HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rbotimer@max.ct.gmr.com (R Douglas Botimer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: OS/2 vs. Windows
Date: 23 Nov 92 16:52:39 GMT

When I posted the IBM press release about the PC Magazine, PC Computing and
PC World awards to OS/2, I expected some controversy.  I love what I see!!!

Seems like every MS-Windows advocate available has been mobilized to get on
here and bash OS/2.  Hey folks, whats the problem?  Windows 3.0 works, 3.1
works better and NT may be better yet.  OS/2 is better that any flavor of 
MS-Windows for many things and not as good at others.  For the things that
make a difference to me OS/2 is best, so I don't try to cram it down the 
throats of Windows users.  Nor do I see OS/2 advocates mounting such fervent
attacks in comp.os.windows.advocacy.

Are you afraid folks will see through Windows without your smoke screen?

Doug
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Workers hate windoze, revolution at 11! :-)
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 10:19:21 GMT

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>And nothing looks quite so unprofessional as a letter set in a fixed
>>width font printed on a dot matrix printer.  I see that and I say,
>
>Gee, you must have a real problem with places that use TYPEWRITERS.

Which typewriters used dot matrix?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: berger@atropa (Mike Berger)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 support is late
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 21:57:02 GMT

lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (m.l. gore) writes:
>    To me, the real issue of support, and how quickly IBM can crack out an
>    update, points at the exact nature of the cross-liscence agreement with
>    MS. DOes IBM get source code all the time? IS the code delayed? Or do they
>    have to wait until a product is released to view the code?
*----
Several articles in Infoworld indicate that IBM's agreement with
Microsoft is that they are entitled to the source code for RELEASED
products.  There was some speculation that Microsoft was delaying
the release of Windows NT until the agreement expired.

I don't see this as a real issue, any more than it bothers me that
software computer emulators don't work 100%.  If you need to run
Windows applications, then you probably should be running Windows.
I'm still primarily a DOS user, and don't have a strong committment
to Windows or OS/2 - so I'm willing to try both with an open mind,
and judge them based on their performance in their native
environments, and not how well they do running programs cross-platform.
--
	Mike Berger
	Internet    berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: ValuePoints in BusinessWeek
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:44:49 GMT

In the November 23, 1992 issue of "BusinessWeek" IBM advertises the new
PS/ValuePoint computers. All models except Model 325T come preinstalled with
OS/2. They are priced very reasonably and it is nice to see that the other
models come with 8 Megabytes of RAM preinstalled.

This is a very good move by IBM. Not only in promoting OS/2 but also their new
computers.

Sincerely,
Mark K.

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8559 comp.os.os2.misc:36905
From: hamish@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:04:46 +1300
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <BxuC7D.9Bt@csfb1.fir.fbc.com>, jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com (John E. Brock) writes:
> In article <1992Nov16.164438.27020@njitgw.njit.edu>, dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
> |> 
> |> VM/CMS is much more limited.  You don't have the ability to spawn
> |> additional processes or create additional virtual machines (that
> |> requires editing system parameter tables and re-IPLing the system).
> |> Under Unix, any process can spawn additional processes, each getting a
> |> slice of CPU time.
> |> 
> |> This will kill any Unix system:
> |> 
> |> 	while (1) fork();
> |> 
> |> Such a thing can be done on most multitasking systems, and will kill
> |> any OS that allows user-level processes to spawn child processes.
> 
> I understand why unlimited forking will kill UNIX.  What I don't
> understand is why operating systems of more recent design don't protect
> themselves from such obvious dangers.  It doesn't seem that hard to me
> conceptually.  In the above example the forks should begin to fail

SYS Vr4 will let you limit the number of processes per user, BSD will reserve 1
process entry for root. Even then you can win by suspending all the runaway
processes and THEN killing them 1 by 1. (kill -stop will suspend a process).

Also. Again I have to say IBM have done a marvelous job getting OS/2 to work so
well on so many different platforms. Even DEC can't get VMS to work without
crashing ON THEIR OWN HARDWARE as well as IBM can get OS/2 to work on clones.

Before you knock IBM and OS/2 check out how well other OS's do. (Anybody who
has used the Vomit making System should know what I mean).


PS. This post is all my own fantasy, and doesn't reflect the universities
opinion in any way. (Thought I'd better put this in here incase DEC get upset
about me slanging off about VMS)


-- 
Hamish Marson, SCMS, University of Waikato             |
hamish@waikato.ac.nz.  Fax +64 7 8384066               | Computers are only 
Disclaimer: Remember. You heard it here first!         |   Human.....
		  
ACHTUNG:
        Das machine is nicht fur gefingerpoken und mittengrabben.
        Ist easy schnappen der springenwerk, blowenfusen und
        corkenpoppen mit spitzensparken. Ist nicht fur gewerken
        by das dummkopfen. Das rubbernecken sightseeren keepen
        hands in das pockets. Relaxen und vatch das blinkenlights!!!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Date: 16 Nov 92 08:59:07 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <7870@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu wrote:
> In article <1992Nov13.091208.29456@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> >advocates: "I like my system"
> >bigots:    "Your system sucks"
> 
> So what about those of us who say, "I like my system, because I've tried it
> and your system, and your system sucks, and mine doesn't"?

You like your system because mine sucks????  I think that would
most probably fall under "bigots trying to disguise themselves
as advocates".  

I like my system because it does what I want it to do, and
whether your system sucks or not has no bearing on whether I like
my system.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
From: Bertram.Moshier@f115.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Bertram Moshier)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: FYI: Some news about Bert
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 16:22:45 -0600

Everyone / Anyone:

Just FYI:

First the news:  bgm@cray.com no longer exists.  Please drop me from
the OS/2 moderated forum.  (Sorry - I forgot to do it before leaving.)

If you want to reach me, you may do so through

     - The MN OS/2 End-user Group's BBS Internet access (what I am
       using to send this message).
     - Compuserve (71371,517) (71371.517@compuserve.com)
     - IBM BBS in Altanta (404/835-6600)
     - MN OS/2 End-user Group BBS (612/379-8272)


As reported in many newspapers, Cray Research, Inc., is restructuring
itself.  I decided to accept voluntary layoff.  My last active day at
Cray was Friday, November 13, 1992.  (My employment for legal and
benefit reasons continues through December 31, 1992.)

I decided to accept voluntary layoff (like the IBM ITO (Incentive
Transition Option)) for several reasons:

  - Cray and I were growing apart on our visions of the future.
    I believe in IBM, OS/2, portable OS/2, and the Mach 3.0 micro
    kernel.
    I believe the computing majority can use supercomputing power and
    not just the elite few.
    Time will tell the tale.  I wish Cray Research, Inc., the best in
    its vision of the computing and supercomputing future.

  - Finding an OS/2 job would make me happy and get me excited for
    work again.

  - I believe I can and will find an OS/2 job before my severance
    package runs out.

Between the time of volunteering and my last active day, I received an
offer for (what I consider) two "dream jobs."  Since I have yet to
accept, I don't feel at liberty to discuss them publicly.

Bert Moshier


 * Origin: (1:282/115)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund)
Subject: Re: MN OS/2 EUG Nov. Meeting
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 08:29:01 GMT

I guess that I am not the only one interested in the Lotus apps that
will be shown at the meeting. Please summarize in the comp.os.os2.apps
group!

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

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8663 comp.os.os2.misc:37396
From: jarman@ee.ualberta.ca (Andrew Jarman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Date: 23 Nov 92 04:32:56 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

We have Lan Server 2.0 running on top of OS/2 2.0 at work (I look after
the network).  I have seen numerous times when the WPS will lock up, and
sometimes I can't get it to go away at all.  However, all of the netwrok
access is still there, and background processes still function.  Once, I
even managed to call in over the modem (OS2you in the background) and 
kill the WPS and recover.  I would definitely rate this above DOS/Windows.
While it's inconvenient to have the server's front end locked up, at least
I can wait until lunch or the end of the day to reboot the system.

-- 
/***************************************************************************\
|  Andrew Jarman                 |   Computer Engineering                   |
|  jarman@bode.ee.ualberta.ca    |   University of Alberta, Canada          |
\***************************************************************************/
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: "Karl Finkemeyer" <p00122@psilink.com>
Subject: Can OS/2 2.0 handle this application?
Reply-To: p00122@psilink.com
Organization: Performance Systems Int'l
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 05:00:28 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

I would like to use OS/2 2.0 as my main/standard OS around here, but
there is one remaining question: can OS/2 2.0 handle one of my major
applications without diving too deep into PM programming?

Can someone point me to the OS/2 2.0 facility/feature I need for the
following application? I hope it's available somewhere in OS/2 2.0, but
where should I look?

I have a proprietary DOS full screen application (using DOS text windows
with mouse support and keyboard shortcuts) which I depend on. Since it's
proprietary, I have no source code and no way to change it. But I need 
to automate it in any case. I want to write "something" which analyzes
the text on the screen and, depending on which text it finds and where,
feeds certain keystrokes to the application.

Under Unix X-Windows, I would expect the 'tcl' language to handle this
rather easily. Under MS-Windows 3.1, I know that I can use the Norton
Desktop Macro Language to (all in one "program"):
  - copy the application screen to the clipboard, 
  - read the clipboard into an editor window,
  - save the file, 
  - analyze the file in the Norton Desktop macro language "program" 
  - create and feed the keystrokes to the application.

Not pretty, but it works.

What would I use under OS/2 2.0 for controlling this application? Or is
this something OS/2 2.0 cannot (yet?) handle?

Karl Finkemeyer
p00122@psilink.com


Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8510 comp.os.os2.misc:36692
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:21:50 GMT
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago

In article <&c#@byu.edu> earlyd@newt.ee.byu.edu (David Early) writes:
>>I have an SVGA video chip.  I tried to install an 8514 driver just to
>>see what would happen.  When I booted my computer, OS/2 2.0 would not
>>load.  (The 8514 driver is not compatible with an SVGA chip).
>WAIT A MINUTE!
>I have a Trident 8900C w/1meg, and I assume that this is a SVGA
>chip set.  I also installed the 8514 drivers from Hobbes that
>give 1024-768 resolution and have been impressed and
>how much FASTER this driver is compared to the old 800-600
>Trident driver retrieved from hobbes about 3 months ago.
>I'm not sure I agree that 8514 drivers don't like SVGA chips...
>I think the drivers have to emulate the 8514 better...

Don't get confused.  The "8514/A" driver that Trident has released
only means that it provides 1024x768 in 256 colors with large icons.
That's it.  A Trident adapter is not coprocessed, not particularly
speedy, and not from IBM, and the driver won't make it that way.  But
it will make it vaguely resemble an 8514/A display.

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0g, available from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: COMDEX Awards
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:38:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.035410.72070@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.182944.4050@itsmail1.hamilton.edu>, jmalloy@itsmail1.hamil
>ton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>>>
>>> LAS VEGAS, November 19 . . . IBM's OS/2* 2.0 advanced
>>> operating system recently received top honors from three
>>> flagship PC industry publications, including two awards
>>> presented here at COMDEX/Fall '92.
>>
>>First off, there's no doubt that even I, a confirmed Windows 3.1 user,
>>can agree to the technical achievement OS/2 2.x represents (it's only in
>>reality that it can be a pain, as I learned in my time with OS/2), so
>>congrats to IBM.
>
>But not half the pain Windows is...

What's this about Windows panes? :)  It works for me, better than OS/2
did.

>>But I find it quite humorous: when these magazines were critical of
>>OS/2, they and all their writers were a bunch of bigoted bums.  Now that
>>OS/2 gets some good press, it's trumpeted among the OS/2 folks.
>>
>>Guys, if they were bums before, they're bums now.  What this really
>>demonstrates to me is that they have been doing their jobs all along,
>>giving praise when due, criticizing, when appropriate.  If the only
>>measure of a journalist is how much she or he supports OS/2, we've got a
>>problem.  Besides, your critics will help you more (to improve the
>>product, say) than the blind supplication of your rabid zealots (who
>>are, after, quite off-putting).
>
>Yes they still are bums.  It used to be they loved to criticize it before they
>used it.  That can't be forgiven.  But any good press will be accepted.  This
>is hardly hypocritical.  A large percent of the time, I find the presses
>attitudes towards software to be strait out of companies marketing
>departments.  I've seen far too many articles for which the only source was a
>press release from one or a few companies.  Now that OS/2 seems to be getting
>the press it really deserves, those of us who are supporters of the system are
>happy about it.  We can't help that so many people actually seriously listen
>to these fools.
>>
>>Besides, there's room for more than one true way or more than on OS.
>>I'm holding out for Unix/X windows on an HP95...
>>
>>Joe
>>jmalloy@hamilton.edu
>>
>>
Hey, no one says you have to listen to them, you'd be foolish to make
your decision based solely upon a magazine columnist (and there's no
better proof of the idiocy of trusting these people implicitly than
Slick Willie Zachmann!).  But if you accept good press only when it
agrees with you, you have already undermined the value of that 'good
press.'  You take your lumps and your roses...

Joe
jmalloy@hamilton.edu
From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 04:20:13 GMT

In article <BxzwF6.As0@news.cso.uiuc.edu>,
rvenkate@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Ravikuma Venkateswar) writes:
>clements@abq.bdm.com (Eric Clements) writes:
>
>>In article <BxMG8q.LFD@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, rvenkate@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu
>>(Ravikuma Venkateswar) wrote:
>
>>>    Of course, there are also many problems with them, price being
>>>one of them.  If you were to buy a Mac and an IBM compat, and spend
>>>the same amount of money on both of them, you could get a lot more
>>>computer for the money (or a lot more peripherals) if you chose the
>>>IBM compatible.  And, you could have the same abilities as a Mac
>>>(multimedia, GUI,etc.).
>>
>>Actually, I've done tests with my Quadra 700 - 25 MHz 68040 against a 50
>>MHz
>>486 DX.  I wrote a simple program in C that did 2 sin calls and 2 cos
>>calls,
>>1 million times.  The 486 was only 25% faster than my Quadra.  Even though
>>it should be at least twice as fast.  So that shows how Motorola is ahead
>>of
>>Intel.  (Note: don't forget IBM went to Motorola to fabricate their RS/6000
>>chips for the new PowerPCs.  Why would they drop Intel? )
>
>Not quite an accurate comparison. Clock speeds are irrelevant on chips
>with totally different instruction sets. And the execution time with
>the C program depends a lot on the compiler. Especially with the 486, you
>can't compare a program that uses an 8086 instruction set running in Dos
>with the Quadra. And you didn't mention whether the Quadra has a coprocessor
>(which would mean that if it wasn't there, the speed difference would
>be even less). Incidentally, what was the price comparison on the two
>computers?
>

     I'll jump in here (since the first quote is actually me).  The
Quadra does have a built-in coprocessor (much like the 486's which
were out long before the 040), and a built-in cache, which is larger
than the one on the 486.
     On the subject of clock speed, you're absolutely right.  The
chips are very different inside.  Why doesn't Motorola just make
their chips faster?  Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against
Motorola, I just don't think Macs are worth the money.
     I think Motorola and IBM are working together on the RISC chips
because Motorola was going to be the easiest company to work with.
I've heard that some bad blood was going on between IBM and Intel,
much like with IBM and MS.  And, Intel seems to want to stay with
the CISC architecture, and show that it can work just as well as a
RISC processor (although it takes a little magic with the
superscaler technology).


Timothy Miller
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: COMDEX Awards
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:34:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.010109.53867@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:

[deleted: PC/Computing's rationale for tech excellence awards to OS/2
and Windows]
>
>Quite honestly, that sounds like a cop out.  If the award is to be determined
>on technical excellence, then judge it on technical excellence.  If it is to
>be a popularity contest, then make it a popularity contest.  (You can guess
>which would win in each case)  Since OS/2 can run *most* win stuff, I really
>don't see how in a majority of cases you are losing anything by using it tho.
>I think that PC computing is following the CYA school of journalism.
>(CYA=cover your ass)

Tecnical excellence is not defined simply as 'which os promises more'
(in which case OS/2 wins) but must include something along the lines of
'which promises and delivers more of that promise,' at least as far as
I'm concerned.  I hardly think OS/2 deserved an award for forcing me
back to plain vanilla VGA when I was able to use SVGA within a couple
of months of the release of Wind 3.0 and right away after the release of
Win 3.1.

Secondly, there's technical excellence and then there is perceived
technical excellence.  I have no doubt that if an award were being give
for excellence in design of an OS by a group of disinterested (could we
find any? :) engineers, OS/2 would win.  But if you ask even only the
most computer literate users of the world if Windows 3.1 deserves an
award, I suspect most would say yes, though their reasoning would not be
based on OS design philosophy.  I don't think there's anything wrong
with deciding that Windows 3.1 is good or excellent since it works for
me.  If you've got a complaint, it's that PC/C didn't define their
standards in a narrow enough techno-weenie way to limit the award only
to OS/2 (or, if they did, I didn't see that).

>>
>>In fact, the best situation for computer users is one in which two
>>major companies are battling it out to create a better operating
>>system, and the best step you can take right now is to use both
>>Windows and OS/2.  You're likely to decide on one over the other,
>>but that's not what's important. What is, is that you'll widen the
>>horizons of you computing exerience an take two giant steps toward
>>the future.
>
>This is true and we all know this, but I don't think it excuses them.
>>
>>That's why this year we're splitting the honors: The winners of the
>>MVP for best operating environment are OS/2 2.0 and Windows 3.1.  May
>>they both thrive.
>
>Well....  OK I can live with that...  (SMILE FOLKS!)
>-- 
>Stacy John Behrens
>*===)-------------

Happy Thanksgiving, one and all!i

Joe 
jmalloy@hamilton.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: jadpc2
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 15:48:00 -0800
From: Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: Re: single-threaded message queue
Comment-To: Bjt105@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

 B> queues.  Multiple messages queues would require a rewriting of
PMWIN,
 B> which will happen anyway because PMWIN needs updating.  It is just
a
 B> matter of time until this happens.  Programmers were estimating
about
 B> 4 months of work for a team of three to complete it .. just so you
 B> can get an idea of the magnitude of the job. It's possible they've
 B> already begun the work, although I don't know.

I suppose that means that it will really take 30 programmers a total
of 12 months to complete it?  Well, you know how reliable programmer
estimates can be.  Actually I've read rumors that multiple system
message queues are supposed to be added to OS/2 by mid-1993.



--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy