HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Organization: Philipps-University Marburg
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:38:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.143724.25749@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu
(STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep30.201520.16617@microsoft.com>, gordonl@microsoft.com
|> (Gordon
|>  Letwin) writes:
|> >
|> >1) Although current versions of Windows do run on top of DOS, and their
|> >       performance and robustness are somewhat hindered by that, Windows
|> >       and windows apps don't HAVE to run on top of DOS.  And in the future
|> >       they won't.
|> Well, until there are some pretty dramatic changes, DOS is the only platform
|> it will run on.  (OS/2 runs it, but DOS is still at its heart)

You are talking about 16-bit Windows. But the future of Windows will
be 32-bit Windows. There will be WIN32s for Windows 3.1 in the next
PDK, which is a subset of the NT WIN32 subsystem. Developers will start
writing 32-bit Windows apps. WIN32 apps, either on WIN32s or on NT won't
need any DOS, they don't use INT21 etc.

There was once a smooth migration from Real-Mode Windows apps. to protected
mode Windows apps. No serious Windows app. today uses Real-Mode anymore and
this will happen to 16-bit protected mode apps. now. With WIN32s the migration
from Windows apps. who do need DOS to apps. that don't need DOS will happen.

Christoph
-- 
Internet: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de
BITNET: HAMPE2@DMRHRZ11
Fido: 2:243/660
From: karlth@rhi.hi.is (Karl Thoroddsen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unprofessional Posts from Brian S.
Date: 12 Oct 92 08:55:20 GMT

In <1992Oct12.062257.18201@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:

Mr. Waters, this is an .advocacy group.  If the posters refrain from mud-
slinging and name calling and discuss matters related to OS/2(Yes I consider
NT to be very much related to OS/2) then I for one see no reason to object to 
them.

Brian please continue, this would be a very boring onesided group without you.



-- 

\ Internet: karlth@rhi.hi.is             \ Karl Thoroddsen University Of Iceland
 \ Respect...            , Peter Ustinov  \ Department Of Computer Science
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7318 comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32:1426
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Subject: Re: Multiuser (was Re: MS's misconduct!)
Date: 9 Oct 92 10:05:34 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.

In article <KEVIN.92Oct8155038@loneranger.edscom.demon.co.uk>, kevin@edscom.demon.co.uk (Kevin Broadey) writes:
|> As someone once said ... the computer *is* the network.

I believe that Sun printed T shirts saying:

			The Network *is* the Computer

Someone else made T shirts saying:

	The Computer is the Computer, the Network is the Network.
			Sorry for any confusion.
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 13 Oct 1992 01:11:03 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Oct12.211613.28384@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
[about the $69 SDK/beta]
>     You keep saying this, but you never back it up with evidence or
>even explanation.  _Why_ is it FUD?

Because it's a beta, released well before it was ready, in a blatant attempt
to get people - not just developers, but users - to wait for NT instead of
going to OS/2. 

I've discussed this repeatedly, as well as MS's actions that lead me to this
conclusion, in numerous messages here.
-- 
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.
    Vote for a REAL change on 3 November: Throw out the check-bouncing,
  tax-and-spend Democrat Congress! (obviously, not an opinion of UTHSCH)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: richk@grebyn.com (Richard Krehbiel)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:22:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct07.101657.16483@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.084217.28802@netcom.com> msmith@netcom.com wrote:
>> In article <1992Oct5.215925.6501@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>> Regardless of the drivel below that underestimates the multi-user and 
>> file protection mechanisms of UNIX. Be it true or not, it does not actually 
>> address the question that was asked. 
>> 
>> IS NT multi-user.
>> 
>> In the traditional and widely held ( non-MS  ) view of multi-user I.E 
>> CONCURRENT MULTIPLE USERS ON A SINGLE MACHINE/CPU not Win NT 3.1 is 
>> NOT!!! multi-user.
>
>Okay, I guess I've had my head in the sand or something.  I have yet to
>see anyone use a multiuser system as you seem to think it is.  How
>does one hook 5 mice up to a computer so 5 people can use it.  How does
>one hook 5 keyboards up.

If you've been working at Microsoft for all your career, I guess it's
possible you really have never seen a thing which the industry
considers a multi-user computer.  Yes, for five users, it has five
mice, five keyboards, and five screens.  They're terminals.

So you might say that you don't see a useful distinction between a
terminal connected via serial port, and another PC with a network
connection.  The distinction is price, terminals are much cheaper than
a suitable PC would be, and they're far easier to administer and
maintain.

>THE SCREEN DEVICE OF NT ONLY ALLOWS ONE USER TO HAVE OWNERSHIP OF IT.

Geez, we know this.  That's why we've been saying that for practical
purposes, NT is single-user.
-- 
Richard Krehbiel                                 richk@grebyn.com
OS/2 2.0 will do for me until AmigaDOS for the 386 comes along...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jja@wsl.ie (John J. Allen)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Organization: Project Papyrus, AIRAID, Dublin, Ireland
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:52:45 GMT

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
: >No you can log more than one user in at the console via either the virtual
: >terminal capability. Alt-1 Alt-2 ... will provide seperate logins. 
: 
:      Unless you are using a version of UNIX which doesn't do
: virtual terminals at the console.
: 
: 
: >Alternatively if your are seated at a console running X-Windows you can be
: >logged in as different users in different windows. 
: 
:      But I didn't ask about X-Windows - I asked about UNIX in the most
: general sense.  And you didn't answer the question.
: 

Hook a terminal up to a serial port and away you go.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Date: 13 Oct 92 06:17:19 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Oct12.210036.27969@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com wrote:
> In <1992Oct10.035521.12965@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Oct9.193428.29875@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com wrote:
> >> In <1992Oct08.092757.16811@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> >> Networking packages aren't like stripped-down versions of common software.
> >> >> Including full-function TCP/IP networking in NT is like including
> >> >> Weird...er...Word for Windows: nobody in their right mind would try to
> >> >> compete. Why should FTP Software develop an NT version of PC/TCP, when you're
> >> >> throwing in an equivalent package with the OS (and cranking up the price to
> >> >> cover it)?
> >> 
> >> >Why should DR develop another DOS when MS DOS covers that base?
> >> 
> >> Not quite the same thing, Pete.  What he's talking about is someone
> >> writing something that you would need NT to run, when NT already
> >> includes a full-blown version of that functionality.  Your example is
> >> more along the lines of someone producing a better NT (including
> >> networking, plus a bunch of things that NT won't do).  His point is
> >> valid.  How many copies of a package to do X am I likely to be able to
> >> sell if the ability to do X is already built into the thing my package
> >> requires in order to run?
> 
> >Oh, sorry, bad example I guess, didn't get the point across.
> 
> >How about "Why should Norton develop Norton Desktop".
> 
> Because the Progman/File Manager paradigm stinks?
Lots of people like it.

> 
> >Added functionality you say?
> 
> >Bingo, I say.
> >Now apply that argument to basic network stuff.
> 
> Ah, so you're saying that anyone who really wants a usable system is
> going to have to pitch the included network stuff anyway?  So how come
> everyone who buys NT is going to have to pay for it when they're going
> to need to replace it with something usable anyway?
> 
> [No, I don't expect MS to ship badly broken network stuff -- which is
> just my point.  Once again, the example doesn't really fit very well.]

The only examples that fit well by your standards seem to be the items
of discussion themselves, which we haven't seen yet.

I would remind you that it's good to point out the errors in my examples,
but ignoring any good portions of examples is a poor practice.  You may
be passing up information that may be useful.

Please re-read my posts and try to understand the idea I was getting 
accross, and point out the flaws instead, because that type of information
is useful to all of us.  Please also look for valid points.  Nit-picking
my examples to bits is not reall useful, because it doesn't really
explain where the main concept is in error.  Unless you enjoy Nit-Picking,
that is.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 00:46:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.205928.20293@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
...
>>The decision on Microsoft's part to split
>>probably occurred in late 1989 or early 1990.  Long before 2.0 was
>>delivered, and even before the success of Windows 3.0.
>>In fact the large advertising push given to 3.0 was likely in
>>hopes of causing what happened... a succesful independent OX
>>that would enable Microsoft to break with IBM.
>
>Oh yes.  The push for Win 3.0 was designed to force the companies
>apart.  But they didn't say anything about it until early 1991.  In
>other words, they (publicly) kept on supporting OS/2 until it had a
>prayer of success.  Then they pulled the rug out from under those
>developers that were conned into getting the pre-release SDK's.  They
>offered a $69 NT kit instead of refunding their $2600.
>
>Whether they were right or not to pull out has nothing to do with the
>fact that they screwed over their developers who (until then) shared
>MS's (outward) support for the forthcoming OS/2 2.0 product.
>
Sorry, but I'm afraid you mis-remember when MS pulled out of OS/2 2.0.
I doubt you'll refute this source:

Dietal and Kogan The Design of OS/2 2.0: Page 17
	In September of 1990, IBM and Microsoft also announced a change
	in their development relationship: The companies decided to
	discontinue the policy of splitting development responsiblity
	for OS/2 across sites. IBM became solely responsible for the
	development of 16-bit and 32-bit OS/2, while Microsoft continued
	work on advanced OS/2 kernel technology and the Windows system.

As to the developer kit costing $2,600... you PAID that much?
Sheesh.. I certainly wouldn't have.
I wonder if the fact that they had left OS/2 2.0 related to the kit price?
I would assume that their negotiations with IBM would require them
to continue to provide the SDK until IBM had a chance to develop their
own, but there might have been nothing to stop them in pricing
it obnoxiously.

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
University of Utah                             United We Stand
Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Unprofessional Posts from Brian S.
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:30:31 GMT

sl31+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen M. Lacy) writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.os2.advocacy: 12-Oct-92 Re: Unprofessional
>Posts fr.. by Brian Sturgill@jaguar.cs 
>> it with unfounded put downs. I have however been systematically
>> pointing out its flaws, and in general I have meticulously pointed out
>> my sources.  The care I exhibit in this documentation is rarely
>> shown by yourself or other OS/2 advocates.
>> For some odd reason you believe that anyone trying to prove a case
>> that NT is better than OS/2, or that IBM is not handling OS/2 well
>> is inappropriate behavior.  I do not share your opinion.
>
>And we all know that no one writes bug-free software, except for
>Microsoft, of course!  Tell me another one....HA!
>
>Steve
>
>
>"I don't like much really, do I?  But what I do like, I love
>passionately!" -Pet Shop Boys

I strongly believe that IBM has a real winner in their hands. I don't know
the entire story with Mr. Sturgill, but as far as Windows/ Windows NT/ OS/2
goes, currently OS/2 is out on the streets and performs very well. I use
OS/2 on a daily basis. As an ex-Windows user, I can only strongly recommend
anybody to try OS/2 and see what it has to offer. In the beginning I
respected Microsoft Corporation and its employees but after reading 
some of the unprofessional messages coming from Microsoft employees and
the companies dealings with its own developers and software houses
[BusinessWeek, September 1992], I was very disappointed.

As far as Windows NT is concerned, it is not available and most companies
we are associated with, are not interested in running an OS that takes
huge amount of resources. One thing I agree with many users, Microsoft is
pushing companies to buy faster, bigger, more expensive hardware even
though the software they are releasing can be improved dramatically
by spending more time debugging, assembler, optimization.

So far, OS/2 is a winner and we are looking forward on trying the next
release. In a company that runs over 170 servers, realibility is _VERY_
important.

Sincerely,
Mark K.
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 11 Oct 1992 20:52:22 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Oct11.140950.5785@ais.com> bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright) writes:
>I don't entirely understand this thread.

Apparently.
My argument isn't that $69 is a bad price for a developer; my argument is that
a $69 "developer's release" with no developer qualification isn't a
developer's release at all. It's really a beta release, let loose on the
public by MS when the success of OS/2 seriously panicked them, in an effort to
slow OS/2 down. I'd just like MS to admit as much.

-- 
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.
    Vote for a REAL change on 3 November: Throw out the check-bouncing,
  tax-and-spend Democrat Congress! (obviously, not an opinion of UTHSCH)
From: bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 11 Oct 92 14:09:50 GMT
Organization: Applied Information Systems, Chapel Hill, NC

In article <7542@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
> In article <1992Oct09.181614.609@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
> 
>>     OK - don't buy the SDK, then.  The fact that you don't want it
>>doesn't make the release FUD.
> 
> No, but the fact that they're selling it for $69 does.
> 
>>     Of course, a prospective buyer describing a project doesn't mean
>>that the project will ever come to fruition.  A "developer" is a person
>>who develops software, whether or not that software is ever released,
>>or ever completed.  
> 
> ...but the point is that MS doesn't even make that effort. This puts the lie
> to the idea that it's a developer's release.

I don't entirely understand this thread.  There are lots of vendors out
there (both in the PC and workstation market) that won't issue pre-
releases to developers without lots of background checks, and sometimes
not without significant sums of money changing hands.  MS has done this
in the past, and gotten significant negative publicity because of it
(the infamous $2600 OS/2 pre-release development kit for example, also
the pre-releases that they have often give to major developers but that
aren't available to `minor' developers).  Are you saying that this is
preferable?  That you _like_ the paperwork of traditional developer
programs?  This strikes me as an unusual attitude -- the usual developer
attitude towards these developer programs is that they are like roach
motels:  you can check in but you can't check out.  ;-)

$69 for a developer's pre-release is really epsilon compared to even a
small developer's other costs, and avoids all the mess with paperwork
that would be required for a more comprehensive developer's program.
Even if you're a low-level independent consultant (full- or part-time),
$69 is probably less than 2 hours of billable time.  The only conceivable
issue is that it requires a CD-ROM drive ... this may cut out the very
tiniest of shareware developers, but even the extra $500 for a CD-ROM
drive (which could be used for other things as well) won't be very much
of a burden for most real developers.  Think of it as self-selection
rather than vendor-selection.

Bruce C. Wright
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7540 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2438
Organization: Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Vienna, Austria
Date: Friday, 9 Oct 1992 18:17:01 CET
From: FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: MS-ethics: MS-Windows 3.1 - silent upgrades
 <1992Oct4.114442.12346@netcom.com> <92279.171537ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET>
 <1992Oct06.000924.3557@microsoft.com>

It is about the argument that it took IBM 9 months to present Windows 3.1
beta for OS/2 and about Microsoft ethics on Windows 3.1.

Around here in computer clubs people found out that in the meantime, since
the first MS-Windows 3.1 in German appeared, there have been at least five
silent MS-Windows 3.1 upgrades from Microsoft since April 1992 !

This surfaced while discussing situations in which Windows 3.1 would hang.
The conditions and symptoms (for reproducable hangs) were different and
they went to find out whether it was the hardware or a presumable different
Windows 3.1. Guess what. There are different MS-Windows 3.1 versions !

One journalist aproached Steve Ballmer of Microsoft (3 weeks ago, Vienna,
Austria) with the question about how many different "silent upgrades" have
appeared so far. He answered, that he would not know for the German version
of Windows 3.1 and directed the journalist to the German Microsoft guy
(Mr. Wedell).

This means, that people owning MS-Windows 3.1 are owning different versions
of it, some more buggy than others !!!

At the same time it means, that Windows 3.1 code is not stabilized to this
very day. How would IBM be able to produce a stable OS/2-version of
Windows 3.1? They are smart to wait for bug-freer versions from Microsoft.

Now IBM has a beta-version of Windows 3.1 for 32bit-OS/2. Let me tell you,
it is even in the beta-version on par with the DOS-version of Windows 3.1 !

The funny thing though is, that one can ***preemptively*** multitask Windows-
applications by merely starting every Windows-app in its own Windows 3.1 -
session (every Windows 3.1 session may contain as many Windows-apps cooperate-
viley as on a single DOS-Windows 3.1) !! This approach is advisable also for
Windows-applications known to kill Windows 3.1, because under 32bit OS/2
if such a hang appears, one merely closes (kills) that Windows 3.1 - session,
leaving all other Windows-, DOS- and OS/2-sessions alive.

Windows 3.1 for 32bit OS/2 is slated for December.

Any hard-core Windows-user should by then give 32bit OS/2 a try. For them,
it is the best DOS- and Windows-multitasker for PCs available on the market. No
one else, not even Microsoft, has a product which beats it. Imagin, true multi--
tasking of your Windows-apps and the protection earned by an excellent
true operating system !

---rony
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 because! (was NT: Why?)
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:45:58 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1992Oct12.213415.29199@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>      Here we go again with the vaporware debate.  If the OS/2 Win3.1 beta
> is a valid discussion topic, so then is Cairo - neither is released yet,
> but both have some bearing on the future of the product.
>      Which will it be?  Does it have to be shrink-wrapped to be valid?
> 
> 					-Phil
> -- 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
> philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
> Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.


	How can you say that?  Comparing a beta released prodcut
with something that isn't even in alpha yet?  Many users here have
the beta of the windows 3.1 support including myself, not even MS
employees such as yourself have "Cairo".  

				-Brad

=================================
Brad Wardell  **Happy OS/2 2.0 User**
Project Director
Stardock Systems (SDS)
Western Michigan University
=================================


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy