HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: Is OS/2 2.1 avalible yet? 
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:27:02 GMT

woan@exeter.austin.ibm.com (Ronald S. Woan) writes:
: In article <1993Jan8.160842.3088@samba.oit.unc.edu> cptully@med.unc.edu writes:
: >Is OS/2 2.1 avalible to the general public yet, or just Beta testers?
: 
: It is still in beta and there is no official release date yet, but
: anyone in the US can purchase a copy of the beta on CDROM for $15 by
: calling 1-800-3IBM-OS2. I doubt it is available by FTP due to some
: strange legal restriction placed on the CDROM beta such as only
: allowing ten copies.

Does anyone know if it is available in Canada? And is this really
*anybody* or just registered 2.0 users?

--
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: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft using "Force"??? 
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:25:20 GMT

helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

>	COERCE suggests overcoming resistance or unwillingness by actual 
>	or threatened violence or pressure.
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^

>In order for an action to properly be called "coercion" there MUST be the
>threat of or actional violence, of the which and by the way so there may be
>no confusion on this point here is the definition of violence:

Why don't you read your own definition. Violence is not required.
The word "or" is usually used to indicate a choice of two things.
Only one need to be true for the statement to be true.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: How many Nobel Prizes has IBM won?
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:11:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.020754.2330@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>
>In article <1993Jan5.044937.15400@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, rjones@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ronald Jones) writes:
>> There is a news item in acs.clari.nb.ibm about the importance of
>> basic research to the future of America. It states that in the 
>> last 5 years IBM has won 2 Nobel Prizes. Does anyone know the
>> total.
>
>I believe, IBM Won one for the Scanning Tunneling Microscope.
>Was it in Medicine???


	Not sure why that would be for medicine.  Do they offer a
	nobel in chemistry?


>> BTW, how many has Microsoft won ;-) (Just to put things into
>> their proper perspective!)

>I didn't think there was a Nobel Prize for Marketing? :)


	I'd like to see *any* example of a nobel prize for SW.

	In any case, isn't research wonderful?  I suppose that's
	why IBM is cutting it's research budger by $1 billion
	over the next 12 months. 
-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:12149 comp.os.os2.networking:2698
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Date: 4 Jan 93 09:46:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: shelley.1i911fINNn2m
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

thayne@unislc.uucp (Thayne Forbes) writes:
>Hold on Tim, Microsoft is not stopping Anybody from buying other products.
>I don't think anybody would even acuse them of that.  That is not predatory
>trade practice.  That is good old fashioned restraint of trade.  
>
>Perhaps we should back up a little bit, and see if anyone has a specific
>example of the above before we get too outrageous.

Note that I didn't mention Microsoft.  This thread seems to have split into
several discussions:

	(1) Has Microsoft violated antitrust law?

	(2) Is there any need for antitrust law if we want efficient markets,
	or will markets always get there themselves?  (This is the branch
	my post was on.)

	(3) Does Microsoft suck?

	(4) Is Microsoft the last hope against the Japanese?

	(5) And how about those Russians and Indians?

	(6) There is no topic six.

	(7) Is it DR's fault when DR-DOS diverges from MS-DOS, or is it
	Microsoft's fault for not following their own specifications?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: fippen@ux2.cso.uiuc.edu (J. Fippen)
Subject: Windows is one subject;os2 another. Why have Win info here?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:27:11 GMT

	I see all the time information about Windows,Windows, Windows.Does this
make sense in an os2 category?
	The people who use Windows are those not interested in the best. They
want something easy. Fine. They should have Windows. But for people who want
something a lot better, at least 100 times more powerful, well, they would
be satisfied with nothing less than os2.
	Windows is kind of for the slow types, the satisfied types, the people
who won't put forth the effort to run os2. The people who run hard will want
os2 because it is the best, and because it is the program of the future.


		John Fippen

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Win4Wkgrps threatens OS/2.....
Date: 12 Jan 93 08:28:18 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1993Jan11.134121.16057@kub.nl> hoppie@kub.nl wrote:
> In article <1993Jan11.100707.20600@actrix.gen.nz>, Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
> 
> |> Briefly, Microsoft says that its vision for the future is to make
> |> Windows for Workgroups the basic operating system that would 
> |> allow any developer's application to work with just about any 
> |> other application through the application programming interfaces 
> |> (APIs) contained in WFW.
> 
> Nice. And of course, tomorrow all existing DOS and Windows apps will be re-written
> for the use of this API and available for free, will they?
> 
> This Is Nothing New! What about DDE and OLE? If apps are written to understand
> these protocols, they can chat! So what? Just include DDE/OLE in OS/2 and off
> we go.
> 
> Or am I missing something important here?
> 

Yes, you are.  The key here is the standard API's for networked information
exchange (named pipes, net dde, mail api, etc).  Yes, OS/2 has/can have some 
of these things, as separate add-on packages which are not brought up to the
API level.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
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: 6 Jan 1993 15:35:00 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan6.135137.21866@wraxall.inmos.co.uk> des@inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd) writes:
>Jay Maynard (jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu) wrote:
>: You must never have run it on lesser hardware, then; it ran fine for me on a
>: 386SX-16 with 8 meg RAM and two 40 meg hard disks.
>you had 8 meg RAM ? you had it lucky, I only had 5 Meg RAM and it
>was acceptable.

5 meg RAM? Luxury! We had to run on 2 meg, and stay up late at night just to
feed the squirrels turning the generator!

(Is that a colonel coming this way?)
-- 
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.
      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of All Fears_
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:34:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.191424.23994@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>In article <8327@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan5.012301.29017@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>>>Mearly stating that they are getting screwed isn't proof that they are.
>>>Nobody has said how the consumers are getting screwed now--the only thing
>>>mentioned is some vague suppositions about how its "in the future" that
>>>they will get screwed when it supposedly will raise prices.  This is all
>>>supposition.
>>
>>People who don't want or need licenses for MS-DOS and Windows are being forced
>>to pay for them anyway.
>
>Okay, Jay.  Let's say that there are two companies A and B.  A sells 
>computers with DOS+Windows for $1000.  B sells computers without DOS+Windows
>for $1005.  Who would you buy from?


	What Jay fails to grasp is that the "all machines licensed"
	deal that everyone hereis whining about is very likely to be
	quite rare next to other deals.  I bought *5* clones over the
	last 5 months--none of them with DOS5 or Windows.  I didn't have
	to look around, I didn't have to fuss about it.  I simply said,
	"How much w/o DOS and Windows?" and that was that.  (The price 
	difference, if it matters, was $25 at most).


>>Just wait until they achieve the monopoly position that they want and you seem
>>to believe is their moral right. Then watch everyone get screwed.


	Sounds like paranoia to me.




-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
From: rbotimer@max.ct.gmr.com (R Douglas Botimer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits 01/06/93
Date: 7 Jan 93 14:09:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.063028.14772@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu  
(Brian Sturgill) writes:
:
:Index
:	Future MS-DOS to fuse 32-bit DOS, Windows.
:	Novell's acquisition of USL sends stock edging downward.
:	Next in trouble/Ross Next Boss at IBM?
:	MS and MM at COMDEX
:	Windows BIG at COMDEX
:	FTC closing in on antitrust action against Microsoft
:	Miscellaneous quotes and charts from a MacWeek year end report.
:
:------------

Details Deleted....

Welcome back Brian!  The fuel you add to this forum was missed over the  
Holidays, it was quiet.

Microsoft's "Chicago" referenced in the first article "Future MS-DOS to fuse  
32-bit DOS, Windows" sounds a awful lot like Intel's 486SX - damage control!   
The competition (OS/2) is starting to take an unexpected bite out of market  
share, got to do something FAST!  Microsoft is beginning to realize NT won't  
capture the desktop because it is to expensive (both price and resources) and  
DOS/Windows 3.x just can't compare to OS/2.

The OS/2 2.1 beta is great!!  It runs very nicely on my Victor 386SX/25.  The  
only disappointment is higher resolution video and that is mainly a limitation  
of my hardware.  Quattro Pro for Windows performs nicely,  as well as under  
Windows 3.1.

Doug
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: 4 Jan 1993 15:53:06 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan4.004352.29449@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>	The only clearly anti-competitive practices that MS has attempted
>	to engage in was the DRDOS6/Win31 problem, which was a simple
>	fix (MSwindows looked for DRDOS and wouldn't run with it.  There
>	was no *compatibility* problem.)

Tell that to Phil Lafornara. He's called it unfounded.

>	This nonsense about the "all for all" contracts that bill 
>	companies for all of machines sold are *possibly* anti-competitive,
>	but VOLUME DISCOUNTS are not.  

The problem is that clone makers' discounts for paying a royalty for MS-DOS
and Windows for every machine they ship are in no way connected with the
volume.

>	Just so I know, all of you people who are out there blasting
>	MS--what do you think of Intel's kickback that they give companies
>	for advertising Intel Inside?  It effectively reduces the cost of the
>	company's advertising enough that the price difference between
>	Intel chips and AMD/Cyrix chips is little enough that companies
>	just go with Intel. 

Advertising coop money is a long-time, completely above-board practice. After
all, Intel gets bennefit from that advertising, so why shouldn't they pay for
that benefit? If the effect were what you claim, then nobody would be buying
AMD or Cyrix, and that's patently false...
-- 
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.
      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of all Fears_
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tennesen@mars.dgrc.doc.ca (Andy Tenne-Sens)
Subject: No TrueType Fonts in OS/2 2.1 ?!
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 19:33:12 GMT

Although Windows 3.1 is a bunch of fixes wrapped in kluges and bound
with chewing gum and baling wire, it does give me one thing: Word 2.0.
This is an elegant word processor that offers true WYSIWYG, an excellent
equation editor, and the ability to embed CorelDRAW drawings and Excel
4.0 charts (among other things) into my documents.

I'm looking forward to adopting a true 32-bit OS, and it looks like
OS/2 has the right mix of capabilities.  Windows NT may just be too big
for the majority of users (although I wouldn't be surprised if the 
marketing wizards at Microsoft come up with "Windows NT Lite").

I'm disturbed, however, that a recent posting stated that IBM has decided
not to support TrueType scalable fonts.  Does anyone out there know if
this is so?  Will IBM depend on Adobe for scalable-font capability?
If I run OS/2, will I still be able to use Word for Windows 2.0 and
some kind of scalable fonts?  Will I still be able to embed equations
and graphics into my documents?

If I can't get the full capabilities of Word 2.0 under OS/2, then I stand
to lose more than to gain by switching OSs.

I'm sure applications written specifically for OS/2 will have similar
capabilities, but I suspect they're still at least a year away.  By then
the battle between the 32-bit OS's may have a clear victor and my 
concern might then just be academic. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Andy Tenne-Sens                      
Communications Research Centre / DRL
P.O. Box 11490, Station H            
3701 Carling Ave.                    E-mail: tennesen@mars.dgrc.doc.ca
Ottawa, Ontario                      Office: (613) 998-2645
CANADA   K2H 8S2                     Fax:    (613) 990-7987

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rjones@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ronald Jones)
Subject: How many Nobel Prizes has IBM won?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:49:37 GMT

There is a news item in acs.clari.nb.ibm about the importance of
basic research to the future of America. It states that in the 
last 5 years IBM has won 2 Nobel Prizes. Does anyone know the
total.

BTW, how many has Microsoft won ;-) (Just to put things into
their proper perspective!)


-- 
    < Ron Jones                   |    E-mail:        rj+@osu.edu  > 
    < The Ohio State University   |    Office:      (614) 292-1665 >
    < Columbus, Ohio 43210        |    FAX: (9-5PM) (614) 292-7151 > 

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft using "Force"???
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:28:03 GMT

helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
: In article <C0o53M.Msz@csfb1.fir.fbc.com>, jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com (John Brock) writes:
: |> 
: |> What this is really about is control of the language.  In common usage
: |> "force" implies both literal physical force and metaphorical mental
: |> force.  You want to change the standard meaning of "force", excluding
: |> the metaphorical aspect.  Once you have done this you will be able to
: |> say, quite accurately and convincingly, that Microsoft is not using
: |> force or coercion.  Your opponents, deprived of the use of these words,
: |> will have to stumble around looking for paraphrases, which will be
: |> unfamiliar to listeners and which will not have the retorical power of
: |> the words that were stolen from them.
: 
: I have no wish to "control language" or minds or anything else, and its not
: clear how I could "steal" a word from anyone across the nets.
: 
: |> Naturally I don't want to let you get away with this.  Most people
: |> would say that it is sometimes possible to "force" somebody to do
: |> something without actually resorting to physical violence or threats of
: |> it.  Most people's understanding of "force" in the context of this
: |> discussion would include this metaphorical aspect, as is shown by the
: |> general unwillingness to accept your new definition.  *Of course* it is
: |> metaphorical to say that Microsoft has "forced" other vendors to behave
: |> in a certain way!  But it is still a correct use of the word.  We are
: |> not going to let you take all the good words for yourself!
: 
: By all means, use any word you want.  I just think that using the word "force" 
: in this way in this conversation confuses the issue.  It gives the impression
: that a cloner literally has no option but to do the will of Bill Gates.  Its
: just as confusing as if someone says "Microsoft twisted their arms and made
: them buy windows" and everybody starts thinking that Gates has taken up
: arm wrestling and is literally twisting their arms.
: 
: The word "force" gives the wrong impression about what is actually going on,
: which is a voluntary agreement between Microsoft and the Cloners.  I think
: we'll all agree that when a word gives the wrong impression it shouldn't be 
: used.

You are being totally disingenuous here. I have never imagined that
the phrase 'if you twist my arm' actually involved physical arm
twisting; the phrase 'I was forced into it' and other similar ones are
in every day use, and rarely imply the use of physical force either.

--
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: dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell)
Subject: Re: SGI-GL in Windows NT??
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:47:03 GMT

hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:

>I know neither the number of polygons, nor the shading algorithm, since
>I was merely using the software, not writing it; and admittedly there 
>was likely an element of serious CPU computation as a factor. My point is,
>that the same thing (animation of a 3D protein model) on 486, or even
>several 486's, without the extra video goodies the Iris (again I would
>have to check details for the 4GX, etc.) provides in hardware, it would
>be ludicrous. 

The fact of life is: I own a 486-33.  I can't afford anything else.  So,
my choices are:  (1) Use OS/2 and do 3D graphics all by myself or (2) 
use NT with a nice 3D graphics library.  Neither configurations has
significant hardware advantages over the other (they're the same).
Choice (2) makes more sense for graphics work. 

>If serious hardware comes along that helps this out, then fine; but your
>original comment seemed to be "NT has the SGI graphics lib in software,
>and that's enough" 

I never said anything like that.  I'm not comparing NT to SGI Unix.  I'm
comparing it to OS/2.  I'm comparing given the constraints of my (and
many others') Intel-based systems.  I don't see how you can possibly
have the idea that the inclusion of GL in NT is a bad thing.  I wish it
came out in OS/2, since I like IBM more than Microsoft, but that's the
breaks.

>I think the alternatives will still
>look more attractive.

What alternatives be those?  Let me put it in real (i.e., MONEY) terms:
you have $4,000 and you *need* to do some 3D graphics work.  Assuming NT
is available with GL built-in and no special hardware processing and
the rest of the OS industry is pretty much as it is now, what *platform*
are you going to buy??  Are you going to give up on the project because
your machine (NT on an Intel 486) isn't as fast as a $40,000 SGI
graphics workstation???


-- 
Dan Cogswell               Or as we say in Michigan:  "Dee-troit"
From: olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Academic Marketplace -- OS/2 2.1 as "The Scholar's Workstation"
Date: 4 Jan 93 10:36:23 GMT
	<1i7okjINNkim@neuro.usc.edu>
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway

In article <1i7okjINNkim@neuro.usc.edu> merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes:

   One way for IBM to get into the academic marketplace -- and thereby
   bootstrap followon sales by graduating students familiar with OS/2
   -- would be to create an attractively priced integrated platform to
   include OS/2 2.1, TCP/IP, PMX (X Windows Server), sendmail compliant
   email and maybe a few small applets including professor's gradebooks.
   Then IBM could sell these packages to campuses as a very inexpensive
   Scholar's Workstation upgrade to what are for most of our professors
   386SX (or better) workstations.

I fully agree on that. One of the main complaints from the director of
the IT-section here at University of Oslo, is the price of OS/2 whne
TCP/IP etc are included. He will not recommend OS/2 before we get a
price that is compettitive compared to DOS (+Win 3.1) + PC-NFS. His
view is that OS/2 is better, but not to the extent that it justifies
the price-difference. (We maight disagree on that, but it is probably
not an untypical view by people who also are respnsible for the
economical side). We want a site-licence for the whole package at an
acceptable price pr user, and we do not want to pay for thousans of
diskettes, documentations, etc.

Olav Torvund
University of Oslo
Norway
Olavt@jus.uio.no
From: kovarski@zooid.guild.org (Mark Kovarski)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is OS/2 2.1 avalible yet?
Date: 11 Jan 93 22:35:52 GMT
Organization: ZOOiD BBS

dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>woan@exeter.austin.ibm.com (Ronald S. Woan) writes:
>: In article <1993Jan8.160842.3088@samba.oit.unc.edu> cptully@med.unc.edu writes:
>: >Is OS/2 2.1 avalible to the general public yet, or just Beta testers?
>: 
>: It is still in beta and there is no official release date yet, but
>: anyone in the US can purchase a copy of the beta on CDROM for $15 by
>: calling 1-800-3IBM-OS2. I doubt it is available by FTP due to some
>: strange legal restriction placed on the CDROM beta such as only
>: allowing ten copies.
>
>Does anyone know if it is available in Canada? And is this really
>*anybody* or just registered 2.0 users?
>
>--
>Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
>Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
>Phone: +1 604 370 4452


Deryk,

it is available in Canada. OS/2 2.1 Beta comes on CD and is available for $30
Canadian. If you wish, I can forward you all the details.

Best Regards,
Mark K.
E-Mail: kovarski@zooid.guild.org
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy