HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ritz@ritz.mordor.com (Christopher Mauritz)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 22 Dec 92 05:58:09 GMT
Organization: Ritz International, Inc. -- Import/Export Consultants
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Joe Discar (discar@nosc.mil) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec21.153800.2223@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
: >	Well Rick, Since you introduced the tire analogy, lets examine
: >it a little furthur. Would you consider it a convenience if you went 
: >to buy a $70,000 porche, and the dealer said "Sure we will sell
: >you one, and they come already equipped with $30 Uniroyal Tiger Paws, beacuse
: >Uniroyal only allows us to sell Tigerpaws on the Yugos we sell if will make 
: >Tigerpaws standard all cars we sell." Well Why pay the extra $120 for four
: >tires that you didn't want to begin with? Of course you would want Goodyear
: >VR-60's, Michellin's or Pirelli P-7's, but you have to remove the Tigerpaws, buy 
: >the tires you want separately, and put them on yourself.
: >                      	
: >	This analogy is no different than the MS-DOG/Windoze bundling that 
: >Microsoft has pressured Clone Makers into. If I wanted a Yugo with cheap tires,
: >I would buy one. But I prefer OS/2, and would like to have the option of having
: >it preinstalled on a machine I buy.
: 
: But, you see, it won't work.  Few people would want Uniroyal Tiger Paws on
: their porche.  If, in your example, 95% of all porche buyers wanted
: Tiger Paws, then the dealer would probably sign an agreement with
: Uniroyal so they could get $30 tires for $8.  But since most people
: want higher quality tires, the dealer dare not do such a thing as sign on
: with Uniroyal.
: 
: You are right.  Your analogy is no different than MS's and the bundling
: except that MOST PC buyers WANT "Uniroyal Tiger Paws" on their Porche.
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: In which case, it is better (in terms of profit) for the vendor to
: acquire "Tiger Paws" for the cheapest amount possible.

And who is to decide what "MOST PC buyers WANT?"  The Ziff-Davis crowd
who MSoft has put in their pocket through advertizing $$$???  No thanks.
I think it should be up to the individual customer to CHOOSE what operating
system they want rather than deal with the heavyhanded and monopolistic
practices of Msoft.  I look forward to the FTC taking a bite out of Bill
Gates.  Just remember how expensive long distance service was before the 
government forced a more competetive market on Ma Bell...or should I say
before Bill McGowan (former chairman of MCI) tricked the federal government
into forcing a more competetive market on Ma Bell... :-)

Cheers,

Chris

--
Christopher Mauritz                 | My views reflect those of my
ritz@ritz.mordor.com                | company since I own the company.
{backbone}!rutgers!spcvxb!ritz!ritz | Ritz International, Inc.
OS/2 OS/2 OS/2 OS/2 OS/2 OS/2 OS/2  | Import/Export Consultants
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: bayko@mercury.cs.uregina.ca (John  Bayko)
Subject: Re: Motorola couldn't make enough 68000's
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 20:07:32 GMT
Organization: University of Regina, SK, Canada

In article
    <1992Dec29.042742.28238@actrix.gen.nz>
    Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
writes:
>In article
>    <1hnqn1INN5le@tamsun.tamu.edu>
>    bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
>writes:
>> 
>> From my understanding, IBM did not think much of the PC at first and
>> went for the absolute cheapest chips consistent with typical IBM
>> reliability requirements (I've not heard of reliability complaints
>> from any IBM machine--they may not have pushed the state of the art,
>> but they are pretty reliable.)
>> 
>> In fact, if IBM would have gone with Motorola, I don't think MS would
>> exist today.
>
>I hate to re-hash arguments that have occurred over the years in other
>newsgroups.....but my understanding is that IBM went with the Intel 8088
>because Motorola - at that time - simply could not produce the 68000 chips in

    Here is the information that I have, from The Great Microprocessor
list... It's only slightly blatantly biased...

John Bayko.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Great Microprocessors of the Past and Present (V 4.0.0)

Section Three: The Great Dark Cloud Falls: IBM's Choice.
               ----------------------------------------

Part IV: Intel 8086, IBM's choice (1978)

[...general description of the 8086 and related processors...]

    So why did IBM chose the 8086 series when most of the alternatives
were so much better? Apparently IBM's own engineers wanted to use the
68000, and it was used later in the forgotten IBM Instruments 9000
Laboratory Computer, but IBM already had rights to manufacture the
8086, in exchange for giving Intel the rights to it's bubble memory
designs. Apparently IBM was using 8086-types in the IBM Displaywriter
word processor.
    Other factors were the 8-bit 8088 version, which could use existing
8085-type components, and allowed the computer to be based on a
modified 8085 design. 68000 components were not widely available,
though it could use 6800 components to an extent.
    Intel bubble memory was on the market for a while, but faded away
as better and cheaper memory technologies arrived.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dinda@cae.wisc.edu (Dinda Peter)
Subject: Re: MS to 'support' OS/2?
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 2 Jan 93 12:34:02 CST

In article <PSHUANG.93Jan1222542@stephen-king.mit.edu> pshuang@athena.mit.edu (Ping Huang) writes:
>
>The High Performance File System existed for OS/2 1.x, although I don't
>remember if it shipped with 1.0 or was one of the enhancements that came
>with 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3. You can find an article in Microsoft System

HPFS was first shipped with OS/2 1.2.  



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: richk@grebyn.com (Richard Krehbiel)
Subject: If things had been different... (was: FCC etc)
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
	<1992Dec22.234828.0203999@locus.com> <28DEC199212022792@moose.cccs.umn.edu>
	<1hnqn1INN5le@tamsun.tamu.edu> <28DEC199217112399@moose.cccs.umn.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 04:04:59 GMT

In article <28DEC199217112399@moose.cccs.umn.edu> rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu (RICHARD HOFFBECK) writes:

>   In article <1hnqn1INN5le@tamsun.tamu.edu>, bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
>   > In fact, if IBM would have gone with Motorola, I don't think MS would
>   > exist today.
>   > 

I think this is probably an overstatement.  Microsoft would not have
been the OS supplier; instead of MS-DOS everywhere, it might have been
CP/M for the 68K instead.  Microsoft would still have been the BASIC
supplier, and with a 68K to run on, MS-Xenix might have caught on.

Certainly had it not been for the PC, I think Intel would be gone.
Look what's happened to Zilog, the makers of the Z-80.  Where are they
today?  They're not a player of significance in the PC market at
least.  They still make Z-80's.  They're current claim to fame is that
they make the smart dual serial port chip in the Macintosh.

Intel had to work as hard as they did to make the x86 perform because
*everything* out-performed it, up until the 386.  The Motorola 68K,
Zilog Z8000, and NS 32016 (the 16 bit CPUs I can think of) were faster
than the 8086 by a wide margin.  (Perhaps if the 68K had won the PC
design, it wouldn't be as fast as it is.)  Intel's 286 didn't quite
catch up to the original 68K, and by that time Motorola had the 32-bit
68020.  The 386, funded by brisk sales of 8088 and 286, finally
managed to outrun the 68030 (which, BTW, finally caught up to the x86
in bundled functionality, with it's on-board MMU).

The 68030 grew more gracefully than the x86 did, though.  I mean, the
386 contains *two* MMUs and *three* incompatible instruction sets...
-- 
Richard Krehbiel                                 richk@grebyn.com
OS/2 2.0 will do for me until AmigaDOS for the 386 comes along...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Date: 23 Dec 92 03:58:07 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Dec22.200742.28629@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, helz@ecn.purdue.edu (R
andall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <BzoA3B.M18@csfb1.fir.fbc.com>, jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com (John Brock
) writes:
>|>
>|> I'm not real interested in arguing the details of this particular
>|> case.  I made a general statement about the free market system, which
>|> is that it is flawed in that it allows monopolies, and that we try to
>|> patch this flaw by interfering with the market.
>
>In all of history (before or after the antitrust laws, or in a country
>today which doesn't have anti-trust laws) which became a monopoly?
>
>The only monopolies I can think of are things like the post office,
>utilites, etc which are illegal to compete against.  Really, the free
>market system is highly intolerant of big behemothic companies, especially
>in high tech areas which move as quickly as software.  A monopoly usually
>requires a goverment to make competing with it illegal.  If you don't
>believe me try to name a counter example.

You came up with one yourself.  Morton Salt.  Or did that just slip your mind?
How about Matashita?  (sp?)  They have a virtual monopoly on an number of
aspects of the consumer electronics industry.  These are monopolies because
the government lets them be, not because it is illeagle to compete with them.

>
>|> suspect you are one of these people.  So I guess my question is are you
>|> defending Microsoft because you don't think it has behaved in such a
>|> way as to warrent interference, or because you think it is always
>|> immoral to interfere with the free market?
>
>I am defending Microsoft because I believe that it is always wrong to
>steal from somebody, which is exactly what the FTC is trying to do.
>Using vague words like "anticompetative practices" and "unfair" just
>confuses the issue.  Tell it like it is.  The FTC is threatening to
>rob at gunpoint Microsoft's trade secrets.  That is immoral and wrong
>under any circuimstances.
>

So using vague phrases like "stealing trade secrets" and "immoral laws"
confuses the issue any less?  That isn't terribly consistant.  In addition,
the FTC is "robbing" nothing and nobody.  They don't steal a thing.  If you
were saying that about a person, you could be taken to court for slander.
Theft is quite different from what the FTC engages in.

-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From: ojtv@phoenix.oulu.fi (Olli Vuolteenaho)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: SMALL Excerpt from "Windows Sources"
Date: 30 Dec 92 07:45:43 GMT
Organization: University of Oulu, Finland
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Mike Timbol (timbol@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <47798@ogicse.ogi.edu> francis@ese.ogi.edu (Francis Moraes) writes:

: Currently, the swap file for NT must be at least 20 MB.  I have heard that
: this is a bug, but cannot verify this.  Even so, 50 MB is much less than
: 90 or 100, and if the "bug" is fixed, the disk space requirements will
: be about equal.
: 
:      - Mike

A few weeks ago Microsoft was demonstrating NT here in Finland. They gave
a handout about NT specs and it states (I have it here in front of me
with a nice Microsoft logo on the letterhead): "Minimum RAM 12 MB (16 MB
recommended), minimum hard disk space 90 MB (300 MB required)."

Olli
______________________________________________________________________
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10684 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3335
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:24:17 GMT

In <1992Dec31.033739.1912@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

>In article <8261@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>|> In article <1992Dec30.201544.27892@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>|> >I have ignored every argument based on name-calling--simply labeling something
>|> >"sleazy, underhanded, etc" doesn't make it so.
>|> 
>|> ...but we've shown why it's sleazy and underhanded. You say there's a choice.
>|> Sure there is: it's a choice between paying a royalty for every machine and
>|> going out of business because MS charges quite a bit more for the privilege of
>|> not having to pay a royalty on every machine. Some choice.

>*sigh* If you want to be a dealer of McDonald's burgers you have to sign a
>deal with McDonald's not to sell Whoppers.  Is McDonald's liscencing
>agreements "sleezy and underhanded?"  Is this "strongarming Wendy's out of
>business?"  Is this putting the Colonel at an "unfair competitive
>disadvantage?"  Should sheriff FTC round up a possie on the Ponderosa?

But Microsoft isn't claiming to run a franchise business, and I
seriously doubt that a lot of dealers would be willing to become
Microsoft franchises, no matter if they actually DO sell DOS with
every machine.  In other words, this isn't even close to being the
same thing.  If you can't come up with germane analogies, perhaps you
shouldn't bother.  Or perhaps you are incorrect?

-- 
"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
From: robert.heuman@rose.com (robert heuman)
Subject: FCC will proclaim Mic
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:03:59 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 12-29-92 18:54
lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) wrote, in
Message <1992Dec28.160217.0221327@locus.com>
L(>                          Microsoft is incorporated under the laws
L(> of the state of Washington and the United States of America.  In seeking
L(> Incorporation, Microsoft agreed explicitly to follow the rules and
L(> regulations--no matter how restrictive--of those jurisdiction that
L(> said incoropration was sought under.  To say that the rules, that MS
L(> incorportated under, are unfair now and should be changed, even though
L(> these are the same rules that allowed Billy Gates to make 5.5 billion
L(> US Dollars, is a very unteniable argument.  If Bill Gates was unwilling
L(> to live by these rules, then his incorporation should have been from
L(> Tonga, the Lesser Antillies, or Lichtenstein.  Since he incorporated
L(> in the United States, he has to bear the brunt of any violation of
L(> the rules he has previously agreed to follow.

I say move MicroSoft to Vancouver (not very far, and the medical 
benefits are far better) and re-incorporate in Canada.  I'm sure we 
won't object, and it puts to bed the whole arguement...

Bob
 
---
   RoseReader 1.70 P001886: This Canadian has an Opinion...His Own!
   RM 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: IBM OS/2 Fiesta Bowl
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 23:11:41 GMT

In <Bzs0nG.6uu@unx.sas.com> sasghw@pica.unx.sas.com (Greg Wust) writes:


>In article <1992Dec24.145156.7787@panix.com>, os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.) writes:
>|> In <697@riscy.simplot.com> rshelley@riscy.simplot.com (Robert Shelley) writes:
>|>
>|> >Of course, but, that means OS Bowl 1 would be:
>|> >    OS/2 v DOS
>|>
>|> >That isn't fair though,  when dos passed the ball, all
>|> >the players would stop!  When the center hiked the ball
>|> >for that matter!
>|>
>|> A friend of mine said she heard on the radio that IBM signed a contract to
>|> allow them to sponsor some major TV event.  I am almost sure that it was a
>|> sporting event.  Can someone confirm this?
>|>
>|> If this is true, there would be a *definate* opportunity for OS/2 commercials
>|> (and maybe they won't put any insomnia cures out of business).
>|>

>Yes - this is true.  But, IBM's size does them in again.  Seems they
>started in contract negotiations over a year ago when Arizona was going
>to vote on the Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday which caused them the loss
>of the SuperBowl.  I guess IBM assumed it would either pass this time
>or would not affect college's.  BUT, the referendum was voted down so
>Arizona does not have a Martin Luther King Jr. holiday and because of it,
>no colleges will sign up except little dunks like Arkansas Central U or
>some odd one.

Man, you really should get out more.  Fiesta Bowl (Tempe, AZ) this
year is the University of Colorado (Big Eight and all that -- not
exactly a 'little dunk', what with some 30k students or so, although
they DID used to say we were kind of odd ;-)) and Syracuse (ranked #6
in the nation this year, I think).

Yep, sure sounds like people are avoiding the Fiesta Bowl in droves.

-- 
"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
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:33:48 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1hadt5INNeu1@hpscit.sc.hp.com> kitchin@lf.hp.com (Bruce Kitchin) writes:
>
>There was a quote last winter/spring attributed to Maples of MS by the
>Wall Street Journal.  At the time I thought it a very strange statement
>to be made by an executive of a company under investigation for monopolisitic
>practices (the FTC investigation was already public knowledge).  Does
>anyone know more about what was actually said and did it mean what it
>sounds like it means?  What he was quoted as saying is roughly, all he
>wants is for MS applications to get a fair share of the market and by
>fair share he means 100%.  I don't have the direct quote but I clearly
>recall that what was printed included the idea the Maples wanted MS to get
>a fair share and that Maples was quoted in the same breath as defining
>a fair share as 100%.  Was this a journalistic error or exageration?
>Was this a slip on Maples part revealing MS's real strategy?  Anyone
>have any facts to add to the WSJ report?

     100% market share should be the goal of any company - it's
not an acheivable goal, but in order to meet their responsilbity
to the stockholders, the directors of the company must do their
best to maximize profits.  100% market share is without a doubt
the best way to do this.
     In other words, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the quote
was correct.  I also don't think it's an uncommon sentiment.

					-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: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 20:34:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.173259.28749@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|> In <1992Dec31.025456.1493@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <1992Dec30.175247.5017@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|> >|> 
|> >|> >The difference could not be greater. If you refuse to buy a copy of Windows 3.x
|> >|> >nobody will point a gun at your head and make you.  Try refusing to
|> >|> >obey a law--you'll be eyeball to eyeball with a man with a gun.
|> >|> 
|> >|> And try refusing Microsoft's kind offer as a small systems reseller
|> >|> and you'll be out of business.  Gee, no coersion there; you can play
|> >|> their way, be big enough to hit back, or not play at all.
|> 
|> >If you want to sell McDonald's hamburgers you'll have to sign an agreement that
|> >you won't sell Wendy's frosties from the same place.  Is McDonald's using
|> >"force" or anticompetitive activities here to establish domination of the 
|> >fast food industry?  Please!!!!
|> 
|> Can you say 'franchise'?  Do you know what the word means?  I thought
|> not.

OK, would you be happier if Microsoft "forced" all cloners into being
franchisee's of Microsoft?  If not, why not?
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11476 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3637
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 3 Jan 1993 15:08:38 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan01.191432.10082@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.224255.27090@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>>Really? And presumably, by the same argument, the only way an AMD386
>>could provide perfect emulation of an Intel 386 is if AMD had access
>>to the original Intel drawings?
>     Yes!  That's exactly my point.  They can get close, but they
>aren't going to be 100% the same as Intel unless, well, they are
>100% the same.

Tell that to Hitachi Data Systems and Amdahl; they produce 100% System/370
compatible mainframes from nothing more than the published functional specs
(primarily, the System/370 Principles of Operation series).

>>Never heard of functional specifications?
>   Of course I have.  This is why I can't understand when people
>complain to Microsoft because DR-DOS didn't meet them exactly.

The only reason DR-DOS doesn't meet them exactly, in your view, is that there
are interfaces to the DOS that MS uses that aren't published.

-- 
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.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 29 Dec 92 20:59:26 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <9212213006@ritz.mordor.com> ritz@ritz.mordor.com (Christopher Mauritz) writes:
>
>And who is to decide what "MOST PC buyers WANT?"  The Ziff-Davis crowd
>who MSoft has put in their pocket through advertizing $$$???  No thanks.

     No, it's the OEMs, who listen to the feedback from their customers.
Right now, those customers overwhelmingly want DOS/Windows.  If
that changes in the future, it may become economical for OEMs
to offer other preinstalled OSes.  Right now it simply is not.


>I think it should be up to the individual customer to CHOOSE what operating
>system they want rather than deal with the heavyhanded and monopolistic
>practices of Msoft.

     The individual customer _does_ choose.  It isn't up to
Microsoft, or OEMs for that matter, to offer you the system that you
want at the _price_ that you want - if the world worked that way,
I'd be driving a Ferrari and eating filet mignon for pennies a day.

				-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