HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 23 Dec 92 02:56:00 GMT
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

In article <1992Dec22.095022.21715@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.074803.1363@sequent.com>, furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod) writes:
>
><refering to the FTC threats against Microsoft>
>
>|> IF this provides a setback to Microsoft, it will be a temporary
>|> one. Bill Gates to his credit pours something like 27+% of the
>|> revenues back into the company for R&D and Product Development. No
>|> matter what the FTC does to Microsoft, that kind of cash infusion
>|> will bring about good products, because they can afford to hire top
>|> talent and spend the time and effort to get it right.
>
>Ever think that Microsoft is only able to devote 27+% of its income to
>R & D because it has such a big market share and because its products are
>so competative?  
>
>Just watch how fast that 27+% shrinks after the FTC clobbers Microsoft over
>the head a couple of times.
>
>|> Also, if they do split up Microsoft, the share holders will be
>|> adequately compensated for the changes to take place. Bill Gates
>|> wins, not matter what happens. Besides, the man likes a challenge.
>
>Geez Louiz.  I'm sure he'll just really _love_ the challenge of trying
>to compete with his right arm tied behind his back, his leggs hobbled, 
>and his company gutted.
>
>|> This also give IBM and opportunity to press their advantage with
>|> OS/2 in the market place.
>
>I totally disagree.  If Microsoft is smashed enough that all of these
>whining companies feel safe developing for Windows, they will feel no
>motivation at all to move developement to another OS.
>
>The best thing for OS/2 is for Microsoft to escape this intact, because
>then the other companies might just realize that if they don't want 
>Microsoft to be dominant they shouldn't spend all their time developing
>for Microsoft operating systems.

   Instead of all this the 'sky will fall' rhetoric, please explain how
Microsoft will be so disasterously hobbled if its applications divisions
are required to be and operate separately from its operating environments
(OS, WIndows) ones. According to the word from g., they already do so,
therefore one must conclude there will be no negative effects.


-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
From: lmp8913@rigel.tamu.edu (PRESTON, LISA M)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Date: 27 Dec 1992 11:03 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rigel.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Dec26.212252.8017@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes...
->In article <1992Dec26.192753.23157@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
->>In article <1992Dec26.145826.21639@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
->>> >> 	You're thinking like a dos user.  It is not a bad idea to have
->>> >> 	the system auto-adjust and *allow* the user to fix it when you're
->>> >> 	talking about something that's suposed to be user friendly.  
->>> >
->>> >OS/2 ignores cache setting amount higher that 2048K.....
->>> 
->>> 	That's because it's stupid.  IBM should fix it, but they
->>> 	have no intention of doing so.
->>
->>It is not a bug....it is quite intentional. Therefore, you are correct about a
->>lack of intention to fix it. But it kind of ruins your theory about migrating
->>a hard disk to a machine with less RAM.....
-> 
-> 
->	Not at all.  Try setting a 2048k cache on a machine with 4 megs.
->	Or 6.
-> 
->	See where it gets you.


	Instead of talking about OS/2 settings, how about some settings
for NT's config sys (or whatever it has) to correct the problem.  Since 
NT obviously runs so well on _your_ 16 meg machine, how about giving
Steve some constructive advice on setting it up for his "minimal" setup,
or his friend's 16 meg system, and maybe he'll change his mind.

LISA
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 03 Jan 93 08:08:09 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

    Trimming down some of the excessive quoting - apologies for any
important context lost.


In article <1993Jan2.191843.21694@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>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?
>
>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....

     Identical in all ways used by external clients - this may
involve more than the external interface.


>: >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?

     Only on weekends.  I do all the articles about kitchen appliances
that are possessed by the devil.

				-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
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:43:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.165838.3637@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|> In <29103@oasys.dt.navy.mil> jwhite@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Joseph White) writes:
|> 
|> >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.  


OK, could somebody explain to me why professional baseball and football are
monopolies?
From: curt@vtucs.cc.vt.edu (Curt Tilmes)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Date: 22 Dec 92 15:23:47 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
In-reply-to: helz@ecn.purdue.edu's message of 22 Dec 92 11:48:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.114844.23358@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

   In article <1992Dec21.233102.14676@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu>, rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:
   |> I am hoping that Sun's new WABI pans out.  That will kill NT, severely
   |> cut into Windows, and force MS to try to stop Sun in court.  (for
   |> the uninitiated, WABI is an interface that allows any Windows program
   |> to run on any machine [CPU/OS combination] to which WABI has been
   |> ported).  You could run Ami Pro 3.0 in an X-term session on your
   |> HP workstation running HP/UX.  Take that Billy :-)

   I can't tell you how happy it makes me that at least ONE company is
   trying to beak Microsoft using programmers and not lawyers.  I saw in
   January's computer shopper that this is also persuading Microsoft into 
   perhaps porting Word, EXCEL, etc. to Solaris.  If IBM used this technique
   they probably could get Microsoft to port those killer aps to OS/2 too.

Isn't that what WIN/OS2 is?  "An interface that allows any Windows 
program to run on [OS/2]"?

Maybe I am missing something.

Curt
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 01:29:32 GMT

In article <wiegand.725667587@lido16>, wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand) writes:
|> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <1992Dec21.184359.9551@iscsvax.uni.edu>, brackin5483@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
|> >|> I got one question.  When Windows becomes the only operating system out there(
|> >|> according to Bill) and Microsoft drives everyone else producing Windows
|> >|> softwere in to bankruptcy.  Then what will happen to prices of operating
|> >|> systems and application software, once Microsoft has established a monopoly?
|> 
|> >OK, worst case scenario--Bill Gates drives every single OS vendor right into
|> >the ground.  Windows rules forever in a brave new world of point and click right?
|> 
|> >The minute that Microsoft starts charging more for Windows than it would
|> >cost for someone else to write a clone or a competing OS Microsoft would
|> >have competetors again.  
|> 
|> Not if the other companies know that as soon as their new OS hit the
|> markets MS would drop their prices until the new company went broke.
|> You don't enter a fight where you know the other guy is bigger and stronger
|> than you and will pound you into the ground.

Hmmmmnnn....that didn't seem to discourage AMD and Cyrix from entering the
80386 clone market.  Intel could drive them out of business mearly by selling
their processors below cost, but apparently they're more interested in
making money than losing it.  Also, Intel is competing with them on technical
grounds--they are doubling the speed of new processor developement.
From: rvaniwaa@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ronald J. Vaniwaarden)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: More advertising
Date: 30 Dec 92 03:00:07 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

In article <1992Dec29.181546.1151@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>	Sure, if you choose to forego DOS or Windows support.  Note that
>	I am aware that you can do without all of the piggish junk that
>	OS/2 installs--chess, terminal, blah--but OS/2 + DOS + WIN + Swap
>	isgoing to be 30 megs or more-- a LOT more on a 4 or 6 meg 
>	system.

If I look at the OS/2 directory on my 386/33 w/ 16 megs of ram, du reports
that I am using 22,200k of ram for OS + swap file.  Yes, I have full DOS
and Windows support installed.  I just trimmed out alot of the applets
that I don't use.  Even if I had a 8 meg swap file (it is at 1 meg now),
I would still be under the 30 meg limit.  I think that this represents a
minimal install for full support of all platforms but it is still a
perfectly legit install that meets your classifications.

--Ronald Van Iwaarden
From: Doug.Kushner@emdisle.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Kushner)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM OS/2 Fiesta Bowl
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 14:06:00 PDT
Organization: The Emerald Isle BBS, Tucson, AZ (602) 749-8638

n article <Bzs0nG.6uu@unx.sas.com>, 
sasghw@pica.unx.sas.com (Greg Wust) writes: 
> In article <1992Dec24.145156.7787@panix.com>,    
> os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.) writes:   
> |> In <697@riscy.simplot.com> rshelley@riscy.simplot.com    
> |> (Robert Shelley) writes:   
> |>   
> |> >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!   
> |>   
> |> A friend of mine said she heard on the radio that IBM signed a contract to   
> |> allow them to sponsor some major TV event.  I am almost sure that it was a   
> |> sporting event.  Can someone confirm this?   
> |>   
> |> If this is true, there would be a *definate* opportunity    
> |> for OS/2 commercials   
> |> (and maybe they won't put any insomnia cures out of business).   
> |>   
>    
> Yes - this is true.  But, IBM's size does them in again.  Seems they   
> started in contract negotiations over a year ago when Arizona was going   
> to vote on the Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday which caused them the loss   
> of the SuperBowl.  I guess IBM assumed it would either pass this time   
> or would not affect college's.  BUT, the referendum was voted down so   
> Arizona does not have a Martin Luther King Jr. holiday and because of it,   
> no colleges will sign up except little dunks like Arkansas Central U or   
> some odd one.   
> --    
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------   
> Greg Wust                              SAS Institute Inc   
> Publications Programmer                SAS Campus Drive, Cary NC 27513   
> sasghw@unx.sas.com   x7012             919-677-8000   
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------   
  
Sorry, but you are wrong.  Arizona is the only state that has a  
Martin Luther King holiday that was instituted by popular vote of the  
people.  Happened this past November.  
  
   
-Doug  
 
 * KWQ/2 1.0C * 
--  
Doug Kushner - via FidoNet node 1:300/14
UUCP: ...!noao!coyote!emdisle!Doug.Kushner
INTERNET: Doug.Kushner@emdisle.FIDONET.ORG
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: prs9k@brain.med.virginia.edu (Phil Scarr)
Subject: Re: Bill Gates gives predictions.
Organization: Neuroclinical Trials Center, University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 22:23:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.205359.6458@umr.edu> jdickins@cs.umr.edu (James Dickinson) writes:
>Thats right Bill Gates hisself will be on This Week with David Brinkly on 
>Sunday January 3 @ 9:30 here in Mo.
>I wonder if he will be spreading FUD?

If he opens his mouth... well...

Reminds me of a lawyer joke:

How can you tell if a lawyer is telling a lie?

You can hear him speak.

>
>Jim

	-Phil
-- 
(--)======================================================================(--)
 ||                                                                        ||
 ||  As evey cell in Chile will tell / The cries of the tortured men       ||
 ||  Remember Allende in the days before / Before the army came            ||
 ||  Please remember Victor Jarra / In the Santiago Stadium / Es verdad    ||
 ||              Those Washington Bullets Again!      --The Clash          ||
 ||                                                                        ||
(--)== prs9k@virginia.edu === Phil Scarr === Department of Neurosurgery ==(--)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 31 Dec 92 03:55:45 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Dec29.194318.27886@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>bobatk@microsoft.com (Bob Atkinson) writes:
>:
>: I'm confused; perhaps you can help me out of my confusion.
>: 
>: 	1. You have DR-DOS6.0, a clone of MSDOS.
>: 	2. You buy Win3.1, an MS product that was designed to 
>: 		work with MSDOS. And indeed it does, as you note.
>: 	3. You find that Win3.1 doesn't work with DR-DOS6.0
>: 
>: Then: 
>: 	4. You complain to MS, not DR, about the problem.
>: 
>: See my confusion? Doesn't the problem have to do with the fidelity
>: of the MSDOS emulation done by DR-DOS? Or am I missing something?
>: I'd genuinely like to know...
>
>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.  This source
code wasn't provided to them by Microsoft.   Therefore, Microsoft
is a grand evil company for not turning over the hard work of
hundreds of engineers to their competitors.
    Makes sense to me.

					-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,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:32:17 GMT

In article <wiegand.725655487@lido16>, wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand) writes:

|> >If MS is capable of keeping prices down for the customer, why
|> >should _they_ be penalized and not the less efficient companies ? 
|> 
|> Oh please - you can't really believe Microsoft would be selling their
|> software cleaply if there was no competition.

Competition is _exactly_ why they are selling so cheap.  That's why 
for the life of me I can't understand why the low prices are being 
called "anticompetative."

|> Microsoft - like any other
|> company - will charge as much as they can for their products. If you
|> eliminate their competitors their prices would go up *fast*.

Sure they would--and competitors would reemerge just as fast.  Sure I know
that operating systems are big complex pieces of software and that it takes
time to write them but it would happen and businesses would simply move
to the Mac or to RISC workstations.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2)
Subject: IBM OS/2 Fiesta Bowl TV ad
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 01:45:37 GMT

I just finished watching the ``IBM OS/2 Fiesta Bowl'' on TV.
Unfortunately, there was only one OS/2 advertisement (which was
shown only three times).  The ad was not that great.  The pool
table idea was not that bad, but it would have been much better
if it showed a computer -- one that was running OS/2.  Here is
a transcript of that ad:

---- start of the OS/2 pool table TV ad ----

"Not all personal computer operating systems give you your best shot."
[several scenes of balls travelling to a pocket; one easily entering its
 pocket, another missing its pocket, another just barely making it in]

"Some *will* do several things at once -- some don't."
[miscue!]

"Chalk one up for IBM's advanced OS/2."
[a man chalking up a pool stick]

"It runs a number of programs simultaneously... seamlessly... safely."
[opening break: cue ball breaking up other balls, each of them easily
 entering a pocket]

"Get *more* work done."
[man blowing chalk dust off of pool stick tip in the same way a cowboy
 would blow the smoke from a fired gun]

"Power up with OS/2."
[diagonally placed OS/2 system disk replaced with the 5-ring-diagonal OS/2
 logo]

---- end of TV ad ----

If IBM could have shown computers running OS/2 at the end of the
commercial, then I would give the ad a "thumbs up".  But they didn't,
so I give the ad a "thumbs down".

-- 
======= Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu =======
::  ftp ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (128.123.35.151) for OS/2  ::  .--.
::  software & information.   Get /pub/os2/00Index  :: (OS/2)
::::::::  & /pub/os2/all/info/faq/faq20h.txt  ::::::::  ~--~
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11277 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3570
From: palmer@pcatsc.UUCP (Doug Palmer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Summary: Bigamy in Redmond?
Keywords: FTC, antitrust, predatory, Microsoft
Date: 31 Dec 92 13:57:14 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: United States Courts (pcatsc)

In article <1992Dec29.235026.16339@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>
>Surely you would agree that the agreements I make between myself and 
>my girlfriend are the business of only me and her.  Actually, the agreements
>I'll make between me and my future wife will be downright monopolistic.
>*sigh* Yes, this does mean that thousands of other women will be "hurt"
>because their hopes of sleeping with me will be forever dashed.  
>But my wife will have a "trust" in me that no "antitrust" legislation
>could erase.

And do you plan on acquiring many wives, as Microsoft has done? Or do you
plan on allowing your wives to acquire other husbands? It's a *free*
market, but corporations are not free to exercise predatory pricing and
pursue predatory covenants at the expense of the competition.
-- 

United States Courts                                         Doug Palmer
Automated Training & Support Center
7550 IH10 West, Suite 1100                     spatsc!palmer@spao.ao.gov
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 2 Jan 93 23:30:19 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1993Jan2.220817.1977@itsmail1.hamilton.edu>, jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
> In article <1993Jan02.094926.14462@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>>>>
>>>>- OS/2 Detected! Due to the size of OS/2 you may wish to delete your OS/2 
>>>>files before installing DOS 6.0 -
>>
>>If DOS is advanced enough to detect the presence of potential
>>disk hoggers (what does it do? Keep a database?) it should
>>certainly be smart enough to tell if there is room enough.
>>If it finds too little room, it should just say so, not
>>indicate anything as a potential problem. It is silly to
>>give messages like, X detected. If there are many X's which
>>one would be the problem? If there are no X's then what to
>>do? No piece of software should be a smartass, let the user
>>decide what he does and does not need.
>>
> Well, assuming some sort of nasty conspiracy (about software not even
> yet released!) is always mucho fun, but I think there's something else
> going on here.  There are a number of people, believe it or not, who try
> OS/2 2.0 and decide it's not for them (as I did, though I have hopes for
> version 2.1 when it appears next summer (which is, by my experience,
> about when IBM will actually ship me a copy!)).  Microsoft has already
> had a package deal out in the marketplace for PS/1 (and other True Blue
> machines) that are/might be equipped with OS/2 (DOS 5 and Windows 3.1
> for a 'package' price).  This wording (which doesn't quite ring true, as
> far I as can determine, but who knows?) might just be to alert someone
> to make a decision: keep OS/2 or not?
> 
> IOW, it may not be quite the nefarious plot some think, but it certainly
> is more fun to think of it as a plot!
> 
> Joe Malloy
> German Deparment
> Hamilton College
> Clinton, NY
> 


	OH yea, OS/2 is practically hidden on the hard disk.  I wouldn't
nor would anyone else capable of deleting it themselves be able to
tell it was even installed on the hard drive if DOS 6 didn't tell us.

					(for MS people, that was sarcasm).

						-Brad


> 
>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: OS/2 bigot and NT......update
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 05:01:36 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange


Well, I have been playing with NT for 90 minutes now and it has crashed 7
times. Sometimes, it just "re-boots".....other times I get a Trap error.....
other times it just locks solid. Several times I have simply lost the mouse
and had to shutdown and re-boot. I have not included these occassions (3) in
the crash count. 
 
I know this is a beta.....but these guys have a long way to go! I see what
John Dvorak means when he says that August looks like a realistic release
date.
 
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".