HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: robert.heuman@rose.com (robert heuman)
Subject: FCC will proclaim Mic
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:04:05 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 12-29-92 18:54
bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) wrote, in
a message dated 28 Dec 1992 21:14:09 GMT

B(> From my understanding, IBM did not think much of the PC at first 
and
B(> went for the absolute cheapest chips consistent with typical IBM
B(> reliability requirements (I've not heard of reliability complaints
B(> from any IBM machine--they may not have pushed the state of the art,
B(> but they are pretty reliable.)
B(> 
B(> In fact, if IBM would have gone with Motorola, I don't think MS would
B(> exist today.

If I remember correctly, the 8088 was chosen because Motorola did not 
have the 68000 ready in time, or maybe it was the 6809.  IBM chose the 
8088 because it was available in production quantities at the time the 
decision had to be made, and Motorola's chip was just coming into 
being... Believe I heard it was ready about a month AFTER IBM's 
deadline.  Personally, I believe that had the 680.. been ready, IBM 
would have selected it, and we would have a far better product today. 
Anyone with more accurate information is welcome to jump in and 
correct my memory... After all, it was 10 years ago.

Bob
---
   RoseReader 1.70 P001886: This Canadian has an Opinion...His Own!
   RM 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: Be more creative than the FTC!
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 22:28:17 GMT

helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

>Why don't Novel, Lotus, et al, find a more creative solution to their problem
>than just using the FTC as a club against Microsoft?  Here are some better
>alternatives:

[Stuff deleted]

Believe it or not, the FTC's job is not to help Novel, Lotus, etc., but
to protect us - the consumers. Anytime a business has a monopoly position
in a market the consumers are the ones who get hurt. Lack of competition
results in lower quality products and higher prices. While other software
vendors have an interest in what the FTC does with Microsoft they aren't
the only reason for the FTC's actions.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net            uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
From: johnh@meaddata.com (John Holt)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Date: 23 Dec 1992 15:03:53 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: pleiad.meaddata.com

In article <1992Dec22.200742.28629@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In all of history (before or after the antitrust laws, or in a country
>today which doesn't have anti-trust laws) which became a monopoly?
>
>The only monopolies I can think of are things like the post office,
>utilites, etc which are illegal to compete against.  Really, the free
>market system is highly intolerant of big behemothic companies, especially
 
 I would like to direct your attention to the 1890's and in particular the
 rail and steel trusts.

 At the time, the rail monopolies dominated transportation and actually set the
 price a farmer could get for his goods at the market, and set the price that
 the distributor paid for those goods.  While the grange movement was somewhat
 successful, it took the actions of the federal government to break the rail
 trust.

 The story of the steel trusts is similar.

 I believe your point concerning large behemothic companies is correct in times
 of great and rapid change.  These organizations spend a great deal of energy
 to "manage" change.

 It is for the courts to decide re: MS.  It is possible for an organization
 to restrain trade and generally be anti-competitive.

 Fairness is the issue here.


--

###################################################################
John Holt                        #  Voice (513) 865-6821
Mead Data Central, Inc.          #
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:35:54 GMT

In article <8238@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>You're once again missing the point: if MS sells me Windows for $8 if I agree
>to pay for a copy for every machine I sell, but triples the price if I don't,
>then that's force. 

Interesting logic. Ever noticed the "Buy 1 XX, get 1 YY free" 
deals ? 

>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

Dov
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:12:42 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <wiegand.725578573@lido16> motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net writes:
>helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>
>>Wait a minute--they "force" manufacturers to sell Windows and DOS?  Microsoft
>>won't hold a gun to the head of anybody who wants to sell their machine with
>>DR DOS or OS/2 preloaded.
>
>No they don't force them to sell DOS with their machines, but they do
>require an all-or-nothing alternative. Either you include MS-DOS with
>every machine you sell or you don't include it with any machines.

     Robert, I suggest you learn the facts about the subject you
are posting about before making an fool of yourself in public.
Microsoft does _not_ force an "all-or-nothing" alternative on
OEMs.

    
>The only way to get MS-DOS on a per-copy basis is to pay full retail
>price. The volume discount requiures that you pay a royality for *every*
>machine you ship.

    You are correct in that the "per-machine" contract carries
a smaller royalty than the other contracts.


>Since a manufacturer who didn't offer MS-DOS with their machines
>would lose lots of sales almost all of the agree with Microsoft's terms.

    What about all those machines that could be shipping with
DR-DOS?  People seem to think it's as good a product as MS-DOS,
yet OEMs don't seem to be flocking to it in droves, despite your
allegations of heavyt-handedness on Microsoft's part.  Explanation?

				-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: OS/2 2.1 ain't gonna fail!
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 11:37:05 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Dec19.165344.1626@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU> jurlwin@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU (Jeff Urlwin) writes:
> 
> I believe that they currently have an Early Experience Program (EEP) for
> NT currently (which is what they have for OS/2, also).  I would think
> that they'll actually be ready for NT before it gets released, judging
> from what people are saying about NT stability...
> 
> Of course, MS could change some major stuff at the end...
> 
> Jeff

This isn't directly realted to the above, but more to the subject line.
 
I've had a play with OS/2 2.1 and if this is failure....I'll have it.

Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
+64 4 478 4714                          | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
From: rshelley@riscy.simplot.com (Robert Shelley)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM OS/2 Fiesta Bowl
Date: 24 Dec 92 11:39:33 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: J. R. Simplot Co., Boise Id.

Of course, but, that means OS Bowl 1 would be:
	OS/2 v DOS

That isn't fair though,  when dos passed the ball, all
the players would stop!  When the center hiked the ball
for that matter!

rshelley	rshelley@hermsrv1.simplot.COM <--- the
local machine...ALL opinions are mine. (kinda wishy-washy, huh?)


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 04 Jan 93 04:30:19 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <8292@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1993Jan02.091939.18120@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>    If you claim to be 100% Intel compatible, and your processor
>>exhibits difference in behavior from Intel's, should Intel be
>>responsible for changing their product?
>
>If you claim to be 100% Intel compatible, and your processor exhibits
>identical performance to an Intel processor's documented behavior, you _are_
>Intel compatible.

   Umm, yes.  Is your rebuttal to my statement to merely state
the converse?


>>    You bring up functional specifications below - the fact is,
>>MS-DOS doesn't have a rigid one that would allow a clone
>>to be written.
>
>By default, then, MS-DOS' published API qualifies,

    Why are you qualified to determine what the default functional
specification is?


> especially since MS will
>tell you every time you turn around that that's all a programmer should
>use...never mind that MS breaks that rule regularly...

     Doesn't sound like a rule - sounds like a suggestion.


>>Digital Research must have done a lot of
>>reverse engineering, with quite a bit of guesswork.  They
>>got very close - they didn't quite make 100%.
>
>They made 100% to MS-DOS' published API. Since MS says that that's all an
>application developer can depend on, that should be enough.

    Yup.  But Microsoft doesn't say that all future Microsoft systems
products will rely only on the published MS-DOS APIs.  Never said
it.


>>I'm sure that
>>as further incompatibilities are revealed, they will fix them
>>as well.
>
>That should read, "as further MS violations of their own rules are revealed,
>DR will add compatible unpublished interfaces as well."

    Jay, these "rules" that you're so fond of quoting - can you
tell me where they are published?  Put up or shut up, Jay.


>>But I don't expect to see "DR-DOS" applications
>>coming out any time soon, and until then, the people who
>>buy DR-DOS to run their MS-DOS apps are basically taking the
>>gamble that it's going to work.  It's a good bet, but it
>>isn't 100%.
>
>If MS followed the rules, it WOULD be 100%. MS has the power to break DR-DOS
>at will, and all external indications are that they have done exactly that.

     There are those pesky rules again - where are they?  In your
own head?
     You have yet to show evidence that Microsoft did anything to
intentionally break DR-DOS.  Put up or shut up, Jay.

			-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
From: jwhite@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Joseph White)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 30 Dec 92 14:02:50 GMT
Organization: Annapolis Detachment, CARDEROCKDIV, NSWC  Code 2723 
	      (formerly David Taylor Research Center, Annapolis MD)

In article <1992Dec29.193928.8003@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>     How about professional baseball or football in the U.S.?  Neither
>was government created - both are monopolies.

But both had anti-trust exemptions granted by the government!  So
while the government didn't create them, they have certainly helped
them continue.  

Joe White
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 2 Jan 93 21:58:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1993Jan2.215839.21242
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.

In article <1993Jan02.092930.14266@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec31.224255.27090@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>>>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>>> In article <1992Dec29.194318.27886@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >And if the fact that DRDOS's emulation is imperfect because of
>>>> >information held back by Mircrosoft?
>>>> >
>>>> 
>>>>     Oh, this is rich.  The only way that DR-DOS could get perfect
>>>> MS-DOS emulation is if they had the source code.  
>>>
>>>Really? And presumably, by the same argument, the only way an AMD386
>>>could provide perfect emulation of an Intel 386 is if AMD had access
>>>to the original Intel drawings?
>
>>     Yes!  That's exactly my point.  They can get close, but they
>>aren't going to be 100% the same as Intel unless, well, they are
>>100% the same.
>
>Wrong sir. If they stick to the architectural design, it doesn't matter
>what they use to implement it. They could just stick it in a
>ROM or PLA, as long as it meets the architectural specs., it will
>fuction exactly the same as the other product.
>

That's very true. If you read DOBBS latest issue, there are
numerous advertisements for ROMed DOS and other varients. I know
some of them work extremely well in embedded systems, having used
one or two.

What I suspect happened to DR-DOS is the self-proclaimed "experts"
at networking, read IPX, (grin, chortle), bought DR and now want to
be DOS experts and do things their way, :):). Whenever you have as
high an NIH factor as Novell at any company, I have seen this kind
thing happen, because the engineering group won't leave it alone
and get the basics down first, before adding the pretties.

JMHO..


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11099 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3513
From: lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 29 Dec 92 19:30:02 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles

In article <29DEC199210143369@moose.cccs.umn.edu> rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.235054.0201318@locus.com>, lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:
>> For this reason, I feel that if these reports are true (and I know that
>> Windows 3.1 violates the DPMI standards promilgated by MS from other
>> reliable sources), I can indeed blame MS.  
>
>My impression was that the problem is that Windows doesn't impliment the entire
>DPMI standard, not that it doesn't conform to the standard.
>
>--rick
>
One of our divisions has Windows running under DOS emulation on a Unix host,
we can't easily use 386 enhanced mode, because the kludge in windows
violates the DPMI standard considerably.  This information was released
at a Unix conference, and a synopsis posted here by some other kind person.

It is not that it does not completely impliment DPMI, but Violates the
standard.  Since DR-DOS follows the standard, Windows is unreliable on
DR-DOS or any other DOS emulator as a platform when you need to use the
386 enhanced mode.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 03 Jan 93 07:51:59 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <19153@mindlink.bc.ca> Ian_Upright@mindlink.bc.ca (Ian Upright) writes:
>> Phil Lafornara writes:
>>
>> Org.  : Microsoft Corporation
>>
>> >F-Fear- Fear that Using OS/2 and DOS on the same machine would be
>> dangerous.
>>
>>     It is.  DOS 6 may make your FAT partitions unreadable by
>> OS/2 or other operating systems.
>
>
>Well hell..  I won't be going near DOS 6.0 with a ten foot pole!
>Is it just me, or does microsoft *really* think that making things
>incompatable is really a "feature".. How nice..  Now thats what I call
>advancement!

     It's a feature if it gives you some benefit.  In this case
the incompatibility introduced is due to disk compression - OS/2
won't be able to recognize it, at least initially.
     But yes, for people who run multiple operating systems and
expect to be able to access their FAT partitions from all of them,
that disk compression will be a bad idea and probably shouldn't
be used.

				-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11408 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3618
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 2 Jan 93 11:32:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: shelley.1i3uh5INN55b
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

In article <29DEC199209332560@moose.cccs.umn.edu> rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu writes:
>FWIW, the rumor is that BG went ballistic when he found out that the
>applications group was using undocumented calls.  Not because they got caught;
>but rather, because the application will quit working if that specific function
>is removed from the next Windows release.  In effect, the applications group
>is imposing standards on the OS group, i.e. "Remember that incredibly ugly
>kludge you had to make to get version x.x out the door?  Well it will now haunt
>you for life because some clown in apps decided to cut a corner".

Supposedly, Apple had to put a lot of hacks in Multifinder to recognize certain
Microsoft applications and do ungodly things to make sure that they would
work because MS applications programmers violated a lot of rules.

I wonder if any of the applications people doing Windows stuff at MS were
the same as the people who did their Macintosh stuff?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 19:18:43 GMT

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
: In article <1993Jan2.004712.10346@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
: >philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
: >: In article <1992Dec31.224255.27090@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
: >: >philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
: >: >> In article <1992Dec29.194318.27886@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
: >: >> >
: >: >> >And if the fact that DRDOS's emulation is imperfect because of
: >: >> >information held back by Mircrosoft?
: >: >> >
: >: >> 
: >: >>     Oh, this is rich.  The only way that DR-DOS could get perfect
: >: >> MS-DOS emulation is if they had the source code.  
: >: >
: >: >Really? And presumably, by the same argument, the only way an AMD386
: >: >could provide perfect emulation of an Intel 386 is if AMD had access
: >: >to the original Intel drawings?
: >: 
: >:      Yes!  That's exactly my point.  They can get close, but they
: >: aren't going to be 100% the same as Intel unless, well, they are
: >: 100% the same.
: >
: >Oh please! Emulation does *not* mean running identically *internally*.
: >I suggest you read any textbook on abstract data types.
: 
:     If you claim to be 100% Intel compatible, and your processor
: exhibits difference in behavior from Intel's, should Intel be
: responsible for changing their product?

A difference in behaviour I interpret to mean in external interface,
*not* internal mechanics. If this were not the case then the 486 could
not claim to be compatible with the 386....

:     You bring up functional specifications below - the fact is,
: MS-DOS doesn't have a rigid one that would allow a clone
: to be written.

Well that explains a lot!
[....]
: >: >Never heard of functional specifications?
: >: 
: >:    Of course I have.  This is why I can't understand when people
: >: complain to Microsoft because DR-DOS didn't meet them exactly.
: >
: >If this is indeed the case. There do however seem to be plebnty of
: >people claiming to have evidence to the contrary.
: 
:      None of this evidence has been presented.
:      BTW, I have evidence that Elvis is alive and well and
: living in my refrigerator.

Finall you confirm my suspicions - you are actually a writer for The
Weekly World News aren't you?

--
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: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 04:51:45 GMT

In article <Bzn3M2.IvJ@csfb1.fir.fbc.com> uunet!csfb1!jbrock writes:

>I get the impression that you are one of those people who have elevated
>the free market to the status of an absolute moral value.  So you may
>not be willing to acknowledge one of the flaws in the free market
>system, which is that it is unstable, and that it is all too easy for
>one company to gain such an advantage in a particular market as to
>permanently stifle any competition.

What is your evidence that MS actually stifled competition ? I
see only more and more products for less and less prices, with IBM
in a good position to make the NT project go down the drain. 

>-- 
>John Brock
>uunet!csfb1!jbrock
>jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com

Dov

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10967 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3442