HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Cyrix Issue...
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:49:01 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <Matt_Kievit.0c2d@abcd.Houghton.MI.US>, Matt_Kievit@abcd.Houghton.MI.US (Matt Kievit) writes:
> In a message dated Tue 12 Jan 93  1:04, 177wardell@gw.wmich.edu wrote:
> 
>>> What we have here is a basic disagreement.  I have read in numerous
>>>articles that the Cyrix 486 chip is exactly what was said above:
>>>a 386sx with a 2K onchip cache and  a few extra instructions that
>>>are math related.  It is NOT a 486 class processor (in terms of
>>>compatibility).
>> 
>> 
>>  The Cyrix chips _are_ 486 chips.  They have ALL of the 486 
>>  instructions (bswap, etc).  
>> 
>>  The differences between the 486SX and the 486SLC/DLC are:
>>  
>>  1.  The 486 has an 8k cache, the Cyrix chips have a _1_k cache.
>>   (not a 2k cache)
>>  2.  The 486 uses the 486 pinout, the Cyrix chips are drop in
>>  replacements for 386DX (DLC) and 386SX (SLC) chips.
>>  3.  the 486 has a built in FPU.  The Cyrix chips implement the
>>  FPU externally, in the FastMath coprocessor.
>> 
>>  Obviously, none of the above differences have anything to do with
>>  compatibility with a 486SX or DX (if you add the coprocessor).  they
>>  will result in performance differences, nothing more.
>> 
>>  If these are not "486 class processors" it is strictly a matter
>>  of performance, NOT compatibility.  
> 
>  >  I still stand by my original post (except I agree, it is a 1K
>  > cache, not 2K).  I have read over and over again that Cyrix's 486SLC is
>  > only called a 486 for marketting reasons and that it is still basically
>  > a 386sx (16bit bus, 24bit address, tec) with a few added instructions.
> 
>  >      -Brad
> 
> I have right here in front of me, Compu Shopper, October, 1992, p 171:
> 
> "The Cx486DLC comes with a 486 instruction set with 32-bit internal and
> external data paths."
> 
> In other words, it's a NEARLY EXACT i486, except for the 1k cache and the
> fact that it fits into a 386 DX slot..
> 
	Key word in there is the 486DLC.  I was talking about the
486SLC.  I am not familiar with the DLC, are you CERTAIN it has been 
released yet?

					-Brad




> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>         Matt Kievit - Michigan Tech University - In the great U.P
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> -- Via DLG Pro v0.995
> 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: paul@sierra.com (Paul Stratton)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Sierra Geophysics Inc.,  Kirkland, Wa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:26:53 GMT

In article <wiegand.725577960@lido16> motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net writes:
>helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
...
>The hardware vendors do this because Microsoft requires it. 
>The Microsoft contract requires payment of royalties per *computer*
>sold, not per *copy* of the software. So even if you don't want the
>software you have to pay for it.

It depends on what the manufacturers deal is with Microsoft.  When I bought
my PC from the local clone shop they had package deals available with and
without.  There was also the option of buying it with the system without
DOS and Windows.  NOTE:  The systems with DOS and without DOS were different.
The owner said that if he would have signed a deal with MS that included
DOS and Windows with every system it would have been cheaper per unit, but
he had a lot of customers that were upgrading that already owned DOS and/or
Windows.


-- 
Paul Stratton               -----   -----   -----    -----    -----    ------
Sierra Geophysics, Inc.    /          /    /        /    /   /    /   /     /
P.O. Box 3886              -----     /    /---     /-----   /-----   /-----/
Seattle, Wa.  98124            /    /    /        /   \    /  \     /     /
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: patrice@cenparmi.concordia.ca (SCATTOLIN patrice)
Subject: Re: How many Nobel Prizes has IBM won?
Organization: CENPARMI, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:23:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.044937.15400@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rjones@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ronald Jones) writes:
>There is a news item in acs.clari.nb.ibm about the importance of
>basic research to the future of America. It states that in the 
>last 5 years IBM has won 2 Nobel Prizes. Does anyone know the
>total.

  TJ Watson had 5 Nobels in 88. By your count this ought to make 
around 7 by now. Note that there are no nobels in Comp Sci.  
>
>BTW, how many has Microsoft won ;-) (Just to put things into
>their proper perspective!)
>
   They can't win a Nobel for software. Draw your own conclusions.
 
>
>-- 
>    < Ron Jones                   |    E-mail:        rj+@osu.edu  > 
>    < The Ohio State University   |    Office:      (614) 292-1665 >
>    < Columbus, Ohio 43210        |    FAX: (9-5PM) (614) 292-7151 > 


-- 
Patrice Scattolin
					patrice@cs.concordia.ca
Concordia University			Montreal, Canada
"I am so far north that Santa lives two blocks from me"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell)
Subject: SGI-GL in Windows NT??
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 04:19:48 GMT

A guy I work with told me today the Microsoft has bought the rights to
include SGI-GL with Windows NT and will be including it in an upcoming
release!  This is quite an  advantage over OS/2 and brings NT to
workstation level, in my opinion.  If NT will have GL standard, I will
most likely be switching over from OS/2.

I'm pretty shocked. 


-- 
Dan Cogswell               Or as we say in Michigan:  "Dee-troit"
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft and Force continued.
Date: 10 Jan 93 23:30:19 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1993Jan10.061732.13960@nosc.mil>, discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
> In article <1993Jan8.175811.7172@gw.wmich.edu> 177wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>>
>>	To clear up some confusion...
>>
>>	If I am not mistaken (and I might be but I don't think so), the
>>deal that Microsoft has with the cloners is as follows:
>>
>>	Each of your  PCs MUST have MS-DOS/Windows preloaded in order
>>to get a special discount.
>>
>>	It has nothing to do withbulk.  Even if you sell 3 million PCs,
>>you have to install it on all 3 million to get the deal.  This is
>>totally unfair and I will use an example that the US government already
>>interfered in:
>>
>>	In 1990, Nintendo America would often threaten not to let stores
>>sell Nintendo or Nintendo made cartridges for their popular game machine
>>if the seller stocked competing systems.  This is wrong.
>>
>>	Similarly, Microsoft is not saying (if you buy 1 box fo windows
>>then it costs $70, buy 10 and it is $60,  buy  1,000,000 and it is only $50.
>>Their deal is you MUST put Windows on every PC that you sell or you don't
>>get the discount on MS-DOS/Windows.
>>	Speaking as a purchasing director, it is not realistic for many
>>companies to turn down this deal since MS-DOS is the standard.
>>	
>>	This is what is so immoral (in my opinion).  Now you can say
>>"Hey, they  aren't forced into that deal" but try to live in the real
>>world when you argue such  a thing.  Customers want MS-DOS.  DR. DOS
>>is rarely requested except by experienced computer users who simply want
>>Dr. DOS.  Other companies may want MS-Windows but our company never
>>receives requests for it.  (We do not have a contract with Microsoft).
>>	In short, this form of marketting is highly questionable.  I won't
>>even argue it with people taking the  naive stance of "Well you aren't
>>forced to sign that contract!"
>>
>>							-Brad
>>
>>
> 
> I agree with everything you've said except this: Microsoft does not say
> that a Vendor cannot sell other operating systems.  Secondly, the "deal"
> in question is only one of several packages that Microsoft offers... and
> the fact that MANY companies do not sign up with the agreement (And have
> thus far seen no adverse effects) demonstrates that no force, economic or
> otherwise, is put to people to sign the agreement.
> 
> Whether or not such marketing is illegal or immoral is a subjective
> question...
> 
> Joe.
> My opinions.
> 
	One of the newer packages that MS is shelling out is Windows
for Workgroups/DOS 5 for $6.  

	In the card industry, that is called "dumping" and is illegal.
I am not as familiar with that deal as the get MSDOS/Windows real cheap
if you sign that you will install it on every system you sell.  If
customer wants OS/2 then sell it to them but you still have to give
them MS-DOS and Windows.

							-Brad




Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: Microsoft and Force continued.
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 06:17:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.175811.7172@gw.wmich.edu> 177wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>
>	To clear up some confusion...
>
>	If I am not mistaken (and I might be but I don't think so), the
>deal that Microsoft has with the cloners is as follows:
>
>	Each of your  PCs MUST have MS-DOS/Windows preloaded in order
>to get a special discount.
>
>	It has nothing to do withbulk.  Even if you sell 3 million PCs,
>you have to install it on all 3 million to get the deal.  This is
>totally unfair and I will use an example that the US government already
>interfered in:
>
>	In 1990, Nintendo America would often threaten not to let stores
>sell Nintendo or Nintendo made cartridges for their popular game machine
>if the seller stocked competing systems.  This is wrong.
>
>	Similarly, Microsoft is not saying (if you buy 1 box fo windows
>then it costs $70, buy 10 and it is $60,  buy  1,000,000 and it is only $50.
>Their deal is you MUST put Windows on every PC that you sell or you don't
>get the discount on MS-DOS/Windows.
>	Speaking as a purchasing director, it is not realistic for many
>companies to turn down this deal since MS-DOS is the standard.
>	
>	This is what is so immoral (in my opinion).  Now you can say
>"Hey, they  aren't forced into that deal" but try to live in the real
>world when you argue such  a thing.  Customers want MS-DOS.  DR. DOS
>is rarely requested except by experienced computer users who simply want
>Dr. DOS.  Other companies may want MS-Windows but our company never
>receives requests for it.  (We do not have a contract with Microsoft).
>	In short, this form of marketting is highly questionable.  I won't
>even argue it with people taking the  naive stance of "Well you aren't
>forced to sign that contract!"
>
>							-Brad
>
>

I agree with everything you've said except this: Microsoft does not say
that a Vendor cannot sell other operating systems.  Secondly, the "deal"
in question is only one of several packages that Microsoft offers... and
the fact that MANY companies do not sign up with the agreement (And have
thus far seen no adverse effects) demonstrates that no force, economic or
otherwise, is put to people to sign the agreement.

Whether or not such marketing is illegal or immoral is a subjective
question...

Joe.
My opinions.
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 5 Jan 93 01:23:01 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <8315@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

|> There's a continuum of interests; becoming a Microsoft franchisee, and
|> becoming subject to all kinds of rules about how they can do business laid
|> down in Redmond, is something no vendor would subject himself to unless there
|> was no alternative. The current situation is nowhere near that bad for a
|> vendor; it's MS' competition, and the consumers, that are getting screwed and
|> not even kissed.

Mearly stating that they are getting screwed isn't proof that they are.
Nobody has said how the consumers are getting screwed now--the only thing
mentioned is some vague suppositions about how its "in the future" that
they will get screwed when it supposedly will raise prices.  This is all
supposition.

As far as Microsoft's competition getting screwed, well, if my software was
selling 2 million copies a year like OS/2 is, Microsoft can screw me all day
long!  And if I made as much money as Novell did off of Netware, Microsoft
could screw me all night long.

|> >_Any_ company, be it Standard Oil, U.S. Steel, or Microsoft, will fold like
|> >a house of cheap cards if it doesn't offer its customers deals which they
|> >like.  And the bigger they are the harder they fall.
|> 
|> True, as far as that statement goes; it's possible, though, for a company to
|> get to a point where the forces of the free market cannot restrain them.

Another unsubstantiated supposition.  Must we repeat the "name that monopoly"
thread?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Is Microsoft using "Force"???  
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:52:57 GMT

In article <8326@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

|>Gateway 2000 can choose to put MS-DOS and Windows on all their
|> computers if they wish, but it's not right for MS to force them to...yet
|> that's exactly what's happening.

*sigh* misusing the "F" word again.  Here it comes a "C" word:

|> True. The problem is the coercive nature of the deal MS wants you to cut with
|> them.

Stand by for more doublethink:

|> No, that's restraint of trade, and coercion, and wrong, and illegal.

You're method of argument is interesting--all you do is shout that Microsoft
is guilty of "forcing" and "coercing", as if it would be true if you say it
loud and often enough.  George Orwell was very familier with this technique,
ever read 1984?  "Slavery is Freedom, Hate is Love, Peace is War."  Its used
by dictators of every color as a tool for thought controll.

The point is that words are what thoughts are made of; they are the very 
currency of discourse.  Trying to win an argument by misusing words is like 
trying pay your bills with counterfit money.  If everybody used counterfit
money, the economy would collapse--similarly if everybody perverts the 
meanings of words, clear thinking and logical agument become impossible
and cognition itself descends into a fuzzy headed repetition of cliche's,
where we endlessly mime the thoughts we are told to think.

Lets go to the arbiter of language and see what it says about "force" and
"coerce".  I'll tell you what mine dictionary has to say about them--and
don't believe me just because I said it--you all have dictionaries too so 
look it up for yourself:

	COERCE suggests overcoming resistance or unwillingness by actual 
	or threatened violence or pressure.

In order for an action to properly be called "coercion" there MUST be the
threat of or actional violence, of the which and by the way so there may be
no confusion on this point here is the definition of violence:

	vi.o.lence \'vi--*-l*n(t)s\ n 1a: exertion of physical force so as to 
	injure or abuse (as in effecting an entrance into a house)

Now, if Microsoft were blowing people's heads off if they didn't buy Windows,
or if roughed up any dealers who sold OS/2, THEN they would be guilty of
coercion.  Microsoft doesn't do this.  Ergo, Microsoft doesn't use corecion.

The FTC, however, _does_ do this.  If you don't go along with what the FTC 
says, strong men in uniform will not hesitate to use violent force if necessary
to conduct you to a prison.

If you misuse a word when you talk, that indicates that you arn't the one who
is talking--you are using the word how you've been told it should work.

The moral of the story is this: Think for yourself in crystal-clear words.
From: 177wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Microsoft and Force continued.
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:58:11 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University


	To clear up some confusion...

	If I am not mistaken (and I might be but I don't think so), the
deal that Microsoft has with the cloners is as follows:

	Each of your  PCs MUST have MS-DOS/Windows preloaded in order
to get a special discount.

	It has nothing to do withbulk.  Even if you sell 3 million PCs,
you have to install it on all 3 million to get the deal.  This is
totally unfair and I will use an example that the US government already
interfered in:

	In 1990, Nintendo America would often threaten not to let stores
sell Nintendo or Nintendo made cartridges for their popular game machine
if the seller stocked competing systems.  This is wrong.

	Similarly, Microsoft is not saying (if you buy 1 box fo windows
then it costs $70, buy 10 and it is $60,  buy  1,000,000 and it is only $50.
Their deal is you MUST put Windows on every PC that you sell or you don't
get the discount on MS-DOS/Windows.
	Speaking as a purchasing director, it is not realistic for many
companies to turn down this deal since MS-DOS is the standard.
	
	This is what is so immoral (in my opinion).  Now you can say
"Hey, they  aren't forced into that deal" but try to live in the real
world when you argue such  a thing.  Customers want MS-DOS.  DR. DOS
is rarely requested except by experienced computer users who simply want
Dr. DOS.  Other companies may want MS-Windows but our company never
receives requests for it.  (We do not have a contract with Microsoft).
	In short, this form of marketting is highly questionable.  I won't
even argue it with people taking the  naive stance of "Well you aren't
forced to sign that contract!"

							-Brad



Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:12104 comp.os.os2.apps:10063 comp.os.os2.misc:42055 comp.os.os2.networking:2680
From: lopes@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (alann lopes)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking
Subject: Re: ibm tcp/ip a ripoff?
Date: 12 Jan 93 07:03:16 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego


In article <1993Jan11.232826.19272@msc.cornell.edu> tommy@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Mike Thompson,332,54714,2734927) writes:
>In <1iratf$aqq@agate.berkeley.edu> ucbked@athena (Earl H. Kinmonth) writes:
>
>
>A positive experience in general.  Now for the wish list:
>  a. xterm telnet client support
>  b. faster NFS, both client and server
>  c. AFS support
>  d. pseudo-color X-window support
>  e. 2.0 support including printer queues to remote machines (nice little
>     printer icons that have physical printers on remote UNIX hosts)
>  f. Extended attribute support on remote mounted disks.
>
my wish list (also a positive experience overall)

   g. NFS needs lots of improvement (not just speed!)
      -p does not work reliably for me
      can't use full 8192 buffer
      bad transfer rates  even with largest buffer and
      a small network
      horrible transfer rates if certain DOS Apps are 
      started on the server (eg TP 6.0 IDE)
      IT HAS BEEN STABLE FOR A QUITE A WHILE
   h. Ability to run DOS Apps in a telnet session
      tel_enh is too quarky in our setup
   i. Need the ability to download files when logging in
      from home. Our connection path is somewhat indirect, 
      but the same path to a unix machine works just fine.
   j. I still have not found a terminal emulation that
      allowes me to run Epsilon 6.0 remotely. Well I almost
      have a combination that works, but the screen gets
      redrawn too many times. It's just too slow to use,
      although at least the screen is readable.

Can anyone suggest an ansiterm that will work well with
the telnet session?

I could go on, but I'd be happy with the above.

      alann


   alann lopes:        alopes@ucsd.edu       -- internet
   (619) 534-5438      ALOPES@UCSD           -- bitnet
   
      


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft using "Force"???
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:36:21 GMT

jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com (John Brock) writes:
: In article <1993Jan7.042406.29500@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
[....]
: |> Every meaning of the word which is relevent to the definition of "Coerce"
: |> above explicitly indicates physical force being used except for 1b: which
:          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: 
: Maybe we should just give this up guys.  This is clearly an ideological
: argument, and Mr. Helzerman is clearly never going to acknowledge the
: existence of any kind of force other than physical.

OK - how about this. MS says you can have MSDOS for $x if you put it
on every single system you sell, or $y (where y >>x) otherwise. If you
decide you only want to pay $x regardless, eventually they will sue
you for breach of contract. If the judgement goes against you and you
refuse to pay, the police will get involved. The bottom line involves
you being *forcibly* removed to prison by the forces (:-)) of law and
order. Every legal demand/obligation has force implied somewhere,
otherwise people (human nature being what it is) would ignore them
were they not to their advantage.

--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11751 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3695
From: cm@cmm.ovum.ka.sub.org (Christoph Mueller)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Keywords: economics 101
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 22:12:20 CET
Distribution: world
Organization: Christoph's PC, Karlsruhe, Germany

tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

> If you think this is good, examine the former Soviet Union.  The hypothetical
> drilling equipment market above is being controlled by one entity, not subjec
> to market forces.  Does it really matter that this entity is a company rather
> a government?

Yes, it does!  There is quite a difference in how you became a monopoly.
In the former USSR, a company was put in that position by government
decision.  I am not sure completely but I think AT&T was put in that position
too (at least the German Telecom is still--that's why the new AT&T or MCI are
much better/cheaper/...).  Microsoft was never put anywhere by anything else
than market force (that's why they are still produce good software)
Ok, now they are in the position of a monopoly.  But as soon as they get too
outrageous (so far they have gone far but not far enough) the competition
will get them again (even though the competition might be handicapped).

Just my $0.01 worth

---Christoph, Germany    ---   cm@cmm.ovum.ka.sub.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dysklaemours?  What's that?  How do you spell that?  Do I need that?
I  *AM*  the  SYSTEM,  the  EMPLOYER,  and  the  ORGANIZATION  !!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy