HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (BRIAN PAUL VAN LIEU)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: AmiPro for OS/2 (was Re: Impressions of OS/2 2.1 Beta)
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:08:49 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

>>I personally asked the product manager for Ami Pro if it would use
>>Mirrors and his reply was that it would not.  Workplace Shell aware
>>means that it implements drag-and-drop functionality for things like
>>printing and file loading.  For example, as I recall you can drag a
>>document onto the printer and it will be printed by Ami Pro.
>
>
>       Big whoo.  In other words, "Workplace Shell Aware"
>       is the new OS/2-speak for applications that support the
>       OS/2 equivalent of drag and drop.  A buzzword with very limited
>       usefulness.
>
>       <It's the same under Win31.  I think I've printed this way maybe
>       once under Windows.  Might be nice as an option, but it's really
>       not a big deal.  Plus, I don't honestly see how that is a real
>       "feature".. It must take, what, 5 minutes to add it?>
>
>
>--
>       Attempts to lessen the burden of proof in rape trials are an assault
>               on our civil liberties.  Support equality, not revenge.
> ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
>       Pyramid schemes are illegal unless you're the US government.
>
    Correct me on this, but this sounds more MAC like then anything. If
    AP/OS/2 will give its saved files its own icon (like Describe does), and
    you can simply opnen up the application by opening up the doc, that's
    great.

    What I see as a real feature is the ability to print something without
    ever waiting for the app to upen. YOu drag the object fiel to the printer,
    and in the background, OS/2 opens the app, prints the file, closes the
    app. You can't even do that on a MAC (I don't think so, at least).

    This type of feature would make OS/2 more agree-able to those who are not
    as creative as many on the USENET when it comes to customizing the WPS.

                                              cheers,

                                              bvl
-- 

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

            OS/2 2.0...anything else is just a DOS.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: singer@uwovax.uwo.ca
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Can you cut/paste DOS stuff in OS/2?
Date: 24 Jan 93 20:32:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: uwovax.1993Jan24.163244.1
Organization: University of Western Ont, London

I have been following the interesting debates on OS/2 vs Windows here in 
preparation for buying a new 486 system. One comes with Windows and the other
with OS/2. I use Word Perfect (DOS), MaxThink (DOS), Magellan (DOS) and am
about to start using Papyrus. In using Papyrus (a powerful bibliography
program), I will be cutting and pasting to Word Perfect and possibly to ASCII
programs such as MaxThink. It is not clear whether one can with ease cut and
paste between these different applications in OS/2. Has anybody tried this? I
undertand it can be done in W3.1, but can it be done, and as easily, in 
OS/2? (I really want to buy OS/2, so I hope the answer is positive). -- 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2
From: oususasm@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Subject: Re: CD ROM Drive for OS/2 2.1 beta and future multimedia applications
Reply-To: oususasm@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Organization: Montana State University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:30:11 GMT

In article <anderson.59.728062949@mayo.edu>, anderson@mayo.edu (Alfred I. Anderson) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.203025.12553@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tujf@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Jay F. Tu) writes:
>>From: tujf@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Jay F. Tu)
>>Subject: CD ROM Drive for OS/2 2.1 beta and future multimedia applications
>>Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:30:25 GMT
>
>>I am looking for a CD ROM drive with SCSI adaptor for installing
>>OS/2 2.1 beta and future multimedia applications.
>>Can anybody recommend a best-value combination for me.
>>Also where can I purchase the multimedia plateform/2 and what is
>>the price?
>>Thanks in advance.
>
>>Jay
>
>I went through the same search.  I don't know if I made the right decision 
>or not, but I've ordered the Toshiba 3401 CDROM and the Adaptec 1542 
>controller.....
>
>I'm currently using an NEC CDR-84 with an Adaptec 1542B and this is working 
>just fine with OS/2 2.1 Beta (6.479).  Haven't tried it with Windows NT 
>yet.		
>
>(the NEC is a loaner.  I was going to order one of those but it is not Photo 
>CD compatible).
>
>What did others decide???
>
>Alfred
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Alfred Anderson                Internet:    anderson@Mayo.edu
>Mayo Foundation - Rochester MN 55905
>-----------------------------------------------------------------

another good buy is the Texel 5024 drive. It is a multispin drive (300kbps
access) and is photo CD and XA compatible.  It is also one of the fastest
drives on the market at 265ms access.  Hard Drives International has the drive
with a software bundle for only $549.  This includes an 8bit Future Domain
controller that is os2 compatible out of the box.  This setup will install the
2.1 beta with no hassles.  (read no tricks necessare to get os2 to recognize
the cdrom, support is built into beta 2.1)

just my $0.02 worth
		Scott
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: Re: BUYING OS/2
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:42:22 GMT

> lmp8913@zeus.tamu.edu (PRESTON, LISA M) writes:
>> 	Actually the manuals aren't completely useless, and the on-line
>> docs are pretty good; it's just that most folks don't bother to read them.

"Manuals" aren't completely useless?  Did you get a different set than I did?
All I got were two or three skinny booklets and pile of rgistration cards,
diskette exchange cards, proof of license cards, IBM BBS info cards, IBM
service info cards, advertising material etc.  Next to worthless -- and in
my opinion, one of the two major flaws of OS/2 2.0 (the other is the non-
existent device support).

Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
> Well said, LISA! I find the online docs to be pretty good. Certainly saves on
> trees and makes for cheap (even free!) updates.....

The online is better than the printed stuff, but it's less comprehensive and
less easy to search than Windows' hypertext.  Heck, most of the hypertext
keyword links in OS/2's help refer just to the registered trademarks! 

Last night, I was trying to find out how big my swapfile was.  I didn't see
it on disk, so I tried using the help.  I seached for "memory", "virtual",
"swap" and a bunch of other things.  No go.  Where is this info in this
fabulous help system?

Besides, online help is totally useless if you can't boot OS/2.  That's one
reason why the Windows FAQs are available in WinHelp *and* ASCII formats.

[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: os2 what good is it?
Date: 28 Jan 1993 15:56:01 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuron.tamu.edu

In article <1993Jan27.224503.18609@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:

[Much deleted]
|
|This is often what I hear and have heard from OS/2ers: I had trouble
|installing it because my system was 'clone crap' (I paraphrase) and,
|now, here, it's insufficient.  Well, in the first place, NT installed in
|45 minutes, start to finish, not a single burp along the way; I don't
|think my hardware is a fault.  Secondly, OS/2 2.0 GA (2.1 may be
|different, I'll have to wait and see) is unstable and runs Windows apps
|quite poorly, in my experience, and dos comm apps were troublesome.
|Even if that weren't true, there's still the Workplace Shell:ugly,
|ungainly, awkward, confusing, and buggy.  Even with 2.1, I guess I'd
|have to stick with the WPS; I guess I'll hold off until someone comes up
|with something better!r
|
|In the meantime, we all use what we prefer to use; what's wrong with
|that?

Well we all will use what we prefer, Joe.  I take a little exception
to your opinions that the WPS is "ugly, ungainly, awkward, confusing,
and buggy."  I believe you think this because the WPS is different and
you don't want to go through the learning curve to really learn it.
That's OK, but in my opinion, the WPS is much more customizable and
powerful than the Windows paradigm.  To my way of thinking, its *more*
intuitive than Windows and easier to use.
   -- Bruce

--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
                              |  Scrupulous Lawyer
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bill@west.msi.com (Bill Poitras)
Subject: Re: Doug Hamilton responds
Reply-To: bill@west.msi.com
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:05:04 GMT

Larry Maturo (larry@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu) wrote:
: Why is IBM competing against OS2 itself?  Will pink run on the same hardware OS2
: and Windows does or is it only going to run on computers with the new chips IBM
: and Motorola are developing?  Will computers based on these new chips sell in
: the same price range as systems capable of running Windows NT and OS2?
: Inquiring minds want to know.

IBM is not going to have Taligent compete with OS/2, but have it be the
next logical step.  This has been mentioned several times in interviews
view some of the higher ups.  Basically they say OS/2 will get some of
the technology from Taligent, and eventually users can migrate to Taligent's
OS.  It will probably be compatible with OS/2 in some fashion, much like
OS/2 is compatible with DOS and Windows.  Hey IBM still supports OS/2
1.3.  They probably will support OS/2 for a while.

--
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Bill Poitras    | Molecular Simulations Inc.    | Tel (408)522-9229       |
| (bill)          | Sunnyvale, CA USA             |                         | 
|                 | FAX (408)732-0831             | bill@west.msi.com       |
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
From: hayesb@yvax.byu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: re: Lee Reiswig speaks!
Date: 26 Jan 93 12:57:57 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1993Jan21.123925.26838@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca>, hwhalen@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Hugh Whalen) writes:
> In article <dposey.727599220@well.sf.ca.us> dposey@well.sf.ca.us (David Posey) writes:
>>8) The 'OS/2 cost $2Billion to develop' strawman is (direct quote follows)
>>   'utter and complete bullsh*t'. [The numbers just don't work out - Mr.
>>   Reiswigs annual budget is approx. $400 mil, including many developers
>>   not working on OS/2, marketing, etc. Somewhere in the range of $100M
>>   to $500M is more likely]

$2 billion buckarooskies is a MAJOR investment.  Heck, GMs brainchild Saturn
Corporation spent (I think) $3 billion and seven years to develop the car and
the manufacturing plant.  $2 billion for OS/2 development doesn't make sense.

Bryan
hayesb@yvax.byu.edu


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: In Defense of CS (was Re: CS, what do they know?)
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:43:00 GMT

furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod) writes:
: In article <1993Jan18.212443.1528@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
: >furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod) writes:
: >: In article <1993Jan17.020825.22551@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
: >: >[....]
: >: >: Science that does not understand the real world is little more than mental
: >: >: masturbation.
: >: >
: >: >You'll not be including mathematics as a science then?
: >: >--
: >: 
: >: Probably should qualify the Science part as Applied Science.
: >: 
: >: In one sense Mathematics really isn't a science, but a language,
: >: specifically designed to describe problems, their solutions, and in
: >: general the world in which we live. Esoteric description I know,
: >: but if you think about for a bit...
: >
: >Yes I'm aware of that view of maths. My point - perhaps I didn't make
: >it too well - is that there are plenty examples of mathematical
: >theories that, at the time of their invention/sdicover/formulation
: >whatever, had no application, yet later, sometimes centuries, a use
: >was found. Group theory and X-ray crystallography, for example. Number
: >theory and cryptography.
: >
: >Were all those people working on LISP in the late 50s and early 60s
: >wasting their time because then there were no practical (in the real
: >world) LISP systems? I think not.
: >
: >--
: 
: NO, they were not. But, consider the fact that knowledge for it's
: own sake, and without purpose, is useless. People do not write
: languages like LISP, or solve math problems for no apparent reason.

I would suggest that mathematicians like Galois solved mathematical
problems for their own interest. G.H. Hardy - one of the great number
theorists of the 20th century, author of "A mathematician's apology"
claimed that nothing he knew "could be of the slightest use to
anybody". Today he'd be wrong.


--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
From: chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bugs in OS/2 v2.0, unreasonable number?
Date: 23 Jan 1993 14:38:32 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu

In <1993Jan23.152922.749@wes.on.ca> tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen) writes:

>chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen) writes:
>> Hmm, OS/2 may have bugs, but I have yet to see them.  I know they are out 
>> there, but I have been running it since 2.0 was released, and I had
>> it on a 386/25, with 8 megs ram.  It crashed quite alot, but NOT because
>> of bugs in the software, rather, my 386 chip was bad.  When I got
>> a new motherboard, OS/2 stopped crashing, and hasn't crashed since.

>Heh.  I rarely run DOS or Windows apps on my OS/2 box (it's mostly SAS --
>a 16-bit OS/2 app), but I sure see bugs.  WPS crashes, minimized apps may
>or may not appear in the minimized apps folder, copying files to floppies
>is inconsistent (my drive is all HPFS).  No SP, just plain GA.  I'll wait
>a few more months, I suppose, to get 2.1 -- plus a few more to get IBM to
>ship it to me (I got my 2.0 upgrade 10 weeks after ordering it).


I run OS/2 apps, DOS apps, and one or two Windows apps.

Like I said, I haven't had a major problem with the stuff you mention,
and I am GA, *NO* SP in mine.  I'll admit, I have not used the WPS
to copy files to floppy, but from the OS2 command line, its no
problem for me.

BTW, I remember that the 2.0 orders were late as heck. :).  I went
to the store and bought mine, and get it months before people who
had ordered it in advance. ;)

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:12850 comp.os.os2.misc:44146
From: price@helios.unl.edu (Chad  Price)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Peer-to-Peer OS/2
Date: 27 Jan 1993 20:57:47 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
NNTP-Posting-Host: helios.unl.edu

880506s@dragon.acadiau.ca (James R. Skinner) writes:

>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.

>CAn you tell us more?

There are a number of paragraphs of write-up on this in PC Weak dated 1/25/93
--
chad
price@helios.unl.edu
cprice@molecular.unmc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 12:28:00 -0800
From: George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: Re: Nt To Be Launched At
Comment-To: Yamanari@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

Yam> Regardless, 8 or 12 megs?  So what?  Memory is cheaper than 
Yam> anyone who remembers the $200/1 meg prices of just a few

 It *is* a big deal to someone in my situation. I *already* have
8 megs, with all simm sockets full. The next step up would *require*
that
I sell/swap the 8 1x9's to get 4 4x9's. Rough translation: a cost of
$300.
The cost for a *typical* Windows user to upgrade ram to OS/2 needs?
Get 4
more 1x9 simms. (I don't know anyone using Windows who doesn't have 4
megs)

Yam> How many OS/2 users out there are running with more than 8 megs?
Yam> I'd say a whole lot of'em.

 And I'd say a lot of them are in the same situation that I'm in,
folks
who upgraded from Windows and as a result went from 4 megs to 8 megs. 

___
 X MR/2 1.38 NR X Drop your carrier, we have you surrounded!

--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:18:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.030545.16898@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>
>    Actually, you posted this to a Windows newsgroup as well, but
>that's besides the point.  I've seen quite a bit of misinformation
>about Windows NT being posted to c.o.o.a lately - maybe you
>missed it.
>
I suspect that I know what you are referring to as "misinformation"--
discussions of NT's memory requirements, multi-user capabilities, speed,
stability, ability to run 16-bit DOS/Win software and so on are all
topics that have been discussed in c.o.o.a in recent months where you
have objected to one thing or another that was said.  Which is fine--
everyone can register his or her own opinion.  However, while you may
see yourself as the white knight saving NT's reputation from being
smeared by those dastardly, ignorant OS/2 users, I have not seen it that
way.  Most of what I suspect you are referring to as "misinformation", I
remember as being subjective opinions from users of the NT beta.  A
recent episode which comes to mind was the incident where Steve Withers
posted on his experience with the NT beta and was attacked for
misinformation (perhaps not by you-- I don't remember all the
participants).  The fact was, those attacking him didn't know his
situation as well as he did, and he was simply posting subjective
impressions clearly advertised as such.  You are free to post yours as
well.  Neither is "misinformation", so long as it is clearly advertised
as subjective.  I don't think your thoughts on NT are to be given any
more credibility than anyone else's as you have repeatedly denied any
connection to the NT development within Microsoft.  I seem to remember
that your .sig used to include the line "not a Microsoft spokesbeing".
That being the case, I will listen to all sources equally.

-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: OS/2 Television Special
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 01:54:10 GMT


Next week, the program "Secours Informatiques" will feature a half-hour
special on IBM's OS/2. The program is broadcasted on channel "Chaine
Francaise," Tuesday at 8:30 PM. It is repeated on Sunday at 2:30PM on
"TVOntario." The program is broadcasted in french.

Mark K.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mortenk@dhhalden.no (MORTEN KNUDSEN)
Subject: Re: Bugs in OS/2 v2.0, unreasonable number?
Organization: Ostfold College
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:26:13 GMT

In article <1jfhtiINNhvl@neuro.usc.edu> merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes:
>From: merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin)
>Subject: Re: Bugs in OS/2 v2.0, unreasonable number?
>Date: 18 Jan 1993 16:27:30 -0800
>>What do you mean? OS/2 2.0 was a quality success!
>>For the sarcasm-impaired: OS/2 2.0 is full of god damn#%$#@%$#! bugs.
> 
>Sounds like you didn't apply the CSD (service pack) which repaired numerous
>(hundreds) of irritating bugs in the GA (general release) version OS/2 2.0.
>
That's what I heard, too. Unfortuantly, it only replaced the bugs I never 
noticed. 

Morton.
From: tpo@dde.dk (Thomas peter Sonne Olesen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Easy programming a must ??
Summary: Isn't it necessary to have an easy prog. tool ?
Keywords: os/2 , programming marketing
Date: 25 Jan 93 12:42:52 GMT
Organization: Dansk Data Elektronik A/S

A) Every body agree that an OS without programs is useless.

B) Meny people agree that the lack of OS/2 programs is a major reason
   why OS/2 is still not the standard OS on PC.
   ( Yes I know that OS/2 runs DOS and Windows programs, but so does
     DOS and windows ) 

I believe that allthough at lot of developtment tools exist for OS/2
GCC, emx, IBM's C-compiler theese tools doesn't make it easy for 
every man to make programms. It's hard to make a PM program is C++.

Doesn't OS/2 lack of an easy PM dev. tool like Visual Basic ?

I think (as it has been said i this group before) that OS/2 is a wonderfull
OS for programmers and over computer entusiasts. But the major group of
PC users havn't learned computer science, and will use 90% of thier time
using standard programs, and maybe 10% messing around with som small programs
they have tried to make them self. All those people think products like
Visual basic (or the macro Basic in WINWORD ) are wonderful product. It's
very easy to make a program that really looks like the prof. ones. 
(And maybe meny of the prof. ones are actually VisualBacis programs).
They feel good about seeing their own programs between all the other 
windows programs. 

Another reason why I think it is important with an easy programming tool
is the first time programmers. A lot of young people that start to make
programms stay with the OS where they developed their first program for
meny years. A today that means DOS. All theese young programmers spend
a lot of hours, week, month and maybe years learning every detail about their
first OS. Then one day when they start to make serious programs they may in,
many situation choose DOS again, simply because they then will know what
they are working with.

The problem with the young folks is allso the main reason why the minimum
hardware requirments for OS/2 is still a barrier.

Or what do you think ?

Thomas

-- 
|      |   |       |********************************************************
|    __| __| __    | Thomas P.S. Olesen 
|   /  |/  |/__>   | Dansk Data Elektronik A/S  -   Kernel development group
|   \__/\__/\__    | Email: tpo@dde.dk 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy