HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu)
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:50:37 GMT

Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>> 
>> The machine you listed is the smallest machine I've ever used OS/2 on.
>> I would hate to see your idea of slow.
>
>Brian, I have seen OS/2 running very well on a 386SX/25 with 8 megs. Certainly
>the guy who owned the machine was happy. I was a bit surprised that it didn't
>lok much slower than the 486DX/25 I use at work or the 386DX/40 I use at home.

I have used OS/2 on a 386sx-16, with 8 megs of RAM, very happily for
quite some time.  I recently upgraded to 10 megs RAM, but that didn't
make much noticable difference in speed.

A friend has a Gateway 2000, I think.  In any case, his 486DX2-50 is not
proportionally faster than my machine.  He has Super VGA, and 8 megs
RAM; I have VGA and 10 megs.  If my display output were faster, I'd have
to say that his machine is a waste of money; it's really not all that
much faster.

OS/2, it seems, is limited by RAM, _not_ by CPU.  Windows, on the other
hand, is limited by CPU, and will usually run in a slim RAM setup.

Daniel
--
Daniel L'Hommedieu / Junior, CSC Depatment, NCSU / eagle@catt.ncsu.edu
						   "Ich bin ein Adler"
	"Love is like an hourglass, with the heart filling up as
	 the brain empties"--Jules Renard
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong)
Subject: Re: Os/2ers whine again
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 10:57:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.214541.11475@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>
>Okay, if OS is an operating system, then it is.  IF OS is OS/2, then it's not.
>BTW, what links does OS/2 3.0(of then) have with OS/2 2.0(of now).  Besides
>the name, of course.  2 different companies developed them.  The code
>is different.  The markets are different.
>
OS/2 3.0, when Microsoft announced it at first, was to be the portable OS/2.
At that point, Microsoft was still behind (or so it claimed) OS/2 2.0.  It
presented OS/2 3.0 as a continuation of the OS/2 line, a new generation,
with a NT kernel that will support OS/2, DOS and Unix.  If OS/2 3.0 has
nothing whatsoever to do with OS/2 2.0, I wonder what Microsoft was trying
to do when it was naming the baby.

>
>Oh, sorry, the article smelled more of OS/2 has nothing to do with NT.
>Can I get OS/2 3.0?  If not, then it doesn't exist ;)
>

Yeah, I can write an article titled "How good OS/2 is", then change the
title to "How bad OS/2 is", erased the original article.  Then the article
isn't about how good OS/2 is, isn't it?  What an easy job.  I wouldn't
even have to change a single word of the content!

David Copperfield better be careful.

>> 
>>    >>>The thing on the PDK disk was formerly called OS/2 3.0?  Can you point
>>    >>>out which code on the PDK has anything to do with OS/2 please.
>> 
>> and tried to prove it wrong:
>Unsuccessfully...
>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pricec@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (price carl wayne)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Date: 28 Sep 92 00:13:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: CS.1992Sep28.001344.5907
Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept.

>> isn't Nubus TI's design?
>> otherwise i pretty much agree with the rest of you post
>> (personal opinion: MCA rocks - quickring wishes it was MCA)

>TI?  Motorola designed Nubus for use with its 680x0 processors.  That's
>what I've been told at least.

I was under this impression for a while to, but after somebody told me it
was TI's design, I checked the spec book and found out it is TI's patent,
although TI didn't start the research and wasn't involved for the first
few years of development, this was done at MIT.  

Now back to OS/2

--Carl

-- 
Carl W. Price		 	*      * Work keeps us from three evils:     * 
Computer Engineering Student	*      * boredom, vice, and need.            *
Oregon State University		*      *                                     *
pricec@prism.cs.orst.edu	*      *       ---Voltaire                   *
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:32:54 GMT

In article <1879@shaman.wv.tek.com> andrew@frip.wv.tek.com writes:
> The "tyranny" of x86 comes, not from the OS, but from the application
> base.  You could whip out a new MSDOS for any architecture in a few
> person-years,

Try "months", and I know people who could do it in days. And it'd be
better than the original.

Not relevant to the topic, I know. Shoot me.

> but there are literally millions of copies of WordPerfect
> for DOS that won't run on anything else.

> For RISC-based PCs to succeed, a solution must be found to the problem
> of invalidating billions of dollars of existing software.

Yes. The biggest selling point for the IBM-PC family is the pirate domain.
-- 
Peter da Silva                                          `-_-'
Ferranti Intl. Ctls. Corp.                               'U` 
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012
+1 713 274 5180                           Heb jij vandaag je wolf al geaaid ?
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:27:22 EDT
From: <BJT105@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
 <1992Sep30.004820.15289@hellgate.utah.edu>

I think there are a couple important reasons people shouldn't "throw their
support" exclusively to NT or OS/2:

1. They need each other.  Both OS/2 and NT will get better.  The competition
   between them will drive both systems to higher and higher levels of
   features and quality.  It is obvious that NT's feature list was driven
   by OS/2 ... MS will make sure that NT has everything OS/2 has, and more.
   And IBM is looking at NT as the baseline for OS/2 3.0.  Although we all
   hate dealing with two platforms, it would be a tragedy for innovation
   if either NT or OS/2 died.

2. Neither NT 1.0 or OS/2 2.0 is "the ultimate operating system."  While
   NT is fresh now, and we've never had an operating systems with so many
   features in its plan, NT's design will have grown old and awkward in
   10 or 15 years. Whether it will be neural co-processors for a natural
   language interface, or a new programming paradigm, we must never count
   out the competition introducing a new system that rises above the old.

3. The pain of dealing with both OS/2 and NT -- especially for the developer --
   could turn out to be a non-issue.  In terms of the services and abstraction
   that the operating system provides to the developer, NT and OS/2 are
   extremely similar.  Programming for DOS or Windows 3.1 or OS/2 2.0 are
   all very different propositions .. but programming for NT or OS/2 is
   the same concept:  utilizing the API to protect the programmer from
   dealing with the hardware or the system.  I think (and hope!) Borland
   might have a surprise for us:  Identical C++ libraries for OS/2 and
   NT!.. I know of nothing that would not make it feasible (anyone? problems?)
   If someone could make this a reality, I think we all could be more
   comfortable allowing OS/2 and NT to fall into their niches: NT, it's
   portability; OS/2, it's intel-based advantages.  And then we could also
   feel better about IBM and MS duking it out to make better and better
   systems for us!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernie Thompson  --   OS/2 2.0 on 16M V-COM 386-33
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:46:00 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Oct2.190049.22326@news.iastate.edu> TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.162606.25023@hellgate.utah.edu>,
>brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>>The idea that NT will require substantially more resources than
>>OS/2 is a myth.  Even believing IBM's recommended memory figures
>>NT doesn't require more memory on a networked system -- even
>>in its pre-beta form.  As the pre-beta already has 95% or more
>>of NT's final functionality... it's a good bet that NT will need
>>less memory than OS/2 2.0 when configured for equivalent functionality.
>>Brian

>     Hi Brian, just a few questions about NT that I thought other
>people might be interested in...
>     Do you *personally* have NT set up for a network?  Does this
>include peer-to-peer and TCP/IP?  I'm just wondering.  Ok, I'm

Yes, I have it configured with all the networking turned on.
As I only have one machine running NT, I've not tested the peer-to-peer,
but I do use the TCP/IP.  (The machine is at home, thus only my machine
and my wife's machine are on the network.)

>questioning your "95% or more of NT's final functionality"
>statement.  I take it this doesn't include Win-16 support.  How
>about DOS support?  Is it as far as it's going to get?  I know

It currently includes both Win-16 and DOS support... they are buggy.
On the other hand I run my DOS editor with no problems.

>you've mentioned other things in your infamous "list" that I can't
>remember.  What about the singe cache for all disk I/O?  And I take
>it that the user log-on is set up to work well.  Let's see, 95%.
>Hmmm, what would that leave out?  I guess that the Win-16 stuff
>could be the other 5%, huh?

If you go back and look at my list, the things listed in the first
section as a part of the base package ARE THERE NOW.
The stuff I have listed to come out in the fall are the only
missing pieces.
This is clearly stated, but people in this group seem to have
trouble reading when the statement says something good about NT.

Here's the list of things things missing from NT currently:
	OLE 2.0
	POSIX subsystem
	Tape API
	Win32s
	Two NTFS features: Symlinks Sparse Files

Everything else exists in the NT pre-beta, in a sufficiently complete
state that it is reasonably certain it will be in the commercial release.

>     Well, I'll be getting the NT SDK soon enough.  Does anybody
>have an NEC CDR-84 running OS/2 out there?  Will it work?  How about
>any other comparable CD-ROM's out there?  It must have 300Kb
>transfer rate, and *good* access time!  (You can email me)

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
University of Utah                             United We Stand
Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: OS/2 VS NT! The Future War Looms...
Date: 28 Sep 92 03:19:31 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Sep25.92001.26604@ms.uky.edu> sam@ms.uky.edu wrote:

> 
> Ahh, "but he asks me, and I shall have him!"  That's right, Pete.  This is
> an OS/2 advocacy group.  If you are going to come in here and call people
> "bigots" in OUR OWN GROUP then you can expect to get flamed.

Ooopse, I'm sorry.  I misread the group name before I started reading
the posts on the group, and made an assumption about the group name.

Silly me, I though it was alt.comp.we-hate-ms

I take back all I said, then....


> 
> I like OS/2, and I'm here to advocate it.  Maybe someday a little gear in
> your head will turn and you'll figure out which group you're in.

I think I just did....

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7043 comp.sys.intel:1880 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:26263
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: 7 Oct 92 03:34:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct7.033400.12408
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

mba@tandon.com (Michael Ben-Ari (mba@tandon.com)) writes:
>>
>>INT13.386 is a VxD that translates INT 13h requests to BlockDev
>>requests (only for drives 0x80 and 0x81--can anyone explain why
>>Microsoft arbitrarily limited it this way?).
>
>Most probably because the "De-Facto" standard of most if not all MFM-type
>(WD-compatible) controllers only support up to two HD's via the BIOS....
>Any others would need a driver to support dos access to.
>

And if you have that driver, so that DOS can access the drives, why
does INT13.386 ignore them?  This still seems to be a rather arbitrary
limit (e.g., the code in INT13.386 explicitly checks for 0x80 and
0x81).  Note that Microsoft fixed FDISK to work with drivers > 81,
so at least some part of Microsoft is aware of the usefullness of
supporting such drives.  It seems strange that they would skimp in
this area of Windows.

Speaking of FastDisk/BlockDev, I note in the spec that a FastDisk
VxD can register non-INT 13h drives.  How does this work?  Suppose,
for instance, that one had a block driver under DOS that brings up, say,
a D: drive.  Suppose one has a FastDisk that wants to take over for
this drive under Windows.  How does it tell BlockDev that requests to
DOS drive D: are to be sent to the FastDisk instead?

--Tim Smith
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:44:31 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Sep29.030535.16189@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@quads.uchicago.edu wrote:
> In article <1992Sep25.104157.28409@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> >
> >Hey, I suspect that minesweeper is responsable for about 85% of compuer
> >use, so don't discount it.  ;) ;) ;)
> >
> >petesk@microsoft.com
> >IMHO
> 
> Speaking of minesweeper, I just tried minesweeper that came with
> os/2 GRE and win-os/2 3.1.  Assuming that it is the same minesweeper
> as the one included in original Windows 3.1, I'd say the freeware
> minesweeper for os/2 2.0 is much harder to solve than win 3.1 version.
> When you have experience with the former, windows version is not a
> fun anymore.
> 
> Min
> 
I assume you implied a ;) after your post.

Otherwise, as people say here, Get a Life.
I mean really, trying to say that your version of minesweeper
is better than mine?  Why don't you go off any play your
better version of solitaire or something.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: "world"
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:36:59 GMT

rjones@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ronald Jones) writes:

>Actually doesn't IBM already have a single chip RS6000 available (the
>220)? I think the PowerPC will be a simpler version of this chip.

Actually, I believe the present RS6000 CPU takes something like 5 chips.
Anyone know for sure?


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: Video games and NT
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:29:53 GMT

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>In article <1992Oct1.121944.5568@gw.wmich.edu> 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>>
>>	I said this a bit in another post but video games are important
>>to an OS.

[Stuff deleted]

>>	But most home users spend a good deal of time playing video
>>games.  One only has to look at any computer store to note that the
>>video game business is booming.  But allthose video games run under
>>DOS and that will continue to be the case.

>      It is far from clear that DOS will continue to be the platform
>of choice for computer games.  Would you elborate on your reasons
>for this statement?

Games sell for less money than business programs, so need to sell
in large numbers to make money. They must sell to the largest posible
market, which is DOS.

[Stuff deleted]

>>	That brings us to Windows NT.  It is pretty clear from what
>>people have said, my own experiences, and MS's announcements that NT
>>will scarcely run DOS video games.

>      This is unclear.  Windows NT will not allow applications to
>directly access the hardware - this does not necessarily preclude
>running DOS games.

I think thae main question here is speed. Most graphichs intensive DOS
games directly access the hardware to get maximum speed. How fast will
these programs run under NT?

[Stuff deleted]

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: adamba@microsoft.com (Adam Barr)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Date: 03 Oct 92 21:44:17 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct2.035941.23197@tamsun.tamu.edu> bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.184354.9987@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep29.172201.6487@tamsun.tamu.edu> bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
>
>>>  It seems
>>>that IBM has a more obvious way of implementing some of the proposed
>>>features than MS does with NT.  Here I'm specifically refering to C2
>>>security which is a HW/SW combination.  Is MS going to start building
>>>hardware (besides mice).
>>
>>     I suspect that one Windows NT is released, Microsoft will assist
>>hardware vendors in completing the certification process.
>>
>Sure, I believe MS will help the hardware vendors, but it will
>certainly not be painless.  Have you ever seen the arguments that can
>go on -- Its the hardware's fault  -- No, its the software's fault.
>These are very real problems and compounding the problems by having
>differnt companies work together will be a real feat.  If MS + Some
>Hardware Company (tm)  pull this off in a reasonable time period, I
>will be very impressed.


This argument that goes, "C2 certification is a HW/SW combination,
therefore Microsoft's claims about it are null and void" is getting
old. Windows NT is being evaluated by the NCSC for a C2 rating. Since
it has been designed following the guidelines for C2 security, such
as ownership of objects and accountability for access-related actions,
presumably it will get this rating.

So, a C2 rating is a function of the software only. This is what NT
will have and IBM is claiming OS/2 will have. The difference is
that NT has all the software in place; all that is missing is the
stamp of approval.

C2 certification, however, does not just apply to a particular
combination of hardware and software, but to a specific location
or office that wishes to be certified. As you would expect you
need software with a C2 rating. But it's not like IBM could start
selling a system that runs OS/2 and claim it is "C2 certified";
they could sell a system and claim it was "C2 certifiable", but
any clone manufacturer could put NT on their systems and say
the same thing.


- adam
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jhenshaw@microsoft.com (Jeff Henshaw)
Subject: was: MS writing 32bit Word/Excel for OS/2
Date: 01 Oct 92 15:44:52 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article 5911 of comp.os.os2.advocacy,
petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes...

[regarding people at Microsoft who don't think or want
 NT to rule the known universe...]

| BTW, you wanted one person, well, how about Rich, the cook downstairs.
| I doub't he really cares what software sells well, as long as he
| can continue to serve up some mean grub.  :)

Sorry, Pete, but I have to call bullsh*t on you here.
I saw the NT Device Driver Kit sitting on Rich-the-cook-downstairs's
shelf, right between the brown sugar and the potato(e?)s.

It appears that he wants to write device drivers for the
new Alpha machine that he uses.  It doubles as a soup warmer,
since it heats up faster than his stove.

LOTS of smileys :-) where appropriate!

-Jeff
jhenshaw@microsoft.com

not a microsoft spokesperson.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith)
Subject: Re: New DOS setting in OS/2 beta
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 05:46:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Sep27.230134.55198@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.214613.13213@njitgw.njit.edu>, dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (Dav
>id Charlap) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep24.190856.43323@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.
>edu writes:
>>>Hello netters,
>>>
>>>An OS/2 beta note:
>>>
>>>There is a new DOS setting called INT_IO or something like that.
>>>If set to on, interupts are possible during disk io.  If set to
>>>off, interupts have to wait till disk io is done.  I set this on
>>>for the Win 3.1 session, and the mouse pointer stopped freezing
>>>during disk io--an annoyance in the past.
>>
>>Can anyone think of why you'd want to set this on?
>
>One word.  Multimedia.  It can be very useful in keeping music or animation
>from freezing on you.  In addition, if certain apps tend to have jerky mouse
>movement, this might help there.
>
>Ohh.  One thing I forgot to include in my last post.  There is Win 3.1 sound
>support.  Identical to what you have with Regular Win 3.1.  I would ask that
>someone else comment on the actual usability of these drivers as I do not have
>a sound card.
>>
>>
>>--
>>David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
>>dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
>>----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
>>Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
>>
>
>Stacy John Behrens
>*===)-------------

There is no need for a sound card to get sounds. IBM saw fit to include
sound.drv in WinOS231 (MS do not in Win31). If you install this then you 
can add .WAV files to system messages. This works in SEEMLESS mode no less 
although it can sometimes sound a bit wacky even with HW_TIMER in the i
settings set on. 

MArtin Smith
msmith@netcomc.om

From: Bertram.Moshier@f115.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Bertram Moshier)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Why I don't respect Micro
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:08:32 -0600

Ni

IMHO, you bring out an important difference between IBM and Microsoft.
It is one I didn't realize but because of you do now realize.

All I can say is thanks and Woooo...

Bert


 * Origin: (1:282/115)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy