HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kaz@iastate.edu (Jimmy Buffet)
Subject: A couple of comments on NT vs. OS/2
Summary: Comments on the latest OS/2 vs NT list
Keywords: NT OS/2
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:05:48 GMT

Well, after looking over the latest NT vs. OS/2 list, I don't think IBM
has much to worry about.  Well, that may be an exaggeration, but from
a purely theoretical (ignoring the fact that Microsoft is very similar
to the Roman Catholic church in the Middle Ages... :) ), OS/2 still
looks FAR superior.  The same year Windows NT comes out with a USEABLE 
interface (let's face it:  Windows sucks), OS/2 will be based on the Mach
III kernal!?!?!?  Besides, we already have the WPS, which, in my opinion,
is THE future of interfaces.  I am deeply in love with it.  :)  The only
major problems OS/2 has is drivers and apps... SO START WRITING LETTERS!

Why don't we start a list of companies to bug for products...  I would
personally like to bitch at Diamond for their driver support, and beg
Datastorm for a PM Procomm Plus.  Sound good?  

Oh, and as far as the pricing goes... sure, if you're going to be a
LAN manager, NT may be cheaper.  I don't want TCP/IP, LAN manager, etc. 
I got OS/2 2.0 for $49, and it has everything I want in it (except graphics
drivers..... :(  ).  

Jeff "Kaz" Kaczmarek
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:35:56 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <3104@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:
>In <1992Oct1.161129.2524@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>
>>...
>>I totally disagree. If both OS will survive, the compatibility will be DOS
>>and 16-bit Windows, maybe with this really ugly DPMI 32-bit. So developers
>
>No. Several things are happening to prevent this. First OS/2 2.0 is
>going to be Win32 compatible.

Where did you hear this?  I heard no IBM anouncement to this extent.
Let's not spread our own FUD, shall we?  Just like I asked Brian to
justify his source, I'm going to ask you to quote an official source
for this rumor.  I've only heard this idea passed among Net people
with no official content whatsoever.
-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Os/2ers whine again
Date: 28 Sep 92 03:33:14 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Sep27.002513.9333@fics.uucp> ekl@fics.uucp wrote:
< stuff about windows briefing, 1991 >
> 
> I dislike the split between IBM and Microsoft. I can live with that. I
> am pissed of that the support for my MS OS/2 tools are gone. I can live
> with that, too. But don't come round crying that NT was never called
> OS/2 3.0! Leave me out in the cold. BUT ADMIT IT!

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.

Did IBM write any of what is now called NT?
Was a considerable portion of the code for NT taken from OS/2?
Was any portion of the code for  NT taken from OS/2?

Are there any other links between the two that are useful in makeing
business decisions?

If the Name is the only thing, and you're willing to make a business
decision based on that, well, the advertising media must love you...

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
From: v053qpgh@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Eric W Sarjeant)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why OS/2 **WILL** fail
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:09:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <13009@coxm>, coxm@Software.Mitel.COM (Michael Cox) writes...
>In article <mg.717572342@elan> mg@elan (Michael Golan) writes:
>>[discussion of OS/2 being too powerful erased]
[OS/2 Success Story Deleted]
>  OS/2 provides a more stable environment to the user.  I average OS/2 crashes
>about once every 20 days or so.  Compare that with DOS (5.0 about once a week),
>or Windows (3.0) about twice a day.  For Mac (v6) I've never seen it crash
>(although I've heard rumours that it sometimes does).  I wouldn't say that OS/2
>would fail because of that....

I know we have had this debate before, and I don't want to start a war, but
I have never had MS DOS crash on me. DOS is a nearly foolproof os compared
with the other offerings that are out there. When it comes to DOS extenders,
Windows 3.x has to be the most dangerous. Not only does it have a
tendancy to crash frequently (ie a couple of times a week) but only DOS
programs can really get multitasked. Windows programs have to compete for
CPU time -- that's no way to share a single processor.

The rumors surrounding Mac system 6.x.x are very true, it crashes readily
and frequently. A little errant Modula-2 code will send System 6.x.x off
the deep end. System 7 is much more stable but will crash if you aren't
careful.
==============================================================================
 Eric W. Sarjeant                    | "I am only too conscious that I have no
 sUnyaB                              |  claim to wisdom, great or small..."
 v053qpgh@ubvms.bitnet               |
 sarjeant@aol.com                    |
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong)
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 10:47:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.191858.16917@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:

>
>I feel a need to point out one thing.  Has anyone else noticed that they make
>a difference between the upgrade and the normal product?  Why?  They operate
>exactly the same and the only difference is price and some details on how it
>is sold.  They are the same product so why differentiate?  Notice that that
>clears off another 3 spots just on this list.  Also, I think this list
>includes those bundled with systems.  How many copies of OS/2 do you find
>bundled with systems as opposed to the above stuff?  Not too many.

I read in INFO World that about 25% of the OS/2 copies sold are actually those
bundled with the IBM PS/2 Model 56 & 57.
From: os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Pink, OS/2, and AIX
Keywords: Mach III Pink OS/2 Mac NT etc...
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:40:56 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <kaz.718349948@vincent2.iastate.edu> kaz@iastate.edu (Jimmy Buffet) writes:

>I was just wondering if anyone has had these same thoughts...  is OS/2 a 
>"prerelease" of the "pink" operating system we all know so little about?
>Putting OS/2 on the Mach 3 Kernel for multi-platform support (including 
>cross-platform application use, I imagine.  I don't think NT includes this) 
>seems like a major project.  IBM wouldn't work on such an aspiring project 
>if Pink is going to come along and make OS/2 obsolete.  The mac app rumours, 
>of which I am very skeptical, make me even more suspicious.  

IBM claimed that Pink would not make OS/2 obsolete, and that there would
be a migration path from OS/2 to Pink.

It is my opinion that the OS/2 and AIX combining is IBM's answer to NT,
and might even be incorporated into this Pink that we keep hearing
about.

Cheers,
Q
-- 
"If you choose not to decide, you  | "A fool and his money are fun to go
 still have made a choice" - Rush  |  out with" - seen on a T-shirt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.graphicscomp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.sgi
From: kaz@iastate.edu (Jimmy Buffet)
Subject: Considering getting an SGI machine...
Summary: Considering getting an SGI machine...
Keywords: SGI
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 05:24:44 GMT

I currently own a 486-50 EISA and am running OS/2 2.0.  Regardless of where
I run, I can't seem to do everything I want.  OS/2 is the closest I've gotten,
but its lack of apps (especially graphics) is very, very annoying.  I love
the operating system however.  So, right now, I'm looking at scraping
together every cent I can and getting an SGI machine, probably the Indigo.
I have a large number of questions, some which should not be crossposted
like this, but deal with it, I'm tired. 

1.      Does (will) NT run on an Indigo?  What features will be disabled
        running on a non 80x86 machine?  What about VDM's?

2.      Will the supposed portable OS/2 scheduled for 1994 run on an R4000
        based machine?  I'd really rather run OS/2 then NT?

3.      How is current dos emulation (SoftPC, I assume) on the machines?
        Now, I know this sounds REALLY bad for someone thinking of buying
        such a high-end (or low-end, depending on your point of view  :)  )
        machine, but will most games run quickly enough in Soft PC?  What
        kind of graphic emulation is there?

4.      What type of ray-tracers are available that aren't your usual
        50 bizillion dollar packages?  (I'd settle for half a bizillion)?
        Animation capabilities?

5.      Will NT REALLY run on SGI machines?

6.      What is the operating system like?  I assume some Unix clone
        running X.  What implementation of X, if I'm corrent?

7.      Wait, you're telling me an operating system that barely works in
        it's native processor environment is going to run on SGi's?  
                        (Just kidding, no flames please   :)   )

8.      If anyone has techincal specs on the lower end SGI machines (Indigo,
        Magnum (whatever the hell it is), etc...) and pricing info, I would
        REALLY appreciate it.  Does SGI have an educational discount policy?

Any ideas, thoughts, money, info, or help would be greatly appreciated.
Sorry about the crosspost, but I trust the people on the operating system
war front more than anyone else (I'm not going to post in the msdos groups  :))
Again, thanks in advance for any help!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff "Kaz" Kaczmarek (kaz@iastate.edu)     This is your brain on drugs:  NT.
                                                   OS/2 2.0 in 92!
"The future is long past forgotten, when you're on the road to madness!"
        -Geoff Tate (Queensrhyche)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting Tidbit from Sept 21 PC week
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:21:54 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct3.032041.8515@orlith.bates.edu> lmalloy@abacus.bates.edu (Laura Malloy) writes:

>I have no doubt that OS/2 2.0 should be better and, in its design, it
>most certainly is (except for the Workplace shell; that's a matter of
>taste, I know, but I can't stand it -- and it's ugly!).

You can make WPS resemble the old Desktop Manager or Windows Program
Manager.  It's documented in one of the pamphlets.  I think it's the
"Migrating from OS/2 1.3 and Windows" book.
-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Organization: Philipps-University Marburg
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:58:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.140429.7973@njitgw.njit.edu>, dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David
Charlap) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct1.154246.2250@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de>
|> ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
|> >In article <1992Sep30.213527.6613@hellgate.utah.edu>,
|> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
|> >|> [PC Week; September 28, 1992; Page]
|> >|> 
|> >|> IBM showed OS/2, OSF/1, Unix, and DOS running as applicaitons on
|> >|> top of a Mach microkernel on a PS/2.  The applications were
|> >|> resident in the same machine but could not run concurrently.
|> >|> ...
|> >
|> >But this IBM attempt seems to rather poor. Non-concurrently running
|> >apps under different OS can easily be done...
|> 
|> I believe the intent is to have them all running concurrently.  This
|> is a demo.  Brian's speculation seems correct here, that it won't be
|> in a product for a few years (although I doubt it'll be five).
|> 
|> The Mach microkernel certainly allows multiple OS's to run
|> concurrently.

Yes, we all know that, since /NT is based on it. But what's IBMs
intention by showing this demo?

They made several announcements the last few week. They said, that
they will have C2 security later, that they will have OS/2 ported
to RS6000 later. Now they showed a mach microkernel, which will be
available later.

This shows, that they admit, that /NT is superior to OS/2 and
they are now trying to imitate /NT. All this will then be presented
in xth Quarter of 199y, when the "state of the art" OS will offer
much more than /NT today.
 
Christoph
-- 
Internet: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de
BITNET: HAMPE2@DMRHRZ11
Fido: 2:243/660
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: What IBM has said about OS/2 2.0
Date: 27 Sep 92 22:07:32 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1992Sep24.234011.14732@microsoft.com>, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> In article <1992Sep22.111233.8995@wsl.ie> jja@wsl.ie wrote:
>> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>> :.......
>> 
>> A load of shit that I'm not interested in hearing. Please give up
>> all this constant IBM can't make it stuff. IBM will make it, maybe not
>                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^pro IBM
>> on your schedule, but then I don't give a damn about your schedule.
>> 
>> I'm prepared to wait for something better than WindowsNT.
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ANTI-MS
>> 
>> Also when it comes to missing ship dates Microsoft are better than most,
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ANTI MS
>> where is the NT that was supposed to ship 1Q92. 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ANTI MS
> Well I can tell you
>> where it is, it's NotThere that's where it is.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ANTI MS
>> 
>> Also this an and OS/2 advocacy group not an ANTI-OS/2 group.
> 
> Yeah, Brian, This is OS/2 advocacy, thich means, in laymans terms, 
> ANTI-MS.  Brian, notice how jja made at least four attempts to flame
> MS in this post.  Notice how jja also only supports IBM once, and
> supports the OS/2 product zero times.
> 
> Brian, maybe you should follow suit with these OS/2 guys and stop
> putting real information in your posts.  And stop posting about
> products and start flaming the companies instead.
> 
> ;)
> petesk@microsoft.com
> My Opinions...

	Perhaps you should not be so quick to stereotype everyone
by one post.  He may have been burned by MS in the past and hence
has dark feelings about MS.

	Personally, and you and I have debated some already, I
don't see why anyone with the hardware wouldn't run OS/2.  But
at the same time, if NT comes outand blows away OS/2 I will move
to it.  I am no great fan of MS, to say the least, I am not going
to run a "second best" OS because of that.  IF NT is as good
as some say it will be, I will be running it this time next year.
But from waht I have seen so far, it is not likely it is going to
be (from the end user's point of view) better.

					-Brad

===============================
Brad Wardell
Systems Development Director
Stardock Systems SDS
Western Michigan University
===============================
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Date: 4 Oct 92 14:48:53 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

In <1992Oct1.161129.2524@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:

>...
>I totally disagree. If both OS will survive, the compatibility will be DOS
>and 16-bit Windows, maybe with this really ugly DPMI 32-bit. So developers

No. Several things are happening to prevent this. First OS/2 2.0 is
going to be Win32 compatible. This means native NT sources can
be recompiled for OS/2 2.0. Making this the "base" level and not DOS
or 16 bit windows. Besides this it is very likely the Borland C++
OWL will be equal for OS/2 2.0 and WinNT allowing sources for this
compiler to be ported very easy.

>will decide to write DOS and WIN16 apps to have the compatibility with
>both OS. That's not what we all desire. I greatly prefer /NT over OS/2,
>but the worst thing that could ever happen, is that both OS will survive.

Why? Do you really think we are served if UNIX, NextStep, Mac system 7.0,
Solaris, MS-DOS etc are all replaced by OS/2 Mach or Windows NT? Did you
never notice Microsoft waited for real improvements (MS-DOS 5.0) until
a competitor came around (DR-DOS 5.0)? And do you really believe one
shoe is going to fit us all?

>Later in a year or so, when either OS/2 or /NT died, there should be some
>OS compatible with the survived OS to start competition again. But please
>not two OS, which are incompatible on the 32-bit level.

Let the compiler makers worry about this. You can be pretty sure at
least Borland is going to solve the problem for you. MS and IBM might
be a little single sided on this. Also watch for Watcom C++ NT/OS/2
BTW!

>Christoph

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.
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Moving from X to Y.
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:06:00 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Sep25.115252.6641@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

>In article <1992Sep24.174754.26590@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com wrote:

>> 
>> >Heck, DOS offers more than most UNIX's 'cause you can boot it off
>> >of a 360K floppy ;)

One thing Pete mentioned.

>> 
>> Color me unimpressed so far, Pete.

>Okay, You're unimpressed. Can't be with anything but UNIX, though,
>'cause nothing else has really been discussed yet.

>petesk@microsoft.com
>Noone has any opinions of importance on this group, 
>so why should I.

Yet another thing Pete mentioned that I might be 'unimpressed' with.  

See, Pete, there were SEVERAL things in there besides UNIX.  ;-)


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:23:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BvD7qz.HHM
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

Spartacus At Cuny <I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:

>Today I read IBM plans to release its PowerPC chips this fall
>on the USAToday newsfeed on the freenet.  As I understand it
>these new PowerPC will run Pink in about 3 years from now.
>Pink supposedly will run OS/2 and MSDOS programs as well
>as Pink programs.

Pink, right now anyway, is sort of dead.
...But there is a decent chance you could be using a PowerPC mac that will
run as fast as a P5 and cost <$2000 before the end of next year  (and
a OS/2 shell to run on the same computer by 1st Q '94).

(Why do I say this?  The first test run of the PowerPC chips has been done.
The slow part is porting the OS's).


					Todd Walk
					walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Interesting WINBENCH scores...
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 06:25:27 GMT

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>     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.

What I would like in multitasking single-user systems is a command
(probably a hot-key sequence) that suspends all tasks except the main
user interface.  From there, one should be able to then re-enable
tasks, either one-at-a-time or in groups.

I tend to leave a system very heavily loaded when I am not using it
actively (e.g., to test our ADD for OS/2, I leave many tasks running
copy/compare tests when I'm not using the machine).  If I want to do
some quick thing, it can take forever with all the other things going
on.  This is when I would like to be able to say "stop all that for a
while -- I've got important things to do now."

--Tim Smith
From: tzs@milton.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:42:21 GMT

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>      Yeah, I heard that OS/2 solitaire was a lot harder, too.
>
>      Brian, you should add this to the OS/2 2.0 features list:
>"Minesweeper a lot more difficult."  Definite selling point there.

Actually, it could be a selling point.  I spend most of my time using
Windows or OS/2 in a DOS session, running MicroEmacs, Borland C, and
Metaware C.  I use Windows or OS/2 because (a) it's nice to be able to
fire off another DOS session when I want to do something else, and
(b) I write Windows and OS/2 drivers, so I have to run these systems
to test the driverss.

Given that most of my time will be in a DOS session running well-behaved
programs (so we don't have to worry about crashing Windows), the games that
come with a system could actually make the difference in which I would use!

Too bad Microsoft Hearts sucks.  After playing their Reversi, I hoped that
perhaps their Hearts would be good.  Alas, it plays like an ENIAC.
From: kurt@alumni.cs.colorado.edu (Kurt Olender)
Subject: Re: Review: OS/2 2.1 BETA.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:58:23 GMT

C
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Keywords: 

I would like to verify a problem I am having with the new
OS/2 beta.  I was running Word for Win 2.0 and noticed that
selection boxes didn't work!?  I am referring to the selection
boxes with the down arrow that allow one to select a new font
or style sheet, etc. and are in the tool bar at the top of the
screen.

This seemed weird, so also tried Excel 4.0 and had the same problem
but not with every one.  Only one of the selection boxes in Excel
wouldn't work (trying to change the font color, I believe).

Anyway, anyone else notice this or possible verify before I send
a message to IBM.

Thanks.

Greg

P.S. this was in a Win 3.1 session.

From: chris@asstdc.oz.au (Chris Moore)
Sender: fredmail@asstdc.oz.au