HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Organization: Computer and Technologies Theme Program, NCSU, Raleigh
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:28:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.123847.11562@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.174604.24009@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>>I suggest otherwise.  If the system is modular (as OS/2 and NT are,
>>according to IBM and MS), then it's fairly simple to package separate
>>modules on separate disks and  install them separately.  IBM seems to
>>have done it already.
>
>Well at least in the case of IBM TCP/IP -- this doesn't hold... for
>example sockets are not dup-able.  NFS drive folders don't work
>(even though they show up).

NFS drive folders do indeed work--quite well as a matter of fact.  For example,
I just NFS-mounted my home directory from my Unix host, edited my .signature 
file, and used the shredder to delete a file out of my News directory, all 
through the drive folders.

As a side note, the IBM TCP/IP package allows me to login to my OS/2 box from
a remote workstation and do file management or run any text-based program from
there, including MS-Word and TE/2!  It is my understanding that this is beyond
the current (or planned) capability of NT's half-assed implementation of TCP/IP.


>>MS is trying to meet the needs of the server market.  In that market,
>>networking (TCP/IP, IPX/SPX, and/or SNA) are critical features.  In
>>the home market (where OS/2 seems to be catching on very well), it
>>isn't.  And it won't for a high price.
>
>Ah... where's you sources... what makes you say OS/2 seems to be
>catching on very well in the home market?

How about the fact that everyone that I know who has a PC capable of running
OS/2 2.0 is doing just that?

>>Do you think that's going to last beyond that GA date?  Actually, I
>>should buy one of them CD's as well.  It'll get me the released
>>version when it ships.  I certainly won't be getting NT for cheap
>>prices when it ships out.
>
>Sure you will... you have OS/2 2.0... there will be great offers for such
>users.  You can join the great OS/2 2.0 -> NT migration that will occur
>when NT ships.  1/2 :-)

Well, since most people that like OS/2 seem to laugh at the idea of using NT, 
and most people who don't like OS/2 have an objection to it's size and resource
requirements, I think you are quite wrong.

Also, please name your sources (since that is a popular phrase of yours) for
the 'cheap' upgrade prices from NT to OS/2.

John W. Linville

--------------------------------------------------------------------------.
|  John W. Linville                Amateur radio:  KD4KHC                  |
|  #include "std_disclaimer.h"     E-mail:  linville@catt.ncsu.edu         |
`--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn)
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Reply-To: soh3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 03:01:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.180214.3087@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>>>>But os/2 is a totally different story.  Once you install it, you
>>>>use it.  That's that simple.  Better dos than dos and better windows
>>>>than windows.  Is there in this logic, if it is a logic, not a fact,
>>>>at all?
>>>
>>>Well, I know at least two people, who have OS/2 2 installed on
>>>their machine, but almost never use it. Both have copies bought
>>>via store/mail order, not free or beta copies, or upgrades.
>>>
>>
>>And I know at least one person who has bought the NT pre-beta CD-ROM and
>>does never use it. So what? 
>
>     Read the original quote.  Wolfgang has proven Min's statement
>false by counterexample.  The usage statistics on the Windows NT
>PDK are irrelevant in this case.
>

Phil, please, try to make some sense.  How can anyone prove an example
false by a counterexample?  An example is an example.  It can perhaps
be falsified by proving that the example was just made up.  But an 
example cannot be proven false by another example.  Understand?

I actually didn't argue by way of examples.  I just pointed out that
they other guy who said since Windows is not an operating system it
can be installed and not be used.  I supplied a couple of cases that
support the original poster's point and said your ***assertion*** that
his argument was ***fallacious*** and based on ***unfounded assumptions***.
Since I found his argument very cogent, I thought just saying his argument
fallacious was not a good attitude.  If your post was not intended
as a pure FUD as your posts have so consistently proven to be, I think
you still need to say why you thought his argument was

1)	fallacious
2)	based on unfounded assumptions.

Now, back to the example business.  The reason why I didn't respond to
Wolfgang's post was simply because I thought his post was not worth
comment or counter-argument.  You can't win an argument by way of
just saying I know such and such case.  For example, I can simply
say that for every copy of unused os/2 I can match 100 copies of
unused copies of Windows.  In this case, Phil, are you going to say
that I proved Wolfgang wrong by counterexamples?  I think you are
stupid, but not that much.

Min
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Msoft's bluster <grin>
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:10:52 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Sep28.160233.3985@spcvxb.spc.edu>, mauritz_c@spcvxb.spc.edu writ
es:
>09/25 (DW) Microsoft Delays Shipments of Windows NT Operating System
>    By Ken Yamada
>    Dow Jones Staff Reporter
>
>    REDMOND, Wash. -DJ- Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) said the first shipments
>of its Windows NT operating system software are expected to be delayed
>until early 1993.
>    The software maker had initially expected to begin selling its new
>operating system software by the end of this year.  But early 1993 is
>''what it's going to take to ship a very high quality product based on
>the performance customers want,'' Dwayne Walker, Microsoft's Windows NT
>director, told Dow Jones.

 We'll see.  I would however like to know what they mean by early '93.
 Obviously not January or Febuary.  I love that marketing line, "a very high
 quality product...".  I think it is a good thing, don't get me wrong, butthat
 line is so thick I could cut it.

>    Since July, Microsoft has shipped more than 20,000 advance copies of
>the software, called developer kits, to potential corporate customers
>and independent software developers for testing, Walker said.  By the
>end of this year, that number is expected to rise to 25,000, he said.

Quite impressive for a pre-release.  Some commercial packages don't do that
well.

>    Because there is such widespread testing of the new software, Walker
>said, is expecting to get a huge volureports back from
>testers, which will contribute to the delay in the product's shipping
>date.  Consequently, Walker said he could not say exactly when the
>product would begin selling.

Good to finally hear them admit it.

>    Microsoft expects that about 20% to 25% of users of its operating
>systems software enhancement, called Windows, will convert to Windows
>NT, he said.  The new software is targeted at corporate, scientific and
>engineering customers, Walker said.

Not immediately they won't for the same reasons many haven't moved to OS/2.
Maybe in about 2-3 years.  That is just a meaningless figure especially since
MS claims that less than that number can run OS/2.  Since they can't run OS/2,
how the hell are they going to run NT?  NT's requirements might get to the
point where they aren't significantly above OS/2's but they certaintly won't
become less.  Talk about sleazy marketing.

>    And he said that application software for Windows NT was rapidly
>being developed.  In November at Comdex, a computer trade show, over 300
>different software that run on Windows NT are expected to be exhibited,
>he said.
>

Oohhh.  Ok where are the "thousands of apps availlable upon release"?
(just kidding for the humor impared)
 I wonder though, will these be real take-advantage-of-NT apps, or just some
suped up ports of old Windows programs.  I guess we'll know soon enough.
(Hopefully the former)

Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
)
From: 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: # of programmers = faster?
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:48:18 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

  
> Thirdly: Given the delays of NT / delays of getting software to market, 
>   exactly what goes into operating system development for OS/2 or NT?
>   If a team of programmers would produce NT in 3 years (pulling a number
>   out of the air) and the marketing guys say "No, it has to go to 
>   market in 2 years" (pulling another number out of the air) what is  
>   the case of not just doubling the number of programmers and adding 
>   a few extra for unexpected delays?  Is it an economic thing?  (ie:
>   the cost of writing the software would not make it economically viable)
>   Is it that there isn't the management/programming/productivity tools
>   around for co-ordinating such a large collection of programmers
>   efficiently?  Where is the bottleneck?
> 
> Andrew Kleinert
> rda758g@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au
> 
> 
	The more programmers you add, the harder it is to debug
the app or Os and the hadrer it is to make the Os work together
fluently.  IBM once tried to make aprogram called Office vision that
flopped from performance problems even though it had thousands of
programmers on it.  
	NT is being worked on (from what I hear) by about 100 to 200
programmers which is quite reasonable for such an OS.  More programmers
doesn't get it out the door any faster.

					-Brad



> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 02:32:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.052735.869@leland.Stanford.EDU> jswang@leland.Stanford.EDU (James Shih Wang) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.211039.24073@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>>In article <pathak-260992141946@virtual.mitre.org> pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep25.164035.24984@nosc.mil>, discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
>>>wrote:
>>>Note, multitasking isn't just limited to computers.  People multitasking
>>>(pre-emptively at times) all the time.  After all, how many people do you
>>>know that sit and watch the water boil? ;-)
>>
>>Actually, that's more like task swapping:)  I find multitasking to be a
>>blessing though, especially when I'm doing something like downloading, ray-
>>tracing, and doing file management at the same time.
>>
>
>Actually, I think I myself tend to "multitask preemptively" a lot.  Like when
>I need to wait for something (for food to be cooked), I often would go
>off and do something else, then come back after say five minutes.  If I
>need to continue the wait, I'll just continue doing that something else, then
>return to check again after a while.  Would you consider this "mulitasking
>preemptively".
>

I don't want to continue this thread (I guess it's more of a philosophical-
computer discussion, not an Os/2 advocacy discussion), but just to make
myself clear, I would consider doing two things at once multitasking for a
person, like eating and watching Tv at the same time.  However, the analogy
between an operating system and a human brain is too poor to take this any
further.

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: kab@s1.gov (Keith Benton)
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Reply-To: kab@s1.gov
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:14:06 GMT

In article 717709394@cgl.ucsf.edu, hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:
>kab@s1.gov (Keith Benton) writes:
>
>>But you can find Win 3.1 which is what is kicking OS/2's butt.
>
>Ahh, once again we see the limits of their vision. Half a year after Win3
>came out, DOS was kicking Win's butt. Only now have Win apps overtaken DOS
>apps (at least according to posted info). So, let's see about a year from now
>how things stack up; perhaps you will not be crowing by then, but eating it
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>instead. :-)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Tom

Maybe, then again maybe not. Like the man says "Time will tell."

---
	---------------------------------------------------------
	|             Keith Benton: kab@s1.gov                  |
	| ME!?!? Speak for anyone here!?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA |
	|             Standard Disclaimers apply                |
	---------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: NT? WHY?
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 13:55:10 GMT

brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>>	How can you greatly prefer NT over OS/2?  You actually
>>liked the "pre-beta" better than OS/2?  WHY?  

>But these are the minor points... the real difference is terms
>of the quality of the software development tools. NT's SDK comes
>with the NT equivalent of MSC/C++ 7.0.  My only complaint
>is that they haven't yet gotten the iostream library there, but
>I can see why that would be low priority.
>The point is even in its not-yet-finished state... it's better
>than WorkSet/2.

If the development tools are the main reason for prefering NT then NT
is in trouble.

1) Most users are not software developers and couldn't care less about
	development tools.

2) There will be 3rd part developemnt tools available for both OSs which
	will eventually negate any advantage MS has over IBM in 
	development tools. (I know lots of people are waiting to see
	what Borland produces).


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,alt.politics.kibo
From: rsholmes@rodan.syr.EDU (Rich Holmes)
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.windows.advocacy,alt.foolish.users
In-reply-to: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu's message of 27 Sep 92 17:33:32 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 19:16:13 EDT

HAY MACINTOSH KICKS BUTTT !!!!!!!1!!!1!!!!!!!!!!

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:16:04 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Oct6.123731.25876@ms.uky.edu> sam@ms.uky.edu (Mike Mills) writes:
>Thanks to everyone who explained to me NT's multiuser capabilities.  I agree
>that being able to provide security for multiple people is MUCH different
>than allowing those people to be using the machine at the same time.
>
>Thank you very much Paul and Brian for distorting the facts.  Yet another
>reason not to buy Microsoft products.

Where did I distort the facts... and how am I related to Microsoft?

>
>It seems rather silly that NT supports symmetrical multiprocessing, and gives
>that power to all of one user at a time.
Where did you get this information from?  It's true the graphics
system allows only one user at the console at a time.
But this is not different even from X.

You can have background tasks executing as other users... and if you
provided the login program... people logged in via serial ports.

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
University of Utah                             United We Stand
Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: unruh@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh)
Subject: Re: Shutdown failure (?)
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:09:11 GMT

dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:

>Some (poorly written) apps don't recognize the shutdown message.  They
>don't pass it to the default handler, and they don't respond properly.
>This effectively places the entire shutdown process on hold.  Try
>killing various apps and seeing which one has to go before shutdown
>proceeds. 

Surely OS2 should not allow itself to be hijacked . If a program does not
respond, OS2 should kill that app itself ( or give you the option), not
sit there waiting on rude behaviour.
Actually, OS2 allows itself to be hijacked a bit too easily. Another
case is running the PMterm, when you shut down the PMterm, you get the
wait icon and the system gets hijacked until the PMterm has finished its
business. Surely OS2 should not allow that- you should be able to change
focus while one program continues its shenanigans. Is this a symptom of
the single message que?
From: 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Video games and NT
Date: 1 Oct 92 12:19:43 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University


	I said this a bit in another post but video games are important
to an OS.
	Why?

	Because the future of computers is going to be in the home world.
Only within the past couple of years have computers gone down into the
price range of running at home.  A year ago, about 40% of our customers
were home usrs and 60% businesses/universities.  Now that amount has
jumped to 70% being home users.  386 power can come to the user under
$1000 now.  
	But most home users spend a good deal of time playing video
games.  One only has to look at any computer store to note that the
video game business is booming.  But allthose video games run under
DOS and that will continue to be the case.
	The heir to DOS is going to have to be the OS that home users
run.  If it doesn't it will not fail, but it will be stuck in the
world of business and research like Unix has been and OS/2 had been.
Windows games are very popular and that shows that a lot of home users
are running windows.

	That brings us to Windows NT.  It is pretty clear from what
people have said, my own experiences, and MS's announcements that NT
will scarcely run DOS video games.
	Who cares right?  The home user does and if you, like I, think
that the next mainstream OS is going to be the one that runs all of
people's existing software well, including video games.

	The Amiga ran video games but didn't have much else and it
is obscure for that reason (and other technical reasons).  OS/2 on
the other hand runs DOS and Windows apps.  Moreover, most OS/2 users
can still run Wing Commander 2 on their machines and judging from
the OS/2 conferences, a LOOOOT of OS/2 users run video games.  How
manytimes have you heard someone asking how to play Falcon 3 or
Wolfenstein 3d?  
	Myself, I use my machine primarily for software development
and business reasons but I do play a video game now and then.  I
have Aces of the Pacific on the hard drive which I can play from
OS/2.  My computer at work is a tool.  But my computer at home should
be much more than that.
	
	Video games will continue to be written under DOS (the good
ones).  The home market will continue to buy them.  When given the choice
between two OS's, both which give the end user similar features, but
one will run 99% of their dos software and the other one only runs
mainstream DOS programs which one would you choose?

	When you respond to this, answer this please (since I may
be flamed for saying that video games are important), do you evr
play video games on your computer?

					-Brad




Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jja@wsl.ie (John J. Allen)
Subject: Re: MS Slips NT Release Date (PCWeek 9/21 p186)
Organization: Project Papyrus, AIRAID, Dublin, Ireland
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 12:35:31 GMT

dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
: In article <1992Sep24.180446.5446@gw.wmich.edu> 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
: >	I may rip on MS but after DOS 5.0 and Windows 3.1, one must
: >give them some credit for pushing out good quality products.
: 
: But after DOS 4.00 -> DOS 4.01, WinWord 1.1 -> WinWord 1.1a,
: WinWord 2.0 -> WinWord 2.0a, C 6.00 -> C 6.00a -> C 6.00ax,
: Windows 3.0 -> Windows 3.0a, etc., it would seem that they also have a
: record of pushing products out the door before the bugs are gone.

Anyone who pushes a product out the door only after all the bugs are
gone has'nt and won't ever push product out the door.

Unfortunately in the real world it's just about impossible to produce a 
totally bug free product.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6313 comp.sys.intel:1771 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:25429
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
From: Spartacus At Cuny <I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Sunday, 27 Sep 1992 15:23:23 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

Today I read IBM plans to release its PowerPC chips this fall
on the USAToday newsfeed on the freenet.  As I understand it
these new PowerPC will run Pink in about 3 years from now.
Pink supposedly will run OS/2 and MSDOS programs as well
as Pink programs.

Now this brings in some curious questions about these chips
and future Intel CPUs.  By allowing a user the freedom to run
his/her favorite application on either platform.  I would like
to hear some opinions (speculations) about what could users
expect 3-4 years down the road.  Wouldn't Pink put Intel
CPUs and PowerPC in head to head competition with each other?
Would Intel based micros still be a viable option? What kind
of decisions would a person expect to face four years from now
when purchasing a new computer?

Please post on the net...I'm sure there are many people who
are just as curious.  This subject was brought up here between
two people and I thought it would be a legitimate question
to bring up.

-------
------------------------------+      All The Best,
Reply To:                     |
                              |      Edward Galarza,
     I18BC@CunyVM.Cuny.Edu    |      Brooklyn College Of The
     I18BC@CunyVM.BitNet      |      City University Of New York
------------------------------+      "Que viva el OS/2!"
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6559 comp.os.os2.apps:6721