HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: I went ahead and did it....
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 15 Oct 1992 17:18 EST  

In article <sooZqB1w165w@gnct.com>, garyng@gnct.com (garyng) writes...
>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> 
>> Well, you KNOW what apps he's going to list, don't you?  Stuff that
>> requires the DLL from enhanced mode (Mathematica is the only one I
>> know of, but there are probably a couple of others) and the Windows
>> 3.1 specific stuff (which, other than the Applets that ship with it,
>> is damned rare right now -- although some of the new stuff is saying
>> it requires Windows 3.1).
>> 
>> This, to folks looking for flame bait in these groups, means that it
>> runs 'some' Windows stuff.
> 
>Wrong. See my message on apps. I listed. I said all because I can't even have
>the base system working.

This is the first I've seen you refer to "the base system working" - do you 
mean that you can't open a WIN-OS2 session or what?

Unless I missed another posting, you mention two apps - Word for Windows 
2.0 and Corel Draw! 3.0.  A previous posting (by someone else) responded to 
your problem with Word possibly being due to not installing Word after 
installing OS/2 2.0 (with the install process modifying the WIN.INI file in 
the \OS2\MDOS\WINOS2 subdirectory).  As for Corel Draw! 3.0, I have heard 
elsewhere that it will work in a WIN-OS2 session under OS/2 2.0, but forces 
use of ATM, since TTF is not directly supported in the GA version of OS/2 
2.0.

One question: Did you install OS/2 2.0 over DOS+Windows 3.1 and attempt to 
migrate (probably the wrong word) your existing Windows workspace during 
the install?  That would explain most of your troubles.

JD
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 9 Oct 1992 00:24:56 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Oct07.205644.4204@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>     This is a valid interpretation.  I happen to believe that it is
>incorrect, but it is at least internally consistent.  It all depends
>on how important you believe price to be in the success of Windows
>NT.

How is it incorrect?

The importance of price in the success of WinNT will widen the window of
price, but I can't see it widening it as much as $100 ($400<x<$500).

>     Nonsense.  Zachmann has provided _no_ evidence to support his
>claims, at least that I am aware of.  Can you tell me where the
>preponderance is?

The preponderance is in the evidence of the witness himself: he's simply more
credible than either his employers or MS. As someone else pointed out, it's a
swearing contest - Zachmann's word against MS and ZD's - so the relative
credibility of the witnesses, as well as what they have to gain, is what
decides the case.
-- 
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.
    Vote for a REAL change on 3 November: Throw out the check-bouncing,
  tax-and-spend Democrat Congress! (obviously, not an opinion of UTHSCH)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 08:34:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct08.100600.17202@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <dlcogswe.718464451@vela> dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu wrote:
>> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>> 
>> >> But other than being easier to write and code for (maybe),
>> >> what advantage does non-preemptive multitasking have?  I say none.
>> 
>> >Runs on smaller hardware (see the bottom part of my last post).  Allows your
>> >core system to be smaller.
>> 
>> Wrong.  Look at the Amiga.  It runs preemptively fine with 512k.  It's
>> kernel is what?  1k?  Of course, AmigaOS doesn't have all the nice
>> features of Windows like... uhhh...  well..  whatever...
>
>Oh, great, yet another "Amiga does x that other os's don't post".
>Okay, here's my response.  Amiga doesn't sell as well as DOS/NT/OS/2/MAC/UNIX.

Look, the original thread is, somebody claimed that preemptive multitasking
is going to be larger than non-preemptive multitasking systems.
This has nothing to do with sales.

>
>Listen, You wan't smaller systems.  okay, then DOS.  It doesn't have 
>multitasking, and has been running on very small systems since Amiga was
>a glint in commodore's eye.   Or try CPM.  They didn't have multitasking.
>They didn't need it.  Software for DOS up until recently still outsold
>anything else.  
>

This is skewed logic to me.  "You want a small system with this, what is
it called, (preemptive) multitasking feature?  We don't have anything like
this.  Either you stick with Windows, which requires 4 MB to run decently,
wait for NT, which requires 8 MB, or go to DOS and forget about this stupid
useless feature."

The point is, whether you like the Amiga system or not, whether it is really
better, it does have preemptive multitasking, and it does run a lot less
memory than Windows.  This proves the original statement false.
Preemptive multitasking systems are not inherently larger than non-preemptive
multitasking systems.  there are a ton of other factors, like feature
set, code, design, ...

>> 
>> >Those two things, plus the one you mentioned (which could be argued), make
>> >up a pretty strong argument that preemptive mt is not the best thing
>> >to be used everywhere
>> 
>> Please give a good example.  I can't think of one.  It's one of the main
>> flaws of Messy-Windows.
>
>By IT do you mean that preemptive mt is one of the main flaws?  I hope not,
>cause windows uses non-preemptive mt.  I suspect you mean not having
>preemptive mt is one of the main flaws.  Well, why?  What things will
>preemptive mt solve that can't be solved any other way.
>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: gess@knex.Gwinnett.COM (Gess Shankar)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:30:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: knex.PTBasB1w165w
Organization: Knowledge Exchange, GA, US of A

thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:

> You mean like the current OS/2 2.0 "Beta"?  As everyone is keen on pointing
> out, a "Beta" should go to a restricted number of developers who will provide
> detailed reports on bugs and features. A "Beta" is not generally available to
> the whole world.
> 
> Let's face it, both IBM and MS have given a wide exposure to "unfinished"
> versions of their code in an attempt, in part, to forestall criticisms about
> dealys in producing the real thing.

There is some merit in this argument. The current 32bit GRE 'Beta' may
perhaps be a move to keep the interest and stimulate some attempt to use
the product. Mostly a marketing manoever. Perhaps partly as an uncontrolled
test prior to release to see if all hell breaks loose.

'Beta' in my mind brings pictures of a controlled release of code to
people who will really beat on it and report back on features, bugs,
workarounds etc. using a pre-established reporting mechanism. The
indiscriminate distribution of code looks like an attempt to throw it all
up and see what happens.

In Microsoft's case, the PreRelease/Beta/PreBeta whatever, is clearly
meant to bring a large number of developers to their camp. For a majority
of developers (except for the biggies), looking at NT and spending
time on the code means not working on OS/2 or some other thing. Good
marketing move and the scheme seems to be working well, given that the
code delivered is usable and information mostly adequate. The Developers
Network thingie of MS seems to be well orchestrated and may in fact bring
them dividends.

IBM seems to be reacting to this, but is it going to be too little too
late? Time will tell.

GeSS
--
Gess Shankar      |<><>|Internet: gess@knex.Gwinnett.COM                |<><>|
Knowledge Exchange|<><>|{rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!knex!gess|<><>|
From: sl31+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen M. Lacy)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unprofessional Posts from Brian S.
Date: 13 Oct 92 05:19:57 GMT
Organization: Junior, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.os2.advocacy: 12-Oct-92 Re: Unprofessional
Posts fr.. by Brian Sturgill@jaguar.cs 
> it with unfounded put downs. I have however been systematically
> pointing out its flaws, and in general I have meticulously pointed out
> my sources.  The care I exhibit in this documentation is rarely
> shown by yourself or other OS/2 advocates.
> For some odd reason you believe that anyone trying to prove a case
> that NT is better than OS/2, or that IBM is not handling OS/2 well
> is inappropriate behavior.  I do not share your opinion.

And we all know that no one writes bug-free software, except for
Microsoft, of course!  Tell me another one....HA!

Steve


"I don't like much really, do I?  But what I do like, I love
passionately!" -Pet Shop Boys
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7118 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2382
Organization: Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Vienna, Austria
Date: Monday, 5 Oct 1992 17:22:19 CET
From: FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Please benchmark the following... (was Re: NSTL...
 <1992Oct1.055658.8985@ra.msstate.edu>
 <1992Oct1.002722.14009@hellgate.utah.edu>
 <1992Oct1.070134.11666@ra.msstate.edu>


Please benchmark on DOS/Win3.1 and 32bit OS/2 following "natural" actions:

- Make backups of 10 3,5'' HD disks, containing Corel Draw (30 minutes)
- Install CorelDraw 3.0 (1,5 hours in the average)
- Make a backup of your disk to the tape (appr. 15 minutes)
- Produce a mail-merge letter using Word4Win, Excel, Gupta Relational Database:
  Get General&Ledger Data (monthly report) from Gupta-DB into Excel (5 minutes)
  via DDE, do sensitive calculations and graph them (10 minutes), load Word4Win
  and get 200 addresses from Gupta-DB via DDE (5 minutes), print a mail-merge
  letter using Excel-results, Gupta-database-addresses, from Word4Win (5 pages
  each, lasts 4 hours)
- get stock-exchange-data from NYSE every 15 minutes, update your calcs in
  Excel (takes 2 minutes per refresh every 15 minutes, i.e. appr. 1 hour a day)
- do your invoice-entry-stuff (2 hours a day), print reports (15 minutes)
- format 10 disks (appr. 15 minutes)

That totals to 10 hours and 5 minutes (if I am not mistaken).

Question 1: How long does it take to do all of that stuff on DOS/Win3.1  ?

Question 2: How long does it take to do all of that stuff on 32bit OS/2  ?

Maybe the NSTL-people are of help here, they did all that nice benchmarking.


---rony
From: jyri+@CMU.EDU (Jyri Virkki)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: re: ms's misconduct!
Date: 8 Oct 92 11:34:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.oep8pXS00WB38UQo4X
Organization: Masters student, Information Networking Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
in-reply-to: <1992oct08.100600.17202@microsoft.com>

petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> 
> > Wrong.  Look at the Amiga.  It runs preemptively fine with 512k.  It's
> > kernel is what?  1k?  Of course, AmigaOS doesn't have all the nice
> > features of Windows like... uhhh...  well..  whatever...
> 
> Oh, great, yet another "Amiga does x that other os's don't post".
> Okay, here's my response.  Amiga doesn't sell as well as DOS/NT/OS/2/MAC/UNIX
> 
> Listen, You wan't smaller systems.  okay, then DOS.  It doesn't have 
> multitasking, and has been running on very small systems since Amiga was
> a glint in commodore's eye.   Or try CPM.  They didn't have multitasking.
> They didn't need it.  Software for DOS up until recently still outsold
> anything else.  

Didn't have it != Didn't need it. There is your fundamental flaw.

Funny how you equate msdos with 'small & efficient'. Please learn
a little about operating systems before making such statements.

Whether you like it or not, multitasking is a fundamental aspect of an
operating system. Multitasking has been part of OS's since times 
immemorial (well, in computer-years) everywhere except in the intel-pc
market. I grew up with OS-9, which ran multitasking just fine in 64K,
and awesomely in 512K. Unfortunately I've had to move down to the
intel platform because that's where the market is, and I've hated
every single minute of dealing with the trashy things microsoft dares 
call operating systems. I've never been able to understand how anyone
could've been so blind and so out of touch with reality as to develop
an "os" without multitasking.

Multitasking is absolutely fundamental in an OS. Flaming won't make
reality go away.

> preemptive mt is one of the main flaws.  Well, why?  What things will
> preemptive mt solve that can't be solved any other way.

You insist in trying to show that if there is any way to work around
the limitations of a non-multitasking os, it implies it was not
necessary to begin with. Of course you can work around limitations,
given enough ingenuity and time, but the point is that there should
be no reason to have to come up with clever hacks to obtain
functionality that should be built into the OS to begin with.

And please stop screaming "multitasking is clearly superfluous since
msdos has sold great without". Sure it has, since there have been
no viable alternatives. 

--
Jyri J. Virkki | DoD#561 | jyri+@cmu.edu | Carnegie Mellon University | MSINI
From: garyng@gnct.com (garyng)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS/Win compatibility: How important is it? (was Re: OS/2 2.01 B
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:31:00 GMT
Organization: Global Network Communication Technology Co.

Jyri Virkki <jyri+@CMU.EDU> writes:

> Good point. If your computer use revolves around a [few] given apps
> which don't have any equivalent on the other platform, then certainly
> your only choice would be to stick with the system where it runs.
> But, on the other hand, how many apps are there that have no
> equivalent? I am sure there are many, but not _that_ many. I wouldn't
> think the number of people who are using such 'os-locked' apps would
> be that great. Maybe I'm completely wrong, of course. But at least at
> this moment I can't think of anything I can do in msdos that I
> couldn't do in unix, usually better. That's my experience anyway.
> 

Let's try some :

Print Shop
and those Arcade games all running on a 12mhz AT for under 500

-gary
From: thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: WIN-OS/2 3.1 BETA BENCHMARKS
Date: 10 Oct 92 22:16:43 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <718622600.F00001@tdkt.kksys.com>, Mike.Hobbs@f115.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Mike Hobbs) writes:
> At 19:12, Thompson emerged from Holodeck 1 and shouted out something about
> WIN-OS:
> 

A Star Trek fan, no doubt...me too.

>>Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
>>
>>Hello netters,
>>
>>Here are the Windows 3.1 and the beta Win-OS/2 3.1 benchmarks.
>>These figures were generated by PC Magazine's Windows benchmarks
>>program, version 2.5.  Both figures were generated on the same
>>machine using dual boot.
>>
>>System:
>>486dx-33
>>8 megs of RAM
>>
>>Microsoft Windows 3.1 in 640x480 standard VGA mode using the
>>standard VGA driver included with the package:
>>
>>3,739,643 WinMarks
>>
>>IBM _beta_ Win-OS/2 3.1 in 640x480 standard VGA mode using the
>>standard VGA driver included with the package:
>>
>>3,516,111 WinMarks
>>
>>So, the Win-OS/2 3.1 beta is 6% slower than Windows 3.1.
>>Pretty impressive for a beta...maybe the released version
>>will actually improve on Windows 3.1 performance.
>>
> 
> A couple of questions,
> 
> 1) Was Win-OS/2 3.1 running full screen or as a window?
> 
Win-OS/2 3.1 was running full screen.

> 2) Was Windows 3.1 running standard or enhanced mode?
> 
Windows 3.1 was running in enhanced mode.  I don't think it would be fair
to run Windows 3.1 in standard mode.  If you did, Windows 3.1 would not
have to support virtual memory or multiple DOS windows.  These features
are supported in Win-OS/2 3.1 (by OS/2).

> Thanks.
> 
>             Mike Hobbs
> 
> ___
>  * MR/2 1.3 NR * For a good time, call 1-800-3IBMOS2
> 
> 
>  * Origin: (1:282/115)
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Charles A. Thompson      | thompson@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu         |
| University of Kansas     | thompson@ukanvax.cc.ukans.edu        |
| > They call me SkiBum <  | OS/2, Bush, & Rush Limbaugh in '92   |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Look for Recipe Pro(tm), an interactive recipe database, in '93 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 12 Oct 92 12:09:23 GMT
Organization: Applied Information Systems, Chapel Hill, NC

In article <hatton.718837251@cgl.ucsf.edu>, hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:
> garyng@gnct.com (garyng) writes:
>>sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
> 
>>> How about dumb terminals?  Granted they aren't a great way of doing things,
>>> but they are necissary in some cases.  This appears to be a major flaw in
>>> NT's support.
> 
>>I can't see why a telnetd(to server terminal on the lan) or a getty type 
>>program(for dialin through com port) can't be written for NT. In fact, NT
>>solve a lot of problems concerning security. Under DOS or OS2, if a dialin
>>user gain access to COMMAND OR CMD, he can access everything. NT OTOH,
>>give protection to files through the kernel.
> 
> This has been posted time and time again. If it is so trivial to write 
> a telnetd for NT, then why the hell doesn't MS just *do* it? It seems 
> bizarre that they keep saying that this can be easily done, that there
> is obvious customer demand, and yet it is Not There. Why not?

This is a very good question.  This shouldn't be very much trouble
compared to everything else they're doing with the system, and given
the other things they're talking about putting into it (like TCP/IP).

I don't have any plausible ideas about why they haven't done it.  Of
course, it's still possible that they _will_ do it before the system
ships, but it is rather odd that they seem to be so reluctant to even
consider it.  The whole affair does seem rather bizarre, as you say.

Bruce C. Wright
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7070 comp.sys.intel:1883 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:26316
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:48:35 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <Orakel.9@sarpih.no>, Orakel@sarpih.no (Jens Kr. Kirkeb) writes:

| Of course they will! Remember that not everybody needs a fast disk or fast 
| video, just raw computing power. I would not like to have to spend more $ 
| for EISA or MCA when I don't have the slightest use for it's speed.

  Too true! If you need fast video the VESA local bus might make sense,
but for disk it makes virtually no sense at all to spend money on
improving the bus when the data coming off the platter is about 5x
slower already. Unless you run a very heavily loaded system you can't
begin to load the AT bus, leaving only a few percent improvement to come
from the cost of EISA, and all the hassle of configuring it after you
change boards.

  EISA makes sense for servers, sometimes, but the gains are very
marginal for a personal system, and the extra cost will *almost* always
bring more performance if spent on nother hardware. By more performance
I mean the programs will run in less clock time, which is what matters
with a personal computer.
-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
    Keyboard controller has been disabled, press F1 to continue.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: stefan@olson.acme.gen.nz (Stefan Olson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Please benchmark the following... (was Re: NSTL...
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 19:02:44 +1200

In <92279.172219RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> writes:
>Please benchmark on DOS/Win3.1 and 32bit OS/2 following "natural" actions:

>- Install CorelDraw 3.0 (1,5 hours in the average)

Hey, you were lucky!!  Mine took 3 hours!!

...Stefan

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Stefan Olson                     Mail: stefan@olson.acme.gen.nz
   Kindness in giving creates love.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu (D. Robert Spexet II)
Subject: Re: Unprofessional Posts from Brian S.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 00:43:25 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan, Mathematics Department, Ann Arbor
Distribution: world 

In article <1992Oct12.230138.274@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>I went back and checked the last 1,000 posts to c.o.o.a, your assertions
>in this tirade are largely unfounded.  Via e-mail, I'm sending you
>a copy of all my posts in this last 1,000 messages.

No offense to anybody, but if *anybody* tried to pull this kind of stunt on
me, I would send an immediate complaint to the system and network admini-
strators that are responsible for the network connections of
jaguar.cs.utah.edu.

Just a thought,

>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! :-))


-- 
D. Robert Spexet II, N0OKR   Internet:  spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu
Department of Mathematics    BITnet:    user68xr@umichum.bitnet
The University of Michigan   UUCP:      uunet!mailrus!math.lsa.umich.edu!spexet
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
From: garyng@gnct.com (garyng)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I went ahead and did it....
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 14:24:32 HKG-8
Organization: Global Network Communication Technology Co.

<HCM100@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

> (1) No SVGA support ...

  There are SVGA drivers from the hw manufacturer. What brand do you use ?

> (2) Windows Incompatability...

  OS2's Window support is kind of 'well we can run SOME window apps'. If 
  you rely heavily on Window apps. forget about OS2

> I'll keep playing, but for now I think that Windows 3.1 has a sleight edge
> over OS/2 when it comes to availablility and use of my existing software.
> Granted, Windows are their native environment and they are working out of
> it in OS/2, but I'd still like to see better performance on my Windows apps.
> 

IMO, On a average destop Win 3.1 is way better than OS2 in terms of :

 . effort to set up
 . driver support
 . apps. availability
 . perceived performance(the speed the screen is drawn etc.)
 . robustness(at least this is my experience)

-gary
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: TTFN
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:02:21 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

Bye for now.  The quantity of messages here has become incredible, and
I can't get through half of them in the few hours per day I allot
myself for reading news.  Therefore, I'm going to be unsibscribing
this newsgroup.  I will continue reading and contributing to the
os2.apps, .programmer, and .misc groups.  

As always, if anyone really wants to send me something, I can be
reached at:
             dic5340@hertz.njit.edu

-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"