HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 00:32:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.201419.3568@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>In article <rhoward.724964340@matd> rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard) writes:
>>bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>
>>The problem is that I cannot call my local clone vendor and
>>get a PC with DR-DOS installed.  Why?  Because MS has used
>>their enormous market presence to, in effect, force that
>>PC maker to install MS-DOS on *all* PCs they make.  Even
>>if they don't send out my PC with MS-DOS on it, MS gets the
>>licensing fee anyway.  So if I *really* want DR-DOS, it costs
>>me money (to go and purchase it), and time (because I have to
>>install it over MS-DOS).  DR-DOS had better be *damn* better for
>>most people to bother with that....
>
>That is because people dont bother with a new operating system
>until they clearly see the advantage of purchasing it. So it
>is PEOPLE, not MS who "do" the monopoly. 
>
>Of course there is an advantage to the company who does things 
>first. But they have to do it. MS did, others did not. Is not
>it fair to compensate a company who did things before everybody 
>else ? I think it is. Otherwise we would have stagnation
>

While competition is good, don't kid yourself that Novell is going
to be any kinder or gentler than MS about DOS. While DR-DOS has
smoe nice features to it, I do not relish the thought of having to
slap Novell on the back wallet high everytime I want some
information. I just hope we're not trading one bad problem for
something worse.

JMHO...


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: More advertising
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:40:51 GMT

In <1992Dec31.041533.3989@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>In article <1992Dec30.181522.5719@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <1992Dec29.181546.1151@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>
>>>	So we're agreed that using the word "all" is a lie, right?  So
>>>	*pull the word*.
>>
>>Yes, it's a 'lie' in the same sense that any usage of the words 'all',
>>'every', and 'always' is a 'lie'.  Shall we delete them from the
>>language, or shall we instead assume that people are going to
>>understand the language as it is typically used?

>     "All", "Every", and "Always" have perfectly legitimate uses.
>Advertising software is rarely one of them.

The only time you can 'correctly' use those words is if you formulate
a tautology, as in "all black dogs are black".

>>Hell, MS-DOS won't run all does programs. MS-Windows certainly won't
>>run all Windows programs (OSWin runs more of them than MS-Windows
>>does).  Let's force them to change the name of the products, since
>>using those names implies that they will run those programs AND THEY
>>DON'T. 

>     Fred, if you can show me an MS-DOS ad that says that it
>runs "all DOS programs", or a Windows ad that says it "runs all
>Windows programs", then I'll lobby to have the company change
>it.  I have never seen such an ad - I don't honestly believe
>that one exists.

Who said anything about them being advertised that way?  The very name
IMPLIES that MS-DOS will run MS-DOS programs.  It SOUNDS tautological,
but it turns out that all MS-DOS programs won't run on the current
version of MS-DOS.  Ditto for Windows, only moreso.  If you don't
think the implication is there, Phil, you haven't read very many
Windows ads.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 23:24:50 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Dec25.202426.19125@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
> In article <1992Dec25.180324.15834@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:

> 	No, but the normal cache setting for OS/2 is
> 	a poor choice for anyone with 8 megs or more.  
> 
> 	We can assume that either NT is the same (and the original
> 	user, with 16 megs, has adjusted it) or that it auto-adjusts.
> 	If the later, then my argument is eliminated. 

Do you know NT auto-adjusts anything? As I said in an earlier follow-up, the
NT I am using was originally installed on an 8 meg system......so if it
auto-adjusts upwards....it should auto-adjust downwords too....right? 

> 	I do not know whether it does or not.  But I am *certain* 
> 	that if it does not, the previous owner would have fixed it
> 	for his 16 meg system.

I can assure you that he did not.

> 	You're thinking like a dos user.  It is not a bad idea to have
> 	the system auto-adjust and *allow* the user to fix it when you're
> 	talking about something that's suposed to be user friendly.  

OS/2 ignores cache setting amount higher that 2048K.....

> >Let me see now. Having OS/2 installed on a 6 megger and then
> >adjusting the memory settings of the 16 meg system would
> >result in the exact same setup right?
> 
> 	...only if you then took *that* setup (the one optimized for
> 	16) and moved it *back* to a 6 megger w/o *any* change.

This simply wasn't the case....the NT Iam using was installed on 8 megs....ad
is running on 8 megs.....

> >I am sure this is easy enough to understand.
> 

Offensive and patronising comments like this one beg the application of the
wisdom they purport to dispense.

> 	Think a little more before such comments.
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
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
From: bangell@cs.utah.edu (bob angell)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 2 Jan 93 11:00:39 MST

>>>	All this talk about FUD & Misinformation about OS/2 from Microsoft has
>>>some NEW Merit!
 while not exactly agreeing with MicroShaft on most of what they produce,
 I must agree that the warning could have been valid after all [see below].

>>>	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?

I think this message and all the hoopla surrounding this is [warning,
about to read a possible assumption not based on actual tinkering, so
your mileage may vary] as follows:

	DOS 6.0 has some compression schema built-in, therefore, if
	OS/2 **FAT** partitions were present, it would render the
	data-sharing useless (as would DRDOS and other compression
	schemes).  Notice that another installed the program on a
	FAT partition with all HPFS drives as the viable partitions
	and may have trouble reading compressed data off of the 
	DOS 6.0 partition once he evaluates and plays with it
	awhile.  Why the warning was not given in the latter is a
	mystery to me ....

So, folks [Anal-retentives should also include themselves with this
group if they can get a clue - just this time! 8-0], even though we
may not necessarily like one company or another (couldn't resist this
one ... "Can't we all just get along" - Rodney King after the LA
Riots last spring :-) :-) ) lets not jump to conclusions before the
verdict is in!!  Haven't the OS/2 people learned yet about true FUD
and false-alarm FUD's??

>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.
>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

But, we might want warnings if the data is about to be hosed!

[see above].

>decide what he does and does not need.
>
>Erik
>-- 

Personally, I think I will stick to DOS 5.0 and all of the other
possible alternatives.....

-Bob-
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2)
Subject: Future OS/2 newsgroups (was Re: [...] comp.sys.ibm.pc.advocacy?)
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 06:06:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.035542.1244@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>The comp.os.os2.programmer.porting proposal a while back was a
>terrific idea.  The voting was botched, frankly, and I hope it gets
>reintroduced for RFD after the mandatory six month wait.  Does anyone
>know when that six months is up?  (That new newsgroup would also
>accompany a renaming of comp.os.os2.programmer to
>comp.os.os2.programmer.misc.)

The official voting deadline ended on August 31 (although the original vote
taker gave you and me the botched votes in October!).  Due to that six
month waiting period, the two failed groups (.porting and .setup) cannot
be brought up for RFD until March 1.  I'm not sure, but I think other
potential OS/2 groups can have an RFD now, but as you stated last summer
(during the CFV for .porting and .setup) it would be best to vote on all
the groups together.

Its too bad that the original CFV came during the summer when people
were on vacation.  And there were no subsequent CFVs to remind people
to vote.  To get the new newsgroups as early as possible, I figure an
RFV on March 1, a CFV on March 29, and the voting deadline for April 26
(although I'll have to re-check the voting rules to make sure if the
minimum time frames are 4 weeks) with several subsequent CFVs in between
to remind people to vote, and the five day waiting period to ensure voting
fairness.  This means we can get our newsgroups as early as May 1.

>The other botched newsgroup was comp.os.os2.setup, which I'd also like
>to reintroduce.
>
>So, in summary, I'd like to see these OS/2 newsgroups:
>
>comp.os.os2.misc
>comp.os.os2.advocacy
>comp.os.os2.apps
>comp.os.os2.networking
>comp.os.os2.announce
>comp.os.os2.ver1x
>comp.os.os2.programmer.misc
>comp.os.os2.programmer.porting

And comp.os.os2.setup, too .

As to .announce, what would be the moderator allow to be posted?
I figure your FAQ List, other specialized OS/2 FAQ Lists (like the
programmer's version), IBM's bug workarounds, List of CSD ftp Sites,
and IBM news announcements about OS/2 would be allowed.  But would
advertising (whether from IBM or someone else) for OS/2 software be
allowed?  How about advertising from a hardware maker that includes
an OS/2 driver in its product ("Brand-X CD-ROM drives... we now
support OS/2.").  In other words, do we want .announce to be a low
traffic newsgroup or a higher traffic one?

As to .setup, maybe we should call it .setup.intel or .setup.pc?  Since
IBM is going to have OS/2 run on multiple platforms, we should create our
newsgroups (and their names) with future plans in mind.



Mike Levis
Merry EMX-mas and a Happy GNU Year!

-- 
======= Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu =======
::  ftp ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (128.123.35.151) for OS/2  ::  .--.
::  software & information.   Get /pub/os2/00Index  :: (OS/2)
::::::::  & /pub/os2/all/info/faq/faq20h.txt  ::::::::  ~--~
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 10:27:32 GMT

In article <BzMLLx.JtD@news.iastate.edu>, TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:

|> too.  The problem is that they are allowing their application
|> developers to use calls from their OS that other developers can't
|> use.  This gives MS applications an unfair advantage over the
|> competitors applications.

Bill Gates doesn't have to show anybody his OS calls any more than he
has to show them his underware.


|>      The question isn't a matter of ownership of the OS.  MS wrote
|> MS-DOS, and nobody is going to argue that (I guess it depends on
|> what I mean by 'wrote'...).  It's a question of interpreting the
|> law.  That is what the FTC is out to do.  If the law is interpreted
|> that MS is being unfair, then the FTC has every right to break up
|> the company.  Period.

NO NO A THOUSAND TIMES NO!!!!!

If there was a law in Germany mandating that all Jews be killed would you
said that Hitler had every right to do it, Period???

Or a less drastic example, suppose a new law gave the FTC a right to 
steal everything that you own and give it to Microsoft?  Would you
calmly state that the FTC had a right to do it because it was the law?

Just because the FTC has a "legal" right to steal and destroy doesn't make
it right.

Won't you please consider what is going on from a moral standpoint?
Is this really the kind of country that you want to live in?


|>      A return, yes.  Binding contracts which allow no other
|> alternatives, no. 

Hey, Microsoft didn't hold a gun to anybody clone maker's head and
force them to sign a contract.  Both parties voluntarily signed contracts 
because they both thought it would benefit them.

However, Microsoft's competetors are more than willing to point the guns of
the Federal goverment at Bill Gates because they can't compete with him.


|> competing as heavily in the applications market.  Now, though, MS
|> has practically forced (yes *forced*) vendors to either load MS-DOS

Force is the wrong word to use here.  When Bill Gates starts toting
M-16's like the U.S. Army does, then we can start talking about force.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: teague@a.cs.okstate.edu (Keith Teague)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.1 specifications, release date.
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 22:34:46 GMT

From article <1992Dec22.213657.23840@mercury.ncat.edu>, by akennedy@mercury.ncat.edu:
> In article <1992Dec16.161007.23234@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>>>>>In article <3500@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:
>>>>>>Here the official specs of OS/2 2.1 directly from IBM:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>- more printer drivers
>>>>>>- Windows 3.1 support
>>>>>>- native Windows 3.1 performance with 8Mb RAM machines
>>>>>>- improved performance for low memory configurations
>>>>>>- 32bit graphics engine
>>>>>>- multimedia support
>>>>>>- portable PC support
>>>>>>- CD-ROM version
>>>
>>>In another posting somewhere (!) I read that 2.1 would include DPMI support.
>>>Is that so?
>>
>>OS/2 already has DPMI 0.9 support.  If you mean DPMI support in WinOS/2,
>>I would imagine that the possibility of running enhanced mode apps would
>>mean there will be Windows DPMI support.
>>
>>I don't believe it is certain yet that WinOS/2 3.1 will run enhanced mode apps
>>though.  Anyone know for sure?
>>
>>Ted
> 
>  Ted, a recent unoffical report said that OS/2 2.1 is presently in
> internal beta, and a cd-rom beta will be available for those willing to
> invest $15 and call 1-800-IBM-3040 after 12/28/92 for more details. It
> does have a select button for enhanced mode apps. 
> 
> The OS/2 2.1 beta is suppose to be available until 2/28/92. So the final
> release will probably come in March (My best guess).  Either way I hope
> the don't release until it's as stable as 1.3 was.
> 
> Seasons Greetings
> 

This beta can be order today. It became available this morning (12/22/92).

Keith Teague

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 10:24:00 GMT

bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:

>In article <1992Dec24.203801.7799@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:

>>>Wuh ? In the MS-DOS market you cannt avoid knowing a lot about
>>>the internals of the system and the hardware. Ever heard about
>>>writing interrupt handlers ?
>>
>>This is very silly. It is not at all necesarry to write an interrupt
>>handler for a regular piece of software. In fact, why would anyone
>               ^^^^^^^
>What about not-so-regular piece of software ? Are you suggesting
>that only "regular" software will be sold after the FTC ?

Well, I don't know anything about your FTC, and I don't quite get
what it has to do with software needing to know about systems
internals.
All I am saying is that software engineers needn't worry about
system internals. Only time critical software needs to grab an
interrupt and as regular software goes this would only be a
comm. package. And even then the designer needn't know about
the internals, because he can use a library that installs an
interrupt handler. Of course he can prefer to do it himself, as
I often do, but that is only because I choose not to use anything
I don't have total control over. this is of course only feasible
if you design a piece of software by yourself.
Summary: application designers need not worry about system internals,
thats what the systems the designers are for.


>>want to go invent the wheel over and over again? There are
>>libraries you can use to do almost anything these days. No need
>>to know about the system at all, except for trivial things, like
>>does it provide graphics or not, does it have a clock or not and
>>such. Still these things can be solved at the high level language
>>level.

>Who wrote the libraries ? An application or an OS programmer ? 
>Who is going to decide on it ? the courts ? the FTC ?

As you may know, compilers are not considered applications. They
are the first layer above the OS and the machine language, while
the applications are one layer above that. Libraries, depending
of what they do, are system resources and definitely not applications.
Though it may be considered a grey arrea, it would cerainly take
a systems programmer to work on them.
I don't see what courts or FTC have to do with it. As to what is
what in computer technology, we, computer and system designers,
decide, based on expert knowledge and intelligence, noone else.
(If they could they would per definition BE an expert)

Erik
-- 
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)
From: rmk@frog.CRDS.COM (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Date: 22 Dec 92 23:20:27 GMT
Organization: Charles River Data Systems

In article <1992Dec21.154910.6846@kth.se> d89-zke@dront.nada.kth.se (Zoltan Kelemen) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.202150.818@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>>
>>First of all Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on OS's.  If you want to
>>run DOS programs and you don't want to go to Microsoft you can buy
>>DR DOS from digital research.
>>
>
>Well, the problem is that I, as a customer, don't see the alternatives
>to MS Windows or DOS when buying a computer. Why? Because almost every
>system is bundled with Windows. How on earth could I make a fair price
>comparison with other products, when I get Windows "free" (its price is
>hidden as a part of the system).
>
>The bundling of Windows was the key to its success. Back in 1990,
>Microsoft started a broad attack by selling Windows 3.0 preinstalled
>with many systems. That's why I am having a hard time to believe
>Microsoft's statement "We were suprised by the popularity of Windows
>3.0". Why were they surprised when they gave it away with virtually
>every computer sold?


And popularity, in this case, doesn't necessarily equal units shipped.

Think of all the machines that are now being bought specifically to
run OS/2, Linux, UNIX, or whatever.  The American computer marketplace
already supports 6 large vendors of SVR3.2 and SVR4.  It looks to me
like Sun and NeXT know something if they are diving into this market.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:15:44 GMT

In article <8248@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

|> There's a difference between trying to grab a piece of the pie honestly and
|> doing it by sleazy, underhanded, anticompetitive practices such as are MS'
|> stock in trade.
|> 
|> >*sigh* Dudes, offering two different choices to a buyer isn't force.
|> 
|> Seriously, are you trying to go to work for MS? You've completely ignored all
|> the arguments here that say that what MS is offering isn't a choice, it's a
|> sham. They've apparently deluded you into thinking there's a choice.

I have ignored every argument based on name-calling--simply labeling something
"sleazy, underhanded, etc" doesn't make it so.

|> >I would advise you to look at the practices of your own company.  You'll
|> >probably find many many examples of where your company does the same thing.
|> 
|> My university doesn't have practices, as I'm sure our students will attest.

Does your university give a volume discount for credits?  Mine does.  At
Purdue, You pay per credit hour until you reach 16 credits, and anything 
above 16 is free.

They essentially have forced me into only taking credits from Purdue because 
they won't count credits from other universities and I don't have the time
to study at more than one anyways.

Are they guilty of "sleazy, underhanded, anticompetitive practices?"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 21:36:13 GMT

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

>|>The simple fact is that MS isn't playing fair - they force
>|> manufacturers to sell machines with Windows and DOS preloaded (don't believe
>|> that? just try to buy one without!),

>Wait a minute--they "force" manufacturers to sell Windows and DOS?  Microsoft
>won't hold a gun to the head of anybody who wants to sell their machine with
>DR DOS or OS/2 preloaded.

No they don't force them to sell DOS with their machines, but they do
require an all-or-nothing alternative. Either you include MS-DOS with
every machine you sell or you don't include it with any machines.
The only way to get MS-DOS on a per-copy basis is to pay full retail
price. The volume discount requiures that you pay a royality for *every*
machine you ship.

Since a manufacturer who didn't offer MS-DOS with their machines
would lose lots of sales almost all of the agree with Microsoft's terms.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy