HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: Why Windows NT will fail -----
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:48:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.030525.31852@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.162632.1046@itsmail1.hamilton.edu>, jmalloy@itsmail1.hamil
>ton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>>In article <8052@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes
>>>Indeed. WPS is a whole new way of thinking about the user interface. That's
>>>why folks have a hard time adapting to it from Windows: they have to change
>>>the way they think.
>>>--
>>>jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
>>
>>A paradigm shift is one thing, but the mere fact of a paradigm shift
>>does not make the shift good.  The WPS is, in my opinion, a fine example
>>of making a bad thing worse.  If IBM were smart, they'd cajole Symantec
>>into making a Norton Desktop for OS/2 that looks just like the ND for
>>Windows.  I might even be tempted to try OS/2 again if that were
>>available.
>
>Why?  NDW looks a *lot* more like the WPS than the WinGUI.  In fact the
>similarities are pretty frightening in a lot of ways.

The similarites don't frighten me, but the advantages of NDW appeal to
me.  For one, it's much better documented.  For another, the menu bar
across the top strikes me (all of this is a matter of taste, ok?) as
being more logical and easier to use.  For yet another, the app launcher
that's accessible via the system-menu-control-bar-thingie in the upper
left hand corner is a snap to configure and helps keep the desktop
cleaner looking.  True, I have the most frequently used app icons along
the left hand side of the screen, but I can keep that sort of clutter
down to a minimum.  Then there's the anti-virus program, backup program,
batch builder, scheduler etc with which I'm familiar.  It's a
comfortable enough environment and it would certainly make any
transition I might consider to OS/2 much easier.
>
>That aside, Symantec may be doing just that, they just tend to be quiet about
>what they are developing.  They released Norton Commander for OS/2 without any
>hint that they were even working on such a beast.

Well, I hope they do a better job on it than on the Norton Commander for
OS/2.  PC-Week's review of it by Peter Coffee (whom I gather is not an
OS/2 basher, so maybe the OS/2 community will believe him) points out
the missing functions from the OS/2 version available in the DOS
version, the missing file viewers (there are apparently just two: text
and hex), and some of the awkward commands or bad error trapping
problems in it.  Seems like it was perhaps a tad rushed.  I assume
Symantec will steadily upgrade it, though.  I gather that it doesn't
replace WPS, unfortunately.
>
>>
>>jmalloy@hamilton.edu
>>
>
>-- 
>Stacy John Behrens
>*===)-------------

Season's Greetings!

jmalloy@hamilton.edue


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mortenk@dhhalden.no (MORTEN KNUDSEN)
Subject: Re: OS/2 stopped selling!!
Organization: Ostfold College
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:25:42 GMT

In article <Bz5zCw.897@newsflash.concordia.ca> patrice@cenparmi.concordia.ca (SCATTOLIN patrice) writes:
>From: patrice@cenparmi.concordia.ca (SCATTOLIN patrice)
>Subject: OS/2 stopped selling!!
>Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:53:20 GMT
>
>
>According to a local software store OS/2 has stopped selling. After
>looking and not seeing it on the shelves I asked if they were selling OS/2.
>The salesman said that they had one copy left in stock but it stopped selling
>a while back blaming a stop in advertising. 
>
>Is the true around where you are? Why?
>
>I tought that sales were picking up, I guess I was wrong.
>
As my local IBM dealer encouriged me very strongly NOT to buy OS/2 2.0, 
(fortunatly I didn't listen to him), I don't think that he will recieve 
any sort of top-salesman-award anyway. 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.)
Subject: Re: Discovered: Microsof
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:26:39 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <2b2bd77a@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org> George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org writes:

> Hey, it's not Microsofts fault that they know how to write good
>applications programs and IBM knows squat about doing the same. 

I'm going to jump to IBM's defense and claim that, although IBM has written
*numerous* failures in the application's market, they have had their share of
good applications.

I will state, although many will claim this doesn't count, that OS/2 is one of
them.

The Enhanced Editor is another; even though it comes free with OS/2, it was
written and developed completely separate from OS/2 and was included only
after a bitter internal battle with the System Editor group.  FYI, the EPM
group is only 4 people "big", with occassional help by others.

The CCL/2 library, even though I severely disagree with their pricing
strategy (you can't give me any flack on the phone anymore, Diana M. *grin*),
is also a very robust product for both OS/2 1.3 and Windows.  Unfortunately,
it is also very lacking in "how to" documentation, but that's another issue.

The MMPM/2 product and toolkit is also a very good first attempt at multi-
media.  I would like to add that it is a superset of the Windows MM exten-
sions.

The TCP/IP product for OS/2 is a good port from the Unix side and many of
the Unix socket applications are also available from the same group (hats
off to "Mr. Port", Oleg V.).

---------------------

Granted, all of these applications are for OS/2, but I'm sure there are
similar "diamonds in the rough" (or even rhinestones :) for DOS (and maybe
even Windows).

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: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: \* IBM's OS/2 2.0 Scores Big \*
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:31:16 GMT

In <921216112123@rgam.sc.ti.com> 5692330@mcimail.com  (Robert Gammon) writes:

>Most of a LONG discussion between Stacy and Yamanari has been deleted.  I only
>wish to comment on ONE paragraph of their discussion, the remaining bit
>that I have included below.

>In article <1992Dec15.204144.22632@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>
>   sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:

> >> In article <1992Dec13.051805.17455@wam.umd.edu>, 
> >>    rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
> >> >
> >> >In article <1992Dec12.215037.43052@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> 
> >> >   sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
> >> >
>[stuff, MUCH stuff deleted]
> >> >
> >> >        SMP isn't here now (well, actually, it is--just not for
> >> >        less than $20k--Yes, Intel) but with something that it can
> >> >        run out of the box, it will be here soon at prices
> >> >        people will start to be able to afford (Hell, who'da thought
> >> >        we'd see affordable Sparc machines?  Next few months, we'll
> >> >        see a *lot* of'em).
> >> 
> >> Affordable Sparcs.  That does sound funny doesn't it?
> >> I do not think that we will see a "lot" of them in just a few months however,
> >> in a year or so though who knows?
> >> >
> >> 

>Here it is.  Note, I am not in the Texas Instruments SPARC department, so this
>is just what I remember reading in the same trade publications that we all have
>access to (no inside info here).  The new SPARC processor announced by Texas 
>Instruments is priced at about $120 (as best as I can recall), far lower than
>current 486DX processors.  This is not the fastest SPARC around, it is one of
>the most highly integrated.  

This comment makes me think you're talking about the new 'miniSPARC',
which is an integrated SPARC plus support logic that has roughly the
performance of the SPARC1+ (I think -- I'm not in Semiconductor,
either).  Note that this is NOT the new SPARC10 (which I think we also
manufacture). 

Just for comparison, I the upper end of the i486 line turns roughly
SPARC2 performance (about 50% faster than 1+?); anyway, it amounts to
around 22 SPECMarks.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Subject: Re: To all arguing about IBM stock...
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 17:59:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.023926.43392@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (BRIAN PAUL VAN LIEU) writes:
>
>    KNOCK it OFF.
>
>        This is a *computer* usenet. Hell I have my Eco final in two days, and
>        we don't spend that much time on the same topic...
>
>
>                                            cheers,
>
>                                            bvl

Whoever said an advocacy group had to limit itself to technical
topics only ? While they are much more exciting and produce great
flames of religious furvor and occasional facts in the noise, it
would not be out of place to briefly discuss the business health of
IBM. I remember back in the late seventies, early eighties people
promoting the latest and greatest CPM machines, which most, if not
all those companies are no longer in business.

As a developer, it is important, though not mandatory to keep track
of the relative state of companies providing harware/software to
the market for use and development, so at least we can preserve our
investment in equiptment and tools for as long as we can. 

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.)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Watch Program
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:00:21 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Dec12.022227.16651@news.Hawaii.Edu> tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) writes:

>Brian Sturgill writes:

>> Does this mean that IBM is including shareware in its OS/2 2.0 app count?
>> Also is IBM counting its own apps in the count?

>Why shouldn't IBM count its own apps?  Doesn't Microsoft include Word and Excel
>(among others) in the app count for Windows?

IBM is indeed including both shareware (freeware doesn't count because it is
free, so GNU's stuff is - for the most part - out of the picture.  That's too
bad, too... :( ) in its count.

If you have authored a shareware or commercial utility and would like it
included in IBM's count (which also included a bit of free advertising from
IBM in the way of them stating that your program exists), send me mail.
I'll try to remember who is was from IBM that contacted me and get them to
take your mail.

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: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Discovered: Microsoft using undocumented calls in Windows NT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:56:22 GMT

In <1992Dec12.141253.875@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>In article <1992Dec12.120941.20599@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>>What is it you do at this Uni? Are you so unprofessional or just
>>a secretary who fancys putting the Uni's name in his .sig to


>	I can think of a number of reasons to put your
>	organizations name in the .sig.  Give it some thought.


>>look important? I can hardly believe an educated person can show
>>so little objectivity. I am refering to your .sig of course
>			^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>and not even the fact that it is about NT, it could be any
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>other product for that matter. You seem like a child with a new
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>	I can hardly believe that an educated person can
>	show such poor grammar.

And I can hardly believe someone could be so stupid and ill-mannered
as the posts I've seen from you lately.  Tell me, just how many
languages do YOU speak perfectly and idiomatically, and when did
prefect grammar IN ENGLISH become the mark of being an educated person
ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD BUT ENGLISH SPEAKING COUNTRIES?

[In case you haven't figured it out yet, clueless, take a look at the
return address of the post you're responding to.  Then go read the
netiquette documents again.]

>>Anyway, this is not meant as any sort of personal insult, just
>>an observation.

>	Anyway, this is not meant as any sort of personal 
>	insult, just an observation.

This is meant as a personal insult AND an observation.  Buy a clue,
Yamanari.  It appears to be the only way you'll ever have one.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: More Controversial Topics
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:23:20 GMT

In <1992Dec15.015721.27129@netcom.com> timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:

>The facts are that OS/2 2.0 has never been demoed on SMP hardware.
>It seems (at least I haven't heard otherwise) that the Mach version of
>OS/2 has also never been demoed on SMP hardware.  Eirik either made a simple
>mistake interpreting the sentence, or was pointing out an interesting,
>though not contradictory fact.

At which point Yamanari gets in his face for no good reason, after
criticizing someone's grammar and a number of other typically clueless
Bozoid tricks.

>Calling someone a "clueless Bozoid" when the the statement they made
>was, in fact, correct is really uncalled for.

Given the spate of crap from Yamanari of late, it seems that it was
really called for from what I can tell.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Discovered: Microsoft using undocumented calls in Windows NT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 14:12:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.120941.20599@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>What is it you do at this Uni? Are you so unprofessional or just
>a secretary who fancys putting the Uni's name in his .sig to


	I can think of a number of reasons to put your
	organizations name in the .sig.  Give it some thought.


>look important? I can hardly believe an educated person can show
>so little objectivity. I am refering to your .sig of course
			^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>and not even the fact that it is about NT, it could be any
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>other product for that matter. You seem like a child with a new
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	I can hardly believe that an educated person can
	show such poor grammar.


>Anyway, this is not meant as any sort of personal insult, just
>an observation.

	Anyway, this is not meant as any sort of personal 
	insult, just an observation.


-- 
 Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?          
 Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?  
 ---"I despise mystics, they fancy themselves so deep, when they----
 ----aren't even superficial"    --Nietzsche   ---------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Here's some Advocacy for you.
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:04:51 GMT

In article <1gdgb9INNiia@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> gupw@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Paul Wagland) writes:
>>	Can't anyone out there make a better argument than formatting
>>	floppies (stupid) or 1/4th greater memory requirements?  
>
>OK, how about cost? A person I know who went to the NT developers


	At least you tried.

>conference told me that MS was saying that the single user version of NT
>will be <$800, whil the full version would be <$1000.


	I think you're confused.  MS has said repeatedly that the
	price of NT would be "under $500".  I think maybe your friend
	is thinking of some sort of developer version.

 
>me $500, that is still two and a half times as much as OS/2. And too me,
>who has no need of networking, security features and all the rest
>of the jazz, it isn't worth the cost.  If I neeeded it, then maybe it


	True, the question is not only "do I need this?" 
	(networking, which I don't need (but might be OK to have)
	 security, which I'd like, Unicode, a better solution to 
	 the 8.3 file name problem (dual, confusing--but better
	 than nothing..), better Windows support and, most
	 importantly, rock solid) 

	The question is, if OS/2 support continues to 
	lag and be, for the most part, nonexistant, 
	"Do I have a choice?"


-- 
 Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?          
 Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?  
 ---"I despise mystics, they fancy themselves so deep, when they----
 ----aren't even superficial"    --Nietzsche   ---------------------
From: ccusekh@prism.gatech.EDU (Kevin Hodge)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: who is brian sturgill - really?
Date: 18 Dec 92 17:16:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

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


>Oh, ever consider that maybe sturgill wants to work FOR microsoft,
>and he posts as he does hoping someone from MS will see it, call him
>up, and beg him to work for MS?

Hell, why should Microsoft hire him?  They're getting all that labor for
free.

-- 
Kevin A. Hodge                |   "I'll show you a life of the mind!"
Engineering Psychology        |            Madman Mundt
Georgia Tech                  |
From: chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: who is brian sturgill - really?
Date: 18 Dec 1992 15:31:11 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu

In <1992Dec18.014103.14070@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:

)In article <1992Dec17.172701.2089@usage.csd.unsw.OZ.AU) pendrith@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Mark Pendrith) writes:
[ Stuff deleted ]
)Sure: he says things you don't like or want to hear and you don't want
)to have to worry that they're true.  The easiest thing, then, is just to
)insult him and that will make everything he says wrong. Yeah, that's the
)ticket! 

Oh, can it.  Guess you are humor impaired.  Or is that a requirement
for being an NT advocate.. :).  If you can poke fun at OS2 users,
you can read such "blasphemy" and live with it.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 Application List 1/2
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 00:32:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.153113.13369@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.225615.8432@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec14.141650.9917@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec13.211119.10192@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec11.051119.6473@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:

[Boffiniana deleted]
>
>The fact is, I don't know who they are, and I don't really care.  As it is,
>though, I think that you are contributing to the level of childishness on
>this group significantly.  Because a software company you've never heard of
>makes a product line with animal names or whatever, you think that whoever
>made the list is padding it with stuff they made up.  File that one under
>the same heading as the "Evil Empire" theory et. al.  I guess if a software
>company I've never heard of makes an application for NT, then I get
>to accuse whoever lists it as lying and making it up?
>
Well, humor is suely lost on you.  As I argued elsewhere, the listing of
vertical market applications especially on the net seems to me a
pointless task intended, probably, just to make it look like there
really are some 32 bit OS/2 apps out there.  If it helped anyone to make
a purchasing decision, then fine.  But I don't think that will happen.
>
>>>Why don't you call them up and ask?
>>>
>>I'd be happy to, perhaps, if I had a clue as to where they are.  The
>>lister seems to have no idea either.   
>
>I'm sorry, then I can't help you.  I guess they *must* not exist, and the
>lister must have been lying.  Thank you for your keen perceptions.  They
>have opened my eyes.

Gee, why do you conclude the lister was lying?  I didn't.
>
>>>Ted
>>
>>Gee, you must be Ted Boffin!  So tell us!  Just what are these apps?
>>
>>Viperflo indeed.
>>
>>jmalloy@hamilton.edu
>>
>
>Nope, I'm not Ted Boffin, but I probably wish I owned a company with my
>name on it.
>
>joe malloy indeed.  What a ridiculous name, what?
>
>Ted

Well, when you can't say anything intelligent, resort to a personal
attack.  You're quite the wit, I must say!

jmalloy@hamilton.edu

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy