HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 Upgrade through dealers?
Keywords: OS2, OS/2, purchase orders
Date: 12 Apr 92 21:59:57 GMT
Reply-To: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Organization: Columbia University and The Jewish Theological Seminary, New York

In article <1992Apr10.004700.10950@Armstrong.EDU engelke@Armstrong.EDU writes:
>I don't know how this would work for federal purchase orders, but IBM told
>me that you will not be able to buy OS/2 from dealers for $49.  Instead,
>you can buy it for $79, and get a $30 rebate from IBM when you send them
>your proof of ownership of Windows (apparently, there will be a rebate

Warning:  I am talking about the upgrade from 1.X, not from Windows.
Apply what I say to whichever programs you want or can :-)

How about letting OS/2 1.X users buy 2.0 from Egghead or in the local store or
dealer, and letting us get an upgrade rebate by mail from IBM.  Or, have the 
seller give us the rebate, and then they can collect their rebate from IBM.

 * * * * * *  ================== Internet       mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
* * * * * * * = Meir I. Green == up on occasion mig@asteroids.cs.columbia.edu
 * * * * * *  ================== UUCP Bang!     rutgers!columbia.edu!cunixb!mig
* * * * * * * ================== AmateurRadio   N2JPG@W2XO.PA.USA.NOAM
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: mdw@hojo.larc.nasa.gov (Mike Weisenborn)
Subject: First Impressions
Keywords: OS/2
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 19:35:14 GMT

Well, I finally got it!

And I love it!  OS/2 2.0 is great!  I installed it on my plain old 386/33
(8MB) in less than one hour with no hassles.  Well, actually, there was
one minor hassle: I had the wrong disk size (don't ask) and I had to go buy
a pin-edge converter so I could make my 3 1/2 drive a:.  But no hassles
other than that.

The system is FAST, stable, and a joy to use.

I do have a couple of questions (don't we all?).  I sincerely hope that these
have not been asked and answered but it is impossible to keep up with a 
group that sees over 100 messages per day.  I read as much as I can but 
I don't recall seeing these questions.  Besides, these questions need to be
asked frequently so they can go in the FAQ, right? :-)

When you pick arrange on the desktop it arranges all the icons on the screen.
Is there any way to arrange just some of the icons, or to lock some icons in
place?   How about gridding the placement?  This is definitely a nit-pick.

Does anyone else have trouble moving an icon 'just a little bit'?  If you
move it over just a few pixels then WPS thinks you are trying to drop it
onto itself and it ends up going right back where it was.  Another nitpick.
And this one would definitely benefit by gridding the placement of icons.

Can you change the default font size for DOS and OS/2 windowed sessions?

This is a small warning:  if you choose a lockup password that has a space
in it you will be frustrated.  Pressing space on the lock screen brings up
the help window no matter what you do.  ALT-3 ALT-2 (on the numeric keypad) works.  OK, maybe that is obvious but it could save someone some trouble.

OK, that's it.  Thanks for listening.

Mike
mdw@hojo.larc.nasa.gov

Of course these are just MY opinions.
From: mo@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mohit Goyal)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Tape Backup on HPFS???
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:35:01 GMT
Reply-To: mo@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mohit Goyal)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Originator: mo@happy.cc.utexas.edu

Hello.  I hope this is not a stupid question, but if I backup my hard drive
before I install OS/2, and then install OS/2 with HPFS, will I be able to
restore my backups through a DOS box?  Will I be able to restore them at
all since they were backed up from a FAT system?  Thanks.
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: DPMI problems in 2.0
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:01:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.=hsjj5f.feustel
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

I have problems with ZTC v3r4 not working with os/2 v2 DPMI.
-- 
David Feustel N9MYI, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805. (219)482-9631
= Candidate Bush wouldn't recognize principle if he were standing upon it =
From: grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: More money wasted (Was: Summary ... from SLC, UT)
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:21:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Clemson University

leo@hoss.unl.edu (Leo Chouinard) writes:
[Upgrade woes]

>There's got to be a lesson here somewhere.  Maybe something like "_Never_
>buy a promise, _even_ if you think the company is reliable."  Had I not
>bought into these two promises to "save" money, I'd have half the money I
>need to increase my RAM to the recommended 8 Meg.  Sigh.
 
I went to the OS/2 2.0 Live event in Greenville SC yesterday.  Reports
of boring events surprise me, becuase this one had excelent demos and
presentations (everyone had wallet in hand by the end of the first
hour).  Extremely, _EXTREMELY_ effective demos to hammer home the points
on DOS/Win compatibility.  Ran Flight Simulater in a DOS window while
doing other things with Describe 32-bit (beta) WP, Lotus 123/Win and
WP5.1 (DOS) in other windows.

Even better -- I got a free copy, so I'm already half way there to my
memory upgrade.  I can tell you now -- 4M works, but at least 8M seems
to be needed to avoid _lots_ of swapping.  An earlier report indicated
that once you get something started in WPS, it's fine, but WPS eats CPU
and paging for (forever) a long time before getting you there.  I'm
holding off going whole hog until I get 1) my extra RAM, and 2) Netware
requestor. 

Speaking of NWR, I'm the only person in this shop who is taking the OS/2
plunge.  Our LAN administrator is devoted to Windoze, and I don't see
being able to get requestor for os/2 here.  Anyone got any ideas?  I
tried running ipx and netx in a windows box, and get as far as
recognizing our servers, but I cannot login (login dies horribly).

Mike Percy             | grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu  | I don't know about
Sr. Systems Analyst    | mspercy@clemson.clemson.edu | your brain, but mine
Info. Sys. Development | mspercy@clemson.BITNET      | is really...bossy.
Clemson University     | (803) 656-3780              | (Laurie Anderson)
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Is OS2/2.0-DOS faster than plain Dos??
Date: 12 Apr 92 05:53:01 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

ry01@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (ROBERT YUNG) writes:
>Is DOS in OS2 2.0 faster than plain Dos on the SAME machine? Or is it so
>arkward and slow that I would have to dual-bbot all the time?

It sure speeds along when you're accessing a file on a HPFS partition!
No, it seems to me that DOS runs just fine.  Of course, if you've got
a couple disk or cpu intensive tasks going on things slow down, but
not as much as with Windows or DesqView.

-- 
It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats.
From: rcook@wimpy.helios.nd.edu (robert cook)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Win 3.1 probs already...
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:39:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr7.223909.7778
Reply-To: Cook.14@nd.edu (R. Kelley Cook)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame

It appears everything is not perfect in the new Win 3.1 world,
this was in comp.windows.misc:

-- 
Article: 26974 of comp.windows.ms
From: bwong@beach.csulb.edu (Bradley Wong)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: HELP! Win 3.1 dies in setup mode
Summary: What's the problem with "standard mode?"
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 19:04:07 EST
Article-I.D.: beach.1992Apr7.000407.13491
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

Gates was wrong. It arrived a 11:30AM 8-)

I can NOT get past the 93% second diskette setup mode where win 3.1
goes from DOS setup to windows setup. 

All I get is:

   Standard Mode: Fault in MS-DOS extender
   EC=0000 CS=0053 IP=232F ...

Naturally, there's not enough 3.1 to run in real or enchanced mode.
The trouble-shooting sections have no answer.

I've tried going from no config.sys or autoexec.bat files to my normal
ones w/o success in standard mode. I've tried both the original himem.sys
and emm386 programs and the "updated" ones posted to many BBSs.

This is on a Microgeneration 486-33 ETEQ-motherboard w/Mr. Bio and 
16Mb ram (and currently Windows 3.0a with MPC extentions).

I went back and un-tarred my 3.0 backup and noticed that 3.0 gives me
a standard mode abort message of:

   Protected-mode violation;
   try running in real mode.

This, again with both max and minimum config.sys and autoexec.bat files.

So, I reloaded DOS 5.0 from the distribution disks and reloaded the
original 3.0 diskettes, and still get the protected mode violations.

Last time I can remember having run in standard mode OK was with DOS 3.1.

Help!  Any body got a hint? MS's help line is BUSY, BUSY, BUSY!

--
Robert Kelley Cook     << Cook.14@nd.edu >>
Univ. of Notre Dame     The future for Intel computers arrived March 31!
Physics Dept.            Long Live the new OS/2!  Time to close the Windows!
From: tcf9033@venus.tamu.edu (FREY, TONY C)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Microsoft wins
Date: 6 Apr 92 05:45:00 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


 Anyone hear about Microsoft signing -> 85 <- PC manufactures to bundle
Windoze 3.1 with their machines?  Includes 8 of the ten top sellers too,
(i.e. Dell, Gateway, Zeos, etc.).  This sounds like another one of those
"I wish we would have thought of that" sayings from IBM.  I felt this
way when I owned my Amiga, kinda like you're doomed by fate to fail.. Come
on IBM - GET WITH IT!!!!! 
_________________________________________________
                         |                       |
Tony Frey                |  I love OS/2!!        |
Texas A&M University     |                       |
TCF9033@VENUS.TAMU.EDU   |  It's what Windows    |    
                         |  should have been!    |   
_________________________|_______________________|
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: william flusek <flusekw@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: An open letter to PC Magazine
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:38:32 -0500

In article <1992Apr13.190429.25307@wes.on.ca> tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen) writes:
>bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier) writes:
>> Richard E. Hodges asked me to repost this letter on comp.os.os2.misc and CIS.
>
>> Mr. Miller observes that, "From a technical standpoint, OS/2 2.0 does 
>> appear to be a 'better DOS than DOS.'  Of course, the same can be 
>> said of DESQview, which is simpler to install, or Windows." This is 
>> complete nonsense! Does DESQview or Windows allow one to boot 
>> different versions of DOS simultaneously? Virtualize device drivers? 
>> Multitask sessions under the control of a preemptive time slice 
>> multitasking system? Provide true protection between DOS sessions? 
>
>Wrong. Windows both virtualizes device drivers and preemptively multitasks
>DOS sessions.  I believe DESQview also provides preemptive multitasking.
>
>[ \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 ]

Wrong again.  Both Windows and DESQview use cooperative multitasking,
not preemptive multitasking.  For most people, all you have to do is see
the difference once to truly appreciate preemptive over cooperative.  As
for virtualizing device drivers, both of the other programs do this,
they just don't do it as well as OS/2.   (Something else that really
warrants a demo.  Mere words do not suffice here.)


Bill Flusek, DOS Systems Specialist, Indiana University
From: edward@luna.math.ucla.edu (Edward Dergharapetian)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: RPC or TCP/IP on OS/2
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:39:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department


Hi folks--
Does anyone have any knowledge of RPC (Remote Procedure Call) or any TCP/IP
(specifically socket) libraries available for use with Microsoft C 6.0 on
OS/2 1.3?

edward.
From: rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 command shells
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:28:44 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute

880506s@aucs.acadiau.ca (James R. Skinner) writes:

>	I am trying to make a list of all the shells currently 
>avaliable for OS/2 and this is what I have been able to come up
>with:

>	CMD.EXE ( the standard OS/2 command shell )
>	SH.EXE  ( the Bourne shell port )
>        CSH     ( the Hamilton version )
         ^^^

Does anyone know anything about the possiblility of a port
of TCSH?  That is one great C-shell (with tons o' enhancements)!

Robert
--
| Robert L. Howard             |    Georgia Tech Research Institute     |
| rhoward@matd.gatech.edu      |    MATD Laboratory                     |
| (404) 528-7165               |    Atlanta, Georgia  30332             |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "See, when the GOVERNMENT spends money, it creates jobs; whereas when |
| the money is left in the hands of TAXPAYERS, God only knows what they |
| do with it.  Bake it into pies, probably.  Anything to avoid creating |
| jobs." -- Dave Barry                                                  |
From: grendel@cis.ksu.edu (Stephen Spencer )
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Pause before you consider OS/2 (was Re: Win 3.1 not THAT great.)
Date: 14 Apr 1992 13:16:27 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University, Department of Computing and Information Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: harry.cis.ksu.edu

In article <92104.174353RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> writes:
>Given the inaccurate, false and misleading information from magazines like
>PC Mag or Infoworld, all of them sending out the message "in reality do not
>buy OS/2" I was wondering sitting here in Europe whether end-users could
>take legal actions against magazines giving intentionally wrong information.
>

In the United States?  No.  Unfortunately, freedom of speech encompasses
freedom of drivel.  Its the opinion of the writer in Infoworld (*maybe* that
of the editor), but it is just that.  

These magazines can say virtually anything they want concerning software.
They can use many excuses to cover up any alterior motive (like purposefully
trying to cause OS/2 to fail) with statements concerning mis-wording, reader
misunderstanding of a term, etc...  Unfortunately, people give much credence
to what these individuals have to say.  Fortunately, most people aren't stupid.
If they use 80x86 machines they will probably come into contact with OS/2
sometime in the next year.  They'll think it looks interesting (maybe even
USEFUL) and want to try it out for themselves.  Just because IBM doesn't
close out the MSDOS/Windows market in 6 months doesn't mean it won't 
succeed.

-Steve Spencer


-- 
I hold the world but as the world, Gratiano--a stage, where every man must play
a part, and mine a sad one.
       -Merchant of Venice I.i.77
 grendel@cis.ksu.edu   harry.cis.ksu.edu!dagonet!grendel sdstpk@matt.ksu.ksu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak)
Subject: Re: I WANT MY UPGRADE NOWpwd!
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.misc
Organization: Mitre Corporation
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:01:27 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.190715.4534@news.larc.nasa.gov>, mdw@hojo.larc.nasa.gov
(Mike Weisenborn) wrote:
> 
> He won't even write it down.  He says that even if it is out (he is totally
> unconvinced) that they probably won't carry it because IBM products are 
> "traditionally poor sellers".
> 
> Hmmmm.  I wonder where he read this (he couldn't tell me) or IF he read
> it or if he is just some know-it-all who doesn't even bother to find
> out the truth.
> 
> I walked out in disgust.  It's one thing to be misinformed but quite another
> to act like the customer couldn't possibly be correct.
> 

Well, I have been talking with Egghead dealers around the Boston area and
a large number of the dealers say that they ARE NOT going to stock OS/2.
They will order it if someone wants it, but they don't feel that it is
worth stocking.....
From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: More OS/2 v3 & NT rumours
Date: 17 Apr 92 20:59:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

Heh, heh, heh.  What'd I tell you.  Re-converging?  Yeah, right.
-- 
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007

"There are some strings.  They're just not attached."
                                                    Victoria Roberts
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: mikeh@microme.uucp (Michael L. Hasenfratz)
Subject: Re: News from L.A. OS/2 Celebration and COMDEX announcement
Organization: Micro Memory Inc., Chatsworth, Ca.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 16:37:29 GMT

In article <9204080043.AA20077@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> pebly@vnet.ibm.com writes:
>In <1992Apr7.225834.5596@cheshire.oxy.edu> David R. Giller writes:
>>I just got back from the OS/2 rollout at the Westin Bonaventure in downtown
>>L.A.
>>
>>Surprises:
>>
>>Windows 3.1 compatibility is done!!  I didn't catch whether the CSDs were
>>done, or iff all currently-printing copies of OS/2 will have the Windows
>>3.1 version of WinOS2, but Reiswig demonstrated running multimedia apps
>>under a 3.1 version of WinOS2.
>>
>
>Not exactly.  What Reiswig showed at the end was a copy of Windows 3.1
>running in an OS/2 DOS Session.  Windows 3.1 support isn't in the OS/2
>driver (yet).  It was still an impressive statement about the OS/2
>virtual DOS sessions that a copy of Windows 3.1 was shown running under
>OS/2 a day after 3.1 was available.
>
>Bob Pebly
>
>Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's view, not those of IBM.

Sorry, Lee showed Windows 3.1 as a 'WinOS2' thingy (I don't know what to
call it :-) the same as Windos 3.0 support. And made reference to it as
NOT in the current release (2.0 GA). We (I) assume (I HATE that word)
that it will be available as an update.

I saw the show in Santa Barbara, and was really excited about getting
MY copy of OS/2 2.0. Weeeeeeell, I'm still waiting. It looks like
April 19 or later for me. I'm trying to wait for OS/2 before I install
my FEDEX 2day (at Microsofts expense, to make sure I received it as soon as
possible) [ARE WE listening IBM?] copy of Windows 3.1.


Mike Hasenfratz - WA6FXT * mikeh@uMEM.COM or uunet!microme!mikeh
Micro Memory Inc.
Chatsworth, Ca. 91311
From: gess@knex.Gwinnett.COM (Gess Shankar)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Microsoft wins
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:01:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: knex.2sq7iB1w164w
Organization: Knowledge Exchange, GA, US of A

max@underg.UUCP (Max Cray) writes:

> gess@knex.Gwinnett.COM (Gess Shankar) writes:
> 
> > I fear that Microsoft will have more of a success in getting OEMs to bundle
> > Win 3.1, given that OEM is already in for MsDos.
> 
> Unless of course enough consumers complain about being stuck with an 
> inferior OS, and demand a quality OS.
> 

I think that this is bit much to ask of the computing public at large. True
there are small subset of the user population, which has the ability to
discern the respective capabilities of an operating system. But the vast
majority will not be bothered.

Slick marketing will win most of the time and Microsoft is adept at this,
while IBM seems to be inept.. so far. I read recently that Seagate has
contracted with Microsoft to preload Dos and Win 3.1 on disk drives shipped
to OEMs. Now the OEMs don't have to format, preload, etc... SCSI and IDE
drives will have this option. Now ... this is marketing. Chalk another one
up for Microsoft.

Recent happenings have shown that Microsoft is once again demonstrating
how a product launch should be done. How can the dazed people complain about
Win upgrade.. available, discounted, hyped up, etc.., when people cannot even
buy a copy of OS/2 off of a retail shelf.

Windows comes to you, but you have to go hunting for OS/2. I think the
majority of the people will just take the easy way out.

GeSS
--
Gess Shankar      |<><>|Internet: gess@knex.Gwinnett.COM                |<><>|
Knowledge Exchange|<><>|{rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!knex!gess|<><>|
From: murrayk@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Keith Murray)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Backing up before installing GA...
Date: 17 Apr 92 02:05:14 GMT
Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept.


My GA is going to be here in a few days and I have a few questions before
I jump into the fray.

First of all, I have a 200 meg SCSI (Adaptec controller) and I want to be
able to backup and restore about 140 megs of it and I don't have a tape
backup. I plan on using PCTools backup and was wondering if I will be
able to restore the files in a DOS session. I plan on using the fast DMA
option and maximum compression to minimize the disks. Does anyone have
any experience with this?

Next, I was wondering how I should partition my hd. I have 8 megs and plan
to go at least mostly HPFS. Should I keep an old DOS FAT partition for
compatibility? Most of the DOS stuff I will be doing is programming with
Borland C++ 3.0. I would like to go to all HPFS to take advantage of all
of the speed benefits.

Thanks for any help. I can barely wait to get OS/2 into my hot little hands!

Keith.


-- 
                              ____          _____  ____
Keith Murray                 /     /___/ /\ \    \ \____    P.O. Box 1889
murrayk@prism.cs.orst.edu   /___  /   / /__\ \____\ ____\   Corvallis OR 97339
                               s  o  f  t  w\ a  r  e
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: lum@dds4.uucp (Michael Lum)
Subject: DESKPIC for OS/2 2.0?
Organization: Digital Dispatch Systems, Richmond BC
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 16:01:53 GMT


One of the programs I liked the most for OS/2 1.3 was Deskpic.
I've tried the updated version for OS/2 2.0 betas but was disappointed.

Is it possible to have animations as the background?

-- 
Michael Lum                                        | dds4!lum@wimsey.bc.ca |
Digital Dispatch Systems, Richmond BC              |  Fax: +1 604 270 9160 |
From: dens@sawwhet.rice.edu (dens)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Borland C++ for OS/2 v.2.0
Date: 17 Apr 92 04:36:44 GMT
	<1992Apr14.045326.7094@borland.com>
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas

In article <1992Apr14.045326.7094@borland.com> sidney@borland.com (Sidney Markowitz) writes:

   asking for things like cross-platform development options. One thing I
   wonder is, is there any reason to have a PM IDE that generates Windows
   executables if you can instead have a Windows or DOS compiler that
   runs in a VDM and can use the same project or make files as the PM
   version? I'm not hinting at any plans, I'm simply asking for

Absolutely. As a matter of fact, I was extremely dissappointed that
TurboC++ for windows didn't generate DOS apps. IMHO, this is
completely redundant and a waste of disk (always valuable no matter
how much you have) disk space. I don't, however see a need for a
Windows IDE or DOS IDE (or DOS command line version) to be able to
generate OS/2 apps.

I would like to be able to install 1 OS/2 compiler which can generate
each of the three types of executables. (And later a Windows NT or
OS/2 version which can generate 4 types of executables. (I'll do the
worrying about testing and debugging.))

I'd also like to see gcc, TeX, EMACS, GNU debuggers, and GhostScript
for OS/2, but I'm sure that you, as a software vendor, don't believe
in free software.

How about an X11 server for OS/2?

Later,
den
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc