HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: james@iowegia.uucp (james shoemaker)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTs thunking overhead more than OS/2s?
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 93 22:13:53 CST
Distribution: world
Organization: Iowegia Public Access Usenet/UUCP, Clive IA USA.

W.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:

>      I was reading a little bit of Dr. Dobbs Programming Journal (or
> something like that) today, and it had an article about programming
> in 32 bits.  Although OS/2 is only mentioned a couple of times (it
> was mostly about writing Win32 programs from 16-bit programs), what
> was said about it wasn't bad.  One very interesting thing was that
> it said that there was more overhead in the Windows NT thunking than
> there is in OS/2's thunking.  Can this be verified?  And if this is
> true, why?
> 
> Timothy Miller
> 

	Sounds reasonable.  remember OS/2 has the 512 meg limit to facilitate
easy thunking.  NT has no such limit so a thunk probably involves creating a
new selector that contains the address you want a 16-bit pointer to.  going
the other way is also more complicated.  for similar reasons.

					JWS

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:52:49 GMT

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
: In article <1992Dec30.193602.12123@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
: >helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
: >: In article <1992Dec29.193954.27752@spang.Camosun.BC.CA>, dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
: >: |> I don't think that's what I said. The fact is that your free market
: >: |> system fails to provide some 25% of your population with any medical
: >: |> care whatsoever.
: >: 
: >: I'll repeat myself and please read it this time, WE DON'T HAVE A FREE
: >: MARKET IN HEALTH CARE.  We have a "mixed system" in which the federal 
: >: goverment pays for and therefore mandates 60% of the health care. 
: >
: >No need to shout. If you examine those countries whose health care is
: >the envy of the rest of the world, you will find not only that they do
: >not espouse a free market in health care, but that the entire health
: >care system is run by the government. Case closed.
: 
: 
: 	What, the German system that is in desparate need of reform due
: 	to rising costs?  Or do you mean the Canadian system--you know, 
: 	the same one that has it's patients coming down to the US
: 	to get CT scans, MRI's and bone scans done because Canada
: \	has insufficient hardware?

Yeah, maybe because Candians don't put so much emphasis on high tech,
high cost, low result gee-whiz medicine?
:  
: 	The other day (about three weeks ago) I went to the doctor because
: 	my knee was immobile.  So, the doctor took some xrays and determined
: 	that we needed anMRI done because there was obvious swelling, but
: 	nothing to be seen on the xrays.  So I called the MRI center to schedule
: 	an appointment.  "When would you like to come?" "Oh, well, when are
: 	times available?"  "*Oh, anytime, just about."

And did they mention money at all? If you are one of the 25% of US
citizens with no medical coverage would they have been quite so friendly?
: 
: 	Thank you, yes--theUS does need reform.  Medicare reform.  Insurance
: 	reform.  But I'd rather have a system o' plenty than a deficient
: 	system o' "let's all wait in lines like shoppers in a soviet
: 	supermarket".

Did I suggest a Russian system? Thought not.
--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 05:45:51 GMT

In article <8271@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec31.033739.1912@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> >*sigh* If you want to be a dealer of McDonald's burgers you have to sign a
|> >deal with McDonald's not to sell Whoppers.  Is McDonald's liscencing
|> >agreements "sleezy and underhanded?"  Is this "strongarming Wendy's out of
|> >business?"  Is this putting the Colonel at an "unfair competitive
|> >disadvantage?"  Should sheriff FTC round up a possie on the Ponderosa?
|> 
|> YABA! (Yet another bogus analogy!)
|>
|> If you want to be a dealer of McDonald's burgers, you agree to represent
|> yourself to the public as McDonald's. Selling a Whopper from a McDonald's
|> restaurant would be extremely confusing to the public.
|> 
|> In contrast, when Zeos agreed to bundle DOS and Windows with all machines they
|> sold, they didn't magically become "Microsoft Computers, Inc.".

OK, I'll play along for a minute.  If Microsoft _did_ "force" the cloners
to change their names to "Microsoft Computers, Inc." in order to sell MS-DOS
would that make their liscenses all of a sudden "unsleazy" in your eyes?
If Microsoft offered the cloners the same deal as McDonald's did to its 
franchisee's would you be satisfied?

|> Next? Or are you going to actuially argue the issue of MS' sleazy practices
|> for once?

I don't see them as being any "sleazier" than McDonald's practices--in fact
the agreements which Microsoft offers are much less exclusive than what
McDonald's offers--therefore if its OK for McDonald's to do what they do it is
even more OK for Microsoft to do what they do.
From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 3 Jan 1993 05:25:09 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuron.tamu.edu

In article <1993Jan2.232052.7082@gw.wmich.edu> x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:

[I deleted a lot--I hope the attribution is correct.]

|> 
|> 	Might I offer a suggestion?  Perhaps the 
|> 	warning was to prevent the user from installing the DOS6 
|> 	beta using the Stacker-like disk compression program.  This
|> 	would, quite simply, render OS/2 unusable.  

Really?  I have 260Mb on my system - none of it FAT.  If I took one
partition--say 20Mb and made it a DOS 6 FAT bootable partition, that
would make OS/2 unusable?  The compressed FAT partition might not be
accessable by OS/2, but that hardly makes OS/2 'unusable.'

By the way, besides disk compression, why would I want DOS 6? What are
the features that make me want to change from OS/2?  Memory management
is a non issue.  About the only thing I can think of is if I was
developing software and I wanted to check DOS 6 compatability.

Can anyone suggest advantages for DOS6?
--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
                              |  Scrupulous Lawyer
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 30 Dec 1992 19:38:49 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec30.185608.26764@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>Why anyone would put charging $8 for Windows in the same league with 
>pointing a gun at Microsoft is beyond me.  Its a downright Orwellian 
>perversion of the language to use the same word "force" to describe 
>both actions.

Why, from your writings, I would have expected you to be a true Libertarian,
and thus to recognize that economic force can be just as, if not more,
damaging to a corporation than physical force. Once again, for the
comprehension impaired: Force does not have to be physical.

>A legitimate action against Microsoft would be for its competitors to offer
>the same deal to the clone makers, or a better deal.  If American business
>and government would stop litigating and start competing we would see a new day.

As things stand, though, competitors are locked out because they clone vendors
would still have to pay MS a royalty for those machines that went out the door
with another product installed.

If American business and government would stop litigating, we'd be truly
overrun by the MSes of the world, just waiting to pounce on any opportunity to
become a monopoly.
-- 
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.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:22:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.050102.29262@actrix.gen.nz>, Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:

|> I'll agree with you. There have been no "classic" monopolies other than those
|> created by governments.......or copyright. 
|> 
|> > Markets which the goverment stays out of are very harsh on monopolies.
|> 
|> In a similar vein to your challenge......show me a market that governments
|> stay out of......I don't think there have been too many of those, either. 

Nope.  Government by its very nature tends to try and increase its power, and
it requires eternal vigilance on the part of the citizens to keep it in its
proper place.  Unfortunatly, in America the last few generations haven't been
vigilant enough.  The result is excessive regulation and a goverment which
spende over a billion dollars a day more than it takes in.

|> The difference between us appears to be that i accept this regulatory
|> background as necessary while you find it repugnant. In the particular case of
|> MS, I am satisfied that they have acheived - by fair means or foul - a market
|> position that will allow them to dominate the small computing industry (for
|> all practical purposes).

Microsoft _has_ dominated the IBM PC market for almost 10 years.  Have we 
suffered? On the contrary, under Microsoft's dominance, the PC industry has 
experienced growth so stupendous that it is simply unprecidented in history.

|> I don't think this is healthy. It may be perfectly legal and what a good job
|> they have done! But this concentration of market power itself represents a
|> potential to pervert and subvert the market. On this basis, the normal
|> practice is to fragment the organisation. 
|>  
|> Like playing cards. One hand is dealt, played....then the cards are shuffled
|> and re-dealt. This produces new diversity and new growth and prevents stasis
|> and deterioration.
|>  
|> Fair? I don't know...

"Deep in your heart you know its not fair"  :-) :-)

|> ...but it seems to work.

Does it though?  Why arn't there any more DRAM manufacturers in the US?
Why can't you buy a "Made in America" camera any more?  Why does Sony and not
GE make the best CD players?  Our manufacturing base, strangled by
regulations _including_ the antitrust laws, just can't compete with the giant
vertically integrated companies of Japan and Korea.  The antitrust laws prevent
the pooling of resources which are necessary to create the next generation of
consumer electronics.

And unless we arn't vigilant now, our software companies are going to go the
same route as our manufacturing base.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:59:22 GMT

In article <wiegand.725663043@lido16> motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net writes:
>discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>
>>WRONG!  I can't believe that people actually post such inane ideas.  
>>The agreement is like: if Joe's Clone shop ships 1000 boxes a month, Joe could
>>ship 'em with 1000 copies of MS-DOS for $8, or he could choose NOT to
>>abide by the agreement and purchase MS-DOS for $24 apiece. 
>
>And Joe Clone would go out of business. With the small mark-up on PC clones
>they can't just add $16 to their cost. To stay price competitive with
>the other clone makers they *have to* accept the $8 offer. It sounds like
>they have a choice, but the only real choice is to go out of business.
>
>Thats the reality of the situation and Microsoft knows it. No one in
>their right mind would agree to Microsoft's terms if they had any real
>choice. A coice between doing it Microsoft's way or going out of business
>isn't much of a choice.

Ahhhh.  But what the anti-agreement people are saying is that they DON'T want
MS-DOS installed.  If the MAJORITY of people thought that way, then Joe 
Vendor doesn't have to buy into the agreement--and sell his systems for
eight bucks cheaper than his competitors.  The problem is, that the MAJORITY
of people WANT MS-DOS and Windows... which gives Microsoft the leverage it
needs to "sell" their package with every computer.

Mind you, they cannot "force" a user to use MS-DOS and Windows; it is
physically impossible to do so.

>
>-- 
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: Information Week: OS/2, one of 1992's Top Products
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 07:55:36 GMT

In <pathak-231292164232@virtual.mitre.org> pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak) writes:

>From Dec. 21 of information week [copied without permission]

Yeesh, I like OS/2 a lot, but this article is ridiculous!

>Article titled: 1992's Top Products and Services

>The 10 Most Likely To Succeed

>OS/2 2.0

>After years of delays and feuds with co-developer Microsoft Corp., IBM
>finally shipped its 32-bit operating system.  It was well worth the wait. 
>OS/2 2.0 is both revolutionary -- as the first 32-bit, Intel-based system
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hmm, I'll bet that SCO and other 386 UNIX vendors are suprised to hear
that!  Not to mention Quarterdeck, Rational and Phar-Lap!  :-)

(Note for those about to reply:  I TOLD you not to mention them!)  :-)

>Processing 32 bits of data at a time improces
>multitasking functions and reduces system crashes compared with Microsoft's
>DOS or Windows.

32-bits reduces crashes?  ROFL!  The memory protection in the CPU can be
used to help reduce crashes, but the datapath size has nothing to do
with this.  For that matter, the only thing that the 32-bitness has to
do with multitasking is that it allows you to run more and bigger
processes.  I've done robust multitasking on 8-bit machines!  DOS and
Windows crash because they're badly designed pieces of crap!  :-)

  For instance, portable computer users of OS/2 2.0 can send
>a DOS file by modem to their home offices in one window while
>simultaneously writing a letter in a Windows word processor.

Big deal!  You can do that *without* OS/2 too, no problem.  You can even
do it without freaking the system if you run Windows under DESQview, so
that you get real multitasking instead of Windows' maybe-if-the-wind-is-
right-I'll-switch-to-another-task-ing.

Well, at least this drivel is no worse than the idiotic claims that MS
makes about their so-called "New" Technology.  :-)

And at least it isn't IBM making these claims--so Microsoft's position
as most baldfaced liars in the computer industry is still secure.  :-)

"Information Week", eh?  Remind me not to subscribe to this one!

p.s.  I already don't subscribe to Byte, PC-Weak, or InfoWierd.  Gave up
on IW in '83, Byte in '85, and PC-Weak in '86.  Does anybody but me
remember when there were computer magazines that contained inforMATION
instead of nothing but infoMERCIALS???  Hell, if I want that kind of
spewage, there are at least three free papers here in Silicon Valley,
which at least admit that they rarely carry anything that isn't a paid
advertisement.  :-)
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | "Imaginary guitar notes [...] exist only
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers |  in the imagination of the imaginer" --FZ
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 08:36:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.065805.25815@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> ts@chainsaw.ecn.purdue.edu (Thomas Ruschak) writes:
>In article <8256@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>-- 
>>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.
>> "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
>
>	I've been reading this group today, and it seems like this guy is
>writing every other article. Does anyone else get the feeling that he was
>scared by a large corporation as a child?

Nope.

>Tom

Actually, it works like this:  all the employees of Microsoft (whether
they are paid or unpaid ;) get together and decide who will do all
the MS postings for the week.  This one guy posts lies about OS/2 using
flawed logic, FUD, and brainwashing.  This gives all the other fiends
(that are not on vacation) more time to attempt to take over the world.

Meanwhile, all free-thinking OS/2 users counter the brainwashing by
appointing a single poster to defend the free world from such evil.
This week, Jay was appointed our defender of truth and freedom.

Not many people know this but Microsoft has been taken over by Billy
the Kid.  He is the long-lost evil twin of Bill Gates.  Billy did not
like the way our beloved and revered Bill wanted OS/2 to succeed, so
Billy kidnapped Bill and took over Microsoft.  Billy, pretending to be
Bill, has been using MS and Windows to rule the world.  We must stop
Billy.  We must rescue Bill.  OS/2 is the only way to do that.

I ask for all paid and unpaid MS employees to mutany against Billy.  I
know you guys are not really evil.  I know there is good within you --
I can feel it.  I also feel the love and joy within you.  Escape from the
Dark Side of the Force.  We know it's not your fault...



--Mike Levis
--Let the Truth of Love be lighted.
--Let the Love of Truth shine clear.

sprintf (buffer, "\n%c%c%c\n", ':', '-', ')' );
-- 
======= Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu =======
::  ftp ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (128.123.35.151) for OS/2  ::  .--.
::  software & information.   Get /pub/os2/00Index  :: (OS/2)
::::::::  & /pub/os2/all/info/faq/faq20h.txt  ::::::::  ~--~
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 02 Jan 93 09:19:39 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1993Jan2.004712.10346@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>: In article <1992Dec31.224255.27090@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>: >philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>: >> 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?
>: >> >
>: >> 
>: >>     Oh, this is rich.  The only way that DR-DOS could get perfect
>: >> MS-DOS emulation is if they had the source code.  
>: >
>: >Really? And presumably, by the same argument, the only way an AMD386
>: >could provide perfect emulation of an Intel 386 is if AMD had access
>: >to the original Intel drawings?
>: 
>:      Yes!  That's exactly my point.  They can get close, but they
>: aren't going to be 100% the same as Intel unless, well, they are
>: 100% the same.
>
>Oh please! Emulation does *not* mean running identically *internally*.
>I suggest you read any textbook on abstract data types.

    If you claim to be 100% Intel compatible, and your processor
exhibits difference in behavior from Intel's, should Intel be
responsible for changing their product?
    You bring up functional specifications below - the fact is,
MS-DOS doesn't have a rigid one that would allow a clone
to be written.  Digital Research must have done a lot of
reverse engineering, with quite a bit of guesswork.  They
got very close - they didn't quite make 100%.  I'm sure that
as further incompatibilities are revealed, they will fix them
as well.  But I don't expect to see "DR-DOS" applications
coming out any time soon, and until then, the people who
buy DR-DOS to run their MS-DOS apps are basically taking the
gamble that it's going to work.  It's a good bet, but it
isn't 100%.


>: >Never heard of functional specifications?
>: 
>:    Of course I have.  This is why I can't understand when people
>: complain to Microsoft because DR-DOS didn't meet them exactly.
>
>If this is indeed the case. There do however seem to be plebnty of
>people claiming to have evidence to the contrary.

     None of this evidence has been presented.
     BTW, I have evidence that Elvis is alive and well and
living in my refrigerator.

				-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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: 1992 BYTE Awards
Keywords: Windows Awards
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:31:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.235328.20037@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>In article <Dec.22.21.04.30.1992.13484@paul.rutgers.edu> hwang@paul.rutgers.edu (Hwang) writes:
>> 
>> 1992 BYTE Awards could be renamed Windows Awards, sponsored by
>> MS. MS wins big: W4W, Windows 3.1, Execel, Visual Basic, Word, ...
>> And "Potential winners of next year's BYTE Awards are already starting
>> to surface. Microsoft's Windows NT and Access database manager barely
>> missed being eligible for awards in 1992".
>> Sorry, no OS/2. It is not one of 109 Awards winners. It is not even
>> mentioned in the article..... I think it is my first year and last years of
>> BYTE subscription....
> 
>They have had little nice to say about OS/2 since June. Each month it becomes
>harder to justify to myyself spending the NZ$10 I pay for each issue.
> 
Does anyone else remember Ciarcia's (sp?) Circuit Cellar?  That was back
when Byte was a techie's mag, rather than YAMM (Yet Another Microsoft
Mouthpiece).

-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy