
                   comp.os.os2.advocacy             (Usenet)

                 Saturday, 11-Sep-1999 to Friday, 17-Sep-1999

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com               10-Sep-99 13:39:29
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:25
Subj: Re: Why NT is x86 only

From: "Kim Cheung" <kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com>

On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 11:29:28 -0700, Steven C. Den Beste wrote:

>The issue under discussion is whether the resulting code will be efficient
>on both platforms, within the range of what is generally considered
>"efficient" for each.

And my take is: I don't think so.   



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com               10-Sep-99 13:40:27
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:25
Subj: Re: Who is writing about new software for OS/2?

From: "Kim Cheung" <kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com>

On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 21:29:29 -0400, jasper wrote:

>In the early days of OS/2 2x, we had many places where you could find
>articles about new OS/2 software. Today it is very hard to find a place
>where they write about new released software for OS/2.
>
>Does anyone know of a magazine which still comes with reviews of OS/2
>sofware?
>

Join the POSSI user group and you'll get the Extended Attribute.

It's a "virtual" user group.

>Thanks in advance,
>Jasper de Keijzer.
>http://home-5.worldonline.nl/~jdekeij
>
>



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jsheehy@ix.netcom.com                             10-Sep-99 17:12:13
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:25
Subj: Re: [MS-bashing] New collection of anti-Microsoft banners

From: John Sheehy <jsheehy@ix.netcom.com>

In message <b890783f49%polaris@ursaminr.demon.co.uk>,
Peter Smith <polaris@ursaminr.demon.com.uk> wrote :

>Running 95OSR2 with IE5, if I have the following showing.
>
>---------------
>|             |
>|             |----
>|      1      |   |
>|             |   |
>|             |   |
>---------------   |
>       |     2    |
>       |          |
>       ------------
>
>I want to copy selected files piecemeal from window 1 to 2. I select the
>files in 1, drag them to 2. Window 2 then pops up in front, meaning I've got
>to do another action to get window 1 back in front.

Well, it won't do *exactly* what you want, but if you use the X-Mouse
features that are included in Win98's TweakUI, you can set it so that
the mouse gives focus without clicking, and you have the choice of
whether or not the focusing raises the window to the front.  Dropping
files on an explorer window still acts like clicking on it, though,
either way.
--

 <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
  John P Sheehy <jsheehy@ix.netcom.com>
 ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Netcom (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com                               10-Sep-99 14:31:23
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:25
Subj: Re: Who is writing about new software for OS/2?

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com (Steven C. Den Beste)

On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 21:29:29 -0400, jasper recycled some holes into the
following pattern:

>In the early days of OS/2 2x, we had many places where you could find
>articles about new OS/2 software. Today it is very hard to find a place
>where they write about new released software for OS/2.
>
>Does anyone know of a magazine which still comes with reviews of OS/2
>sofware?
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Jasper de Keijzer.
>http://home-5.worldonline.nl/~jdekeij
>

Well, there's Esther's POSSI publication.

But part of the reason that you can't find many reviews is that there really
isn't much to review these days.

--------
Steven C. Den Beste    sdenbes1@san.rr.com
Home page: http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste

"We're just ordinary earthlings, not weirdos from another planet!"
              -- Calvin

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@sea.monterey.edu                            10-Sep-99 15:05:27
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:25
Subj: Re: Who is writing about new software for OS/2?

From: josco <josco@sea.monterey.edu>

On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Steven C. Den Beste wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 21:29:29 -0400, jasper recycled some holes into the
> following pattern:
> 
> >In the early days of OS/2 2x, we had many places where you could find
> >articles about new OS/2 software. Today it is very hard to find a place
> >where they write about new released software for OS/2.
> >
> >Does anyone know of a magazine which still comes with reviews of OS/2
> >sofware?
> 
> Well, there's Esther's POSSI publication.
> 
> But part of the reason that you can't find many reviews is that there really
> isn't much to review these days.

On the OS/2 newsgroups you'll find some windows advocates/OS/2 haters like
Mr. Den Beste who get themselves off by responding to requests for OS/2
information.

Most new OS/2 software can be found in comp.os.os2.announce.

Reviews of OS/2 software can also be found by searching the web pages for
the major publications.  www.idg.com, www.zdnet.com. www.cmp.com are the
major US publishers.

The OS/2 keyword can bring up reviews of software that run on OS/2. 
Staroffice for instance was just reviewed by ZD's PCLabs and got a
favorable review as a Office replacement.  On COOA you'll find many
windows advocates disparaged the product as a MS WORKS class software
package. 


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CSUnet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com               10-Sep-99 15:04:00
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:25
Subj: Re: Who is writing about new software for OS/2?

From: "Kim Cheung" <kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com>

On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 14:31:46 -0700, Steven C. Den Beste wrote:

>Well, there's Esther's POSSI publication.
>
>But part of the reason that you can't find many reviews is that there really
>isn't much to review these days.

Boy, you HAD to stick your nose in places where it doesn't belong, don't you?


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               10-Sep-99 18:10:01
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:25
Subj: Re: Who is writing about new software for OS/2?

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

jasper wrote:
> 
> In the early days of OS/2 2x, we had many places where you could find
> articles about new OS/2 software. Today it is very hard to find a place
> where they write about new released software for OS/2.
> 
> Does anyone know of a magazine which still comes with reviews of OS/2
> sofware?

Walter Metcalf puts out a good web publication called "Focus on OS/2." 
Visit http://os2.about.com.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               10-Sep-99 18:13:26
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:25
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

roelof 't Hooft wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 08 Sep 1999 19:07:21 +0200, Gerben Bergman wrote:
> 
> ;)Tim, you've been told a million times by now that it's the other way
around:
> ;)Stardock's Windows sales are funding their OS/2 development. When will
that
> ;)simple truth get through to your brain?
> 
> Supposing, to begin with, that there is a brain in his head :-)

Are you kidding?  Tim is a comic genious!  (At least I hope so...)

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@sea.monterey.edu                            10-Sep-99 15:24:05
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:25
Subj: Re: Why NT is x86 only

From: josco <josco@sea.monterey.edu>

On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Steven C. Den Beste wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 07:10:13 -0400, Joseph recycled some holes into the
> following pattern:
> 
> >> each written uniquely and separately.
> >
> >That might be true and it might not be true --- MS doesn't use one codebase 
so
> >with NT and W2K so the point is moot.Sun does not use one JVM codebase.
> 
> What's this got to do with NT4? I'm not talking about that. I'm *only*
> talking about Win2K (alias NT5).

Are you psyco?

1) You justifed your single codebase theory with references to JIT and
JAVA. 

2) I reminded you that MS uses multiple code bases for NT.

3) You respond that I'm off topic for using NT as an example.

If you want to justify your theory wuth examples start with NT.  Explain
why MS hasn't used one codebase for NT rather than jumping off into JAVA
and pulling examples with portable Java applications.  Yes NT isn't W2K
but it is far closer to W2K than any embedded code/JAVAexmaple you have
offered. 

Here is what you wrote yesterday, Sept 9th.  


Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 17:48:02 -0700
From: "Steven C. Den Beste" <sdenbes1@san.rr.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why NT is x86 only

On 09 Sep 1999 15:21:36 PDT, Kim Cheung recycled some holes into the
following pattern:

>On Thu, 09 Sep 1999 08:20:45 -0700, Steven C. Den Beste wrote:
>
>>There's no particular reason that the same source code couldn't generate
>>efficient binary for both IA32 and IA64.
>
>That's not true!!!
>

In that case, Java JIT's shouldn't be able to do it either. But it seems
to
be the consensus in this group that there's no barrier to having a JIT
generate efficient code on all platforms starting from the same portable
byte-code.

Why, then, can't C compilers working directly from source which was
deliberately written to be portable also generate efficient code on just
two
different platforms?

My direct professional experience is that they can. This is something I
know
a great deal about, since I've been programming primarily in C, for
embedded
microprocessors, for most of the last 24 years.

If you think my contention is not true, how about giving a reason why
rather
than just "automatically gainsaying what the other person says".


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CSUnet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com                               10-Sep-99 15:23:00
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:25
Subj: Re: Why NT is x86 only

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com (Steven C. Den Beste)

On 10 Sep 1999 13:39:58 PDT, Kim Cheung recycled some holes into the
following pattern:

>On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 11:29:28 -0700, Steven C. Den Beste wrote:
>
>>The issue under discussion is whether the resulting code will be efficient
>>on both platforms, within the range of what is generally considered
>>"efficient" for each.
>
>And my take is: I don't think so.   
>
>

Why not?

--------
Steven C. Den Beste    sdenbes1@san.rr.com
Home page: http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste

"We're just ordinary earthlings, not weirdos from another planet!"
              -- Calvin

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: lennart-remove-@plg.-remove-a.se                  10-Sep-99 22:30:27
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:25
Subj: Re: Time for a Warp Client

From: "Lennart Gahm" <lennart-remove-@plg.-remove-a.se>

I agree that OS/2 Warp 4 don't need much improvement.
What i would like to see is a year2000 secure client without having to
add different kind of fixpacks,like one for the base OS, one for MPTS and so
on.
WSeB without the server part give you the above, JFS/LVM and SMP. 
And the Kernel updates, more than 512MB memory per process?
Built-in USB support is soon a "must have".

I think that it is the best time within a year to provide an alternative 
to Windows. More and more people and companies are fedup with Microsoft.
If the pricetag for Windows2000 is as Gartner Group predict it can be the
thing that makes companies to drop Microsoft.

I'm not sure about what the kernel updates in 
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 12:00:15 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:

>I have to say that I like the present OS/2 v4 client very much and would
>not to see major changes in it.  My wishlist for an updated client would
>be:
>
>1) Keep the present voice navigation but update it with the latest via
>voice product.
>
>2) Provide the JFS and LVM of the WSeB server product.
>
>3) Provide built-in USB support.
>
>4) Kernel updates as in WSeB
>
>The present WPS GUI is great.  Please don't "improve" it.
>
>Lennart Gahm wrote:
>> 
>> Come on IBM, reales a new fresh OS/2 Client based on Warp 4.5.
>> I guess it will be lots of companies who refuses to upgrade to Windows
2000.
>> 
>> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-114579.html?tag=st.cn.1fd2.
>> By Melanie Austria Farmer
>> 
>> Study: High cost for Windows 2000 transition
>> "The "migration" cost of a transition to the new operating system could be
>> steep--up to $3,100 per PC, according to a study prepared by the Gartner
>> Group consultancy. That will make it difficult for companies to achieve any
>> return on their investment for at least three years, the report says."
>> 
>> "Gartner compiled its estimates using a model based on a typical
2,500-user,
>> network-connected company. The model represents only desktop migration
costs,
>> not "back end" server or Active Directory implementation costs. Active
>> Directory is a new technology included in Windows 2000 to make management
of
>> networked users and resources easier.
>> Upgrade calculations include fixed costs, the cost of doing work, the cost
of
>> bringing hardware and software up to speed (such as additional memory
>> requirements), and the cost of testing and software acquisition.
>> The desktop migration cost for a company moving to Windows 2000 from
Windows
>> NT Workstation can cost up to $2,050 per PC, Gartner estimates. Migrating
>> from older versions of Windows, including Windows 95 and Windows 98, could
>> cost as much as $3,100 per PC."



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Telia Internet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@sea.monterey.edu                            10-Sep-99 15:45:11
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:25
Subj: Consumers interests

From: josco <josco@sea.monterey.edu>

FWIW  Gaming seems best when done on game consoles.

When Win95 shipped, the line at a nearby computer store was about 300
people.  1/5 of the interest in the SEGA DREAMCAST.  Also, those seeking
the superior game experience with the Dreamcast don't seem to consider the
Windows PC as an alternative.  IMHO Stick with OS/2 and get a console. 


http://www.sjmercury.com/svtech/news/breaking/ap/docs/834982l.htm
``I wanted to be the first one to get the system. It's the best,'' said
Ryan Ontiveros,
                     
15, who had pitched a tent outside Software Etc. in San Jose on Tuesday
night just to be sure he could get the game today. 

Store employee John Deegan said about 1,500 people were lined up early
today waiting to buy the console

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/DailyNews/sega990908.html
Midnight sales were
               held Wednesday night in Atlanta, San Jose
               and other cities, and long lines were
               reported outside toy and electronics stores
               carrying Dreamcast. First-day sales figures
               won't be available until Friday.

  Dreamcast is also the first console game
               in the United States to offer Internet
               connectivity, a feature that should boost
               sales in households that own game consoles
               but have yet to purchase a PC. 
                    What the Dreamcast represents is this
               new potential for a console-based Internet
               appliance, says Rob Enderle, a Silicon
               Valley-based analyst with the Giga
               Information Group. Its cheap, the graphics
               are great, and for a lot of people, that could
               be enough. 
-- joseph

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CSUnet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: irfon@wave.home.com                               10-Sep-99 22:35:11
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:25
Subj: Re: [MS-bashing] New collection of anti-Microsoft banners

From: irfon@wave.home.com (irfon)

On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 18:53:05 +0100, Peter Smith 
<polaris@ursaminr.demon.com.uk> wrote:

>I want to copy selected files piecemeal from window 1 to 2. I select the
>files in 1, drag them to 2. Window 2 then pops up in front, meaning I've got
>to do another action to get window 1 back in front.

See, I actually much prefer Be's way, which doesn't require me to have two 
windows at all.  I just select the files I want to copy, right-click, and
slide through the destination tree to the location I want.

As a fallback, I like the Windows method where I select a bunch of files that
I want to copy, select edit/copy, navigate to a destination, and choose 
paste.  

In the end, of course, this is all a matter of personal preference.  No matter
what method you choose, someone will prefer another method better, regardless
of how arcane the other method may seem to you.

>It suits the way I work better than the Windows way.

This is a very fair statement because you indicate that it suits the way you
work better.  Everyone works differently.  I think that not realizing this
is one reason why so many silly arguments about things which fall into the
realm of 'preference' start.  ;)

>Most of the time, you find that because of the way Risc OS handles the
>windows it isn't a problem, because instead of having a huge MDI window in
>the way (say in the case of a graphics package), you can have all of the tool
>windows jammed against one edge of the screen, the artwork at the other, and
>still be able to see the desktop.

Whether this happens or not in Windows is up to the designer, of course.  
While the scenario you describe above is more common and popular, I know of
several Windows programs which operate by opening bunches of totally 
independent windows.  

On the other hand, on Be (I keep mentioning Be only because this is still 
being crossposted to comp.sys.be.advocacy, among other groups), you can not
only have bunches of windows, but you can slide their tabs over to whatever
position you want on the top of the window so that you can make your windows
be like cardfiles, if you like to use multiple overlapping windows.  Also, 
the desbkar *and* the keyboard task switcher both work hierarchically, 
letting you choose the parent app first then drill down to a specific window,
whether it's shown or hidden at the time (and with highlighting identifying
which are currently shown and hidden).  Myself, I don't use either of these
features all that much because I much prefer to just sprawl myself in non-
overlapping arrangements across many desktops, and switch between them.  
This works similar to Linux, except that the number of desktops is selectable
by the user (is it in Linux?  I don't know.  I guess it would depend on your
WM.).

---
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
http://members.home.com/irfon/ahmadi/

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network Canada (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com                            10-Sep-99 18:50:09
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:25
Subj: Re: Who is writing about new software for OS/2?

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com (David H. McCoy)

In article 
<xvzjnvpfcnztbgbtneontrqrygnargpbz.fhuy730.pminews@news.deltanet.com>, 
kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com says...
> On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 14:31:46 -0700, Steven C. Den Beste wrote:
> 
> >Well, there's Esther's POSSI publication.
> >
> >But part of the reason that you can't find many reviews is that there
really
> >isn't much to review these days.
> 
> Boy, you HAD to stick your nose in places where it doesn't belong, don't
you?
> 
> 
> 

Boy, you HAD to attack since the truths hurts you so, don't you?

-- 
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com                            10-Sep-99 18:57:24
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:25
Subj: Re: Time for a Warp Client

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com (David H. McCoy)

In article <yraanegcytnfr.fhv9a00.pminews@news1.telia.com>, lennart-
remove-@plg.-remove-a.se says...
> Come on IBM, reales a new fresh OS/2 Client based on Warp 4.5.
> I guess it will be lots of companies who refuses to upgrade to Windows 2000.
> 
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-114579.html?tag=st.cn.1fd2.
> By Melanie Austria Farmer
> 
> Study: High cost for Windows 2000 transition
> "The "migration" cost of a transition to the new operating system could be
> steep--up to $3,100 per PC, according to a study prepared by the Gartner
> Group consultancy. That will make it difficult for companies to achieve any
> return on their investment for at least three years, the report says."
> 
> "Gartner compiled its estimates using a model based on a typical 2,500-user,
> network-connected company. The model represents only desktop migration
costs,
> not "back end" server or Active Directory implementation costs. Active
> Directory is a new technology included in Windows 2000 to make management of
> networked users and resources easier.
> Upgrade calculations include fixed costs, the cost of doing work, the cost
of
> bringing hardware and software up to speed (such as additional memory
> requirements), and the cost of testing and software acquisition.
> The desktop migration cost for a company moving to Windows 2000 from Windows
> NT Workstation can cost up to $2,050 per PC, Gartner estimates. Migrating
> from older versions of Windows, including Windows 95 and Windows 98, could
> cost as much as $3,100 per PC."
> 
> 
> 
> 

And I wonder how much it would be to upgrade to a new OS/2 client when 
it has the even more shortcomings, not to mention an almost total 
software replacement.

I'll bet your guess will be wrong.

-- 
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com               10-Sep-99 15:49:08
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:25
Subj: Re: Why NT is x86 only

From: "Kim Cheung" <kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com>

On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 15:23:01 -0700, Steven C. Den Beste wrote:

>>>The issue under discussion is whether the resulting code will be efficient
>>>on both platforms, within the range of what is generally considered
>>>"efficient" for each.
>>
>>And my take is: I don't think so.   
>>
>>
>
>Why not?


Asside from an obvious skill set issue (how many of M$ people are skilled in
dealing with 64 bit word length?), if you know you have a 64 bit word length,
you would have a very different mind set in your code generator and optimizer
in order to take advantage of things like multi-byte instructions and so
forth.   It simply takes a different mind set.

You can obviously design a piece of software that runs like a 32 bit program
with a 64 bit machine - we have all seen it before.




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com               10-Sep-99 15:50:00
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:25
Subj: Re: Who is writing about new software for OS/2?

From: "Kim Cheung" <kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com>

On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 18:10:03 -0400, Marty wrote:

>jasper wrote:
>> 
>> In the early days of OS/2 2x, we had many places where you could find
>> articles about new OS/2 software. Today it is very hard to find a place
>> where they write about new released software for OS/2.
>> 
>> Does anyone know of a magazine which still comes with reviews of OS/2
>> sofware?
>
>Walter Metcalf puts out a good web publication called "Focus on OS/2." 
>Visit http://os2.about.com.
>

Yes, he does.   Very good work.

>- Marty



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         10-Sep-99 22:42:24
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:25
Subj: Re: Why NT is x86 only

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Steven C. Den Beste writes:

> Things like the fact that the "C" register can do things that no other
> register can do, or that "A" is much more powerful than any of the other
> registers.

Inconsistent.  If the "C" register can do things that no other register
can do, then why do you call "A" much more powerful than any of the
other registers?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com               10-Sep-99 15:54:28
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:25
Subj: 4 channel partner programs to help with your bottom line

From: "Kim Cheung" <kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com>

Just to annoy Mr. Steven C. Den Beste and Mr. John Todd, I released 4 new
major programs to the channel - and yes, all OS/2 based.   You can see the
detail at the comp.os.os2.annouce newsgroup under the same subject title.

We will be showing them off at the WarpExpo West next week.

Incidentally, I am finishing up on setting up the Vendor 100 program.   One
click - builts 6 machines, install OS/2, and over 68 programs automatically
deployed.   All within minutes.

Beat that - WindowNuts.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: earl@nospam.malmrose.com                          10-Sep-99 15:47:19
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:26
Subj: Re: [MS-bashing] New collection of anti-Microsoft banners

From: "Earl Malmrose" <earl@nospam.malmrose.com>

irfon <irfon@wave.home.com> wrote in message
news:slrn7tj1q3.8g5.irfon@cr576996-b.ym1.on.wave.home.com...
> On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 18:53:05 +0100, Peter Smith
> <polaris@ursaminr.demon.com.uk> wrote:
>
> >I want to copy selected files piecemeal from window 1 to 2. I select the
> >files in 1, drag them to 2. Window 2 then pops up in front, meaning I've
got
> >to do another action to get window 1 back in front.
>
> See, I actually much prefer Be's way, which doesn't require me to have two
> windows at all.  I just select the files I want to copy, right-click, and
> slide through the destination tree to the location I want.
>
> As a fallback, I like the Windows method where I select a bunch of files
that
> I want to copy, select edit/copy, navigate to a destination, and choose
> paste.

I wrote a Tracker add-on for BeOS called XCV to do that in BeOS. It needs
some work, but it works pretty well. BeOS is so easy to program for.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: hobbyist@nospam.net                               10-Sep-99 18:23:11
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:26
Subj: Re: [MS-bashing] New collection of anti-Microsoft banners

From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hobbyist_=A9?= <hobbyist@nospam.net>

Peter Smith wrote +/- quoted :


> Running 95OSR2 with IE5, if I have the following showing.
> 
> ---------------
> |             |
> |             |----
> |      1      |   |
> |             |   |
> |             |   |
> ---------------   |
>        |     2    |
>        |          |
>        ------------
> 
> I want to copy selected files piecemeal from window 1 to 2. I select the
> files in 1, drag them to 2. Window 2 then pops up in front, meaning I've got
> to do another action to get window 1 back in front.

That doesn't happen on my WinNT4 SP5 system with IE5 installed.
:)
 

<snip>
> I've got 2 PCs and 1 RiscPC, and I find the Windows way of managing windows
> clunky compared to Risc OS

Clunky for you. OK. I see. :)
 
<snip> 
> Sure, Risc OS is not too hot under the bonnet, but ATM, the news/email
> software is IMO far better than anything I've seen on Windows. I've tried
> Turnpike, Eudora, Free Agent, Netscape Messenger and Outloook Express. If
> anyone has suggestions, as the Ferengi say, "I'm all ears!"

The Bat!? That's my e-mail client. It's way ahead of those that
you mentioned. :)
 

-- 
-=Ali=- 

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Dept. of Surgery, UHWI (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: hobbyist@nospam.net                               10-Sep-99 18:30:07
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:26
Subj: Re: [MS-bashing] New collection of anti-Microsoft banners

From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hobbyist_=A9?= <hobbyist@nospam.net>

Bob Hauck <b o b h @ w a s a t c h . c o m> wrote +/- quoted :

> > It works fine with SP5 and doesn't seem to have problems with the
> > other apps that I run. I don't use XFeel so I can't comment on
> > it. What's XFeel anyway? :)
> 
> It allows you to have the focus follow the mouse pointer rather than
> having to click-and-raise-to-focus.  Like in X.  The focus behavior of
> Windows really bugs me, and I guess it bugged some of MS's programmers
> too as they released a tool to fix it.

Actually Perfect Screens has a toggleable feature for this but I
have disabled it. I hate when my mouse accidentally brings a
window in focus. I've gotten used to the concept that the mouse
simply being in a particular location will not affect window
focusing. My usual habit when I open a program like Agent here is
to get the mouse pointer out of the way of the window since I
operate Agent solely with the keyboard. I also get the mouse
pointer out of the way of my editor window while typing. Suppose
the mouse pointer accidentally falls on one of the background
windows (this is very common for me because this doesn't normally
concern me since it doesn't affect anything by default) it pops
up uninvited.
Grrrr!

Anyway, different strokes.
 

-- 
-=Ali=- 

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Dept. of Surgery, UHWI (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               10-Sep-99 19:50:23
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:26
Subj: Re: Time for a Warp Client

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

"David H. McCoy" wrote:
> 
> In article <yraanegcytnfr.fhv9a00.pminews@news1.telia.com>, lennart-
> remove-@plg.-remove-a.se says...
> > Come on IBM, reales a new fresh OS/2 Client based on Warp 4.5.
> > I guess it will be lots of companies who refuses to upgrade to Windows
2000.
> >
> > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-114579.html?tag=st.cn.1fd2.
> > By Melanie Austria Farmer
> >
> > Study: High cost for Windows 2000 transition
> > "The "migration" cost of a transition to the new operating system could be
> > steep--up to $3,100 per PC, according to a study prepared by the Gartner
> > Group consultancy. That will make it difficult for companies to achieve
any
> > return on their investment for at least three years, the report says."
> >
> > "Gartner compiled its estimates using a model based on a typical
2,500-user,
> > network-connected company. The model represents only desktop migration
costs,
> > not "back end" server or Active Directory implementation costs. Active
> > Directory is a new technology included in Windows 2000 to make management
of
> > networked users and resources easier.
> > Upgrade calculations include fixed costs, the cost of doing work, the cost 
of
> > bringing hardware and software up to speed (such as additional memory
> > requirements), and the cost of testing and software acquisition.
> > The desktop migration cost for a company moving to Windows 2000 from
Windows
> > NT Workstation can cost up to $2,050 per PC, Gartner estimates. Migrating
> > from older versions of Windows, including Windows 95 and Windows 98, could
> > cost as much as $3,100 per PC."
> 
> And I wonder how much it would be to upgrade to a new OS/2 client when
> it has the even more shortcomings, not to mention an almost total
> software replacement.

How would an upgrade to a new OS/2 client require an "almost total software
replacement"?  WSeB is completely compatible with Warp 4 and I imagine a
client version would be as well.
 
- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: titanium@psn.net                                  10-Sep-99 20:29:17
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:26
Subj: Re: [MS-bashing] New collection of anti-Microsoft banners

From: titanium@psn.net (ZnU)

In article <fpPZN9iW5cTnaCo7l3uGLxIVHaF5@4ax.com>,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hobbyist_=A9?= <hobbyist@nospam.net> wrote:

> Bob Hauck <b o b h @ w a s a t c h . c o m> wrote +/- quoted :
> 
> > > It works fine with SP5 and doesn't seem to have problems with the
> > > other apps that I run. I don't use XFeel so I can't comment on
> > > it. What's XFeel anyway? :)
> > 
> > It allows you to have the focus follow the mouse pointer rather than
> > having to click-and-raise-to-focus.  Like in X.  The focus behavior of
> > Windows really bugs me, and I guess it bugged some of MS's programmers
> > too as they released a tool to fix it.
> 
> Actually Perfect Screens has a toggleable feature for this but I
> have disabled it. I hate when my mouse accidentally brings a
> window in focus. I've gotten used to the concept that the mouse
> simply being in a particular location will not affect window
> focusing. My usual habit when I open a program like Agent here is
> to get the mouse pointer out of the way of the window since I
> operate Agent solely with the keyboard. I also get the mouse
> pointer out of the way of my editor window while typing. Suppose
> the mouse pointer accidentally falls on one of the background
> windows (this is very common for me because this doesn't normally
> concern me since it doesn't affect anything by default) it pops
> up uninvited.
> Grrrr!
> 
> Anyway, different strokes.

Of course the cursor would hide itself as soon as you started typing in a
well designed interface. Mac OS does it. I'm sure some other OSes do as
well.

MS always misses the little touches when stealing ideas from people :-P

-- 
This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a
means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.
        - Western Union internal memo, 1876. 

ZnU <titanium@psn.net>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: . (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: hunters@thunder.indstate.edu                      11-Sep-99 00:36:01
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:26
Subj: Re: Consumers interests

From: hunters@thunder.indstate.edu

In article <Pine.SGI.3.93.990910153823.15182A-100000@sea.monterey.edu>,
  josco <josco@sea.monterey.edu> wrote:

> FWIW  Gaming seems best when done on game consoles.

I disagree. Most PC games are vastly superior to console games. I mean
take the controllers. The PSX (PlayStation) has 8 buttons, 1-"D"pad,
and a start/pause button, and thier memory card has like 512k.
My system has a 104-key keyboard, a 3 button mouse and a 4-button
joystick w/4-way hat. I also have 64MB of ram and 6GB hard-drive space.

All this may change now with Dreamcast and the upcoming PSX2, but I'll
have to see it to beleive it. I guess that if Rainbow Six for dreamcast
is as good as the PC version that would convince me they were about
equal, but not better.

Of course I can pop in a faster CPU, double the RAM, drop in another
VooDoo2, add a DVD drive and an A3D soundcard if I wanted. Console
people are stuck with what they start with. (Yes I do realize there is
a large price difference.)

Just my $.0275

--
-Steven Hunter               *OS/2 Warp 4 * |Warpstock '99 | Oct 16-17|
hunters@thunder.indstate.edu *AMD K6-2 400* |       Atlanta GA        |


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you do
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mohd.k.yusof@bohm.anu.edu.au                      11-Sep-99 11:06:27
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:26
Subj: Re: Time for a Warp Client

From: mohd.k.yusof@bohm.anu.edu.au (Khairil Yusof)

On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 22:30:54, "Lennart Gahm"
<lennart-remove-@plg.-remove-a.se> 
wrote:

> What i would like to see is a year2000 secure client without having to
> add different kind of fixpacks,like one for the base OS, one for MPTS and so
> on.

That's true, but I like the modularity of OS/2 and the fact that you only need 

to apply fixpacks to specific components. Ever tried to install SP4 or SP5 on 
WinNT?

With OS/2, if it ain't broke, you don't need to upgrade it. One big fixpack
for 
everything would be rather scary. Cause although it might
fix that little glitch with the display of folder windows, the fix to MPTS for 
a
bug with 2019 clients might break your perfectly stable system.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Australian National University (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com                               10-Sep-99 18:40:09
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:26
Subj: Re: Why NT is x86 only

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com (Steven C. Den Beste)

On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 15:24:10 -0700, josco recycled some holes into the
following pattern:

>On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Steven C. Den Beste wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 07:10:13 -0400, Joseph recycled some holes into the
>> following pattern:
>> 
>> >> each written uniquely and separately.
>> >
>> >That might be true and it might not be true --- MS doesn't use one
codebase so
>> >with NT and W2K so the point is moot.Sun does not use one JVM codebase.
>> 
>> What's this got to do with NT4? I'm not talking about that. I'm *only*
>> talking about Win2K (alias NT5).
>
>Are you psyco?

I may be stupid, but I'm not crazy. Try to get your insults straight,
please.

>1) You justifed your single codebase theory with references to JIT and
>JAVA. 
>
>2) I reminded you that MS uses multiple code bases for NT.
>
>3) You respond that I'm off topic for using NT as an example.
>
>If you want to justify your theory wuth examples start with NT.  Explain
>why MS hasn't used one codebase for NT rather than jumping off into JAVA
>and pulling examples with portable Java applications.  Yes NT isn't W2K
>but it is far closer to W2K than any embedded code/JAVAexmaple you have
>offered. 
>
>Here is what you wrote yesterday, Sept 9th.  
>
>
>Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 17:48:02 -0700
>From: "Steven C. Den Beste" <sdenbes1@san.rr.com>
>Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
>Subject: Re: Why NT is x86 only
>
>On 09 Sep 1999 15:21:36 PDT, Kim Cheung recycled some holes into the
>following pattern:
>
>>On Thu, 09 Sep 1999 08:20:45 -0700, Steven C. Den Beste wrote:
>>
>>>There's no particular reason that the same source code couldn't generate
>>>efficient binary for both IA32 and IA64.
>>
>>That's not true!!!
>>
>
>In that case, Java JIT's shouldn't be able to do it either. But it seems
>to
>be the consensus in this group that there's no barrier to having a JIT
>generate efficient code on all platforms starting from the same portable
>byte-code.
>
>Why, then, can't C compilers working directly from source which was
>deliberately written to be portable also generate efficient code on just
>two
>different platforms?
>
>My direct professional experience is that they can. This is something I
>know
>a great deal about, since I've been programming primarily in C, for
>embedded
>microprocessors, for most of the last 24 years.
>
>If you think my contention is not true, how about giving a reason why
>rather
>than just "automatically gainsaying what the other person says".
>

Some parts of the code between the Win2K version for IA32 and the Win2K
version for IA64 have to be rewritten because they are talking to devices
which are fundamentally incompatible. For instance, I would expect the
entire memory management code to be rewritten because I would expect that
the IA64 MMU to have entirely different capabilities than the MMU for IA32.
It would make just as much sense to use the same code for both as it would
to use the same driver for two incompatible display cards.

Equally, I would expect that they have different interrupt handling
structures. I would expect that their bus controllers were different. There
are a number of things at the kernel level having to do with the hardware
where the two platforms have little or nothing to do with each other. It
makes no sense to try to develop a single code-base for those parts of the
system.

On the other hand, once a certain degree of abstraction is in place due to
this kind of specific implementation, there are large parts of the code
which *will* be the same.

For instance, there's no reason why the GUI would have to be rewritten. A
single source base for the GUI, suitably recompiled, should serve both
equally. While the low level drivers for the HDs will be unique, and while I
would expect there to be target-specific optimization in the file systems, I
would expect the high level GUI-level program the user uses to manipulate
the disk (i.e. "explorer") to be the same at the source level.

When discussing the multiple versions of NT4, that being x86, PPC, Alpha and
MIPS, it is neither accurate to say that they have 100% source in common,
nor is it accurate to say they have 0% code in common. In fact, some of the
code is the same and some is different. When NT4 was implemented for each of
these platforms, it was not *completely* *reimplemented* *from* *scratch*
for each. Rather, some parts were completely unique for each, some parts
probably had minor optimizations added for each target (through the use of
conditional compiles) and some of the code probably was completely identical
(at the source level, though certainly not in binary) between them. Of
course, once you compile and link, the resulting binaries for each platform
would bear no resemblance whatsoever to each other. But that has nothing to
do with the source, which is what I'm talking about.

I expect exactly the same thing for the versions of Win2K for IA32 and for
IA64, and what I have read confirms this. Large parts of the code will be
identical at the source level, some parts are completely unique for each,
and some parts will be mostly the same but with conditional compiles built
in to handle specific optimizations for each platform.

--------
Steven C. Den Beste    sdenbes1@san.rr.com
Home page: http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste

"We're just ordinary earthlings, not weirdos from another planet!"
              -- Calvin

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com                               10-Sep-99 18:40:26
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:26
Subj: Re: Consumers interests

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com (Steven C. Den Beste)

On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 15:45:22 -0700, josco recycled some holes into the
following pattern:

>FWIW  Gaming seems best when done on game consoles.

FWIW this has nothing whatever to do with OS/2.

--------
Steven C. Den Beste    sdenbes1@san.rr.com
Home page: http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste

"We're just ordinary earthlings, not weirdos from another planet!"
              -- Calvin

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: rhevron@ibm.net                                   10-Sep-99 19:05:28
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:26
Subj: Re: Time for a Warp Client

From: "Richard Hevron" <rhevron@ibm.net>

Lennart Gahm <lennart-remove-@plg.-remove-a.se> wrote in message > I think
that it is the best time within a year to provide an alternative
> to Windows. More and more people and companies are fedup with Microsoft.
> If the pricetag for Windows2000 is as Gartner Group predict it can be the
> thing that makes companies to drop Microsoft.

Could this be part of IBM's understanding of the situation and a function of
its grand strategy against Microsoft?

As in the "Art of War" don't let your enemy know your plans or strengths!





--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com                            10-Sep-99 22:39:13
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:26
Subj: Re: Time for a Warp Client

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com (David H. McCoy)

In article <37D99957.F4CAA71E@stny.rr.com>, mamodeo@stny.rr.com says...
> "David H. McCoy" wrote:
> > 
> > In article <yraanegcytnfr.fhv9a00.pminews@news1.telia.com>, lennart-
> > remove-@plg.-remove-a.se says...
> > > Come on IBM, reales a new fresh OS/2 Client based on Warp 4.5.
> > > I guess it will be lots of companies who refuses to upgrade to Windows
2000.
> > >
> > > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-114579.html?tag=st.cn.1fd2.
> > > By Melanie Austria Farmer
> > >
> > > Study: High cost for Windows 2000 transition
> > > "The "migration" cost of a transition to the new operating system could
be
> > > steep--up to $3,100 per PC, according to a study prepared by the Gartner
> > > Group consultancy. That will make it difficult for companies to achieve
any
> > > return on their investment for at least three years, the report says."
> > >
> > > "Gartner compiled its estimates using a model based on a typical
2,500-user,
> > > network-connected company. The model represents only desktop migration
costs,
> > > not "back end" server or Active Directory implementation costs. Active
> > > Directory is a new technology included in Windows 2000 to make
management of
> > > networked users and resources easier.
> > > Upgrade calculations include fixed costs, the cost of doing work, the
cost of
> > > bringing hardware and software up to speed (such as additional memory
> > > requirements), and the cost of testing and software acquisition.
> > > The desktop migration cost for a company moving to Windows 2000 from
Windows
> > > NT Workstation can cost up to $2,050 per PC, Gartner estimates.
Migrating
> > > from older versions of Windows, including Windows 95 and Windows 98,
could
> > > cost as much as $3,100 per PC."
> > 
> > And I wonder how much it would be to upgrade to a new OS/2 client when
> > it has the even more shortcomings, not to mention an almost total
> > software replacement.
> 
> How would an upgrade to a new OS/2 client require an "almost total software
> replacement"?  WSeB is completely compatible with Warp 4 and I imagine a
> client version would be as well.
>  
> - Marty
> 

Since this individual is using a Win2k upgrade as context, clearly we 
are talking about upgrading Win32 OSses. Since OS/2 cannot run most 
Win32, we would be discussing a pretty much total software replacement.

-- 
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: hobbyist@nospam.net                               10-Sep-99 22:12:29
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:26
Subj: Re: [MS-bashing] New collection of anti-Microsoft banners

From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hobbyist_=A9?= <hobbyist@nospam.net>

ZnU wrote +/- quoted :

> > Actually Perfect Screens has a toggleable feature for this but I
> > have disabled it. I hate when my mouse accidentally brings a
> > window in focus. I've gotten used to the concept that the mouse
> > simply being in a particular location will not affect window
> > focusing. My usual habit when I open a program like Agent here is
> > to get the mouse pointer out of the way of the window since I
> > operate Agent solely with the keyboard. I also get the mouse
> > pointer out of the way of my editor window while typing. Suppose
> > the mouse pointer accidentally falls on one of the background
> > windows (this is very common for me because this doesn't normally
> > concern me since it doesn't affect anything by default) it pops
> > up uninvited.
> > Grrrr!
> > 
> > Anyway, different strokes.
> 
> Of course the cursor would hide itself as soon as you started typing in a
> well designed interface. Mac OS does it. I'm sure some other OSes do as
> well.

Actually my system is able to do this. Ever heard of M$
Intellipoint software???
 
> MS always misses the little touches when stealing ideas from people :-P

Tsk. Know thy enemy. The feature is already there in M$
Intellipoint.

-- 
-=Ali=- 

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Dept. of Surgery, UHWI (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com                               10-Sep-99 21:29:13
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:26
Subj: Re: Time for a Warp Client

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com (Steven C. Den Beste)

On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 19:05:56 -0700, Richard Hevron recycled some holes into
the following pattern:

>Lennart Gahm <lennart-remove-@plg.-remove-a.se> wrote in message > I think
>that it is the best time within a year to provide an alternative
>> to Windows. More and more people and companies are fedup with Microsoft.
>> If the pricetag for Windows2000 is as Gartner Group predict it can be the
>> thing that makes companies to drop Microsoft.
>
>Could this be part of IBM's understanding of the situation and a function of
>its grand strategy against Microsoft?
>
>As in the "Art of War" don't let your enemy know your plans or strengths!

Or maybe it's a case of making a virtue of necessity? Like "whatever happens
to OS/2 must be for the best"?

--------
Steven C. Den Beste    sdenbes1@san.rr.com
Home page: http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste

"We're just ordinary earthlings, not weirdos from another planet!"
              -- Calvin

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com                               10-Sep-99 21:30:29
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:26
Subj: Re: Time for a Warp Client

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com (Steven C. Den Beste)

On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 19:50:47 -0400, Marty recycled some holes into the
following pattern:

>"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>> 
>> And I wonder how much it would be to upgrade to a new OS/2 client when
>> it has the even more shortcomings, not to mention an almost total
>> software replacement.
>
>How would an upgrade to a new OS/2 client require an "almost total software
>replacement"?  WSeB is completely compatible with Warp 4 and I imagine a
>client version would be as well.
> 
>- Marty

If the software you were using on NT4 was all WIN32 software, how could you
continue using it if you suddenly switched to OS/2?

The point was that if an upgrade from NT4 to Win2K is going to be expensive,
a change from NT4 to OS/2 must be even more expensive. Therefore the
original comment that the change to Win2K is a big hurdle doesn't appear to
be an opportunity on which OS/2 can capitalize.

--------
Steven C. Den Beste    sdenbes1@san.rr.com
Home page: http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste

"We're just ordinary earthlings, not weirdos from another planet!"
              -- Calvin

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: dpeterso@halcyon.com                              10-Sep-99 21:46:25
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:26
Subj: Lotus News

From: Dennis Peterson <dpeterso@halcyon.com>

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-114652.html?tag=st.ne.1002.thed.1003-200-1
14652

The first victim of the Sun StarOffice strategy?

dp

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: I'm not organized at all (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: madings@baladi.nmrfam.wisc.edu                    11-Sep-99 05:32:07
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:26
Subj: Re: [MS-bashing] New collection of anti-Microsoft banners

From: Steve Mading <madings@baladi.nmrfam.wisc.edu>

In comp.os.linux.advocacy Hobbyist <hobbyist@nospam.net> wrote:
: In response to Tim Fountain's post :


:> The main difference is that it is /far/ easier to manage window
:> positions on your desktop.  For one thing windows don't automatically
:> come to the front when you click on them, so you can be typing
:> something into one window, whilst monitoring what's going on in
:> another.

: Finally I hear something advantageous. :) How often does someone
: wish to type something and they can't see what they're doing. It
: sounds more geeky than anything else.

I'll type slowly so you can understand:
You ... don't ... need ... to ... see ... the ... whole ... window
... to ... type ... into ... the ... part ... of ... it ... that
... is ... exposed.

(Unless you are using the broken GUI that comes with Windows.)

The most common situation where I find this useful is when I want to
be able to type into the bottom of a shell window without having the
entire shell window on top - I only need to see the bottom few lines
of it.  Meanwhile, on top there is perhaps a calculator or calender
or other such tool that I am reading something from, and I don't want
to to get hidden.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: University of Wisconsin, Madison (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: malstrom@lessing.oit.umass.edu                    11-Sep-99 01:39:27
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:26
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: Jason <malstrom@lessing.oit.umass.edu>

Tim Martin <OS2Guy@WarpCity.com> wrote:
: Stardock and author Kris Kwilas have flipped off the OS/2
: community with their latest release of Window Blinds v.099.
: The hype is claiming 'millions of downloads in just a few
: months for the most desired software in the world'.

: The OS/2 user is to be thunked for funding Stardock's  latest
: software product which only runs on a Microsoft operating system.

Actually if a new client is brought forth by stardock it will probably 
include a 16bit version of windowblinds for windows 3.1 which in turn 
runs on OS/2.

-Jason

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: morelli@math.utah.edu                             11-Sep-99 00:24:06
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:27
Subj: Re: Sun to proliferate Star Office... (Open source perspective)

From: Robert Morelli <morelli@math.utah.edu>

Steven C. Den Beste wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 08 Sep 1999 14:10:56 -0600, Robert Morelli recycled some holes into
> the following pattern:
> 
> >One last point about file formats:  Sun announced that they will be
transitioning
> >to an XML based file structure for SO.  An XML file structure announces its 
syntax
> >and meaning in its headers,  is platform independent,  and it can be parsed 
and
> >manipulated easily by generic programming tools,  without any loss of
flexibility.
> >This will be a big advantage to users,  especially corporate users.  It's
also a
> >tough choice for a traditional software vendor like MS because it
commodotizes
> >their formats.  In time,  MS will need to *explain* why they aren't using
XML.
> >If they are playing versioning games to boot,  I think it could alienate
their
> >customers.
> 
> You presume too much. MS is not going to have to explain anything.
> 
> http://www.builder.com/Authoring/Xml20/ss10.html
> "CEO Bill Gates has stated publicly that future versions of Microsoft Office
> will support XML, and the company also plans to support the standard in
> email packages and XML-authoring tools."
> 
> Microsoft actually announced that about a year ago. Since that time,
> Office2000 has been released. It supports XML, read AND write.
> 
> So what's to explain?

You seem to be confused about what the issue is.  If you don't know what
XML is,  clipping seemingly (but not genuinely) relevant news stories won't 
get you anywhere.  It will be about as successful as a non-Russian speaker 
trying to translate Russian poetry by transliterating with a Russian-English 
dictionary.  

Here's a rough description to get you started.  First,  HTML is the
programming 
language that Web browsers read when they display a web page.  HTML is
based on SGML which is a very powerful language for describing documents 
developed by IBM starting in the late 1960's.  HTML implements only a small 
fraction of SGML,  too small by most accounts.  XML is an emerging standard,  
that encompasses more of SGML's power.  It is widely expected to be the
successor 
to HTML.  XML code can be displayed in a browser just like HTML.  It can also
do
a lot more than that,  but I don't want to get into the details here.  In any
case,
it is flexible enough to be a used as a file format for many types of
documents.
I don't think it will ever be used for everything,  not even in Star Office, 
but it is
a very flexible and appealing standard.  For instance,  Java's Swing
components 
are implementing a system whereby they transform themselving into XML
documents 
which can be transmitted over networks or saved to hard disk.  They can then
be 
recreated in a remote location or at a later time.  It's a little like a Star
Trek transporter 
beam for software components.  If it works performance-wise,  its much better
to use
XML for this than serialized objects.  According to Sun,  XML works well.

The point about Internet explorer supporting XML means simply that Internet
Explorer 
is supporting XML,  the successor to HTML.  This is no big surprise.  Probably 
every 
browser that is still being developed is already or will soon support XML. 
There are 
already numerous implementations of XML for various systems.  For instance, 
I've had 
an XML parser in my Java environment for a while.  Supporting XML early is one 
of the 
few intelligent things MS has done recently,  though it's probably only by
accident.  
You get so used to thinking of MS as constitutionally inept,  that you might 
expect that they'd be doing some kooky thing like ActiveXML,  or VBGML,  or
whatnot.  They've
given us so much to laugh at these days,  the trial testimony,  the doctored
video,  the email 
fiasco with AOL,  ... it goes on and on.  Perhaps someone in the internet
group got tired of being
a laughing stock.  Somehow though,  down deep,  I'm still expecting ActiveXML.

The bit about Office supporting XML is more of the same.  This is about
authoring tools.  It means 
that you can edit XML documents in Word,  etc.  It doesn't mean that future
native Word formats will be
XML dialects.  In your quote,  Gates says that XML will eventually be wherever 
HTML is now.
First,  he says `eventually.'  Second,  where is HTML in Office now?  It sure
isn't the standard
file format,  nor can you use it for arbitrary kinds of files.

Now,  perhaps I'm wrong and Office will switch to XML file formats.  I'm not
sure why you would
expect me to be disappointed about that.  It would mean that my predictions
are being realized
faster than I expected,  and it would mean that MS is being forced,  one way
or another,  into 
abandoning the sort of business stunts that they've used for so long to hold
back progress in 
the computer industry.

This whole thing reminds me of how I first heard the term `Java.'  It was in
this newsgroup,  in fact.
Some ecstatic MS advocate announced that Windows was getting a very cool
technology called Java,
while OS/2 would go deprived.  I then watched with glee as MS licensed Java
from Sun and helped
propel its success.  MS did that because they thought they needed to support
Java to compete with
Netscape.  They made all kinds of ass backward decisions like that for a
simple reason:  they just
don't know which end is up regarding all these new technologies.  They know
something dangerous
is happening.  They become enraged.  They take a swing at the air.  They lower 
their head and charge 
against a bush.  They'd like to fight someone or something,  but they can't
figure out what.  That's why
they support Java and XML big time,  spend half a billion dollars to acquire a 
garage operation like 
WebTV,  and base their operating system strategy on squashing a browser
company,  while Linux 
is growing at 300 - 400 % per year in many parts of the world,  and Java is
becoming a way of life
for hundreds of thousands of programmers.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: drsmithy@usa.net                                  11-Sep-99 11:30:12
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:27
Subj: Re: [MS-bashing] New collection of anti-Microsoft banners

From: "Christopher Smith" <drsmithy@usa.net>

ZnU <titanium@psn.net> wrote in message
news:titanium-1009992029350001@cust-106-184.as02.nycm.eli.net...
> In article <fpPZN9iW5cTnaCo7l3uGLxIVHaF5@4ax.com>,
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hobbyist_=A9?= <hobbyist@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > Actually Perfect Screens has a toggleable feature for this but I
> > have disabled it. I hate when my mouse accidentally brings a
> > window in focus. I've gotten used to the concept that the mouse
> > simply being in a particular location will not affect window
> > focusing. My usual habit when I open a program like Agent here is
> > to get the mouse pointer out of the way of the window since I
> > operate Agent solely with the keyboard. I also get the mouse
> > pointer out of the way of my editor window while typing. Suppose
> > the mouse pointer accidentally falls on one of the background
> > windows (this is very common for me because this doesn't normally
> > concern me since it doesn't affect anything by default) it pops
> > up uninvited.
> > Grrrr!
> >
> > Anyway, different strokes.
>
> Of course the cursor would hide itself as soon as you started typing in a
> well designed interface. Mac OS does it. I'm sure some other OSes do as
> well.

And Windows does too....

>
> MS always misses the little touches when stealing ideas from people :-P

No, they provide the ability, like Apple.  If developers choose not to use
it, well....


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: University of Queensland (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cmkrnl@cix.compulink.co.uk                        11-Sep-99 07:49:28
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 04:50:27
Subj: Re: [MS-bashing] New collection of anti-Microsoft banners

From: Greg Hennessy <cmkrnl@cix.compulink.co.uk>

On 10 Sep 1999 22:43:19 GMT, darren.winsper@easynet.co.uk (Darren
Winsper) wrote:

>"Usable" is such a vague term.  I take it you mean "it's crap, but
>it's all the poor Linux users have" ;)

I was trying roll out 4.0x tweaked with mission control & it gave me
nothing but grief. Netscapes product support also left a lot to be
desired. 

greg


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: (Posted via) Netcom Internet Ltd. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: OS2Guy@WarpCity.com                               11-Sep-99 00:15:23
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 10:18:22
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: Tim Martin <OS2Guy@WarpCity.com>

Jason wrote:

> Tim Martin <OS2Guy@WarpCity.com> wrote:
> : Stardock and author Kris Kwilas have flipped off the OS/2
> : community with their latest release of Window Blinds v.099.
> : The hype is claiming 'millions of downloads in just a few
> : months for the most desired software in the world'.
>
> : The OS/2 user is to be thunked for funding Stardock's  latest
> : software product which only runs on a Microsoft operating system.
>
> Actually if a new client is brought forth by stardock it will probably
> include a 16bit version of windowblinds for windows 3.1 which in turn
> runs on OS/2.
>
> -Jason

Actually there will be no new Stardock Warp 5 client
despite the ten months of Stardock hype.  Stardock
has failed to meet IBM's financial package requirement.

Tim Martin
The OS/2 Guy
Warp City
http://warpcity.com
"E-ride the wild surf to Warp City!"


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Warp City (http://warpcity.com) (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: morelli@math.utah.edu                             11-Sep-99 01:34:10
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 10:18:22
Subj: Re: Sun to proliferate Star Office... (Open source perspective)

From: Robert Morelli <morelli@math.utah.edu>

Joseph wrote:
> 
> Robert Morelli wrote:
> 
> > Dennis Peterson wrote:
> > > > The real reason why Star Office still has no chance against Office, is
> > > > because coporations have standardized on Office.  They are more then
> > > > willing to buy their MS Office volume discount to get their standards.
> > >
> > > And those standards reduce simply to file format and the user interface.
> > > If staroffice properly and adequately clones those two features, MS
> > > office is just an expensive white elephant. So far, that is true.
> >
> > In my opinion,  what is crucial is whether Sun is really serious about
> > making Star Office open source and whether the open source community
really
> > gets involved.  If Star Office develops on the Linux open source model,
> > it will rather quickly overtake MS Office on features and it will be more
> > reliable.  G
> 
> I think ONLY reliability needs improvment (although it is very relaible
now).
> Features already in SO are overkill and in MS Word  they went insane after
v6.0.  I
> found out WORD has a built in org chart application..  With SO, maybe add
some
> usability fixes or improvements to the icons and "tooltips" text. Minor.
> 


I actually must differ with you on this point.  My guess is that most users
would judge
Office a better product than Star Office (assuming of course they can get by
without
Linux and OS/2).  Office is indeed bloated,  but so is Star Office,  which
takes 125 MB
for a standard install.  Also,  Office apps generally load very quickly on a
fast pentium 
machine,  within a second or so.  I have a PII 333 on which Star Office takes
50 seconds 
to load.  I think 50 seconds is unacceptable on a PII machine.  It's ironic
that I sometimes
chide people for complaining about Java performance,  but compared to SO Java
is pretty
snappy.  Most Java programs run with very close to native responsiveness on
this machine.  
Even the slowest,   most inefficient Java program I have (the Swingset demo)
loads in under 
20 seconds.  

I think SO also needs more extensive online help.  Since the introduction of
Win95,  MS has 
actually been dumbing down its help system,  so Office is no champ in this
arena.  But,  SO help 
is more like an overview than a real help system.

SO could fill in some functionality here and there.  On the whole though, 
it's an excellent 
product.  Office is well within its sights and like I said,  if it went the
open source way,  it could 
overtake Office quite quickly.

By the way,  when I say this,  I am putting myself in other people's shoes.  I 
have access to
Office apps (no,  I haven't handed MS a dime in well over 5 years)  as well as 
Corel apps,  etc.  
I like to study them sometimes to make sure I know how they work,  what sort
of look and feel 
decisions they make,  etc. so I can take advantage of this knowlege in my own
programming.  In 
truth though,  I don't actually use them for anything.  I personally have
essentially no use for the 
applications in office suites,  basically don't like their concepts,  and I'm
unimpressed
with how they've developed.  For instance,  I do all my writing in text
editors (under OS/2 I use 
EPM configured to emulate emacs,  under Unix I use emacs) for the TeX system.  
Emacs +
TeX is not a polished commercial system like Office,  but its capabilities are 
quite different and in
many ways very superior to Word.  For this reason,  virtually all professional 
mathematicians use
TeX rather than Word or WordPerfect or any other commercial system.  

What I would find most exciting is not for SO to simply chase and copy Office
as it continues its 
aimless meanderings,  but for the open source community to bring a long
overdue infusion of 
imagination and power into the office suite paradigm.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bowenjm@rintintin.colorado.edu                    11-Sep-99 07:35:18
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 10:18:22
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: bowenjm@rintintin.colorado.edu (Jason Bowen)

In article <37DA01A3.B3823A3B@WarpCity.com>,
Tim Martin  <OS2Guy@WarpCity.com> wrote:
>Jason wrote:
>
>> Tim Martin <OS2Guy@WarpCity.com> wrote:
>> : Stardock and author Kris Kwilas have flipped off the OS/2
>> : community with their latest release of Window Blinds v.099.
>> : The hype is claiming 'millions of downloads in just a few
>> : months for the most desired software in the world'.
>>
>> : The OS/2 user is to be thunked for funding Stardock's  latest
>> : software product which only runs on a Microsoft operating system.
>>
>> Actually if a new client is brought forth by stardock it will probably
>> include a 16bit version of windowblinds for windows 3.1 which in turn
>> runs on OS/2.
>>
>> -Jason
>
>Actually there will be no new Stardock Warp 5 client
>despite the ten months of Stardock hype.  Stardock
>has failed to meet IBM's financial package requirement.

Stardock didn't hype anything, tired of lying yet?  It must suck to
you that IBM won't release a Warp 5 client.  Maybe the Chauvets can fund
it?  Unfourtunately somebody stupid enough to hire you probably couldn't
put together a business plan that would be acceptable either so OS/2 users
go without a Warp 5 client.

You know Tim, I do enjoy the fact that you have pissed everyone off so
that you get attacked from all angles.  It is nice that we hardly see you
anymore from the obvious shell shock.  It is nice to watch you duck and
cover like this rather than dealing with your manic periods.

I'm still waiting to hear from the FBI and the Attorney General.  I am
feeling no effects from my short leash either. 8-)

>
>Tim Martin
>The OS/2 Guy
>Warp City
>http://warpcity.com
>"E-ride the wild surf to Warp City!"
>
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: University of Colorado, Boulder (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: polaris@ursaminr.demon.com.uk                     11-Sep-99 10:10:25
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 10:18:23
Subj: Re: [MS-bashing] New collection of anti-Microsoft banners

From: Peter Smith <polaris@ursaminr.demon.com.uk>

In message <iJHZN+B02+4o24yPJ2qezZ4QKr9J@4ax.com>
          Hobbyist  <hobbyist@nospam.net> wrote:

> Peter Smith wrote +/- quoted :
> 
> 
> > Running 95OSR2 with IE5, if I have the following showing.
> > 
> > I want to copy selected files piecemeal from window 1 to 2. I select the
> > files in 1, drag them to 2. Window 2 then pops up in front, meaning I've
> > got to do another action to get window 1 back in front.
> 
> That doesn't happen on my WinNT4 SP5 system with IE5 installed.
> :)
> 

Aha! Does that mean the Windows UI is inconsistent across different versions 

> -)
 
> 
> <snip>
> > I've got 2 PCs and 1 RiscPC, and I find the Windows way of managing
> > windows clunky compared to Risc OS
> 
> Clunky for you. OK. I see. :)
>   <snip> 
> > Sure, Risc OS is not too hot under the bonnet, but ATM, the news/email
> > software is IMO far better than anything I've seen on Windows. I've tried
> > Turnpike, Eudora, Free Agent, Netscape Messenger and Outloook Express. If
> > anyone has suggestions, as the Ferengi say, "I'm all ears!"
> 
> The Bat!? That's my e-mail client. It's way ahead of those that
> you mentioned. :)

Thanks, I'll give that a look.

Peter

-- 
To reply by mail, remove the last "m" in my email address
51 things to do in a lift...
 48. Wear "X-Ray Specs" and leer suggestively at other passengers.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: None! (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: hobbyist@nospam.net                               11-Sep-99 06:24:12
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 20:32:13
Subj: Re: [MS-bashing] New collection of anti-Microsoft banners

From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hobbyist_=A9?= <hobbyist@nospam.net>

Peter Smith wrote +/- quoted :

> > That doesn't happen on my WinNT4 SP5 system with IE5 installed.
> > :)
> > 
> 
> Aha! Does that mean the Windows UI is inconsistent across different versions 

> 
> > -)

I can't be sure of that yet. Do you have tweakUI installed, or is
some other utility on your system giving the mouse the ability to
change window focus by simply passing over the window.
  
> > > Sure, Risc OS is not too hot under the bonnet, but ATM, the news/email
> > > software is IMO far better than anything I've seen on Windows. I've
tried
> > > Turnpike, Eudora, Free Agent, Netscape Messenger and Outloook Express.
If
> > > anyone has suggestions, as the Ferengi say, "I'm all ears!"
> > 
> > The Bat!? That's my e-mail client. It's way ahead of those that
> > you mentioned. :)
> 
> Thanks, I'll give that a look.

I still use Forte' Agent for news. My main problem with Forte'
Agent is the user interface where I am unable to use multiple
separate windows. It makes things awkward. The cascading and
tiling options aren't useful unless you have a 21" screen. 

-- 
-=Ali=- 

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Dept. of Surgery, UHWI (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: hobbyist@nospam.net                               11-Sep-99 06:46:14
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 20:32:13
Subj: Re: [MS-bashing] New collection of anti-Microsoft banners

From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hobbyist_=A9?= <hobbyist@nospam.net>

Steve Mading wrote +/- quoted :

> I'll type slowly so you can understand:
> You ... don't ... need ... to ... see ... the ... whole ... window
> ... to ... type ... into ... the ... part ... of ... it ... that
> ... is ... exposed.

I understand. Is it that I have to agree with you before you feel
that I understand? But the fact that when I type, the window in
which I'm typing has to be in focus is no big deal for most
INCLUDING  myself. In fact some may prefer if the window is at
the front. Far more often than not, I desire to see the entire
window that I'm typing in, so yes, I may have use for your
feature in a few situations. Am I an unadvanced user for feeling
this way? 
 
> (Unless you are using the broken GUI that comes with Windows.)

It's not a broken GUI. It simply does things differently from
your Risc OS GUI. Stay over your corner. I do not wish to get
into any 'big dick' arguments over who's GUI is broken from who's
isn't. 

If you wish to discuss how the GUI's differ and therefore how the
Risc OS GUI may benefit some with special needs and tastes and
therefore *arguably* benefit and please a wider audience then
let's do it.
 
> The most common situation where I find this useful is when I want to
> be able to type into the bottom of a shell window without having the
> entire shell window on top - I only need to see the bottom few lines
> of it.  Meanwhile, on top there is perhaps a calculator or calender
> or other such tool that I am reading something from, and I don't want
> to to get hidden.

I hear you. I wouldn't want the window coming to the top in that
situation either.

-- 
-=Ali=- 

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Dept. of Surgery, UHWI (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               11-Sep-99 13:41:04
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 20:32:14
Subj: Re: OS/2 is still very much alive!!!

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 01:24:42, jasper <jasper.dekeijzer@worldonline.nl>
wrote:

| Thanks for writing the article. This is what the OS/2 community needs!

Thank you. <warm smile>

--Esther 


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               11-Sep-99 13:56:12
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 20:32:14
Subj: Re: Who is writing about new software for OS/2?

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 21:31:46, sdenbes1@san.rr.com (Steven C. Den 
Beste) wrote:

| Well, there's Esther's POSSI publication.

Thanks for the plug for _extended attributes_, Steven. It's very kind 
of you to mention it.

But it's not "Esther's" in any sense of the word. I'm assistant 
editor, but the editor in chief is Bill Schindler... and he's the one 
who deserves the credit for the magazine's success. Under Bill's able 
leadership, _extended attributes_ has won three awards... and is 
mailed to 16 countries and 48 U.S. States.

Sure, Alan Zeichick and I volunteer our time to copy edit a bit, but 
that's minor stuff. It pales in comparison to the work that Bill 
invests... and, of course, to the work volunteered by the OS/2 
community and members of the Phoenix OS/2 Society. Every word in that 
28-page glossy magazine is written by a volunteer; nobody's paid a 
cent for his contributions, and yet the quality is (in my 
not-so-humble opinion) top-notch. (Well, except for that annoying 
column written by that bits-on-wheels, Esther.)

Lurkers may want to know that they can get a free sample of _extended 
attributes_ by filling out the form at http://www.possi.org.

| But part of the reason that you can't find many reviews is that there really
| isn't much to review these days.

There are fewer commercial applications to review than were released a
few years ago. However, I compile a "what's new and improved" column 
for extended attributes every month, and I always have 2-3 pages of 
product announcements. Many of them wouldn't get space in a mainstream
PC publication (most of which don't write about utilities, for 
example, and few of which will review a free application... 
irrespective of platform), but they do exist.

extended attributes also has at least one product review in each 
issue, usually two.

To contact the editor, write to editor@possi.org.

OS/2 developers: If you're interested in your product being reviewed, 
contact Craig Greenwood at reviews@possi.org. Our Ad Sales contact is 
mpizzo@ibm.net; you might be surprised at how inexpensively you can 
reach a targetted market of OS/2 users.

--Esther
  program chair, Phoenix OS/2 Society

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          11-Sep-99 14:29:17
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 20:32:14
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Tim Martin <OS2Guy@WarpCity.com> wrote in message
news:37DA01A3.B3823A3B@WarpCity.com...
> Jason wrote:
>
> > Tim Martin <OS2Guy@WarpCity.com> wrote:
> > : Stardock and author Kris Kwilas have flipped off the OS/2
> > : community with their latest release of Window Blinds v.099.
> > : The hype is claiming 'millions of downloads in just a few
> > : months for the most desired software in the world'.
> >
> > : The OS/2 user is to be thunked for funding Stardock's  latest
> > : software product which only runs on a Microsoft operating system.
> >
> > Actually if a new client is brought forth by stardock it will probably
> > include a 16bit version of windowblinds for windows 3.1 which in turn
> > runs on OS/2.
> >
> > -Jason
>
> Actually there will be no new Stardock Warp 5 client
> despite the ten months of Stardock hype.  Stardock
> has failed to meet IBM's financial package requirement.
>

This is an outright lie.  You have no idea of the status of the Warp 5
client.  That's probably why you continue these irrational attacks on
Stardock, because you're completely out of the loop on what we do and it
bothers you apparently to no end.

Stardock continues to develop and support OS/2 products despite having to
pay for that support through the sales of Windows software.

You should be thankful that you're just a little bug on the net.  Your
libelous statements such as the one above would get you into serious trouble
if you actually had any influence on anything.

Brad

> Tim Martin
> The OS/2 Guy
> Warp City

>
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     11-Sep-99 08:23:01
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 20:32:14
Subj: Re: Time for a Warp Client

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Steven C. Den Beste wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 19:50:47 -0400, Marty recycled some holes into the
> following pattern:
>
> >"David H. McCoy" wrote:
> >>
> >> And I wonder how much it would be to upgrade to a new OS/2 client when
> >> it has the even more shortcomings, not to mention an almost total
> >> software replacement.
> >
> >How would an upgrade to a new OS/2 client require an "almost total software
> >replacement"?  WSeB is completely compatible with Warp 4 and I imagine a
> >client version would be as well.
> >
> >- Marty
>
> If the software you were using on NT4 was all WIN32 software, how could you
> continue using it if you suddenly switched to OS/2?

Browsers, Java and StarOffice for OS/2.  Total cost $0.0  Corporate data is
browser accessed,  javasctipt business forms, e-mail, and complex files in
Office format.

> The point was that if an upgrade from NT4 to Win2K is going to be expensive,
> a change from NT4 to OS/2 must be even more expensive.

No.  The upgrade to OS/2 can be less expensive.  W2K requires a toal rewrite
of
apps to use W2K features and it requres NEW hardware.  W2K requires you adopt
MS's infrastuctre like COM and AD.  $ $ $ and $

You guys will also see a lot of CITIRX deployed to keep cleint costs low.
CITRIX runs on OS/2 client -- which have been and are less expensive to own
and
operate.  Or maybe WinCE or LINUX cleints.  All are less costly and comaplex
than W2K.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     11-Sep-99 08:41:16
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 20:32:14
Subj: Re: Sun to proliferate Star Office... (Open source perspective)

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Robert Morelli wrote:

> Joseph wrote:
> >
> >
> > I think ONLY reliability needs improvment (although it is very relaible
now).
> > Features already in SO are overkill and in MS Word  they went insane after 
v6.0.  I
> > found out WORD has a built in org chart application..  With SO, maybe add
some
> > usability fixes or improvements to the icons and "tooltips" text. Minor.
> >
>
> I actually must differ with you on this point.  My guess is that most users
would judge
> Office a better product than Star Office (assuming of course they can get by 
without
> Linux and OS/2).

Most all users would judge a new PIII to be better than the system on their
desktop.  Do they have the
money to afford what they want?  Is MO worth the hundrds of dollars or is SO
good enough.

> Office is indeed bloated,  but so is Star Office,  which takes 125 MB
> for a standard install.  Also,  Office apps generally load very quickly on a 
fast pentium
> machine,  within a second or so.  I have a PII 333 on which Star Office
takes 50 seconds
> to load.  I think 50 seconds is unacceptable on a PII machine.  It's ironic
that I sometimes
> chide people for complaining about Java performance,  but compared to SO
Java is pretty
> snappy.

1) SO is slow to load but what if it loaded at system start-up time?  I load
it when I boot OS/2.
    SO is very large but IE 5.0 is about 125 MB -- size is all relative and IE 
does far less.
2) SO is free and cross platform.  -- the OS it runs doesn't have to be MS
Windows.
3)  Users most common complaint with MO is stability.

> Most Java programs run with very close to native responsiveness on this
machine.
> Even the slowest,   most inefficient Java program I have (the Swingset demo) 
loads in under
> 20 seconds.
>
> I think SO also needs more extensive online help.  Since the introduction of 
Win95,  MS has
> actually been dumbing down its help system,  so Office is no champ in this
arena.  But,  SO help
> is more like an overview than a real help system.

Yes -- more extensive help would be great.  Thankgoodness the model evolving
is that the service
(application help) is a value added feature companies seek to offer to the
user or it is found in a book.
I see a great need for a good reference book or web site on SO.

> SO could fill in some functionality here and there.  On the whole though, 
it's an excellent
> product.  Office is well within its sights and like I said,  if it went the
open source way,  it could
> overtake Office quite quickly.
>
> By the way,  when I say this,  I am putting myself in other people's shoes.  
I have access to
> Office apps (no,  I haven't handed MS a dime in well over 5 years)  as well
as Corel apps,  etc.
> I like to study them sometimes to make sure I know how they work,  what sort 
of look and feel
> decisions they make,  etc. so I can take advantage of this knowlege in my
own programming.  In
> truth though,  I don't actually use them for anything.  I personally have
essentially no use for the
> applications in office suites,  basically don't like their concepts,  and
I'm unimpressed
> with how they've developed.  For instance,  I do all my writing in text
editors (under OS/2 I use
> EPM configured to emulate emacs,  under Unix I use emacs) for the TeX
system.  Emacs +
> TeX is not a polished commercial system like Office,  but its capabilities
are quite different and in
> many ways very superior to Word.  For this reason,  virtually all
professional mathematicians use
> TeX rather than Word or WordPerfect or any other commercial system.

I use LaTeX.  I understand your point.  I cannot disagree with it but I think
cost has to factor into the
evalutaion or else we'd all be driving around in expensive cars and wearing
the best clothes and running
MS's Pricey Office.  I use SO for editing Offiec files in place of MS Office
win3.1 under OS/2.  I will
use the editor, Starwrite, to jot down text and then do cut and paste.  To me
my 64MB, 166mhz Pentium that
runs OS/2 and SO works better than a NT or W2K running Office97 would run.

> What I would find most exciting is not for SO to simply chase and copy
Office as it continues its
> aimless meanderings,  but for the open source community to bring a long
overdue infusion of
> imagination and power into the office suite paradigm.

The features of all suites are bloated enough for the user community.  MS's
new usability features like
the paperclip are steps backwards and piss people off.  Their embedded games
-- pinball and flight
simulator. -- show the arrogance of MS in that they think it is cool to ship a 
game inside a business
Office suite their customers think is already bloated.

IMHO SO needs to be faster, reliable and cheaper.  Of these 3 things faster is 
free with better hardware.
More reliable is what open source does well with a codebase.  Cheaper is has
happened.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          11-Sep-99 16:34:11
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 20:32:15
Subj: Re: Time for a Warp Client

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message news:37DA49A5.120CD3DC@ibm.net...
>
>
> Steven C. Den Beste wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 19:50:47 -0400, Marty recycled some holes into the
> > following pattern:
> >
> > >"David H. McCoy" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> And I wonder how much it would be to upgrade to a new OS/2 client
when
> > >> it has the even more shortcomings, not to mention an almost total
> > >> software replacement.
> > >
> > >How would an upgrade to a new OS/2 client require an "almost total
software
> > >replacement"?  WSeB is completely compatible with Warp 4 and I imagine
a
> > >client version would be as well.
> > >
> > >- Marty
> >
> > If the software you were using on NT4 was all WIN32 software, how could
you
> > continue using it if you suddenly switched to OS/2?
>
> Browsers, Java and StarOffice for OS/2.  Total cost $0.0  Corporate data
is
> browser accessed,  javasctipt business forms, e-mail, and complex files in
> Office format.
>

What about training costs then?  Corporations are very concerned about
training, as IBM would be the first to tell you.  You can't just switch to
another OS and two an entirely new set of apps unless there's an extremely
compelling reason.

Going from NT4 to Win2K just means updating the OS.  I just moved this
machine from NT4 to Win2K and other than having to redo my killfiles for
Outlook Express (hence the unfortunate situation of having to see Tim
Martin's posts), it was pretty painless.  All my apps continue to work as
they did before.

> > The point was that if an upgrade from NT4 to Win2K is going to be
expensive,
> > a change from NT4 to OS/2 must be even more expensive.
>
> No.  The upgrade to OS/2 can be less expensive.  W2K requires a toal
rewrite of
> apps to use W2K features and it requres NEW hardware.  W2K requires you
adopt
> MS's infrastuctre like COM and AD.  $ $ $ and $

No it doesn't.  What exactly are you tlaking about?  A total rewrite of what
to use what? Office 97 or Corel Photopaint or Adobe Page Maker all work the
same under Win2K as they did under Windows NT.

It also does not require new hardware, where are you getting this?


>
> You guys will also see a lot of CITIRX deployed to keep cleint costs low.
> CITRIX runs on OS/2 client -- which have been and are less expensive to
own and
> operate.  Or maybe WinCE or LINUX cleints.  All are less costly and
comaplex
> than W2K.

Huh?  These aren't realistic solutions for the masses of corporations or end
users.  If you're running NT 4, Win2K is your best upgrade path.  If you're
running OS/2, there's no reason to move away from OS/2 unless there's a
compelling reason to do so (and vice versa).

Brad

>
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          11-Sep-99 16:43:10
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 20:32:15
Subj: Re: Sun to proliferate Star Office... (Open source perspective)

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message news:37DA4DFD.411C1621@ibm.net...
>
>
> Robert Morelli wrote:
>
> > Joseph wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I think ONLY reliability needs improvment (although it is very
relaible now).
> > > Features already in SO are overkill and in MS Word  they went insane
after v6.0.  I
> > > found out WORD has a built in org chart application..  With SO, maybe
add some
> > > usability fixes or improvements to the icons and "tooltips" text.
Minor.
> > >
> >
> > I actually must differ with you on this point.  My guess is that most
users would judge
> > Office a better product than Star Office (assuming of course they can
get by without
> > Linux and OS/2).
>
> Most all users would judge a new PIII to be better than the system on
their desktop.  Do they have the
> money to afford what they want?  Is MO worth the hundrds of dollars or is
SO good enough.
>
> > Office is indeed bloated,  but so is Star Office,  which takes 125 MB
> > for a standard install.  Also,  Office apps generally load very quickly
on a fast pentium
> > machine,  within a second or so.  I have a PII 333 on which Star Office
takes 50 seconds
> > to load.  I think 50 seconds is unacceptable on a PII machine.  It's
ironic that I sometimes
> > chide people for complaining about Java performance,  but compared to SO
Java is pretty
> > snappy.
>
> 1) SO is slow to load but what if it loaded at system start-up time?  I
load it when I boot OS/2.
>     SO is very large but IE 5.0 is about 125 MB -- size is all relative
and IE does far less.

I don't know anyone who has all their office apps load on start up.  Doesn't
mean no one does it but that's hardly a realistic solution.  But I'd do it
if there was some extremely compelling reason to use SO over Office 97 or
Smart Suite.

> 2) SO is free and cross platform.  -- the OS it runs doesn't have to be MS
Windows.

"free" is a tricky thing sometimes.  Training users on it wouldn't be free
for corprations.  And most people get Office with their machine anyway so
the cost is not particularly noticeable.

> 3)  Users most common complaint with MO is stability.
>

It is?  Where?  It's certainly as stable as SO.

Look, I hate being put in the position of defending Microsoft Office, but
your position is unreasonable.  If you're some college kid who's put their
machine together by throwing together components and running Linux, then SO
might make some sense.  But if you're a corporate user or professional who's
ordered their machine from Gateway or Dell or IBM or whatever, using the
office suite that came with your machine is what makese sense (whether that
be Smartsuite or Office).


> I use LaTeX.  I understand your point.  I cannot disagree with it but I
think cost has to factor into the
> evalutaion or else we'd all be driving around in expensive cars and
wearing the best clothes and running
> MS's Pricey Office.  I use SO for editing Offiec files in place of MS
Office win3.1 under OS/2.  I will
> use the editor, Starwrite, to jot down text and then do cut and paste.  To
me my 64MB, 166mhz Pentium that
> runs OS/2 and SO works better than a NT or W2K running Office97 would run.

Retail cost is only part of the "cost" issue.  There's training and
productivity time.  While I won't argue how you personally feel about Star
Office, my OS/2 machine runs Lotus Smart Suite for OS/2 which is generally
much faster on the same hardware.   But on an equally configured high end
machine, Office 97 is going to run circles around Star Office.  Star office
has many advantages but speed isn't one of them.

For widespread acceptance, Star Office needs to get preloaded onto people's
machines and needs to be much faster.

For the average user, Office is just as "free" as Star Office because it
came with their machine.

Brad


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mcbrides@erols.com                                10-Sep-99 18:44:14
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 20:32:15
Subj: So... you wann'a upgrade to win2k? :')

From: mcbrides@erols.com (Jerry McBride)

I just got this one in and boy does it make good reading. "You MS lemmings"
are
in for a cleaning! :')

===========================================================
THE INFOWORLD SCOOP                         APP DEV EDITION
===========================================================

Friday, September 10, 1999

--- snip ---

========================================================
TOP NEWS STORIES
========================================================

STUDY: WINDOWS 2000 ADOPTION TO COST A PRETTY PENNY

Microsoft's vision of corporations migrating to Windows
2000 likely will become very clouded once IT managers
realize the costs of adopting the much-anticipated
technology, a study by researchers at Gartner Group
asserted Thursday.

According to the Gartner Group's numbers, it will cost
between $1,250 and $2,050 per desktop to migrate from
Windows NT Workstation 4.0 to Windows 2000
Professional. The cost of moving from Windows 9x to
Windows 2000 will be even higher, according to the report
-- between $2,015 and $3,100 per PC.

For the full story:
http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?99099.piwin2000.htm

--- snip

Copyright 1999 InfoWorld Media Group Inc.



--

*******************************************************************************

*            Sometimes, the BEST things in life really ARE free...           
*
*       Get a FREE copy of NetRexx 1.150 for your next java project at:      
*
*                     http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/netrexx                    
*
*******************************************************************************


/----------------------------------------\
| From the desktop of: Jerome D. McBride |
|         mcbrides@erols.com             |
\----------------------------------------/

--

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TEAM-NETREXX (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             11-Sep-99 09:56:01
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 20:32:15
Subj: Re: Who is writing about new software for OS/2?

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>

Steven C. Den Beste wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 21:29:29 -0400, jasper recycled some holes into the
> following pattern:
> 
> >In the early days of OS/2 2x, we had many places where you could find
> >articles about new OS/2 software. Today it is very hard to find a place
> >where they write about new released software for OS/2.
> >
> >Does anyone know of a magazine which still comes with reviews of OS/2
> >sofware?
> >
> >Thanks in advance,
> >Jasper de Keijzer.
> >http://home-5.worldonline.nl/~jdekeij
> >
> 
> Well, there's Esther's POSSI publication.
> 
> But part of the reason that you can't find many reviews is that there really
> isn't much to review these days.
> 
Well, actually there is a surprisingly large amount of software that
runs on OS/2 including native OS/2, java, EMX, x86free, and Win-OS2
software.  But there is, unfortunately, apparently not a large enough
SOHO user base to support commercial publications.  

For example, Star Division of Sun Microsystems recently released v5.1 of
their Office productivity suite as a native OS/2 application and it is
downloadable for free.  This suite includes several major applications
including graphics, spreadsheet, word processor, web browser, etc that
would support two or three detailed reviews.  But they have not been
done.  OS/2 ezine did do a cursory review of Star Office 5.0 vs Lotus
Smartsuite but I think the whole thing was maybe 300 words--not enough
to do much with either one of these products.  

Personally, I would love to see someone do a review of MP3 encoders for
OS/2.  Or MP3 players.  Or hardware-monitoring software.  Or multi-page
TIf viewers.  Or Java games.  Or scanners.  And so on...

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mcbrides@erols.com                                11-Sep-99 13:00:26
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 20:32:15
Subj: Re: Time for a Warp Client

From: mcbrides@erols.com (Jerry McBride)

In article <strZN=8VOlt8P4cFUP=fx9CeZWWa@4ax.com>,
sdenbes1@san.rr.com (Steven C. Den Beste) wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 19:50:47 -0400, Marty recycled some holes into the
>following pattern:
>
>>"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>>>
>>> And I wonder how much it would be to upgrade to a new OS/2 client when
>>> it has the even more shortcomings, not to mention an almost total
>>> software replacement.
>>
>>How would an upgrade to a new OS/2 client require an "almost total software
>>replacement"?  WSeB is completely compatible with Warp 4 and I imagine a
>>client version would be as well.
>>
>>- Marty
>
>If the software you were using on NT4 was all WIN32 software, how could you
>continue using it if you suddenly switched to OS/2?
>

Wait a minute! What the hell is the difference? Upgrading to win2k is going to
REQUIRE a lot of new win32 software. Why do you think the upgrade costs are
going to be SO HUGE!

>The point was that if an upgrade from NT4 to Win2K is going to be expensive,
>a change from NT4 to OS/2 must be even more expensive. Therefore the
>original comment that the change to Win2K is a big hurdle doesn't appear to
>be an opportunity on which OS/2 can capitalize.
>

I don't see that. What's the difference? You buy new software, you buy new
software.


--

*******************************************************************************

*            Sometimes, the BEST things in life really ARE free...           
*
*       Get a FREE copy of NetRexx 1.150 for your next java project at:      
*
*                     http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/netrexx                    
*
*******************************************************************************


/----------------------------------------\
| From the desktop of: Jerome D. McBride |
|         mcbrides@erols.com             |
\----------------------------------------/

--

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TEAM-NETREXX (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          11-Sep-99 17:12:24
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 20:32:15
Subj: Re: Time for a Warp Client

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Jerry McBride <mcbrides@erols.com> wrote in message
news:Ero238D5wC9d090yn@erols.com...
> In article <strZN=8VOlt8P4cFUP=fx9CeZWWa@4ax.com>,
> sdenbes1@san.rr.com (Steven C. Den Beste) wrote:
> >On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 19:50:47 -0400, Marty recycled some holes into the
> >following pattern:
> >
> >>"David H. McCoy" wrote:
> >>>
> >>> And I wonder how much it would be to upgrade to a new OS/2 client when
> >>> it has the even more shortcomings, not to mention an almost total
> >>> software replacement.
> >>
> >>How would an upgrade to a new OS/2 client require an "almost total
software
> >>replacement"?  WSeB is completely compatible with Warp 4 and I imagine a
> >>client version would be as well.
> >>
> >>- Marty
> >
> >If the software you were using on NT4 was all WIN32 software, how could
you
> >continue using it if you suddenly switched to OS/2?
> >
>
> Wait a minute! What the hell is the difference? Upgrading to win2k is
going to
> REQUIRE a lot of new win32 software. Why do you think the upgrade costs
are
> going to be SO HUGE!
>

What software that worked on NT 4 doesn't work on Win2K?

Brad


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               11-Sep-99 18:35:02
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 21:32:23
Subj: What's in e-store for the next Phoenix OS/2 Society meeting

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

E-commerce is the new buzzword, and if you believe what it says in the
magazines, every business with an an ounce of sense is creating an 
online store. But "enterprise level" tools are overkill for most small
businesses, and they cost an arm and a leg. Plus, there don't seem to 
be as many e-commerce site builder options for us OS/2 users.

Until now.

At the general meeting on Tuesday, September 14, a representative from
iTool will show us how easy it is to create an online store. If you've
been thinking about selling something online -- or simply curious 
about the procedure -- this is a meeting you can't miss.

What is iTOOL? 

iTool, which is a local Scottsdale company, hosts the e-commerce store
at its site. You build and maintain the site through a Web browser... 
so the OS you choose is irrelevant. It also means that you have no 
extra software to purchase or install.

iTOOL combines high performance Web site hosting with its development 
tools, giving you everything you need to run your organization online 
in a single package. You can sign up for Web hosting alone -- they 
include email accounts, interactive graphical statistics reports, 
multiple domain name hosting, a ColdFusion Web Application Server, a 
RealMedia Server, and so on. They also include site development tools 
like a site creation wizard and specialty templates for business types
(such as photographers and real estate agents).

But what's bound to attract you is its turnkey electronic commerce 
features. iTool uses browser based, database driven store 
construction, has key word searching, and supports secure credit card 
transactions with real time authorization. The cost for the basic 
e-commerce site is $49.96 per month.

When and where

This meeting will be the first one held at POSSI's new meeting site, 
at Camelsquare. Give yourself a few extra minutes to find the place. 
Camelsquare is on the northwest corner of 44th Street and Camelback, 
which sounds simple enough. However, the room itself may take you a 
few minutes to find. The Camelsquare offices are in lettered 
buildings. Ours is in Building G, room G250.

The meeting day and time doesn't change. We're still meeting on 
Tuesday, September 14th, at 7:00pm. The general Q&A session will begin
at 6:30. We're sure to have an after-meeting meeting, too, where we 
quaff a few ales... but will that be back at our old Coyote Springs 
haunts, or will we try a new site for food and drink? You'll have to 
show up and find out.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: uno@40th.com                                      11-Sep-99 18:37:23
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 21:32:23
Subj: Re: MR/2 ICE

From: uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com)

Buddy Donnelly? (donnelly@tampabay.rr.com?) wrote (Wed, 08 Sep 1999 20:55:45
>But, you know, if it comes to this I've had a good life, all in all, and I 
>think it's better to end one's days having one's head "stuck up on poles" 
>than to live one's life with it stuck up one's ass, I should think. 


                        Man, that's a good one!


 '`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
 Corne1 Huth  -  http://40th.com/
 Bullet database engines/servers 3.1  Win32-WinCE-OS2-Linux+

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Yanaguana (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: steve.pampling@argonet.co.uk                      11-Sep-99 19:09:05
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 21:32:23
Subj: Re: [MS-bashing] New collection of anti-Microsoft banners

From: Steven Pampling <steve.pampling@argonet.co.uk>

In article <+sfZN6Z1l6G5hIeGK1tc2k1N07Nr@4ax.com>,
   Hobbyist  <hobbyist@nospam.net> wrote:
> Actually my system is able to do this. Ever heard of M$
> Intellipoint software???

Yup, it's the stuff that causes certain NT PC systems [1] to lock solid,
until you unplug and replug the keyboard.

[1] Clash between the keyboard hardware and the intellipoint driver - both
keyboard and mouse manufacturer have done nothing, we've screwed
compatible replacement keyboards out of the PC manufacturer to sidestep the
problem

-- 
Steve Pampling


              

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Que? (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com                            11-Sep-99 14:35:29
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 21:32:23
Subj: Re: Time for a Warp Client

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com (David H. McCoy)

In article <l4wC3.4147$Ud2.99370@typhoon1.rdc-detw.rr.com>, 
bwardell@mw.mediaone.net says...
> 
> Jerry McBride <mcbrides@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:Ero238D5wC9d090yn@erols.com...
> > In article <strZN=8VOlt8P4cFUP=fx9CeZWWa@4ax.com>,
> > sdenbes1@san.rr.com (Steven C. Den Beste) wrote:
> > >On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 19:50:47 -0400, Marty recycled some holes into the
> > >following pattern:
> > >
> > >>"David H. McCoy" wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> And I wonder how much it would be to upgrade to a new OS/2 client when
> > >>> it has the even more shortcomings, not to mention an almost total
> > >>> software replacement.
> > >>
> > >>How would an upgrade to a new OS/2 client require an "almost total
> software
> > >>replacement"?  WSeB is completely compatible with Warp 4 and I imagine a
> > >>client version would be as well.
> > >>
> > >>- Marty
> > >
> > >If the software you were using on NT4 was all WIN32 software, how could
> you
> > >continue using it if you suddenly switched to OS/2?
> > >
> >
> > Wait a minute! What the hell is the difference? Upgrading to win2k is
> going to
> > REQUIRE a lot of new win32 software. Why do you think the upgrade costs
> are
> > going to be SO HUGE!
> >
> 
> What software that worked on NT 4 doesn't work on Win2K?
> 
> Brad
> 
> 
> 

Well, I know two. Norton AV 4 and Partition Magic 4.0. PM checks for the 
version number. Hmm...also my multimedia keyboard drivers, but that 
wouldn't be a corporation worry.

However, everything else I've tried, including some games that didn't 
work under NT 4.0 do work.

-- 
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               11-Sep-99 18:57:22
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 21:32:23
Subj: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 17:12:49, "Brad Wardell" 
<bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
| What software that worked on NT 4 doesn't work on Win2K?

Lots and *lots* of it, Brad.

I hasten to mention that I have no personal experience in this area. 
But one of the people I work with has been speaking with a lot of 
Windows NT developers, and he says it's a serious problem for them. 

--Esther


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com                            11-Sep-99 14:34:03
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 21:32:23
Subj: Re: Time for a Warp Client

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com (David H. McCoy)

In article <jwvC3.4138$Ud2.99141@typhoon1.rdc-detw.rr.com>, 
bwardell@mw.mediaone.net says...
> 
> Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message news:37DA49A5.120CD3DC@ibm.net...
> >
> >
> > Steven C. Den Beste wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 19:50:47 -0400, Marty recycled some holes into the
> > > following pattern:
> > >
> > > >"David H. McCoy" wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> And I wonder how much it would be to upgrade to a new OS/2 client
> when
> > > >> it has the even more shortcomings, not to mention an almost total
> > > >> software replacement.
> > > >
> > > >How would an upgrade to a new OS/2 client require an "almost total
> software
> > > >replacement"?  WSeB is completely compatible with Warp 4 and I imagine
> a
> > > >client version would be as well.
> > > >
> > > >- Marty
> > >
> > > If the software you were using on NT4 was all WIN32 software, how could
> you
> > > continue using it if you suddenly switched to OS/2?
> >
> > Browsers, Java and StarOffice for OS/2.  Total cost $0.0  Corporate data
> is
> > browser accessed,  javasctipt business forms, e-mail, and complex files in
> > Office format.
> >
> 
> What about training costs then?  Corporations are very concerned about
> training, as IBM would be the first to tell you.  You can't just switch to
> another OS and two an entirely new set of apps unless there's an extremely
> compelling reason.
> 
> Going from NT4 to Win2K just means updating the OS.  I just moved this
> machine from NT4 to Win2K and other than having to redo my killfiles for
> Outlook Express (hence the unfortunate situation of having to see Tim
> Martin's posts), it was pretty painless.  All my apps continue to work as
> they did before.


My story is slightly different. I'm running W2K RC1 and the upgrade was 
a bit of chore. In fact, I ended up installing from scratch. Most of my 
applications work. The only two that don't are Norton AV 4.0 and 
Partition Magic. PM, it seems, check for the OS version.

However, since everything else works, plus some things that DIDN'T work 
under NT 4, I think it is a great trade.


> > > The point was that if an upgrade from NT4 to Win2K is going to be
> expensive,
> > > a change from NT4 to OS/2 must be even more expensive.
> >
> > No.  The upgrade to OS/2 can be less expensive.  W2K requires a toal
> rewrite of
> > apps to use W2K features and it requres NEW hardware.  W2K requires you
> adopt
> > MS's infrastuctre like COM and AD.  $ $ $ and $
> 
> No it doesn't.  What exactly are you tlaking about?  A total rewrite of what
> to use what? Office 97 or Corel Photopaint or Adobe Page Maker all work the
> same under Win2K as they did under Windows NT.
> 
> It also does not require new hardware, where are you getting this?
> 
> 
> >
> > You guys will also see a lot of CITIRX deployed to keep cleint costs low.
> > CITRIX runs on OS/2 client -- which have been and are less expensive to
> own and
> > operate.  Or maybe WinCE or LINUX cleints.  All are less costly and
> comaplex
> > than W2K.
> 
> Huh?  These aren't realistic solutions for the masses of corporations or end
> users.  If you're running NT 4, Win2K is your best upgrade path.  If you're
> running OS/2, there's no reason to move away from OS/2 unless there's a
> compelling reason to do so (and vice versa).
> 
> Brad

Besides, what will end up happening, IMO, is that W2K will be pre-
installed and corporations will just roll it out.
 
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 

-- 
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com                            11-Sep-99 14:37:10
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 21:32:24
Subj: Re: So... you wann'a upgrade to win2k? :')

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com (David H. McCoy)

In article <MnY238D5wGfA090yn@erols.com>, mcbrides@erols.com says...
> I just got this one in and boy does it make good reading. "You MS lemmings"
are
> in for a cleaning! :')
> 
> ===========================================================
> THE INFOWORLD SCOOP                         APP DEV EDITION
> ===========================================================
> 
> Friday, September 10, 1999
> 
> --- snip ---
> 
> ========================================================
> TOP NEWS STORIES
> ========================================================
> 
> STUDY: WINDOWS 2000 ADOPTION TO COST A PRETTY PENNY
> 
> Microsoft's vision of corporations migrating to Windows
> 2000 likely will become very clouded once IT managers
> realize the costs of adopting the much-anticipated
> technology, a study by researchers at Gartner Group
> asserted Thursday.
> 
> According to the Gartner Group's numbers, it will cost
> between $1,250 and $2,050 per desktop to migrate from
> Windows NT Workstation 4.0 to Windows 2000
> Professional. The cost of moving from Windows 9x to
> Windows 2000 will be even higher, according to the report
> -- between $2,015 and $3,100 per PC.
> 
> For the full story:
> http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?99099.piwin2000.htm
> 
> --- snip
> 
> Copyright 1999 InfoWorld Media Group Inc.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
>
*******************************************************************************

> *            Sometimes, the BEST things in life really ARE free...           
 *
> *       Get a FREE copy of NetRexx 1.150 for your next java project at:      
 *
> *                     http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/netrexx                    
 *
>
*******************************************************************************

> 
> /----------------------------------------\
> | From the desktop of: Jerome D. McBride |
> |         mcbrides@erols.com             |
> \----------------------------------------/
> 
> --
> 
> 

I've upgrade and it didn't cost me anywhere near $1,250. What's your 
point? It's not like OS/2 would provider a cheaper path, certainly, not 
a better one.

-- 
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: polaris@ursaminr.demon.com.uk                     11-Sep-99 19:26:16
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 21:32:24
Subj: Re: [MS-bashing] New collection of anti-Microsoft banners

From: Peter Smith <polaris@ursaminr.demon.com.uk>

In message <3jraN7U8jP99tdZzLfPchZBfdEIF@4ax.com>
          Hobbyist  <hobbyist@nospam.net> wrote:

> Peter Smith wrote +/- quoted :
> 
> > > That doesn't happen on my WinNT4 SP5 system with IE5 installed.
> > > > )
> > > 
> > 
> > Aha! Does that mean the Windows UI is inconsistent across different
> > versions 
> > 
> > > -)
> 
> I can't be sure of that yet. Do you have tweakUI installed, or is some
> other utility on your system giving the mouse the ability to change window
> focus by simply passing over the window.
>   

It's the act of dropping the files onto the window that brings it to the
front, not moving the mouse over.

> > > > Sure, Risc OS is not too hot under the bonnet, but ATM, the
> > > > news/email software is IMO far better than anything I've seen on
> > > > Windows. I've tried Turnpike, Eudora, Free Agent, Netscape Messenger
> > > > and Outloook Express. If anyone has suggestions, as the Ferengi say,
> > > > "I'm all ears!"
> > > 
> > > The Bat!? That's my e-mail client. It's way ahead of those that you
> > > mentioned. :)
> > 
> > Thanks, I'll give that a look.
> 
> I still use Forte' Agent for news. My main problem with Forte' Agent is the
> user interface where I am unable to use multiple separate windows. It makes
> things awkward. The cascading and tiling options aren't useful unless you
> have a 21" screen. 
> 

This is the kind of reason I don't like using Windows email/news clients.
I've downloaded Bat, but I'm too busy playing Hunted to do anything with it
:-)

Peter

-- 
To reply by mail, remove the last "m" in my email address
51 things to do in a lift...
 32. Start a sing-along.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: None! (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: malstrom@yolen.oit.umass.edu                      11-Sep-99 15:11:14
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 21:32:24
Subj: Re: So... you wann'a upgrade to win2k? :')

From: Jason <malstrom@yolen.oit.umass.edu>

: According to the Gartner Group's numbers, it will cost
: between $1,250 and $2,050 per desktop to migrate from
: Windows NT Workstation 4.0 to Windows 2000
: Professional. The cost of moving from Windows 9x to
: Windows 2000 will be even higher, according to the report
: -- between $2,015 and $3,100 per PC.

And what people don't understand is Windows 2000 is an upgrade for 
Windows NT, not for Windows 9X.  It's the next version of Windows 2000 that 
will be the upgrade for Windows 9X, and that won't probably be avialable 
till late 2001

-Jason

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com               11-Sep-99 12:54:19
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 21:32:24
Subj: Re: So... you wann'a upgrade to win2k? :')

From: "Kim Cheung" <kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com>

On 11 Sep 1999 15:11:29 -0500, Jason wrote:

>It's the next version of Windows 2000 that 
>will be the upgrade for Windows 9X, and that won't probably be avialable 
>till late 2001

Didn't we hear that before?   When was it?   95?    NT 5.0 will end all ills
of the world - the Windows world, that is.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     11-Sep-99 12:57:06
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 21:32:24
Subj: Re: So... you wann'a upgrade to win2k? :')

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Jason wrote:

> : According to the Gartner Group's numbers, it will cost
> : between $1,250 and $2,050 per desktop to migrate from
> : Windows NT Workstation 4.0 to Windows 2000
> : Professional. The cost of moving from Windows 9x to
> : Windows 2000 will be even higher, according to the report
> : -- between $2,015 and $3,100 per PC.
>
> And what people don't understand is Windows 2000 is an upgrade for
> Windows NT, not for Windows 9X.  It's the next version of Windows 2000 that
> will be the upgrade for Windows 9X, and that won't probably be avialable
> till late 2001

Garnter Group isn't mistaken.  W2K is an upgrade for coprotate users, many of
whom use Win9x and not NT 4.0.

What you refer to are MS's consumer plans for using NT's codebase to obselete
Win9x.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     11-Sep-99 13:00:05
  To: All                                               11-Sep-99 21:32:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Esther Schindler wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 17:12:49, "Brad Wardell"
> <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
> | What software that worked on NT 4 doesn't work on Win2K?
>
> Lots and *lots* of it, Brad.
>
> I hasten to mention that I have no personal experience in this area.
> But one of the people I work with has been speaking with a lot of
> Windows NT developers, and he says it's a serious problem for them.

Allchins's interviews and comments regarding W2K focus on MS's
priorities for engeineeing greater stability in W2K. When asked, he says
while a goal, compatibility is going to be less than 100%.

Let's use history as a guide, none of MS's OS updates have been good
with backwads compatibility.  None and W2K is a major OS update.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     11-Sep-99 13:29:12
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 03:14:18
Subj: Re: Sun to proliferate Star Office... (Open source perspective)

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Brad Wardell wrote:

> Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message news:37DA4DFD.411C1621@ibm.net...
> >
>
> > 1) SO is slow to load but what if it loaded at system start-up time?  I
> load it when I boot OS/2.
> >     SO is very large but IE 5.0 is about 125 MB -- size is all relative
> and IE does far less.
>
> I don't know anyone who has all their office apps load on start up.  Doesn't
> mean no one does it but that's hardly a realistic solution.  But I'd do it
> if there was some extremely compelling reason to use SO over Office 97 or
> Smart Suite.

Brad SO loads as one application.  It is similar in process to MS and COREL
Office which both automatically install and at startup time load  an
application
starting bar.When the SO environment loads it takes the most time, lesser load
times occur when a create a stardocument or a star e-mail.

ALso, AMI PRO/2 used to automaticaly load some DLLs during the OS boot time
which meant when the AMI PRO app was launched, load times were less.

> > 2) SO is free and cross platform.  -- the OS it runs doesn't have to be MS
> Windows.
>
> "free" is a tricky thing sometimes.  Training users on it wouldn't be free
> for corprations.  And most people get Office with their machine anyway so
> the cost is not particularly noticeable.

yes, free is always trickey.  But the fact is PCLabs and others like MS's
Martiz
in e-mails with the DoJ trial, have said SO has very a similar look and feel
to
MS Office.  Another fact is that the barriers to entry are minimal, thus the
costs are back ended, training, not front ended, buying the application.

> > 3)  Users most common complaint with MO is stability.
> >
>
> It is?  Where?  It's certainly as stable as SO.

It is.  It is here and there.  MO has stability problems -- the biggest
compaint
about MS is code quality -- or lack of.
I also said SO would need better stability.  That the increasing in stability
would make it more competitive over MS Office rather than adding more features
to SO.

> Look, I hate being put in the position of defending Microsoft Office, but
> your position is unreasonable.

No it isn't unreasonable.

> If you're some college kid who's put their
> machine together by throwing together components and running Linux, then SO
> might make some sense.  But if you're a corporate user or professional who's
> ordered their machine from Gateway or Dell or IBM or whatever, using the
> office suite that came with your machine is what makese sense (whether that
> be Smartsuite or Office).

Corporations do not get Office software from OEMs.  They buy a site license
and
delpoy one standard edition of Office on a server with users downlaoding and
installing off the network.  It runs using keyservers to limit the number of
users as dictated by the licesnse.   Site licenses with keyservers mean the MS
apps have to be shutdown after 24hrs and restarted.  That the apps cannot load
without the network.  These are the same problems used to put down server
based
comptuing.  OEM suite editons vary (Small business edition lacks PPT) and now
many OEMs ship MS Works to keep cots low.  It would make a lot of sense to use
SO or a SO website to look at and edit a PPT instead of buying it standalone
or
getting a MS's powerpoint viewer.



> > I use LaTeX.  I understand your point.  I cannot disagree with it but I
> think cost has to factor into the
> > evalutaion or else we'd all be driving around in expensive cars and
> wearing the best clothes and running
> > MS's Pricey Office.  I use SO for editing Offiec files in place of MS
> Office win3.1 under OS/2.  I will
> > use the editor, Starwrite, to jot down text and then do cut and paste.  To
> me my 64MB, 166mhz Pentium that
> > runs OS/2 and SO works better than a NT or W2K running Office97 would run.
>
> Retail cost is only part of the "cost" issue.  There's training and
> productivity time.  While I won't argue how you personally feel about Star
> Office, my OS/2 machine runs Lotus Smart Suite for OS/2 which is generally
> much faster on the same hardware.   But on an equally configured high end
> machine, Office 97 is going to run circles around Star Office.  Star office
> has many advantages but speed isn't one of them.

I agree with he total cost issue -- purchase cost is small.  I do think the
low
barrier to entry (Free) for trying SO is an advantage and it's a more simple
approach to multiplatform sites.  IT shops will probably offer SO to non-MS OS
users as a way to read Office e-mail enclosures rather than give and maintain
a
PC..
I use SO/2 for several reasons but I could use Smart Suite/2 in its place.  SO
is not fast but it is fast enough.  It is not perfect but it is there in the
same class as MS Office and the open source community can really make it more
stable.  Over time hardware will catch up with the suite.  Certainly MS's apps
under W2K will need a vary fast and powerful system.  Its feature set is
complete enough now.


> For widespread acceptance, Star Office needs to get preloaded onto people's
> machines and needs to be much faster.
>
> For the average user, Office is just as "free" as Star Office because it
> came with their machine.

Today many low cost systems don't have MS Office -- they have MS Works.  Some
MS
Office editions like Small business edition lack Power point.  Home users will
use what they are given but corporations typically install a standard app set
and they even do this with fixed directories and so they clean and reformat PC
disks.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: hobbyist@nospam.net                               11-Sep-99 15:28:03
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 03:14:18
Subj: Re: [MS-bashing] New collection of anti-Microsoft banners

From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hobbyist_=A9?= <hobbyist@nospam.net>

Peter Smith wrote +/- quoted :

> > > Aha! Does that mean the Windows UI is inconsistent across different
> > > versions 
> > > 
> > > > -)
> > 
> > I can't be sure of that yet. Do you have tweakUI installed, or is some
> > other utility on your system giving the mouse the ability to change window
> > focus by simply passing over the window.
> >   
> 
> It's the act of dropping the files onto the window that brings it to the
> front, not moving the mouse over.

OK, but I still don't get the behaviour that you mention on my
NT4 GUI here.
 
> This is the kind of reason I don't like using Windows email/news clients.
> I've downloaded Bat, but I'm too busy playing Hunted to do anything with it
> :-)

<smile>
Well, you are able to view messages in a preview pane or in it's
own window. You are also able to browse multiple e-mail folders
at the same time in separate windows. Mail composition is also
done in it's own window. It's quite a flexible app in this regard
and an excellent e-mail program overall. It does just what it
says, i.e., manage e-mail. It doesn't come bundled with html
support but instead provides the appropriate hooks for this with
it's approach to unrelated functionality being supported in a
similar fashion.

-- 
-=Ali=- 

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Dept. of Surgery, UHWI (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: hobbyist@nospam.net                               11-Sep-99 15:29:25
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 03:14:18
Subj: Re: [MS-bashing] New collection of anti-Microsoft banners

From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hobbyist_=A9?= <hobbyist@nospam.net>

Steven Pampling wrote +/- quoted :

> In article <+sfZN6Z1l6G5hIeGK1tc2k1N07Nr@4ax.com>,
>    Hobbyist  <hobbyist@nospam.net> wrote:
> > Actually my system is able to do this. Ever heard of M$
> > Intellipoint software???
> 
> Yup, it's the stuff that causes certain NT PC systems [1] to lock solid,
> until you unplug and replug the keyboard.
> 
> [1] Clash between the keyboard hardware and the intellipoint driver - both
> keyboard and mouse manufacturer have done nothing, we've screwed
> compatible replacement keyboards out of the PC manufacturer to sidestep the
> problem

My condolences. I however, have no such problem over here and
enjoy the aforementioned feature provided by intellipoint. Happy
lockups. :)

-- 
-=Ali=- 

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Dept. of Surgery, UHWI (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: steve.pampling@argonet.co.uk                      11-Sep-99 21:05:21
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 03:14:18
Subj: Re: [MS-bashing] New collection of anti-Microsoft banners

From: Steven Pampling <steve.pampling@argonet.co.uk>

In article <ETzaN9ZnEvt5IGYMqAGf2ViB894D@4ax.com>,
   Hobbyist  <hobbyist@nospam.net> wrote:
>  Far more often than not, I desire to see the entire
> window that I'm typing in, so yes, I may have use for your
> feature in a few situations. Am I an unadvanced user for feeling
> this way? 

Try a DTP layout, fill the screen with the document, select a filer window
to have as a small intrusion over part of that large window, drag and drop
two different items into two different frames in the DTP.

The DTP window jumping to the front between each drag [1] is a pain in the
nether regions, however in RISC OS...

Yes flicking through open windows with ALT-TAB is useful but then if a
third party extension adds the feature why worry?

[1] Always assuming the Windows app and your release of Windows actually
does do true drag and drop.

-- 
Steve Pampling


              

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Que? (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         11-Sep-99 21:51:28
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 04:17:17
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Brad Wardell writes [to Tim Martin]:

> That's probably why you continue these irrational attacks on Stardock,
> because you're completely out of the loop on what we do and it bothers
> you apparently to no end.

On what do you base your irrational attacks on me, Brad?  Is it becase
you're completely out of the loop on what I do and it bothers you
apparently to no end?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     11-Sep-99 15:30:04
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 04:17:17
Subj: Re: Time for a Warp Client

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Steven C. Den Beste wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 19:05:56 -0700, Richard Hevron recycled some holes into
> the following pattern:
>
> >Lennart Gahm <lennart-remove-@plg.-remove-a.se> wrote in message > I think
> >that it is the best time within a year to provide an alternative
> >> to Windows. More and more people and companies are fedup with Microsoft.
> >> If the pricetag for Windows2000 is as Gartner Group predict it can be the
> >> thing that makes companies to drop Microsoft.
> >
> >Could this be part of IBM's understanding of the situation and a function
of
> >its grand strategy against Microsoft?
> >
> >As in the "Art of War" don't let your enemy know your plans or strengths!
>
> Or maybe it's a case of making a virtue of necessity? Like "whatever happens
> to OS/2 must be for the best"?

Oh how funny.

Now is MS's next consumer OS based on Win9x or NT?   What games will it run
and
not run?  Answering that question is like a dog cashing its tail.
Is server based computing a la Star Portal impractical or has not MS been
doing
it for some time?
Did MS decide the internet was inferior to MSN or hadn't MS decided to
integrate
the browser into windows before netscape was founded?



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com                            11-Sep-99 18:26:24
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 04:17:18
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com (David H. McCoy)

In article <LoEFmgJJ9ecw-pn2-nhmiD0XKnzv9@agave.bitranch.com>, 
esther@bitranch.com says...
> On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 17:12:49, "Brad Wardell" 
> <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
> | What software that worked on NT 4 doesn't work on Win2K?
> 
> Lots and *lots* of it, Brad.
> 
> I hasten to mention that I have no personal experience in this area. 
> But one of the people I work with has been speaking with a lot of 
> Windows NT developers, and he says it's a serious problem for them. 
> 
> --Esther
> 
> 
> 

Specifics, Esther? 

-- 
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               11-Sep-99 23:36:23
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 04:17:18
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 22:26:49, forgitaboutit@fake.com (David H. McCoy) 
wrote:
| Specifics, Esther? 

Sorry, David, but I don't know. You'd have to ask sjvn for the 
specifics. And you can't do so at the moment -- he's off to 
Networld+Interop. I'm sure he'll be writing about the topic, though.

--Esther

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               11-Sep-99 23:38:11
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 04:17:18
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 17:00:10, Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote:
| Let's use history as a guide, none of MS's OS updates have been good
| with backwads compatibility.  None and W2K is a major OS update.

We agree. <smile>

This is one area in which OS/2 shines. Although new releases broke a 
handful of OS/2 applications, it really was only a handful. When I 
taught OS/2 classes using Warp 4, I used a few OS/2 1.x applications 
in the hands-on exercises.

--Esther

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     11-Sep-99 16:39:10
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 04:17:18
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


David H. McCoy wrote:

> In article <LoEFmgJJ9ecw-pn2-nhmiD0XKnzv9@agave.bitranch.com>,
> esther@bitranch.com says...
> > On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 17:12:49, "Brad Wardell"
> > <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
> > | What software that worked on NT 4 doesn't work on Win2K?
> >
> > Lots and *lots* of it, Brad.
> >
> > I hasten to mention that I have no personal experience in this area.
> > But one of the people I work with has been speaking with a lot of
> > Windows NT developers, and he says it's a serious problem for them.
> >
>
>
> Specifics, Esther?

Indeed.  What are the specifics for W2K's compatibility?

What has Allchin said?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     11-Sep-99 16:53:16
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 04:17:18
Subj: Re: Consumers interests

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Steven C. Den Beste wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 15:45:22 -0700, josco recycled some holes into the
> following pattern:
>
> >FWIW  Gaming seems best when done on game consoles.
>
> FWIW this has nothing whatever to do with OS/2.

Here's my OS/2 reference you editited out so you could censor try to my
speach..

> When Win95 shipped, the line at a nearby computer store was about 300
> people.  1/5 of the interest in the SEGA DREAMCAST.  Also, those seeking
> the superior game experience with the Dreamcast don't seem to consider the
> Windows PC as an alternative.  IMHO Stick with OS/2 and get a console.
>


Here's a web site describing the SOLE reason an OS/2 user boots into
Windows95.
http://os2.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.pcworld.com/current
_issue/article/0,1212,12530+18+0,00.html

                 Bryce isn't worried. He says he gets along fine with
OS/2, despite
                 the fact that few applications are written for it
anymore. And he has
                 a dirty little secret: He uses partition software so he
can run
                 Windows 95 on the same PC he uses to run OS/2. "It's so
my kids
                 can play their Windows games," he insists. "That's the
only time we
                 use Windows."

I advocate OS/2 users dump Win95 if they run it for games and instead get
a game console.

You owe me an apology. It's time you stopped harassing an OS/2 user on an
OS/2 advocacy board. If you don't like my ideas then stick your head in
the sand and kill file me -- or speak to the issues.  Hounding with a
campaign of disinformation and lying  isn't ethical.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com                               11-Sep-99 17:18:18
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 04:17:18
Subj: Re: Sun to proliferate Star Office... (Open source perspective)

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com (Steven C. Den Beste)

On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 13:29:25 -0400, Joseph recycled some holes into the
following pattern:

>
>
>Brad Wardell wrote:
>
>> If you're some college kid who's put their
>> machine together by throwing together components and running Linux, then SO
>> might make some sense.  But if you're a corporate user or professional
who's
>> ordered their machine from Gateway or Dell or IBM or whatever, using the
>> office suite that came with your machine is what makese sense (whether that
>> be Smartsuite or Office).
>
>Corporations do not get Office software from OEMs.  They buy a site license
and
>delpoy one standard edition of Office on a server with users downlaoding and
>installing off the network.  It runs using keyservers to limit the number of
>users as dictated by the licesnse.   Site licenses with keyservers mean the
MS
>apps have to be shutdown after 24hrs and restarted.  That the apps cannot
load
>without the network.  These are the same problems used to put down server
based
>comptuing.  OEM suite editons vary (Small business edition lacks PPT) and now
>many OEMs ship MS Works to keep cots low.  It would make a lot of sense to
use
>SO or a SO website to look at and edit a PPT instead of buying it standalone
or
>getting a MS's powerpoint viewer.

Sorry, not correct. *We* have a site license for Office, but there is no
keyserver.

--------
Steven C. Den Beste    sdenbes1@san.rr.com
Home page: http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste

"We're just ordinary earthlings, not weirdos from another planet!"
              -- Calvin

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          12-Sep-99 00:22:18
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 04:17:18
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Esther Schindler <esther@bitranch.com> wrote in message
news:LoEFmgJJ9ecw-pn2-ZiNkd224D07s@agave.bitranch.com...
> On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 17:00:10, Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote:
> | Let's use history as a guide, none of MS's OS updates have been good
> | with backwads compatibility.  None and W2K is a major OS update.
>
> We agree. <smile>
>
> This is one area in which OS/2 shines. Although new releases broke a
> handful of OS/2 applications, it really was only a handful. When I
> taught OS/2 classes using Warp 4, I used a few OS/2 1.x applications
> in the hands-on exercises.
>

OS/2's backward compatibility has been most excellent.  I agree with that.
I don't agree that backwards compatibility on Win32 OS's has been "bad".  I
can't think of any Win32 apps that have been broken from Win95 to Win2K.

OS/2's compatibility has been basically perfect but that does'nt mean that
NT's is "bad".

Brad

> --Esther
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          12-Sep-99 00:23:22
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 04:17:18
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Esther Schindler <esther@bitranch.com> wrote in message
news:LoEFmgJJ9ecw-pn2-nhmiD0XKnzv9@agave.bitranch.com...
> On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 17:12:49, "Brad Wardell"
> <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
> | What software that worked on NT 4 doesn't work on Win2K?
>
> Lots and *lots* of it, Brad.
>
> I hasten to mention that I have no personal experience in this area.
> But one of the people I work with has been speaking with a lot of
> Windows NT developers, and he says it's a serious problem for them.
>

You need to provide some examples.  Even one example would do.  In my
experience, Win2K is even MORE compatible with Win32 based software than NT
is.  Win2K can run all those DirectX 5 and above games where as NT had
problems with some of them.

Brad

> --Esther
>
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          12-Sep-99 00:25:07
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 04:17:18
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Esther Schindler <esther@bitranch.com> wrote in message
news:LoEFmgJJ9ecw-pn2-lsr8lRd6XqLm@agave.bitranch.com...
> On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 22:26:49, forgitaboutit@fake.com (David H. McCoy)
> wrote:
> | Specifics, Esther?
>
> Sorry, David, but I don't know. You'd have to ask sjvn for the
> specifics. And you can't do so at the moment -- he's off to
> Networld+Interop. I'm sure he'll be writing about the topic, though.
>

The reality is, most corporate users and end users who are running NT won't
have any apps that break.  Sure, there will be plenty of custom or network
specific apps in a particular instance that have problems, it's not going to
be perfect I'm sure (as OS/2's been pretty good about) but it's a far cry
from bad.

Brad

> --Esther


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          12-Sep-99 00:28:01
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 04:17:18
Subj: Re: Time for a Warp Client

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

David H. McCoy <forgitaboutit@fake.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.12446b19e0b0acd69899ea@news1.mnsinc.com...
> In article <l4wC3.4147$Ud2.99370@typhoon1.rdc-detw.rr.com>,
> bwardell@mw.mediaone.net says...
> >
> > Jerry McBride <mcbrides@erols.com> wrote in message
> > news:Ero238D5wC9d090yn@erols.com...
> > > In article <strZN=8VOlt8P4cFUP=fx9CeZWWa@4ax.com>,
> > > sdenbes1@san.rr.com (Steven C. Den Beste) wrote:
> > > >On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 19:50:47 -0400, Marty recycled some holes into
the
> > > >following pattern:
> > > >
> > > >>"David H. McCoy" wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> And I wonder how much it would be to upgrade to a new OS/2 client
when
> > > >>> it has the even more shortcomings, not to mention an almost total
> > > >>> software replacement.
> > > >>
> > > >>How would an upgrade to a new OS/2 client require an "almost total
> > software
> > > >>replacement"?  WSeB is completely compatible with Warp 4 and I
imagine a
> > > >>client version would be as well.
> > > >>
> > > >>- Marty
> > > >
> > > >If the software you were using on NT4 was all WIN32 software, how
could
> > you
> > > >continue using it if you suddenly switched to OS/2?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Wait a minute! What the hell is the difference? Upgrading to win2k is
> > going to
> > > REQUIRE a lot of new win32 software. Why do you think the upgrade
costs
> > are
> > > going to be SO HUGE!
> > >
> >
> > What software that worked on NT 4 doesn't work on Win2K?
> >
> > Brad
> >
> >
> >
>
> Well, I know two. Norton AV 4 and Partition Magic 4.0. PM checks for the
> version number. Hmm...also my multimedia keyboard drivers, but that
> wouldn't be a corporation worry.
>
> However, everything else I've tried, including some games that didn't
> work under NT 4.0 do work.
>

Of course, OS/2 has these kinds of issues too.  That's why it's internally
coded as "2.3 and 2.4", various flavors of DB/2 check the internal version
number.  Of course, isn't Partition Magic 5 in beta?

Brad

> --
> ---------------------------------------
> David H. McCoy
> dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
> ---------------------------------------


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          12-Sep-99 00:32:28
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 04:17:18
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message news:37DA8A99.C6C4C82D@ibm.net...
>
>
> Esther Schindler wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 17:12:49, "Brad Wardell"
> > <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
> > | What software that worked on NT 4 doesn't work on Win2K?
> >
> > Lots and *lots* of it, Brad.
> >
> > I hasten to mention that I have no personal experience in this area.
> > But one of the people I work with has been speaking with a lot of
> > Windows NT developers, and he says it's a serious problem for them.
>
> Allchins's interviews and comments regarding W2K focus on MS's
> priorities for engeineeing greater stability in W2K. When asked, he says
> while a goal, compatibility is going to be less than 100%.
>
> Let's use history as a guide, none of MS's OS updates have been good
> with backwads compatibility.  None and W2K is a major OS update.
>

I'm not arguing that Win2K's going to have 100% compatibility.  It's not
100% or bust here.  Any app that has a problem is likely to have an
immediate (and free) update and by and large virtually all apps are going to
work.

I'm running Win2K right now, just installed it a couple days ago.  So far,
no problmes at all not even the BSOD I got on occasion with NT4.

OS/2's backward compatibility has always been almost 100%.  But when it
wasn't 100%, users had to wait.  Remember Fastback/2?  How long did we wait
for the patch to get that to work? (It wasn't the devleoper's fault, it was
the publisher who didn't give permission but the net result was that OS/2
Warp 3 users had to wait awhile to get Fastback to work).

Brad



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com                               11-Sep-99 17:11:10
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 04:17:18
Subj: Re: Time for a Warp Client

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com (Steven C. Den Beste)

On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 15:30:08 -0400, Joseph recycled some holes into the
following pattern:

>
>
>Steven C. Den Beste wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 19:05:56 -0700, Richard Hevron recycled some holes into
>> the following pattern:
>>
>> >Lennart Gahm <lennart-remove-@plg.-remove-a.se> wrote in message > I think
>> >that it is the best time within a year to provide an alternative
>> >> to Windows. More and more people and companies are fedup with Microsoft.
>> >> If the pricetag for Windows2000 is as Gartner Group predict it can be
the
>> >> thing that makes companies to drop Microsoft.
>> >
>> >Could this be part of IBM's understanding of the situation and a function
of
>> >its grand strategy against Microsoft?
>> >
>> >As in the "Art of War" don't let your enemy know your plans or strengths!
>>
>> Or maybe it's a case of making a virtue of necessity? Like "whatever
happens
>> to OS/2 must be for the best"?
>
>Oh how funny.
>
>Now is MS's next consumer OS based on Win9x or NT?   What games will it run
and
>not run?  Answering that question is like a dog cashing its tail.
>Is server based computing a la Star Portal impractical or has not MS been
doing
>it for some time?
>Did MS decide the internet was inferior to MSN or hadn't MS decided to
integrate
>the browser into windows before netscape was founded?
>
>

I don't have the faintest idea what the answer to any of those questions is,
and I also don't care in the slightest.

And all of them are off-topic for this group, which is supposed to be about
OS/2.

If you wish to discuss those kinds of things, the proper newsgroups are
comp.ms.windows.advocacy, comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy and
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy.

You might find someone in those groups who cares about those subjects. Why
don't you take those questions there?

(Tell me, when a dog cashes its tail, does it have to sign the tail and show
ID? I guess that's a long tale. [Does it get more money for a long tail?])

--------
Steven C. Den Beste    sdenbes1@san.rr.com
Home page: http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste

"We're just ordinary earthlings, not weirdos from another planet!"
              -- Calvin

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tzs@halcyon.com                                   11-Sep-99 19:48:13
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 05:23:09
Subj: Re: Time for a Warp Client

From: tzs@halcyon.com (Tim Smith)

Lennart Gahm <lennart-remove-@plg.-remove-a.se> wrote:
>I think that it is the best time within a year to provide an alternative 
>to Windows. More and more people and companies are fedup with Microsoft.
>If the pricetag for Windows2000 is as Gartner Group predict it can be the
>thing that makes companies to drop Microsoft.

Go back and read those costs.  They are pretty much all things that would be
the same on a migration to OS/2 (or to Linux).

--Tim Smith

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Institute of Lawsonomy (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     11-Sep-99 20:35:16
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 05:23:09
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Brad Wardell wrote:

> Esther Schindler <esther@bitranch.com> wrote in message
> news:LoEFmgJJ9ecw-pn2-ZiNkd224D07s@agave.bitranch.com...
> > On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 17:00:10, Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote:
> > | Let's use history as a guide, none of MS's OS updates have been good
> > | with backwads compatibility.  None and W2K is a major OS update.
> >
> > We agree. <smile>
> >
> > This is one area in which OS/2 shines. Although new releases broke a
> > handful of OS/2 applications, it really was only a handful. When I
> > taught OS/2 classes using Warp 4, I used a few OS/2 1.x applications
> > in the hands-on exercises.
> >
>
> OS/2's backward compatibility has been most excellent.  I agree with that.
> I don't agree that backwards compatibility on Win32 OS's has been "bad".  I
> can't think of any Win32 apps that have been broken from Win95 to Win2K.
>
> OS/2's compatibility has been basically perfect but that does'nt mean that
> NT's is "bad".

In the case of NT, we'll find out with W2K. Allchin in an interview was not
encouraging.  Niether has the Gartner Group

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     11-Sep-99 20:39:19
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 05:23:09
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Brad Wardell wrote:

> Esther Schindler <esther@bitranch.com> wrote in message
> news:LoEFmgJJ9ecw-pn2-lsr8lRd6XqLm@agave.bitranch.com...
> > On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 22:26:49, forgitaboutit@fake.com (David H. McCoy)
> > wrote:
> > | Specifics, Esther?
> >
> > Sorry, David, but I don't know. You'd have to ask sjvn for the
> > specifics. And you can't do so at the moment -- he's off to
> > Networld+Interop. I'm sure he'll be writing about the topic, though.
> >
>
> The reality is, most corporate users and end users who are running NT won't
> have any apps that break.  Sure, there will be plenty of custom or network
> specific apps in a particular instance that have problems, it's not going to
> be perfect I'm sure (as OS/2's been pretty good about) but it's a far cry
> from bad.

I'm at a loss to understand your point.  Is a customized applicaiton and or
networked a coprporation built supposed to be less important than a
commerically
purchased application?  And it is becoming clear that a total rewite of
inhouse
software will be necesary to take advantage of most of W2K's new features.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     11-Sep-99 20:47:17
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 05:23:09
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Brad Wardell wrote:

> Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message news:37DA8A99.C6C4C82D@ibm.net...
> >
> >
> > Esther Schindler wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 17:12:49, "Brad Wardell"
> > > <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
> > > | What software that worked on NT 4 doesn't work on Win2K?
> > >
> > > Lots and *lots* of it, Brad.
> > >
> > > I hasten to mention that I have no personal experience in this area.
> > > But one of the people I work with has been speaking with a lot of
> > > Windows NT developers, and he says it's a serious problem for them.
> >
> > Allchins's interviews and comments regarding W2K focus on MS's
> > priorities for engeineeing greater stability in W2K. When asked, he says
> > while a goal, compatibility is going to be less than 100%.
> >
> > Let's use history as a guide, none of MS's OS updates have been good
> > with backwads compatibility.  None and W2K is a major OS update.
> >
>
> I'm not arguing that Win2K's going to have 100% compatibility.

Niether am I arguing W2K ever should have or needs 100% compatibility.
Allchin's comments in CMP's interview (I posted it) were vuage and
discouraging.  I've also seen reports where MS's customer base wants stability
vastly improved -- which according to Allchin in his interview, has focred
some
compromises with compatibility.  MS also claims 3rd party drirvers are causing
many NT reboots and their solution is for MS to pester the 3rd party device
driver makers.  Sure that may help but the design and point of failure
remains.

I think the past is agood guide for the future.  In the past MS's OS updates
have had such poor compatibility that their customers speculated they were
trying to sell new software.

> I'm running Win2K right now, just installed it a couple days ago.  So far,
> no problmes at all not even the BSOD I got on occasion with NT4.
>
> OS/2's backward compatibility has always been almost 100%.  But when it
> wasn't 100%, users had to wait.

OS/2 has been much better which is why I use it on my PC.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     11-Sep-99 20:53:00
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 05:23:09
Subj: Re: Time for a Warp Client

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Tim Smith wrote:

> Lennart Gahm <lennart-remove-@plg.-remove-a.se> wrote:
> >I think that it is the best time within a year to provide an alternative
> >to Windows. More and more people and companies are fedup with Microsoft.
> >If the pricetag for Windows2000 is as Gartner Group predict it can be the
> >thing that makes companies to drop Microsoft.
>
> Go back and read those costs.  They are pretty much all things that would be
> the same on a migration to OS/2 (or to Linux).
>

This is Lucy holding the football for and Charlie Brown. She says she'll hold
it
right this time. See the pattern?

The problem for MS is that these costs are there at all. These are users who
are
following MS's OS plan.  The upgrade costs were there for Win3.1 to Win32 OSs
and it was paid since the future transitions were supposed to be smooth after
that Win32 investment.  Now they have another big cost.

It would have to be argued that a LINUX or OS/2 user would find the same
upgrade
costs if they bought into those OSs.  The answer is no.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     11-Sep-99 21:01:04
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 05:23:09
Subj: Re: Sun to proliferate Star Office... (Open source perspective)

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Steven C. Den Beste wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 13:29:25 -0400, Joseph recycled some holes into the
> following pattern:
>
> >
> >
> >Brad Wardell wrote:
> >
> >> If you're some college kid who's put their
> >> machine together by throwing together components and running Linux, then
SO
> >> might make some sense.  But if you're a corporate user or professional
who's
> >> ordered their machine from Gateway or Dell or IBM or whatever, using the
> >> office suite that came with your machine is what makese sense (whether
that
> >> be Smartsuite or Office).
> >
> >Corporations do not get Office software from OEMs.  They buy a site license 
and
> >delpoy one standard edition of Office on a server with users downlaoding
and
> >installing off the network.  It runs using keyservers to limit the number
of
> >users as dictated by the licesnse.   Site licenses with keyservers mean the 
MS
> >apps have to be shutdown after 24hrs and restarted.  That the apps cannot
load
> >without the network.  These are the same problems used to put down server
based
> >comptuing.  OEM suite editons vary (Small business edition lacks PPT) and
now
> >many OEMs ship MS Works to keep cots low.  It would make a lot of sense to
use
> >SO or a SO website to look at and edit a PPT instead of buying it
standalone or
> >getting a MS's powerpoint viewer.
>
> Sorry, not correct. *We* have a site license for Office, but there is no
> keyserver.

I am Correct -- I wasn't talking about you or Qualcomm .

Still,yYou're not getting your corporate license from an OEM install.   So you
verified my point.  Thank you.

Also,tThe expesnive systems advertised in Computer Gaming come with Works. 
The high
end systems in regular ads come with MS Small business edition (upgrade to
professional extra cost) -- SB edition has no Power point.

Ialso  said "Site licenses with keyservers mean the MS apps have to be
shutdown
after 24hrs and restarted."  If you took that to mean Steven DenBeste at
Qualcomm
uses a keyserver -- then I apologize for your misinterpretation.  I do than
you for
the verification that your company has a site license.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     11-Sep-99 21:14:10
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 05:23:09
Subj: Re: Time for a Warp Client

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Steven C. Den Beste wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 15:30:08 -0400, Joseph recycled some holes into the
> following pattern:
>
> >
> >
> >Steven C. Den Beste wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 19:05:56 -0700, Richard Hevron recycled some holes
into
> >> the following pattern:
> >>
> >> >Lennart Gahm <lennart-remove-@plg.-remove-a.se> wrote in message > I
think
> >> >that it is the best time within a year to provide an alternative
> >> >> to Windows. More and more people and companies are fedup with
Microsoft.
> >> >> If the pricetag for Windows2000 is as Gartner Group predict it can be
the
> >> >> thing that makes companies to drop Microsoft.
> >> >
> >> >Could this be part of IBM's understanding of the situation and a
function of
> >> >its grand strategy against Microsoft?
> >> >
> >> >As in the "Art of War" don't let your enemy know your plans or
strengths!
> >>
> >> Or maybe it's a case of making a virtue of necessity? Like "whatever
happens
> >> to OS/2 must be for the best"?
> >
> >Oh how funny.
> >
> >Now is MS's next consumer OS based on Win9x or NT?   What games will it run 
and
> >not run?  Answering that question is like a dog cashing its tail.
> >Is server based computing a la Star Portal impractical or has not MS been
doing
> >it for some time?
> >Did MS decide the internet was inferior to MSN or hadn't MS decided to
integrate
> >the browser into windows before netscape was founded?
> >
>
> I don't have the faintest idea what the answer to any of those questions is,
> and I also don't care in the slightest.
>
> And all of them are off-topic for this group, which is supposed to be about
> OS/2.
>
> If you wish to discuss those kinds of things, the proper newsgroups are
> comp.ms.windows.advocacy, comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy and
> comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy.
>
> You might find someone in those groups who cares about those subjects. Why
> don't you take those questions there?

If you say something stupid about OS/2 and or it's userbase it is acceptable
to me to
point out the same stupid thing you attribute to OS/2 applies to your OS,
windows,
and the company that makes windows and the Windows advocates in COOA.  Now if
you
have a problem with the content of my posts you can kill file me. It is
inappropiate
for you to censor people who disagree with you or point out double standards
and
hypocrisy.

> (Tell me, when a dog cashes its tail, does it have to sign the tail and show
> ID? I guess that's a long tale. [Does it get more money for a long tail?])

Boy you sure know how to make me look silly.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: drsmithy@usa.net                                  12-Sep-99 12:47:20
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 05:23:09
Subj: Re: [MS-bashing] New collection of anti-Microsoft banners

From: "Christopher Smith" <drsmithy@usa.net>

Steven Pampling <steve.pampling@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:493ffddf5esteve.pampling@argonet.co.uk...
> In article <+sfZN6Z1l6G5hIeGK1tc2k1N07Nr@4ax.com>,
>    Hobbyist  <hobbyist@nospam.net> wrote:
> > Actually my system is able to do this. Ever heard of M$
> > Intellipoint software???
>
> Yup, it's the stuff that causes certain NT PC systems [1] to lock solid,
> until you unplug and replug the keyboard.

That's not a good idea - you can bow the fuse in the keyboard IC by
hotplugging the keyboard and/or PS/2 mouse.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: University of Queensland (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     11-Sep-99 21:31:10
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 05:23:09
Subj: Re: Why NT is x86 only

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Steven C. Den Beste wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 15:24:10 -0700, josco recycled some holes into the
> following pattern:
>
> >On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Steven C. Den Beste wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 07:10:13 -0400, Joseph recycled some holes into the
> >> following pattern:
> >>
> >> >> each written uniquely and separately.
> >> >
> >> >That might be true and it might not be true --- MS doesn't use one
codebase so
> >> >with NT and W2K so the point is moot.Sun does not use one JVM codebase.
> >>
> >> What's this got to do with NT4? I'm not talking about that. I'm *only*
> >> talking about Win2K (alias NT5).
> >
> >Are you psyco?
>
> I may be stupid, but I'm not crazy. Try to get your insults straight,
> please.

This time you're acting psyco.  You justifed your W2K compiler theory with
Java and
JITs and when I use NT as counter evidence you tell me I'm off topic.  That's
nuts.

> >1) You justifed your single codebase theory with references to JIT and
> >JAVA.
> >
> >2) I reminded you that MS uses multiple code bases for NT.
> >
> >3) You respond that I'm off topic for using NT as an example.



> Some parts of the code between the Win2K version for IA32 and the Win2K
> version for IA64 have to be rewritten because they are talking to devices
> which are fundamentally incompatible.

Yes.

> For instance, there's no reason why the GUI would have to be rewritten. A
> single source base for the GUI, suitably recompiled, should serve both
> equally.

Maybe.  Maybe not.  It's all guessing and theory.

I see little of any use coming out of the whole mental exercise.  You could
make a
case (you have indirectly) that MS could have used one code base for NT but
the fact
is they did not use one codebase.  How much of the Win95 UI is in NT?  I'm not 
sure
but it's not like the answer mattered.  NT and WIn95 have two codebases.  The
OSs seem
to share little -- so little that MS seems to say it makes financial sense to
merge to
one codebase ASAP.

To me NT for x86 CPUs has been a codebase much like the OS/2 codebase.  Tuned
for the
x86 family.  The RISC NT was the portable OS -- like OS/2 PPC was to be for
OS/2 --
built without CPU specific features and open for CPU makers to specialize for
their
own CPUs. IBM killed the PPC OS/2 project and stuck with x86 (IA32) and MS's
portable
OS is now dead.

> When discussing the multiple versions of NT4, that being x86, PPC, Alpha and
> MIPS, it is neither accurate to say that they have 100% source in common,
> nor is it accurate to say they have 0% code in common.

It is correct to cut to the chase and say MS used multiple codes bases.  All
theories
ae moot.
It is also correct to use the past as a model of what they are doing now.  The 
fact
Compaq abandoned NT and IA32 W2K is interesting.  It says they see little gain 
with NT
and W2K at the high end where they position ALPHA Servers and for ALPHA the
desktop
they don't see NT helping as much as LINUX.


> I expect exactly the same thing for the versions of Win2K for IA32 and for
> IA64, and what I have read confirms this. Large parts of the code will be
> identical at the source level, some parts are completely unique for each,
> and some parts will be mostly the same but with conditional compiles built
> in to handle specific optimizations for each platform.

You have said a lot and at the same time you have said nothing.  If the
contention is
that IA64 and IA32 share a common codebase you've offered nothing but your own 
opinion
and guesses.  Everything you've read has been unposted, and kept very close to 
your
the chest.

If I thought IA32 and IA64 were that close then I would see the industry start 
IA64
ports so soon with OS delivery times so far off.  I have little expectation
IBM's OS/2
will be a IA64 OS nor do I think the IA64 will mean much to the OS/2 and NT
4.0
market.  IA64 is for larger classes of OSs like UNIX and AS/400.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          12-Sep-99 04:45:23
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 05:23:09
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message news:37DAF554.9C5392AC@ibm.net...
>
>
> Brad Wardell wrote:
>
> > Esther Schindler <esther@bitranch.com> wrote in message
> > news:LoEFmgJJ9ecw-pn2-ZiNkd224D07s@agave.bitranch.com...
> > > On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 17:00:10, Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote:
> > > | Let's use history as a guide, none of MS's OS updates have been good
> > > | with backwads compatibility.  None and W2K is a major OS update.
> > >
> > > We agree. <smile>
> > >
> > > This is one area in which OS/2 shines. Although new releases broke a
> > > handful of OS/2 applications, it really was only a handful. When I
> > > taught OS/2 classes using Warp 4, I used a few OS/2 1.x applications
> > > in the hands-on exercises.
> > >
> >
> > OS/2's backward compatibility has been most excellent.  I agree with
that.
> > I don't agree that backwards compatibility on Win32 OS's has been "bad".
I
> > can't think of any Win32 apps that have been broken from Win95 to Win2K.
> >
> > OS/2's compatibility has been basically perfect but that does'nt mean
that
> > NT's is "bad".
>
> In the case of NT, we'll find out with W2K. Allchin in an interview was
not
> encouraging.  Niether has the Gartner Group

I'll take first hand experience over the "Gartner Group" any day.

Brad

>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          12-Sep-99 04:47:04
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 05:23:09
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message news:37DAF64A.5C97CCC5@ibm.net...
>
>
> Brad Wardell wrote:
>
> > Esther Schindler <esther@bitranch.com> wrote in message
> > news:LoEFmgJJ9ecw-pn2-lsr8lRd6XqLm@agave.bitranch.com...
> > > On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 22:26:49, forgitaboutit@fake.com (David H. McCoy)
> > > wrote:
> > > | Specifics, Esther?
> > >
> > > Sorry, David, but I don't know. You'd have to ask sjvn for the
> > > specifics. And you can't do so at the moment -- he's off to
> > > Networld+Interop. I'm sure he'll be writing about the topic, though.
> > >
> >
> > The reality is, most corporate users and end users who are running NT
won't
> > have any apps that break.  Sure, there will be plenty of custom or
network
> > specific apps in a particular instance that have problems, it's not
going to
> > be perfect I'm sure (as OS/2's been pretty good about) but it's a far
cry
> > from bad.
>
> I'm at a loss to understand your point.  Is a customized applicaiton and
or
> networked a coprporation built supposed to be less important than a
commerically
> purchased application?  And it is becoming clear that a total rewite of
inhouse
> software will be necesary to take advantage of most of W2K's new features.
>

I was not weighing importance, I was weighing number of people who will
encounter a problem.

Most people will not have any problems.  I could name dozens of cases where
OS/2 Warp 3 broke thigns written for 2.0.  But for virtually everyone, OS/2
backward compatibility has been outstanding.  Windows has never been as good
but it has never been nearly as bad as some people here have made it sound.

Brad


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: madings@baladi.nmrfam.wisc.edu                    12-Sep-99 04:48:27
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 05:23:09
Subj: Re: [MS-bashing] New collection of anti-Microsoft banners

From: Steve Mading <madings@baladi.nmrfam.wisc.edu>

In comp.os.linux.advocacy Hobbyist<hobbyist@nospam.net> wrote:
: Steve Mading wrote +/- quoted :

:> I'll type slowly so you can understand:
:> You ... don't ... need ... to ... see ... the ... whole ... window
:> ... to ... type ... into ... the ... part ... of ... it ... that
:> ... is ... exposed.

: I understand. Is it that I have to agree with you before you feel
: that I understand? But the fact that when I type, the window in
: which I'm typing has to be in focus is no big deal for most
: INCLUDING  myself. In fact some may prefer if the window is at
: the front. Far more often than not, I desire to see the entire
: window that I'm typing in, so yes, I may have use for your
: feature in a few situations. Am I an unadvanced user for feeling
: this way? 

The reason I assumed you didn't understand was that you implied
that you wouldn't be able to see what you are typing if you left
the window underneath.  This was the specific point to which I
was replying.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: University of Wisconsin, Madison (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: horseman@ibm.net                                  11-Sep-99 20:27:19
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 10:18:25
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: Tony Wright <horseman@ibm.net>

Brad Wardell wrote:

> Tim Martin <OS2Guy@WarpCity.com> wrote in message
> news:37DA01A3.B3823A3B@WarpCity.com...
> > Jason wrote:
> >
> > > Tim Martin <OS2Guy@WarpCity.com> wrote:
> > > : Stardock and author Kris Kwilas have flipped off the OS/2
> > > : community with their latest release of Window Blinds v.099.
> > > : The hype is claiming 'millions of downloads in just a few
> > > : months for the most desired software in the world'.
> > >
> > > : The OS/2 user is to be thunked for funding Stardock's  latest
> > > : software product which only runs on a Microsoft operating system.
> > >
> > > Actually if a new client is brought forth by stardock it will probably
> > > include a 16bit version of windowblinds for windows 3.1 which in turn
> > > runs on OS/2.
> > >
> > > -Jason
> >
> > Actually there will be no new Stardock Warp 5 client
> > despite the ten months of Stardock hype.  Stardock
> > has failed to meet IBM's financial package requirement.
> >
>
> This is an outright lie.

no doubt.....but statistically, given an imponderable amount of time even he
could get at least one wildly speculative prediction right eventually.....  
:-(

>  You have no idea of the status of the Warp 5
> client.  That's probably why you continue these irrational attacks on
> Stardock, because you're completely out of the loop on what we do and it
> bothers you apparently to no end.
>
> Stardock continues to develop and support OS/2 products despite having to
> pay for that support through the sales of Windows software.
>
> You should be thankful that you're just a little bug on the net.  Your
> libelous statements such as the one above would get you into serious trouble
> if you actually had any influence on anything.

.....but arguably even little "bugs" can indirectly influence the consumers
decision to purchase an insect repellant. <g>....

> Brad
>
> > Tim Martin
> > The OS/2 Guy
> > Warp City
>
> >
> >



--
Rgds Tony W   Email: horseman@ibm.net

"humanum est errare: To err is human
.... and to fail is to be a Project Manager...
...but to foul things up completely needs a computer!"




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Equi-Tek CompCon (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com                               12-Sep-99 00:25:10
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 10:18:25
Subj: Re: Time for a Warp Client

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com (Steven C. Den Beste)

On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 21:14:20 -0400, Joseph recycled some holes into the
following pattern:

>
>
>Steven C. Den Beste wrote:
>
>
>> (Tell me, when a dog cashes its tail, does it have to sign the tail and
show
>> ID? I guess that's a long tale. [Does it get more money for a long tail?])
>
>Boy you sure know how to make me look silly.

<now how can I pass up a straight line like this, folks?>

"I didn't think you needed any help with that." <rimshot>

Yadaadaa, yaadaadaa tappity tappity tappity <the old softshoe>

====and=here=comes=the=cane====
                               \\
                                ||
                               //
                            ===

--------
Steven C. Den Beste    sdenbes1@san.rr.com
Home page: http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste

"We're just ordinary earthlings, not weirdos from another planet!"
              -- Calvin

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: hep@nospam.bigfoot.com                            12-Sep-99 11:14:22
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 10:18:25
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Howard Pollock <hep@nospam.bigfoot.com>

In article <loCC3.4212$Ud2.101846@typhoon1.rdc-detw.rr.com>, Brad Wardell
wrote:
> Esther Schindler <esther@bitranch.com> wrote in message
> news:LoEFmgJJ9ecw-pn2-nhmiD0XKnzv9@agave.bitranch.com...
> > On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 17:12:49, "Brad Wardell"
> > <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
> > | What software that worked on NT 4 doesn't work on Win2K?
> >
> > Lots and *lots* of it, Brad.
> >
> > I hasten to mention that I have no personal experience in this area.
> > But one of the people I work with has been speaking with a lot of
> > Windows NT developers, and he says it's a serious problem for them.
> >
> 
> You need to provide some examples.  Even one example would do.  In my
> experience, Win2K is even MORE compatible with Win32 based software than NT
> is.  Win2K can run all those DirectX 5 and above games where as NT had
> problems with some of them.
> 
> Brad
>

Brad,

Try running Adaptec Easy-CD Creator (not yet compatible), or "Nero Burning
CDrom"
- blue screened, no fix until official w2k release.

Regards

Howard

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               12-Sep-99 14:43:09
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 14:38:15
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 00:22:36, "Brad Wardell" 
<bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:

| OS/2's backward compatibility has been most excellent.  I agree with that.
| I don't agree that backwards compatibility on Win32 OS's has been "bad".  I
| can't think of any Win32 apps that have been broken from Win95 to Win2K.

It's years since I had to think about it, Brad, but statistically 
you're incorrect. There were a *lot* of problems with Win3.1->Win95 
upgrades. Plenty of apps quit working... though I could no longer 
recite the names of the more famous examples.

--Esther 


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               12-Sep-99 14:46:11
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 14:38:15
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 00:23:45, "Brad Wardell" 
<bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:

| You need to provide some examples.  Even one example would do.  In my
| experience, Win2K is even MORE compatible with Win32 based software than NT
| is.  Win2K can run all those DirectX 5 and above games where as NT had
| problems with some of them.

Well, Howard stepped in with a few examples. <aside: Thanks!>

I already said that I don't know the specifics. I don't cover 
Microsoft products, or at least I do so very rarely. I just have the 
benefit of working with people who do, and who are acknowledged 
experts on the topic.

If you said, "Game development on [platform] is very hard," for 
example, I wouldn't need to quiz you about the reasons why; I'd be 
comfortable "knowing" that it's hard, because I trust your experience 
and judgement on the subject. Similarly, if sjvn says, "They're in a 
world of hurt," I don't have to ask him which applications crash and 
burn. 

This isn't as authoritative as checking it out myself, and saying, "I 
personally watched the monitor smoke when I started up the Win95 
version of CardScan," but it'll do, for my purposes.

--Esther

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: loki@midway.uchicago.edu                          12-Sep-99 15:10:15
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 14:38:16
Subj: Re: Time for a Warp Client

From: loki@midway.uchicago.edu (david raoul derbes)

In article <37d9b80b@news1.prserv.net>, Richard Hevron <rhevron@ibm.net>
wrote:
>Lennart Gahm <lennart-remove-@plg.-remove-a.se> wrote in message > I think
>that it is the best time within a year to provide an alternative
>> to Windows. More and more people and companies are fedup with Microsoft.
>> If the pricetag for Windows2000 is as Gartner Group predict it can be the
>> thing that makes companies to drop Microsoft.
>
>Could this be part of IBM's understanding of the situation and a function of
>its grand strategy against Microsoft?
>
>As in the "Art of War" don't let your enemy know your plans or strengths!

There is an intriguing article in the most recent Dr. Dobbs by Michael
Swaine. Swaine says, and this will come as no surprise whatsoever to 
regular readers of this newsgroup, that there is a tremendous amount of
hatred inside IBM towards MS. Indeed, Swaine believes that some of IBM's
recent decisions were based on a hope that they could injure MS, rather
than necessarily benefit IBM. (Java, Linux support for two.)

It is hard to imagine something that would be more injurious to MS than
a significant effort behind a new OS/2 client, and basically giving 
away the software. "Significant effort" not only means updating the
client to support and recognize new hardware, but somehow (and I have
no idea how this might be done; in fact it is probably impossible) 
encouraging Corel, Imprise/Borland, et. al. (not to mention Lotus, who
they *can* influence) to develop for the new client.

I recognize (NB Steven and others) that this wouldn't do anything material
for IBM, at least in the short run, and maybe never. But if Swaine is
right, there may be some inside IBM who are more driven by anger than
greed. That ain't good in an enemy. What it means is that your enemy
is willing to hurt himself badly in order to hurt you some.

David Derbes [loki@midway.uchicago.edu]


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: The University of Chicago (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: wsonna@ibm.net                                    12-Sep-99 15:44:16
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 14:38:16
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: wsonna@ibm.net (William Sonna)

On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 04:47:09, "Brad Wardell" 
<bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:

> 
> Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message news:37DAF64A.5C97CCC5@ibm.net...
> >
> >
> > Brad Wardell wrote:
> >
> > > Esther Schindler <esther@bitranch.com> wrote in message
> > > news:LoEFmgJJ9ecw-pn2-lsr8lRd6XqLm@agave.bitranch.com...
> > > > On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 22:26:49, forgitaboutit@fake.com (David H. McCoy)
> > > > wrote:
> > > > | Specifics, Esther?
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, David, but I don't know. You'd have to ask sjvn for the
> > > > specifics. And you can't do so at the moment -- he's off to
> > > > Networld+Interop. I'm sure he'll be writing about the topic, though.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The reality is, most corporate users and end users who are running NT
> won't
> > > have any apps that break.  Sure, there will be plenty of custom or
> network
> > > specific apps in a particular instance that have problems, it's not
> going to
> > > be perfect I'm sure (as OS/2's been pretty good about) but it's a far
> cry
> > > from bad.
> >
> > I'm at a loss to understand your point.  Is a customized applicaiton and
> or
> > networked a coprporation built supposed to be less important than a
> commerically
> > purchased application?  And it is becoming clear that a total rewite of
> inhouse
> > software will be necesary to take advantage of most of W2K's new features.
> >
> 
> I was not weighing importance, I was weighing number of people who will
> encounter a problem.
> 
> Most people will not have any problems.  I could name dozens of cases where
> OS/2 Warp 3 broke thigns written for 2.0.  But for virtually everyone, OS/2
> backward compatibility has been outstanding.  Windows has never been as good
> but it has never been nearly as bad as some people here have made it sound.
> 
> Brad
> 
> 

You can downplay it all you want, but the transition from Win 3.1 to 
Win 95 was awful and continues to be sore spot with many users to this
day.  Every bit as awful as the transition from DOS to Windows.

In both cases, "compatability" meant enough existing best sellers ran 
to avoid bad publicity, and nothing more.

The track record of non-best sellers was 50% at best (in my own 
experience).  And I STILL can't get some of my stuff to run correctly 
on Win '98.

Is NT really any different?

Do we really have any objective reason to expect better this time?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          12-Sep-99 16:42:01
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 16:39:11
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Esther Schindler <esther@bitranch.com> wrote in message
news:LoEFmgJJ9ecw-pn2-dd967dx4D9Il@agave.bitranch.com...
> On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 00:22:36, "Brad Wardell"
> <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> | OS/2's backward compatibility has been most excellent.  I agree with
that.
> | I don't agree that backwards compatibility on Win32 OS's has been "bad".
I
> | can't think of any Win32 apps that have been broken from Win95 to Win2K.
>
> It's years since I had to think about it, Brad, but statistically
> you're incorrect. There were a *lot* of problems with Win3.1->Win95
> upgrades. Plenty of apps quit working... though I could no longer
> recite the names of the more famous examples.
>

Esther, you can't just go on and say "You're statistically incorrect.." and
not provide any evidence to back this assertion.  I do not believe your
assertion to be correct with regard to Win32 OSes.  Secondly, look carefully
at my statement -- Win32 OSes.  I am not commenting on Windows 3.1 to
Windows 95.  I am commenting on Windows 95 to Windows 98 and NT3.1 to 3.5 to
4.0.

Go look at the Win32 news groups, you'll have a hard time finding people who
upgraded to Win98 or to WinNT or are running Win2K RC1 having problems
getting their Win32 applications to work.

I am not arguing that there's 100% compatibility, I'm sure there will be
some special case applications that break.  But I would say that's a long
way from "bad" backward compatibility.

Brad

> --Esther
>
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          12-Sep-99 16:42:23
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 16:39:11
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Howard Pollock <hep@nospam.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:VA.0000000d.0010323c@bigfoot.com...
> In article <loCC3.4212$Ud2.101846@typhoon1.rdc-detw.rr.com>, Brad Wardell
wrote:
> > Esther Schindler <esther@bitranch.com> wrote in message
> > news:LoEFmgJJ9ecw-pn2-nhmiD0XKnzv9@agave.bitranch.com...
> > > On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 17:12:49, "Brad Wardell"
> > > <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
> > > | What software that worked on NT 4 doesn't work on Win2K?
> > >
> > > Lots and *lots* of it, Brad.
> > >
> > > I hasten to mention that I have no personal experience in this area.
> > > But one of the people I work with has been speaking with a lot of
> > > Windows NT developers, and he says it's a serious problem for them.
> > >
> >
> > You need to provide some examples.  Even one example would do.  In my
> > experience, Win2K is even MORE compatible with Win32 based software than
NT
> > is.  Win2K can run all those DirectX 5 and above games where as NT had
> > problems with some of them.
> >
> > Brad
> >
>
> Brad,
>
> Try running Adaptec Easy-CD Creator (not yet compatible), or "Nero Burning
CDrom"
> - blue screened, no fix until official w2k release.
>

You're talking about an unreleased OS.  When it's released, the come back.
Does the Adeptec Easy-CD Creator run on NT 4?

Brad

> Regards
>
> Howard
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          12-Sep-99 16:54:07
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 20:01:29
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Esther Schindler <esther@bitranch.com> wrote in message
news:LoEFmgJJ9ecw-pn2-FiXG0b6rrHNK@agave.bitranch.com...
> On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 00:23:45, "Brad Wardell"
> <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> | You need to provide some examples.  Even one example would do.  In my
> | experience, Win2K is even MORE compatible with Win32 based software than
NT
> | is.  Win2K can run all those DirectX 5 and above games where as NT had
> | problems with some of them.
>
> Well, Howard stepped in with a few examples. <aside: Thanks!>
>
> I already said that I don't know the specifics. I don't cover
> Microsoft products, or at least I do so very rarely. I just have the
> benefit of working with people who do, and who are acknowledged
> experts on the topic.
>
> If you said, "Game development on [platform] is very hard," for
> example, I wouldn't need to quiz you about the reasons why; I'd be
> comfortable "knowing" that it's hard, because I trust your experience
> and judgement on the subject. Similarly, if sjvn says, "They're in a
> world of hurt," I don't have to ask him which applications crash and
> burn.
>

I am not an expert on Win32 compatibility?  We have an application --
WindowBlinds that has hundreds of thousands users that runs on Windows 95,
Windows NT, Windows 98, and Windows 2000 all with the same code base.  If
any app was going to be broken by Win2K, it would be that app.

Why am I an expert on gaming when most of my day to day experience is with
applications?  Probably less than 1/4th of my employer's revenue has come
from games.

But let's go with the game assumption for a moment, games are almost always
the thing to break when switching to new versions and more games work under
Win2K than under Windows NT 4.0.

Howard provided two (2) examples both of the same type of application - CD
ROM burning utilities.  These are utilities that are very device driver
oriented and almost certainly due to updated device drivers.  I would be the
first to agree that when switching to a new OS that the previous OS's
hardware drivers may have some issues.  Heck, OS/2 is no stranger to that if
you remember the pain of trying to get WinOS2 to work on many video cards on
the OS/2 2.0 days (heck getting SVGA to work on OS/2 2.0 caused me to get an
XGA-2 card).

The fact of the matter is, most applications that run on NT 4.0 are going to
run on Win2K.  In fact, I'll go as far as to say almost all applications
that run on NT 4 will run on Win2K.  For me, "bad" backward compatibility
implies that a good 25% or more of programs that were running on NT4 won't
run on Win2K and that is certainly not the case.  If it were, it would be
trivial to have someone come on and list a slew of apps that don't run.

I don't like defending Windows, makes me ill to do so, but this backward
compatibilty myth is something that's been taken as a truism for so long by
OS/2 users that it's treated as accepted fact.  If OS/2 had the marketshare
and received the coverage that Windows does, believe me, OS/2 would get its
compatibility attacked too.  Apps often break between Fixpacks on OS/2.  In
fact, we get more technical support about a Fixpack breaking or causing some
problem with one of our apps than Windows programs not running on a specific
OS (and in fact, not a single one of our Win32 programs have had a problem
between versions of Windows).

> This isn't as authoritative as checking it out myself, and saying, "I
> personally watched the monitor smoke when I started up the Win95
> version of CardScan," but it'll do, for my purposes.
>

You haven't cited any statistics or even quotes of a statistic.  You've only
asserted that based on other people's opinions, Win2K is going to have "bad"
backward compatibility.  That's not a reasonable position as it not only is
extremely vague, it's unsubstanitated.  Or, let me put it the other way, if
the roles were reversed and you were saying these things as a Windows user
about OS/2, the OS/2 users here (myself included) would be accusing you of
spreading FUD.


Brad



> --Esther


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          12-Sep-99 17:22:01
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 20:01:29
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

William Sonna <wsonna@ibm.net> wrote in message
news:05C6FUhLDNUU-pn2-GoiJWTEsj6N6@localhost...
> On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 04:47:09, "Brad Wardell"

< remarks on WinNT to Win2K transition snipped >

> > Most people will not have any problems.  I could name dozens of cases
where
> > OS/2 Warp 3 broke thigns written for 2.0.  But for virtually everyone,
OS/2
> > backward compatibility has been outstanding.  Windows has never been as
good
> > but it has never been nearly as bad as some people here have made it
sound.
> >
> > Brad
> >
> You can downplay it all you want, but the transition from Win 3.1 to
> Win 95 was awful and continues to be sore spot with many users to this
> day.  Every bit as awful as the transition from DOS to Windows.
>

It was pretty far from perfect, I completely agree.  But that's a Win16 to
Win32 transition.  Going from NT 4 to Win2K is much like going from OS/2
Warp 3 to OS/2 Warp 4.

> In both cases, "compatability" meant enough existing best sellers ran
> to avoid bad publicity, and nothing more.
>

We'll have to agree to disagree as back in those days, I only had 1 Win95
setup available and the only software for it was generally Win16 shareware
and freeware and those programs ran.  Of course, this has nothing to do with
the topic (note the name of the topic: NT to Win2K compatibility).

> The track record of non-best sellers was 50% at best (in my own
> experience).  And I STILL can't get some of my stuff to run correctly
> on Win '98.
>

And my experience was totally different in those days, still completely
irrelevant to whether going from NT to Win2K is going to be a problem.

> Is NT really any different?
>

I would say so.  Going from a 16bit DOS shell to a 32bit OS (barely but it
was) is a lot different than going from NT 4 to what is basically NT 5
(Win2K).

> Do we really have any objective reason to expect better this time?

See above.  Going from NT 3.5 to NT 4 was pretty painless.  Going from Win95
to Win98 was pretty painless.

One of the reason why OS/2 ends up in the losing column so often it seems
like is because its user base is largely ignorant of the rest of the
industry.  An OS/2 user going in to talk to Joe User who's been running
Windows since 1995 is not going to get far telling him that he needs to
switch to OS/2 because it has great backward compatibility and doesn't crash
every 2 hours because Joe User probably did not have a single app break
switching from Win95 to Win98 and probably has only had a couple of crashes
in the entire time he's had his computer.

OS/2 is a better OS than Windows 95/NT/2K in my opinon, and if you're going
to advocate it, you need to advocate it based on its strenghts.  Seeing a
bunch of OS/2 users who obviously know very little on the Windows market
trying to tell me how bad compatibility is going to be when switching from
NT to Win2K when I'm sitting here running Win2K RC1, have had extensive
experience with compatibility as part of my job and deal with thousands of
users who are doing the same thing and never hearing a single complaint just
sounds silly to me.

Whenever I see Steven DenBeste and others spreading FUD on OS/2, you know
I'm almost always the first one to counteract that FUD against OS/2.  But
I'm also not going to idly stand by and watch FUD spread about Win2K because
it weakens the OS/2 position because it makes OS/2 users sound like people
who've bought into propoganda.

You want to know what's lame about Windows 2K after all these years then
let's go on facts:

1) Win2K finally introduces EA's accessible to the user via its hack
notebook but it's only on NTFS.  Copy that file to FAT and the EA is gone
(it even is nice enough to tell you).  OS/2 allows EAs to be transferred to
FAT and even to floppies!

2) Short cuts on Win2K still get broken if you move the original file (OS/2
had true shadows back in 1992!)

3) You have to have 64MB of memory just to run the thing remotely decently
and what beef do I really get for that RAM that I couldn't get from the OS
in OS/2?

4) On OS/2, when I can run CPU intensive programs I could switch to another
program and continue working very well.  On NT/Win2K, background processes
(rendering, compiling, printing) can cause the foreground process to become
quite unresponsive which is extremely annoying.

5) NT4/Win2K may allow you to get out of hangs but they do not kill all
processes, many processes tell you that they are unkillable with an error
message -- thus you have to reboot to take care of one of these processes
that have gone haywire.

6) There is no mouse configuration available to decide what the mouse
buttons should do.  Using the left mouse button to drag and drop an "object"
may do 1 of 3 things: Create a short cut, move it, or copy it.  The rules
for determining this are inconsistant, unconfigurable, and complicated (and
stupid).

7) Win2K finally provies a computer manager but NT 4 does not have one.  If
you share a folder, you better remember where it is if you want to change
somethign about it.  On OS/2, it was always easy to deal with such things,
Win2K basically copies OS/2's network configuration UI.

8) The EA page on objects on NTFS is called "summary".  It has "Category"
and "Keywords" in there.  Great idea but guess what?  It doesn't remember
the categories you create.  So if I right click on file called "Graph for
Tuesday's Meeting.GRH" I can create a category called "Tuesday's Meeting".
But then if I right click on a file called "Agenda for meeting.DOC" the
category I just created will not be listed, I have to remember to call it
"Tuesday's Meeting".  OS/2 has done this correctly since 1992.

9) The search program is idiotic and more complicated than before.  It
allows you to turn on an "indexing service" that will occasionally (and
noisily) scan your drive and catalog your files.  Strangely enough, when I
search for a file that's been on my hard drive for years, it still takes
forever.  On OS/2, such a search would have taken a couple of seconds if it
had been cataloged like that.

10) The Win2K command line is still incredibly stupid and wimpy.  There is
still no "detach" command.  There is still no built in batch language
equivalent to REXX built in.


These are 10 pretty major advantages OS/2 Warp 4 (heck OS/2 2.0) have over
Windows 2000.  These are real, verifiable, difficult to argue against
points.

But when I read posts by users who aren't familiar at all with the
compatibility levels of moving between various flavors of Win32 I feel that
this needs to be spoken against lest OS/2 users get painted as being out of
touch.  If I wanted to, I could bring out how awful some of the Fixpacks for
OS/2 have been historically -- remember Fixpack 18 for Warp 3?  But for most
people on OS/2, moving from OS/2 2.0 to 3.0 to 4.0 has been very painless.
But the same is true on Windows -- moving from Win95 to Win98 is painless.
Moving from NT 4 to Win2k is going to be pretty painless.  It won't be as
ideal as OS/2 I'm sure but it's a far cry from "bad".

Brad



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com                               12-Sep-99 10:15:28
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 20:01:29
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com (Steven C. Den Beste)

On 12 Sep 1999 14:46:23 GMT, Esther Schindler recycled some holes into the
following pattern:

>On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 00:23:45, "Brad Wardell" 
><bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>| You need to provide some examples.  Even one example would do.  In my
>| experience, Win2K is even MORE compatible with Win32 based software than NT
>| is.  Win2K can run all those DirectX 5 and above games where as NT had
>| problems with some of them.
>
>Well, Howard stepped in with a few examples. <aside: Thanks!>
>
>I already said that I don't know the specifics. I don't cover 
>Microsoft products, or at least I do so very rarely. I just have the 
>benefit of working with people who do, and who are acknowledged 
>experts on the topic.
>
>If you said, "Game development on [platform] is very hard," for 
>example, I wouldn't need to quiz you about the reasons why; I'd be 
>comfortable "knowing" that it's hard, because I trust your experience 
>and judgement on the subject. Similarly, if sjvn says, "They're in a 
>world of hurt," I don't have to ask him which applications crash and 
>burn. 
>
>This isn't as authoritative as checking it out myself, and saying, "I 
>personally watched the monitor smoke when I started up the Win95 
>version of CardScan," but it'll do, for my purposes.
>
>--Esther

There's a broad leap between *you* believing your friend, and you expecting
*me* to believe your friend.

You have sufficient information to apply the "three questions" but I don't
because you haven't even identified who he is.

Just to review, the "three questions" to use when anyone asserts an
authority are:

  Who says? (Name?)
  Who's he? (Credentials?)
  How's he know? (What kinds of tests has he done?)

  (or substitute "she" as appropriate)

You know who it is and have a pretty good answer for the other two
questions, so you are in a position to make a good judgement about the
quality of the information. But all I have is "a friend of a friend of mine,
whom she won't actually identify for me" for the first question, and no
answers at all for the second and third questions.

I equally would take Brad's word for things having to do with game
development, but the difference in this case is that I *do* have sufficient
information about Brad to ask and answer the three questions.

--------
Steven C. Den Beste    sdenbes1@san.rr.com
Home page: http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste

"We're just ordinary earthlings, not weirdos from another planet!"
              -- Calvin

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jasper.dekeijzer@worldonline.nl                   12-Sep-99 21:41:05
  To: esther@bitranch.com                               12-Sep-99 20:02:00
Subj: Re: Who is writing about new software for OS/2?

To: Esther Schindler <esther@bitranch.com>
From: jasper <jasper.dekeijzer@worldonline.nl>

Thanks for the e-mail addresses.

Jasper de Keijzer.
http://home-5.worldonline.nl/~jdekeij

Esther Schindler wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 21:31:46, sdenbes1@san.rr.com (Steven C. Den
> Beste) wrote:
>
> | Well, there's Esther's POSSI publication.
>
> Thanks for the plug for _extended attributes_, Steven. It's very kind
> of you to mention it.
>
> But it's not "Esther's" in any sense of the word. I'm assistant
> editor, but the editor in chief is Bill Schindler... and he's the one
> who deserves the credit for the magazine's success. Under Bill's able
> leadership, _extended attributes_ has won three awards... and is
> mailed to 16 countries and 48 U.S. States.
>
> Sure, Alan Zeichick and I volunteer our time to copy edit a bit, but
> that's minor stuff. It pales in comparison to the work that Bill
> invests... and, of course, to the work volunteered by the OS/2
> community and members of the Phoenix OS/2 Society. Every word in that
> 28-page glossy magazine is written by a volunteer; nobody's paid a
> cent for his contributions, and yet the quality is (in my
> not-so-humble opinion) top-notch. (Well, except for that annoying
> column written by that bits-on-wheels, Esther.)
>
> Lurkers may want to know that they can get a free sample of _extended
> attributes_ by filling out the form at http://www.possi.org.
>
> | But part of the reason that you can't find many reviews is that there
really
> | isn't much to review these days.
>
> There are fewer commercial applications to review than were released a
> few years ago. However, I compile a "what's new and improved" column
> for extended attributes every month, and I always have 2-3 pages of
> product announcements. Many of them wouldn't get space in a mainstream
> PC publication (most of which don't write about utilities, for
> example, and few of which will review a free application...
> irrespective of platform), but they do exist.
>
> extended attributes also has at least one product review in each
> issue, usually two.
>
> To contact the editor, write to editor@possi.org.
>
> OS/2 developers: If you're interested in your product being reviewed,
> contact Craig Greenwood at reviews@possi.org. Our Ad Sales contact is
> mpizzo@ibm.net; you might be surprised at how inexpensively you can
> reach a targetted market of OS/2 users.
>
> --Esther
>   program chair, Phoenix OS/2 Society



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: WorldOnline News server (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: pcguido@ibm.net                                   12-Sep-99 20:17:20
  To: All                                               12-Sep-99 22:52:14
Subj: Re: Why NT is x86 only

From: pcguido@ibm.net

In <Pine.SGI.3.93.990910151341.15173A-100000@sea.monterey.edu>, josco
<josco@sea.monterey.edu> writes:
|On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Steven C. Den Beste wrote:
|
|| On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 07:10:13 -0400, Joseph recycled some holes into the
|| following pattern:
||
|| >> each written uniquely and separately.
|| >
|| >That might be true and it might not be true --- MS doesn't use one
codebase so
|| >with NT and W2K so the point is moot.Sun does not use one JVM codebase.
||
|| What's this got to do with NT4? I'm not talking about that. I'm *only*
|| talking about Win2K (alias NT5).
|
|Are you psyco?

Joseph,

I assume this was a _rhetorical_ question...

Guido

|
|1) You justifed your single codebase theory with references to JIT and
|JAVA.
|
|2) I reminded you that MS uses multiple code bases for NT.
|
|3) You respond that I'm off topic for using NT as an example.
|
|If you want to justify your theory wuth examples start with NT.  Explain
|why MS hasn't used one codebase for NT rather than jumping off into JAVA
|and pulling examples with portable Java applications.	Yes NT isn't W2K
|but it is far closer to W2K than any embedded code/JAVAexmaple you have
|offered.
|
|Here is what you wrote yesterday, Sept 9th.
|
|
|Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 17:48:02 -0700
|From: "Steven C. Den Beste" <sdenbes1@san.rr.com>
|Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
|Subject: Re: Why NT is x86 only
|
|On 09 Sep 1999 15:21:36 PDT, Kim Cheung recycled some holes into the
|following pattern:
|
||On Thu, 09 Sep 1999 08:20:45 -0700, Steven C. Den Beste wrote:
||
|||There's no particular reason that the same source code couldn't generate
|||efficient binary for both IA32 and IA64.
||
||That's not true!!!
||
|
|In that case, Java JIT's shouldn't be able to do it either. But it seems
|to
|be the consensus in this group that there's no barrier to having a JIT
|generate efficient code on all platforms starting from the same portable
|byte-code.
|
|Why, then, can't C compilers working directly from source which was
|deliberately written to be portable also generate efficient code on just
|two
|different platforms?
|
|My direct professional experience is that they can. This is something I
|know
|a great deal about, since I've been programming primarily in C, for
|embedded
|microprocessors, for most of the last 24 years.
|
|If you think my contention is not true, how about giving a reason why
|rather
|than just "automatically gainsaying what the other person says".
|
|



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu                             12-Sep-99 20:47:26
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 03:45:01
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu

Brad Wardell writes [to Esther Schindler]:

> Esther, you can't just go on and say "You're statistically incorrect.." and
> not provide any evidence to back this assertion.

How incredibly ironic, considering the total lack of evidence you
provided for some of your assertions.  And you obviously didn't
bother to look at your so-called evidence for some of your other
assertions.

> I do not believe your assertion to be correct with regard to Win32 OSes.

I don't believe many of your assertions, Brad.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu                             12-Sep-99 20:52:20
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 03:45:01
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu

Brad Wardell writes [to Esther Schindler]:

> You haven't cited any statistics or even quotes of a statistic.

Meanwhile, the statistics you cited for the supposed number of
"Tholen and kook" postings in other newsgroups is completely
bogus.

> You've only asserted that based on other people's opinions, Win2K
> is going to have "bad" backward compatibility.

Meanwhile, you've only asserted that based on your own flawed
analysis and other people's antagonism that I'm a kook.

> That's not a reasonable position as it not only is extremely
> vague, it's unsubstanitated.

Just like how your position is not only unreasonable, but also
unsubstantiated.  At least you weren't vague.

> Or, let me put it the other way, if the roles were reversed and
> you were saying these things as a Windows user about OS/2, the
> OS/2 users here (myself included) would be accusing you of
> spreading FUD.

So, you've been spreading FUD about me.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu                             12-Sep-99 20:55:25
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 03:45:01
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu

Brad Wardell writes:

> Whenever I see Steven DenBeste and others spreading FUD on OS/2, you know
> I'm almost always the first one to counteract that FUD against OS/2.

Then why do I beat you to him so often?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com                            12-Sep-99 17:06:13
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 03:45:01
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com (David H. McCoy)

In article <LpCC3.4213$Ud2.101456@typhoon1.rdc-detw.rr.com>, 
bwardell@mw.mediaone.net says...
> 
> Esther Schindler <esther@bitranch.com> wrote in message
> news:LoEFmgJJ9ecw-pn2-lsr8lRd6XqLm@agave.bitranch.com...
> > On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 22:26:49, forgitaboutit@fake.com (David H. McCoy)
> > wrote:
> > | Specifics, Esther?
> >
> > Sorry, David, but I don't know. You'd have to ask sjvn for the
> > specifics. And you can't do so at the moment -- he's off to
> > Networld+Interop. I'm sure he'll be writing about the topic, though.
> >
> 
> The reality is, most corporate users and end users who are running NT won't
> have any apps that break.  Sure, there will be plenty of custom or network
> specific apps in a particular instance that have problems, it's not going to
> be perfect I'm sure (as OS/2's been pretty good about) but it's a far cry
> from bad.
> 
> Brad
> 
> > --Esther
> 
> 
> 

That's what I believe. 

-- -----------------
----------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com                            12-Sep-99 17:14:29
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 03:45:01
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com (David H. McCoy)

In article <loCC3.4212$Ud2.101846@typhoon1.rdc-detw.rr.com>, 
bwardell@mw.mediaone.net says...
> 
> Esther Schindler <esther@bitranch.com> wrote in message
> news:LoEFmgJJ9ecw-pn2-nhmiD0XKnzv9@agave.bitranch.com...
> > On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 17:12:49, "Brad Wardell"
> > <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
> > | What software that worked on NT 4 doesn't work on Win2K?
> >
> > Lots and *lots* of it, Brad.
> >
> > I hasten to mention that I have no personal experience in this area.
> > But one of the people I work with has been speaking with a lot of
> > Windows NT developers, and he says it's a serious problem for them.
> >
> 
> You need to provide some examples.  Even one example would do.  In my
> experience, Win2K is even MORE compatible with Win32 based software than NT
> is.  Win2K can run all those DirectX 5 and above games where as NT had
> problems with some of them.
> 
> Brad
> 
> > --Esther
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 

I can give one. Partition Magic 4.0, even with the patch to manipulate 
NTFS5 partitions. I suspect version checking as opposed to any real 
internal OS differences.

However, besides that an Norton AV 4, everything else I've tried works. 
VC++ 6.0, Half-life, RealJukebox, Spinner, Gravity, Dune2000, StarFleet 
Command, Pointcast, PMMail98, etc...

-- --------------------
-------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            12-Sep-99 21:56:12
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 03:45:01
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 04:45:46, "Brad Wardell" 
<bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:

> 
> Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message news:37DAF554.9C5392AC@ibm.net...
> >
> >
> > Brad Wardell wrote:
> >
> > > Esther Schindler <esther@bitranch.com> wrote in message
> > > news:LoEFmgJJ9ecw-pn2-ZiNkd224D07s@agave.bitranch.com...
> > > > On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 17:00:10, Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote:
> > > > | Let's use history as a guide, none of MS's OS updates have been good
> > > > | with backwads compatibility.  None and W2K is a major OS update.
> > > >
> > > > We agree. <smile>
> > > >
> > > > This is one area in which OS/2 shines. Although new releases broke a
> > > > handful of OS/2 applications, it really was only a handful. When I
> > > > taught OS/2 classes using Warp 4, I used a few OS/2 1.x applications
> > > > in the hands-on exercises.
> > > >
> > >
> > > OS/2's backward compatibility has been most excellent.  I agree with
> that.
> > > I don't agree that backwards compatibility on Win32 OS's has been "bad".
> I
> > > can't think of any Win32 apps that have been broken from Win95 to Win2K.
> > >
> > > OS/2's compatibility has been basically perfect but that does'nt mean
> that
> > > NT's is "bad".
> >
> > In the case of NT, we'll find out with W2K. Allchin in an interview was
> not
> > encouraging.  Niether has the Gartner Group
> 
> I'll take first hand experience over the "Gartner Group" any day.
> 

Notice how I explicitly don't say anything at all here, Brad?
Hmmm?
Wink Wink...

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_ibm_dot_net
=======================================================
If we could have our cake _and_ eat it,
people would start whining about seconds.
=======================================================

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com                            12-Sep-99 17:20:05
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 03:45:01
Subj: Re: Time for a Warp Client

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com (David H. McCoy)

In article <nsCC3.4214$Ud2.101924@typhoon1.rdc-detw.rr.com>, 
bwardell@mw.mediaone.net says...
> 
> David H. McCoy <forgitaboutit@fake.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.12446b19e0b0acd69899ea@news1.mnsinc.com...
> > In article <l4wC3.4147$Ud2.99370@typhoon1.rdc-detw.rr.com>,
> > bwardell@mw.mediaone.net says...
> > >
> > > Jerry McBride <mcbrides@erols.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Ero238D5wC9d090yn@erols.com...
> > > > In article <strZN=8VOlt8P4cFUP=fx9CeZWWa@4ax.com>,
> > > > sdenbes1@san.rr.com (Steven C. Den Beste) wrote:
> > > > >On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 19:50:47 -0400, Marty recycled some holes into
> the
> > > > >following pattern:
> > > > >
> > > > >>"David H. McCoy" wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> And I wonder how much it would be to upgrade to a new OS/2 client
> when
> > > > >>> it has the even more shortcomings, not to mention an almost total
> > > > >>> software replacement.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>How would an upgrade to a new OS/2 client require an "almost total
> > > software
> > > > >>replacement"?  WSeB is completely compatible with Warp 4 and I
> imagine a
> > > > >>client version would be as well.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>- Marty
> > > > >
> > > > >If the software you were using on NT4 was all WIN32 software, how
> could
> > > you
> > > > >continue using it if you suddenly switched to OS/2?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Wait a minute! What the hell is the difference? Upgrading to win2k is
> > > going to
> > > > REQUIRE a lot of new win32 software. Why do you think the upgrade
> costs
> > > are
> > > > going to be SO HUGE!
> > > >
> > >
> > > What software that worked on NT 4 doesn't work on Win2K?
> > >
> > > Brad
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Well, I know two. Norton AV 4 and Partition Magic 4.0. PM checks for the
> > version number. Hmm...also my multimedia keyboard drivers, but that
> > wouldn't be a corporation worry.
> >
> > However, everything else I've tried, including some games that didn't
> > work under NT 4.0 do work.
> >
> 
> Of course, OS/2 has these kinds of issues too.  That's why it's internally
> coded as "2.3 and 2.4", various flavors of DB/2 check the internal version
> number.  Of course, isn't Partition Magic 5 in beta?
> 
> Brad
> 
> > --
> > ---------------------------------------
> > David H. McCoy
> > dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
> > ---------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 

Of course. My personal experience with trying to upgrade NT 4 wasn't 
pretty, but, heck, Merlin made a quantum advance from beta to final in 
terms of installation. Regardless, W2k  is running well, and gives me 
the ability to dual boot even fewer times because of DirectX 7.0. 

-- 
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: dgwhiz@earthling.net                              12-Sep-99 21:24:09
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 03:45:01
Subj: Re: So... you wann'a upgrade to win2k? :')

From: dgwhiz@earthling.net (DG)

    {Posting note: Because this topic doesn't relate
directly to OS/2 use/advocacy, I suggest that follow-ups go
to a Windows ng, where such discussions are already being
held.}


In message <37daa961@oit.umass.edu> - Jason
<malstrom@yolen.oit.umass.edu> writes:

  <= what people don't understand is Windows 2000 is an
upgrade for Windows NT, not for Windows 9X. It's the next
version of Windows 2000 that will be the upgrade for Windows
9X, and that won't probably be avialable till late 2001=>


    Yes, consumers are confused but so are many IT
journalists. We're not to blame for that. The source of the
confusion is Microsoft itself.

    The confusion started with 1995's release of the new
version of DOS called "Windows 95" and increased further
since the "Win2000" beta first was _announced_, i.e., merely
announced as vaporware but not yet seen. The earlier press
releases referred to a product that would merge the DOS
kernal + Win9x graphical shell + NT... er, ahem, except that
the DOS kernal never was mentioned and Win9x never was
properly labeled as a graphical shell. Nor were
compatibility, scalability, reliability and security issues
ever mentioned, but that's hardly a surprise when consumers'
needs take last place.

    Other MSFT press releases referred to 2 distinct
versions of "Win2000" where one version was based on NT,
another on Win9x. Now, we're being told that Windows 2000
will be only a version of NT and Windows Millennium will be
the new version of Win9x [see other messages posted at
*windows.advocacy].

    More importantly, what people don't understand is that
it's hardly an accident or coincidence that Windows
Millennium/Win9x won't be available for another 2 years.
Sure, you can blame MSFT's bad habit of breaking every
programming schedule they've ever set. But that's still a
management responsibility, not merely a programming dept.
problem. MSFT mgmt. clearly has intended to move most, if
not all, Win9x users over to NT. Bill Gates himself stated
this, back in 1995. That's why he took such great pains to
talk about the advantages of merging NT with Win9x. Even the
merged version really was part of the larger plan to "wean"
people off Win9x, and over to NT [by any other name].

    Whether people believe that NT offers benefits, or
whether they realize that NT is too large, bulky and costly
to bother using it for a desktop system, we know that The
Gartner Group has told us the essential truth here:

: The cost of moving from Windows 9x to
: Windows 2000 will be even higher, according to the report
: -- between $2,015 and $3,100 per PC.

    
    Win 9x users should think twice before making such a
switch to NT/Win 2000. Users who do need a Network OS and
are already burdened by NT's costs etc. should consider
using established NOSs such as AIX, OS/2 Server, BSD,
NetWare, and Linux, among others.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: DG (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: rerbert@wxs.nl                                    13-Sep-99 00:09:06
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 03:45:01
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Gerben Bergman <rerbert@wxs.nl>

From the depths of message hell, Brad Wardell wrote on Sun, 12 Sep 1999
17:22:02 GMT:

| One of the reasons why OS/2 ends up in the losing column so often it seems
| like is because its user base is largely ignorant of the rest of the
| industry.

Indeed. OS/2 users are generally very quick to tell Windows users that their
OS sucks, that OS/2 would be a better choice for them, that they're mindless
lemmings which need to be educated, and so on. Compelling rhetoric, until
someone who actually *knows* about Windows starts asking questions -- then
it turns out that these OS/2 users were basing their objections solely on MS
hatred, hearsay, superficial experience, and an elitist "we're better than
the ignorant masses" attitude. Watching you guys squirm here in c.o.o.a
continues to be a valuable source of entertainment. :)

| 2) Short cuts on Win2K still get broken if you move the original file (OS/2
| had true shadows back in 1992!)

"True shadows"? I thought OS/2's shadows were a hack of the OS2.INI file?

| 5) NT4/Win2K may allow you to get out of hangs but they do not kill all
| processes, many processes tell you that they are unkillable with an error
| message -- thus you have to reboot to take care of one of these processes
| that have gone haywire.

Of course, OS/2 is unable to get out of such hangs in the first place. Why
else did Stardock find it necessary to come up with a product like Process
Commander?

| 6) There is no mouse configuration available to decide what the mouse
| buttons should do.  Using the left mouse button to drag and drop an "object"
| may do 1 of 3 things: Create a short cut, move it, or copy it.  The rules
| for determining this are inconsistent, unconfigurable, and complicated (and
| stupid).

I fully agree; that's annoying as hell. But didn't you once say that you
were going to fix this with a future component of Object Desktop for
Windows? How's that one coming along?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Chaos & Disorder, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               12-Sep-99 19:06:27
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 03:45:01
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Gerben Bergman wrote:
> 
> From the depths of message hell, Brad Wardell wrote on Sun, 12 Sep 1999
> 17:22:02 GMT:
> 
> | One of the reasons why OS/2 ends up in the losing column so often it seems
> | like is because its user base is largely ignorant of the rest of the
> | industry.
> 
> Indeed. OS/2 users are generally very quick to tell Windows users that their
> OS sucks,

Because it does.  ;-)

> that OS/2 would be a better choice for them, that they're mindless
> lemmings which need to be educated, and so on. Compelling rhetoric, until
> someone who actually *knows* about Windows starts asking questions -- then
> it turns out that these OS/2 users were basing their objections solely on MS
> hatred, hearsay, superficial experience, and an elitist "we're better than
> the ignorant masses" attitude. Watching you guys squirm here in c.o.o.a
> continues to be a valuable source of entertainment. :)

Except for the lemmings part, the same can be said of many Winvocates here
in talking about OS/2.
 
> | 2) Short cuts on Win2K still get broken if you move the original file
(OS/2
> | had true shadows back in 1992!)
> 
> "True shadows"? I thought OS/2's shadows were a hack of the OS2.INI file?

And the filesystem and the Workplace shell.  I wouldn't call that a hack. 
I'd call it a design.

> | 5) NT4/Win2K may allow you to get out of hangs but they do not kill all
> | processes, many processes tell you that they are unkillable with an error
> | message -- thus you have to reboot to take care of one of these processes
> | that have gone haywire.
> 
> Of course, OS/2 is unable to get out of such hangs in the first place. Why
> else did Stardock find it necessary to come up with a product like Process
> Commander?

OS/2 without some kind of third party utility is like NT without
TaskManager.  Both OS's need such a thing.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jhimmel@i-2000.com                                12-Sep-99 23:26:10
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 03:45:01
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: jhimmel@i-2000.com (James Himmelman)

On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 22:09:13, Gerben Bergman <rerbert@wxs.nl> wrote:
> | One of the reasons why OS/2 ends up in the losing column so often it seems
> | like is because its user base is largely ignorant of the rest of the
> | industry.
 
> Indeed. OS/2 users are generally very quick to tell Windows users that their
> OS sucks, that OS/2 would be a better choice for them, that they're mindless
> lemmings which need to be educated, and so on. Compelling rhetoric, until
> someone who actually *knows* about Windows starts asking questions -- then
> it turns out that these OS/2 users were basing their objections solely on MS
> hatred, hearsay, superficial experience, and an elitist "we're better than
> the ignorant masses" attitude. Watching you guys squirm here in c.o.o.a
> continues to be a valuable source of entertainment. :)

Actually, I'd be willing to bet that most OS/2 users were Windows 
users at one time, or even use it to some extent today. It would be 
pretty difficult for someone to go through life as an OS/2 user and 
never have had any experience with Windows.

It was precisely my frustration with certain aspects of Windows that 
drove me to OS/2 in the first place. Many of those past frustrations 
have been address by later versions of Windows, but I got spoiled by 
the WPS and now the Windows interface is just plain annoying to me. 
I'm lucky in that I have been able to find all the apps I need for 
OS/2 - and GOOD apps. Others with special needs are not as lucky.

I have Windows95 installed on another partition. I can boot to it just
as easily as I can boot to OS/2. But I DON'T. If OS/2 was so bad, and 
Windows was so great, there is nothing stopping me from hitting 
Ctrl-Alt-Del and booting to Windows and leaving OS/2 behind. I TRIED 
to use Win95, and I TRIED to like it, because it would be nice to be 
able to take advantage of the industry-wide support that Windows 
enjoys, but I just couldn't warm up to it. I prefer OS/2, it's as 
simple as that.

I don't believe it is the OS/2 users with the "elitist" attitude. 
After all, it is the Windows users who insist on visiting the OS/2 
groups to hound us because they have some weird problem with our 
choice of OS. The time they invest in this endeavor never ceases to 
amaze me. It is only natural to respond with things like "but Windows 
sucks". How do you think Windows users would respond to OS/2 users 
visiting THEIR groups to hound them about using Windows? I think most 
OS/2 users would just prefer to be left alone.

> | 2) Short cuts on Win2K still get broken if you move the original file
(OS/2
> | had true shadows back in 1992!)
> 
> "True shadows"? I thought OS/2's shadows were a hack of the OS2.INI file?
> 
> | 5) NT4/Win2K may allow you to get out of hangs but they do not kill all
> | processes, many processes tell you that they are unkillable with an error
> | message -- thus you have to reboot to take care of one of these processes
> | that have gone haywire.
> 
> Of course, OS/2 is unable to get out of such hangs in the first place. Why
> else did Stardock find it necessary to come up with a product like Process
> Commander?
> 
> | 6) There is no mouse configuration available to decide what the mouse
> | buttons should do.  Using the left mouse button to drag and drop an
"object"
> | may do 1 of 3 things: Create a short cut, move it, or copy it.  The rules
> | for determining this are inconsistent, unconfigurable, and complicated
(and
> | stupid).
> 
> I fully agree; that's annoying as hell. But didn't you once say that you
> were going to fix this with a future component of Object Desktop for
> Windows? How's that one coming along?
> 

[[[ James Himmelman - jhimmel@i-2000.com ]]]

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com                               12-Sep-99 16:44:11
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 03:45:01
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com (Steven C. Den Beste)

On 12 Sep 1999 21:56:25 GMT, jansens_at_ibm_dot_net recycled some holes into
the following pattern:

>On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 16:42:02, "Brad Wardell" 
><bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>> 
>> Esther Schindler <esther@bitranch.com> wrote in message
>> news:LoEFmgJJ9ecw-pn2-dd967dx4D9Il@agave.bitranch.com...
>> > On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 00:22:36, "Brad Wardell"
>> > <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > | OS/2's backward compatibility has been most excellent.  I agree with
>> that.
>> > | I don't agree that backwards compatibility on Win32 OS's has been
"bad".
>> I
>> > | can't think of any Win32 apps that have been broken from Win95 to
Win2K.
>> >
>> > It's years since I had to think about it, Brad, but statistically
>> > you're incorrect. There were a *lot* of problems with Win3.1->Win95
>> > upgrades. Plenty of apps quit working... though I could no longer
>> > recite the names of the more famous examples.
>> >
>> 
>> Esther, you can't just go on and say "You're statistically incorrect.." and
>> not provide any evidence to back this assertion.  I do not believe your
>> assertion to be correct with regard to Win32 OSes.  Secondly, look
carefully
>> at my statement -- Win32 OSes.  I am not commenting on Windows 3.1 to
>> Windows 95.  I am commenting on Windows 95 to Windows 98 and NT3.1 to 3.5
to
>> 4.0.
>> 
>Wait a minute there, partner. Since when has Windows 95 (AKA DOS 7 + 
>Windows 4) become a 32 bit OS? I think the jury is still out on that 
>one. Remember the infamous Pentium Pro Experience?
>
>Karel Jansens
>jansens_at_ibm_dot_net

You notice that he didn't say "32-bit OS", he said "WIN32 OS". Win 95/98
unquestionably implement the WIN32 API.

--------
Steven C. Den Beste    sdenbes1@san.rr.com
Home page: http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste

"We're just ordinary earthlings, not weirdos from another planet!"
              -- Calvin

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: rerbert@wxs.nl                                    13-Sep-99 01:54:17
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 03:45:01
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Gerben Bergman <rerbert@wxs.nl>

Yes, you're clever, Marty, but I'm treacherous...

| > OS/2 users are generally very quick to tell Windows users that their OS
| > sucks, that OS/2 would be a better choice for them, that they're mindless
| > lemmings which need to be educated, and so on. Compelling rhetoric, until
| > someone who actually *knows* about Windows starts asking questions -- then
| > it turns out that these OS/2 users are basing their objections solely on
MS
| > hatred, hearsay, superficial experience, and an elitist "we're better than
| > the ignorant masses" attitude. Watching you guys squirm here in c.o.o.a
| > continues to be a valuable source of entertainment. :)
| 
| Except for the lemmings part, the same can be said of many Winvocates here
| in talking about OS/2.

The way I see it, what those "Winvocates" are doing can be described as
"counter-advocacy": OS/2 advocates make exaggerated claims about OS/2's
capabilities while deriding Windows as well as its users, after which the
Winvocates jump in to counter those claims (and do some FUDding/ridiculing
of their own). It's an action-reaction thing.

| > "True shadows"? I thought OS/2's shadows were a hack of the OS2.INI file?
| 
| And the filesystem and the Workplace shell.  I wouldn't call that a hack. 
| I'd call it a design.

In which case Windows' shortcut implementation can't be called a hack
either, just a poor design.

| > Of course, OS/2 is unable to get out of such hangs in the first place. Why
| > else did Stardock find it necessary to come up with a product like Process
| > Commander?
| 
| OS/2 without some kind of third party utility is like NT without
| TaskManager.  Both OS's need such a thing.

Absolutely, making it all the more unforgivable that OS/2 doesn't have one
of those out-of-the-box. And is OS/2 with Process Commander really that much
superior to NT when it comes to recovery from system hangs and/or killing of
wayward processes?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Chaos & Disorder, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: lwriemen@wcic.cioe.com                            13-Sep-99 00:03:17
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 03:45:01
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: lwriemen@wcic.cioe.com (Lee Riemenschneider)

On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 00:22:36, "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> 
wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 17:00:10, Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote:
> > | Let's use history as a guide, none of MS's OS updates have been good
> > | with backwads compatibility.  None and W2K is a major OS update.
> >
> OS/2's backward compatibility has been most excellent.  I agree with that.
> I don't agree that backwards compatibility on Win32 OS's has been "bad".  I
> can't think of any Win32 apps that have been broken from Win95 to Win2K.
> 
> OS/2's compatibility has been basically perfect but that does'nt mean that
> NT's is "bad".
> 
Hmmm... Narrow the field to Win32 OS's, limit it to Win32 apps, limit it
further to NT ... ;-)

There were application and driver issues going Win3.1 to Win3.11, 
further application and driver issues going to Win95 (I'm not saying 3.x
drivers should have worked with 95, just that some driver support was 
lost.), and Win98 had driver issues upgrading from Win95.

NT lost it's OS/2 compatability through an upgrade. (Maybe not a big 
issue to a lot of people, but I'm sure it cost some people some money.) 
Also, Microsoft has been promising increasing support for Win3.x/Win9x 
for a long time.  Win2k won't run all the apps, hence the decision to 
release Millenium.

I think Microsoft has to force an all Win32 only OS to gain stability.  
OTOH, when they keep moving more drivers into the kernal, then you have 
to wonder how big of an issue stability is with them.

Lee W. Riemenschneider 
Die Hard Purdue Fan!
OS/2 User and Supporter 

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: WinStar GoodNet, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     12-Sep-99 17:26:25
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 03:45:01
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Brad Wardell wrote:

> You haven't cited any statistics or even quotes of a statistic.  You've only
> asserted that based on other people's opinions, Win2K is going to have "bad"
> backward compatibility.  That's not a reasonable position as it not only is
> extremely vague, it's unsubstanitated.  Or, let me put it the other way, if
> the roles were reversed and you were saying these things as a Windows user
> about OS/2, the OS/2 users here (myself included) would be accusing you of
> spreading FUD.

People are free to believe what ever they want.  You haven't any staticstics.  
I
see you have your beliefs based on personal experiences -- limited ones.
Professionals doing explicit R&D are saying W2K's 1st release is to be
avoided.
Maybe if you subscribed to these services you'd have the data you need.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     12-Sep-99 17:31:09
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 03:45:01
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Esther Schindler wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 00:22:36, "Brad Wardell"
> <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> | OS/2's backward compatibility has been most excellent.  I agree with that.
> | I don't agree that backwards compatibility on Win32 OS's has been "bad". 
I
> | can't think of any Win32 apps that have been broken from Win95 to Win2K.
>
> It's years since I had to think about it, Brad, but statistically
> you're incorrect. There were a *lot* of problems with Win3.1->Win95
> upgrades. Plenty of apps quit working... though I could no longer
> recite the names of the more famous examples.

PCMag was proud of the long list of Windows3.1 apps that they found were
incompatible with Win95 and they were proud to have links to patches and
workarounds for these applications.   WORDPro for Win3.1 runs out of resources 
on
Win95 -- it is essentially unusable.  At least my copy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     12-Sep-99 17:33:16
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 03:45:01
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Brad Wardell wrote:

> Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message news:37DAF554.9C5392AC@ibm.net...
> >
> >
> > In the case of NT, we'll find out with W2K. Allchin in an interview was
> not
> > encouraging.  Niether has the Gartner Group
>
> I'll take first hand experience over the "Gartner Group" any day.
>

Who's first hand experiences?  Most Gartner Group subscribers would laugh.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: rerbert@wxs.nl                                    13-Sep-99 02:30:24
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 03:45:01
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Gerben Bergman <rerbert@wxs.nl>

I'm sorry, James Himmelman, did you say something?

| > OS/2 users are generally very quick to tell Windows users that their OS
| > sucks, that OS/2 would be a better choice for them, that they're mindless
| > lemmings which need to be educated, and so on. Compelling rhetoric, until
| > someone who actually *knows* about Windows starts asking questions -- then
| > it turns out that these OS/2 users are basing their objections solely on
MS
| > hatred, hearsay, superficial experience, and an elitist "we're better than
| > the ignorant masses" attitude. Watching you guys squirm here in c.o.o.a
| > continues to be a valuable source of entertainment. :)
| 
| Actually, I'd be willing to bet that most OS/2 users were Windows
| users at one time, or even use it to some extent today. It would be
| pretty difficult for someone to go through life as an OS/2 user and
| never have had any experience with Windows.

Doesn't keep them from making uninformed statements regarding Windows (see
the discussion about Win 2K's backward compatibility elsewhere in this
thread). Apparently they haven't kept up much with developments in the
Windows world since switching to OS/2, but they spout off anyway.

| I don't believe it is the OS/2 users with the "elitist" attitude.
| After all, it is the Windows users who insist on visiting the OS/2
| groups to hound us because they have some weird problem with our
| choice of OS.

Ah, the old and tired "they're the ones with the problem, otherwise they
wouldn't be here bugging us" argument. People have their own reasons for
participating in this group, none of which are anyone else's business
(unless, of course, they're being paid for it), and the mere *fact* that
they're participating does nothing to void their arguments.

| I think most OS/2 users would just prefer to be left alone.

Then stop reading c.o.o.a. This forum was created as a home for "my OS is
better than yours" pissing contests, and if you consider that sort of stuff
offending you should probably stick to the other groups in the comp.os.os2
hierarchy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Chaos & Disorder, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     12-Sep-99 17:41:00
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 03:45:01
Subj: Re: Consumers interests

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


hunters@thunder.indstate.edu wrote:

> In article <Pine.SGI.3.93.990910153823.15182A-100000@sea.monterey.edu>,
>   josco <josco@sea.monterey.edu> wrote:
>
> > FWIW  Gaming seems best when done on game consoles.
>
> I disagree. Most PC games are vastly superior to console games. I mean
> take the controllers. The PSX (PlayStation) has 8 buttons, 1-"D"pad,
> and a start/pause button, and thier memory card has like 512k.
> My system has a 104-key keyboard, a 3 button mouse and a 4-button
> joystick w/4-way hat. I also have 64MB of ram and 6GB hard-drive space.

A 104 keyboard isn't an asset.  Game console controls are optimal for the
task.  The PC hardware sounds far better but the hardware isn't efficiently
utilized since they vary from system to system and the hardware abstraction
limits the extent to which it can be utilized.

> All this may change now with Dreamcast and the upcoming PSX2, but I'll
> have to see it to beleive it. I guess that if Rainbow Six for dreamcast
> is as good as the PC version that would convince me they were about
> equal, but not better.
>
> Of course I can pop in a faster CPU, double the RAM, drop in another
> VooDoo2, add a DVD drive and an A3D soundcard if I wanted. Console
> people are stuck with what they start with. (Yes I do realize there is
> a large price difference.)

And complexity.  It's far too difficult for most people to service a PC.  I
got sick of it when games were DOS based and I dual booted into OS/2 or
windows.  I quit and don't miss the PC titles and I sure do not miss the
hardware costs and headaches.

When you consider the costs, complexity and even the sales and polarity of
titles, consoles are wining and winning despite being '95 and '96
technology.  The fact a console hardware is static means the developer has
a static target and the hardware is utilized to a degree not seen on a PC.
Legend of Zelda on the N64 or Final Fantasy VIII on PSX.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          13-Sep-99 00:54:10
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 03:45:01
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message news:37DC1A99.BB5483A7@ibm.net...
>
>
> Brad Wardell wrote:
>
> > You haven't cited any statistics or even quotes of a statistic.  You've
only
> > asserted that based on other people's opinions, Win2K is going to have
"bad"
> > backward compatibility.  That's not a reasonable position as it not only
is
> > extremely vague, it's unsubstanitated.  Or, let me put it the other way,
if
> > the roles were reversed and you were saying these things as a Windows
user
> > about OS/2, the OS/2 users here (myself included) would be accusing you
of
> > spreading FUD.
>
> People are free to believe what ever they want.  You haven't any
staticstics.  I
> see you have your beliefs based on personal experiences -- limited ones.
> Professionals doing explicit R&D are saying W2K's 1st release is to be
avoided.
> Maybe if you subscribed to these services you'd have the data you need.
>

Why don't you cite examples where they give such specific statistics?

Brad

>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          13-Sep-99 00:55:00
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 03:45:01
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message news:37DC1BA6.A0A90C22@ibm.net...
>
>
> Esther Schindler wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 00:22:36, "Brad Wardell"
> > <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> > | OS/2's backward compatibility has been most excellent.  I agree with
that.
> > | I don't agree that backwards compatibility on Win32 OS's has been
"bad".  I
> > | can't think of any Win32 apps that have been broken from Win95 to
Win2K.
> >
> > It's years since I had to think about it, Brad, but statistically
> > you're incorrect. There were a *lot* of problems with Win3.1->Win95
> > upgrades. Plenty of apps quit working... though I could no longer
> > recite the names of the more famous examples.
>
> PCMag was proud of the long list of Windows3.1 apps that they found were
> incompatible with Win95 and they were proud to have links to patches and
> workarounds for these applications.   WORDPro for Win3.1 runs out of
resources on
> Win95 -- it is essentially unusable.  At least my copy.
>

That's nice.  And if this discussion was about Windows 3.1 to Windows 95
compatibility you'd have a point.

However, the topic is regarding the upgrade from NT 4 to Win2k.

Brad



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          13-Sep-99 00:56:27
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 03:45:01
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message news:37DC1C2B.D1A72CF0@ibm.net...
>
>
> Brad Wardell wrote:
>
> > Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message
news:37DAF554.9C5392AC@ibm.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > In the case of NT, we'll find out with W2K. Allchin in an interview
was
> > not
> > > encouraging.  Niether has the Gartner Group
> >
> > I'll take first hand experience over the "Gartner Group" any day.
> >
>
> Who's first hand experiences?  Most Gartner Group subscribers would laugh.
>

When dealing with my own and the experiences and technical support of
hundreds of thousand of users.  You haven't even cited a single statistic
saying that X% of tested Win32 apps that worked on NT 4 did not work on
Win2K.

At least I have first hand experience, you don't even have any legitimate
evidence to back up your assertion.  Point me to an article that states that
25% or more of Win32 apps that functioned on NT 4 are going to fail on
Windows 2000.  I'll take a single example of this to agree that there is
cause for concern.

Brad


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          13-Sep-99 00:58:14
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 03:45:01
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

<jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)> wrote in message
news:L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-UJhfgMDsGhns@localhost...
> On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 16:42:02, "Brad Wardell"
> <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > Esther Schindler <esther@bitranch.com> wrote in message
> > news:LoEFmgJJ9ecw-pn2-dd967dx4D9Il@agave.bitranch.com...
> > > On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 00:22:36, "Brad Wardell"
> > > <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > | OS/2's backward compatibility has been most excellent.  I agree with
> > that.
> > > | I don't agree that backwards compatibility on Win32 OS's has been
"bad".
> > I
> > > | can't think of any Win32 apps that have been broken from Win95 to
Win2K.
> > >
> > > It's years since I had to think about it, Brad, but statistically
> > > you're incorrect. There were a *lot* of problems with Win3.1->Win95
> > > upgrades. Plenty of apps quit working... though I could no longer
> > > recite the names of the more famous examples.
> > >
> >
> > Esther, you can't just go on and say "You're statistically incorrect.."
and
> > not provide any evidence to back this assertion.  I do not believe your
> > assertion to be correct with regard to Win32 OSes.  Secondly, look
carefully
> > at my statement -- Win32 OSes.  I am not commenting on Windows 3.1 to
> > Windows 95.  I am commenting on Windows 95 to Windows 98 and NT3.1 to
3.5 to
> > 4.0.
> >
> Wait a minute there, partner. Since when has Windows 95 (AKA DOS 7 +
> Windows 4) become a 32 bit OS? I think the jury is still out on that
> one. Remember the infamous Pentium Pro Experience?
>

Look, I'm not going to get into the BS argument over whether Windows 95/98
or whatever is a 32bit OS.   It doesn't matter.

But there is most definitely a big difference between going from Windows 3.1
to Windows 95 and Windows 95 to 98 (or NT to Win2k).

Brad

> Karel Jansens
> jansens_at_ibm_dot_net
> =======================================================
> If we could have our cake _and_ eat it,
> people would start whining about seconds.
> =======================================================
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          13-Sep-99 01:03:27
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 03:45:01
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Gerben Bergman <rerbert@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:uxjcN6=o=mNQ+OhWkCQNuWa24Qd7@4ax.com...
> From the depths of message hell, Brad Wardell wrote on Sun, 12 Sep 1999
> 17:22:02 GMT:
>
> | One of the reasons why OS/2 ends up in the losing column so often it
seems
> | like is because its user base is largely ignorant of the rest of the
> | industry.
>
> Indeed. OS/2 users are generally very quick to tell Windows users that
their
> OS sucks, that OS/2 would be a better choice for them, that they're
mindless
> lemmings which need to be educated, and so on. Compelling rhetoric, until
> someone who actually *knows* about Windows starts asking questions -- then
> it turns out that these OS/2 users were basing their objections solely on
MS
> hatred, hearsay, superficial experience, and an elitist "we're better than
> the ignorant masses" attitude. Watching you guys squirm here in c.o.o.a
> continues to be a valuable source of entertainment. :)
>

I have to agree.  If any group is behaving lemming-like it's some OS/2 users
in this group.

If Win2K backward compatibility was really such a problem, then users here
would have no problem coming up with a host of solid examples of programs
failing.

When I upgraded my NT 4 machine to Win2K I didn't even worry a second about
whether every one of my apps would run fine.  Every app runs fine.  The only
examples I've seen are ones that require a specific device driver that may
not be supported yet or have version checking (like partition magic or anti
virus which are the apps themselves checking the OS version not because of a
problem in backward compatibility in the OS).

> | 2) Short cuts on Win2K still get broken if you move the original file
(OS/2
> | had true shadows back in 1992!)
>
> "True shadows"? I thought OS/2's shadows were a hack of the OS2.INI file?
>

So what?  The functionality is what counts for me.  I could create a folder
on my desktop, throw stuff on it, shadow it to my desktop and throw the real
version onto my drive or later a network drive and not worry about
recreating my shadow.

> | 5) NT4/Win2K may allow you to get out of hangs but they do not kill all
> | processes, many processes tell you that they are unkillable with an
error
> | message -- thus you have to reboot to take care of one of these
processes
> | that have gone haywire.
>
> Of course, OS/2 is unable to get out of such hangs in the first place. Why
> else did Stardock find it necessary to come up with a product like Process
> Commander?
>

But at least OS/2 has such a product.  There's no such product for Windows
to kill off those WinNT apps.  And so far Win2K is even worse about killing
processes.

> | 6) There is no mouse configuration available to decide what the mouse
> | buttons should do.  Using the left mouse button to drag and drop an
"object"
> | may do 1 of 3 things: Create a short cut, move it, or copy it.  The
rules
> | for determining this are inconsistent, unconfigurable, and complicated
(and
> | stupid).
>
> I fully agree; that's annoying as hell. But didn't you once say that you
> were going to fix this with a future component of Object Desktop for
> Windows? How's that one coming along?
>

Working on it.  The problem is knowing system hooks and such and all our
developer who know this stuff are on WindowBlinds or other OD components
right now.


Brad



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          13-Sep-99 01:07:01
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 03:45:01
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Lee Riemenschneider <lwriemen@wcic.cioe.com> wrote in message
news:4e9vR6R51Xid-pn2-LK8b4MHJe6Wz@pool1-24.laf.cioe.com...
> On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 00:22:36, "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>
> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 17:00:10, Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote:
> > > | Let's use history as a guide, none of MS's OS updates have been good
> > > | with backwads compatibility.  None and W2K is a major OS update.
> > >
> > OS/2's backward compatibility has been most excellent.  I agree with
that.
> > I don't agree that backwards compatibility on Win32 OS's has been "bad".
I
> > can't think of any Win32 apps that have been broken from Win95 to Win2K.
> >
> > OS/2's compatibility has been basically perfect but that does'nt mean
that
> > NT's is "bad".
> >
> Hmmm... Narrow the field to Win32 OS's, limit it to Win32 apps, limit it
> further to NT ... ;-)
>

I didn't create the topic: "WinNT 4/Win2k compatibility".  It's not my fault
that the original topic makes it so easy to prove that Windows NT to Win2K
compatibility is not bad.

Brad


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          11-Sep-99 05:44:13
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 03:45:01
Subj: Re: Why NT is x86 only

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Ian Tholen
>It's been said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Except in COOA. Here, imitation becomes people mocking one of the
dumbest and most pathetic morons ever to "grace" the internet --
namely, Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jmalloy@borg.com                                  12-Sep-99 07:47:20
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 03:45:01
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: "Joe Malloy" <jmalloy@borg.com>

Something claiming to be a <tholenantispam@hawaii.edu> tholened:

> On what do you base your irrational attacks on me, Brad?

Only *you're* claiming his attacks have been "irrational," Tholen.  I think
they've been most relevant; you don't.  What you think is irrelevant, what
you can prove is relevant.  So (are we ready?!  All together now:) "Prove
it, if you think you can."  Otherwise that's just idle speculation.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          13-Sep-99 01:10:08
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 03:45:01
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Gerben Bergman <rerbert@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:Nj=cN9sO6EofzqjNvwBJZPQ4Zyz3@4ax.com...
> I'm sorry, James Himmelman, did you say something?
>
> | > OS/2 users are generally very quick to tell Windows users that their
OS
> | > sucks, that OS/2 would be a better choice for them, that they're
mindless
> | > lemmings which need to be educated, and so on. Compelling rhetoric,
until
> | > someone who actually *knows* about Windows starts asking questions --
then
> | > it turns out that these OS/2 users are basing their objections solely
on MS
> | > hatred, hearsay, superficial experience, and an elitist "we're better
than
> | > the ignorant masses" attitude. Watching you guys squirm here in
c.o.o.a
> | > continues to be a valuable source of entertainment. :)
> |
> | Actually, I'd be willing to bet that most OS/2 users were Windows
> | users at one time, or even use it to some extent today. It would be
> | pretty difficult for someone to go through life as an OS/2 user and
> | never have had any experience with Windows.
>
> Doesn't keep them from making uninformed statements regarding Windows (see
> the discussion about Win 2K's backward compatibility elsewhere in this
> thread). Apparently they haven't kept up much with developments in the
> Windows world since switching to OS/2, but they spout off anyway.
>

That's exactly my take too.  Witness how much Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 junk
there is here.  That was going on FIVE years ago.  It's like someone
bringing up the 486SX in some anti-Intel debate.

A lot of OS/2 users switched from Windows 3.1 to OS/2 and have stayed there
and that's what they remember.  Windows is still inferior to OS/2 in many
respects but backward compatibility between Win32 OSes has been pretty good.

If the roles were reversed, OS/2 users would  be screaming bloody murder if
some Windows user was in here saying how bad OS/2's backward compatibility
was because of something a friend told them or something based on moving
from OS/2 1.1 to 1.3 or whatever.

Brad



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com                            12-Sep-99 20:11:05
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 03:45:01
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com (David H. McCoy)

In article <37DC320E.13114B0A@stny.rr.com>, mamodeo@stny.rr.com says...
> Gerben Bergman wrote:
> > 
> > From the depths of message hell, Brad Wardell wrote on Sun, 12 Sep 1999
> > 17:22:02 GMT:
> > 
> > | One of the reasons why OS/2 ends up in the losing column so often it
seems
> > | like is because its user base is largely ignorant of the rest of the
> > | industry.
> > 
> > Indeed. OS/2 users are generally very quick to tell Windows users that
their
> > OS sucks,
> 
> Because it does.  ;-)
> 
> > that OS/2 would be a better choice for them, that they're mindless
> > lemmings which need to be educated, and so on. Compelling rhetoric, until
> > someone who actually *knows* about Windows starts asking questions -- then
> > it turns out that these OS/2 users were basing their objections solely on
MS
> > hatred, hearsay, superficial experience, and an elitist "we're better than
> > the ignorant masses" attitude. Watching you guys squirm here in c.o.o.a
> > continues to be a valuable source of entertainment. :)
> 
> Except for the lemmings part, the same can be said of many Winvocates here
> in talking about OS/2.

Whom do you have in mind?

> > | 2) Short cuts on Win2K still get broken if you move the original file
(OS/2
> > | had true shadows back in 1992!)
> > 
> > "True shadows"? I thought OS/2's shadows were a hack of the OS2.INI file?
> 
> And the filesystem and the Workplace shell.  I wouldn't call that a hack. 
> I'd call it a design.

How EXACTLY are shadows in the filesystem? I've yet to see any version 
of OS/2 where I could see and use shadows on the command line. I'll call 
that a design, too. A bad one.

> > | 5) NT4/Win2K may allow you to get out of hangs but they do not kill all
> > | processes, many processes tell you that they are unkillable with an
error
> > | message -- thus you have to reboot to take care of one of these
processes
> > | that have gone haywire.
> > 
> > Of course, OS/2 is unable to get out of such hangs in the first place. Why
> > else did Stardock find it necessary to come up with a product like Process
> > Commander?
> 
> OS/2 without some kind of third party utility is like NT without
> TaskManager.  Both OS's need such a thing.

Wrong. First, NT's taskmanager. OS/2 has a task list. The difference, 
you get much more information with NT's taskmanager. Also, NT is 
actually capable of killing task *far* more often than in OS/2.

> - Marty
> 

-- 
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     12-Sep-99 18:53:13
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:23
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Brad Wardell wrote:

> Lee Riemenschneider <lwriemen@wcic.cioe.com> wrote in message
> news:4e9vR6R51Xid-pn2-LK8b4MHJe6Wz@pool1-24.laf.cioe.com...
> > On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 00:22:36, "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>
> > wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 17:00:10, Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote:
> > > > | Let's use history as a guide, none of MS's OS updates have been good
> > > > | with backwads compatibility.  None and W2K is a major OS update.
> > > >
> > > OS/2's backward compatibility has been most excellent.  I agree with
> that.
> > > I don't agree that backwards compatibility on Win32 OS's has been "bad".
> I
> > > can't think of any Win32 apps that have been broken from Win95 to Win2K.
> > >
> > > OS/2's compatibility has been basically perfect but that does'nt mean
> that
> > > NT's is "bad".
> > >
> > Hmmm... Narrow the field to Win32 OS's, limit it to Win32 apps, limit it
> > further to NT ... ;-)
> >
>
> I didn't create the topic: "WinNT 4/Win2k compatibility".  It's not my fault
> that the original topic makes it so easy to prove that Windows NT to Win2K
> compatibility is not bad.
>

It has been argued, not proven.  I don't know of any certification, guarantee
or
list of apps listing with what apps running on NT that W2K is compatible.  MS
hasn't any such site for testing apps does it?  In the absence of
clarification
it is acceptable to take the default position it is fully compatible.  Who
needs
to follow historical precedence - Hmm?  That position however is not the
recommendation of the Gartner Group and others who get paid to advise the IT
community.

On COOA it's all a game.




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com                            12-Sep-99 21:05:22
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:23
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com (David H. McCoy)

In article <4e9vR6R51Xid-pn2-LK8b4MHJe6Wz@pool1-24.laf.cioe.com>, 
lwriemen@wcic.cioe.com says...
> On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 00:22:36, "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> 
> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 17:00:10, Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote:
> > > | Let's use history as a guide, none of MS's OS updates have been good
> > > | with backwads compatibility.  None and W2K is a major OS update.
> > >
> > OS/2's backward compatibility has been most excellent.  I agree with that.
> > I don't agree that backwards compatibility on Win32 OS's has been "bad". 
I
> > can't think of any Win32 apps that have been broken from Win95 to Win2K.
> > 
> > OS/2's compatibility has been basically perfect but that does'nt mean that
> > NT's is "bad".
> > 
> Hmmm... Narrow the field to Win32 OS's, limit it to Win32 apps, limit it
> further to NT ... ;-)
> 
> There were application and driver issues going Win3.1 to Win3.11, 
> further application and driver issues going to Win95 (I'm not saying 3.x
> drivers should have worked with 95, just that some driver support was 
> lost.), and Win98 had driver issues upgrading from Win95.
> 
> NT lost it's OS/2 compatability through an upgrade. (Maybe not a big 
> issue to a lot of people, but I'm sure it cost some people some money.) 
> Also, Microsoft has been promising increasing support for Win3.x/Win9x 
> for a long time.  Win2k won't run all the apps, hence the decision to 
> release Millenium.
> 
> I think Microsoft has to force an all Win32 only OS to gain stability.  
> OTOH, when they keep moving more drivers into the kernal, then you have 
> to wonder how big of an issue stability is with them.
> 
> Lee W. Riemenschneider 
> Die Hard Purdue Fan!
> OS/2 User and Supporter 
> 
> 

Moving what drivers? I truly hope that three years later people here 
aren't still claiming that video drives were moved into the OS kernel, 
because that just isn't what happened. If so, you are quickly on your 
way to proving how right Brad is about some OS/2 uses and their 
knowledge of Windows.

-- 
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com                            12-Sep-99 21:07:08
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:23
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com (David H. McCoy)

In article <Nj=cN9sO6EofzqjNvwBJZPQ4Zyz3@4ax.com>, rerbert@wxs.nl 
says...
> | I think most OS/2 users would just prefer to be left alone.
> 
> Then stop reading c.o.o.a. This forum was created as a home for "my OS is
> better than yours" pissing contests, and if you consider that sort of stuff
> offending you should probably stick to the other groups in the comp.os.os2
> hierarchy.
> 
> 
> 

I think most OS/2 users would prefer to be left alone also. It makes 
them feel more righteous to walk their path in solitude.

-- 
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          13-Sep-99 01:59:14
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:23
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message news:37DC2EE5.A24D7B42@ibm.net...
>
>
> Brad Wardell wrote:
>
> > Lee Riemenschneider <lwriemen@wcic.cioe.com> wrote in message
> > news:4e9vR6R51Xid-pn2-LK8b4MHJe6Wz@pool1-24.laf.cioe.com...
> > > On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 00:22:36, "Brad Wardell"
<bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 17:00:10, Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote:
> > > > > | Let's use history as a guide, none of MS's OS updates have been
good
> > > > > | with backwads compatibility.  None and W2K is a major OS update.
> > > > >
> > > > OS/2's backward compatibility has been most excellent.  I agree with
> > that.
> > > > I don't agree that backwards compatibility on Win32 OS's has been
"bad".
> > I
> > > > can't think of any Win32 apps that have been broken from Win95 to
Win2K.
> > > >
> > > > OS/2's compatibility has been basically perfect but that does'nt
mean
> > that
> > > > NT's is "bad".
> > > >
> > > Hmmm... Narrow the field to Win32 OS's, limit it to Win32 apps, limit
it
> > > further to NT ... ;-)
> > >
> >
> > I didn't create the topic: "WinNT 4/Win2k compatibility".  It's not my
fault
> > that the original topic makes it so easy to prove that Windows NT to
Win2K
> > compatibility is not bad.
> >
>
> It has been argued, not proven.  I don't know of any certification,
guarantee or
> list of apps listing with what apps running on NT that W2K is compatible.
MS
> hasn't any such site for testing apps does it?  In the absence of
clarification
> it is acceptable to take the default position it is fully compatible.  Who
needs
> to follow historical precedence - Hmm?  That position however is not the
> recommendation of the Gartner Group and others who get paid to advise the
IT
> community.
>

What exactly is the recommendation of the Gartner Group?  You know, the same
group that says corporations should move away from OS/2 over and over in the
past several years.

Secondly, what gaurantee is available that apps on OS/2 Warp 3 are going to
run on Warp 4 or Aurora?  Should we assume that nothing that ran fine on
OS/2 Warp 3 is going to run on OS/2 Warp 4 because there's no official
gaurantee?

> On COOA it's all a game.
>

Just remember you said that.

Brad

>
>
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     12-Sep-99 19:03:28
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:23
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Brad Wardell wrote:

> Gerben Bergman <rerbert@wxs.nl> wrote in message
> news:uxjcN6=o=mNQ+OhWkCQNuWa24Qd7@4ax.com...
> > From the depths of message hell, Brad Wardell wrote on Sun, 12 Sep 1999
> > 17:22:02 GMT:
> >
> > | One of the reasons why OS/2 ends up in the losing column so often it
> seems
> > | like is because its user base is largely ignorant of the rest of the
> > | industry.
> >
> > Indeed. OS/2 users are generally very quick to tell Windows users that
> their
> > OS sucks, that OS/2 would be a better choice for them, that they're
> mindless
> > lemmings which need to be educated, and so on. Compelling rhetoric, until
> > someone who actually *knows* about Windows starts asking questions -- then
> > it turns out that these OS/2 users were basing their objections solely on
> MS
> > hatred, hearsay, superficial experience, and an elitist "we're better than
> > the ignorant masses" attitude. Watching you guys squirm here in c.o.o.a
> > continues to be a valuable source of entertainment. :)



> I have to agree.  If any group is behaving lemming-like it's some OS/2 users
> in this group.
>
> If Win2K backward compatibility was really such a problem, then users here
> would have no problem coming up with a host of solid examples of programs
> failing.

And what would be the point ?   To make those who say otherwise  look foolish?
We only need to wait and use dejanews for that if that were a goal.

What have you all done to debunk Garter Groups' conclusions?  Nothing.  Is it
the OS/2 community that's trying to flaot a rumor that W2K will have backwards
compatibilty problems?  I don't think so.  I've posted Allchin's comments on
W2K's compatibility.  The NT community is busy evaluating the OS and it's
compatibility with their apps.  We'll see reports in the press.




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: rerbert@wxs.nl                                    13-Sep-99 04:03:25
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:23
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Gerben Bergman <rerbert@wxs.nl>

I am Brad Wardell of Borg. You will be assimilated.

| > "True shadows"? I thought OS/2's shadows were a hack of the OS2.INI file?
| 
| So what?  The functionality is what counts for me.

Okay, it's just that I remembered you mentioning that OS/2's shadows aren't
elegantly implemented either. I agree they work much better than Windows'
shortcuts.

| > Of course, OS/2 is unable to get out of such hangs in the first place. Why
| > else did Stardock find it necessary to come up with a product like Process
| > Commander?
| 
| But at least OS/2 has such a product.  There's no such product for Windows
| to kill off those WinNT apps.

Um, what about Task Manager? It comes with every copy of NT4, and in my
experience does a nice job at killing misbehaving applications/processes.
(Process Commander may be superior, but it ain't exactly cheap -- at 259
guilders I couldn't afford it myself.)

| > I fully agree; that's annoying as hell. But didn't you once say that you
| > were going to fix this with a future component of Object Desktop for
| > Windows? How's that one coming along?
| 
| Working on it.  The problem is knowing system hooks and such and all our
| developers who know this stuff are on WindowBlinds or other OD components
| right now.

Well, I hope you'll finish it soon.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Chaos & Disorder, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     12-Sep-99 19:15:16
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Brad Wardell wrote:

> Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message news:37DC1C2B.D1A72CF0@ibm.net...
> >
> >
> > Brad Wardell wrote:
> >
> > > Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message
> news:37DAF554.9C5392AC@ibm.net...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In the case of NT, we'll find out with W2K. Allchin in an interview
> was
> > > not
> > > > encouraging.  Niether has the Gartner Group
> > >
> > > I'll take first hand experience over the "Gartner Group" any day.
> > >
> >
> > Who's first hand experiences?  Most Gartner Group subscribers would laugh.
> >
>
> When dealing with my own and the experiences and technical support of
> hundreds of thousand of users.  You haven't even cited a single statistic
> saying that X% of tested Win32 apps that worked on NT 4 did not work on
> Win2K.

You can't get that data.  That's the rub, the data is not available but you
are
entitled to have all the confidence in the world.

In the absence of the data we have the Gartner group and other professionals
as
well as MS's Allchin.  All indicate -- without freeing up any data -- that W2K
compatiblity is questionable.  Gartner Group also says apps will need to be
totally rewritten to use many of W2K's new features.


> At least I have first hand experience, you don't even have any legitimate
> evidence to back up your assertion.  Point me to an article that states that
> 25% or more of Win32 apps that functioned on NT 4 are going to fail on
> Windows 2000.  I'll take a single example of this to agree that there is
> cause for concern.

I would not think your small company's experieces are at all relevant to a
large
corporation's needs for NT/W2K.  I have a friend who has founded a more
sucessful Windows software company than SD and he sure doesn't know based on
his
company's experiences.  When I look for answers I look to people who know more
than you and are more accountable for knowing.  They all have put out
warnings.

I can refer to my personal experiences running Windows 2.x in the 80's up to
all
editons to Windows95 today.  My personal experiences alone with MS's software
upgrades tell me your fooling yourself.  That's your business.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     12-Sep-99 19:18:09
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Brad Wardell wrote:

> Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message news:37DC1BA6.A0A90C22@ibm.net...
> >
> >
> > PCMag was proud of the long list of Windows3.1 apps that they found were
> > incompatible with Win95 and they were proud to have links to patches and
> > workarounds for these applications.   WORDPro for Win3.1 runs out of
> resources on
> > Win95 -- it is essentially unusable.  At least my copy.
> >
>
> That's nice.  And if this discussion was about Windows 3.1 to Windows 95
> compatibility you'd have a point.
>
> However, the topic is regarding the upgrade from NT 4 to Win2k.

I think the past is relevant.  I refer it as a guide to the future.  I think
many IT managers do the same thing -- it's sometimes called a reputation.
MS's earned a reputation for crummy compatibility between OS updates.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     12-Sep-99 19:24:11
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Brad Wardell wrote:

> Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message news:37DC1A99.BB5483A7@ibm.net...
> >
> > People are free to believe what ever they want.  You haven't any
> staticstics.  I
> > see you have your beliefs based on personal experiences -- limited ones.
> > Professionals doing explicit R&D are saying W2K's 1st release is to be
> avoided.
> > Maybe if you subscribed to these services you'd have the data you need.
> >
>
> Why don't you cite examples where they give such specific statistics?

I can't.  Maybe if you subscribed to their services you'd have the data YOU
need.  I don't need that data.  I'm not the one being so stubborn as to
require
a hit between my eyes with a two by four.  People are free to believe what
ever
they want.  You haven't any
staticstics nor any pointer to a research group giving W2K the go ahead..


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: dmcbride@no.tower.spam.to.org                     13-Sep-99 02:32:19
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Darin McBride" <dmcbride@no.tower.spam.to.org>

On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 16:42:02 GMT, Brad Wardell wrote:

>
>Esther Schindler <esther@bitranch.com> wrote in message
>news:LoEFmgJJ9ecw-pn2-dd967dx4D9Il@agave.bitranch.com...
>> On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 00:22:36, "Brad Wardell"
>> <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>> | I don't agree that backwards compatibility on Win32 OS's has been "bad".
>I
>> | can't think of any Win32 apps that have been broken from Win95 to Win2K.
>>
>> It's years since I had to think about it, Brad, but statistically
>> you're incorrect. There were a *lot* of problems with Win3.1->Win95
>> upgrades. Plenty of apps quit working... though I could no longer
>> recite the names of the more famous examples.
>
>Esther, you can't just go on and say "You're statistically incorrect.." and
>not provide any evidence to back this assertion.  I do not believe your

I obviously missed the first part of this... so you might have proved your
assertion...

>assertion to be correct with regard to Win32 OSes.  Secondly, look carefully
>at my statement -- Win32 OSes.  I am not commenting on Windows 3.1 to
>Windows 95.  I am commenting on Windows 95 to Windows 98 and NT3.1 to 3.5 to
>4.0.

Sure, but when talking about MS's history of upgrades, Win3.1 was their first
real success in the Windows line, so it's a very fair comparison.  MS started
out with bad backward compatibility.  Win95 to Win98 was, even in the
internal versions, more like the change from Win3.0 to Win3.1.  It's crossing
the version numbers (3.x -> 4.x) that MS isn't doing so well.  NT just simply
wasn't very compatible with Win3.1 in the first place.


---
Disclaimer: unless explicitly mentioned otherwise, I do not speak
for the company I work for.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network Canada (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com                               12-Sep-99 19:30:15
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com (Steven C. Den Beste)

On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 17:33:32 -0400, Joseph recycled some holes into the
following pattern:

>
>
>Brad Wardell wrote:
>
>> Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message news:37DAF554.9C5392AC@ibm.net...
>> >
>> >
>> > In the case of NT, we'll find out with W2K. Allchin in an interview was
>> not
>> > encouraging.  Niether has the Gartner Group
>>
>> I'll take first hand experience over the "Gartner Group" any day.
>>
>
>Who's first hand experiences?  Most Gartner Group subscribers would laugh.

I believe he's trying to tell you that he'll take his own first hand
experience over the Gartner Group.

I hope you're not seriously suggesting that he should disbelieve the
evidence of his own eyes.

--------
Steven C. Den Beste    sdenbes1@san.rr.com
Home page: http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste

"We're just ordinary earthlings, not weirdos from another planet!"
              -- Calvin

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com                               12-Sep-99 19:37:02
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com (Steven C. Den Beste)

On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 17:26:51 -0400, Joseph recycled some holes into the
following pattern:

>
>
>Brad Wardell wrote:
>
>> You haven't cited any statistics or even quotes of a statistic.  You've
only
>> asserted that based on other people's opinions, Win2K is going to have
"bad"
>> backward compatibility.  That's not a reasonable position as it not only is
>> extremely vague, it's unsubstanitated.  Or, let me put it the other way, if
>> the roles were reversed and you were saying these things as a Windows user
>> about OS/2, the OS/2 users here (myself included) would be accusing you of
>> spreading FUD.
>
>People are free to believe what ever they want.  You haven't any staticstics. 
 I
>see you have your beliefs based on personal experiences -- limited ones.
>Professionals doing explicit R&D are saying W2K's 1st release is to be
avoided.
>Maybe if you subscribed to these services you'd have the data you need.
>

Another possibility is that he already has all the data he needs.

He's already determined, by direct experiment, that all the WIN32
applications he requires for his job work with Win2K, and that all the WIN32
applications he's developing for sale work with Win2K. Why should he care if
some app he doesn't require fails? What more does he require than what I
just stated?

Your pathetic attempt at a FUD campaign on this subject comes off as
whistling in the graveyard. What are you so afraid of? That Win2K might be
yet another massive commercial success? You do realize that you have no
power to change that, don't you?

--------
Steven C. Den Beste    sdenbes1@san.rr.com
Home page: http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste

"We're just ordinary earthlings, not weirdos from another planet!"
              -- Calvin

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               12-Sep-99 23:08:03
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

"David H. McCoy" wrote:
> 
> > > that OS/2 would be a better choice for them, that they're mindless
> > > lemmings which need to be educated, and so on. Compelling rhetoric,
until
> > > someone who actually *knows* about Windows starts asking questions --
then
> > > it turns out that these OS/2 users were basing their objections solely
on MS
> > > hatred, hearsay, superficial experience, and an elitist "we're better
than
> > > the ignorant masses" attitude. Watching you guys squirm here in c.o.o.a
> > > continues to be a valuable source of entertainment. :)
> >
> > Except for the lemmings part, the same can be said of many Winvocates here
> > in talking about OS/2.
> 
> Whom do you have in mind?

They know who they are.
 
> > > | 2) Short cuts on Win2K still get broken if you move the original file
(OS/2
> > > | had true shadows back in 1992!)
> > >
> > > "True shadows"? I thought OS/2's shadows were a hack of the OS2.INI
file?
> >
> > And the filesystem and the Workplace shell.  I wouldn't call that a hack.
> > I'd call it a design.
> 
> How EXACTLY are shadows in the filesystem? I've yet to see any version
> of OS/2 where I could see and use shadows on the command line. I'll call
> that a design, too. A bad one.

Extended attributes.  Just because they don't have filenames doesn't mean
they're not there.  Personally, I'd rather see them function like *nix
symlinks, but it wasn't implemented that way.  Perhaps you could call that
a non-optimal design.  I do, however, find it extremely useful that I can
change an object's attributes via a shortcut and perform any WPS action on
a shadow as if it were the real thing, updating and affecting all other
shadows and the original file.  This cannot be done in current versions of
'doze and I've always found that annoying.  Basically shadows function like
*nix symlinks in the WPS itself, just not via command line.

> > > | 5) NT4/Win2K may allow you to get out of hangs but they do not kill
all
> > > | processes, many processes tell you that they are unkillable with an
error
> > > | message -- thus you have to reboot to take care of one of these
processes
> > > | that have gone haywire.
> > >
> > > Of course, OS/2 is unable to get out of such hangs in the first place.
Why
> > > else did Stardock find it necessary to come up with a product like
Process
> > > Commander?
> >
> > OS/2 without some kind of third party utility is like NT without
> > TaskManager.  Both OS's need such a thing.
> 
> Wrong.  First, NT's taskmanager. OS/2 has a task list. 

I already said that OS/2 needs a third party add-on to been equivalent.

> The difference, you get much more information with NT's taskmanager.

With a good third-party add-on, such as WatchCat, you get far more
information than NT's task manager.

> Also, NT is actually capable of killing task *far* more often than in OS/2.

YMMV.  If you know what you're doing, you can avoid unkillable tasks in
OS/2.  Granted it takes some work.  All unkillable processes that I have
encountered are from applications with complex and poorly written exit list
routines, where it is possible for these routines to block themselves and
never wake up.  I chalk this up to poorly written apps.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               12-Sep-99 23:21:12
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

You're treacherous, Gerben Bergman but I'm right:
> 
> Yes, you're clever, Marty, but I'm treacherous...
> 
> | > OS/2 users are generally very quick to tell Windows users that their OS
> | > sucks, that OS/2 would be a better choice for them, that they're
mindless
> | > lemmings which need to be educated, and so on. Compelling rhetoric,
until
> | > someone who actually *knows* about Windows starts asking questions --
then
> | > it turns out that these OS/2 users are basing their objections solely on 
MS
> | > hatred, hearsay, superficial experience, and an elitist "we're better
than
> | > the ignorant masses" attitude. Watching you guys squirm here in c.o.o.a
> | > continues to be a valuable source of entertainment. :)
> |
> | Except for the lemmings part, the same can be said of many Winvocates here
> | in talking about OS/2.
> 
> The way I see it, what those "Winvocates" are doing can be described as
> "counter-advocacy": OS/2 advocates make exaggerated claims about OS/2's
> capabilities while deriding Windows as well as its users, after which the
> Winvocates jump in to counter those claims (and do some FUDding/ridiculing
> of their own). It's an action-reaction thing.

There have been many instances where topics were originated by winvocates
in this group, causing the inverse action-reaction senario.

> | > "True shadows"? I thought OS/2's shadows were a hack of the OS2.INI
file?
> |
> | And the filesystem and the Workplace shell.  I wouldn't call that a hack.
> | I'd call it a design.
> 
> In which case Windows' shortcut implementation can't be called a hack
> either, just a poor design.

How is a shortcut ingrained into the Win9x shell?  It's just another file
type which uses a different procedure to launch it.  It takes place on top
of the shell, not within it.  It is a h4cK.

> | > Of course, OS/2 is unable to get out of such hangs in the first place.
Why
> | > else did Stardock find it necessary to come up with a product like
Process
> | > Commander?
> |
> | OS/2 without some kind of third party utility is like NT without
> | TaskManager.  Both OS's need such a thing.
> 
> Absolutely, making it all the more unforgivable that OS/2 doesn't have one
> of those out-of-the-box.

It beats the hell out of 95's task manager, which is probably the only
correct comparison to be made.  Currently, Warp 4 does have a kill feature
you can enable with Warpcenter out of the box and asynchronous window focus
changing so you can get to Warpcenter when a problem does happen.

> And is OS/2 with Process Commander really that much superior to NT when it 
> comes to recovery from system hangs and/or killing of wayward processes?

I didn't say superior.  Did that come up elsewhere in the thread? 
Personally I have found process commander to not work too well, but
WatchCat works very well for me and I'd say it can perform comparably.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com                            12-Sep-99 22:55:10
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com (David H. McCoy)

In article <_3YC3.4378$Ud2.112629@typhoon1.rdc-detw.rr.com>, 
bwardell@mw.mediaone.net says...
> 
> Gerben Bergman <rerbert@wxs.nl> wrote in message
> news:uxjcN6=o=mNQ+OhWkCQNuWa24Qd7@4ax.com...
> > From the depths of message hell, Brad Wardell wrote on Sun, 12 Sep 1999
> > 17:22:02 GMT:
> >
> > | One of the reasons why OS/2 ends up in the losing column so often it
> seems
> > | like is because its user base is largely ignorant of the rest of the
> > | industry.
> >
> > Indeed. OS/2 users are generally very quick to tell Windows users that
> their
> > OS sucks, that OS/2 would be a better choice for them, that they're
> mindless
> > lemmings which need to be educated, and so on. Compelling rhetoric, until
> > someone who actually *knows* about Windows starts asking questions -- then
> > it turns out that these OS/2 users were basing their objections solely on
> MS
> > hatred, hearsay, superficial experience, and an elitist "we're better than
> > the ignorant masses" attitude. Watching you guys squirm here in c.o.o.a
> > continues to be a valuable source of entertainment. :)
> >
> 
> I have to agree.  If any group is behaving lemming-like it's some OS/2 users
> in this group.
> 
> If Win2K backward compatibility was really such a problem, then users here
> would have no problem coming up with a host of solid examples of programs
> failing.
> 
> When I upgraded my NT 4 machine to Win2K I didn't even worry a second about
> whether every one of my apps would run fine.  Every app runs fine.  The only
> examples I've seen are ones that require a specific device driver that may
> not be supported yet or have version checking (like partition magic or anti
> virus which are the apps themselves checking the OS version not because of a
> problem in backward compatibility in the OS).


Now, the source may be questionable, but according to a whitepaper I've 
read on MSDN, version-checking is the overwhelming cause of software 
incompatibility when going from NT4 to W2k. Heck, some game don't work 
under W2k even though it has DirectX 7.0 because the version check looks 
for DX6 instead of at least DX6.

Besides USB, ACPI, and DVD, DirectX 7.0 is one of the reasons I'm using 
W2k and will upgrade and software it is paying off. Some games still 
don't work like WC Prophecy, but others that didn't work under NT like 
Dune 2000, Incoming, and Blade Runner do work, not to mention new games 
like Starfleet command and Homeworld.

So far, I am pleased.

> > | 2) Short cuts on Win2K still get broken if you move the original file
> (OS/2
> > | had true shadows back in 1992!)
> >
> > "True shadows"? I thought OS/2's shadows were a hack of the OS2.INI file?
> >
> 
> So what?  The functionality is what counts for me.  I could create a folder
> on my desktop, throw stuff on it, shadow it to my desktop and throw the real
> version onto my drive or later a network drive and not worry about
> recreating my shadow.

Shadows were good.

> > | 5) NT4/Win2K may allow you to get out of hangs but they do not kill all
> > | processes, many processes tell you that they are unkillable with an
> error
> > | message -- thus you have to reboot to take care of one of these
> processes
> > | that have gone haywire.
> >
> > Of course, OS/2 is unable to get out of such hangs in the first place. Why
> > else did Stardock find it necessary to come up with a product like Process
> > Commander?
> >
> 
> But at least OS/2 has such a product.  There's no such product for Windows
> to kill off those WinNT apps.  And so far Win2K is even worse about killing
> processes.

Not for me. The reason there is no product like that for NT, IMO, is 
that one isn't needed. I've had far more success killing errant 
processes under NT than I ever had with any version of OS/2 I used with 
or without Process Commander, in my experience.

> > | 6) There is no mouse configuration available to decide what the mouse
> > | buttons should do.  Using the left mouse button to drag and drop an
> "object"
> > | may do 1 of 3 things: Create a short cut, move it, or copy it.  The
> rules
> > | for determining this are inconsistent, unconfigurable, and complicated
> (and
> > | stupid).
> >
> > I fully agree; that's annoying as hell. But didn't you once say that you
> > were going to fix this with a future component of Object Desktop for
> > Windows? How's that one coming along?
> >
> 
> Working on it.  The problem is knowing system hooks and such and all our
> developer who know this stuff are on WindowBlinds or other OD components
> right now.

What about templates? How goes that?

> 
> Brad
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               12-Sep-99 23:26:14
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Brad Wardell wrote:
> 
> That's exactly my take too.  Witness how much Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 junk
> there is here.  That was going on FIVE years ago.  It's like someone
> bringing up the 486SX in some anti-Intel debate.

Or like a statement made about bank software from 2 years ago.  ;-)

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com                            12-Sep-99 23:49:28
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com (David H. McCoy)

In article <37DC6A97.DDA60660@stny.rr.com>, mamodeo@stny.rr.com says...
> "David H. McCoy" wrote:
> > 
> > > > that OS/2 would be a better choice for them, that they're mindless
> > > > lemmings which need to be educated, and so on. Compelling rhetoric,
until
> > > > someone who actually *knows* about Windows starts asking questions --
then
> > > > it turns out that these OS/2 users were basing their objections solely 
on MS
> > > > hatred, hearsay, superficial experience, and an elitist "we're better
than
> > > > the ignorant masses" attitude. Watching you guys squirm here in
c.o.o.a
> > > > continues to be a valuable source of entertainment. :)
> > >
> > > Except for the lemmings part, the same can be said of many Winvocates
here
> > > in talking about OS/2.
> > 
> > Whom do you have in mind?
> 
> They know who they are.
>

Perhaps. 

> > > > | 2) Short cuts on Win2K still get broken if you move the original
file (OS/2
> > > > | had true shadows back in 1992!)
> > > >
> > > > "True shadows"? I thought OS/2's shadows were a hack of the OS2.INI
file?
> > >
> > > And the filesystem and the Workplace shell.  I wouldn't call that a
hack.
> > > I'd call it a design.
> > 
> > How EXACTLY are shadows in the filesystem? I've yet to see any version
> > of OS/2 where I could see and use shadows on the command line. I'll call
> > that a design, too. A bad one.
> 
> Extended attributes.  Just because they don't have filenames doesn't mean
> they're not there.  Personally, I'd rather see them function like *nix
> symlinks, but it wasn't implemented that way.  Perhaps you could call that
> a non-optimal design.  I do, however, find it extremely useful that I can
> change an object's attributes via a shortcut and perform any WPS action on
> a shadow as if it were the real thing, updating and affecting all other
> shadows and the original file.  This cannot be done in current versions of
> 'doze and I've always found that annoying.  Basically shadows function like
> *nix symlinks in the WPS itself, just not via command line.

I'm talking functionally, like the Unix symbolic links you mentioned. I 
should have been more specific. Regardless, while shadows in the WPS are 
fantastic and something I personally used heavily, I've always 
considered it a failing that shadows didn't make it to the commandline. 
I just don't feel that the EA aspect qualifies.

> > > > | 5) NT4/Win2K may allow you to get out of hangs but they do not kill
all
> > > > | processes, many processes tell you that they are unkillable with an
error
> > > > | message -- thus you have to reboot to take care of one of these
processes
> > > > | that have gone haywire.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, OS/2 is unable to get out of such hangs in the first place. 
Why
> > > > else did Stardock find it necessary to come up with a product like
Process
> > > > Commander?
> > >
> > > OS/2 without some kind of third party utility is like NT without
> > > TaskManager.  Both OS's need such a thing.
> > 
> > Wrong.  First, NT's taskmanager. OS/2 has a task list. 
> 
> I already said that OS/2 needs a third party add-on to been equivalent.

You did. Misread, sorry.

> > The difference, you get much more information with NT's taskmanager.
> 
> With a good third-party add-on, such as WatchCat, you get far more
> information than NT's task manager.

Like what? I haven't used PC(or its predacessor Watchcat in some time). 
Also, I still found NT more capable at killing that any OS/2-PC-CAD 
Commander combo I've used.

> > Also, NT is actually capable of killing task *far* more often than in
OS/2.
> 
> YMMV.  If you know what you're doing, you can avoid unkillable tasks in
> OS/2.  Granted it takes some work.  All unkillable processes that I have
> encountered are from applications with complex and poorly written exit list
> routines, where it is possible for these routines to block themselves and
> never wake up.  I chalk this up to poorly written apps.

But is it not the job of the OS to protect us from such things. An app 
that doesn't obey the 1/10th law under OS/2 shouldn't block the queue. 
The problem is that most users of OS/2 are not developers who know what 
they are doing, but end-users who are at the mercy of OS/2's inability 
to kill certain processes.

> - Marty
> 

-- 
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               13-Sep-99 04:08:27
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 16:42:02, "Brad Wardell" 
<bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
| Esther, you can't just go on and say "You're statistically incorrect.." and
| not provide any evidence to back this assertion.

Sure, I can. Maybe I can't do so and get away with it,but I *can* say 
it. <grin>

One might think that I'd have earned some credibility with you by now 
<<sob>> but... well, if it were convenient to dig up old messages I'd 
do so, but this is shaping to be a busy week. Don't count on it; I'll 
be busy interviewing company execs who are more interested in telling 
me how the competition is dog meat than in answering my questions.

I do not believe your
| assertion to be correct with regard to Win32 OSes.  Secondly, look carefully
| at my statement -- Win32 OSes.  I am not commenting on Windows 3.1 to
| Windows 95.  I am commenting on Windows 95 to Windows 98 and NT3.1 to 3.5 to
| 4.0.

Win3.1->Win95 I know about. I don't think there were any significant 
issues going from Win95 to Win98. I'm less certain of the NT migration
path (other than Win9x apps that wouldn't run on NT, and vice versa, 
early on).

| I am not arguing that there's 100% compatibility, I'm sure there will be
| some special case applications that break.  But I would say that's a long
| way from "bad" backward compatibility.

Brad, the issue is Microsoft's track record on backward compatibility.
They're good at lots of things -- such as screen savers and marketing 
-- but at backward compatibility, they suck.

Will they do better going to Win2000? Time will tell. But I don't 
expect it.

--Esther

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               13-Sep-99 04:17:12
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 17:15:56, sdenbes1@san.rr.com (Steven C. Den 
Beste) wrote:
| There's a broad leap between *you* believing your friend, and you expecting
| *me* to believe your friend.

Okay, fair point. And I wasn't trying to hide the identity; it just 
hadn't seemed relevant.

The person on whom I'm relying is Steven Vaughan-Nichols, who's been 
writing about operating system and other issues for at least the last 
ten years. He's used every one of 'em, and is as generally OS-agnostic
as they come. (Well, personally he prefers Unix, but he did have a 
cover story for OS/2 Magazine and Windows Magazine -- the same month. 
He doesn't shout "everyone should pick my choice!" loudly or 
otherwise.)

I don't know the nature of the tests he's done personally. I do know 
that he's spoken with a reasonably large number of software developers
(and with sjvn, that's probably a minimum of 20).

--Esther

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               13-Sep-99 04:22:12
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 16:54:15, "Brad Wardell" 
<bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
| I am not an expert on Win32 compatibility?  We have an application --
| WindowBlinds that has hundreds of thousands users that runs on Windows 95,
| Windows NT, Windows 98, and Windows 2000 all with the same code base.  If
| any app was going to be broken by Win2K, it would be that app.

Brad, I consider you at least reasonably competent at Win32 
development. But one app is only one app. I don't generalize from a 
sample of one.

I picked game development for my example because it's a topic about 
which I know next to nothing. Since I was trying to make a point about
my substituting your knowledge for my own, it seemed most appropriate.
As a product area, "utilities" are a lot more general.

| You haven't cited any statistics or even quotes of a statistic.  You've only
| asserted that based on other people's opinions, Win2K is going to have "bad"
| backward compatibility.  That's not a reasonable position as it not only is
| extremely vague, it's unsubstanitated.  Or, let me put it the other way, if
| the roles were reversed and you were saying these things as a Windows user
| about OS/2, the OS/2 users here (myself included) would be accusing you of
| spreading FUD.

When have I ever worried about someone complaining that I was 
spreading FUD? I present the facts as I see them. Sometimes, the fact 
is only that I've been told something by an authoritative source. The 
reader is left to judge whether the credibility I've earned with him 
(personally, or -- in the case of a news piece -- by my relationship 
with a publication) raises my source to the level of Authority.

I didn't hide the fact that I lack personal evidence. I said so, in 
the very first message.

--Esther

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: blnelson@visi.net                                 13-Sep-99 04:29:24
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: Bennie Nelson <blnelson@visi.net>

Brad Wardell wrote:
> 
> Tim Martin <OS2Guy@WarpCity.com> wrote in message
> news:37DA01A3.B3823A3B@WarpCity.com...
> > Jason wrote:
> >
> > > Tim Martin <OS2Guy@WarpCity.com> wrote:
> > > : Stardock and author Kris Kwilas have flipped off the OS/2
> > > : community with their latest release of Window Blinds v.099.
> > > : The hype is claiming 'millions of downloads in just a few
> > > : months for the most desired software in the world'.
> > >
> > > : The OS/2 user is to be thunked for funding Stardock's  latest
> > > : software product which only runs on a Microsoft operating system.
> > >
> > > Actually if a new client is brought forth by stardock it will probably
> > > include a 16bit version of windowblinds for windows 3.1 which in turn
> > > runs on OS/2.
> > >
> > > -Jason
> >
> > Actually there will be no new Stardock Warp 5 client
> > despite the ten months of Stardock hype.  Stardock
> > has failed to meet IBM's financial package requirement.
> >
> 
> This is an outright lie.  You have no idea of the status of the Warp 5
> client.  That's probably why you continue these irrational attacks on
> Stardock, because you're completely out of the loop on what we do and it
> bothers you apparently to no end.
> 
> Stardock continues to develop and support OS/2 products despite having to
> pay for that support through the sales of Windows software.
> 
> You should be thankful that you're just a little bug on the net.  Your
> libelous statements such as the one above would get you into serious trouble
> if you actually had any influence on anything.

Brad,
You seem to be forgeting that all of this is taking place in the cooa bar, and
that, according to you, means that Tim's word games are OK.

Actually, you're now making my point: that what is posted in cooa has 
implications in the "real world" outside of the cooa bar.

Regards,
Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     12-Sep-99 21:31:28
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Steven C. Den Beste wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 17:26:51 -0400, Joseph recycled some holes into the
> following pattern:
>
> >
> >
> >Brad Wardell wrote:
> >
> >> You haven't cited any statistics or even quotes of a statistic.  You've
only
> >> asserted that based on other people's opinions, Win2K is going to have
"bad"
> >> backward compatibility.  That's not a reasonable position as it not only
is
> >> extremely vague, it's unsubstanitated.  Or, let me put it the other way,
if
> >> the roles were reversed and you were saying these things as a Windows
user
> >> about OS/2, the OS/2 users here (myself included) would be accusing you
of
> >> spreading FUD.
> >
> >People are free to believe what ever they want.  You haven't any
staticstics.  I
> >see you have your beliefs based on personal experiences -- limited ones.
> >Professionals doing explicit R&D are saying W2K's 1st release is to be
avoided.
> >Maybe if you subscribed to these services you'd have the data you need.
> >
>
> Another possibility is that he already has all the data he needs.
>
> He's already determined, by direct experiment,

When you talk about direct experiments you make me laugh.  Let him speak for
himself
and you can speak for yourself.  We'll also respect the opinions of the
Gartner
Group, GIGA and Forrester.

> Your pathetic attempt at a FUD campaign on this subject comes off as
> whistling in the graveyard. What are you so afraid of? That Win2K might be
> yet another massive commercial success? You do realize that you have no
> power to change that, don't you?

Fear huh?  Who's posting on which news group?

It's great to see expectations build up for W2K and to have high expectations
for
software compatibility.  If the argument for W2K compatibility comes down to
personal
experiences of people in this news group (so far it has) then that is a very
very bad
sign.

Now W2K may be a massive commercial success -- I haven't any money riding on
it.  I
don't see CITIRX running scared but I have seen the top PC OEMs building Thin
Clients
based on WinCE or LINUX.  I have also seen Compaq dump W2K on ALPHA and pick
up
LINUX.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             12-Sep-99 21:37:17
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>

Esther Schindler wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 00:22:36, "Brad Wardell"
> <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
> 
> | OS/2's backward compatibility has been most excellent.  I agree with that.
> | I don't agree that backwards compatibility on Win32 OS's has been "bad". 
I
> | can't think of any Win32 apps that have been broken from Win95 to Win2K.
> 
> It's years since I had to think about it, Brad, but statistically
> you're incorrect. There were a *lot* of problems with Win3.1->Win95
> upgrades. Plenty of apps quit working... though I could no longer
> recite the names of the more famous examples.

Don't know if it's a famous example but Drafix CAD professional v3
wouldn't work on Win32 but did work on Win 3.1.  It was a problem with
cursor visibility but made the program completely unusable and required
a patch.  Drafix was bought by Autodesk and is now sold as QuickCAD.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: blnelson@visi.net                                 13-Sep-99 04:37:09
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Bennie Nelson <blnelson@visi.net>

Esther Schindler wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 17:00:10, Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote:
> | Let's use history as a guide, none of MS's OS updates have been good
> | with backwads compatibility.  None and W2K is a major OS update.
> 
> We agree. <smile>
> 
> This is one area in which OS/2 shines. Although new releases broke a
> handful of OS/2 applications, it really was only a handful. When I
> taught OS/2 classes using Warp 4, I used a few OS/2 1.x applications
> in the hands-on exercises.
> 
> --Esther

Backward compatibility is an area where IBM shines.  I have mainframe
code written in an interpreted language that has survived, unchanged, 
since MVX/SP.  It has run flawlessly on each subsequent processor
and has been supported by each succeeding OS (MVS/XA, MVS/ESA, OS/390).

Regards,
Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     12-Sep-99 21:43:11
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Steven C. Den Beste wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 17:33:32 -0400, Joseph recycled some holes into the
> following pattern:
>
> >
> >
> >Brad Wardell wrote:
> >
> >> Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message news:37DAF554.9C5392AC@ibm.net...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > In the case of NT, we'll find out with W2K. Allchin in an interview was
> >> not
> >> > encouraging.  Niether has the Gartner Group
> >>
> >> I'll take first hand experience over the "Gartner Group" any day.
> >>
> >
> >Who's first hand experiences?  Most Gartner Group subscribers would laugh.
>
> I believe he's trying to tell you that he'll take his own first hand
> experience over the Gartner Group.

He should!  I'm not asking Brad to disbelieve his experiences.

It is simple.  Brad's experiences are not extensive.  It's a limited
experience.  Those who are studying W2K and telling a very different story. I
ask that you listen to them as well.  After all Brad's experiences are no more
yours than those of Gartner Group.

> I hope you're not seriously suggesting that he should disbelieve the
> evidence of his own eyes.

Oh no.  I'm not questioning his experiences.  I just do not stop with his
experiences.  W2K compatibility isn't a question that one man's limited
experiences can answerm as hard as you iwsh it could.  It takes an aggregation
of many people and many experiences over time.  So far those doing large scale
investigations are issuing warngings -- even MS's own executive.  You can and
will believe what you wish.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: malstrom@yolen.oit.umass.edu                      13-Sep-99 00:49:13
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: So... you wann'a upgrade to win2k? :')

From: Jason <malstrom@yolen.oit.umass.edu>

In comp.os.os2.advocacy DG <dgwhiz@earthling.net> wrote:
:     {Posting note: Because this topic doesn't relate
: directly to OS/2 use/advocacy, I suggest that follow-ups go
: to a Windows ng, where such discussions are already being
: held.}

Suggestion not taken since many people in this thread don't read 
c.o.m.a. and their fore should be posting into it.  I better action would 
have been to ad [OT] to the subject line

:     Yes, consumers are confused but so are many IT
: journalists. We're not to blame for that. The source of the
: confusion is Microsoft itself.

Understandable

:     Other MSFT press releases referred to 2 distinct
: versions of "Win2000" where one version was based on NT,
: another on Win9x. Now, we're being told that Windows 2000
: will be only a version of NT and Windows Millennium will be
: the new version of Win9x [see other messages posted at
: *windows.advocacy].

On top of that Windows 2000 and Millennium will converge at Neptune 
sometime in late 2001

http://www.pcworld.com/current_issue/article/chart/0,1925,12530+8+1,00.html

:     More importantly, what people don't understand is that
: it's hardly an accident or coincidence that Windows
: Millennium/Win9x won't be available for another 2 years.
: Sure, you can blame MSFT's bad habit of breaking every
: programming schedule they've ever set. But that's still a
: management responsibility, not merely a programming dept.
: problem. MSFT mgmt. clearly has intended to move most, if
: not all, Win9x users over to NT. Bill Gates himself stated
: this, back in 1995. That's why he took such great pains to
: talk about the advantages of merging NT with Win9x. Even the
: merged version really was part of the larger plan to "wean"
: people off Win9x, and over to NT [by any other name].

Windows 95 was suppose to be what windows' user will be getting in late 
2001.  But they haven't been able to get an OS like OS/2 for the end user 
till then.  They have to have had a Frankenstien OS instead.  But then 
they would get to pay Microsoft for all those upgrades.

-Jason

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com                               12-Sep-99 21:49:05
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com (Steven C. Den Beste)

On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 19:24:23 -0400, Joseph recycled some holes into the
following pattern:

>
>
>Brad Wardell wrote:
>
>> Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message news:37DC1A99.BB5483A7@ibm.net...
>> >
>> > People are free to believe what ever they want.  You haven't any
>> staticstics.  I
>> > see you have your beliefs based on personal experiences -- limited ones.
>> > Professionals doing explicit R&D are saying W2K's 1st release is to be
>> avoided.
>> > Maybe if you subscribed to these services you'd have the data you need.
>> >
>>
>> Why don't you cite examples where they give such specific statistics?
>
>I can't.  Maybe if you subscribed to their services you'd have the data YOU
>need.  I don't need that data.  I'm not the one being so stubborn as to
require
>a hit between my eyes with a two by four.  People are free to believe what
ever
>they want.  You haven't any
>staticstics nor any pointer to a research group giving W2K the go ahead..
>

You seem to miss the point that he doesn't need that data either. He is
capable of getting the information he requires directly, by experimentation.

But you don't like the answer he's getting, so you are recommending that he
spend a fortune to have Gartner group tell him something different.

Why is that?



More interesting is this: Why is it that the only data you'll accept is data
"from a research group"? Do I sense the reek of an academic mind-set? Have
they forgotten how to do experiments in the college setting? Something can
only be true if someone else tells you it is true? You can never determine
it for yourself?

--------
Steven C. Den Beste    sdenbes1@san.rr.com
Home page: http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste

"We're just ordinary earthlings, not weirdos from another planet!"
              -- Calvin

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com                               12-Sep-99 21:45:27
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com (Steven C. Den Beste)

On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 19:03:57 -0400, Joseph recycled some holes into the
following pattern:

>
>
>Brad Wardell wrote:
>
>> Gerben Bergman <rerbert@wxs.nl> wrote in message
>> news:uxjcN6=o=mNQ+OhWkCQNuWa24Qd7@4ax.com...
>> > From the depths of message hell, Brad Wardell wrote on Sun, 12 Sep 1999
>> > 17:22:02 GMT:
>> >
>> > | One of the reasons why OS/2 ends up in the losing column so often it
>> seems
>> > | like is because its user base is largely ignorant of the rest of the
>> > | industry.
>> >
>> > Indeed. OS/2 users are generally very quick to tell Windows users that
>> their
>> > OS sucks, that OS/2 would be a better choice for them, that they're
>> mindless
>> > lemmings which need to be educated, and so on. Compelling rhetoric, until
>> > someone who actually *knows* about Windows starts asking questions --
then
>> > it turns out that these OS/2 users were basing their objections solely on
>> MS
>> > hatred, hearsay, superficial experience, and an elitist "we're better
than
>> > the ignorant masses" attitude. Watching you guys squirm here in c.o.o.a
>> > continues to be a valuable source of entertainment. :)
>
>
>
>> I have to agree.  If any group is behaving lemming-like it's some OS/2
users
>> in this group.
>>
>> If Win2K backward compatibility was really such a problem, then users here
>> would have no problem coming up with a host of solid examples of programs
>> failing.
>
>And what would be the point ?   To make those who say otherwise  look
foolish?
>We only need to wait and use dejanews for that if that were a goal.
>
>What have you all done to debunk Garter Groups' conclusions?  Nothing.  Is it
>the OS/2 community that's trying to flaot a rumor that W2K will have
backwards
>compatibilty problems?  I don't think so.  I've posted Allchin's comments on
>W2K's compatibility.  The NT community is busy evaluating the OS and it's
>compatibility with their apps.  We'll see reports in the press.
>
>
>

What Brad has done is to gamble his own money on compatibility. He is
wagering a significant portion of the business of StarDock that he is
correct.

When it comes down to it, this proves that he is serious.

What are YOU doing to prove that you genuinely believe your position?

Brad is under no obligation to prove anything to you about Win2K app
compatiblity. He has the privilege of deciding that you're blowing smoke,
and that he will continue to proceed on a path which is based on the
assumption that compatibility won't be an issue.

I, too, am gambling my own monney on compatibility. If compatibility becomes
a serious issue, my stock will lose considerable value.

You, on the other hand, just talk. Talk is cheap.

--------
Steven C. Den Beste    sdenbes1@san.rr.com
Home page: http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste

"We're just ordinary earthlings, not weirdos from another planet!"
              -- Calvin

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     12-Sep-99 22:00:12
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Brad Wardell wrote:

> Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message news:37DC2EE5.A24D7B42@ibm.net...
> >
>
> What exactly is the recommendation of the Gartner Group?  You know, the same
> group that says corporations should move away from OS/2 over and over in the
> past several years.

I would not argue with them.  I don't see myself arguing the PC is the right
tool -- OS/2 or not -- for the future.  I think OS/2 maintains a desktop
investment longer so I use it.  I would not deploy PCs.

> Secondly, what gaurantee is available that apps on OS/2 Warp 3 are going to
> run on Warp 4 or Aurora?  Should we assume that nothing that ran fine on
> OS/2 Warp 3 is going to run on OS/2 Warp 4 because there's no official
> gaurantee?

Now you're simply shifting to the other side -- that the lack of knowledge
means
there is uncertainty.  Well I agree. I'm not arguing that OS updates are good
at
all -- they are not good since they cost money.  The OS being updated
real-soon-now is not OS/2 -- it is NT and the upgrade is huge -- 70% new code
by
some accounts.  What's the scoop?  Not much is known yet.

It is also unfair to make such extreme arguments since I'm not arguing
perfection.  I think Ester's comments were reasonable and you dismissed them.

> On COOA it's all a game.

> >
>
> Just remember you said that.

You damn right -- extrapolating personal experiences as a means to evaluate
and
refute technology claims by professional organizations.is game playing.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             12-Sep-99 22:01:02
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>

Brad Wardell wrote:
> 
> Gerben Bergman <rerbert@wxs.nl> wrote in message
> news:uxjcN6=o=mNQ+OhWkCQNuWa24Qd7@4ax.com...
> > From the depths of message hell, Brad Wardell wrote on Sun, 12 Sep 1999
> > 17:22:02 GMT:
> >
> > | One of the reasons why OS/2 ends up in the losing column so often it
> seems
> > | like is because its user base is largely ignorant of the rest of the
> > | industry.
> >
> > Indeed. OS/2 users are generally very quick to tell Windows users that
> their
> > OS sucks, that OS/2 would be a better choice for them, that they're
> mindless
> > lemmings which need to be educated, and so on. Compelling rhetoric, until
> > someone who actually *knows* about Windows starts asking questions -- then
> > it turns out that these OS/2 users were basing their objections solely on
> MS
> > hatred, hearsay, superficial experience, and an elitist "we're better than
> > the ignorant masses" attitude. Watching you guys squirm here in c.o.o.a
> > continues to be a valuable source of entertainment. :)
> >
> 
> I have to agree.  If any group is behaving lemming-like it's some OS/2 users
> in this group.
> 
> If Win2K backward compatibility was really such a problem, then users here
> would have no problem coming up with a host of solid examples of programs
> failing.

Hey hey hey!!   You must have forgot that this is the *OS/2* advocacy
group, NOT the Windows 2K advocacy group.  Most users here do not have
Windows 2K, do not want Windows 2K, and have not installed any NT
applications on Windows 2K to verify backwards compatibility.  Frankly,
it's not our job to come up with the 'host of solid examples of programs
failing.'   Many people would agree that Microsoft has had a bad record
on backwards compatibility.  I know I do.  Maybe you don't
agree...fine.  Just state your opinion and leave it at that rather than
try to bring some sort of pseudo-quantification to a statement of
opinion.  Obviously, (at least to me) no one knows *YET* if Windows 2K
will have similar backwards compatibility problems because it still
isn't finished and the beta is too new for very much testing to have
occurred.  Maybe Microsoft will develop the host of examples of programs
failing when they release Windows 2K and then everyone can post patches
and everything will be okey-dokey again.

And the smear against OS/2 users who you say are 'lemming-like' is
completely uncalled for, illogical, and silly.  Are you suggesting that
all OS/2 users are mindlessly following some sort of OS/2 leader from
IBM?  That's a hoot....It's much easier to accuse Windows users of being
lemming-like for installing whatever new operating system Microsoft puts
out in Beta, oui?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             12-Sep-99 22:07:09
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: Lotus News

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>

Dennis Peterson wrote:
> 
>
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-114652.html?tag=st.ne.1002.thed.1003-200-1
14652
> 
> The first victim of the Sun StarOffice strategy?
> 

Has anyone ever seen the Lotus e-Suite?  It seems like Lotus kept it too
close to their vest.  They would have been better off releasing demos or
something.  If there were demos, I never saw them and I didn't know
where they were.  So I have no idea if this product was actually any
good or not.  I'm not sure if the Lotus target customers ever saw the
product.  And if they did, Lotus could apparently not make a compelling
case for using it.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     12-Sep-99 22:09:16
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Steven C. Den Beste wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 19:24:23 -0400, Joseph recycled some holes into the
> following pattern:
>
> >
> >> Why don't you cite examples where they give such specific statistics?
> >
> >I can't.  Maybe if you subscribed to their services you'd have the data YOU
> >need.  I don't need that data.  I'm not the one being so stubborn as to
require
> >a hit between my eyes with a two by four.  People are free to believe what
ever
> >they want.  You haven't any
> >staticstics nor any pointer to a research group giving W2K the go ahead..
>
> You seem to miss the point that he doesn't need that data either. He is
> capable of getting the information he requires directly, by experimentation.

He said he needed data.  He asked for data.

> But you don't like the answer he's getting, so you are recommending that he
> spend a fortune to have Gartner group tell him something different.
>
> Why is that?

You're a very, very confused man.

I currently run OS/2 4.0 without any Fix packs.  I have no problems with the
OS as
it stands based on my daily usage.  None.
I would NOT extrapolate that experience into a general statement without more
data.
If a man like you would say I needed the fix pack top run my OS I'd say NO. 
If I
were to tell you that you did not need the fix pack because of my personal
experiences then I would be mistaken.

I do not dictate his needs or your needs.  It is both your choice.  When you
generalize be careful.  You reliance on direct experience is very medieval. 
It is
scary.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             12-Sep-99 22:13:02
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: So... you wann'a upgrade to win2k? :')

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>

David H. McCoy wrote:
> 
> In article <MnY238D5wGfA090yn@erols.com>, mcbrides@erols.com says...
> > I just got this one in and boy does it make good reading. "You MS
lemmings" are
> > in for a cleaning! :')
> >
> > ===========================================================
> > THE INFOWORLD SCOOP                         APP DEV EDITION
> > ===========================================================
> >
> > Friday, September 10, 1999
> >
> > --- snip ---
> >
> > ========================================================
> > TOP NEWS STORIES
> > ========================================================
> >
> > STUDY: WINDOWS 2000 ADOPTION TO COST A PRETTY PENNY
> >
> > Microsoft's vision of corporations migrating to Windows
> > 2000 likely will become very clouded once IT managers
> > realize the costs of adopting the much-anticipated
> > technology, a study by researchers at Gartner Group
> > asserted Thursday.
> >
> > According to the Gartner Group's numbers, it will cost
> > between $1,250 and $2,050 per desktop to migrate from
> > Windows NT Workstation 4.0 to Windows 2000
> > Professional. The cost of moving from Windows 9x to
> > Windows 2000 will be even higher, according to the report
> > -- between $2,015 and $3,100 per PC.
> >
> > For the full story:
> > http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?99099.piwin2000.htm
> >
> > --- snip
> >
> > Copyright 1999 InfoWorld Media Group Inc.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
*******************************************************************************

> > *            Sometimes, the BEST things in life really ARE free...         
   *
> > *       Get a FREE copy of NetRexx 1.150 for your next java project at:    
   *
> > *                     http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/netrexx                  
   *
> >
*******************************************************************************

> >
> > /----------------------------------------\
> > | From the desktop of: Jerome D. McBride |
> > |         mcbrides@erols.com             |
> > \----------------------------------------/
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> 
> I've upgrade and it didn't cost me anywhere near $1,250. What's your
> point? It's not like OS/2 would provider a cheaper path, certainly, not
> a better one.
> 
I think the cost is an average based on hardware upgrades, user
training, sys admin training, software licensing costs, software
upgrades, software installation, etc.  required for a typical large site
to upgrade.  As a single end-user, you certainly had some of these costs
for your upgrade but, like most users, you probably do not put a value
on the time you spend doing these activities.  And even if you had not
increased hardware requirements, you obviously will have a software
licensing cost.  Somehow, I do not think Windows 2000 will be a $49
upgrade.  I think Microsoft is charging more than that just for the Beta
3 Release Candidate 1 versions, right?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     12-Sep-99 22:15:27
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Steven C. Den Beste wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 19:03:57 -0400, Joseph recycled some holes into the
> following pattern:
>



> What Brad has done is to gamble his own money on compatibility. He is
> wagering a significant portion of the business of StarDock that he is
> correct.
>
> When it comes down to it, this proves that he is serious.

He's not representative of the community to which I refer.  He isn't even a
Gartren
Group client or customer.  I too am serious and my choices are for my
situation.  I
would be a fool to think my choices are for everyone.

> What are YOU doing to prove that you genuinely believe your position?

Running OS/2, avoiding W2K hype, and following the news.

> Brad is under no obligation to prove anything to you about Win2K app
> compatiblity.

True.  Nor am I under any obligation to prove anything about W2K compatiblity.

> I, too, am gambling my own monney on compatibility. If compatibility becomes
> a serious issue, my stock will lose considerable value.
>
> You, on the other hand, just talk. Talk is cheap.

If you look at the header, thjis is posted with an OS/2 application.  What
part of
OS/2 don't you understand ?


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          13-Sep-99 05:18:07
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message news:37DC540A.97440EC9@ibm.net...

> > He's already determined, by direct experiment,
>
> When you talk about direct experiments you make me laugh.  Let him speak
for himself
> and you can speak for yourself.  We'll also respect the opinions of the
Gartner
> Group, GIGA and Forrester.
>

If you respected the opinions of the Gartner group, you wouldn't be using
OS/2.

Yet you have not actually said what Gartner group report states that Win2K
compatibility is going to be a real major issue.

Brad


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          13-Sep-99 05:24:22
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message news:37DC5AB7.B632B6B7@ibm.net...
>
>
> Brad Wardell wrote:
>
> > Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message
news:37DC2EE5.A24D7B42@ibm.net...
> > >


> > Secondly, what gaurantee is available that apps on OS/2 Warp 3 are going
to
> > run on Warp 4 or Aurora?  Should we assume that nothing that ran fine on
> > OS/2 Warp 3 is going to run on OS/2 Warp 4 because there's no official
> > gaurantee?
>
> Now you're simply shifting to the other side -- that the lack of knowledge
means
> there is uncertainty.  Well I agree. I'm not arguing that OS updates are
good at
> all -- they are not good since they cost money.  The OS being updated
> real-soon-now is not OS/2 -- it is NT and the upgrade is huge -- 70% new
code by
> some accounts.  What's the scoop?  Not much is known yet.

No, I'm pointing out that the lack of a gaurantee from Microsoft does not
mean anything either way just like the lack of a compatibiblity gaurantee
from IBM means nothing too.


>
> It is also unfair to make such extreme arguments since I'm not arguing
> perfection.  I think Ester's comments were reasonable and you dismissed
them.

What arguments of hers?  A friend of a friend of hers said that there might
be a compatibility problem from NT 4 to Win2K?  What exactly am I supposed
to make of that?  Thus far, there is no evidence whatsoever to conclude that
NT 4 to Win2K will be a compatibility nightmare or even a problem.

The only argument we actually have on the table is the outdated data from
Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 which is not an analogous situation.


>
> > On COOA it's all a game.
>
> > >
> >
> > Just remember you said that.
>
> You damn right -- extrapolating personal experiences as a means to
evaluate and
> refute technology claims by professional organizations.is game playing.
>

I am not just providing personal experience.  Go over to news.stardock.com
where we have hundreds of thousands of people reading and posting their
experiences with different versions of Windows.  Not a single post have I
seen that refers to a application breaking due to moving to Win2K other than
something that is a device specific thing or an app that has version
checking for safety reasons.

I'm not just saying "It works on my machine here."

Furthermore, it is you and other OS/2 advocates making the rather baseless
assertion that going from NT 4 to Win2K is going to be a compatibility
nightmare.  In fact, do you remember how this discussion began?  An OS/2
user said that going from NT 4 to Win2K would mean upgrading "almost all
their software" (or something to that effect) because of the alleged massive
compatibility problems going from NT 4 to Win2K.  yet there is not a shred
of evidence to support this claim.  No Gartner Group report that I am aware
of makes that claim either.

Brad



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          13-Sep-99 05:26:21
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

David T. Johnson <djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote in message
news:37DC5AE0.C848F2A@isomedia.com...
> Brad Wardell wrote:
> >
> > Gerben Bergman <rerbert@wxs.nl> wrote in message
> > news:uxjcN6=o=mNQ+OhWkCQNuWa24Qd7@4ax.com...
> > > From the depths of message hell, Brad Wardell wrote on Sun, 12 Sep
1999
> > > 17:22:02 GMT:
> > >
> > > | One of the reasons why OS/2 ends up in the losing column so often it
> > seems
> > > | like is because its user base is largely ignorant of the rest of the
> > > | industry.
> > >
> > > Indeed. OS/2 users are generally very quick to tell Windows users that
> > their
> > > OS sucks, that OS/2 would be a better choice for them, that they're
> > mindless
> > > lemmings which need to be educated, and so on. Compelling rhetoric,
until
> > > someone who actually *knows* about Windows starts asking questions --
then
> > > it turns out that these OS/2 users were basing their objections solely
on
> > MS
> > > hatred, hearsay, superficial experience, and an elitist "we're better
than
> > > the ignorant masses" attitude. Watching you guys squirm here in
c.o.o.a
> > > continues to be a valuable source of entertainment. :)
> > >
> >
> > I have to agree.  If any group is behaving lemming-like it's some OS/2
users
> > in this group.
> >
> > If Win2K backward compatibility was really such a problem, then users
here
> > would have no problem coming up with a host of solid examples of
programs
> > failing.
>
> Hey hey hey!!   You must have forgot that this is the *OS/2* advocacy
> group, NOT the Windows 2K advocacy group.  Most users here do not have
> Windows 2K, do not want Windows 2K, and have not installed any NT
> applications on Windows 2K to verify backwards compatibility.  Frankly,
> it's not our job to come up with the 'host of solid examples of programs
> failing.'   Many people would agree that Microsoft has had a bad record
> on backwards compatibility.  I know I do.  Maybe you don't
> agree...fine.  Just state your opinion and leave it at that rather than
> try to bring some sort of pseudo-quantification to a statement of
> opinion.  Obviously, (at least to me) no one knows *YET* if Windows 2K
> will have similar backwards compatibility problems because it still
> isn't finished and the beta is too new for very much testing to have
> occurred.  Maybe Microsoft will develop the host of examples of programs
> failing when they release Windows 2K and then everyone can post patches
> and everything will be okey-dokey again.
>
> And the smear against OS/2 users who you say are 'lemming-like' is
> completely uncalled for, illogical, and silly.  Are you suggesting that
> all OS/2 users are mindlessly following some sort of OS/2 leader from
> IBM?  That's a hoot....It's much easier to accuse Windows users of being
> lemming-like for installing whatever new operating system Microsoft puts
> out in Beta, oui?

A user who blindly believes what the masses are saying without looking at
the evidence to support that belief is a lemming.

Key words (so that my statement isn't distorted): looking at the evidence.

A bunch of OS/2 users running around making unsubstantiated claims on other
OSes is not OS/2 advocacy, it's OS/2 fanaticism.

Brad



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         13-Sep-99 05:26:23
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

> Brad Wardell wrote:
 
>> It's like someone bringing up the 486SX in some anti-Intel debate.

> Or like a statement made about bank software from 2 years ago.  ;-)

Not at all, Marty.  Quite illogical a comparison, in fact.  Consider a
discussion about the discovery of planets.  I would bring up something
from 69 years ago, and it would be quite relevant.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         13-Sep-99 05:23:05
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

> Personally I have found process commander to not work too well

If the code was reviewed as carelessly as Brad Wardell has reviewed
his so-called "evidence" here, that could explain why.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          13-Sep-99 05:34:05
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Esther Schindler <esther@bitranch.com> wrote in message
news:LoEFmgJJ9ecw-pn2-qr6DDWPNdiiy@agave.bitranch.com...
> On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 16:42:02, "Brad Wardell"
> <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
> | Esther, you can't just go on and say "You're statistically incorrect.."
and
> | not provide any evidence to back this assertion.
>
> Sure, I can. Maybe I can't do so and get away with it,but I *can* say
> it. <grin>
>

Heh, some levity into the discussion at last. <grin>

> One might think that I'd have earned some credibility with you by now
> <<sob>> but... well, if it were convenient to dig up old messages I'd
> do so, but this is shaping to be a busy week. Don't count on it; I'll
> be busy interviewing company execs who are more interested in telling
> me how the competition is dog meat than in answering my questions.
>

You have lots of credibility with me.

But you are not asking me to take your word for something, you are asking me
to take the word of someone whom I do not know whom has opinions that are
directly opposite of my direct experience.

But I have not seen any evidence of a compatibility issue that could be
considered more than minor.  And I do carefully watch over the Win32 news
groups as much as I do the OS/2 news groups.  There are thgousand of people
running the Win2K RC1 right now, it's not hard to verify that there isn't a
significant problem.

> I do not believe your
> | assertion to be correct with regard to Win32 OSes.  Secondly, look
carefully
> | at my statement -- Win32 OSes.  I am not commenting on Windows 3.1 to
> | Windows 95.  I am commenting on Windows 95 to Windows 98 and NT3.1 to
3.5 to
> | 4.0.
>
> Win3.1->Win95 I know about. I don't think there were any significant
> issues going from Win95 to Win98. I'm less certain of the NT migration
> path (other than Win9x apps that wouldn't run on NT, and vice versa,
> early on).

You won't find me defending Win16->Win32.  You know how I feel about
Microsoft already.  But NT has been about as reliable in going from version
to version as OS/2 has been.

>
> | I am not arguing that there's 100% compatibility, I'm sure there will be
> | some special case applications that break.  But I would say that's a
long
> | way from "bad" backward compatibility.
>
> Brad, the issue is Microsoft's track record on backward compatibility.
> They're good at lots of things -- such as screen savers and marketing
> -- but at backward compatibility, they suck.

They sucked at Win16->Win32.  Win95 to Win98 was smooth.  NT 3.1->3.5->4.0
was smooth.  They deserve their bad reputation but that doesn't mean that
when faced with actual evidence we still blindly cling to an opinion based
on distant past history.

>
> Will they do better going to Win2000? Time will tell. But I don't
> expect it.

But they've already done better -- Win95 to Win98, etc.

Brad

>
> --Esther


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          13-Sep-99 05:34:25
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Esther Schindler <esther@bitranch.com> wrote in message
news:LoEFmgJJ9ecw-pn2-Ntm7vi5gydWw@agave.bitranch.com...
> On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 17:15:56, sdenbes1@san.rr.com (Steven C. Den
> Beste) wrote:
> | There's a broad leap between *you* believing your friend, and you
expecting
> | *me* to believe your friend.
>
> Okay, fair point. And I wasn't trying to hide the identity; it just
> hadn't seemed relevant.
>
> The person on whom I'm relying is Steven Vaughan-Nichols, who's been
> writing about operating system and other issues for at least the last
> ten years. He's used every one of 'em, and is as generally OS-agnostic
> as they come. (Well, personally he prefers Unix, but he did have a
> cover story for OS/2 Magazine and Windows Magazine -- the same month.
> He doesn't shout "everyone should pick my choice!" loudly or
> otherwise.)
>
> I don't know the nature of the tests he's done personally. I do know
> that he's spoken with a reasonably large number of software developers
> (and with sjvn, that's probably a minimum of 20).
>

But when was this written.  There's a BIG difference between Win2K beta 3
and Win2K RC1.

Brad

> --Esther


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          13-Sep-99 05:36:18
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Esther Schindler <esther@bitranch.com> wrote in message
news:LoEFmgJJ9ecw-pn2-fwMTSH98Z5S8@agave.bitranch.com...
> On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 16:54:15, "Brad Wardell"
> <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
> | I am not an expert on Win32 compatibility?  We have an application --
> | WindowBlinds that has hundreds of thousands users that runs on Windows
95,
> | Windows NT, Windows 98, and Windows 2000 all with the same code base.
If
> | any app was going to be broken by Win2K, it would be that app.
>
> Brad, I consider you at least reasonably competent at Win32
> development. But one app is only one app. I don't generalize from a
> sample of one.
>

Object Desktop for Windows is a collect of a dozen apps written in langauges
that are very different -- Delphi, Visual Basic, C++ and there are no
problems.  Moreover, in the course of our testing, we learn about many other
apps users are running.

>
> | You haven't cited any statistics or even quotes of a statistic.  You've
only
> | asserted that based on other people's opinions, Win2K is going to have
"bad"
> | backward compatibility.  That's not a reasonable position as it not only
is
> | extremely vague, it's unsubstanitated.  Or, let me put it the other way,
if
> | the roles were reversed and you were saying these things as a Windows
user
> | about OS/2, the OS/2 users here (myself included) would be accusing you
of
> | spreading FUD.
>
> When have I ever worried about someone complaining that I was
> spreading FUD? I present the facts as I see them. Sometimes, the fact
> is only that I've been told something by an authoritative source. The
> reader is left to judge whether the credibility I've earned with him
> (personally, or -- in the case of a news piece -- by my relationship
> with a publication) raises my source to the level of Authority.

<grin> Touche.  Could you reiterate what exactly your source said?

Brad

> --Esther


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          13-Sep-99 05:39:25
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Bennie Nelson <blnelson@visi.net> wrote in message
news:37DC7DC7.129FA69A@visi.net...
> Brad Wardell wrote:
> >
> > Tim Martin <OS2Guy@WarpCity.com> wrote in message
> > news:37DA01A3.B3823A3B@WarpCity.com...
> > > Jason wrote:
> > >
> > > > Tim Martin <OS2Guy@WarpCity.com> wrote:
> > > > : Stardock and author Kris Kwilas have flipped off the OS/2
> > > > : community with their latest release of Window Blinds v.099.
> > > > : The hype is claiming 'millions of downloads in just a few
> > > > : months for the most desired software in the world'.
> > > >
> > > > : The OS/2 user is to be thunked for funding Stardock's  latest
> > > > : software product which only runs on a Microsoft operating system.
> > > >
> > > > Actually if a new client is brought forth by stardock it will
probably
> > > > include a 16bit version of windowblinds for windows 3.1 which in
turn
> > > > runs on OS/2.
> > > >
> > > > -Jason
> > >
> > > Actually there will be no new Stardock Warp 5 client
> > > despite the ten months of Stardock hype.  Stardock
> > > has failed to meet IBM's financial package requirement.
> > >
> >
> > This is an outright lie.  You have no idea of the status of the Warp 5
> > client.  That's probably why you continue these irrational attacks on
> > Stardock, because you're completely out of the loop on what we do and it
> > bothers you apparently to no end.
> >
> > Stardock continues to develop and support OS/2 products despite having
to
> > pay for that support through the sales of Windows software.
> >
> > You should be thankful that you're just a little bug on the net.  Your
> > libelous statements such as the one above would get you into serious
trouble
> > if you actually had any influence on anything.
>
> Brad,
> You seem to be forgeting that all of this is taking place in the cooa bar,
and
> that, according to you, means that Tim's word games are OK.
>
> Actually, you're now making my point: that what is posted in cooa has
> implications in the "real world" outside of the cooa bar.
>

Whether I'm in a bar or in a conference room, libel is libel.  Tim Martin or
Dave Tholen are free to call me names all day if they'd like.  However,
there are pretty specific things they cannot do.

1) They cannot call people criminals unless they have been convicted of a
felony
2) They may not make falsehoods that can be proven to damage a person
financially.

Most people get away with it because Usenet users are largely irrelevant.

To put it more succinctly, I can call you a pathetic loser but I cannot say
that you should leave because of the fact you've been twice convicted of
molesting small boys while working at your local church.

Do you understand the difference?

Brad

> Regards,
> Bennie Nelson


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: SkidMARX@att.net                                  13-Sep-99 05:41:26
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: SkidMARX@att.net

On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 00:58:29, "Brad Wardell" 
<bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:

> 

snip
 
> Look, I'm not going to get into the BS argument over whether Windows 95/98
> or whatever is a 32bit OS.   It doesn't matter.
> 
> But there is most definitely a big difference between going from Windows 3.1
> to Windows 95 and Windows 95 to 98 (or NT to Win2k).
> 
> Brad
> 

Brad,

That's a funny comparison you're making ...
Win3.1 to Win95 was a DIFFERENT code base ...
Win95 to Win98 uses the SAME code base ...

You imply WinNT to Win2k is the SAME code base but from what I have 
read it is for all intents and purposes a COMPLETE rewrite of the 
operating system.

I admit I may be wrong but from my reading, that REWRITING of the code
base is where the problems will arise.

It's very similar to the problems going from Win95/98 to NT/4.  The 
UI's are so similar in appearance that they hide the EXTREME 
differences in the underlying "guts" of the system.

Doesn't NT/4 have something like 8-10 million lines of code?
Doesn't NT/2k have something like 30-40 million lines of code?

All the extra "stuff" they are adding to the os is causing BIG BIG 
problems from what I have read (as far as backwards capatibility goes)

I guess only time will tell ...

Gregory L. Marx
skidmarx@att.net

PS - In spite of my complaints with you personally, and StarDock's 
OS/2 support in general I hope all goes well with IBM and the possible
Client 5 release.  Who knows?  Maybe you'll get the chance to be 
os/2's Steve Ballmer.  Lord knows we need one.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: AT&T WorldNet Services (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          13-Sep-99 05:42:01
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Steven C. Den Beste <sdenbes1@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:x4HcN5Evfu1CXZmSJusURqytEViS@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 19:24:23 -0400, Joseph recycled some holes into the
> following pattern:
>
> >
> >
> >Brad Wardell wrote:
> >
> >> Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message
news:37DC1A99.BB5483A7@ibm.net...
> >> >
> >> > People are free to believe what ever they want.  You haven't any
> >> staticstics.  I
> >> > see you have your beliefs based on personal experiences -- limited
ones.
> >> > Professionals doing explicit R&D are saying W2K's 1st release is to
be
> >> avoided.
> >> > Maybe if you subscribed to these services you'd have the data you
need.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Why don't you cite examples where they give such specific statistics?
> >
> >I can't.  Maybe if you subscribed to their services you'd have the data
YOU
> >need.  I don't need that data.  I'm not the one being so stubborn as to
require
> >a hit between my eyes with a two by four.  People are free to believe
what ever
> >they want.  You haven't any
> >staticstics nor any pointer to a research group giving W2K the go ahead..
> >
>
> You seem to miss the point that he doesn't need that data either. He is
> capable of getting the information he requires directly, by
experimentation.
>
> But you don't like the answer he's getting, so you are recommending that
he
> spend a fortune to have Gartner group tell him something different.
>
> Why is that?
>
>
>
> More interesting is this: Why is it that the only data you'll accept is
data
> "from a research group"? Do I sense the reek of an academic mind-set? Have
> they forgotten how to do experiments in the college setting? Something can
> only be true if someone else tells you it is true? You can never determine
> it for yourself?


I think a more intersting point that all of that is what exactly did Gartner
say?  Thus far we only have Joseph's vague statements on the Gartner group.
I have seen nothing in any trade magazines recently to substantiate these
alleged statements by the Gartner Group.

Joseph, not to put too fine a point on it but put up or shut up, please
state explicitly what the Gartner Group said regarding Win2K compatibility
with NT 4 and when they said this.

Brad

>
> --------
> Steven C. Den Beste    sdenbes1@san.rr.com
> Home page: http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste
>
> "We're just ordinary earthlings, not weirdos from another planet!"
>               -- Calvin


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         13-Sep-99 05:35:25
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Brad Wardell writes:

> I am not commenting on Windows 3.1 to Windows 95.

How can we be sure?  Some of us know that you don't always write what
you mean.  You could have meant Windows software "in general", and
blamed the reader for not interpreting your statement that way.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          13-Sep-99 05:44:16
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:37DC6EE4.ECB67920@stny.rr.com...
> Brad Wardell wrote:
> >
> > That's exactly my take too.  Witness how much Windows 3.1 to Windows 95
junk
> > there is here.  That was going on FIVE years ago.  It's like someone
> > bringing up the 486SX in some anti-Intel debate.
>
> Or like a statement made about bank software from 2 years ago.  ;-)

;)  The news groups seem to be full of people with obsessive compulsive
disorders.

Brad

>
> - Marty


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          13-Sep-99 05:48:23
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

<SkidMARX@att.net> wrote in message
news:1bMmtd7zwYPT-pn2-bk1UJ8dIxi3x@20.pittsburgh-03-04rs.pa.dial-access.att.
net...
> On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 00:58:29, "Brad Wardell"
> <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >
>
> snip
>
> > Look, I'm not going to get into the BS argument over whether Windows
95/98
> > or whatever is a 32bit OS.   It doesn't matter.
> >
> > But there is most definitely a big difference between going from Windows
3.1
> > to Windows 95 and Windows 95 to 98 (or NT to Win2k).
> >
> > Brad
> >
>
> Brad,
>
> That's a funny comparison you're making ...
> Win3.1 to Win95 was a DIFFERENT code base ...
> Win95 to Win98 uses the SAME code base ...
>
> You imply WinNT to Win2k is the SAME code base but from what I have
> read it is for all intents and purposes a COMPLETE rewrite of the
> operating system.
>

That's Microsoft marketing speak.  It's got a lot of new code in it, but
it's certainly not a rewrite.

> I admit I may be wrong but from my reading, that REWRITING of the code
> base is where the problems will arise.
>
> It's very similar to the problems going from Win95/98 to NT/4.  The
> UI's are so similar in appearance that they hide the EXTREME
> differences in the underlying "guts" of the system.
>

Win2K is for all intent and purposes, Windows NT 5.0.

> Doesn't NT/4 have something like 8-10 million lines of code?

Supposedly like 15 million.

> Doesn't NT/2k have something like 30-40 million lines of code?

Including server and all the active directory portion.  But this doesn't
imply incompatibility, it implies potential bugs and bloatedness.


>
> All the extra "stuff" they are adding to the os is causing BIG BIG
> problems from what I have read (as far as backwards capatibility goes)
>
> I guess only time will tell ...
>

Agreed.

http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?99099.piwin2000.htm

Has the article about Gartner Group in which Joseph keeps clinging to.
Amonst many claims, one thing it does not claim is that there will be a lot
of compatibility problems.

Brad


> Gregory L. Marx
> skidmarx@att.net
>
> PS - In spite of my complaints with you personally, and StarDock's
> OS/2 support in general I hope all goes well with IBM and the possible
> Client 5 release.  Who knows?  Maybe you'll get the chance to be
> os/2's Steve Ballmer.  Lord knows we need one.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenAntiSpam@ifa.hawaii.edu                     13-Sep-99 06:09:07
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: tholenAntiSpam@ifa.hawaii.edu

Brad Wardell writes [to Tim Martin]:

> You should be thankful that you're just a little bug on the net.  Your
> libelous statements such as the one above would get you into serious
> trouble if you actually had any influence on anything.

Is that why you made "libelous statements" about me here, Brad, because
you don't think you have any influence and could therefore get away with
it?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         13-Sep-99 06:16:18
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 05:47:24
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Brad Wardell writes:

> Bennie Nelson wrote:

>> You seem to be forgeting that all of this is taking place in the
>> cooa bar, and that, according to you, means that Tim's word games
>> are OK.
>>
>> Actually, you're now making my point: that what is posted in cooa has
>> implications in the "real world" outside of the cooa bar.

> Whether I'm in a bar or in a conference room, libel is libel.

Apparently you don't realize that you've engaged in it, Brad, based
on your own idea of what constitutes "libelous statements".

> Tim Martin or Dave Tholen are free to call me names all day if they'd
> like.

But I haven't, while you have, unless you want to play word games over
what "all day" means.  "In general", you've called me names.

> However, there are pretty specific things they cannot do.
>
> 1) They cannot call people criminals unless they have been convicted of a
> felony

Have I done that, Brad?

> 2) They may not make falsehoods that can be proven to damage a person
> financially.

Have I made any false statements about you, Brad?

> Most people get away with it because Usenet users are largely irrelevant.

Is that why you hope to "get away with it", Brad, because you consider
yourself "largely irrelevant" to my financial success?

> To put it more succinctly, I can call you a pathetic loser but I cannot
> say that you should leave because of the fact you've been twice convicted
> of molesting small boys while working at your local church.
>
> Do you understand the difference?

Do you understand your hypocrisy, Brad?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com                               13-Sep-99 00:18:18
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 10:36:28
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: sdenbes1@san.rr.com (Steven C. Den Beste)

On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 21:31:56 -0400, Joseph recycled some holes into the
following pattern:

>
>
>Steven C. Den Beste wrote:
>
>> Another possibility is that he already has all the data he needs.
>>
>> He's already determined, by direct experiment,
>
>When you talk about direct experiments you make me laugh.  Let him speak for
himself
>and you can speak for yourself.  We'll also respect the opinions of the
Gartner
>Group, GIGA and Forrester.

"We"? You and your tape worm? I'll continue ignoring them, just like I have
been. I don't care in the slightest what they think about it. I don't give
their opinions any credence at all.

>> Your pathetic attempt at a FUD campaign on this subject comes off as
>> whistling in the graveyard. What are you so afraid of? That Win2K might be
>> yet another massive commercial success? You do realize that you have no
>> power to change that, don't you?
>
>Fear huh?  Who's posting on which news group?
>
>It's great to see expectations build up for W2K and to have high expectations 
for
>software compatibility.  If the argument for W2K compatibility comes down to
personal
>experiences of people in this news group (so far it has) then that is a very
very bad
>sign.
>
>Now W2K may be a massive commercial success -- I haven't any money riding on
it.  I
>don't see CITIRX running scared but I have seen the top PC OEMs building Thin 
Clients
>based on WinCE or LINUX.  I have also seen Compaq dump W2K on ALPHA and pick
up
>LINUX.
>

I've also seen IBM making a massive investment in Win2K. What has any of
this got to do with the price of tea in Beijing?

But you're right about one thing: you *don't* have any money riding on it.

I do. Brad does. We're backing our opinions with cold, hard cash in
non-trivial amounts. That demonstrates that we're a lot more certain about
our opinions than you seem to be.

There's an aphorism I like: "True expertise on a subject is demonstrated by
the ability to win a series of wagers." The correlary is that someone who
refuses to bet isn't really as certain as they try to sound.

Where's your money? About $18,000 of mine is on the line.

--------
Steven C. Den Beste    sdenbes1@san.rr.com
Home page: http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste

"We're just ordinary earthlings, not weirdos from another planet!"
              -- Calvin

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            13-Sep-99 11:46:27
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 14:52:05
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 00:30:49, Gerben Bergman <rerbert@wxs.nl> wrote:

> I'm sorry, James Himmelman, did you say something?
> 
> | > OS/2 users are generally very quick to tell Windows users that their OS
> | > sucks, that OS/2 would be a better choice for them, that they're
mindless
> | > lemmings which need to be educated, and so on. Compelling rhetoric,
until
> | > someone who actually *knows* about Windows starts asking questions --
then
> | > it turns out that these OS/2 users are basing their objections solely on 
MS
> | > hatred, hearsay, superficial experience, and an elitist "we're better
than
> | > the ignorant masses" attitude. Watching you guys squirm here in c.o.o.a
> | > continues to be a valuable source of entertainment. :)
> | 
> | Actually, I'd be willing to bet that most OS/2 users were Windows
> | users at one time, or even use it to some extent today. It would be
> | pretty difficult for someone to go through life as an OS/2 user and
> | never have had any experience with Windows.
> 
> Doesn't keep them from making uninformed statements regarding Windows (see
> the discussion about Win 2K's backward compatibility elsewhere in this
> thread). Apparently they haven't kept up much with developments in the
> Windows world since switching to OS/2, but they spout off anyway.
> 
> | I don't believe it is the OS/2 users with the "elitist" attitude.
> | After all, it is the Windows users who insist on visiting the OS/2
> | groups to hound us because they have some weird problem with our
> | choice of OS.
> 
> Ah, the old and tired "they're the ones with the problem, otherwise they
> wouldn't be here bugging us" argument. People have their own reasons for
> participating in this group, none of which are anyone else's business
> (unless, of course, they're being paid for it), and the mere *fact* that
> they're participating does nothing to void their arguments.
> 
> | I think most OS/2 users would just prefer to be left alone.
> 
> Then stop reading c.o.o.a. This forum was created as a home for "my OS is
> better than yours" pissing contests, and if you consider that sort of stuff
> offending you should probably stick to the other groups in the comp.os.os2
> hierarchy.
> 
I don't get it.
First you harp on /2vocates for making unsubstantiated claims about 
OS/2 being superior to Windows, and *now* you're saying that that is 
the exact purpose of this group. Having a football depression, Gerben?

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_ibm_dot_net
=======================================================
If we could have our cake _and_ eat it,
people would start whining about seconds.
=======================================================

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            13-Sep-99 11:47:02
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 14:52:05
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 05:26:42, "Brad Wardell" 
<bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:

> 
> David T. Johnson <djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote in message
> news:37DC5AE0.C848F2A@isomedia.com...
> > Brad Wardell wrote:
> > >
> > > Gerben Bergman <rerbert@wxs.nl> wrote in message
> > > news:uxjcN6=o=mNQ+OhWkCQNuWa24Qd7@4ax.com...
> > > > From the depths of message hell, Brad Wardell wrote on Sun, 12 Sep
> 1999
> > > > 17:22:02 GMT:
> > > >
> > > > | One of the reasons why OS/2 ends up in the losing column so often it
> > > seems
> > > > | like is because its user base is largely ignorant of the rest of the
> > > > | industry.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed. OS/2 users are generally very quick to tell Windows users that
> > > their
> > > > OS sucks, that OS/2 would be a better choice for them, that they're
> > > mindless
> > > > lemmings which need to be educated, and so on. Compelling rhetoric,
> until
> > > > someone who actually *knows* about Windows starts asking questions --
> then
> > > > it turns out that these OS/2 users were basing their objections solely
> on
> > > MS
> > > > hatred, hearsay, superficial experience, and an elitist "we're better
> than
> > > > the ignorant masses" attitude. Watching you guys squirm here in
> c.o.o.a
> > > > continues to be a valuable source of entertainment. :)
> > > >
> > >
> > > I have to agree.  If any group is behaving lemming-like it's some OS/2
> users
> > > in this group.
> > >
> > > If Win2K backward compatibility was really such a problem, then users
> here
> > > would have no problem coming up with a host of solid examples of
> programs
> > > failing.
> >
> > Hey hey hey!!   You must have forgot that this is the *OS/2* advocacy
> > group, NOT the Windows 2K advocacy group.  Most users here do not have
> > Windows 2K, do not want Windows 2K, and have not installed any NT
> > applications on Windows 2K to verify backwards compatibility.  Frankly,
> > it's not our job to come up with the 'host of solid examples of programs
> > failing.'   Many people would agree that Microsoft has had a bad record
> > on backwards compatibility.  I know I do.  Maybe you don't
> > agree...fine.  Just state your opinion and leave it at that rather than
> > try to bring some sort of pseudo-quantification to a statement of
> > opinion.  Obviously, (at least to me) no one knows *YET* if Windows 2K
> > will have similar backwards compatibility problems because it still
> > isn't finished and the beta is too new for very much testing to have
> > occurred.  Maybe Microsoft will develop the host of examples of programs
> > failing when they release Windows 2K and then everyone can post patches
> > and everything will be okey-dokey again.
> >
> > And the smear against OS/2 users who you say are 'lemming-like' is
> > completely uncalled for, illogical, and silly.  Are you suggesting that
> > all OS/2 users are mindlessly following some sort of OS/2 leader from
> > IBM?  That's a hoot....It's much easier to accuse Windows users of being
> > lemming-like for installing whatever new operating system Microsoft puts
> > out in Beta, oui?
> 
> A user who blindly believes what the masses are saying without looking at
> the evidence to support that belief is a lemming.
> 
Hmmm.
Now *where* did I hear that before?

Oh, I remember, it was me who said it.
But weren't *you* the one claiming that that many people couldn't 
possibly be wrong?

> Key words (so that my statement isn't distorted): looking at the evidence.
> 
Errr...
No, still sounds exactly the same to me.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_ibm_dot_net
=======================================================
If we could have our cake _and_ eat it,
people would start whining about seconds.
=======================================================

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jmalloy@borg.com                                  13-Sep-99 07:50:27
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 14:52:05
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: "Joe Malloy" <jmalloy@borg.com>

Something claiming to be a <tholenantispam@hawaii.edu> tholened:

> > Tim Martin or Dave Tholen are free to call me names all day if they'd
> > like.
>
> But I haven't

Yes, you have, Tholen, but I wouldn't expect you to recognize that fact, of
course, for you're a hypocrite.  It's what you do best.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jmalloy@borg.com                                  13-Sep-99 07:50:27
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 14:52:05
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Joe Malloy" <jmalloy@borg.com>

Tholen tholened:

> > I am not commenting on Windows 3.1 to Windows 95.
>
> How can we be sure?

Because he just told you, Tholen.  Only you would insist that he's lying.

> Some of us know that you don't always write what
> you mean.

And Tholen *never* writes what he means.  Na und?


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jmalloy@borg.com                                  13-Sep-99 07:50:28
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 14:52:05
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Joe Malloy" <jmalloy@borg.com>

Tholen foolishly tholened:

> > Or like a statement made about bank software from 2 years ago.  ;-)
>
> Not at all, Marty.

At all, Tholen, for no else is as foolish as you when it comes to reading
Brad's statement the wrong way and latching on to your misinterpretation for
*years.*


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         13-Sep-99 12:03:11
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 14:52:06
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Brad Wardell writes:

> A user who blindly believes what the masses are saying without looking at
> the evidence to support that belief is a lemming.

How ironic, coming from someone who blindly believes that there are
1600 articles in other newsgroups containing "Tholen" and "kook"
without actually looking at the evidence to support his belief.  Or
are you admitting to being a lemming, Brad?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: pcguido@ibm.net                                   13-Sep-99 14:06:01
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 14:52:06
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: pcguido@ibm.net

In <37DC5E59.9DD04AE1@ibm.net>, Joseph <josco@ibm.net> writes:
|
|
|Steven C. Den Beste wrote:
|
|| On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 19:03:57 -0400, Joseph recycled some holes into the
|| following pattern:
||
|
|
|
|| What Brad has done is to gamble his own money on compatibility. He is
|| wagering a significant portion of the business of StarDock that he is
|| correct.
||
|| When it comes down to it, this proves that he is serious.
|
|He's not representative of the community to which I refer.  He isn't even a
Gartren
|Group client or customer.	I too am serious and my choices are for my
situation.  I
|would be a fool to think my choices are for everyone.
|
|| What are YOU doing to prove that you genuinely believe your position?
|
|Running OS/2, avoiding W2K hype, and following the news.
|
|| Brad is under no obligation to prove anything to you about Win2K app
|| compatiblity.
|
|True.	Nor am I under any obligation to prove anything about W2K compatiblity.
|
|| I, too, am gambling my own monney on compatibility. If compatibility
becomes
|| a serious issue, my stock will lose considerable value.
||
|| You, on the other hand, just talk. Talk is cheap.
|
|If you look at the header, thjis is posted with an OS/2 application.  What
part of
|OS/2 don't you understand ?

Another rhetorical question, Joseph?

Mr DuhWerste has made it obvious over the years that he understands
_very_little_ about OS/2.

In the process, he has also made it obvious that he understands almost
nothing of general purpose computing, operating systems, industry
trends, and enterprise computing.

A very thorough man, that Den Beste...

regards,

Guido

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             13-Sep-99 07:58:11
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 14:52:06
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>

Brad Wardell wrote:
> 
> David T. Johnson <djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote in message
> news:37DC5AE0.C848F2A@isomedia.com...
> > Brad Wardell wrote:
> > >
> > > Gerben Bergman <rerbert@wxs.nl> wrote in message
> > > news:uxjcN6=o=mNQ+OhWkCQNuWa24Qd7@4ax.com...
> > > > From the depths of message hell, Brad Wardell wrote on Sun, 12 Sep
> 1999
> > > > 17:22:02 GMT:
> > > >
> > > > | One of the reasons why OS/2 ends up in the losing column so often it
> > > seems
> > > > | like is because its user base is largely ignorant of the rest of the
> > > > | industry.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed. OS/2 users are generally very quick to tell Windows users that
> > > their
> > > > OS sucks, that OS/2 would be a better choice for them, that they're
> > > mindless
> > > > lemmings which need to be educated, and so on. Compelling rhetoric,
> until
> > > > someone who actually *knows* about Windows starts asking questions --
> then
> > > > it turns out that these OS/2 users were basing their objections solely

> on
> > > MS
> > > > hatred, hearsay, superficial experience, and an elitist "we're better
> than
> > > > the ignorant masses" attitude. Watching you guys squirm here in
> c.o.o.a
> > > > continues to be a valuable source of entertainment. :)
> > > >
> > >
> > > I have to agree.  If any group is behaving lemming-like it's some OS/2
> users
> > > in this group.
> > >
> > > If Win2K backward compatibility was really such a problem, then users
> here
> > > would have no problem coming up with a host of solid examples of
> programs
> > > failing.
> >
> > Hey hey hey!!   You must have forgot that this is the *OS/2* advocacy
> > group, NOT the Windows 2K advocacy group.  Most users here do not have
> > Windows 2K, do not want Windows 2K, and have not installed any NT
> > applications on Windows 2K to verify backwards compatibility.  Frankly,
> > it's not our job to come up with the 'host of solid examples of programs
> > failing.'   Many people would agree that Microsoft has had a bad record
> > on backwards compatibility.  I know I do.  Maybe you don't
> > agree...fine.  Just state your opinion and leave it at that rather than
> > try to bring some sort of pseudo-quantification to a statement of
> > opinion.  Obviously, (at least to me) no one knows *YET* if Windows 2K
> > will have similar backwards compatibility problems because it still
> > isn't finished and the beta is too new for very much testing to have
> > occurred.  Maybe Microsoft will develop the host of examples of programs
> > failing when they release Windows 2K and then everyone can post patches
> > and everything will be okey-dokey again.
> >
> > And the smear against OS/2 users who you say are 'lemming-like' is
> > completely uncalled for, illogical, and silly.  Are you suggesting that
> > all OS/2 users are mindlessly following some sort of OS/2 leader from
> > IBM?  That's a hoot....It's much easier to accuse Windows users of being
> > lemming-like for installing whatever new operating system Microsoft puts

> > out in Beta, oui?
> 
> A user who blindly believes what the masses are saying without looking at
> the evidence to support that belief is a lemming.

What "masses?"  I thought you said there were not any OS/2 masses, just
a few diehard users.  


> 
> Key words (so that my statement isn't distorted): looking at the evidence.
> 
> A bunch of OS/2 users running around making unsubstantiated claims on other
> OSes is not OS/2 advocacy, it's OS/2 fanaticism.
> 
> Brad

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               13-Sep-99 15:30:04
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 14:52:06
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 05:34:10, "Brad Wardell" 
<bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
| You have lots of credibility with me.
| 
| But you are not asking me to take your word for something, you are asking me
| to take the word of someone whom I do not know whom has opinions that are
| directly opposite of my direct experience.

I understand that. And I don't expect you to assume that because *I* 
heard that this is a problem, that it's necessarily a problem. As you 
say, you don't have the same faith in sjvn that I do. That's fine. I'm
not telling you that you should believe as I do... I'm just explaining
why I believe other than you do.

IOW, it's okay with me if our opinions differ, on this subject. I 
respect your viewpoint, even if I don't agree with it.

--Esther

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               13-Sep-99 15:40:13
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 14:52:06
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 05:36:37, "Brad Wardell" 
<bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
| > Brad, I consider you at least reasonably competent at Win32
| > development. But one app is only one app. I don't generalize from a
| > sample of one.

| Object Desktop for Windows is a collect of a dozen apps written in langauges
| that are very different -- Delphi, Visual Basic, C++ and there are no
| problems.  Moreover, in the course of our testing, we learn about many other
| apps users are running.

I grant you that. I also hasten to add that my comments aren't meant 
to belittle the technical achievements in Object Desktop -- which, as 
you know quite well, I consider to be an excellent product.

But one app is only one app, however complex it might be. You might 
write oodles of code for your utility and not exercise a bug that'd be
found in, say, the graphics libraries, while a developer writing 
graphics-centric apps would run into it multiple times. Someone doing 
database intensive work would exercise different parts of the OS, or 
the compiler, or whatever tool you're talking about.

That's why &deity made test suites. I used to work with them, quite a 
bit, back in the days that we optimized compilers for a living. Full 
and complete tests attempt to exercise every branch in the code. (They
don't always do it, mind you, but that's the goal.) The FORTRAN test 
suite used to take *6 hours* to run on a Wang VS minicomputer. (When 
we were done with it, it finished in 4 hours. Bill's a *good* code 
optimizer.)

| <grin> Touche.  Could you reiterate what exactly your source said?

It's so nice to discuss matters with someone who's sensible. <LOL>

Actually, I no longer remember exactly what it was he said. It was in 
the middle of another conversation, but I walked away with the 
impression that Windows 2000 is expected to have a heap of trouble 
with backward compatibility. If I find an article in which he says so 
explicitly, I'll be sure to let you know.

--Esther

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               13-Sep-99 15:41:03
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 14:52:06
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 05:34:50, "Brad Wardell" 
<bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:

| But when was this written.  There's a BIG difference between Win2K beta 3
| and Win2K RC1.

FWIW, the conversation was about two weeks ago.

--Esther 


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: rerbert@wxs.nl                                    13-Sep-99 17:46:15
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 14:52:06
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Gerben Bergman <rerbert@wxs.nl>

On the alleged date of Sun, 12 Sep 1999 23:21:25 -0400, someone claiming to
be "Marty" spewed the following non sequiturs, unsubstantiated and erroneous
claims, illogic and invective:

| You're treacherous, Gerben Bergman, but I'm right:

Heh. If you think you can beat me in the message-introduction arena, you
better think again. :)

| > The way I see it, what those "Winvocates" are doing can be described as
| > "counter-advocacy": OS/2 advocates make exaggerated claims about OS/2's
| > capabilities while deriding Windows as well as its users, after which the
| > Winvocates jump in to counter those claims (and do some FUDding/ridiculing
| > of their own). It's an action-reaction thing.
| 
| There have been many instances where topics were originated by Winvocates
| in this group, causing the inverse action-reaction scenario.

Of course, there are exceptions (why Steven Den Beste goes to such great
lengths to FUD OS/2 is beyond me, and I consider the likes of Todd Kepus/
Erik Funkenbusch as annoying as the rest of you), but to me the trend is
unmistakable: OS/2 advocates spout off, and "Winvocates" -- mostly ex-OS/2
users -- put their rantings in perspective. Perhaps you don't see this
trend, but I do.

| > In which case Windows' shortcut implementation can't be called a hack
| > either, just a poor design.
| 
| How is a shortcut ingrained into the Win9x shell?  It's just another file
| type which uses a different procedure to launch it.  It takes place on top
| of the shell, not within it.  It is a h4cK.

Maybe you could define what constitutes a "h4cK" to you?

| > And is OS/2 with Process Commander really that much superior to NT when it 

| > comes to recovering from system hangs and/or killing of wayward processes?
| 
| I didn't say superior.  Did that come up elsewhere in the thread? 

Brad spoke of NT's inability to kill certain processes in the light of
OS/2's advantages over NT. Given that OS/2 can only kill processes with a
third-party utility (like Stardock's own Process Commander), he must have
been referring to OS/2 with such a utility installed -- hence my question.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Chaos & Disorder, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: rerbert@wxs.nl                                    13-Sep-99 17:46:16
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 14:52:06
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Gerben Bergman <rerbert@wxs.nl>

Meet me at High Noon over in comp.os.os2.advocacy, jansens_at_ibm_dot_net.

| > Then stop reading c.o.o.a. This forum was created as a home for "my OS is
| > better than yours" pissing contests, and if you consider that sort of
stuff
| > offending you should probably stick to the other groups in the comp.os.os2
| > hierarchy.
| 
| I don't get it. First you harp on /2vocates for making unsubstantiated
| claims about OS/2 being superior to Windows, and *now* you're saying that
| that is the exact purpose of this group.

So? If there's a contradiction in there, I don't see it.

To me, OS/2 advocates are welcome to pour out all the misguided nonsense
they wish, as it gives the more rational participants ammunition to skoosh
them mercilessly -- which makes for fascinating reading. As much as certain
people might regret it, c.o.o.a is NOT a place where two parties debate
rationally with mutual respect, nor was it meant to be. It's a ghetto.

| Having a football depression, Gerben?

Not at all, Karel. Do you?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Chaos & Disorder, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          13-Sep-99 15:57:05
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 14:52:06
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

<jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)> wrote in message
news:L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-854iktB6Cw24@localhost...
> On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 05:26:42, "Brad Wardell"
> <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
> > A user who blindly believes what the masses are saying without looking
at
> > the evidence to support that belief is a lemming.
> >
> Hmmm.
> Now *where* did I hear that before?
>
> Oh, I remember, it was me who said it.
> But weren't *you* the one claiming that that many people couldn't
> possibly be wrong?

Read what I said immediately after so that someone like you wouldn't
ignorantly distort what I was saying.  I was specifically thinking of you
when I made the clarification below.  Though ironically, even with my
clarification written at the same time as my statement you still chose to
distort it.

>
> > Key words (so that my statement isn't distorted): looking at the
evidence.
> >
> Errr...
> No, still sounds exactly the same to me.

No.  I repeatedly have said that one has to look at the evidence still --
for and against.  This is different from having to personally make a given
measurement.  I have never been in space but I will "blindly" assume the
earth is round because I have read the evidence for the earth being round.
This is quite contrary to your viewpoint that one must personally experience
something for you to come to an opinion.

Or to use my hiring analogy again, when a subordinates makes a
recommendation on whether to hire someone or not before I interview them I
will listen to their reasonings and take that into consideration.

In contrast, we have no evidence whatsoever to believe that Windows 2000
will have massive incompatibility issues with Windows NT 4.  If a large
percentage of OS/2 users here provides examples of applications that worked
on NT 4 but failed on Windows 2000 I would take that as evidence and
consider it when making my own judgement.  In contrast to your repeated
viewpoint that you would need to personally verify each and every app used
before making a decision.

Secondly, and I hate to keep saying this but you're ignorance on yet another
topic is showing.  I never said that mainy people couldn't possibly be
wrong, I said generally speaking if an overwhelming number of people have an
opinion on something that in all likelyhood their opinion is correct.  I
never implied or stated that their opinion couldn't be wrong ever.

Secondly, in the Win2K vs WinNT 4, outside this fanatical little news group,
I think you'll find little agreement that there's a problem with moving from
NT to Win2K from a compatibility standpoint.  I am trying to encourage OS/2
advocates to advocate OS/2 based on sound reasoning, not on blind advocacy.

OS/2 fanaticism does OS/2 no favors.  Advocate OS/2 based on its merits.

Brad


>
> Karel Jansens

If you just want to be a troll Karel, let me know so that I can just ignore
your future writings.


> jansens_at_ibm_dot_net
> =======================================================
> If we could have our cake _and_ eat it,
> people would start whining about seconds.
> =======================================================


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          13-Sep-99 15:58:23
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 14:52:06
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Esther Schindler <esther@bitranch.com> wrote in message
news:LoEFmgJJ9ecw-pn2-dWfp4Ho1Ndw6@agave.bitranch.com...
> On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 05:34:10, "Brad Wardell"
> <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
> | You have lots of credibility with me.
> |
> | But you are not asking me to take your word for something, you are
asking me
> | to take the word of someone whom I do not know whom has opinions that
are
> | directly opposite of my direct experience.
>
> I understand that. And I don't expect you to assume that because *I*
> heard that this is a problem, that it's necessarily a problem. As you
> say, you don't have the same faith in sjvn that I do. That's fine. I'm
> not telling you that you should believe as I do... I'm just explaining
> why I believe other than you do.
>
> IOW, it's okay with me if our opinions differ, on this subject. I
> respect your viewpoint, even if I don't agree with it.
>

I respect yours as well, though I am going to let the air out of your tires
tonight.  Nothing personal though. ;)

Brad

> --Esther
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: blnelson@visi.net                                 13-Sep-99 16:45:20
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 16:50:02
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: Bennie Nelson <blnelson@visi.net>


Brad Wardell wrote:
> 
> Bennie Nelson <blnelson@visi.net> wrote in message
> news:37DC7DC7.129FA69A@visi.net...
> > Brad Wardell wrote:
> > >
> > > Tim Martin <OS2Guy@WarpCity.com> wrote in message
> > > news:37DA01A3.B3823A3B@WarpCity.com...
> > > > Jason wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Tim Martin <OS2Guy@WarpCity.com> wrote:
> > > > > : Stardock and author Kris Kwilas have flipped off the OS/2
> > > > > : community with their latest release of Window Blinds v.099.
> > > > > : The hype is claiming 'millions of downloads in just a few
> > > > > : months for the most desired software in the world'.
> > > > >
> > > > > : The OS/2 user is to be thunked for funding Stardock's  latest
> > > > > : software product which only runs on a Microsoft operating system.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually if a new client is brought forth by stardock it will
> probably
> > > > > include a 16bit version of windowblinds for windows 3.1 which in
> turn
> > > > > runs on OS/2.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Jason
> > > >
> > > > Actually there will be no new Stardock Warp 5 client
> > > > despite the ten months of Stardock hype.  Stardock
> > > > has failed to meet IBM's financial package requirement.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is an outright lie.  You have no idea of the status of the Warp 5
> > > client.  That's probably why you continue these irrational attacks on
> > > Stardock, because you're completely out of the loop on what we do and it
> > > bothers you apparently to no end.
> > >
> > > Stardock continues to develop and support OS/2 products despite having
> to
> > > pay for that support through the sales of Windows software.
> > >
> > > You should be thankful that you're just a little bug on the net.  Your
> > > libelous statements such as the one above would get you into serious
> trouble
> > > if you actually had any influence on anything.
> >
> > Brad,
> > You seem to be forgeting that all of this is taking place in the cooa bar,
> and
> > that, according to you, means that Tim's word games are OK.
> >
> > Actually, you're now making my point: that what is posted in cooa has
> > implications in the "real world" outside of the cooa bar.
> >
> 
> Whether I'm in a bar or in a conference room, libel is libel.  Tim Martin or
> Dave Tholen are free to call me names all day if they'd like.  However,
> there are pretty specific things they cannot do.
> 
> 1) They cannot call people criminals unless they have been convicted of a
> felony
> 2) They may not make falsehoods that can be proven to damage a person
> financially.
> 
> Most people get away with it because Usenet users are largely irrelevant.
> 
> To put it more succinctly, I can call you a pathetic loser but I cannot say
> that you should leave because of the fact you've been twice convicted of
> molesting small boys while working at your local church.
> 
> Do you understand the difference?

Brad,

I was the one who tried to get you to admit that there should be
self-imposed limits on what is posted in the newsgroups.  You
argued that because cooa is like a bar, it didn't matter what
people posted.  

You have come out swinging a fairly heavy club (threat of legal
action could be regarded as such, even in a bar).  That is actually
the reverse side of my point about self-imposed restraint.  If we,
the posters in USENET, do not engage in self-restraint, then the
restraint will be imposed upon us.  And THAT is why I approached
you with the discussion of civility.  I have been observing trends
that seem to be converging upon the Internet, and it does not bode
well for maintaining the level of freedom we currently have.

That is why I said that leadership should be exerted within the
USENET community to improve the level of discourse.

Regards,
Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               13-Sep-99 13:02:26
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 16:50:02
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Gerben Bergman put on his pair of white Fruit of the Loom underwear
labelled "GB- Monday", sat at his computer and blathered forth:
> 
> On the alleged date of Sun,

What alleged "Sun"?

> 12 Sep 1999 23:21:25 -0400, someone claiming to be "Marty"

On what basis do you make this claim?

> spewed the following non sequiturs, unsubstantiated and erroneous
> claims, illogic and invective:

How ironic.
 
> | You're treacherous, Gerben Bergman, but I'm right:
> 
> Heh. If you think you can beat me in the message-introduction arena, you
> better think again. :)

I have thought again, and consequently have beaten you.
 
> | > The way I see it, what those "Winvocates" are doing can be described as
> | > "counter-advocacy": OS/2 advocates make exaggerated claims about OS/2's
> | > capabilities while deriding Windows as well as its users, after which
the
> | > Winvocates jump in to counter those claims (and do some
FUDding/ridiculing
> | > of their own). It's an action-reaction thing.
> |
> | There have been many instances where topics were originated by Winvocates
> | in this group, causing the inverse action-reaction scenario.
> 
> Of course, there are exceptions (why Steven Den Beste goes to such great
> lengths to FUD OS/2 is beyond me, and I consider the likes of Todd Kepus/
> Erik Funkenbusch as annoying as the rest of you), but to me the trend is
> unmistakable: OS/2 advocates spout off, and "Winvocates" -- mostly ex-OS/2
> users -- put their rantings in perspective. Perhaps you don't see this
> trend, but I do.

Which alleged OS/2 "advocates"?  Most of us would not call many of the
people to whom you may be referring as advocates.

> | > In which case Windows' shortcut implementation can't be called a hack
> | > either, just a poor design.
> |
> | How is a shortcut ingrained into the Win9x shell?  It's just another file
> | type which uses a different procedure to launch it.  It takes place on top
> | of the shell, not within it.  It is a h4cK.
> 
> Maybe you could define what constitutes a "h4cK" to you?

Implementing something on top of something else which was never meant to
support it.  That's what I refer to as a h4cK.  Shortcuts are
implemented as an afterthought on top of the shell and shoe-horned in.
 
> | > And is OS/2 with Process Commander really that much superior to NT when
it
> | > comes to recovering from system hangs and/or killing of wayward
processes?
> |
> | I didn't say superior.  Did that come up elsewhere in the thread?
> 
> Brad spoke of NT's inability to kill certain processes in the light of
> OS/2's advantages over NT. Given that OS/2 can only kill processes with a
> third-party utility (like Stardock's own Process Commander), he must have
> been referring to OS/2 with such a utility installed -- hence my question.

Ah.. his discussion, not mine.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          13-Sep-99 17:04:16
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 16:50:02
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Bennie Nelson <blnelson@visi.net> wrote in message
news:37DD2A3F.230306A6@visi.net...
>
>
> Brad Wardell wrote:
> >
> > Bennie Nelson <blnelson@visi.net> wrote in message
> > news:37DC7DC7.129FA69A@visi.net...
> > > Brad Wardell wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Tim Martin <OS2Guy@WarpCity.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:37DA01A3.B3823A3B@WarpCity.com...
> > > > > Jason wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Tim Martin <OS2Guy@WarpCity.com> wrote:
> > > > > > : Stardock and author Kris Kwilas have flipped off the OS/2
> > > > > > : community with their latest release of Window Blinds v.099.
> > > > > > : The hype is claiming 'millions of downloads in just a few
> > > > > > : months for the most desired software in the world'.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > : The OS/2 user is to be thunked for funding Stardock's  latest
> > > > > > : software product which only runs on a Microsoft operating
system.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually if a new client is brought forth by stardock it will
> > probably
> > > > > > include a 16bit version of windowblinds for windows 3.1 which in
> > turn
> > > > > > runs on OS/2.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Jason
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually there will be no new Stardock Warp 5 client
> > > > > despite the ten months of Stardock hype.  Stardock
> > > > > has failed to meet IBM's financial package requirement.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This is an outright lie.  You have no idea of the status of the Warp
5
> > > > client.  That's probably why you continue these irrational attacks
on
> > > > Stardock, because you're completely out of the loop on what we do
and it
> > > > bothers you apparently to no end.
> > > >
> > > > Stardock continues to develop and support OS/2 products despite
having
> > to
> > > > pay for that support through the sales of Windows software.
> > > >
> > > > You should be thankful that you're just a little bug on the net.
Your
> > > > libelous statements such as the one above would get you into serious
> > trouble
> > > > if you actually had any influence on anything.
> > >
> > > Brad,
> > > You seem to be forgeting that all of this is taking place in the cooa
bar,
> > and
> > > that, according to you, means that Tim's word games are OK.
> > >
> > > Actually, you're now making my point: that what is posted in cooa has
> > > implications in the "real world" outside of the cooa bar.
> > >
> >
> > Whether I'm in a bar or in a conference room, libel is libel.  Tim
Martin or
> > Dave Tholen are free to call me names all day if they'd like.  However,
> > there are pretty specific things they cannot do.
> >
> > 1) They cannot call people criminals unless they have been convicted of
a
> > felony
> > 2) They may not make falsehoods that can be proven to damage a person
> > financially.
> >
> > Most people get away with it because Usenet users are largely
irrelevant.
> >
> > To put it more succinctly, I can call you a pathetic loser but I cannot
say
> > that you should leave because of the fact you've been twice convicted of
> > molesting small boys while working at your local church.
> >
> > Do you understand the difference?
>
> Brad,
>
> I was the one who tried to get you to admit that there should be
> self-imposed limits on what is posted in the newsgroups.  You
> argued that because cooa is like a bar, it didn't matter what
> people posted.
>

I didn't say that, I said it was like a bar and people get rowdy.  Flame
wars are to be expected.

No matter how much Dave Tholen and I dislike each other, you do not see him
making up stories about me serving time for federal fraud and you don't see
me making up stories about him being fired from his position for gross
incompotence and inappropriate sexual relations with several of his male
students.  These things are what are known as libel.

> You have come out swinging a fairly heavy club (threat of legal
> action could be regarded as such, even in a bar).  That is actually
> the reverse side of my point about self-imposed restraint.  If we,
> the posters in USENET, do not engage in self-restraint, then the
> restraint will be imposed upon us.  And THAT is why I approached
> you with the discussion of civility.  I have been observing trends
> that seem to be converging upon the Internet, and it does not bode
> well for maintaining the level of freedom we currently have.
>

I made no legal threats at all.  I was pointing out to Tim Martin that him
fabricating the statement that Stardock was rejected in handling the OS/2
client because Stardock did not meet IBM's financial minimums is libel.  As
such, if he were actually worth something and influential then he could get
into legal trouble.  As it is, he's just a jerk posting on Usenet.

If Ziff-Davis wrote a libelous article like that we would certainly take
legal action.  Tim Martin is free to say that I'm a big jerk all he wants.

You don't seem to be able to differentiate between a flame war and libel.

You are free to insult me or my employer all you want.  You can say "Brad,
you're nothing but a retarded moron who deserves to be flogged twice daily
until you get an ounce of sense into your tiny brain."  That's freedom of
speech as nasty as it is.  You cannot say "Brad, you have no right to your
opinion given that you were fired from your last 2 jobs for embesseling and
served time in 1992 for heroine possession." (unless it were true that is
<grin>).

Tim Martin is trying to pass himself off as someone who knows "stuff" about
OS/2.  When he is out of the loop, he'll simply make things up.  Stating
that the OS/2 client project is dead is incorrect.  Stating that it is dead
because Stardock couldn't meet IBM's financial package requirements is more
than just a lie, it is a lie intended to damage Stardock.

He has no reason to speculate his statement, he simply made it up.

> That is why I said that leadership should be exerted within the
> USENET community to improve the level of discourse.
>

Bennie, I don't really have time to explain in any more detail the
difference between a flame war and libel.  If you cannot recognize the
difference, there's nothing I can do for you.

Brad

> Regards,
> Bennie Nelson


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: b o b h @ w a s a t c h . c o m                   13-Sep-99 11:04:03
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 16:50:02
Subj: Re: [MS-bashing] New collection of anti-Microsoft banners

From: Bob Hauck <b o b h @ w a s a t c h . c o m>

Hobbyist  <hobbyist@nospam.net> writes:

> Actually Perfect Screens has a toggleable feature for this but I
> have disabled it. 

Ok, so maybe I won't need the other.  I think I'll download a trial of
Perfect Screens.


> Suppose the mouse pointer accidentally falls on one of the background
> windows (this is very common for me because this doesn't normally
> concern me since it doesn't affect anything by default) it pops up
> uninvited.

My usual setting in X is "sloppy focus".  Moving the pointer out of a
window doesn't change focus unless it hits another window rather than
the background.  And "focus" doesn't mean "raise" in X, so nothing "pops
up uninvited" even if you touch another window, although you can find
yourself typing into the wrong window sometimes.

FeelX (Xfeel?  I can never remember which it is) works this way too.


> Anyway, different strokes.

Yup.  X is much more flexible than stock Windows in this respect.

-- 
 -| Bob Hauck
 -| Wasatch Communications Group
 -| http://www.wasatch.com/~bobh

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Wasatch Communications Group (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: fegehrke@worldnet.att.net                         13-Sep-99 13:01:06
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 16:50:03
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Forrest Gehrke <fegehrke@worldnet.att.net>

Esther Schindler wrote:
> 
> When have I ever worried about someone complaining that I was
> spreading FUD? I present the facts as I see them. Sometimes, the fact
> is only that I've been told something by an authoritative source. The
> reader is left to judge whether the credibility I've earned with him
> (personally, or -- in the case of a news piece -- by my relationship
> with a publication) raises my source to the level of Authority.
> 
> I didn't hide the fact that I lack personal evidence. I said so, in
> the very first message.
> 

You have to consider, Esther, you told some MS adherents
something they didn't want to hear. You were trying to 
send a gentle warning based on something told to you
by people whose opinions you have come to respect.
You didn't say to them: "Give me proof, else stay
your tongue" and that's your sin in this OS/2 group
where often there are more non-OS/2 adherents than
adherents. 

The odd thing is that the experience of many of them dates
back to very early versions of OS/2. It's as though I went
into the MS advocacy group and began complaining of the
deficiencies of Windows from experience with Win3.0.
//

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: AT&T WorldNet Services (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: b o b h @ w a s a t c h . c o m                   13-Sep-99 11:08:28
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 16:50:03
Subj: Re: [MS-bashing] New collection of anti-Microsoft banners

From: Bob Hauck <b o b h @ w a s a t c h . c o m>

Steven Pampling <steve.pampling@argonet.co.uk> writes:

> [1] Clash between the keyboard hardware and the intellipoint driver -
> both keyboard and mouse manufacturer have done nothing, we've screwed
> compatible replacement keyboards out of the PC manufacturer to
> sidestep the problem

Whoa!  Would Dell Dimension with Quietkey keyboard be one of these?  My
keyboard would lock about once a month for no apparent reason and I do
have an Intellipoint mouse.  The keyboard lockup required a power cycle
to fix (never tried hot-plugging the keyboard).  Problem went away when
I replaced the Quietkey with a genuine IBM PS/2 keyboard because I liked
the click (got the complete PS/2 Model 55 for $12 at a yard sale).

-- 
 -| Bob Hauck
 -| Wasatch Communications Group
 -| http://www.wasatch.com/~bobh

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Wasatch Communications Group (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bbarclay@ca.ibm.com                               13-Sep-99 13:46:11
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 16:50:03
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: Brad BARCLAY <bbarclay@ca.ibm.com>

Brad Wardell wrote:
> You are free to insult me or my employer all you want.  You can say "Brad,
> you're nothing but a retarded moron who deserves to be flogged twice daily
> until you get an ounce of sense into your tiny brain."

	What - and decrease your current THREE floggings a day?

	We all know you're into S&M Brad (why else would you or anyone else
read this newsgroup? :)

Brad BARCLAY
"Drag me! Drop me!
 Treat me like an object!"

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Posted from the OS/2 WARP v5 desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
E-Mail:  bbarclay@ca.ibm.com		Location:  2G43D@Torolabs

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Toronto Labs, DB2 for OS/2 Install Developer (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: pasnak@delete.cableregina.com                     13-Sep-99 12:40:16
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 16:50:03
Subj: Re: Lotus News

From: pasnak@delete.cableregina.com (J.P. Pasnak)

On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 02:07:19, "David T. Johnson" 
<djohnson@isomedia.com> woke up with a head full of whiskey and wrote:

> Dennis Peterson wrote:
> > 
> >
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-114652.html?tag=st.ne.1002.thed.1003-200-1
14652
> > 
> > The first victim of the Sun StarOffice strategy?
> > 
> 
> Has anyone ever seen the Lotus e-Suite?  It seems like Lotus kept it too
> close to their vest.  They would have been better off releasing demos or
> something.  If there were demos, I never saw them and I didn't know
> where they were.  So I have no idea if this product was actually any
> good or not.  I'm not sure if the Lotus target customers ever saw the
> product.  And if they did, Lotus could apparently not make a compelling
> case for using it.

I downloaded and tried the e-Suite (I don't recall exactly where I got
it from).  It was very simplistic, and did not give you a very good 
selection of tools (font, tables, searching, etc).  Basically, it was 
a bad text editor in HTML.   I wouldn't call Lotus a 'victim' however.
 If Star Portal ends up being 1/10th of the suite that Star Office is,
Lotus would be better off scrapping their development and using Star 
Portal instead.

J.P. Pasnak
Warped Systems
******************
http://members.xoom.com/Warped/every/everything.html
http://members.xoom.com/Warped/every/dirmap.html
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/warpedusers
*******************

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Warped Systems (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: no.spam@heyrick.co.uk                             14-Sep-99 14:01:10
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 16:50:03
Subj: Re: [MS-bashing] New collection of anti-Microsoft banners

From: Richard Murray <no.spam@heyrick.co.uk>

[looks in headers; oh, it is a reply to me...]

In article <7r12eo$pia$1@uranium.btinternet.com>, "I-TEC"
<dshailes@btinternet.com> wrote:

> you find IE5 works?

Yes.


> open more then 10 windows?

I don't tend. The Windows UI sorta precludes nicities like that. However I
had eleven windows active when I let mom loose on amazon.


> it crashes

Oh. Okay. Didn't here. But you probably guessed that. :-)


> I had to type a letter on my A3010 the other day!

I could do that on a Beeb. No reason to use a P3 and 250Mb of software just
to create a /letter/... :-)


> did you know that if you design a web site with HTML the right way it
> looks crap in IE!

Switch to a smaller font size, everything looks crap in IE.

I've fixed the problem with my /budgiesoft/ index. MSIE apparently won't
call functions in <a href> tags. So copy the onMouseOver and onMouseOut code
to each link, it works okay. But the page is like three times larger.

(hell, even FrescoJS could handle /that/ one...)


> As a RISC/Acorn user I thought you have pride in a OS that has small
> coding etc!

I do, very much so.

But as a RISC OS user, I also have the sensibility to know when the platform
just can't cut it. Okay, superior news and email handling (strictly IMHO);
but when it comes to browsers RISC OS is left behind.

Yeah, I'm totally aware that RISC OS is probably one of the few platforms to
pay attention to official protocols. But what use is waving a stamped,
sealed, and notarised piece of parchment when everybody else is doing
something else?
As yourself where we'd be if, say, Shockwave took off in a *REALLY* big way?



-- 
   ___              -----> no Microsoft attachments, please
  /__/                     (Word, M$RTF, Office, Excel, M$HTML)
 /  \ichard.   http://www.heyrick.co.uk/

Uploaded to news.argonet.co.uk at 20:14 on 14/09/1999

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: ...courtesy of ADFS and a stack of unlabelled dis
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               13-Sep-99 19:32:04
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 16:50:03
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 15:58:46, "Brad Wardell" 
<bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
| I respect yours as well, though I am going to let the air out of your tires
| tonight.  Nothing personal though. ;)

Sure. I won't take it personally. Just as I'm certain you'll 
understand my extreme fondness for you, despite my intention to put a 
potato in your tailpipe. :-)

--Esther 


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               13-Sep-99 19:34:23
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 16:50:03
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 17:22:02, "Brad Wardell" 
<bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:

| OS/2 is a better OS than Windows 95/NT/2K in my opinon, and if you're going
| to advocate it, you need to advocate it based on its strenghts. 

Now _this_ I agree with wholeheartedly, and with feeling.

Except for the misspellings. <ducking and grinning>

--Esther

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: steve.pampling@argonet.co.uk                      12-Sep-99 20:31:25
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 16:50:03
Subj: Re: [MS-bashing] New collection of anti-Microsoft banners

From: Steven Pampling <steve.pampling@argonet.co.uk>

In article <ge9fr7.39r.ln@labserver.emmanuel.uq.edu.au>,
   Christopher Smith <drsmithy@usa.net> wrote:

> Steven Pampling <steve.pampling@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:493ffddf5esteve.pampling@argonet.co.uk...
> > In article <+sfZN6Z1l6G5hIeGK1tc2k1N07Nr@4ax.com>,
> >    Hobbyist  <hobbyist@nospam.net> wrote:
> > > Actually my system is able to do this. Ever heard of M$
> > > Intellipoint software???
> >
> > Yup, it's the stuff that causes certain NT PC systems [1] to lock
> > solid, until you unplug and replug the keyboard.

> That's not a good idea - you can bow the fuse in the keyboard IC by
> hotplugging the keyboard and/or PS/2 mouse.

It's a better idea than switching off the PC. (No, it won't reboot without
a three pin reset)

-- 
Steve Pampling


              

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Que? (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: xp7.cc@telia.com                                  13-Sep-99 19:40:23
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 19:48:26
Subj: Re: Important News From Dan Porter of Innoval

From: Mats Fanell <xp7.cc@telia.com>

In article <MPcy3.4260$Tu1.166961@typhoon1.rdc-detw.rr.com>,
  "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:


>Stardock still makes and updates its OS/2 software.
>It still provides unlimited free techncial support via email,
>news group and phone for its OS/2 software.

Hmmmmmm.
On the Registration card for OD2 you can read:

"Thank you for purchasing Stardock Systems, Inc. software."
"If you have questians about using Object Desktop, please contact us."

I sent a simple "how to" mail questian in Mars and resubmitted it
in May and havn't got a reply yet .... so I guess your support
commitment can't be very serious.

Thank you very much.
Mats Fanell
Stockholm - Sweden







Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you do
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               13-Sep-99 19:52:15
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 19:48:26
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 13:01:12, Forrest Gehrke 
<fegehrke@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
| You have to consider, Esther, you told some MS adherents
| something they didn't want to hear. You were trying to 
| send a gentle warning based on something told to you
| by people whose opinions you have come to respect.
| You didn't say to them: "Give me proof, else stay
| your tongue" and that's your sin in this OS/2 group
| where often there are more non-OS/2 adherents than
| adherents. 

Oh, that's okay with me. I don't care whether someone is (or is 
labeled) a Microsoft fan or an OS/2 adherent. I do my best to treat 
everyone with respect and honor. (I don't always _succeed,_ mind you, 
but I do try. <grin>)

If I'm right, and I can demonstrate my accuracy, then it's good. If I 
can't back up what I say... well, Brad Wardell has a point. I'm still 
sure of my point of view, but if I can't give evidence for it (or, in 
this case, if I don't have the time to research it), then I'm just 
warming my teeth.

At the moment, I'm just warming my teeth. I guess I'm as entitled to 
it as is anybody else. <big grin>

--Esther

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bbarclay@ca.ibm.com                               13-Sep-99 15:53:07
  To: All                                               13-Sep-99 19:48:26
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Brad BARCLAY <bbarclay@ca.ibm.com>

Esther Schindler wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 15:58:46, "Brad Wardell"
> <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
> | I respect yours as well, though I am going to let the air out of your
tires
> | tonight.  Nothing personal though. ;)
> 
> Sure. I won't take it personally. Just as I'm certain you'll
> understand my extreme fondness for you, despite my intention to put a
> potato in your tailpipe. :-)

	With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Brad BARCLAY

PS:  Esther, Brad - I can see you on the security webcam sneaking around
my parking lot with that bag of sugar!  

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Posted from the OS/2 WARP v5 desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
E-Mail:  bbarclay@ca.ibm.com		Location:  2G43D@Torolabs
Phone: 416-448-3271			Tie-Line: 778-3271

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Toronto Labs, DB2 for OS/2 Install Developer (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          14-Sep-99 06:31:14
  To: All                                               14-Sep-99 18:43:05
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Ian Tholen
>We do see you making up stories about me being stepped on in my field,
>about me and "kook" being mentioned in 1600 articles in other newsgroups,
>about academic positions being "dead end", about my job being "dull",
>about me being "mildly retarded", and so on.

And these are all true.

>What do you call your made up stories about me, Brad?

The truth.

If you feel otherwise, feel free to call your "lawyer" that you
threaten to trot out every now and then, but never do. That's always
good for a belly laugh

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: hunters@thunder.indstate.edu                      14-Sep-99 06:46:24
  To: All                                               14-Sep-99 18:43:05
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: hunters@thunder.indstate.edu

In article <7rk176$a23$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
  tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:

> We do see you making up stories about me being stepped on in my field,
> about me and "kook" being mentioned in 1600 articles in other
> newsgroups, about academic positions being "dead end", about my job
> being "dull", about me being "mildly retarded", and so on.
>
> > These things are what are known as libel.
>
> What do you call your made up stories about me, Brad?

In order for something to be considered slander or libel it must be:
1. Heard/read by someone other than the two main parties.
2. Be beleivable(sp) and/or credible.
3. Untrue.
4. Shown to have directly caused negative events. (ie: loss of job, etc)

So unless you lost your job (or money) or were passed up for a raise as
a direct result of Brad calling you "dull", "mildly retarded", or a
"kook" then it's not libelous.

Just my $.025

(And just incase Mr. Warp City reads this message, yes I posted it from
Mozzilla 4.5/Win32EN, so quit yer yappen.)

--
-Steven Hunter               *OS/2 Warp 4 * |Warpstock '99 | Oct 16-17|
hunters@thunder.indstate.edu *AMD K6-2 400* |       Atlanta GA        |


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you do
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         14-Sep-99 07:39:11
  To: All                                               14-Sep-99 18:43:05
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Steven Hunter writes:

>> We do see you making up stories about me being stepped on in my field,
>> about me and "kook" being mentioned in 1600 articles in other
>> newsgroups, about academic positions being "dead end", about my job
>> being "dull", about me being "mildly retarded", and so on.

>>> These things are what are known as libel.

>> What do you call your made up stories about me, Brad?

> In order for something to be considered slander or libel it must be:
> 1. Heard/read by someone other than the two main parties.

Brad presumably has more readers than that here.

> 2. Be beleivable(sp) and/or credible.

Jeff Glatt seems to believe him.  But that's Glatt.

> 3. Untrue.

Definitely untrue.

> 4. Shown to have directly caused negative events. (ie: loss of job, etc)
>
> So unless you lost your job (or money) or were passed up for a raise as
> a direct result of Brad calling you "dull", "mildly retarded", or a
> "kook" then it's not libelous.

That's not all he's done.  And you don't know what may or may not have
happened to me as a result.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jack.troughton@nospam.videotron.ca                14-Sep-99 11:37:00
  To: All                                               14-Sep-99 18:43:05
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: jack.troughton@nospam.videotron.ca (Jack Troughton)

On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 05:49:38, Jason <malstrom@yolen.oit.umass.edu> 
wrote:

Brad Wardell <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:

: All these latest set of posts only help show that the vocal portions of the
: OS/2 community have rotted.  I don't see much point in even reading the
: group anymore.

Me either.  All the posts I see is Tim Martin attacks Stardock.  You 
defend Stardock.  Somehow Dave Tholen starts argueing with you.  After 
that it starts going downhill *really* fast.

I think the vocal part of this group waits for something to come along 
that doesn't get eaten by their killfile.

-Jason

YES.

Jack Troughton   ICQ:7494149
http://jakesplace.dhs.org
jack.troughton at videotron.ca
jake at jakesplace.dhs.org
Montral PQ Canada

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            14-Sep-99 11:43:21
  To: All                                               14-Sep-99 18:43:05
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 23:36:43, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) 
wrote:

> Karel Jansens writes:
> 
> > Brad Wardell wrote:
> 
> >> I have never been in space but I will "blindly" assume the earth is
> >> round because I have read the evidence for the earth being round.
> 
> > It's pear-shaped, actually. (this is true)
> > Ask Dave. <G>
> 
> Yeah, but not enough to notice in the shadow during a lunar eclipse.
> 
Probably 'cuz we're sitting on the fat end. <g>

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_ibm_dot_net
=======================================================
If we could have our cake _and_ eat it,
people would start whining about seconds.
=======================================================

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jack.troughton@nospam.videotron.ca                14-Sep-99 11:37:24
  To: All                                               14-Sep-99 18:43:05
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: jack.troughton@nospam.videotron.ca (Jack Troughton)

On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 02:13:16, esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler) 
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 19:53:15, Brad BARCLAY <bbarclay@ca.ibm.com> 
wrote:

|     With friends like these, who needs enemies?

No, no...

it's "with fronds like these, who needs anenomes"?

--Esther


Heheheeee.... that's the first thing I thought of too:)

Jack Troughton   ICQ:7494149
http://jakesplace.dhs.org
jack.troughton at videotron.ca
jake at jakesplace.dhs.org
Montral PQ Canada

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          13-Sep-99 23:40:21
  To: All                                               14-Sep-99 18:43:05
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Esther Schindler <esther@bitranch.com> wrote in message
news:LoEFmgJJ9ecw-pn2-vWziFLC9SL6x@agave.bitranch.com...
> On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 15:58:46, "Brad Wardell"
> <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
> | I respect yours as well, though I am going to let the air out of your
tires
> | tonight.  Nothing personal though. ;)
>
> Sure. I won't take it personally. Just as I'm certain you'll
> understand my extreme fondness for you, despite my intention to put a
> potato in your tailpipe. :-)
>

Doh!

Brad

> --Esther
>
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          14-Sep-99 06:21:18
  To: All                                               14-Sep-99 18:43:06
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Brad Wardell
>OS/2 fanaticism does OS/2 no favors.

This is something that too many OS/2 Advocates will never figure out
because they're likely to be overzealous naive nerds who have little
business savvy, and not much more experience in dealing with the
public.

They'll kill OS/2, just like Amiga True Believers helped do to the
Amiga, before they ever figure out what they did wrong. History has
shown such fanaticism to be counterproductive, and yet, these are
people who are ignorant of that history

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bwardell@mw.mediaone.net                          14-Sep-99 13:28:09
  To: All                                               14-Sep-99 18:43:06
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net>

Jason <malstrom@yolen.oit.umass.edu> wrote in message
news:37ddd3e2@oit.umass.edu...
> Brad Wardell <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> : All these latest set of posts only help show that the vocal portions of
the
> : OS/2 community have rotted.  I don't see much point in even reading the
> : group anymore.
>
> Me either.  All the posts I see is Tim Martin attacks Stardock.  You
> defend Stardock.  Somehow Dave Tholen starts argueing with you.  After
> that it starts going downhill *really* fast.
>
> I think the vocal part of this group waits for something to come along
> that doesn't get eaten by their killfile.

Too true.  I wasn't aware that Dave Tholen was still responding to my posts
despite him knowing that he's in my kill file and thus I don't (and can't)
respond to him.  What a creep.

I hate to say it but this news group is looking more and more like the Amiga
advocacy news group.

Brad


>
> -Jason


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               14-Sep-99 11:06:27
  To: All                                               14-Sep-99 18:43:06
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Bennie Nelson wrote:
> 
> Brad Wardell wrote:
> >
> > Bennie Nelson <blnelson@visi.net> wrote in message
> > news:37DD9E6F.7DC8397C@visi.net...
> > > > Bennie, I don't really have time to explain in any more detail the
> > > > difference between a flame war and libel.  If you cannot recognize the
> > > > difference, there's nothing I can do for you.
> > >
> > > Ah, the personal attack.  Must be getting pretty frustrating, eh, Brad?
> > > I did not attack you in any of the points I made.  I simply pointed out
> > > that you've changed your tune, somewhat.  You've modified your position
> > > vis-a-vis what is acceptable and what is not acceptable on USENET.  I
> > > am not criticizing you for that.  I merely wanted to say:
> >
> > Personal attack?  Good grief, Bennie.  Like I said, I've never stated that
> > libel is an acceptable thing.  How is it a personal attack in pointing out
> > that you don't know the difference between people flaming each other and
> > libel?  Only Tim Martin seems to resort libel regularly on this forum.
> >
> > One last time:
> >
> > I can yell at you "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of
> > elderberries!"  This is okay.
> >
> > But I can't say "Bennie can't be trusted because he was in prison in 1994
on
> > federal fraud charges."
> >
> > All these latest set of posts only help show that the vocal portions of
the
> > OS/2 community have rotted.  I don't see much point in even reading the
> > group anymore.
> 
> Again, you resort to a personal attack. [snip]

Sounds like you're going out of your way to be offended.  Why be
confrontational?

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: ivaes@hr.nl                                       09-Sep-99 13:27:01
  To: All                                               14-Sep-99 18:43:06
Subj: Re: Why NT is x86 only

From: Illya Vaes <ivaes@hr.nl>

"Steven C. Den Beste" wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 16:33:02 +0200, Illya Vaes recycled some holes into the
>Funny, I wasn't an active participant in this forum at the time. Kind of
>hard to object to something I didn't read, don't you think?

Why did you say "active" here?
A passive participant would've read it.

-- 
Illya Vaes   (ivaes@hr.nl)        "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2654451           Not speaking for anyone but myself

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Holland Railconsult BV (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: KendallB@scitechsoft.com                          14-Sep-99 08:29:22
  To: All                                               14-Sep-99 18:43:06
Subj: OS/2 developer position at SciTech!

From: KendallB@scitechsoft.com (Kendall Bennett)

Hi All,

SciTech is currently looking to fill a fulltime OS/2 developer position 
within the company. The responsibilities of the position would include 
development of SciTech Display Doctor for OS/2, wxWindows for OS/2 (a 
core component of the SDD 7.0 user interface) and SciTech MGL for OS/2. 
The position will require relocation to our offices in Chico, California 
(about 1.5 hours north of Sacramento).

If you are interested in this position, please mail/fax your resume to my 
attention at:

 Kendall Bennett
 505 Wall Street
 Chico, CA 95928
 Fax: (530) 894 9069

If you wish to email me resumes, make sure they are either word documents 
or acrobat files so that I can print them and add them to our files. I 
won't accept text file resumes.

If you are not interested in this position, please pass this message onto 
friends who may be interested in applying.

Regards,

-- 

+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|      SciTech Software - Building Truly Plug'n'Play Software!         |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Kendall Bennett          | To reply via email, remove nospam from    |
| Director of Engineering  | the reply to email address. Do NOT send   |
| SciTech Software, Inc.   | unsolicited commercial email!             |
| 505 Wall Street          | ftp  : ftp.scitechsoft.com                |
| Chico, CA 95928, USA     | www  : http://www.scitechsoft.com         |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: SciTech Software, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: rerbert@wxs.nl                                    14-Sep-99 19:11:08
  To: All                                               14-Sep-99 20:40:17
Subj: Re: Amodeo Digest, volume 2141592648753845734857237

From: Gerben Bergman <rerbert@wxs.nl>

I'm sorry, Marty, did you say something?

| While whistling Dixie, throwing horseshoes, and spitting snuff, Gerben
| Bergman shows himself to be a real American by saying:

Illogical, given that I'm not American. Having trouble figuring out my
location from my email address, Marty?

| > Don't yell at me, Marty, I'm not your mother.
| 
| Why would I yell, "AT ME!", Gerben?

Where did you see quotation marks around the "at me" part, Marty? Indulging
in creative editing again, are we?

| No one has asked, "Now where should I throw this pile of money?"

Non sequitur.

| > And how many developments *have* there been in the DART and DIVE areas for
| > the past five years?
| 
| Gerben, 5 years ago was 1994.  These things came to existence over that
| period of time.

Of course, I should have said *three* years (since the release of Warp 4).
Have DART and DIVE seen any significant updates since that time?

| Perhaps you'll choose your sweeping generalizations more wisely next time.

It wasn't a generalization, it was a question. Surely you recognize the
difference between those two concepts.

| > Not in the general sense.
| 
| I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Of course, now I'm going to have to come up with names, evidence of why
these people fit my criteria, as well as their numbers relative to those on
the Windows side who fit the same criteria. I balk at that.

As it happens, for the past several days I've spent way too much time on
this forum already; I'm faced with some serious studying, taking three
simultaneous courses, and I've been procrastinating badly. You don't see
this trend that I -- along with several others -- *do* see, fine. I'll
gladly drop the point.

| > Time for a digest, perhaps? :)
| 
| Illogical.

Then why did you make it a digest anyway? More evidence of your illogic.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Chaos & Disorder, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             14-Sep-99 11:18:18
  To: All                                               14-Sep-99 20:40:17
Subj: Re: US Army  :-(NT  :-)MacOS

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>

John Twelker wrote:
> 
> Aloha from Maui,
> 
> Check out http://www.theregister.co.uk/
>  Posted 13/09/99 3:03pm by John Lettice THE REGISTER
> 
> "Grim news for Microsoft indeed - the US government seems to be
>  tilting towards open source software, while the US Army's
>  ArmyLink News claims the US Army Home Page has switched from
>  NT to "a more secure platform" (MacOS and WebStar) following a
>  nasty hacker invasion.
> 
Yes, this seems to be true and not an "OS legend."  Amazing that there
wasn't some version of NT that the Army could trust!  I am actually
starting to feel sorry for Windows users.  But I suppose they don't want
our pity.  




>  ArmyLink quotes Christopher Unger, web site administrator for the
>  US Army Home Page, as saying that the switch to MacOS had
>  already happened. And what do you know - a quick Netcraft query
>  reveals that www.army.mil is indeed running WebStar 4.0 on
>  MacOS ... For the record, we note that ArmyLink itself is running on
> Netscape
>  and Solaris, which can't cheer Microsoft particularly either."
> 
> You can read, no, make that enjoy, the rest of the article at your
> leisure ...
> 
> Sure does my heart good to hear that the underdogs are starting to be

> recognized for their strengths and Microsoft for its weaknesses. The end
> result could be more freedom of choice and better products for the
> consumer. Already, Apple is up, Linux is up, even OS/2 is enjoying more
> sales than expected by its parent company. Ah, things ahead looking
> brighter for sure.
> 
> Aloha,
> 
> John Twelker
> Maui

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               14-Sep-99 14:11:23
  To: All                                               14-Sep-99 20:40:17
Subj: Re: Bergman digest 16777216

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Gerben Bergman with a spring in his step and a "Kick-Me" sign on his
back mused:
> 
> I'm sorry, Marty, did you say something?

Repeating already Gerben?  I would have thought you were more creative
than that.

> | While whistling Dixie, throwing horseshoes, and spitting snuff, Gerben
> | Bergman shows himself to be a real American by saying:
> 
> Illogical, given that I'm not American.

Prove it, if you think you can.

> Having trouble figuring out my email address, Marty?

No.

> | > Don't yell "at me", Marty, I'm not your mother.
> |
> | Why would I yell, "AT ME!", Gerben?
> 
> Where did you see quotation marks around the "at me" part, Marty? Indulging
> in creative editing again, are we?

Are you blind, Gerben?  Indulging in selective vision?

> | No one has asked, "Now where should I throw this pile of money?"
> 
> Non sequitur.

Incorrect.
 
> | > And how many developments *have* there been in the DART and DIVE areas
for
> | > the past five years?
> |
> | Gerben, 5 years ago was 1994.  These things came to existence over that
> | period of time.
> 
> Of course, I should have said *three* years (since the release of Warp 4).

What you should have done is irrelevant.  What you did do is relevant.

> Have DART and DIVE seen any significant updates since that time?

DART has been supported by just about every OS/2 sound card driver.  The
Creative Labs support for DART can support latency as low as 5ms, which,
to my knowledge beats out that of DirectSound.  DIVE has been cleaned up
and standardized among drivers.  It is stable for mainstream use and its
speed and efficiency for various drivers has improved steadily,
supporting 2D acceleration such as scaling.

> | Perhaps you'll choose your sweeping generalizations more wisely next time.
> 
> It wasn't a generalization, it was a question. Surely you recognize the
> difference between those two concepts.

It was an implication.  Why else would the question be asked?
 
> | > Not in the general sense.
> |
> | I challenge you to prove otherwise.
> 
> Of course, now I'm going to have to come up with names, evidence of why
> these people fit my criteria, as well as their numbers relative to those on
> the Windows side who fit the same criteria.

No, you'll just "have to" refrain from making generalizations about OS/2
advocates, especially based on what you see in this forum.

> I balk at that.

What you balk at is irrelevant.
 
> As it happens, for the past several days I've spent way too much time on
> this forum already; I'm faced with some serious studying, taking three
> simultaneous courses, and I've been procrastinating badly.

Good luck and have fun.  I paid my dues already.  ;-P

> You don't see this trend that I -- along with several others -- *do* 
> see, fine. I'll gladly drop the point.

Giving up already, Gerben?  Why am I not surprised?

> | > Time for a digest, perhaps? :)
> |
> | Illogical.
> 
> Then why did you 

Why did I what, Gerben?

> make it a digest

ok.  I have.

> anyway?

Anyway what, Gerben?

> More evidence

Evidence of what, Gerben?  More evidence that you don't know how to
speak English in spite of your bold proclaimation of being "an
American"?  How ironic.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: rerbert@wxs.nl                                    14-Sep-99 21:34:21
  To: All                                               14-Sep-99 20:40:17
Subj: Re: Amodeo Digest, volume 2141592648753845734857238

From: Gerben Bergman <rerbert@wxs.nl>

While chasing Gerben with a small hand axe, Marty laughed:

| Gerben Bergman with a spring in his step

How would you know, Marty?

| and a "Kick-Me" sign on his back

That's a lie, Marty.

| > Marty, did you say something?
| 
| Gerben?

Yes, Marty?

| I would have thought

What you would have thought is irrelevant, what you can prove is relevant.

| you were more creative than that.

More creative than what, Marty?

| > Illogical, given that I'm not American.
| 
| Prove it, if you think you can.

Having problems with the burden of proof concept again, Marty?

| > Having trouble figuring out Marty?
| 
| No.

Neither do I; your illogic, lies, and propensity for spewing invective are
quite transparent.

| > Where did you see quotation marks around the "at me" part, Marty?
| 
| Are you Gerben?

No, I'm Santa Claus. Please do pay attention.

| Indulging in selective vision?

Not at all, Marty. Are you?

| > Non sequitur.
| 
| Incorrect.

Balderdash.

| > I said *three* years (since the release of Warp 4).
| 
| What you should have done is irrelevant.  What you did do is relevant.

Reading comprehension problems? I did say three years. See above.

| > Have DART and DIVE seen any significant updates since that time?
| 
| DART has been supported by just about every OS/2 sound card driver.  The
| Creative Labs support for DART can support latency as low as 5ms, which,
| to my knowledge beats out that of DirectSound.  DIVE has been cleaned up
| and standardized among drivers.  It is stable for mainstream use and its
| speed and efficiency for various drivers has improved steadily,
| supporting 2D acceleration such as scaling.

Very good, Marty.

| > It wasn't a generalization, it was a question. Surely you recognize the
| > difference between those two concepts.
| 
| It was an implication.

On what basis do you make this claim?

| Why else would the question be asked?

I was testing your knowledge of the subject, Marty.

| > Of course, now I'm going to have to come up with names, evidence of why
| > these people fit my criteria, as well as their numbers relative to those
on
| > the Windows side who fit the same criteria.
| 
| No, you'll just "have to" refrain from making generalizations about OS/2
| advocates, especially based on what you see in this forum.

Perhaps my generalization was a bit too broad, but then, that's the danger
of generalizing. I offer penance.

| > I balk at that.
| 
| What you balk at is irrelevant.

Translation: you fail to comprehend the relevance.

| > As it happens, for the past several days I've spent way too much time on
| > this forum already; I'm faced with some serious studying, taking three
| > simultaneous courses, and I've been procrastinating badly.
| 
| Good luck and have fun.  I paid my dues already.  ;-P

Thanks; I'll start tomorrow morning. :)

| > You don't see this trend that I -- along with several others -- *do* 
| > see, fine. I'll gladly drop the point.
| 
| Giving up, Gerben?

On the contrary, Marty. Just wait till you hear from my lawyer.

| Why am I surprised?

You should be, given that your contention was erroneous.

| > More evidence
| 
| Evidence of what, Gerben?

Don't you know, Marty?

| More evidence that you don't know how to speak

What alleged "evidence", Marty? Have you tried talking to me?

| in spite of your bold proclaimation of being "an American"?

Where have I allegedly made that proclaimation [sic], Marty?

| How ironic.

Yes, your behavior in this newsgroup is quite ironic, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Chaos & Disorder, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          14-Sep-99 21:24:14
  To: All                                               14-Sep-99 20:40:18
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Brad Wardell
>I wasn't aware that Dave Tholen was still responding to my posts
>despite him knowing that he's in my kill file and thus I don't (and can't)
>respond to him.  What a creep.

>I hate to say it but this news group is looking more and more like the Amiga
>advocacy news group.

In the eyes of normal people (ie, not OS/2 fanatics), it has looked
that way for years. After all, Tholen, and similiar kooks with
personality/mental problems, have been haunting this place for quite
awhile and saying *the same things* that they're saying today. That
*never* changed.

You're probably more aware of how nutty they actually appear because,
due to your increasing involvement in the Windows end of the market,
you can now see their fanaticism from the perspective of how most
people do -- ie, from outside of "the cult" (and nowadays, OS/2
Advocates do comprise a cult, given that what remains of them are
emotionally motivated diehards who are almost religious-like in their
rhetoric regarding operating systems).

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          14-Sep-99 21:29:16
  To: All                                               14-Sep-99 20:40:18
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Ian Tholen
>Jeff Glatt seems to believe him.

So do a number of other people. But that's because what Brad has said
about you is quite true.

Additionally, besides being the kook that Brad depicts you as, I have
also found that your posts reveal you to be a naive, untalented,
unimaginative, hypocritical moron completely lacking in anything even
remotely resembling common sense. The digest of your idiocy,
containing perhaps the most brainless contradictions and
inconsistencies ever posted upon Usenet, more than demonstrates the
full extent of your stupidity.

If anyone would like to review that digest, I'll be happy to repost it

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: ckh@hknet.com                                     14-Sep-99 21:20:22
  To: All                                               14-Sep-99 20:40:18
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: ckh@hknet.com (Oliver Chung)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <bKQC3.4286$Ud2.106347@typhoon1.rdc-detw.rr.com>,
"Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> wrote
>Howard Pollock <hep@nospam.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>news:VA.0000000d.0010323c@bigfoot.com...
>> In article <loCC3.4212$Ud2.101846@typhoon1.rdc-detw.rr.com>, Brad Wardell
>wrote:
>> >
>> > You need to provide some examples.  Even one example would do.  In my

<snip>

>> Try running Adaptec Easy-CD Creator (not yet compatible), or "Nero Burning
>CDrom"
>> - blue screened, no fix until official w2k release.

>You're talking about an unreleased OS.  When it's released, the come back.

So your call for example is in fact a trick question, isn't it?  Why
don't you follow your own advice when you claim that "Going from NT 4
to Win2K is much like going from OS/2 Warp 3 to OS/2 Warp 4"?

This is not meant to be a flame, but I am really puzzled at your double
standards in this issue.  On one hand, you insist others to provide
concrete examples and statistics (which you simply dismissed as above
when given), OTOH, you freely extrapolate your own experience to use as
counter arguments.

______
Oliver Chung
> My opinions are my own <                      >  Happy Warp user <
PGP Key fingerprint: 3E 86 59 AD 08 35 BE 54 DF 63 B9 F8 F7 8B 10 3B

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: cp850

iQCVAwUBN95M5XNBYa8g7KHRAQFOFQP/S/jZti7jSedPJirqdl/Ujy3k8JpAalob
rfK6I/PDApxhYHexirgNoUH6qrEeHKkw9kDlzyiSsDXvnIM7VoTabDlcUC6emRIX
UM+/L5iNIpN2a5AImrOk9KzJWwa4StYoawhR1GyUrb8G/YJgylhZdE94SiHy4qgk
qUVMl45XHc4=
=vWiI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com                            14-Sep-99 21:23:09
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 03:00:26
Subj: Re: US Army  :-(NT  :-)MacOS

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com (David H. McCoy)

In article <37DEE7B4.BB9574E2@ibm.net>, twelker@ibm.net says...
> 
> 
> "David H. McCoy" wrote:
> 
> > In article <37DDD8ED.5AD67B3E@ibm.net>, twelker@ibm.net says...
> > > Aloha from Maui,
> > >
> > > Check out http://www.theregister.co.uk/
> > >  Posted 13/09/99 3:03pm by John Lettice THE REGISTER
> > >
> > > "Grim news for Microsoft indeed - the US government seems to be
> > >  tilting towards open source software, while the US Army's
> > >  ArmyLink News claims the US Army Home Page has switched from
> > >  NT to "a more secure platform" (MacOS and WebStar) following a
> > >  nasty hacker invasion.
> > >
> > >  ArmyLink quotes Christopher Unger, web site administrator for the
> > >  US Army Home Page, as saying that the switch to MacOS had
> > >  already happened. And what do you know - a quick Netcraft query
> > >  reveals that www.army.mil is indeed running WebStar 4.0 on
> > >  MacOS ... For the record, we note that ArmyLink itself is running on
> > > Netscape
> > >  and Solaris, which can't cheer Microsoft particularly either."
> > >
> > > You can read, no, make that enjoy, the rest of the article at your
> > > leisure ...
> > >
> > > Sure does my heart good to hear that the underdogs are starting to be
> > > recognized for their strengths and Microsoft for its weaknesses. The end
> > > result could be more freedom of choice and better products for the
> > > consumer. Already, Apple is up, Linux is up, even OS/2 is enjoying more
> > > sales than expected by its parent company. Ah, things ahead looking
> > > brighter for sure.
> > >
> > > Aloha,
> > >
> > > John Twelker
> > > Maui
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Of course the STILL didn't pick OS/2 for they clearly recognized it's
> > weakness.  For indeed, Apple is a new release, Linux has several, Win2k
> > has released RC2...only OS/2, as usual, has nothing of note going on.
> >
> > But if that is brighter to you, enjoy!
> >
> > --
> > ---------------------------------------
> > David H. McCoy
> > dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
> > ---------------------------------------
> 
> Aloha my old friend,
> 
> The fact of the matter is, I've missed our lively exchanges lately and
decided
> to go trolling, not really expecting anything ... but guess I was wrong
> again   :-)
> 
> I wonder if OS/2 sales these past five quarters running at 134% of planned
> expectations would qualify as something, anything going on.  After all,
that's
> really not too bad for an OS that Ziff-Davis has been claiming expired years
> ago now is it? Or how about the LOS2CL lists continuing to grow ... would
that
> qualify? Guess I'm not quite ready to bang that final nail in ol' OS/2's
> coffin just yet ...

Greetings, old friend.

When one is in the basement, one can only go up.  The MacOS truly showed 
us how one can come back from the brink. I guess the problem is that I 
tend to compare OS/2 to other OSses like WinNT, Linux, and Mac that, at 
one point, weren't all that popular and have moved up to the forefront. 

I mean, let's face it, the Army didn't move from NT to OS/2. Even they 
felt the MacOS, the lowly, ancient, cooperative-multitasking, OS with 
Sherlock made a better choice for a webserver.

Ah well... You don't have to bang the nail, there are already plenty of 
others bring hammers to the party.

> Good to hear from you again David ... have a great day!
> 
> Aloha,
> 
> John Twelker
> Maui

Back 'atcha!

> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               14-Sep-99 22:22:24
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 03:00:26
Subj: Re: US Army  :-(NT  :-)MacOS

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Jason Bowen wrote:
> 
> In article <MPG.124893fa5d30817f9899fb@news1.mnsinc.com>,
> David H. McCoy <forgitaboutit@fake.com> wrote:
> >The Army picked the MacOS, fercrissakes, over OS/2. A Mac. As for DB/2,
> >heck, IBM released DB/2 for plenty of OSses. But IBM is pushing Linux
> >and WinNT/2000 order of magnitude over OS/2.
> 
> To be fair it is probably Mac OS X Server, which is BSD based, you can't
> go wrong with that :-)

Just ask Tim Martin and the thousands of Warp City subscribers.  ;-)

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com                            14-Sep-99 22:28:19
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 03:00:26
Subj: Re: US Army  :-(NT  :-)MacOS

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com (David H. McCoy)

In article <7rmrsp$1qu@peabody.colorado.edu>, 
bowenjm@rintintin.colorado.edu says...
> In article <MPG.124893fa5d30817f9899fb@news1.mnsinc.com>,
> David H. McCoy <forgitaboutit@fake.com> wrote:
> >The Army picked the MacOS, fercrissakes, over OS/2. A Mac. As for DB/2, 
> >heck, IBM released DB/2 for plenty of OSses. But IBM is pushing Linux 
> >and WinNT/2000 order of magnitude over OS/2.
> 
> To be fair it is probably Mac OS X Server, which is BSD based, you can't
> go wrong with that :-)
> 

Perhaps. I checked the Webstar site, which is the server in question and 
it says this "Mac OS 8.0 or above (Mac OS 8.5 or above recommended)".

How good is OS X at running MacOS stuff?

-- 
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: lwriemen@wcic.cioe.com                            15-Sep-99 01:57:20
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 03:00:26
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: lwriemen@wcic.cioe.com (Lee Riemenschneider)

On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 22:06:03, "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> 
wrote:
> Please do , I'd love to see it again.  If only there were a bug spray that
> would make Tholen go away so that he wouldn't pollute the OS/2 news groups,
> he's just one example of the type of person that makes os2.advocacy look
> bad.

And what are you doing when you continuously post long winded attacks on
Tholen and others, quoting every bit of what they said?  It is one thing
to try to have a reasonable debate, but quite another to be sucked into 
the morass of vendetta and name calling.
I think os2.advocacy only looks worse to some of us os2 advocates, 
because we care more about what gets said here.  IMO, all the advocacy 
groups are equally as bad.  Maybe you should stop pursuing this form of 
"entertainment" if it disgusts you so much.  I don't know why we 
couldn't have some much more positive discussions in 
comp.os.os2.moderated.  Human nature? ;-)

Lee W. Riemenschneider 
Die Hard Purdue Fan!
OS/2 User and Supporter 

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: WinStar GoodNet, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: chipper189@yahoo.com                              14-Sep-99 18:37:21
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 03:00:26
Subj: OS/2

From: "Chip" <chipper189@yahoo.com>

I run OS/2 version 4 for my operating system, now my question is when is IBM
going to release OS/2 version 5? I would really like to know since I would
love to upgrade to version 5 rather than upgrade to any type of windows
operating system.

I would really appreciate any help with information. Thanks ahead of time
;-)





--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Concentric Internet Services (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: lwriemen@wcic.cioe.com                            15-Sep-99 02:35:15
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 03:00:26
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: lwriemen@wcic.cioe.com (Lee Riemenschneider)

On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 13:35:58, "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@mw.mediaone.net> 
wrote:
> 
> Look, if you want to sit here and pretend that everything is hunkey dorey in
> the OS/2 universe while things are falling apart in the evil, ruined Win32
> universe, then don't let me get in your way.  Those of us who make financial
> business decisions based on things that happen in the real world know
> better.
> 
GUI applications and games for the desktop market is the real world?  
;-)

I don't know where Joseph works, but I know business decisions in a 
major automotive company, where I work, can affect thousands of workers,
cost billions of dollars, and pose a risk to peoples lives.

I don't think really your world is any more or less real, but if you do,
please feel free to enlighten us. :-)

Lee W. Riemenschneider 
Die Hard Purdue Fan!
OS/2 User and Supporter 

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: WinStar GoodNet, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mcbrides@erols.com                                14-Sep-99 23:23:27
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 03:00:26
Subj: Re: US Army :-(NT :-)MacOS

From: mcbrides@erols.com (Jerry McBride)

>In article <MPG.124893fa5d30817f9899fb@news1.mnsinc.com>,
>forgitaboutit@fake.com (David H. McCoy) wrote:

--- snip ---

>>The Army picked the MacOS, fercrissakes, over OS/2. A Mac. As for DB/2,
>>heck, IBM released DB/2 for plenty of OSses. But IBM is pushing Linux
>>and WinNT/2000 order of magnitude over OS/2.
>>
>
Actually, MacOS was chosen because the WebAdmin there had a familiarity with
it... It seems that right after the attack/hack on the NT server was over and
done with, there was a bit of a scamble to TOSS something up... the Mac was
there to do the duty. It'll be interesting to see how long it remains...

On a side note, it seems that MS is in the news quite a biut this week... If
I may be so bold as to post a few URL's of entertainment on MS's behalf...

<VBG>

Have a gander....

A REAL WINDOWS BACKDOOR... Beta 3 of Win2k are wide opne to HACK attack...
http://www.developer.com/news/news1.html

Go quick... it may not stay on that page long. <VBG> I can just HEAR Bill
screaming on the intercom now...

Have a gander...

ZDTV...
http://zdnet.com/zdtv/screensavers/participate/story/0,3656,2332318,00.html

C/Net
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-346692.html?tag=st.cn.1fd2

Wired
http://www.wired.com:80/news/news/cuture/story/21725.html

And some ZD news...
Http://www.zdnet.com/zdtv/zdtvnews/features/story/0,3685,2332011,00.html

I said it before and I'll say it again... you gotta' love this shit...


--

*******************************************************************************

*            Sometimes, the BEST things in life really ARE free...           
*
*       Get a FREE copy of NetRexx 1.150 for your next java project at:      
*
*                     http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/netrexx                    
*
*******************************************************************************


/----------------------------------------\
| From the desktop of: Jerome D. McBride |
|         mcbrides@erols.com             |
\----------------------------------------/

--

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TEAM-NETREXX (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: zeppelin@gte.net                                  15-Sep-99 03:27:23
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 03:00:26
Subj: Re: On using useful subject headers

From: "zeppelin@gte.net" <zeppelin@gte.net>

I'm with Esther on this one.

I am a devoted OS/2 user, first PC I ever touched had OS/2 v 2.1 on it, and
due to the intuitive nature , it was the only choice that makes sense. Once
I discovered what the WPS was all about, it was a "no contest" issue.
Windows was, is, and always will be a second nature entity in my book.

Time and again I come to the group "OS2 advocacy" and the "pissing matches"
have always made me suspect that OS/2 advocacy must originate in Redmond Wa,
as a "self hanging sponsor" This guy Tholen, while obviously brilliant,
expends SOOOOOOO much effort towards negative energy related issues that the
net result serves more as an anchor than a propulsion to the successful
enjoyment of the best platform available atany price.

Illogical? perhaps. But so is, Mr Tholen, the constant negativity you
display in a group allegedly devoted to advocacy.

You could contribute so much more if you dropped the "Mr Spock" immitations,
and elected to promote the environment you seem so dedicated to fragmenting.

Dave Tholen wrote:

> Esther Schindler writes:
>
> >>> And can it *hurt* to stay relevant?
>
> >> Relevant to the newsgroup or relevant to the article to which one is
> >> responding?  Those are not always one and the same.
>
> > Relevant to the article you're responding to.
>
> When have I not been relevant to the article I'm responding to?
>
> > If the message is off-topic, then the rest of the particpants can at
> > least determine so from the message subject.
>
> Not necessarily.
>
> >> And can it *hurt* to stay civil?  Ask Brad Wardell sometime.  I can
> >> give you 1600 reasons why.
>
> > Tholen, please grow up.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I am not grown.
>
> > Let it go.
>
> Why should I let go of something that Brad hasn't let go of?  Are you
> trying to give him the opportunity to spread lies with impunity?
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>
> I'm a lot more interested in OS/2 than I am in pissing contests
> > between OS/2 users.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



> But Brad's behavior does "real damage" to OS/2, using his own reasoning,
> of course.



--
"Windows N.T."  ........OS/2 for the masses?


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jack.troughton@nospam.videotron.ca                15-Sep-99 05:09:19
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 03:00:26
Subj: Re: OS/2

From: jack.troughton@nospam.videotron.ca (Jack Troughton)

On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 18:37:43, "Chip" <chipper189@yahoo.com> wrote:

I run OS/2 version 4 for my operating system, now my question is when is IBM
going to release OS/2 version 5? I would really like to know since I would
love to upgrade to version 5 rather than upgrade to any type of windows
operating system.

I would really appreciate any help with information. Thanks ahead of time
;-)


There's may be an announcement on the nineteenth or twentieth about 
Stardock making a new client, using Aurora (SMP, JFS, LVM) as a 
foundation.

Here's hoping:)

Jack Troughton   ICQ:7494149
http://jakesplace.dhs.org
jack.troughton at videotron.ca
jake at jakesplace.dhs.org
Montral PQ Canada

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: OS2Guy@WarpCity.com                               14-Sep-99 21:11:09
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 03:00:26
Subj: Re: OS/2

From: Tim Martin <OS2Guy@WarpCity.com>

Chip wrote:

> I run OS/2 version 4 for my operating system, now my question is when is IBM
> going to release OS/2 version 5? I would really like to know since I would
> love to upgrade to version 5 rather than upgrade to any type of windows
> operating system.
>
> I would really appreciate any help with information. Thanks ahead of time
> ;-)

There will be no release of a Warp 5 (OS/2 version 5.0) from anyone
this year.  Warp 4 continues to exceed the power, stability and
quality of anything Microsoft has to offer.




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Warp City (http://warpcity.com) (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: dpeterso@halcyon.com                              14-Sep-99 22:01:08
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 03:00:26
Subj: Re: OS/2

From: Dennis Peterson <dpeterso@halcyon.com>

Chip wrote:
> 
> I run OS/2 version 4 for my operating system, now my question is when is IBM
> going to release OS/2 version 5? I would really like to know since I would
> love to upgrade to version 5 rather than upgrade to any type of windows
> operating system.
> 
> I would really appreciate any help with information. Thanks ahead of time
> ;-)

I'm very interested to know what is deficient in your current version of
OS/2. It seems to me to be a very complete, mature OS, especially when
compared to some of the other offerings.

As for a newer release, that probably isn't going to happen any time
soon if ever for the client product but IBM is still tweaking the server
version. There are few significant differences between the server and
the client version if all you need is the client version, but it does
cost a bit more. On the other hand, the server version has a lot of nice
tools that are worth exploring should you decide to got that upgrade
path. Many of them have limited value without a networked environment
but they are great for self-education.

dp

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: I'm not organized at all (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: blnelson@visi.net                                 14-Sep-99 23:10:29
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 03:00:27
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: Bennie Nelson <blnelson@visi.net>

Brad Wardell wrote:
> 
> Jeff Glatt <jglatt@spamgone-borg.com> wrote in message
> news:37dfbb86.1665848@news.borg.com...
> > >Brad Wardell
> > >I wasn't aware that Dave Tholen was still responding to my posts
> > >despite him knowing that he's in my kill file and thus I don't (and
> can't)
> > >respond to him.  What a creep.
> >
> > >I hate to say it but this news group is looking more and more like the
> Amiga
> > >advocacy news group.
> >
> > In the eyes of normal people (ie, not OS/2 fanatics), it has looked
> > that way for years. After all, Tholen, and similiar kooks with
> > personality/mental problems, have been haunting this place for quite
> > awhile and saying *the same things* that they're saying today. That
> > *never* changed.
> 
> There have always been kooks in advocacy groups, I agree but...
> 
> >
> > You're probably more aware of how nutty they actually appear because,
> > due to your increasing involvement in the Windows end of the market,
> > you can now see their fanaticism from the perspective of how most
> > people do -- ie, from outside of "the cult" (and nowadays, OS/2
> > Advocates do comprise a cult, given that what remains of them are
> > emotionally motivated diehards who are almost religious-like in their
> > rhetoric regarding operating systems).
> 
> The difference is the proportion of kooks to normal people.  Remember, I
> don't even see Tholen's posts since he's killfiled, his opinions are
> meaningless to me.  But from my standpoint, when I see OS/2 users talking
> about Win2K compatibility with NT 4 apps being a problem they might as well
> be saying "Windows 2K will steal your soul."  they're both statements that
> are pretty far away from even the most casual Win2K user's exerpience.
> 
> I used to be an Amiga user and I would hang out in the Amiga forum.  I was
> never a frothing at the mouth "My amiga could multitask with 512K of ram
> rings around your Pee-Cee!" but I definitely read the news groups.  The OS/2
> news groups have deteriorated for awhile but the kooks and fanatics
> (generally speaking of course since there are plenty of reasonable OS/2
> advocates like Esther and Brad Barclay amongst others here) are representing
> more and more of the face of OS/2.
> 
> And so much of the "advocacy" is based on hatred of other things or people.
> Even so called reasonable OS/2 users begin attacking users instead of
> issues.  I rarely see posts about why they think OS/2 is good.
> 
> Heck, let us remember how this thread topic was created, Tim Martin, a
> creature that claims to be an OS/2 advocate flaming Stardock for releasing 1
> Windows product who at the same time has helped users pirate OS/2 software
> and patted Innoval on the back for them dropping OS/2 completely in favor of
> Windows-only development.
> 
> It just makes  me feel ill that the OS/2 community which was once a thriving
> and healthy group now comes across as some sort of fanatical militia group
> that advocates now for what they think is best but what alternatives they
> hate without knowing mcuh about those alternatives.
> 
> Again, not all OS/2 advocates are being this way, but that is the general
> impression this news group gives me.
> 
> Brad

Brad,

It seems to me that we may be coming to similar conclusions and addressing
them in our individual manners.  I have noted the lack of civility in this
newsgroup and was dealt soundly with because I dared to suggest that a civil
approach might be better than what has become all too common in cooa and
elsewhere on USENET.  I chose to post my suggestions within cooa because
OS/2 advocacy is important to me.

You have here noted, at great length, that (to use my paraphrase) the 
overall tone of this newsgroup has deteriorated significantly.

It sounds like we are somewhat in agreement.  I suggested that you,
as a leader in the OS/2 community, might be in a better position than 
most to do something about improving the situation.

I still believe that way.

Regards,
Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         14-Sep-99 23:38:00
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 03:00:27
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Brad Wardell writes:

> The fact that Tholen responds directly to me despite the fact that
> my posts weren't to him and that he knows i've kill-filed him only
> helps prove that he is indeed, a kook.

Classic illogic.  The fact that you've indirectly read some of my
postings and responded to some of them demonstrates that my responses
are not in vain.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         14-Sep-99 23:36:07
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 03:00:27
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Brad Wardell writes:

> Jason wrote:

>> Brad Wardell wrote:

>>> All these latest set of posts only help show that the vocal portions of
>>> the OS/2 community have rotted.  I don't see much point in even reading
>>> the group anymore.

>> Me either.  All the posts I see is Tim Martin attacks Stardock.  You
>> defend Stardock.  Somehow Dave Tholen starts argueing with you.  After
>> that it starts going downhill *really* fast.
>>
>> I think the vocal part of this group waits for something to come along
>> that doesn't get eaten by their killfile.

> Too true.  I wasn't aware that Dave Tholen was still responding to my
> posts

Incorrect, given that you've seen at least some of them indirectly.

> despite him knowing that he's in my kill file

I also know that some of the people who respond to me aren't in your kill
file.

> and thus I don't (and can't) respond to him.

Actually, you have and can respond to me.

> What a creep.

How ironic.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: rerbert@wxs.nl                                    15-Sep-99 01:48:26
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 03:00:27
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Gerben Bergman <rerbert@wxs.nl>

While stopping to munch the dandelions, I saw a message from Marty:

| Aw man... you mean I have to switch back into serious mode.  :-(

Illogical.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Chaos & Disorder, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         14-Sep-99 23:50:20
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 03:00:27
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Brad Wardell writes:

> Jeff Glatt wrote:

>> If anyone would like to review that digest, I'll be happy to repost it

> Please do , I'd love to see it again.

More like you want somebody else to do your dirty work.

> If only there were a bug spray that would make Tholen go away so that
> he wouldn't pollute the OS/2 news groups,

I'm not the one abusing people for entertainment purposes, Brad.

> he's just one example of the type of person that makes os2.advocacy look
> bad.

I'm not the one abusing people for entertainment purposes, Brad.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         14-Sep-99 23:53:00
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 03:00:27
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Bennie Nelson writes [to Brad Wardell]:

> You have here noted, at great length, that (to use my paraphrase) the 
> overall tone of this newsgroup has deteriorated significantly.

And yet he was encouraging Jeff Glatt to repost that collection of
"edited for effect" material.  Amazing that Brad doesn't recognize
that he is a source of newsgroup deterioration.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         14-Sep-99 23:54:27
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 03:00:27
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Karel Jansens writes:

>>> Brad Wardell wrote:
 
>>>> I have never been in space but I will "blindly" assume the earth is
>>>> round because I have read the evidence for the earth being round.
 
>>> It's pear-shaped, actually. (this is true)
>>> Ask Dave. <G>
 
>> Yeah, but not enough to notice in the shadow during a lunar eclipse.

> Probably 'cuz we're sitting on the fat end. <g>

Where you're sitting doesn't really matter, as long as you can see a
lunar eclipse, which reveals the cross-sectional shape of the Earth
orthogonal to the line connecting the Sun and Earth.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bowenjm@rintintin.colorado.edu                    15-Sep-99 01:17:17
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 03:00:27
Subj: Re: US Army  :-(NT  :-)MacOS

From: bowenjm@rintintin.colorado.edu (Jason Bowen)

In article <37DEE7B4.BB9574E2@ibm.net>, John Twelker  <twelker@ibm.net> wrote:
>
>
>"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>
>> In article <37DDD8ED.5AD67B3E@ibm.net>, twelker@ibm.net says...
>> > Aloha from Maui,
>> >
>> > Check out http://www.theregister.co.uk/
>> >  Posted 13/09/99 3:03pm by John Lettice THE REGISTER
>> >
>> > "Grim news for Microsoft indeed - the US government seems to be
>> >  tilting towards open source software, while the US Army's
>> >  ArmyLink News claims the US Army Home Page has switched from
>> >  NT to "a more secure platform" (MacOS and WebStar) following a
>> >  nasty hacker invasion.
>> >
>> >  ArmyLink quotes Christopher Unger, web site administrator for the
>> >  US Army Home Page, as saying that the switch to MacOS had
>> >  already happened. And what do you know - a quick Netcraft query
>> >  reveals that www.army.mil is indeed running WebStar 4.0 on
>> >  MacOS ... For the record, we note that ArmyLink itself is running on
>> > Netscape
>> >  and Solaris, which can't cheer Microsoft particularly either."
>> >
>> > You can read, no, make that enjoy, the rest of the article at your
>> > leisure ...
>> >
>> > Sure does my heart good to hear that the underdogs are starting to be
>> > recognized for their strengths and Microsoft for its weaknesses. The end
>> > result could be more freedom of choice and better products for the
>> > consumer. Already, Apple is up, Linux is up, even OS/2 is enjoying more
>> > sales than expected by its parent company. Ah, things ahead looking
>> > brighter for sure.
>> >
>> > Aloha,
>> >
>> > John Twelker
>> > Maui
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Of course the STILL didn't pick OS/2 for they clearly recognized it's
>> weakness.  For indeed, Apple is a new release, Linux has several, Win2k
>> has released RC2...only OS/2, as usual, has nothing of note going on.
>>
>> But if that is brighter to you, enjoy!
>>
>> --
>> ---------------------------------------
>> David H. McCoy
>> dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
>> ---------------------------------------
>
>Aloha my old friend,
>
>The fact of the matter is, I've missed our lively exchanges lately and
decided
>to go trolling, not really expecting anything ... but guess I was wrong
>again   :-)
>
>I wonder if OS/2 sales these past five quarters running at 134% of planned
>expectations would qualify as something, anything going on.  After all,
that's

Do you know what IBM's expectations where and why they were what they
were?

>really not too bad for an OS that Ziff-Davis has been claiming expired years
>ago now is it? Or how about the LOS2CL lists continuing to grow ... would
that

Do we know the real quantity sold?

>qualify? Guess I'm not quite ready to bang that final nail in ol' OS/2's
>coffin just yet ...

Oh OS/2 will never be really dead till nobody is using, people still use
VIC-20's.  Now is a VIC-20 a commercially viable machine :-)
>
>Good to hear from you again David ... have a great day!
>
>Aloha,
>
>John Twelker
>Maui
>
>
>
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: University of Colorado, Boulder (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bowenjm@rintintin.colorado.edu                    15-Sep-99 01:14:00
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 03:00:27
Subj: Re: US Army  :-(NT  :-)MacOS

From: bowenjm@rintintin.colorado.edu (Jason Bowen)

In article <MPG.124893fa5d30817f9899fb@news1.mnsinc.com>,
David H. McCoy <forgitaboutit@fake.com> wrote:
>The Army picked the MacOS, fercrissakes, over OS/2. A Mac. As for DB/2, 
>heck, IBM released DB/2 for plenty of OSses. But IBM is pushing Linux 
>and WinNT/2000 order of magnitude over OS/2.

To be fair it is probably Mac OS X Server, which is BSD based, you can't
go wrong with that :-)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: University of Colorado, Boulder (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: twelker@ibm.net                                   14-Sep-99 14:26:14
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 03:00:27
Subj: Re: US Army  :-(NT  :-)MacOS

From: John Twelker <twelker@ibm.net>


"David H. McCoy" wrote:

> In article <37DDD8ED.5AD67B3E@ibm.net>, twelker@ibm.net says...
> > Aloha from Maui,
> >
> > Check out http://www.theregister.co.uk/
> >  Posted 13/09/99 3:03pm by John Lettice THE REGISTER
> >
> > "Grim news for Microsoft indeed - the US government seems to be
> >  tilting towards open source software, while the US Army's
> >  ArmyLink News claims the US Army Home Page has switched from
> >  NT to "a more secure platform" (MacOS and WebStar) following a
> >  nasty hacker invasion.
> >
> >  ArmyLink quotes Christopher Unger, web site administrator for the
> >  US Army Home Page, as saying that the switch to MacOS had
> >  already happened. And what do you know - a quick Netcraft query
> >  reveals that www.army.mil is indeed running WebStar 4.0 on
> >  MacOS ... For the record, we note that ArmyLink itself is running on
> > Netscape
> >  and Solaris, which can't cheer Microsoft particularly either."
> >
> > You can read, no, make that enjoy, the rest of the article at your
> > leisure ...
> >
> > Sure does my heart good to hear that the underdogs are starting to be
> > recognized for their strengths and Microsoft for its weaknesses. The end
> > result could be more freedom of choice and better products for the
> > consumer. Already, Apple is up, Linux is up, even OS/2 is enjoying more
> > sales than expected by its parent company. Ah, things ahead looking
> > brighter for sure.
> >
> > Aloha,
> >
> > John Twelker
> > Maui
> >
> >
>
> Of course the STILL didn't pick OS/2 for they clearly recognized it's
> weakness.  For indeed, Apple is a new release, Linux has several, Win2k
> has released RC2...only OS/2, as usual, has nothing of note going on.
>
> But if that is brighter to you, enjoy!
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------
> David H. McCoy
> dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
> ---------------------------------------

Aloha my old friend,

The fact of the matter is, I've missed our lively exchanges lately and decided
to go trolling, not really expecting anything ... but guess I was wrong
again   :-)

I wonder if OS/2 sales these past five quarters running at 134% of planned
expectations would qualify as something, anything going on.  After all, that's
really not too bad for an OS that Ziff-Davis has been claiming expired years
ago now is it? Or how about the LOS2CL lists continuing to grow ... would that
qualify? Guess I'm not quite ready to bang that final nail in ol' OS/2's
coffin just yet ...

Good to hear from you again David ... have a great day!

Aloha,

John Twelker
Maui




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jmalloy@borg.com                                  15-Sep-99 07:32:10
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 11:00:21
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: "Joe Malloy" <jmalloy@borg.com>

Tholen tholened:

> Amazing that Brad doesn't recognize that he is a source of newsgroup
deterioration.

Wrong again, Tholen.  Look at who generates the most discordant note: you.
Your one-man show to insist on your own rectitude is, of course,
pathetically funny but that doesn't stop you from trying to argue your way
past reason.  When so many of the messages posted in this newsgroup (and
others) are of you trying to defend yourself when you're wrong, well,
*that's* the real source of newsgroup deterioration.  (But it sure is fun to
make fun of you!)



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jmalloy@borg.com                                  15-Sep-99 07:32:12
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 11:00:21
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: "Joe Malloy" <jmalloy@borg.com>

Tholen tholened:

> > However, on OS/2 EA support on FAT was a hack at best.
>
> Why do you say that?  FAT was already defined at the time that HPFS
> and extended attributes came along.  IBM couldn't arbitrarily change
> FAT to implement whatever you might consider an elegant solution.
> They worked within the capabilities of the system and came up with
> something that works.

Gee, Tholen, you just defined a hack.  How about that!


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: rerbert@wxs.nl                                    15-Sep-99 14:07:03
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 11:00:21
Subj: Re: On using useful subject headers

From: Gerben Bergman <rerbert@wxs.nl>

With half his brain tied behind his back, zeppelin@gte.net said:

| This guy Tholen, while obviously brilliant,

<cough> Waiter, I'd like to have some of whatever he's having. :)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Chaos & Disorder, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jmalloy@borg.com                                  15-Sep-99 07:34:05
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 11:00:21
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: "Joe Malloy" <jmalloy@borg.com>

Tholen tholened:
>
> >> If anyone would like to review that digest, I'll be happy to repost it
>
> > Please do , I'd love to see it again.
>
> More like you want somebody else to do your dirty work.

Sure, anything having to do with you and your hypocritical responses is
"dirty work," but someone has got to do it.  I say three cheers for Jeff's
fortitude!



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          15-Sep-99 17:27:23
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 15:44:15
Subj: Re: Good Bye - and thank you.

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Dave Critelli
>thanks to
>Mr. Tholen's (truly whole heatedly) enlightenment I'm not subscribing to this
>group anymore.

And Tholen alienates yet another OS/2 user. I can only wonder if he is
being paid by Microsoft to destroy OS/2, because that's what his
deliberately fanatical tripe is doing

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: steve.pampling@argonet.co.uk                      15-Sep-99 18:48:07
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 15:44:15
Subj: Re: [MS-bashing] New collection of anti-Microsoft banners

From: Steven Pampling <steve.pampling@argonet.co.uk>

In article <m2emg1jeux.fsf@olympus.wasatch.com>,
   Bob Hauck <b o b h @ w a s a t c h . c o m> wrote:
> > Um. We still have about 50 in use...  ...only as cheapo terminals for
> > Telnet connection into an HP G40K UNIX box though.

> I use mine as a doorstop.  If I had a Microchannel ethernet card I could
> use it like you are.

We have a box of old ones with no conceivable use. Don't know how many in
there because we can't be bothered counting.
When the kit finally goes (soon) the whole lot is skip filler.

-- 
Steve Pampling


              

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Que? (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          15-Sep-99 17:24:22
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 15:44:15
Subj: Re: On using useful subject headers

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>| This guy Tholen, while obviously brilliant,

>Gerben Bergman
><cough> Waiter, I'd like to have some of whatever he's having. :)

Indeed. Anyone who has read my digest of Ian's posts, and *not*
concluded that Ian is a plodding mind based upon the sheer amount of
brainless contradictions, pervasive inconsistencies,
literal-to-the-point-of-dense misinterpretations, infantile hypocrisy,
lack of common sense in his "logic", outright immaturity, and inept,
unimaginative attempts at sidestepping issues in an amazingly plodding
and pedantic manner, is himself.... well... let's just say that he's
never going to do well on Jeopardy.

I haven't been at all impressed by the "intelligence" of Tholen's very
few supporters. They seem remarkably naive and plodding themselves.
Mostly, they just seem like kooks who fell in love with a brand name
product. It's ironic that Tholen talks about a "dichotomy along
operating system lines" among his detractors, when in fact, those
people comprise a wide demographic of people using various operating
systems. On the other hand, all of his "supporters" are OS/2 users.
That should tell you something right there, and pretty much sums up
the *true* criteria they've used for endorsing his mindless tripe (or
any other mindless tripe that is gungho about OS/2. Fanaticism doesn't
tend to attract smart people)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@sea.monterey.edu                            15-Sep-99 10:53:16
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 20:07:16
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: josco <josco@sea.monterey.edu>

On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Bennie Nelson wrote:

> "Steven C. Den Beste" wrote:

> > I do. Brad does. We're backing our opinions with cold, hard cash in
> > non-trivial amounts. That demonstrates that we're a lot more certain about
> > our opinions than you seem to be.
> > 
> > There's an aphorism I like: "True expertise on a subject is demonstrated
by
> > the ability to win a series of wagers." The correlary is that someone who
> > refuses to bet isn't really as certain as they try to sound.
> 
> Your corollary does not allow for those who won't bet because they oppose
> betting on moral grounds.  Thus, refusing to bet says nothing about their 
> certainty.
> 
> However, a good description might be the difference between being committed
> to something versus merely being involved.  In a ham and egg breakfast, the
> chicken was involved, but the pig was committed.

Steve's challenge is another of his confused comments.

I do computing without NT or W2K. I walk my talk.  I don't invest into MS
so I walk my talk.  Ironically Mr. Den Beste refuses to install and run Nt
at home. 

Buying MS stock doesn't make Steven an expert.  It is not a qualification
any more than if he bought into medical firm would make him a doctor. 

BTW gambeling is illegal so most of the worlds experts are not making
bets.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CSUnet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               15-Sep-99 14:01:05
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 20:07:16
Subj: Re: On using useful subject headers

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Jeff Glatt wrote:
> 
> >| This guy Tholen, while obviously brilliant,
> 
> >Gerben Bergman
> ><cough> Waiter, I'd like to have some of whatever he's having. :)

I wouldn't.  It's probably tainted.  :-P
 
> Indeed. Anyone who has read my digest of Ian's posts, and *not*
> concluded that Ian is a plodding mind based upon the sheer amount of
> brainless contradictions, pervasive inconsistencies,
> literal-to-the-point-of-dense misinterpretations, infantile hypocrisy,
> lack of common sense in his "logic", outright immaturity, and inept,
> unimaginative attempts at sidestepping issues in an amazingly plodding
> and pedantic manner, is himself.... well... let's just say that he's
> never going to do well on Jeopardy.
> 
> I haven't been at all impressed by the "intelligence" of Tholen's very
> few supporters. They seem remarkably naive and plodding themselves.
> Mostly, they just seem like kooks who fell in love with a brand name
> product. It's ironic that Tholen talks about a "dichotomy along
> operating system lines" among his detractors, when in fact, those
> people comprise a wide demographic of people using various operating
> systems. On the other hand, all of his "supporters" are OS/2 users.
> That should tell you something right there, and pretty much sums up
> the *true* criteria they've used for endorsing his mindless tripe (or
> any other mindless tripe that is gungho about OS/2. Fanaticism doesn't
> tend to attract smart people)

Just watch your implications here...  Nothing in this group says
anything about the OS/2 community at large.  The statement that Dave's
vocal supporters are principally composed of OS/2 users tells me that
these users may have bought Dave's lie that he actually advocates OS/2. 
There's only one thing that Dave Tholen advocates here, and that is,
Dave Tholen.

- Marty

PS: I'm certain he'll respond to this and address me directly even
though he knows he's in my kill-file.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: rerbert@wxs.nl                                    15-Sep-99 20:40:22
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 20:07:16
Subj: Re: On using useful subject headers

From: Gerben Bergman <rerbert@wxs.nl>

Sorry, Marty, you are not cleared for that information.

| > It's ironic that Tholen talks about a "dichotomy along operating system
| > lines" among his detractors, when in fact, those people comprise a wide
| > demographic of people using various operating systems. On the other hand,
| > all of his "supporters" are OS/2 users. That should tell you something
right
| > there, and pretty much sums up the *true* criteria they've used for
| > endorsing his mindless tripe.
| 
| Just watch your implications here...  Nothing in this group says
| anything about the OS/2 community at large.  The statement that Dave's
| vocal supporters are principally composed of OS/2 users tells me that
| these users may have bought Dave's lie that he actually advocates OS/2.

Even if what you say is true, then it means that these people endorse Dave's
questionable tactics solely because they think he advocates OS/2 -- which is
the very point Jeff was making.

| There's only one thing that Dave Tholen advocates here, and that is,
| Dave Tholen.

Absolutely.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Chaos & Disorder, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             15-Sep-99 12:07:23
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 20:07:16
Subj: NT Application Server...

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>

Bill Gates says NT Server needs better application server technology so
Microsoft's "Application Server Extensions" will debut in "mid-2000." 
'A day late and a dollar short' relative to the OS/2 world seems to fit
here.  Read more...

http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?990915.ecgates.htm

With Windows 2000, Y2K, the recent NT security issues, and now
'Application Server Extensions,' those NT developers at Microsoft must
be going in circles at a high rate of speed.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tzs@halcyon.com                                   15-Sep-99 12:27:06
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 20:07:16
Subj: Re: US Army  :-(NT  :-)MacOS

From: tzs@halcyon.com (Tim Smith)

Jason Bowen <bowenjm@rintintin.colorado.edu> wrote:
>>The Army picked the MacOS, fercrissakes, over OS/2. A Mac. As for DB/2, 
>>heck, IBM released DB/2 for plenty of OSses. But IBM is pushing Linux 
>>and WinNT/2000 order of magnitude over OS/2.
>
>To be fair it is probably Mac OS X Server, which is BSD based, you can't
>go wrong with that :-)

No, it is not Mac OS X server.  It is regular Mac OS.

--Tim Smith

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Institute of Lawsonomy (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               15-Sep-99 18:43:20
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 21:36:06
Subj: Re: On using useful subject headers

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Jeff Glatt wrote:
> 
> >>Jeff Glatt
> >>I haven't been at all impressed by the "intelligence" of Tholen's very
> >>few supporters. They seem remarkably naive and plodding themselves.
> >>Mostly, they just seem like kooks who fell in love with a brand name
> >>product. It's ironic that Tholen talks about a "dichotomy along
> >>operating system lines" among his detractors, when in fact, those
> >>people comprise a wide demographic of people using various operating
> >>systems. On the other hand, all of his "supporters" are OS/2 users.
> >>That should tell you something right there, and pretty much sums up
> >>the *true* criteria they've used for endorsing his mindless tripe (or
> >>any other mindless tripe that is gungho about OS/2. Fanaticism doesn't
> >>tend to attract smart people)
> 
> >Marty
> >Just watch your implications here...  Nothing in this group says
> >anything about the OS/2 community at large.
> 
> Yes it does. The fact that there are a number of OS/2 Advocating kooks
> active in this newsgroup demonstrates that there are a number of OS/2
> Advocating kooks active in the OS/2 community at large.
> 
> The fact that they drown out any other type of OS/2 user in this
> newsgroup demonstrates that their presence and activities are known to
> drown out the presence and activities of any other type of OS/2 user
> in the OS/2 community at large.

I don't think this follows, logically or otherwise.  How is an OS/2 fanatic
in this group going to drown out the work of a freeware OS/2 programmer,
for example?  How do fanatics drown out articles in well known publications
written by OS/2 advocates?

There certainly are fanatics, and they are certainly claiming to be a part
of the "OS/2 community," but if all they do is post in this newsgroup,
they're not doing any significant damage or impeading other more
"productive" OS/2 advocates.
 
> Responsible, more experienced and knowledgeable OS/2 users like Brad
> Wardell undoubtably wish all of this weren't true, but it is.
> 
> Perhaps if "Team OS/2" had actually taken a more vocal and
> well-organized stance against the fanaticism a long time ago, there
> would be some sort of evidence that these fanatics are a small and
> irrelevant aberration instead of a measurable portion of the OS/2
> enduser base today. As it is, I believe that they're at least as
> representative of the OS/2 community at large as anyone else.

Are you judging by this newsgroup?  If so, that's completely invalid.  Most
of the OS/2 "population" does not post to or even read from this newsgroup.

> I really don't see all that much of anything else happening in the OS/2
> community such that I would dismiss the seemingly endless parade of
> gunho OS/2 advocating nuts here as an exception to the rule.

Where are you looking?  Here's a good place to start: 
http://www.warpcast.com

You're judging based on your experience, but you don't have the whole
picture.

> There certainly do seem to be as many of them as there are anyone else. 
> But whether that's not a misperception is irrelevant since the nuts
> certainly are a more public group than just about any other sort of
> OS/2 user. So, in practice, they *are* the representatives for the
> OS/2 community at large since that's with whom most everyone else has
> to deal.

You seem to be placing a lot of value in this newsgroup.  I don't think
much of anybody else does.  If you'd like to witness a positive information
exchange about OS/2, look at some of the other COO* newsgroups.

> >The statement that Dave's
> >vocal supporters are principally composed of OS/2 users tells me that
> >these users may have bought Dave's lie that he actually advocates OS/2.
> 
> Actually, Tholen maintains that he doesn't advocate OS/2. He maintains
> that he advocates *only* "the right tool for the job" (with the
> unstated assumption that this may not necessarily be OS/2, although in
> practice, he has yet to actually agree with anyone here that OS/2 is
> not the right tool in any particular examples that come up here. But
> then, that's because Tholen speaks a sort of brainless
> OS/2-double-speak where what he implies isn't necessarily what you're
> supposed to infer).

Why not refer to it as Rec-Autos-Makers-Saturn-double-speak?  ;-)

> Nevertheless, taking your above statement at face value, you're
> essentially reinforcing the point that I raised above -- that his
> "supporters" seem to approve of his nonsense merely because he (and
> they) share a fanatical, gungho obsession with promoting OS/2.
> Furthermore, I go on to state that I consider this an example of
> unsophisticated (ie, unintelligent) thinking among OS/2 Advocates,
> being that so much of what Tholen utters is inexplicably and foolishly
> contradictory, inconsistent, lacking in common sense, etc.

Your statements left me the impression that you were referring to anyone
who supports OS/2.  Witness the following quote:
> On the other hand, all of his "supporters" are OS/2 users.
> That should tell you something right there, ...

If this was not a slam against OS/2 supporters in general, then I have
misinterpreted what you said.  But heck, I've been known for wildly and
inappropriately misinterpreting statements that aren't analogies, since I
am such an unreasonable person.
 
> >There's only one thing that Dave Tholen advocates here, and that is,
> >Dave Tholen.
> 
> This is ultimately true. But what you have to remember is that, in the
> process of doing so, he damages, in the eyes of neutral observers (ie,
> non-OS/2 fanatics),  that which he is ineptly and surreptiously trying
> to promote -- OS/2. And he also does a number on the reputation of
> OS/2 users.

The amount of neutral observers that pass through this newsgroup can
probably be counted on one hand.

> So does everyone who endorses/defends/emulates Tholen.

Incorrect.  :-)

> I certain know what neutral observers, such as software developers,
> think about the stuff that Tholen has posted to this newsgroup. I've
> shown them his tripe. They do *not* regard it in any sort of favorable
> way. And they clearly see that this is coming from someone attempting
> to promote OS/2.

Right, but how many people do you think actually bother reading this
group?  Enough to make a difference?  If so, we disagree on this point, but
it can't be proven.

> Those are the facts. If you don't like them, you'll have to do
> something about the situation. Simply insisting that somewhere,
> somehow, there is this magical OS/2 Kingdom where the nuts are
> irrelevant and nothing they say/do has any impact, won't cut it. I
> repeat, in practice, they *have* become the voice for the OS/2
> Community at large, whether you like it or not.

In this newsgroup, yes.  Anywhere else I have been?  No.  You're
attributing far too much value to a single newsgroup.

> Now if you don't like it, you had better get some people together and
> start doing something about it.

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what anyone else in the OS/2 community
is doing.  I make my contributions and whatever contributions others make
is appreciated and makes my work easier and more enjoyable.  Neither my
spirit nor my work is hampered by maniacs jumping up and down foaming at
the mouth.

If you were a soccer fan, would you feel embarassed because a riot broke
out at a soccer game?

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: ericb@pobox.com                                   15-Sep-99 20:09:22
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 21:36:06
Subj: Re: US Army  :-(NT  :-)MacOS

From: ericb@pobox.com (Eric Bennett)

In article <Pine.SGI.3.93.990915134157.18489A-100000@sea.monterey.edu>,
josco <josco@sea.monterey.edu> wrote:

> On 15 Sep 1999, Tim Smith wrote:
> 
> > Jason Bowen <bowenjm@rintintin.colorado.edu> wrote:
> > >>The Army picked the MacOS, fercrissakes, over OS/2. A Mac. As for DB/2, 
> > >>heck, IBM released DB/2 for plenty of OSses. But IBM is pushing Linux 
> > >>and WinNT/2000 order of magnitude over OS/2.
> > >
> > >To be fair it is probably Mac OS X Server, which is BSD based, you can't
> > >go wrong with that :-)
> > 
> > No, it is not Mac OS X server.  It is regular Mac OS.
> 
> One justification for the Mac (according to the news I read) was it did
> not support remote logins and ftp.  

Not out of the box.  You can certainly install FTP daemons and things like
VNC.

On a Unix machine I guess people would be too tempted to simply disable
remote logins instead of deleting the software that allows it.  This makes
it a little hard on a hacker, since they can't simply flip a switch to
enable easy remote access for themselves once they find a hole.  On a Mac
you have to actively go out and grab these sorts of things.


The other nice thing about Macs from a security viewpoint is that attacks
that rely on pathnames (like tricking some service on the remote machine
into sending you the contents of /etc/passwd for example) are easy to
defeat on a Mac, since Macs don't care about specific paths to system
folders, whereas Windows and Unix machines are typically more rigid in
their use of path names.  You won't break things if you rename the system
folder on a Mac, but if you rename /etc on a Unix box or /windows on a
Windows machine you will almost certainly break things.

-- 
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ ) 
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology

You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can
with a kind word alone. -Al Capone

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Ho You Kong Fan Club (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: ericb@pobox.com                                   15-Sep-99 20:10:08
  To: All                                               15-Sep-99 21:36:06
Subj: Re: US Army  :-(NT  :-)MacOS

From: ericb@pobox.com (Eric Bennett)

In article <MPG.1248ce6117512c809899fe@news1.mnsinc.com>,
forgitaboutit@fake.com (David H. McCoy) wrote:

> Perhaps. I checked the Webstar site, which is the server in question and 
> it says this "Mac OS 8.0 or above (Mac OS 8.5 or above recommended)".
> 
> How good is OS X at running MacOS stuff?

OS X runs a full, complete copy of Mac OS and the Mac OS apps run inside
that.  The Mac OS apps benefit from having a more solid virtual memory
system underneath them since the Mac OS environment effectively lets OS X
Server allocate the RAM its apps are using and doesn't have internal VM of
its own.  But other than that I think you would be better off just running
plain MacOS or running Apache on OS X Server.  (I did use a developer
release of OS X Server briefly but I didn't run any serious networking
speed tests on the Mac OS environment.  I was surprised at the
compatibility environment's general overall responsiveness but it is not
as responsive as a plain old copy of Mac OS.)

-- 
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ ) 
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology

You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can
with a kind word alone. -Al Capone

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Ho You Kong Fan Club (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com                            15-Sep-99 19:26:11
  To: All                                               16-Sep-99 04:30:09
Subj: Re: US Army  :-(NT  :-)MacOS

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com (David H. McCoy)

In article <37DFC25F.3CCA7E08@ca.ibm.com>, bbarclay@ca.ibm.com says...
> "David H. McCoy" wrote:
> > >       Well, if you igonre the fact that IBM released a new server
version of
> > > OS/2 (OS/2 WARP Server for e-buesines) this year, and that IBM just
> > > finished rolling out a new version of DB2 for OS/2 - then yes, you could
> > > say nothing is going on.
> > 
> > I said "nothing of note". You can read? OS/2 Warp Server is the very
> > definition of nothing of note. Few are talking about it and most likely
> > not much more are considering using Aurora, let alone using.
> 
> 	Really?  You know what our sales and customer base is like enough to
> make such a statement?

One doesn't need to know anything about your sales or customer base to 
know that lots of talk is going on about Win2k, Linux, and the Mac and 
very little about OS/2.

Aurora is the very definition of non-event.


> 	FYI, Aurora is making IBM quite a nice sum of money, thank-you very
> much.

Really? How much?

> > The Army picked the MacOS, fercrissakes, over OS/2. A Mac. As for DB/2,
> > heck, IBM released DB/2 for plenty of OSses. But IBM is pushing Linux
> > and WinNT/2000 order of magnitude over OS/2.
> 
> 	Yes, and DB2 for OS/2 still brings in more revenue than for all the
> other platforms combined.  You were saying?
>  
> > Based on your incorrect interpretation of my logic to be sure.
> 
> 	I'm just so glad that you're here to tell me what products my customers
> aren't using.

You seem to have some reading problems. I haven't said anything about 
your customers, so your gladness is misplaced.

> Brad BARCLAY
> 


-- 
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu                             16-Sep-99 01:08:23
  To: All                                               16-Sep-99 04:30:09
Subj: Re: On using useful subject headers

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu

Gerben Bergman writes:

> zeppelin@gte.net wrote:

>> This guy Tholen, while obviously brilliant,

> <cough> Waiter, I'd like to have some of whatever he's having. :)

Back to playing your "infantile game", eh Gerben?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu                             16-Sep-99 01:07:11
  To: All                                               16-Sep-99 04:30:09
Subj: Re: Good Bye - and thank you.

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu

Dave Critelli writes:

> <snip>

>> zeppelin@gte.net writes:

>>> Time and again I come to the group "OS2 advocacy"

>> Why?

> <snip>
>
> Wow.  Did this put things into perspective.  I myself have been "coming
> to this group" to get  opinions and positions that people have on OS/2.

Instead, what you've been getting for some time are the abusive postings
people make for entertainment purposes, opinions and positions that people
have on Windows NT or Windows 2000, emulation threads, and so on, with
rather little OS/2 content.

> Then I came across this thread with Mr. Tholen's question, "why?".  So
> I pondered a bit and realized that banter really serves me little.

Only now?

> I weighed the sludge in this group to the value it provides.  Sludge
> won!  So why do I stay here?  Well - thanks to Mr. Tholen's (truly
> whole heatedly) enlightenment

Heatedly?  And enlightenment comes from within.

> I'm not subscribing to this group anymore.  It just doesn't provide any
> value to me.

And it took my simple question for you to realize that?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu                             16-Sep-99 01:16:29
  To: All                                               16-Sep-99 04:30:09
Subj: Re: On using useful subject headers

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu

Gerben Bergman writes:

> Marty wrote:

>> The statement that Dave's vocal supporters are principally composed
>> of OS/2 users tells me that these users may have bought Dave's lie
>> that he actually advocates OS/2.

> Even if what you say is true,

Irrelevant, given that what he said isn't true.

> then it means that these people endorse Dave's questionable tactics

How ironic, coming from someone whose own "questionable tactics"
involve the playing of "infnatile games".

> solely because they think he advocates OS/2

They shouldn't, given that I have clearly advocated the use of the
right tool for the job.

> -- which is the very point Jeff was making.

But Glatt is also erroneously presupposing that I advocate OS/2.

>> There's only one thing that Dave Tholen advocates here, and that is,
>> Dave Tholen.

> Absolutely.

ALso incorrect.  I advocate the use of the right tool for the job, as
well as using logic, and reading for comprehension.  I see you haven't
followed that advice.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu                             16-Sep-99 01:13:05
  To: All                                               16-Sep-99 04:30:09
Subj: Re: On using useful subject headers

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu

Marty writes:

> Nothing in this group says anything about the OS/2 community at large.

Hasn't stopped some people from making that assumption.

> The statement that Dave's vocal supporters are principally composed of
> OS/2 users

..is yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

> tells me that these users may have bought Dave's lie that he actually
> advocates OS/2. 

Where have I ever advocated OS/2, Marty?  I've advocated using the right
tool for the job.  There is no lie on my part, just poor reading
comprehension on your part.

> There's only one thing that Dave Tholen advocates here, and that is,
> Dave Tholen.

Yet another lie.  I advocate using the right tool for the job.

> PS: I'm certain he'll respond to this and address me directly even
> though he knows he's in my kill-file.

Is the use of a kill file somehow supposed to protect your misinformation
from correction, Marty?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu                             16-Sep-99 01:22:21
  To: All                                               16-Sep-99 04:30:10
Subj: Re: On using useful subject headers

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu

Marty writes:

> Jeff Glatt wrote:

>> Actually, Tholen maintains that he doesn't advocate OS/2. He maintains
>> that he advocates *only* "the right tool for the job" (with the
>> unstated assumption that this may not necessarily be OS/2,

On the contrary, I've stated the other operating systems I've used and
use on numerous occasions.

>> Tholen speaks a sort of brainless OS/2-double-speak where what he
>> implies isn't necessarily what you're supposed to infer).

> Why not refer to it as Rec-Autos-Makers-Saturn-double-speak?  ;-)

Because that would be illogical.  Of course, that hasn't stopped Glatt
before.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu                             16-Sep-99 01:24:15
  To: All                                               16-Sep-99 04:30:10
Subj: Re: Stardock Releases WindowBlinds v.99 - Shuns OS/2

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu

Fred Emmerich writes:

>> We do see you making up stories about me being stepped on
>> in my field, about me and "kook" being mentioned in 1600
>> articles in other newsgroups, about academic positions
>> being "dead end", about my job being "dull", about me being
>> "mildly retarded", and so on.

> "Mildly" should have been left off.

Along with the "retarded".  Rather ironic, coming from someone
who still believes that the Fortran 90 standard includes the
RECORD statement.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: moschleg@erols.com                                15-Sep-99 23:33:21
  To: All                                               16-Sep-99 21:19:10
Subj: Re: OS/2

From: Mark Schlegel <moschleg@erols.com>


Dennis Peterson wrote:
> 
> Chip wrote:
> >
> > I run OS/2 version 4 for my operating system, now my question is when is
IBM
> > going to release OS/2 version 5? I would really like to know since I would
> > love to upgrade to version 5 rather than upgrade to any type of windows
> > operating system.
> >
> > I would really appreciate any help with information. Thanks ahead of time
> > ;-)
> 
> I'm very interested to know what is deficient in your current version of
> OS/2. It seems to me to be a very complete, mature OS, especially when
> compared to some of the other offerings.

One example, if you upgrade your machine to a large hard disk you have
to
download a special idedasd driver from IBM.  That should work
straight out of the box.  Mostly the current W4 is just too old
and needs refreshing.  I don't think that IBM needs to do that
much work changing W4, they should just put in all the latest
stuff including the up to date tcpip, mpts, Java 1.1.7 or 1.1.8, 
file and print, USB, JVS and SMP-able kernel
would be good (at install time, it would pick the proper kernel
by looking for the number of cpus being > 1 or at least asking the
user).  It's just too much a drag on normal users to expect them
to install 6+ different fixpacks (java, base os, mpts, file and print,
tcpip, device driver fixpack, etc) when a new client would have it
in the box.  (Why do you think indelible blue has a market for its 
WarpUP CD to do just that?)

Mark

> As for a newer release, that probably isn't going to happen any time
> soon if ever for the client product but IBM is still tweaking the server
> version. There are few significant differences between the server and
> the client version if all you need is the client version, but it does
> cost a bit more. On the other hand, the server version has a lot of nice
> tools that are worth exploring should you decide to got that upgrade
> path. Many of them have limited value without a networked environment
> but they are great for self-education.
> 
> dp

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: pcguido@ibm.net                                   16-Sep-99 05:07:29
  To: All                                               16-Sep-99 21:19:10
Subj: Re: US Army  :-(NT  :-)MacOS 

From: pcguido@ibm.net

Isn't it amazing? Even 'military intelligence' knows
what Den Beste & the rest won't admit: NT is a mess!

Why W2K? Because NT has aquired _negative_ name
brand equity...

Guido

In <37DDD8ED.5AD67B3E@ibm.net>, John Twelker <twelker@ibm.net> writes:
|Aloha from Maui,
|
|Check out http://www.theregister.co.uk/
| Posted 13/09/99 3:03pm by John Lettice THE REGISTER
|
|"Grim news for Microsoft indeed - the US government seems to be
| tilting towards open source software, while the US Army's
| ArmyLink News claims the US Army Home Page has switched from
| NT to "a more secure platform" (MacOS and WebStar) following a
| nasty hacker invasion.
|
| ArmyLink quotes Christopher Unger, web site administrator for the
| US Army Home Page, as saying that the switch to MacOS had
| already happened. And what do you know - a quick Netcraft query
| reveals that www.army.mil is indeed running WebStar 4.0 on
| MacOS ... For the record, we note that ArmyLink itself is running on
|Netscape
| and Solaris, which can't cheer Microsoft particularly either."
|
|You can read, no, make that enjoy, the rest of the article at your
|leisure ...
|
|Sure does my heart good to hear that the underdogs are starting to be
|recognized for their strengths and Microsoft for its weaknesses. The end
|result could be more freedom of choice and better products for the
|consumer. Already, Apple is up, Linux is up, even OS/2 is enjoying more
|sales than expected by its parent company. Ah, things ahead looking
|brighter for sure.
|
|Aloha,
|
|John Twelker
|Maui
|



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com               16-Sep-99 00:26:23
  To: All                                               16-Sep-99 21:19:10
Subj: This is not doable - according to others

From: "Kim Cheung" <kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com>

How would you build 6 machines that has different hardware configurations,
install the operating system from scratch - each having a different
configuration requirement: some has sounds, some are SVGAs, and so forth. 
When finished, install close to 100 native programs to each of the six
machines - have them all networked together - and ready for a full day of
pounding from several hundred conference goers walking pass your booth - AND
have a contingent plan in place such that if one of the machines fails - you
would unplug that machine, plug another fresh machine in place - and have it
back on-line immediately...

And what if you are given only minutes - not hours, not days - to have it all
ready before the show starts?

How's that possible?

Come to WarpExpo West this Saturday to see the impossible - impossible, that
is - if you're using Windows.




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jack.troughton@nospam.videotron.ca                16-Sep-99 13:38:08
  To: All                                               16-Sep-99 21:19:11
Subj: Re: This is not doable - according to others

From: jack.troughton@nospam.videotron.ca (Jack Troughton)

On Thu, 16 Sep 1999 00:26:47, "Kim Cheung" 
<kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com> wrote:

How would you build 6 machines that has different hardware configurations,
install the operating system from scratch - each having a different
configuration requirement: some has sounds, some are SVGAs, and so forth. 
When finished, install close to 100 native programs to each of the six
machines - have them all networked together - and ready for a full day of
pounding from several hundred conference goers walking pass your booth - AND
have a contingent plan in place such that if one of the machines fails - you
would unplug that machine, plug another fresh machine in place - and have it
back on-line immediately...

And what if you are given only minutes - not hours, not days - to have it all
ready before the show starts?

How's that possible?

Come to WarpExpo West this Saturday to see the impossible - impossible, that
is - if you're using Windows.

Hehehee... I like it:)

Jack Troughton   ICQ:7494149
http://jakesplace.dhs.org
jack.troughton at videotron.ca
jake at jakesplace.dhs.org
Montral PQ Canada

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     16-Sep-99 07:22:11
  To: All                                               16-Sep-99 21:19:11
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Marty wrote:

> Bennie Nelson wrote:
> >
> > "Steven C. Den Beste" wrote:
> > >
>

> > > But you're right about one thing: you *don't* have any money riding on
it.
> > >
> > > I do. Brad does. We're backing our opinions with cold, hard cash in
> > > non-trivial amounts. That demonstrates that we're a lot more certain
about
> > > our opinions than you seem to be.
> > >
> > > There's an aphorism I like: "True expertise on a subject is demonstrated 
by
> > > the ability to win a series of wagers." The correlary is that someone
who
> > > refuses to bet isn't really as certain as they try to sound.
> >
> > Your corollary does not allow for those who won't bet because they oppose
> > betting on moral grounds.  Thus, refusing to bet says nothing about their
> > certainty.
>
> Nor does it include those who are forbidden by law due to age, nor those
> incapable of speech and motion, nor those who are comatose... but what's
> your point?  You're wildly and inappropriately misusing his metaphor.

What metaphore?  The man is being literal.  He owns stock in MS so he's more
qualifed to speak
than those who do not.  Brad develops for Win32 so he is more qualifed to
speak.  The more you
put at risk, the greater your qualification.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: blackeagle@acm.org                                16-Sep-99 14:14:05
  To: All                                               16-Sep-99 21:19:11
Subj: New OS/2 Client Decision?

From: blackeagle@acm.org

www.ibm.com/lvg

This is the direct homepage of IBM Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Lou Gerstner.

Big Blue executives will be hold a  monthly meeting on September 16.
Later a discussion will be held concerning the future of the OS/2
client as well as the feasibility of the development of a new OS/2
client by a third party.

Please circulate Mr. Gerstner's direct CEO homepage address to as many
concered users as you can.  End users, IT manager of companies who used
to, want to or still use OS/2 and software developers it doesn't
matter.  We need to make it clear to Mr. Gerstner  as well as other IBM
executives the importance of alternate operating systems in the market
place as well as the importance of OS choice.

A decision regarding the OS/2 client is expected on September 16 or
September 17.

Let's get busy. :-)


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you do
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               16-Sep-99 11:06:23
  To: All                                               16-Sep-99 21:19:11
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Joseph wrote:
> 
> Marty wrote:
> 
> > Bennie Nelson wrote:
> > >
> > > "Steven C. Den Beste" wrote:
> > > >
> >
> 
> > > > But you're right about one thing: you *don't* have any money riding on 
it.
> > > >
> > > > I do. Brad does. We're backing our opinions with cold, hard cash in
> > > > non-trivial amounts. That demonstrates that we're a lot more certain
about
> > > > our opinions than you seem to be.
> > > >
> > > > There's an aphorism I like: "True expertise on a subject is
demonstrated by
> > > > the ability to win a series of wagers." The correlary is that someone
who
> > > > refuses to bet isn't really as certain as they try to sound.
> > >
> > > Your corollary does not allow for those who won't bet because they
oppose
> > > betting on moral grounds.  Thus, refusing to bet says nothing about
their
> > > certainty.
> >
> > Nor does it include those who are forbidden by law due to age, nor those
> > incapable of speech and motion, nor those who are comatose... but what's
> > your point?  You're wildly and inappropriately misusing his metaphor.
> 
> What metaphore?  The man is being literal.

If it wasn't a metaphor, then why would one "oppose to wager on moral
grounds"?

> He owns stock in MS so he's more qualifed to speak than those who do not.

Is it immoral to speculate in the stock market?

> Brad develops for Win32 so he is more qualifed to speak.  The more you
> put at risk, the greater your qualification.

Is it immoral to produce Win32 applications?

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: ericb@pobox.com                                   16-Sep-99 22:38:09
  To: All                                               17-Sep-99 03:55:00
Subj: Re: US Army  :-(NT  :-)MacOS

From: ericb@pobox.com (Eric Bennett)

In article <37e07b2f@news1.prserv.net>, pcguido@ibm.net wrote:

> Isn't it amazing? Even 'military intelligence' knows
> what Den Beste & the rest won't admit: NT is a mess!
> 
> Why W2K? Because NT has aquired _negative_ name
> brand equity...

That's pretty bad if buying a computer product whose name alludes to the
Y2K problem provides less negative connotation than buying a computer
product whose name includes "NT"!

-- 
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ ) 
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology

Drawing on my fine command of the language, I said nothing.
-Robert Benchley

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Ho You Kong Fan Club (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     16-Sep-99 20:01:12
  To: All                                               17-Sep-99 03:55:00
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Marty wrote:

> Joseph wrote:
> >
> > Marty wrote:
> >
> > > Bennie Nelson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Steven C. Den Beste" wrote:
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> > > > > But you're right about one thing: you *don't* have any money riding
on it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I do. Brad does. We're backing our opinions with cold, hard cash in
> > > > > non-trivial amounts. That demonstrates that we're a lot more certain 
about
> > > > > our opinions than you seem to be.
> > > > >
> > > > > There's an aphorism I like: "True expertise on a subject is
demonstrated by
> > > > > the ability to win a series of wagers." The correlary is that
someone who
> > > > > refuses to bet isn't really as certain as they try to sound.
> > > >
> > > > Your corollary does not allow for those who won't bet because they
oppose
> > > > betting on moral grounds.  Thus, refusing to bet says nothing about
their
> > > > certainty.
> > >
> > > Nor does it include those who are forbidden by law due to age, nor those
> > > incapable of speech and motion, nor those who are comatose... but what's
> > > your point?  You're wildly and inappropriately misusing his metaphor.
> >
> > What metaphore?  The man is being literal.
>
> If it wasn't a metaphor, then why would one "oppose to wager on moral
> grounds"?

?!?

If it WERE a metaphore then one would NOT oppose it on moral grounds.  It is a
metaphore.
If it were NOT then it WOULD be opposed on moral grounds.  It would be
literal.  I saw
the comments as literal.  He is betting, wagering, which to some is immoral
and to many
more who know about stock investing is plain foolish.

> > He owns stock in MS so he's more qualifed to speak than those who do not.
>
> Is it immoral to speculate in the stock market?

Yes it can be.  So can drinking Coke or using a leather belt.  The point made
was it
could be immoral and that would preclude people.  When the words Wager and Bet 
are used
the meaning of the activity is clear and could be argued immoral.  Of course
you're
also using a different word -- speculate -- not wager or bet.  You have to be
careful
since morality implies intent. Wage and bet are not the same as speculate..

FYI Historically Christians and Muslims were forbidden to charge interest, and
speculate.  The word moral is often, but not exclusively linked to a religious 
belief.

> > Brad develops for Win32 so he is more qualifed to speak.  The more you
> > put at risk, the greater your qualification.
>
> Is it immoral to produce Win32 applications?

Welll stop and ask yourself if your quesiton sounds absured then it might be
based on
an unreasonable interpretation.

Morality can be found by looking at the intention of the act.  Any act that is 
seen and
argued as a wager or bet can be found to be immoral by those who find
gambling,
wagering and betting immoral -- or addictive.   Not everyone wagers or bets. 
Not all
beliefs and knowledge are measured by the magnitude of risk.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               16-Sep-99 23:47:00
  To: All                                               17-Sep-99 03:55:00
Subj: Re: OS/2+LINUX:PlaySation Development

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Joseph wrote:
> 
> Here's some more edivencce that Win32 is losing momentum.  Dual booting
> with windows OSs is difficult.  It is a deliberate inconvenience to
> discourage the dual booting of OSs.   One always could easily dual boot
> into OS/2 and LINUX.   Now LINUX,  not a win32 OS, is the development
> platform for the Sony Play station 2.  The Play station2 is the Sony's
> digital entertainment device for networked homes
> 
> http://www.playstation.com/news/pressrelease/dev.html

So... where does OS/2 fit into this picture??

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     16-Sep-99 20:12:12
  To: All                                               17-Sep-99 03:55:00
Subj: OS/2+LINUX:PlaySation Development

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>

Here's some more edivencce that Win32 is losing momentum.  Dual booting
with windows OSs is difficult.  It is a deliberate inconvenience to
discourage the dual booting of OSs.   One always could easily dual boot
into OS/2 and LINUX.   Now LINUX,  not a win32 OS, is the development
platform for the Sony Play station 2.  The Play station2 is the Sony's
digital entertainment device for networked homes

http://www.playstation.com/news/pressrelease/dev.html

SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT TOOLS RELEASE ANNOUNCED FOR PLAYSTATION 2
Monday, September 13, 1999

SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT TOOLS RELEASE ANNOUNCED FOR PLAYSTATION 2
...the PlayStation2 development tools combine two separate operational
modes in one unit: regular PLAYSTATION 2
programming/debugging mode and a new workstation mode. In the new mode,
the tools can be used as a Linux-based workstation
enabling developers to create graphics in the PlayStation2 development
environment that were only previously possible on a separate
workstation.

http://www.playstation.com/news/pressrelease/edist.html
PLAYSTATION TO FORM BASIS FOR E-DISTRIBUTION BUSINESS IN 2001

Sony Computer Entertainment Charts PLAYSTATION 2 Network Strategy
TOKYO, September 13, 1999 - Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. today
announced that it will establish its revolutionary computer
entertainment system, PlayStation 2, as a platform for Internet-based
electronic distribution of digital content in 2001.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     16-Sep-99 20:14:05
  To: All                                               17-Sep-99 03:55:00
Subj: Re: US Army  :-(NT  :-)MacOS

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Eric Bennett wrote:

> In article <Pine.SGI.3.93.990915134157.18489A-100000@sea.monterey.edu>,
> josco <josco@sea.monterey.edu> wrote:
>
> > On 15 Sep 1999, Tim Smith wrote:
> >
> > > Jason Bowen <bowenjm@rintintin.colorado.edu> wrote:
> > > >>The Army picked the MacOS, fercrissakes, over OS/2. A Mac. As for
DB/2,
> > > >>heck, IBM released DB/2 for plenty of OSses. But IBM is pushing Linux
> > > >>and WinNT/2000 order of magnitude over OS/2.
> > > >
> > > >To be fair it is probably Mac OS X Server, which is BSD based, you
can't
> > > >go wrong with that :-)
> > >
> > > No, it is not Mac OS X server.  It is regular Mac OS.
> >
> > One justification for the Mac (according to the news I read) was it did
> > not support remote logins and ftp.
>
> Not out of the box.  You can certainly install FTP daemons and things like
VNC.

Yep -- I have one networked.   This is stuff you'd not want to run on this
particular web server.   KISS.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               17-Sep-99 00:37:27
  To: All                                               17-Sep-99 03:55:00
Subj: Re: OS/2+LINUX:PlaySation Development

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Joseph Coughlan wrote:
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> 
> On 9-17-99, 3:47:00 AM, Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote regarding Re:
> OS/2+LINUX:PlaySation Development:
> 
> > Joseph wrote:
> > >
> > > Here's some more edivencce that Win32 is losing momentum.  Dual
> booting
> > > with windows OSs is difficult.  It is a deliberate inconvenience to
> > > discourage the dual booting of OSs.   One always could easily dual
> boot
> > > into OS/2 and LINUX.   Now LINUX,  not a win32 OS, is the development
> > > platform for the Sony Play station 2.  The Play station2 is the Sony's
> > > digital entertainment device for networked homes
> > >
> > > http://www.playstation.com/news/pressrelease/dev.html
> 
> > So... where does OS/2 fit into this picture??
> 
> And you are ? ... The newsgroup policeman?  I don't think so.  If you
> don't like the post then kill it.  Don't play cop -- it's really not
> your business to judge.

I'm just asking the question because I don't see it, officer.

> I like OS/2 and I use it daily  I advocate its use on PCs and the use
> of specialty devices for entertainment/games rather than removing OS/2
> and setting a PC as a game system using say, MS Windows.  The PC is is
> too costly and complex to use as a game platform.  Now I like to
> support my opinions with facts when possible and in this case the fact
> is the Playstation, not some Windows PC is the future for home
> entertainment.  In fact the LINUX OS, friendly with OS/2 on a dual
> boot PC, is the platform of choice for development.  I just do not see
> Windows in the picture -- not at all.  So it is reasonable to keep
> OS/2 and your PC for now and watch Sony, SEGA and Nintendo drive down
> the cost of home computing.  In fact I think OS/2 has a long life
> given PCs are being moved BACK into the hobbyist niche.

I'm all for mom, apple-pie, and OS/2, but I don't see it in the picture
with Playstation game development.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               16-Sep-99 23:42:28
  To: All                                               17-Sep-99 03:55:00
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Joseph wrote:
> 
> Marty wrote:
> 
> > Joseph wrote:
> > >
> > > Marty wrote:
> > >
> > > > Bennie Nelson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Steven C. Den Beste" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > > But you're right about one thing: you *don't* have any money
riding on it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I do. Brad does. We're backing our opinions with cold, hard cash
in
> > > > > > non-trivial amounts. That demonstrates that we're a lot more
certain about
> > > > > > our opinions than you seem to be.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There's an aphorism I like: "True expertise on a subject is
demonstrated by
> > > > > > the ability to win a series of wagers." The correlary is that
someone who
> > > > > > refuses to bet isn't really as certain as they try to sound.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your corollary does not allow for those who won't bet because they
oppose
> > > > > betting on moral grounds.  Thus, refusing to bet says nothing about
their
> > > > > certainty.
> > > >
> > > > Nor does it include those who are forbidden by law due to age, nor
those
> > > > incapable of speech and motion, nor those who are comatose... but
what's
> > > > your point?  You're wildly and inappropriately misusing his metaphor.
> > >
> > > What metaphore?  The man is being literal.
> >
> > If it wasn't a metaphor, then why would one "oppose to wager on moral
> > grounds"?
> 
> ?!?

If you're trying to quote QBert, it's "@!#?@!"

> If it WERE a metaphore then one would NOT oppose it on moral grounds.  It is 
a
> metaphore.

Oppose what?  The metaphor or the gambling?

Let's cut to the chase here, without getting into semantics, Steven made a
very specific reference to the fact that he's back up his beliefs with
dollars.  That's a form of speculation.  It is not immoral to back up your
beliefs with money, so long as what you are backing up is not illegal
itself.  This is certainly the case with Steven's statement.  Morals have
nothing to do with what he was referring to.  The introduction of morals
served only to confuse the subject matter and had nothing to do with the
argument.  Thus it was a misuse of the given metaphor.

> If it were NOT then it WOULD be opposed on moral grounds.  It would be
literal.  I 
> saw the comments as literal.  He is betting, wagering, which to some is
immoral and 
> to many more who know about stock investing is plain foolish.

Tell that to my father, a stock broker on the NYSE.  Who knew that a little
rat-hole company like AOL or eXcite or Yahoo! would ever do so well.  Those
that "wagered" on them didn't feel it was foolish.  Do you?
 
> > > He owns stock in MS so he's more qualifed to speak than those who do
not.
> >
> > Is it immoral to speculate in the stock market?
> 
> Yes it can be.

Only if you have insider information which has nothing to do with this
discussion.  Stop grasping at straws.

> So can drinking Coke or using a leather belt.  The point made was it
> could be immoral and that would preclude people.

A better point might be that some might not have the currency needed to
invest.  Applied to the context of Steven's statement the morality argument
doesn't make any sense.

> When the words Wager and Bet are 
> used the meaning of the activity is clear and could be argued immoral.  Of
course 
> you're also using a different word -- speculate -- not wager or bet.  You
have to be 
> careful since morality implies intent. Wage and bet are not the same as
speculate..
> 
> FYI Historically Christians and Muslims were forbidden to charge interest,
and
> speculate.  The word moral is often, but not exclusively linked to a
religious 
> belief.

This is completely off-topic.

> > > Brad develops for Win32 so he is more qualifed to speak.  The more you
> > > put at risk, the greater your qualification.
> >
> > Is it immoral to produce Win32 applications?
> 
> Welll stop and ask yourself if your quesiton sounds absured then it might be 
based on
> an unreasonable interpretation.
> 
> Morality can be found by looking at the intention of the act.

What's more absurd than being immoral by drinking a can of Coke??

> Any act that is seen 
> and argued as a wager or bet can be found to be immoral by those who find
gambling,
> wagering and betting immoral -- or addictive.   Not everyone wagers or bets. 
 Not all
> beliefs and knowledge are measured by the magnitude of risk.

Come back down to Earth and realize the context of his statements.  There
is nothing immoral in Steven's form of "gambling."

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mcbrides@erols.com                                17-Sep-99 07:08:17
  To: All                                               17-Sep-99 11:01:03
Subj: Re: OS/2+LINUX:PlaySation Development

From: mcbrides@erols.com (Jerry McBride)

In article <37E1B9B4.AD879B16@stny.rr.com>, Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>Joseph wrote:
>>
>> Here's some more edivencce that Win32 is losing momentum.  Dual booting
>> with windows OSs is difficult.  It is a deliberate inconvenience to
>> discourage the dual booting of OSs.   One always could easily dual boot
>> into OS/2 and LINUX.   Now LINUX,  not a win32 OS, is the development
>> platform for the Sony Play station 2.  The Play station2 is the Sony's
>> digital entertainment device for networked homes
>>
>> http://www.playstation.com/news/pressrelease/dev.html
>
>So... where does OS/2 fit into this picture??
>
>- Marty

The same exact place windows does... no where! :')


--

*******************************************************************************

*            Sometimes, the BEST things in life really ARE free...           
*
*       Get a FREE copy of NetRexx 1.150 for your next java project at:      
*
*                     http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/netrexx                    
*
*******************************************************************************


/----------------------------------------\
| From the desktop of: Jerome D. McBride |
|         mcbrides@erols.com             |
\----------------------------------------/

--

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TEAM-NETREXX (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: richard@NOSPAMwebtrek.com                         17-Sep-99 20:36:03
  To: All                                               17-Sep-99 20:04:19
Subj: Re: New OS/2 client not to be

From: richard@NOSPAMwebtrek.com (Richard R. Klemmer)

On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 20:01:21, jwlarson@jvlnet.com (Jim Larson) wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 18:14:25, "TomG" <nospam.pendrake@erols.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> > The call has been made -- there will be no new client from Stardock and
IBM
> > has indicated that they have no plans for an OS/2-based client of their
own.
> >
> 
> God damn it, maybe IBM should be allowed to make their own 
> announcements concerning a new client. Although most of us doubt there
> will be one, hearsay does not make an official announcement.  

Wasn't it about a Month ago that an article was published stating that
IBM said that there are no plans for an OS/2 client?  I can go back 
and search my archives to find the URL, but it was talked about 
extensively on the Mailing lists and Stardocks news server.

I don't think this comes under the heading of hearsay when we've all 
heard the same thing from the source.

-----------------------------
Richard R. Klemmer
richard@webtrek.com
http://www.webtrek.com
-----------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: WebTrek L.L.C. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jwlarson@jvlnet.com                               17-Sep-99 21:15:21
  To: All                                               17-Sep-99 20:04:19
Subj: Re: New OS/2 client not to be

From: jwlarson@jvlnet.com (Jim Larson)

On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 20:54:32, richard@NOSPAMwebtrek.com (Richard R. 
Klemmer) wrote:

> The interview is at http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19990722S0005

From the article:
Mills said OS/2 would not be maintained as a client due to the 
strength of the Windows desktop.

For some reason, no direct quote. Again, only hearsay.

A direct quote from the article is:
"We're still investing and delivering our products in OS/2," Mills 
said. "Various
customers around the world have OS/2 in their environments; sometimes 
running as a client, but typically running as a server. In light of 
the fact that those customers represent a significant amount of IBM 
aggregate         business, we're going to continue our OS2/ [sic] 
investments out to the future." 


Jim Larson 

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: malstrom@emily.oit.umass.edu                      17-Sep-99 16:39:10
  To: All                                               17-Sep-99 20:04:19
Subj: Re: New OS/2 client not to be

From: Jason <malstrom@emily.oit.umass.edu>

TomG <nospam.pendrake@erols.com> wrote:

<cut>

: The call has been made -- there will be no new client from Stardock and IBM
: has indicated that they have no plans for an OS/2-based client of their own.

: Though IBM indicated Stardock had the strongest proposal, they have decided
: that it is currently not in IBM's or their customer's interests to license
: any current OS/2 technology on an OEM-basis.

: There was never any discord between IBM and Stardock over financials,
: technical viability, target market, or the like.  IBM has simply finally
: made the decision that a new OS/2 client would be in conflict with their
: strategic directions.

Once I verify that this letter is authentic, I think I'm going to start 
the process of turning my OS/2 information pages into pages warning 
people to stay as far away from IBM products and technologies.  And then 
I'm going to finish my migration to SuSE Linux.  From that point on, I'm 
going to concentrate my efforts in bringing the ideals that OS/2 started 
on to Linux and maybe BeOS.  

The thing to remember that while OS/2 was a product, it is also a 
philosophy of a way to use your computer.  Personally I hope a somebody 
will do what IBM could not.  

It's a been a great run, and I don't regret any minute of the time or 
money I spent using OS/2.  And I was willing to spend a lot more.  

My less mature side of me hopes this desicion ends up biting IBM in the 
butt and have them realize that they were foolish.

-Jason

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             17-Sep-99 15:08:05
  To: All                                               17-Sep-99 20:04:19
Subj: Re: New OS/2 client not to be

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>

Richard R. Klemmer wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 20:36:07, richard@NOSPAMwebtrek.com (Richard R.
> Klemmer) wrote:
> 
> >
> > Wasn't it about a Month ago that an article was published stating that
> > IBM said that there are no plans for an OS/2 client?  I can go back
> 
> The interview is at http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19990722S0005
> 
Yes, well, this story didn't have enough meat in it to actually qualify
as an official "OS/2 death."  Here's some stories with a little more
bite that all qualify as a death:

http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2145258,00.html

http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/content/smro/0519/317223.html

http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/content/zdnn/1124/245306.html

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bbarclay@ca.ibm.com                               17-Sep-99 17:54:22
  To: All                                               17-Sep-99 21:30:15
Subj: Re: New OS/2 client not to be

From: Brad BARCLAY <bbarclay@ca.ibm.com>

Brad BARCLAY wrote:
> 
> Jason Bowen wrote:
> >
> > Oh well, how long till the service packs stop coming?
> 
>         May 31st, 2001 (for WARP v4 at least - not until 2002 for WSEB).

	Self-correction:  January 31st, 2001.  May 31st 2002 is the
end-of-service date for WSEB.

Brad BARCLAY

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Posted from the OS/2 WARP v4.5 desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
E-Mail:  bbarclay@ca.ibm.com		Location:  2G43D@Torolabs

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Toronto Labs, DB2 for OS/2 Install Developer (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               17-Sep-99 18:18:08
  To: All                                               17-Sep-99 21:30:15
Subj: Re: WinNT 4/Windows 2000 compatibility

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Bennie Nelson wrote:
> 
> Marty wrote:
> >
> > Bennie Nelson wrote:
> > >
> > > "Steven C. Den Beste" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 21:31:56 -0400, Joseph recycled some holes into
the
> > > > following pattern:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Steven C. Den Beste wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Another possibility is that he already has all the data he needs.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> He's already determined, by direct experiment,
> > > > >
> > > > >When you talk about direct experiments you make me laugh.  Let him
speak for himself
> > > > >and you can speak for yourself.  We'll also respect the opinions of
the Gartner
> > > > >Group, GIGA and Forrester.
> > > >
> > > > "We"? You and your tape worm? I'll continue ignoring them, just like I 
have
> > > > been. I don't care in the slightest what they think about it. I don't
give
> > > > their opinions any credence at all.
> > > >
> > > > >> Your pathetic attempt at a FUD campaign on this subject comes off
as
> > > > >> whistling in the graveyard. What are you so afraid of? That Win2K
might be
> > > > >> yet another massive commercial success? You do realize that you
have no
> > > > >> power to change that, don't you?
> > > > >
> > > > >Fear huh?  Who's posting on which news group?
> > > > >
> > > > >It's great to see expectations build up for W2K and to have high
expectations for
> > > > >software compatibility.  If the argument for W2K compatibility comes
down to personal
> > > > >experiences of people in this news group (so far it has) then that is 
a very very bad
> > > > >sign.
> > > > >
> > > > >Now W2K may be a massive commercial success -- I haven't any money
riding on it.  I
> > > > >don't see CITIRX running scared but I have seen the top PC OEMs
building Thin Clients
> > > > >based on WinCE or LINUX.  I have also seen Compaq dump W2K on ALPHA
and pick up
> > > > >LINUX.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've also seen IBM making a massive investment in Win2K. What has any
of
> > > > this got to do with the price of tea in Beijing?
> > > >
> > > > But you're right about one thing: you *don't* have any money riding on 
it.
> > > >
> > > > I do. Brad does. We're backing our opinions with cold, hard cash in
> > > > non-trivial amounts. That demonstrates that we're a lot more certain
about
> > > > our opinions than you seem to be.
> > > >
> > > > There's an aphorism I like: "True expertise on a subject is
demonstrated by
> > > > the ability to win a series of wagers." The correlary is that someone
who
> > > > refuses to bet isn't really as certain as they try to sound.
> > >
> > > Your corollary does not allow for those who won't bet because they
oppose
> > > betting on moral grounds.  Thus, refusing to bet says nothing about
their
> > > certainty.
> >
> > Nor does it include those who are forbidden by law due to age, nor those
> > incapable of speech and motion, nor those who are comatose... but what's
> > your point?  You're wildly and inappropriately misusing his metaphor.
> >
> > - Marty
> 
> You left out those that are mentally incompetent.  Actually, my point was in
> the portion you chose to not quote in your reply.

If your point is based on this interpretation of his metaphor than it too
is inappropriate.  In the case to which Steven is referring, there are only
two reasons why one would "refuse to wager" because 1] they are not certain
enough to accept the risk, or 2] they can't afford it with or without the
risk factor.  Morals have nothing to do with it.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: coughlan@earth_systems.monterey.edu               17-Sep-99 16:12:24
  To: All                                               17-Sep-99 21:30:15
Subj: Re: New OS/2 client not to be

From: joseph <coughlan@earth_systems.monterey.edu>

On 17 Sep 1999, it was written:

> I guess I'll start looking at Linux again. Clearly OS/2 is no longer a
> long-term solution for SOHO-users. Ironically, I just finished 
> installing SuSE Linux on my main workhorse this evening, about an hour
> before I read this.
> 
> FWIW, thanks for trying, you Stardock dudes.
> 
> I now have *two* companies to steer clear of: Microsoft and IBM...

Try dual booting LINUX and OS/2.  IMHO keep OS/2 around -- it's not an
endorsement of IBM to use OS/2.

Meanwhile keep your mind open to non PC alternatives.  I suggest following
the new entertainment consoles.  

The Dreamcast ships WITHOUT an OS.  The OS must be on the CD-ROM that
comes with the game/application.  No preloading possible. 


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CSUnet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: OS2Guy@WarpCity.com                               17-Sep-99 15:45:09
  To: All                                               17-Sep-99 21:30:15
Subj: OS/2 Kernel Source Code Released To 'Net

From: Tim Martin <OS2Guy@WarpCity.com>

We've received a lengthy message (plus zipped attachment
of the mentioned code to prove authenticity) announcing
the release of the OS/2 kernel source code to the Internet
by an anonymous group.

A small portion of the letter (originally addressed to
Lou Gerstner) says:

"Therefore the little respect the OS/2 users once
might have had towards IBM is now totally lost,
and we feel no remorse in making the source code
available. We have a strong belief this will in no
way make OS/2's position worse than it already is.
It is ironic that so many of the remaining OS/2
users stand united for releasing the source code,
knowing that it will most probably be used to
enhance other operating systems than our favorite
one.

Regards,
Frustrated OS/2 users "

Let me make this clear:  This message was sent
ANONYMOUSLY to our "secrets section" at Warp City.
As a spokesman for Warp City we DO NOT sanction
the unauthorized release of anyone person or company's
source code.

Tim Martin
The OS/2 Guy
Warp City
http://warpcity.com
"E-ride the wild surf to Warp City!"

P.S.  Warp City members: the entire letter is
available (w/o the source code attachment)
for perusal in the "What's Going On Here"
section of Warp City.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Warp City (http://warpcity.com) (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             17-Sep-99 15:44:23
  To: All                                               17-Sep-99 21:30:15
Subj: Re: New OS/2 client not to be

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>

Douglas Hendrix wrote:
> 
> 
> You'll have to trust me on this one.  There will be no future versions
> of the OS/2 client from Stardock, IBM, or any other source.
> 

Hi Doug!

Now I don't want you to take this the wrong way but who are YOU?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: OS2Guy@WarpCity.com                               17-Sep-99 15:55:27
  To: All                                               17-Sep-99 21:30:15
Subj: 2000 - a new IBM release of Warp 5

From: Tim Martin <OS2Guy@WarpCity.com>

Douglas Hendrix wrote:

>
> You'll have to trust me on this one.  There will be no future versions
> of the OS/2 client from Stardock, IBM, or any other source.
>
> Doug

This is not true according to our ibm.com subscribers.  They
say (and have been saying for quite some time) there will be
no Warp 5 release in 1999.  They have hinted time and again
there will be an updated release from IBM (and no third parties)
in the year 2000.

There is really no reason for IBM to release a Warp 5 this
calendar year (1999).  IBM IS NOT courting the OS/2 home
user.  All updates, fixpaks, drivers, etc., are currently available
on CD or for free download.  If you are a current OS/2 Warp
4 user you can update your system for free.

There is nothing Microsoft has released to date that equals
the power, stability and overall quality of OS/2 Warp 4.

The year 2000 is a whole new era.

Tim Martin
The OS/2 Guy
Warp City
http://warpcity.com
"E-ride the wild surf to Warp City!"


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Warp City (http://warpcity.com) (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: OS2Guy@WarpCity.com                               17-Sep-99 16:02:13
  To: All                                               17-Sep-99 21:30:15
Subj: Re: New OS/2 client not to be

From: Tim Martin <OS2Guy@WarpCity.com>

"David T. Johnson" wrote:

> Richard R. Klemmer wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 20:01:21, jwlarson@jvlnet.com (Jim Larson) wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 18:14:25, "TomG" <nospam.pendrake@erols.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The call has been made -- there will be no new client from Stardock
and IBM
> > > > has indicated that they have no plans for an OS/2-based client of
their own.
> > > >
> > >
> > > God damn it, maybe IBM should be allowed to make their own
> > > announcements concerning a new client. Although most of us doubt there
> > > will be one, hearsay does not make an official announcement.
> >
> > Wasn't it about a Month ago that an article was published stating that
> > IBM said that there are no plans for an OS/2 client?  I can go back
> > and search my archives to find the URL, but it was talked about
> > extensively on the Mailing lists and Stardocks news server.
> >
> > I don't think this comes under the heading of hearsay when we've all
> > heard the same thing from the source.
>
> Yes, well I think Jim's point is that the source seems to be Stardock
> and not IBM.  What Stardock says that IBM says is:  "...IBM has
> indicated that they have no plans for an OS/2-based client of their
> own."  Now Stardock's opinion of IBM's 'indication' may not be the same
> as an actual "IBM statement," a "comment," a "rumor" or an "unnamed
> source."  IBM has never said there would no new OS/2 client.  They have
> just never announced such a product or said it was coming.  They have,
> apparently, said today to Stardock that there will be no Stardock OS/2
> client.

Very true.  IBM has made no official statement either way
about a Warp 5 client.  It has all been Stardock, Stardock,
Stardock...  Stardock will be selling their faded OS/2 wares
at the upcoming Warpstock.  Stardock has made no
announcement of developing any substantial OS/2
productivity applications but they have stated time and
again their software development dollar is earmarked
for applications that run specifically on Microsoft operating
systems.

There is/was a specific reason why Stardock registered
the Warp2000.com domain.

Tim Martin
The OS/2 Guy
Warp City
http://warpcity.com
"E-ride the wild surf to Warp City!"

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Warp City (http://warpcity.com) (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu                             17-Sep-99 23:52:19
  To: All                                               17-Sep-99 21:30:15
Subj: Re: OS/2 Death Knell!

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu

Jason Bowen writes:

> Ummm IBM hasn't been supporting OS/2 strongly(imho) for quite sometime.

"Strongly" is ambiguous.  Work continues on the Netscape 4.61 release
for OS/2.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bowenjm@rintintin.colorado.edu                    18-Sep-99 00:05:21
  To: All                                               17-Sep-99 21:30:15
Subj: Re: 2000 - a new IBM release of Warp 5

From: bowenjm@rintintin.colorado.edu (Jason Bowen)

In article <7ruk5u$pef$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
 <tholenAntiSpam@ifa.hawaii.edu> wrote:
>Douglas Hendrix writes:
>
>> But it is clear that IBM is very serious about
>> not wanting people to run OS/2 on the desktop.
>
>Then why is IBM still advertising the client in their catalog?
>

Is that all you need Dave?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: University of Colorado, Boulder (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: hendrixd@nichols.com                              18-Sep-99 00:16:04
  To: All                                               17-Sep-99 21:30:15
Subj: Re: New OS/2 client not to be

From: Douglas Hendrix <hendrixd@nichols.com>

"David T. Johnson" wrote:

> Douglas Hendrix wrote:
> >
> >
> > You'll have to trust me on this one.  There will be no future versions
> > of the OS/2 client from Stardock, IBM, or any other source.
> >
>
> Hi Doug!
>
> Now I don't want you to take this the wrong way but who are YOU?

I'll take your question in a rhetorical manner.

I am someone who has used OS/2 since version 1.1.
I am someone who was going to work nights and weekends to
make the Warp 5 client a reality.  I am someone who was strung
along thinking there really was a chance that IBM really was
going to allow a Warp 5 client to be released.

Though my information is all second hand, IBM gave a clear
message to Stardock about OS/2 and IBM's intentions with
regard to the OS/2 client.  That's all I have to say.

Douglas Hendrix



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: InteleNet Communications -- http://www.intelenet.
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu                             17-Sep-99 23:24:19
  To: All                                               17-Sep-99 21:30:15
Subj: Re: New OS/2 client not to be

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu

Brad Wardell writes:

> Everything that could be done was done.

And then some.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu                             17-Sep-99 23:23:21
  To: All                                               17-Sep-99 21:30:15
Subj: Re: OS/2 Death Knell!

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu

David T. Johnson writes:

> OS/2 has died. <sniff, sniff>.

Here we go again.

> Yes, it's true that OS/2 has died many times before,

And you're like Bullwinkle, telling Rocky "This time for sure!"

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: flmighe@ibm.net                                   18-Sep-99 00:22:03
  To: All                                               17-Sep-99 21:30:15
Subj: Re: New OS/2 client Network Station Series 2800

From: flmighe@ibm.net

In <Pine.SGI.3.96.990917160809.97123A-100000@earthsystems.monterey.edu>,
joseph <coughlan@earth_systems.monterey.edu> writes:

Take a look at the Network Station Series 2800, just introduced last 
week. It is a thin client that is Intel based and works with an OS/2 
server. Try arguing that a 2800 is not an OS/2 client. It is time to get 
those WarpStock arangements together. SOHO-users and all.

http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/client.htm

>On 17 Sep 1999, it was written:
>
>> I guess I'll start looking at Linux again. Clearly OS/2 is no longer a
>> long-term solution for SOHO-users. Ironically, I just finished 
>> installing SuSE Linux on my main workhorse this evening, about an hour
>> before I read this.
>> 
>> FWIW, thanks for trying, you Stardock dudes.
>> 
>> I now have *two* companies to steer clear of: Microsoft and IBM...
>
>Try dual booting LINUX and OS/2.  IMHO keep OS/2 around -- it's not an
>endorsement of IBM to use OS/2.
>
>Meanwhile keep your mind open to non PC alternatives.  I suggest following
>the new entertainment consoles.  
>
>The Dreamcast ships WITHOUT an OS.  The OS must be on the CD-ROM that
>comes with the game/application.  No preloading possible. 
>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: fred.nospam.emmerich@ibm.net                      17-Sep-99 17:42:12
  To: All                                               17-Sep-99 21:30:15
Subj: Re: OS/2 Kernel Source Code Released To 'Net

From: fred.nospam.emmerich@ibm.net

In <37E2C47E.379E6EEB@WarpCity.com>, on 09/17/99 
   at 03:45 PM, Tim Martin <OS2Guy@WarpCity.com> said:


>Let me make this clear:  This message was sent ANONYMOUSLY
>to our "secrets section" at Warp City. As a spokesman for
>Warp City we DO NOT sanction the unauthorized release of
>anyone person or company's source code.

You just like to pirate software.

=====================
Fred Emmerich           
fred.emmerich@ibm.net
=====================




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: hendrixd@nichols.com                              17-Sep-99 22:02:18
  To: All                                               17-Sep-99 21:30:15
Subj: Re: New OS/2 client not to be

From: Douglas Hendrix <hendrixd@nichols.com>

"David T. Johnson" wrote:

> Richard R. Klemmer wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 20:01:21, jwlarson@jvlnet.com (Jim Larson) wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 18:14:25, "TomG" <nospam.pendrake@erols.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The call has been made -- there will be no new client from Stardock
and IBM
> > > > has indicated that they have no plans for an OS/2-based client of
their own.
> > > >
> > >
> > > God damn it, maybe IBM should be allowed to make their own
> > > announcements concerning a new client. Although most of us doubt there
> > > will be one, hearsay does not make an official announcement.
> >
> > Wasn't it about a Month ago that an article was published stating that
> > IBM said that there are no plans for an OS/2 client?  I can go back
> > and search my archives to find the URL, but it was talked about
> > extensively on the Mailing lists and Stardocks news server.
> >
> > I don't think this comes under the heading of hearsay when we've all
> > heard the same thing from the source.
>
> Yes, well I think Jim's point is that the source seems to be Stardock
> and not IBM.  What Stardock says that IBM says is:  "...IBM has
> indicated that they have no plans for an OS/2-based client of their
> own."  Now Stardock's opinion of IBM's 'indication' may not be the same
> as an actual "IBM statement," a "comment," a "rumor" or an "unnamed
> source."  IBM has never said there would no new OS/2 client.  They have
> just never announced such a product or said it was coming.  They have,
> apparently, said today to Stardock that there will be no Stardock OS/2
> client.

You'll have to trust me on this one.  There will be no future versions
of the OS/2 client from Stardock, IBM, or any other source.

Doug


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: InteleNet Communications -- http://www.intelenet.
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+============================================================================+
