1           4V                                                                                                 Subject: Why did you start using OS/2?
From: ronald.van.iwaarden%opus@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ronald Van
Iwaarden)
Date: 1 Apr 94 00:33:00 GMT
Message-ID: <d9b6d711@copper.denver.colorado.edu>

Joe Landman rambled on to All:

 JL> From: landman@hal.physics.wayne.edu (Joe Landman)

 JL> Fellow NetLanders:

 JL>    I am curious.  I know why I started using OS/2, but I
 JL> would like to see postings telling why this product is being
 JL> used
 JL> (I dont really care if the postings say "it is the greatest
 JL> thing since sliced bread" or  "my boss made me do it..." or
 JL> "it sucks").  I just want to see why other people are using
 JL> this product over competitive products.

I had a summer appointment at Argonne National Labs the summer following OS/2
2.0's release.  I was busy running Windows on my 386/33 with 4mb ram and a
person across the hall kept hearing me curse every hour or so (Windows just
crashed again...).  He came over finally and looked at what happended and
then
asked me to come over and look at his system.

He had a 386/25 (no cache) with 8mb of ram.  He started showing me Castle
Wolfenstein and I was amazed at the game.  He asked me if I wanted a copy and
when I said yes, he switched back to the desktop and popped in a floppy and
started copying it.

HE THEN SWITCHED BACK AND CONTINUED THE GAME!!!!!!

This totally blew me away since I expected to wait for the disk copy to stop
in
order to continue the game.  I called IBM that evening and ordered my $49
copy
of OS/2 and then proceeded to install his copy (mine was in the mail...) It
ran
flawlessly then and it still does now.  I now run OS/2 2.1 on a Cyrix
486DLC/40
with 16mb of ram (5 minutes to start Tetris for Windows with 4mb ram was a
bit
too much!).

I have been suitably impressed and now run the OS/2 Source BBS in Denver
Colorado.  I have to check the modem lights to see if someone is actually
online since even a 14.4 connect does not faze the system.

TTYL,

=--Ron  TeamOS2

Fidonet:  Ronald Van Iwaarden 1:104/338@fidonet.org
OS2net:   Ronald Van Iwaarden 81:313/1@os2net.ftn
Internet: rvaniwaa@copper.denver.colorado.edu

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!csn!copper!opus.copper.denver.colorado.edu!uugate
From: ronald.van.iwaarden%opus@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ronald Van
Iwaarden)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Why did you start using OS/2?
Message-ID: <d9b6d711@copper.denver.colorado.edu>
Date: 1 Apr 94 00:33:00 GMT
Sender: news@copper.denver.colorado.edu
Reply-To: ronald.van.iwaarden%opus@copper.denver.colorado.edu
Organization: The OS/2 Source BBS  (303)744-0373 (1:104/338)
Lines: 45
X-Newsreader: timEd/2-B9
X-Mailer: UUGATE Version 0.26 [OS/2 2.1] beta (Fidonet/Internet
Gateway)Subject: Re: Why did you start using OS/2?
From: matt@toaster.hna.com.au (Matt McLeod)
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 1994 05:26:00 AEST
Message-ID: <032794052651Rnf0.77b8@toaster.hna.com.au>

I used to use DOS/Windows, started playing with Linux, but since it can't 
run DOS/Windows apps terribly well (yet...) and I'm supposed to write 
about DOS/Windows apps, I had to go back to DOS.  Finally got the hardware
to run OS/2, bought it, love it.

Matt

--
Matt McLeod
Bob-Fearing Freelance Writer    GAT @d-- -p+ c++++ l+(++) u(-) e+(*)
PC User Shareware Columnist     m+ s+/+ n+ h-- f g+++ w+ t+ r y+
matt@toaster.hna.com.au

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!munnari.oz.au!foxhound.dsto.gov.au!fang.dsto.gov.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!news.adelaide.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!seagoon.newcastle.ed
u.au!scorch!toaster!matt
From: matt@toaster.hna.com.au (Matt McLeod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did you start using OS/2?
Message-ID: <032794052651Rnf0.77b8@toaster.hna.com.au>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 1994 05:26:00 AEST
References: <2msthr$1vq@oak.oakland.edu>
Organization: GAT @d-- -p+ c++++ l+(++) u(-) e+(*) m+ s+/+ n- h-- f g+++ w+
t+ r y+
X-Newsreader: Rnf 0.77b8
Lines: 12Subject: Re: Why did you start using OS/2?
From: dano@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Dan Stephenson)
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 1994 18:17:29 GMT
Message-ID: <dano.765397049@srl03.cacs.usl.edu>

In a word: multitasking

I connect a LOT to my university through a modem, and downloading
SUCKED with Windows.
--
Dan Stephenson               
dano@srl01.cacs.usl.edu  
"Fundamental Rights are *NOT* bestowed by simple majorities."

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!darwin.sura.net!rouge!srl03.cacs.usl.edu!dano
From: dano@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Dan Stephenson)
Subject: Re: Why did you start using OS/2?
Message-ID: <dano.765397049@srl03.cacs.usl.edu>
Sender: anon@usl.edu (Anonymous NNTP Posting)
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana
References: <d9b6d711@copper.denver.colorado.edu>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 1994 18:17:29 GMT
Lines: 8Subject: Re: Why did you start using OS/2?
From: h9103642@hkuxb.hku.hk (Que Alexander)
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 12:06:23 GMT
Message-ID: <Cnu6yo.GA9@hkuxb.hku.hk>

I just want to download something while writing with a word processor in the
foreground. I just got amazed that Windows won't let me do it smoothly
even with 486dx2/66 and 8M ram.


----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!hpg30a.csc.cuhk.hk!hkuxb.hku.hk!h9103642
From: h9103642@hkuxb.hku.hk (Que Alexander)
Subject: Re: Why did you start using OS/2?
Message-ID: <Cnu6yo.GA9@hkuxb.hku.hk>
Sender: usenet@hkuxb.hku.hk (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: hkuxb.hku.hk
Organization: The University of Hong Kong
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
References: <dano.765397049@srl03.cacs.usl.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 12:06:23 GMT
Lines: 4Subject: Re: GalCiv beta is AWESOME!!
From: matt@toaster.hna.com.au (Matt McLeod)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 09:15:00 AEST
Message-ID: <032894091524Rnf0.77b8@toaster.hna.com.au>

Steven.Barnes@f347.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Steven Barnes) writes:

[munch]

>  I tried playing it at a couple different screen res's and
>the actual GRAPHICS of the game change depending on how many colors
>you have.

[munch]

Anyone ran it in 16 colours?  I know that sounds rather restricted, but 
some of us can't get drivers for our SVGA cards...  :(

BTW, anyone know who the press contact for these people is?

Matt

--
Matt McLeod
Bob-Fearing Freelance Writer    GAT @d-- -p+ c++++ l+(++) u(-) e+(*)
PC User Shareware Columnist     m+ s+/+ n+ h-- f g+++ w+ t+ r y+
matt@toaster.hna.com.au

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!news.adelaide.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!seagoon.newcastle.edu.au!scorch!toaster!matt
From: matt@toaster.hna.com.au (Matt McLeod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: GalCiv beta is AWESOME!!
Message-ID: <032894091524Rnf0.77b8@toaster.hna.com.au>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 09:15:00 AEST
References: <d0e_9403242240@blkcat.fidonet.org>
Organization: GAT @d-- -p+ c++++ l+(++) u(-) e+(*) m+ s+/+ n- h-- f g+++ w+
t+ r y+
X-Newsreader: Rnf 0.77b8
Lines: 22Subject: Re: Mac vs OS/2
From: mferrare@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Mark Ferraretto)
Date: 28 Mar 1994 23:40:35 GMT
Message-ID: <2n7ptj$kj0@kauri.itd.adelaide.edu.au>

>>IBM bigots know nothing about Macs.
>>Mac bigots know nothing about IBMs.
>It wouldn't be so bad maybe if people using Macs weren't so retarded.  
>Macs seem to breed ignorance.  My Mac friends don't know jack about 
>computers in general and not much more really about their own systems.  
>Does anyone else find this to be true??


Isn't that the beauty of them?  That you don't have to know about the
workings of the computer to use it?  That's user-friendly isn't it?
That's apple's whole design philosophy.  You comment is a testament to it.

Ordinary users shouldn't have to know how their computer works.  That's for
us engineers/system admins.  It impinges on their productivity (and our
jobs :-).


--
   \ | /   PA38.| Now | Name  : Mark Ferraretto 
-----O-----Gotta| Aero| Place : Dept Physics and Math Physics, Adelaide Uni
     |     love |Rated| Phone : +61 8 303 5971   Phax:  +61 8 303 4380
    ---    it!! |-----| Email : mferrare@physics.adelaide.edu.au

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!munnari.oz.au!metro!news.cs.su.oz.au!news.adelaide.edu.au!mferrare
From: mferrare@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Mark Ferraretto)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac vs OS/2
Date: 28 Mar 1994 23:40:35 GMT
Organization: The University of Adelaide
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <2n7ptj$kj0@kauri.itd.adelaide.edu.au>
References: <2m2kc5$7r0@sugar.neosoft.com> <2m63ih$o74@access3.digex.net>
<rmohns.763797988@black.clarku.edu> <2mtpjq$n8r@access1.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pilot.physics.adelaide.edu.auSubject: Re: Mac vs OS/2
From: caliaro@avalon.physik.unizh.ch (Aurelio Caliaro)
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 15:07:51 GMT
Message-ID: <1994Apr5.150751.22771@ifi.unizh.ch>

Mark Ferraretto (mferrare@physics.adelaide.edu.au) wrote:
: >Macs seem to breed ignorance.  My Mac friends don't know jack about 
: >computers in general and not much more really about their own systems.  

: Isn't that the beauty of them?  That you don't have to know about the
: workings of the computer to use it?  That's user-friendly isn't it?
: That's apple's whole design philosophy.  You comment is a testament to it.

That's not at all user friendly! If you imagine how many Mac users come to
our Consulting Office in our University and which problems they have like
that a Mac can't be switched off where it has been switched on (fortunately
those people come only once, after the first one they know it :-) or like
"I had a bomb. What does that mean?", a Mac is everything else but user
friendly. Here they can come to our office, but if they have at home and
don't
know what to do, there is noone that can explain it to them.
I think all Computer user should have a minimal knowledge about Computers,
independently of the system.

There will never be a computer system that handles ignorant users, until it
has speech recognition and AI built in. But even then, you must know how to
tell it what you want.

--

////////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
stud. oec. publ. Aurelio Caliaro | caliaro@avalon.unizh.ch
President of the ICU, the Club   | caliaro@ifbf.unizh.ch
of Computer Science at the       | DECNet: SATAN::CALIARO or EZINFO::ITALIAN
University of Zurich,
|---------------------------------------------
Switzerland                      | Happy user of OS/2 2.1!!

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////////////////////////////

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!univ-lyon1.fr!swidir.switch.ch!scsing.switch.ch!josef!caliaro
From: caliaro@avalon.physik.unizh.ch (Aurelio Caliaro)
Subject: Re: Mac vs OS/2
Message-ID: <1994Apr5.150751.22771@ifi.unizh.ch>
Sender: news@ifi.unizh.ch (USENET News Admin)
Nntp-Posting-Host: avalon
Organization: University of Zurich, Department of Computer Science
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL0]
References: <2m2kc5$7r0@sugar.neosoft.com> <2m63ih$o74@access3.digex.net>
<rmohns.763797988@black.clarku.edu> <2mtpjq$n8r@access1.digex.net>
<2n7ptj$kj0@kauri.itd.adelaide.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 15:07:51 GMT
Lines: 30Subject: Re: Mac vs OS/2
From: lynn@physics.auburn.edu (Owen Lynn)
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 20:51:30 GMT
Message-ID: <Cnt0Lv.L7A@mail.auburn.edu>

In article <2n7ptj$kj0@kauri.itd.adelaide.edu.au>,
Mark Ferraretto <mferrare@physics.adelaide.edu.au> wrote:
>>>IBM bigots blah blah blah Macs.
>>>Mac bigots blah blah blah IBMs.
>>Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Macs blah blah blah retarded.  
>>Macs blah blah blah ignorance.  Blah Mac blah blah blah blah blah blah 
>>blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.  
>>Blah blah blah blah blah??
>

Blah bigots blah blah IBM blah blah blah Mac blah blah blah, blah blah
blah clueless. IBM blah blah blah blah blah blah, Mac blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah pointless.

--
Owen fnord Lynn +---------------+ I think you hear me knocking Bill, and I'm 
lynn@magneto.physics.auburn.edu | coming in with Lee Reiswig, David Barnes, 
lynnowe@eng.auburn.edu +--------+ John Soyring and a copy of OS/2, and we're

Finger for PGP23a Key  | going to play Neko the Cat until you release
Chicago. 

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!gatech!darwin.sura.net!news.duc.auburn.edu!lynn
From: lynn@physics.auburn.edu (Owen Lynn)
Subject: Re: Mac vs OS/2
Message-ID: <Cnt0Lv.L7A@mail.auburn.edu>
Sender: usenet@mail.auburn.edu (Usenet Administrator)
Nntp-Posting-Host: magneto.physics.auburn.edu
Organization: Auburn University, Auburn AL
References: <2m2kc5$7r0@sugar.neosoft.com>
<rmohns.763797988@black.clarku.edu> <2mtpjq$n8r@access1.digex.net>
<2n7ptj$kj0@kauri.itd.adelaide.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 20:51:30 GMT
Lines: 19Subject: Re: Mac vs OS/2
From: yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong)
Date: 6 Apr 1994 02:27:35 GMT
Message-ID: <2nt6mn$2h6@nntp2.Stanford.EDU>

In article <1994Apr5.150751.22771@ifi.unizh.ch>,
Aurelio Caliaro <caliaro@avalon.physik.unizh.ch> wrote:
>Mark Ferraretto (mferrare@physics.adelaide.edu.au) wrote:
>: >Macs seem to breed ignorance.  My Mac friends don't know jack about 
>: >computers in general and not much more really about their own systems.  
>
>: Isn't that the beauty of them?  That you don't have to know about the
>: workings of the computer to use it?  That's user-friendly isn't it?
>: That's apple's whole design philosophy.  You comment is a testament to it.
>
>That's not at all user friendly! If you imagine how many Mac users come to
>our Consulting Office in our University and which problems they have like
>that a Mac can't be switched off where it has been switched on (fortunately
>those people come only once, after the first one they know it :-) or like
>"I had a bomb. What does that mean?", a Mac is everything else but user
>friendly. Here they can come to our office, but if they have at home and
don't
>know what to do, there is noone that can explain it to them.
>I think all Computer user should have a minimal knowledge about Computers,
>independently of the system.

I think your example only goes to show that Macs are not absolutely
user friendly.  The truth is, Macs (and all computers for that matter)
have never been, and I suspect, never will be intuitive.  All computer
systems takes some getting used to and learning.  Until then people
are going to get confused.

But to go on to say that Macs are anything but user friendly, is not
warranted.  I don't believe computers are divided into two camps:
those that are user friendly and those that are not.  What is closer
to the truth is a continuum.  Some computers take a long time to
master, others are a lot easier on the learning curve.  I believe the
Macs belong to the later, when compared to DOS or UNIX machines, and
arguably PCs with Windows installed.

Just curious, for those "ignorant" Mac users you mentioned, do they
own a Mac themselves, or are they using computers in the clusters that
they have access to only every once in a while?

>
>There will never be a computer system that handles ignorant users, until it
>has speech recognition and AI built in. But even then, you must know how to
>tell it what you want.

Heck, half the time I have no idea what other people are talking
about.  But then I suspect half the time other people have trouble
figuring out what I just said.  Oh well.

>
>--

>////////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
>stud. oec. publ. Aurelio Caliaro | caliaro@avalon.unizh.ch
>President of the ICU, the Club   | caliaro@ifbf.unizh.ch
>of Computer Science at the       | DECNet: SATAN::CALIARO or EZINFO::ITALIAN
>University of Zurich,
|---------------------------------------------
>Switzerland                      | Happy user of OS/2 2.1!!

>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////////////////////////////

Michael Yiupun Kwong
Stanford University
Happy user of a Mac IIsi
(Pathetic dreamer for a PowerMac)

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!headwall.Stanford.EDU!yiupun
From: yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac vs OS/2
Date: 6 Apr 1994 02:27:35 GMT
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <2nt6mn$2h6@nntp2.Stanford.EDU>
References: <2m2kc5$7r0@sugar.neosoft.com> <2mtpjq$n8r@access1.digex.net>
<2n7ptj$kj0@kauri.itd.adelaide.edu.au> <1994Apr5.150751.22771@ifi.unizh.ch>
NNTP-Posting-Host: adelbert12.stanford.eduSubject: Re: Mac vs OS/2
From: schumacb@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Carla Beth Schumann)
Date: 6 Apr 1994 00:27:37 -0400
Message-ID: <2ntdnp$3sa@ucunix.san.uc.edu>

Hey, if you can't beat them, join them.  There is a Macintosh emulator
for DOS, and it works just fine under OS/2.  It's at wuarchive.wustl.edu
in the /pub/MSDOS_UPLOADS/mac directory.  It works great.

Now we can run: OS/2, Windows, Dos, and Macintosh all at the same time.

I am in computer nirvana!

Long Live OS/2!


----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!usenet.ucs.indiana.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!babbage.ece.uc.edu!ucunix.san.uc.edu!ucunix.san.uc.edu!not-for-mail
From: schumacb@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Carla Beth Schumann)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac vs OS/2
Date: 6 Apr 1994 00:27:37 -0400
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <2ntdnp$3sa@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
References: <2mtpjq$n8r@access1.digex.net>
<2n7ptj$kj0@kauri.itd.adelaide.edu.au> <Cnt0Lv.L7A@mail.auburn.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucunix.san.uc.eduSubject: Re: Mac vs OS/2
From: eurjof@eur.sas.com (Jochen Friedrich)
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 18:23:46 GMT
Message-ID: <eurjof.5.000D65CB@eur.sas.com>

In article <2ntdnp$3sa@ucunix.san.uc.edu> schumacb@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Carla
Beth Schumann) writes:

>Hey, if you can't beat them, join them.  There is a Macintosh emulator
>for DOS, and it works just fine under OS/2.  It's at wuarchive.wustl.edu
>in the /pub/MSDOS_UPLOADS/mac directory.  It works great.

>Now we can run: OS/2, Windows, Dos, and Macintosh all at the same time.

And don't forget the C64 emulator. It also works fine on OS/2... Now the only
thing we need is a Linux version that also runs on top of OS/2 ;-) 

Cheers,
Jochen [Team OS/2]

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!concert!sas!mozart.unx.sas.com!eurjof.eur.sas.com!eurjof
From: eurjof@eur.sas.com (Jochen Friedrich)
Subject: Re: Mac vs OS/2
Sender: news@unx.sas.com (Noter of Newsworthy Events)
Message-ID: <eurjof.5.000D65CB@eur.sas.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 18:23:46 GMT
References: <2mtpjq$n8r@access1.digex.net>
<2n7ptj$kj0@kauri.itd.adelaide.edu.au> <Cnt0Lv.L7A@mail.auburn.edu>
<2ntdnp$3sa@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
Nntp-Posting-Host: eurjof.eur.sas.com
Organization: SAS Institute GmbH
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A]
Lines: 13Subject: Re: Mac vs OS/2
From: bond@access.digex.net (Sean Connery)
Date: 6 Apr 1994 22:19:36 -0400
Message-ID: <2nvqjo$43l@access3.digex.net>

>Just curious, for those "ignorant" Mac users you mentioned, do they
>own a Mac themselves, or are they using computers in the clusters that
>they have access to only every once in a while?
>

I can speak for the following...a grpahics artist...he's got a Mac at 
home.  At work we need a compression program (StuffIt) to archive stuff 
to a SyQuest drive.  Now...what's the big deal??  EVERY IBM friend (and 
Amiga too) has a copy of the latest version of the best archiver for 
their system...  However...this Mac guy has an ancient copy of StuffIt 
only....and when I get for him a copy of the latest shareware 
version....he's 100% convinced that to use it you NEED a serial number....
It just breaks down to a basic lack of knowledge about ones system....IE, 
stupidity.



----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.intercon.com!news1.digex.net!access.digex.net!not-for-mail
From: bond@access.digex.net (Sean Connery)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac vs OS/2
Date: 6 Apr 1994 22:19:36 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <2nvqjo$43l@access3.digex.net>
References: <2m2kc5$7r0@sugar.neosoft.com>
<2n7ptj$kj0@kauri.itd.adelaide.edu.au> <1994Apr5.150751.22771@ifi.unizh.ch>
<2nt6mn$2h6@nntp2.stanford.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access3.digex.netSubject: Re: OS/2 is far from dead
From: Freeman <s2119784@cse.unsw.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 05:01:17 GMT
Message-ID: <1994Mar29.050117.20666@usage.csd.unsw.OZ.AU>

In article <harrymCn20t2.A6v@netcom.com> harrym@netcom.com (Harry Myhre)
writes:
>
>re: the dead operating systems theme.
>
>Ever since mainframes, people have been walking around thinking operating
>systems will last for 25 years. Operating systems lifetimes will continue to
>shrink as hardware continues to get faster and shrinks, too (just my idea).

err, how old's Unix? You do have a point though. in a couple of years, 
Windows 3.1 will look like what DOS looks like now, and even the 
mythical Chicago will look crap. As for OS/2, well, they better start
porting it to the DEC Alpha (probably already are), otherwise its 
going to get left behind. 

>Harry Myhre	\  Weather: Cloudy, drizzling, cool
>Los Angeles, Ca	 \   Music: Bach

        Graham the Happy Scum aka Graham H Freeman          +-------~;
  s2119784@cs.unsw.oz.au * You're free enough to do nothing |Uni of /
,-Grudnuk demand Sustenance! Funk is its own reward! HOYA!- |NSW->*'
`==Linux is Doovy==Hunners are Groovy!==Qbex Onvg==Albury-->`~`*./

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!munnari.oz.au!foxhound.dsto.gov.au!fang.dsto.gov.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!news.adelaide.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!
metro!usage!news
From: Freeman <s2119784@cse.unsw.edu.au>
Subject: Re: OS/2 is far from dead
Message-ID: <1994Mar29.050117.20666@usage.csd.unsw.OZ.AU>
Sender: news@usage.csd.unsw.OZ.AU
Nntp-Posting-Host: 129.94.14.10
Organization: School of CompSci & Eng, Uni Of NSW, Oz
References: <jong.243.000A2493@wonderware.com> <2ml49o$t74@oak.oakland.edu>
<harrymCn20t2.A6v@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 05:01:17 GMT
Lines: 21Subject: Re: OS/2 is far from dead
From: aetc@nic.cerf.net (Tony Burzio)
Date: 3 Apr 1994 17:13:27 GMT
Message-ID: <2nmtfn$5f8@news.cerf.net>

In article <1994Mar29.050117.20666@usage.csd.unsw.oz.au> Freeman
<s2119784@cse.unsw.edu.au> writes:
>In article <harrymCn20t2.A6v@netcom.com> harrym@netcom.com (Harry Myhre)
writes:
>>re: the dead operating systems theme.
>err, how old's Unix? You do have a point though. in a couple of years, 
>Windows 3.1 will look like what DOS looks like now, and even the 
>mythical Chicago will look crap. As for OS/2, well, they better start
>porting it to the DEC Alpha (probably already are), otherwise its 
>going to get left behind. 

In a couple of years, the first optical computers should be ready.  What
we should be thinking about is, what will we do with infinite computing
power?  Certainly we don't want the C> prompt to appear with stunning
speeds.  Will threads still make sense if there is enough capacity to
assign each task it's own incredibly fast processor? (We could do this
now, if you make a RISC processor have as many transistors as the
Pentium :-)  Do we *really* want to be still using a mouse?  Do
compatability issues make sense if the processor is so alien to the
machine it replaces?  It's time to pause and reflect.

Certainly there is a revolution in the winds.  There have been several
so far, and they go:  IBM -> Digital -> Microsoft.  Who will be next?

Tony Burzio
AETC
San Diego, CA


----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!news.cerf.net!nic.cerf.net!aetc
From: aetc@nic.cerf.net (Tony Burzio)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 is far from dead
Date: 3 Apr 1994 17:13:27 GMT
Organization: AETC, San Diego, CA
Lines: 26
Sender: Tony Burzio
Message-ID: <2nmtfn$5f8@news.cerf.net>
References: <jong.243.000A2493@wonderware.com> <2ml49o$t74@oak.oakland.edu>
<harrymCn20t2.A6v@netcom.com> <1994Mar29.050117.20666@usage.csd.unsw.oz.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nic.cerf.net
Summary: Even hardware is lost in time...
Keywords: hardwareSubject: Re: OS/2 is far from dead
From: david@visix.com (David Charlap)
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 14:35:59 GMT
Message-ID: <CnsJ81.Azy@visix.com>

In article <2nmtfn$5f8@news.cerf.net>, Tony Burzio <aetc@nic.cerf.net> wrote:
>
>In a couple of years, the first optical computers should be ready.  What
>we should be thinking about is, what will we do with infinite computing
>power?

Infinite power?  I don't think so.  Even light has a definite speed.
(And electric currents flow at close to that speed anyway.)  And the
speed of a CPU is not really related to the speed of its power source
- it's the speed the logic gates within can change state.  Depending
on how fas the optical logic gates are, the first optical computers
may be faster or slower than current computers.

>Certainly we don't want the C> prompt to appear with stunning
>speeds.  Will threads still make sense if there is enough capacity to
>assign each task it's own incredibly fast processor? (We could do this
>now, if you make a RISC processor have as many transistors as the
>Pentium :-)  Do we *really* want to be still using a mouse?  Do
>compatability issues make sense if the processor is so alien to the
>machine it replaces?  It's time to pause and reflect.

These issues have little to do with CPU speeds.  These are all CHI
(computer-human interaction) issues.  The only thing a fast CPU will
do is make it easier to implement some of these new designs.

-- 
David Charlap        | The contents of this message are not the opinions of
Visix Software, Inc. | Visix Software, or of anyone besides myself.
david@visix.com      +-----------------------------------------------------
Member of Team-OS/2  | Get a free Unix account!  Telnet to 127.0.0.1. Log-
---------------------+ in using your current username and password.

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!psinntp!psinntp!viper!david
From: david@visix.com (David Charlap)
Subject: Re: OS/2 is far from dead
Message-ID: <CnsJ81.Azy@visix.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 14:35:59 GMT
References: <jong.243.000A2493@wonderware.com> <harrymCn20t2.A6v@netcom.com>
<1994Mar29.050117.20666@usage.csd.unsw.oz.au> <2nmtfn$5f8@news.cerf.net>
Organization: Visix Software, Inc., Reston, VA
Keywords: hardware
Lines: 31Subject: Re: Letter to Editors of PC Magazine!
From: matt@toaster.hna.com.au (Matt McLeod)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 13:01:04 AEST
Message-ID: <940329.130104.6c3.rusnews.w165w@toaster.hna.com.au>

lw2c@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Levi  Wallach) writes:

> I don't mean to nitpick, but OS/2 2.11 has only been available for 3 weeks!
> How do you expect a magazine - which has to have all their final copy in at
> least a couple of weeks before it's on the newstand - to say anything about
> 2.11 when it hadn't even been announced by IBM?  Also, PC Magazine is not
> for the average internet user whose computer-litaracy is fairly high.  If
> IBM wants magazines like this to cover a new product, they're not going to
> get any attention by posting something to comp.os.os2.announce, except from
> people like us who are already convinced of OS/2's power.

A couple of *weeks*, did you say?

If they're anything like the people I work for, it's two months,
minimum.  Newsy stuff might get 6 weeks, if you're really lucky...

> Overall, you're letter rings true, but you have to understand the minds
> behind a popular computer magazine.  They want hype because that's what
> sells.  It sad, but that's life and if IBM doesn't start hyping a little
> more like MS is so adept at doing, they are going to have the best OS
around
> with a select bunch of zealots out there cursing at every computer they see
> because it boots Chicago.

I must admit that most magazines really sadden me.  Now, this is going
to sound like a shameless plug (<G>), but I don't think we do things
that way at PC User.  Several major contributors are OS/2 fanatics,
and we're lucky enough to have a really great editor.

Anyway, enough of the commercials...  :-)

Matt

--
Matt McLeod
Bob-Fearing Freelance Writer    GAT @d-- -p+ c++++ l+(++) u(-) e+(*)
PC User Shareware Columnist     m+ s+/+ n+ h-- f g+++ w+ t+ r y+
matt@toaster.hna.com.au

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!sgiblab!munnari.oz.au!foxhound.dsto.gov.au!fang.dsto.gov.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!news.adelaide.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!seagoon.newcastle.edu.au!scorch!t
oaster!matt
From: matt@toaster.hna.com.au (Matt McLeod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Letter to Editors of PC Magazine!
Message-ID: <940329.130104.6c3.rusnews.w165w@toaster.hna.com.au>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 13:01:04 AEST
References: <1994Mar24.003148.26481@osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu>
<Cn8v4o.4JI@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Organization: GAT @d-- -p+ c++++ l+(++) u(-) e+(*) m+ s+/+ n- h-- f g+++ w+
t+ r y+
X-Newsreader: rusnews v1.06
Lines: 37Subject: Re: Letter to Editors of PC Magazine!
From: matt@toaster.hna.com.au (Matt McLeod)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 13:05:54 AEST
Message-ID: <940329.130554.6Z0.rusnews.w165w@toaster.hna.com.au>

kbraffor@vtaix.cc.vt.edu (Keith Brafford) writes:

> Levi  Wallach (lw2c@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
> : I don't mean to nitpick, but OS/2 2.11 has only been available for 3
weeks!
> : How do you expect a magazine - which has to have all their final copy in
at
> : least a couple of weeks before it's on the newstand - to say anything
about
> 
> I agree with you.  But they did reviews of a product that has been
available
> for -36 weeks.  I think that is the problem the original poster found
> with the actions of the magazine.

Everybody knows that if Bill Gates says "Jump", then the Ziff editors
say "How high?".  It's a fact of life.  Don't expect any positive
stuff on any non-MS product from a Ziff publication...

Matt

--
Matt McLeod
Bob-Fearing Freelance Writer    GAT @d-- -p+ c++++ l+(++) u(-) e+(*)
PC User Shareware Columnist     m+ s+/+ n+ h-- f g+++ w+ t+ r y+
matt@toaster.hna.com.au

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!munnari.oz.au!foxhound.dsto.gov.au!fang.dsto.gov.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!news.adelaide.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!seagoon.newcastle.edu.au!scorch!toas
ter!matt
From: matt@toaster.hna.com.au (Matt McLeod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Letter to Editors of PC Magazine!
Message-ID: <940329.130554.6Z0.rusnews.w165w@toaster.hna.com.au>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 13:05:54 AEST
References: <1994Mar24.003148.26481@osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu>
<Cn8v4o.4JI@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <2n03s7$o8n@solaris.cc.vt.edu>
Organization: GAT @d-- -p+ c++++ l+(++) u(-) e+(*) m+ s+/+ n- h-- f g+++ w+
t+ r y+
X-Newsreader: rusnews v1.06
Lines: 22Subject: Re: Can OS/2 handle this?
From: pnewhook@7780Dev.waterloo.ncr.com
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 19:32:57 GMT
Message-ID: <CnJnMz.3AM@ncrwat.Waterloo.NCR.COM>

In <CnD2Kq.54w@mamba.cs.unm.edu>, pespen@mamba.cs.unm.edu (Peter Espen)
writes:
>
>A TCP/IP, ethernet  network of 50 486 PCs. This network is a subnet
>of a larger network directly on the Internet.
>
>Each 486 system must be able to telnet, rlogin, perhaps even NFS
>mount some unix filesystems all in a SECURE manner. 
>
>Each system must be able to run DOS and Windows software and print
>to remote unix printers.
>
>Can each system also run X-Windows emulation of some sort and run
>X-windows apps on remote unix hosts (again in a SECURE way).
>
>I don't know much about OS/2.  Can it do the above?
>
>Thanks,
>
>pespen@mamba.cs.unm.edu
>
>
Sure, but not by itself. You need to buy the TCP/IP package for OS/2. You can
buy a total kit
which contains pretty much everything you said you need, or you can buy parts
of TCP/IP
separately and build up only what you want.

The Total kit includes:
	Base kit
	Extended networking Kit
	X Window System Server Kit
	Network File System Kit

With this kit you can:
	ftp, telnet, smtp, routed/rip, rexec/rsh, arp, ping, LPR network printing,
netstat, route, host, finger, ifconfig, newsread, be a host to X-windows
V11R5 apps,
network file share, client file locking, and much more!

Using the above, I am hooked into a UNIX / OS/2 network (100-150 machines I
guess ) 
and can display X-windows applications seamlessly on my OS/2 2.1 desktop.

With another kit I can acxtually develop, run and debug x-windows and motif
1.2 apps on my 
OS/2 machine.

You can order all of this through IBM direct

Any questions please post.

Perry


----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!uunet!ncrgw2.ncr.com!ncrhub2!ncrwat!NNTP-DAEMON
From: pnewhook@7780Dev.waterloo.ncr.com
Subject: Re: Can OS/2 handle this?
Message-ID: <CnJnMz.3AM@ncrwat.Waterloo.NCR.COM>
Lines: 47
Sender: NNTP-DAEMON@ncrwat.Waterloo.NCR.COM (News Administration)
Reply-To: pnewhook@7780Dev.waterloo.ncr.com
Organization: AT&T Global Information Solutions
X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 v1.00
References: <CnD2Kq.54w@mamba.cs.unm.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 19:32:57 GMTSubject: Re: Can OS/2 handle this?
From: mferrare@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Mark Ferraretto)
Date: 30 Mar 1994 02:11:53 GMT
Message-ID: <2nan59$4fn@kauri.itd.adelaide.edu.au>

pespen@mamba.cs.unm.edu (Peter Espen) writes:


>A TCP/IP, ethernet  network of 50 486 PCs. This network is a subnet
>of a larger network directly on the Internet.

>Each 486 system must be able to telnet, rlogin, perhaps even NFS
>mount some unix filesystems all in a SECURE manner. 

IBM TCP/IP 2.0 for OS/2 Base and NFS package will do this.

>Each system must be able to run DOS and Windows software and print
>to remote unix printers.

See above.

>Can each system also run X-Windows emulation of some sort and run
>X-windows apps on remote unix hosts (again in a SECURE way).

IBM TCP/IP 2.0 for OS/2 X-Windows package (installs on top of the base).

>I don't know much about OS/2.  Can it do the above?

I think with another package you can even run your dos networking stuff
in a dos window

--
   \ | /   PA38.| Now | Name  : Mark Ferraretto 
-----O-----Gotta| Aero| Place : Dept Physics and Math Physics, Adelaide Uni
     |     love |Rated| Phone : +61 8 303 5971   Phax:  +61 8 303 4380
    ---    it!! |-----| Email : mferrare@physics.adelaide.edu.au

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!munnari.oz.au!foxhound.dsto.gov.au!fang.dsto.gov.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!news.adelaide.edu.au!mferrare
From: mferrare@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Mark Ferraretto)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Can OS/2 handle this?
Date: 30 Mar 1994 02:11:53 GMT
Organization: The University of Adelaide
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <2nan59$4fn@kauri.itd.adelaide.edu.au>
References: <CnD2Kq.54w@mamba.cs.unm.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.auSubject: Re: Its sort of
funny....
From: stevew@actrix.gen.nz (Steve Withers)
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 23:19:33 GMT
Message-ID: <CnJy4M.D09@actrix.gen.nz>

In article <1994Mar29.004745.13913@princeton.edu>,
Mutant for Hire <mfterman@tucson.Princeton.EDU> wrote:
> I've seen Microsoft advocates who believe that OS/2 doesn't
> stand a chance against Windows due to the fact that the former lacks
> software and the latter has a tremendous installed base, feel that
> Windows NT will eventually triumph over Unix despite the same
> problems.
> 
> Just a thought....

The logic engine in operation seems to be that an MS product will always 
succeed, while all others must fall down before it. 
 
Some people belive in a god. Some believe in the tooth fairy. Some even 
have faith in computer companies. 

(I live in a glass house, but the stone looked so nice!!!!)
 
Steve
-- 
Steve Withers / Wellington, New Zealand
stevew@actrix.gen.nz  (all night)
swithers@vnet.ibm.com (all day)  One of these days I'll have to get a life.

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!waikato!comp.vuw.ac.nz!actrix!stevew
From: stevew@actrix.gen.nz (Steve Withers)
Subject: Re: Its sort of funny....
Message-ID: <CnJy4M.D09@actrix.gen.nz>
Organization: Actrix Networks Ltd, Wellington New Zealand
References: <1994Mar29.004745.13913@princeton.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 23:19:33 GMT
Lines: 23
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.os.os2.advocacy:6686
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4596Subject: Re: Its sort of funny....
From: sundaram@egr.msu.edu (Divya Sundaram)
Date: 1 Apr 1994 00:54:02 GMT
Message-ID: <2nfrba$p81@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>

stevew@actrix.gen.nz (Steve Withers) writes:

>In article <1994Mar29.004745.13913@princeton.edu>,
>Mutant for Hire <mfterman@tucson.Princeton.EDU> wrote:
>> I've seen Microsoft advocates who believe that OS/2 doesn't
>> stand a chance against Windows due to the fact that the former lacks
>> software and the latter has a tremendous installed base, feel that
>> Windows NT will eventually triumph over Unix despite the same
>> problems.
>> 
>> Just a thought....

>The logic engine in operation seems to be that an MS product will always 
>succeed, while all others must fall down before it. 
> 
The thing is that the MS philosophy is a focused one whereas (IMHO) the 
UNIX community is a fractured and fragmented one. It will not take much
to start encroaching on the UNIX battleground. The advent of WPOS will
slow that somewhat since WPOS will be supported by a vendor with the size 
and clout equal to that of MS. However, the momentum and sheer influence
of MS will ensure NT's continued success and viability. For NT to "fail"
we would need to see:

	(a) 	Acceptance of OS/2 on a much larger basis by ISV's
	(b)	Some coherent consolidation and adherence to standards
		by the UNIX community
	(c)	Acceptance of PowerPC and its WPOS on a large scale by
		the workstation community (of course this assumes that 
		WPOS is rock solid).
	(d)	IBM marketing to become more aggressive - perhaps they
		need a refresher course in marketing at the nearest 
		college.

This is but the beginning.

AT least they hired T.Sipples to finally do somethings right.

Divya

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!msuinfo!sundaram
From: sundaram@egr.msu.edu (Divya Sundaram)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Its sort of funny....
Date: 1 Apr 1994 00:54:02 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <2nfrba$p81@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
References: <1994Mar29.004745.13913@princeton.edu> <CnJy4M.D09@actrix.gen.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: neptune.ee.msu.edu
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.os.os2.advocacy:6696
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4613Subject: Re: Its sort of funny....
From: gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette)
Date: 30 Mar 94 11:06:38 GMT
Message-ID: <532@mitech.com>

In article <1994Mar29.004745.13913@Princeton.EDU>,
mfterman@tucson.Princeton.EDU (Mutant for Hire) writes:
> I've seen Microsoft advocates who believe that OS/2 doesn't
> stand a chance against Windows due to the fact that the former lacks
> software and the latter has a tremendous installed base, feel that
> Windows NT will eventually triumph over Unix despite the same
> problems.
> 
> Just a thought....

They think that because they see Windows NT as a logical upgrade
path for the tens of millions of users of Microsoft Windows to get 
involved with. Its all part of the same installed base of customers.
An application developer targets that installed base to sell into.

Viewed in that way NT has already triumphed over Unix.

Is it likely that a bunch of people with Unix workstations would ever
want to use a non-unix machine as a server? Not hardly, except for
specialized NFS server boxes. Hence there isn't a big pay off in
the near term for development of NFS service capability under NT.

Has it been the case that people have been buying Unix servers
to serve file and database to a bunch of DOS/WINDOW clients?
Sure. That has happened a lot. Does Windows NT have an impact
in that area? Certainly.


----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path: search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!uunet!thehulk!mitech!gjc
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Its sort of funny....
Message-ID: <532@mitech.com>
From: gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette)
Date: 30 Mar 94 11:06:38 GMT
References: <1994Mar29.004745.13913@Princeton.EDU>
Organization: Mitech Corporation, Concord MA
Lines: 26
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.os.os2.advocacy:6812
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4706Subject: Re: Its sort of funny....
From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Date: 3 Apr 1994 04:58:37 GMT
Message-ID: <2nlidt$eau@network.ucsd.edu>

George J. Carrette (gjc@mitech.com) wrote:
: In article <1994Mar29.004745.13913@Princeton.EDU>,
mfterman@tucson.Princeton.EDU (Mutant for Hire) writes:
: > I've seen Microsoft advocates who believe that OS/2 doesn't
: > stand a chance against Windows due to the fact that the former lacks
: > software and the latter has a tremendous installed base, feel that
: > Windows NT will eventually triumph over Unix despite the same
: > problems.
: > 
: > Just a thought....

: They think that because they see Windows NT as a logical upgrade
: path for the tens of millions of users of Microsoft Windows to get 
: involved with. Its all part of the same installed base of customers.
: An application developer targets that installed base to sell into.

So.  Is Windows NT alot more like Windows 3.1 than SunOS 5.3 is like OSF/1?

(I say no.  I don't know but somebody here said that WNT is basically
 completely new {i.e. VMS mark II} except for the windows GUI).

But "Windows is a unified family" and "Unix is fragmented".

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!gatech!swrinde!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!network.ucsd.edu!mbk
From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Its sort of funny....
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: 3 Apr 1994 04:58:37 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <2nlidt$eau@network.ucsd.edu>
References: <532@mitech.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lyapunov.ucsd.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.os.os2.advocacy:6846
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4730Subject: Re: Its sort of funny....
From: aetc@nic.cerf.net (Tony Burzio)
Date: 3 Apr 1994 17:25:08 GMT
Message-ID: <2nmu5l$5oa@news.cerf.net>

In article <2nlidt$eau@network.ucsd.edu> mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt
Kennel) writes:
>But "Windows is a unified family" and "Unix is fragmented".

By the by, this is a *strength*, not a weakness for the same reason
we don't all look the same.  Evolution requires differentiation...
If you set something in stone, you have to assume you know the
answer.  Well, we don't know how to use a computer to it's best
ability.  UNIX, with it's input from multiple teams and extensible
architecture is a very good way to try out new ideas...

Besides, if my UNIX vendor starts playing dirty pool, like stealing
other peoples' work, or refuses to be "Open" ala OpenWindows, then
I can jump ship.  Can you do this with uSoft?

Tony Burzio
AETC
San Diego, CA

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!news.cerf.net!nic.cerf.net!aetc
From: aetc@nic.cerf.net (Tony Burzio)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Its sort of funny....
Date: 3 Apr 1994 17:25:08 GMT
Organization: AETC, San Diego, CA
Lines: 17
Sender: Tony Burzio
Message-ID: <2nmu5l$5oa@news.cerf.net>
References: <532@mitech.com> <2nlidt$eau@network.ucsd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nic.cerf.net
Summary: Fragmentation..
Keywords: UNIX
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.os.os2.advocacy:6866
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4740Subject: Re: Its sort of funny....
From: stevew@actrix.gen.nz (Steve Withers)
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 10:41:48 GMT
Message-ID: <CnqDpo.465@actrix.gen.nz>

In article <2nmu5l$5oa@news.cerf.net>, Tony Burzio <aetc@nic.cerf.net> wrote:
> In article <2nlidt$eau@network.ucsd.edu> mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net
(Matt Kennel) writes:
> >But "Windows is a unified family" and "Unix is fragmented".
> 
> By the by, this is a *strength*, not a weakness for the same reason
> we don't all look the same.  Evolution requires differentiation...
> If you set something in stone, you have to assume you know the
> answer.  Well, we don't know how to use a computer to it's best
> ability.  UNIX, with it's input from multiple teams and extensible
> architecture is a very good way to try out new ideas...
> 
> Besides, if my UNIX vendor starts playing dirty pool, like stealing
> other peoples' work, or refuses to be "Open" ala OpenWindows, then
> I can jump ship.  Can you do this with uSoft?

John Soyring of IBM told the press here in New Zealand recently that IBM 
was working towards a user interface that did not require a keyboard or 
mouse: you just tell it what you want. 

Apparently, the prototype looks like Data from Star Trek: TNG. 

The future beckons. 

Steve
-- 
Steve Withers / Wellington, New Zealand
stevew@actrix.gen.nz  (all night)
swithers@vnet.ibm.com (all day)  One of these days I'll have to get a life.

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!uunet!comp.vuw.ac.nz!actrix!stevew
From: stevew@actrix.gen.nz (Steve Withers)
Subject: Re: Its sort of funny....
Message-ID: <CnqDpo.465@actrix.gen.nz>
Keywords: UNIX
Organization: Actrix Networks Ltd, Wellington New Zealand
References: <532@mitech.com> <2nlidt$eau@network.ucsd.edu>
<2nmu5l$5oa@news.cerf.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 10:41:48 GMT
Lines: 28
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.os.os2.advocacy:6897
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4751Subject: Re: Its sort of funny....
From: aetc@nic.cerf.net (Tony Burzio)
Date: 5 Apr 1994 04:19:35 GMT
Message-ID: <2nqosn$arg@news.cerf.net>

In article <CnqDpo.465@actrix.gen.nz> stevew@actrix.gen.nz (Steve Withers)
writes:
>John Soyring of IBM told the press here in New Zealand recently that IBM 
>was working towards a user interface that did not require a keyboard or 
>mouse: you just tell it what you want. 
>Apparently, the prototype looks like Data from Star Trek: TNG. 

Oh great, a office full of people all talking at the same time.  How
is this interface at picking out a particular voice while others are
talking at the same time?  What a waste of time!

Why can't IBM just create a word processor that will read and write MS/Word
formatted files?  I'd buy that in an instant!  Better yet, bundle it
with OS/2 for free... :-)  If you're going to loose money slowly with
the current operation, why not take a gamble and go for a home run?

Tony Burzio
AETC
San Diego, CA

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!MathWorks.Com!mvb.saic.com!news.cerf.net!nic.cerf.net!aetc
From: aetc@nic.cerf.net (Tony Burzio)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Its sort of funny....
Date: 5 Apr 1994 04:19:35 GMT
Organization: AETC, San Diego, CA
Lines: 18
Sender: Tony Burzio
Message-ID: <2nqosn$arg@news.cerf.net>
References: <532@mitech.com> <2nlidt$eau@network.ucsd.edu>
<2nmu5l$5oa@news.cerf.net> <CnqDpo.465@actrix.gen.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nic.cerf.net
Summary: The Tower of Babble
Keywords: UNIXSubject: Re: Its sort of funny....
From: umisef@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Bernd Meyer)
Date: 31 Mar 1994 12:55:46 GMT
Message-ID: <2neh8i$8sc@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>

mike@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus) writes:

>In <2ncepl$cc7@hearst.cac.psu.edu>, bernie@bjt105.rh.psu.edu (Bernie
Thompson) writes:

>>While Linux and the *BSD UNIX clones eat away at DOS/Windows,
>>NT, and OS/2 among the programmer/hobbyist crowd.
>>
>>The total UNIX user base isn't shrinking at all.  In fact, it's
>>growing rather dramatically.  (there's an estimated 50K-150K
>>Linux users in the world now)

>Most of whom were already UNIX users, if only at work. Sorry, I'm not
>impressed.

Frankly spoken, Mike, this is Bullshit! I know a whole lot of linux
users (yhis may be due to the fact that they were downloading their
stuff from my BBS :-), and very very few of them had ever seen a unix
system before.

>UNIX's user base may be growing (even "dramatically"), but it's difficult
for
>me to see how its market share can be even increasing at this point. 

Very easy.... just imagine, you are a nice small company and consider
writing a nice, well behaved wysiwyg wordprocessor. Now you, of course,
know that there are all those linux users out in the dark (and I would
estimate far more than 50-150k....), deprived, as Mike Dahmus never
failed to point out, of any decent software. And those guys, though not
really having the big money, are potential customers, too - potential
customers nobody else seems to be interested in. SO you go along and
write your wordprocessor, and charge 20 bucks for it, just to cover your
development costs and to feed your employees wifes.... But then you
realize that you have code for a wordprocessor under SCO, and under
Unixware, and under FreeBSD, and under HP/UX, and...... And next time
you do it, you may just give the linux versions away for free, let the
people see what you did, and wait for the orders for the "real" systems
to come in......

I admit, this sounds a bit hypothetical, but during the last months,
there have been several announcements of commercial products that
released a binary only version for linux for free. Hell, ParcPlace even
went so far as to ship the disks from the States to Germany....

Bernie

-- 
"And the band played 'Waltzing Mathilda' /  as we stopped to bury our slain;
And we buried ours / and the Turks buried theirs  | ..... living in Oz ....
And it started all over again"                    | 
(The Pogues, "Waltzing Mathilda", orig by Eric Bogle, "And the band played
WM")

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au!umisef
From: umisef@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Bernd Meyer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Its sort of funny....
Date: 31 Mar 1994 12:55:46 GMT
Organization: Monash University
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <2neh8i$8sc@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>
References: <1994Mar29.004745.13913@Princeton.EDU>
<2natd7$loi@acme.gatech.edu> <2ncepl$cc7@hearst.cac.psu.edu>
<CnHwpH.qus@sernews.raleigh.ibm.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #3 (NOV)
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.os.os2.advocacy:6983
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4805Subject: Re: Its sort of funny....
From: stevew@actrix.gen.nz (Steve Withers)
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 22:56:58 GMT
Message-ID: <Cnv12y.6vp@actrix.gen.nz>

In article <2nqosn$arg@news.cerf.net>, Tony Burzio <aetc@nic.cerf.net> wrote:
> In article <CnqDpo.465@actrix.gen.nz> stevew@actrix.gen.nz (Steve Withers)
writes:
> >John Soyring of IBM told the press here in New Zealand recently that IBM 
> >was working towards a user interface that did not require a keyboard or 
> >mouse: you just tell it what you want. 
> >Apparently, the prototype looks like Data from Star Trek: TNG. 
> 
> Oh great, a office full of people all talking at the same time.  How
> is this interface at picking out a particular voice while others are
> talking at the same time?  What a waste of time!
> 
> Why can't IBM just create a word processor that will read and write MS/Word
> formatted files?  I'd buy that in an instant!  Better yet, bundle it
> with OS/2 for free... :-)  If you're going to loose money slowly with
> the current operation, why not take a gamble and go for a home run?
> 
> Tony Burzio
> AETC
> San Diego, CA


A good point. But a little headset mic with good pickup should see us all 
mumbling away. Microphones need only pickup sounds within a very limited 
range. No confusion. The advantage for us is that with a good FM radio 
mic, you can be sitting in the bog "taking care of business" and 
dictating to the system in the next room, down the hall....or across the 
street. 
 
From the amount of interest being shown, voice recognition could well be 
the "killer" app that OS/2 (and PowerPC?) have been looking for. 

Steve
-- 
Steve Withers / Wellington, New Zealand
stevew@actrix.gen.nz  (all night)
swithers@vnet.ibm.com (all day)  One of these days I'll have to get a life.

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!waikato!comp.vuw.ac.nz!actrix!stevew
From: stevew@actrix.gen.nz (Steve Withers)
Subject: Re: Its sort of funny....
Message-ID: <Cnv12y.6vp@actrix.gen.nz>
Keywords: UNIX
Organization: Actrix Networks Ltd, Wellington New Zealand
References: <532@mitech.com> <2nmu5l$5oa@news.cerf.net>
<CnqDpo.465@actrix.gen.nz> <2nqosn$arg@news.cerf.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 22:56:58 GMT
Lines: 36Subject: Re: Its sort of funny....
From: sundaram@egr.msu.edu (Divya Sundaram)
Date: 7 Apr 1994 04:47:23 GMT
Message-ID: <2o038r$p8b@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>

stevew@actrix.gen.nz (Steve Withers) writes:


>A good point. But a little headset mic with good pickup should see us all 
>mumbling away. Microphones need only pickup sounds within a very limited 
>range. No confusion. The advantage for us is that with a good FM radio 
>mic, you can be sitting in the bog "taking care of business" and 
>dictating to the system in the next room, down the hall....or across the 
>street. 
> 
>From the amount of interest being shown, voice recognition could well be 
>the "killer" app that OS/2 (and PowerPC?) have been looking for. 

>Steve
Except that voice recognition etc (actually speech recognition) is NOT a 
trivial task ... ask me .. I am taking a course in it and boy is the topic
a really complicated one ....


>-- 
>Steve Withers / Wellington, New Zealand
>stevew@actrix.gen.nz  (all night)
>swithers@vnet.ibm.com (all day)  One of these days I'll have to get a life.

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!uunet!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!msuinfo!sundaram
From: sundaram@egr.msu.edu (Divya Sundaram)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Its sort of funny....
Date: 7 Apr 1994 04:47:23 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <2o038r$p8b@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
References: <532@mitech.com> <2nmu5l$5oa@news.cerf.net>
<CnqDpo.465@actrix.gen.nz> <2nqosn$arg@news.cerf.net>
<Cnv12y.6vp@actrix.gen.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: neptune.ee.msu.edu
Keywords: UNIXSubject: Re: Is OS/2 dead? (Seriously...)
From: mbfay@rtp.vnet.ibm.com
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 20:58:55 GMT
Message-ID: <CnJrM7.11sF@sernews.raleigh.ibm.com>

In <1994Mar31.090021.5421@newton.ccs.tuns.ca>, bestms@newton.ccs.tuns.ca
(Mike Best) writes:

        After you see some of the help desk calls about the lady that was
having trouble using the foot pedal(mouse) to turn on the machine you suspect
even a lawn mower engine may be unsafe. Remember you are dealing
with a public that is by and large baffled by programming a VCR. Once
installed
and arranged by someone that has a good grip on what they are doing OS/2
makes a wonderful interface for even the novice. Generally an experienced DOS
user that really wants to operate at a higher level can handle OS/2 install
and
setup. That is unless he, she, or it has some other prejudice clouding
their vision. People buy things for some strange reasons, sometime they
seem downright bone head reasons. Impressive numbers like Megahertz and
Megabytes tend to be the focus of attention, naturally they don't want
to pay anything either. What you often end up with is a purchase with
impressive numbers but little substance. Some call it shopping for dollars
not
value for dollars. This may be a sad commentary on the generally poor state
of our education systems or our collective psyche, take your pick.
==>>This is a reflection of some impressions I have had that are solely my
own<<==
Mark


----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!watnews.watson.ibm.com!sernews!news
From: mbfay@rtp.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: Is OS/2 dead? (Seriously...)
Sender: news@sernews.raleigh.ibm.com
Message-ID: <CnJrM7.11sF@sernews.raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 20:58:55 GMT
Lines: 19
Reply-To: mbfay@rtp.vnet.ibm.com
References: <2n17aq$dfl@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <kymaCnALLI.Fn2@netcom.com>
<2na3dp$cgv@hq.hq.af.mil> <1994Mar31.090021.5421@newton.ccs.tuns.ca>
Nntp-Posting-Host: capt.raleigh.ibm.com
Organization: Network Systems Research Triangle Park NC USA
X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 v1.00
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.os.os2.misc:9526
comp.os.os2.advocacy:6676Subject: Re: Is OS/2 dead? (Seriously...)
From: jimf@centerline.com (Jim Frost)
Date: 31 Mar 1994 22:23:25 GMT
Message-ID: <2nfigt$4r8@wcap.centerline.com>

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (R S Rodgers) writes:
>In article <kymaCnHDsn.9ty@netcom.com>, Matt Young <kyma@netcom.com> wrote:
>>[Users] will always choose a single OS; in fact having support for multiple
>>personalities is a distraction, and likely to hinder sales, not help them.

>	More to the point, the multiple personalities are a non-issue.
>	If WPOS manages to survive as anything more than a replacement
>	for AIX, they'll be the first thing to vanish.

I doubt it, although I suspect you'll find that it'll be configurable
at install time.

Multiple personalities will provide the opportunity to sell WPOS into
the US government, which mandates POSIX support.  That may well be the
reason the feature is there in the first place -- it's certainly why
it's there in NT.

>>Now what happens when Motorola announces a plan to license Chicago
>>for the Power PC?  All those users who bought into the Microsoft
>>distribution channel will have a dedicated OS for their risc plans.

>	Motorola wont announce a plan for Chicago on the PPC because 
>	it isn't portable anymore than OS/2 (as we know it now).  

There's no reason to port Chicago anyway.  NT already runs on IBM's
PowerPC machines.

jim frost
jimf@centerline.com

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!MathWorks.Com!noc.near.net!news.centerline.com!jimf
From: jimf@centerline.com (Jim Frost)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is OS/2 dead? (Seriously...)
Date: 31 Mar 1994 22:23:25 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <2nfigt$4r8@wcap.centerline.com>
References: <2mtnfe$ena@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca> <kymaCnALLI.Fn2@netcom.com>
<2n2gek$ki0@nic.umass.edu> <kymaCnHDsn.9ty@netcom.com>
<2nc2qa$rst@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pickup.centerline.com
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.os.os2.misc:9677 comp.os.os2.advocacy:6778
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4682Subject: Re: Is OS/2 dead? (Seriously...)
From: daveh@canopus.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Date: 30 Mar 94 22:11:32 GMT
Message-ID: <DAVEH.94Mar30171132@canopus.commodore.com>

In article <CnE2x6.EL9@cbnews.cb.att.com> las@lassun.cb.att.com () writes:

   Tim Cutts (tjrc1@mole.bio.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
   : In article <2mtnfe$ena@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca> ummalik@cc.umanitoba.ca
(Ijaz Rashid Malik) writes:

   : OS/2 on the PowerPC may well kill Windows, since it'll
   : take NT some time to appear on the new hardware...

   Well, IBM wants to sell hardware, so NT's being ported to PowerPC.  I
   believe that it was reported that IBM is doing the port under contract
   to Motorola, which reportedly has the OEM contract with Microsoft.

   : ...and not many people are going to buy a DEC Alpha.

   No, not at those prices, but Digital has plans for low cost Alpha, so 
   let's just wait and see.  I'd rather do that than waste my breath 
   trying to kill exactly the sort of thing which will help make for a 
   lively market (alternatives, dammit... you know, competition).

   : Tim.
   : -- 
   : Tim Cutts (tjrc1@cus.cam.ac.uk)		"The majority of the stupid is
   : 194, Vinery Rd, Cambridge, CB1 3DS, UK	 invincible and will persist for
all
   : (+44) 223 572622 (home)			 time"
   : (+44) 223 336616/336664 (work)			- Albert Einstein

   --
   Larry A. Shurr (las@cbnmva.att.com) speaking only for myself.
   Norman, listen carefully.  I am lying.  Are you sure your circuits are
   registering?  Your ears are green.  Logic is a little bird singing in a
   meadow.  Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad! - Mr. Spock
--
Dave Haynie                |  C= Amiga, High-End Systems | Ki No Kawa Ryu
Aikido
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com | Engineering = Art + Science | "Life was never
meant
{BIX,Portal}: hazy         | "The Crew That Never Rests" |    to be painless"

				"It's a great day to die!"

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!swrinde!sgiblab!sgigate.sgi.com!olivea!gossip.pyramid.com!pyramid!cbmvax!cbmnews!cbmnews!daveh
From: daveh@canopus.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is OS/2 dead? (Seriously...)
Message-ID: <DAVEH.94Mar30171132@canopus.commodore.com>
Date: 30 Mar 94 22:11:32 GMT
References: <2mtnfe$ena@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>
<1994Mar25.134531.29392@apgea.army.mil>
	<2n17aq$dfl@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <CnE2x6.EL9@cbnews.cb.att.com>
Sender: news@cbmnews.commodore.com
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Commodore Business Machines, West Chester, PA
Lines: 37
In-Reply-To: las@lassun.cb.att.com's message of Mon, 28 Mar 1994 19: 17:28
GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: canopus.cad.commodore.com
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.os.os2.misc:9720
comp.os.os2.advocacy:6804Subject: Re: MS Apps better?
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 23:38:30 GMT
Message-ID: <CnI4C7.HwF@microsoft.com>

In article <2mps52$gmk@news.arc.nasa.gov> josco@gaia.arc.nasa.gov (Joseph
Coughlan) writes:
>In article <Cn17DJ.4L5@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
writes:
>As a contractor at NASA I can confirm that organization and communiction
>are challenges and to coordinate a conspiracy is difficult if not
>impossible.
>
>However, I would also suggest that had Software Publishing Corp.
>(harvard graphics) invented the ole 1.0 technology ole would not be
>adopted by the MS Systems group.  

Perhaps.  Recall that when Systems wanted to adopt Adobe fonts, 
monetary negotiations fell through, resulting in the creation of
TrueType.

OTOH, once Systems has convinced the powers-that-be it wants to use 
OLE, OLE is transferred from Apps to Systems.  Case closed.

MS would have had to stage a hostile takeover of Adobe to get 
anywhere near that kind of cooperation.

>I would not consider tech transfer illegal however I would also not
>characterize the cross fertilization of apps and OS groups at MS a null
>set.  Likewise I would not think that a MS application would break when
>a major dos revision (dos 7.0) is released.

Nobody seemed to care when MSDOS 5 wouldn't run programs created with 
MS' QuickPascal.

It wasn't for MS apps that we re-wrote the dblspace driver 386 codepath to
avoid using extended registers (which weren't being preserved by the dos
extender included in a certain competitor's apps).

It wasn't for compatibility with an MS app that we kept the "MSDOS5.0"
disk signature in MSDOS 6.x.

These are facts.  How-it-looks comes into play, but more than that, it's
market share.  

>In the case of undocumented calls - they were used.  The significance is
>questionable but when you consider the difficulty in programming 
>a windows application (esp in 1990) when tools were primitive,
>any apparent advantage is going to get scrutinized.  Its part of being
>a big, successful company.

True.  However, when undocumented calls were used by MS Mac apps, 
resulting in having to upgrade those MS Mac apps to use System 7, 
did you think someone in MS Apps had dissassembled the Mac OS, or
that somebody at Apple could've TOLD somebody at MS about the call?

Apply the same reasoning for MS apps.

Maybe someday someone will dig through SLM records, find out who checked 
in each undoc'd call, drag 'em on a witness stand, put 'em under oath, and
ask. Even then they could lie, so we won't know.

-jen

-- 
not speaking for microsoft  -=-  jenk@microsoft.com  -=-  msdos testing
"I come from an area where there was not a lot of success. I don't know 
anyone who made a record before me. I didn't know anybody who had made 
anything." - Bruce Springsteen, from John Duffy's _In His Own Words_

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Path: search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!uunet!microsoft!hexnut!jenk
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: MS Apps better?
Message-ID: <CnI4C7.HwF@microsoft.com>
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 23:38:30 GMT
References: <2m27tm$fo1@sugar.NeoSoft.COM> <Cn17DJ.4L5@microsoft.com>
<2mps52$gmk@news.arc.nasa.gov>
Lines: 62
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.os.os2.misc:9768 comp.os.os2.advocacy:6828
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4715Subject: Congratulations Tim (sigh!!!)
From: fabiano@icd.teradyne.com (Maurilio Fabiano)
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 00:25:33 GMT
Message-ID: <zXXcjucEXql7058yn@icd.teradyne.com>


   Yes, sigh!  I'm glad to see IBM recognizes talent and dedication and
scoops it up.  But Tim, don't leave us in the dust.  Keep up the FAQ and
all the informative posts I always make sure I read.  I always attend the
OS/2 UG meetings here in the Boston area and I heard your name mentioned.  We
know you.  We need you !  Don't become just another number in the 300,000 or
so IBMers.  Keep your name visible and tell us what's going on with v2.2 and
what are the plans for OS/2 on Power PC.
   Good luck.
-- 


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Maurilio Fabiano             | 
Teradyne, Inc.  Boston, MA.  | BCS OS/2 User's meeting: April 5, Waltham MA.

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!netcomsv!attain!icd.teradyne.com!brick.icd.teradyne.com!fabiano
From: fabiano@icd.teradyne.com (Maurilio Fabiano)
Subject: Congratulations Tim (sigh!!!)
Message-ID: <zXXcjucEXql7058yn@icd.teradyne.com>
Originator: fabiano@brick.icd.teradyne.com
Lines: 9
Sender: news@icd.teradyne.com (News admin)
Reply-To: fabiano@icd.teradyne.com
Organization: Teradyne, Inc.
References: <2muuue$1n8@panix.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 00:25:33 GMT
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.os.os2.advocacy:6673
comp.os.os2.misc:9524Subject: Re: Congratulations Tim (sigh!!!)
From: usib58c5@ibmmail.com (Timothy F. Sipples)
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 1994 22:43:30 GMT
Message-ID: <CnLr4I.1H98@sernews.raleigh.ibm.com>

In <zXXcjucEXql7058yn@icd.teradyne.com>, fabiano@icd.teradyne.com (Maurilio
Fabiano) writes:
>   Yes, sigh!  I'm glad to see IBM recognizes talent and dedication and
>scoops it up.  But Tim, don't leave us in the dust.  Keep up the FAQ and
>all the informative posts I always make sure I read.  I always attend the
>OS/2 UG meetings here in the Boston area and I heard your name mentioned.
We
>know you.  We need you !  Don't become just another number in the 300,000 or
>so IBMers.  Keep your name visible and tell us what's going on with v2.2 and
>what are the plans for OS/2 on Power PC.

No problem.  I am working on Release 2.1E of the FAQ List (due "any day
now" :-)).  And I'll try to post in the OS/2 newsgroups from time to time.

By the way, I'll be in Boston most of the first week in May.  Anything I
shouldn't miss?

Timothy F. Sipples   | IBM Personal Software Marketing, Chicago
usib58c5@ibmmail.com | Read the OS/2 Frequently Asked Questions
FAX: +1(312)245-7624 | List 2.1D, available via anonymous ftp
"Chicago Loves OS/2! | from ftp-os2.cdrom.com.
[The views expressed are not necessarily those of IBM Corp.]


----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!watnews.watson.ibm.com!sernews!news
From: usib58c5@ibmmail.com (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: Congratulations Tim (sigh!!!)
Sender: news@sernews.raleigh.ibm.com
Message-ID: <CnLr4I.1H98@sernews.raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 1994 22:43:30 GMT
Lines: 20
Reply-To: usib58c5@ibmmail.com (Timothy F. Sipples)
References: <2muuue$1n8@panix.com> <zXXcjucEXql7058yn@icd.teradyne.com>
Nntp-Posting-Host: 9.28.255.79
Organization: IBM Personal Software Marketing, Chicago
X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 v1.00
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.os.os2.advocacy:6777
comp.os.os2.misc:9675Subject: Re: Amiga vs. Mac
From: david@visix.com (David Charlap)
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 22:49:03 GMT
Message-ID: <CnJwps.H7t@visix.com>

Jason V Robertson <jr7877@ehsn14.cen.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>NeXT Step will not natively run X Windows programs, though.

Oops.  My mistake.  I forgot that Unix + GUI != X.

(It could be SunView :-)
-- 
David Charlap        | The contents of this message are not the opinions of
Visix Software, Inc. | Visix Software, or of anyone besides myself.
david@visix.com      +-----------------------------------------------------
Member of Team-OS/2  | 

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Newsgroups:
comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!wetware!spunky.RedBrick.COM!psinntp!psinntp!viper!david
From: david@visix.com (David Charlap)
Subject: Re: Amiga vs. Mac
Message-ID: <CnJwps.H7t@visix.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 22:49:03 GMT
References: <2mtboj$oua@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
<2n6rf4$bju@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu> <CnGAnC.Lnu@visix.com>
<2ncb4h$kh9@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: Visix Software, Inc., Reston, VA
Lines: 11
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:7748
comp.sys.mac.advocacy:4660 comp.os.os2.advocacy:6729Subject: Re: Amiga vs.
Mac
From: t93074@mail.vitech.fi (Jani Miettinen)
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 04:43:47 GMT
Message-ID: <1994Mar31.044347.17680@mail.vitech.fi>

Jason V Robertson (jr7877@ehsn14.cen.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: NeXT Step will not natively run X Windows programs, though.
: -- 

Does Mac, Amiga or PC?

-Jani

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Newsgroups:
comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!news.funet.fi!zippo.uwasa.fi!mail.vitech.fi!t93074
From: t93074@mail.vitech.fi (Jani Miettinen)
Subject: Re: Amiga vs. Mac
Message-ID: <1994Mar31.044347.17680@mail.vitech.fi>
Followup-To:
comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Vaasa Institute of Technology
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
References: <2ncb4h$kh9@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 04:43:47 GMT
Lines: 7
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:7987
comp.sys.mac.advocacy:4853 comp.os.os2.advocacy:6861Subject: Re: Amiga vs.
Mac
From: gromyko@sputnik.rhein-main.de (Michael Grom)
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 1994 12:24:52 -0000
Message-ID: <040494c1428@sputnik.rhein-main.de>

In article <2na7u0$qsa@Tut.MsState.Edu>, Skip Sauls writes:

> In article <1994Mar29.112621.1@hmcvax.ac.hmc.edu> pcasey@hmcvax.ac.hmc.edu
writes:
[..]
>
> What in the heck is a half OS?  Is that the thing that runs on those

Well, an OS for half a PC, nah.."Personal System" well known as PS/2. :)

> old IBM mainframes or something?  And why in the world would anyone
> want to advocate such a thing?

Why not? Everyone is on something "lean" nowadays? (not true for OS/2 anyway)
:) :) :)

>

     __
__  ///  Michael Grom | FRG 60385 Frankfurt/M |gromyko@sputnik.rhein-main.de
\\\///                | Roederbergweg 136     |
 \XX/ C:\DOS>del *.*  | voice: +49 69 44 12 87| ** Gib DOS keine CHANCE **
 "It is the scent of garlic that lingers on my chocolate fingers" <Genesis> .

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!xlink.net!news.rhein-main.de!sputnik.rhein-main.de!news
From: gromyko@sputnik.rhein-main.de (Michael Grom)
Newsgroups:
comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Amiga vs. Mac
Message-ID: <040494c1428@sputnik.rhein-main.de>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 1994 12:24:52 -0000
Reply-To: gromyko@sputnik.rhein-main.de
References: <dano.764758552@srl03.cacs.usl.edu> 
 <SBB.94Mar29103648@iron.bear.com> <1994Mar29.112621.1@hmcvax.ac.hmc.edu> 
 <2na7u0$qsa@Tut.MsState.Edu>
Organization: private Amiga Site
X-Newsreader: Arn V1.03a
Sender: news@sputnik.rhein-main.de (The Sputnik wCnews System)
Lines: 21
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:8096
comp.sys.mac.advocacy:4918 comp.os.os2.advocacy:6927Subject: Re: Amiga vs.
Mac
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Date: 4 Apr 94 12:38:43 EDT
Message-ID: <9027.2da00a53@hayes.com>

In article <2nc1ia$fi3@booz.bah.com>, gerald@warbird.usae.bah.com (Gerald G
Washington) writes:
> Dair Grant <grantd@dcs.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
>>[ about Tog... ]
>>I think he's gone to Sun now.
> 
> How could that be possible?  Suns are using all sorts of nasty things
> like two or even three, yes THREE, button mice, popup menus with no
> menubar at the top of the screen, and shells as standard.  B^)

See? They obviously need more help than Apple....

-- 
Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! Internet: bcoleman@hayes.com
Principal Software Engineer        ! AppleLink: D1958
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! CIS: 76067,2327
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! 
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve
Hackett.


----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path: search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!uunet!hayes!bcoleman
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Amiga vs. Mac
Message-ID: <9027.2da00a53@hayes.com>
Date: 4 Apr 94 12:38:43 EDT
References: <2nc1ia$fi3@booz.bah.com>
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA
Lines: 19
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.sys.mac.advocacy:4993
comp.os.os2.advocacy:6980Subject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
From: jimf@centerline.com (Jim Frost)
Date: 31 Mar 1994 22:04:31 GMT
Message-ID: <2nfhdf$3u4@wcap.centerline.com>

It appears we were closer in opinion than I thought.  Here's some
clarification, but not argument.

tjb@sugar.NeoSoft.COM (Timothy J. Bogart) writes:
>Multiple input queues - I thought it had a single, async queue - but I
>don't know haw that relates to win3.1.

NT has a single input queue per thread.  It's one of the differences
that affects the porting of Win3.1 applications.  The NT model is more
natural and usable.

>Focus handling??

NT does not allow focus grabs beyond the current window frame.  This
eliminates the possibility of modal deadlock that exists in most
window systems.  Again, very smart, although it does make
implementation of some applications much more difficult.

>I am ignorant of the DLL stuff you refer to and confused when
>you mention memory models - different from the 32bit memory
>model in win3.1 - is that not driven by the CPU architecture on
>the Intel chips?

The DLL architecture changed in Win32.  It now matches closely with
that found in most UNIX systems today, but with superior facilities
for managing initialization and finalization.  It, too, is nicely
done.

The NT memory model is a traditional 32-bit VM per process, unlike the
Win3.1 model that uses a single address space for all processes in
addition to lots of strangenesses because of the Intel architecture.
The "new" model means you can't pass pointers around between processes
(which a lot of 3.1 programmers are pissing and moaning about) but it
also means rock-solid interprocess memory protection.  It makes NT
feel like a real system.

In addition the Global and Local heaps are no longer differentiated.
Movable memory is not useful (and I believe it will not actually be
moved).

A new heap management API exists which allows creation and
manipulation of multiple independent heaps.  It's simple and quite
usable.

Virtual memory can be handled both invisibly by NT or explicitly by
the user process.  A fully-functional API is provided.

>If I can run win32s applications in the
>win3.1 environment, it strikes me that there is much more similarity
>of the products than the 'paint' level, yet I can agree that there
>is _wholely_ new code to implement the functionality underneath.

Win32s is a bastard subset.  Most of the interesting capabilities of
NT are not available in Win32s.  At best I think of that as a way to
appease applications developers who want to shoehorn their
applications into NT without loosing Win3.1 compatibility.  If you
really want to use NT, don't use Win32s.

jim frost
jimf@centerline.com

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path: search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!uunet!news.centerline.com!jimf
From: jimf@centerline.com (Jim Frost)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
Date: 31 Mar 1994 22:04:31 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <2nfhdf$3u4@wcap.centerline.com>
References: <2m9oie$g6b@hq.hq.af.mil> <2mv36i$ddv@wcap.centerline.com>
<2n0kd1$lcj@sugar.NeoSoft.COM> <2ncv8v$lr7@wcap.centerline.com>
<2ndlpj$c7u@sugar.NeoSoft.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pickup.centerline.com
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.os.os2.advocacy:6675
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4583Subject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
From: pbhrc@rcmain.rc.rit.edu (Patrick B. Hardy)
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 23:06:31 GMT
Message-ID: <1994Mar31.230631.6482@ultb.isc.rit.edu>

In article <Cn6tI9.FIn@news.Hawaii.Edu> tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave
Tholen) writes:
>David Geller writes:
>
>> It [Chicago] will, like Win3.1, be an enormously successful
>> product. Are people still doubting this?
>
>Yes.  Just because Windows 3.1 was successful doesn't automatically make
>Chicago a success.  Look at Windows 1.x, Windows 2.x, Windows NT, products
>that both predate and postdate Windows 3.1.  Until we know what the final
>product is really going to look like, I wouldn't make any bold predictions
>about Chicago's success.
>

 I'd have to agree. Besides, I think the reason why Windows was a success is
because of the way it was marketed. I run Windows on my own PC and my PC at
work
all the time, but there are still PLENTY of things that are wrong with it.
There's no telling what will happen with 4.0



TK

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!udel!MathWorks.Com!news.kei.com!ub!galileo.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!rit!isc-newsserver!rcmain.rc.rit.edu!pbhrc
From: pbhrc@rcmain.rc.rit.edu (Patrick B. Hardy)
Subject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
Message-ID: <1994Mar31.230631.6482@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
Sender: news@ultb.isc.rit.edu (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: rcmain.rc.rit.edu
Organization: RIT Research Corp. Rochester, NY
References: <davidg.764466353@access3> <Cn6tI9.FIn@news.Hawaii.Edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 23:06:31 GMT
Lines: 21
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.os.os2.advocacy:6718
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4634Subject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
From: tjb@sugar.NeoSoft.COM (Timothy J. Bogart)
Date: 1 Apr 1994 00:37:55 -0600
Message-ID: <2ngfg3$lvi@sugar.NeoSoft.COM>

In article <2nen4m$d71@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>,
[snip]
>	The only way it is possible to run these Win32s programs on Win 
>3.1 is if a new set of DLLs is added to Windows 3.1.  These DLLs are what 
>is called in the Win32s program.  They then go and thunk down to the 16 
>bit DLLs of Win 3.1.
I definately need to look at this some more.  I hope that NT book
covers this.

>	When you buy a Win32s program, they supply you with these 
>nesecary DLLs.  Win32 programs do not directly run on Win 3.1.  The APIs 
>are different, and only share some common functions.  Win32 is much 
>larger than Win16.

Yes, I vaguely remembered there was something added - but could not
recall if it was a different kernel.exe or as you explained, done
in dlls.
[snip]
>>Enhanced mode has a segmented memory model?  I thought the whole
>>point was that it kicked you up into the 32bit flat memory model.
>>
>	Nope... it doesn't... read some more about this.

Ok.

[snip]
>>If windows added X calls to it's APU, wouldn't you say that windows
>>and X shared some design features or would you say that MS had designed
>>something completely new?  I would say that the implementation was
>>new, had added features, but I wouldn't call it Y (rather than X)
>>and call it new.
>>
>	Now you have changed your ppoint of discussion from saying that 
>NT is not a new OS, to saaying they share some common points (from your 
>analogy)

Yes, absolutely.  I mis-stated on that one line - instead of saying
'not a new OS' I should have stated 'not a completely new OS'.
Flat out sloppiness on my part and it caused much confusion.
Again, my apologies for not typing what was in my alleged mind.

>>A new package, a new product, new code, additional design features.
>>But still carrying enough heritage so that MS claims significat
>>porting advantages because the API is built on win3.1 - so that
>>your knowledge of win3.1 program design is not lost and you can
>>still write code (32bit code) that runs in both environments.
>>NOT just right two applications that look the same to the end
>>users of each OS, the very same code runs natively on both 
>>installations.  Seperate from the issue of NT being able to
>>emulate old win3.1 apps.
>>
>	Like I said.... Win32s programs thunk down to the old Win16 
>code.  It doesn't just run on Win 3.1

Ok.  I will try and understand if there are NO calls in win32s
that do not require thunking.  And I wil try and understand
MS claims that win32 is based on win3.1 allowing programmers
a smooth transition from win3.1 to win32.

[snip]
>>A have to admit to being confused by the characterization of win3.1 as
>>completely 16 bit code.  I need some help understanding why folks put
>>out that 32bit version of Life to demonstrate otherwise, or how win32s
>>apps can work on top of a fully 16bit environment, or what this 32bit
>>disk access stuff is in a 16bit implementation....
>
>	Ok... it has a couple of 32 bit features.. not many.  Again.. 
>thunking is used to run 32 bit apps on the 16 bit system (win 3.1).

Ok, at least I finally stammered out the source of my statements.  Now
it would seem we can concentrate on the 'couple of 32 bit features'.

>>I guess some would say that win3.x is a completely new product from
>>win2.x.  Some would say that it was a drastic enhancement to the old
>>design with a much richer feature set but still obviously carried
>> a heritage forward....
>
>	I would call it a drastic enhancement.

I would have expected you to call it a completely new product done
from a clean sheet of paper.  What code was shared between 2.x and 3.x
under the kind of arguments you give for NT?

[snip]
>>Well, it certainly is different and expanded and the implemetation
>>is completely different.  I am still a bit confused by design 
>>considerations.  win3.1 to me was a 32bit wanna be where they
>>grafted as much 32bit features as they could make work while still
>
>	There aren't that many 32 bit features besides 32 bit disk access..

Ok, again, it was the fact that they existed that served as the basis
for my statements.  How many is the issue.

>>selling you dos as a requirement.  This was expanded and improved
>>upon in NT - drastically so.  But it is still windows with new
>
>	No it was not... NT started life in design as OS/2 3.0.  The 
>design of it started in 1988 when microsoft and IBM decided on what it 
>was going to be like.  Microsft took over the project when the two of 
>them broke up, changed the API, and called it Windows NT.

Ok.  I really had discounted the concept that much had survived those
early days.  Not so?

>>technology to it, as opposed to a completely clean sheet design
>>that would make NT as different from windows as *nix/X is completely
>>different.  There is a really fundamentally different architure,
>
>	I will say it again... NT is a completely clean sheet 
>design!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No requirements for any consistency with the win3.1 API.  Make it
look like anything you want.  I will look into the NT references
with this thought in mind.

>>programming model, API - and would still be so even if someone
>>came up with a window manger that copied the style of win3.x or NT.
>
>	Please go read something about NT before saying again that it is 
>not a new design.  All the magazine reviews will tell you that the 
>similarities between NT and Windows 3.1 end at the interface!
>	You need to understand more about OS design to underrstand what I 
>am saying.
>	When WPOS comes out on the PowerPC, it will look like OS/2's 
>WorkPlace shell.  BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT... the OS is completely different!  

Well, I certainly need to understand more about alot of things, including
OS design.  And being clearer in my language.  But I will try one more
thing.

When I am compiling X code on an RS6k, Linux. 386BSD or Interactive
there are both differences and similarities in the things I need
to do build a binary.  Definately different products.  Some are
absolutely clean sheet designs - some are in fact based on the
same AT&T licensed code.  All share some very basic similarities
in system sevices.  All are *nix variants and as such anyone 
familiar with code for one has automatically a level of familiarity
with the others.  Whether they are completely different OSes or
OSes that share a common heritage is a question of partly sunny
or partly cloudy.

I make the same claim about the OS/2 1.x vs 2.x.

I thought the same was true about win3.1 vs NT.  You have given
me some good inputs to keep in mind as I look into this.

As to WPOS, I am in a quandry.  Perhaps you understand the 
implementation of the 'personalities' well enough to clear
up things.  Specifically, what is a WPOS program?  How do I
write one without knowing the 'personality'?  What is
the API I write to?  As I understand it, there is no such
thing.  What is the OS in this case?  It would seem that some
of the terminology needs to change.





----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!news.uh.edu!uuneo.neosoft.com!sugar.NeoSoft.COM!not-for-mail
From: tjb@sugar.NeoSoft.COM (Timothy J. Bogart)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
Date: 1 Apr 1994 00:37:55 -0600
Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services   +1 713 684 5969
Lines: 158
Message-ID: <2ngfg3$lvi@sugar.NeoSoft.COM>
References: <2m9oie$g6b@hq.hq.af.mil> <2ndqaf$nvh@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>
<2nekii$bck@sugar.neosoft.com> <2nen4m$d71@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sugar.neosoft.com
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.os.os2.advocacy:6723
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4638Subject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
From: tjb@sugar.NeoSoft.COM (Timothy J. Bogart)
Date: 1 Apr 1994 00:50:15 -0600
Message-ID: <2ngg77$mrn@sugar.NeoSoft.COM>

In article <2nf5kh$ekg@acme.gatech.edu>,
David Charles Leblanc <gt6977b@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
>tjb@sugar.NeoSoft.COM (Timothy J. Bogart) writes:
>
>>Can I run win32s programs as an owner of win3.1?  If so, the similarity
>>with NT must exist at a level below the screen 'look'.  
>
>Yes, you can do this, but there are serious differences in how it works.
>On Win 3.1 (with the appropriate .dlls), you can run Win32s by thunking all
>the 32 bit calls to 16 bit calls - Win 3.1 can emulate 32 bit mode in this
>way - not much advantage to having a 32 bit app runiing under 3.1.  Under
NT,
>it is the reverse - the 32 bit app is native and the 16 bit app must be
>thunked and/or emulated.  Some of the API calls can be translated directly,
>others must be thunked from 16 to 32 bit.  If you get into some of the
control
>panel stuff and admin, rather than just playing with old apps on NT (which
is
>*not* impressive), you'll see how different it really is.  It truly is a 
>whole new beast with the old interface.  Even there, some things are
different.

I read you as agreeing with the claim that there are NO win32s calls in
common with win3.1 - but you mention 'some of the API calls can be
translated directly' going the other way.  Care to elaborate (to help me
in my reading assignment 8-) ).

>For example, I have 4 log-ins (most of them not passworded).  One for me
>and one for Admin, another for my wife and still yet another for children.
>If we have visiting kids, it is very nice to be able to give them a log-in
>where they only have games accessable and are completely unable to access
>the NTFS drive with all my code and data.  The more I learn about UNIX, the
more
>similarities I see with NT at the core of things.

I have beat on NT for 15 or 20 minutes so far looking at some of these
things.  At least I have a login now.  8-)  I hope to get to install it
sometime to get some data input on those discussions.

>>If windows added X calls to it's APU, wouldn't you say that windows
>>A new package, a new product, new code, additional design features.
>>But still carrying enough heritage so that MS claims significat
>>porting advantages because the API is built on win3.1 - so that
>>your knowledge of win3.1 program design is not lost and you can
>>still write code (32bit code) that runs in both environments.
>>NOT just right two applications that look the same to the end
>>users of each OS, the very same code runs natively on both 
>>installations.  Seperate from the issue of NT being able to
>>emulate old win3.1 apps.
>
>The same code won't run natively in the strictest sense of native on both
>OS's.  The compatability comes in where in many cases the API calls are
>the same or the 32 bit versions are improved.  The really nice part is
>that I can write a peice of code using the MFC and *if* I either do not use
>any direct API calls or encapsulate that so that it can be contained in
>#ifdef constructs, I can feed it to my VC++ 32 bit and compile a 32 bit app
>and then turn around and compile the same thing in VC++ 1.5 (16 bit) then
>I have two apps for one peice of code - and both run native.  Also, if I
>have a 16 bit app, it is not all that horrible to port to 32 bits - you
>just have to go through and find all the incompatable API calls and get
>rid of near and far distinctions and make sure you used WORD when you want
>a 2 byte integer rather than int which will now be 4 byte.

What is your estimation of the 'heritage' of win3.1 API in win32?  I
mean, beyond saying 'not all that horrible'.  Would you call it
'clearly derived but enhanced' or 'clean sheet of paper'?



----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!news.uh.edu!uuneo.neosoft.com!sugar.NeoSoft.COM!not-for-mail
From: tjb@sugar.NeoSoft.COM (Timothy J. Bogart)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
Date: 1 Apr 1994 00:50:15 -0600
Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services   +1 713 684 5969
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <2ngg77$mrn@sugar.NeoSoft.COM>
References: <2m9oie$g6b@hq.hq.af.mil> <2ndqaf$nvh@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>
<2nekii$bck@sugar.NeoSoft.COM> <2nf5kh$ekg@acme.gatech.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sugar.neosoft.com
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.os.os2.advocacy:6725
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4639Subject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
From: tjb@sugar.NeoSoft.COM (Timothy J. Bogart)
Date: 1 Apr 1994 01:09:04 -0600
Message-ID: <2nghag$njg@sugar.NeoSoft.COM>

In article <2nfhdf$3u4@wcap.centerline.com>,
Jim Frost <jimf@centerline.com> wrote:
>It appears we were closer in opinion than I thought.  Here's some
>clarification, but not argument.

Pleas take my questions in the same light.  8-)

>tjb@sugar.NeoSoft.COM (Timothy J. Bogart) writes:
>>Multiple input queues - I thought it had a single, async queue - but I
>>don't know haw that relates to win3.1.
>
>NT has a single input queue per thread.  It's one of the differences
>that affects the porting of Win3.1 applications.  The NT model is more
>natural and usable.

Ah, thank you.

>>Focus handling??
>
>NT does not allow focus grabs beyond the current window frame.  This
>eliminates the possibility of modal deadlock that exists in most
>window systems.  Again, very smart, although it does make
>implementation of some applications much more difficult.

Yes, it sounds much better.

>>I am ignorant of the DLL stuff you refer to and confused when
>>you mention memory models - different from the 32bit memory
>>model in win3.1 - is that not driven by the CPU architecture on
>>the Intel chips?
>
>The DLL architecture changed in Win32.  It now matches closely with
>that found in most UNIX systems today, but with superior facilities
>for managing initialization and finalization.  It, too, is nicely
>done.

Ok.

>The NT memory model is a traditional 32-bit VM per process, unlike the
>Win3.1 model that uses a single address space for all processes in
>addition to lots of strangenesses because of the Intel architecture.
>The "new" model means you can't pass pointers around between processes
>(which a lot of 3.1 programmers are pissing and moaning about) but it
>also means rock-solid interprocess memory protection.  It makes NT
>feel like a real system.

Well, perhaps you can help me some here.  From a more simplistic
view I think of these kinds of issues as interprocess communication
rather than a memory model issue.  That is, I thought that in
enhanced mode, win3.1 uses the protected mode of the 32bit chip
and has available to it the associated 'flat' memory model.  Now,
the way in which applications share the address space has been
descibed to me as having similarities with 'lightweight' threads
in *nix.  You don't get the protection of separate processes like
in NT or *nix, but you are still programming to a flat memory
model.  No?

>In addition the Global and Local heaps are no longer differentiated.
>Movable memory is not useful (and I believe it will not actually be
>moved).
>
>A new heap management API exists which allows creation and
>manipulation of multiple independent heaps.  It's simple and quite
>usable.

And allows you to really runs apps memory bound rather than heap bound.
8-)

>Virtual memory can be handled both invisibly by NT or explicitly by
>the user process.  A fully-functional API is provided.

Hmmm...

>>If I can run win32s applications in the
>>win3.1 environment, it strikes me that there is much more similarity
>>of the products than the 'paint' level, yet I can agree that there
>>is _wholely_ new code to implement the functionality underneath.
>
>Win32s is a bastard subset.  Most of the interesting capabilities of
>NT are not available in Win32s.  At best I think of that as a way to
>appease applications developers who want to shoehorn their
>applications into NT without loosing Win3.1 compatibility.  If you
>really want to use NT, don't use Win32s.

It must offer something to make folks like Mathcad (?) use it????




----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!news.uh.edu!uuneo.neosoft.com!sugar.NeoSoft.COM!not-for-mail
From: tjb@sugar.NeoSoft.COM (Timothy J. Bogart)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
Date: 1 Apr 1994 01:09:04 -0600
Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services   +1 713 684 5969
Lines: 88
Message-ID: <2nghag$njg@sugar.NeoSoft.COM>
References: <2m9oie$g6b@hq.hq.af.mil> <2ncv8v$lr7@wcap.centerline.com>
<2ndlpj$c7u@sugar.NeoSoft.COM> <2nfhdf$3u4@wcap.centerline.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sugar.neosoft.com
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.os.os2.advocacy:6726
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4640Subject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
From: pmb@csi.compuserve.com
Date: 1 Apr 1994 16:00:39 GMT
Message-ID: <2nhgf7$3h1@george.inhouse.compuserve.com>

In article <2nehu8$2o7@sugar.NeoSoft.COM> tjb@sugar.NeoSoft.COM (Timothy J.
Bogart) writes:
>
>Well, some.  Sorry to be so dense.  So we have two apps - one
>misbehave, one not.  Somehow, by reading the data in the ini
>file, windows behaves differently for one app vs another.  Hmmm.
>
>If a product had been using undocumented call that had been
>removed - I don't see how this would work (you just document the
>call to solve this one anyway).
>
>If the undocumented call changed behaviors, it is still a mystery
>how the magic number is used by windows to make itself behave
>differently - does it really have code to keep track of when an
>individual app makes a specific API call and services the request
>with different code segments somehow?  Sure sounds like some
>extreme overhead.  Again, why not document the calls used and add
>them to the API if folks have found them so useful?  If you are 
>going to write the workaround code, ehy not just spend the time
>and effort to clean up the service and document it?
>
>Maybe a specific example of what happens when one of the naughty
>apps makes a certain call?
>

Um, this has nothing to do with undocumented calls.  It has to do with
undocumented side-effects, or bugs, in documented calls.  What the
codes in the *.ini file do is turn off extra parameter checking and
such in specific conditions, which allows an app to run like it did
under Win 3.0.  In otherwords, Win3.1 is a much "tighter ship", and
is much stricter about parameters and such.  There are also side-effects
that certain API calls might produce that some apps relied upon because
they "discovered" them.  Win3.1 either documented previously
un-documented APIs, validated parameters being passed to documented
API's, cleaned up the code behind various APIs (potentially changing
undocumented side-effects, but ensuring that the API functions as
documented), or added new API's.

And yes, it's probably a bit of overhead... but worth the price
in getting Win3.1 accepted.  What do you want to bet that Win 4.0
achieves some speed up by removing some of the by-now-obsolete
"compatibility" stuff? <big grin>

  - Paul

===============================
Insert standard disclaimer here
===============================


----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path: search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!uunet!ihz.compuserve.com!news
From: pmb@csi.compuserve.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
Date: 1 Apr 1994 16:00:39 GMT
Organization: cis
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <2nhgf7$3h1@george.inhouse.compuserve.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pmb.inhouse.compuserve.com
X-Newsreader: <WinQVT/Net v3.9>
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.os.os2.advocacy:6880
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4745Subject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
From: wsd3@aol.com (WSD3)
Date: 4 Apr 1994 23:28:00 -0400
Message-ID: <2nqls0$73h@search01.news.aol.com>

In article <MATT.94Mar19232921@physics2.berkeley.edu>,
matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:

>'ll bet that a significant majority of OS/2's sales are to corporate
>sites, and that most of those sites would want peer-to-peer networking
>to come in the same box as the rest of the operating system.

Then you'd bet wrong Matt.  Most corperate site DO NOT want peer to peer
built
in.  Witness the colossal failure of Windows for Workgroups.  The only way
MSoft could successfully market peer to peer in Windows was to name it
Windows
3.11 and stop selling Windows 3.1.

Many people talk about peer to peer but most corperations dont' see a benifit
for the headache.  Data on users drive doesn't get backed up.  Corperations
don't need to put their data at risk...


----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!search01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: wsd3@aol.com (WSD3)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
Date: 4 Apr 1994 23:28:00 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 16
Sender: news@search01.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <2nqls0$73h@search01.news.aol.com>
References: <MATT.94Mar19232921@physics2.berkeley.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: search01.news.aol.comSubject: Re: Chicago's biggest
threat...
From: umisef@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Bernd Meyer)
Date: 31 Mar 1994 12:13:43 GMT
Message-ID: <2neepn$89i@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>

u0xh@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Chris Newton CSD) writes:

>Here is a file from Microsft written a couple years back.... (LONG)
>It was written around 1992 I think... it is on ftp.microsoft.com.  This 
>should put to rest once and for all what Microsoft had intended NT to be

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>[History of windows cut]

>Windows NT

>In 1992, Microsoft will introduce a new product called Windows NT (New
    ^^^^ well.......
>Technology). 
[...]

>Windows NT does not require DOS to function.  However, it is
>compatible with the large installed base of DOS and Windows
>applications. 
Though the words "high end desktop" was used before, this doesn't really
sound like they were going for high end....

>To support large server applications, Windows NT provides completely
>symmetric multiprocessor support.  With Windows NT, tasks are
In this sentence, "symmetric" sounds like something good - I gather it
is a limitation, not a feature....

>Windows NT is highly portable.  It is being developed concurrently on
>x86 and MIPS-based RISC platforms. MIPS-based computers will be
>available from more than 60 hardware manufacturers who are members of
>the ACE (Advanced Computing Environment) consortium.  With Windows NT,
We all know what happened to ACE, don't we?

>existing DOS and Windows programs will run unchanged on MIPS-based
>computers.
It only depends on your definition of "run"....

>In addition to these advanced capabilities, the kernel-based design of
>Windows NT can be thought of as a nucleus which is compatible with
>different operating system environments.  The kernel design provides
>Windows NT compatibility with DOS and Windows applications.  It also
>allows Windows NT to support the OS/2 and POSIX application program
>interfaces, both of which are under development at Microsoft.  This

What this came down to was: We give you the NT API, and then we really
have to kludge a DOS/Windows compatibility mode in, as otherwise you
won't buy it, and apart from that, we implement the smallest necessary
part of every standard we can think of and claim that we are compatible.
POSIX interface is a joke (but looks nice on the spec sheet), and "OS/2
compatible" is ok as long as you don't try to run anything - who uses
character based apps anymore?

>semantics are identical.  The message order is identical.  In fact, it
>is possible to keep a single source code base and compile that source
>code into both 16-bit and 32-bit programs (see Figure 4).

if you don't care about #ifdefs, that is....

>The Windows 32-Bit API is fully supported in both Windows Enhanced-
>mode and Windows NT-mode.  The Windows 32-Bit API will first be
>available in the Windows NT product during 1992.  It will be added to
>Windows Enhanced-mode in late 1992 or early 1993.  Programs written to
>the Windows 32-Bit API will run binary compatibly on both Windows NT-
>mode and Windows Enhanced-mode.  All Windows 32 features are supported
>by both Windows Enhanced-mode and Windows NT-mode, including
>preemptive multitasking. 

Take it from Microsoft: Windows 3.1 DOES preemptive multitasking of
Win32 programs, no, even better,  you can even use threads under Win3.1
(enhanced mode)......... and for more than a year now! And start to
think about - aren't the security functions part of win32? Hey, win3.1
(enhanced mode) supports all of them! WOW! And I always thought it
wasn't any use but to play solitaire!

> Windows 32 programs will be fully source
>compatible between  x86 and MIPS processors.  Software Developer Kits
>for the Windows 32-Bit API will be available in late 1991.
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^
This makes it pretty unlikely that the text was written in 1992....
.
>The following highlights some key features of the Windows 32-Bit API.
(as supported in windows enhanced mode since early 1993, remember!)

>Kernel: The Base Operating System

>The Windows 32-Bit API on both Window NT-mode and Windows Enhanced-
>mode provides preemptive thread-based multitasking. It also runs all
>Windows 32-Bit and MS-DOS applications in separate address spaces so
>that they cannot corrupt one another.

Hear Hear! This should end all the Windows bashing of the OS/2oids
once and for all, shouldn't it?

>The Windows 32-Bit API is designed to be portable beyond the 80386 and
>80486 processors and in particular to be portable to RISC
>architectures. All these processors have different features but have
>in common 32-bit addressing and paged virtual memory architectures.

How farsighted MS was.... "All these [i.e. RISC] processors have [...]
in common 32 bit adressing". Well, the ALPHA probably gave them wuite
a shock....... Last I heard they only used it in 32 bit mode :-(

>Given a large 32-bit address space, the operating system can
>conveniently and efficiently optimize file I/O because processes treat
>the file as a very large memory object and randomly access that
>object.

This is, I think, the concept of "mmap". I don't see any optimization in
it, al well as I don't see any NT in it......

>The Windows 32 GDI is a complete and general-purpose drawing package.
>Bezier curves are a general-purpose curve primitive from which a
>straight line can also be derived. This function combined with the
>PolyBezier functionality makes it possible to draw any combination of
>continuous lines and curves.
.... as long as it doesn't happen to be anything other than a bezier,
like, god forbid, a circle, or a beta-spline, or .....

>The Windows windowing system is called User.  The most significant
>change to User is the desynchronization of the per-window message
>queue from the system message queue. This change prevents errant,
>looping applications that stop processing their messages from blocking
>the computer system's entire user interface, thus making other
>applications unavailable.
Does NT actually have multiple queues? Just wondering....

>With the addition of input queue time thresholds, the system can
>provide default handling for a looping or an otherwise nonresponsive
>process.  From an end-user perspective, this means the they can do
>other things while one application is busy.  For example, if a word
>processing program is busy printing a 100 page document, a user can
>minimize that application and begin working on a spreadsheet.  This
>effectively minimizes the time the user waits with an "hourglass" on
>their screen.
I still prefer the X way - if I move the mouse onto some other window,
the hourglass goes away. So I have minimized te time I have to wait to
zero..... is it that difficult to do?

>today. Windows 32 will include standard network APIs that can replace
>those that network providers have previously needed to supply. Windows

Read: We at MS will do something completly new, and we really don't
bother to care about what you already have, switch to our standard or
forget about networking. And that's just what they delivered.... Any
news of Novell compatibility yet?

>regardless of the underlying network.  Even if a network is not
>present, the APIs are still available and will return appropriate
>error codes.
This makes me wonder - what did the earlier versions do? Magically
disappear? Returning "unappropriate" error codes? I mean, *something*
must have happened if you called a netapi function without a network...

>Compatibility with Windows 16-Bit APIs

>Windows Version 3.0 and 3.1 applications will be able to run in
>Windows Enhanced-mode and Windows NT-mode systems that support the
>Windows 32 API. To be compatible with versions 3.0 and 3.1, all
>Windows 16 applications will run as one process in one address space.
This reminds me of the "we can't add proper wildcard handling, as this
would break existing apps [as in dir ab*cd.txt is still equal to
dir ab*.txt]" argument. What apps do really depend on being executed in
one adress space and multitsked cooperatively? This is pathetic!

>Windows executables will also run on RISC-based Windows NT machines
>(see Figure 5).  Excellent performance is expected on this platform
>because although some code will be run against 80286 emulator
>technology, all Windows calls will be mapped directly to the Windows
>NT software.

What is "some code" in this context?

All in all, this text doesn't really sound like much MS actually *DID*.

Bernie

-- 
"And the band played 'Waltzing Mathilda' /  as we stopped to bury our slain;
And we buried ours / and the Turks buried theirs  | ..... living in Oz ....
And it started all over again"                    | 
(The Pogues, "Waltzing Mathilda", orig by Eric Bogle, "And the band played
WM")

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!hookup!swrinde!sgiblab!munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au!umisef
From: umisef@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Bernd Meyer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
Date: 31 Mar 1994 12:13:43 GMT
Organization: Monash University
Lines: 181
Message-ID: <2neepn$89i@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>
References: <2m9oie$g6b@hq.hq.af.mil> <2mrbei$32j@sugar.NeoSoft.COM>
<2mv36i$ddv@wcap.centerline.com> <CnG4wq.JpD@visix.com>
<2nb7u7$msm@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #3 (NOV)
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.os.os2.advocacy:6982
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4803Subject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
From: kkrieser@BIX.com (kkrieser on BIX)
Date: 6 Apr 94 01:30:09 GMT
Message-ID: <kkrieser.765595809@BIX.com>

>view I think of these kinds of issues as interprocess communication
>rather than a memory model issue.  That is, I thought that in
>enhanced mode, win3.1 uses the protected mode of the 32bit chip
>and has available to it the associated 'flat' memory model.  Now,
>the way in which applications share the address space has been
>descibed to me as having similarities with 'lightweight' threads
>in *nix.  You don't get the protection of separate processes like
>in NT or *nix, but you are still programming to a flat memory
>model.  No?




Though Windows 3.1 can run in Enhanced mode on a 386 or greater,
it does NOT run it in flat 32-bit mode.  Essentially, all the
386 allows is for Windows to preemptively multitask DOS
applications, using the virtual 86 mode of the chip.
All regular Windows applications run in another virtual 86 box
with a segmented memory model.  In addition, Windows in Enhanced
mode will support virtual memory, which allows you to run a few more
DOS boxes in your super 4mb windows computer.

The one thing that I am not sure about is how the 
Win32s is supported.  I do know that this allows specially
written Windows applications to run on Windows in enhanced mode
with a flat memory model.  I do not know about memory protection,
but it DOES NOT provide features such as threads.  For that, 
you need to go to OS/2 or NT.

By the way, it does NOT take 32-bit to allow threads.
OS/2 had threads on the 286 back in 88 or 89.

Kevin Kriesr

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!uunet!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!BIX.com!kkrieser
From: kkrieser@BIX.com (kkrieser on BIX)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
Date: 6 Apr 94 01:30:09 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <kkrieser.765595809@BIX.com>
References: <2m9oie$g6b@hq.hq.af.mil> <2ncv8v$lr7@wcap.centerline.com>
<2ndlpj$c7u@sugar.NeoSoft.COM> <2nfhdf$3u4@wcap.centerline.com>
<2nghag$njg@sugar.NeoSoft.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bix.com
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.os.os2.advocacy:7037
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4840Subject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
From: kkrieser@BIX.com (kkrieser on BIX)
Date: 6 Apr 94 01:38:12 GMT
Message-ID: <kkrieser.765596292@BIX.com>

wsd3@aol.com (WSD3) writes:
>Then you'd bet wrong Matt.  Most corperate site DO NOT want peer to peer
built
>in.  Witness the colossal failure of Windows for Workgroups.  The only way
>MSoft could successfully market peer to peer in Windows was to name it
Windows
>3.11 and stop selling Windows 3.1.

Windows 3.11 is different from Windows for Workgroups 3.11.

Of course, the argument hasn't changed.  Microsoft apparently
dropped the price for W4W greatly to computer companies so that
many such as Gateway changed over to W4W, even computers with no 
LAN card.

Kevin Krieser

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!uunet!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!BIX.com!kkrieser
From: kkrieser@BIX.com (kkrieser on BIX)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
Date: 6 Apr 94 01:38:12 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <kkrieser.765596292@BIX.com>
References: <MATT.94Mar19232921@physics2.berkeley.edu>
<2nqls0$73h@search01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bix.comSubject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
From: kkrieser@BIX.com (kkrieser on BIX)
Date: 6 Apr 94 01:21:39 GMT
Message-ID: <kkrieser.765595299@BIX.com>


My understanding about WPOS/2 is that you can have several
different API's on top of the basic micro kernal, which
is a truer micro kernal design than NT's (with both the advantages
and disadvantages of that).

I understand that the planned primary interface is based on the
workshell of OS/2 2.1 for Intel.  In fact, a significant portion
of OS/2 2.1 that is written in 32-bit C is supposed to be written
to be portable without change.  

The underlying basic WPOS2 will support several different
API's at the same time:  Recompiled 2.1 code, Windows code and DOS code
(through emulation), possibly AIX code, etc.  Similar to NT, which
supports old 16-bit OS/2 code, and a POSIX subset.  However,
it sounds like it will be more useful than NT, since who today
runs old 1.X character mode OS/2 applications?

Of course, this is all in the future, and all this speculation
is likely to prove as accurate as all the fawning press over Chicago, 
another unreleased product.

Kevin Krieser

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!gatech!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!MathWorks.Com!news.kei.com!news.byu.edu!news.mtholyoke.edu!nic.umass.edu!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!BIX.com!kkrieser
From: kkrieser@BIX.com (kkrieser on BIX)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
Date: 6 Apr 94 01:21:39 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <kkrieser.765595299@BIX.com>
References: <2m9oie$g6b@hq.hq.af.mil> <2ndqaf$nvh@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>
<2nekii$bck@sugar.neosoft.com> <2nen4m$d71@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>
<2ngfg3$lvi@sugar.NeoSoft.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bix.com
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.os.os2.advocacy:7039
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4841Subject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
From: NW@upgrade.se (Nicolai Wadstroem)
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 94 17:22:52 GMT
Message-ID: <765566572snx@upgrade.se>

tsikes@netcom.com writes in article <tsikesCMvJ50.80u@netcom.com>:
> 
> In article <1994Mar18.093310.15017@cdf.toronto.edu>
a336dhal@cdf.toronto.edu (Dhaliwal Bikram Singh) writes:
> >In article <tsikesCMoJMI.DyI@netcom.com> tsikes@netcom.com (Terry Sikes)
writes:
> >>In article <2m1tlo$8fb@hq.hq.af.mil> lunatic@asylum.hq.af.mil (Jeff
Kirvin) writes:
> >>>Terry Sikes (tsikes@netcom.com) wrote:
> >>>: In article <xris.72.000F05D2@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu>
xris@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Chris Nappi) writes:
> >>>
> 
> >>>Only for Chicago and NT apps. Even OS/2 has more apps than that...
> >>
> >>You should be remembering these words 1 week after Win 4.0 ships...  :)
> >
> >Deja vu, comes to mind.  Please help me swim through all the NT apps.
> 
> (For about the 97th time, I'll re-post this...maybe its time for a FAQ).
> 
> The main reason that more mainstream Win 3.1 apps haven't been ported to
> NT is that most ISVs are writing to OLE 2.0.  OLE 2.0 isn't available on
> Win NT 3.1...but it will be there in the next release.  Coincidentally,
> MS Office will be available in the same time frame as the next release
> (and I'm sure other vendors, not to be left out, will join the fray also).
> 
> Go figure.
> 

Well not quite... Windows NT represents a very little marketshare, and as
ISV's want to sell their software their primary target is Windows v3.1 as
it has the largest marketshare. Many companies are also commited to write
OS/2 application due to the fact that there is a market for it. Many ISV's
also have changed their mind about developing for Windows NT and are now
developing for OS/2 instead or both platforms. This due to the fact that
OS/2 has a considerably larger marketshare than Windows NT. On the otherhand 
as it looks most ISV's have plans to support Windows v4.0 which will 
eventually also make the application base for Windows NT larger. (As future 
Windows NT versions will run Windows v4.0 Win32c binaries).
But the fact remains OS/2 provides a big market for ISV's willing to write
programs for it, and with binary and source code compatibility with
Workplace OS/2 on diffrent hardware platforms also makes it an attractive
choice for ISV's.

> >>Yeah, if you can get decent drivers to get you beyond 640x480 in the
first
> >>place.  Plus, I wouldn't bank too much on the final version of Chicago
> >>looking very like the current alpha release.
> >
> >Why do I waste my time replying?  Is any of this getting through to you?
> >There are drivers for OS/2 that support about 95% of all the software
> >out there.
> 
> (First off, I'm assuming you really meant 'hardware'.  Drivers relate to
> hardware).
> 
> If you are honestly telling me that driver support is as good for OS/2 as
it
> is for Windows, I have a bridge in Brookly I'd like to sell you..  :)

No I would not suggest that (maybe the orginal poster was :-)), but as a
matter of fact almost every Video, SCSI, Network cards etc are support by
OS/2.
(The generic SVGA 32-bit display drivers works with almost any kind of
video adapters also, upto 1280x1024)


> >Have you?  It seems so scary that some people are putting so much
> >faith into yet another sight-unseen MS product.  OS/2 is not perfect
> >but I know it is improving.  Whereas MS has kept us in a quagmire of 
> >back-ward compatibility for the last decade+.  It is with this that
> >I say, "better to sleep with the devil you know, than the devil you
> >don't"
> 
> 1)  It is not a sight-unseen product.  I've seen it, and what I've seen
>     so far looks pretty good.
> 
> 2)  My major optimism for MS's future revolves around NT, not Chicago.
>     (Chicago and NT will become one product within three years, with
>     very little left from the Chicago code base).  I have lots of real-
>     world experience with NT.

So have I and I hopefully it will be faster and more stable with the new 
release coming up soon.

> 
> 3)  IBM is king of backward compatibility.  That is one of the major
>     reasons I won't run OS/2, it contains too many hacks and compromises
>     in the name of backwards compatibility.  NT has shed all of that, and
>     has been reviled in the process because it broke some ill-behaved
>     applications.

Yes, maybe so, but can you then explain why a 32-bit OS/2 based product such
as LAN Server v3.0 provides for better performance than Windows NT AS v3.1?

The point I'm getting at is that OS/2 provides a working and stable platform
today and maybe even in the future, how knows? But I as so many others need
working soloutions today, not a promise of a future soloution that might do
the job.


/Nicolai



----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!MathWorks.Com!news.kei.com!eff!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!seunet!seunet!upgrade!NW
From: NW@upgrade.se (Nicolai Wadstroem)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <765566572snx@upgrade.se>
References: <tsikesCMvJ50.80u@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 94 17:22:52 GMT
Organization: UpGrade Communication AB
Lines: 99Subject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
From: be@orchester.Berkeley.EDU (Johannes Bergmann)
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 13:10:38 GMT
Message-ID: <Cnu9xq.6LK@ztivax.zfe.siemens.de>

In article <2neepn$89i@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
umisef@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Bernd Meyer) writes:
|> u0xh@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Chris Newton CSD) writes:
|> 
|> >Here is a file from Microsft written a couple years back.... (LONG)
|> >It was written around 1992 I think... it is on ftp.microsoft.com.  This 
|> >should put to rest once and for all what Microsoft had intended NT to be
|> 
|>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> >[History of windows cut]
|> 
|> >Windows NT
|> 
|> >In 1992, Microsoft will introduce a new product called Windows NT (New
|>     ^^^^ well.......
|> >Technology). 
|> [...]
|> 
|> >Windows NT does not require DOS to function.  However, it is
|> >compatible with the large installed base of DOS and Windows
|> >applications. 
|> Though the words "high end desktop" was used before, this doesn't really
|> sound like they were going for high end....
|> 
|> >To support large server applications, Windows NT provides completely
|> >symmetric multiprocessor support.  With Windows NT, tasks are
|> In this sentence, "symmetric" sounds like something good - I gather it
|> is a limitation, not a feature....

Then you are stupid, or just don't know what you are talking about.

Asymmetric multiprocessing means: there is one processor only for OS/Kernal
tasks
like VMM, swapping, task switching for the other processors, even if there is
nothing
of that kind to do, as is most of the time.

No think of multi processor machines with 2, 3 or 4 processors.
Would be a big waste to use a processor for almost nothing, wouldn't it.

With symmetric multi processing, all processors are "equal".
That means all task (user, OS and kernal tasks) can be run on every
processor.
No waste of any processor.

|> 
|> >Windows NT is highly portable.  It is being developed concurrently on
|> >x86 and MIPS-based RISC platforms. MIPS-based computers will be
|> >available from more than 60 hardware manufacturers who are members of
|> >the ACE (Advanced Computing Environment) consortium.  With Windows NT,
|> We all know what happened to ACE, don't we?

So what? There are plenty of computers with Intel, MIPS, Alpha, and soon
Sparc, PowerPC and HPPA processors, that can or could run NT.


Harald Henkel,
  student of computer science at Technische Univeritaet Muenchen (Germany).

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!Germany.EU.net!Munich.Germany.EU.net!ztivax!orchester!be
From: be@orchester.Berkeley.EDU (Johannes Bergmann)
Subject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
Message-ID: <Cnu9xq.6LK@ztivax.zfe.siemens.de>
Sender: news@ztivax.zfe.siemens.de (The System Manager)
Nntp-Posting-Host: orchester
Reply-To: be@orchester.Berkeley.EDU (Johannes Bergmann)
Organization: Siemens AG
References: <2m9oie$g6b@hq.hq.af.mil> <2mrbei$32j@sugar.NeoSoft.COM>
<2mv36i$ddv@wcap.centerline.com> <CnG4wq.JpD@visix.com>
<2nb7u7$msm@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca> <2neepn$89i@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 13:10:38 GMT
Lines: 54
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.os.os2.advocacy:7080
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4874Subject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
From: u0xh@io.sun.csd.unb.ca (Chris Newton CSD)
Date: 6 Apr 1994 13:31:06 GMT
Message-ID: <2nudiq$31s@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>

>|> >Here is a file from Microsft written a couple years back.... (LONG)
>|> >It was written around 1992 I think... it is on ftp.microsoft.com.  This 
>|> >should put to rest once and for all what Microsoft had intended NT to be
>|> 
>|>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|> >[History of windows cut]
>|> 
>|> >Windows NT
>|> 
>|> >In 1992, Microsoft will introduce a new product called Windows NT (New
>|>     ^^^^ well.......
>|> >Technology). 

	So I slipped ok... I meant to type 1991.  The 1 and the 2 are 
pretty close on the keyboard you know...

Chris

-- 
| | |\   | |\  University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, Canada
| | | \  | |/  ===========================================================
| | |  \ | |\  I Dont knot speek fer noboeys butt  me, caause I aint gots 
\_/ |   \| |/  no good grammer... :)

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!news.unb.ca!io.sun.csd.unb.ca!u0xh
From: u0xh@io.sun.csd.unb.ca (Chris Newton CSD)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
Date: 6 Apr 1994 13:31:06 GMT
Organization: University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <2nudiq$31s@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>
References: <2m9oie$g6b@hq.hq.af.mil> <2nb7u7$msm@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>
<2neepn$89i@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au> <Cnu9xq.6LK@ztivax.zfe.siemens.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: io.sun.csd.unb.ca
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.os.os2.advocacy:7082
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4877Subject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
From: laa12@cc.keele.ac.uk (A.A. Olowofoyeku)
Date: 7 Apr 1994 14:35:46 GMT
Message-ID: <2o15o2$581@gabriel.keele.ac.uk>

kkrieser on BIX (kkrieser@BIX.com) wrote:

: My understanding about WPOS/2 is that you can have several
: different API's on top of the basic micro kernal, which
: is a truer micro kernal design than NT's (with both the advantages
: and disadvantages of that).

: I understand that the planned primary interface is based on the
: workshell of OS/2 2.1 for Intel.  In fact, a significant portion
: of OS/2 2.1 that is written in 32-bit C is supposed to be written
: to be portable without change.  

: The underlying basic WPOS2 will support several different
: API's at the same time:  Recompiled 2.1 code, Windows code and DOS code
: (through emulation), possibly AIX code, etc.  Similar to NT, which
: supports old 16-bit OS/2 code, and a POSIX subset.  However,
: it sounds like it will be more useful than NT, since who today
: runs old 1.X character mode OS/2 applications?

Me! And I write them too, with a patched Borland Pascal 7.0.

--
The Chief
---------
Dr. Abimbola Olowofoyeku ( The African Chief)
Keele University         ( All opinions are *not* personal and *do*)
England.	         ( reflect the views of the whole world.)

Email: laa12@keele.ac.uk
       chief@mep.com

Tel  : (0782) 621111
Fax  : (0782) 583228
---------------------------------------------------
"Do you see a man that is wise in his own conceit?      
There is more hope for a fool than for him."
                                      King Solomon.
---------------------------------------------------

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!warwick!news.dcs.warwick.ac.uk!hgmp.mrc.ac.uk!daresbury!keele!potter!laa12
From: laa12@cc.keele.ac.uk (A.A. Olowofoyeku)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: 7 Apr 1994 14:35:46 GMT
Lines: 38
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <2o15o2$581@gabriel.keele.ac.uk>
References: <2m9oie$g6b@hq.hq.af.mil> <2ndqaf$nvh@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>
<2nekii$bck@sugar.neosoft.com> <2nen4m$d71@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>
<2ngfg3$lvi@sugar.NeoSoft.COM> <kkrieser.765595299@BIX.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: potter.cc.keele.ac.uk
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.os.os2.advocacy:7161
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4953Subject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
From: laa12@cc.keele.ac.uk (A.A. Olowofoyeku)
Date: 7 Apr 1994 14:37:59 GMT
Message-ID: <2o15s7$581@gabriel.keele.ac.uk>

kkrieser on BIX (kkrieser@BIX.com) wrote:

[..]
: The one thing that I am not sure about is how the 
: Win32s is supported.  I do know that this allows specially
: written Windows applications to run on Windows in enhanced mode
: with a flat memory model.  I do not know about memory protection,
: but it DOES NOT provide features such as threads.  For that, 
: you need to go to OS/2 or NT.

Hmmm ... Clarion's TopSpeed compilers - Pascal, Modula2, and C/C++
for DOS and Windows and OS/2 all support multi-threading.

--
The Chief
---------
Dr. Abimbola Olowofoyeku ( The African Chief)
Keele University         ( All opinions are *not* personal and *do*)
England.	         ( reflect the views of the whole world.)

Email: laa12@keele.ac.uk
       chief@mep.com

Tel  : (0782) 621111
Fax  : (0782) 583228
---------------------------------------------------
"Do you see a man that is wise in his own conceit?      
There is more hope for a fool than for him."
                                      King Solomon.
---------------------------------------------------

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!warwick!news.dcs.warwick.ac.uk!hgmp.mrc.ac.uk!daresbury!keele!potter!laa12
From: laa12@cc.keele.ac.uk (A.A. Olowofoyeku)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chicago's biggest threat...
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: 7 Apr 1994 14:37:59 GMT
Lines: 30
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <2o15s7$581@gabriel.keele.ac.uk>
References: <2m9oie$g6b@hq.hq.af.mil> <2ncv8v$lr7@wcap.centerline.com>
<2ndlpj$c7u@sugar.NeoSoft.COM> <2nfhdf$3u4@wcap.centerline.com>
<2nghag$njg@sugar.NeoSoft.COM> <kkrieser.765595809@BIX.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: potter.cc.keele.ac.uk
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.os.os2.advocacy:7162
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4954Subject: Re: PM Programming Editor
From: pang@world.std.com (Hokkun Pang)
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 1994 05:58:31 GMT
Message-ID: <CnKGLJ.DBD@world.std.com>

>|> > mode? Be serious). Anyone know a *good* reason (defined: increases
productivity)
>|> > for using a GUI editor?
>...
>   6) SYNTAX-Hilighting (maybe possible with cmdline-editors as well, but
the
>      hilit-mode of emacs is the best one I've found yet. And emacs
>      even ''understands'' c, perl, tex, awk, ...
back when i was a freshman at carnegie mellon, they had an editor for 
the Mac which allows you to do the followings:
1) hide a block of statements. if you're hiding the body of the function,
   only the fuction header will be shown, if you are hiding a body of a
   while loop, only the while loop statement will be shown, etc.
2) for every lnaguage constructs, you can  choose it from the menu so most
   of the typing are done by click-and-select type of mouse movements.
3) for every language constructs, there's something called a place-holder
   which allows you to document your program according to a certain
   format.

i've never seen anything like this afterward. maybe i've been using vi and
emacs for too long. but if there's anything like this available, i would to
to hear about it.

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!MathWorks.Com!news.kei.com!world!pang
From: pang@world.std.com (Hokkun Pang)
Subject: Re: PM Programming Editor
Message-ID: <CnKGLJ.DBD@world.std.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
References: <CnDvIA.Fqy@ioc.co.uk> <1994Mar28.205315.1@pearl.tufts.edu>
<2n8oj1$6rv@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 1994 05:58:31 GMT
Lines: 20
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.os.os2.misc:9589
comp.os.os2.advocacy:6720Subject: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a lesson in
contradictions
From: landman@hal.physics.wayne.edu (Joe Landman)
Date: 31 Mar 1994 21:27:10 GMT
Message-ID: <2nff7e$o1@oak.oakland.edu>

Folks:

        Mr Gywnne asked me to point out his contradictions.  I will
start with the most glaring, and decide if I want to move on from there.
Regardless, I will set up an anonymous ftp directory on
splat.physics.wayne.edu with these files for perusal.  See the end of this
document for details.

        Mr Gywnne, if you are reading this, think very very carefully
about your response if you decide to make one.


Joe


1:  THe whole reason I got into this was below.

>In article <jong.244.000A86F5@wonderware.com> jong@wonderware.com (Jonathan
Gwynne) writes:

JG
>  Windows 4.0 will sell enormously
>well not necessarily because MS has produced it, but because it is the
>followup to Windows 3.1.  If IBM produced the followup to Windows 3.1 they
>would have similar sales.

which contains the logical fallacy "Windows 4.0 will sell enormously
well not necessarily because MS has produced it, but because it is the
followup to Windows 3.1."

This is factually stated, there is no chance for a misinterpretation.

And now, look at his response to my posting.  This is absolutely
fantastic....

    Me
>>>>>  His arguement was in short (and I have all of this on file)
>>>>>  that since win3.1 was successful, win 4.0 will be.  I have
>>>>>  given about 8 good counterexamples to this claim, so we can
>>>>>  soundly discard that notion.
>>>
   JG (see the above snippet about "enormously succesful")
>>>>I never said that Window 4.0 was guaranteed success.  I simply said that
>>>>considering MS's track record in DOS and Windows sales, it is very likely
    to b
>>>>one.  For every one of your counterexamples there are
counter-counterexamples
>>>>if you would like to hear them.  But I don't imagine you would...

  Me
>>>In fact, I would like to hear them.  But back to the first sentance.
>>>As I stated in private mail to you, I have all of our correspondences in
>>>a rather large file.  In it, as the first entry, you did say exactly
>>>that win4 will succeed since win3 was a success.

see the above...

  Me
>>>  I ENTERED THIS FRAY PRECISELY ON THAT ARGUMENT YOU IDIOT!!!!  I spent
>>>many many lines picking that silly statement apart.  You responded,
>>>defending your position, and your argument.  Would you like me to pull
>>>up the file, clip out the exact statement and append it here?

>>>  If you wanted to look like a fool, you have been doing a very
>>>good job of it, as you change your position on what you actually said
>>>anytime you are cornered.  I have this tactic on file.

>>>In short Mr Gwynne, I have ALL of our correspondences on file, and am
>>>quite willing to upload them to hobbes and elsewhere to let the
>>>netlanders see exactly what you said and when you said it.  Dont
>>>try that "I didnt say that" crap with me... You did, I have it on
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>file, and I will be very happy to post it.

(see the above snippet about "enormously successful")

>>Then post it.  Your insults and editorialising are tedious and annoying.

> Ok I certainly will ...  (talk about tedious and annoying... your arrogance
>and general disdain for facts is tiresome and frustrating... but we could
>go tit for tat all day long and accomplish nothing...)  See my next post.

and here it is...

Is this guy amazing or what...


In his initial post he put it this way:

JG
]Windows NT (at least until 1.1 or "Daytona") is released could not be
]considered a "mainstream" OS, and perhaps not even then.  Windows
]4 or "Chicago" could not be considered "mainstream" because it has
]not been released.  When Windows 4.0 IS released it is virtually assured
]of success as a successor to Windows 3.x's absolutely enormous installed
]base.



>>I
>can perhaps be accused of not expressing myself clearly and of engaging in
>hyperbole and exaggeration for illustrative purposes but you cannot pretend
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ obvious to the fair reader....    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>that I said something I didn't.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

er.. but you did say this, and then went on to defend it...
Amazing how quickly he can change his position when cornered and
held accountable.

Finally, in an email message to me on Mar 28, he said:

>I said that Windows 4.0 is very likely to succeed because of MS's track
>record in the area.  If I gve an impression of being able to predict the
>future, I apologise.  I would have thought that anyone with a modicum of
>common sense would have realised that if I COULD predict the future I
>wouldn't be wasting my time on Internet.

Never mind the sophmoric swipe, I believe this is a "private" retraction,
which amazed me all the more because he pulled the stuff above it
only one day later (that is, he stated he never said it) in public.

Really makes you wonder...

Elsewhere, when confronted by other peoples observations and ruminations:

 Me
>>There was a nice little article in a recent (I lost my reference
>>but reread it this past weekend) PC Week that stated that the OS
>>wars are moot.  In short, they stated, NO OS WOULD HAVE MORE THAN 35%
>>MARKETSHARE BY THE END OF THE CENTURY!!

JG
>Hmmmm, more predicting of the future.  Should we take them at their literal
>word and then excoriate them if and when they should be proved wrong, or
>should we just take their opinions for what they are and then move on?

Yes JG, this is an opinion.  Yes you should move on.  You see, you were
predicting the future... and supporting you opinion "win4 will dominate"
by a faulty argument "becuase win3.1 did".  This is the problem.


2:

>Nobody ever intended NT to be a PCOS.  It just isn't realistic to expect the
>average end-user to have a 486 with at least 16meg of RAM (24 is preferred)
>and a HD big enough to devote 100meg of space to the OS alone.  When Daytona
>is released that may change but at the moment NT isn't taking any sales away
>from Windows 3.1 or even that many from OS/2 for that matter.

then later on


>Give me a break, Gates' original intent may well have been for NT to replace
>Windows in the PC market but take one look at the product that was actually
>released and then tell me that ANYONE would consider NT an option for
>end-users.

but strangely, I received an email from an MS employee who stated:
" I've used NT every day for the last year"  when chided about using
NT as a desktop client.

Guess what... NT was positioned as the win3.1 replacement system.
It was repositioned after many people complained about sluggishness.

in fact JG states quite clearly in one of his posts:

From: jong@wonderware.com (Jonathan Gwynne)
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 23:53:23

>NT may have oringinally been intended to be released as a followup to
Windows
>3.1 but when MS decided not to call it Windows 4.0 they obviously abandoned
>that plan.  Find me one sane computer marketing person who could look at
NT's
>resource requirements and think for even a moment that it would be viable as
a
>PCOS.  The fact that they're selling it for more than $99 proves that they
>don't intend it to be a hit with the consumer.

Gee, dont the first 15 words of this paragraph completely contradict the
first paragraph in this post?  That is

>Nobody ever intended NT to be a PCOS.


You be the judge....

Oh yeah... this turned up still later...

JG
>From what I've been told that's certainly how NT was originally concieved...
>A high-end alternative to Windows for the power-user who wants a true 32-bit
>OS with all the goodies.  In fact, that is still the case.  Anyone who has a
>machine with 16meg of RAM or more and several hundred meg of HD space will
>find NT to be a pretty powerful and useful system with many useful
>capabilities (more stability, multiple message queues, security, networking,
>RPC, SMP, portability to RISC platforms,  etc...) which OS/2 doesn't possess
>and may not possess in the foreseeable future.  NT's lack of acceptance by
>power-users can either be taken as a failure in the part of MS to deliver
what
>they promised with NT (which pretty clearly is not the case except perhaps
>with regards to resource requirements which will be addressed in the next
>version which should be here in the summertime...

amazing....


3:  Others noticed... some juicy examples..
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dcrane@lonestar.utsa.edu (David . Crane)
Subject: Re: OS/2 is, unfortunately, a dead issue...
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 23:54:04 GMT

>In article <2mnrr6$mj8@oak.oakland.edu> landman@hal.physics.wayne.edu
writes:
>>In <jong.248.0009F35C@wonderware.com>, jong@wonderware.com (Jonathan
Gwynne) w
>>[massive deletia of wonderware stuff]
>>We have a phrase turner here folks...
>
>>1st:	the post to which you responded said and I quote
>>
>>>>        This is rather odd, OS/2 has more installations than UNIX or VMS
>>>>but the above are multi-user.  OS/2 may have nearly as many stations now
>>>>as System 7 (not Mac total, just system 7).
>
>>  However... you said (and I quote)
>>
>>>On what do you base your assertion that there are more people
>>>using OS/2 than UNIX?
>
>>  Hmmm.... apples and oranges...  More people use Unix obviously,
>>BUT there are more installations of OS/2.... Now how is this possible?
>>Piracy? Magic?  or maybe UNIX is a Multiuser system?
>>
>>And in a previous message, you said:
>[ditto ^2]

>You did a nice job of pointing out J. Gwynne's immediately juxtaposed
>contradictions but gee, how about the ones separated by a paragraph or more?


and also Tim Bogart noted the same flaw I and others noted:

>The analogy with political parties is more than a bit tenuous as the
>the concept of 'wielding power' has nothing to do with the 'death' of
>the party.  If anything, the analogy has the effect of pointing out
>that while the Ls do not come close to being 'succesful' but are at
>the same time nowhere near 'dead' as a party.

I pointed out that political parties are not a market driven economy, and
there are so many differences between OS markets and political parties
that the analogy can never get off the ground.

other points in the same post by Tim note tSubject: Re: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne...
a lesson in contradictions
From: jong@wonderware.com (Jonathan Gwynne)
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 11:01:35
Message-ID: <jong.354.000B071E@wonderware.com>

In article <2nff7e$o1@oak.oakland.edu> landman@hal.physics.wayne.edu (Joe
Landman) writes:
>Subject: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a lesson in contradictions
>From: landman@hal.physics.wayne.edu (Joe Landman)
>Date: 31 Mar 1994 21:27:10 GMT

>Folks:

>        Mr Gywnne asked me to point out his contradictions.  I will
>start with the most glaring, and decide if I want to move on from there.
>Regardless, I will set up an anonymous ftp directory on
>splat.physics.wayne.edu with these files for perusal.  See the end of this
>document for details.

>        Mr Gywnne, if you are reading this, think very very carefully
>about your response if you decide to make one.


[enormous list of alleged contraditions deleted]

Wow!  You spent all that time on lil ol' me? Gee, I must really be getting to

you.  Of course you haven't actually exposed any contradictions, have you?

Let's sum up my basic positions/opinions here:

1.  OS/2 is not a driving force in the x86 OS market.  That is if you take 
IBM's <10% of the market as an indication of their influence and market 
penetration.  Further, given IBM's desultory marketing and lack of 
coordination within the company (if the fact that consumer pressure was 
necessary for their PC division to begin offering OS/2 as a pre-installation 
option and the fact that it still isn't advertised as one) and taken with 
their current performance in the marketplace, OS/s is unlikely to offer any 
meaningful competition for MS in the forseeable future.

2.  The success of Windows 4.0 is likely (though absolutely not assured, 
guaranteed or otherwise carved in stone) due to the acceptance and popularity

of Windows 3.x as well as MS's success in the area of selling vast quantities

of "new and improved" upgrades to popular existing products (i.e. DOS, 
Windows, Excel, Word, etc...)

I read as much of your post as I could without MEGO and you didn't offer up 
any expressed contraditions of any of my basic positions.  Any contradictions

you percieved were either due to ambiguity on my part (for which I apologise)

or a lack of perception and contextual intelligence on your part...  Sorry...

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!MathWorks.Com!mvb.saic.com!news.cerf.net!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!cc.usu.edu!jong.wonderware.com!jong
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a lesson in contradictions
Message-ID: <jong.354.000B071E@wonderware.com>
From: jong@wonderware.com (Jonathan Gwynne)
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 11:01:35
References: <2nff7e$o1@oak.oakland.edu>
Distribution: world
Organization: Wonderware Corp.
Nntp-Posting-Host: jong.wonderware.com
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A]
Lines: 43Subject: Re: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a lesson in contradictions
From: landman@hal.physics.wayne.edu (Joe Landman)
Date: 4 Apr 1994 21:43:44 GMT
Message-ID: <2nq1mg$s2v@oak.oakland.edu>

In <jong.354.000B071E@wonderware.com>, jong@wonderware.com (Jonathan Gwynne)
writes:
>In article <2nff7e$o1@oak.oakland.edu> landman@hal.physics.wayne.edu (Joe
Landman) writes:
>>Subject: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a lesson in contradictions
>>From: landman@hal.physics.wayne.edu (Joe Landman)
>>Date: 31 Mar 1994 21:27:10 GMT
>
>>Folks:
>
>>        Mr Gywnne asked me to point out his contradictions.  I will
>>start with the most glaring, and decide if I want to move on from there.
>>Regardless, I will set up an anonymous ftp directory on
>>splat.physics.wayne.edu with these files for perusal.  See the end of this
>>document for details.
>
>>        Mr Gywnne, if you are reading this, think very very carefully
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>about your response if you decide to make one.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


>
>
>[enormous list of alleged contraditions deleted]

This is the beautiful thing about this... These "alleged" contradictions
were Mr Gwynne's own words...  There is nothing "alleged" about them
I caught him in the act... that he is not a big enough man 
to admit it is a different story.

>
>Wow!  You spent all that time on lil ol' me? Gee, I must really be getting
to 
>you.  Of course you haven't actually exposed any contradictions, have you?

as i said in previous posts... I dont put up with BS artists.  Yes
you and your infantile attempts at argumentation bother me.  I usually
make the assumption that if someone is connected to the net, then
they must be SOMEWHAT reasonable/knowledgeable.  I see my basic premis
has been disproven by your existance on the net.  


>
>Let's sum up my basic positions/opinions here:
>
>1.  OS/2 is not a driving force in the x86 OS market.  That is if you take 
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is debatable, and I disagree. 

>IBM's <10% of the market as an indication of their influence and market 
>penetration.  Further, given IBM's desultory marketing and lack of 
>coordination within the company (if the fact that consumer pressure was 
>necessary for their PC division to begin offering OS/2 as a pre-installation

>option and the fact that it still isn't advertised as one) and taken with 
>their current performance in the marketplace, OS/s is unlikely to offer any 
>meaningful competition for MS in the forseeable future.
 
 Once again, you must define what meaningful competition is in order
for this sentance to have any meaning.

>
>2.  The success of Windows 4.0 is likely (though absolutely not assured, 
>guaranteed or otherwise carved in stone) due to the acceptance and
popularity 
>of Windows 3.x as well as MS's success in the area of selling vast
quantities 
>of "new and improved" upgrades to popular existing products (i.e. DOS, 
>Windows, Excel, Word, etc...)

And as stated before the likelyhood of win4 succeeding or not
has no relation to the success of win3.1.  I am absolutely amazed that
you still "think" this.  But, I leave you to your beliefs. 

 Regardless
of your beliefs, there is mounting evidence of displeasure of ISVs
with MS regarding win4.  This displeasure will manifest itself as a
lack of 32 bit apps when win4 hits the stands.  Then it will be win4 vs
OS2 vs Unixware vs NT vs linux vs Nextstep etc. for the 32 bit win
compatible market.  Each with a comparible number of 32 bit productivity
apps (except for OS/2 with quite a few available, and great backward
compatibility).

Success is far from even likely.  This marketplace is open, and competitors
are working damn hard right now.  Success for any of the 32 bit OSes
is anything but "likely", even counting in the lemming-like nature of
many users.


>
>I read as much of your post as I could without MEGO and you didn't offer up 
>any expressed contraditions of any of my basic positions.  Any
contradictions 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sorry, Jon, look a bit closer.  The contradictions pointed out were the 
ones that you made with yourself.  From your previous posts.  I was only
partially after your standpoint, for which I provided ample rebuttal.

That is, I was not attacking your
positions in that post, rather your style, or in this case, lack of
it.  In one post you claimed NT was NEVER INTENDED as a PCOS, yet
in another you claimed "IT MAY HAVE BEEN INTENDED AS A PCOS".  This 
is only one of 
MANY items in there.  If you look closely this time, you will
see that I am not (by far) the only one to notice such things.
I suggest that you log into splat.physics.wayne.edu as anonymous,
and pick up the files in the flame directory.  See if I made a 
mistake.  You would have proper grounds to flame me then....

You see, it was your argument construction that I had problems with,
the fact that you ignored data points that you could not fit into
your nice little picture of the computer world.  Also, when 
asked for data, you usually responded  "OPEN YOUR EYES" or other such
bits of smoke.  Occasionally you tried to use other peoples data,
but, since you did not know either the context of the data, how
it was measured, or anything about the articles that it came from,
you could not from a knowledgable standpoint construct any valid
arguments.

Well, your eyes did glaze over.... and as usual, you completely missed
the point.  

>you percieved were either due to ambiguity on my part (for which I
apologise) 
>or a lack of perception and contextual intelligence on your part...
Sorry...

To quote a famous/popular/dumb president "there you go again...."

With this, I leave this fray.  If your ego demands that you push again,
I will respond again. 


*   *   *   Joseph I Landman, Graduate Student (PhD)
 \ / \ /    Theoretical (Computational) Condensed Matter Physics
  o   o     Wayne State University, Dept of Physics and Astronomy
  |   |     666 West Hancock Avenue, Detroit, MI 48202 USA
  *   *     (313) 577-2720 (main office)  3932 (fax)  2752 (my office)
 / \ / \    
o   o   o   <-- GaAs
    "A mind is a terrible thing."
    "Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain..."


----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news1.oakland.edu!news
From: landman@hal.physics.wayne.edu (Joe Landman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a lesson in contradictions
Date: 4 Apr 1994 21:43:44 GMT
Organization: Wayne State University Dept of Physics and Astronomy
Lines: 137
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <2nq1mg$s2v@oak.oakland.edu>
References: <2nff7e$o1@oak.oakland.edu> <jong.354.000B071E@wonderware.com>
Reply-To: landman@hal.physics.wayne.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: splat.physics.wayne.edu
X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 v1.00Subject: Re: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a
lesson in contradictions
From: rwilken@hubcap.clemson.edu (Rob Wilkens)
Date: 5 Apr 94 05:01:24 GMT
Message-ID: <rwilken.765522084@hubcap>

Well, when you refer to Os/2 being on <10% of pc's, I'd like you to
think.  How long has DOS been around?  If I remember correctly, I
believe it's from like 1981 or so.  In that time, sir, it had 13 years
for it to grow.  I know you're probably gonna say something about
windows, but remember, windows is not an operating system, it is only a
piece of software like any other dos piece of software.  Now if we want
to compare RECENT Os's, that would be % of pc's with OS/2 versus the %
of pc's with Windows NT (the first attempt at a windows OS, that is
after MICROSOFT stopped making os/2, if you forgot Microsoft and IBM
worked on os/2 together from the beggining till like version 1.2 or so..
Microsoft dropped it, their loss...)..    Can you tell me, kind sir,
what the percentages are on Os/2 and NT systems?  

(Why?  Many people are running dos because it like, came with their
first machine and their afraid to try something new, or just can't)
-- 
Robert D. Wilkens

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!gatech!hubcap.clemson.edu!hubcap!rwilken
From: rwilken@hubcap.clemson.edu (Rob Wilkens)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a lesson in contradictions
Date: 5 Apr 94 05:01:24 GMT
Organization: Clemson University
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <rwilken.765522084@hubcap>
References: <2nff7e$o1@oak.oakland.edu> <jong.354.000B071E@wonderware.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hubcap.clemson.eduSubject: Re: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a
lesson in contradictions
From: rfs@world.std.com (Rikk F Streng)
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 11:23:21 GMT
Message-ID: <CnsAAy.CLp@world.std.com>

jong@wonderware.com (Jonathan Gwynne) writes:
>1.  OS/2 is not a driving force in the x86 OS market.  That is if you take 
>IBM's <10% of the market as an indication of their influence and market 
>penetration.  Further, given IBM's desultory marketing and lack of 
>coordination within the company (if the fact that consumer pressure was 
>necessary for their PC division to begin offering OS/2 as a pre-installation

>option and the fact that it still isn't advertised as one) and taken with 
>their current performance in the marketplace, OS/s is unlikely to offer any 
>meaningful competition for MS in the forseeable future.

OS/2 IS in fact a driving force.  You don't win awards in several PC 
magazines and force Microsoft to start copying OS/2 (via Win4) without 
making a great product.  The fact that YOU don't see it does not mean it 
isn't there.  I see it.  I go to computer shows, and I talk to people, 
MANY have OS/2.  Video board companies like Paradise, Matrox, Cirrus 
Logic, Ahead, and the like do NOT make 32-bit OS/2 graphics drivers 
because OS/2 is supposedly "dead" according to you.  I do not get tons of 
shareware products for OS/2 because it's dead.  Companies do not start 
touting 32-bit performance out of everything in sight (hard drives, video 
cards, motherboards, SIMM chips, etc..) for 16-bit clunkers like Win 3.1 
and OS's with 16-bit multitasking like the yet-vaporware Win 4.  
When you open Windows Sources magazine and THEY start talking about OS/2, 
it certainly isn't because it's DEAD.

OS/2 isn't going to get the "big market share" at this time, why?  When 
you have a bunch of people who sit at home on their little 286's with 2 
megs of RAM, and the hard disk is a Seagate 250 or something disgustingly 
old like that, OS/2 isn't going to run.  But Windows will (barely).  Just 
think, IBM is asking us to junk our old hardware and get the latest and 
greatest to run OS/2, with no real idea how it's going to run, or if it 
will all be worth the $3000+ shelled out for a good system.  So people  
don't upgrade, right?  WRONG!  Slowly, surely, the public is realizing 
the potential.  3 years ago, I attended a PC show in Edison, NJ, where 
they stoock 1200+ tables of merchandise.  At that time, the crowds were 
small, people getting better computers or used junk for their XT's.  But 
now, jees.. It takes 45 minutes to get in, crowd control, all the makings 
of a Pink Floyd concert with free tickets... Piles of 486's going out the 
doors, people anxious to get dug deep into Windows.. Until someone like 
me says "have you tried OS/2 on that DX2/66 with 8 megs ram and 527 meg 
hard disk?  It's only $39 at the store, and you have a CDROM that OS/2 
works nicely with..  Do it up!"  If they question it, I show them my 
system, I let them try a game of Mortal Kombat or something while the BBS 
is churning away.  I say, Windows Print Manager is soooo slow.  Try 
OS/2's! It's much better and practically invisible.  What?  CorelDraw 
locks up your system?  Here, try this.. It won't lock up the system, you 
can still get out.  A few more examples (I'm paying for this call) and 
they are hooked.  

>2.  The success of Windows 4.0 is likely (though absolutely not assured, 
>guaranteed or otherwise carved in stone) due to the acceptance and
popularity 
>of Windows 3.x as well as MS's success in the area of selling vast
quantities 
>of "new and improved" upgrades to popular existing products (i.e. DOS, 
>Windows, Excel, Word, etc...)

When you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME.  Win4's requirements 
are about the same as OS/2's.  WinNT was proof positive that everything 
M$ rolls out the door with the Windows moniker on it will NOT be an 
instant "million copy a month" seller.  Microsoft, admittedly, does make 
good spreadsheet, word processing, and other junk like that (which I 
don't use).  But like a pc mag once read.. "Discontent is the first step 
in the progress of man".. Micro$oft has been making blunders left and 
right lately, with copyright infringment and a pending investigation by 
the feds.. Keeping the indestructible frame of mind may get them in more 
trouble.

>I read as much of your post as I could without MEGO and you didn't offer up 
>any expressed contraditions of any of my basic positions.  Any
contradictions 
>you percieved were either due to ambiguity on my part (for which I
apologise) 
>or a lack of perception and contextual intelligence on your part...
Sorry...

They were precisely contradicted.  I was laughing when I read the 
article.  I suppose saying "It will" and then 2 posts later "It won't 
necessarily" are not contradictory.. Stick to Windows..

Rikk Streng
Team OS/2 Member
rfs@world.std.com
/s


----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!uunet!gatekeeper.us.oracle.com!decwrl!decwrl!world!rfs
From: rfs@world.std.com (Rikk F Streng)
Subject: Re: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a lesson in contradictions
Message-ID: <CnsAAy.CLp@world.std.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
References: <2nff7e$o1@oak.oakland.edu> <jong.354.000B071E@wonderware.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 11:23:21 GMT
Lines: 79Subject: Re: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a lesson in contradictions
From: jong@wonderware.com (Jonathan Gwynne)
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 11:41:37
Message-ID: <jong.372.000BB1E6@wonderware.com>

In article <2nq1mg$s2v@oak.oakland.edu> landman@hal.physics.wayne.edu (Joe
Landman) writes:
>Subject: Re: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a lesson in contradictions
>From: landman@hal.physics.wayne.edu (Joe Landman)
>Date: 4 Apr 1994 21:43:44 GMT

>In <jong.354.000B071E@wonderware.com>, jong@wonderware.com (Jonathan Gwynne)
writes:
>>In article <2nff7e$o1@oak.oakland.edu> landman@hal.physics.wayne.edu (Joe
Landman) writes:
>>>Subject: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a lesson in contradictions
>>>From: landman@hal.physics.wayne.edu (Joe Landman)
>>>Date: 31 Mar 1994 21:27:10 GMT
>>
>>>Folks:
>>
>>>        Mr Gywnne asked me to point out his contradictions.  I will
>>>start with the most glaring, and decide if I want to move on from there.
>>>Regardless, I will set up an anonymous ftp directory on
>>>splat.physics.wayne.edu with these files for perusal.  See the end of this
>>>document for details.
>>
>>>        Mr Gywnne, if you are reading this, think very very carefully
>                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>about your response if you decide to make one.
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


>>
>>
>>[enormous list of alleged contraditions deleted]

>This is the beautiful thing about this... These "alleged" contradictions
>were Mr Gwynne's own words...  There is nothing "alleged" about them
>I caught him in the act... that he is not a big enough man 
>to admit it is a different story.

I read your interminable post and you caught me in nothing.  You're certainly

entitled to believe otherwise but then we all know about your bad habit of 
trying to pass off your opinions as the revealed word of God.

>>
>>Wow!  You spent all that time on lil ol' me? Gee, I must really be getting
to 
>>you.  Of course you haven't actually exposed any contradictions, have you?

>as i said in previous posts... I dont put up with BS artists.  Yes
>you and your infantile attempts at argumentation bother me.  I usually
>make the assumption that if someone is connected to the net, then
>they must be SOMEWHAT reasonable/knowledgeable.  I see my basic premis
>has been disproven by your existance on the net.  

As I have said numerous times before, no one is asking you to put up with me.

If you don't agree with me or if you don't like what I have to ay then you
can 
bloody well ignore me and live your life.  Instead you behave like a spoiled 
child and resort to insults, braggadocio and posturing when you can't think
of 
anything more meaningful to say.  Fortunately for me I don't care what you 
think of me or I might actually be offended.

>>
>>Let's sum up my basic positions/opinions here:
>>
>>1.  OS/2 is not a driving force in the x86 OS market.  That is if you take 
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>This is debatable, and I disagree. 

Fine, disagree.

>>IBM's <10% of the market as an indication of their influence and market 
>>penetration.  Further, given IBM's desultory marketing and lack of 
>>coordination within the company (if the fact that consumer pressure was 
>>necessary for their PC division to begin offering OS/2 as a
pre-installation 
>>option and the fact that it still isn't advertised as one) and taken with 
>>their current performance in the marketplace, OS/s is unlikely to offer any

>>meaningful competition for MS in the forseeable future.
> 
> Once again, you must define what meaningful competition is in order
>for this sentance to have any meaning.

Or you could define it and then show that OS/2 is actually providing it.  
Either way, that was my opinion and you are certainly free to disagree or 
ignore it.

>>
>>2.  The success of Windows 4.0 is likely (though absolutely not assured, 
>>guaranteed or otherwise carved in stone) due to the acceptance and
popularity 
>>of Windows 3.x as well as MS's success in the area of selling vast
quantities 
>>of "new and improved" upgrades to popular existing products (i.e. DOS, 
>>Windows, Excel, Word, etc...)

>And as stated before the likelyhood of win4 succeeding or not
>has no relation to the success of win3.1.  I am absolutely amazed that
>you still "think" this.  But, I leave you to your beliefs. 

I am equally amazed by your opinions but that has little bearing on their 
relative merit.

> Regardless
>of your beliefs, there is mounting evidence of displeasure of ISVs
>with MS regarding win4.  This displeasure will manifest itself as a
>lack of 32 bit apps when win4 hits the stands.  Then it will be win4 vs
>OS2 vs Unixware vs NT vs linux vs Nextstep etc. for the 32 bit win
>compatible market.  Each with a comparible number of 32 bit productivity
>apps (except for OS/2 with quite a few available, and great backward
>compatibility).

If a lack of 32-bit Windows applications ever manifests itself it may well be

equally due to the lack of improvement which porting the average application 
to a 32-bit system provides.  However, MS is doing everything possible to 
encourage the migration and if we ever see a stampede to 32-bit it will more 
likely be to Win32 than to OS/2.  BTW, at what point do you think that 
NextStep will begin competing with even OS/2?

>Success is far from even likely.  This marketplace is open, and competitors
>are working damn hard right now.  Success for any of the 32 bit OSes
>is anything but "likely", even counting in the lemming-like nature of
>many users.

So you say.

>>
>>I read as much of your post as I could without MEGO and you didn't offer up

>>any expressed contraditions of any of my basic positions.  Any
contradictions 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Sorry, Jon, look a bit closer.  The contradictions pointed out were the 
>ones that you made with yourself.  From your previous posts.  I was only
>partially after your standpoint, for which I provided ample rebuttal.

I assumed that you meant instances of me contradicting myself since there 
wouldn't be much significance in pointing out instances of other people 
contradicting me.

>That is, I was not attacking your
>positions in that post, rather your style, or in this case, lack of
>it.  In one post you claimed NT was NEVER INTENDED as a PCOS, yet
>in another you claimed "IT MAY HAVE BEEN INTENDED AS A PCOS".  This 
>is only one of 
>MANY items in there.  If you look closely this time, you will
>see that I am not (by far) the only one to notice such things.
>I suggest that you log into splat.physics.wayne.edu as anonymous,
>and pick up the files in the flame directory.  See if I made a 
>mistake.  You would have proper grounds to flame me then....

Of course if you had understood the context in which those two statements
were 
made you would see that the two statements, while thay may have superficially

appeared contradictory, I was actually talking about two entirely different 
things.  If I didn't make that adequately clear I apoligise.  The first 
statement you quote referred to the conception of wnat NT would become, i.e. 
the development people sitting down and discussing which direction the
project 
should take.  I have read magazine articles which suggested that the original

conception of NT was as a high-end desktop OS similar to what OS/2 2.x is 
today.  The second statement you quote referred to the actual product that NT

became.  Clearly the actual product which we know as Windows NT can never
have 
been seriously intended as a mainstream desktop OS if only for its system 
requirements.  I trust you see the difference.

>>you percieved were either due to ambiguity on my part (for which I 
>>apologise) or a lack of perception and contextual intelligence on your 
>>part...  Sorry...

>To quote a famous/popular/dumb president "there you go again...."

Actually, I suppose that quote more aptly describes your responses.  
Especially in the context which Reagan first used that phrase.

>With this, I leave this fray.  If your ego demands that you push again,
>I will respond again. 

My ego demands nothing.  If you would prefer that I not respond to you and
you 
are incapable of simply letting the matter go then just let me know and I'll 
let you get the last word in.

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!gatech!swrinde!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!cc.usu.edu!jong.wonderware.com!jong
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a lesson in contradictions
Message-ID: <jong.372.000BB1E6@wonderware.com>
From: jong@wonderware.com (Jonathan Gwynne)
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 11:41:37
References: <2nff7e$o1@oak.oakland.edu> <jong.354.000B071E@wonderware.com>
<2nq1mg$s2v@oak.oakland.edu>
Distribution: world
Organization: Wonderware Corp.
Nntp-Posting-Host: jong.wonderware.com
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A]
Lines: 169Subject: Re: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a lesson in contradictions
From: jong@wonderware.com (Jonathan Gwynne)
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 11:55:06
Message-ID: <jong.373.000BEB70@wonderware.com>

In article <rwilken.765522084@hubcap> rwilken@hubcap.clemson.edu (Rob
Wilkens) writes:
>Subject: Re: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a lesson in contradictions
>From: rwilken@hubcap.clemson.edu (Rob Wilkens)
>Date: 5 Apr 94 05:01:24 GMT

>Well, when you refer to Os/2 being on <10% of pc's, I'd like you to
>think.  How long has DOS been around?  If I remember correctly, I
>believe it's from like 1981 or so.  In that time, sir, it had 13 years
>for it to grow.  I know you're probably gonna say something about
>windows, but remember, windows is not an operating system, it is only a
>piece of software like any other dos piece of software.  Now if we want
>to compare RECENT Os's, that would be % of pc's with OS/2 versus the %
>of pc's with Windows NT (the first attempt at a windows OS, that is
>after MICROSOFT stopped making os/2, if you forgot Microsoft and IBM
>worked on os/2 together from the beggining till like version 1.2 or so..
>Microsoft dropped it, their loss...)..    Can you tell me, kind sir,
>what the percentages are on Os/2 and NT systems?  

I'm not sure what you mean but if you'll remember OS/2 has been around for 
quite a few years too.  In fact I know people who still rave about 1.3 and 
would rather have it on a 286 than Windows on a Pentium.  I don't know why 
you're trying to squeeze NT in here.  For now, NT is pretty well limited in 
its market to the high-end server machines because they're the only ones that

can run it.  The idea of it competing as a PCOS (or desktop OS if you prefer)

is pretty laughable until its resource requirements come down a little (or a 
LOT).  In that arena NT is doing pretty well against OS/2 but it still hasn't

captured the market though it is showing signs of moving in that direction.  
If you want to discuss desktop OSs you'd best confine your attention to the 
players:  DOS, Windows, System 7 and OS/2 2.x (in order of popularity).  I 
just don't think that NT, UNIX, Linux, NextStep, AmigaDOS, TOS, etc...  fit
in 
here.

>(Why?  Many people are running dos because it like, came with their
>first machine and their afraid to try something new, or just can't)

Maybe they're still using it because it does everything they they they need
it 
to do.


----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!cc.usu.edu!jong.wonderware.com!jong
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a lesson in contradictions
Message-ID: <jong.373.000BEB70@wonderware.com>
From: jong@wonderware.com (Jonathan Gwynne)
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 11:55:06
References: <2nff7e$o1@oak.oakland.edu> <jong.354.000B071E@wonderware.com>
<rwilken.765522084@hubcap>
Organization: Wonderware Corp.
Nntp-Posting-Host: jong.wonderware.com
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A]
Lines: 38Subject: Re: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a lesson in contradictions
From: jong@wonderware.com (Jonathan Gwynne)
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 12:09:48
Message-ID: <jong.374.000C2A3A@wonderware.com>

In article <CnsAAy.CLp@world.std.com> rfs@world.std.com (Rikk F Streng)
writes:
>Subject: Re: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a lesson in contradictions
>From: rfs@world.std.com (Rikk F Streng)
>Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 11:23:21 GMT

>jong@wonderware.com (Jonathan Gwynne) writes:
>>1.  OS/2 is not a driving force in the x86 OS market.  That is if you take 
>>IBM's <10% of the market as an indication of their influence and market 
>>penetration.  Further, given IBM's desultory marketing and lack of 
>>coordination within the company (if the fact that consumer pressure was 
>>necessary for their PC division to begin offering OS/2 as a
pre-installation 
>>option and the fact that it still isn't advertised as one) and taken with 
>>their current performance in the marketplace, OS/s is unlikely to offer any

>>meaningful competition for MS in the forseeable future.

>OS/2 IS in fact a driving force.  You don't win awards in several PC 
>magazines and force Microsoft to start copying OS/2 (via Win4) without 
>making a great product.  The fact that YOU don't see it does not mean it 
>isn't there.  I see it.  I go to computer shows, and I talk to people, 
>MANY have OS/2.  Video board companies like Paradise, Matrox, Cirrus 
>Logic, Ahead, and the like do NOT make 32-bit OS/2 graphics drivers 
>because OS/2 is supposedly "dead" according to you.  I do not get tons of 
>shareware products for OS/2 because it's dead.  Companies do not start 
>touting 32-bit performance out of everything in sight (hard drives, video 
>cards, motherboards, SIMM chips, etc..) for 16-bit clunkers like Win 3.1 
>and OS's with 16-bit multitasking like the yet-vaporware Win 4.  
>When you open Windows Sources magazine and THEY start talking about OS/2, 
>it certainly isn't because it's DEAD.

Awards in magazines don't mean squat.  Just because some magazine editor 
thinks you're cool doesn't mean that he's right.  Windows 4 is copying OS/2?

MS was forced to copy OS/2?  On what do you base these assertions?  If more 
video board companies made 32-bit OS/2 drivers then maybe my video card would

work properly under OS/2.  In any case, their decision to throw in drivers to

slightly increase their sales is not necessarily an indications of either 
OS/2's influence or success.  Now, when the makers of video boards start 
putting the words "OS/2 Compatible!" in large print on their packaging and in

their advertisements we can assume that they agree that OS/2 is a driving 
force.

>>2.  The success of Windows 4.0 is likely (though absolutely not assured, 
>>guaranteed or otherwise carved in stone) due to the acceptance and
popularity 
>>of Windows 3.x as well as MS's success in the area of selling vast
quantities 
>>of "new and improved" upgrades to popular existing products (i.e. DOS, 
>>Windows, Excel, Word, etc...)

>When you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME.  Win4's requirements 
>are about the same as OS/2's.  WinNT was proof positive that everything 
>M$ rolls out the door with the Windows moniker on it will NOT be an 
>instant "million copy a month" seller.  Microsoft, admittedly, does make 
>good spreadsheet, word processing, and other junk like that (which I 
>don't use).  But like a pc mag once read.. "Discontent is the first step 
>in the progress of man".. Micro$oft has been making blunders left and 
>right lately, with copyright infringment and a pending investigation by 
>the feds.. Keeping the indestructible frame of mind may get them in more 
>trouble.

A couple of points.  Windows 4 isn't even in beta yet, how is it you are 
making assured statements of fact about its system requirements?  Second, 
there is no way in hell than NT could have become a "million copies a month" 
seller because therre just aren't that many people out there that could run 
it.  The case against them by Stac is likely (if you go by the results of 
similar cases in the past) to be overturned.  The FTC investigation may be 
another thing entirely.  Though I think that it is unlikely that MS will be 
broken up for while yet - if ever.

>>I read as much of your post as I could without MEGO and you didn't offer up

>>any expressed contraditions of any of my basic positions.  Any
contradictions 
>>you percieved were either due to ambiguity on my part (for which I
apologise) 
>>or a lack of perception and contextual intelligence on your part...
Sorry...

>They were precisely contradicted.  I was laughing when I read the 
>article.  I suppose saying "It will" and then 2 posts later "It won't 
>necessarily" are not contradictory.. Stick to Windows..

When quoted out of context and presented without an adequate understanding of

my original intentions and thought processes it is easy to present
superficial 
evidence of contradiction.  Perhaps if I had made myself clearer to Mr. 
Landman I could have spared him all that work.  But I assumed a certain level

of contextual intelligence in someone with an advanced degree and who is so 
obviously proud of it.

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!cc.usu.edu!jong.wonderware.com!jong
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a lesson in contradictions
Message-ID: <jong.374.000C2A3A@wonderware.com>
From: jong@wonderware.com (Jonathan Gwynne)
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 12:09:48
References: <2nff7e$o1@oak.oakland.edu> <jong.354.000B071E@wonderware.com>
<CnsAAy.CLp@world.std.com>
Organization: Wonderware Corp.
Nntp-Posting-Host: jong.wonderware.com
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A]
Lines: 81Subject: Re: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a lesson in contradictions
From: landman@hal.physics.wayne.edu (Joe Landman)
Date: 5 Apr 1994 22:02:50 GMT
Message-ID: <2nsn6a$jn1@oak.oakland.edu>

Hypothesis:  When Mr Gwynne is caught/cornered he goes negative/squirms.

Supporting evidence:  See below

Contradicting evidence:  None to date

Note: It appears that Mr Gwynne has FINALLY read the message.  It was 
      a long one, but it is still available at splat.physics.wayne.edu
      under /flame (anonymous ftp there). 

In <jong.372.000BB1E6@wonderware.com>, jong@wonderware.com (Jonathan Gwynne)
writes:

[deletia]

>>This is the beautiful thing about this... These "alleged" contradictions
>>were Mr Gwynne's own words...  There is nothing "alleged" about them
>>I caught him in the act... that he is not a big enough man 
>>to admit it is a different story.
>
>I read your interminable post and you caught me in nothing.  You're
certainly 
>entitled to believe otherwise but then we all know about your bad habit of 
>trying to pass off your opinions as the revealed word of God.

as I stated above...


>
>>>
>>>Wow!  You spent all that time on lil ol' me? Gee, I must really be getting
to 
>>>you.  Of course you haven't actually exposed any contradictions, have you?
>
>>as i said in previous posts... I dont put up with BS artists.  Yes
>>you and your infantile attempts at argumentation bother me.  I usually
>>make the assumption that if someone is connected to the net, then
>>they must be SOMEWHAT reasonable/knowledgeable.  I see my basic premis
>>has been disproven by your existance on the net.  
>
>As I have said numerous times before, no one is asking you to put up with
me.  
>If you don't agree with me or if you don't like what I have to ay then you
can 
>bloody well ignore me and live your life.  Instead you behave like a spoiled


Yes, you know, I could... that isnt as much fun as trapping you in 
your own statements though...  

>child and resort to insults, braggadocio and posturing when you can't think
of 
>anything more meaningful to say.  Fortunately for me I don't care what you 

Oy vey...  No, you reveal that you are offended... tough shit.
when you post crap, expect to have it thrown back in to your face.

[deletia]

>
>>>IBM's <10% of the market as an indication of their influence and market 
>>>penetration.  Further, given IBM's desultory marketing and lack of 
>>>coordination within the company (if the fact that consumer pressure was 
>>>necessary for their PC division to begin offering OS/2 as a
pre-installation 
>>>option and the fact that it still isn't advertised as one) and taken with 
>>>their current performance in the marketplace, OS/s is unlikely to offer
any 
>>>meaningful competition for MS in the forseeable future.
>> 
>> Once again, you must define what meaningful competition is in order
>>for this sentance to have any meaning.
>
>Or you could define it and then show that OS/2 is actually providing it.  
>Either way, that was my opinion and you are certainly free to disagree or 
>ignore it.

uh... since I didnt write this sentance, why should I have to define
one of the phases in the conclusion?  If it is undefined and you choose
to leave it so, then you have basically acknowledged that it has no meaning.
Please define "meaningful competition" in the context of the above
phase.

>
>>>
>>>2.  The success of Windows 4.0 is likely (though absolutely not assured, 
>>>guaranteed or otherwise carved in stone) due to the acceptance and
popularity 
>>>of Windows 3.x as well as MS's success in the area of selling vast
quantities 
>>>of "new and improved" upgrades to popular existing products (i.e. DOS, 
>>>Windows, Excel, Word, etc...)
>
>>And as stated before the likelyhood of win4 succeeding or not
>>has no relation to the success of win3.1.  I am absolutely amazed that
>>you still "think" this.  But, I leave you to your beliefs. 
>
>I am equally amazed by your opinions but that has little bearing on their 
>relative merit.

My analysis is that you said "IF A then B" despite the lack of
causal connection between A and B.  There are no opinions coming 
from me on this other than sheer amazement that you still cannot
grasp the basic fundemental flaw in your logic.


>
>> Regardless
>>of your beliefs, there is mounting evidence of displeasure of ISVs
>>with MS regarding win4.  This displeasure will manifest itself as a
>>lack of 32 bit apps when win4 hits the stands.  Then it will be win4 vs
>>OS2 vs Unixware vs NT vs linux vs Nextstep etc. for the 32 bit win
>>compatible market.  Each with a comparible number of 32 bit productivity
>>apps (except for OS/2 with quite a few available, and great backward
>>compatibility).
>
>If a lack of 32-bit Windows applications ever manifests itself it may well
be 
>equally due to the lack of improvement which porting the average application

>to a 32-bit system provides.  However, MS is doing everything possible to 
>encourage the migration and if we ever see a stampede to 32-bit it will more

>likely be to Win32 than to OS/2.  BTW, at what point do you think that 
>NextStep will begin competing with even OS/2?

Sigh...  The above (about migration) is your opinion, and you should state 
so.  It is not carved in stone that Win4 will dominate all...
NextStep is as some users tell me, the ulitmate development environment.
It is big and resource hungry, and has found a place for itself.  However,
I do not think that this is enough to warrant lotus to port 123/AmiPro
to this, though I could be wrong.  Besides... can you say WABI?

>
>>Success is far from even likely.  This marketplace is open, and competitors
>>are working damn hard right now.  Success for any of the 32 bit OSes
>>is anything but "likely", even counting in the lemming-like nature of
>>many users.
>
>So you say.

Yes, I say.  So does Jim Louderbach, and Bill Machrone, and William Zachmann,
and many others...

>
>>>
>>>I read as much of your post as I could without MEGO and you didn't offer
up 
>>>any expressed contraditions of any of my basic positions.  Any
contradictions 
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>Sorry, Jon, look a bit closer.  The contradictions pointed out were the 
>>ones that you made with yourself.  From your previous posts.  I was only
>>partially after your standpoint, for which I provided ample rebuttal.
>
>I assumed that you meant instances of me contradicting myself since there 
>wouldn't be much significance in pointing out instances of other people 
>contradicting me.

exactly.....

>
>>That is, I was not attacking your
>>positions in that post, rather your style, or in this case, lack of
>>it.  In one post you claimed NT was NEVER INTENDED as a PCOS, yet
>>in another you claimed "IT MAY HAVE BEEN INTENDED AS A PCOS".  This 
>>is only one of 
>>MANY items in there.  If you look closely this time, you will
>>see that I am not (by far) the only one to notice such things.
>>I suggest that you log into splat.physics.wayne.edu as anonymous,
>>and pick up the files in the flame directory.  See if I made a 
>>mistake.  You would have proper grounds to flame me then....
>
>Of course if you had understood the context in which those two statements
were 
>made you would see that the two statements, while thay may have
superficially 
>appeared contradictory, I was actually talking about two entirely different 
>things.  

No, infact you were talking about the same things, the PC OS market.
The context of what is became vs what it was planned as are actually
a wonderful backdrop for this.  You made the clear and unambiguous
statement that "NT was never meant as a PCOS" in the context of planning
AND what actually occured (hint: "never meant" is a rather broad
sweeping statement, encompassing all times.... (the _never_ portion)).

Yet later on you acknowledged that "Though it was intended to be a 
win3.1 replacement, it is ridiculous to think is should be", which
has the context of the market perception after release in the second
part of the sentance.  However, the first part clearly and unambigously
contradicts your earlier statement.  Worse still, the second part
has implicit acknowledgement that this was the case.

So you have again contradicted yourself...  You are good... 


>If I didn't make that adequately clear I apoligise.  The first 
>statement you quote referred to the conception of wnat NT would become, i.e.

>the development people sitting down and discussing which direction the
project 
>should take.  I have read magazine articles which suggested that the
original 
>conception of NT was as a high-end desktop OS similar to what OS/2 2.x is 
>today.  The second statement you quote referred to the actual product that
NT 
>became.  Clearly the actual product which we know as Windows NT can never
have 
>been seriously intended as a mainstream desktop OS if only for its system 
>requirements.  I trust you see the difference.

Yes, I see the difference, and I dont make broad sweeping generalization
type statements like you do, promolguate them as "fact" and defend them
even when demonstrated incorrect, which is, BTW exactly what you do.

See the above simple analysis of your preceding paragraphs.

>
>>>you percieved were either due to ambiguity on my part (for which I 
>>>apologise) or a lack of perception and contextual intelligence on your 
>>>part...  Sorry...
>
>>To quote a famous/popular/dumb president "there you go again...."
>
>Actually, I suppose that quote more aptly describes your responses.  
>Especially in the context which Reagan first used that phrase.

Yes, you may have that opinion.  I am glad to see you FINALLY read it.
Took you long enough....

>
>>With this, I leave this fray.  If your ego demands that you push again,
>>I will respond again. 
>
>My ego demands nothing.  

Oh really? Then pray tell, why did you respond?

>If you would prefer that I not respond to you and you 
>are incapable of simply letting the matter go then just let me know and I'll

>let you get the last word in.

I am quite capable of letting the matter go.  I even offered to do so.
I will not tolerate your inane jibes at me or anyone else trying
to beat this issue into them.  The point is quite simple so you Subject: Re:
OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a lesson in contradictions
From: landman@hal.physics.wayne.edu (Joe Landman)
Date: 5 Apr 1994 22:29:50 GMT
Message-ID: <2nsoou$jn1@oak.oakland.edu>

In <jong.374.000C2A3A@wonderware.com>, jong@wonderware.com (Jonathan Gwynne)
writes:
>In article <CnsAAy.CLp@world.std.com> rfs@world.std.com (Rikk F Streng)
writes:
>>Subject: Re: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a lesson in contradictions
>>From: rfs@world.std.com (Rikk F Streng)
>>Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 11:23:21 GMT
>
>
[DELETIA]

>>OS/2 IS in fact a driving force.  You don't win awards in several PC 
>>magazines and force Microsoft to start copying OS/2 (via Win4) without 
>>making a great product.  The fact that YOU don't see it does not mean it 
>>isn't there.  I see it.  I go to computer shows, and I talk to people, 
>>MANY have OS/2.  Video board companies like Paradise, Matrox, Cirrus 
>>Logic, Ahead, and the like do NOT make 32-bit OS/2 graphics drivers 
>>because OS/2 is supposedly "dead" according to you.  I do not get tons of 
>>shareware products for OS/2 because it's dead.  Companies do not start 
>>touting 32-bit performance out of everything in sight (hard drives, video 
>>cards, motherboards, SIMM chips, etc..) for 16-bit clunkers like Win 3.1 
>>and OS's with 16-bit multitasking like the yet-vaporware Win 4.  
>>When you open Windows Sources magazine and THEY start talking about OS/2, 
>>it certainly isn't because it's DEAD.
>
>Awards in magazines don't mean squat.  Just because some magazine editor 
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>thinks you're cool doesn't mean that he's right.  Windows 4 is copying OS/2?

 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

But Jon, these choices were made by a VOTE from subscribers.......
Not by an editor......

>MS was forced to copy OS/2?  On what do you base these assertions?  If more 
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

check out the screen snapshots in any Byte/PCMag.  Look and feel are
one thing, but tabbed notebooks brought up by a rightclciked mouse?
That is what we call copying.

>video board companies made 32-bit OS/2 drivers then maybe my video card
would 
>work properly under OS/2.  In any case, their decision to throw in drivers
to 
>slightly increase their sales is not necessarily an indications of either 
>OS/2's influence or success.  Now, when the makers of video boards start 
>putting the words "OS/2 Compatible!" in large print on their packaging and
in 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 

Ohhh Im gonna love this one... Jon, check out this little computer
publication called computer shopper....

>their advertisements we can assume that they agree that OS/2 is a driving 
>force.

see above....

>
>>>2.  The success of Windows 4.0 is likely (though absolutely not assured, 
>>>guaranteed or otherwise carved in stone) due to the acceptance and
popularity 
>>>of Windows 3.x as well as MS's success in the area of selling vast
quantities 
>>>of "new and improved" upgrades to popular existing products (i.e. DOS, 
>>>Windows, Excel, Word, etc...)
>
>>When you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME.  Win4's requirements 
>>are about the same as OS/2's.  WinNT was proof positive that everything 
>>M$ rolls out the door with the Windows moniker on it will NOT be an 
>>instant "million copy a month" seller.  Microsoft, admittedly, does make 
>>good spreadsheet, word processing, and other junk like that (which I 
>>don't use).  But like a pc mag once read.. "Discontent is the first step 
>>in the progress of man".. Micro$oft has been making blunders left and 
>>right lately, with copyright infringment and a pending investigation by 
>>the feds.. Keeping the indestructible frame of mind may get them in more 
>>trouble.
>
>A couple of points.  Windows 4 isn't even in beta yet, how is it you are 
>making assured statements of fact about its system requirements?  Second, 
>there is no way in hell than NT could have become a "million copies a month"

>seller because therre just aren't that many people out there that could run 
>it.  The case against them by Stac is likely (if you go by the results of 
>similar cases in the past) to be overturned.  The FTC investigation may be

 No this is untrue.  It is on firm footing, but MSes countersuit is
in big trouble.
 
>another thing entirely.  Though I think that it is unlikely that MS will be 
>broken up for while yet - if ever.

They will be, but the sooner the better.  The apps division could
do some great things (I think), and the OS division ... well who knows....

>
>>>I read as much of your post as I could without MEGO and you didn't offer
up 
>>>any expressed contraditions of any of my basic positions.  Any
contradictions 
>>>you percieved were either due to ambiguity on my part (for which I
apologise) 
>>>or a lack of perception and contextual intelligence on your part...
Sorry...
>
>>They were precisely contradicted.  I was laughing when I read the 
>>article.  I suppose saying "It will" and then 2 posts later "It won't 
>>necessarily" are not contradictory.. Stick to Windows..
>
>When quoted out of context and presented without an adequate understanding
of 
>my original intentions and thought processes it is easy to present
superficial 
>evidence of contradiction.  Perhaps if I had made myself clearer to Mr. 
>Landman I could have spared him all that work.  But I assumed a certain
level 
>of contextual intelligence in someone with an advanced degree and who is so 
>obviously proud of it.

Massive sigh...  contextual intellegence...  another massive sigh...

Yes Jon, all we ask is a) you should be clearer.  b) when you contradict
yourself, acknowledge it. c) when you express your opinion include
a little note to this effect d) READ SOME FRIGGING REFERENCES FOR A CHANGE
e) state the facts as currently reported/acknowledged, not what you
WISH to be true.

Regardless of your little sophmoric insults, you have been shown to
contradict yourself under close examination in different posts about
the same topic with broad sweeping generalizations that are simply
inconsistent with each other within their contextual meanings (which
overlap).

Maybe you should do what is suggested to all new internet users.  
Leave your posts on your machine for a day before posting
to see if you really want to say what you said.  This may help
your consistency a bit.  Compare with your previous posts.

Finally, with regard to the advanced degree... obviously you have
no clue as to what goes into an advanced degree... No where in
my posts to you do I mention any of the degrees I hold.  If I am
so proud of them, by definition, I should be telling you all about
how the degree means this that or the other thing.  Well guess what...
I will tell you something you may not know.  On this planet in these
economic times, degrees in Physics are worth toilet paper.  Nada.
Zippo, Zilch.  Society (via the government) has decided not to
support R&D anymore.  Never mind that this is effectively equivalent
to giving away the store in the future...  The repercussions
of this screw up are going to be felt for many many decades.

Envision if you will, AT&T deciding that transistor development
is not fiscally viable (in 1949).  Sends a chill down your spine 
I hope...  Well, that is what we have done.  We have sharply reduced
funding research into new materials, or existing materials for
faster computers (Look at my sig and ask what GaAs is....)
optical computers, etc.  

However, it is your money (the taxpayer), and if you want to 
build more prisons than schools, that is your choice.  You get
what you pay for.

Back to OSes.  My degrees or lack thereof have no bearing on this
discussion.  That you are offended bothers me not.  You can
always decline to reply.  That you do not is telling.  I can
as well, and as long as you dont try this BS with anyone else,
or take your mindless swipes at me.  If you dont like it (and this 
is obvious) then dont do it...


*   *   *   Joseph I Landman, Graduate Student (PhD)
 \ / \ /    Theoretical (Computational) Condensed Matter Physics
  o   o     Wayne State University, Dept of Physics and Astronomy
  |   |     666 West Hancock Avenue, Detroit, MI 48202 USA
  *   *     (313) 577-2720 (main office)  3932 (fax)  2752 (my office)
 / \ / \    
o   o   o   <-- GaAs
    "A mind is a terrible thing."
    "Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain..."


----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news1.oakland.edu!news
From: landman@hal.physics.wayne.edu (Joe Landman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a lesson in contradictions
Date: 5 Apr 1994 22:29:50 GMT
Organization: Wayne State University Dept of Physics and Astronomy
Lines: 164
Message-ID: <2nsoou$jn1@oak.oakland.edu>
References: <2nff7e$o1@oak.oakland.edu> <jong.354.000B071E@wonderware.com>
<CnsAAy.CLp@world.std.com> <jong.374.000C2A3A@wonderware.com>
Reply-To: landman@hal.physics.wayne.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: splat.physics.wayne.edu
X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 v1.00Subject: Re: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a
lesson in contradictions
From: david@visix.com (David Charlap)
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 17:06:34 GMT
Message-ID: <Cnsq6z.82v@visix.com>

Jonathan Gwynne <jong@wonderware.com> wrote:
>
>(if the fact that consumer pressure was necessary for their PC
>division to begin offering OS/2 as a pre-installation option and the
>fact that it still isn't advertised as one)

This is only half-true.  OS/2 was always available as a preload option
on PS/2 machines.  It is IBM's low-end ValuePoint and PS/1 machines
where consumer pressure was required.

>2.  The success of Windows 4.0 is likely (though absolutely not assured, 
>guaranteed or otherwise carved in stone) due to the acceptance and
popularity 
>of Windows 3.x as well as MS's success in the area of selling vast
quantities 
>of "new and improved" upgrades to popular existing products (i.e. DOS, 
>Windows, Excel, Word, etc...)

That's what everybody thought about NT.  You really can't make these
kind of claims until after the product is released and we see what it
actually is.  Gone are the days when MS could market a glob of silly
putty as a software upgrade and sell millions of copies.

-- 
David Charlap        | The contents of this message are not the opinions of
Visix Software, Inc. | Visix Software, or of anyone besides myself.
david@visix.com      +-----------------------------------------------------
Member of Team-OS/2  |
---------------------+

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!psinntp!psinntp!viper!david
From: david@visix.com (David Charlap)
Subject: Re: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a lesson in contradictions
Message-ID: <Cnsq6z.82v@visix.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 17:06:34 GMT
References: <2nff7e$o1@oak.oakland.edu> <jong.354.000B071E@wonderware.com>
Organization: Visix Software, Inc., Reston, VA
Lines: 27Subject: Re: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a lesson in contradictions
From: landman@hal.physics.wayne.edu (Joe Landman)
Date: 6 Apr 1994 16:20:24 GMT
Message-ID: <2nung8$qpm@oak.oakland.edu>

In <Cnsq6z.82v@visix.com>, david@visix.com (David Charlap) writes:
>Jonathan Gwynne <jong@wonderware.com> wrote:
>>
>>(if the fact that consumer pressure was necessary for their PC
>>division to begin offering OS/2 as a pre-installation option and the
>>fact that it still isn't advertised as one)
>
>This is only half-true.  OS/2 was always available as a preload option
>on PS/2 machines.  It is IBM's low-end ValuePoint and PS/1 machines
>where consumer pressure was required.

No, actually when I bought my 433dx last year, OS/2 was bundled, as it
was with all => 8 meg machines.

>
>>2.  The success of Windows 4.0 is likely (though absolutely not assured, 
>>guaranteed or otherwise carved in stone) due to the acceptance and
popularity 
>>of Windows 3.x as well as MS's success in the area of selling vast
quantities 
>>of "new and improved" upgrades to popular existing products (i.e. DOS, 
>>Windows, Excel, Word, etc...)
>
>That's what everybody thought about NT.  You really can't make these
>kind of claims until after the product is released and we see what it
>actually is.  Gone are the days when MS could market a glob of silly
>putty as a software upgrade and sell millions of copies.

ditto.


>
>-- 
>David Charlap        | The contents of this message are not the opinions of
>Visix Software, Inc. | Visix Software, or of anyone besides myself.
>david@visix.com      +-----------------------------------------------------
>Member of Team-OS/2  |
>---------------------+
Joe

*   *   *   Joseph I Landman, Graduate Student (PhD)
 \ / \ /    Theoretical (Computational) Condensed Matter Physics
  o   o     Wayne State University, Dept of Physics and Astronomy
  |   |     666 West Hancock Avenue, Detroit, MI 48202 USA
  *   *     (313) 577-2720 (main office)  3932 (fax)  2752 (my office)
 / \ / \    
o   o   o   <-- GaAs
    "A mind is a terrible thing."
    "Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain..."


----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news1.oakland.edu!news
From: landman@hal.physics.wayne.edu (Joe Landman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a lesson in contradictions
Date: 6 Apr 1994 16:20:24 GMT
Organization: Wayne State University Dept of Physics and Astronomy
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <2nung8$qpm@oak.oakland.edu>
References: <2nff7e$o1@oak.oakland.edu> <jong.354.000B071E@wonderware.com>
<Cnsq6z.82v@visix.com>
Reply-To: landman@hal.physics.wayne.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: splat.physics.wayne.edu
X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 v1.00Subject: Re: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a
lesson in contradictions
From: jong@wonderware.com (Jonathan Gwynne)
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 09:01:36
Message-ID: <jong.382.0009071F@wonderware.com>

In article <Cnsq6z.82v@visix.com> david@visix.com (David Charlap) writes:
>Subject: Re: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a lesson in contradictions
>From: david@visix.com (David Charlap)
>Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 17:06:34 GMT

>Jonathan Gwynne <jong@wonderware.com> wrote:
>>
>>(if the fact that consumer pressure was necessary for their PC
>>division to begin offering OS/2 as a pre-installation option and the
>>fact that it still isn't advertised as one)

>This is only half-true.  OS/2 was always available as a preload option
>on PS/2 machines.  It is IBM's low-end ValuePoint and PS/1 machines
>where consumer pressure was required.

What about the Ambra or whatever it's called?

>>2.  The success of Windows 4.0 is likely (though absolutely not assured, 
>>guaranteed or otherwise carved in stone) due to the acceptance and
popularity 
>>of Windows 3.x as well as MS's success in the area of selling vast
quantities 
>>of "new and improved" upgrades to popular existing products (i.e. DOS, 
>>Windows, Excel, Word, etc...)

>That's what everybody thought about NT.  You really can't make these
>kind of claims until after the product is released and we see what it
>actually is.  Gone are the days when MS could market a glob of silly
>putty as a software upgrade and sell millions of copies.

NT is meeting about as much success in its market niche as OS/2 is in the 
desktop market and it's done it in about 1/4 the time that it's taken IBM to 
accomplish the same thing with OS/2 2.x.  I'll leave you to determine whether

this is success or not.  You say the days are gone when MS could sell
millions 
of copies of something just by releasing it.  Gone since when?  Apart from
the 
"failure" of NT to sell a gazillion copies, how has MS slipped in the 
marketplace?

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!cc.usu.edu!jong.wonderware.com!jong
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 and Mr Gywnne... a lesson in contradictions
Message-ID: <jong.382.0009071F@wonderware.com>
From: jong@wonderware.com (Jonathan Gwynne)
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 09:01:36
References: <2nff7e$o1@oak.oakland.edu> <jong.354.000B071E@wonderware.com>
<Cnsq6z.82v@visix.com>
Organization: Wonderware Corp.
Nntp-Posting-Host: jong.wonderware.com
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A]
Lines: 35Subject: Just wait for SOM2(3,4,5,6, . . .)                       
From: 51green@cua.edu
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 21:27:50 GMT
Message-ID: <1994Mar31.162750.1@cua.edu>

In article <CnJIt3.I70@sernews.raleigh.ibm.com>,
mike@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus) writes:
> In <2ncuok$769@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (R S Rodgers)
writes:
>>       WP5.2/2.  IBM workers on the WPS parts.  You'd think they'd have
>>       noticed the almost constant crashing and offered WP a few tips on
>>       how to fix it.  (Plus, if they designed WP's stupid file tagger,
they
>>       deserve to be fired.)
> 
> Some of the stuff they wanted to do was very difficult with the current
> incarnation of the WPS, built on SOM1. They did their best to work around
what
> is essentially a good, but immature technology. This kind of work will be
much
> easier when the Workplace Shell moves to SOM2. (Pen for OS/2 uses quite a
bit
> of SOM, so I'm very interested in this).
> 
> ------
> Mike Dahmus                                       Internet:
miked@vnet.ibm.com

	So, even (former) IBM employees can't write a good OS/2 app *now*, but
*in the future* they will be able to, because the NEXT version of SOM will
allow them to do so.  Interesting.

	I'll stick with MS and OLE2.  Tho I seem to recall at least a few
moderately popular apps coming out for Windows when they only had that
immature
OLE1 thing.  Amazing, no?

Todd Louis Green
----------------
If it's not perfect, make it better.

----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!news.cua.edu!cua.edu!51green
From: 51green@cua.edu
Subject: Just wait for SOM2(3,4,5,6, . . .)                       
Message-ID: <1994Mar31.162750.1@cua.edu>
Lines: 27
Sender: news@news.cua.edu (Guest Account)
Organization: The Catholic University of America
References: <1994Mar22.004944.6632@yvax.byu.edu> <1994Mar28.173528.1@cua.edu>
<2na767$pju@agassiz.cas.und.NoDak.edu> <CnHGJK.x6w@sernews.raleigh.ibm.com>
<2ncuok$769@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu> <CnJIt3.I70@sernews.raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 21:27:50 GMT
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.os.os2.advocacy:6681 comp.os.os2.misc:9535
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4589Subject: Re: Just wait for SOM2(3,4,5,6, . .
.)                       
From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 1994 06:00:20 GMT
Message-ID: <timbolCnKGoM.Eyx@netcom.com>

In article <1994Mar31.162750.1@cua.edu>,  <51green@cua.edu> wrote:

[...]

>	So, even (former) IBM employees can't write a good OS/2 app *now*, but
>*in the future* they will be able to, because the NEXT version of SOM will
>allow them to do so.  Interesting.

That's not exactly true.  SOM is good technology, but may lack polish in
some places.  SOM2 improves upon that.  I would expect future versions of
SOM to do the same.  But apps can be written using the current version of
SOM, although not as easily as with future versions.

>	I'll stick with MS and OLE2.  Tho I seem to recall at least a few
>moderately popular apps coming out for Windows when they only had that
immature
>OLE1 thing.  Amazing, no?

In my opinion, the difference between the quality of OS/2 apps and Windows
apps isn't entirely due to technological differences.  I'm sure that the
programmers at Lotus are reasonably competent and can write very good OS/2
apps, given the inclination to do so.  The reasons there aren't that many
quality OS/2 applications from the major vendors isn't that OS/2 itself
has problems (although it does have some), but that there really isn't
really enough motivation to write them.

>Todd Louis Green

     - Mike


----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Path:
search01.news.aol.com!hp81.prod.aol.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!timbol
From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: Just wait for SOM2(3,4,5,6, . . .)                       
Message-ID: <timbolCnKGoM.Eyx@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
References: <1994Mar31.162750.1@cua.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 1994 06:00:20 GMT
Lines: 29
Xref: search01.news.aol.com comp.os.os2.advocacy:6719
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:4635Subject: Re: Headline Puns
From: roger@kean.ucs.mun.ca@nwugate.fidonet.org (roger@kean ucs mun ca)
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 94 04:42:00 -0600
Message-ID: <1994Mar24.131251.1@nwugate.fidonet.org>
he Workplace Shell moves to SOM2. (Pen for OS/2 uses quite a
bit
> of SOM,   4V w !  7[ !!  <  [       ] [E   E0\[   \\ \[! ! \w:\7w:  `  !0, P               J  L  l  n            E  P        D  F   F      .  y          J            2  6                +  w  |           \  ^  e  g  x  z      	  	  L	  S	   S	  	  C
  N
  p
  
  
  
    P          (  U  {      
  I
   I
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
    Z  s  u              D  |           "  <  q              V  l  p          $  F   F  M      C  t        )  ]          %  m                         O  p          D  q                   \              =  ?  |  ~              8  :   :  s  z  f          :  k          8  X          &    &   m               -!  r!  !  !  
"  V"  a"  c"  e"  i"  "  "  0#  r#  t#   t#  #  #  Y$  $  $  $  $  %  $%  X%  %  %  1&  i&  &  &  &  &  E'  '   '  '  '  $(  r(  t(  (  )  X)  )  )  6*  =*  {*  *  *  *  4+  +  +  +   +  +  +  +  .,  h,  ,  ,  ,  :-  <-  -  -  -  -  -  .  .  .  //  ^/   ^/  y/  /  /  -0  q0  0  0  0  1  /1  Y1  [1  1  1  1  2  ]2  2  2  3   3  3  3  _3  3  3  3  3  4  h4  4  4  4  
5  5  E5  g5  n5  5  5  6   6  C6  z6  6  6  7  E7  m7  7  7  7  8  98  ;8  m8  8  8  ,9  z9  }9  9   9  :  ^:  a:  :  :  H;  ;  ;  )<  0<  o<  <  <  <  "=  j=  =  =  >  >   >  [>  >  >  &?  m?  ?  ?  ?   @  h@  @  @  @  @  :A  SA  UA  A  A  B   B  B  
B  B  B  cB  B  B  *C  BC  rC  C  C  D  D  D  1D  KD  nD  pD  D   D  D  'E  `E  E  E  E  E  E  %F  pF  F  G  9G  ZG  G  G  G  H  UH  WH   WH  H  H  H  H  H  H  H  
I  I  I  /J  QJ  kJ  J  J  J  J  K  \K  K   K  K  K  L  L  gL  L  L  L  M  QM  SM  M  M  M  3N  5N  >N  RN  TN  N   N  N  N  CO  pO  O  O  O  P  >P  P  P  P  P  #Q  FQ  rQ  Q  Q  Q  R   R  PR  R  R  R  R  S  cS  S  S  3T  T  T  T  T  T  T  U  U  U  U   U  U  V  3V  zV  V  V  V  *W  KW  W  W  W  X  X  iX  rX  uX  X  X  X   X  ;Y  Y  Y  Y  Z  ^Z  Z  Z  Z  Z  [  [  _[  [  [  0\  2\  k\  \  \   \  ]  ]  ]  ]  )^  L^  m^  ^  ^  _  5_  b_  _  _  _  _  `  8`  `  `   `  `  `  Ca  a  a  a  a  9b  b  b  c  Xc  c  c  !d  Xd  Zd  d  d  d   d  d  d  
e  e  e  Je  Qe  e  e  f  @f  _f  f  f  f  f  g  dg  g  g   g  g  
h  1h  Uh  Wh  h  h  h  >i  Gi  Ii  i  i  j  bj  j  j  j  k  bk   bk  k  k  1l  wl  l  l  l  ;m  ym  {m  m  m  n  _n  n  n  n  +o  Mo  To   To  o  o  p  8p  \p  p  p  $q  8q  qq  q  q  r  r  @r  Br  r  r  /s  |s   |s  s  t  ft  t  t  t  t  u  Pu  Ru  u  u  4v  }v  v  v  v  v  ;w  w   w  w  w  w  *x  ,x  2x  4x  8x  Ex  x  x  x  x  !y  (y  "z  /z  \z  ~z  z   z  z  {  S{  z{  {  {  {  &|  S|  y|  |  |  |  |  +}  u}  }}  }  }  ~   ~  !~  %~  k~  v~  ~  ~  ~  -  p              	  K  d  f             ׁ    )  k    ΂    a  j      ݃    4  6           ф      G  ~    ƅ      (  g  j          ʆ  ͆  І   І    0          ҇  ݇      .  0  H    ߈    %  '  t  ~   ~  ɉ  ˉ    )  8  :  h  j            ̊      N  w    ͋   ͋  ؋    H  y    ʌ    K  k      Ѝ  ҍ  ԍ    J  L    Ǝ  Ȏ   Ȏ      K  f  h  t  v        E  G  }    Ȑ  ِ  ې  ߐ    ^   ^        #  *    4  V  z    ē  ϓ    .  z      ֔           4  l      9  z            $  '  q      ԗ  ח  ޗ         /  |  ~            ۙ    >  r      ٚ    J  i         ƛ  ț    6  v      H  V  [  r  t        E    ֞  "   "  l    ͟  ϟ  	  F  _    נ    ,  d  p  r      ϡ  ѡ  ء  ڡ   ڡ            #  B  k  v        P      ݤ      1  j   j      7  x            (  n          5  y             @  ~    ש  ٩  ۩    \      ܪ    %  Y      ɫ  
  A  `   `          (  i      >  M  S  k  m      @      կ  ׯ   ׯ    _  a        Ȱ    R        Ǳ  0  d    Ʋ    $  Y   Y  d      ӳ    /  s          2  C      ȵ    L    Ѷ   Ѷ  
    Q    ķ  Ʒ  ӷ  ٷ      #  *      !  E  d           Ϲ    ,  F  V    Ѻ    !  I  K        <  @    ͼ    R   R    ӽ  ׽    d        ,  U  W                
  W   W  Y        #  O  s        "  >  b  m        .  V  X   X        D  n        >  p  r      L                             !  D  O  d           >  p             0  2  y            K              J             4  9          [      0  v      J      "  4  6  |   |      I  K  S  U  Z      +  w  }        z        .   .  O  Z        '  Q  z      !  E  m  o        c            $  l        ;          &  .  ?  A  C      #  f   f        	  L  N  U  Z          .  P  W         H  X   X        '  T                N      (  t                 h              +  y  {      %  R  t               Q          "  G  z  |        (  w            U        >        _        A                             '  L  W  y      1  n        2  R             K          Q  S          =          "  i   i  k        1  D  F  Q  f  h      ?  f         )  4  b   b      
  7           W  Y        %  B  D             Q          "  i            R              P   P      5  9          .  0  P  R      c    + I  I {   	 = z     7 n     / B      " 0 3 v    % g r t    9 b d     >	 l	 n	 	 	 	 
 `
 
 
 
 
 
 H Y [   + t  t    
 ^
 
 
 
 
  e       9       R    
 / T     [      2  2 |   d       E f    " ) 	 < d  d      : ^    , P     . y      d    ) u w     V      @ s  s z   I o      O  o      ! 5! \! ! ! ! !  ! " " R" T" n" s" " # R# k# m# # # # # $ $ $ % -%  -% Z% % % % % ,& x& }& & & ' ' >' }' ' ' ' ' ' '  ' ' ' 3( :( ( ( ) E) S) ) ) ) * ;* E* * * * + ++  ++ \+ ^+ + + + + + + E, G, , , , , , M- W- Y- \- ^-  ^- g- - - 2. . . . . H/ |/ / / / 0 A0 j0 0 0 1 )1  )1 C1 1 1 1 2 2 B2 _2 2 2 2 2 3 *3 K3 O3 3 3 !4 #4  #4 V4 X4 ]4 4 4 
5 45 p5 5 5 5 5 5 C6 l6 6 6 6 7 +7  +7 e7 p7 7 7 8 28 `8 b8 8 8 8 8 E9 n9 p9 9 9 : : (:  (: *: p: : : '; ); i; ; ; ; ; C< < < < < = `= = =  = 5> y> > > >  ? )? +? g? ? ? ? ? 3@ 5@ _@ @ @ .A 0A  0A vA A A <B fB hB sB B B B C 8C vC C C C C "D jD D  D D D ,E vE E E F F RF cF zF }F F F F 8G G G H 9H  9H <H >H H H H +I YI [I ]I _I cI eI I I I J J K :K nK  nK K K 	L .L 9L pL L L M 8M :M gM oM M  N KN bN N N N  N N ?O O O O O %P /P 7P {P P P P P P Q 	Q PQ Q Q  Q &R :R >R R R R R S _S S S S 'T jT T T 1U rU U U  U V V PV xV zV V V 5W `W bW jW W W GX X X X Y QY SY  SY Y Y Y *Z rZ Z Z Z Z [ E[ [ [ [ [ \ M\ \ \ \  \ ]  ] g] ] ] ] ^ ^ `^ ^ ^ /_ 1_ x_ _ _ _ ` _` b`  b` ` ` ` a Ja fa ha a a a 9b b b c c Sc c c c 5d  5d =d ?d d d e Ge e e 
f Nf f f f f f g Sg Ug g g  g h Bh }h h h h h h h h $i +i i i :j dj j j j j  j ?k k k k &l Wl xl l l l 	m =m @m m m m n cn n n  n o Ko o o o 8p <p p p p p &q jq q q q "r or r s  s Vs \s s s s #t Zt \t t t -u pu u u 5v tv v v v w  w hw w w Ix x x .y xy y z Lz Nz z z { { { { O{ V{  V{ { '| e| | | | | "} i} } } ~ M~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ # g  g      = g j     " $ 8 ;  Ł  <  < > [ ]  ݂   4 7 } Ã      a   6 ~  ~ Å ޅ  " g   * j   . ; =  ʈ Ԉ ׈  Y  Y c e     4 6 ? A l   > A  ϋ  Q |  | ~  Ì Ō ǌ Ɍ  	  ڍ  B c   Վ  ^      # B z | ɐ ڐ ݐ  \    # E H  ̒  R  R  Փ  Z   ֔    @  ɕ  S   $ i       W  ژ   	  , M n p r    T ~  ~     " C z ě ߛ   0 2 j    / n p     
 U ^   Ӟ   I K M   ٟ   @ a     Š  - u   ҡ  	 A C  Ԣ  ! o         
   R      a   
  W   *  * W Y   ܧ ާ ' l   @   Щ  ^   8 W  W Y   & ( V X   ( q   A ] _   2 z  z     [  հ   e   б ұ  _  β в    5 7    I K  ڴ   ]     > m o     ?    % ' l   = ~  չ ׹  a   2  2 x  ϻ  _   м   `     T    2  2 { }    / q   C     \         e g o q v   G         F f       G h    < f     5 w   ?           Z   	 K     2 s       M | ~     I s    , 7 a   
  
 & ]      7     ( M O     Q  Q \ ^ m o   * T v     & ^    
 7  7 9 ; w     T     8    C s u       + - f m 7 a     % O     I  I      L P     ` q    
  Z `  `      L P   3 }      . y   Z  Z   :    V       S    ! 0 4        , . x    8 : <    ]         $ n   " $ o     " o     j  j l   T ^ ` b l n p r   i      E  E h     L N     @     3 Q V f  f k      4 u     U   
  Q S       , . o    > J f h m   H       O Q S c    ) 0    L     <  u   u        $ n     7     . M S d j       ( R T [ ] b   ; a c   N       J U    ; r   
	 8	 :	 e	 g	 	 	 &
 E
 G
  G
 
 
  7 9 v   G      
 
 
 F
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  ( ]    / 1 j q  > |       $ R    @ e    4 b d      N  N     ; v x |     C E _ u w       @ u        ! `      V       ]      , K Q     d   ( j  j   I     5  H  J        F! n! ! ! ! >" e"  e" " " " # # O# o# # # # # # 3$ l$ $ $ $ % H% J%  J% L% Q% S% U% % % % % % % & [& & & & ' T' o' q' '  ' ' ' ( 
( ( Y( ( ( ) 
) F) ) ) ) (* A* * * * *  * &+ o+ + + + + + , T, , , , '- q- - - - <. . .  .  / // 1/ h/ j/ / / 0 S0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 	1 Q1  Q1 1 1 %2 p2 x2 z2 |2 ~2 2 2 3 l3 3 3 3 3 04 C4 E4 }4  }4 4 4 5 _5 5 5 5 6 b6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 ]7 7 7 8  8 8 8 i8 8 8 8 H9 9 9 9 9 9 9 -: {: : ; Y; [; j;  j; l; n; ; < S< `< b< < < = = J= = = = = = > > b>  b> k> > ? 
? Y? \? ? ? ? &@ N@ P@ x@ z@ |@ @ @ @ @ @  @ A bA A A CB B B .C zC C C D MD OD \D ^D `D D D D  D E :E <E E E E E 	F 2F 5F nF rF F G ?G BG iG mG G G  G G H [H H H H H H I eI gI iI I I I 7J }J J J J  J @K K K K 	L %L RL rL L L L M =M qM M M M M M 0N  0N jN N N N O JO LO NO O O O O P !P QP SP P P /Q yQ  yQ Q R bR R R R 7S 9S S S S S S BT T T T T 3U 5U  5U nU uU >V `V V V V W EW ZW zW W W !X TX sX X X X X  X BY TY Y Y Y Y Y Y ?Z Z Z [ -[ 0[ y[ [ [ &\ (\ *\  *\ -\ 0\ c\ e\ \ \ 2] U] W] Z] ] ] ] ] ?^ ^ ^ _ F_ H_  H_ J_ M_ ~_ _ _ ` 	` .` 0` {` ` a [a ]a a a 3b 6b |b b  b b b b :c Gc c c c d d Dd d d d d e ae e e 8f  8f ~f f f f $g kg xg zg |g g g h  h [h ]h h h 8i :i ]i  ]i i i +j <j {j j j ?k }k k k l Fl l l m Um m m m  m m m m Bn On n n n n n /o Go Io Ko o o p Bp p p  p p p q q q Oq Vq q r -r lr r r r r s fs s s t  t t Ot lt t t t u fu u u ;v v v w Xw w w w x ^x  ^x cx vx xx x x -y ]y y y y y z 0z |z z z 
{ .{ V{ X{  X{ { {  | f| |  } } O} } } } !~ j~ ~ ~ E     l  l   F m o   O   / y   U   8  ̅  ̅  \   6  ʇ އ  , q ~ È Ј  : <  ω    `   :  ϋ ً ۋ * k |  Ό     d           ! Z |    K s    f       1 C   ב ّ ( 1 ~  Β  ' + 6 :  ϓ    Z t x   ? r t v z ~    F        H    ۗ  . 0 u   K   љ ә  % t    ƚ  A C G y } ̛   - / @ B  ՜ ! ` s      M Q   Þ  [ g i m    
 S `  ̠ Π  Π  W       I  ٢  i  £ ģ   d     H w y ǥ  V d f s u y Ȧ ʦ   Y [     9 ;  Ѩ   
 P  ۩  - n   3 5   ֫  ֫ ث & p    ` b    J Q  ͮ Ϯ  a v x  x    E G      M l n   G i  ز    % q   ĳ  # l     2 D   ӵ յ  _  _   6  ɷ  V     l   T     E  E    3  ͼ Ҽ ټ ۼ ! g i   ý Ž ǽ    Ͼ  Ͼ  0 `     5 ]   	 ) Y [     <  < > n  	 P    <      \   :      e   B j l    U     C    +  + 3 5     ( s    + r   R   2 =  = ?   % s   Z ~     $ j w       X     ) 7      8 : s z B d          l     O       : < c e   !  ! # q z |     \     $ d f | ~        + . t   M     & , { }       5 :          m   B U    2  2 7     F S U   2 v ~      * q  q ~    0 z   	   ]       ) o  o   G     > C    0 2 |    :      Y [ ^   > M P ^ `        b  b s    K    / C E S U X }  	 Q d     , o     G W     @    X Z     ) r    + - / q     \ g    R  R Y    # l      >      3 t v  v     ( B E a c         @  B       L  L      ! k t    	    b   E     $ o  
 O     `     ) A C      	 d	 	 	 	 	 $
 )
 v
 
   < >            g   
 
 [
 }
 
 
  _   B     % 1 4     m   	 N _ b     g i  i l     Y f     K       . y      3 5 { }   W     ;      Q  Q     R     f   / m    1 w       O     $  b      ! 	! ! A! ! ! " J" X"  X" n" " " " " # # # # $ K$ j$ $ $ $ 0% o% % % &  & (& O& s& & & & & ' R' ' ' ' ( 6( 8( ( ( ( ) ()  () r) ) ) ) !* g* * * * * :+ + + + + + , , , ,  , , - >- - - . 5. T. ~. . . . . 9/ / / / / B0 j0  j0 l0 0 0 0 0 '1 m1 z1 1 1 2 92 <2 2 2 3 M3 O3 W3 Y3  Y3 [3 ^3 d3 3 3 F4 _4 x4 }4 4 4 4 :5 v5 5 5 5 6 F6 H6  H6 J6 6 6 7 >7 `7 7 7 8 
8 78 8 8 8 8 :9 T9 9 9 9  9 9 : ^: : : : : : "; j; ; ; ; *< R< T< < < < =  = %= k= x= = = = -> u> > > > E? ? ? ? ,@ 7@ @ @ @  @ @ @ A !A A B SB B B B C 4C TC |C C  D D <D fD hD  hD D D E (E sE E 
F F 0F 4F F F F G %G rG wG G G G  G G H H OH H H H I MI WI rI tI I I I I I HJ OJ J  J J $K NK YK K K L RL L L M \M wM M M M M 3N 5N <N  <N >N N N N N FO O O P P YP P P P P Q `Q Q Q @R  @R R R R R R R R R S PS WS S T OT zT T T U U TU  TU U U U 4V 6V R R R S PS WS S T OT zT T T U U TU     Arial      K    / C E S U X }  	 Q d   