HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:29:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.184617.11527@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|> 
|> As for 'pointing guns', I wasn't aware that they pointed guns at
|> people for anti-trust violations.  They generally point LAWYERS at
|> them.

Wait a minute -- just because they have a division of labor
between the guy who makes the threats (laywers) and the guy who holds the
guns (policeman) doesn't mean that there are no guns.  The laws of this 
country are enforced by the willingness to use physical violence against
lawbreakers.  And that is exactly why a small, limited goverment is best.

|> You seem to want to differentiate between 'force due to market
|> position' and 'force due to law'. 

The difference could not be greater. If you refuse to buy a copy of Windows 3.x
nobody will point a gun at your head and make you.  Try refusing to
obey a law--you'll be eyeball to eyeball with a man with a gun.

|> There ain't no such difference at the bottom line, son.

I'm sure that you don't worship your bottom line so much that you would
endorse armed robbery to improve it.
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: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 16:33:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.102400.13417@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:

>Well, I don't know anything about your FTC, and I don't quite get
>what it has to do with software needing to know about systems
>internals.
>All I am saying is that software engineers needn't worry about
>system internals. Only time critical software needs to grab an
>interrupt and as regular software goes this would only be a
>comm. package. And even then the designer needn't know about
>the internals, because he can use a library that installs an
>interrupt handler. Of course he can prefer to do it himself, as
>I often do, but that is only because I choose not to use anything
>I don't have total control over. this is of course only feasible
>if you design a piece of software by yourself.
>Summary: application designers need not worry about system internals,
>thats what the systems the designers are for.

Does not the DOS programmer need to know about segment:offset 
addressing, what memory model to use, and when ? Can one program
effectively on DOS without that knowledge ?

How about the differences between 286/386 ?

How about the 640k limit and how to overcome it ? Need not the 
programmer know about extended/expanded memory, DPMI/VCPI interfaces ?
I have in front of me the second edition (1992) of the book
"Extending DOS - A Programmer's Guide to Protected Mode DOS" by
Ray Duncan. The first introductory chapter include detailed description 
of selectors, descriptors etc. 

>Erik van Linstee   |   Delft University of Technology   |   I'll be back ... 

Dov


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mattair@sun44.synercom.hounix.org (Charles Mattair)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Synercom Technology, Inc., Houston, TX
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:10:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.003225.24074@sequent.com> furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod) writes:
>
>While competition is good, don't kid yourself that Novell is going
>to be any kinder or gentler than MS about DOS. While DR-DOS has
>smoe nice features to it, I do not relish the thought of having to
>slap Novell on the back wallet high everytime I want some
>information. I just hope we're not trading one bad problem for
>something worse.
>
>JMHO...
>

I don't know if Novell will be any kinder/gentler than MS but my experience:

   . First floppy for DR 6.0 goes bad (way out of maintenance).
   . Call DR customer service (800 number unlike some other DOS manufacturers).
   . Explain problem to service droid.
   . Get home next day and find FedEx notice of attempted delivery on front
     door.
   . Call FedEx to find out who it's from.  Novell...

Try this with Microslime.
-- 
Charles Mattair		 			mattair@synercom.hounix.org
Any opinions offered are my own and do not reflect those of my employer.
Cheap, fast, good - choose two.
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Date: 30 Dec 92 10:48:40 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering

bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:

>In article <1992Dec29.222359.25528@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:

>>I just wanted to point out that that isn't true and that
>>there are other means of driving someone else out of business.
>>The large company could also decide to skip making profit for a while
>>until the competition died. The small company on the other hand can not
>>afford such a practice, so, even if they are equally efficient and
>>maybe even of equal quality, the small company would still die on
>>account of the others hugeness. (Note: this is no reference to any
>>existing or past situation whatsoever)

>Not so simple. Hughness is not necessarily an asset, it may be a 
>liability as well, when it comes to compete with a small company. 

Certainly, look at IBM for example.

>If a company has a monopoly, its sales volume is huge
>compared to the small company. If the monoply has to reduce prices
>because of a small company, it must do it on this whole huge volume 
>of sales. This means a hugh loss. What it means is that if one or
>few small companies manage to make make few such "guerrila attacks",
>they may drive the monopolistic company out of business quite
>easily. 


>>Erik
>>-- 
>>Erik van Linstee   |   Delft University of Technology   |   I'll be back ... 
>>----
>>   We are god, 'cause only we can create the idea of his existence
>>   in our holy brains...  (Yello)

>Dov
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 30 Dec 1992 20:49:45 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec30.202102.27980@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>I'm glad you agree that it is a Good Thing.  But will you agree that the kind 
>of deals which are cut between the supplier and customer of physical
>inventory arn't any less "anticompetitive" than are the deals which Microsoft 
>cuts with the cloners?   Are you in favor of the FTC outlawing Just In Time
>inventory control?

You cut out the part where I explained the difference: MS isn't selling
anything that gains from being shipped just in time. Your analogy is fatally
flawed.

Further, I've worked for manufacturers who practiced Just in Time inventory
control without depending on a sole source for the items purchased. That is
not a central feature of the technique.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.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 20:11:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.161425.0299694@locus.com>, lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec22.040237.14440@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
|> >In article <Bzn0EI.D2w@csulb.edu> sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
|> >
|> 
|> Lots on Standard Oil & Unfair Competition Deleted.

|> MS has not kept the prices down, infact if you look at their $8 a unit
|> for bundled Windows for Workgroups vs the $100 per station that the
|> end user pays, you might suspect that MS is price gouging the end
|> user shamelessly.

*sigh* is anybody forcing people to buy MS DOS at $100 a copy?  Any sales
which go on are completely voluntary between buyer and seller.  Obviously
both parties are happy about the price or it wouldn't get sold.  If
Microsoft and its customers are happy, why interfere with them?

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: bobatk@microsoft.com (Bob Atkinson)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 28 Dec 92 20:14:54 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

Lowell Morrison writes:
>>*sigh* is anybody forcing people to buy MS DOS at $100 a copy?  
>>
>Effectively Yes.  The senario is this, I have a PC (It was given to me
>by a well meaning relitive, it is loaded with DR-DOS 6.0), I need to run
>The most wonderful word processor in the world (Word Perfect 5.2, or 
>some other non-MS windows based word processor), I go out an buy Windows
>3.1 (I am not stupid so I get it for $79 at Egghead on sale) and this 
>Wonderful Word Processor.  All of a sudden I find out that Windows 3.1 won't
>run under my version of DR-DOS, so I go back to Egghead and am forced to pay
>full price (minus the egghead discount) for DOS.  I ain't happy with
>Microsoft.


I'm confused; perhaps you can help me out of my confusion.

	1. You have DR-DOS6.0, a clone of MSDOS.
	2. You buy Win3.1, an MS product that was designed to 
		work with MSDOS. And indeed it does, as you note.
	3. You find that Win3.1 doesn't work with DR-DOS6.0

Then: 
	4. You complain to MS, not DR, about the problem.

See my confusion? Doesn't the problem have to do with the fidelity
of the MSDOS emulation done by DR-DOS? Or am I missing something?
I'd genuinely like to know...


	Bob Atkinson
	Microsoft (just a random engineer...)
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Date: 23 Dec 92 04:12:51 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <f41802eS2fjZ01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, rwb00@avon.as (Robert W Beverid
ge) writes:
>
>In article Ds0@news.iastate.edu, TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) w
rites:
>>In article <1992Dec22.102732.22124@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
>>helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>>>In article <BzMLLx.JtD@news.iastate.edu>, TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy
I Miller) writes:

(stuff deleted)

>This issue keeps coming up, but I don't get it - because:
>
> 1) the original business week article that touched off this flame fest
>    only mentioned questions about Microsoft's sales/distribution policies
>    - there was no mention of undocumented DOS/Win calls being a target of
>    the FTC. I know this is a favorite topic of the more paranoid OS/2ers,
>    but I haven't seen anything that indicates the FTC is interested.

Agreed.  This is probably at best a trivial point.

>
> 2) I have yet to see a single example of an undocumented call that gives
>    any Microsoft program any significant advantage.

Don't know.  Haven't seen their source code.

>
> 3) if there is a sinister Microsoft plot involving undocumented calls, it
>    isn't working very well - I don't see how Microsoft has taken over any
>    of the big 3 application areas - word processing, spreadsheets or
>    databases.
>

Pray tell, what are the best selling Windows word processor and spreadsheet?
That's right, Word for Windows 2.0 and Excel 4.0.  Also Windows apps passed
DOS apps in sales this year.  Still think they don't dominate any application
classes?  In addition they own FoxPro which has significant though not
overwhelming market share.

-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: robert.heuman@rose.com (robert heuman)
Subject: FCC will proclaim Mic
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 08:01:07 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 12-24-92 02:57
pallantj@unvax.union.edu (Joseph C. Pallante) writes, in
 
 
P > Which country in the world has the largest number of computers?
P > Pure quantity, that is...

The number of computers is probably irrelevant, when most are used for 
NON-PROGRAMMING purposes, such as the secretary running WordPerfect 
and the boss's calendar program, or games and homework, or keeping a 
BBS up and running (good or bad).  When it comes to actual 
programming, I suspect the US is a poor second (or is it 
third, fourth, ???) to Israel, China, Russia, France, etc. on a per 
capita programmer basis.  There are a lot of programmers in the US 
working for companies still generating tons of Cobol code for keeping 
the books running as laws change, etc. (in other words maintaining old 
systems or doing maintenance) and a select few, in relative terms, 
being creative and developing something new.

Of course, my opinion has nothing to do with this situation. Its a bit 
like the art world.... lots of hobby painters, a few great artists, 
and tons of paint-by-number kits sold.  So, I ask, what does the pure 
quantity of computers really mean?  Some of those are Commodore 64s, 
others are Crays, and in between you will find the universe. A select 
group of programmers is capable of outperforming a football field full 
of them, if only because management of a small group is so much 
simpler.  Look at the Bulgarian Virus Factory, and their output, 
whether you like the impact or not, a small group worked wonders, and 
MicroSoft still hasn't found a way to counteract the impact with 
their larger team.

Oh well.... at least it keeps guys, like me, who evaluate software 
and hardware, busy....

Bob

---
   RoseReader 1.70 P001886: This Canadian has an Opinion...His Own!
   RM 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
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: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:34:55 GMT

In article <8286@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec31.054341.3666@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> >OK, I'll play along for a minute.  If Microsoft _did_ "force" the cloners
|> >to change their names to "Microsoft Computers, Inc." in order to sell MS-DOS
|> >would that make their liscenses all of a sudden "unsleazy" in your eyes?
|> >If Microsoft offered the cloners the same deal as McDonald's did to its 
|> >franchisee's would you be satisfied?
|> 
|> If they were to franchise Microsoft dealers, with the same restrictions,
|> privileges, and rights that McDonalds forces/grants to their franchisees, then
|> we'd be talking about a very different thing.

You didn't answer the question!  If the FCT rules against Microsoft and Microsoft
offers to change its ways by becomming like McDonalds, would you be satisfied?

|> Further, the fast food market is
|> much more competitive than the PC OS market; if there were PC equivalents of
|> Burger King, Jack in the Box, Wendy's, and Taco Bell, I'd be a lot more
|> comfortable with what MS is doing.

I've lived in many southern Indiana towns where McDonald's has a monopoly in 
the local fast food Market.  Do you think that McDonald's is being "sleezy"
in those small towns by forcing them not to well Wendy's burgers? Should the 
FTC force McDonalds in small towns to sell Kentucky Fried Chicken?

|> >I don't see them as being any "sleazier" than McDonald's practices--in fact
|> >the agreements which Microsoft offers are much less exclusive than what
|> >Microsoft offers--therefore if its OK for McDonald's to do what they do it is
|> >even more OK for Microsoft to do what they do.
|> 
|> The cases are vastly different. McDonalds does not have monopoly marketing
|> power in hamburgers.

Well Microsoft doesn't have monopoly marketing power in OS's either.  The
latest figures I hear is that OS/2 is selling at a rate of 2 million copies
a year?  That's very stiff competition.  Unix must be selling a million copies
a year.
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 30 Dec 1992 14:13:17 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec29.205556.10155@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>    Incorrect, Jay.  Microsoft doesn't "force" manufacturers to
>sell machines with Windows and DOS preloaded.  We offer an extremely
>competitive contract that specifies that royalties are paid on
>all machines shipped - we also offer another contract that pays
>roaylties on a per OS copy shipped, at a higher price per copy.
>    I realize that you were just trying to flame, but at least
>get your facts straight.

They are straight. The difference in cost, if it is anywhere near as
substantial as others on this group have led me to believe, _is_ force. If
you're going to charge me more money for the privilege of not bundling DOS and
Windows with every machine I sell, then you're forcing me to do so. This is
predatory pricing at its worst.
   
>> they use undocumented OS calls in their apps,
>    Please explain why this is unfair.

Do you think it's fair for MS to break its own rules in order to gain an
advantage over competitors who follow them? This puts your competition in a
difficult spot: either break the rules in the same way, and risk having your
software break with the next release of Windows, or do you stick to published
interfaces, and give away some performance?

>> and they remove features from their development tools just to hinder a
>>competing OS.
>     Does Microsoft now have an obligation to support every competing
>operating system in our compiler tools?

No, but it does have an obligation to those who bought, for example, MSC 7 to
do OS/2 development on as an upgrade to MSC 6, which had that capability...

>> Sure sounds like they're playing fair to me.
>     Jay, if the FTC issued a statement tomorrow that said "Microsoft
>is absolutely playing fair - we've investigated them inside and out,
>and found nothing wrong," would you believe it?  Or would you
>continue with your foundationaless anti-MS propaganda?

Show me any "foundationless anti-MS propaganda". Your examples above aren't.

If the FTC were to say that, and were to back it up, then I'd have to take
another look. As it stands, though, it looks like the FTC is, instead, going
straight to court - an action they very, very seldom take, and only if they
find really egregious violations and a company completely unwilling to do
anything about them.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Date: 30 Dec 92 11:00:04 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>In article <1992Dec24.200625.4977@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>>
>>I am getting 4 x 4meg simms on Tuesday. As for the FUD....I am relating what
>>happened when I used NT. If it weren't true.....that might be FUD. The fact
>>is, the system needs 16megs of RAM and eats up 90megs of hard disk....whatever
>>machine you install it on.....

>    Steve, I'm disappointed in you.  The above is clearly FUD - the fact
>that the Windows NT installation that you tested didn't perform well
>for you says nothing about all the other machines in the world, unless
>you feel that your single PC is somehow representative of PCs
>everywhere.  I also suspect that your copy of Windows NT was poorly
>installed - I've been using Windows NT for months now and have only
>crashed once.  And it takes less that 90MB of disk space for me.

Ah, but your from Microsoft. You must be using an undocumented
slim install, no crash feature :-)

>				-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.
-- 
Erik van Linstee   |   Delft University of Technology   |   I'll be back ... 
----
   We are god, 'cause only we can create the idea of his existence
   in our holy brains...  (Yello)
From: rwb00@avon.as (Robert W Beveridge)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 23 Dec 92 16:47:08 GMT
Reply-To: rwb00@avon.as
Organization: Sun Microsystems


In article 1h8rofINNi01@tamsun.tamu.edu, bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
(stuff deleted)
>>Interesting. MS developed Windows, Word, all those mac applications,
>>a mouse, trackball, soundboard - all thanks to DR ! Microsoft (and Bill
>>Gates) just stood there, and these products sprang forth - because of DR !
>
>Microsoft developed the mouse?  Tell that to Doug Englebart who did
>develop the mouse (1965).  He did the track ball too.

Well, nobody claimed that Microsoft invented mice or spreadsheets - but they "developed" and marketed very successful versions of both. The original poster
was claiming that Microsoft essentially did nothing, yet became successful.  
>
>Windows isn't a copy of X?  
>
>It seems to me that MS doen't have many original ideas, but they sure
>take credit for them.

If by this you mean, for example, that they didn't invent spreadsheets,
you are right. But they did write Excel, and I think they deserve lots of
credit for that.

>>
>>Maybe you should keep the quarter and buy yourself a clue ?
>
>Maybe you need more than one clue.  They really don't cost a quarter,
>try research before you speak.

Someone who thinks Windows is a copy of X is in no position to criticize
others for not doing research before they speak...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy