HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Date: 23 Jul 92 01:12:49 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara

>Well, what is the use of POSIX support if you can't re-compile Unix
>sources to run under it?

Well, that's actually a very good question.

1) If your system is already a UNIX system, one benefit of POSIX support is
   that it makes it more likely to resemble other UNIX systems that support
   POSIX; as the number of UNIX systems supporting POSIX increases, that
   will become more of a win.

2) If your system is not already a UNIX system, then POSIX support
   *combined with support for various non-POSIX UNIX interfaces* will, if
   done right, let you compile many UNIX programs to run under it.  The
   number of such programs you can recompile will depend on the number of
   such interfaces you support.

3) If your system is not already a UNIX system, and doesn't have support
   for those non-POSIX UNIX interfaces, there will probably be *some* UNIX
   programs that'll compile and run under it.  How many of them there will
   be, and how useful they'll be, is another question.

   However, even if there aren't an interesting number of such sources, it
   may enable you to bid on proposals where POSIX support is a checklist
  item, even if it doesn't actually help the people who are trying to buy
   the system....

Windows NT isn't a UNIX system, so 1) doesn't apply.

If it supports "enough" non-POSIX UNIX interfaces to allow an
"interesting" number of UNIX programs to run, 2) applies; WinSock will
probably help, and DCE support will help - if, as, and when DCE
applications start getting written - if they provide an API close enough
to that of UNIX.  I don't know if it'll support any X11 toolkits,
though, so GUI programs may not just recompile and run. 

If it doesn't support "enough" non-POSIX interfaces, 3) applies; if
that's the case, then you'd have to ask Microsoft whether they were
motivated by the first or second part of 3)....
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1490 comp.os.os2.advocacy:3091
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 hardware requirements.
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:43:58 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Jul21.195852.21303@infonode.ingr.com> bbrown@infonode.ingr.com (Bailey Brown) writes:
>
>Well, if you want to run OS/2 2.0 with "seamless windows", you're
>SOL with anything other than plain VGA.  Yep, that's right, no
>8514/A or XGA drivers.

Mostly.  Boards based on the Trident chipset, however, can run
seamless Windows.  The Trident drivers are the first to include a
seamless Windows display driver with the PM and Windows driver.

>With 8 megs, 2 of which are being used by smartdrive, windows, almost
>never swaps while handling my usual workload.  OS/2 2.0 swaps all
>the time with the default disk cache size (256k?).

So up the cahce size if you really want to.  Personally, swapping
isn't a major concern in an 8MB system - you can continue working
while the swapping is taking place.  Unlike Windows, which locks your
system while the disk swaps.

>How much does local bus help plain vga?

Local bus helps all devices.  They get a 32-bit data path, running at
the CPU's clock speed (usually 25 or 33 MHz).  As opposed to an ISA
slot which is (at best) a 16-bit data path at 10MHz.

The more data your application has to transfer to the video system,
the better local bus will do.  With a non-coprocessed video adapter,
moving a window involves a lot of data transfer, and the speed
increase is very noticable.  With a coprocessed board, there is much
less data transfered, and the increase may not be noticable.

>Windows takes up about half the space that OS/2 does (did, on my system).

Yes.  An OS/2 contains all the functionality of DOS, Windows, and
Adobe Type Manger.  The rest is quite reasonable, considering what it
does. 

>>All in all, these sound like suggestions for a great OS/2 system!
>
>Yes, great suggestions, now if they'd have just gotten OS/2 to work
>properly and had video drivers for it.

It does work properly.  There are some bugs, but they are being
patched free-of-charge as the patches are written.  All new systems
have bugs.  Windows 3.0 had heaps.  Windows 3.1 has some too.

As for video drivers, IBM can't write code for every board
manufacturer in existance and still make a shipment deadline, you
know.  Just like MS's video drivers were supplied by 3rd parties
(mostly), so are IBM's.  IBM didn't bundle them with the system,
because none were written at the time.  Just like there were no
drivers with the release of Windows 3.0.

If you feel these are the only flaws, I suggest you recommend people
wait a few months, instead of panning the system completely.


-- 
   |)  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: neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: PC and Mac OEs (was Re: 1 Thing Windows can do but OS/2 can't.)
Date: 29 Jul 92 09:15:55 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland

In article <g+mmdpn@lynx.unm.edu> jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth) writes:
>
>And, windows and OS/2 capable machines don't cost more than many imported 
>cars.  For less than half the price, you can get easily 2-3 times the 
>power and features.  Also, look at the price of expansion hardware (from
>drives to modems to printers to RAM) and see how expensive it is to get
>a 5 year old Mac up to the modern performance levels compared to the price 
>to do the same for a 5 year old pc.  Or can you add a new, faster mother-
>board to a Mac?

Well a 5 year old PC (circa 1987) would be about ready for the bin. If it
hasn't fallen apart by now, it will be so underpowered as to be useless
under Windows. Yer old Mac still pushes System 7 along at a speed that would
put a lot of 386SX/16's and 20's with same RAM and Hard disc to shame.

Agreed some expansions are expensive, but in both camps if you want the
latest turbo-nutter model of PC/Mac it is always advisable to start from
scratch.

>Besides, who'd want a machine that has a butt-ugly desktop?  The windows/
>dialog boxes are very drab on macs.  They need to add color to the windows,
>use 2 button mice, have pull-down menus stay open on a click, and add a
>way to do everything without needing a mouse.  Windows (and I would bet
>OS/2) allows all of these.  Keyboard shortcuts often take much less time
>than dragging the pointer to the top, opening a menu, selecting the item
>and returning to the program.

Colour. Unless colour is used sparingly it destroys the interaction of
the desktop. I know this, I DO HCI !!

Why do you hold your Windows apps in Program manager and not in the filer
like any other GUI. Becasue Windows is so bloody dumb, it needs info on the
files before it executes them so it doesn't wipe the machine out. Any
you can only hold the Windows of Windows programs (with icons) in the Program
manager window.  Why for god sake ?? (esp if you have minimised the Program
Manager icon). It is a serious pain in the arse not to be able to go to
the directory and click to start the App from it's directory (without resorting
to File manager which then looses the win.ini stuff about it).

Don't give me Mac desktop is butt ugly ...........

Windows looks like someone has eaten a technicolour lunch, drank some
blackcurrent juice and barfed all over the monitor. It is TOO colourful

I agree about the fact the single button on a Mac mouse IS a pain. Though
stop for a minute. How many of your Windows applications use the right
mouse (count them NOW !!).

Keyboard shortcuts. Have you used a Mac recently. I think your memory is
failing. Use a Mac, take a look at all the shortcuts (esp in Word 5 for
the Mac. Many of the shortcuts are different to Word for Windows. Does MS
have a clue about look and feel !?). Finder has shortcuts aswell as do
most/all Mac apps.

Neil
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Does NT's SMP handel processor failure?
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 15:24:10 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Speaking of multiple-processors, will NT reasonably deal with processors
that use instruction-continuation rather than instruction-restart after
a page fault?  For example, if they port NT to the 680x0, it is
conceivable that a page fault would have to be continued on the processor
that incurred the fault, because the bus error stack frame includes
internal processor information, which Motorola could change in
different revisions of the microcode (I don't know if they ever
have done this, but I don't think they have ever said that they
won't).

The OS on such a system needs to be able to mark a process as having
to run on a particular processor the next time it runs.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: bcmatusz@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Brian Matusz)
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:02:19 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.163039.10743@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <13652@auspex-gw.auspex.com> guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris) writes:
>>MISCONCEPTION #666 - POSIX = UNIX
>>
>>>NT plans to have POSIX (Unix) support as well.
>>
>>"POSIX support" is not the same as "UNIX support".
>
>Well, what is the use of POSIX support if you can't re-compile Unix
>sources to run under it?

I must be dreaming ... I have Gnu C++ which gives me what one would
consider POSIX.1 support under OS/2 ... and for the low price of $0 ...

Hmm...
Brad Wilson
(via a friend's account)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: matthewp@ruby.aruba.UUCP (Matthew Pope)
Subject: Windows NT, ODBC, DB-Library info.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:54:43 GMT
Organization: Project Zed
Keywords: ODBC DB Windows NT

Hello, I am researching Windows NT database support:
1)  Any idea which RDBMS vendors have committed to or delivered in terms of support for Windows NT ODBC API?
2)  I understand DB-Library is Microsoft's interim DB API, does it support ANSI 
standard 1989 (X3.135) SQL?
3)  Will existing DOS based RDBMS embedded 'C' precompilers work under NT?
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Pope                 |  Internet Style: aruba!matthewp@uu2.psi.com
Project Zed                  |  UUCP   : ...!uunet!uu2.psi.com!aruba!matthewp
AEAU - Against Extraneous Acronym Usage      "Make Love Not War"  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mikek@seas.smu.edu (Michael Kaply)
Subject: Re: The NT file system
Organization: School of Engineering and applied science; S.M.U.; Dallas, Tx
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 01:04:43 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.193942.6938@microsoft.com> gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin) writes:
>
>IBM has choosen not to offer this security feature in their OS/2 release.
>You'll have to ask them why.
>	
There are many, many ways to implement this type of security in OS/2 2.0 
using SOM and the Workplace Shell.  As a matter of fact, IBM in Europe 
currently has an offering called the Restricted Shell that allows you
to password protect folders and to eliminate the user's access to parts
of the operating system.

>	gordon letwin
>	not a spokesman for microsoft

Yeah right.

Mike Kaply

Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: craigdo@microsoft.com (Craig Dowell)
Subject: Re: Some more misconceptions regarding OS/2 and NT
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:25:53 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: na

In article <1992Jul22.163039.10743@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <13652@auspex-gw.auspex.com> guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris) writes:
>>MISCONCEPTION #666 - POSIX = UNIX
>>
>>>NT plans to have POSIX (Unix) support as well.
>>
>>"POSIX support" is not the same as "UNIX support".
>
>Well, what is the use of POSIX support if you can't re-compile Unix
>sources to run under it?

Maybe it's so you can re-compile POSIX compliant sources to run under it?

-- Craig

Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith)
Subject: MS ProgMan & Norton Desktop -- competitors or collaborators?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:44:39 GMT

Actually, I've been very curious about the relationships
between Microsoft and Symantec, with respect to Norton
Desktop for Windows. Consider this sequence of events:

1) Microsoft releases Windows 3.0, with fairly clueless
Program Manager/File Manager (OK, a BIG step up from
the "MS-DOS Executive...")

2) Norton releases a product that is, in fact, SPLENDIDLY
upward-compatible with Program Manager/File Manager, from
the user's point of view. It is also a nice clear
IMPROVEMENT in most ways.  You're strongly tempted to say
it's what Microsoft should have done. 

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

4) Microsoft then releases 3.1, which seems to incorporate
many (though not all) of the best ideas from Norton
Desktop... almost as if Norton ANTICIPATED 3.1, or 3.1
COPIED Norton.

In all of this, there is NO apparent animosity between the
two companies. (For example, when you call MS support for,
Word for Windows 2.0 and mention that you're using Norton,
they NEVER blink or fingerpoint or suggest de-installing
it).

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

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

Anybody know if there's been any Microsoft-Symantec/Norton
clandestine collaboration? 

--Daniel P. B. Smith
dpbsmith@world.std.com   
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1469 comp.os.os2.advocacy:3038
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: The NT file system
Keywords: NT OS/2 Windows OS
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:55:49 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Jul20.184003.26307@mdd.comm.mot.com> lmorris@mdd.comm.mot.com (Larry Morris) writes:
>Now the robust NT file system on the other hand looks interesting.
>If it becomes real, I may switch but for now, it ain't real and I
>don't NEED it. 

What will the NT file system offer that HPFS doesn't?  I believe I
heard something about multi-user protection, but does that make sense
for a non-networked computer?  And OS/2 supports file protection for
LAN servers.


-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: kac@utrcv1 (Kenneth Dreitlein Jr.)
Subject: Re: PC and Mac OEs (was Re: 1 Thing Windows can do but OS/2 can't.)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: United Technologies Research Center
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:29:00 GMT

In article <bynm91f@lynx.unm.edu>, jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth) writes...
>In article <1992Jul29.091555.19260@cs.hw.ac.uk> neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite) writes:
>>
>>Colour. Unless colour is used sparingly it destroys the interaction of
>>the desktop. I know this, I DO HCI !!
> 
>Why is the command/menu bar stuck at the top of the screen?  Why is it so
>drab looking?  Why can't you open the menu bar with the touch of a key
>(like the alt-key in Windows) and keep the menus open so that you can read
>them?  Why do most mice on public access Macs seem to not work well after
>a limited time when after the same time, the mice on pc's, Suns, X's, and
>Sparcs still work flawlessly?
> 
Why are you so concerned with the appearance of the interface?  I personally
like the simplicity of the Mac interface.  If I wanted to, I could get any
number of shareware/public domain programs to modify the appearance of the 
windows, buttons, etc.  But who cares.  I care about performance.  And although
your IBM-compatible might go faster(at times) through DOS, the performance 
through Windows is horrible.  I use the Mac predominantly, but I occasionally
do need to do work on Windows 3.1(not my own choice).  Just compare the
performance of the two.  My SE/30(16MHz 68030), which is apparently equivalent
to a 25MHz 386, runs at least twice as fast as the 33MHz 386(w/Windows) I have
at work.  And that is assuming that the Windows program doesn't crash, which
happens quite frequently.  

I'm willing to give up the interface's appearance for some decent performance
(using a GUI) and stable operation.

>>Keyboard shortcuts. Have you used a Mac recently. I think your memory is
> 
>Used one yesterday.  Some of the people I work with are so mentally deficient 
>that they think it is worthwhile to work on a mac.  Sure you can make short-
>cuts, but not all apps have them built-in or standardized.  But you can't
>open a menu bar with the touch of the keyboard, scroll through the options,
>and learn which features are included in app.
> 
Mac users are mentally deficient?  Maybe what you are overlooking is that
people can like whatever interface they want, and whatever that is, they are
probably going to be most efficient with it.  I despise the sluggishness of
windows, hence my dislike for it result in a longer amount of time to complete
my work.  I find the Mac fun to use, and I prefer the mouse for most operations,
and as a result, I can finish projects as fast as you could using Windows(since
that is your preference).

>We can go on forever listing all the problems with macs, but why waste the 
>bandwidth on already known and proven failures?  People use Windows/OS 2
>because they contain all the good parts of a mac's GUI without all the
>ugly, tedious parts.

Don't state like a fact what obviously is an opinion.

K.C.
From: medlin@srcvax.cem.msu.edu (Stephen Medlin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: PC and Mac OEs (was Re: 1 Thing Windows can do but OS/2 can't.)
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:35:26 GMT
Reply-To: medlin@srcvax.cem.msu.edu (Stephen Medlin)
Organization: MSU_Chemistry

>
>Well a 5 year old PC (circa 1987) would be about ready for the bin. If it
>hasn't fallen apart by now, it will be so underpowered as to be useless
>under Windows. Yer old Mac still pushes System 7 along at a speed that would
>put a lot of 386SX/16's and 20's with same RAM and Hard disc to shame.
>
I usually just read all of the postings here but I had to reply to a 
couple of points from this posting.  I have:  a 1986-1987 (I forget 
which year I bought it) 10 MHz AT (w/ 1 wait state, none the less), 
Hercules mono.  I upgraded my MFM 20MB HD to a 120 IDE, bought a RAM 
board and added 6MB of RAM for about $700 (this was about 2 years ago) 
and I DO RUN Win 3.1 well.  Granted, I wait a bit longer on some 
things like screen updates, but this is the only problem that I have.  
If I had no other benchmark to compare against, I would be satisfied 
w/ my system now since I run all the software that I need.  Now, ask 
me if I want to update my machine--SURE!!!:-)  But I wouldn't use my 
AT for a doorstop since my wife could use it and get everything done 
while I would use the more powerful machine (Chauvanist, eh?  ;-))

>Windows looks like someone has eaten a technicolour lunch, drank some
>blackcurrent juice and barfed all over the monitor. It is TOO colourful

I have seen Windows in the Technocolor vomit that you are talking 
about, but, you know what?  It's extremely easy to change colors to 
some other more palpatible scheme.  (I hate the color scheme that uses 
all the fluorescent Pastels--I feel a flashback to the 60's and I was 
only a small child during the 60's).

>I agree about the fact the single button on a Mac mouse IS a pain. Though
>stop for a minute. How many of your Windows applications use the right
>mouse (count them NOW !!).
>
>Keyboard shortcuts. Have you used a Mac recently. I think your memory is
>failing. Use a Mac, take a look at all the shortcuts (esp in Word 5 for
>the Mac. Many of the shortcuts are different to Word for Windows. Does MS
>have a clue about look and feel !?). Finder has shortcuts aswell as do
>most/all Mac apps.
>
>Neil

I agree that few app's use the right button like they should, but I do 
like the way that WFW uses the right button to cut/paste/copy (both 
text and also to copy formatting).  I like also how Excel 4.0 has 
implemented the right button.  But more still needs to be done to use 
the button.  I have one of those 3 button Log. mice that everyone was 
complaining about earlier.  Why can't I use the middle button?  I 
would like to be able to use it (perhaps programmably).

I had to put in my $0.02 but otherwise, Neil, some good points in your posting. 

     		********* Stephen Medlin *********
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: maynard@ept.msc.cornell.edu (Maynard J. Handley)
Subject: Re: PC and Mac OEs
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:06:12 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.051102.2759@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith) writes:
>jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth) writes:
>
>>They need to add color to the windows,
>>use 2 button mice, have pull-down menus stay open on a click, and add a
>>way to do everything without needing a mouse. 
>
>Better yet, both the mac and windows have to stop relying on menus so
>much.  Instead, allow the user to manipulate things directly through
>the icon with popup menus that can be added to.  For example, to create
>an alias on the mac you have to choose the icon, then go to the pulldown
>menu and choose create alias.  With OS/2's WPS you create an alias
>(called a "shadow" under OS/2) by simply using the CTRL-SHIFT-MB2-drag 
>combo.

Funny. On my Mac, I select the icon then press command-M to make an alias.
Took all of about 30 seconds of work in ResEdit to get this to happen. If I
wanted I could get one of the drag&drop alias handlers to make the alias
automatically appear in the most common places one sends aliases. I love to
hear no-nothings criticize the Mac- makes your flames seem so authorative.

Maynard Handley
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                
                                                                           
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1522 comp.os.os2.advocacy:3164