HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hildajk1@netnews.jhuapl.edu (Ken Hildabolt)
Subject: Re: HPFS 16/32
Organization: JHU/Applied Physics Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:41:11 GMT

roland@spock.uucp (David A. Braun) writes:

>Like Mark, I have read G. Letwin's "Inside OS/2". David is right. Mr. Letwin
>did design the HPFS. He is also wrong, because 32-bit HPFS is not the same as
>16-bit HPFS. 

>Still, I would like to congratulate Mr. Letwin providing the foundations for 
>an excellent file system, which makes my DBase much faster than in native DOS, 
>lets me use long filenames, is fragmentation resistant, etc... I would also 
>like to congratulate Mr. Letwin on his excellent book which sold me on 
>OS/2 v 1.1. 

>Sice Mr. Letwin still seems to be very attached to OS/2, to the point of lurking
>on the net (although he has (oops, that should read "had") the code only 20 
>famous keystrokes away) and talking about version 2.0 as if it was still his, 
>maybe he should join Boca Ratton?

>----

>WHAT!&$**%! The OS/2 2.0 GA DOES NOT INCLUDE 32bit HPFS.  It is still 16 bit
>and that is why some say the OS/2 32bit Super-Fat is faster than the current
>HPFS... Sure 32bit would be nice, and if you think you have it, please send
>me a copy...

>Roland.
Roland,
All you had to do to get the 32-bit HPFS was join the Win 3.1 Beta, it
came with it. Works fine, from what I can tell.
Ken

-- 
Ken Hildabolt
The Johns Hopkins University / Applied Physics Laboratory
hildajk1@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu      CIS: 70674,1657

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1992 10:35:20 GMT

tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

>linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>>>that implement the file system in a user-mode process?
>>
>>Explain.

>Sure, consider a system that implements the file system as follows:

>	1. There is a device driver that provides block-level access to
>	the disk drive.

>	2. There is a process that uses that device driver and understands
>	and maintains the filesystem data structures on the disk.

>	3. Processes that wish to access files use an interprocess
>	communication mechanism to request the file data from the
>	above filesystem manager process.

I see.

>If someone's system did this, would it no longer be an operating system?


The OS manages the harware, being the disk drive, and offers a
service to applications to use it, though at a rather low level.
Furthermore a piece of software offers a filesystem from the
raw OS service.
Now, either, you consider this process (an installable) part
of the OS, or if you don't, you still have an OS without a
filesystem, which is perfectly alright.
In the latter case the filesystem process is much like a newsagent
under UNIX. Not a necesarry extension, so applications do not
relly on it being there, but if it is, they  can make use of its
services.
The hardware is still managed by the OS, so the definition of the
OS still stands. I do however have to adjust my statement that
if there is a filesystem it should be managed by the OS, which
should read, if there is disk device it should be managed by the
OS. Of course applications can extend these services, like X does
to the graphics device. Of course the disk device is already
captured under the statement that hardware is managed by the OS,
but that doesn't seem obvious to anyone.

Erik




-- 
Erik van Linstee   |   Delft University of Technology   |   I'll be back ... 
----
   We are god, 'cause only we can create the idea of his existence
   in our holy brains...  (Yello)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1992 12:46:43 GMT

furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod) writes:

>In article <1992Nov07.043530.12842@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov05.115641.12981@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl wrote:
>>> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>> 
>>> >In article <1992Nov4.203036.5504@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>> >>DOS isn't an OS any more than Barbie is a prom date.
>>> 
>>> >A neat analogy, Fred, but wrong: what does an OS do that DOS doesn't?
>>> 
>>> Provide protection from ill behaved applications for one. Furthermore
>>> I would say concurrency should be included in the definition of
>>> a modern OS.
>>> 
>>> Erik
>>
>>Funny, I know people who have the opposite viewpoint.  They Like DOS
>>because it stays the heck out of their way.
>>Then again, they are just embedded systems designers, and game designers,
>>and the like.
>>

>DING! Thanks for playing Pete...

I hate it when people start off like that. Doesn't give'em much
credit, does it.

>Not true. One of the paper mills I visit on occasion for process

How can you say that. Pete gives the opinion of people he knows.
The only ones who can tell this to be untrue are those people
themselves.

>control work trashed their plans to move off the DOS environment
>into WIndows entirely. They sited as the first reason, the  expense
>of configuring and updating 400 PC's to run Windows in a reasonable
>fashion, and secondly, they did and internal study which showed
>their productivity dropped by over 10% on the Windows machines
>versus the plain DOS ones. One other side effect was that Outside
>contract labor charged an average 50 to 135% more for programming
>services when it came to custom window applications, citing the
>additional complexity of the environment to produce the final
>product.

>Now, this is not a blanket mandate that Windows is bad, or OS/2 is
>that much better. It is meant to point out the fact, that embedded
>systems designers and game designers are not the sole realm of DOS;
>else why would IBM be so meticulous about including it in OS/2? For
>that matter why is Microsoft including it at all in NT, if it's
>nothing more that a boot sector virus, as some clever poster so
>aptly put it ?

Do we really have to explain ?!

Erik



-- 
Erik van Linstee   |   Delft University of Technology   |   I'll be back ... 
----
   We are god, 'cause only we can create the idea of his existence
   in our holy brains...  (Yello)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Robert Stephen Rodgers)
Subject: Re: How to make OS/2 look bad ...
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 17:30:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov07.131316.20096@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>1. Try OS/2 one a 486/33 with 4Mb of memory.


	Note that this is still significantly more machine than the 
	recommendation from IBM--they recommend a "minimum" of
	a 386SX-16 (that being the lowest 386 chip) with 4 megs.

	If IBM wanted to get rid of this type of crap, they'd 
	be smart enough to change the label on the box from four
	to eight (although even six would be satisfactory)..



>2. Observe that OS/2 has not removed Windows 3.1 of your disk
>and than find it odd, because OS/2 has its own windows environment,
>so you would expect OS/2 to remove everything from your system
>it doesn't need.


	Affirm.  This is just plain stupid.  I know that I 
	sure as hell don't want OS/2 erasing things I have around..


>3. Mention that everything is very slow, opening a window takes
>about 5 seconds, but add, this is due to memory problems because
>of the 4Mb being a minimum and 16Mb would be much better.



	See above.  This is a legitimate complain against
	IBM's corporate IQ.  Claiming 4 megs as the minimum
	for OS/2 is like claiming that the minimum for 
	Windows 3.0 was an 8088 and CGA.




>6. Expect that since OS/2 provides windows and DOS emulation
>it also accepts the device drivers of those platforms.



	A big problem with OS/2 is not only that it is 
	starved for applications, but also that it is 
	anemic when it comes to the hardware support it
	provides next to it's nearest competitor (which 
	will go unnamed).  All I can say is, my Dismond 
	SS24x running on an ISA 386SX-20 w/4 megs under
	that unnamed entity VAMPS my friends same card
	with a 486DX2(66) with 8 megs running OS/2. 



	Hopefully IBM will solve this.  Preferably before
	next March.



-- 
 /============================rsrodger@wam.umd.emu====================\
| Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?           |
| Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?   |
 \NeXTMail accepted here......I'd sell my soul for Offline mail!!!..../!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell)
Subject: Re: AmiPro for OS/2
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Distribution: jadpc2
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:47:32 GMT

A_Brian_Sturgill_skeptic@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org writes:

>>Translated:  AmiPro is NOT a Mirrors application.

> DC> How are you so certain about this?? 

>I'm pretty certain because I don't believe that the product manager
>for Ami Pro for OS/2 would lie when I asked him if they were using
>Mirrors.  He said they were not using Mirrors.  Given that none of
>their other products among 
>1-2-3, Freelance, and cc:Mail will be using Mirrors, why should Ami
>Pro?

Also, it seems to me, if it WAS using Mirrors, what's taking Lotus so
long to get the product out?  If Mirrors is just a layer that
translates Windows API calls into PM calls, how much change is needed
from the Windows version (and should it take this long)?  

Maybe Mirrors isn't ready yet, or they're having problems with printing,
etc., but it seems like the product should at least be in beta by now
with a release date given.

All I can say is that I hope the feature set of Ami Pro is the same (or
greater) than that of the Windows version.  I can see Lotus trimming
things down a bit ala Wordperfect 4.2 for Amiga.


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


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: kevinc@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Kevin Crocker)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: DOS Product to be upgraded to run under OS/2
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:19:17 GMT

Hi all, I have just finished talking with CADKEY, Inc. (maker of CADKEY
- a CAD package that consistently wins CAD awards instead of AutoCad).

It appears that they will be shipping a beta package next week to test
out some new things. Older versions of CADKEY couldn't run under OS/2
as it used the PharLap DOS extender and VCPI. They've changed over to
DPMI.

When I get my Beta version I'll report back.

Just thought you-all would like to know that some companies are taking
great pains to ensure their products run under OS/2.

Kevin
--
Kevin "autark" Crocker (Athabasca University)
kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA  -or-  risk@cs.AthabascaU.CA
Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:01:13 -0500 
From: Carl B Jabido <cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: HPFS 16/32
Distribution: usa

Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.os2.advocacy: 10-Nov-92 Re: HPFS 16/32 by
Ken Hildabolt@netnews.jh 
> All you had to do to get the 32-bit HPFS was join the Win 3.1 Beta, it
> came with it. Works fine, from what I can tell.

No it didn't!  The latest beta only had Windows 3.1, and the 32-bit
GRAPHICS ENGINE.  Not the 32-bit HPFS.  That isn't promised until 93
sometime.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: lmorris@mdd.comm.mot.com (Larry Morris)
Subject: OS/2 2.01 DAP CSD and Service Pack Drivers?
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:04:51 GMT

After running for 2 days with the Service Pack and ET-4000 drivers, I 
finally got my hands on a CD-ROM drive and installed the DAP CD.
But I see no references to ET-4000 support.  Is this only available on
the SP?  Could I install the SP drivers onto the DAP system?

Sorry if this is in of the the many readmes on the CSD.  I looked and
didn't find it.  And with all the fighting over Selective Install .vs. dpsinstl
I really don't want to 'just try it'.  Thanks in advance for any answers.

					Larry

-- 
Internet:    <lmorris@mdd.comm.mot.COM>   |  Larry Morris
 ...uw-beaver!sunup-----\                 |  Motorola/Mobile Data Division
 ...uunet-----------------!mdisea!lmorris |  19807 North Creek Parkway
 ...van-bc!mdivax1------/                 |  Bothell, WA  (206) 487-5810
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: How to make OS/2 look bad ...
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 13:30:40 GMT

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.

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
From: lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:46:32 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles

In article <7714@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.203036.5504@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>DOS isn't an OS any more than Barbie is a prom date.
>
>A neat analogy, Fred, but wrong: what does an OS do that DOS doesn't?
>-- 

Well, not being a heavy systems type, but having read a few deffinitions
on the subject, MULTITASK.  I have long heard that CP/M and it's Clone
(MS-DOS) was a Disk Operating System married to a Job Control language
and NOT an operating system either.  Of course, If you leave out the
Multi-tasking, well, then it comes very close.

Also several people have complained since some IBM Mainframes run VM and
then run something else on one of the virtual 370's (or ???) that
AIX 370 (or ??) being called an operating system disproves the thesis
that an operating system has to be a single unit.  Hmm, the analogy that
comes to mind is OS/2 running DOS or ??? as a subtask.  The argument
needs to be looked at more closely before any body continues to argue
that point.  The question is "Does AIX 370 boot a real 370?"  The fact
that it us usually used on a (V)irtual (M)achine is really beside
the point.

Lowell

*** My opinions are my own and just as silly as every one elses.
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 8 Nov 92 13:44:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov8.134421.16398
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95

dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
>        Q.  Is Microsoft Windows an Operating System?
> 
>        A.  MircoSoft Employee's say yes, and there really isn't much
>            that anyone can do to stop them from using such a misnomer
>            except by not using Windoze !!!
>

I don't want to sound like I'm defending Microsoft (someday I'm going to
post why I think Dan Quayle with a Cobol compiler could have written
better memory management code than the excrement that found its way
into Windows 3.1 (if you want to deduce from this that I spent a
long time working around a Microsoft bug, go ahead :-))), but according
to the definition of "operating system" from most major operating
systems textbooks, it is not a misnomer to call Windows 3.1 an
operating system.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: hess@rzdspc14.informatik.uni-hamburg.de (Hauke Hess)
Subject: Re: What's an OS?
Organization: University of Hamburg, FRG
Date:  5 Nov 92 07:46:04 GMT

discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>Yes!  I've always said "Windows+DOS" is an OS.   Windows by itself is not
>an OS (like OS/2 without its file manager routines is not an OS).  For
>convenience (and to avoid further disputes) when someone says "Windows" he's
>obviously talking about Windows running on top of DOS (when someone says
>DOS he's talking about DOS running on a PC-compatible--even though, it is


So MS Word 5.0 is an OS because it runs on top of DOS and allows you to access
most printers in a convenient way?

Hauke

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mattair@sun44.synercom.hounix.org (Charles Mattair)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Organization: Synercom Technology, Inc., Houston, TX
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:43:35 GMT


And when we finish this discussion, possibly we can resolve the ages old
question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Seriously, this question was beaten to death a few weeks on c.o.ms-w.a
accompanied by much smoke and heat and very little light.

Whether MS-W is an operating system is probably a moot point to management.
It generally doesn't care about the technical nuances of a question unless
they are germane to the product's intended use.  Consumer products live and
die by meeting user requirements and expectations, not by satisfying a
checklist taken from the JACM.

No flames from either side: I side with management on this one.
I use both MS-W and OS/2 and really don't feel up to a religious war just now.

<Somebody in the c.o.ms-w.a war made a comment to the effect "An O/S was
something which kept programmers from doing what they wanted to do."  If
so, Unix isn't an O/S either. ;-) >
-- 
Charles Mattair		 			mattair@synercom.hounix.org
Any opinions offered are my own and do not reflect those of my employer.
Never try to teach a pig to sing - you waste your time
		and it annoys the pig.  (West Texas saying)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: lkan@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Linus Kan)
Subject:  OS or not, it's all in the label. 
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 07:42:48 GMT

If Microsoft had started to sell DOS+Windows as one package and
labeled the new bundle as XYZ, then there wouldn't be any debate
if Windows 3.1 is an OS or not--package XYZ wouldn't differentiate
between the two.  Get the point?  It's analogous to separating
the OS/2 structure layer into several layers and arguing that
one is an OS and the other is not. 

:) lkan 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: stimpy@nmt.edu (John Reynolds)
Subject: Re:  Why does OS/2 loose out in a PC Mag comparison test?  
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:21:11 GMT

I've never ever seen a professional unbiased review of OS/2's capabilities
in any of the rags. If anyone has, I'd like to know about it. OS/2 is
getting a bum-rap in my opinion. Most of the people that I've talked to,
use the rags opinion as 'the word' and won't budge until I bring them
over and show them what it can do (ala the 'why I love OS/2 thread').

Oh well. At least we know its capabilities.....

Cheers,

-Jr


-- 
Windows...It's like a stale cookie.    | #include <~os2/personal.opinion.h>
OS/2..."It's like buudaah" (SNL quote) | John Reynolds stimpy@jupiter.nmt.edu
From: u1665462@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows NT
Date: 9 Nov 92 03:58:26 +1100
Organization: The University of Melbourne

In article <1992Nov2.164157.23765@tamsun.tamu.edu>, davidn@cs.tamu.edu (David E Nichols) writes:
> In article <1992Nov1.165306.22197@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>I have been following the NT vs. OS/2 discussion and have noticed a few
>>things. Earlier on, Mr. Letwin mentioned in a message OS/2 security and
>>he used the word "I" in respect to OS/2. While I greatly appreciate
>>his concern and I understand his current situation, he has nothing to
>>do with OS/2 2.0. From reading his book, I clearly understand him
>>being one of the designer of the older OS/2 but as far as 2.x is 
>>concerned, it is clearly owned by IBM hence it is not appropriate to
>>use "I designed" or "I did."
> 
> You had better know what you're talking about when you post something around
> the world, especially when you call someone a liar.  Gordon Letwin did
> originally design OS/2, and he was talking about HPFS in the article you 
> mention (which you must not have read very well).  He designed HPFS, and it
> is the SAME HPFS that is in the 2.0 versions.  HPFS is HPFS.  Gordon Letwig
> designed it.  You called him a liar.  Those are the facts.
> 
>>
>>Mark K.
>>
>>IEEE Computer Society member
>>Internet: kovarski@zooid.guild.org
> 
> David Nichols
> Aarvark Society member
> Internet: davidn@cs.tamu.edu

Like Mark, I have read G. Letwin's "Inside OS/2". David is right. Mr. Letwin
did design the HPFS. He is also wrong, because 32-bit HPFS is not the same as
16-bit HPFS. 

Still, I would like to congratulate Mr. Letwin providing the foundations for 
an excellent file system, which makes my DBase much faster than in native DOS, 
lets me use long filenames, is fragmentation resistant, etc... I would also 
like to congratulate Mr. Letwin on his excellent book which sold me on 
OS/2 v 1.1. 

Sice Mr. Letwin still seems to be very attached to OS/2, to the point of lurking
on the net (although he has (oops, that should read "had") the code only 20 
famous keystrokes away) and talking about version 2.0 as if it was still his, 
maybe he should join Boca Ratton?

Sven

u1665462@ucs.unimelb.edu.au
From: rkobenter@galaxy.gov.bc.ca
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Here we go again.. M$ Win an OS?
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:02:23 -0800
Organization: BC Systems Corporation

Wait a minute...

 an M$ individual made the point about 100 postings back about
 DOS+WINDOWS being an Operating system and OS/2 is not, he mentioned
 that without the Booter in OS/2 you had nothing.. can't disagree with 
 him, but at least the booter is included with OS/2.

 I mean this whole discussion is fruitless since we can all imaging that
 in a years time Windows 4 or Dos7 will be an all integrated product
  call it NTlite or call it OS/2 lite, its the way the excellent
 marketing people at M$ are taking us, they are not stupid remember
 65 million copies of DOS are a lot of upgrade packages even if you
 only get a small % of them to do the upgrade. Sorry folks, M$
 does not have any personal attachments to you and me. They are a 
 very successful business entity , they are the IBM of the '90's
 and they have learned where DEC and IBM have failed. They control
 the whole shooting match and unless some grade 3 B.Gates comes along
 soon they will continue to flourish and my beloved OS/2 2 will be
 a little better remembered than my relic Commodore SuperPET with
 (count them..) 5 interpreters in 1984  (a 4k$ mistake I shall not
 forget)...

 To end this tirade , remember the one who buys Bleeding edge
 often gets bled to death, or worse, in a Corporate environment
 gets Canned.. so if you want OS/2 to succeed throw away your
 MS apps and support LOTUS or any other OS/2 applet company,
 bacause after Win3.1 there will be no WIN4OS mode for OS/2 2..3..4...

thats all IMHO

robert

victoria BC Canada
rwkobent@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca
-------------------------------- These are my own utterings and definitely
                                 unsupported by my superiors (leider gottes)