HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: timbol@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Mike Timbol)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: OS/2 Speed and manuals (and a comment)
Keywords: win3.0 win3.1 speed manuals
Date: 11 Apr 92 02:34:52 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

This is the first time I'm posting anywhere, so please excuse me if
I make a mistake.  That said, here's the question...

I've been following this group for about a month now and I've read
from many people that OS/2 runs Windows programs faster than Windows.
However, which Windows is being used as a comparison?  Windows 3.1
runs much faster than 3.0.  Also, when Windows 3.1 compatibility is
released for OS/2, will OS/2 have the same speed increase for
Windows apps?  Thanks for any help.

Also: Does anyone know when the manuals for OS/2 will come out and
how much they will cost?  Thanks.

					- Mike
					  (timbol@cory.berkeley.edu)

Oh, something marginally related that you all might want to be aware of...

This doesn't apply to everybody, but I've heard many *MANY* people
insult Microsoft and Windows on this group and in comp.windows.ms
(Micro$oft, Microshaft, Mafiasoft, Windoze, etc...).  While many
people may be unhappy with Microsoft and Windows, it does NOT help
win people over to the OS/2 camp unless they are already unhappy
with Windows.  Personally, I think Windows is pretty good (hasn't
ever crashed on me), but I'm interested in OS/2 because it sounds
BETTER.  Anyway, just thought you might want to know.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 10:53:17 EDT
From: Dan Kehn <KEHN@CARVM3.VNET.IBM.COM>
Subject: i don't like it!!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc


In <1992Apr9.1480.11660@dosgate> "bradley grigor" <bradley.grigor@canrem.com> writes:
>I have seen OS/2 2.0 GA and I'm not impressed.  How can I get rid
>of the Workplace Shell??  I _really_ don't like it.  Does OS/2
>2.0 include the original 1.3 PMSHELL somewhere?  As much as I
>hate to say it, Windows 3 (and OS/2 1.3 for that matter) is
>aesthetically much nicer and a darn site easier to use.  This is
>going to take A LOT of getting used to.
>
>...bag   Newmarket, Ontario, Canada  | RelayNet: ->CRS (Public Key: 7596)
>         UUCP: canrem!bradley.grigor | Internet: bradley.grigor@canrem.com
>---
>  DeLuxe 1.21 #4613  If pills don't work, try rope.
>--
>Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
>World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
>

I'm not going to join the "try it, you'll like it" chorus (*) that will surely
follow.  Here's my suggestion:

Boot your install diskette, insert disk one, Enter, then Esc to get to
a command line.  Then switch to the \OS2 directory, and

  MAKEINI OS2.INI OS2_13.RC

to switch your desktop to "version 1.3 look-alike mode".  Your original
desktop will be accessible via a shadow.  This is all explained in the
OS2_13.RC file comments.  I believe there was an option to do this
during installation (Desktop configuration?).

Dan Kehn
#include <stddisc.h>

(*)  You might want to try it later, though.  :-)  :-)
From: "stephen dawson" <stephen.dawson@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: boot manager
Date: 13 Apr 92 13:11:12 EST
Reply-To: "stephen dawson" <stephen.dawson@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

Anto Daryanto writes

AD>Can I install Boot Manager on my second harddisk ?

No.

I think that OS/2 could start from the second drive, though.

    STEPHEN
    ^^^^^^^    :-)  Look through the Windows and you will see OS/2!

 stephen.dawson@canrem.com
 Entered 04-12-92 at 7:36pm in Downsview, Ontario

 * DeLuxe2 1.21 #3969 * Live long and prosper.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: Stuff in comp.windows.ms
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 07:13:32 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.000136.4471@scott.skidmore.edu> pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel) writes:
>Well.... Reversi allows multiple copies of itself in Win 3.1.
>Solitaire does not.  I can get multiple copies of Xtalk for Windows.
>So the report is not entirely correct.

What I have gathered is that it is up to the author of the application
to determine whether or not multiple instances of an app is allowed.
-- 
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)
From: ajk13@cl.cam.ac.uk (Andrew Kennedy)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 GA Problems
Date: 15 Apr 92 10:05:11 GMT
Reply-To: ajk13@cl.cam.ac.uk (Andrew Kennedy)
Organization: U of Cambridge Comp Lab, UK

A couple of minor problems first.

1. I can't get the tree display of directory structures to sort. None of the
sort keys has any effect.

2. When I migrated the Windows applications which were already present on
my system (mostly the freebies thrown in with Windows anyway), only about
half-a-dozen got migrated automatically. The rest I had to migrate using
"Other programs" (if that's what it was called) which means that they just
have their DOS filenames as names. How can I now change the names which
appear under the icons without changing the DOS filename underneath. I am
using the FAT file system.

Now, a major problem. A serious crash occurred whilst running Word for
Windows 1.0 in seamless mode. I was about to print a document when the
screen switched to text mode and displayed a serious protection violation
error of some kind - stupidly, I didn't note it down. Anyway, it wouldn't
let me back into the WPS and I had to reboot. Upon rebooting, the desktop
background appears with the following error message in a dialog box:

SYS3173
A program in this session has encountered a problem and cannot continue.

Upon enquiring about "register info" I get the following:

A program generated a breakpoint at 1ab25704
PMWP.DLL 0002
...and loads of register junk...

The original dialog box gave the option of terminating the offending program,
but doing this just cycles back to the same error. I can't get out!

My first experience of OS/2 was four days ago, and after initial misgivings
I have turned enthusiast. But this problem has somewhat shaken my confidence.
How can I get out of this without reinstalling OS/2? At least with DOS it
is always possible to insert a boot disk and start the system from floppy.
For the moment I am resigned to working in DOS and Windows again.


Andrew Kennedy
University of Cambridge
Computer Laboratory
From: ian@vnet.ibm.com (Ian Stirling)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 10:44:29 BST
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Is GA beta code? NEW version of OS/2
Reply-To: ian@vnet.ibm.com
Organization: IBM UK Laboratories Ltd, Hursley, England
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 3.0

In <70051@ut-emx.uucp> Mohit Goyal writes:
>Hello.  I read in one of the Fido messages TFS posted that the Boca team
>re-compiled OS/2 2.0 at 5am April 1st.  They did some extra work so that
>they could come up with a clean compile and no error messages, and that
>GA is now 6.307N.  I was wondering if anyone can verify this.  I'm
>curious because I have heard about some tiny bugs in GA, and so the
>recompile story seems somewhat plausible.  Hope I'm not spreading too
>much FUD!  :)
>

The GA code is definitely 6.307N.  I cannot comment on whether or not
it was recompiled at 5.00am but I have heard that the electronic diskette
images hit the network at about 11.30pm on March 31 so I doubt it.

Cheers,
Ian Stirling                      Internet: ian@vnet.ibm.com
CICS/ESA Systems Facilities         Bitnet: ian at vnet
IBM UK Labs Ltd, Hursley, England IBMIPnet: ian@stirling.hursley.ibm.com

Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
From: Al_Lehmann@mindlink.bc.ca (Al Lehmann)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Tiga for OS2?
Date: 10 Apr 92 05:43:36 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

Does OS2 2.0 support TIGA video? I have a Volante AT1000
TIGA card running Windows 3.1 (using the Microsoft
supplied driver).
Organization: European Academic Research Network
Date: Thursday, 9 Apr 1992 14:23:56 GMT
From: Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: PC Mag response to OS/2 coverage Q
 <1992Apr1.130706.27818@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE>
 <1992Apr09.054003.23280@microsoft.com>

> No AMIGA in PC Rag...

Let me see, there are lots of Nintendo game machines, and probably
tonns of Commodore 64, 128, and other commodore 2^n machines.
Oh, I see, half of this week's PC Rag is devoted to Nintendo, with
most of the other half to Commodore's 2^n machines!  Great!  :)))

-turgut
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael D Kretzer)
Subject: Re: HPFS and Memory
Originator: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Reply-To: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 00:27:44 GMT

From article <1992Apr10.160426.2863@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, by rothman@binah.cc.brandeis.edu:
> Right now i have one big dos 5 partition, but what i was going to do is split it in half, i.e. ~60 megs for FAT and ~60 megs for HPFS.  Now i hear that HPFS is painful on a 4 meg system.  Why?
> 
> I dont plan to have more than 2 or 3 apps going at once, and probably small-ish ones at that.  (of course that is subject to change).
> 
> ANYWAY, why shouldn't i install HPFS?

HPFS takes up quite a bit of RAM real-estate...especially on 4MB systems.
I estimate that the HPFS driver takes about 1/2 MB of memory alone, not
including the operating system :)  This is the only reason why you shouldn't
install HPFS, you will find that your programs may run more slowly due to
disk swapping until you get some more memory.  Especially if you're planning
on running DOS or Windows programs, since they normally take up more memory
than their OS/2 equivalents.   Buy another megabyte of memory or two, then 
you will have no problems with HPFS.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: teverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (Toby Everett)
Subject: Re: All GUIs are not alike
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:43:55 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.212614.22976@mmm.serc.3m.com> usdta004@mmm.serc.3m.com (Timothy S. Shea) writes:
>The interface is closer to the quality to the Mac.  I have OS/2 2.0 GA
>running on my machine at home.  My roommate does everything on the Mac
>and is DOS/Windows illiterate.  He has had little problems with running
>applications or copying things on the desktop under OS/2 2.0.  He was
>able to get things done on the machine with little pain.  The only realy
>problem was getting used to the two button mouse which he doesn't like
>at all (and I have to admit I hate the idea of a mouse with more than
>one button with a passion).
	I used a Mac over the summer, and I personally consider the WPS
to be superior to both System 6.0.x and System 7.  I found it a little
hard to get used to, but once I did it was much more powerful.  I find it
easier to customize the environment than the Mac, something I value highly.
I have to say that I consider a two button mouse superior to a one button
mouse.  It makes more sense to me.  I can handle two mouse buttons, why
not increase what I can do with it.  I have used AutoCAD with 2 button mice
and with 4 button pucks, and find being able to use the extra buttons to
kill a command, or hit "enter" very valuable.  I will admit that anything
over three does get a little confusing, though.
        --Toby Everett
        --teverett@jarthur.claremont.edu
        --"I'm rooting for Boca.  How about you?"
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 13:59:10 CST
From: gthome@ausvm1.VNET.IBM.COM
Subject: Tape Backup on HPFS???
Reply-To: gthome@ausvm1.VNET.IBM.COM
Organization: IBM - Austin
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 2.0
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc

In <70090@ut-emx.uucp> Mohit Goyal writes:
>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.
>
Mohit,

I would guess the answer is yes, but... (isn't there always a but)  If your
tape backup software runs fine in a 2.0 DOS box, then you should be able to
restore your software.  Why don't you append your software and tape drive
types and see if these folks know if they will work.

Gerry Thome
IBM - Austin
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: rafetmad@cheshire.oxy.edu (David R. Giller)
Subject: Re: Accelerator boards and os
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 10:04:27 GMT

In article <702544808.4@wyrm.rbbs-net.ORG> Andrew.Carpenter@f501.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Andrew Carpenter) writes:
>BO>I have been reading about the video accelerator boards (such as the ATI
>BO>boards and the S3 boards) and the notable improvement they bring to
>BO>Windows.  Does this improvement carry over to running OS/2?  Or is the
>BO>hardware solution they chose somehow only effective for Windows?
>
>Orchid says they will have OS/2 2.0 drivers out for their Fahrenheit S3
>board.  I assume that with these drivers the board will be able to
>offload OS/2 graphical instructions into its processor, although I
>don't know for sure. (I hope so, since I just got a 486 with a local bus
>S3 card!...)

Does anyone know if Orchid or Tseng are working on drivers for their ET4000
boards?  Judging by their previous track record for boards using the ET3000,
I wouldn't be too surprised if they are considered 'obsolete' by now, and
they don't consider it worth their while to support them (witness how much
pestering it took to get them to produce decent [if you can call them that]
Windows ET3000 drivers).

-Dave
-- 
David Giller, Box 134 | Q: How many Oregonians does it take to screw in a light
Occidental College    | bulb?  A: Three.  One to replace the bulb, and two to
1600 Campus Road      | fend off all the Californians trying to share the
Los Angeles, CA 90041 | experience. ---------------------------rafetmad@oxy.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: bill.dehaan@rose.uucp (bill dehaan)
Subject: Re: Tape Backup ?
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 07:48:45 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.2)


Date Entered: 04-06-92 19:41
In message <1992Apr2.183638.30@physc1.byu.edu>, Jim Robertson writes:

JR>I for one would be very much interested in such a program.  I have a
JR>Colorado drive and want to be able to backup my entire drive not
JR>just what Dos can see.  This is the only disadvantage that I can think
JR>of for moving to OS/2.   I think that such a program would be successful.
JR>I asked a friend who also has a Colorado tape and he wants to move to
JR>OS/2 and still maintain full ability to use his tape.

Me, three. I currently run FAT on all drives, purely because HPFS  files
cannot be backed up. I just bought a Colorado in January, I'll be damned
if I will back up OS/2 files to floppy.

JR>As for price it would depend on what it did--hopefully format; show a
JR>directory of what is on a tape; and maybe maybe write a file on the HD
JR>of all the files; include, exclude files-wildcards, etc.  I use
JR>PCBackup and am kind of use to having much control, but some of it is
JR>show and I could do without.

Would the QIC-80 format support HPFS and EA?

----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.uucp
Software Consulting and Gator Pit | Usenet  :   bill.dehaan%canrem@uunet.ca
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
---
   SLMR 2.1a   Birds of prey know they're cool.
   RoseMail 1.70:
Organization: Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Vienna, Austria
Date: Saturday, 11 Apr 1992 14:46:58 WUT
From: FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: swap disks for os/2
 <1169.29e2fe44@mbcl.rutgers.edu> <9204091136.AA14608@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>

Put your swap-file on an HPFS-partition. HPFS seems not to fragment on
heavily used files (actually with 2.0 I have not needed to use GammaTech's
HPFS-defrag utility so far, although I am heavily installing, erasing,
using the file system).

---rony
From: barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu (James Barrett)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: IBM BBS phone number?
Date: 11 Apr 92 16:02:48 GMT
Reply-To: barrett@cc.gatech.edu
Organization: Georgia Tech College of Computing

dyoung@netcom.com (David Young) writes:

>From article <1992Apr11.032233.25901@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, by tselling@peabody.iusb.indiana.edu (Teresa Selling):
>> I have heard that there is an IBM BBS that can provide fixes and updates.
>> Is this true?  I have ver 1.3, but I see no reference to a BBS.  If there
>> is such a thing could someone post the phone number.  Thanks.
>IBM National Support Center - PC User Group BBS
>(404)835-5300  1200/2400/9600 N-8-1 Free Access

The main number which will give you first available line is (404) 835-6600.

---------------------OS/2 v2.0 -- It's heeeeerrrreee!!!!!-----------------------
James C. Barrett (barrett@cc.gatech.edu)| "I'm speechless....             
Georgia Tech College of Computing       |  I am without speech."
From: easyrob@cs.utexas.edu (Robert Depew Reynolds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Phoning Diamond about Drivers.
Date: 16 Apr 1992 00:33:09 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: coltexo.cs.utexas.edu

I talked to somebody a TSENG labs.  He said that IBM had been giving them
a hard time about 2.0 drivers. (Wouldn't that be the stupidest thing to do.)
He estimated the drivers would be available in 2 MONTHS!!!!!

It sounds as though IBM wants to clear all drivers themselves, and release
them in their own CSD.  I heard the same above story from the guys at
Creative Labs about drivers for my SoundBlaster Pro.  I guess the only way
to get SVGA drivers now is to get in on a beta program.  I just wish more
companies had the liberal beta programs that Trident has, give it to everybody
and let the problem reports roll in.

Everyone who owns a board based on the ET4000 should call Tseng Labs and
give them a hard time, so that they release there drivers in beta form!!

Thanks to the latest PC Magazine articles on Windows 3.1 their phone
number is (215) 968-0502. 8-) BIG smile!


/===========================================================================\
|  Robert D. Reynolds               |      You may choose      GOOD         |
|  easyrob@cs.utexas.edu <INTERNET  |      any TWO you         /  \         |
|  (512) 345-8509        <TELEPHONE |      wish!              /    \        |
|====================================================\       /      \       |
|  I have been known to work, but I have never been  |      /        \      |
|  known to speak for an employer or even like 'em   |    FAST ---- CHEAP   |
|  most of the time.  Well there is PAYDAY!  :-)     |                      |
|                                                    | exception: OS/2 2.0  |
\===========================================================================/
From: ian@vnet.ibm.com (Ian Stirling)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 10:59:33 BST
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Another possible reason for not doing foreign upgrades
Reply-To: ian@vnet.ibm.com
Organization: IBM UK Laboratories Ltd, Hursley, England
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 3.0
            <1992Apr8.160720.842@desire.wright.edu>

In <1992Apr8.160720.842@desire.wright.edu> jstewart@desire.wright.edu writes:
>In article <19920408.020401.772@almaden.ibm.com>, ian@vnet.ibm.com (Ian Stirling) writes:
>> In <92098.162455TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET> Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET> writes:
>>>This is the wrong forum, but I just arrived to France (well, it has
>>>been 5 months!), what do European people do for software? France seems
>>>very expensive on software (IBM software seems to be reasonably
>>>priced). I hear other European countries are so too. Do you order
>>>stuff directly from USA, or do you fork() out the money for it?
>>>
>>>Just curious. Don't want to may more than I absolutely need to.
>>>Thanks, -turgut
>>>
>> <1992Apr5.123423.23884
>>
>> Turgut, generally us British people just pay exorbitant (sp?) amounts of
>> money for our software.
>>
>> I have in the past used IBM colleagues based in the States to order
>> software for me.  My best example of a saving was when I upgraded from
>> Turbo C Version 1 to the Version 2 Professional Pack.  A colleague in
>> the states ordered this for me.  It was delivered directly from Borland
>> to my home address in UK.  Cost was 88.00 pounds.  In the UK the price
>> was about 285.00 pounds.
>>
>> Recently a couple of US companies have started advertising in the UK
>> computer press.  You can order software directly from the US.  Cost
>> seems to be a bit cheaper than in UK, but the companies are still chargin
>> way over the US price.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ian Stirling                      Internet: ian@vnet.ibm.com
>> CICS/ESA Systems Facilities         Bitnet: ian at vnet
>> IBM UK Labs Ltd, Hursley, England IBMIPnet: ian@stirling.hursley.ibm.com
>>
>> Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
>
>   Hmmm, almost every Borland product I've ever bought had a sticker on it
>saying not for export outside of U.S.A. and Canada.  My first thought was that
>it had something to do with restricting the export of technology...just like
>most encryption progs aren't supposed to leave the U.S.
>
>                            John Stewart
>

John

Not only did my copy not have a sticker on it, I also registered it
with Borland UK and receive literature from them very regularly about
upgrade offers.

Before I bought my original copy in the US I got my contact to ring
Borland in California I think and they agreed to the transaction.

Cheers,
Ian Stirling                      Internet: ian@vnet.ibm.com
CICS/ESA Systems Facilities         Bitnet: ian at vnet
IBM UK Labs Ltd, Hursley, England IBMIPnet: ian@stirling.hursley.ibm.com

Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
From: pebly@VNET.IBM.COM (Bob Pebly)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: OS/2, Unix, DOS 3.3, DOS 5.0, DR DOS 6.0 all at once?
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:09:09 GMT
Reply-To: pebly@vnet.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Industrial Sector Division, Boca Raton, FL

In <57199@cup.portal.com> Tim W Smith writes:
> <stuff deleted>
>386:
>   C: bootable 32 meg DOS partition with DOS 3.3.
>   D: and E: 32 meg DOS partitions with random stuff.
>   Rest of disk: SCO Unix
> <stuff deleted>
>The questions:
>
>   Does anyone have any comments on this?  Can I reasonable have
>   SCO Unix and OS/2 share a disk?  I would need to be able to
>   fairly easily boot either of these systems (or DOS).  I'd
>   like to avoid having to boot from a floppy or play fdisk games
>   with the active partition when I need to change systems.
>
>   Does anyone have any other suggested layouts for this kind of
>   thing?
>
>                                 Tim Smith
>

Using OS/2's Boot Manager you should be able to configure your partitions
as follows:

    1MB Boot Manager partition
   32MB Primary partition for DOS (current C:)
   32MB Extended logical partition (current D:)
   32MB Extended logical partition (current E:)
   xxMB Extended logical partition for OS/2 2.0
   xxMB Primary partition for SCO Unix

The bad part is that you'll need to re-partition to install Boot Manager
unless you happen to have some disk space on the drive that is not
partitioned.  There is documentation on the Boot Manager in the
installation pubs with OS/2.  Once you have Boot Manager installed, you
can put DOS, OS/2 & SCO in the boot menu and then select which boots on
each IPL.  Boot Manager also lets you optionally select a default
partition to boot if no selection is made within a configurable timeout.

Bob Pebly

Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's view, not those of IBM.