HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak)
Subject: Peer-to-Peer OS/2
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Organization: Mitre Corporation
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:54:49 GMT


Paraphrased from PC Week, Jan 25, 1993.  The article is too long to type
in.

IBM Testing peer features for OS/2

IBM is currently alpha testing software that will provide peer-to-peer
networking for OS/2 users.  This feature will be either offered as an
add-on or built into a new peer version of OS/2.  IBM plans to offer this
service later this year.  IBM is evaluating whether to base its
peer-services on its own LAN Server 3.0 or Novell Netware.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM Ads
Date: 27 Jan 93 03:16:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1993Jan27.031641.8002
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.

In article <weinkam.728085759@sfu.ca> weinkam@fraser.sfu.ca (James Lawrence Weinkam) writes:
>chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen) writes:
>
>
>>Looks like IBM has gotten back to doing ads for OS/2 fianally.
>
>>In the Feb 9, 1993 (Vol 12, N3) PC Magazine, IBM has another
>>one of those 20+ page ads that looks like an article.  This
>>one is pretty (I like they layout, and they do show pictures from
>>the WPS, etc).  They named it "The OS/2 Top 100"  -- ie, top 100
>>reasons to use/buy OS/2.
>
>I use OS/2 almost exclusively, so I don't want to harm its chance 
>of success, but the list of 100 reasons for using OS/2 seemed very
>repettitive.  Eg.  Multithreading helps speed up spreadsheets.  
>AND...  Multithreading speeds up wordprocessors.  OR.  Preemptive
>Multitasking allows you to format and do other things.  Preemptive
>Multitasking allows you to download and do other things.  
>
>So of the points could be compressed down into single points.  Eg.
>Multithreading speeds up applications.  Preemptive Multitasking 
>allows you to do IO intesive tasks without slowing other tasks.
>
>I think if they had done this there might only have been 75 reasons,
>still a good number, but does not leave you with the impression that
>they were doing the standard high school trick of repeating thing to
>get up to the quota.  
>
>>I like this ad, but I hope people don't get mad by mistaking it
>>for a real article.  Please post your thoughts.
>
>Maybe it would be better if they had left it as 75 reasons for 
>using OS/2
>
>Just my thoughts.
>
>
>James Weinkam

Well, you have to realize that IBM is appealing to the suites that
pretend to know what they manage. They really couldn't care about
the ins and outs of multi-threading etc. It makes them sound smart
to say it, so it must be important if it shows up in an add
directed at them. Remember these are managers; not engineers.

Overall, despite the repetition on some points, I think they did an
exellent job compared to what the normal fare was a short time ago.

..Paul

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: Prediction: The press will abandon microsoft in 1993
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:00:12 GMT

In article <1k4ujoINNl6r@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
>
>
>I think most people who pay attention to the trade rags notice
>that the press seem to give favorable reviews to the products
>that sell well while poor reviews are more likely if a product 
>doesn't sell well.
>
>But has anyone noticed that this has happend with windows for workgroups?
>Since the product is selling very poorly, we are starting to see
>journalists start to say things to the effect that "I always was
>a bit suspiscios of the product", instead of the headlines which 
>proclaimed the demise of all who stood in microsoft's way.

Well, you read different articles than I do, I suppose.  I've read quite
a few that bubble with excitement about how the Average Joe(tm) can now
install his own network in no time flat.  I think it's a product with
promise, but that's not why I'm writing....

Rather, it's a report I read in PC-Week today that, as Windows for
Workgroups isn't selling as well as Microsoft had hoped, some people
within MS have taken to calling it "Windows for Warehouses."   :)

jmalloy@hamilton.edu    

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:12950 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4064
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:44:27 GMT
Organization: University of Utah Computer Science

In article <1993Jan27.135822.7711@cci632.cci.com> rom@cci632.cci.com (Rudynell S. Millian) writes:
>	For a person who is an NT lover, Brian sure pays an inordinate
>amount of attention to what IBM says and does. I fail to see why OS/2 bugs 
>Brian so much, especially when its sales are flat.

I use OS/2 daily.  I write commercial apps for it.  Why is it strange
that I take an interest?  I basically see a reasonably good platform
(not as good as NT, but it has its place) being destroyed by IBM.
They've failed to market, they've failed to fix its bugs in a timely
manner, they've failed to garner ISV support... I have a huge list, and
would be glad to share it with you via e-mail (or for a start, just ftp to
the site in my .sig and look at pub/controversy/os2.let*).

>	Brian's latest post doesn't advocate OS/2, and it doesn't advocate NT.
>This latest thread Brian started doesn't even inform, it just tries to put 
>IBM in a bad light. Now, THAT's what people call FUD.

It doesn't try to put them in a bad light.  They put themselves in a bad
light by playing rude adolescent games, I'm just pointing it out.

>	
>	I obviously can't order Brian around, but I suggest he get a copy of
>OS/2 2.1b and write something bad about that.

If you'll look at some of my other messages, you'll see I'm keeping an
open mind about 2.1.  Further, I don't criticize people's betas; betas are
by their very nature buggy.  The whole point is to discover the bugs
and get them out.  Why would I criticize that?

>
>R. Millian

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                  Windows, WfW, Windows NT and some OS/2 2.0
University of Utah                 information available via anonymous ftp to
Center for Software Science        easy.cs.utah.edu. Also all my Tidbits posts.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373     Windows NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: US IBM patents: 13,444
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:52:12 GMT


This is in regards to an older discussion, thanks to Thomas Dowling for the
information. According to the CASSIS disks from US PIO (August 1992), IBM is
the assignee of 13,444 patents.

The 13,444 is for US patents alone. I was indicated that non-US patents exceed
20,000.

Best Regards,
Mark K.
From: alvesj@athena.ecs.csus.edu (Jeremy Alves)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: OS/2 - who and on what?
Summary: who what where
Keywords: machine, platform
Date: 24 Jan 93 02:22:36 GMT
Expires: 3/1/93
Organization: California State University, Sacramento



I am looking for information on OS/2, specifically on the type of
machine that people are running it on, and with what applications,
so if you are running it, please let me know what kind of machine
(the processor, how much memory, & speed of your hard drive if you
 happen to know it) you are running it on, and what apps you are
using, and your general opinion of it.  Thank you.

alvesj@athena.ecs.csus.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.)
Subject: Re: Over 1,100 OS/2 2.0 apps ship in 92'
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 12:56:05 GMT

In <1993Jan25.072403.4639@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>In article <1993Jan16.180309.24466@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>
>>At the time I posted the list, over 500 were shipping (2.0 specific).
>>
>>I would like to see a list of the thousands of NT specific applications as
>>well as the hundreds of Windows 3.1 apps that are shipping. Otherwise, I
>>remain EXTREMELY skeptical.
>>
>>Best Regards,
>>Mark K.

>I assume you meant thousands of 3.1 and hundreds of NT.  I don't have a
>list for 3.1, though I would think it's obvious that there are thousands
>(perhaps not obvious that then number is over 5,000 like MS claims, but
>none the less obviouse that there are thousands).

Oh come on, Brian; you can't point the finger at us for never being
specific with figures if you aren't going to do the same.

Of course, I personally don't care, because I'm still never going to
even consider doing Windows programming, and I have never had any problems
finding OS/2-related stuff to do which pays money.

Cheers,
Q
-- 
"If you choose not to decide, you  | "My other body is in the shop" - seen
 still have made a choice" - Rush  |  on a T-shirt
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Go OS/2!  Go OS/2!  Go OS/2!  Go OS/2!  Go OS/2!  Go OS/2!  Go OS/2!  --
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.)
Subject: Re: Doug Hamilton responds
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:31:12 GMT

In <1993Jan21.152701.4365@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:

>4.  Is it the case that IBM doesn't do similar things?  (I mean, it is
>in their own best interest to do so, no?  Come to think of it, wasn't
>IBM doing the same sort of thing by paying Borland et al. to write OS/2
>apps?)

Maybe so, but Borland isn't a one-man company like Hamilton Labs is.

Cheers,
Q
-- 
"If you choose not to decide, you  | "My other body is in the shop" - seen
 still have made a choice" - Rush  |  on a T-shirt
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Go OS/2!  Go OS/2!  Go OS/2!  Go OS/2!  Go OS/2!  Go OS/2!  Go OS/2!  --
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:12801 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4020
From: unruh@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Unruh)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Date: 26 Jan 93 00:11:43 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In <1993Jan25.064002.3937@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:


]IBM has been behaving quite badly recently, w.r.t to telling the
]truth about OS/2 2.0.  Only in one case do I believe they've
...
]-----------
]NUMBER OF OS/2 2.0 APPS
...
]IBM has recently announced that by January 1, 1993 there were 1,100 such
]apps available.  Thus it was a very busy 16 days (through Christmas no
...
]Worse, of the optimistic 50 mass-market apps available for OS/2 2.0,
]only 5-10 or so would meet most peoples expectations in terms of what
]a commercial app should be.  If you want to know what those 5-10 or so are,
...
Well, I agree thta I was surprised at the figure, but lets keep things in
 context. I just got a blurb from Microsoft for Visual Basic. To quote:

Dear Microsoft Programmer:
According to a recent survey, more than 100,000 new Windows-based applications
                             -------------------------------------------------
created in the past year using the award winning Visual Basic version 1.0. .... 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

End quote ( Underlining in the original) (no I don't know where the verb is either, but this is a quote). Now, if I was mildly surprised by the 
IBM number, I am astounded by this one. So, we are now getting a feel for what 
the word "applications" means, and I'd say IBM's is a lot more conservative 
than MS's -- not that I don't agree that IBM could even be a bit more
 conservative without entering the realm of self denigration, but...

Actually, if you go into the OS2/2.0 directory on Hobbes, there are somethingo
of the order of 500 programs there, most of which probably were not counted
but many of them more useful than most commercial software I've seen.
From: chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Date: 28 Jan 1993 09:25:58 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu


Malloy:

On the point of MS stealing ideas, I read an article in the paper
(don't haave the issue, etc) that said some company is going to sue
microsoft for stealing an idea.  Had something to do with printer
cartridges or something, and it went into detail about how MS promised
not to develop what this other corp. was developing [MS went into
some kind of joint venture with them.  MS dropped out of the venture
supposedly, "out of the blue" according to the other corp.].

Well, after MS dropped out of Joint venture (guess they got the
research they needed), they started developing the product.  It was
as if they only joint ventured so they could learn how the
other company was making its product, then dropping the venture,
and stealing the ideas.

This was in the paper a few weeks back.  Anyway, the company
cliams this is what Microsoft did, and Microsoft had "no comment."
Might be just a disgruntled small development corp.


-- 
Chris McClellen                  | "If at first you dont succeed... re
Georgia Institute of Technology  | #define success..." - Anon.
chris@cad.gatech.edu
From: paul@sierra.com (Paul Stratton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: IBM steals OS/2
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:07:51 GMT
Organization: Sierra Geophysics Inc.,  Kirkland, Wa

In article <19360@mindlink.bc.ca> Ian_Upright@mindlink.bc.ca (Ian Upright) writes:
> R Douglas Botimer writes:

[ stuff deleted ]
>Lets not spread true FUD here!  TrueType wasn't developed by Microsoft,
>it was stolen BY Microsoft from Apple.  Apple invented TrueType.
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

By this definition the paragraph could be rewritten as

"Lets not spread true FUD here!  OS/2 wasn't developed by IBM, it was
stolen BY IBM from Microsoft.  Microsoft invented OS/2."


-- 
Paul Stratton               -----   -----   -----    -----    -----    ------
Sierra Geophysics, Inc.    /          /    /        /    /   /    /   /     /
P.O. Box 3886              -----     /    /---     /-----   /-----   /-----/
Seattle, Wa.  98124            /    /    /        /   \    /  \     /     /
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: Doug Hamilton responds
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 13:11:30 GMT

In article <C19KK0.DI3@panix.com> os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.) writes:
>In <1993Jan21.152701.4365@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>
>>4.  Is it the case that IBM doesn't do similar things?  (I mean, it is
>>in their own best interest to do so, no?  Come to think of it, wasn't
>>IBM doing the same sort of thing by paying Borland et al. to write OS/2
>>apps?)
>
>Maybe so, but Borland isn't a one-man company like Hamilton Labs is.
>
>Cheers,
>
True, and that makes it even more astonishing that IBM, in financial
trouble, gives millions to large, healthy corporations to induce them to
write software for their OS!  With a one-man shop, a wrong decision (for
example, to write OS/2 software :) might put you out of business; a
Borland or a Lotus or a WordPerfect (to name the three I've heard who
are benefiting from IBM's largesse) ought to be able to take the
business risk at its own.  Just my opinion, but if IBM were smart,
they'd support equally (or more fervently) smaller developers (each of
which would cost less than subsidizing Borland...) in the "Let a
thousand programs flow" theory...

jmalloy@hamilton.edu
 

Q
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison)
Subject: Re: Microsoft and Force continued.
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 17:12:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.235233.14914@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.180153.268676@locus.com>, lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:
>
>|> Hmm, you must have grown up in some very small towns, like a Gas Station and
>|> a McDonalds??  Even the smallest towns in the California Desert have two or
>
>In case you haven't noticed dude, Indiana ain't california :-)
Very true, but a non-sequiter.  The point is made that even small towns that 
don't meet McDonalds standards for an outlet have Hamberger stands.  
McNugets and McCheese Berger outlets are placed on a very strict population
model.  A small town is a small town,  the ones out on the California
desert are not all that different from Huntsville, Arkensas were I spent
some time growning up.  Yes, 4 hamberger stands, two drugstores, a krogers
and no McDonalds..


>
>|> >|> There really are not (without OS/2)
>|> >|> for the 20 million PC's (for which MS has sold 1000 million coppies
>|> >|> including upgrades over the last 10 years).
>|> >
>|> >This sentence just _slays_ me, because it is desparatly trying to assert that
>|> >a) there is no alternative, and that b) OS/2 is an alternative.
>|> >
>|> No, my friend, you have once again misread things.  I said that there are
>|> no other operating systems for the pc that rate more than a 2% or so
>|> market status.  Unix, Linux, SCO, AIX386, DR-DOS together total about
>|> 10% of the market,  OS/2 today constitutes probably 5% (if you have a 50%
>|> on the shelf rate).  This would imply that Microsoft has an 80+% predominance
>|> on the desktop.  Some would call that a defacto "M" word.  If it can be
>|> proven that MS has conspired to keep these others out of the market place
>|> (and that is certianly true of DR-DOS) then it is more than a Defacto
>|> monopoly.  OS/2 is hurting from advertizing by Gates and other that has no
>|> definable purpose than "killing" OS/2..
>
>You want to ban free speech now too????
>i
Boy, are you desperate, trying to side track the discussion to free speach.
As an aside, do you know the legal diference between free speach, and 
the right to yell "fire" in a movie theater?  Or the deffinition of
liable?  From your comments, I don't think so.

>|> And if it _slays_ you, how come you responded.  Desperate, I think that 
>|> your responses and deliberate misreading and misdirection far more
>|> eloquently say FEAR and Desperation than anything I could come up with.
>|> 
>|> --Uncle Wolf
>
>Now Uncle Wolf
Correct, Now, with a very toothy grin.

--Uncle Wolf


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:46:17 GMT

In article <QfMEerK00WBNQ0bHxH@andrew.cmu.edu> Carl B Jabido <cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.os2.advocacy: 21-Jan-93 Re: NT to be
>launched at Co.. by JAMES M. BEESLEY@eos.ncs 
>> Funny, I must have missed the $68 for Os/2 *GA* offer ?
>> Like I said, NT is $69 for *GA* code. (actually got mine
>> for $29 because at the time I ordered it, I was using the 
>> OS/2 SDK!) *MUCH* cheaper than the $149 for OS/2. *PLUS*
>
>Your use of GA is incorrect in terms of NT.  Granted, technically the NT
>CD is General Availability.  However, when mentioning GA and OS/2
>together, one of the connotated meanings is "final release"; not beta
>release.  So fine, using your technical meaning of GA, we have GA NT
>Beta for $69.  Back to the OS/2 camp, we can use your tech meaning of
>GA, and here we have GA OS/2 2.1Beta, FREE (and I mean _REALLY_ free,
>with Internet distribution across the WORLD)!!!!  You want networking,
>get the DAP CD for less than $69, and that has Lan Man 3.0 advanced,
>Netware requestor, and TCP/IP.  (Even an X Server, which NT doesn't even
>know about.)

Actually, his use of GA connoting "final release" is correct.  You just
don't get it yet, but you do get it when it exists as part of the $69
offer.  As for OS/2, you get the OS/2 2.1 beta free, but have to pay
for the release version (unless IBM decides to give that away free, too).

This is another way to look at it:  six or so months from now, the people
with the NT beta CD will have the final release of NT for no additional
charge.  The people with the OS/2 2.1 beta CD, or the DAP CD will have two
outdated CDs they can't use and that's it (unless they've spent some more
money somewhere along the line).

     - Mike

(BTW, I'm not sure if the 2.1 beta has an expiration date, but in any case
it should be outdated in six months.  Or at least I would hope so.)
From: sinclair@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (David A. Sinclair)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: November PDK CD-ROM (was Re: OS/2 killer app!)
Date: 28 Jan 93 14:21:35 GMT
Organization: Brandeis University

In article <1k8jacINNh3q@dmsoproto.ida.org> efeustel@skylark (Edward Feustel) writes:
>This is supposed to be on the November PDK CD-ROM.
>Ed
>
>--
>Edward A. Feustel, Research Staff Member
>Institute for Defense Analyses           Phone: (703)-845-6657
>1801 N. Beauregard Street                Fax:   (703)-845-6848
>Alexandria, Va. 22311-1772               Email: efeustel@ida.org 

Has anyone yet received their PDK CD-ROM?  I ordered mine about 2
weeks ago, but the person who took my order said it'd be about a
10-week (!!) wait.   :(

If anyone's received it already, someone wanna loan me their's for
about 4 days?!  :)


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Sinclair - "Chester"		      
sinclair@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu		     
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Proposed OS/2 Newsgroup Summary (Re: Does IBM have an ...)
Date: 21 Jan 93 19:33:39 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1993Jan18.224139.19050@grebyn.com> mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli) writes:
>In article <1993Jan18.063232.14945@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1jcv5kINNhb8@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
>>>>>Can someone put a summary of all the new OS/2 related conferences that were
>>>>>suggested? Thanks.
>>>>These two will be submitted for RFD on Monday (Jan 18):
>>>>   (1) comp.os.os2.ver1x (unmoderated)
>>>>       This will cover OS/2 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3.
>>>Well, it is a few hours early, but let me start the discusion.
>>>It is somewhat silly to make a new group for a product that is being 
>>>phased out.
>>>I'd vote no on this group.
>>
>>There are no plans to phase out IBM OS/2 1.3.  However, even if there
>>were, there are plenty of newsgroups for "yesterday's products."
>>
>And even if no one ever posted a message to it, so what?  How does that
>hurt anybody?

    Post that question over on news.groups.  Then duck.

			-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.