HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel)
Subject: Re: Doug Hamilton responds
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:13:09 GMT

jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:

>True, and that makes it even more astonishing that IBM, in financial
>trouble, gives millions to large, healthy corporations to induce them to
>write software for their OS!  With a one-man shop, a wrong decision (for
>example, to write OS/2 software :) might put you out of business; a
>Borland or a Lotus or a WordPerfect (to name the three I've heard who
>are benefiting from IBM's largesse) ought to be able to take the
>business risk at its own.  Just my opinion, but if IBM were smart,
>they'd support equally (or more fervently) smaller developers (each of

Why? So that OS/2 will get 1,100 more file compressors, command line utilities,
and other trivial shareware stuff? Why would anyone want to bother with that?
What people are looking for is quattro, borland C++, Paradox, 123, Symphony, 
AMI Pro, and WordPerfect. Think about whether or not having as many of these
as possible for OS/2 would help OS/2, and then think about whether or not IBM
should help out.
I know this sounds like the obvious argument, but nobody has mentioned anything
about the advantages of doing it this way when the advantages are so clear.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: roland@margaret (David A. Braun)
Subject: Re: Proposed OS/2 Newsgroup Summary (Re: Does IBM have an ...)
Organization: Choate Rosemary Hall
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:03:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan18.063232.14945@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu  
(Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
> In article <1jcv5kINNhb8@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A.  
Bell) writes:
> >>>Can someone put a summary of all the new OS/2 related conferences that  
were
> >>>suggested? Thanks.
> >>These two will be submitted for RFD on Monday (Jan 18):
> >>   (1) comp.os.os2.ver1x (unmoderated)
> >>       This will cover OS/2 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3.
> >Well, it is a few hours early, but let me start the discusion.
> >It is somewhat silly to make a new group for a product that is being 
> >phased out.
> >I'd vote no on this group.
> 
> There are no plans to phase out IBM OS/2 1.3.  However, even if there
> were, there are plenty of newsgroups for "yesterday's products."
> 
> -- 
I would also vote no on this... What's the point?

<roland>
From: songbac@coos.dartmouth.edu (Song Bac Toh)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: os2 what good is it?
Date: 24 Jan 93 18:25:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: dartvax.C1DF7B.K9y
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel) writes:

>In article <1jrve7INNma@bigboote.WPI.EDU> trav@wpi.WPI.EDU (Travis Charles Korthas) writes:
>>FIRST OF ALL : I AM POSTING THIS FROM A FRIENDS ACCOUNT PLEASE
>>SEND ALL REPLIES TO  smiley@bigwpi.wpi.edu
>>
>>What the HELL is os2 good for?  I heard it was gonna be 50 meg at 
>>LEAST!  That would take up almost half my harddrive space.  And for
>>what???  I can do anything os2 can do with my windows!  If anyone 
>>can explain this garbage to me please do.
>>

>sigh,  another college student.  Doesn't have his facts straight to
>begin with.  Driving down "the strip" in his VW bug looking to drag
>everyone in sight.

Seems that this fellow doesn't even know what capital letter 
stands for in USENET world....  Sounds hostile but ignorant for me...  
:) 

Please keep in mind though, not all the college students yell at people
when they ask questions.   At least there is one here.  :)


	<signature deleted>

--
Song Bac Toh        		
			email:	
  Dartmouth College   	  songbac@coos.dartmouth.edu   	
  New Hampshire           bk140@cleveland.freenet.edu     
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dyoung@netcom.com (David Young)
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:59:43 GMT

> a critidcal different.  OS/2 runs poorly at 4 megs but quite decently at
> 8 megs.  I think it is quite widely agreed that NT will eventually run

You know... I keep hearing that OS/2 runs poorly in 4Meg of RAM, and I
just don't get it.  I'm running it here at my office on a 486-33
laptop with 4 MEG of RAM, and it's quite acceptible. Sure, I can't
open more than about 3-4 applications without it slowing down, but I
wouldn't call it poor.  And now that I've loaded the 2.1 beta it's
even better. Yes, I'm running FAT, but I'm also running the Novell
requestor.

Sure, I'd prefer to have 8Mb on this machine, but I wouldn't call it
poor performance.  And before anyone tells me that I simply don't know
any better... I'm running OS/2 2.1 on a 486-33 with 16Mb RAM at home,
and it runs great.  Having run, inn *production* environments, I'd
have to say that OS/2 runs acceptibly at 4Mb, runs well at 6 or 8Mb,
and runs wonderfully at anything more than 8.

-- 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  David M. Young   |                    |  Real airplanes have two wings |
| dyoung@netcom.com |                    |  and round engines.    - Anon  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Our life is frittered away by detail...Simplify, simplify.   - Thoreau  |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: jahonen@cs.joensuu.fi (Jarmo Ahonen)
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:48:05 GMT

brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>In article <1993Jan25.000734.63146@cc.usu.edu> sl1yn@avon.declab.usu.edu (869483 Denys Larry) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan25.064002.3937@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>>	[A hell of a lot of bitching about IBM deleted here.]
>>
>>
>>  That was very nice bit of ranting, Brian.  Now how about a similar 
>>article about the lies and distortions of Crapsoft...er, Microsludge...er,
>>damn, just can't get it right...Microsoft.  You could break it up into
>>a four or five part series.
>>

>This is they typical reaction I get from OS/2 zealots.  I make a thought
>out article, complete with facts and references showing that IBM 
>has been doling out misinformation in an organized manner, and what do
>I get?  Cracks about MS.  The vast bulk of MS-bashing in c.o.o.a has
>no factual basis.   If if it were true, why does this let IBM off
>the hook?

Well... I may be too skeptical, but *I* allways thought that IBM and MS
exist in order to make *money*. In order to achieve that goal they will do
anything what law allows them to do. That is how things are going, right?

Both MS and IBM are not saints or saving angels, they just happen to be 
competing against each others in the PC field. For example, I think that
the MS's claim that *I* could buy an off-the-shelf Windows NT in the beginning
of 1993 was pure FUD which was intended to make me to sit and wait and not
to buy UNIX or OS/2. I'm not even sure if MS people believed in that end-of-92
release date themselves. If not, then it was a fine move. I even waited
additional months for NT because of that announcement! :-) :-) :-) Maybe Philip
Laforna or P. Skelly could inform us about the story. I do not think that
they will answer, but do not be surprised if your favourite company spreads
FUD when it suits it.

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:12798 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4018
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: Beta-zoid (wuz Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...)
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 11:56:37 GMT

In <1993Jan24.030639.17197@msi.com> bill@west.msi.com (Bill Poitras) writes:

>Mike LevisOS/2 (mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu) wrote:
>: Anyone can have the OS/2 2.1 beta now, for free.  If they don't like the
>: beta, they lose nothing.  If they like it, they can either (1) buy 2.1 GA
>: if they are not OS/2 2.0 owners, or (2) upgrade to 2.1 GA if they are OS/2
>: 2.0 owners (I don't know the upgrade cost, if any).  Try before you buy.

>: With the NT beta, people must spend $69 first.  If they like the beta,
>: they'll get NT GA free.  If they don't like it, they're out $69.

>Also the NT version REQUIRES a CD-ROM drive.  OS/2 2.1 beta doesn't.  

The current NT prerelease doesn't require a CD-ROM, either. If you
have ftp access, you'll most probably have temporary access to a
Unix workstation with a CD drive, too. Mount the CD, ftp the contents
of the NT installation directory to your PC.  That's it.  Local 
installation proceeds without access to the CD.

--
      o      (     Wolfgang Strobl    Wolfgang.Strobl@gmd.de (+49 2241) 14-2394
     /\        *   GMD - Gesellschaft fuer Mathematik und Datenverarbeitung mbH
   _`\ `_<===      Schloss Birlinghoven, P.O. Box 1316,  | #include   
__(_)/_(_)___.-._  W-5205 Sankt Augustin, Germany        | <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: roland@margaret (David A. Braun)
Subject: Re:  OS2: PAS-16 beta drivers? TRANTOR SCSI on PAS drivers???
Organization: Choate Rosemary Hall
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:31:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan18.234333.17718@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu>  
mpearson@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Matthew Pearson) writes:
> Someone mentioned the following..
> 
> 1. There are PAS-16 -beta- drivers for OS2 out there.. if so WHERE ARE
> THEY!! I WANT EM!!!!
> 
> 2. The SCSI on the PAS is a Trantor SCSI interface... if so WHAT model
> is it compatible with.. and are there drivers for OS2 for it.. even in
> BETA?
> 
> I am beta-testing OS2 2.1 and the MMPM/2 2.1 .. I could REALLY use these
> drivers.. EVEN if they are only BETA..
> 
> PLEASE send me ANY info you have on them...
> 
> Matt


Ditto, I am sitting here with a PAS-16 and a Texel CD-ROM that I just bought  
and CAN'T USE!  Also, what about SB compatibility, That's BS from  
MediaVision... I cannot use my PAS-16 as an SB in OS/2... Then what's it worth  
to me??

<roland>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:08:14 GMT

hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:
>pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com (Peter Mayne) writes:
>>In article <GHENNIGA.93Jan20231606@ampere.ampere>, ghenniga@NMSU.Edu writes:
>>>However, just to put in a counterpoint to the
>>>$69 point, you can get a version of OS/2 comparable to your $69 dollar
>>>version of NT for FREE merely by using the command "ftp ftp-os2.NMSU.Edu"
>>>and a few "mget" commands!!
>
>>The $69 includes a C/C++ compiler and the first release version of Windows NT.
>>Comparable offer from IBM?
>
>Well, the C compiler in NT is *not* C 7.0, but a 32-bit only version;
>plus you don't get the whiz-bang all-new Visual C++ (C 8.0) which MS better
>hope is less problematic than C 7.0 (or worse still, C 6.0).
>
>You can get a beta of the IBM C++ compiler for $15. Doesn't get you the
>final release, but then neither does NT get you the final C++ compiler, so
>there, nyah. :-)
>
>>Complaints about requiring a CD drive may be riposted by complaints about
>>requiring the ability to ftp.
>
>Many BBS's have the new 2.1 beta; I haven't heard of one with any
>version of NT. 'Free' download from the BBS (most people connect locally).
>-- 
>Tom Hatton
>hatton@cgl.ucsf.edu
>(415)-476-8693


Not to mention the local IBM Bulletin Board that are networked throughout
Canada. Great new PD/Shareware software, networking, etc. I like the fact
that I can call a Bulletin Board locally and get the latest news,
patches, files etc. 

Microsoft has a two line Toronto BBS (And Toronto is BIG). Most of the
time it's down, nobody answering etc.

So in that respect, I can't even compare IBM and Microsoft.

Best Regards,
mark K.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: 177wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bugs in OS/2 v2.0, unreasonable number?
Date: 22 Jan 93 18:21:56 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <mortenk.191.727723843@dhhalden.no>, mortenk@dhhalden.no (MORTEN KNUDSEN) writes:
> Yes, windoze 3.0 did have bugs, but nothing compared to OS/2 2.0. 
> Sometimes I wonder if the people coding OS/2 are complete moreons. 
> I really hope 2.1 will prove me wrong.
> 
	Well, when the system crashes in OS/2, we call it a bug.  In
Windows 3.0, it was just a crash.  Windows 3.0 crashed on me far more
often than OS./2 2.1b and I consider OS/2 2.1b to be rather unstable.

					-Brad




Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: rom@cci632.cci.com (Rudynell S. Millian)
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Organization: [Computer Consoles, Inc., Rochester, NY
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:58:22 GMT

	For a person who is an NT lover, Brian sure pays an inordinate
amount of attention to what IBM says and does. I fail to see why OS/2 bugs 
Brian so much, especially when its sales are flat.
	Brian's latest post doesn't advocate OS/2, and it doesn't advocate NT.
This latest thread Brian started doesn't even inform, it just tries to put 
IBM in a bad light. Now, THAT's what people call FUD.
	
	I obviously can't order Brian around, but I suggest he get a copy of
OS/2 2.1b and write something bad about that.

R. Millian
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Can you cut/paste DOS stuff in OS/2?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 02:52:17 GMT

singer@uwovax.uwo.ca writes:

>I have been following the interesting debates on OS/2 vs Windows here in 
>preparation for buying a new 486 system. One comes with Windows and the other
>with OS/2. I use Word Perfect (DOS), MaxThink (DOS), Magellan (DOS) and am
>about to start using Papyrus. In using Papyrus (a powerful bibliography
>program), I will be cutting and pasting to Word Perfect and possibly to ASCII
>programs such as MaxThink. It is not clear whether one can with ease cut and
>paste between these different applications in OS/2. Has anybody tried this? I
>undertand it can be done in W3.1, but can it be done, and as easily, in 
>OS/2? (I really want to buy OS/2, so I hope the answer is positive). --

I've done cut-and-paste between a TCP/IP window and a DOS WordPerfect 5.1
window.  My only complaint is that I can only seem to block what appears 
on the window and can't scroll the whole document to include it in the 
block (or I haven't figured out how yet).  The on-line instructions were 
more than sufficient to figure out the CP.  I thought it was nifty - I used 
it to convince my boss to let me bring OS/2 in-house.  He was sufficiently 
impressed to let me try for a while.

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: roland@spock.uucp (David A. Braun)
Subject: Just Crashed...
Organization: Choate Rosemary Hall
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:03:46 GMT

I can understand the system crashing when doing strenuous
things, but I just reinstalled and the system just crashed
when I sort-type-arranged my Productivity folder... Trap 8
What is a Trap 0008? Thanks in advance...

<roland>


-- 
main () { //      TRAVELLER, BEYOND LIES MID-WORLD...
 !!!"ARRAY EXCEEDS 64K, PLEASE MAKE DATA ELEMENT SMALLER"!!!
 !!"Out of Conventional memory... High memory... Upper memory
 Extended memory... Expanded memory..."!! !!"UNRECOVERABLE APPLICATION ERROR"!!
 Well it worked with DOS, and it doesn't with OS2...  Must be
 the OS... The fact that the BIOS was HARDWIRED incorrectly couldn't
 have anything to do with it, Right?     -----Roland of Gilead-----   }
void awesome () { Happy user od OS/2 2.1b;   }
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:12757 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4004
From: chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Date: 25 Jan 1993 08:03:39 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu

In <1993Jan25.091315.5977@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>In article <1993Jan25.000734.63146@cc.usu.edu> sl1yn@avon.declab.usu.edu (869483 Denys Larry) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan25.064002.3937@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>>	[A hell of a lot of bitching about IBM deleted here.]
>>
>>

>This is they typical reaction I get from OS/2 zealots.  I make a thought
>out article, complete with facts and references showing that IBM 
>has been doling out misinformation in an organized manner, and what do
>I get?  Cracks about MS.  The vast bulk of MS-bashing in c.o.o.a has
>no factual basis.   If if it were true, why does this let IBM off
>the hook?

This is the typical response OS2 people get from NT Zealots.

If you hate IBM so much, and you hate OS/2 equally as much
(remember all posts you have put up, including how OS/2
is garbage technically), why don't you go sit in a windows newsgroup
and praise Microsoft and NT where people will actually want to hear
it?  Why must you always come in to c.o.os2.a and post articles
by columnists who say IBM is lying, or just post articles about
how OS/2 is destined to fail, etc.  If it does fail, you ccan
come in here and gloat till the cows come home, but until then,
why don't you go back to work, and stop with the NT advocacy.

I don't want to hear the standard NT zealot's reasons for posting
in c.o.o.a: "We're trtying to stop misinformation about NT.." ==
well, there's hasn't been to much said about NT lately, and rightly
so; this is an OS2 newsgroup.
From: ghdai@vax1.umkc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: re: why os/2
Date: 22 Jan 93 20:04:28 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City
NNTP-Posting-Host: vax1.umkc.edu

>    I started following this group to understand why I should consider switching
>from Windows 3.1 + DOS to OS/2.  So far I've seen a lot of Microsoft bashing and
>Windows NT bashing but little advocacy for OS/2.  What are it's strengths?

advocacy are among the messages, and i think most people here are because they
like it or love it so that they use it.

its real strength lies in its pre-emptive multitasking and multithreading
capabilities, together with its 32-bit flat memory addressing and the ability
to run both dos and windows applications, as well as its crash protection
(memory protection).

i started to use pc since 1984 when i was lucky to have an true blue ibm at
to play, which means that i started with dos 3.0.  what i immediately felt
was its limitation of single tasking.  whenever you type a command and the
machine start to work for you, you have to wait until that job is done.
later, there were deskview (tried), topview (tried), and windows x.xx
(i tried 1.03 and much later 3.0 and 3.1), but their multitasking are not
THAT real multitasking (you understand it if you have ever used a mainframe
or unix).

so, i have been longing for an os like os/2 2.0 for nearly ten years.  yes,
i finally get what i want on a PERSONAL COMPUTER, which should have been
available long time ago, if ibm had not made the big mistake of introducing
the damned ibm pc equipped with that bull-shit, multitasking-incapable 8088.

os/2 is getting better and better, as can be seen from its evolution from
2.0ga version to aug/92 beta, to oct/92 service pack, and recently 2.1 beta.

finally, in my opinion, comparing with os/2, dos/windows are simply garbage.
yes, os/2 has its own problem, not mature enough, but i can safely say that
you can bet on os/2 2.1, which may be available around march.  believe me, i
am a well-experienced dos user; i programmed assembly 8086 a lot during the
early years of pc, and since i am a sciece student, i am well-experienced
with fortran on pc - fortran on dos is a real pain, but on os/2 it flies
like a charm due to the flat memory model, which i suppose is well comparible
with mainframe fortran.  i have lots of story to tell, but i'd terminate
here.

Guohuan H. Dai/2
-- 
GHDai@VAX1.UMKC.Edu |** Happy user of only OS/2 !!! / HPFS on 2 entire HD's **|
|* OS/2 2.1beta includes MMPM/2, Fax/PM, Win3.1 enhanced mode, TT fonts, etc.*|
From: h198@hosp.med.umich.edu  (Gene Mangum)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 CD install trashes partition
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993  12:11 EDT
Organization: Univ of Michigan Hospitals
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: condor.hosp.med.umich.edu
X-Newsreader: FTPNuz (DOS) v1.0

In Article <C19J74.98I@news.cso.uiuc.edu> "walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk)" says:
> I just got my new CD rom drive on Wed. so I tried to install OS/2 from
> the CD.  Since my drive doesn't have drivers, I had to copy it on
> to 22 disks.  I cleared out one 76 meg. extended partition and
> made it a primary (normally drive e:, making it a primary changed it
> to drive d:).  Nothing that I tried would get it to select this
> partition for install.  
 
  After you re-partition, you need to back out of FDISK and go back in.
  I dunno why, but it worked for me.   At that point, "Set Installable"
  was enabled for the partition.   BTW, it doesn't have to be a primary
  partition.
 
  What kind of controller/drives do you have? 
> If anyone could give me any help I appreciate it.  Also if anyone
> knows of something I can use to ressurect the trashed partition
> please tell me.  
 
  You can boot from the Install disk and disk #1.   When the screen 
  comes up which has, on the bottom line, "Enter - Continue   ESC - Cancel"
  or some such, hit ESC.   Then, without doing anything else, put disk #2
  in A: and type "CHKDSK C: /F:3" (or D: or whichever).
 
> Before this I had great computing system; now I've got something that's
> barely useable without hours more work.
 
  Hopefully soon you'll have a much better computing system than before.
  I might also suggest that comp.os.os2.misc would be a better forum for
  problem resolution than .advocacy.   This group is really just for
  flames :-)
 

+=================================+=========================================+  
| Gene Mangum                     |  OS/2 ver 2 - Increased productivity    |
| Univ of Michigan Hospitals      |               through the use of a      |
| h198@hosp.med.umich.edu         |               "dead" operating system.  |
+=================================+=========================================+
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com (Peter Mayne)
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Reply-To: Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 21:55:32 GMT


In article <C1Iqw7.BM9@MathWorks.COM>, mounil@mathworks.com (Mounil Patel) writes:
>Everyone agrees that OS/2 delivers NT's promises today.

Actually they don't. For example:

C2 security
POSIX compliance
built in 3D library

Just pointing out the facts, ma'am. I'm not arguing with anything else, just
this.

PJDM
--
Peter Mayne                     | My statements, not Digital's.
Digital Equipment Corporation   |
Canberra, ACT, Australia        | "AXP!": Bill the Cat

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.programmer