HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (Well, not exactly....)
Date: 7 Sep 92 20:40:54 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <92251.212003ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Andrew T. Robinson) writes:

Why aren't you in a Unix advocacy group....
How dare you post this in the _NT_ advocacy group!  :-)

>When you get down to it, NT is really superflouous.  There is already
>an operating system which has been installed on hundreds (?) of millions
>of machines, has been maturing for over 20 years, and has cross-platform
>support that NT will never achieve.

For some reason Unix people (and I was one) always seem to grossly
over estimate how many systems run it.  All Unix systems on all machines
ever delivered (whether it is still in use or not) is well under
10 million. (DOS I believe has an installed base of around 80 million.)
As a matter of fact Unix's installed base is much less than that of the
Macintosh which has an installed base that is less than 10 million.

I saw a comparison of the the various systems (this was just before the release
of OS/2 2.0)... OS/2 1.X and Unix had a similarly
sized base... I believe at the time it was something like 800,000.

>
>UNIX, and all its incarnations.
>
>I don't think UNIX is the end-all of OS development, but a super-
>comercialized product like Windows NT isn't, either.  If you're thinking
>hard about Windows NT, think harder about UNIX.  UNIX and commonly
>available add-ons can do everything NT can do, faster and more portably.
>And UNIX is super-extensible, which means anything anyone adds to NT
>that is new and novel will probably be a UNIX feature within a few
>months, if it isn't already (suspect the latter :-)!

UNIX is so far behind NT in its features, it's not funny.
Just take a look at the OS/2 vs NT list I send out... do you know
of any Unix that even comes close? (Except NextStep...  we've been
over this before in this group... where were you?)

>
>If you want a powerful OS for a moderately sized personal system,
>forget about NT and buy OS/2.  If you want a powerful, fully-capable
>OS for high-end personal systems, servers, and their ilk, forget about
>NT again and buy UNIX.

You want to pay more for less???

>
>Oh, and forget the propaganda you've assimilated about UNIX unfriendliness.
>GUIs really started on a UNIX platform, and there are several mature
>GUIs based on X-Windows for UNIX which are no more difficult to use

You want to buy a fat slow half/GUI with even less apps than OS/2?

>than Windows, and are nowhere near so pretentious :-)

Pretentious!... to even think that Unix is currently at as high a class as
NT is pretentious.

>
>Andy

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re:  What REXX does
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 03:37:53 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <Joe.002j@twistor.dialix>  Joe@twistor.dialix (Joe Katnic) writes:
> I assume that most people understood what the REXX code was attempting
> to do by reading it.
>
> Your eloquent description for 1.5 pages of the one line of awk code
> speaks for itself.
>
> These types of tools are not conducive to maintenance by the poor
> programmer who happens to be on duty at the time the system, that was
> written 12 months ago by someone who has left the company, failed.

The point that everyone seems to be missing is that awk is a separate
program, and the Rexx macro was written using the editor's primitives.
If the editor had a Grep search option, then the Rexx macro could have
been as simple as:
   /* Go to line 1, then count all blank lines */
   ':1 count /^$/g*'

(Which would work in XEDIT, except that there's no grep.)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: gkushmer@jade.tufts.edu (Greg Kushmerek)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (Well, not exactly....)
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:07:21 GMT
	<1992Sep7.194616.6632@hellgate.utah.edu>
Organization: Roger Mellie Enterprises, PLC

In article <1992Sep7.194616.6632@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

   Get serious.... NT will not require 80 megs, or a 486, or a CD-ROM.
   The released version of NT will likely take less space than a similarly
   configured version of OS/2.  The reason is simple... NT currently does
   not seem to need more room, and OS/2 has to support a Windows 3.1 environment
   too.  (For example OS/2 has to have room for 2 copies of ATM fonts and


Brian, when I was speaking to a Microsoft salesman on the phone, he told me
that NT would require 486 systems or better.  Of course, this same guy
is the bozo who told me they did not support Foxpro 2.0 on 360k floppies (they
do, as I found out when I pushed him on this) and wanted to know why
I couldn't take my 1.2M floppies and transfer the information to 360k
floppies  - one-for-one (my "It's like fitting a gallon into a quart" 
response came in here).

So make of it what you will, and consider the source as well.

--gk
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 VS NT! The Future War Looms...
Date: 14 Sep 92 05:23:50 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Sep14.042311.18756@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>OS/2 does not yet have a million users.  There is probably not more
>than 1,250,000 copies shipped at present.  This number includes
>multiple licenses.  Further OS/2 1.X had about 800,000 copies out.
>A fair portion of these 1,250,000 (500,000?) are free upgrades... these
>are not necessarily in use.  The free upgrades were a limited time offer
>so one would be silly not to have them upgraded.
>A number of corporate sites that would have taken advantage of the upgrade
>(all they had to do was get their SE to sign a form authorizing X 
>upgrade copies.) are not using the copies yet ... they're waiting on the bug
>fixes before committing. (I've seen no less than 3 articles in the trade
>rags talking about this... and I personally know of one instance.)

Yes, they are waiting for the bug fixes before commiting -- that is why
they have *not sent in* for their free upgrades yet.  I believe this
was in the August 3 issue of PC Week (or Infoworld).  In fact, IBM even
extended the free upgrade deadline until September 30 so that these
people can still be able to get their free upgrade copies.  In other
words, these people will upgrade directly to the next Refresh Level
instead of the current version + Service Pack.

[...]

>Brian

-- 
==== Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ====
::   ftp ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (128.123.35.151)    ::  .--.
::   for OS/2 software & information.  Get    :: (OS/2)
:::: the OS/2 FAQL in dir /pub/os2/all/faq :::::  ~--~
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier)
Subject: Re: CSD Rumours
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:53:44 CDT

In article <1992Sep10.172820.28168@inel.gov> jar@inel.gov (Jeffry A Rich) writes:

>I also heard that a former IBM employee has written an OS/2 optimizer program 
that will completely analyze your installed system and do a reshuffling so that
you gain a 50% - 150% increase in performance! This program is totally 
icon-driven and according to inside IBM sources, is killer!! The price I heard 
was $15.00. Sorry, no file names or addresses yet...I'm still checking on it.

The only program I know that is $15 and performance related is OS/2 2.0
Performance by Clear and Simple.  I have it.  I don't see a performance
improvement.  In fact I had to back out of one of it changes because it
"hurt" performance.  It expanded my HPFS cache from 1MB to 2MB.  Performance
went down.

Bert Moshier

IMHO, OS/2 Monthly Monthly is worth reading.
From: ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Hercules ??? Be realistic !
Date: 9 Sep 92 11:40:02 GMT
Organization: Forschungszentrum Juelich

I can`t believe what I`m reading here. There are really guys who want the WPS
run on a Hercules system ?  Why don`t you request a 386 emulator to run 2.0 on
a 286 ? How many 386 computers are out there with a Hercules board. And why has
 the one who bought them not been fired ? What GUI applications are used on
these 386 computers with Hercules ? I bet these machines are only used for
text mode apps. If you want to use a GUI on them you have to get VGA.

I have seen people bashing Microsoft for saying Win3.x only needs a 286 with
1MB. I see people bashing IBM for printing "Min requirements 4MB RAM" on the
OS/2 2.0 boxes. And now you want IBM to say WPS runs on a Hercules system ?
Of course it could be done. But why not add a little bit of honesty to the
computer buisiness? A GUI on a Hercules system is bullshit. Win3.x on a 1MB
machine is bullshit. OS/2 on a 4MB machine is bullshit. And NT on a x86 with
yMB RAM and a zMB harddisk is bullshit. And ist better to tell people what they
really need and what they really get then to let them buy product A and then
say "Fine, now of course you need to spend another nnn$ to get it really to
work."

IBM should rather get the drivers for all the existing SVGA boards than fiddle
with Hercules.

I would be really pissed of when I`d discover that IBM has a driver for Herc.
and no SVGA driver for lets say an ET3000.

Michael Bode.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: neves@anchor.cs.colorado.edu (NEVES RICHARD K)
Subject: Re: Hard future for OS/2 2.0 ....
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 22:34:55 GMT

In article <716362256snx@noyles.pha.pa.us> juan@noyles.pha.pa.us (Juan J. E. T. Noyles) writes:
>marten@feki.toppoint.de writes in article <716296545snx@feki.toppoint.de>:
>> 
>> Here in Germany a big computer newspaper (ComputerWoche) is VERY
>> sceptical about the success of OS/2 2.0. During the last weeks the
>> comments on this OS are getting worse.
>
>Well, there in Germany, people are getting killed, maimed and otherwise 
>harassed because they want to live in Germany.  Why should German criticism 
>of an American operating system matter to anyone?

What the hell does auslander raus problems have to do with the perspective
the original author offered.  The above comment is <words could not describe>.
Are you implying that americans know a lot more about the OS market because
we are racially tolerant. Ha!  

>>  -- OS/2 2.0  not clear, what the long-term strategy of IBM is ..
>
>Like Microsoft has a clear strategy?!  Like GERMANY has a clear
>strategy??!!!

Nationalism and operating systems in the same breath!!!!??? Unbelievable.

>The above has been a solicited commentary about the alleged
>Windows-OS/2 war in Germany, from an American perspective.
>I'm not trying to relive any other wars, and some of my best friends
>are German.  But I don't base my purchasing decisions on the
>opinion of any uninformed person, German or otherwise.  Most
>OS/2 users share this view.  Have a good life, and learn not to
>believe the hype!

What a pompous disclaimer.  

Get a life.

Rich
From: kab@s1.gov (Keith Benton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.5
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:09:20 GMT
Reply-To: kab@s1.gov
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

In article 7253@lib.tmc.edu, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.112606.26849@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>>Microsoft is willing to make buggy betas available (with appropriate
>>>warnings) to the general public.  IBM is not.  It seems like this list
>>>penalizes IBM for this, to some extent.  
>>Yes, and rightfully so... why not complain to IBM about their lack of openness?
>>(Certainly I have!)
>
>IBM has gotten into serious anti-trust trouble in the past by being as "open"
>as you would like them to be. Once bitten, twice shy. Besides, if they were to
                                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>release a beta like MS did, then people would be all over them for releasing
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>buggy junk to the public. They can't win.
>
>What it comes down to is that people hold IBM to a higher standard than they
>do MS. _That_ is the big problem.
>-- 
>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.
> "Keep in mind that Amateur Radio As We Know It Today will cease to exist
>            at midnight tonight." -- Dave Newkirk, WJ1Z


If IBM doesn't release Betas then what pray tell was the LA version of OS/2 2.0 
that was for sale before the GA version.

---
---------------------------------------------------------
|             Keith Benton: kab@s1.gov                  |
| ME!?!? Speak for anyone here!?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA |
|             Standard Disclaimers apply                |
---------------------------------------------------------
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: New user needs assistance
Distribution: na
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (beta) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 7 Sep 92 22:56:49 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

I just bought OS/2 for my Dell 486D/50 and installed it.  When I ran OS/2,
it came up in 640x480 mode with 16 colors.  I am spoiled by MS-Windows'
resolution of 1024x768x256 colors :)  Anyhow, I am not spoiled by MS-Windows
or DOS in general - OS/2 looks AWESOME.  But I already have a kick-butt
multitasking Amiga 3000, so I need something like the hires mode to make
me happy :)  Don't get me wrong, I am not here advocating the Amiga or
being sour on OS/2.  I am just looking for help.

Does anyone know of a 1024x768 driver for OS/2?  For the Dell?  From what
I can tell, it is a paradise VGA board, localbus video, and does VESA like
graphics modes...  Help would be VERY much appreciated.  In the meantime,
I am stuck with DOS and Windows.  And I do mean stuck.

Lastly, I have since uninstalled OS/2 from my machine because I could not
get Bore-land (sic) C++ for Dos/Windows to work without crashing.  Anyone
have a solution?  And YES, I will be using GNU C for OS/2 coding, but I
MUST make a lot of DOS and Windows programs.  I just don't like using
DOS/Windows very much :)  However, if GNU C makes protected mode DOS programs,
I might just trash Bore-land for good :)

Oh yeah, one more question - does OS/2 support the PAS 16 audio card?

Please reply via e-mail to:

mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org

thanks in advance.


--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: Re: Marketing idea for OS/2
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 09:56:28 GMT

> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>> There already exists a package which does this.  It's called VM/386. [...]
>> Does anyone know about compatibility with DOS apps?

tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
> I'm supposedly getting a brochure on this exact system, I believe.  I talked
> to a guy who sells software, and he runs on VM/386 or something that sounds
> like your description.  He claimed "100% dos compatibility", [...]

My wife was using VM/386 at her work (at a large Canadian insurance company)
until a few months ago.  They were using it in a development environment,
with her 6 MB PS/2 divided into five (I think) virtual machines.  She'd have
one bare-bones one for compiling (with Borland C++ 2.0), one for testing,
one for network access (the IBM LAN Server drivers are quite large), and
I don't know what she used the others for.  For the most part, it did
exactly what it was claimed to do, and with minimal memory and disk overhead.

They finally stopped using it last month, since Borland C++ 3.x would refuse
to run in it (as would Microsoft C/C++ 7.0, and many other tools).  She's
now using Windows 3.1 with several DOS sessions.  I'm somewhat surprised,
since the company is very IBM (notice the PS/2s and LAN Server above, not
to mention a LARGE mainframe installation), and I thought that they would
switch to OS/2 for development.

Some reasons I can think of, though ... the first is that the applications
they work on are for their agents, and they are converting them to Windows
(no chance of running OS/2 on those agent notebooks!).  The second is that
a lot of their machines have 6 MB or 8 MB, which isn't a lot if you have
several DOS sessions you need to keep going continuously.  I expect BC++
3.x works fine in an OS/2 DOS session, so that wouldn't be the reason, would
it?

[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:25:24 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <BuJ9Hx.Kt9@world.std.com> dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith) writes:
>Of course, he's no worse than Pournelle in Byte, but there's a certain
>engaging roguishness to Pournelle and his incessant references to Mrs.
>Pournelle's reading program, Workman Associates, Cheetah, &c. &c.  

Let's not even talk about Pournelle.  I began ignoring him recently,
when he panned Windows 3.1.  Not for any of its features, but because
it lacked an un-install utility, and he didn't only want one that
would extricate Windows 3.1 from the system, but he wanted one that
could re-install the previous version of Windows back on the system.

I'll bet he'd complain about the 7MB of hard drive and/or floppies
that it would take to backup the previous version of Windows, if MS
would provide this "service".

This is any better?
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "LECTURER, n.  One with his hand in your pocket,
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   his tongue in your ear, and his faith in your
 ((|,)                          patience."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Suggestions to IBM
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 01:32:27 GMT

  Well, since things have slowed down here so much, I thought I'd
throw out some opinions/suggestions for IBM and OS/2...

1) IBM should sell all of their computers with at least the 386SLC
   processor.

Let's face it, what's the point of selling a lesser processor in
machines as expensive as their's are?  The 386SLC is an IBM only
processor based on the 386SX, right?  They should offer something
that other vendors can't compete with while keeping compatability.
Besides, the 386sx is rapidly falling behind in speed.  The SLC is a
much nicer processor.

2) IBM should sell all of their computers with at least *8* meg of
   memory.

Memory is always getting cheaper.  They could easily throw some
extra memory into a machine, and make it a very good selling point.
People buy IBM machines for quality (and name).  Included with
quality is features.  Customers (especially nontechnical users) will
see the extra memory as a feature not included in most clone shops.

3)  IBM should include OS/2 preinstalled on all of their computers
   (I'm sure you saw this one coming...)

I think the reasons are obvious.  OS/2 is a fine operating system
which would be compatable with nearly all of the DOS software and
also with most of the Windows software.  This would keep businesses
happy, along with getting a large user base for OS/2.
  Before people start screaming "Why not give the user the choice?"
 let me state that the user would have just as much choice as
they've always had.  It's just that the user would have to say
"Should I switch to DOS?" instead of saying "Should I switch to
OS/2?"  It's also pretty well known that graphical interfaces are
more intuitive than a command line (I'm not saying one's better than
another :-)  ).  This would result in increased productivity for
businesses, with less training required.  It would also result in
more sales which would instead go to the mac.  This inclusion is
conditional, of course...
  IBM would have to include the features of the upcoming CSD so that
OS/2 would not be such a memory hog.  They would also have to train
the salesmen/techs that would be working with OS on how to optimize
it, which brings me to another point:

4) IBM should come up with better VDM default settings and better
   Win-OS/2 default settings

  My win-OS/2 ran pretty slowly until I did the "tweaks" which were
suggested in an earlier thread.  Granted, those tweaks have made
some systems lock up or caused other odd things to happen.  Perhaps
if only the ones which increased the performance dramatically were
used (I don't have any suggestions because I just used all of the
tweaks, and my WIN-OS/2 sessions have been great).

  These are just a few of my thoughts.  I have many more on the
subject.  If anybody agrees or disagrees, feel free to respond.  I
can't stop you anyway :-) :-)
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 VS NT! The Future War Looms...
Date: 15 Sep 1992 19:54:37 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) says:

>>Now, networking is important.  In fact, networking is critical to most
>>businesses.  And OS/2 + *a* network is still cheaper than NT, which is
>>what I said originally.
>
>But that just isn't so.  The cheapest peer-to-peer networking you can get from
>IBM is TCP/IP+NFS  Cost: $195(OS/2 list price) + $200 (TCP Basekit) +
>$150 (NFS -- I just looked up the NFS price) = $545
>
>That comes out to more than $500... how can you say that OS/2 can give
>you the same for less?


Wrong.

IBM sells netware lite.  Netware lite runs under os/2 and only costs $79.

And with a windows upgrade, I can get peer to peer OS/2 for $158 list price.  
It is a messy, but it does give you peer to peer networking, and it is all 
bought from IBM, so it nullifies your claim.


Brian,

Why are you being such a fanatic?  Do a hand full of os/2 zelots really
bother you to such a degree that you have to fly completely off the other
side of the scale?  Were you that upset when you didn't get a 'June' csd
that you are under taking a holy war to cast mud on the name of OS/2 ?
Do you like to pick logic for hours on end?  Do you leave little drops of
spit on your monitor when you see that someone claims 1 million units of 
OS/2 have been sold when you know in your heart that 1 million were 
shipped, not sold?  

Windows NT is 4-10 months away from shipping.
Let's wait to see what ships and then make our judgements, O.K.?
Just sit back and let history decide the winner in the operating 
system wars, it is going to be the only thing that does, anyway.