HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:32:10 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct5.123847.11562@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>Well at least in the case of IBM TCP/IP -- this doesn't hold... for
>example sockets are not dup-able.  NFS drive folders don't work
>(even though they show up).

Sounds like some real problems with the TCP/IP pakage.  This says
nothing about the internal design of OS/2 making this happen.  A
built-in package can have these same bugs as well.

>Ah... where's you sources... what makes you say OS/2 seems to be
>catching on very well in the home market?

When PC-Mag reported very large sales from stores.  Most corporate
customers order direct, and those sales are not reported in the PC-Mag
figures.  It'd seem really silly for an MIS manager to walk into a
local Egghead store and buy 100 copies from there when he could get
the same price by calling an 800 number.

>Sure you will... you have OS/2 2.0... there will be great offers for such
>users.  You can join the great OS/2 2.0 -> NT migration that will occur
>when NT ships.  1/2 :-)

We'll see...   (big, toothy grin :-)
-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
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: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:17:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.164605.20449@cci632.cci.com> rom@cci632.cci.com (Rudynell S. Millian) writes:
>>>
>>>     OS/2 is indeed selling - but neither of us has any clue how well.
>>>We have some numbers from IBM, and we have some conflicting numbers
>>>from Microsoft.  Who's to say which is closer to the truth?
>>>
>>
>>Agreed.
>
>	Don't be so gullible! Believe it or not, MS gets paid for 
>every copy of OS/2 2.0 that is distributed. (IBM has to pay MS for
>the right to support Win3.0) Now, given this fact, do you really 
>believe MS and IBM can't agree on the actual number of copies of OS/2 
>distributed? If Microsoft's accounting dept. doesn't know EXACTLY
>how many copies of OS/2 2.0 are out there, then MS is indeed lucky
>to be in business (and making a profit).

This would be true if royalty payments from IBM didn't lag behind the
market by several months.

Ted
From: karlth@rhi.hi.is (Karl Thoroddsen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Brian is an idiot (was Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.
Date: 8 Oct 92 09:09:20 GMT

In <1992Oct7.223102.14959@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:

>In article <1auot8INNb27@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
>>
>>In a previous article, brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) says:

>>>>Don't be an idiot.  Just because you think that microsoft was justified
>>>How nice!    ^^^^^


>>Therefore, with respect to this thread Brian, you are an idiot.

>Ack!  After seeing a stream of childish letters, I have had it up to here
>with name-calling, nyah-nyah BS.  A few ribs thrown in an argument about
>NT and OS/2 is to be expected, but when it degenerates into arguments for
>the sole purpose of supporting name-calling, it's getting a little
>ridiculous.  How about some witty, on-topic argumentation?

>What does everyone say?

Agreed.  No lynching or mud-slinging allowed.

-- 

\ Internet: karlth@rhi.hi.is             \ Karl Thoroddsen University Of Iceland
 \ Respect...            , Peter Ustinov  \ Department Of Computer Science
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 04:26:56 GMT

In <1992Oct08.223833.7379@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

>In article <1992Oct8.002246.16241@grebyn.com> richk@grebyn.com wrote:
>> In article <1992Oct07.101657.16483@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>> 
>> >THE SCREEN DEVICE OF NT ONLY ALLOWS ONE USER TO HAVE OWNERSHIP OF IT.
>> 
>> Geez, we know this.  That's why we've been saying that for practical
>> purposes, NT is single-user.

>Most Unix boxes I've seen are the same unless they are running X.  You
>have only one console screen.  Are these boxes single user??

>petesk@microsoft.com

Hmm, you work at Microsoft.  Surely there must be a copy of Xenix
floating around there somewhere--after all, MS originally wrote it.  Go
to the Xenix system, sit down at the console, turn it on, log in.  Now,
press Alt-2.  Behold, a new login prompt for another session.  Press
Alt-1.  There's your original session.  Alt-3 and Alt-4 will also give
you separate sessions on the same screen.  You can have four different
users logged in simultaneously at the console.

Nice try, though, Pete.  :-)

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).

ObFlameBait:  GUI's--proof that if you make a system that even a fool
can use, only a fool will want to use it.  :-)
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Reply-To: soh3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:04:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct08.223833.7379@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>> >THE SCREEN DEVICE OF NT ONLY ALLOWS ONE USER TO HAVE OWNERSHIP OF IT.
>> 
>> Geez, we know this.  That's why we've been saying that for practical
>> purposes, NT is single-user.
>
>Most Unix boxes I've seen are the same unless they are running X.  You
>have only one console screen.  Are these boxes single user??
>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...

No, but then unix allows multiple rlogins as one pointed out and also
you can attach as many terminals as there are serial ports to the
box and put more people on the same machine.  The question is, will
NT allow these two features **without third part add-ons***?  Please
don't make the matter look complicated.

Min

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:17:32 GMT

In <1992Oct01.185753.6638@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>In article <1992Sep30.150509.25843@cu23.crl.aecl.ca> gutz@cc49.aecl.crl.ca writes:

>>In article <1992Sep29.175707.4137@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>>>>If you, and/or MS think I'm going to use a Windows app under OS/2 when
>>>>there is a native OS/2 app, you will surely miss the boat.
>>>
>>>     There isn't a native OS/2 app.  That's the point.
>>
>>There sure is, but it's not written by MS.  Describe 3.0 (and soon
>>4.0) are excellent products.  AMI-pro is also due shortly.

>     OK - we were using different definitions.  I thought you were
>referring to a specific app, while you were apparently talking
>about a set of applications.

Well, that's sort of been the point all along, Phil.  Most of us don't
feel constrained to only consider MS applications.  If MS elects to
not write applications for OS/2, we simply will stop buying MS
applications (this is why I didn't upgrade my Excel 3.0 -- because of
plans to switch to all-OS/2).  When Ami Pro for OS/2 ships its newest
version, I will probably replace my current installation of Word 2.0.

>>
>>Do you honestly think OS/2 is going to fail?  Are you so sure of NT's
>>success?

>      I think OS/2 may fail.  I think Windows NT may succeed.  At
>this time I'm not willing to make a more definite statement.

And I think that is probably the most reasonable statement I've seen
from anyone around here lately.

-- 
"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
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph Malloy)
Subject: Re: INTERESTING TIDBIT FROM S
Summary: Zachmann?  Who cares? 
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 12:22:44 GMT

In article <7474@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>
> The kinds of pressure he's gotten do not lend themselves to being
> proven...how, for example, is he supposed to prove that he got a phone call
> from MS saying that they'd heard he was going to moderate his tone towards
> Windows right after he got back from a meeting with his editors where they
> told him to moderate his tone towards Windows? (The sentence from hell.) I
> have no reason to believe he _didn't_ get that phone call, simply because he
> has nothing to gain by making up the story.

Your trust in Zachmann is, alas, sad.  Would you have as much faith in
him if he were a Windows booster?  No, I didn't think so.  His bread is
buttered by being a consultant predicting the future; insofar as he can
help *make* his own predictions come true, he feathers his own nest.
He's such an obvious OS/2 booster that even some of us who like OS/2 (at
least conceptually; the reality is far from wonderful) found Zachmann's
bias embarassing and laughable.  This is the guy who declared that the
Windows 3.1 release was a disaster!  I'm frankly glad he's lost his
soapbox.

I'm still using Windows (quite reliable, and I'm quite happy with it)
but I sure think OS/2 2.0 deserves a better spokesperson than Willy Z.

My two cents...

jmalloy@hamilton.edu
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7623 comp.sys.intel:1932 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:26890
From: peter@global.hacktic.nl (Peter Busser)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 13:29:42 GMT
Organization: Global Village 1

westes@sti.com (Will Estes) writes:

>All of these things translate into either immediate performance
>benefits, or potential benefits, for a user running multiple DOS and
>Windows applications.

Of course! That's why these techniques have been used for years.

>While it's not earth-shattering technology, it is
>also not hype because it does have a real effect on overall system
>performance.

Sure it has a real effect on overall system performance but for me it is also
hype. "FastDisk" etc. are just new words for old technology. People pay money
for something they should (and could) have had for a few years now.

It's like one car manufacturer who sells cars without seats. Of course such
driving such a car is a pain in the ass, but people nevertheless buy the car
because everyone does that and there are a lot of accessories availlable. Then
the manufacturer 'invents' the seat and sells it as "FastDrive" because it
allows people to drive faster because they don't hurt their asses anymore. And
people pay big bucks to get those seats because it is so nice to have them.

The same thing happens now with this "FastDisk" or whatever. It's something to
be ashamed of that it took a softwarehouse with the inovative reputation of MS
so long to get such a simple product on the market. And when they finally gets
to the market, instead of people getting angry that it took them so long,
people are glad "because it does have a real effect on overall system
performance".

Greetings,
Peter Busser
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Organization: Techn. Univ. Clausthal
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:40:36 GMT

In  <1992Oct7.001053.29352@netcom.com>  xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
> Personally, I'm waiting breathlessly for LANtastic for OS/2.  I suspect
> that this will be out *long* before LANtastic for NT (hmm, will there
> *ever* be such a product?  I seriously doubt it.)

You can stop doubting it. NT has far superior Networking-Software built
in. You can compare LAN-MANAGER Networking to Novell, but what do you need
LANtatstic for, if you have LM Networking built into NT.

Christoph
--
Internet: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de
Bitnet  : HAMPE2 AT DMRHRZ11
Fido    : 2:243/660
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph Malloy)
Subject: Re: 32-bit OS/2 Apps List
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:45:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.153659.858@debet.nhh.no> si0_tb90020@debet.nhh.no 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?
>> 
>> Min
>Well, you could have - if windows 3.x supported them, which it does
>not do.
>
>BTW OS/2 does... 
>
Okay, will all those who are forced to use Windows 1.x and 2.x apps
whether because of poverty (can't afford to upgrade) or because there's
no alternative and for whom the app won't run under 3.x please raise
your hands?

I don't see any hands, folks...

Joe

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: OS/2 because! (was NT: Why?)
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:49:15 GMT

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.215820.49288@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:

>>  You seem to have misread what he said though.  Cairo
>>is quite irrelevant except for FUD purposes.  It might be quite good, but it
>>will not be released for a good bit of time even in beta form and thus really
>>shouldn't be a serious conversation point.

>     Here we go again with the vaporware debate.  If the OS/2 Win3.1 beta
>is a valid discussion topic, so then is Cairo - neither is released yet,
>but both have some bearing on the future of the product.
>     Which will it be?  Does it have to be shrink-wrapped to be valid?

There are released products and unreleased products.  Within the latter,
there are betas, pre-betas, and gleams in the programmers' eyes.  The
distinction between them being the expected time until release.  If Cairo
is going to come out anytime close to when Win-OS/2 3.1 will be out, then
we can compare it.  Otherwise, you're telling people to wait because
something better is going to be in half a year, or a year, or a few years,
which is generally regarded as FUD.
-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu | think of something very clever 
uunet!jarthur!jokim         | to use as a disclaimer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Subject: Re: OS/2 VS NT! The Future War Looms...
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 10:03:09 GMT

discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>Contrast this with Windows 3.1.  I can install Windows in one of several
>ways under Netware Lite:

>	(a) full install (e.g. all Windows files are copied to the local
>	harddisk)

>	(b) Partial.  (e.g., user settings and other user-dependent files
>	are copied to the local hard disk--all other Windows files/applets
>	are on the network drive)

>	(c) Diskless.  (All Windows files are on the network drive.  User
>	cannot define his own settings).

>Option (b) is what I use most of the time... this way, I can install
>Windows and only take up 2 megs of the local hard disk drive.  This is
>something that OS/2 CANNOT do under Netware Lite (or Lantastic for that
>matter)--because the Network will only be available to DOS windows that
>"load" the DOS-based Network software--and only to that particular DOS
>window.

This may all be true (and I'm sure it is) but there's just a little
catch that makes it all irrelevant. Windows is whatever way you
look at it not an operating system (like OS/2 is) but an advanced
shell. Now I know people are going to argue again that windows
performs the duties of an OS or at least most of them, and that's were
it all starts. Windows may offer many of the services that are required
of an OS but guess which one it doesn't, right, file management.
This is left to DOS and that's why stuff like discussed above
will function with windows, because it gets its file management
from DOS which has already taken care of anything necesarry to make
network drives look like regular drives.
OS/2 on the other hand is an operating system in its own that merely
provides dos emulation, so you can hardly expect it to function
with DOS specific software without proper adjustment. And where
I say OS/2 just put any other operating system. Surely noone
expects Unix to operate with Netware Lite or Lantastic even though
it might provide DOS emulation. Why not I ask you.


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: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: 32-bit OS/2 Apps List
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:44:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.034402.14805@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Oct11.210249.58112@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>>As requested by Brian, this is a list of 32bit applications for OS/2.  This
>>list is a little old and is far from complete.  If you see any additions that
>>need to be made, please do so.  As is shown below I did not compile this list
>>but I have posted it in it full unaltered form. Any typos or mistakes are not
>>mine.
>>
>
>Well thanks for posting that list, but if that is the basis for your
>claims of good ISV support for OS/2, then I beg to differ.
>Of the 494 OS/2 2.0 apps you listed the vast bulk are not mainstream
>applications.
>Note the large number of Vertical apps... this is not surprising... OS/2
>1.X's main saving grace was the vertical apps.
>Likewise traditionally OS/2 has been used for internal app development
>at corporate sites, so the number of developers products is not surprising.
>
>Here's a break down:
>Clearly vertical  				165
>Professional developers products 		 92
>Non-mainstream LAN/Communications products	 46
>Non-mainstream database products		 24
>Device drivers					 24
>
>Below are the 143 remaining apps.  Many of these could have
>been listed above, but either their description was to brief, or I felt
>it was possible that they could be interpreted as mainstream.
>When reading through the list below, compare it to a listing in
>MicroWarehouse.  Even if all the once below were actually
>going to be delivered (and as many have no estimated delivery
>date, this seems uncertain), ask yourself if this is indicative
>of a good or reasonalbe level of ISV support.  Note how many
>2Q92 and 3Q92 apps have not been delivered.
>
>While the list you posted is undoubtly incomplete, I can't find any missing
>ones I know of.  Even if your list represents only half the mainstream
>apps available, is 300 apps of the nature listed below a "good"
>level of support?  If you consider that as few as 100 might actually
>be really coming out, then things are truely scary.
>
>I think in the end you will have to agree with me that ISV support
>for OS/2 is weak. 
>
Actually, I disagree,  Counting only the general apps you listed (which
I didn't requote), I see quite a variety of software.  All the real big
vendors (eg. Borland, Lotus, &c) are represented, excepting MS, of
course.  While there are not as many as for DOS or Win 3.x, I think it's
a very good start, because it will allow people to actually use OS/2 in
"native mode", if you will, which will help build support for the OS.
As the OS user base expands, more developers will jump in.  I think that
list is a very good start.  
-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 12:00:26 EDT
From: Spiro the Spiny Goldfish <MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.
 <1992Oct6.235111.27463@netcom.com> <1992Oct7.012337.28592@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
 <1992Oct8.205928.20293@njitgw.njit.edu>
 <1992Oct9.013136.16962@muddcs.claremont.edu>
 <1992Oct9.015950.14719@fcom.cc.utah.edu>

In article <1992Oct9.015950.14719@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu
(Brian Sturgill) says:
>
>>Cannavino:  OS/2 1.2 will continue to have a role as an entry level
>>OS/2 system.  Users needing a more powerful operating environment
>>should use OS/2 2.0.
>>
>>...
>
>Then explain why there was an OS/2 1.3?  OS/2 1.3 is where the point

Because OS/2 1.2 was far too bloated to be an entry-level operating system.
1.3 cut the system requirements in HALF from 1.2. If people complain NOW about
needing 6 MB of memory to run OS/2 well, imagine how they complained back when
OS/2 1.2 was released!

And if Microsoft was truly behind OS/2 at ANY TIME, they would certainly have
supported OS/2 1.3, which is a GREAT operating system, limited by poor DOS
support. (It's stable as a ROCK, though.)

Once again, Brian, please stick to things you know something about, like NT.
----
Mike Dahmus       MXD118@PSUVM  or  dahmus@cs.psu.edu
TEAM OS/2