HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2)
Subject: Re: RFD: how about comp.sys.ibm.pc.advocacy?
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 07:30:51 GMT

In article <726297483snx@carbon.isis.org> evanc@carbon.isis.org (Evan Champion) writes:
>sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes in article <1993Jan2.035542.1244@midway.uchicago.edu>:
[... list of current and proposed OS/2 newsgroups ...]

>comp.os.os2.multimedia
>comp.os.os2.hardware
>comp.os.os2.newuser

These three sound like comp.os.os2.setup ...

>are three of my ideas, for multimedia support, getting specific hardware
>issues resolved and helping new users figure out what's what (we all know 
>how it can sometimes be a 'different' experience, installing, configuring, 
>running OS/2 <grin>).  Another one I was thinking of was a group for 
>software/hardware reviews pertaining to OS/2 that people could submit for 
>everyone to read.  Perhaps:
>
>comp.os.os2.review

After we get .ver1x, .beta, and (later) .setup, we can do this stuff
in .misc .

>At any rate, you've got my vote, Tim.

Me, too!!!  (my apologies to Phil for excessive use of exclamation marks ;)

>Evan

-- 
======= Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu =======
::  ftp ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (128.123.35.151) for OS/2  ::  .--.
::  software & information.   Get /pub/os2/00Index  :: (OS/2)
::::::::  & /pub/os2/all/info/faq/faq20i.txt  ::::::::  ~--~
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:41:38 GMT

In article <8295@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan4.002059.13213@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> >Now remember, because of your JIT agreements with ACME, even if you just order
|> >one trial case from 2-Guys-Garage and they turn out to be defective, you're
|> >whole line shuts down and you're factory workers cool their heels until because
|> >you've got no stock.
|> 
|> Let's try a slight modification: The next time I need screws, I order the same
|> quantity from _both_ suppliers. 

As far as I've heard, even the most exclusive agreements that Microsoft offers
allow for this.  To parallel, suppose that a Clones-R-US decides to offer
OS/2 to its customers on a trial basis.  They simply order Windows from
Microsoft pursuant to the agreement they have with them and a case of OS/2
from IBM.  

|> I try the screws from 2 Guys Garage. 

Clones-R-US looks at the sales figures for OS/2 vs. Windows.

|> If they work out, I switch;

If enough of Clones-R-US customers like OS/2, then Clones offers OS/2.

|> if not, I go back to the case I have in stock from ACME.

If not, Clones-R-us sticks with the agreements it has with Microsoft.

In conclusion, if a JIT agreement doesn't restrict a savy businessman from
trying out new suppliers, than neither does the kind of agreements which
Microsoft offers.

|> >No amount of federal regulation is going wipe out the tremendous competative
|> >advantage that ACME has over 2-Guys-Garage.
|> 
|> Only to a businessman too stupid to work it out properly.

Righto!!!  And just as a sufficiently JIT businessman not need the FTC to
step in, neither does a sufficiently smark Cloner.

|> >When will the human race learn that FREEDOM WORKS.  Let people live their own
|> >lives and make their own agreements.
|> 
|> The problem is that the logical conclusion of this agreement is a requirement
|> that I buy a machine with DOS and Windows, which I neither need nor want.

Get thee hence to reality forsooth!!  Thou mayest buy Clones with OS/2 or
UNIX preinstallethed!!!

|> >Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly position, and the very fact that they
|> >are trying so hard is proof that their competitors are strong enough to
|> >scare them.
|> 
|> MS has a near-monopoly, and are doing all they can, legitimately and
|> otherwise, to reinforce it. You hold that up as the Holy Grail. I say it's bad
|> for the consumer.

Show me a consumer whose hurt.
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 5 Jan 1993 15:41:22 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan5.014925.29433@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>If they want to be in business selling Microsoft products which Microsoft
>owns, they are going to have to do so on Microsoft terms.  

Not if those terms are unfair and anticompetitive. This society has decided
that such dealings are wrong. If you don't like that, you can either work to
get the laws changed, or move to a place that doesn't care about it.

>Nobody has a "right" to buy something at any price they want to!

Nobody has a right to sell things at artificial terms that force competitors
out of business, either, in this society.

>Any society which doesn't respect the rights of ownership is doomed.  

Any society that allows unlimited monopolization is similarly doomed.
-- 
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.
      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of all Fears_
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bill@snoopy (Bill Poitras)
Subject: Re: 32 Bit HPFS
Reply-To: bill@west.msi.com
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:15:56 GMT

Okechukwu Chima Echeruo (oecheruo@mothra.syr.EDU) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan3.232926.3100@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
: I have to disagree here with Tim.
: What you appear to be saying about 32bit device driver support is that well
: it is not really "needed" and that having system-wide 32bit device drivers
: will not improve os/2 performance especially with regard to network/HD 
: devices.

I think you are wanting 32-bit code for the sake of 32-bit code without
really caring what it buys you.  When analyzing the complexity of a
program (how fast it runs), you have to take into account how often it is
called.  The 32-bit parts of OS/2 that exist are the most important,
while the 16-bit parts are not so important.  Certain device drivers
could fall into this catagory.

: I am suprised that this is the prevailing IBM attitude. While Microsoft is
: playing up the "32bitness" of WindowsNT (vapourware), IBM is telling anxious
: OS/2 users that 32bit is not all that great. Personally, If I want to run
: a hybrid 32/16bit OS I can always switch back to Windows 3.1

1) Microsoft is playing up the 32bitness of Window NT for marketing
reasons.  Pure and simple.

2) Even though both OS/2 2.0 and Windows 3.1 both have 16-bit components,
OS/2 is far superior in many areas.  For one, all program in OS/2 2.0 are
preemptively multitasked, in Windows 3.1, all Windows programs are
cooperatively multitasked, while the DOS sessions are preemptively
multitasked.  Also, the OS/2 2.0 scheduler is probably much better than
Windows 3.1.  OS/2 DOS support is far superior, and OS/2 2.0 in general
has more memory protection.  If you stop using OS/2 2.0 because it is a
hybrid operating system, then you are making a big mistake.

: If IBM cannot fully support the 32bit design of it's own product how does
: it expect ISVs to come running out with native 32bit OS/2 2.0 applications
: and device drivers?

IBM is working on it.  I would rather see IBM get Win-OS/2 3.1, MMPM/2,
more display drivers and memory and speed improvements working, then
stamping out ALL 16-bit.  Maybe its just me, but I think that is the
better way to go.

--
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Bill Poitras    | Molecular Simulations Inc.    | Tel (408)522-9229       |
| (bill)          | Sunnyvale, CA USA             |                         | 
|                 | FAX (408)732-0831             | bill@west.msi.com       |
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Contest: Predict how many people will IBM have
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 07:02:12 GMT

os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.) writes:
>In <1993Jan4.063046.23655@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>
>>This person (Stewart) in a recent issue was so upset and literally called
>>IBM people idiots because of some commerical of some sort where a person
>>buys a present and its OS/2. He was going on and on and on (Just like 
>>Mickeysoft). He usually doesn't speak very positive about OS/2 but that's
>>his right. To anyone how is interested, this is his address on the Internet:
>
>Mark, I agree, Infoworld is not pro-OS/2 by any means, but I agree with his
>conclusion about the "OS/2 present" ad - it was *STUPID*.
>
>Sometimes I think the analogy about the pool table and the operating system
>war is better applied to IBM's advertisements:  occassionally they pocket
>a good one, but usually they miscue.  :-/
>
>Cheers,
>Q
>-- 
>"If you choose not to decide, you  | "My other body is in the shop" - seen
> still have made a choice" - Rush  |  on a T-shirt
>------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think it is a pretty sad moment when someone can win a price when other
people are loosing their job. This has nothing to do with IBM but with any
companies. I don't mind users being reasonable but some of the things I
read, are absurd statements.

As far as the "Presents ad" goes, many users will watch it and will be
influenced. It is a hard question to answer but the way he was raging
about it was absurd.

Interesting enough, the pool table ad that was played on the "Fiesta Bowl"
is not exactly the same as the one played by other stations in Canada.
Unlike the "Fiesta Bowl" ad, the ads played here include a screen shot
of the "Ambra" computer and the OS/2 logo. It might well be that there
are slight variations played in different countries.

Best Regards,
Mark Kovarski
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: NT Destined to Succeed??
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 07:17:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.184720.321@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de>,
hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>
>I tried an OS/2 2.0 beta 6.30x and installed TCP/IP and LAN-Server on it.
>This is the configuration you can compare to Windows NT. I had a 27 MB
>swapfile on a 16 MB machine. Now, that I am using the OS/2 2.0 GA, the
>same configuration with even the database manager installed, I have
>a swapfile of only 5 MB.

     Actually, I feel like I can compare the OS/2 which is on my
machine, without TCP/IP and LAN Server, to Window NT because I just
did a base installation (probably the same thing I would do with
NT).  Do you get a choice to have these things installed, or would I
have to go through and manually take the networking stuff out?  I
think it makes a big difference.

>
>If you run OS/2 2.0 GA (release version) on an 8 MB machine with TCP/IP
>and LAN-Server, the performance is really bad. So to compare OS/2 and NT.
>In a comparable configuration (Networking and TCP/IP), performance is
>bad with 8 MB and reasonable with 16 MB. The difference is, that Windows
>NT is not yet speed optimized, whereas OS/2 2.0 is.
>
>I really don't understand all that stuff about "Windows/NT eats up all
>my memory". It really doesn't seem to me, that it is requiring more
>memory than OS/2.
>
>We really have to wait, until we have the retail version of NT to compare
>performance and HW-resource usage. Everything else is just speculation.
>
>Christoph

     Of course, I can't load NT onto my hard drive anyway, since it:

     1)  Won't install if Boot manager is on the disk
     2)  Doesn't come with adaptec 1522 drivers
     3)  Won't let me install the swap file onto a different disk
         until after NT's been installed
     4)  Requires to be installed on drive C: (along with the swap
         file)

     If these things were fixed, I'd probably give it a try on my 8
meg machine.  Until then (and probably after) I'll be more than
satisfied with OS/2  (had to get that advocacy in there somewhere
:-) :-)  ).

Timothy Miller

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: lmalloy@abacus.bates.edu (Laura G. Malloy)
Subject: Re: Windows is one subject;os2 another. Why have Win info here?
Organization: Bates College, Lewiston, Maine
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:51:43 GMT

In article <C0EutC.J8w@news.cso.uiuc.edu> fippen@ux2.cso.uiuc.edu (J. Fippen) writes:
>	I see all the time information about Windows,Windows, Windows.Does this
>make sense in an os2 category?
>	The people who use Windows are those not interested in the best. They
>want something easy. Fine. They should have Windows. But for people who want
>something a lot better, at least 100 times more powerful, well, they would
>be satisfied with nothing less than os2.
>	Windows is kind of for the slow types, the satisfied types, the people
>who won't put forth the effort to run os2. The people who run hard will want
>os2 because it is the best, and because it is the program of the future.
>
>
>		John Fippen
>
Well, as one of them there slow, satisfied types (drat!  I *did* put
forth the effort to run OS/2 and only deleted it because it doesn't work
very well for me; gee, I was almost three for three...hmmm, maybe he'll
accept this: I'm lazy, too!), the reason you're reading about Windows
this, Windows that, in this group is because it's an .advocacy group.  If
people don't advocate OS/2 versus it's more popular opponent, Windows
(let me correct your spelling: around these parts, it's Windoze),
everyone would sit around thinking how happy they were with their choice
(either one or NT even!) and there would surely be little joy in just
being happy with what we have!

Join the party!  (For a dull time, read comp.os.os2.misc, where they
actually solve problems for people.

Cheers!

Joseph T. Malloy / WB2RBA / jmalloy@hamilton.edu
German Department / Hamilton College / Clinton, New York
 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 05 Jan 93 08:01:39 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1993Jan05.024420.16278@microsoft.com> bobatk@microsoft.com (Bob Atkinson) writes:
>
>I missed this earlier argument; can you help me understand its jist? How
>would you characterize the difference between an application and an OS?
>
>Is DOS an OS? Is Windows an OS, or a DOS App? Is Lotus Notes an OS, or a
>Windows app? When I have an OLE-embedded Lotus-123-for-Windows sheet
>embedded in a WinWord document, is the Lotus-Winword relationship app-app
>or app-os?
>

    Oh no, not again.

    Bob, how could you?

			-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: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft using "Force"???
Date: 6 Jan 1993 18:45:46 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan5.215257.11908@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>You're method of argument is interesting--all you do is shout that Microsoft
>is guilty of "forcing" and "coercing", as if it would be true if you say it
>loud and often enough.  George Orwell was very familier with this technique,
>ever read 1984?  "Slavery is Freedom, Hate is Love, Peace is War."  Its used
>by dictators of every color as a tool for thought controll.

The difference here is that Orwell's technique involves redefining words to
the direct opposite of their accepted meanings; in this discussion, the
analogous technique would be something like "Consent is Coercion". I'm not
arguing from that premise; I'm arguing that the agreements that major cloners
sign with MS are made under economic duress.

>Lets go to the arbiter of language and see what it says about "force" and
>"coerce".  I'll tell you what mine dictionary has to say about them--and
>don't believe me just because I said it--you all have dictionaries too so 
>look it up for yourself:

Oh, goody. A dictionary flame. Here's what my dictionary (The American
Heritage Dictionary, New College edition - the only one handy at the moment)
has to say about force and coercion:

force: (among the physics-related definitions) 5. A capacity for affecting the
mind or behavior.
coercion: The art or practice of coercing. (OK, so:)
coerce: To force to act or think in a given manner; to compel by pressure or
threat.
pressure: 4. A constraining influence upon the mind or will.
threat: an expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or
punishment on a person or thing.

>In order for an action to properly be called "coercion" there MUST be the
>threat of or actional violence, of the which and by the way so there may be
>no confusion on this point here is the definition of violence:

Nope. Coercion can be nonviolent, but harmful.

>If you misuse a word when you talk, that indicates that you arn't the one who
>is talking--you are using the word how you've been told it should work.

I'm not misusing the words, though.

>The moral of the story is this: Think for yourself in crystal-clear words.

I am. Are you?
-- 
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.
      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of All Fears_
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11552 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3660
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 4 Jan 93 07:59:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1993Jan4.075930.13596
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.

In article <1993Jan04.073317.15131@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1993Jan3.200721.4807@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>:     Trimming down some of the excessive quoting - apologies for any
>>: important context lost.
>>: 
>>: 
>>: In article <1993Jan2.191843.21694@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>>: >philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>: >: 
>>: >:     If you claim to be 100% Intel compatible, and your processor
>>: >: exhibits difference in behavior from Intel's, should Intel be
>>: >: responsible for changing their product?
>>: >
>>: >A difference in behaviour I interpret to mean in external interface,
>>: >*not* internal mechanics. If this were not the case then the 486 could
>>: >not claim to be compatible with the 386....
>>: 
>>:      Identical in all ways used by external clients - this may
>>: involve more than the external interface.
>>
>>Excuse me? Does this mean something, and if so could you explain it please?
>>
>
>     Yes.  Not all interfaces are documented.  If some application
>is using one of those, it's clearly not covered by the functional
>specification.  In this case, who's to say which product is more
>compatible?  I suggest that it should be the original - the cloners
>have the responsibility of correcting their own product to match,
>or ignore the application in question.
>     I honestly don't know if Intel has undocumented stuff on
>their chips, though, so the analogy is not a very tight one.
>
>			-Phil
>

Yes, there are undocumented ASM calls in the x86 line, but they are
suicide to use, and were never intended for production level
support. But, heh, there are stupid people out there, and they need
something to do with their time. :)

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: NT Destined to Succeed??
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:38:11 GMT

In <1993Jan7.180401.16603@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:

>strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>[.....]
>: On the other hand, I've used 
>: Windows 3.0 on an 1M 286 for quite some time, and was quite
>: happy with it.

>Oh, well you're *really* easy to please aren't you?

Not at all. It's just that I don't have money to burn. I decided
to use that machine for another half a year after the release of Windows 3.0
instead of doing a costly memory upgrade, and bought a 386 which was 
upgradeable to 16M afterwards. 

>I'm running 3.1 on a 4MB 286 and am frequently driven crazy by the
>lousy response.

And I have used WordStar on a 48K CP/M system (which I had built
myself) for years. Later I added a bank-switched 64K card, upgraded
to CP/M 3.0 (banked version, of course) and was quite impressed by the 
better response time.

Of course, all this did cost a lot of time and money - the
computers I currently use are much cheaper.
--
      o      (     Wolfgang Strobl    Wolfgang.Strobl@gmd.de (+49 2241) 14-2394
     /\        *   GMD - Gesellschaft fuer Mathematik und Datenverarbeitung mbH
   _`\ `_<===      Schloss Birlinghoven, P.O. Box 1316,  | #include   
__(_)/_(_)___.-._  D-5205 Sankt Augustin, Germany        | <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy