HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garyng@gnct.com (garyng)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 00:59:12 HKG-8
Organization: Global Network Communication Technology Co.

petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

> 1. Get a 486/50 and load NT onto it.  (no X).
> 2. Add 4 Windows machines
> 3. 5 people can now run windows sessions, accessing the same data.
>    and potentially the same processing power of the 486.
> 
> The only differences I really see are.
> 1) The windows stations require a hard drive.
> 2) The windows stations can run things independently of
>    the server.
> NOT: I don't know the price of X terms today, but I'd suspect
> a 386sx box isn't that much more.
> 
> Also, come to think of it, now the Windows for Workgroups is out,
> you can do a lot of this with that product.
> 
> In fact, you can probably do this with OS/2, AmigaDOS, etc.
> 
> So yes, this is old news.
> 
> petesk@microsoft.com

Why not shot 2 birds with 1 stone :

1. Add 4 Window or OS2 machine
2. run X emulator 

Now you can have X(so to use the computation resource on the unix box) and
Window or OS2 at the same time.

WIN-WIN is the best solution, isn't it ?

-gary


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 09 Oct 92 18:18:29 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct8.153155.14612@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <1992Oct07.185046.532@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>>>     How can a person prove that they are a developer?
>>>
>>>Is _any_ qualification being done on folks who call up and order the SDK/beta?
>>>Even as little as a description of the product they're working on?
>>
>>      Why should there be?
>
>To keep non-develpers out.  If it's a developer's release, you
>certainly don't want reviewers and hackers getting into your
>pre-release code.  Especially when it gives them a free upgrade to the
>released product.

     The reviewers can stay out.  The hackers, though, are the people
that you want to be playing with your code - most popular shareware has
been developed by those with the Hacker Nature.
     The upgrade is a good argument for restricting the scope, though.
I suppose that Microsoft felt that the potential sales lost through
the SDK upgrade would be minor.

					-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: goyal@utdallas.edu (Mohit K. Goyal)
Subject: Re: John Dvorak comment on the future...
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 05:48:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.054210.29612@utdallas.edu> goyal@utdallas.edu (Mohit K. Goyal) writes:
>Here is a paragraph written by OS/2 lover(for the moment) John Dvorak:
>
>"As it now stands, OS/2 faces an uphill battle.  The failure of...Windows,
>Unix, and the long-forgotten CP/M-86...shows the staying power of plain-
>vanilla MS-DOS.  Fans cite the millions of installed PCs as a Rock of
>Dibraltar forever maintaining the viability of MS-DOS.  Of course, 
>something similar was said about the Model-T."
>
>I'll leave it up to those of you who make a living out of reading all
>the computer rags to figure out where and when he said this...
>
Oooops!  Excuse the typo.  Dibraltar is suppossed to be *G*ibraltar!

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sam@ms.uky.edu (Mike Mills)
Subject: Re: Multiuser
    <1992Oct6.131605.15955@hellgate.utah.edu> <1992Oct6.203618.4322@ncsu.edu> 
    <1992Oct07.210012.4348@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 05:58:52 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>In article <1992Oct6.203618.4322@ncsu.edu> linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.131605.15955@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>>>>It seems rather silly that NT supports symmetrical multiprocessing, and gives
>>>>that power to all of one user at a time.
>>>Where did you get this information from?  It's true the graphics
>>>system allows only one user at the console at a time.
>>>But this is not different even from X.
>>
>>Actually, to be precise, you could conceivably have one person with two xterms
>>with one of them logged-in as one user, and the other logged-in as a different
>>user.  Is that possible in the (eventually-to-be-)'shipping' NT?


>     Is that a useful scenario?  Not in any way that I can see.

Ok, Phil.  Have you ever administered Unix?  It is EXTREMELY useful to have
multiple users logged into separate xterms.  I can be logged into my account
in one (actually, several) windows, root in another, and operator in another.
All doing their little tasks, with their appropriate privileges.

I can't believe you are so narrow minded you cannot see a use for this.  I 
do this every day!!!

Examples:

1.  Root doing software installation/maintenance
2.  Operator doing file restorations
3.  Me handling help requests

...all at the same time.  You seem to be saying NT can't do this at the
console, and that you don't see a need for it?  

>philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 


-- 
--Mike Mills              E-Mail:  sam@ms.uky.edu, {rutgers, uunet}!ukma!sam
--UK Math Sciences Dept.                  mike@ukpr.uky.edu    
--(606) 257-1429 (work) 263-0721 (home)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.
Date: 09 Oct 92 04:43:41 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Oct8.172634.17073@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu wrote:

> >In truth they were simply reverting to the path they had wanted all
> >along.  They tried to bring IBM along, but Big Blue Bureaucracy was
> >always in the way.  In the end it was switch or die.
> 
> IBM believes in listening to what the customers want.  IBM was quite
> content to support both Windows and OS/2.  As a matter of fact, that
> was part of IBM's long-range plan.  But MS wanted nothing to do with
> the OS/2 project that they invested so much money in, so they dumped
> it a year before they had the chance to realize any profits.  Now
> they're pushing NT, determined not to make the same mistake twice.

Could you post evidence to support this claim (IBM was content to support
both Windows and OS/2).
Thanks...


> -- 
> David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
> ----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
> Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"


petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: 32-bit OS/2 Apps List
Date: 12 Oct 92 08:14:28 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

In <1992Oct12.034402.14805@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>Well thanks for posting that list, but if that is the basis for your
>claims of good ISV support for OS/2, then I beg to differ.
>Of the 494 OS/2 2.0 apps you listed the vast bulk are not mainstream
>applications.

Agreed. But the support for Windows and NT is also showed with lists
like this. The BYTE list of upcoming vendors are far from only
mainstream vendors.

>...
>Below are the 143 remaining apps.  Many of these could have
>been listed above, but either their description was to brief, or I felt
>it was possible that they could be interpreted as mainstream.

You removed Borland C++ from the list which means you don't considder
that a mainstream app. Since most people will not agree with you on this,
especially since BC++ is going to collect a lot of OS/2 software, I have
my doubths about your criteria.

>...
>I think in the end you will have to agree with me that ISV support
>for OS/2 is weak. 

Noncense. Many products are already ready for the market, and many more
are coming (most with a defined release date). NT on the other hand has
only some vague promises. Most serious software vendors don't waste
their money on a to be released OS. They wait first to see if it
becomes a success. Just like they do with OS/2. The understandable 
other being MS itsself. Just as with Windows they get a headstart
(a smaller one perhaps but still a headstart).

>Brian

Nico E. de Vries  (nevries@cc.ruu.nl) |------------------*   AA   III  PPP
_ This text is supplied AS IS, no warranties of any kind |  A  A   I   P  P
| apply. No rights can be derived from this text. This   |  AAAA   I   PPP
| text is likely to contain spelling and grammar errors. |  A  A   I   P
*---------------------------( Donate to GreenPeace! )----*  A  A  III  P

"The IBM PC is still waiting for a version of the CP/M OS.", G.M. Vose, 1982.
From: FLATSCHER.Rony@f1.n100.z60.wlink.nl (FLATSCHER Rony)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: MS-ethics: MS-Windows 3.1 - silent upgrades
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1992 20:17:01 -0100

Organization: Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Vienna, Austria

It is about the argument that it took IBM 9 months to present Windows 3.1
beta for OS/2 and about Microsoft ethics on Windows 3.1.

Around here in computer clubs people found out that in the meantime, since
the first MS-Windows 3.1 in German appeared, there have been at least five
silent MS-Windows 3.1 upgrades from Microsoft since April 1992 !

This surfaced while discussing situations in which Windows 3.1 would hang.
The conditions and symptoms (for reproducable hangs) were different and
they went to find out whether it was the hardware or a presumable different
Windows 3.1. Guess what. There are different MS-Windows 3.1 versions !

One journalist aproached Steve Ballmer of Microsoft (3 weeks ago, Vienna,
Austria) with the question about how many different "silent upgrades" have
appeared so far. He answered, that he would not know for the German version
of Windows 3.1 and directed the journalist to the German Microsoft guy
(Mr. Wedell).

This means, that people owning MS-Windows 3.1 are owning different versions
of it, some more buggy than others !!!

At the same time it means, that Windows 3.1 code is not stabilized to this
very day. How would IBM be able to produce a stable OS/2-version of
Windows 3.1? They are smart to wait for bug-freer versions from Microsoft.

Now IBM has a beta-version of Windows 3.1 for 32bit-OS/2. Let me tell you,
it is even in the beta-version on par with the DOS-version of Windows 3.1 !

The funny thing though is, that one can ***preemptively*** multitask Windows-
applications by merely starting every Windows-app in its own Windows 3.1 -
session (every Windows 3.1 session may contain as many Windows-apps cooperate-
viley as on a single DOS-Windows 3.1) !! This approach is advisable also for
Windows-applications known to kill Windows 3.1, because under 32bit OS/2
if such a hang appears, one merely closes (kills) that Windows 3.1 - session,
leaving all other Windows-, DOS- and OS/2-sessions alive.

Windows 3.1 for 32bit OS/2 is slated for December.

Any hard-core Windows-user should by then give 32bit OS/2 a try. For them,
it is the best DOS- and Windows-multitasker for PCs available on the market. No
one else, not even Microsoft, has a product which beats it. Imagin, true multi--
tasking of your Windows-apps and the protection earned by an excellent
true operating system !

---rony
From: Gary.Woodman@anu.edu.au (Gary Woodman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: best target platform: OS/2 1.x!?!
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:19:12 GMT
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.5.23

In article <1992Oct10.021824.14006@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:

>Geeze, Phil keeps ignoring the meat of my posts.  Can *anyone* tell me
>who is selling OS/2 1.x today?  

IBM sells it, so does Microsoft (if you buy LAN Man or SQL Server). There 
could be any number of MS's OEMs who have stock on their shelves...

>think that it could be an excellent target environment for dedicated
>workstations.  

OS/2 1.3 is an excellent environment for anyone who doesn't need DOS/Windows;
it's the best thing that ever happened to the 286. But I think you'll find 
that of those people who could effectively use 1.3, 99% already have it (or 
are moving to 2.0).

--
Gary.Woodman@anu.edu.au         This post made from 100% recycled electrons.
From: finsys@cpva.saic.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:09:48 GMT
Organization: Science Applications Int'l Corp./San Diego

In article <1992Oct8.235036.26255@access.usask.ca>, Lowey@Sask.USask.CA (Kevin Lowey) writes:
> From article <12268.2ad32149@cpva.saic.com>, by finsys@cpva.saic.com:
>> 
> 
>> From what I can tell from this net, people who don't want that
>> networking, security, etc. stuff should wait for WIN32s instead. Yes,
>> no?  (ie those of us who simply need a stable multitasker - Desqview &
>> Win 3.1 on DOS - not good enough, OS/2 2.0 - possibly too much)
> 
> Just curious, how can you have "too much" of a stable multitasker? #8-)
> -- 
> - Kevin Lowey (Lowey@Sask.USask.CA)
Sorry for the ambiguity.  I meant as far as system size, requirements, etc.
OS/2 includes a lot a features, and corresponding complexity, that seem
excessive for those of who simply want a good stable multitasker.

Lawrence Dee
SAIC
if they new I was on the net rather than working....
From: kab@s1.gov (Keith Benton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trad
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:28:44 GMT
Reply-To: kab@s1.gov
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

In article 7527@lib.tmc.edu, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>     Nonsense.  Zachmann has provided _no_ evidence to support his
>>claims, at least that I am aware of.  Can you tell me where the
>>preponderance is?
>
>The preponderance is in the evidence of the witness himself: he's simply more
                                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>credible than either his employers or MS. As someone else pointed out, it's a
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!  I`m sorry I couldn't help myself. :-)

>swearing contest - Zachmann's word against MS and ZD's - so the relative
>credibility of the witnesses, as well as what they have to gain, is what
>decides the case.
>-- 
>Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL 

>   Vote for a REAL change on 3 November: Throw out the check-bouncing,
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  tax-and-spend Democrat Congress! (obviously, not an opinion of UTHSCH)
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

At least we agree on this.

---
	---------------------------------------------------------
	|             Keith Benton: kab@s1.gov                  |
	| ME!?!? Speak for anyone here!?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA |
	|             Standard Disclaimers apply                |
	---------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7199 comp.os.os2.misc:32383 comp.os.os2.programmer:5542
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: Shutdown failure (?)
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:44:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: njitgw.1992Oct8.204400.20149
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct6.204738.2623@networx.com> mikel@networx.com (Mike Lempriere) writes:
>Okay, so how do I make  my generic C program recognize a shutdown?
>As far as I can tell, OS/2 2.0 is too stupid to send any signal
>(standard C library signal) to each running program, on either a
>desktop-shutdown, or a ctrl-alt-del.
>
>I have a server process running at all times, and I'd like it to
>shutdown nicely.  The program just passes requests from other programs
>in/out the com port to another computer.
>
>I'm assuming that a desktop-shutdown sends a PM msg of some sort to
>each PM process.  Is this the only way to do this?  It would be really
>annoying to have to make this little low-level thing that doesn't even
>use the screen into a full-blown PM app.

Oh yes, you may want to post this to comp.os.os2.programmer.  I'm
posting this message there to get some programmer's responses.
-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith)
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 06:36:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.131605.15955@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.123731.25876@ms.uky.edu> sam@ms.uky.edu (Mike Mills) writes:
>>Thanks to everyone who explained to me NT's multiuser capabilities.  I agree
>>that being able to provide security for multiple people is MUCH different
>>than allowing those people to be using the machine at the same time.
>>
>>Thank you very much Paul and Brian for distorting the facts.  Yet another
>>reason not to buy Microsoft products.
>
>Where did I distort the facts... and how am I related to Microsoft?
>
>>
>>It seems rather silly that NT supports symmetrical multiprocessing, and gives
>>that power to all of one user at a time.
>Where did you get this information from?  It's true the graphics
>system allows only one user at the console at a time.
>But this is not different even from X.


Excuse me but you can rlogin as many users as you so desire from as many
windows as you desire under X-Windows.  

Under SCO Unix you can have up to 12 virtual ternminals
 ( Even character based ) from the console each of 
which is a seperate login to the machine and can be logged in as i
different users.

 Brian have you used UNIX ????

>
>You can have background tasks executing as other users... and if you
>provided the login program... people logged in via serial ports.

This doesn't get away from the fact that NT does not provide concurrent     
multi user out of the box. Also there are no currently available tools to
 do this. 

The facts you tout about multi user for NT WRT remote logins are just as valid
for OS/2 and in fact OS/2 is one better in that they are here NOW. (OS2toYOU) 

Brian lets have less of the bullshit and politicing and more real fact.

Martin Smith
msmith@netcom.com

>
>Brian
>-- 
>C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
>University of Utah                             United We Stand
>Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))


From: Terry.Fry@f347.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Terry Fry)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Open Letter To Gordon Le
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 10:26:02 -0500

GL>From: gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin)
GL>Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
GL>Organization: Microsoft Corporation

GL>In article <1992Oct7.231511.157@physc1.byu.edu> 
GL>robertson@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>
>  Additionally, I read with concern when Mr. Letwin wrote about
>  IBM's strong arm tatics, but since the public response from an
>  IBM lawyer asking for addtional information about the allegations
>  has gone unanswered for many weeks.  This failure to respond leads
>  me to believe that the original post from Mr. Letwin was pure FUD
>  with no substance to his allegations.


GL>Mr. Soyring posts private correspondance over the net.  But not being
GL>an IBM politician I emailed my response to him, giving him details about
GL>the letter.  He somehow forgot to post his own reply acknowledging the
GL>existance of the letter.

GL>I have refrained from posting the IBM letter because I feel 
GL>that it's unethical
GL>to post a private communication.  Here's my challenge to Soyring:
GL>EMAIL and POST your permision, as an IBM'er, for me to post this letter
GL>to the net.  I'll do it as a GIF file so that everyone can see the
letterhead
GL>and the signature.

GL>This is the part where IBM always lays down - they're big on writing nasty
GL>and misleading things, but they're really weak on actually backing up
GL>the talk with deeds.


    In the article above, you did almost everything but post the letter.
    Recieving IBM "permission" is a moot point, and since they did the
    injustice first I'd post the letter.  But, I'm in D.C., that's what
    we do here.
___
 * MR/2 1.3 #6 * 5139976@mcimail.com
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Why I have trouble with the c.o.o.a view of Microsoft.
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 22:12:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.200514.28594@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Oct16.062029.11620@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>
>
>>Recently several people on this group have been giving me grief with
>>regard to my criticism of IBM's WorkSet/2.  They point to old stories
>>about MSC 6.0, and while I have no doubt those stories are true, I'd
>>like to pass on an example of why I'm convinced that Microsoft is
>>now different.
>
>>Here are some excerpts from a mailing I received from Microsoft a couple
>>of days ago.  The mailing was unsolicited (I assume they sent it to
>>all registered users).  It contained 3 diskettes: 2 patch diskettes and
>>a diskette that contains a full version of a C/C++ Browser and a trial
>>version of Microsoft Test. (Typos in the letter are probably mine.)
>
>I'm really curious, Brian.  Do you think the MS compiler people would
>be acting like this if it wasn't for the competition they are working
>under to try to get market share back from Borland?  Don't get me
>wrong, I think it's great that MS seems to be changing, at least in
>spots.  I just worry about them changing back once they have their
>foot in the door.

I do worry about this too, but shouldn't that apply doubly, or triply to
IBM... those funny rules they work under due to FTC and court decisions
didn't happen because they played nice you know.

One of the reasons OS/2 is not bundled with more clones is IBM's patent
portfolio that any not tiny clone maker gets presented with, and in the
end pays royalties to.  Not nearly so much because they feel they are
infringing, but because they cannot afford to fight.

If OS/2 were to become a success in a vacuum, I have little doubt that
IBM would abuse the situation.  The same would likely hold true for
NT and Microsoft, or Univel and UnixWare, or Next and NextStep, and so on.

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
University of Utah                             United We Stand
Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy