HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:18:56 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: na

In article <66379@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt1619a@prism.gatech.EDU (James is just this guy, you know...) writes:
>
>It is, however, a distinctly poor medium for video, and the like. It's damn
>slow. If you've ever dealt with full-screen full-motion video before, you
>know that the transfer rate of contemporary CD-ROMS is far far too slow.
>DMI makes a graphics card for the Amiga family of computers called the
>resolver 020 which is a parallel/co-processed graphics card (1280x1024x24)
>that in and of itself is capable of about 60 frames per second (30 fps is
>all you really need), but even the fastest SCSI II drives can't transfer
>info fast enough to maintain that rate (32 fps is the fastest that DMI
>has even been able to get). CD-ROMS, of course, are much closer in access
>times and transfer rates to diskettes (actually, thery're about 10x slower
>than a hard-disk, which is pretty much right in between the two).
>
>Tapes should be used only for archival purposes. That's all they're really
>intended for anyway
>
>The future of multimedia doesn't lie in CD-ROMS, they're just too damn slow.
>Some othe mass storage medium, or a higher speed CD-ROM is in order.
>
The future of multimedia doesn't lie in the 150K/s CDROM's currently in
instalation, maybe...

Comming out this fall will be a new round of double speed and even quad
speed CDROMS.  They sould do mutch better.

As far as full motion video, well, current compression techniques, on a
QUAD speed CDROM, give you pretty good video IMHO.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions.
From: kendall@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Stephen P Kendall)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: MS-DOS directory size limits (WAS: Re: program manager lacks!)
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:42:43 GMT
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

In article <1992Aug31.101918.14798@cs.hw.ac.uk> neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite) writes:

>In article <15938@star.cs.vu.nl> xerox@cs.vu.nl (J. A. Durieux) writes:
>>And then, I have never heard that a full directory hinders the running of
>>programs.  Is that the case on the Mac?

>An overflowing directory doen't hamper the running of programs, though it
>makes finding things and system management a god-awful nightmare.

>Neil

_Microsoft MS-DOS 5.0 User's Guide and Reference_  (c) 1991 Microsoft
	Corporation.  Page 103 (of my edition), chapter 5, in the section
	entitled "The Directory Tree"

	"You can continue to add directories at any level of the structure,
	as long as there are no more than 512 files and directories in the
	root directory of your hard disk. . .Other directories can hold as
	many files and directories as needed.  However, MS-DOS runs more
	slowly if there are more than 150 or so files and subdirectories
	in one directory."

In my experience, there is a noticable performance penalty when accessing
a bloated directory.


Stephen P. Kendall
From: bise@aludra.usc.edu (Daniel W. Bise)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: program manager lacks!
Date: 2 Sep 1992 12:13:04 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: world,local
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

maynard@groo.msc.cornell.edu (Maynard J. Handley) writes:
>>Indeed.  Too bad Macs are proprietary and overpriced.
>
>You mean like how I can ftp to ftp.apple.com to pick up latest version of
>the
>system software, but MS has no comparable site- I have to plunk down my
>$89
>or so for each upgrade. Oh- you mean this is the IBM-PC version of
>proprietary
>which is defined in terms of hardware (which does nothing for you) rather
>than software (which is what mostly defines the machine.)

And worst of all, Macs can't wordwrap properly! Egad.

;-) ;-) ;-)

.--------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Daniel W. Bise			         bise@aludra.usc.edu |
| USC BArch (finally!)		           71601.1752@CompuServe.com |
| Sysop, The Patchbay BBS              818-441-3965|So. Pasadena, CA |
| V.32bis/V.32--WC3.5|TCat!|Win3|TT/ATM Fonts|Grafix|MIDI|SoundCards |
`--------------------------------------------------------------------'
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth)
Subject: Flames toasting MS's CD-ROM choice
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 00:57:45 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

I don't really see the point of some people's bitching at Microsoft just 
because they chose to release a PRE-BETA (in otherwords, NOT THE FINAL
VERSION) of NT on CD only.  Microsoft has not said that they will only
ship NT (shrinkwrapped) on CD format.  They also have not said that they
will support other versions.  When they make the decision one way or the
other, then that is the time to complain.

Besides, there are two things to remember:
1)  The NT-SDK was intended for developers to use, not beta testers or the
general public (though I suspect the Beta testers will come from the SDK
developers).  It would seem that Microsoft's definition of a developer
would be a company like Lotus, Borland, etc. and not Joe Shareware Author.

2) Weren't the original plans for NT to be purely a HIGH-END OS for major
corporations and universities and not for Jane User?  There supposedly
was going to be a 32-bit version of windows (stripped down NT) for the rest
of us.  Have these rumors been made false by announcements from Microsoft?

If NT were changed to be the replacement for Win 3.1, and if NT were availible
(shrinkwrapped) on only CD-ROM, then we have a valid reason to whine.  Until
the shrinkwrap wersion of it ships, we will not know for sure.

---
Not affiliated with Microsoft or any other software/hardware firm.  I'm
just an escapee from the asylum.

Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: orville%weyrich@tnet.com (Orville R. Weyrich)
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Reply-To: tnet.com!weyrich!orville
Organization: Weyrich Computer Consulting
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 14:41:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.065630.6063@sequent.com> furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod) writes:
>In article <1992Aug23.021122.616@weyrich.UUCP> tnet.com!weyrich!orville writes:
>>
>>Uh --  correct me if I am  wrong, but I  doubt that  is there a  lot of 
>>software shipped on 5.25" floppies and that is intended to run on 8088's 
>>that is not  available  in  360K format. But if a 286  or better is required
>>to run the software, it is a safe  assumption that the drive will be a
>>1.2MB if it is a 5.25".
>>
>>And  it is very expensive to upgrade a  8088 system  to use  a 1.2 MB
>>drive. 
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>DING!, Thanks for playing...
>
>You can purchase BIOS upgrades, and I have seen 8088/86 machines
>for sale not too long ago, with 720K and 1.44Mb support for
>floppies. But as to why anyone would want a washing machine
>controller with these capabilities these days is beyond me.

That is exactly my point. A BIOS upgrade costs about as much as
the floppy drive itself. Plus you may need a new controller --
again, that costs the same order of magnitude as the floppy drive
itself. Then you might also need to upgrade your DOS version to
support the 1.44 MB diskettes -- again, that costs the same order
of magnitude as the floppy drive.

Why anyone would want to do this -- they would be a fool to do it
because when you consider the cost of a 286 MB that supports cheap
IDE controllers, it would be cheaper to go that route. But if it
were just a matter of adding a new floppy drive, then why not?
It could breath a couple years more life into an existing investment.

Because of the cost of upgrading my UNIX, DOS-MERGE, applications
software, RAM, hard drives, etc. I still run Microport UNIX System V/386
version 3.0. I can't do SCSI. I don't have a tape drive. I don't have
network access. I have no graceful upgrade path -- I can't add things
a  little at a time (except for RAM, but 4 MB is twice what I need).
The route [reasonable] route for me to go would be to upgrade
to DELL System V R4, but that can't  be had except on tape, so I would
need an immediate purchase of more RAM, a SCSI controller, a tape drive,
and maybe new applications software. So I just limp along with the old
stuff and put my money into incrementally improving my OS/2 system.
If OS/2 upgrades became available only on CD-ROM, I would have to skip
at least one OS/2 upgrade while I spent my money instead on the hardware.

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@tnet.com
--------------------------------------       **********************************
From: rwb00@loon.as (Robert W Beveridge)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (was: Re: Some more misconceptions...)
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:50:20 GMT
Reply-To: rwb00@loon.as
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article 153543ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU, ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Andrew T. Robinson) writes:
>No one asked, but here are my opinions of Microsoft:
>
>Microsoft is basically a corporate-sized ego with marketing muscle.  The
>debacle between IBM and MS with OS/2 was as far as I've ever been able to
>tell entirely an outgrowth of MS' greed, and not because there were
>technical issues that couldn't be resolved with stodgy old IBM.

By greed, do you mean they want to make lots of money ? Do you think IBM has
any other motivation then making lots of money ?

>
>The level of hubris at MS is apparent in the fact that they no longer
>seem concerned with producing products that work natively with OS/2.  While
>the OS/2 installed base nowhere near approaches that of Windows, it is large
>enough to make such compatibility profitable.  The sense I get is that MS
>is not supporting OS/2 because it wants to force users already invested in
>Microsoft products to move to the environment Microsoft chooses--namely,
>Windows/Windows NT.

Again, Microsoft wants to maximize their profits - so of course they want users
to migrate to NT. They don't support lots of environments - the Amiga, Geoworks, etc.
They (rightly) have to make a decision about how thin to spread themselves - 
if OS/2 becomes more successful, their desire to mazimize their profits will
probably dictate that they support it.

>
>Fortunately, niether I nor the company I work for nor any of my consulting
>clients are invested in MS software, so I carefully steer them away from
>it (actually, my company does use FOXPRO, which has unfortunately been
>acquired by MS... I'm trying to find a way to migrate our database application
>to another platform), and I plan to do so in the future.  This may be
>a futile gesture, but a growing number of people I work for/with are
>following the example!
>
>Andy

Well, I think this is short sided. If your clients need the best spreadsheet,
Excel is it - whatever you may think of Windows, Microsoft makes some excellent
application software. Are you serving your clients by refusing to suggest they
use what may be the best solutions available ?
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:55:48 GMT

In <1992Aug20.162238.5023@microsoft.com> gregde@microsoft.com (Greg Demichillie) writes:


>But tape really sucks if your goal is to only install parts of the
>system.  With a CD, I can just leave the parts I don't use frequently
>on the CD.  When I need them I just stick the CD in the drive and
>browse the information directly from the CD.  With tape, I have to
>free up hard disk space, restore the files I'm interested in, look
>at them and then delete them again (only to discover that I really
>needed a different file after all.) 

Valid points, but we're talking about an SDK here.  Are there really
all those parts that you don't really need?

>>Has anyone noticed how all the people making excuses for this policy
>>are from Microsoft?

>Has anyone noticed that Fred seems to be the only one making a lot of
>noise about this? 

Now THERE is the MS we all know and love!  Fine, they can condemn me
for my attitude and they can condemn Microsoft for yours.  It is the
Microsoft attitude that is the POINT, after all.  It's what this whole
episode has been symptomatic of.


-- 
"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: walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (was: Re: Some more misconceptions...)
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:27:09 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

>Well, I think this is short sided. If your clients need the best spreadsheet,
>Excel is it - whatever you may think of Windows, Microsoft makes some excellent
>application software. Are you serving your clients by refusing to suggest they
>use what may be the best solutions available ?

Excel is NOT the best spreadsheet.  Improv by Lotus is the best, but it's
only on the NeXT.  Lotus has said that they wouldn't port it to windows
unless windows somehow became much easier to program, but they would
consider it for OS/2 if it sold enough copies (no idea how many that is).


					Todd Walk
					walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
From: sammy@anagld.analytics.com (Sam Blackburn)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Flames toasting MS's CD-ROM choice
Date: 26 Aug 92 12:23:51 GMT
Organization: Computer Sciences Corporation - Systems Engineering Division

jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth) writes:

>I don't really see the point of some people's bitching at Microsoft just 
>because they chose to release a PRE-BETA (in otherwords, NOT THE FINAL
>VERSION) of NT on CD only.  Microsoft has not said that they will only
>ship NT (shrinkwrapped) on CD format.  They also have not said that they
>will support other versions.  When they make the decision one way or the
>other, then that is the time to complain.

Another bitch-point is that magazines are comparing this PRE-BETA release to
OS/2.  Unfair to say that NT doesn't run certain apps. OF COURSE NOT, it's
a pre-beta release!  When it finally comes out, then compare it to other OS's
on the market.
From: walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Some premises
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:39:18 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

Premise
#1:	Windows is difficult to use (for a GUI).

#2:	Windows programs are easy to use.

#3:	Windows could be in trouble if another OS comes out that runs all
windows programs, uses the same amount of system resource, has about the
same performance for about the same price, and adds other features to boot
(note: OS/2 doesn't meet this critiria).

#4:	NT will not be a success unless it can run more than the top 100
Dos and windows programs.

Note: these are not opinions, but statements.  Don't mail me; if it's
important enough to mail, then it's important enough to post.

					Todd Walk
					walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (was: Re: Some more misconceptions...)
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:34:09 GMT

In article <Bu2B1A.EB9@news.cso.uiuc.edu> walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk) writes:
>>Well, I think this is short sided. If your clients need the best spreadsheet,
>>Excel is it - whatever you may think of Windows, Microsoft makes some excellent
>>application software. Are you serving your clients by refusing to suggest they
>>use what may be the best solutions available ?
>
>Excel is NOT the best spreadsheet.  Improv by Lotus is the best, but it's
>only on the NeXT.  Lotus has said that they wouldn't port it to windows
>unless windows somehow became much easier to program, but they would
>consider it for OS/2 if it sold enough copies (no idea how many that is).
>
>

Sorry to butt into this thread like this.  But... sheeeesh.  No one needs to 
be a rocket scientist (apologies to any rocket scientists reading this) to
understand that when the guy said "best spreadsheet" he was saying
"best spreadsheet for the PC's"--heck we can basically pick this up from
the context...

Improv is not a spreadsheet for a PC--until it becomes one, I agree that
excel is the best speadsheet for the PC (flame on, Quattro users!).  It is,
by far, the best spreadsheet integrated with its environment [FOR THE PC'S--
I add, for you non-rocket scientists out there :) ]
From: sammy@anagld.analytics.com (Sam Blackburn)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: program manager lacks!
Date: 29 Aug 92 00:36:06 GMT
Organization: Computer Sciences Corporation - Systems Engineering Division

discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>If Apple would stop suing everybody that came out with an OS that had a
>Mac look and feel, I am sure that Windows would have this feature as well (as
>it is, Apple was actually suing Microsoft for OVERLAPPING WINDOWS for crissake!)

This is the very reason I cannot reccomend an Apple solution to any of my
customers.  Apple (and Lotus) are spending way too much money in their law
offices than in their development offices.  Apple even used a lawyer in their
ads!  Lotus chose to sue people instead of enhancing their spreadsheet.  Look
at them now.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bill@snoopy (Bill Poitras)
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Reply-To: bill@msi.com
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 02:40:45 GMT

fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
: Frankly, I have some difficulty understanding all the hype about the
: whole thing in the first place.  I can't wait to see how much work
: people get to go back and do over during their product development
: cycle as Microsoft changes stuff under their feet as they add
: functionality and find that changes to what they already have out
: there are necessary.

Do you really think that Microsoft will change the Win32 interface (which
is mostly what the current NT CD supplies) that drastically that you
won't get any benefit to start NT development today?  I don't think so.
The Win32 spec has been out for a little while now.

: >I personally find $69 for an
: >SDK (including documentation(!) online) attractive.  
: 
: I might if it were a complete Beta, but it isn't.  Right now, I find
: the idea of paying for what amounts to a pre-Alpha development
: environment almost insulting.  I consider being required to buy new
: hardware to read it to be even worse.

Oh please.  Microsoft is giving developers a chance to get started today,
so at release time, NT will have plenty of apps close to ready.

: >If a developer doesn't
: >feel like spending a one-time cost for a drive to read the disk, then he
: >can wait until the "real" release, eh?
: 
: Or not buy it at all.  This is one of the many ways that Microsoft
: loses themselves customers.  Perhaps one day they'll figure out that
: THEY are in the business of selling US things, so THEY should be the
: ones trying to please US.

If you can't afford to buy NT or the CD-ROM, then I doubt Microsoft
really cares that much.  There are some hobbyists and developers who have
or can buy a CD-ROM and spend $69 for a preliminary C/C++ compiler and
32-bit OS.

--
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Bill Poitras    | Molecular Simulations Inc.    | Tel (408)522-9229       |
| (bill)          | Sunnyvale, CA USA             |                         | 
|                 | FAX (408)732-0831             | bill@msi.com            |
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+

Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Some premises
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:43:26 GMT
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego

In article <Bu2BLJ.EL3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk) writes:
>Premise
>#1:	Windows is difficult to use (for a GUI).

And "Blue" is an ugly color.  This is NOT a "statement" (as you allude to
further down) it is an opinion.  *I* do not find Windows difficult to use,
even for a GUI.  I found SunView difficult to use... and many X-based
Window managers difficult to use (These, too, are opinions).

>
>#2:	Windows programs are easy to use.

Same as above.  I've seen some very difficult Windows programs to use.
Another opinion.

>
>#3:	Windows could be in trouble if another OS comes out that runs all
>windows programs, uses the same amount of system resource, has about the
>same performance for about the same price, and adds other features to boot
>(note: OS/2 doesn't meet this critiria).

Doesn't match up to reality.  MS-DOS, for example, is not in trouble because
DR-DOS came out.  Again, this appears to be another opinion of yours.

>
>#4:	NT will not be a success unless it can run more than the top 100
>Dos and windows programs.

When IBM/MS-DOS came out, the most popular computer was the Apple //e... and the
IBM couldn't run any Apple programs (certainly not even the top 100).  Yet,
the DOS was a huge success.  Again, this appears to be YAO (yet another opinion)


>
>Note: these are not opinions, but statements.  Don't mail me; if it's
>important enough to mail, then it's important enough to post.
>

I just showed how opinionated your "statements" are.   You don't have a 
crystal ball that works any more than mine does--we cannot predict the
future.  However, I don't need a crystal ball to be able to tell the
difference between opinion and fact.

Stick to the facts.

Just an opinion.

-> Joe <-
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bower@hfsi.uucp (Michael Bower Comm. )
Subject: Re: CD-ROMs and CorelDraw!
Reply-To: bower@hfsi.UUCP (Michael Bower Comm. )
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:14:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.185316.36723@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <weinkam.714244767@sfu.ca>  weinkam@fraser.sfu.ca (James Lawrence Weinkam) writes:
>> >>What I don't like is the CD-ROM software you find in stores - they
>> >>typically want over $300 for one application - even ones that sell for
>> >>less money on floppy.  Corel Draw! is one example - the CD should cost
>> >>LESS than the floppy version, not more - it costs about $10 to press a
>> >>computer-grade CD, compared to the $0.50 per disk it costs to write HD
>> >>floppies.  This gouging is giving the CD-ROM market a very bad name.
>>
>> I thought that the disk only version of Corel Draw came on ten disks.
>
>The flyer on CorelDraw! 3.0 that I have says that every box comes with
>a bonus CD-ROM.  Is there actually a diskette-only version, or are people
>comparing the price of 3.0 and a previous version?  If the latter, then
>this argument is pointless.
>

My upgrade package came with 10 3.5" floppies AND the CD.  I have
the CD at work where I have access to a CD player where I can pull off
the stuff that I want.  The package also includes a book with "thumbnail"
prints of all the stuff on the CD.

Michael Bower
bower@hfsi.com


Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy