HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rkl@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (kevin.laux)
Subject: Re: Rude behavior on this group.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:08:44 GMT

In article <8167@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
> In article <1992Dec16.234708.18159@microsoft.com> richs@microsoft.com (Rick Schaut) writes:
> >Presumably people who don't want a machine bundled with Windows can ask for
> >a machine without Windows and get a machine without Windows.  So what's the
> >problem?
> 
> The problem is that there are manufacturers out there who will not sell you a
> machine without Windows. Those manufacturers claim that they are prohibited by
> the terms of their licensing agreement with MS from selling a machine without
> Windows. Those manufacturers will not sell me a machine unless they change
> their minds. 

	My understanding is that the manufacturers are not prohibited from
selling the machine without the software.  However, the terms of the licensing
agreement require them to pay the royalty regardless of whether or not a copy
of the software goes out with the machine.

-- 
________________________________________________________________________________
	R. Kevin Laux				Email: rkl1@hound.att.com
	AT&T Bell Labs				Voice: (908) 949-1160
	Holmdel, NJ 07733			Fax:   (908) 949-0959
From: d92-jhe@hemul.nada.kth.se (Johan Hellman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Discovered: Microsoft using undocumented calls in Windows NT
Date: 12 Dec 92 14:01:26 GMT
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

In <1992Dec12.071059.2337@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>In article <1992Dec11.054414.7325@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>
>>There is evidence that Microsoft continues to use undocumented calls in
>>Windows NT, which is part of the FTC investigation. Outside developers
>>have discovered that Microsoft uses undocumented calls in their own
>>utilities that compete with software competitors utilities. Microsoft's
>>Win32 Software Development Kit includes a utility called Pview. The
>>utility uses calls such as:
>>
>>NtQuerySystemInformation
>>NtQueryPerformance Counter
>>NtQueryInformationThread
>>
>>The functions, although contained in NTDLL.DLL (will be included in the
>>shipping version of NT) are all undocumented.
>>
>>Microsoft uses undocumented calls for their own advantage in order to
>>enhance performance even further. This matter is part of the on-going
>>FTC investigation.
>>
>>Mark K.


>What is the source of this information?

>Why do you believe they won't be documented?
>Do you really believe that all calls in a beta should be documented in advance?
>Should Microsoft not document these after release, why do you believe
>this will give them an unfair advantage?
>Why do you believe that this matter is part of "the on-going FTC investigation".
>You do realize that there are a number of undocumented calls in OS/2... does
>this mean that IBM is unfair?

 1) MS has stated that Windows NT will use the Win32 API, which will not be changing.
 2) MS wrote OS/2 and is therefore probably the source of many of these undocumented calls in OS/2. 
 3) IBM is not competing with any software vendors, just providing them with an OS. 

/johan


-- 
+-----------------------+----------------------------+-----------------------+
! Johan Hellman         ! E-mail addresses;          ! Per aspera ad astra.  !
! Student of CS         ! d92-jhe@dront.nada.kth.se  !-----------------------!
! Royal Institute of    ! Johan Hellman at 2:201/291 ! The above opinions    !
! Technology, Stockholm ! in FidoNet (+46-8-6676206) ! are my own, as usual. !
+-----------------------+----------------------------+-----------------------+
From: George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Survivability
Date: 15 Dec 92 12:35:02 GMT
Reply-To: George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Comment-To: Yamanari@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

> OTOH, I am using the WinOS231 subsystem (beta) and it is faster
>in all regards compared to MS-Windows 3.1. It should be available for
>general use (released) within a month or so. On file loads/saves it's

>faster, on scrolls it's faster, on Winbench it's faster than the MS
>product. 

Yam> OTOH, it's not here yet, and to IBM 1 month really means
Yam> 120 days.  Go FUD yourself.

 That's the best you can do? It may not be here for you, but for
anyone who took up IBM's offer to send them the free beta it certainly
is. There is no FUD about reporting that it is faster than Window 3.1
either, since it is. To which part of my post do you refer when you 
say "Go FUD yourself"? The part where I say "It should be" ? Notice I
didn't say "It will be..."?  How is that FUD ?
___
 * MR/2 1.32 NR * This is abuse.  Arguments are down the hall.

--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: meyer@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Meyer)
Subject: Re: The "Major" bug in Winos2 v3.1
Organization: UIUC College of Agriculture
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:43:59 GMT

tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>>
>>Sorry I don't remember what the bug is, but it was not fixed in the SP.
>>

>You don't know what kind of alleged bug this is?  (I say alleged because
>I've never heard of anyone having bugs with HPFS, and I doubt it).

>I guess it can't be that bad of a bug to go unnoticed by everyone. :|

The bug was rampant among Fidonet sysops, by reports I've seen.  It involved 
errors caused after dirty shutdowns with files open on HPFS volumes.  After 
much effort trying to solve the problem in the HPFS.IFS driver, attention was
directed to the UHPFS.DLL, which is used by CHKDSK on HPFS volumes.  (The 
bug caused the problem during the automatic CHKDSK after a dirty shutdown...)

Most reports on the fidonet echos show that the problem has been solved.

Don
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Don Meyer     Network Manager, UIUC College of Ag Microcomputer Facility
internet:     dlmeyer@uiuc.edu		
member:       NRA, ISSC, IL Farm Bureau	 "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian!"
					    Nancy Lord in '96!

"Clinton/Gore -- The American people deserve what they voted for!"
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why OS/2 2.0? (long)
Keywords: OS/2 IBM Microsoft Windows
Date: 18 Dec 1992 12:45:52 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec18.111310.5601@cam-orl.co.uk> thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:
[about IBM's document "Why OS/2?"]
>That document from IBM contained many
>statements regarding OS/2 and NT that are incorrect or
>could mislead users.

Such as?
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
From: rbotimer@max.ct.gmr.com (R Douglas Botimer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Stealth software (was Re: Why Windows NT will fail -----)
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:10:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.095943.29046@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>  
mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) writes:
:In article <1992Dec15.030525.31852@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu  
(STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
:[...]
:
:
:>That aside, Symantec may be doing just that, they just tend to be quiet about
:>what they are developing.  They released Norton Commander for OS/2 without  
any
:>hint that they were even working on such a beast.
:
:Cool!  Stealth software!  I wonder how many companies are secretly
:developing OS/2 apps and letting us know about it only when it is
:released....  (I love pleasant surprises!!!)
:
:
:
:>Stacy John Behrens
:
:-- 
:==== Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ====
:::   ftp ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (128.123.35.151)    ::  .--.
:::   for OS/2 software & information.  Get    :: (OS/2)
::::: the OS/2 FAQL   /pub/os2/all/info/faq :::::  ~--~

Some companies build it, then sell what they built (Symantec, Borland), others  
sell something, then TRY to deliver what they sold.  Caveat Emptor!

Doug
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: Discovered: Microsoft using undocumented calls in Windows NT
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 01:15:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.071059.2337@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>Why do you believe they won't be documented?
>Do you really believe that all calls in a beta should be documented in advance?
>Should Microsoft not document these after release, why do you believe
>this will give them an unfair advantage?
>Why do you believe that this matter is part of "the on-going FTC investigation".
>You do realize that there are a number of undocumented calls in OS/2... does
>this mean that IBM is unfair?
>
And I'm sure that you also realize that IBM doesn't make the
best-selling apps for OS/2, as Microsoft does for Windows.  If it did,
then yes, undocumented calls that were documented for their internal
apps developers would indeed be unfair.  This is what MS is doing, and
it is unfair.  I don't know what the FTC will do, but if it were up to
me, MS would go the way of AT&T-- they would be forced to sell off
either the apps or the OS division.  Billy can have his pick, but he
shouldn't be allowed to have both.
>
>Brian
>-- 
>C. Brian Sturgill                          NeXTStep 486 is for _YOU_!!!!
>University of Utah                    Microsoft needs competition, but I want
>Center for Software Science          to be one of the many running Windows NT!
>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373    :-) :-) :-)  NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679


-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: Discovered: Microsoft using undocumented calls in Windows NT
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 00:32:23 GMT

In <1992Dec11.054414.7325@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>There is evidence that Microsoft continues to use undocumented calls in
>Windows NT, which is part of the FTC investigation. Outside developers
>have discovered that Microsoft uses undocumented calls in their own
>utilities that compete with software competitors utilities. Microsoft's
>Win32 Software Development Kit includes a utility called Pview. The
>utility uses calls such as:

>NtQuerySystemInformation
>NtQueryPerformance Counter
>NtQueryInformationThread

>The functions, although contained in NTDLL.DLL (will be included in the
>shipping version of NT) are all undocumented.

>Microsoft uses undocumented calls for their own advantage in order to
>enhance performance even further. This matter is part of the on-going
>FTC investigation.

This is ridiculous. Pview is a system utility contained in the
system development toolkit, which is usefull for digging deep into
the system. It's not an "application" in the usual sense. I would
of course expect that such utilities use undocumented calls, because
I consider them to be part of the system, and don't expect every 
single internal interface to be documented.

You will have to wait until they use these calls in Excel or
Word, before you may complain, IMHO.


--
      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   
__(_)/_(_)___.-._  D-5205 Sankt Augustin, Germany        | <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jws@iastate.edu (James William Shoemaker)
Subject: Re: Here's some Advocacy for you.
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:06:58 GMT

>        Yeah, great.  That's what I call *real* efficient programming.
>        You must be kidding.  4 megs for a shell and an OS?  What a joke.

	I agree, 6 Megs for a shell and an OS? What a joke. (Based on Msoft's
claim of 8Meg==2 left over for Apps)

>        Probably pretty unlikely, since the Mach3.0 OS/2 won't be around,
>        even rabid OS/2 fans wil admit, until long after NT.  While I don't
>        believe that NT will unseat DOS/Windows, and I do think it will
>        pretty much finish off OS/2's sales, I don't think it's likely
>        that OS/2 could *unseat* NT once it's the standard OS for a system.
>        After all, NT offers clear advantages over OS/2, but OS/2 mach
>        only catches up.

	OK, How do you explain that NT will unseat UNIX on these same platforms

>        If memory really was such a big deal, you wouldn't be using 
>        OS/2.  [Besides, even if you pull all 8 1 meggers and 
>        pop in 3 4 meggers that's only about $420, not $600...
>        and 12megs NT == 8 megs OS/2]

	Show me the 32-bit motherboard that can take RAM 24-bits wide.  Almost
all 386 and higher motherboards must be filles 4-SIMMs at a time.

				JWS

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tujf@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Jay F. Tu)
Subject: OS/2 2.0
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:28:58 GMT

I support OS/2 2.0.  Although I am not an advanced user, but
I can claim myself as an OS/2 veteran since I bought OS/2
the first day it was on the market.  Since then I have
installed OS/2 on two different clones: one 386 and one 486/50.

I never appreciate Windows because I run mostly DOS software and
the DOS support within Windows is terrible compared to OS/2 2.0.

I am rather annoyed by the boasting about Window NT which is not
on the market.  And I certainly don't think Microsoft represents
the future of software industry.  I do believe those major software
developers (Lotus, Borland, etc.) should abandon windows and jump on
OS/2 because they are help Microsoft to bury themselves.  This fact
can be seen that Microsoft is the only company making money from     
Windows products.

I don't care anything about OS/2 window support.  I use OS/2 2.0
because I want 32bit and right now the DOS support is excellent;
therefore I am patient in waiting for OS/2 applications.

I think I will post this message to windows.advocacy to remain people
there it is time to look at something that is 32bit and is here now.

Again, I have been using OS/2 2.0 since the first it was on the market and
I am extremely happy with it.  Previous experience with Windows 1.0, 2.0,
/386, 3.0, and 3.1 simply does compare in terms of DOS support and I
never like those WYSWYG stuff.

Jay
.
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: OS/2, Windows, & DPMI ( was Re: OS/2 2.1 specifications, release date.
Date: 18 Dec 1992 18:08:06 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak) says:

>Since I was the first poster... let me clarify.  From what I understand,
>Windows acted as a DMPI server in 386 enchanced mode.  However, it wasn't a
>strict implementation of the DMPI specs.  Thus, OS/2's DMPI implementation
>wouldn't work with Windows (even though it did work with DesqView's). 
>Since the next release will provide 386 enchanced mode support, I assumed
>the IBM must have fixed the DMPI implementation of Windows so it can
>interoperate with OS/2's DPMI implementation.  Such a change probably
>required quite a bit of effort and would explain why it took IBM so long to
>provide Windows 3.1 support under OS/2.


Saying that windows 3.1 was not a strict implimentation of the dpmi specs
is an understatement.  It was in direct violation of them.  Which is ironic 
because microsoft developed the specs to begin with.

The way dpmi should work is that any dpmi program should check to see if
there was any dpmi server running, and if so, allow it to allocate the
memory.  This way, more than one dpmi program could be run at the same time.
Windows 3.1 refuses to allow any other dpmi memory server but it's own.

-- 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: More Controversial Topics
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:57:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.223128.727@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Dec13.215537.21644@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec13.172059.3430@kvamdata.no> ekl@kvamdata.no (Eirik Lygre) writes:
>>>>	...      OS/2 2.0 has *never* been 
>>>>	demoed on SMP anything, and neither has OS/2MACH.
>>		  ^^^               ++++++++++++++++++++
>
>>>Os/2 running on the mach kernel was demoed at comex.
>
>>	Try re-reading my sentence again and see if the underline helps.
>
>Try re-reading your sentence again and see if the underline helps.
>
>[Geez, what a clueless Bozoid!]
>--
>Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

The facts are that OS/2 2.0 has never been demoed on SMP hardware.
It seems (at least I haven't heard otherwise) that the Mach version of
OS/2 has also never been demoed on SMP hardware.  Eirik either made a simple
mistake interpreting the sentence, or was pointing out an interesting,
though not contradictory fact.

Calling someone a "clueless Bozoid" when the the statement they made
was, in fact, correct is really uncalled for.

     - Mike
From: rmk@frog.CRDS.COM (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why OS/2 will DEFINITELY fail
Date: 19 Dec 92 21:20:02 GMT
Organization: Charles River Data Systems

In article <OLAVT.92Dec15102633@ulrik.uio.no> olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.010430.4930@ryn.mro4.dec.com> pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com (Peter Mayne) writes:
>
>   I sincerely hope and trust that NT will *NOT* run all DOS/Windows programs.
>   As an NT system administrator, I do not want an ordinary user running a DOS
>   disk utility and reading/writing disks directly. Neither do I want a Windows
>   program spying on messages being passed to other users' processes.
>
>I see no reason to disagree on that. But then it should not be
>marketed as a high end Windows 3.1 with no clues about the limitations
>(at least not in the ads that I have seen so far). If one look at they
>way MS is already advertising NT (saying that it will be available to
>end users early 1993), they try to ripe the success of Win 3.1, but
>that is a strategy that can very well backfire if NT does not have
>full backward compatibility. It does not have to be anything wrong
>with NT as a product, the problem is MS' marketing.


If hackers could easily write Windows apps that can effectively spy on
the system, then NT security is a oxymoron.
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT technologically a
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:36:34 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <2b27d6f4@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org>, George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fido
net.org writes:
>TG>(But perhaps I was too stupid to understand the "Logic" of some of
>TG>the things the WPS did, like placing menus off-screen
>
> Exactly how did you accomplish this feat? I've just tried and could
>not repeat this feat of having WPS place menu's off-screen. Was this
>with
>a beta? Were you on drugs?

It's not a problem I've directly had trouble with, but that isn't a problem
(directly) with the WPS.  (or so I've been told)  It apparently is a bug in
the Presentation Manager.  When a fix will be availlable, I unfortunately
can't say.

>___
> * MR/2 1.32 NR * Rush Limbaugh for president!
>
>--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
> * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
>

-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: \* IBM's OS/2 2.0 Scores Big \*
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 22:27:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.084222.1405@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> admiral@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Steve C Liu) writes:
>This is how the battle looks as I see it:
>
>	OS/2 2.0
>
>	32-bit kernel that runs on Intel processors
>	Pre-emptive Multi-tasking
>	Support for multithreading
>	Good crash protection
>	Object-Oriented file system
>	Runs on 386/20 w/4 megs RAM and uses 31 megs HD space
>	Available now
>	Few *big commercial* apps
>	No SMP support
>	No built-in networking
>	Does not have "creature comforts" like MM, SSVGA, etc.
>	1.5 million copies shipped
>	Price:$49-$139
>
>	Windows NT
>
>	32-bit Kernel that runs on Intel, MIPS R4000

	You left out Alpha and Clipper.

>	Preemptive multitasking
>	support for multithreading
>	Built in networking
>	SMP support
>	"Creature Comforts"
>	I don't know about crash protection.

	It has it.

>	Runs on 386/20 w/8 megs RAM and takes up 40-66mb HD space

	If you're going to use the 4 meg number for OS/2, then
	use 6 megs for NT.  Then the numbers will mean the same thing.
	The disk space figure should read 40-50 and the figure for OS/2
	should read 35-45 as you have left out swap space.
	(Or if you wish to leave out swap space, say 31 for OS/2 and 32
	for NT.)

>	Available sometime in the future

	First half of '93.

>	Non-object oriented file system

	Incorrect it's file system has as much support for objects as
	OS/2 does.

>	No SMP motherboards

	This is incorrect, there are at least 3 vendors I know of, and
	I doubt that I know all of them.

>	Unknown crash protection (probably similar to OS/2)

	You're repeating yourself.

>	15 million copies of previous versions shipped
	
	No, there are approximately 12-15 million _true_ users.  Windows
	has shipped far more than 15 million copies.
	Windows 3.1, not counting upgrades from 3.0, ships at more than
	1 million copies a month.  That means a rather conservative 8 million
	new copies just for it.

>	Price: $500 (?)
	<$500
>
>
>Which system do I use?

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                          NeXTStep 486 is for _YOU_!!!!
University of Utah                    Microsoft needs competition, but I want
Center for Software Science          to be one of the many running Windows NT!
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373    :-) :-) :-)  NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: More Controversial Topics
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 06:31:41 GMT

In article <Mf=0hT600iUxI4Poh2@andrew.cmu.edu> sl31+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen M. Lacy) writes:
>SMP is not an
>operating system problem, its a hardware problem.  

If I have SMP hardware, can I run MS-DOS on it and take advantage of the
hardware?  No?  Then it's a hardware problem *and* an operating system
problem.

>Steve
>
>And, what makes you
>think that IBM can make a version of OS/2 1.3 that's SMP but not make
>2.0 SMP?  Did you ever think that they run on a base of mostly the same
>code?  Gotcha.

No, you didn't.  The fact is that IBM *didn't* make a version of OS/2 1.3
that's SMP.  Otherwise, you would be correct.  Gotcha :)

     - Mike