HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Jeremy_Reimer@mindlink.bc.ca (Jeremy Reimer)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Commercial
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 09:45:31 GMT

> Pete Skelly writes:
>
> Msg-ID: <1993Jan03.031104.25917@microsoft.com>
> Posted: 03 Jan 93 03:11:04 GMT
>
> Org.  : Microsoft Corp.
>
> In article <19135@mindlink.bc.ca> Jeremy_Reimer@mindlink.bc.ca wrote:
>
> <comments about IBM add deleted>
> >
> >
> > I agree.  All they need to do (in my highly demented opinion, admittedly)
> is
> > show someone playing Wing Commander (obviously they would have to pay a
> fee
> > to Origin, so this would never happen) and then someone walks in and
> wants
> > something, so the player just hits ALT-HOME... then we see a cool OS/2
> screen
> > with pulse, chess playing and Wing is still going in the little window
> (the
> > 32-bit GRE would help here, and a SVGA driver...)
>
> If IBM did this kind of add, they would not be competing with Apple or MS,
> but with Nintendo and Sega.  I don't think they'd have a chance, as both
> of these companies are Japanese, and would probably have less trouble
> with the FTC.


Hardly a fair competition considering the low quality of SNES and Sega games
(low # of colours, unoriginality, etc)

>
> Then again, maybe IBM should sell game systems...
> > Just seeing Wing being played full-screen to a national audience would
> > probably make Nintendo sales plummet!
>
> 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.


I've seen the ad for the SNES version and it looks pretty awful.  And a
crippled 16-bit 3Mhz CPU, even with sprite coprocessors, well, you'd have to
be crazy to think it will play better than on a 386/33.

And they'll never manage to port Wing II over...

In any case, don't you think that OS/2's ability to multitask these kinds of
games would convince people that it was a competant and useful OS?

Probably not, unfortunately the sort of people who make business purchasing
decisions are the kind of suits who say "I don't play games" as if they were
pronouncing that they didn't molest people, when in fact they are revealing
their total lack of creativity, insight and fun.

Maybe that's IBM's strategy with the pool table commercials-- target the
lucrative dull, stiff and boring market, just the way Microsoft captured the
vast moron market with Windows.



--
Jeremy_Reimer@ |"It turned out, as N-Man discovered later, that the black
mindlink.bc.ca | boat hadn't been after him at all.  It was full of riotous,
---------------| unemployed former James Bond villains enraged at the fall
aka THE JAGUAR!| of Communism in the Soviet Union."
---------------|
Stealth Sig#69 |  --From "N-Man #3: N-Man on Holiday"

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11247 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3557
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:36:02 GMT
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
: In article <1992Dec29.193954.27752@spang.Camosun.BC.CA>, dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
: 
: |> : |> Ah the great god of the free market. Tell me, does the free market
: |> : |> help to provide medical care for the entire population of the US?
: |> : 
: |> : This is getting off of the subject, but with the Federal Goverment paying
: |> : for over 60% of the health care, we don't have a free market in
: |> : medical care now.  
: |> 
: |> I don't think that's what I said. The fact is that your free market
: |> system fails to provide some 25% of your population with any medical
: |> care whatsoever.
: 
: I'll repeat myself and please read it this time, WE DON'T HAVE A FREE
: MARKET IN HEALTH CARE.  We have a "mixed system" in which the federal 
: goverment pays for and therefore mandates 60% of the health care. 

No need to shout. If you examine those countries whose health care is
the envy of the rest of the world, you will find not only that they do
not espouse a free market in health care, but that the entire health
care system is run by the government. Case closed.

--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Ian_Upright@mindlink.bc.ca (Ian Upright)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 03:14:05 GMT

> Phil Lafornara writes:
>
> Org.  : Microsoft Corporation
>
> >F-Fear- Fear that Using OS/2 and DOS on the same machine would be
> dangerous.
>
>     It is.  DOS 6 may make your FAT partitions unreadable by
> OS/2 or other operating systems.


Well hell..  I won't be going near DOS 6.0 with a ten foot pole!
Is it just me, or does microsoft *really* think that making things
incompatable is really a "feature".. How nice..  Now thats what I call
advancement!


--
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  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: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 04:50:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan02.025323.15888@microsoft.com> 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?


	Might I offer a suggestion?  Perhaps the 
	warning was to prevent the user from installing the DOS6 
	beta using the Stacker-like disk compression program.  This
	would, quite simply, render OS/2 unusable.  

	The wording, as given, doesn't say that (although "size"
	seems to hint) but then again, it doesn't sound like
	a real rendition of the error message anyway, rather, it
	was a screechy rendition by a fanatic.

	In any case, why don't we wait forat least one verification
	before making accusations left and right.

	

-- 
	Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.

         ---  boycott == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
		   	     Pain teaches.   <for mailing and other info, .plan>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 19:12:31 GMT

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
: In article <1993Jan2.004314.10263@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
: >philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
: >: In article <1992Dec31.223910.27015@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
: >: >philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
: >: >> In article <8239@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
: >: >> >No, but it does have an obligation to those who bought, for example, MSC 7 to
: >: >> >do OS/2 development on as an upgrade to MSC 6, which had that capability...
: >: >> 
: >: >>      Why would an OS/2 developer upgrade to MSC 7?  The product
: >: >> doesn't support OS/2 - such an upgrade would be silly.
: >: >
: >: >So you're saying that MS will continue to support MSC 6 indefinitely?
: >: >Thought not.
: >: 
: >:       Should they?  Should they still be supporting, say, that
: >: TRS-80 software that got released a while back?  (BTW, I think
: >: you can still call customer support for software that isn't
: >: the current release.)
: >
: >Ah you are, either deliberately or otherwise, missing my point. I
: >would not expect *anybody* to continue to support releases of old
: >software indefinitely. This being the case, upgrading to a more recent
: >release is not 'silly' but sensible. Unless, of course, the evil
: >empire decides to remove support for a feature previously included -
: >i.e. OS/2.
: >
: >You can't have it both ways.
: 
:      You can always move to a different compiler.  This happens
: all the time in the real world.  Sure, Microsoft is losing a
: compiler customer - in the long run, the company has gambled
: that the number of people wanting to produce OS/2 binaries
: isn't large enough to justify the expense of producing and
: supporting new compilers.  This isn't "anti-competitive", it
: isn't "sleazy" - it's just business.

And yet anyone with half a brain would see that the number of people
wanting to develop OS/2 applications was likely to increase rather
than decrease with the advent of OS/2 2.0.

I don't think this is 'just business' I think it's disgraceful.
--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
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: 3 Jan 1993 14:55:26 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec31.052018.5365@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>     News flahs for you:  Windows 3.1 is not the same as Windows 3.0.
>There were changes in the source code.  One or more of those changes
>caused incompatibilities with DR-DOS.

Duh.

>If you want to show that
>your sinister plot exists, you need to show that something was
>_intentionally_ done to make it break on DR-DOS.  You haven't
>done anything of the sort.  More foundationless accusations.

If DR-DOS conforms to all published interfaces to MS-DOS, and a new version of
Windows breaks when used with that same DOS, and the previous version worked
fine, and MS refuses to help fix the problem, then the conclusion that MS
intentionally made Windows quit working on DR-DOS is very hard to escape.

>     Windows applications help to sell Windows.  DR-DOS does not.
>Seems pretty obvious to me.

Windows helps to sell MS-DOS. DR-DOS does not. Seems pretty obvious to me.

>     Provide factual evidence of this malice.

Good grief. YOu don't have it either for your side. You simply believe that MS
is the good guy. I can understand that; after all nobody wants to work for the
bad guys. Still, you haven't explained the OS/2 abandonment, or the NT FUD,
and now this one. MS is trying very hard to attain 100% domination of the OS
market. You can deny that all you want, but it's still true, and you won't
convince me otherwise unless and until MS restores OS/2 support in its
software products and competes with it and DR-DOS technically instead of by
sleazeball tactics.

...but I suspect that Hell will freeze over first.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communist
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:03:40 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Dec22.080541.20108@rz.uni-hildesheim.de> fles0092@rz.uni-hildesheim.de writes:
>
>People don't create monopolies - companies do.
>If M$ didn't have those contracts with computer vendors, who
>knows how much of M$-DOS 5.0 or even Window$ would be sold?

     Fewer.  Probably not substantially fewer.  And those
machines with DOS+Windows would end up costing more - or else
the OEMs would make less profit on them.


>As a computer vendor you have to deal with quite a lot of
>competition. So you look around to find out, which software
>is the cheapest to install on your systems.
>If companies wanted to install DR-DOS and WIN, they'd have
>to buy MS-DO$ for every system and try to either sell it
>separately - or trash it.

     Not true.  There are several contracts available - the
"royalty per machine" contract is only one of them.


>In any case: a rise in purchase price for the vendor, and
>probably a rise in selling-prices for the customers.
>Now the big question: does _that_ seem like something,
>you'd like???

     What is your suggestion?  Do you believe that Microsoft
should offer the lowest current price regardless of the volume
or licensing agreement entered into?

				-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,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: craigdo@microsoft.com (Craig Dowell)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 01 Jan 93 05:07:13 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1hr8q8INN5aa@cae.cad.gatech.edu> chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen) writes:
>
>Twould seem that microsoft has unleashed their net.propoganda division on
>us.  

hee, hee.  ho, ho.  Ha, ha, ha!  Bwaaaaa haaa haaa haaa!!  gag, cough.

This is frigging hilarious!  After reading a hundred or so posts accusing MS
of raping you, killing your dogs and stealing your bibles, this is absolutely
too much!

I read this group for its entertainment value mostly; this time it was worth
it!

-- Craig


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: reisert@sttng.mlo.dec.com (Jim Reisert)
Subject: Re: IBM OS/2 Fiesta Bowl
Reply-To: reisert@sttng.mlo.dec.com (Jim Reisert)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation -- Maynard, MA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:32:42 GMT


In article <1h90c7INNkmn@chnews.intel.com>, sstrazdu@pima.intel.com (Stephen Strazdus) writes:

> According to the Arizona Republic, IBM has signed a deal to sponser the
> Fiesta Bowl for the next 4 years.  IBM will pay a total of $8,000,000,
> and the game will be called the IBM OS/2 Fiesta Bowl.

This is true - a friend of mine at IBM confirmed it.

- Jim

--
James J. Reisert                Internet:  reisert@sttng.enet.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corp.         UUCP:      ...decwrl!sttng.enet!reisert
146 Main Street	- MLO3-6/C9	Voice:     508-493-5747
Maynard, MA  01754		FAX:       508-493-0395
From: rmk@frog.CRDS.COM (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Date: 28 Dec 92 05:59:09 GMT
Organization: Charles River Data Systems

In article <1992Dec24.200625.4977@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>In article <1992Dec24.033418.28702@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec24.035348.26595@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>> >the 125 meg drive. I have 8 megs of 70ns RAM and the system runs very much
>> >like OS/2 on 4 megs with no HPFS. 
>> 
>> 
>> 	As it should.  8 megs is the NT minimum.
>> 
>> 	Plus, you *should expect crashes*.  Installing any OS,
>> 	NT or OS/2, is not the same as just plugging in an HD 
>> 	with the os installed.  It must be configured for your hardware
>> 	and your motherboard.
>
>The guy in Auckland is using the same computer I am using - same motherboard,
>same I/O adapter (brand names).....
> 
>Also, he installed it with 8 megs of RAM....then added 8 more later.
>
>> 
>> 	I should tell you some of what you get when moving 
>> 	OS/2 by backing up to tape.  
>
>Moving the hard disk to another machine with standard components should cause
>no trouble. I can understand going from IDE to SCSI would cause havoc, but in
>this case, the motherboards are the same, the video card is the same, the I/O
>adaptor is the same, the floppies are the same, the hard disk is the *very*
>same one.

Ah, you didn't intone the secret Microsoft incantations that are needed to
run NT on a system where it never ran before.

Or perhaps it found some extraneous OS/2 bits in you ram chips.

>> >I don't hink I am in any danger whatever of becoming an NT bigot based on what
>> >I have seen so far. Having gone from the OS/2 2.1 beta to the NT
>> >beta.....there is no real comparison. 
>> 
>> 	Add 8 more megs and reinstall the system from scratch, then
>> 	repost.  As it stands, you're FUDding.
>
>I am getting 4 x 4meg simms on Tuesday. As for the FUD....I am relating what
>happened when I used NT. If it weren't true.....that might be FUD. The fact
>is, the system needs 16megs of RAM and eats up 90megs of hard disk....whatever
>machine you install it on.....
>
>My main criticisms are the size and the interface. The fact that it crashed on
>an average of every 7 minutes was just adding sport to the exercise. There
>were 5 of us standing there playing with it and we had a rgeat time opening
>Windows wondering if this was the *the* one that would knock NT over......

Were you putting any money on it?  This could be a great party game.
 
>This is advocacy. I *said* I was an OS/2 bigot! My posts on NT after an hour
>or 90 minutes use are tongue in cheek anyway.


But I'm sure that satisfied OS/2 users everywhere appreciate the sacrifice
that you made. :-)

That's it!  Did you remember to sacrifice a goat or a Porsche 959 in front
of the computer before booting NT?  :-) :-)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: buhr@umanitoba.ca (Kevin Andrew Buhr)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Organization: University of Manitoba, Canada
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 21:55:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan02.025323.15888@microsoft.com>
philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
|  In article <1993Jan1.133731.2312@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>
|  z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
|  [ ... MS DOS 6.0 beta prints ]
|  >- 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?

The oh-so-subtle difference is that MS DOS 6.0 is not expected to
compete with Autocad in its current form.

Frankly, if I ever had an operating system suggest to me that "due to
the size of Autocad [or any other application] you may wish to delete
it", I would refuse to use that operating system.  The message is
rude, its intent is highly suspect, and it would clearly show that the
operating system seller was out of touch with my needs as a user.

The fact that the program in question is not an application but
instead another operating system written by a rival company makes this
message even more inappropriate.

|      Please explain what in the above warning message is the
|  slightest bit anticompetitive.  See if you can end your sentence
|  with fewer than four exclamation points.

God, Phil.  I hope you aren't serious.

Kevin <buhr@ccu.UManitoba.CA>
From: walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:10:15 GMT

helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>Ever think that Microsoft is only able to devote 27+% of its income to
>R & D because it has such a big market share and because its products are
>so competative?  

And do you know how big this market share is?  In 1991, MS received
about 25% of the total profit of all software sold.  No other company
is even close to this amount of profit per total market sales.


					Todd Walk
					walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
From: bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: os/2 bigot meets nt
Date: 26 Dec 92 00:21:06 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: Applied Information Systems, Chapel Hill, NC

In article <1992Dec25.202622.20655@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, prs9k@brain.med.virginia.edu (Phil Scarr) writes:
> In article <199225.3155.6030@dosgate> "richard anstruther" <richard.anstruther@canrem.com> writes:
>>
>>How many people have even seen an Alpha?  The Intel world is where
>>it's at.
> 
> Ahem.  Those of us who make a living supporting RISC machines (PA-RISC
> in my case) tend to disagree.  Quantity =/ Quality...  The P5 (I refuse
> to use the Pent*%$ word...) is a step in the right direction, but since
> my PA-RISC system is beyond even that step, there's not much to be said
> for even the P5...

Can't say I disagree much with that.  The Alpha is really, incredibly,
fast.  Makes even most other workstations look pretty silly -- and it
makes a 486/33 look almost like a PC/XT.

> As for the Alpha, it is a real screamer, but given the fact that it
> comes from DEC (and is rumored to have VMS in microcode (BLEAH!)) I
> don't see that it has much future.

The part about VMS in microcode is definitely untrue.  There is a PAL
code that has various OS assists (context switch/error handling sorts
of things), but that's not the OS itself;  and if you have a different
OS that could use different assists, you can load different PAL code.
It's not exactly microcode in the traditional sense though.

DEC is putting VMS, OSF/1 (Unix), and Windows NT on the Alpha -- sort
of a shotgun approach, hoping to hit all the potential markets for the
box.  It's _very_ well done technically (both the hardware and software);
I've had a chance to play around with one a bit (we've ported our VMS
and Unix products to the respective environments on the Alpha).

The comment about the machine not having a future because it comes from
DEC may, unfortunately, be true.  As I said, it is technically top-
drawer, but the DEC marketing organization is execrable.  Palmer, DEC's
new CEO, is making the right sorts of noises about changing the company's
direction, but it remains to be seen how successful he will be.

Bruce C. Wright
From: terryfry@access.digex.com (Terry Fry)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Date: 25 Dec 1992 04:21:01 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1992Dec24.033418.28702@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>the 125 meg drive. I have 8 megs of 70ns RAM and the system runs very much
>>like OS/2 on 4 megs with no HPFS. 
>
>	As it should.  8 megs is the NT minimum.

He said LIKE OS/2 on 4 megs, he's running 8.


>	Plus, you *should expect crashes*.  Installing any OS,
>	NT or OS/2, is not the same as just plugging in an HD 
>	with the os installed.  It must be configured for your hardware
>	and your motherboard.

No.  You should expect crashes because its Beta, not because OS's
are going to crash.

>>I don't hink I am in any danger whatever of becoming an NT bigot based on what
>>I have seen so far. Having gone from the OS/2 2.1 beta to the NT
>>beta.....there is no real comparison. 

>	Add 8 more megs and reinstall the system from scratch, then
>	repost.  As it stands, you're FUDding.

Its beta code, I don't think anything from it should be a permanent
part of its benchmark.

When its released and it still doesn't work.... then we can all flame
on it <g>