HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: david@maxwell.ucsc.edu (David Darknell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: comments: Windows/OS2 conference in San Jose, CA
Date: 22 Jan 93 15:14:05 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: maxwell.ucsc.edu

I attended the Windows/ OS/2 conference yesterday in San Jose
with high hopes that OS/2 would be well represented.

Well, I was wrong.  Seems that about one os/2 app was represented for
about every 10 or so windows apps, and, after dozens of talks with
developers saying, 'NT' is gonna be big, 'NT'is gonna be big, 'NT' is
gonna ... ,I was about ready to puke.  However, one marketing manager
I spoke to for quite some time had some interesting info on *why* they
were developing for windows, and *nt*.

It's all in the numbers he said, the NT developers conference
attracted 5000 people, but the OS/2 developers conference attracted
500 or so.  He also stated that he would much prefer to use OS/2, but
it didn't make economic sense to do so.  Even though with windows,
history is repeating itself (he said they had to go >around< lots of
windows API functions (remember DOS anybody?) because they did not
offer enough functionality.)  They haven't seen the *commitment* from
IBM behind OS/2.  I asked him to clarify this, and he mentioned that
it was strange that IBM no longer sells OS/2 on all its shipping
systems.  He also went on to say, his `customers' haven't requested
OS/2 versions in sufficient numbers to even consider the new platform.

Perhaps if we all `requested' our favourite apps for OS/2 developers
would be better able to justify the additional effort (nobody I talked
to would even consider switching).  

It wasn't all bad though-  interestingly, several vendors who were
selling windows products, were displaying those products on OS/2
machines!

Resigned in California,
David
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:12748 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4000
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
From: sl1yn@avon.declab.usu.edu (869483 Denys Larry)
Date: 25 Jan 93 00:07:33 MDT
Reply-To: sl1yn@avon.declab.usu.edu (869483 Denys Larry)
Distribution: world

In article <1993Jan25.064002.3937@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

	[A hell of a lot of bitching about IBM deleted here.]


  That was very nice bit of ranting, Brian.  Now how about a similar 
article about the lies and distortions of Crapsoft...er, Microsludge...er,
damn, just can't get it right...Microsoft.  You could break it up into
a four or five part series.

 



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Over 1,100 OS/2 2.0 apps ship in 92'
Organization: University of Utah Computer Science
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 07:24:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan16.180309.24466@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>>already supported by the operating system.
>>
>>I would like to see the list of these 1,100 applications.
>>As MicroWarehouse and friends are still selling mainly OS/2 1.X apps,
>>I remain EXTEMELY skeptical.
>>
>>Brian
>>-- 
>>C. Brian Sturgill                          NeXTStep 486 is for _YOU_!!!!
>>University of Utah                    Microsoft needs competition, but I want
>>Center for Software Science          to be one of the many running Windows NT!
>>brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373    :-) :-) :-)  NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679
>
>
>At the time I posted the list, over 500 were shipping (2.0 specific).
>
>I would like to see a list of the thousands of NT specific applications as
>well as the hundreds of Windows 3.1 apps that are shipping. Otherwise, I
>remain EXTREMELY skeptical.
>
>Best Regards,
>Mark K.

I assume you meant thousands of 3.1 and hundreds of NT.  I don't have a
list for 3.1, though I would think it's obvious that there are thousands
(perhaps not obvious that then number is over 5,000 like MS claims, but
none the less obviouse that there are thousands).

As to the hundreds for NT, you can get a partial list via anonymous ftp
to the address in my .signature.  I believe there are currently 542,
and unlike IBM, Microsoft was not out to scrap the bottom of the barrel
to get this list... in fact there are several apps that I know will be
out for NT that are not yet in this list.

Also unlike IBM, Microsoft managed to get the entry for our product right...
Sigh, I forsee yet another long bout of trying to track down the right
person at IBM.

Happy now?

Brian

BTW, as a note to IBM.. next time do what Microsoft did... just ask
the ISVs for the information and put down what they give you... quit
trying to guess it on your own.
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                          NeXTStep 486 is for _YOU_!!!!
University of Utah                    Microsoft needs competition, but I want
Center for Software Science          to be one of the many running Windows NT!
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373    :-) :-) :-)  NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679
From: rhaig@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Haig)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT to be launched at Comdex/Spring,...
Date: 22 Jan 1993 16:17:19 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: tramp.cc.utexas.edu

In article <1993Jan22.071800.24060@ryn.mro4.dec.com> Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com writes:
>I have no idea what phone charges are in the US. Just for fun, how much does
>it cost to ftp OS/2? :-)

Zip!!

Nada!!

Zilch!!

Zero!!

Nothing!!
(unless you count the 8cents a day that I get charged for using this 
account anyway)

--
Robert Haig			|	"Stand back ma'am, I'm a professional!
Technician/Network Admin	|	 What does this switch do again?"
UT Residence Halls 		|	    -- unknown (unemployed) consultant
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: daa7365@tamuts.tamu.edu (Diego A. Aranda)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Doug Hamilton responds
Date: 21 Jan 1993 21:51:17 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
NNTP-Posting-Host: tamuts.tamu.edu

>Yes, and then he writes in his column for Windows Magazine (it was
>Windows & OS/2 when this happened, I believe) that he was going to
>be developing for NT because Microsoft is so good to developers.
>As if Microsoft just gave him the workstation because he was a developer
>and not because he was an influential columnist.  I wrote several
>letters (via America Online) to Fred Langa, editor of Windows magazine
>about that column and Mr. Langa was never able to defend it, IMO.
>
>Andy Henshaw
>henshaw@cerl.gatech.edu

Well, I'm an absolute nobody by Microsoft's standards (I have only just
begun to program Windows applications and I'm merely a college sophomore)
and Microsoft sent me a Compaq 486/33 portable color system with 16 megs
to preview NT and to judge some shareware/freeware applications which
have already become available for NT.  Why?  I told them that I couldn't
handle it (NT) on my system (this was at the time of the original alpha
release (which required 12 megs RAM and a CD-ROM drive).  They responded
immediately and quite amazingly by shipping me a system for the trial
via Federal Express.  Now that NT's requirements are lower, I run NT on
my 386/33 with 8 megs quite comfortably.  Anyway, the point is that
Microsoft really does give a damn about developers and certainly tries
harder than IBM (neither is perfect).  

Diego Aranda
daa7365@venus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: AmiPro for OS/2 (was Re: Impressions of OS/2 2.1 Beta)
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 17:49:27 GMT
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
 <1993Jan22.233940.1843@midway.uchicago.edu> <1993Jan23.150321.1@milori.ccit.arizona.edu>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago

In article <1993Jan23.150321.1@milori.ccit.arizona.edu> f67709907@milori.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:
>> AmiPro for OS/2 2.0 will be full 32-bit, Workplace Shell aware,
>> multithreaded, HPFS aware, etc.  Ditto 1-2-3 2.0, Freelance Graphics,
>> and cc:Mail.
>> cc:Mail should be available now; 1-2-3 2.0 and Freelance Graphics in
>> February; AmiPro in March or April, according to what I'm hearing.
>> Another bit of rumor: the Windows people at Lotus have been drooling
>> over the OS/2 version.
>These are heartening rumors.  Where'd you get these particular ones from?

I'm afraid I can't say, which means you are free to take them for
whatever you think them worth.  They are rumors.

Lotus will tell you a lot of what I've said, though.

>BTW, AmiPro is getting many more kudos in the Windows groups than WinWord
>or WPWin, so a really great implementation of AmiPro would help OS/2's
>cause more than all other 1100 alleged existing OS/2 apps put together.
>MY bleak vision of AmiPro OS/2 was really intended to spur you folks
>on to demand the best word processor possible.

Agreed.

>>>P.S.: Where is Stacker OS/2 now?  Talk about vaporware....
>> I'm hearing first quarter on it as well, but why don't you ask Stac
>> Electronics?
>Don't need to.  I've got 200 MB of data stacked on my 170 MB hard disk
>for over a year now, and it's purring just fine right now.  Before I
>try OS/2, a disk compressor HAS to be there for me.
>Besides,  I've heard Stacker OS/2 would be here RSN for the past 6 months,
>and was wondering whether Stac had it as a high priority.  If I called 
>them up about this, they'd invariably say "Sure it is!", so I was looking
>for a more realistic view here.

I'm still hearing first quarter, and I think that's probably about
right.  They've been quite open about it at various meetings.

I think some of the politics may have something to do with their
enthusiasm.  IBM is now bundling Stacker with DOS 5.0 (sort of a
pre-MS-DOS 6.0 DOS 6.0; it also comes with 386Max).  I suspect they
hope to be the de facto OS/2 standard as well.  (They have
competition, though, if DCF/2 and/or Infinite Disk ever emerge.)

-- 
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.]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: gtd543a@sol.crt.columbia.edu (death)
Subject: BUYING OS/2
Organization: Purgatory
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 17:23:53 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
X-Posted-From: sundial.gatech.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Once you have testing the OS/2 2.1 beta, is there any way you can
get on the registered users list?  Do I have to buy a copy of OS/2 2.0
(which is basically disks and nothing else)?
--
Death: the high price of living
========================================================================
Disclaimer:  I am not bubba.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mortenk@dhhalden.no (MORTEN KNUDSEN)
Subject: Re: Bugs in OS/2 v2.0, unreasonable number?
Organization: Ostfold College
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:30:43 GMT

In article <gnash.727403033@ee.uts.EDU.AU> gnash@ee.uts.edu.au (Greg Nash) writes:
>From: gnash@ee.uts.edu.au (Greg Nash)
>Subject: Re: Bugs in OS/2 v2.0, unreasonable number?
>Date: 19 Jan 93 00:23:53 GMT
>mg@tyrolia (Michael Golan) writes:
>[stuff..]
>>For the sarcasm-impaired: OS/2 2.0 is full of god damn#%$#@%$#! bugs. I use
>>it, cause nothing better is around, but it is a joke, not an OS. I too
>>hope OS/2 2.1 is better. But given IBM's stupid attitudes as seen in the
>>above example (I can reproduce the original if u never saw it), and the
>>fact that IBM is adding more and more features rather than stabilize the
>>system, plus the delays and the pressures, seems to imply that 2.1
>>won't be much better (It should be easy to be somewhat better :-)
>
>>In IBM's defense, people seems to prefer buggy flashy programs
>>rather than simpler, reliable products. As wierd as it may sound ... Only
>>about 2-3 years ago, you couldn't find serious bugs in commercial applications
>>by just playing around with them for an hour or so. All the Windows programs
>>and other GUI related applications I have seen lately are buggy. 
>Remember Windows 3.0?  It came out at the right time to be a hit, though 
>perhaps it should have been called a VERY WIDE beta test of Windows 3
>(and 3.1 being the real release...)
>
Yes, windoze 3.0 did have bugs, but nothing compared to OS/2 2.0. 
Sometimes I wonder if the people coding OS/2 are complete moreons. 
I really hope 2.1 will prove me wrong.
From: pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak)
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Mitre Corporation
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:36:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.015157.22799@itsmail1.hamilton.edu>,
jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) wrote:
> 
> >
> >There was a thread in this newgroup that said MS would present NT at
> >Spring Comdex, but it wouldn't be released until May.  Well NT was
> >demonstrated at the Fall Comdex, so what's the big deal about Spring
> >Comdex? 
> 
> Dunno.  Maybe it'll be feature complete and better optimized?  I don't
> even know if that matters.  But why would you wish to prevent them from
> displaying anything they want to show?  IBM does similar things with
> 'technology demonstrations' long before something ever becomes product,
> and sometimes it never does...  Wouldn't life be dull, though, if we had
> nothing to look forward to?
> 

The difference has been the IBM has generally clearly stated when things
were beta and when things were "technology demonstrations".  The only time
they didn't do this was with the Win3.1 demo at last year's Spring Comdex. 
The Win 3.1 stuff is late but I think largely that is because IBM decided
to add enhanced mode support.  IBM originally stated that OS/2 wouldn't
support enhanced mode Windows and I believe Steve Ballmer (sp??) was
gloating in PC Week that IBM would never be able to run enchanced mode apps
so OS/2 would never be a "better Windows than Windows".  

On the other hand, MS has been showing NT like it was almost ready to go
any minute.  I seem to remember them originally stating that NT was going
to be release the summer of 1992, this slipped to fall 1992, then end of
1992 and now the first half of 1993.  These were targeted release dates and
they weren't even close.  At least when IBM missed their release date of
December 1991 for OS/2 2.0, they only missed it by 3 months.

From what I have heard from friends, NT might actually make this "new"
date.  However, recent articles in various magazines have stated that a
number of consultants and other beta users don't feel that NT will be ready
to ship until the fall of 1993.  People are speculating that MS might
release a NT client and a NT server instead of the all inclusive single
package it is right now.  MS is (of course) stating that they wouldn't
dream of doing something like this...  If MS makes a "business" decision
and changes its strategy, I guess all the OS/2 advocates should just over
the the Windows newsgroup and start a thread titled, "Upset about MS
misinformation". ;-)

I guess only time will tell.  In the mean time, lighten up folks!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heeren Pathak                      | Millions long for immortality who do 
pathak@mitre.org                   | not know what to do with themselves
Mitre Corporation                  | on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
(617) 271-7465                     |	               	-- Susan Ertz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Mine not Mitre's.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: cnadler@vnet.ibm.com (Cliff Nadler)
Subject: Workplace Shell Aware (was Re: AmiPro for OS/2 )
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 14:57:27 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: cnadler@vnet.ibm.com (Cliff Nadler)
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

In <1993Jan25.180453.18862@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>I personally asked the product manager for Ami Pro if it would use
>>Mirrors and his reply was that it would not.  Workplace Shell aware
>>means that it implements drag-and-drop functionality for things like
>>printing and file loading.  For example, as I recall you can drag a
>>document onto the printer and it will be printed by Ami Pro.
>
>
>	Big whoo.  In other words, "Workplace Shell Aware"
>	is the new OS/2-speak for applications that support the
>	OS/2 equivalent of drag and drop.  A buzzword with very limited
>	usefulness. 
>

Workplace Shell aware is significantly more than Drag-and-Drop. For an 
application to use it to the fullest capabilities, you can use the drag and drop
to call your program to format and generate the print data, instead of just
printing an output file. You can also drag and drop to any object and have
that object call a specific formatting routine in your product (for example a
Fax application could have a word processing document dropped on it, pop up a
window asking for the destination, then call the WP program's print routine to
print the job, than take that output and Fax it.

WPS aware programs also use templates to allow you to customize the information
about an object (if you need more than what is provided by the standard data
object). Your program can also have a default association set up within it
to use the File Type attribute, instead of the extension. It also has all of
the object-oriented capabilities provided for by the System Object Model.

As for file loading, the associations allow you to just click on the data - the
program will be loaded automatically. You don't have to search for the program
object (or icon), then have to call File ... Open ... to get a file dialog and
search for your data.

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
From: gtd543a@sol.crt.columbia.edu (death)
Subject: Re: Easy programming a must ??
Organization: Purgatory
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:30:19 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Reply-To: gtd543a@prism.gatech.edu
X-Posted-From: sundial.gatech.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Timothy F. Sipples (sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan25.124252.14512@dde.dk> tpo@dde.dk (Thomas peter Sonne Olesen) writes:
: >The problem with the young folks is allso the main reason why the minimum
: >hardware requirments for OS/2 is still a barrier.

: The hardware requirements for OS/2 are a barrier.  The question is,
: are they an insurmountable one?  A fast 386SX or better, VGA, 6 MB
: RAM, and around 30 MB of hard disk space (give or take) isn't all that
: expensive (and it hasn't been for some time).  (It's hard to believe,
: but the 80386 was introduced almost eight years ago.)

I wouldn't call this a minimum.  That's the minimum for the operating
system to -work-.  At least with regard to disk space, who would
want an operating system and -nothing- else?

I am running it on a 486-33 with 8MB of RAM.  I think disk space, and
then RAM, are the two most important things to OS/2.  Once you have
-at least- 100MB, then go for the RAM upgrade.  A friend
of mine has 20MB of RAM on his motherboard, and his system flies
compared to mine.

QUESTION:  Does OS/2 slow down when you go beyond 16MB of RAM?
--
Death: the high price of living
========================================================================
Disclaimer:  I am not bubba.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.)
Subject: Re: Over 1,100 OS/2 2.0 apps ship in 92'
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:05:22 GMT

In <1993Jan25.073238.4812@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>In article <1993Jan17.060007.18595@lugb.latrobe.edu.au> DEMOGRB@LUST.LATROBE.EDU.AU (Max!) writes:
>>In <1993Jan14.192615.10875@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu writes:
>>
>...
>>> C. Brian Sturgill                          NeXTStep 486 is for _YOU_!!!!
>>> University of Utah                    Microsoft needs competition, but I want
>>> Center for Software Science          to be one of the many running Windows NT!
>>> brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373    :-) :-) :-)  NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679
>>                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>By the way, are you paid to advertise for MS, or are you just trying to do
>>us a favour ?  I find this blatant and in poor taste.  You are entitled to
>>your opinions, but I don't feel advertisements are appropriate here.

>No, I'm not paid to advertise for Microsoft. I am, as the saying
>usually goes, a satisfied customer. What is it that you find in poor
>taste?  Approximately 1/3 of the rather voluminous e-mail I receive
>from my participation in the Windows/OS/2 advocacy groups asks me for
>this information.  I figure it's just easier on everybody if I provide
>it up front.  I also figured it would annoy a certain class of
>zealot... apparently it works! :-)

Oh scary; I'm going to side with Brian on this one.  I also don't find any-
thing wrong with that, especially if it is a freqently asked question.
It definately will save net-traffic, if that is the case, and that's good
(or it was the last time I checked).

What is the purpose of a .sig if not to say something that you want everyone
else to see?  And where are the netiquette guidelines for .sig's (answer:
there are none)?

Posts like this (and I'm not implying that this is the only one from either
pro-Windows or pro-OS/2 advocates) cross the boundary from advocacy to pure
degradation of another's character (and thus, are nothing but pure idiocy).
I'm also not claiming that I haven't done my share of this as well, but WE
NEED TO CUT DOWN THE NOISE IN THIS GROUP.  Keep this foremost in your mind
and we'll be able to have some decent discussions on the strengths AND
weaknesses of OS/2.

Brian, you seem to be Gordon's "crown prince" in that you always manage to
provoke quite a bit of discussion over your posts.  Could you please also
proof your posts for the "necessity factor"?  It would sure help a lot.

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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Go OS/2!  Go OS/2!  Go OS/2!  Go OS/2!  Go OS/2!  Go OS/2!  Go OS/2!  --
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 03:00:08 -0800
From: Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: AmiPro for OS/2 (was Re: Impressions of OS/2 2.1 Beta)
Comment-To: Greg_Franklin@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

> I think if AmiPro will be a PM program it should 
> create docs with their own
> icon and perhaps comments, history and what else fits 
> into 64k of extended attributes.

 GF> I think Ami Pro for PM will be a straight port of the Windows
version, and
 GF> will languish on version 3 while Lotus cranks out versions 5 and
beyond
 GF> for Windows.

 GF> That is, if Lotus ever does release a PM version.  They certainly
won't
 GF> take advantage of OS/2 EAs, long file names, or threading, or any
of the
 GF> good stuff OS/2 has.

Lotus is doing more than just a straight port of Ami Pro.  They are
adding good integration with Workplace Shell, multithreading for
things like printing and spell checking, long file name support, and
more.  An early version of Ami Pro for OS/2 was shown at Comdex/Fall
1992 in public view.

 GF> P.S.: Where is Stacker OS/2 now?  Talk about vaporware....

Stacker for OS/2 is in beta testing.  I personally know several people
who are beta testers.  So far they all say it is working well.

--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)