HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.4
Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 20:27:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.105353.25246@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.071734.3972@actrix.gen.nz> conrad@actrix.gen.nz (Conrad Bullock) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep2.170400.10092@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>>> OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.4
>>
>>> Features currently in Windows NT but not in OS/2 2.0
>>
>>> 	Generic wait on multiple events/semaphores of different types.
>>> 		This is helps prevent deadlocks.  Consider the classic
>>> 		deadlock example: Two processes, P1 and P2, both want
>>> 		to access tape drives A and B.  P1 locks A and waits for
>>> 		B, P2 locks B and waits for A. Deadlock.
>>> 		With the generic wait facility you say wake me when
>>> 		I have both A and B.  This mechanism prevents many
>>> 		deadlock problems.
>>
>>I think you're being slightly mischievous here - added an extra
>>qualification without making it clear. OS/2 2.0 has DosWaitMuxWaitSem
>>which allows you to wait on multiple semaphores - it does have the
>>restriction that you can't mix event and mutex semaphores, but I don't
>>know that that's a big problem. certainly in your example, both processes

I have just looked up the Control Program Reference of the OS/2 2.0
toolkit and the Semaphore sections clearly states that a
DosWaitMuxWaitSem can wait on a mix of event and mutex semaphores.

>>> 	Automatic stack expansion.
>>> 		OS/2 2.0 does not (in the general case) have dynamic stack
>>> 		extension. Someone inside IBM (and others) sent me this story.
>>> 		Thread 1's stack is statically sized according to the value
>>> 		you set in the executable at compile time.  Worse, all pages
>>> 		of this stack are committed as the process starts, so you
>>> 		don't want to grossly oversize the stack.  All other threads
>>> 		do have dynamic stack extension.  Doing this somehow made
>>> 		compatibility with older API's easier.

As one can read in the OS/2 technical compendium (Redbooks) volume 1,
pages 17 and 18, OS/2 provides automatic stack expansion. It is left to
each program to allocate the stack area in a suitable manner and
register an exception handler for guard page exceptions. I.e. it is the
job of the compiler and runtime support implementors to add this
feature to their compiler and library/runtime code. It happens that IBM
C Set/2 and Watcom C386 do not provide this feature as the default
while, for example, emx+gcc does have this feature (and there is
currently even no way without it!).

Kai Uwe Rommel

/* Kai Uwe Rommel --- rommel@informatik.tu-muenchen.de */

DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt
handler, and always will be.                -Russell Williams

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: gkm@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (gary.k.mc nees)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.2
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:23:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.083105.28231@umr.edu> ckincy@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) 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 bet you it doesn't.  I bet you that the compiler forgot to implement
>the guard-page method of stack growth.  What a shame that IBM doesn't
>utilize its own features in its own C compiler.  
>
A similar thing is true of the extended precision in C Set/2. The C language
itself supports long doubles but the libraries included with the C Set/2
only support double. I wonder if one can use MS's libraries to get to use
the extended precision?

Gary McNees gkm@corvette.ho.att.com
From: glen@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Glen Robinson)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 00:21:23 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Windows NT Shareware Contest for COMDEX 92
Organization: HP Fort Collins, CO
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy

This is has really gone to far.
Why don't all of you NT zealots start up comp.os.nt.advocacy and get the
hell out of here.

Or perhaps comp.os.os2.anti

Glen - R
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: scotty@piranha.cs.uoguelph.ca (Steve Howie)
Subject: Re: About this Hercules business (Re: IS IBM UK STILL IN THE STONE AGE???)
Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 22:24:49 GMT
X-Posted-From: piranha.cs.uoguelph.ca
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <liuyu.715378220@kramden> liuyu@kramden.nyu.edu (Liuyu) writes:
> 
> Let's drop this subject. I know IBM will never support standards other than
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> its own. 
  ^^^^^^^^

So what do you call TCP/IP then? Is that an "IBM Standard" ? :)

Scotty
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Advocacy
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 12:21:28 GMT

soh3@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> Hey, I would rather want a freely resizable os/2 window.  The full screen
> app running inside it must be able to resize as the window itself is
> resized.  Just as in X Windows.

Did you know that Windows NT console windows can do this (although at least
the prerelease CMD.EXE doesn't take advantage of it)?  No, I guess you're
not interested in that...  :)

[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: gyan@unixg.ubc.ca (Gyan P. Sinha)
Subject: Re: Tex Advantages (was Re: TeX an archaic religion?)
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 20:20:24 GMT

In <1992Aug30.153741.3155@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu> rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:

			<Stuff Deleted for Brevity>


>>  The same goes for your points about printing to various printers.  You just
>>need the appropriate device driver, just as in other program.  In this case,
>>you need a program called dvips to print to the postscript printers you
>>mentioned.  In fact, you just need dvips to convert the dvi (stands for DEVICE
>>INDEPENDENT) file produced by TeX to a .ps file, and you can print it to any
>>postscript printer.  Dvips even supports the built in fonts of the printer, or
>>any Adobe type 1 fonts.  It can even generate the necessary bitmapped fonts
>>through METAFONT, so you don't need to keep all the megabytes of bitmapped
>>fonts on your hard disk.

>Wrong.  A dvi file is an intermediate, not the final output.  I would need
>to create 100 different final output files for 100 different devices.
>With PostScript I need *ONE* final output file.  And the PostScript
>formatters for TeX have this nasty habit of creating resolution and 'color'
>(write white, write black) dependent output files.  It is not necessary,
>but for some reason it happenned.

>Please, let's stop comparing oranges to apples.  TeX is device dependent
>as any single output file works only with a narrow range of devices.
>PostScript output from a program that truly uses the language (and does
>not use the 'rasterimage' operator) is what is meant by device
>independence. 

What drivel! What if you've got a multitude of printer types that you
need to print on? Pray, how then is the Postscript output of Frame any
more device independent than TeX's dvi --> printer driver --> printer
route. If you've got a postscript printer, and I have a laserjet, can
I print your file on my printer. No!! You must feed your Frame 
document through your Laserjet driver, output to file and then I 
print it on my printer. How is this different from TeX's usage of
the dvhplj and the printer route? 

Your argument is based on the patently wrong assumption that a 
postscript device is the ONLY printing device in the world. All
your qualifications relate to the mechanics of going from an 
electronic document to the printed page, but I think the fundamental
algorithm that both TeX and Frame use is the same. You have to use
the appropriate printer driver to generate compatible output for
your ultimate device. How is the Windows and OS/2 laserjet and
postscript printer driver any different than dvihplj and dvips, in
the conceptual sense? 

In any case, this discussion, I'm sure, is causing people's eyes to
glaze over. It doesn't belong on os2.advocacy, maybe you should
direct followups to comp.text.tex. In any case, I'm not going to
respond to any further postings on this issue here. But I felt there
was a logical flaw in your argument that needed to be pointed out.


Gyan P. Sinha
UBC, Vancouver.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: neves@duvel.cs.colorado.edu (NEVES RICHARD K)
Subject: Re: NT Products
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 03:38:51 GMT

In article <92244.211402M05BC@CUNYVM.BITNET> Spartacus at Cuny <M05BC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>
>     I'm curious, since IBM and Microsoft have cross-license agreements.
>Could IBM modified Win32 API for OS/2 so that NT Multitreaded Apps
>designed to work with Win32 would work under OS/2's OS2-WIN
>as true multitreaded applications?  Please don't flame me on this...
>I'm no expert (or near expert) on this.  I'm just curious...
>be kind :-)

My understanding is that win32s is just a dll, so this is a non-issue.
When someone comes out with a win32s application, the dll will come with
it. 

But... winmem32 is just a dll and IBM doesn't support this, so we'll see.
In terms of thread stuff, there isn't any magic.  The memory stuff, however,
seems to be a problem and I don't know how much NT-ness (in terms
of memory management) is in win32s.  Someone reading this group knows
(i remember someone saying they read the win32s spec).

Lets hear some speculation!

Rich Neves


Did I hear someone say that winmem32 is going to be included in the win3.1
From: SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R. Platzke)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT beta schedule slips!
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:25:08 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network

In article <1992Aug26.164450.42583@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>From: thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
>Subject: NT beta schedule slips!
>Date: 26 Aug 92 21:44:50 GMT

>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...   |
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, the windows groups certainly are a reliable source of the release dates
for MS products...I don't think I've ever seen any misinformation on any of
those groups (especially not from someone making a pro-OS/2 posts there).
Yeah, the info content ranks right up there with this group and PC-WEAK.

:-) :-) :-)

For what its worth, I believe an MS employee posted a few days ago in
windows.programmer.win32 that the beta was expected to ship in late Sept.
Please cite your source for any previous info that indictated when the NT
beta was to ship (just curious).

-Michael R. Platzke (sxmrp@orca.alaska.edu)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.2
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 09:25:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

Some more comparisons:

What OS/2 currently has and NT currently lacks:

 1.  Available on standard floppy disks
 2.  Available at retail stores
 3.  Has installed base (potential customers)
 4.  Has compiler *now* (MSC 6.0) which runs in protected mode, and
     creates standard 16-bit DOS applications.
 5.  TV ads.  :-)
 6.  Can used as general purpose work environment--not just a demo.
     As far as *I'm* concerned, this is the only feature of any
     importance at the moment.  :-)

What NT has and OS/2 lacks:

 1.  Available on CD-ROM
 2.  Includes beta version of C compiler.
      note: I'm don't think that this will ship with the final product.
            I'm not sure if it will be included in the SDK upgrade. (?)
 3.  Lots o' media hype!  :-)

I'll skip the future predictions, 'cause I'm really just tryin' to get
some work done, and I'm interested in what works now.  I'll start
thinking about NT when I see a copy at my local software dealership.
:-)

I do have one question of the people out there experimenting:  can you
dump the GUI shell, and use the CLI as a base interface the way you can
under OS/2?
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
From: gt0059e@prism.gatech.EDU (Garrett Drysdale)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Brian, your bias is showing ( was Re: OS/2 vs NT features
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:39:00 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Sep1.165456.7195@colorado.edu> neves@chimay.cs.colorado.edu (NEVES RICHARD K) writes:
->In article <1806blINNil3@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
->>Windows NT currently doesn't have any features because it is not released.
->>While NT is not vapourware, it is certainly not a shipping product.  Not
->>even in the sense that os/2 LA was.  It isn't a product because it has 
->>not got a fixed feature set and noone uses it yet.  Perhaps it should
->>be called phantom ware.  There certainly is something out there but it
->>hasn't taken shape yet.  Or maybe it could be called rainbow ware.  
->>Just over the next hill is leprechaun Bill and his pot of gold.
->
->I think you are missing the point of Brian's attempt at characterizing
->the differences between the two products.  I think his is a very
->useful "list-o-differences".  I want information and that is all
->Brian is trying to do. 
->
->You're basically saying Brian is not "politically correct".  This polemic 
->is a wast of time.
-

No I don't think he is saying that Brian is not politcally correct.  (Since
when does one need to be politically correct when dealing with computers
and software anyway???)

He is simply pointing out that even though Brian was trying to be unbiased,
his preferences were still very obvious in his presentation of information
and therefore one should screen the facts from the biased presentation
of them.

Garrett

-- 
Garrett Drysdale
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt0059e
Internet: gt0059e@prism.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Just wondering
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 11:16:44 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Aug25.104217.10736@hemlock.cray.com> bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier) writes:
> Everyone / Anyone:
> 
> I had an idea on my way into work and would like your feedback.  It maybe a 
> stupid idea, moderate, or right on.  I see pro and con to it.
> 
> The idea is to put OS/2 Monthly Magazine on audio tape(s) for those who 
> commute daily.  Those getting on tape would also get a printed copy (if
> they desired).
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Bert. 

Good idea, though illustrations would be a problem.

I would love to subscribe, but at US$77 (NZ$140) per annum, I will have to
make do with the two month old editions that float through the local computer
store. YES! OS/2 Monthly IS available on the newstnads even in New Zealand -
only it comes by (Toot toot!) boat. 

Any chance of cheaper overseas rates? The exchnage to the US$ makes US mags an
expensive proposition - i already subscribe to 3.......
 
Steve

-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | If you don't vote for MMP on 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  September 19, 1992, then you 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  must like things the way they 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  are.....can I live with YOU?
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: THANK YOU, Microsoft!
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:00:07 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <92246.204757LENBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> LENBC@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
>In article <Btz54D.1tJ@rice.edu>, amitp@rice.edu (Amit J Patel) says:
>>
>>Thank you Microsoft!  The OS/2 version of MS-Word 5.5 works beautifully
>                                                  ^^^^^
>>under OS/2 2.0!  :) :) :)  The only app that I use that didn't work when
>>I moved to OS/2 is Atech's Fastfonts... and it's not an MS program!
>
>       Eh? 5.5?
>       Where did you get PM-Word 5.5 from?
>       Has Gates had a change of heart?  :-)

Word 5.5 isn't a PM anything.  In case you forgot, MS also makes Word
For DOS, which is a character-mode app.  It runs under OS/2 in
full-screen and windowed sessions.

-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "TELEPHONE, n.  An Invention of the devil which
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   abrogates some of the advantages of making a
 ((|,)                          disagreeable person keep his distance."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: db3l@ans.net (David Bolen)
Subject: Re: NT vs OS/2 features (was Re: Misinformation about os2-dos HW access)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:07:15 GMT
Organization: Advanced Network & Services, Inc. - Elmsford, NY

In article <1992Sep3.022015.8901@nuscc.nus.sg> eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (TAN JIN MENG) writes:

>dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>: It's better to use a separate caching scheme for each file system, the
>: way OS/2 does.  This is why you have a /CACHE= parameter in the
>: HPFS.IFS driver, and a DISKCACHE parameter separately for FAT volumes.
>
>That's not the contention in the [NT vs OS/2 features list by Brian
>Sturgill]. Actually, I thought the HPFS cache is for all the file
>systems and the FAT cache is meant for floppys. 

The FAT cache (DISKCACHE= line in CONFIG.SYS) is for anything that uses the
FAT filesystem support built into the OS/2 kernel.  This definitely includes
floppies, but also any hard disk partitions formatted as FAT.

The HPFS cache (/CACHE on IFS line in CONFIG.SYS) is for filesystem
partitions that are formatted for HPFS.  This requires loading the HPFS IFS.

>Actually, I believe that it is more fault tolerent to have a single
>cache scheme. This can be done efficiently by having a single file
>buffer cache for ALL block devices (as in UNIX) plus individual file
>system info caching separately for each of the file systems supported.

I'd buy that a particular caching scheme may be more fault tolerant than
others (obviously write-through caching is more fault tolerant than lazy
writing, at a performance expense), but I'm not sure why having multiple
caching schemes is any less fault tolerant than having a single scheme, if
each scheme is in and of itself fault tolerant.

I also don't think that any single scheme can get the same performance as
a caching system that understands the filesystem that it is caching.  Having
a general buffer cache for all block devices is much less efficient than
having a cache that understands directory nodes vs. file data, for example.
Yes, both the filesystems are block oriented, but the usefulness of any
particular block may vary widely among filesystems.

You might find that your directory information was being flushed out of the
cache whenever you accessed a large amount of data.  In many cases, the data
is less important to cache than the directory information.

>I wouldn't be suprised if OS/2 (with exception of floppys - which are
>vastly different from hard disk devices) did it this way.

I don't know if I'd be surprised or not, but I'd be disappointed.  I'm fairly
certain that the HPFS (and I'd hope the FAT) caching system is smart enough
to have a higher priority of keeping directory structure blocks available
in the cache than for general data.

--
-- David
--
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
 \              David Bolen             \  Internet: db3l@ans.net      /
  |   Advanced Network & Services, Inc.   \   Phone: (914) 789-5327   |
 / 100 Clearbrook Road, Elmsford, NY 10523  \   Fax: (914) 789-5310    \
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------/
From: ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Andrew T. Robinson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (was: Re: Some more misconceptions...)
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:13:07 GMT
 <1992Sep2.151822.6429@mksol.dseg.ti.com> <92246.153543ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
 <1992Sep3.131926.20463@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
 <1992Sep3.182226.16745@muddcs.claremont.edu>
Organization: University of Maine System

From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
>... 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, I'm not sure that this is an anti-trust situation, though it may
  be.  Considering that most of MS' profit is in applications sales and not
  in OSs (you buy one OS--you potentially buy scads of applications) I can
  only conclude that refusal to support OS/2 is more of a corporate-ego-based
  descision as opposed to a sound business move.

  My sincere wish is that it should backfire.  The community that I'm most
  familiar with is increasingly concerned with interoperability and
  heterogenous environments, and I'm hoping enough of that sentiment will
  spread and intensify to convince MS (and other software vendors) that
  cross-platform support is the smart move.

Andy

PS -- At least two major vendors I've talked to have changed their
      attitudes toward OS/2 over the past 4-6 weeks.  In July I
      contacted several vendors to develop a package for an acquistion
      I'm planning and asked about native OS/2 support.  Most had it/were
      planning it, but two said they had no plans to offer such support.
      This week I called those two vendors back, and both FAXed me
      recent press releases of their intent to support the OS/2
      environment within the year :-).  One of the vendors was Powercore
      and the other I don't remember at the moment (don't want to
      name the wrong one in this forum! :-).

      If MS would follow suit, I'd even consider using/recommending
      their software again :-)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy