HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: grumpy@jpradley.jpr.com (Jeff Markel)
Subject: Re: CPU cache and OS/2
Organization: Unix in NYC
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 12:52:54 GMT

In article <92280.161547JAL142@psuvm.psu.edu> <JAL142@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>First, let me say that I like OS/2 very much and I run it on my own machine at
>home.  Now, here's the problem.  My CPU is an AMD386sx-25 and I have a 32K
>cache.  I had 4 megs, but I've since upgraded to 10.  When I upgraded, the CPU
>cache had to be disabled or OS/2 would crash at the logo screen.  With 4 megs,
>there never was a problem, but with 10, no luck.  I returned the new memory
>chips and got new ones, but still my computer crashes with the cache enabled.
>
>Is there a solution to this?  I suppose on of the SRAM cache chips could be bad
>but I don't think this is the case.  The BIOS I have is AMI '91, and the chip-
>set on the motherboard is Opti.  I really need this problem fixed, since the
>computer is slooowwww without caching.  Any way around this problem?  If not,
>does anyone know if the new version will fix it?
>

I suspect it IS one of your RAM chips.  I have an AMD386DX-40 system
with a '91 AMI BIOS and Opti chip set which has 256K of cache, and it
works just fine with OS/2 2.0.


                        Jeff Markel

Jeffrey Markel | uucp:     jpradley!argos!markel   | Argos Computer Systems Inc
KD2HN          | internet: grumpy@jpradley.jpr.com | 110 W. 32nd Street 
(212)594-5400  | amprnet:  kd2hn@kd2hn.ampr.org    | New York, NY 10001
===============================================================================
	The New World Order is ... "Shoot to kill!"
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:48:43 GMT

In <1992Oct07.184621.304@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>>Yes.  Who says that the primary purpose of a beta is testing?  Maybe for
>>some betas, but this is by no means an industry-wide standard.

>     "Beta" comes from "Beta-test".  I think that the term is used
>more or less the same way industry-wide.

Beta does come from Beta-test.  Which merely implies that a beta system
is being beta-tested---not that this is its primary purpose.

>>  I know of many betas that
>>have been released to people simply so that people could use new
>>features (this assumes that these people are willing to put up with the
>>bugs in a beta system for the sake of those new features).

>      Can you provide some examples of betas wherein the primary
>purpose of the release was putting new features in the hands of the
>users while not providing any testing?

Sure!  How about the NT SDK?  :-)
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph Malloy)
Subject: Re: best target platform: OS/2 1.x!?!
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:54:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.005854.1431@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>                             Target Environment
>Apps               DOS     Win   OS/2 1.x   OS/2 2.x   Win NT
>-------           --------------------------------------------
>DOS                Yes     Yes    1/2         Yes       1/2
>Win                 -      Yes     -          Yes       Yes
>OS/2 1.x text       -       -     Yes         Yes       Yes
>OS/2 1.x PM         -       -     Yes         Yes        -
>OS/2 2.0 PM         -       -      -          Yes        -
>Win NT              -       -      -           -        Yes

The only problem with this table is that it overlooks a very real
matter: actual software either available or in use.  In that case,
we can forget NT right off the bat (at least for the present).  OS/2 1.x
is, from what I gather, no threat to anything.  OS/2 2.0 native PM apps
are virtually non-existent.  So the wise choice today is to use either
DOS and/or Windows (which account for, what, 90% of all PC software in
use today?).

From the perspective of user's choice, thie list might be fairer yet if
it included Macintosh (yikes, I hate saying that!) or even some Unix
stuff.  

That OS/2 (and maybe NT someday) is, in theory, a very capable OS is
without doubt (when they get the bugs out: I can't even install the GRE
WIN0S2-3.1 beta at all on a machine than ran 2.0 fine, if slowly).  But
OS/2 2.0's real claim to fame right now is its intended backwards
compatibility...without DOS and Windows modes, it'd be dead in the
water.

My two cents...and a penny for your thoughts!

Joe
From: msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 02:31:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct07.101657.16483@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.084217.28802@netcom.com> msmith@netcom.com wrote:
>> In article <1992Oct5.215925.6501@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>> 
>> Regardless of the drivel below that underestimates the multi-user and 
>> file protection mechanisms of UNIX. Be it true or not, it does not actually 
>> address the question that was asked. 
>> 
>> IS NT multi-user.
>> 
>> In the traditional and widely held ( non-MS  ) view of multi-user I.E 
>> CONCURRENT MULTIPLE USERS ON A SINGLE MACHINE/CPU not Win NT 3.1 is 
>> NOT!!! multi-user.
>> 
>> 
>> Martin Smith
>> msmith@netcom.com 
>> 
>> 
>Okay, I guess I've had my head in the sand or something.  I have yet to
>see anyone use a multiuser system as you seem to think it is.  How
>does one hook 5 mice up to a computer so 5 people can use it.  How does
>one hook 5 keyboards up.
>
>THE SCREEN DEVICE OF NT ONLY ALLOWS ONE USER TO HAVE OWNERSHIP OF IT.
>
>Everything else is pretty much multiuser.  Each process has it's own
>user/security context.  I can run processes on someone elses machine
>when they're logged on.  These processes run under my security context.
>
>What is more multiuser than that?  having 5 keyboards and 5 mice
>hooked up and one screen so 5 people can type on the screen at one time?
>
>SHEESH.
>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...

I would tend to say you have had your head up a certain part of your anatomy

It is quite plain and simple what I mean A user has a terminal with or without
a mouse and with a keyboard. These are connected to the big mr server box in
the corner that the company paid money for When A user logs onto Mr server box
he gets a login session on Mr server box. 


Have you ever used UNIX oops sorry that is both CONCURRENT MULTI-USER and 
ARGHH NO !!!!! preemptive multi-tasking. 


Pete if you cannot add anything constructive to these debates GTFOOH.

Martin Smith
msmith@netcom.com
From: bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 12 Oct 92 12:37:12 GMT
Organization: Applied Information Systems, Chapel Hill, NC

In article <7552@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
> In article <1992Oct11.215350.5787@ais.com> bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright) writes:
>>The way I see it, the $69 kit is intended to make sure that the kit
>>gets into the hands of anyone who _might_ want to be a developer, the
>>better to grease the skids for the release when NT comes out.  They
>>wouldn't be doing this if they weren't afraid of something ... and
>>you and I both know that what they're afraid of is that if they don't
>>play their cards just right, OS/2 will win.  It's a very smart move,
>>and I don't fault them for it;  but I think it is rather revealing.
> 
> This is certainly part of the strategy, and I agree with your conclusion
> that it's revealing, but I simply can't buy that it's solely intended for
> developers. MS's own actions belie that. I honestly believe that MS _wants_
> as many users, especially those who determine strategy for end-user
> organizations, to get the SDK/beta and try it out, and that they will listen
> attentively to what they have to say about it - hardly appropriate for a
> developer's release.

I think the people at MS would have to be mentally deficient not to
listen to any feedback they get (from whatever source) about the CD,
and I don't think they are.

It's not unusual for releases whose _primary purpose_ is to be used
as a pre-release by developers working on applications for the final
release, to also be available to major corporate accounts for their
evaluation.  This is true in areas outside the PC, e.g., the workstation
marketplace.  (Sorry, I can't go into much more detail than that without
violating nondisclosure agreements -- please don't ask).

I don't disagree that they'd like other people to try it out, but it's
not really something that most non-developers would actually want to 
_use_ very much -- that's why I think it's more reasonable to think of
it as a developer's beta release than as a general-user beta.  (BTW I
have little patience with the hair-splitting that it isn't a beta
release of some flavor ... just because it isn't yet in a wide, general-
market `clean up the bugs and get it out the door' beta program doesn't
mean that it isn't essentially a beta release.  I know MS and many other
companies normally have a more formal and structured beta test program
than this, but it's also not uncommon for releases like this to be made
outside the formal beta test program and in my experience they are almost
always called a `beta' release.  As Lincoln is supposed to have said,
just because you call a tail a leg doesn't mean that a dog has five legs.
MS's definition of the term appears to be unique to them).

Bruce C. Wright
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 22:05:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.210502.778@mdd.comm.mot.com> wu@mdd.comm.mot.com (Philip Wu) writes:
>In <1992Oct9.171907.3735@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>
>>DOS and WIN16 is not too good in the pre-beta SDK, but do you think,
>>that MS will ship the release version with poorer support for DOS &
>>WIN16 than OS/2 2.0 currently has?
>
>Maybe not Windows, but they already stated that DOS support won't be
>as good as under OS/2.  No big loss really.
>
>Phil

I can't believe you said that, Phil.  I thought MS learned its compatibility
lesson along with IBM...i.e. OS/2 1.x.  Well, it doesn't really matter whaat
we think the importance of DOS support is.  The market will tell us whether
it is or isn't important, sometime next year.

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: mkahn@hopi.sedona.intel.com (Mitch Kahn)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Organization: i960(r) New Product Development, Chandler AZ
	<1992Oct1.134356.15998@husc3.harvard.edu>
	<DOCONNOR.92Oct2081116@potato.sedona.intel.com>
	<1992Oct2.164315.20335@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:43:26 GMT

pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:

 Xref: inews.Intel.COM comp.os.os2.advocacy:6410 comp.sys.intel:836 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:10309
]
] In article <DOCONNOR.92Oct2081116@potato.sedona.intel.com> doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor) writes:
] >IBM is selling it's own 80386-compatable and Intel486(R)-compatable chips
] >to some Asian manufacturers.
]
] Does Intel feel they are on the receiving end of an agreement being
] transacted in bad faith?
]

Unfortuantely, there's a lot of theft in our neighborhood...

--
|  Mitch Kahn              | "I hope you know that this will go down on |
|  mkahn@sedona.intel.com  |  your permanent record..."                 |
*************************MY OWN OPINIONS*********************************
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:48:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.214013.29621@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>     Ooh!  More unfounded allegations!  Quite a talent you have there!

What was that about glass houses in your last post, Phil?

Ted
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 12 Oct 92 09:46:54 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.

In article <1992Oct9.042656.4288@netcom.com>, xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
|> Actually, I'll be willing to believe that NT is multi-user as soon as
|> someone manufactures an NT-terminal (sorta like an X-terminal, but
|> it speaks NT-style GUI, rather than X-style GUI).

Eh? Think about the relationship between a network window system and a
multi-user operating system. Either can be implemented without the other, so
the provision of one says nothing about the other.

I don't quite understand why people are using X as a stick to beat the
multi-user capabilities of NT with. X is essentially single-user and can only
be used by multiple users in an inherently insecure fashion.
From: lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison)
Subject: Re:  32-bit OS/2 Apps List
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:14:56 GMT


>In article <1992Oct12.043118.12809@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct12.034402.14805@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>>
>>>I think in the end you will have to agree with me that ISV support
>>>for OS/2 is weak. 
>>>
	>
>>of their apps are more than adequate for the moment?  With os/2's success,
>>apps developers will follow, and os/2's success is becoming more and
>>more apprent.  
>>
>>Min
>Furthermore,
> If as I suspect, the vast majority of "SALES" of OS/2 are currently going
> to IBM big corporate customers - WHO WERE THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND CUA -
> then they will not particularly care if the only developers were the
> ones mentioned above. 

> Corporations need Spreadsheets, Word Processors, Group Ware (LOTUS NOTES).
> These needs are being fulfilled.
> Also Connectivity to IBM mainframes is required, and guess who does
> that best - OS/2 Extended Services (3270, VT100, APPN) or
> Network Services/2 (APPN) both from IBM.

> --


Hmm, As a Member of a PC-Users Group with a membership of over a hundered, I
know of 40 members who PURCHASED OS/2, and 37 who have installed and are 
using it.  None of these work for Big Companies, their main needs are for
Word Processors, Spreadsheets, Databases, and Games.  All work on OS/2.

Now, as far as Windoz, 80 of us OWN Windows 3.1 and Windows Applications,
but as of last head count only 20 of those owners have windows 3.1 on their
machines, and only five of those use windoz for anything other than games.

At the company I work for, we are a mixed DOS/Windows/Unix Environment.  The
only 3 copies of OS/2 are being used as DOOR Stops, because we are not doing
any development for OS/2 by corporate decision.

The arguments are rather weak (due to the lack of a statistically valid
sample), but the indication is that Users, not corporations are the major
purchaser of OS/2.

--Lowell Morrison
--Don't Ask Me, I just work here..
__
 

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: 32-bit OS/2 Apps List
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:14:52 GMT

In <1992Oct13.011342.22239@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn) writes:

>In article <XT3JsB3w165w@gnct.com> garyng@gnct.com (garyng) writes:
>>soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn) writes:
>>
>>> Brian, you seem to indulge yourself too much in this point, but don't
>>> you think it is too early to predict?  OS/2 2.0 is out for six or seven
>>> months now.  Compared to Windows 3.x, it is a way too short a time...
>>
>>If you are comparing Windows 3.x apps against OS/2 2.0 apps. I believe one
>>have to count out all the OS2 1.x apps. to make it fair.
>>
>>-gary
>>

>In that case, shouldn't you count Windows 2.x and even 1.x apps, too?

Only if Windows 3.1 will run them.  Good luck; there are some Windows
3.0 appications that broke under Windows 3.1.

-- 
"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.
From: rwb00@loon.as (Robert W Beveridge)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:21:43 GMT
Reply-To: rwb00@loon.as
Organization: Sun Microsystems


In article 15202@cu23.crl.aecl.ca, gutz@cc49.crl.aecl.ca () writes:
>
>>     You can't seriously believe that Microsoft's success is due to
>>luck.
>
>Yup!  Gates bought DOS and happened to catch IBM on a good day and made
>a deal to sell it to them - and the rest is history.  It took years
>and a few versions of Windows before people finally accepted it. Windows
>success wasn't due to what MS did, rather it was due to companies like
>Corel, Borland at the like, making apps for it.  MS can thank pure
>luck that these guys didn't develop for GEM.
>
Lets see...MS got successful by writing innovative applications like Excel and
Word (for both DOS & MAC), kept improving Windows, sticking with it even though
is was not at all successful early on, developed what became the "standard" C
compilers for DOS, popularized the mouse (by selling a mouse, and making apps that
used one), encouraged and helped developers to write graphical applications when
few existed for the PC....and you think this is "luck" ?

Taking advantage of opportunities is not the same thing as luck.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 07 Oct 92 19:59:00 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Oct6.143724.25749@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu wrote:
> In article <1992Sep30.201520.16617@microsoft.com>, gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon
>  Letwin) writes:

> 
> >3) The people who originally designed every key feature of OS/2 2.0 (except
> >       for the WPS, thank god) are all still here and are working on
> >       superior successor products.  You'll see them over the next year
> >       or so.  IBM likes to take credit for our work on OS/2 (I've an
> >       IBM promotional video tape in which some IBM suit takes credit
> >       for designing HPFS, something that I did single-handedly.)
> >       It will be interesting to see the schedule and content of future
> >       OS/2 releases; the first which really *are* written by IBM.
> >       I'll be the first to give them credit for *those* find products.
> >       Their track record for both design and implimentation is terrible,
> >       so don't make any bets....
> 
> You haven't taken a real close look at OS/2 have you?
Saying that about gordonl, ha ha, that's funny.



  First, the WPS is a
> much more powerfu shell than that sorry excuse for a shell MS has stapled on
> Windows.  Second, the 1.x versions that BOTH companies worked on, had such
> wonderful features as their awe inspiring DOS support, the inability to run on
> even a significant percentage of the day's systems, etc.. etc.. etc..
> MicroSoft screwed this one up every bit as badly as IBM.  The difference is
> that MicroSoft (this means you Gordon) don't want to own up to it.  Instead
> you are distancing yourselves as far away from it as possible.  OS/2 2.0 was
> written by IBM.  With the exception of the features they kept from 1.x it is a
> fairly thorough re-write.  You of all people should know this.

Please kindly read the post you were responding to.  Not the use of the
word "design".  In most dictionaries I've seen, the words "design" and
"write or code" do not have the same meaning.

Also, note that GordonL, in addition to being his own individual, is
a subset of MS, therefore MicroSoft does not mean GordonL.



PeteSk@microsoft.com
Just Picking Nits....
From: 4389750@mcimail.com  (Robert Gammon)
Subject: Re: Why would you want a CD (was Price of Win NT vs OS/2)?
Nntp-Software: PC/TCP NNTP
Organization: Texas Instruments Materials and Controls Group
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:50:34 GMT

In article <s8_p0gr.timbol@netcom.com> timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:

 >> In article <1992Sep28.185032.3845@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
 >> >In <1992Sep25.005328.17332@microsoft.com> tomjo@microsoft.com (Tom Johnston) writes:
 >> >
 >> >>One reason that we would like to see many people with CD's
 >> >>is that it becomes economical for us to distribute technical
 >> >>information widely & cheaply on CD.
 >> >
 >> >Yes, there are a lot of reasons why VENDORS might like to see their
 >> >customers having CD's.  Of course, having all that technical
 >> >documentation on CD is somewhat less useful than having it on paper,
 >> >IMHO.  Anyway, the question isn't why YOU would want us to; the
 >> >question is why would WE want to?
 >> >
 >> >Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
 >> 
 >> Well, if it is economical for vendors to distribute technical information on
 >> a CD, they may do it.  If it isn't economical for them to distribute the
 >> information on paper, then they won't do it.  Supposing the vendor does
 >> distribute the information only on CD, that's a good reason to have a
 >> CD-ROM (assuming you want the information, of course).
 >> 
 >> - Mike
In my little segment of the semiconductor business, we are considering
distribution of documentation on CD-ROMs, but not very seriously.  The 
cost savings are significant, we ship >$20 (our cost) of books with some
products (development tools) that would easily fit on a $2 CD-ROM.  The 
issue is when do sufficient numbers of our customers have CD-ROMs?  Right 
now, not enough.  BTW, we are NOT involved in PC related products.

P.S.  I know that this is a late reply (this discussion occured about two
weeks ago).  Scanning forward a few hundred messages showed that noone else
had responded to this tiny thread.

--
Regards,
Robert Gammon
(713)-274-3299       (voice)
(713)-274-2324       (fax)

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu (Spiro the Spiny Goldfish)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:52:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: psuvm.92281.125206MXD118
 <1992Oct7.112213.10978@wsl.ie>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Oct7.112213.10978@wsl.ie>, jja@wsl.ie (John J. Allen) says:
>
>brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>: But I think you miss the whole point of the chronology that I dug out.
>: MS "abandoned" OS/2 BEFORE 2.0, and in fact largely because of IBM's
>: resistance to 2.0.  Microsoft wanted to make the system right, but
>: IBM kept clinging to its illusion that it was still in control of
>: the computing market.  The decision on Microsoft's part to split

This is absolutely incorrect. I was working at IBM when Microsoft and IBM
were about to split (summer of '90). OS/2 1.3 was about to come out, but
OS/2 2.0 had been in development at that time for AT LEAST A YEAR. In fact,
I was using an early version of 2.0 at the time. (Our department was writing
code for OS/2 1.3 *and* 2.0 at the time).

Microsoft split with IBM because they didn't want IBM to release OS/2 1.3,
which was a vastly superior product to 1.2, and could have competed with
Windows. (Turns out it didn't - both Microsoft and IBM underestimated how
important good DOS support was, I guess).
----
Mike Dahmus       MXD118@PSUVM  or  dahmus@cs.psu.edu
TEAM OS/2