HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jahonen@cs.joensuu.fi (Jarmo Ahonen)
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 08:05:31 GMT

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>     This still doesn't follow.  People are buying OS/2 2.0 while
>there are virtually no apps available - those same people, who
>presumably are more interested in OS technology than the typical
>user, will almost certainly take a look at Windows NT regardless
>of which OS/2 apps are on the market.

Not necessarily true. 
Most of OS/2 users I know have decided to buy OS/2 2.0 in order
to run DOS-programs concurrently. Those programs include matlab, WP,
simulation packages etc. The possibility to define EMS or XMS memory
for those sessions have made them happy. On normal VGA-screen all those
DOS programs even seem to produce proper graphics even when windowed.

They would, of course, be very happy to get native 32-bit OS/2 applications,
but currently they have got the multitasking they wanted.

Actually our OS technology oriented people tend to dislike both OS/2
and NT (like I do). I am, myself, a devoted UNIX user, but 
I understand that many
of actual or potential OS/2 users want to be able to multitask their
DOS programs.

Standard disclaimer... 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jarmo J. Ahonen
Computing Centre, Lappeenranta University of Technology, P.O.Box 20,
SF-53851 Lappeenranta, Finland. email: jahonen@kannel.lut.fi
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Who understands IBM any more?
Date: 10 Oct 92 12:20:17 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

I am a hapy user of OS/2 2.0. It is a stable, reliable environment
with a lot of usefull properties. For me personal the "crash protection"
is the most important one. It is very impressive to get rid of
a crashed DOS box with a click of the mouse.

I am also interested in NT. Not as a beta product but when it becomes
mature. It sounds as if their task protection might become even better
than OS/2 2.0's. Also Cario sounds interesting. And of cource the
ability to run on faster platforms than Intel.

What I absolutely DON'T understand is IBM. I have to admit somewhere
sometimes I see a small add or some small article but even after more
than 6 months of release most press is still negative. That is, if OS/2
is mentioned at all in the many NT oriented articles. I have seen
some predictions saying in 1995 it will be 24% OS/2 vs 10% NT but I
have also seen predicions which even don't mention OS/2. Also, besides
perhaps ObjectVision, I have not seen many adds for mature OS/2 apps.
I DID see a lot of companies comitment to NT, hardware vendors, software
vendors etc. Of cource the same applies for OS/2 

When I look at the way IBM and MS handle things it seems to me IBM
does do everything very conservative while MS does it all very
afressive. If that continues to be the winner can only be Microsoft.
In todays world it isn't the quality of the product but the quality
of the marketing that counts. That might be unfortunate but it is
the hard and cold truth.

What I wonder about is if IBM realizes this. It might be possible
they believe their product is so superior it will sell itsself
(a very weak way of thinking from a merketting point of view). It
migfht also be possible they believe NT will fail technically or
will be released in a much stripped down version. Or very late.
Given the track record of MS and the very ambisious plans they
have that is not unlikely. I would personally not think it
to be very smart but it would make sence.

Whoever can shine more light on this subject?

In my personal opinion it would be best BTW if both got an about
equal share of the market on the long term. Most important features
will be copied anyway and most major software (Win32, POSIX, OS/2 2.0 API
and of cource DOS and Winows 3.1) will probably run on both platforms
in a while anyway. Either by recompilation or directly. That is if
they aren't playing bad cop good cop of cource.

Nico E. de Vries  (nevries@cc.ruu.nl) |------------------*   AA   III  PPP
_ This text is supplied AS IS, no waranties 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.
Organization: Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Vienna, Austria
Date: Friday, 9 Oct 1992 10:42:39 CET
From: FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: C-quality (Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
 <19921005.102059.389@almaden.ibm.com> <7504@lib.tmc.edu>
 <1992Oct5.161201.20918@hellgate.utah.edu>

Brian:

Please stop kidding the people about the quality of compilers or telling
them the IBM one is so "poor". See, like you, I am around quite some time
and used MS-C (from 4 on), Aztec, Watcom, Borland.

There was no compiler so far, which did not have (serious) bugs!
I know you as every developer know that better than anyone not being a
C-programmer.

The service of IBM on presenting bug fixes to their customer on such a large
scale and in such short reaction-times as IBM does is without precedence on
the market ! Have you ever been helped out as an average developer by anyone
else with your troubles as IBM does ?

Brian, IBM wants to help you to clear all troubles with C/Set you are
experiencing. Your reaction ? "No, I do not tell IBM which troubles I have, I
rather keep them secret and tell the public how bad their C is. Otherwise it
is possible, that IBM fixes (!!!) remaining bugs and glitches ! What am I to
tell the people than ?"

See, I have C/Set too. In my opinion it is an excellent 32bit C-compiler. Their
optimization is excellent. It has bugs (Brian, remember, it is a first released
product) and IBM takes immediate action to get rid of them when they surface.
The IBM-developers try to get in touch with Joe-average-users in order to
pin down problems. This is great. This *is* a new IBM. Microsoft makes you pay
and ask and bid (at least in the past, I hope that changes now) in order to
pay attention to bugs in MS-products - what a difference !

No C-compiler I know of is without bugs. The pace at which bugs are solved by
the producers is different. IBM certainly holds the world-record in solving
their bugs ! It is so far unmatched by anyone else. You as a developer profit
directly !

---rony
P.S.: I am sure, Brian, you will not be interested in IBM C++ (which is an
excellent product too ! It is in beta.), just because. If it was from MS, that
would make it obviously different for you, wouldn't it?

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Date: 9 Oct 1992 00:30:56 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Oct08.092757.16811@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>What you say may have some merrit, but I think it may not apply this
>much in the case of networking.  There was also the fact that many
>potential customers were going to get networking anyway, so I guess those
>who don't need it get an added bonus anyway.

"Many" is obviously highly subjective. If the target is, as MS has said in the
past (before OS/2 took off), the server market, then yes, a large portion of
customers were going to get networking anyway. If the target is to go
head-to-head against OS/2, then that proportion drops dramatically.

>What's wrong with this?  In many cases, people will wan't to hook their
>machines up to different vendors products, which will mean using a more
>standardized protocol, so doing what you said may happen would probably
>be a bad business decision.  You can only really get away with that
>when you control all facets of your system, ranging from the hardware
>to the apps.  Only 1 company in recent memory has done that, but
>they are finding it difficult now that there are a number of strong
>competitors.
>(BTW: this is not MS.  MS doesn't make Hardware).

(Not now, anyway; MS has made hardware in the past...)

Whether or not it's a bad business decision is highly dependent, in the case
of an OS vendor, on how many copies they think they can sell, and where. If
the volume gets large enough, they do define their own standard. The problem
comes when the vendor tries to define a standard and fails; the customers who
followed them get screwed. (Not that MS isn't familiar with screwing
customers.)

>> Including full-function TCP/IP networking in NT is like including
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Why should DR develop another DOS when MS DOS covers that base?

I've often wondered that, actually...
I suspect that DR thinks that they can add more function than standard MS-DOS.
That's kinda hard to do to a full-function package...
-- 
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.
    Vote for a REAL change on 3 November: Throw out the check-bouncing,
  tax-and-spend Democrat Congress! (obviously, not an opinion of UTHSCH)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Organization: Techn. Univ. Clausthal
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:31:13 GMT

In  <1992Oct6.195714.5658@gw.wmich.edu>  x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
> In article <1992Oct6.215342.4413@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de>, ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:

> > We are talking about features, everyone can see *NOW* in the pre-release.
> > Or do you think MS will remove all goodies in the release version?
>
>         Goodies?  Bad DOS and Windows supports aren't on my list of
> goodies.  It runs its own applets adequately.  My point is, it
> is unfair to ASSUME that NT is going to fix the DOS and windows problems.

DOS and WIN16 support is not working quite well, but consider DOS support
is based on Insignia Soft-PCs, which are quite perfect on MACs, SGIs, etc.
I really don't mean DOS and WIN16, when I say Goodies. If you want only
DOS and WIN16 support, then OS/2 2.0 is the right thing for you.

>         My C compiler is C++ and it was fre, GNU C++.  And judging
> by the amount of shareware popping out all the time, a lot of other
> people are having little or no difficulty programming for OS/2.
>         And the OS/2 programmers know that there are a million plus
> users usingg it.  The NT shareware toys can only be played with
> by teh 20,000 or so developers until NT is released sometime next year.
>
> > Maybe we should also wait until the commercially released OS/2 2.0 GA
> > and related products (C-Set/2, LS20) do everything IBM claims.
> >
>         Again, there are a lot of other compilers.  I have made some
> OS/2 programs myself and not touched C-set 2.
>

Right better keep hands off C-Set/2. You recommend GNU C++. But you get
real trouble with it, when you try porting MS-C or Borland-C apps. And
what TCP/IP software do you recommend and what LAN-Server Software?

Christoph
--
Internet: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de
Bitnet  : HAMPE2 AT DMRHRZ11
Fido    : 2:243/660
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:08:56 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct13.150248.11447@wsl.ie> jja@wsl.ie (John J. Allen) writes:
>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>: In article <7536@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>: >
>: >If not, then why is MS only claiming to support the top 100 Windows/DOS apps?
>: >OS/2 does a LOT better than that.
>: 
>:      What is OS/2's claim?  Does IBM claim 100% DOS compatibility?
>
>No not 100% just most. Unlike MS's clain that Win 3.1 supports all Win 3.0
>applications, IBM only claims that OS/2 2.0 runs most DOS & Windows apps and
>supports most clones.

      Is this "most" an official IBM statement?  If so, it's one of
the better moves that their marketing people have made.  "Most" is so
ill-defined that it's laughable - if your app doesn't work, they say
"Oops, most apps don't have that problem."  It's a definite win for
IBM.
     If IBM didn't say this, then ignore the previous paragraph.

					-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.
From: rom@cci632.cci.com (Rudynell S. Millian)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:46:05 GMT
Organization: [Computer Consoles, Inc., Rochester, NY

>>
>>     OS/2 is indeed selling - but neither of us has any clue how well.
>>We have some numbers from IBM, and we have some conflicting numbers
>>from Microsoft.  Who's to say which is closer to the truth?
>>
>
>Agreed.

	Don't be so gullible! Believe it or not, MS gets paid for 
every copy of OS/2 2.0 that is distributed. (IBM has to pay MS for
the right to support Win3.0) Now, given this fact, do you really 
believe MS and IBM can't agree on the actual number of copies of OS/2 
distributed? If Microsoft's accounting dept. doesn't know EXACTLY
how many copies of OS/2 2.0 are out there, then MS is indeed lucky
to be in business (and making a profit).
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 13 Oct 92 06:37:49 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Oct12.202207.9735@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu wrote:
> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> 
> >BTW:  The product Zachmann has spent the most time criticising lately
> >is Windows NT.  He'd criticised it before he'd even seen it, hardly
> >professional in my book.
> 
> This happens to be the same reason a lot of OS/2 advocates think
> most of the press is either bought or off in their own world.
> OS/2 has gotten a lot of criticism from people who've never even
> seen it.

That's why I usually take the press with a grain of salt.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  7 Oct 1992 13:40 EST  

In article <1992Oct6.161408.15202@cu23.crl.aecl.ca>, gutz@cc49.crl.aecl.ca 
writes...

>How about PC Magazine?  OS/2 has been on the top 15 for a few weeks now,
>and as I'm sure even you must be aware, PC magazine does not count
>direct sales, which certainly amounts to a substantial chunk of total.

A brief update on this - OS/2 2.0 has been off the PC Magazine list for the 
last two issues.  What is really interesting is what software was number 1 
on the list in the issue that I received yesterday: WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS.
QEMM386 2.0 was second, with the "full" version of Windows 3.1 third.

If I recall correctly, the Windows 3.1 Upgrade shipped less than the MSDOS 
5 Upgrade for the period covered.

JD
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Organization: Computer and Technologies Theme Program, NCSU, Raleigh
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 00:20:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct07.182409.29590@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>      Under Windows NT, processes run with a user ID and security
>priveleges.  The only thing necessary to allow it to be concurrent
>multiuser is a data channel - a telnetd type of program.  This is
>not difficult to write.

Is it just me?  Why do NT advocates always answer question about NT with
"Sure, NT can do it.  You just have to write it for yourself!"?    Isn't there
a flaw in that logic?

John W. Linville




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  John W. Linville                Amateur radio:  KD4KHC                  |
|  #include "std_disclaimer.h"     E-mail:  linville@catt.ncsu.edu         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Subject: Re: NT: clean design (NoT!) (was Re: OS/2 because! (was NT: Why?)
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:18:32 GMT

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

So let me get this straight.  Your entire article boiled down to,
essentially, "get from IBM later what uSoft will have when Windows is
stable," right?

Just wanted to get that clear.

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "You can't get lost in one room, no matter how
sef@kithrup.COM  |  little effort you make to learn your way around."
-----------------+    -- William E Davidsen (william@crd.GE.COM)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jja@wsl.ie (John J. Allen)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Organization: Project Papyrus, AIRAID, Dublin, Ireland
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:02:48 GMT

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
: In article <7536@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
: >In article <1992Oct9.171907.3735@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
: >>DOS and WIN16 is not too good in the pre-beta SDK, but do you think,
: >>that MS will ship the release version with poorer support for DOS &
: >>WIN16 than OS/2 2.0 currently has?
: >
: >If not, then why is MS only claiming to support the top 100 Windows/DOS apps?
: >OS/2 does a LOT better than that.
: 
:      What is OS/2's claim?  Does IBM claim 100% DOS compatibility?

No not 100% just most. Unlike MS's clain that Win 3.1 supports all Win 3.0
applications, IBM only claims that OS/2 2.0 runs most DOS & Windows apps and
supports most clones.
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:12:53 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:

>In article <BvpC7u.6y1@rice.edu>, amitp@ruf.rice.edu (Amit J Patel) writes:
>|> Same here... these are home computers (386/33 or higher, with 4 megs or
>|> more of memory) owned by people I know:
>|> 
>|> 	1 - DOS		[runs only games, and doesn't have Windows]
>|> 	7 - OS/2 2.0
>|> 	0 - Windows 3.1	[hmmm]
>|> 
>Really amazing. Your impressive and representative statistics
>actually convinced me, that OS/2 2.0 is the best OS. 7 out of 8
>people Amit knows are using it. WOW!!

He obviously went to school on the Microsoft ads comparing Win and OS/2
- or the Microsoft ads comparing Word and WP, or the ...
 
To paraphrase Mr. Clemens, there are lies, there are damn lies, and 
then there are Microsoft ads. 
 
Tom
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: NT delivery date
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 10:09:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.015527.49304@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.022211.20157@muddcs.claremont.edu>, tlilley@jarthur.claremo
>nt.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct8.003635.16532@leland.Stanford.EDU> yiupun@leland.Stanford.E
>DU (Yiupun Michael Kwong) writes:
>>>I read in Computer Shopper that at a press conference, Microsoft says that
>>>they are going to deliver NT by year's end afterall.
>>>
>>>Does anyone know whether this is true?  And is the code going to be reasonably
>>>bug free?
>>>
>>>If the answer is positive to the above two questions, OS/2 is in *deep*
>>>trouble.
>>
>>One thing to say: Pffffffft.  I'll let you wonder whether that was for
>>NT being out by year's end, whether the code will be bug free, or whether
>>OS/2 is in deep trouble.  I'm sure you'll be doing that anyway.
>
>How mature.  Really makes OS/2 advocates look like a classy bunch.  I
>apologize for that response as it was uncalled for.  As for the meat of the
>post, this is the way I see it.  NT will most likely not ship until towards
>the middle of next year (march through about july depending on delays).  As
>for it being bug free?  That is almost impossible to say and depends very much
>on what you regard as a bug.  Certain aspects of it I expect to be nearly bug
>free, (some already are) others I expect to be fairly riddled with them.  I do
>expect the former to exceed the latter, but by how much I cannot say.

I will thank you *not* to take anything I say as representative of "OS/2
advocates".  I speak for myself and myself only, and am associated with
you in no way other than perhaps liking the same operating  system.  I
find it insulting that you should  try to apologize for me, or to think
that what I say is meant to speak for you.

Ted
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Date: 11 Oct 92 20:48:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In <1992Oct11.134647.5784@ais.com> bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright) writes:

>Why did I have to pay for Rexx when I bought OS/2?  I don't want to
>pay for features I'm not interested in either ... can I buy a copy of
>OS/2 without Rexx at a discount???

A more cogent point might be:  why not a version of OS/2 2.0 that omits
the Windoze support.  At the same price as a Windoze upgrade.  This
would actually make some sense, as IBM wouldn't have to pay MS the
royalties.  I would have bought a Windoze-less OS/2 in a flash!!  I not
only don't want MS's piece of crap on my system, I resent the fact that
it came on the floppies.  :-)

Of course, now my biggest question is:  can I install NT without the
Windoze support?  If so, I'll buy NT in a flash; if not, I wouldn't even
use a free copy.  :-)

[smiley captioned for the humor-impaired :-) :-)]
-- 
xtifr@netcom.com | MS-Windoze: a bad imitation of a 10-year-old OS.
Chris Waters | "Is that the wave of the future? Aw, spare me please!" -Zappa
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy