HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: Video games and NT
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:15:38 GMT

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

[Stuff deleted]

>     This assumes that DOS will remain the largest possible market,
>which is far from clear.  It has a _tremendous_ lead right now, but
>won't necessarily keep that lead forever.

No one expects DOS to lead forever, but I don't expect it to give up
the lead for a few years yet.

[Stuff deleted]

>     There are other factors to consider.  As hardware becomes faster,
>directly accessing the hardware will not be necessary.  Wing Commander
>II on a 486/33 is too fast to play, and that exists already.

Again - in the long term this is true, but how long? I don't expect
486 level and above machines to be "typical" for quite a while.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net            uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
From: scratchy.caltech.edu!kasturi (Tejaswi Kasturi)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: OS/2 vs. NT
Date: 11 Oct 1992 04:15:18 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: scratchy.caltech.edu
Keywords: OS/2, NT, Windows
Originator: kasturi@scratchy

I challenge the Windows NT advocates out there to tell me why I should  
switch from OS/2 2.0 to Windows NT.

This is how I see my system and my requirements:
OS/2 2.0 is a much stabler and faster operating system than Windows 3.1  
for DOS.  After having worked with Windows 3.0 and attempting to get it to  
multitask my communications program (Telemate 3.01) while downloading a  
file from a BBS and having it crash every single time I tried to do  
anything else (it's not multitasking if it crashes every time you attempt  
to do anything on a computer.  It's not an improvement from DOS.)  In  
fact, running Telemate in OS/2 yields a higher degree of stability than  
running it under DOS with QEMM/386.  I just wish to run WordPerfect or  
CorelDRAW! or something similar simultaneously with Telemate.  And I don't  
wish to change my comm program unless the new comm program provides all  
the functionality of Telemate and automatically converts my phone  
directory and script files.  That goes for OS/2 comm programs too.  That's  
the bulk of my needs.  I don't need multimedia and indeed don't wish to  
spend $600-$1000 to upgrade my system to be multimedia compatible.  I  
don't have a sound card or cd-rom drive.
The only possible reason that I may consider NT is if it has really  
excellent TCP/IP support (i.e. I have the capability to put my PC on  
Internet, but haven't done so because I haven't found a satisfying package  
yet.  I've looked at DOS based packages such as PC/TCP coupled with  
DESQview/X to create an Xterminal but that is much less stable and less  
configurable than OS/2.  This will be frequently used (since I won't have  
to go to my campus computer center), so I don't want to have to boot to  
pure DOS to do it, so until OS/2 gets a good TCP/IP link I haven't  
bothered to implement it on my PC.)
Also, I'm operating on a limited budget.  I don't wish to spend $500 for  
NT if it doesn't do anything really special over OS/2 2.0, which cost me  
$100 for an upgrade from DOS.
My PC is a 486DX/25 with 8 Megs of RAM, a 160 MB ESDI HDD formatted as FAT  
(and I'm not going to reformat with HPFS since I wish only one partition  
and I need to occasionally run a few 386 protected mode DOS programs that  
won't run under OS/2 and probably not under Windows NT either.) operating  
out of a dorm room and running both DOS and Windows apps (very few OS/2  
apps right now and nothing critical that can't be sacrificed if you prove  
to me that NT is far superior to OS/2)
One more point is that Win NT won't be out until next year, and by then my  
conversion and familiarity with OS/2 will probably be on the same level as  
my familiarity with DOS is now.
So, I challenge all NT advocates to tell me why I should use NT over OS/2!

Tejaswi Kasturi
kasturi@cco.caltech.edu
From: robertson@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open letter to Gordon Letwin (long)
Date: 16 Oct 92 04:33:51 GMT
 <1992Oct7.231511.157@physc1.byu.edu> <1992Oct12.204600.27469@microsoft.com>
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1992Oct12.204600.27469@microsoft.com>, gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin) writes:
> In article <1992Oct7.231511.157@physc1.byu.edu> robertson@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>>
>>  Additionally, I read with concern when Mr. Letwin wrote about
>>  IBM's strong arm tatics, but since the public response from an
>>  IBM lawyer asking for addtional information about the allegations
>>  has gone unanswered for many weeks.  This failure to respond leads
>>  me to believe that the original post from Mr. Letwin was pure FUD
>>  with no substance to his allegations.
> 
> The IBM response wasn't from an IBM lawyer, but from John Soyring, some
> kind of IBM flunky.  A true-blue IBMer at that, since he
> exhibitied two key characteristics of that political breed:
> 
> 1) political nastiness.  Mr. Soyring's posting should have been
> 	a private query.  He was asking for information on the letter
> 	from IBM lawyers.  He could have emailed his enquirey to me,
> 	he has my address.  I'd have gotten the mail in an hour or so.
> 
      [. . .]
>
> 2) Mr. Soyring shows another key IBM attribute: incompetetance.  Not only
> 	was this letter sent - the one he couldn't find after such an 
> 	exhaustive search, but I sent a very memorable reply to the
> 	IBM lawyer.  I *know* that those lawyers remember me very very
> 	clearly. :-)  It looks like Mr. Soyring didn't do a very good job
> 	in his research.  That's the IBM story; you don't need to have 
> 	any technical capability, you just need political skills. 
> 
> So Mr. Soyring's game is very clear - you POST a private communication
> onto a public forum, word it carefully to imply that your corespondant
> is a liar, and then sit back and grin.  If you're lucky he'll never see
      [. . .]
> 
> Mr. Soyring posts private correspondance over the net.  But not being
> an IBM politician I emailed my response to him, giving him details about
> the letter.  He somehow forgot to post his own reply acknowledging the
> existance of the letter.
> 
      [. . .]
> 
> This is the part where IBM always lays down - they're big on writing nasty
> and misleading things, but they're really weak on actually backing up
> the talk with deeds.
> 
> I'm waiting
> 
> 	Gordon Letwin
> 	not a spokesperson for Microsoft
> 	
  May I first say that I am glad to see a response from you, Mr. Letwin.
  It looks like this will never be completely resolved.  From my point
  of view it seems like both of you are mud-slinging.

  One final note:
    I am not stupid.  You do not need to spell out to me what you think
    are IBM's faults in this area.  The facts that are spread out in this
    message would be easier to read if they were just the facts rather
    than the facts with messages about how I should interpret them, and
    how I should think about IBM.

  However, as I said above.  I am glad that  you responded.

      Jim Robertson
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:53:55 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Oct13.184439.25311@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.012811.17402@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>>  I don't see MS going out and suing  IBM
>>for misrepresentation and non-payment of  royalties, in regard to IBM's
>>*publicly announced* figures.  If that isn't court-case fodder, I don't
>>know what is.
>    If you look back over history, you'll see that Microsoft has a
>fairly long history of not suing people for trivial reasons.

Time for another economics discussion...

IBM announced that OS/2 had sold a million copies a couple of months ago.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that that is still the number of copies
sold (a very conservative position), and that IBM is paying MS royalties of,
oh, $10 per copy (conservative figure, given the current difference between
Windows upgrade, DOS upgrade, and non-upgrade pricing; I'd expect that the
royalties on the DOS portion alone to be in that range), then we come up with
$10 million that MS is pissing away. Hardly trivial, especially given the
current level of IBM/MS animosity.
-- 
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)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph Malloy)
Subject: Re: Who understands IBM any more?
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:46:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.015724.26260@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>
>People are committing to Windows because it is the market leader right now. I
>spoke to a guy the other day who said that if Windows was the Devil and OS/2
>was GOD....he would back the Devil because of his dominant position in the
>market.
> 
What's that old Billy Joel song line, "I'd rather laugh with the sinners
than cry with the saints" ?  
> 
>We all had a good laugh about that! No wonder he doesn't like it!

Hey, think of all the time he save not having to re-reformat his HD and
reinstall Windows!  Wish I'd saved myself that time!!
> 
>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".

Joe Malloy / jmalloy@hamilton.edu
Happy non-user of OS/2 2.0 (who wishes it lived up to its promises!)

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Reply-To: soh3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 03:45:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct09.175016.290@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>>On IBM's questionairre for the OS/2 betas, they asked what you were
>>developing and if it would be ready to demo at COMDEX.  This had the
>>effect of turning away the non-developers, since most didn't want to
>>lie on the form.
>>
>
>     And as a result, IBM narrowed the field to people demoing software
>at COMDEX.  There are developers out there who don't have something
>ready for COMDEX - should they be excluded from a release of a product
>specifically designed to stimulate application development?
>

Why would having a small check box right next to the question, 
"Will your application be ready to demo at COMDEX", have such
a dampening effect?  Even if people don't check the box, that
wouldn't mean that they are not developers.  They shouldn't
naturally be excluded, and they didn't as far as I know.
Don't you think you are picking up on a utter non-issue?

Min
From: rvinluan@cs.cornell.edu (Rolando Vinluan)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 12 Oct 92 12:09:25 GMT
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853

thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:

>I don't quite understand why people are using X as a stick to beat the
>multi-user capabilities of NT with. X is essentially single-user and can only
>be used by multiple users in an inherently insecure fashion.

	This is especially obvious to people like me who like to run
"xroach" on new X/Unix users here, making cockraches appear on *other
people's screens* from *my* terminal. I could also call "xdump" and get
a dump of any user's current screen, thus surreptitiously getting a
snapshot of whatever private things they're working on. This is security.??

	People who keep on saying that 5 Xterminals == 5 NT machines
in terms of security obviously haven't used X very long. Heck, I haven't,
yet I already know these things.

	(Remember, I specifically said *security,* not anything else,
so please, no flames on how "But X can also do this" and what not.
Sorry for being paranoid, but in this group one has to.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:53:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct05.135240.2876092@locus.com> dana@locus.com (Dana H. Myers) writes:
>In article <21622@global.hacktic.nl> peter@global.hacktic.nl (Peter Busser) writes:
>>doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor) writes:
>>
>>>So what is it Intel has a monopoly on ?  Nothing. Intel just makes the
>>>best, fastest implementations of the "386" architecture, not the only ones.
>>
>>The best? The fastest? Hmmm, 1st, AMD has CMOS 386's, Intel hasn't. A CMOS chip
>>draws less current which is good for notbooks. Also, lower power consumption
>>means a longer lifetime.
>
>The Intel 80386 is certainly fabricated in CMOS. It is possible the AMD 386
>has a lower power consumption, but I'll wager it makes little difference in
>the lifetime of the processor.

The issue isn't PROCESSOR lifetime, it is *BATTERY* lifetime.  Some of
those chips go into things that are only sometimes plugged into walls
(aka 'laptops'), you know.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:40:13 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1baqarINNlid@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> tso@cephalo.neusc.bcm.tmc.edu (Dan Ts'o) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.150509.25843@cu23.crl.aecl.ca> gutz@cc49.aecl.crl.ca writes:
>>
>>In article <1992Sep29.175707.4137@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>>>  One would have to be pretty naive to believe that MS hasn't
>>>>noticed the potential of OS/2 and has not started to build apps.
>>>     The potential is not clear yet.  If and when it becomes apparent
>>>that OS/2 2.0 will be around for a while, with substantial user base,
>>>I would expect some management person to make a decision on whether
>>>or not to produce apps for it.  At present, though, OS/2's future is
>>>far from clear.
>
>	The real question is: If NT didn't exist, would MS be offering OS/2
>apps ?

     Hard to say.  We aren't producing Amiga apps either.


>	Or more to the point, if the FTC sees tomorrow what we all already
>know: that MS has been using its control of the OS domain to unfair
>competitive advantage in the apps domain (and vice-versa), and splits MS in
>two, would the apps-part of MS begin offering OS/2 apps because from an
>apps-business viewpoint it is the smart thing to do...

     This is cute.  If you have some information for the FTC, I'm sure
they'd be glad to hear from you.  If not, it appears that you are
simply blowing smoke.


>	I wonder if MS people are supporting Bush -- Clinton might well
>reverse the Reagan era stance and antitrust laws might actually become
>effective again.

     It'll be a cold day in hell the day I vote for George Bush.


> Although IBM might not be in the best position with regard to
>antitrust, surely MS would not survive intact. That would certainly be a boost
>for OS/2.

     IBM has been investigated for years, by the way.  Why does everyone
assume that the existence of an investigation implies the existence
of some wrong-doing?


>	I think OS/2 will continue to struggle until MS somehow drops or is
>made to drop its boycott on OS/2 apps development, so great is MS's presence
>in the apps (and compiler) business. Note that I'm not saying MS apps are
>great. They can be pretty good, but they, again, got to where they are in large
>part due to unfair competitive advantage through OS control (secret calls,
>making all other apps companies believe that OS/2 would be the wave of the
>future, paradigm shift, DOS "bugs", etc.)

     Ooh!  More unfounded allegations!  Quite a talent you have there!

					-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: lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (m.l. gore)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT delivery date
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:58:56 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

>
>But, given that Computer Shopper is a Ziff publication, I believe, then
>it would not surprise me to see them trying to bolster NT's image. They
>may already have set a record for coverage of an unreleased piece of
>software.
>
>Tom
>
    Bolster is a little generous. ANything with Ziff in the name might as well
  be called M$. There is very little objectivity left, but Comp. Shopper is
  still good for paperweighs, doorstops,...


                                                bvl
-- 

   ---------------------------------
  | Brian Van Lieu                  |    Lehigh University:
  | Lehigh University               |
  | lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu          |      Where the Men are Men,
  |                                 |
  | ' You can't change the world    |      The Women are Men,
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Video games and NT
Date: 9 Oct 92 09:51:49 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.

In article <Bvt0qI.GnM@rice.edu>, amitp@ruf.rice.edu (Amit J Patel) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct06.182007.28815@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
|> At any point in time, the DOS version is going to be faster than the
|> NT version,

This is only true in the general case if the DOS version is written to handle
all existing and future video accelerators and all existing and future audio
hardware. Oh, and it must be able to distribute itself over multiple
processors, symmetric or otherwise.

I actually prefer strategy/fantasy games, and I long for one which takes
advantage of my 1280x1024 monitor. The market is there but many of the best
game designers have not caught up with it yet. By the end of next year I
expect to see a significant percentage of such games released for Windows.
Maybe by the end 1994 they will come out for windows first!

[No, sorry, I don't see many of them coming out in OS/2-specific versions]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Date: 08 Oct 92 22:20:25 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Oct7.234403.5629@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu wrote:
> In article <1992Oct06.213627.3688@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> [...]
> >I'm a bit curious about why people don't want networks bundled.  This is
> >regardless as to whether the network is more integrated or not.
> >
> >The only two reasons I came up with as to why people wouldn't want 
> >bundled network software are the following:
> >
> >1) You think the final product would be cheaper if these things were not
> >   included.
> >
> [...]
> >
> >2) You're worried about using up extra space on your hard drive.
> >
> [...]
> 
> 3) You just don't need it.

You don't need anything but air, food, water.
What I was hoping you'd do was to give me a real answer as to why
you don't want to have it around.  Does it take up space?  Does
it cost to much.  Does it give you hives.  Does it make your os of
choice look bad. 

> 
>    Why pay "under $500" next year for NT when you can get
>    OS/2 2.x this year for "under $195" (at the most).  For
>    those that don't need/want certain features in NT (such
>    as security/multi-user or networking), I cannot see any
>    clear advantages that NT has over OS/2.

Oh, you caught me.  I didnt discuss NT or OS/2 in my post, and you
so cleverly reminded me by turning my discussion about packaging
network software in an os into a flame against NT.  You are just
far to smart for me....



> 
> I already have OS/2 2.0 .  But if I didn't, all I have to do
> is to call 1-(800)-3IBMOS2 and pay $149 (or $99 as an upgrade
> from DOS, or $79 as an upgrade from Windows), but I would have
> to do it before October 31 when this OS/2 sales promotion ends.
> Or I can wait until next year to buy NT for "under $500" to
> get features I don't need.  (blatant OS/2 advertising intended :)

I'd put the same for another OS, but since there is a definite predjudice
against people with microsoft in their email address, I'll refrain.  No
use generating even more flame traffic.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: loatspa@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Phil Loats)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2, my final analysis.
Date: 9 Oct 92 03:47:51 GMT
Organization: University of Cincinnati

In article <19921008.113503.36@almaden.ibm.com> ameline@vnet.ibm.com (Ian Ameline) writes:
>   C-Set/2 CSD numbers bear some relation to how many revisions, but not
>much -- these are the build numbers since GA. If a build fails due to a
>LAN error (like 12, 13, 16, 18 & 19), or an error is setting up the
>... 
>Regards,
>Ian Ameline.

Thanks Ian for setting the facts straight.  I've heard so many good things about
the C-Set/2 compiler before this thread started, keep up the good work.

Phil.
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 functions, overhead, NT, blah, blah, blah
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:53:32 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

(m.l. gore) writes:

>>I doubt seriously that OS/2 1.X's main problem was poor DOS support.
>>OS/2 1.X had many, many problems.  It was designed for 286's but
>>required huge amounts of resources (1.3 was an exception, but OS/2 by
>>then had a bad rep... and there was Windows 3.0).  It was buggy.  It
>>was slow.  It had no applications base.  It was highly proprietary and
>>cost a lot.  It ran (or so most everybody believed) only on IBM's
>>over-priced, under-powered hardware.

>    Ageeed, though ancient history by todays standards.

And also notice that OS/2 1.3 was the first version IBM released :-).
1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 were all MS products. You know the same MS who has already
released multiple versions of Windows 3.1 because of serious bugs in the 
first release (the new releases are more or less secret BTW). The same
MS who some people think are capable of bringing the next generation OS
to the world in less than 3 months from now.

Nico E. de Vries  (nevries@cc.ruu.nl) |------------------*   AA   III  PPP
_ This text is supplied AS IS, no warranties of any kind |  A  A   I   P  P
| apply. No rights can be derived from this text. This   |  AAAA   I   PPP
| text is likely to contain spelling and grammar errors. |  A  A   I   P
*---------------------------( Donate to GreenPeace! )----*  A  A  III  P

"The IBM PC is still waiting for a version of the CP/M OS.", G.M. Vose, 1982.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy