HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: Doug Hamilton responds
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:53:49 GMT

In article <81116@hydra.gatech.EDU> henshaw@cerl.gatech.edu (Andy Henshaw) writes:
>
>>>No flame, just curious: what was it that Microsoft did in that "hell of
>>>a job on wooing him over to the NT camp?" 
>
>>For starters, they gave him a lovely workstation or two to develop NT software
>>on.
>
>>>jmalloy@hamilton.edu
>
>-- 
>>D. Robert Spexet II, N0OKR   Internet:  spexet@umich.edu, dspexet@attmail.com
>
>--------
>Yes, and then he writes in his column for Windows Magazine (it was
>Windows & OS/2 when this happened, I believe) that he was going to
>be developing for NT because Microsoft is so good to developers.
>As if Microsoft just gave him the workstation because he was a developer
>and not because he was an influential columnist.  I wrote several
>letters (via America Online) to Fred Langa, editor of Windows magazine
>about that column and Mr. Langa was never able to defend it, IMO.
>
>Andy Henshaw
>henshaw@cerl.gatech.edu
>
Hey, I smell a conspiracy theory in the making!  "Mr. Hamilton, that
workstation from Microsoft: what did you do and when did you do it?"
IOW, it would be highly interesting to know if he got it on the strength
of his columnar activities at "OS/2, OS/2 and Windows, Windows and OS/2"
(moving target/title!), which was, to be sure, a not very influential
little rag, or if MS rewarded him for his columns in the upshot of all
this, Windows magazine.

Oh, well, I gather from other stories that MS and IBM do this stuff all
the time (i.e., it's they way corporation often work).  Too bad the
'little guys' usually don't get any appreciation. 

jmalloy@hamilton.edu
o

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:24:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.134805.8050@cs.joensuu.fi> jahonen@cs.joensuu.fi (Jarmo Ahonen) writes:
>
>
>Both MS and IBM are not saints or saving angels, they just happen to be 
>competing against each others in the PC field. For example, I think that
>the MS's claim that *I* could buy an off-the-shelf Windows NT in the beginning
>of 1993 was pure FUD which was intended to make me to sit and wait and not
>to buy UNIX or OS/2. I'm not even sure if MS people believed in that end-of-92
>release date themselves. If not, then it was a fine move. I even waited
>additional months for NT because of that announcement! :-) :-) :-) Maybe Philip
>Laforna or P. Skelly could inform us about the story. I do not think that
>they will answer, but do not be surprised if your favourite company spreads
>FUD when it suits it.
>
Something both NT and OS/2 advocates can believe in: each corporation is
out to make money and neither is solely an angel nor the devil himself.

This point about FUD, though, is either irrelevant or it cuts both ways.
To illustrate the latter point, I might easily argue that IBM's
delivery of "OS/2 LA" last year (or, what was it, two minutes before
midnight on December 31, 1992? :) was a masterful stroke of FUD since
they clearly weren't going to meet the deadline they had set for
themselves and needed to do something to save face or head off the
Windows landslide.  In fact, I suspect they merely fell behind in their
best-laid plans and issued LA in much the say way MicroSoft issues NT
beta's (which are easier to get, however, and are less expensive than LA
was supposed to be).

IOW, the delay of NT hardly surprises any reasonable person just as the
delay of OS/2 2.1 is no surprise either.  If any and all software
release delays are FUD just because one doesn't like the vendor in
question, then that's silly.

It's probably a good idea to recall that we are dealing with complex
systems that are created by fallible human beings and that there will
always be more corporate optimism than corporate pessimism (would you
want to buy anything from a manufacturer who publicly announces that,
"gee, we're unable to do what we though we could do, sorry, we're just
bumbling fools but we'll get it done eventually?"  :)  Regardless of
source, it's time to give people a break.  They're only human.

[soapbox mode off]

jmalloy@hamilton.edu
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Date: 26 Jan 93 05:29:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1993Jan26.052945.8320
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.

In article <1993Jan25.200502.2638@ncsu.edu> jmbeesle@eos.ncsu.edu (JAMES MICHAEL BEESLEY) writes:
>
>Something all you happy Beeta downloaders should realize:
>
>Use the OS/2 2.1 beta after March 31, 1993 and you are subject to
>    prosecution by IBM for illegally using copyrighted code.
>
>The NT CD-ROM deal from Microsoft (in case some of you can't 
>spell it :-)  allows you rights to the GA Level ship code and a free 
>copy when it ships.  There is a large difference between the two
>deals.
>                               -Jim.

Either this is flame bait, or maybe you have not realized that 2.1
GA is scheduled to ship before March 31, 1993 (at last report). In
either case the point is moot...

...Paul

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dposey@well.sf.ca.us (David Posey)
Subject: Re: installing os/2 2.1 beta
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 06:49:01 GMT

In <1993Jan20.222956.15348@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> rl@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (roger.h.levy) writes:

>Although I own os/2 2.0, it is no longer installed on my machine.
>My 10 year old is the major user of this stuff and he objected to
>the WIN 3.0 equivalence of win-os/2.  I understand this has been
>updated in 2.1 so we're ready to give os/2 another shot.  I ftp'd
>the 27 disk images from software.watson.ibm.com.  QUESTION - I
>see that the disk images are to be transferred with LOADDSKF.  Is
>this something in 2.0?  Do I need to reinstall 2.0 before I can
>install the 2.1 beta release?  Also, for the sake of a friend
>who does not have an os/2 license, what is IBM's policy with
>regard to distribution and use of the 2.1 beta release?  A quick
>scan of readme.ter (what's ter ?) didn't give me answers to these
>questions.  Thanks.

>Roger Levy
>roger@allegra.att.com

As far as the use of the 2.1 beta goes - for what it's worth, they
were giving away copies of the 2.1 beta on CD-ROM at the OS/2-Windows
show in San Jose today. I suspect they'd like you to buy a copy of
the 2.1 release version when it becomes available, but this is the
*easiest-to-get* beta ever available from any company. (No long-distance
holds, no 'they're all out of the office today', no 'NT? What's that?
Oh, I'll transfer you to Suzy!')

Enjoy!

David
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: michael@amo.mit.edu (Michael Courtney)
Subject: OS/2 2.1b on Hobbes
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 17:19:18 GMT


	The ftp traffic on Hobbes must have significantly decreased
since the initial rush to get the 2.1 beta.  Last night I ftp'ed
the whole thing at a rate of about 20Kbyte/sec.  It took several hours.

Michael Courtney
michael@amo.mit.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2
From: yue@loon.Stanford.EDU (Kenneth C. Yue)
Subject: Re: CD ROM Drive for OS/2 2.1 beta and future multimedia applications
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, CA, USA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:53:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.194935.2642@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu> mpearson@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Matthew Pearson) writes:
>In article <009673C1.ADDCA7C0@Msu.oscs.montana.edu> oususasm@Msu.oscs.montana.edu writes:
>>
>>Try the Texel 5024 (or 3024 external model) CDROM drive.  It incorporates  300k
>>throughput, 265ms access time, photo CD and XA support.  It is one of the
>>fastest dirves on the market.  Hard Drives international sells it as the Talon
>
>It IS the FASTEST drive one the market for consumers...

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought Toshiba 3401 has a 200ms
access time and a 325k/s throughput.

Ken
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 07:16:22 GMT

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>In article <1993Jan24.120703.11014@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>>If the Koreans and Japanese were doing what MS is doing, they would be up on
>>dumping charges faster then you can say "monopoly".


>	But not, of course, IBM who is giving away the beta and selling the
>	equiv to the MS extras for $15?

Oh right, they should make you pay alot so that noone will want to use
it. What *was* the purpose of a beta product anyway.
The fact that they are giving it away could be argue, yes, to the extent
that *they* should pay *you*. After all, if you do part of their work,
they should be paying you for it.



-- 
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)
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Prediction: The press will abandon microsoft in 1993
Date: 27 Jan 1993 03:12:55 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu



I think most people who pay attention to the trade rags notice
that the press seem to give favorable reviews to the products
that sell well while poor reviews are more likely if a product 
doesn't sell well.

But has anyone noticed that this has happend with windows for workgroups?
Since the product is selling very poorly, we are starting to see
journalists start to say things to the effect that "I always was
a bit suspiscios of the product", instead of the headlines which 
proclaimed the demise of all who stood in microsoft's way.

When Windows NT is released, the press will still have Windows for
Workgroups on their collective minds.  Windows NT is going to get off
to the same slow start as Windows for Workgroups because it is facing 
organized competition in novell and banyan, aimlessly marketed between 
being a server and a client, and going to have to live up to more hype 
than any piece of code should have to.  As soon as the press see the 
second next generation windows package fall short of microsoft's 
claims, they will become very skeptical, to say the least.

I predict some very harsh windows NT reviews when NT finally does arrive.

-- 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel)
Subject: Re: AmiPro for OS/2 (was Re: Impressions of OS/2 2.1 Beta)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: world,local
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:32:39 GMT

177wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:

>> I think Ami Pro for PM will be a straight port of the Windows version, and
>> will languish on version 3 while Lotus cranks out versions 5 and beyond
>> for Windows.
>> 
>> That is, if Lotus ever does release a PM version.  They certainly won't
>> take advantage of OS/2 EAs, long file names, or threading, or any of the
>> good stuff OS/2 has.
>> 
>> P.S.: Where is Stacker OS/2 now?  Talk about vaporware....
>> -- 
>> Greg Franklin
>> f67709907@ccit.arizona.edu

>	This is the kind of stupidity that really annoys me.  It reminds
>me much of the days when I was into Windows 3.0 when everyone else
>laughed because  "windows was so slow, no one is going to make apps for
>that slow pretty dos shell!"
>	
>	Stacker is in beta.  There are users in this echo who are beta
>testing it.  
>	AmiPro may be indeed more of a port than a rewrite but I would
>be willing to bet that it will support long file names and EA's (especially
>since Lotus told me so).

>							-Brad

>p.s. learn about what you speak of before you rant in an advocacy group..
>sheesh!

I disagree with much of the first post, but the next post is a little flawed
too. Brad, I do not know about your specific experience, but the computer
industry in general considered Windows to be a revolution in computing from the
outset. Go look through the old magazines and newspapers, and how many 
developers were committed to it. PCWorld, for example, was already pretty much
declaring Windows the successor to DOS when it just came out.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: goyal@utdallas.edu (MOHIT K GOYAL)
Subject: Re: AmiPro for OS/2 (was Re: Impressions of OS/2 2.1 Beta)
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Distribution: world,local
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 20:38:58 GMT

>>> AmiPro for OS/2 2.0 will be full 32-bit, Workplace Shell aware,
>>> multithreaded, HPFS aware, etc.  Ditto 1-2-3 2.0, Freelance Graphics,
>>> and cc:Mail.
>	Well, now.  Will it use Mirrors?  What, in this context, does
>	"Workplace shell aware" really mean?
>

Geez...NO, it will NOT use Mirrors.  It is complete 32-bit OS/2 product
from the ground up.

For those of you who don't know, WPS aware means that it will work with the
WPS.  (Drag an AP doc. icon onto the AP icon and have AP load up with that
doc, etc, etc) 

The head of Lotus Ami Pro. 123, & Freelance groups (3 different people) 
demoed all 3 of the above products here in late December.

Those three, and CC:Mail will all be true 32-bit OS/2 apps.  Not ports.

I didn't ask about pricing specifically on all products, but the AP head
said that it would have the same price as the Windows version, and they
gave the impression that all their products would soon, if not all
already, have the same price across different platforms. (DOS, Windows, and
OS/2 versions same list price)

Lotus has been saying 1Q93 for 123 & Freelance for a while, and they still
are.  They said 1Q93 for AP up until about the 1st of the year, now they are
saying 2Q93.  The head of AP said March/April.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: roland@margaret (David A. Braun)
Subject: Re: Win NT's "bad looks"
Organization: Choate Rosemary Hall
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 13:54:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan18.030010.12791@netcom.com> erc@netcom.com (Eric Smith)  
writes:
> In article <1993Jan17.223434.1952@actrix.gen.nz>  
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
> >In article <1993Jan15.210105.19082@netcom.com> erc@netcom.com (Eric Smith)  
writes:
> >> In article <1j6rlrINNu0t@emx.cc.utexas.edu> loflin@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Don  
Loflin) writes:
> >> >but if NT is supposed to be so cool, why doesn't it LOOK any cooler?  A
> >> 
> >> It's hot.
> >
> >*groan*.......:-)
> > 
> >Only your disk's swap file gets hot if you run NT......in less than 16megs.
> >
> >16megs? Sure....and I'd like a BMW, too.
> > 
> >Steve
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >-- 
> >Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand |      
> >Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |        Space for rent.
> >+64 4 478 4714                          |   - cheap rates, nice location. 
> >**** Happy user of OS/2 b2.1 ****       | 
> 
> 
> A good BMW is about 100 times the cost of 16 meg, but it's not really
> worth that much.  The 16 meg is a much better bargain.
> 
> And what about those who have more than 16 meg, with an ISA bus?  NT
> works fine with that configuration, which is the most cost effective
> computer hardware configuration you can buy.  Does OS/2 2.1 correct
> the problem that made OS/2 2.0 not make good use of memory beyond 16
> meg with an ISA bus?

Does it?  I am considering buying 16meg more of ram, then I will have 24... I  
have an ISA computer, will it be pointless for me to buy the last 8 meg?  In  
what way does OS/2 not make good use of memory over 16meg???

<roland>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: OS2: PAS-16 beta drivers? TRANTOR SCSI on PAS drivers???
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 19:19:35 GMT

roland@margaret (David A. Braun) writes:
>In article <1993Jan18.234333.17718@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu>  
>mpearson@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Matthew Pearson) writes:
>> Someone mentioned the following..
>> 
>> 1. There are PAS-16 -beta- drivers for OS2 out there.. if so WHERE ARE
>> THEY!! I WANT EM!!!!
>> 
>> 2. The SCSI on the PAS is a Trantor SCSI interface... if so WHAT model
>> is it compatible with.. and are there drivers for OS2 for it.. even in
>> BETA?
>> 
>> I am beta-testing OS2 2.1 and the MMPM/2 2.1 .. I could REALLY use these
>> drivers.. EVEN if they are only BETA..
>> 
>> PLEASE send me ANY info you have on them...
>> 
>> Matt
>
>Ditto, I am sitting here with a PAS-16 and a Texel CD-ROM that I just bought  
>and CAN'T USE!  Also, what about SB compatibility, That's BS from  
>MediaVision... I cannot use my PAS-16 as an SB in OS/2... Then what's it worth  
>to me??
>
><roland>


The PAS-16 OS/2 Drivers are on ftp-os2.nmsu.edu. The filename is mvos2.zip.
They are for OS/2 2.1, according to the document. According to the MediaVision
BBS announcements, the final drivers will ship with OS/2 2.1.

Mark K.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: Is OS/2 a dead end?
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 19:04:10 GMT

In article <C1FoqA.GvD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel) writes:
> 
> The Amiga's rate of sales increased over time; OS/2's is decreasing.

See if you can say that after the 2.1 release.....I feel a marketing firestorm
coming on. OS/2 2.1 is going to be something to CROW about - and the major
apps will being released right along side it - to increase the marketing
"buzz".

> >:  o there are essentialy no native applications for it (I know people are  
> >claiming
> >:    a thousand applications exist, but when I walk into CompUSA or Egghead, I
> >:    don't see any...)

Yeah.....blame that on the distribution channel being narrow-minded. I work
for just such a company. There are hundreds of people here in Wellington who
would like to buy OS/2 software.......but we don't stock anything but Bitfax
for OS/2 at the moment......so they are ordering direct from the source....
 
Retailers shouldn't *force* people into going mail-order......people find out
they *like* mail order....and don't come back. 

OS/2 fax software is interesting because it is one of the few apps people
really need an OS/2 version in order to work reliably - at least with the GA
release. So OS/2 users ARE buying it......we sell it for NZ$125 (US$64ish).

> IBM will never make a net profit on OS/2, unless it somehow replaces DOS.
> (100 million users? I really doubt it).

All bets will be off when MS tries to kill DOS. 

> The original comment is echoed by many others in the industry. No one cares
> what IBM is claiming.

The Dec 22nd PC Mag seemed to disprove this statement. Arch Windows bigots
Michael Miller and Bill Macrone now think IBM has the best overall vision of
the future of desktop computing.........

> The point is that not many people will.

Just a few million, eh? If people could buy OS/2 easily - ie. get around the
mind-set that you obviously have - then OS/2 sales would be considerable. The
2 million OS/2 users represents people who have - by and large *SOUGHT OUT*
the product and are now using it. 

Pretty good for what amounts to almost a secret as fas as the "great unwashed"
are concerned. 
 
I must say now that I have noticed a real change over the past 6 weeks. I no
longer have to explain to most people what OS/2 is. Now they are
saying:"Steve, I've heard about OS/2 eing a good thing. What can you tell me
about it and should I try it?"
 
You know the answer to that one....:-).  Yes, OS/2 *is* for everyone. Long
file names? Faster file system? Protected address spaces? The whole lot. These
folk won't touch NT with a barge pole due to the resource requirements. But
almost every PC we sell now will easily run OS/2 with a 4meg ram upgrade. 
 
Steve

 
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand |      
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |        Space for rent.
+64 4 478 4714                          |   - cheap rates, nice location. 
**** Happy user of OS/2 b2.1 ****       |
From: tadr@doe.carleton.ca (Tom A. D. Riley)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 CD install trashes partition
Date: 22 Jan 93 16:59:48 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University

Sorry I can't help but you have the comfort of knowing
that you are not alone. I have been having very similar 
problems. (See my post in .misc for details)

A Co-worker of mine gave up on OS/2 claiming that OS/2
had trashed his drive in very similar circumstances.
(This was with the GA release) I had assumed that he simply
made a silly mistake but now I am not so sure...
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:12937 comp.os.os2.misc:44367
From: gershon@husc11.harvard.edu (Ethan Gershon)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Peer-to-Peer OS/2
Date: 28 Jan 93 04:55:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc.gershon.728196917

pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak) writes:

>Paraphrased from PC Week, Jan 25, 1993.  The article is too long to type
>in.

>IBM Testing peer features for OS/2

>IBM is currently alpha testing software that will provide peer-to-peer
>networking for OS/2 users.  This feature will be either offered as an
>add-on or built into a new peer version of OS/2.  IBM plans to offer this
>service later this year.  IBM is evaluating whether to base its
>peer-services on its own LAN Server 3.0 or Novell Netware.

>Heeren Pathak                      | Millions long for immortality who do 
>pathak@mitre.org                   | not know what to do with themselves

This is great!  I think OS/2 would benefit greatly with built-in simple
peer to peer networking.  Just look at the Mac where people create networks
with little expert knowledge.  It should be that easy and integrated with
OS/2.

Here are three of my OS/2 networking day-dreams:

1) OS/2 with peer to peer networking built into the base OS.  IBM would
include drivers to allow a simple two computer network over serial or
parallel cables for home use and to get people started on the whole
network idea.  They would also sell a package like "Windows for Workgroups"
with cards and wiring right in the box.  The DOS-settings window would
allow users to configure what network resources are visible to DOS
sessions (which printer to use, for example).  Peripherals on networked
systems would also appear on the network.

2) In addition to built-in networking with OS/2, IBM would use its rights
to DOS to produce a version of PC-DOS with similar network capabilities
*built-in* to DOS (possibly even using the same drivers) (or at least
produce DOS software for the same purpose).

3) In combination with Apple, IBM would make a driver and accompanying
software for OS/2 networks to use Appletalk effectively.  Macs and PCs
would be intelligently linked (it seems to me that HPFS and the mac file
system could comfortably co-exist).  This would one-up Windows for
Workgroups and probably encourage sales of both platforms; OS/2 is "The
Integrating Platform" afterall.   This would also open the world of
Appletalk aware peripherals to OS/2 users.  (In all fairness, there
is a program on the market called Timbuktu which allows windows to
easily join an appletalk network.  it even supplies a chooser for windows.)

just some idle fantasies...
                                             --Ethan Gershon
                                             gershon@husc.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy