HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Os/2ers whine again
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:55:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: mksol.1992Sep30.155543.23468
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Sep29.005819.13419@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>In article <Ielk=Ym00WBNQ1bKF8@andrew.cmu.edu> fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat) writes:
>>
>>How much of NT's development was funded by IBM?

>      How much of OS/2 2.0's development was funded by Microsoft?


>>Where could one find out these figures?

>     One can't.  I expect you'll hear some handwavy pseudo-statistics
>in response to your first question, but I doubt if they'll be based
>on a shred of evidence.  The figures would be confidential.

No doubt, but does anyone (besides Pete) question that there ARE such
figures (somewhere in someone's safe)?

-- 
"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: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: So much for Msoft's bluster <grin>
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 18:12:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.175913.58534@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>,
sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>In article <1668@anagld.analytics.com>, sammy@anagld.analytics.com (Sam Blackbur
>n) writes:
>>olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund) writes:
>>
>>>When NT finally will be available (by the
>>>end of '93?), there will be a lot of OS/2 2.0 users and a lot of
>>>powerfull 32-bits OS/2 applications out there.
>>
>>Debatable.  From a developer's point of view it makes more sense to develop a
>>Windows application because OS/2 can run Windows apps.  You've killed two birds
>>with one stone.  This, of course, does not apply to "server" type applications.
>>When NT comes out you've got an application that runs on THREE operating system
>s
>>instead of being tied to only one with OS/2.
>
>Yes it works on three operating systems, and only takes advantage of the one
>with by far the least power.  Sorry, but OS/2 users and NT users are going to
>want native apps.  I for one am not currently planning any future purchases of
>Windows software.  Sure I can run it, but I don't want to use it for rreasons
>that should be fairly self evident by now.  OS/2 users and NT users aren't
>going to say, 'oh, I can run this non-native app under my OS so why should I
>get one designed for my system.'  That is just a developer's wet dream.
>>
>>Sam Blackburn                                                    \
>--
>Stacy John Behrens
>*===)-------------

I mostly agree, except for a couple small points.  People will
probably be willing to run 16-bit apps on NT because of the relation
of the name and the company selling the OS.  For instance, if a
vendor decided to upgrade their 16-bit OS/2 software, but kept it
16-bit so that it would run on OS/2 1.3, I might buy it (if it was
nice, of course).  This will probably be true for NT, also.  I will
*not* buy a Windows 3.x app to run on top of OS/2 (which means I
won't buy one...), and it is very debatable about Win32 apps.
    In other words, Windows people will run Windows apps, and OS/2
people will run OS/2 apps, but Windows people will not run OS/2 apps
(not like they can anyway :-) :-)  ), and OS/2 people will only run
Windows apps until a better alternative comes along.  I hope it will
be soon!
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why OS/2 \*\*WILL\*\* fail
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:52:04 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <8201@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU>, ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester) w
rites:
>[Discussion of why os/2 is not going to sell with joe user deleted]
>>A good anology to this situation is the difference between your basic VHS
>>$150 VCR with a $10,000 video editing set.  CP/M-DOS vs. OS/2 2.0
>>
>Oh god I hope not!!!!!!! A massive os like os/2 can NOT succede if
>it is only sold to a computerphile (audiophile.. computerphile..
>whatever) elite! It costs A LOT of money to create and maintain such
>a system. It will only succede if it gets sold to joe user. Your
>very analogy is the very logic that I originally pointed out as
>being the reason why os/2 will fail.

By this logic, OS/2 will fail, NT will fail, Unix will fail, and any other
system with any power will fail.  I have one thing to say.  WAKE UP!  *None*
of these systems will fail.  Quite the contrary, they all will or already have
succeeded.  Computers are not quite like any other commodity.  (I use
commodity because I can't think of a better word)  They succeed by being
better, faster and more powerful than their competitors.  The software on them
operates in much the same way.  After this comes things such as user
friendliness and price.  (though not very much after)  This is because if the
PC won't do the job, it doesn't matter how cute the interface is.  Price
becomes important too for obvious reasons.  OS/2 is a powerful system, but it
is quite easy to use all things considered and certaintly no more difficult
than DOS/Windows.  Your conclusion is fallacious because it has no basis in
the way things really work.
>
>                               The jester
>

Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Msoft's bluster <grin>
Date: 3 Oct 92 17:59:13 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1668@anagld.analytics.com>, sammy@anagld.analytics.com (Sam Blackbur
n) writes:
>olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund) writes:
>
>>When NT finally will be available (by the
>>end of '93?), there will be a lot of OS/2 2.0 users and a lot of
>>powerfull 32-bits OS/2 applications out there.
>
>Debatable.  From a developer's point of view it makes more sense to develop a
>Windows application because OS/2 can run Windows apps.  You've killed two birds
>with one stone.  This, of course, does not apply to "server" type applications.
>When NT comes out you've got an application that runs on THREE operating system
s
>instead of being tied to only one with OS/2.

Yes it works on three operating systems, and only takes advantage of the one
with by far the least power.  Sorry, but OS/2 users and NT users are going to
want native apps.  I for one am not currently planning any future purchases of
Windows software.  Sure I can run it, but I don't want to use it for rreasons
that should be fairly self evident by now.  OS/2 users and NT users aren't
going to say, 'oh, I can run this non-native app under my OS so why should I
get one designed for my system.'  That is just a developer's wet dream.
>
>                                                               o
>Sam Blackburn                                                    \
>Internet:   sammy@sed.csc.com                                  \O/
>Compuserve: 76300,326                     ||====================|====||
>GEnie:      SAMMY                         ||-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-/\+-+-||
>                                          ||===================\=\===||
>                                          ||                         ||
>                                          || Kill or be killed.      ||
>
-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:06:02 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct01.185323.6528@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>focus.  IBM will have OS/2 today and tommorrow too.  MS is already talking
>>about Windows CAIRO - Do you expect me to upgrade my system again in a
>>couple of years? :-(
>
>      You're going to upgrade it anyway.  In two years your hardware
>will be approaching obsolescence and your software will already be
>there.

Not necessarilly.  For example, the 486 is little more than a fast 386
with a NDP in it.  There's no real reason to upgrade a 386 system to a
486 for most users.

For another example, most software today only requires DOS 3.2 (and
some major apps still work with DOS 2.0), so you can argue that the
extra features of DOS 4.0 and 5.0 aren't necessary.  (although the
large-partition support of 4.0 is necessary for other reasons).

The attitude that everyone will have new machines in two years anyway
is a dangerous one.  On the one hand, it allows you to develop for the
cutting-edge, expecting that people will be able to use it once the
product gets released.  On the other hand, you may stand to get burned
when you release it an the average user hasn't upgraded his hardware
after all.

>      Where does this come from?  The announcement on NT pricing
>said "less that $500".  This could mean "$1", for all we know.  I
>expect to see a competitive upgrade offer as well.

Yes, but if they intended a price significantly below $500 (say,
$350), wouldn't they be anouncing "under $400" instead?  When I see
cars advertised as "under $20,000", it means (almost always) $19,995.

-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 28 Sep 92 02:36:52 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <7422@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu wrote:

> 
> By "dumping", I mean selling something for far below what it's really worth.
> Either MS is saying that (according to the company line that this isn't a
> beta) the NT versions of C and so on are really only worth $69, or they're
> dumping it on the market in a sleazy, underhanded attempt to kill OS/2. How
> much will the components of the SDK/beta cost when they all hit the street? If
> it's under a kilobuck, I'll be astonished. Why in the world would MS sell
> something for 7% of what it's worth?

I'd like to remind you that something is worth what people will buy it for,
so are you saying that you'd buy NT + SDK for $1000.  Good, Now I hope to
never hear you say that NT will loose out cause noone would pay that
much for it, because appearently, you will.
Ok, Ok, just kidding, but nobody knows what price they are going to tack
onto NT, and the estimated range is from $69 to your $1000.  In truth,
we are not ready for price haggling because noone has announce an 
estimated price for NT, the SDK, or anything.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: Debugging feature
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:14:48 GMT

In <BvpCw9.76w@rice.edu> amitp@ruf.rice.edu (Amit J Patel) writes:

>You know, it'd be nice if OS/2 could simulate dual monitors in a DOS 
>session so that one window would pop up with Turbo Debugger and another
>window would pop up with my application in it.

The MSC 6.0 version of Codeview for OS/2 does just that.

Turbo-anything is, at this point, a DOS product, and it's probably too
much to hope for to have OS/2 support in a DOS program.  :-)
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:10:53 GMT

In <BvpnyG.Er9@news.cso.uiuc.edu> walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk) writes:

>Networking is important, but it's better to keep it as an external module.
>An external module can work as well as a built in feature, and is easier
>to upgrade for users and upkeep for the programmers.

Not just to upgrade, but also to replace.  NT has, from what I've heard,
built-in TCP/IP and LAN Manager support.  I'm sure that neither Novell
nor Artisoft is thrilled about this fact.

Personally, I'm waiting breathlessly for LANtastic for OS/2.  I suspect
that this will be out *long* before LANtastic for NT (hmm, will there
*ever* be such a product?  I seriously doubt it.)
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Os/2ers whine again
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:58:19 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <Ielk=Ym00WBNQ1bKF8@andrew.cmu.edu> fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat) writes:
>
>How much of NT's development was funded by IBM?

      How much of OS/2 2.0's development was funded by Microsoft?


>Where could one find out these figures?

     One can't.  I expect you'll hear some handwavy pseudo-statistics
in response to your first question, but I doubt if they'll be based
on a shred of evidence.  The figures would be confidential.

				-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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: rjones@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ronald Jones)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:35:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.135456.6109@tamsun.tamu.edu> dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf) writes:
>In article <_1#pm6b.timbol@netcom.com> timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:
>>In article <92271.152323I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET> Spartacus At Cuny <I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>
>As another poster has already mentioned, OS/2 or AIX will probably run
>on this chip (AIXv3, after all, already *does* run on the multi-chip
>implementation of the POWER architecture).  Apple, I believe, also plans
>to run the Mac OS on the PowerPC before Pink is available.
>

Actually doesn't IBM already have a single chip RS6000 available (the
220)? I think the PowerPC will be a simpler version of this chip.

-- 
 < Ron Jones                   |    E-mail:       rj+@osu.edu   > 
 < The Ohio State University   |    Office:      (614) 292-1665 >
 < 338 West Tenth Avenue       |    FAX:(9-5PM)  (614) 292-7151 > 
 < Columbus, Ohio 43210        |        "eschew obfuscation"    >      
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Date: 06 Oct 92 21:36:27 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <rhoward.718334894@matd> rhoward@matd.gatech.edu wrote:
> I have followed a bit of discussion about the pros and cons
> of bundling all the network support in the base package.  I
> tend to agree with the non-bundlers.  But....
> 
> One of the arguments the NT'ers have used throughout this 
> discussion is that a bundled network product will work
> better because it is more "tightly integrated".
> 
> Hasn't anyone thought it a bit interesting that the much 
> vaunted modular, micro kernel based, object oriented operating
> system that NT is supposed to be *needs* to have the network
> stuff bundled to achieve "better" or "decent" performance
> and functionality?  What's the point of a modular or micro
> kernel based OS?
> 
> Please enlighten....
> 
> Robert

I'm a bit curious about why people don't want networks bundled.  This is
regardless as to whether the network is more integrated or not.

The only two reasons I came up with as to why people wouldn't want 
bundled network software are the following:

1) You think the final product would be cheaper if these things were not
   included.

Well, I hate to say it, but software doesn't work that way.  Software
is almost all startup up cost and and very little production cost.
Software has no intrinsic value besides what people are willing to pay
for it, and if what you say is true, that most people won't be using 
the networking products, then the networking products will be worth little
to them.  They will be willing to pay what they were willing to pay for the
orrigional WNT product, minus the value of the networking products, which
was little or nothing.  The net price will not have changed.  All that
will change is the possible price for the WNT with the networking, which
may go up, because the people willing to buy it will pay more for it.

So in asking to remove networking, you are asking to raise the price of
the networking version, and not lower the price of the non-networked
version.

This is IMHO of course, and any more input, positive or negative, may be
useful.

2) You're worried about using up extra space on your hard drive.

Delete the networking stuff off of your drive.


What are the other reasons that people don't want networking.
"'cause I'm not going to use it" is not a valid answer.  Where is
the networking getting in the way.  Why is having it there making life
worse for you.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6464 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2239 comp.os.os2.misc:31576
From: Lowey@Sask.USask.CA (Kevin Lowey)
Subject: Re: NSTL compares OS/2 2.0 and Windows 3.1
Originator: lowey@jester.usask.ca
Reply-To: lowey@jester.usask.ca
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:19:15 GMT

From discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar):
> In article <1992Oct1.002722.14009@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>>P.S.  I had don't beleive the multitasking part either... but the
>>rest of it fits my experience.  Note... this is not the first time

> 
> Brian, perhaps the reason OS/2 ranked lower on multitasking is that they
> were testing "multitasking Windows Applications..." which, in most cases,

I suspect that as part of this "Impartial" test, Microsoft specified
that the tests be done on machines with 4M of RAM. As we all know, 4M
doesn't cut it with OS/2 2.0.

-- 
- Kevin Lowey (Lowey@Sask.USask.CA)
>>>>> Anonymous FTP to FTP.USASK.CA for DOS, OS/2, and Windows programs <<<<<

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: lmalloy@abacus.bates.edu (Laura Malloy)
Subject: Re: Interesting Tidbit from Sept 21 PC week
Organization: Bates College, Lewiston, Maine
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 03:20:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.114731.5437@gw.wmich.edu> 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:

>	Seriously though, I can't see how you can say that about OS/2.
>If you like Windows then I don't see how you can't like OS/2.  For one
>thing, it doesn't crash (at least on me).  Its shell is much better..
>well anyway, I really do't want to get into this AGAIN.  It gets tiring
>debating why OS/2 is good.  OS/2 is outselling DOS 5.0 at retail so 
>it mustnot be THAT bad.

I tried OS/2 2.0 for three weeks.  I had numerous crashes, disappearing
icons, comm problems and the like.  Went back to Dos 5/Windows 3.1 and
things have been fine ever since (heck, Windows is so stable for me, I
reboot my machine once a week, whether it needs it or not!  Seriously!).

I have no doubt that OS/2 2.0 should be better and, in its design, it
most certainly is (except for the Workplace shell; that's a matter of
taste, I know, but I can't stand it -- and it's ugly!).  But in actual
fact, Windows works better for me.  While that may upset some OS/2
people, i think it's time they just wake up and smell the coffee:
Windows works as well as OS/2 2.0 for many of us.  Sorry 'bout that.

jmalloy@hamilton.edu
From: ochealth@unixg.ubc.ca (ochealth)
Subject: Re: Why OS/2 **WILL** fail
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocay
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 20:01:57 GMT


[ OS/2 opinions deleted ]

Thanks for starting another irrelevant news thread. And crossposting to
an innnocent newsgroup. Comp.os.os2.advocacy is the group for tastes
great/less filling arguments about OS/2 etc.

I have redirected followups to comp.os.os2.advocacy, where they belong.

PLEASE respect the newsgroup organization! It's a pain in the butt to
wade through irrelevant articles. 


-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
jpm: ochealth@unixg.ubc.ca         
                            Happily using OS/2 2.0 because MS Windows isNT ___
                                                      Insert VapourFeature ^^^
From: thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Win-OS/2 3.1 beta benchmarks
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:12:29 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

Hello netters,

Here are the Windows 3.1 and the beta Win-OS/2 3.1 benchmarks.
These figures were generated by PC Magazine's Windows benchmarks
program, version 2.5.  Both figures were generated on the same
machine using dual boot.  

System:
486dx-33
8 megs of RAM

Microsoft Windows 3.1 in 640x480 standard VGA mode using the 
standard VGA driver included with the package:

3,739,643 WinMarks

IBM _beta_ Win-OS/2 3.1 in 640x480 standard VGA mode using the 
standard VGA driver included with the package:

3,516,111 WinMarks

So, the Win-OS/2 3.1 beta is 6% slower than Windows 3.1.
Pretty impressive for a beta...maybe the released version
will actually improve on Windows 3.1 performance.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| Charles A. Thompson           | thompson@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu     |
| University of Kansas          | thompson@ukanvax.cc.ukans.edu    |
| .../ They call me SkiBum \... | OS/2 2.0, Bush, and Rush in '92! |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| Look for Recipe Pro(tm), an interactive recipe database, in 1993 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy