HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:03:39 GMT

brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith) writes:
>>What he is quite clearly and correctly saying is that NT AND OS/2 2.0 are not
>>CONCURRENT multi user systems. NT allows you to set up profiles so that more
>>than one person can use (IF THEY WAIT THEIR TURN LIKE A GOOD LITTLE BOY/GIRL)
>>this workstation with their files being protected
>>from the other users. ( Hardly multi-user in the traditional sense )

>NT does allow concurrent multi-user systems.

>Brian [sturgill]

Brian, please elaborate on this statement.  Don't just state something.
Give an example of it.  What exactly does it mean that "NT does allow
concurrent multi-user systems"?  Does that mean that I will be able to
buy an add-on package to give me multi-user (in the traditional sense),
or does that mean that NT will come with multi-user support (in the
traditional sense)?

Do tell.

Daniel
--
Daniel L'Hommedieu / Junior, CSC Depatment, NCSU / eagle@catt.ncsu.edu
From: Rec.humor.funny:				   "Ich bin ein Adler"
      My unique solution to two of the world's problems:
      "Feed the Homeless to the Hungry"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sam@ms.uky.edu (Mike Mills)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
    <1992Sep25.164035.24984@nosc.mil> <pathak-260992141946@virtual.mitre.org> 
    <1992Sep26.211039.24073@muddcs.claremont.edu> 
    <1992Oct03.232108.18990@microsoft.com><1992Oct4.180905.27222@ms.uky.edu>  
    <1992Oct05.090520.8951@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 03:05:19 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

(in response to my message, indicated by two ">>"):

>> That is an absurd analogy, and has no bearing on operating systems.

>Okay, well, tell the person who started that anology, not me...

>> 
>> The only time preemptive multitasking is not the best method is when its not
>> the method used in the operating system you're trying to sell.
>IYHO of course.  Or are you deciding for the rest of us too?

Yes, in my opinion.  But other than being easier to write and code for (maybe),
what advantage does non-preemptive multitasking have?  I say none.

>> 
>> IMHO, preemptive multitasking is a requirement.  Also, any OS should be
>> multiuser.  This is a shortcoming in both NT and OS/2.  With machines
>> becoming more and more powerful, there is an increasing need for multiuser
>> operating systems, in order to take better advantage of the underlying machine.
>> 

>I bet I can be absurd here too.  What about the "OS" in my microwave oven,
>should it be multitaskin/multiuser.  How about the "OS" in one of those
>new handhelds, should they be multiuser.  What about the "OS" on a machine
>controlling a conveyor belt in a factory, or a milling machine.  What about
>the "OS" in a dedicated word processor.  What about the "OS" in video games.
>You know, the one's you find in arcades.  Should they be multiuser.

>Okay, Okay, I'll stop, but I think I've named enough computing environments
>that are valid markets that don't need multiuser, and may not need 
>multitasking systems.

You're right; those things don't need multiuser operating systems.  But they
don't need NT either.

>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...


-- 
--Mike Mills              E-Mail:  sam@ms.uky.edu, {rutgers, uunet}!ukma!sam
--UK Math Sciences Dept.                  mike@ukpr.uky.edu    
--(606) 257-1429 (work) 263-0721 (home)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ekl@fics.uucp
Subject: Re: Os/2ers whine again
Organization: Kvam data as
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:02:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.175959.4316@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.001937.13093@fics.uucp> ekl@fics.uucp writes:
>>petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>>>
>>>I never said NT wasn't called OS/2 3.0, All I wanted is some pointer
>>>to where there is similarity between OS/2 and NT.  If all that is similar
>>>is that they may have had a similar name at one time, well, that is
>>>not useful.  What is useful are things like the following.
>>
>>While you may not have *explicitly* said that NT wasn't called os/2 3.0,
>>your original post definately made it sound like that's what you meant.
>
>     Ah - it's good that we have a mind reader among us.  If I ever
>forget what I meant in a post, can I come and ask you?

  "My article claimed that I am a mind reader? Can you point out
   which words in my article had anything to do with mind reading please"

In the above paragraph, I do not *explicitly* disagree with you. I guess
you understand what it sound like. Likewise, from your article:

>>>The thing on the PDK disk was formerly called OS/2 3.0?  Can you point
>>>out which code on the PDK has anything to do with OS/2 please.

Mind reading? No, only common sense. My opinion, of course. You are entitled
to have another; I just thought (and think) my opinion make more sense.

>>My reply mainly showed that what is now NT was previously known as OS/2,
>>with the version number 3. To me, that tells that *most* of the code
>>on the PDK has anything to do with OS/2.
>
>     The project name for NT could have been Toaster in the past -
>that doesn't mean that Windows NT has anything to do with toast.

That was a real good analogy. I understand now.

>
>					-Phil
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
>philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
>Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.

Eirik

(Hey, what do you say, we agree we disagree? Spend bandwith on more
current and more informative subjects?)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Interesting WINBENCH scores...
Date: 01 Oct 92 18:40:10 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Sep30.210648.18990@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.010358.13626@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>     Anyone out there know if it's possible to convince OS/2 to
>>give 100% of the processor to a given task?
>
>You mean disable multitasking?  Why would I want to do that?  If a
>task needs more CPU, I just terminate other applications, and the app
>will get more. 

     This is in the context of benchmarks - I don't find the current
comparisons between Windows and OS/2 to be particularly useful, since
OS/2 can take the CPU away from the benchmark program.
     In general practice, though, I don't think anyone would need
to disable multitasking.  At least I can't think of a good reason to.

				-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Mitre Corporation
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:14:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.194602.3691@nosc.mil>, discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
wrote:
> 
> Show of hands, everyone, how many people think that computerization has
> benefitted the office worker?  (my hand is down).  
> 
> The result of getting the worker's job done quicker was to allow the
> boss to give her more work.  Sure she can get a report done in half the
> time it used to take--but now she has to do three reports per day instead
> of one...
> 
> Just some more thoughts...

This last comment is really thoughtless!  While it may be true
computerization has given people a greater workload, it plain dumb to
complain about having to do three reports instead of one.  Do you want the
worker to sit around for the better part of the day?  

Much of the "restructuring" going on in business deals with cutting costs
so the business can compete.  Increasing worker efficeincy parts a big part
in reducing costs.  So while the worker may have more work to do in a day,
it is much better than not having a job because the business got creamed by
a competitor in the marketplace.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heeren Pathak                      | Millions long for immortality who do 
pathak@mitre.org                   | not know what to do with themselves
Mitre Corporation                  | on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
(617) 271-7465                     |	               	-- Susan Ertz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Mine not Mitre's.
From: Mike.Hobbs@f115.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Mike Hobbs)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: DESYNCHRONIZED MESSAGE QU
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:25:00 -0600

After recieving shock-therapy, Tom Hatton mumbled the following to All:

>>Another benefit of desynchronized message queues is that an
>>app (or the system) is never blocked if another app is hung
>>or busy.

>This horse has beeen beaten pretty thoroughly. Nyah, nyah, NT has multiple
>message queues, OS/2 doesn't.

>1) OS/2 doesn't - yet. It's being added according to IBM, and so, where's
>   the beef? Gosh, I'm going to jump on NT (whenever it appears) for that
>   feature. No, I guess I've already got OS/2, it works well, and that
>   feature is coming, why bother getting NT?

>2) IBM originally wanted multiple queues for OS/2, and MS demanded
>   single queues for Windows compatibility. So, if this is a detriment
>   to OS/2, thank MS.

>In any case, does this design eliminate system hangs? Will MS guarantee
>that NT will never hang because of this? If not, then maybe it's just
>a bit of an improvement, and if both OS/2 and NT are going to have it,
>well, I've already got OS/2...

   I have a few more questions about message queues.  First, an IBM rep on
another net posted a message about his predictions about the future versions
of OS/2 (not IBM's).  He seemed to think that OS/2 2.1 would be available
1st-2ndQ93 and that it would include, among other things, a desynchronized PM
message queue. (no, not the Win3.1 version, that's 2.01)  Is this true?  Yes?
No?  Possibly?  Definitely not?

   Another question is, what's the official definition of a desynchronized
message queue.  The way I understand it, it means that each thread that
requests a queue would recieve it's own queue, not a hook into a system
queue.  And all of these queues would themselves be on their own threads,
thus creating multithreaded message queues.  Is this correct?

   My third question is, would it be more or less overhead to have message
queues like the ones currently for OS/2, but make them preemptive instead of
cooperative.  It seems that this type of message queue processing would
require less overhead than NT, which requires multiple message queues and
multiple threads to support them.  Of course, a completely separate issue is
the question of whether it's possible to have preemptive hooks into a
system-wide message queue or not.

___
 * MR/2 1.3 NR * What?!?  DOSSHELL *isn't* supposed to be a joke?


 * Origin: (1:282/115)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 03 Oct 92 23:21:08 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Oct3.052735.869@leland.Stanford.EDU> jswang@leland.Stanford.EDU wrote:

> 
> Actually, I think I myself tend to "multitask preemptively" a lot.  Like when
> I need to wait for something (for food to be cooked), I often would go
> off and do something else, then come back after say five minutes.  If I
> need to continue the wait, I'll just continue doing that something else, then
> return to check again after a while.  Would you consider this "mulitasking
> preemptively".
> 

Tell you what, though, try this.

Sit down to do something like, say, your income taxes.  Get one of those
kitchen timers, and set it for 5 minutes.  Do your taxes.  When the
bell goes off, reset the timer, and go read the newspaper.  When the bell
goes off, reset the timer again, and watch TV.  and so on, and so on.

If you don't scramble your brains after a while, I'm impressed.

Now, also, in your boiling water deal, wouldn't you much more prefer to
set a timer, or have some sort of an alarm that goes off when the
water is boiling.  I find it distracting to have to go back to check
on boiling water more than one or two times.

Now, if you did have an alarm of that type, wouldn't boiling water be
more equivalent to sending a request to the disk controller, and then
servicing the interrupt it generates when it's done.

Okay, I've gone off on sort of a tangent here, but I guess I've tried to
point out that preemptive multitasking is not the only method for doing
things in the real world, as well as in the computer world.  And in some
cases, it's not the best.


petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: tdbear@tandon.com (Tom Barrett)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Organization: Tandon Corporation, Moorpark, CA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:24:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.072952.16935@u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>
>If a controller vendor chooses to provide a FastDisk VxD for their
>controller, then disk access can become much faster.

Tim, it would seem that this argument is mutually exclusive of 
EISA vs. VL... if you don't think so, please educate us on 
this by talking about why it is important to EISA and VL rather 
than educating us about VxD.  Thanks.



-- 
Tom Barrett (TDBear)    tdbear@tandon.com          voice: 805-378-6207
Tandon Corporation      609 Science Drive          Moorpark, CA  93021 
Sr. HW Design Engineer  "War is Peace, No is Yes, And We're All Free!" 
-=>NOTE:  The feed to tdbear@tandon.com may be interrupted in Sept.<=-
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:32:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.041214.16986@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Oct1.154246.2250@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>>>
>>>Except that OS/2 3.0 is now called Windows/NT.
>
>>Blech.  There is one *very* annoying thing about calling NT "OS/2 3.0", IMO.
>>It's not that OS/2 and NT are super-different systems or any dislike of the
>>two being associated with one another, but to call NT "OS/2 3.0" is
>>definitely a misnomer.  3.0 implies a 1.x and a 2.x.
>
>Don't look now, but a couple folks in comp.os.ms-windows-programmer.win32
>(including some MS employees) are calling it Windows NT 3.1.

Ack!  Talk about blurring lines.  Which one do they call Windows NT 3.1, 3.1 or
NT?  Eh, forget it.  I'll let them confuse themselves on their own:).

>John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I

Ted
From: mstaben@comtch.spk.wa.us (Matthew Staben)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why OS/2 **WILL** fail
Date: 27 Sep 92 21:20:52 GMT
Organization: Waffle BBS at CompuTech Spokane, Washington

Ian_Upright@mindlink.bc.ca (Ian Upright) writes:

> 
>  > This is where os/2 comes in. OS/2
>  > is a perfect example of PC power without rembering who the real
>  > market is. OS/2 is POWERFUL, REAL powerful. But its also a pain in
>  > the ass. It reminds me of the old japanese vcrs which had 50
>  > (literally, I counted several) buttons on the remotes and more knobs
>  > than I had the time to count on the vcr body itself. OS/2 is
>  > very much like that. In an effort to give the user total control
>  > which computer professionals such as myself ADORE, I just LOVE
>  > tweaking priority so I can download and still get work done) they
>  > have alienated the average user. I don't know ANYONE who can't just
>  > jump into a MAC or Windows program without problem, but sit them in
>  > front of os/2 and they start drooling in confusion.
> 
> I have to agree with you on this one.  But I think you're concentrating
> on the Win-OS/2 and the Dos-OS/2 aspects of OS/2.  Think of OS/2 as it is
> in it's native 32-bit enviroment, and not the problems of running dos
> sessions.  If the shell was replaced with a much easier third party shell,
> things could get quite a bit easier.  It may take a "technojock" to get
> it installed the first time, but after that, I don't see it that much
> more difficult than a Mac..  A Mac sometimes isn't all that easy either..
> Just try sorting out an init confict some day, and you really begin to
> develop a love/hate relationship for the thing.  But I have to agree with you
> OS/2's shell, as it stands now, isn't going to be readily used by Mr. Joe
> User.

 
A good anology to this situation is the difference between your basic VHS 
$150 VCR with a $10,000 video editing set.  CP/M-DOS vs. OS/2 2.0
 

mstaben@comtch.spk.wa.us
 
- A warning to anyone, still in command...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville)
Subject: Re: So much for Msoft's bluster <grin>
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Summary: pre-beat really is beta
Organization: Computer and Technologies Theme Program, NCSU, Raleigh
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 03:37:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.160233.3985@spcvxb.spc.edu> mauritz_c@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:
>09/25 (DW) Microsoft Delays Shipments of Windows NT Operating System
>    By Ken Yamada
>    Dow Jones Staff Reporter
>	
>    REDMOND, Wash. -DJ- Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) said the first shipments
>of its Windows NT operating system software are expected to be delayed
>until early 1993.

...

>    Since July, Microsoft has shipped more than 20,000 advance copies of
>the software, called developer kits, to potential corporate customers
>and independent software developers for testing, Walker said.  By the
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^

'Pre-beta'?  I don't think so.

John W. Linville


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  John W. Linville                Amateur radio:  KD4KHC                  |
|  #include "std_disclaimer.h"     E-mail:  linville@catt.ncsu.edu         |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 20:48:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.165553.19232@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
>
>>Also, hard
>>drive manufacturers have approached IBM with interest in selling hard
>>drives with OS/2 2.0 preloaded.
>
>Now *that's* an interesting approach.  Since Microsoft seems to have
>cut off IBM at the vendor level when it comes to bundling operating
>systems, IBM does one better by bundling at the hardware manufacturer
>level.  Then both companies can proclaim "XX million copies shipped!"
>and the numbers will finally be equitable.

Actually, it's not doing MS one better, because they package Windows with
HD's already (and have for some time).  Personally, I don't like the concept
of bundling software with hardware for the simple reason that it blows to
hell any idea of a product's true market penetration.  No longer
do people have to go buy a product, they get it "free" with their next PC or
hardware purchase.


OTOH, it's a very profitable way for IBM and MS to distribute their products.
Therefore, it doesn't matter whether or not I like it:).

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Keywords: Beta
Organization: Philipps-University Marburg
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:11:54 GMT

In article <dA2-ZdB@engin.umich.edu>, rks@beaker.engin.umich.edu (Raul Shum)
writes:
|> 
|> Don't take me wrong, I'm a IBM OS/2 guy, but if IBM doesn't fix the 
|> bugs, the installation program, and additional drivers, OS/2 will fall into 
|> an OS that the "other guy" will run.

Fine, all you OS/2 guys, if you principally don't believe, what we /NT guys
say,
just read, what more and more OS/2 guys believe. 

|> Finally, to the schmucks who support NT, go and form your own advocacy! 
|> In the words of Tracy Ullman..GO HOME

The discussion OS/2 vs. /NT will be there, either here or in another advocacy
group. But this is quite typical, if you OS/2 guys feel, that we have the
better arguments based on facts, you don't wanna here them anymore.

Christoph
-- 
Internet: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de
BITNET: HAMPE2@DMRHRZ11
Fido: 2:243/660
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: So much for Msoft's bluster <grin>
Date: 01 Oct 92 09:40:23 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Sep30.133735.6754@ncsu.edu> linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu wrote:
> In article <1992Sep29.185108.6235@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep29.033730.3054@ncsu.edu> linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu wrote:
> >> 'Pre-beta'?  I don't think so.
> >> 
> >> John W. Linville
> >
> >That's the problem with America these days, everyone blindly follows
> >what the press says.  I bet you believed that the Panama invasion was to
> >arrest Noriega for drug charges, too.  And you believe Zachman word for
> >word....
> >
> >petesk@microsoft.com
> >My Opinions...
> 
> And I'll bet that you believed NT would ship in 4Q92....

I believed that OS/2 would be successful back before the breakup.
Is that close enough?

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
From: 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Msoft's bluster <grin>
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:01:34 EST
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1668@anagld.analytics.com>, sammy@anagld.analytics.com (Sam Blackburn) writes:
> olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund) writes:
> 
>>When NT finally will be available (by the
>>end of '93?), there will be a lot of OS/2 2.0 users and a lot of
>>powerfull 32-bits OS/2 applications out there.
> 
> Debatable.  From a developer's point of view it makes more sense to develop a
> Windows application because OS/2 can run Windows apps.  You've killed two birds
> with one stone.  This, of course, does not apply to "server" type applications.
> When NT comes out you've got an application that runs on THREE operating systems
> instead of being tied to only one with OS/2.
> 
>                                                                o
> Sam Blackburn                                                    \
> Internet:   sammy@sed.csc.com                                  \O/
> Compuserve: 76300,326                     ||====================|====||
> GEnie:      SAMMY                         ||-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-/\+-+-||
>                                           ||===================\=\===||
>                                           ||                         ||
>                                           || Kill or be killed.      ||

	NT will only run OS/2 character based apps.  Therefore, 
the short term smart thing to do is to develop for Windows 3.0 until
3.1 becomes the by and afar most used version.
	Developing strictly for NT sems to be the worst way to go
presently.

=================================
Brad Wardell  **Happy OS/2 2.0 User**
Project Director
Stardock Systems (SDS)
Western Michigan University
=================================



From: Mike.Hobbs@f115.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Mike Hobbs)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com