HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: IBM vs Microsoft Development Kit AVAILABILITY
Date: 31 Jul 92 02:42:43 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

[I corrected the newsgroup from *.programming to *.programmer]

In article <ballard.712537881@swiss.ucs.ubc.ca> ballard@ucs.ubc.ca (Alan Ballard) writes:
>On June 2nd, I ordered the Os/2 Workset and Technical Library from IBM
>Canada (and my credit card was charged for them!)
>
>On July 21st I ordered the NT development kit CD from Microsoft
>Canada.  
>
>Anybody want to guess which one arrived today and which one I'm STILL
>waiting for? Maybe I should interpret this as an omen about which
>system I should be developing for...

Perhaps the delayed shipping of a product indicates high demand
of that product?  Anybody want to guess which one is in high
demand?

>I've been an OS/2 user and developer since 1.0, but IBM's continuing
>screw-ups in production and marketting are beginning to make me think
>I'm backing a loser. 

IBM has supported OS/2 since 1.0, and continues to do so with 2.0,
and has plans for even more features for OS/2 in the future.  Anybody
want to guess what company supported OS/2 at first, but then
abandoned it?

>Alan Ballard                   | Internet: ballard@ucs.ubc.ca

-- 
       === Mike Levis    mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ===
 .--.  ::  Call 1-800-3IBM-OS2 to order OS/2 2.0!!  ::
(OS/2) ::  Upgrade $49 from Windows, $99 from DOS.  ::
 ~--~  ::: IBM's offer ends July 31, 1992!  Hurry! :::
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith)
Subject: Re: PC Week dumps on NT
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 03:38:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Jul30.092847.22122@spider.co.uk> mikeo@spider.co.uk (Mike Overton) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.133118.25496@scott.skidmore.edu> pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel) writes:
>>Someone recently posted a description of the latest PC Week's article
>>on NT and how it won't run all DOS and Windows programs.  As I read
>>through the magazine, I was amazed to find article after article
>>dumping on NT or raising doubts about its capabilities in the initial
>                                                               =======
>>release.
>>Talk about an about face! 
>
>The word 'initial' says it all - NT isn't even a true beta yet, and MS
>have said all along that the DOS and Win support is still not
>finalised. (Although I hear a new july release is better).
>
>The current NT is for developers only, who I am sure a sensible enough
>not to think it is a final release.
>
>Mike Overton.

I hope they also manage to get true concurrent multi-user support in the first
real release I would also hope that they will provide support for more than the 
top 100 DOS and Windows based  apps. 

Their announcement of support for the top 100 apps for DOS and Windows just begs
the question of what maths they will use to calculate this. 

I can just imagine. 

WP oh they can't have sold that many lets take off 150,000

Borlandd c++ oh lots of those are upgrades lets remove 100,000.


I look forward to NT but wish MS would cut the hype.


Martin Smith
msmith@netcom.com

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Portable?
Date: 24 Jul 92 10:30:47 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Jul23.041926.5955@news.Hawaii.Edu> tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) writes:
>Pete Skelly writes:
>
>>> I stand by what I said earlier.  Translation increases the probability of
>>> a bug being introduced, but does not guarantee it.  Phil said bugs "ARE"
>>> introduced; you are saying that bugs "WILL BE" introduced.  I disagree that
>>> the probability is 100 percent.
>
>> Let me say this.  SO.
>> There is also not a 100% probability that you won't sprout wings, turn blue,
>> and begin reciting the Inferno by Dante in Hebrew.
>
>So?  In case you missed the earlier part of this thread, it all started when
>the implication was made that NT is less buggy than OS/2, because NT was
>coded in C, whereas portions of OS/2 were translated by hand from assembly
>to C.  And this is nothing more than FUD.  The biggest variable of all is
>the individual programmer, and I'm quite certain that there are programmers
>out there who can translate assembly to C with fewer bugs than somebody else
>who writes in C directly.  The reverse is also true.  And it's also not a
>matter of who has the better programmers, IBM or Microsoft, because in both
>cases it's entirely possible that their best programmers aren't even assigned
>to the development of OS/2 or NT.  It's the quality of the programmers who
>are working on the project, and I really don't care whether IBM had to
>translate some assembly to C or not.  What counts is the product delivered
>to me, the customer.  This whole digression of probability statistics has
>lost sight of the implications for the consumer of PC operating systems.
>Stop spreading FUD, and stop trying to conceal it by going off on tangents.
>If Microsoft can deliver a product with fewer bugs in less time, more power
>to them.  But if their programming is as bad as their probability statistics...

Ummmm, I though this thread had to do with the fact that IBM would have
trouble with conversion to other archetectures.  The title of this thread
is "Portability".  At the very start of this thread, it was implied that
IBM would not be able to QUICKLY convert to other archetectures, because
translation into C and catching bugs introduced by the translation would
take time.  This came up because a bunch of OS/2 Zealots were saying
that portable OS/2 was basically here.  The key part of this thread, as I
remember it, was that portability would take longer.  We then got sidetracked
into this portability->bugs thing.

The implications for the consumer as I see it.  Well, portable os/2 won't
probably be released tomorrow.  I will be released, but it'll take time.
It may or may not be more buggy than other products.

Good programmers are not those who can translate Assembly into C with few
bugs.  Good programmers are those who can design the system in the first
place with less chance for bugs.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions....
Have a Nice Day.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rfs0838@venus.tamu.edu (SCHAFFTER, RODNEY FRANK, JR)
Subject: Re: Edlin Angst ( Re: What's wrong with Windows (Re: MS grasping at ...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 05:52:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.170919.20007@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes...
>I think is is safe to say that edlin is one of the most universally
>despised editors.  Line editors are a pathetic throw back to when
>there were no crt's. 



	If EDLIN is such a throwback, explain what happens when you type
EDLIN /? in a DOS window under OS/2;-)

	Actually, I think it is Microsoft's most useful product.:-)


Rod Schaffter                                 	
Laboratory for Molecular Structure and Bonding	|Who cares if windows is or 
Texas A&M University Dept. of Chemistry		|isn't an opperating system-
Bitnet:   SCHAFFTER@TAMLMSB			|it barely operates at all!
INTERNET: SCHAFFTER@LMSBVX.TAMU.EDU		|
	"Standard Disclaimer, etc."		|An OOPerating system, maybe?
From: martin@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Media coverage (Electronic Engineer Times) Portability?
Date: 21 Jul 92 22:02:49 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

Hauke Hess says:
> > | 32-bit I/O drivers          X                               X
> 
> Yes, OS/2 has 32Bit IO drivers also!

Oh yes? I've got the OS/2 PDD reference, and they don't look very 32-bit
to me - except the virtual drivers for DOS boxes - but who wants DOS anyway :-)!

> > | Available on non-X86                                        X
> 
> OS/2 will be available on non X86 this fall.

Ah now! This is rapidly becoming my biggest problem with OS/2 (1 month ago
I was classed around here as an OS/2 fanatic, so don't think I started
prejudiced against OS/2 - in fact the opposite is true!)

Ok, so OS/2 will be on `non x86' machines this fall. I have no reason to
disbelieve this. But *which* non x86 machines will it be? Will it be open
architecture machines based around CPUs that anyone can buy, and hence clone,
or will it be on RS6000 based machines? Will RS6000 chips be available to
clone manufacturers? Or will IBM and Apple be the only people making these
machines? Neither company are well known for producing low cost machines.

NT will be available on x86, MIPS, and soon afterwards on Alpha. All of which
can be bought by anyone, and built into machines by anyone - hence there is
likely to be competition between these machine manufacturers which will keep
the price down (how much less does a clone cost than a PS/2?). Of course
the RS6000 *might* also be easy to buy, and assuming IBM don't have awkward
conditions (a la microchannel liciencing) we might get RS6000 clones too,
but then what is to stop Microsoft, or some enterprising 3rd party, from
porting NT to the RS6000? (Note that DEC are doing the port to Alpha, not
Microsoft) 

The *big* advantage of going with Microsoft - and God knows there
are reasons *not* to want to go with Microsoft - is that Microsoft do not
make processors or machines, and hence do not have a reason to lock users
into any particular (hardware) architecture. Just look what happened to Unix
once AT&T started trying to sell computers!

That's the market analysis :-), quite apart from that NT has *as standard*
features which I was losing alot of sleep over trying to work out how to do
under OS/2 - in fact I asked the net for ideas, and got no helpful replies
at all! I just hope they work!

Martin
INTERNET: martin@minster.york.ac.uk
JANET:  martin@uk.ac.york.minster
surface:
        Dr. Martin C. Atkins
        Dept. of Computer Science
        University of York
        Heslington
        York YO1 5DD
        ENGLAND
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Portable?
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:01:35 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Jul21.033116.1250@news.Hawaii.Edu> tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) writes:
>Pete Skelly writes:
>
>> It is a well know fact that when doing a translation step by hand, bugs
>> will be introduced by human error.
>
>I stand by what I said earlier.  Translation increases the probability of
>a bug being introduced, but does not guarantee it.  Phil said bugs "ARE"
>introduced; you are saying that bugs "WILL BE" introduced.  I disagree that
>the probability is 100 percent.

Let me say this.  SO.
There is also not a 100% probability that you won't sprout wings, turn blue,
and begin reciting the Inferno by Dante in Hebrew.

Quit trying to imply that because there is a gazillion to one chance that
NO bugs will be introduced (okay, I exaggerated), that there will be no
bugs introduced.  If you are not implying that, then, well, your statement
is non-interesting, because it doesn't apply to IBM programs, MS programs,
Lotus programs, whatever.

>
>> This is independent as to whether you
>> are an IBM programmer, a MS programmer, DEC, etc,
>
>Agreed.
>
>> although programmers
>> at academic institutions may write perfect code ;) ;) ;)
>
>It has happened from time to time, but the more code, the lower the
>probability.
>
>> Let me state this one more time:  Bugs are introduced when translating code
>> by hand. 
>
>Let me state this one more time:  The probability of introducing bugs when
>translating code by hand is not 100 percent.

See Above.
petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions....
I was trained in engineering, not comp sci.  That's
where I got all of this probability in project planning
stuff...


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: microsoft posters
Date: 30 Jul 92 09:32:12 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: comp

In article <1992Jul29.162342.9409@fics.uucp> ekl@fics.uucp writes:
>
>When it comes to other MS employees, I seem to recall that they work on
>non-os/2 related stuff, like Mac-apps. Thus, they did not DESIGN or
>WRITE large portions of os/2, and they may not have much to add to
>os/2 discussions. Actually, I think they participate mainly in threads
>related in one way or another to microsoft, or to threads discussing
>their presence in the comp.os.os2. hierarchy.

Mac apps, hmmmph ;).  Actually, I know some of the other MS folk posting here,
and none of them have anything to do with Mac, or Apps.  They're in
systems.  I'm also a Vet from the old OS/2 front.

However, I've purposly forgotten everything from the OS/2 days ;) ;) ;)
>
>I have nothing against MS employees at .advocay, it makes life more fun.
>However, I believe that they are here because IBM is IBM, and MS is MS.
>I also believe that it's their own decision, and not official MS. And I
>think it's OK.
>
>Eirik
Thank you for your support in recognizing me as a person, and not
as a number in the MS payroll computer as many seem to want to do.

petesk@microsoft.com
I State no opinions ;)
Organization: European Academic Research Network (EARN)
Date: Thursday, 23 Jul 1992 14:44:21 GMT
From: Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS2 Good news and Bad news (OS2 & a little windows too)
Distribution: comp.os.os2.advocacy

I guess the Rep was an alien from Mars. No SVGA drivers? Was the rep
kidding the audience?? There are drivers for tons of cards! On any FTP
site. 4 Minutes to load an apps? I guess they misconfigured something!
Nothing takes 4 minutes, except perhaps infinite loops, which take 6 :)

Regards, -turgut
From: rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel)
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:48:02 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.161639.5706@microsoft.com> gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin) writes:
>    2) OS/2 runs windows applications.  I hear every day how well it
>    	does so.  So who in their right minds will write apps for
>    	OS/2 PM - and only run on OS/2 - when they could write apps
>    	for Windows and run on BOTH platforms?
>
>    	So the MS apps group really IS supporting OS/2, according
>    	to dogma on this group.  They're producing windows apps
>    	and those apps run better on OS/2 then windows (so it's said
>    	by folks who say a lot of silly things), ergo MS/Apps group
>    	is supporting OS/2 more then they are Windows.  QED.
>
>gordon letwin
>not a spokesman for microsoft

You are right, OS/2 runs Windows apps better than Windows itself (IMO,
if I think of overall throughput and system integrity). BUT, native OS/2
app run even better than Windows apps on OS/2! Thats all. Is this
difficult to understand?

Kai Uwe Rommel

/* Kai Uwe Rommel --- rommel@informatik.tu-muenchen.de */

DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt
handler, and always will be.                -Russell Williams

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: adamba@microsoft.com (Adam Barr)
Subject: What portable is
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:55:47 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

This whole "discussion" about portability is talking about
the amount of assembly language code as if this is the only
area that affects portability. This isn't true. You can
write lots of C code that is wonderfully structured, chock
full of comments, and completely non-portable.

If you are talking about an x86 to RS/6000 port, one of the
basic differences is bit ordering. All the kernel code that
is twiddling bits *may* have assumptions about this, whatever
language it is written in. There is no easy way to find code
like this either; it may be scattered everywhere.

(Cynics will point out that the current list of NT platforms
includes only little-endian machines. This is true, for the
*current* list. This is a case where being designed with
portability in mind helps; you may have code like that, but
you can put it all in one place or put a big comment about
it in the code.)

Another non-portable area is handling of things like the
interrupt controller. The x86 machines all have an Intel
8259 interrupt controller sitting between the bus and the
cpu. How often does the OS/2 kernel touch this chip? Is
it all in one place? Assuming the RS/6000 doesn't have
this chip, all that code needs to be replaced, not
just converted from C to assembler.

Worse, how many times did a programmer working on something
not obviously connected to interrupt handling say to themselves,
"I can fix this problem if I just do this and this to the 8259"?
Again, the fact that the code is in assembler is a minor point;
differences like this may invalidate fundamental assumptions
that were made during the design of the OS.

What about the memory manager? The scheduler? The cache?
What crucial piece of code depends on a feature of the
x86 that doesn't exist on an RS/6000? Or depends on a
certain operation being really fast on one processor,
when it is extremely slow on another?


I'm not saying any of this happened; note that I use "may"
a lot. Accuse me of FUD if you want; I think these are
the kinds of questions people should be asking when IBM
makes portability claims, instead of arguing about how
much assembler is in the code (although this matters too!).


I could make similar arguments about symmetric multiprocessor
support. Are the functions for SMP support in one place? Does
the kernel call those functions when needed? How many assumptions
about non-preemption does the OS/2 kernel make while accessing
global data?


- adam

DISCLAIMER: Fire hazard, do not burn
From: rdixon@gemini.cs.nps.navy.mil (robert dixon)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: IBM MARKETING
Date: 25 Jul 92 02:49:28 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey,CA


  Let me preface this by saying I think OS/2 is probably the
technically superior PC operating system on the market today.

  In trying to actually BUY OS/2, I had an interesting experience. I
live in Monterey, CA, not exactly New York or L.A., but not exactly
undiscovered, either. At least it's big enough to have a local IBM
office. I was unable to find a local computer store that even SOLD
OS/2, so I called IBM and was referred to a Microage store. When I
called this store, the only store in Monterey that sold OS/2, I
discovered that they don't even have a copy running in the store! They
had brochures and shrink-wrapped packages, but no demo software so you
can actually LOOK at the product you are buying! Both the Microage guy
and the IBM representative I talked to seemed to think I was a little
strange for actually wanting to TRY OUT a piece of software before
buying it! The IBM guy didn't seem to know of any way of seeing OS/2
running, short of driving to San Jose.

  I'm curious exactly how IBM is expecting to achieve any market
penetration with this kind of marketing. The latest PC Shopper seemed
to think that OS/2 was mainly a way for IBM mainframe customers to
connect to IBM mainframes, with the small business and home market as
sort of an afterthought, which would certainly explain my experiences
here.

  I'm interested in others' comments/experiences with this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Dixon                          "My opinions may not necessarily
Low-Life Grad Student,              be my own . . ."
Naval Postgraduate School,
Monterey, CA                        rdixon@cs.nps.navy.mil
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:3242 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1564
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What's wrong with Windows (Re: MS grasping at straws?...)
Date: 25 Jul 92 18:10:21 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <dlcogswe.711978759@vela> dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell) writes:
> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
> 
> >Eh? I LIKE Edlin. For editing short batch files theres nothing
> >quicker.
> 
> Well, that pretty much discredits anything further you say.  
> 
> I suppose you like command.com and GW-Basic, too.

If you hate EDLIN......try vi!
 
Steve

-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | "But the glory kept shining
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  and bright in my eyes, 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  And the stars going round in 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  my head." R. L. S.
From: si0_tb90020@debet.nhh.no
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS2 Good news and Bad news  (OS2 & a little windows too)
Date: 24 Jul 92 00:49:59 MET
Organization: Norwegian School of Economics

In article <9207222120.AA16068@data.src.honeywell.com>, bergstro@src.honeywell.com (Pete Bergstrom) writes:
> From: morton@qucdntri.ee.queensu.ca:

> Can you elaborate on the wysiwyg apps that are so slow?  I've been
> using with OS/2 for some time now and don't feel that the speed of the
> OS has much to do with response time.  There are several apps
> available (Klondike for one) that have quite good performance for
> moving a bitmap around the screen (I have a 20 MHz 386dx, SpeedStar
> video adapter, 8 Megs of ram).
> 
> Another app that came with the Toolkit I just bought allows you to
> drag irregular shaped bitmaps (actually, they're puzzle pieces) around
> the screen and again, the responsiveness is more than adequate.  
> 
> IMHO, most of the sluggishness that people report about OS/2
> applications is probably due to poor design and less than optimal
> implementation.  I expect to spend some effort using threaded
> processing to make my programs as responsive as possible.
> 
> Pete

I'll have to comment on this. I like OS/2 quite a lot, and it is surely
superior to DOS, Win, and also MacOS and Finder, BUT... ANY graphical
apllication run on a MAC is very fast... It is responsive, and it works,
from the 68000 base machines and up. I guess this is due to the fact
that Finder was there all the time, and a lot of thought went into the
design...

BUt, I guess IBM/Microsoft thought a lot about OS/2 in the design phase
as well, but OS/2 is VERY slow compared to an equally equipped MAC, with
a 68030 processor. Try it and see. But then MacOs and Finder is not
multitasking (properly)...

Terje
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 hardware requirements.
Date: 25 Jul 92 18:12:32 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <92206.090838F0O@psuvm.psu.edu>, F0O@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.202605.21163@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith) says:
>
>>Tim--F0O@psuvm.psu.edu writes:

>   15-20 Meg isn't peanuts if you have to go out and spend several hundred
>bucks to buy a new hard disk.  My machine came with a 40 Meg hard disk.
>There is about 4 meg left.  In order to get the 15-20 meg, I'd have to
>buy a new hard disk.  True, I could buy one of those programs which gives
>more space on your disk, but I dislike them for some reason.  So for me,
>6 meg is alot since I don't have it.
>
>                                                              [Tim]
>
Just a small point, I have OS/2 on my 40 MB hard disk, in a system
that only has one hard disk.  It took up about half the drive.  Works
beautifully and I have room for most of my *important* apps on there.  Of
course, I don't have a seperate copy of Windows or anything, but I haven't had
space problems as long as I am wary about what I shove on there.  Now I
currently and trying to properly configure my 170MB SCSI, but until this
happens, the 40 is quite adequate for simple work under OS/2.

                                                        Stacy John Behrens
                                                        *===)-------------

                                                        
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc,mn.general