occur, often with computer systems,
>peripherals, and even lobster tails and automobiles.  It all depends, of
>course, that Windows+DOS-bundled systems are more in demand than
>unbundled systems (which appears to be the case in real life).

It also assumes a relatively uncompetitive market for the hardware,
since there is all that profit margin for him to play with (still
running 10% profit per unit).  Actually, by Joe's example, Jim went
broke because he couldn't cover his other costs.  You know.  Stuff
like labor and lights and rent and . . . 

>In the end, "Jim" is able to sell his machines bundled with Windows+DOS
>"for free": the demand for his machines has picked up so that his
>distributor has lowered his cost.  Sure, with narrow perspective one could
>say "But he's CHARGING for windows."--but that's beside the point.  He
>is selling a system for $1000, with Windows+DOS--for the same price as
>he was selling the system without Windows+DOS.. AND MAKING THE SAME PROFIT
>PER MACHINE..., also keep in mind, he is making a greater profit than he
>did.

Thus showing that you can prove anything if you diddle hard enough
with the numbers and get to pick your starting numbers as well.



-- 
"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: jurlwin@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU (Jeff Urlwin)
Subject: Re: I'd rather use Windoze
Keywords: productivity
Organization: University of Maine, Department of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:07:42 GMT

In article <BzBtuL.6u6@rice.edu> amitp@owlnet.rice.edu writes:
>If I were working in an office typing documents or something, I'd
>rather be running Windoze.  Why?  Well, every time I print I have a
>legitimate excuse to get up and talk to someone, or get a cup of
>coffee.  If the office was running OS/2, my boss would be asking me
>why I'm not working on another document...  :(
>
>We NEED windoze so that we won't be overworked!

Yes.  With OS/2 I don't have the excuse that my machine is tied up...
DANG! 



-- 
--------------------------------------
jurlwin@gandalf.umcs.maine.edu
From: Joe@twistor.dialix.oz.au (Joe Katnic)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re:  More Controversial Topics
Distribution: world
Date: 11 Dec 92 23:22:07 PST
Organization: Not an Organization

In article <1992Dec8.205713.18213@netcom.com> timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:
>In article <Joe.0079@twistor.dialix.oz.au> Joe@twistor.dialix.oz.au (Joe Katnic) writes:
>>In article <1fun9iINNip2@tamsun.tamu.edu> daa7365@tamuts.tamu.edu (Diego A. Aranda) writes:
>>>
>>>Take this as a fact: OS/2 is not designed to allow this kind of usage.
>>>Possible future versions will - but nothing available within the next year.
>>>
>>   IBM currently sells the PS/2 295, SYMETRIC MUTLIPROCESSOR, 
>>   running - you guessed it - OS/2.
>>   Available at your local IBM store...
>>
>>   Sorry, all you NT advocates missed the boat again...
>
>Well, that's very nice.  However you forget to mention that the version
>of OS/2 that it runs is the server version (Lan Manager or something?),
>not the OS/2 2.0 that you run on you desktop system.  Very different things.
>
>>Joe Katnic  Perth, Western Australia  Joe@twistor.DIALix.oz.au      _--_|\ 
>
>     - Mike

   So What?
   I also didn't mention that the PS/2 295 has a minimum price
   tag of $12,000 AUS. It looks like a small AS/400. Just something
   that every user is going to have on their desktop!

   You stated that OS/2 does not TODAY support S-M-P. I proved
   it does. Not everyone is going to want S-M-P. Currently the
   version of OS/2 that can to S-M-P is used for a MASSIVE server.
   We are talking alots of GBytes disk space. 

   By time most people start to want to use S-M-P, IBM will have
   had experience in S-M-P under OS/2 and will be positioned to
   use that knowledge to their advantage.

   P.S. How many OS's has MicroSoft produced that do S-M-P ?
            Answer: Windows NT (not yet Avail.) = 0.

        How many OS's has IBM produced that do S-M-P ?
            Answer: MVS, VM, DOS/VSE, AIX, OS/2 = 5.
--
Joe Katnic  Perth, Western Australia  Joe@twistor.DIALix.oz.au      _--_|\ 
                                   (ALT: jkatnic@DIALiz.oz.au)     /      \
"A search for the ultimate              Phone: (+619) 474 3939 --->\_.--._/
 mathematical reality inevitably                                         v 
 creates fairy tales, not science".. E.J. Lerner.
From: gt0040a@prism.gatech.EDU (Tom Sorensen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Controversial Topics
Date: 14 Dec 92 03:09:17 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In <1992Dec14.012521.10340@netcom.com> timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:

>In article <Joe.007r@twistor.dialix.oz.au> Joe@twistor.dialix.oz.au (Joe Katnic) writes:
[... an incredible amount of useless text ...]

>Number Two:  The version of OS/2 you have does not support SMP.  In
>     fact, no released version of OS/2 supports SMP.  The important

[ more text irrelvant to this post ]

>>   P.S. How many OS's has MicroSoft produced that do S-M-P ?
>>            Answer: Windows NT (not yet Avail.) = 0.

>Released?  None.

You're right- neither IBM nor MS have *RELEASED* OS's that support SMP. MS
has one in beta and IBM has one in planning- OS/2 3.0 (plus Taligent, for
what its worth). OS/2 3.0 will use the Mach kernal, which inherently supports
SMP.

If you're going to try and put a ruler against OS/2 & NT you *MUST* use the
same scale. Neither IBM or MS have *RELEASED* OS's that support SMP, by your
own definition of released. Both have them in the near future- NT in mid '93 
and OS/2 3.0 in early or mid '94.
           Tom Sorensen
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Sorensen              gt0040a@prism.gatech.edu
"I believe OS/2 is destined to be the most important operating system,
and possibly program, of all time." - Bill Gates, November, 1987
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (BRIAN PAUL VAN LIEU)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: NT incompatible with OS/2???
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:31:07 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University


    After reading the threads about NT barfing when OS/2 is present with Boot
    Manager, it would seem that MS has made a *huge* mistake.

    By the time NT gets out, it is estimated that there could be nearly 3
    million OS/2 (users, copies, use whatever word you feel is appropriate)
    out there. That is 3 million potential NT customers (if MS is *serious*
    about NT running on typical PCs) who will think many times before trying
    NT. These users would have to delete OS/2 and BM in order to even try NT.
    Don't even suggest that it is possibe to have everything work out. After
    reading posts about how this is done, no one in there right mind should
    want to attempt it. Hackers, like a majority of us, will do it. # million
    people will not.

    I do not care what the technical reasoning is ( A person from MS gave a
    very logical explanation for it). It is neglegent. It hurts MS's
    reputation for deliberatly putting code in their products to dissadvantage
    opposing products (remember DR DOS 6, undocumented calls, etc..).

    AS much as I like to hack, I do not think I want to go through that
    routine to install something just to test it. We will see. It seems that
    the reverse is not true, and that if NT exists, OS/2 will install fine. If
    this it true, MS, listen up tough guys: You blew it, and you better CYA
    real quickly...

                                            cheers,

                                            bvl
-- 

  Brian P. Van Lieu
  Lehigh University-AXP
  lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu

            OS/2 2.0...anything else is just a DOS.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 Application List 1/2
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 01:14:20 GMT

In article <BzHI4K.8C3@csfb1.fir.fbc.com> uunet!csfb1!jbrock writes:
>Re:  Boffin Software
>
>Forgive me if this is common knowledge, but some people here seem to
>feel that "Boffin" is somehow a silly name for a software company, so I
>thought I would mention that in my experience "boffin" is an English
>(British) expression which denotes a high powered (but vaguely
>ridiculous) professor or intellectual.
>
>In American English it might translate as "egghead".
>
>-- 
>John Brock
>uunet!csfb1!jbrock
>jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com

Yes, thanks for the note.  As the one who first found Boffin and it's
software titles amusing, I put it into the context of a Monty Python
routine for precisely that reason.  Unfortunately, the humor-impaired
around here don't quite get it.

I did learn, though, that Boffin Software is real and produces some
apparently very significant, if narrowly-focused, software for various
platforms.

Cheers!

jmalloy@hamilton.edu

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: goyal@utdallas.edu (MOHIT K GOYAL)
Subject: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:35:34 GMT

Got this off the InterNet today:
----------------------------------------

REDMOND, WASHINGTON, U.S.A., 1992 DEC 18 (NB) -- Business Week
magazine, in its December 28th issue, says FTC investigators have 
concluded that the software company has engaged in anticompetitive 
actions. The magazine also reports that the investigators are 
preparing recommendations as to how to proceed against the company.

According to Business Week, the recommendations being prepared by 
the agency's investigators could include breaking up the company, 
altering the way its software is sold to computer makers, or 
isolating the divisions from each other. The latter move, if
adopted, would effectively have each division operating as a 
separate entity.

Business Week says the investigators focused on Microsoft's
"aggressive tactics" including the way it licenses its software to 
computer makers. The company reportedly has 95 percent of the 
operating systems market for personal computers powered by Intel 
microprocessors. The magazine also claims that the report alleges 
that Microsoft has unfairly used its dominance to gain an edge in 
development of such software applications as word processing 
programs and spreadsheets.

Rival software companies have complained publicly and apparently to
the Federal Trade Commission that Microsoft uses "predatory
practices" in selling its operating systems. The operating system is
the software which provides basic functions such as file management,
and is the foundation from which applications such as word
processing programs run. Allegations have also been made that
Microsoft dumped software at prices designed to drive other
companies from the market.

When contacted by Newsbytes late Thursday, a Microsoft spokesperson
would only say "No comment."

(Jim Mallory/19921218/Press contact: Christine Summerson, Business 
Week, 212-512-2882)

------------------------------------------
Hmmmmm...