HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier)
Subject: Brian is correct.  I am wrong.
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 2 Sep 92 12:12:24 CDT

Everyone / Anyone:

Please read the following.  It deals with the stack allocation discussion.
Special thanks to Brain for being patient with me and to David for explaining
it to me in technical terms.

Bert.


Brian:

You are correct and I am wrong.  I will post to this effect.

What got me going was the /O flag and not /Gm.

How did I find out?

I wanted to see how far I could take this so I changed:

	10 to 200 - ok
	200 to 8192 - ok, no trap.

But wait!  I was expecting a SWAPPER.DAT file of over 32MB!  It was still 4MB
(on a 16MB machine).  Something is not correct.

To check this out some more I decided I needed to check the buffer.  Did it
really exist?  I changed in the program:

	char buf[8192]; to int buf[1024];

	added after the buf[0] = `\0'; the line buf[1] = n;

	added after the t(n+1) call the line printf("On the way out: %d\n",
					     buf[1]);

recompiled, ran, and got a trap 5.

In the meantime David Bolen (db31@ans.net) sent me a note.  He had looked at
the differences between Brian's code and my code in assembler.  The /O flag
noticed the t(n+1) call and changed it to a loop ...  The rest is history.

Brian is correct.  OS/2 is, in this area, not up to snuff.  Will I say 
Windows/NT is better than OS/2 in this area.  YES, when it is generally 
available and IF IBM leaves this problem unfixed.

Bert.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: db3l@ans.net (David Bolen)
Subject: Re: NT Products
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:06:47 GMT
	<1992Aug31.150612.10353@hellgate.utah.edu>
Organization: Advanced Network & Services, Inc. - Elmsford, NY

In article <1992Aug31.150612.10353@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>Threads will be "faked" in software under 3.1, there will be thread, but
>the threads won't be dispatched via the operating system, but rather within
>the application.  This, for example, is how SysV4.2 has threads.  It works
>but isn't as smooth as having the threads dispatched by the OS.

Hmm - would this really work though?  I mean - one of my complaints with
thread implementations under Unix variants that work at application level is
that you can't block in a kernel call without blocking the entire application.
It seems to me that a popular use of threads in an application (at least in
my applications) is to allow a background thread to perform lengthy I/O (say
to a printer, COM port, or disk file) without interfering with the processing
of the main thread.  With application threads - if I block on an I/O call to
the COM port, my entire application is blocked, no?

Just curious...

--
-- David
--
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
 \              David Bolen             \  Internet: db3l@ans.net      /
  |   Advanced Network & Services, Inc.   \   Phone: (914) 789-5327   |
 / 100 Clearbrook Road, Elmsford, NY 10523  \   Fax: (914) 789-5310    \
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------/
From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: Win-OS/2 performance tweaks
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 00:34:15 GMT

>
>I would like to propose that a "How to Optimize OS/2" document
>be posted to this list regularly.  It could be included in the
>FAQ also, I guess.  I would be glad to be the keeper of such a
>document, but my knowledge on optimizing OS/2 is not extensive.
>With enough contributions though, I think I could put together
>a very helpful document.  What does everyone think about this?
>
>I for one, and sick and tired of hearing of people bagging on
>OS/2's performance.  With the appropriate tweaking, OS/2 can
>fly.  Maybe if a separate document is posted to the usenet that
>specifically deals with optimizing OS/2, more people will get
>more out of their OS/2.
>
>Please contribute your ideas...
>
>> -Jr
>> --
>> Windows...It's like a stale cookie.
>> OS/2..."It's like butter" (SNL quote)
>
>--
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|  Charles A. Thompson               |  thompson@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu         |
>|  University of Kansas              |  thompson@ukanvax.cc.ukans.edu        |
>|  _Avid_ SkiBum                     |  OS/2 2.0 is for YOU!!!               |
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|  Look for Recipe Pro(tm), an interactive recipe database, coming soon...   |
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This sounds like a great idea!  Actually, this is the whole reason I
started reading this group in the first place.  I think a list of
config.sys commands would also be very helpful, as I'm not quite
sure of what all of those commands in my config.sys do.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,mn.general
From: bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier)
Subject: Important revision - MN OS/2 End-user Group August Meeting Announcement
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 25 Aug 92 10:50:54 CDT

See Vendor Presenation below - again please RSVP at 612/397-6444 (code OS2).

                         MN OS/2 End-user Group
                             August Meeting
			  IMPORTANT REVISION!!

Reservations requested:  Please call 612/397-6444 and register using
                         course code OS2.

When:   August 27, 1992 - 19:00 (7PM CDT) to 22:00 (10PM CDT)

	Please plan to arrive BEFORE 7PM (say 18:50), since the elevators go
	secure at 7 PM.

Where:  IBM Building
        650 Third Avenue South (First Bank Place)
        Minneapolis, MN   55402

        IBM Customer Center
        Third Floor - Signs will be out showing the way

	Directions:  Please see below.

Agenda: Business Meeting

        Questions and Answers

|	Vendor Presentation
|		DeScribe can not make it.  The person scheduled to come is
|		having serious back problems.  In its place we have two IBM
|		employees coming from Boca to discuss "the future of OS/2."
|		One of these employees is a designer/programmer and the other
|		a planner/designer.

	Member Presentation
                None (yet) scheduled.  Would you like to present?

Refreshments provided.

Door Prizes:

	Several copies issue FIVE of OS/2 Monthly Magazine!
	Additional prizes as they become available.

Directions:	The IBM Building location on Third Avenue South between
		South Sixth Street and South Seventh Street.  IBM and
		First Bank share the same building (First Bank Place).

		You might ask directions when registering.

Parking:  Several parking ramps exist.  

	  Northstar Center :  On Seventh Street between Second Avenue
			      South and Marquette Avenue.
			      On Second Avenue South between South Sixth
			      and South Seventh Avenue.
			One block West of IBM.
	  IBM/First Bank   :  On Seventh Street going west between Third
			      Avenue South and Second Avenue South.
	  Pillsbury Center :  On South Fifth Street between Third Avenue
			      South and Second Avenue South.
			One and an half block North of IBM.
	  Hennepin County Govt. Center:	On Third Avenue South between
					South Fifth and Sixth Street.
			One block North of IBM.
	  Parking Ramp Block: On South Sixth Street between Fifth Avenue
			      South and Fourth Avenue South.
			      On Fifth Avenue South between South Sixth and
			      Fifth Street.
			      Two entrances on South Fifth Street between
			      Fifth Avenue South and Fourth Avenue South.
			One block North and two blocks East of IBM.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel)
Subject: Re: Tex Advantages (was Re: TeX an archaic religion?)
Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:28:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.160629.17181@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu> rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:
>hpw@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Harry P Warren) writes:
>OK.  Take your TeX output.  Print it on an HP LaserJet, a QMS 810,
>a Sun SPARC printer and a Varityper 600.  How many different font sets
>would this require?  Three (3) - 300 dpi, 400 dpi, and 600 dpi!  You
>do not consider that device dependence?  How many would FrameMaker
>or PageMaker require?  One!  And thrown in with that one font I can also
>output to a 35mm slidemaker at 2K, 4K, or 8K resolution and imagesetters
>at 1200-2500 dpi (neither of which work very well with TeX).  Device
>independence, that is the name of the modern typesetting paradigm.
>TeX is extremely device dependent - it belongs to a previous typesetting 
>paradigm (bit-mapped page description versus the more current object-mapped
>page description).

I assume how TeX works. Then you know that TeX itself is absolutely
device independent. For any of the device you mentioned, the same DVI
file is used (guess what DVI means!). What is device dependent is the
dvi driver as is the printer driver used by PageMaker etc.

Although the currently used dvi printer driver most often use bitmapped
fonts (pre-generated ones), one could easily implement a different one
directly using scalable fonts. In fact, the dvips program I use allows
to use the normal Type 1 fonts, if I remember correctly. You just need
font descriptions for TeX so it knows about the metrics. This feature of
dvips is called "virtual fonts" but you may ask a TeX expert about this
if you want to know more details.

>TeX also eats a lot of disk space.  Disk space is expensive ($2.2 - 4/Mb
>low end, higher in proprietary systems).  TeX on UNIX systems with 1 font
>set (1 device type) takes over 20 Mb - that is $50-80 worth of disk space.

I have a complete TeX implementation including MetaFont and several dvi
drivers (PostScript, HP-LJ, OS/2-PM) and the fonts (300dpi) I use in
7.5MB. The fonts a dvi driver does not find are generated automatically
with MetaFont. If I would hold the complete set, I were still at about
12MB only. How much disk space take PageMaker or Framemaker?

Kai Uwe Rommel

/* Kai Uwe Rommel --- rommel@informatik.tu-muenchen.de */

DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt
handler, and always will be.                -Russell Williams

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: NT Products
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:27:27 GMT

Everybody keeps talking about how NT products are going to be able
to run on win 3.1 machines.  My question is how are they going to be
able to do this if they want to be multithreaded?  It seems to me
that the only way to do this would be to scale down their software
to run in win 3.1.  If this is true, isn't NT just running windows
3.1 apps?  Seems pretty pointless to me...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Os/2ers whine again
From: f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Date: 26 Aug 92 09:11:23 MST
 du> <1992Aug24.200938.14130@microsoft.com> <92239.084655TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67700241

In article <92239.084655TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET>, Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET> writes:
> Phil: If Microsoft is not responsible for dropping OS/2, and is
> not responsible for my personal loss of $1000 for purchasing two
> of their dud compilers (I thought they would continue supporting
> OS/2 when I bought them), who is?

Well, you are.  You gambled $1000 on the (remote) possibility of a 
successful OS/2 1.x.  The rest of us hoarded it until MS Windows came 
along.  Don't blame MS for the choices of a free market.

> If they are not resposible for creating
> bad publicity, putting pressure on magazines, and creating biased
> "benchmarks", then who is?

You can't blame MS for that.  Blame the software developers who
supposedly believed the "bad publicity," trashed such an
*obvious* winner in OS/2, and developed software for such an *obvious*
dog as Windows 3.1/NT.  (note sarcasm)

P.S. I threw out my MS-DOS and am now running Win 3.1 under DR DOS, and
I live 1000 miles away from Seattle, so no paid endorsements here....
-- 
Greg "Mockingbird" Franklin      Interviewer: "Sir, how do you spell relief?"
f67700241@ccit.arizona.edu               Dan: "R-O-L-A-I-D-S-E."
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: Just wondering
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 04:24:09 GMT

Bert Moshier writes:

> I had an idea on my way into work and would like your feedback.  It maybe a 
> stupid idea, moderate, or right on.  I see pro and con to it.
> 
> The idea is to put OS/2 Monthly Magazine on audio tape(s) for those who 
> commute daily.  Those getting on tape would also get a printed copy (if
> they desired).
> 
> What do you think?

Only portions of the magazine would lend themselves to this type of ingestion
procedure.  Ads wouldn't work, source code listings wouldn't work, and so on.
And the more technical articles would require more concentration than somebody
driving could provide (though maybe people who ride trains or buses could do
better).  News I can listen to while driving, but not something like a lecture
in introductory physics, for example.  Certainly not a substitute for the
printed version.  On the whole, I don't think it would go over very well.

Though I can imagine the speechographical errors being fewer in number than
the printed version's typographical errors...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: Portable APIs (was: OS/2, DOS, NT (Speculative))
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 12:53:03 GMT

jld@datascope.com (Jay L. Davis) writes:
> But the real question is WHY BOTHER? Right now it looks like OS/2
> is well on its way to being the next base PC OS. If I am going to risk
> developing for a new operating system, it is going to be OS/2 not
> Windows NT. [...]

This, of course, is a choice a lot of us have to make.  Some of us will
bet on OS/2, others will believe in Windows 3.1 and NT.  You pays you
money and you takes your chances --- we'll know in a year or two who
bet on a winner.

> It would really be nice if X Windows was standard on OS/2, then
> applications could move between UNIX and OS/2 extremly easily. Perhaps
> someone will write an X Windows API for OS/2 and a PM API for X Windows.

If you want API portability, maybe you want to call Interactive Engineering
Corp. at 303-440-7674.  They claim to have implemented the Windows API for
X/Motif, DOS and PM.  Not as a native API, naturally, but their library is
still supposed to let you create a PM or X app from your Windows source code.

Oops, sorry, I guess you intensely disliked the Windows API, didn't you?  B^)

[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:4848 comp.os.os2.misc:28910
From: thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Win-OS/2 performance tweaks
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:03:23 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <1992Aug31.225614.24375@midway.uchicago.edu>, wer5@ellis.uchicago.edu (Will E. Rose) writes:
> I have run WINOS2 with these settings from the day I installed OS/2, and it
> takes WINOS2 35 seconds to load on my 386/33 with 16MB whereas it takes
> Win3.1 32 seconds on a 386/25 with 4MB.
> 
> Taking the advantages of HPFS, more memory, and processor speed into 
> consideration, this implies that Win3.1 loads much faster on equivilent
> hardware.
> 

Well, I got some different results.  My OS/2 is using FAT, with 6 megs
of RAM and is on a 386-25sx.  My Windows 3.1 is using FAT, with 4 megs of
memory and is on a 386-25dx.  Win-OS/2 was faster at loading.  I'll
try on identical machines as soon as I am able.

I would assume that Windows 3.1 is on the faster machine because of 
the cpu.  The memory shouldn't be an issue for just loading the 
operating environment (or the os in OS/2's case).

Also remember, that you are loading DOS and Windows when you load
Win-OS/2.  My time for Windows 3.1 was from typing "win" to getting
the desktop.  I am giving Windows 3.1 an unfair advantage.


> 
> -- 
> _______________________________________________________________________________ Will E. Rose                                   GSB-CS: wer5@gsbsun.uchicago.edu

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Charles A. Thompson               |  thompson@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu         |
|  University of Kansas              |  thompson@ukanvax.cc.ukans.edu        |
|  _Avid_ SkiBum                     |  OS/2 2.0 is for YOU!!!               |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Look for Recipe Pro(tm), an interactive recipe database, coming soon...   |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: gkm@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (gary.k.mc nees)
Subject: Re: IBM marketing vs. Microsoft marketing
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:38:52 GMT
Keywords: Contest Windows NT Shareware prizes

In article <Nvj-Ts+@engin.umich.edu> spexet@engin.umich.edu (Dennis Robert Spexet) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.011806.25489@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>>it1@ra.msstate.edu (Tim Tsai) writes:
>>
>>>brianmo@microsoft.com (Brian Moran) writes:
>>>>The Windows NT Shareware Contest
>It wouldn't surprise me a bit.
>As nice a product as OS/2 is, one of the biggest factors against OS/2
>is the way IBM markets itself and its products.
>
>
>
>I'm sorry if I offend anyone.  It's just the way I see it.
>
>>I also get the feeling IBM may just manage to snatch defeat from the
>>jaws of victory if things keep going the way they are.  They got the
>>WPS and Win3.0 support in place in 6 months, you'd think they could
>>get a bug fix out in less time.
>>-- 
>>John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
>>jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu | think of something very clever 
>>uunet!jarthur!jokim         | to use as a disclaimer)
>
>-- 
>D. Robert Spexet II, N0OKR   Internet:  spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu
>Department of Mathematics    BITnet:    user68xr@umichum.bitnet
>The University of Michigan   UUCP:      uunet!mailrus!math.lsa.umich.edu!spexet
>Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109

I agree with this post entirely. I get some promotional material from MS
atleast every week or so. I have regestered MS products that I have 
purchased and this is probably the way they get my address. However, 
I have purchased and registered a number of IBM products WorkSet/2, Book
Manager Book/2, OS/2 (several copies), TCT/IP, etc. And very rarely
if ever hear anything from IBM. In addition, ofcourse, I get MS Windows
adds at home also from MS and others e.g. EGGHEAD. Mayby IBM should
find out about bulk mailings. I continue to HOPE that IBM will someday
find out how to do marketing to the public, since I know that OS/2 v2
is already an excellent product, and I'm sure it will be even better
soon. 

BY THE WAY IF ANYONE FROM IBM MARKETING SEES THIS NOTE:
IN THE SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 ISSUE OF PC MAGAZINE YOUR ADVERTISMENT ON 
PAGES 144-145 IS NOT LISTED IN THE ADVERTISER'S INDEX (COMPANIES)
ON PAGE 565.

Gary McNees gkm@corvette.ho.att.com  
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:4907 comp.os.os2.networking:1204
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Wednesday, 2 Sep 1992 15:26:29 EDT
From: Andrew T. Robinson <ANDY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.networking
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.3
 <1992Sep2.135826.27225@njitgw.njit.edu>

Is there any way to remote-boot OS/2 other than the IBM LAN Server,
i.e., over a Novell Netware network?  OS/2 Requestor for Novell was
supposed to support remote boot, but doesn't (the folks at Novell
say IBM and Novell "can't get it to work" though no reasons were
offered, nor any possible date for adding remote boot).

How about a boot PROM?

Andy
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: shells
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:39:17 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep1.2712.4301@dosgate> "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com> writes:
>
>I agree. However, running EPM as our PM shell (or Tetris, or many  other
>suggested options) simply isn't feasible in our environment. More's  the
>pity. What we were/are looking for is a stable desktop shell; preferably
>something along the lines of the v1.3 shell or (even better) a WPS  with
>a greater level of stability than the GA release.

If you have a 1.3 installation, can you use the 1.3 File Manager as
your shell?  Will it run?  I don't think Desktop Manager is an
application, or I'd suggest running it.


-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "TELEPHONE, n.  An Invention of the devil which
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   abrogates some of the advantages of making a
 ((|,)                          disagreeable person keep his distance."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: THANK YOU, Microsoft!
From: <LENBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Thursday, 3 Sep 1992 18:00:54 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <1992Sep3.130007.4089@njitgw.njit.edu>, dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David
Charlap) says:
>
>In article <92246.204757LENBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> LENBC@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
>>In article <Btz54D.1tJ@rice.edu>, amitp@rice.edu (Amit J Patel) says:
>>>
>>>Thank you Microsoft!  The OS/2 version of MS-Word 5.5 works beautifully
>>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^          ^^^^^
>>>under OS/2 2.0!  :) :) :)  The only app that I use that didn't work when
>>>I moved to OS/2 is Atech's Fastfonts... and it's not an MS program!
>>
>>       Eh? 5.5?
>>       Where did you get PM-Word 5.5 from?
>>       Has Gates had a change of heart?  :-)
>
>Word 5.5 isn't a PM anything.  In case you forgot, MS also makes Word
>For DOS, which is a character-mode app.  It runs under OS/2 in
>full-screen and windowed sessions.
>
>   |)  David Charlap           "TELEPHONE, n.  An Invention of the devil whdch

    Oh okay, but Amit said "OS/2 Version", I didn't know he was
speaking about an DOS version.  Sorry Amit!, misunderstood.

                                     All The Best,

                                     Edward Galarza,
                                     Brooklyn College Of The
                                     City University Of New York
                                     "Que viva el OS/2!"