HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 01:11:44 GMT

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Oct1.004546.2871@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:

[lots of gory mindtwisting logic deleted because if you're still reading
this thread you've probably memorized all this by now.]

>>In a strictly mathematical sense, you're right.  Since the entire set
>>being considered is a union of A and B, if set B contains no members of
>>set Z, EVERYBODY must be a member of set Y.  Sounds great up to here.
>>Now translate that into the real world.  EVERYBODY wants that particular
>>piece of software.  I think we can safely assume that isn't the case.

>You've committed a logical error here.  You seem to be assuming that
>if we take everyone in Set A and everyone in Set B that we now have
>EVERYONE.

I thought of that but forgot to change that while editing.  Change
"EVERYBODY" to "EVERYBODY who is exposed to the software".  The final
sentences become "everybody who is exposed to the software wants the
software" which I think we can still safely assume isn't the case.

There's still a small problem with unclear tense you didn't notice.
As it is, I think I've got a solution we can both agree on:

All other things being equal, software that must be bought will have a
higher usage percentage than software which is free or bundled.  The lone
exception is the unlikely case that everyone who gets the software (paid
for or free) wants to use it or ends up wanting to use it.
-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu | think of something very clever 
uunet!jarthur!jokim         | to use as a disclaimer)
From: rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:28:14 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute

I have followed a bit of discussion about the pros and cons
of bundling all the network support in the base package.  I
tend to agree with the non-bundlers.  But....

One of the arguments the NT'ers have used throughout this 
discussion is that a bundled network product will work
better because it is more "tightly integrated".

Hasn't anyone thought it a bit interesting that the much 
vaunted modular, micro kernel based, object oriented operating
system that NT is supposed to be *needs* to have the network
stuff bundled to achieve "better" or "decent" performance
and functionality?  What's the point of a modular or micro
kernel based OS?

Please enlighten....

Robert
--
| Robert L. Howard              |   Georgia Tech Research Institute     |
| robert.howard@matd.gatech.edu |   MATD Laboratory                     |
| (404) 528-7165                |   Atlanta, Georgia  30332             |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "See, when the GOVERNMENT spends money, it creates jobs; whereas when |
| the money is left in the hands of TAXPAYERS, God only knows what they |
| do with it.  Bake it into pies, probably.  Anything to avoid creating |
| jobs." -- Dave Barry                                                  |
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 08:50:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.041214.16986@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Oct1.154246.2250@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>>>
>>>Except that OS/2 3.0 is now called Windows/NT.
>
>>Blech.  There is one *very* annoying thing about calling NT "OS/2 3.0", IMO.
>>It's not that OS/2 and NT are super-different systems or any dislike of the
>>two being associated with one another, but to call NT "OS/2 3.0" is
>>definitely a misnomer.  3.0 implies a 1.x and a 2.x.
>
>Don't look now, but a couple folks in comp.os.ms-windows-programmer.win32
>(including some MS employees) are calling it Windows NT 3.1.

They call it that for  the simple reason they it is the lowest version
number for any OS/OE that MS  have produced that has been useful. DOS took
up until at least 3.3 ;-) :-)

I think they are hoping that by calling it 3.1 people will think it is as 
stable as plain old Windows 3.1 .

Martin Smith
msmith@netcom.com



>-- 
>John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
>jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu | think of something very clever 
>uunet!jarthur!jokim         | to use as a disclaimer)
From: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Re: Impressed with IBM
Organization: Philipps-University Marburg
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:07:49 GMT

In article <BvI1xx.Kr2@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, btf57346@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Byron
"Bohr" Faber) writes:
I> Within 48 hours they had 
|> a copy os os/2 2.01 beta in my hands (I was very suprised 
|> as I didn't expect it for a week or two).

In Germany you can download it free from their German
BBS. It's even faster and cheaper.

|> Well I installed it last night and I think they have
|> done a great job on the 32-bit Gre, while I haven't 
|> really gave it a hard run yet I can tell its faster 
|> (don't think I'm talking Road-runner speed here).

I must have a totally different version, than you have.
I can't see any speed improvements

|> But on my machine I can just barely tell 
|> the difference between winos231 and The windows 3.1 that
|> I had run on my machine.

Yes, you are right. This WINOS231 is really excellent and
you don't see a difference to native WIN 3.1, as long as
you don't need the enhanced 386 mode.

Christoph
-- 
Internet: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de
BITNET: HAMPE2@DMRHRZ11
Fido: 2:243/660
From: teague@a.cs.okstate.edu (Keith Teague)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:13:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: a.1992Oct2.141329.25016
Organization: Oklahoma State University

From article <1992Oct1.152618.22244@hellgate.utah.edu>, by brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill):
> In article <dA2-ZdB@engin.umich.edu> rks@beaker.engin.umich.edu (Raul Shum) writes:
> [Thrilling tale of OS/2 2.01 beta terror deleted.]
>>Raul Shum

> But... I develop for OS/2 also... am I not home?
> Just because I prefer NT to OS/2 I'm not allowed to post?
> Sheesh... any developer that has used both is bound to like NT better...
> it _IS_ better, and you don't have to deal with IBM.
> 
> Brian

Sheesh, again... IBM's technical and customer support are great! I'm still
not sure if I have ever been able to speak directly to a LIVING HUMAN
BEING at microsoft!

Keith Teague
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville)
Subject: Re: So much for Msoft's bluster <grin>
Organization: Computer and Technologies Theme Program, NCSU, Raleigh
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:37:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.185108.6235@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.033730.3054@ncsu.edu> linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu wrote:
>> 'Pre-beta'?  I don't think so.
>> 
>> John W. Linville
>
>That's the problem with America these days, everyone blindly follows
>what the press says.  I bet you believed that the Panama invasion was to
>arrest Noriega for drug charges, too.  And you believe Zachman word for
>word....
>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...

And I'll bet that you believed NT would ship in 4Q92....

John W. Linville


/--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
|  John W. Linville                Amateur radio:  KD4KHC                  |
|  #include "std_disclaimer.h"     E-mail:  linville@catt.ncsu.edu         |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 23:53:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.050408.12169@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>[stuff deleted about a "better" download solution would be multiple
>computers]
>>
>>Your needs vs. mine.  I can't afford mutiple computers.  Apparantly,
>>you have them lying around doing nothing anyway, so it's not a
>>problem. 
>
>Poor you.  But the point is, that there are better solutions in some
>instances.  Even so, downloading in the background is not a very
>popular/critical thing for most people anyway.

In your experience.  Really, until we take a nationwide poll, we don't know
that downloading in the background *isn't* a popular/critical thing.  I will
tell you that in the world outside internet, BBS's are the mainstay of the
"average Joe".  If you don't think downloading in the background is/would be
important to those people, you're wrong.  From mail packets to files, there
is *constant* action on our board back home.

>>>Show of hands, everyone, how many people think that computerization has
>>>benefitted the office worker?  (my hand is down).  
>>
>>Does this mean that we should stifle the technology?  What's your point?
>>-- 
>
>The point, is that, in the end, aren't we simply making more fashionable
>chains for ourselves?  If you don't think it's ironic, then the effort
>was wasted on you.

Work doesn't change, only the way we do it.

Just a couple nuggets of thought,
Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsm8167@ultb.isc.rit.edu (R.S. Millian)
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Originator: rsm8167@ultb
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:29:03 GMT

>So, from a Windows bigot to all you OS/2 bigots I say:  "Join us!  Feel the 
>power of the Dark Side!  Together the Universe will be ours!!  
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Dark Side indeed:

***	MS uses undocumented API calls in their products. When accused of doing 
	such, MS denied they were. And then, when it was proven to be true, 
	MS just shrugged it off as not important. Fair competition is not 
	important when you are on the Dark Side.

***	Dr Dos 6.0 had compatibility problems with Windows 3.1, so they went
	to MS for help. MS refused to help.

***	MS claims they have reduced the number of UAEs. In MS's mind,
	renaming a problem is equivalent to eliminating it.

Wouldn't you rather join your local mafia family than MS's Dark Side? 
Thanks to IBM, MS's Dark Side days are numbered. If DOS/Windows 3.1 is 
"kicking OS/2's but", it's because MS is in a position to ram it down people's
throats. It is very hard to buy a computer without getting Dos 5/Win3.1
for "free". This is changing however, thank goodness (IBM PS/2 and Dell). 

I don't believe in the OS/2 versus NT war. Sure the idea of a "Star Wars" 
between operating systems is romantic, but that's all it is. Unix is not
dead, and NT is not going to kill it. NT is not going to kill OS/2 either.
I do believe that OS/2 will gain a healthy market share, and I do believe
that this COMPETITION will lead to better operating systems in general. That
is what happens when people have a choice! No single operating system will
meet the needs of every PC user! The P in PC stands for personal, and the C
might as well stand for choice.

My personal choice is OS/2! If you want to wait for NT, and you are happy
running DOS Shells, including Win3.1, then good for you.

I am surprised people don't want to have a choice! The computer industry is
a fast paced, competition driven industry. If it weren't for the 
Macintosh, Windows wouldn't exist today. If it weren't for AMD, the intel 
486SX wouldn't exist. If it weren't for OS/2 2.0, NT's development would not
have been accelerated.

			-----------------------

And by the way, anybody familiar with UNIX will know the true value of
preemptive multitasking. Does your OS let you walk and chew gum at the same
time?
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:55:37 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Oct6.081922.27668@netcom.com> msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith) writes:
...
>
>What he is quite clearly and correctly saying is that NT AND OS/2 2.0 are not
>CONCURRENT multi user systems. NT allows you to set up profiles so that more
>than one person can use ( IF THEY WAIT THEIR TURN LIKE A GOOD LITTLE BOY /GIRL )
>this workstation with their files being protected
>from the other users. ( Hardly multi-user in the traditional sense )

NT does allow concurrent multi-user systems.

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
University of Utah                             United We Stand
Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6451 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2237
From: rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Miscellaneous NT information.
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:42:04 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute

brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>	6. Windows NT sources will be available to researchers.  The main
>	   restriction will be that no SALABLE derivatives will be allowed
>           without extensive negotiations with MS.  This further indicates to
>           me that:

>		1. MS is really serious about trying to displace UNIX.

How do you figure?  Isn't that the beauty of UNIX?  I can get the
sources (from a number of places) and create a product.  So in other
words, if I modify NT for some niche market it's my lawyers vs.
theirs to determine if I can sell it?  Right, so I divulge what I 
am up to, the lawyers start negotiations, and in the meantime NT
comes out with that feature in the next version.  No thanks!

>		2. WindowsNT pricing will be so low that it won't make sense
>                   to try and build the distribution from sources.

No, it means that MS lawyers are so good that it won't make sense
to even bother licensing it.  They *could* price NT at $1000 and
make the legal mess so big that I couldn't afford to even get neay
that price.

All it means is that MS intends to maintain exclusive control over NT.

>		3. WindowsNT will definitely be as "open" as UNIX.

Yeah...right.

Brian, what universe is it that you live in again?

Robert
--
| Robert L. Howard              |   Georgia Tech Research Institute     |
| robert.howard@matd.gatech.edu |   MATD Laboratory                     |
| (404) 528-7165                |   Atlanta, Georgia  30332             |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "See, when the GOVERNMENT spends money, it creates jobs; whereas when |
| the money is left in the hands of TAXPAYERS, God only knows what they |
| do with it.  Bake it into pies, probably.  Anything to avoid creating |
| jobs." -- Dave Barry                                                  |
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 05 Oct 92 18:56:42 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <7482@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.094937.25572@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>>If you can call the NT PDK a beta, then I can call OS/2 a toaster, 'cause
>>you seem to be randomly labling things.  There are similarities between
>>the PDK and a BETA of an OS, being.
>>It is a pre-release of the final product.
>
>You forgot that it's also being testes dy its users, whether MS wants to admit
>it or not.

     The above line wins the Typo Of The Week award.  :-)

     Every piece of software being run anywhere is being "tested"
by its users.  Now, here's the distinction:  The primary purpose
(note - _primary_) of a beta is testing.  The primary purpose of
the SDK is applications development.  Any questions?


>>It does not include all of the things that most developers will not
>>need, such as management tools, Full Win/Dos compatability, Full networking,
>>etc.
>
>...you think developers won't need that... Actually, I'd be surprised if the
>real reason was simpler: that stuff isn't ready yet.

     A decision was made at some point that the state of Windows NT
was enough to allow a pre-release to developers so they could start
working on apps.  The DOS and Windows support wasn't necessary for
this, so the decision was made to release the SDK without waiting
for improvements to the DOS and Windows (and Posix) subsystems.
    In essence, you are correct - at the time that the SDK was
release, the Windows and DOS support wasn't in its final form.


>>It is marketed towards developers, who may be a good source of bug-finding
>>in limited areas, but not in stress-test areas, where a true beta will
>>come in handy.  By limited areas, I mean that the PDK is likely to be
>>used in only a few machines in an instalation, for development purposes,
>>and not in a large instalation for general use.
>
>Bwahahahahaha!!!! If it's marketed towards developers, why can any Tom, Dick,
>and Harriet call up and order one?

     How can a person prove that they are a developer?

				-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: bab@se39.wg2.waii.com (Brian Button)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is WPS really better??
Date: 30 Sep 92 11:24:26 GMT
	<1992Sep29.105147.5524@gw.wmich.edu>
	<1992Sep29.193827.10087@scott.skidmore.edu>
Organization: Western Geophysical Exploration Products
In-reply-to: pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu's message of 29 Sep 92 19:38:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.193827.10087@scott.skidmore.edu> pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel) writes:

   As for a program launcher: I use Windows to point to the program I
   want to run, double click.  In OS/2 I have icons in open folders - I
   double click on the appropriate icon to start a program.  What's the
   difference?

The main difference here is that you're not using WPS to its fullest.
The advantage is that WPS is Object-Oriented. You don't open a
program, like a word processor for instance, and then load a file into
it. You use a template to create a data file specific to a certain
spreadsheet or form, double click on this new object, and that data
object starts the appropriate program for it. When that program comes
up, the data file is loaded into it and is ready to go.

   Speaking of dragging..... I hate dragging for copying/moving/deleting.
   It takes more energy to keep a finger down on a mouse button while
   dragging the mouse than it is to point to a file name, and then point
   to a menu item (or two if a submenu comes up). This is one of the
   reasons I never liked the Mac interface - keeping the button down
   while picking a menu item.  I prefer clicking on the item.

You can operate on files like this in OS/2. Click on the right mouse
button, and use the pop-up menu to move, copy, delete, etc.

   -- 
   Pierre von Kaenel	| Skidmore College	     | pvonk@skidmore.edu
   Math & CS Dept.		| Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 | (518)584-5000 Ext 2391

   [.... old sig has been retired.  New sig isn't ready yet. ]

bab
--
|-----------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
| Brian Button          | email : button@wg2.waii.com                        |
| Design Engineer       |         bab@buster.stafford.tx.us                  |
| Western Geophysical   | voice : (713)964-6221                              |
| 3600 Briarpark        |                                                    |
| Houston, Texas  77042 |                                                    |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Why would you want a CD (was Price of Win NT vs OS/2)?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:30:18 GMT

In <s8_p0gr.timbol@netcom.com> timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:

>In article <1992Sep28.185032.3845@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <1992Sep25.005328.17332@microsoft.com> tomjo@microsoft.com (Tom Johnston) writes:
>>
>>>One reason that we would like to see many people with CD's
>>>is that it becomes economical for us to distribute technical
>>>information widely & cheaply on CD.
>>
>>Yes, there are a lot of reasons why VENDORS might like to see their
>>customers having CD's.  Of course, having all that technical
>>documentation on CD is somewhat less useful than having it on paper,
>>IMHO.  Anyway, the question isn't why YOU would want us to; the
>>question is why would WE want to?
>>
>>Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

>Well, if it is economical for vendors to distribute technical information on
>a CD, they may do it.  If it isn't economical for them to distribute the
>information on paper, then they won't do it.  Supposing the vendor does
>distribute the information only on CD, that's a good reason to have a
>CD-ROM (assuming you want the information, of course).

In other words, people should have CD-ROM because vendors are going to
frog-march them into it.  Gee, haven't we been here before?

-- 
"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: gideony@microsoft.com (Gideon Yuval)
Subject: Re: Number of Windows apps sold?
Date: 01 Oct 92 01:35:22 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <exujlg.146.0@exu.ericsson.se> exujlg@exu.ericsson.se (Jon L. Gauthier) writes:
>	How many Windows APPLICATIONS has Microsoft sold since the
>	release of Win 3.0? Has every sale of Windows generated a
>	sale of an MS windows application?  Or do most people use it
>	as a DOS program launcher?

The Software Publisher's Association recently published the last
quarter's statistics. I quote from memory, but think it was $500
million/quarter for Windows apps (from _all_ vendors -- I don't know
if there was a breakdown by vendor).

At $100-$500/app, this gives 1-5 million apps/quarter.

-- 
Gideon Yuval, gideony@microsoft.com, 206-882-8080 (fax:-883-8101;TWX:160520)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy