HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: Windows vs. OS/2
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:34:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.101817.21174@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>
>In order to make the comparisons valuable (as to how long/difficult the tasks
>are) you must remove the variability of the participants, or have enough
>of them that you can be sure of the results.  For instance, if you have
>two participants, one on windows,  one on OS/2, and you are doing a layout
>task, make sure that their skills are equal.  Someone experienced in
>layout could probably do a faster job on a 386sx/16 running OS/2 with
>9 billion tasks in the background than I could running a 486/66 in
>windows with no background tasks.
>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...

Of course, I would expect that the project announcement would be made
at the same time volunteers were requested... details of the project
would remain anonymous until volunteers were secured (and a simple
resume would suffice to ensure that each person at least *thought* he
would be capable to the task).  For example, announce that the project 
will be to generate a financial spreadsheet with graphs on trends, profit/loss
etc. for a ficticious company.  When adequate volunteers are secured, you
send 'em the data.

But you know what the *major* problem is?  People would rather bash each
other's operating systems without taking into account whether or not
*their* choice is really adequate to a given task.  I would lay odds
that even the obnoxiously hard-core {insert OS here} enthusiasts who
adamantly proclaim their choice's superiority have never really contemplated
doing some types of useful work on it: page layout, for example, is one
of the really revolutionary things that a GUI-based operating system made
mass appealing--but I daresay (opinion again) that most of the people in
this group haven't really tried to do anything more complex than a
presentation slide...

Exactly what project do I propose?  Well, let the people themselves decide
(if they are interested at all).  Even better, let an impartial panel
determine an adequate task, and let Microsoft and IBM each select an
"expert" to do the task (PC MAGAZINE HEADLINE: Bonanza--The Battle of the
OSes)...

But I, for one, am getting tired of this "My OS is better than your OS
because {insert technological reason here}" when the bottom line is
which one can get the job done most efficiently?  I for one *like* OS/2's
protection--but won't use it because there are no really useful apps I
can use to get work done--except if I run it in a Windows session (so I
choose to run Windows).

-> Joe <-



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: os/2 in byte magazine -- planned use of mach kernel!!
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:12:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.155721.904@debet.nhh.no> si0_tb90020@debet.nhh.no writes:

>Though the Mach kernel is a nice peace of software, it is not very
>efficient. It was not created to be. And to have a OS based on the Mach
>kernel, you either need to rewrite it a lot (like NeXT), or you will
>need lots of processing power (when you want to run OS/2, DOS, Windwos
>and Unix on top of Mach).
>
>When this version of OS/2 comes out - be ready to buy the latest in
>processor, RAM, and HD. Probably 486 and better, lots of RAM (16 as a
>minimum ans so on).
>
>What would have happended to OS/2 if it had such hardware demands now?

It would be NT:).

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jahonen@cs.joensuu.fi (Jarmo Ahonen)
Subject: Re: DOS not operating system, film at 11. : -)
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 11:03:35 GMT

jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:

>Of course, I have my own theory about GUI's for the average person. I
>proceed from the observed fact (in my experience on the average liberal
>arts college campus) that most people neither need nor really want
>multitasking.  Most people do one thing, stop, do another, an go back,
>perhaps, to the first job.  (I'm not suggesting this is the *best* way
>to computer, only that this is how most real live end-users work). 

It may be that those people have learned not to use multitasking because
there has been no multitasking earlier on. I saw some time ago how *fast*
people learned not to start looking out from the window when their big
spreadsheets were calculated. Those people learned to write their FrameMaker
documents during the calculations. 
I forgot to tell, they were PC users who were provided with Suns.
It depends, of course, what they are doing, but I do believe that people
find the best way for them very fast if they are provided with the possibility
of choice.

>What does a multitasking GUI offer?  Heck, what with all those cute
>little pictures and WYSIWYG screens and wallpaper and so on, well, your
>computer looks like it doing something even when you're not!

Good point :-).

>jmalloy@hamilton.edu

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jarmo J. Ahonen
Computing Centre, Lappeenranta University of Technology, P.O.Box 20,
SF-53851 Lappeenranta, Finland. email: Jarmo.Ahonen@lut.fi

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: NT: clean design (NoT!) (was Re: OS/2 because! (was NT: Why?)
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 21:02:48 GMT

In article <1efsf4INN946@mailgzrz.TU-Berlin.DE> lars@cs.tu-berlin.de (Lars With) writes:
>In article <92282.160301RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>, FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> writes:
>...
>
>> So, if I use DOS or Windows, I use 32bit OS/2 as a great multitasker, which
>> even protects the applications from each other. With Win3.1 support (I have
>> a beta) for OS/2, the situtation for Windows-only user improves and encompasses
>> for what is available under plain DOS/Win3.1.
>> 
>
>You have a beta of Win3.1 support.
>This will exactly be the disadvantage of OS/2:
>If Microsoft releases a new version of Windows, IBM has to write a new support for Windows. Thus an OS/2 Windows support user will always get the latest version of Windows a couple of months later than Windows NT users will get it.
>
>Lars With (lars@cs.tu-berlin.de) 

And then there are those of us who never really invested anything in
Windows software before OS/2 came along, and don't plan to any further
now that we have OS/2.  Frankly, I could care less if OS/2 NEVER had Win
3.1 support, or 3.2, 3.3, or whatever eventually comes down the pike.  I
think the Windows support in OS/2 is nice as a transitionary tool, but
it is not intended to be a long term solution to anything.  It just lets
me run my old apps until better, OS/2-native ones come out.  When that
happens, I'll never look back.
-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: COMDEX Awards
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 23:42:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.213610.8366@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>No, the co-winner was Windows 3.1, OS/2 is not sophisticated enough
>to compete with Windows NT yet, nor is Windows NT released yet.
>I read the PC/Computing article, and it was soundly based.
>Here's the piece that deals with Windows 3.1 and OS/2 2.0
>[PC/Computing, December 1992, Page 190]
...

>Windows: enforced multitasking, an enhanced file allocation table, a
>high-performance file system, a more efficient flat-memory model up
>to 4GM [actually 2.0 is limited to 512K do to the way 1.X back-
                                    ^^^^
>compatibility is handled], and the ability to run 32-bit applicaitons
>as well as Windows and DOS applications. This is the operating
>system Windows should have been.

I hope that was a typo on your part, not PC/Computing's. :)
It should be 512 Megs, not 512 K.

Ted
From: pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: PC Week, November 9
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:44:04 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Mitre Corporation

In article <1992Nov13.161920.24065@panix.com>, os2man@panix.com (Larry
Salomon Jr.) wrote:
> 
> I will first dare say that in ANY operating system, independent of multi-
> tasking methodology used, the state of the CPU must be saved.  In fact, for
> systems that cooperatively multitask OS's that were not originally designed
> for this (like Windows), a LOT more than that must be saved (for example,
> the current directory search handle).  On any CPU that inherently supports
> multitasking, e.g. 80286+, the state saving is handled by the CPU (correct
> me someone if I'm wrong), thus minimizing the penalty incurred by frequent
> task switches.  If I trust my logic, the main penalty of a task switch
> is due to the swapping in of memory for the process being scheduled when in
> an overcommit situation.
> 

Since a Windoze applications can never give up the CPU, the system never
has to do a context switch and you get better performance!!! ;-)

I am not sure that you are required to save all the registers in a OS that
cooperatively multitasks.  Since the applicaton calls a function to give up
the CPU, you can view the application losing control being protected by a
stack frame.  This technique does work.

I was involved in writing a real time cooperative multitasking system last
summer and I used this exact strategy quite sucessfully.  As long as all
the modules (application) are well behaved and don't mess up the stack, the
system runs fine.  Doesn't this description sound a lot like Windows.

> This article goes on to claim that polled I/O can increase the speed of
> a system that uses interrupt-driven I/O.  I can't believe his argument of
> this point, and neither will you.

In some cases, even this may be true.  If my I/O device buffers input, I
have the choice of processing data as a single byte (interrupt-driven I/O)
or in chunks (polled I/O).  In many cases, it is more efficient to process
data in chunks (in some cases one might be required to process data in
chucks).  Then the choice is to either let the I/O hardware buffer and to
process the data in chunks or to grab each byte and buffer the data
manually until enough data is received so processing can be done.  I don't
know about you, but I would rather let the hardware do the buffering.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ekl@kvamdata.no (Eirik Lygre)
Subject: Re: COMDEX Awards
Organization: Kvam data as
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 18:42:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.213610.8366@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>Here's the piece that deals with Windows 3.1 and OS/2 2.0
>[PC/Computing, December 1992, Page 190]
>
>Brian

Hey! The "Tidbits" are back! Or, maybe not :-(

I would just like to say that I already miss the os/2 tidbits. While
they did provoke extremely high powered flames, they were a way for
some of us europeans to keep on top of the events in the US computer
press.

This article may be viewed as a request for Brian to start "publishing"
his tidbits again. It is also a request for other to keep the flamage
to a decent level if he does. Remember, most of us know Brians view on
os/2 and Windows NT. There is no need for us to screem at him. To me,
the tidbits is a way of knowing what's happening, and what's being
written. US Computer magazines are 4-5 weeks late in Norway, and they
do not count.

I guess this little prayer is like closing the barn door after the
animals are out, but it was important for me to say so. Brian has
taken far more heat than he deserved.

Eirik
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: adhir@wam.umd.edu (Al Dhir)
Subject: Re: Windows don't remember positions
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:00:17 GMT

>>>                                The ALT-F1 trick on boot up restores
>>>the INI files and desktop from the install defaults.  And the MAKEINI
>>>program, documented in the printed material accompanying OS/2, does
>>>something similar.
>>I'm sorry, Tim, but to suggest using Alt-F1 or MAKEINI to prune bloated INI 
>>files is like saying "You want to trim your hair, eh?  Well, you've got a 
>>perfectly good weed trimmer.  Why don't you try that?"  It does the job, but
>>the damage it does is greater than the good.
>

>to make compromises -- it is inevitable.  They decided that if you
>needed an INI file editor you should dial up a BBS and get one (or

Who the hell wants an EDITOR??  I am asking for something that will keep
the damn INI files from swallowing up my hard drive!

>of provided defaults, but to edit, well, you have to look elsewhere.

Again, Tim, NOT editor, pruner...automatic pruner...like cpyini.

>Now, supposedly I'm a power user :-), but I must tell you that I
>haven't edited my INI files all that much.  When I did, it was
>essentially to test the INI file editors that had been released.  I'm
>probably not alone.

You're not.  Why in the world would you want to edit your INI file...especially
in this early stage of OS/2 tweaking.  I repeat, I don't want to edit it
at all.  I just think it would have been prudent for IBM to have included
a method of making sure the INI file doesn't get out of hand.  Mine was up
to 2.5 megs before I discovered cpyini.  I need my HD space.

There are a couple problems remaining with OS/2...after the service pack and
everything, my swap file is a pain if I have a BMP in the background (so I
don't...but I want one), the INI file grows like mad (but at least this is
easy to work around), icon changing is pathetically stupid (I though the
theme was drap and drop here...), DTC isn't releasing drivers (grr)...

But all in all, my system is real nice now...stable at hires.  I can deal.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: andrewb@lynx.cs.washington.edu (Andrew Berg)
Subject: Re: COMDEX Awards
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering Dept., Univ. of Washington, Seattle
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 23:44:33 GMT

In response to the complaint about having to shutdown OS/2, how often has
anyone had to reformat their entire harddrive when it got corrupted?

I've supported Windows for several years (right up until I saw OS/2 2.0) and
my only real complaint is that _every_ time you reboot in the middle, you 
have to run checkdisk, and if you forget and just go back into windoze, you
might as well warm up your backup tapes, because you're gonna need them.

--

andrewb@cs.washington.ed
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Borland C++ for OS/2=====Tell us how it is coming along!
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:37:15 GMT
Distribution: comp.os.os2.programmer
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

In <1992Nov15.215311.760@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:

>In article <3325@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:

>>Borland is spending a lot of energy on supporting Win32 and Win32s. I
>>suspect them to use time of the OS/2 project for this. Win32 will be
>>released 12 weeks after NT (the product is part of EEP just like the
>>OS/2 version).

>Read the anouncement on comp.os.os2.apps.  Borland C++ for OS/2 2.0
>has now been released.  The anouncement says nothing about
>availability dates or pricing, however.

I saw it. I was impressed. I am of course very curious what the
date is going to be. 

>As for the rest of your post, why do you think Borland is using time
>allocated for OS/2 development to work on Win32?  Considering that
>Win32 will be released 12 weeks after NT, which is now scheduled for
>June/July '93, and BC++/2 will be out real soon now, your accusation
>makes no sense.

My assumption was wrong. And I am very happy it was. BC++ for OS/2
is going to really boost the operating system.

>  |)  David Charlap          | .signature confiscated by FBI due to
> /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu | an ongoing investigation into the
>((|,)                        | source of these .signature virusses
> ~|~

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
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Borland supporting OS/2 (Interview)
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:08:28 GMT


If you are interested in information, you should get the IBM OS/2 Developer
magazine. A very good magazine that contains lots of interesting information.
Vol. 4, Number 4 had an extensive article about Borland and OS/2. Some of the
material is reprinted from the magazine (Copyright IBM):

Paul Gross, general manager of the Application Development Business Unit at
Borland, said, "Borland is pleased to bring its development tools to the OS/2
platform. Borland believes that 32-bit technology will meet the needs of
programmers wordwide. There programmers include the development teams at
Borland. We spent some time interviewing our developers before doing the OS/2
2.0 launch where we presented our views as a developer and as a user of OS/2.
What they said in terms of developing for OS/2 2.0 over Windows is that is was
really great. Sure, there were rough edges, but there were lots of really
strong comments about how the API is better than Windows. It's so much
more intuitive once you learn a certain class of functions that are
generalizable. Other classes of functions, like handling and graphics,
are so much better. Plus, people found the on-line help very good.

This is only a VERY small part. The article alone is 11 pages long and
the issue(s) are over 100 pages. Some very interesting material written by
professionals who know their trade. This magazine is strongly recommended,
for users or programmers. If you don't want to subscribe, get your
friendly store owner to carry it. Whatever the case, here is the number and to
call:

IBM OS/2 DEVELOPER!    Telephone Orders: 1-800-WANT-OS2

A 1 year subscription (4 issues) is US$39.95.

Sincerely,
Mark K.
E-Mail: kovarski@zooid.guild.org


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Date: 15 Nov 92 18:47:00 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1992Nov13.164155.14309@msc.cornell.edu>, tommy@msc.cornell.edu (Mike Thompson) writes:
> As a programmer trying to develop a 32 application for OS/2 2.0, I am 
> increasingly finding it difficult to remain dedicated to OS/2 development.
> I find it VERY funny that IBM should try to sell OS/2 as crashproof
> operating system.  
> 
> Example 1: 
> My lab machine runs IBM's TCP/IP in a networked environment.  The mean time
> between system crashes is less than 24 hours.  Trap 8, trad D, trap E, just
> plain hung - you name it, we've seen it.  Admittedly the machine is being
> worked hard, but any UNIX system with that kind of performance would never
> survive.  (Northgate 486/33, 16 MB memory, SpeedStar graphics, TCP/IP 1.2.1 +
> all patches, OS/2+CSD).  My machine at home, similar configuration, traps
> roughly every 2-3 days, better but it only gets used 4 hours per day.
> 
> Example 2: 
> From programming, it is TRIVIAL to hang the OS.  Write a PM application and
> before starting the StdWindow, create a named pipe and wait for another process
> to access the pipe.  Hang city - the machine is long GONE!  Can't switch to any
> other application.  And try this one after loading the CSD.  SubClass the
> FrameWindow in a PM application to modify the RESIZE message.  Pass minimize
> and maximize message unchanged to original routine.  Resize works correctly,
> however, minimizing the window (only after the CSD is installed) will hang the
> sytem - full reboot time again!  With 400 MB of HPFS partitions to chkdsk, the
> mean time between debugging attempts is about 5 minutes.
> 
> It seems odd that in a multitasking environment one can write any application
> that takes down the whole OS.  Blocked semaphores may trap your process, but
> the scheduler should allow others to run.  Is it really so hard to preempt a
> running process.
> 
> Are others getting as frustrated with the OS/2 environment as I.  Or have I
> just been spoiled by the relative stability of large UNIX environments.  As I
> said at the beginning, I am working with a company to put out a 32 bit app. 
> But I am getting so frustrated that I wonder if its really worth the continued
> effort.

	You are not alone.  I don't run my machine nearly as long as you
do and I get trap problems and just hanging.  Example:  Load TE/2,
logon to the INternet, and for some reason when I will control escape,
it will just hang.
	Sometimes with windows apps running in seamless mode the thing
will just hang.
	Sometimes when I puta graphics DOS app into a window I will
get a Trap.
	Sometimes I get a Trap for no apparent reason when switching away.

	POST Service Pack also.

	I mean, sure Windows and my Amiga crashed more but they never
tried to claim "ROCK SOLID! MISSION CRITICAL..." OS/2 is not all that
stable.  At least with Windows it would crash when it was doing something
strabnge.  OS/2 will crash randomly and it is not a hardware problem.

							-Brad



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: hoppie@kub.nl (Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers)
Subject: Re: NT: clean design (NoT!) (was Re: OS/2 because! (was NT: Why?)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 13:43:46 GMT
Organization: Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

In article <1efsf4INN946@mailgzrz.TU-Berlin.DE> lars@cs.tu-berlin.de (Lars With) writes:
>In article <92282.160301RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>, FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> writes:
>...
>
>> So, if I use DOS or Windows, I use 32bit OS/2 as a great multitasker, which
>> even protects the applications from each other. With Win3.1 support (I have
>> a beta) for OS/2, the situtation for Windows-only user improves and encompasses
>> for what is available under plain DOS/Win3.1.
>> 
>
>You have a beta of Win3.1 support.
>This will exactly be the disadvantage of OS/2:
>If Microsoft releases a new version of Windows, IBM has to write a new support for Windows. Thus an OS/2 Windows support user will always get the latest version of Windows a couple of months later than Windows NT users will get it.
>
>Lars With (lars@cs.tu-berlin.de) 

Exactly... so at the moment the first apps pop up that *use* those
new features, OS/2 users can decide if they really *need* them :-)
Except of course for the M$ apps that were ready just before the
final release of the new Windoze system...

Jeroen


-- 
Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers, research engineer at     |  Stop connecting computers;
Infolab, Tilburg University, The Netherlands    |  start connecting people!