HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Date: 08 Oct 92 22:13:14 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <12268.2ad32149@cpva.saic.com> finsys@cpva.saic.com wrote:
> In article <1992Oct07.092552.15639@microsoft.com>, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> > In article <7517@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu wrote:
> >> In article <1992Oct06.213627.3688@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> >> >I'm a bit curious about why people don't want networks bundled.  This is
> >> >regardless as to whether the network is more integrated or not.
> >> >1) You think the final product would be cheaper if these things were not
> >> >   included.
> >> 
> >> This is it, primarily. Let the folks who want to use networking amortize the
> >> developer's R&D costs. I've got better uses for my money.
> > 
> > I assume you read the reason why I don't think this will make much of
> > a difference in price....
> > 
> Yes, but I'm still not convinced.  As MS's stated market for NT is the
> high-end (very high, IMHO), this will be the market interested in the 
> networking stuff.  Therefore, from the start, market price will include the
> value associated with networking (from your reasoning).  The concern is from
> those of who do not want or need that networking - we will be paying for it.
> That's not to say we wouldn't end up using those capabilities at some point.
> But that's not the point. 

One would hope that the feature "networking" will help to sell more copies,
and therefore spread the R&D costs over more people.  Frankly, though,
the costs we are talking about to the end user is small, if it's exists.
(IMHO of course)

> 
> From what I can tell from this net, people who don't want that networking,
> security, etc. stuff should wait for WIN32s instead. Yes, no?  (ie those of us
> who simply need a stable multitasker - Desqview & Win 3.1 on DOS - not good
> enough, OS/2 2.0 - possibly too much)

Possibly, Win32s would be a good idea for those folks.

> 
> As a side note, won't WIN32s end up having very similar h/w requirements as
> OS/2, with the exception of lower hard disk space needed?  For the home user,
> what will be the functional differences, aside from the shell?

I don't know about the HW reqs for Win32s, but you're probably right.  As
for the functional differences, well, I guess the ones that really count
are the apps avaliable.  OS/2 will have OS/2 apps, Win32s will have Win32s
apps.  

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:23:33 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <7538@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Oct09.174713.178@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>      Still a valid interpretation.  OS/2 2.0, however, has shown
>>that competitive pricing can really help to sell an OS - I expect
>>Microsoft will learn something from that.
>
>If it has, then why did it say "<$500"? I've already shown that there's
>nothing to gain from it, and quite a lot to lose.

     Not as much to lose as announcing "under $100" and release
for $150.  If such an event were to ever take place, I'm sure the
entire readership of this newsgroup would pounce on it in a second.
In this case, it seems to me that the negative aspects of announcing
a high upper bound greatly outweigh the negative aspects of releasing
an upper bound that was too low.


>>     Why is Zachmann more credible?  He clearly has an agenda.  So do
>>his editors.
>
>Because he has little to gain by making up such an incident.

     Of couse he does!  Zachmann is an OS/2 advocate.  If OS/2
doesn't do well, he looks bad, his credibility suffers, and he gets
less work.  If OS/2 does exceptionally well, he looks good, he
gains credibility, and gets more work.  If he happens to help
OS/2 along by spreading misinformation about products he hasn't
even seen, so much the better.

				-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: rmk@frog.CRDS.COM (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 12 Oct 92 05:45:12 GMT
Organization: Charles River Data Systems

In article <1992Oct07.101657.16483@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.084217.28802@netcom.com> msmith@netcom.com wrote:
>> In article <1992Oct5.215925.6501@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>> 
>> Regardless of the drivel below that underestimates the multi-user and 
>> file protection mechanisms of UNIX. Be it true or not, it does not actually 
>> address the question that was asked. 
>> 
>> IS NT multi-user.
>> 
>> In the traditional and widely held ( non-MS  ) view of multi-user I.E 
>> CONCURRENT MULTIPLE USERS ON A SINGLE MACHINE/CPU not Win NT 3.1 is 
>> NOT!!! multi-user.
>> 
>> 
>> Martin Smith
>> msmith@netcom.com 
>> 
>> 
>Okay, I guess I've had my head in the sand or something.  I have yet to
>see anyone use a multiuser system as you seem to think it is.  How
>does one hook 5 mice up to a computer so 5 people can use it.  How does
>one hook 5 keyboards up.
>
>THE SCREEN DEVICE OF NT ONLY ALLOWS ONE USER TO HAVE OWNERSHIP OF IT.
>
>Everything else is pretty much multiuser.  Each process has it's own
>user/security context.  I can run processes on someone elses machine
>when they're logged on.  These processes run under my security context.
>
>What is more multiuser than that?  having 5 keyboards and 5 mice
>hooked up and one screen so 5 people can type on the screen at one time?
>
>SHEESH.


1. Get a 486/50 and load UNIX and X.

2. Add 4 Xterminals.

3. Five people can now log in and run X sessions.

This is old news.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: INTERESTING TIDBIT FROM S
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 23:21:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.215651.8804@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph Malloy) writes:
>In article <7524@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct7.122244.9671@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph Malloy) writes:
>>>Your trust in Zachmann is, alas, sad.  Would you have as much faith in
>>>him if he were a Windows booster?  No, I didn't think so.
>
>>If he were a Windows booster, we wouldn't have heard about MS trying to
>>silence him.
>>
>I'd love to see any *real* proof (Zachmann's ravings don't count!) that
>MS actually did anything at all about him.h
>
>I think all we've got is a "prophet" trying to make noise and thereby
>enrich himself, but I happily admit I have no proof of that either.
>
>
>Joe

There is no proof in this discussion, only opinion:(.

Ted
Organization: Masters student, Information Networking Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 03:09:38 -0400 
From: Jyri Virkki <jyri+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: DOS/Win compatibility: How important is it? (was Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta)
	<1992Oct11.203439.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu>
Distribution: na,local

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.

--
Jyri J. Virkki | DoD#561 | jyri+@cmu.edu | Carnegie Mellon University | MSINI
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Date: 7 Oct 92 09:29:58 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.

In article <1992Oct6.203618.4322@ncsu.edu>, linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct6.131605.15955@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
|> >Where did you get this information from?  It's true the graphics
|> >system allows only one user at the console at a time.
|> >But this is not different even from X.
|> 
|> Actually, to be precise, you could conceivably have one person with two xterms
|> with one of them logged-in as one user, and the other logged-in as a different
|> user.

To be even more precise, there are two ways of doing what you describe. If
you have two xterms owned by the same user and then do an "su" or "login" in
one of them, you still only have one user using the X server. If the second
xterm is actually owned by a second user you have to introduce a security hole
while the xterm is starting up. NT attempts to be secure and therefore doesn't
allow this. Given the current levels of cracker activity, I vote for security.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ekl@fics.uucp
Subject: Re: Better outlook for OS/2?
Organization: Kvam data as
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1992 04:40:07 GMT

In article <YeoSgnS00YUnFRx2dN@andrew.cmu.edu> cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido) writes:
>Well, these clips have probably been on the bboard already, and I know
>at least one has but anyway. . .
>
> [lots of interesting stuff deleted]
>
>From Byte, Oct 1992, Nanobytes:
>"Jobs pulled no punches when he demonstrated NextStep 3.0, the latest
>version of the Next Operating system slated to ship in September. 
>Dismissing his competitors' product as vaporware, Jobs said the Next
>system is the leading object-oriented computer on the market. 
>Microsft's Allchin protested that NextStep-which is layered atop Unix
>and Mach-is not a true object-oriented operating system and that
>NextStep 3.0 was originally scheduled to be released in June.  "OK, so
>we slipped 60 days," Jobs responded, "but at least we have a product to
>ship."
>
>[NextStep is not shipping in September though.  It's been delayed to the
>same period as NT, 1Q93.  Beta testing should begin in October or
>November]

NextStep is indeed shipping, for the NeXT workstations. NextStep for the
i486 is not shipping, and has the timeframe shown above

>Carl Jabido
>cj00@andrew.cmu.edu
>carl@captainjack.ws.cc.cmu.edu

Eirik
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.
Date: 10 Oct 92 01:28:56 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <92283.120355MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu> Spiro wrote:
> In article <1992Oct09.044341.15025@microsoft.com>, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete
> Skelly) says:
> >
> >Could you post evidence to support this claim (IBM was content to support
> >both Windows and OS/2).
> >Thanks...
> 
> Well, gee, they're selling systems here BUNDLED with Windows 3.1...
> ----
> Mike Dahmus       MXD118@PSUVM  or  dahmus@cs.psu.edu
> TEAM OS/2

That doesn't mean that they wanted to support Windows, that means that
their customers wanted windows on the machines they bought.

I'd like to see evidence that is not based on conjecture or speculation
as to this point.  If there is none, then I'll take that point as speculation
and conjecture by people who don't know much about what went on.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 13 Oct 1992 12:39 EST  

In article <1992Oct12.164605.20449@cci632.cci.com>, rom@cci632.cci.com 
(Rudynell S. Millian) writes...
>>>
>>>     OS/2 is indeed selling - but neither of us has any clue how well.
>>>We have some numbers from IBM, and we have some conflicting numbers
>>>from Microsoft.  Who's to say which is closer to the truth?
>>>
>>
>>Agreed.
> 
>	Don't be so gullible! Believe it or not, MS gets paid for 
>every copy of OS/2 2.0 that is distributed. (IBM has to pay MS for
>the right to support Win3.0) Now, given this fact, do you really 
>believe MS and IBM can't agree on the actual number of copies of OS/2 
>distributed? If Microsoft's accounting dept. doesn't know EXACTLY
>how many copies of OS/2 2.0 are out there, then MS is indeed lucky
>to be in business (and making a profit).

Which raises an old question - does IBM have to pay MS royalties on the 
"Upgrade from Windows" version of OS/2 2.0, since proof of license is 
required to get this upgrade?  If not, then Microsoft's accounting 
department might not be able to figure out how many copies of OS/2 2.0 are 
out there.

JD
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why I have trouble with the c.o.o.a view of Microsoft.
Date: 16 Oct 92 11:05:58 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

In <1992Oct16.062029.11620@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>...
>This letter is a single example of dozens I've seen from Microsoft at
>and since the NT developers conference (July), where Microsoft:
>1) Admits they're not perfect, but are trying hard to fix things.
>2) WANTS you input... this is not fake marketing rhetoric, I really
>	believe they mean it.
>3) Provides free bug fixes.
>I'm not sure when it started, as I had not paid attention until July.

So MS try's to catch up with IBM on this one. Well fixing their compiler
isn't such impressive (they HAD to do that, too many people bought
MSC 7.0 but don't use it because of the bugs). I'll be impressed if
Windows 3.2 will be free and released as a CSD or whatever MS would
call it. THEN they are REALLY catching up to IBM.

>...
>People in c.o.o.a that represent Microsoft as grasping, money-grubbing
>scum that will sell you things and then drop you, should really take
>another look.

Why? MSC 7.0 has so many bugs it HAD to be corrected. Just a smart
business move. If some smart business move in the future means
abandoning customers Bill won't lose a night sleep on it. Just
a bunch of (hard needed) patches doesn't change that.

Notice MS is not unique in this. IBM, Borland, CA etc are all
commercial oriented businesses. They have to, its the way the
world works.

>Brian


Nico E. de Vries  (nevries@cc.ruu.nl) |------------------*   AA   III  PPP
_ This text is supplied AS IS, no warranties of any kind |  A  A   I   P  P
| apply. No rights can be derived from this text. This   |  AAAA   I   PPP
| text is likely to contain spelling and grammar errors. |  A  A   I   P
*---------------------------( Donate to GreenPeace! )----*  A  A  III  P

"The IBM PC is still waiting for a version of the CP/M OS.", G.M. Vose, 1982.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: Unprofessional Posts from Brian S.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 10:46:51 GMT

In <5412@krafla.rhi.hi.is> karlth@rhi.hi.is (Karl Thoroddsen) writes:

(followup to my previous reply to this same post)

>Brian please continue, this would be a very boring onesided group without you.

Actually, I think that Pete from Microsoft has had much more reasonable
and sensible arguments recently than Brian has.  I don't think that this
group would be one-sided without Brian.  We have quite a few people on
both sides of the discussions.  And I'm not asking Brian to stop
posting, I'm asking him to tone down the flamage.  Asking, not
demanding.  Though I'll admit that I'm trying to shame (not flame) him
into better patterns of behavior.  :-)
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
Organization: European Academic Research Network (EARN)
Date: Thursday, 15 Oct 1992 15:38:40 GMT
From: Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: INTERESTING TIDBIT FROM S
 <1992Oct7.122244.9671@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> <7524@lib.tmc.edu>
 <1992Oct9.215651.8804@itsmail1.hamilton.edu>

I bet Sun, AT&T, SCO, etc. are loving this struggle between
operating systems, while they take up the slack with their
Unix and X windows, while IBM and Microsoft try to cut each other's
branch, and lose customers on the way.   sigh. -turgut
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7263 comp.sys.intel:1908 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:26528
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:50:52 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1992Oct7.172240.23831@tandon.com> tdbear@tandon.com (Tom Barrett) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.015224.26561@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>>What would the basis for a lawsuit be? If IBM is allowed to
>>sell their cloned 486s as part of a board and they are doing
>>so, where is the problem? 
>
>It depends on what the *intent* of the agreement was...

Whose intent?

>Intel will most
>likely argue that they were "tricked" into this language...
>sure they were :)

Actually, I think the patent/foundry issue is even more serious.
The sad thing for Intel is that even if by some miracle they
manage to get the ruling reversed, Cyrix can always do an
outright SALE of the design to TI (with royalty arrangements)
and that would be completely kosher under the letter and
spirit of the law.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Happy owner of a new Mitsubishi Expo.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:01:26 GMT

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>>Actually, to be precise, you could conceivably have one person with two xterms
>>with one of them logged-in as one user, and the other logged-in as a different
>>user.  Is that possible in the (eventually-to-be-)'shipping' NT?

>     Is that a useful scenario?  Not in any way that I can see.

Actually this can be usefull. Its not something I need very often, but
I have done it.

Its usefull when you are at someone else's desk and need to check something
in one of your files, which they don't have access to. Rather than having
to log them out and log me in, I just log in in a window. I can then
find what I need and just close the window.

Not something I couldn't live without, but very handy when you need it.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net            uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
From: Terry.Fry@f347.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Terry Fry)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: 32-Bit Os/2 Apps List
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 10:35:04 -0500

ms>From: soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn)
ms>Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
ms>Organization: University of Chicago
ms>Reply-To: soh3@midway.uchicago.edu

ms>In article <XT3JsB3w165w@gnct.com> garyng@gnct.com (garyng) writes:
>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
>

ms>In that case, shouldn't you count Windows 2.x and even 1.x apps, too?

Only if they work, unmodified, under Windows 3.1.
___
 * MR/2 1.3 #6 * 5139976@mcimail.com

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7446 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:26677
From: peter@global.hacktic.nl (Peter Busser)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: MS-Windows 32-bit Disk Access (was: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)? )
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 00:07:07 GMT
Organization: Global Village 1

dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:

>In article <Bvo1t3.8HA@sti.com> westes@sti.com (Will Estes) writes:
>>It's probably not hype at all.  If you've used Windows much, you know that
>>any time you do significant I/O you end up blocking other tasks running
>>on the system.  The reason for that is that int 13 is not re-entrant,
>>and Windows can only have one task doing int 13 stuff at any one time.
>>I think that maybe even Windows itself uses int 13 for the paging
>>activity of Windows (someone correct me on that if it's wrong).

>If course, DR has had a fully-reentrant DOS for quite some time now,
>but it never sold much, for some reason.  Now if Windows would support
>this (or if MS-DOS 6.0 would be made reentrant with Windows supporting
>that), things would speed up a lot, and without patches to Windows.

Well, having a reentrant DOS doesn't help much because BIOS INT 13h is still
not reentrant.

I still think it is hype. What you guys are talking about is nothing more (and
nothing less for that matter) than a normal device driver. A decent device
driver, which every operating system, except until now the DOS/Windows combo,
has. The only advantage I see is that the driver is split in a device dependent
part and a device indepenedent part, but that's not a new concept either. Only
the names (BlockDev, FastDisk, VxD, INT13.386, etc.) are new, but that's just
what hype is all about.

Greetings,
Peter Busser
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.x will loose its battle against NT if .....
Date: 09 Oct 92 18:30:17 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct9.003603.1793@news.Hawaii.Edu> lkan@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Linus Kan) writes:
>
>o NT sells for below $199
>o NT tailored to Intel x86 platform and sells for below $99
>
>Anyone out there believes that NT would sell for about $500?
>I don't think so--it's just a gimmick!  It's an estimated price
>so that tempted users like me would buy OS/2 because it's cheap.
>Microsoft says that--do you think they'll actually sell NT for
>that price?  Think about it--if you were a sales strategist at 
>Microsoft, how much would you suggest NT sell for  in order to 
>maintain total monopoly on Intel based OS?  $500 for NT is
>quite ridiculous--it's all just a (brillant) gimmick and a false
>'add'.

     I really don't follow this logic - Microsoft said that
Windows NT would sell for less than $500 in order to sell
more copies of OS/2?  Or am I misreading?

				-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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy