HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:56:17 GMT

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <1992Dec24.035348.26595@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>>the 125 meg drive. I have 8 megs of 70ns RAM and the system runs very much
>>like OS/2 on 4 megs with no HPFS. 
>
>
>	As it should.  8 megs is the NT minimum.
>
>	Plus, you *should expect crashes*.  Installing any OS,
>	NT or OS/2, is not the same as just plugging in an HD 
>	with the os installed.  It must be configured for your hardware
>	and your motherboard.
>
>	I should tell you some of what you get when moving 
>	OS/2 by backing up to tape.  
>
>
>>I don't hink I am in any danger whatever of becoming an NT bigot based on what
>>I have seen so far. Having gone from the OS/2 2.1 beta to the NT
>>beta.....there is no real comparison. 
>
>
>	Add 8 more megs and reinstall the system from scratch, then
>	repost.  As it stands, you're FUDding.
>
>
>
>-- 
>       "If you can't eat sand, why the hell are you living in a desert?"
>     Equality is a delusion, suffering is a fairy tale and God is a fantasy.
>                 Buy American as if your job depended on it.
>       Blaming society for inequality is like blaming the sky for rain.


Please explain to me one thing. I ran NT on two systems. Here is my
configuration:

a) 486/50DX with 16MB RAM, Graphics Ultra.
b) 486/33DX with 32MB RAM, Ultra Pro.

NT was slow on system a but performed comfortably with 32 MB RAM. On the other
hand, on system a OS/2 flies, and I mean it. OS/2 with 32 MB is also fast,
which is quite obvious. Did I also mention that I managed to crash NT in about
1.5 minutes. As I said, I am not longer supporting NT due to several reasons.
I also talked to a person who runs the recent NT and he also runs it with 32
MB RAM. LAN Manager NT requires a minimum of 16 MB of RAM.

Please, could you tell someone like me why OS/2 users should switch to NT? I
wish I could tell you otherwise but NT has a very limited future, if any at
all. There is *no way* in the world that you can justify telling a user to
spend hundreds of dollars to get additional RAM with accelerator cards just to
run NT. Just trust me, NT doesn't offer ANYTHING to a user that OS/2 doesn't.

Best Regards,
Mark K.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: More advertising
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:15:46 GMT

In article <8230@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.155440.23938@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>>"With an operating system that can run all of your DOS, Windows, and OS/2
>>					^^^
>>	Pull this word.
>
>You're being unnecessarily pedantic - there's NO OS that meets the criterion
>you're holding OS/2 up to.


	So we're agreed that using the word "all" is a lie, right?  So
	*pull the word*.


>>	Can't we be honest?  OS/2 takes more than 30 megs of HD space
>
>Hahahaha. It can be installed quite nicely in less than 30.


	Sure, if you choose to forego DOS or Windows support.  Note that
	I am aware that you can do without all of the piggish junk that
	OS/2 installs--chess, terminal, blah--but OS/2 + DOS + WIN + Swap
	isgoing to be 30 megs or more-- a LOT more on a 4 or 6 meg 
	system.


>>	and a lot more than 4 megs of RAM.  This is part of the problem--
>>	you can't solve it by promoting the same lies.  Come on, OS/2
>>	*needs* at least 6 to function -- sluggishly! -- but 4 is a 
>
>It works just fine in 6. This is yet more FUD.


	Bullshit.  OS/2 in 6 "works" but it does not "work just fine".
	It's sluggish, and it runs the DOS and Windows programs promoted
	above dog slow.  Still, like I said, change it to 6 (instead of
	four) and I would have no objection.  Imagine the ridicule MS
	would get if they promoted Windows 3.1 on a 8 mhz AT with 2 megs
	of RAM. 


>>	joke (yes, I've tried it post SP).  If IBM would allow you to boot
>>	w/o the WPS, it might be better, but that pretty much makes the
>>	system useless.  (There's only so much benefit you get from OS/2
>>	wit one fullscreen prompt).
>
>I guess you didn't try SET RUNWORKPLACE=CMD.EXE, then, did you? It allows you
>to take advantage of everything but the WPS; in particular, you get all of the
>PM support and multitasking facilities.


	OTOH, it also makes the system a pain in the ass to use.  IBM 
	needs to come out with an alternative, non-piggish fewer-featured
	shell if they want to make 4 and 6 meg users really happy.  

	They've done a so/so job with the SP--it certainly performs better
	under 4 megs than the GA did, but better than "useless garbage"
	is still not very good.  Maybe "bearable to play with but useless
	for general work" is a good way to describe the SP on 4 megs.


>-- 
>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.
> "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis


-- 
	Blaming society for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
	---
	Do I even need to point out that my views do not represent
	those of my employer, institution or relations?
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 23 Dec 92 03:13:16 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Dec22.120639.23608@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, helz@ecn.purdue.edu (R
andall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <9212213006@ritz.mordor.com>, ritz@ritz.mordor.com (Christopher Maur
itz) writes:
>
>|> Gates.  Just remember how expensive long distance service was before the
>|> government forced a more competetive market on Ma Bell...or should I say
>|> before Bill McGowan (former chairman of MCI) tricked the federal government
>|> into forcing a more competetive market on Ma Bell... :-)
>
>Agreed, but a more precise wording would be "Just remember how expensive
>long distance service was before the goverment stopped forbiding people
>to compete with AT&T."
>
>AT&T was only a monopoly because it was illegal to compete with it.  In fact,
>I can't name a single example of a monopoly which wasn't created by
>the goverment.
>

You are missing one very important point.  The government can actively
sanction a monopoly by doing nothing to prevent it.  The government doesn't
need to support a monopoly for it to exist.  The government not doing a thing
is sanction enough.  To use your own example, look at Morton salt.  They are
for all intents and purposes, a monopoly.  They will never achieve a 100%
monopoly because they cannot improve their product over their competitors.
Salt is salt.  All they can do is reduce prices and they can only do this so
much.  But the government is not trying to break them up and let other
potential salt companies compete, because in this case it doesn't hurt
anything.  The other salt producers are not going to be driven out of
business.  But the government more or less sanctions this monopoly by the
government's inaction.  The government can't afford to do this with software
however, because of the nature of the industry.  It is very possible for a
company to put another out of business in this industry, and anything
resembling a monopoly will put far more people out of work and create far more
problems than it would solve.  Different industry and different set of
circumstances and thus different action is required.

-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: A1.MCL@isumvs.iastate.edu 
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.1 on IBM BBSs
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:55:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.223040.7845@zooid.guild.org>,
Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>
>There have been many requests from users to allows the OS/2 2.1
>Beta to be distributed on IBM Bulletin Board Systems. This
>would be a good move since many more people will be able to test
>the software and report back to IBM on any bugs. This has been
>the case when IBM Canada released their 2.01 Beta. Immediately,
>users were able to spot bugs and report them to the IBM BBS
>System Operator. Could someone from IBM look into this matter?
>
>This would greatly benefit IBM and the users involved!
>
>Best Regards,
>Mark K.

It is there since 12-28-92 on IBM OS/2 BBS.  I downloaded,
took about 24 hours at 9600 baud.

Mike Long
Iowa State University

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu (RICHARD HOFFBECK)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Reply-To: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu
Organization: Colon Cancer Control Study, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:23:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.170632.0207085@locus.com>, lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:
> In article <1992Dec23.040854.17113@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
> >In article <1992Dec22.214057.5756@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu> rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:
> >
> >>I think you should dabble a bit more in economics.  MS has had ZERO to
> >>do with the down-pricing of computers.  They have had little to
> >>do with OS's, also.  DOS was a hack, procured from another company
> >>which in turn borrowed it from a third.  The most major change was
> >>the 'UNIX-ification' of DOS, i.e., they borrowed heavily from another
> >>OS.  NT will be the first truly MS-written OS.  Even that has
> >>borrowed heavily from others (Mach from CMU, etc.).
> >
> >I do not care if DOS was a hack or not. The point is that it was 
> >_needed_ by people to operate their computers, and MS was the only
> >company that provided it to them by the time they needed it. 
> Dov, you need to study your history more.  There were three operating
> systems offered by IBM when the PC was introduced.  The $49 PC-DOS,
> The $395 CP/M-86, and Something called P-System (I don't remember
> the price).  And of course, Unix was offered for it as well.  The
> point being that IBM had a vested interest in lo-balling DOS (they thought
> that they had paid for it's development).  And DOS won on low cost alone,
> CP/M-86 was arguably a better OS (no inherant 640K barrier).

Really, and exactly how did CP/M-86 deal with the presence of the video
memory, disk controller ROM, BIOS ROM and ROM BASIC in the area between
704K and 1M? Sheez, the 640K limit is a problem with the IBM design, not
a decision by MS.  MS-DOS on the old Victor 9000 left something like 800K
free because the ROMs were all squeezed into the upper part of the 1M
address space of the 8086.  Keep in mind that the address registers on the
808x are only 20-bits wide providing for a maximum of 1M of addressable
memory.  As one who worked with the old Osborne shadow ROM BIOS, I was glad
that IBM at least left their ROM in an easy to access location.


> >
> Because, others have chalanged Microsoft, only to be litigated or 
> advertized into the grave.

Enlighten us!  Who, when, what product?

--rick
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 2 Jan 93 22:20:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1993Jan2.222020.21793
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.

In article <19142@mindlink.bc.ca> Ian_Upright@mindlink.bc.ca (Ian Upright) writes:
>> z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>>
>>         All this talk about FUD & Misinformation about OS/2 from Microsoft
>> has
>> some NEW Merit!
>>
>>         I Recently talked to a Beta Tester of DOS 6.0. He Runs OS/2 with 2
>> Hard
>> Drives, One FAT, One HPFS. He decided to Install the DOS 6.0 Beta on the
>> FAT
>> Partition, and got a Message saying, and I paraphrase:
>>
>> - OS/2 Detected! Due to the size of OS/2 you may wish to delete your OS/2
>> files before installing DOS 6.0 -
>>
>>         His Fat Partition was created by DOS 5.0 and he is running Boot
>> Manager. DOS 6.0 Beta either looked at the Boot Manager setup or detected
>> HPFS on the D: Drive. In either case he had over 150MB Free on each
>> Partition!
>>
>
>
>Looks like IBM & Novell are going to get together BIG TIME!  Nobody wants
>a product that is incompatable, especially purposely so, so everybody will
>toss Dos 6.0 off to the side, and move to Dr. Dos 7 instead anyways..  And
>you can be darn sure to *bet* that it's going to be fully compatable with
>OS/2, and then some.  Microsoft is just stabbing themselves in the back with
>non-standards of Dos 6, W4W, and NT!  Any company with that attitude allready
>knows that they are in some *serious* trouble, and they probably won't be
>around for very long anyways..  :)  How nice.. Imagine..  A world without
>Microsoft..  Doesn't it sound pleasant?
>
>

Dont bet on it. IBM doesn't need DR-DOS. They have OS/2, which does
both DOS and Windows, plus OS/2 apps. Why should they climb in bed
with Novell ? Why do you think Novell is trying to buy USl to rape,
pillage and burn UNIX by assimilating it into Netware rather than
taking their laughable IPX and bundling it with UNIX ?

IBM still owns their own version of DOS, and it plays very well
without the additional goodies that DR-DOS provides. Besides,
what's Novell going to do with DR-DOS that IBM can't do with PS-DOS
?

JMHO...


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 01 Jan 93 19:12:13 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Dec31.214648.549@cis.ohio-state.edu> cantor@iguana.cis.ohio-state.edu (scott eric cantor) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.035545.3621@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec29.194318.27886@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>>>
>>>And if the fact that DRDOS's emulation is imperfect because of
>>>information held back by Mircrosoft?
>>>
>>
>>    Oh, this is rich.  The only way that DR-DOS could get perfect
>>MS-DOS emulation is if they had the source code.  This source
>>code wasn't provided to them by Microsoft.   Therefore, Microsoft
>>is a grand evil company for not turning over the hard work of
>>hundreds of engineers to their competitors.
>>    Makes sense to me.
>>
>>					-Phil
>
>	Isn't this the fundamental issue here?  Should Microsoft be required,
>urged, or forced into giving the OS source to other companies for development?

     I doubt that even the most hardcore MS-basher would
say yes to this statement.  I may be wrong, though - I'm sure we'll
find out.


>I don't know, frankly.  Has Microsoft ever stated, "DOS is an open system that
>we want to be fully accessible at the source code level"?

     Not to the best of my knowledge.


>  If so, then the
>anti-MS side has a valid point to make.  If not, then it seems clear that it is
>not entirely unethical for MS App people to talk to OS people.

     Check your second sentence and tell me if it says what you meant
it to say.  I find myself in full agreement as it stands.

					-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:29:21 GMT


Like many other haters, MS-haters don't care what else they destroy.
The only thing they care about is destroying their object of hatred.
They may even destroy themselves in the process. 

Unlike haters, the constructive critics just go and build something
better. It does not look like MS-haters are going to sit and develop
a better OS. It is much easier to use the government.

Dov



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 23 Dec 92 02:42:49 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Dec22.104711.22331@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, helz@ecn.purdue.edu (R
andall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.184359.9551@iscsvax.uni.edu>, brackin5483@iscsvax.uni.edu
 writes:
>|> I got one question.  When Windows becomes the only operating system out ther
e(
>|> according to Bill) and Microsoft drives everyone else producing Windows
>|> softwere in to bankruptcy.  Then what will happen to prices of operating
>|> systems and application software, once Microsoft has established a monopoly?
>
>OK, worst case scenario--Bill Gates drives every single OS vendor right into
>the ground.  Windows rules forever in a brave new world of point and click righ
t?
>
>The minute that Microsoft starts charging more for Windows than it would
>cost for someone else to write a clone or a competing OS Microsoft would
>have competetors again.

How?  They drove them all into the ground.  It takes capital to start a
business and a lot of it to build a successful system.  That isn't going to
just magically drop out of the sky an viola, MS has competitors.  Also, since
MS once destroyed these companies, and they have ovewhelming market share,
even if they did start up, it would be fairly easy for them to stomp on any
company which challenged them.  In addition, since MS destroyed all other
systems in this example, compatibility would be required for the system to get
off the ground.  With MS sueing and doing other things to compete, it would be
nearly impossible for a company to make a real dent.


>
>Case in point:  How many brands of Salt are there out there?  Morton's pretty
>much has the market to itself.  Not completely, but they dominate the salt
>market far more than Microsoft dominates the OS market.  Why arn't we paying
>more for salt than Gold? After all you'll eventually die if you don't get any
>salt.  Is it because Morton's executives believe that Americans have a
>god-given right to cheap salt?  Hardly.  They realize the best way to keep
>their market share is to keep the price as cheap as possible.
>

How many salt mines are there?  Not too many and Morton controls most of the
important ones in America.  It is very difficult to compete if there is no way
for a person to get the same item in a cost effective fashion.  Now Morton
isn't going to be stupid, and make it economically feasable for another
method to be developed, but that doesn't change the real situation.  I think
that is just a bad example.

-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 14:26:15 GMT

In article <725210115snx@montage.UUCP> platinum@montage.UUCP (Doug Swallow) writes:
>rsrodger@wam.umd.edu writes in article <1992Dec24.033418.28702@wam.umd.edu>:
>> 
>> In article <1992Dec24.035348.26595@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>> >the 125 meg drive. I have 8 megs of 70ns RAM and the system runs very much
>> >like OS/2 on 4 megs with no HPFS. 
>> 
>> 
>> 	As it should.  8 megs is the NT minimum.
>> 
>> 	Plus, you *should expect crashes*.  Installing any OS,
>> 	NT or OS/2, is not the same as just plugging in an HD 
>> 	with the os installed.  It must be configured for your hardware
>> 	and your motherboard.
>                 ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>You're the one who's FUDding now.


	Nope.  He has said himself that there is a big difference 
	between his machine and his friends:  he has 1/2 the memory.

	Let me give you an OS/2 parallel:

	Install OS/2 2.0 on a 16 meg system.  Adjust the cache sizes to 
	what is proper for a 16 megger (read: OS/2 isn't bright about 
	this)--you know, HPFS and the whole deal.

	Take this system, back it up, and put it on a 6 megger.  The 
	system will run so poorly and be so unstable that you'd think
	OS/2 was written by a bunch of monkeys with typewriters.



-- 
       "If you can't eat sand, why the hell are you living in a desert?"

     Equality is a delusion, suffering is a fairy tale and God is a fantasy.
       Blaming society for inequality is like blaming the sky for rain.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 03:55:36 GMT

In article <Bzvxpw.Lx3@csulb.edu> sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec26.040250.11884@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>>In article <BzuFBF.8Dq@csulb.edu> sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec26.000917.7829@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:

>>Please answer in a definite way: Do you support a position that denies
>>an individual/company from selling/buying _voluntarily_ their property
>>under certain conditions ?
>
>  I don't think I understand what you mean by 'under certain conditions'.
>While I accept their right to choose to sell or not to sell their property
>at their discretion, I do not accept the premise that they have an unfettered
>right to sell (or, more generally, make contracts) in whatever way they see
>fit independent of the laws and practices governing commercial activity in
>this country. We are not discussing their right to distribute or to set
>the price, but the way they interact with the market at large and an
>obligation to engage in fair dealing in that marketplace.
>
>  If all MS wants to do is contemplate the beauty of their creations they
>can exercise their property rights to their hearts content. If they want to
>participate in the marketplace, they will have to follow the rules that
>govern it for the establishment of good order. That is what the FTC is
>tasked to examine and make determinations about and MS will have plenty
>of opportunity to contest, challenge, and otherwise deal with any conclusions
>and actions coming from the FTC as befits their right to due process.

To say that a vendor cannt buy at an agreed price from a software 
company, or that the company is allowed to display its ware but not
sell it to whoever agrees to buy it, have property rights, is like 
saying that one who is free to think but not to talk has freedom
of speech.

A position like yours is not rare, and you are entitled to it, but
at least be honset and say that you are against property rights,
rather then using charged terms like "predatory practices".

And to argue that the FTC is protecting the software customer when
all evidence is the contary, and software prices are keep falling
down all the time, is blindness at best.

>Jeff Sicherman
>up the net without a .sig

Dov