HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: Why I have trouble with the c.o.o.a view of Microsoft.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 12:53:20 GMT

In <1992Oct16.062029.11620@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>Recently several people on this group have been giving me grief with
>regard to my criticism of IBM's WorkSet/2.  They point to old stories
>about MSC 6.0, and while I have no doubt those stories are true, I'd
>like to pass on an example of why I'm convinced that Microsoft is
>now different.

[text of the letter that came with the recent MSC7 patch kit elided]

Yeah, I got that.  Nor is this new--MS sent out *some* bug fixes for
free for MSC6 as well--the MSC6.0a patch kit.  But they didn't fix them
all, and some of the fixes could only be obtained by upgrading to MSC7. 
This is exactly what happened with MSC5 as well--some fixes were made
available for free, then the rest required an upgrade to MSC6 to obtain.
I see no evidence that anything is changing over at MS.

Note: I'm still using MSC6.0a, as MSC7 still blows up on my system.

>People that brag about IBM's multitude of free bug fixes, have a
>point, but when they start telling stories of being charged for MSC 6.0
>bug fixes, those stories no longer fit reality. 

We shall see.  So far, the evidence is still inconclusive.

As for those "several people who gave you grief," I gave you grief on
this newsgroup, because you claim that you don't have time to isolate
your Workset problems, yet you have time to post several lengthy,
well-researched articles to this group each and every day for the last
several months.  As I mentioned, if you used that time to find the
problems, they would probably have been fixed already!  :-)

>Further unlike
>WorkSet/2, MSC 7.0 is a full featured product, including a
>source profiler, and C++.

Agreed.  I just wish that it worked on my system.  I wish that it would
produce OS/2 apps (at least 1.x apps).  Oh well, maybe I'll finally have
to break down and get an upgrade to one of the unused Borland compilers
I have sitting on my shelf.  :-)

(I collect C compilers--I have over a dozen right now, with two more on
order...)  :-)

Final note:  MSC 6.0a is *the* most heavily used compiler I own.  With
the EMX GCC compiler in second place.  So I'm not an MS basher, even if
I am an OS/2 user (and part-time advocate).  I *like* C6, and I really
*do* wish that C7 worked.
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
From: Chris.Waters@f1.n100.z60.wlink.nl (Chris Waters)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Don't Compare with Amiga!
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 10:32:40 -0100

Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In <PSHUANG.92Oct12231027@m66-080-17.mit.edu> pshuang@athena.mit.edu (Ping Huang) writes:

>However, just because there *EXISTS* a system call in Desqview that
>allows Desqview-aware programs to give up the CPU does not mean that
>Desqview is not preemptively multitasking. It *IS* preemptive, when used
>with QEMM-386 (or on a 286 with LIM EMS 4.0 memory or equivalent in
>hardware).

A minor clarification--DESQview *is* preemptive, even if you run it on
an XT with only 640k.  I know, because I have a (perhaps crazy) friend
who used to do exactly this.  The only disadvantage of this setup is
that you can only run as many programs as will fit into memory--average
is probably 1.2.  :-)  Still, with a tiny comm program (e.g. {Commo}),
you can download in the background on an XT, and have a fully functional
DOS box with somewhere between 384-512k free in the foreground.

In fact, since you can run Windoze under DESQview, the DOS+Win+DV combo
is actually a very reasonable alternative to OS/2 for people who
primarily run Windows programs.  OC, it costs a lot more to get all that
software, but such is life.  It does run in a lot less memory.  Although
it doesn't provide virtual memory.  But it does have better DOS
compatibility.
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: 32-bit OS/2 Apps List
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 05:48:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.043118.12809@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.034402.14805@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>>I think in the end you will have to agree with me that ISV support
>>for OS/2 is weak. 
>>
>
>Brian, you seem to indulge yourself too much in this point, but don't
>you think it is too early to predict?  OS/2 2.0 is out for six or seven
>months now.  Compared to Windows 3.x, it is a way too short a time.  Besides,
>even though the list may not be too impressive, don't you also think all the
>major application developers like Borland, Lotus, WordPerfect, Computer
>Associates, SAS, and others who said they are developing os/2 2.0 versions
>of their apps are more than adequate for the moment?  With os/2's success,

Remember that the list contained not existing apps, but rather
_existing_ and _planned_ apps.
If you consider that list is likely a best case scenario for the OS/2 2.0
apps in the next 2 years, then no I don't think they're even close to
adequate.  Borland only put two of their apps on OS/2, and have said
both are development tools, and one of the (C++) was financially encouraged
by IBM (the details are secret).

Lotus and WordPerfect pride themselves on being on all platforms.
SAS is on multiple platforms, and their strong association with the IBM
world make them naturals to be on OS/2.

Computer Associates on have that works package there, and this is
not surprising as they have no competition, and they're probably tired
of losing to MS Works.

In short, the list of vendors there is not surprising, and I see little
indication that this will grow any time soon.  Worse for OS/2 1Q93
will bring a ton of competing OS's... NT, UnixWare, Solaris 2.0 386,
NextStep 486, etc.
Novell, originally a big OS/2 backer, has decidedly backed off, pushing
it's own (Univel's) UnixWare.
Borland has said they'll put no more of their apps their for a while, etc.

The list SJB of apps gave us is weak relative even to the top 3 existing
Unix platforms (SCO, Solaris, HP/UX).

>apps developers will follow, and os/2's success is becoming more and
>more apprent.  

What possible grounds do you have for stating that "os/2's success
is becoming more and more apparent"?  It had a respectable sales
initially, but it's bugginess seems to have stiffled its deployment.
I wouldn't say its doing poorly, but it looks quite possible that it may
not even make the 2 million mark of the the 2-3 million copies most
analysts said it would do in March.

>Min


Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
University of Utah                             United We Stand
Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn)
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Reply-To: soh3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:18:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct08.180406.25808@wes.on.ca> tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen) writes:
>This is indeed useful on Unix, but less so on some other systems (such as
>NT and -- gasp -- VMS).  Why?  Unix has a rather simplistic view of autho-
>rizations, with each file having a userid and group id associated with it,
>and separate read-write-execute permission sets for owner, group and others.
>(Yes, some Unix systems have enhanced this.) With a more flexible scheme,
>such as that employed in NT, you can assign specific privileges to specific
>users and groups, giving you WAY more flexibility.

You seem to turn the topic slightly out of focus and pit flexibility against
security.  As a user, not administrator, I find unix security quite
acceptable and easy to use.  Without adding too much complexity, can 
NT achieve the kind of flexibility you mentioned?  

>
>Without that flexibility, often the easiest way to handle the permissions
>requirements is to create multiple userids for one person's different needs
>(such as Amit's case above).  I have always found this to be bit of a hack,
>and I'd find much less need for it with more flexible access control lists.

Multiple user ids are not necessarily a rusult of unix's lack of capability
or feature.  It is simply the fact of life.  You get an account from
your department, from your course instructor, and from your work.  Well,
they can be sometimes on different machines all networked to each other.
Telnet and rlogin are tremendously handy in those situations.  Even if
NT achieves all the promised security features without adding much more
complexity in usage, those who have been accustomed to the way they
used unix might find NT quite limiting in situations like Amit described.
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: 8 Oct 92 14:19:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: njitgw.1992Oct8.141957.12734
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct5.200550.17041@utdallas.edu> goyal@utdallas.edu (Mohit K. Goyal) writes:
>Don't forget that XGA-2 can also do 65,536 colors at 800X600.
>
>It's LIST price is $360(I think) which would make that $270 a good
>street price figure.
>
>All Radius would tell me is that the card will be out sometime in 1992.
>IBM already ships a local bus implementation of XGA-2 on PS/2's.

For ISA-bus?  If it needs MCA, or EISA, then 8514/a is still a best
buy.


-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jld@datascope.com (Jay L. Davis)
Subject: Re: Video games and NT
Organization: Datascope Corp.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:22:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.121944.5568@gw.wmich.edu> 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>
>	I said this a bit in another post but video games are important
>to an OS.
>	Why?
>
>	Because the future of computers is going to be in the home world.
>Only within the past couple of years have computers gone down into the
>price range of running at home.  A year ago, about 40% of our customers
>were home usrs and 60% businesses/universities.  Now that amount has
>jumped to 70% being home users.  386 power can come to the user under
>$1000 now.  
     <...stuff deleted...>

I agree completely. The OS needs to cover all the bases. At home, my
computer spends about 50% of its time on "entertainment". OS/2 can run
some games, but not all and with some restrictions. One of the fixes
that is supposed to be in this CSD should help a bunch of them. In addition,
making the VDM multi-threaded should help the majority of the remaining
programs. Unfortunatly, there will still be those games that want to be their
own operating system and will not work with anything else (including QEMM, etc.)
and dual-boot lets me handle these reasonably easily.

---Jay Davis
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: OS/2 because! (was NT: Why?)
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 02:58:07 GMT

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.224558.5783@gw.wmich.edu> x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Oct12.213415.29199@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>>      Here we go again with the vaporware debate.  If the OS/2 Win3.1 beta
>>> is a valid discussion topic, so then is Cairo - neither is released yet,
>>> but both have some bearing on the future of the product.
>>>      Which will it be?  Does it have to be shrink-wrapped to be valid?
>>
>>	How can you say that?  Comparing a beta released prodcut
>>with something that isn't even in alpha yet?

>      What, then, is the cut-off for vaporware?  Beta-released product
>is OK with you apparently - how about the vague rumors of "x number of
>apps will be available for OS/2"?  Now, if that same statement read
>"x number of apps will be available for Windows NT", would it be
>any less valid?

Responding to your comment to my post on this topic, I agree with you
there was no grounds for the way this started - you said something along
the lines of some people like the Windows interface, some people like
WPS, and some people will like Cairo.  There's nothing wrong with that
and whoever followed up was out of line.

However, your paragraph immediately following that (quoted above, top)
doesn't hold.  As I said, there are two distinctions here.  One is
whether or not a product is released, because that determines if the
masses can get their hands on it.  In that respect, Windows 3.1 and
OS/2 2.0 are comparable, Win-OS/2 3.1 beta and Cairo are comparable,
and Win-OS/2 3.1 beta and Windows 3.1 are not comparable.  That's
your argument and you're right.  But there's another distinction within
the unreleased products - how far along they are in development, which
loosely determines when the product will be generally available.  In
this respect, Win-OS/2 3.1 beta and Cairo are not directly comparable
(unless Microsoft has got a huge surprise for us early 1Q93).  That's
what most of these follow-ups are trying to say, and they're right too.
-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu | think of something very clever 
uunet!jarthur!jokim         | to use as a disclaimer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:35:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.171907.3735@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>In  <1992Oct8.114900.5696@gw.wmich.edu>  x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>>
>>         I might want tht things NT has to offer,  But I need to be
>> able to run the software I currently have until I can afford to get
>> NT apps (and while I wait for them ato arrive).  If NT can't give
>> me good DOS and windows16 support then what is the compelling reason
>> for most people to go to it?  Backwards cmopatibility certainly
>> beats out being able to logon by a mile.
>>
>
>DOS and WIN16 is not too good in the pre-beta SDK, but do you think,
>that MS will ship the release version with poorer support for DOS &
>WIN16 than OS/2 2.0 currently has?
>
>Well, I really can't imagine that
>

That's nice for you, Christoph, but take a look around.  MS has already 
announced that they are going to ship a product with poorer dos and 
windows support than OS/2 2.0 currently has.  They are only supporting
the top 100 dos and windows apps, and present dos device drivers will not
work under  NT.  Although other apps will have a good probablility of running
under NT, there is no guarantee that anything other than the top 100 will.
If your favorite app breaks and isn't top 100, well, you're SOL, because
MS won't support it.

Of course, you can always buy NT versions, if they come out in the  next
few years, but get used to dual boot until then.

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu)
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:20:48 GMT

tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen) writes:
>amitp@owlnet.rice.edu writes:
>> I'm no unix administrator, but I use this a lot, too!  I have one
>> account for myself, and there's one class account for the class I am a
>> teaching assistant for.  If I am grading work or stuff like that, I
>> use the class account; if I am doing personal stuff, I use my own account.

[...description of flexible file systems HPFS and AFS deleted...]

>Without that flexibility, often the easiest way to handle the permissions
>requirements is to create multiple userids for one person's different needs
>(such as Amit's case above).  I have always found this to be bit of a hack,
>and I'd find much less need for it with more flexible access control lists.

Tom,

You ignore that Teaching Assistants for a class change often.  It is
much easier to have a grader/TA account and give that to different
graders when necessary, than to have to remember to change the previous
grader's permissions back when s/he is through.  Having a single grader
account requires nothing more than a password change when the old user
is through and the new one comes in.

Daniel
--
Daniel L'Hommedieu / Junior, CSC Depatment, NCSU / eagle@catt.ncsu.edu
From: Rec.humor.funny:				   "Ich bin ein Adler"
      My unique solution to two of the world's problems:
      "Feed the Homeless to the Hungry"
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: 12 Oct 1992 07:44:18 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Oct11.215350.5787@ais.com> bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright) writes:
>The way I see it, the $69 kit is intended to make sure that the kit
>gets into the hands of anyone who _might_ want to be a developer, the
>better to grease the skids for the release when NT comes out.  They
>wouldn't be doing this if they weren't afraid of something ... and
>you and I both know that what they're afraid of is that if they don't
>play their cards just right, OS/2 will win.  It's a very smart move,
>and I don't fault them for it;  but I think it is rather revealing.

This is certainly part of the strategy, and I agree with your conclusion that
it's revealing, but I simply can't buy that it's solely intended for
developers. MS's own actions belie that. I honestly believe that MS _wants_ as
many users, especially those who determine strategy for end-user
organizations, to get the SDK/beta and try it out, and that they will listen
attentively to what they have to say about it - hardly appropriate for a
developer's release.
-- 
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.
    Vote for a REAL change on 3 November: Throw out the check-bouncing,
  tax-and-spend Democrat Congress! (obviously, not an opinion of UTHSCH)
From: gkushmer@jade.tufts.edu (Greg Kushmerek)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Who understands IBM any more?
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:57:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: jade.GKUSHMER.92Oct14165754
	<1992Oct13.024653.3925@itsmail1.hamilton.edu>
Organization: Roger Mellie Enterprises, PLC

In article <1992Oct13.024653.3925@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph Malloy) writes:


   What's that old Billy Joel song line, "I'd rather laugh with the sinners
   than cry with the saints" ?  

And what was that line spoken by a Jew a couple thousand years ago? "Forgive
them father for they know not what they do," wasn't it?

--gk (who's system is quite happy and performing brilliantly with OS/2
on it)
From: jyri+@CMU.EDU (Jyri Virkki)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:37:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.Meqv8VG00WB59XiEwK
	<1992Oct13.023249.3517@itsmail1.hamilton.edu>
Organization: Masters student, Information Networking Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph Malloy) writes:
>
> I don't trust Zachmann worth a darn (this is the guy, after all, who
> called Windows 3.1 a catastrophe (on Compuserve) last April or

Oh come on. Windows _is_ a catastrophe. Not in the marketplace,
certainly, it's a huge business success. But technically it is 
a shameful catastrophe. And I would hope that an editor of a tecnical
magazine would concentrate on the technical side of isses, regardless
of the market side. If he were a business analyst talking about the
market, I would expect him to say Windows is a big success. But as
a technical writer I would hope to hear about the technical issues.
What would you want him to say? "Windows is a technical marvel"?
Why would he want to lie making statements like that?
--
Jyri J. Virkki | DoD#561 | jyri+@cmu.edu | Carnegie Mellon University | MSINI
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 09 Oct 92 18:26:52 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct9.002047.14384@ncsu.edu> linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville) writes:
>In article <1992Oct07.182409.29590@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>      Under Windows NT, processes run with a user ID and security
>>priveleges.  The only thing necessary to allow it to be concurrent
>>multiuser is a data channel - a telnetd type of program.  This is
>>not difficult to write.
>
>Is it just me?  Why do NT advocates always answer question about NT with
>"Sure, NT can do it.  You just have to write it for yourself!"?    Isn't there
>a flaw in that logic?

      Not that I can see.  Is UNIX without telnetd still a multiuser
operating system?  Is UNIX with only a single terminal attached still
a multiuser operating system?  The infrastructure is there in any case -
does the OS magically become multiuser when that second terminal is
plugged in?

					-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: C-quality (Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 15 Oct 92 01:58:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: fcom.1992Oct15.015810.15199
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <hatton.719111656@cgl.ucsf.edu> hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:
>RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at (FLATSCHER Rony) writes:
>>Brian:
>>Please stop kidding the people about the quality of compilers or telling
>>them the IBM one is so "poor". See, like you, I am around quite some time
>>and used MS-C (from 4 on), Aztec, Watcom, Borland.
>
>>There was no compiler so far, which did not have (serious) bugs!
>>I know you as every developer know that better than anyone not being a
>>C-programmer.
>
>>The service of IBM on presenting bug fixes to their customer on such a large
>>scale and in such short reaction-times as IBM does is without precedence on
>>the market ! Have you ever been helped out as an average developer by anyone
>>else with your troubles as IBM does ?
>
>[...deletions...]
>
>>No C-compiler I know of is without bugs. The pace at which bugs are solved by
>>the producers is different. IBM certainly holds the world-record in solving
>>their bugs ! It is so far unmatched by anyone else. You as a developer profit
>>directly !
>
>One question you might put to Brian - did he use Microsoft C 6.0? If so,
>did he rant and complain about wasted time from several bugs to MS? And
>even more to the point - did anyone from MS ever offer to deal with his
>bug reports? But then, that would require more objectivity than he 
>has yet shown, so I doubt it.

No, I didn't use MSC 6.0... it was took buggy, I used Borland, it was
faster, better and had C++.

>Tom

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
University of Utah                             United We Stand
Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy