HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:57:38 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct5.141621.6764@cu23.crl.aecl.ca> gutz@cc49.crl.aecl.ca writes:
>
>Agreed, IBM, like Microsoft, can predict that cows will fall from the sky
>on Tuesday.  But the fact remains that OS/2 is selling - and probably better
>than MS could have guessed.  Niether you nor I can guess what Bill Gates
>is thinking, but if I were in his position I would be concerned,and I would
>tend to think in worst case terms and believe IBM.

In his situation, I would run the numbers:  What situation will the
company be in if they develop for OS/2 and OS/2 fails?  What situation
will it be in if they don't and it succeeds?  Then throw in the NT
success/failure variable.  Now compare results.  Look at the bottom
line.

Now, an active effort to curb OS/2 sales may also figure into this
equation.  With that, you need the odds that the FTC will think you're
going to far and prosecute you.  Etc., etc.  It sounds like a job that
a few executives and a good spreadsheet (Excel 4.0?) can do in an
afternoon.

I wonder if they made this analysis.  I also wonder what the results
would be.  And I wonder if BG listened to them or not.

>The consumer will do whatever he wants, and niether IBM nor MS will
>be able to control it.

That's why DOS is still so popular.  At one time, both MS and IBM were
working together to force 286's with OS/2 1.x on people, and that
didn't work, either.  And if IBM and MS can't do something while
cooperating, they certainly can't when they're opposing each other.
-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.windows.advocacy,alt.foolish.users
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 01:59:52 GMT

In article <RSHOLMES.92Sep27190549@rodan.syr.EDU> rsholmes@rodan.syr.EDU (Rich Holmes) writes:
>HAY MACINTOSH KICKS BUTTT !!!!!!!1!!!1!!!!!!!!!!
>
BUT IT DUSNT HAV A SPEL CHEKKER!!222!!!!!!2!!!!!2!

;)
From: ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Date: 6 Oct 92 09:34:13 GMT
 <1992Oct5.160602.21900@njitgw.njit.edu>
 <1992Oct5.201950.27362@u.washington.edu>
Organization: Forschungszentrum Juelich

In article <1992Oct5.201950.27362@u.washington.edu>, tzs@stein.u.washington.edu
(Tim Smith) says:
>
>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>      You're going to upgrade it anyway.  In two years your hardware
>>will be approaching obsolescence and your software will already be
>>there.
>
>I'm curious.  By what mechanism will, say, my copies of Microsoft Word 5.0
>and Microsoft Excel 4.0 on my Macintosh become obsolete in two years?  Will
>the spelling checker become senile as it ages, and start misspelling words?
>Well features stop working as the bits get old?  Well old age slow Excel
>down so that it no longer recalculates my spreadsheets effectively
>instantly?  Will the error on floating point calculations start to get
>larger?
>
I would take the above as a serious warning from an MS insider that exactly
these things could happen. Other products of that company had such symptoms by
the time they were brand new. I remeber for instance a PC operating environment
 designed for WYSIWYG where you never knew what fonts the system will choose
for your output. Or a word processor that would crash your system just `cause
you tried to hyphenate your text.

Michael Bode.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sam@ms.uky.edu (Mike Mills)
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
    <1992Sep23.234821.6089@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> 
    <1992Sep23.094455.20236@trl.oz.au> <1992Sep25.104157.28409@microsoft.com> 
    <1992Sep29.184431.6065@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:09:55 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

>In article <1992Sep29.030535.16189@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@quads.uchicago.edu wrote:
>> In article <1992Sep25.104157.28409@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>> >
>> >Hey, I suspect that minesweeper is responsable for about 85% of compuer
>> >use, so don't discount it.  ;) ;) ;)
>> >
>> >petesk@microsoft.com
>> >IMHO
>> 
>> Speaking of minesweeper, I just tried minesweeper that came with
>> os/2 GRE and win-os/2 3.1.  Assuming that it is the same minesweeper
>> as the one included in original Windows 3.1, I'd say the freeware
>> minesweeper for os/2 2.0 is much harder to solve than win 3.1 version.
>> When you have experience with the former, windows version is not a
>> fun anymore.
>> 
>> Min
>> 
>I assume you implied a ;) after your post.

>Otherwise, as people say here, Get a Life.
>I mean really, trying to say that your version of minesweeper
>is better than mine?  Why don't you go off any play your
>better version of solitaire or something.

>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...

Its funny how you get so offensive about everything, Pete, especially 
a stupid game.  Why don't you go off and do something useful for your
company rather than spouting your mouth where you're not wanted?

Or did they hire you to do this?

Oh.  I forgot the smiley.  ;-)


-- 
--Mike Mills              E-Mail:  sam@ms.uky.edu, {rutgers, uunet}!ukma!sam
--UK Math Sciences Dept.                  mike@ukpr.uky.edu    
--(606) 257-1429 (work) 263-0721 (home)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Desynchronized Message Queues (was a thread about threads)
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:56:25 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <kekmkWS00WB2BQ7ohB@andrew.cmu.edu> sl31+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen M. Lacy) writes:

>
>p.s.   Too many people on these bboards are misinformed, or not informed
>at all, but they want to think that they are, so they make things up. 
>Don't talk about programming any system until you've really done what
>you're talking about.  Then I'll believe you. 

This is a mighty pretentious statement comming from a Junior in CS.
I'd especially question your ability to quiest the knowledge of
someone working on PM, as I know for a fact that there is not a lot
of OS/2 or Windows stuff going on at CMU.  Mostly Sparc, Dec, NeXT,
etc.

petesk@microsoft.com

My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: OS/2 because!  (was NT: Why?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 11:44:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.041345.33318@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (m.l. gore) writes:

[speaking to Brian Sturgill]
>
>    Getting you facts strait wouldn't hurt too much, either (9 months for 3.1
>    support....wooooooooo )

Actually, I believe that Brian is right about this.  3.1 support (non-beta) 
will be in OS/2 sometime in December.  Since Windows 3.1 was released
April 6th, the code was done in March (and I assume IBM had it in March).

	December - March = 9 months

>    I've said my peace. Please feel free to come back when you have regained
>    you composure, or until NT come out. Either way, you would be getting a
>    long break.
>
>                                        bvl

	- Mike
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:46:04 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct4.194717.18452@u.washington.edu> mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth) writes:
>Jay, like you, I suppose that it would be nice if we could pick and choose 
>the components that will be included in whatever os we decide to run.  I'd 
>suggest that what you ask is not a trivial undertaking.

I suggest otherwise.  If the system is modular (as OS/2 and NT are,
according to IBM and MS), then it's fairly simple to package separate
modules on separate disks and  install them separately.  IBM seems to
have done it already.

>Microsoft is attempting to meet the needs of a very large segment of
>the market by including networking in the base product.

MS is trying to meet the needs of the server market.  In that market,
networking (TCP/IP, IPX/SPX, and/or SNA) are critical features.  In
the home market (where OS/2 seems to be catching on very well), it
isn't.  And it won't for a high price.

>It is fairly unlikely that Microsoft will come to your house and
>force you to buy NT.

Correct.  But if they want to sell to the home market, they should
price it low enough so that a home user will look at it.

>You object to the cost of NT.  However, we haven't any real idea of what the 
>cost of NT is, as yet.  Final pricing isn't available.  The only price, so far,
>is $69 bucks.  

Do you think that's going to last beyond that GA date?  Actually, I
should buy one of them CD's as well.  It'll get me the released
version when it ships.  I certainly won't be getting NT for cheap
prices when it ships out.
-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: genie@netcom.com (Gene Choi)
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 19:45:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct04.105821.27664@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.202903.13653@ultb.isc.rit.edu> rsm8167@ultb.isc.rit.edu wrote:
>> >So, from a Windows bigot to all you OS/2 bigots I say:  "Join us!  Feel the 
>> >power of the Dark Side!  Together the Universe will be ours!!  
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 
>> The Dark Side indeed:
>> 
>> ***	MS uses undocumented API calls in their products. When accused of doing 
>> 	such, MS denied they were. And then, when it was proven to be true, 
>> 	MS just shrugged it off as not important. Fair competition is not 
>> 	important when you are on the Dark Side.
>
>So if MS uses undocumented calls, it's evil.  When other people do, it's not.
>BTW: people have been using undocumented calls for years.  They only started
>doing it with MS products fairly recently, when DOS was released.  Then again,
>UN*X is fully documented, 'cause you can get the source code.

What?  I think the original message was calling it unfair to use
undocumented API's in MS products FOR MS PRODUCTS.

It's one thing to write "WordPerfect" and use undocumented API's to
make font adjustments faster for example, but
it's a totally different story when a company makes undocumented API's
in OPERATING SYSTEMS such as MS 5.0, and uses it for its own products.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All other software must rely on the operating system.  Very unfair
in my opinion.

Gene
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Interesting WINBENCH scores...
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:03:58 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Sep28.132702.21167@utdallas.edu> goyal@utdallas.edu (Mohit K. Goyal) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.055945.29899@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>>
>>Before people go crazy analyzing these numbers, keep in mind that a lot
>>of benchmark programs get skewed under OS/2 because they assume they
>>have 100% of the processor's time.  Does anyone know how WinBench times
>>its benchmarks?
>
>Well, I know one thing.  I have an AMD 386-40 CPU and when I did the
>little system stats option under WinBench, it said I had a 20mhz 386DX.
>I don't know if it got fooled or anything, but it sure didn't get all
>of the processor speed.  Windows 3.0 obviously got the entire 40mhz.

     You are just echoing the point of the original poster.  The reason
that WinBench comes up slower on your OS/2 machine is that OS/2 may be
doing some task switching while the benchmarks are running.
     Anyone out there know if it's possible to convince OS/2 to
give 100% of the processor to a given task?

					-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.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6718 comp.sys.intel:1828 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:25899
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: 2 Oct 92 13:40:07 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct2.062025.24232@amd.com> ching@angelo.amd.com (Mike Ching) writes:
>
>Don't leave out the recently announced Am386sx/40 which appears to be the
>most bang for the buck.

True. Since 16MB is enough memory for most single-user apps (unless
you're running NT :-), and video bandwidth is the major bottleneck, an
sx chip could be a very good thing(tm) at high speeds.




-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
From: bbm@po.CWRU.Edu (Brian B. Mathewson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Where have I heard this before?
Date: 5 Oct 1992 03:35:29 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bbm@po.CWRU.Edu (Brian B. Mathewson)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


On Windows NT:

"NT was built from the ground up to be the most powerful and advanced 
operating system in the world.  It has the best and most extensive 
set of features ever put together in one package.  Everything you could 
possibly want is provided for.  Nothing has been left out.  It is 
rock-solid, and designed to never ever fail no matter what happens."

Hmmm.  Where have I heard this before?  Oh yeah.


Does anyone remember the Titanic?


Maybe it's really the New Titanic operating system.

Or is that the Next Titanic?

  O O
   |
 \___/


-- 

Brian Mathewson   bbm@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu
                  bbm at Cleveland Freenet
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:46:25 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Sep29.191858.16917@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>In article <cc#pr6n.erb@netcom.com>, erb@netcom.com (Elizabeth R. Brown) writes:
>>Well, after a brief appearance on PC Magazines "Top Retail Software" list
>>OS/2 2.0 has dropped back into obscurity.  After a rapid rise it has just as
>>rapidly disappeared from the charts, according to the October 13, 1992 issue
>>of PC Magazine (page 31).  Items on the latest chart include:
>>
>>Rank   Product
>>1      Microsoft Windows 3.1 Upgrade
>>4      Microsoft Windows 3.1
>>9      Word for Windows 2.0 Upgrade
>>13     Excel for Windows 4.0 Upgrade
>>14     Word for Windows 2.0
>
>I feel a need to point out one thing.  Has anyone else noticed that they make
>a difference between the upgrade and the normal product?  Why?  They operate
>exactly the same and the only difference is price and some details on how it
>is sold.  They are the same product so why differentiate?

     The number in PC Magazine are to indicate sales, not popularity.
As such, the upgrades are indeed sold seperately from the full
product release, and should be considered as different products.


>Also, I think this list
>includes those bundled with systems.

     I don't have a PC Magazine handy to check this - anyone have the
correct info on how the figures are compiled?


>  How many copies of OS/2 do you find
>bundled with systems as opposed to the above stuff?  Not too many.

     Who's fault is this?

					-Phil

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: mba@tandon.com (Michael Ben-Ari (mba@tandon.com))
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Organization: Tandon Corporation, Moorpark, CA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:59:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.072952.16935@u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>peter@global.hacktic.nl (Peter Busser) writes:
>>>Anyone who knows of an EISA SCSI that has a 32-bit virtual device
>>>driver under Windows, please let us know about it.
>>
>>Besides, what is this 32-bit hype about?
>>
>
>This "32-bit hype" is probably refering to the BlockDev/FastDisk
>system.  BlockDev is a VxD (a 32-bit flatly addressed driver that
>runs at ring 0 with full hardware access and full control over all
>processes).  It, if present, handles Windows requests for disk access.
>
>FastDisks are VxDs that BlockDev uses for actual hardware access.
>
>INT13.386 is a VxD that translates INT 13h requests to BlockDev
>requests (only for drives 0x80 and 0x81--can anyone explain why
>Microsoft arbitrarily limited it this way?).

Most probably because the "De-Facto" standard of most if not all MFM-type
(WD-compatible) controllers only support up to two HD's via the BIOS....
Any others would need a driver to support dos access to.

You could always purchase the Window 3.1 DDK ~$500 and re-write the 
int13.386 & wdcntl.386 drivers if you wanted for your brand X controller!
<BG>

>
>If a controller vendor chooses to provide a FastDisk VxD for their
>controller, then disk access can become much faster.
>
>--Tim Smith


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Ben-Ari    		Tandon Corporation 	(805) 378-7889
mba@tandon.com  		609 Science Drive	(805) 529-9033 Fax 
70523.3605@compuserve.com	Moorpark, CA 93021 USA
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:49:54 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct5.030508.5441@u.washington.edu> mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth) writes:
>Or people who think that networking should be built into the
>operating system.  If you put it into the os, it costs much less than
>an independent package and is probably better integrated into the
>system.  I've looked at IBM's packaging for tcp/ip.  Indeed, I've
>purchased it.  Costs me $600 bucks if I want the whole package and it
>is still an add-on.  Quite good, but an add-on.  Of course, it isn't
>a networking package, just an implementation of tcp/ip.  If I want
>the networking package, I've got to buy it in addition.  I still
>think that including it in the os makes sense.  The cost, spread over
>thousands or million of users is very reasonable.  You don't agree.   

Not if the price increases from $150 to $500.  (list prices in both cases)
-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is WPS really better??
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:09:59 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct2.210004.9396@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>Voila!  Open up the shadowed directory and double click onto a document.
>Your favorite Dos/Windows/OS2 editor should come up preloaded with the
>document.  Also, any new documents will appear will automatically  have an
>icon that is  associated with the editor.

I don't think the documents get the program's icon.  They're supposed
to, and they did under OS/2 1.3, but they don't when I do it on my 2.0
system at home.

>>>Problem #2:  this is something I've encountered in Windows and other
>>>OSs that try to be object oriented - I have data files that are
>>>"connected" to several apps.  I write a C++ program in my Brief
>>>editor.  Later I use in BC++.  Then back to Brief.  I've had some data
>>>files that are used in three different apps.  In WPS, I can only
>>>attach it to one app.  To use it in a different context, I'd have to
>>>click on the setting for that icon, change the related app name and
>>>start over.  Or, use two or more icons for the same file, but have
>>>each associated with a different app?  I think not.
>>
>>One object type can have several "views". One may be Brief, another may
>>be bc++. Double clicking on the object icon selects the default "view",
>>To open another view, use open -> Viewname. This is what Open Settings
>>is doing today.

You can associate a file with multiple programs.  One is the default.
If you click-right on it, and choose the "open" menu option, you'll
notice a list of associated applications.  The chekced one is that one
that'll load from a double-click.  Just click the app name from the
"open" menu to load it into a different application.
-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rks@beaker.engin.umich.edu (Raul Shum)
Subject: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 17:11:45 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Keywords: Beta
	Last week, I tried and tried to install the OS/2 2.0 with the Win 3.1
Originator: rks@beaker.engin.umich.edu


and 32-bit graphic engine support.  However, I couldn't install the damn thing
.  The errors ranged from a read fault error (my drive is fine), to missing 
files.  Don't take me wrong, I'm a IBM OS/2 guy, but if IBM doesn't fix the 
bugs, the installation program, and additional drivers, OS/2 will fall into 
an OS that the "other guy" will run.
	Also, if anyone here is working or know anyone who works at Orchid, 
please ask if they have any idea if the OS/2 2.0 drivers are coming.  The 
schmucks at sales just give me the run around...

Raul Shum

P.S. If anyone knows or have subscription info for OS/2 Monthly, please pass 
it on!

Finally, to the schmucks who support NT, go and form your own advocacy! 
In the words of Tracy Ullman..GO HOME
.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy