NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/advocacy/11446

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-02 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!gumby!wmichgw!x90wardell
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 2 Jan 93 23:28:15 EST
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Western Michigan University
Lines: 76

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (bob angell) writes:
>>>>    All this talk about FUD & Misinformation about OS/2 from Microsoft has
>>>>some NEW Merit!
>  while not exactly agreeing with MicroShaft on most of what they produce,
>  I must agree that the warning could have been valid after all [see below].
>
>>>>    I Recently talked to a Beta Tester of DOS 6.0. He Runs OS/2 with 2 Hard
>>>>Drives, One FAT, One HPFS. He decided to Install the DOS 6.0 Beta on the FAT
>>>>Partition, and got a Message saying, and I paraphrase:
>>>>
>>>>- OS/2 Detected! Due to the size of OS/2 you may wish to delete your OS/2
>>>>files before installing DOS 6.0 -
>>
>>>     Interesting.  What is the problem with that?  If there was a
>>>similar message that said "Autocad detected.  Due to the size of
>>>Autocad you may wish to delete your Autocad files before installing
>>>DOS 6.0", whould that be bad too?
>
> I think this message and all the hoopla surrounding this is [warning,
> about to read a possible assumption not based on actual tinkering, so
> your mileage may vary] as follows:
>
>     DOS 6.0 has some compression schema built-in, therefore, if
>     OS/2 **FAT** partitions were present, it would render the
>     data-sharing useless (as would DRDOS and other compression
>     schemes).  Notice that another installed the program on a
>     FAT partition with all HPFS drives as the viable partitions
>     and may have trouble reading compressed data off of the
>     DOS 6.0 partition once he evaluates and plays with it
>     awhile.  Why the warning was not given in the latter is a
>     mystery to me ....
>
> So, folks [Anal-retentives should also include themselves with this
> group if they can get a clue - just this time! 8-0], even though we
> may not necessarily like one company or another (couldn't resist this
> one ... "Can't we all just get along" - Rodney King after the LA
> Riots last spring :-) :-) ) lets not jump to conclusions before the
> verdict is in!!  Haven't the OS/2 people learned yet about true FUD
> and false-alarm FUD's??

    Let's get real for a moment, if that were the case, then would
it be SOOOO difficult for MS to write the following message:
    "OS/2 detected on hard disk, the compression program included
with DOS 6.0 is not compatible with OS/2, you might consider deleting OS.2
before proceeding."

    The disk space message is fairly blunt.  I don't think anyone
but someone pretty darn biased for MS would call it ambiguous.


>
>>If DOS is advanced enough to detect the presence of potential
>>disk hoggers (what does it do? Keep a database?) it should
>>certainly be smart enough to tell if there is room enough.
>>If it finds too little room, it should just say so, not
>>indicate anything as a potential problem. It is silly to
>>give messages like, X detected. If there are many X's which
>>one would be the problem? If there are no X's then what to
>>do? No piece of software should be a smartass, let the user
>
> But, we might want warnings if the data is about to be hosed!
>
> [see above].
>
>>decide what he does and does not need.
>>
>>Erik
>>--
>
> Personally, I think I will stick to DOS 5.0 and all of the other
> possible alternatives.....
>
> -Bob-

                -Brad