HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: INTERESTING TIDBIT FROM S
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:50:27 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <717742472.F00002@tdkt.kksys.com> Mike.Hobbs@f115.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Mike Hobbs) writes:
>After recieving shock-therapy, Phil Lafornara mumbled the following to All:

     I initially took the above line to be a flame - I have since seen
it on all of your posts, so it appears to be automatic.  Might I
suggest that you would get a more positive response to your posts
without it?


>>     I'm still waiting for some description of these "sleazeball tricks."
>>You are including the release of the SDK, which is a fairly straight-
>>forward business decision.  Are your other tricks similar, in that
>>they would only be interpreted as "sleazeball" by someone with an
>>agenda?
>
>   I know I'm going out on a limb here and that I could get my head bitten
>off for making the following statements, but I've always been a fan of
>adventure.
>
>   For some evidence of MS "sleazeball tricks," might I suggest that you talk
>to Will Zachmann as to why he will quit writing columns for PC Week in the
>near future.  I do not know him personally, nor have I talked directly to
>him, but from the rather authentic messages that I have read, (including his
>9-28-92 article) I have a feeling that he will let you know of at least one
>way MS has used it's power in a rather "sleazeball" fasion.

     Of course, Zachmann's claims have zero evidence so far.  This is
essentially "Zachmann's word vs. his editors'".  This does not preclude
his accusations being true, but it seems to me that if he had any
proof he would have presented it already.

						-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: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 16:53:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.131512.23689@news.columbia.edu> hpw@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Harry P Warren) writes:
>| Since IBM and Apple together control over 50% of the market in
>| personal computers, they hope to promulgate standards more effectively
>| in tandem.
>I find it hard to believe that IBM and Apple together control over 50%
>of the personal computer market. Perhaps 50% of the computers that
>have been manufactured sport the IBM or Apple name but they certainly
>don't control 50% of the market today. In fact, I imagine that Apple
>and IBM's combined sales of 68040 and 486 based machines effectively
>sums to zero when compared with the number of 486 systems sold by the
>likes of Dell and Gateway. I don't see how companies that sell
>yesterday's hardware are going to set tomorrow's standards.

Last time I checked, they do, believe it or not.  IBM and Apple more
or less swap the top market share spot depending on when you look, and
they are ranked one and two.  Barely over 50%, but over 50%
nonetheless.  (It may depend a bit on how you define a personal
computer -- does it include Atari Portfolios or Sun SPARCstations?)

I dispute the notion that IBM and Apple sell yesterday's hardware.
They sell equipment just as modern as anyone else's (particularly IBM,
since they have a full line of computers, from mainframe to pen
tablets).  I would, however, agree that sometimes that equipment comes
with yesterday's _prices_, but even that is changing.  (Apple has been
very aggressive in grabbing market share with lower cost Macintoshes,
and some of IBM's moves have been reasonably aggressive on price.
There's still a premium on both lines, but that premium has been
reduced.)

Anyway, the original point was that these two companies are heavy
hitters, accounting for a bit more than 50% market share in personal
computers, and that, with that presence, they should be able to
promulgate standards.  I think they probably have a point.

-- 
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: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  6 Oct 1992 12:26 EST  

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.  :-)

Typo or Freudian slip?  Certainly MS would like to think that they have 
their users by the testes ;-)
From: v053qpgh@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Eric W Sarjeant)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Silence on the Windoz Front...
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:56:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Has anyone been keeping up with the OS/2 and the MS Windows newsgroup
fronts? As of late, I have noticed a considerable decline in the comp.
windows.ms group. Typically only around 10-15 messages appear daily,
whereas the os2 forums are constantly bustling with nearly 100 messages
each per day.

Has Windows gotten so stable that no one has any problems with it anymore?
I think not; this is probably an indication of how people are spending
their time. Let's hope IBM can fix the few little bugs as quickly as
they say they can... 
==============================================================================
 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: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 05 Oct 92 18:59:53 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct4.180905.27222@ms.uky.edu> sam@ms.uky.edu (Mike Mills) writes:
>
>The only time preemptive multitasking is not the best method is when its not
>the method used in the operating system you're trying to sell.

    Do you honestly believe that there are _no_ situations in which
preemptive multitasking is not the best solution?


>IMHO, preemptive multitasking is a requirement.  Also, any OS should be
>multiuser.  This is a shortcoming in both NT and OS/2.

     Windows NT has preemptive multitasking and is multiuser.  Where
is the shortcoming?


>  With machines
>becoming more and more powerful, there is an increasing need for multiuser
>operating systems, in order to take better advantage of the underlying machine.

     I agree.  Windows NT will meet this need.

				-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: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Date: 01 Oct 92 18:57:53 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Sep30.150509.25843@cu23.crl.aecl.ca> gutz@cc49.aecl.crl.ca writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.175707.4137@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep28.175412.9513@cu23.crl.aecl.ca> gutz@cc49.crl.aecl.ca writes:
>>>
>>>  If you think 2-3 million people
>>>constitutes a few special intrest groups, then you have to be brain-dead.
>>
>>     Even the most hardened OS/2 zealots aren't claiming 3 million
>>users - most aren't even claiming 2 million.  Can you provide a 
>>source for these statistics.
>
>By the OS/2 2.0 celebrates it's first anniversary, IBM predicts 2+ million
>units shipped.

     IBM could predict 4 million - that doesn't change the current
facts.


>>>If you, and/or MS think I'm going to use a Windows app under OS/2 when
>>>there is a native OS/2 app, you will surely miss the boat.
>>
>>     There isn't a native OS/2 app.  That's the point.
>
>There sure is, but it's not written by MS.  Describe 3.0 (and soon
>4.0) are excellent products.  AMI-pro is also due shortly.

     OK - we were using different definitions.  I thought you were
referring to a specific app, while you were apparently talking
about a set of applications.


>>     I can't make any kind of official statement here, but no one that
>>I know within Microsoft is working on OS/2 apps, with the possible
>>exception of Lan Manager.
>>
>
>That's the official word anyway.  Would MS admit that they are working on
>OS/2 apps, when they are going to try flogging a different OS sometime
>in the near/distant? future?  I don't think would admit any OS/2 app
>work, since this would certainly affect sales of NT whenever it arrives.

     Hmm... A couple of thoughts.  If Microsoft were indeed developing
OS/2 apps, it would be in the company's best interest to make sure
that OS/2 users knew that these apps were coming - otherwise they
might go out and purchase a competitor's product.  True?
     I'm not certain that OS/2 apps by Microsoft would really hurt
Windows NT sales, though.  Possible but not clear yet.  It would
provide a mixed message, though - "the future of OS's is Windows NT,
but here's some OS/2 apps to tide you over."


>>     The potential is not clear yet.  If and when it becomes apparent
>>that OS/2 2.0 will be around for a while, with substantial user base,
>>I would expect some management person to make a decision on whether
>>or not to produce apps for it.  At present, though, OS/2's future is
>>far from clear.
>>
>
>Do you honestly think OS/2 is going to fail?  Are you so sure of NT's
>success?

      I think OS/2 may fail.  I think Windows NT may succeed.  At
this time I'm not willing to make a more definite statement.

					-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.
From: 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Review: OS/2 2.1 BETA.
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:11:28 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

>> 	I did turn it off, but the 32bit GRE sluggishness extends
>> beyond mistiming the animation.  When you close a window it takes
>> a bit longer for it to disappear.  As if it were thinking "Well, I
>> guess I will disappear now."
> 
> Must be your machine, Brad.....
>  
> When I close a window, it GOES AWAY! (pop!)
>  
> Steve
> -- 
> Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
> withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | looks like we may get a more  
> **** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".

	Well, we have tested it on a variety of machines and it is the
same on all machines.  To me, at least, it seems a bit slower.  Maybe
486-33's and 486-50's with Diamond Stealth or Diamond Speedstar or
other Tseng 4000's are just not fast enough... Seriously though, 
we have 3 customers testing it and all but the trident VGA customer
has said it seems a bit slower.  I wish they would increase the animation
speed.

							-Brad
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2, my final analysis.
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:25:48 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

> I am an experienced software developer and system maintainer for more
> than 10 years now. I have been working on mainframes, worstations and
> PCs, but I never had to work in such an unstable and buggy environment.
> 
> And to compare OS/2 2.0 with /NT. /NT is not even in beta now, but if
> you don't use the WIN16 or DOS Subsystem, it does what you expect. It
> never crashed and never garbled all data on my HPFS partition. And
> last but not least, the C++ Compiler produces output, that really does,
> what you coded in the source.
> 
> Christoph
> -- 
> Internet: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de
> BITNET: HAMPE2@DMRHRZ11
> Fido: 2:243/660


	I must disagree with you on there.  None of our custmers have
had any serious problems running OS/2.  NT ran stably for me too until
I did DOS sessions with it (of course, I didn't have many problems with
windows 3.0).  I have not used Cset/2 but I have programmed qute a bit
with Gnu C and used quite a few native os/2 programs.  I have had it
crash but it only happens perhaps once every other week (the type of
crash you mention with the register dump). 
	My main problem with os/2 has been the wps being buggy.  I 
quite occasionally get locked out of the systme.  Processes continue but
I cannot enter input.  This happens about 3 times a week.  This MUST
be fixed.  But compared to the competition, windows, desqview, etc, os/2
is the most stable pc environment I have used.  

						-Brad
From: U23590@uicvm.uic.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 VS NT! The Future War Looms...
Date: 27 Sep 92 21:55:42 GMT
 <1992Sep13.212117.5220@gw.wmich.edu> <c0xn=8d.xtifr@netcom.com>
 <1992Sep14.164413.19321@njitgw.njit.edu>
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago

How Do I get GCC OS/2 to uncompress?  I used the utility in the directory in

with gcc on garcon, but it just says "permission denied."

Help!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ckincy@mcs213f.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Petey, you've gone too far!  (was:  desynchronized. . .)
Followup-To: alt.flame
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:57:45 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla
Summary: Put Petey in your killfile.  Do it now!

Warning.  This is a flame of Pete Skelley, employee of Microsoft.
If you don't like to read such things, hit n now.

In article <1992Sep28.225625.10186@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <kekmkWS00WB2BQ7ohB@andrew.cmu.edu> sl31+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen M. Lacy) writes:
>
>>
>>p.s.   Too many people on these bboards are misinformed, or not informed
>>at all, but they want to think that they are, so they make things up. 
>>Don't talk about programming any system until you've really done what
>>you're talking about.  Then I'll believe you. 
>
>This is a mighty pretentious statement comming from a Junior in CS.
>I'd especially question your ability to quiest the knowledge of
>someone working on PM, as I know for a fact that there is not a lot
>of OS/2 or Windows stuff going on at CMU.  Mostly Sparc, Dec, NeXT,
>etc.
>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>
>My Opinions...

Petey, if you don't have anything else better to do than bash on 
undergrads, go away and leave us alone.  Not all of us
were old enough to get in on Microsoft at the ground floor and
can now speak from a position of financial independence.      

It's ok by me if you post from on high in Redmond and tell us how
great NT is.  But when you issue forth such puke you discredit yourself
and everyone else at Microsoft.  Next time I might carbon 
billg@microsoft.com just for shits and grins.  (Or bgates or whatever
the hell his userid is).

In fact, I was exposed to Windows programming while a mere *junior*
in Computer Science myself.  Repeat after me, Petey:  "Undergrad
does not equal stupid."  

Into my killfile you go, asshole.  I suggest that others do the same.
It's /petesk@*/hK:j if you use rn.

And this goes as a warning to you other dweebs who think
you can push people around just because you work for the big M.

cpk

Who is *very* tired of random bullshit from Microsoft employees.
Gordon was amusing, but these other guys down right piss me off.
From: fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Date: 27 Sep 92 00:15:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.EelKqua00VAt88Y4h9
	<P7y-BjA@engin.umich.edu>
Distribution: world
Organization: Sophomore, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu (D. Robert Spexet II) writes:
> puting world by Apple.  The Nubus and MCA bus architectures that these com-
> panies use in their machines are among the most advanced architectures in the
> personal computing world.  I could name lots of things that these companies

isn't Nubus TI's design?
otherwise i pretty much agree with the rest of you post
(personal opinion: MCA rocks - quickring wishes it was MCA)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
From: Spartacus At Cuny <I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Tuesday, 29 Sep 1992 10:28:25 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <1992Sep26.012811.6658@midway.uchicago.edu>, sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu
(Timothy F. Sipples) says:
>** Windows enhancements (i.e. Win-OS/2 3.1 with TrueType, multimedia
>extensions, bitmaps, and applets). (*)                    ^^^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^^^^

Phew!...I thought Win-OS/2 wouldn't include them.  It might not
be the MMPM/2, however its good enough until the first native
OS/2 MM programs show up....Thanks IBM.

Now my only problem is Aldus. :-(

BTW...does the new 32bit GRE/Win3.1 beta have them?  I ordered friday
but still haven't received it.
-------
------------------------------+      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!"
From: Ian_Upright@mindlink.bc.ca (Ian Upright)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why OS/2 **WILL** fail
Date: 27 Sep 92 17:08:39 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world


 > This is where os/2 comes in. OS/2
 > is a perfect example of PC power without rembering who the real
 > market is. OS/2 is POWERFUL, REAL powerful. But its also a pain in
 > the ass. It reminds me of the old japanese vcrs which had 50
 > (literally, I counted several) buttons on the remotes and more knobs
 > than I had the time to count on the vcr body itself. OS/2 is
 > very much like that. In an effort to give the user total control
 > which computer professionals such as myself ADORE, I just LOVE
 > tweaking priority so I can download and still get work done) they
 > have alienated the average user. I don't know ANYONE who can't just
 > jump into a MAC or Windows program without problem, but sit them in
 > front of os/2 and they start drooling in confusion.

I have to agree with you on this one.  But I think you're concentrating
on the Win-OS/2 and the Dos-OS/2 aspects of OS/2.  Think of OS/2 as it is
in it's native 32-bit enviroment, and not the problems of running dos
sessions.  If the shell was replaced with a much easier third party shell,
things could get quite a bit easier.  It may take a "technojock" to get
it installed the first time, but after that, I don't see it that much
more difficult than a Mac..  A Mac sometimes isn't all that easy either..
Just try sorting out an init confict some day, and you really begin to
develop a love/hate relationship for the thing.  But I have to agree with you,
OS/2's shell, as it stands now, isn't going to be readily used by Mr. Joe
User.
From: fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ian's Outlook on OS'es
Date: 26 Sep 92 23:40:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.oelKJay00VAt88YAw0
Distribution: world
Organization: Sophomore, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Ian_Upright@mindlink.bc.ca (Ian Upright) writes:
>    It's still by far, the easiest & most complete GUI around (contrary to
>    popular belief do to many pig-headed people) Unfortunately, "Third-Party"

your article forgot NeXT's which have what many consider to be the
easiest graphical interface by far
I can't get too excited about any graphical interface which doesn't
support minimisation of windows
as for poular, NeXT seems to have a smaller user base than my family
:-)
From: sammy@anagld.analytics.com (Sam Blackburn)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Miscellaneous NT information.
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:43:12 GMT
Organization: Computer Sciences Corporation - Systems Engineering Division

rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard) writes:

>How do you figure?  Isn't that the beauty of UNIX?  I can get the
>sources (from a number of places) and create a product.  So in other

This also the beast of UNIX.  With so many flavors of UNIX running around,
maintaining a product is more difficult than creating it.  Witness the
troubles Wordperfect had trying to keep up.


                                                               o
Sam Blackburn                                                    \
Internet:   sammy@sed.csc.com                                  \O/
Compuserve: 76300,326                     ||====================|====||
GEnie:      SAMMY                         ||-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-/\+-+-||
                                          ||===================\=\===||
                                          ||                         ||
                                          || Kill or be killed.      ||
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 01:14:42 GMT

In article <P7y-BjA@engin.umich.edu>,
spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu (D. Robert Spexet II) writes:

[Stuff about setting standards deleted...]

>
>As far as selling "yesterday's hardware" goes, let it be said that Gateway,
>Dell, etc. will probably *not* be setting the standards of tomorrow.  Their
>hardware isn't advanced enough to be a standards-setter for the future.
>
>Not many innovative things have come about in the personal computing world
>that *didn't* come from IBM or Apple.  The AT bus architecture which most
>people use stems directly from an IBM design.  The VGA architecture was
>designed by IBM.  The windowing interface was brought to the personal com-
>puting world by Apple.  The Nubus and MCA bus architectures that these com-
>panies use in their machines are among the most advanced architectures in the
>personal computing world.  I could name lots of things that these companies
>are responsible for.
>

  I tend to agree that IBM and Apple have set the standards in the
past, but in IBM's case, it was nearly always with MS at it's side.
The smaller vendors don't seem to have the R&D money to invest,
while Apple has prided itself on it's new technology, and IBM has
plenty of money for R&D.
  I do have one question, for anybody that knows...  I was under the
impression that the Atari ST (or something like that) was one of the
first computers with a good windowing OS.  Please correct me if I'm
wrong!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy