HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT - it ain't got Novell either....
Date: 14 Dec 92 01:27:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Dec14.012748.9226
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Dec11.200707.7580@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>In article <2b24f878@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org> Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org writes:
>> 
>> Novell NetWare support for OS/2 2.0 was shown many months before OS/2
>> 2.0 shipped, also.  So there's no reason to think that Novell is doing
>> anything more for NT than they did for OS/2 2.0.
>
>Hmmm. You've missed the start of this thread, it seems. MS - had it played
>fair with Novell - might well have been able to ship Netware support with NT. 
> 
>Now they can't. Or maybe I'm confused. Perhaps the issue is that they were
>never allowed to in the first place....but tried to.
> 
>Yeah....that would be right.
> 
>Steve
>

As it is my understanding, Novell would not have let them without
some pound of flesh given in compensation. Ray Noorda wants to
play Great White Father to the unwashed in networking, and
Microsoft distributing IPX code with their platforms would ruin his
Napoleanic dream.

But, Microsoft did sign the agreements with Novell to perform, and
they should be held to those agreements, fair or otherwise.

JMHO...

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: BENCHMARKING Windows and OS/2
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:29:08 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Dec11.224957.3778@midway.uchicago.edu>, sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu
(Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
>BENCHMARKING Windows and OS/2
>December 11, 1992
>by Timothy F. Sipples
>

(stuff deleted)

>of the OS/2 Boot Manager partition.  Windows NT Beta includes a specific
>check which is deliberately designed to refuse installation if OS/2
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Boot Manager is present on the hard disk.  (OS/2 2.0x includes no such
>NT check.)  Zeroing out the Boot Manager ID renders NT Beta installable
>while preserving OS/2 Boot Manager capabilities.

Is this true?  If so, what a bunch of jerks.  Someone who knows NT better than
I, please explain the reasoning for this.  There had better be a damn good
reason.


>T.F.S.
>
>--
>Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0h, available from
>sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
>Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
>of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]
>



BTW:  A big thanks to Mr. Sipples for posting such an interesting and well
though out comperison.  Very interesting if not conclusive.

-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: OS/2 stopped selling!!
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 01:28:11 GMT

In article <Bz5zCw.897@newsflash.concordia.ca> patrice@cenparmi.concordia.ca (SCATTOLIN patrice) writes:
>
>
>According to a local software store OS/2 has stopped selling. After
>looking and not seeing it on the shelves I asked if they were selling OS/2.
>The salesman said that they had one copy left in stock but it stopped selling
>a while back blaming a stop in advertising. 
>
>Is the true around where you are? Why?
>
>I tought that sales were picking up, I guess I was wrong.
>
I just talked my father-in-law into getting it. :-)

Also, our local Egghead and MicroCenter superstore haved shelves packed
to the roof with it.  Those same shelves used to be packed with Windows
3.1.  Some will say that this is because Windows sold and OS/2 was left
over, but I think that most stores tend to display hot-selling items, so
that people who want them can find them easily.  We'll see.

-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 05:34:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.051348.22687@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.220244.29899@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Dec14.192938.10637@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>>I definitely think you are wrong about their attempt to keep customers
>>>from triple booting.  In fact, Microsoft, in the MSWIN32 forum on
>>>CompuServe provides explicit instructions on how to set up for triple
>>>boot with OS/2 2.0. This to me, shows a far different picture than the
>>>one you are trying to paint.
>>
>>Please post this information here -- I'm sure programmers would be
>>happy to hear about the "official" workaround.
>
>I misspoke, it was not the MSWIN32 forum, but the WinNT forum.
>The solution was basically what you said, to zero out a portion
>of the boot block.  The solution was posted on November 3, just a few
>days after the release of the beta.

I checked even further back, c.o.ms-w.prog.win32 people were using the
same sorts of work arounds back in July.  As you were just bringing
this up I thought this was a new problem.  As it was this way from day
one, I really do think you have far more homework to do before you can
accuse Microsoft of plotting against OS/2 users.

[Especially since I'm sure Microsoft really likes OS/2 users.  In fact,
I'm willing to bet that in a few months, they'll offer you a copy of their
new OS, really, really cheap! :-).]

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                          NeXTStep 486 is for _YOU_!!!!
University of Utah                    Microsoft needs competition, but I want
Center for Software Science          to be one of the many running Windows NT!
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373    :-) :-) :-)  NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: Why OS/2 will DEFINITELY fail
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:22:10 GMT

In article <BzFABv.3xy@news.iastate.edu> jws@iastate.edu (James William Shoemaker) writes:
>> Come on. What do you think for what OS Corel will develop Version 4 first?
>> Windows 3.1 or OS/2 2.0. Windows of course, because they still will sell
>> more copies for Windows. Version 4 will not be out before 94. So it takes
>> additional time to port it to OS/2 2.0. Porting to Windows NT is quite
>> easy. It takes a couple of days.
>
>	Have you read the WIN-32 DOCS?  I have read parts of them and concluded
>That the Code I am responsible for will take a re-write to go to NT.  In fact
>The Sample Code shipped with the Win SDK I have would usually need re-writing.

Is your code for a Windows program?  If it is, it must do some pretty
strange things to require a complete re-write.  The sample code and most
applications will usually have to be modified, but not completely re-
written.

>	If you followed the win-32 guidelines religeously it may port that
>easily, but I have code that was written long-long before the guidelines were
>released.  and I would be extremely surprised if corel does not have parts in
>their code that pre-dates the guidelines.
>
>					JWS

The Win32 API is very similar to the Win16 API -- some things were dropped
and a few added, but nothing that would require a complete re-write.
(What does your application *DO*, by the way?)

     - Mike
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Re PDK expiration notice
Date: 18 Dec 92 05:12:58 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <724546236rommel.root@jonas.gold.sub.org>, rommel@jonas.gold.sub.org
(Kai Uwe Rommel) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.235334.42749@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (S
TACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec15.091233.10611@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE>, rommel@Informat
ik
>>.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec14.203127.70767@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu
(S
>>TACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>>>>Just so everyone knows, if you have the origional OS/2 PDK, the code expires
>>>>*tomarrow*  (Dec.15)  Your license is no longer valid and you must get the n
ew
>>>>version (november '92 version)
>>>
>>>... which has no longer an expiration date.
>>
>>I wish it didn't.  Its expiration date is Febuary 15, 1993.  Second paragraph
>>on the pack of the CD case.  (for the november CD)
>
>Strange, my copy doesn't have one. No matter how hard I try, I can't
>find one :-). Maybe european versions are different than US versions?
>After all, the version I have was made in UK.
>

Ahhh, wink, wink ,nudge, nudge...


>Kai Uwe Rommel
>


-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 04:21:08 -0800
From: George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: Nt Smp Users
Comment-To: All@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

        I've read all about NT's fabulous SMP design on here and how
        wonderful it's going to be. Please raise your hand if you are
        running NT on an SMP machine. How many of you are out there?
___
 X SLMR 2.1a X 386-33 8MB + 105 MB Toshiba + OS/2 2.0 = computing joy

--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: dposey@well.sf.ca.us (David Posey)
Subject: Re: Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:54:12 GMT



I think Brian is right - Tim Sipples *is* spreading FUD with his
benchmark of OS/2, NT, and Win3.1/DOS5!

To wit:

FUD=Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt

FEAR - The fear that OS/2 might only be 5 times as fast as NT in
       graphics performance. If correct, this implies that due to the
       benefits of ProgMan/FileMan, OS/2 might only be 10-20 times
       more productive to a user! Help!

UNCERTAINTY - Clearly Tims weak point - Given the vague and mysterious
       description of the tests run and their methodology, how could
       anyone hope to re-create these results? The least he could have
       done was to use the most recent, publicly available versions of
       the competing operating systems! And using an unknown version of
       some homegrown benchmark (who is 'PC Magazine', anyway?), that
       was probably tweaked and tuned 'til even Zachmann woudn't
       recognize it - that really takes the cake!

DOUBT - I don't know about you, but I *doubt* that I'd have the time and
       patience to respond civilly to the inevitable whining of the losers,
       whoever they might be. I also doubt that anyone writing those whines
       will have the patience and intelligence to match Tims methods &
       fairness - time will tell. Further, Tim certainly cast *doubt* on my
       decision to spend real $ (ok, only $69) to buy NT - I know it's a
       performance pig, but then, so was Windows 1.0, and look what a
       success it's become! 

-David

- Yes, I own NT, Win3.1, and OS/2. I use OS/2. I used to use Win3.1.
- I *tried* NT - so far, it's a waste of time and disk space.
- (I bought a CD-ROM drive for this?)


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:50:56 GMT

In article <92351.131341ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET> ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:
>>> This however was not Tim's message, that message made it
>>> appear that MS had some evil plot to not work with OS/2.
>>Perhaps you can provide some alternate explanation for the explicit
>>check.  I'm willing to consider the possibilities.  Tim has raised
>>one.  Until there are others that make sense, it's the only one we
>>have to go on.
>Please wait with that evil plot theories until NT is released. Why should MS
>have to make a _BETA_ install together with every other OS in the world?
>If you remember the OS/2 betas didn't even install over older OS/2 betas.
>From the fact that NT _BETA_ doesn't install on a machine with OS/2 on you
>only can conclude MS had better things to do than fixing installer probs. Which
>is probably what NT beta testers expect MS to do. I guess NT betas are not
>intended for us OS/2 users who want to compare it to our OS but for MS beta
>testers who want to find bugs in the NT code.
>If it doesn't work in the release version then .... ---> Flame on.

I received a few replies from Microsoft about this issue.  One was not
worth a response (:-)), but the others were thoughtful.

I'm not willing to repost the contents of the Microsoft replies (in
one case I don't think the person would want it done :-)), since I was
not given permission to do so.  However, the thrust of the argument
was that it was an honest programming error which has been corrected
for inclusion in the next beta release of NT.  That assertion can be
easily verified in the near future, and I am willing to accept it,
provisionally.

So, barring more NT - OS/2 coexistence problems, I suggest this issue
be dropped.  I do, however, encourage the maintainer of the NT
Frequently Asked Questions List to incorporate the instructions for
the workaround (so I don't keep getting mail about it :-)), if those
instructions are not there already.

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0h, available from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10378 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3228
From: lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:27:39 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles

Brian, the Windows 3.1 beta was released some time ago, and expires on the
15th of December.  The 32 Bit Graphics Engine was included in the CSD as
well as some upgraded drivers.  This being the case, I don't see what
you are talking about when you say "beta released by December 15th".  It was
released some time ago, and the CSD of all but winos31 are in our hands.


--Lowell
From: ucgadkw@ucl.ac.uk (Dominik Wujastyk)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.1 specifications, release date.
Date: 16 Dec 92 14:24:47 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium


>>In article <3500@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:
>>>Here the official specs of OS/2 2.1 directly from IBM:
>>>
>>>- more printer drivers
>>>- Windows 3.1 support
>>>- native Windows 3.1 performance with 8Mb RAM machines
>>>- improved performance for low memory configurations
>>>- 32bit graphics engine
>>>- multimedia support
>>>- portable PC support
>>>- CD-ROM version

In another posting somewhere (!) I read that 2.1 would include DPMI support.
Is that so?

Dominik
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Sony and IBM sign agreement
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:46:45 GMT


October 12, 1992 - PC Week
---------------------------

At the recent CD-ROM expo in Boston, IBM and Sony Corp. of America announced
a marketing agreement for Sony's new portable CD ROM Player. IBM's Multimedia
Publishing Studio division will market the Multimedia player, bundled with
five IBM CD titles, through its direct-mail channel. Gardner Group Inc., a
Standford, Conn., market research company. Gardner Group estimates the total
market for the portable CD ROM device is approximately 15 million users.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Nt Smp Users
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:21:50 GMT

In <1992Dec12.204038.332@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>In article <2b29d934@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org> George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org writes:
>>        I've read all about NT's fabulous SMP design on here and how
>>        wonderful it's going to be. Please raise your hand if you are
>>        running NT on an SMP machine. How many of you are out there?
>>___
>> X SLMR 2.1a X 386-33 8MB + 105 MB Toshiba + OS/2 2.0 = computing joy
>>
>>--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
>> * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)

>I suspect if you had included comp.os.ms-windows.{programmer.win32,advocacy}
>you'd see a lot more hands.  I mean just how rational is it to ask such
>a question in the OS/2 advocacy group.

>Now if you asked the question, have you ever used NT on an SMP machine,
>I could raise my hand.

Doing it on a MS demo machine doesn't count.  You could find people
who have run OS/2 SMP and on Mach that way, too.  And I doubt you'd
get a lot more hands, except perhaps from the group working on it
inside MS.  And we seem to have our share of NT people here, so why
include a Windows group?

-- 
"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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 Application List 1/2
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 21:11:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.051119.6473@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>
>11/23/92                Shipping OS/2 2.0 Applications                
>                               (By Company)
>******************************************************************************
>
>
>Bitware, Software & Services        Nikon II                      61-6-2810175
>Boffin Software                     BOFORM
>Boffin Software                     Bufflo
>Boffin Software                     Cobra
>Boffin Software                     Dolittle
                                     ^^^^^^^^
Boy, does someone need help in choosing product names or what?  What
Gaswat and HIPO, too?!  Is this some sort of joke padding to make the
list look bigger than it really is?  And how many of these apps for for
narrow vertical markets?

>Boffin Software                     Gaswat
>Boffin Software                     HIPO
>Boffin Software                     Hiperflo
>Boffin Software                     Hogo
>Boffin Software                     Hornbil
>Boffin Software                     Managery
>Boffin Software                     Oilwat
>Boffin Software                     Pakiderm

Well, I suppose HIPO describes the size of OS/2 (or NT for that matter)
and Pakiderm suggests OS/2 2.0's uh, um, celerity when running Windows
Apps!

Are we sure "Boffin Software" really exists?  I mean, their name and
these products sound Monty Python (boy, there's a name they overlooked!)
to me!

>Boffin Software                     Pedriam
>Boffin Software                     Quikie+
>Boffin Software                     Reptild
>Boffin Software                     Spidre
>Boffin Software                     Trantula
>Boffin Software                     VHLOG
>Boffin Software                     Viperflo

jmalloy@hamilton.edu
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10401 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3235
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!
Date: 16 Dec 92 04:08:49 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>TFS merely performed a benchmark using a copy of WinBench...probably the 
>>widely available v2.5, or the just released v3.1.

>And for example he failed to say what version.
>Further I have no idea how to get this benchmark.
>Enlightenment on both accounts would be appreciated.

You might check a local BBS for WINBEN31.ZIP; run some comparisons
yourself. If you can't get hold of it, I can try and uuencode and 
mail. The previous version WINBEN25.ZIP is probably still around
too.

-- 
Tom Hatton
hatton@cgl.ucsf.edu
(415)-476-7986
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: WINOS2 bites (was Re: Windows NT humor)
Date: 15 Dec 92 02:45:09 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Dec12.125738.27402@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
 writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.063309.42535@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (S
TACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>>>       So?  Win3.0 was a piece of garbage.  Does that make
>>>       a piece of slow garbage that's a little faster some
>>>       kind of impressive thing?
>>>
>>So?  Win3.1 is a slightly faster piece of garbage.  Does that...  You get my
>>point?
>
>
>       Win31 was enough better that it went from stupid, useless
>       to stupid, more useful than DOS.  You get my point?
>
The only things NT adds were bug fixes, some multimedia, a significant if not
overwhelming speed up, and slightly better crash protection.  When all is said
and done it is really the same system without the more glaring errors.  It
isn't really any more useful than 3.0.  You can't do anything new with it, so
how was 3.0 "useless"?  It wasn't.  It was a piss poor piece of programming,
not terribly flexible, and bug ridden, but not useless.  3.1 was a debugged
version of 3.0 with a few new features, but it was not more useful.

Win3.1 is in your own words "a slow piece of garbage that's a little faster".


>
>
>--
> Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?
> Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?
> ---"I despise mystics, they fancy themselves so deep, when they----
> ----aren't even superficial"    --Nietzsche   ---------------------
>

-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy