HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Subject: Re: Discovered: Microsoft using undocumented calls in Windows NT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 12:09:41 GMT

brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>Brian
>-- 
>C. Brian Sturgill                          NeXTStep 486 is for _YOU_!!!!
>University of Utah                    Microsoft needs competition, but I want
>Center for Software Science          to be one of the many running Windows NT!
>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373    :-) :-) :-)  NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679

What is it you do at this Uni? Are you so unprofessional or just
a secretary who fancys putting the Uni's name in his .sig to
look important? I can hardly believe an educated person can show
so little objectivity. I am refering to your .sig of course
and not even the fact that it is about NT, it could be any
other product for that matter. You seem like a child with a new
toy, dieing to let the world know. Control yourself man. Besides,
this is starting to look like straight out advertising more and
more. Weren't there any (implicit) rules about that?
Anyway, this is not meant as any sort of personal insult, just
an observation.

Erik
From: rommel@jonas.gold.sub.org (Kai Uwe Rommel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: \* IBM's OS/2 2.0 Scores Big \*
Date: 14 Dec 92 20:07:11 GMT
Organization: Private

In article <1992Dec13.051805.17455@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>        It would also be pretty stupid because there's no reason to do
>        so.  The whole point of OS/2MACH is to add portability to OS/2, since
>        porting OS/2 as it is would take 2/3rds of forever and be 100% 
>        incompatible.  
> 
>        Any SMP version of OS/2 that runs on Intel hardware is likely
>        to be a retrofit of the current OS, not OS/2 MACH.  Making a 
>        version of OS/2Mach for Intel would be akin to reinventing the
>        wheel and doing a poor job.  

What about the ability to run OS/2 and AIX (Unix) sessions on an Intel
box at the same time? This would be quite a reason. Add other OS
personalities (as IBM calls them) as you wish ...

>        Then let's discuss real requirements.  It's just plain stupid
>        to discuss these bogus minimums--you could claim that OS/2
>        will run on any 386 system with 4 megs and an MDA--is this
>        relavent in any way to reality?

I personally would even recommend 16MB for serious OS/2 use. However,
to get the same, I would also *need* 32MB for NT. If I boot NT
(October) on a 16MB ISA machine, not much memory is left.

>>is able to keep apps from crashing at all, much better than NT right now, and
>>that is an important point to keep in mind.
> 
>        Why do you feel that it is the OS's job to keep applications 
>        from crashing?  I have never *seen* an OS that did that.  

If the app runs in an emulation of it's home environment in the new OS
like OS/2 or NT, then that emulation must be exact enough to avoid
crashing the app. Ever thought of this? It's called compatibility.


Kai Uwe Rommel

--
/* Kai Uwe Rommel                                      Muenchen, Germany *
 * rommel@jonas.gold.sub.org                       Phone +49 89 723 4101 *
 * rommel@informatik.tu-muenchen.de                  Fax +49 89 723 7889 */

DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt
handler, and always will be.                -Russell Williams
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wcn@cs.brown.edu (Wen-Chun Ni)
Subject: Re: 1992 in review.
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:01:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.221209.24830@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>
>Journal:   PC-Computing  Oct 1992 v5 n10 p58(1)
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
	<stuff about Microsoft's memo deleted>
>
>
>Microsoft's  key concern  is listed  in the  "Tactics" section  of the
>memo:  "Whenever possible,  take the  high road.  The material  can be
>inflammatory. It  may also give  the customer not  actively evaluating
>OS/2 the impression  that we're worried about OS/2  and plant the idea
>in their mind that they should evaluate it."
>
>In  other  words,  leave  customers  in  the  dark  if  they  show  no
>inclination  toward OS/2.  If they  do show  interest, then blast them
>with this material.
>
Isn't this what Sturgill & Co. is doing? ;-) ;-) ;-)
From: sl31+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen M. Lacy)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Controversial Topics
Date: 13 Dec 92 18:19:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.Mf=0hT600iUxI4Poh2
Organization: Junior, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA



My view on this whole damned thing is that I'm going to wait until a
computer EXISTS before I start talking about which operating system I'm
going to run it on.  Do you guys ever think that since the 80x86 and the
other PC microprocessors that intel makes were made to run on a single
processor machine, and that the workings of a SMP machine are completely
different and require specialized hardware.  Have you ever heard of
iWarp?  Well, its a joint project that CMU has with Intel and some other
parties, to develop a technology that will fully utilize SMP, by making
new hardware.  The processor design was reworked from the ground up to
incorporate multiple processors.  If you think that you're going to be
able to put more than one of today's 486 in a future SMP machine, you're
wrong.  Yeah, they exist, but I bet they won't for long.  SMP is not an
operating system problem, its a hardware problem.  

So, sit back, put a piece of ducktape across your keyboard (i.e. put a
piece over your mouth) and sit back and watch technology pass all of us
by.  

Steve

Just for the books, the Model 95 is dubbed a personal computer mainly by
the fact that it runs a personal computer operating system (OS/2) and
uses personal comptuer technology (i.e. 486's)   And, what makes you
think that IBM can make a version of OS/2 1.3 that's SMP but not make
2.0 SMP?  Did you ever think that they run on a base of mostly the same
code?  Gotcha.


"I don't like much really, do I?  But what I do like, I love
passionately!" -Pet Shop Boys
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison)
Subject: Re: Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:39:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.005126.13366@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.192739.0256494@locus.com> lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:
>>Brian, the Windows 3.1 beta was released some time ago, and expires on the
>>15th of December.  The 32 Bit Graphics Engine was included in the CSD as
>>well as some upgraded drivers.  This being the case, I don't see what
>>you are talking about when you say "beta released by December 15th".  It was
>>released some time ago, and the CSD of all but winos31 are in our hands.
>
>What I mean is of course that IBM has said that OS/2 2.1 would be out this
>year.  I.E. the beta would go GA.

Then I think you are confused.  IBM stated that the CSD (which would contain
the 32 bit graphics engine, and some upgraded video drivers, and a few other
things, and possibly the Win 3.1 addition) would be released before DEC 15th.

Their Public Statements were for the content of the CSD to be determined
by the comments of the Beta Testers, though they guarenteed that the
32 bit graphics engine would be included.  They met this goal.

The OS/2 2.1 release would be some time after that, possibly having content
set as early as the end of december, and the release as early as the end
of January.  If they release in Feb, then they will have met that goal
reasonably well.  Extreemly well, seeing as the Bug Fix to Windows 3.0
(Windows 3.1) was promised in three months and took TWO Years from
Microsoft.  Some of us are still hurting because of our support for
Microsoft on that one.

--Lowell Morrison
--Uncle Wolf
From: rbotimer@max.ct.gmr.com (R Douglas Botimer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Suggestion
Keywords: NT
Date: 16 Dec 92 14:23:38 GMT

There are a couple of people posting here that have to make sure they have the  
last word in any discussion and that last word is "NT".  I've responded to the  
individuals and it quickly became appearent that they are posting here just to  
be heard (read get attention) not to discuss or learn.

May I suggest we:

- Ignore their posts.  It's not worth my time to argue with someone whose only  
goal is arguement, not the enlightenment of the discourse.

- If you feel it worth your time to respond, post a note here directing readers  
to c.o.windows.a and post the response there.  (Let's PUT NT advocacy back in  
its own house.

This is my opinion and no one elses,

Doug
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 Application List 1/2
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:16:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.211119.10192@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.051119.6473@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>
>>11/23/92                Shipping OS/2 2.0 Applications                
>>                               (By Company)
>>******************************************************************************
>>
>>
>>Bitware, Software & Services        Nikon II                      61-6-2810175
>>Boffin Software                     BOFORM
>>Boffin Software                     Bufflo
>>Boffin Software                     Cobra
>>Boffin Software                     Dolittle
>                                     ^^^^^^^^
>Boy, does someone need help in choosing product names or what?  What
>Gaswat and HIPO, too?!

Funny, aren't they:).

>  Is this some sort of joke padding to make the
>list look bigger than it really is?

Gimme a break.

>  And how many of these apps for for
>narrow vertical markets?

Probably quite a few.  Whoah, I guess they're not applications, then, are they?
Business markets don't count for sales and support, as everyone knows.  
(for the sarcasm impaired...)

Why don't you call them up and ask?

>
>>Boffin Software                     Gaswat
>>Boffin Software                     HIPO
>>Boffin Software                     Hiperflo
>>Boffin Software                     Hogo
>>Boffin Software                     Hornbil
>>Boffin Software                     Managery
>>Boffin Software                     Oilwat
>>Boffin Software                     Pakiderm
>
>Well, I suppose HIPO describes the size of OS/2 (or NT for that matter)
>and Pakiderm suggests OS/2 2.0's uh, um, celerity when running Windows
>Apps!
>
>Are we sure "Boffin Software" really exists?  I mean, their name and
>these products sound Monty Python (boy, there's a name they overlooked!)
>to me!

Again, why don't you call them up and ask, instead of making stupid
(I'm sorry, make that judgmental and uninformed) implications?

>
>>Boffin Software                     Pedriam
>>Boffin Software                     Quikie+
>>Boffin Software                     Reptild
>>Boffin Software                     Spidre
>>Boffin Software                     Trantula
>>Boffin Software                     VHLOG
>>Boffin Software                     Viperflo
>
>jmalloy@hamilton.edu


Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: who is brian sturgill - really?
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:41:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.172701.2089@usage.csd.unsw.OZ.AU> pendrith@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Mark Pendrith) writes:
>i am coming to suspect that "brian" isn't a real person at all, but a 
>synthetic product of the MS MarketDroid (TM) artificial intelligence unit 
>(with the emphasis on "artificial")
>
>reasons:
>
>a) brian most of the time sounds like a cross between eliza and racter on 
>a bad day.
>
>b) he claims to have a job at the CS dept at the university  of utah, but
>what this is has never been made clear. he also claims to use both os/2 and 
>NT on a daily basis. he also claims to be an ISV (Increasingly Shrill Voice?) 
>developer for NT. he even claims to be married. how can anyone be doing all 
>this, when it is clear that all their day is spent dutifully uploading 2-3MB 
>of NT propaganda to the internet eveyday?
>
>c) the logic he produces could only be the result of some very mediocre
>programming (TM), and running on a buggy beta testbed at that.
>
>tentative conclusion:
>
>"brian" is probably actually a multi-threaded NT app, which would help to 
>explain why he is so concerned about NT's survival, and so particularly 
>sensitive about the os/2 vs. NT app count. the multi-threadedness of the 
>code is revealed in the way he will reply to 20 or so threads in various 
>conferences simultaneously, with little in the way of consistency between 
>the responses.  clearly asynchronous behaviour. (i read a response the other 
>day that said he was not going to be posting in this group until next year. 
>two days later, lots of new BS posts! NT has buggy semaphores, perhaps? or 
>maybe "brian" is running on an experimental SMP machine?)
>
>a preliminary theory. anyone got better?
>
Sure: he says things you don't like or want to hear and you don't want
to have to worry that they're true.  The easiest thing, then, is just to
insult him and that will make everything he says wrong. Yeah, that's the
ticket! 


>- Mark
>
>pendrith@cs.unsw.oz.au
>
>BTW: is it coincidence that BRIAN STURGILL is an anagram of NT BIG SLUR LIAR?
>sounds like a Microsoft project code name to me...
>
>
jmalloy@hamilton.edu
>
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why OS/2 2.0? (long)
Keywords: OS/2 IBM Microsoft Windows
Date: 18 Dec 92 11:13:10 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.

In article <95131@rphroy.ph.gmr.com>, rbotimer@max.ct.gmr.com (R Douglas Botimer) writes:
|> IBM response to MicroSoft.

If this is the best that they can do, IBM are in trouble.

|> These documents from Microsoft contain many
|> statements regarding OS/2 that are incorrect or
|> could mislead users.

That document from IBM contained many
statements regarding OS/2 and NT that are incorrect or
could mislead users.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0
Date: 17 Dec 92 01:54:47 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <921216183724@rgam.sc.ti.com> 5692330@mcimail.com (Robert Gammon) writes:
>Suck all the information you can out of all of us so that you do become
>an advanced user that others can turn to for help.

Amen. I've already enhanced my reputation as the office guru by using
knowledge that I picked up on the comp.os.os2.* groups. There's a lot of good
stuff among the flames.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
From: rmk@frog.CRDS.COM (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Discovered: Microsof
Date: 19 Dec 92 06:57:40 GMT
Organization: Charles River Data Systems

In article <2b2bd77a@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org> George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org writes:
>>You do realize that there are a number of undocumented calls in
>OS/2... does
>>this mean that IBM is unfair?
>>
>MF>And I'm sure that you also realize that IBM doesn't make the
>MF>best-selling apps for OS/2, as Microsoft does for Windows.  If it
>did,
>
> Hey, it's not Microsofts fault that they know how to write good
>applications programs and IBM knows squat about doing the same. 



Has Microsoft come out with some apps that they are keeping secret?

This is all I need:

Lotus 123
Wordperfect
Paradox
Borland C++
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 XR06055 ---> OS/2 2.01.
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:40:56 GMT

In <1992Dec17.215231.28668@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:

>In article <3500@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:
>> Here the official specs of OS/2 2.1 directly from IBM:
>> 
>> - more printer drivers
>> - Windows 3.1 support
>> - native Windows 3.1 performance with 8Mb RAM machines
>> - improved performance for low memory configurations
>> - 32bit graphics engine
>> - multimedia support
>> - portable PC support
>> - CD-ROM version
>> 
>> [please notice the Win31 performance and the MultiMedia, thanx IBM!]
>> 
>> OS/2 2.1 will be released end february, begin march 1993.

>My contact at IBM says the the GA+SP (OS/2 2.0 XR06055) is likely to be
>released as OS/2 2.01.....
> 
>I asked why not 2.1 (from a marketing P.O.V. this might be "better")? 

>He said that it would only be called 2.1 "if it warranted it."
> 
>Whatever that means. I assume that there are clearluy defined criteria chosing
>version numbers and that these would be applied to OS/2 as with any other
>product.
> 
>Insights, anyone?

Just a guess, but I would say that they are following good software
engineering and configuration management practice (unlike companies
who start new products with rev levels of 3.1) and letting that drive
the numbering.  It would work like this, on a 3 number rev code of
X.YZ: 

	Z - minor revisions and bug fixes
	Y - significant added functionality to base package
	X - major rewrite

It's actually probazbbly a bit more common to put a second '.' in
there, and number it X.Y.Z.  People who don't do that are presumably
reasoning that if you do 10 sets of patches in release revisions,
you're DUE to roll the next number.  I note that IBM also seems to
have a second numbering system for 'unreleased' versions, such as
having System X.YZ with patch NNNNN applied.  At some point all the
patches get bundled and they roll Z.

-- 
"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: des@inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd)
Subject: Re: Future of OS/2 and IBM????????????
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 10:13:10 GMT

William Owen Carlson (woc8r@ruby.cs.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec15.210437.934@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> ashwath@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ashwath Ram) writes:
: >	Hi, netters just a thought. IBM doesn't seem to be doing so hot
: >financially they just said they are going to be laying off 25,000
: >more people next year this after 40,000 have already been allocated
: >to be laid off this year. 

: Please be a little more precise.  IBM has NEVER laid anyone off.  Truthfully,
: the early retirement plan that they offer is VERY attractive.

John Akers was reported in a UK newspaper as saying that they might not
be able to maintain the no compulsory redundancy rule this time. though
i think he's said that before and it may be a signal to the markets
that there aren't any sacred cows around any more.

i'm not sure whether IBM play this trick, but a company of their size
and structure can generate voluntary redunancies by telling people that
yes they still have a job but from tommorrow its 1000 miles away.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
david shepherd: des@inmos.co.uk or des@inmos.com    tel: 0454-616616 x 625
                inmos ltd, 1000 aztec west, almondsbury, bristol, bs12 4sq
                1992: celebrate the quincentenary of columbus getting lost
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: 1992 in review.
Date: 20 Dec 92 16:56:43 GMT
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY

In article <1992Dec20.031710.686@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:

[deletia: Gateway's do/don't work with OS/2; Desll tests their machines
with OS/2]
>
>Dell is a company that tests their machines with OS/2 2.0. According to the
>PCM OS/2 2.0 Compatible Systems list dated 11/10/92, the following Dell
>systems work with OS/2 2.0, ES 1.0, LS 2.0 (ES=Extended Services Version
>1,LS=LAN Server Version 2.0):
>
>DELL 320 SX
>DELL 325P
>DELL 333D
>DELL 433DE
>DELL 450SE
>DELL 486D/25
>DELL 486P/33
>
>For DELL 320N+, ES 1.0-N/A, LS 2.0-N/A, tested and works with OS/2 2.0.
>
>GATEWAY2000 386SX/20C
>GATEWAY2000 486/33C work with OS/2 2.0, ES 1.0, and LS 2.0.
>
>The list is dated 11/10/92. I am certain that it is updated. The best thing is
>to call IBM and inquire about the specific system in question. The list is
>very long and contains most, if not all companies, I can think of.
>
>Sincerely,
>Mark K.
>E-Mail: kovarski@zooid.guild.org

Let me say that I really did get my machine working with OS/2 and, in
comparison with an IBM Valuepoint equipped with OS/2 I saw a few weeks
ago at a dealer's, I think my system ran it just about as well as could
be expected.  I relied on IBM's stated intention of seeing that OS/2 2.0
would work on as wide a base as possible when I made the decision to buy
OS/2, though, and I wasn't advised about a compatibility list when I
placed the order.  They sure didn't ask me any questions about my
equipment at that time!  

My disappointments with OS/2 are another matter, though, and I hope they
resolve all of them with version 2.1 (though the driver problem will
likely still plague us, so I have my doubts).  But eventually, IBM may
get it right and/or driver support will be there.  When both these
events coincide, it may well be the finest OS ever, but it may also have
some competition... 

jmalloy@hamilton.edu
From: gupw@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Paul Wagland)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here's some Advocacy for you.
Date: 14 Dec 1992 13:37:55 +0800
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: uniwa.uwa.edu.au

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>In article <1gfonnINNeds@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> gupw@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Paul Wagland) writes:
>>_IF_ support doesn't appear, and to a large extent I think it already
>>has, but if everyone stops supporting OS/2 in the future, then and only

>	^^^ Already has?  What makes you think that?  As far as 
>	I can tell, the current "support" is all words and no 
>	deliveries, which means it's promises and vapor.  

 OK, I'll explain what I mean.  Creative Labs have already released a
 driver for their SoundBlaster CD interface, Trident have already
 released 32bit drivers for their cards.

 Admittedly the support for NT will probably make the OS/2 support look
 like a joke, however OS/2 is still being supported.

 Paul
-- 
Paul Wagland            | These opinions are mine and no-one elses
gupw@uniwa.uwa.edu.au   | Bingy Bingy Bingy Frogs Go round and round
------------------------+     -- Another silly quote from me  :-)