HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Floppy File System?
Date: 6 Apr 92 03:40:14 GMT
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago

In article <1992Apr6.020942.14075@athena.mit.edu> reynaldo@athena.mit.edu (Rey Villarreal) writes:
>I have ordered OS/2 2.0. Just wondering, I have access to a BBS
>and want to start downloading OS/2 stuff. Does OS/2 use the same
>floppy disk format as DOS and Windows. I assume so if you want to 
>install Windows and DOS software. Just want to be sure.

Yes indeed.  It uses a separate file to store extended attributes, but
other than an extra file there's nothing different.
-- 
Timothy F. Sipples       Keeper of the OS/2 Frequently Asked Questions
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu  List, available via anonymous ftp from
Dept. of Economics       128.123.35.151, directory pub/os2/faq, or via
Univ. of Chicago  60637  netmail from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET.
From: dwl@watson.ibm.com (David W. Levine)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Need help printing!
Keywords: OS/2 printer problems
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:55:58 GMT
Reply-To: dwl@watson.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

Check that you don't have something sharing IRQ 7 with the printer card
and that your printer card supports interupts. The OS/2 printer support
is interrupt driven, unlike the DOS and Windows stuff

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

My Opinions, IBM's hardware. --
From: woan@soda.berkeley.edu (Ronald Woan)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 and Installation
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:30:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.rvvlqINNo1t
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Apr8.145124@masg1.epfl.ch> lbdsun6.epfl.ch writes:
>A while back, I read an announcement from IBM saying that OS/2 2.0 could 
>be installed via network. Did anybody try this?

I don't know the details, but the IBM Austin site has a two diskette
network install for people here...

-- 
+-----All Views Expressed Are My Own And Are Not Necessarily Shared By------+
+------------------------------My Employer----------------------------------+
+ Ronald S. Woan                       woan@cactus.org or woan@vnet.ibm.com +
+ other email addresses             Prodigy: XTCR74A Compuserve: 73530,2537 +
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: rafetmad@cheshire.oxy.edu (David R. Giller)
Subject: Re: TAME under OS/2?
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 04:50:33 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.202832.11076@rice.edu> abuhr@owlnet.rice.edu (Aaron M. Buhr) writes:
>      Does anyone know if the multitasking aid TAME will work under OS/2,
>and if so, will it help?  For those that don't know, TAME monitors DOS program
>activity and senses when the program is in an idle loop and switches to the
>next task.  At the moment, I'm just curious, 'cause I still can't find OS/2
>2.0 anywhere (and I don't like to wait 4-6 weeks for orders).  Thanks in 
>advance.

Os/2 does this itself.  Does a pretty good job, too.

-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: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: PROBLEMS with OS/2 GA!!!!!!!!!
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 08:10:07 GMT

By the way, if you let those memory programs run for a while,
eventually your disk gets full from the swap file.  You then get an
error screen.  Choose to end the damn thing, then wait for a while as
it scales your swap file down to reasonable size again.

-- 
Exams will always contain questions not discussed in class. -- M. M. Johnston
From: mbarkah@slate.mines.colorado.edu (Ade Barkah)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Reformatting for OS/2 2.0 GA
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:25:54 GMT
Organization: Colorado School of Mines

I'm aware that one should reformat the hard drive before installing
the GA code over any of the previous betas.

Question: do I need to reformat if I'm installing GA over my 1.3 SE
          hpfs partition ? What if the partition wasn't a bootable
          partition ? Can I make it bootable without reformatting ?

The reason I'm asking is that I have a 330mb drive, and I don't have
a tape drive to back it up with. Backing up 300+mb to floppies is
out of the question for me.

Thanks,

-Ade.
-- 
Internet  : mbarkah@slate.mines.colorado.edu    (NeXT Mailable)
CompuServe: 74160,3404
FIDO_net  : Ade Barkah [1:104/108@fido.org]
SNAIL_net : 1800 West Campus Road, Golden, CO 80401
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: peter@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Peter Wu)
Subject: Re: PC Mag response to OS/2 coverage Q
Reply-To: peter@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Peter Wu)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 07:01:11 GMT

In article <1992Apr09.054003.23280@microsoft.com> tom@microsoft.com (Tom Mcconnell) writes:
>In article <1992Apr1.130706.27818@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes:
>>Over one million OS/2 users are microscopic? This is an very interesting
>>view of the situation ...
>>
>>So I am less than a 1/1000000 of a microscopic minority.

>Well, _I_ consider it microscopic!  How much coverage do you see
>in PC Magazine on the Amiga!?? Even though it has 3 _TIMES_ the
>installed base of OS2, not to mention many many more applications?
>And don't say, "it's for intel machines..." as they DO cover the Mac, 
>now don't they?

How much of Mac stuff do they cover?  Go ahead.  Site the articles on
Mac products and post them here.  Sure there are a few, but not many
at all.  The reason they do have a few is because the Mac are the PC's
competitors.  There are also a lot of companies which produce software
for both the macs and the pcs.  Amigas, I'm afraid to say, are not
really competitive in this market (Video editing perhaps, but...).
And PC Magazine did have something on the Amiga.  It DID review the
Video Toaster product.  Whether or not it has more installed base of
OS/2 is not the point, because PC Magazine simply concentrates on the
IBM PC compatible arena.  And since OS/2 is an important piece of
software to the PC world whether it has a huge installed-base or not,
PC Magazine should give it a fair shake.

>-Tom "Tongue firmly planted in cheek"

Got that right.

>p.s. If the world went to the most technically superior product, 
>we _would_ all be using amiga's right now... ;-)

And if Amiga had the right business sense to advertise the suckers
better, perhaps it might have.  NOT!

PQ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Quien?		peter@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu		Peter K. Wu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.misc:12264 comp.os.msdos.misc:3253
Organization: Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Vienna, Austria
Date: Thursday, 16 Apr 1992 17:25:22 WUT
From: FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: os2-dos 2x faster than DOS 3.3 (Re: Is OS/2 2.0-DOS fastter
 <1992Apr12.165225.478@muddcs.claremont.edu>
 <1992Apr13.150639.2984@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
 <1992Apr14.201125.25011@muddcs.claremont.edu>


Hi,

I am crossposting this to comp.os.msdos.misc due to the nature of the
report.

Conclusions: OS/2-DOS is at least twice as fast as DOS 3.3 on disk-in-
tensive applications, using a large real-world app. Judging from PC-Mag
benchmark series 6.0, plain processor-execution runs at appr. 95-97% of the
speed of DOS alone, which is ***excellent*** in my opinion, given the
fact, that a DOS-box runs as a client under 32bit OS/2.

The set: IBM PS/2 Mod. 95-AKD (16MB memory, 320MB hard-disk partitioned,
80486/33MHz). An Open Access III application: 840.231 Bytes source-code,
257 files (data-, index-, print-mask-, screen-mask-files) to be accessed
during compilation, resulting in a list-file of 1,234,947 Bytes and a
resulting pCODE-file with 482.304 Bytes. The compilations were done on the
same machine using DOS 3.3, 32bit OS/2 on the same FAT-partition as the
DOS-partition and on a HPFS-partition.

DOS 3.3: no cache (the compiler needs every little byte, so stealing a
couple of KB would result in a compiler-abortion), time to compile:
2minutes42seconds (162 seconds).

OS/2-DOS: standard FAT-cache 512KB, HPFS-cache 1024KB, time to compile:
1minute20seconds (80 seconds), using the same FAT-partition as under
DOS3.3.

OS/2-DOS: standard FAT-cache 512KB, HPFS-cache 1024KB, time to compile:
1minute15seconds (75 seconds), using the HPFS-partition.

Those tests were run several times, showing that DOS-applications under
32bit OS/2 can improve their thruput by unknowingly utilizing OS/2's
features.

In order to complete the test-suite I started a compile in a DOS-box on
the FAT partition and at the *same* time in a DOS-box on the HPFS-parti-
tion. Time to compile: 2minutes27seconds (147 seconds) on FAT and
2minutes18seconds (138 seconds) on HPFS; this means with other words,
doing two compilings of the same suite under 32bit OS/2 DOS-boxes simul-
taneously is ***faster*** than a single compile under DOS 3.3 (162 seconds)
of the same suite. On the same hardware.

I think that is truly a technological break-thru !

---rony
P.S.: Those speed-enhancements are being felt under WINOS2 too, of course.
From: heiland@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (david.j.heiland)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions about OS/2......
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:25:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr15.182620.19732@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com> stoen@katana.eng.hou.compaq.com (Rick Stoen) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.050135.9505@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith) writes:
>> ry01@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (ROBERT YUNG) writes:
>>  
>> >12) What's MS's C-2 protection? How's it better?
>> 
>> Can't answer this, though it has to do with protecting files in a
>> multiuser situation.  
>
>According to PC Week (If you can believe them) Microsoft will not be
>including C-2 level security in the first release of NT. Microsoft is
>blaming the US Government, saying they have been too slow to certify
>it. I guess they must be using Windows. :)
>

It wouldn't surprise me if it took on the order of two years for the
government to evaluate NT as C2, of course that doesn't stop MS from
saying it has C2 features (which include user access controls, object reuse
protection, passwords, and time and space consuming auditing of a lot of 
kernel operations).  

It definitely seems as if NT is meant as a server system, or at least not
for the stand alone PC of today or next year.  NT sounds great, but MS, or 
the media, is pitching it as a replacement for Windows or a competitor to 
OS/2 2.0, when it seems for the most part at the UNIX level of OS's.

Dave Heiland  djh@neptune.att.com
From: rob@cad4.lbl.gov (Robert J. McNamara)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Windows under OS/2, any problems?
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:13:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: dog.22688
Reply-To: rob@cad4.lbl.gov (Robert J. McNamara)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.252.177

In article <1992Apr13.014536.19143@engr.uark.edu> dch2@engr.uark.edu (David Hobbs) writes:
>Secondly, are there Tseng ET-4000 drivers so I can run in 1024x768x256?

This may have been posted already, but Orchid is working on a set of 
OS/2 2.0 drivers (full color) and they should be ready in about 3 to 5
weeks (from now). Hopefully these will work on any ET4000 board.

I asked the sysop if they're going to support seamless windows, but I havn't
received a response yet.

Oh...they're also working on drivers for the Farenheit 1280 board.


+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Rob McNamara          | Happy! Happy! |  Lankhmar BBS                     |
| rob@cad4.lbl.gov      |   Joy! Joy!   |  1-916-757-6391                   |
| Lawrence Berkeley Lab |               |  1200/2400/9600/14.4k HST/v.32bis |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
From: "stephen dawson" <stephen.dawson@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: ati drivers
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:04:16 EST
Reply-To: "stephen dawson" <stephen.dawson@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

ATI has posted OS/2 drivers to their BBS 416-756-4591.

That is the good news.

The bad news is that they are only 800x600x16 and 1024x768x16.

No 256 colout.

    STEPHEN
    ^^^^^^^    :-)  Look through the Windows and you will see OS/2!

 stephen.dawson@canrem.com
 Entered 04-13-92 at 6:43pm in Downsview, Ontario

 * DeLuxe2 1.21 #3969 * Why is "abbreviated" such a long word?
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: Questions B4 I Take the OS/2 Plunge
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 16:29:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.070054.15626@news.iastate.edu> TW.BX8@isumvs.iastate.edu (Steven M.) writes:
>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.

No, no reformat required.  Just make sure you have enough free space
(see below).

>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?

No, OS/2 will migrate your Windows desktop for you.

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

I don't believe so.  A Stacker for OS/2 is coming out, though.

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

The printer selection that comes with OS/2 is quite complete.  Windows
drivers for screen / printer still work.  Screen drivers for OS/2
itself are being released rather quickly.  (Trident is already out
with full support, for example.)

>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?

Actually, the figure is from 19 to 32 MB, depending on which options
you install.  Why that much?  Because it includes DOS, Windows, OS/2,
a Norton Desktop replacement (and how), ATM for both OS/2 and Windows,
a real 386 memory manager (how does 730K free conventional memory in a
DOS box sound?), typefaces, QBASIC, REXX, bitmaps, and an outrageously
complete assortment of applets (including a limited spreadsheet,
database, seemingly endless permutations of planners/calendars, and a
real programmer's editor).

Now how much would you pay?  :-)

I like Lee Reiswig's line from Comdex: "There are over 6 MB of applets
alone in there!"

Or my line: "Good grief there's a lot in here."

Heck, I'm not sure I need to install any applications now.  :-)

>Will OS/2 run with PCKWIK Disk Cacheing software?

Not needed.  A disk cache (better than a DOS one) is included in the
long list of items.  It could work, I suppose, but you'd just be
double caching (which wouldn't be terribly efficient).

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples       Keeper of the OS/2 Frequently Asked Questions
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu  List, available via anonymous ftp from
Dept. of Economics       128.123.35.151, directory pub/os2/faq, or via
Univ. of Chicago  60637  netmail from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 for user groups
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:12:21 CDT

In article <1992Apr7.234341.8174@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
>
>I am in a user group that would like to compare windows 3.1 and
>OS/2 2.0 head to head.  The problem is that we have windows 3.1
>but we don't have a copy of os2 2.0 GA.
>
>I called the IBM hotline and they said that they are so bogged down
>with orders that they can't expidite.  Is there any way to get a single
>copy to promote OS/2 with?  I'd like to show it off, but 6.304 is
>not very stable, doesn't do svga, is a bit slow, etc.
>
>Does anyone have any suggestions?
>-- 

-- Call your local IBM branch and ask for an electronic copy.
 
-- Call 1-800-3IBM-OS2 and ask for Dave Both (access code DB1).  Ask him
   for the name and phone of IBM's User Group support person in Dallas,
   TX.

-- If one of those don't work drop me a note.  No promises, though.

Bert Moshier
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald)
Subject: Re: I WANT MY UPGRADE NOWpwd!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:39:51 GMT


In article <1992Apr8.202410.5917@engage.pko.dec.com> ingram@hotair.enet.dec.com (Larry J. Ingram) writes:
>
>In article <9204081642.AA14772@ebs330.eb.uah.edu>, kchittur@EBS330.EB.UAH.EDU (Krishnan Chittur(CHE)) writes...
>>. 
>>.
>>.
>>but .. but ... Why cannot I take my proof of licence form to a
>>local dealer and get the upgrade?  (sigh .. sigh .. sigh ..)
>
>	I'm curious as to what this massive retail channel is that IBM is
>	filling. Egghead doesn't have it, CompUSA doesn't have it, CompuAdd
>	doesn't have it, nor does Software etc., Babbages, Bizmart, Sears (we
>	don't have a business center in Albuquerque), or any of the other
>	local software stores. Everyone I've called has told me they won't
>	be carrying it, not that it just hasn't come in yet.
>
>	All indications are, OS/2 is available from IBM only. What is this
>	black hole that they are calling a "retail channel"?
>
>Larry


Our local Waldensoftware knows what it is and claims to be screaming at IBM
for packages to sell. IBM has not delivered.
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Marketing..
Date: 8 Apr 92 12:29:44 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <Hu0RiB1w164w@underg.UUCP> max@underg.UUCP (Max Cray) writes:
>
>Couldn't the operating system vendor write the operating system to protect 
>the apps from each other?

Sure they could.  OS/2 does.  Microsoft doesn't.  Either they are
unwilling or unable to do so.  In the first case, they're despicable.
In the second case, they're incompetent.

Which do you prefer?
-- 
David Charlap                   Q:"Where do these stairs go?"
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu          A:"They go up"
----------------------------
Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature to join in!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: bergstro@src.honeywell.com (Pete Bergstrom)
Subject: re: Help Requested
To: comp.os.os2.misc, ohoward@matt.ksu.ksu.edu
Posted-Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 15: 17:25 CDT
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:17:25 GMT
Received-Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 15: 14:53 CDT


Todd O. Howard (ohoward@matt.ksu.ksu.edu) writes:

>I'm looking for a good review (unbiased) that sums up os2/2.0's 
>strengths and weaknesses (both promised, and if possible, delivered).
>Does anyone know if such an article exists, and if so where?
>
>Todd

I just read an article (by Petzold) in April 28's PCMagazine.  All in
all, I thought it was a fair review, even given the last, or
next-to-last beta version used.  Of course, I read the windoze review
too and my impression is that windoze still doesn't give me what I'm
going to OS/2 for.

Pete
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico de Vries.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Is OS2/2.0-DOS faster than plain Dos??
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:58:13 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

In <1992Apr14.182059.13968@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:

>In article <1992Apr14.183059.26265@towers.rn.com> davidh@towers.rn.com (David Holland) writes:
>>...
>>Well, just an example, a very old copy of norton utilities SI reports
>>approx 51.2 on a 486/33 as its computing index, however under
>>OS/2 2.0 in a Dos window I managed only 18.x.
>>...
>...
>something grossly trivial.  OS/2 2.0 may, in fact, sense this and
>steal CPU away from that DOS session to devote it to other tasks.

>One could try bumping up IDLE_SENSITIVITY to 100 and then running SI,
>but even there I would have my doubts.
>-- 
>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.

The main problem with running SI, Landmark etc under Windows, DesqView
, OS/2 etc is they way they measure time. A very important "trick" most
speed testers use (LandMark started this) is using the timer chip. Some
even reprogram it to speed up the speed test. Since all those operating
systems (or environments) mess a bit with the timer the strangest results
might occur.
Just for fun I wrote a utility XT2_386 some years ago which messed up
the timer in such a way an XT gave 386 ratings with SI, LandMark etc. Just
a possible "option".
The suggestion that OS/2 is smart enough to detect a benchmark and steal
cycles from the app does seem very unlikely to me. If it did I wouldn't
want to run the first program where OS/2 made a mistake :-)

Nico E. de Vries
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
USENET: nevries@cc.ruu.nl                 FIDO      : 2:281/708.1  (very new) 
VOICE : +31-3404-24931 (+31-30-316931)    FAX       : +31-30-312033 
BBS   : +31-30-341401 (Nico De_vries)     COMPUSERVE: (coming)
MAIL  : Hortensialaan 45, 3702VE, Zeist, The Netherlands 

IMPORT StdDisclaimer, MyPersonalOpinion;          - O   Place reserved for
Complaints about my spelling to DEV/NUL please.    |    funny joke. Sugestions 
I work for BITECH, I don't SPEAK for BITECH.      \_/   apreciated.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: Logitech mouse and OS/2 2.0 GA
Keywords: OS/2, mouse, RLL, problems, headache, pain, kill, kill, kill
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 22:42:02 GMT

In article <v21tc+q@rpi.edu> fargo@iear.arts.rpi.edu (Irwin M. Fargo) writes:
>In article <57250005@acf3.NYU.EDU> chenjs@acf3.NYU.EDU (Jiansheng Chen,1141 Meyer,8-7667,) writes:
>>I installed the OS/2 2.0 GA on a noname 386SX machine with 8MB and
>>the Logitech serial mouse.  But the mouse didn't work.  I tried the
>>following options:
>>	1) Logitech mouse; 
>>	2) Serial pointing device;
>>	3) In-port pointing device;
>>but none of them worked.
>I am having similar problems.
>I have installed OS/2 v2.0 GA on a 33 MHz 386 machine w/AMI BIOS, OPTI
>chipset, 64 KB cache, 8 MB of memory, a 100 MB RLL hard drive hooked up to
>a WD1006V-SR2, an Orchid ProDesigner II, and a Logitech serial--the good ol'
>C7 style--mouse.

Aha!  The Logitech C7 and C9 serial mice use the Mouse Systems PC
Mouse driver.  Note that if you ever use native DOS on your machine
you should:

(a)  Configure Windows to use the Mouse Systems PC Mouse;
(b)  Load the Logitech MOUSE driver using the PC option.

Option (a) need not be performed if you make sure you issue the
command MOUSE PC (or MOUSE 2 PC if your mouse is on COM2) before
booting into OS/2.

Turning the system off and then back on again will also work.
-- 
Timothy F. Sipples       Keeper of the OS/2 Frequently Asked Questions
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu  List, available via anonymous ftp from
Dept. of Economics       128.123.35.151, directory pub/os2/faq, or via
Univ. of Chicago  60637  netmail from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc