HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:17:08 GMT

Brian Sturgill writes:

> The post he made about booting and NT and OS/2 was unjustified, and thus
> I believe constitutes FUD. Though perhaps Tim did not know that
> MS actively tells you how to get around the problem.

Why on Earth would Microsoft put in code to check for the OS/2 Boot
Manager and fail to install if present, and then tell their users
how to get around it?  Sounds rather self defeating to me.  And why
do you call this explicit check a "problem"?  Doesn't sound like a
problem to me.  Sounds intentional.

> After all, anybody
> with the NT SDK is supposed to contact MS through CompuServe, which is where
> the information is.  I don't see IBM explaining how to dual boot NT and
> OS/2, now do I?

Why should IBM explain how to dual boot something that hasn't been
released yet?  It's like complaining that IBM doesn't have Windows 4.0
support in OS/2 yet!  Of course not!

> Tim said to consider the behavior of the companies when
> choosing between the two OS's. MS helps you use OS/2 2.0, IBM doesn't help
> you use NT.

Microsoft helps you use OS/2 2.0 by coding NT to not install if Boot
Manager is present???  Yeh, maybe if the user installing NT gave up
at that point.  But methinks that is unlikely.

OS/2 has been released.  Microsoft should expect to find users that
have OS/2 on their machines.  NT has not been released.  How can IBM
support something that hasn't been released?

> This however was not Tim's message, that message made it
> appear that MS had some evil plot to not work with OS/2.

Perhaps you can provide some alternate explanation for the explicit
check.  I'm willing to consider the possibilities.  Tim has raised
one.  Until there are others that make sense, it's the only one we
have to go on.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: "richard anstruther" <richard.anstruther@canrem.com>
Subject: ftc and ms
Reply-To: "richard anstruther" <richard.anstruther@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: comp
Date: 20 Dec 92 10:42:26 EST

-> From: pkedrosk@student.business.uwo.ca (Paul S. Kedrosky)

-> > You think only IBM will benefit?  I'd say Lotus, WP, Borland and >
-> virtually every other ISV on the market would benefit from the > FTC
-> lowering the boom on MS's alleged anti-trust habits.
-> >
-> > We, the consumers, will in turn benefit from having a source of >
-> OS's and applications other than Microsoft.
->
-> You don't really think the biggest obstacle standing in the way of
-> "other" operating systems succeeding in the marketplace is
-> purported anticompetitive practices from Microsoft, do you?

If it were only a question of other OS's, Lotus, Borland and WP
wouldn't care one way or the other.  It's applications too, or
more specifically, MS's alleged habit of using its virtual
monopoly in OS's to leverage other companies' apps out of the
marketplace by giving its own application programmers the inside
track to upcoming changes and undocumented features in the OS.

There's a kind of cynical amusement to be derived from watching
MS's sliding position on this issue.  First, there are no
undocumented function calls being used in their apps.  Then
there are but they tell everyone else about them too.  Then
they don't tell them but it doesn't give MS a significant
advantage.  Then it does give them a significant advantage but
so what? what are ya gonna do about it?  What an attitude.
We shall see what's going to be done about it in the near future.

On the OS side, an anticompetitive practice is an anticompetitive
practice and does not lose its character as such by being only
one obstacle among several to the success of competing OS's.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: NT, OS/2, and Marketing
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:19:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec8.203907.6732@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> hwhalen@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Hugh Whalen) writes:

[heaps deleted]

> If we take this as a rough measure of the success or power of marketing
> we can see that good marketing can help to sell a product but does not 
> ensure success. Marketing should have even less effect in markets such 
> as operating systems where there are real differences between products.
> (I trust that I won't get flamed on this one, as I doubt there is
> *anyone* on the net who doesn't think there are no significant differences
> between operating systems.) If you have a cruddy product and there are
> *good* alternatives, marketing may have an effect but in the end the better
> product will *probably* win. It is inconceivable that Microsoft could become
> a multi-billion dollar company in a market where these are real differences
> amongst products simply because Microsoft has better marketing. In spite of
> the prevelant view on the net that most people are dummies who can be and
> are taken in by the Evil Microsoft Marketdroids (tm), this is, at best, a 
> contributing factor. 

[heaps more deleted....in fact, the rest]

Windows was a *huge* improvment over DOS (of any flavour). It was the first
program of its kind to really work (more or less). Lots of people have still
never heard of Windows, though, or only have the *vaguest* idea about what it
might be.....(XT owners and the vast 286 market who are still running
DisplayWrite 2.....they are definitely out there and the numbers are VAST.)
 
Anyway. OS/2 is better than Windows. My 4.5 year old daughter copes very well
with the WPS. Windows causes her problems because windows keep disappearing
behind the program manager "Where did it go, Daddy?". 
 
Basically, this OS/2 Vs. Windows thing is a question what you are used to. My
experience shows that people who have never used Windows or OS/2 (the vast
majority of computer users) usually prefer OS/2's interface.
 
Those who are used to Windows, find OS/2's interface difficult to adjust to.
They have adapted to the other and feel "unsettled" by the differences. 
 
OK. That's life. Some people thrive on change and variety, others find it a
waste of time or intimidating. 
 
Marketing? Well...you have to hear about something before you can buy it. In
the software industry, I *KNOW* that there are a lot of great programs/apps
that simply disappear because they just don't get the exposure. 

Take Arts and Letters, for axample. There is a great application (available to
OS/2, too) that has a low profile.  
 
Marketing does matter. MS dumped OS/2 and got Windows to market 2 years
earlier. That was a marketing decision. Marketing isn't just the ads. 
 
Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: Win bigots wait for NT...and wait..and wait
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 03:18:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.054415.13627@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>In article <1992Dec8.113416.24484@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec8.011103.82971@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (BRIAN PAUL VAN LIEU) writes:
>> >    IBM should get a spanking for botching the upgrade process. Hope they are
>> >    listening...
>> 
>> 
>> 	Interestingly, people outside of the computer-network circuit 
>> 	STILL have not been notified of the service pack.
>> 
>> 	Boy, isn't dealing with IBM wonderful?  One would get the 
>> 	impression that they really don't give a damn about the individual
>> 	user.
>
>Every registered OS/2 user in New Zealand received a letter about the Service
>Pack about 2 weeks ago. 
> 
>Steve
>-- 
>Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
>Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
>withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | looks like we may get a more  
>**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".

I am aware of the service pack only because of what I read here on the
net.  I am a registered owner (not user) of OS/2 2.0, indeed, IBM
manages to send two copies of everything (like that cheesy "OS/2
Professional" 'magazine' some weeks ago) to me.  I have yet to hear from
them about the Service Pack.  This is no surprise, though, since it took
them over three months to get me GA in the first place.

I figure they'll send me something about the SP just about the same time
I read on the net that OS/2 2.1 is 'available' (which apparently is an
IBM term meaning "I've got it and you don't" :)  It doesn't matter.
Windows works better for me anywho.

Joe
jmalloy@hamilton.edu

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: NT, OS/2, and Marketing
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 03:16:43 GMT

In <1992Dec11.201907.7897@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:

>Windows was a *huge* improvment over DOS (of any flavour). It was the first
>program of its kind to really work (more or less).

Actually, I don't think that that's exactly true.  Here, our tech
writers are still mostly using PageMaker running under GEM, which,
unless I'm *greatly* mistaken, predates Windows.  It might even have
been a success if DR hadn't been hampered by lawsuits from Apple.  As
for multitasking, DESQview predates Windows, and is still a far
superior product.

A minor quibble, and hardly worth mentioning, since OS/2 is better than
any of the above, and more robust as well.  And isn't likely to suffer
from any lawsuits from the lawyer-crazy assholes at Apple, since Apple
and IBM are, for the moment, working together.  (Not that a company
IBM's size would really notice a lawsuit from Apple.)  :-)

>Anyway. OS/2 is better than Windows. My 4.5 year old daughter copes very well
>with the WPS. Windows causes her problems because windows keep disappearing
>behind the program manager "Where did it go, Daddy?". 

Yup, I've heard all these claims that OS/2's interface is not all that
easy to use, but most of these claims seem to come from people who've
already climbed the Windoze learning curve, and would actually have to
*unlearn* some of their bad habits and wrong-thinking before they'll be
able to use OS/2.
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | "Imaginary guitar notes [...] exist only
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers |  in the imagination of the imaginer" --FZ
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: samiam@netcom.com (Scott Moore)
Subject: Re: NT is missing something major: OS/2 32-bit compatibility
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 06:00:20 GMT

Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org writes:

>OS/2 2.x in some version past 2.1 will probably be able to run Win32s
>applications as IBM is rumored to have started work on this a few
>months ago.

And why, from IBM's point of view, would this be a good idea ? The reaction
of developers would be to say "well, then win32 is it then" the same way 
they are saying it about win 3.0. Developers (at least when talking to the
press) claim that LCD (lowest common denominator) is the way to go.
From the user point of view, os/2 2.0 would be the way to go, since it would
run virtually any app available (prehaps including posix). Then we might have
the odd situation of os/2 2.0 being the most popular 32 os, and win32 being
the most common app interface.

-- 
Scott A. Moore [SAM]  | "Cash is more 
samiam@netcom.com     | important than your 
Santa Cruz, CA USA    | mother"
408-423-1624          | Allan Shugart - CEO Segate Corp.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Subject: Re: Discovered: Microsoft using undocumented calls in Windows NT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 11:53:59 GMT

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>In article <1992Dec12.120941.20599@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>>What is it you do at this Uni? Are you so unprofessional or just
>>a secretary who fancys putting the Uni's name in his .sig to


>	I can think of a number of reasons to put your
>	organizations name in the .sig.  Give it some thought.


>>look important? I can hardly believe an educated person can show
>>so little objectivity. I am refering to your .sig of course
>			^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>and not even the fact that it is about NT, it could be any
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>other product for that matter. You seem like a child with a new
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>	I can hardly believe that an educated person can
>	show such poor grammar.

First of all, whats wrong with it? Second, have you considered
that I am not a native English speaking person?

>>Anyway, this is not meant as any sort of personal insult, just
>>an observation.

>	Anyway, this is not meant as any sort of personal 
>	insult, just an observation.


>-- 
> Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?          
> Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?  
> ---"I despise mystics, they fancy themselves so deep, when they----
> ----aren't even superficial"    --Nietzsche   ---------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: who is brian sturgill - really?
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:04:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.014103.14070@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.172701.2089@usage.csd.unsw.OZ.AU> pendrith@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Mark Pendrith) writes:
[Brian is a multi-threaded NT version of Eliza rewritten by the MS marketing
department theory deleted]

>Sure: he says things you don't like or want to hear and you don't want
>to have to worry that they're true.  The easiest thing, then, is just to
>insult him and that will make everything he says wrong. Yeah, that's the
>ticket! 

>jmalloy@hamilton.edu

"Humor is wasted on you" is a quote you said to me when you were casting
aspersions on the validity of OS/2 apps because of their names...

Joe Malloy indeed.

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: 1992 in review.
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:46:41 GMT

In article <47398@ogicse.ogi.edu> francis@ese.ogi.edu (Francis Moraes) writes:
>kovarski@zooid.guild.org (Mark Kovarski) writes:
>
>:The presentation goes  into a hard sell from  there. A slide indicates
>:that OS/2  will not even  load on 24  percent of the  machines tested.
>:Included  in this  list are  the names  of the  failed machines: "NCR,
>:Northgate, AT&T, Gateway,  and Dell." No model numbers  or details are
>:given on the slides or the memo,  but there seems to be an implication
>:that no  machine from NCR, Northgate,  AT&T, Gateway, or Dell  can run
>:OS/2. I was  just corresponding with a fellow  who was happily running
>:OS/2 on a Gateway 386 machine, so I wonder about these assertions.
>
>I have 3 different model DELL machines here, they all run OS/2 just fine.
>Perhaps they are talking about DELL 286s. :)
>
>francis

Well, as for the Gateway matter, I had a devil of a time installing it
on my 386/33c, 8 MB RAM system.  After the first few abortive tries, I
called the IBM 800 help line and, a few days later, received a call back
from them with the information that "it won't work" on my system and
that I should return it.  I was quite interested in OS/2, though, and
stuck with it, turning to the net and the OS/2 list for advice, which
finally did (had to do with using an older beta version device driver?
for the hd).  Then the WINOS2 subsystem wouldn't install, more hassles,
but finally got that going to.  I can see why someone could very easily
claim that it won't install on my system with perfect justification, but
they could add that workarounds were/are available.

(Didn't really matter, though, I ended up back with DOS and Windoze
since WINOS2 was the pits, and the WPS ugly (I know, that's only an
opinion, some people apparently *like* it, go figure), and it while it
didn't crash much, it still wasn't as stable as Windows 3.1).

jmalloy@hamilton.edu

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: jardined@qucis.queensu.ca (Donald Jardine)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Computing & Information Science, Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 16:11:18 GMT

An interesting political problem: The new administration has repeatedly and
publically emphasized the stategic importance of computer-related 
technologies to the USA. This seems to conflict with the politically 
strategic goal of fairness in the marketplace.  FTC actions often improve 
local (i.e. domestic) markets, but in the new genuinely global technology
market, diminishing the strength of a major company may be counter-strategic.
As a recent example, the break-up of AT&T has probably been good for the 
communications users in the USA, but it also freed the BOCs to buy 
central office equipment (e.g. digital switches) from Northern Telecom,
Ericsson and Siemens, rather than from AT&T.

OTOH, breaking up an inefficinet organization often releases supressed
talents, and results in a strategic improvement.  One wonders whether IBM
would be in the mess it is had the anti-trust suits of the 70's resulted in
a breakup of IBM into more nimble businesses. 

Allegedly domineering practices aside, is there any real evidence that MS is
genuinely inefficient or hindering the industry?  The market place is a 
wonderful disciplinarian.  We, as users, have choices of software, and 
at exceedingly reasonable prices.  IBM, to its obvious concern, 
is finding that out.   So will MS, if they falter either technically or
administratively.

As an aside, I don't really give a damn who makes my software or hardware.
All I want is something that does what I want at the time I want it, at
a price that is commensurate with the benefits I get. The open marketplace 
is the best way we currently know to get this combination.

Donald Jardine, Software Technology Laboratory, Comp. Sci. Dept.,
Queen's Univ. Kingston Ont. Ph (613) 545 6070 Fax (613) 545 6513
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: Gates doubts his abilities...
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:07:42 GMT

kovarski@zooid.guild.org (Mark Kovarski) writes:
: 
: In a recent story about Microsoft, published in Maclean's Magazine,
: there were several intersting pieces that you might be interested.

[....]

: Furthermore, the question of his abilites in the market place came
: forward. I will quote:
: 
: "Gates, for the first time, gave the impression that he harbors at least
: a few doubts about his abilities."

Hey, you mean there is *something* he and I agree on?

--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 Application List 1/2
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:31:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.225615.8432@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.141650.9917@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec13.211119.10192@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec11.051119.6473@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
[list of OS/2 applications with "funny" names deleted]

>>
>>>  Is this some sort of joke padding to make the
>>>list look bigger than it really is?
>>
>>Gimme a break.
>
>If they are real and you know that for a fact, you might just state
>that...Who is Boffin and where are they?

The fact is, I don't know who they are, and I don't really care.  As it is,
though, I think that you are contributing to the level of childishness on
this group significantly.  Because a software company you've never heard of
makes a product line with animal names or whatever, you think that whoever
made the list is padding it with stuff they made up.  File that one under
the same heading as the "Evil Empire" theory et. al.  I guess if a software
company I've never heard of makes an application for NT, then I get
to accuse whoever lists it as lying and making it up?


>>Why don't you call them up and ask?
>>
>I'd be happy to, perhaps, if I had a clue as to where they are.  The
>lister seems to have no idea either.   

I'm sorry, then I can't help you.  I guess they *must* not exist, and the
lister must have been lying.  Thank you for your keen perceptions.  They
have opened my eyes.

>>Ted
>
>Gee, you must be Ted Boffin!  So tell us!  Just what are these apps?
>
>Viperflo indeed.
>
>jmalloy@hamilton.edu
>

Nope, I'm not Ted Boffin, but I probably wish I owned a company with my
name on it.

joe malloy indeed.  What a ridiculous name, what?

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: hermann@platon.uni-passau.de (Michael Hermann)
Subject: Choice of OSes
Organization: University of Passau, Germany
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:39:43 GMT


Taken from PC Magazin (a german PC mag..), issue 51, 12/16/92

PC OSes (currently in use)

MS-DOS             94.0
DOS + Windows      80.7
DR-DOS              8.4
SCO Unix           15.7
Interactive Unix    3.6
OS/2               45.8
Mac OS             18.1

PC OSes (use planned)

MS-DOS             48.2
DOS + Windows      49.4
DR-DOS              1.2
Windows NT         24.1
OS/2               31.3
PC-Unix            14.5
Mac OS              4.8

Criteria for selection

Ability to run current program   36.5
Number of applications available 35.4
Data security                    33.8
Performance                      24.6
Hardware requirements            20.6
Ease of use                      18.7
Installation costs               18.3
Support                          12.2
Cooperation with a producer (*)  11.9

* probably not translated correctly (I do miss the correct term..)
  meant is a company which builds something the company considering 
  the new OS relies on (they left open what it was...)

Method of getting the data

They [the mag..] asked 'people in private companies or non-private
administration [read : state], who have a leading position in the
EDV [do not know english term.. translates to 'Electronic Data 
Processing'] management. The survey shows which trends and technologies
are important to users in their every-day work. The survey refers to 
products used within the companies, not to products outside of their
work.'



I am not going to comment on this... probably someone else will...

  -Mike



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy