HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 PR
From: f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Date: 12 Sep 92 10:38:05 MST
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67700241

In article <1992Sep11.134043.501@jpradley.jpr.com>, grumpy@jpradley.jpr.com (Jeff Markel) writes:
> I'm a commuter (on NY's Metro-North Commuter Railroad) and yesterday for
> the first time I saw a small billboard type ad on the train for OS/2 - 
> it was the crash helmet ad.  Obviously directed at NYC business types.

In my college bookstore/computer outlet, I picked up a price list and
counted up the number of Windows and OS/2 products available at educational
discount.

There were *3* OS/2 products available: Lotus 1-2-3 for OS/2, MS Word 5.5
(the dual-mode version for DOS and OS/2, I assume), and Lotus Freelance
Graphics for OS/2.  OS/2 itself was nowhere to be seen. :-<

By contrast, there were at least *40* Windows apps, including all the
biggies.  Windows was on sale in both full and upgrade versions, as well
as two different font packs, as well as an attractive $192 W4W/Excel
bundle.  This doesn't count all the ancillary hardware like scanners and
fax modems, whose support software runs under Windows.

The strange thing was that IBM and Apple hardware dominated the store
floor.  The sales reps would have demo'd PS/2's for me all day, but where
was IBM's own OS?

I hardly see how this poor PR augurs well for OS/2 as it reaches the ripe
old age of 5 months.  The public hardly knows OS/2.
--
Greg "Mockingbird" Franklin      Interviewer: "Sir, how do you spell relief?"
f67700241@ccit.arizona.edu               Dan: "R-O-L-A-I-D-S-E."

"[George Bush is] the most ruthless white man in the history of the planet."
	-- Richard Ben Cramer, author of _What It Takes_
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:38:19 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <7307@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>
>If the WinNT schedule hasn't slipped, then I should be able to walk into a
>store no later than 31 December 1992 and buy a production copy, since, after
>all, MS's official release is still 4Q92...

I don't know if you were among the appropriate advocates when OS/2
went GA, but remeber back in March.  IBM set OS/2 2.0's release date
at March 31, 1992.  It was shipped to SE's then.  It didn't make it
into chain stores for a week later, and didn't arrive in most stores
for almost a month.

I'd give NT the same break.  If they get it "in the can" on 12/31/92,
and it arrives in the stores a reasonable time after that (to be fair,
I'll give it a month), I'll call it a success.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "LECTURER, n.  One with his hand in your pocket,
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   his tongue in your ear, and his faith in your
 ((|,)                          patience."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Organization: Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Vienna, Austria
Date: Monday, 7 Sep 1992 19:52:18 CET
From: FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Printer cable (Re: Non-IBM experiences with OS/2?
 <1992Sep02.183914.28059@microsoft.com> <1992Sep3.184213.351@umr.edu>

Hey,

I have a 25 feet (twentyfive) printer cable, believe it or not -
it works. It works terrificly under OS/2. Oh, it is a parallel cable, too !

---rony
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: SOMFIX.ZIP, WPS, drive-object, HPFS
Date: 15 Sep 92 10:19:45 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.

In article <1992Sep11.204252.6114@muddcs.claremont.edu>, jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
|> Incidently, if you're upset at the WPS taking so long to pop up a
|> window with a few icons, don't close those windows - minimize them.
|> It costs you a little memory, and you gain a lot of speed.

This does not speed up "browsing" operations, which are what I found so
tedious. (Try changing the background to a bitmap which is not in the OS
system directory)
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Win-OS/2 performance tweaks
Date: 5 Sep 92 01:12:46 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Sep1.162952.11406@njitgw.njit.edu>, dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (Davi
d Charlap) writes:
>In article <92245.073244ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Andrew T. R
obinson) writes:

(buncha Windows / Win-OS/2 comparison stuff deleted)

While reading all this stuff on loading times has been interesting and useful,
I'm curious as to what difference 10 seconds is going to really make in one's
life?  I realize that it is an annoyance, but it is pretty trivial.  Just
wondering.

BTW, I would like to thank those of you who have posted optimization info.
Quite useful.  Thanks.

>>  I wish people would stop worrying about Windows compatibility and
>>  write OS/2 versions of popular programs, instead.  OF course, we can't
>>  expect Microsoft to do this out of sheer sour grapes, but I personally
>>  can live without MS.
>
>Yep.  As soon as Lotus releases Ami Pro for OS/2, I'll probably be
>dumping Word for it.  As for Excel, I am quite satisfied with version
>3.0, which is out for PM (and I use it), so I wouldn't be upgrading
>that.
>
Though I too could do without MS, I do use Word right now.  (until I can get
Ami Pro)  But there is no comparison to Excel 4 for Win.  Even Excel 3 doesn't
really stack up.  I would highly reccomend it.  (Although it looks like v.3 is
all there is going to be for a while as far as OS/2 versions go.)>

>
>--
>   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
>  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
> ((|,)
>  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
>
                                                       Stacy John Behrens
                                                       *===)-------------

                                                       
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:5238 comp.os.os2.apps:6051
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: SOMFIX.ZIP, WPS, drive-object, HPFS
Date: 11 Sep 92 10:46:13 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.

In article <92254.143036TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET>, TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET (Turgut Kalfaoglu) writes:
|>   The WPS speed doesnt bother me - I dont care if it takes a second or two
|> to open an application.

Nor do I. But I do care when the WPS takes a second or two to bring up a
simple menu or a dialog or a window with a few icons in.

|> Perhaps we are too spoilt by the snappy appearance of Windows

I love it! After all the advocacy in this group about windows taking a 486 and
giving it the speed of an 8086, here comes someone saying that it's OK for the
WPS to be slower than windows.

Having used both on a number of different configurations, I have *never*
understood the claims about OS/2 being snappier than Windows 3.1.

|> - which provides probably 2% of what OS/2 does.

Sorry, but there is NO WAY that OS/2 gives 50 times the functionality of 3.1.
I might agree with 2 times or even 5 times, but I think your claim is out by
an order of magnitude. When all is said and done, there is a lot of
funtionality that is provided by both systems.

|> Its not really reasonable to expect much more speed than this,
|> given its flexibility..

I guess my expectations are higher than yours! Perhaps it is because I use
NT, which has the snappy interface of Windows with an underlying system that
is as powerful as OS/2. But, of course, NT already has a 32-bit graphics
engine :-)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: Hercules ??? Be realistic ! (long)
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 01:20:45 GMT


Hercules support is only the tip of the iceberg... what I really am advocating
is a more gentle upgrade path.  Windows, in my opinion, can attribute a lot
of its success because it ran on "obsolete" technology.  People could "try" it
out on the machine they had at home.  Once ingrained into its "culture"--
upgrades could be done piecemeal.  For corporate America--it meant not having
to upgrade all its machines at once--or to have a small group trained with the
use of one operating system, and another group trained on a different one.

Even the PC history showed that offering an easy upgrade path did marketing
wonders.  Ever wonder why the 8088 was the chip chosen for the original PC
instead of the faster 8086?  One of the major factors was that it WAS an
8-bit CPU (externally)--and it was felt that  more hardware vendors would 
build for it if it were more hardware compatible with the older CP/M-capable
machines.  Likewise, intel made the 808x series easy to build Z80 emulators...
how many used this "feature"?  Not many... but it was a good idea, and people
bought it.  Some, like myself, used CP/M on the PC--thought it was silly, and
upgraded to DOS--the compatibility with the old software was got me to buy the
machine... the lure of power got me to buy all the new stuff when I was
able.

Hercules support is only the tip of the iceberg... face it, MOST of the 80
million machines out there are NOT OS/2-capable.  They lack sufficient RAM,
CPU, video, hard disk, etc.  No, they do not ALL have monochrome monitors..
my clients are probably stingier than most (many forseeing the current 
economic crisis--and finding that credit is harder to get even though
the Feds keep lowering the prime rate)--but they are still in business, while
competitors are folding, due in part to this stinginess. 

I agree that OS/2 is powerful and potentially useful... but right now it does
not provide anything that Windows and DOS offer to the corporate user--except
increased capitalization expenses to be able to run the thing.  In a year,
perhaps two, it may be viable (but then again, so may NT)... but by then we 
MAY be out of the economic crisis and prices for hardware will have dropped.
Then, I would say that anyone who doesn't run OS/2 is behind the times.  Right
now, though, the future of the industry is in turmoil. The prudent businessman
would wait until things ironed out--and until he can afford it.

-> Joe <-

Just my opinions.
.
From: I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET (Spartacus At Cuny)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 VS NT! The Future War Looms...
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:31:27 GMT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <1992Sep15.152309.26746@s1.gov>, kab@s1.gov (Keith Benton) says:
>
>In article 161639I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET, I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET (Spartacus At Cuny)
>writes:
>>In article <1992Sep14.144709.24019@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu
>>(Timothy F. Sipples) says:
>>>
>>>OS/2 2.0 made Number 15 in the last PC Magazine software ranking,
>>>incidently.
>>
>>     And climbing!  PC Magazine Sept 29..Page 31
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Or is that dropping. Last PC Mag (the one before Sept. 29 issue)
>had it at the #11 spot.
>

    Whoops, your right :(  However the Win31 upgrade has fallen
down a great deal.   8 notches to 9th place from 1st.
 :)  and non-win31 upgrade stayed the same at #3rd place


-------
------------------------------+      All The Best,
Reply To:                     |
                              |      Edward Galarza,
     I18BC@CunyVM.Cuny.Edu    |      Brooklyn College Of The
     I18BC@CunyVM.BitNet      |      City University Of New York
------------------------------+      "Que viva el OS/2!"
New accounts above 8-)
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (Well, not exactly....)
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:23:38 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep9.151416.529@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>What code base does Linux come from?  Is it freely usable, or is it GNU?

Do you mean to imply that GNU isn't freely usable?  GNU has no
restrictions on what you can use their product on.  If you want, you
can have your corporation standardize on GNU, with no license
violation.  The only restriction is that you can't sell it with a
license that gives the client less rights to the product than
yourself. 

And considering that GNU stuff comes with source code, it has the
potential to be much more "freely usable" than stuff from companies
like Lotus and MS (who charge you extra if you install on a LAN, etc.) 

Oh yes, Linux isn't a GNU product.

>I doubt DOS is adequate even now.  Windowing, Multimedia ... even games
>need this sort of abilities... currently every DOS game has to roll their
>own.  I'm not saying DOS is dead, but it's domination is finally waning.  The
>question is what's next!

DOS is a file system.  (remember, it stands for DISK OPERATING
SYSTEM).  It was meant to help the cassette basic users use their disk
drives.  Everything else was added later on.  This is why complicated
apps need their own memory managers, device drivers, etc.  Because at
the root, DOS is little more than the FAT file system driver.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "LECTURER, n.  One with his hand in your pocket,
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   his tongue in your ear, and his faith in your
 ((|,)                          patience."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: OS/2 VS NT! The Future War Looms...
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: "world"
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:10:28 GMT

brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

[...]

>However most DOS _applications_ will work just fine under NT.
>The only problem one will run into is with things like games or
>device drivers.  I don't see this as a problem for NT.

Just things like game and device drivers. For me this is a *big* problem.
80% of the use of my home system is games.
At work we often use custom interface boards to connect PCs to our
equipment. Having to write our own drivers would be a major pain.

[...]

>There is no way that this can be true?  The average user does not use
>non-standard devices.  Standard devices will of course be supported.
>What possible reason do you have for believe that NT DOS support won't
>work for the vast majority of users?

And just what, exactly, is a "standard device"? Does anyone have a list?
If even one of my devices isn't supported then NT is useless to me.

>Brian
>-- 
>C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
>University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
>Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net            uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 04:52:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.040230.6425@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>People keep claiming that OS/2 has vendor support.  From whom?
>What vendor has announced for OS/2 that hasn't announced for NT?

Lotus.  WordPerfect Corp.  Computer Associates.  Borland (except C++).
Novell (server).

Five of the smallest software developers in the industry.  :-)

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | The OS/2 FREQ. ASKED QUESTIONS LIST is avail. from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/faq.
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | Or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP").
of Chicago, 60637       | Family Values Means a Job
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: villa_t@cs.uwa.oz.au (Vim Tilla)
Subject: My opinion: where we are going
Organization: Dept. Computer Science, University of Western Australia.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 05:09:17 GMT

I've been reading this group for a few months and have made the occasional
(biased) comment here and there. However, some recent experiences have
lead me into a belief that Microsoft is going to be in some rather big
trouble within the next 5-10 years.
They have been pushing Windows very hard for the last couple of years and
been producing some good software for it, as have many other developers. From
a programmer's viewpoint, however, I really don't like Windpows and DOS itself
for that matter. To join the many other OS/2 freaks, the advantages of this
32 bit OPERATING SYSTEM over what is only an application sitting on top of
what is essentially a loader are tremendous.
I must admit that I don't use OS/2 myself. I'm still stuck in DOS 5-buying the
extra memory on top of the most expensive purchase of my life (my 486-I chose
a computer over a car..what a dork!) is not quite within my reach as yet.
Nonetheless, after some experience with Windows I feel that it's memory
constraints and consequent snail's pace mark it as...shall we say finite?
I don't want to flame Microsoft for abandoning OS/2. They are a company
existing to make profits and thus should work hard to support their products.
But to stick with software that really is built on an operating system best
left to old technology is not good sense at all. I would like to see NT in
action, perhaps it will be making use of today's advanced processors. 
8086/8088's are generally considered obsolete, if not for their solwness, for
the fact that they are 16 bit. Likewise for the 286. People owning these
machines protest loudly to those of us who feel that 16 bit technology should
be entirely abandoned. I say: you have your wordprocessors, spreadsheets,
databases....there is no need to restrict new software simply so it can be
executed on obsolete hardware. Of course the market is the driving force-until
386/486 machines become numerous enough to make 32 bit technology finacially
worth exclusively supporting I expect we'll have to live with DOS. But soon...

Tim VIlla
villa_t@kultarr.cs.uwa.edu.au

Reading over the above I see that my thoughts were going all over the place..I
was never very much good at essays ;)
From: ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hercules ??? Be realistic !
Date: 11 Sep 92 10:18:53 GMT
 <92Sep9.151749edt.9077@rock.db.toronto.edu>
Organization: Forschungszentrum Juelich

In article <92Sep9.151749edt.9077@rock.db.toronto.edu>, fche@db.toronto.edu
("Frank Ch. Eigler") says:
>
>ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:
>
>>[among other silly comments]
>>A GUI on a Hercules system is bullshit. [...]
>
>Michael, have you forgotten about the original Mac?
>GUIs on monochrome screens of roughly that resolution
>can be quite competent.
>

I`ve been waiting for that comment. Yes the Mac had  even less pixels than Herc
 But it had a better aspect ratio. That made it suitable for a GUI. The Herc
graphics mode was simply what they could get out of their text mode resolution.

I installed Win3.0 on my 12MHz 1MB 286 Herc system. After 15 minutes I decided
to trough it out until I had a machine that could run it _reasonible_. Then
when I had the money I upgraded my system. But not brain dead buying a 386 main
board. I bought a VGA w monitor and one additional MB of RAM. And then I bet
I had much more of Win3.0 than with a 20MHz 1MB Herc system. And I`m still
using my Herc equipment as a debugging screen with Turbo Debugger.

Do you know the main argument the Mac fanatics give for their machines ?

It`s more fun working on a Mac than on a PC. Mac users _like_ to work with
their machine. PC users very often _have to_ work with their machine. That`s
the difference.

And Win3.x on a Herc monitor is certainly everything but fun.

BTW: Are we really talking about companies having hundreds of 386 8MB RAM 120MB
Harddisk machines equipped with Herc ?

Michael Bode.
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (Well, not exactly....)
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:50:59 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep7.194616.6632@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
[on installed systems]
>How many of that 1,000,000 do you think is in use?  My guess is less than half.

More than that.  Remember that all 1,000,000 copies were paid for.
The number isn't including free upgrades (which were asked for) or
multiple licenses (which shipped one copy per site).  Compare this
with Windows 3.0's number - where huge numbers were given away free
with applications, or with hardware.

MS always quotes "units shipped" or "gross sales" as figures.  They
never quote number of copies in use.  Why must IBM "prove" their
figures any more than MS does with theirs.

Besides, we've been over this many many times.  Let's give it a rest.

>>    Advocacy, to my understanding, means, support, or even admiration. Why
>Output from webster advocacy, advocate, support
>
>ad.vo.ca.cy \'ad-v*-k*-se-\ n : the act or process of advocating : SUPPORT
>  1. support               
....
>It is clear from the definitions that one needs an adversarial crowd.

I can't believe you typed all this in! :-)

-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "TELEPHONE, n.  An Invention of the devil which
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   abrogates some of the advantages of making a
 ((|,)                          disagreeable person keep his distance."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.5
Date: 5 Sep 92 12:36:19 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Sep5.164545.1767@news.iastate.edu> TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.175014.15421@hellgate.utah.edu>,
>brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>In article <45mn9xq.msmith@netcom.com> msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith) writes:
>>...
>>>
>>>If you want to increase both evaluations go ahead but WinOS2 is able to
>>>support in full screen mode ALL the SVGA drivers and most if not all
>>>software packages. There is little if any performance penalty doing
>>>day to day work. A number of magazines have conceded that WinOS2 is a
>>>better Windows than Windows 3.0 (PC Magazine I believe say this )
>>
>>       Windows 3.0 support (NT has it too, but it is not as good).
>>
>>>
>>>MArtin Smith
>>>msmith@netcom.com
>>
>>Brian
>>--
>>C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
>>University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
>>Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
>>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)
>
>Well, Brian, I have to commend you for this noble move.  Actually,
>it would probably be more correct to say 'Windows 3.0 Standard Mode'
>or something like that, wouldn't it?  Just trying to be helpful :-)

I would, but I'm not certain about the status of Enhanced Mode apps
under NT.


Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy