HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: branham@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Tom Branham, Biophysics Grad. Brandeis)
Subject: Re: Hasta la Vista, OS/2
Reply-To: branham@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 01:13:20 GMT

Everyone will have different experiences.  I had a pretty bad system
crash that took a good portion of the hard disk with it a few months
back (in the middle of getting ready for my thesis proposal...talk 
about bad timing....!)  I was running turbo C++ at the time under windows.
BUT I do not blame it on windows or Turbo C++ as after looking pretty closely                                                       
at what happened, how and when and the remneants it became evident
that one of my library files had become corrupted.  If you 
use a system extensiviely then sooner or later it is likely to come up
with a mistake.  This means a poll such as this is not likely to have a whole                
lot of meaning as there a a few more copies of windows out there than
there are OS/2 and lathough this is a an OS2 Discussion group (biasing
the poll in the oppsoite direction) you cannot count on these effects to 
cancel one another.  If you want to really take a good look at it you will
probably need a little more depth to your poll before you can get anything
terribly usefull (then it would be quite interesting though :)
                          ............Tom Branham
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Date: 22 Aug 92 20:50:04 GMT
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway

(I have not seen NT, just read that the following information was
given to developers recently:)

- It will not be possible to run all existing DOS and Windows programs
under NT.

- DOS and Win 3.1 (!) programs that do direct disk access or uses
expansion boards will not run under NT.

- Microsoft will no longer give any release date for NT (What a
surprise - it seems like it is delayed!)

Olav Torvund
Oslo, Norway
Olavt@jus.uio.no
From: AV@vnet.ibm.com (Anton Versteeg)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 15:44:15 CET
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2, DOS, NT (Speculative) -- My Opinions
Reply-To: AV@vnet.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Uithoorn - Netherlands
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 3.0
            <1992Aug19.185043.10918@msi.com>

In <1992Aug19.185043.10918@msi.com> Bill Poitras writes:
>Jay L. Davis (jld@datascope.com) wrote:
>: Well, yes. Except most people don't charge for pre-alpha software.
>: Of course, if people will pay for it, why not? Why are people
>: falling for this? I won't.
>
>1) Alpha or Beta it doesn't matter.  The system boots, can run a 32-bit
>C++ compiler, so developers can compile most code today.  As better and
>better releases come out, more and more of a companies product will
>shape.
>
>2) People (most likely developers) pay for it so they can start building
>thier applications on it.  That way when Windows NT is finally released,
>developers will have applications ready to release.  Microsoft made the
>mistake with Windows 3.0, where there were few applications at Windows
>3.0 release time.  Don't count on them making the same mistake again.
>
>I'm not a fan of Windows NT, but I can see why Microsoft is doing what
>they are.  They are basically doing what workstation vendors do (like
>Silicon Graphics) when they are getting ready to release a new OS, they
>pass it amoung the developers, the people who keep them in business.
>
>--
>+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
>| Bill Poitras    | Molecular Simulations Inc.    | Tel (408)522-9229       |
>| (bill)          | Sunnyvale, CA USA             |                         |
>|                 | FAX (408)732-0831             | bill@msi.com            |
>+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
>
It makes you wonder though why this SDK is so much cheaper than
the OS/2 SDK's MS used to sell for over $1000.

Anton Versteeg - IBM - Uithoorn Netherlands - TEAMOS2 NL
From: gt0059e@prism.gatech.EDU (Garrett Drysdale)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: pc week and nt
Date: 13 Aug 92 01:22:38 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


So Pete, Are you saying that there won't be any bugs in NT.  That
is certainly what you implied by by your statement I misquoted 
(sorry :).  

I noticed that you convienently left out the rest of the message
that I wrote in which the Mis quote appears.  

I really wouldn't feel to bad about the fact that NT will have
bugs in it when it is released.  If it doesn't, it will be the
first major piece of software released (from MS or anybody else
for that matter) that doesn't have bugs.

Garrett
-- 
Garrett Drysdale
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt0059e
Internet: gt0059e@prism.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ekl@fics.uucp
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
Organization: Kvam data as
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 20:51:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.183237.20234@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>
>     Apologies for the vast amounts of quoted text in this one.
>It appears that any time I delete something, it gets totally forgotten
>by anyone responding.
>
>					-Phil

So, how do you expect us to keep .advocacy alive, when we cannot forget
the starting point, and put flaming responses on the net?

;-)

Eirik
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: CIVENBAH@mizzou1.missouri.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of users etc.
Date: 16 Aug 92 04:25:05 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri

In article <1992Aug15.143047.11306@actrix.gen.nz>
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
 
>> same time, I got both so that I could compare them.  I did.  I now use
>> Win3.1.  OS/2 just felt too 'rough' with it's many missing details and lack
>> of things like SVGA drivers, printer drivers, etc.... Windows still gets the
>> job done admirably well considering all the shortcomings it has (which are
>> pointed out again and again by every OS/2 user alive, it seems.)"
>
>We sell Trident SVGA video cards, so SVGA support hasn't been a problem for
>our customers. We sell "normal" printers.....all of which are supported by
>OS/2 (ANY printer with an Epson emulation is catered for, as are any printers
>with HP emulations......plus over 100 others).
 
Well, my Diamond SpeedStar doesn't work too well with OS/2...  My printer is
fairly "normal", it's a DeskJet+.  Supposedly the LaserJet or Epson drivers
will work with it.  I've tried them, and they're a bit slow, but they don't
work well, so I guess they're not all bad....  :)
 
>If you want a stable, multi-tasking OS, then OS/2 wins hands down. But, you
>obviously *like* Windows. That's fine. I don't. No accounting for taste.
 
I'd like a stable, multi-tasking OS.  Windows comes close.  So does OS/2.
I have to use the one which supports my hardware and has applications
available.  It's not a matter of taste, it's a matter of getting the job
done.
 
Brian.
From: SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R. Platzke)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: superVGA  (and misc top-blowing)
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:59:30 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network

In article <1992Aug13.080540.17580@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
>Subject: Re: superVGA  (and misc top-blowing)
>Date: 13 Aug 92 08:05:40 GMT

>In article <1992Aug12.125401.18428@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jensen.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>> 
>> beta.  Borland said at the NT developers conference that they will
>> have the NT version out within 2 months of NT's release.

>That should sometime in September next year then......go on! Hold your breath!
> 
Come on, every indication is that NT will be available in early 93.  Or maybe
they could release a beta version in December of 92 without DOS or Windows
16 or OS/2 1.3 support and just sell it as an LA release.  Then they could
promise to have OS/2 2.0 support out in a month or two and delay it until 
September.  :-o


>You said it was shame that you had to buy the hardware to run an OS. I 
assume
>you have a 486/50 with 16megs of RAM and a 200 meg hard drive sitting 
around
>for NT. 
> 

Please....

>Or you can run OS/2 2.0 on a 386sx/20MHz with 6 megs of RAM.
> 
>I saw NT today. *BOW WOW* If that's a desktop system, then MVS/XA is the next
>step for the desktop!
> 

Remember, you were looking at a pre-beta release

>Steve


-Michael R. Platzke (sxmrp@orca.alaska.edu)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: pc week and nt
Date: 14 Aug 92 09:38:55 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <19920813104812CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU> CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (CSYSPCN) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.221342.21192@microsoft.com>, on 12 Aug 92 22:13:42 GMT,
>petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>
>>                                   Why are y'all complaining that MS dropped
>>you, when in truth, MS said that since MS and IBM couldn't get along any more
>>IBM's getting the "kid", so you are going to have to go to IBM for your
>>support of OS/2.
>>
>
>Because they didn't deliver on their contratural obligations on the
>SDK, and they took OS/2 support out of their language offerings.
>
>Sounds like actively dropping support to me.

IBM was supposed to pick up such support (which they did).  Were'nt you
listening?

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: European Academic Research Network (EARN)
Date: Thursday, 13 Aug 1992 11:43:48 GMT
From: Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
 <1992Aug06.182611.16955@microsoft.com>
 <1992Aug7.033623.20824@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
 <1992Aug07.183833.16002@microsoft.com>

Does ANYONE have an unbiased text of the origins of MS-IBM drift?
All I know is the nasty attitude of MS towards OS/2 and IBM in
general, but something must have triggered that... I never quite
understood why they sold it to IBM in the first place, either.
Perhaps a such text can be put into the FAQ ??

Regards, -turgut
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: superVGA
Date: 13 Aug 92 08:14:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.160426.27444@njitgw.njit.edu>, dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
|> Note that only the Trident boards have seamless Windows drivers at the
|> higher resolutions.

What, STILL only 1 third party seamless driver??!! OS/2 2.0 has been in Beta
since January, it was released at the start of April, and it's now the
middle of August. What have the board manufactures been doing all this time?

Some of the same board manufacturers already have NT drivers for their cards.

It makes you think, doesn't it ...

	Tim.

Tim Glauert, Olivetti Research Limited,		|	thg@cam-orl.co.uk
24a Trumpington Street, Cambridge, England.	|	+44   223  343232
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: OS count, anyone?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:55:23 GMT

In <1992Aug12.014059.712@nuscc.nus.sg> eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (TAN JIN MENG) writes:

>dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>: 
>: Let's see here.  Currently released OS's out are:
>:     MS-DOS 5.0  (with or without Windows 3.1)
>:     OS/2 2.0
>:     OS/2 1.3 (it can still be gotten - for all you '286 owners who
>:               want to use 16-bit PM apps)
>:     Unix (many dialects from various companies)
>:     Mach (with it's BSD unix kernel)
>: 
>: "Coming soon" OS's:
>:     Solaris (Sun-OS Unix for the 386)

>I thought this was out already. Minimum req. (I think) are :
>	8 MB RAM and 200MB Harddisk

Not out yet.  Last REALISTIC recommendations I saw said 16 MB of
memory. 

>: DesqView/X is (essentially) DesqView/386 with an X-windows interface.
>: It lets you do the following:
>:    Connected to a Unix box, you can run X apps on it, using your PC as
>:       the display.
>:    Run PC apps remotely, using your desktop as the display.
>:    Multitask local PC apps.  (DOS, Windows 3.0, maybe Win-3.1)
>: 
>:    PS: DesqView/X now has a TCP/IP networking module available.  I saw
>:        it in an ad last week.  This makes it useable in the Unix world.

>The latest BYTE has a review on DQV/X. One of the points was that DQV/X
>is most usable with UNIX networks.

Yeah, if you're willing to spend a bunch of extra money to get the
TCP/IP stack from FTP Software (for example) and a Window Manager
(plus whatever 'shim' is required between DV/X and TCP/IP.  If you go
with retail prices, this comes in at around $700-$800.  Cheaper with
discounts for prior ownership, etc., of course.  Too much, in my
opinion.  They missed the window.

If IBM can get the TCP/IP X package for OS/2 to act as an X client and
keep the price in the vicinity it is in now, I think that will be the
death knell for DV/X.


-- 
"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: ekl@fics.uucp
Subject: Re: Distributed Systems (was: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift)
Organization: Kvam data as
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:34:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.063621.3768@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.021516.28359@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>> Well, I'd like to use technology a little more advanced.  286 machines
>>> are getting quite cheap these days.  They run windows.
>>
>>Well, I like to use technology a little more advanced - all *mine*
>>run OS/2.  :-)
>
>Mine run NT ;) 
>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...
>
>

Your 286's run NT ??? You've gotta be kidding! (Or are we experencing
a new version of PETE.EXE that also process incoming posts ;-)

Eirik
My opinions, manipulated throuch PETE.EXE (TM)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: MS Gave Up (Was Re: pc week and nt)
Date: 16 Aug 92 06:15:37 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Aug14.195641.5478@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
>
>Pete, 
>
>God damn it, Microsoft never put up a fight to keep OS/2.  They just tried
>to drop it in the middle of the Windows excitment and pretend they never
>knew the poor bastard.  I cannot believe that you don't think that Microsoft
>abandoned OS/2 when you stopped all development on it, refused to continue
>development on nearly finished apps (ala visual basic for OS/2),
>and stopped honoring the $1600 development kits that Microsoft gave out.
>Microsoft dropped OS/2 in mid stride and without a second thought,
>especially considering some of the quotes that Bill Gates made about
>the product circa 1987.

Ahhh, excuse me, were you there.  Were you in any of the meetings about
the settlement, or the handing of OS/2 over to IBM.  Let's just say that
those were not exactly happy times for those of us who put work into OS/2.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
Date: 11 Aug 92 18:09:31 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Aug11.011810.14276@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) writes:
>
>BIOS is a device interface.  (No, it's not a hardware app :)

Just like an OS/2 device driver.
>
>BIOS allows an OS/OE/app/whatever a way to use a device without
>knowing all the details of controlling that device.

Sort of.
>
>Hardware -> BIOS -> DOS -> TD386 -> TD -> app
>
>Hardware -> BIOS -> DOS -> TF386 -> TPROF -> app
>
>Hardware -> BIOS -> DOS -> Windows (etc.) -> app

BALK!!!!
Just for fairness, I'm going to alter this a bit.

Hardware -> BIOS -> Device Drivers -> MAIN OS -> app

This works for OS/2 and Windows.   OS2 uses things like the
HPFS driver, etc.   WINDOWS uses things like DOS for the FILESYSTEM.
Windows doesn't go through DOS for things like Memory Management, or
Process Management.  And if y'all scream saying that Windows uses an
external Memory Manager, I'm going to smirk and say that the more advanced
versions of MACH use an installable memory manager too.



>
>>petesk@microsoft.com
>>My Opinions....or was that Onions.
>
>Naw...  it's *my* onions, and *your* garlic.
>

petesk@microsoft.com
Could we put Green Onions and Italian Sausage on that too?

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: Windows NT 'Alpha'
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 19 Aug 1992 11:32 EST  

In article <1992Aug17.232651.23471@tamsun.tamu.edu>, bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce 
Dubbs) writes...

>Please, let's call the Windows NT Beta what it is.

No problem.  Just let us know when the NT Beta is released.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: Re: HPFS question
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:12:16 GMT

> jvmg9796@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (doc) writes:
>> Im sorry if this is not the right group to post this in, but I would like
>> to know what the advantages of the HPFS are (and the disadvantages).

Faster, long filenames, more resistant to fragmentation...

ignacij@meishan.animal.uiuc.edu (Ignacy Misztal) writes:
> 1. FAT partition cannot access >1024 cylinders, i.e., 508 Mbytes,

Sorry, not true.  My home machine runs MS-DOS 5.0 (FAT only :), and it's using
the full capacity of my Micropolis 660 MB ESDI drive.  Of course, your
controller (WD1009 in this case) has to be clever enough...   :)

Someday I expect to convert the disk to either HPFS or NTFS, though, and
reclaim the approximately 100 MB wasted by the 8 KB FAT cluster size.  But
not quite yet...

[ \tom haapanen  | "only bullfighting, mountain climbing and motor racing are ]
[ tomh@wes.on.ca |  sports -- all others are only games" -- ernest hemingway  ]
[ waterloo engineering software |     "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
From: jstewart@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hasta la Vista, OS/2
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:55:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: desire.1992Aug19.125537.3614
Organization: Wright State University

In article <5919@gemini.cs.nps.navy.mil>, rdixon@gemini.cs.nps.navy.mil (robert dixon) writes:
> 
>   I guess I'm posting this to document some OS/2 2.0 problems as well
> as to blow off some steam. I was an OS/2 fan until about six hours
> ago, when it decided to trash the DOS partition of my hard disk.
> 
>   I was running an old lotus clone when I got a trap, my first
> legitimate OS/2 crash. Rebooted, reran the same operation, same trap.
> Then I ran CHKDSK on the drive, only to find something like 1500
> disassociated file chains comprising about half the stuff on my DOS
> partition.
> 
>   I'm sure it was probably an old BIOS, or something the program
> decided to do that wasn't strictly kosher, and I don't necessarily
> mind the system crash. That goes with the territory in an operating
> system that is as big as OS/2. I could put up with the sluggish
> performance of the Workplace shell, because it was really neat. I
> could put up with not being able to back up the whole HPFS partition while
> the shell was running, and having to boot from a floppy to run CHKDSK
> on it.
> 
>   I can't put up with an operating system that trashes my hard disk
> during a system crash. I really dislike Windows, but at least it never
> repaid my disdain by eating subdirectories.
> 
>   So, it's back to DOS, and I can multitask during downloads only by
> using two computers, but at least I don't have to look over my
> shoulder for the next "gotcha".
> 
>   I'll be back when 2.1, or the next stable OS/2 release comes out. I
> think it was Dvorak or somebody who said that you should always wait
> for the X.1 release, after all the X.0 bugs have been fixed. Seems
> like good advice.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Dixon                          "My opinions may not necessarily
> Low-Life Grad Student,              be my own . . ."
> Naval Postgraduate School,
> Monterey, CA                        rdixon@cs.nps.navy.mil
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

	Just a note here:  I've had similar problems with win 3.0(I never
bought 3.1 so no idea if it's still a problem.)  I like torturing equipment
so I used to run lots of copies of differant apps under windows get it really
thrashing:).  I'd say 1 in 10 times the machine would crasha and blow away some
part of the file system. (the other 8 in 10 it would crash but not blow away
the file system, and I don't think I was using a permanent swap file.)

	As to the person with the problems, were you running FAT or HPFS if you
were running FAT i'd say running HPFS would porbably get rid of whatever
tendency it has to wreck disks.  I myself have had no porblems with it, even
with my torturing penchant:)

					John Stewart
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: is NT really NEW technology?
Date: 14 Aug 92 09:56:38 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Keywords: NT Unix OS2 DOS Blither

I didn't include the article about whether NT is really New Technology
'cause it was rather long...

1) I never said that NT couldn't user dumb terminals.
2) I never said that the Clients must be NT machines,
   in fact, simple windows machines are good.
3) You will never see "NEW" technology unless you work in a research
   station.  The "NEW" in NT is in the context of the market that it
   is targeted for.  You may be able to find some of the features in
   X or UNIX, but to get them all, you really have to go out of your
   way.  If you have a UNIX system with X, various DOS/WINDOWS/WHATEVER
   emulators, I want to see you act as the MIS person.  Try managing
   a number of these stations.

4) If you have questions about compatability, read the portion about
   LAN communications in the release notes, especiall the part about
   Protocols.


You say that NT will lose because UNIX and X can do a lot of the things
that NT can do, well, I say it's the other way around.  NT can do the
things UNIX and X can do, and MORE!!!  (blatant advertisement just
to fan the flames ;)

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy