HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 30 Dec 1992 18:54:12 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec30.180456.26228@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>What Microsoft is doing with the clone makers is really just another example of
>the trendy new concept in purchasing called "Just in time" purchasing.  The idea
>is that instead of having 3 or 4 suppliers for one of your components, you
>form a long-term relationship with a trusted supplier who will be your only
>source.  You save money because instead of having to keep an inventory of
>all of your supplies you're supplier will ship to you exactly what you need
>exactly when you need it.

Oh, good grief. This is REALLY a stretch.

What the clone vendor gets is the right to install DOS and Windows on the
disk, and the right to publish a manual. These rights don't have to take up
storage space, tie up dollars in inventory, or anything else. They simply send
MS a check each month or so for the number of systems they sell (or, if they
opt for the expensive version, the number of copies they shipped). They don't
have to wait for the components to be shipped.

>This "just in time" is spreading like wildfire because it saves money and makes
>manufacturers more efficient.  EVERYBODY is doing it, not just Microsoft.

Everyone who sells physical inventory is doing it, and it is indeed a Good
Thing.

This argument doesn't apply to the current discussion, though, because there's
nothing for MS to ship to the clone maker, and therefore no inventory to avoid
keeping.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
From: chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 22 Dec 1992 11:43:13 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu

In <1992Dec22.095022.21715@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

>In article <1992Dec21.074803.1363@sequent.com>, furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod) writes:

><refering to the FTC threats against Microsoft>

>|> IF this provides a setback to Microsoft, it will be a temporary
[ STUFF DELETED ]

>|> This also give IBM and opportunity to press their advantage with
>|> OS/2 in the market place.

>I totally disagree.  If Microsoft is smashed enough that all of these
>whining companies feel safe developing for Windows, they will feel no
>motivation at all to move developement to another OS.

I disagree.  If MS is "smashed"  (somehow I doubt that it will be), then
Developers might panic thinking that "the end of windows" has arrived,
fearing that future versions (if any) won't cut it, and that those future
versions would show the effects of a smash.


I don't think MS will be smashed.  They are a strong company, and I have
to admit, many years ago, when I paid many thousands of dollars for an
IBM-PC/clone (circa 1983), they used to be my favorite Computer
related (software/and such) company for the home.  (I also used
Unix back then, and still do).  Now, I must say, that MS has 
"slipped from that light,"  at least in my eyes.  It just seems that
software quality has been getting pretty bad at some places.  Now,
MS has made some good apps.  Yeah, I know every CS/CE major loves
to bash DOS with their own Definitions of what an OS is, but I
am not talking DOS.  I am talking Apps.  Anyway, I dont think
they will get broken up.  As I said, nowadays, I dont like MS so much,
nor do I like very many companies that produce DOS apps, because alot of
these apps  cheap hacks (well, the price may not be cheap..).  However,
comapnies such as Borland continue to make excellent apps, and that will
probably keep DOS/Win alive (companies like borland I mean), and will
probably keep MS strong (however unfortunate that may be).

If they DO get broken up, there are other software companies out there.
Hell, UNIX may gain some more ground if it happens.  For now,
sticking with OS/2 and Unix hasn't hurt me, and probably won't.  If
MS DOES break up, some of the smaller companies may have room to
grow.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones)
Subject: Re: If things had been different... (was: FCC etc)
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993 19:35:30 GMT

In <1992Dec30.040459.20494@grebyn.com> richk@grebyn.com (Richard Krehbiel) writes:

>In article <28DEC199217112399@moose.cccs.umn.edu> rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu (RICHARD HOFFBECK) writes:

>>   In article <1hnqn1INN5le@tamsun.tamu.edu>, bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
>>   > In fact, if IBM would have gone with Motorola, I don't think MS would
>>   > exist today.
>>   > 

>I think this is probably an overstatement.  Microsoft would not have
>been the OS supplier; instead of MS-DOS everywhere, it might have been
>CP/M for the 68K instead.  Microsoft would still have been the BASIC
>supplier, and with a 68K to run on, MS-Xenix might have caught on.

>Certainly had it not been for the PC, I think Intel would be gone.
>Look what's happened to Zilog, the makers of the Z-80.  Where are they
>today?  They're not a player of significance in the PC market at
>least.  They still make Z-80's.  They're current claim to fame is that
>they make the smart dual serial port chip in the Macintosh.

>Intel had to work as hard as they did to make the x86 perform because
>*everything* out-performed it, up until the 386.  The Motorola 68K,
>Zilog Z8000, and NS 32016 (the 16 bit CPUs I can think of) were faster
>than the 8086 by a wide margin.  (Perhaps if the 68K had won the PC
>design, it wouldn't be as fast as it is.)  Intel's 286 didn't quite
>catch up to the original 68K, and by that time Motorola had the 32-bit
>68020.  The 386, funded by brisk sales of 8088 and 286, finally
>managed to outrun the 68030 (which, BTW, finally caught up to the x86
>in bundled functionality, with it's on-board MMU).

IBM is first and formost a marketing company!  They did not want the PC to
compete with thier other and more expensive products.  They chose the x86
chip because it was the least capable chip on the market at the time.

Another example of this was the PC-AT keyboard.  A new keyboard with a
numeric key pad.  Great, everbody copied it exactly.  It took almost 2 years
before anyone got smart enough to put a "Return" key on the numeric pad.
Without that "Return" key, the machines did not compete with IBM' data entry
equipment.  IBM has always been vary carful not to compete with itself.
>The 68030 grew more gracefully than the x86 did, though.  I mean, the
>386 contains *two* MMUs and *three* incompatible instruction sets...
>-- 
>Richard Krehbiel                                 richk@grebyn.com
>OS/2 2.0 will do for me until AmigaDOS for the 386 comes along...
-- 
INTERNET:  ray@Celestial.COM   Ray A. Jones; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!ray   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!ray   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
The probability of one or more spelling errors in this missive approaches
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 23:11:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.161030.3106@sun44.synercom.hounix.org> mattair@sun44.synercom.hounix.org (Charles Mattair) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.003225.24074@sequent.com> furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod) writes:
>>
>>While competition is good, don't kid yourself that Novell is going
>>to be any kinder or gentler than MS about DOS. While DR-DOS has
>>smoe nice features to it, I do not relish the thought of having to
>>slap Novell on the back wallet high everytime I want some
>>information. I just hope we're not trading one bad problem for
>>something worse.
>>
>>JMHO...
>>
>
>I don't know if Novell will be any kinder/gentler than MS but my experience:
>
>   . First floppy for DR 6.0 goes bad (way out of maintenance).
>   . Call DR customer service (800 number unlike some other DOS manufacturers).
>   . Explain problem to service droid.
>   . Get home next day and find FedEx notice of attempted delivery on front
>     door.
>   . Call FedEx to find out who it's from.  Novell...
>
>Try this with Microslime.
>-- 

I have. Replacing an original floppy is one thing. Try reporting a
bug in their system and see what you get. I called Microsoft about
a problem, and had new disks, with a version patch on my door in
short order. Borland sent me a new rev of their compiler, when I
found a problem. I called Novell about a Netware issue; they wanted
$20.00 on my VISA. DR != Novell.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: OS/2 v2 on "Another World"
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:09:05 GMT


You read it right. I was going through the TV channels today and
suddenly I saw the WPS on the TV screen. As it turns out, the soap
"Another World" was featuring IBM's OS/2 2.0 running on a IBM PC.
It was running a chess program, which I never seen for OS/2. I
believe it was a custom program just for this show as it evolved
around some chess game. Hmmmmm, OS/2 2.0 already appearing on TV.
Not to mention that a few weeks ago, the show "Americas Most Wanted"
was featuring IBM's ValuePoints which are used for criminal 
investigations.

Best Regards,
Mark K.

- Bill Gates: I believe OS/2 is destined to be the most important
              operating system, and possibly program, of all time.
              (OS/2 Programmer's Guide)
- Bill Gates: OS/2 is destined to be a very important piece of
              software.
              (Inside OS/2)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Date: 31 Dec 92 03:53:11 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Dec29.124550.10847@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>
>>A companies _customers_ calls the shots no matter how big the company is.
>>Its the customers who give it the market share that it has.
>
>Hmm, so if I contact such a company, tell them what I want of them
>and tell them I am a customer, they'll tell me, Yes sir, it'll
>be there first thing? Nah, doesn't even look worth trying. To
>simple a view maybe.

     Read it again - it's customers, not customer.  If you and
a couple hundred thousand of your friends all called and told that
company what you wanted, you can bet they'd get right on it.


>>Look at it this way.  The only way a "big company" can put a "little company"
>>out of business is for the customers of the little company to _voluntarily_
>>of their _own_free_will_ to _choose_ to buy from the big company instead.
>>In other words, it is the freewill choice of the customers which puts _any_
>>company, big or little out of business.
>
>And not the potential of a big company to produce at lower costs and
>the consumers wish to get the cheapest product still valuable. Right
>you are.

     The lower costs and hence lower prices are a motivating factor
towards those customers moving away.  So is superior quality.
But the ultimate loss in sales comes from the choices of consumers.

				-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
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: Be more creative than the FTC!
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:41:31 GMT

helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
: In article <1992Dec22.180054.1107@spang.Camosun.BC.CA>, dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
: |> : |> AT&T?
: |> : 
: |> : AT&T was only a monopoly because the goverment wouldn't allow other companies
: |> : to compete with it.  In fact, I challenge you to name a single monopoly
: |> : which wasn't a monopoly because a goverment outlawed competition with it.
: |> : Name one which was a monopoly in America before the antitrust laws came in.
: |> : You can even name companies in countries which don't have antitrust laws.
: |> 
: |> Standard Oil anyone?
: 
: 
: When it was broken up in 1911 by the Shermen Antitrust act, it only had a 66%
: share of the market.  Not even the great John D. Rockafeller himself could
: create as monopoly in a free market.

If its 66% market share was no big deal, why was it broken up?
--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu (RICHARD HOFFBECK)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Reply-To: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu
Organization: Colon Cancer Control Study, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:29:00 GMT

In article <wiegand.725577960@lido16>, motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net writes:
> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>  
> >In article <1992Dec20.161118.6133@qucis.queensu.ca>, jardined@qucis.queensu.ca (Donald Jardine) writes:
> >|> 
> >|> Allegedly domineering practices aside, is there any real evidence that MS is
> >|> genuinely inefficient or hindering the industry?  The market place is a 
> >|> wonderful disciplinarian.
>  
> >I can't think of any.  If you want to buy another operating system, you can
> >choose either DR DOS or OS/2, both of which will run DOS programs, and even
> >windows programs if you want.
>  
> Have you actually tried to buy a PC? Many of the major hardware vendors
> include MS-DOS and Windows with their hardware. You get it if you want
> it or not. Why should I be forced to buy software I don't want just to get
> the hardware?

So rather than get DOS for say $10, you'd rather pay to impliment the audit
procedures and paperwork necessary to track the number of copies of DOS that
were actually shipped.  I suspect that most people would rather have the cheap
preinstalled DOS.  I would argue that you are probably paying less under this
scheme than if the vendor had to take care of mixing, matching and verifing the
OS configuration before shipping a machine. In the latter case, we'd all get to
pay a shadow cost that subsidizes your privilege of choosing an OS.

When it comes right down to it, MS isn't doing this to you. I and the 99.9% of
the market that want DOS are doing it to you. I'd rather get the $10 DOS and
let you spend the time to install OS/2 rather than pay an extra $20 or $30 in
hidden costs so that the dealer can let people pick and choose their OS
configuration and impliment the tracking procedures for royalty payments.

--rick

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 31 Dec 92 04:07:12 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <8256@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.190050.26854@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>
>Right. Then we can ALL go to work for MS, just like you're evidently trying to
>do.

     Jay, this tactic of branding everyone who doesn't agree with you
as "trying to work for MS" is getting really tiresome.  If you can't
address the points made in the posts, why bother to post this kind
of drivel?

				-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
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:36:57 GMT

In <1992Dec31.025922.23254@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>In article <wiegand.725663043@lido16> motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net writes:
>>discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>>
>>>WRONG!  I can't believe that people actually post such inane ideas.  
>>>The agreement is like: if Joe's Clone shop ships 1000 boxes a month, Joe could
>>>ship 'em with 1000 copies of MS-DOS for $8, or he could choose NOT to
>>>abide by the agreement and purchase MS-DOS for $24 apiece. 
>>
>>And Joe Clone would go out of business. With the small mark-up on PC clones
>>they can't just add $16 to their cost. To stay price competitive with
>>the other clone makers they *have to* accept the $8 offer. It sounds like
>>they have a choice, but the only real choice is to go out of business.
>>
>>Thats the reality of the situation and Microsoft knows it. No one in
>>their right mind would agree to Microsoft's terms if they had any real
>>choice. A coice between doing it Microsoft's way or going out of business
>>isn't much of a choice.

>Ahhhh.  But what the anti-agreement people are saying is that they DON'T want
>MS-DOS installed.  If the MAJORITY of people thought that way, then Joe 
>Vendor doesn't have to buy into the agreement--and sell his systems for
>eight bucks cheaper than his competitors.  The problem is, that the MAJORITY
>of people WANT MS-DOS and Windows... which gives Microsoft the leverage it
>needs to "sell" their package with every computer.

So in other words, if we change the word 'force' to 'leverage' and the
ability to apply that force is 'granted' by the market, that somehow
makes it ok?  Joe, this is EXACTLY why we have outfits like the FTC;
it's NOT ok.  It is called 'predatory behaviour' and is generally
regarded to be a violation of anti-monopoly laws.

>Mind you, they cannot "force" a user to use MS-DOS and Windows; it is
>physically impossible to do so.

Right.  They can only place the person selling the computer to the
user into a position where his choices are either pay MS a royalty for
every machine shipped (whether it has MS-DOS/Windows on it or not) or
go out of business.

Can you say 'artificial barrier to entry created through predatory
practices'? 

-- 
"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: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 20:07:21 GMT

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
:     Trimming down some of the excessive quoting - apologies for any
: important context lost.
: 
: 
: In article <1993Jan2.191843.21694@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
: >philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
: >: 
: >:     If you claim to be 100% Intel compatible, and your processor
: >: exhibits difference in behavior from Intel's, should Intel be
: >: responsible for changing their product?
: >
: >A difference in behaviour I interpret to mean in external interface,
: >*not* internal mechanics. If this were not the case then the 486 could
: >not claim to be compatible with the 386....
: 
:      Identical in all ways used by external clients - this may
: involve more than the external interface.

Excuse me? Does this mean something, and if so could you explain it please?

--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 03 Jan 93 00:07:30 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1993Jan02.094926.14462@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>
>>In article <1993Jan1.133731.2312@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>>>
>>>	All this talk about FUD & Misinformation about OS/2 from Microsoft has
>>>some NEW Merit!
>>>
>>>	I Recently talked to a Beta Tester of DOS 6.0. He Runs OS/2 with 2 Hard
>>>Drives, One FAT, One HPFS. He decided to Install the DOS 6.0 Beta on the FAT
>>>Partition, and got a Message saying, and I paraphrase: 
>>>
>>>- OS/2 Detected! Due to the size of OS/2 you may wish to delete your OS/2 
>>>files before installing DOS 6.0 -
>
>>     Interesting.  What is the problem with that?  If there was a
>>similar message that said "Autocad detected.  Due to the size of
>>Autocad you may wish to delete your Autocad files before installing
>>DOS 6.0", whould that be bad too?
>
>If DOS is advanced enough to detect the presence of potential
>disk hoggers (what does it do? Keep a database?) it should
>certainly be smart enough to tell if there is room enough.

    Once again, we don't have the actual text of the warning
message.  What we do have is essentially a diatribe by a person
who uses too many exclamation points.


>If it finds too little room, it should just say so, not
>indicate anything as a potential problem. It is silly to
>give messages like, X detected. If there are many X's which
>one would be the problem? If there are no X's then what to
>do? No piece of software should be a smartass, let the user
>decide what he does and does not need.

    There are good reasons why DOS 6 should inform you that
it might be incompatible with the other operating systems you
have installed on your system.  I hope it gives a similar message
if you install on a system that contains Windows NT.

				-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.os.ms-windows.advocacy