HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Other views on OS/2 2.1 Beta
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:08:16 GMT

 BBS: IBM NSC BBS                                                       
Date: 12-31-92 (19:27)             Number: 376                          
From: JACK HIATT                   Refer#: NONE                         
Subj: 2.1 Checkout                   Conf: (6) OS/2 2 0 G               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This sounded like a pretty good report on 2.1 that I found on the OS2BBS
thought some who had not gotten it yet would like to see another users  
perspective of it's performance                                         
========================================================================
I think you guys/gals broke the code.  I just tried a little experiment.
o  Built an icon on the desktop to invoke PBRUSH.EXE seamlessly         
o  Built an icon on the desktop to invoke WRITE.EXE seamlessly          
o  Started PBRUSH - takes a little time to load all the code            
o  Started WRITE - takes much less time                                 
o  Drew a little - VERY responsive                                      
o  Had WRITE bring in one of the .WRI files with several sizes of Helvet
o  Started switching between tasks - VERRRY FAST - VERRRY VERRRRY       
o  Invoked PBRUSH HELP - came up VERY quickly                           
o  Invoked WRITE HELP - discovered there can only be ONE HELP -  HMMMM, 
o  Brought up the "Windows Help History" and discovered I could switch  
   between  the two "helps" VERRY FAST                                  
o  Noticed my SWAPPER.DAT grew from 4MB (default) to ONLY 5MB           
This was done on a 386/33, 8MB, VGA.                                    
========================================================================
                                                                        
 * SLMR 2.1a * DOS is to OS/2 as a bicycle is to a MackTruck            
---                                                                     
  QNet3  Smartnet #7000:Ye Olde Bailey,Houston,Texas 1-713-520-1569  


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell)
Subject: Re: SGI-GL in Windows NT??
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 03:20:07 GMT

jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>In article <dlcogswe.726380388@vela> dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell) writes:
>>A guy I work with told me today the Microsoft has bought the rights to
>>include SGI-GL with Windows NT and will be including it in an upcoming
>>release!  This is quite an  advantage over OS/2 and brings NT to
>>workstation level, in my opinion.  If NT will have GL standard, I will
>>most likely be switching over from OS/2.

>OK...what is SGI-GL, and what's so great about it?

It's Silicon Graphics Graphics Language.  It's one of the nicest
graphics languages on the market (so I've heard -- I've never used it).
What this means is NT will have 3D graphics built-in.  


-- 
Dan Cogswell               Or as we say in Michigan:  "Dee-troit"


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: bobatk@microsoft.com (Bob Atkinson)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 09 Jan 93 03:00:48 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

Deryk Barker writes:
>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>:      Yes.  Not all interfaces are documented.  If some application
>: is using one of those, it's clearly not covered by the functional
>: specification.  In this case, who's to say which product is more
>: compatible?  I suggest that it should be the original - the cloners
>: have the responsibility of correcting their own product to match,
>: or ignore the application in question.
>
>In other words, the only applications we can trust to run on MS-DOS
>are those written by Microsoft? Is this what you are saying Phil?

No. The question is this: when releasing a "compatible" product, what 
is the reasonable measure of compability: the published interface of
the product you are cloning, or the interface that clients of that
product actually use? 

If you choose the former, and thus break a client app that a user cares
about, should the user complain to

	1. the author of the original product
	2. the author of the clone product
	3. the author of the client app

I can see cases for 2 and 3, but I can't see how one could hold 1 at
fault. 

Philip's earlier comments about "DOS source code" were in effect saying: there
are *so* many DOS apps out there written by *so many* less than wonderful
engineers (lots by good ones too!) that the reality for cloning DOS is that in
order not to break *any* client app you pretty much have to do *everything*
*exactly* as DOS does. Certainly lots of things you naively wouldn't expect.

	Bob
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: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:10:53 GMT

helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
: In article <1993Jan3.013842.23102@spang.Camosun.BC.CA>, dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
: 
: |> : My point isn't that Microsoft _isn't_ holding a gun to anyone's head as much
: |> : as the FTC _is_.  The antitrust laws are unjust from an abstract moral 
: |> : viewpoint because they are based on the premise that the ends (hacking
: |> : Microsoft down to size) justify the means (in effect, armed robbery of
: |> : market share by the FTC) which is bogus.
: |> 
: |> Isn't that the basis for most laws which involve punitive action?
: 
: Yes! And that is exactly the reason why we should have as few laws as
: is necessary.
: 
: |> : They are also unjust from a
: |> : pragmatic view because they allow companies from countries like Japan to
: |> : have an unfair competative advantage over U.S. industries--result:  we don't
: |> : manufacure DRAM, LCD displays, Cameras, VCR's etc etc here anymore, and our
: |> : factory workers "enjoy" a lower wage than Japanese factory workers
: |> : do.
: |> 
: |> Surely the US could have legislation which discriminated against
: |> imports without changing the anti-trust laws?
: 
: Two wrongs don't make a right!  Trying to fix American industry by starting
: another trade war would be like proscribing arsenic to a man who is dying
: from eating rat poison.  On a level playing field, Americans can compete
: with the Japanese--its just that the Japanese government doesn't clobber
: sucessful Japanese companies over the head when they become "too
: sucessful."

Ah, but now you are expecting Japan, and every other country in the
world, to play by *your* rules. Why should they?



--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: steveha@microsoft.com (Steve Hastings)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 06 Jan 93 03:46:19 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Applications Division

In article <1993Jan1.192346.9163@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>steveha@microsoft.com (Steve Hastings) writes:
>> 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.

You may think so.  You clearly are not one of the "hard-core libertarians"
I was referring to.  Those folks believe that the marketplace is more
resilient than you think it is; that the competition will never die
forever, but will always come back when the dumping company tries to jack
up the prices.

Anyway, this is irrelevant since MS isn't dumping DOS; they make a profit
even on the cheapest sales price.


>> 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.

You think MS-DOS sales will drive Apple, IBM, and Novell out of business?
I had no idea MS-DOS had that sort of power.  After it drives them out of
business, will it then eliminate AmigaDOS, TOS, UNIX, and all the other
operating systems?  I don't think so; low-priced MS-DOS will never become
the only operating system available.

I wouldn't be surprised if Novell stopped selling DR-DOS, but I can't
imagine all other alternatives not being available.  And then, if MS ever
tried to jack up the price, I imagine DR-DOS would come back right quick.

The only market MS-DOS can ever get 100% of is the market for MS-DOS
compatible operating systems (and depending on how you count OS/2 it may
not be possible to even get 100% of that).  And it can never keep all that
market share if MS jacks up the price.
-- 
Steve "I don't speak for Microsoft" Hastings    ===^=== :::::
uunet!microsoft!steveha  steveha@microsoft.com     ` \\==|
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: richk@grebyn.com (Richard Krehbiel)
Subject: Re: If things had been different... (was: FCC etc)
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
	<1icr5gINNgh2@shelley.u.washington.edu>
	<1993Jan10.231549.14308@cs.uoregon.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 12:34:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.231549.14308@cs.uoregon.edu> tracer@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu (Roger M. Wilcox) writes:

>   In article <1icr5gINNgh2@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>   >>	in the transition from 68000 to 68010.
>   >
>   >If I recall correctly, the problem was that the condition codes were in
>   >half of the status register.  Code that wanted to set condition codes
>   >directly did so via a move to SR.  This became priveledge on the 68010,
>   >and a new move to CCR instruction was added for user-mode access to the
>   >condition code half of the status register.  Thus user-mode code that
>   >tried to directly set the condition codes would trap.

Close, but it was the move FROM the SR that was unprivileged on the
68000 and became privileged on the 68010.  Move TO the SR was always
privileged.

>   Not making the Move-into-SR instruction privileged was a really
>   really stupid move on Motorola's part.  The Status Register
>   contains, among other things, the User/Supervisor Mode bit!  Move
>   a 0 into this bit and Bingo, you're running in Supervisor Mode.

Why, yes, this would have been an incredibly stupid thing to do,
especially since the bit that controls super/user mode is in the
status register and would therefore have been writable in user mode.
Thankfully, the SR was never writable from user mode.
-- 
Richard Krehbiel                                 richk@grebyn.com
OS/2 2.0 will do for me until AmigaDOS for the 386 comes along...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: lkuru@snakemail.hut.fi (Lauri Ilari Kuru)
Subject: Re: Seamless
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: 08 Jan 93 14:18:57 GMT


   In article <19356@mindlink.bc.ca> Elias_Wakan@mindlink.bc.ca (Elias Wakan) writes:
   >What is this new computer term, "seamless"?  I assume it has some sort of
   >well defined meaning.


In article <1993Jan8.024630.6833@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
	   Only if you have Trident or XGA2.


Seamless mode means that you can run windows pgms in a window on top of WPS
(i.e. not on top of windows desktop). In fact it doesn't even require Trident
or XGA-2. I've done seamless mode with my cheap Paradise in 640 x 480 and
I believe most display drivers can manage that.  If 640 x 480 is of any
use is another thing... I gave up seamless and went on to 800 x 600.

qru

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: woan@exeter.austin.ibm.com (Ronald S. Woan)
Subject:  Is OS/2 2.1 avalible yet? 
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:10:06 GMT
Reply-To: woan@cactus.org
Organization: Austin School of Hardknocks

In article <1993Jan8.160842.3088@samba.oit.unc.edu> cptully@med.unc.edu writes:
>Is OS/2 2.1 avalible to the general public yet, or just Beta testers?

It is still in beta and there is no official release date yet, but
anyone in the US can purchase a copy of the beta on CDROM for $15 by
calling 1-800-3IBM-OS2. I doubt it is available by FTP due to some
strange legal restriction placed on the CDROM beta such as only
allowing ten copies.

>Send replys by e-mail, and I will post a summary if I get enough
>requests.

I think the answer is simple enough to just post for the general
public.

-- 
+-----All Views Expressed Are My Own And Are Not Necessarily Shared By------+
+------------------------------My Employer----------------------------------+
+ Ronald S. Woan                       woan@cactus.org or woan@vnet.ibm.com +
+ other email addresses             Prodigy: XTCR74A Compuserve: 73530,2537 +
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot and NT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:37:20 GMT

In article <1iqhtjINNdav@gap.caltech.edu> scratchy.caltech.edu!kasturi (Tejaswi Kasturi) writes:
>In article <1993Jan9.012848.3728@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu  
>(Yamanari) writes:
>> 	The one that doesn't--or *suppposedly* doesnt (I don't believe
>> 	it for a second) is NeXT486.  Supposedly, it will only run on
>> 	a genuine Intel 486SX or DX.  The Cyrix 486slc (?) is a full 
>> 	80486 sans coprocessor (and Cyrix's external is faster than the
>> 	DX's internal one).  NS486 will probably run fine--but NeXT
>> 	says no.
>
>The Cyrix 486slc does not have the full Intel 486 Instruction set and thus  
>will only run 386 capable apps and not 486-specific apps.
>
>The name 486slc is a misnomer since it is really just a 386sx with cache  
>(much like IBM's 386slc chip)

	<sigh>

	This has been gone over a number of times before.  The Cyrix 486
	chips (slc, dlc) have the full 80486 instruction set minus the
	FPU instructions.


-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 5 Jan 1993 01:07:51 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan5.000728.28154@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> ts@chainsaw.ecn.purdue.edu (Thomas Ruschak) writes:
>	You're attacking M$, not defending IBM. While to some extent anything
>that hurts M$ helps IBM, the two are not identical. 

Fair point. I'll augment my comments by saying that I have defended IBM in the
past, have been associated with IBM computer systems, both hardware and
software, since before there was an IBM PC, and think that, all around, they
do better for their customers as a whole than MS. I believe that, in this
case, IBM does need some defending from MS.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of all Fears_
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: DOS 6: Treatment of OS/2!
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:59:20 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University


	As many of you may have seen, Robert Cringely at Infoworld
reported that he has heard that DOS 6 detects OS/2 if it is on
the hard drive and suggests that you delete it because of the space
it takes.

	Here is what I have heard from beta users on and off the
Usenet and since I PERSONALLY have not run the DOS 6 beta, I was wondering
if someone could offer some insight on this so this can be cleared up.
I think if Delete OS/2 recommendation message is inexcusable.

If you have a HPFS partition, DOS 6 beta gives the message to the
effect of: "DOS has detected a HPFS partition.  DOS will not be able
to read this partition."

If you have OS/2 installed on a FAT partition (dual boot to be
specific) DOS gives a message to the effect of: "OS/2 detected on hard
disk.  Due to the large amount of disk space OS/2 uses, it is 
recommended that OS/2 be deleted before proceeding."

Well?

								-Brad




Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Bill Gates:  What a weenie...
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 06:09:18 GMT


I had the chance to view the recording. This was unbelievable. Mr. Gates
has absolutely _NO_ communication skills. Instead of listening to
Physics lectures, I would strongly recommend Communications 101. Isn't
offered at "Microsoft University?" If it isn't, I know where Mr. Gates
can get a course, and hey, IT'S FREE BILL!!!

The first moment when he made everybody laugh is when David Brinkley asked
him about his toughts on the subject. For seconds Gates was looking at the
camera without any response. It seems like he doesn't comprehend very well.

And the following was the funniest..

Brinkley: You were one of the first to see the future of the personal
          computer. You were the first, I think, to see that it needed
          software which did not exist. And you and Mr. Alan, your
          co-founder, wrote the software and in the process became
          extremely wealthy. Am I right?

Gates: That's correct.

Brinkley: And so, what have you done since than? (Laughing in the background)

Gates: Hehehehe....The vision what technology can do....

The man (Gates) doesn't understand what he is asked and in order to try 
sound intelligent, he uses those funky expressions on his face. I think he
didn't know what he was talking about himself. And 90% of the interview
he was smiling. If I didn't know the man's name was Gates I would have
thought that guy played the joker in "Batman." Does he have any 
facial problem or is he trying to impress his boyfriend?

And than he continues...Gates: We have a lot of people who sit and think.
Yes Bill, we have this vision and it's called Cairo, Baghdad, New York,
Toronto, Frankfurt. Those are our next-generation operating systems and we
will ship them all by 1992! 

And he mentioned that "We hire smart people." When I saw Mr. Letwin's
picture the first time, I thought I have seen Jesus! In order to
create a _GOOD_ product, everybody has to be involved. One "smart"
person doesn't help, it's a group effort. Hey, Microsoft had the source
code rights to V7 for years and they still can't produce a multitasking
DOS. This should tell people something.

To summarize, I would strongly recommend that people at Microsoft and
Gates he a touch of reality. Life isn't all about Bit and Bytes. And
for Gates, a man who hasn't seen a woman since Sputnik, I would
recommend to visit the Texas Ranch, since nothing else seems to work.

I think I have found the answer to why Gates can not get a date. This is
it:

There was once a young sailor named Gates,
Who did the fandango on skates.
He fell on his cutlass,
Which rendered him n**less,
And practically useless on dates.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft using "Force"???  
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:59:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.050849.27895@umr.edu>, ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) writes:
|> [good reasoning, until....*gasp*]
|> 
|> >Lets go to the arbiter of language and see what it says about "force" and
|> >"coerce".  I'll tell you what mine dictionary has to say about them--and
|> >don't believe me just because I said it--you all have dictionaries too so 
|> >look it up for yourself:
|> >
|> >	COERCE suggests overcoming resistance or unwillingness by actual 
|> >	or threatened violence or pressure.
|> >
|> >In order for an action to properly be called "coercion" there MUST be the
|> >threat of or actional violence, of the which and by the way so there may be
|> >no confusion on this point here is the definition of violence:
|> 
|> Hmmm...shall we diagram that sentence?



|> Coerce     |    suggests     |    overcoming   |    resistance
|> -----------+-----------------+-----------------+--+-----------------+---. . .
|>            |                                   |or| unwillingness   |
|>                                                +--------------------+
|>      
|> . . . \---------
|>        \by           violence
|>         \----------+------\----------\
|>                    |       \....or....\
|>                    |        \          \
|>                    |         \actual    \threatened
|>                    +--+            \          \
|>                    |or|  pressure   \          \
|>                    +--+-----------------------------
|> 
|> 
|> Ooooh.  Bet you feel stupid now, eh?  :)  I hope your degree isn't in English.

My degree is in Natural Language Processing--don't teach Grampa how to parse.
Better look up the definition of "pressure" before you call either me or 
the argument stupid.  
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: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:29:37 GMT

In article <8297@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan4.004352.29449@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
|> >	The only clearly anti-competitive practices that MS has attempted
|> >	to engage in was the DRDOS6/Win31 problem, which was a simple
|> >	fix (MSwindows looked for DRDOS and wouldn't run with it.  There
|> >	was no *compatibility* problem.)
|> 
|> Tell that to Phil Lafornara. He's called it unfounded.
|> 
|> >	This nonsense about the "all for all" contracts that bill 
|> >	companies for all of machines sold are *possibly* anti-competitive,
|> >	but VOLUME DISCOUNTS are not.  
|> 
|> The problem is that clone makers' discounts for paying a royalty for MS-DOS
|> and Windows for every machine they ship are in no way connected with the
|> volume.

They are trivially connected with volume--maximal possible volume gives you
the maximal possible discount.
From: ts@chainsaw.ecn.purdue.edu (Thomas Ruschak)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 5 Jan 93 00:07:28 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <8291@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1993Jan2.065805.25815@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> ts@chainsaw.ecn.purdue.edu (Thomas Ruschak) writes:
>>	I've been reading this group today, and it seems like this guy is
>>writing every other article. Does anyone else get the feeling that he was
>>scared by a large corporation as a child?
>
>If I had been, why would I be defending IBM??!

	You're attacking M$, not defending IBM. While to some extent anything
that hurts M$ helps IBM, the two are not identical. 

Tom
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy