HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: NT - it ain't got Novell either....
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:07:07 GMT

In article <2b24f878@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org> Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org writes:
> 
> Novell NetWare support for OS/2 2.0 was shown many months before OS/2
> 2.0 shipped, also.  So there's no reason to think that Novell is doing
> anything more for NT than they did for OS/2 2.0.

Hmmm. You've missed the start of this thread, it seems. MS - had it played
fair with Novell - might well have been able to ship Netware support with NT. 
 
Now they can't. Or maybe I'm confused. Perhaps the issue is that they were
never allowed to in the first place....but tried to.
 
Yeah....that would be right.
 
Steve


-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.)
Subject: Re: Discovered: Microsoft using undocumented calls in Windows NT
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:56:47 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Dec11.054414.7325@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>There is evidence that Microsoft continues to use undocumented calls in
>Windows NT, which is part of the FTC investigation. Outside developers
>have discovered that Microsoft uses undocumented calls in their own
>utilities that compete with software competitors utilities. Microsoft's
>Win32 Software Development Kit includes a utility called Pview. The
>utility uses calls such as:

>NtQuerySystemInformation
>NtQueryPerformance Counter
>NtQueryInformationThread

>The functions, although contained in NTDLL.DLL (will be included in the
>shipping version of NT) are all undocumented.

>Microsoft uses undocumented calls for their own advantage in order to
>enhance performance even further. This matter is part of the on-going
>FTC investigation.

>Mark K.

Get off of the undocumented calls stuff.  I'm a big IBM advocate, but I'm
sick and tired of this particular subject.  It's as if IBM doesn't have
the same in OS/2.  In fact, I'll wager (although I haven't seen how many
Windows has) that OS/2 has more undocumented calls than Windows has (I won't
bet anything material, though :).

How do you think thunking is accomplished?  DosSelToFlat() and DosFlatToSel().
How about the processes, threads, etc. in the system (a la PSTAT and SPM/2)?
DosQuerySystemStatus().  In fact, I'm a *bit* worried that the FTC might
one day take a hard look at SPM/2 with regards to using undocumented features,
since it is a marketed product and not something that comes with the system.

Sometime, you ought to generate a listing for the OS2386.LIB file that
comes with the toolkit and see what treasures lie therein (of course, you
can't actually use the damn things unless you know, for example, that
DosSelToFlat() and DosFlatToSel() both take a pointer and return the converted
pointer...oops!  :) .

Cheers,
Q
-- 
"If you choose not to decide, you  | "My other body is in the shop" - seen
 still have made a choice" - Rush  |  on a T-shirt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: I'm confused...
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 16:12:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.095352.15359@cam-orl.co.uk> thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:
>
>This group is comp.os.os2.advocacy, and it is for messages like this:
>
>"OS/2 is Great"
>"No it isn't"
>"Yes it is"
>"No it isn't"
>"Yes it is, but NT will be better"
>"NT is awful"
>"No it isn't"
>"You all wrong, the Mac is better than anything"
>(Chorus) "GO AWAY"
           ^^^^^^^

Hey, something both Windoze and NoS/2'ers can all agree on!

jmalloy@hamilton.edu


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund)
Subject: Re: Why OS/2 will DEFINITELY fail
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
	<1992Dec15.010430.4930@ryn.mro4.dec.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 09:26:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.010430.4930@ryn.mro4.dec.com> pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com (Peter Mayne) writes:

   I sincerely hope and trust that NT will *NOT* run all DOS/Windows programs.
   As an NT system administrator, I do not want an ordinary user running a DOS
   disk utility and reading/writing disks directly. Neither do I want a Windows
   program spying on messages being passed to other users' processes.

I see no reason to disagree on that. But then it should not be
marketed as a high end Windows 3.1 with no clues about the limitations
(at least not in the ads that I have seen so far). If one look at they
way MS is already advertising NT (saying that it will be available to
end users early 1993), they try to ripe the success of Win 3.1, but
that is a strategy that can very well backfire if NT does not have
full backward compatibility. It does not have to be anything wrong
with NT as a product, the problem is MS' marketing.

Olav Torvund
University of Oslo
Norway
Olavt@jus.uio.no

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.1 specifications, release date.
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:42:35 GMT

In article <3500@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:
>Here the official specs of OS/2 2.1 directly from IBM:
>
>- more printer drivers
>- Windows 3.1 support
>- native Windows 3.1 performance with 8Mb RAM machines
>- improved performance for low memory configurations
>- 32bit graphics engine
>- multimedia support
>- portable PC support
>- CD-ROM version
>
>[please notice the Win31 performance and the MultiMedia, thanx IBM!]
>
>OS/2 2.1 will be released end february, begin march 1993.
>
Actually, I believe it may be available sooner than that.  From PC Week,
Dec 14, 1992, without permission:

	"IBM READYING OS/2 VERSION 2.1

	IBM's Personal Software Products division is readying for
	release *next month* [emphasis mine] OS/2 2.1, a key piece
 	in its desktop strategy.
	
	The upgrade, which incorporates enhancements and bug fixes
	already offered in the Service Pak add-on released in October,
	will also feature Windows 3.1 support and incorporate Multimedia
	Presentation Manager/2 multimedia extensions.  In addition, the
	upgrade will run 386 enhanced-mode applications for the first
	time, beta testers said.

	In the spring, IBM will follow up by delivering a beta version
	of its microkernel-based operating system, dubbed Workplace OS."

So, it looks like the Mach version will be along sooner than expected.
In fact, it will probably be in beta before NT is released commercially.
What with 32-bit multi-threading being out from IBM probably about a
year ahead of MS, I think OS/2 can gain some real momentum.  And by the
time NT actually ships, all the features it has over OS/2 2.x will be in
beta for Workplace OS, and thus will not be that far off.  Looks good to
me.  At least IBM is serious about this.

-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: More Controversial Topics
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:21:13 GMT

In article <78247@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt0040a@prism.gatech.EDU (Tom Sorensen) writes:
>You're right- neither IBM nor MS have *RELEASED* OS's that support SMP. MS
>has one in beta and IBM has one in planning- OS/2 3.0 (plus Taligent, for


		^^^^ BFD.  It wont be here for >1 year.


>what its worth). OS/2 3.0 will use the Mach kernal, which inherently supports
>SMP.


	The "Mach kernal, which inherently supports SMP."<---What makes
	you say that?  You might say the same about the Mach 2.x 
	kernal, but ask NeXT users if NeXTStep (Mach 2.11?) supports 
	SMP and you'll find out a thing or two.  There is more to getting
	SMP on the system than layering over Mach.

>same scale. Neither IBM or MS have *RELEASED* OS's that support SMP, by your


	Well, you can buy NT, in it's present inception, for $69.  
	While it's not *released*, it's certainly a lot closer than
	OS2MACH, which has been demoed (a little bit) and has not
	been demoed on an SMP system.

	(Has anyone got a source that quotes IBM confirming that OS2MACH
	will support SMP?  All the quotes I've seen refer to it as 
	a means to portability.)

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


	Nuclear redevelopment for a better world!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: "richard anstruther" <richard.anstruther@canrem.com>
Subject: ftc and ms
Reply-To: "richard anstruther" <richard.anstruther@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: comp
Date: 20 Dec 92 10:20:37 EST

-> From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)

-> Well you can kiss American leadership in operating systems out
-> goodbye. Once the Federal Goverment starts trying to enforce
-> "fairness" you know its all over.  No matter that the entire Japanese
-> economy is structured in an "anticompetitive" way.  No matter that
-> software is one of the last remaining strong points of the American
-> economy.  No matter that American

Is there some Japanese OS poised to take over the market from
DOS, WinDOS, OS/2 and Unix?

-> The blatent egotism of the FTC just slays me.  Why do they think they
-> can tell Bill Gates not to let his DOS programmers talk with his MS
-> Word programmers?

I never thought I'd see the sentence where "egotism" and "Bill Gates"
both appeared without the former being applied to the latter.

They think they can tell Bill Gates that because that's the law
that Congress enacted, the same law that was at one time applied
to IBM in its mainframe business.

-> Yep, that's the good ol' American way of doing business alright.  If
-> you can't compete with someone, just get the Federal Goverment to
-> break up their company.  The real "predatory practices" going on here
-> are those vultures of rival companies who are waiting to pick the
-> bones of what's left of Microsoft after the FTC's guts the carcass.

MS will survive the FTC, and the industry may be much better off for
it's actions.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 Application List 1/2
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:38:23 GMT

jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:

>Well, humor is suely lost on you.  As I argued elsewhere, the listing of
>vertical market applications especially on the net seems to me a
>pointless task intended, probably, just to make it look like there
>really are some 32 bit OS/2 apps out there.  If it helped anyone to make
>a purchasing decision, then fine.  But I don't think that will happen.

I agree with this. How many of us are interested in this? Let's talk about
some apps we have heard of and would be interested in.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pr@umiacs.umd.edu (Jesus M. Rodriguez)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 Application List 1/2
Date: 15 Dec 92 00:40:41 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Computer Studies
Originator: pr@fnord.umiacs.umd.edu



Could someone send me a copy of OS/2 2.0 Application List 1/2.

Jesus
pr@umiacs.umd.edu
From: BRYAN@wvnvm.wvnet.edu (Jerry Bryan)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unicode - anyone knwos something ? (was Re: HPFS-386
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:43:36 GMT
 <1992Dec13.002834.2022@ludd.luth.se> <92349.014938DLVGC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
 <1992Dec14.134526.25174@wam.umd.edu>

Well, I think it is really the case the UNICODE and ISO10646 have more
or less merged.

The first Draft International Standard of ISO10646 was voted down.
ISO10646 was then changed a great deal to look a lot like UNICODE.
This second Draft International Standard was then voted in.
UNICODE is now being changed to match the new and improved ISO10646.

After the failure of the first ISO10646 vote, there was a great deal
of work and cooperation from the ISO camp and from the UNICODE camp
to merge the two codes.  The objective was to have one code, not
two.  That objective has achieved.

ISO10646 has two forms, a 16-bit form, and a 32-bit form.  The 16-bit
form is a subset of the 32-bit form.  The code space for the 16-bit form
is nearly full, the oriental languages taking a great many code points.
From: ekl@kvamdata.no (Eirik Lygre)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re:  More Controversial Topics
Date: 14 Dec 92 13:16:06 GMT
Organization: Kvam data as

In article <1992Dec13.215537.21644@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.172059.3430@kvamdata.no> ekl@kvamdata.no (Eirik Lygre) writes:
>>>	...      OS/2 2.0 has *never* been 
>>>	demoed on SMP anything, and neither has OS/2MACH.
>		  ^^^
>
>>Os/2 running on the mach kernel was demoed at comex.
>
>	Try re-reading my sentence again and see if the underline helps.

Your underline definately helps. Now try reading your sentece again and
see if the underline helps.

>>>	...      OS/2 2.0 has *never* been 
>>>	demoed on SMP anything, and neither has OS/2MACH.
>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>Os/2 running on the mach kernel was demoed at comex.

My comment was directed at that second part, and not the first one.

Eirik

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eirik Lygre                                     Phone:    +47 4 623766
Kvam data as                                    Fax  :    +47 4 623985
PO Box 1101 Lura                                Email: ekl@kvamdata.no
N-4301  SANDNES, NORWAY
======================================================================
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10488 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3264
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: PC-WEEK: microkernel version of OS/2 by spring.
Date: 17 Dec 92 05:58:32 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

PC-WEEK writes about the Win31 support in OS/2 2.0 (enhanced mode support
etc, I read in a seperate message direct from IBM that it will also
be at least as fast as the real thing BTW). It also mentions that in 
the spring IBM will release a microkernel version of OS/2 (Worplace
OS/2). Does anyone have more information about this version?


Nico E. de Vries  (nevries@cc.ruu.nl) |------------------*   AA   III  PPP
_ This text is supplied AS IS, no warranties of any kind |  A  A   I   P  P
| apply. No rights can be derived from this text. This   |  AAAA   I   PPP
| text is likely to contain spelling and grammar errors. |  A  A   I   P
*---------------------------( Donate to GreenPeace! )----*  A  A  III  P

To get (many) ==> LOSSLESS DATA COMPRESSION SOURCES <== get lds_10.zip at 
garbo.uwasa.fi /pc/programming. Make files for Borland C are included.
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Survivability
Date: 15 Dec 92 03:15:17 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Dec12.192555.31998@news.weeg.uiowa.edu>, rahayden@news.weeg.uiow
a.edu (R Andrew Hayden) writes:
>I am not an OS/2 user.  I am currently a user of DOS 5/Win 3.1 trying to
>decide where to go to next.


(prelude deleted)

>So my question, if you've managed to read this far without flaming me,
>what will the OS/2 OS look like in a year, when it is roughly as old as
>the Windows 3.x series is right now?  Will there be more programs?  Will
>there be more migrations of Windows versions to OS/2 versions?  Will I be
>able to walk into a computer store and find an OS/2 secion?

There are currently about 400-500 commercial 32-bit OS/2 applications on the
market right now.  (latest claims from IBM, take them as you like them)  We
keep hearing that the biggies don't have much out right now but that is about
to change.  Lotus has release dates for most of their product line all before
the end of March.  Looks like they will make it too.  CA is in roughly the
same boat.  WordPerfect's version is likely to hit the market sometime during
2Q93 and they are introducing 3 apps.  Will IBM get their 1000 apps by years
end?  Not likely.  Will there be a lot by this time next year?  You better
believe it.  The release of these big apps should have the effect of
stimulating the market and getting all those little developers going too.

>
>The reason I ask is that I would hate to make any kind of software or
>hardware investment into an OS that is going to die a gory death in the
>next 24 months.

You needent worry.  IBM is by far the biggest computer company in the world,
and their dedication to supporting their products verges almost on the insane.
They have a well articulated and complete plan for OS/2's future.  Within the
next 2 years we should see OS/2 on Mach, and combined with AIX which should
give it some truly impressive capabilities.  IBM seems as dedicated as we can
reasonably expect from a company to OS/2.


>]> I love my country                   + Robert Hayden                     <]
>]> But I fear my government.           +                                   <]
>]> Blind faith in your leaders, or in  +    rahayden@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu  <]
>]> anything, will get you killed.      +    aq650@slc4.INS.CWRU.Edu        <]
>

-- 
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]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From: TMW108@psuvm.psu.edu (Tom)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: OS/2 and Fast Modems Question
Date: 12 Dec 92 20:31:30 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

Dear Group,
I am putting together my first PC purchase... I have used
OS/2 and I think that it's pretty keen. I need a MODEM, but I read the
following:

     "You won't find any products faster than the <XYZ modem>, which
      boasts transmission speeds of 14,400 bits per second for both
      fax and data. But it's not speed alone that makes this modem a
      a standout. BECAUSE PROBLEMS CAN ARISE WITH A HIGH-SPEED MODEM
      RUNNING IN MULTITASKING OPERATING ENVIRONMENTS SUCH AS WINDOWS 3.1
      AND OS/2 2.0, <company> DESIGNED A SMART COMPONENT TO BUFFER DATA
      COMING INTO THE SERIAL PORT UNTIL THE PC CAN HANDLE IT." (Emphasis mine)

                                                -PC Computing Dec 1992

Now, just what are the effects of the data flood coming into the machine?
Have any of you had any such experience? If so, can you suggest a Modem
which won't have this problem.???

Thanks... Tom.

P.S. How is NT coming along???
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pendrith@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Mark Pendrith)
Subject: Re: PDK expiration notice
Reply-To: pendrith@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Mark Pendrith)
Organization: unsw
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:03:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.091233.10611@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.203127.70767@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>>Just so everyone knows, if you have the origional OS/2 PDK, the code expires
>>*tomarrow*  (Dec.15)  Your license is no longer valid and you must get the new
>>version (november '92 version)
>
>... which has no longer an expiration date.
>
>Kai Uwe Rommel
>
>/* Kai Uwe Rommel --- rommel@informatik.tu-muenchen.de */
>

no... this must be wrong. brian has said otherwise, and as we know... he is
never wrong. how do i know this? brian told me (and he is never wrong.)
how do i know this? brian told me (and he is never wrong.) how do i know
this... 

                                UAE



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jurlwin@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU (Jeff Urlwin)
Subject: Re: PDK expiration notice
Organization: University of Maine, Department of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:54:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.091233.10611@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.203127.70767@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>>Just so everyone knows, if you have the origional OS/2 PDK, the code expires
>>*tomarrow*  (Dec.15)  Your license is no longer valid and you must get the new
>>version (november '92 version)
>
>... which has no longer an expiration date.

Sorry, Kai, the November PDK *does* have an expiration date.  It is stated
in the paper (and maybe somewhere on the disk) accompanying the disk.
It is on the back side of the sheet of paper that describes the contents
of the CD, under a heading of "IMPORTANT INFORMATION", in the box at the
bottom.  It states:

     "Please read the license agreement carefully and fully before using 
     the Beta.  You have a license to use the CD ROM until Feb. 15, 1993
     or until a program is made generally available.  This CD ROM is NOT
     a replacement for any generally available product."



Jeff

-- 
--------------------------------------
jurlwin@gandalf.umcs.maine.edu

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Unicode - anyone knwos something ? (was Re: HPFS-386
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:45:26 GMT

In article <92349.014938DLVGC@CUNYVM.BITNET> Dimitri Vulis <DLVGC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.002834.2022@ludd.luth.se>, bjorn@ludd.luth.se (Bjorn
>To try to answer your question, 16 bits may not be enough if, being stupid,
>you try to give different codes to Chinese, Japanase and Korean symbols
>that look the same.  If you agree that a single code is needed (as the people
>in those countries do), then 16 bits are quite enough.

	Pardon?  Well, the Kana and hangul aren't really all that
	big, but does Unicode have bopomofo?  Further, I'd be careful
	about something like "symbols that look the same"--does 
	Unicode distinguish Simplified Chinese from Traditional?  If 
	not, then they'd be making an unbelievably huge mistake
	to try and take the characters that are similiar between 
	Chinese and Japanese (the sheer number that are "almost" 
	alike, but still different (in the traditional, not simplified
	characters) is enourmous--a sorting nightmare).  
 


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


	Nuclear redevelopment for a better world!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy