HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: The first annual Mike Mellenger Award !!!
Date: 10 Oct 92 15:30:13 GMT
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu



Welcome to the first annual Mike Mellenger awards.

Our pannel of judges, wasting very little time have unanimously
give the award to,  ......    Brian Sturgill !!!!!!!

Yeah!

For not failing to resond to a single post, for starting inane 
arguments at every opportunity, and for some all arround fine
bickering, Brian has shown himself to be worthy of such an award.

Everyone, let's give Brian a big round of applause, and then pointedly
ignore the fellow until he finds something better to do with his time
like Mike eventually did.

Congratulations, Brian !!
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 11 Oct 92 00:38:38 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Oct07.000904.6597@microsoft.com>, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Ske
lly) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.230519.21736@ms.uky.edu> sam@ms.uky.edu wrote:
>> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

>>
>> >>
>> >> IMHO, preemptive multitasking is a requirement.  Also, any OS should be
>> >> multiuser.  This is a shortcoming in both NT and OS/2.  With machines
>> >> becoming more and more powerful, there is an increasing need for multiuser
>> >> operating systems, in order to take better advantage of the underlying mac
hine.
>> >>
>>
>> >I bet I can be absurd here too.  What about the "OS" in my microwave oven,
>> >should it be multitaskin/multiuser.  How about the "OS" in one of those
>> >new handhelds, should they be multiuser.  What about the "OS" on a machine
>> >controlling a conveyor belt in a factory, or a milling machine.  What about
>> >the "OS" in a dedicated word processor.  What about the "OS" in video games.
>> >You know, the one's you find in arcades.  Should they be multiuser.
>>
>> >Okay, Okay, I'll stop, but I think I've named enough computing environments
>> >that are valid markets that don't need multiuser, and may not need
>> >multitasking systems.
>>
>> You're right; those things don't need multiuser operating systems.  But they
>> don't need NT either.
>
>Ah, how clever, you turned my post into a slam.  It took a great leap
>of logic to figure out that since I was saying the above things didn't
>need multiuser or multitasking capabilities, then they don't need NT
>'cause NT has those things.  But what if they need other things that NT
>and only NT offers.  Not a probable thing, but a flaw in your logic.

I have yet to hear of a single critical feature in NT that if I needed to I
could not find elsewhere.  That is the flaw in you logic.  To a great extent
what he says is true.
>
>Anyway, I'd say you are correct.  Many of those things I mentioned probably
>won't requrire Windows NT, OS/2, UN*X, Amigados, VMS, etc.  So What.
>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...
>
-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 11 Oct 92 01:04:18 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Oct09.181614.609@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>      Might I suggest that nearly every poster on this newsgroup
>is wearing glasses of one shade or another?

Mine are a light brown, actually. :-)

Seriously, though, I don't see MS as the bright and shining angel that a lot
of folks do, both inside and outside the company. The emperor really has no
clothes on.

>     OK - don't buy the SDK, then.  The fact that you don't want it
>doesn't make the release FUD.

No, but the fact that they're selling it for $69 does.

>     Of course, a prospective buyer describing a project doesn't mean
>that the project will ever come to fruition.  A "developer" is a person
>who develops software, whether or not that software is ever released,
>or ever completed.  

...but the point is that MS doesn't even make that effort. This puts the lie
to the idea that it's a developer's release.

>     Too lazy to call the number and find out if they ask for
>your qualifications.  That was the original statement, wasn't it?

No; I'm honest enough that I'm not going to waste some clerk at MS's time
asking stupid questions to bolster an argument on the net, either, and calling
up for any purpose other than ordering the kit is dishonest. I'm not going to
order the kit; therefore, both my time and theirs is better spent.
-- 
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: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: Video games and NT
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:09:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.174723.5855@gw.wmich.edu> x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>> 
>> Apparently, you don't read "OS/2 Monthly".  Check out my column.  I've got a
>> game like that in the works, but it still has a ways to go.
>
>	The day that most new video games come out for the windows
>interface or PM is the day that I buy an Amiga 4000.  
>	Windows and PM might be nice for something like SimCity but
>the thought of playing Wing Commander 4 on OS/2 PM or Windows NT sends
>shivers up my spine. 

	Yes, but think about running Wing Commander 4 as a full-screen 32-bit
multi-threaded game under OS/2...drooling yet?

	At first, I didn't believe it's possible to write FS graphical OS/2
apps, but apparently, it is possible, since someone just announced the
first release of an OS/2 library giving you 320x200 graphics in a full-screen
session.

	You're right, though, GUI games tend to suck hard, on the whole.

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Lowey@Sask.USask.CA (Kevin Lowey)
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Originator: lowey@jester.usask.ca
Reply-To: lowey@jester.usask.ca
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:35:00 GMT

From hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter):
> In  <1992Oct06.213627.3688@microsoft.com>  petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> 
>> I'm a bit curious about why people don't want networks bundled.  This is
>> regardless as to whether the network is more integrated or not.
>>
> 
> I agree, also on private installations, it will be desirable to connect
> 2 or 3 computers together. Also consider, what advantage you have, when
> you connect to Internet via a slip line instead of a terminal emulation.
> 
> I think networking will be available as a standard feature soon

One thing many people are forgetting here is that up until OS/2 2.0
came out, IBM DID bundle the networking with OS/2.  It was called OS/2
1.3 Extended Edition.  

IBM (correctly in my opinion) decided to unbundle all the bundled
pieces in the Extended edition, and sell them as separate products.
Thus you didn't need to buy a bunch of things you'll never use.  These
are the OS/2 2.0 Extended Services packages.

If you want the "bundled" capabilites, just buy all the pieces.  You
get them fo the same price (or less) than the original OS/2 1.3
Extended Edition.
-- 
- Kevin Lowey (Lowey@Sask.USask.CA)
>>>>> Anonymous FTP to FTP.USASK.CA for DOS, OS/2, and Windows programs <<<<<
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:59:50 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Oct9.013136.16962@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
...
>Developer:  What is your timetable for the 32-bit version of OS/2?
>Early code?  Customer shipment?  Applications that take advantage of
>it from either of your companies?
>
>Cannavino:  We intend to deliver a 32-bit version of OS/2 in 1990.
>In the meantime, we have made a software development kit available.
>It contains early OS/2 2.0 system code, an assembler and C compiler,
>and some programming tools.  Developers who buy it will also receive
>a ship-level copy of OS/2 2.0 at general availability.
>
>Also,
>
>Developer:  What do you think are the relative market sizes for the two
>versions of OS/2 [16-bit and 32-bit versions]?
>
>Cannavino:  OS/2 1.2 will continue to have a role as an entry level
>OS/2 system.  Users needing a more powerful operating environment
>should use OS/2 2.0.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>It sure sounds to me like David's right - IBM was behind 32-bit OS/2
>long before the split.

Then explain why there was an OS/2 1.3?  OS/2 1.3 is where the point
of contention between MS and IBM was.  The quote you're showing is
about OS/2 1.2.  Clearly IBM must have changed direction somewhere,
as shortly they would be developing an OS/2 1.3 independent of
Microsoft.

>-- 
>John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I

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! :-))
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 VS NT! The Future War Looms...
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:21:12 GMT
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego

In article <1992Oct11.012619.59727@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.202607.14857@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de>, hochstae@allfiwib
>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>> IBM sells netware lite.  Netware lite runs under os/2 and only costs $79.
>>
>>Sorry, but you are wrong. Netw*re lite does not run under OS/2 it actually
>>runs in *ONE* DOS-Session. What use do I have of OS/2, when I can access
>>Network drives in only one DOS-Session. I can use native DOS instead.
>
>Hmmm, lemme get this strait.  I am running OS/2.  I am running a DOS based
>program under OS/2.  This DOS based program is a networking program.
>Therefore I do not have the ability to run networking under OS/2.  Makes sense
>to me.  (NOT!)
>There are other programs available.  This was an example.  Please keep that in
>mind.  There are OS/2 based peer-to-peer networking packages expected to
>arrive shortly.  Until then, these work quite well, especially if you already
>own them before you bought OS/2 and would like to communicate with DOS based
>machines running the same software.


Stacy, from a semantic standpoint, I'd agree with you.  For the same reason
that I can claim that my family builds condominiums (actually, only my
second uncle builds them--and he's only built one).

But from a "usefulness" standpoint, Netware lite does NOT run under
OS/2.  Why?  Because I cannot put DESCRIBE(tm) on a single machine and
"share" it among several users.  In fact, I can't even put seven copies
of DESCRIBE on one machine--and have seven networked users access them.
This is simply because the OS/2 *environment* will not recognize a
Netware Lite disk.

Contrast this with Windows 3.1.  I can install Windows in one of several
ways under Netware Lite:

	(a) full install (e.g. all Windows files are copied to the local
	harddisk)

	(b) Partial.  (e.g., user settings and other user-dependent files
	are copied to the local hard disk--all other Windows files/applets
	are on the network drive)

	(c) Diskless.  (All Windows files are on the network drive.  User
	cannot define his own settings).

Option (b) is what I use most of the time... this way, I can install
Windows and only take up 2 megs of the local hard disk drive.  This is
something that OS/2 CANNOT do under Netware Lite (or Lantastic for that
matter)--because the Network will only be available to DOS windows that
"load" the DOS-based Network software--and only to that particular DOS
window.

Mind you, I do not think that this in itself is a problem because 
Lantastic is writing an OS/2-aware peer to peer LAN.  Who needs
Wetware Lite?

-> Joe <-

Just my opinions.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 08 Oct 92 10:06:00 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

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.

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.  

> 
> >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...
From: finsys@cpva.saic.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:41:28 PST
Organization: Science Applications Int'l Corp./San Diego

In article <1992Oct07.092552.15639@microsoft.com>, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> In article <7517@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu wrote:
>> In article <1992Oct06.213627.3688@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>> >I'm a bit curious about why people don't want networks bundled.  This is
>> >regardless as to whether the network is more integrated or not.
>> >1) You think the final product would be cheaper if these things were not
>> >   included.
>> 
>> This is it, primarily. Let the folks who want to use networking amortize the
>> developer's R&D costs. I've got better uses for my money.
> 
> I assume you read the reason why I don't think this will make much of
> a difference in price....
> 
Yes, but I'm still not convinced.  As MS's stated market for NT is the
high-end (very high, IMHO), this will be the market interested in the 
networking stuff.  Therefore, from the start, market price will include the
value associated with networking (from your reasoning).  The concern is from
those of who do not want or need that networking - we will be paying for it.
That's not to say we wouldn't end up using those capabilities at some point.
But that's not the point. 

From what I can tell from this net, people who don't want that networking,
security, etc. stuff should wait for WIN32s instead. Yes, no?  (ie those of us
who simply need a stable multitasker - Desqview & Win 3.1 on DOS - not good
enough, OS/2 2.0 - possibly too much)  

As a side note, won't WIN32s end up having very similar h/w requirements as
OS/2, with the exception of lower hard disk space needed?  For the home user,
what will be the functional differences, aside from the shell?


Lawrence Dee
SAIC
finsys@cpva.saic.com
-- My opinions? I said something?
From: rmk@frog.CRDS.COM (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 9 Oct 92 08:02:27 GMT
Organization: Charles River Data Systems

In article <1992Oct5.230835.22607@ms.uky.edu> sam@ms.uky.edu (Mike Mills) writes:
>thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Oct4.180905.27222@ms.uky.edu>, sam@ms.uky.edu (Mike Mills) writes:
>>|> IMHO, preemptive multitasking is a requirement.
>
>>OK, I agree.
>
>>|>  Also, any OS should be multiuser.
>
>>OK, I agree again, for a PC/Workstation OS.
>
>>|>  This is a shortcoming in both NT and OS/2.
>
>>Sorry, you lost me at this point. NT is fully multi-user. What are you trying
>>to say?
>
>>|> With machines
>>|> becoming more and more powerful, there is an increasing need for multiuser
>>|> operating systems, in order to take better advantage of the underlying
>>|> machine.
>
>>I agree. That is one reason I prefer NT to OS/2 2.0.
>
>
>Ok, perhaps I'm mistaken here.  From what I've read, NT offers symmetric
>multiprocessing and some other things, but is NOT multiuser.
>
>If NT is truly multiuser, then I must say that is one thing in its favor.
>
>Someone care to give the definititve answer on this?


And one more question.

If it is multiuser, then how many serial terminals will NT support on
an Intel box?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Re: OS/2 VS NT! The Future War Looms...
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Organization: Techn. Univ. Clausthal
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:26:07 GMT

In  <195f1tINNofj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>  dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
> Wrong.
>
> IBM sells netware lite.  Netware lite runs under os/2 and only costs $79.
>
> And with a windows upgrade, I can get peer to peer OS/2 for $158 list price.
> It is a messy, but it does give you peer to peer networking, and it is all
> bought from IBM, so it nullifies your claim.
>

Sorry, but you are wrong. Netw*re lite does not run under OS/2 it actually
runs in *ONE* DOS-Session. What use do I have of OS/2, when I can access
Network drives in only one DOS-Session. I can use native DOS instead.

Christoph
--
Internet: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de
Bitnet  : HAMPE2 AT DMRHRZ11
Fido    : 2:243/660
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Organization: Computer and Technologies Theme Program, NCSU, Raleigh
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:55:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.015127.6083@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>In article <BvpC7u.6y1@rice.edu>, amitp@ruf.rice.edu (Amit J Patel) writes:
>|> Same here... these are home computers (386/33 or higher, with 4 megs or
>|> more of memory) owned by people I know:
>|> 
>|> 	1 - DOS		[runs only games, and doesn't have Windows]
>|> 	7 - OS/2 2.0
>|> 	0 - Windows 3.1	[hmmm]
>|> 
>Really amazing. Your impressive and representative statistics
>actually convinced me, that OS/2 2.0 is the best OS. 7 out of 8
>people Amit knows are using it. WOW!!

Really amazing.  Christoph again finds a snide, assanine way of distorting
the context of a post to which he was replying.  The original question was
'where is the proof that OS/2 is catching-on in the home?'  Please pay more
attention.

BTW, of the 2 people that I know personally who have the NT SDK, neither of
them is using it.  One found it extremely unstable and very slow with ONLY
16 Mb of RAM.  The other decided that Linux was a more stable and rewarding
platform to use.

John W. Linville




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  John W. Linville                Amateur radio:  KD4KHC                  |
|  #include "std_disclaimer.h"     E-mail:  linville@catt.ncsu.edu         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: gumby@cs.mcgill.ca (Phil PRANNO)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.x would loose its battle against Windows NT if...
Organization: SOCS - Mcgill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:51:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.113656.8714@cam-orl.co.uk> thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.154329.1557@cs.mcgill.ca>, gumby@cs.mcgill.ca (Phil PRANNO) writes:
>|> The WPS is CUA 91 compliant.

>So CUA 91 allows you to put a menu partially off-screen where you can't
>actually access some of the items?
>

CUA is a "vision" and WPS is compliant with this vision (mostly - except
for shadows...).  CUA 89 is the Windows 3.1 interface (and OS/2 1.x
interface).

>|> This means that there is RESEARCH and lots of it behind the entire
>|> concept.
>
>I think perhaps they need to go away and do a little more research...

The implementation is not necessarily perfect.  It is however, very good
and the only interface anywhere near compliant with CUA 91.


-- 
 Phil Pranno        *  The implosion of all matter in the universe into an
 gumby@cs.mcgill.ca *  infinitely small and dense point may lead to a NEW "BIG
 McGill University  *  BANG".  Should a new universe emerge, the validity of 
   -> GO OS/2 <-    *  these statements cannot be assured.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:00:36 GMT

In <1992Oct10.035521.12965@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

>In article <1992Oct9.193428.29875@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com wrote:
>> In <1992Oct08.092757.16811@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>> 
>> >> 
>> >> Networking packages aren't like stripped-down versions of common software.
>> >> Including full-function TCP/IP networking in NT is like including
>> >> Weird...er...Word for Windows: nobody in their right mind would try to
>> >> compete. Why should FTP Software develop an NT version of PC/TCP, when you're
>> >> throwing in an equivalent package with the OS (and cranking up the price to
>> >> cover it)?
>> 
>> >Why should DR develop another DOS when MS DOS covers that base?
>> 
>> Not quite the same thing, Pete.  What he's talking about is someone
>> writing something that you would need NT to run, when NT already
>> includes a full-blown version of that functionality.  Your example is
>> more along the lines of someone producing a better NT (including
>> networking, plus a bunch of things that NT won't do).  His point is
>> valid.  How many copies of a package to do X am I likely to be able to
>> sell if the ability to do X is already built into the thing my package
>> requires in order to run?

>Oh, sorry, bad example I guess, didn't get the point across.

>How about "Why should Norton develop Norton Desktop".

Because the Progman/File Manager paradigm stinks?

>Added functionality you say?

>Bingo, I say.
>Now apply that argument to basic network stuff.

Ah, so you're saying that anyone who really wants a usable system is
going to have to pitch the included network stuff anyway?  So how come
everyone who buys NT is going to have to pay for it when they're going
to need to replace it with something usable anyway?

[No, I don't expect MS to ship badly broken network stuff -- which is
just my point.  Once again, the example doesn't really fit very well.]

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy