HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: Discovered: Microsoft using undocumented calls in Windows NT
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:40:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.202905.120@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>Firstly if you are aware of undocumented OS/2 2.0 calls please detail them.     
>For example, the call that PSTAT uses to look at process.

These services are documented by IBM.  They didn't make it into the
regular materials, but they've now been widely disseminated publicly.
(Check ftp-os2.nmsu.edu, for example -- I think they're now there.)

>Also IBM sell as performance monitoring package, the hooks/calls it
>uses are not documented.  The are very similar to the types of
>calls he's complaining about above.

Well, see above, but also I really wonder then how BenchTech's
performance monitoring software for OS/2 2.0 was released before IBM's
SPM/2.  You could ask them, I suppose.

>Also the hooks for the installable file systems are not document.
>I'm sure there are many other examples.

They are available to outside vendors if they are willing to sign
nondisclosure, as I understand it.  However, your implication is
correct, that IBM wants to keep this on a "need to know" basis.  Why?
Well, imagine about thirty new file systems running around (and the
headaches that would result) and you begin to get the picture.

I don't think anyone is disputing the need for certain internal
operating system interfaces to be undocumented, but I do think the
line should be drawn with applications.  When the average copy of
Excel starts using things no one else knows about, it's a bit
different.

That said, some of the criticism leveled at Microsoft about
undocumented DOS and Windows interfaces has been a bit too picky.
Then again, some of it has been quite fair (notably the OLE and
debugger criticisms).

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0h, available from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.)
Subject: Re: Why OS/2 will DEFINITELY fail
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:09:12 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Dec14.032648.4550@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:

>When OS/half 2.0 was in beta, there weren't any apps. But take a look
>at the announcements of many companies, e.g. Borland, they promised to
>have their C++ ready <12 weeks after the release date of NT. I wonder,
>if their C++ Compiler for OS/2 will be out then.

Yeah, just like they announced that their C++ compiler would be available
for OS/2 2.0 in 4Q 1991, right?  Touche...

>Don't tell me about any announcements of OS/2 apps. OS/2 2.0 is out 8
>month now and there are still announcements only. This is worth really
>nothing. "We hereby proudly announce to have a stone-aged version of our
>foobar product for OS/2 2.0 sometime in the future".
>What shall anyone say to this?

I shall expect to see a similar thing for NT, mainly because its hardware
requirements are too expensive to run on the "average" desktop; this is why
Windows is so prevalent in the market today, IMO.  So, granted, there might
be an initial surge of applications, but these will only be feelers to see
if the huge market exists that Microsoft keeps saying there will be (does
that make any sense?).  I predict that the size won't be anywhere near as
large as Windows is, ergo there will be a proportionally less number of
applications.

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: "stephen dawson" <stephen.dawson@canrem.com>
Subject: nt technologically ad
Reply-To: "stephen dawson" <stephen.dawson@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: comp
Date: 12 Dec 92 06:24:48 EST

thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:

|> Migration: the Alpha port of NT took three weeks. I'd say that's a
|> reasonable view to the future.

TG>This is a pretty impressive statistic, given that fact the Alpha is the first
TG>true 64-bit machine NT has been tried on.

TG>Is there any official statement or document which supports this claim?

When NY runs on the Alpha, it runs as 32 bit.

    STEPHEN         Look through the Windows and you will see OS/2!
    ^^^^^^^    :-)  Walking and chewing gum at the same time.

 stephen.dawson@canrem.com
 Entered 12-11-92 at 11:25pm in Downsview, Ontario

 * DeLuxe2/386 1.25 #3969 * The greatest awards in life are those you bestow.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund)
Subject: Re: Why OS/2 will DEFINITELY fail
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
	<1992Dec14.032648.4550@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 09:34:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.032648.4550@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:


   OS/2 has been sold over 1M, but Windows 3.1 is selling over 1M per month.

OS/2 2.0 has sold 2 mill by now. Not as many as Windows, but a
significant market. The OS/2 market is likely to be a mroe critical
market, and they will probably BUY more apps.

   Come on. What do you think for what OS Corel will develop Version 4 first?
   Windows 3.1 or OS/2 2.0. Windows of course, because they still will sell
   more copies for Windows. Version 4 will not be out before 94. So it takes
   additional time to port it to OS/2 2.0. Porting to Windows NT is quite
   easy. It takes a couple of days.

Of course Corel will develop for Windows first. But it does not hurt
me very much if I have to wait a few months for an upgrade. 

I do not believe that it will take only a few days to port an
applicataion to NT if you want to take advantage of features like
multithreading etc. A simple port, yes. And many ISV's will probably
do that, to say that they have NT versions. That will be the situation
until NT has proven itself in the market.


   When OS/half 2.0 was in beta, there weren't any apps. But take a look
   at the announcements of many companies, e.g. Borland, they promised to
   have their C++ ready <12 weeks after the release date of NT. I wonder,
   if their C++ Compiler for OS/2 will be out then.

   Don't tell me about any announcements of OS/2 apps. OS/2 2.0 is out 8
   month now and there are still announcements only. This is worth really
   nothing. "We hereby proudly announce to have a stone-aged version of our
   foobar product for OS/2 2.0 sometime in the future".
   What shall anyone say to this?

Everyone is free to believe or not believe what he or she want. You
believe all the NT announcments, but not the OS/2 announcments, even
when they come from the same company! By the time NT is released, we
will at least have Louts Smart Suite, the CA line, Borland C++ and
maybe Word Perfect 6.0 in 32-bit OS/2 versions. And we will have OS/2
2.1.

When NT is finally released, it will be measured against OS/2 2.1
running 32-bit multithreaded OS/2 apps. And OS/2 might have sold
another million or two by then. (The comparision will be difficult,
because other major application vendors than MS will probably not have
any NT applications out, and MS will have no OS/2 applications.) Try
to imagine how the reactions and the press will be if OS/2 2.1 is
faster, less resource demanding and have better DOS and Windows
support than NT.

MS has choosen to market NT as a high end Windows 3.1. It can be a
dangerous strategy if NT cannot run all the programs that 3.1 can run,
plus de added NT features. The market will be confused if the most
advanced version cannot run all programs.

Olav Torvund
University of Oslo
Norway
Olavt@jus.uio.no
From: George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Survivability
Date: 15 Dec 92 13:58:10 GMT
Reply-To: George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Comment-To: George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

Yam> Technical discussions are not FUD in the same way this was--
Yam> as it was in response to a "what should I buy?" post--

 It was a post to you and did not even include the "what should I
buy" original question. I merely pointed out that within a short time 
frame the argument that WinOS2 is slower than Windows3.1 will not be
true. I did not suggest that *anyone* wait for this; if I had posted 
on a *Windows* conference, I could understand your displeasure but I 
posted on an OS/2 conference. It was of general interest to those 
using or interested in OS/2.

 It is intersting that you seem to find no problems with discussing
that other beta operating system, but could not stomach a comparison
with
a beta product (OS/2 2.1) against a shipping product.  
___
 * MR/2 1.32 NR * I'm an incorrigible punster--so don't incorrige me!

--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 21 Dec 92 00:28:00 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Dec20.193959.250@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Ran
dall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.161118.6133@qucis.queensu.ca>, jardined@qucis.queensu.ca
(Donald Jardine) writes:

>Yes we do.  How can anybody make any kind of case that the users of software
>or hardware are being adversly affected?

It isn't a case of the users being affected.  (at least not directly)  It is a
case of the companies which compete with MS which are adversly affected.



-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.1 specifications, release date.
Date: 18 Dec 92 04:13:37 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Dec16.142447.5318@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk>, ucgadkw@ucl.ac.uk (Dominik W
ujastyk) writes:
>
>>>In article <3500@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
 writes:
>>>>Here the official specs of OS/2 2.1 directly from IBM:
>>>>
>>>>- more printer drivers
>>>>- Windows 3.1 support
>>>>- native Windows 3.1 performance with 8Mb RAM machines
>>>>- improved performance for low memory configurations
>>>>- 32bit graphics engine
>>>>- multimedia support
>>>>- portable PC support
>>>>- CD-ROM version
>
>In another posting somewhere (!) I read that 2.1 would include DPMI support.
>Is that so?

Unless I am greatly mistaken, the current version of OS/2, the one which has
been out for 8 months now supports DPMI.  It is VCPI (sp?) that it doesn't
support.  DPMI has been there from the start.
>
>Dominik
>

-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: 1992 in review.
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 16:58:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.162849.0277727@locus.com> lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.144641.3319@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>>In article <47398@ogicse.ogi.edu> francis@ese.ogi.edu (Francis Moraes) writes:
>>>kovarski@zooid.guild.org (Mark Kovarski) writes:
>>>
>Deletions
>>>:OS/2. I was  just corresponding with a fellow  who was happily running
>>>:OS/2 on a Gateway 386 machine, so I wonder about these assertions.
>>>
>>>I have 3 different model DELL machines here, they all run OS/2 just fine.
>>>Perhaps they are talking about DELL 286s. :)
>>>
>>Well, as for the Gateway matter, I had a devil of a time installing it
>>on my 386/33c, 8 MB RAM system.  After the first few abortive tries, I

[my tale installation woe deleted]

>Joe, Phil Katz's (PKZip) experience could shed some light on this.
>
>He found a hardware bug in the 486 (and reported it) that blew the 
>delivery dates for his software for over a year.  He had 4 identical
>(as far as he knew without going inside) Gateway 486s,  two of them
>gave the error all of the time, one of them about half the time, and
>one worked perfectly.  All Gateways are not Equal under the hood.
>
Ok, but how does this affect my 386?

>We bought 8 Gateways a year ago, and so far have had to litterally rebuild
>5 of them (Gateways service guarentee was worthless to us).  And the other
>three perform flawlessly.  So saying that it will install (or not install)
>on my Gateway is really quite meaningless.  Unless you give a detailed
>listing (bios type and revision date, MB Manufacuturer and model #,
>shipping date on the CPU and so on.) of the machines internals.  Same for
>the Dell, Zenith, or my home built clone.
>
Well, since I'd gone back to Windows (to await whatever other choics IBM
and MS offer in the future), it seemed pointless to detail even more
than I did the problems I had.  They had nothing to do with the old
Gateway 'revision F or later' 486 boards, as I have a 386.  And as for
the BIOS question, I'd already upgraded that BIOS as per Gateway's
recommendation when I tried to install OS/2 1.3 some months earlier
(Gateway was nice enough to swap me the updated BIOS for the old at no
charge). .

You're telling me nothing new in pointing out that, especially in the
clone world, the name on the case may be the only thing that doesn't
change on a daily basis!  And please understand: I only pointed out my
difficulties (and the fact that IBM's 800 help line told me it wouldn't
install, even though, with net assistance, it finally did).  All I was
commenting on was the comment that OS/2 is difficult to install (a claim
from a Microsoftian in some sales pitch?) was not without justification.

By the way, if you'd like the exact BIOS revision of my Phoenix bios on
the Micronics ASIC system board, let me know via e-mail; next time I
reboot, I'll write it down... 

>--Lowell Morrison
>--Uncle Wolf
>
Cheers...

jmalloy@hamilton.edu
>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: world
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 92 15:47:00 -0800
From: George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: Re: NT technologically a
Comment-To: Tim_Glauert@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

TG>(But perhaps I was too stupid to understand the "Logic" of some of
TG>the things the WPS did, like placing menus off-screen 

 Exactly how did you accomplish this feat? I've just tried and could
not repeat this feat of having WPS place menu's off-screen. Was this
with
a beta? Were you on drugs? 
___
 * MR/2 1.32 NR * Rush Limbaugh for president!

--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
From: kovarski@zooid.guild.org (Mark Kovarski)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: How many NT SPECIFIC programs have been shown at COMDEX?
Date: 13 Dec 92 16:43:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: zooid.1992Dec13.164327.14517
Organization: ZOOiD BBS

brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <dposey.724051776@well.sf.ca.us> dposey@well.sf.ca.us (David Posey) writes:
>>In <1992Dec10.205203.23885@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Dec10.060534.5766@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>>>
>>>>This is from PCWeek about COMDEX92 in Las Vegas:
>>>>
>>>>"Of more than 200 applications demonstrated at Microsoft's booth for
>>>> Windows 3.1, Windows for Workgroups, Windows for Pen Computing, and
>>>> Windows NT, fewer than 40 specifically tapped NT's 32-Bit
>>>> architecture."
>>
>>>Yes, and another article posted to this group claimed there were
>>>240 NT apps in the ISV booth.
>>
>>>The answer?  Simple.  In both cases the authors did not count for themselves.
>>>I did count (though I stopped when I hit one hundred, time was pressing).
>>>There were more than 40 and less than 240.
>>>The "40" number comes from counting the occurences of "NT" in the booth
>>>pamphlet, which as I said in my COMDEX report did not reflect all the NT
>>>stuff being shown.
>>
>>>>
>>>>Mark K.
>>
>>>Brian
>>>-- 
>>>C. Brian Sturgill                 Microsoft Windows Family of Operating Systems 
>>>University of Utah                 Peer-to-peer networking, Multimedia, E-mail
>>>Center for Software Science          enabled, HUGE base of applications, Object
>>>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373   Linking and Embedding, (Oops! need more roo
>>
>>Brian, how did you determine that the products you counted 'specifically
>>tapped NT's 32-Bit architecture'? Did you actually ask the vendors, or
>>use some other indicator? I'm just curious if you 'counted' the same
>>thing they say they did...
>
>In fact I did ask.  Of the 100 I looked at specifically, only 5 or so
>did not have at least 32-bit prototypes that they were showing.
>Most had late alpha/early beta 32-bit software.
>About 40 of them I talked to at length ( 1 or 2 minutes) because I had
>specific interest in the products.
>I spent over 3 hours in the ISV portion of the Microsoft booth.
>And remember there were more than 100 present, I just ran out of time.
>
>>
>>-David
>
>
>Brian
>-- 
>C. Brian Sturgill                          NeXTStep 486 is for _YOU_!!!!
>University of Utah                    Microsoft needs competition, but I want
>Center for Software Science          to be one of the many running Windows NT!
>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373    :-) :-) :-)  NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679


Since you already posted _SEVERAL_ misinforming messages on this network, your
credibility has lowered almost to 0. It's hard to earn a good reputation but
it is very easy to loose one.

Sincerely,
Mark K.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: Nt Smp Users
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:22:39 GMT

In article <2b2bd2fe@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org> George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org writes:
>- -
>        After all of the talk about serial transfer speeds under WinNT
>I have
>
>become a little courious. So I went out and pick up a 9600 
>baud modem just to play with under NT, my other modem is 
>14400 and runs under another operating system (guess which 
>one<g>)....
>
>1) Clicking on the title bar to move a window during a 
>download would stop the    download dead in its tracks 
>until the mouse is released.  

I did this with Procomm for Windows and there wasn't a problem.
It may *appear* that the download has stopped because the status
window isn't updated until you finish moving it (i.e., release the
mouse).

>2) With the two programs running on the desktop I found that if the
>program  
>
> not doing the download had the focus the one doing the 
>download suffered    greatly.

Once again, this doesn't seem to be a problem for my system.
I'd like to know how David's system is set up and maybe I
could help him out.

>I think there were some other quirks but can't remember at 
>the moment, but the above are the major ones. Number 1 
>indicates a serious problem with the preemptive ablity of 
>NT.  
>
>So how about you folks out there? (especially problem #1)
>
>David
>===========================================================================
>
> Gee boy, I can't wait to use this super wamperdyne OS on my 
>computer<G>. What a joke.

You know, George, this is akin to taking a posting asking for
help out of c.o.o.misc and posting it to .advocacy, then saying
"look what a lame system OS/2 is!"  I thought even the most
childish posters stopped doing this quite some time ago.

     - Mike
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com (John Brock)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 Application List 1/2
Reply-To: uunet!csfb1!jbrock
Organization: First Boston Corporation
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 02:12:19 GMT

Re:  Boffin Software

Forgive me if this is common knowledge, but some people here seem to
feel that "Boffin" is somehow a silly name for a software company, so I
thought I would mention that in my experience "boffin" is an English
(British) expression which denotes a high powered (but vaguely
ridiculous) professor or intellectual.

In American English it might translate as "egghead".

-- 
John Brock
uunet!csfb1!jbrock
jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: Rude behavior on this group.
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Distribution: world,local
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 02:29:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.200650.7979@microsoft.com> richs@microsoft.com (Rick Schaut) writes:
>In article <1992Dec6.010247.4166@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>
>>"Freebies"?  Any computer seller who'll give you Windows for free is non-
>>existant.  If they have to pay for the software, the cost  gets passes along
>>to the buyer.
>
>Not necessarily so.  In a competitive market, and "competitive" amply
>describes the market for IBM compatible personal computers, vendors eat
>those costs because passing the costs on would raise one's prices above
>one's competitor's prices.

True, it's not of necessity, but it is of practice.  Call up a mail
order firm and ask them how much their system is w/o Windows, as 
opposed to w/ Windows.  Every time I've done this, I've gotten a discount.

[stuff about price being function of demand deleted, along with suggestion
of people enrolling in econ classes]

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: The "Major" bug in Winos2 v3.1
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:58:55 GMT

In article <BzE9Kz.HH@utdallas.edu> goyal@utdallas.edu (MOHIT K GOYAL) writes:

[winos2 3.1 printing bug deleted]

>
>Oh yeah, apparently some major or annoying or some kinda bug with HPFS was
>discovered recently and is now fixed.
>
>The error was created when transferring HPFS from assembly to C, and was a
>very elusive bug.
>
>Sorry I don't remember what the bug is, but it was not fixed in the SP.
>

You don't know what kind of alleged bug this is?  (I say alleged because
I've never heard of anyone having bugs with HPFS, and I doubt it).

I guess it can't be that bad of a bug to go unnoticed by everyone. :|

If you find out more conclusive info, please let us know.

Ted