Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
OS2 Discussion Forum Volume 9203 Issue 05
OS/2 DISCUSSION FORUM 920304 & 920305 - Part II
***********************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico de Vries.)
Subject: *** HyperTron/NT 3.0 NEW SUPERIOR OS ***
Date: 23 Mar 92 13:56:41 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht
Fake Inc. proudly announces HyperTron/NT 3.0. This new and inovative
operating system will run MS-DOS, CP/M, Windows, OS/2 2.0, UNIX (All
flavours of cource), Pink, Next, DesqView/X etc programs right of the
shelf on a 8086 computer with at least 128kb of RAM. Programs will execute
about the same speed as on a Intel Hypercube with 65000 processors.
A 360kb floppy drive is sufficient to contain the complete operating system
and all programs you will ever install.
Needless to say they you should NOT buy products available today but
should wait until Fake Inc. releases HyperTron/NT 3.0.
Release date will be april 1 1992 (or maybe some days later but most
certainly soon).
Nico de Vries (nevries@cc.ruu.nl NEW ADRESS!)
#include <std disclaimer & my personal opinion.h++> - O Don't
Complaints about my spelling to DEV/NUL please. | worry,
This is a private (ACCU) acount and I don't speak for BITECH. \_/ be happy!
Windows 3.1, Geoworks 2, DesQview/X, OS2 2.0; The war starts, the consumer wins.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Changhao_Boh@mindlink.bc.ca (Changhao Boh)
Subject: Lastest PC-Mag and OS2 2.0 bashing...
Date: 18 Mar 92 09:10:02 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Hi. I am NOT going to read another issue of PC Magazine if they don't stop
being the mouth piece of Microsoft...
I am not going to say anything else other than that I am TREMENDOUSLY angry
with PC-Mag and that I am now suspecting all previous information I've read
from that magazine.
If you guys don't know what I mean, you will when you read the latest issue of
PC-Mag, in one of its "HELP" (????) columns...
I'll end before I am tempted to write more...
Good Health.
Changhao.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier)
Subject: Re: OS/2 source language
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 19 Mar 92 10:38:11 CST
In article <1992Mar19.023522.24622@microsoft.com>
gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin) writes:
>
>But more importantly, remember that the sources for OS/2 2.0 are about 20
>key strokes away on the machine that I'm posting from now. I've seen
>those sources. You don't have to have *worked* on a release to know
>what language it's written in, you just have to see it.
AAAAAhhhhh ... I thought MS dropped the MS-SDK because they could not get
the source from IBM at least this is the reason MS gave. Must not be that
recent.
BTW, since you have the source, you'll notice IBM documents it well so
fixing problems in a timely manner for the end-user is easy. You'll
notice that rewriting is not an activity which scares IBM and this means
a portable version is coming in a timely manner.
>
>And finally, it turns out that I'm an important contributor to OS/2 2.0,
>after all!
>
>The "SuperFat" that IBM has worked so hard on? "SuperFat" is just the
>HPFS caching code (I designed and wrote HPFS) stuck onto the back of FAT.
>I know all about that, since I studied that source recently. The bulk
>of the SuperFat improvments were just "cut and pasted" from the HPFS sources.
Gordon, SuperFat is more than HPFS caching code. SuperFat is having the
FAT subsystem written in 32 bit code in addition to the caching.
Bert Moshier
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: larrys@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.)
Subject: Re: OS/2 source language
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 20:57:18 GMT
Organization: IBM Research
I'm sorry folks, but even though I don't post, it doesn't mean I'm not
aware of what's going on. When I saw Gordon's post, I was compelled as
one of the knights in shining armor to take up the cause and defend us
from this siege once more.
In <1992Mar19.023522.24622@microsoft.com>,
gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin) writes:
>
>Remember, folks, that I resigned from OS/2 long before the IBM/microsoft
>split. There's a reason for that. Maybe one day I'll post.
I'm interested.
>But more importantly, remember that the sources for OS/2 2.0 are about 20
>key strokes away on the machine that I'm posting from now. I've seen
>those sources. You don't have to have *worked* on a release to know
>what language it's written in, you just have to see it.
Gordon, I'm going to tell you that this is a lie in its worst form, if
you are referring to the CURRENT source for OS/2 2.0. I realize that you
have access to the (extremely) old beta drops, but after having worked in
IBM Boca for a month AND being a LAN administrator myself (meaning that I
know and understand what kind of security measures they have in place) I
can assure you that if you believe that you can access the current OS/2
source, then you should stay at Microsoft because I don't want to be
associated with someone as deluded as you.
>And finally, it turns out that I'm an important contributor to OS/2 2.0,
>after all!
>
>The "SuperFat" that IBM has worked so hard on? "SuperFat" is just the
>HPFS caching code (I designed and wrote HPFS) stuck onto the back of FAT.
>I know all about that, since I studied that source recently. The bulk
>of the SuperFat improvments were just "cut and pasted" from the HPFS sources.
Well, gee, that's funny, since I personally know the "technical contact"
for the HPFS code (meaning he's the owner and main - if not sole -
developer for it), and he says that there are significant differences
between that and the FAT caching code:
1) HPFS cache is managed by near pointers and is written in 16 bit code.
FAT cache is managed by **32 bit** pointers and is written in 32 bit
code.
2) HPFS cache has a maximum of 2 megabytes.
FAT has NO SUCH LIMITATION.
3) The parts of the caching algorithm that dealt with lazy writing have
been enhanced such that synchronous reads do not need to happen.
The similarities are:
1) The HPFS code had nice, clear names for the procedures, so they
remained the same.
2) The read-ahead logic remained because it is fairly straight forward.
Now, if you'd like to argue with that, then I'll argue with you all day
long. In the meantime, quit talking just to try and make yourself look
good. Better yet, quit talking.
Cheers,
Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q') LARRYS@YKTVMV.BITNET
OS/2 Applications and Tools larrys@watson.ibm.com
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center larrys@ibmman.watson.ibm.com
Yorktown Heights, NY larrys@ibmman2.watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: The statements and/or opinions stated above are strictly my
own and do not reflect the views of my employer. Additionally, I have a
reputation for being obnoxious, so don't take any personal attacks too
seriously.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: larrys@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.)
Subject: Re: free os/2?
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 21:07:23 GMT
Organization: IBM Research
In <1992Mar19.015857.23936@microsoft.com>,
gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin) writes:
>
>IBM has spent several billion $ on OS/2 related stuff, and about $1.5
>billion on OS/2 itself. So if they sell 10 million copies and if they
>manage to *net* $150 on each (i.e., a retail price of $300 or more)
>then they'll have broken even. NOT, though, given the time value of money.
>
>Clearly IBM can use a simple desk calculator, and clearly they can see
>that they're never going to make money on OS/2, and in fact they're
>sure to loose big money. So why hasn't anyone on this forum ever wondered
>why IBM is willing to loose a billion dollars on OS/2?
>
>Maybe it's charity. Maybe they just want to advance the state of the
>art, they way that they have in the past, and they're happy to spend
>$1 billion to please the hackers on this net.
Well, gee, that's funny because, if I recall correctly, Microsoft made
very little (if any) profits per sale on Windows 3.0. What made them the
money was the endorsements, the (huge) stock value increase, the
applications it wrote for Windows, etc.. So stop having such tunnel
vision and thinking that the only way to make money on OS/2 is by selling
it.
>Wakeup and smell the coffee, folks. IBM *owned* the EDP business for
>N years and made billions. They used extreme methods against their
>competitors; for example if you used third party hardware they would refuse
>to maintain your machine. Yet they'd refuse documentation and spares to
>third party maintainers so that if you didn't have IBM maintaince you
>didn't have maintaince at all.
>
>IBM doesn't own the PC world like that, but they dearly wish to. That kind
>of absolute monopoly is what they consider the natural order of the
>universe. Thus the PS/2 - a new bus, one which no competitor could use -
>and they were going to reclaim the world. This is why they summarily
>canceled all of their ISA machines when the PS/2 was introduced - to
>"force" users to switch to PS/2. It was only *after* the multichannel
>was a failure that they began to be more reasonably about bus licenses.
Granted. But a company that doesn't learn from its mistakes is a dead
company. Have you heard of the "new IBM", Gordon? I'll tell you that if
the captain of a battleship sees land directly in front of him, he's
going to turn the ship; but, by no means is it going to happen
immediately. IBM sees the land in front and has realized that it has to
change direction or else it is going to crash and burn. Let me also
state that the "new IBM" movement is gaining momentum and that once it
does its work, you're going to see a whole new company.
>OK, so that "take over the world" gambit failed. Now it's time to try
>again, and that try is called "OS/2". Think it through, folks. If
>OS/2 were to become a big success, just how willing would IBM be to
>make sure that OS/2 3.0 runs on Dells and Compaqs? Might there be
>just a leeetle DELAY for support for those machines? And of course,
>they're not multichanel, so they won't be able to do a lot of sexy
>things that PS/2s can... (sure, the EISA could support them, but somehow
>the EISA version is just a few years late...)
I'll address your two points:
1) How come IBM has an OEM lab with over 1,000 PC models in it existing
solely for the purpose of compatibility testing for OS/2 2.0? Do you
think it is because they had a surplus of employees that had nothing to
do? I doubt it.
2) OS/2 2.0 WILL RUN ON AN ISA MACHINE, and since EISA is simply an
extension of ISA (backward compatible of course), OS/2 2.0 will run on
those also. I have the word of IBM Boca, and my housemates EISA machine
running 6.304.
>There's a big advantage to having a standardized operating system -
>and that generally means one major vendor - but do you seriously want
>that vender to be *also* a maker of hardware, and one with a bloody history
>of anti-competitive business practices? It shouldn't need pointing out
>that Microsoft plays no favorites; we license to all in an equitable manner.
Well, I can think of a few stories in the press (PC Week, I believe) that
appeared some time ago which described in some detail how Microsoft
bullied ISVs into packaging Windows (vs. other GUIs. These stories
were stuff like they would cancel the ISV's license to package MS-DOS
with its computer if they chose another GUI, etc.). If you want to
search for them I believe it was around the time when the FTC announced
their probe.
Of course, these are unsubstantiated claims, but - then again - your
claims are simply opinions (I firmly believe that the MICROchannel - get
it right - was a strategic move on IBM's part because it is the only
company large enough to make a "revolutionary and not evolutionary" move
in computer architecture.), so I guess we're even.
Cheers,
Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q') LARRYS@YKTVMV.BITNET
OS/2 Applications and Tools larrys@watson.ibm.com
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center larrys@ibmman.watson.ibm.com
Yorktown Heights, NY larrys@ibmman2.watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: The statements and/or opinions stated above are strictly my
own and do not reflect the views of my employer. Additionally, I have a
reputation for being obnoxious, so don't take any personal attacks too
seriously.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: The Economics of OS/2 (Was: free os/2?)
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 21:12:41 GMT
In article <se3Hwmk36@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu
(Michael D Mellinger) writes:
>OS/2 has a budget larger than some 3rd world countries.
So does Multiplan. What's your point? That some Third World
countries have small national incomes?
>IBM will *not* sell 10,000,000 copies of OS/2 in the next two years,
>so it looks like they will have to write something off. Since IBM
>broke into smaller divisions, the OS/2 part will have to carry its own
>weight now.
Selling 10,000,000 copies worldwide might be possible. Who knows? I
trust sales forecasts in this industry about as much as I trust Saddam
Hussein.
OS/2 will not have to "carry its own weight," as you put it. The
Personal Systems Division (of which OS/2 is a part) will.
>Yes, then IBM could customize OS/2 so that it runs better on their
>hardware. They currently make some of their own CPUs. Throw in a
>tuned OS for IBM486SLC and they might have something. Off course, the
>cloners don't have the same advantage of tuning OS/2 for their
>hardware.
Nor do any clones (that I'm aware of) have the advantage of tuning
Windows (or many flavors of Unix) for their hardware, so, again,
what's your point?
However, I dispute whatever point you're trying to make. Vendors are
certainly free to write device drivers which fully exploit their
hardware. And, while the positive statement is true, that IBM will
tune OS/2 for their hardware, the negative is not true, that IBM won't
tune OS/2 for other hardware. For example, OS/2 2.0 includes
EISA-specific hooks.
>If you looked at IBM's prices then you would see that they aren't
>cheap compared to your average Sun, HP, SGI, NeXT, or DEC machine. In
>fact, you get Unix(TCP/IP, multiuser OS) and a windowing system plus a
>lot more horsepower for the same amount of money. IBM isn't going
>anywhere until their prices come in to line with the rest of the
>market.
Different market. IBM is planning on selling OS/2 2.0 at extremely
reasonable prices to the installed base (and to go along with new
PCs). If you want a workstation, IBM will be happy to sell you an
RS/6000 with AIX and genuine Adobe Display Postscript. (Incidently,
the RS/6000 is the third best selling workstation line, ahead of NeXT,
among others, but behind Sun and HP, last I checked. Quite
respectable for a relative newcomer.) If you want a minicomputer, IBM
will offer you an AS/400 (a hot selling platform to say the least).
And, if you want a mainframe, IBM will sell you a 9370, 3090, or
ES/9000 (the fastest, general purpose mainframe computer around).
Note that these markets are indeed merging together, and the
distinctions are blurring. However, many companies and most
individuals are not prepared to plop a NeXT or a SPARCstation on every
desk. There are, naturally, markets where that makes sense, notably
in the engineering sections and trading floors.
You also misunderstand cost. Cost involves time and effort in
maintenance and support as well as the original sticker price.
Maintenance, support, training, and other related costs more often
than not swamp the equipment and software costs involved. I have yet
to see a flavor of Unix (NeXT included) which is easier to maintain
and administer than OS/2 2.0. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
But I digress.
> possible. It simply doesn't make sense to just drop the product. In
> fact, in may make more sense to pour in a bit more money, price it
> aggressively, and expend effort in making it a success.
>But IBM will have to spend $$$ advertising, maintaining and enhancing
>OS. The several billion spent so far will seem small after the two
>next two years of head-to-head competition with Microsoft. IBM had
>better play to win because there is still a lot more to lose.
Note what I said -- "...it may make more sense to pour in a bit more
money..." This behavior is perfectly consistent with profit
maximization. R&D costs are sunk costs -- they're gone and
irrelevant. From today forward you take the course of action which
maximizes profits. For IBM that means pushing OS/2 2.0 through
advertising, maintaining the product, continuing further development,
porting it to other platforms, and pricing it aggressively. Otherwise
they wouldn't be doing it.
>Actually, I recommend that IBM get OS/2 running on their PowerPCs.
>They can regain the PC market by having OS/2 run on their hot
>workstation platforms.
They will evidently do that, but the hardware doesn't exist just yet
(except in the form of RS/6000s). Software is already trying to catch
up with hardware in the PC world, so I think the need is most pressing
there (and the market, at least in terms of volume, larger).
>No harm there, but Gordon works for MS. Every now and then he has to
>respond to Windoze and Microshaft postings. "OS/2 is great now that
>MS doesn't work on it." "We'll hate MS forever for dropping OS/2"
>These quotes often appear in the same posts.
You never hear me making those statements, except perhaps the first in
circumspect fashion, as in, "Isn't it remarkable that the first decent
version of OS/2 coincided with Microsoft's dropping the project?" I
do not attribute causality to it -- it is merely one data point. Nor
do I hate Microsoft. I remain their customer where they deliver
superior products, all things considered.
>Well, you could buy NeXTstep 486. :-) :-)
In July. If we're lucky. At $995 for the runtime version; $2495 for
the development version. Different market, Mike -- it isn't going to
be a volume item at that price.
Frankly, at that price, it isn't a choice for me, no matter how good
it is. I'm sure many others feel the same way.
--
Timothy F. Sipples Keeper of the OS/2 Frequently Asked Questions List,
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu available via anonymous ftp from 128.123.35.151,
Dept. of Economics directory pub/os2/faq, or via netmail from
Univ. of Chicago 60637 LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET. [Paul Tsongas in '92!]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier)
Subject: Re: Gordon Letwin's Raving
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 20 Mar 92 11:21:41 CST
In article <1992Mar20.112800.9435@wsl.ie> jja@wsl.ie (John J. Allen) writes:
>What's Gordon's problem, why does'nt he just go back to the MessySoft
>groups.
John:
I don't know what is going on. I can tell you what people are saying
on Compuserve. They notice many MS people coming to the OS/2 forums and are
wondering why they are not in their own forum having a "party." Speculation
is OS/2 worries (and is better) them and their being there is the proof.
Oh, the IBMOS2 forum has the highest level of activity of any forum on
Compusever according to Dave Whittle. This is higher than MS-Windows!
This could be telling us something about the pent-up demand for OS/2!
Bert Moshier
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 GA release date...
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 19:38:51 GMT
In article <1992Mar21.162259.17159@nadia.stgt.sub.org>
fealon@nadia.stgt.sub.org (Frank Fuchs) writes:
>Current release is 6.307C. Golden master diskettes at 25th.
How does 6.307C look, Frank, or is mum the word?
--
Timothy F. Sipples Keeper of the OS/2 Frequently Asked Questions
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu List, available via anonymous ftp from
Dept. of Economics 128.123.35.151, directory pub/os2/faq, or via
Univ. of Chicago 60637 netmail from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier)
Subject: Windows/NT (IMPORTANT for OS/2 Users)!!
Date: 24 Mar 92 06:02:16 GMT
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
This note is from the Altanta IBM BBS. You might want to use this
information when people and the press bring up Windows/NT.
- MS is saying existing hardware is not enough. Yet, that was why OS/2
is/was unacceptable. So why is Windows/NT an acceptable future but
OS/2 is not?
- Notice IBM never gave "marching orders" with OS/2 2.0!
- People should ask (demand) magazine reviewers to use the Windows NT
hardware requirements Microsoft gave to the PC industry for OS/2
reviews!! (32MB RAM, 586 (or 486-33+), 19" monitor, 300MB drive,
1,280x1024 resolution).
IF WINDOWS/NT IS A SERVER SYSTEM THEN WHY THE GOOD MONITOR AND DISPLAY
for something in the closet???!!! MS doesn't plan on Windows/NT to be
a server system!
Bert.
Message : 10865 (OS/2 General Usage Q&A) Date... : 3/19/92
From... : Dave Both Refer.. : None
To..... : All Sec'ty. : Public
Subject : Win* NT requirements Rec'vd. : No
Electronic News 3/9/92 Page 11
MICROSOFT ("MARCHING ORDERS"): According to this item, Microsoft
"issued the PC industry its marching orders, releasing a list of
specifications for hardware designed to run WINDOWS NT and pressing
vendors to comply by this fall."
- Microsoft wants the PC vendors to offer systems with more memory and
DASD with "such features as WINDOWS NT compatibility, graphics and
multimedia replacing price or brute performance as the central selling
point for PCs."
- Microsoft indicated they plan to include a number of hardware
features into their WINDOWS NT operating system via a Hardware
Abstraction Layer (HAL) that includes ROM BIOS, I/O bus controller,
etc.).
- Microsoft indicates that the "ideal" WINDOWS NT system will be based
on an Intel 586 (or 486 running 33-50 Mhz) or a MIPS computer R400 RISC
chip; 8MB of memory minimum (Microsoft recommends 32MB up); CD-ROM
drive and a standard 300MB hard drive and a 19" monitor with 1,280x
1,024 resolution. Microsoft also wants to include MPC audio,
multimedia and network capabilities and a graphics accelerator chip
- Microsoft indicates that the minimum requirement for the first
version of the WINDOWS NT-based system will be a 32-bit system with 8MB
of memory and a 1,024x768 resolution monitor.
**********************************************************************
Just thought you might all be interested!! <G>
Dave (:>)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jhenshaw@microsoft.com (Jeff HENSHAW)
Subject: OS/2 in Infoworld....
Date: 24 Mar 92 20:24:43 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Warning: the following post contains information that is not
(necessarily) complimentary to OS/2. It is not an
expression of personal opinion, and should only be
taken as an FYI post.
Excerpted from Robert X. Cringley's article in
yesterday's InfoWorld magazine:
-------------- Begin article text ---------------------------
"...IBM is suddenly not sure it wants to play one-on-one
against Microsoft. The gala, cast of thousands, intro for
OS/2 2.0 has been cancelled, replaced by a single press release.
"OS/2 2.0, which will be ''shipped'' March 31, won't actually
get to you and me until late April. And when we get OS/2, it
won't be compatible with Windows 3.1, won't run windows apps
even as fast as Win 3, won't have the 32-bit graphics engine,
XGA support, super VGA support, or disk compression. Most of
these features will appear in an interim release coming in June,
followed by multipocessor support in October."
-Jeff Henshaw
jhenshaw@microsoft.com
(not a Microsoft spokesperson)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: david@catt.ncsu.edu ()
Subject: OS/2 GA Compilation & Release
Organization: NCSU CATT Program
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 16:16:36 GMT
A rumour says that OS/2 2.0 GA (the final release) was compiled at IBM
Tuesday night (March 24). Supposedly, packaging and such will keep it from
shipping except electronically until the first week in April.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
David T. Chappell -- david@catt.ncsu.edu
North Carolina State University -- Computer And Technologies Theme Program
-----------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dwl@watson.ibm.com (David W. Levine)
Subject: Some OS/2 2.0 rollout events (Times, places, etc.)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 18:20:20 GMT
Organization: IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
If you've been looking for OS/2 2.0 rollout events, here's some of the
events headed your way. I'll send out new information as I
get it.
Here's some information for people looking for IBM rollout events
for OS/2 2.0
Washington DC area OS/2 rollout events
April 9, 1992
9:00am
IBM
1301 K Street - Room 3C100
Washington, DC 20005
April 14, 1992
9:00am
IBM
9200 Corporate Blvd
Rockville, Md
The enrollment number for both events is 1-800-395-8865.
This number will also have information on our free follow-on seminars
South Carolina OS/2 2.0 rollout information
April 16, 1992
9:30AM to 4:30pm
Hyatt Regency Hotel
Main St and Beattie
Greenville, SC
Call 1-803-282-5241 to reserve a seat
AGENDA:
OS/2 LIVE! Presentation and Demo
IBM Exec speaker (TBD)
ISV Speaker (TBD)
OS/2 Development - Lori Brown, Lead Designer, Workplace Shell
Lunch
PM:
Free Technical Workshops on:
Using Workplace
Moving from DOS/Windows to OS/2
Extended Services and LAN Server
Virginia area OS/2 2.0 rollout information:
Four OS/2 Shows. Each show will last 3 hours. First 1.5 hours will
be main tent with presentations and 2nd 1.5 hours will have break out
sessions with individual demonstrations of multiple applications
running under OS/2.
Agenda by Location
Main Tent Session 1.5 hours
Opening
Demonstration/Presentation
Business Partner Executive
New PS/2 Announcements
IBM Services Center Offerings
Customer Testimonial Multimedia
Main Tent Close
Break
Break Out Sessions 1.5 hours
Word Perfect
Easel Corporation
Lotus
Comsell
Metaphor
CICS/OS2
OS/2 Demonstrations
Door Prizes 5:00 p.m.
Richmond
Show Location Thursday April 9
2:00-5:00pm
James Center Omni
For reservations, information, or other show locations call
(804)697-2221
Charlottesville
Show Location Monday April 13
9:00-12:00am
OMNI
For reservations, information, or other show locations call
(804)980-3529
Norfolk
Show Location Tuesday April 14
9:00-12:00am
Marriott
For reservations, information, or other show locations call
(804)446-6466
Roanoke
Show Location Thursday April 16
9:00-12:00am
IBM Roanoke Customer Center
Maryland Area OS/2 2.0 rollout information
Hagerstown....IBM Customer Center, April 13, 1PM- 4PM, 1850 Dual
Highway,
Hagerstown, MD 21742, Call 301-824-1844 to enroll in
course
#OS2ANNOUNCE
Baltimore.....Stouffer Harborplace Hotel, April 15, 9AM-12PM, 202 E.
Pratt
Street, Baltimore, MD 21202, Call 410-332-2400 to enroll
in
course #OS2ANNOUNCE. Continental Breakfast served at
8:30AM.
April 7 -Baltimore Customer Center, 100 E. Pratt Street, Baltimore,MD
FTN 6th floor, 1:15PM - 3:00PM. Call 410-332-2400 to enroll.
Rollout in LA -
April 7, 10-2
Westin Bonaventure
California Ballroom
404 S. Figueroa St.
LA
Featuring:
Comdex FTN broadcast
OS/2 2.0 Shrinkwrap code
ISV Demos
More than 30 PCs running OS/2 2.o with DOS, Windows, and OS/2 apps
Hands-on opportunity!
Reservations: call (310) 447-4802 (leave name, company, phone #)
Rollout in Santa Barbara -
April 7, 10-2
Featuring:
Comdex FTN broadcast
OS/2 2.0 Shrinkwrap code
Hands-on opportunity!
OS/2 2.0 Rollout in San Diego
Televised COMDEX OS/2 2.0 Debut
Customer Early Install Experiences
Live OS/2 Demonstrations
Tuesday, April 7,1992
1:30PM
IBM Corporation
8845 University Center Lane
San Diego, CA
We have seating for only 200 people, so please RSVP to (619) 587-5700
Event Date: Tuesday April 7, 1992
Event Location: 1:00pm - 5:00pm
Customer Center
425 Market Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA
Agenda: OS/2 Presentations and Demo's
Lotus Notes
DIS
DeScribe
Knowledgeware
WordPerfect
Novell NetWare
Plus much, much more!
Seattle has two events:
April 1/2 - Computer & Office Systems Show, Washington State Convention
Center. IBM will have a large presence there, with at
least
five machines running the "test drive" code. There will be
two presentations on OS/2 2.0, as well as an ongoing
contest
to win a free copy of OS/2 2.0 (20 will be handed out).
April 7 - Seattle Westin Hotel. OS/2 Kickoff Party.
9:30am - Coffee & danish
OS/2 20. demonstrations
9:45am - Executive Welcome
10:15am - Comdex presentation
11:45am - Executive Closing Remarks
12:00pm - End
12:00pm-1:00pm - OS/2 demonstrations
Please call Shawn Morrissey at (206) 587-5798 or Alex Wragg at (206)
587-
Lower Connecticut and Westchester OS/2 2.0 rollout information.
The number to call and register is (203) 846-5515.
The Details:
Subject: OS/2 Launch Celebration
DATE: APRIL 7
TIME: 1:00--5:00 pm
PLACE: STAMFORD SHERATON
(exit 7 off I-95, take right into Hotel)
AGENDA: 1:00 Customer Arrival
1:15 Welcome
1:25 Begin FTN (IBM telecast)
3:00 End FTN
3:05 Raffle Laptops and Software
3:15 Begin Keynote remarks
3:45 End Keynote remarks
3:50 TAGM remarks
4:00 Demonstrations from ISVs (open to customers, back of
room)
5:00 Conclusion
David W. Levine -- IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
dwl@watson.ibm.com -- (914) 784-7427
My Opinions, IBM's hardware. --
------------------------------------------------------------------------
END OF OS/2 DISCUSSION FORUM 920304 & 920305
********************************************
