HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:33:54 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <SXMRP.12.0@orca.alaska.edu> SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R. Platzke) writes:
>Well, without starting a flame war, I would point out that NT has
>built in networking (limited LANMAN and full TCP/IP), symmetrical (sp?)
>multiprocessing(okay, not much good on a single cpu 486, but still cool),
>multiple APIs (Win-16,Win-32,OS/2 1.3,POSIX), built in security (which forms
>the basis for multiple users), and other goodies.  Yeah, I've heard that
>the mythical :-) OS/2 2.1 is supposed to have much of this stuff, but when?

Has?  Or Will Have?  If it isn't in the current beta, you can't say
that it already has it.  Not having this beta, I'd like to know what
it actually has at this point.  Considering that there's no release
date at all for the next version of OS/2 (come on, it was only
released last April!  And you already want the next version!), and
there's no fully-featured betas of NT out, I don't know what kind of
comparisons you can safely make.

>>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?
>> 
>Again, just my opinion, but the OS/2 support is only for version 1.3 and I
>think that MS included it so that they can claim that they did not drop
>support for those OS/2 users who bought ver 1.3, they merely upgraded them
>to NT.

Interesting.  MS didn't sell 1.3.  MS stopped after 1.2.  And they're
going to support the 1.3 API in NT.  I wonder why.  If they wanted to
simply keep supporting loyal MS-OS2 users, they shouldn't support more
than the 1.2 API.  I guess OS/2 1.3 was more of a success than they
want to admit.  I have a feeling that when OS/2 2.0 apps start
shipping, MS may well incorporate the 32-bit API in as well.  I wonder
if they'll slip the release date for the new API or if they'll simply
distribute it in the next release (or in a CSD pack).
-- 
   |)  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: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: superVGA  (and misc top-blowing)
Date: 14 Aug 92 09:08:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.200219.20070@actrix.gen.nz>, Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
|> In article <1992Aug13.151742.18779@cam-orl.co.uk> I wrote:
|> > The final release [of NT] will be leaner on both memory and disc.
|>
|> [...]
|>
|> I have seen OS/2 2.0 running *just fine* (ie, slow, but faster than Windows
|> did) on a 386sx/16MHz. How does this tie in with your "I can NT on my
|> Wristwatch" assertion above?

I made no such assertion.

|> What sort of video card did you have? using the 1024x768x256 resolution will
|> *look* slow - but that's the video card not OS/2.

Chance would be a fine thing. I don't happen to have one of the few cards
which has OS/2 2.0 drivers for that resolution. And no video card can be
blamed for OS/2 taking a few seconds bring up a simple directory view.

Now with 3.1 a directory view *does* seem to be graphics-limited, since it
takes about the same time when the data is in the cache as when it is not.
But since it usually only takes a fraction of a second, I can live with that.

|> You gave up a 32-bit OS for one promised for next year? How do you apps run
|> on a promise?

I don't. I run apps under Windows 3.1 which, for me, is better than OS/2 2.0.
I will run apps on NT when I get it because, from what I've seen so far, it is
better than 3.1 and therefore better than OS/2 2.0.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:4279 comp.os.os2.misc:27814
From: AV@vnet.ibm.com (Anton Versteeg)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 14:19:46 CET
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: More print ads for IBM and OS/2 stuff
Reply-To: AV@vnet.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Uithoorn - Netherlands
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 3.0
            <1992Aug19.083903@axion.bt.co.uk>

In <1992Aug19.083903@axion.bt.co.uk> Dave Jackson writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.164835.10427@njitgw.njit.edu>,
>dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>|> I've seen three different print ads for IBM-sponsored
>|> products in the
>|> last two weeks of Network World (a weekly
>|> newspaper-magazine.)
>|>
>|> 1) The PS/2 model 56 & 57 SLC.  No prices mentioned, but
>|> notes that
>|>    you'll be able to eventually upgrade it to a 486SLC2
>|> processor for
>|>    $259.  The ad also states that OS/2 2.0 will be
>|> pre-installed on
>|>    it.
>|>
>Unless of course you live in the UK where the 486SLC upgrade
>will be

>which is $1100 !!!!!!   What a bargain !!  :-(  Yes, that's
>the chip, not the
>PS/2 which is $1100. I was going to upgrade my 56SLC until I
>discovered the
>price.

I believe IBM UK has a special price offer for 56/57 PS/2 's
purchased before 9/30/92. I believe it is around 300 UK pounds.
You might want to check, to make sure.

>
>Not a happy chappie,
>
>David J Jackson   Telephone +44 473 645805
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>djackson@axion.bt.co.uk  TO LET: Blank line - would suit witty signature
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Anton Versteeg - IBM - Uithoorn Netherlands - TEAMOS2 NL
From: mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hasta la Vista, OS/2
Date: 17 Aug 92 14:36:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Aug17.143627.922
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

>  I can't put up with an operating system that trashes my hard disk
>during a system crash. I really dislike Windows, but at least it never
>repaid my disdain by eating subdirectories.

Bob, yours is not an unheard of problem.  You really ought to call IBM's 
tech support line and add your name to the rather large list of people 
already waiting for a fix for this kind of problem.  APAR PJ03970 is most
likely the problem to which you'll be assigned.  I sure wish IBM would fix
this...I've had it happen twice now.  Because of this problem and because I've
not been able to get help installing my telnet program under os/2...os/2 is 
off my system as well.  

-- 
Mark Huth                         * Is it too wild to want to get into 
Mhuth@u.washington.edu            * Space someday?
Compuserve 70346,563              *
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS Gave Up (Was Re: pc week and nt)
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:56:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Aug14.195641.5478
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


In a previous article, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) says:

>In article <~1@byu.edu> earlyd@ee.byu.edu (David Early) writes:
>>
>
>< Stuff about divorce settlement deleted >
>

>>And incidentally, in your'divorce', you gave up the 'kid' very quickly.  I'm not sure
>>you ever cared about the poor sun-of-a-gun very much.  ;^)
>>
>>Dave Early
>>earlyd@wombat.ee.byu.edu
>
>Okay, let me restate.  When folks on the net say that MS gave up OS/2, it
>sounded to me like they were implying that MS abandoned OS/2.  This was
>not the case.  MS gave custody of OS/2 to IBM.
>
>No one came out of the divorce clean as a whistle, in fact there is still
>legal garbage going on.  The fact that we have access to each others source,
>for instance.
>
>The blame lies on both parties, and the circumstances, not just on MS as
>so many seem to think.
>
>As for giving up the kid quickly, what do you mean.  Trying to fight over the
>kid for a longer period of time would have caused serious emotional trauma.

I see what Pete is saying.
Microsoft is refusing to write OS/2 2.0 apps in order to help os/2,
not to hurt it.  All right, I'll cut the sacrasm.

Pete, 

God damn it, Microsoft never put up a fight to keep OS/2.  They just tried
to drop it in the middle of the Windows excitment and pretend they never
knew the poor bastard.  I cannot believe that you don't think that Microsoft
abandoned OS/2 when you stopped all development on it, refused to continue
development on nearly finished apps (ala visual basic for OS/2),
and stopped honoring the $1600 development kits that Microsoft gave out.
Microsoft dropped OS/2 in mid stride and without a second thought,
especially considering some of the quotes that Bill Gates made about
the product circa 1987.

If this is not abandoning OS/2, what is?

When Microsoft fire bombs Boca Raton?
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: superVGA  (and misc top-blowing)
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:34:05 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

> 
> As far as my opinions go, I reckon that you need at least the hardware you
> describe above to run OS/2 2.0 properly. I certainly didn't run it for long on
> my 8Meg 486/33, it was too slow compared to 3.1.
> 
> |> Or you can run OS/2 2.0 on a 386sx/20MHz with 6 megs of RAM.
> 
> No thank you! It was a DOG on a 386/25 with cache and 8 megs.
> 
> |> I saw NT today. *BOW WOW* If that's a desktop system, then MVS/XA is the
> |> next step for the desktop!
> 
> Opinions vary. I deleted OS/2 2.0 from my system the day I saw NT running.
> 
> [I was waiting for the June CSD, but there is not much point now]

	Well, I don't know about you but on my 486-33 and 386sx-25 both with
8 megs os/2 runs fine.  Windows 3.1 is peppier at running Windows programs than
OS/2 is and the workplace shell under os/2 is too slow but IBM is aware of that
and says it will be rectified this fall. 
	But I don't even bother to run DOS programs from windows.  DOS programs
run noticably slower and the NT beta SDK I saw running (486 with 12 megs ram)
ran DOS like a dog.  In Windows 3.1, you can at least leave windows to play
your favorite game or use your favorite dos program that windows runs too
slowly.  What are you going to do when Windows NT comes  along and runs DOs
just a poorly?  OS/2 allows me to use ALL my dos programs (except for the game
ultima 7) at equal if not better speed as under plain DOS.
	From the NT beta testers I have talked with, NT is a disaster.
From: AV@vnet.ibm.com (Anton Versteeg)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 20:43:13 CET
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: "My Opinions"
Reply-To: AV@vnet.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Uithoorn - Netherlands
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 3.0
            <1992Aug16.010859.160@microsoft.com>

In <1992Aug16.010859.160@microsoft.com> Phil Lafornara writes:
>
>      If NT sucked, I could be persuaded to admit it, and I wouldn't
>fear retribution by higher management.  I don't believe that it sucks
>at the moment.  Ask me again when it ships.
>

I'll byte. When does it ship?

>                       -Phil
>
>P.S.  Scatter smileys about this post at your leisure.  Except for
>   my last paragraph - that one was for real.
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.
>

PS. Are your appends screened by MS? A dozen or so arrived here
within a minute. Or was it just NeTwork backlog?    :-)

Anton Versteeg - IBM - Uithoorn Netherlands - TEAMOS2 NL
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks! (was Re: Windows NT 'Alpha')
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:14:30 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Aug20.192638.18084@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.115325.3941@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>But there have been plenty of others that have said that NT is
>>quite real, and looks very promising.  Do you think we're all lying?
>
>The same (and in at least the same enthusiastic manner) was said when
>OS/2 2.0 was in beta. What makes you believe that NT will be evolve
>differently (better), when it is a released product, than OS/2 2.0 does
>now in your opinion?
Good question (these don't often happen in this group :-)).

1) Microsoft has bet the company on NT succeeding, it's clear that doesn't
hold true for IBM as a whole.

2) I already see plenty of developers headed for NT, I don't and didn't see
that for OS/2 2.0.

3) IBM has dumped a ton of money into OS/2 1.X and 2.0, and they unfortuately
insist on viewing that as a single expense.  They seem very reluctant
to do the things necessary for success, like make MM a part of the OS/2
base package.  Because OS/2 2.0 (later) comes with Windows 3.1 MM extensions
and users have to pay $149 for OS/2 MM extentions... who in their right
mind would develop for the OS/2 ones?  Likewise, IBM overcharges for
development literature, their C compiler (even at $295 it's overpriced), etc.
Talking to people internally at IBM it always came down in the end to
the need for OS/2 (as a whole) to make money.

4) Microsoft embarrased itself over abandoning OS/2 after numerous statements
to the contrary.  They can't afford to do that again.  On the other hand
from a bottom-line standpoint IBM might well be better off if OS/2
doesn't succeed, because they can gracefully let things ride as is and still
have kept their promise.  IBM has plenty of other systems to make money
from.

5) Microsoft has not been stupid enough to announce firm dates for shipment
and can thus not have (much) pride on the line, if things aren't ready in
December -- and can give it the extra month or three that it needs.

6) In terms of a large project in recent history... Microsoft has a better
track record than IBM.  IBM is mainly living on the laurels of past success.
Consider Excel 4.0 -- know of any similar IBM successes in recent times?

7) Dave Cutler. He's very good... some bigots in modern times poke that
he was responsible for VMS... but in its day, and for what it was designed,
VMS was and possibly even is quite good.  To make a large project successful
requires have project leadership that truely understand the needs of the
parts.  He spoke at the NT conference and I was amazed as the level
of detail he knew about the various parts.  Clearly he can make
that project happen.  If I recall correctly, IBM recently forced the
equivalent of Dave Cutler on the OS/2 2.0 project to quit, though
IBM's structure is somewhat muddier.

>
>Kai Uwe Rommel

Brian
From: AV@vnet.ibm.com (Anton Versteeg)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 12:53:31 CET
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ms gave up on os/2?
Reply-To: AV@vnet.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Uithoorn - Netherlands
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 3.0
            <1992Aug20.212816.21555@msi.com>

In <1992Aug20.212816.21555@msi.com> Bill Poitras writes:
>"robert fielder" (robert.fielder@canrem.com) wrote:
>: Isn't Gates the guy who said the Microsoft would write for OS/2 as
>: soon as it sold enough copies?
>:
>: I have to wonder why anyone give this guy any credibility....
>
>Being worth 7 Billion on paper, plus the CEO of one of the largest
>software companies in the world, the maker of the ever popular MS-Windows
>might have something to do with it.  Who cares if his company made a
>decision hurt a handful of developers.
>

You're right if it was only developers that are hurt.
(more than a handful I would say)
But what about customers? You know, those folks that have brought in
all that cash. This poor guy that developed or purchased OS/2 PM
applications that are running on SQL Server for example,
which happens to run only on OS/2 at the moment.
Didn't Dwayne Walker, MS exec, once say in an interview,
that MS folks were kind of schizophrenic about OS/2?
I interpret that to mean that they are sandwiched between Mr. Gates
and the customers that were deceived.

By the way, why isn't SAF a PM application?

(
>--
>+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
>| Bill Poitras    | Molecular Simulations Inc.    | Tel (408)522-9229       |
>| (bill)          | Sunnyvale, CA USA             |                         |
>|                 | FAX (408)732-0831             | bill@msi.com            |
>+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
>


Anton Versteeg - IBM - Uithoorn Netherlands - TEAMOS2 NL
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:4099 comp.os.os2.misc:27547
From: pshuang@athena.mit.edu (Ping-Shun Huang)
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
	<1992Aug07.192831.17275@microsoft.com>
	<1992Aug13.123325.8107@jpradley.jpr.com>
	<1992Aug14.093344.4604@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 22:11:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.093344.4604@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

 > But OS/2 uses the BIOS as its boot sector loader, just as Win31 uses
 > DOS as it's loader, so by the logic so commonly used in this group
 > (cynicism) OS/2 Is as much BIOS app as Win31 is DOS app.

Good thing you inserted "(cynicism)", it's almost as good as a smilie (I
hope). If some version of Windows in the future had a WIN.COM which you
could run from the DOS prompt which would first load a small (OK, maybe
not so small {grin}) kernel into memory without use DOS Int. 0x21 EXEC
function, reset the interrupt tables, reprogram the interrupt
controller, change to protected mode, wipe the first megabyte of memory
completely clean, reset all the CPU flags to the state it wants, then
yes, I would call that version of Windows a complete operating system
that uses briefly DOS as a bootstrap, just as OS/2 briefly uses the BIOS
disk boot sector as its bootstrap.

Just because some of the analogies you read are weak sometimes (I'll
agree there) is no excuse for you to use weak analogies yourself.

--
Ping Huang (INTERNET: pshuang@athena.mit.edu), probably speaking for himself
From: bill@snoopy (Bill Poitras)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ms gave up on os/2?
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:22:38 GMT
Reply-To: bill@msi.com
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Anton Versteeg (AV@vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
: In <1992Aug20.212816.21555@msi.com> Bill Poitras writes:
: >"robert fielder" (robert.fielder@canrem.com) wrote:
: >: I have to wonder why anyone give this guy any credibility....
: >
: >Being worth 7 Billion on paper, plus the CEO of one of the largest
: >software companies in the world, the maker of the ever popular MS-Windows
: >might have something to do with it.  Who cares if his company made a
: >decision hurt a handful of developers.
: >
: 
: You're right if it was only developers that are hurt.
: (more than a handful I would say)
[stuff on who was hurt by OS/2 deleted]

I'm not justfying what they did.  I was just saying why he is credible.
I know people in my company who think Windows NT is great, and OS/2 is
dubious at best, and Windows NT isn't even a released product yet!!!  

All I'm saying is that Bill Gates does have the respect of a portion of
the Unix developers, and quite a few Windows developers.  I'm not saying
that he hasn't done bad thing.

--
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Bill Poitras    | Molecular Simulations Inc.    | Tel (408)522-9229       |
| (bill)          | Sunnyvale, CA USA             |                         | 
|                 | FAX (408)732-0831             | bill@msi.com            |
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: orville%weyrich@tnet.com (Orville R. Weyrich)
Subject: Re: os2 support
Keywords: os2 ms
Reply-To: tnet.com!weyrich!orville
Organization: Weyrich Computer Consulting
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 01:43:53 GMT

In article <ZH5gPB2w165w@halcyon.com> CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU writes:
>The question which has been sticking out in my mind in reading alot of 
>the threads has been:
>        Why did MS cut off support for OS/2 2.0?
> 
>  a.  Could it be that IBM cut of MS from the source code making it
>difficult to support a product?
> 
>  b.  Or could it be that MS is trying to undermine IBM and OS/2?
> 
>IMEHO I believe that A. would be more likely.  It is amazing to believ
>that for a group to be developing a product for more than five years that 
>it would all of a sudden turn into "That's IBM's product not our type 
>stuff".
> 

Does MS have *LESS* access to source code that they need to support
OS/2 applications and compilers than all the rest of their competitors
do? I rather doubt it.

So far as I know, MS *STILL* has access to all OS/2 code [till sometime in
'93 or '94, if I understand what I have read correctly.]

And in any event, what access to source code is necessary in order to continue
to market a product that has already been developed?

Personally, I vote for B. as being more likely.

orville

--------------------------------------       **********************************
Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.                          Weyrich Computer Consulting
Certified Data Processor                       POB 5782, Scottsdale, AZ 85261
Certified Systems Professional                      Voice: (602) 391-0821
Certified Computer Programmer                Internet: orville%weyrich@tnet.com
--------------------------------------       **********************************

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: duffy@theory.chem.ubc.ca (Pat Duffy)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: superVGA (and misc top-blowing)
Date: 21 Aug 92 03:09:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: unixg.1992Aug21.030952.8491
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada

In article <4375@drsrv1.hmi.de> pfr@drsrv1.hmi.de (Fritsch_Wolfgang) writes:
> 
>I love my installation of OS/2 2.0
>but honestly I would not recommend it - at THIS time - to a good friend,
>except he/she is fond of messing with the system. Fact is that the average
>user has a right to do his/her business without being interrupted by system
>problems and optimizations. We who have OS/2 installed are probably
>something like pioneers and we like it. But a system problem, say, every
>week is too much to ask from others to endure.
>
>Having said that it strikes me that the average user has also another 
>feature: he/she does not run multiple applications at the same time, or at
>least not any critical applications. So he/she is not that likely to have
>that much of a problem to start with. But anyway, I am waiting for the
>next version, 2.001 or whatever it is called, before I would advertise
>aggressively. Sorry, just like you have a naughty child that you love a lot
>but you wait for the time that it behaves well before you praise it in
>public...

It's occurred to me (and to Bob Cain, from whom we haven't heard in a while)
that we're all (all 1,000,000 or so of us) really just beta-testers for level
6.307 and that the next drop is due out in September.

I would tend to agree with the sentiments expressed above.  I like OS/2 V2 a
lot as well.  I don't do DOS/Win and never will.  However, when counselling
a friend on system choices I would not recommend it to a neophyte either, simply
because it's a little too unstable right now.  People just want to plug-and-
play, and when even I (a hobbyist hacker and twiddler) get impatient sometimes
with bugs and things I have to take a step back and realize that although the
OS of my dreams is really a very good thing, it's not quite ready for mass
consumption yet.

I know that with time the system will become more stable, and maybe after the
first bug-fix I'll consider recommending it to my neophyte friends.  Until
that time, though, I'll tell them to upgrade from Win/3.0 to 3.1 just because
it's more stable, or at least has fewer bugs.  Come on BOCA!
-- 
Patrick Duffy, duffy@theory.chem.ubc.ca 

The future will be better tomorrow.
                -- U.S. Vice President Dan Quayle.  
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy