HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Reply-To: soh3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago 
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 04:52:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.213319.1090@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>Go back and read the parts of Zachmann's comments I've pulled out above.
>His article on NT was filled with words like "half-baked", "masochistic
>death wish", and "wanna-be".  I find it somewhat offensive that you
>think I've ever been as bad as him... though I doubt you really
>meant precisely what you said.
>
>Zachmann's use of that sort of language has been in the last three
>articles of his I've read.  

Hey, don't you understand it's part of a columnists' rhetoric?  The way
he set up his logic, that is, anybody developing for NT is like investing
money and energy into something futile, is very nicely reinforced by his
choice of masochistic death wish.  This is an expression to entertain
his readers, not to upset them.  Writing magazine columns is different
from writing technical documents.

>Zachmann's article doesn't seem to have anything in it but some
>speculations of questionable foundation, and lots of abusive language.

It's unfortuate you found his words abusive.  I thought them enjoyable.
People are different.

>
>For Zachmann to resort to this sort of language in such a forum must mean
>that he is quite emotionally upset.

Calm down.  If you are upset reading his column, next time don't read it.

Min

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Opening speeds
Date: 12 Sep 92 02:35:39 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Sep11.104613.11806@cam-orl.co.uk>, thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauer
t) writes:
>In article <92254.143036TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET>, TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET (Turgut K
alfaoglu) writes:
>|>   The WPS speed doesnt bother me - I dont care if it takes a second or two
>|> to open an application.
>
>Nor do I. But I do care when the WPS takes a second or two to bring up a
>simple menu or a dialog or a window with a few icons in.
>
>|> Perhaps we are too spoilt by the snappy appearance of Windows
>
>I love it! After all the advocacy in this group about windows taking a 486 and
>giving it the speed of an 8086, here comes someone saying that it's OK for the
>WPS to be slower than windows.
>
>Having used both on a number of different configurations, I have *never*
>understood the claims about OS/2 being snappier than Windows 3.1.

Snappier?  Certaintly not, but at least on my machine there isn't much
difference between the two.  Besides, Windows when it multitasks does slow to
a crawl.  That to me is much more annoying than a fairly tiny difference in
the speed of opening and closing windows.
>

>|> - which provides probably 2% of what OS/2 does.
>
>Sorry, but there is NO WAY that OS/2 gives 50 times the functionality of 3.1.
>I might agree with 2 times or even 5 times, but I think your claim is out by
>an order of magnitude. When all is said and done, there is a lot of
>funtionality that is provided by both systems.

(Umm, an order of magnitude is 1000x.  I agree though, Windows isn't THAT bad)

>
>|> Its not really reasonable to expect much more speed than this,
>|> given its flexibility..
>
>I guess my expectations are higher than yours! Perhaps it is because I use
>NT, which has the snappy interface of Windows with an underlying system that
>is as powerful as OS/2. But, of course, NT already has a 32-bit graphics
>engine :-)
>
Ouch.

Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
From: fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is NT vs OS/2 really the subject?
Date: 9 Sep 92 23:04:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.EefjBaa00VAt1mSKNV
	<1992Sep9.204326.6364@scott.skidmore.edu>
Organization: Sophomore, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel) writes:
> In article <1992Sep9.175602.840@debet.nhh.no> si0_tb90020@debet.nhh.no writes:
>         In the UNIX world, programs can execute on the server's cpu or
> on the local's (quite often it's on the server's).  The advantage is
> that all you need is a dumb terminal to connect to the server, and it
> behaves like a desktop computer.  That was fine in the days of cheap
> terminals and *expensive* PCs.

one can execute the programs locally on a workstation, or remotely
from a dumb terminal - right now i'm sitting in my room on a mac using
the terminal to run a unix workstation from remote

>         With NT, each application runs on the local cpu, while the
> server runs administrative stuff, provides common databases that can
> be accessed by local nodes, and stores data and executable files.  
>         So......  what's wrong with running the user programs locally,
> now that PCs are cheap and plentiful enough?  As long as the server
> does the coordination work, isn't that enough?  Isn't the UNIX kind of
> network environment becoming outmoded?

unix lets more than one person use their computer at once - it also
lets a wide variety of existing hardware effectively run unix, by
letting that hardware control the unix box remotely - this mac isn't
exactly a 'cheap dumn terminal' - if NT doesn't let you do things like
this, it means you need one NT box per person logged in at a time,
whereas with the unix on remote system method, you need one unix box
per arbitrarily large number of users, plus the number who actually
want to go down there and log in to the machines direct...

it's obvious that in general people can't afford to render all their
old hardware obsolete because the new hardware won't mesh with it, and
if NT doesn't support being run remotely from something like a mac, i
don't see a school like ours, which supports several hundred unix
workstations and macs each suddenly switching over the unix boxes to
NT- and if Dec doesn't support us, there are plenty of other unix
vendors out there who'd love to...

I'd never heard of NT not supporting at least a vt100 mode CLI - that
just seems inane for me if they want to kill unix...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pallantj@unvax.union.edu (Joseph Pallante)
Subject: OS/2 Jobs...
Organization: Union College, Schenectady, NY
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 02:01:26 GMT

Something for discussion....

If you follow misc.jobs.offered, you will notice far more OS/2
programming jobs becoming available than windows.  At least
50 % more.  Granted, there aren't all that many, in comparison
to all the other types of jobs offered (ie, sysadmins, etc..)....

But, it does say something.  True, there are already thousands
of windows progammers out there...  This does tell us that
software houses are developing, and that companies are converting.

Interesting note:  I think I have only seen two openings
directly mentioning NT in the span of time I have seen 10 (approx.)
for OS/2.  Again, we should take into account the fact that only
minor changes are necesary for a win programmer to move to NT....

Just today, there was a job listed that could pay up to $600
a day for the right person.  (I dont know the specifics, but that figure 
hit me pretty hard  :) )

I think the postings of job openings suggests an upward trend
in OS/2 software.  Very, Very good sign!

Joe

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: andyross@infopls.chi.il.us (Andrew Rossmann)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Keys to recovery  (was Re: Problems with crashes...)
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 12:24:55 CDT
Organization: INFOPLUS support, Wheeling, IL

mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) writes:

> I know it!  When booting, press Ctrl-Shift-F1 to prevent open
> programs from autostarting.  Okay, do I win any prizes?  ;)
>
> BTW, when booting, press Alt-F1 to reset your desktop.  WARNING:
> This destroys your current setup!  Use it only if you screwed up
> your current setup!  See the TNT guide for more info.
>
> I got this from the OS/2 Tips and Techniques file (TNT guide) at
> ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (128.123.35.151).  I think it is stored as
> os2tnt.zoo in directory /pub/os2/2.0/info.

  Both of these are listed in the OS/2 README file. It's probably in the
root directory of one of your drives.

--
Andrew Rossmann            | Sysop of Infoplus BBS, +1 708 537 0247
andyross@infopls.chi.il.us | Infoplus Support, latest version available
 uunet!infopls!andyross    | by logging in as infoplus. [v32bis/v42bis]
                      NO new taxes...NO new gambling
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 + Mach 3.0 ?
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:46:55 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep14.200027.3755@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>Well I at least can say honestly that I've seen Mach 3.0 running on
>an 8 meg 386DX 25 _without_ X (important, X is very large).
>And it just barely fit and was slow.
>(As a matter of fact, I did the initial install on this system.)
>Other members of the research group I work for use Mach regularly.
>Recently they bumped it up to 16 megs and it's better, but they
>still don't run X, though I suspect that could be done acceptably.
>Note this Mach has only the BSD-style server.  By the time you
>add OS/2 and OSF and AIX requirements into the same system things
>would be quite ugly memory-wise.  Though, this is not due till September
>1994 so memory won't be such a problem then.

If you add AIX, then you delete the BSD server.  Why would you install
two Unix servers in one box.  How much of this is Mach's slowness, and
how much is it the BSD server, which wouldn't be running in an
OS/2-AIX situation.

-- 
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: ghenniga@NMSU.Edu
Subject: Re: ISA-boards and 16MB (was Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.4)
Reply-To: ghenniga@NMSU.Edu
Organization: New Mexico State University - Electromagnetics Group
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:41:17 GMT


In an article jahonen@cs.joensuu.fi  (Jarmo Ahonen) writes:

>jim@juvat.UUCP (Jim Kunzman) writes:
>
>>>@	NT can generically use more than 16 megs of memory.
>>>		OS/2 only uses the memory above 16 megs as
>>>		a form of fast cache.
>
>>Not true.  Perhaps on ISA machines, but I don't believe it is even
>>true with all ISA machines (perhaps Tim Sipples can help here).  It
>>certainly isn't true on recent EISA and MC machines.  Any ISA 
>>limitations would probably apply equally to NT and OS/2 since they
>>both face the same hardware limitations, i.e. 16-bit DMA.
>
>Strange. I have always thought that in many ISA-boards there is a direct
>connection between memory and the processor, i.e. the limit exists
>if memory is accessed via ISA but not with direct connection. 
>Modern ISA-boards do use ISA only for I/O-devices etc, but not for
>memory. Or that is what I thought before this thread started :-).
>
>Could any hardware people out there clarify this?  But generally it
>would seem quite strange to have space for 32MB or even 64MB on the
>motherboard and then use DMA which cannot even access all that memory...
>I believe that the limitation is true for ISA-boards in which the +16MB
>memory on an ISA-card, but for motherboard...
>
>And I somehow thought that 16MB requires a 24 bit DMA... How strange.

I believe that the limitation is in using the hard drive as a virtual
memory device. This means that OS/2 uses the DMA chip to address the
virtual memory, i.e., SWAPPER.DAT. It is absolutely true that the CPU does
NOT use the DMA chip to address memory, what a DOG that would be! The whole
purpose of DMA is that smart peripherals can use the DMA to access memory
WITHOUT the intervention of the CPU. OS/2, and I think a lot of other OSes,
have to have the capability to "mirror" actual physical memory on the
virtual device, in this case the hard drive. If you only have a 24-bit DMA
there is a 16MB limit imposed on the amount of memory OS/2 can mirror on
the hard drive because the hard drive has a limited, e.g., 24-bit, view of
physical memory.

Anyway, it sounds good!
Gary Hennigan
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
+= PhD Student, Computational Electromagnetics  | Member: Utilitarian  +=
+= New Mexico State University                  | .signature club      +=
+= email: ghenniga@NMSU.Edu                                            +=
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Honestly, people...how do you find the new OS/2 ads?
From: Spartacus At Cuny <I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Friday, 11 Sep 1992 20:21:58 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <18p44pINNsg7@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bbm@po.CWRU.Edu (Brian B.
Mathewson) says:
>
>I've never seen a really good TV advertisement for a software product
>before.  I'ts very difficult to sell something so complex in just 30
>seconds.

I've seen a flashy NASDAQ commerical a while back pointing out how Bill Gates
created one of the most successful software companies.  The commerical shows
the Windows desktop with three opened windows, full motion video
inside of each (ala cd-rom i bet).  With good background music.
It caught my attention almost immediately.  I don't know if anyone else
on this net seen the same commerical, but if IBM had a similar commerical
for OS/2 running its own Multimedia extensions, they would be rolling.
BTW-IHMO, IBM's current commerical is dull & lifeless.

-------
------------------------------+      All The Best,
Reply To:                     |
                              |      Edward Galarza,
     I18BC@CunyVM.Cuny.Edu    |      Brooklyn College Of The
     I18BC@CunyVM.BitNet      |      City University Of New York
------------------------------+      "Que viva el OS/2!"
New accounts above 8-)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.5
Date: 6 Sep 92 13:14:02 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Sep06.153832.3395@fics.uucp> ekl@fics.uucp writes:
...
>>>Can have the graphics engine loaded (equivalent of PM), and a CLI shell
>>>in a window, but no graphical shell (equivalent of Filemanager, or
>>>whatever the heck they call the main windows window)??
>>>
>>>That's certainly not the impression that I had.
>>
>>Sorry, you can, in fact it's about as easy as it is under OS/2.
>>
>>Brian
...
>Interesting. I'd like to try this one out on my NT system. What do I
>need to do?
>
>Also, I think this list is a nice piece of work. Keep it up!
>
>Eirik

In \winnt\win.ini change
	Shell=taskman,progman
to
	Shell=taskman,cmd

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IS IBM UK STILL IN THE STONE AGE???
Date: 7 Sep 92 23:31:36 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Sep7.003425.20165@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, kevinlu@yoyo.cc.monas
h.edu.au (Kevin Lu) writes:
>Liuyu (liuyu@kramden.nyu.edu) wrote:
>: ckincy@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) writes:
>:
>: >>Time to support all standards.
>:
>: >I agree.  Herc should support OS/2.  They don't.
>:
>: You got it backward! OS/2 should support all standards.

Really?  Why not put in support for running it on a television while you are
at it?  Come on, NOBODY, I repeat, NOBODY in their right mind would want to
run OS/2 off of a Herc, or CGA monitor.  Even EGA is really inadequate.
Supporting old standards is fine, but not when it impedes future progress.
That is why they dropped the 8088 and the 286.  Supporting them would have
held the system back more than it would have helped bring in new users so they
dumped them.  Frankly I'm suprised they even bothered supporting CGA.  They
really shouldn't have bothered.  (And the quality of CGA support shows it)
OS/2 and no other system needs to support standards that are a detriment to
its performance.  (This includes Windows, NT, XWindows, or any other system
you can think of)  If support for an obsolete standard is that important to
you, then complain to the people who wrote that standard and the people who
wrote the system or better yet, save your breath and write it yourself.

                                                    Stacy John Behrens
                                                    *===)-------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: What REXX does
Date: 10 Sep 92 15:18:00 GMT
Organization: San Jose State University - Math/CS Dept.

panos@db.toronto.edu (Panos Economopoulos) writes:

>WILLS@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Cheyenne Wills) writes:

>Just for the purpose of showing how the above can be accomplished
>in a UNIX environment and without intending to pass any judgement
>regarding the merits of either environment, one can use the following
>AWK program to count the nonblank lines of a file:

I do scripting in both REXX and perl (I gave up awk and sed as a 
sacrifice to some pagan deity a few years back :-) ).  The advantages
I find in using REXX over perl/awk/sed are:  the ability of make
stacks where I can push items onto and then pop them off when needed,
AND REXX scripts can actually be read by mere mortals [ try reading
most perl scripts - even mine (he says with a crimson cast to his
complexion) ].

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Panos Economopoulos --         panos@csri.toronto.edu      (ARPA/CSNet)
>University of Toronto          {uunet, ...}!utcsri!panos   (UUCP)
>                               panos@csri.utoronto	   (Bitnet)
>                               panos@csri.toronto.cdn      (CDNnet/EAN/X.400)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.5
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:50:14 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <45mn9xq.msmith@netcom.com> msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith) writes:
...
>I do not care if you bump up both terms I just want to see a fair evaluation. 
>WINOS2 supports Windows 3.0 without fault. Seamless integration of the 
>desktop is an added bonus. If you want to compare support of for a product 
>you have to evaluate the percentage of the products capabiltiy that the
>NEW product supports In the case of WINOS2 it support 100% of the Windows 
>3.0 feature set and if you use HPFS and full screen windows actually
>performs better. 
>
>If you want to increase both evaluations go ahead but WinOS2 is able to 
>support in full screen mode ALL the SVGA drivers and most if not all 
>software packages. There is little if any performance penalty doing 
>day to day work. A number of magazines have conceded that WinOS2 is a 
>better Windows than Windows 3.0 (PC Magazine I believe say this )

I would have to reduce myself to the level of yelling BullS**t to
respond appropriately at this point. This would be bad.
Thus I've changed the item to:

       Windows 3.0 support (NT has it too, but it is not as good).

Happy?

>
>MArtin Smith
>msmith@netcom.com


Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hercules ??? Be realistic !
From: stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Stuart Woolford)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 07:31:16 GMT
Organization: University of Auckland, New Zealand.

rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:

>Much different monochrome, however.  Macs use 1 bit plane and dithering,
>Hercules uses 2 bit-planes and shading.  I have found the shaded 
>screens of Hercules much less useful than the dithered screen of the
>Mac, esp. as it relates to the interface (I ran Windows 1.0, 2.x, and 3.0
>on a Hercules driven video system).

No...Not even close...Both the mac and normal herc are Black AND White, and
BOTH are capable of dithering, and, believe it or not, apple did not invent
dithering either ;-)... ( not that I think you said the did.. )

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz

			>>>>In VI Wheree Available<<<<
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Zachaman and NT and OS/2
Date: 14 Sep 92 13:58:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: gmd.strobl.716479119
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany

In <1992Sep14.115154.21060@wsl.ie> jja@wsl.ie (John J. Allen) writes:

>brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>: Ports from Windows 3.X to NT are trivial... I suggest you talk to
>: a few more developers.

>Then we obviously don't need Win 3.1 support in NT, because all the Win 3.1
>apps will be ported just like THAT.

>There done.

Well, that doesn't follow. But to give an example: yesterday I finally 
got a few spare time hours to play with my copy of the NT prerelease SDK.
It took me just under one hour to get my little Tetris clone KLOTZ to 
run under NT. Most of the time was spent in editing various message
cracker macros in, modifying the many windows procs and disabling the
sound support.  To my surprise, the first successfull compile - i.e.
the first one which generated an .exe file - created a fully functional
NT version of my program. 

On the other hand, I've had various versions of the OS/2 SDKs sitting
on my desk during the last years, and I always had the desire to
port my program to OS/2, too. But every attempt to actually do that
resulted in the discovery that it probably would end in a complete
rewrite, not a port. Unfortunately, I don't have enough spare time
to do that.

There are many demonstrations that one can write programs in a way
that, with a little help of a few macros and conditional compilation,
they can be compiled for either OS/2 or Windows. But this works
for completely *new* programs only, not for a conglomerate of
various modules which mostly represent the learning curve of its
author during the MS-Windows history (1.04, 2.0, 2.1, 3.0). :-)

While my program may be tiny compared to real world Windows apps
- only a few thousand lines long -, I don't think that porting bigger
apps is that much more difficult, and - more important - it is more
or less proportional to the size of the program, because 
it's mostly mechanical work (local text substitution) which
only needs an understanding what's going on locally, there
isn't any global restructuring necessary.

After that, one has a working copy and can start to enhance
it, simplyfing the memory management, adding threads, for
example. This is much easier than doing the port and 
the enhancement (to make good use of the new OS features)
at the same time. One never knows what broke the program ,
was it the port, or was it the enhancement?

So I would call the port from Windows 2.x/3.x to NT 
indeed trivial, at least in comparision to a port 
to OS/2/PM or X/Motif, for example.


Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp> 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy