HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Distributed Systems (was: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift)
Date: 14 Aug 92 09:37:42 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Aug13.143324.8792@jpradley.jpr.com> grumpy@jpradley.UUCP (Jeff Markel) writes:
>
>Hey Pete, join the real world here.  New systems do not exist in a vacuum.  
>They have to deal with whatever came before.  If you want NT to take the place
>of Unix, you've got to provide equivalent functionality.  My *ix boxes run
>with massive numbers of dumb terminals via serial ports.  I guess you don't
>want to sell to that market (which, BTW, is far far larger than the market
>for networked X-terminals or other graphics systems).  We don't want to live
>in the stone age; we do have to live in the here and now, unlike you guys
>who seem to live in some clean, shiny-bright, unsullied-by-real-users, 
>idealized future.

Fine, whatever you want.  I guess you're right, Nope, No real users using
products like DOS or Windows, at least not compared to the number of people
using UN*X boxes.  Go check out the release notes, check out stuff about
RPC, TCP/IP, LANMAN, etc.  Tell me if NT doesn't offer what you want.
You're not about to listen to me, so go read it for yourself.


pete (tired of this thread) sk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Forget marketing, bring on the games!
Keywords: MicroSoft, Operating Systems
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:56:39 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <4dfycfq@rpi.edu> gilem@aix.rpi.edu (Michael R. Gile) writes:
>The fact is that only the consumer market can decide where it will be
>used.  My personal feeling is that (hello, is anyone from ms
>listening?!?!?) NT will do a good job of replacing 3.1, and that
>there are many users out there that want the networking and
>multitasking capabilities now, otherwise os/2 wouldn't have sold ANY
>copies at all. 

As many features as it boasts, NT can't take over the home market
because it isn't going to be 100% DOS compatible.  The home software
market is dominated by games (look in most software stores in the
malls for an example.)  These games (as they currently stand) use
high-end sound and graphics, and do so by directly manipulating the
hardware.  These programs cause OS/2 problems, and they will certainly
cause NT problems, since MS has stated that NT won't try and be as
compatible with DOS as OS/2 is (only the "top 100" apps).

Not to say that NT or OS/2 will never catch on there, but it'll take
the games market to switch over first.  I remember in the mid-80's
hearing that the IBM-PC would never take the home market because all
the games were only available for the Ataris, Apples, and Commodores.
Guess what?  When the games started being produced for the PC, the PC
"broke into" the home market.  I predict the same for OS/2 and NT.

Until it gets the games, both NT and OS/2 (and GeoWorks, etc) will be
ignored by the home user - who will call it a "business" system.  Note
how Windows didn't catch on strongly in the home market until Windows
games started shipping.

IBM should work on shipping a few "entertainment packs".  I'm sure MS
will port theirs.

>"i remember when, years ago, i spoke to an IBM representative
>who was explaining the 286 machine.  he said that these would
>be solely for the use of multiuser systems because no-one
>needs this much power on their desktop"
>	paraphrase from the aug computer shopper

It entered the business market when the spreadsheets needed the power.
It entered the home market when the games needed the power.

>I think this sufficiently illustrates my point.

And mine.
-- 
   |)  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.os2.advocacy
From: hess@swt1.informatik.uni-hamburg.de (Hauke Hess)
Subject: Re: What crash is a bad crash (was Re: pc week and nt)
Organization: University of Hamburg, FRG
Distribution: comp
Date: 13 Aug 92 14:02:08 GMT

craigdo@microsoft.com (Craig Dowell) writes:

>It's been a while since I played with the WPS, but arent the applications
>you run under the WPS children of the shell?  Aren't they killed when
>the shell dies? 

Nope, they are not! They may use some WPS API (and thus decide to stop working
if the WPS doesn't answer for a while), but they also may wait forever
until the WPS is active again. Or they save your work after asking for
the WPS without an answer. Every process in OS/2 is independent from other
processes.


Hauke
From: gilem@aix.rpi.edu (Michael R. Gile)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: NT marketing
Keywords: MicroSoft, Operating Systems
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:18:45 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY

Mind you, I am no expert on microsoft, and i can't say that
i really like much that they do.  Unlike most of the people here 
though, i think i like their os divisions (windows) better
than their applications divisions (word / excel).  

A lot of people are complaining around here because ms 
hasn't committed to fitting NT into a niche.  I thing that
from a marketing point of view this is one of the best
things that they could do, by feeling out the market.  They
really had no idea that windows 3.0 was going to do so well,
and that is why we have all of these people here arguing 
over ms 'abandoning' os/2.  They made a choice to go with
what what was going to make them money, and with what the 
consumers wanted, even though it wasn't what they had in mind.
This shows respect for the consumer, and also a lot of flexiblity
on the part of a very large corporation.  I think (only
speculation) that the managers of ms are now looking at
NT with a new light, based on previous experience.  Although 
some keep saying that NT is *NOT* a replacement for win3.1,
they are really guessing.   The fact is that only the consumer
market can decide where it will be used.  My personal feeling
is that (hello, is anyone from ms listening?!?!?) NT will do
a good job of replacing 3.1, and that there are many users 
out there that want the networking and multitasking capabilities
now, otherwise os/2 wouldn't have sold ANY copies at all.
NT should be marketed as a product, hilighting its advantages,
without resigning it to high end workstation work. Otherwise,
they may not choose the right niche.

"i remember when, years ago, i spoke to an IBM representative
who was explaining the 286 machine.  he said that these would
be solely for the use of multiuser systems because no-one
needs this much power on their desktop"
	paraphrase from the aug computer shopper

I think this sufficiently illustrates my point.

------------------
Mike G. (gilem@rpi.edu)
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: what crash...
Date: 18 Aug 92 22:03:52 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Aug18.2712.3824@dosgate> "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com> writes:
>In message <1992Aug11.190655.27153#microsoft.com>, craigdo@microsoft.com
>Yes, they  are children  of the  shell, and  they _should_  die when the
>shell croaks,  but not  always. Often,  some threads  will "escape", and
>take on a life of their own (or maybe unlife, since we're talking  about
>zombie processes).

This isn't Unix - there are no zombie processes.  And WPS isn't the
shell.  PM is.

>I agree  totally. This  is the  point that  I was  making. Talking about
>OS/2's "crash proof" architecture, and then dismissing repeated  crashes
>as "oh, that's  the shell, OS/2's  still running" is  specious, at best.
>When I was working at IBM I had to repeatedly point out that other  than
>the actual developers, nobody CARES  if the kernel is still  running and
>your onscreen clock survives after the application locks the input queue
>and your system ignores system input.

When WPS goes down, your apps do not go with them.  I know this from
personal experience.  And it comes back up rather quickly.  It's like
when Motif dies on a Sun (it's happened) - as long as the X server
keeps running, the apps keep running - you just restart Motif and the
apps get their windows back.

As for the input queue problems, this is an unfortunate side effect of
having one input queue.  An application can ignore its messages and
hog the system.  This is no bug of PM, though.

>Yup. The problem  now is that  WPS is still  unstable, so therefore  the
>entire OS is unstable. The chain is only as strong as the weakest  link,
>etc. etc...

Have you ever had the WPS crash on you?  I don't think so.  I think
you're just speculating on all of this.  The WPS's instability does
nothing to the applications.  The PM foundataion is extremely stable.
WPS is another application, just like Excel is.  Both run as children
of PM.
-- 
   |)  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.
From: varmint@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Samir Varma)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Release dates ( was Re: superVGA (and misc top-blowing)
Date: 15 Aug 92 15:27:32 GMT
Organization: Center for Particle Physics, University of Texas

In article <1992Aug12.140856.21609@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jensen.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>I know people that swear that vi/emacs and troff/TeX are the best way to
>word process too.... I also know these same people haven't checked out
>the abilities of modern programs.
>
>Certain apps are simply better in a GUI environment.

Dude, 

This is absolute, unadulterated, bullshit.  I've tried many modern
WYSIWYG programs, Microsoft Word for Windows, Ami Pro, Word Perfect
etc. etc.  And, they're all less efficient for getting the job done
than GNU Emacs/TeX.  If you're a touch typist, there is simply no
substitute for Emacs (or vi if you're so inclinded) and for serious
typesetting of theses, books and papers, TeX is the best (especially
if you are going to have any mathematics whatsoever).  I suspect that
you've either never spent the considerable time necessary to master
TeX and Emacs or you just haven't done anything sophisticated with your
WYSIWYG word processors.

I suggest that you don't cast aspersions on those who don't make the same
choices as you---who knows, they might even know a thing or two.

Samir Varma

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mongoola@engin.umich.edu (Don Prior)
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 01:18:56 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Aug19.121912.21865@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>sticking with Win3.0 because the app he uses won't run under 3.1....he is
>thinking of moving to OS/2. It's more stable, mulit-tasks better - and it will
>run his app. I just wish I could remember the name of the damn thing!
>

OS/2 cetrtainly doesn't multitask my HI Speed modem better than windows.
It certainly didn't multitask a combination of windows and dos programs
better while my modem was cranking...
It certainly didn't run my windows apps better, due to a lack of HI RES
drivers.

Anyway, I hope I'll like the update to OS/2 a lot better..
Waiting for the 32-bit graphics engine was the first good reason I
heard for not developing drivers..
Still, that means that people shouldn't switch until they get there
act together and support the necessary hardware.
(unless they don't care... I for one, do!)

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 apps (was: I've seen NT...)
Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:35:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.123242.14212@wes.on.ca> tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen) writes:
>So, can someone point out whether some of these are actually out now that 
>we're halfway into the third quarter?  I'll list some of the ones I actually
>recognize from the 2Q92 list.  I've marked the ones I know are available
>with a '*' in the first column...  (Oh, and OS/2 1.x apps don't count!)

Well, an OS/2 1.x app running on OS/2 2.0 is still far better than
running an Windows 3.x app on Windows 3.1 (or OS/2 2.0 WIN-OS2).
Example: Microsoft Excel 3.0 (they don't make a 4.0 for OS/2, obviously)

Kai Uwe Rommel

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

DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt
handler, and always will be.                -Russell Williams
From: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: svga drivers (again)
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:46:37 EST
Reply-To: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

In message <BswGoL.MwF@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>, Casey Barton
writes:

CB>    Time and time again, I see people visiting this group and asking why OS/2
CB>doesn't have SVGA drivers. (I was one myself). People usually respond by
CB>telling them that SVGA drivers _do_ exist, though seamless drivers exist only
CB>for Trident boards. Without fail, these responses rationalize the lack of
CB>full SVGA support from IBM by saying that "Video drivers are the video board
CB>manufacturers responsibility."

Which is why Trident SVGA boards support seamless Windows, but IBM's own
8514/A and XGA don't.  I remember raising this  point in January with  a
beta. I was told that SVGA would be "considered as a possible option" in
some unspecified future. Sheesh.

----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.com
Software Consulting and Gator Pit | Eradicate Hunger - Eat the homeless
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
---
  SLMR 2.1a  EBCDIC: Erase Backup Chew Disk Ignite Cards
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Subject: Release dates ( was Re: superVGA  (and misc top-blowing)
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 19:27:27 GMT


In a previous article, brian%jensen.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) says:

>In another thread people keep bragging about the fact they don't use Windows
>apps... to me this in inconceivable... why restrict yourself to
>Describe, Object Vision and free/shareware.  I find it hard to believe
>that anyone can't find at least one Microsoft app they really like
>(I very much like Word and Visual Basic).

There are a wealth of DOS apps that simple perform better than windows
apps.  


>Oh... one other thing... Borland has now said that the compiler for
>OS/2 will not be available till year's end.  It's about to enter
>beta.  Borland said at the NT developers conference that they will
>have the NT version out within 2 months of NT's release.

Oh, so they will have it out in September '93 ?
Get real, Borland once said that they would have their OS/2
complier released at the same time as OS/2 2.0.  Everyone lies
when it comes to release dates.  Borland is just worse than most.
It is almost on par with Microsoft.
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 w/o WPS
Date: 23 Aug 1992 02:44:20 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Aug22.211947.35000@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>Now reboot, and you'll have EPM (the Enhanced Editor) as the
>replacement for the WPS, and a Shell menu item that corresponds
>with the Command Prompts folder in the OS/2 System folder.

Oh, that's CUTE!!! Now EPM can act like EMACS: a shell from which nearly
everything you need to do can get done...What next, an EPM-REXX programming
environment program? Wow. And I just thought that EPM was a fancy editor...
-- 
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.
  "Anything that an F-4 can outturn is not maneuverable." -- Mary Shafer
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: storm@cs.mcgill.ca (Marc WANDSCHNEIDER)
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Organization: McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:36:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.114605.7935@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.073141.16594@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>>BTW, the MS presenter also said that Presentation Manager support will be
>>incorporated in NT in 1993. Is this recognition that OS/2 V2 is a viable
>>market presence?
>
>It would be interesting to know if this means a complete implementation
>of the OS/2 1.x (16-bit) API or if this includes support for the 32-bit
>OS/2 2.0 API.

	It currently will only run 16bit character mode OS/2 apps.  There
(from what I've heard) are currently no plans to support 32bit OS /2 apps
nor the WPS ....


-- 
  storm@cs.mcgill.ca           McGill University         C program run.  Run  
  Marc Wandschneider           Montreal, CANADA          Program run! PLEASE!
      "When 900 years old you reach, look as good you will not." - Yoda
				"Ow!" -J.F.K.~
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Memory/hardware access models
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:11:35 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

DOS uses the following model (where  a -> b means that a can access b)

USER APPLICATION
-+---+----+-----
 |   |    |
 |   |    V
 |   |  --+-----
 |   |   DOS       <--- Includes device drivers
 |   |  --+---+-
 |   |    |   | 
 |   V    V   |
 | --+----+-- |
 |    BIOS    |   <--- Includes ROMS on hardware cards
 | ----+----- |
 |     |      |
 V     V      V
================
    HARDWARE


OS/2 keeps the user applications out of the hardware.  Using protected
mode, it creates the following model:

USER APPLICATION
-------+--------
       |
       V
     --+---
      OS/2
     --+---
       |
       V
  -----+--------
  DEVICE DRIVERS
  -----+--------
       |
       V
=================
    HARDWARE

DOS sessions also follow this, since hardware is virtualized.


Windows programs should operate in the following manner:

USER APPLICATION
--+---------+---
  |         |
  |         V
  |      ---+---
  |      WINDOWS
  |      ---+---
  |         |
  V         V
--+---------+---
      DOS
----+-----+-----
    |     |
    |     V
    |   --+---
    |    BIOS
    |   --+--
    |     |
    V     V
===============
   HARDWARE

Unfortunately, there is no hardware protection.  A Windows app still
has access to BIOS and hardware, even with Windows installed.
-- 
   |)  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.
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Will OS/2 2.0 support Windows 386Enh development?
Keywords: windows 386enh sdk
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:49:56 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <alcocer.713648532@nestea> alcocer@parc.xerox.com (Dario Alcocer) writes:
>Does anyone know if OS/2 2.0 will support, now or in the near
>future, development of Windows apps that require 386 Enhanced
>mode?  As I understand the problem, Windows 32-bit code cannot
>run under OS/2 because the Windows kernel wasn't written to be a
>DPMI client and tries to control protected mode directly.

No.  Enhanced mode can't be provided unser OS/2.  Not because of the
DPMI client, but because Windows 32-bit code requires the process to
run in kernel-mode.  OS/2 will not allow a user application to run in
this mode - it violates system integrety.

>On a related note, when the CSD comes out for Windows 3.1
>suppoort, will 386 Enhanced mode be supported?  I've heard that
>since Windows 3.1 was written to be a DPMI client, it can now be
>hosted properly under OS/2 2.0.

WIN-OS2 is already a DPMI client.  IBM re-wrote the memory management
of Windows 3.0 for WIN-OS2.

>BTW, the project I'm working on requires 32-bit code (some heavy
>image-processing code that cannot be reasonably ported to a 16-bit
>Windows DLL, which would make it possible to run under Standard mode
>that OS/2 does support).  Also, for market reasons, we cannot write
>exclusively for OS/2. 

This code will not work under WIN-OS2.  If you structure your program
properly, you can quickly port it to OS/2 later, though.  If you use
any CASE tools, you can use the same CASE files for both systems,
since there are matching products from many vendors.  (eg: CASE:PM and
CASE:W.  I think Microformatic's GPF system exists for PM and Windows
as well).


-- 
   |)  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.
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HPFS question
Date: 18 Aug 92 23:31:05 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

See my posting in comp.os.os2.misc concerning Iomega Device Drivers
for a caveat concerning HPFS.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
---
Given Civil Seizure, from the DEA's point of view, winning the War on
Drugs would be killing the Goose that lays golden eggs.

The War on Drugs is a full-employment program for psycho/socio-paths.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ekl@fics.uucp
Subject: Re: Rest In Peace MicroSoft
Organization: Kvam data as
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 16:37:26 GMT
Keywords: MicroSoft, Operating Systems

In article <1992Aug14.091301.3969@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.022737.17146@ccu.umanitoba.ca> rwalker@next02.cc.umanitoba.ca. (Robert Walker) writes:
>>Bill Gates' nightmare is coming true. OS/2 is gainig momentum.
>                                               ^^^^^^
>
>I have a question, did you use the DOS version of PETE.EXE, or the
>OS/2 Version ?
>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>Just doing a marketing analysis on PETE.EXE ;)
>

There is an os/2 version available???? I though all support was dropped!

(Hmm... the error looks like one produced by earlier versions of PETE.EXE,
maybe version 1.x, which runs under os/2)

Eiryck

Hey! Stop that! No pete.exe on my name, please...

Eirik