HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM Ads
Date: 26 Jan 1993 19:46:31 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu

In <weinkam.728085759@sfu.ca> weinkam@fraser.sfu.ca (James Lawrence Weinkam) writes:

>chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen) writes:


>>Looks like IBM has gotten back to doing ads for OS/2 fianally.

>>In the Feb 9, 1993 (Vol 12, N3) PC Magazine, IBM has another
>>one of those 20+ page ads that looks like an article.  This
>>one is pretty (I like they layout, and they do show pictures from
>>the WPS, etc).  They named it "The OS/2 Top 100"  -- ie, top 100
>>reasons to use/buy OS/2.

>I use OS/2 almost exclusively, so I don't want to harm its chance 
>of success, but the list of 100 reasons for using OS/2 seemed very
>repettitive.  Eg.  Multithreading helps speed up spreadsheets.  
>AND...  Multithreading speeds up wordprocessors.  OR.  Preemptive
>Multitasking allows you to format and do other things.  Preemptive
>Multitasking allows you to download and do other things.  


Also in the article, they told you how to do things, ie how to use
the color palette, how to create objects, etc.  It wasn't just
the top 100 things, all throughtout they showed you how to do things.

They even put in a few things I didnt know, and I've been using Os/2
2.0 since it was first released.  Heh! They give PCMag better
documentation than they give us!


>James Weinkam
-- 
Chris McClellen                  | "If at first you dont succeed... re
Georgia Institute of Technology  | #define success..." - Anon.
chris@cad.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: PRO/CON on Mirrors (was Re: AmiPro for OS/2)
Date: 24 Jan 1993 13:17:16 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu

In <1993Jan24.041730.4232@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:

>In <1993Jan24.001304.19923@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>>In article <1993Jan23.150321.1@milori.ccit.arizona.edu> f67709907@milori.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan22.233940.1843@midway.uchicago.edu>, sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:

[ Yamanari says Mirrors = evil, Mr. Waters doesn't care ]

I agree with Chris Waters' statement.

Mirrors may make a product perform a little slower, but I don't
think you should judge a product soley on its API.  If the
program is great, so what if it uses Mirrors.

On the other hand, if they company is just recompiling their
Windows software, and is leaving in all the kludges they had to
put in to get their app to do something that windows doesnt do
easily, I would probably be upset.  It would mean that the app
is probably slow, and very buggy.  If they don't want to
rewrite the interface thats fine, but atleast tune the engine
to purr under Os/2.

Overall, if the product is a mirrors product, I don't care
as long as it works well.  If the product stinks (ie, very slow,
etc..), I'd probably go find another instead of it.  If its
the ONLY game in town, I'll just wait.

Which reminds me -- I saw a product demo (not going to name the
product) which was "ported" from windows to OS/2 2.0 -- however,
it was a 16bit app, and it used mirrors.  It was the first
and only product at the time for OS/2  [this was a while back] of
its kind.  There were no plans of its competitors to hit the OS/2
market.

In a nutshell, the program was awful.  They demoed it on a 486/33
that had 16 megs of memory, and a fast HD (5ms I believe).
It was so slow, I wanted to yawn in the demoer's face.  It swapped
like crazy, even on the simplest operations, like trying to just
open a small file.  It was probably one of the worst products I've
seen for OS/2, yet, it is a major tool in the windows world.
To add insult to injury, the price was hundreds of dollars
greater than the windows version, and there was no upgrade path.  You
had to buy the Os/2 version in full even if you owned the windows
version.  When asked about this, they simply said "We have
no competition, so you pay our price, or don't get it."  I remember
those words vividly.

Basically, it seems that the product was just a recompile of the
windows version, using mirrors, probably with little or no
modifications to the internal engine.  Then they shipped this
crap off to market.  In that case, I saw Mirrors as evil, because
a company came in, recompiled, then shipped it, because
they had no competition, and the program reaked.



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jcieslik@nimbus.worldbank.org
Subject: Re: AmiPro for OS/2 (was Re: Impressions of OS
Reply-To: jcieslik@.nimbus.worldbank.org
Organization: The World Bank
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:49:20 GMT

In article 1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu, f67709907@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:
>In article <93020.170902ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET>, ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:
>> In article <1993Jan16.165115.7298@gw.wmich.edu>, 177wardell@gw.wmich.edu says:
>>>        I am not quite as thrilled about that.  I would prefer to be
>>>able to associates *.zip with an icon file also instead of the just
>>>the associated program.  Think about it, all your AmiPro docs will have
>>>little AmiPro icons.  This is more than a bit confusing for some people.
>>>
>> I think if AmiPro will be a PM program it should create docs with their own
>> icon and perhaps comments, history and what else fits into 64k of extended
>> attributes.
>
>I think Ami Pro for PM will be a straight port of the Windows version, and
>will languish on version 3 while Lotus cranks out versions 5 and beyond
>for Windows.

It will not be a straight port of the Win version.  It is also unlikely that Lotus would have an OS/2 product that is 2 or more versions behind the Win version.

>That is, if Lotus ever does release a PM version.  They certainly won't
>take advantage of OS/2 EAs, long file names, or threading, or any of the
>good stuff OS/2 has.

Lotus will release a PM version that will take advantage of at least all of what you mention.  Where did you get this information?

>P.S.: Where is Stacker OS/2 now?  Talk about vaporware....
>-- 
>Greg Franklin
>f67709907@ccit.arizona.edu

John
___________________________________________
The opinions, above, are mine and mine only.
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: os2 what good is it?
Date: 25 Jan 1993 15:20:39 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1jrve7INNma@bigboote.WPI.EDU> trav@wpi.WPI.EDU (Travis Charles Korthas) writes:
>What the HELL is os2 good for?  I heard it was gonna be 50 meg at 
>LEAST!

You heard wrong. It'll do just fine in 20-25 meg.

>I can do anything os2 can do with my windows!

...except run reliably.
-- 
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.
    "I don't want to read poor Microsoft bashing. I want to read good
Microsoft bashing." -- Douglas A. Bell, in comp.os.os2.advocacy (Me too!)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:57:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.000155.7229@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
> In article <MfLQlzO00iUyI6IfRc@andrew.cmu.edu> Carl B Jabido <cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> >Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.os2.advocacy: 20-Jan-93 Re: NT to be
> >launched at Co.. by Yamanari@wam.umd.edu 
> >>         What a load of crap.  36Mbytes for the "demonstration" version?
> >>         I must have missed that with the beta that runs in 12.  
> >
> >12 physical memory, but add to that a 25 meg swap file -> 37 megs.  At
> >least on my system.
> 
> 	Uh huh.  And I've gotten my OS/2 2.0 (+SP) swap fiole up to 36 megs.
> 	Does that mean that OS/2 requires 52 megs of RAM?

Yamanari, your NT advocacy has moved in to the realms of the absurd with this
statement. My usual software mix on a 486DX/25 with 8 megs of RAM:
 
Netware Requester
HyperACCESS/5 V3.0 (I'm almost always up/down loading *something*.)
Accounts Receivable app (DOS) 
Accounts Payable app (DOS)
DaVinc1 2.02 E-mail (seamless WinOS2 3.1)
System Clock
 
Plus I also use Bitfax for OS/2 (when I'm not tranferring files around, I'm
sending/receiving faxes.....:-)) and DeScribe. I also very frequently do
diskcopying in one window while oing other things in an OS/2 or DOS window.
 
Oh yeah....I often have MSDOS5 booted into a window from an Image file so I
can look for product info on a Computer Select CD-ROM.....
 
The other day, I had 16 different tasks open with 5 actually executing
concurrently - not including the netware support, of course. There was very
little slowdown in service to me. 
 
At this point i checked my swap file - still 8192K: the default value.
 
I'm sure I could open 10 WinOS2 sessions and push that up.....but in the
course of my work, I don't have too. I suspect that my scase would be more
typical then the example you mention. Remeber, not everyone is a software
developer. If anything, the 20,000 NT SDK's show how tiny that group
is.....though influencial.
 
Steve
 
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand |      
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |        Space for rent.
+64 4 478 4714                          |   - cheap rates, nice location. 
**** Happy user of OS/2 b2.1 ****       | 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Date: 22 Jan 1993 16:13:25 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuron.tamu.edu

In article <1993Jan22.071800.24060@ryn.mro4.dec.com> Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com writes:
|
|In article <GHENNIGA.93Jan20231606@ampere.ampere>, ghenniga@NMSU.Edu writes:
|>However, just to put in a counterpoint to the
|>$69 point, you can get a version of OS/2 comparable to your $69 dollar
|>version of NT for FREE merely by using the command "ftp ftp-os2.NMSU.Edu"
|>and a few "mget" commands!!
|
|The $69 includes a C/C++ compiler and the first release version of Windows NT.
|Comparable offer from IBM?

Well, you can get the GNU C/C++ distributions from the ftp-os2 site
for free. 

|
|Complaints about requiring a CD drive may be riposted by complaints about
|requiring the ability to ftp.
|
|I have no idea what phone charges are in the US. Just for fun, how much does
|it cost to ftp OS/2? :-)
|--
|Peter Mayne                     | My statements, not Digital's.
|Digital Equipment Corporation   |
|Canberra, ACT, Australia        | "AXP!": Bill the Cat


Well actually, an awful lot of folks are connected to internet thru
their university or company.  The cost is subsidized and the
individual out of pocket cost is $0.  Additionally, we have a site
here at Texas A&M that has the OS/2 beta available locally, so even
though networking is required, technically its a local area network
and Internet access is not required.
--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
                              |  Scrupulous Lawyer
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Can you cut/paste DOS stuff in OS/2?
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:00:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.163244.1@uwovax.uwo.ca> singer@uwovax.uwo.ca writes:
>I have been following the interesting debates on OS/2 vs Windows here in 
>preparation for buying a new 486 system. One comes with Windows and the other
>with OS/2. I use Word Perfect (DOS), MaxThink (DOS), Magellan (DOS) and am
>about to start using Papyrus. In using Papyrus (a powerful bibliography


	Papyrus == DOS, right?

	All DOS.  OS/2, if you have the hardware, is an excellent
	choice.


>program), I will be cutting and pasting to Word Perfect and possibly to ASCII
>programs such as MaxThink. It is not clear whether one can with ease cut and
>paste between these different applications in OS/2. Has anybody tried this? I
>undertand it can be done in W3.1, but can it be done, and as easily, in 
>OS/2? (I really want to buy OS/2, so I hope the answer is positive). -- 


	Well, yes, Win31 can do this, too.  The question is, does either
	do it in a satisfactory way?  IMHO, the answer is no.  C/P with
	DOS programs on both ends is a headache.  

	(In any case, if you're intent on doing it, Win31 is an exceedingly
	poor choice.  Running DOS apps under Win31 is pretty much like running
	them under Desqview with a better C&P capability.  Its primary
	market is "Windows programs and maybe the occasional DOS program"..
	runningmultiple DOS sessions under Win31 is double-plus-ungood
	kind of activity..)

-- 
	Attempts to lessen the burden of proof in rape trials are an assault 
        	on our civil liberties.  Support equality, not revenge. 
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	Pyramid schemes are illegal unless you're the US government.
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: LINPACK benchmark under OS/2 and WIN
Date: 27 Jan 93 23:46:49 GMT
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization

I ran the LINPACK benchmark compiled with MS-FORTRAN 5.1 (16-bit
compiler ) under both OS/2 (1.3)  and WIN3.1.

MS-FORTRAN 5.1 can produce executables for DOS, OS/2 & WIN. For WIN,
the compiled files must be linked with the QuickWin library to produce
a native WIN application which can use extended or virtual ( under
Enhanced Mode ) memory.

Since WIN uses cooperative multitasking, the compiler by default
insert commands which surrender the time slice to other applications
in every DO loop ( /MW1 switch ). It is also possible to use the
/MW0 switch which instructs the compiler not to insert any instruction
for surrendering of time slices. In this case the executable takes over
the CPU, until it is finished.

The LINPACK benchmark must be compiled with the huge memory model,
because of the large arrays it uses.


My system:

    386/33 + 387( Cyrix )


The results:

    OS/2		       0.198 mflops
    WIN 3.1( /MW0 switch )     0.137  "
    WIN 3.1( /MW1 switch )     0.126  "

This means that in order to get an acceptable multi-tasking under
WIN 3.1 the performance penalty is about 40% relative to OS/2.

Out of curiosity I tried to run the benchmark under OS/2 while
a file is being downloaded with kermit, 2400 BAUD. I got

    OS/2 (with background file transfer)       0.185 mflops

That means only 7% performance hit.

In addition I ran the WIN 3.1 executable compiled with the /MW0
under OS/2 using the WLO libraries. I got

    OS/2 ( WIN executable, WLO library )       0.198 mflops

I.E., no perfomance hit under OS/2. In a way, even OS/2 1.3 is
a "Better Windows than Windows" -:).



Dov
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: Can you cut/paste DOS stuff in OS/2?
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:40:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.163244.1@uwovax.uwo.ca> singer@uwovax.uwo.ca writes:
>I have been following the interesting debates on OS/2 vs Windows here in 
>preparation for buying a new 486 system. One comes with Windows and the other
>with OS/2. I use Word Perfect (DOS), MaxThink (DOS), Magellan (DOS) and am
>about to start using Papyrus. In using Papyrus (a powerful bibliography
>program), I will be cutting and pasting to Word Perfect and possibly to ASCII
>programs such as MaxThink. It is not clear whether one can with ease cut and
>paste between these different applications in OS/2. Has anybody tried this? I
>undertand it can be done in W3.1, but can it be done, and as easily, in 
>OS/2? (I really want to buy OS/2, so I hope the answer is positive). -- 

The answer is yes, absolutely.

-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
From: kevinc@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Kevin Crocker)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM marketing efforts
Date: 22 Jan 93 18:44:13 GMT

kovarski@zooid.guild.org (Mark Kovarski) writes:

>The marketing might have just begun. In Canada they are running OS/2
>commercials all the time, at any time, during any program. Getting the message
>out to users is as important as the quality of a product. One person I have
>talked to suggested an idea, which doesn't sound to bad either. Running 1/2
>hour OS/2 "Infommercials," just like the ones they run for all kinds of
>products. WUTV is Buffalo, New York is very popular due to the fact that it is
>broadcasted in the US and Canada as well. I don't know about the cost, but if
Detroit and chicago channels tend to be seen in WEstern Canada. We have
four Detroit channels on cable and two Chicago and we jsut got two new
LA channels.

I've had some people come to me and ask about OS/2 because they saw the
billiards ad - they're pool affectionadoes. Neat!

Kevin
--
Kevin "autark" Crocker (Athabasca University)
kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA  -or-  risk@cs.AthabascaU.CA
From: rwb00@avon.as (Robert W Beveridge)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is OS/2 a dead end?
Date: 22 Jan 93 20:58:18 GMT
Reply-To: rwb00@avon.as
Organization: Sun Microsystems


In article 29418@bnr.ca, jcyr@bnr.ca (Jean Cyr) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.191655.15293@msi.com>, bill@west.msi.com (Bill Poitras) writes: 
>|> Oh please.  Bill Gates is probably saying this because you wants
>|> everybody else to believe it.  I have heard management in MY company say:
>|> "Bill Gates says OS/2 is dead" and they believe it.
>
>Well you know what they say: The PC users community is a bunch of sheep, and Billy
>is their sheppard.

Is OS/2 a dead end ? Well lets see...

  o it has fewer users than the Amiga
  o there are essentialy no native applications for it (I know people are claiming
    a thousand applications exist, but when I walk into CompUSA or Egghead, I
    don't see any...)
  o IBM has never had a successful PC software product
  o IBM is also committed to another operating system, based on "Pink",
    that seems to fill the same role as OS/2
  o the PC industry is undergoing something of a boom, primarily because of OS/2s
    prime competitor, Windows. An awful lot of new and successful software products
    have the words "..for Windows" in their titles.
  o many of OS/2 strengths, such as good multitasking, appeal more to the limited
    population of technical types - the Mac and Windows environments strength is
    in user-interface details and application availability, which is more
    important to the "average" PC user - who does word processing of databases
    and such.

Sounds to me like a niche product at best, a dead end at worst...
From: chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: "Doug Hamilton"
Date: 22 Jan 1993 16:28:12 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu


For all you people posting about Doug Hamilton, I just want to say
that I can understand him devoting his time to NT, when MS has
given him good incentive to do so.

I am a user of OS/2 2.0, but I don't have the tools necessary to
program OS/2 2.0. Sure, GCC is out there, but its not really an option
for me.  CSet/2 is an option, but Im not willing to spend a few
hundred dollars more on yet another compiler -- also, my machine
really isnt an OS2 development box -- I;d like alot more space,
and alot more memory for it to be one.

That means, I will go on writing DOS, Windows, and UNIX based applications,
(probably with little emphesis on Windows).

If IBM were to send me a development machine tomorrow with lots of
space/memory, etc, Hell, I would code it to death.  If MS were
to send me the same kind of thing, I would be writing NT apps
right now.

I don't think people should be so critical of Mr. Hamilton, as I 
know alot of people would code for MS or IBM if equipment was
given to them.  I have my loyalties, but when a company is willing
to give me a development machine, with tools, I'd code with that
machine/OS, rather than go buy a machine myself  capable of
being a development one (x number of thousands of dollars) +
compiler.

Yeah, people will tlell me, "You can get a 20meg machine, 1.2 gigs
of disk, etc.. for $3000 or so,"  but $3000 isn't a small
amount of money for a lot of people.  

One day, when my machine has the disk space/memory, etc to
code for OS/2 I will, but as I said, if I were offered a freebie,
I'd take it as well, as would a LOT of people.
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Doug Hamilton responds
Date: 22 Jan 1993 01:45:32 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <C18B17.45E@news.cso.uiuc.edu> nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel) writes:
>OS/2 1.3 is not nearly as buggy and unstable as 2.0, so 1.3 owners are staying
>with it. Computer enthusiasts are a big part of OS/2 2.0's market; the rest
>are highly specialized vertical app users, which prefer 1.3 if they are already
>using it. That's why IBM is still supporting 1.3.

That must mean that 1.3 never, ever crashes.

As for supporting old versions, that's something IBM does, much longer than MS
ever thought about. They're still supporting a version of MVS that's now two
major verion numbers behind, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable
future. MS doesn't even support current releases worth a damn, and their
response when you call in a problem with something even one minor release
behind - if you can even get in to talk to them at all - is "Send us money and
we'll send you an upgrade."
-- 
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.
    "I don't want to read poor Microsoft bashing. I want to read good
Microsoft bashing." -- Douglas A. Bell, in comp.os.os2.advocacy (Me too!)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: djg2@crux3.cit.cornell.edu (David J. Greenberger)
Subject: Re: OS/2 - who and on what?
Keywords: machine, platform
Organization: Cornell Information Technologies
Date: 24 Jan 93 23:18:42 GMT

alvesj@athena.ecs.csus.edu (Jeremy Alves) writes:

>I am looking for information on OS/2, specifically on the type of
>machine that people are running it on, and with what applications,
>so if you are running it, please let me know what kind of machine
>(the processor, how much memory, & speed of your hard drive if you
> happen to know it) you are running it on, and what apps you are
>using, and your general opinion of it.  Thank you.

Hi, Jeremy, I'm running OS/2 on a 486/33 with 16 MB of RAM and 213 MB of disk
space and I'm quite pleased with it.  I regularly run a whole host of apps on
it, including Telix 3.20 (DOS), WordPerfect 5.1 (DOS), Session Manager 1.06
(DOS), QEdit 2.15 (DOS), Intellicomm 1.00 (DOS), PM Chart (OS/2 applet), Daily
Planner/Alarms (OS/2 applet), PKZIP/PKUNZIP 2.04c (DOS; I had to disable DPMI
to get this one to work), SHEZ 7.2 (DOS), Wolfenstein 3-D (DOS), Sirtet (OS/2),
and more.  The only one I have problems with is SHEZ, which does something
strange to the screen output

While I don't regularly use Windows apps, I have tested some out, and they seem
to work fine.  OS/2 frequently "forgets" my Windows app settings, but that bug
has probably been fixed by now -- I'm running the old beta from last October or
so.  Otherwise, they seem to work great, both seamlessly and non-seamlessly.
(I can't attest to their speed since I really haven't done any work in Windows
apps at all.)

Good luck with whatever operating system you decide to use.
--
|      David J. Greenberger      |   BBS: (212) 496-8324          |
|      106 West Avenue           |   Internet: djg2@cornell.edu   |
|      Ithaca, NY 14850          |   RIME: Common, ->48           |
|      (607) 272-2137            |                                |
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy