HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ballard@ucs.ubc.ca (Alan Ballard)
Subject: IBM vs Microsoft Development Kit AVAILABILITY
Keywords: arrrrgh
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 23:11:21 GMT

On June 2nd, I ordered the Os/2 Workset and Technical Library from IBM
Canada (and my credit card was charged for them!)

On July 21st I ordered the NT development kit CD from Microsoft
Canada.  

Anybody want to guess which one arrived today and which one I'm STILL
waiting for? Maybe I should interpret this as an omen about which
system I should be developing for...

I've been an OS/2 user and developer since 1.0, but IBM's continuing
screw-ups in production and marketting are beginning to make me think
I'm backing a loser. 

-- 
Alan Ballard                   | Internet: ballard@ucs.ubc.ca
University Computing Services  |   Bitnet: USERAB1@UBCMTSG
University of British Columbia |    Phone: 604-822-3074
Vancouver B.C. Canada V6T 1Z2  |      Fax: 604-822-5116
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jjs@ubitrex.mb.ca (John Joseph Strybosch)
Subject: Re: Can IBM write code?
Organization: Ubitrex Corporation, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:24:06 GMT

In article <22JUL199213093158@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.231022.5094@microsoft.com>, gordonl@microsoft.com 
>(Gordon Letwin) writes...
>
>[previous stuff deleted]
>
>>You're wrong.  He states that he's comparing DOS 4 to DOS 3.3.  DOS 4.00
>>was entirely an IBM product.  (MS produced 4.01, a bug fix release, but
>>didn't substantially change anything).
>
>Are you saying that DOS 4.00 was developed and produced entirely by IBM and 
>that MS fixed some of the bugs and released the IBM 4.00 + MS fixes as 4.01?
>I thought that PC DOS 4.00 was beta Microsoft Code that IBM jumped the gun 
>and released.

I was told, by my Microsoft rep, when I lived in Edmonton, and
MS had just released MSDOS 4.00, that IBMDOS 4.00 was not the
same thing as MSDOS 4.00.  He claimed that IBM had gone off and
made a whole bunch of changes to DOS and released their own
dos 4.00.  This jives with what my IBM rep said at the same time.

Apparently Microsoft had to reverse engineer these differences and 
doing so introduced a bunch of bugs that were not there in IBM's
version.  SOOO MS had to release a set of bug fixes and called
it MSDOS 4.01.  This was from one of those trash comp. mags.

This could explain two things: why IBM was first to the market with
version 4.0 and why MS alone had to release a bug fixed version:
MSDOS 4.01

Obligatory OS/2: whatever happened it is obvious that when it comes
to DOS, IBM does know their stuff... they certainly indicate this
knowledge in MDOS-OS/2.

JJ Strybosch
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM MARKETING
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 18:43:35 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <5735@gemini.cs.nps.navy.mil> rdixon@gemini.cs.nps.navy.mil (robert dixon) writes:
>
> Both the Microage guy
> and the IBM representative I talked to seemed to think I was a little
> strange for actually wanting to TRY OUT a piece of software before
> buying it! The IBM guy didn't seem to know of any way of seeing OS/2
> running, short of driving to San Jose.
> 
>   I'm curious exactly how IBM is expecting to achieve any market
> penetration with this kind of marketing. The latest PC Shopper seemed
> to think that OS/2 was mainly a way for IBM mainframe customers to
> connect to IBM mainframes, with the small business and home market as
> sort of an afterthought, which would certainly explain my experiences
> here.
> 
>   I'm interested in others' comments/experiences with this.

I currently work for a PC software/hardware retailer and distributor. I had
been using OS/2 for about 2 months when i started the job 3 weeks ago. One of
the first things I did was get the showroom guys to install OS/2 v2 onto a
clone 486/33 with 8M of RAM. At the other end of the shop, we run the OS/2
rolling demo on a PS/2. We've been selling at least one copy of OS/2 every day.
The city I live in has a population of about 150,000, with 350,000 within 30
miles of the city centre. It is also the capital of the country, so has many
company/govt. head offices.
 
I met the owner of the business (it has branches in several cities and he is
based elsewhere) on Thursday. In a meeting we had, among other things, he
said:"Is the future not Microsoft? Is the future not Windows?". 

I didn't want to argue with my new boss so I just smiled. He has obviously
never used OS/2......but then, watching him, he doesn't look very comfortable
with Windows, either.  
 
The sales people in the shop, though, keep on selling the Windows bundles and
the almost never mention OS/2 when talking to customers. This is changing -
slowly - but the lack of applications  - today - is hindering the ability of
sales people to promote OS/2. This will change in the next fews weeks, but
then you will have to get the ordering people to actually order the product.
If the OS/2  apps don't get promoted, the vendors won't order the stock to
meet the non-existent demand. 
 
The desktop market is advertiser driven. If OS/2  apps are to succeed, the
developers (Lotus/Borland/whoever) will have to promote them strongly. If they
are just developed then left on the shelf for those who ask for them by name,
then he battle will be left to enthusiasts and those "in the know" - which
leaves out 95% of the potential market.
 
Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | "But the glory kept shining
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  and bright in my eyes, 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  And the stars going round in 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  my head." R. L. S.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: Portable?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 22 Jul 1992 16:48 EST  

In article <1992Jul17.183152.19296@terminator.cc.umich.edu>, 
potts@itl.itd.umich.edu (Paul Potts) writes...

>Childish, I know, but so was your rant. At least Microsoft fixes a goodly
>number of their bugs.

And sells them as upgrades.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: pc week and nt
Date: 31 Jul 92 10:41:29 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

In <199229.2712.3006@dosgate> stephen.dawson@canrem.com (stephen dawson) writes:

>In the 27 July issue of PC Week a few 'problems' with NT are
>reported. It seems that as NT gets closer and closer to delivery,
>the warts are being revealed and, by comparison, OS/2's teething
>pains look rather trivial.

>Enhanced mode Windows apps won't run on RISC based NT.
Meaning Win32 binaries will not run? Recompile needed?

>DOS apps that try to access the hardware will not run.
Leaves us edlin and ??

>Unlike OS/2, existing device drivers will NOT be supported in
>virtual DOS sessions. 3270 emulators are the major apps shutout from
>NT without new drivers being written. Fax and scanner apps are also
>affected.
And what about non MS mouses, SCSI needing drivers etc?

These "well behaving DOS and Windows software" that MS claims
NT will run will these be by coincidence all MS software.....


Nico E. de Vries
_ _
O O  USENET nevries@cc.ruu.nl  FIDO 2:281/708.1  COMPUSERVE "soon" (tm)
 o   This text reflects MY opinions, not that of my employer BITECH.      
\_/  This text is supplied 'AS IS', no waranties of any kind apply.      
     Don't waste your time on complaining about my hopeless typostyle.

"Unfortunately, the current generation of mail programs do not have checkers
 to see if the sender knows what he is talking about" (A.S. Tanenbaum)
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did Microsoft abandon OS2?
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:58:37 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <ggyyNB1w164w@knex.Gwinnett.COM> gess@knex.Gwinnett.COM (Gess Shankar) writes:
>
>Microsoft might have figured that the applications will drive the market,
>not the O/S per se.

So why don't they push Word, Excel, Mail, Works, and PowerPoint for
ALL platforms, and let the Windows environment sell itself (or not).
If the applications drive the market, then they should be pushing the
applications, not the environment.

Imagine the market penetration if they'd push their complete
applications line for Windows, OS/2, Sun, NeXT, DEC, etc.  Heck, if
they tried to port their stuff to the Amiga, they'd take the market by
storm, with the absence of good document preparation tools for it.

>Microsoft probably figured that they could 'market' better in the retail
>environment than IBM ever can. Also they had good locks on OEMs to keep
>them on their side. They also knew that DOS was not going to go away and
>probably felt that they could take on any possible competition from IBM.

Valid assumptions.  But they pale when you realize that MS has their
own DOS replacement waiting in the wings.  They also want DOS to go
away.  As for having "locks" on OEM's - they border on monopolitic
practices in some cases.  As for marketing, you're absolutely right.
Nobody can market software like MS.

>> 2) Lots of companies promise OS/2 stuff now, so OS/2 will have some
>>    serious market share. Again, IBM's backing can increase this marketshare.
>
>This may be crucial for OS/2 and for application developers. If Microsoft
>is able to release a slew of applications which are NT ready, while
>competitors have to play 'catch-up', it seems to me that for developers it
>is imperative to develop for OS/2 and make it a viable market place for them.
>Applications will drive the market and appearance of slick OS/2 capable ones
>will make a difference in the market place.

We'll see.  Many vendors are working on OS/2 stuff.  Rumor has it that
MS is continuing OS/2 development "in the background" so thay can
spring their application suite in the market when it becomes
appropriate.

This will be the only big difference between OS/2's release and NT's
release.  Third-party vendors will wait-and-see with NT, just like
they are doing with OS/2.  Microsoft, however, will probably have
their applications ready to release when NT gets released.  IBM no
longer has an applications software division, so they couldn't do
this. 

-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: What's wrong with Windows (Re: MS grasping at straws?...)
Date: 31 Jul 92 08:12:47 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Jul30.030745.28271@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> gupw@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Paul Wagland) writes:
>nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Nan Zou) writes:
>
>>Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>>>dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell) writes:
>>>> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>>>> >Eh? I LIKE Edlin. For editing short batch files theres nothing
>>>> >quicker.
>>>> Well, that pretty much discredits anything further you say.  
>>>If you hate EDLIN......try vi!
>>What's wrong with vi?  I LIKE vi!
>Yayy!!!!!
>
>>I just love editor flame wars.  And I know some Emacs fanatic is going to
>>jump into the fray soon.  ;-)
>And then I'll have to reply by saying:
> 'Maybe Edlin isn't that bad after all...'

Vi? Emacs? Edlin? 

What I want to know is Why don't they put front panel switches
on computers anymore.  That's they only real way to edit. ;)
petesk


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ekl@fics.uucp
Subject: Re: What portable is
Organization: Kvam data as
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:50:19 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.165547.1517@microsoft.com> adamba@microsoft.com (Adam Barr) writes:
>(Cynics will point out that the current list of NT platforms
>includes only little-endian machines. This is true, for the
>*current* list. This is a case where being designed with
>portability in mind helps; you may have code like that, but
>you can put it all in one place or put a big comment about
>it in the code.)
>
>- adam
>
>DISCLAIMER: Fire hazard, do not burn

It sounds like you know what you are talking about, but on the European
Windows NT Developers Conference, a question regarding NT on a big-endian
architectures (don't remember which) arose, and the answer was related
to the byte ordering scheme. So, it may have certain ramifications.

Eirik
From: bauwens@acs.ucalgary.ca (Luc Bauwens)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dvorak next to quit?
Date: 25 Jul 92 02:12:42 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <6wgFoB4w164w@dvss.UUCP> dvss!jtroy@udel.edu (Jay Troy) writes:
>
>Anyone see the Dvorak column in the August '92 PC Mag?  Something must be
>seriously wrong!!!  He raves about OS/2 2.0.  I just don't get it anymore.

He jumped on the OS/2 bandwagon quite a while ago, actually.  Was it
in March or April?

That's the whole point  about columnists: they got to be able to
smell the wind before the public at large; he did.

Which leads me to my next point: I don't believe that those magazines'
biases are primarily related to announcers.  Rather, they are trying
hard to print out what they think their readers want to hear.

Circulation is the name of the game.  You got circulation, you'll get
announcers.  

(And BTW, that's why the press is so lousy as a whole, while individual
journalists may actually be great...)

Cater to the largest common denominator; don't offend anybody, especially
the mainstream.  Tastelss and colorless, insipid.

Luc B
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jeffc@netcom.com (Jeff Cohen)
Subject: Re: More Biased Reviews From ZD
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 04:27:53 GMT
Organization: Hacker's Anonymous

In article <1682C6AE3.CIVENBAH@mizzou1.missouri.edu> CIVENBAH@mizzou1.missouri.edu writes:
>>What OS/2 apps are "last years" apps?  Only the ones from Microsoft.
>>And this is because Microsoft has pledged themselves to the eventual
>>destruction of OS/2.
>>
>>Many other companies have continued their support of OS/2 and OS/2
>>applications.  For instance, the DeScribe word processor.  True, much
> 
>Which is almost laughable when compared to W4W or AmiPro (IMO).  I'll
>turn this question around and ask which OS/2 apps *aren't* last years
>apps other than DeScribe.
> 
>Brian.

Borland's ObjectVision 2.0 for OS/2 2.0 is now shipping, and it's 32-bits.
Lotus will ship 32-bit OS/2 versions of all their products.  I've seen a
demo of a beta version of Freelance by a Lotus rep, and I was impressed.
32-bit versions of 1-2-3 and AmiPro are also forthcoming.  So is
WordPerfect 6.0.  No, they're not in the stores yet, but they are
coming.
-- 

==============================================================================
Jeff Cohen         | Standard disclaimer:  My views are my own and may or may
jeffc@netcom.com   |                       not represent the views of IBM.
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Subject: Re: Edlin is useful ( Was: Re: What's wrong with ... )
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 17:44:31 GMT


Well I guess I should have expected this.

Editors, like religeons all have their faithful, and they certainly
come out of the wood work to defend themselves from heathen.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: cebarton@napier.waterloo.edu (Casey Barton)
Subject: Re: Why we shouldn't attack MS Employees (and other thoughts)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 03:50:34 GMT

Dustin R. Christmann writes:
>I'll be the first to admit that I've "pushed the button" with the aforemen-
>tioned Mr. Letwin, especially after I lost patience with his seemingly endless
>stream of FUD.  Folks, if you feel the urge to personally attack someone, call
>him names, and theorize about his national heritage and what his mother does
>for a living, step back, go get a coffee, take a deep breath, and cool off.

    ...and if you _still_ have to do it - for heaven's sake *EMail* the guy.
Don't bother posting flames. You'll end up pissing off as many friends as
enemies. (Well, me, anyway...)

>I'm also making a personal commitment to "behave myself."  That means I'll do
>my best to avoid firing off flammable posts.

    When responding to a post - your first reflex should be to email. If,
after considering that, you feel that the post will be of interest to more
than one person, *then* post it instead.
-- 
      Casey Barton (Mr.)   cebarton@descartes.waterloo.edu   (519)725-6861
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel)
Subject: Re: Is NTFS really a new file system?
Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 09:54:26 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.000042.8518@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.110152.1948@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>>
>>I've been HPFS-only for over three months with no problems.....what can be
>>more robust than that?
>> 
>
>      Using it for over four months with no problems?
>
>      Sorry, someone had to say it... :-)
>
>					-Phil

If you want to know it, I run HPFS without any problems since OS/2 1.2
became available. 

BTW, I have not seen any CONSTRUCTIVE posting from you (and some other
MS employees) in this group for a long time. All you ever seem capable
of is trying to make competitors products look bad by spreading FUD. I
wonder when other readers start to recognize this as a commercial
mis-use of USENET. When I see IBM employees posting in the comp.os.os2
groups, they much more often try to be helpful ...

No wonder that we don't see any significant contributions of MS
employees in other groups than .advocacy ...

Kai Uwe Rommel

/* Kai Uwe Rommel --- rommel@informatik.tu-muenchen.de */

DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt
handler, and always will be.                -Russell Williams

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jdailey@dadd.ti.com (Jim Dailey)
Subject: Utter Bozos at Microsoft?
Reply-To: jdailey@dadd.ti.com
Organization: Design Automaton Div., Texas Instruments, Inc.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 12:38:15 GMT

In article 5094@microsoft.com, gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin) writes:
>
>Some IBM guys have been offended because they feel that I'm denegrating 
>all IBM programmers.  By no means.  I worked with some  sharp guys there.
>But I also worked with at least as many utter bozos.  And more often then
>not, the sharp guys (who were considered untrustworthy "mavericks" because
>they said what was true vs. what management wanted to hear) were doing the 
>scut work and the utter bozos were running things.

Have you run into any "utter bozos" writing code at Microsoft?  If not, do
you suppose there might actually be some there, lurking in the halls?

---
Jim  jdailey@dadd.ti.com  Speaking only for myself and like-minded persons.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: xtpw@trentu.ca (Peter Wood)
Subject: Re: What's wrong with Windows (Re: MS grasping at straws?...)
Organization: Trent University, Ontario
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:48:34 GMT

In article <Bs4CJI.E3I@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:

[..stuff about VI deleted..]

>If only they'd put a status line on the silly thing, then 
>we won't have all those garbled first Usenet posts from new
>users.. you know, the ones that end with:
>
>q
>:q
>Bye
>DAMMIT!xc^D
>
>before someone shows em how to use emacs...

sheessh....what's wrong with using .exrc to do this? People grip when
something isn't configurable, _and_ when it is !

Pete
-- 
Pete Wood
Fleming Data Research 
Sir Sandford Fleming College           xtpw@blaze.trentu.ca
Peterborough, ON		       pwood@trentu.ca
Canada				       wood@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: lemieux@eecg.toronto.edu (Guy Gerard Lemieux)
Subject: Re: Tetris gripe
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:09:32 GMT

sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
>Now, if that is the case, I really do not know how I would react.  On
>the one hand you have a company (IBM) which is trying as hard as
>possible not to infringe on Spectrum Holobyte's intellectual property,
>and, in discussions with them, they could not agree on royalties.  On
>the other hand you may have two companies which feel (1) they won't
>get sued; and/or (2) the Tetris concept is not protectable under law;
>and/or (3) their lawyers can keep the case tied up in court forever,
>at tremendous legal expense, driving the company out of business
>and/or deterring a lawsuit in the first place.  Do I laud IBM's
>principled stand or Microsoft/Quarterdeck's ruthless competitive
>spirit (positive spin given here to both)?

Well, IBM could always try to BUY Spectrum Holobyte.  :)  :)

And then we could enjoy the first real OS/2 32-bit games...
From: martelli@cadlab.sublink.org (Alex Martelli)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: POSIX (was Re: nt, an assessment)
Date: 27 Jul 92 08:14:35 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: CAD.LAB S.p.A., Bologna, Italia

stephen.dawson@canrem.com (stephen dawson) writes:
	...
:As for POSIX, it is simply an API translation, no?

Well, not quite.  There are QUITE a few requisites that a system must
satisfy "for real" for compliance with 1003.1, 1003.2, etc.

One which has been heavily debated here recently is case sensitivity of
filenames.  Most OS/2 supporters seem to be fighting against it tooth
and nail; if they get their way, no POSIX compliance can be had.

fork() *may* be able to be simulated out of "other" API components, but
I doubt it; there's just too much state one would have to ferret out and
duplicate to build a fork() out of a spawn() [i.e., fork() is inherently
lower level than spawn()/DosExecWhatever(), and it IS required for
POSIX compliance].

Other elements of process and filesystem behavior may also be missing.
Clearly the filesystem must support "hard" links; AND a file must not
go away when its last link goes, BUT when that happens PLUS the file
gets closed by the last process having it open.

In short, it's NOT "simply an API translation".  You MAY be able to
retrofit posix-compliance in the kernel/filesystem/etc, but more likely
you will have to make it a separate subsystem, somewhat coexisting with
the "native" operating mode, the way "Open"(HA!)VMS did it.

-- 
Email: martelli@cadlab.sublink.org                   Phone: ++39 (51) 6130360
CAD.LAB s.p.a., v. Ronzani 7/29, Casalecchio, Italia   Fax: ++39 (51) 6130294 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.apps
From: dwolfe@halcon.lerc.nasa.gov (Dana Wolfe)
Subject: 800x600 for OS/2 1.3 ?
Organization: NASA/LeRC
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 11:35:25 GMT

	We have an application which requires OS/2 version 1.3.
	Is  there a generic 800x600 video driver available ?

Thanks.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Wolfe,  MS 142-1			voice: 	  (216) 433-8270
NASA Lewis Research Center		fax:   	  (216) 433-8000 
21000 Brookpark Rd			internet: dwolfe@halcon.lerc.nasa.gov
Cleveland, OH  44135			   
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.networking