HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: u912078@daimi.aau.dk (S|ren Erland Vest|)
Subject: Volume numbers in MSDOS 5.0 ???
Organization: DAIMI: Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 15:57:49 GMT

Hi all,

I was just wondering: Can anyone tell me, what the volume-number, that MSDOS 5
format gives the disks, is for ? It consists of 2 four-digit hex numbers, but 
I can't seem to see a connection between each. Are they just random?

Regs,
Soeren E.

-- 
Strapped to the chair at the city's gaschamber,
               why I'm here I can't quite remember

                            -Guns'n'Roses
Xref: sparky comp.os.msdos.misc:6683 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:34002
From: frisk@complex.is (Fridrik Skulason)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: Virus Advice needed
Date: 29 Dec 92 09:14:25 GMT
Organization: Frisk Software International, Iceland

>>I would bet a lot of money that Target re-wrapped it.

Probably, yes.  There are only a few cases of diskettes actually being
infected in the original duplication process, but there have been quite
a few isolated cases of stores accepting returned software, and
re-shrinkwrapping it.

>>Companies aren't known for spreading viruses (with the exception of
>>Michaelangelo, but that's another story).  

Well, Michelangelo is pretty rare - MusicBug (distributed on tens of thousands
of VGA-driver diskettes from Taiwan and Form (possibly distributed on
pre-formatted blank disks) are better examples.

>Of course companies aren't "known" for spreading viruses.

Oh, they are...but only a few of them, though...

> Nobody is "known" for spreading viruses.

Have you never heard of Virus-exchange BBSes - they sure are known for that
practice...

-frisk
-- 
--
Fridrik Skulason      Frisk Software International     phone: +354-1-694749
Author of F-PROT      E-mail: frisk@complex.is         fax:   +354-1-28801
From: jdp@osric.cs.odu.edu (JD Powell)
Subject: Re: A Frank Discussion on Piracy (Flames, Anyone? : -P )
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Va
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:43:09 GMT


Uhh ... looks like we have an interesting discussion going on here.
Several people have indicated they don't condone piracy, and don't
buy the "try it before you buy it" rationale, because of the rampant
and lenient return policies of the vendors they deal with.  Please post 
the names of these vendors for the rest of us.  I've had several (1 is 
too many) situations where I was refused the right to return software within
days of purchasing it.  While this is not reason enough for me to pirate,
it IS sufficient reason to change vendors.  Who are the good guys?  And
we're talking mail order here too.

Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: IBM XT upgrade
Keywords: XT
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 17:59:59 GMT

bathurst@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Bruce Bathurst) writes:
>istuart@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ian Stuart) writes:
>>(Steve Chesney x4662) writes:
>>>Since she is used to our 386, it seems slow to her.  Are there any cheap 
>>>and simple upgrades that we could try to alleviate this?

>>Unfortunatly there is no way to make any real improvements to an XT,
>>without spending enough money to buy another computer.

>This is true of those who keep their computers in tune.

    Yes, but it's especially true for owners of XT's because XT parts are 
for the most part incompatible with AT parts. Take motherboard upgrades 
for example. If I want to upgrade my motherboard in my AT at home then 
I just buy a new board and plug all the existing AT stuff into it and off 
I go. But XT's aren't so easy. When you upgrade from XT to 286 or better 
all sorts of things need to changed. If the keyboard doesn't have an XT/AT 
switch you need a new keyboard. You are also guaranteed to have to upgrade 
your hard disk controller to 16 bit; probably your floppy controller too.
Since some AT boards are 1" taller than XT boards get a new case, and since 
your old XT power supply won't fit in the new case, you need a new power 
supply too. If you have an old 8-bit EMS board, it's useless (anybody want 
to buy an old Intel Aboveboard?), as are the jillions of slow 256K DRAMs 
that are plugged into it.

    On the brighter side, you can probably keep your old video card and 
monitor plus any serial, parallel, or modem/fax cards. Usually that amounts 
to less than 30% of the components in the system.

    As someone who spent countless hours experimenting with V20's and 
Intel Inboards, I can attest that there *are* things that you can do to 
jack up an XT, but on the whole I would have to agree that the only worth-
while way to spend upgrade money is to just buy a brand new PC. 386SX's 
are cheap these days.

>My point is that those improvements suggested by Mr. Cheny could make
>a great difference when combined.  Computers, like cars, should be
>carefully tuned when new and kept that way.

    I agree that all of Steve's suggestions are good ones, but in my 
opinion MSDOS boxes have undergone more drastic improvements in the last 
8 years than cars have in the last 3 decades. 

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: A Frank Discussion on Piracy (Flames, Anyone? : -P )
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:22:23 GMT

In <1992Dec28.074914.7584@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:

>A not-very-common windows 3.0 setup problem is caused by the windows original
>disks being infected with a virus (microsoft is very careful about the
>"health" of the master diskettes and even duplicates disks on machines
>running xenix, so even if the duplicator gets infected it can't affect the
>MS-DOS-based or Macintosh-based software on the disks).  Each case we know
>about, the software had been installed previously on an infected system
>(and sometimes returned, re-shrinkwrapped, and re-sold). No such problem is
>known about windows 3.1. Windows 3.0 shipped on writable disks; windows 3.1
>(and the ms-dos 5 upgrade, and most new products being released) are shipped
>on "permanently" write-protected disks.  

>From a support standpoint, this is seriously cool (unless the user cut
>a notch in a set of 5.25"s, no viruses, no accidently-deleted-the-file-we
>-need, etc :)

There is also one other thing that this does that I like.  It
eliminates those annoying 'guilt screen' registrations that want to
write back to your original disks with your name, etc.  I routinely
write-protect the original disks for any software I buy, and it's
incredibly annoying to have to make a copy of disk #1 in order to
reinstall Word for Windows or Excel on my machine (because I most
definitely will not let the thing write to the originals).

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: bathurst@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Bruce Bathurst)
Subject: Re: IBM XT upgrade
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: XT
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 16:29:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.144052.13547@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
istuart@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ian Stuart) writes:

>In article <50921@shamash.cdc.com> slc@a2.cim.cdc.com
>(Steve Chesney x4662) writes:

>>Since she is used to our 386, it seems slow to her.  Are there any cheap and
>>simple upgrades that we could try to alleviate this?

[SNIP, SNIP]

>Unfortunatly there is no way to make any real improvements to an XT,
>without spending enough money to buy another computer.

This is true of those who keep their computers in tune.  It's
remarkable how often I hear the following: "My computer was really
fast when I first got it; but now it's terribly slow.  I guess it's
time to upgrade the processor to an 80-blip-86?"  (These people did
not even buy Windows.)

Two people I know have old 8 Mhz 80286 AT clones and bought 1992
software.  Grrrind..faaalicck, faaalick, faaalick scrolled the screen.

The first machine had only 640K of memory, and LotusWorks wouldn't
even load.  When it finally did, and the disk was defragmented, Lotus
scrolled like a hog leaping in slow motion.  DR-DOS then placed every
driver and TSR into upper memory (including in an unused part of video
RAM).  After a careful tuning, he has a disk cache, video accelerator,
screen saver, printer buffer, and task swapper active.  LotusWorks
zips along, and it and other large programs swap in and out instantly.
The machine has never crashed.  When 2 Mb of extended memory was added
(1 Mb configured as XMS swap space), no improvement was noted.

The other AT surely has the world's slowest hard drive (it has to be
the largest), but ran a disk-intensive program last night faster than
a new and untuned 40 Mhz 80386 machine with a 200 Mb. disk and 8 Mb of
memory.

(Oh, yes...I vouch for the accuracy of the above, and give my cat
Buffy as an impartial witness.)

My point is that those improvements suggested by Mr. Cheny could make
a great difference when combined.  Computers, like cars, should be
carefully tuned when new and kept that way.

Bruce (Gypsy Scholar)
-- 
Department of Geological and Geophysical Sciences
Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544
bathurst@phoenix.princeton.edu bathurst@pucc.bitnet !princeton!phoenix!bathurst
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: bathurst@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Bruce Bathurst)
Subject: Re: Virus Advice needed
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:01:30 GMT

In article <1hohdhINNr3t@crcnis1.unl.edu> vporguen@unlinfo.unl.edu (victor porguen) writes:

>Remember: it doesn't infect or modify files. There is only ONE 
>specimen of the Stoned virus per disk or diskette, no more. But it
>is a TSR, and stays in memory if you boot from an infected disk.
>If so, it will infect ANY diskette you insert into the machine.
>That's the only way it can enter a system: by booting or attempted 
>booting from an infecte disk, either system disk or not.

Last week a friend asked me to fix a floppy--an original disk from a
commercial program.  The boot record (and following sector) had
unusual code, so I suspected a boot-record virus.  Because no messages
were displayed on his screen, I guessed it was the Stoned virus, and
checked the spot it places the correct boot record.  There was
code--out of place--but different from the correct boot code and
different from that in the first sector.  This was Michelangelo.  The
poor floppy caught one, then the other.

An ordinary virus remover might well have carefully copied the
Michelangelo over the Stoned, activating a very dangerous virus.  So
while it's true that your disk can have ony one copy of the Stoned
virus, watch out!--similar infecters interact.

I used the latest F-Prot to remove them both simultaneously (and
installed its integrity checker).

BTW, the little program in the boot record is run not only during
booting, but any time the computer needs to know what medium is in the
drive.  This is why disks copy-protected with an odd format don't
surprise your computer.  In principle, if you insert a floppy with a
boot-record infection and type "C:\DOS>dir a:", your machine can be
infected.

Bruce (Gypsy Scholar)
-- 
Department of Geological and Geophysical Sciences
Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544
bathurst@phoenix.princeton.edu bathurst@pucc.bitnet !princeton!phoenix!bathurst
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.misc
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Stac Software Customer Service (comments welcome)
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:04:18 GMT

In <BzxzA9.JyI@ucunix.san.uc.edu> dayja@ucunix.san.uc.edu (James A Day) writes:

>During the installation process it asks you how much to compress a
>file(ie 2:1, 3:1) but even if you say 3:1 it still only compresses to
>2:1 although the drive says differently install WordPerfect takes up
>twice as much to install on the hard disk(or at least enough to cover
>the fact that the compression of stacker doesn't work.)  Any suggestions
>for solutions to this problem?

I'm not sure what you're talking about here, but what it is asking you
for is ESTIMATED COMPRESSION, not how much it should compress.  The
file will only compress as much as it will compress, and that's all
there is to it.  What do you think they do, simply magically throw
away 2/3 of the data if you tell them you want 3:1 compression, or
what? 

Since I don't see what your problem is, I'm not sure what you're
looking for in the way of a solution.  Why do you say "the compression
of stacker doesn't work"?  

Do you know what you're doing?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: jeric@berkp.uadv.uci.edu (Jeric Woo)
Subject: Using HD disks as DD disks
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Organization: University Advancement, University of Calif., Irvine
Keywords: disks, disk drive
Date: 22 Dec 92 21:29:19 GMT

I have some high density 3.5" and 5.25" diskettes that I would like to
use as low density diskettes.  However, whenever I attempt to format them
(using low density drives) I get either the messages "Bad or Invalid Media"
or the message "Track 0 Bad, Disk Unusable."

Why can't I do so?  Are the any other physical differences between high 
density diskettes and low density diskettes (I know that 3.5" HD has a hole
at the upper left hand corner, and that maybe HD disks has higher "surface
density").  I even ran the diskettes through a magnet before formatting
them, but still no luck.  Thanks!

Jeric

Xref: sparky comp.os.msdos.misc:6696 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:16118
From: swisher@cs.utexas.edu (Janet M. Swisher)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: What causes cross-linked files?
Date: 23 Dec 1992 11:23:27 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: boogie.cs.utexas.edu

The other day I discovered that a couple of files on my hard disk were
cross-linked.  I was able to fix the problem and recover the data
using Norton.  However, I'm curious what sorts of circumstances lead
to this happening, so that I can avoid them in the future. 


-- 
Don't take life so serious ... it ain't *no how* permanent. -- Porkypine. 
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: lh7873@albnyvms.bitnet
Subject: Re: *WEIRD* floppy drive error...
Reply-To: lh7873@albnyvms.bitnet
Organization: University of NY at Albany
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 06:03:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.232946.20701@yang.earlham.edu>, johnl@yang.earlham.edu (John Fiskio-Lasseter) writes:
>I'm wondering if anyone has ever run into this problem before, and if so, 
>has anyone ever found a solution:  In the last three weeks, three PC's -- 
>a pair of 486SX machines and a 286 -- have come into our repair shop with 
>an identical problem.  The 3.5"/1.44 meg drive will not read high-density 
>disks.  It reads 720K disks without a problem.  It reads 1.44M disks, but 
>only when they are write-protected.  If not, the drive will crap out 
>("GENERAL FAILURE READING DRIVE A:", etc.), and the FAT and BOOT sectors 
>of the disk are destroyed (interestingly, ViruSafe reports that the disks 
>are infected with Michelangelo, although they are most certainly not).
>
>What seems to be happening is that every time the drive attempts to access 
>a 1.44M disk, it first performs a write operation somewhere in FAT and 
>BOOT area, rendering the disk unreadable.  When the disk is 
>write-protected, the write operation fails and things carry on as usual, 
>except that a floppy isn't much good if you can't write to it.
>
>I am convinced this is a motherboard problem.  I've switched out the 
>drive, the cable, the controller, the hard drive, the CPU, and the 
>RAM.  The power supply connections all tested OK.  Nothing works, and 
>what's more, *ALL* of these parts work fine in another motherboard 
>(including the drive).  I've even tried replacing the oscillator on one 
>of the boards: nada.  Anyone got any suggestions?
>
>Thanks,
>-- John
>+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
>|John Howard Eli Fiskio-Lasseter  |     "Is obair-la\ to\iseachadh"   |
>|e-mail: johnl@yang.earlham.edu   |    ("Beginning is a day's work")  |
>|        JOHNL@EARLHAM.BITNET     |                --Gaidhlig Proverb |
>+---------------------------------------------------------------------+





	Try posting in comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
	You may get more help there.  Good Luck!

Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Viruses & unwriteable disks (was Re: A Frank Discussion on Piracy (Flames, Anyone? : -P )
Date: 29 Dec 92 19:23:53 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1hohvbINNr47@crcnis1.unl.edu> vporguen@unlinfo.unl.edu (victor porguen) writes:
>jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:

[some manufacturers ship unwriteable diskettes]

>>From a support standpoint, this is seriously cool (unless the user cut
>>a notch in a set of 5.25"s, no viruses, no accidently-deleted-the-file-we
>>-need, etc :)
>
>Just copy the disk and you have an infectable medium.
>

Quite true. However, if a virus is suspected or paranoia is running rampant,
the original disks can be used instead of the backups, n'est pas?

And, btw, viruses are not the "real" reason microsoft moved to unwriteable
disks - at least not for ms-dos - it's because of the number of folks who
"accidently" trashed their originals, then needed to reinstall. Special
drives which can write to a "write-protected" disk obviously exist (like
our duplicators) but most folks don't have them.

-jen

Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: istuart@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ian Stuart)
Subject: Re: IBM XT upgrade
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: XT
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 14:40:52 GMT

In article <50921@shamash.cdc.com> slc@a2.cim.cdc.com (Steve Chesney x4662) writes:
>At my wife's job (a church) she is obligated to use a vintage IBM XT with
>a 10 meg hard disk, color display and IBM PC-DOS 2.10.  
>Since she is used to our 386, it seems slow to her.  Are there any cheap and
>simple upgrades that we could try to alleviate this?  I am considering:
>
>upgrade to MS-DOS 5.0
>use of a console driver like NANSI
>use of a disk cache
>optimize the disk (with something PC TOols Optimize)
>check disk interleave and adjust (with SpinRite or PC Tools DiskFix)
>
>Any other ideas? 

With only 10Mb of disk space, DOS5 is going to be tight. RAM is going to
limit NANSI, disk cache and all the best bits of DOS5.
Probably the best thing to do is do a fund-raise for about $500, and buy a
'cheap' 286.
Unfortunatly there is no way to make any real improvements to an XT,
without spending enough money to buy another computer.




--
--- Kiz (aka Ian Stuart) istuart@nyx.cs.du.edu
	{ Chivalry is not dead! - Just the Horse }
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: bbs.haymore@tsoft.net (Ed Haymore)
Subject: Re: ANSI ESC sequence, how??
Organization: The TSoft BBS and Public Access Unix, +1 415 969 8238
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 07:17:51 GMT

> In article <1992Dec23.195236.28511@netcom.com>, mjb@netcom.com (Martin Brown)
> > I have ansi.sys installed, and have received some ansi msg's that seem to b
> > working.  Now that I want to do some ansi coding, I can't figure out how to
> > actually enter (which keys to push) the 'esc' part of the sequence.  I'm tr
> > to do this at the command prompt.
> > 
> > Take for instance changing the screen background to blue.  The manual shows
> > 
> >      ESC[44m
> > 
> > What keys do I actually hit to get the ESC (or is it ESC[ ?) part of the li
> > If I hit the Esc key, I get a  \ followed by a cr/lf, so that the 44m comes
> > the next line.  I hit return, and DOS says command not recognized.
> > 

I don't know of a way to do the ANSI commands from the command prompt.  
You could set up the echo commands in a batch file (or simply create a 
text file to type) within WordPerfect (or some other text editor that 
lets you insert an ESCape directly -- in WP, just hold down ALT and press 
2 then 7).

Or you can use a dummy character like an @ symbol in the file and then 
use a DOS search-with-replace utility to change it to an escape, or use a 
binary editor to change it.

--
Ed Haymore (bbs.haymore@tsoft.net)
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Stac Software Customer Service (comments welcome)
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:00:14 GMT

In <1992Dec23.015609.29593@sarah.albany.edu> lh7873@albnyvms.bitnet writes:

>I would like to take this time to invite all that have
>had experience with Stac software please post their
>opinions --> _Good or Bad._
>Maybe someone over there (Carlsbad CA) will see this and 
>maybe install some toll free 800 lines...

Maybe you should start with the Big Boys and have people try to
pressure Microsoft into doing this first?

>With all the competition in compression, they might take 
>note of us, thier customers!

>I will start by saying this:

>	My Colleage and I had a problem installing Stacker 2.0.
>It stopped mid-installation.  When I called them in CA, I was
>put on hold for twenty minutes.  If you are familiar with this
>company you will know that when you call them you pay for the 
>call.  They don't have any 800 lines.  

This sounds so much like stories of people calling Microsoft that I'm
not sure what the respondent is complaining about.  Another question
might be why you are installing 2.0 when 2.1 shipped a long time ago
and 3.0 is available now.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: bathurst@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Bruce Bathurst)
Subject: Re: Viruses, viruses!
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: Virus Stoned
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 01:25:22 GMT

In article <1htpooINN2jp@crcnis1.unl.edu> vporguen@unlinfo.unl.edu
(victor porguen) writes:

>The Gipsy Scholar (Bruce Bathurst, bathurst@phoenix.princeton.edu),
>writes:

That's GYPSY!

Bruce
-- 
Department of Geological and Geophysical Sciences
Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544
bathurst@phoenix.princeton.edu bathurst@pucc.bitnet !princeton!phoenix!bathurst
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller)
Subject: Using zmodem with Telix
Organization: Trinity College, Hartford, CT.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:46:04 GMT

I just downloaded Telix which seems to work pretty well.
Especially nice is the ease with which I can send files
from Sun to Msdos machine via Zmodem.  Trouble is: I can't
do the reverse.

Is this because I'm working with an unregistered version of
Telix 3.20, is it a bug, or am I just plain stupid?

Norman Miller
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc