HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 09:11:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.062001.14820@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.051348.22687@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
...
>The fact is that neither represents code that will be delivered at any
>date that is cast in stone.  IBM has announced no date whatsoever on
>that code, and Microsoft has said, "First half, 1993" -- or
>thereabouts.
...

Sorry, Tim, but IBM has set a date.

Here is an excerpt from "ibmplans.txt" on ftp-os2.nmsu.edu.  It
is a part of an IBM document detailing IBMs near-future plans for OS/2
(and a little MS bashing as well).
 
>  1992 OS/2 PRODUCT PLANS
> 
>       There will be a lot happening in the OS/2 product line through
>  the remainder of 1992.
> 
>  ENHANCEMENTS TO THE BASE PRODUCT
>       In the fall:   32-bit graphics engine; Windows 3.1; device
>  drivers to support XGA, SVGA, and 8514 displays in seamless mode.

Now I believe the claim by OS/2 fans has been that if IBM gives a date
that they mean that date, so I can only assume that the release
of this beta should occur on or before Dec. 15.


Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                          NeXTStep 486 is for _YOU_!!!!
University of Utah                    Microsoft needs competition, but I want
Center for Software Science          to be one of the many running Windows NT!
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373    :-) :-) :-)  NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: To brian and other interested parties
Date: 12 Dec 92 08:19:06 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Dec11.075253.2657@visual.spk.wa.us> ssanbeg@visual.spk.wa.us (Scott Sanbeg) writes:
>
>The os2 advocacy group is for those in favor of the operating system.

     Oh, foo.  Anyone who's been around Usenet for any reasonable
amount of time knows why there are .advocacy groups - it's to
keep the flamewars out of the newsgroups that might actually have
some signal in them.  This group does an excellent job - it's a
festering swamp of flame, but it keeps the other groups relatively
quiet.
     BTW, I love the notion "This newsgroup is ours so you
shouldn't post here."  Really cute, but totally unpractical.


>their respective newsgroups. I was around a year ago when os2.advocacy
>was attended by more than one IBM-er giving advice and tips on how to
>work with the OS/2 operating system

     This audience is better served in one of the other os2 groups.


> - as this group is today, it's
>full of noise, and not so many of the technically knowledgeable folks
>seem to be as willing to post (perhaps, read) this group as in the past.

    It's _supposed_ to be full of noise.  That's the only reason for
its existence.

				-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,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2)
Subject: Re: Rude behavior on this group.
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: world,local
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 06:22:53 GMT

In article <1gsq6bINN2kh@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.181301.28130@mksol.dseg.ti.com>  
>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> Assuming that it's what you want, of course.  And it's still not
>> 'free'.  It gets passed through and spread around over the people  
>who
>> DO want it and the peopel who DON'T want it.
>
>The other point, though, that you are missing is that it may
>be far cheaper to put Windows on all machines (since most
>customers do want it, and it has become a major selling point)
>than to put it on some machines and not on others.  But this
>is true of many things.  What if I don't want a keypad on my
>keyboard. Presumably, they can build a slightly cheaper keyboard
>without the number pad.  However, any cost advantage here is
>mitigated by the need to have machines with two different
>types of keyboards.  Or, I don't want a lighter in my car. But
>it is cheaper for the auto manufacturers to put them in all
>cars (even though it costs something per car) than to worry about
>them as a separately-purchasable feature.

All your analogies don't apply since they deal with integrated items,
unlike DOS and Windows which are not integrated with the computer.

Suppose computer dealers start bundling 2400 bps modem cards (a
non-integrated item) in their computers due to high demand, and they will
not credit its deletion:

Customer#1:  "I don't need a modem.  Can you credit me?"
Dealer:      "Screw you.  You are in the minority."

Customer#2:  "I already have a modem.  Can you credit me?"
Dealer:      "Screw you.  You are in the minority."

Customer#3:  "I would like a faster modem.  Can you credit me?"
Dealer:      "Screw you.  You are in the minority."


>--
>Jim Mann            
>Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
>


-- 
==== Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ====
::   ftp ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (128.123.35.151)    ::  .--.
::   for OS/2 software & information.  Get    :: (OS/2)
:::: the OS/2 FAQL   /pub/os2/all/info/faq :::::  ~--~
From: rmk@frog.CRDS.COM (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Controversial Topics
Date: 13 Dec 92 04:52:34 GMT
Organization: Charles River Data Systems

In article <1992Dec7.193453.21297@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1fvkp4INNici@tamsun.tamu.edu> daa7365@tamuts.tamu.edu (Diego A. Aranda) writes:
>>>> Is this possible on TOMORROW'S NT with tomorrow's PC technology? Easily.
>...
>>
>>Are there any electrical engineers on this group who could give me an
>>honest estimate on the actual cost of an SMP motherboard today?  I'm quite
>>curious.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Diego
>
>I'm not an EE, but I do know that there were several vendors selling
>MP Intel machines at COMDEX.
>At least one such vendor is "Corollary, Inc" which makes:
>	A 486 DX2-66Mhz multiprocessor system that supports up to seven
>	processors running Microsoft Windows NT.
>If I remember correctly a 4 processor machine cost less than $12,000,
>though I didn't pick up literature, so I cannot be certain of the price.
>(I think it was $6,000 for the box with one processor, plus $2,000 per
>additional processor).
>
>And don't forget Sequent has already shown a 20 processor machine running NT.


Corollary sells 486 processor boards that plug into the ISA or EISA bus.  They
have been supported with SCO MPX multiprocessor UNIX for a while now.  I have
seen a box set up with 8 of their boards that could handle 200 users on dumb
terminals.  They do have their problems.  Hardware glitches appear under a
heavly load.  The main problem is that it is a loose coupled system, which
is all that EISA and ISA can support.  On a tightly coupled system like the
Sequent, you can pull processors without crashing the machine.

The other problem is that the Corollary C bus, which connects all the boards
together by a ribbon cable, can only handle i/o to one processor at a time,
which can degrade system performance under heavy load.

Their product is available, but it isn't considered highly reliable by members
of the UNIX community.
From: ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT is missing something major: OS/2 32-bit compatibility
Date: 17 Dec 92 14:54:43 GMT
 <1992Dec17.060020.22368@netcom.com>
Organization: Forschungszentrum Juelich

In article <1992Dec17.060020.22368@netcom.com>, samiam@netcom.com (Scott Moore)
says:
>
>run virtually any app available (prehaps including posix). Then we might have
>the odd situation of os/2 2.0 being the most popular 32 os, and win32 being
>the most common app interface.

No. If OS/2 would become the most popular 32bit OS (which I hope, but I know
Murphy's law) then its own API would be used. Does Win32 support multithreading
long filenames, extended attributes and does it make use of SOM ? I don't think
so. If one admits that these features give an advantage to apps which use them
then there must be only one company (e.g. Lotus) which makes use of them to get
a better product out. Then all the others will have to follow or they will
loose the market.

Or would you use a word processor that forces you to name a file ltr2jim.doc
instead of Letter_to_Jim ?

Michael Bode.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: gilem@rebecca.its.rpi.edu (Michael R. Gile)
Subject: Re: Some miscellaneous questions about os/2 from early info
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:03:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.000521.23485@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>In article <-+k288g@rpi.edu> gilem@aix.rpi.edu (Michael R. Gile) writes:
>>When I was cleaning my desk, I found some information about os/2 from
>>back in may 1990 in MSJ.  Since it concerned os/2 2.0, I had some  
>>questions regarding these facts to see if they were actually true when
>>os/2 was released.
>>
>>	1) it states that in os/2 2.0 the total code and data space available
>>to an app is 512Kb, and that this restriction will be removed in later version.
>>Is this really true? or is it only for console apps?  In my mind, this is
>>a *BIG* problem, reminds me of MSDOS.
>
>That's 512 MB, not 512 Kb.  Misprint.

that makes sense, I rechecked the page, and the apparent misprint is in the 
caption under a figure.  In other words (figure Mb, caption Kb)  oops, go MS!?

>
>>
>>	2) it says later on that os/2 has a built in math emulation library
>>which eliminates the need for each app to be compiled with emulation ""s
>>This is a very good idea, and I don't know why ms didn't do it with windows.
>>Is this still true?
>
>Yes, I believe so.  At least, that's what I've heard.  I have a mathco, so
>I've never needed to check.
>
>Ted
>
>

so do I, but my old machine didn't and it caught me on occasion.

thanks for the quick response.

Mike

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.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: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 05:29:23 GMT

In article <BzHGFA.Boo@utdallas.edu>, goyal@utdallas.edu (MOHIT K GOYAL) writes:

|> REDMOND, WASHINGTON, U.S.A., 1992 DEC 18 (NB) -- Business Week
|> magazine, in its December 28th issue, says FTC investigators have 
|> concluded that the software company has engaged in anticompetitive 
|> actions. The magazine also reports that the investigators are 
|> preparing recommendations as to how to proceed against the company.

Well you can kiss American leadership in operating systems out goodbye.
Once the Federal Goverment starts trying to enforce "fairness" you know
its all over.  No matter that the entire Japanese economy is structured
in an "anticompetitive" way.  No matter that software is one of the last
remaining strong points of the American economy.  No matter that American
programmers are trying to compete with programmers in Eastern Europe who
are thrilled to work for $300 a month.  Nope--we've got to tear into and
destroy one of our strongest companies.

|> According to Business Week, the recommendations being prepared by 
|> the agency's investigators could include breaking up the company, 
|> altering the way its software is sold to computer makers, or 
|> isolating the divisions from each other. The latter move, if
|> adopted, would effectively have each division operating as a 
|> separate entity.

The blatent egotism of the FTC just slays me.  Why do they think they can
tell Bill Gates not to let his DOS programmers talk with his MS Word 
programmers?  

How Bill Gates runs his business is nobody's business but Bill Gates's.

|> Rival software companies have complained publicly and apparently to
|> the Federal Trade Commission that Microsoft uses "predatory
|> practices" in selling its operating systems. 

Yep, that's the good ol' American way of doing business alright.  If you can't
compete with someone, just get the Federal Goverment to break up their 
company.  The real "predatory practices" going on here are those vultures
of rival companies who are waiting to pick the bones of what's left of
Microsoft after the FTC's guts the carcass.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pendrith@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Mark Pendrith)
Subject: who is brian sturgill - really?
Reply-To: pendrith@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Mark Pendrith)
Organization: none
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:27:01 GMT

i am coming to suspect that "brian" isn't a real person at all, but a 
synthetic product of the MS MarketDroid (TM) artificial intelligence unit 
(with the emphasis on "artificial")

reasons:

a) brian most of the time sounds like a cross between eliza and racter on 
a bad day.

b) he claims to have a job at the CS dept at the university  of utah, but
what this is has never been made clear. he also claims to use both os/2 and 
NT on a daily basis. he also claims to be an ISV (Increasingly Shrill Voice?) 
developer for NT. he even claims to be married. how can anyone be doing all 
this, when it is clear that all their day is spent dutifully uploading 2-3MB 
of NT propaganda to the internet eveyday?

c) the logic he produces could only be the result of some very mediocre
programming (TM), and running on a buggy beta testbed at that.

tentative conclusion:

"brian" is probably actually a multi-threaded NT app, which would help to 
explain why he is so concerned about NT's survival, and so particularly 
sensitive about the os/2 vs. NT app count. the multi-threadedness of the 
code is revealed in the way he will reply to 20 or so threads in various 
conferences simultaneously, with little in the way of consistency between 
the responses.  clearly asynchronous behaviour. (i read a response the other 
day that said he was not going to be posting in this group until next year. 
two days later, lots of new BS posts! NT has buggy semaphores, perhaps? or 
maybe "brian" is running on an experimental SMP machine?)

a preliminary theory. anyone got better?

- Mark

pendrith@cs.unsw.oz.au

BTW: is it coincidence that BRIAN STURGILL is an anagram of NT BIG SLUR LIAR?
sounds like a Microsoft project code name to me...




Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak)
Subject: Re: OS/2, Windows, & DPMI ( was Re: OS/2 2.1 specifications, release date.
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Mitre Corporation
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 21:10:56 GMT

In article <1gt426INNf74@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A.
Bell) wrote:
> 
> 
> Saying that windows 3.1 was not a strict implimentation of the dpmi specs
> is an understatement.  It was in direct violation of them.  Which is ironic 
> because microsoft developed the specs to begin with.
> 
> The way dpmi should work is that any dpmi program should check to see if
> there was any dpmi server running, and if so, allow it to allocate the
> memory.  This way, more than one dpmi program could be run at the same time.
> Windows 3.1 refuses to allow any other dpmi memory server but it's own.
> 

Could there be any legitimate reason for this type of behaviour or is MS
trying to prevent other people's software from working correctly with
Windows?  If the reason is the later, it would seem yet another item for
the FTC.....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heeren Pathak                      | Millions long for immortality who do 
pathak@mitre.org                   | not know what to do with themselves
Mitre Corporation                  | on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
(617) 271-7465                     |	               	-- Susan Ertz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Mine not Mitre's.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
	<1992Dec17.185823.8331@cci632.cci.com> <BzFpo8.LL1@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:21:52 GMT

In article <BzFpo8.LL1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel) writes:

   This is a great strategy, but first they have to wait for the
general attitude towards OS/2 to change. Lack of applications isn't
the only thing the press
   and others are complaining about. 
   Unless they take a chance and hope the people change their mind
about OS/2 in
   general after seeing the great new apps. I think they should just try it.
 

I think we can already see that the generalt attitude towards OS/2 is
changing. And some great apps that can show the power of OS/2 will
help in that process.

Olav Torvund
University of Oslo
Norway
Olavt@jus.uio.no







Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:21:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.051348.22687@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.220244.29899@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>>If you have a disagreement with the benchmarks, please run your own.
>>If you think them FUD, then you should come up with some cogent
>>argument as to why the methodology was incorrect.  (Incidentally, I
>>will have some additional numbers for you very shortly.)  I very
>>carefully described the methodology involved and made conservative,
>>qualified conclusions based on those numbers.  If you have different
>>numbers you are welcome to post them (along with your methodology).
>
>In other posts you'll find that I clarify this.  I am not saying that
>running the benchmark is FUD.  What I am saying is that running
>the benchmark without pointing out clearly (esp. to novices) that
>you are comparing OS's in very different stages of development
>is FUD.  I also suspect that a review of the intermediate results
>will tell a different story -- you implied strongly that NT
>had a long way to go, but if there are only problems in a few minor
>areas (and my usage experience with NT says this is so), then they
>don't have a long way to go.
>
So we finally get you to admit that NT really is not yet "ready for
prime time".  Whenever someone points out that OS/2 has an advantage
over NT in that it is a commercial product, either you or Mr. Letwin
will inevitably fire back that you are using it happily.  Well, which is
it-- is it ready to be used or not?  You can't have it both ways.  If
you want to act like everyone should be running the NT Beta (and you
have at least strongly implied this sort of thing, that the NT beta is
already better than OS/2 2.0), then certainly Tim's comparison is valid.
Further, when accused of bias in your "tidbits" postings previously, you
have accused OS/2 users of being childish, and simply unable to take bad
news about something they like.  I suggest that the same can now be said
of yourself.
-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jurlwin@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU (Jeff Urlwin)
Subject: Re: Windows NT humor
Organization: University of Maine, Department of Computer Science
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 14:07:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.000848.29425@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>In <1992Dec9.132547.20533@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>
>>	Truth in advertising?  From the company that claimed
>>	"A better Windows than Windows?" (When Windows is *obviously*
>>	3.1 and *not* 3.0).. Same companythat advertises somethingas
>>	vacuous and ambiguous as "crash protection">
>
>When OS/2 2.0 GA was released, the current version of Windows *was* 3.0.
>The fact that 3.1 came out a week later is irrelevant--when IBM made the
>claim, "a better Windows than Windows", it was true!

And still is, for some of us!  I think WinOS2 is *still* better than Win3.1,
otherwise I'd be running 3.1 now and not OS/2.  OS/2 is still more stable
on my machine than Win3.1.

>
>As for the much maligned crash protection, I'm sorry you don't like it,
>but it's saved my butt on more occasions than I can count.  As someone
>who has completely trashed Windows and Desqview systems, I find OS/2 to
>be amazingly good in this regard.  In fact, this is the chief reason I
>stuck with it long enough to see past its other quirks to its other
>useful features (like SOM and REXX).

I do, too.  There have been only a VERY few times that I've had to reboot
OS/2.  

Jeff
-- 
--------------------------------------
jurlwin@gandalf.umcs.maine.edu
From: lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison)
Subject: Re: Rude behavior on this group.
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
Distribution: world,local
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:08:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.234708.18159@microsoft.com> richs@microsoft.com (Rick Schaut) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.183951.23430@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <1992Dec15.054239.12858@microsoft.com> richs@microsoft.com (Rick Schaut) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Dec14.213730.28787@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

Lots Deleted.....

>>and part
>>of those costs are born by people who didn't want it in the first
>>place and have to take it.
>
>Presumably people who don't want a machine bundled with Windows can ask for
>a machine without Windows and get a machine without Windows.  So what's the
>problem?

Rick, according to a couple of vendors that I have delt with, they have to
include DOS and Win3.1 on the machines according to their reading of the
contract with Microsoft.  Even when I don't want either (the machines are
going to run SCO-ODT), and even when the Windows is so badly mis-installed
that I have to reinstall from a freshly formatted hard disk before it
would work those few times I did want it.

Bottom line, even when I ask, they won't sell it to me without Windows 3.1
or DOS PREINSTALLED.

--Lowell Morrison
--Uncle Wolf
--My opions are those of a deranged mind, and not those of my employer.
--Warning, mind deranged by 17 years in the computer world, mind damaging
--that they are.  Any one remember an Altair??  I'm not sure I do any more.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy