HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2)
Subject: Re: More advertising
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:40:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.192312.240@panix.com> os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.) writes:
>Along the lines of the "Windows-in-a-trashcan" idea (good suggestion, whomever
>did it...I seem to have forgotten), here's what I came up with:
>
><Two page mag ad>
><Page 1>
>
><Big bold font> "If you could buy a Porche at the same price as a
>Volkswagen, which would you buy?"
>
><Pictured:  a balance, a la the goddess Athena, with "Porche" on one side
>and "Volkswagen" on the other and a bright question mark in front of it>
>
><Page 2>
>"...then why would you buy Microsoft Windows?"
>
><Pictured:  a top view of a steel garbage can like the one used outdoors,
>with a Microsoft Windows 3.1 box sitting alone at the bottom>


How about this for a print ad:

[page 1]
"If you need to run DOS, Windows, Adobe Type Manager, some 386 memory
 manager, etc, DOS and Win utilities redundant with OS/2, blah, blah ..."
[pictured:  DOS, Windows, 386 memory manager, Adobe Type Manager, etc.
 packages sitting on a desk next to a computer]

[page 2]
"...then all you *really* need is OS/2 2.x"
[pictured:  OS/2 2.x package sitting on a desk next to a computer with
 the other software packages in a trash can or waste basket]


Oops, that reminds me:  I've got to take out the trash.   ;-)

>Cheers,
>Q

Mike Levis
Unofficial OS/2 ad executive
-- 
======= Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu =======
::  ftp ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (128.123.35.151) for OS/2  ::  .--.
::  software & information.   Get /pub/os2/00Index  :: (OS/2)
::::::::  & /pub/os2/all/info/faq/faq20h.txt  ::::::::  ~--~
From: platinum@montage.UUCP (Doug Swallow)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Distribution: world
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 15:15:15 GMT
Organization: Software Environments, Inc.

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu writes in article <1992Dec24.033418.28702@wam.umd.edu>:
> 
> In article <1992Dec24.035348.26595@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
> >the 125 meg drive. I have 8 megs of 70ns RAM and the system runs very much
> >like OS/2 on 4 megs with no HPFS. 
> 
> 
> 	As it should.  8 megs is the NT minimum.
> 
> 	Plus, you *should expect crashes*.  Installing any OS,
> 	NT or OS/2, is not the same as just plugging in an HD 
> 	with the os installed.  It must be configured for your hardware
> 	and your motherboard.
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^

You're the one who's FUDding now.

--
/ Doug Swallow
|Internet:   platinum@montage.uucp     |Mail: 7927 Clubhouse Estates Dr.
|CompuServe: 75776,1011                |      Orlando, Florida 32819-5026
|Phone:      407-236-0153              |Fax:  407-352-3111

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 17:32:59 GMT

In <1992Dec31.025456.1493@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

>In article <1992Dec30.175247.5017@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>|> 
>|> >The difference could not be greater. If you refuse to buy a copy of Windows 3.x
>|> >nobody will point a gun at your head and make you.  Try refusing to
>|> >obey a law--you'll be eyeball to eyeball with a man with a gun.
>|> 
>|> And try refusing Microsoft's kind offer as a small systems reseller
>|> and you'll be out of business.  Gee, no coersion there; you can play
>|> their way, be big enough to hit back, or not play at all.

>If you want to sell McDonald's hamburgers you'll have to sign an agreement that
>you won't sell Wendy's frosties from the same place.  Is McDonald's using
>"force" or anticompetitive activities here to establish domination of the 
>fast food industry?  Please!!!!

Can you say 'franchise'?  Do you know what the word means?  I thought
not.

-- 
"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: phostetl@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul G Hostetler)
Subject: Beta Availibility???
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:32:17 GMT

Per IBM the OS/2 2.1 beta is not yet availible. Where is the information 
regarding availibility coming from??


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Ian_Upright@mindlink.bc.ca (Ian Upright)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 17:17:20 GMT

> 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 -
>
>         His Fat Partition was created by DOS 5.0 and he is running Boot
> Manager. DOS 6.0 Beta either looked at the Boot Manager setup or detected
> HPFS on the D: Drive. In either case he had over 150MB Free on each
> Partition!
>


Looks like IBM & Novell are going to get together BIG TIME!  Nobody wants
a product that is incompatable, especially purposely so, so everybody will
toss Dos 6.0 off to the side, and move to Dr. Dos 7 instead anyways..  And
you can be darn sure to *bet* that it's going to be fully compatable with
OS/2, and then some.  Microsoft is just stabbing themselves in the back with
non-standards of Dos 6, W4W, and NT!  Any company with that attitude allready
knows that they are in some *serious* trouble, and they probably won't be
around for very long anyways..  :)  How nice.. Imagine..  A world without
Microsoft..  Doesn't it sound pleasant?


--
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Origin:  Astaria Digital Enterprises             Ian_Upright@mindlink.bc.ca
  BBS: (604) 852-1866, or FidoNet  :-)  1:153/513                  CANADA eh?
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
/
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Date: 30 Dec 92 10:56:10 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering

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

>In article <1992Dec29.184617.11527@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>|> 
>|> As for 'pointing guns', I wasn't aware that they pointed guns at
>|> people for anti-trust violations.  They generally point LAWYERS at
>|> them.

>Wait a minute -- just because they have a division of labor
>between the guy who makes the threats (laywers) and the guy who holds the
>guns (policeman) doesn't mean that there are no guns.  The laws of this 
>country are enforced by the willingness to use physical violence against
>lawbreakers.  And that is exactly why a small, limited goverment is best.

>|> You seem to want to differentiate between 'force due to market
>|> position' and 'force due to law'. 

>The difference could not be greater. If you refuse to buy a copy of Windows 3.x
>nobody will point a gun at your head and make you.  Try refusing to
>obey a law--you'll be eyeball to eyeball with a man with a gun.

Great country you have there!

>|> There ain't no such difference at the bottom line, son.

>I'm sure that you don't worship your bottom line so much that you would
>endorse armed robbery to improve it.
-- 
Erik van Linstee   |   Delft University of Technology   |   I'll be back ... 
----
   We are god, 'cause only we can create the idea of his existence
   in our holy brains...  (Yello)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
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: 30 Dec 1992 15:45:42 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu

In <1992Dec30.175248.5418@microsoft.com> philco@microsoft.com (Phillip Cooper) writes:

>In article <1hr8q8INN5aa@cae.cad.gatech.edu> chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen) writes:
]]
]]Twould seem that microsoft has unleashed their net.propoganda division on
]]us.  

]I'm not sure what you mean Chris, but if you think that because I am an
]employee of Microsoft, I have no right to comment on what I consider to
]be inaccurate statements regarding Microsoft, then think again. 

It is called humor.  Sorry that i didnt put lots of smileys at the end.
I was not commenting on your intelligence, nor your sincerity.
I wrote that statement because anytime anti-ms statements come
out, I usaully see a barage of 10+ posts (5+ come from the same
person) on the subject, defending the company (which is in
fact good:  if the MS didnt have loyal employees, etc, it wouldnt
be where it is today financially [maybe - nothing is certain].).
ANd the "because" comes from my newsreader -- the posts from
microsoft.com are back to back, so it just looked funny at the
time  (funny as in humorous, not conspicuous.)  Sorry if you
saw it as an insult.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: cnadler@vnet.ibm.com (Cliff Nadler)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 20:14:53 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.15 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: cnadler@vnet.ibm.com (Cliff Nadler)
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

In <1992Dec30.182653.23119@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>I have had some installation problems in the past when I tried to
>>install IBM OS/2 ver. 1.3 on a fully-compatible IBM clone. Should 
>>I conclude that IBM conspired against the clone-makers ?
>
>
>	In fact, yes.  One of the reasons IBM/MS had so much trouble
>	hawking OS/2 was the fact that IBM, since they couldn;t manage
>	to compete in actual hardware or performance, was trying to
>	use OS/2 as a leverage to push it's machines back into
>	the marketplace by refusing to help clone owners or 
>	resolve problems that could have been fixed with a simple patch
>	or two.  As far as IBM was concerned, OS/2 was for PS/2's and 
>	nothing more. 

Actually, MS was responsible for OEM versions of OS/2, just like DOS (i.e.
Compaq DOS and OS/2). IBM didn't think OS/2 was just for PS/2's, it was
taking advantage of the hardware in the software. Any computer manufacturer
was able to do it with an agreement with MS. So there was no "conspiracy",
just bad business (that, to me, is one of the thinsg that has kept OS/2 off
people's desks in the past).

Cliff Nadler
IBM Federal Systems Company

Note: This post represents the views of the poster, not those of IBM or the
      IBM Federal Systems Company
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 00:46:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.161004.19950@Celestial.COM>, ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones) writes:

|> You have not been a victem of Microsoft'a predatory practices.  Just see
|> what happens if you come up with a clever inovation that might really cut
|> into thier profit.  I have worked for such a company.  We just talk to a few
|> companies about what we wanted to do and within 30 days got a letter from
|> the Microsoft legal department that said,
|> "Just try it, and we will sue you out of existance."
|> Our lawyer told us we were well with in our rights BUT we could not afford
|> the legal assult.  Two years later, Microsoft came out with the product.
|> Nice gut, that Gates.

Ouch! What Microsoft was doing was using the power of the state to intimidate 
you. That is _wrong_.  If the FTC was going after Microsoft because of that I
wouldn't mind.

Instead, they are going after Microsoft because their OS programmers talk to
their Application programmers.  I don't see anything wrong with that at all.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mattair@sun44.synercom.hounix.org (Charles Mattair)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.1 specifications, release date.
Organization: Synercom Technology, Inc., Houston, TX
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:26:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.213657.23840@mercury.ncat.edu> akennedy@mercury.ncat.edu writes:
>
> Ted, a recent unoffical report said that OS/2 2.1 is presently in
>internal beta, and a cd-rom beta will be available for those willing to
>invest $15 and call 1-800-IBM-3040 after 12/28/92 for more details. It
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>does have a select button for enhanced mode apps. 
>

1 800 342 6672 as the nice lady at the other number will tell you.
-- 
Charles Mattair		 			mattair@synercom.hounix.org
Any opinions offered are my own and do not reflect those of my employer.
Cheap, fast, good - choose two.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10985 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3451
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 03:14:48 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Dec27.195718.3438@microsoft.com> robertre@microsoft.com (Robert Reichel ms2) writes:
> 
> Where in my posting did I speak of antitrust violations on the part of
> IBM?  I said they were accused of it by the FTC, which is a far cry from
> saying that they did anything wrong.  My point was that IBM's current
> situation is proof that IBM was never a trust, monopoly, or anything
> other than big and a strong competitor.

IBM was forced by the FTC to provide competitors with the specs for their
systems in order that the competitiors be able to compete. Otherwise, the
Amdahl and Hitachi Data systems plug-compatible mainframes would be
inpossible. This action was a major factor in the case against IBM being
dropped. It is very unlikely that this action would have been taken by IBM had
the case never been brought. 
 
> The government dropped the case because they knew they couldn't win it.

They dropped the case because IBM took steps to meet the main points of the
case against them. Let's say it was "settled out of court".

> The fact that the charges were bogus may have helped them reach that
> conclusion (a smart legal staff at IBM helped a lot also).

The willingness on the part of IBM to acknowledge their monopoly position and
take steps to allow some competition had more to do with it than the
lawyers.....but that is just my view......

Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
+64 4 478 4714                          | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
From: hwang@paul.rutgers.edu (Hwang)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: 1992 BYTE Awards
Keywords: Windows Awards
Date: 23 Dec 92 02:04:30 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


1992 BYTE Awards could be renamed Windows Awards, sponsored by
MS. MS wins big: W4W, Windows 3.1, Execel, Visual Basic, Word, ...
And "Potential winners of next year's BYTE Awards are already starting
to surface. Microsoft's Windows NT and Access database manager barely
missed being eligible for awards in 1992".
Sorry, no OS/2. It is not one of 109 Awards winners. It is not even
mentioned in the article..... I think it is my first year and last years of
BYTE subscription.
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 15:52:03 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec30.153554.8759@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>>You're once again missing the point: if MS sells me Windows for $8 if I agree
>>to pay for a copy for every machine I sell, but triples the price if I don't,
>>then that's force. 
>Interesting logic. Ever noticed the "Buy 1 XX, get 1 YY free" 
>deals ? 

Sure. Nearly all of them are short-duration, promotional offers. On the other
hand, the "Windows royalty on every machine" pricing MS wants everyone to sign
up for is the normal way for MS to do business.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 04:37:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.015256.7567@sequent.com> furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod) writes:
>In article <1992Dec25.163338.29576@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec25.102400.13417@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:

>>Does not the DOS programmer need to know about segment:offset 
>>addressing, what memory model to use, and when ? Can one program
>>effectively on DOS without that knowledge ?
>>
>
>Yes, one can, as long as one understands the limitiations between
>applications development in the true portable sense, and the
>virtual machine layer that interfaces into the OS and hardware. XED
>was ported to DOS this way. I know, I did the port. The
>applications layer was completely unaware of DOS, and compiled to
>run on 17 other UNIX platforms form the same set of source.
>

I think that you and Erik are missing my point. The question is 
not whether it is _possible_ to write some (or even most) 
applications without knowledge of the system. Or what is the best
paradigm for programming applications. The question is whether
knowledge of system is beneficial to a _good_ competent application
programmer. I am willing to bet that most _competent_ application
programmer have very good knowledge of the system and do take advantage
of it.

Also, while it is possible to use libraries, dont forget that these
libraries are not free. Not every programmer is able or willing 
to spend money on them. I am not sure at all these shareware writers
are in a financial situation to spend on it.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 09:07:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.225330.14706@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
> >
> >	This analogy is no different than the MS-DOG/Windoze bundling that 
> >Microsoft has pressured Clone Makers into. If I wanted a Yugo with cheap tires,
> >I would buy one. But I prefer OS/2, and would like to have the option of having
> >it preinstalled on a machine I buy.
> 
> But, you see, it won't work.  Few people would want Uniroyal Tiger Paws on
> their porche.  If, in your example, 95% of all porche buyers wanted
> Tiger Paws, then the dealer would probably sign an agreement with
> Uniroyal so they could get $30 tires for $8.  But since most people
> want higher quality tires, the dealer dare not do such a thing as sign on
> with Uniroyal.
> 
> You are right.  Your analogy is no different than MS's and the bundling
> except that MOST PC buyers WANT "Uniroyal Tiger Paws" on their Porche.
> In which case, it is better (in terms of profit) for the vendor to
> acquire "Tiger Paws" for the cheapest amount possible.
> 
> Joe
> My Opinions.

The long list of things I may find myself doing on any given day includes
selling PC's to Joe Lunchbox.
 
Most Joe's want software that they know. They have used it at work. Having
discovered how useful it can be, they now want to use it at home. The kids
want to play games, too.

These folks buy on price. They know little about computers. This PC will
likely have to last them 5 years or more......They often find computers
vaguely intimidating. 
 
Of the half dozen customers I spoke to this afternoon *none* wanted Windows.
They wanted DOS, WordPerfect 5.1, or maybe PFS:Works ( a nice, cheap,
integrated package for the home user....). Oh yeah....and some games.
 
These people don't want OS/2 either. I don't even bother to mention it. 
 
But....the other category of user is the person on the cutting edge. The guys
who are on the look-out all the time for something good, special. 
 
These guys don't show any interest in OS/2 in our shop. Why should they? They
have it on their machines at home already. What they want now are the
applications to run on it. 
 
I'm selling a few of those these days. On any given day, I now spend about 20%
of my time answering OS/2 queries.
 
Bundles? We had the compulsory MS bundles for a while. But MS couldn't supply
to goods in sufficient quantities, so we dropped that. But many of those users
got Windows and never used it. Or deleted it to gain space for Wordperfect 5.1
and the kids games.
 
Steve

 
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
+64 4 478 4714                          | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy