HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ADUNSMUI@TOROLAB6.VNET.IBM.COM (Al Dunsmuir)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 18:59:45 EDT
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Misinformation about os2-dos HW access (was Re: I've seen NT......
Organization: IBM Canada Laboratory Ltd, Toronto, CANADA
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 3.0
            <1992Aug26.184144.15940@njitgw.njit.edu>

In <1992Aug26.184144.15940@njitgw.njit.edu> David Charlap writes:
>
..... other discussion omitted
>
>I think only the s/370 architecture can do this.  Note that the s/370
>processor is an entire board or set of boards) of separate components
>to perform all the functions that it does.  I really doubt all that
>power could be compressed into one microchip.
>
>--
>   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
>  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
> ((|,)
>  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
>

David,

   Trivia time!!!

   A "370 on card" for Microchannel PS/2s _is_ available.  The latest
incarnation is marketed by a vendor in the southern US in cooperation
with IBM, and runs standard unmodified VM/SP.  I/O support is provided
by the PS/2 processor.  Not in one chip, but it's not far from it.  This
is quite a few generations past the original XT/370 which used a pair of
re-microcoded 68xxx's (and was __slow__).

   The newest processor is rated at approx 3 MIPS... as to cost, to quote
a comment which I saw on the VMSHARE conference was "about the same price
as a small Japanese car".  That's a lot, but if you wanted to develop 370
software at home it can be justified.

   Now back to our regularly scheduled program...

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

OS/2 V2: Why settle for anything less?
From: thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 Advocacy
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:23:49 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <2A9CE72A.635A@tct.com>, jim@tct.com (Jim Kunzman) writes:
> 
>    Proposal:  Faster window opening/closing.
>   Rationale:  It's too slow.  Hopefully the 32bit GDI will cure this.
> 

Also, optimizing the WPS code might help this.  Since the WPS is in
its first version, you'd think that the code could be made a bit 
tighter.

> 
>    Proposal:  Increase HPFS performance.
>   Rationale:  UNIX file systems still seem faster.  OS/2 should equal
>               or exceed UNIX file system performance.
> 

Yes.  I wonder if anyone could do some sort of benchmarks for HPFS
versus Unix file system (I guess that would be the Berkely Fast File 
System?).  They would be interesting.  

Considering that the disk is one of the slowest components of the 
system and it is used a lot, speeding it up would help OS/2 greatly.

> Jim Kunzman at Teltronics/TCT     <jim@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!jim>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Charles A. Thompson               |  thompson@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu         |
|  University of Kansas              |  thompson@ukanvax.cc.ukans.edu        |
|  _Avid_ SkiBum                     |  OS/2 2.0 is for YOU!!!               |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Look for Recipe Pro(tm), an interactive recipe database, coming soon...   |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Win-OS/2 loads faster than Win 3.1!
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:34:02 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1992Aug28.202352.42641@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
> Hello netters,
> 
> I am running OS/2 on a 386sx-25 with 6 megs of RAM.  The time to
> start the Win-OS/2 desktop for me is 28 seconds.  After some tweaking
> (thank you Mr. Sipples), it is now 19 seconds.  Out of curiosity,
> I fired up Windows 3.1 (from DOS 5) on a 386dx-25 with 4 megs of
> RAM.  It took 22 seconds!  I couldn't believe it.  For all you
> OS/2 nonbelievers out there--tweak you OS/2!  I did and now my
> Win-OS/2 loads faster than Windows 3.1 on a better machine.  (I
> don't think the RAM difference makes a difference.)
> 

-- 
	What sort of tweaking did you do to make it run faster?

					-Brad



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: FAGER@gribb.hsr.no (Fagerland, Svein      94/96)
Subject: The OS/2 2.0 UPGRADE due September
Keywords: UPGRADE
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 11:18:10 GMT

From my contacts here in Stavanger, Norway it is said that the 32-bit 
upgrade is due September. It will include:

- 32 bit Graphical Engine

- SVGA support, new XGA drivers, new 8514 drivers +++

- New functions to the system's Workplace Shell.

- An applet pack containing 200 apps, bitmaps and utilities

- The system performance will be better, especially for those with the 
  minimum configuration 386 SX witn 4 meg.

- Windows 3.1 compability.

SO JUST LET US HOPE THEY COME THROUGH ! :-)


Svein Fagerland  Rogaland University Centre  NOW running OS/2 2.0 !
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: X is a hack? (was Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks!)
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 23:52:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.123505.3215@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
> >
> >As a desktop OS, OS/2 has more power and versatility then Win3.1 will ever
> >muster. It is also still small enough to be a desktop OS. NT isn't. NT and
> >it's bundled feature have no place in the mass market. OS/2 does. If you want
> >the additional features, you can buy them.
> > 
> >NT is a Swiss Army knife. Most people just want the blade that cuts. Win3.1 is
> >a blunt blade. OS/2 is sharp!
> 
> Explain to me then why someone (me) that develops for OS/2 at work, uses
> OS/2 every day... runs Windows 3.1 on a 20meg 386/33 at home?

Good question......:-)

> I come from a Unix environment, I was a Unix system administrator for over
> 10 years.  My primary area of study getting my CS Masters was Operating Systems.
> Surely you don't believe I don't understand good multitasking and what you
> do with it?  A similar thing holds true for my wife, she has several years Unix
> system admin experience, and her Phd topic is in the area of user interfaces.
> She uses Windows 3.1 over OS/2 on an 8 meg 486SX/25.
> 
> Yes, OS/2 is a better multitasker, but there is more to computer usage
> that multi-tasking, and while OS/2 show promise, it currently just doesn't

There we have it, then. I need the multi-tasking (I use almost eclusively OS/2
PM apps - DeScribe, Arts and Letters, Bitfax for OS/2, Lotus 123 for OS/2, and
the TE/2 comms program (for OS/2). No DOS or Windows apps there.)
 
The OS/2 Corel DRaw! ( the new one ) is supposed to make the Windows version
look like you paid too much money for it.........multi-threaded, does more
than one image at one - or allows you to carry on doing other things while it
draws an image.........plus it is so much faster, the guy i spoke to thought
some one had swapped motherboards on him......


Ooops. I forgot. OS/2 isn't supposed to have any apps. I'll have to upgrade
from my current 120 megs if I want to fit any more OS/2 apps on there. 

> live up to that promise.  To use OS/2 fully at this time in general requires
> native mode apps, or ugly DOS ones.  As I've explained before I don't feel
> OS/2 will necessarily make it... and thus will stick to my Windows apps and
> they in general run better under Windows 3.1.

Well, if you want to run windows apps - more or less one at a time - then stay
with Windows. I can't argue with that. I really hatethe Windows desktop.
Program Manager is crap compared to WPS. But as you say, we use computers for
different things.  


-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | End the two-party duopoly. Vote 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for the Mixed-Member Proportional 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | (MMP) voting system on Sept. 19th. 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | Give yourself a vote that *counts*!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: branham@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Tom Branham, Biophysics Grad. Brandeis)
Subject: Re: MS Gave Up (Was Re: pc week and nt)
Reply-To: branham@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:31:00 GMT

You did have several apps for the Trash-80 (fondly said :)
As a matter of fact did y'all not develop the Basic in ROM for Tandy?? ack
(Not the least of my favorites was the port of Adventure.  For all
the graphics now on the games there was just something so exciting about
it then.... :)
                          .........Tom Branham
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: X is a hack? (was Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks!)
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:50:35 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Aug27.032428.18288@grebyn.com> richk@grebyn.com (Richard Krehbiel) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.195452.941@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug26.171756.17033@msi.com> bill@msi.com writes:
>>>Brian Sturgill (brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu) wrote:
>>>: In article <47470005@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM> glen@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Glen Robinson) writes:
>>>: a "real" system.  X is a hack, so no Unix ever really fit the bill.
>>>
>>>1) Why is X a hack?
>>It's a glue-on on top of Unix (i.e. it's not well integrated).  I purports
>
>This is a feature, not a bug. :-)  The fact that X is not tightly
>integrated with Unix is what makes it possible to have X on VMS, X on
>OS/2, X on Windows, X on DOS, X on Mac, X on NeXT, X on Amiga...
Good point... thus I'll have X on NT if I need it.

What I don't want is X as my default GUI.  For example to start
IslandDraw on an HP 720 (a rather fast machine), takes longer than
to start Windows Draw on Window 3.0, and Windows Draw has twice
the features.
The network abilites of X is nice when you need it, but is not a way
to do your default GUI.
Note I'm not criticizing IslandDraw... this holds true for most
Motif or OpenLook GUI apps.

>
>-- 
>Richard Krehbiel                                 richk@grebyn.com
>OS/2 2.0 will do for me until AmigaDOS for the 386 comes along...


Brian
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: NT vs OS/2 features (was Re: Misinformation about os2-dos HW access)
Date: 03 Sep 92 17:45:52 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Sep2.025454.9109@umr.edu> ckincy@mcs213d.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) writes:
>In article <1992Sep01.181607.4094@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep1.082343.28146@umr.edu> ckincy@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep01.010548.11230@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>
>>     "Better?"  I don't think I can prove that - it's a nebulous
>>term.  I can comment on why I think symmetric multiprocessing is
>>more desirable - it can be used on any task, not just (in the
>>multiprocessing OS/2 case) network I/O.  A good OS can utilize
>>any number of processors to solve any task.
>>     Besides, it's just better.  So there.
>
>That's true...but this can be done with asymmetric processing as well.
>If you think about it, asymmetric and symmetric balance out risks/
>benefits wise.

      Hmm... I'm not sure I agree if your argument, but this is
probably a religious issue anyway.  I can agree to disagree on this
one.


>>      Come now - it's not even in beta yet...
>
>Then you shouldn't send the drivers with NT if they don't work!
>Silly, silly Microsoft.

    Let me repeat:  It's not even in beta yet.  Some of that stuff
doesn't work.  Yet.


>What I meant to say is that the DDK (from what I understand) does not
>support printer driver development.  That's a separate thing, Unidriver
>I think.

     Ah - I didn't know this.  Are you sure about this information?


>>      Don't know about thunks - probably couldn't tell you if I
>>did.
>
>Thunk is a chunk of code that converts from 16-bit-mode to 32-bit-mode.
>It's added to the code when it is run through the subsystem (the entry
>and exit to the API call).

      Serves me right for using unclear language.  I actually do
know what a thunk is - I don't know if thunks are used in implementing
Windows NT subsystems.  I suspect they are, but haven't looked at the
code to find out.


>[FAT vs HPFS]
>>     I think the current caching schemes are optimized for FAT.
>
>Well, that's acceptable.  Besides, you guys will want to push your
>newest stuff while keeping your installed base.  I wouldn't expect
>anything different.

     Plus it's still a pre-beta, and there's plenty of time to
do different caching schemes for the various IFS's.

					-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: "robert fielder" <robert.fielder@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: ms gave up on os/2?
Date: 23 Aug 92 20:54:37 EST
Reply-To: "robert fielder" <robert.fielder@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems


BD>Yes. Two million was the quoted number. However, OS/2 has barely reached
BD>half that number,  and that's including  the original new  release spike
BD>and the marketing "blitz" we all know and love.

Bill:

Thanx, didn't remember the actual number.  Actually, that number sold
came before the current marketing "blitz", didn't it?

BD>Other than  the average  user and  the press,  you mean?  Gates is still
BD>considered _the_ major computer name  in the nontechnical press. IBM  is
BD>still  an  inpersonal,  faceless  corporation,  so  far  as the world is
BD>concerned.

Pure marketing.  A book to read: "The OS/2 Notebook", a compilation of
about 50 article from the Personal Systems Developer magazine, edited
by Dick Conklin (sp?).  It includes an interview with Gates and
Reisweig (sp?).  If everyone remembered all the positions that Gates
took on OS/2, he would be the laughing stock of the industry....pure
marketing!

Robert

Entered on Sun  08-23-1992  20:47:25 from Brampton, Ontario, Canada
---
  DeLuxe 1.21 #502  VMS++ == WNT
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.5
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:28:42 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <xzmnbrm.msmith@netcom.com> msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith) writes:
>One point on OLE support, OS/2 2.0 has support of OLE in WinOS2 now. This

As to OLE support I mean natively.  The OLE support for Windows 3.0 is
simply a part of compatibility with 3.0 in both OS's.

>is one area where I think that OS2 has Superior support of Windows 3.0
>as has been previously quoted. I think that to call OS2 support od Windows
>3.0 mediocre is plainly wrong. WinOS2 is more stable and faster under OS2
>on my system than Windows 3.0 was it also supports OLE. If this is not 
>excellent support what is. 
>
>I contend that OS2 2.0 runs Windows applications better than DOS 5.0 and 
>Windows 3.0 does. Therefore Windows 3.0 support should be superior.


I am tempted to say that Windows 3.0 only has Mediocre support for
Windows 3.0 programs.  OS/2's support of Windows 3.0 programs is similar
to Window 3.0's support, one simply trades problems.  You seem
to be quite fond of "stability", others are quite fond of seamless windows
and speed. I think Mediocre is a good term to describe the level
of OS/2's support.

I am not sure I would use "superior" in conjunction with
any element of OS/2 except for maybe it's DOS support.

As I've pointed out before... there are reasons why one could say
that Windows 3.0 support under OS/2 is Mediocre, and as in the
same item I use the same criterion to evaluate NT's support as "Poor".
If I bump up one term, I'd have to bump up the other.

>
>Martin Smith
>msmith@netcom.com


Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)
From: glen@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Glen Robinson)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 20:45:46 GMT
Subject: Re: Hasta la Vista, OS/2
Organization: HP Fort Collins, CO
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy

>   Windows has NEVER trashed my hard disk.  I support over 50 PCs that are
>   running Windows 3.0 and 3.1 and neither have trashed ANY of the hard
>   disks.  If you've had Windows 3.1 trash 4 different hard disk on 4
>   different machines, then maybe you're configured all 4 of them
>   incorrectly (though I might admit this to be hard to do).
                                                        
Windows ALWAYS trashes my hard disk.  I believe this is because of my
disk configuration 120 MB IDE with 210MB SCSI.  Windows probably works
well for a standard (read one drive type) system.  No combination of
pure msoft, or QEMM, or PCKWIK that I have come up with has ever been
a bullet proof windows system (Norton always reported lost clusters after
running mainstream windows apps like word and excel).  
OS/2 on the other hand seems to handle my configuration without problems.


Glen - R
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:5012 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2104
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.5
Date: 4 Sep 1992 17:44:20 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Sep4.112606.26849@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>Microsoft is willing to make buggy betas available (with appropriate
>>warnings) to the general public.  IBM is not.  It seems like this list
>>penalizes IBM for this, to some extent.  
>Yes, and rightfully so... why not complain to IBM about their lack of openness?
>(Certainly I have!)

IBM has gotten into serious anti-trust trouble in the past by being as "open"
as you would like them to be. Once bitten, twice shy. Besides, if they were to
release a beta like MS did, then people would be all over them for releasing
buggy junk to the public. They can't win.

What it comes down to is that people hold IBM to a higher standard than they
do MS. _That_ is the big problem.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Keep in mind that Amateur Radio As We Know It Today will cease to exist
            at midnight tonight." -- Dave Newkirk, WJ1Z
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: neves@chimay.cs.colorado.edu (NEVES RICHARD K)
Subject: Re: OS/2's Future
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:37:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.141903.15158@husc3.harvard.edu> mendels1@husc4.harvard.edu (Andrew Mendelsohn) writes:
>Interesting echoes of MS strategy with WIN NT and CAIRO, except 
>that OS/2 substitutes for Windows and CAIRO is not currently 
>projected to be added to DOS (at least the rumors I read a while 
>back).

w/ the AIX part missing.   This strategy doesn't sound very orthogonal...
AIX and OS/2 sound more competitive than complimentary.  

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Subject: Re: Non-IBM experiences with OS/2?
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 01:39:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep02.183914.28059@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.135325.7248@dhw68k.cts.com> david@dhw68k.cts.com (David H. Wolfskill) writes:
>>
>>One individual -- the only one who works for my manager who has
>>undergone such a transition -- found (much to his chagrin) that his
>>migration to OS/2 required relocation of the printer that he & a few
>>others shared, since apparently the upper limit on printer cable
>>lengths in OS/2 is lower than the corresponding limit in DOS.
>>
>
>     I won't comment on the rest of your post, since I would 
>certainly be accused of bias and trying to sway your company away
>from OS/2, but the above paragraph sounds like a crock to me.
>It reminds me of the story of the knot-in-the-power-cord.
>
>					-Phil

I know it seems far-fetched but let me propose a possible instance:
The printer may have a serial interface and the COM driver needs
hardware handshaking that DOS does not.  The company in question does
not have the appropriate cable of the correct length.

Don't know if this is true but might be an explanation.
  -- Bruce


--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
bdubbs@sadis01.sa.aflc.af.mil |  Scrupulous Lawyer
From: varmint@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Samir Varma)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Microsoft Excel for OS/2's a Best Seller ?????????????
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:47:46 GMT
Reply-To: varmint@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Samir Varma)
Organization: Center for Particle Physics, University of Texas
Originator: varmint@huey.cc.utexas.edu


On Page 574 of the August issue of Computer Shopper is a most interesting
pie chart (under the heading Best Sellers):

SPREADSHEETS
------------

Lotus 1-2-3 (2.2/2.3) 	     26.74%
Lotus 1-2-3 3.0	      	     26.47%
Microsoft Excel for Windows  18.98%
Borland Quattro Pro	     15.24%
Microsoft Excel for OS/2     12.57%

And then they're not developing for OS/2?  

Comments anybody?

Samir Varma
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: what crash...
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:46:18 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Aug24.2712.4165@dosgate> "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com> writes:
>JM>Ever heard of RUNWORKPLACE=CMD.EXE?
>
>Sure. If you don't want to run any PM or Windows apps. Which we do.

You've got that confused with the PROTSHELL= line.  If you change THAT
one from PMSHELL.EXE to CMD.EXE, you'll lose PM and the session
manager.  RUNWORKPLACE= isn't a problem.  You can make any application
the RUNWORKPLACE= line, although it should be an application which can
launch other apps.

With RUNWORKPLACE=CMD.EXE, you launch apps using the START and DETACH
commands.  See your on-line reference for the syntax.  (type HELP
START, and HELP DETACH for the reference).
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.