HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Miscellaneous NT information.
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:39:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct1.003910.12138
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

adamba@microsoft.com (Adam Barr) writes:
>>there is a scatter/gather list, is it explicit, or is there something like
>>the Windows VxD VDMDA_Scatter_Lock service that the driver uses to get
>>physical addresses?  If so, can this be called in the middle of an I/O?
...
>I'm not sure what you mean by "in the middle of an I/O" but the
>driver can request the next physical piece while he is handling
>the DMA completion interrupt for the previous piece.

That's basically what I meant.  When I have to process a scatter/gather
list (of virtual buffers) on hardware that can handle N scatter/gather
items, the usual way is to start locking s/g list items and getting
physical addresses until I have N physical things, and then start the
I/O.  When the hardware finishes those N, it interrupts, and I unlock
what was locked, and start locking the remaining buffer(s) until I get
N physical things, and then tell the hardware to continue, and so on.

It sounds like this won't cause any problem in NT.  Thank you!

I've had problems trying this in Windows 3.1.  When I get the interrupt
that tells me that my hardware needs more s/g entries, I acknowledge
the interrupt and then tell Windows to call me back when it is safe to
do VxD calls.  From that callback, I call VDMAD_Scatter_Lock.

However, sometimes this hangs!  The VDMAD_Scatter_Lock call simply does
not return.  If I break into a debugger (Soft-ICE/W), I usually find that
it was looping somewhere in VKD.  Experimentation has shown the following:

	1. It is not just VDMAD_Scatter_Lock.  VDMAD_Lock_Region also
	will do this.

	2. The region it was trying to lock was present.  Indeed, it had
	locked it an unlocked it hundreds of times already for previous
	I/O's.

	3. I've seen this happen when the current VM was the system VM,
	which was the VM that was running when the I/O request was
	generated, so it does not appear to be a case of me trying to lock
	the region in the wrong VM.

	4. Even if I merely ask for Windows to return page table entries,
	asking it to not page in non-present pages (i.e., all it should have
	to do is copy page table entries for me), it still loops.

I was able to work around this by locking the whole buffer as soon as I get
it, rather then locking it as I use it, but I'd still like to know what was
going on with the first approach.  Does anyone have any ideas?

--Tim Smith
From: bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Service Pack news from IBM 10/01/92
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:52:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: hemlock.1992Oct5.185211.1139
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

In article <1992Oct2.212732.7667@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <92275.133827MBAPN@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> Peter J. Natali <MBAPN@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> writes:

>>The version of the Service Pak without the 32-bit Graphics Engine
>>will be available at a later date.
>
>Since it looks like most people won't be getting this till November...
>why are they bothering?  The 32-bit GRE + Windows 3.1 should be coming
>out of beta not more than 1 1/2 months later.  Why are they bothering
>with the version that doesn't have the 32-bit GRE at all?

While I don't agree with them, I know several corporate people who would be
in the camp of -give me the fix but not the upgrade-.  As for the 1.5 months,
IMHO, they won't go to OS/2 2.0.1 when it comes out but give it time (say
a quarter to two).

Hey, who am I to
complain?  Many people find my choice of sneakers/tennis shoes different
than the norm (I like bright colors and Vans.)  Though today I am wearing
purple Converse Allstars low-tops.  Personally, I say it takes
many type of people to make the world go around (just as there are many
types of roses - a rose by any other name is still a rose - .)

Bert.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 5 Oct 92 07:33:55 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct1.154246.2250@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>>>
>>>Except that OS/2 3.0 is now called Windows/NT.

>>Blech.  There is one *very* annoying thing about calling NT "OS/2 3.0", IMO.
>>It's not that OS/2 and NT are super-different systems or any dislike of the
>>two being associated with one another, but to call NT "OS/2 3.0" is
>>definitely a misnomer.  3.0 implies a 1.x and a 2.x.

>Don't look now, but a couple folks in comp.os.ms-windows-programmer.win32
>(including some MS employees) are calling it Windows NT 3.1.

A marketing ploy, by any other name, would stink as badly... :-)

And you notice they are having to carefully name it *Win* NT because they
mught step all over Northern Telecom's toes otherwise. Then it would be
time to bring in the lawyers. As if having marketing types around wasn't
bad enough.

Tom
From: juan@noyles.pha.pa.us (Juan J. E. T. Noyles)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Distribution: world
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 92 23:18:48 GMT
Organization: The Noyles OS/2 Platform

discar@nosc.mil writes in article <1992Sep25.164035.24984@nosc.mil>:

>                                                                                  Multitasking in and of itself
> RIGHT NOW is a curiosity--I haven't seen a really good, habitual use of
> multitasking on a desktop system that didn't seem *contrived* yet; people
> act as if they format 30-50 floppies every day, or download data for hours
> on end each day... I see *potential* in what multitasking offers, but it is
> the *least* of the reasons (IMHO) to switch to OS/2 (or NT).  The reason 
> being that AT THIS MOMENT, OS/2's (NT's and, yea verily, even Windows 3.1)
> much vaunted "multitasking" is really only being used as a task switcher.
> This will change, but until it does...it is not a reason TO change: because
> Multitasking for the sake of doing it makes little sense.

I won't bother giving you my reasons for using multitasking.  If you don't have
any need for it, fine.  If your needs are met with DOS, have a good life.  Maybe
one day you'll actually have to do more than one computing task at a time.  I hope
you'll be mature enough then to remember that there are multitasking operating
systems available to you, so you won't have to try making DOS do what it wasn't
designed to do.

--
Has anyone seen your sanity?				Juan@Noyles.pha.pa.us
From: 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Review: OS/2 2.1 BETA.
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:22:39 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1992Sep25.213134.12889@njitgw.njit.edu>, dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
> In article <1992Sep24.181238.5447@gw.wmich.edu> 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>>	I did turn it off, but the 32bit GRE sluggishness extends
>>beyond mistiming the animation.  When you close a window it takes
>>a bit longer for it to disappear.  As if it were thinking "Well, I
>>guess I will disappear now."
> 
> This may not be the only cause of slowness, but I've heard that beta
> releases usually have lots of debugging code in them (so IBM can
> remote-debug you, should you need it).  This code is likely to sap
> lots of speed from the system.
> 
> 
> -- 
> David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
> ----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
> Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"

	Exactly.  That was what <i was trying to tell people.  The
animation is too slow not because the 32bit gre is too slow or going
to be released that way.  Any Os/2 2.0 v6.167 beta testers around
here (from the old days)?  OS/2 was a complete dog only 2 months
before it was released.  It all worked reasonablly but the speed of
absoultely horrible.  This beta is likely to be much much faster whne
it is released.

					-Brad
From: pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak)
Subject: Re: C vs. Machine language
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Mitre Corporation
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:04:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.173731.29601@news.iastate.edu>,
TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) wrote:
> 
>   On the subject of portability (hate to bring up an old thread
> but...), I understand that most of NT is in C, and a lot of OS/2 is
> also in C.  Wouldn't the programs be shorter and quicker if they
> were in assembly, or something?  I know they wouldn't be as

This is a myth of assembly language.  Modern optimizing compliers tend to
do a very good job so it generally best not to write code in assembly.  In
fact, writing the entire system in assembly could result in a smaller
system.  The speed gain by optimizing a few instructions tends to be a lot
smaller than optimizing the algorithms used.  Since C abstracts the
hardware, it allows the develop to concentrate on the applications and let
the complier worry about the hardware details.

IMHO, the only time you need to get into assembly language programming is:

A) Writing device drivers.  Even here, many times you can get away with
writing interace stubs in assembly and the rest of the driver in C.

B) Optimizing highly critical, highly re-used routines.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heeren Pathak                      | Millions long for immortality who do 
pathak@mitre.org                   | not know what to do with themselves
Mitre Corporation                  | on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
(617) 271-7465                     |	               	-- Susan Ertz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Mine not Mitre's.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:26:18 MDT
Keywords: Beta
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <dA2-ZdB@engin.umich.edu> rks@beaker.engin.umich.edu (Raul Shum) writes:
[Thrilling tale of OS/2 2.01 beta terror deleted.]
>Raul Shum
>
>P.S. If anyone knows or have subscription info for OS/2 Monthly, please pass 
>it on!
Call 1-908-985-8358.
>
>Finally, to the schmucks who support NT, go and form your own advocacy! 
>In the words of Tracy Ullman..GO HOME
>.
But... I develop for OS/2 also... am I not home?
Just because I prefer NT to OS/2 I'm not allowed to post?
Sheesh... any developer that has used both is bound to like NT better...
it _IS_ better, and you don't have to deal with IBM.

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
University of Utah                             United We Stand
Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 01:49:45 GMT

In article <welSyHm00UhW82D3MR@andrew.cmu.edu> cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido) writes:
>> isn't Nubus TI's design?
>> otherwise i pretty much agree with the rest of you post
>> (personal opinion: MCA rocks - quickring wishes it was MCA)
>
>TI?  Motorola designed Nubus for use with its 680x0 processors.  That's
>what I've been told at least.

Just so you know, here's the dirt on Nubus, quoted from "Computer
Organization" by V. Carl Hamacher, Zvonko G. Vranesic, and Safwat G. Zaky:

"The Nubus was first proposed by researchers at  MIT as a high-performance,
low-cost bus for use in workstations and personal computers.  After some
refinement, it was adopted by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers as IEEE Standard No. 1196."

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sam@ms.uky.edu (Mike Mills)
Subject: Multiuser
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:37:31 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

Thanks to everyone who explained to me NT's multiuser capabilities.  I agree
that being able to provide security for multiple people is MUCH different
than allowing those people to be using the machine at the same time.

Thank you very much Paul and Brian for distorting the facts.  Yet another
reason not to buy Microsoft products.

It seems rather silly that NT supports symmetrical multiprocessing, and gives
that power to all of one user at a time.

Didn't someone mention that Sequent was interested in NT?  Well, we have
a Sequent S81 with 26 processors here, and I really can't see myself fully
utilizing those processors all by my lonesome.  We regularly have over
100 users logged into this machine, all of them doing their own tasks, and
the load average usually stays well below 1.

And then there is our IBM 3090-600J.

Perhaps NT is better suited for an arcade, where it is acceptable for one
person to use a machine at a time?


-- 
--Mike Mills              E-Mail:  sam@ms.uky.edu, {rutgers, uunet}!ukma!sam
--UK Math Sciences Dept.                  mike@ukpr.uky.edu    
--(606) 257-1429 (work) 263-0721 (home)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: Is WPS really better??
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:00:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct02.174606.20767@fics.uucp> ekl@fics.uucp writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.133147.11085@scott.skidmore.edu> pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel) writes:
>>In article <BAB.92Sep30072426@se39.wg2.waii.com> bab@se39.wg2.waii.com (Brian Button) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep29.193827.10087@scott.skidmore.edu> pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel) writes:
>>>
>>
>>True... but I do that with Windows also.  I have icons that represent
>>often used files (speadsheet, say) and when I click on them, Quatro
>>comes up with that data file.
>
>Dare I suggest that you have to create these icons manually? When WPS is
>utilized, you shouldn't have to.

Why should you have to dare suggest he create the icons manually?  If you
utilize the WPS properly, you don't have to do anything, once properly set up.
Here's what you do:
	Save all the documents from a specific app in one directory.
	Shadow that directory onto the desktop, or where convenient.
	Go to the icon of the application, and under Associations, add
		the extension of the documents.

Voila!  Open up the shadowed directory and double click onto a document.
Your favorite Dos/Windows/OS2 editor should come up preloaded with the
document.  Also, any new documents will appear will automatically  have an
icon that is  associated with the editor.

>>I tried doing what you suggest in OS/2, but here's the problem (maybe
>>you netters have a tip to overcome this..) : I'm in a word processor
>>(however, it's not an OS/2 program).  I create a new document and save
>>it in some directory.  When I return to the WPS, I have to create an
>>icon for it, connect it to the right app, etc.  What a pain!  Perhaps
>>an OS/2 app that knows about the WPS will create the icon for me -
>>Okay that would be fine, no complaints.  But currently, it's not a
>>smooth process.

See above, if you catch this letter.  Sorry I didn't get your original post.


>>Problem #2:  this is something I've encountered in Windows and other
>>OSs that try to be object oriented - I have data files that are
>>"connected" to several apps.  I write a C++ program in my Brief
>>editor.  Later I use in BC++.  Then back to Brief.  I've had some data
>>files that are used in three different apps.  In WPS, I can only
>>attach it to one app.  To use it in a different context, I'd have to
>>click on the setting for that icon, change the related app name and
>>start over.  Or, use two or more icons for the same file, but have
>>each associated with a different app?  I think not.
>
>One object type can have several "views". One may be Brief, another may
>be bc++. Double clicking on the object icon selects the default "view",
>To open another view, use open -> Viewname. This is what Open Settings
>is doing today.

Quite right.

Ted
From: kaz@iastate.edu (Jimmy Buffet)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Pink, OS/2, and AIX
Summary: Pink, OS/2, AIX, etc....
Keywords: Mach III Pink OS/2 Mac NT etc...
Date: 6 Oct 92 05:39:08 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

I was just wondering if anyone has had these same thoughts...  is OS/2 a 
"prerelease" of the "pink" operating system we all know so little about?
Putting OS/2 on the Mach 3 Kernel for multi-platform support (including 
cross-platform application use, I imagine.  I don't think NT includes this) 
seems like a major project.  IBM wouldn't work on such an aspiring project 
if Pink is going to come along and make OS/2 obsolete.  The mac app rumours, 
of which I am very skeptical, make me even more suspicious.  

	Just a side note.... the more I think about, I just have to say: 
	 Go away Microsoft!  Bill gates is not God!
It reminds me of some posters I've recently seen:  "Why vote for the lesser
evil?  Cuthulu (sp?) in '92!"  Wouldn't you just love to plug Bill Gates into
that statement?  Sorry, I'm tired... :)


-- 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: "world"
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:37:50 GMT

timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:

>In article <92271.152323I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET> Spartacus At Cuny <I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>>Today I read IBM plans to release its PowerPC chips this fall
>>on the USAToday newsfeed on the freenet.  As I understand it
>>these new PowerPC will run Pink in about 3 years from now.
>                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Pink supposedly will run OS/2 and MSDOS programs as well
>>as Pink programs.

>What, exactly, is the point of releasing the chips now if nothing will
>run on them?

They will be able to run UNIX now. I would expect their first use to
low cost versions of IBM's RISC workstations.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net            uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jswang@leland.Stanford.EDU (James Shih Wang)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 05:27:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.211039.24073@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>In article <pathak-260992141946@virtual.mitre.org> pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep25.164035.24984@nosc.mil>, discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
>>wrote:
>>Note, multitasking isn't just limited to computers.  People multitasking
>>(pre-emptively at times) all the time.  After all, how many people do you
>>know that sit and watch the water boil? ;-)
>
>Actually, that's more like task swapping:)  I find multitasking to be a
>blessing though, especially when I'm doing something like downloading, ray-
>tracing, and doing file management at the same time.
>

Actually, I think I myself tend to "multitask preemptively" a lot.  Like when
I need to wait for something (for food to be cooked), I often would go
off and do something else, then come back after say five minutes.  If I
need to continue the wait, I'll just continue doing that something else, then
return to check again after a while.  Would you consider this "mulitasking
preemptively".

>Ted


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 19:47:17 GMT

In article <7485@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.042126.17499@u.washington.edu> mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth) writes:
>[about TCP/IP and X windows]
>>....I'd have preferred that they be built into the os and included in 
>>the price. 
>
>I have a network at home, and TCP/IP would be a Good Thing. I don't have a
>machine capable of running X clients, though. (My NCR Tower XP is too old, and
>runs only SysVR2.) My father doesn't have, or intend to have, a network at
>home. Should he be forced to pay for networking software he won't use?
>
>It's kinda like ordering dinner at a Mexican restaurant: NT folks would have
>everyone pay for the super deluxe dinner, regardless of whether or not the
>customer is that hungry.
>-- 
>Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
>jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
>    Vote for a REAL change on 3 November: Throw out the check-bouncing,
>  tax-and-spend Democrat Congress! (obviously, not an opinion of UTHSCH)

Jay, like you, I suppose that it would be nice if we could pick and choose 
the components that will be included in whatever os we decide to run.  I'd 
suggest that what you ask is not a trivial undertaking.  Further, I'd suggest
that the future (whenever that is) will bring an increase in networking.  While
dear old dad doesn't need a network now, he probably will want to be connected
in the future.  You've got a network now and it would be a "Good Thing" for
you to have tcp/ip.  I'd suggest that including network capability in future
os's will become more important.  You don't want to pay for it...ok, don't.  

Argument by analogy can always be taken to the absurd.  Mexican dinners aren't
operating systems.  Microsoft is attempting to meet the needs of a very large
segment of the market by including networking in the base product.  It is 
fairly unlikely that Microsoft will come to your house and force you to buy
NT.  In a similar vein, you can decline to buy the super deluxe dinner.  

You object to the cost of NT.  However, we haven't any real idea of what the 
cost of NT is, as yet.  Final pricing isn't available.  The only price, so far,
is $69 bucks.  

As to Zachmann, I'd suggest that Will has made it clear that he does have an
ax to grind.  I think he is an excellent writer, but he's lost any objectivity
in the last year.  I'd further ask why, of all the writers working in his field,
he's the only one honest enough to "expose" the microsoft "plot".  Heck, if 
there is a microsoft plot to subvert the trades, why isn't the conventional 
media investigating.  Surely, there must be one other honest person out there
somewhere?  These groups are fun, but we users need to keep our wits about us
(grin).
-- 
Mark Huth                         * Is it too wild to want to get into 
Mhuth@u.washington.edu            * Space someday?
Compuserve 70346,563              *