HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 10:30:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.233432.27395@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>I doubt seriously that OS/2 1.X's main problem was poor DOS support.
>OS/2 1.X had many, many problems.  It was designed for 286's but
>required huge amounts of resources (1.3 was an exception, but OS/2 by
>then had a bad rep... and there was Windows 3.0).  It was buggy.  It
>was slow.  It had no applications base.  It was highly proprietary and
>cost a lot.  It ran (or so most everybody believed) only on IBM's
>over-priced, under-powered hardware.

Gee, required huge amounts of resources, buggy, slow, no applications
base, poor DOS support.  That sounds a lot like Windows.  And we all
know Windows 3.0 flopped because it had improved DOS boxes.  OS/2 1.3
(retail $150) had more than Windows 3.0 did except multiple DOS boxes
and wide press coverage.  Which one did better in the market?
-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu | think of something very clever 
uunet!jarthur!jokim         | to use as a disclaimer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: smetaniuk@dsp.trl.oz (Bohdan Smetaniuk)
Subject: The Numbers Game
Reply-To: smetaniuk@dsp.trl.oz
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 08:52:21 GMT


I found an interesting article in a recent edition of the Australian computer
magazine "Pacific Computer Weekly". In discussing the numbers being quoted
by IBM and Microsoft for the sales of OS/2 and Windows the following points
were made:

* When Microsoft recently claimed that it had sold 16 million copies of
Windows, it had counted an upgrade as two copies (i.e. it counted both the
original 3.0 version and the new 3.1 version).

* According to Microsoft VP Paul Maritz, there is a six month lag in the 
royalty payments by IBM to Microsoft for sales of OS/2. As a result, any
claim IBM makes now can only be verified by Microsoft in six months time.

This last point raises an interesting issue. If Microsoft don't actually
know the true OS/2 figures at the time when IBM releases them then why are they
so quick to dispute them? This is worth remembering when IBM announces that
two million copies of OS/2 have been sold in a couple of months time. This
announcement will undoubtably be met with scepticism from Microsoft and the
OS/2-bashers.


Bohdan Smetaniuk
<std. disclaimer>
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: 32-bit OS/2 Apps List
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:08:09 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

Joseph Malloy writes:

>Okay, will all those who are forced to use Windows 1.x and 2.x apps
>whether because of poverty (can't afford to upgrade) or because there's
>no alternative and for whom the app won't run under 3.x please raise
>your hands?

>I don't see any hands, folks...
Well, actually I am running CorelDraw for 2.0 under OS/2 2.0. But I have
to admit I am no serious CorelDraw user.

MS FORCED people to upgrade their apps. A very good business trick since
most major Windows apps were MS apps. They made Windows 3.0 cheap, much
cheaper than the needed upgrades. This means any serious Windows user,
being forced to trade his apps, will not have much Win 2.0 apps left.

IBM has done a much better job (they had to, if they really wanted
to is another matter) being compatible with much more environments
than Win31+DOS is. And maybe, from a DOS viewpoint, the same will
aply for NT vs OS/2 in the future.

>Joe

Nico E. de Vries  (nevries@cc.ruu.nl) |------------------*   AA   III  PPP
_ This text is supplied AS IS, no warranties of any kind |  A  A   I   P  P
| apply. No rights can be derived from this text. This   |  AAAA   I   PPP
| text is likely to contain spelling and grammar errors. |  A  A   I   P
*---------------------------( Donate to GreenPeace! )----*  A  A  III  P

"The IBM PC is still waiting for a version of the CP/M OS.", G.M. Vose, 1982.
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 11 Oct 92 01:06:14 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Oct7.163851.12719@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de>, ch@sg1502.chemie.
uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>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.

When Win32 starts hitting it big, come and get me.  Until then your
point is moot.  NT will need to be released before it will have any validity.
>
>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.

The last half of this paragraph is gibberish, (massive quantities of typos)
mind clarifying.

>
>Christoph
>--
>Internet: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de
>BITNET: HAMPE2@DMRHRZ11
>Fido: 2:243/660
>
-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:31:55 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct07.185046.532@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>>     How can a person prove that they are a developer?
>>
>>Is _any_ qualification being done on folks who call up and order the SDK/beta?
>>Even as little as a description of the product they're working on?
>
>      Why should there be?

To keep non-develpers out.  If it's a developer's release, you
certainly don't want reviewers and hackers getting into your
pre-release code.  Especially when it gives them a free upgrade to the
released product.
-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: db3l@ans.net (David Bolen)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:17:26 GMT
	<1992Oct11.202032.10171@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
	<1992Oct12.205606.11487@fics.uucp>
	<1992Oct12.184007.25989@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Organization: Advanced Network & Services, Inc. - Elmsford, NY

In article <1992Oct12.184007.25989@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>In article <1992Oct12.205606.11487@fics.uucp> ekl@fics.uucp writes:
>>In article <1992Oct11.202032.10171@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>>
>>>OS/2 requires more disk than the current pre-beta does.
>>>
>>
>>On my C-drive, Windows NT occupies 37 megabytes of disk, plus a swapfile
>>which is set to the minimum size of 20 MB. I don't know how much your
>>installation of NT occupy, but it doubt it is less than os/2.
>
>Strange... I show 32 megs for my \winnt directory, and 33 megs for
>my \os2 directory.
>Note the NT figure includes its networking... my \tcpip directory
>under OS/2 takes another 6 megs... so I feel quite comfortable saying
>that NT currently uses less space.  The commercial release may requite
>a bit more than OS/2, but not substantially so.
>
>As to swap... currently an oddity in booting is what makes you require
>that 20 megs... this will go away later.

Let's stay apples to apples and not change.  Your original quote said OS/2
requires more than the *current pre-beta*.

Now, even using your figures:

   OS/2        = 33MB
   OS/2 TCP/IP = 6MB
   -----------------
   Total       = 39MB


   WinNT     = 32MB
   WinNTSwap = 20MB
   ----------------
   Total     = 52MB


Even with your figures I don't seen how your original statement holds.
I don't care if the 20MB swap space is an "oddity in booting".  You
require it for the "current pre-beta" of Windows NT, so your statement
includes it.  And as for the TCP/IP - remember that the OS/2 version
includes a bunch of servers that I don't believe NT has, right?

Frankly, I don't care whether OS/2 or Windows NT (pre-beta or not)
takes more disk space.  At the moment, that doesn't impact me at all.
However, if you are going to say something, and then try to back up
your statement in response to someone else, don't change things just
to support your point.  Your statement dealt with the pre-beta, not
with what "will go away later".

--
-- David
--
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
 \              David Bolen             \  Internet: db3l@ans.net      /
  |   Advanced Network & Services, Inc.   \   Phone: (914) 789-5327   |
 / 100 Clearbrook Road, Elmsford, NY 10523  \   Fax: (914) 789-5310    \
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7607 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2462
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS-ethics: MS-Windows 3.1 - silent upgrades
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:10:18 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

In <gT1LsB5w165w@gnct.com> garyng@gnct.com (garyng) writes:

>> 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.

>don't be too sure about that, currently I am encountering problems that a simpleDOS problem(well netbios.exe from NOVELL, it is not that simple) can hang
>the whole machine.

This is a known problem and fixes are available from NOVELL for this problem.
Using the netware requester is recomended BTW.

>One of the claims which annoying me is that saying OS2 is 32bit protected mode
>OS, so you don't have to worry about one VDM session affects the others. It
>is not true(at least to my experience).

OS/2 2.0 is certainly not perfect. Most ordinary programs, and even most self
made bug-ridden development stuff, are not capable of crashing OS/2. Some
programs (especially those nuking the hardware etc) are capable of anoying
OS/2 or even sometimes crashing it. 

>-gary

Nico E. de Vries  (nevries@cc.ruu.nl) |------------------*   AA   III  PPP
_ This text is supplied AS IS, no warranties of any kind |  A  A   I   P  P
| apply. No rights can be derived from this text. This   |  AAAA   I   PPP
| text is likely to contain spelling and grammar errors. |  A  A   I   P
*---------------------------( Donate to GreenPeace! )----*  A  A  III  P

"The IBM PC is still waiting for a version of the CP/M OS.", G.M. Vose, 1982.
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 sales momentum, Paul Leach, DCE, etc.
Date: 11 Oct 92 18:27:49 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Oct10.171049.10536@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, rwalker@next02.cc.umanitob
a.ca. (Robert Walker) writes:
>I recently read a small item, in PC Magazine, which indicated that the
>folks at Microsoft are quite shaken up, or words to that effect, by the
>ever increasing momentum of OS/2. How are sales of OS/2 going these days ?
>The word from the sales-people at one of our local super-stores is "see
>that empty bin over there, thats were you'll find OS/2 when we're not sold
>out". They eagerly claim utter amazement at the rate of movement. Of couse
>nobody is suggesting it's outselling Windows. I would imagine things at
>MicroSoft should be quite upbeat, at the very least in accounting.

I would say they are going much better than could be expected given the shoddy
marketing job that IBM is doing.  At the stores near me as well they are
selling quite rapidly.  OS/2 has gotten onto a number of best seller lists
although somewhat soradically.  I would expect to see that continue.  This is
panicking MS though.  They are a virtual monopoly on the x86 platform, and
OS/2 is the first serious competitor.  It one ups all their current shipping
products, and all they have to counter it is a still in
alpha/pre-beta/beta/whatever-is-really-is OS which really is meant for
workstations as much as or more than for the x86 platform.  MS has reason to
be worried and they are doing everything in their power to convince people not
to try it.  The don't want to lose their monopoly and who can blame them?
>
>Does anybody know Paul Leach of NCS (Network Computing System) fame ? What
>is he up to these days ? I thought I read some time ago where he had moved
>from HP to MicroSoft. For those of you interested, I've seen OSF's DCE
>(Distributed Computing Environment nee: NCS) running under OS/2. As far as
>I'm aware this is not commercially available. Whatever dominates the
>proverbial corporate desktop should run DCE, in my estimation, because
>it's a no brainer. But you do need a wee 'bit o brain' to understand the
>architecture behind it. Paul was way ahead of his time.
>
>___Bob
>

-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7409 comp.os.msdos.desqview:3357
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.msdos.desqview
Subject: DV: a preemptive multitasker (was Re: Don't Compare with Amiga!)
Date: 11 Oct 1992 15:27:20 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.msdos.desqview
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Oct10.223900.5743@gw.wmich.edu> x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
[about DV, being preemptive or non-preemptive]
>	This is incorrect, Desqview aware programs alone are capable of
>telling DV that it doesn't need time but the processor still switches
>to it and has to be told this.  DV is cooperative not preemptive, it
>is just a lot better at it than Windows and has the ability of acting
>almost preemptive which windows programs parently do not do.

Sorry. DV will multitask programs that know nothing about DV. I know, because
I do it all day. Under a cooperative multitasker (such as Windows), the
applications program must explicitly tell the multitasker to switch processes
while the program isn't doing I/O if it wants to give up control of the
processor and let something else run for a bit. DV will switch away from such
a task, whether or not the task has told it to...this is called "preemption".
This is what makes preemptive multitasking such a Good Thing: even poorly
written programs will still be multitasked, and this can be achieved
transparently.

(This is straying from comp.os.os2.advocacy; DV-only posts should go to
comp.os.msdos.desqview. Please pay attention to the Newsgroups: line if
following up.)
-- 
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: FAGER@gribb.hsr.no (Fagerland, Svein      94/96)
Subject: FTP / TELNET Software for OS/2 2.x
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 09:10:39 GMT


I am currently running OS/2 2.01 beta and novell netware. This is really a 
great combination, *BUT* i need to do FTP and Telnet also, which I 
understand is not possible at this time.

SO what I an looking for is:

FTP software for, or compatible with OS/2 2.x
Telnet software -------------"--------------

Are there also any news readers for OS/2 2.x ( I can only run PMAIL in a dos 
box at this moment ).

THANKS IN ADVANCE !

 Svein Fagerland * HSR Stavanger Norway * Running OS/2 2.01b
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:48:22 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct7.193113.14353@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>
>DOS and WIN16 support is not working quite well, but consider DOS support
>is based on Insignia Soft-PCs, which are quite perfect on MACs, SGIs, etc.
>I really don't mean DOS and WIN16, when I say Goodies. If you want only
>DOS and WIN16 support, then OS/2 2.0 is the right thing for you.

Well, that's quite obvious.  If you don't want NT support, then get OS/2.  
-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: Don't Compare with Amiga!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 08:32:40 GMT

In <PSHUANG.92Oct12231027@m66-080-17.mit.edu> pshuang@athena.mit.edu (Ping Huang) writes:

>However, just because there *EXISTS* a system call in Desqview that
>allows Desqview-aware programs to give up the CPU does not mean that
>Desqview is not preemptively multitasking. It *IS* preemptive, when used
>with QEMM-386 (or on a 286 with LIM EMS 4.0 memory or equivalent in
>hardware).

A minor clarification--DESQview *is* preemptive, even if you run it on
an XT with only 640k.  I know, because I have a (perhaps crazy) friend
who used to do exactly this.  The only disadvantage of this setup is
that you can only run as many programs as will fit into memory--average
is probably 1.2.  :-)  Still, with a tiny comm program (e.g. {Commo}),
you can download in the background on an XT, and have a fully functional
DOS box with somewhere between 384-512k free in the foreground.

In fact, since you can run Windoze under DESQview, the DOS+Win+DV combo
is actually a very reasonable alternative to OS/2 for people who
primarily run Windows programs.  OC, it costs a lot more to get all that
software, but such is life.  It does run in a lot less memory.  Although
it doesn't provide virtual memory.  But it does have better DOS
compatibility.
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sam@ms.uky.edu (Mike Mills)
Subject: Re: Multiuser
    <1992Oct07.210012.4348@microsoft.com> <1992Oct8.15852.11153@ms.uky.edu> 
    <1992Oct08.184554.29579@microsoft.com> <1992Oct8.212251.22488@ms.uky.edu> 
    <1992Oct9.015246.14604@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 04:05:49 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>(NT equivalent of "root").  At UK, when you su to root, it asks
>"Who are you?", it asks this because Unix gives you only one
>privileged account... that with uid 0, traditionally called "root".
>And it uses your response to allow you to have your own root "dot" files.

>(Don't look so shocked... I know that at UK it asks "Who are you?" as
>_I'm_  the one that added that feature to the root's .login several
>years ago when I was system admin there.)

I knew the name was right, but I didn't know that the person posting to
this group was really YOU!  I'll be darn, its a small world.

Well, since I've heard good things about you, I trust you to know what
you're talking about better now.  Just wish you were on the other side
of the fence ;^)

>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! :-))


-- 
--Mike Mills              E-Mail:  sam@ms.uky.edu, {rutgers, uunet}!ukma!sam
--UK Math Sciences Dept.                  mike@ukpr.uky.edu    
--(606) 257-1429 (work) 263-0721 (home)
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: my earlier post about an unprofessional letter from IBM.
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:18:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: fcom.1992Oct7.181820.9644
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Originator: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu


I just got e-mail from John Soyring saying the letter had been corrected.
(And apologizing for the letter.)
That's pretty fast!

Thanks to whomever passed it on to him.

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: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: 32-bit OS/2 Apps List
Date: 13 Oct 92 10:40:54 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

In <1992Oct13.011342.22239@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn) writes:

>>If you are comparing Windows 3.x apps against OS/2 2.0 apps. I believe one
>>have to count out all the OS2 1.x apps. to make it fair.
>>
>>-gary

>In that case, shouldn't you count Windows 2.x and even 1.x apps, too?

Actually Win 2.0 apps SHOULD be counted for OS/2 2.0 (since it can
run them) but NOT for Windows 3.1. 

>Min

Nico E. de Vries  (nevries@cc.ruu.nl) |------------------*   AA   III  PPP
_ This text is supplied AS IS, no warranties of any kind |  A  A   I   P  P
| apply. No rights can be derived from this text. This   |  AAAA   I   PPP
| text is likely to contain spelling and grammar errors. |  A  A   I   P
*---------------------------( Donate to GreenPeace! )----*  A  A  III  P

"The IBM PC is still waiting for a version of the CP/M OS.", G.M. Vose, 1982.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy