HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 20:20:26 GMT

In article <1h7gj1INNitc@cae.cad.gatech.edu> chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen) writes:
>

[ stuff deleted ]

>If they DO get broken up, there are other software companies out there.
>Hell, UNIX may gain some more ground if it happens.  For now,
>sticking with OS/2 and Unix hasn't hurt me, and probably won't.  If
>MS DOES break up, some of the smaller companies may have room to
>grow.
>

Unfortunately UNIX isn't going to gain any ground. NOvel announced
that will buy Unix Systems Laboratory for $335 million in stock.
"This aquisition is being done at the urging of customers who have
asked us to support the Unix system directly and integrate it fully
within the Netware environment," says Raymond Noorda, Novell's CEO.
(Reference - PRODIGY interactive personal service).

If you read this statement carefully, you will notice that Ray
wants to absorb UNIX into Netware, not the other way around. If
this actually comes about, one of the last of the good OS
environments will bite the dust; all because he has a hard on for
Bill Gates.

The prize that comes with Unix Systems Laboratory is AT&T copyright
to UNIX. Oh well, I've seen good things raped and plundered before;
just never thought UNIX would be one of them.

JMHO...

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Suggested Advertising
Date: 24 Dec 92 15:02:05 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

This subject has been discussed over and over again internally, and some
really good ideas came out of those discussions (too bad few - if any -
were ever used), so I thought I'd start this thread here.

This thread is for the purpose of describing to everyone else what kind(s)
of advertisements you would like to see.  I will describe the first:

<Blackout to a commercial>

<Shown:  5 seconds of people using DOS character mode programs>
<Flash:  a large "plus" sign ('+') in off-white>
<Shown:  5 seconds of people using Windows programs>
<Flash:  another large "plus" sign in off-white>
<Shown:  5 seconds of people using OS/2 1.3 programs>
<Flash:  yet another large "plus" sign in off-white>
<Shown:  5 seconds of people using the Workplace shell>
<Flash:  (you guessed it) a large "equal" sign ('=') in off-white>
<Screen blacks out and in fades "OS/2 2.0" in IBM blue>
<Screen fades out after 5 seconds>
<Screen fades in a 1-800 number in off-white to call for ordering>

This obviously has a 4-full page PC Week analagous advertisement.

I'll be curious, as I'm sure will others, to hear what *you* can come up
with.

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: SMALL Excerpt from "Windows Sources"
Date: 30 Dec 1992 13:36:39 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu

In article <1992Dec30.104851.13621@rtf.bt.co.uk] traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
]In article <1992Dec30.031820.21424@netcom.com] timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:
]
]One detects a certain amount of bias present when you resort to comparing a
]vapourware product (the 8MB Windows NT) to an existing (but slow) product
](the 4MB OS/2 2.0).
]
]Why don't we all just use OS/2 for now and when Windows NT runs happily
]in 8MB of RAM we can all swap to that? That sounds fair enough now,
]doesn't it?
]
]

Actually, thats a great idea.
From: goldstei@shrike.und.ac.za (Hilton Goldstein)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: MS to 'support' OS/2?
Date: 25 Dec 92 13:57:31 GMT
Organization: University of Natal (Durban), South Africa
NNTP-Posting-Host: shrike.und.ac.za
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

Hi,

Are MS planning to port/write apps for OS/2 2.x?  I am particularly
interested in MS-Word for OS/2 which is superior to the Windows 
version 2.0a.   An MS salesman here said MS would support all
platforms, but how much of that is truth and how much is PR???

I am currently using the Windows product under OS/2, but it keeps 
crashing "error in ATM", and for the other obvious reasons would 
like an OS/2 product.

Please email any replies - thanking you in advance...

Hilton Goldstein
goldstei@shrike.und.ac.za
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: OS/2 bigot meets NT....clarification
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 10:27:35 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1he27dINN4tq@mirror.digex.com> terryfry@access.digex.com (Terry Fry) writes:
> 
> Its beta code, I don't think anything from it should be a permanent
> part of its benchmark.
> 
> When its released and it still doesn't work.... then we can all flame
> on it <g>

I know it's a beta (the October one....). The point of my post was this:
 
I have used OS/2 for the past 8 months and I think a lot of it. I never really
liked Windows much....though it was much better than DOS. If the NT I was
playing with - even fully funtional (which this beta clearly isn't) - is any
indication of what the final product will be like......then I think I prefer
OS/2.
 
But......as I said......I could be lured away from OS/2 by a product there
obviously better. But NT certainly isn't tha product today and doesn't look -
to me - like it will be......
 
But these are of course only MY opinions........:-) . I'll play with NT some
more just for the hell of it.....but this beta is likely only confirm my views
as stated above.
 
Flame away if you like......but it won't change the evidence of my own senses.
 
Steve



-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
+64 4 478 4714                          | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: a722756@roper.mc.ti.com (W. Donald Rolph)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Originator: a722756@roper.mc.ti.com
Organization: Texas Instruments / Attleboro Mass / USA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 12:47:27 GMT


You have an interesting definition of a monopoly which,  I thnik, doesn't quite
square with the legal definition of a monopoly.  For all practical  economic
purposes a single company with thast much market  share is a monopoly as far as
fixning market price and practices  go.

IN  some sense we have let this happen to ourselves by not demanding that a
competitive  environment provide what microsoft has decided to provide, that is
to say a large reasonable coherent environment  and infrastructure of computing
capacity  which meets the real  needs of end users.
-- 

Regards.
 
Don Rolph  a722756@pan.mc.ti.com WD3 MS10-13 (508)-699-1263
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:22:19 GMT

In article <8241@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.232921.22559@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>>Like many other haters, MS-haters don't care what else they destroy.
>>The only thing they care about is destroying their object of hatred.
>>They may even destroy themselves in the process. 
>
>What else, pray tell, would be destroyed if the FTC were to force MS to quit
>forcing system vendors to sell a copy of Windows and DOS with every machine
>they ship, and to force MS apps to quit using undocumented OS calls, besides
>Bill Gates' monopolistic dreams?

That is a very short-term way of looking at the situation. It may, for
example, reduce the pressure from IBM to become more cost-effective in their
division that writes OS/2. One serious question about IBM is whether or not
is would be able to sell OS/2 and its development tools for a reduced price
for an extended period of time.

If MS offers dealers long-term deals with reduced cost, it shows that
MS anticipates that its financial situations is such that it can affort it.
I doubt if IBM can offer today a similar deal.

>>Unlike haters, the constructive critics just go and build something
>>better. It does not look like MS-haters are going to sit and develop
>>a better OS. It is much easier to use the government.
>
>The critics have gone and built something better. It's called OS/2.

I am not sure that the _haters_ actually wrote anything. I have not
yet seen any IBM employee spouting hatred toward MS on the net. Not
every supporter of OS/2 is an MS hater. I myself use OS/2 since ver.
1.2.

>-- 
>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.
> "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.apps
From: otto@netcom.com (Otto Fung)
Subject: OS/2 2.1 Files need - PSD10.DSK and PSDD4.DSK
Followup-To: poster
Keywords: OS/2 2.1 beta, ftp, files
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 22:03:59 GMT

	Hello. I am just wondering if anyone would so kind that put two files 
from the OS/2 2.1 beta cd-rom on FTP sites or UUENCODE and mail to me. I need 
these 2 files: PSD10.DSK (OS/2 2.1 Beta Disk #10) and PSDD4.DSK (OS/2 2.1 BETA
DEVICE DRIVER DISK 4), the ones I got were corrupted. I need 3.5" images. Any help would be appreciated!



-- 
===============================================================================
|   Otto Fung                                                                 |
|   CompuServe: 76260,631                     Fidonet: Otto Fung @ 1:204/12   |
|   Internet  : otto@netcom.com                otto@f12.n204.z1.fidonet.org   |
|   Fax       : (415)572-8506   Voice: (415)572-0892   Modem: (415)572-9661   |
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:19:47 GMT

helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

>In article <1992Dec21.184359.9551@iscsvax.uni.edu>, brackin5483@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>|> I got one question.  When Windows becomes the only operating system out there(
>|> according to Bill) and Microsoft drives everyone else producing Windows
>|> softwere in to bankruptcy.  Then what will happen to prices of operating
>|> systems and application software, once Microsoft has established a monopoly?

>OK, worst case scenario--Bill Gates drives every single OS vendor right into
>the ground.  Windows rules forever in a brave new world of point and click right?

>The minute that Microsoft starts charging more for Windows than it would
>cost for someone else to write a clone or a competing OS Microsoft would
>have competetors again.  

Not if the other companies know that as soon as their new OS hit the
markets MS would drop their prices until the new company went broke.
You don't enter a fight where you know the other guy is bigger and stronger
than you and will pound you into the ground.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Subject: Re: More advertising
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1993 18:01:30 GMT

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>In article <1992Dec31.062803.26739@cs.joensuu.fi> jahonen@cs.joensuu.fi (Jarmo Ahonen) writes:
>>rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>
>>>	Let me ask:  Is it everyones opinion that OS/2 is sucha bad
>>>	product that it cannot stand on it's merits alone and that we
>>>	have to buffer these merits with blatant lies?
>>> 
>>(stuff deleted)
>>>	*Why* is it necessary to lie?  If you're going to put a qualifier
>>>	in there, put an HONEST one, like "most".  I prefer not confusing
>>>	people and just omitting the qualifier altogether.
>>
>>Here in finland most of the OS/2 adds say something like "most" or
>>"almost every" etc. And they mention 6 MB of memory and 80 MB disk...
>>Actually the memory requirement is that 6 MB and the proposed is 8 MB.


>	Well, let's hear it for IBM Finland! 

>	<Doesn't change the situation in America and elsewhere
>	though.  .. Maybe a letter to IBM saying how great the
>	finland ad/packaging is would get the point across...>

Make that the European ad/packaging.


>-- 
>	Blaming society for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
>	         ---  Boycott == censorship == cowardice  ---
>	Do I even need to point out that my views do not represent
>	those of my employer, institution or relations?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 03:53:48 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

A co-worker of mine in Auckland has sent me his NT-bearing hard disk to play
with over Xmas.
 
I am writing this from the NT Terminal program. I have beening using the
system for about 20 minutes and it has crashed and burned twice in that time. 
The first time I was closing the Control Panel (having modified nothing) and
had changed nothing. 
 
The swap file is 27 megabytes and can eat up to a maximum of 77 megs. I am
running it on a 486DX/25. After NT and the swap file, I have 35 megs free on
the 125 meg drive. I have 8 megs of 70ns RAM and the system runs very much
like OS/2 on 4 megs with no HPFS. 
 
The second crash occurred when I tried to open the Disk Manager: the system
locked solid and I had to hit the reset button.

That was in the first 10 minutes.
 
So far......I miss the WPS. If you like Win3.1...then obviously you will feel
right at home on NT......but I never did like the Win3.1 interface.
 
I don't hink I am in any danger whatever of becoming an NT bigot based on what
I have seen so far. Having gone from the OS/2 2.1 beta to the NT
beta.....there is no real comparison. 
 
Being an OS/2 bigot, NT would have to the *best* thing since sliced bread to
lure me away......and right now it looks like a bag of flour. the bread is a
long way off by the look of things.
 
Bye from NT! I want to get my OS/2 drive plugged back in.
 
Steve

 

 

 


-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
+64 4 478 4714                          | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: More advertising
Date: 29 Dec 1992 16:52:32 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec29.155440.23938@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>"With an operating system that can run all of your DOS, Windows, and OS/2
>					^^^
>	Pull this word.

You're being unnecessarily pedantic - there's NO OS that meets the criterion
you're holding OS/2 up to.

>	Can't we be honest?  OS/2 takes more than 30 megs of HD space

Hahahaha. It can be installed quite nicely in less than 30.

>	and a lot more than 4 megs of RAM.  This is part of the problem--
>	you can't solve it by promoting the same lies.  Come on, OS/2
>	*needs* at least 6 to function -- sluggishly! -- but 4 is a 

It works just fine in 6. This is yet more FUD.

>	joke (yes, I've tried it post SP).  If IBM would allow you to boot
>	w/o the WPS, it might be better, but that pretty much makes the
>	system useless.  (There's only so much benefit you get from OS/2
>	wit one fullscreen prompt).

I guess you didn't try SET RUNWORKPLACE=CMD.EXE, then, did you? It allows you
to take advantage of everything but the WPS; in particular, you get all of the
PM support and multitasking facilities.
-- 
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.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: slumos@unlv.edu (Steve Lumos)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: UNLV Computer Science
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 22:16:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.040237.14440@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>In article <Bzn0EI.D2w@csulb.edu> sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>I dont care what MS _might_ do. I do care about what they have
>done. By now, with the exception of IBM (with an early help from MS),
>nobody was able to produce as cheaply an operating system that people really 
>_wanted_, other then MS. Just take a look at the history and you will
>see how prices are becoming lower, and new applications that people 
>_want_, are being written as a result of MS-Windows. 

Here's a quarter, go BUY a clue. And remember that all MS is they owe
to DR. Why? Because if DR hadn't f*cked with IBM, THEY would have been
the company IBM hired to write the opperating system for the IBM PC.
Bill Gates would still be in his garage fiddling with QDOS...heh.

>If MS is capable of keeping prices down for the customer, why
>should _they_ be penalized and not the less efficient companies ? 

Yeah, that is what everybody said when they were buying oil below
cost. They learned quick when suddenly the company they had been
buying from was the only one left and hosed then all real good... For
some reason, you don't seem to think there should be laws. Your idea
of fair is when everybody cheats just as much...

TTYL - Steve
-- 
Steve Lumos - slumos@cs.unlv.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:35:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.145115.25441@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>In article <BzLMIH.II3@csulb.edu> sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec20.215347.1614@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>>>In article <BzKsJ2.Bwp@csulb.edu>, sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>>>I _still_ don't understand what isn't "fair" about what Microsoft is doing.
>>>Why shouldn't Microsoft let its application programmers talk to its OS
>>>programmers?  What is wrong with giving their own programmers an edge?
>>
>>   Because it gives them undue power over the software market as a whole
>>and acts detrimentally to the market for applications software in that
>>Microsoft leverages its unique and restricted access to information about
>>it's operating environments to gain an advantage in a separate market. Now
>>you may not see these as separate markets but that is for the FTC to decide.
>
>Why do you consider this unfair ? MS made a bussiness decision to 
>write operating systems, and it turned out to be a successful one.
>And this decision was many times very risky. Even today MS may lose
>all its tremendous investment in Windows-NT because of OS/2.
>Other companies did not. Tough for them. MS could not have any advantage
>over other companies if people did not buy their software. And people 
>did buy because that is what they needed, or at least believed they
>needed. 
>
>If the other companies want to have advantage, let them write a
>better Operating System that people need, rather than resorting to
>the governemnt. IBM did just that. MS is not in the market to supply
>profits for other companies.

  And supposedly Standard Oil (back in the late 1800's) found their oil
fair and square. However, the marketing practices they followed and the
restrictive covenants they imposed on their distributors and sellers
were anti-competitive and the general vertical control they exercised
over the whole system was deemed unhealthy for the consuming public.
hence anti-trust laws. Similar findings were made with respect to movie
studios and theaters more recently. All were forced to divest and
restructure in a more horizontal fashion. If MS is found to exercise
similar control, they may be forced to do similarly.

-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
From: ucgadkw@ucl.ac.uk (Dominik Wujastyk)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS to 'support' OS/2?
Date: 28 Dec 92 10:50:39 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

lachlan@dmp.csiro.au (Lachlan Cranswick) writes:

>From memory, the original box of MS Word 5.0 for DOS
>say also for OS/2.  Does this imply that it
>has code written to take advantage of OS/2 or as
>a DOS program, it will also run under OS/2.

Yes, Microsoft Word 5.5 for DOS also runs under OS/2 2.0 (and under
earlier versions, back to 1.0).  The only difference I can detect
is that the "File" menu choice for dropping down to the operating system
says "DOS" and "OS/2" respectively when running under the different
systems.  There may be other differences in the code, for large file
editing, etc.: the "Getting Started" manual says that Word under OS/2
"will automatically use all the memory available in your computer, 
including memory beyond 640k.  The 640k limit that applies to DOS does not 
apply to OS/2."

Functionally, Word 5.5 appears identical under DOS and OS/2.

>This "original box" was at least 3 years old? (I think)

Yup. The manuals are copyright 1990.

Dominik 
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11098 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3512
From: lvv@lvvhq.adam.kiev.ua (Leonid Volnitsky)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 29 Dec 92 16:46:47 GMT
Reply-To: lvv@lvvhq.adam.kiev.ua
Organization: Sweet Home

>remaining strong points of the American economy.  No matter that American
>programmers are trying to compete with programmers in Eastern Europe who
>are thrilled to work for $300 a month.

Ok, I'll be thrilled by $300 a month when my current summery salary from
two jobs as LAN admin and UNIX admin is about $30 and having 14 hours
work day (and night). I am not complying (average salary at my
country is about $8), just wanted to clear things up.


>|> The day that a couple hundred software writers in Russia or India can
>|> produce an OS like OS/2....  Is the day that BG becomes humble.

No, we can't :-(
Ratio of hackers/users really much more in xSU (IMHO) then in US but
to "produce OS like OS/2" or even something simpler one needs some
conditions. Here must exist companies with enough $$$ to make from thous
hackers-individualists the teams of professional programmers.
Programmers or companies must again have enough $$$ to bye needed
software, needed books and real computers. Now best bye computers here
are old AT and XT.

--- 
Leonid Volnitsky   +7-044-5184889  Ukraine   lvv%lvvhq.adam.kiev.ua@ussr.eu.net
Practice random kindness and sensless acts of beauty
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11218 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3551