HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ckincy@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: Windows NT Shareware Contest for COMDEX 92
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 03:33:16 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla
Keywords: Contest Windows NT Shareware prizes

In article <it1.714953912@Isis.MsState.Edu> it1@ra.msstate.edu (Tim Tsai) writes:
>  Gee, wasn't this one of the ideas proposed by Bert for OS/2 a few
>months ago?  Of course since IBM isn't making the development tools
>available to general users cheaply (no, I don't think $295 is cheap),
>this may not be such a hot idea for OS/2 afterall..

Excuse me, but I doubt that you'll be able to get GA-level NT toolkits
for < $300 *ever*.  $295 is an *excellent* price for development tools.
However, when it all goes back up to $795, it won't be that excellent.

A good price for development tools is $499, and $99 for students.
(Of course, I am biased).  But getting students to develop apps in their
free time does wonders for the industry.

MSC costs what?  $700?  Upgrade price is $149?  But remember, to be
elegible for an upgrade, you must have already spent several hundred
dollars on a previous version of MSC.

Calling $295 for a nonupgrade unreasonable is unreasonable.  =)

cpk

cpk
From: thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: NT beta schedule slips!
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:44:50 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

Heard this on the Windows group...

The NT beta schedule has slipped to October (gasp!).  I have a feeling
that I'll be posting information like this again.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Charles A. Thompson               |  thompson@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu         |
|  University of Kansas              |  thompson@ukanvax.cc.ukans.edu        |
|  _Avid_ SkiBum                     |  OS/2 2.0 is for YOU!!!               |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Look for Recipe Pro(tm), an interactive recipe database, coming soon...   |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: cmclark@dri.com (Chip Clark)
Subject: Re: It's OK for Windows to crash. It's not OK for OS/2 to crash.
Reply-To: cmclark@drivax.mry.novell.com
Organization: Desktop Systems Group/Novell, Monterey CA/USA
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 19:31:56 GMT

dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith) writes:

]Come on, you're telling me that OS/2 is doing network-y, server-y,
]multitaskery, zapping mission-critical electronic bucks over 
]enterprise-wide LANs, and someone crashes the OS and twenty thousand
]shares of stock get lost in the bit bucket ... and someone is going
]to pipe up and say "It's his fault! He should have known the third
]party application he was using was written in Digitalk Smalltalk!"

The problem is not that people are not trying to write the right OS,
but that too few people are involved in the writing because of major
market place competition.  There is no more open computeing market.

Fortunately, Novell has tried to spawn a group on engineers dedicated
to writing an OS that works the way on OS should, gathered closer ties
to Unix (a Real OS) and devoted much of it's time to working on the 
enhancement of networking computers that DON'T	crash the entire system
due to OE or OS error.

There is hope for the future and it is in Novell - 

If this sounds like an advertisement - it is just because I am proud to be
part of the team.


_____________________________________________________________________
                   |                                                |
Chip		   |	"I can not tell what you or other men	    |
cmclark@novell.com |	think of this life; but for my single self, | 
		   |	I had as leif not be as live to be          |
Technical Support  |	in awe of such a thing as I myself."        |
Desktop Systems    |		- Cassius  Julius Caesar  I ii      |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For More DR DOS support contact drdos@novell.com - 
   Please include your serial number
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: undocumented calls
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Distribution: comp
Date:  4 Sep 1992 15:30 EST  

In article <19923.1480.26368@dosgate>, "richard anstruther" 
<richard.anstruther@canrem.com> writes...
>-> RA>BTW, did you notice the latest expose of MS's use of undocumented
>-> RA>system calls in Windows to give their apps the inside track over
>-> RA>the competition?  It 's in the latest PC week.
>->
>-> Where?  I have both the August 17 and August 24 issues in front of me
>-> (the latter arrived yesterday) with nothing on that.  Also, if that
>-> were true then the FTC would definitely be doing **something** with
>-> the information
> 
>It's in the August 31 issue.
> 
>One would hope that the normally docile FTC _will_ decide to do
>something (for a change).
> 
>In the article, MS seems to be back tracking a bit.  While at first
>they denied the behaviour, now they seem to be admitting it, while
>maintaining that the undocumented calls weren't all that important
>anyway.  It would be breathtakingly arrogant if it weren't
>so sleazy.

Hmm... Could this partially explain the UAE/GFP problems with non-Microsoft 
applications?
From: thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: superVGA  (and misc top-blowing)
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:42:59 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <1992Aug26.140404.14501@hellgate.utah.edu>, brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
> In article <1992Aug26.194222.549@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith) writes:
>>brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>>>Look at how snappy
>>>the 32-bit stuff is... it's already faster than OS/2.
>>
>>Could you clarify this?  What 32-bit stuff are you running that is
>>faster than the equivalent 32-bit programs under OS/2?  Surely you
>>aren't comparing 32-bit NT stuff to 16-bit OS/2 stuff, are you?
> I'm comparing running a native NT 32-bit API program with a native
> OS/2 2.0 32-bit API -- which is implemented in a 16-bit/32-bit "hybrid".
> That's unfortunately the best OS/2 can do.  This is fair as IBM claims
> OS/2 is released.... surely they wouldn't be afraid of a comparison
> with someone else's pre-beta?

You haven't answered the question.  What 32-bt NT app(s)?  Are these
subjective measurements (I would say so from your use of the word 
'snappy') or objective?  Did you tweak OS/2 2.0 at all?  Are the NT
pre-release and OS/2 2.0 running on comparable systems?

We should probably wait till NT is released before running benchmarks,
though. 

> 
>>
>>Steve Smith
> 
> Brian
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Charles A. Thompson               |  thompson@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu         |
|  University of Kansas              |  thompson@ukanvax.cc.ukans.edu        |
|  _Avid_ SkiBum                     |  OS/2 2.0 is for YOU!!!               |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Look for Recipe Pro(tm), an interactive recipe database, coming soon...   |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pfr@drsrv1.hmi.de (Fritsch_Wolfgang)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 w/o WPS
Date: 25 Aug 92 08:50:24 GMT
Organization: Hahn-Meitner-Institut Berlin GmbH

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>1.  Create a PROFILE.ERX in your PATH or EPMPATH that contains the following:

>/* EPM profile */
>'buildsubmenu default 1990 Shell 0 0'
>'buildmenuitem default 1990 1991 OS/2_Window      0 0 cmd /c start /win'
>'buildmenuitem default 1990 1992 OS/2_Full_Screen 0 0 cmd /c start /fs'
>'buildmenuitem default 1990 1993 -                4 0'
>'buildmenuitem default 1990 1994 DOS_Window       0 0 cmd /c start /win /dos'
>'buildmenuitem default 1990 1995 DOS_Full_Screen  0 0 cmd /c start /fs /dos'
>'buildmenuitem default 1990 1996 -                4 0'
>'buildmenuitem default 1990 1997 Win-OS/2         0 0 cmd /c start /fs /dos' ,
>                                                                  '/c WINOS2'
>'showmenu default'

>2.  Turn on the Rexx profile in EPM by entering PROFILE ON on the EPM
>command line, then selecting Options / Save Options.


>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
 
I am all enchanted by this feature of EPM and would like to add a few more
"shell" lines to choose from. Being not a programmer I would like to do it
the short way. Could please someone tell me which line I have to add to the
above set in order to start, say, the OS/2 program e:\emtex\latex.cmd in a
window, where the current file (the one EPM is editing) is input (for latex.
cmd)?

I guess if I can get just one such example I can construct easily enerything
else that I may need.

Thanks a lot.

Wolfgang Fritsch
pfr@psun2.hmi.de
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Misinformation about os2-dos HW access (was Re: I've seen NT......
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:41:44 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <92239.085108ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Andrew T. Robinson) writes:
>Is it difficult or impossible under 80x86 architectures to create
>"real" virtual machines which simulate the environment of the host
>processor?

Not really.  The Intel IPx86 architecture doesn't allow a chip to
completely virtualize itself.  Read on...

>For example, each user of an IBM VM/SP (VM/ESA now, sorry :-) system has
>a simulated IBM 370 system at his disposal, complete with virtual devices
>such as printers, disks, console, etc.  You *can* dedicate real devices
>to a virtual machine, but in general not in a way that will compromise
>the whole system.  It is practically impossible for a VM user to
>compromise the system, even though he has access to hardware.
>
>It was always my impression that OS/2 does this for DOS boxes.  I.e.,
>each DOS box is a *virtual* 8086 machine, and the so-called direct
>hardware accesses are in general filtered by OS/2 (i.e., intercepted,
>checked for possible integrity violations, and simulated if necessary).
>Indeed, the IBM documenation implies this in several places.  If OS/2
>doesn't do this, I'm very dissapointed.
>
>Ultimately, however, I'm dissapointed that they are not presenting 80386
>virtual machines instead of 8086 virtual machines.  Why is that?

It's in the nature of the 80386 chip.  The v86 mode produces a virtual
8088 machine.  This can be done because real-mode is relatively
limited (max 1MB address space, and a small number of ports to deal
with).

The 386's architecture doesn't make it possible to virtualize
protected-mode (kernel level) op-codes or page tables.  When a program
in user mode tries to access one of these things, a trap is issued,
just like in the 370 architectures.  I don't think that the Intel chip
provides services for the trap handler (like OS/2) to know what action
caused the trap.  There are just broad categories of traps, like
illegal instruction, and invalid memory access.  Obviously, the OS
needs to know this information so it can simulate the operation for
the program that thinks it's running in kernel mode.

I think only the s/370 architecture can do this.  Note that the s/370
processor is an entire board or set of boards) of separate components
to perform all the functions that it does.  I really doubt all that
power could be compressed into one microchip.


-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Advocacy
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 23:38:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In <1992Aug29.021355.24862@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>Here are some possible additions:

>   Proposal:  Logons and a limited file ownership mechanism.

Logons are a fairly trivial addition to the system.  Easy to install
with a "CALL=C:\BIN\LOGIN" statement in CONFIG.SYS.  File ownership,
OTOH, would probably require a modification to the file system (i.e., it
probably couldn't be implemented in FAT at all).  Fortunately, there are
workarounds.  The logon procedure could rename directories, maybe even
hide some, change file permissions, and possibly modify the PATH.

>   Proposal:  Multimedia as a part of the base OS/2 package.

I shan't comment, except to state that I hope it's an optional feature. 
I have no interest in wasting disk space on this crap.  :-)

>   Proposal:  Inexpensive peer-to-peer networking w/file and printer sharing.

Excellent idea!  How 'bout, say, a $50 TCP/IP+NFS package.  :-)
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
From: ameline@vnet.ibm.com (Ian Ameline)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 20:14:05 EDT
Subject: Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks! (was Re: Windows NT 'Alpha')
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: C-Set/2 Development, IBM Canada Lab.
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM

In article <1992Aug26.205228.4758@fics.uucp>,
ekl@fics.uucp writes:
>I have called MS support complaining about bugs in the C6 compiler. I was
>told to "turn off the optimizer". C6AX had the same bugs. I still did the
>same thing.
>
>It is my understanding that IBM fixes such bugs and ships updates to those
>who reports them.

   And anyone else can download them from CIS, or one of the IBM BBSes.
(One of which charges, the other is free). We put out fix releases
for the compiler about every 3 to 4 weeks. While each only fixes a couple
of bugs, we believe it's important to fix them. After all, our customers
paid for a C compiler -- not a program which compiles most C programs.
Saying "turn off the optimizer", or "make this variable volatile" is
ok for a few weeks while the problem is being fixed, but it's not
acceptable for much longer.

>I don't believe you enjoy dropping products, though. No programmer
>enjoys seeing their product dropped.

   Very true. I doubt Phil enjoys it either. He's just advocating his
employer's point of view -- which I'm sure he shares. (I don't want
to accuse him of hypocracy).


>
>Eirik
>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (was: Re: Some more misconceptions...)
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:35:48 GMT

discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>In article <1992Sep4.022844.29044@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>>discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Sep3.182226.16745@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>>>>
>>>>companies) from the former branch.  Shouldn't the reverse be true?  Isn't
>>>>it unfair for companies making competing OSes if MS witholds applications
>>>>from those OSes simply because they compete with DOS/Windows?
>>
>>>Well, although I don't condone the ethical stand that Microsoft has obviously
>>>made, I do see their point: is it ethical for an Automobile manufacturer to
>>>make automobile parts that can only fit on their models?
>>
>>That analogy doesn't quite work since an automobile and its parts are
>>one and the same.  An operating system and application software are not.

>No both things are "parts" in the sense that an OS+APPS is a customer's
>solution.

No.  :)

An automobile and its parts are one and the same because when you buy
the automobile, you buy the parts.  When you buy an operating system,
you don't buy the apps along with it (you can, but it's not required).

>  The "Apps" in question wouldn't even EXIST if Microsoft didn't
>write them (sure other apps would be available, but not Excel or 
>Word for Windows, etc.).  It's like Ford inventing a new, patented
>engine for only Ford cars--and public opinion trying to force them to make
>it fit in a Mazda.  Sure, from an ethical standpoint, Ford should make the
>new invention public domain... from a business standpoint it's "I want to
>keep my factory workers employed."

This is really pushing it since car engines aren't as portable as 
software.  But if you really want to force your analogy, we'd have
to say all cars are sold thus:  You buy the frame and body, then you
go shopping for an engine (you buy an operating system, then you go
shopping for apps).  The frame and body you select restricts your
choice of engines.  So Ford and Mazda make car bodies and car engines.
It's standard practice for companies to make engines that fit into
competing car bodies.  Ford (MS) has been making engines that fit into
Mazda (IBM) bodies.  Mazda bodies aren't selling that well.  Then Mazda
comes out with a really slick new body that Ford won't be able to match
for at least a year.  Ford announces it will stop making engines that
fit in Mazda bodies.  Not a clear-cut case of market manipulation, but
suspicious at best.
-- 
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: ekl@fics.uucp
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.2
Organization: Kvam data as
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 00:54:22 GMT

In article <4gjnf2g.xtifr@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>What NT has and OS/2 lacks:
>
> 1.  Available on CD-ROM
>-- 
>Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
>xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!

Actually, I have os/2 2.0 GA on a cd-rom. I received it for free from
the IBM Developers Assistance Program in europe, as a "thank you" for
being active in the beta program. So, OS/2 *is* available on cd-rom --
if you know where to look and what to do.

Eirik
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.2
Date: 1 Sep 92 01:35:07 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <7bjns_q.msmith@netcom.com> msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.000214.29640@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>In article <a+jnr7.msmith@netcom.com> msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug31.164630.13859@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>>>	
>>>>	Automatic stack expansion.
>>>>		I am certain that OS/2 does not do this.
>>>>		OS/2 has you specify a limit on the stack size, but allocates
>>>>		only one page of the stack at a time, using a guard page
>>>>		technique to expand the stack.  When you hit the
>>>>		stack size limit your process dies.  Why they went most
>>>>		of the way, instead of all the way, I really cannot say.
>>> 
>>>Sorry but you are WRONG.
>>
>>No, I am NOT WRONG.  If you read your own quote below carefully, you'll
>>see that it doesn't contradict what I said above.
>>If you want to see for yourself that OS/2 does indeed set a stack limit
>>per process, use the following program:
>
>I can see your argument now. Yup it's compile time declaration of stack size 
>under OS/2. 

I can understand your confusion... I spent another hour scratching my
head over the OS/2 docs, just to be sure there really wasn't contraditory
information... the docs are confusing.

One question I have is there any reason why I should not ALWAYS give
a program a 256K (or other large) stack?  ICC defaults to a small one,
so I assume there must be a reason... however I haven't figured out one.
I realize that there would be extra overhead in page table entries, but
that is fairly small.... Does anyone know for certain?

My point here is that if you can give programs an attrociously large stack
willout incurring much of a penalty... then OS/2 from a practical stand point
has something almost as good as dynamically extensible stacks.
But if you can do this.. why doesn't IBM just make them extensible anyway?

I really would like to know the whole story here.

IBM folks... can you help?

>MArtin Smith
>msmith@netcom.com


Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)
From: tsai@IOPADS.ee.washington.edu (Super Tsai)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Misinformation about os2-dos HW access
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:52:13 GMT
	<1992Aug31.051645.17293@njitgw.njit.edu>
Organization: Department of Elec. Eng., U of Wash, Seattle

In article <1992Aug31.051645.17293@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:


   >Question, why do people expect that Microsoft should have an OS, not yet
   >released, go through a many-month certification process.
   >Would it not make more sense for them to do so after the OS is generally
   >available?  Or am I just missing something?

   Because MS claims that their system offers a "C2-level" of security.
   This implies that they actually did some kind of testing.  The didn't.
   Their claim is misleading.  Whether they have security that could
   attain C2-level is irrelevant.  If they tested even ONE machine, their
   claims would be much more legitimate.

   Without testing, you can claim anything.  It doesn't mean much, except
   to the uninformed.



So, what is "C2-level" security ?

+=============================================================================+
| PI=3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164 |
|      0628620899862803482534211706798214808651328230664709384460955058223172 |
|      5359408128481117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381964428810975 |
|      6659334461284756482337867831652712019091456485669234603486104543266482 |
|      1339360726024914127372458700660631558817488152092096282925409171536436 |
+=============================================================================+
| Men-Shen Tsai                      |   Dept. of EE, FT-10                   |
|                                    |   University of Washington             |
| tsai@iopads.ee.washington.edu      |   Seattle, WA 98195                    |
+=============================================================================+
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy