HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tracer@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu (Roger M. Wilcox)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Notice! OS2 will Execute Win3 programs Without having to have Win
Date: 8 Jan 93 07:15:26 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Computer and Information Sciences Dept.

In article <1993Jan6.120523.16675@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.005023.26661@cs.uoregon.edu> tracer@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu (Roger M. Wilcox) writes:
>
>> call to GetMessage/PeekMessage.  Process B, upon reading the event message
>> in from its queue, can take AS MUCH TIME AS IT LIKES OR NEEDS to completely
>> handle the event message it has just received, and will continue to execute
>> without interruption until it calls GetMessage/PeekMessage again.
>
>If you try and run PC-SAS in the "background" under Windows......well, yu
>better go get a coffee because "process B" is in the saddle for a long ride.

Hmmm ... it sounds like this PC-SAS is a classic example of a Badly Written
Windows Program.  (The only reason there are more Badly Written Mac Programs
than Badly Written Windows Programs is that the Mac has been in use longer.)
I wrote a microarchitecture simulator for my Masters Thesis as a Windows
Application, but I made sure to check PeekMessage() between each and every
simulated microinstruction.

Surely, the calculation process that PC-SAS undergoes that takes a "long ride"
could have been written so that it was split up into several fraction-of-a-
second bursts called from the WinMain message loop.

-- 
Roger *M.* Wilcox   (aka Jeff Boeing)
tracer@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu
Aleph null bottles of beer on the wall, aleph null bottles of beer, ...
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: chriswa@microsoft.com (Chris Waldron)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 09 Jan 93 05:23:41 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: na

In article <5JAN199310121953@moose.cccs.umn.edu> rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan04.181938.25244@microsoft.com>, chriswa@microsoft.com (Chris Waldron) writes:
>>  
>> It appears to me that the FTC case against Mircosoft is bogus.  If one takes
>> a good look at the history of Microsoft, it was IBM due to its own business
>> mistakes and Microsoft's savvy, hard work, and vision that catapulted the 
>> company. Microsoft's unorthodox approach to business offends the traditional 
>> business ideology which is why Forbes magazine had to ask "Who can stop
>> [Microsoft]?".  The FTC case is an attempt to that question.
>
>I was wondering about the general nature of Microsofts agreement with IBM
>regarding PC-DOS.  Does IBM have a flat fee license or do they also pay a per
>unit royalty for PC-DOS sales?  The FTC's case would be considerably weaker
>if PC-DOS is a competitor to MS-DOS.
>
>--rick
>
>>  
>> ChrisWa.     My own words not Microsoft! 

You make an excellent point.  However I do not have first hand knowledge of the
terms of any agreement between IBM and Microsoft.  I actually worked for DELL
prior to coming to Microsoft.  Another point that I believe weakens the FTC
case is Apple's tight control over their hardware and system software is
apparently unaddressed.

ChrisWa.   My_own_words != Microsoft;
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: Tidbits 01/06/93
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:28:26 GMT

In article <12JAN199310015506@moose.cccs.umn.edu> rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu writes:
>
>Its just not cost effective. The only decent UNIX based software that I've seen
>with a realistic price tag is the new X version of WordPerfect.  Univel
>Unixware is going to be priced at $2,500 for the Applications Server version. 
>NT is going to be about $500. NT will serve my PCs and talk to my VAX while
>UnixWare will require either the Novell compatibility kit for the VMS server or
>a third party NFS utility.  I like UNIX and I've used it since '83 but it just
>isn't cost effective in today's market.  
>
>--rick

This is the best argument for NT Vs. Unix that I have seen.  Unix *is*
awfully damn expensive, and it's always annoyed me.  On top of that, for
some reason Unix software vendors think that their product is worth
double the price, just because it runs on Unix.  This has always been an
impediment to the acceptance of Unix.  if NT comes in at 20% the price,
it will do well, no doubt.  But this is still talking about general
business users on their desktops-- there is the matter of so-called
"mission critical apps".  There is software where I work that does not
run on Windows now, and will not be moving to NT any time soon.  Why?
How can anyone trust important software that must be always available to
a product that new?  It just won't be reliable at first.  Unix has 23
years of development behind it.  yes, I've crashed Unix machines before,
but it is not easy, and usually when I've done it, it's been because of
an improperly configured kernel or something, which barely counts.  User
level programs are virtually incapable of crashing it.  I am currently
an OS/2 2.0 user, for many reasons, but one of them is that it crashes
less than Windows did.  But, it still crashes way too much for my
tastes.  I wouldn't trust the really important stuff to it, either.  So
I see Unix as the biggest player in these markets.  It will steal from
the mainframe/mini market, for the same reason you give NT an advantage
over Unix-- cost.  But it has an advantage over NT-- reliability.

-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS-Windows help-file format
From: feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke)
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:50:20 -0700
Reply-To: sean@digaudio.byu.edu

In article <KV4UrAmBBh107h@olson.acme.gen.nz>  writes:
>In <1993Jan10.233300.15189@cs.uoregon.edu> tracer@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu  
(Roger M. Wilcox) writes:
>>	2. Save this file in Microsoft's Rich Text Format (.RTF), which only
>>	   Microsoft Word can produce.  (What was that the FTC was saying
>>	   about Monopolistic practices?)
>
>Two points.
>Point 1: Lotus Ami Pro for Windows can save in RTF format.


And the NeXT uses RTF as its *standard* editing and cut/copy/paste format.   
WriteNow, WP, Edit, and most every other word processor/page layout system  
on the NeXT platform can either read or write to RTF and RTFD.

--

Sean Luke
Brigham Young University                   MILK:  It Comes From Cows
sean@digaudio.byu.edu  
NeXTmail and nifty Mac stuff welcome
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bobatk@microsoft.com (Bob Atkinson)
Subject: Re: The sin of MicroSoft
Date: 12 Jan 93 23:31:42 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

Bruce Dubbs writes:
>| Second,
>|pre-emptive multitasking is available under Windows as well (this is how
>|DOS windows share timeslices... and if you don't think that NT provides
>|pre-emptive multitasking, you are sadly mistaken).

>Joe, I think you have a misunderstanding here.  Time slicing !=
>pre-emptive.  Windows has cooperative multitasking, but not pre-emptive.
>If a program does not want to give up control, it can disable
>interrupts and thats that.


You are both correct. The underlying virtual machine manager in Windows
in fact does preemptive multitasking, and each DOS box gets its own VM. 
But Windows apps indeed cooperatively multi-task. For more info see the 
device driver development kit.

	Bob
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: A radical idea
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:49:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.153322.888@aspentec.com>, tto@aspentec.com writes:
|> I have a radical idea.  Let the federal government take over the rights
|> of DOS-OS/2-NT by eminent domain and turn it over to a neutral organization
|> like OSF.  Let this organization come up with a reasonable operating
|> system that everyone can use.

I whole heartedly agree Komrade tto@aspentec.com!!!  Read the GNU manifesto 
(and the Communist manifesto, for that matter) for more thought along these 
lines.  A software tax should be levied for the purpose of centrally funding
innovations, to be administered by the "Centrally Planned Progressive Programming"
(CPPP) organization.  

To insure that customers arn't confused by these lone-wolf programmer types 
who think we're still living in the Wild West, we should outlaw and confiscate 
all copies of MINIX, LINUX, BSD, etc. Yes, this would cause some inconvenience
to some, but the good of the many always outweighs the good of the few, and
in the long run we would have better software delivered more timely.

I know there are Libertarian skeptics in the audience who won't buy this--there's
one in every crowd always trying to hold back progress.  Well you Libertarians
out there hear this:  Goverment can produce GREAT software--ADA is far superior
to any bastard hack like C or C++ that AT&T (a private industry) ever developed!
And this new OS would be better than UNIX(tm)!!  Eat _that_ argument :-P

|> I don't think the government or anyone outside the software industry
|> realize how much the progress of software technology (and hence the whole
|> computing area) has been thwarted by this confusion.  It is vital
|> to the software industry as the HDTV standard is vital to the electronics
|> industry.

Indeed!!  We can point to many sucessful areas to where goverment-set standards
have paved the way for progress.  Our goverment run school system is the envy 
of all nations. So is our goverment--that's they told us in school!

"One man    One goal  One mission,
 One heart  one soul  Just one solution!
 One flash  of light  Yeah! One God One vision.

 One flesh  one bone,
 one true religion,
 One voice  one hope,
 Wowowowo  gimme one vision!!!"

	--"One Vision" by queen.

|> Just a thought.
|> Tak.
|> 
|> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> Tak To                                                    (617) 577-0310 x377
|> Box 45, MIT Branch PO, Cambridge, Ma 02139.                  tto@aspentec.com
|> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com (Peter Mayne)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Features of the Windows NT
Date: 11 Jan 93 03:00:23 GMT
Reply-To: Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com
Distribution: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <1993Jan10.140244.1442@nobeltech.se>, dawe@nobeltech.se (Daniel Wengelin) writes:
>Hi all you Windows NT experts!
>
>Having browsed through the last few hundred articles, I have found
>less facts than feelings, so the reason why I checked this newsgroup
>out is still there.
>
>I would want know what the features of the Windows NT are!

etc, etc

Rather than cause hours of retyping information here, buy the book

"Inside Windows NT" by Helen Custer
Microsoft Press
ISBN 1-55615-481-X

You'll learn everything you want to know.

PJDM
--
Peter Mayne                     | My statements, not Digital's.
Digital Equipment Corporation   |
Canberra, ACT, Australia        | "AXP!": Bill the Cat
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3776 comp.os.os2.advocacy:12048
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DEC bets the company on NT?  WRONG!
Date: 10 Jan 93 23:15:09 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1993Jan9.025626.27174@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
> In article <1993Jan8.181001.7173@gw.wmich.edu> 177wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>>In article <L6e2wB2w165w@student.business.uwo.ca>, pkedrosk@student.business.uwo.ca (Paul S. Kedrosky) writes:
>>> x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>>> 
>>>> In article <1993Jan7.222909.20160@grebyn.com>, mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Frai
>>>> > In article <1993Jan7.063028.14772@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.ed
>>>> > [stuff from some magazine quoted by Brian deleted]
>>>> > [stuff by mfraioli about his experience at a DEC Alpha show deleted] 
>>>> [stuff by x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu about why Brian is wrong deleted]
>>> 
>>> Gee, you know sometimes I wonder why I bother to read other people's
>>> posts and don't just respond to the little snippets that are left of
>>> original postings by the time they've been quoted a few times; it
>>> looks like so much more fun. Just think of the great stuff you could
>>> come up with. 
>>> 
>>> Like the above little drama in real life. Where Brian Sturgill quotes
>>> from an industry publication and one of the denizens of comp.os.os2.advocacy,
>>> those paragons of virtuous behaviour, accuses him of being wrong . Huh? I
>>> mean, huh? Call me crazy, but I had thought that when you quoted
>>> someone else, scrupulously anyway, it was a little tricky to be wrong.
>>> The original author, maybe, but the person who quotes the stuff?
>>> 
>>
>>	YOu  sure went out on a limb there by  implying that Brian
>>merely  quoted a publication and I (the "rightoues denizen") ripped on
>>Brian's quote.  Brian added his own opinion to the end of the quote and
>>that was what I ripped on him about.  
> 
> No, YOU'RE the one that's wrong.  That whole tidbit was quotes.
> On those occassions where I do comment (or otherwise annotate), I
> enclose my remarks between '[' and ']'.  Should [] appear in the
> normal text I put them in as \[ and \].
> 
	AS I said in the Windows area, if this is the case, then I am
sorry.  I don't have the original tidbits in front of me and can only
take your word that you didn't say that but the person you were quoting.

							-Brad


					


> Brian
> -- 
> C. Brian Sturgill                          NeXTStep 486 is for _YOU_!!!!
> University of Utah                    Microsoft needs competition, but I want
> Center for Software Science          to be one of the many running Windows NT!
> brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373    :-) :-) :-)  NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com (Peter Mayne)
Subject: Re: DEC bets the company on NT?  WRONG!
Reply-To: Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 03:34:35 GMT


In article <1993Jan7.201659.7143@gw.wmich.edu>, x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>	Alpha is very important to DEC but believing that DEC is part
>of Alpha is nonsense

I wouldn't bet on that. Yes, Alpha is very important to DEC. However, unlike
Intel and the x86/Pentium range, DEC is willing to licence Alpha at any
level to absolutely anybody. Want to buy an Alpha PC? Great. Want to buy
Alpha boards to build your own? Wonderful. Want to buy the chips to build
your own boards? Someone's already doing it (and selling those boards). Want
to buy the specs and build your own Alphas? You're welcome. The aim is
not to make Alpha another proprietary chip, but to allow anybody in the
computer industry (and in other industries, for that matter) to use
it freely. In that sense, Digital would very much become only a part of Alpha.
(If IBM want to put OS/2 or the Workplace OS on Alpha, you won't see me
complaining.)

>and the thought that NT will be running on
>even most of the alpha based computers is simply wrong.

DEC announced that NT would run on a wide range of Alpha platforms, not
just the PC. My guess is that the faster NT takes off, the faster it will
spread to the other platforms, but NT will not be limited to the PC.

>The basic
>architecture of the PC is inadequate for many things including
>performance levels found in minicomputers.  Turbo channel is a much
>better alternative.

On the other hand, how many DOS|Windows|OS/2|NT users have even heard of
Turbochannel, let alone have Turbochannel boards, or slots to put them in?
EISA is adequate for a lot of stuff, and there's a lot more of it about.

>							-Brad
>
>(sorry to ramble).

Don't apologise, it's an advocacy group. :-)

PJDM
--
Peter Mayne                     | My statements, not Digital's.
Digital Equipment Corporation   |
Canberra, ACT, Australia        | "AXP!": Bill the Cat

Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Notice! OS2 will Execute Win3 programs Without having to have Win
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:09:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.215505.21543@cs.uoregon.edu> tracer@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu (Roger M. Wilcox) writes:

>>Does OS/2 improve m-tasking of Windows programs?  If so...I'm sold.

>Not if you're looking for speed, it doesn't!  My 16MHz 386 runs Windows apps
>at a reasonable clip, but runs the OS/2 Presentation Manager at a snail's
>crawl.  It takes a few seconds just to recognize that I've dragged a PM
>window's caption bar and draw the grayed Drag Frame for me!  I haven't
>actually installed OS/2's Seamless Windows(TM) support (not enough disk
>space), but I'd bet good money it doesn't run Windows apps as fast as
>straight Windows does.

It doesn't run faster. In fact theres a pretty hefty speed penalty when
running Seamless Windows (compared to 3.1).

I don't see Windows 3.1 multitasking as being slow at all. Depends what 
machine you run it on I guess...








-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
From: dms@sactoh0.sac.ca.us (David M. Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Microsoft vs. FTC
Keywords: Microsoft, ftc
Date: 8 Jan 93 05:35:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sacramento Public Access Unix

Would splitting Microsoft into two companies be beneficial?  Hard to say.
However, I have attended Microsoft sponsored seminars and listened to 
Microsoft Sales Reps tell the audience that the reason that Microsoft's
applications run better than the competitions' is because the when the
DOS and Windows groups create new features, the applications group gets
it long before the competition knows about it.  Seems to me their own
people may be telling the truth.  Perhaps if IBM had written the first
DOS themselves, there would be more control over the standards in the 
PC world and better competition for and fair play for everyone.  I see
this as a benefit that exists in every other platform - Macintosh, Amiga,
Sun, even the older 8-bit systems had the operating system written by
the computer manufacturer and not a third party.
-- 
#############################################################
# Scaramento Public Access UNIX     sactoh0.SAC.CA.US       #  
#  (916) 649-0161, 722-6516 & 722-5068    E-Mail & USENET   #
################## default .signature file ##################
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 23:23:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.143459.1267@yvax.byu.edu> sean@digaudio.byu.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.192014.6776@cs.brown.edu>  writes:
>
>>If Microsoft is such a devil-incarnate, why doesn't some company produce an
>>OS that runs adequately on a wide range of Intel-based CPUs and has  
>features
>>superior to MS-DOS?
>
>
>Because Microsoft has such a lock on the market that such an OS simply  
>cannot sell well.  DR DOS seems an able competitor to DOS, yet it has a  
>miniscule market share.  Since no one can compete with Microsoft because of  
>its *marketing* and *size*, Microsoft has the moral (and legal)  
>responsibility of a monopoly:  to show the public (or the government) that  
>it can provide high-quality services without the need for competition.   
>Microsoft has clearly not done this (DOS is poor), so it's the  
>devil-incarnate.  :)
>

Well, unless you have been Novellized, like most computer people
I have dealt with in Happy Valley, you might find that there are
some very superior competitors to MS-DOS directly. PC-MOS is one I
can think of that has existed since 1986, and does multi-tasking of
DOS much better that some others I have seen. Quarterdeck's
DeskView is a much better product that DR-DOS and has a bigger
market share. You can also extend it with DeskView X. Niether
MS-DOS nor any of the other DOS clones I have seen can do that as
of yet.

The most recent package that can compete with MS-DOS is called OS/2
2.0. With the 2.1 beta due to be release as a GA shortly, it shows
signs of being a much superior product, and gives you all the DOS
emulation you could ask for, plus the ability to run a pure DOS
session if your program is overly tied to the hardware.

>It is not a question of quality--it is a question of fair competition,  
>marketing, and monopolistic ethics.  This brings me to Luke's First Law of  
>the Computer Industry:
>
>	"If a product has competition, and it is the most popular,
>	 then it is never the best value."
>
>There are very few exceptions to that rule that I can think of.
>
>--
>
That's why the expression "Selling refrigerators to eskimos" :)

People dont want the best. They are sastified with something that
will do the job. That's why the leading products in the PC market
are so mediocre. They do the job, and that's about it.



-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 8 Jan 1993 01:27:51 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>is too large, too complex, and too inequitable.  Moreover, the laws on the
>books are both unjust and vaguly written--stuffed with Orwellian phrases like
>"unfair," "anticompetative" etc. which have no real meaning and therefore
>can be twisted into applying to about any sitation if you can afford enough
>twisty lawyers.

Out of curiosity, how would you write laws that do not have words like
"unfair" in them, or equivalent words?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy