HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Miscellaneous NT information.
Date: 1 Oct 92 12:24:36 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

In <1992Sep29.002448.29951@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>	2. They distributed 20,000 copies of the pre-release Dev. Kit.
And they estimate 25000 end of the year.

>	4. Microsoft is building OLE 2.0 for MacIntosh as well as for PCs.
Anyone having more info on this? 

>	5. Final release will be in February/March 1993.  The beta release will
>           occur sometime in October 92.
The CURRENT CLAIMED final release date is NOW march 1993. Notice that
MS might push it ahead again.

>	6. Windows NT sources will be available to researchers.  The main
>	   restriction will be that no SALABLE derivatives will be allowed
This is VERY interesting. I hope this trend is to be copied by IBM and
Apple.

>           without extensive negotiations with MS.  This further indicates to
>           me that:
>		2. WindowsNT pricing will be so low that it won't make sense
>                   to try and build the distribution from sources.
Or the source will be very expensive.

>		3. WindowsNT will definitely be as "open" as UNIX.
Why? Distributing (mainly "read-only") sources has nothing to do
with being open. It takes more than that.

>	   He indicated that the source release won't occur until MS is
>	   satisfied that they have reasonably robust product.
This one should generate some nice jokes in the future.

>Brian

Nico E. de Vries
 _ _
 O O  USENET nevries@cc.ruu.nl This text reflects MY opinions, nothing else.
  o   This text is supplied 'AS IS', no waranties of any kind apply.
 \_/  Don't waste your time on complaining about my hopeless typostyle.

"I own so many clocks that I need 1 hour to set them all one hour back
 for Winter time. Nevertheless it does not cost me any time."
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: amitp@ruf.rice.edu (Amit J Patel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Debugging feature
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:45:44 GMT
Reply-To: amitp@owlnet.rice.edu
Organization: Rice University

You know, it'd be nice if OS/2 could simulate dual monitors in a DOS 
session so that one window would pop up with Turbo Debugger and another
window would pop up with my application in it.

:)




	Amit
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: westes@sti.com (Will Estes)
Subject: MS-Windows 32-bit Disk Access (was:  PowerPC or (P5 & P6)? )
Organization: Mail Group
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:48:39 GMT

In article <21623@global.hacktic.nl> peter@global.hacktic.nl (Peter Busser) writes:
>westes@sti.com (Will Estes) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Oct2.163556.13131@tandon.com> tdbear@tandon.com (Tom Barrett) writes:
>>>Actually, it is totally a waste to spend money on EISA for
>>>personal computing... servers and multiuser (not
>>>multiprocessing) machines excepted.
>
>>Anyone who knows of an EISA SCSI that has a 32-bit virtual device
>>driver under Windows, please let us know about it.
>
>That's the point: there aren't any. And if they are there, they're expensive
>because no one buys EISA boards.
>
>Besides, what is this 32-bit hype about?

It's probably not hype at all.  If you've used Windows much, you know that
any time you do significant I/O you end up blocking other tasks running
on the system.  The reason for that is that int 13 is not re-entrant,
and Windows can only have one task doing int 13 stuff at any one time.
I think that maybe even Windows itself uses int 13 for the paging
activity of Windows (someone correct me on that if it's wrong).

The 32-bit option for virtual memory is basically a total replacement
for int 13 BIOS hard disk calls.  It's a totally re-entrant I/O queueing
system, and even if you are only using a 16-bit card with it in theory
it should improve overall system performance by allowing low-level I/O 
requests from multiple concurrently executing apps to queue up in parallel. 
(Of course the thought occurs that all of these apps are probably going
through int 21, which is also not re-entrant...)

Anyway, Microsoft says that a 16-bit card that uses 32-bit disk access
will in general improve system throughput by about 15%, and they claim
that an EISA card that specifically supports 32-bit transfers in a
32-bit virtual device driver will have a significant performance benefit
(unquantified) above that.

Again, I haven't used EISA or 32-bit access at all, so I can't report
that I have experienced the result.  I'm just repeating what I've read
from the Microsoft white paper on 32-bit disk access.

-- 
Will Estes		Internet: westes@netcom.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: genie@netcom.com (Gene Choi)
Subject: Re: Impressed with IBM
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:37:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.180749.9774@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>In article <BvI1xx.Kr2@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, btf57346@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Byron
>"Bohr" Faber) writes:
>I> Within 48 hours they had 
>|> a copy os os/2 2.01 beta in my hands (I was very suprised 
>|> as I didn't expect it for a week or two).
>
>In Germany you can download it free from their German
>BBS. It's even faster and cheaper.

Hmm..  Not really cheaper at any means.  IBM sends it
to you for free.  And they ship it overnite express.
The call is free also!  :)

>|> Well I installed it last night and I think they have
>|> done a great job on the 32-bit Gre, while I haven't 
>|> really gave it a hard run yet I can tell its faster 
>|> (don't think I'm talking Road-runner speed here).
>
>I must have a totally different version, than you have.
>I can't see any speed improvements

Actually, neither do I.  I am running it under normal
VGA mode.  No difference in performance that I've encountered.

>|> But on my machine I can just barely tell 
>|> the difference between winos231 and The windows 3.1 that
>|> I had run on my machine.
>
>Yes, you are right. This WINOS231 is really excellent and
>you don't see a difference to native WIN 3.1, as long as
>you don't need the enhanced 386 mode.

Windows 3.1 is great.  Even the multimedia stuff works
(at least the Midi player works with my Roland).

I can't wait until they get rid of all the bugs though...
Lots of 'em.  But that's why they call it a beta.

>Christoph

Gene
From: finsys@cpva.saic.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: i486sc/25 & AND386/40 (was Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?)
Date: 3 Oct 92 01:21:00 GMT
Followup-To: comp.benchmarks
Organization: Science Applications Int'l Corp./San Diego


 jwreilly@mipos2.intel.com (Jeffrey Reilly) writes:
> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>>AMD also produces 386sx chips at 25 and 33MHz.  I believe they'll have
>>486 chips out soon, as well.  BTW, the AMD 386/40 performs better than
>>an Intel 486sx/25, and it's much cheaper.
> 
> What data do you have to back up your performance claim?
> 
> At least in terms of the DOS/Business Desktop environment, I have
> seen the following data:
> 
> From page 49 and 57 of the 8/92 BAPCo Report ( a newsletter put out
> by the Business Applications Performance Corporation to provide
> results on their SYSmark92 suite; which is an application based suite
> of benchmarks):
> 
> System Model 	Compaq/M 486/25s	Rimma Technology 386-40
> CPU		Intel486SX		AMD386DX
> FPU		None			None
> MHz		25			40
> Memory		8MB			8MB	
> Cache		64KB (8K on chip)	64KB
> Disk		Both have Maxtor 4170E w/ WD1007V ESDI controller
> Video		Integrated		Orchid Prodesigner IIs
> 
> SYSmark92	94.75			84.43
> 
> A higher SYSmark92 indicates better performance. From these numbers,
> it appears that the with two fairly similar systems, the Intel486SX
> perfroms about 10% better than the AMD386DX.

> Jeff Reilly			| "There is something fascinating about
> Intel Corporation		| science. One gets such wholesale returns

Give me a break.  This post wasn't even a good example of clever deception.
Those were system benchmarks, not CPU benchmarks.  There are some very
good CPU vs CPU comparisons.  Try using those in the future. Or are you afraid
to? ;)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: johnsd2@jec326.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Ian's Outlook on OS'es
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:55:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.223153.52053@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
[deletia- OS overviews. Good ones. Go read 'em :) ]

[deletia- stuff about how WPS should be as efficient as the Finder, so
people will use it]

|> The reason that
|> no one has come up with a finder replacement is that Apple would sue the pants
|> off anyone who tried.  (Until recently that is) 

This is not true. There are, and have been for some time, various
finder replacements. Apple has no  grounds to sue someone for not
using their products. :) [would be scary tho...]

People use the Finder because they like it. The Finder is aweful
good. (imho, the WPS is the only thing I've seen that can compare)

[deletia- more overview.]

-- 
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: kaz@iastate.edu (Jimmy Buffet)
Subject: Re: Is WPS really better??
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:36:52 GMT

Well, all I can say is I've used Mac system 7, Windows 3.1, DOS, Amiga DOS 2.0,
X-Windows (Motif), and have seen Desqview/X.  All I can say is the WPS is the
most logical, the only true object oriented, the most enjoyable, the
most powerful, the most attractive, and the most advanced interface of them 
all.  I am truly very, VERY satisfied (in love with) the WPS.  That alone
is impressive, but running another OPERATING SYSTEM in a window?  It's amazing.
Seamless windows! An incredible feat.  WPS has changed the way I look at and
use my computer

Jeff "Kaz" Kaczmarek
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:13:38 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct5.160602.21900@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>Yes, but if they intended a price significantly below $500 (say,
>$350), wouldn't they be anouncing "under $400" instead?  When I see
>cars advertised as "under $20,000", it means (almost always) $19,995.

An addendum:  I don't count upgrade offers in this argument.

-- 
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"
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 6 Oct 1992 19:05:48 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Oct05.185642.23419@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <7482@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>You forgot that it's also being testes dy its users, whether MS wants to admit
>>it or not.
>     The above line wins the Typo Of The Week award.  :-)

Yeah, well...it took...uhm...guts to write that, too. :-)

>     Every piece of software being run anywhere is being "tested"
>by its users.  Now, here's the distinction:  The primary purpose
>(note - _primary_) of a beta is testing.  The primary purpose of
>the SDK is applications development.  Any questions?

So MS says, anyway, officially. That does not mean that the _real_ purpose
can't be FUD: they're trying to show that NT is just a CD's throw away, and so
folks should wait for it rather than commit to OS/2 now. Indeed, they're so
willing to keep people from committing to OS/2 that they're willing to take a
real bath on the SDK, including giving up on sales of the final product to the
beta-testers, just to generate a little more FUD.

>>Bwahahahahaha!!!! If it's marketed towards developers, why can any Tom, Dick,
>>and Harriet call up and order one?
>     How can a person prove that they are a developer?

Is _any_ qualification being done on folks who call up and order the SDK/beta?
Even as little as a description of the product they're working on?
(I'd call up and find out, but I'm flatly not interested in NT, or any other
OS from Microsoft.)
-- 
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.
    Vote for a REAL change on 3 November: Throw out the check-bouncing,
  tax-and-spend Democrat Congress! (obviously, not an opinion of UTHSCH)
From: Joe@twistor.dialix (Joe Katnic)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2, my final analysis.
Distribution: world
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:29:40 PST
Organization: Not an Organization

In article <Be1qRB1w165w@comtch.spk.wa.us> mstaben@comtch.spk.wa.us (Matthew Staben) writes:
>
> 
[stuff deleted]
> 
>2. OS/2 is *almost* stable enough to run in a so-called mission critical
>   environment.  It *is* stable enough to run as a network server without
>   its buggy graphical interface.  I've just run into one too many, and
>   that was two months ago.
> 
>Matt
> 
>* OS/2 is a trademark of IBM.
>* Windows is a trademark of Microsoft.
>* Netware is a trademark of Novell.
> 
>Any others are trademarks of their respective owners.
> 

I think its about time to explode the myth that OS/2 is ALMOST stable
enough to have mission critical applications run on it.

I work for an organization that runs betting software on IBM mainframes
(3090/200E and 3090/180J 70GigaBytes disk, 128 Megabytes memory).
1200 terminal network (SNA).

We needed to build a gateway to another organization who do similar
business in another part of the country.

They were unable to support SNA, X.25 or any other protocol except for
their own ASCII protocol.

We decided to write the application in COBOL on a PS/2 56SLC 12 meg memory
80 Meg drive. We run the COBOL application in multiple threads under
the CICS/OS2 transaction processing product from IBM. 
We use LU6.2 (APPC) to communicate to our host application, a CICS
MVS system.

Serial port is accessed by COBOL calls to the operating system
for open, read and write.

During development OS/2 crashed twice.
The code is in Quality assurance and has not crashed at all for the three
weeks it has been tested by users.
It goes into production this week all things being equal.

It is expected to make us an extra $200,000 per day. On top of the
$1Meg we already make.

If this isn't mission critical - WHAT IS?

--

Joe Katnic                                         Joe@twistor.DIALix.oz.au
                                                (ALT: jkatnic@DIALix.oz.au)
Science - A system of Truth.                         Phone: (+619) 454 3939
Engineering - A system of Use.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tdukes@eng.auburn.edu (Todd J Dukes)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 19:49:06 GMT

In article <welSyHm00UhW82D3MR@andrew.cmu.edu> cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido) writes:
>> isn't Nubus TI's design?
>
>TI?  Motorola designed Nubus for use with its 680x0 processors.  That's
>what I've been told at least.
>
I thought Motorola designed the VME bus for its 680x0 processors.

Todd
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: How many people are working on OS/2 and NT?
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:11:05 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1a8op5INNph0@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bbm@po.CWRU.Edu (Brian B. Mathewson) writes:
>
>I'm curious about the number of people who are working at IBM on
>OS/2 2.0 and at Microsoft on Windows, and, separately, NT.
>
>Also, how many people (and who) are working on MS/PC-DOS?
>
>Can anyone give a reasonably well-informed answer?

     Doubtful, unless you are working for one of the companies
in question.  Those figures would be confidential, although you
could probably cull rough estimates from past press releases.


>I'm simply interested in the human investment that each of the companies
>have put into their respective products.

     Lots in both cases, I would imagine.

					-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: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: Future OSes (was NT? WHY?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 07:55:55 GMT

In <12126.2ac9eb0a@cpva.saic.com> finsys@cpva.saic.com writes:

>  A very large percentage of PCs out in the market are not networked 
>and aren't powerful enough for OS/2, much less NT.  I expect DOS/Windows
>(or WIN32) to be mainstream in 3 years (Look, Windows is just beginning 
>to overtake DOS, and that's largely due to the lack of meaningful
>upgrades to DOS programs). A wholesale move to OS/2 or NT in three years - I
>think not.  Even MS and IBM aren't espousing that.

A very good point--and as far as the Windows thing goes, well, Windows
may finally be catching up in *sales* to DOS, but DOS has a ten year
head start.  It's going to be several years before Windows is as heavily
*used* as DOS.  OS/2 has to appeal to these people.  The people who
might be satisfied with Windows (or even DOS), but find the WPS to be
glitzier, and easier to use.  The high end of the low end, you might
say.  OS/2 is overkill for most people, and NT is *way* overkill.  What
we have to do is convince people that OS/2 is the best affordable
high-end system (and I think it is).

The crash protection is the biggest bonus that I see.  That, and the
ability to run several DOS apps smoothly.  These will help OS/2 win a
lot of ground from DOS/Windows over the next couple of years.  As for
NT, ask me when it comes out, but I don't see it appealing to anywhere
near as many home users as OS/2 can.  OS/2 can go far; all it needs is
some good advertising (!!!), a little cleanup (get it to *really* run in
4Mb, dammit!), and continued word-of-mouth.

>   OS/2 and NT are not going to appeal to a LOT of people for a looooong time. 
>By that, I mean Joe Idiot has very little need for anything more than Windows.

True, which is why I think that OS/2 has to sell itself with its
glitziness.  It's a much more appealing system, cosmetically.  And it's
priced in the right range.  It does require what is currently a
top-of-the-line system, but by next year, that will be a medium-range
system.  I think that OS/2 really has a decent chance to compete with
Windows.  And I don't think that NT is competing in the same arena, so
I'm not really worried about it.  Besides, it's simply not as glitzy. 
OS/2 is *pretty*.  Windows and NT are kludgy-looking.  That is, at the
moment, OS/2's biggest strength, as far as market forces go.
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
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 18:31:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.164035.24984@nosc.mil>, discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
wrote:
> 
> Yes!  This is the point I was trying to make!  Multitasking in and of itself
> RIGHT NOW is a curiosity--I haven't seen a really good, habitual use of
> multitasking on a desktop system that didn't seem *contrived* yet; people

I think it depends on your environment.  My company is heavily networked
and my department is bringing in a lot of groupware tools.  Thus, I have a
number of clients running on my Mac interacting with a number of server.  I
use these clients all the time and they do useful work (even when in the
background).  Since I also develop software, many times I startup a long
complie and start some other work while I complie in the background. 
Without having a multi-tasking environment, I would spend a lot of time
"waiting" for things to finish.

Note, multitasking isn't just limited to computers.  People multitasking
(pre-emptively at times) all the time.  After all, how many people do you
know that sit and watch the water boil? ;-)

> act as if they format 30-50 floppies every day, or download data for hours
> on end each day... I see *potential* in what multitasking offers, but it is
> the *least* of the reasons (IMHO) to switch to OS/2 (or NT).  The reason 
> being that AT THIS MOMENT, OS/2's (NT's and, yea verily, even Windows 3.1)
> much vaunted "multitasking" is really only being used as a task switcher.
> This will change, but until it does...it is not a reason TO change: because
> Multitasking for the sake of doing it makes little sense.
> 

Since the Mac (like Windows) doesn't pre-emptively multitask, my machine
tends to "freeze" when one of my background processes start doing anything
that requires any real processing time.  Note this isn't due to the clients
being badly behaved, they just don't give up the CPU fast enough.  Having
extensively used machines that do pre-emptively multitask, I find it very
annoying when my machine hangs.  While even pre-emptive multitasking can be
overload by running too many processes, pre-emptive multitasking tends to
give you a lot more milage.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tzs@milton.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Interesting Tidbit from Sept 21 PC week
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:04:16 GMT

Someone says:
> Personally I prefer the Windows interface, the OS/2 interface is too much
> like the Mac and I can't stand that. But I do agree that this is an old

To this, Juan J. E. T. Noyles farts the following:
> Let's get something straight here.  You cannot like Windows better than OS/2,
> because Windows is not an operating system.  Regardless of what the box it
> came in says.

First off, he said he liked the *interface* better.  Unless you are claiming
that only operating systems have interfaces, your posting is irrelevant.

Second, please post a definition of "operating system" that excludes Windows
*AND* agrees with, say, at least 25% of the major operating systems textbooks.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:14:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.163012.19054@tandon.com> tdbear@tandon.com (Tom Barrett) writes:
>Actually, if you are talking 386 and not 486/beyond, AMD makes
>the fastest (clockwise)... and it is basically a direct copy
>of the Intel since they have a mask-sharing agreement with
>you.

In reality the Am386 is not a direct mask equivalent of the i386.
Intel refused to share the i386 mask with AMD so AMD had to do it on
their own. In the process of doing so, they found ways to be exactly
logically equivalent while using much less power.  (it may also be why
AMD was able to get to 40 MHz)

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Happy owner of a new Mitsubishi Expo.