HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Date: 2 Oct 92 13:50:38 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct1.162606.25023@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>Why does NT have to be release before it starts cutting in
>on OS/2 sales.  My guess is that the first good beta release that
>has all the magazines raving about it will stop OS/2 sells dead
>in its tracks.

What companies are going to advance-purchase a product that isn't out
and has had it's release date slipped many times?  Yes, companies may
delay sales a bit, but they certainly aren't going to buy NT if it
isn't out.  And as OS/2 gets more stable (with bug fixes) and NT
remains unreleased, companies begin to see more and more reasons to
get OS/2. 

If a company wants a multitasking system.  Right now, the choice is a
buggy OS/2 or wait and do without.  If OS/2 gets to the point that
they decide to use it, that's it.  They won't wait for MS to ship NT
once they find a useable package, since it's unclear when NT will be
shipped, and they don't want to wait forever.

>OS/2 is not only an inferior product, but IBM has repeatedly proven
>that it cannot market it.  Things can change but they had better do
>so fast.

OS/2's stability is improving rapidly now.  As for IBM's marketing,
I'll have to agree with you.  (gasp!!  Brian and I agree on
something!!)  As for inferior, it depends on how you look at it.  When
both OS/2 and NT stabilize (I expect this to be one bug-fix release
after NT's release), NT will have more bang, but it will also have
more buck, so I think they'll balance out there.

>You're saying that developers having the pre-release early won't
>effect NT's market?  You should work for IBM... they didn't seem
>to think that early availablity of apps was important either.

Until NT is released, it doesn't do much good.  As for apps, we'll
both have to wait and see.  They're certainly not going to ship before
NT does, and "intent to develop" means little in this market.
-- 
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"
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6296 alt.politics.kibo:94
From: pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.windows.advocacy,alt.politics.kibo
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Date: 27 Sep 92 14:17:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: scott.1992Sep27.141714.10852
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY, 12866

In article <cc#pr6n.erb@netcom.com> erb@netcom.com (Elizabeth R. Brown) writes:
>when the time is right.
>
>So, from a Windows bigot to all you OS/2 bigots I say:  "Join us!  Feel the 
                                                          ^^^^^^^^

>power of the Dark Side!  Together the Universe will be ours!!  
>Mwhaahaaaaahaaa!"    ---> (:-)
>
>
>Ebbot R. Bane	            | "Your Kung-Fu is no good!  Don't pick a fight
>Soft Images, Inc.           |  with me unless you want to get hurt kid!"
>San Jose, CA                | _NO KILL I_ |_| "I never said that!" - Kibo.


Well, you convinced me!   Went to my local software store, but was
disappointed to find out that they don't carry NT, bummer :-(  Oh,
well, I'll just have to continue using OS/2.

-- 
Pierre von Kaenel	| Skidmore College	     | pvonk@skidmore.edu
Math & CS Dept.		| Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 | (518)584-5000 Ext 2391

[.... old sig has been retired.  New sig isn't ready yet. ]
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6390 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2228 comp.os.os2.misc:31485
From: mauritz_c@spcvxb.spc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: So much for Msoft's bluster <grin>
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:02:33 GMT
Organization: SPC Community Access System

09/25 (DW) Microsoft Delays Shipments of Windows NT Operating System
    By Ken Yamada
    Dow Jones Staff Reporter
	
    REDMOND, Wash. -DJ- Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) said the first shipments
of its Windows NT operating system software are expected to be delayed
until early 1993.
    The software maker had initially expected to begin selling its new
operating system software by the end of this year.  But early 1993 is
''what it's going to take to ship a very high quality product based on
the performance customers want,'' Dwayne Walker, Microsoft's Windows NT
director, told Dow Jones.
    Since July, Microsoft has shipped more than 20,000 advance copies of
the software, called developer kits, to potential corporate customers
and independent software developers for testing, Walker said.  By the
end of this year, that number is expected to rise to 25,000, he said.
    Because there is such widespread testing of the new software, Walker
said, is expecting to get a huge volureports back from
testers, which will contribute to the delay in the product's shipping
date.  Consequently, Walker said he could not say exactly when the
product would begin selling.
    Microsoft expects that about 20% to 25% of users of its operating
systems software enhancement, called Windows, will convert to Windows
NT, he said.  The new software is targeted at corporate, scientific and
engineering customers, Walker said.
    And he said that application software for Windows NT was rapidly
being developed.  In November at Comdex, a computer trade show, over 300
different software that run on Windows NT are expected to be exhibited,
he said.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6506 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2241 comp.os.os2.misc:31629
From: sammy@anagld.analytics.com (Sam Blackburn)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: So much for Msoft's bluster <grin>
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:48:45 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Computer Sciences Corporation - Systems Engineering Division

olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund) writes:

>When NT finally will be available (by the
>end of '93?), there will be a lot of OS/2 2.0 users and a lot of
>powerfull 32-bits OS/2 applications out there.

Debatable.  From a developer's point of view it makes more sense to develop a
Windows application because OS/2 can run Windows apps.  You've killed two birds
with one stone.  This, of course, does not apply to "server" type applications.
When NT comes out you've got an application that runs on THREE operating systems
instead of being tied to only one with OS/2.

                                                               o
Sam Blackburn                                                    \
Internet:   sammy@sed.csc.com                                  \O/
Compuserve: 76300,326                     ||====================|====||
GEnie:      SAMMY                         ||-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-/\+-+-||
                                          ||===================\=\===||
                                          ||                         ||
                                          || Kill or be killed.      ||
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: 4 Oct 92 16:40:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct4.164047.12724
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

Tuan Minh Nguyen writes:
>IBM will initially run AIX on their box.  The 601 chip was just officially
>released.  It is supposed to be as fast or faster than the P5 and cheaper to
>produce.  
>For more info, check out all the trade mags.
>

The trade mags I saw said that they had just reached first silicon.  Where
did you see that the chip was released?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: OS/2 longetivity ( was Re: Interesting Tidbit
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 30 Sep 1992 17:32 EST  

In article <1992Sep24.204744.16082@njitgw.njit.edu>, dic5340@hertz.njit.edu 
(David Charlap) writes...
>In article <CB.92Sep24134051@tamarack13.timbuk> cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris 
Brewster) writes:
>>
>>I talked to a tech at Northgate who happens to like OS/2 and has it
>>running on several Northgate systems.  He says he's the *only* person he
>>knows there who's interested in it.  A conversation with a Northgate
>>salesman gave me the same impression.  Are any brands promoting it,
>>rather than just tolerating it?
> 
>Well, Dell is offering OS/2 2.0 as one of their OS choices with their
>computers.  I think you can now choose from six different OS's
>including DOS, OS/2 and Unix.

Lets see here, Zeos.  Oh yes.  The fine folks who offered "genuine Hercules 
cards" with their 486 systems.  Maybe IBM left hercules support out of OS/2 
2.0 just to piss 'em off.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Miscellaneous NT information.
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:24:48 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Originator: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu


A friend of mine just attended a DARPA meeting in DC... it was addressed
by Mark Ryland of Microsoft's DC/Federal office.  Here's some of
my friend's notes:

	1. Disk buffers are first class objects whose ownership changes from
           the OS to the application when a read is complete.  This alleviates
           any need for copying in the device driver.

	2. They distributed 20,000 copies of the pre-release Dev. Kit.

	3. The non-pageable kernel is 50KB in size.

	4. Microsoft is building OLE 2.0 for MacIntosh as well as for PCs.

	5. Final release will be in February/March 1993.  The beta release will
           occur sometime in October 92.

	6. Windows NT sources will be available to researchers.  The main
	   restriction will be that no SALABLE derivatives will be allowed
           without extensive negotiations with MS.  This further indicates to
           me that:

		1. MS is really serious about trying to displace UNIX.
		2. WindowsNT pricing will be so low that it won't make sense
                   to try and build the distribution from sources.
		3. WindowsNT will definitely be as "open" as UNIX.

	   He indicated that the source release won't occur until MS is
	   satisfied that they have reasonably robust product.

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! :-))
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 16:55:53 GMT

sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:

>Also, hard
>drive manufacturers have approached IBM with interest in selling hard
>drives with OS/2 2.0 preloaded.

Now *that's* an interesting approach.  Since Microsoft seems to have
cut off IBM at the vendor level when it comes to bundling operating
systems, IBM does one better by bundling at the hardware manufacturer
level.  Then both companies can proclaim "XX million copies shipped!"
and the numbers will finally be equitable.
-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu | think of something very clever 
uunet!jarthur!jokim         | to use as a disclaimer)
From: andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: Multitasking (was Re: MS's misconduct!)
Organization: Canon Information Systems Research Australia
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:29:43 GMT

petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>.... A seceratary
>who types things and maybe does scheduling and makes phone calls does not
>need preemptive multitasking.  A developer, or a server, or a network
>manager might need a preemptive multitasking system.
>

You're correct, the secretary doesn't need it [PMT - the scheduling
kind :-)]  Its the people who write the applications he/she is using.
It sures makes life easier (thank god NT, like OS/2, has the necessary
OS features) for the developers.

-- 
Andy Newman (andy@research.canon.oz.au)		"int - God's own type"
From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: OS/2 because! (was NT: Why?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 05:10:24 GMT

In article <92279.171537ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET> ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.114442.12346@netcom.com>, timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
>>Actually, I believe that Brian is right about this.  3.1 support (non-beta)
>>will be in OS/2 sometime in December.  Since Windows 3.1 was released
>>April 6th, the code was done in March (and I assume IBM had it in March).
>
>Why does everybody think that a feature OS/2 has in beta doesn`t count while
>always talking about NT which isn`t in beta at all?
>
>If you tell me OS/2 has`t Win3.1 support I tell you your beloved NT simply
>doesn`t exist. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT NOTHING.

Funny, I thought I was talking about Windows 3.1 support....

I didn't say that it doesn't count, just that it's not released except
in beta, and won't be until about December.  And I don't think anyone
is saying that NT is really "released" -- in fact, most of the NT
advocates are arguing that it's not even in beta.  However, that doesn't
mean that it doesn't exist, just that it's not ready for release.

>Michael Bode.

	- Mike
From: ifenton@crc.ac.uk (I. Fenton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: 24 hours of advocacy !
Date: 1 Oct 92 16:31:34 GMT
Distribution: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.acorn.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Organization: MRC Human Genome Resource Centre

a small note to all those in the 'advocacy' groups of comp.os.* and
comp.sys.*, here is a list of the postings of the last 24 hours...

  comp.os.os2.a        103 postings (mainly about os/2 vs. windows nt)
  comp.sys.amiga.a      89 postings (mainly about amiga vs. atari falcon)
  comp.sys.mac.a        62 postings (quite a lot of mac vs. ibm-like pcs)
  comp.os.ms-windows.a  24 postings (mostly about windows nt vs. os/2)
  comp.sys.next.a       15 postings (mostly about making nextstep cheap)
  comp.sys.acorn.a       5 postings (mostly about acorn's share price)

this raises a couple of questions in my mind.  most of these groups have
some people in them who agrue very strongly that people should be kicked
out of that particular group because they rant on about another os or
another machine.  my looking at the newsgroups suggests that without
such 'interfering' people most news would drop by at least half, if not
rather more.

does the net have any comment ?!?  and why is there no comp.sys.cray.advocacy?

=============================================================================
IAIN FENTON                             | All errors of spelling, grammar &
Institute of Medical Genetics           | fact are due to a missing <Del> key
University of Wales College of Medicine |====================================
Heath Park                              | "No man should marry until he has
Cardiff  CF4 4XN                        |  studied anatomy and dissected at
U.K.                                    |  least one woman" - de Balzac
=============================================================================
Voice = +44 - 222 - 744049   | In 1912, Jack Johnson, the first black world
Fax   = +44 - 222 - 747603   | heavyweight boxing champion, was refused
Email = fenton@uk.ac.cardiff | permission to board the Titanic because of
   (or) wmgif@uk.ac.cardiff  | his colour.
   (or) ifenton@uk.ac.crc    |
=============================================================================
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 17:06:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.165553.19232@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>>Also, hard
>>drive manufacturers have approached IBM with interest in selling hard
>>drives with OS/2 2.0 preloaded.
>Now *that's* an interesting approach.  Since Microsoft seems to have
>cut off IBM at the vendor level when it comes to bundling operating
>systems, IBM does one better by bundling at the hardware manufacturer
>level.  Then both companies can proclaim "XX million copies shipped!"
>and the numbers will finally be equitable.

Actually, Microsoft thought of this first (putting software directly
on the hard drive).  Neither Microsoft nor IBM are (yet) bundling at
this level, as far as I know, but it is being considered.

Heck, let's start shipping AMI and Phoenix BIOSes with OS/2 burned in.
:-)

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | The OS/2 FREQ. ASKED QUESTIONS LIST is avail. from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/faq.
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | Or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP").
of Chicago, 60637       | Family Values Means a Job
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: INTERESTING TIDBIT FROM S
Date: 1 Oct 1992 21:22:05 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Sep29.175027.3898@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>     Of course, Zachmann's claims have zero evidence so far.  This is
>essentially "Zachmann's word vs. his editors'".  This does not preclude
>his accusations being true, but it seems to me that if he had any
>proof he would have presented it already.

I believe Zachmann, for one simple reason: He has nothing to gain by lying.
His editors do. He's already quit the job.

The kinds of pressure he's gotten do not lend themselves to being
proven...how, for example, is he supposed to prove that he got a phone call
from MS saying that they'd heard he was going to moderate his tone towards
Windows right after he got back from a meeting with his editors where they
told him to moderate his tone towards Windows? (The sentence from hell.) I
have no reason to believe he _didn't_ get that phone call, simply because he
has nothing to gain by making up the story.
-- 
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: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:19:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct5.201950.27362
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>      You're going to upgrade it anyway.  In two years your hardware
>will be approaching obsolescence and your software will already be
>there.

I'm curious.  By what mechanism will, say, my copies of Microsoft Word 5.0
and Microsoft Excel 4.0 on my Macintosh become obsolete in two years?  Will
the spelling checker become senile as it ages, and start misspelling words?
Well features stop working as the bits get old?  Well old age slow Excel
down so that it no longer recalculates my spreadsheets effectively
instantly?  Will the error on floating point calculations start to get
larger?

I did not buy Word or Excel in order to have the latest and greatest
software.  I bought them to perform specific tasks.  There is no reason
for me to upgrade them as long as they perform those tasks well.

The same goes for hardware.  As long as my hardware for the most part performs
the tasks for which I bought it, there is no reason to upgrade.

--Tim Smith
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: 24 Sep 1992 14:29:10 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Sep23.002940.29603@microsoft.com> adamba@microsoft.com (Adam Barr) writes:
>Well, with that argument, why would anybody write to the PM API?
>Developers have some choices...they can write to Win32s, or try to
>keep a common code base, which is a lot easier using the Microsoft
>Foundation Classes. It's true that win32s does have an issue with
>multithreading, for a while anyway.

I was pointing out that MS's argument (repeated here by MS bigots more times
than I can count) about "why would anybody write to the PM API?" applies
equally to the WinNT API. You can't have it both ways; either deveopers won't
migrate away from the Windows API, or they will, and then they have a choice
between the PM API or the WinNT one.
 
>I didn't say all the pieces were in place right now, but there is
>logical path to the future. Compare that to IBM, whose response to
>anything is "Taligent will support that API too".

There was a common path to the future on 27 January 1991, too. MS tried (and
is still trying) to kill it. Why should I believe them the second time around?

>What do you mean "dumping". Was IBM "dumping" OS/2 when they were
>selling it for $49 ("just to try to slow Win 3.1 down")? What about
>the LA release? Was that a sleazeball trick too?

By "dumping", I mean selling something for far below what it's really worth.
Either MS is saying that (according to the company line that this isn't a
beta) the NT versions of C and so on are really only worth $69, or they're
dumping it on the market in a sleazy, underhanded attempt to kill OS/2. How
much will the components of the SDK/beta cost when they all hit the street? If
it's under a kilobuck, I'll be astonished. Why in the world would MS sell
something for 7% of what it's worth?

I wasn't in the LA program, so I don't know how it worked. The $49 upgrade
isn't in the same league as the NT SDK/beta by an order of magnitude, and that
doesn't include the savings in IBM's royalty payments to MS (after all,
they're not selling someone something he doesn't already have).
-- 
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