HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT goes Beta...
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:55:41 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <714874738.8132@minster.york.ac.uk> martin@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
>Brain Powell says:
>>Brian Sturgill (brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu) wrote:
>>>X is a hack
>>
>> X is a hack?  If X11R5 is a hack, it is by far the best, most stable
>> and robust hack I've ever seen.  I've NEVER crashed an X11 session on
>> my Sun SPARCstation, and I sometimes do some pretty strange things on
>> it.  Compared to Windoze, X11 is stability incarnate :-) Even OS/2
>> (a very stable PC system, IMHO) can't match the stability of X11.
>
>Whoever said that hacks can't be stable? X might be stable, but it is,
>nonetheless, a hack!

Actually, most of Berkeley Unix is hacked on top of older hacks.  I
had a class on operating systems last semester when we spent most of
the time working on the internals of 4.3BSD Unix.  Most of the
functions that Unix people depend on are hacked in.  Partly to
maintain compatibility with older versions, but mostly because it was
easier.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ckincy@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: Os/2ers whine again
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 01:08:39 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

In article <1992Aug26.091123.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu> f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:
>In article <92239.084655TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET>, Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET> writes:
>> Phil: If Microsoft is not responsible for dropping OS/2, and is
>> not responsible for my personal loss of $1000 for purchasing two
>> of their dud compilers (I thought they would continue supporting
>> OS/2 when I bought them), who is?
>
>Well, you are.  You gambled $1000 on the (remote) possibility of a 
>successful OS/2 1.x.  The rest of us hoarded it until MS Windows came 
>along.  Don't blame MS for the choices of a free market.

Oh, this is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my *life*!  Why
did you not believe MS about OS/2 in 1987, but believe them in 1990
when Windows 3.0 came out?  Sounds like someone is being inconsistent,
if you ask me....

>> If they are not resposible for creating
>> bad publicity, putting pressure on magazines, and creating biased
>> "benchmarks", then who is?
>
>You can't blame MS for that.  Blame the software developers who
>supposedly believed the "bad publicity," trashed such an
>*obvious* winner in OS/2, and developed software for such an *obvious*
>dog as Windows 3.1/NT.  (note sarcasm)

No, blame MS for being wishy-washy in their direction, for saying
one thing and doing another.

cpk

"OS/2 may well be the most important operating system ever"
--Bill Gates
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: X is a hack? (was Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks!)
Date: 29 Aug 92 10:47:50 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Aug27.231045.25891@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.145816.24108@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
> >>Am I reading this wrong?  Or is this another case of Windows NT bias?
> >>Just curious.
> 
> >Well I biased toward NT in the sense I like its base features better
> >than OS/2's base features.  Also I believe that NT will eventually
> >have a much better app selection.  OS/2 could prove me wrong (and I won't
> >cry if it does -- in fact I'll be as happy (that is if I haven't purchased
> >NT apps by then)) but that's not the way the crowd seems to be betting and
> >NT is showing better signs of delivering than what OS/2 shows currently.
> >
> >Brian
> 
> Well, although NT is not out yet, nor that the "16 bit Windows support" is
> not done yet--the NT can, potentially, be better at handling Windows 3.1
> than IBM... for the mere reason that Microsoft has all the source code
> for 3.1...

IBM has all the source code for Windows 3.1, too. You're on the wrong track
with this line of argument.

> 
> I agree heartily with Brian, here.  OS/2 may be fantastic, wonderful, and a
> better DOS than DOS... but unless I need it specifically, why should I
> buy it not knowing if it is a sound investment (note: if I particularly
> needed an OS/2 feature, it would be a sound investment).
> 
> Joe

OS/2 as a multi-tasker makes Windows look sick. Having used Window 3.x for 18
months and OS/2 2.0 for five months, there is no doubt in my mind which system
is superior. 
 
OS/2's memory protection, multi-tasking ability and superb interface (WPS) are
three *excellent* reasons to move to OS/2. Then there is HPFS and a whole host
of other features that make it even better.
 
Windows people who have *not* used OS/2 much fail completely to appreciate
just how good these features are. They see the dull, grey desktop and
completely miss the point. 
 
As a desktop OS, OS/2 has more power and versatility then Win3.1 will ever
muster. It is also still small enough to be a desktop OS. NT isn't. NT and
it's bundled feature have no place in the mass market. OS/2 does. If you want
the additional features, you can buy them.
 
NT is a Swiss Army knife. Most people just want the blade that cuts. Win3.1 is
a blunt blade. OS/2 is sharp!

Steve
  

-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | End the two-party duopoly. Vote 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for the Mixed-Member Proportional 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | (MMP) voting system on Sept. 19th. 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | Give yourself a vote that *counts*!
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: shells
Date: 2 Sep 1992 14:18:39 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Sep1.2712.4301@dosgate> "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com> writes:
>I agree. However, running EPM as our PM shell (or Tetris, or many  other
>suggested options) simply isn't feasible in our environment. More's  the
>pity. What we were/are looking for is a stable desktop shell; preferably
>something along the lines of the v1.3 shell or (even better) a WPS  with
>a greater level of stability than the GA release.

Good grief.

First you complain that you don't know how to run your system without the WPS.
Then, when not one but two methods for doing so are posted, you say that you
have to use the WPS. How about a little consistency, guy?
-- 
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
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (TAN JIN MENG)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.3
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 02:45:39 GMT

brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
: >
: >You seem to not understand that the DosReadAsynch and DosWriteAsynch calls
: >actually created a thread for the real DosRead or DosWrite to wait on, and that
: >thread would then release the semaphore. Therefore, the Asynch I/O and threaded
: >approaches are equivalent.
: >
: >From what I understand, the DosReadAsync and DosWriteAsynch were bad performers,
: >and that IBM suggest that you create a permanent separate thread for reading
: >from the file, and communicating with it via semaphores or queues for
: >performance reasons.
: 
: All you seem to be saying is that OS/2 had a bad implementation of Async I/O.
: 
: The problem I describe above cannot be done as efficiently
: using a thread based I/O approach.  It might be true that restructing
: entirely how you go about the task might lend itself to a threaded approach,
: but the idea behind such abstract facilities as thread and async I/O is
: that you get to choose the one you can use most comfortably to solve the
: problem in a efficient manner.
: 

Actually, not really true. Async I/O support can get hairy. You're
actually replacing memory overhead (with threads) with table searching
and updating. The added disadvantage of table based approach is also
[potentially] more latency.  Nothing is for free you know ;-).

jin meng
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: X is a hack? (was Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks!)
Date: 27 Aug 92 23:10:45 GMT
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego

In article <1992Aug27.145816.24108@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>Am I reading this wrong?  Or is this another case of Windows NT bias?
>>Just curious.

>Well I biased toward NT in the sense I like its base features better
>than OS/2's base features.  Also I believe that NT will eventually
>have a much better app selection.  OS/2 could prove me wrong (and I won't
>cry if it does -- in fact I'll be as happy (that is if I haven't purchased
>NT apps by then)) but that's not the way the crowd seems to be betting and
>NT is showing better signs of delivering than what OS/2 shows currently.
>
>Brian

Well, although NT is not out yet, nor that the "16 bit Windows support" is
not done yet--the NT can, potentially, be better at handling Windows 3.1
than IBM... for the mere reason that Microsoft has all the source code
for 3.1...

I agree heartily with Brian, here.  OS/2 may be fantastic, wonderful, and a
better DOS than DOS... but unless I need it specifically, why should I
buy it not knowing if it is a sound investment (note: if I particularly
needed an OS/2 feature, it would be a sound investment).

Joe
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: johns@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (John Stone)
Subject: Re: Brian, your bias is showing ( was Re: OS/2 vs NT features
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 01:33:07 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla


Hi there,

About Bias:  I am a Die-Hard OS/2 user, but I really didn't think 
           that the OS/2 Vs NT list was TOO biased, it was slightly
           incomplete in a few places, but what does one expect???

I will of course defend OS/2 to the death, but I thought that the
list was fair in most areas, the particular spots I took deference to
were dealing with the 16 bit Vio stuff that OS/2 2.0 DOES support...
Not merely in 1.x API but also in new 32 bit apps.
I have written several NEW 32 bit programs that make use of the 16 bit
Vio calls, and I can't see why he chooses to exclude them and write
them off as 1.x features that are being discontinued.

I DO NOT KNOW, why they haven't been updated to 32 bits, I sent
a query to the C Set/2 people a couple of days ago asking why the
Vio stuff is no longer documented in the new tools, I suspect that
they are trying to do away with the current Vio system, so that
when (if) they make OS/2 portable, they won't need to worry about 
supporting this IBM (and clone) specific feature.

I figure that what they are doing is getting ready to replace Vio stuff
with a new subsystem, but they don't want to just drop support yet,
they probably want to ease into it, first by removing the docs on it :)
so that we don't write new code with it (like I've been doing :-)

Anyway, I felt that the original poster was as fair as anyone who is
an NT user (i.e. doesn't really have much knowledge about OS/2) 
could be.  I'm sure he missed a few points on NT, but he did make marks
where information was sketchy or unavailable...

Later,
         John Stone
         johns@cs.umr.edu
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IS IBM UK STILL IN THE STONE AGE???
Date: 3 Sep 92 00:57:54 GMT
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago

In article <liuyu.715302746@kramden> liuyu@kramden.nyu.edu (Liuyu) writes:
>>>Not to put too fine a point on it but $25 for a video card doesn't cut it,
>>>you still need a monitor to go with it.
>>No, that is not correct.  I refer you to my original reply to the
>>person asking about Hercules support under OS/2.
>>(Hint: get an ATI EGA Wonder or Paradise Monochrome EGA card.)
>When I have something that should have worked, why in the world should I waste
>my money on another obsolete video? I'm asking for Herc support, not EGA 
>support. I want a FREE driver.
>If I upgrade, I get at least a SVGA. So I get my money worth.

Point One: I agree IBM should write a Hercules driver.  I can think of
other things IBM should spend more time on and/or tackle first, but
Hercules support should be on the list.

Point Two: I am pointing out that if running OS/2 2.0 is important to
you the solution is as little as $25 away.  You are certainly free to
choose to purchase more hardware, but, if running OS/2 2.0 is the
exclusive goal, consider $25 your obstacle.  If the $25 is too much of
a barrier for you, so be it.

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | The OS/2 FREQ. ASKED QUESTIONS LIST is avail. from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/faq.
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | Or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP").
of Chicago, 60637       | Family Values Means a Job
From: ADUNSMUI@TOROLAB6.VNET.IBM.COM (Al Dunsmuir)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 14:19:41 EDT
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM at the "Windows & OS/2 Conference"
Organization: IBM Canada Laboratory Ltd, Toronto, CANADA
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 3.0

In <PSHUANG.92Aug21082832@w20-575-74.mit.edu> Ping-Shun Huang writes:
>I was at the Windows & OS/2 show at the Boston World Trade Center
>yesterday. Microsoft was conspicuous by their absence -- lock, stock,
>and barrel. IBM provided a large booth, with spaces for smaller ISV's

>>>.... lots of good info omitted ....

>To any IBM'ers out there who can get word to people planning for future
>shows (this one was a relatively minor one as industry shows go, after
>all...): tell them to bring some merchandise! T-shirts would have gone
>over very well if they had been available for sale.
>
>--
>Ping Huang (INTERNET: pshuang@athena.mit.edu), probably speaking for himself
>

  Thanks for the description of the show - nearly as good as being there!
I posted it to our internal conferencing system, and sent a copy to John
Soyring (I thought he'd be too busy at the show to see it otherwise).
He sent along the reply which follows.

Al Dunsmuir                       Internet: adunsmui@torolab6.vnet.ibm.com
CODE Development II + TEAM OS/2      Voice: (416) 448-3315
IBM Canada Laboratory Ltd, Toronto, CANADA

OS/2 V2: Why settle for anything less?
=========================================================================
MSG:FROM: SOYRING --AUSVM1   TO: ADUNSMUI--TOROLAB6          08/22/92 13:48:36
To: ADUNSMUI--TOROLAB6 Al Dunsmuir

From:  John A. Soyring      Director, Personal Systems
                            Software Development Programs
                            T/L 678-2400
Subject: IBM at the "Windows & OS/2 Conference"

Al, please reply to Ping and let him know that OS/2 tee-shirts and other
items were being sold right on the Windows & OS/2 Conference Exhibit floor.

Sales were brisk.

John
...............................................................
Sent from an IBM OS/2 2.0 personal computer
USIB1QL2 @ IBMMAIL      Internet: SOYRING@VNET.IBM.COM.........
From: andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy Newman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Non-IBM experiences with OS/2?
Date: 2 Sep 92 09:29:35 GMT
Organization: Canon Information Systems Research Australia

david@dhw68k.cts.com (David H. Wolfskill) writes:
>One individual -- the only one who works for my manager who has
>undergone such a transition -- found (much to his chagrin) that his
>migration to OS/2 required relocation of the printer that he & a few
>others shared, since apparently the upper limit on printer cable
>lengths in OS/2 is lower than the corresponding limit in DOS.

Yes OS/2 restricts the maximum length of the cable between your
computer and a printer. I had to lower my seat because I kept getting
an "operator too tall" exception when I booted....

(a big :-) for the humour impaired).

What a load of bull....

-- 
Andy Newman (andy@research.canon.oz.au)		"int - God's own type"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: amitp@ruf.rice.edu (Amit J Patel)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.3
Reply-To: amitp@owlnet.rice.edu
Organization: Rice University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:25:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.015322.15745@midway.uchicago.edu>, sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
|> 
|> (6) REXX.  I didn't see much mention of this in your list -- perhaps I
|> missed it.  I also have no idea whether Windows will include any
|> language of this sort in the base OS.  REXX is awfully powerful, and
|> it serves quite well as a language shared by applications -- one need
|> not learn a new language for each communications program, for example.
|> 

Can someone tell me what REXX does?  I tried reading the online command
list and it looks like it has loops/input commands like 4-DOS's batch
command extensions, but I couldn't figure out what REXX is used for.


	Amit
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: potts@itl.itd.umich.edu (Paul Potts)
Subject: Re: MS Gave Up (Was Re: pc week and nt)
Organization: Instructional Technology Laboratory, University of Michigan
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:30:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.030717.9986@microsoft.com> gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin) writes:

>....  It's been a while, but I'm very confident
>that we had several TRS-80 products and I'm absolutely positive that
>we had at least one...

Names?  I can't think of any shrink-wrapped apps. However, there was
always Microsoft Level II BASIC...

>
>	gordon letwin
>	not a microsoft spokesperson


-- 
"It'sVerySad / toSeeTheAncientAndDistinguishedGameThatUsedToBe / aModelOf
DecorumAndTranquilityBecomeLikeAnyOtherSportABattlegroundForRivalIdeologies
toSlugItOutWithGlee." (from _Chess_). -potts@itl.itd.umich.edu-
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Brian, your bias is showing ( was Re: OS/2 vs NT features
Date: 02 Sep 92 18:44:26 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1806blINNil3@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
>In a previous article, brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) says:
>
>>I've spent many hours digging this information out. I've tried
>>to be as unbiased as I can.
>
>>Features currently in Windows NT but not in OS/2 2.0
>
>Windows NT currently doesn't have any features because it is not released.
>While NT is not vapourware, it is certainly not a shipping product.  Not
>even in the sense that os/2 LA was.  It isn't a product because it has 
>not got a fixed feature set and noone uses it yet.  Perhaps it should
>be called phantom ware.  There certainly is something out there but it
>hasn't taken shape yet.  Or maybe it could be called rainbow ware.  
>Just over the next hill is leprechaun Bill and his pot of gold.

     It strikes me as the slightest bit hypocritical to accuse
Brian of bias while so clearly showing your own.  Everyone on
this newgroup is biased in one way or another - to expect
total objectivity is to be disappointed.


>>	All but 60K kernel is pageable. (Microkernel design)
>
>So will installable file system code be pagable?

      I really, really like this question.  :-)
      I can't answer it, but it did give me grins.  Of course,
IFS code isn't technically part of the kernel, is it?


>How can OS/2 catch up to something that doesn't exist?
>There is no way a shipping product can catch up with 
>another products advertisments.

     Windows NT does exist - it's running on both of the
machines on my desk, and thousands more around the world.  The
comparisons can be made today - I'm not sure that they are useful
comparisons, in that both products will be constantly improving,
but they are still valid.


>And as for using the word 'rumored', you should list every windows NT
>feature as a rumour.

     Except, of course, for the features that I am using right now,
right?


>the point that I am trying to get at is that we are still 6-12 months
>away from the shipping date of windows NT.  Who knows what is going to
>get added, cut, or bastardized in mircosofts rush to get the product
>out the door?  Nobody knows.  Nobody even knows when the product will
>ship.  I liked your list, even if you did fail to hide your bias, but
>just settle down a bit and lets see what happens.

     The list is still interesting, in my opinion, and you are
correct in some of your comments above.  Predicting the precise
feature set of Windows NT as it ships is fairly difficult at this
time.  We can make some educated guesses, though.  Anything that
has officially been announced as a feature of the product will
most likely be included in the final release.

					-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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith)
Subject: Re: It's OK for Windows to crash. It's not OK for OS/2 to crash.
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 04:57:55 GMT

dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith) writes:

>A badly written app can still crash the OS?  Come on.  Either the thing
>is protected or it ain't.

OS/2 is more protected when running OS/2 apps than when running DOS
and Windows apps.  In order to be so DOS-compatible the OS/2 team had
to allow DOS apps to do some pretty low-level stuff--hence the ability
for a DOS app to bring the whole system down.  This is why Windows NT
will have so little Windows and DOS backward-compatibility (for security
reasons).

Steve Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Misinformation about os2-dos HW access
Date: 29 Aug 92 18:58:59 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <BUHR.92Aug29192209@ccu.umanitoba.ca> buhr@umanitoba.ca (Kevin Andrew Buhr) writes:
>If Microsoft had NT certified on a single hardware platform, it would
>go a long way to lending credibility to their claim that NT and C2
>have any kind of relationship.  Analogies are dangerous, but it seems
>to me MS is spouting a "zero out of five dentists recommend us, but
>we're still a toothpaste" claim.
Question, why do people expect that Microsoft should have an OS, not yet
released, go through a many-month certification process.
Would it not make more sense for them to do so after the OS is generally
available?  Or am I just missing something?

If I were doing it, I probably wouldn't even put version 1.0 through, but
would let it shake out a bit.

>
>Kevin Buhr <buhr@ccu.UManitoba.CA>


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           :-) :-) :-)