HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 VS NT! The Future War Looms...
Date: 14 Sep 1992 15:46:08 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Sep14.144709.24019@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Backward compatibility with DOS and Windows 3.x is so extremely
>important in this marketplace, certainly on the client side, that if
>NT is perceived as less than capable in this area it will suffer, in
>my opinion.

...and MS' talk about supporting the "top 100" DOS and Windows apps doesn't
help that perception. OS/2 is going a long ways to support nearly every DOS
and Windows app (with only two documented exceptions, VCPI and WINMEM32, both
of which involve integrity exposures to the OS), and that makes users' upgrade
paths a lot cleaner and simpler, as they don't have to make sure that EVERY
program they run is in the top 100.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Keep in mind that Amateur Radio As We Know It Today will cease to exist
            at midnight tonight." -- Dave Newkirk, WJ1Z
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Tuesday, 8 Sep 1992 16:01:54 EDT
From: Andrew T. Robinson <ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (Well, not exactly....)
 <1992Sep7.204054.8470@hellgate.utah.edu> <92252.084812ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
 <1992Sep8.153000.8424@colorado.edu>

I believe Brian asked the question of (paraphrase) "How many of the 1
million copies of OS/2 shipped are actually in use?"

According to the 31 August 1992 PC week, "it seems that a goodly number
(more than 95 percent) [of copies shipped] were actually sold..." (see
EDITORIAL, page 72).

"Sold," as used in the article, is distinct from "shipped."  My assumption
after reading this is that "sold" means "sold to an end-user,"  whereas
"shipped" means sent to vendors but not yet sold to end-users.

Andy

PS -- Text in square brackets added for clarity.

PPS -- Please don't respond with "Oh yeah, well MS ships 1 million
       copies of Windows 3.1 each WEEK!"  I am not comparing OS/2
       to Windows 3.1 shipments, merely trying to address the issue
       of how many copies of OS/2 are actually in use.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak)
Subject: Re: SOMFIX.ZIP, WPS, drive-object, HPFS
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps
Organization: Mitre Corporation
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:42:54 GMT

In article <92247.152544RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>, FLATSCHER Rony
<RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> wrote:
> 
> As the user-interface is the piece of OS/2 a user is exposed to all the time,
> he/she concludes by the interface-speed the speed of the operating system
> itself. Therefore it does not surprise me that end-user perceive Win3.1 to
> be faster than 32bit OS/2 ! Take looks at the speed of Win3.1, Aplle McIntoshes
> and Nexts and improve the speed and feeling of the WPS-interface (probably an
> improved HPFS would work wonder for it, if retrieving EA's and file/directory-
> information would be improved by it).

Does anyone know what priority the WPS thread run?  I am wondering if the
apparent "sluggishness" of the WPS happens because it runs at a low
priority.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heeren Pathak                      | Millions long for immortality who do 
pathak@mitre.org                   | not know what to do with themselves
Mitre Corporation                  | on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
(617) 271-7465                     |	               	-- Susan Ertz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Mine not Mitre's.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:5126 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2144
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.7
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:37:00 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep5.173823.18105@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>#	Quota and and Statistics hooks for most system objects.
>		System objects are things like processes, threads,
>		files, semaphores, etc.
>		NT has the hooks necessary to set per-user quotas
>		on objects.  It also contains monitoring facilities 
>		in each of these objects so that statistics on their
>		use can be gathered.  In many instances these
>		"hooks" are already in use, especially in the area
>		of monitoring facilities.

This is an essential feature of a multi-user system, although it is
frivolous in a single-user system.  Since NT's design is multi- and
OS/2's design is single-, this shouldn't be a major selling point.

Nonetheless, OS/2 doesn't have it.

You might want to group this (and other appropriate features) together
under "Multi user capable", rather than list them separately.

>	Networking
>		TCP/IP
>		Peer-peer file and printer sharing.
>		Ability to support multiple vendors as transports
>			w/common admin.
>		Good network admin facilities.
>		SNMP
>		Berkeley sockets.
>		Named pipes.
>#			(Both NT and OS/2 GA have non-networked ones.)

Interesting.  I thought OS/2 1.3 had this.  Maybe I'm wrong - the app
might have just created an ordinary named pipe on the server.  It was
an error logger running on a server - the logger ran there, so the
pipe was created there.  Apps from anywhere on the LAN could write to
the pipe, and the logger would get it.

>RESOURCE USAGE
>
>	Memory
>		If you add OS/2 2.0's memory requirements for the
>		base package + TCP/IP base + MM + LAN Server Entry you get:
>		6 + 1 + 1 + 3 = 11 megs.  NT currently requires 12 and is
>		targeted to use 8 megs.  Thus I contend neither has
>		a real edge in memory usage when counting relevant add-ons.

Neither will have a real edge if NT evtually ships with a selective
install, so you can remove unwanted features.  In my situation, I'd
want to remove all networking support.

If NT forces you to install everything, then OS/2 has an advantage.

I know that MS has no selective install now, but this is a developer's
version.  Do you know if one will exist for NT?  Of course, it may not
matter, since NT hasn't been targeted for the home markets, and memory
requirements for servers are not really a problem (if you're
installing a LAN, you can afford memory for the server).
-- 
   |)  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
From: gkushmer@jade.tufts.edu (Greg Kushmerek)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Beware
Date: 9 Sep 92 03:04:19 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: Roger Mellie Enterprises, PLC

I had almost finished writing a post on another example of bias towards
Win 3.1 in the September PC World when my connection went down.

The message does not appear to have been sent or saved. So if you have read
it, then I am sorry that it is incomplete.  Otherwise, sorry to have
wasted your time (I am not in the mood to write it again.

--gk
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 20:13:08 GMT

I don't know if Zachmann is "unhinged," exactly ... but it does seem to me
that his bias has passed the point of professionalism.  Everything he says
would be ENTIRELY appropriate for this newsgroup, which is ENTITLED
"OS/2 advocacy" and is SUPPOSED to include flaming.  It's pretty bad for
what's supposed to be a responsible trade journal.

Of course, he's no worse than Pournelle in Byte, but there's a certain
engaging roguishness to Pournelle and his incessant references to Mrs.
Pournelle's reading program, Workman Associates, Cheetah, &c. &c.  

The worst thing that can be said about Zachmann is that what he has to
say is no longer either interesting or useful.


-- 
Daniel P. B. Smith
dpbsmith@world.std.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: Suggestions to IBM
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 02:37:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.013227.10553@news.iastate.edu> TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:
>  Well, since things have slowed down here so much, I thought I'd
>throw out some opinions/suggestions for IBM and OS/2...
>1) IBM should sell all of their computers with at least the 386SLC
>   processor.

Really, they do.  Only the 35SX and 40SX are available with the 386SX,
and those are slowly being phased out through direct sales via a 1-800
number.  One or two of the low end notebooks uses the 386SX, but
that's probably acceptable, and those, too, will probably disappear.

They have a reasonable upgrade plan for 386SLC to 486SLC, incidently.

>2) IBM should sell all of their computers with at least *8* meg of
>   memory.

Well, they've made this change just recently, too, with the OS/2 2.0
bundling.  Again, the exceptions are as noted above.

>3)  IBM should include OS/2 preinstalled on all of their computers
>   (I'm sure you saw this one coming...)

Well, aside from the models noted above, they do.

>4) IBM should come up with better VDM default settings and better
>   Win-OS/2 default settings

Agreed.  Not everyone reads the FAQ List.  :-)

-- 
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
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hercules bashers - You guys just don't get it!
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:32:39 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep12.235113.208495@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>
>Well, I look at a CGA quality display a good part of the day, and it KILLS my
>eyes.  If your really want so save eyestrain, either get monochrome VGA or
>pick your colors well.  Theses are even better supported than Herc.

Ah, but Herc's resolution is far better than CGA.  It's better than
EGA, even.  It comes very close to VGA.  It runs at 720x348.  VGA
displays only generate 640 dots across.  This user would have to go
sVGA to get that resolution.

Of course, I run my ATI-1024 in 800x600x256 mode regularly.  With an
apprpriate color scheme (IBM provides a monochrome scheme) or a
monochrome monitor (I've seen paper white, amber, and even green in
sVGA displays) it should be just as good if not better than Hercules.
-- 
   |)  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
From: nina@panix.com (Nina Yuan)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Honestly, people...how do you find the new OS/2 ads?
Date: 13 Sep 92 00:23:53 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <92255.202158I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET> I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET (Spartacus At Cuny) writes:

>In article <18p44pINNsg7@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bbm@po.CWRU.Edu (Brian B.
>Mathewson) says:
>>
>>I've never seen a really good TV advertisement for a software product
>>before.  I'ts very difficult to sell something so complex in just 30
>>seconds.

>I've seen a flashy NASDAQ commerical a while back pointing out how Bill Gates
>created one of the most successful software companies.  The commerical shows

Yes, the NASDAQ ad was definitely attention-getting.  I just saw the OS/2
"heart" ad for the first time during the U.S. Open this morning; I didn't
start paying attention to the ad until the last 10 seconds when I saw the
OS/2 logo.  Oh, well.  My favorite OS/2 ad is the print ad that says "it's
not about fixing old windows, it's about opening new doors."  Exactly.

-nhy

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nina H. Yuan
Harvard College             Panix -- Public Access Unix & Internet of NYC
yuan1@husc.harvard.edu      nina@panix.com
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 14 Sep 1992 16:19:17 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Sep14.153819.18091@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>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.

No, I wasn't. I didn't even know just what 2.0 was about till I saw an IBM
demonstration in April, and I bought it from the 800 line the next day. Until
then, I thought that OS/2 was an overblown resource hog that wasn't worth the
disk space it took up. Boy, was I ever wrong.

>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.

OK, I'll buy that argument. 31 January 1993 it is.

Of course, that assumes that MS gets it out by then...they only have a couple
of months or so to start filling the pipeline, and they either have released a
beta that's lacking in features and buggy as hell, or not even released a beta
yet, depending on whose definition of "beta" you use: the commonly accepted
industry definition, or MS's...
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Keep in mind that Amateur Radio As We Know It Today will cease to exist
            at midnight tonight." -- Dave Newkirk, WJ1Z
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.4
Date: 6 Sep 92 04:34:59 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep4.113709.27365@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>Whether or not IBM is "less vaporish" is at highly subjective.
>My current favorite case in point is the "June" CSD.

You really enjoy treating unconfirmed rumors as if they were press
releases, don't you?

IBM has said nothing about the CSD's date other than "Fall."
EVERYTHING ELSE HAS BEEN RUMOR.  Even if the rumor comes from an IBM
employee, it is still a rumor and means nothing.  Even if it comes
from John Soyring.  Until IBM makes a press release with a date in it,
nothing besides "Fall" is official.  

As far as I'm concerned, they still have until December 20th to get it
out. 
-- 
   |)  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
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: NT guys: 1/2 stay, 1/2 leave!!! (was Re: NT guys STAY!!!)
Summary: Mention OS/2 when you post...
Date: 13 Sep 92 06:30:48 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Sep13.033910.24637@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.165009.23586@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) writes:
[...]
>> Excuse me... let me lock the doors.  I'll lock the NT guys *in*
>> before any of them escape...   ;)
>> 
>
>I agree with you for the most part, Mike. But a few minutes ago I read a
>posting from someone who finished up his list of comments on NT by pointing
>out that he hadn't mentioned OS/2 even once!
> 
>Hmmmm.....that would suggest to me that the terms of reference have been
>shifting a bit too far in the direction of MS's alpha-tester's dream.
>
>Try to mention OS/2 at least once in your posts, folks...OK? :-)

Okay, so that explains it...  I got e-mail from various persons
stating that they still want NT guys out of here.  Steve, thanks
to your post, I now understand what they meant.

Let me clarify my original reply by stating that I don't mind
NT guys *comparing* NT to OS/2 (such as Brian Sturgill's List,
etc.).  But I agree with those that say NT guys should leave if
they are just going to talk about NT *only*. 

Excuse me... all you "compare-with-OS/2" NT guys can stay.
All you "discuss-NT-only" NT guys can lock the door on your
way out...

[.signature deleted, like someone suggested :-) ]

-- 
==== Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ====
::   ftp ftp.cs.widener.edu (147.31.254.132)  ::  .--.
::   for ``The Simpsons'' information.  Get   :: (OS/2)
:::: ``Simpsons'' FAQL in dir /pub/simpsons ::::  ~--~
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:48:16 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Sep10.211055.11590@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>Also if you want to read something really sick, check out Zachman's NT bashing
>article.... I think he's finally come completely unhinged.

Oh, yeah? What, exactly, did he say that's not truthful, and that hasn't been
said here in this very newsgroup?
(Yes, I've read the article.)
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Keep in mind that Amateur Radio As We Know It Today will cease to exist
            at midnight tonight." -- Dave Newkirk, WJ1Z
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 16:31:13 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep12.050836.107084@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>I guess that answers my question as to whether Zachmann has tried it.  I have
>a hard time respecting the opinions of journalists that do that even when it
>theoretically benifits my system of choice.  I got POed at the journalists for
>blasting OS/2 without trying it and relying on rumors and past reputation and
>for them blasting the alpha copy of NT.  If this is the kind of journalism we
>can continue to expect, then the system that will eventually be the most
>successful might as well be determined by who has the prettiest box or some
>such stupid thing.

That's why I got OS/2.  The pretty colored circles, and the stickers
were just so neat.  A lot nicer than the plain gray box that DOS 5.0
came it...  


-- 
   |)  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
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT guys OUT!!!
Date: 13 Sep 92 20:26:05 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <Megtj0a00awH43B7sQ@andrew.cmu.edu> pd2n+@andrew.cmu.edu (Peter W. De Bonte) writes:
> How can we advocate OS/2 if there is no competition?
> Removing NT ppl would make this netgroup grind to a halt.
> 
> Pete W. De Bonte (x4173)                    pwd+@cmu.edu 
> "Knolege is powef, Speling is unimportnt"   (but pd2n is unaceptable)

When I started following this newsgroup, the talk was mostly about Win3.1 vs
OS/2 2.0.......
 
But those Win3.1ers seem to be gone now.....probably running OS/2, eh?
 
Steve

-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | End the two-party duopoly. Vote 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for the Mixed-Member Proportional 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | (MMP) voting system on Sept. 19th. 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | Give yourself a vote that *counts*!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yet another OS/2 vs NT post, but different than the rest
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 11:02:34 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Sep5.020624.13653@nuscc.nus.sg> isc10295@nusunix2.nus.sg (QUEK KENG OEI) writes:
> drxmann@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Dustin R. Christmann) writes:
> : After reading what seems to be hundreds of posts along these lines:
> : 
> : NT Zealot: NT is going to be better than sliced bread, you whining OS/2ers! HA
> : 	HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA etc.
> : 
> : OS/2 Zealot: No it's not, you lying pig!! And it's not even out yet, so why
> : 	don't you go back to kissing Bill Gates' butt some more, and come back
> : 	when it's out, which will probably be in 1997!
> :[Stuff Deleted]
>
>
>
> Finally!
> 	A sane voice among all that cacophany!:) 

What cacophoney? I stopped reading those marathon threads days ago.....:-)
 
Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | End the two-party duopoly. Vote 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for the Mixed-Member Proportional 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | (MMP) voting system on Sept. 19th. 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | Give yourself a vote that *counts*!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: jackson@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Bruce Jackson)
Subject: Re: Oberon
Organization: University of North Texas, Denton
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:26:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.015450.17053@wuecl.wustl.edu> ppc1@cec2.wustl.edu (Peter Pui Tak Chiu) writes:

>someone said Oberon is going to be the main OS on Workstations and PC's
>so should we say bye to win NT and os/2?
>what do you think???

Except for a few magazine articles about Oberon a while back I've not heard
anything.  I can't even find an Oberon newsgroup to check out.  The articles
I've read about the Oberon programing language sounded quite promising but
the example programs that came with an Oberon compiler I was playing with
crashed on every machine I tried them on.  Since the Oberon system (the
Oberon language and the Oberon operating system) is integrated it should
have the same sort of elegance that UNIX has and be heaven for programmers.
Of course programmers do not drive the market so this is pretty much a
moot point.

Of course if history is any example than the worst operating system will
become prevelent and the better alternatives will become nitch products.

Bruce  -  jackson@cs.unt.edu





From: chris@asstdc.oz.au (Chris Moore)
Sender: fredmail@asstdc.oz.au
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Netware Server under OS/2
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 11:07:37 +1000

In an epistle scribed on <Sep 03 01:53>, Timothy F. Sipples opines thus:

 >(7) Netware.  Considering that Netware is by far the most popular LAN
 >on the market, it probably should get some mention.  OS/2 2.0 runs
 >client today and server shortly (it has been demonstrated).  I'm
 >amazed no one talks about this -- Netware server on OS/2 2.0 is a BIG
 >deal (to me, anyway).

Can you supply more details on this please, particularly disk structures etc
(i.e. does it use HPFS rather than the standard Novell structure etc)

Regards
Chris Moore

Chris@asstdc.oz.au 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy