HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 w/o WPS
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 21:19:47 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug22.060605.29426@fcom.cc.utah.edu>  msm9891@cc.utah.edu (MICHAEL STEPHEN MERRELL) writes:
> > Well, I  can run  OS/2 without  Excel. Can  you tell  me how
> > to run OS/2 without WPS?
>
>      You can set something in the config file that allows you
> to run OS/2 strictly from the CLI.  I'd tell you what the command is,
> but I'm too lazy to sort through the clutter on my desk to find it.

As pointed out in the FAQ, you can set RUNWORKPLACE in your CONFIG.SYS
to point to CMD.EXE.  Or, for even more fun, try the following:

1.  Create a PROFILE.ERX in your PATH or EPMPATH that contains the following:

/* EPM profile */
'buildsubmenu default 1990 Shell 0 0'
'buildmenuitem default 1990 1991 OS/2_Window      0 0 cmd /c start /win'
'buildmenuitem default 1990 1992 OS/2_Full_Screen 0 0 cmd /c start /fs'
'buildmenuitem default 1990 1993 -                4 0'
'buildmenuitem default 1990 1994 DOS_Window       0 0 cmd /c start /win /dos'
'buildmenuitem default 1990 1995 DOS_Full_Screen  0 0 cmd /c start /fs /dos'
'buildmenuitem default 1990 1996 -                4 0'
'buildmenuitem default 1990 1997 Win-OS/2         0 0 cmd /c start /fs /dos' ,
                                                                  '/c WINOS2'
'showmenu default'

2.  Turn on the Rexx profile in EPM by entering PROFILE ON on the EPM
command line, then selecting Options / Save Options.

3.  Edit your CONFIG.SYS and change the line:
   SET RUNWORKPLACE=D:\OS2\PMSHELL.EXE
to
   SET RUNWORKPLACE=D:\OS2\APPS\EPM.EXE
(where D: is the drive on which you installed OS/2).

Now reboot, and you'll have EPM (the Enhanced Editor) as the
replacement for the WPS, and a Shell menu item that corresponds
with the Command Prompts folder in the OS/2 System folder.

If you want, you can add other programs to the pulldown.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: spexet@engin.umich.edu (Dennis Robert Spexet)
Subject: TeX an archaic religion? 
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 06:12:14 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: world 

In article <1992Aug17.162631.26015@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu> rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:
>   For Mathematical typesetting, Framemaker is current technology,
>   TeX is an archaic 'religion' whose mantra of 'only/best mathematical
>   typesetting system' no longer rings true.

Maybe it "no longer rings true" at your site, but it sure as hell seems to
at this site, and at the other sites I've been at.  The situation may be dif-
ferent for scientists and engineers.  For mathematicians, however, the stan-
dard appears to be TeX, whether you like it or not.  As for the "current tech-
nology", I don't see the AMS (and the math journals) telling mathematicians
to submit their papers in Frame format.  I *do*, however, see them telling
people to submit AMS-TeX documents.

Now, it would certainly be nice if everyone ran Framemaker, because it's a
damn nice program.  However, to say that TeX is merely a "religion" is simply
not the case.

-- 
D. Robert Spexet II, N0OKR   Internet:  spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu
Department of Mathematics    BITnet:    user68xr@umichum.bitnet
The University of Michigan   UUCP:      uunet!mailrus!math.lsa.umich.edu!spexet
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:11:27 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Aug20.114708.10698@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>I use 800x600x256 on my 14" monitor. I tried the 1024x768x256 drivers, but the
>icons were too small to see.

A notable problem with Windows not supporting icons larger than 32x32.
There are smaller icons for CGA (32x16, to keep the proprtions), but
nothing larger.  This is odd, since Windows drivers use larger fonts
at higher resolutions - they should do the same for icons.

An OS/2 driver can specify a larger icon size - icons will be scaled
up if the size isn't available.  IBM's 1024x768 driver uses 40x40
icons, making them large enough to use properly at that res.  still
higher resolutions may use larger icons - there exist many 64x64 and
80x80 icons in applications (at least in Excel 3.0 - I found them
there) for use in high-res displays or to keep the image smooth when
displaying it larger than normal sizes.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Release dates ( was Re: superVGA (and misc top-blowing)
Date: 19 Aug 92 01:37:50 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Aug18.072226.11476@msc.cornell.edu> maynard@esther.msc.cornell.edu (Maynard J. Handley) writes:
...
>
>Alright, a simple test. Suppose you include the example I gave, _italic
>text_ then roman. Will this latest version of winword know about italic
>correction so that the italic doesn't bump into the roman? Will it vary the
>italic correction
>depending on the italic text?
No, but then neither does TeX, in both cases you specify that the correction
should be done. In Word it done using the Kerning features, in TeX
you put a \/ after the word that needs the italic correction.
In Word, you decide the size of the italic correction; in TeX, Donald Knuth
dictates the size.
>
>Maynard Handley

Brian
From: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: what crash...
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:46:37 EST
Reply-To: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

In message <1992Aug11.190655.27153#microsoft.com>, craigdo@microsoft.com
(Craig Dowell) writes:

CD>It's been a while since I played with the WPS, but arent the applications
CD>you run under the WPS children of the shell?  Aren't they killed when
CD>the shell dies?

Yes, they  are children  of the  shell, and  they _should_  die when the
shell croaks,  but not  always. Often,  some threads  will "escape", and
take on a life of their own (or maybe unlife, since we're talking  about
zombie processes).

CD>Doesn't this mean I loose work when the shell dies?  I look at it as
CD>more of a binary thing:  If I don't loose work, I'm happy.  If I loose
CD>work I'm not happy.  I consider these arguments regarding how much of
CD>the system is crashing, specious.  Telling me that this box is better
CD>because the kernel keeps running, essentially "yes, you lost that six
CD>hours work, but look at this, your download of mandog.gif is still
CD>running" is bizarre.

I agree  totally. This  is the  point that  I was  making. Talking about
OS/2's "crash proof" architecture, and then dismissing repeated  crashes
as "oh, that's  the shell, OS/2's  still running" is  specious, at best.
When I was working at IBM I had to repeatedly point out that other  than
the actual developers, nobody CARES  if the kernel is still  running and
your onscreen clock survives after the application locks the input queue
and your system ignores system input.

CD>I can understand keeping applications away from one another, so that
CD>an app cannot kill the shell or other apps.  I can't understand this
CD>explaining away WPS crashes.  It doesn't matter whether its DOS - Windows
CD>or OS/2 - WPS, the _combination_ must be reliable -- as the original
CD>poster mentions.  (The aps must be considered in this too, but this
CD>is an os group after all)

Yup. The problem  now is that  WPS is still  unstable, so therefore  the
entire OS is unstable. The chain is only as strong as the weakest  link,
etc. etc...

----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.com
Software Consulting and Gator Pit | Eradicate Hunger - Eat the homeless
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
---
  SLMR 2.1a  Psychics will lead dogs to your body.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: unruh@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh)
Subject: Re: It's OK for Windows to crash. It's not OK for OS/2 to crash.
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:19:57 GMT

bill@snoopy (Bill Poitras) writes:

>Daniel P. B. Smith (dpbsmith@world.std.com) wrote:
>: On the VAX, RS/1 and Word-11 and Oracle and my stuff could do stuff wrong
>: and it still didn't crash the OS BECAUSE THE OS WAS RIGHT.  If OS/2 has
>: ANY claim to being a "real OS," it just shouldn't be possible for an
>: ORDINARY crufty ill-behaved application to crash it.

>You mean to tell me VMS 1.0 NEVER CRASHED?  Unix SVR1 NEVER CRASHED?
Actually, one critical difference is that on most of those multiuser
systems you are not working on the console. In OS2, the console is all
there is. So if a program screws up and takes over the console,
everything could be running fine and well protected off the screen, and
there is no way to get atthe operating system. If the console crashes on
any of those "good" systems, it's bye bye just as with OS2. Another

argument for multiuser?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: unruh@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh)
Subject: Re: What crash is a bad crash (was Re: pc week and nt)
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: comp
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:08:27 GMT

craigdo@microsoft.com (Craig Dowell) writes:

>In article <BsqBvC.54J@chinet.chi.il.us> orac@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Giovacchini) writes:
>>
>>	I too can take the WPS out if I wish.  Rememebr the WPS
>> is a PM application.  When the WPS goes down, PM and OS/2 still are
>> functioning.  When Windows goes down, it takes the OS with it.  So,
>> OS/2 and PM are very stable, its the application-GUI-WPS that has
>> a bad day every so often.  :-)  So, say you are running a comm
>> program, the WPS does a "Phoenix", your session is still running.

>If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you perceive a
>continuum of "crash severity." And that if the primary user interface
>of your machine crashes this is somehow towards the "not too severe"
>side?


I know that PM survives even with a crashed WPS, or even with a crashed
program. Thro trouble is of course that if the program has the keyboard,
I don't know how yu can communicate with OS2 to tell it to clean up the
mess. On a unix machine you can get in through the network, or an
attached terminal often and clean up the console mess. On OS2, since
they rarely have terminals or networks, how do you tell OS2? It needs
some
emergency link to bring up a mini command session so that you can talk
to it. I know ctrl-esc is suposed to do it, but I have only had that be
of help once in a crash. At othertimes OS2 will bring up a "xxx not
responding. Press enter(button) to abort the program, and when I do
nothing happens. It needs a more foolproof emergency out.
Bill Unruh
unruh@physics.ubc.ca
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2, DOS, NT (Speculative) -- My Opinions
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:53:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: hellgate.1992Aug19.165357.11271
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Aug18.223908.2510@datascope.com> jld@datascope.com (Jay L. Davis) writes:
>
>Well, yes. Except most people don't charge for pre-alpha software.
>Of course, if people will pay for it, why not? Why are people 
>falling for this? I won't.
>
>---Jay Davis
>


I'm getting a bit hot under the collar about people like you... GET THIS
THROUGH YOUR HEAD!

When you pay that $69+$20 ***, you get for that cost, and that cost alone
the following:

	Product			pre-beta*	beta*	commercial release
	Windows NT		Yes		Yes	Yes
	Windows NT SDK		Yes		Yes	Yes
	Windows NT MS C/C++ 7.0	Yes		Yes	No **

* There may be multiple versions shiped of these, especially the beta.
** The final C++ will be a supported product though, besides what do you
	expect for $90 bucks?
*** OS/2 developers can get it for $39+$20.

The same holds true for the $399 version that comes with printed docs.

Microsoft is giving developers an excellent deal here, why can't you just
accept that fact?  If you don't like the fact that IBM doesn't compete
with it, tell IBM, I'll gladly provide you with appropriate phone numbers.
Certainly I've told them, and while everybody there seems to agree
it's a problem, I see no signs they're about to change.

(While in the IBM EEP, I paid about $500 for the compiler and OS,
$450 for the DOCS, and the in the end had to buy all but the OS...
the final version of the compiler was $700 (street price) and I didn't
bother getting new docs, as the $300 they had reduced them too was still
way to high.)

If you want to do Windows 3.X programming, $139 buys the compiler ($229 list).
Another $150 buys as many docs as what IBM charges $300 for now.
Conceivably MS may want to charge more for the NT final product (though
not necessarily), but I doubt it will be a problem.  And yes I know about
what Microsoft did with the OS/2 1.X kits... but that was then, and this
is now.

Brian
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: superVGA  (and misc top-blowing)
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 20:02:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.151742.18779@cam-orl.co.uk> thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:
> In article <1992Aug13.080540.17580@actrix.gen.nz>, Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
> |> You said it was shame that you had to buy the hardware to run an OS. I assume
> |> you have a 486/50 with 16megs of RAM and a 200 meg hard drive sitting around
> |> for NT.
> 
> As far as the *facts* are concerned, this is just plain wrong! You can run the
> unoptimised NT SDK in less than this. The final release will be leaner on both
> memory and disc.

OK.....now lets see how this fits in with your comments below.......

> 
> As far as my opinions go, I reckon that you need at least the hardware you
> describe above to run OS/2 2.0 properly. I certainly didn't run it for long on
> my 8Meg 486/33, it was too slow compared to 3.1.

I am running OS/2 on a 386/33 with 8 megs (if my machine always changes, it's
because I work for a PC/software distributor......) and it runs *faster* than
Win3.1 did on the same machine. People who bought those crippled 486/33's
really got soaked. I have seen OS/2 2.0 running *just fine* (ie, slow, but
faster than Windows did) on a 386sx/16MHz. How does this tie in with your "I
can NT on my Wristwatch" assertion above?

> 
> |> Or you can run OS/2 2.0 on a 386sx/20MHz with 6 megs of RAM.
> 
> No thank you! It was a DOG on a 386/25 with cache and 8 megs.

What sort of video card did you have? using the 1024x768x256 resolution will
*look* slow - but that's the video card not OS/2. 

> 
> |> I saw NT today. *BOW WOW* If that's a desktop system, then MVS/XA is the
> |> next step for the desktop!
> 
> Opinions vary. I deleted OS/2 2.0 from my system the day I saw NT running.
> 
> [I was waiting for the June CSD, but there is not much point now]

You gave up a 32-bit OS for one promised for next year? How do you apps run on
a promise?
 
Steve

-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | "But the glory kept shining
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  and bright in my eyes, 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  And the stars going round in 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  my head." R. L. S.
From: rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: WYSIWYG ( was Re: Release dates
Date: 14 Aug 92 22:45:55 GMT
Organization: San Jose State University - Math/CS Dept.

dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:


>In a previous article, brian%jensen.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) says:

>>
>>  > From:  dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
>>  ...
>>  > >apps... to me this in inconceivable... why restrict yourself to
>>  > >Describe, Object Vision and free/shareware.  I find it hard to believe
>>  > >that anyone can't find at least one Microsoft app they really like
>>  > >(I very much like Word and Visual Basic).
>>  > 
>>  > There are a wealth of DOS apps that simple perform better than windows
>>  > apps.  
>>Name a DOS app that does word processing nicer than the WYSIWIG
>>approaches possible under Windows?

>What is WYIWIG?  What you see is what I get?
>            ^

Well, to be honest there are NO (0, nada, none) WYSIWYG or WYSIWIG word
processors under Windows.  Ami Pro 3.0 is very, very close.  WP for 
Windows and W4W 2.0 are quite a bit from it (WP admits it, MS denies it;
for an example see the current Lotus ad for AP 3.0, complete with
comparison screens/printouts).  If you want to see a true WYSIWYG
word-processor, look at WP for NeXT.
:
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Windows NT 'Alpha'
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:01:32 GMT

In <1992Aug17.232651.23471@tamsun.tamu.edu> bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:

>As I read through the posts on this newsgroup, I see many comments
>about the current Windows NT release being an 'Alpha' version.  I
>believe this is a mangling of the term.  In everything I've seen,
>actually quite a bit, the term 'Alpha Test' refers to a controlled
>environment, usually withing the developing organization.  'Beta
>Test' refers to a less controlled environment tested by someone other
>than the original development team.

Quite true.

>By the above definitions, the Windows NT version available on CD-ROM
>is a 'Beta' not an 'Alpha'.  If the code causes a lot of errors (I'm
>not saying it does or dosen't), the definition is not affected.  I
>wonder just what the rationale for calling the Windows NT Beta an
>'Alpha' version is?  In any case I don't thing a (possibly) marketing
>issue should change the definition of established software engineering
>terms. 

Because Microsoft themselves say that it isn't a Beta yet?  A Beta,
after all, would have to include all the functionality that is
supposed to be in the final product (minus some fit & finish stuff).  

>Please, let's call the Windows NT Beta what it is.

Well, it's not a Beta, either.  I believe that Microsoft refers to it
as a 'pre-Beta'.  Now, I don't know about you, but where I come from
the thing that comes before Beta is Alpha.


-- 
"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.
From: yuk@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Yuk Lun Chan)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 09:10:36 GMT
Subject: Re: Distributed Systems (was: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard ISG-SBU-PWD, UK.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy

>comp.os.os2.advocacy / petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) / 11:01 pm  Aug 12, 1992 /

>Simple accounting: use an accounting book.  Keep it in a filing cabinet.
Do you know that there is a lot of customized accounting programs written
in house? A lot of them are character based with simple graphic (ANSI sequcnce).
>wordprocessing: use a typewriter.
A lot of Universities here use terminals, not typewriter.

>education: use teachers
:-) A teacher wrote a diag. of keyboard on the blackboard and say, "boys, if
you press return, something will come up on the screen if you have a computer".

>data input: what kind?
Line after line of say marketing materials.

>Well, I'd like to use technology a little more advanced.  286 machines
>are getting quite cheap these days.  They run windows.  Now your workforce
>would be allowed to use WYSWIG word processing, have a far better UI
>in their word processing, and so on.  Education, now you can use multimedia.

>A few com cards, try 100.  yeuch.  
>How much are dumb terminals.  As I said, 286 boxes are quite cheap also.
>Lan cards are very cheap.  100 LAN licenses are cheap.  
>So the net cost will be a bit more, the net ability of the system, though,
>will be a whole lot more!!!

At least one vmanufacturer has 32 ports com card for PC. What happen if I
already have 100 dumb terminals, thrown them away?

As another netter posted here, a lot of organisations still using a lot of
dump terminals. Most of Universities here in U.K. have large number of
terminal. (The Universities in US may rich enough not to use terminal)

>You give a UNIX system, which will be MAXED out in use.  The users won't be
>able to use anything more complecated.  What if the UNIX box goes down.
>For every hour it is down, you loose 100 man hours of work.  

This is the advantage of Client-server, I agreed.

>With the NT system, You can use most advanced Windows software as it comes
>out.  And when the main box goes down, everyone can continue to work locally.

O.K. Can I still working when all my accessing file dead?

>Let me just remind you that I DID NOT SAY that NT couldn't handle login
>over the serial port from a term.  I only questioned the usefulness of this.

You better have it. Otherwise, a lot of people would just kept away until
MS made it or when they are rich enough to switch.


Yuk
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: superVGA  (and misc top-blowing)
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:16:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.121935.16109@actrix.gen.nz>, Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
|>  installed both Word 4 Windows V2.0 and Excel 4.0.

|> I open them seamlessly on the desktop.

Lucky you. I don't happen to have one of the few cards which can do this at a
sensible resolution.


I use 3.1 because:

1. It boots faster.
2. I find the files I want to work with faster.
3. The apps I run on those files load faster.
4. I get to see more of my documents because I can use a higher resolution.
5. Things print better because I have a driver for my specific printer.

So I get more work done in less time. What's the problem with that?

And before anyone asks "Why run NT then?", the answer is

1. I want the multi-user capabilities.
2. I'll probably be using it at work on 386, MIPS and Alpha.
3. Having used the release of one and an alpha of the other, I honestly believe
   that NT will succeed over OS/2 2.0

|> I have found OS/2 very usable......what was your problem again?

I find the interactive response of the WPS unacceptable. When you click for a
menu, it should appear then, not 1/2 a second later. Directory windows should
display their contents within a second or so, not the 5-10 or more seconds it
can take in the WPS.

I find that the WPS isn't consistent enough. I've written before about the
strange behaviour of the mouse buttons on the top left icon in a window, where
the two buttons behave in a similar but subtly inconsistent way. I prefer the
semantics of mouse action on Windows buttons (such as iconfy/zoom) to those of
the WPS (?PM) ones. I prefer the Windows file requester. In general I find the
WPS to be visually rather coarse, especially the "properties" windows with
their ugly tags.

But as I say, it's not that OS/2 2.0 is particularly bad. Some bits, such as
the DOS support, are rather good. But not for the things I actually use my
machine for.