HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bash@tware.com (Paul Bash)
Subject: Re: SCSI WD7000 Help needed!
Organization: Techware Design, Boulder, Colorado.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 06:23:27 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.073015.24230@urmel.informatik.rwth-aachen.de> werner@abmx.rz.rwth-aachen.de writes:
>Hi Folks,
>I followed the discussions on your board for quite a while
>and I'm confident that there's anyone out there listening who
>already tried the following configurarion:
>
>SCSI Host Adapter  Western Digital WD7000 Fasst
>and 135MB Drive    Fujitsu M135S
>on a No-Name 386/DX 20MHz.
>

I'm currently using a WD7000 with a Western Digital 200MB SCSI disk on a
no-name 486 under OS/2 2.0 6.304. 

It works perfectly. 

>A last question: does OS/2 need or use a 387 coprocessor if available
>and if so, for which tasks?
>
>Thanks for your Help and keep up the good work on your board.
>

Sorry, can't help you here.
>
-- 
Paul Bash                                                   Techware Design 
bash@tware.com                                              Boulder, CO  U.S.A.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 07:11:41 CST
From: gthome@ausvm1.VNET.IBM.COM
Subject: Re: OS/2 and Installation
Reply-To: gthome@ausvm1.VNET.IBM.COM
Organization: IBM - Austin
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 2.0
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc

In <1992Apr9.110438@masg1.epfl.ch> Ceki Gulcu writes:
>In article <rvvlqINNo1t@agate.berkeley.edu>, woan@soda.berkeley.edu (Ronald Woan) writes:
>|> 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.
>
> Wow! This is great news. Do you have an idea how the two "magical" diskettes
> work?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>| GULCU Ceki                            |  "It is not only fine feathers     |
>| e-mail: gulcu@lbdsun6.epfl.ch         |   that make fine birds."           |
>| Swiss Federal Institute of Technology |   AESOP,  6th century BC.          |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature to join in!
>

I kind of know how it works.  Its a tool called SRVIFS.  The 2 diskettes are
basically the first two install diskettes from 2.0, with a some simple LAN
NETBIOS redirection code that makes a connection to a server during the boot
of the machine.  Once the install program is initiated, it can handle
running over the network.

As a matter of fact, the machine I'm typing on now was installed with this
two diskette method.

Gerry Thome
IBM - Austin
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Manuals with OS/2 V.2 as shipped.
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:26:07 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <17363.29db1453@ecs.umass.edu> horan@ecs.umass.edu writes:
>I have PC-DOS 4.0 and OS/2 1.3, both IBM operating systems.  The package
>that both came in are nice bookshelf type deals with a 3 ring binder type
>book that ...
>
>SUCKS.
>
>Windows and MS-DOS come with bound, not incredible, but MUCH better manuals.
>My question and hope is whether or not OS/2 when It finally gets to my 
>house, (after a couple of months probably) will have a good manual, or this
>sh*tty notebook.

What's your point?  You'd throw away a perfectly good system because
of the binding the manuals come in??!?!?!??!?  

Anyway, I prefer the binders, or the spiral-books that later editions
came in.  Those glue-bound books MS ships won't stay open on your
table when you're trying to type and read at the same time.  I've
actually burst the binding on my MS manuals so I could bind them on
rings. 

The only company that did things right is Borland.  Their TPW (Turbo
Pascal for Windows) package has paperback books which are bound a bit
differently.  The spine paper is attached at the edges, but not on the
pages' spine.  This way, the manual stays open when I'm reading it.



-- 
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: smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith)
Subject: Re: SVGA blurb in GA README
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 00:34:43 GMT

Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET> writes:

>This is what README file says about SVGA support with OS/2:
>
>...the following SVGA boards have been
>teste and found to work with OS/2 2.0 for DOS applications that make use
>of SVGA modes:
>
>  -> Orchid Prodesigner IIs (ISA and MCA)

What about the Orchid Prodesigner II (without the s)?  Anybody try
it yet?
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 16:54:12 EDT
From: fattire@vnet.ibm.com (BJ Hargrave)
Subject: My OS/2 GA Won't Install!
News-Software: UReply 2.0
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc

In <matt.10@bss1.umd.edu> Matthew Piermarini writes:
>Help!
>
>  I finally get a copy of GA and it won't get past disk 1 during the install.
>It fails with a FDISK error after displaying the Logo.  The INSTALL.LOG file
>looks like:
>
>Model=FC
>Submodel=01
>Non-Abios Machine
>Bus Architecutre=|0|
>Disk Type=|0|
>FDISK Unsuccessful
>
>I am installing it on a 386 AMI bios clone, with 2 95meg RLL Drives
>(WD1006SRV2 Rll Controller).   I don't think it is a hardware problem
>because I have been using these drives for a while with DOS 5, AND IT WORKED
>FINE USING THE .304 BETA!  Please help.
>
>Matt Piermarini
>Matt@bss1.umd.edu

This is a known problem with GA OS/2 2.0. Here is a work around
until a fix becomes available.
================================================================

PROBLEM: Some customers with AT-bus machines are having difficulty
         installing 2.0.

CONFIGURATION: AT-bus (ISA)
               non-SCSI disk controller (RLL, MFM, ESDI)

SYMPTOMS: Very slow install
          Very noisy hard disk during install
          FDISK errors

WORKAROUND:
Step 1:Use DOS to edit the CONFIG.SYS on Diskette #1 in the 2.0 package.
       Diskette #1 is the first diskette AFTER the Install diskette.

       Change the line -
       BASEDEV=IBM1S506.ADD

            to

       REM BASEDEV=IBM1S506.ADD

Step 2: Boot the Install diskette and proceed with Install through the
        first five diskettes.

Step 3: After diskettes 1 through 5 are processed, you are asked to
        reinsert the Install diskette.
        DO SO.
        After copying some files from the Install diskette, you are
        asked to remove the Install diskette and press Enter to reboot.
        DO NOT DO THIS. LEAVE THE INSTALL DISKETTE IN THE DRIVE.

Step 4: Press Enter with the Install diskette in the drive.
        This will boot the Install diskette.
        After a while, you will be asked to insert Diskette #1.
        DO SO.
        Watch the screens carefully. After a while, you will see a
        screen that tells you (on the lower left) that you can Escape
        out of it.
        When you see this, press Esc.

Step 5: You are now at a command line.
        Enter the following commands:
        RENAME C:\OS2\IBM1S506.ADD   IBM1S506.XXX
        COPY   C:\OS2\IBMINT13.I13   C:\OS2\IBM1S506.ADD

        Note: If C is not your install drive, adjust the commands
              accordingly.

Step 6: Remove the diskette from the drive.
        Press ALT-CTRL-DEL to reboot the system, and install should
        pick up where it left off.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BJ Hargrave                     Internet: fattire@vnet.ibm.com
Boca Raton, FL                  IBMIPNet: bjhar@bjhar.bocaraton.ibm.com
From: root@piassun1 (Operator)
Subject: Re: Trident Virtual Desktop PM Drivers
Keywords: svga virtual desktop
Organization: Technical University of Graz, Austria
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 08:43:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.195343.19129@leland.Stanford.EDU> pingshan@leland.Stanford.EDU (PINGSHAN WEN) writes:
>Trident has some new weird stuff posted on their BBS.
>The new drivers use 800x600-256 colors or 640x480-256 colors
>screen resolutions, but provide 1024x1024 desktop (Workplace shell)
>which their called Virtual Desktop.  Users are able to access bigger
>desktop by moving mouse cursor out of the physical screen.  The
>driver tracks the mouse movement and pans the screen on the desktop.
>Ilike my 14 inch monitor works on 800x600 mode while can still access
>1024x1024 desktop.  The readme.doc file is modified.  You have to read it
>before install.

Great. Could someone puhleeze copy these new drivers to hobbes.nmsu.edu
I'd really appreciate that very much.

Thanks in advance -- Tom Leitner / Joanneum Research / Graz / Austria
From: Andrew.Carpenter@f501.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Andrew Carpenter)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Accelerator boards and os
Date: 5 Apr 92 05:17:00 GMT

BO>I have been reading about the video accelerator boards (such as the ATI
BO>boards and the S3 boards) and the notable improvement they bring to
BO>Windows.  Does this improvement carry over to running OS/2?  Or is the
BO>hardware solution they chose somehow only effective for Windows?

Orchid says they will have OS/2 2.0 drivers out for their Fahrenheit S3
board.  I assume that with these drivers the board will be able to
offload OS/2 graphical instructions into its processor, although I
don't know for sure. (I hope so, since I just got a 486 with a local bus
S3 card!...)


 * Origin: SeaHunt BBS, PCBoard / HST-DS 1-415-431-0227  (8:914/501)
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: News from L.A. OS/2 Celebration and COMDEX announcement
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:10:55 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Apr8.080147.18648@cheshire.oxy.edu> rafetmad@cheshire.oxy.edu (David R. Giller) writes:
>
>From my experience with 1.x, I would assume that IBM will up the version
>number (to 2.00.1) and print all future versions.  If you apply the CSD,
>you essentially have the same level.  Am I wrong?
>
>Genuine question.  Never applied the CSDs.  My 1.30.0 works fine.

Yes.  When I applied CSD WR5050 to my copy of 1.30.0, it was the
equivalent to 1.30.2, but SYSLEVEL said it was 1.30.0 WR5050.


-- 
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!
From: gdoucett@gdoucette.stfx.ca (G. Doucette)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: TCP/IP and X-Windows
Date: 16 Apr 92 12:10:31 GMT
Organization: University Computer Services, St. Francis Xavier University


What TCP/IP and X-Windows packages are available for OS/2?

Gary

| Gary Doucette                     E-Mail:     doucette@phoeniX.StFX.Ca |
|                                   Telephone:  (902) 867-2275           |
| Unix Systems Manager              Fax:        (902) 867-5153           |
| CC, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, NS, CANADA, B2G 1C0     |
From: chris@atl.scscom.com (Chris Boaro)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Infoworld Headlines
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:09:35 GMT
Organization: SCS/Compute, Inc.

Well, my April 6th Infoworld showed up today. The good news is that OS/2
2.0 had 2 front page headlines, the bad news is that they were:

"OS/2 2.0 Stumbles but Shows Promise", which goes on to say a few nice 
things about 2.0, but harps on the current absence of a netware requester.
It does say that the 2.0 desktop puts the Windoze interface to shame. The
closing comments say that users wanting a mature, "robust" operating system
will have to wait a bit longer.

and "Long Wait Ahead for OS/2 Overhaul" goes on to talk about OS/2's
future upgrade for multiprocessing support. I would think that the front
page news about 2.0 would talk about were it fits now instead of how it
will fit into a market that doesn't even exist yet 12 to 18 months from 
now.

Other mentions of OS/2 still talk about it as being a server or high end
operating system. I think IBM needs to work on OS/2's image - get it down
to the desktop. Explain to potential customers and to the press why it
is such a valuable tool for -any- desktop. Personally, I never understood
why anyone would want to waste a fews megs of RAM and disk space putting
an operating system with a GUI on a server in the first place. And as
for this "mission critical" myth, if I loose an hour's worth of data
because my operating system crashes, and you say it's okay because I
wasn't working on anything "mission critical", it's very possible that I
may hurt you.

Excuse me while I vent! :)

Chris
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: nnn50950@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nicky Nguyen )
Subject: Some questions
Summary: General question from a novice
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 05:00:03 GMT

Hi!  I am only a novice in terms of knowledge about OS/2 v2 and I have
a few questions that I was wondering if somebody could answer for me.
Like most of you, I have ordered my copy of OS/2 v2 about a week or two
ago and am anxiously waiting for its arrival.  I have been following 
this newsgroup closely for the past couple of weeks to find out new
information about OS/2.  From several of the postings, it has been 
mentioned how slowly OS/2 performs with various hardware configurations.

I have a Dolch 486/25 computer configured as follows: AMI BIOS, 4 Meg RAM,
120 Meg hard disk, 1.2 and 1.44 Meg floppies, 64K cache, VGA Wizard w/ 512k
by AHEAD system graphics card, 2400 baud Practical Peripherals modem,
Soundblaster Pro sound card.

I was wondering if my system would encounter any problems in speed/
performance with the above system, whether or not I should add more
RAM to my system, etc.  Any advice would really be appreciated.

Thanxs,

NNN
From: woan@soda.berkeley.edu (Ronald Woan)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Microsoft wins
Date: 6 Apr 1992 16:05:13 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

IBM is very interested in signing up OEMs for preload, etc... If you
send me contact information, I can try to forward it to the department
responsible.
-- 
+-----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: mcover@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark Coverdill)
Subject: Re: Can't open c drive and can't start programs on c
Reply-To: markc+@osu.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 15:08:50 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.173207.13093@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Hi, I am trying to install os/2 2.0 GA version (I got it for free
>at Comdex) on my Compaq 20 Mhz with 5 meg memory and 300 meg disk
>space.  I cannot open c drive and cannot run dos programs off of
>c drive.  I have tried to install it correctly three times already
>without much luck.  I get the message that Access is denied whenever
>I try to launch dos program on c.  D drive is fine.  Any help will
>be appreciated.
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>Min

I had a similar problem, posted earlier on it and have finally found
the problem.  It is actually in the help files but not very well
identified.  I believe it has to do with extended attributes (search
under 'attributes' in help).

QUOTE ON

  There is a possibility of losing extended attributes if the file is
  rewritten or copied by a previous version of the OS/2* operating
  system, DOS, or an application written before this version of OS/2 2.0.

QUOTE OFF

In essence what you have to do is run OS/2's version of chkdsk against
the harddrive (search in the information icon for chkdsk). Unfortunately
you can't run chkdsk against c: when OS/2 is running because it 
apparently grabs exclusive control of the drive.

Follow the instructions for chkdsk and boot from the installation disk
and then get to the OS/2 command prompt.  The chkdsk command is on
installation diskette 2.  Run the command 'chkdsk c: /f' and you should
see a lot of error recovery going on.

Now try running your programs again.  I have discovered that this is
not a 100% recovery.  On those last hold out programs what I had to
do is dual boot to DOS, make a temporary directory, move files that
would not run to that directory, delete and recreate the original
directory and then copy the files back (not as painful as it sounds 
really :-)).

Now that I understand I little more what is going on with 2.0 what I
will eventually do is back up all my DOS programs, reformat the drive,
reinstall OS/2 and then recover my DOS files. Should get all the little
ducks back in a line then. Good luck. :-)
 
Mark
-- 
Mark Coverdill                                 The Ohio State University
Internet: markc+@osu.edu                              Columbus, Ohio
From: cromwell@acsu.buffalo.edu (mark j cromwell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Pause before you consider OS/2 (was Re: Win 3.1 not THAT great.)
Date: 10 Apr 92 20:31:10 GMT
Organization: State University of New York at Buffalo/Comp Sci


   Here he's confusing multitasking with multiprocessing. Obviously
OS/2 supports multitasking now, but won't support multiprocessing
until 12-18 months from now.

		
					- Mark Cromwell
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: OS/2 2.0 GA - Impressions, Suggestions, Info
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:57:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: cancun.rdippold.702593847
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

OS/2 2.0 GA comes on 21 disks - 1 install, 15 system, 5 printer
drivers.  I've been running all weekend, and it seems to be rock
solid.  I haven't been able to crash it yet.  I did manage to mess up
the desktop screen by switching out of an SVGA full-screen to the
desktop, but then I haven't done SVGA ON yet, either.

Orchid says they will have drivers for the ProDesigner IIs and
Farenheit 1280s within 4-6 weeks (they're very bullish on 4 weeks),
possibly sooner for the IIs.  This will be full 256 colors.  The
designer had a panic attack when someone mentioned 32000 color mode,
so don't expect that for a while.

Installation suggestions: I have a 106 MB hard disk.  I repartitioned
and reinstalled three (3!) times before I found the setup I liked.  My
suggestion: Make a bootable partition C: for DOS with enough room for
you to put DOS and some DOS stuff on it.  Then make an extended
logical HPFS partition for OS/2 2.0 with the rest.  I settled on 30 MB
for the DOS partition (I want to have room for Ultima VII, and I don't
know if it's going to run well under OS/2 2.0).  Then make it bootable
on OS/2 2.0 by default.

I thought there wasn't a Deskjet driver, but you have to look under
the Epson-7000 driver!

I do have one problem with not being able to locate the COM port
setup.  Frankly, the wealth of options are amazing, but they can bury
things like this... the problem is that when I'm downloading at high
speed in the background (with a 16550), any screen operation that
takes more than "x" amount of time (usually drawing a full complex
window) causes the transfer to "burp".  I've got CTS/RTS flow control
on, but that doesn't seem to help, and I can't find COM port setup.

All in all though, I've completely converted, and wiped Windows off my
disk drive.
-- 
Easiest way to figure the cost of living: Take your income and add ten percent
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: Andrew Bros <bros@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Is a 16MHz 386sx with a 65 Meg HD enough for OS/2 2.0???
Originator: bros@mikey.convex.com
Reply-To: bros@convex.COM (Andrew Bros)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, TX
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 13:45:55 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <92105.080059NLAFLAMM@vma.cc.nd.edu> Nick Laflamme <NLAFLAMM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:
>My personal recommendation is to start with at least 80 MB (120 is what
>I'd go for these days) and 8MB; RAM is so cheap, why stop at 6?  I don't
>have a strong feel for how much CPU you need; I still believe I'm much
>more constrained by the RAM/Disk situation than by the 386sx.

  I'd agree with this.  I have a PS/2 Model 70 (20Mhz 386, 4M RAM, 120Mb
hard drive).  My problem is that the motherboard will only take 6M of
ram.  At $100+ per 2M, it isn't cheap, and a MCA memory board
certainly isn't.  But, realistically, the operating systems and
application that I want to run are memory and disk hogs.  I guess I
get spoiled at work :-).
-- 
Andrew Bros				bros@convex.com
Technical Assistance Center		Convex Computer Corporation
Hacker's Dictionary:  DOS: Dain-bramaged Operating System
From: MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu (Spiro the Spiny Goldfish)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Possible Reason for no OS/2 in Stores?
Date: 12 Apr 92 21:37:26 GMT
Organization: Penn State ACA (American Churl Association)
X-Subliminal-Message: OS/2 2.0 is here.  Call 1-800-3IBMOS2 to order.
X-Curtains-For-Windows: OS/2 2.0 upgrade from Windows: $49
X-PEPSI-Slogan: My butt -- Gotta bite it!
X-Emasculated-Operating-System: UNIX

In article <1992Apr12.131429.28278@engr.uark.edu>, dch2@engr.uark.edu (David
Hobbs) says:
>
>At the OS/2 rollout, I jokingly asked an IBM rep. why they didn't let
>Microsoft do their OS/2 marketing.  The rep (believe it or not she did not
>get pissed) said that since so many 'popular' packages were being released
>right now (she didn't mention names:), there was somewhat a shortage on
>floppy disks right now.
>
>You'd think that IBM of all people would be prepared for something like
>this...

Rumor has it that they had a huge order of floppy disks ready in December,
but cancelled the order when GA was announced for March;  and then they
couldn't get disks for March because of another company's large upgrade
orders.
---
Michael E. Dahmus -- mxd118@psuvm.psu.edu, dahmus@cs.psu.edu, or GWPX90D *P*
UNIX:  The perfect operating system for people who don't have to pay for
       their computers.        <* OS/2 2.0 is here! *>
From: unruh@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh [Unruh])
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Is OS2/2.0-DOS faster than plain Dos??
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:01:02 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada

nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico de Vries.) writes:
>.......
>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

It multitasks- It steals cycles from all programs running, not just a
DOS speed test. Under Dos we are used to the machine being completely
under control of the program we happen to be running. We can write
programs, and timing loops under the assurance that nothing else (except
maybe a TSR) will ever get in the way. Multitasking ain't like that.
Real time jobs are much more difficult.