HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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 15:40:16 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <C0AKnx.36y@csulb.edu> sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>  Although I don't know if it has *legal* significance, I would expect that
>there are areas of the API that MS could reasonably violate or not document.
>In particular, with the utility programs and drivers that are released when
>new versions of DOS itself are released. One could argue that these are
>really part of DOS whether they reside within the same code file or not and
>so they could share 'special' and intimate knowledge of its internals.

There's only one problem with that: we're talking about an Application Program
Interface; your own argument shows that the programs that you're talking about
aren't applications at all, and so the interfaces they use aren't part of the
API.

>   The question then arises whether if WINDOWS makes use of such knowledge,
>whether it is really an extension of DOS both in a technical and a *legal*
>sense (since legal issues are at the root of this whole discussion) or it
>is really a separate product as well as being an 'environment'.

That's a really good question, and one I suspect a court will have to answer.

>>That should read, "as further MS violations of their own rules are revealed,
>>DR will add compatible unpublished interfaces as well."
>  I think that calling them violation of their own rules is a little strong.
>MS has never, to my knowledge, and often quite the contrary, made any promises
>about how DOS works internally or how reliable certain 'discovered', rather
>than documented, interfaces may be. I think the issues of fair dealing  are
>a little more subtle than that and depend upon different expectations when
>an entity effectively controls part or all of a particular market.

That's not the rule I'm referring to. I'm referring to MS' statements
throughout their programming documentation that any other interface besides
the one they document should not be used by applications, and they do not
guarantee that they will work the same, or at all, in future releases of the
system.

I'm arguing it's just as bad for MS to violate that rule as it is for Lotus,
or Word Perfect, or Corel, or...

>   With the release of Windows for Workgroups and the folding of DR into
>Novell, this all is now really part of a bigger battle for the Network OS
>of the future. 

No kidding. I fully expect MS to play real hardball with Novell on several
fronts, and guaranteeing that Windows would not work with DR-DOS is just one
possibility.
-- 
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,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: paul@pphbau.atr.bso.nl (PPH Bauwens)
Subject: Re: If things had been different... (was: FCC etc)
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Organization: Private Node
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:08:22 GMT

: >The 68030 grew more gracefully than the x86 did, though.  I mean, the
: >386 contains *two* MMUs and *three* incompatible instruction sets...

I must contradict here. The upwards compatability of the 68K line at the
operating system (kernel) level is almost nonexistent.
Example: 	68020	no MMU, so everyone build their own junk
		68030	has an MMU, so people use it.
		68040	has an MMU that is _incompatible_ with the one
			in the 68030
			has a partial floating point coprocessor that is
			_incompatible_ with the 68881/68882 chip
		68050	renamed into 68060 in order not to lose the
			number game against Intel (if and when it
			finally arrives).

The upward compatability on both the operating system _and_ application
level that we currently enjoy (?) with the PC architecture is totally
impossible with the 68K line.
(I can succesfully run a 286 protected mode UNIX on a 386 and I would 
expect it also to run on my 486. Try that with 68K).

Motorola did a very bad job on the compatibility of the 68K line.
This is in my opinion te most important reason they failed.
Too little, too late.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Maybe this should have been posted in comp.arch.

A Happy New Year!


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bauwens				Email:	paul@pphbau.atr.bso.nl
Rietkerkweg 364					paul@pphbau.hobby.nl
3066VL Rotterdam  Nederland		Phone:	+31-10-4211858
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Ian_Upright@mindlink.bc.ca (Ian Upright)
Subject: A new OS/2 Customer..
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 03:01:15 GMT

I'm a consultant, and I was talking to a client about upgrading his computer
to a 386-40, w/8MB Ram..  As a dos user wanting to move to a GUI enviroment,
he had bought Win 3.1 before I had even done the upgrade..  We were
discussing
software, and we came to the conclusion that he wanted MS Excel or Lotus 123,
and Lotus AMI pro for a word processor.  Both available for Windows..  Speed,
for him, was a fairly important feature, and anything he's seen of Windows
he liked, but he thought it was awfully slow.  He then mentioned that he
saw an ad for OS/2 on TV (liked the ad by the way,.. I wasn't terribly
impressed..  but maybe for the average joe??)  and wondered what it was
about..
I told him that it lets him do more things at once, and runs native programs
faster than if they were written for Windows..  I told him that Ami Pro was
going to be available for OS/2 soon, and he got kinda pissed off that I
hadn't
mentioned that option earlier.  Now he's thinking of using what he's got now,
and moving to OS/2 in the future when the apps he wants are available..

I suspect many other users, old or new, could well be doing the same around
the world.  If it's faster, and better, and does what you want it to..  It's
going to be used...  Simple as that..  To say that Win 3.1 users don't
*need* OS/2, and probably won't need to switch, because Win 3.1 does the job,
is wrong.  He thought yes, Win 3.1 would do the job, but OS/2 would do the
job better and faster..  Anything in this world that gives you more bang for
your buck sells..  Simple as that.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Origin:  Astaria Digital Enterprises             Ian_Upright@mindlink.bc.ca
 BBS: (604) 852-1866, or FidoNet  :-)  1:153/513                  CANADA eh?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Re: NT Destined to Succeed??
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Organization: Techn. Univ. Clausthal
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:47:20 GMT

In <1993Jan5.234912.7841@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn) writes:
>Hey, you only have personal experience with a system with 12 megs of
>memory and you'are calling Steve liar????
>
>Is NT really bootin up on 8 meg systems?  Is there anybody who has
>personal experience with this?

Yes, I have tried it. Ok, admitted, the performance is very poor on 8 MB.
But always remember, Windows NT contains lots of debug code and is not
speed optimized yet.

I tried an OS/2 2.0 beta 6.30x and installed TCP/IP and LAN-Server on it.
This is the configuration you can compare to Windows NT. I had a 27 MB
swapfile on a 16 MB machine. Now, that I am using the OS/2 2.0 GA, the
same configuration with even the database manager installed, I have
a swapfile of only 5 MB.

If you run OS/2 2.0 GA (release version) on an 8 MB machine with TCP/IP
and LAN-Server, the performance is really bad. So to compare OS/2 and NT.
In a comparable configuration (Networking and TCP/IP), performance is
bad with 8 MB and reasonable with 16 MB. The difference is, that Windows
NT is not yet speed optimized, whereas OS/2 2.0 is.

I really don't understand all that stuff about "Windows/NT eats up all
my memory". It really doesn't seem to me, that it is requiring more
memory than OS/2.

We really have to wait, until we have the retail version of NT to compare
performance and HW-resource usage. Everything else is just speculation.

Christoph
-------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------
Christoph H. Hochstaetter, Philipps-University Marburg | Universitaetsstr. 25
Internet: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de       | D-W-3550 Marburg
Bitnet  : HOCHSTAE AT DMRHRZ11                         | Germany
Fido    : 2:243/660                                    | Phone +49-6421-28-7092
Fax     : +49-6421-28-4858                             |
From: os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS 6 + OS/2!! - glory screens????
Date: 5 Jan 93 13:21:20 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1993Jan4.124210.12897@dmp.csiro.au> lachlan@dmp.csiro.au (Lachlan Cranswick) writes:

>PS:-  Does Phil get extra danger money from BIG BILLY
>for admitting he is an
>MS employee on the internet?  (I'ts sounds  analogous
>to  a homosexual campaigning for gay rights
>in a Pub full of Drunk SkinHeads(?))
>Just curious again - (grin).

>Has there ever been an up-front Anti-MS post from an
>MS employee?  (Analogous to a homosexual campaigning for 
>compulsory lyching of gays in a pub full of Drunk
>Skinheads(?))
>Just Curious again - again.

Lachlan, was this stuff really necessary?  This newsgroup is noisy enough
as it is without crap like this inspiring another 1000 posts.

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: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft using "Force"???
Date: 8 Jan 1993 21:17:01 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) says:

>I'll agree, Microsoft is offering some shitty deals.  But when Microsoft
>says "This is my best offer--take it or leave it" the vendors are quite
>free to take it or leave it.  

          And go out of business .....
--
From: bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: No TrueType Fonts in OS/2 2.1 ?!
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:11:02 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Applied Information Systems, Chapel Hill, NC

In article <96122@rphroy.ph.gmr.com>, rbotimer@max.ct.gmr.com (R Douglas Botimer) writes:
> In article <1993Jan7.193312.16367@clark.dgim.doc.ca> tennesen@mars.dgrc.doc.ca  
> (Andy Tenne-Sens) writes:
> 
> :I'm disturbed, however, that a recent posting stated that IBM has decided
> :not to support TrueType scalable fonts.  Does anyone out there know if
> :this is so?  Will IBM depend on Adobe for scalable-font capability?
> :If I run OS/2, will I still be able to use Word for Windows 2.0 and
> :some kind of scalable fonts?  Will I still be able to embed equations
> :and graphics into my documents?
> 
> Why wouldn't IBM depend on Adobe, along with many other companies?  TrueType
> is is pure Microsoft.  [...]

This isn't true.  Apple also sells TrueType;  Microsoft didn't even invent
it (!).  MS _does_ sell the most successful implementation of it however,
both in terms of number of copies sold and, if the reviews of the Apple
implementation that I've read are accurate (I don't use Apple hardware),
in technical terms as well.

But you're correct that Adobe scalable fonts (and Postscript) are far
more common technologies, at least if you subtract off Windows.  (I'm
not quite sure how to count the Windows users because even most of the
high-end Windows desktop publishing users use Postscript and Adobe fonts
when they actually print their documents ... it's mostly the lower-end
word processing users who use TrueType exclusively;  but there's a _ton_
of those people).

Even with Microsoft and Windows, there are more Adobe fonts available
than TrueType, and many of the TrueType fonts that are available from
sources other than the major font foundries have been poorly translated
from Adobe format fonts.  The major advantage of TrueType fonts for the
end-user is that there are many font packages available at software
stores, because of the popularity of Windows.  You often have to send
for Adobe fonts by mail-order, which is slightly less convenient;  but
there is a wider selection of different fonts.

I don't think this is much of an issue either way;  and even if you _do_
do high-end DTP, it's quite possible and not at all difficult to use
TrueType on-screen and Adobe for printing, if you're using Windows;  or
to use Adobe for both, if you're using OS/2.  In most cases neither the
user nor the application will be aware of the font technology in use.

Bruce C. Wright
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: d92-jhe@dront.nada.kth.se (Johan Hellman)
Subject: Re: Does IBM have an Internet email address?
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 11:32:00 GMT

In <C0nB6I.81q@panix.com> os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.) writes:

>In <1993Jan10.072115.12666@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) writes:

>>Would comp.os.os2.beta fit the bill?  This proposed newsgroup would
>>allow beta OS/2 2.x users to trade information.  Whenever IBM comes out
>>with a new beta, then this newsgroup will be busy reporting bugs.  But
>>as the beta improves, posts in this newsgroup will shrink.  Then people
>>can propose new OS/2 features for future betas.  In other words, OS/2
>>system programmers or designers can read this newsgroup to read either
>>about beta bugs or suggestions for new features, depending on the
>>progress of a given beta OS/2.

>How about comp.os.os2.bugs?  comp.os.os2.suggestions could be considered
>useless since 1) a lot, if not all, of the material conceivably could also
>be posted to comp.os.os2.misc and 2) it would probably degenerate into
>another advocacy group ("Tom:  I would like 'A' to be included with OS/2",
>"Dick:  get real!  'A' is so large that it would take 21 disks for it
>alone!", "Harry:  *you* get real!  'A' is worth the extra space.", etc.).

 Why not just a mailaddress to which all such suggestions could be
mailed? Something like suggestions@os2.ibm.com. That way we would all
know where to send our feature requests.

/johan
-- 
+-----------------------+----------------------------+-----------------------+
! Johan Hellman         ! E-mail addresses;          ! Per aspera ad astra.  !
! Student of CS         ! d92-jhe@dront.nada.kth.se  !-----------------------!
! Royal Institute of    ! Johan Hellman at 2:201/291 ! The above opinions    !
! Technology, Stockholm ! in FidoNet (+46-8-6676206) ! are my own, as usual. !
+-----------------------+----------------------------+-----------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu (RICHARD HOFFBECK)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Reply-To: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu
Organization: Colon Cancer Control Study, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:57:00 GMT

In article <C08yMJ.9xr@csulb.edu>, sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>  
>   In this vein, an interesting comment appeared in the new Windows Sources
> magazine on P. 192 (lower box) within a review of Windows for Workgroups,
> commenting on the MAPI standard that WFWG uses.
>  
>   Quoted without permission:
>  
>   "An interesting aside to all of this is how shocked we were to find that
> Excel 4.0 was a MAPI-compliant application. Excel was released around the same
> time as Windows 3.0, and several months before Mail 3.0. What this says for
> Microsoft's so-called Chinese wall between divisions is anybody's guess.
> But we wouldn't be surprised if the FTC took interest in this latest example
> of intercommunication between systems and applications divisions at Microsoft."
>  
>   Personally, I don't recall Excel 4.0 as being THAT old (back to Win 3.0).
> Does anyone remember the exact release date and when the MAPI standard was
> first publicly proposed/released ?

I thought it was October '91 or thereabouts.
From: aaron@spectrx.saigon.com (Aaron Anderer - System)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: The Cyrix 486/NeXTSTEP 486 Debate
Keywords: 486DLC/SLC NeXT 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 07:01:47 PST
Organization: SPECTROX SYSTEMS (408)252-1005 Silicon Valley, Ca

This is the response I got from NeXT when I asked about the Cyrix 486 issue.

==============================

From szebra!NeXT.COM!Hao_Pham  Fri Jan  8 13:33:06 1993 remote from spectrx
Received: by spectrx.saigon.com (1.65/waf)
	via UUCP; Fri, 08 Jan 93 14:13:56 PST
	for aaron
Received: by szebra.Saigon.COM (4.1/SVR4.i386-1.02)
	id AA12665; Fri, 8 Jan 93 13:33:06 PST
Received: by sonyusa.Sony.COM (4.0/SMI-4.0)
	id AA03598; Fri, 8 Jan 93 13:23:36 PST
Received: from next.com by Sony.COM (5.65+/1.34)
	id AA23224; Fri, 8 Jan 93 13:22:50 -0801
Received: from yoda by tinman.NeXT.COM (NX5.67d/NeXT0.1-Aleph-bf)
	id AA21434; Fri, 8 Jan 93 13:25:21 -0800
From: szebra!NeXT.COM!Hao_Pham (Hao Pham)
Message-Id: <9301082125.AA21434@tinman.NeXT.COM>
Received: by yoda.next.com (NX5.67c/NX3.0X)
	id AA01923; Fri, 8 Jan 93 13:25:20 -0800
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 13:25:20 -0800
Received: by NeXT.Mailer (1.87.1)
Received: by NeXT Mailer (1.87.1)
To: spectrx!aaron
Subject: cyrix

Hi Aaron,
The cyrix chip may work with NeXTSTEP, but we have no current plans to test it.
Therefore we do not recommend use of Cyrix based systems at this time.
For more info on NeXTSTEP 486 requirements, please call 1-800-TRY-NeXT and they  
will be happy to send out some literature for you.

Hao Pham
NeXTedge Customer Support

=====================================//
Aaron Anderer, System Operator      //     aaron@spectrx.saigon.com
SPECTROX SYSTEMS +1 408 252 1005   //          szebra!spectrx!aaron          
                                  //===============================
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: hendrik@vedge.com (Hendrik Boom)
Subject: Re: No TrueType Fonts in OS/2 2.1 ?!
Organization: Visual Edge Software Ltd.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:51:09 GMT

ballard@ucs.ubc.ca (Alan Ballard) writes:
: In <1993Jan7.193312.16367@clark.dgim.doc.ca> tennesen@mars.dgrc.doc.ca (Andy Tenne-Sens) writes:

: >I'm disturbed, however, that a recent posting stated that IBM has decided
: >not to support TrueType scalable fonts.  Does anyone out there know if
: >this is so? 
: 
: Don't know. 

I think I saw another posting recently that indicates that the 2.1 beta
does suppor them.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
Try one or more of the following addresses to reply.
at work:	hendrik@vedge.com,  iros1!vedge!hendrik
at home:	uunet!ozrout!topoi!hendrik
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11563 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3662
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Date: 4 Jan 93 13:53:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: shelley.1i9fgdINN2bu
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|>Here's a third way for them to have all the drilling equipment: tell drilling
|>equipment customers that unless they purchase Standard Oil drilling equipment,
|>and do not purchase drilling equipment from others, they will no longer be
|>sold oil from Standard Oil. If they control enough of the oil market (because
|>they were more efficient than the competition, say), they could use that to
|>dominate the drilling equipment market, even though they might not be more
|>efficient there.
|
|Even in that case, the total cost to drilling equiptment users of oil +
|drilling equiptment must be less than any anybody else could *possibly* do
|it for Standard Oil to maintain its monopoly. 

Yes, but the cost of drilling equipment from someone else plus oil from
Standard Oil would be less than the cost of buying both from Standard Oil.

|I just don't see anything wrong with a Monopoly which is a monopoly because of
|low prices.

But in this hypothetical, the price of drilling equipment from Standard Oil
is not lower than another company could charge.  However, if everyone who
buys drilling equipment also needs oil, and Standard won't sell oil to
people who use other drilling equipment, people will buy the Standard
drilling equipment, even though it costs more.

Now, if the FTC steps in and makes Standard stop doing this, people can get
their oil from Standard and their drilling equipment elsewhere.  If Standard
still wants a drilling monopoly, they will have to earn it by making their
drilling equipment cheaper, like the other companies do.

The problem is not when a company gets a monopoly by making a better or
cheaper product.  The problem is when they use that monopoly to get
another monopoly in another market with an inferior or more expensive
product, because of the power they have in the first market.  This is
not efficient.  Whether it is "wrong" or not depends on what you think
our legal and economic systems should be trying to do.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: Re: NT Destined to Succeed??
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 17:30:13 GMT

dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
> Windows NT won't support 386 enhanced mode apps on non-intel platforms.  
> Does anyone know if windows NT will even support 386 enhanced mode apps on 
> intel platforms?

I don't know whether it ultimately will, but the October beta will not run
386 Enhanced mode apps.  At least my Iverson APL detects that it's not
running in 386 Enhanced mode and refuses to run.

> In a previous article, robs@hardy.u.washington.edu (Robert Suh) says:
>> Another point, WindowsNT isn't targeted towared average desktop users [...]
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Then why does Mike Maples go around saying that windows NT is for 
> desktop usage?

He says it's for high-end desktops: power users and workstations.  It's 
NOT intended for the masses -- that's left to Windows for DOS (at least
according to Microsoft's plan).

> And as for system requirements, it only costs $120 - $150 to upgrade the
> average ISA clone from 4 megs to 8 megs, but it costs $480 - $600 to upgrade
> the same maching to 16 megs, [...]
> Actually, this is an upgrade to 20 megs unless you can find
> someone who wants to buy used simms.

Maybe you need a better dealer?  My dealer has taken my SIMMs in exchange
every time.  Anyway, if you consider NT as being aimed at high-end systems
only, 16 MB in not generally a problem (and, in any case, Microsoft may yet
be able to make it run in 8 MB -- we just don't know yet).

[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]