HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com (John Brock)
Subject: A not unfriendly question for the NT bigots
Reply-To: uunet!csfb1!jbrock
Organization: First Boston Corporation
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 02:47:49 GMT

I am planning on buying OS/2 as soon as version 2.1 comes out.  I have
been reading with interest the debate on OS/2 vs Windows NT, and I have
a question for the NT advocates.  It's not going to affect my decision,
as I am a REXX bigot myself, but what I would like to know is whether
in your opinion Windows NT has any *permanent* advantages over OS/2.

What I mean is, does OS/2 have any inadequacies which cannot be fixed
transparently, without breaking APIs or causing backward
incompatabilities.  I know about the file, file system, and application
address space limitations.  I know about the WPS single message queue.
I know about the security issues, and so on.  But it seems to me that
any one of these deficiencies could simply go away with OS/2 X.Y a year
or three down the road.  I don't mind waiting.  I'm not going to be
stressing OS/2 to its limits anyway.

But are they any problems that go deeper, that will haunt us forever,
the way the 640K memory limitation has haunted and hobbled DOS?  Is
there anything that can't be fixed?  If not, then at least from my
perspective the debate is kind of moot.

-- 
John Brock
uunet!csfb1!jbrock
jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: who is brian sturgill - really?
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 04:22:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.024758.73426@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (BRIAN PAUL VAN LIEU) writes:
>[ Mark's joke about a fake Brian S deleted ]
>
>>>
>>Sure: he says things you don't like or want to hear and you don't want
>>to have to worry that they're true.  The easiest thing, then, is just to
>>insult him and that will make everything he says wrong. Yeah, that's the
>>ticket!
>
>>jmalloy@hamilton.edu
>>>
>>
>    Dude, lighten up! I am sure Brian has a bullet proof jacked (Yanamari
>    loaned it to him).

There does seem to be a problem here.  Some people get my Jon
Lovitt-like humor (I've gotten email to that effect) and some don't.
Sorry gang, it stands as written.  (I'm certainly not worried about
Brian S. or anyone else, btw).
>
>    You too are an MS advocate. So be it. If anything, Brian should feel good
>    that he is taken seriously enough to have goten under someone else's skin
>    to provoke this flame.

Wrong.  I advocate whatever works.  I'm not going to rehash my story
with OS/2 again for you (I've stated it publicly before), but suffice to
say I'll happily try OS/2 2.1 when it's released and will even adopt it
if it meets my needs and expectations.  OS/2 2.0 didn't, so I continue
to use Windows 3.1.  I don't look at the world with any one set of
blinders, unlike so very many here.
>
>    I laughed my ass of. I hope something like this happens again.

Chac'un a son gout.

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

Say what?

>    Once again, chill out. Sorry if you did not laugh. Have your funny bone
>    checked immediately.
>
Geez, what makes you think I didn't laugh?  (There were many reasons to
do so, btw).  But I did think it telling that the poster needed to call
Brian's postings 'slur[s]' and call him a 'liar' (oh, sure, all in the
name of anagramatic fun, sure).  But I suppose there are people who
enjoy that sort of behaviour.  

Go to it!

jmalloy@hamilton.edu

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Discovered: Microsoft using undocumented calls in Windows NT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 07:10:59 GMT

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
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                          NeXTStep 486 is for _YOU_!!!!
University of Utah                    Microsoft needs competition, but I want
Center for Software Science          to be one of the many running Windows NT!
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373    :-) :-) :-)  NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Why Windows NT will fail -----
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:17:13 GMT

In article <94880@rphroy.ph.gmr.com> rbotimer@max.ct.gmr.com (R Douglas Botimer) writes:
>:	Make that "1/2 windows 1/2 OS/2 halfbreed version *2*.5".

>Thank you, Yamanari.  So that's why you are here informing us and correcting  
>the misinformation being spread about OS/2!  WE CAN'T BE TRUSTED TO FIGURE  
>THINGS OUT FOR OURSELVES!  LIGHTBULB!  Damnit's nice to know that that the an  


	<Sigh>  

	Listen up you big boofer.  You just *confirmed* my point.
	Advocacy groups are inherently looking to find the slightest
	error--even if it is obviously a typo (see the thread--
	*thread*--that started because some bozo misread a sentence
	"MS Windows (Apps)" vs. "MS (Windows apps)"..)

	If is for this reason *especially* that I posted the correction.

	I barely hesitate to suggest that you had, in fact, written a 
	message that went along the lines of "THERE IS NO 3.5 YOU NT PUSHER!!"
	and had to cancel it (sour grapes?) when you read the correction.

>NT peddler, of obvious superior intellect, is benevolently trying to keep us  


	^nonsense.   ^obviously.


>foolish OS/2 users from hurting ourselves. Well,I guess that's the missionary  
>calling - spread Bill's vision!

	OS/2 users are no brighter than any other crowd.  If OS/2 users
	make purchases that are to the detriment of OS/2 (i.e. accepting
	and purchasing out of date (WP, Corel), poorly written (Corel,
	all MS OS/2 apps, anything that uses Mirrors) and overpriced
	(I don't even want to talk about some of the prices that OS/2 
	had back in the 1.x days) merely encourages companies to let
	their product atrophy (WP) or cease development (Corel).)

	As an Os/2 user, it is blatantly obvious to me that the ONLY 
	way OS/2 will succeed is if 1)OS/2 users *buy* OS/2 apps
	and 2) request OS/2 versions (which I do bi-monthly, calling
	every Windows app company that I use, calling all of the
	hardware manufacturers I own peripherals from--along with
	faxes when I think they're not listening)--but they MUST
	balance this against giving companies (like WP) the idea that
	they can market shit (WP5.0) and sell it at full price to the
	moronic OS/2 users who are buying it for brand loyalty.


-- 
 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: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Watch Program
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 02:22:27 GMT

Brian Sturgill writes:

> Does this mean that IBM is including shareware in its OS/2 2.0 app count?
> Also is IBM counting its own apps in the count?

Why shouldn't IBM count its own apps?  Doesn't Microsoft include Word and Excel
(among others) in the app count for Windows?
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10302 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3198
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Suprisingly good press
Date: 12 Dec 92 07:08:34 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University


    I just picked up the Dec. 22 issue of PC Magazine.  After leafing through
it, I started reading the articles and lo and behold the majority of the major
opinion articles were about OS/2!  That's certainly a change.  The really
amazing part is yet to come.  All of them were at least neutral and most wre
quite positive.  Machrone discussed the
Machrone looked at the various long term strategies of MS and
IBM, and whether rightly or wrongly, came to the conclusion that IBM's
strategy held more long term promise.  Dvorak, quite honestly appraised what
he calls "Screwball Sales Gimmicks" pertaining to IBM's so called Crash
Protection (tm).  The article was pretty good and hit the nail right on the
head.  Miller wrote about basically the same thing as Machrone and basically
came to the same conclusion, though with somewhat different logic.
Suprisingly, Zachmann almost avoided the subject altogether, and only took one
cheap shot at NT.  Seymour was the only one who stayed completely off the
subject.  3 positive articles, one quasi-neutral, and one not applicable.  In
addition, this was the issue where it got the technical excellence award for
operating systems.  I wonder how much of this will carry over into future
months and other magazines.


-- 
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]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From: thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: who is brian sturgill - really?
Date: 20 Dec 92 00:07:28 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <BUHR.92Dec19181902@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, buhr@umanitoba.ca (Kevin Andrew Buhr) writes:
> 
> I'm trying to port Brian Sturgill to OS/2 because there are some
> people here with 8 Meg machines and they want to run their own copy of
> Brian.  (Brian NT is just too slow on these machines.  When they try
> to access the network, Brian's writing starts breaking up.  It's like
> running Windows multimedia under OS/2.)
> 
> Can someone point me in the right direction?  Can "Mirrors" be used to
> port _NT_ applications to OS/2?  Is it a long-term solution?  Does it
> facilitate creating a "real" OS/2 application?
> 
> Also, I'm not sure what documentation I'll need.  Can anyone suggest
> anything?  Is the GNU compiler robust enough?  Brian is written in C++
> using some spin-off on the foundation classes.  Brian also uses some
> calls that aren't in the documentation, like "NtQuerySystemInformation"
> and "NtQueryInformationThread".  What can I do about these?

You also have to be careful about one other thing.  Apparently, it
seems like Brian Sturgill will mess with the OS/2 bootmanager.  The
NT version won't co-exist with the OS/2 bootmanager--who knows what
an OS/2 version would do to the boot manager!

Word has it that Microsoft is working on a related program called
Brian Sturgill Access to save and organize the volumes of text 
that are created by Brian Sturgill for NT.  Evidently there are 
still some bugs in Brian Sturgill Access--after processing, some 
of the comments stored in it were inadvertantly converted into 
pro-OS/2 comments.

> 
> Kevin <buhr@ccu.UManitoba.CA>
-- 
| Charles A. Thompson      | thompson@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu        |
| University of Kansas     | thompson@ukanvax.cc.ukans.edu       |
| > They call me SkiBum <  | 32 bit OS/2 2.0 is for you!         |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| Listen to Rush Limbaugh from 12-3 EST on the radio EVERYWHERE! |
------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: How many NT SPECIFIC programs have been shown at COMDEX?
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:31:43 GMT

brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.060534.5766@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>
>>This is from PCWeek about COMDEX92 in Las Vegas:
>>
>>"Of more than 200 applications demonstrated at Microsoft's booth for
>> Windows 3.1, Windows for Workgroups, Windows for Pen Computing, and
>> Windows NT, fewer than 40 specifically tapped NT's 32-Bit
>> architecture."
>
>Yes, and another article posted to this group claimed there were
>240 NT apps in the ISV booth.
>
>The answer?  Simple.  In both cases the authors did not count for themselves.
>I did count (though I stopped when I hit one hundred, time was pressing).
>There were more than 40 and less than 240.
>The "40" number comes from counting the occurences of "NT" in the booth
>pamphlet, which as I said in my COMDEX report did not reflect all the NT
>stuff being shown.
>
>>
>>Mark K.
>
>Brian
>-- 
>C. Brian Sturgill                 Microsoft Windows Family of Operating Systems 
>University of Utah                 Peer-to-peer networking, Multimedia, E-mail
>Center for Software Science          enabled, HUGE base of applications, Object
>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373   Linking and Embedding, (Oops! need more roo


That's your story and you stick to it. I rather rely on more reliable sources
than your particular posts.

Best Regards,
Mark K.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: Windows NT humor
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:03:16 GMT

In article <85281@ut-emx.uucp> jbodnar@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (John Bodnar) writes:
>According to kovarski@zooid.guild.org (Mark Kovarski):
>>>	WINOS2 is bad, pure and simple.  Once most users have really
>>>	used Win3.1 with proper drivers, they find WINOS2 agonizingly
>>>	slow in comparison.  At this point,  I reboot to use Win31 because
>>>	there aren't any drivers that scream like my ATI Mach32 drivers
>>>	for Win31 do.
>
>Ahem....
>
>BULL SHIT!

No, I don't think so, but thanks for the enlightened and graceful
response!
>
>Take my Tseng ET4000 card and use it with the most recent Windows 3.0
>drivrs for WIN-OS/2 and with the most recent Windows 3.1 drivers for
>Windows 3.1.  I want you to conclusively prove that the performance
>differences are very noticeable.
>
>You can't do it!  Even Ziff-Davis' WinBench program bears this out.
>WIN-OS/2 3.0 is slower than Windows 3.1, but the differences are just not
>that noticeable, certainly not enough to prevent users from feeling slowed
>down or unproductive.
>
I had a Diamond Speedstar card (upgraded to an ATI Graphics Ultra some
months after trying OS/2 2.0), which is et4000 based.  WINOS2 was,
without any doubt whatsoever, much slower on my system than Win 3.0 or
3.1 (even when using stock drivers, not the Turbo Win drivers that were
freely available for the board).  I didn't do any benchmarks, it would
have been pointless.  Had the benchmark numbers, in fact, been higher
for WINOS2, I would have had to conclude that the benchmark was useless.
I measured WINOS2 peformance (vis a vis Windows 3.1) by the 'teeth
grinding' benchmark, and lemme tell ya, WINOS2, full screen or
'seamless', was just lamentably bad.  The only public demonstration I
saw of OS/2 (in a reseller's shop on a very different machine, seen just
a few weeks ago) didn't suggest to me that my perceptions were wrong.  i
can't argue with my own experience!

>
>A huge number of users run in 386 Enhanced mode, but most don't "use" it.
>You show me your average Word and Excel user running in 386 Enhanced Mode,
>and I bet that if they used Standard Mode, they wouldn't notice much.  In
>fact, Microsoft even says that Standard Mode is faster for people not
>multitasking DOS applications (I can document this).

I'm not quite sure what the argument here is except to say that I do use
386 enhanced mode so that some specialized DOS comm programs (a blinker
for BIX and another automated message program for Compuserve) can run in
the background (9600 bps or faster, as times) while I do something else
(usually the foreground is a Windows app, but sometimes another DOS
app).  Works fine for me.

>
jmalloy@hamilton.edu


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pkedrosk@student.business.uwo.ca (Paul S. Kedrosky)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: University of Western Ontario
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 05:38:09 GMT

"richard anstruther" <richard.anstruther@canrem.com> writes:

> jardined@qucis.queensu.ca (Donald Jardine) writes:
> 
> -> 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.
> 
> You think only IBM will benefit?  I'd say Lotus, WP, Borland and
> virtually every other ISV on the market would benefit from the
> FTC lowering the boom on MS's alleged anti-trust habits.
> 
> We, the consumers, will in turn benefit from having a source of
> OS's and applications other than Microsoft.

You don't really think the biggest obstacle standing in the way of
"other" operating systems succeeding in the marketplace is
purported anticompetitive practices from Microsoft, do you?


 __________________________________________________________________________
     Paul S. Kedrosky              __/ "In a certain village in La Mancha,
    pkedrosk@business.uwo.ca      __/ which I do not wish to name, there
   University of Western Ontario __/ lived not long ago a gentleman..."
  (519) 679-2111 x5174          __/  
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Kevin.Andrew.Buhr@f20.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Kevin Andrew Buhr)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is NT really a single
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 92 11:02:11 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/20 - Mercury Opus NEC360, St Petersburg FL

From: buhr@umanitoba.

--  
Internet: Kevin.Andrew.Buhr@f20.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!tct!mechanic!20!Kevin.Andrew.Buhr
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between USENET & FIdonet.
      For information write to chief@mechanic.fidonet.org

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Rude behavior on this group.
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: world,local
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:33:34 GMT

In <1992Dec17.175916.18702@microsoft.com> richs@microsoft.com (Rick Schaut) writes:

>In article <1992Dec17.074830.3234@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec16.234708.18159@microsoft.com> richs@microsoft.com (Rick Schaut) writes:
>>>It is my position that demand must be such
>>>that vendors will be able to sell at a price which exceeds the additional
>>>costs.  It is demand which makes the whole thing possible in the first
>>>place.

>>I demand to buy a computer without DOS or Windows pre-installed.

>And if there aren't enough people who make the same "demand", then vendors
>can't charge enough to cover the costs of producing a machine even without
>Windows.

>>>Presumably people who don't want a machine bundled with Windows can ask for
>>>a machine without Windows and get a machine without Windows.  So what's the
>>>problem?

>>I called different computer sellers to get a machine and they would not sell
>>me a computer without Windows 3.1 and DOS 5.0.

>And I called a local computer store which is willing to sell a DOS only box
>without Windows.  (I didn't ask about an OS/2 only box.)

>>Give me a good reason why
>>computer sellers will not sell computers without Win and DOS.

>It's possible that there's a very good reason: it costs too much.  There
>can be two basic reasons for this.  The first is that their productive
>capacity may be such that selling any DOS only box is a box that isn't
>sold with Windows.  Why should a seller sell a DOS only box to you at the
>discount you expect when that same box, with the addition of Windows, can
>be sold to someone else at a higher price?

>Secondly, it's possible that firms enjoy a sufficient cost savings from
>having a singular line of production to preclude breaking out a second
>completion phase.  Economies of scale can actually be such that the per-box
>costs of production are less under a single line than if the producer made
>two different software configurations.  If this is the case, then you would
>actually pay more for DOS only boxes than you pay if the manufacturer makes
>only DOS+Windows boxes.  Do you have a better definition of "freebie" than
>that the price is lower?

>>P.S.  Did you ever buy a PC?

>Yes.

>Did you ever take an Economics course?

Yes.  Did you?  What was it?

-- 
"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: baustin@billapc.UUCP (Bill Austin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Re PDK expiration notice
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 05:45:30 -0500
Organization: Ground Zero Group, Columbus, OH 43227

In <1992Dec15.235334.42749@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>>>Just so everyone knows, if you have the origional OS/2 PDK, the code expires
>>>*tomarrow*  (Dec.15)  Your license is no longer valid and you must get the new
>>>version (november '92 version)
>>
>>... which has no longer an expiration date.

>I wish it didn't.  Its expiration date is Febuary 15, 1993.  Second paragraph
>on the pack of the CD case.  (for the november CD)

Can you still get the PDK-CD for $15 shipping?
If so, could you give me the phone number to order it.
I've finally gotten my [OS/2] house in order and want to jump 
back into the developing status.
If you could, please e-mail it to me at baustin@bluemoon.use.com
my address baustin@billapc often gets bounced, and I have a working
forward file on the above (my host)
Thanks much
baustin
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Roel Pieper, President & CEO, Unix Labs response
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:04:49 GMT


In an article published in "Unix World," August 1992 Roel Pieper, President &
CEO of Unix System Labratories, made this statement:

"With a touch of marketing bravura characteristic of the industry, Pieper
predicts Microsoft will crumble: 'It's the IBM of the 1990s,' he says. 'Today,
it's a solid kernel. It's successful, it has mass and speed, but as it grows,
the kernel is filled and the shell gets thinner and thinner. Someday it's
going to break, because competition will cut it through.'"

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy