HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:26:00 GMT

In article <8352@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.225440.14879@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>>If the successful candidate increased his/her employment probability
>>by becoming more marketable, went for many interviews, wrote nice 
>>resumes, convinced employers that he/she is valuable to them, would
>>you say that he/she is forcing the other candidates into unemployment ?
>
>No.
>
>If, on the other hand, the successful candidate went out and slashed the tires
>of the other candidates, making them miss their interviews, and got anonymous
>stories printed in the local papers about how they were wife-beating child
>molesters who couldn't program their way out of an infinite loop, would _you_
>say that he is forcing the others into unemployment? I would.

Oh come on now!  All your examples are blatantly illegal activities... and
Microsoft (to my knowledge) has done nothing blatantly illegal... which is
why there is a controversy in the first place.

Don't let your bias get you carried away.

BTW, I've seen the 2.1 beta... it may be good enough to usurp MS Windows.
Which is the way to unbalance Microsoft: do it by being better--not by
posting that Microsoft employes were "wife-beating child molesters who
couln't program their way out of an infinite loop."

>-- 
>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.
>      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
>              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of All Fears_


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: aaa@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Simon Fowler)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:47:14 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Atlanta GA

In article <1993Jan08.020833.4494@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
> In article <3801.942.uupcb@almac.co.uk> mike.dickson@almac.co.uk (Mike Dickson) writes:
> >PL..>F-Fear- Fear that Using OS/2 and DOS on the same machine would be dangerous
> >PL.. It is.  DOS 6 may make your FAT partitions unreadable by
> >PL.. OS/2 or other operating systems.
> >
> >Congratulations, Phil. You may have put lots of people right off using
> >MS-DOS 6.0, irrespective of whatever the finalised code actually does.
> 
>     Stacker makes your FAT partitions unreadable by OS's that
> don't have Stacker available.  This hasn't scared people off.
> The question is whether the benefits of the incompatibility are
> worth the loss in interoperability.

Stacker does not make your FAT partitions unreadable by OS's that don't have
Stacker available. Rather it creates a LARGE hidden file on the partition and
accesses that. Other files can be put on the same partition with no problem and
can be accessed from other systems without Stacker (can't speak for NT, but OS/2
works OK.

simon
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking
From: bash@tware.com (Paul Bash)
Subject: Re: ibm tcp/ip a ripoff?
Organization: Techware Design, Boulder, Colorado
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 05:40:27 GMT

In article <1iratf$aqq@agate.berkeley.edu> jp1ek@sunc.shef.ac.uk writes:
>i am beginning to think ibm tcp/ip is a rip off.  my comparative
>reference is the wattcp freeware tcp/ip for msdos and tcp/ip for
>xenix.
>

I've used PC/TCP for DOS, PC/TCP for OS/2 and IBM TCP/IP for OS/2. I think
the IBM product compares favorably with either of the PC/TCP products in
ease of installation and stability of code (if you ignore PMX :-). Is it
a ripoff compared to freebie TCP/IP (such as wattcp)? Well, that depends
on whether you need NFS support or not. I've seen no free NFS _client_
for either MSDOS or OS/2. 

Besides, the whole IBM package including NFS server and X server can be 
had, I believe, for around $350 at some places (and for $15 if you order 
the PDK CD-ROM ;-). For a well supported, well documented relatively bug 
free package you could hardly call this a ripoff and be taken seriously.       

-- 
Paul Bash                                                   Techware Design 
bash@tware.com                                              Boulder, CO  U.S.A.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jahonen@cs.joensuu.fi (Jarmo Ahonen)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Computer Search
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 08:32:35 GMT

kjb@calmasd.prime.com (Ken Brucker) writes:

>In article <1993Jan5.201132.17054@athena.mit.edu>, mgrice@athena.mit.edu (Matthew Grice) writes:
>> That's what it is like, folks.  You want OS/2, you buy IBM ( if you 
>> dont understand DOS/Windows/ISA/x86 (which I dont))

>Or you could find someone that does know something about OS/2 and system
>configureation to help configure a system that doesn't come straight from IBM,
>probably save quite a bit of $$$ and get the system much sooner.

If you are going to run out of RAM in any case (like me), then by a MCA based
IBM PS/2. I have an ISA machine with 16 MB (486/33MHz) and my friend's 
PS/2 (486/25MHz/16MB) blows my machine when both are running a process
that has about 40 MB image. Quite a big difference in channel speeeds...
BTW the code does not produce any output to the screen, pure number chrunching.

Well, I seriously consider buying 16MB more RAM for my machine...

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn)
Subject: Re: NT Destined to Succeed??
Reply-To: soh3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Sociology, Univ. of Chicago
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:49:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan05.075016.28032@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.040741.27996@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1993Jan04.184825.3260@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>
>>I don't remember Steve trying to make any sweeping statements about
>>NT.  Part of what he said was with slightly less than 8 megs of memory,
>>NT refused to boot and with 8 megs he managed to boot up NT but its
>>performance was too bad.  I don't find any FUD in these lines.  Because
>>his observations were so in direct contradiction to some of the posts
>>from NT advocates including Brian Sturgill, I found his experiment
>>very interesting.  It was not definitely a FUD.  Is reporting personal
>>experiences spreading FUD?
>
>    Steve made several statements such as (paraphrased, as the
>originals have expired - Steve can correct me if he objects to
>this portrayal) "NT just doesn't run in 8 megs."  This is a
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Why is it so much troublesome for you?  This statement is an
overgeneralization from a personal experience, and within a proper
context it might not sound as blatant as might sound out of context.
If his own personal experience was such that NT didn't run with
8 megs of memory, the above statement is not *false* and certainly
not *blatantly false* as you think.

>blatantly false statement - I was very surprised to see Steve
>say it, as he usually strikes me as one of the more rational
>people on this newsgroup.
>
>
>>>>You refuse to believe anything bad about NT and ignore it. Then, since all
>>>>the bad things have been ruled out of order.....NT must be great! 
>>>
>>>    Let me say this:  My own personal experiences with Windows NT
>>>are in direct conflict with the reports that you've published here.
>>>I've been running it for months with no major problems.
>>
>>Tell us about your configuration and let's see what's the difference.  
>>I hope it has more than 16 megs of memory:)
>
>    I'm doing development on a Compaq 486/33 with 12MB of memory -
>I've been using this system fairly heavily on a daily basis for
>almost four months now, and I've crashed it once.  I also run
>it less frequently on a Northgate 386/33 with 12MB.  I've seen
>it run in 8MB, but don't have direct experience with that
>configuration.
>
>			-Phil
>

Hey, you only have personal experience with a system with 12 megs of
memory and you'are calling Steve liar????

Is NT really bootin up on 8 meg systems?  Is there anybody who has
personal experience with this?

Min
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 4 Jan 93 07:28:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1993Jan4.072819.12894
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.

In article <79005@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt0449a@prism.gatech.EDU (Rob Coleman) writes:
>Immediately upon trying to install Dos 6.0, the install program says:
>
>"An OS/2 partition has been detected.  The OS/2 partition will not be
>available under MSDOS 6.0."
>
>Not at all threatening; just informative.
>-- 

No big loss here. DOS 5.0 won't give you the HPFS partition either,
nuch less detect it. I don't see a problem with this. For years DOS
could not use or detect a concurrent UNIX partition on the disk; it
just reported it as a non-DOS partition. You also had to use FDISK
to see that it was even there.

Finally some sense out of this thread...



-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: Re: Bill Gates:  What a weenie...
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 14:07:47 GMT

Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
> [A childish diatribe full of personal attacks deleted]

Well, that does it for Mr. Kovarski -- he's the first one to earn his very
own spot in my comp.os.os2.advocacy kill file.  Maybe he won't care, but
at least it'll increase the signal-to-noise ratio in this group for me.

[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.)
Subject: Re: IBM OS/2 Fiesta Bowl TV ad
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 13:49:59 GMT

How 'bout a pan back with the commercial being shown from a computer running
OS/2 2.0 w/multimedia extensions.

Cheers,
Q
-- 
"If you choose not to decide, you  | "My other body is in the shop" - seen
 still have made a choice" - Rush  |  on a T-shirt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: SGI-GL in Windows NT??
Date: 10 Jan 93 21:21:31 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell) writes:

>hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:

>>Thanks for providing a ballpark for comparisons, but apparently Mr. Cogswell
>>has all the time in the world. For myself, having brought an SGI machine
>>to a crawl (4GX? Don't remember the model) doing molecular modeling, I 
>>suspect that I would not be happy with the performance of NT with SGI -GL
>>in software on a 486.

>Molecular modelling?  How many polygons and what shading algorithm??
>Seems to me you brought the CPU on the machine to a crawl, not the
>graphics engine.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  If that's the case, you
>wouldn't see much difference between to dissimilar machines with
>comparable CPUs.

>My current project (radiosity) spends most of it's time in computation,
>even with the un-optimized gouraud shade routine I've written.  Could
>you explain to me how having polygons in hardware would speed things up
>significantly?

>Of course, I'm ignorant to what else the Irises do in hardware, so
>please fill me in.

I know neither the number of polygons, nor the shading algorithm, since
I was merely using the software, not writing it; and admittedly there 
was likely an element of serious CPU computation as a factor. My point is,
that the same thing (animation of a 3D protein model) on 486, or even
several 486's, without the extra video goodies the Iris (again I would
have to check details for the 4GX, etc.) provides in hardware, it would
be ludicrous. 

If serious hardware comes along that helps this out, then fine; but your
original comment seemed to be "NT has the SGI graphics lib in software,
and that's enough" and I take exeception to that, unless sufficient
hardware is there also. Given the time frame for getting the *next*
version of NT out (ie., the one after NT 3.1) and the lag time for getting
people to use NT, the SGI stuff, etc., I think the alternatives will still
look more attractive. But if this feature, as distant as it now seems, is
enough to make you go for NT, then fine. If it works for you, fine. But
allow me to remain sceptical.


-- 
Tom Hatton
hatton@cgl.ucsf.edu
(415)-476-8693
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.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: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:28:48 GMT

In article <8330@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.164051.3929@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>>Society cannt decide about anything. Only humans can have the ability
>>to decide.
>
>One of the ground rules of any society is that decisions made by whatever
>means that society has for reaching decisions are decisions of the whole
>society. 

Society is merely a cognitive construct of humans to refer to a large
number of people living togather. Obviously your statement is wrong, 
because if all decisions of law makers were like decisions of all the 
people in a society there would not be a need for punishment as everybody
would comply voluntarily.

>In American society (the one, after all, whose rules/laws MS must
>operate under), decisions made by the lawmaking bodies are, by definition,
>decisions of society.

Again, society is _human_ cognitive facility, it does not exist in
the physical world. To elevate society from a helpful cognitive means
to an arbitrar of justice or practicality is leap of faith.

>>A better statement is that the _majority_ of individuals voted for
>>a certain law, and are imposing their will on the minority that
>>disagree. That does not make a law in any way more fair or practical.
>
>This is an argument against a majority-rule democracy. It holds little water,
>however, unless you can somehow provide a better solution.
>

It was not an argument for or against the rule of the majority. It
was an argument against elevating the majority as an arbitrar of justice
and practicality.

Actually I dont understand why you argue with that. How would you
react to a statement like "The computer-user community has decided
that Windows is better than OS/2", or even "Dos is better than OS/2" ,
because more people bought Windows or DOS ?

It is amusing when a group of people who use an OS that is much less
prevalent than the competing one are suddenly elevating the decision
of the majority into an arbitrar of practicality.


Dov













Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: imacauslan@ucsd.edu (Ian Macauslan)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: LPT2: Bug in OS/2?
Date: 7 Jan 93 00:13:16 GMT
Organization: IR/PS at UC San Diego
NNTP-Posting-Host: irpsws80.ucsd.edu

Despite (unhelpful) calls to OS/2 tech. support, I have a real strange problem
-- any print job sent to lpt2: takes FOREVER to print under OS/2 -- like 3
hours to print a half-page of text! Yet it DOES print eventually.  Looking at
the LED's on my printer, it looks like OS/2 is sending a very small amount of
data about every minute or so.

This, despite years of NO such problem when I was a DOS user (including
Windows). Indeed, if I reboot ("dual-booting") back to being a real DOS
machine, lpt2: works perfectly, as it always has. 

My set up is: Zenith 386/25 (8 MB RAM), PostScript printer on lpt1:, HP DeskJet
on lpt2..  I have installed the service pak.

My initial thought was to disable the print spooler. No discernable effect.
Then I thought the print driver (since one of my printers is a DeskJet) -- also
no effect.  Finally, I switched the printers (changing the printer drivers
accordingly, of course) and even tried an Epson LQ-850 on lpt2: --    and had
the same problem, regardless of what device wa s connected to lpt2:.

I have also verified the problem exists, whether I'm printing from an OS/2
application, WIN-OS2, or an OS2 DOS session.

Any ideas?  If I can't resolve this,        Microsoft will be glad it got one
of its long-time Windows 3.1 users back again.

I 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: fippen@ux2.cso.uiuc.edu (J. Fippen)
Subject: Does IBM have an Internet email address?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 11:02:36 GMT

	I use os2 and love the program. If IBM had an email address, I'd
tell them directly what I like, and don't like, about the program as I
use it each day. Can anyone help me?
	Thanks    John Fippen


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: 5692330@mcimail.com  (Robert Gammon)
Subject: Re: Does IBM have an Internet email address?
Nntp-Software: PC/TCP NNTP
Organization: Texas Instruments Materials and Controls Group
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:28:46 GMT

In article <8329@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

 >> In article <1993Jan05.161041.31200@watson.ibm.com> cnadler@vnet.ibm.com (Cliff Nadler) writes:
 >> >Append it here. These newsgroups are shadowed inside IBM, and most good ideas
 >> >are passed along to development (especially if we want them ourselves <g>).
 >> 
 >> Amen. I've gotten responses from inside IBM to posts I've made here, and all
 >> evidence is that IBM is very interested in what we on Usenet have to say - and
 >> that explicitly includes upper management in the OS/2 shop.

Ditto.  I made an anonymous post concerning management issues (here not IBM).  
John Soyring, or someone acting for him, forwarded the post to the local IBMer 
responsible for OS/2 market penetration, who then figured out that it was me, 
called me and discussed the problem at length.  IMPRESSIVE response.

 >> (BTW, when an IBMer says "append", Usenetters can read "post" - IBM's internal
 >> conferencing system uses "append" instead.)


--
Regards,
Robert Gammon

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft using "Force"???
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:48:18 GMT

In article <C0Jpy0.DsM@csfb1.fir.fbc.com> uunet!csfb1!jbrock writes:


>"force" other than physical force, because this allows you to assert
>that coersion must involve physical threats.  You post a dictionary
>definition of pressure which refers to "physical or mental distress",
>and then insist that the inconvenient "mental" part of the definition
>is metaphorical and irrevelent.  It's not, but what can I say?  I am
>reminded of the Dead Parrot Sketch.  For most people mental distress
>can feel coercive, just as physical distress can, even though it is
>indeed physically possible to ignore it.  But nothing I can say can
>force you to acknowledge this.

You are mixing the cause and effect of things. Even if two things
may end up with the same effect, that does not justify the use of
the same word for both.

Suppose that for most people the white synthetic powder on Christmas 
trees looks the same as real snow. Does that mean that we should 
talk about the snow on the tree rather then white powder ? Or that 
we should pay the cashier for chopped ice rather then for the white 
synthetic poweder ? 

your argument cuts it both ways: Since for most people fake and real diamonds
looks the same, should people who buy the fake pay the same price as
the real thing ?

Dov


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: des@inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd)
Subject: Re: How many Nobel Prizes has IBM won?
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 13:51:16 GMT

Ronald Jones (rjones@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
: There is a news item in acs.clari.nb.ibm about the importance of
: basic research to the future of America. It states that in the 
: last 5 years IBM has won 2 Nobel Prizes. Does anyone know the
: total.

: BTW, how many has Microsoft won ;-) (Just to put things into
: their proper perspective!)

To put things back into perspective, IBM's nobel prizes have come in
the area of electron microscopy - work mainly at their zurich labs (i
think, may some at yorktown heights as well?) where they have been
magnifying to an extent where they can see individual atoms and then
have developed techniques to place individual atoms on a surface. They
used this to create the worlds smallest logo - IBM writen in an 13x5
array of atoms!

This research is relevant to their (high performance) hardware design
business which is not an area which microsoft are (yet) involved in
so the comparison is not really relevant. If anything you could
claim that Windows 3 came out of speculative work as at the stage 
where the initial work was being done on it, it probably had little
prospects of development as MS were in their OS/2 is the future mode.


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
david shepherd: des@inmos.co.uk                     tel: 0454-616616 x 625
                inmos ltd, 1000 aztec west, almondsbury, bristol, bs12 4sq
                New Year Resolution for 1993: Start using capital letters.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Just how old is CompSci anyway? (How many Nobel Prizes has IBM won?)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 05:24:52 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO

In article <1993Jan5.215350.16675@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) writes:
>[....]
>: Most people would say that Computer Science is not a science, but
>: a craft.  [Read comp.org.eff.talk for more about this].  However,
>: even if it is a science, it's only been around for about 60 years
>: or so.  Too early to break with tradition I suppose.
>
>60 years? What are you dating this from then?

Well, ENIAC came out when?  Mid-40s?  I believe the work on it started
sometime in the mid-30s, in earnest.  And there was also something
developed in Germany called "Plaenkalkul".  A programming language 
before there was a computer to implement it!  [Although, this was an
isolated effort...]

You could be more liberal and call it 100 years old, going back to 
Babbage's calculating thing that helped make the Census useful again.
[Before that machine, it was taking close to ten years to tabulate
the Census...]

Or, you could be less liberal, and call it 40 years old, starting with
the development of FORTRAN.  

60 years is just as good as any other figure, in other words.  :)

cpk

Ok, I may have horked some dates.  I need to get the history book
out again. :)
-- 
"The WHITE ZONE is for loading and unloading only.  If you gotta load or un-
load, go to the WHITE ZONE.  You'll love it.  It's a way of life!" --Zappa

Technology always seems to keep one step ahead of human wisdom.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy