HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: maynard@esther.msc.cornell.edu (Maynard J. Handley)
Subject: Re: Release dates ( was Re: superVGA (and misc top-blowing)
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 07:22:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.223922.4834@hellgate.utah.edu>,
brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.040320.21532@msc.cornell.edu>
>maynard@esther.msc.cornell.edu (Maynard J. Handley) writes:
>>[Flames about quality of TeX vs Word deleted.]
>>
>>Can I make a comment here. I have a Mac and (as some know) am an avid
>Mac
>>evangelist. But I use Alpha (an emacs like editor) and AMS-LaTeX
>(running
>...
>>But to say that Word and competitors can produce simple text, let alone
>>math that is the equal of TeX is to reveal chronic ignorance or chronic
>>lack of aesthetic sensibilities.
>>
>>Maynard Handley
>
>On a Mac that may be true, even the latest version of Word on a Mac is
>inferior to that under Windows... the price you pay for using a Mac I
>guess.
>
>As to the last paragraph of your tirade....  any reply that would allow
>me
>to respond in a sufficently graphic manner would for sake of decorum need
>to be done offline. Thpfft! :-)
>
>Brian

Alright, a simple test. Suppose you include the example I gave, _italic
text_ then roman. Will this latest version of winword know about italic
correction so that the italic doesn't bump into the roman? Will it vary the
italic correction
depending on the italic text?

Maynard Handley
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: svga drivers (again)
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:04:00 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug18.2712.3825@dosgate>, "bill dehaan" 
<bill.dehaan@canrem.com> writes...

>Which is why Trident SVGA boards support seamless Windows, but IBM's own
>8514/A and XGA don't.  I remember raising this  point in January with  a
>beta. I was told that SVGA would be "considered as a possible option" in
>some unspecified future. Sheesh.

Just for the sake of clarification - are you saying that OS/2 2.0 does not 
support seamless Windows for 8514/A and XGA or are you saying that it 
doesn't support these @ 256 colors?

JD
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HPFS question
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:38:10 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <Bsznz9.4Dq@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jvmg9796@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (doc) writes:
>Im sorry if this is not the right group to post this in, but I would like
>to know what the advantages of the HPFS are (and the disadvantages).  I
>dont know much about it, other than that if I have dual boot set up, dos
>will not recognize an HPFS-formatted partition.  Ok, but what about an
>OS/2 dos compatibility window?  Will dos apps be able to read the HPFS
>partition then?  I would assume that if they can, they would only be able
>to recognize files which had dos-compatible names (8+3).

HPFS gets you faster speed, and long file names.  It also is much less
prone to Extended Attribute (EA) corruption than FAT disks.

DOS can not read it, but a DOS emulator session under OS/2 can.  If
you boot a specific DOS session into an OS/2 VDM, IBM provides a
driver for the session to access the OS/2 volumes (HPFS or otherwise.)

DOS sessions will only "see" files that conform to the 8.3 convention.
All other files and directories will be invisible to DOS sessions.

>So, if my assumptions are correct up to now, then the logical conclusion
>would be that unless I am going to run dual boot, there would be no sense
>in NOT formatting the partitions HPFS, since dos apps will still be able
>to use them in the compatibility window.

Yep.  When I installed OS/2, I formatted both partitions to straigh
HPFS.  Only low-level disk utilities (like Norton Utilities) fail on
it, but that's fine, since I wouldn't want to use them under OS/2
anyway :-)



-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 07:31:41 GMT

At the Computing '92 show here in Wellington, Microsoft were demonstrating
Windows NT.  
 
They had it runing on a HUGE monitor (4-5 feet across).
 
It uses the Win3.1 interface/program manager. You need a 486/33 with 16Megs of
RAM. It takes up acres of disk space - I think he said 60 megs of disk space.
 
It does everything OS/2 already does on a much smaller platform. It looked
very powerful, but then it was on a high-end 486 with 16-32 megs of RAM.
 
The presenter *stressed* it was NOT a desktop system. It is NOT a replacement
for Windows 3.x. (that much was obvious!).
 
SO! If you want to run a pre-emptive multi-tasking, 32bit OS that uses
386-protected mode, then OS/2 is the *only* game in town (other than some
UNIXs......).
 
OS/2 will do for you on your 386SX/20MHz with 6Megs what NT needs a 486/50
with 16 megs to do.
 
I know most of this has already been canvassed in one form or another. I offer
this information and observations merely to re-inforce what many have said or
suspected: OS/2 *isn't* competing with Windows NT for the desktop. The real
competition is Win3.1.
 
Having used both, I know which I prefer. I also suspect that many, many other
people will reach the same conclusion. Microsoft has a headstart with Windows,
but IBM *definitely* has the horse that can cover the ground and win the race.
 
Once the OS/2 apps are available - and many already are - OS/2 will be the
natural upgrade path for anyone who wants more than the rudimentary
multi-tasking that Win3.1/DOS is able to provide.

BTW, the MS presenter also said that Presentation Manager support will be
incorporated in NT in 1993. Is this recognition that OS/2 V2 is a viable
market presence?
 
Steve

 
 
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | "But the glory kept shining
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  and bright in my eyes, 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  And the stars going round in 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  my head." R. L. S.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bbrown@infonode.ingr.com (Bailey Brown)
Subject: Re: Who's problem *are* SVGA drivers?
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 05:09:07 GMT

>2) IBM needs their programmer resources for more important things.
>   Like fixing bugs in the WPS.  Would you like a stable interface

I don't like the WPS, and I wish IBM had spent the effort wasted
on this buggy resource hog on the 32-bit graphics interface and
video drivers instead.  MS realeased a "generic" SVGA driver with
Win 3.1 and it works well on most boards.  IBM should have provided
seamless generic SVGA, S3, 8514/A, and XGA drivers, and a stable
PM interface instead of the WPS.  If this were the case, I'd
still have OS/2 2.0 installed on my machine.

------------
Bailey Brown                               "Above all else, confusion reigns."
Intergraph Corporation                                  
bbrown@casca.b11.ingr.com                              Procol Harum
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: cebarton@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Casey Barton)
Subject: Re: Who's problem \*are\* SVGA drivers?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 04:36:16 GMT

STACY JOHN BEHRENS writes:
>>    That's a cop out. One of the biggest flaws pointed out about OS/2 in
>>current publications is that "You'll have to run at 640x480 for the time
>>being." This is going to turn people who might otherwise have made the
>>purchase away. IBM *could* write the drivers themselves. So why not? They
>>stand to gain alot from it.
>
>You can call it a cop out, but it is reality.  SVGA is NOT a standard.  It is
>financially impractical for any company to write device drivers for every
>piece of hardware out there.  No company does that including MS and IBM.

   Well, Win 3.1 comes with a generic SVGA driver - an optimized one at that.
   But that's not really the point - I don't expect IBM to get up and support
every little garage-based company's video card. Just the 95%ile - Ahead, Genoa,
Paradise, ATI, Tseng, Trident, and Boca. (I don't know which of these may share
chipsets.) I have a number of DOS graphics utilities (Fractint, and the 
obligatory GIF viewers) that support a number of SVGA cards. The "lack of a 
standard" hasn't stopped them.

> Now IBM should have planned ahead a little better, but they should not have
> to write the drivers themselves.

   Have to? Heck, no. They obviously don't *have* to. They have absolutely no
obligation to do so. But they *should*, because of the simple fact that it'll
sell more copies of OS/2. 
-- 
      Casey Barton (Mr.)   cebarton@descartes.waterloo.edu   (519)725-6861
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: ms gave up on os/2?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 01:02:05 GMT

Hello, this is my first posting, so you may
have to bear with me. :-)
  A rumor in Windows Magazine has stated that
IBM has OS/2 2.0 running on an RS-6000 machine.
It also has many other favorable articles about
OS/2, along with several advertisements from
vendors who are developing for OS/2.  Maybe we'll
see a new title for the magazine, something like
OS/2 and windows mag.

PS The magazine was the Sept. issue, I think.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hasta la Vista, OS/2
Date: 20 Aug 1992 21:25:51 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Aug20.204830.29966@msc.cornell.edu> maynard@esther.msc.cornell.edu (Maynard J. Handley) writes:
[about OSes protecting themselves from power failures]
>Just because some OSs screw this up proves nothing. Do you think any
>company with a mainframe would accept losing their payroll database because
>the power went out and the auxiliary generators didn't kick in for some
>reason?

No, they don't. That's why they have backups.

Even MVS is subject to having VTOCs (Volume Table of Contents, the drive's
directory) corrupted by inopportune power failures. Shops that can't easily
recover from their last backup and rerun work that was lost implement some
kind of journaling facility to allow forward recovery.

If you back it up, it's a lot harder to screw it up.

Jay Maynard
Lead MVS Systems Programmer, UTHSCH
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
  "Anything that an F-4 can outturn is not maneuverable." -- Mary Shafer
From: tony.waddell@eabbs.uucp (Tony Waddell) 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: RE: HASTA LA VISTA, OS/2
Date: 18 Aug 92 22:01:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Easy Access BBS - San Ramon CA - 510-829-7627
Reply-To: tony.waddell@eabbs.uucp (Tony Waddell) 

-> How many people have had OS/2 CRASH and TRASH?? How many people have
-> had Windows CRASH and TRASH?? Sorry, that should be HOW OFTEN Windows
-> trashs your hard disk.  I have Windows 3.1 running on 4 different
-> machines, and all have been trashed at least once by Windows.  True
-> Windows 3.1 is BETTER than 3.0, but that dont say very much.

Windows has NEVER trashed my hard disk.  I support over 50 PCs that are
running Windows 3.0 and 3.1 and neither have trashed ANY of the hard
disks.  If you've had Windows 3.1 trash 4 different hard disk on 4
different machines, then maybe you're configured all 4 of them
incorrectly (though I might admit this to be hard to do).

I ran OS/2 for a short period of time.  It didn't trash my hard disk.  I
simply removed it because of other short-comings and
bugs/inconsistancies/problems/things-not-available-until-the-next
release/etc.

-> Now I get nervous if I try to run anything more complicated than
-> WinGif and MineSweeper.

You're really short changing the capabilities of Windows 3.x.  Under
both 3.0 and 3.1 I run at least two DOS windows, Procomm Plus for
Windows, Excel, the clock, Microsoft Mail, and a totally non-standard
mainframe emulation program to connect to a Unisys A-Series large
system.  These are in my Startup folder.  This doesn't include things I
might start up on the fly.
                                                        
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wjb5106@zeus.tamu.edu (Walter Barnett)
Subject: Re: HPFS question
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 21:21:00 GMT

In article <Bsznz9.4Dq@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, jvmg9796@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (doc) writes...

>Im sorry if this is not the right group to post this in, but I would like
>to know what the advantages of the HPFS are (and the disadvantages).  I

In general, it is faster for large (IBM says >60 Mb) drives.  It uses
smaller sectors so there is less wasted space at the end of a file (on
average).  It allows long file names.  It places the extended attributes
for a file near the file rather than (as FAT requires) in a separate
file located somewhere else on the disk which contributes to a speed
increase. 

>dont know much about it, other than that if I have dual boot set up, dos
>will not recognize an HPFS-formatted partition.  Ok, but what about an
>OS/2 dos compatibility window?  Will dos apps be able to read the HPFS
>partition then?  I would assume that if they can, they would only be able
>to recognize files which had dos-compatible names (8+3).

You are correct.  DOS programs can read the HPFS disk if run under OS/2 
but can only see files that fit the 8.3 file name convention.  You can, 
however, still boot a real-DOS session from a floppy disk under OS/2 and 
have access to the HPFS drive (same as emulated DOS).

>So, if my assumptions are correct up to now, then the logical conclusion
>would be that unless I am going to run dual boot, there would be no sense
>in NOT formatting the partitions HPFS, since dos apps will still be able
>to use them in the compatibility window.

I agree.

_______________________________________________________________________
Walter Barnett        Aerospace Engineering        Texas A&M University 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: cs611a10@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs611a10)
Subject: Re: Hasta la Vista, OS/2
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:38:01 GMT

>>	How many people have had Windows CRASH and TRASH?? 
>
>Never. Once, a 3.0 crash caused me to have to re-make my .GRP files.
>That was once, nearly two years ago; since then I've run Windows 3.0
>and 3.1 consistently on about five machines, and never had a file eaten.
>Even the 3.1 beta, while I was beta-testing, never crashed.

  Knock on wood.  If you aren't having problems, I'm happy for you
(that sounds a little strange doesn't it???), and you probably don't
need OS/2 or Windows NT.   

>Sorry to disappoint you?  What the heck are you running, that you have
>to keep Windows "chained to the wall?"

  Try opening several DOS boxs at the same time.  We do work in AmiPro,
Borland's Turbo C++ for windows, WinGIF, MineSweeper, a couple Communication
Packages ...  WinJPG is also a good one to bring down the whole system.
   Windows performs flawlessly UNTIL you push it to the limits.  Running
several programs at the same time IS pushing the limits.

   One way to make windows crash (this doesn't eat files though, usually):
Use the generic SVGA driver from MicroSloth.  Select the Windows Screen
Saver which displays a text message scrolling across (is it caled Marque???).
I just leave it running and see how long before Windows dies. Usually around
15-39 minutes on some of our machines.

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:3883 comp.os.os2.misc:27298
From: alcocer@parc.xerox.com (Dario Alcocer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:28:44 GMT
Organization: Xerox PARC

Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:

>At the Computing '92 show here in Wellington, Microsoft were demonstrating
>Windows NT.  
> 
>They had it runing on a HUGE monitor (4-5 feet across).
> 
>It uses the Win3.1 interface/program manager. You need a 486/33 with 16Megs of
>RAM. It takes up acres of disk space - I think he said 60 megs of disk space.
> 
>It does everything OS/2 already does on a much smaller platform. It looked
>very powerful, but then it was on a high-end 486 with 16-32 megs of RAM.
> 
>The presenter *stressed* it was NOT a desktop system. It is NOT a replacement
>for Windows 3.x. (that much was obvious!).
> 
>SO! If you want to run a pre-emptive multi-tasking, 32bit OS that uses
>386-protected mode, then OS/2 is the *only* game in town (other than some
>UNIXs......).
> 

What would make it better, at least for developers IMHO, is to
have OS/2 2.0 support Windows 386 Enhanced mode programs.  That
way, you could enjoy the OS/2 environment while coding, building
and debugging Windows 386Enh mode apps.  After all, almost all
of my users are running Windows 386 in 386Enh mode.

Gosh, I guess I want to have my cake and eat it too...

--
Dario Alcocer      | Internet: alcocer@adoc.xerox.com
Xerox Corporation  | Tel     : +1 415 813-6869
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: cs611a10@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs611a10)
Subject: Re: Hasta la Vista, OS/2
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 14:38:06 GMT

>  I can't put up with an operating system that trashes my hard disk
>during a system crash. I really dislike Windows, but at least it never
>repaid my disdain by eating subdirectories.

   CRASH AND TRASH!!  Too bad it happened under OS/2, but I'll bet
my life that it happens MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH
more often under Windows.  Windows is always hungry to eat my hard
disk.  I have to keep it tied to the wall and keep a close watch
on it.  If I turn my back on it for a moment, or don't watch what I'm
doing, its LUNCH TIME for windows (e.g. NO you can't run two DOS boxes
at the same time). Reboot the computer and dozens of files are trashed.
   Lets take a poll: 
        How many people have had OS/2 CRASH and TRASH??
	How many people have had Windows CRASH and TRASH?? Sorry, that
should be HOW OFTEN Windows trashs your hard disk.  I have Windows 3.1
running on 4 different machines, and all have been trashed at least once
by Windows.  True Windows 3.1 is BETTER than 3.0, but that dont say very
much. Now I get nervous if I try to run anything more complicated than
WinGif and MineSweeper.
   So far OS/2 hasn't trashed my hard disk (knock on wood)...

 DTB
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith)
Subject: Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks! (was Re: Windows NT 'Alpha')
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 23:30:12 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Aug21.165228.26065@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug21.181514.4337@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug20.141431.11063@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>...
>>
>>And as for the C compiler.  Look at other C compilers?  Watcom C/386
>>sells for $700 (discount), TopSpeed sells for $500, Borland C (for
>>DOS) sells for $500.  IBM's list price of $300 is abig discount.
>>
>>What do you want?  Free?  It'd be nice, but it ain't gonna happen
>
>Oh, I forgot to add... WorkSet/2's list
>price is $895, discounted you can get it for about $650.
>That $295 offer expires September 5.  Also, $295 is not a big discount..
>Academic discount of Borland C++ 3.0 with Applications frameworks
>(a far superior package to WorkSet/2) was $199 when I bought
>about a year and a half ago.
>Borland C++ 3.1 (without applications frameworks) is still far superior
>to WorkSet/2... It's current list price (I'm looking at Compuserve) is $495.
>Programmer's connection will sell it to you for $299.
>
>My guess is that list price for WorkSet/2 should be about $250, with a street
>price of $120.  (Turbo C++ is $99.95 list).
>This especially holds true as WorkSet/2 comes with few docs.
>
>Brian

Maybe I'm missing something but does the far superior package to Workset/2 
compile OS/2 apps at all ??? KIND OF DUMB to buy a compiler for OS/2 that 
won't compile applications for your operating system just because it's 
cheaper. 

But given your undying love of NT and windows I can see why you prefer it.

I myself will take Zortech C++ over both compilers ( I own all three )
and assume that Zortech will follow their own lead and produce a 32 bit 
C++ OS/2 copiler. 

Martin Smith
msmith@netcom.com
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Pete Skelly
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:25:31 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

[was Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift]

In article <1992Aug11.180931.19371@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.011810.14276@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) writes:
>>
>>BIOS is a device interface.  (No, it's not a hardware app :)
>
>Just like an OS/2 device driver.

BIOS is an OS independent device interface.
A device driver is an OS-dependent device interface.

>>BIOS allows an OS/OE/app/whatever a way to use a device without
>>knowing all the details of controlling that device.
>
>Sort of.
[...]

>Hardware -> BIOS -> Device Drivers -> MAIN OS -> app

Hardware -> BIOS/Device drivers -> DOS -> TD386 -> TD -> app

Hardware -> BIOS/Device drivers -> DOS -> Windows(etc) -> app

>This works for OS/2 and Windows.   OS2 uses things like the
>HPFS driver, etc.   WINDOWS uses things like DOS for the FILESYSTEM.
>Windows doesn't go through DOS for things like Memory Management, or
>Process Management.  And if y'all scream saying that Windows uses an
>external Memory Manager, I'm going to smirk and say that the more advanced
>versions of MACH use an installable memory manager too.

TD has its own memory management (TD386) and process management, too
(since DOS doesn't really support Virtual86 or extended memory).
It also uses DOS for the filesystem, and the uses DOS's syntax for
defining its breakpoint device driver.  TPROF is similar (but uses TF386).

>petesk@microsoft.com
>Could we put Green Onions and Italian Sausage on that too?

Mmmm... Green Onions and Italian Sausage.   D'oh!

-- 
==== Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ====
::   ftp ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (128.123.35.151)    ::  .--.
::   for OS/2 software & information.  Get    :: (OS/2)
:::: the OS/2 FAQL in dir /pub/os2/all/faq :::::  ~--~
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy