HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 2 Jan 93 02:33:19 GMT
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago

In article <1h8rofINNi01@tamsun.tamu.edu> bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
>Microsoft developed the mouse?  Tell that to Doug Englebart who did
>develop the mouse (1965).  He did the track ball too. 

In fact, there were several PC mice that predated the Microsoft mouse.

>Sure, MS developed Word, but a lot of folks do NOT agree that Word is
>the best around.

Actually, they didn't.  Word was originally developed by an
independent developer.  Microsoft bought the rights to it, at least on
the PC.

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0h, available from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11478 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3638
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 3 Jan 1993 15:15:15 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan02.091939.18120@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>    If you claim to be 100% Intel compatible, and your processor
>exhibits difference in behavior from Intel's, should Intel be
>responsible for changing their product?

If you claim to be 100% Intel compatible, and your processor exhibits
identical performance to an Intel processor's documented behavior, you _are_
Intel compatible.

>    You bring up functional specifications below - the fact is,
>MS-DOS doesn't have a rigid one that would allow a clone
>to be written.

By default, then, MS-DOS' published API qualifies, especially since MS will
tell you every time you turn around that that's all a programmer should
use...never mind that MS breaks that rule regularly...

>Digital Research must have done a lot of
>reverse engineering, with quite a bit of guesswork.  They
>got very close - they didn't quite make 100%.

They made 100% to MS-DOS' published API. Since MS says that that's all an
application developer can depend on, that should be enough.

>I'm sure that
>as further incompatibilities are revealed, they will fix them
>as well.

That should read, "as further MS violations of their own rules are revealed,
DR will add compatible unpublished interfaces as well."

>But I don't expect to see "DR-DOS" applications
>coming out any time soon, and until then, the people who
>buy DR-DOS to run their MS-DOS apps are basically taking the
>gamble that it's going to work.  It's a good bet, but it
>isn't 100%.

If MS followed the rules, it WOULD be 100%. MS has the power to break DR-DOS
at will, and all external indications are that they have done exactly that.

-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 05:37:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.035545.3621@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.194318.27886@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>>bobatk@microsoft.com (Bob Atkinson) writes:
>>:
>>: I'm confused; perhaps you can help me out of my confusion.
>>: 
>>: 	1. You have DR-DOS6.0, a clone of MSDOS.
>>: 	2. You buy Win3.1, an MS product that was designed to 
>>: 		work with MSDOS. And indeed it does, as you note.
>>: 	3. You find that Win3.1 doesn't work with DR-DOS6.0
>>: 
>>: Then: 
>>: 	4. You complain to MS, not DR, about the problem.
>>: 
>>: See my confusion? Doesn't the problem have to do with the fidelity
>>: of the MSDOS emulation done by DR-DOS? Or am I missing something?
>>: I'd genuinely like to know...
>>
>>And if the fact that DRDOS's emulation is imperfect because of
>>information held back by Mircrosoft?
>>
>
>    Oh, this is rich.  The only way that DR-DOS could get perfect
>MS-DOS emulation is if they had the source code.  This source
>code wasn't provided to them by Microsoft.   Therefore, Microsoft
>is a grand evil company for not turning over the hard work of
>hundreds of engineers to their competitors.
>    Makes sense to me.
>
>					-Phil
>-- 

I have to agree with you on this point, Phil. It does not make
business sense to hand out code to any Tom, Dick or Harry that
comes along and claims they want to write their own version of the
software in question. IF they want it bad enough, let them buy
source.

Besides, the only DOS emulater that I have seen that really works
is called OS/2 2.0 ...

JMHO...


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: robertre@microsoft.com (Robert Reichel ms2)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 25 Dec 92 22:30:03 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Dec22.023401.25792@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>No - MS's way of doing business is the "good ol' American way". Look
>at the early history of IBM, look at the way ITT has behaved in the world.

Why not look at the current history of IBM: stock price at a 20 year low,
forced layoffs, massive writeoffs, talk of a cut in the sacred dividend.  
And this is the company that was harrassed for over 10 years by the government 
for anti-trust violations, with nothing but a huge waste of taxpayer 
money to show for the effort.  IBM didn't change its business practices
one iota.

The fact that a company who once totally dominated its industry could
fall on the hard times that IBM has is proof enough that the market
takes care of itself, without any "help" from the government.
-- 
-------
Not even close to being a Microsoft spokesperson.
Don't believe a word I say.
Robert Reichel,		{decvax,uunet,uw-beaver}!microsoft!robertre
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 03 Jan 93 07:59:33 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1i5tblINN694@tamsun.tamu.edu> bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
>In article <1993Jan2.232052.7082@gw.wmich.edu> x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>
>[I deleted a lot--I hope the attribution is correct.]
>
>|> 
>|> 	Might I offer a suggestion?  Perhaps the 
>|> 	warning was to prevent the user from installing the DOS6 
>|> 	beta using the Stacker-like disk compression program.  This
>|> 	would, quite simply, render OS/2 unusable.  
>
>Really?  I have 260Mb on my system - none of it FAT.  If I took one
>partition--say 20Mb and made it a DOS 6 FAT bootable partition, that
>would make OS/2 unusable?  The compressed FAT partition might not be
>accessable by OS/2, but that hardly makes OS/2 'unusable.'

     OS/2 should still work just fine, but it wouldn't be able
to read the compressed FAT partition.  I expect that any warning
message is intended to convey exactly this information.


>By the way, besides disk compression, why would I want DOS 6? What are
>the features that make me want to change from OS/2?  Memory management
>is a non issue.  About the only thing I can think of is if I was
>developing software and I wanted to check DOS 6 compatability.
>
>Can anyone suggest advantages for DOS6?

    To be honest, I'm not sure what I can say about the product and
what is confidential.  So I won't field this one.
    I don't believe that DOS 6 is intended to attract users
away from OS/2, but then again, what do I know?

			-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: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:45:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.154910.6846@kth.se> d89-zke@dront.nada.kth.se (Zoltan Kelemen) writes:

>Well, the problem is that I, as a customer, don't see the alternatives
>to MS Windows or DOS when buying a computer. Why? Because almost every
>system is bundled with Windows. How on earth could I make a fair price
>comparison with other products, when I get Windows "free" (its price is
>hidden as a part of the system).

You have an alternative: hire few programmers to write one for you. 
Obviously you dont want to do it because it is too expensive. You 
want someone else to invest and risk his money to write one for you.
MS did that. Now people are claiming that it is unfair business,
because it was successful. 

Unfortunately, we are not born with a coupon that entitles us
for a cheap Operating System. Someone else must produce it for 
us at his/her own risk. And these who do are entitled to a return
if they succeed.  

>Zoltan

Dov
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:43:02 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Dec24.200625.4977@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>
>I am getting 4 x 4meg simms on Tuesday. As for the FUD....I am relating what
>happened when I used NT. If it weren't true.....that might be FUD. The fact
>is, the system needs 16megs of RAM and eats up 90megs of hard disk....whatever
>machine you install it on.....

    Steve, I'm disappointed in you.  The above is clearly FUD - the fact
that the Windows NT installation that you tested didn't perform well
for you says nothing about all the other machines in the world, unless
you feel that your single PC is somehow representative of PCs
everywhere.  I also suspect that your copy of Windows NT was poorly
installed - I've been using Windows NT for months now and have only
crashed once.  And it takes less that 90MB of disk space for me.

				-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,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 00:47:12 GMT

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
: In article <1992Dec31.224255.27090@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
: >philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
: >> In article <1992Dec29.194318.27886@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
: >> >
: >> >And if the fact that DRDOS's emulation is imperfect because of
: >> >information held back by Mircrosoft?
: >> >
: >> 
: >>     Oh, this is rich.  The only way that DR-DOS could get perfect
: >> MS-DOS emulation is if they had the source code.  
: >
: >Really? And presumably, by the same argument, the only way an AMD386
: >could provide perfect emulation of an Intel 386 is if AMD had access
: >to the original Intel drawings?
: 
:      Yes!  That's exactly my point.  They can get close, but they
: aren't going to be 100% the same as Intel unless, well, they are
: 100% the same.

Oh please! Emulation does *not* mean running identically *internally*.
I suggest you read any textbook on abstract data types.

: 
: >Never heard of functional specifications?
: 
:    Of course I have.  This is why I can't understand when people
: complain to Microsoft because DR-DOS didn't meet them exactly.

If this is indeed the case. There do however seem to be plebnty of
people claiming to have evidence to the contrary.
--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10759 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3359
From: rcmerrit@apgea.army.mil (Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit>)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rude behavior on this group.
Date: 22 Dec 92 15:51:27 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: APG-Edgewood



Question: For all of you who don't want to buy windows, dos..etc.. with
your system. Why don't you just buy a system piece by piece and put it
together yourselves? If you don't need any type of os installed, you
probably know enough about IBM clone anatomy (or atlest you should) to
build it yourself. That way, you get exactly what you wanted.
I did, I love windows, but it just wasn't making the grade on a 386-sx 16
with 4 megs of ram. But I only had 1700 dollars to build one... so
I got a 486 dx-33 with 16 megs. A complete system, minus cd-rom drive
cost me about $1800. ok, it was 100 more but that wasn't too bad.

Rob Merritt

My opinions are my own.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11013 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3466
From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 28 Dec 1992 21:14:09 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuron.tamu.edu

In article <28DEC199212022792@moose.cccs.umn.edu> rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.234828.0203999@locus.com>, lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:
>>  
>> Besides the 1983 promise to allow ME to use more than 640K on my AT still
>> is waiting to be filled by MicroSoft.  
>
>Why should MS be responsible for IBM's promises?
>
>>  
>> I have been in this industry since the Altair was the hot kid on the block,
>> and I really don't know a lot of users who are happy with Microsoft.  Such 
>> statements as; "I bought this 386 with 8 megs of ram, why will this ****
>> MS-Dog only allow me to use 640K without buying something else again" are 
>> rampant.  People are not happy with MS, they only buy MS-DOS because it is
>> effectively the only game in town, and you gotta play and pay through the
>> nose for the priviledge.
>
>It was IBM that decided to place the BIOS/Video/Disk ROM where it is, not
>MS.  It was IBM that decided to go with the segmented architecture, not MS.
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I hope you mean by this that IBM decided to go with Intel 8088 and not
Motorola 68000 chips.  If we are given an 80x8x, we are limited to
segmented architecture (in real mode).

From my understanding, IBM did not think much of the PC at first and
went for the absolute cheapest chips consistent with typical IBM
reliability requirements (I've not heard of reliability complaints
from any IBM machine--they may not have pushed the state of the art,
but they are pretty reliable.)

In fact, if IBM would have gone with Motorola, I don't think MS would
exist today.

   -- Bruce

--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
                              |  Scrupulous Lawyer
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 2 Jan 93 23:25:06 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1993Jan2.060223.4340@midway.uchicago.edu>, sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:

|> The arguments about Microsoft not holding a gun to anyone's head are
|> irrelevant.  That isn't the point of antitrust law.

My point isn't that Microsoft _isn't_ holding a gun to anyone's head as much
as the FTC _is_.  The antitrust laws are unjust from an abstract moral 
viewpoint because they are based on the premise that the ends (hacking
Microsoft down to size) justify the means (in effect, armed robbery of
market share by the FTC) which is bogus.  They are also unjust from a
pragmatic view because they allow companies from countries like Japan to
have an unfair competative advantage over U.S. industries--result:  we don't
manufacure DRAM, LCD displays, Cameras, VCR's etc etc here anymore, and our
factory workers "enjoy" a lower wage than Japanese factory workers do.

|> The arguments about free entry are interesting (namely that if a
|> monopoly were to develop then a competitor would simply come in and
|> charge a lower price), and that does happen quite frequently.
|> However, entry into a market may be restricted for various reasons.
|> There may be a high fixed cost to entry, for example.
|> End of economics lesson.  :-)

In general, a well thought out and well written post.
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 3 Jan 1993 14:47:02 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec31.054341.3666@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>OK, I'll play along for a minute.  If Microsoft _did_ "force" the cloners
>to change their names to "Microsoft Computers, Inc." in order to sell MS-DOS
>would that make their liscenses all of a sudden "unsleazy" in your eyes?
>If Microsoft offered the cloners the same deal as McDonald's did to its 
>franchisee's would you be satisfied?

If they were to franchise Microsoft dealers, with the same restrictions,
privileges, and rights that McDonalds forces/grants to their franchisees, then
we'd be talking about a very different thing. Further, the fast food market is
much more competitive than the PC OS market; if there were PC equivalents of
Burger King, Jack in the Box, Wendy's, and Taco Bell, I'd be a lot more
comfortable with what MS is doing.

>I don't see them as being any "sleazier" than McDonald's practices--in fact
>the agreements which Microsoft offers are much less exclusive than what
>Microsoft offers--therefore if its OK for McDonald's to do what they do it is
>even more OK for Microsoft to do what they do.

The cases are vastly different. McDonalds does not have monopoly marketing
power in hamburgers.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 05:08:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.235306.1899@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
> 
> Hmmm..... ok, let me get this straight.  Microsoft competes so well now that
> the FTC needs to take its competative advantages away because it is being
> "anticompetative."  
> 
> The above sounds a lot to me like "War is peace" and "Slavery is freedom". 
> Downright Orwellian.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln said it best:  "You can't strengthen the weak by weakening the
> strong."

I think this quote is out of context.....
 
In this situation, I would state the matter in this way....:
 
"When the strong cease to protect the weak, the weak must be protected from the
strong." Steve Withers 1992.
 
Now since it never was Microsoft's job to protect its competitors......someone
else (the FTC? of DOJ?) has to keep MS from competing so well that it is
uneconomic for anyone to compete with them.

Steve
 


-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
+64 4 478 4714                          | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
From: Kurt.Westerfeld@f347.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Kurt Westerfeld)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Beta Availibility???
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 13:46:08 -0500

On Sunday, 12-23-92, Paul G Hostetler wrote to All  
concerning "Beta Availibility???:" 
 
PG> Per IBM the OS/2 2.1 beta is not yet availible. Where is the information  
PG> regarding availibility coming from?? 
 
Yeah!   
   
  I'm sitting at home on Christmas Eve (wrapping presents) when Airborne   
  Express just SHOWS UP with a CD ROM OS/2 2.1 Beta!  Yeah!  Merry   
  Christmas!  Now, if CDW just shipped my Texel CD ROM when IBM   
  shipped my CD, I'll be playing beta tester this weekend.   
   
  I guess all members of the DAP just get this stuff sent to 'em.  IBM   
  has a great XMas gift to all OS/2 Developer's!   
   
  Now, just so everyone can see what I got, here's an excerpt from the   
  letter inside:   
   
    This CD ROM contains the following features of OS/2 2.1 beta version:   
   
        - Support for Microsoft Windows 3.1 applications   
        - Seamless support for Windows 3.1 and PM SVGA   
        - Enhanced SCSI-based CD ROM support   
        - Additional high-speed printer support   
        - Advanced power management (APM) (except mouse support)   
        - PC Memory Card International Association (PCMCIA) enabling   
        - Enhanced enabling code for pen-based systems   
        - Multimedia enabling (except software motion video)   
        - Support of OS/2 as an AS/400 client   
        - A FAX mini-application (applet)   
   
  There's no non-disclosure, so I guess I didn't do anything wrong by   
  telling everyone this.   
   
  Looks like just about every SCSI CD ROM device is supported, and while   
  there's no Trantor driver included, the example for using a   
  non-supported CD ROM in the install docs uses the T128SCSI.ADD as an   
  example.  Chances are, this driver will be included, too, once 2.1   
  GA's.   
   
  I'm so excited!  Glad IBM has their rear in gear.   
   
        Kurt   
  
 * KWQ/2 1.0C *