HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 05:43:41 GMT

In article <8271@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec31.033739.1912@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> >*sigh* If you want to be a dealer of McDonald's burgers you have to sign a
|> >deal with McDonald's not to sell Whoppers.  Is McDonald's liscencing
|> >agreements "sleezy and underhanded?"  Is this "strongarming Wendy's out of
|> >business?"  Is this putting the Colonel at an "unfair competitive
|> >disadvantage?"  Should sheriff FTC round up a possie on the Ponderosa?
|> 
|> YABA! (Yet another bogus analogy!)
|>
|> If you want to be a dealer of McDonald's burgers, you agree to represent
|> yourself to the public as McDonald's. Selling a Whopper from a McDonald's
|> restaurant would be extremely confusing to the public.
|> 
|> In contrast, when Zeos agreed to bundle DOS and Windows with all machines they
|> sold, they didn't magically become "Microsoft Computers, Inc.".

OK, I'll play along for a minute.  If Microsoft _did_ "force" the cloners
to change their names to "Microsoft Computers, Inc." in order to sell MS-DOS
would that make their liscenses all of a sudden "unsleazy" in your eyes?
If Microsoft offered the cloners the same deal as McDonald's did to its 
franchisee's would you be satisfied?

|> Next? Or are you going to actuially argue the issue of MS' sleazy practices
|> for once?

I don't see them as being any "sleazier" than McDonald's practices--in fact
the agreements which Microsoft offers are much less exclusive than what
Microsoft offers--therefore if its OK for McDonald's to do what they do it is
even more OK for Microsoft to do what they do.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 04:08:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.214057.5756@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu> rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:

>I think you should dabble a bit more in economics.  MS has had ZERO to
>do with the down-pricing of computers.  They have had little to
>do with OS's, also.  DOS was a hack, procured from another company
>which in turn borrowed it from a third.  The most major change was
>the 'UNIX-ification' of DOS, i.e., they borrowed heavily from another
>OS.  NT will be the first truly MS-written OS.  Even that has
>borrowed heavily from others (Mach from CMU, etc.).

I do not care if DOS was a hack or not. The point is that it was 
_needed_ by people to operate their computers, and MS was the only
company that provided it to them by the time they needed it. 

How come that no other company produced an equivalent of WIN 3.0 before MS ?
I do not say that WIN 3.0 is necessarily an outstanding technical 
achievement. What I say is that MS were the first to provide people
with what they need to do their work. 

Why is it that people has taken for granted for years that only 
MS is capable of providing developers with APIs, and watched 
every word that come out from BG ? Only in 1991
IBM challenged that assumption. Why did not they challenge it a lot
earlier ? 

Dov
From: lowey@jester.usask.ca (CrazyMan)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 3 Jan 1993 04:54:22 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
NNTP-Posting-Host: jester.usask.ca
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]

Phil Lafornara (philipla@microsoft.com) wrote:
: 
:      Source code at Microsoft goes through a fairly rigorous review
: process - it's unlikely that something "cute" or "funny" would
: make it into a final product.
:      And, note again that we're talking about a _beta_ product.

Ah yes, Microsoft would NEVER slam a competetor's product with a "cute" or
"Funny" bit in their code.  Nothing like, say, have a Word Perfect dragon
crushed by a MS-Word logo ....

- Kevin Lowey (Lowey@Sask.USask.CA)
>>>>> Anonymous FTP to FTP.USASK.CA for DOS, OS/2, and Windows programs <<<<<
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Be more creative than the FTC!
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:39:18 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

In <1992Dec20.220753.1755@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

>Why don't Novel, Lotus, et al, find a more creative solution to their problem
>than just using the FTC as a club against Microsoft?  Here are some better
>alternatives:

They are not "just using the FTC". They are trying to make better apps as well.
In case of Novell, they are also trying to stop MS from stealing their
software.

>1.  Form a consortium with Digital Research (who makes DR DOS, a fully
>    compatible MS DOS clone) to make a Windows 3.x clone.

DR is working on a Windows clone for ages now. Perhaps it will never
arive. In the meantime SUN and NextSTEP have running Win31 clones and
DesqView and OS/2 2.0 are capable of running Windows itsself.

>2.  Better yet, stop developing for Windows/Dos until Microsoft does what
>    they want it to.  Power plays go both ways.  At this point Microsoft's
>    biggest nightmare would be if all of the big software houses dumped
>    Windows and Windows NT and started developing for OS/2 and Unix.

If the big guyes would do that they might lose much market share to MS
and some new conpanies hoping to get the place of the big guyes.

>3.  Cut special deals with PC clone vendors who don't bundle MS-DOS/windows.
>    If they bundle OS/2, give them discount versions of Lotus 123 for
>    OS/2 or Novel for OS/2.

Smart idea, actually IBM is working on this one.

>4.  Charge higher prices for Windows versions of their software than for
>    OS/2, Mac, or UNIX versions.  

Many already charge more for Win than for DOS. Expect them to ask even more
for OS/2 2.0 or NT BTW.

>If Windows 3.x wasn't being supported by software developers, it would be
>going nowhere.  If other software companies don't like the way that 
>Microsoft plays, then they don't have to play with Microsoft.  There are
>other games in town.

No. MS has the cards here and (for now) determines how the game is played.
What COULD happen is that they make fools of themselves with NT (they
have failed on Access already, they might make the same mistake on NT)
while IBM is gaining market share with a more and more solid produkt.


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

To get (many) ==> LOSSLESS DATA COMPRESSION SOURCES <== get lds_10.zip at 
garbo.uwasa.fi /pc/programming. Make files for Borland C are included. 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison)
Subject: Re: MS advertising OS/2 products again???
Keywords: Microsoft Mail
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:31:04 GMT

In article <laird.725598461@stable.ecn.purdue.edu> laird@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) writes:
>I was just looking through an old issue of PC Magazine (Nov. 24, 1992)
>and noticed that Microsoft is advertising Mail for MS Windows, MS DOS,
>Mac, and OS/2.
>
>Just struck me as funny.  Are they improving/supporting any of their
>other products for OS/2 (besides LAN Manager)?
>
>--kyler
Sadly, not even Lan Manager, the ad I just looked at was specific about
OS/2 1.x, not 2.x....<sigh>
--Lowell Morrison
--Uncle Wolf


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:21:02 GMT

In article <8251@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec30.180456.26228@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> >What Microsoft is doing with the clone makers is really just another example of
|> >the trendy new concept in purchasing called "Just in time" purchasing.  The idea
|> >is that instead of having 3 or 4 suppliers for one of your components, you
|> >form a long-term relationship with a trusted supplier who will be your only
|> >source.  You save money because instead of having to keep an inventory of
|> >all of your supplies you're supplier will ship to you exactly what you need
|> >exactly when you need it.

|> >This "just in time" is spreading like wildfire because it saves money and makes
|> >manufacturers more efficient.  EVERYBODY is doing it, not just Microsoft.
|> 
|> Everyone who sells physical inventory is doing it, and it is indeed a Good
|> Thing.

I'm glad you agree that it is a Good Thing.  But will you agree that the kind 
of deals which are cut between the supplier and customer of physical
inventory arn't any less "anticompetitive" than are the deals which Microsoft 
cuts with the cloners?   Are you in favor of the FTC outlawing Just In Time
inventory control?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: laird@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird)
Subject: Re: MS to 'support' OS/2?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date:  2 Jan 93 14:41:28 GMT

pshuang@athena.mit.edu (Ping Huang) writes:

>The High Performance File System existed for OS/2 1.x, although I don't
>remember if it shipped with 1.0 or was one of the enhancements that came
>with 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3.

I don't see any reference to it in 1.1, but I used it in 1.3.

--kyler
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 30 Dec 1992 18:28:06 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec30.175404.26069@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>Monopolies arn't necessarily a bad thing--for example, most people have no
>beef against their water and electric utilities.  What's bad is when a
>monopoly tries to charge too high of prices.

...which is exactly what MS will do if they succeed in eliminating all their
competition. Remember the $2600 MS-OS/2 SDK (which they then abandoned)?

>And yes, MS is trying to grab as much market share as it can, but so is
>IBM with OS/2, Apple with the Mac, Sun with Solaris, etc etc.  EVERY company
>in the world is trying to get as big a piece of the pie as they can.

There's a difference between trying to grab a piece of the pie honestly and
doing it by sleazy, underhanded, anticompetitive practices such as are MS'
stock in trade.

>*sigh* Dudes, offering two different choices to a buyer isn't force.

Seriously, are you trying to go to work for MS? You've completely ignored all
the arguments here that say that what MS is offering isn't a choice, it's a
sham. They've apparently deluded you into thinking there's a choice.

>I would advise you to look at the practices of your own company.  You'll
>probably find many many examples of where your company does the same thing.

My university doesn't have practices, as I'm sure our students will attest.
-- 
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.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bash@tware.com (Paul Bash)
Subject: Re: The Bottom Line
Organization: Techware Design, Boulder, Colorado
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:51:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.230912.1065@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>Are you just slow, or just very stubborn?  The reason NFS is included in
>the OS/2 resource usage is because without it OS/2 doesn't have peer-to-peer
>networking.
>
>Brian

Excuse, me. NFS has nothing to do with OS/2 peer to peer networking. TCP/IP
provides that capability. NFS is just piled on top of it. 

-- 
Paul Bash                                                   Techware Design 
bash@tware.com                                              Boulder, CO  U.S.A.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 23 Dec 1992 14:38 EST  

In article <1992Dec23.172306.4445@tc.cornell.edu>, 
bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes...
>In article <23DEC199212080445@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> 
>scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY) writes:

Dov Bai-MSI Visitor originally wrote:
>>>How come that no other company produced an equivalent of WIN 3.0 before
>>>MS?  I do not say that WIN 3.0 is necessarily an outstanding technical
>>>achievement.  What I say is that MS were the first to provide people 
>>>with what they need to do their work.

To which I replied:
>>Maybe up until Win 3.0 companies figured that if the customer wanted a 
>>computer with a Macintosh interface, then the customer would buy a 
>>Macintosh ;-)  And please identify any type of work which _requires_ 
>>Windows 3.0 to accomplish.

>Ask the customers who bought it, not me. I did not purchase WIN 3.0.
>Why are you so patronizing to people ?

>Dov

Patronizing?  Me?  You closed your paragraph regarding Windows 3.0 with the 
statement that MS was the first to provide people with what they need to 
do their work.  I replied to this by asking for the identity of any work 
which requires Windows 3.0 to accomplish.  What I'm asking is for you to 
put your money where your mouth is regarding MS providing people with what 
they need to do their work.  Maybe I took your statement too literally, but 
it kind of makes me wonder how we ever got to the 1980's without Microsoft 
around ;-)

I did some checking around my office to find out who has a copy of Windows 
3.0 and why they bought it.  A perfect 20 for 20: it came with their system.
These are their home systems.  Of the dozen or so PCs in our office, only 
one has Windows installed (Version 3.1).  The reason why the one guy has 
Windows -> all we have is 80386 based systems and he's used to using a Mac.


JD
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Be more creative than the FTC!
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 00:58:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.180054.1107@spang.Camosun.BC.CA>, dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
|> : |> AT&T?
|> : 
|> : AT&T was only a monopoly because the goverment wouldn't allow other companies
|> : to compete with it.  In fact, I challenge you to name a single monopoly
|> : which wasn't a monopoly because a goverment outlawed competition with it.
|> : Name one which was a monopoly in America before the antitrust laws came in.
|> : You can even name companies in countries which don't have antitrust laws.
|> 
|> Standard Oil anyone?


When it was broken up in 1911 by the Shermen Antitrust act, it only had a 66%
share of the market.  Not even the great John D. Rockafeller himself could
create as monopoly in a free market.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:39:10 GMT

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
> In article <8239@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
> >No, but it does have an obligation to those who bought, for example, MSC 7 to
> >do OS/2 development on as an upgrade to MSC 6, which had that capability...
> 
>      Why would an OS/2 developer upgrade to MSC 7?  The product
> doesn't support OS/2 - such an upgrade would be silly.

So you're saying that MS will continue to support MSC 6 indefinitely?
Thought not.

--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:51:15 GMT

In article <BzLMIH.II3@csulb.edu> sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.215347.1614@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>>In article <BzKsJ2.Bwp@csulb.edu>, sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>>I _still_ don't understand what isn't "fair" about what Microsoft is doing.
>>Why shouldn't Microsoft let its application programmers talk to its OS
>>programmers?  What is wrong with giving their own programmers an edge?
>
>   Because it gives them undue power over the software market as a whole
>and acts detrimentally to the market for applications software in that
>Microsoft leverages its unique and restricted access to information about
>it's operating environments to gain an advantage in a separate market. Now
>you may not see these as separate markets but that is for the FTC to decide.

Why do you consider this unfair ? MS made a bussiness decision to 
write operating systems, and it turned out to be a successful one.
And this decision was many times very risky. Even today MS may lose
all its tremendous investment in Windows-NT because of OS/2.
Other companies did not. Tough for them. MS could not have any advantage
over other companies if people did not buy their software. And people 
did buy because that is what they needed, or at least believed they
needed. 

If the other companies want to have advantage, let them write a
better Operating System that people need, rather than resorting to
the governemnt. IBM did just that. MS is not in the market to supply
profits for other companies.


>-- 
>Jeff Sicherman
>up the net without a .sig

Dov
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: Be more creative than the FTC!
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 01:51:13 GMT

helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
: In article <wiegand.725581697@lido16>, wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand) writes:
[....]
: Can you show how Microsoft has hurt us, the consumers?  

Well they certainly wasted a lot of *my* time with MSC6.0 and
WIndoze 3.0

--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 07:18:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.021644.23680@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <C073ME.D5I@csulb.edu>, sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>|> >The reason Microsoft is still around is good business, plain and simple.
>|> 
>|>   You don't read very carefully.
>
>Wait a minute!  Just because I don't agree with the post I'm replying to
>doesn't mean that I didn't read it carefully!  

  I take it back, the reason isn't that you don't read carefully ...
it's that you don't think that way.

>
>|> I agree that the reason that they are
>|> around and doing well is the way the company is run. But the reason that
>|> they are the size they are and bestride the market to the extent that 
>|> they do is that they were the sole source for a virtually essential
>|> component of all he microcomputer systems being sold, and one with a very
>|> low per unit distribution cost and essentially no need for marketing
>|> (because of its essential and often built-in nature). Plenty of companies
>|> can be well run but without a blockbuster product that the market *needs*
>|> they wouldn't succeed as MS has done.
>
>I've carefully read the above, and I see where you're comming from, but 
>it won't wash because you can think of lots of counter examples. 
>Digital research was the sole supplier of CP/M--a "virtually essential
>component" of all 8080 systems being sold.  Why didn't Digital Research
>grow to be as big as Microsoft?
>

  DR was immensely successful for those reasons but in a relatively
miniscule market. Then they stupidly missed the IBM-PC (compatible)
market boat. Result: small market -> small company.

-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
From: gershon@husc11.harvard.edu (Ethan Gershon)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.1 Observations
Date: 29 Dec 92 19:18:08 GMT

2.1 sounds pretty good. two things:

1) is there some way to change the icon assigned to associated data files.
That is, instead of having all .DOC files pick up wp51's icon, can you
have a data file icon assigned to that file (like the Mac)?

2) Do you think they will implement sounds for WPS actions (like shredding)?
is there a driver for the standard PC speaker (like there is for win3.1)?

                                               --Ethan
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: More advertising
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:30:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.150806.17631@panix.com> os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.) writes:
>In <1992Dec31.101220.19875@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2) writes:
>
>Finally, someone decides to respond with something that the original purpose
>of this thread intended to provoke.  To the rest of you, I didn't ask for a
>critique of my wording (big #%@!ing deal about the word "all"...drop it?
>Ok.  If that idea even gets considered for publication, much less having a
>wording dispute, then I'll be surprise.).  Can't you find better ways to add
>to this newsgroup?
>
>Yes, I realized that 4M RAM and 30M DASD was pushing things quite a bit.
>However, you'll note that nowhere in there did I state it was a full
>installation.  In fact, with the default installation, minus some of the more

I see, you defend yourself ex post facto by having impled one thing and n,
then, when questioned, pointing out that you didn't say it and really didn't
mean what you implied.  I suppose this might pass for good advertising,
but I still think you're going to have a bunch o' angry users on your
hands when their 4 MB 40 MB hard drive (latter is my figure for
illustration only) systems are loaded with OS/2 2.x...

This sorta reminds me of bait and switch: "Thanks for the purchase, sir,
and, oh, by the way, you'll really need more memory to run OS/2 -- we
happen to have it right here, on special, and, gee, your disk probably
isn't quite up to OS/2's needs, so here's a special deal..." 
 
>useless stuff (like the games...I did say useless, not "funless"), OS/2 fits
>nicely in 30M of DASD.  Also, I claim that 4M RAM and 30M DASD is *not*
>unrealistic for any computer purchased in 1992; given the Microsoft Windows
>explosion in 1991 and 1992, I also claim that there were significant numbers
>of computer purchased during this timeframe.  So nyah, nyah nyah nyah, nyah.
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>:-P
 ^^^
So much for rational argument, eh?

[another 'advertisement' idea deleted]

Um, don't quit your day job, ok?

Happy New Year!

jmalloy@hamilton.edu


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy