HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Future of Windows
Keywords: Windows
Organization: University of Utah Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 06:42:46 GMT

In article <8862@news.duke.edu> bhs@neuro.duke.edu (Brennan Stephens) writes:
>I am a Windows 3.1 user and so far I have had no serious problems with windows.
>What I'm wondering is what kind of future Windows (not NT) has.  Is there 
>going to be a Windows 4.0?  I don't have the hardware to run NT or OS/2 with
>any efficiency, and I don't really forsee a time when I will require that kind
>of power.  I have too many quetions to write here, so if anyone could direct
>me to a good source of info, I would be very thankful.  Thanx.


Yes, it is called Chicago.  Here's a bit of information:

[PCWeek; December 28, 1992/January 4, 1993; Page 1,10]
Future MS-DOS to fuse 32-bit DOS, Windows.
	By Amy Cortese

Microsoft Corp. plans to brief key developers next month on a MS-DOS follow-on
that could signal the end of the line for the decade-old operating system
as we know it.

The offering, code-named Chicago, is slated for delivery in 18 months
to 24 months and will meld 32-bit versions of DOS and Windows into one
product. This represents Microsoft's most determined effort to migrate
the huge installed base of DOS customers to Windows, observers said.

By fusing the two environments and adding 32-bit capabilities, Microsoft
would bypass many of the restrictions of the aging DOS foundations while
transforming Windows into an operating system in its own right, the said.
...

Chicago is likely to be positioned as Microsoft's low-end graphical Windows
client for 386-class machines, while NT will serve as a high-end, secure
Windows operating environment, sources said. DOS 6.0 will likely continue
to be offered, but only marginally enhanced.

The 32-bit Windows operating system will also feature a revamped interface
that represents a leap ahead in usability, said Microsoft officials and
sources familiar with the technology. The interface will be dramatically
enhanced for ease of use and will provide an environment where users can
work in an information-oriented way rather than in the application paradigm
of today's Windows, Microsoft officials said.

With this new approach, for example, spreadsheets, graphics and other
data types could be organized and accessed by task or subject matter,
rather than by the applications that they originated in, they said.
...



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
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: gary@nshade.uah.ualberta.ca (Gary Ritchie)
Subject: Re: Win NT's "bad looks"
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:23:43 GMT

>
> Let's also not forget the third party vendors who may offer something
> akin to "Norton Desktop for Windows NT" (I hope! I just installed NT
> last night -- it went flawlessly and works as expected (i.e., sluggishly
> but well) -- and was disappointed to be back at Program Manager/File
> Manager again after using Norton Desktop for so long (so I'll switch to
> NT every now and then and stick with Win 3.1 in the interim).  Indeed, I
> would hope for some alternatives for OS/2 as well, since in my opinion
> the Workplace shell is ugly, awkward, unintuitive and buggy.
> 

I'm about to switch programming jobs from the NeXT back to DOS/Windows.   
Until I can get NeXTSTEP 486 on my work machine :-), is there a  
Windows-based program manager that has the sorts of functionality of the  
NeXT workspace?  How does Norton Desktop compare, in terms of actual  
usability?  I always found with the standard Windows tools that it was  
easier to drop to the DOS prompt to do file manipulation (especially since  
I type 95 WPM), but that on the NeXT I *usually* use the graphical front  
end for copying, launching, etc...

I'm not interested in starting a GUI war; I'm just looking for feedback,  
having been out of the Windows environment for a couple of years.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: R12997@waccvm.corp.mot.com (Rick Heider)
Subject: Re: 7 Re: Win NT's "bad looks"
Organization: Motorola
Date: 22 Jan 1993 16:10:04 MST

------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
In article <1993Jan19.183643.12939@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> gary@nshade.uah.ualber
>A Microsoft employee recently commented -- in one of the NeXT forums,
>oddly enough -- that Microsoft was planning to make significant changes to
>the Windows interface in a "future release" to bring it more up to par
>with the better interfaces now found in other GUI's.  I can't be more
>specific; he wasn't either.  I'd post the article, but it has expired from
>my news server.

>I suspect he/she was talking about was the new Excel-style 3d controls which
>are already available (uunet- 3-31.zip _somewhere_ under vendor/microsoft)
>I've heard rumors that these will be "built in" to future Windows version.

Come on, you can't really say that Excel 4.0 comes with 3D icons when
you have to go get them off a BBS and install them yourself!  What
happens at the next release, when they aren't available?  You are in the
same situation as other Windows users that were using the Norton
desktop, who have to switch back to the old PM shell with NT.  I
for one, would love NT, but I also like the Norton shell.  After
all, that's why I made the conversion to Windows- and I went through
the normal pains to do so!  I think 3.1 is running great!  It's
certainly not worth changing 120MB of software for the  1X/month
crash (none of which have been destructive).  Oh yeah, I'd like
true multitasking, too.  And my 486/33 is almost fast enough, too.
Of course, I have learned not to run any of that other fancy crap
with Windows- and I've tried it all.  As for 16MB of memory, well,
what's new?  I used to think that 8MB was a lot.  And there are some
who still remember that 64KB was all we needed.  Hey, what about
the 200MB Solaris 2.0 takes- that cost $$!  The 8MB is only the
start of what we'll need.  Wait until C++ "really" gets going and we
start to suck all that object oriented code in;  I beleive we are
all seeing what fast delivery of software coupled with pretty
clean code, and time to market is delivering- most of the functional
stuff out there starts at a 15 MB package- that's on disk, sure, but
try to run four to five big apps and watch the memory size and resources
die.

I like all the stuff I'm using, now- and I'm not taking a step backward!
I've been suffering with Windows for years, and it's now useful, even.
I think I'll wait until I can replicate what I have.

Rick Heider


From: slo@otter.hpl.hp.com (Steve Loughran)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 09:56:55 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Class A and Class B devices at home
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy


I always thought that Class A meant "the box is kind of off white colour"
while class B meant "the box is black".

Maybe this has more to do with marketing than the FCC...

Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4013 comp.os.os2.advocacy:12789
From: bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: The sin of MicroSoft
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:32:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: Celestia.1993Jan25.173233.8042
Distribution: usa
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA

In <1jgvoqINN8tp@cae.cad.gatech.edu> chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen) writes:

:In <1jftidINNage@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:

:>chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen) writes:

:>Hey. There are lots of people who could use 4 gigs of memory (and
:>CPU speed to use it all) TOMORROW.  Personally, it might take me a few months
:>starting today to start needing that.

:>You have no idea how terribly crude many scientific calculations are
:>because of computer limitations.

In my experience it wasn't the computer limitations, but the
scientists whose attitude is ``I ain't a programmer and proud of it''.
They will read huge amounts of information into an array then
loop through the array once rather than do the calculations as
they read the data....

John Mashey of MIPS (now Silicon Graphics I believe) pointed out
the huge appetites GUIs have for RAM and processor power.  How
much RAM do you need for a 1280x1024 32K color display?  How many
images do you want to keep in memory to speed up graphics refresh?

My last mainframe computer was a Burrough B-3700 that supported
15 users simultaneously and would run circles around the then
current crop of IBM 370s in it's price range.  It only had 200KB
(that's right 200 Kilobytes) of memory.  Most COBOL programs took
15KB of RAM only because the SORT verb required that much stack.
One of the largest programs to run (about 55KB) on this system was
a simulation of the LHA amphibious assault ship.   Programs
expand to fill the memory available.

Bill
-- 
INTERNET:  bill@Celestial.COM   Bill Campbell; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!bill   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!bill   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
SPEED COSTS MONEY -- HOW FAST DO YOU WANT TO GO?
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk)
Subject: Re: The sin of MicroSoft
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:25:39 GMT

bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell) writes:

>In <1jgvoqINN8tp@cae.cad.gatech.edu> chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen) writes:

>:In <1jftidINNage@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:

>:>chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen) writes:

>:>Hey. There are lots of people who could use 4 gigs of memory (and
>:>CPU speed to use it all) TOMORROW.  Personally, it might take me a few months
>:>starting today to start needing that.

>:>You have no idea how terribly crude many scientific calculations are
>:>because of computer limitations.

>In my experience it wasn't the computer limitations, but the
>scientists whose attitude is ``I ain't a programmer and proud of it''.
>They will read huge amounts of information into an array then
>loop through the array once rather than do the calculations as
>they read the data....

>John Mashey of MIPS (now Silicon Graphics I believe) pointed out
>the huge appetites GUIs have for RAM and processor power.  How
>much RAM do you need for a 1280x1024 32K color display?  How many
>images do you want to keep in memory to speed up graphics refresh?

>My last mainframe computer was a Burrough B-3700 that supported
>15 users simultaneously and would run circles around the then
>current crop of IBM 370s in it's price range.  It only had 200KB
>(that's right 200 Kilobytes) of memory.  Most COBOL programs took
>15KB of RAM only because the SORT verb required that much stack.
>One of the largest programs to run (about 55KB) on this system was
>a simulation of the LHA amphibious assault ship.   Programs
>expand to fill the memory available.



Then again somepeople NEED that extra space right now.  For just a
CLASS I had a year ago on VLSI there was a program that I wrote
that needed about 150M-200M for the largest data set (rough 
calc., the biggest machine here at SIU only has 56M).  This data
set was pretty small compared to what is used in industry.
Now the fact is that I could have gotten a program to work in
only about 100K pretty easily, but then the program would have
taken at least a week to run (major time/space tradeoff).
I'm not even going to mention the kind of computer resources I'm
needing now.


					Todd Walk
					walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu

Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: Win NT's "bad looks"
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 23:42:38 GMT

In article <C1C0rp.G9I@ns1.nodak.edu> person@plains.NoDak.edu (Brett Person) writes:
>As for NT being better than Unix. Rumor has it that a future version of OS/2
>will HAVE unix as one of it's command prompts choices. 
>-- 
Well, actually, a future IBM OS will have both Unix and OS/2 as
"personalities" available on top of it.  And if all you want is a
Unix-like command-line for OS/2, that's available now.  There are ports
of Gnu's Bash, and the C-shell available for OS/2 now  (the latter at
least is availble for NT too, as has been discussed somewhere recently).

>Brett Person
>Guest Account	
>North Dakota State University
>person@plains.nodak.edu || person@plains.bitnet
>I don't do Windows, but OS/2 does.


-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Subject: Re: The sin of MicroSoft
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:18:08 GMT

12 Years ago, as a college sophomore, 64 kB of memory was THE big
thing.  Most systems back then had 16 kB.  Nowadays, average systems
have 4 MB and gee-wow systems have 16 MB.  In 12 years then, system
memory has increased 250-fold.  Should the pace continue, in 12 years,
your average system will have 1 GB of memory and the gee-wow systems
will have 4 GB.

The people who say "I no way, no how will need a couple of GB" are
just plain stupid.  We should ignore them and hopefully they will go
away.  Remember the head of the US Patent Office, circa 1900, who said
everything that could be invented had already been invented?  Some
people are just plain stupid and do not learn from history, either
short term or long term.  I, on the other hand, eageraly await the day
that I can by my Intel Dodecehedium based system with 4 Gb of
memory...

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | The fairest thing we can experience is the
Field Robotics Center,          | mysterious.  It is the fundemental emotion
Carnegie Mellon University      | which stands at the cradle of true art and
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | true science.  He who knows it not and can
(412) 268-3856                  | no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement,
                                | is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle.
The opinions expressed are mine | Albert Einstein
and do not reflect the official | 
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      |
From: jahonen@cs.joensuu.fi (Jarmo Ahonen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT shall slay UNIX
Date: 28 Jan 93 06:40:01 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

ifbb657@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) writes:


>I am interested in hearing debate about UNIX vs NT (When it comes out.).

>NT has one quality that UNIX has:  An innate resistance to viruses.
>Because of the protected mode execution of apps, one app cannot infect
>another unless you are running as the Administrator.  Because of this,
>most virii will be hard to spread.  I do not know about boot sector
>viruses, though.

>Compared to Unix, NT is relatively easy to install and use, is built for
>portability, and binaries on one platform *WILL* work for another w/o
>recompiling.  NT also is not built on a rickety 20 year old platform of
>hacks and patches like UNIX.

>UNIX is a TRUE multiple user OS though, while NT can only have one
>user on at a time.

>Please correct if there are any inaccuracies in my statements.


I'll have to see the final NT release in order to compare it with UNIX.
It would, however, surprise me quite much if NT can provide the flexibility
provided by UNIX.

In many environments UNIX machines are used as multiuser machines, and
I do not really have any actual experience about NT's multiuser capabilities.

At least in our environment *all* of our UNIX machines are constantly used
by more than one person at the same time, and I suspect (based on brief
experience and what I have heard) that NT will provide no real alternative
to UNIX for us. 

So, considering the title of your message, we can say that although it may
be that the knight NT will slay intel-based UNIXes, the real dracons will
easily eat the knight if it comes to their land. :-) :-) :-) :-)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: wagner@utoday.com (Mitch Wagner)
Subject: net.views - novell/usl deal - REPOST
Organization: Open Systems Today
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 15:28:12 GMT
Followup-To: comp.unix.questions

            Does the imminent acquisition of USL by 
            Novell mean the end of Unix as an open
            operating system?


We're asking this question to collect opinions for the "net.views" column in
OPEN SYSTEMS TODAY. Please E-mail your responses to wagner@utoday.com.
 
By responding to that address, you'll be granting permission to OST to publish
your response.
 
In order to use your response, we'd like to know who you are. Please tell us
our real, full name, your job title, your employer, and location---or,
alternately, if you're a student, your class standing (freshman, sophomore,
junior, senior, grad, etc.), college and university, and its location. Please
also include a telephone number where you can be reached during daytime hours
in North America.
 
Please limit responses to about two full screens (24x80) of text, not including
headers and other administrivia.
 
Responses to net.views will be posted to this space in about two weeks
(FYI, for those interested - A previous net.views question on DEC and
Alpha went out about a week ago, and I'll be posting responses there
as soon as they slow down coming in.)

Thanks for participating, and we look forward to hearing from you!
 
                         -- mitch w.
--
Mitch Wagner, senior editor, Open Systems Today
2353 Massachusetts Ave. Suite 47, Cambridge, MA 02140
wagner@utoday.com  (617)547-8485  CIS:70212,51  GEnie:MITCHWAGNER  
For subscription information, please call 516/562-5882
From: jreece@sousa.intel.com (John Reece)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Gigabytes (was Re: The sin of MicroSoft)
Date: 21 Jan 93 21:23:22 GMT
Reply-To: jreece@sousa.intel.com
Organization: Intel - Information Technologies

In article <1jmeloINNhoj@transfer.stratus.com>, jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:

> Although this has a drawback, too. Someone who develops
> an application on a 486/66 with 64 Meg of memory, an EISA bus,
> etc., may not notice how awful his/her application really is
> for someone who has to use it every day on a 386sx/20 with 
> 4 Meg of memory.


That's OK,  Intel will be happy to have them buy a new computer with
a 486/66 in it, then one with a Pentium/100, a Septium/200...
The capability to put music videos in your spreadsheet ain't gonna come
cheap :-)

-- 
John Reece			
Not an Intel spokesman
From: bigal@wpi.WPI.EDU (Nathan Charles Crowell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.setup
Subject: Re: 32-bit disk access
Date: 28 Jan 93 18:25:29 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu

In article <19930128125725SNODDI@MVS.sas.com> SNODDI@MVS.sas.com (Dale Ingold) writes:
>How does SETUP determine whether your hard drive supports 32-bit disk
>access or not?  It apparently thinks mine does not, and my system guy
>doesn't know why (or why not; he'd never heard of it until I mentioned
>it to him.  A friend told me about it.)  Thanks.
> 
>------------------------------------------------------------------------=
>Family slogan: "Disce Pati", means "Learn to Suffer". Really.
>Dale D. Ingold      / /|   / SAS Institute Inc.      snoddi@mvs.sas.com
>MVS Host Group     | /-|  |  SAS Campus Drive        919/677-8000 x7603
>                  / /  | /   Cary, NC  27513-2414

If you read some of the documentation regarding 32-bit disk
access, I think what it says is that it isn't entirely com-
patible with some IDE drives, etc.

SETUP probably "asks" the controller to identify itself and
if certain info doesn't match what Windows knows will be 
compatible, it won't give you the option.

Try the Windows Resource Kit for more info.

Nate
--------------------------
Nathan C. Crowell, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering/ACRL

Worcester Polytechnic Institute     E-mail: bigal@wpi.wpi.edu

"Don't pity this insect. That's not his blood - it's mine."
 - quote from "The Mosquito Coast"
--------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.setup
From: jpbaker@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jon P Baker)
Subject: Actix GraphicsEngine32+ Windows 3.1 drivers
Summary: Would someone please put these drivers on an FTP site
Keywords: ACTIX DRIVERS GRAPHICS
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 05:00:28 GMT


I am looking for someone who has the latest Windows 3.1 drivers for
the Actix GraphicsEngine32+ board and is willing to post them to an
FTP site. A nice person tried e-mailing me them (uuencoded) but the
files were corrupted. I've also called the Actix BBS and cannot
connect at more than 2400baud. Unfortunately this seems to mean that I
do not have enough time to download the files.

Any help would be appreciated. The files on the Actix BBS were called
DOEM31.EXE and DWIN3X.EXE. FON.ZIP would be handy if availible.

(BTW: It is a beautiful, FAST, and very affordable board. I love it.
More info upon request.)

Jon
-- 
  Jon Paul Baker, Chaos Foundation  jpbaker@silver.ucs.indiana.edu 
       Computer Science Major, Indiana University Bloomington  
                         ----====><====----
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.setup
From: jason@jarthur.claremont.edu (Jason Merrill)
Subject: SBPro driver troubles
Organization: Minimal
Date: 22 Jan 93 18:02:43

When I try to install the SBPro wave driver, a dialog box pops up to inform
me that I need a newer version of Windows 3.1.  I wasn't aware that there
was a newer version of 3.1 than the one which first shipped; I'm not
running a beta.  Any ideas?

System:  486/33, AMI bios
	 Adaptec 1542A
	 Stacker 3.0
	 QEMM 6.03

--
Jason Merrill					jason@jarthur.claremont.edu
From: davidw@auck.irl.cri.nz (David White)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.setup
Subject: Re: PC benchmarks
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:39:14 GMT
Organization: Industrial Research Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand
NNTP-Posting-Host: kauri.auck.irl.cri.nz
Keywords: Benchmarks, Winmarks

In <10341236@MVB.SAIC.COM> khr@hp700.trg.saic.com (Karl Rudnick) writes:

>How do I get hold of a lot of the standard benchmarks, such as those
>run in PC magazine? In particular Winbench.

Try on simtel (or a mirror site) in directory windows3 for winben31.zip.

--
 david white    (engineer, Goon fan & son of my Dad)
 Internet davidw@auck.irl.cri.nz  Fax +64 9 443-4737
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.setup
From: tsornas@dec5.ulb.ac.be (Thierry Sornasse)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.setup
Subject: Re: Virtual Memory Setup
Date: 23 Jan 93 17:00:33 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Free University Brussels  - Belgium -  Department of Molecular Biology

Hi networker,

Are you talking about the virtual memory on disk created by windows in 386 enhanced mode ?
If it is the case, the maximum memory you are able to create is limited by the disk space available on
your computer. I think that Windows set the upper limit to 25% of the reamining disk space.

Good Work

Thierry Sornasse
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.setup,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: shopsis@panther.adelphi.edu (Charles Shopsis)
Subject: Re: ATI Local Bus Ultro Pro Benchmarks
Organization: Adelphi University - Node: Boole
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:43:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.180522.11384@hpcvca.cv.hp.com> scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn) writes:

>dcoleman@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Daniel M. Coleman) writes:
>: I don't remember who it was, but earlier someone was concerned about the
>: performance of their local bus ATI Ultra Pro under Windows.  So I downloaded
>: WinBench from cica and ran my own tests.  Here are results:

>Which ATI driver version are you running?


>Scott Linn
>scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com

I was using the drivers that came with my Gateway 2000 DX2 66V.  They were 
dated sometime in October, 1992.  I just installed the build 53 drivers, and 
they gave me about a 33% increase in the Winbench 3.1 results.

Charles Shopsis
shopsis@panther.adelphi.edu