HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ivan@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Ivan Leong)
Subject: Re: Help setting up Maximus BBS under OS/2
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.apps,comp.bbs.misc,alt.bbs
Organization: Nanyang Technological University - Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 11:00:34 GMT

Andrew Bros (bros@convex.COM) wrote:
:   I'm trying to set up Maximus BBS under OS/2 V2.0.  My modem is a
: Practical Peripheral 14400FXSA.  I have installed Maximus, and did
: some customizing of the File and Message areas.

:   The problem I'm having is when I'm running Maximus in the
: Wait-for-Caller mode (that is, not using BinkleyTerm or FrontDoor).
: The BBS recognizes that there is an incoming call, and instructs the
: modem to take the phone off-hook.  It even appears that the modems can
: negotiate a carrier bps and protocol, but then nothing happens.
: Maximus reports that the caller hung up.

Is the baud rate locked/fixed? If not, I suggested locking it at 38400.
If it is, does Max know abt it?

Try getting a friend to call you while you're in a terminal prgm. This'll
allow you to diagnose the problem easier.

'il
---
Fidonet:  6:600/500  (aka 600/510)     Miqas/2 [Singapore]
Internet: ivan@ntu.ac.sg  _OR_  bz7004742@ntuvax.ntu.ac.sg
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
From: sorourke@lonestar.utsa.edu (Sean J. Orourke)
Subject: Re: Comanche in OS/2
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 10:59:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.193938.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu> cvetp036@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu writes:
[some deleted]
>
>I still think that for games DOS would be better than OS/2. Make that 32 bit
>DOS extenders games. There's just a bit too much overhead in OS/2 for a game
>to run at optimal speed.

I think the best games under OS/2 would be the same ones that are being ported
to Windows.  The Sim* line of games, and in fact any games that use windows a
lot and aren't that speed-intensive, would be really nice to have as OS/2 apps.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
From: A1.MCL@isumvs.iastate.edu 
Subject: Re: 1-2-3 for OS/2 V. 1
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:39:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.164649.4001@midway.uchicago.edu>,
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
>In article <47928@ogicse.ogi.edu> francis@ese.ogi.edu (Francis Moraes) writes:
>>Is anyone using 1-2-3 for OS/2 V. 1 on OS/2 2.0? It seems to have a bug
>>wherein the background is not cleared before more info is written to the
>>screen. This ends with numbers on top of number and is very hard to read.
>>Is this just my machine? Is there a bug fix?
>
>I'm using 1-2-3/G 1.1.  How exactly do you replicate the bug?
>
>--
>Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0h, available from
>sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
>Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
>of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]

This is your Lotus, it has happened to us with Vversion 1.0, but
goes away when you install 1.1 or higher.  It is created by just using
Lotus 123 a while, and then it seems like the spreadshhet windows
do not get painted correctly.  If you close the sheet and open it
again I beleive youcan continue a while longer.
I highly recomend fixxing it by getting another newer version
of Lotus though.

Mike Long
Iowa State university
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 04 Jan 93 07:21:43 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1993Jan3.202335.4960@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>: 
>: >F-Fear- Fear that Using OS/2 and DOS on the same machine would be dangerous.
>: 
>:     It is.  DOS 6 may make your FAT partitions unreadable by
>: OS/2 or other operating systems.
>
>Including DOS 5 presumably?

     Yes.

			-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com (John Brock)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft using "Force"???
Reply-To: uunet!csfb1!jbrock
Organization: First Boston Corporation
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:47:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.195159.25646@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> 
|> I've got nothing against using a word metaphorically, i.e. "you twisted my 
|> arm and made me go alone" or "you pushed me into it." etc.
|> 
|> But at the point when metaphors start confusing the issue as they clearly
|> have done here because you and I can't agree, we must abandon the metaphor
|> in order to proceed.
|> 
|> The metaphor of Microsoft forcing vendors into signing contracts, taken 
|> literally, is a contradiction in terms just like the the humerous
|> metaphor "A verbal contract isn't worth the paper its written on"
|> (as a poorer-but-wiser OS/2 user in another thread found out).
|> 
|> I'll agree, Microsoft is offering some shitty deals.  But when Microsoft
|> says "This is my best offer--take it or leave it" the vendors are quite
|> free to take it or leave it.  

What this is really about is control of the language.  In common usage
"force" implies both literal physical force and metaphorical mental
force.  You want to change the standard meaning of "force", excluding
the metaphorical aspect.  Once you have done this you will be able to
say, quite accurately and convincingly, that Microsoft is not using
force or coercion.  Your opponents, deprived of the use of these words,
will have to stumble around looking for paraphrases, which will be
unfamiliar to listeners and which will not have the retorical power of
the words that were stolen from them.

This is very typical of ideological arguments.  By taking control of
key words and imposing your own definitions you try to make it
difficult for your opponents to express their ideas and easy for you to
express your own.  This is a tactic that has been used with great
success by the Left in recent years (want to talk about "diversity"
sometime?), although your use of language is characteristically
Libertarian.

Naturally I don't want to let you get away with this.  Most people
would say that it is sometimes possible to "force" somebody to do
something without actually resorting to physical violence or threats of
it.  Most people's understanding of "force" in the context of this
discussion would include this metaphorical aspect, as is shown by the
general unwillingness to accept your new definition.  *Of course* it is
metaphorical to say that Microsoft has "forced" other vendors to behave
in a certain way!  But it is still a correct use of the word.  We are
not going to let you take all the good words for yourself!

-- 
John Brock
uunet!csfb1!jbrock
jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:56:18 GMT

In article <8305@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.005008.13699@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>>Yes.  A company can't enforce its will using guns--a government can.
>
>On the other hand, a company _can_ put another company out of business. Who
>needs guns?

That makes as much sense as saying that if few persons applied for
a single job, the successful candiate made the rest unemployed.

>-- 
>Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
>jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
>      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
>              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of all Fears_

Dov

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: hwhalen@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Hugh Whalen)
Subject: Microsoft steals TrueType
Organization: Faculty of Administration, University of New Brunswick
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 12:42:39 GMT

In article <19360@mindlink.bc.ca> Ian_Upright@mindlink.bc.ca (Ian Upright) writes:
>> R Douglas Botimer writes:

[stuff deleted]

>Lets not spread true FUD here!  TrueType wasn't developed by Microsoft,
>it was stolen BY Microsoft from Apple.  Apple invented TrueType.
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Stolen? Stolen???!!!! Oh, wait a minute .... I think I'm getting it 
now .... Microsoft craftily gave money to Apple to develop and use 
TrueType .... yeah, that's it .... when Microsoft does this it's .... 
it's theft .... yeah. How sneaky. Those crafty bastards. What *will* 
they think of next? Let's get the FTC to break up those felons before 
they strike again!

Sheeesh.

Hugh Whalen                     | Where all men think alike, no one
Faculty of Administration       | thinks very much.
University of New Brunswick     |               - Walter Lippmann			


DISCLAIMER: Neither UNB nor I care what the other thinks.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Mic
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:31:44 GMT

In article <3858.942.uupcb@almac.co.uk> mike.dickson@almac.co.uk (Mike Dickson) writes:
>JD..Because we are not like cows being led to the slaughter.  Some of us own
>JD..businesses--and look at a "brother" company being harrassed without
>JD..(it appears) good cause...
>
>Absolute manure. I don't see MS getting all cut up about this 'brother
>company' business when it comes to anyone else.

*Some*--and Microsoft, believe me, does care about how certain business
laws are interpreted in court.  But still, you don't seem to get the point.
Let's imagine that you've been using a certain tax rule to get by on your
income taxes... but the same rule is being used by Big Company, Inc. for
huge tax breaks.  So the IRS wants to re-interpret the rule to increase
their revenue...

Now take this FTC thing, if it is indeed regarding the MLP agreements.  There
are a couple of retailers in the city that my company performs consulting
for.  We have a verbal agreement that EVERYTHING they sell, comes with one
of my business cards (naturally, I don't enforce the agreement, but the
agreement was made)... in return, I offer their clients rock bottom prices
on high tech solutions--and I fix problems that the retailer has (i.e.,
configuring a system with a new peripheral) for an insanely low price.

The similarities between Microsoft's agreement and mine vary with degree
(however, no one is going to say "I don't want that business card, take
10 bucks off the price...")--and naturally I take very hard interest in
what y'all are complaining about: I have a type of "exclusivity" agreement--
is it illegal?

Don't you think that we have had enough of government meddling in
business?

>
>/\/\ | |< |.                                     mike.dickson@almac.co.uk
>---
> . SLMR 2.1a . One of these days I'll do some real work...
>                                                                          


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: A radical idea
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:37:27 GMT

Kurt.Westerfeld@f347.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Kurt Westerfeld) writes:

: ADA also happens to be designed by committee.  I know for a fact that 
: this NEVER works with software.  The best software is developed by lone 
: wolf or small teams. 

A) Ada was not designed by a committee, it was designed by a team, and
won a competetive process held by the US DOD in the 1970s. It was
designed by a team from Bull in France. B) Can you name *any* software
designed by a committee? The closest you're likely to get is the
Multics OS, arguably the most elegant operating system ever devised.

--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: Re: No TrueType Fonts in OS/2 2.1 ?!
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1993 10:37:42 GMT

rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:
> MS/Apple caused multiple problems with TrueType, but the worst is that
> they put the cart before the horse.  They flooded the market with TT
> fonts while printer and printer driver support was almost totally
> lacking.                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Printer driver support lacking?  Surely not in Windows or on the Macintosh
(both have built-in TrueType) where you don't need *any* special drivers
to use TrueType.  And for the ubiquitous LaserJets and clones, TrueType
works better than ATM (except for maybe ATM 2.5, which I haven't seen yet.)

TrueType may not be desirable for high-end DTP and graphic arts people, but
it works well for "normal" users -- in my experience most people are very
happy to have built-in TrueType.  On the other hand, I bet Adobe wishes now
that they had been willing to give ATM away free as a part of Windows...  :)

[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
From: os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Joke in rec.humor.funny
Date: 9 Jan 93 15:55:30 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

This is kind of funny...

Also, please stop crossposting the "get everything in writing" to c.o.o.p.

Cheers,
Q

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you choose not to decide, you  | "My other body is in the shop" - seen
 still have made a choice" - Rush  |  on a T-shirt
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 3:20:03 EST
Newsgroups: rec.humor.funny
Subject: Sons of IBM OS/2 Fiesta Bowl
From: hpb@hpb.cis.pitt.edu (Harry Bloomberg)

   After seeing the success of the IBM OS/2 Fiesta Bowl, the Open
Software Foundation (OSF) and Unix Systems Labs (USL) decided to jointly
sponsor the Unix Bowl.

   The effort was abandoned when neither side could agree on a set of
rules for the game.

   Microsoft also tried sponsoring a bowl game, but gave up when they
discovered that only one team at a time could play in the MS-DOS Bowl.

Harry Bloomberg
hpb@vms.cis.pitt.edu
-- 
"If you choose not to decide, you  | "My other body is in the shop" - seen
 still have made a choice" - Rush  |  on a T-shirt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:12140 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:35631
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: All that SLC DLC 386 486 crap .....
Date: 12 Jan 1993 20:41:47 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, Matt_Kievit@abcd.Houghton.MI.US (Matt Kievit) says:

>>  The differences between the 486SX and the 486SLC/DLC are:

>"The Cx486DLC comes with a 486 instruction set with 32-bit internal and
>external data paths."
>
>In other words, it's a NEARLY EXACT i486, except for the 1k cache and the
>fact that it fits into a 386 DX slot..

But it doesn't have a floating point unit like the 486 dx ....

Anyway, here is the matter as I understand it:

IBM 386slc  - 16k cache, 486 instruction set, 16 bit external data path
   IBM called it a 386 to be polite, but once cyrix broke the taboo we got
IBM 486slc  - 16k cache, 486 instruction set, 16 bit external data path,
               clock doubleing
Cyrix 486slc - 1k cache, 486 instruction set, 16 bit external data path
Cyric 486dlc - 1k cache, 486 instruction set, 32 bit external data path

None of these processors have a built in floating point unit.

Infoworld is going to be having a special section next week (Jan. 18th)
comparing these chips and their performance relative to intel's products.
-- 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft using "Force"???
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:51:59 GMT

In article <C0Jpy0.DsM@csfb1.fir.fbc.com>, jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com (John Brock) writes:

|> This is *exactly* what I accused you of in the part of my post you
|> deleted.  You simply refuse to acknowledge the existence of any kind of
|> "force" other than physical force, because this allows you to assert
|> that coersion must involve physical threats. 

I've got nothing against using a word metaphorically, i.e. "you twisted my 
arm and made me go alone" or "you pushed me into it." etc.

But at the point when metaphors start confusing the issue as they clearly
have done here because you and I can't agree, we must abandon the metaphor
in order to proceed.

The metaphor of Microsoft forcing vendors into signing contracts, taken 
literally, is a contradiction in terms just like the the humerous
metaphor "A verbal contract isn't worth the paper its written on"
(as a poorer-but-wiser OS/2 user in another thread found out).

I'll agree, Microsoft is offering some shitty deals.  But when Microsoft
says "This is my best offer--take it or leave it" the vendors are quite
free to take it or leave it.  

 You post a dictionary
|> definition of pressure which refers to "physical or mental distress",
|> and then insist that the inconvenient "mental" part of the definition
|> is metaphorical and irrevelent.  It's not, but what can I say?  I am
|> reminded of the Dead Parrot Sketch.  For most people mental distress
|> can feel coercive, just as physical distress can, even though it is
|> indeed physically possible to ignore it.  But nothing I can say can
|> force you to acknowledge this.
   ^^^^^
   :-)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Seamless
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 02:46:30 GMT

In article <19356@mindlink.bc.ca> Elias_Wakan@mindlink.bc.ca (Elias Wakan) writes:
>What is this new computer term, "seamless"?  I assume it has some sort of
>well defined meaning.


	Only if you have Trident or XGA2.


-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: Re: SGI-GL in Windows NT??
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:24:44 GMT

hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:
> If serious hardware comes along that helps this out, then fine; but your
> original comment seemed to be "NT has the SGI graphics lib in software,
> and that's enough" and I take exeception to that, unless sufficient
> hardware is there also.

Having the SGI-GL libraries are part of the standard NT distribution (some-
time in the future) will encourage 3rd-party developers to take advantage
of these libraries, since their apps will automatically run on all NT
systems, whether 486, Pentium, R4000 or Alpha.

Further, having a 3D graphics interface available will encourage hardware
manufacturers to develop adapters and drivers for the systems.

It's the same deal as with multimedia and networking: as long as the
software costs an extra $300 or $1000 on top of your OS, not many apps
will take advantage of it, and not so many people will use.  But bring
it into the OS and that apps will pop up like mushrooms after a rainstorm.
As an example, look at all the networkable apps that are being developed
for Windows for Workgroups...

> Given the time frame for getting the *next*
> version of NT out (ie., the one after NT 3.1) and the lag time for getting
> people to use NT, the SGI stuff, etc., I think the alternatives will still
> look more attractive.

Microsoft can also do it another way: they can provide the libraries and
DLLs to the developers, like OLE, and then allow the developers to ship
them with their apps.  Hey, you don't need a full release just to add 3D
graphics...  :)

[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: SGI-GL in Windows NT??
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:58:42 GMT

In article <MfHPO8_00WBKQ2Y5pM@andrew.cmu.edu> sl31+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen M. Lacy) writes:
>> It's Silicon Graphics Graphics Language.  It's one of the nicest
>> graphics languages on the market (so I've heard -- I've never used it).
>> What this means is NT will have 3D graphics built-in.  
>
>GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!  SGI-GL without the SGI hardware would be complete
>bullshit!  


	I didn't know that bovines could program.


>Can you say SLOW?  SGI sounds really nice on paper, but it
>only works in hardware, 


	True.  Very true.  Extremely true.  OTOH, if you don't have
	the hardware, it wont matter--anyone interested in really
	doing 3d will have the hardware that the SW needs to use
	rapidly.


>which the PC's of today don't have.  


	How long could it possibly take?  The competition in the
	accellerated video market is pretty fierce.  The first company
	to start adding some polygon functions will make cad uses
	happy.  


>I would
>assume that any OS ported to the SGI machines would include GL, or some
>variant of equal functionality, so I would expect the SGI version of NT
>to have GL, but not all the versions.  


	Probably an accurate guess, but it doesn't make much sense,
	logically, to gutterize features in one specific version of
	theOS when it's supposed to be a cross-platform OS.

	If they sell it as an extension, then you can expect 
	gutterizing to occur by default.

	What MS seems to be trying to do is to raise the lowest 
	common denominator that app programmers will have to aim
	at.  It's a nice idea, but it may be a miserable
	marketing strategy--look at NeXT.

-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy