HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: More Controversial Topics
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 04:03:39 GMT

In article <85137@ut-emx.uucp> jbodnar@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (John Bodnar) writes:
>According to daa7365@tamuts.tamu.edu (Diego A. Aranda):
>>If you read carefully you would see that what I stated had nothing to do
>>with OS/2s or NTs future incarnations.  I stated that OS/2 2.0 would not
                                                        ^^^^^^^^

>>support SMP today, or tomorrow, on today or tomorrow's hardware.
>
>This is wrong, again.  OS/2 will be supported on IBM's Model 295 Server
>before the Mach Kernel version.  If it's not available just yet, it's
>coming in short order (IBM may have demoed SMP OS/2 for the 295 at Comdex).

Did you miss it the first few times, or is IBM going to re-release OS/2
*2.0* with SMP support?

>>I then
>>stated that NT 3.1 will support SMP on tomorrow's hardware (technically it
>>will support SMP on today's hardware, but the average user cannot afford
>>the cost of an SMP system sold today).
>>
>>See?  OS/2 2.0 does not support SMP.  In less than eight months NT will
        ^^^^^^^^  Hmmm, there it is again.

>>support SMP.
>
>Geez, you're an intolerable!  Where the hell did you get your analytical
>skills?!  I've tried to be polite, but if you think that "OS/2 doesn't have
>SMP today or tomorrow, Q.E.D." then you can't be reasoned with.

You seem to have left out the "2.0" part in you reply.  What, are you
confused by the overabundance of 2's in "OS/2 2.0"?

>And whose SMP will NT support?  NCR, IBM, Compaq?  WHO?  There are no SMP
>standards for Intel chips, so unless a specific SMP version is written for
>each platform, NT will not have generic SMP out of the box.  If it does,
>then Microsoft has learned to break the laws of computer architecture.

No, you just don't know as much about computer architecture as you think
you do.

>John Bodnar

     - Mike
From: rbotimer@max.ct.gmr.com (R Douglas Botimer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: FTC (was:Re: Rude behavior on this group.)
Keywords: Microsoft FTC
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:46:59 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <1992Dec14.175639.18081@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> rkl@cbnewsh.cb.att.com  
(kevin.laux) writes:
:In article <8084@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)  
writes:
:> In article <11DEC199209480237@moose.cccs.umn.edu> rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu  
writes:
:> >In article <1992Dec10.154850.21295@Celestial.COM>, ray@Celestial.COM (Ray  
Jones) writes:
:> >> It seems that a lot of people are attacking this practice.  The following  
is
:> >> quoted from yesterdays (Dec. 9, 1992) Seattle Times.
:> [...]
:> >> Microsoft contracts give significatn price breaks to large-volume
:> >> manufacturers who agree to install DOS on every machine they sell.
:>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:> >The FTC's concern was not with the practice or even the pricing; but  
rather, 
:> >the length of the contract involved. Microsoft doesn't prevent you from
:> >shipping another OS with your machine.
:> 
:> Sure looks like they do...or at least require you to install DOS, even if  
you
:> do ship another OS. Kinda makes it hard for a vendor to preinstall OS/2 if
:> they're required to preinstall DOS.
:> 
:> I would expect that the FTC wants more than just cutting the length of the
:> contract.
:
:	Actually, I believe that the rub is that Microsoft requires
:manufacturers to pay the licensing fee *whether or not* they install DOS
:on the machine.  They're not preventing other OS's from being installed,
:but just collecting royalties for DOS even when it's not installed.  That
:practice would get the FTC's attention.
:
:-- 
:______________________________________________________________________________ 
__
:	R. Kevin Laux				Email: rkl1@hound.att.com
:	AT&T Bell Labs				Voice: (908) 949-1160
:	Holmdel, NJ 07733			Fax:   (908) 949-0959

The following is paraphrased from the 12/11 Wall Street Journal:

o  Federal Trade Commission staff lawyers have asked commissioners                  
to consider seeking a preliminary injunction against Microsoft                   
Corp.  The step appears to bring closer to completion the U.S.                   
government's 30-month-old inquiry into the trade practices of the                
world's biggest software supplier.  Specifically, investigators                  
are concerned about Microsoft's practice of offering discounts to                
PC makers that agree to pay for a copy of DOS for every PC they                  
sell, whether or not the PC comes with DOS.  Microsoft denies its                
DOS licensing practices are unfair or illegal, and claims that                   
its business practices generally are above board.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.1 specifications, release date.
Date: 15 Dec 92 17:43:34 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute

goyal@utdallas.edu (MOHIT K GOYAL) writes:

>>>Here the official specs of OS/2 2.1 directly from IBM:
>>>
>Video drivers will be there.

>I'm not sure exactly what drivers will be their but I know that Tseng ET4000,
>Trident 8900c, S3 (not sure which all chips), 8514/a, xga-2...
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Does anybody know the whole list of chips/partnumbers for the S3
line?  Plus description of differences?  (Just curious about a
card).

Thanks,
Robert
--
| Robert L. Howard              |   Georgia Tech Research Institute     |
| robert.howard@matd.gatech.edu |   MATD Laboratory                     |
| (404) 528-7165                |   Atlanta, Georgia  30332             |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "See, when the GOVERNMENT spends money, it creates jobs; whereas when |
| the money is left in the hands of TAXPAYERS, God only knows what they |
| do with it.  Bake it into pies, probably.  Anything to avoid creating |
| jobs." -- Dave Barry                                                  |
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re PDK expiration notice
Date: 15 Dec 92 23:53:34 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Dec15.091233.10611@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE>, rommel@Informatik
.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 new
>>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)




-- 
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: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: OS/2 stopped selling!!
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:47:55 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.
>
>
>-- 
>Patrice Scattolin
>					patrice@cs.concordia.ca

The one local software store around here that used to carry OS/2 (they
usually had one copy on the shelf a time, a long time, too) stopped some
months ago.  I did see three or four boxes of it, though, a few weeks
ago in Augusta, Maine, at a VAR reseller's shop, so it's probably still
available.

Confession: I am a Windows 3.1 user.  However, this does not mean that I
wish OS/2 ill.  In fact, I want it to become so tantalizingly good that
I just have to try it again (you know, drivers, software, etc).  But I
am not holding my breath.

Joe
jmalloy@hamilton.edu
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Discovered: Microsoft using undocumented calls in Windows NT
Date: 15 Dec 92 10:23:58 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Dec12.071059.2337@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
> 
> 
> What is the source of this information?
> 
> Why do you believe they won't be documented?
> Do you really believe that all calls in a beta should be documented in advance?
> Should Microsoft not document these after release, why do you believe
> this will give them an unfair advantage?
> Why do you believe that this matter is part of "the on-going FTC investigation".
> You do realize that there are a number of undocumented calls in OS/2... does
> this mean that IBM is unfair?

It depends. Is IBM also writing the apps that take advantage of any benefits
that these "undocumented" calls might offer?
 
The answer is no. In the case of MS, it appears the answer is YES. That recent
book on the unpublished/undocumented calls with MS systems made interesting
skimming. I had time only to skim it - and am not in a position to verify any
of it.....
 
But that is one likely source.
 
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".
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: PDK expiration notice
Date: 14 Dec 92 20:31:27 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

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 new
version (november '92 version)

-- 
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: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: To brian and other interested parties
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:59:09 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.081025.3025@visual.spk.wa.us> ssanbeg@visual.spk.wa.us (Scott Sanbeg) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.212947.21846@netcom.com> timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:
>>One of the many reasons Brian and the other non-OS/2 advocates are here is
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>to supply information and, perhaps more importantly, to correct mis-
>>information....
>
>Not exactly, Mike...

Are you denying that it's one of the many reasons?  I can't see how you
can back that up.

In any case, here's what *I* promise to do (and what I've been doing
most of the time, anyway).  Obviously, I can't speak for anyone else
when I promise this.  Anyway:

     I will not mention Windows 3.1, or Windows NT, or the Amiga, or
     the Mac, or the various flavors of Unix, or any operating system
     other than OS/2 unless someone else brings it up.

Satisfied?

     - Mike
From: chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: who is brian sturgill - really?
Date: 18 Dec 1992 15:35:52 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu

In <78582@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccusekh@prism.gatech.EDU (Kevin Hodge) writes:

]In <1gsojaINNaqg@cae.cad.gatech.edu] chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen) writes:


]]Oh, ever consider that maybe sturgill wants to work FOR microsoft,
]]and he posts as he does hoping someone from MS will see it, call him
]]up, and beg him to work for MS?

]Hell, why should Microsoft hire him?  They're getting all that labor for
]free.

Well, maybe they like his multi-threading abilities!  Ah, yer right,
them cheapskates will take anything they can get! :)
But, Maybe.... MS is so paranoid he might turncoat on them that
they just MIGHT hire him, cause they need ALL the help they can
get.  Or.. something like that.  

Oh, the theories are endless! let the games begin ...
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Windows NT will fail -----
Date: 15 Dec 92 03:05:25 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Dec11.162632.1046@itsmail1.hamilton.edu>, jmalloy@itsmail1.hamil
ton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>In article <8052@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes
:
>>
>>Indeed. WPS is a whole new way of thinking about the user interface. That's
>>why folks have a hard time adapting to it from Windows: they have to change
>>the way they think.
>>--
>>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.
>>  "All [Windows] NT has is a lot of journalists fooled." -- Brian Button
>
>A paradigm shift is one thing, but the mere fact of a paradigm shift
>does not make the shift good.  The WPS is, in my opinion, a fine example
>of making a bad thing worse.  If IBM were smart, they'd cajole Symantec
>into making a Norton Desktop for OS/2 that looks just like the ND for
>Windows.  I might even be tempted to try OS/2 again if that were
>available.

Why?  NDW looks a *lot* more like the WPS than the WinGUI.  In fact the
similarities are pretty frightening in a lot of ways.

That aside, Symantec may be doing just that, they just tend to be quiet about
what they are developing.  They released Norton Commander for OS/2 without any
hint that they were even working on such a beast.

>
>jmalloy@hamilton.edu
>

-- 
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,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: Some miscellaneous questions about os/2 from early info
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:05:21 GMT

In article <-+k288g@rpi.edu> gilem@aix.rpi.edu (Michael R. Gile) writes:
>When I was cleaning my desk, I found some information about os/2 from
>back in may 1990 in MSJ.  Since it concerned os/2 2.0, I had some  
>questions regarding these facts to see if they were actually true when
>os/2 was released.
>
>	1) it states that in os/2 2.0 the total code and data space available
>to an app is 512Kb, and that this restriction will be removed in later version.
>Is this really true? or is it only for console apps?  In my mind, this is
>a *BIG* problem, reminds me of MSDOS.

That's 512 MB, not 512 Kb.  Misprint.

>
>	2) it says later on that os/2 has a built in math emulation library
>which eliminates the need for each app to be compiled with emulation ""s
>This is a very good idea, and I don't know why ms didn't do it with windows.
>Is this still true?

Yes, I believe so.  At least, that's what I've heard.  I have a mathco, so
I've never needed to check.

Ted
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Survivability
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:07:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.204135.18209@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>>	OTOH, it's not here yet, and to IBM 1 month really means
>>	120 days.  Go FUD yourself.
>>
>
>You'd better not mention NT here again, Yami.


	Technical discussions are not FUD in the same way this was--
	as it was in response to a "what should I buy?" post--
	telling someone to buy OS/2 because "3.1 support will be along
	soon" is junk, and really bad advice.
 
	Makes about as much sense as telling them to wait for NT.  Plus
	this guy uses mostly Windows programs, so switching to OS/2 in it's
	current incarnation is a cruel recommendation.



-- 
	"If you can't eat sand, why the hell are you living in a desert?"


	Nuclear redevelopment for a better world!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: patrice@cenparmi.concordia.ca (SCATTOLIN patrice)
Subject: OS/2 stopped selling!!
Organization: CENPARMI, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:53:20 GMT



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.


-- 
Patrice Scattolin
					patrice@cs.concordia.ca
Concordia University			Montreal, Canada
"I am so far north that Santa lives two blocks from me"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: NT is missing something major: OS/2 32-bit compatibility
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:16:44 GMT

In article <92352.145443ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET> ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.060020.22368@netcom.com>, samiam@netcom.com (Scott Moore)
>says:
>>
>>run virtually any app available (prehaps including posix). Then we might have
>>the odd situation of os/2 2.0 being the most popular 32 os, and win32 being
>>the most common app interface.
>
>No. If OS/2 would become the most popular 32bit OS (which I hope, but I know
>Murphy's law) then its own API would be used. Does Win32 support multithreading
>long filenames, extended attributes and does it make use of SOM ? I don't think
>so. If one admits that these features give an advantage to apps which use them
>then there must be only one company (e.g. Lotus) which makes use of them to get
>a better product out. Then all the others will have to follow or they will
>loose the market.

Win32 supports multi-threading and long filenames (which are actually part
of the file system, not the API).  It doesn't do EA's or SOM, since those
are specific to OS/2 (I think).  There is very little you can do with the
OS/2 API that can't be done with the Win32 API, so your points don't
contradict Scott's, umm...hypothesizing?

>Or would you use a word processor that forces you to name a file ltr2jim.doc
>instead of Letter_to_Jim ?

You wouldn't have to.  If WIN-OS/2 supported Win32 as fast as native
Windows, then it could be the most popular API (it's apps could run on
Windows 3.1, Windows NT, and OS/2).

>Michael Bode.

     - Mike
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re:  More Controversial Topics
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 21:55:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.172059.3430@kvamdata.no> ekl@kvamdata.no (Eirik Lygre) writes:
>>	...      OS/2 2.0 has *never* been 
>>	demoed on SMP anything, and neither has OS/2MACH.
		  ^^^


>Os/2 running on the mach kernel was demoed at comex.


	Try re-reading my sentence again and see if the underline helps.
-- 
	"If you can't eat sand, why the hell are you living in a desert?"


	Nuclear redevelopment for a better world!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: who is brian sturgill - really?
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 03:49:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.160235.24172@scott.skidmore.edu> pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.150449.25918@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec18.014103.14070@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>>>Sure: he says things you don't like or want to hear and you don't want
>>>to have to worry that they're true.  The easiest thing, then, is just to
>>>insult him and that will make everything he says wrong. Yeah, that's the
>>>ticket! 
>>
>>>jmalloy@hamilton.edu
>>
>>"Humor is wasted on you" is a quote you said to me when you were casting
>>aspersions on the validity of OS/2 apps because of their names...
>>
>
>I guess Winter has set in on the "Hill".
>
>
>-- 
>Pierre von Kaenel	| Skidmore College	     | pvonk@skidmore.edu
>Math & CS Dept.		| Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 | (518)584-5000 Ext 2391
>
>"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." Oscar Wilde

Hey, gotta do something to break up the monotony of grading exams...

jmalloy@hamilton.edu

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: More Controversial Topics
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:38:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.132113.23655@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <78247@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt0040a@prism.gatech.EDU (Tom Sorensen) writes:
>>You're right- neither IBM nor MS have *RELEASED* OS's that support SMP. MS
>>has one in beta and IBM has one in planning- OS/2 3.0 (plus Taligent, for
>
>
>		^^^^ BFD.  It wont be here for >1 year.


Oh BFD yourself.  SMP isn't going to be an issue for >1 year AT LEAST, even
with us bleeding edge of technology types.  It's not an asset for NT to
have SMP unless I can use it.  When I buy an SMP machine, then I'll be looking
to judge OS's based on SMP.  Until then, it is moot.


Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rom@cci632.cci.com (Rudynell S. Millian)
Subject: Re: OS/2 and NT at Comdex
Organization: [Computer Consoles, Inc., Rochester, NY
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:10:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.000053.12305@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>I see your point, and in my case it is true, I've suffered through Workset/2
>and produced an app.  And for example, Borland used the MSC compiler to
					^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>produce Object Vision for OS/2........  
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	Not entirely true. According to someone who works at Borland, Object
Vision for OS/2 was written ( at least in part ) using BC++ for OS/2! This 
was done in part to test the BC++ for OS/2 product against the BC++ for 
Windows.  Perhaps someone at Borland would like to verify this.

>			.......Unfortunately this strengthens the
>case that OS/2 doesn't have many desktop users.  I simply cannot believe
>that a _real_ user base of that size would be overlooked as much as it
>has been.

	Maybe _real_ user base is no longer a requirement to attract ISV 
support. Look at all the attention payed to NT, and really, what's the
_real_ NT user base?

R. Millian
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy