HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: ATI driver support!
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 03:05:24 GMT

nmouawad@waterloo.edu (Naji Mouawad) writes:
>
>
>I did phone ATI in late October. This was posted here a while ago. The
>tech rep I spoke too seemed an Os/2 experienced user. He basically
>told me that (a) the new ATI drivers will not work with SP -- remember
>that was in late October, I don't know now, and (b) they are working
>on 2.0 specific drives which they will release Q293.
>
>I am waiting.
>
>naji.
>--
>     -------------------------------------------------------------------
>    | Naji Mouawad  |          nmouawad@watmath.waterloo.edu            |
>    |  University   |---------------------------------------------------|
>    | Of Waterloo   |   "The Stranger in us is our most familiar Self"  |
>     -------------------------------------------------------------------


There seems to be a problem with the ATI phone system. You can not ring
through. Technical Support lines, fax lines, BBS lines are all busy
whenever somebody calls. I seriously doubt they are so busy that it
takes over 2 weeks to get to the Bulletin Board System. I will give
them on monday a call and talk to a manager responsible with this
matter. If I can't get through, I will drive to ATI HQ and talk to
them directly. I will post the results as soon as I have them.

Best Regards,
Mark K.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10418 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3242
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: NT, OS/2, and Market
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 07:41:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.001101.8665@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>In article <2b269168@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org> George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org writes:
>>BS>Do you have even the thinest shread of evidence that MS has ever
>>tried
>>BS>to convince ISV's not to develop for OS/2?
>>
>> They *took out* support for OS/2 in their MSC7 product. Support for
>>OS/2 was *in* the beta of MSC7. It was *gone* from the release
>>version.
>>___
>> * MR/2 1.32 NR * Regardless of what you may think, this is NOT a
>>tagline.
>
>Ok, so you don't buy/upgrade MSC7.  How does that force you not to
>develop for OS/2?  Why is one company required to support another's
>platform?  (I think it's shortsighted of MS to have done so, but that's
>a far cry from claiming that they actively try to convince ISV's not to
>develop for OS/2; I don't think most ISV's are stupid enough to fall for
>a party line, they'll write what will sell).
>
>jmalloy@hamilton.edu

Oh, BS.  MS is obviously trying to discourage programmers from OS/2 development
by blantantly removing support for it from their very popular product line.
A product line that had support when OS/2 was not a threat.  There were
two choices MS had when OS/2 came out:  try to beat it by offering *superior*
products, or try to beat it by hampering the OS/2 market.  Well, which one
did they choose?  (If you say both, you're wrong, because they've removed
functionality from their product, not tried to make it more superior).

All you need to know is that MS is trying to play hardball with OS/2.
There is NO DOUBT about that.

Hardball tactics do not benefit the consumers.  In essence, MS is trying
to bend the market to its will rather than serve the market.

I would be pissed if I owned MSC 7.0.  It's a good thing I got Borland (whew).
At least they're making a product I want to buy.

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: Discovered: Microsof
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 20:08:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.065740.3562@frog.CRDS.COM> rmk@frog.CRDS.COM (Rick Kelly) writes:
>In article <2b2bd77a@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org> George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org writes:
>>>You do realize that there are a number of undocumented calls in
>>OS/2... does
>>>this mean that IBM is unfair?
>>>
>>MF>And I'm sure that you also realize that IBM doesn't make the
>>MF>best-selling apps for OS/2, as Microsoft does for Windows.  If it
>>did,
>>
>> Hey, it's not Microsofts fault that they know how to write good
>>applications programs and IBM knows squat about doing the same. 
>
I'm sure it's not a matter of knowing how.  Let me rephrase what I said
above: IBM doesn't make apps for OS/2, best-selling or otherwise, apart
from a few things which are mostly system extensions, such as the
multimedia stuff, the C compiler, the networking package and so on.
They don't make WordProcessors, Spreadsheets, and so on for OS/2.  Doing
so would lead to a conflict of interest.  Yet this is exactly what MS
does.
-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: cd617@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stephen M. Brancati)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: PC Magazine quotes
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:25:05 GMT
Reply-To: cd617@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stephen M. Brancati)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


The following quotes are from the article "The Best of Abort, Retry, Fail?"
in the Jan. 12, 1993 issue of PC Magazine.

          "While we liked developing Windows applications,
           we never inhaled."
                               -- Borland's Philippe Kahn
                                  on the company's decision to
                                  support OS/2 as well as Windows

          "To crash OS/2, you have to stay up night and day
           to build a terminator disk.  Windows comes with
           that built-in."
                               -- IBM's James Cannavino
                                  on Microsoft's Terminator
                                  program which crashes OS/2

There are a few, however, that poke some fun at IBM:

          "IBM created its own Amway program, having its 344,000
           employees sell to neighbors, friends, family.  If they
           announced it on April Fools' Day, I would have only
           half believed it."
                               -- International Data Corp.'s
                                  Lee Levitt on IBM's employee
                                  incentive program for OS/2

          "Somehow, we could not locate or could not retrieve the
           registration database for the existing OS/2 users."
                               -- IBM Personal Systems assistant
                                  general manager Lee Reiswig on
                                  the paperwork that the company
                                  requires for an "automatic"
                                  OS/2 upgrade

          "I called an 800 [about OS/2 development], and it took
           about a week to get through.  The first woman I spoke
           with didn't even know what OS/2 was.  I finally talked
           to a guy who said he'd get back to me in 24 hours, but
           I still haven't heard from him."
                               -- Crystal Point president
                                  Chris Stephens on dealing with
                                  IBM's bureaucracy

I hope you enjoyed them -- Happy Holidays.
-- 
  Stephen M. Brancati  |  The best way to ask for beer is to sing out Ubik.
                       | Made from select hops, choice water, slow-aged for
        cd617@         |   perfect flavor, Ubik is the nation's number-one
 cleveland.freenet.edu |       choice in beer.  Made only in Cleveland.
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT - it ain't got Novell either....
Date: 15 Dec 92 02:30:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Dec15.023027.21493
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Dec14.232333.2099@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Dec14.012748.9226@sequent.com> furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec11.200707.7580@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>>>In article <2b24f878@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org> Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org writes:
>>>> 
>>>> Novell NetWare support for OS/2 2.0 was shown many months before OS/2
>>>> 2.0 shipped, also.  So there's no reason to think that Novell is doing
>>>> anything more for NT than they did for OS/2 2.0.
>>>
>>>Hmmm. You've missed the start of this thread, it seems. MS - had it played
>>>fair with Novell - might well have been able to ship Netware support with NT. 
>>> 
>>>Now they can't. Or maybe I'm confused. Perhaps the issue is that they were
>>>never allowed to in the first place....but tried to.
>>> 
>>>Yeah....that would be right.
>>> 
>>>Steve
>>>
>
>>As it is my understanding, Novell would not have let them without
>>some pound of flesh given in compensation. Ray Noorda wants to
>>play Great White Father to the unwashed in networking, and
>>Microsoft distributing IPX code with their platforms would ruin his
>>Napoleanic dream.
>
>Yeah, how dare he expect compensation for stuff that is his property.
>Who the hell does he think is and Novell are, Bill Gates and
>Microsoft?  The NERVE of some people!
>
>>But, Microsoft did sign the agreements with Novell to perform, and
>>they should be held to those agreements, fair or otherwise.
>
>Yeah, poor Microsoft.  
>
>-- 

Given the choice between the two, I would side with BG. At least he
was honest enough to plainly state his intentions of conquering the
world of desktop computing. :):)

I dont consider Noorda's claim that Microsoft violated any
agreements to be objectionable. I just disagree with the backhanded
way he is pushing the issue by using the FTC and collecting all of
Bill's enemies against him. Not, that Bill doesn't deserve some of
it, but supposedly Ray espouses Covey's principles, and that makes
him a bigger hipocrit that Bill.

And, consider this. Let's suppose Novell succeeds in getting
Microsoft divided up and parceled out, so they take over the
premier OS position. What scares me is that in order to get support
from Novell, you have to slap them on the back, credit card high,
to get anything out of them. At least companies like Borland,
Artisoft and other's understand what customer service means. It
does not mean soaking the customer at $20.00 a pop for techincal
help, and forcing vendors to spend thousands of dollars to retrain
everytime they hiccup in Provo.

JMHO...


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (BRIAN PAUL VAN LIEU)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: who is brian sturgill - really?
Date: 19 Dec 92 02:47:58 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

[ Mark's joke about a fake Brian S deleted ]

>>
>Sure: he says things you don't like or want to hear and you don't want
>to have to worry that they're true.  The easiest thing, then, is just to
>insult him and that will make everything he says wrong. Yeah, that's the
>ticket!

>jmalloy@hamilton.edu
>>
>
    Dude, lighten up! I am sure Brian has a bullet proof jacked (Yanamari
    loaned it to him).

    You too are an MS advocate. So be it. If anything, Brian should feel good
    that he is taken seriously enough to have goten under someone else's skin
    to provoke this flame.

    I laughed my ass of. I hope something like this happens again.

    I am know of someone on this list who responds so unpredictably (one time
    correct, next time mindless), that you would thik it was Bill Gates behind
    the keyboard, spreading an anti-OS/2 work (that's fine), but making so
    many technical, and non-technical blunders in the process, that you can
    not take him seriously.

    Once again, chill out. Sorry if you did not laugh. Have your funny bone
    checked immediately.


                                        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
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 14:04:28 -0800
From: Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: Re: Why Windows NT will fail
Comment-To: Brian_Sturgill@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

 BS> NT already runs 16-bit Windows apps as well as OS/2.

NT seems to have performance problems compared to Windows 3.1 and
Windows 3.1 with Win32s as demonstrated by these tests posted on WIN32
on Fidonet:

EL>I load a 2.3 MB Write document

EL>Win 3.1          + Write 16-bit   : 28 sec
EL>Win 3.1 + Win32s + Write 32-bit   : 21 sec
EL>Win32            + Write 16-bit   : 40 sec
EL>Win32            + Write 32-bit   : 38 sec


EL>and find a word at the end of this document  

EL>Win 3.1          + Write 16-bit   : 40 sec
EL>Win 3.1 + Win32s + Write 32-bit   : 38 sec
EL>Win32            + Write 16-bit   : 59 sec
EL>Win32            + Write 32-bit   : 58 sec


Then consider NT's poor showing on Winbench 2.51.  In the following
results, higher numbers indicate faster performance:

Windows 3.1 on DOS 5.02, 386 Enhanced Mode  4,154,629
Windows 3.1 on DOS 5.02, Standard Mode      4,149,752
OS/2 2.0x, Full Screen Win-OS/2             5,523,993
OS/2 2.0x, FS Win-OS/2, "Optimized" (two trials) 5,600,009
                                                 5,585,557
OS/2 2.0x, "Seamless" Win-OS/2    NOT TESTED
 (Winbench does not operate under the current Win-OS/2 beta in
 "seamless" mode.)
Windows NT (two trials)     1,146,638
                            1,147,051

NT is about 3 times slower than Windows 3.1 on this benchmark.  While
benchmarks and statistics can both be misused, I'm really starting to
wonder if NT is going to be much slower than people have led to
believe.


--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
From: czmax@cats.ucsc.edu (Max C. Pritikin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: The "Major" bug in Winos2 v3.1
Date: 18 Dec 1992 04:16:28 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


goyal@utdallas.edu (MOHIT K GOYAL) writes:


>I recently heard that the major bug holding up Winos2 v3.1 is that the user
>can *not* print from it!

>I do not know if this is true, and if it is true, if it has been fixed yet.

False.  I'll snail mail you a printout if you want one.

>Oh yeah, apparently some major or annoying or some kinda bug with HPFS was
>discovered recently and is now fixed.

>The error was created when transferring HPFS from assembly to C, and was a
>very elusive bug.

>Sorry I don't remember what the bug is, but it was not fixed in the SP.

	-max
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Nt Smp Users
Date: 16 Dec 92 13:26:24 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.

In article <1992Dec14.212150.28121@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In article <2b29d934@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org> George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org writes:
|> >I mean just how rational is it to ask such a question in the OS/2
|> >advocacy group.
|>
|> ...
|>
|> And we seem to have our share of NT people here, so why
|> include a Windows group?

In other words, comp.os.os2.advocacy is a better place to ask a question about
NT than comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy.

Thanks, fred, I'll use that remark next time people complain about NT
advocates posting here.

Oh, and I went over to comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy recently. The majority of
postings were discussing OS/2, so if there is a problem it isn't restricted to
this group.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: NT, OS/2, and Marketing
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:09:14 GMT

Joe@twistor.dialix.oz.au (Joe Katnic) writes:
: In article <1992Dec10.123058.28161@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> hwhalen@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Hugh Whalen) writes:
: >
: >Hmmm, very interesting. I did not know this. I *will* read these books. 
: >Perhaps, I will change my mind .... until that time you have given me 
: >something to think about. Would anyone else care to comment whether or 
: >not IBM support was better in the 60's and 70's and the number, and 
: >quality of apps for IBM vs. the other computer manufacturers. I'm afraid 
: >I'm too young :) to have experienced this myself.
: >
:    I can't comment about 60's but..
:    I think that there is a reason missing from the argument.
: 
:    During the 60's and 70's IBM's 360 and then 370 range of mainframes
:    were brought out. This allowed businesses to upgrade the power of
:    their processors and keep the same software.
: 
:    This in turn planted the thought, that the software has a lifetime
:    beyond the lifetime of the machine. Because of this, software was
:    written (IN HOUSE) that was designed to last many years. As a 
:    consequence, the investment in the design could be much larger.
:    It was. It got to the point that the software investment became
:    vital to keep. 
: 
:    Because of this huge inhouse software investment, the thought of
:    moving to a non-IBM machine would mean a conversion of the software.
:    This was often too expensive to contemplate. 

I would disagree with this, and say that mainframe competitive
knockouts were much more common then than they are now. I used to work
for Honeywell (when they made computers) and spent a considerable
amount of time in the lates 70s and early 80s working on conversions
of systems from various other manufacturers systems. This hardly ever
happens any more to my knowledge.

Downsizing is a different issue.

--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund)
Subject: OS/2 applications (Was: Re: \* IBM's OS/2 2.0 Scores Big \*)
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 00:00:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.051805.17455@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

	   Tip for the net crowd: when you quote, EDIT.

   >"biggies" products are within the next three months, your
statement is going
   >to be very wrong in a very big hurry.


	   That's your guess, but my statement was made in the now and it is
	   100% on target.  Lots of promises, no deliveries.  I specifically
	   pointed out that I was discussing the now, you are discussing
	   some time 3 months (or more) in the future.

I was told on two different occations, by representatives from Lotus
and Micrografx that the main reason for delay in getting 32-bit OS/2
apps on the market was the delay of the 32-bit graphic engine. They
could not finish products that would use the 32-bit GRE before the
32-bit GRE itself was finished.

It might of course be attempts from these companies to blame IBM for
their own delays (I had to remind the Micrografx representative that
the 32-bit GRE to a large extend was to be developed by Micrografx).
But if it is correct, then it should not take too long before the
"almost finished" apps will be finished.

Olav Torvund
University of Oslo
Norway
Olavt@jus.uio.no

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jdickins@cs.umr.edu (James Dickinson)
Subject: New ATI drivers!!!
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:44:55 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla
Originator: jdickins@mcs213j.cs.umr.edu

Drivers for the Vantage and Ultra are now out. Not for OS/2
but NT. Once again we have been screwed by ATI. It looks like
that if I want support for OS/2 drivers then I will have to buy
an IBM machine with XGA-2. ( I know Radius is making the same card
but I'll believe it when I see it. ) IBM seems to have forgotten about
8514/A, it has been 8+ months since OS/2 came out and still no 32-bit
drivers. jeesh.

Jim
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: gilem@aix.rpi.edu (Michael R. Gile)
Subject: Some miscellaneous questions about os/2 from early info
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:55:02 GMT

When I was cleaning my desk, I found some information about os/2 from
back in may 1990 in MSJ.  Since it concerned os/2 2.0, I had some  
questions regarding these facts to see if they were actually true when
os/2 was released.

	1) it states that in os/2 2.0 the total code and data space available
to an app is 512Kb, and that this restriction will be removed in later version.
Is this really true? or is it only for console apps?  In my mind, this is 
a *BIG* problem, reminds me of MSDOS.

	2) it says later on that os/2 has a built in math emulation library
which eliminates the need for each app to be compiled with emulation ""s
This is a very good idea, and I don't know why ms didn't do it with windows.
Is this still true?

Thanks for the input.

Mike
gilem@rpi.edu.


Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10663 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3327
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 20 Dec 92 19:27:17 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1h13t8INNj74@neuro.usc.edu>, merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes:
|> >Well you can kiss American leadership in operating systems out goodbye.
|> 
|> How much good software has been placed in the American or world market
|> by the Japanese?  I can't think of a single package.  Why?

I'm not talking about the Japanese.  I'm talking about the Russians who are
world class software developers, and to whom $300 a month is a princly
salary.  I'm also talking about India which is no slouch either and has
companies to which you can contract out your programming jobs for much
cheaper than you can pay Americans to do it.

And ye gads here in the US we're about to clobber one of our most successful 
software companies. 

The U.S. antitrust laws made it impossible for US companies
to sucessfully unite to face the Japanese and Korean DRAM challange.
They are also responsible to a large degree for American companies 
losing the consumer electronics business.

Its true--you can't name a single software package for PC's from Japan.
Well non-coincidentally, the US software industry was the only one which
has escaped FTC anti-monopoly regulation.  It was just too new and moved
to fast for the goverment to clobber.  But I guess the goverment is
catching up with them.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 00:51:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.192739.0256494@locus.com> lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:
>Brian, the Windows 3.1 beta was released some time ago, and expires on the
>15th of December.  The 32 Bit Graphics Engine was included in the CSD as
>well as some upgraded drivers.  This being the case, I don't see what
>you are talking about when you say "beta released by December 15th".  It was
>released some time ago, and the CSD of all but winos31 are in our hands.

What I mean is of course that IBM has said that OS/2 2.1 would be out this
year.  I.E. the beta would go GA.

>--Lowell

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                          NeXTStep 486 is for _YOU_!!!!
University of Utah                    Microsoft needs competition, but I want
Center for Software Science          to be one of the many running Windows NT!
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373    :-) :-) :-)  NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679