HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stangel@sparc3.cs.uiuc.edu (Mike Stangel)
Subject: Re: why does everybody hate microsoft?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:35:25 GMT

chrisr@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Chris Ringe) writes:
>peters@CS.ColoState.EDU (eric peters) writes:
>- but why is everyone so opposed to Microsoft?

>Ever hear of Hitler?  Well any company that wants to take over the entire 
>market, leaving no competition, should be shot and pi--ed on.

Agreed.  Mostly, anyway.

>Besides, the GUI is a pile of rubish, and NT isn't supposed to be 
>compatible with their own DOS/DOG operating system.

In fairness to Microsoft and Windows NT, I have to correct you here.  NT
has (read: HAS, this is no longer vaporware) a DOS client which interacts
with the Win32 Subsystem.  There is also an OS/2 Subsystem which also
communicates with the Win32 Subsystem, guaranteeing the ability to run
both DOS and OS/2 software, as well as being POSIX compliant.

>Best Bet, buy OS/2, wait for PINK, and take IBM's upgrade path to it.  
>Besides, OS/2 3.0 is supposed to be more like PINK anyways (runable on 
>different processors like 60xxx,80x86,RISC).

Windows NT is written almost entirely in C, which makes it rather portable.
In fact, as I understand it, you might want to look to see Windows NT 
running on a Mac in six months...

>CR.

Mike 
 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Mike Stangel -- stangel@uiuc.edu | "I can't kill the man I love."   |
| Chairman                         | "Then kill the one you're with." |
| UIUC Student Chapter of ACM      |                     -Crow, mst3k |
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
-- 
 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Mike Stangel -- stangel@uiuc.edu | "I can't kill the man I love."   |
| Chairman                         | "Then kill the one you're with." |
From: seeleman@staff.dccs.upenn.edu (Todd Seeleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: CPM to DOS
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:22:50 GMT
Distribution: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Organization: DCCS, University of Pennsylvania


	Greetings,

	     I need to move data from an Epson-CPM-Peachtree system to
	an IBM DOS machine.  Is there some utility which will allow
	the CPM formatted disks to be read by the PC?

        ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Todd Seeleman                   email : seeleman@dccs.upenn.edu
        University of Pennsylvania      phone : 215-898-1264 (day)
	PennNet Computing Services	      : 
        3401 Walnut Street, Suite 221a  fax   : 
        Philadelphia, PA  19104-6228
        ---------------------------------------------------------------
From: eck@infopls.chi.il.us (John Eckert)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Artificial Intelligence Programs?
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 20:03:26 CDT
Organization: INFOPLUS support, Wheeling, IL

I'm interested in playing with Artificial Intelligence.  (Duh!)
Are there any programs in circulation which are truly interesting?

eck@infopls.chi.il.us (John Eckert)


--
eck@infopls.chi.il.us (John Eckert)
Infoplus BBS, +1 708 537 0247, v32bis. Home of Infoplus.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: DR DOS EMM386 Error
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 16:08:26 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island, CANADA

In article <1992Aug25.230938.7755@panix.com> carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:

>In <reichert.714752566@aloe1> reichert@rtsg.mot.com (Charles H. Reichert) writes:

>  You might want to know that kmcvay@zoo is a bogus address, according to
>the mailer at CUNYVM, and so is kmcvay@zoo.bitnet.

Hmmm - zoo.almanac.bc.ca is a valid address - it's a DOS box in the
almanac.bc.ca domain - I will check the Waffle setup and make certain it
uses the full domain address in the future...

>  You need to load EMM36 explicitly, by including it in the CONFIG.SYS, 
>or alternatively USE that QEMM program you have commented out, by
>using the installer program that comes with either.  QEMM is supposed
>to be better, but I've never tried it, and DR DOS' memory manager works
>very well indeed for me.  (I have 636K of memory available for programs,
>after I load two TSRs).

EMM386 is apparently forced - perhaps because of SSTOR being in use, so QEMM
refuses to load, telling me another memory manager is already resident. If
someone from novell.com can clarify this for me, I'd appreciate hearing from
them, as I would indeed rather use QEMM...

-- 
" It  may have  been the Propaganda Ministry that  ... thought up the idea of 
forcing all Jews to wear a yellow star ... The marking was intended to hinder 
 ... assistance to Jews who were being harassed.   We wanted  Germans to feel 
embarrassed, ... afraid of having any contact with Jews." [Adolf Eichmann]
From: spedroza@CS.EP.UTEXAS.EDU (Samuel Pedroza)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Need Help with Chorus Data Systems Video Board
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:19:05 GMT


   Hello everyone,


   We have a PC Video Capture Board from Chorus Data Systems (now out of
   business) that we have inherited from a different department.
   Unfortunately, they have lost the software for this.  We do have a
   Technical Reference Manual and Programmer's Guide.  The document
   that I am holding (the only thing we have on this board) is titled:

         -------------------------------
	 |    Chorus Data Systems      |
   	 |	  PC-EYE	       |
         |   Video Capture System      |
	 |	 Release 2.2           |
         |			       |
         | Technical Reference Manual  |
	 |           and   	       |
         |    Programmer's Guide       |
         -------------------------------


    The phone number inside this manual apparently leads to some
    grumpy dude on the other end that obviously has received many
    phone calls trying to reach Chorus Data Systems and makes every
    effort to be rude if you call asking for a Chorus representative.

    So!  I was hoping that someone out there would know where it might
    be possible to get the proper software to interface to this board
    or if somebody out there actually has this board and could
    possible help us.  

    Replies can be via this newsgroup or you can e-mail me at:
       spedroza@cs.ep.utexas.edu 
		 or
       utep-vaxa!sam@cs.utexas.edu

    Thanks for any and all help!

    sam
From: beig@dmi.ens.fr (Jacques Beigbeder)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: word processors with cyrillic?
Date: 3 Sep 92 09:25:06 GMT
Reply-To: beig@dmi.ens.fr
Organization: Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris, France

A friend of mine wants to buy an IBM-PC to type texts with
* exclusively * cyrillic characters. Two questions arise:

1. do commercial word-processors work with such characters:
visualization, hyphenation, etc. ? Do you recommend one of all
the availables software?

2. how to configure the keyboard to be able to type in a
pretty way? Macros within the word processors, special drivers?

Thanks in advance for your answer. Please use e-mail since
I don't subscribe to comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc. And sorry if this
is a FAQ...

-- 
Jacques Beigbeder                    | Internet: beig@ens.fr
Service de Prestations Informatiques |  Bitnet : beig@frulm63
Ecole Normale Superieure             |     Tel : (33-1) 44-32-37-96
F75230 Paris Cedex 05                |     Fax : (33-1) 44-32-20-80
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
From: fox@rei.com (Fuzzy Fox)
Subject: Re: Best modem program w/VT102 and zmodem transfers?
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:14:40 GMT
Organization: Recognition Equipment, Inc.

Sullivan Beck (beck@qtp.ufl.edu) wrote:
: I am looking for the best modem program for my PC.  I don't care too
: much if it's PD, shareware, or commercial (though I'd prefer PD or
: shareware), but I have to be able to run at least a demo of it to try
: it out before I'll buy it.

Download TeleMate and try it out.  It's a winner for me.  Available at
Simtel20 in the PD1:<MSDOS.MODEM> directory as TM310-[123].ZIP.

-- 
#ifdef TRUE         | Fuzzy Fox                  fuzzy@netcom.com
#define  TRUE   0   | a.k.a. David DeSimone      an207@cleveland.freenet.edu
#define  FALSE  1   |
#endif              |         How's my posting?  Call 1-800-ALT-FLAME
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
From: franke@andrej.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Christian Franke)
Subject: Re: PCTools DeLuxe -- upgrade to 7.1?
Organization: Rechnerbetrieb Informatik  /  RWTH Aachen
Date:  2 Sep 92 06:43:09 GMT

etnbkkc@hisoy.etn.ericsson.se (Karlsen Bjorn) writes:

>I got an offer to upgrade my PCTools DeLuxe from 6.0 to 7.1
>Why should I upgrade?
>Why should I not upgrade?
>I'm using (mostly) CPBackup, Compress and DiskFix.

Here is a >>Why not<<:
CPBACKUP 7.1 has a serious bug in the error detection.
I don't know whether this bug is also in 6.0.

To explain this, here my posting from comp.os.ms-windows.apps:

-------- cut -------
>Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.apps
>From: franke@andrej.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Christian Franke)
>Subject: Re: What's awful about PC Tools 7.1?
>Date: 26 Aug 92 15:17:39 GMT

[...]

CAUTION: ** DO NOT RELY ON CPBACKUPS ERROR DETECTION/CORRECTION **

Some time ago, I performed the following test with PCTOOLS 7.1
(with the DOS Version of CPBACKUP):

1) Back up some files on a 5 1/4" Floppy.

2) Use a magnet to make a small part of the floppy unreadable.

3) Try to restore the files to a different directory:
   CPBACKUP retries and retries and retries to read some track
   on the floppy.
   After some time the Message Box "Restore Complete"
   NO ERROR MESSAGE AT ALL. 

4) Compare original with restored directory:
   All files are there with correct time/date/size.
   But: the files where the retries occured were currupt!!!

Perhaps someone at CP hears me...


------- cut --------

Regards,

	Christian Franke

	Aachen University of Technology
	Lehrstuhl fuer Informatik I
	Ahornstrasse 55
	W-5100 Aachen
	Germany
	Tel.: 0241 / 80-21111


Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
From: jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris)
Subject: Re: 386 Blue Max
Keywords: Memory Manager, 386 Bue Max
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:23:45 GMT

kreidler@convex.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Homer Simpson) writes:

>In our institute we will get SDK 3.1 for Windows 3.1.
>Unfortunately they told us it will not work with himem.sys and emm383.exe.
>We *must* use a software called 386 Blue Max (sp?). Has anyone an idea of
>configuring such a thing, what shall be a problem.

Quick answer #1: if you are planning to do all your development under
Windows, just ignore the issue.

Quick answer #2: if you will be using a C compiler other than MSC version
7, just ignore the issue.

Somewhat longer answer:

Version 7 of the Microsoft C compiler requires a DPMI (DOS Protected Mode
Interface) memory manager to execute.  It requires the interface defined
by DPMI version 0.9, plus the nonstandard MS extensions to that spec.

[An aside: ain't standards wonderful, especially when ignored?]

A DOS application running under Windows 3.1 is provided with the necessary
DPMI interface by Windows itself and nothing needs to be done to DOS.

If you are running a barefoot DOS application which requires DPMI you must
have previously modified your system to include a DPMI server.  Since
DOS does not include a built-in DPMI server, the MSC version 7 package
includes a full retail copy of Qualitas' memory manager 386-to-the-Max.
386^max is a replacement for HIMEM which provides all of its functions,
plus those of emm386, as well as providing the necessary DPMI services.

386^max will run on all '386 systems (the documented minimum chip for MSC7)
as well as many '286 machines.  There is a variant of 386^max called Blue Max
which includes code to squeeze a little more memory out of IBM PS/2
adapter BIOS address space, but 386^max will work on a PS/2.

Last time I looked the Qualitas product was claimed to be the only 
commercial memory manager which offered the necessary DPMI interfaces.
QEMM and others will probably become capable of doing this in the 
future (if they haven't already done so).

The only difference I know of between the 386^max package in the MSC7
box and what you can buy from a retail store is that the copy you
get with MSC7 includes a coupon you can send back to Qualitas to
get a copy of Blue Max (replacing the 386^max in the C7 box).  Cost
of the upgrade is US$20 plus US$25 for shipping outside of continental
US.

You may be able to get the upgrade and/or additional info from the 
European office of Qualitas.  The Rolodex card in my kit shows:

   Qualitas SA 
   Brussels, Belgium
   Voice:  32 2 648-5470
   Fax:    32 2 648-5440


Joe Morris / MITRE
Xref: sparky comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:11790 comp.os.msdos.apps:4468 comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d:3348
From: peter@global.hacktic.nl (Peter Busser)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,comp.os.msdos.apps,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re^2: Why do people want PD software?
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 12:50:26 GMT
Organization: Global Village 1

roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) writes:

>bws@ccs.carleton.ca (Brian Sullivan) writes:

>> P.S.
>> While we are at it does, anyone know of any PD multi user games for 
>> DOS. I'm thinking of something like conquest on UNIX. While it is PD on 
>> UNIX, the author will not permit ports to DOS (Sigh ...)

>That's self-contradictory.  If the software has been placed in the
>public domain (the traditional meaning of PD), then the author has given
>up any rights of control.  If the author retains copyright, such that he
>can control derivitave works (like a port to DOS), then the software is
>not in the public domain. 

That is of course nit-picking. Would you suggest GCC if someone asks for a PD
C compiler? Of course not! It's not a PD C compiler but a freeware. Sheesh!

PD and freeware are only different for lawyers, for most people the two are
practically the same. I've seen many programs which claim to be PD while the
author claims the copyright of the complete source, or of the headers in the
source or of the credits in the source, etc. So the difference is vague.

While we're at nit-picking:
>Intellectual property is not limited by hardware platform.

Then why can't IBM sue every clone maker? The PC and AT architectures and BIOS
are intellectual property of IBM because they were invented and published by
IBM.

Intellectual property is not protected by copyright. Copyright restricts the
right to copy the physical apearance (that is, the words, sentences, pictures,
etc.) not the ideas. The only way to protect intellectual property is to keep
it strictly for yourself, making it a trade secret or pattenting it.

IBM is (or was) only able to sue clone makers who copied (i.e. whose work was
largely identical to IBM's) the IBM BIOS or electronics.

Greetings,
Peter Busser
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: OS2 - What is it ?
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 12:01:53 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <10741445.8.714801424@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au> 10741445@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au (PAUL TZU WEN) writes:
> I am in the dark with OS2 - so could someone please help me out ? Firstly, 
> what is OS2 ? As far as I know it is some sort of operating system where you 
> can do multitasking. Is that correct ? My questions are:
> 1) Is it any good ?

After over a yer of using Windows, the past 4 months on OS/2 V2.0 have been
great. Windows is dead in my house. OS/2 is a much better multi-tasker -
smoother by far than Windows. You can pile on the work and it just doesn't
seem to slow down. Programs run in protected areas of memory, so if one
program crashes, 95% of the time this has no impact on other task running.
OS/2 is not totally bug-free, but it has Windows beat by miles for stability.
The HPFS (High Performance File Structure) disk format uses less space, runs
faster, and allows 254 character filenames - at least! filenames that *mean*
something! Dos programs running under OS/2 will happily use HPFS. No worries. 
Just don't use Norton Utilities. It doesn't know what it is look ing
at.....besides, HPFS resists file fragmentation, so re-orgs are no longer
needed. 

In OS/2, you get DOS5, Windows 3.x (including OLE and parameter checking) as
well as OS/2 and Adobe Type Manager V2.0. There is also the REXX 32-bit
programming language included. An awesome package for the price.
 

> 2) What do you need to run it ?

A 386/33 or 40 with 6 to 8 megs of RAM and a 100-120 meg disk drive will do
very well. The more RAM and disk space, the better. With OS/2, processor speed
is lees important than the amount of RAM. I have *megs and I haven't really
hit the limit, yet even with 10 tasks open (7 of which were active).


> 3) How do other programs/games work with it ?

Almost all DOS, Windows (2.x and 3.x) programs and OS/2 programs. Most major
DOS/Windows applications have OS/2 versions (CorelDraw - new!, Lotus 123,
WordPerfect, Arts and Letters, PageMaker, Ventura Publisher, Micrgraphix
Draw/Designer, Sytos PLus (backup) and many, many more).

Mathematica 2.0 will not run under OS/2. Nor will Ultima VII. Both use
incompatible memory management techniques. Soon, OS/2 will support Win3.1
fully as well as the Win3.0 programs that Win3.1 won't run.
 
Steve



-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | If you don't vote for MMP on 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  September 19, 1992, then you 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  must like things the way they 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  are.....can I live with YOU?
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
From: eboltz@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Eric Scott Boltz)
Subject: Image Processing Software?
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:28:35 GMT

Hi,
I'm looking for a good image processing package for intel based systems.
It can be commercial or public domain.

I while back someone posted about a programs from Synoptics called SEMPER.
They even posted an address and phone number. The problem is that the phone
number is no longer in use by Synoptics (it belongs to someone who's been   
getting phone calls for Synoptics for the past three weeks) and I don't know
how to contact this company.

Any information is GREATLY APPRECIATED!

Eric S. Boltz
The Johns Hopkins University / NIST, Boulder Labs

Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
From: fox@rei.com (Fuzzy Fox)
Subject: Re: Stacker vs. Xtra Drive
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:27:06 GMT
Organization: Recognition Equipment, Inc.

ecg@controls.ccd.harris.com (Eric Graves) writes:

> I was wondering if anybody was familiar with both
> Stacker and Xtra Drive (by Integrated Information 
> Technology).

I can only answer for Stacker, since that's all I have.

> 1) What is the performance hit with either of these
> two products and how do they compare to each other?

I have not noticed any reduction in performance on my 20 MHz 386.

> 2) How well do these products perform under Windows?

Works very well.  Compression is about 2:1 for most Windows files.

> 3) Are there compatibiliy problems with memory managers?

I was unable to get Stacker to use EMS generated by EMM386 or QEMM, so I
do not use that option.  It will run properly without using EMS.

> 4) Do these programs really double the amount of
> data/programs stored on the hard disk or is this dependent
> upon the type of data/programs?

It depends on the data, but 2:1 is about what you get if you don't try
to compress any data (using ZIP or GIF or LZH or whatever scheme).

> 5) Both of these programs offer hardware versions. How do
> these compare to the software versions?

I can't say.

> 6)  What type of preparation is necessary before installation.  I know
> Stacker requires that you reformat your drives that will be stacked,
> but what does Xtra Drive require?

This is not true.  Stacker will stack an existing drive with its data,
through the INSTALL program.  I did this and it works.  It is, of
course, advisable to back up everything first, in case a power failure
interrupts the process.  It takes quite some time, depending on how much
data you have.

> 7)  How much memory do the drivers consume?

Stacker takes about 40K.

> 8)  Can the drivers be loaded into high memory under Dos5?

Yes.

> 9)  What are potential dangers of using each system.  For instance,
> is there a single configuration file which if lost, will cause
> me to lose data on all drives which are compressed?

Stacker does a good job of trying to recover when its files are damaged.
However, a bad write to the wrong place can render everything unreadable,
but DOS has this problem, too.  I've had data destroyed while using
Stacker, and I've had data destroyed while NOT using Stacker.  That's
the way MS-DOS is.

In short, Stacker is no better or worse than DOS as to performance or
resistance to errors.  It takes 40K for the driver, and it gives you
twice the hard disk space in most cases.  If you load the driver high,
you'll never notice it, most likely.

-- 
#ifdef TRUE         | Fuzzy Fox                  fuzzy@netcom.com
#define  TRUE   0   | a.k.a. David DeSimone      an207@cleveland.freenet.edu
#define  FALSE  1   |
#endif              |         How's my posting?  Call 1-800-ALT-FLAME
From: carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: DR DOS EMM386 Error
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:09:38 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <reichert.714752566@aloe1> reichert@rtsg.mot.com (Charles H. Reichert) writes:

>kmcvay@zoo (ken mcvay) writes:

[stuff deleted]


>Where is SHARE?  SHARE should be loaded, especially if using SSTOR

 DR DOS does not require SHARE for large volumes.  It only exists because
some programs, expecting the brain dead MS DOS 4.0, check to be sure
that SHARE is loaded.  DR DOS' SHARE is only needed if you're using
a multitasker or task switcher (or network), which we don't know. 

>>Here's the error message:
>>EMM386: Write attempted to relocated BDOS from 02C1:1B45 CR2=00103000

>>Can someone comfortable with DR DOS 6.0 help me sort this out?

>I'd say you still have a bit of work to do with your CONFIG.SYS &
>AUTOEXEC.BAT files.

>No flame...you just need to read the manual a bit more.

>Good Luck    Chuck Reichert

  You might want to know that kmcvay@zoo is a bogus address, according to
the mailer at CUNYVM, and so is kmcvay@zoo.bitnet.

  You need to load EMM36 explicitly, by including it in the CONFIG.SYS, 
or alternatively USE that QEMM program you have commented out, by
using the installer program that comes with either.  QEMM is supposed
to be better, but I've never tried it, and DR DOS' memory manager works
very well indeed for me.  (I have 636K of memory available for programs,
after I load two TSRs).

-- 
==============================================================================
Carl Fink          carlf@panix.com, C.FINK4(GEnie), or CF427620I@LIUVAX.BITNET
  "Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits"  -  Mark Twain
Xref: sparky comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:11968 comp.os.msdos.apps:4537 comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d:3378