HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS2 Good news and Bad news  (OS2 & a little windows too)
Date: 24 Jul 92 04:20:13 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Jul23.123746.1@qucdntri.ee.queensu.ca>, morton@qucdntri.ee.queen
su.ca writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.164115.1@qucdntri.ee.queensu.ca>, morton@qucdntri.ee.quee
nsu.ca writes:

>Maybe I'm confusing a software problem with a hardware problem. I'm new to OS2
>so I've only ever used DOS/Win apps in OS2. When I see WPfW take just for ever
scrolling,
>in OS2 just like it did in Windows, I blame it on the hardware. I guess this co
uld be
>just poor programming for a poor operating system, and maybe WP for OS2 is good
 and fast.
>
>Could anybody comment on this? (ie. Big Windows apps are deadly slow.
>   How about actual OS2 apps? Is it a fundamental problem win Intel based machi
nes,
>   or is DOS just a fundamentally poor OS.)
>
>       Stephen                 Queen's Electrical Engineering
>

Well, the Intel based platform is quirky but it isn't really slower compared
to say an equivelant Motorola based platform.  DOS it the biggest problem.  It
was fine 5-7 years ago, but it has been obsolete since then.  It user base has
kept it alive for better or worse.  DOS was never great, but it was at least
tolerable in its time.  It really is time to start moving on.  Windows was the
first step, OS/2 currently appears to be the next.  What the future will
bring, who knows?  It really is time to start phasing out DOS though in one
way or another.

                                                Stacy John Behrens
                                                *===)-------------

                                                
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: st1ls@rosie.uh.edu (Nick Hakim)
Subject: Re: MS Windows and OS/2? Give 'em the Punt!
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:47:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul18.034803.27074@wuecl.wustl.edu>, cmd1@cec2.wustl.edu (Christopher M. Dunphy) writes...
>  The Amiga has never taken off in abig way for one simple reason - 
>Commodore... **[stuff deleted]
>   A few major gems come down the pike every so often, usually the
>result of one or two inspired engineers...  The Zorro III bus, CD xl,
>WorkBench 2.0....  But as a whole the system has lacked guidance
>from Commodore, and any serious marketing **[stuff deleted]**

True. Technologically speaking, the machine was ahead of it's time.  Just think,
if it HAD been marketed right, we would all have a killer desktop workstation
instead of this @#$%^*( Intel based '486..  (well, at least me, anyway). 
And, I used to be an Atari ST owner!  

-Nick "Anyone care to donate a Silicon Graphics Iris Indigo?" Hakim

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: New version of DOS coming out? (NOOO!! Anything but *that*!)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 20:11:59 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In <1992Jul29.012627.19901@tamsun.tamu.edu> dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf) writes:

>In article <33mm!zf.xtifr@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>>
>>1.  DOS does *not* have a 128 character PATH limit.
>
>OK.  Let me rephrase my last comment:
>  Maybe they'll finally lose that ridiculous 128-character input line
>  limit.

Unfortunately, *that* limit is one that is inherent to the way DOS
executes programs.  I.e. you can use a replacement shell (such as 4DOS,
4OS2, or the MKS Korn shell) to get longer input lines (4DOS/4OS2 use
255 characters, MKS uses 8k!!), but you *still* cannot pass more than
128 to an executable unless the executable knows about some non-standard
command-line passing mechanism (4DOS/4OS2 have one mechanism, ksh has
another).  The implication here is that if DOS loses the 128-char input
line, DOS programs won't run under it.  :-(

(Ditto, afaik, for OS/2, though I haven't checked.)

>>2.  Contrariwise, I can't imagine why anyone would need more than 80
>>characters for PATH.

>I don't even want to *think* about dumping
>every executable I've got into a single /usr/bin directory and every
>library into a single /usr/lib directory.

I'm very sorry for you.  NOT!!  :-)

I not only think about it, I do it.  Works just fine.  :-P  ;-)

(Ok, I've got a few programs that I keep in their own subdirectory.  But
I *don't* have those subdirectories in my path.  I launch 'em with
scripts or aliases.)

>>Chris "Just using OS/2 'cause it's cheaper than a home UNIX" Waters

>You haven't used a 3b1, then.  (Hey, you didn't say it needed the
>horsepower of a 486 or the kitchen-sinkisms in BSD.)

No, what I need is VPIX or DOS Merge.  VDM's work fine for the moment,
but please email me if 3b1 can run DOS programs.  I'm always interested
in checking out a new system.  (Is it really cheaper than $50???)

Followups to: alt.128.character.flame.flame.flame  :-)
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: nt, an assessment
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:18:01 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Jul24.010711.1625@grebyn.com> richk@grebyn.com (Richard Krehbiel) writes:
>
>As far as I understand, there's not a way in OS/2 to implement fork().

Correct, although the functionality of fork() exists in the form of
two separate API calls: DosCreateProcess, and DosCreateThread (I think
those are the names).  One launches a new program, and the other
begins a parallel thread of execution.

The Unix fork() combines thse.  When a process does a fork(), a second
thread is launched.  The second thread executes the same code as the
parent, and from the same instruction.  The only difference is that
the child gets a 0 as a return value from fork(), and the parent gets
the process ID of the child.  If the child executes another program
(via exec(), which replaces the calling process with the program just
called), then you've just launched a new process.  If the child
branches to a procedure, you've just launched a new thread.

Obviously, there are some other differences, but this is why OS/2
can't fork().  

-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: 30% of Windows Packages Used
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:07:49 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <22JUL199215321291@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY) writes:
>There are rumors that the extent of some people's use of Windows is limited 
>only to WinGIF, Paintshop Pro, and something having to do with
>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.

Gee.  I almost fit that category.  But I also use Word.  *sigh*


-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
From: dpc@grail.com (David P. Cutter)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: nt, an assessment
Date: 29 Jul 92 11:27:23 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: General Railway Signal Corp. (Gruppo Sasib), Rochester N.Y.
Originator: dpc@chip


>
> The concept of a thread historically has not existed in UNIX, but I 
> have heard that later versions (System V 4.2 ??) do support threads.
> Anyone know for sure?
>
>Don Liechty

 Actually, SunOS introduced something called Light Weight Processing
 - LWP (a.k.a. threads) - in SunOS 4.0.1.  System V.4.1.2 and SunOS 5.x
 also has (will have) a threads package for multiprocessor and 
 uniprocessor programming.

David Cutter
-- 
dpc@grail.com                                 Fax:   +1 (716) 783-2158
General Railway Signal Corp.                  Phone: +1 (716) 783-2223
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:3461 comp.os.os2.programmer:3933
From: ballard@ucs.ubc.ca (Alan Ballard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: IBM vs Microsoft Development Kit AVAILABILITY
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:12:48 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada

In <1992Jul31.024243.8909@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) writes:

>Perhaps the delayed shipping of a product indicates high demand
>of that product?  Anybody want to guess which one is in high
>demand?

No, I think it says that MS did a better job of estimating the
demand for the product, had enough confidence in the product for a
large production run, and didn't announce it until they were really
prepared to deliver it.  These are all qualities IBM marketting needs
to emulate.

By the way, when I called five weeks after ordering it, I was told
that IBM Canada had 160 copies backordered.  If you assume there were
none back-ordered when I placed my order, that translates into about 32
copies a week from Canada... hardly a massive demand.  And you got to
wonder why in the further three weeks since they haven't been able to
produce 160 copies more.  I WAS told they should be caught up by
the end of July.  Well they've got about 14 more hours....    

(Actually, I suspect IBM are playing games with the order queue and
that nobodies like me keep getting bumped to fill orders from the
"Corporate Customers": there do seem to be some customers who are
getting the product.)
-- 
Alan Ballard                   | Internet: ballard@ucs.ubc.ca
University Computing Services  |   Bitnet: USERAB1@UBCMTSG
University of British Columbia |    Phone: 604-822-3074
Vancouver B.C. Canada V6T 1Z2  |      Fax: 604-822-5116
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is NTFS really a new file system?
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 11:01:52 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <3794@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sillett@edc3jr.gsph.pitt.edu (Robert L. Sillett) writes:
> 
[bit deleted for brevity]

> Now if NTFS is so different than and superior to HPFS, how could OS/2
> 2.0 access the drive?  Or is NTFS really a second, more robust,
> version of HPFS?  (Obviously Microsoft still sees a use for HPFS as it
> is included in Windows NT.)

Why "more robust"? Is that what they told you at the presentation? Or is this
a conclusion you came to.........

Maybe NTFS just uses a bigger cache.....:-)

I've been HPFS-only for over three months with no problems.....what can be
more robust than that?
 
Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | "But the glory kept shining
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  and bright in my eyes, 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  And the stars going round in 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  my head." R. L. S.
From: smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2, DOS, NT (Speculative) -- My Opinions
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:10:14 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

I'm sure someone will correct me if I screw this up...

jc70@norman.vi.ri.cmu.edu writes:

>One note about OS/2. I thought PM and WPS were both GUIs. That WPS replaced PM 
>in version 2.0.

Not quite.  WPS hooks itself into PM to do its magic, plus it allows 
a few other things that PM by itself cannot do.  But you can run PM
applications without the WPS loaded (though not vice versa).  You can
even run cmd.exe as the controlling shell and run PM applications.

WPS is more of a shell in essence than a GUI--it just happens to be
a *graphical* shell. ;-)  You can even bring down the WPS and restart
it at will anytime you want without rebooting OS/2 or even without
closing any of your apps (even PM apps).  I do this all the time.

>For NT, I thought MS was planning on making a GUI called Cairo.

I thought Cairo was designated originally for 32-bit DOS (originally
DOS 6.0, but that's been rescheduled as simply another 16-bit DOS
with some add-ons).

My my, how MS's DOS, Windows, OS/2, and NT strategy keeps changing!
Things that make you go hmmmm.

   Steve Smith       | __|__ |    " #*&<-[89s]*(k#$@-_=//a2$]'+=.(2_&*%>,,@
<smsmith@magnus.acs. |   |   |      {7%*@,..":27g)-=,#*:.#,/6&1*.4-,l@#9:-) "
  ohio-state.edu>    |   |   | 
  BTW, WYSInaWYG     |   |   |                           --witty.saying.ARC 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin)
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:16:39 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <r5nmfzl.xtifr@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>In <1992Jul29.065821.24656@seas.gwu.edu> lai@seas.gwu.edu (William Y. Lai) writes:
>
>>Let's be honest here, if Microsoft's apps group does not want to lend a hand
>>to the success of OS/2, just come out and say so.  I, like most users, can
>>understand MS for not developing for a competing platform.
>
>I would understand it a heck of a lot better if MS implemented this
>policy consistently.  But they develop for the Mac, despite the fact
>that the presence of Excel (or whatever) for the Mac may mean less sales
>of Intel machines that might run NT.

You guys have too Machiavellian a model of Microsoft's approach.  The
apps group wants to sell apps.  They want to have a good market share and
make money.  That's all that drives them.  That's why they develop for the
Mac - it's a successful machine and there's a goodly number of customers
for Mac software.

The apps group is *not* developing for the OS/2 PM API for two reasons:
    1) the OS/2 API will fail.  There won't be a large enough nunber
    	of OS/2 users out there.  The Apps group believes this because
    	they know both IBM and Microsoft's track records and they're
    	making the smart bet.  As Bill Gates has been quoted, if
    	this turns out to be wrong and there's enough OS/2 demand
    	then the apps group will have product.  But they
    	do NOT want to "lend a hand to the success of OS/2" - that
    	means taking a big gamble since you have to neglect the
    	Windows playform to service the OS/2-PM platform.  That's
    	a dumb gamble to make.  Microsoft always bets on the most-likely-to
	succeed.  They usually bet right.  When they don't, they recogize that
	and change.  But they're right this time.  Wait and see.

    2) OS/2 runs windows applications.  I hear every day how well it
    	does so.  So who in their right minds will write apps for
    	OS/2 PM - and only run on OS/2 - when they could write apps
    	for Windows and run on BOTH platforms?

    	So the MS apps group really IS supporting OS/2, according
    	to dogma on this group.  They're producing windows apps
    	and those apps run better on OS/2 then windows (so it's said
    	by folks who say a lot of silly things), ergo MS/Apps group
    	is supporting OS/2 more then they are Windows.  QED.

gordon letwin
not a spokesman for microsoft
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ekl@fics.uucp
Subject: Re: What's wrong with Windows (Re: MS grasping at straws?...)
Organization: Kvam data as
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:44:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.153413.820@debet.nhh.no> si0_tb90020@debet.nhh.no writes:
>vi is a dream... Everything in vi is intuitive if you are familiar with
>other products (like grep, awk, sed, lexx, yacc, c) used in developing
>software for unix. Once you get the hang of it, you will be able to
>figure out what commands will get your specific task done, even if you
>never heard of the task befor...
>
>Terje
>

You study economics? Not engineering? ;-) Actually, I write this using
vi.

Eirik
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Double-standards? (was Re: More Biased Reviews From ZD)
Date: 25 Jul 92 00:11:48 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

Here we go again...

In article <1992Jul24.175623.26866@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>
>     So with the exception of ObjectVision, all of the above are
>vaporware, yes?  And with the logic usually used on this group, none
>of them should effect any decisions made today, correct?
                ^^^^^^
You mean "affect", right?  All MS programmers can't spell. #8^)
Sorry, couldn't resist. #8^)

>    Sorry, couldn't resist.  This whole double standard thing is
>just too annoying.

There is no double standard.  Let us review what was said a few
weeks ago (or so).

It is okay to talk about a current product.
It is okay to talk about a future product.
It is okay to compare a current product with another current product.
It is okay to compare a future product with another future product.
It is *not* okay to compare a current product with a future product.

Examples:
Okay -> What features does OS/2 2.0 have now?
        What OS/2 programs are available now?
Okay -> What features will OS/2 2.0 have in the update?
        What OS/2 programs will there be in September?
Okay -> Lets compare OS/2 2.0 with DOS 5.0 + Windows 3.1!
Okay -> Lets compare portable OS/2 with NT!
Not Okay -> Lets compare current OS/2 2.0 with future NT!

This article was brought to you by the letters "O"... and "S"...
and by the number "2".

>Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
>philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 

-- 
=== Mike Levis  mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ===  Call 1-800-3IBM-OS2, order
::  ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (OS/2 software/info)  ::   .--.   OS/2 2.0, $49 from
::  syrinx.umd.edu (Rush lyrics and info)  ::  (OS/2)  Windows,  $99 from
::: _The Design of OS/2_ (Addison-Wesley) :::   ~--~   DOS. Ends July 31!
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:3163 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1521 comp.sys.acorn:8004 comp.sys.mac.misc:13672
From: smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Wanted: 105 things that OS/2 can do that Windows can't
Keywords: OS/2, Windows, 105
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:26:08 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

gt0040a@prism.gatech.EDU (Tom Sorensen) writes:

>I've had a request to post the "105 things that OS/2 can 
>do that Windows can't" or the latest version thereof to another 
>network. Request was made by OS/2 pundits, Windows pundits, and 
>neutral parties (the moderator), so please send. Thanks.

I'm sending you a copy of the "112 things..." :-).  If anybody
else wants a copy email me.  Thanks again to all of you who
contributed to the list.

   Steve Smith       | __|__ |    " #*&<-[89s]*(k#$@-_=//a2$]'+=.(2_&*%>,,@
<smsmith@magnus.acs. |   |   |      {7%*@,..":27g)-=,#*:.#,/6&1*.4-,l@#9:-) "
  ohio-state.edu>    |   |   | 
  BTW, WYSInaWYG     |   |   |                           --witty.saying.ARC 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bill@snoopy (Bill Poitras)
Subject: Re: Security Ratings
Reply-To: bill@msi.com
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:45:42 GMT

agoper@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Arne Grimstrup) writes:
: In most of the comparisons of NT vs OS/2 there is mention of NT having
: security features with an NSA rating of C2.

If you look at some of the postings, especially Microsoft infomation what
Windows NT provides is C2 LEVEL of security not C2 certified.  Basically
that is an ambiguous term meaning "We hope that the NSA will rate us C2
based on our security features."  Still works as a great marketing ploy.

--
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Bill Poitras    | Molecular Simulations Inc.    | Tel (408)522-9229       |
| (bill)          | Sunnyvale, CA USA             |                         | 
|                 | FAX (408)732-0831             | bill@msi.com            |
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Paid Microsoft employees
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:35:29 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Jul19.010611.19910@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>My daily commute, and it's not a long one, consumes approximately one
>>hour total (1/2 hour each way).  That leaves me three hours each day.
>
>     I'll assert that your commute is longer than most.  It six times
>longer than mine.  Not that this makes much of a difference.

Neat.  Is this just something typical of the Northwest, or is it
Microsoft that gets its emplyees houses near the plant?  In Northern
New Jersey, a 20-mile commute is common.  Many commute 40 or 50 miles
to work each day.  The "benefit" of living in the suburbs.  After
counting traffic jams during the rush hours, a 30-minute commute isn't
unusual at all.

And it would make much difference to me.  If I lived 5 minutes from
school, I'd probably spend more time at home, and come in when there
are important things to do, instead of coming in for the entire day
when I only do things for a few hours.


-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: hjkirch@morpheus.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Hans-Joachim Kirchhoff (StudArb-Tribius))
Subject: MicroS*ft can NOT write code! (Was: Can IBM write code?)
Organization: CSD., University of Erlangen, Germany
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 09:12:33 GMT

I've been following some of the posts of "Can IBM write code?". The post, that
started  all this went like "IBM never published PC Programs worth
mentioning, so OS/2 can be no good". I find tis point of view very astonishing
especially since most PC users are using a pice of Software-Sh*t, published
by a big company, whose name we all know.
I could name hundreds of things that make me mad, when dealing with DOS or
Winoze, but to limit my outgoing mail, I'll name two examples:

INT 16 returns its result not only in the AX register but also in the
Z-FLAG. Now whoever did wrote that, had probably never heard of the flag-saving
mechanism all INT's use. How can one possibly pass a flag as a parameter,
when the first thing and INT does is push all flags and the IRET opcode
restores the previous situation.
Everyone, who wrote  a function that hooked itself into DOS INT16 will know
what I am talking about.

Take Windoze 3.0 for another example. This "message passing" system is
terrible. Instead of doing it the proper way right from the start and inventing
pipes or queues or a "real" interprocess-communication, they fool around
with socalled "call-back" thunks, that crash, if you forget to tell the
compiler ten times at least, that they have to be exported. Needless to
say, you don't get a warning at all. Or take the HUGE switches inside
any C Program written for windows. Why didn't they implement named queues
or some other "proper" means instead of this stack acrobatic they do when
calling user-functions.

This list could go on for quite some time. Undocumentes DOS calls everyone
has to use, if he/she wants functionality, the text-import/export blues with
W4W, the very limited system resources under Windows or the UAE hell you get
into, if you forget to delete a drawing object ...

I don't know about IBM (yet), but M$ can NOT write code. Windows NT is
"New Technology" for M$. That says it all. Others are using these software
mechanisms for years, but for M$ it is "New Technology".

-Hajo