HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: X is a hack? (was Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks!)
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 10:50:45 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <weinkam.714964720@sfu.ca> weinkam@fraser.sfu.ca (James Lawrence Weinkam) writes:
> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
> 
> >Well, although NT is not out yet, nor that the "16 bit Windows support" is
> >not done yet--the NT can, potentially, be better at handling Windows 3.1
> >than IBM... for the mere reason that Microsoft has all the source code
> >for 3.1...
> 
> Doesn't IBM also have all the source code for windows 3.1 as part of
> their agreement with microsoft.  If so, the windows support in os/2 will
> be as good as the support in NT since both will be using the same 
> source code.
> 
> James

It will - n fact - be even better. The Win3.1 support in the OS/2 upgrade will
allow Windows programs that don't run under Win3.1 to run under WinOS/2.
 
Steve
 
-- 
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
Subject: Re: THANK YOU, Microsoft!
From: <LENBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Wednesday, 2 Sep 1992 20:47:57 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <Btz54D.1tJ@rice.edu>, amitp@rice.edu (Amit J Patel) says:
>
>Thank you Microsoft!  The OS/2 version of MS-Word 5.5 works beautifully
                                                  ^^^^^
>under OS/2 2.0!  :) :) :)  The only app that I use that didn't work when
>I moved to OS/2 is Atech's Fastfonts... and it's not an MS program!
>
>        Amit

       Eh? 5.5?
       Where did you get PM-Word 5.5 from?
       Has Gates had a change of heart?  :-)

P.S. Another note...if anyone sent me Email this Monday or Tuesday
     to M05BC@CUNYVM.BITNET or M05BC@CUNYM.CUNY.EDU...Could you
     resend it again at LENBC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU or LENBC@CUNYVM.BITNET.
     My summer account has been deleted and I expect to get my fall
     account tomorrow.  Unfortunately all Email sent to M05BC has
     been lost :-(  We got a sysadm with an itch kill acct finger and
     didn't give me a chance to backup my old account.

                                     All The Best,
New Account available tomorrow
  Reply to:                          Edward Galarza,
     LENBC@CunyVM.Cuny.Edu    |      Brooklyn College Of The
     LENBC@CunyVM.BitNet      |      City University Of New York
------------------------------+      "Que viva el OS/2!"
From: ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Andrew T. Robinson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (was: Re: Some more misconceptions...)
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:03:07 GMT
 <1992Sep2.151822.6429@mksol.dseg.ti.com> <92246.153543ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
 <1992Sep3.131926.20463@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
Organization: University of Maine System

>I don't want to get into the middle of this "Microsoft is good/evil"
>debate, but I do want to point out that not supporting existing OS/2
>products could well be profit-maximizing for Microsoft in the long run,
>even if they could make short-term profits today through such support.
>MS may feel that producing OS/2 products will only draw sales away from
>Windows today and NT in the future.  Not only would MS like to see users
>buy MS operating systems (and OS-like software), but they have a
>dominant position in DOS/Windows software which is missing in OS/2
>software, so encouraging purchases of Windows also spurs the sales of
>other MS products.
>
   I think I said exactly that in my original posting--MS wants to
   force people into a particular environment.  It's definitely
   a business choice--I just don't agree with it.  MS has a variety
   of wonderful products, but in the long run I think they're slitting
   their own throat by saing "We only support our own operating
   environment."  People (will) want cross-platform support so they
   *aren't* locked into a single vendor (look at IBMs restructuring
   for an example).  MS is bringing a 60s computer vendor mentality
   to a 90s world.  I just hope people wake up and reject it soon.

>The above is not to condone Microsoft's practice, but is just to point
>out that it might not be irrational.
>
   Of course it's not irrational!  It's a calculated move on the part
   of MS.  I'm probably one of the few people who has a problem with it.
   Bill Gates & Co. are crying all the way to the bank about my
   protestations, I'm sure, but I still don't like the company (MS).

Andy
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: MS Gave Up (Was Re: pc week and nt)
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:05:45 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Aug20.171233.20569@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
>
>In a previous article, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) says:
>
>[a long argument comparing OS/2 to a child with divorced parents deleted]
>
>>>So what actually did happen?
>>
>>Would you believe me if I told you? ;)
>>
>>Let's just say it was an unfortunate disagreement
>>in which both sides were responsable, but it was
>>more the situation.
>
>Why do you drop little comments on the sly and apply stretched 
>analogies instead of comming out and presenting information?

Because in this area, it is unclear what is covered by my
NDA and what is not.  I suspect that the IBM folks have the
same problem.
>
>Why did microsoft stop making OS/2 apps for their flag ship
>applications?

Because OS/2 was not selling like hotcakes, and they were
working on other things, such as the next versions.
IMHO, at least.
>
>Why did microsoft let os/2 development stall for 6-12 months
>until IBM decided that they better start their own tean lest
>the whole project dry up and blow away?

It stalled?  Gosh, in those last few months I was working.  
I don't seem to remember a stall.

>
>Why does microsoft employ negative advertising against os/2,
>such as the windows apps time test?

Why does apple do the same.  And IBM.  And Coke.  And Pepse. And so on.
If you don't like capitalism, well, there's at least one large communist
country left you can go hang out in.  Also a buch of small totalitarian
dictatorships.
>
>Why is Steve Balmer so antagonistic towards OS/2?

See Above Answer.
>
>The only answer I can see is that a decision was made at the highest
>levels in microsoft to abandon the product.
>
>Why can't you just say that microsoft abandonded OS/2?
>Is it some mental block that you have?

Okay, lets start from the top here...
What do you mean by abandon.
If you mean that microsoft plotted to piss off all of its
customers, and is trying to take over the world, and is
trying to force all people to have a CDROM player on their
desk, well, NO.

If you simply mean that MS passed ownership of OS/2 over to
IBM, well, MS did that.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (was: Re: Some more misconceptions...)
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 06:53:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.022844.29044@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Sep3.182226.16745@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>>>
>>>companies) from the former branch.  Shouldn't the reverse be true?  Isn't
>>>it unfair for companies making competing OSes if MS witholds applications
>>>from those OSes simply because they compete with DOS/Windows?
>
>>Well, although I don't condone the ethical stand that Microsoft has obviously
>>made, I do see their point: is it ethical for an Automobile manufacturer to
>>make automobile parts that can only fit on their models?
>
>That analogy doesn't quite work since an automobile and its parts are
>one and the same.  An operating system and application software are not.

No both things are "parts" in the sense that an OS+APPS is a customer's
solution.  The "Apps" in question wouldn't even EXIST if Microsoft didn't
write them (sure other apps would be available, but not Excel or 
Word for Windows, etc.).  It's like Ford inventing a new, patented
engine for only Ford cars--and public opinion trying to force them to make
it fit in a Mazda.  Sure, from an ethical standpoint, Ford should make the
new invention public domain... from a business standpoint it's "I want to
keep my factory workers employed."
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs OS/2 features (was Re: Misinformation about os2-dos HW access)
Date: 3 Sep 1992 19:24:23 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, ckincy@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) says:

>>It seems to me that printer drivers for bit-image printers (like dot-
>>matrix and non-PostScript lasers) should be easy to write.  Take
>>generic code and fill in the strings to go to graphics mode, exit
>>grpahics, etc.  It should be doable with a script file, much like Word
>>fod DOS's MAKEPRD.EXE program made Word printer drivers from a script.
>
>*Laughlin voice on*
>
>WRONGGGGGGG!!!  
>
>*Laughlin voice off*

I think you mean McLaughlin, but I can still hear the voice,
and it is still really funny.
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: 02 Sep 92 18:37:07 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <19920901.060433.67@almaden.ibm.com> ADUNSMUI@TOROLAB6.VNET.IBM.COM (Al Dunsmuir) writes:
>In <1992Sep01.010548.11230@microsoft.com> Phil Lafornara writes:
>>     C++ is a non-trivial language to support - if IBM is just
>>starting now, don't expect to see anything from them for a while.
>
>  Check out Ian Ameline's previous postings re C++ for OS/2 from the
>C-Set/2 folks.  Why think that IBM is just starting now?

     Because that's what the original post implied.  You'll note
the "if" in my statement above - it indicates (at least to me) that
I was not at all sure of the information, and was merely
speculating.

					-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: thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: win-os/2 tweaks
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:37:30 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <16855D0D7.MLONG@isucard.card.iastate.edu>, MLONG@isucard.card.iastate.edu writes:
> In article <1992Sep1.153905.17566@news.iastate.edu>                             
> TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:                            
> Nice to see another Iowa State'er out here.  Answer to #1 is that WINOS2 only   
> uses DPMI, not EMS or XMS.  So you want to have these small so that OS/2 does   
> not try to allocate this memory which is not needed.                            
> Mike Long                                                                       
> Iowa State University                                                           
> CARD / Economics                                                                
A question.  If Win-OS/2 only uses DPMI memory, why do you need to 
set the XMS memory limit to 64k?  Why not 0k?  Is the 64k for DOS?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  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...   |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: nt goes "late beta" i
Organization: Canon Information Systems Research Australia
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:44:26 GMT

usdta004@mmm.serc.3m.com (Timothy S. Shea) writes:
>IBM's mainframe support is unmatched.  We have always had great success
>with support for mainframe and workstation products.  PC support?  That
>is an entirely different question.

How much are you paying for the mainframe support? I agree that their
support for the mainframes is v.good but it costs. The last mainframe
place I worked (an large transaction processing place had around $A40
million worth of IBM hardware. We had an IBM CSR onsite 6 days a week.
The cost? Many tens of thousands of dollars a month (the place
measured its revenues in the billions per year though, all made
through its computer systems so spending that sort of money to make
sure they keep going is acceptable).
-- 
Andy Newman (andy@research.canon.oz.au)		"int - God's own type"
From: ADUNSMUI@TOROLAB6.VNET.IBM.COM (Al Dunsmuir)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 23:32:53 EDT
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 is a best seller.
Organization: IBM Canada Laboratory Ltd, Toronto, CANADA
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 3.0

In <3SEP199217331080@rigel.tamu.edu> Walter Barnett writes:
>OS/2 is on this month's best seller list in PC-Magazine.  Note that the
>fine print indicates the sales include only shipments to distributors
>and retailers, direct sales are not included.  This might be the start
>of Big Bill's worst nightmare coming true...
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Walter Barnett        Aerospace Engineering        Texas A&M University
>
Walter,

  Note that the sales through IBM's 1-800 numbers (including upgrades)
fall into the "direct sales" catagory and are _not_ included.  Think about
where OS/2 would be on the list if those numbers were added in... <g>
rer
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: db3l@ans.net (David Bolen)
Subject: Re: REXX is... (was: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.3)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:15:16 GMT
	<92247.174007ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
	<1992Sep4.154739.2704@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: Advanced Network & Services, Inc. - Elmsford, NY

In article <1992Sep4.154739.2704@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:

>Actually, REXX under OS/2 has quietly gone to a mostly compiled
>language.  Upon first invocation a REXX program will compile, and the
>compiled code will be stored in the extended attributes.  Subsequent
>invocations are much faster.
>
>Would someone care to clean up the details on this?

Well, compile may be a bit strong - tokenizing is more appropriate.  What is
stored in the extended attributes is a pre-tokenized version of the Rexx code.
The program itself is still interpreted during execution.

Of course, tokenizing a long program can be fairly time consuming, so this
can still be a big win, especially from the point of view that the program
begins executing almost immediately after it is loaded, so it starts up much
faster.

--
-- David
--
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
 \              David Bolen             \  Internet: db3l@ans.net      /
  |   Advanced Network & Services, Inc.   \   Phone: (914) 789-5327   |
 / 100 Clearbrook Road, Elmsford, NY 10523  \   Fax: (914) 789-5310    \
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------/
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Brian, your bias is showing ( was Re: OS/2 vs NT features
Date: 1 Sep 1992 16:39:17 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) says:

>
>OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.2
>
>I've spent many hours digging this information out. I've tried
>to be as unbiased as I can.




>Features currently in Windows NT but not in OS/2 2.0

Windows NT currently doesn't have any features because it is not released.
While NT is not vapourware, it is certainly not a shipping product.  Not
even in the sense that os/2 LA was.  It isn't a product because it has 
not got a fixed feature set and noone uses it yet.  Perhaps it should
be called phantom ware.  There certainly is something out there but it
hasn't taken shape yet.  Or maybe it could be called rainbow ware.  
Just over the next hill is leprechaun Bill and his pot of gold.


>	All but 60K kernel is pageable. (Microkernel design)

So will installable file system code be pagable?

>OS/2 2.0 will add the following in September/October
>	Catch up to NT by having Windows 3.1 support.
>	Catch up to NT by adding a 32-bit GUI.
>	Catch up to NT by allowing 32-bit drivers.
>	Rumored to slim-down such that it might properly fit in 4 megs.

How can OS/2 catch up to something that doesn't exist?
There is no way a shipping product can catch up with 
another products advertisments.

And as for using the word 'rumored', you should list every windows NT
feature as a rumour.


>Windows NT will add the following in September/October
>	Catch-up to OS/2 in 16-bit Windows 3.0 compatibility.
>	Smarter, easier to use OLE, first step toward Cairo.
>	POSIX  (1003.1 -- the system calls)
>	Win32s (Run NT programs under Windows 3.1)
>	Remote booting.
>	Remote installation and maintenance support.
>	NTFS
>		Symlinks
>		Sparse File

Gee, you don't list anything as rumoured in this list.
And I believe that OS/2 currently has remote booting (ripl)
and remote installation, so the phantom NT should be 'catching up'
to these features.


Brian,

the point that I am trying to get at is that we are still 6-12 months
away from the shipping date of windows NT.  Who knows what is going to
get added, cut, or bastardized in mircosofts rush to get the product
out the door?  Nobody knows.  Nobody even knows when the product will
ship.  I liked your list, even if you did fail to hide your bias, but
just settle down a bit and lets see what happens.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ekl@fics.uucp
Subject: Re: NT vs OS/2 features (was Re: Misinformation about os2-dos HW access)
Organization: Kvam data as
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 01:04:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep01.010548.11230@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.071152.10931@nuscc.nus.sg> eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (TAN JIN MENG) writes:
>>: 	Pen Support.
>>Well seeing that I still am not convinced pen computing is such a big
>>thing, I'll reserve comment.
>
>     Pens are neat.  They seem to be a niche market for the moment,
>although that may change in the future.  I can't imaging anyone
>who can write faster than they can type, though...

OS/2 also has planned pen support. The 1992 Personal Systems Technical
forum (London, 23-25th September) will have a speach on pen os/2 (to
be held by Janice Roberts)

>>: 	SDK has C++
>>Borland's C/C++ is in beta now. I believe C++ is next on IBM's compiler
>>development list. Zortech has some (I belive) primitive OS/2 support
>>already. Don't forget GCC of course which (apparently - since I don't
>>have the toolkit |-(.) works with the IBM supplied toolkit.
>
>     C++ is a non-trivial language to support - if IBM is just
>starting now, don't expect to see anything from them for a while.
>GCC does do C++, however.  Probably doesn't optimize, though.

Two points here: IBM has one of the best C++ compilers available, running
under AIX. These are not (only) my words, but the words of Bjarne 
Stroustrup.  The same team which made this compiler is doing the os/2
compiler, according to "reliable sources"

Another is the quality of GCC. On several unix platforms, gcc is the best
compiler available. So, generally, gcc is very good. It also does optimize,
though I don't know if this applies to the os/2 version.

>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.

Eirik
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin)
Subject: Re: MS Gave Up (Was Re: pc week and nt)
Date: 27 Aug 92 03:07:17 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Aug24.170037.362@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>>
>>      For the same reason Microsoft doesn't make applications for
>>the TRS-80.  The market was too small.
>
>But MS never had any TRS-80 apps.  

Another authorative posting from someone whose ignorance is awesome.  I
note the ".edu" in Mr Charlap's address.  Any bets as to whether this
is an undergraduate that hadn't yet learned to read, 13 years ago, when
I wrote - and shipped (I personally sealed some of the first boxes) a
Microsoft app for the TRS-80.  It's been a while, but I'm very confident
that we had several TRS-80 products and I'm absolutely positive that
we had at least one...

	gordon letwin
	not a microsoft spokesperson
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: liuyu@kramden.nyu.edu (Liuyu)
Subject: Re: IS IBM UK STILL IN THE STONE AGE???
Organization: New York University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:59:11 GMT

mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) writes:

>In article <liuyu.715218219@kramden> liuyu@kramden.nyu.edu (Liuyu) writes:
>>It's not about how clumsy Hercules is. Hey CGA is clumsier and IBM's supporting
>>it. If they want to drop old cards, they should drop them all. Why drop only
>>competitor's? It makes me wonder if IBM will support other vendor's standard
>>in future.

>I hope IBM does not drop all the old cards; VGA and 8514/A is
>five-and-a-half years old (back in the 286-is-king days).

>How is Hercules a competitor to IBM?  All of IBM's computers have
>video hardware built in (except Model 95, which is MCA, not AT).
>I hope you don't think that the Hercules card can fit in an MCA slot.

I should have said former competitor as someone told me through email.
Hercules was a competitor in early PC days. They gobbled up much of the 
video market. Besides this is has nothing to do my point.


>You should contact Hercules; ask them to write drivers.

No, IBM should have written a standard Herc driver like most of others did.


>P.S.  Everyone reading this:  let each one of us make a new video
>      card.  That could mean thousands of different video cards.
>      Now lets demand that IBM make a driver for each of these cards.

Nonsense!
You still don't get the point. I'm tired of explaining!

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy