HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Date: 31 Dec 92 02:54:56 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Dec30.175247.5017@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|> 
|> >The difference could not be greater. If you refuse to buy a copy of Windows 3.x
|> >nobody will point a gun at your head and make you.  Try refusing to
|> >obey a law--you'll be eyeball to eyeball with a man with a gun.
|> 
|> And try refusing Microsoft's kind offer as a small systems reseller
|> and you'll be out of business.  Gee, no coersion there; you can play
|> their way, be big enough to hit back, or not play at all.

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!!!!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rahayden@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (R Andrew Hayden)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Commercial
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 03:06:02 GMT

petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:


>Nintendo will probably have it on SNES is a few weeks anyway....And it will
>probably be a lot more responsive as it will be running on dedicated game
>hardware anyway.

It's out.  I saw it at a Walmark outside of New Orleans over Xmas.  I
don't know how good/fast/interesting it is, but it is almost depressing in
a certain sense.

>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...
-- 
]> I love my country                   + Robert Hayden                     <]
]> But I fear my government.           +                                   <]
]> Blind faith in your leaders, or in  +    rahayden@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu  <]
]> anything, will get you killed.      +    aq650@slc4.INS.CWRU.Edu        <]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 03:21:24 GMT

In article <1hsujcINNjrq@tamsun.tamu.edu>, bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:

|> |With OS/2 and NeXTSTEP (both of which can run DOS _and_ Windows programs)
|> |Solaris, and Pink, I don't think Microsoft has faced as many competitors
|> |in its history.
|> 
|> Agreed.  Thats why MS wants to go back to the bad old days.

So basically Microsoft is being forced into lower prices because of 
competition in the marketplace.  Things are working as they should.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: More advertising
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:10:09 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.174624.29207@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> 
> >	2) OS/2 might run more Windows programs than 3.1 if you include 
> >	ancient programs and cheezy shareware, but I don't and neither
> >	do most customers.  I think it's a little dishonest to
> >	pretend that the ability to run ancient 2.x programs outweighs
> >	the ability to run currently released applications.  In fact,
> >	incompatibility with unupdated programs is almost *assumed*,
> >	while compatibility with all present releases -- at the
> >	very least -- is implied by the word "more".

Well, I know that Becker Tools for Windows, ABC Flowcharter, Typing Tutor 5
and Smalltalk/V don't run under Win3.1 (unless they have been recently
updated).
 
This isn't cheesy software. This is mainstream stuff.

Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
+64 4 478 4714                          | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Motorola couldn't make enough 68000's 
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 04:27:42 GMT

In article <1hnqn1INN5le@tamsun.tamu.edu> bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
> 
> I hope you mean by this that IBM decided to go with Intel 8088 and not
> Motorola 68000 chips.  If we are given an 80x8x, we are limited to
> segmented architecture (in real mode).
> 
> From my understanding, IBM did not think much of the PC at first and
> went for the absolute cheapest chips consistent with typical IBM
> reliability requirements (I've not heard of reliability complaints
> from any IBM machine--they may not have pushed the state of the art,
> but they are pretty reliable.)
> 
> In fact, if IBM would have gone with Motorola, I don't think MS would
> exist today.

I hate to re-hash arguments that have occurred over the years in other
newsgroups.....but my understanding is that IBM went with the Intel 8088
because Motorola - at that time - simply could not produce the 68000 chips in
the quantities that IBM required them. 
 
Steve

-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
+64 4 478 4714                          | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10968 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3443
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How programs get DPMI memory (was Re: FCC (sic))
Date: 27 Dec 92 04:46:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Dec27.044609.9716
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Dec25.210652.29221@grebyn.com> richk@grebyn.com (Richard Krehbiel) writes:
>In article <1992Dec25.181732.15997@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>
>>   >How about the 640k limit and how to overcome it ? Need not the 
>>   >programmer know about extended/expanded memory, DPMI/VCPI interfaces ?
>>
>>   The 640k limit is of no concern. When you write an app. and you
>>   need memory, you request it and check if you got it. You do not
>
>Programmers must be painfully aware of the memory managers that serve
>them.  (Ask someone who programs Windows.)  With software standards
>like EMS, XMS, and DPMI, the memory the program gets comes from a
>place as foreign to his memory map as blocks from disk.  This means
>that, unless the program so instructs the memory manager, he may not
>be able to address that memory.  It's not automatic.
>

That's very true, but products like VMData from PocketSoft, and
HeapStore, plus Borland's VROOMM overlay manager tend to take the
bite out of the 640k limit and the learning curve needed to manage
it.

>>   No, a programmer needn't know about DPMI/VCPI interfaces. If he
>>   wants memory, he requests it, he does not generally care where it
>>   comes from. The DPMI/VCPI interface should be hidden from him,
>>   unless of course he is writing his own memory management, but
>>   I can't think of a reason why an application should need that.
>
>What DOS programming language or environment allows a program to wade
>about in EMS/XMS/DPMI in the same way as conventional memory, without
>any special knowledge or treatment?  Only high-level, interpreted
>languages, as far as I know.
>-- 
There are at least 2 C libraries I know of, (see above), and there
may be others out there that allow this non-sense to go on. It's
not completely transparent, but it does address the issue.


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu (RICHARD HOFFBECK)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Reply-To: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu
Organization: Colon Cancer Control Study, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:14:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.074727@roper.mc.ti.com>, a722756@roper.mc.ti.com (W. Donald Rolph) writes:
>  
> You have an interesting definition of a monopoly which,  I thnik, doesn't quite
> square with the legal definition of a monopoly.  For all practical  economic
> purposes a single company with thast much market  share is a monopoly as far as
> fixning market price and practices  go.

Whether 80% is sufficient to exercise monopoly power depends on the nature
of the product and the nature of the market.  The company that produces the
VCR+ boxes has a 100% monopoly yet noone is too concerned because the market
is viewed in terms of overall consumer electronic options. Anyone who
thinks that the market for compilers, spreadsheets, wp, graphics, etc. isn't
competitive hasn't been checking their mailbox lately.  

If you want to declare MS a monopolist because they have a large market share
of the PC OS market, then what about DEC/VMS, SUN/SunOS/Solarus, APPLE/Finder
and NeXT/NextStep. They all have large market shares for their respective
machines with the latter 3 approaching 100%.  The deal that DEC cuts me on VMS
would make it real hard to consider a 3rd party OS unless I wanted
unix really really bad.  

Until recently Apple GAVE AWAY their OS -- how hard is it to compete against
that! That's right ... Apple also produces applications software and there have
been grumblings from other developers that Apple isn't always up front with
them.  Does anyone have the number for the FTC enforcement group? :-))

--rick

+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Richard Hoffbeck               INTERNET: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu |
| Colon Cancer Control Study     ATT     : (612) 627-4151         |
| University of Minnesota        CIS     : 72406,521              |
| Minneapolis, MN 55455                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 04 Jan 93 04:34:33 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1993Jan2.225717.2321@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>
>	Good reasons??? Give us a good reason why NT refuses to install if
>it detects OS/2? This started with the October Beta. not with earlier ones.

    Someone has already posted it, and I don't have that posting
archived.  It had something to do with OS/2's Boot Manager doing
something unusual with the active partition, if I remember correctly.


>If you are going to say something like well NT needs to be there first, give a
>good reason. NT is supposed to run on HPFS and FAT right?

    Windows NT does run on HPFS and FAT.


>OK, I don't have the exact text of the message, but the tester told me that DOS
>6 suggested that OS/2 be deleted. That much was very clear. He was shocked by
>that message. 

    Can you contact the tester and get the exact message?  It would
certainly help foster some rational discussion here.

				-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: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: More advertising
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 14:16:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.062803.26739@cs.joensuu.fi> jahonen@cs.joensuu.fi (Jarmo Ahonen) writes:
>rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>
>>	Let me ask:  Is it everyones opinion that OS/2 is sucha bad
>>	product that it cannot stand on it's merits alone and that we
>>	have to buffer these merits with blatant lies?
>> 
>(stuff deleted)
>>	*Why* is it necessary to lie?  If you're going to put a qualifier
>>	in there, put an HONEST one, like "most".  I prefer not confusing
>>	people and just omitting the qualifier altogether.
>
>Here in finland most of the OS/2 adds say something like "most" or
>"almost every" etc. And they mention 6 MB of memory and 80 MB disk...
>Actually the memory requirement is that 6 MB and the proposed is 8 MB.


	Well, let's hear it for IBM Finland! 

	<Doesn't change the situation in America and elsewhere
	though.  .. Maybe a letter to IBM saying how great the
	finland ad/packaging is would get the point across...>


-- 
	Blaming society for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
	         ---  Boycott == censorship == cowardice  ---
	Do I even need to point out that my views do not represent
	those of my employer, institution or relations?
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 30 Dec 1992 14:16:21 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec29.210748.10595@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <8225@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec28.201454.20862@microsoft.com> bobatk@microsoft.com (Bob Atkinson) writes:
>>>	1. You have DR-DOS6.0, a clone of MSDOS.
>>Don't forget: 1a. You have Windows 3.0. It works fine with DR-DOS 6.0.
>    Fine.  This doesn't change anything below.

Of course it does. It means that something was done to Windows 3.1 to _make_
it not work with DR-DOS.

>     Only if you're a paranoid.  Why is it easier to ascribe the
>incompatibilities to some nefarious (and utterly without evidence)
>plot by Microsoft than to a bug in a competing product?  Bugs
>happen all the time - nefarious plots that no one can produce
>any substantiation for only happen in the Weekly World News,
>alt.conspiracy, and the minds of certain Microsoft bashers.

If "bugs happen all the time", then why was MS positively eager to work out
incompatibilities with Windows 3.1 with _everyone_but_DR_???

I have no trouble ascribing this kind of thing to malice; that malice is
evident in any dealings MS has with anyone who dares to try to challenge MS'
near monopoly in the OS field. FOrtunately, Novell and IBM aren't going to
crack.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Date: 30 Dec 92 01:25:41 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <wiegand.725666549@lido16>, wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand) writes:

|> >Well folks lets use this opportunity to point out a bad law.
|> 
|> >It prevents U.S. companies from being able to pool resources to be able to
|> >compete in flat panel LCD displays, DRAMS and consumer electronics with the
|> >Japanese and Koreans, both of which have nothing like our anti-trust laws.
|> 
|> Actually the main problem is that these areas require large investments
|> that US companies aren't willing to make. 

US companies would be willing if they knew that it would pay off.  The ground
rules laid out by the goverment, including the antitrust laws, make such
large scale investments, and especially joint cooperative ventures between
companies to pool resources to make large investments, more risky because
the could be ruled illegal if they become too successful, er, "anticompetitive."

|>The difference is that the
|> Japanese companies don't have to worry as much about short-term profit.

Japanese companies only have the ability to think long term because 
1)  They are big enough to ride out rough times.  In the U.S. if a company
    gets too big they risk the wrath of the FTC.
1)  they can use currently profitable lines to subsidise the developement of
    future products, and to "buy market share" by selling below cost, both
    practices which the FTC frowns on.

The antitrust rules that we have place us at a significant handicap when trying
to compete.  Result:  Only Zenith makes TV's in America (er, Mexico) and you
can't buy an American made camera or VCR.  

|> >Compare the rate of growth of the standard of living in Japan and Korea with
|> >that of the U.S. and you'll clearly see that something has got to change.
|> 
|> They are growing faster partly because they started so far behind that
|> improving is easier. If you look at actual standard of living the US is still
|> ahead. 

And if you look at average wages for factory workers, you'll find that the US
is behind.  

|> And if you look at the prices that Japanese consumers pay for goods
|> you will find that they pay more than US consumers. Why? Becuase Japan
|> doesn't have the anti-trust laws that the US has. Keep in mind that if
|> the anti-trust laws you don't like were removed it would lead to higher
|> prices for us.

I don't see how you can blame higher consumer prices in Japan on the lack of
antitrust legislation--a Japanese music fan can buy a CD player from Sony or
Panasonic--there's no monopoly there.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Subject: Re: Be more creative than the FTC!
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 12:57:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.233918.14782@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu> rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:
>helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>
>>Why don't Novel, Lotus, et al, find a more creative solution to their problem
>>than just using the FTC as a club against Microsoft?  Here are some better
>>alternatives:
>
>Did you whine like this when MCI forced the government to break up 
>AT&T?
>
>>1.  Form a consortium with Digital Research (who makes DR DOS, a fully
>>    compatible MS DOS clone) to make a Windows 3.x clone.
>
>You would be better advised to do some research.  Novell (correct spelling)
>owns DR-DOS.  Digital Research does not exist any longer.  It was 
>bought by Novell and is now their Desktop systems division.
>
>And Novell is looking beyond Windows.  In case you missed the Business
>page from tomorrows Wall Street Journal, AT&T and Novell just announced
>that they have signed a letter of intent for Novell to purchase
>USL (UNIX Systems Laboratory).  I.e., if the deal goes through (they
>have board of director approval, but need government and USL stockholders
>to agree) Novell will own UNIX, lock, stock, and copyright.
>

Say it isn't so !!!

Well, there goes the neighborhood...


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 2 Jan 93 22:57:17 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1993Jan03.000730.23120@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
> In article <1993Jan02.094926.14462@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1993Jan1.133731.2312@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>>>>
>>>>	All this talk about FUD & Misinformation about OS/2 from Microsoft has
>>>>some NEW Merit!
>>>>
>>>>	I Recently talked to a Beta Tester of DOS 6.0. He Runs OS/2 with 2 Hard
>>>>Drives, One FAT, One HPFS. He decided to Install the DOS 6.0 Beta on the FAT
>>>>Partition, and got a Message saying, and I paraphrase: 
>>>>
>>>>- OS/2 Detected! Due to the size of OS/2 you may wish to delete your OS/2 
>>>>files before installing DOS 6.0 -
>>
>>>     Interesting.  What is the problem with that?  If there was a
>>>similar message that said "Autocad detected.  Due to the size of
>>>Autocad you may wish to delete your Autocad files before installing
>>>DOS 6.0", whould that be bad too?
>>
>>If DOS is advanced enough to detect the presence of potential
>>disk hoggers (what does it do? Keep a database?) it should
>>certainly be smart enough to tell if there is room enough.
> 
>     Once again, we don't have the actual text of the warning
> message.  What we do have is essentially a diatribe by a person
> who uses too many exclamation points.
> 
> 
>>If it finds too little room, it should just say so, not
>>indicate anything as a potential problem. It is silly to
>>give messages like, X detected. If there are many X's which
>>one would be the problem? If there are no X's then what to
>>do? No piece of software should be a smartass, let the user
>>decide what he does and does not need.
> 
>     There are good reasons why DOS 6 should inform you that
> it might be incompatible with the other operating systems you
> have installed on your system.  I hope it gives a similar message
> if you install on a system that contains Windows NT.
> 
> 				-Phil
> 

	Good reasons??? Give us a good reason why NT refuses to install if
it detects OS/2? This started with the October Beta. not with earlier ones.

If you are going to say something like well NT needs to be there first, give a
good reason. NT is supposed to run on HPFS and FAT right?

OK, I don't have the exact text of the message, but the tester told me that DOS
6 suggested that OS/2 be deleted. That much was very clear. He was shocked by
that message. 

Michael Kupka
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: More advertising
Date: 30 Dec 92 21:56:31 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering

jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:

>In article <1992Dec29.135215.20084@panix.com> os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.) writes:
>>Since no one decided to respond to the initial advertising thread I attempted
>>to start (maybe I tried it in comp.os.os2.misc?  I can't remember anymore...),
>>I'll try with another one.  Again, I'm interested in reading any ad ideas you
>>can come up with (and I know there are IBMers who read this and are probably
>>interested also).  Here's the idea for this one:
>>
>><Radio ad>
>>"With an operating system that can run all of your DOS, Windows, and OS/2
>>applications, using your computer is as simple as 1-2-3...or dBase IV...
>>or Ami Pro...(start to fade) or CorelDraw...or Describe...or Microsoft Excel
>>(etc. ad nauseum)"  Meanwhile, once the voice starts to fade you get the 
>>overdubbed deeper voice (but not too deep) take the foreground:  "OS/2 2.0
>>for your personal computer.  Requires an Intel or compatible 80386 or better
>>CPU with 4 megabytes of memory and 30 megabytes hard disk space.  To order,
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Boy, this is one way to get users who believe this figure pissed off!
>It'll send 'em right back to Windows or their Macs!  

>I suspect giving a more accurate figure (like 8 MB) makes OS/2 sound bad
>("Gee, Marge, it requires an awful lot of those power chips!" (I know a
>guy who thinks memory chips are, in fact, essentially 'power chips' !)).
>Why not compromise and say 6 MB?  I gather OS/2 runs much better for
>the 2 MB difference).  


In The Netherlands OS/2 is advertised with 6M and 80M recommended.

-- 
Erik van Linstee   |   Delft University of Technology   |   I'll be back ... 
----
   We are god, 'cause only we can create the idea of his existence
   in our holy brains...  (Yello)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy