HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: roland@spock.uucp (David A. Braun)
Subject: Re: DOS not operating system, film at 11. : -)
Organization: Choate Rosemary Hall
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:17:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.032128.20427@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.001222.25542@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>>
>>Although there are a few people who know nothing about computers, but
>>can still see what a completely lame system Windoze is.  Take my mother,
>>who just bought (with no aid or input from me, I might add) a brand new
>>386 machine for word-processing.  She refused to let them give her
>>Windoze--she may not be very technical, but she's encountered Windoze at
>>work, and hates it because it's so slow and awkward compared to DOS
>>text-mode.
>>
>If someone gave me another copy of OS/2 (I'm not using my current copy),
>in a bundle, at no extra charge, I would certainly not stand on ceremony
>and "refuse" to take it even though I did not intend to use it.  I'd
>gladly accept it and either hold it for a future update or, more likely,
>give it to someone I thought might actually want it.  If what you say is
>true, your mother, methinks, made a very short-sighted decision based,
>it seems, on the incompetence of the people who configured here Windows
>system at work.  I use Windoze at home, in the office, on my portable
>(and in my wife's office, legal copies all!) and it simply doesn't
>crash.  You mother ought to recommend to her boss that they hire better
>MIS people...  (I have the NT beta, too, though no cd-rom; at they price
>Microsoft if offering it for, anyone interested in this sort of thing
>would be foolish not to take them up on it!). 
>

Well, gee... If I were to buy a complete system, which I wouldn't because I put
my own together originally and just keep modifying it, I would most DEFINATELY
refuse to get windows along with it. I refuse to show support for such a piece
of s#!t.  Even if I knew someone well who likes Windows, I would want to save
their sanity and not be tempted to give them that sluggish Dos Shell...
	I note that I am NOT a closed minded OS/2 user, and I have used windows
and will continue to use windows apps untill I can get some OS/2 ones.  I am
going to try to use (not get) a copy of NT when it comes out... I don't want
to show support for unless it impresses me more than OS/2. Then I would buy a
copy.

Roland.


-- 
main () { //      TRAVELLER, BEYOND LIES MID-WORLD...

 !!!"ARRAY EXCEEDS 64K, PLEASE MAKE DATA ELEMENT SMALLER"!!!
 !!"Out of Conventional memory... High memory... Upper memory
 Extended memory... Expanded memory..."!! !!"UNRECOVERABLE APPLICATION ERROR"!!
 Well it worked with DOS, and it doesn't with OS2...  Must be
 the OS... The fact that the BIOS was HARDWIRED incorrectly couldn't
 have anything to do with it, Right?     -----Roland of Gilead-----   }
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS not operating system, film at 11. :-)
Date: 8 Nov 92 19:47:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Nov8.194731.8705
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.

In article <1992Nov8.145440.16931@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>In article <strobl.720740723@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>>Sorry, couldn't resist. OS/2 (any version) is a better operating
>>system than Windows/OT is, IMHO. But it isn't better just because it
>>*is* an operating system. What do you say?
>
>I say OS/2 2.0 is better than Windows OT.  However, I say OS/2 1.x is
>worse than nearly anything in existence, including Windows OT.   I
>offer one item to support my point and then rest my case:
>
>	bimodal device drivers
>
>--Tim Smith

Your missing the point. An OS does not let a user solve problems,
it only facilitates the application used to solve the particular
problem at hand. So, you could have the most technological whizbang
creation to date and it would be worth absolutely nothing except
brownie points if you could not do anything useful with it.

This is why IBM and Microsoft are desparately trying to get
applications onto their platforms. Application bring value to
utilizing an OS, because they solve problems and people make
money.

Now, in defense of the technology. IF you have latent capabilities
in an OS platform that do not exist in others, it can be more
auspicious to solve certain kinds of problems by taking advantage
of these features. For example: the virtual screen capabilities
provided by Windows and OS/2, make it much easier to produce
Desktop Publishing, typesetting, and photographic enhancement
software or a more complete nature than under a character based OS
like DOS. The multi-tasking features speed the job along as well,sa
ving time, which is ofcourse, money.



-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: WIN 3.1 an OS?
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:30:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.170359.1111@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

(someone else says:)
>>I think that these two features ( preemptive multitasking + DOS ) coupled
>>to the fact that OS/2 is indeed a stable platform is what most users
>>enjoy so much about OS/2.

(Fred says:)
>I've found Windows 3.1 to be about equally stable when compared to
>OS/2, but that's just my personal experience.  I haven't conducted any
>real research into this.

Can't argue with  personal experience :).

>And Windows 3.1 WILL preemptively multitask
>Windows and DOS.  It just won't multitask Windows applications with
>each other.  Note that in 'normal' use, this is exactly how OS/2
>handles Windows and DOS.  All Windows applications in ONE slice, doing
>cooperative multitasking and each DOS 'machine' in its own slice.

Right.  (Although, as you know, you may *need* the robustness of preemptive,
protected Windows programs, which you can get with OS/2 but not Windows.)i

>Just like Windows.

Wrong.  Not only is my DOS performance much better than under Windows in terms
of speed and not f*cking up my graphics screens, but the performance while
multitasking several tasks is far superior.

>>Lets accept the fact that WIN 3.1 is basically an operating system.  Now
>>lets compare it to OS/2.  I think that would be more suited to this
>>thread.  That's why they call it advocacy.

>Exactly right.

Yep.

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:56:09 GMT

In <7745@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>In article <1992Nov5.225251.14539@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>Ok.  DOS fails the test because:
>>1) Anything doing graphics pretty much has to go straight to hardware,
>>the 'insulation' that DOS provides being so worthless.

>...but there ARE routines provided; therefore, it passes the test. I make no
>representations about the quality of the insulation provided.

Well, using this logic, one could say that even if routines AREN'T
provided that the 'OS' is providing insulation from that hardware; you
just can't get there from here.  ;-)

>>2) Accessing upper memory.  DOS is so braindead that it requires
>>'extenders' to get outside 640k.  So much for 'insulation' on
>>management of the majority of memory on the machine.

>The memory above 640K is not part of the machine architecture that DOS was
>designed for. Further, DOS can make limited use of that memory - just look at
>RAMDRIVE.SYS, for example. Again, I make no representations about the quality
>of the OS.

This raises the interesting question of just how many new device
drivers can be installed to talk to 'new' hardware before you're
talking about a different OS entirely.  And no, I DON'T want to
discuss it!  :-)

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: DOS not operating system, film at 11. : -)
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:38:08 GMT

In article <7835@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.225957.10025@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>>I would remind you that OEM's are not Forced by MS to include any MS product
>>in their systems.
>
>I guess you've missed the many posts from folks who have tried to buy machines
>from companies like Gateway 2000 and Zeos without Windows installed, only to
>be told that their agreement with MS requires them to include it on every
>computer they sell...Personally, if I were to buy a machine, I would not buy
>any that came only with Windows preinstalled.
>-- 
>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.
>     We survived Jimmy Carter; we'll (probably) survive Bill Clinton.

You missed the point.  Microsoft does not go around forcing vendors into
including either DOS and/or Windows.  Given that there's even
competition for plain old DOS, a decision by, say, Gateway to bundle
MS-DOS and Windows is an intentional one, probably seen as a way of
offering functionality customers will want.  (Or do you think all those
vendors offer DOS/Windows because they want to tick off their
customers?)  It seems that MS makes the bargain stick to an entire
product line (so that customers cannot selectively choose not to get
either DOS and/or Windows), but if you don't like that you can choose
another vendor.

Joe WB2RBA

We survived Reagan and Bush.  Clinton and Gore cannot possibly be worse!
From: rmk@frog.CRDS.COM (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Trading the threads ?
Date: 10 Nov 92 23:45:42 GMT
Organization: Charles River Data Systems

In article <1992Nov08.002602.19266@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.225750.14729@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com wrote:
>> In <guy.720989221@tdsb-s> guy@mais.hydro.qc.ca (Guy Harel) writes:
>> 
>> >Its funny how an old technology becomes new again when integrated in a yet
>> >to be successful product.
>> 
>> >The first time I`ve heard of threads was with ENCORE UMAX BSD, a UNIX
>> >variant which included threads ( pthreads or cthreads ?), optimized
>> >for a multiprocessor.
>> 
>> >According to my sources this was first commercialized by ENCORE around 1985 
>> >and,  knowing the ENCORE tradition, was probably developped from a DARPA 
>> >funding around 1975...
>> 
>> >Next, I`ve heard that Netware 3.1 had threads too. And then *hoooo*,
>> >the Sybase Kernel has thread too, next NT, then OS/2 2.0.
>> 
>> >Hell, are we talking SHAREWARE or what?
>> 
>> And if you replace "threads" with "lightweight processes" [what
>> threads are generally called in a lot of the UNIX world], you will
>> probably find that the whole concept goes back even further
>
>Correct you are, and yes they have been around for a while.  Same with
>dynamic libraries.  Same with many forms of security.  Yes, you could
>buy this stuff 10 years ago.  It's just that you probably would have a
>difficult time placing the mainframe that these systems ran on in your
>house, let along on top of your desk.  In fact, the infammous "New"
>workplace shell has elements, as dose the Mac and Windows systems, 
>that were found in systems as far back as 1968.  Dr. Alan Kay and his
>gang at Xerox were doing that stuff in the 70's.
>
>Many of the archetectural achievements you have seen in the intel and
>motorola series, as well as RISC chips have been around for 30+ years.
>
>Yes, much of the technology in many current systems from many companies
>has been around for a while.  However, remember that in the middle of the
>last centure, the wheel was old, the piston was old (used in pumps), and
>steam was even older.  However, putting them together in just such a
>way, the steam engine was invented, which , even though made out of potentiall
>old components, was new, and useful.
>
>For those of you who have trouble with analogy:
>Desktop computing is relatively old (10+ years)
>Multitasking is really old ;)
>Same with threads, DLL'S, GUI's, etc.
>However, if you put them together in just such away, you get something
>new and useful.
>Add networking (old), security(old), etc.   And it adds newness to the
>desktop computing model.
>
>Now, those of you who insist in complaining that the companies in discussion
>here (IBM and MS), are not really developing new things, well, you go out and
>buy all of the "old" things that you are talking about, and quit complaining,
>and the rest of us will go about our business of using and developing the
>"new" software.


Or just go out and buy UNIX with X11 and shared libraries.

As in Univel.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jsanchez@halcyon.com (Jim Sanchez)
Subject: Re: ......An AMIGA Owner Is My Friend
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:52:56 GMT

Well as a guy who has both, maybe I can add something to the discussion.
First, the current version of Workbench does not look anything like a
toy althought I'll be the first to admit that the earlier versions did.
The current one is kinda motif like and quite frankly much more
attractive (to me anyway) that the workplace shell.  The Amiga os
certainly can (and does) multitask quite well in 512K (more is better of
course) and on two floppies. I used that configuration for quite a while
before I got a HD. Actually, for my money, the Amiga OS is STILL far and
away the better environment for most things.  Trouble is, it has to run
on Commodore HW which is pricy for what you get.  Biggest problem is the
lack of commercial applications outside of the "artsy" category

If I could have someone like IBM pushing it I would still be using the
Amiga exclusively.  If you want to have a really nice completly
configurable environment  then this is the way to go.  Just my $0.02
worth.
Cheers
-- 
Jim Sanchez
Hughes LAN Systems jim@hls.com OR jsanchez@halcyon.com
Kirkland, WA 98033 (206)828-7417 (voice) (206)828-2454 (FAX)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: How to make OS/2 look bad ...
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 09:19:20 GMT

In article <strobl.721261132@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:

>>It blew donkey dicks, to use a colorful turn of expression.
>>Far worse than OS/2 in 4 megs (I should know).   But the point here isn't
>>who's satisfied with running which OS on which class of machine.  The 
>>original complaint was that calling 4 megs a minimum for OS/2 is stupid.
>
>Perhaps. But calling 1024 KByte a minimum for Windows isn't. For running 
>a 300 K application (or two 150 K applications) Windows on a 1M machine
>is a much better environment than OS/2 on a 4M machine. Especially
>if you hard disk is slow.

Blech!  Didn't you read what I wrote?  Since you edited the main point out,
I'll say it again:  Anybody who complains that minimum requirements don't
run satisfactorily is a dork.  I don't really care whether Win or OS/2 runs
better on 1 or 4 megs respectively.  They both blow hard on min reqs.

'Nuf said.

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund)
Subject: Re: NT not even close to reacdy
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 13:56:09 GMT

In article <BxL8H9.9sK@ns1.nodak.edu> person@plains.NoDak.edu (Brett G Person ) writes:

   A friend and I are working on developing some apps for OS/2.  We were
   considering pkunking down the $80 odd bucks to get the NT Beta.  

   we checked with other developers who *are* using NT and were told that NT as
   it is right now is a bust.  That MicroSoft is hard to work with and they
   thoguth that OS/2 would "blow NT out of the water" 

   Any comments?

   -- 
   Brett Person
   Guest Account	
   North Dakota State University
   person@plains.nodak.edu || person@plains.bitnet

If my memory is correct, Bill Gates said in november 1990 that Win.
3.1 would be relased in the beginning of 1991. And we all know the
result ....  So we will probably have to wait a while for The emperors
New Technology.

Olav Torvund
University of Oslo
Norway
Olavt@jus.uio.no

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: What I heard from Microsoft about NT
Keywords: NT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 14:43:09 GMT

>Unless NT is based on a hack of BSD4, why should we allow MS to start
>at 3.1, while the rest of the industry has the guts to start at the
>beginning?

What makes you think the rest of the industry starts at the beginning?
Do you recall a Lotus 000 through Lotus 122, for example? :-)

Also, the OS 9 people seemed to jump right in at 9 (that's because OS 9
was meant for the 6809, I believe).

Software I'm working on now is jumping from 1.6 to 3.0 without stopping
at 2.x.  (We are doing that because 1.6 was based on revision 1.6 of a
specification document, and 3.0 is based on revision 3.0 of that document.
We didn't implement a version that matched 2.x of the document, so we
aren't naming any of our versions 2.x)

For real confusion over versions, try to figure out which Unix goes
where.  Let's see...32 > 5, so Unix 32V came after System V.  No?
Well, BSD4 came before 7th Edition, right?  No?  Aaarrrgggghhhh!!!! :-)

--Tim Smith
From: rvaniwaa@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ronald J. Vaniwaarden)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to make OS/2 look bad ...
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:02:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

In article <1992Nov9.173207.22664@spock.UUCP> roland@spock.uucp (David A. Braun) writes:
>In <4310@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> rvaniwaa@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ronald J. Vaniwaarden) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>>This is not different that MS claiming that you _can_ run Windows on a 286
>>with 1 mb of ram.  Of course, noone ever does this except to prove that it
>>can be done.  
>
>Not so fast! I did that (i.e. run Windows on a 286 with 1MByte)
>for years, and was quite satisfied with its overall performance.
>
>Don't claim that nobody did something sucessfully, just because
>*you* never did.
>
>So did I, and I must say it DID work reasonably fast, it was large windows
>programs which couldn't work, that evil Program Manager worked fine.
>
>Roland.

alright, I guess it is time for a retraction of sorts :-)

I never ran windows on anything less than a 386/33 with 4mb and the
performance was satisfactory.  I did use it on a 286 with 1mb and
_I_ found the performance to be too slow and it did not multitask since
it ran only in standard mode.  I also have used OS/2 on the 386 w/ 4mb
and found it to be very slow and would not multitask well do to the
huge amount of swapping.  I did not complain that the performance was too
slow since I realized that I had the minimum amount of ram that was
required. I now run it in 16 mb which is pure bliss. :-)))

What I should have said is that noone runs windows 3.1 on a 286 with 1mb
of ram and then complains that it is too slow or runs windows 3.0 on
a 8088 with 640k and complains about speed.  For the same reason, noone
_should_ complain about OS/2 being slow in 4mb when that is the
minimum configuration.


--Ronald Van Iwaarden
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: david@mlb.geomechanics.csiro.au (David Le Blanc)
Subject: Re: Memory Fregmentation under OS/2
Organization: CSIRO DIT (Melb.)
Date: 11 Nov 92 05:29:48 GMT

umnoor@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Nasir Ahmed Noor) writes:

>I use OS/2.

>A friend of mine says that there is something wrong with the IBM-compatible's
>architecture that under any operating system, memory gets badly fregmented
>and every time a block is freed up, x number of bytes are lost. He wanted
>to know how good [or bad] this is under OS/2. Does memory gets badly fregmented
>under OS/2?

At least you can pick your friends....

Fragmentation in most operating systems is a problem, but
it is not architecture dependent, just software dependent. 

The only fragmentation caused by the hardware, is the fragmentation of the
first physical megabyte of memory due to the way I/O boards map shared
memory blocks into a free area above 640k. Beyond this, it is all up to the
OS to fragment or not fragment.

>Thanks.

>--nasir
--
David Le Blanc                         :
Email: david@mlb.geomechanics.csiro.au : `Sort of a cross between a Jaguar
CSIRO Division of Geomechanics,	       :  and a freight train.' the Alien
P.O. Box 54 Mt Waverley 3149	       : in Alien^3.
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows vs. OS/2
Date: 11 Nov 92 20:04:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Nov11.200400.27669
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.

In article <1992Nov11.165329.5878@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>I've been thinking about all these arguments about which OS is "better" 
>(indeed whether Windows could be considered an OS or not).  So I thought that
>if there were people out there who could put up or shut up, I thought that
>perhaps we could begin to put the issue at rest.
>
>So what I propose is that we get some volunteers from both the Windows and
>OS/2 camps to each do a "project"--for example, laying out the cover of a
>published magazine (say, the Nov 10,1992 issue of PC Magazine)--each 
>using his/her favorite operating platform, using their favorite software
>that runs under their favorite OS.   When they get finished, they upload
>it to a judging site (to be determined) where other volunteers view their
>work.  Then each designer basically tells us *how* they did it, and how
>*long* it took them to do it--we give more points for the first one
>submitted.
>
>Naturally there are many holes in what I propose... what's to keep the
>designers from lying?  "I did it during my fifteen minute break"?  Well,
>I think we're all adults here... 
>
>What does everybody think?  Is it workable?
>
>-> Joe <-

I congratulate you on the first reasonable stab and answering this
issue which has dragged on far too long. A couple of things to
consider:

1. I would suggest a suite of "real world" tests; in otherwords
real work items that people would do frequently, and may a few that
stretch the limits or claimed capability of the OS to support.

2. Pick a collection of anything you like, but it must be
reasonable and fall within the claimed capabilities of both OS's
and software that runs on them. Apple loves to give lopsided
comparisons this way.

3. While this test suite is not truly representative of everyone's
situation and how they use their computer, it will give an
indication of how well someone can accomplish certain tasks in
general, which is the focus of the computer as a tool in the first
place.

Who knows...out of this could come a reasonably usefull
benchmark/indicator as to how useful these OS's are at solving
certain problems. And, it would provide a working model for those
who are looking for a general solution to their computing needs
that can be relatively unbiased.

...Paul

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------