HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 2 Jan 93 22:02:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1993Jan2.220250.21449
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.

In article <1i3uh5INN55b@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>In article <29DEC199209332560@moose.cccs.umn.edu> rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu writes:
>>FWIW, the rumor is that BG went ballistic when he found out that the
>>applications group was using undocumented calls.  Not because they got caught;
>>but rather, because the application will quit working if that specific function
>>is removed from the next Windows release.  In effect, the applications group
>>is imposing standards on the OS group, i.e. "Remember that incredibly ugly
>>kludge you had to make to get version x.x out the door?  Well it will now haunt
>>you for life because some clown in apps decided to cut a corner".
>
>Supposedly, Apple had to put a lot of hacks in Multifinder to recognize certain
>Microsoft applications and do ungodly things to make sure that they would
>work because MS applications programmers violated a lot of rules.
>
>I wonder if any of the applications people doing Windows stuff at MS were
>the same as the people who did their Macintosh stuff?
>
>--Tim Smith

Same premise, different groups I suspect. It takes too much wasted
time to be a good Macintosh programmer. The PC guys would barf a
lung if they were thrown into that environment cold turkey.

JMHO...

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jahonen@cs.joensuu.fi (Jarmo Ahonen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: More advertising
Date: 31 Dec 92 06:28:03 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>	Let me ask:  Is it everyones opinion that OS/2 is sucha bad
>	product that it cannot stand on it's merits alone and that we
>	have to buffer these merits with blatant lies?
> 
(stuff deleted)
>	*Why* is it necessary to lie?  If you're going to put a qualifier
>	in there, put an HONEST one, like "most".  I prefer not confusing
>	people and just omitting the qualifier altogether.

Here in finland most of the OS/2 adds say something like "most" or
"almost every" etc. And they mention 6 MB of memory and 80 MB disk...
Actually the memory requirement is that 6 MB and the proposed is 8 MB.
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 2 Jan 93 01:22:48 GMT
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago

In article <1992Dec31.172417.28455@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>But Microsoft isn't claiming to run a franchise business, and I
>seriously doubt that a lot of dealers would be willing to become
>Microsoft franchises, no matter if they actually DO sell DOS with
>every machine.  In other words, this isn't even close to being the
>same thing.  If you can't come up with germane analogies, perhaps you
>shouldn't bother.  Or perhaps you are incorrect?

Actually, there are efforts in this direction.  Microsoft not too long
ago wanted vendors to drop the term "PC compatible," claiming that the
concept was outdated, and start shipping "Windows compatible" systems.

It generally went over like a lead balloon, but there are some
individual hardware components which claim "unholy" association with
Windows.  :-)  (Check the ads for some video adapters.  Is that
"Windows Accelerator" really a Windows accelerator, or is it a GUI
accelerator?  The tradenames WinSpeed, SuperWin, WinFast, and several
other permutations abound.  Seems kind of silly, if you ask me.)

If anyone is looking for a reference here, check back issues of Byte.

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0h, available from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]
From: nareid@due.unit.no (Helge Nareid)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: RFD: how about comp.sys.ibm.pc.advocacy?
Date: 3 Jan 93 20:41:43 GMT
Organization: University of Trondheim, Norway

In article <1993Jan2.035542.1244@midway.uchicago.edu>, sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:

|> I'd love to RFD comp.os.os2.announce and comp.os.os2.ver1x.  As for a
|> bug reporting newsgroup, I have no objection in principle to the idea,
|> but I would like to hear what IBM's plans are for a bug reporting
|> mechanism now that the Internet to CompuServe mechanism has been shut
|> down.
|> 
|> The comp.os.os2.announce newsgroup requires a moderator.  Are you
|> volunteering, Mark?  :-)
|> 
|> The comp.os.os2.programmer.porting proposal a while back was a
|> terrific idea.  The voting was botched, frankly, and I hope it gets
|> reintroduced for RFD after the mandatory six month wait.  Does anyone
|> know when that six months is up?  (That new newsgroup would also
|> accompany a renaming of comp.os.os2.programmer to
|> comp.os.os2.programmer.misc.)
|> 
|> The other botched newsgroup was comp.os.os2.setup, which I'd also like
|> to reintroduce.
|> 
|> So, in summary, I'd like to see these OS/2 newsgroups:
|> 
|> comp.os.os2.misc
|> comp.os.os2.advocacy
|> comp.os.os2.apps
|> comp.os.os2.networking
|> comp.os.os2.announce
|> comp.os.os2.ver1x
|> comp.os.os2.programmer.misc
|> comp.os.os2.programmer.porting

You seem to have forgotten comp.os.os2.setup in your summary. 

|> Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0h, available from

Given the current volume in comp.os.os2.misc, a split of the comp.os.os2.*
groups appears to be highly desirable. A couple of other possible groups
could also be suggested, since they both would carry quite a bit of 
traffic - I would like to suggest the following :

comp.os.os2.drivers - A lot of the traffic in .misc appears to be of
                      the type "Is there a driver available for my
		      video card/printer/sound card/cd-rom/etc..."
                      This traffic is easily separated from the rest,
                      and would fit neatly into this group.

comp.os.os2.win-os2 - The question of Windows compatability is not
                      going to go away in the foreseeable future, so
                      why not have a group where Win-os2 is discussed.

And what about :

comp.os.os2.betas   - IBM seems committed to public beta-testing
                      programs for OS/2, so why not have group for
                      discussing the current batch of beta releases ?

... Just some ideas ..

- Helge Nareid
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: stevew@tss.com (Steve Wilhelm)
Subject: Re: Rude behavior on this group. (Really Price/Feature trade offs)
Reply-To: stevew@tss.com (Steve Wilhelm)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 21:39:23 GMT


> But that has nothing to
> do with whether people who DO NOT WANT WINDOWS AND DOS are paying
> those costs anyway...

It is pretty obvious that if you get DOS and Windows with your machine part
of the cost of the machine pays for them.

But we pay for lots of features we don't want. I look at the back of my
machine and I have VGA, serial, and parallel ports that I do not use. I also
have an extra electrical connector and a card cage lock. I do not need these
features, but I know if I called the vendor and asked them to sell me a machine without them they would laugh.

This is not limited to my computer. My stereo receiver has video, tape, and phonograph, and alternate set of speaker connectors. I don't use any
of them. Despite the additional features, the the price was competitive for the
features I did want.

You used to be able to go into your automobile dealership and order a car with the exact set of options you wanted. The Japanese built cars with a limited number of options packages. It allowed them to mass produce their cars at greatly reduced cost (and better quality).

Mass production makes products cheaper. The vendor determines what set of
features at what prices satisfies the greatest number of their customers.
Find a product with the features you like and decide if the price is reasonable
for those features and don't worry about what else you are getting.

--------------------------------------------------------
 Steve Wilhelm   	 	...uunet!tekbspa!stevew
 Senior Software Engineer
 Teknekron Software Systems, Inc.  Palo Alto, CA  94301
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 02 Jan 93 09:13:34 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1993Jan2.004314.10263@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>: In article <1992Dec31.223910.27015@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>: >philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>: >> In article <8239@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>: >> >No, but it does have an obligation to those who bought, for example, MSC 7 to
>: >> >do OS/2 development on as an upgrade to MSC 6, which had that capability...
>: >> 
>: >>      Why would an OS/2 developer upgrade to MSC 7?  The product
>: >> doesn't support OS/2 - such an upgrade would be silly.
>: >
>: >So you're saying that MS will continue to support MSC 6 indefinitely?
>: >Thought not.
>: 
>:       Should they?  Should they still be supporting, say, that
>: TRS-80 software that got released a while back?  (BTW, I think
>: you can still call customer support for software that isn't
>: the current release.)
>
>Ah you are, either deliberately or otherwise, missing my point. I
>would not expect *anybody* to continue to support releases of old
>software indefinitely. This being the case, upgrading to a more recent
>release is not 'silly' but sensible. Unless, of course, the evil
>empire decides to remove support for a feature previously included -
>i.e. OS/2.
>
>You can't have it both ways.

     You can always move to a different compiler.  This happens
all the time in the real world.  Sure, Microsoft is losing a
compiler customer - in the long run, the company has gambled
that the number of people wanting to produce OS/2 binaries
isn't large enough to justify the expense of producing and
supporting new compilers.  This isn't "anti-competitive", it
isn't "sleazy" - it's just business.

				-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11365 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3606
From: mbk@gibbs.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 2 Jan 93 00:03:12 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: gibbs.ucsd.edu
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu (RICHARD HOFFBECK) writes:
: In article <1992Dec29.004640.2498@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
: >  
: > Instead, they are going after Microsoft because their OS programmers talk to
: > their Application programmers.  I don't see anything wrong with that at all.
: >  
: 
: That's not the hangup that the FTC has with MS's business practices.  And as
: BG pointed out the MS OS folks talk to Lotus's Applications Group and Borland's
: Applications Group, so why shouldn't it talk to MS's Applications Group.

Yeah, I wonder what the content of those conversations were.  Just
whose bug will get fixed first?  Just whose features will be added?

: FWIW, the rumor is that BG went ballistic when he found out that the
: applications group was using undocumented calls.  Not because they got caught;
: but rather, because the application will quit working if that specific function
: is removed from the next Windows release. 

The undocumented calls I think are essentially irrelevant.  MS can
use NO undocumented calls in their products and still have a huge advantage.




: --rick

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:58:07 GMT

bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:

>I dont care what MS _might_ do. I do care about what they have
>done. By now, with the exception of IBM (with an early help from MS),
>nobody was able to produce as cheaply an operating system that people really 
>_wanted_, other then MS. Just take a look at the history and you will
>see how prices are becoming lower, and new applications that people 
>_want_, are being written as a result of MS-Windows. 

>If MS is capable of keeping prices down for the customer, why
>should _they_ be penalized and not the less efficient companies ? 

Oh please - you can't really believe Microsoft would be selling their
software cleaply if there was no competition. Microsoft - like any other
company - will charge as much as they can for their products. If you
eliminate their competitors their prices would go up *fast*.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net            uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 14:02:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.194318.27886@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:

>And if the fact that DRDOS's emulation is imperfect because of
>information held back by Mircrosoft?

I have had some installation problems in the past when I tried to
install IBM OS/2 ver. 1.3 on a fully-compatible IBM clone. Should 
I conclude that IBM conspired against the clone-makers ?

>--
>Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
>Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
>Phone: +1 604 370 4452

Dov
From: rmk@frog.CRDS.COM (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Date: 28 Dec 92 07:06:38 GMT
Organization: Charles River Data Systems

In article <1992Dec27.171726.4660@grebyn.com> mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli) writes:
>In article <1992Dec27.011721.23160@unvax.union.edu> pallantj@unvax.union.edu (Joseph C. Pallante) writes:
>>I have a question....
>>
>>All this debate is over:  Many, Many crashes because a PC has only
>>8 megs of RAM.
>>
>>My question:  Why does NT crash (or OS/2 for that matter) because of lack
>>of enough RAM?  I would expect it to be slow because the OS would have
>>to manipulate the memory, do some swapping, etc...   But, if it follows
>>all the rules it should, theoreticaly, it should not crash.  It should
>>just take longer to do its job, due to the overhead of running on
>>a machine with little memory.
>>
>>So...  NT running on mimimal memory crashes.  Now, I know what you are
>>gonna say, 12 megs is the minimum.  If 12 really is the minimum, you would
>>think that MS would have prevented it from running it in any system
>>under 12, right?  If they can prevent it from installing on a system
>>that has boot manager, surely they could prevent it from operating
>>on a PC with less than 12, right?
>>
>>These are honest questions...  Not trying to put down NT...
>>I beleive OS/2 crashes more when it doesnt have enough memory also...
>>Just curious why it happens.
>>
>I believe that someone had suggested earlier the possibility of bugs in
>the virtual memory routines.  This could certainly cause what you
>describe.  Other than that, though, you're right-- the system should
>just run slower.  In my experience, this is exactly what happens with
>Unix machines.  I find Unix crashes to be *very* rare, even running in 8
>or 12 megs on a PC. (and BTW, I have used SCO ODT 1.1 Unix SVR3.2 on a
>386/20 with 12megs of memory, and it performs quite well.  That's
>running X windows, TCP/IP, and NFS too.  So if NT runs as poorly as
>Steve describes in 8 megs, MS has their work cut out for them.)


Just as an aside, my home system, rmkhome.UUCP, feeds news to other systems.
One of the systems was a 386SX/16 that ran ESIX SVR4 with X-11 in 4 megs of
memory for 9 months before the sysop upgraded to a 386DX/40 with 16 megs.

The system was slow, but he was running his modem at 19,200 baud without
dropping characters, feeding news to 5 other sites, and had 3 login terminals.
And he never crashed.  Up for 9 months, 24 hours a day.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: kitchin@lf.hp.com (Bruce Kitchin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Date: 23 Dec 1992 19:15:49 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard Santa Clara Site
NNTP-Posting-Host: eden.avo.hp.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.2 PL7]

Randall A Helzerman (helz@ecn.purdue.edu) wrote:
: 
: I am defending Microsoft because I believe that it is always wrong to
: steal from somebody, which is exactly what the FTC is trying to do.
: Using vague words like "anticompetative practices" and "unfair" just
: confuses the issue.  Tell it like it is.  The FTC is threatening to
: rob at gunpoint Microsoft's trade secrets.  That is immoral and wrong
: under any circuimstances.

Where is any recent article about FTC potential action does it mention
trade secret?  Every article I've seen or heard reported of mentioned
the alleged unfair practice of economically forcing clone manufacturers
to pay for an MSDOS license for all machines they ship even if the
customer doesn't want it.  This kind of practice, IMO, means that a
competitor like D.R. (Novell) would have to offer some really stupendously
better before the average user would realize that there was a choice
to be made or even consider someone beside MS.  This is the kind of
practice that anti-Trust laws were made to stop.  When these laws were
passed there were a lot of examples that this was bad not only for the
competitor that was driven out of business but for the consumer.  I wish
more people who are responding here would read the history of anti-trust
and monopoly.  With that background, actions by MS which seem at first
glance to be of no significance and actions by the FTC which seem so
heavy handed look quite different.  Bill Gates may not try to emulate
J.D. Rockefeller.  But some of his actions look like they're of the same
type.  Do we wait for him to destroy all competition so that he has a lock
on the industry, no free trade, no alternatives or do we learn the lessons
of history that certain corporate behavior leads to bad situations for
the country and for the end user.

There was a quote last winter/spring attributed to Maples of MS by the
Wall Street Journal.  At the time I thought it a very strange statement
to be made by an executive of a company under investigation for monopolisitic
practices (the FTC investigation was already public knowledge).  Does
anyone know more about what was actually said and did it mean what it
sounds like it means?  What he was quoted as saying is roughly, all he
wants is for MS applications to get a fair share of the market and by
fair share he means 100%.  I don't have the direct quote but I clearly
recall that what was printed included the idea the Maples wanted MS to get
a fair share and that Maples was quoted in the same breath as defining
a fair share as 100%.  Was this a journalistic error or exageration?
Was this a slip on Maples part revealing MS's real strategy?  Anyone
have any facts to add to the WSJ report?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: prs9k@brain.med.virginia.edu (Phil Scarr)
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Organization: Neuroclinical Trials Center, University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 15:52:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.142615.3337@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <725210115snx@montage.UUCP> platinum@montage.UUCP (Doug Swallow) writes:
>>rsrodger@wam.umd.edu writes in article <1992Dec24.033418.28702@wam.umd.edu>:
>>> 
>>> In article <1992Dec24.035348.26595@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>>> >the 125 meg drive. I have 8 megs of 70ns RAM and the system runs very much
>>> >like OS/2 on 4 megs with no HPFS. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 	As it should.  8 megs is the NT minimum.
>>> 
>>> 	Plus, you *should expect crashes*.  Installing any OS,
>>> 	NT or OS/2, is not the same as just plugging in an HD 
>>> 	with the os installed.  It must be configured for your hardware
>>> 	and your motherboard.
>>                 ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>You're the one who's FUDding now.
>
>
>	Nope.  He has said himself that there is a big difference 
>	between his machine and his friends:  he has 1/2 the memory.

Bzzzzt!  Thanks anyway.  He said he installed it on a machine with the
same memory, but more memory was added later.

	-Phil
-- 
PHIL SCARR        \      We are Microsoft...     /          (o) 804.243.0229
 University of    /     OS/2 is irrelevant.      \          (f) 804.243.0290
 Virginia,        \     UNIX is irrelevant.      /        prs9k@Virginia.EDU
 Neurosurgery     /     Openness is futile.      \     prs9k@Virginia.BITNET
 HP-UX is my life!\ Prepare to be assimilated... /   ...uunet!virginia!prs9k

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Commercial
Date: 03 Jan 93 03:11:04 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <19135@mindlink.bc.ca> Jeremy_Reimer@mindlink.bc.ca wrote:

<comments about IBM add deleted>
> 
> 
> I agree.  All they need to do (in my highly demented opinion, admittedly) is
> show someone playing Wing Commander (obviously they would have to pay a fee
> to Origin, so this would never happen) and then someone walks in and wants
> something, so the player just hits ALT-HOME... then we see a cool OS/2 screen
> with pulse, chess playing and Wing is still going in the little window (the
> 32-bit GRE would help here, and a SVGA driver...)

If IBM did this kind of add, they would not be competing with Apple or MS,
but with Nintendo and Sega.  I don't think they'd have a chance, as both
of these companies are Japanese, and would probably have less trouble
with the FTC.

Then again, maybe IBM should sell game systems...




> 
> Just seeing Wing being played full-screen to a national audience would
> probably make Nintendo sales plummet!

Nintendo will probably have it on SNES is a few weeks anyway....And it will
probably be a lot more responsive as it will be running on dedicated game
hardware anyway.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy