HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 support is late
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:05:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.093958.17197@cam-orl.co.uk>,
thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:
>In article <1efsf4INN946@mailgzrz.TU-Berlin.DE>, lars@cs.tu-berlin.de (Lars With) writes:
>|> Thus an OS/2 Windows support user will always get the latest version
>|> of Windows a couple of months later than Windows NT users will get it.
>
>Hmm, so March to December is "a couple of months" is it?
>
>Advocates here talk about the new features OS/2, but I think it will take IBM
>a while to get them ready if it takes them 8 months to simply update an
>existing bit of OS/2 code. After all, advocates keep saying that Windows 3.1
>is just a bug fix. So why has it taken IBM 8 months to apply a few bug fixes?

Actually, many of the bug fixes are already in Win-OS/2.  I don't
think Windows 3.1 support is at the top of the priority list,
considering not many programs need 3.1 to work properly.

>
>Besides, "the latest version of Windows" is Windows NT. Will OS/2 have NT
>support two or three months after NT is released?

     I agree, Windows NT is already a year late! :-) :-)  No really,
the most recent version of Windows is Windows for Workgroups "3.1."
I can't see IBM wasting their time on this, though.  I think they
should be (or are) working on the Win-32 compatability and developer
support, so that OS/2 programs come out, and we can all ditch that
horrible Windows interface.
     If it takes 8 months to get Win-32 compatability, I really
wouldn't care.  All this means is that I can't use the applets which
come with NT.  I can still use the OS/2 ones, though.
     Another thing which would be good for IBM to spend time on is a
program like "Mirrors" which will allow developers to easily port
programs from one API to the other (OS/2 -> NT).  Then more programs
would come out for OS/2 and NT, and developers wouldn't have to
spend their hard-earned profits hiring extra programmers to write
two versions of an equivalent program.

Timothy Miller
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 support is late
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:27:27 GMT

thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:
>In article <1efsf4INN946@mailgzrz.TU-Berlin.DE>, lars@cs.tu-berlin.de (Lars With) writes:
>|> Thus an OS/2 Windows support user will always get the latest version
>|> of Windows a couple of months later than Windows NT users will get it.
>
>Hmm, so March to December is "a couple of months" is it?
>
>Advocates here talk about the new features OS/2, but I think it will take IBM
>a while to get them ready if it takes them 8 months to simply update an
>existing bit of OS/2 code. After all, advocates keep saying that Windows 3.1
>is just a bug fix. So why has it taken IBM 8 months to apply a few bug fixes?
>
>Besides, "the latest version of Windows" is Windows NT. Will OS/2 have NT
>support two or three months after NT is released?

IBM was showing OS/2 with Windows 3.1 at the Spring Comdex which was less than
24 hours after Microsoft released 3.1. The bug fixing, beta testing, are among
the items IBM is working on with the cooperation of beta testers around the
world.

I can assure you, that you will be positively surprissed about IBM's
capabilities.

Best Regards,
Mark K.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (Tan Jin Meng)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:52:40 GMT

tommy@msc.cornell.edu (Mike Thompson) writes:
: It seems odd that in a multitasking environment one can write any application
: that takes down the whole OS.  Blocked semaphores may trap your process, but
: the scheduler should allow others to run.  Is it really so hard to preempt a
: running process.

I can give you a simple UNIX programming that "hangs" the machine and
which requires very little systems programming.

main() { for (;;) fork(); }

jin meng
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: guy@st.ife.ethz.ch (Guy Morbach)
Subject: Re: NT: clean design (NoT!) (was Re: OS/2 because! (was NT: Why?)
Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:17:01 GMT

lars@cs.tu-berlin.de (Lars With) writes:

>In article <92282.160301RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>, FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> writes:
>...

>> So, if I use DOS or Windows, I use 32bit OS/2 as a great multitasker, which
>> even protects the applications from each other. With Win3.1 support (I have
>> a beta) for OS/2, the situtation for Windows-only user improves and encompasses
>> for what is available under plain DOS/Win3.1.
>> 

>You have a beta of Win3.1 support.
>This will exactly be the disadvantage of OS/2:
>If Microsoft releases a new version of Windows, IBM has to write a new support for Windows. Thus an OS/2 Windows support user will always get the latest version of Windows a couple of months later than Windows NT users will get it.

>Lars With (lars@cs.tu-berlin.de) 

... and he will also get the software that needs the new windows version
a few months later. Hopefully, OS2 will soon gain enough momentum so that
Widows support, especially for yet to come versions, is of lesser importance.
... now, if he has a Beta of Win-OS/2 3.1, i suppose you have one of NT? ;-)

-Guy

*************************************
- are you still waiting for New Toy?
*************************************

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8530 comp.os.os2.misc:36788
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Date: 17 Nov 92 08:17:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: ringer.1992Nov17.081720.3056
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <mg.721965321@tyrolia> mg@tyrolia (Michael Golan) writes:
>
>As for OS/2, it sucks big time. Bad dos programs with stray pointers crash
>it often. I develop DOS applications and when I am doing heavy debugging
>I tend to reboot OS/2 every few hours. It is just god damn buggy and it seems

Please clarify:  give me code that uses stray pointers that causes
OS/2 to be rebooted every few hours.  Make the code as short as possible.
I would prefer the source code contained in one source file.  I have
Borland C++ 2.0 for DOS and Turbo Assembler for DOS.  I prefer C, C++, or
ASM code, but I can also re-install Turbo Pascal 6.0 for DOS if you give me
Pascal code.

These two things I know of can cause OS/2 to crash (not including the
system bugs that the original poster mentioned):
   1.  bad device driver (whether badly written, a beta, or mis-installed
       like using an 8514 driver on an SVGA system)
   2.  CLI + loop

A stray pointer can cause the DOS session to crash, but I cannot see how
it can cause OS/2 to crash.  If the code you give me crashes my machine
running OS/2, then I will add that to my list above.

>IBM can't get it right. I have not yet tried the CSD, I can't get it yet.
>Besides, it seems the CSD adds as many bugs as it fixes.
>(Dont even think about telling me to waste my time downloading 14 diskettes)
>
> Michael Golan
> mg@princeton.edu
>
>


-- 
==== Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ====
::   ftp ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (128.123.35.151)    ::  .--.
::   for OS/2 software & information.  Get    :: (OS/2)
:::: the OS/2 FAQL in dir /pub/os2/all/faq :::::  ~--~
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8656 comp.os.os2.misc:37366
From: balesej@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Eric J Bales)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Info-Zip problems...
Date: 22 Nov 92 22:52:04 GMT
Organization: University of Cincinnati

Ever since installing the service pack, I've had problems using Info-Zip
to unzip files FTPed from Hobbes.  I know the problem isn't me.  The
first file, or sometimes two files, in most archives FTPed are
inaccessble for some bizarre reason.  (The rest come out fine, no matter
what sort of file they are.)  The error is something like first 1024K
of file is not accessible or something of the sort.  What can I do
about this?

I'm using the latest version of unzip (version 5.0, 32-bit).  I tried the
16-bit version and it did the same thing...  Any help would be appreciated.

-- 
balesej@ucunix.san.uc.edu - atreis@tso.uc.edu		 -Eric Bales-
ebales@ddt.eng.uc.edu - at098@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu
		        -The second dolphin-
Dolphins. Soon you will be one of us, and then you will understand.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org (Kevin Gallagher)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Info-Zip problems...
Date: 23 Nov 92 16:16:02 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <By53Is.379@ucunix.san.uc.edu> balesej@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Eric J Bales) writes:
>Ever since installing the service pack, I've had problems using Info-Zip
>to unzip files FTPed from Hobbes.  I know the problem isn't me.  The
>first file, or sometimes two files, in most archives FTPed are
>inaccessble for some bizarre reason.  (The rest come out fine, no matter
>what sort of file they are.)  The error is something like first 1024K
>of file is not accessible or something of the sort.  What can I do
>about this?
>
>I'm using the latest version of unzip (version 5.0, 32-bit).  I tried the
>16-bit version and it did the same thing...  Any help would be appreciated.

If you have the boot manager or dual boot installed, copy the zip files over
to a disk partition accessible when runnin native DOS.  Then boot up DOS and
see if you can access the files with your DOS version of unzip.  If the
problem still exists, then you know it is a file transfer problem, not OS/2
unzip.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Gallagher        kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org OR ...!uunet!digi!kgallagh
DSC Communications Corporation   Addr: MS 152, 1000 Coit Rd, Plano, TX 75075
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sl14@crux3.cit.cornell.edu (Stephen Lee)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Organization: Fantasy Zone Ithaca, Inc.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 08:21:48 GMT

My two cent's worth:

1) My definition of an 'Operating System' is one which manages the
resources given by the computer.  This includes CPU time, memory and
I/O devices, and backing storage.  (In most cases backing storage can
be treated as another I/O device)

2) In this context, BIOS is not an operating system because while it
ALLOWS ACCESS to the hardware it doesn't MANAGE them.  DOS alone is a
limited operating system because it manages all of the items above
except the graphics modes, and also it doesn't do very well with some
of the items, say memory (can't access those > 1M without using
extensions like EMS or XMS, and cannot protect programs from
overwriting others' memory, but DOS does have some very limited
management on it).

3) On most computer systems it is possible to bypass the OS and access
the hardware directly.  The ability to call BIOS and do a mode switch
does not mean that BIOS is a part of the OS.  It only means that DOS
isn't sophisticated enough to prevent you from doing so.

Rgds
Stephen
--
Stephen Lee
Internet: sl14@crux2.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re:  OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 18:01:13 GMT

In article <Joe.005t@twistor.dialix> Joe@twistor.dialix (Joe Katnic) writes:
>To suggest that because you have some problems, that other users will
>experience problems of such a nature as to preclude them from using OS/2
>for mission critical applications is laughable.


	To suggest that because you _haven't_ had problems that
	no one else does, and that they _aren't_ related to OS/2
	is just as inane.

	Reading the os2 newsgroups alone will provide even the 
	ultimate OS/2 fanatic more complaints, problems and 
	bugs (i.e. "weird happenings" -- just look at the current
	thread on the Amazing Growing INI file..) than are
	acceptable.



>We have had bugs in our applications, but OS/2 has not crashed because
>of them.


	You're lucky.

	That's as it should be--any multitasking system worth it's
	salt had better either be damn near bullet proof or very
	good at catching problems.  

	Still, I _have_ seen OS/2 brought crashing into the ground
	a number of times by applications.  This _should_ not happen.

	The claim is that the only weak spot on OS/2's robust armor
	is the message que _must_ be a false one, because I've seen 
	that problem and it does not kill the system.  How many times
	have we seen in this newsgroup stories of applications dying
	and taking the system with it?  At least as many have seen applications
	die, take over the machine (keyboard, mouse) but leave other tasks 
	running.. Better, but not there yet.




>MISSION CRITICAL?
>Well for us it sure is!
>DOES IT WORK?
>Too right it does!



	I agree that OS/2 is "good enough" for mission critical 
	applications, because when you're talking about something
	like that, you're pretty much running that application and
	nothing else.  Unless the OS is seriously flawed, this should
	not be a problem.  This isn't the same as "stability" because
	it's really not using much of what people are hoping to get
	from OS/2--running DOS apps concurrently, virtual memory and
	so on.




>Maybe we just did more development and testing, and the fact that we
>have a stable mission critical application running on OS/2 is due
>to our investment in Quality Control.



	Even so, an application--no matter how buggy, should not be
	able to take down the system or render it unusable.  This is 
	the OSs fault, not the softwares. 

-- 
 Robert Stephen Rodgers  ||  rsrodger@wam.umd.edu  || IRC: Yamanari
 --------NeXTmail-preferred!!--------------------------------------
 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?  
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 19:16:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.091208.29456@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>
>There is a pretty easy way to differentiate between bigots and advocates.
>(this works for Win/NT/OS/2/Mac/Unix/whatever)
>
>advocates: "I like my system"
>bigots:    "Your system sucks"
>
I second that!  (And I like my OS/2 system, too)
-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT delayed again??? (PC Week Nov 2)
Date: 17 Nov 92 10:20:11 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:
>In <hatton.721472874@cgl.ucsf.edu> hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:
>[posting of Brian]
>>Well, it seems to me you listed several publications you have subscriptions
>>to, and they have had articles concerning pertinent topics that you have
>>omitted, including info that casts MS in a less than favourable light.
>> 
>>Small example - you claimed that the upcoming Unix OS releases would be 
>>contenders against OS/2; in the Oct 12 InfoWorld, they cite Univel as
>>giving end-user pricing for UnixWare: single-user version, $495. But, 
>>nice gotcha, if you want Windows emulation (part of OS/2) it's a separate
>>module - price $995. I don't remember you quoting the $1500 UnixWare 
>>price at any time since then. Could it be because the pricing clearly 
>>makes UnixWare *not* a contender?

>Please. The man is biased. He is not payed by Microsoft to convince
>people. I think you are a bit out of line here.

Perhaps he is not paid by MS, but it seems a bit much to post numerous
articles in os2.advocacy and avoid posting info that affects points he
is making. In addition, if he would plainly indicate where he departs
from fact, and is posting opinion, that would help. People have very 
politely pointed this out before. If you see my attempt to address this
again as out of line, then you are entitled to that perception. Pardon
me if I disagree.

>I can't help finding your posting a little paranoid. Perhaps you don't agree
>with Brians opinions (at least I don't agree with some of them) but this
>doesn't seem very fair.

I can't help your perceptions of paranoia, nor fairness. I suggest a little
thought experiment: post repeatedly many articles about OS/2, ads, info
from meetings, etc., in the comp.win.advocacy group. Maintain a bias
against Win, WinNT, etc., and compare MS unfavourably against MS. Now
imagine both the traffic in the group, and the e-mail you might receive
(including some from Brian, perhaps).
 
Or, if you feel up to it, try it for real. Tell us about the comments
you receive.
 
From this end, I see such an approach to be objectionable, from either
direction. My opinion.
 
Tom

-- 
Tom Hatton
hatton@cgl.ucsf.edu
(415)-476-7986
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rvenkate@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Ravikuma Venkateswar)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:30:40 GMT

clements@abq.bdm.com (Eric Clements) writes:

>In article <BxMG8q.LFD@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, rvenkate@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu
>(Ravikuma Venkateswar) wrote:

>>    Of course, there are also many problems with them, price being
>>one of them.  If you were to buy a Mac and an IBM compat, and spend
>>the same amount of money on both of them, you could get a lot more
>>computer for the money (or a lot more peripherals) if you chose the
>>IBM compatible.  And, you could have the same abilities as a Mac
>>(multimedia, GUI,etc.).
> 
>Actually, I've done tests with my Quadra 700 - 25 MHz 68040 against a 50
>MHz
>486 DX.  I wrote a simple program in C that did 2 sin calls and 2 cos
>calls,
>1 million times.  The 486 was only 25% faster than my Quadra.  Even though
>it should be at least twice as fast.  So that shows how Motorola is ahead
>of 
>Intel.  (Note: don't forget IBM went to Motorola to fabricate their RS/6000
>chips for the new PowerPCs.  Why would they drop Intel? )

Not quite an accurate comparison. Clock speeds are irrelevant on chips
with totally different instruction sets. And the execution time with
the C program depends a lot on the compiler. Especially with the 486, you
can't compare a program that uses an 8086 instruction set running in Dos
with the Quadra. And you didn't mention whether the Quadra has a coprocessor
(which would mean that if it wasn't there, the speed difference would
be even less). Incidentally, what was the price comparison on the two
computers?

> 
>>>     Another major advantage of the IBM compatible is the
>>>applications base.  This has been slowly changing for a long time,
>>>though.  Many major vendors sell Mac versions of their software.
>>>This advantage will soon be moot.
> 
>>Especially since programming for a GUI takes much more time anyway. But
>>personally I think it's easier to program in Borland C++ than in Think C
>>with classes.

>Maybe you should try using a real development environment on the mac like
>MPW!!! better than any compiler on the PC.  PC compilers can compile
>Fortran,
>Asm, Pascal, Object Pascal, C, and C++ all in one environment! ( NOT! )

Why the heck would I want to program in a compiler that compiles every
language? I just want a compiler that does its job - with one language.
This is not to say that MPW doesn't do a better job than Think C. But
unfortunately, I don't have access to anything but Think C 5.0

>Eric Clements
-- 
Ravikumar Venkateswar
rvenkate@uiuc.edu

A pun is a no' blessed form of whit.
From: Bertram.Moshier@f115.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Bertram Moshier)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Open letter to Gordon Let
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:19:28 -0600

Gordon:

I am pleased to hear from you again.  Hopefully this message means the
PC Week rumor/report of your retirement was incorrect.

As for John Soyring being an IBM flunky (as you said in your posting), I
hardly believe he is a flunky.  John is an official and legal IBM
spokesperson (or so is my impression as a member of the press).  There
are few of these people around the world.

I am sure others will pass your not on to John.  On the outside chance
no one else will do so, I captured a copy of your note and all replies
on this BBS.  I will forward a copy to John on Compuserve in a couple of
days.

Stay well.

Bert Moshier

Unemployed but now able to devote the daylight hours to OS/2, portable
OS/2 and other visions with action behind them.


 * Origin: (1:282/115)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: clements@abq.bdm.com (Eric Clements)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 01:56:55 GMT
Organization: BDM International, Inc.
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: usa

In article <BxMG8q.LFD@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, rvenkate@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu
(Ravikuma Venkateswar) wrote:

>    Of course, there are also many problems with them, price being
>one of them.  If you were to buy a Mac and an IBM compat, and spend
>the same amount of money on both of them, you could get a lot more
>computer for the money (or a lot more peripherals) if you chose the
>IBM compatible.  And, you could have the same abilities as a Mac
>(multimedia, GUI,etc.).
 
Actually, I've done tests with my Quadra 700 - 25 MHz 68040 against a 50
MHz
486 DX.  I wrote a simple program in C that did 2 sin calls and 2 cos
calls,
1 million times.  The 486 was only 25% faster than my Quadra.  Even though
it should be at least twice as fast.  So that shows how Motorola is ahead
of 
Intel.  (Note: don't forget IBM went to Motorola to fabricate their RS/6000
chips for the new PowerPCs.  Why would they drop Intel? )
 
>>     Another major advantage of the IBM compatible is the
>>applications base.  This has been slowly changing for a long time,
>>though.  Many major vendors sell Mac versions of their software.
>>This advantage will soon be moot.
 
>Especially since programming for a GUI takes much more time anyway. But
>personally I think it's easier to program in Borland C++ than in Think C
>with classes.

Maybe you should try using a real development environment on the mac like
MPW!!! better than any compiler on the PC.  PC compilers can compile
Fortran,
Asm, Pascal, Object Pascal, C, and C++ all in one environment! ( NOT! )

Eric Clements
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy