HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Biased Reviews From ZD
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:48:16 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1682C6AE3.CIVENBAH@mizzou1.missouri.edu> CIVENBAH@mizzou1.missouri.edu writes:
>Au contraire.  New Windows applications such as W4W, Excel, AmiPro,
>Procomm Plus for Win, etc, are the latest in software technology.

And they run just fine under Windows 3.0.  And they run fine under
OS/2's WIN-OS2 system.  So I'm not forced to use last year's anything.
When the time comes that these programs are ported to OS/2 2.0, I'll
be able to use them that way.  Lotus, I know, spends a great deal of
time updating their code to use custom OS features, like
multithreading, and such.

BTW: Freelance Graphics for OS/2 is at the same feature level as the
current release of FLG for Windows.  Yes, Excel hasn't upgraded, but
if I want to, I can install Excel 4.0 for Windows under OS/2 without
any problem.  It's been done.  I currently use W4W 2.0 under WIN-OS2
without any problem.  I never used AmiPro for anything, so I can't
answer here (why do you use two different word processors anyway?).
As for Procomm Plus, the DOS version works just fine in a VDM.  I
haven't bothered with the Windows version.

>Sorry, I'm a user, not a developer, so perhaps you and I are using
>different types of applications.  IMO, the latest Windows applications
>are among the most powerful yet easy to use programs that have been
>developed to date.

Well, I'm not a real developer.  I get compilers and SDK's and I
dabble with code writing in my spare time.  I'll admit that the latest
Windows applications are the easiest to use, and they do offer more
features, but that's just because they came out recently.  Most of
them will run under OS/2 just fine, and a lot of the developers are
pledeged to bringing out OS/2 versions, so the disparity won't last.
Once they get the next versions out, you'll likely see both versions
on an equivalent perfromance level.

>I'm talking about OS/2 and running Windows applications.  Windows
>does it better, in my opinion, and I see no advantage to moving to
>OS/2. 

That's your opinion.  You value raw speed more.  And if all you do is
run Windows apps, that's the way to go.  Personally, I prefer the
flexibility and protection that OS/2 offers.  True, the Windows apps
run a bit slower, but the only Windows app I run is Word 2.0 and a few
shareware games.


-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Biased Reviews From ZD
Date: 25 Jul 92 18:03:16 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Jul24.175623.26866@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>
>      So with the exception of ObjectVision, all of the above are
> vaporware, yes?  And with the logic usually used on this group, none
> of them should effect any decisions made today, correct?
> 
>     Sorry, couldn't resist.  This whole double standard thing is
> just too annoying.
> 
> 					-Phil

Phil's right. Lay off the NT is vapourware line of argument. There WILL be an
NT - for those who want to wait. I have enjoyed OS/2 v2 for three months now
and plan to buy some of the above products when they come out. Should I get
32-BIT Ami Pro? Or WordPerfect? I use W4Win 2.0 at work....but on my 486/25
running Win3.1 it's pretty slow...........
 
Steve :-)
 
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | "But the glory kept shining
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  and bright in my eyes, 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  And the stars going round in 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  my head." R. L. S.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jdailey@dadd.ti.com (Jim Dailey)
Subject: Re: pc week and nt
Reply-To: jdailey@dadd.ti.com
Organization: Design Automaton Div., Texas Instruments, Inc.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 12:18:02 GMT

In article 18612@microsoft.com, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>[deletia]  And no one can predict
>the future (i.e. release date), especially someone not directly involved
>in the product.  

Do you not have schedules at MS?  Does no one have a clue when the product
will be generally available to the public?  The press somehow seems to think
it is already here--or at least it will be RSN (tm).

Has MS announced a date?  Without a date, it is vaporware.
---
Jim  jdailey@dadd.ti.com  Speaking only for myself and like-minded persons.
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Security Ratings
Keywords: NSA NT Security OS/2
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:07:47 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Jul23.162641.15600@ccu.umanitoba.ca> agoper@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Arne Grimstrup) writes:
>In most of the comparisons of NT vs OS/2 there is mention of NT having
>security features with an NSA rating of C2.

This is FUD.  The NSA will only certify a harware/software
combination.  They will not certify NT by itself.  They will only
certify an installation of it on a specific brand/model of computer.

MS may have run their own test batteries to claim that it will pass
any NSA testings, but I really doubt they've gotten any real
certification at this time.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: cebarton@leibniz.uwaterloo.ca (Casey Barton)
Subject: Re: New version of DOS coming out?  (NOOO!!  Anything but *that*!)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 01:13:28 GMT

Daryl Biberdorf writes:
> From the "Late News" section of PC Week, dated July 27, 1992, p.142:
>   Microsoft Readies New Version of DOS
>        Microsoft plans to begin beta testing a new version of DOS in August,
>   sources said last week.  The version, planned for final delivery in the
>   first half of 1993, will include new and enhanced utilities, not
>   all of which will be in the first beta, they said.

    I think that this is good news for OS/2. By the second half of '93, the 
average machine will likely be a 386/33 or greater - one easily capable of running
OS/2. By planning a DOS version to be released at this time, it indicates that
NT will _not_ be aimed at this class of machine.
    As I see it, this is the one factor on which OS/2's success hangs. MS's 
"squeeze play" depends on NT being able to run on a "low" enough machine. If it's
relegated to 486/33+ machines, there will be a large enough gap between the kind
of machine necessary for NT, and the type of machine whose power is obviously
wasted on DOS. OS/2 can fill that gap, and work on supplying an upgrade path
from there.
-- 
      Casey Barton (Mr.)   cebarton@descartes.waterloo.edu   (519)725-6861
From: grumpy@jpradley.jpr.com (Jeff Markel)
Subject: Re: Can IBM write code?
Reply-To: grumpy@jpradley.UUCP (Jeff Markel)
Organization: Unix in NYC
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:59:34 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.095312.12697@cadlab.sublink.org> martelli@cadlab.sublink.org (Alex Martelli) writes:
	much elided...
>
>I recall when I was in IBM that I often was amazed at the wonderful quality
>of many, many internally available programs, particularly for VM and for
>DOS; mostly one-person, and often spare-time, projects, they would quite
>generally outshine IBM's "official products".  At one time (1985?) a few
>of those programs "leaked" outside officially, via the "Personally
>Developed Software" marketing program (which unfortunately IBM marketing
>later proved unable to keep alive, despite the great quality of the
>programs in it).  And, you know what, while I don't often use PC's
>nowadays, when I do and for some reason I can't make them look unixlike
>(MKS toolkit, vi, and so), I still find myself choosing the tools that
>came out so long ago in the PDSW line (the PE2 editor, etc).  And the
>game I play most often is STILL PDSW's "Imperial Space Command"...
>-- 
>Email: martelli@cadlab.sublink.org                   Phone: ++39 (51) 6130360
>CAD.LAB s.p.a., v. Ronzani 7/29, Casalecchio, Italia   Fax: ++39 (51) 6130294 

I KNEW I knew your name from somewhere, Alex!  I, too, am an ex-IBMer and
ex-VMer (6 1/2 yrs in VM/XA development).  Every time I saw your name here
I had a vague feeling that I'd seen it before, on the FORA (note - the internal
IBM conferencing system - TOOLS - was also written by Mike Cowlishaw).


                        Jeff Markel

Jeffrey Markel | uucp:     jpradley!argos!markel   | Argos Computer Systems Inc
KD2HN          | internet: grumpy@jpradley.jpr.com | 110 W. 32nd Street 
(212)594-5400  | amprnet:  kd2hn@kd2hn.ampr.org    | New York, NY 10001
===============================================================================
	The New World Order is ... "Shoot to kill!"
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: mcmichel@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Lonny McMichael)
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
Organization: University of North Texas, Denton
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:07:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.160022.28509@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.094508.29104@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>>[.............]  If OS/2 looks like it'll sell well, then MS may write 
>>apps for it.  However, the general though is that it makes more sense
>                                    ^^^^^^
>Look everyone, all MS programmers can't spell.  #8^)  Seriously...
>
>What does MS consider selling well for OS/2?  Will MS really wait
>for OS/2 to have 2 million users before thinking of writing apps
>for OS/2?  They would have to catch up to there competition.
                                           ^^^^^
>-- 
>========= Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu =========  .--.
>ftp syrinx.umd.edu (128.8.2.114) for Rush lyrics and info. (OS/2)
>::::: Get the Rush FAQL in directory /rush/special. ::::::  ~--~

Look everyone, Mike Levis can't spell either!

Lonny
-- 
Lonny McMichael                      | You can do it your own way, if it's
The University of North Texas        | done just how I say.
email:  mcmichel@ponder.csci.unt.edu |      Metallica, "Eye of the Beholder"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM MARKETING
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:17:49 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Jul26.131646.19395@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
> 
>"I am just a little person. I have little requirements. I want a little
>system to run my little programs." 
> 
>If you make OS/2 appear to be "too big" (ie. complicated, full of features)
>they get scared. It's too intimidating. We don't sell all the Windows software
>we could for the same reason! Windows scares hell  out of some people......
> 
>I spoke to several people this week for whom the DOS prompt is a modern
>version of magic and mystery. 

I'd like to know why these people got a computer in the first place.
Did they think it'd be like on Star Trek, where you can just talk to
the thing and make it do whatever you want?
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Portable?
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:07:31 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <k+kmwwl.xtifr@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>
>If Phil has a rational explanation of why MS's porting efforts are less
>likely to introduce bugs than IBM's, I admit I'd be interested to hear
>it.  But all I've heard so far are comments that should apply equally to
>OS/2 or NT.

      Aargh!!  Not only didn't I say or imply this, but I explicitly
stated the opposite in the post you were replying to.  My assertion
was the bugs would be introduced regardless of who is doing the
translation, and that the new "portable" code would require additional
testing and probably a second beta.  With Windows NT there hasn't
been a first beta yet, so this is not an issue.  If IBM decides to
release a "portable OS/2", I would hope that they would put the new
code through an extensive testing cycle before releasing it.

					-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: drxmann@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Dustin R. Christmann)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: New version of DOS coming out?  (NOOO!!  Anything but *that*!)
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:50:13 GMT
Reply-To: drxmann@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Dustin R. Christmann)

In article <1992Jul28.153134.11068@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>,
darylb@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Daryl Biberdorf) writes:
|>From the "Late News" section of PC Week, dated July 27, 1992, p.142:
|>  
|>  Microsoft Readies New Version of DOS
|>       Microsoft plans to begin beta testing a new version of DOS in August,
|>  sources said last week.  The version, planned for final delivery in the
|>  first half of 1993, will include new and enhanced utilities, not
|>  all of which will be in the first beta, they said.
|>
|>       Microsoft Vice President Brad Silverberg last week declined to 
|>  confirm specific features, but said the "first version [of MS-DOS] that
|>  will come out is oriented toward solving particular end-user
|>  needs."

You know, news like this makes me believe more and more that that faster-than-
lightspeed travel (a la Star Trek) will be developed before DOS dies.  In fact,
it kind of reminds me of Apple's failed "Apple II forever" strategy right
around the time the IIgs came out, which, unfortunately for Apple II people,
was right around the time the Mac really started to take off.

Thanx,			|   Team OS/2	| Internet: drxmann@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
Dustin R. Christmann	| (I was there) | Bitnet: DRXMANN@UTXVM
  Editor-in-chief of the ARAPOUT: All the news that is fit to print...NOT!
	Alpha Rho Chapter - Alpha Phi Omega - The University of Texas
"My grandmother started walking five miles a day when she was 60.  She's 93 to-
day -- and we don't know where the hell she is."	-- Ellen DeGeneres
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS2 Good news and Bad news  (OS2 & a little windows too)
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:58:15 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Jul24.004959.814@debet.nhh.no> si0_tb90020@debet.nhh.no writes:
>
>BUt, I guess IBM/Microsoft thought a lot about OS/2 in the design phase
>as well, but OS/2 is VERY slow compared to an equally equipped MAC, with
>a 68030 processor. Try it and see. But then MacOs and Finder is not
>multitasking (properly)...

There you go.  If you were to place OS/2 and WPS in a single-tasking
environment (I don't know if this can be done...), you'd probably see
similar sppedups.  Note the following things about the Mac finder:

1) It doesn't support virtual memory - your RAM is it.  Until you get
   to System 7, and then you still need a PMMU to me installed (an
   option for 68020 machines, bult in to the 68030)
2) It doesn't multitask at all.  MultiFinder does, but it still has no
   virtual memory (static allocation of resources at program start-up).  
   It also provides little memory protection.  Many apps (especially
   those that violate Apple's guidelines) can bring down your entire
   system running MultiFinder.  In my opinion, this places MultiFinder
   on the level of Windows 2.03.

Note also that System 7 is noticably slower than System 6.x.  I don't
know what kind of memory protection and virtual resources are provided
for it, but I'd be surprised if you didn't get into high-swapping
situations when running large apps on a Mac with only 4MB (the minimum
for System 7, supposedly).

-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Lines: 40
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 08:24:52 MDT
From: earlyd@ee.byu.edu (David Early)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University, Provo UT USA
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift


In article <1992Jul30.161639.5706@microsoft.com>, gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin) writes:
> In article <r5nmfzl.xtifr@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
> >In <1992Jul29.065821.24656@seas.gwu.edu> lai@seas.gwu.edu (William Y. Lai) writes:
> >
> >>Let's be honest here, if Microsoft's apps group does not want to lend a hand
> >>to the success of OS/2, just come out and say so.  


> 
> The apps group is *not* developing for the OS/2 PM API for two reasons:
>     1) the OS/2 API will fail. ...((STUFF DELETED))...  But they
>     	do NOT want to "lend a hand to the success of OS/2" ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You saw it here in writing folks!

>     	Windows playform to service the OS/2-PM platform.  That's
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Am I the only one who caught this sub-conscious slip???  The Windows 'playform'
is acurate.  That is all I ever see anyone using it for: entertainment.

>     	a dumb gamble to make.  Microsoft always bets on the most-likely-to
> 	succeed.  They usually bet right.  When they don't, they recogize that
> 	and change.  But they're right this time.  Wait and see.
> 

One thing IBM is good at is  standing by their products, especially when it involved the larger
companies.  IBM has sunk a lot of money into this project and a lot of big wigs have bought
into it.  If you think IBM will just up and drop OS/2 (like some other company we all know...) 
and that MS will stick by it's guns in the long term...I think you made the wrong bet.


> gordon letwin
> not a spokesman for microsoft


To quote a phrase, 'Yea, right'
From: rwb00@loon.as (Robert W Beveridge)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Biased Reviews From ZD
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:18:28 GMT
Reply-To: rwb00@loon.as
Organization: Sun Microsystems


In article 41844@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu, sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>First, OS/2 will not take up an additional 30-40 megs.  Remember, Windows
>(maybe DOS too) might get the ax.  This means that OS/2 takes up an additional
>15 megs or so (30 - 15 for Windows and DOS)  That is about the size of one
>decent sized app.

What you say is true, AFTER I'm satisfied that everything works as well as you 
claim - in the meantime, I must have room on my disk for my old DOS and WIN 3.1.

> Also, most Windows programs don't run much slower in OS/2
>if any.  (At least the ones I've seen and used)  Also in about a month, that
>should end for good.  (32-bit graphics)

Well, I'm interested in other opinions on this - other postings I've seen seem
to say that Windows applications are slower under OS/2, as do the benchmarks
published by PC Magazine (which I realize is run by the devil). As for 32-bit graphics, aren't you one of the people who complained about others touting
features of NT which don't yet exist ? 32-bit graphics and SVGA seemless support
are not available today. 

>On the other hand you sound like the sort of person who was happy with DOS,
>maybe you don't want or need to upgrade.  I suppose that's fine, but I
>sincerely hope that I don't hear a large number of people who claimed that
>they didn't need to switch, clamoring to switch to NT when ZD proclaims it the
>best thing to ever hit your desktop.  (and they will, whether true or not, mark
>my words)  Personally I think you are doing yourself a disservice by not
>thinking about the future, but that is your right.  However, you should at
>least give OS/2 some consideration.  It is to good of a system not to.
>
>                                            Stacy John Behrens
>                                            *===)-------------
Well, If I was happy with DOS, I wouldn't use Windows. And if I wasn't interested
in the future, I wouldn't be reading this news group. Thinking about the future
doesn't mean running a new, more powerful operating system at the expense of my
current applications. I don't run UNIX on my home PC because there aren't any
applications for it that are as good as my Windows apps. The same goes for OS/2
applications. But if OS/2 runs my Windows apps as well as Win 3.1 does, then it makes
sense for me to switch. If my applications run worse (slower, no seemless SVGA)
under OS/2, then it doesn't make sense to switch.
From: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: hardware requirements
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:29:45 EST
Reply-To: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

In message <1992Jul23.052326.4776@infonode.ingr.com>, Bailey Brown
writes:

BB>But what's the point of running OS/2?  I have Excel for OS/2 and Excel
BB>for Windows, Ha5 for OS/2 and Ha5 for dos, Qedit for OS/2 and Qedit for
BB>DOS.  I can't tell any difference between the OS/2 and non-OS/2 versions
BB>of these apps, so why should I use the OS/2 versions?

Well, for the apps you've listed, not much. Most of them are just  ports
to OS/2,  not redesigned  to make  use of  any features  at all. I would
expect that  they memory  requirements for  the programs  would be  less
strenuous (for example, I doubt that Qedit for OS/2 still has a 64k file
limit). Of course, if you run the OS/2 program, you save system  memory,
as well.

----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.com
Software Consulting and Gator Pit | I'm a brain in a vat. What about you?
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
---
  SLMR 2.1a  Do cheshire cats drink evaporated milk?
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044