HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: OS/2 as an open system- benefits/drawbacks?
Date: 28 Jan 93 19:21:29 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Keywords: open, source, OS/2

In article <jaq3c9c@rpi.edu> assela@marcus.its.rpi.edu (A. Andre Asselin) writes:
>I was thinking recently about the future of the PC marketplace, and thought
>of an interesting idea.  If IBM were to make OS/2 an open system (i.e.
>all source freely available or licenseable at a reasonable rate), I believe
>its market share for desktop operating systems would increase dramatically.
>Just think: a windowing system where you don't have to guess what the
>documentation means on a certain point (programming Windows is as much
>reading the book as experimenting to figure out what it means).  This 
>advantage is already available in X, but this would be the first time
>it'd be available for a mainstream desktop OS.  
>   And if you have some obscure bug that seems to be caused by a strange
>interaction, you could not only look at the source, but also trace right
>down into OS/2 at a source level!
>   My question to the net is what do you see as the advantages and
>disadvantages of an approach like this.  How would it impact OS/2 sales?
>How would it impact the programming community?  Is such a system feasible?
>Any thoughts?

    The problem with open systems, and the reason (IMO) you don't
see them all that often, is that they are a support nightmare.  Imagine
this call to product support:

	Customer:  "When I click on X, Y happens.  Why doesn't Z?"
	Support:   "Well, Z should happen.  What kind of system are
			you running?"
	[Blah blah blah as Support tries to figure out what's wrong]
	Customer:  "Oh, by the way, our MIS manager may have made
			some changes in the source code..."

     This assumes that "Customer" is aware of what source code is,
and aware that the MIS manager may have changed it, which will quite
frequently not be the case.

				-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: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: Is OS/2 a dead end?
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:46:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.181023.5865@intellistor.com> cwolff@intellistor.com (Clint Wolff) writes:
> 
> Microsoft is certainly trying to convince the world that OS/2 is a dead end.
> Only time will tell. In the meantime, I am happy running OS/2 2.1b and will
> not go back to Windows.
         ****

That one word pretty much sums it up. I - and anyoe I know who uses OS/2 -
think of it in exactly this way. 
 
Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand |      
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |        Space for rent.
+64 4 478 4714                          |   - cheap rates, nice location. 
**** Happy user of OS/2 b2.1 ****       | 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 01:30:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.101656.10681@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>
>>In article <MfLQlzO00iUyI6IfRc@andrew.cmu.edu> Carl B Jabido <cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>>Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.os2.advocacy: 20-Jan-93 Re: NT to be
>>>launched at Co.. by Yamanari@wam.umd.edu 
>>>>         What a load of crap.  36Mbytes for the "demonstration" version?
>>>>         I must have missed that with the beta that runs in 12.  
>>>
>>>12 physical memory, but add to that a 25 meg swap file -> 37 megs.  At
>>>least on my system.
>
>
>
>>	Uh huh.  And I've gotten my OS/2 2.0 (+SP) swap fiole up to 36 megs.
>>	Does that mean that OS/2 requires 52 megs of RAM?
>
>
>
>If all of that swap space is used, yes it does! That is the whole point
>of virtual memory, that if you need memory it doesn't necesarrily have
>to be in ram all of the time. But needed it is, on disk or in ram.
>However, I can't see how one needs a 36M swapfile on a 16M system.
>Mine never get's above 2M, and I don't just sit and watch it. True,
>I do not have any networking software, but how is that going to need
>34M?


	<sigh>  My point was, including a swap file is rediculous.



>So, can you indicate as to why you need such a swapfile? (valid
>question, NOT a flame).


	I was doing a little cartography, trying to port an ancient
	program I wrote on the Amiga.  Unfortunately, while I was porting
	I said, "Hey, look, I can use *huge* amounts of memory.." (given
	that this was written in Manx Aztec C on a two meg Amiga, this 
	was quite exciting).  

	This, to me, meant "time to add features" which was a mistake.  I never
	gave much thought to just how much information I was really talking
	about until I got it to actually run (ugh ugh ugh--thinking about
	Watcom--anyone have any pro/con opinions on it?)..  

	In any case, I'm still refreshing my C knowledge (been years, and I
	was never fluent) and trying OS/2 w/o a net of programming
	experiance.

o	Actually, right now a friend who knows OS/2 better is working on it
	for me.  Beats doing it myself.



-- 
	Attempts to lessen the burden of proof in rape trials are an assault 
        	on out civil liberties.  Support equality, not revenge. 
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	Pyramid schemes are illegal unless you're the US government.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: PRO/CON on Mirrors (was Re: AmiPro for OS/2)
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 18:09:09 GMT
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago

[Re: Mirrors.]

I agree with the previous post, namely that whether an application
uses Mirrors or not isn't going to be the basis for many decisions.

However, in practice, I think you'll find Lotus cleaning up on the
OS/2 platform, simply because it will be first to market with what
look to be the best applications.  WordPerfect is probably doing a
quick Mirrors port of 5.2 because they're worried about AmiPro.  That
strategy will keep the loyal WordPerfect customers around, but it will
not likely attract many new customers.

I don't think we should forget DeScribe either.  They are,
essentially, an OS/2-only shop, and they are selling quite a few
copies of DeScribe 4.0SE.

Computer Associates will also be a player.

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0i, available from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:12889 comp.os.os2.misc:44255
From: jra1746@hertz.njit.edu (joseph r anstett cis stnt)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Icon Express available
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:07:51 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

While browsing through the Winter 1993 "OS/2 Developer" magazine I came
across an ad for "ICON EXPRESS FOR OS/2 2.0".

This app says that it includes:
  WPS Icon Drag'n Drop -- Instead of the 12 step OPEN->SETTINGS routine
                          to change an icon, it's a 1 step drag/drop.
  Quick copying of any icon to/from the clipboard.
  Icon Manager
  Library of 1000 icons (computer devices, tools, designs, etc.)

It's available for an introductory price of $49.99 from American Computer
Technologies (1-800-ACT-7185).

I haven't seen it, but the Icon drag/drop deal sounds interesting considering
the number of times I have to customize my desktop with all these beta drops!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: adkinsg@symphony.cc.purdue.edu (Garry Adkins)
Subject: Re: Next 2.1 Beta is Coming in Feb.
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 21:24:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.143533.2519@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>
>Keep the Bug Reports coming in. The more bugs that IBM is aware of now, the
>sooner they will be fixed.
>

To whom to we send these bug reports?  Can we send them to a specific
Compu$erve address?  I'd like to know EXACTLY who to send them to.

>In another conversation with one of the developers, I brought up the subject of
>32bit PM, and the independant synchronous message queue that NT has. He said
>OS/2 will have True 32-bit PM, and independant synchronous message queues later
>this year. This is very important, because it will mean that a single PM app
>will not be able to HOG PM, or crash PM.
>

Very good news indeed.


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garry Adkins                             adkinsg@symphony.cc.purdue.edu  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USnail: 425-7 South River Rd.            GTENet:  +1-317-743-8188
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison)
Subject: Re: Microsoft and Force continued.
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 18:01:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.002150.8141@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.161112.254349@locus.com>, lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:
>|> 
>|> McDonalds, Pioneer, and the Ken-Ternals get away with it because there is
>|> effectively lots of alternitives. 
>
>Not true Uncle Wolf.  I grew up in Southern Indiana, and there are lots of towns 
>down there where McDonald's has a monopoly in fast food.  Should the FTC force
>McDonald's to sell Wendy's Frosties in those small "company" towns?

Hmm, you must have grown up in some very small towns, like a Gas Station and
a McDonalds??  Even the smallest towns in the California Desert have two or
three independents IF they even rate a McDonalds.  Yermo is a town of 1000
and has three Hamberger Stands, and No McDonalds.  Don't say that I don't 
believe you, but I do think your facts are skewed.
>
>
>|> There really are not (without OS/2)
>|> for the 20 million PC's (for which MS has sold 1000 million coppies
>|> including upgrades over the last 10 years).
>
>This sentence just _slays_ me, because it is desparatly trying to assert that
>a) there is no alternative, and that b) OS/2 is an alternative.
>
No, my friend, you have once again misread things.  I said that there are
no other operating systems for the pc that rate more than a 2% or so
market status.  Unix, Linux, SCO, AIX386, DR-DOS together total about
10% of the market,  OS/2 today constitutes probably 5% (if you have a 50%
on the shelf rate).  This would imply that Microsoft has an 80+% predominance
on the desktop.  Some would call that a defacto "M" word.  If it can be
proven that MS has conspired to keep these others out of the market place
(and that is certianly true of DR-DOS) then it is more than a Defacto
monopoly.  OS/2 is hurting from advertizing by Gates and other that has no
definable purpose than "killing" OS/2..

And if it _slays_ you, how come you responded.  Desperate, I think that 
your responses and deliberate misreading and misdirection far more
eloquently say FEAR and Desperation than anything I could come up with.

--Uncle Wolf




Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: leonp@cs.kun.nl (Leon Pillich)
Subject: Re: OS/2 in other news groups.
Keywords: OS/2
Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 12:18:51 GMT

In <wiegand.727713047@lido16> wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand) writes:

>I have been noticing a fair amount of OS/2 related discussion in non-OS/2
>news groups lately.

>I think this a very positive sign of the growing acceptance of OS/2
>by the user community. The use of OS/2 is spreadind beyond the "power
>users" into the normal computer users.

>It's important that the experienced OS/2 users watch the other computer
>groups to offer help and answer question for new users.

>-- 
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.

I have noticed the same.
Everytime when operating systems are being compared OS/2
is mentioned as THE example of a grown-up os for pc's.
NT is nearly always bashed.
BUT: most of the times NextStep is mentioned as yet a better os.
So don't hold your breath yet.

I do think btw that professional software companies are more willing
to bet on os/2 than on nt and that has everything to do with
the fact that os/2 is done (now) bij ibm and nt by "the people who brought
us edlin" ;-).
IBM as the supporter for os/2 is also reassuring to a lot
of companies because it implies (or should imply) good connection
with major applications on mini and mainframe computers,
don't forget that mines and mainframes are still extremely important
in large companies.

My 2 cents,


Leon Pillich
University of Nijmegen, Holland
email: leonp@cs.kun.nl
-------------------------------------------------------------
 Life is what's happening when you're making other plans ...
                                      John Lennon
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: kendall@iat.holonet.net (Kendall Willets)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Advertisement in the US Figure Skating
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 04:15:14 GMT

I kind of like techos2.bmp .  ( Star Trek Starship blasting that
nasty-looking Windows 3.1 emblem, which looks like some kind of evil
outer-space monster.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ekl@kvamdata.no (Eirik Lygre)
Subject: Re: Doug Hamilton responds
Organization: Kvam data as
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:05:36 GMT

In article <8502@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>
>That must mean that 1.3 never, ever crashes.

That's pretty much it, yeah. My os/2 1.3 computers just run. Period.

>-- 
>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.
>    "I don't want to read poor Microsoft bashing. I want to read good
>Microsoft bashing." -- Douglas A. Bell, in comp.os.os2.advocacy (Me too!)

Eirik

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eirik Lygre                                     Phone:    +47 4 623766
Kvam data as                                    Fax  :    +47 4 623985
PO Box 1101 Lura                                Email: ekl@kvamdata.no
N-4301  SANDNES, NORWAY
======================================================================
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk)
Subject: OS/2 CD install trashes partition
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:01:48 GMT

I just got my new CD rom drive on Wed. so I tried to install OS/2 from
the CD.  Since my drive doesn't have drivers, I had to copy it on
to 22 disks.  I cleared out one 76 meg. extended partition and
made it a primary (normally drive e:, making it a primary changed it
to drive d:).  Nothing that I tried would get it to select this
partition for install.  Saying the hell with it, I backed up drive c:
and used it to install to since the install program wouldn't let me
choose anything else.  I was able to get through the install disk
and disks 1-5, and then when it rebooted, nothing happened.  Looking
at drive c: showed that it was completely empty.  I tried the install
again, and again it didn't work, this time filling drive c: up with
a lot of wierd named directories that couldn't be accessed.  Then
I tried to install it with the HPFS.  This still didn't work and
also managed to trash the next partition on the drive after drive c:.

If anyone could give me any help I appreciate it.  Also if anyone
knows of something I can use to ressurect the trashed partition
please tell me.  The partition is marked EXT DOS, is the same size 
that it was before, and looks completely the same except that it;s
suppose to be a logical dos partion.

Before this I had great computing system; now I've got something that's
barely useable without hours more work.


					Todd Walk
					walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: The sin of MicroSoft
Date: 22 Jan 1993 17:34:58 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen) says:

>In <1993Jan22.140623.12285@choate.edu> roland@margaret (David A. Braun) writes:
>
>>In article <93015.153643ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET> ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET writes:
>[ Stuff about 512mb seg limit deleted]
>
>>Since when? As far as I heard, the segments were 4 gig...
>
>><roland>
>
>Roland, the maximum size a memory object can be under OS2 2.0 is
>512 MB, *NOT* 4gb.  Max size of a segment on a 386 *IS* 4gb,
>but, the operating system will only allow 512megs max per mem
>object......  If you don't believe me, its thoroughly documented
>in Redbook vol 1, which is available from ftp-os2.nmsu.edu.

I believe the 512 Mb limit is imposed to facilitate the 16-32 bit
thunking that goes on between system modules.  Once these old
modules are replaced, the limit could be raised to 4 Gb, and IBM has
stated an intent to do this some day.  So while 2.0 may be limited,
future versions are not necessarily limited.
-- 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.)
Subject: Re: Doug Hamilton responds
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:01:05 GMT

In <1993Jan20.235340.27787@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:

>No flame, just curious: what was it that Microsoft did in that "hell of
>a job on wooing him over to the NT camp?" 

I would say, but I gave him my word that I wouldn't discuss it with anyone;
however, I will state that they "bent over backwards" to help him port his
product to NT, which is something I have yet to see from IBM (helping the
"little people", who are the one- and two-person shops).  Instead, IBM
continues to ignore us and concentrate on the big accounts.

It's no wonder that Doug is fed up with IBM.

Cheers,
Q
-- 
"If you choose not to decide, you  | "My other body is in the shop" - seen
 still have made a choice" - Rush  |  on a T-shirt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: francis@ese.ogi.edu (Francis Moraes)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: The Problem With Rhetoric For A Tech
Date: 22 Jan 93 21:11:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.48986
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute - Department of Env. Science and Eng.

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>	In all likelihood, Bill Gates will make a hell of a lot of 
>	money out of NT, and continue to rake it in with DOS and Windows.

Fine. Since this is a computer newsgroup that is hardly to the point.

>	Bill Gates in in the business of making money, not making IBM 
>	look stupid, and if NT wasn't going to make MS money, they would
>	pull out.  

Now for the point: The comments Gates makes indicated that he is desperate.
If he wasn't worried about OS/2, he wouldn't even mention it. Instead,
he puts OS/2 down at any opportunity. In addition, he is never even
slightly objective about the issue; I can come up with arguments for
choosing NT over OS/2, why can't Gates?

>	Think what you like, but Bill Gates, although he may be no more
>	mature or socially developed than an antisocial highschool 
>	student, is extremely smart.  

It is amusing to me that a network comprised mostly of nerds would be
so hard on Mr. Gates. I don't think these comments are at all in order.
He is clearly very good at business. There are questions about his ethics
however. I think that's the worst that can be said.

Francis Moraes
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: lmorris@mdd.comm.mot.com (Larry Morris)
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 02:34:41 GMT

In <1993Jan26.095655@cs.bham.ac.uk> jss@cs.bham.ac.uk (John Swapp-Sweet) writes:

>One could produce a ten part series on _real_ WIN apps.  You could so the same
>for OhhSlowww/2.0 but only if you break it into ten parts of 2 apps!

Hmm, I would just take your marvelous windoze document, add in the dos apps that
run like shit under windows, and then add in the OS/2 apps.  That would give a 
nice summary of things that run under OS/2.  Although the NT bigots seem
to be hung up on native apps, I don't care.  My windows apps run better than
they did under windows, I run DOS apps that never ran under windows, and I run
a bunch of OS/2 apps that sure don't run under windows.  MS seems plenty willing
to brag about DOS support under NT, so why can't I count Win support under OS/2.

The "typical users" that I know have never cared too much about how the job
gets implemented, as long it gets done.  

BTW, isn't  "_real_ WIN apps" a contradiction in terms.
-- 
Internet:    <lmorris@mdd.comm.mot.COM>   |  Larry Morris
 ...uw-beaver!sunup-----\                 |  Motorola/Mobile Data Division
 ...uunet-----------------!mdisea!lmorris |  19807 North Creek Parkway
 ...van-bc!mdivax1------/                 |  Bothell, WA  (206) 487-5810
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Bugs in OS/2 v2.0, unreasonable number?
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:47:47 GMT

In article <mortenk.191.727723843@dhhalden.no> mortenk@dhhalden.no (MORTEN KNUDSEN) writes:
>Yes, windoze 3.0 did have bugs, but nothing compared to OS/2 2.0. 


	I'll agree with the above.  The 2.0 GA was _obviously_ rushed 
	to meet or beat Win3.1 to the marketplace, which was a MISTAKE.  The
	service pack made the GA (to me) quite acceptable (still with 
	unacceptable Windows performance, but this _is_ fixed in the
	2.1 beta).  The Service pack, though, was *also* rushed.  It introduced
	NEW bugs.  

	I hope, sincerely (and because I bought another 5 shares this morning),
	that IBM has learned it's lesson and will take their time with 2.1.  
	To me, somewhere between March and May sounds like a good target date.


>Sometimes I wonder if the people coding OS/2 are complete moreons. 
>I really hope 2.1 will prove me wrong.


	This, on the other hand, I disagree with.  I think they are some
	of the cleverest programmers out there.  Yes, I hate the WPS
	because it's clunky and inconsistent, but it's _interesting_.  The
	real impressive things about OS/2 are its big selling points--
	DOS and Windows support--but also its big weaknesses.  They introduced
	holes that allow the machine to lock up--even post SP--at least
	twice a week (more if I'm programming) randomly.  If I refrain from
	using DOS or Windows programs, I have no problems.  

	I like what they've done, but I would have settled for reduced 
	DOS and Win compatibility if OS/2 was bulletproof.  It's not, and
	that bugs me.  This is 1993.  There is no valid excuse for the
	lackluster crash protection we've got--and it really drives me
	up the wall that IBM *trademarked* "Crash Protection".. 

	<That's like AT&T trying to trademark "telephone"..>


-- 
	Attempts to lessen the burden of proof in rape trials are an assault 
        	on out civil liberties.  Support equality, not revenge. 
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	Pyramid schemes are illegal unless you're the US government.