HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jurlwin@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU (Jeff Urlwin)
Subject: Re: Why OS/2 will DEFINITELY fail
Organization: University of Maine, Department of Computer Science
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 16:53:44 GMT

In article <1gstj7INN2ob@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> gupw@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Paul Wagland) writes:
>os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.) writes:
>
>>In <1992Dec14.032648.4550@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>
>>>When OS/half 2.0 was in beta, there weren't any apps. But take a look
>>>at the announcements of many companies, e.g. Borland, they promised to
>>>have their C++ ready <12 weeks after the release date of NT. I wonder,
>>>if their C++ Compiler for OS/2 will be out then.
>
>>Yeah, just like they announced that their C++ compiler would be available
>>for OS/2 2.0 in 4Q 1991, right?  Touche...
>
>Unfortunately, it probably will be released very soon after NT is,
>because they will have already done all the hard stuff getting a 32-bit
>compiler to work (under OS/2).  It should then be a reasonably easy
>matter to then port that over NT.  So you will have the main code
>producing engine in place, all you have to create then is the header
>files and other such NT stuff.  However just because the compiler comes
>out quicker for NT (which, as I said, it _should_) doesn't mean that
>they are *GOING* to support NT over OS/2.  

I believe that they currently have an Early Experience Program (EEP) for
NT currently (which is what they have for OS/2, also).  I would think
that they'll actually be ready for NT before it gets released, judging
from what people are saying about NT stability...

Of course, MS could change some major stuff at the end...

Jeff


-- 
--------------------------------------
jurlwin@gandalf.umcs.maine.edu
From: Mahoney@emdisle.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Mahoney)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Correction
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 01:21:28 PDT
Organization: The Emerald Isle BBS, Tucson, AZ (602) 749-8638

In a message of <Dec 10 11:45> (Brian Sturgill) writes to All:

>Also, I thought HPFS32 or whatever comes in the networking package
>had many of the features that NTFS had.

 BS>It does not have local security or Unicode file names.

   LAN Server Advanced, which is the implementation vehicle for HPFS386, the 32-bit implementation of HPFS, has had local security for the last two releases. Both LS 2.0 and LS 3.0 implement local security. This machine is running OS/2 2.0 with LS 3.0. It's here.

--- msgedsq/2 2.1
 * Origin: The Emerald Isle * Tucson, AZ. (602) 749-8638 (1:300/14)
--  
Mike Mahoney - via FidoNet node 1:300/14
UUCP: uunet...!noao!coyote!emdisle!Mahoney
INTERNET: Mahoney@emdisle.FIDONET.ORG
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT is missing something major: OS/2 32-bit compatibility
Date: 14 Dec 92 20:16:46 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:
>In article <2b29ae56@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org> Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org writes:
>>
>>OS/2 2.x in some version past 2.1 will probably be able to run Win32s
>>applications as IBM is rumored to have started work on this a few
>>months ago.
>>I don't believe they made an "official" announcement yet, however.  I
>>don't believe that Microsoft has made an "official" announcement about
>>Win32s final ship date yet, either, but we all know that its coming,
>>right?

>An "official" announcement about the *existence* of a project is far
>different from an "official" announcement about the *ship date* of a
>product.  Just because we all know Win32s is coming, don't even try
>to extrapolate that into your statement that "OS/2 2.x will be able
>to run Win32s applications".

>Now back to your rumor:  Where did you read it/see it?  Was it "A friend
>in IBM development told me..." or was it "I saw someone post on the net
>that..."?  I'm not trying to shoot this down since it would be great
>if it existed, but there are various technical reasons why it would be
>pretty difficult.

Perhaps similar to the technical reasons why it would be pretty difficult
to get seamless Win apps on OS2 PM - which they did. MS had WLO, and we
know how well that worked. 


-- 
Tom Hatton
hatton@cgl.ucsf.edu
(415)-476-7986
From: pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com (Peter Mayne)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why OS/2 will DEFINITELY fail
Date: 15 Dec 92 01:04:30 GMT
Reply-To: Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <OLAVT.92Dec14103433@ulrik.uio.no>, olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund) writes:

>MS has choosen to market NT as a high end Windows 3.1. It can be a
>dangerous strategy if NT cannot run all the programs that 3.1 can run,
>plus de added NT features. The market will be confused if the most
>advanced version cannot run all programs.

I sincerely hope and trust that NT will *NOT* run all DOS/Windows programs.
As an NT system administrator, I do not want an ordinary user running a DOS
disk utility and reading/writing disks directly. Neither do I want a Windows
program spying on messages being passed to other users' processes.

>Olav Torvund
>University of Oslo
>Norway
>Olavt@jus.uio.no

PJDM
--
Peter Mayne                     | My statements, not Digital's.
Digital Equipment Corporation   |
Canberra, ACT, Australia        | "AXP!": Bill the Cat
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.1 specifications, release date.
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:10:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.142447.5318@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> ucgadkw@ucl.ac.uk (Dominik Wujastyk) writes:
>
>>>In article <3500@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:
>>>>Here the official specs of OS/2 2.1 directly from IBM:
>>>>
>>>>- more printer drivers
>>>>- Windows 3.1 support
>>>>- native Windows 3.1 performance with 8Mb RAM machines
>>>>- improved performance for low memory configurations
>>>>- 32bit graphics engine
>>>>- multimedia support
>>>>- portable PC support
>>>>- CD-ROM version
>
>In another posting somewhere (!) I read that 2.1 would include DPMI support.
>Is that so?

OS/2 already has DPMI 0.9 support.  If you mean DPMI support in WinOS/2,
I would imagine that the possibility of running enhanced mode apps would
mean there will be Windows DPMI support.

I don't believe it is certain yet that WinOS/2 3.1 will run enhanced mode apps
though.  Anyone know for sure?

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: OS/2 stopped selling
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:25:12 GMT

In article <2b2dd314@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org> George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org writes:
> Speaking of EggHead, I recently recieved an Egghead Christmas 
>flyer about two weeks ago and surprisingly enough they were
>advertising
>OS/2 2.0. 6 months ago my local store was giving a flat "no" when
>asked
>if they were going to sell OS/2 2.0. (at least they said no to me)
>
> It was pointed out that in the whole flyer, the OS/2 ad was the
>only one in black and white. I can't verify, since I threw the flyer
>away after a few days. 


	The copy I recieved was in color (green and red and such
	along the lines of the rest of the ad..).  It was one page, and
	there were no applications for OS/2 in the rest of the flyer.
 
	Still, it was nice to see it.  Two of the three eggheads I've
	visited since I got it (~mid to early november--at least a week
	before Thanksgiving) didn't have OS/2 in stock, but one had a 
	few copies.  
 
	OTOH, to put it in perspective, Windows for Workgroups got
	two pages in the same flyer, and Windows 3.1 got another one
	or two (not sure--I think they had the "upgrade" listed seperately).


-- 
	"If you can't eat sand, why the hell are you living in a desert?"

	     Rule 1:  "Don't have more children than you can feed."
	  	  Nuclear redevelopment for a better world!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: WINOS2 bites (was Re: Windows NT humor)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 12:57:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.063309.42535@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>>       So?  Win3.0 was a piece of garbage.  Does that make
>>       a piece of slow garbage that's a little faster some
>>       kind of impressive thing?
>>
>So?  Win3.1 is a slightly faster piece of garbage.  Does that...  You get my
>point?


	Win31 was enough better that it went from stupid, useless 
	to stupid, more useful than DOS.  You get my point?



-- 
 Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?          
 Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?  
 ---"I despise mystics, they fancy themselves so deep, when they----
 ----aren't even superficial"    --Nietzsche   ---------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: ATI support of OS/2
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 08:34:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.061904.23697@netcom.com> samiam@netcom.com (Scott Moore) writes:
>The salesman at Comdex may have not been well informed, but I was told that
>ATI is doing *ZIP* about ultra pro drivers for os/2 2.0, but only distributing
>IBM written code. They were showing it off right next to their brand new (ATI 
>written) NT driver.
>
>Scott A. Moore [SAM]  | "Cash is more 

On CompuServe, someone from ATI said they were working on Ultra Pro
drivers and were targeting 2nd Quarter '93.  They were "thinking about"
or "looking at" doing drivers for the VGA Wonder cards.  By the way, a
great many people on CompuServe are very very pissed at ATI.

     - Mike
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: bjorn@ludd.luth.se (Bjorn Fahller)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Discovered: Microsoft using undocumented calls in Windows NT
Date: 13 Dec 92 17:53:24 GMT
Organization: Lule} Tekniska H|gskolas Datorf|rening - Ludd

In <1992Dec13.170014.6114@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>In article <1992Dec13.115359.2369@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
[well, both writes quite a lot, as a matter of fact]
Why can't you move your mutual flaming to e-mail and spare the rest of us the
details?
   _
/Bjorn.
-- 
Bjorn Fahller     Phone:              |The opinions above are not necessarily
Trollnasvagen 3A  Intl:+46 920 226870 |those of... Hey! Wait a minute. Do you
S-951 61 Lulea    Natl:0920-22 68 70  |seriously expect Me, a student, to carry
Sweden            << space for rent >>|the official voice of the University?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: NT - it ain't got Novell either....
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:23:33 GMT

In <1992Dec14.012748.9226@sequent.com> furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod) writes:

>In article <1992Dec11.200707.7580@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>>In article <2b24f878@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org> Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org writes:
>>> 
>>> Novell NetWare support for OS/2 2.0 was shown many months before OS/2
>>> 2.0 shipped, also.  So there's no reason to think that Novell is doing
>>> anything more for NT than they did for OS/2 2.0.
>>
>>Hmmm. You've missed the start of this thread, it seems. MS - had it played
>>fair with Novell - might well have been able to ship Netware support with NT. 
>> 
>>Now they can't. Or maybe I'm confused. Perhaps the issue is that they were
>>never allowed to in the first place....but tried to.
>> 
>>Yeah....that would be right.
>> 
>>Steve
>>

>As it is my understanding, Novell would not have let them without
>some pound of flesh given in compensation. Ray Noorda wants to
>play Great White Father to the unwashed in networking, and
>Microsoft distributing IPX code with their platforms would ruin his
>Napoleanic dream.

Yeah, how dare he expect compensation for stuff that is his property.
Who the hell does he think is and Novell are, Bill Gates and
Microsoft?  The NERVE of some people!

>But, Microsoft did sign the agreements with Novell to perform, and
>they should be held to those agreements, fair or otherwise.

Yeah, poor Microsoft.  

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: More Controversial Topics
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:31:12 GMT

In article <Mf=0hT600iUxI4Poh2@andrew.cmu.edu> sl31+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen M. Lacy) writes:
>incorporate multiple processors.  If you think that you're going to be
>able to put more than one of today's 486 in a future SMP machine, you're
>wrong.  Yeah, they exist, but I bet they won't for long.  SMP is not an


	Agreed.  But there's alpha SMP machines out there, without
	the compatibility problems that wreak so much havoc
	with trying to get an Intel SMP system.


>operating system problem, its a hardware problem.  


	Agreed.  


>think that IBM can make a version of OS/2 1.3 that's SMP but not make
>2.0 SMP?  Did you ever think that they run on a base of mostly the same
>code?  Gotcha.


	IBM hasn't made an SMP version of 1.3.  The version of 1.3 that
	runs on the 295 is asymetric--i.e. one of the processors handles
	*strictly* the lan, the other handles the OS.  Neither can help
	the other out.  


-- 
	"If you can't eat sand, why the hell are you living in a desert?"


	Nuclear redevelopment for a better world!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mgrice@athena.mit.edu (Matthew Grice)
Subject: Taking Crap from uSoft Telemarketers
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 23:39:18 GMT

Boy, I am glad I dont have a videophone.  This way I can't actually see 
the dirty looks that uSoft Telemarketing people give me over the phone
when I mention os/2.

Me:  Got any recent releases for OS/2?
Her: [dirty look]
     [Statement to the effect of no]
Me:  [statement to the effect of 'planning to get your butt in gear soon?']
Her: [dirty look]
     [statement to the effect of no]
Me:  [Thanks anyway]
     [dirty look]
Her: You bet
     [curses after the phone hangs up]

And then I call Company X, a well known sound board and multimedia type 
company that has sold out to Microsoft (who hasn't?)

Me:  [Statement to the effect of 'you got drivers for os/2 for your crap yet?']
Her: You mean MicroChannel, right?
Me:  No, I mean the operating system
Her: We have drives and boards that fit MicroChannel.
Me:  No, No, No.  DrivERS for OS/2
Her: [statement to the effect of 'I dont know anything']
Me:  Thanks
Her: You bet

People have to learn what os/2 is before they support it, and that better
happen soon.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: OS/2 2.0 XR06055 ---> OS/2 2.01.
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:52:31 GMT

In article <3500@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:
> Here the official specs of OS/2 2.1 directly from IBM:
> 
> - more printer drivers
> - Windows 3.1 support
> - native Windows 3.1 performance with 8Mb RAM machines
> - improved performance for low memory configurations
> - 32bit graphics engine
> - multimedia support
> - portable PC support
> - CD-ROM version
> 
> [please notice the Win31 performance and the MultiMedia, thanx IBM!]
> 
> OS/2 2.1 will be released end february, begin march 1993.

My contact at IBM says the the GA+SP (OS/2 2.0 XR06055) is likely to be
released as OS/2 2.01.....
 
I asked why not 2.1 (from a marketing P.O.V. this might be "better")? 

He said that it would only be called 2.1 "if it warranted it."
 
Whatever that means. I assume that there are clearluy defined criteria chosing
version numbers and that these would be applied to OS/2 as with any other
product.
 
Insights, anyone?
 
Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
+64 4 478 4714                          | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rom@cci632.cci.com (Rudynell S. Millian)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0
Organization: [Computer Consoles, Inc., Rochester, NY
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:58:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.142858.29060@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tujf@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Jay F. Tu) writes:
>
>I am rather annoyed by the boasting about Window NT which is not
>on the market.  And I certainly don't think Microsoft represents
>the future of software industry.  I do believe those major software
>developers (Lotus, Borland, etc.) should abandon windows and jump on
>OS/2 because they are help Microsoft to bury themselves.  This fact
>can be seen that Microsoft is the only company making money from     
		^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Windows products.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	It certianly seems to be that way. I think you might have stumbled upon
a pretty good strategy here. Borland, Wordperfect, Lotus are all in bad shape,
mainly because of Microsoft. According to PC Mag's list of best selling 
software ( first January '93 issue ), 8 of the top 15 products are MS products.

	If it is true that the software makes the operating system, then 
it makes good business sense for the big three to gradually shift resources 
to OS/2 2.x products, and away from Windows products. Being that OS/2 offers
technical advantages over Windows, the native OS/2 2.x applications are
bound to be more powerful. The end result will be that interest will shift
from MS prodocts to OS/2 products, boosting OS/2's share of the market and 
the profit margins for the big three. The big three will be free to compete
fairly among themselves, since IBM will concentrate on developing OS/2 2.x,
leaving the application development to application developers.
	So how will NT fit in this scenario? DOS users, which currently form
the largest market segment, will find that it is far less expensive to 
migrate to OS/2 2.x than to NT. OS/2 2.x's ability to run most existing DOS
applications will protect their investment. Most Windows users will go with
NT, because MS will most likely make it dirt cheap for them to do so.

R. Millian
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,rec.humor
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Sample MS Windows NT Ad
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:10:08 GMT
X-Disclaimer:  This is meant only in humor.  Please do not take it seriously.
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla
Originator: ckincy@mcs213f.cs.umr.edu

I have it.  The MS Windows NT ad that will sell millions of copies!

--- CUT HERE ---

Introducing the latest in Operating Systems technology!!

[24 point]  
WINDOWS[R] NT[tm] 3.1[tm].


Windows            [Because it's Windows.  Duh.]
NT                 [Novell Technology.]
3.1                [Really 1.0, but 3.1 so we don't have to pay Novell.]


Yours for the incredibly low price of:

$1499              [Because the judge didn't see it that way.]

[24 point]
MICROSOFT
Making it easier.[tm]

cpk

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

[for those humor-impaired *ahem* people in Washington *ahem*]
From: ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: \* IBM's OS/2 2.0 Scores Big \*
Date: 15 Dec 92 15:57:18 GMT
 <1992Dec11.222751.22817@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Organization: Forschungszentrum Juelich

In article <1992Dec11.222751.22817@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu
(Brian Sturgill) says:
>>       15 million copies of previous versions shipped
>
>        No, there are approximately 12-15 million _true_ users.  Windows
>        has shipped far more than 15 million copies.
>        new copies just for it.

Huh ?? There is a previous version of NT ???
You mean really a previous version of NT ???

Ah, I see. Since MS calls it Windows NT 3.1 there must be 3.0 and 2.0 and...

BTW: I have some bridges you might be interested in...

Why oh why did IBM decide to call it OS/2 2.0? Why didn't they call it
PC-DOS 6.0 or maybe 20.0 or at least DOS/2 ?
Then we could say:
    DOS/2 :  80 million (or so) copies of previous version shipped.

But they were stupid or they didn't think their users are stupid, who knows.

Michael Bode.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jdickins@mcs213i.cs.umr.edu (James Dickinson)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.1 specifications, release date.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:14:11 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

In article <1992Dec15.021802.26935@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>In article <3500@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:
>>Here the official specs of OS/2 2.1 directly from IBM:
>>
>>- more printer drivers
>>- Windows 3.1 support
>>- native Windows 3.1 performance with 8Mb RAM machines
>>- improved performance for low memory configurations
>>- 32bit graphics engine
>>- multimedia support
>>- portable PC support
>>- CD-ROM version
>>
>>[please notice the Win31 performance and the MultiMedia, thanx IBM!]
>>
>>OS/2 2.1 will be released end february, begin march 1993.
>
>
>Cool!  Thanks Nico.
>
>Ted

What about 32-bit 8514/A Drivers?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: 5692330@mcimail.com  (Robert Gammon)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0
Nntp-Software: PC/TCP NNTP
Organization: Texas Instruments Materials and Controls Group
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:37:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.142858.29060@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tujf@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Jay F. Tu) writes:

 >> I support OS/2 2.0.  Although I am not an advanced user, but
 >> I can claim myself as an OS/2 veteran since I bought OS/2
 >> the first day it was on the market.  Since then I have
 >> installed OS/2 on two different clones: one 386 and one 486/50.

[stuff deleted]

Welcome to the club.  Be cautious about claiming to be an OS/2 veteran.
This group contains several people who have been using OS/2 2.0 for up to
a year before it was released (I only go back to late summer '91), and
people who participated in the beta-tests of OS/2 1.0 (my hand is raised).
No flames or putdowns intended.  We welcome your comments and your advocacy.
Among the people in your immediate work area, you may indeed be a veteran.
Suck all the information you can out of all of us so that you do become
an advanced user that others can turn to for help.

--
Regards,
Robert Gammon
(713)-274-3299       (voice)
(713)-274-2324       (fax)

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy