HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ADUNSMUI@TOROLAB6.VNET.IBM.COM (Al Dunsmuir)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 12:14:20 EDT
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: The NT file system
Reply-To: SPOOLIST
Organization: IBM Canada Laboratory Ltd, Toronto, CANADA
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 3.0
            <1992Jul27.193942.6938@microsoft.com>

In <1992Jul27.193942.6938@microsoft.com> Gordon Letwin writes:
>In article <1682C71A7.CIVENBAH@mizzou1.missouri.edu> CIVENBAH@mizzou1.missouri.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Jul21.205549.16885@njitgw.njit.edu>
>>dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>>
>>>What will the NT file system offer that HPFS doesn't?  I believe I
>>>heard something about multi-user protection, but does that make sense
>>>for a non-networked computer?  And OS/2 supports file protection for
>>
>>Sure, it does.  For example, how about a stand-alone computer used by
>>many students at a school.  Each has his homework password protected from
>>all other students.....
>
>This capability was designed into HPFS and implimented in the 32-bit
>version that I did.  The Microsoft LAN manager product makes use of it, in
>fact.
>
>IBM has choosen not to offer this security feature in their OS/2 release.
>You'll have to ask them why.
>
>   gordon letwin
>   not a spokesman for microsoft
>
<1682C71A7.CIVENBAH@mizzou1.missouri.edu>

 HPFS386 _is_ shipped as part of the IBM OS/2 V2.0 Advanced LAN Server.  Like
MS LAN Manager, this will run on top of OS/2 V1.3 only.  The announcments for
LAN Server stated that work was underway to port HPFS386 to run under OS/2 V2.

Al Dunsmuir                       Internet: adunsmui@torolab6.vnet.ibm.com
CODE Development II + TEAM OS/2      Voice: (416) 448-3315
IBM Canada Laboratory Ltd, Toronto, CANADA

OS/2 V2: Why settle for anything less?
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: The NT file system
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 23:30:34 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:

>In article <19920728.092057.134@almaden.ibm.com>, ADUNSMUI@TOROLAB6.VNET.IBM.COM (Al Dunsmuir) writes:
>|> In <1992Jul27.193942.6938@microsoft.com> Gordon Letwin writes:
>|> >In article <1682C71A7.CIVENBAH@mizzou1.missouri.edu> CIVENBAH@mizzou1.missouri.edu writes:
>|> >>In article <1992Jul21.205549.16885@njitgw.njit.edu>
>|> >>dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>|> >>
>|> >>>What will the NT file system offer that HPFS doesn't?  I believe I
>|> >>>heard something about multi-user protection, but does that make sense
>|> >>>for a non-networked computer?  And OS/2 supports file protection for
>|> >>
>|> >>Sure, it does.  For example, how about a stand-alone computer used by
>|> >>many students at a school.  Each has his homework password protected from
>|> >>all other students.....
>|> >
>|> >This capability was designed into HPFS and implimented in the 32-bit
>|> >version that I did.  The Microsoft LAN manager product makes use of it, in
>|> >fact.
>|> >
>|> >IBM has choosen not to offer this security feature in their OS/2 release.
>|> >You'll have to ask them why.
>|> >
>|> >   gordon letwin
>|> >   not a spokesman for microsoft
>|> >
>|> <1682C71A7.CIVENBAH@mizzou1.missouri.edu>
>|> 
>|> HPFS386 _is_ shipped as part of the IBM OS/2 V2.0 Advanced LAN Server.  Like
>|> MS LAN Manager, this will run on top of OS/2 V1.3 only.  The announcments for
>|> LAN Server stated that work was underway to port HPFS386 to run under OS/2V2.

>Good, now how about packaging HPFS386 with some admin tools as a 'secure'
>file system without requiring all of the other LAN software?  I have
>a single machine at home on which I would like to install something
>like HPFS386.  I want to create userids for myself, my wife, etc. so
>that we can each have our own files without worrying about someone
>accidentally erasing or otherwise mucking with someones private stuff.
>I don't need LAN drivers, printer software, etc., I only need HPFS386
>and some sort of user/file admin program.

Assuming no hostile or destructive users on the system, you can have
unix-like logins and user file systems by installing the MKS toolkit
for OS/2. Works great.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
---
The War on Drugs is being conducted by idiots and/or criminals. I haven't
yet figured out which.
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1467 comp.os.os2.advocacy:3036
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Who actually NEEDS NT?  Speak Up!
Keywords: NT OS/2 Windows OS
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:46:49 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Jul19.022329.1608@mercury.unt.edu> mcmichel@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Lonny McMichael) writes:
>
>You just described one of the main reasons to use NT.  The day NT ships there
>will be more 32-bit apps for it than there every will be for OS/2.  Since the 
>Win32 API is an extension to the Win16 API, porting of all those nice windows
>programs is a whole heck of a lot easier than totally redoing them for OS/2.

But even re-compiling (assuming NO changes to the API...) will not
alter the speed of the application much.  Simply replacing a 16-bit
API with a 32-bit API is of marginal benefit.  The features which will
change things will be the multithreading and disk-access API's.  Note
also, that a 32-bit app (like for NT) won't be able to use DOS INT 21h
for disk access.

In other words, existing Windows programs will have to be re-written
somewhat to be ported to either platform.  They'll have to be
re-written a lot to properly make use of either platform.  It'll
probably wind up with a complete re-write in either case, with each
system's Windows-16 emulator running the older version in the
meantime.

What's the effective difference here?

And all this is assuming that there will be no new OS/2 2.0 apps
shipped by the time NT is released.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1525 comp.os.os2.advocacy:3168
From: craigdo@microsoft.com (Craig Dowell)
Subject: MS oppressed class? (Re: Is it just me or are MS employees kids?)
Date: 28 Jul 92 01:56:08 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

[self serving drivel deleted]

Political correctness drives me to distraction.  It's perfectly Ok for
one group of people to say something about another group because that
group is somehow special.  Turn the situation around and the same words
become criminal.

Your post takes the same tone as a previous post; one concluding that
MS employees should be censored.  A lot of what was said in both posts
is reasonable.  What is _unreasonable_ is that it seems that the guide-
lines are to be applied to a small minority of posters.

[In the spirit of this newsgroup, I will go beyond what needs to be
said and move into the area of the absurd.  I may even post this same
thing hundreds of times with only small changes in wording.]

This situation has all the makings for a discrimination suit.  A class
action suit on behalf of all of my poor abused, oppressed Microsoft brothers
and sisters seems appropriate here.  Just think about it:  Supporters
of gargantuan 38 Billion Dollar company conspire to violate the civil
rights of employees of tiny 2.8 Billion Dollar company.

Yeah, that's the ticket!

-- Craig

Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1634 comp.os.os2.advocacy:3358
From: laird@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Changing Desktop for Different Users (was Re: The NT file system)
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:03:39 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

As soon as LAN Server (to replace LAN Manager) comes in, I'm switching
my dept's network to OS/2 2.0 (from 1.3).  Before, I used "newini" as
part of each user's login to set the "desktop" up for that individual.

I just sold a single user machine with 2.0 installed, and it seems to me
that "newini" may not hack it.  Workplace Shell seems tightly coupled to
the file system.

Is there a good (clean) way to give each person a personalized WPS at
whatever workstation they log onto?  This should (ideally) include print
job settings, background, colors, mouse prefs, and _folders_.  Folders
are definitely the most important - I don't want people to even know
about some of the things that I need on my desktop.  (Complexity ->
Confusion)

Thanks for the help!

--kyler
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith)
Subject: Re: PC and Mac OEs
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 05:11:02 GMT

jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth) writes:

>They need to add color to the windows,
>use 2 button mice, have pull-down menus stay open on a click, and add a
>way to do everything without needing a mouse. 

Better yet, both the mac and windows have to stop relying on menus so
much.  Instead, allow the user to manipulate things directly through
the icon with popup menus that can be added to.  For example, to create
an alias on the mac you have to choose the icon, then go to the pulldown
menu and choose create alias.  With OS/2's WPS you create an alias
(called a "shadow" under OS/2) by simply using the CTRL-SHIFT-MB2-drag 
combo.

   Steve Smith       | __|__ |    " #*&<-[89s]*(k#$@-_=//a2$]'+=.(2_&*%>,,@
<smsmith@magnus.acs. |   |   |      {7%*@,..":27g)-=,#*:.#,/6&1*.4-,l@#9:-) "
  ohio-state.edu>    |   |   | 
  BTW, WYSInaWYG     |   |   |                           --witty.saying.ARC
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: 1 Thing Windows can do but OS/2 can't.
Date: 26 Jul 92 01:16:37 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Jul25.203324.29189@cs.hw.ac.uk> neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite) writes:
>In article <5143@krafla.rhi.hi.is> karlth@rhi.hi.is (Karl Thoroddsen) writes:
>>Sell 13 million copies.
>
>			.. and still be CRAP.

Could you elaborate on this please ;)
What are you using it for that it does not meet your needs.

I, even being a MS employee, think Win31 is crap as an automotive
fuel ;)

Oh, you were just making a funny comment, well, nevermind then.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions.

PS: The comment wasn't that funny, was it necessary ;)


Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth)
Subject: Re: PC and Mac OEs (was Re: 1 Thing Windows can do but OS/2 can't.)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 16:07:46 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

Kenneth Dreitlein Jr.  Asks regarding my quick little "benchmarking" tests 
between a 386sx and an '030:

>
>I'm not claiming to be a genius on microprocessor architecture, but I've even
>heard die-hard IBM users claim that equivalent Motorola chips(e.g. '030<>386)
>run faster than their Intel counterparts.  Then why is the IIsi going slower?
>Are you sure there is a math coprocessor in it.  None of the IIsi's come with
>a 68882 installed.  The SE/30 does.  And with something like Excel, numerical
>operations can be up to 100 times faster with the coprocessor(according to 
>a Mac benchmark).
>
>
Yes, I'm sure that the mac had the math-co installed.  I installed it in
my roommate's mac, since he was afraid to open up the mac and fiddle with
installing the new-bus card and co-processor.  The test programs that he'd
downloaded from some mac BBS showed that it was installed correctly and 
functioning correctly.  The pc had a Cyrix Fasmath co-processor installed
(BTW, if you're in the market for one, I recommend that you buy Cyrix
brand co's, not Intel.  They use less power, run a little faster, and don't
cost any different).

The first reason that I thought night cause the slowness was due to Excel
for the mac.  M.S. has good programmers, but they might not have used the
full features/enhancements of the mac.  So I tried Wingz and Claris Works'
Spreadsheet module (written by Apple, if memory serves) to see if it was
M.S.'s fault.  The time for the mac improved a little, but not significantly
so I figure that M.S. did do a good job of porting.

Another problem that I can think of was that the 386 is a Notebook
with an LCD display.  I have no idea how the LCD display would affect the 
speed of the pc, but I would suspect that it would delay the pc more.

The machines did have the same amount of real RAM, and were running the same
sized chunk of virtual RAM, so there shouldn't be much swapping/Disk access
delays.  I suspect, though, that the mac's sys 7 gobbled up more of the real
RAM than the DOS command interpreter (4dos 4.0) and windows combined).  This
might have forced the mac to do more disk swapping (or whatever they call it)
than the pc had to do, and we all know that data transfer rates are much 
faster to and from RAM than to and from disk.




Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ekl@fics.uucp
Subject: Re: The NT file system
Organization: Kvam data as
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:10:43 GMT

In article <1682C71A7.CIVENBAH@mizzou1.missouri.edu> CIVENBAH@mizzou1.missouri.edu writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.205549.16885@njitgw.njit.edu>
>dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
> 
>>What will the NT file system offer that HPFS doesn't?  I believe I
>>heard something about multi-user protection, but does that make sense
>>for a non-networked computer?  And OS/2 supports file protection for
> 
>Sure, it does.  For example, how about a stand-alone computer used by
>many students at a school.  Each has his homework password protected from
>all other students.....
> 
>Brian.

There are other features that spring to mind as well:

1) Fast crash recovery, using transaction techniques in the filesystem
   structure.

2) 64-bit file adresses, which means *huge* files, up to 1.8 million GB.
   Sounds great :-)

3) Multiple streams per file, like the MacIntosh datafork and resource fork.

4) Multiple names per file: One long name, and an autimatically maintained
   dos-style 8.3 name.

These are the ones I remember from the top of my head -- for real
information you should probably leave the comp.os.os2 hierarchy, in
order to go to comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32

Eirik Lygre
ekl@fics.uucp
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1585 comp.os.os2.advocacy:3291
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: The NT file system
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:27:46 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Jul24.133953.13967@eng.ufl.edu> jon@alpha.ee.ufl.edu (Jon Mellott) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.180617.24256@njitgw.njit.edu>, dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>|> 
>|> It's a nice concept as long as nobody needs the computer for very
>|> much.  If you've more than one person who needs lots of computer time,
>|> a shared workstation very quickly loses any and all value.
>
>In our workgroup everybody has a PC and workstation in his/her office. 
>The central resources (PCs and workstations) represent special equipment 
>which cannot be duplicated on a per office basis. I think that you're alluding
>to one of Pournelle's Laws -- at least one CPU per person.

Yes, and you support me here.  Everybody has his own workstation.  The
special purpose equipment is networked (I hope).  I'd hate to think
that a company that can afford a PC and a workstation is every office
didn't have a LAN isntalled!

-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Date: 30 Jul 92 01:35:11 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Jul28.160615.4724@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>
>What I wonder is how close the POSIX layer will be to the NT kernel.
>In other words, will POSIX code be able to call NT API's or will there
>have to be some form of DDE between two apps to get this effect.

POSIX will be a module, just as Win32, Win16, and OS2 are.
All of these lay on top of the "NT API" as it would be.  When you
programm for NT, you don't use the "NT API", you do most of your
calls through one of the modules, mainly win32.  
(just for information...for those who are curious).

>
>Under OS/2, Windows and DOS code can't call OS/2 API's.  (Well, many
>INT21 functions are mapped onto appropriate FAPI calls, but that's not
>what I mean).  This is because they run in virtual DOS machines.
>
>How is NT going to do POSIX without a virtual-POSIX machine?  And if
>they do, can it call NT APIs.  I don't know if (or why) you'd want to,
>but it'd be a neat idea.

I am unclear as to what you mean by a virtual-POSIX machine.  In many cases,
the API that the API modules see is very close to POSIX compliant. 
And which NT api's do you want to get at.  Just curious.

 >-- 
>   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
>  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
> ((|,)
>  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...


Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1542 comp.os.os2.advocacy:3191
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: All MS programmers can't spell!
Keywords: McMac McOS/2 McWindows
Date: 24 Jul 92 04:42:22 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Jul24.013757.4208@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.011107.3619@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>>
>>I'd like to see what you read into the following sentence:
>>programmers are people who programm computers.
                             ^^^^^^^^
Hey, look everyone, *all* MS programmers can't spell!
I amm sure that IBMM programmers can spell, every last one of themm.

>      I hope I get to this one before anyone else... What I read into it
>is the following:  Pete can't spell.  What the rest of the group will
>read into it:  All MS programmers can't spell.

What Pete thinks:  Dave reads into what Pete writes.
What Phil thinks:  Everyone reading this group (except himself)
                   will read into what Pete writes.
What Mike thinks:  Phil is reading into what this group thinks. ;)

>
>>My bet is that you though I said that IBM and McDonalds corp
>>are banding together to take over the minds of all DOS users.
>
>     McWindows?

McMac.  #8^)

>
>Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
>philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 

:)  :)  :)  :)

-- 
=== Mike Levis  mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ===  Call 1-800-3IBM-OS2, order
::  ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (OS/2 software/info)  ::   .--.   OS/2 2.0, $49 from
::  syrinx.umd.edu (Rush lyrics and info)  ::  (OS/2)  Windows,  $99 from
::: _The Design of OS/2_ (Addison-Wesley) :::   ~--~   DOS. Ends July 31!
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (CSYSPCN)
Subject: Does NT's SMP handel processor failure?
Date: 24 Jul 92 12:08:07 PDT

The question is: On an N processor CPU, if one of the processor fails,
does NT "catch" the failure, and eliminate that CPU from eligibility
to run any other threads?

The reason this is important is that if the answer is yes, then
an N processor CPU should be N times as reliable as a 1 processor
CPU( Since they would all have to fail before you completely lost
function.)  If the answer is no, then it would be 1/N'th as reliable,
since any one processor failing would garbage all threads scheduled
to the failing processor.

On Compuserve, someone said they had been trying and failing to
get a definitive answer on this question.  Does anyone know for
sure?
From: karlth@rhi.hi.is (Karl Thoroddsen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS ProgMan & Norton Desktop -- competitors or collaborators?
Date: 31 Jul 92 09:26:21 GMT

In <Bs6I6H.IAA@world.std.com> dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith) writes:

>3) At least one article on undocumented Windows says Norton
>Desktop is full of deep secret heap big magic
>undocumented Windows calls.

Undocumented Windows calls ain't big magic, they are frequently used in
almost all major applications.

>So what's going on? Either Norton is BRILLIANT at
>reverse-engineering undocumented Windows calls AND doing
>user-interface things that are consistent with Microsoft's
>past AND FUTURE. And Microsoft is GENEROUS because they are
>a bunch of selfless dedicated hackers who truly admire Norton's
>BRILLIANCE ... and are ready to submit the Windows
>source code to the Free Software Foundation...

Microsoft and Symantec made no secret of the fact that they collaborated
on Norton Desktop.  Microsoft isn't in the Shell-ware business so it 
isn't helping a competitior.

>... or are the two companies somehow in cahoots?  Like,
>maybe Microsoft said "We have some good ideas, but we don't
>want to implement them ourselves because they might seem
>vaguely Mac-like and we don't want to complicate the
>legal situation with Apple. Why don't YOU try some of this stuff
>out, we'll give you a hand, you're small fry and Apple
>probably won't bother you?

That's one possible reason, but I doubt that you could call Symantec
"small fry".  Apple and Symantec recently signed an agreement regarding
a common development tool, so Symantec is as chummy with Apple as it's
with Microsoft.

PS.	

Microsoft's DOS 6.0 will probably include a few utilities from Symantec. 


--

\Internet:     karlth@rhi.hi.is         \ Karl Thoroddsen University Of Iceland
  \  UUCP:     ..!mcvax!hafro!rhi!karlth  \      Department Of Computer Science
From: mikeo@spider.co.uk (Mike Overton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: PC and Mac OEs
Date: 31 Jul 92 08:48:04 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK

With all the discussion about the Mac and Windows UI, just thought
I would point out one thing -

Have you ever tried to use a Mac with a broken mouse? If you haven't,
don't bother - you can't!. And it is pretty easy to break a mouse, or
the fragile connector they use.

Mike Overton - mikeo@spider.co.uk
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: olson30@netcom.com (John Sully)
Subject: Re: Does NT's SMP handel processor failure?
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 04:32:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

georgem@microsoft.com (George Moore) writes:

>On a multiprocessor system, NT will correctly seek affinity for 
>the same processor that the thread was previously executing before
>the context switch.  This is primarily to better utilize the 
>large instruction (and data) cache that is present in certain 
>CPUs like the R4000.  

There was an interesting paper presented at the Winter USENIX '92
about cache affinity scheduling under the MACH OS.  What it found
was that cache affinity scheduling acutally provided *worse* 
performance unless the methods used for synchonization between 
threads was *very* carefully tuned.  The findings suprised the hell
out of me.

John
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy