HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lkan@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Linus Kan)
Subject: OS/2 2.x will loose its battle against NT if .....
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 00:36:03 GMT


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'm sure Microsoft is reading the OS/2 newsgroups and get user
evaluations and problems plus tips and ideas so that they could
improve their NT code.  And since NT and OS/2 are similar in code,
Microsoft is learning its mistakes from the release of OS/2 2.0
--us OS/2 users did all the test Microsoft needed for the NT kernel.
I'm sure the first release of NT would have less BUGS than OS/2 2.0.
I've had my share of bugs with OS/2!


I feel that Windows NT would sell for below $100--maybe at a lost
but what does Microsoft have to loose--they've got profits from
its other popular applications.  Anyone suspected that Microsoft
would sell NT for $69 to developers?...well they did!

Well, when NT is ready for release, Microsoft would come out hard
with a powerful campign against OS/2.  The final analysis--OS/2 2.x
would NOT survive in the long run--unless die-hard OS/2 users
want to be unique and sway away from the mainstream, ie. Windows.

Hey--I have OS/2 2.0 on my system...won't be there long though.
If I do switch to Windows NT, I'll opt for a better desktop manager
...maybe a 32-bit Norton Desktop (and hopefully it'll be a radical
change from the Windows 3.x version--ie. a Norton Desktop similar to
the Workplace Shell).

Well, time will tell....

Any feedback regarding my views are welcomed at lkan@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu


:) lkan


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:39:25 GMT

In <1992Oct7.155552.9303@ncsu.edu> linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville) writes:

[...]

>BTW, of the 2 people that I know personally who have the NT SDK, neither of
>them is using it.  One found it extremely unstable and very slow with ONLY
>16 Mb of RAM.  The other decided that Linux was a more stable and rewarding
>platform to use.

Was it so unstable that the first person was unable to use 
it to compile and debug applications ? 

By the way, one of the two persons I know personally who have OS/2
installed, but almost never use it,  has the NT SDK too, and is
not using it. This is because it doesn't run on his machine. And
I'm quite sure that he wont use it even if it did, other than
in order to try a few of my programs, perhaps. So what. *I* am
using it, and so do a lot of other developers, I'm sure.

Wolfgang Strobl

WARNING, NONSTANDARD DISCLAIMER FOLLOWS ...
*anz tzpos in this posting are caused bz the fact that the
current prerelease of the Windows&NT SDK doesn|t fullz support
the German keyboard. I appologiye for this inconvenience.(

>/*     Do zou recogniye that picture_ :-)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: I went ahead and did it....
From: <HCM100@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:56:10 EDT
Organization: Penn State University

OK, I finally got OS/2 2.0 and installed it on my system.  There are a few
things that I really don't like.  Maybe they are due to my ignorance of OS/2,
and my use of MS-DOS for the past 12 years, but here they are:

(1) No SVGA support.  I paid good money for an SVGA card with extra memory,
yet when I installed and have run OS/2, the only option I was presented with
was VIDEO GRAPHICS ARRAY, ie Standard 640x480 VGA.  Does release 2.01 support
higher resolutions?

(2) Windows Incompatability.  I am unable to use a number of my standard
features in my Windows software.  I do my word processing in MS WinWord 2.0,
and use the Equation Editor extensively.  I was unable to insert objects
into any of my documents.  Also, full screen views were all screwed up.
CorelDRAW! 3.0 will not even load, and if I can't use SVGA, I don't want it
to anyway.  The programs are also EXTREMELY slow.

(3) Desktop is bulky.  The folder icons are WAY too big in the disk view.  I
don't like to have to scroll all over the place to look at my files.  This
would be helped by support of an SVGA mode that permitted smaller icons.

(4) Documentation.  The books that come with OS/2 2.0 are not even remotely
comprehensive.  The hypertext included is bulky and too simplistic.

(5) I was unable to run some of my DOS software, although I didn't attempt
to run them in a DOS only mode.  I'll try that and see if it changes my
opinions.

Now, the things I *DID* like about OS/2:

(1) When in OS/2, it's nice and quick.  The GUI is fairly comprehensive and
I was able to adapt to it quickly.  I would really like to see the changes
in beta 2.01.

(2) The System PULSE is a very nice tool to determine CPU usage.

(3) I think that with some work, this could be a very flexible OS, although
I think that I've been working in win3.1 for too long.  Like I said, I'll
take a look at the beta of 2.01.

I'll keep playing, but for now I think that Windows 3.1 has a sleight edge
over OS/2 when it comes to availablility and use of my existing software.
Granted, Windows are their native environment and they are working out of
it in OS/2, but I'd still like to see better performance on my Windows apps.

Can't say I'm not trying to be objective.

(FYI - System is a 33MHz 386, 130MB HDD, 8mb RAM, 1MB SVGA, Bus Mouse)

*  Hans C. Masing        |  "When you go in for a job interview, I  *
*  HCM100@PSUVM.psu.edu  |   think a good thing to ask is if they   *
*  Penn State MIS Dept.  |   ever press charges." - Jack Handey     *
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7065 comp.sys.intel:1882 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:26303
From: poe@wharton.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)? (still!!!)
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:39:43 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

[stuff deleted]
>>AMD sells 386-compatable chips, and Cyrix
>>sells some chips that are close to an Intel486 (smaller cache).
> 
> Don't let the number 486 fool you, the Cyrix 486 is a 386.5 and not a real
> 486. There are more differences than cache size!
> 

What exactly is a 386.5? Why not a 436? 
What are the other differences besides cache size?
The bottom line is : Is it true or false that the 486SLC and 486DLC implement
the COMPLETE i486sx instruction set? If it's true, then please explain to me
how is it functionally different from an Intel 486sx.

Phil
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ekl@fics.uucp
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Organization: Kvam data as
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 17:16:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct09.175016.290@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>
>     And as a result, IBM narrowed the field to people demoing software
>at COMDEX.  There are developers out there who don't have something
>ready for COMDEX - should they be excluded from a release of a product
>specifically designed to stimulate application development?
>
>					-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.

It would be interesting to know whether anyone sent in the application
*without* having anything to demo on COMDEX, and whether those people
were excluded. I surely get the support I need, including CD-ROMs, BBS-
support, and knowledgable people to talk to. I don't have a product to
demo anywhere right now. But I do get support.

So, as a suggestion, why don't Microsoft fill in this form, with no
product to demo. If you don't get what you should, then fine. However,
if you do get it, then I suggest you use the tools to create a native
os/2 2.0 version of Word and Excel. ;-)

Eirik
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eirik Lygre                                     Phone:    +47 4 623766
Kvam data as                                    Fax  :    +47 4 623985
PO Box 1101 Lura                                Email:   ekl@fics.uucp
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 07 Oct 92 18:50:46 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <7512@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Oct05.185642.23419@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>     Every piece of software being run anywhere is being "tested"
>>by its users.  Now, here's the distinction:  The primary purpose
>>(note - _primary_) of a beta is testing.  The primary purpose of
>>the SDK is applications development.  Any questions?
>
>So MS says, anyway, officially.

      MS's official word is all that the rest of us have to go on - 
anything else is idle speculation, without supporting evidence.


> That does not mean that the _real_ purpose
>can't be FUD: they're trying to show that NT is just a CD's throw away, and so
>folks should wait for it rather than commit to OS/2 now.

     I agree - it is _possible_ that the real purpose of the SDK
release was to sow FUD.  It is also possible that the real purpose
of the SDK release was to provide things for people to put their
drinks on.  Neither is proven, and, in my opinion, neither is likely.


> Indeed, they're so
>willing to keep people from committing to OS/2 that they're willing to take a
>real bath on the SDK, including giving up on sales of the final product to the
>beta-testers, just to generate a little more FUD.

     Or perhaps they're just being nice to those people developing for
Windows NT?  I'm not as quick to see a conspiracy here - it seems like
the simplest explanation is most often correct.


>>     How can a person prove that they are a developer?
>
>Is _any_ qualification being done on folks who call up and order the SDK/beta?
>Even as little as a description of the product they're working on?

      Why should there be?


>(I'd call up and find out, but I'm flatly not interested in NT, or any other
>OS from Microsoft.)

      Too lazy to gather evidence for your own arguments?  Tsk tsk...

					-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
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: best target platform: OS/2 1.x!?!
Date: 09 Oct 92 18:34:31 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct9.013333.19999@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>In <1992Oct08.184014.29255@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct8.005854.1431@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>>>
>>>Consider the following little table:
>>>
>>>                             Target Environment
>>>Apps               DOS     Win   OS/2 1.x   OS/2 2.x   Win NT
>>>-------           --------------------------------------------
>>>DOS                Yes     Yes    1/2         Yes       1/2
>
>>     Windows NT should get a Yes in the DOS row.  I'm not sure why you
>>have it as 1/2.
>
>Because of the limited compatibility.  Same reason I put 1/2 under OS/2
>1.x.  Actually, it could easily be argued that this row should have
>yesses across the board.  I wouldn't have a problem with that.

     Which limited compatibility is that?


>>    There are rumors that OS/2 2.0 may also support Win32s, but
>>no official announcement from IBM that I am aware of.
>
>No idea.  I think that GUIs are for feebs and moroons, so I really
>don't know or care.  <deliberate flamebait>  :-)

     Flameflameflame.

				-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: Nico.E.de.Vries@f1.n100.z60.wlink.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: 32-bit OS/2 Apps List
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 12:40:54 -0100

Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

In <1992Oct13.011342.22239@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn) writes:

>>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

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

Actually Win 2.0 apps SHOULD be counted for OS/2 2.0 (since it can
run them) but NOT for Windows 3.1. 

>Min

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.
From: yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong)
Subject: Re: ms's misconduct!
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 03:18:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct09.094526.18836@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>That is dependent on how much you're going to use that functionality.
>On systems like mainframes and workstations, you may use it a lot.
>On handhelds and small pc's, you may not.  

You may be right.  However, the handheld PDAs that Apple are trying to make
will have preemptive multitasking, running on a machines that have
only 512k.

>
>I'm sorry you misunderstood me.  I was basically trying to state that
>multitasking is just another tool to use in computers.  Not the only
>tool.  It's not going to lead us into the promised land, cause world
>peace, feed the multitudes, etc.  It may, however, make some things
>easier for the programmer and user.  Notice the word "may", though.

I think the original thread is kind of lost, and I don't really see the
point of all this.  You can apply the same argument to almost anything.
Language is only a tool.  It is not the only tool.  (drawing, sculpture,
music ... )  It is not going to lead us into the promised land either.
Show me one person who would rather live without language.

>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...


Organization: Masters student, Information Networking Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 22:17:36 -0400 
From: Jyri Virkki <jyri+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
	<1992Oct10.233432.27395@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Distribution: na


brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
> NT's DOS support will be better than 1.X's -- IBM's OS/2 2.0 support, while
> good for some, is more of an overreaction by a frighten bureacracy, than
> a well thought out feature.  Consider also the testing/maintenace

In other words, including excellent msdos support in OS/2 is an act
of a frightened bureaucracy, but including the same support in NT is
a wise design feature? Interesting.

> bits level, Windows 2.X, 3.X, Win32s, Win32.  It's possible in the
> near future that OS/2 may run well everyone else's apps, but it mainly
> means there is less incentive for people to make apps for the small 2.0
> native market.

Well there are x people out there running OS/2, and not a single
person running NT because it's still vaporware. Regardless of the
value of x, x>>0, thus the market for native OS/2 apps is tremendously
bigger than NT's.


> Further the large number of subsystems + IBM's need to maintain its
> reputation for supporting old features for a long period of time,
>[...]
> Any major new feature in OS/2 will have to be geared to be compatible with
> the other platforms.  Imagine they have to support two of many
> things already!

It's funny how people rationalize the most imaginative arguments
against reality when they want to be blind! OS/2 and NT are both doing
the same thing, coming out with new, 32bit os's, and including support
for older apps so people can make a smooth transition. (Of course,
the support is real with OS/2, yet-to-be-seen with NT). Pray tell us
why is it that OS/2 will collapse under the burden of compatinility,
while NT won't, if it's doing the same thing?? You are making a basic
assumption here, that OS/2 will forever try to be compatible with
everything, while NT will soar ahead. The error here is that
compatibility issues are only relevant during the transition period,
OS/2 will not have the need to try to support anything new, just the
apps that already exist in users' hands. As more and more native OS/2
apps appear, compatibility will be less and less of an issue.

Saying NT is better just because it's better is a clearly redundant
argument. Someday NT will be out and we'll be able to compare it with
OS/2 which is excellent and has been out for quite a while now. Maybe
it will be better, who knows, if so, I'll buy it. But I have to be
mighty sceptic given that microsoft has not been able to produce an
usable operating system in over ten years. Maybe this time they'll get
it right, but I have to wonder why would they suddenly be so good
at os's, if they have never been able to get it right?

--
Jyri J. Virkki | DoD#561 | jyri+@cmu.edu | Carnegie Mellon University | MSINI
From: amitp@ruf.rice.edu (Amit J Patel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Menus off screen (was Re: OS/2 2.x would loose its battle against Windows NT if...)
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:02:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: rice.Bw2CC0.GCw
Reply-To: amitp@owlnet.rice.edu
Organization: Rice University

In article <hatton.718762603@cgl.ucsf.edu>, hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:
|> thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:
|> >In article <1992Oct8.154329.1557@cs.mcgill.ca>, gumby@cs.mcgill.ca (Phil PRANNO) writes:
|> >|> The WPS is CUA 91 compliant.
|> 
|> >So CUA 91 allows you to put a menu partially off-screen where you can't
|> >actually access some of the items?
|> 
|> How do you get this to happen? I can't get a menu to be anywhere but
|> completely on-screen (ET4 card and either VGA or Orchid beta drivers).
|> 
|> There are things about CUA that I disagree with, but I doubt off-screen
|> menus are in there.
|> 
|> Tom

I went home and tried this... I was unable to get the WPS to put its
menus off screen, but I did get a window's to fall off the bottom of
the screen.

I used 24-point Helvetica (HUGE font) and dragged it to the menu
button on an open DOS window, and then I moved the DOS window so that
its menu button was in the middle of the screen.  Then I clicked on
the menu button and a menu showed up, falling off the bottom of the
screen.  I did similar things with WPS objects, and the menus did
_not_ go off the screen, so I think it's a PM problem rather than a
WPS problem.



			Amit
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:57:08 EDT
From: Spiro the Spiny Goldfish <MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.
 <1992Oct6.235111.27463@netcom.com> <1992Oct7.012337.28592@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
 <1992Oct8.205928.20293@njitgw.njit.edu>
 <1992Oct9.004641.12214@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <92283.115743MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1992Oct9.202631.29392@fcom.cc.utah.edu>

In article <1992Oct9.202631.29392@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu
(Brian Sturgill) says:
>
>>No, it didn't have anything to do with it. The kit cost $2600 when it first
>>came out, before OS/2 1.3 was even released, and MORE THAN A YEAR before the
>>IBM-Microsoft split.
>>
>>Brian, it's obvious you don't know anything about the history of the subject.
>>Please leave the discussions to those of us who have something factual to
>add.
>
>According to the OS/2 1.3 press release on ftp-os2, OS/2 1.3 came
>out in October 1990, according to Dietal and Kogan, Microsoft and IBM made
>the split public in September 1990 (i.e. before 1.3 came out).  Microsoft

And, of course, that doesn't change what I said above, now does it? 1.3 was
in development a long time before Microsoft was even thinking about leaving
OS/2, and 2.0 was in development even longer than 1.3. Period. Cringely,
and yourself, are as usual full of it.
----
Mike Dahmus       MXD118@PSUVM  or  dahmus@cs.psu.edu
TEAM OS/2
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong)
Subject: Re: NSTL compares OS/2 2.0 and Windows 3.1
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 06:29:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct04.040328.29186@microsoft.com> leehart@microsoft.com (Lee Hart) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.214843.4317@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz>, stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Stuart Woolford) writes:
>> wjw1@me1.MsState.Edu (Bill Wilson) writes:
>> 
>> It seems to me, from reading the original post, that it implied that the
>> testers were familiar with MSWindows, but not OS/2 2, which would make any
>> claim of a fair 'usability test' a joke, the best test would be with a group
>> of people with NO previous experience of either system, otherwise a lengthy
>> familiarization time would be required before any serious testing could be
>> done ( and I mean weeks.... )
>
>Maybe you are right, but another way to think of it is that maybe the testers
>should be as similar as possible to the public they are trying to represent.
>For this case, slight familiarity with Windows, little with OS/2 is 
>appropriate.  This test would then not say which OS is better overall, but
>it would reflect what the average user would see when using the two operating
>systems.
>
>> just a comment....
>
>Same here
>
>Lee

I haven't seen the original NTSL report.  From what I've heard (at least
from what I've read on the net), the test is to test the quality of the
software.  If prior knowledge of software is not taken into account and
results adjusted accordingly, then there is something very wrong with
their definition of usability.  Surely, I can't say Chinese is easier
to use than English (in the general sense) simply because I speak Chinese 
and I don't speak English.  To say that Chinese is inherently easier to use
than English, I need someone who is either proficient in both or neither
to test it without bias.  Else, the result is just going to be meaningless.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy