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 03:03:22 GMT
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

In article <1992Dec22.201103.28693@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.161425.0299694@locus.com>, lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:
>|> In article <1992Dec22.040237.14440@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>|> >In article <Bzn0EI.D2w@csulb.edu> sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>|> >
>|> 
>|> Lots on Standard Oil & Unfair Competition Deleted.
>
>|> MS has not kept the prices down, infact if you look at their $8 a unit
>|> for bundled Windows for Workgroups vs the $100 per station that the
>|> end user pays, you might suspect that MS is price gouging the end
>|> user shamelessly.
>
>*sigh* is anybody forcing people to buy MS DOS at $100 a copy?  Any sales
>which go on are completely voluntary between buyer and seller.  Obviously
>both parties are happy about the price or it wouldn't get sold.  If
>Microsoft and its customers are happy, why interfere with them?
>

  Well, this can get pretty complicated with the nuances of anti-trust law
but there are laws that prohibit manufacturers from discriminating against
different sellers on *arbitrary* criteria (volume is a valid reason) but
price fixing and unreasonably controlling the ability and price at which
your resellers sell the product is generally a no-no. And punishing them
for not following such anti-competitive practices is also illegal. Whether
MS's bundling agreements fit these situations, I don't know, but such a
wide gap in wholesale vs. retail prices (which don't manifest themselves
in the market due to competition) suggest there is something other than
good-old-American-captialistic-competition operating here.


-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wcn@cs.brown.edu (Wen-Chun Ni)
Subject: Re: 1993 starting with very positive feedback from Publications
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:54:32 GMT

Not necessarily. The MS-Intel people successfully landed The Wall Stree
Journal on December 21, 1992. Look at A1: they completely admire
Windows NT even though, I believe, the writer knows little about what he
was talking about.


Wen-Chun Ni, wcn@cs.brown.edu         (401) 863-7669
-------------------------------------------------------------------
 I do more after 2 a.m. than most people do all day.
			 - from a T-shirt given by a friend.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2)
Subject: Re: MS to 'support' OS/2?
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 04:50:26 GMT

In article <PSHUANG.93Jan1222542@stephen-king.mit.edu> pshuang@athena.mit.edu (Ping Huang) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.174203.9145@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> ucgadkw@ucl.ac.uk (Dominik Wujastyk) writes:
>
> > I'm pretty certain MS Word 5.5 doesn't support HPFS under OS/2, since
> > it is *really* an OS/2 1.x program, and I believe HPFS only came in
> > with 2.0. (Perhaps I'm wrong about that?)
>
>The High Performance File System existed for OS/2 1.x, although I don't
>remember if it shipped with 1.0 or was one of the enhancements that came
>with 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3. You can find an article in Microsoft System
>Journal by a Microsoft author extolling the virtues of HPFS and how the
>engineers at Microsoft planned and did their very best to incorporate
>New Technology (OK, I'm deliberately using words they didn't actually
>use here....) into HPFS to ensure its viability into the 21st century,
>or something to that effect. That should tell you just how old HPFS is,
>if it pre-dates the official IBM-Microsoft break-up.



version   release   features
-------   -------   --------
OS/2 1.0  Dec '87   essentially a protected-mode 286 version of DOS
                    with multiple threads, multiple processes, etc.
                    and can run one conventional DOS session.

OS/2 1.1  Nov '88   added Presentation Manager and Desktop Manager shell.

OS/2 1.2  late 89   added High-Performance File System (HPFS),
                    DOS session had a little more memory.

(split?)  Sep '90   IBM and MS "announced a change in their development
                    relationship" [_The Design of OS/2_, pg 17].  This
                    means IBM was to take care of OS/2 1.x and OS/2 2.x,
                    while MS was to take care of OS/2 3.0 .  I don't
                    know if this is the IBM-MS split, or if it happened
                    later when MS announced OS/2 3.0 / Portable OS/2 /
                    OS/2 NT / whatever will become Windows NT instead
                    by using the Windows-style API instead of PM.

OS/2 1.3  Oct '90   faster, and used less RAM space.

OS/2 2.0  Mar '92   386 version, multiple DOS and Windows 2.x/3.0 processes,
                    much better DOS support (EMS, XMS, DPMI, settings, etc.)
                    Workplace Shell (WPS) replaced Desktop Manager, and in
                    Oct '92 the 32-bit graphics engine replaced the hybrid
                    one.

OS/2 2.1  ??? '92   Windows 3.1 support, some other stuff???

-- 
======= 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  ::::::::  ~--~
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:14:43 GMT

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.

Where have you been. IBM did do this. Windows apps. *do* run under OS/2.
Microsoft isn't going to port *anything* to OS/2 because Billy is
pissed of at IBM.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 14:00:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.193602.12123@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>: In article <1992Dec29.193954.27752@spang.Camosun.BC.CA>, dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>: |> I don't think that's what I said. The fact is that your free market
>: |> system fails to provide some 25% of your population with any medical
>: |> care whatsoever.
>: 
>: I'll repeat myself and please read it this time, WE DON'T HAVE A FREE
>: MARKET IN HEALTH CARE.  We have a "mixed system" in which the federal 
>: goverment pays for and therefore mandates 60% of the health care. 
>
>No need to shout. If you examine those countries whose health care is
>the envy of the rest of the world, you will find not only that they do
>not espouse a free market in health care, but that the entire health
>care system is run by the government. Case closed.


	What, the German system that is in desparate need of reform due
	to rising costs?  Or do you mean the Canadian system--you know, 
	the same one that has it's patients coming down to the US
	to get CT scans, MRI's and bone scans done because Canada
\	has insufficient hardware?
 
	The other day (about three weeks ago) I went to the doctor because
	my knee was immobile.  So, the doctor took some xrays and determined
	that we needed anMRI done because there was obvious swelling, but
	nothing to be seen on the xrays.  So I called the MRI center to schedule
	an appointment.  "When would you like to come?" "Oh, well, when are
	times available?"  "*Oh, anytime, just about."

	Thank you, yes--theUS does need reform.  Medicare reform.  Insurance
	reform.  But I'd rather have a system o' plenty than a deficient
	system o' "let's all wait in lines like shoppers in a soviet
	supermarket".


-- 
	Blaming society for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
	         ---  Boycott == censorship == cowardice  ---
	Do I even need to point out that my views do not represent
	those of my employer, institution or relations?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc
From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: Better File Management??
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 21:30:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.210300.11314@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.185639.29060@ultb.isc.rit.edu> jks4675@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
>> A suggestion for OS/2 2.1:
>> 
>> Perhaps a faster (PLEASE!!!) graphical interface for file manipulation
>> is in order. It seems that the PM is very slow for that kind of stuff,
>> even when no other tasks are active. 
>
>The file management in OS/2 2.1 beta has been speeded up. It is fastenough for
>me.....I don't know if it will be for you. The Extended Attributes slw things
>down a bit, but that is an OK trade-off in my book, for the benefits they
>bring to the system.
>
Does this mean that they have sped up the time it takes for the icons to
be drawn when you open a window?  This has always bugged me.
-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 31 Dec 92 05:20:18 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <8240@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.210748.10595@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>In article <8225@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec28.201454.20862@microsoft.com> bobatk@microsoft.com (Bob Atkinson) writes:
>>>>	1. You have DR-DOS6.0, a clone of MSDOS.
>>>Don't forget: 1a. You have Windows 3.0. It works fine with DR-DOS 6.0.
>>    Fine.  This doesn't change anything below.
>
>Of course it does. It means that something was done to Windows 3.1 to _make_
>it not work with DR-DOS.

     News flahs for you:  Windows 3.1 is not the same as Windows 3.0.
There were changes in the source code.  One or more of those changes
caused incompatibilities with DR-DOS.  If you want to show that
your sinister plot exists, you need to show that something was
_intentionally_ done to make it break on DR-DOS.  You haven't
done anything of the sort.  More foundationless accusations.


>>     Only if you're a paranoid.  Why is it easier to ascribe the
>>incompatibilities to some nefarious (and utterly without evidence)
>>plot by Microsoft than to a bug in a competing product?  Bugs
>>happen all the time - nefarious plots that no one can produce
>>any substantiation for only happen in the Weekly World News,
>>alt.conspiracy, and the minds of certain Microsoft bashers.
>
>If "bugs happen all the time", then why was MS positively eager to work out
>incompatibilities with Windows 3.1 with _everyone_but_DR_???

     Windows applications help to sell Windows.  DR-DOS does not.
Seems pretty obvious to me.


>I have no trouble ascribing this kind of thing to malice; that malice is
>evident in any dealings MS has with anyone who dares to try to challenge MS'
>near monopoly in the OS field.

     Provide factual evidence of this malice.

				-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: pallantj@unvax.union.edu (Joseph C. Pallante)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Union College, Schenectady, NY
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 22:14:05 GMT

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

>In article <1992Dec22.011646.3918@unvax.union.edu>, pallantj@unvax.union.edu (Joseph C. Pallante) writes:

>|> The day that a couple hundred software writers in Russia or India can
>|> produce an OS like OS/2....  Is the day that BG becomes humble.

>My friend have you ever sat in a software class and tried to compete with
>the best and brightest students from India?  I have and let me tell you
>I have nothing but the highest regard for the kind of talent that
>India can put together.

>They've got over 700 _million_ people--it stands to reason that they've got
>over twice the number of potential great programmers that we do.

>To think that we can blindly bash our best software companies into the
>ground and still be number one in software is about the most extreme
>form of cultural egocentrism than I can imagine.  Wake up and smell the
>coffee! 

Which country in the world has the largest number of computers?
Pure quantity, that is...

Parts of India are very modern, and some parts are highly
underdeveloped.  Doesnt matter if you have 700 million people,
cause you have to have the resources.  India is fast developing,
but I hardly can think of them producing a version of DOS soon.

But you convinced me...
A free market economy functions best when there is no competition.
Who would have thought that all those economists were wrong
all these years.  Thank you for enlighening us....

Clue.....   Get one.

Joe
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: person@plains.NoDak.edu (Brett Person)
Subject: Re: 1992 BYTE Awards
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 09:44:42 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network
Keywords: Windows Awards


No one takes Byte seriously anymore.  They used to be a good tech rag, but
now they are just pandering to the big companies. 
-- 
Brett Person
Guest Account	
North Dakota State University
person@plains.nodak.edu || person@plains.bitnet
I don't do Windows, but OS/2 does.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: "richard anstruther" <richard.anstruther@canrem.com>
Subject: os/2 bigot meets nt
Reply-To: "richard anstruther" <richard.anstruther@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: comp
Date: 25 Dec 92 14:25:17 EST

-> From: robs@hardy.u.washington.edu (Robert Suh) writes:

-> Well, I can name lots of reasons...
->
-> 1) C2 Security - I know lots of places that Security of data on the
-> PC or LAN is a MUST.  Can't have someone just walk up to a PC/Node
-> and take a look at all the data on it.

Are you under the impression that NT has C2 security?

-> 2) Cross Platform - Wouldn't it be nice to be able to sit in front of
-> either a PC, MIPS, Alpha, or almost any other system (Thanks HAL )
-> and know that Windows NT has the ability to run on it?  I know thats
-> a BIG Plus for some of the larger mixed - environment workplaces.

How many people have even seen an Alpha?  The Intel world is where
it's at.

-> 3) Win32s - What more to say?

How about "enables ISV's to write applications no more capable than
they currently are under Windows 3.x, but pretend they're really
NT apps"

-> 4) Multiuser support - Albeit, not so great as some variants of UN*X,
-> but it's a lot better than what OS/2 offers 'out of the box'.

Just like the Alpha....How many multi-CPU boxes do you see out there?
The intel x86 market is the only one that counts, and cross platform
compatibility isn't going to make a product succeed.  I'm sure
having a Mac version available sells a few more copies of certain
Windows apps (like in workplaces with PC's and Macs), but nothing
to write home about and Macs far outnumber multi-CPU boxes.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu (RICHARD HOFFBECK)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Reply-To: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu
Organization: Colon Cancer Control Study, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:29:00 GMT

In article <rhoward.725158911@matd>, rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard) writes:
> moncrg@aix02.ecs.rpi.edu (Gregory Donald Moncreaff) writes:
>  
> >In article <1992Dec22.234828.0203999@locus.com> lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:
> >>
> >>Or perhaps, I already own DOS N.n, I have to pony up $50 for an upgrade
> >>that these systems resellers get for $10, gee, I think I just got
> >>gouged.  Again, I ain't happy with Microsoft.  Of course, it is far
> >>cheaper for me to pirate it, but then I am allowing M$ to force me
> >>to become a criminal.  I ain't happy with that state of affairs again.
> >>
> >its probably a lot cheaper for microsoft to ship 1000 copies to one
> >location than 1 copie to each of a thousand locations, therefore its
> >cheaper if you order lots of them. (ever heard of volume discounts??)
>  
> So in other words, when I go to Egghead I buy their only copy of
> DOS, then they call Redmond directly and order *1* copy to replace
> it?  Come-on, Egghead probably sells more DOS than many clone makers.
>  
> Why can't Egghead get it for $10 a copy and under-cut everyone
> else by selling it for $20?  The point is that the $10 copies
> go to capture a market, the $50 copies go to people that already
> want it.  Sort of how drug pushers work as a matter of fact....

Probably because Egghead doesn't want to have to produce its own diskettes
and manuals that way that Gateway, Zeos, et al do when they distribute their
licensed copies of DOS. Buy a Gateway computer.  You'll get Gateway disks
for Windows and a Gateway manual for Windows published by Gateway; although,
I suspect that the actual material for the manual is provided as part of
the license.  If you're looking for a company that OEMs software to keep
prices low, check out DAK.

Actually, price discrimination is the way most markets work. Why do you think
that the hardcover version of a book is 5 times as expensive as the paperback
that comes out a year later.  Its not because of the binding costs :-) Its
because some people are willing to pay a premium to read the book now.

--rick

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: "richard anstruther" <richard.anstruther@canrem.com>
Subject: ads
Reply-To: "richard anstruther" <richard.anstruther@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: comp
Date: 3 Jan 93 17:44:45 EST

-> From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

-> 1.  OS/2's superior crash protection is irrelavent.  If the
-> program crashes (windows) they simply reboot and have it running
-> again in one to two minutes.  Auto-save prevents most losses
-> of work, so nothing much is lost even if it does go down.

True if system integrity and other running applications are "nothing
much"

-> Plus, Windows doesn't crash much for the non-DOS using
-> "average" user.  DOS hardly crashes at all (and the difference

And how many "average" PC users out there don't have any DOS
software?  One?  Five?  Ten?

-> 2.  As far as these folks are concerned, the WPS is a clumsy,
-> confusing jumble.

You've asked them have you?

-> Want to run Word?  Click click double-click.  Nothing to
-> it.

Gee, the same way you'd start an application from the WPS,
except the WPS would require half as many clicks.

-> The "average" user hardly does any file management, so
-> that's not a big deal (and even if it is, just click click
-> double-click the file manager).

Again, twice as many clicks as it takes to open the drive icon
under WPS.

-> Remember--these folks find *Windows'* interface confusing,

Not suprising, considering how illogical and unintuitive it is.

-> 3.  Run software more efficiently??  You'll have to cite me
-> an example.  I can't think of a one.

You don't think having a custom VDM for every DOS app, with
its own EMS, XMS, UMB, HMA, config.sys etc. counts for anything?
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.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: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 19:23:46 GMT

steveha@microsoft.com (Steve Hastings) writes:
> In article <8244@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
> >It's OK for the FTC to force MS to change its marketing because this is force
> >in response to force...our net.libertarians will universally agree that the
> >initiation of force is wrong, but using force in response to someone else's
> >first use of force is good and necessary. MS initiated the use of force.
> 
> Any libertarian will tell you that selling a product for a small amount of
> money is not and never can be force.
> 
> It is force if the government says "Do as we say or we'll charge you huge
> fines.  If you don't pay the fines we will shut you down and/or imprison
> you."  You are advocating force in response to low prices, which is
> clearly not a libertarian concept.
> 
> A libertarian will tell you that if a company can afford to sell a product
> very cheaply and does so, that company is doing nothing wrong.  Hard-core
> libertarians even approve of "dumping", where someone sells a product at a
> loss.  (Why do they approve of "dumping"?  Selling at a loss doesn't hurt
> the customer at all, only the seller.)

Well this is total nonsense. Dumping, in the sense of selling below
cost, can damage the competition and hence the sacred marketplace.

Thomas Watson, in his early life, was a salesman for NCR. In those
days their tactics were to set up business in a new town, sell at a
loss and undercut the local competition until said competition went
under, and then jack up prices. This is where Watson learnt the
predatory practises which for so long kept IBM in front.

> So what happens if MS gets 100% of the market share?  Either MS keeps
> selling DOS cheap (no harm to customers) or MS tries to jack up the
> price.  If MS tries that, DR-DOS will appear on the market again, or Macs
> will start selling more, or OS/2 will sell more.  Or all of the
> above.

But not if the companies producing them have been driven out of business.

--
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