HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: Mathematica or Maple under OS/2 2.0?
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 18:42:23 GMT

In article <1992Apr17.182902.7617@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> meyer@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Meyer) writes:
>As for Maple, I haven't tried it.  The rule is, if it uses Winmem32.dll, it
>won't work in win-os2.  Fortunately, the vast majority of Windoze apps do not
>use it.

Reports are that the latest versions of Maple, MatLab, and an
apparently forthcoming Mathematica 2.1 for Windows will all operate
under OS/2 2.0.
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: Gary.Woodman@anu.edu.au (Gary Woodman)
Subject: Re: POP Mail clients for OS/2 - PM ?
Summary: What's out there?
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 08:09:35 GMT

In article <rhoward.702850332@matd> rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard) writes:

>for (or even POPmail for PC/DOS).  Anyone got any pointers?

POPmail won't be available for OS/2 until Borland releases Turbo Pascal and 
Object Vision for OS/2... and maybe not even then. You'll have to talk to 
the people at the University of Minnesota who plan strategies for POPmail.

OS/2 has a long way to go before it's a plug-and-play game with free network-
aware software.

BTW, I've heard that IBM's TCP/IP for OS/2 includes both a mail client and a 
news client as "sample apps", though I haven't seen the package myself. It's 
certainly competitively priced.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary.Woodman@anu.edu.au         This post made from 100% recycled electrons.
From: ba014@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Matthew C. Brinkhoff)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: ATI OS/2 v2.0 Drivers
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:19:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr15.161901.4179
Reply-To: ba014@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Matthew C. Brinkhoff)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


I recieved a fax from ATI tech support yesterday that read as follows:

"...please be patient, what with all the people calling in to get
Windows 3.1 drivers, its pretty hectic.  As for OS/2 ver. 2.0 drivers,
yes, we intend on making these drivers.  In fact, they should be
released very shortly.  They will also be available on our BBS."

[BBS # is (416) 756-4591].

He never did tell me if there is going to be a CODE driver for
640x480...

-- 
o-------------------------------------------------------------------------o
| Orwell was an optimist! | ba014@cleveland.freenet.edu | E Pluribus Unix |
o-------------------------------------------------------------------------o
From: mmtl@hobson.cc.flinders.edu.au (T.Lampre)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Microsoft wins
Date: 6 Apr 92 06:16:05 GMT
Organization: Flinders University

In article <6APR199200454278@venus.tamu.edu> tcf9033@venus.tamu.edu (FREY, TONY C) writes:
>
> Anyone hear about Microsoft signing -> 85 <- PC manufactures to bundle
>Windoze 3.1 with their machines?  Includes 8 of the ten top sellers too,
>(i.e. Dell, Gateway, Zeos, etc.).  This sounds like another one of those
>"I wish we would have thought of that" sayings from IBM.  I felt this
>way when I owned my Amiga, kinda like you're doomed by fate to fail.. Come
>on IBM - GET WITH IT!!!!! 

A recent article in PC week (I think) remarked that many OEM's pay a
royalty to Microsoft for every PC they sell to cover the inclusion of
DOS. This royalty is payable even if they don't bundle DOS in. While
there is nothing in their contracts to stop them including another OS
it is difficult for suppliers to automatically include OS/2 as they
have to pay double royalties. 


Trevor Lampre
From: liggio@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Vincent J. Liggio)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: OS/2 Key equivalents
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:08:56 GMT
Reply-To: liggio@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Vincent J. Liggio)
Organization: Columbia University


	I was wondering why  IBM decided to go  with the inane key  strokes
for cut and paste that exist on  Windoze...   I do not think that Shft-Ins,
Ctrl-Ins, and Shft-Del are very intuitive.  Why not go  with using the good
old alt key (a la NeXT/Mac fame)...
	Are these keys remappable (for all apps as well), since I can never
remember the Windows sequence for more than a week.  Why didn't they make a
new one for WPS, and then if the user decided to go with the  Win WPS look,
then the other key equivs would work instead?

Vince
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: rafetmad@cheshire.oxy.edu (David R. Giller)
Subject: Re: Help with Bootmanager
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 03:37:45 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.031000.8749@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith) writes:
>> pebly@vnet.ibm.com writes:
>>>
>>>   I'm starting from a blank unpartitioned drive, and what i'd like to
>>>end up with is a bootable fat partition, and a bootable hpfs, but, i'd
>>>like to be able to see the fat under GA.
>>
>>I think the configuration you are looking for is as follows:
>>
>>  Boot Manager partition
>>  Primary partition (C: - FAT)
>>  Extended logical partition (D: - HPFS)
>>
>>In this configuration, you can put DOS and/or OS/2 1.3 or 2.0 on the C:
>>FAT primary partition and put OS/2 2.0 on the D: HPFS partition.
>
>This is exactly what I want.  But will the FAT partition be accessible
>under OS/2 2.0 after I boot OS/2 from the D: drive?

Yes.  A bit disconcerting, and even confusing, to be booting off the D:
drive, but you just type 'C:' and you are there.  Fortunately, OS/2
isn't dependant on booting from drive c:.
 
-Dave
-- 
David Giller, Box 134 | Q: How many Oregonians does it take to screw in a light
Occidental College    | bulb?  A: Three.  One to replace the bulb, and two to
1600 Campus Road      | fend off all the Californians trying to share the
Los Angeles, CA 90041 | experience. ---------------------------rafetmad@oxy.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: alushiku@engws4.ic.sunysb.edu (Lushiku)
Subject: Re: PC Magazine Article
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 17:21:02 GMT

In article <barrett.703464051@cc.gatech.edu> barrett@cc.gatech.edu writes:
>Well, I finally got around to reading the first decent piece of
>coverage on OS/2 in a Ziff-Davis magazine.  Did anyone else
>notice that OS/2 was called "a multitasking, multiheaded OS"????
                                              ~~~~~~~~~~~
Was somewhat disturbing, considering it was only the first page of the 
review....  Lately, I feel I get more product information from the Net
than from any of these periodicals attempts.

----
alushiku@libserv1.ic.sunysb.edu
Turn your 486/33 into an XT....Just add MS Windoze!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: quan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Tony Quan)
Subject: Re: 800x600x16
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 18:48:11 GMT

In article <cdu6RsG00VIGQR1UV1@andrew.cmu.edu> Jeffrey Michael Gerber <jg3s+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>If there is a universal 800x600x16 driver with OS/2, does it do seemless
>Windows?  
>

The built-in super-vga support in OS/2 does *not* do seamless Windows.
You need drivers from your video board manufacturer to do this.  The
only video board manufacturer that even has such drivers now is
Trident.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 10:06:16 CST
From: gthome@ausvm1.VNET.IBM.COM
Subject: TCP/IP and X-Windows
Reply-To: gthome@ausvm1.VNET.IBM.COM
Organization: IBM - Austin
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 2.0
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc

In <gdoucett.23@gdoucette.stfx.ca> G. Doucette writes:
>What TCP/IP and X-Windows packages are available for OS/2?
>
>Gary
>
>| Gary Doucette                     E-Mail:     doucette@phoeniX.StFX.Ca |
>|                                   Telephone:  (902) 867-2275           |
>| Unix Systems Manager              Fax:        (902) 867-5153           |
>| CC, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, NS, CANADA, B2G 1C0     |
>
Gary,

I use IBM TCPIP Ver. 1.2 with X windows every day.  Works great.  I have
no idea how much it costs.  I run it on top of OS/2 2.0 with and 8514/a
card with no problems.  I got the 8514 'cause with VGA I seemed to be
constantly running out of room on my screen.

Gerry Thome
IBM - Austin
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael D Kretzer)
Subject: Re: OS/2 on 386SX 16MHz?
Originator: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Reply-To: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 04:41:25 GMT

From article <1992Apr13.033921.8481@towers.rn.com>, by davidh@towers.rn.com (David Holland):
> It does??? How?  I'm running a 486/33 with only 4Megs of RAM, and 
> as far as I'm concerned its un-usable. Its just a basic clone 486/33
> Paradise VGA, and 200 Meg IDE drive. And the fool thing spends so much
> time swapping, that I can get it to tell me that apps aren't responding
> to the system fairly consitantly with control-esc. 
> 
> Any suggestions?  - Don't get me wrong here, I think OS/2 2.0 just
> might be the next best thing to sliced bread :) however, you've
> gotta have some fairly large hardware behind it.

Simple suggestion...GET MORE MEMORY!!!!!  Adding even just 2MB of RAM to
increase your total memory to 6MB will help things significantly.  8MB is
enough breathing room to be comfortable, though, if your applications are
particularly demanding...(buy the memory now--it's relatively cheap--because
I can guarantee that even if you don't need it now, you will definitely need
it later).  The other thing is do you have HPFS installed?  If so, reformat 
your hard drive as FAT until you get more memory.
zrachya
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Comdex report in clari.nb.ibm
From: zrachya@ivory.bgu.ac.il (Guy Zrachya)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:10:43 GMT
Organization: Ben-Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel

  There is no clari.nb.ibm here. what do i do?

Thx,
Zrachya

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: SVGA blurb in GA README
Organization: Harvey Mudd College
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 02:09:33 GMT

smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith) writes:
>Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET> writes:
>>
>>...the following SVGA boards have been teste and found to work with
>>OS/2 2.0 for DOS applications that make use of SVGA modes:
>>
>>  -> Orchid Prodesigner IIs (ISA and MCA)

>What about the Orchid Prodesigner II (without the s)?

I assume this is about viewing SVGA stuff in a DOS box, and flipping
back and forth between WPS and the DOS box w/o having the SVGA view
corrupted.  It worked in one DOS box on my PD II (no s), but I haven't
been able to duplicate it.

Using SVGA in a DOS box is no problem.
-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu | think of something very clever 
uunet!jarthur!jokim         | to use as a disclaimer)
From: u1665462@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Is OS2/2.0-DOS faster than plain Dos??
Date: 12 Apr 92 10:47:38 GMT
Organization: The University of Melbourne

In article <rdippold.703057981@cancun>, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
> ry01@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (ROBERT YUNG) writes:
>>Is DOS in OS2 2.0 faster than plain Dos on the SAME machine? Or is it so
>>arkward and slow that I would have to dual-bbot all the time?
> 
> It sure speeds along when you're accessing a file on a HPFS partition!
> No, it seems to me that DOS runs just fine.  Of course, if you've got
> a couple disk or cpu intensive tasks going on things slow down, but
> not as much as with Windows or DesqView.
> 
> -- 
> It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats.

Somebody has already run the PC Magazine benchmark (available by ftp) and
posted the results (around Thursday, if you want to check). DOS under OS/2 was
slightly *FASTER* than native DOS 5! (I presume full-screen DOS). This is 
becouse the DOS emulation is running in 32-bit code: ie. the emulation
overhead is canceled out by the increase in execution speed. This should hold
true for Windows 3.0 full screen emulation as well.

If you have 6Mb+ RAM and are running HPFS, DOS sessions (whether full screen or
windowed) get an extra boost from the faster file system. 

Also remember that when OS/2 gets the 32-bit graphics engine (next update) this
will also boost video performance (which is already very good due to multi-
threading).

However the real measure is the OS/2 native applications: both 16-bit and
upcoming 32-bit. I know, those cost money to upgrade, but a) for once it is
worth it (unlike the DOS => Windows upgrade which usually means decreased
performance); and b) if you have already bought Windows apps, there is a
rumour that major vendours will offer cross-system upgrades cheaply. 

So get OS/2, run 'better DOS than DOS', and save money for 32-bit apps due 
this summer. 

Sven Zagala                                      OOO     SSSS     /  2222
Centre for Soviet and East European Studies,   OO   OO SS        /  2    22
University of Melbourne.                       OO   OO   SSS    /      22
Internet: Zagala@Sov_studs.Unimelb.Edu.Au      OO   00      SS /     22
                                                 OOO    SSSS  /     2222222
From: Jyri.Virkki@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Jyri Virkki)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Help! OS/2 in Denver
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:32:52 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <1992Apr13.142942.7136@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> ffujita@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Frank Fujita) writes:
>Jyri.Virkki@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Jyri Virkki) writes:
>     I guess the PC crowd has become brain damaged by being exposed
>     too long to MsDos (and thinking it is an example of a real
>     OS).
>
>Well, I'm a brain damaged part of the PC crowd then.  Look you need
>to explain what additional *functionality* you get for 30 MB.  If
>it is enough (multi-tasking/threading, no 640k ram barrier) then
>it is worth it.  Users don't *care* what the operating system is,
>they want to work with their applications.  If better applications
>can be written in OS/2 than in DOS (better from a users perspective
>not a programmers perspective) then they will want to use them (as
>long as they don't have to sacrifice their $1,000-5,000 software
>investment).
>
>Frank Fujita

OK, sorry... But basically you yourself explained a few of the 'additional-
functionality' that comes with OS/2. For more, just read the posts in here.

Basically, I guess I just find it incredible, and frustrating, every time
I hear the "Ohmigod! 30MB! No way I'll ever buy _that_!" argument. I mean,
look, if you want a real OS, it's bound  to take some space on your drive!
After all, we've seen GAMES that require more than 20MB (WC2) so *why*
is it so shocking to see an OS require 30MB?? I really don't understand.

A few months back, my dept. bought a new SPARC, and I'm the administrator;
I installed SunOS, (there's a _real_ OS; no flames...), it required
almost 200MB. Sure, I'll admit unix has a lot more tools included in
the system, but the point is, you CANNOT get a real OS that fits in
2 or 3 360K diskettes, as the people who have grown up with msdos seem to
believe.

I think this is extremely frustrating, because I just know many people
will be turned down from OS/2 by this silly argument.

Jyri - DoD#561 - j_virkki@rummat3.upr.clu.edu


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: choup@bionette.CGRB.ORST.EDU (Ping Chou -- Biochemistry and Biophysics)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: generic scsi support
Date: 16 Apr 92 05:14:31 GMT
Organization: Biological Computing Consortium, OSU, Corvallis, OR.

In article <it1.703325984@Isis.MsState.Edu> it1@ra.msstate.edu (Tim Tsai) writes:
>  Can anyone elaborate the generic scsi support on OS/2 2.0 GA?  From
>what I've read about it, sounds like IBM is calling the BIOS routines??
>What does this do to performance?  Just curious.  Thanks.
>


       Are you sure PC BIOS or PS/2 ABIOS knows anything about SCSI?
       I would say it is a protection ring 1 device drive. Just guess.

Ping
Organization: Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Vienna, Austria
Date: Wednesday, 15 Apr 1992 17:47:19 WUT
From: FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: YACR (Yet Another Cron Request)

Try ATRGF on file-servers. It is completely (almost) written in REXX.

There will be a REXX-only version taking advantage of 32bit REXX-
functions.

---rony
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Norton desktop on OS/2-WIN shell?
Date: 7 Apr 92 02:32:04 GMT
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.misc
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago

In article <1992Apr7.125821.7290@waikato.ac.nz> keeley@waikato.ac.nz writes:
>	Does anyone know if Nortons desktop can be installed on the OS/2-WIN
>shell.  I dont really like windows 3.0 or even 3.1's UI very much.  I am
>running OS/2 2.0 beta and expect my real copy in a few weeks.  Any help would
>be much appreciated.

I believe there should be no problem.  There may be some utilities
which try to do direct sector read/writes (e.g. undelete?) which may
not operate (OS/2 2.0 provides undelete itself), but otherwise it
should work OK.

But I should point out that OS/2 2.0 provides the Workplace Shell
which goes beyond Norton Desktop (and even the Mac) in terms of
paradigm.  You can deal with this shell for tasks you'd normally do in
Norton Desktop while using Windows only at the application level, in
effect.

It is sort of like asking whether you can use Adobe Type Manager for
Windows under OS/2 2.0.  The answer is yes, but OS/2 2.0 ships with
Adobe Type Manager for both Windows and OS/2, so you really don't need
to worry about installing a replacement type manager.  Ditto for a
shell -- OS/2 2.0 comes with a nice one.
-- 
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: dwl@watson.ibm.com (David W. Levine)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: TCP/IP and X-Windows
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:12:19 GMT
Reply-To: dwl@watson.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In article <gdoucett.23@gdoucette.stfx.ca>, gdoucett@gdoucette.stfx.ca
(G. Doucette) writes:
|> 
|> What TCP/IP and X-Windows packages are available for OS/2?
|> 
|> Gary
|> 
|> | Gary Doucette                     E-Mail:     doucette@phoeniX.StFX.Ca |
|> |                                   Telephone:  (902) 867-2275           |
|> | Unix Systems Manager              Fax:        (902) 867-5153           |
|> | CC, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, NS, CANADA, B2G 1C0     |

IBM sells a complete TCP/IP package. You get all the basics (FTP, LPD,
telnet, rexecd) you can also get NFS, Kerberos, and a X11R4 server. 


David W. Levine      -- IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
dwl@watson.ibm.com   -- (914) 784-7427 

My Opinions, IBM's hardware. --
From: Jyri.Virkki@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Jyri Virkki)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: os2 and dos both single tasking?
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:40:19 GMT
Reply-To: j_virkki@upr2.clu.net
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

>>With unix, I can  'ps' to see processes, even in single-user mode.  It 
>>has swapper/scheduler processes.  Can I see this in os/2 if PM is not 
>>running?
>
>Yes.  Use the PSTAT command.

This brings the following question: Can I do (in OS/2) something like:

> bcc my_huge_program &
> qmodem			(gotta try to keep up with news!)

In other words can I do all my multitasking from a single text window, or
would I need to open 2 windows, and do the compile in one and start qm
in the other?

Jyri J. Virkki - DoD#561 - j_virkki@upr2.clu.net

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Organization: European Academic Research Network
Date: Saturday, 11 Apr 1992 15:43:40 GMT
From: Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: SVGA blurb in GA README
 <19920410.070659.19@almaden.ibm.com>
 <1992Apr10.172816.814@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>


This is what README file says about SVGA support with OS/2:

"The base video system and virtual device driver in OS/2 2.0 have been
enabled for some of the most popular SVGA chips and boards. This
support is required to switch between PM and DOS or WIN-OS2 applications.
Because of the many implementations and video modes, a limited number
of video boards have been tested. The following SVGA boards have been
teste and found to work with OS/2 2.0 for DOS applications that make use
of SVGA modes:

  -> Orchid Prodesigner IIs (ISA and MCA)
  -> Trident TVGA by Trident (8900b and c levels)
  -> STB PowerGraph VGA by STB systems
  -> Video 7 VRAM II,
  -> Boca Super VGA by Boca,
  -> VGA Wonder XL series.

.the readme file goes to talk about 8514 Ultra ATI..  -turgut
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Help with Bootmanager
From: cvadr014@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
Date: 14 Apr 92 01:35:00 PST
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Nntp-Posting-User: cvadr014

I'm having a devil of a time getting bootmanager installed correctly. 


	I'm starting from a blank unpartitioned drive, and what i'd like to
end up with is a bootable fat partition, and a bootable hpfs, but, i'd 
like to be able to see the fat under GA. So far, what i've managed to come 
up with is a bootable fat, and a bootable hpfs, but the hpfs doesn't see the
fat partition, or, a bootable hpfs wich sees the fat, but, the fat is not
bootable, in that case, i had made the fat an extended-logical partition, and
hence, i didn't exepect it to boot. 

	Anyways, does anyone know their way around bootmanager? I'm a little 
lost......
 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-
Nick Steel						Lowly Comp Sci Major
California State Polytechnic University, Pomonaa
Internet: cvadr014@csupomona.edu	Snail: 22 University Dr #110
Bell Net: (714)-468-1135		       Pomona, CA, 91768
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization: Little, if any.
X-Mac-Bust:   The Best Way To accelerate a Macintoy is at 9.8m/s^2
Date: Sunday, 12 Apr 1992 00:05:23 EDT
From: Charles Fee <CXF111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Stacker and OS/2 2.0
 <1992Apr5.075310.14381@news.Hawaii.Edu> <1992Apr6.222734.3070@borland.com>
 <1992Apr12.033933.19104@ra.msstate.edu>

In article <1992Apr12.033933.19104@ra.msstate.edu>, jtq1@ra.msstate.edu (Jim
Quinlan) says:
>
>>Don't ask me what they mean when they talk about OS/2 2.0 beta
>>testers, but it sounds like good news for all of us who are facing
>>losing half of our hard disk moving from DOS and Stacker to OS/2 2.0.
>
>What about those that have those great big drives? (>100MEG)  It would
>make the system into a monster!

Amen!
My 130 meg drive = 225-250 with stacker :-)

I can't wait to stac-a-tize my HD for 2.0
Stac renewed my faith in them when I heard the news.
Stacker is by far the greatest utility program ever. With a good cache, it
is almost as fast as my hard drive normally is, but it is 1.8 - 2 times larger
---
Charles A. Fee                           I'd Rather Be FTPing...
cxf111@psuvm.psu.edu