HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Distribution: world
From: dcrawford@fourd.com (Dan Crawford)
Organization: 4th Dimension BBS
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1992 18:11:51 EST
Subject: Re: NT BETA

James,

Actually Microsoft considers the $69  Windows/NT CD-ROM offer a Preliminary
release of the Microsoft WIN32 Software Development Kit for Windows NT with
the intention that it is known to be prior to BETA test state and expressly
for developers to get a look at the WIN32 development environment so that they
can start migrating code over to WIN32 for Windows NT and Win 3.1 (via
WIN32S).   They are not excluding anyone from ordering this product; however, I
think it would be wise for anyone ordering this to know that it is not
intended to be a STABLE release for testing by university or business
decisions of the potential of moving to Windows NT.   Any organization which
desires to determine the reliabilty of Windows NT for their needs who do
purchase this Prelimirary Release should be prepared to go through their
entire test suites AGAIN at the time that the BETA releases and final releases
are made available.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Sorry if this sounds too stuffy, but I've seen some large companies
    look at early, Alpha and Beta releases of products and totally 
    turn off their interest because of the flakiness of the 'preliminary'
    versions when the finally released version was wonderfully stable.
    PS> Nope, I have not been in a position of being a contractor trying
    to get commissions nor a programmer loosing sales.  Just been involved
    with a lot of companies over the past few years.
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    dcrawford@fourd.com

********************************************************************
System: fourd.com                                Phone: 617-494-0565
Cute quote:  Being a computer means never having to say you're sorry
********************************************************************
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Pointer to Win versus OS/2 posting
Date: 7 Nov 92 13:37:48 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1992Nov6.231441.18959@gmuvax2.gmu.edu>, pfarrell@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Pat Farrell) writes:
> A few months ago there was a series of postings that attempted
> to provide an unbiased comparison between Windows and OS/2.
> Can someone please point me to where I can get a recent copy?
> 
> Thanks
> Pat
> 
> Pat Farrell,      Grad Student                       pfarrell@cs.gmu.edu
> Department of Computer Science, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
> PGP Public key available via finger           #include standard.disclaimer
> Send mail to info@rsa.com to ask for a personal use liscense for PGP

	Brian did that, though only moderately unbiased but still about
as unbiased as you are going to get.  He is on this conference now
primarily.

						-Brad

===================================
Brad Wardell
SDS
Western Michigan University
** Happy OS/2 2.0 User **
===================================


Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: flink@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (charles.w.flink..ii)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about Windows for Workgroups.
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:59:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.061034.10748@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
....
>Network DDE
>
>Customers have wanted the ability to work together on common projects
>over the network for some time, and Windows for Workgroups takes them a
>step closer with Network DDE and the Clipbook Viewer.  Previously, the
>Dynamic Data Exchange (DDE) protocol allowed users to share information
>between applications on the same machine.  We wanted Windows for
>Workgroups to extend this idea and allow users to share information
>across the network.
....
>amazing -- existing applications could establish links over the network
>with no modifications.  Using the Clipbook Viewer for setting up links,
>users can take advantage of basic Network Object Linking and Embedding
>(OLE) functionality.
....
>Brian
>-- 
>C. Brian Sturgill                   I strongly encourage you to mail your copy
>University of Utah                     of Ross Perot's:  "United We Stand
>Center for Software Science            How we can take back our country",
>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373        to President-elect Clinton.

Brian...

I'd be interested in hearing a discussion of the security issues re network
DDE/OLE.  I too share a good deal of enthusiasm for the power of these tools,
but I am reminded of old Mainframe vrs UNIX systems arguments of years past:
"UNIX is powerful/programmable/extensible/easy to network...." vrs "Yea, and
you can shoot yourself in the foot with it too!"  As UNIX systems have migrated
into the mainstream, many convenient and powerful "features" have come to be
called "holes" and customers (DoD customers at least) have required these
"holes" be plugged.  (E.g. ".sh" and ".pi" directives in troff, similar
escapes in vi (and other editors), "current directory must be last in PATH",
and many more obscure and/or significant examples could be listed.)

Note: please lets not waste bandwidth on UNIX vrs NT or such foolishness.
And Alistair, I know NT is going for a C2 rating.  The question is simple:

1) if I receive email containing an embedded OLE/DDE link, could it be a
   Trojan Horse?
	- with who's rights/privileges is access computed
	- do I even KNOW something was accessed/executed

2) does anybody care?  ...or shouldn't they?
	- interested in opinions

-Chuck  (c.flink@att.com)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner)
Subject: Re: More tidbits (the week of Nov. 2 was a busy news week).
Organization: San Jose State University - Math/CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 23:36:37 GMT

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

>Contents:
>	Apple vs IBM PC sales.
>	Mail API war.
>	Novell, Microsoft, Sun pledge easier-to-use TCP/IP.
>	Revolution in the X community?
>	Microsoft advertises in Open Systems Today.
>	News from MS developer network, including interesting Windows facts.

>* Microsoft's new Windows for Workgroups is "A Trojan horse... a
>feint, a placebo, a holding pattern," and MAPI, Microsoft's mail
>API, is "a little bit of the same. It is marketecture."
>[This in effect proves just how good WfW is, Manzi feels he has to
>put it down with name-calling, Novell decides to threaten to sue over
>the fact they simply put IPX net requesters in it.  Lotus feels
>threatened by WfW as it is almost as good as their Notes product, and
>much cheaper (plus MS will get a big installed base from bundling WfW
>with PC clones).  Novell's NetWare-Lite (it's peer-to-peer networking
>for DOS) will quite likely not be able to compete with WfW.  Plus the
>soon to be out, NT will compete head-on with Novell's NetWare line.

NT will absolutely NOT compete with Netware.  Add-ins to NT will compete
with Netware.  An important distinction (i.e., out of the box NT will 
not be a departmental/enterprise NOS).

>Both Lotus and Novell make good packages that are expensive and require
>knowledgable administrators.  What Microsoft has done with WfW (and

For reference, various reviews place Lan Manager, upon which the NT
add-in will be based, as the most difficult network OS to administer.

>[
>BTW, the article below keeps saying NetBIOS, but I think it should
>be NetBEUI. (Remember OST is primarily a Unix rag.) Unless I am
>misinformed, NetBIOS refers to a DOS set of traps that are analogous
>to Unix system calls for networking.  NetBEUI is the transport
>used by LAN Manager, NT, and Windows for Workgroups.

And what is NETBEUI?  NetBIOS Extended User Interface, i.e., NetBIOS!

>system, LAN Manager. NetBIOS provides dynamic naming for clients as
>they are plugged into the net. TCP/IP clients, however must be
>configured with specific address spaces.

And that is a requirement that will need to be met for ANY network
station that wants to connect to the rest of the world.  If a
company stays as an island, with no Internet or NREN connectivity, no
one will give a flying patoot. But any dynamic allocation on 
Internet/NREN will be viewed as a major potential security breach (the
potential for forged identification is too great).
From: fred@poly2.nist.gov (Frederick R. Phelan Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Windows for Workgroups
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:40:18 GMT

I just read something about Windows for Workgroups ...

A question, does it support the networking of pc's via
ethernet?

Thanks in advance.

Fred Phelan
---
Fred Phelan
fred@poly2.nist.gov
/*___________________________________________________
   ____ __  ___  __    ___       ___        ___ 
  /__  /_/ /__  / /   /__/ /__/ /__   /    /__/ /\  /  
 /    / ( /__  /_/   /    /  / /___  /___ /  / /  \/
___________________________________________________*/
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2603 comp.os.ms-windows.setup:1963
From: collins@emperor.gatech.edu (Tom Collins)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.setup
Subject: Re: Question on Windows for Workgroups
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:55:11 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Nov11.171531.7762@cs.cornell.edu> rvinluan@cs.cornell.edu (Rolando Vinluan) writes:
>
>	Hi, I've just been reading "Focus on Windows"
>and have a question about the "Workgroup Connection"
>package MS is offering. What I want to do is connect
>two computers. One is a 486 with lots of memory and hard
>disk space, and one is a Windows-capable 386SX with 4MB,
>but *without* a hard disk. With the programs in the
>Workgroup Connection package, can I with the SX:
>
>	1) Under DOS, connect to the 486 running WfW.
>	2) Load WfW.
>

  Well, yes and no.  You can load the DOS Workgroup Connection,
giving you full file-sharing and print-sharing access to 
the 486, and then run WFW (or virtually any other _correctly-
configured_ program) on that machine.  When you bring up WFW,
it will warn you that the most efficient way to load the
network capability is to NOT use the DOS WC, but instead let
WFW do it.  You can disable this message for future instances.
Now, I haven't actually tried exactly what you're saying, but
I have been running WFW for quite a while.

  I say "yes and no" above because WFW is not intended to be
a multi-user product.  They were not planning on people installing
it on one host and accessing it from multiple systems (i.e., every
user is supposed to have his/her own copy).  Of course, you may
just be doing this because you have disk space on the 486, but
not on the SX.  This is probably legal -- but you should check.

-- 
Tom Collins                               tom.collins@ee.gatech.edu
Georgia Institute of Technology           (404) 894-2509
400 Tenth St. NW, CRB 384
Atlanta, GA  30332-0540 
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: Cohena@mdc.com (Andy Cohen)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 20:57:28 GMT
Organization: MDGAC
Followup-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy

My group has 2 Model 80 PS-2s and three Model 95s.....

Worthless CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP!!!

There are so many stupid things about the lousy architecture I won't waste
your time!

We are forced to use them because of our product.

By the way we also have two Sun SPARCstations along with a quadra 700 on
every desk.

While I understand that there's are a lot of functionality to the older DOS
technology (I have an HP95...), it is not an environment that a noncomputer
person should use.  I believe that is why HP doesnt bother to do heavy
consumer marketing of the 95LX....  If you are a heavy computer
user....then there's still a lot to be said for what DOS can do.  BUT I'D
STILL PREFER A MAC!!!!

One of the model 80s sits under my desk.  I named it Stimpy.  It doesnt
deserve even that much intellectual recognition.

Andy (MACOWACO) Cohen
From: rvenkate@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Ravikuma Venkateswar)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Macintosh bigots
Date: 11 Nov 92 01:14:33 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


Just look at the title. I mean, I don't know - are their computers _so_
superior to IBMs? Are they _so_ user friendly that an IBM user would be
able to use the "intuitive" interface instantly, never to go back to a
command prompt or the "inferior hacks" represented by OS/2 2.0 and 
Windows? Is it so much easier to program than the "inferior hacks"? Is it
really that much faster? Are Macintoshes the future of computing? NOT!!

The following lines address Windows because the bulk of their arguments
address it - OS/2 is not as well known (??) and is beneath recognition (???).

Windows is slow, kludgy, and crash-prone.
- have you ever compared something like Mathematica 2.1 for Windows
- running on a 386/25 w/10MB and Mathematica 2.1 on a Mac IIsi with 10 MB?

- have you ever seen a Macintosh crash because of lack of heap space
- (nicely demonstrated on 3MB machines with a screen saver, left to
- (themselves for about 50 minutes.

The Macintosh OS is more user-friendly.
- have you ever tried getting help on _anything_?

The Macintosh GUI can do anything that a command-line interface can, so
you don't need one.
- have you ever tried writing a script file?


You really know when you're dealing with a hard-core bigot when they start
complaining about the 3D buttons. Face it, kids - Apple is sitting pretty,
not because they make good computers (which they might or might not - it's
not the argument here) - it's because of the enormous number of bigots out
there. Eventually, though, they can't win. With cables costing more than
$50 vs. $5, with top-of-the-line computers having more than a 50% price
difference, what corporate customer is going to stick after a few years.
Considering when Windows NT and OS/2 x.0 come out on the Macintosh, and
(maybe) people start using them, they'll find out what they've been missing.

If anyone has more gripes with the Mac, post away! And maybe even cross post
this to a Mac group :-)

Flames to \dev\null .
-- 
Ravikumar Venkateswar
rvenkate@uiuc.edu

A pun is a no' blessed form of whit.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Subject: Re: How MS could annoy Apple
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 17:27:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.140759.2228@athena.mit.edu> dmsilev@athena.mit.edu (Daniel M Silevitch) writes:
>What would happen if...
>
>  Microsoft ported Windows NT to the Macintosh and the PowerPC?
>

It wouldn't bother them at all. All it would do is lend legitimacy
to the product without Microsoft paying for the advertising to
endorse the hardware. Their time would be better spent winning John
Scully's frivilous lawsuit, that he is so fond of trotting out in
the papers when it does not get enough media coverage. THAT would
really annoy Apple...


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: How MS could annoy Apple
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:25:54 GMT

In article 2228@athena.mit.edu, dmsilev@athena.mit.edu (Daniel M Silevitch) writes:
>What would happen if...
>
>  Microsoft ported Windows NT to the Macintosh and the PowerPC?
>
>

If MS ported Windows to the Mac, I doubt very much of anything
would happen. It would sacrifice the Mac's simplicity for, well,
not really that much (near as I can tell). It would have a devil
of a time trying to get its foot in the door.

If MS ported it to PowerPC, it might take off. Who can tell. Depends
on what the competition is like. It would probably be a good idea to
try.

---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: johnsd2@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 05:03:01 GMT

In article 721685303@ceg.uiuc.edu, lee@ceg.uiuc.edu (Chris Lee) writes:
>
>>>The Macintosh GUI can do anything that a command-line interface can, so
>>>you don't need one.
>>>- have you ever tried writing a script file?
>
>>No, but then you wouldn't use a CLI for this either- you'd
>>use a blasted editor. There's no need to couple a scripting
>>system to a CLI. Such things are availiable for the Mac, but are
>>not standard (Alas).
>
>I haven't used a mac in a long time (like system 6.0 on a Mac+),
>so I don't know what has changed in 7.0 but...

This is apparent, Im afraid.

>Some commands (yes, in the dos/unix world) take arguments and
>options -- those unknown -XXXYYYZZZs that sometimes do useful
>stuff as well as wildcards.

That's nice, but will you tell us what these cli options are
doing that a GUI cant do? You just drop that part. Now on
to wildcards.

>As an example, if I had a folder
>with a bazillion files, would the MAC let me see files matching
>certain wildcards such as *.C?

Alas, no. The Mac has no facility to show only certain files. This
is a significant omission, but it is does not require a CLI to fix.
WPS can do this wo/ one.

>  I never really looked at the
>"view by" section on the desktop carefully...but in any case,
>I KNOW it's much faster (and more convenient) for me to type
>ls *.C  (or even dir *.C) than to open the folder, (if the
>option exists) choose the wildcard masking, then view...then
>have to change it back to 'normal mode' to see all the files
>again etc.

I think this depends on the UI. However, you omit the cd [whever]
step that is more or less equivalent to opening a window. 

>
>I personally would like the MAC a lot better if the OS would
>let me TYPE somethings in instead of using the mouse all the
>time, but I guess one of the biggest points of the MAC is that
>you don't need a keyboard for the basic system functions.

Actually, it does- in system 7. Just type the name of a file, and it is
selected. Just type the start of it, for that matter.

Arrow keys move the selection, etc.
---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: How MS could annoy Apple
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 17:12:13 GMT

Daniel M Silevitch writes
> What would happen if...
> 
>   Microsoft ported Windows NT to the Macintosh and the PowerPC?
> 
Nothing.  Who would want to buy expensive hardware to run mediocre  
software?  Mac hardware is expensive, and the only reason to buy it  
is that you get the Mac OS.  On the other hand, no matter how good NT  
turns out to be, Windows is still Windows and far inferior to either  
the Mac OS or NeXTSTEP.

What would make much more sense would be to port either the Mac OS or  
NeXTSTEP to intel hardware. Then people can get cheap hardware and  
great software.  Apple should have done this but missed the boat.   
NeXT is doing it, and IMHO will do very well.

--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren)
Subject: Re: NT BETA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:03:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Nov4.143425.6657@spock.UUCP> roland@spock.uucp (David A. Braun) writes:
>	Can anyone tell me where I can get the NT beta... I
>want to compare it to OS/2...
>
>Roland.
>


Call Microsoft Development Sales (they have an 800 number that escapes
me at the moment).  You can get the full beta development system on
CDROM with no paper docs (all docs on the CDROM) for $69 + shipping/tax.

This includes the beta NT C++ compiler and the NT SDK.

Also, they said that if you buy the beta NT you will automatically get
upgraded for free to the real release when it comes out.

You have to have a minimum of 8 Meg to run it at all, though.
-- 
            _.
--Steve   ._||__    Welcome to the World's First GaAs Supercomputer
  Warren   v\ *|    -------------------------------------------------------
             V      Still waiting for my copy of NT on CDROM to get here...
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
From: jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Date: 14 Nov 92 00:09:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: gn.1992Nov14.000949.1614
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

I believe that the Mac still has more software available that Windows or
OS/2 (this is not counting the ability of either of the latter two to run
DOS $%^&$@##).

Jess Holle
From: tjhendry@mcs.drexel.edu (Jonathan Hendry)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How MS could annoy Apple
Date: 13 Nov 92 19:49:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Drexel University


Sorta like selling ice to eskimoes, eh?


Jon Hendry
tjhendry@queen.mcs.drexel.edu
-- 
Jonathan W. Hendry
Drexel University College Of Information Studies
Anderson Financial Systems "Programmer-in-Exile" :)
hendryjw@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu (No NEXTMail :( )
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy