HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft Excel for OS/2's a Best Seller ?????????????
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:32:07 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <78511@ut-emx.uucp> varmint@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Samir Varma) writes:
>
>On Page 574 of the August issue of Computer Shopper is a most interesting
>pie chart (under the heading Best Sellers):
>
>SPREADSHEETS
>------------
>
>Lotus 1-2-3 (2.2/2.3) 	     26.74%
>Lotus 1-2-3 3.0	     26.47%
>Microsoft Excel for Windows 18.98%
>Borland Quattro Pro	     15.24%
>Microsoft Excel for OS/2    12.57%
>
>And then they're not developing for OS/2?  
>
>Comments anybody?

These are August stats.  It tells me that people are willing to buy
Excel 3.0 for their OS/2 systems instead of use Windows (or WIN-OS2)
to get Excel 4.0.

I think MS should re-think their applications strategy.

Now, if the stats are like this for earlier months (like April), then
it tells a different story, but I don't think Excel/2 has a 12.5%
market share before OS/2 2.0 got its foot in the door.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ckincy@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: NT Products
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 07:51:37 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

In article <1992Aug31.150612.10353@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
[...]
>Threads will be "faked" in software under 3.1, there will be thread, but
>the threads won't be dispatched via the operating system, but rather within
>the application.  This, for example, is how SysV4.2 has threads.  It works
>but isn't as smooth as having the threads dispatched by the OS.  It should
>work fine for those users that "task-switch" rather than "multi-task" in the
>truest sense, and of course this is mainly what 3.1 is good at anyway.
>If you want to know more about Win32s, look in the MSWIN32 forum on CompuServe
>there is a list of functions in Excel spreadsheet and CSV formats that
>describes what will work under Win32s and what won't.

This brings up a good point.  You can't 'fake' threads without severe
overhead problems.

What is a thread vis a vis a process?  A thread is simply saved 
registers and program counters.  That's it.  No file-system handles.
No data block pointers.  No caffeine. =)  Therefore, it is
much more efficient to switch between threads than it is 
between processes.  IOTTMCO. 

Unfortunately, when the threading is done at the application level,
it causes the application to be real jumpy.  Better than blocking
completely, but still annoying to the user.

However, I think Win32s is, in general, a good idea.  It allows
developers to develop for NT at substantially reduced risk.  It 
resurrects some hope in me that if NT fails, Microsoft won't drag
the whole industry along with it.

cpk
>
>Brian
>-- 
>C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
>University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
>Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.4
Date: 4 Sep 92 06:43:46 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

In <1992Sep3.171805.12724@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>In article <3036@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:

>...

>>kernel to allow OS/2 on other microprocessors. That kind of information
>>should at least be mentioned IMO. Even if no release dates are given. After
>>all MS DOES give release dates but they don't say it all either. IBM is
>>more conservative in giving dates and promises but I would not leave them
>>out for that reason.

>That is IBM's problem.

NO NO NO. IBM is doing the RIGHT thing here. They do not fake the public with
"vapor" dates and claims like MS does. MS has already slimmed down its
claims for NT (e.g. 100% Windows 3.1 support became to 100 Windows
support and the beta date shifted I believe). THIS is wrong IMO. It is
confusing the users. IBM does not do that. 

>I agree that Microsoft is more liberal about dates, but then I assume that
>the readers of the list know that, further it's not like they are that

Why not put that in your list instead of assuming it?

>much more liberal.  Microsoft often talks about "vision", but the
>details I'm putting in the list don't come from that.
>I.E.  I'm not putting in Microsoft's pie-in-the-sky promises... why
>should I put in IBM's?

Because of the different way IBM and MS make promises and previews.

>The "rules" I use need to be fair to Microsoft too.
>The rule is simple... If it exists now, or has an announced time frame
>not futher away than say '94, then I'll put it in.  Anything dated beyond
>(or even in) '94 is mostly nonsense/hope.
>In truth I only mention that Cairo comes out in '94 so that people
>can see just how far MS is from having an OO shell out.
>I put in things like that all over the place, but zealots have a
>tendency to only see the ones that affect their god.

>IBM may well eventually put OS/2 on Mach... but until we see them
>putting a time frame around it, we'd probably be best off assuming
>it is quite some time away.

Agreed. But why not put that in your list. Combined perhaps with some
relativism about the Microsoft dates. Seems more fare IMO. You can't
punish IBM for their less vaporish attempts IMO.

>Brian

Nico E. de Vries
_ _
O O  USENET nevries@cc.ruu.nl  FIDO 2:281/708.1  COMPUSERVE "soon" ???? 
 o   This text reflects MY opinions, not that of my employer BITECH.      
\_/  This text is supplied 'AS IS', no waranties of any kind apply.      
     Don't waste your time on complaining about my hopeless typostyle.

"I would admit my mistakes, if I had any ..."  (Bumper Sticker)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: OS/2's Future
Date: 27 Aug 92 12:49:31 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Aug27.141903.15158@husc3.harvard.edu> mendels1@husc4.harvard.edu (Andrew Mendelsohn) writes:
>I thought some of the readers might be interested in Lee Reiswig's 
>talk at the Windows and OS/2 Conference in Boston last week.

Thanks for posting this... this is the best news for OS/2 I've seen since
March.

>He discussed the future of OS/2 as IBM sees it.  Please excuse any 
>misinterpretations I may have made in the following summary.
>He stated that IBM's strategy for the desktop and workstation OS's  is 
>3-fold: 1) Dos on the low-end, 2) OS/2 in the middle, and 3)AIX on 
>the high end.  
>OS/2 will be split into 2 products, one the current desktop product 
>will continue to be enhanced (Win 3.1, 32 bit GRE, improvements to 
>the WPS and improvements to memory utilization so that systems 
>with 4 MB RAM will really work, Pen and Multimedia extensions, 
>etc.)   A second OS/2 for servers and powerful workstations is being 
>built that will be portable, run under a microkernal (MACH?), and be 
>seamlessly integrated with AIX (AIX will be another subsytem under 
>the microkernel) so that users may use both OS/2 and UNIX 
>programs from the same desktop.

Yippee!!! this is more or less what my "what c.o.o.a should advocate" post
had advocated...
Microsoft people are you listening?  IBM may turn this into a horse-race
yet!!!

>
>The future of WPS is that it will be introduced in some form into DOS 
>and into AIX (probably in the OS/2-AIX portable form) in order to 
>unify the user interface.  The WPS will be continually expanded in 
>capacity so that it will provide a painless transition to the Taligent OS 
>interface when it becomes available for those who are interested in 
>migrating to the new platform.  IBM intends Taligent to be able to 
>run PM programs to protect users investments.  

Apple does not want to wait for this... I suspect there will be a big fight.
This might be the death of Taligent... oh well, that's later anyway.


>Interesting echoes of MS strategy with WIN NT and CAIRO, except 
>that OS/2 substitutes for Windows and CAIRO is not currently 
>projected to be added to DOS (at least the rumors I read a while 
>back).

Now their talking... OS/2 has a lead over Microsoft in this area... I'm
glad to hear they're going to exploit it.  Now the big question is
why do I, someone on IBM's developer mailing lists, need to find this
out from USENET?  Also, why didn't the trade press report this?
Hmmm maybe they don't believe it yet... in fairness they don't say much
about Cairo either.  Oh, well at least things are looking up.

>andy mendelsohn

Brian
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:5024 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2109
From: msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.5
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:39:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.xzmnbrm.msmith
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

One point on OLE support, OS/2 2.0 has support of OLE in WinOS2 now. This
is one area where I think that OS2 has Superior support of Windows 3.0
as has been previously quoted. I think that to call OS2 support od Windows
3.0 mediocre is plainly wrong. WinOS2 is more stable and faster under OS2
on my system than Windows 3.0 was it also supports OLE. If this is not 
excellent support what is. 

I contend that OS2 2.0 runs Windows applications better than DOS 5.0 and 
Windows 3.0 does. Therefore Windows 3.0 support should be superior.

Martin Smith
msmith@netcom.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: flui@fraser.sfu.ca (Francis Wai Gee Lui)
Subject: Re: ms gave up on os/2?
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: comp
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:03:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.2712.3829@dosgate> "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com> writes:
>Just a few examples of the top of my head:
>
> -  MSC 5.1 and MSC  6.0 generated OS/2 code.  MSC 7.0 does not,  and in
>    fact actually fails to _run_ under OS/2, now.
>
> -  Word for PM is stuck at v1.1b, with _no_ upgrade to v2.0.
>
> -  Excel for PM is stuck at v3.0, with _no_ upgrade to v4.0.
>
>I'd call actively removing  support for OS/2 from  the C compiler to  be
>abandonment of OS/2,  wouldn't you? And  Bill Gates has  publicly stated
>that MS will  _not_ be developing  OS/2 apps, come  hell, high water  or
>snowdrift, unless two million copies are sold.

Sounds like simple economics to me.  There are >3 million Amigas out there,
but Microsoft has yet to port any of their apps to the Amiga.  With only
1 million copies of OS/2 out there, I'd be surprised if Microsoft were
to continue development of OS/2 products.

>Now, I can certainly understand  MS not wanting to do  _additional_ OS/2
>work, but to abandon  their existing OS/2 customers  is bad form, in  my
>mind. When we tried to upgrade Word for PM from v1.1a to v1.1b, we  were
>sent Word for Windows v2.0, instead.

"Their existing OS/2 customers" number only 1 million.  That's a THIRD of 
the Amiga market's size!  They wouldn't be offending enough users to make 
the development costs worthwhile.

>Not a flame, just an opinion.

Likewise.

  __   __
 / /\ /_/\__   Francis Lui
/_/ /\\ \ \/\  e-mail: flui@sfu.ca
\ \  / \ \  /
 \ \ \  \_\/   You know you're a techno-dweeb when
  \_\/         floppy drive applies more to your love life,
               and hard drive to your machines.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: db3l@ans.net (David Bolen)
Subject: Re: Win-OS/2 performance tweaks
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 12:00:20 GMT
	<1992Aug31.171344.42686@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
	<1992Aug31.225614.24375@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: Advanced Network & Services, Inc. - Elmsford, NY

In article <1992Aug31.225614.24375@midway.uchicago.edu> wer5@ellis.uchicago.edu (Will E. Rose) writes:

(optimized WINOS2 DOS settings omitted)

>I have run WINOS2 with these settings from the day I installed OS/2, and it
>takes WINOS2 35 seconds to load on my 386/33 with 16MB whereas it takes
>Win3.1 32 seconds on a 386/25 with 4MB.
>
>Taking the advantages of HPFS, more memory, and processor speed into 
>consideration, this implies that Win3.1 loads much faster on equivilent
>hardware.

Actually, for just getting the binary of Windows into memory, I would expect
that:
   * HPFS is only really only an advantage if your DOS copy of Windows is
     very fragmented.
   * More memory is only an advantage if you would swap without it (in your
     case I'd expect you have enough free memory both under DOS and OS/2).
   * Processor speed is fairly unimportant.  Much of this time is a program
     load (I/O), rather than computationally bound (although memory setup
     should be helped by the 25->33MHz motherboard - assuming the memory is
     right on the motherboard)

Then, add on the fact that OS/2 is also loading and creating a virtual DOS
environment prior to actually trying to load windows (whereas that environment
already exists when you start Windows up under DOS).

So - I'm not sure how valid the assumption about the 3.1 load being "much"
faster than OS/2's WINOS2.  Of course, I'm sure it is somewhat faster, but
losing 3 (or maybe even 5-6 on the same hardware) seconds just doesn't seem
all that significant to me.

--
-- David
--
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
 \              David Bolen             \  Internet: db3l@ans.net      /
  |   Advanced Network & Services, Inc.   \   Phone: (914) 789-5327   |
 / 100 Clearbrook Road, Elmsford, NY 10523  \   Fax: (914) 789-5310    \
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.2
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:46:37 CDT

In article <1992Sep1.000214.29640@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <a+jnr7.msmith@netcom.com> msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug31.164630.13859@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>>	
>>>	Automatic stack expansion.
>>>		I am certain that OS/2 does not do this.
>>>		OS/2 has you specify a limit on the stack size, but allocates
>>>		only one page of the stack at a time, using a guard page
>>>		technique to expand the stack.  When you hit the
>>>		stack size limit your process dies.  Why they went most
>>>		of the way, instead of all the way, I really cannot say.
>> 
>>Sorry but you are WRONG.
>
>No, I am NOT WRONG.  If you read your own quote below carefully, you'll
>see that it doesn't contradict what I said above.
>If you want to see for yourself that OS/2 does indeed set a stack limit
>per process, use the following program:
>

Program deleted to save space

>If you compile this: icc t.c
>It crashes after printing "1".
>
>If you compile this: icc /b/stack:32768 t.c
>It crashes after printing "8".
>
>If you compile this on a Unix system which has dynamic stack expansion,
>it runs just fine.

Brian:

Sorry to say you are wrong.  I used the following MAKEFILE and MAKEFILE.DEP
and in an OS/2 Window I got:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Bert.

MAKEFILE

# IBM Developer's Workframe/2 Make File Creation run at 18:34:26 on 09/01/92

# Make File Creation run in directory:
#   C:\C_PROGRAMS\STACK_ALLOCATION;

.SUFFIXES:

.SUFFIXES: .c

STACK_AL.EXE:  \
  stack_al.OBJ \
  MAKEFILE
   @REM @<<STACK_AL.@0
     /PM:VIO +
     stack_al.OBJ
     STACK_AL.EXE
     
     
     ;
<<
   LINK386.EXE @STACK_AL.@0

{.}.c.obj:
   ICC.EXE /O /Gm .\$*.c

!include MAKEFILE.DEP

MAKEFILE.DEP


# IBM Developer's Workframe/2 Make File Creation run at 18:34:26 on 09/01/92

# Make File Creation run in directory:
#   C:\C_PROGRAMS\STACK_ALLOCATION;

# Assumed INCLUDE environment variable path:
#   C:\TCPIP\INCLUDE;
#   C:\IBMC\INCLUDE;
#   C:\TOOLKT20\C\OS2H;
#   C:\TOOLKT20\ASM\OS2INC;


stack_al.OBJ:  stack_al.c  \
#  {$(INCLUDE);}stdio.h  \
   MAKEFILE
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Advocacy
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:50:14 GMT

In <1992Aug28.125701.18179@nuscc.nus.sg> eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (TAN JIN MENG) writes:

>my contribution would be ...

>4) better documentation!!

Oh, God YES!  Do this FIRST!

-- 
"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: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: Goddam the Goddam IBM C Set/2 Install!!!!!!!!!
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 23:43:45 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

ameline@vnet.ibm.com (Ian Ameline) writes:
>   We found the problem -- turned out to be a downlevel version of
>unpack.exe on his system. Once it was renamed, everything worked
>properly.

>Regards,
>Ian.

I  take this opportunity to write that I got calls on this problem from
three different people at IBM this morning. This is pretty damn good
response.  As Ian said, they figured out what was wrong too.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
( New .sig under construction. Watch this space! )
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (was: Re: Some more misconceptions...)
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:22:26 GMT

fishe_jh@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Jeffrey H Fischer) writes:

>I don't want to get into the middle of this "Microsoft is good/evil"
>debate, but I do want to point out that not supporting existing OS/2
>products could well be profit-maximizing for Microsoft in the long run,
>even if they could make short-term profits today through such support.
>MS may feel that producing OS/2 products will only draw sales away from
>Windows today and NT in the future.  Not only would MS like to see users
>buy MS operating systems (and OS-like software), but they have a
>dominant position in DOS/Windows software which is missing in OS/2
>software, so encouraging purchases of Windows also spurs the sales of
>other MS products.

There it is again.  I know you were just trying to logically reason this
out, so this isn't a flame.  What you overlooked is whether it is ethical
for a company to bolster its near-monopoly status in PC operating systems
by not developing for competing operating systems.  The FTC was interested
in breaking Microsoft into two companies - an operating system company,
and an applications company - when it got whiff that the latter branch
may have been getting preferential treatment (relative to competing app
companies) from the former branch.  Shouldn't the reverse be true?  Isn't
it unfair for companies making competing OSes if MS witholds applications
from those OSes simply because they compete with DOS/Windows?
-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu | think of something very clever 
uunet!jarthur!jokim         | to use as a disclaimer)
From: eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (TAN JIN MENG)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 Advocacy
Date: 28 Aug 92 12:57:01 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore

my contribution would be ...

1) A better command line
  a) file completion ala 4os2
  b) a better selection of fonts.
  c) support more than just the 25 line text mode and do it in the
	settings not the mode command.

2) some primitive multiuser capability eg file protection wrt users,
logon on bootup etc. Maybe even support for multiple serial ttys.

3) a more usable non-WPS OS/2 with the ability to load multiple sesions
and switch among them. this includes the ability to load DOS programs.

4) better documentation!!

5) a EA viewer and editor.

jin meng
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jja@wsl.ie (John J. Allen)
Subject: Re: NT beta schedule slips!
Organization: Project Papyrus, AIRAID, Dublin, Ireland
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 09:54:12 GMT

SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R. Platzke) writes:
: In article <1992Aug26.164450.42583@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
: >From: thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
: >Subject: NT beta schedule slips!
: >Date: 26 Aug 92 21:44:50 GMT
: 
: >Heard this on the Windows group...
: 
: >The NT beta schedule has slipped to October (gasp!).  I have a feeling
: >that I'll be posting information like this again.
: 
: 
: >-- 
: >------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: >|  Charles A. Thompson               |  thompson@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu         |
: >|  University of Kansas              |  thompson@ukanvax.cc.ukans.edu        |
: >|  _Avid_ SkiBum                     |  OS/2 2.0 is for YOU!!!               |
: >------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: >|  Look for Recipe Pro(tm), an interactive recipe database, coming soon...   |
: >------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: 
: Well, the windows groups certainly are a reliable source of the release dates
: for MS products...I don't think I've ever seen any misinformation on any of
: those groups (especially not from someone making a pro-OS/2 posts there).
: Yeah, the info content ranks right up there with this group and PC-WEAK.
: 
: :-) :-) :-)
: 
: For what its worth, I believe an MS employee posted a few days ago in
: windows.programmer.win32 that the beta was expected to ship in late Sept.
: Please cite your source for any previous info that indictated when the NT
: beta was to ship (just curious).
: 
: -Michael R. Platzke (sxmrp@orca.alaska.edu)

PC User Auust 1992.

Microsoft states that Windows NT (for New Technology) will ship next summer 
(1992) with a full BETA this Autumn(1991). 

That makes it a full year late already.