HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smbrush@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Andy Brush @Sverdrup)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Tape Backup
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:46:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: lims02.6APR199212461148
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

First, thanks to everyone who responded to my questions about tape backup 
hardware and software.

I'm looking for a reasonably priced tape system which I can use to back up 
files with EA's and long names, in the background, under the control of a C 
or REXX program.  Here's what I found:

SWAN - does not, and does not intend to support OS/2
COLORADO - "

EVEREX - has no OS/2 software, but sells the reference to the interface 
card for streaming drives for $50.  Supposedly this is enough info to port 
tar, or such.

IRWIN - makes a cheap ($180, mail) 60 Mb drive which works off the floppy 
controller, and OS/2 software called EZ-Tape PM, which costs $99 as an 
upgrade from Irwin.  They are writing EZ-Tape PM for 2.0, and it is due in 
May.

MOUNTAIN - sells an OS/2 version of disk software for their high-end drives 
for $179.  The cheapest drive that works with this is the 7250, a 250MB 
drive that costs $1100 with a controller.

WANGTEK - sells SCSI drives which are compatible with SY-TOS tape software, 
which is OS/2 compatible.

MAYNARD - will send free interface specs for QIC drives, so you can write 
the interface.

TEAC - has two packages that I talked about.  One is a 60/120 Mb SCSI drive 
bundled with SY-TOS software and a cheap SCSI board, for $519 (mail).  That 
one is called MACH-5.  There is also TEAC 155 150 Mb (uncompressed) SCSI 
drive bundled with SY-TOS for $509, mail.

SY-TOS is a character-based backup program which seems to work with most 
SCSI drives, and is OS/2 compatible.  It apparently supports EA's and Long 
Names.  I was told by a mail-order vendor that it costs about $200, 
separately.

Some people on the net have proposed to do a port of tar for certain drives
, but no specifics or results, so far.  There is apparently a DOS version 
of tar for some SCSI tape drives, but have heard of no reports of 
recompiling for OS/2.

If anyone knows of other/better ways of backing up OS/2 than the above, 
please let me know.

Andrew S. Brush             | SMBRUSH@LIMS01.lerc.nasa.gov
Sverdrup Technology         | 2001 Aerospace Parkway
NASA LeRC Group             | Brook Park, OH 44142
"Opinions are Mine, Only"   | (216) 826-6770
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: rafetmad@cheshire.oxy.edu (David R. Giller)
Subject: Re: free os/2?
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 01:48:25 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.210707.13884@cs.mcgill.ca> becap@cs.mcgill.ca (Brian CAPSON) writes:
>> I was told the breaking point came over IBM's insistance on REXX as OS/2's
>> procedural language and Gates' insistance on what?  Basic of course.
>> Probably untrue but plausable given Gates' weak ego.
>
>I heard that it was because Microsoft got tired of the shitty code that IBMers  
>were always shlepping off on them, and their insistance on special OS/2  
>capabilities for their PS/2's. After the DOS 4.0 debacle, I'd say it was only a  
>matter of time anyway, and in my opinion a welcome move. Now we can have a  
>little competition in the PC OS market. 

I have heard this many times.  I simply have a hard time beleiving it, because
the quality of OS/2 has gone up sharply since 1.2.  And, version 1.3 had
some modifications that came out in CSDs to allow better operation on non-IBM
equipment.

Personally, I think it's great that IBM went with REXX.  The only other
micro that has a standardized procedural language is the Amiga with ARexx.
The PC market needs some standardization in this area.  It will now be easy
for developers to provide the same type of services that UNIX users enjoy
when using shell scripts with their software tools.

-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: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael D Kretzer)
Subject: Re: i don't like it!!
Originator: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Reply-To: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: comp
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 05:25:13 GMT

From article <1992Apr9.1480.11660@dosgate>, by "bradley grigor" <bradley.grigor@canrem.com>:
> I have seen OS/2 2.0 GA and I'm not impressed.  How can I get rid
> of the Workplace Shell??  I _really_ don't like it.  Does OS/2
> 2.0 include the original 1.3 PMSHELL somewhere?  As much as I
> hate to say it, Windows 3 (and OS/2 1.3 for that matter) is
> aesthetically much nicer and a darn site easier to use.  This is
> going to take A LOT of getting used to.

It is possible to reconfigure the Workplace shell to look like OS/2 1.3
or Windows 3.0.  You can do this only after you have gone through the
regular installation process...the instructions for going about changing
the 'look' of the Workplace shell are in Appendix A & B of the
'Migrating to the OS/2 Workplace Shell' booklet.

I must comment though, that if you try WPS for a week, you'll probably
find it to be a much better GUI and certainly much easier to use than
OS/2 1.3 and Windows 3.0, but I agree, it's one hell of a paradigm
shift, especially if you're coming from OS/2 1.x or Windows :)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 DOS emulation?
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 20:58:56 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

asher@qtp.ufl.edu (Robert L. Asher) writes:
: I have a question about OS/2 2.0 and it's dos compatability.  I've read most of
: what's been said about commercial software etc...  (I ordered OS/2 2.0 the day
: the 800 number was posted.)  Someone on the net said OS/2 emulates DOS.  Our
: research group has written software for the pc which controles many external
: devices connected via an I/O card and a CAMAC crate.  This software uses
: a TSR type assembly code which acts as an experimental cycle clock (ie 18.2Hz),
: lots of interupt calls to DOS, and a DMA enable/disable call to let the CAMAC 
: Crate take control of the I/O bus to transfer data.  First, does this sound too
: difficult for OS/2 to handle in a DOS window?  Second, does OS/2 have the same
: types of interupt calls and functions as DOS or will I have to get the 
: Developement Stuff to be able to convert our DOS version?
: 
: Thanks for any help.
: -- 
: r--.       .            |     Robert L. Asher        :->    asher@qtp.ufl.edu
: |   )     (/    _  ._. ~T~    Dept. of Chemistry &          OS/2 2.0 is here. 
: |--<    _.b  ._(e' ) r  |     Quantum Theory Project         BC++ for OS/2 
: |   \_/(O) \_|  \_/   \_|\_/  University of Florida          where are you? 

This is verrrry unlikely to work vanilla because the energy barrier is
high but there is a quantum tunneling mechanism you can employ called
device drivers that you can most likely use to code the functions. :-)

Bob

-- 
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007

"There are some strings.  They're just not attached."
                                                    Victoria Roberts
From: Changhao_Boh@mindlink.bc.ca (Changhao Boh)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Is OS/2 2.0 faster than Windows??
Date: 13 Apr 92 08:44:48 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

DV> >WINOS2 tests run on: PS Model 80 16MHz w80387; IBM VGA; 8 MB memo

DV> 16MHz computer with the built-in standard 8-bit VGA, and the Windows 3
DV> tests were done on a 40MHz computer with one of the fastest 16-bit VGA
DV> adapters available!

Wow, I dont believe it.  The IBM PS2 Model 80 has a 8-Bit VGA... :-;

Well, if you read on, you'll find that those figures are relative to Windows
3.0 running on the respective machine, ie,

  Win-OS2 (On PS2 80)
  ------------------- = Ratio for Win-OS2
  Win 3.0 (On PS2 80)

  Win 3.1 (On 40mhz)
  ------------------- = Ratio for Win 3.1
  Win 3.0 (On 40mhz)

I don't think you should defend OS2 in this respect but rather that OS2
provides a much more reliable functionality then Win 3.1.  And that the speed
really does not differ much at all, only a 0.1 difference and WIN-OS2 is
supposed to be Win 3.0.  So when Win 3.1 support is added, it will be nearly as
fast as Win 3.1 !

I cannot wait for OS2 GA... Please, IBM, forget FedEx or UPS, drop them with
B-52s...

Good Health.

Changhao.

*** Hmm... Maybe dropping Win 3.0 over Iraq would end the war sooner... :-0
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: prs@turing.acs.virginia.edu (Phillip R. Scarr)
Subject: Re: A question about PROGMAN.EXE and ATM
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 00:07:35 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.163248.12369@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr11.234720.11036@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> prs9k@virginia.edu writes:
>>Just out of curiosity, if you run PROGMAN.EXE (the Windows Program
>>Manager) as a seamless window, can you then install applications like
>>Ami Pro or Page Maker which like to find PROGMAN running?  Also, can you
>>launch windows apps from within this seamless PROGMAN session and are
>>they then seamless apps?  Ohhhh, how Zen...
>
>Yes, and yes.  Indeed.
>
>>Oh, I still haven't heard, do the seamless windows apps use the OS/2 ATM
>>or not?  I assume they do, but I'd like a definate answer...
>
>IBM opted for what probably is a better approach, although it does
>require more hard disk space.  They bundle ATM for Windows with OS/2
>2.0.  So there are actually two typeface rendering engines in the
>product.  And, with the exception of the bundled, basic typefaces,
>these engines can share typeface files (but note that you need three
>files now to cover all bases: PFB, AFM, and PFM files) -- if you
>install them in \OS2\DLL (where OS/2 requires the files to be, it
>seems).
>-- 
>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.

So if I install fonts under the ATM running in OS/2 do I need to
duplicate the procedure under windows?  This is a little annoying to
have to have three files to cover one font.  I'll fiddle a bit when I
get my copy of the code (hopefully tomorrow at the Charlottesville
roll-out if all goes well).

	-Phil
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: Os/2 Languages
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 02:22:48 GMT

fer9483@tesla.njit.edu writes:

> I am another new convert to OS/2 from Windows and I have a question.  What
> languages are currenty available for OS/2?  I know Borland is planning
> to release an OS/2 version of C++, but what can I write stuff with NOW?

NOW?  At the very least, both C and FORTRAN, perhaps others.  WATCOM is
ready with compilers for both, and IBM's SDK has their own C compiler.
You can also write in REXX, given that it comes with the system.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: Paradise OS/2 2.0 Drivers
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 12:11:29 GMT

Wally Schwarz writes:

> IBM still refuses to ship ANY OS/2 2.0 on 5.25" distribution. What a joke!

Am I misinterpreting your post?  The upgrade form sent by IBM specifically
allows for a choice of 3.5 or 5.25 inch media.  To me that means they at
least intend to ship 5.25 inch media, though having not seen shrink wrap of
either, I can't prove that they're currently shipping 5.25 inch media.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: TW.BX8@isumvs.iastate.edu (Steven M.)
Subject: Questions B4 I Take the OS/2 Plunge
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 07:00:54 GMT


I have been using Win3 for awhile now and I actually like it.
I am comfortable with Windows, and I have had fun learning how
to tweak it so that I rarely have any problems with it (I must
add that Windows is astronomically better with NDW.)
HOWEVER, I have been looking forward to giving OS/2 2.0 a try.
I have an open mind about deciding which platform is "best" and I
think that it should be fun fooling with OS/2.
My problem is that I'm not sure what consequences this may bring.

Do I have to reformat my HD to allow OS/2 to boot or can I
use an already existing partition for OS/2? I would like to keep
my setup as it is until I decide on OS/2, Windows, or both.

Whenever you install a Win App, such as WFW, Quicken4W, etc, your
win.ini files are updated to specify your particular setup. Do
you have to reinstall these WinApps for OS/2?

I have all of the partitions on my HD Stacked except for my bootable
partition. Will OS/2 run with Stacker 2.0?

How about OS/2 screen drivers, printer drivers, etc. How easy are
they to come by?

Does OS/2 really take up as much as 35MB? Why so hefty? How in
the hell could you afford to run OS/2 on a notebook?

Will OS/2 run with PCKWIK Disk Cacheing software?

Just thought I would look before I leap. Thanks in advance,

                                         Steven

_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+|_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+
                              |"Of course I have questions when
 Steven Mattics               | I run....Who will finish second,
                              | who will finish third???
Iowa State University,        |
Department of Statistics      |               -Noureddine Morceli
_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+|_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+
From: adhir@cygnus.umd.edu (Alok Dhir)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 and Windows users please read (WAS: MS deceitful...)
Date: 6 Apr 92 13:27:09 GMT

In article <rolr9INNo1e@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Nan Zou)  
writes:
> Notice:  I crosspost this to both comp.windows.ms and comp.os.os2.misc,
> 	 not because I want to provoke some heated debates from either
> 	 group, I simply want to ease the tension between us.
> 
> ross@kaos.ingr.com (Ross Erickson) writes:
> 
> >>If Windows is so bad, and OS/2 is so wonderful, why do you (and so
> >>many other OS/2 folks) keep reading and posting to the Windows
> >>group? [...]
> 
> >Jim, I absolutely agree!  I'm so sick and tired of the OS/2 zealots
> >screaming, "It's better, it's better, it's better!!!", I wouldn't try
> >OS/2 now even if [...]                [...] It's incredible annoying
> >to come onto this net to get information about Windows and half of the
> >bloody messages are about OS/2 whinings.  I'm sick of it.  I was
> >willing to keep an open mind about OS/2 for a good while.  I have an
> >open mind, but not anymore.  To hell with OS/2. [...]
> 
> I hope many OS/2 advocates (me included) take note of this.  If you wish 
> to evangelize for OS/2, please be careful of the tactic you use, and ...

Oh give me a break...  If this guy is such an ignoramus that he decides  
not to even look at OS/2 based upon what some overly enthusiastis people  
say about OS/2, then he deserves to be stuck with Windows for the rest of  
his days.  There is nothing wrong with being eager about a new OS and  
wanting it to do well.

Aside from which, if OS/2 is any where near as good as it sounds reading  
this news group, then OS/2 will do well anyhow, and will take over  
Windows' hold on the market, and the fool above will end up going to OS/2  
anyway.

						- Al
From: amund@itk.unit.no (Amund Skavhaug)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: V2 upgrade installation
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:04:09 GMT
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology / SINTEF, Trondheim, Norway

In article <17400.29e02d2e@ecs.umass.edu>, horan@ecs.umass.edu writes:
|> When I get my upgrade from 1.3, can I reformat, (read delete windows and dos)
|> partition, and do what ever I like to my drive as I install v2.
|> 
|> or do I have to install v2 over 1.3 as in the case of DoS upgrades?
|> 
|> (I'm speeking about the free upgrade from 1.3 to 2.0
|> 
|> 5000
|> Gregg Horan

-- 
Nothing like dos 5.0 here...
I have got both US and UK GA versions on my desk, you may
do exactly whatever you want to do with your HD !
In fact, if you like, you may keep your primary dos partition,
and reformat only one of your logical disks in a extended partition....
And the data in the other are quite safe. (Backup first ofcourse, but
I have done this several times, and a lot of other stuff with os2
fdisk, and never lost a byte.)

Regards, Amund Skavhaug

Division of Engineering Cybernetics	: Phone +47 7 594376
The Norwegian Institute of Technology	: Fax   +47 7 594399
N-7034 Trondheim                        : Email amund@itk.unit.no
NORWAY
From: sridhar@cs.scarolina.edu (M. A. Sridhar)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Help please!
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:00:36 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

I just installed OS/2 2.0 on my Tangent 486 computer. I'm having a few problems
with it, and I'd appreciate some help.

After a few shutdowns and startups, the startup suddenly fails, saying that 
"The device specified by DEVICE=\OS2\MDOS\VMOUSE.SYS on line 58 of CONFIG.SYS
is not installed. Line 58 is ignored. Press enter to proceed." It then proceeds
after hitting enter, but there's no mouse pointer. Worse yet, line 58 says
something about VCOM.SYS, not VMOUSE.SYS! and the line specifying VMOUSE.SYS is
line 44. I don't know how to fix this.


Also: I'd like to run my display in 1024x768
mode, and I have an Orchid Prodesigner IIs card. So I copied a DLL from the
Orchid BBS to my machine, and replaced \os2\dll\display.dll with their version.
Trouble is, my DOS and OS/2 box windows have extremely small font as a result,
and the Font size menu item only provides two choices -- 8x8 and 14x8 pixels.
Even the 14x8 is far too small. I noticed that in the resolution provided by
the default DISPLAY.DLL that came with OS/2 there were more choices. (I don't
think this DISPLAY.DLL has anything to do with the above mouse problem: I tried
reverting to the old DISPLAY.DLL, but still had the mouse problem.)

My question is: How do I set it up so that I can use larger fonts in the DOS
and OS/2 boxes? I tried the drag from the font palette, but that doesn't seem
to affect the font in the DOS box window. Ideally, I should be able to use any
of the fonts available for the PM objects in the DOS box -- in particular,
Courier would be nice, so that I can make it look just like an xterm!

Oh, and while we are at it, is there any way to attach scroll bars to the DOS
and OS/2 boxes so that I can scroll back? Can I cut and paste between the
boxes? (I'm asking for all the stuff one can do under X, aren't I? :-)

Thanks in advance.

Sridhar
-- 
M. A. Sridhar                  | 
Department of Computer Science | sridhar@usceast.cs.scarolina.edu (Internet)
University of South Carolina   | (803) 777-2427 (Ma Bell)      
Columbia, SC 29208             | (803) 777-3767 (Fax)
--
M. A. Sridhar                  | 
Department of Computer Science | sridhar@usceast.cs.scarolina.edu (Internet)
University of South Carolina   | (803) 777-2427 (Ma Bell)      
Columbia, SC 29208             | (803) 777-3767 (Fax)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: itreleav@fraser.sfu.ca (Ian Anthony Treleaven)
Subject: Re: Tastes gross/more fattening
Summary: Fractional OSs? 
Keywords: (new hex encoded ASCII) 4F 53 2F 32
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:36:09 GMT

With all these fractional OSs running around (DOS = 0.5,...) maybe someone
could define the attributes of a complete OS, if there
is such a thing.  I think it's a computer science issue, not a mathematics
issue :-)  I'm pretty much finished my computer science degree, with
specializations in OSs and hardware.  I have used a number of UNIX
varieties through the course of my degree (SunOS, IRIX, AIX, BSD 4.3,
BSD-Mach-NeXTStep) as well as writing a real time OS.  I have used OS/2
since 1.2, and would consider 1.2 a real OS, whereas I would not consider
Windows 3.0 an OS.  Of couse, OS/2 1.3 was better, and OS/2 2.0 is way
beyond 1.x in terms of user niceties, but I could still trust under 1.2 that
any work I did was going to be done efficiently and not going to blow up
on me.  As for DOS, it has an interrupt driven interface (which doesn't jive
with today's languages) and lets you walk all over it.  Even background
printing is a kluge.  Hmmm...


as 
-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
  Ian Treleaven            | No matter where you go, there you are.
  itreleav@sfu.ca          |                                   -Buckaroo Banzai
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: eguerrino@email.bony.com
Subject: Re: Ami pro 2.0 and lotus 123 for os/2???
Organization: ***
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:09:14 EST

In article <1992Apr7.040310.15985@acsu.buffalo.edu>, kiraly@acsu.buffalo.edu (Gaspar Kiraly) writes:
> 
> Hi, about two months ago I upgraded AMI PRO and 123 for Windows.
> Can I upgrade to OS/2 of these programs from Windows? 
> 
> If you have any information please let me know.
> 
>                                 Gaspar
> 
> PS: How come IBM is not advertising os/2 on tv like MS does????????
> 
>                                 kiraly@acsu.buffalo.edu
I have upgraded DOS version of 123 to the OS/2 version. I am not sure what the
cost is since I go thru a centralized support area for software.
There is no OS/2 version of AMI PRO. In NY today, at an OS/2
event at IBM's 590 Madison office, Lotus people were there showing
32bit versions of Freelance and 123/G, which should be out in about
six to eight weeks. The Lotus rep told me expect to see an OS/2 
version of AMI PRO around July.
From: engelke@Armstrong.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Getting OS/2 (corporate style)
Keywords: OS2, OS/2, purchase orders
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:47:00 GMT
Organization: Info Tech, Inc., Gainesville, FL

Talking about getting OS/2 with a purchase order, (Daniel J Leduc) writes:
>            I did this and came up with two dealers
>one of which could possibly order the full price version but really didn't
>think he could sell an upgrade for $49 (Window's upgrade price).  Finally
>I called Egghead software since I knew that they take my PO's.  My 
>representative there siad that he could order the full price version now,
>but that they didn't have it in stock and that he knew nothing about the 
>upgrade deals.  All of this leads up to one simple question.  Is there
>anywhere that I can place an order for OS/2 version 2.0 using a purchase order
>from the US government and still get the $49 Windows upgrade price?  

I don't know how this would work for federal purchase orders, but IBM told
me that you will not be able to buy OS/2 from dealers for $49.  Instead,
you can buy it for $79, and get a $30 rebate from IBM when you send them
your proof of ownership of Windows (apparently, there will be a rebate
coupon on the package).  What the feds will think of this approach, I 
can't say.

Charles Engelke
Manager, Systems Development
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.windows.misc,comp.windows.ms,comp.windows.news