HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 30 Sep 92 09:49:37 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <7451@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu wrote:
> In article <1992Sep28.082303.23571@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> >Maybe you can tell this about the OS/2 beta program, but I have yet to
> >hear from anyone who's seen a beta for NT.  I know a lot of folk with
> >the PDK though, who say it's pretty easy to get ahold of.  All you
> >have to do is call the developers hotline.  (just being a pain ;)
> 
> You appear to have completely missed the point of the post you were following
> up to. He was explaining why, despite MS's public statements to the contrary,
> the SDK really IS a beta. There have been more than a few of the $69 CDROMs
> shipped, and every one of them is a beta copy, whether or not you and your
> company admit it.

If you can call the NT PDK a beta, then I can call OS/2 a toaster, 'cause
you seem to be randomly labling things.  There are similarities between
the PDK and a BETA of an OS, being.

It is a pre-release of the final product.

There are also differences.

It is targeted towards developers, so it only includes things developers
will need to develop their products.  Mainly, the core OS, a C compiler,
tools, etc.

It does not include all of the things that most developers will not
need, such as management tools, Full Win/Dos compatability, Full networking,
etc.

It is marketed towards developers, who may be a good source of bug-finding
in limited areas, but not in stress-test areas, where a true beta will
come in handy.  By limited areas, I mean that the PDK is likely to be
used in only a few machines in an instalation, for development purposes,
and not in a large instalation for general use.


With that said, Thats why I like to lable the PDK the PDK, because there
are some differences, and having a different lable helps to differentiate
between the PDK, and a beta product.  This may become important if the beta
ever becomes a topic of discussion so as to keep people clear as to which
version you are talking about.

I will support your right to label things any way you please, but I may
not agree with you in this case, and I have stated why.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: adamba@microsoft.com (Adam Barr)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Date: 05 Oct 92 16:50:53 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct5.022633.16025@tamsun.tamu.edu> bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
>In article <1992Oct03.214417.22227@microsoft.com> adamba@microsoft.com (Adam Barr) writes:
>>
>>This argument that goes, "C2 certification is a HW/SW combination,
>>therefore Microsoft's claims about it are null and void" is getting
>>old. 
>
>Wait a minute. Did I say that MS's claims were 'null and void'?  I
>don't think so, and if you read that into the above comments, it would
>seem that you are a bit sensitive.

I apologize, I didn't meant to rag on you specifically. What bothers
me is that this "fact" about C2 certification being a HW/SW combination
appeared a while ago, and it has now become the favourite mantra of a
bunch of people in this group, most of whom know little about C2 at
all.

>>So, a C2 rating is a function of the software only. This is what NT
>>will have and IBM is claiming OS/2 will have. The difference is
>>that NT has all the software in place; all that is missing is the
>>stamp of approval.
>
>I don't really know the C2 certification process.  I didn't know that
>the OS only could be so certified.
>
>>C2 certification, however, does not just apply to a particular
>>combination of hardware and software, but to a specific location
>>or office that wishes to be certified. 
>
>Wait a minute, you just said in the previous statement that C2
>certification was software only.  Now you say its a combination of
>hardware, software, and location.  (How about network interconnections
>and physical computer access too?)  Your statements seem to be
>contridictoy. Which is it?

I said that a C2 rating is a function of software. C2 certification
is location-specific. They are different things.

Network connections and physical access count too. Since NT is
designed with C2 security and networking in mind from the start,
the networking components also have the features required for a
C2 rating.

>>As you would expect you
>>need software with a C2 rating. But it's not like IBM could start
>>selling a system that runs OS/2 and claim it is "C2 certified";
>>they could sell a system and claim it was "C2 certifiable", but
>>any clone manufacturer could put NT on their systems and say
>>the same thing.
>
>I never said IBM could do what you suggest.  I just said that the
>process of certification would be easier for any manufacturer that
>made both the hardware and the software.

I disagree with this, since manufacturers are not the ones getting
the certification.


- adam
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Date: 5 Oct 92 00:01:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct5.000141.27961
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>IBM no longer sells OS/2 for $49.  I believe the current upgrade
>price is $79, and even that price applies only to Windows users.

On the other hand, it's cheap to become a Windows user.  A friend in
Silicon Valley tells me that someplace (Weird Stuff Warehouse, I think)
has a bin full of some ancient version of Windows for $3.95 each.

--Tim Smith
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:07:00 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Sep28.082303.23571@microsoft.com>, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Sk
elly) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.231652.54509@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu wr
ote:
>
>>
>> Balony.  Shaking out bugs is *one* reason why beta's are released.  The most
>> important reason at that.  Developers *do* give out beta's for evaluation
>> purposes.  Look in any magazine, they have all those rotten "sneak previews"
>> based on beta's.  They were given the copy by the developer in 90% of the
>> cases.  If beta's were only given to a small number of developers, then how d
o
>> you explain the NT and OS/2 beta's which can be had almost for the asking.
>> (And in os/2's case, that is all it takes)
>
>Maybe you can tell this about the OS/2 beta program, but I have yet to
>hear from anyone who's seen a beta for NT.  I know a lot of folk with
>the PDK though, who say it's pretty easy to get ahold of.  All you
>have to do is call the developers hotline.  (just being a pain ;)
>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions....
>

Well, I hate to get dragged into the "is-it-a-beta-or-isn't-it" arguement, but
as time goes on I have realized that the NT SDK for all intents and purposes
and regardless of their marketing department's wishes, is a beta.  If it
wasn't, then they shouldn't have made it so availlable.
As for the PDK, what I should have made clear is that it costs something.
($69)  The OS/2 beta is FREE.  (No shipping either)  Just call them and ask
for a copy and it'll be there in about a week.  The PDK is easy to get though.

Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: So much for Msoft's bluster <grin>
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: "world"
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:00:27 GMT

sammy@anagld.analytics.com (Sam Blackburn) writes:

>Debatable.  From a developer's point of view it makes more sense to develop a
>Windows application because OS/2 can run Windows apps.  You've killed two birds
>with one stone.  This, of course, does not apply to "server" type applications.
>When NT comes out you've got an application that runs on THREE operating systems
>instead of being tied to only one with OS/2.

No No No - I wish people would stop saying this. Its not true.
A properly designed OS/2 or NT application will perform better than
a Windows application. People will not buy Windows applications to run
on OS/2 or NT once native applications are available.

Writing only Windows versions may seem like a good idea in the short term
when there isn't any competition. But in the long term you are going
to lose sales.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
From: 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is WPS really better?? YES!
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:54:31 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <kaz.717802612@vincent1.iastate.edu>, kaz@iastate.edu (Jimmy Buffet) writes:
> Well, all I can say is I've used Mac system 7, Windows 3.1, DOS, Amiga DOS 2.0,
> X-Windows (Motif), and have seen Desqview/X.  All I can say is the WPS is the
> most logical, the only true object oriented, the most enjoyable, the
> most powerful, the most attractive, and the most advanced interface of them 
> all.  I am truly very, VERY satisfied (in love with) the WPS.  That alone
> is impressive, but running another OPERATING SYSTEM in a window?  It's amazing.
> Seamless windows! An incredible feat.  WPS has changed the way I look at and
> use my computer
> 
> Jeff "Kaz" Kaczmarek
> 


Agreed.  In response to someone else who said it was about as hard as
Windows, let me say this:

	In OS/2 you put the disk in drive a:, click on the icon that
looks like your floppy drive (on our systems we make 5.25 inch drives
have a 5.25 inch icon) and then simply drag the folder onto your
desktpop.  That's it.  If the user wants, they can move it to a speicfic
place on the hard drive but that is not required.  Most programs will
let you run them right from the desktop.  Unlike windows where you first
select the directory you want to copy, specificy the destination or
copy it to another directory on your hard disk (with little tiny icons)
and then (IF you have win 3.1) you can juggle the window size of program
manager and file manager and lamely try to drag the right program into
the program manager so that you can runit.

I really am not going to debate it.  The answer is clear, we get
fewer tech support calls from OS/2 users than windows users and
we sell primarily to computer "illiterates".

					-Brad
===============================
Brad Wardell
Systems Development Director
Stardock Systems SDS
Western Michigan University
===============================
From: lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (m.l. gore)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: NT people deserve a home too..but for how long??
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:50:05 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University


>Raul Shum
>
>P.S. If anyone knows or have subscription info for OS/2 Monthly, please pass
>it on!
>
>Finally, to the schmucks who support NT, go and form your own advocacy!
>In the words of Tracy Ullman..GO HOME
>.
>
    A much as I hate reading so _much_ NT stuff, I must say your statement is
    a little harsh.

    You raise the question 'WHy isn't there your own usenet'. I asked the same
    question several weeks ago an d got no response....

    People like Brian (I do not mean to single you out, but you are quite
    active), have a great knowledge for NT, and should be respected for
    clearing up rumours about the OS. Unfortunately, sometimes their opinions
    are extremely BIASED (sp?), and that is what is not needed around here.

    I must admit, over the past few weeks, there has been less and less
    opinionated NT stuff. Then again, I usually skip any header with NT in it.
    I don't mind reading about the features of NT. Just make sure you point
    out the drawbacks with as much enthusiasm. NT people are quick to flame
    OS/2's faults (and there are plenty, but it is in essence a _first_
    edition OS).

    Yes, you should form your own usenet. But for now, you still need a home,
    and this place seem appropriate. Just take Joe Friday's advise and:

        Stick with the Facts....



                                just mho, flame on

                                bvl
-- 

   ---------------------------------
  | Brian Van Lieu                  |         Let the MS Gods know
  | Lehigh University               |     they cannot rule the application
  | lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu          |     world anymore.
  |                                 |         Tell Gates that he must make
  | ' You can't change the world    |     good on his promises for support.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: kab@s1.gov (Keith Benton)
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Reply-To: kab@s1.gov
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:50:36 GMT

In article 16917@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu, sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>
>I feel a need to point out one thing.  Has anyone else noticed that they make
>a difference between the upgrade and the normal product?  Why?  They operate
>exactly the same and the only difference is price and some details on how it
>is sold.  They are the same product so why differentiate?  Notice that that
>clears off another 3 spots just on this list.  Also, I think this list
>includes those bundled with systems.  How many copies of OS/2 do you find
>bundled with systems as opposed to the above stuff?  Not too many.
>
>Stacy John Behrens
>*===)-------------

Well since you asked, :-) here is the blurb at the bottom af the list.
Quoted without permission.

"The list ranks PC business programs according to the total number
of copies shipped to stores and resellers in the week ending August 8,
1992. The list is based on shipments to more than 12,000 retail locations.
It does not include sales made directly by software publishers and cannot
be interpreted as a picture of the entire software market. Sales information
compiled by Ingram-Micro."

All mispellings are mine.

Now if we could only find if that includes hardware dealers that bundle
the software with their machines, or if it's just on the shelf software.
You would think that with the upgrades it would be bought off the shelf 
and not bundled with machines. So chose you own interpretation.

---
	---------------------------------------------------------
	|             Keith Benton: kab@s1.gov                  |
	| ME!?!? Speak for anyone here!?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA |
	|             Standard Disclaimers apply                |
	---------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jre@zeos.com (Jim Erickson)
Subject: Re: Interesting Tidbit from Sept 21 PC week
Organization: Zeos International, Ltd
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 13:40:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.195421.10949@cs.brown.edu> wcn@cs.brown.edu (Wen-Chun Ni) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.131125.26135@zeos.com> jre@zeos.com (Jim Erickson) writes:
>>>*===)-------------
>>  First off, I didn't bring up DOS 4.00, someone else did. I'm simply trying
>>to point out that the last time IBM tried to produce a OS for the PC 
>>platform they ended up with DOS 4.00, a bloated system that very few people
>>used because the advantages it offered were far outweighed by the headaches 
>>it caused.  In five years time you'll be able to substitute "OS/2 2.0" for 
>>"DOS 4.00" in that sentence.
>>---JRE---
>>
>>
>
>For the above illogical and brain-damaged opinions, I will recommend
>against any Zeo products.
>
>Mr. Erickson, go back to your *hardware group, in which you can
>at least sell your products. For software, it's not your thing.
>
>
>
>Wen-Chun Ni

   Ah, personal attacks. That really shows a sign of a person confident in
their position.
---JRE---


-- 
Jim Erickson             ZZZZ EEEE  OO   SSSS   ZEOS International, Ltd.  
support@zeos.com   INET     Z E    O  O S       Technical Support Dept.
uunet!zeos!support UUCP    Z  EE   O  O  SSS    530 5th Ave N.W.
800-228-5390      VOICE   Z   E    O  O     S   St. Paul, MN 55112
612-633-7337             ZZZZ EEEE  OO  SSSS    FAX         612-633-4607
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 09:51:10 GMT

Phil Lafornara writes:

>> If you, and/or MS think I'm going to use a Windows app under OS/2 when
>> there is a native OS/2 app, you will surely miss the boat.

> There isn't a native OS/2 app.  That's the point.

I can't believe you said this.  Certainly you must know that there are
plenty of native OS/2 apps out there.

> The potential [of OS/2] is not clear yet.  If and when it becomes apparent
> that OS/2 2.0 will be around for a while, with substantial user base,
> I would expect some management person to make a decision on whether
> or not to produce apps for it.  At present, though, OS/2's future is
> far from clear.

The same can be said for NT, yet Microsoft is producing apps for it.  Of
course, the logic in this case is clear.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 07:30:53 GMT

TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:

>     One last thing for all of the MS'ers.  It seems that even
>though MS doesn't necessarily hold your opinions, most of the
>employees who post here hold MS's opinions.  Why is this?  (no
>flames please, I'm just stating my observations!)

I wouldn't hold that against MS.  Those who don't hold MS's opinions
have either quit, or aren't going to slight the source of their income
in public.

One thing I have noticed is that the signal to noise ratio in this group
has gone down considerably in the past few weeks.  People, please don't
jump off the deep end and post emotional flames at everything you disagree
with.  Take a deep breath, count to ten, go out to lunch, whatever, then
come back later when you're a little calmer and write your reply.
-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu | think of something very clever 
uunet!jarthur!jokim         | to use as a disclaimer)
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:6358 comp.sys.intel:1778 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:25463
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
From: Spartacus At Cuny <I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Sunday, 27 Sep 1992 23:17:14 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <_1
>
>In article <92271.152323I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET> Spartacus At Cuny
><I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>>Today I read IBM plans to release its PowerPC chips this fall
>>on the USAToday newsfeed on the freenet.  As I understand it
>>these new PowerPC will run Pink in about 3 years from now.
>                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Pink supposedly will run OS/2 and MSDOS programs as well
>>as Pink programs.
>
>What, exactly, is the point of releasing the chips now if nothing will
>run on them?

I'm pretty sure AIX or maybe a ported version of OS/2 could
be in the works for them until Pink debuts.

-------
------------------------------+      All The Best,
Reply To:                     |
                              |      Edward Galarza,
     I18BC@CunyVM.Cuny.Edu    |      Brooklyn College Of The
     I18BC@CunyVM.BitNet      |      City University Of New York
------------------------------+      "Que viva el OS/2!"
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 6 Oct 1992 18:51:01 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Oct05.183609.22361@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>     This is a very foolish statement, Jay.  There are no clear
>plans for the pricing of Windows NT at this time - the "under $500" is
>an estimate of the upper bound, not the lower bound.  Assuming that
>it will sell for $499.95 is ridiculous - the product will be priced
>to maximize profits, the way all software is.  The higher price will
>not always bring the most profit.

My argument is based on a simple premise: There are customers right now
deciding on whether or not to get OS/2 or wait for NT. One consideration (of
admittedly varying importance, but that importance is always >0) is the price
of NT. In the absence of firm statements from MS about the final pricing
decision, all they have to go on is the "under $500" estimate. MS, presumably,
knows this, and it's in their best interests to scare as few customers off as
possible with an inflated estimate; at the same time, it would not look good
for MS to estimate on the low side. Therefore, it's in MS's best interest to
come up with as accurate an estimate as possible. In this context, "under
$500" has its normal American marketing meaning: $490<x<$500.

>     Interesting - the burden of proof is now on Microsoft to prove its
>innocence?  Isn't that backwards?

This is not a criminal case, but a civil one (at least, MS can't go to jail
for pressuring Zachmann). In a civil case, the preponderance of the evidence
decides, and right now there's more evidence from Zachmann than there is from
MS.
-- 
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.
    Vote for a REAL change on 3 November: Throw out the check-bouncing,
  tax-and-spend Democrat Congress! (obviously, not an opinion of UTHSCH)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 09:38:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.173118.14927@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.235316.22538@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep27.050408.12169@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>>>>Does this mean that we should stifle the technology?  What's your point?
>>>>-- 
>>>
>>>The point, is that, in the end, aren't we simply making more fashionable
>>>chains for ourselves?  If you don't think it's ironic, then the effort
>>>was wasted on you.
>>
>>Work doesn't change, only the way we do it.
>
>The short run, though, is that workers will either have to adapt or
>suffer.  In the end, this is good because it will make the society more
>productive--but it's really not something to look forward to on a 
>personal level, painful as such adaptations tend to be.
>
>>
>>Just a couple nuggets of thought,
>>Ted
>

Very true Joe.  However the world is changing all the time.  New technologies,
new ways of thinking, new ways of working, new people to deal with all
present us with a lot of new and changing challenges.  These developments,
and subsequent overcoming of these challenges, is exactly what drives the
world and us to improve.  If we had done anything against adapting to these
new circumstances, we would probably still have lived in the stone age.
Agriculture displaces hunting.  The hunters must have had a hard time adapting.
Similar examples abound in man's history.

Just my two cents.

>
>Joe
>


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy