HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: SMALL Excerpt from "Windows Sources"
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:26:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.074543.237@ousrvr.oulu.fi> ojtv@phoenix.oulu.fi (Olli Vuolteenaho) writes:
>A few weeks ago Microsoft was demonstrating NT here in Finland. They gave
>a handout about NT specs and it states (I have it here in front of me
>with a nice Microsoft logo on the letterhead): "Minimum RAM 12 MB (16 MB
>recommended), minimum hard disk space 90 MB (300 MB required)."
>
>Olli

The figures you are posting probably refer to the SDK, not NT itself.  (I
also think your flyer ends with "(300 MB recommended)", not required.

     - Mike
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:16:33 GMT

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.
	
	
	Well.  


	Who wants to play pin the tail on the FUDder?  

	If I recall, the original poster of the frantic MS is 
	the Devil message was z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu.  

	Blindfolds, guys.


-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11885 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3724
From: muzo@waffle.sns.com (muzaffer kal)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 6 Jan 93 01:38:45 GMT
Organization: Systems'n'Software

Systems'n'Software, Fremont, CA  94539-6669
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 17:35:56 PST
Organization: Systems'n'Software, Fremont, CA  94539-6669

leo@rulhp2.leidenuniv.nl (L. Mekenkamp) writes:

> 
> >     I honestly don't know if Intel has undocumented stuff on
> >their chips, though, so the analogy is not a very tight one.
> >
> >
> >			-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.
> >
> 
> Ehhhm, Intel does seem to have some *undocumented* stuff though. Wasn't there
> an instruction around that wasn't documented? And how about NeXTSTeP not work
yes. LOADALL instruction is undocumented and one of the utilities of 
MS uses it. (possibly ram disk driver). It is an instruction to load all 
the state of the processor (including the selector caches, which is the 
usefull part to access extended memory).

Muzaffer
> 
> Leo
> 
> Leo Mekenkamp
> Leiden University, The Netherlands
> Mekenkamp@RulWinWST.Leidenuniv.NL
> 	     ^^^
> Nothing to do with MS, believe me...


----
muzo@waffle.sns.com  (muzaffer kal)
Systems'n'Software Free Public Access BBS --- (510)623-8652
From: os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 Developer Magazine Information
Date: 10 Jan 93 15:57:48 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1993Jan10.063211.9897@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>For those of you who are interested in OS/2, I found this magazine to
>be very interesting. 

>=========================== Cut Here ===================================

>                     ___________________________

>                     IBM OS/2 DEVELOPER MAGAZINE
>                     ___________________________

>The IBM OS/2 Developer Magazine (formerly the Personal Systems
>Developer) is a quarterly publication for OS/2 application developers.
>The OS/2 Developer features a variety of technical articles,
>programming tips and techniques, product reviews, development case
>studies, and interviews with OS/2 industry leaders.

I've found the magazine to be very good also, even though it might not
have enough "grit" for the hard-core programmer.  The quality of the
magazine, although good in the past, has improved significantly since
switching to their new publisher. 

Look for some good articles in the Winter issue, which is about to be
released (RSN).  I know that Steve Mastrianni (of "device driver" fame)
has an article in it.

If anyone here is interested in writing an article for it, they don't
pay :(, nor do they give free subscriptions :(, but for the exposure
(they have a LOT of subscribers and a lot of former article writers
are now the speakers at the OS/2 conferences going around) it is worth it.
Send me email and I'll give you a contact; I think it is too late (or
it is borderline) for the Spring issue, but there's always summer...

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft using "Force"???
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  6 Jan 1993 17:16 EST  

In article <wiegand.726333920@lido16>, motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net writes...
>helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
> 
>>	COERCE suggests overcoming resistance or unwillingness by actual 
>>	or threatened violence or pressure.
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>>In order for an action to properly be called "coercion" there MUST be the
>>threat of or actional violence, of the which and by the way so there may be
>>no confusion on this point here is the definition of violence:

>Why don't you read your own definition. Violence is not required.
>The word "or" is usually used to indicate a choice of two things.
>Only one need to be true for the statement to be true.

Well let's see, so far this week Randall has shown that he doesn't 
understand "Just-In-Time" and that he can't read his own definition.  And 
today's only Wednesday :-)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell)
Subject: Re: SGI-GL in Windows NT??
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:41:23 GMT

pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak) writes:

>In article <dlcogswe.726380388@vela>, dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan
>Cogswell) wrote:
>> 
>> A guy I work with told me today the Microsoft has bought the rights to
>> include SGI-GL with Windows NT and will be including it in an upcoming
>> release!  This is quite an  advantage over OS/2 and brings NT to
>> workstation level, in my opinion.  If NT will have GL standard, I will
>> most likely be switching over from OS/2.
>> 

>BTW, where did you come up with the notion that GL is a standard.  GL

I wrote:  "If NT will include GL".  I didn't say a thing about it being
a standard.

>images under NT.  Maybe it will form the basis of NT's 3D rendering API but
>it won't provide for fast graphics unless hardware support for GL is also
>available.

Who was talking about fast??  OS/2 doesn't have ANY 3D graphics built in
and you're faulting some other operating system because it's 3D graphics
aren't FAST ENOUGH?? 


-- 
Dan Cogswell               Or as we say in Michigan:  "Dee-troit"


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 01:39:17 GMT

In article <8318@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan4.204009.25416@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> >A company can't put another company out of business.  Only a company's
|> >_customers_ can either keep it in business or put it out.
|> 
|> Sure it can. To extend the metaphor, the customers are the bullets for the
|> company's economic gun. It's happened before, and it will happen again unless
|> the FTC stops them.

Metaphoric bullets and economic guns are not to be confused with the real thing.

*sigh* we obiously have it too soft in this country if people can possibly 
think that customers chooseing a less expensive item is in the same league
as armed coercion.  

The _magnitude_ of such mental confusion just astounds me.  And its exactly what
is allowing this slow gradual errosion of our rights and privledges in this
country.

Take a look at the handwriting on the wall folks.  Supreme Court decisions which
enable the Feds to regulate behavior in your bedroom.  Laws which allow the
police to confiscate your property with no obligation to ever bring you to
trial.  

One day very soon we're gunna wake up and find that "everything which isn't
cumpulsory is forbidden" for our own good of course, and to save our eternal
souls.  We may not like what Microsoft is doing, I sure don't, but if we
don't respect Microsoft's right to sell things it owns the way it wants to
sell them, then nobody's going to respect our rights either.  If we sanction
armed robbery against Microsoft (there's no other word for it) then whose
going to stop such against us?

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Bill Gates:  What a weenie...
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:54:30 GMT

lmalloy@abacus.bates.edu (Laura G. Malloy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.060918.23367@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>
>[deleted: comments about Billy boy's TV apppearance]
>>
>>And he mentioned that "We hire smart people." When I saw Mr. Letwin's
>>picture the first time, I thought I have seen Jesus! In order to
>>create a _GOOD_ product, everybody has to be involved. One "smart"
>>person doesn't help, it's a group effort. Hey, Microsoft had the source
>>code rights to V7 for years and they still can't produce a multitasking
>>DOS. This should tell people something.
>>
>
>While I agree that Bill Gates didn't do a very intelligent job in the
>interview, I fail to see what insulting Gordon Letwin (whom I have never
>seen or met) has to do with anything.  Pretty darn gratuitous -- it
>undercuts the probity of your comments.
>
>Joseph T. Malloy / jmalloy@hamilton.edu 
>Associate Professor of German / Hamilton College / Clinton, New York 


Mr. Letwin's believe is that he is the god of software development. On several
times he pointed this out. Furthermore, you might not like what I said, but
once again, you can skip the message.

So, die Moral von der Geschicht, halbe Eier rollen nicht?

Best Regards,
Mark K.
From: mgrice@athena.mit.edu (Matthew Grice)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: OS/2 Computer Search
Date: 5 Jan 93 20:11:32 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

I'm a UNIX guy myself, but my parents are looking for a new computer
and I thought you would like to know what it is like to deal in
an os/2-hostile market.

1)Parents wanted a Tandy Sensation.  Convinced them that they didnt.
2)Told them they wanted a real IBM
3)Got ready to order it, found out it might get here in march.
4)Went to computerland.  They had 2 computers (total, not kinds)
5)Had some idiot volunteer to deinstall os/2 and install windoze on
  an IBM for me.  Told me os/2 needs 12M minimum RAM.  Told him to go to
  hell.
6)Thought about putting together a computer for the parents
7)gave up after calling companies and asking them about os/2 drivers
  for various parts.  They didn't have a clue.
8)Decided to get it all from IBM--but I wait 3 months to get it.

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))

-matt
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: 4 Jan 1993 21:17:35 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan4.203709.25238@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>I know exactly how you feel!!  The best machine for me is a PS/2 but those
>bastards at IBM refuse to preload Windows on it!!

>So I try for my second choice, an HP-PA machine, but would you believe the
>_gall_ of those guys?  They won't sell it with SunOS!!!

Both of these arguments would be relevant if we were talking about Microsoft
computers. A system manufacturer has the right to put whatever he wants on his
machines. Microsoft, however, is trying very hard to exercise the same kind of
power over machines that they didn't make.
-- 
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: pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com (Peter Mayne)
Subject: Re: SGI-GL in Windows NT??
Reply-To: Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:30:30 GMT


In article <hatton.726615957@cgl.ucsf.edu>, 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.

I doubt that anyone would be particularly happy, but at least it's (or will be)
there. (How about an Alpha, though? ;-))

Other advocaters:

Most people seem to be thinking "GL + VGA = Yuk". Please take into
account the fact that noone in their right minds wants VGA or CGA or
EGA any more. SVGA at a minimum, but in X years time, when OS/2 and NT
run on multiple platforms, there's no way that anyone will be using
SVGA by choice. Any graphics hardware is certainly not going to be
crippled by the necessity of VGA backwards compatibility. SGI certainly
don't use VGA to run GL, why should OS/2 or NT platforms?

Look ahead for a change. OS/2 runs fine in 4MB. A couple of years ago,
4MB was a dangerously stupid amount of memory that would have had
today's OS/2 laughed out of business. A couple of years ago, the price
of a 386 system that would have run today's OS/2 2.x was just
ridiculous and required a third mortgage. 10 years ago, 640KB was an
infinite amount of memory and DOS was just fine. ("4MB? Ridiculous. It'll
never sell, my 8088 only goes up to 1. And my Hercules card works fine.")

When IBM (or someone) puts 3D graphics on OS/2, will you deride it
then, or will you suddenly decide that the time is right, and IBM will
produce the appropriate video drivers one day, so it's worth waiting
for?

(BTW, NT *is* version 2. Version 1 was called VMS 8-> 8->)

PJDM
--
Peter Mayne                     | My statements, not Digital's.
Digital Equipment Corporation   |
Canberra, ACT, Australia        | "AXP!": Bill the Cat
From: ludwig@wefunk.rent.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: test
Date: 7 Jan 93 19:00:41 GMT
Organization: WEFUNK, The Mothership Connection - Franklin Park, NJ

1
2
3
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:39:42 GMT

helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

>If you want to sell McDonald's hamburgers you'll have to sign an agreement that
>you won't sell Wendy's frosties from the same place.  Is McDonald's using
>"force" or anticompetitive activities here to establish domination of the 
>fast food industry?  Please!!!!

No - but if McDonald's required that in order to open one McD. you would
have to sell McD. hamburgers at all restaurants you own then that would be.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
From: Byron.Miller@f433.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Byron Miller)
Sender: Usenet@f-454.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Microsoft's perfect strategy.
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993 14:57:54 -0600

 MK> This is clearly Microsoft's ideal stragegy.

 MK> I'll pretend to be Bill Gates for a while.

 MK> "Ok the long term goal is to ensure that Win NT kills everything else.
 MK> How do I do that?  Backwards compatibility.

 MK> Unfortunately, DOS is so simple and stupid that lots of people have been
 MK> able to figure out how to reimplement it.  Like OS/2 and all the UNIX
 MK> vendors.  They even have it on a Mac.

 MK> Now, Windows is alot more complicated and a lot harder to get right.  This

I must say that's the best interpretation i've seen, Gates is the Biggest Mother
fu%^&*(g A%^h(^le i have ever seen.. Money is all he wants.. he doesn't give a
crap about anyone but himslelf..

 OS/2 is the OS of the Future, NT is vapor ware.. they are waiting too long for
this release, as i have just converted several windows users to OS/2 users with
the OS/2 2.1 beta CD!

 ( i didn't even give them the inluded win 3.1,)



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: The sin of MicroSoft
Date: 11 Jan 93 03:03:17 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <cfI29cm00iUz00yONH@andrew.cmu.edu> sl31+@andrew.cmu.edu wrote:
> 
> 
> Ok, I think that maybe you guys aren't up on the current state of
> Computer Science Undergraduate Studies.  I'm a third year student in
> computer science here at CMU, and this is what I've been through so far:
> 
> [Begin quote from CMU's Undergraduate Catalog]
< deleted for brevety> 
> [End quote from CMU's Undergraduate catalog]
> 
<descriptions of classes deleted>
> 
> Please, give us more credit than you are.  Things have changed a lot in
> the last few years.
> 
> "Emma, please stop chewing on my purple love seat."

Well, I myself graduated from CMU not so long ago, with a degree in
Electrical and Computer Engineering.  I took a number of the same software
classes you mentioned, and I found them lacking.

Where, in the course catalog, is a decent course in user interface design.
This is crucial of most Applications work, as well as in designing UI for
operating systems.  Where do they focus on the psychology of how people
interact with computers.  Why was there only one course that offered anything
like software engineering?

And why was there not enough time for me to take an english/spelling course
;)

petesk@microsoft.com  (formerly ps2x@andrew.cmu.edu)
My Opinions.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 12:15:12 -0800
From: George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: Re: Back to OS/2 was Re:
Comment-To: Jonathan_Hendry@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

JH>If people writing NeXT apps are taking this long, on an established
os
JH>in it's 3rd generation, I find it hard to believe that all those NT
apps
JH>will ship before  94. Maybe mid-94, depending on when NT really
ships.

        I think they'll be ready by the time NT comes out. But they'll
        be 32 bit recompiles of Win3.1 programs. Even the Write
program
        that comes with NT is a 16 bit Win app and the Terminal app is
a
        piece of junk. Try a Zmodem download with it sometime <g>

 * SLMR 2.1a * Hello, I am part number ||X||||X||X||X||

--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
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: 6 Jan 1993 15:29:14 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan5.190756.23050@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>Microsoft did not FORCE Gateway to choose to put MS-DOS on all their
>machines.  Gateway CHOSE to do so.  Gateway is CONTINUOUSLY choosing to do
>so.  They can, at any given timeframe, simply say "well, MS-DOS+Windows is
>not selling as well as it used to--too many customers are asking for OS/2,
>so let's start shipping machines with OS/2 instead.  Betty get me the number
>for IBM..."

According to the news reports posted here, the contracts between MS and the
manufacturers run for 3 years...so if they started selling computers with
OS/2, they'd STILL have to pay MS-DOS and Windows royalties for every machine
they sell. 

>As I've posted before, exclusivity is NOT new to the world.  Soda pop
>companies "force" (to use your terminology) large fast food chains to sign
>exclusivity agreements.  That's why you won't see pepsi in Burger King or
>McDonalds...  But the fast food restaraunts can always switch companies
>IF THEY DEEM IT PROFITABLE TO DO SO--Burger King made headlines when it
>switched to Coke... but the FTC didn't go near ANY of the transactions.

Gateway 2000 can't switch; they're locked in for whatever period is left on
that contract.

Besides, not even Coke or Pepsi can keep Dr Pepper out of fast food chains...

>Dammit.  If you want to ride the Matterhorn, ya gotta go to Disneyland.  And
>if you think the entrance fee is "fair" you obviously don't have a family
>of six (like I do).  If you want MS-DOS or Windows you gotta go to Microsoft...
>there just is no way you can get those products otherwise.  Is this the
>"coersion" you're talking about?

No; the situation with MS is like Disney telling you that, if you want to ride
the Matterhorn, you have to pay them their ticket price when you go to Knott's
Berry Farm.

>Likewise, vendors are out there selling MSDOS and Windows because their
>clients WANT MS-DOS and Windows.  And because so many of them want it,
>the vendors find it profitable to get the best deal they can on it.  This
>leads to cheaper prices for the vendor, cheaper prices for ALL of the 
>clients, and bigger profits for the developer.  The only people that aren't
>happy are a minority that can't get it through their heads that the 
>resulting price of the system is usually CHEAPER than if the vendor never
>signed the agreement.

I'm still paying for a MS-DOS and Windows license I neither need nor want.
If someone wants MS-DOS and Windows, fine, let them pay for it, but don't make
me subsidize their choice.

-- 
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_