HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: WINOS2 bites (was Re: Windows NT humor)
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:54:00 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Dec15.024509.65271@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (S
TACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.125738.27402@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari
)
> writes:
>>In article <1992Dec12.063309.42535@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (
S
>TACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>>>>       So?  Win3.0 was a piece of garbage.  Does that make
>>>>       a piece of slow garbage that's a little faster some
>>>>       kind of impressive thing?
>>>>
>>>So?  Win3.1 is a slightly faster piece of garbage.  Does that...  You get my
>>>point?
>>
>>
>>       Win31 was enough better that it went from stupid, useless
>>       to stupid, more useful than DOS.  You get my point?
>>

WHOOOPSSS  MY FAULT

>The only things NT adds were bug fixes, some multimedia, a significant if not
                ^ Windows 3.1  Not NT

>overwhelming speed up, and slightly better crash protection.  When all is said
>and done it is really the same system without the more glaring errors.  It
>isn't really any more useful than 3.0.  You can't do anything new with it, so
>how was 3.0 "useless"?  It wasn't.  It was a piss poor piece of programming,
>not terribly flexible, and bug ridden, but not useless.  3.1 was a debugged
>version of 3.0 with a few new features, but it was not more useful.
>
>Win3.1 is in your own words "a slow piece of garbage that's a little faster".
>
>
>>
>>
>>--
>> Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?
>> Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?
>> ---"I despise mystics, they fancy themselves so deep, when they----
>> ----aren't even superficial"    --Nietzsche   ---------------------
>>
>
>--
>Stacy John Behrens
>*===)-------------
>||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
>The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
>serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
>legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
>||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
>
-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel)
Subject: Re: who is brian sturgill - really?
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY, 12866
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:02:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.150449.25918@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.014103.14070@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>>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
>
>"Humor is wasted on you" is a quote you said to me when you were casting
>aspersions on the validity of OS/2 apps because of their names...
>

I guess Winter has set in on the "Hill".


-- 
Pierre von Kaenel	| Skidmore College	     | pvonk@skidmore.edu
Math & CS Dept.		| Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 | (518)584-5000 Ext 2391

"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." Oscar Wilde
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Once again the evil that is Timothy Sipple is vanquished !!!
Date: 15 Dec 92 23:51:32 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1gisrhINN3qm@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
> 
> In a previous article, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) says:
> 
>>BTW, I responded to your "benchmark" and haven't got an answer.
>>In particular, I would very much like to see the breakdown figures for
>>individual tests as I'm sure they will tell a different story from
>>the one global one.  Also, could you tell me where I can get the same
>>benchmark program?  I think it should be tried on different (preferably
>>non-IBM) hardware.
>>
>>I also resent the fact you cross-posted to the programmers groups and
>>c.o.o.misc.
>>Your message was clearly a biased advocacy message, but you expect
>>people that followup to only post to the advocacy group.
>>This basically means that there are people (especially in c.o.o.misc)
>>that have the wrong impression of the whole matter.
>>
>>First that "benchmark" and now this message... I'm a bit surprised...
>>it's not like you to spread FUD, Tim.
>>
>>Brian
> 
> Heaven forbid that Timothy be allowed to post such unabashed advocacy
> on usenet!  I personally was too scared by the Sipple post to even 
> attempt a reply.  Thank goodness that Brian Sturgil, that defender of
> truth, justice and the internet way, came back out of his winter vacation
> to reveal the Sipple lies for what they truely are. 
> 
> Thank you Brian, thank you.  I'd hate to be that wicked Sipple person,
> boy must he be hurting.  Noone has put him in his place for a good
> 6 months and he must have been feeling so uppity that he even considered
> attempting to to a side by side comparison of the two products, the evil,
> nasty, smelly, awful OS/2 2.0 and the glorious, clean and sleek windows NT.
> 
> Oh what a foul person the Sipples is.  So foul.
> -- 

	Oh yes, he is a foul wicked one indeed!  Thank Goodness that
our knight in shining armor rode in and saved us from his horrible
bench mark.  For only Brian is allowed to post advocacy posts.  We must
be on guard to make sure that the evil OS/2 advocacy posts stop so that
the wondrous NT can bring our world to new levels of greatness and glory.

						-Brad

(Sarcasm Mode now switched off)
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re:  More Controversial Topics
Date: 14 Dec 1992 16:31:07 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec14.012521.10340@netcom.com> timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:
>In article <Joe.007r@twistor.dialix.oz.au> Joe@twistor.dialix.oz.au (Joe Katnic) writes:
>>        How many OS's has IBM produced that do S-M-P ?
>>            Answer: MVS, VM, DOS/VSE, AIX, OS/2 = 5.
>For a PC?  None.

Why should they produce an OS that would not have a machine to run on?

IBM has quite a bit of SMP experience. MS has little to none. There's a
learning curve there...

(I should know about IBM's prowess; I've been managing SMP OSes from IBM for
11 years. They've fixed a lot of bugs in that time.)
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
  "All [Windows] NT has is a lot of journalists fooled." -- Brian Button
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ekl@kvamdata.no (Eirik Lygre)
Subject: Re:  More Controversial Topics
Organization: Kvam data as
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 17:20:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.132443.26139@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>	...      OS/2 2.0 has *never* been 
>	demoed on SMP anything, and neither has OS/2MACH.

Os/2 running on the mach kernel was demoed at comex.

> Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?          
> Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?
>
> I've got my flame proof jacket, how about you?  

Eirik

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eirik Lygre                                     Phone:    +47 4 623766
Kvam data as                                    Fax  :    +47 4 623985
PO Box 1101 Lura                                Email: ekl@kvamdata.no
N-4301  SANDNES, NORWAY
======================================================================
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: Re: \* IBM's OS/2 2.0 Scores Big \*
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 12:03:00 GMT

> admiral@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Steve C Liu) writes:
>>	Windows NT
>>	15 million copies of previous versions shipped

unruh@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh) writes:
> So why don't you include the number of copies of CPM and of DOS as well?
> What in the world does Windows NT have to do with Windows other than a
> name, and maybe the "look and feel"?

More important is the common API.  This may not matter to you directly, but
it makes it very much easier for application developers to port their
Windows 3.x applications to NT (as opposed to porting to a different API,
such as OS/2, Motif or Macintosh).  This, in turn, would be likely to improve
commercial application availability, currently a sore point with OS/2...

[ \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 ]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: jardined@qucis.queensu.ca (Donald Jardine)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Computing & Information Science, Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 00:14:10 GMT

IMHO, the FTC action is a underhanded way of saving IBM from bankruptcy.
Inasmuch as the old anti-trust suits against IBM have been rendered null and 
void a) by the Nixon/Reagan/Bush administrations, and b) by IBM's own
recently acquired ability to shoot itself in the foot, it's interesting to
note that the FTC will be in the ambivalent position of investigating one
computer colossus with the effect of (possibly) benefitting another.

However, as we all know, the only people who benefit from all this are the
lawyers :-)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Discovered: Microsoft using undocumented calls in Windows NT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:03:12 GMT

In <1992Dec13.170014.6114@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>In article <1992Dec13.115359.2369@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>>First of all, whats wrong with it? Second, have you considered
>>that I am not a native English speaking person?

>	Try using a comma or two.

>	First of all, it does not matter that you are an
>	English speaker or not.  The issue is not your grammar,
>	but the condescending and stupid nature of your post.

Which, of course, is why you made the attack on his grammar.  Because
it isn't the issue.  Yep, that sure makes sense to ME.  NOT!

>	Comments on .sig files are just one step below 
>	spelling flames on the scale of stupidity.  It is wholly
>	inapropriate to this group--even as an .advocacy group--
>	and should be done in email, if you're going to be that 
>	juvinile.

Which explains why you did it, doesn't it?  And it explains the
comments I keep seeing on mine in various groups, including here.  Oh,
and don't bother with EMail.  I'm not interested in corresponding with
someone who can't even spell 'juvinile'.

>	Putting a little "this is not meant as an insult" 
>	after commenting that someone might be some name-hungry
>	secretary does not make it any less of an insult.
> 
>	"What do you call a black man in a suit?"
>	"Oh, it's just a joke--ha ha--not an insult."

>	Yeah, right.

>-- 
> Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?          
> Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?

> I've got my flame proof jacket, how about you?  

I'd tell you to check your shorts to see if they're flameproof, but I
don't think you have anything to protect, anyway.

-- 
"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: walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk)
Subject: Re: More Controversial Topics
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:45:33 GMT

merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes:

>>About the most processors I've heard of on a SMP machine is 16.  

>The Alliant FX/2800 has 28 SMP processors which can either be assigned
>individually to execute individual task threads or ganged in groups of
>14 to simultaneously execute a single task.  Even two processors makes
>a considerable difference in execution time when the application makes
>good use of those processors (i.e. brlcad).

Still, this isn't anything like the 150 or so processors that the original
poster stated.


					Todd Walk
					walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: More Controversial Topics
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:13:05 GMT

In article <Bz5yG0.Cqo@news.cso.uiuc.edu> walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk) writes:
>rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>	It is my understanding, and this means that I'm draggin it out
>>	of my memory, which is very poor these days, that this situation
>>	really only occurs with some high number of processors--like
>>	150 when you're talking about the Inmos T800 transputer.  However,
>>	the last 20 or 30 processors add sufficiently little benefit
>>	that it becomes almost pointless to add them.
>
>This will happen WAY before 150 or so processors on a SMP machine.  You've
>got to remember that the processors share a main memory, so it's memory


	You can buy T800 cards for the PC that have 4 processors.  Each
	processor has 4 megs of memory *of it's own*.  In other words,
	rethink your comment.

>bandwidth that limits power and not the # of processors you can jam
>onto a board.  About the most processors I've heard of on a SMP machine


	What makes you think that all processors need go on one
	board?  A backplane with a number of seperate CPU cards
	would (and does) do nicely.


>is 16.  Computers with more processors basically all use a distributed


	I've heard of 32 for <$220,000 systems.  Then, of course,
	there's things like a Connection Machine, the N-Cube, 
	supercomputers and so on.


>memory setup (each processor has it's own main memory) and communicate
>by sending messages to each other.


	And?  You can feel free to assume that this was precisely 
	the machine I was describing.  The Inmos transputer has special
	communicatiosn hardware (4 ?serial links/chip) for talking
	one chip to another.  

	Does SMP *specifically* refer to machines that are not
	distributed memory?
-- 
 Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?          
 Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?  
 ---"I despise mystics, they fancy themselves so deep, when they----
 ----aren't even superficial"    --Nietzsche   ---------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: who is brian sturgill - really?
Summary: Aw, geez, TED.EXE is at it again! 
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 03:44:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.150449.25918@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.014103.14070@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec17.172701.2089@usage.csd.unsw.OZ.AU> pendrith@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Mark Pendrith) writes:
>[Brian is a multi-threaded NT version of Eliza rewritten by the MS marketing
>department theory 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
>
>"Humor is wasted on you" is a quote you said to me when you were casting
>aspersions on the validity of OS/2 apps because of their names...

Ah, Mr. Boffin (or is it Mr. Viperflo?  Mr. Dolittle?  Mr. HIPO?) is
back!)

I was right about your humorlessness.  Thanks for proving it once again! 
There are so very few things one can count on nowadways.

>Joe Malloy indeed.
>
>Ted

Of course you deleted the portion of the original posting in which the
question was asked if anyone else had any other explanations.  (Heaven
forbid you should leave my comment in context; after all the point it to
make a fool of yourself, right?) 

And I replied with a comment that was at least as humorous as the
original and less offensive at that (but you wouldn't understand not
being offensive, would you? About as well as you understand humor, I
gather, i.e., not at all.)     

C'mon, it's time to upgrade TED.EXE to a version that requires something
more than an early beta of CP/M...

Ted who?

I mean, this is too easy!

jmalloy@hamilton.edu

 

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith)
Subject: Re: Discovered: Microsoft using undocumented calls in Windows NT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 17:34:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.071059.2337@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.054414.7325@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>
>>There is evidence that Microsoft continues to use undocumented calls in
>>Windows NT, which is part of the FTC investigation. Outside developers
>>have discovered that Microsoft uses undocumented calls in their own
>>utilities that compete with software competitors utilities. Microsoft's
>>Win32 Software Development Kit includes a utility called Pview. The
>>utility uses calls such as:
>>
>>NtQuerySystemInformation
>>NtQueryPerformance Counter
>>NtQueryInformationThread
>>
>>The functions, although contained in NTDLL.DLL (will be included in the
>>shipping version of NT) are all undocumented.
>>
>>Microsoft uses undocumented calls for their own advantage in order to
>>enhance performance even further. This matter is part of the on-going
>>FTC investigation.
>>
>>Mark K.
>
>
>What is the source of this information?
>
>Why do you believe they won't be documented?
>Do you really believe that all calls in a beta should be documented in advance?
>Should Microsoft not document these after release, why do you believe
>this will give them an unfair advantage?
>Why do you believe that this matter is part of "the on-going FTC investigation".
>You do realize that there are a number of undocumented calls in OS/2... does
>this mean that IBM is unfair?
>
>
>   Brian


Firstly if you are aware of undocumented OS/2 2.0 calls please detail them.     

The Beta and the DEVELOPERS SDK were released to allow developers to build 
products for the market not to test the software ( you stated this many times)
If this is the case then surely all calls should be documneted to allow 
developers to develop the best prodyucts. 

Martin smith
msmith@netcom.com
From: gupw@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Paul Wagland)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why OS/2 will DEFINITELY fail
Date: 19 Dec 1992 00:17:43 +0800
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: uniwa.uwa.edu.au

os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.) writes:

>In <1992Dec14.032648.4550@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:

>>When OS/half 2.0 was in beta, there weren't any apps. But take a look
>>at the announcements of many companies, e.g. Borland, they promised to
>>have their C++ ready <12 weeks after the release date of NT. I wonder,
>>if their C++ Compiler for OS/2 will be out then.

>Yeah, just like they announced that their C++ compiler would be available
>for OS/2 2.0 in 4Q 1991, right?  Touche...

Unfortunately, it probably will be released very soon after NT is,
because they will have already done all the hard stuff getting a 32-bit
compiler to work (under OS/2).  It should then be a reasonably easy
matter to then port that over NT.  So you will have the main code
producing engine in place, all you have to create then is the header
files and other such NT stuff.  However just because the compiler comes
out quicker for NT (which, as I said, it _should_) doesn't mean that
they are *GOING* to support NT over OS/2.  

Note I haven't said that they will support OS/2 over NT either.... I
guess we will have to adopt that age old 'wait-and-see' attitude :(

Paul
-- 
Paul Wagland            | These opinions are mine and no-one elses
gupw@uniwa.uwa.edu.au   | Bingy Bingy Bingy Frogs Go round and round
------------------------+     -- Another silly quote from me  :-)
From: nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why OS/2 will DEFINITELY fail
Date: 15 Dec 92 01:33:30 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund) writes:

>   OS/2 has been sold over 1M, but Windows 3.1 is selling over 1M per month.

>OS/2 2.0 has sold 2 mill by now. Not as many as Windows, but a
>significant market. The OS/2 market is likely to be a mroe critical
>market, and they will probably BUY more apps.

More vertical apps, maybe. OS/2 users are either home users who don't buy the
250 dollar mainstream business apps, or users using it for servers and other
related types of things.
The one million mark (not two million) in sales was just recently achieved.
This does not include free upgrades to 1.x users, so there are more than 
1 million, probably about 1.5 million total.

>   Come on. What do you think for what OS Corel will develop Version 4 first?
>   Windows 3.1 or OS/2 2.0. Windows of course, because they still will sell
>   more copies for Windows. Version 4 will not be out before 94. So it takes
>   additional time to port it to OS/2 2.0. Porting to Windows NT is quite
>   easy. It takes a couple of days.

>Of course Corel will develop for Windows first. But it does not hurt
>me very much if I have to wait a few months for an upgrade. 

>I do not believe that it will take only a few days to port an
>applicataion to NT if you want to take advantage of features like
>multithreading etc. A simple port, yes. And many ISV's will probably
>do that, to say that they have NT versions. That will be the situation
>until NT has proven itself in the market.

Too bad this is going to be the situation with OS/2 apps.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy