HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT delivery date
Date: 8 Oct 92 08:32:36 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong) writes:

>I read in Computer Shopper that at a press conference, Microsoft says that
>they are going to deliver NT by year's end afterall.

>Does anyone know whether this is true?  And is the code going to be reasonably
>bug free?

>If the answer is positive to the above two questions, OS/2 is in *deep*
>trouble.

You see, this is what causes hair-teraing - people who use Computer Shopper
as their source of industry info. :-)

The current projected release date is 2nd quarter '93, according to InfoWorld,
PC Week, I think, and probably Millie the White House Dog.
 
But, given that Computer Shopper is a Ziff publication, I believe, then
it would not surprise me to see them trying to bolster NT's image. They
may already have set a record for coverage of an unreleased piece of 
software.

Tom
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:41:12 GMT

In <1992Oct15.180504.22599@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>In article <1992Oct14.183226.26511@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <1992Oct13.183619.24862@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>
>>>     The number of users at the console has _nothing_ whatsoever to
>>>do with an OS being multiuser.  You are well aware of this, and I'm
>>>not sure why you keep trying to twist the definition.
>>
>>The number of users at the console, when the console is the only way
>>to 'log in', has _everything_ whatsoever to do with an OS being
>>multiuser.  You are (or ought to be) well aware of this, and I'm not
>>sure why you keep trying to twist the definition (other than so you
>>can claim NT is 'multi-user' and OS/2 isn't.  NYA!).

>     You should also be aware by now that Windows NT can support
>logins from non-console users, if a data channel is provided.  The
>security and multi-user functionality is all there (and it isn't
>in OS/2 2.0).  MS has no plans to provide this data channel, as
>far as I know - that's best left to a third party.

Why?  And why doesn't the same reasoning apply to providing the TCP/IP
in the first place?  All the hooks may be there, but as shipped it is
multi-user only in the sense that background jobs by other users can
be running while a single foreground user runs.  I don't consider that
to be a multi-user OS, and I don't think many other people (other than
those who will agree with MS about pretty much anything) do either.

I personally don't see the point of all this touting of security on
what is, generally, a single user machine.

-- 
"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.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7215 comp.sys.intel:1898 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:26461
From: goyal@utdallas.edu (Mohit K. Goyal)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:23:16 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas

>486DX. Why bother to go back a re-design the 386? It'll be as dead as
>the 286 in a couple of years...
>
Maybe, but for now the 386-40 is an extremely hot seller.  I'm sure AMD
is not complaining.  Somebody just reported that AMD now makes and/or
sells more 386 chips than Intel.

I bought it because it is extremely inexpensive, and it performs 
*extremely* well..
From: garyng@gnct.com (garyng)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: 32-bit OS/2 Apps List
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:30:52 GMT
Organization: Global Network Communication Technology Co.

soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn) writes:

> Brian, you seem to indulge yourself too much in this point, but don't
> you think it is too early to predict?  OS/2 2.0 is out for six or seven
> months now.  Compared to Windows 3.x, it is a way too short a time...

If you are comparing Windows 3.x apps against OS/2 2.0 apps. I believe one
have to count out all the OS2 1.x apps. to make it fair.

-gary
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:35:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.211914.28594@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.022802.14508@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>>In <1992Oct9.171907.3735@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>>
>>>DOS and WIN16 is not too good in the pre-beta SDK, but do you think,
>>>that MS will ship the release version with poorer support for DOS &
>>>WIN16 than OS/2 2.0 currently has?
>>
>>>Well, I really can't imagine that
>>
>>Whether you can imagine it or not, that is exactly what MS has
>>announced.  They have said that NT will "only support the top 100 DOS
>>apps, and the top 100 Win apps" (does anyone still have a copy of this
>>press release from MS they can post or forward to me?).  The trade-off
>>is supposed to be:  you get better protection and process control from
>>NT.  Seems reasonable enough to me; I might even be willing to make that
>>trade-off when NT is released.
>
>     I don't believe that the quote you cite above is correct.
>The key word in there is "only" - it implies that anything but
>those top 100 apps will not run.  This is clearly not the case.

Wrong.  You are the one inferring that support == run.  Support and 
run mean two different things.  Only the top 100 dos and windows apps
will be supported.  That means that many non-top 100 apps will have
a good probability of running, BUT if they don't, you are SOL.  MS doesn't
support your app.

Ted
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:22:25 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct5.210017.17449@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>In <1992Oct5.172005.23380@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>
>>Who doesn't have Windows?
>
>[Raises hand]  :-)
>
>I buy computers at the component level.  And I guess I'm not buying the
>"right" video boards.  :-)  Not that any of this is an issue--I already
>have OS/2, so I can't think of *any* reason why I would want Windoze...

Well, to be honest, I fit your description as well.  I got my OS/2 by
buying a copy of version 1.0 for real cheap at a flea market a year or
two ago.  Then I free-upgraded.  I also built my computer from parts -
surprisingly, it's more compatible with OS/2 than many brand-name
computers!  I got Windows when a friend got it as a freebie and didn't
want it, so he gave it to me.

-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unprofessional Letter from IBM.
Date: 10 Oct 92 23:46:26 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Oct6.235117.27484@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (B
rian Sturgill) writes:
>
(Lots of stuff about the new OS/2 CD-ROM beta and disparaging comments by
Brian deleted.)
>
>Supposedly attendees of the Developer's Conference will get a CD containing
>among other things, Borland's Object Vision, but I see no mention of it.
>Supposedly this was contained in the fee of the conference... but apparently
>I'll need to buy it.

No.  Right here I have a flyer for the OS/2 Developer conference.  They *are*
giving the OS/2 beta CD-ROM and ObjectVision to all those who pay the
conference attendance fee.
>
>Apparently after December 15, 1992 I cannot use the 26 productivity
>tools written by IBM employees.

Good grief Brian.  Do you honestly think that those won't be included in the
release version?  Dispense with the FUD please.
>
>Hopefully someone at IBM will see fit to pass this note on to "Soyring" --
>I'm betting he'll be "real pleased".  I'll be glad to FAX him a copy.

So do so.
>
>Brian
>
>(Oh... shouldn't they have put in a bunch of TM's and (R)'s?  Especially
>for CompuServe... it's not their own.)

Honestly, sometimes I wonder about you Brian and what you did to make IBM mad
at you.  I'm not anything resembling an official developer, and I get good
information in a timely manner from IBM.  I have recieved everything from a
coupon book, to a very well written invitation to the developer's conference
and I got it about a month ago.  The service I have recieved has been by and
large acceptable and I am basically happy with the product.  I am not happy
with MS's competing products or their business tactics and I get no
information from them about anything.  Despite this I am not on some holy
crusade against MS, nor do I claim that all their products are shoddy, or that
they have rotten tech support, or that no one should develop for their
platforms.  Why do you see a need to post things that at times go way beyond
mere FUD to the point of being lies?  I would expect more from someone who
obviously should know better.  (and don't claim that you haven't, all this
stuff about "no developers" is nothing more that a lie)  IBM has produced a
good product.  Not one without its flaws, but certainly it has a lot of
strengths too.  MS has produced good products and they too have their flaws
and strengths.  It would do you well to admit this fact now and again and at
least put on some semblance of objectivity.

>--
>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! :-))
>
-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
From: f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: <None>
Date: 13 Oct 92 08:42:47 GMT
Distribution: na,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67700241

In article <oeqGGmW00YUnEHb0g5@andrew.cmu.edu>, jyri+@CMU.EDU (Jyri Virkki) writes:
>f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes: 
>> >A flawed implication. Why should I, or any user, choose to use an
>> >os that is less capable, if a better one exists?
>> 
>> Because the *application* you want to run is unavailable except on
>> the less capable os?  For instance, DOS is much less "powerful" than
>> Unix, but there are some things I run on DOS that Unix (or whatever
>> weirdo variant I find) can't handle.
> 
> Good point. If your computer use revolves around a [few] given apps
> which don't have any equivalent on the other platform, then certainly
> your only choice would be to stick with the system where it runs.
> But, on the other hand, how many apps are there that have no
> equivalent? I am sure there are many, but not _that_ many. I wouldn't
> think the number of people who are using such 'os-locked' apps would
> be that great. Maybe I'm completely wrong, of course. But at least at
> this moment I can't think of anything I can do in msdos that I
> couldn't do in unix, usually better. That's my experience anyway.

"Better" is kinda subjective, especially on an .advocacy group. :-) I've
been uniformly unsuccessful trying to learn vi/emacs on my own, and
am mystified at how some people could consider TeX "better" than any
DOS WYSIWYG word processor.  But then that's me.  I notice there are
a lot of unix-like DOS utilities for the user moving to DOS, whereas
there are precious few DOS-like utilities for the unix user.  That
turns me off to unix.

Someone mentioned the Print Shop and a lot of games; I might add some
vertical apps (my fantasy baseball league stat manager, e.g.); the newest
Lotus 1-2-3, Japanese text editor/viewers, a series of math-education
menu-driven tools from my university; an IDE programming environment
(Turbo Pascal), the Norton Utilities undeleter, Reflex, etc. to the
list of DOS software unavailable under unix.  I use all these things at
one time or another, so it's a real-world list.

To tie this in to OS/2.... clearly these DOS implementations have 
flaws, due to the single-tasking, no-protection design of the OS.  But
in real life, these flaws are hardly crippling enough to demand that I
junk DOS and get a "more capable" OS.  What matters to me (and to the
buyer in general, I think) is the capability of the app, not of the OS.
For many apps, OS/2 or NT or unix would be the best bet.  For many apps,
DOS, a "less capable" OS, is necessary, sufficient, or both.
-- 
Greg "Mockingbird" Franklin      Interviewer: "Sir, how do you spell relief?"
f67700241@ccit.arizona.edu               Dan: "R-O-L-A-I-D-S-E."

"[George Bush is] the most ruthless white man in the history of the planet."
	-- Richard Ben Cramer, author of _What It Takes_
"The President scores much better than Bill Clinton."
	-- Dan, comparing Bush's record of marital infidelity to Clinton's
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Date: 8 Oct 92 11:49:00 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1992Oct7.193113.14353@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de>, hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>>
>>         Goodies?  Bad DOS and Windows supports aren't on my list of
>> goodies.  It runs its own applets adequately.  My point is, it
>> is unfair to ASSUME that NT is going to fix the DOS and windows problems.
> 
> DOS and WIN16 support is not working quite well, but consider DOS support
> is based on Insignia Soft-PCs, which are quite perfect on MACs, SGIs, etc.
> I really don't mean DOS and WIN16, when I say Goodies. If you want only
> DOS and WIN16 support, then OS/2 2.0 is the right thing for you.

	I might want tht things NT has to offer,  But I need to be
able to run the software I currently have until I can afford to get
NT apps (and while I wait for them ato arrive).  If NT can't give
me good DOS and windows16 support then what is the compelling reason
for most people to go to it?  Backwards cmopatibility certainly
beats out being able to logon by a mile.

					-Brad


> Christoph
> --
> Internet: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de
> Bitnet  : HAMPE2 AT DMRHRZ11
> Fido    : 2:243/660
From: tso@cephalo.neusc.bcm.tmc.edu (Dan Ts'o)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Date: 12 Oct 1992 03:10:19 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston,Tx
NNTP-Posting-Host: cephalo.neusc.bcm.tmc.edu

In article <1992Sep30.150509.25843@cu23.crl.aecl.ca> gutz@cc49.aecl.crl.ca writes:
>
>In article <1992Sep29.175707.4137@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>>  One would have to be pretty naive to believe that MS hasn't
>>>noticed the potential of OS/2 and has not started to build apps.
>>     The potential is not clear yet.  If and when it becomes apparent
>>that OS/2 2.0 will be around for a while, with substantial user base,
>>I would expect some management person to make a decision on whether
>>or not to produce apps for it.  At present, though, OS/2's future is
>>far from clear.

	The real question is: If NT didn't exist, would MS be offering OS/2
apps ?
	Or more to the point, if the FTC sees tomorrow what we all already
know: that MS has been using its control of the OS domain to unfair
competitive advantage in the apps domain (and vice-versa), and splits MS in
two, would the apps-part of MS begin offering OS/2 apps because from an
apps-business viewpoint it is the smart thing to do...

	I wonder if MS people are supporting Bush -- Clinton might well
reverse the Reagan era stance and antitrust laws might actually become
effective again. Although IBM might not be in the best position with regard to
antitrust, surely MS would not survive intact. That would certainly be a boost
for OS/2.

	I think OS/2 will continue to struggle until MS somehow drops or is
made to drop its boycott on OS/2 apps development, so great is MS's presence
in the apps (and compiler) business. Note that I'm not saying MS apps are
great. They can be pretty good, but they, again, got to where they are in large
part due to unfair competitive advantage through OS control (secret calls,
making all other apps companies believe that OS/2 would be the wave of the
future, paradigm shift, DOS "bugs", etc.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:16:28 GMT

In <1992Oct5.214507.22035@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes:

>FYI, I have just unofficially been informed, that Microsoft already has
>C/C++ 7.00 for OS/2 2.0 ready but just doesn't want to sell it.

I have gotten a similar statement from a very reliable source.  However,
the information I recieved was ambiguous--it could have been a reference
to the OS/2 hosted version of C7.

>Please don't ask me where I got this news from.

Ditto.  But it's worth considering this fact--if MS has a compiler that
can generate the OS/2 hosted version of C7, does anyone think that they
would have any difficulty creating a version that compiles OS/2 code? 
Especially OS/2 1.x code?  After all, the object formats are the same in
DOS and OS/2 1.x.  And not a lot different in OS/2 2.0.
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Unprofessional Posts from Brian S.
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Distribution: world 
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 05:15:16 GMT

In article <px6-Xy#@engin.umich.edu> spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu (D. Robert Spexet II) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.230138.274@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>I went back and checked the last 1,000 posts to c.o.o.a, your assertions
>>in this tirade are largely unfounded.  Via e-mail, I'm sending you
>>a copy of all my posts in this last 1,000 messages.
>
>No offense to anybody, but if *anybody* tried to pull this kind of stunt on
>me, I would send an immediate complaint to the system and network admini-
>strators that are responsible for the network connections of
>jaguar.cs.utah.edu.

I only posted 56 of the 1,000 messages... i.e. I sent him the text
of 56 messages... it's not a small file... but it's not that bad either..
What's your problem with it?

>
>Just a thought,
>
>-- 
>D. Robert Spexet II, N0OKR   Internet:  spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu
>Department of Mathematics    BITnet:    user68xr@umichum.bitnet
>The University of Michigan   UUCP:      uunet!mailrus!math.lsa.umich.edu!spexet
>Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109


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: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Date: 9 Oct 1992 18:30:13 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <12292.2ad54c5c@cpva.saic.com> finsys@cpva.saic.com writes:
>Sorry for the ambiguity.  I meant as far as system size, requirements, etc.
>OS/2 includes a lot a features, and corresponding complexity, that seem
>excessive for those of who simply want a good stable multitasker.

That's just it, though: OS/2 is the first really stable DOS multitasker. Even
DESQview, which is good enough for a lot of folks, is vulnerable to a DOS
program running amok; OS/2 isn't, by design. The system has to be a LOT more
complex to go the last little bit. If you don't like the WPS, or HPFS, or
other fancinesses, turn them off!
-- 
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)
From: mph@plasma.apana.org.au (Martin Peter Howell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS-ethics: MS-Windows 3.1 - silent upgrades
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:45:22 GMT

RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at (FLATSCHER Rony) writes:

...Lots of stuff deleted...

>Any hard-core Windows-user should by then give 32bit OS/2 a try. For them,
>it is the best DOS- and Windows-multitasker for PCs available on the market. No
>one else, not even Microsoft, has a product which beats it. Imagin, true multi--
>tasking of your Windows-apps and the protection earned by an excellent
>true operating system !

This is certainly true.  I am continually amazed at how much attention is
given to the "soon to be released" Windows NT when OS/2 is available now
and can do the same things that NT is claiming.  When NT is eventually 
released it will be significantly behind OS/2 in terms of features/stability
and will be handicapped by trying to conform to the Windows 3.1 interface.
So why don't people just get hold of OS/2?  

-Martin.
mph@plasma.apana.org.au
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy