HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 22 Dec 92 02:16:38 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Dec21.145115.25441@tc.cornell.edu>, bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu
 (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>In article <BzLMIH.II3@csulb.edu> sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec20.215347.1614@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (R
andall A Helzerman) writes:
>>>In article <BzKsJ2.Bwp@csulb.edu>, sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes


( lots of stuff deleted)
>If the other companies want to have advantage, let them write a
>better Operating System that people need, rather than resorting to
>the governemnt. IBM did just that. MS is not in the market to supply
>profits for other companies.

You know it isn't that simple though.  There is the very big factor of user
base to contend with.  Often it is very hard ti convince someone to try a new
system.  You don't automatically get control of the market by writting a
better system.  Hell, DOS has never been the best system availlable, but it
sells and that is the bottom line.  There is a lot more to making a system a
big success than simply making it better than your competitor's.  If that was
all it took, DOS would have flopped from the start.

>
>
>>--
>>Jeff Sicherman
>>up the net without a .sig


>
>Dov
>
-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 20:31:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.172417.28455@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|> In <1992Dec31.033739.1912@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <8261@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> >|> In article <1992Dec30.201544.27892@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> >|> >I have ignored every argument based on name-calling--simply labeling something
|> >|> >"sleazy, underhanded, etc" doesn't make it so.
|> >|> 
|> >|> ...but we've shown why it's sleazy and underhanded. You say there's a choice.
|> >|> Sure there is: it's a choice between paying a royalty for every machine and
|> >|> going out of business because MS charges quite a bit more for the privilege of
|> >|> not having to pay a royalty on every machine. Some choice.
|> 
|> >*sigh* If you want to be a dealer of McDonald's burgers you have to sign a
|> >deal with McDonald's not to sell Whoppers.  Is McDonald's liscencing
|> >agreements "sleezy and underhanded?"  Is this "strongarming Wendy's out of
|> >business?"  Is this putting the Colonel at an "unfair competitive
|> >disadvantage?"  Should sheriff FTC round up a possie on the Ponderosa?
|> 
|> But Microsoft isn't claiming to run a franchise business, and I
|> seriously doubt that a lot of dealers would be willing to become
|> Microsoft franchises, no matter if they actually DO sell DOS with
|> every machine. 

What does it matter whether its called a "franchise" or a "exclusive 
brand burger reselling operation?"

|> In other words, this isn't even close to being the
|> same thing. 

But it is quite close.  Microsoft offers cloners a deal which shares many of
the same properties as the deal that McDonald's offers its franchees--a 
steep discount on beef in exchange selling burgers which only have McDonald's 
beef installed is quite similar to a steep discount on Windows for selling 
only machines with Windows installed.
From: chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: SMALL Exerpt from "Windows Sources"
Date: 29 Dec 1992 12:54:48 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu


I was looking through a brand new magazine called Windows Sources.
I came across an editorial by charles petzold where he says This
about OS/2 and NT:

"In terms of realistic Hardware requirements, OS/2 2.0 and Windows NT
are approximatly equivalent.  For either operating system, you'll
want a 33-Mhz 386 or 486 with at least 8 megs of memory and a hard
disk exceeding 100 megabytes.  That Microsoft is admitting this and
IBM is not indicates merely that one compnay is being honest and
the other isn't."  Windows Sources, Feb 1992, pg 99.

The article goes on about MS & IBM, constanly saying "this means one
company is good, the other isnt," and of course its MS thats good, according
to the article.  YES, I KNOW the source is a windows magazine, but I
just love it when they yap when they dont know what they are talking about.

The above quoted paragraph shows Petzold's ignorance.  He claims 
OS 2 2.0 NEEDS 8 megs to run.  Well, OS/2 runs in 4 megs about as well
as NT runs in 8 megs.  NT Beta needs about 16 megs of memory, and alot
of that 100 meg HD, if not all.  Os/2 only takes 30 megs of that 100,
so you end up with 70 left over.  Microsoft "admitting it may
take 8 megs" is an understatement.  It takes lots more.  Of course,
this is yet another ZiffDavis publication, so what did we expect?

So, Petzold should have said OS2 needs about 8 megs, where as NT needs
about 16 megs.  When he said 8 megs, he was stating NT's minimum, not
OS/2's.  ANd contrary to what he thinks, you WILL want more than 8 megs
for NT, and a 486... I ran OS/2 on a 386/20 with 8 megs, and it was
faster than windows on a comparable machine, and my apps ran
faster under OS/2 than under DOS  (my dos ones).  So, you dony
need a 33mhz.  

Ah well, I consider that a light article comming from a windows magazine.
Also, its the premier issue of the magazine, and I guess it is pep
talk for windows owners.. "Yeah guys... MS loves you all!  Buy their lame
systems!"  Guess its just a reaffirmation for windows users that they
are politcally correct or something.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: steveha@microsoft.com (Steve Hastings)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Date: 30 Dec 92 01:56:26 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Applications Division

>In article <1hadt5INNeu1@hpscit.sc.hp.com> kitchin@lf.hp.com (Bruce Kitchin) writes:
>There was a quote last winter/spring attributed to Maples of MS by the
>Wall Street Journal.

>What he was quoted as saying is roughly, all he
>wants is for MS applications to get a fair share of the market and by
>fair share he means 100%.

He didn't say he wanted a "fair share" and then define a "fair share" as
100%.  He said Microsoft would (of course) like as much of the market as
possible, ideally 100% market share.  Any company that tells you they
wouldn't like 100% market share is not being square with you.  100% market
share would result in the maximum possible profit, and companies are in
business to make money.

Note that no one expects to see MS get 100% market share.  It is an ideal
goal, not a possible one.  And, speaking as a fan of free markets, I hope
there will always be competition to keep MS on its toes.
-- 
Steve "I don't speak for Microsoft" Hastings    ===^=== :::::
uunet!microsoft!steveha  steveha@microsoft.com     ` \\==|
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10961 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3438
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 04:02:50 GMT

In article <BzuFBF.8Dq@csulb.edu> sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec26.000917.7829@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:

>>First let's clarify something. I think that if MS writes software this
>>software is the propery of MS. Do you agree to this ? If you don't I
>>would like to hear why. If you do, why do you think that BG is doing
>>anything inappropriate if he trades his property with others, in
>>what seems to him the most profitable way for MS.
>
>   Property rights, which may or may not be totally applicable here
>(there are copyright issues here which are not identical to either traditional
>property rights for more tangible property or the more absolutist principles
>you seem to expouse) do not exempt one from established obligations of the
>marketplace when you seek to sell or otherwise transfer said property.
>Though this concept is contested by Libertarian types.

Please answer in a definite way: Do you support a position that denies
an individual/company from selling/buying _voluntarily_ their property
under certain conditions ?

I dont think that there is any point in continuing this discussion 
unless we clarify this point.

Dov

>-- 
>Jeff Sicherman
>up the net without a .sig

Dov
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: 32 Bit HPFS
Keywords: HPFS
Date: 3 Jan 93 23:29:26 GMT
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago

In article <1993Jan3.072341.4792@news.columbia.edu> mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green) writes:
>Actually, it would seem that file protections are useful for many OS/2 users.
>ownership, for example, is a useful concept.
>Does OS/2 have a concept of process ownership in LAN-server?
>I share this machine with other members of my family.
>Furthermore, many people run a BBS on their system.
>It would be really nice to have the added protection of file ownerships.

What you describe is multiple serial users, and for that LAN Server
would be overkill.  Instead, I suggest you take a look at PC/DACS from
Pyramid.  They were running an OS/2 Solutions Coupon Book special of
$49 for it, and perhaps that price is still available.  From the
limited information I have on it, and from the few reports I've heard,
it's a very nice package.

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0h, available from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:43:32 GMT

In article <8236@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

|> Not necessarily. For example, say that MS charges $8 per machine for the
|> every-machine-gets-one contract, and $20 per license for the completely
|> unbundled version. In each case, the vendor gets exactly the same thing: the
|> right to preinstall DOS and Windows on his machines and provide a book that he
|> gets to have printed of OS documentation.
|> 
|> This would be a prime case of MS forcing vendors to sell DOS and Windows with
|> each machine, whether or not the customer wants or needs it.

Microsoft owns Windows.  That means that if you want a copy, you've got to
do it on their terms.  You may not like their terms, but the world doesn't
owe you the kind of terms you want.

|> (I can hear the
|> cries now: "But they're not holding a gun to their head!"...to which I answer
|> that force can be economic as well as physical.)

For the life of me, I can't understand why someone would use the word "force"
to describe what is going on.  If someone offers me a deal which will put
more money in my pocket and I accept it, have I been "forced?"  Economic
"force" means that I get richer if I comply--physical force means that I
get my brains blown out if I don't comply.  Dudes, the difference couldn't
be greater.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 21:56:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.231337.1515@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <BzpBH3.Los@csulb.edu>, sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>
>|>     Anyway, MS's size and revenue is due a lot more to their presence
>|> at the dawn of the microcomputer age and having the cash coes of DOS
>|> and Windows to feed the other activities. 
>
>Not really.  How many bazillion companies can you name which were there
>at the beginning and which now are out of business or sold out to other
>companies?
>
>The reason Microsoft is still around is good business, plain and simple.

  You don't read very carefully. I agree that the reason that they are
around and doing well is the way the company is run. But the reason that
they are the size they are and bestride the market to the extent that 
they do is that they were the sole source for a virtually essential
component of all he microcomputer systems being sold, and one with a very
low per unit distribution cost and essentially no need for marketing
(because of its essential and often built-in nature). Plenty of companies
can be well run but without a blockbuster product that the market *needs*
they wouldn't succeed as MS has done.


-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: More advertising
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:26:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.135215.20084@panix.com> os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.) writes:
>Since no one decided to respond to the initial advertising thread I attempted
>to start (maybe I tried it in comp.os.os2.misc?  I can't remember anymore...),
>I'll try with another one.  Again, I'm interested in reading any ad ideas you
>can come up with (and I know there are IBMers who read this and are probably
>interested also).  Here's the idea for this one:
>
><Radio ad>
>"With an operating system that can run all of your DOS, Windows, and OS/2
>applications, using your computer is as simple as 1-2-3...or dBase IV...
>or Ami Pro...(start to fade) or CorelDraw...or Describe...or Microsoft Excel
>(etc. ad nauseum)"  Meanwhile, once the voice starts to fade you get the 
>overdubbed deeper voice (but not too deep) take the foreground:  "OS/2 2.0
>for your personal computer.  Requires an Intel or compatible 80386 or better
>CPU with 4 megabytes of memory and 30 megabytes hard disk space.  To order,
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Boy, this is one way to get users who believe this figure pissed off!
It'll send 'em right back to Windows or their Macs!  

I suspect giving a more accurate figure (like 8 MB) makes OS/2 sound bad
("Gee, Marge, it requires an awful lot of those power chips!" (I know a
guy who thinks memory chips are, in fact, essentially 'power chips' !)).
Why not compromise and say 6 MB?  I gather OS/2 runs much better for
the 2 MB difference).  

I'm not sure that mass media are really the best way to do this sort of
thing.  In the overall scheme of things, you're going to reach only a
very few people, I think, who have the equipment and resources to run
OS/2 at all (assuming they can get beyond the brain-dead installation
program; there's one area I hope the 2.1 version fixes).  Sure, hardware
is cheaper now than ever before, yet in my experience (which I readily
admit does not encompass the entire universe of computer users but which
is nonetheless not trivial in scope) individuals and most mid or small
size corporation (those without extensive PC support personnel and even
most with such) are machines with drives too small for OS/2 and with RAM
of 1 or 2 MB in size.

Where to advertise?  Hit the PC media (magazines, mostly) hard.  But I
don't think this will happen.

And I don't think the Fiesta Bowl is going to move a lot of OS/2 boxes,
but that has as much to do with fans/viewers' beer guzzling habits than
anything else...

jmalloy@hamilton.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Tuesday, 29 Dec 1992 00:51:39 MST
From: Chin , Jeffery <CXKPE@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM OS/2 Fiesta Bowl
 <1992Dec24.145156.7787@panix.com> <Bzs0nG.6uu@unx.sas.com>
 <1992Dec28.231141.22402@mksol.dseg.ti.com>

Arizona just passed a Martin Luther King Jr. holiday this past election.
IBM wouldn't ignore something that would offend a great many potential
customers.

Jeffery Chin
Arizona State University
From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 14:40:18 GMT

lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:
> Yep, but then the $10 price, plus a $5 book (I have several of the Gateway
> manuals on my shelf) is a great deal for a $120+ list product.  No other
> deal that I know of has a 8 to 1 price advantage between what I can buy
> a new installation retail, and get it with the machine.

How about the bundling of Ami Pro and 1-2-3, or of Paradox and Quattro Pro?
Rumours say that Lotus and/or Borland get something like $10/copy, which
would make the price advantage 39.5 to 1.

> This is not to say that Microsoft is guilty of fraud,
> that is what the FTC and courts will decide.

So should the FTC investigate Borland and Lotus as well?

Yes, it's certainly bad for the consumers to be offered such low prices on
software ... NOT!

[ \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 ]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 22:08:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan02.094926.14462@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>>>
>>>- OS/2 Detected! Due to the size of OS/2 you may wish to delete your OS/2 
>>>files before installing DOS 6.0 -
>
>If DOS is advanced enough to detect the presence of potential
>disk hoggers (what does it do? Keep a database?) it should
>certainly be smart enough to tell if there is room enough.
>If it finds too little room, it should just say so, not
>indicate anything as a potential problem. It is silly to
>give messages like, X detected. If there are many X's which
>one would be the problem? If there are no X's then what to
>do? No piece of software should be a smartass, let the user
>decide what he does and does not need.
>
Well, assuming some sort of nasty conspiracy (about software not even
yet released!) is always mucho fun, but I think there's something else
going on here.  There are a number of people, believe it or not, who try
OS/2 2.0 and decide it's not for them (as I did, though I have hopes for
version 2.1 when it appears next summer (which is, by my experience,
about when IBM will actually ship me a copy!)).  Microsoft has already
had a package deal out in the marketplace for PS/1 (and other True Blue
machines) that are/might be equipped with OS/2 (DOS 5 and Windows 3.1
for a 'package' price).  This wording (which doesn't quite ring true, as
far I as can determine, but who knows?) might just be to alert someone
to make a decision: keep OS/2 or not?

IOW, it may not be quite the nefarious plot some think, but it certainly
is more fun to think of it as a plot!

Joe Malloy
German Deparment
Hamilton College
Clinton, NY
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Be more creative than the FTC!
Date: 23 Dec 92 01:09:51 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Dec21.233918.14782@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu>, rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Ric
hard Warner) writes:
>helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>
>>Why don't Novel, Lotus, et al, find a more creative solution to their problem
>>than just using the FTC as a club against Microsoft?  Here are some better
>>alternatives:
>
>Did you whine like this when MCI forced the government to break up
>AT&T?

MCI was wasn't really the biggest factor that everyone thinks they were in the
breakup of AT&T.  AT&T wanted to get into computers.  The FTC would not let
them get serious about it until they promised to give up their local control
of the phone system and become a different, slimmed down kind of company.
True, MCI was a factor, but AT&T's own goals were a bigger one.  (Much like MS
in that regard)



-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 17:53:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.173849.3110@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:

>Your argument is neat and tidy and ideologically driven. You are completely
>correct, of course, but the *practical* outcome (ie. final result) of the pure
>application of your point would see us living in a very unhappy world
>dominated by one or two massive monopolies.......and no market.

How do you know that I did not learn history ? Do you think that
if one studies history then he/she must reach _your_ conclusions 
and nothing else ? Your historical conclusions are far from being
uncontested. 

At least in this case there is no shred of evidence for price-fixing.
But these _contemporary_ facts does not even trigger you to _question_ 
your historical conclusions. You take your historical conclusions
as _absolutes_, not as an hypothesis.

>The FTC is just another
>market "force". It acts to restore competition when the market fails. Yes,

Why do you insist calling it a _market_-force ? It is just force 
in a literal sense. Simply say that in your opinion force should be
used against MS to restore competition.

>Steve

Dov