HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: HPFS File Names (Was Re: Damned good recovery)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 16:13:03 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <it1.714420980@Isis.MsState.Edu>, it1@ra.msstate.edu (Tim Tsai) writes:
|> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
|> >In article <1992Aug20.135132.10003@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
|> >>In article <Lrf-Y7-@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|> >>...
|> >>>What would be really nice is if you could assign your own 8.3 name to
|> >>>any file and have DOS applications use that filename instead of 
|> >>>simply being blind to the file.  For example, I would like to have
|> >>>some subdirectories which contain only 8.3 names.  Unfortunately all
|> >>>parent directories must also conform to 8.3 names for DOS applications
|> >>
|> >>NT fixes this -- if you are on an NTFS volume, 8.3 names are automatically
|> >>assigned for the long names.
|> 
|>   I don't consider that a fix.  Many of us do not like operating systems
|> randomly assigning filenames for us.  I hear NFS products for MS-DOS
|> often do this.  What he asked for was the ability to assign names by the
|> user.
|> 

Actually what I asked for was an automatic assignment of a name that
could be changed or overridden by the user.  I would rather see some
garbage name (ala NFS) than to not see the file at all.  Of course
this could simply be an HPFS option.  Of course I don't particularly
care what NTFS can do unless it becomes available for OS/2.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Distributed Systems (was: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift)
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:35:46 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Aug12.220152.20876@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>>I have seen a lot of small business using dump terminals with a few Unix
>>box. In current stage, they don't need window like applications. And you
>>know, dump terminal (ok, with vt200, wyse emulation) are very cheap. How
>>much for a Unix box + a few com cards + 100 dump terminals and
>>NT box + 100 Lan cards + 100 Lan license + 100 PCs (+ 100 windows) ?
>
>A few com cards, try 100.  yeuch.  
>How much are dumb terminals.  As I said, 286 boxes are quite cheap also.
>Lan cards are very cheap.  100 LAN licenses are cheap.  
>So the net cost will be a bit more, the net ability of the system, though,
>will be a whole lot more!!!

Well, the dumb terminals cost about the same as XT's.  And an XT makes
a wonderful dumb terminal (with a nice term package like Procomm).

>You give a UNIX system, which will be MAXED out in use.  The users won't be
>able to use anything more complecated.  What if the UNIX box goes down.
>For every hour it is down, you loose 100 man hours of work.  

Assuming its always in use.  Some Unix boxes can handle that load.
The computer I'm using now: hertz.njit.edu is a DEC system 5500.  It
can have over 100 users on during peak hours.  It handles it rather
well.  (Of course, it has 128MB of memory and many GB if disk!).  It
is expensive, though.  A Unix box that can quickly handle 100+ users
at once will cost as much (if not more) as the NT setup you describe.

Remember that 100 terminals connected directly to the CPU will slow it
down a lot, so you need a communications controler to multiplex the
100 terminals into a high-speed port.  This will cost quite a bit for
a 100+ terminal load.  (NJIT uses a DEC LAT server for all of its
dumb-terminals).

>Let me just remind you that I DID NOT SAY that NT couldn't handle login
>over the serial port from a term.  I only questioned the usefulness of this.

It's useful for people calling in from home.  But then again, you
could do that under DOS (with well-behaved apps, I can use Procomm for
remote access), so it's nothing really new, and I'd be shocked if it
_couldn't_ be done under NT.

Looking back over this post, I'm not sure which side I'm arguing.  So
let's just assume I'm not taking any side, OK?
-- 
   |)  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.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:3990 comp.os.os2.misc:27407
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
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: 14 Aug 92 18:23:54 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Aug13.114605.7935@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes:
>It would be interesting to know if this means a complete implementation
>of the OS/2 1.x (16-bit) API or if this includes support for the 32-bit
>OS/2 2.0 API.
>
>If the implement the OS/2 2.0 API, this would provide a way to make
>powerful 32-bit applications which run on both platforms.

If everyone remebers a few years ago.  Some people stated that "if
OS/2 runs Windows apps, why bother developing for OS/2 - just write
for Windows 3.0 and get both markets".  

I wonder if those people will use that argument in the future when MS
puts PM compatibility into NT.  Will they then say "if NT runs OS/2
apps, why bother developing for NT - just write for OS/2 and get both
markets". 
-- 
   |)  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
From: tar@pa.reuter.COM (Dan Tarnower)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 speed (was: dvorak, pc magazine)
Date: 20 Aug 92 02:00:45 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Reuter:file Inc  (A Reuter Company) Palo Alto, CA

Well, I fixed the cache problem (I just reversed the advice the IBM
rep gave me).

I still find it slow, and it has locked up hard on me several times.
The last few days have been better.  I'm still evalulating it, but
I miss the 800x600 mode I had in Win3.1.

I was trying to avoid too much shuffling of the hard disk, which is
why I didn't use the boot manager.  I've had several people recommend
it, so maybe I'll try when I get some time.  I'm not up to repartitioning
at the moment.  I hear that if I use HPFS for the OS/2 boot partition,
the swapping performance should increase much more.

I'll post more info later.  May take weeks.  I'm under a lot of pressure
to meet a work deadline.

/Dan
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Who's problem *are* SVGA drivers?
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:20:29 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <BswGoL.MwF@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> cebarton@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Casey Barton) 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. 

Two reasons:

1) IBM works under the watchful eye of the FTC.  If they release a
   driver for one board, they must release them for everybody, lest
   they be accused of favoring one vendor over another.
2) IBM needs their programmer resources for more important things.
   Like fixing bugs in the WPS.  Would you like a stable interface
   under VGA or a buggy interface under superVGA.  How'd you like to
   lose your disk format because the programers didn't have time to
   finish the disk drivers working on the sVGA drivers?
-- 
   |)  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.
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: pc week and nt
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:19:01 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Aug14.093855.4791@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>IBM was supposed to pick up such support (which they did).  Were'nt you
>listening?

So you think it's a Good Thing for Microsoft that I'll buy C Set/2 instead of
MS C version 7? What about those folks who bought the v7 upgrade, expecting to
use it with OS/2?

There's no doubt in my mind that MS shafted folks who depended on its
continued support of OS/2... then again, anyone who's had to deal with MS
customer support will understand about MS not caring about folks who buy its
products... MS' support is only exceeded in horribleness by Computer
Associates' and Novell. That's really great company to be in, guys.
-- 
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.
   "This is a network here, right?  How about giving a little thought to
            interoperability?" -- John F. Woods, to Brian Kantor
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:57:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug14.093344.4604@microsoft.com>, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete 
Skelly) writes...
>In article <1992Aug13.123325.8107@jpradley.jpr.com> grumpy@jpradley.UUCP 
(Jeff Markel) writes:

>>OS/2 doesn't really use the BIOS, so it CAN'T be a BIOS app.

>But OS/2 uses the BIOS as its boot sector loader, just as Win31 uses
>DOS as it's loader, so by the logic so commonly used in this group (cynicism)
>OS/2 Is as much BIOS app as Win31 is DOS app.

And thus Win31 is a DOS app, which is in turn a BIOS app.  Either way, OS/2 
removes a layer from the pile.

Maybe we should confuse the shit out of everyone and refer to Windows 3.0 
as Windows 3.0 and Windows 3.1 as WinOS 3.1.  Naw, too much like WINOS2.

JD
From: aci10@eng.cam.ac.uk (A.C. Innes)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rest In Peace MicroSoft
Keywords: MicroSoft, Operating Systems, Client/Server
Date: 15 Aug 92 17:34:57 GMT
Organization: Cambridge University Engineering Department, England

[...]
>>>Bill Gates' nightmare is coming true. OS/2 is gainig momentum.
>>                                               ^^^^^^
>>
>>I have a question, did you use the DOS version of PETE.EXE, or the
>>OS/2 Version ?
>
>He used the Windows 3.0 version of course!...  He'd have used the 3.1
>version, but IBM doesn't have the CSD/"product enhancement" ready yet.
>:-)  (Please don't hurt me!)

May I ask when the client/server version (running on Pete's desktop NT
server, of course :-) will be available?  I'm sure that, like me, many
net-users are concerned that this important piece of software should
remain as up-to-date as possible, which clearly implies that C/S is
the way to go.  Then Pete could update the server program as
improvements are found, making them instantly available to all users.

This approach also has the advantage of allowing users of operating
systems other than DOS/Windows and OS/2 (for instance, people like me)
to benefit from the services of PETE.EXE without worrying about the
difficulties of porting this sophisticated program to possibly
inferior OSes.  Now if only I could figure out how to get my news
reader to pipe my articles through \\microsoft.com\nmpipe\PETE.EXE, I
too could avoid the embarrassment of not having any spelling mistakes
in my posts.  Ah well...
--
Andrew Innes (aci10@eng.cam.ac.uk)
Engineering Dept.
Cambridge University
Cambridge, England.
From: Ralf.Wirth@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de (Ralf Wirth)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 speed (was: dvorak, pc magazine)
Date: 18 Aug 92 11:12:51 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Oldenburg, Germany

tar@pa.reuter.COM (Dan Tarnower) writes:

>Anyway, here's the machine I'm using:

>PC clone 386/25 (disabled 64k cache)
>8 megs of 70ns memory
>500 meg ESDI disk with 16ms access time, and 1.875 Mbytes/Sec Xfr time
>Boca Super-VGA card with 1 meg 
>Colorado DJ-20 tape drive (anyway to use this under OS/2?!?!?!?!)
>Soundblaster card             "    "    "    "    "    "    "

The fun starts with 16MB. I have installed a program called SCRUTIL from 
hobbes.nmsu.edu you may find it under OS2/all/misutils I think. This program
shows me 7.7meg (of 16) after the startup. It is more usefull to install
bigger memory than a faster processor or harddisk in this case.

I don't either understand why your cache doesn't work.

>I have installed with the Dual Boot option.  I need to go back to DOS-5
>from time to time, as I am involved with some projects that use the
>new features of Win3.1.

Why don't you use the boot manager? To my mind the Dual boot is only reasonable
for OS2 v1.x, because That one wanted to start from C: and DOS too.
OS/2 will start on another partition as well, so you don't need it.

>I am trying to like OS/2, but I can't agree with all the claims I keep
>hearing that it's faster than DOS and/or Windows 3.1.

Of cousrse it's better. The only thing I need DOS for is to play ultima7 and
Civilisation. ;-)


-- 
*****************************************************************************
*                                                                           *
* Name: Ralf Wirth                                                          *
* Job : Student of computer science/Wizard of Nightfall (Veltins).          *
* Login : Henry@Aragorn, Henry@Schrottpollo                                 *
* E-Mail Address: Ralf.Wirth@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de               *
* ------------------------------------------------------------------------- *
* No, I'm not related to him.                                               *
*****************************************************************************
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:4362 comp.os.os2.misc:27938
Organization: Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Vienna, Austria
Date: Wednesday, 19 Aug 1992 18:04:46 CET
From: FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: TELEVISION CAMPAIGN LAUNCHED TODAY FOR OS/2

Good news for you people in the U.S.

Over here in Europe (at least Austria, Germany) - there is no sign of
OS/2 in the print media, not even thinking of radio- or TV-advertisements
(I remember one print-advertisement which ran for two or three weeks --
since April !).

No visibility, no money on IBM's side to market OS/2 prominently around
here ???

No building of trust into OS/2 therefore ...
People sitting in the waiting room looking for NT, Win32s, Win4.0, DOS 6 ...


---rony
From: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: what crash...
Date: 22 Aug 92 01:03:46 EST
Reply-To: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

In message <1992Aug18.220352.28480#njitgw.njit.edu>,
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:

DC>This isn't Unix - there are no zombie processes.  And WPS isn't the
DC>shell.  PM is.

There may  not be  zombie processes,  but there  are processes  who sure
think they are zombies. And yes, PM is the shell. WPS is the user shell.
From a user standpoint, it's all OS/2.

DC>When WPS goes down, your apps do not go with them.  I know this from

They can,  and have.  When the  onscreen clock  stops moving,  the mouse
cursor doesn't respond, the keyboard is dead (even the indicator  lights
fail to toggle), I'd call that dead.

DC>personal experience.  And it comes back up rather quickly.  It's like

The WPS recovers less than 20% of the time, in our experience.

DC>when Motif dies on a Sun (it's happened) - as long as the X server
DC>keeps running, the apps keep running - you just restart Motif and the
DC>apps get their windows back.

Right. And you restart OS/2 via a cold boot.

DC>As for the input queue problems, this is an unfortunate side effect of
DC>having one input queue.  An application can ignore its messages and
DC>hog the system.  This is no bug of PM, though.

Bug? No. Bad design choice? Yes.

DC>Have you ever had the WPS crash on you?  I don't think so.  I think

Yes, we  have. I  have APARS  against this.  There is  at least  one DOS
program  which  when  invoked  traps  OS/2 with the "internal processing
error occurred - call service rep" message.

DC>you're just speculating on all of this.  The WPS's instability does

Well, if I'm speculating, then so are our two IBM reps who are trying to
resolve the  problems, as  well as  the OS/2  developer from Boca (Chris
something) that they have working on it.

DC>nothing to the applications.  The PM foundataion is extremely stable.

As long as you run well-behaved applications, this is true. But my point
was that  IBM is  advertising a  "crash-proof" operating  system that is
anything but.

DC>WPS is another application, just like Excel is.  Both run as children
DC>of PM.

Well, I  can run  OS/2 without  Excel. Can  you tell  me how to run OS/2
without WPS?

----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.com
Software Consulting and Gator Pit | Eradicate Hunger - Eat the homeless
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
---
  SLMR 2.1a  This sentence no verb.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mongoola@engin.umich.edu (Don Prior)
Subject: Re: Hasta la Vista, OS/2
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 20:44:35 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Aug17.143806.10701@umbc3.umbc.edu> cs611a10@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs611a10) writes:
>   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??

Me!
Hell, every few times through the dual boot it would goof up.. back to the 'ol
10 minute OS/2 Boot disk.  I can't imagine its that hard to have a 
something like DUAL BOOT work.. especially considering the complexity
of OS/2... too bad it doesn't.

>	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.

Well, I've NEVER had Windows trash my hard disk.. NEVER NEVER NEVER.
I use it ALL over the place.. Work, where I install it for other people.
My home setup which varies from a simple machine, to a Network with 
2 IDE drives and a big 'ol SCSI and Windows has NEVER NEVER NEVER 
trashed my system.
Perhaps you were hitting the RESET button while it was writing to disk?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks! (was Re: Windows NT 'Alpha')
Date: 20 Aug 92 11:53:25 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Aug20.115026.10843@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
...
>
>I read in Clari news tonight that MS says that NT is ontrack for a late '92
>delivery and that it will be going into late beta testing at the end of
>September/October..........
> 
>Looks like a counter to the IBM/OS2 ad campaign, to me.
Why would they care about OS/2's ad campaign -- until that "June" "CSD"
gets out, letting customers try OS/2 is probably the best plan to not
get them to stay. :-)

In all seriousness... with the exception of the fact their DDK seems
to have slipped, I've seen no indication they're not going to be on time.
Why are you convenienced that NT is trash?  I used to believe that
OS/2 2.0 didn't exist back prior to the LA release, but then several
people started saying how great things were, etc so I got a copy
and they were right.  I don't understand this attitude of OS/2
is great (even though IBM is doing a poor job of fixing/supporting it)
and NT can't exist or be good because it's from Microsoft.

I can understand why you might not want to believe me about NT as I've
been rather rough on IBM's handling of OS/2 of late and you probably
(incorrectly) assume I'm anti-OS/2 and pro-NT (I would very much
like to be pro-both, but IBM keeps shooting itself in the foot.
I'm pissed because they're killing a promising product and in
the process making it much less desirable to have built a product
on top of their product.).

But there have been plenty of others that have said that NT is
quite real, and looks very promising.  Do you think we're all lying?
Microsoft has shipped over 10,000 of these pre-release.. >95% to
developers that wanted to see for themselves.  If things were
awful, don't you think there would have been a big fuss?
I personally believe in the end NT will slip a little... but then
so does everyone else.

Anybody no the current status of NT's DDK?

> 
>Steve
>-- 
>Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | If you don't vote for MMP on 
>Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  September 19, 1992, then you 
>withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  must like things the way they 
>**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  are.....can I live with YOU?


Brian
-----------
Enjoying the 800x600 SVGA drivers that both NT and Windows 3.1 provide
out of the box.
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Will OS/2 2.0 support Windows 386Enh development?
Keywords: windows 386enh sdk
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:02:57 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Aug19.121120.25468@jpradley.jpr.com> grumpy@jpradley.UUCP (Jeff Markel) writes:
>The problem with running apps in 386 Enhanced mode is that 386/486 CPUs
>are not self-virtualizing.  A [34]86 can pretend to be a 286 or 8086, but
>can't create a virtual 386.  This, in my opinion, is one of the current
>generation's great shortcomings.  If the P5 can virtualize the entire
>(or at least most) of the [34]86 architecture, then you could have a
>true VM OS - imagine running Solaris, NT, DOS, DVX and OS/2 all as 
>apps under OS/2 - it boggles the mind.

Perhaps Intel should work with IBM's mainframe division.  The s/370
machines could virtualize themselves.  I've seen the VM operating
system running in a VM-hosted virtual machine.  I've also seen the MVS
operating system running in a VM-hosted virtual machine.  This is
particularly useful for debugging new versions of the operating system
- you just run it in a virtual machine under the older (and stable)
version until it stabilizes.

If IBM can make a 370 that can produce virtual 370's, Intel should be
able to make a 486 that can produce virtual 486's.  They just haven't
done it yet.
-- 
   |)  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