HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:17:56 GMT

thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:

>In article <7482@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>|> Bwahahahahaha!!!! If it's marketed towards developers, why can any Tom, Dick,
>|> and Harriet call up and order one?

>You mean like the current OS/2 2.0 "Beta"?  As everyone is keen on pointing
>out, a "Beta" should go to a restricted number of developers who will provide
>detailed reports on bugs and features. A "Beta" is not generally available to
>the whole world.

This is bound to happen with all these definitions going around, but
you've got a few definitions mixed up.  A developer's pre-release
(which is what MS is claiming NT is so far) is not generally available
to the whole world.  Because the NT release is generally available,
people have been trying to get others to admit it's a beta even though
MS claims it isn't.  The OS/2 beta is a beta plain and simple, although
in all fairness, I don't think beta programs were ever so open until
IBM threw open the doors with the 2.0 beta last year.
-- 
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: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: So much for Msoft's bluster <grin>
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:28:32 GMT

In article <moore.717717658@pv34c1.vincent.iastate.edu>,
moore@iastate.edu (Brian J Moore) writes:
>In <1992Sep28.160233.3985@spcvxb.spc.edu> mauritz_c@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:
>
>>09/25 (DW) Microsoft Delays Shipments of Windows NT Operating System
>>    By Ken Yamada
>>    Dow Jones Staff Reporter
>>
>>    REDMOND, Wash. -DJ- Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) said the first shipments
>>of its Windows NT operating system software are expected to be delayed
>>until early 1993.
>
>
>Good idea... not only does that give developers more time, but IBM won't
>have the rights to any code released after 1992...  not suprising.
>

     I think IBM gets the code to NT anyway.  It was at least
started with some help from IBM, and the agreement was made that
they would get access to each others code (at least for now).
     But in the future incarnation of other MS products (such as
Win 4.0, or whatever), IBM isn't due anything from MS (or vice
versa, though MS doesn't seem that inerested anyway).
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:16:13 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Sep30.005314.5905@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@quads.uchicago.edu wrote:
> In article <1992Sep29.184431.6065@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> 
> >> Speaking of minesweeper, I just tried minesweeper that came with
> >> os/2 GRE and win-os/2 3.1.  Assuming that it is the same minesweeper
> >> as the one included in original Windows 3.1, I'd say the freeware
> >> minesweeper for os/2 2.0 is much harder to solve than win 3.1 version.
> >> When you have experience with the former, windows version is not a
> >> fun anymore.
> >> 
> >> Min
> >> 
> >I assume you implied a ;) after your post.
> >
> >Otherwise, as people say here, Get a Life.
> >I mean really, trying to say that your version of minesweeper
> >is better than mine?  Why don't you go off any play your
> >better version of solitaire or something.
> >
> 
> Hey, Pete.  I thought I was just expressing my opinion.  I get flamed
> for my opinion??????????

Why not, I always do.
Note that almost every post I've put up here has been followed by the following
line.  So every time you've tried to flame me for something I've posted, you've
done the same.

> 
> >petesk@microsoft.com
> >My Opinions...
> 
> 
> Min

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rda758g@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (A.J. Kleinert)
Subject: os2 attitudes
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 03:14:15 GMT

Firstly; OS/2 v2 is great, it's wonderful, I love it!

Secondly: I need another disk drive, and in my travels I asked a local
  (popular) computer dealer (who will remain nameless) about how his OS/2
  sales were.  He responded by saying that he had no stocks left although
  it wasn't because it was popular, but that he was discouraging people
  from buying it because a lot that were buying it were returning it 
  a short time later (disgruntled) and complaining about performance
  problems.  He said that as far as he understood (and was conveying
  onto his customers) don't even contemplate OS/2 v2 as an option unless
  you're purchasing a 486DX/50 machine with about 32 MByte of RAM (ARGH!).
  Perhaps OS2 would benefit if IBM started a dealer education program?
  (In my darker days of computer sales I was often frustrated by the 
  lack of product information training organised by suppliers - and the
  very few who did dabble in dealer training chose to treat it more as
  propoganda/brainwashing exercise.)  I pointed out to this dealer that
  I only have a 486SX/20 with 5 Meg and I'm very happy with the speed of
  OS/2 (although I'm sure I'll be happier when I upgrade to 8 Meg) and 
  that OS/2 is highly configurable so that the user can customise 
  operation to their needs.  He replied that to put things in perspective
  OS/2 was just an operating system - a means for users to run their 
  applications.  Most of his customers used their computer for a 
  specific purpose (ie: word processing, spreadsheeting, games, etc) 
  and would not benefit from multitasking, nor would they want to  
  fiddle with the operating system to get their application to run   
  the way DOS would have had it run in the first place.

Thirdly: Given the delays of NT / delays of getting software to market, 
  exactly what goes into operating system development for OS/2 or NT?
  If a team of programmers would produce NT in 3 years (pulling a number
  out of the air) and the marketing guys say "No, it has to go to 
  market in 2 years" (pulling another number out of the air) what is  
  the case of not just doubling the number of programmers and adding 
  a few extra for unexpected delays?  Is it an economic thing?  (ie:
  the cost of writing the software would not make it economically viable)
  Is it that there isn't the management/programming/productivity tools
  around for co-ordinating such a large collection of programmers
  efficiently?  Where is the bottleneck?

Andrew Kleinert
rda758g@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au









Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sdyck@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Sheldon Dyck)
Subject: Mathematica and OS/2
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:03:49 GMT

I just received an e-mail from Wolfram and they are going to make a version
of Mathematica for OS/2.  The following is the message that I received:
(I hope this clears up some of the rumours.)

Wolfram Research does intend to release an OS2 version of Mathematica,
probable very early next year.  Please feel free to contact me later on for
more specific release information.  Thank you for using Mathematica.

Sincerely,



Lori Gilmore
Academic Sales
Wolfram Research, Inc.
ph:   217-398-0700, ext. 233
fax:  217-398-0747
email:  lori@wri.com  


+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
| Sheldon Dyck    <sdyck>                     | 58 Pincarrow Road         |
| Department of Mathematics,                  | Winnipeg, Manitoba.       |
| University of Manitoba.                     | Canada,  R3Y-1E3.         |
| e-mail: sdyck@ccu.UManitoba.CA              | (204)-488-6990            |
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: OS/2 because! (was NT: Why?)
Date: 06 Oct 92 00:09:24 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <92279.171537ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET> ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.114442.12346@netcom.com>, timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
>>Actually, I believe that Brian is right about this.  3.1 support (non-beta)
>>will be in OS/2 sometime in December.  Since Windows 3.1 was released
>>April 6th, the code was done in March (and I assume IBM had it in March).
>
>Why does everybody think that a feature OS/2 has in beta doesn`t count while
>always talking about NT which isn`t in beta at all?

     If you hadn't deleted the original context, you might know that
the paragraph above is in support of Brian Sturgill's claim that
Win 3.1 support in OS/2 took 9 months to complete.
     Actually, if you read the paragraph that you responded so
vehemently to, you'll notice that nowhere in it does Mike say that
any feature "doesn't count."


>If you tell me OS/2 has`t Win3.1 support I tell you your beloved NT simply
>doesn`t exist. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT NOTHING.

     Interesting - what OS am I using right now, then?  It said
Windows NT when I started it up...


>Another thing in this thread is that people (I think Brian, but I`m not sure)
>not start arguing with promises. NT has a better shell because in the
>mid-nineties MS will (as they tell us) have a better shell. Perhaps you sell
>your computer today and buy one again when you have an OS to run on it.

     "Better shell" is an opinion.  Some people don't like the WPS.
Some people (gasp!) actually like the Windows interface.  The Cairo shell,
when it comes out, will have some people that like it.  Whatever IBM
comes up with next will also have its fans.


>In the meantime you can use your fingers to count.

     Very clever.  If only you read as well as you write.


>Why buy NT when someday at the end of this century some software company may
>exist that might have an OS which will blow NT out of the drive doors of your
>computer?

     Why buy OS/2, for that matter?  Everyone should be running
CP/M!


>If you need an OS today you have very little choice. If you can wait then you
>probably don`t need your computer anyway.

     For many, many people DOS is totally sufficient for their
computing needs.  They can afford to wait as long as they want - they're
still getting their work done.

					-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
From: Lowey@Sask.USask.CA (Kevin Lowey)
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Originator: lowey@jester.usask.ca
Reply-To: lowey@jester.usask.ca
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:39:23 GMT

From tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith):
> 
> I did not buy Word or Excel in order to have the latest and greatest
> software.  I bought them to perform specific tasks.  There is no reason
> for me to upgrade them as long as they perform those tasks well.
> 
> The same goes for hardware.  As long as my hardware for the most
> part performs the tasks for which I bought it, there is no reason to
> upgrade.

That's assuming that you will never ever change your mind about what
you want your computer to do.  Sure, it may do the tasks you wanted
when you bought the computer.  However, who's to say that two years
from now you will not WANT to do additional tasks?

I'm sure that many people using Visicalc on the original PC thought
the same as you: "What more would I ever need".

Then Lotus came out with support for graphics. Suddenly everyone
wanted graphics support, so your monochrome PC wouldn't cut it any
more.

Then larger spreadsheets were requred, so your 640K wouldn't cut it
and you needed expanded memory.  Of course, to get these spreadsheets
calculated in a decent speed, you needed a faster processor.

Then Windows came out, and you wanted to be able to link spreadsheets
directly into your word processor using OLE, so you had to upgrade to
a 386 with 4M of RAM.

Then you wanted to link easily into other spreadsheets on co-workers
office, so you needed to add LAN support, perhaps an Ethernet card and
drivers.

Then you wanted multimedia capabilities so that you could annotate the
spreadsheets with audio reports, or with graphic animations showing
trends over the last year, so you needed a graphics accelerator card
and a sound card.

Then you wanted to be able to easily send these multimedia reports to
management, so you needed electronic mail capabilities over your LAN.

Then ...

You get the picture.

You can't just base your computer hardware selection NOW on what you
need NOW.  You MUST take into consideration that the top of the line
system NOW will be an entry level system at most five years from now.

That's why I always recommend to people that if they are going to
depreciate their computer purchase over five years, they should buy
the most powerful computer they can afford now.  Otherwise, it means
they'll spend more money because they have to upgrade their computer
systems more often.


-- 
- Kevin Lowey (Lowey@Sask.USask.CA)
>>>>> Anonymous FTP to FTP.USASK.CA for DOS, OS/2, and Windows programs <<<<<

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 21:57:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.020458.13957@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.154246.2250@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>>
>>Except that OS/2 3.0 is now called Windows/NT.
>
>Blech.  There is one *very* annoying thing about calling NT "OS/2 3.0", IMO.
>It's not that OS/2 and NT are super-different systems or any dislike of the
>two being associated with one another, but to call NT "OS/2 3.0" is
>definitely a misnomer.  3.0 implies a 1.x and a 2.x.  Well, from the look
>of NT, it's a new substratum and design, more so than OS/2 2.0 is from 1.x.
>And to say NT is OS/2 3.0 is to imply that it has had it's roots and testing in
>earlier versions.  Well, maybe MS's goals have come from OS/2, but the
>vehicle is not the same.  I prefer calling NT "NT" and OS/2 "OS/2".
>

The problem with this argument is that, some point in time, there was an OS/2
3.0, to be developed by Microsoft, that will be a future version of OS/2
aimed at high level systems, with an NT microkernel, supporting multi-OS
(DOS, OS/2 PM, and Unix at the time), while IBM will continue to work on
OS/2 2.0.  This OS/2 3.0 never became anything, and is not the same as
the OS/2 3.0 IBM will deliver.  The former was written by Microsoft, the
later will be based on the Mach microkernel.

The (Microsoft) OS/2 3.0 and Windows NT just sound too suspiciously similar.

>Ted
>
From: pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel)
Subject: Re: Is WPS really better??
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY, 12866
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:13:37 GMT

In article <mullins.717806855@convex.convex.com> mullins@convex.com (Don Mullins) writes:
>In comp.os.os2.advocacy pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel) writes:
>
>>I use both OS/2 and Windows (and of course DOS).  Maybe it's the way I
>>use a shell.... but I don't find WPS superior.  Prettier looking, yes.
>>As I interpret the above paragraph, [using OS/2] to move a program to
>>hard disk, you need to open the drives icon and pick A:.  Then you
>>drag the file to the desktop (or open the C drive, find the right
>>directory, and THEN drag the file icon).  ...
>
>>                                     ...  [Using Windows] In Windows,
>>my file manager is configured to open two windows.  For one, I click
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>on A: and the other on C: (it's C by default, so I don't have to do
>>anything.)  I point to the desired file on A and drag it to C.
>
>  Is this file manager part of Windows? 

Yes, it's the Windows 3.1 file manager.  When I click on its icon, two
windows open up.  Each has two subwindows - a directory tree and the
current directory listing of files.  To copy a file from C to A, say,
I click on A in the second window, then drag the file from window #1
(defaulted to C) to window #2.  That's all (unless of course I have to
choose a subdirectory in the destination drive.

>
>  OS/2:  
>  
>    $139.00 for V1.3
>    $  0.00 for V1.3 -> V2.0 upgrade
>    =======
>    $139.00
>
>  DOS/Windows:
>    $ 69.00 for DOS V5.0
>    $ 99.00 for Windows V3.0
>    $ 49.00 Windows V3.0 -> V3.1 upgrade (Am I remembering correctly?)
>    =======
>    $217.00 + cost of file manager
>
I'm not arguing about the cost of OS/2 or its capabilities - I agree
wholeheartedly that it is superior as an OS (I know, when I doing
program development, Windows crashed often- due to my bugs - OS/2 just
keeps going on).  I only question the WPS.

For example:  (I could be wrong - my OS/2 machine is at home and I
can't test it out first before putting my foot in my mouth)  to search
around directories and look at files, with WPS, I click on the drives
icon, then a drive icon.  A tree comes up.  I click on a directory and
another window listing files comes up.  If its not the directory I
want, I have to close the dir window, go back to the tree and pick
another directory.  I prefer the file managers that have the tree and
dir windows side by side.  You click on a tree directory and the file
list comes up next to it.  Click on another tree directory, the file
list is updated.  I don't have to close the old file list window.  Of
course in OS/2 I don't have to close the file list windows, they just
keep multiplying!



-- 
Pierre von Kaenel	| Skidmore College	     | pvonk@skidmore.edu
Math & CS Dept.		| Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 | (518)584-5000 Ext 2391

[.... old sig has been retired.  New sig isn't ready yet. ]
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:15:47 EDT
From: <JAL142@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: CPU cache and OS/2

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?

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:42:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.222822.264@midway.uchicago.edu>,
gac2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Geoffrey A. Coulter) writes:
>In article <davidw.717366048@auck.irl.cri.nz> davidw@auck.irl.cri.nz (David White) writes:
>>In <1992Sep24.163416.12100@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>>
>>>If IBM had an older version of OS/2 for the Mac, then I would expect
>>>them to port all future versions of it as well.
>>
>>Tell me then: what is the latest version of DisplayWrite for DOS, and
>>when was it last upgraded (IBM product)?
>>
>>regards, david
>
>IBM seems to be working on OS/2 for the MAC - Taligent.  They may not
>be supporting Displaywrite, but they seem to be trying to do something
>with the Fruits.
>

     Actually, I have recent price book at home for IBM products,
and DisplayWrite is included in it (the book is dated Sept. 92, I
think).  I don't have it with me, but if anybody's *really*
interested in it, feel free to email me.  I also thought that IBM
was working with another company, and the two of them had an upgrade
path (DW --> Other companies product).  If somebody has had a
problem with DW, I'm pretty sure they can still get help for it from
IBM.
From: schock@rds.sta.sub.org (Roland Schock)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows/NT postponed to 2nd quarter 1993
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:30:17 GMT
Organization: No, I'm disorganized!

RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at wrote:
> 
> Bill Gates alledgedly announced on the "Agenda 93" conference that
> NT delays. He is quoted to have said that the first beta-release of
> NT will be in October (instead of September) and that he anticipates
> that a general available version of NT will be released during the
> "first quarter or early second quarter of 1993" (delayed from a
> December 92 release).
> 
> ---rony
> 

Did anyone out there in the net believe, that MS can hold their promise
to ship in till end of 1992?
At first MS announced the full blown version of NT with all the
networking stuff to be released to the end of 1992.
Then they changed mind and talked about two seperate products: Windows NT
and Windows LanManager for Windows NT, with Windows NT supporting only
peer-to-peer networking and Win 3.1 compatibility. The security features
and the full networking stuff was moved to the LanManager.   :-)

In the meantime, I've got their PRE-beta-release of NT. At the first glance
(and only if you DON'T touch the keyboard) it looks very stable, but while
using the control panel to configure my system, it was 'bombing' the
first time ('The program CONTROL.EXE has attempted to read memory at
the address 0x00000000:0x00000005 ....'). And the control panel is truly
NOT the only program, which shows 'undocumented features'.
I have reinstalled it several times now. Everytime the newly installed 
version showed more bugs, than the version I kicked off seconds ago.
Now I'm waiting for the next CD. Let's hope it has less bugs.

My $ 0.02
   Roland
--
/* Roland Schock                        voice +49-89-58 67 44 *
 * schock@informatik.tu-muenchen.de       fax +49-89-58 22 18 *
 * schock@rds.sta.sub.org                                     */

---=== Any flames? click right, drag and drop on shredder ===---
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy