HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Be more creative than the FTC!
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:18:16 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Dec22.214614.15030@unlv.edu> slumos@unlv.edu (Steve Lumos) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.220753.1755@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>
>And BTW, DRDOS is not 100% compatable with MSDOS. MicroSoft works on
>Windoze code until it breaks under DRDOS but not MSDOS every time they
>release a new version.

     Please show some evidence to support this contention.
     Oh, you don't have any?  I didn't think so.


>I've been following your cute little thread. You are a total idiot and
>I can see that you WANT MS to have a monopoly just by reading your
>suggestions above. If everybody else raises their prices, people will
>not stop using Windows, they will just switch to buying MS apps.

    Huh?  You call someone else an idiot, then let loose with this
little pearl of wisdom?  Do you have any knowledge at all of
how the market works, especially software applications?  If
Windows had no applications, people wouldn't buy it, even if it
did run MS apps.


> I'm
>sure that would just break the skums' hearts. But then, once MS is the
>only company developing for Windows, I suppose you think that they
>will be grateful to all the blind little lemmings like yourself and
>keep their prices low...HA! 

    Yawn.  Very clever.


>Oh, and if MS isn't doing anything illegal, the FTC won't do anything
>to them. If they are doing something illegal, they deserve to be
>punished.

     Aha!  Something worth reading in your post.  Well said,
and I agree 100%.

				-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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: laird@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird)
Subject: MS advertising OS/2 products again???
Summary: Saw MS Mail ad in PC Mag Nov. 24, 1992.
Keywords: Microsoft Mail
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: 29 Dec 92 03:07:41 GMT

I was just looking through an old issue of PC Magazine (Nov. 24, 1992)
and noticed that Microsoft is advertising Mail for MS Windows, MS DOS,
Mac, and OS/2.

Just struck me as funny.  Are they improving/supporting any of their
other products for OS/2 (besides LAN Manager)?

--kyler
From: mike.dickson@almac.co.uk (Mike Dickson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Can anyone recommend a GO
Date: 29 Dec 92 03:02:00 GMT
Reply-To: mike.dickson@almac.co.uk (Mike Dickson)
Organization: Almac BBS Ltd. +44 (0)324 665371

JF..Anyone happy with windows will never be happy with os2 because their
JF..satisfaction level is low;

Can't really disagree with that. However, what's irritating is some
people's insistence in comparing a glorified DOS menu/front end like
Windoze 3.1 with a real-life Operating System like OS/2.

JF..2 win comm programs, neither of which are good. Does anyone know of a good
JF..os2 32 bit program? I'd appreciate knowing of a good one.  Thanks

Well I don't know about 32 bit but have a look at TE/2 - it isn't exactly
bursting with features but it works.

/\/\ | |< |.                                     mike.dickson@almac.co.uk
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . !noitanalpxe lanoitar lla seifed enilgat sihT
                                                                   
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com (Peter Mayne)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.1 specifications, release date.
Reply-To: Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 02:55:51 GMT


In article <1992Dec22.223446.16888@a.cs.okstate.edu>, teague@a.cs.okstate.edu (Keith Teague) writes:

>>  Ted, a recent unoffical report said that OS/2 2.1 is presently in
>> internal beta, and a cd-rom beta will be available for those willing to
>> invest $15 and call 1-800-IBM-3040 after 12/28/92 for more details. It
>> does have a select button for enhanced mode apps. 

Oh oh, this is a mistake. Judging by the flames that Microsoft copped, this
means that the OS/2 beta will be at least 3 months late, and everbody will
be extremely annoyed that they have to go out and buy a CD drive just to
run OS/2.

>This beta can be order today. It became available this morning (12/22/92).
>
>Keith Teague
>

What, 10 months late? My calendar only has 12 months, not 22. :-)

PJDM (non-American-date literate)
--
Peter Mayne                     | My statements, not Digital's.
Digital Equipment Corporation   |
Canberra, ACT, Australia        | "AXP!": Bill the Cat

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 04:02:37 GMT

In article <Bzn0EI.D2w@csulb.edu> sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:

>  And supposedly Standard Oil (back in the late 1800's) found their oil
>fair and square. However, the marketing practices they followed and the
>restrictive covenants they imposed on their distributors and sellers
>were anti-competitive and the general vertical control they exercised
>over the whole system was deemed unhealthy for the consuming public.
>hence anti-trust laws. Similar findings were made with respect to movie
>studios and theaters more recently. All were forced to divest and
>restructure in a more horizontal fashion. If MS is found to exercise
>similar control, they may be forced to do similarly.

I dont care what MS _might_ do. I do care about what they have
done. By now, with the exception of IBM (with an early help from MS),
nobody was able to produce as cheaply an operating system that people really 
_wanted_, other then MS. Just take a look at the history and you will
see how prices are becoming lower, and new applications that people 
_want_, are being written as a result of MS-Windows. 

If MS is capable of keeping prices down for the customer, why
should _they_ be penalized and not the less efficient companies ? 

>-- 
>Jeff Sicherman
>up the net without a .sig

Dov
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 02 Jan 93 02:53:23 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1993Jan1.133731.2312@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>
>	All this talk about FUD & Misinformation about OS/2 from Microsoft has
>some NEW Merit!
>
>	I Recently talked to a Beta Tester of DOS 6.0. He Runs OS/2 with 2 Hard
>Drives, One FAT, One HPFS. He decided to Install the DOS 6.0 Beta on the FAT
>Partition, and got a Message saying, and I paraphrase: 
>
>- OS/2 Detected! Due to the size of OS/2 you may wish to delete your OS/2 
>files before installing DOS 6.0 -

     Interesting.  What is the problem with that?  If there was a
similar message that said "Autocad detected.  Due to the size of
Autocad you may wish to delete your Autocad files before installing
DOS 6.0", whould that be bad too?


>So The next time I hear a Micro$oftie say "IT's IBM spreading FUD not us"  The
>DOS 6.0 Beta will immediately come to mind! It's Simply BULLS**T!!!!

     Why?  The DOS 6 beta work with OS/2 installed, doesn't it?


>I Truely Hope This Beta Tester sends this one to the FTC!!!!

    Please explain what in the above warning message is the
slightest bit anticompetitive.  See if you can end your sentence
with fewer than four exclamation points.


>If this type of FUD and intentional Misinformation (apparently sanctioned by
>management at M$ ) continues, the FTC SHOULD!!!! FINE and Split M$!!!

    Please explain where in the above warning message is anything
that is "FUD and intentional Misinformation".  Also explain
how fining and splitting MS would do anything positive in
this situation, which you apparently find so disturbing.


>This is intollerable! All of the Posts claiming "Why punish someone for being
>successful?", have no ground in light of this blatent attempt to halt advancement
>of technology!!

    Please explain why a warning message is a "blatent [sic] attempt
to halt advancement of technology".


>Microsoft is doing what it does best, Trying (Lying) to Users of products of a
>competitor!

    What is the lie?


>BTW does anyone know how to Contact the FTC or IBM Lawyers? :)

    I suggest a phone book.  Prepare to be laughed at when you call.

				-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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 10:47:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.184359.9551@iscsvax.uni.edu>, brackin5483@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
|> I got one question.  When Windows becomes the only operating system out there(
|> according to Bill) and Microsoft drives everyone else producing Windows
|> softwere in to bankruptcy.  Then what will happen to prices of operating
|> systems and application software, once Microsoft has established a monopoly?

OK, worst case scenario--Bill Gates drives every single OS vendor right into
the ground.  Windows rules forever in a brave new world of point and click right?

The minute that Microsoft starts charging more for Windows than it would
cost for someone else to write a clone or a competing OS Microsoft would
have competetors again.  

Case in point:  How many brands of Salt are there out there?  Morton's pretty
much has the market to itself.  Not completely, but they dominate the salt
market far more than Microsoft dominates the OS market.  Why arn't we paying 
more for salt than Gold? After all you'll eventually die if you don't get any 
salt.  Is it because Morton's executives believe that Americans have a
god-given right to cheap salt?  Hardly.  They realize the best way to keep
their market share is to keep the price as cheap as possible.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: MS to 'support' OS/2?
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 05:58:29 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO

In article <PSHUANG.93Jan1222542@stephen-king.mit.edu> pshuang@athena.mit.edu (Ping Huang) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.174203.9145@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> ucgadkw@ucl.ac.uk (Dominik Wujastyk) writes:
>
> > I'm pretty certain MS Word 5.5 doesn't support HPFS under OS/2, since
> > it is *really* an OS/2 1.x program, and I believe HPFS only came in
> > with 2.0. (Perhaps I'm wrong about that?)
>
>The High Performance File System existed for OS/2 1.x, although I don't
>remember if it shipped with 1.0 or was one of the enhancements that came
>with 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3. You can find an article in Microsoft System
>Journal by a Microsoft author extolling the virtues of HPFS and how the
>engineers at Microsoft planned and did their very best to incorporate
>New Technology (OK, I'm deliberately using words they didn't actually
>use here....) into HPFS to ensure its viability into the 21st century,
>or something to that effect. That should tell you just how old HPFS is,
>if it pre-dates the official IBM-Microsoft break-up.

Gee, that author wouldn't have been Gordon Letwin, would it have?

Hee hee.  :)

cpk
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Organization: Techn. Univ. Clausthal
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 22:50:53 GMT

In <1993Jan2.225717.2321@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan03.000730.23120@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>     There are good reasons why DOS 6 should inform you that
>> it might be incompatible with the other operating systems you
>> have installed on your system.  I hope it gives a similar message
>> if you install on a system that contains Windows NT.
>>
>>                              -Phil
>>
>
>       Good reasons??? Give us a good reason why NT refuses to install if
>it detects OS/2? This started with the October Beta. not with earlier ones.
>
>If you are going to say something like well NT needs to be there first, give a
>good reason. NT is supposed to run on HPFS and FAT right?

This is a simple bug and Microsoft provided a fix for it very soon. Let's
simply wait for the next NT release and we will see, what happens. I think,
that 0x0A will recognized as a MOST partition correctly.
>
>OK, I don't have the exact text of the message, but the tester told me that DOS
>6 suggested that OS/2 be deleted. That much was very clear. He was shocked by
>that message.
>
Let's hope, that he actually survived this shock.

Christoph
-------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------
Christoph H. Hochstaetter, Philipps-University Marburg | Universitaetsstr. 25
Internet: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de       | D-W-3550 Marburg
Bitnet  : HOCHSTAE AT DMRHRZ11                         | Germany
Fido    : 2:243/660                                    | Phone +49-6421-28-7092
Fax     : +49-6421-28-4858                             |
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 10:39:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.153800.2223@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:

|> 	Well Rick, Since you introduced the tire analogy, lets examine
|> it a little furthur. Would you consider it a convenience if you went 
|> to buy a $70,000 porche, and the dealer said "Sure we will sell
|> you one, and they come already equipped with $30 Uniroyal Tiger Paws, beacuse
|> Uniroyal only allows us to sell Tigerpaws on the Yugos we sell if will make 
|> Tigerpaws standard all cars we sell." Well Why pay the extra $120 for four
|> tires that you didn't want to begin with? Of course you would want Goodyear
|> VR-60's, Michellin's or Pirelli P-7's, but you have to remove the Tigerpaws, buy 
|> the tires you want separately, and put them on yourself.

It is _exactly_ analogous, but it serves to prove the opposite point.

The Yugo's belong to Yugo--if the dealer wants to sell Yugo's he's going
to have to do so on Yugo's terms, or stop being a Yugo dealer.

Similarly, the Porsche belongs to the dealer.  If you want to buy a Porsche from
that dealer, you're going to have to do so on the dealer's terms, or buy from
another dealer.

In either case, if I own something, and you want it, you're going to have to
deal with me or your not going to get it.  That's what "ownership" is all
about.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Merry Christmas and HAPPY OS/2
From: ghdai@vax1.umkc.edu
Date: 24 Dec 92 02:31:21 CST
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City
NNTP-Posting-Host: vax1.umkc.edu

Hi, OS/2 users:

One suggestion:  Copy the file "IBM1S506.ADD" on 2 of 14/16 CSD back on Diskette 1
of GA version.  Otherwise, you might encounter "FDISK unseccessful" message when
you try to re-install your OS/2 for some reason like necessary re-partition.  The
"IBM1S506.ADD" file of the GA version cannot recognize some clone disk controllers.

Believe me.  I had this problem on two no-name 486 machines already.  Called IBM,
and above is their solution -- very helpful and successful.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 07:37:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.193954.27752@spang.Camosun.BC.CA>, dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:

|> : |> Ah the great god of the free market. Tell me, does the free market
|> : |> help to provide medical care for the entire population of the US?
|> : 
|> : This is getting off of the subject, but with the Federal Goverment paying
|> : for over 60% of the health care, we don't have a free market in
|> : medical care now.  
|> 
|> I don't think that's what I said. The fact is that your free market
|> system fails to provide some 25% of your population with any medical
|> care whatsoever.

I'll repeat myself and please read it this time, WE DON'T HAVE A FREE
MARKET IN HEALTH CARE.  We have a "mixed system" in which the federal 
goverment pays for and therefore mandates 60% of the health care. 

The failure of our health-care system is NOT a failure of the free market system,
simply because our health-care system is not a free market system.

Our goverment interference in the free market is depriving people of health care
--in fact it is a prime example of how the government cannot be trusted to do 
the right thing.

If the government gets involved with software (as the current FTC vs. Microsoft
thing is all about) you will soon see our software industry in the same
dire straights as our medical system is in.  
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: Information Week: OS/2, one of 1992's Top Products
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:26:39 GMT

In article <pathak-231292164232@virtual.mitre.org> pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak) writes:
>From Dec. 21 of information week [copied without permission]
>
>Article titled: 1992's Top Products and Services
>
>The 10 Most Likely To Succeed
>
>OS/2 2.0
>
>After years of delays and feuds with co-developer Microsoft Corp., IBM
>finally shipped its 32-bit operating system.  It was well worth the wait. 
>OS/2 2.0 is both revolutionary -- as the first 32-bit, Intel-based system
>-- and versatile in its ability to run multiplatform applications for DOS,
>Windows, and OS/2.  Processing 32 bits of data at a time improces
>multitasking functions and reduces system crashes compared with Microsoft's
>DOS or Windows.  For instance, portable computer users of OS/2 2.0 can send
>a DOS file by modem to their home offices in one window while
>simultaneously writing a letter in a Windows word processor.  The OS/2
>model will likely become a standard in corporate computing where such
>advances in flexibility and mission-critical platfroms are imperative for
>users.
>
While I agree with the general sentiment of this article, that OS/2 is a
"GOOD THING", it does reveal the massive ignorance of the public at
large, and even those who are paid to follow and report on the computer
industry.  What could being 32-bit possibly have to do with reducing
system crashes?

-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:31:49 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Dec23.043125.42912@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.214100.3695@nosc.mil>, discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes
>>In article <1992Dec22.185305.59162@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (S
>TACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>>>
>>>Really?  How many of these contracts have you seen?  None would be a likely
>>>guess.  That said however, these contracts appear, from the outside at least
>>>to be a bit more binding than that.
>>
>>One.  I've reviewed the Multiple License Pack agreement, and subsequently
>>
>>How many have you reviewed?
>
>None, that should be obvious from my post.  I said from the *outside*.


    Yet you continue to post voluminously about a subject on which
you are admittedly ignorant.  Amazing.


>Not when Billy is creating the desire by trying to make certain that
>absolutely everyone has a copy of Windows.  OS/2 as of yet has been remarkable
>in the amount of attention it has been getting considering how easy it is to
>get Windows, even if you don't want it.  People have this annoying tendancy to
>consider whatever they have to be the best, and if Billy and Company make
>certain that everyone has their system, a lot of folks are just simply going
>to think it is the only system worth buying regardless of whether it is or
>isn't.

     Even more amazing.  So now making your product easily available
is anti-competive?  Should Microsoft require customers to walk a bed
of hot coals before they can buy Windows?


>>Well, sort of.  The problem is really that not many people (at this time)
>>really want OS/2... which is cheaper than the cost of DOS+Windows.  To use
>>your Standard Oil analogy, gas stations started turning to small
>>comapnies such as Texaco for gas--severely cutting into Standard Oil's
>>revenues.
>
>Exactly.  But just because it is happening now doesn't mean that it is a
>tactic that will continue to be successful.  OS/2 has enough problems still
>that it is possible, though not likely, that it could flop.

    True.  Or it could succeed swimmingly.  What does this have
to do with the original topic?


>>The same could happen with IBM and Microsoft--as long as IBM's "gas" is
>>just as good as Microsoft's.  The real question though, is this: "Is it?"
>
>I certainly think so, but MS is doing a good job of convincing people not to
>try and find out for themselves.

    How so?

					-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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 02 Jan 93 06:19:12 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1993Jan2.012623.27317@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.165527.20830@microsoft.com> philco@microsoft.com (Phillip Cooper) writes:
>>And again, I say who is forcing the vendors to sell DOS and Windows with
>>each machine??  Certainly it is not Microsoft.  We explicitly offer licensing
>>agreements that allow them to only pay royalties on copies of the OS which
>>are actually installed.  If anyone is forcing them, it is the 99% of their
>>customers who *demand* MS-DOS and Windows.  
>
>OS/2 2.0 preinstalled systems have roughly 10% market share at
>present, if my estimates are correct.  That figure is also growing,
>much to Microsoft's consternation, I imagine.  I suggest you revise
>your figure downward as long as you're willing to claim that bundling
>equals customer demand.  Methinks not.
>

     How much of that 10% is made up of IBM systems?  Methinks
you may be trying to delude the educated readers of this thread.
     Besides, I pulled 99% out of my head - I was trying to make
a point.  From a practical standpoint, the difference between
90% and 99% is practically nil.

			-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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy