HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: backman@ftp.com  (Larry Backman)
Subject: Re: IBM TCP/IP 1.2 for OS/2
Nntp-Software: PC/TCP NNTP
Organization: FTP Software, Inc., Wakefield, MA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 12:49:39

In article <92101.083335JAY@wvnvm.wvnet.edu> James Justice <JAY@wvnvm.wvnet.edu> writes:

 >> (1) DRIVES in OS/2 GA does not support a NFS mounted disk.  The old
 >>     file manager under OS/2 1.3 supported such a disk very well.  The
 >>     command line commands (DIR, COPY, and etc.) work well.  I want
 >>     DRIVES to support a NFS disk like the file manager did.
How does it not support it?  The Drive's Icon generates an obscure call
to IFS's; FS_FINDFROMNAME; which to my knowledge has only been used in
one or two very specific applications elsewhere.  Could be that their
NFS needs to be rev'd to support this API.
 >> 
 >> (2) If you have an NFS disk mounted and go into Windows, BANG OS/2 GA
 >>     is gone!  The only solution is RESET of POWER ON/OFF.  This *must*
 >>     be fixed.  I have some older PC's that only have 60 Meg hard drives.
 >>     I want to run OS/2 2.0 and some Windows applications (Word Perfect
 >>     for Windows for example) and these PCs don't have enough disk space.
 >>     If this worked, I could but application software on a NFS server and
 >>     convert these people to OS/2 right now!  We have decided that OS/2
 >>     is the system we want to run.  I recently bought 39 copies of 1.3
 >>     to get ready for the free upgrade.  If this isn't fixed, some people
 >>     will have to wait on Stacker and etc. to run OS/2 2.0.  Of course
 >>     all new PCs are going to be 386/33 with 120 Meg at minimum.
Are you saying that it GP's the machine if you load a WInapp across
the net from an NFS mounted drive or that if you run any Windows app's
while you have an NFS drive mounted the machine hangs?

I've just run the Windows Help viewer across a PCTCP NFS mounted drive with
no adverse affects.  I had somewhere in the past (6.149?, 6.177?) had to
make some modifications to my IFS to support some OS/2 2.0 peculiarities;
FS_FINDFROMNAME was only one of the issues.  Since IBM released their TCP
in Sept; the OS might have rev'ed right out from under them.  You might want
to ask them for a patch level.

I sympathize with them; it hasn't been easy tracking OS/2 2.0 from an
IFS's point of view.


Larry Backman
FTP Software
Organization: Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Vienna, Austria
Date: Tuesday, 14 Apr 1992 20:35:48 WUT
From: FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: General suite of apps

AmiPro is slated to 3/4 quarter in a 16-bit and 32-bit version, that is
what I got from Lotus-reps a couple of weeks ago.

---rony
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: WIndows 3.1 Apps don't run under OS/2
Organization: Harvey Mudd College
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 02:53:56 GMT

rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:

>Well, I hooked up with a Windows 3.1 beta tester and tried to run
>Windows 3.1 applets under OS/2 2.0 release.  Other Windows programs
>run beautifully under OS/2 2.0, seamless or standalone.  However,
>trying to run these applets comes up with "OS/2 does not support this
>application."  I can't tell whether it's OS/2 or the applet popping up
>that message.

The message is probably from OS/2.  The Windows 3.1 applets will
not run under Windows 3.0, so they check to make sure they are
running under Windows 3.1.  When this check is done under OS/2,
OS/2 identifies itself as Windows 3.0 and the applets don't work.
Presumably, Winos2 has the error message modified to mention OS/2
instead of Windows 3.0.
-- 
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)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
From: fell@sol.UVic.CA (Stuart Fell)
Subject: upgrading from Windows to OS/2 apps
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C. CANADA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 18:30:55 GMT

I am seriously considering switching to OS/2.  I currnently am using Excel 3.0
and Word 4 Windows 1.1a.  I would like to know if there is any competitive
upgrades to OS/2 applications instead of running Windows applications.

I'm going to upgrade to W4W 2.0 if there isn't.

Also what is there out there for OS/2 word processors and are they any good?
I have heard of Display Write 5/2 and Describe.  What are the current versions
like?

What is there for spreadsheets other than 123/G??  How do users like 123/G?  I
saw  a brief demo of it 2 years ago.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
From: chenz@julian.uwo.ca (z.h. chen)
Subject: Re: OS2 and Stacker.......
Organization: University of Western Ontario, London
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:51:48 GMT

I heard that OS/2 is not compatible with DOS stacker, but I wonder whether
the stacker can be loaded in a specific DOS session under OS/2. If it can
be loaded, then the compressed logical drivers (which contains only some
DOS files) can be accessed in that Dos session. Anyone knows the result 
or tried it?

Z. Chen
Organization: European Academic Research Network
Date: Wednesday, 15 Apr 1992 10:25:52 GMT
From: Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: DOS app under OS/2

You are sure you have the Serial Device Support enabled when you were
installing OS/2?     If you are using a beta, there is a COM patch
available from IBM too, it is also floating around, for example at
LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.  -turgut
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.apps:1650 comp.os.os2.misc:12232 comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc:3030
From: bowman@saguaro.cs.psu.edu (Mic Bowman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc
Subject: IBM TCP/IP for OS/2 and SLIP connections
Date: 17 Apr 92 12:54:37 GMT
Organization: Penn State Computer Science

I am trying to connect a 386 machine running OS/2 (1.3 for now, my
upgrade hasn't arrived yet :-) to a Sun 4/40 across a serial line using
SLIP.  I have several questions about setting up IBM TCP/IP on the 386:

- What do I need from NDIS?  There is no information in the documentation
about SLIP setup.  By trial and error I found out that I minimally need
ndis.sys and a couple other files.  However, I'm not sure what to do about
the message files, protocol.ini, and netbind.exe.

- The Sun's serial line (through a 19.2K modem) must be available for
other logins.  That means that establishing a SLIP connection involves
logging in and then starting slip-attach.  The OS/2 slipcall program
does not provide any way to do this.  I've tried establishing the
connection before I start slio, but my communication program drops the
connection.  How do I get around the limitations of slipcall?

- Finally, what kind of information do I need in the routing table?  Do
I need the router at all?

Thanks in advance for any help.

--Mic

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mic Bowman                                Computer Science Department
bowman@cs.psu.edu                         Penn State University
(814) 865-1406                            University Park, PA 16802-6103
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 I've got mine!
Date: 9 Apr 92 02:32:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr9.023247.4846
Organization: University of Hawaii

Jeff Wolfe writes:

> I went further and asked what type of shipping was being used, the response
> was 5-day ground. (or, as my friend would say: "UPS-reverse-gear")
> 
> There is no option for UPS red or FedEx.

There must be.  UPS ground isn't available to Hawaii.  Maybe it just isn't
an option on the mainland.
From: jbradsha@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Jonathan Bradshaw)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: WIndows 3.1 Apps don't run under OS/2
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:48:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University

In <1992Apr13.141932.19588@hemlock.cray.com> bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier) writes:

>Actually, IBM at COMDEX showed Windows 3.1 running in a DOS session with
>Windows 3.1 applications.  I believe this was Windows 3.1 running in
>Standard mode (not real).
>Bert Moshier

Windows 3.1 does NOT run in real mode. There is no such mode available so
it must have been standard.

-- 
 Jonathan Bradshaw | jbradsha@mentor.cc.purdue.edu | pbradsha@darwin.cc.nd.edu
 Purdue University | WNDU-AM/FM/TV South Bend, IN  | Forsythe Computers,  Inc.
 Prodigy:  XMSN02B | Whovian/Trekker/Red Dwarf/Quantum Leap/Blakes 7/DGIF#9588
 - "Busy life, not enough time to look in the mirror." -  Deborah Ann Gibson -
From: tholen@hale.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: upgrading from Windows to OS/2 apps
Date: 8 Apr 92 03:42:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr8.034206.19531
Organization: University of Hawaii

Stuart Fell writes:

> I am seriously considering switching to OS/2.  I currnently am using Excel 3.0
> and Word 4 Windows 1.1a.  I would like to know if there is any competitive
> upgrades to OS/2 applications instead of running Windows applications.
> 
> I'm going to upgrade to W4W 2.0 if there isn't.
> 
> Also what is there out there for OS/2 word processors and are they any good?
> I have heard of Display Write 5/2 and Describe.  What are the current versions
> like?

DeScribe is offering a competitive upgrade to Word for Windows users.  The
latest version is 3.0, and some of the reviews of Windows-based word processors
in various magazines recently have included DeScribe.  It has it's pluses and
minuses relative to the other packages.  One of the pluses is unlimited Undo.
The OS/2 version is multithreaded, unlike Word, so certain operations don't
leave you staring at the hourglass.  Another big plus that the 32-bit version
will offer is speed!

Another plus that the magazine reviews don't mention is the quality of the
Technical Support.  I've only had the need to call twice, but both times
they handled my question splendidly.  The first 90 days of support are free.

Compared to Word 1.1, DeScribe wins hands down in my opinion.  The reviewers
all seem to like Word 2.0 the most, but I haven't seen it so I can't offer an
unbiased opinion, but you can expect a 32-bit word processor to outperform a
16-bit word processor in terms of speed.  The 32-bit DeScribe demo is
available now, I understand, so the real thing should be ready to roll as
soon as they can verify proper operation under GA.
From: easyrob@cs.utexas.edu (Robert Depew Reynolds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: IBM TCP/IP 1.2 for OS/2
Date: 15 Apr 1992 18:04:29 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: coltexo.cs.utexas.edu

I checked out a IBM Model 57sx with 4Mb and GA at a local superstore.

The biggest problem was that they had the system set so that the windows
minimized to the window list rather that iconified.  SO when I looked at 
the machine there were about 12 processes running but not visible on the 
desktop.

I think the 4Mb minimum is like the 1 or 2Mb minimum MSWindows has.

In other words, it will run, but not very well at all!!

They also probably had HPFS installed. A No-No with less than 6Mb.


/===========================================================================\
|  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  |
\===========================================================================/

    
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
From: price@helios.unl.edu (Chad  Price)
Subject: Re: Databases for OS/2
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Date:  9 Apr 92 22:25:03 GMT

sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:

>In article <1992Apr9.150503.13164@acsu.buffalo.edu> v106padf@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (MIKE CARGIAN) writes:
>>I am currently thinking of moving to OS/2 and would like to know
>>what relational databases are out there for OS/2.

>IBM's Database Manager, MS SQL Server, Oracle, R:Base, Paradox, and
>Sybase is in the works for OS/2 2.0, to name a few.
>-- 
In addition there is Advanced Revelation 2.1 from Revelation Tehnologies
It is an OS/2 version of Advanced Revelation, which is in turn decended
from Revelation Release G2B and earlier, dating back to pre 1985. The product 
on DOS is exceptionaly capable but is a resource hog and not terribly fast.

chad
price@helios.unl.edu
From: wjb5106@rigel.tamu.edu (Walter Barnett)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: OS/2 upgrade and Egghead
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:22:00 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <83852@bu.edu>, rem@buitc.bu.edu (Robert Mee) writes...

>the upgrade form from IBM. Anyway the form says 
>that the 'IBM Authorized Dealer' should sign and
>stamp a section of a form. Is there anybody out 

Having a dealer sign is only one option for upgrading.  Other options 
are sending in a copy of the receipt for the purchase of v1.3 or sending 
in the proof-of-license card (not a copy) from the v1.3 documentation.
_______________________________________________________________________
Walter Barnett        Aerospace Engineering        Texas A&M University 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
From: smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Questions!
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 04:45:43 GMT

tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes:

>> 4)	Does OS/2 support the Sound Blaster?
>
>If you mean 'support' as multimedia support like Windows, no not yet :)
>However, DOS/Windows programs that use the Sound Blaster run fine and
>there are even a few OS/2 Soundblaster/SB Pro programs out there
>(mostly .CMF/.VOC/.MOD/etc. file players and such at the moment)...

Any native OS/2 Roland programs for the MT-32/LAPC-1 cards?  (OK, I'm
dreaming :)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
From: rafetmad@cheshire.oxy.edu (David R. Giller)
Subject: Re: OS2 and Stacker.......
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 19:32:59 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.061149.9551@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green) writes:
>In article <92100.141314TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET> Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET> writes:
>>I don't think OS/2  Stacker could 'hook' itself into the IFSes (FAT&HPFS).
>>Probably they will have code to duplicate the code in HPFS and FAT drivers.
>>They must be choosing their disassemblers as we speak now :)
>
>There really ought to be hooks in the HPFS and FAT drivers, since IBM is
>supposedly working on their own version of compression which will be
>in the next version of OS/2.  I sure hope IBM doesn't have to rewrite half
>the drivers to do that, or they will be wasting programmer time and expense.
>However, if they *really* want it to be fast, and didn't think it all the way
>through *and* wrote the code in assembler to make it lean and mean, they just
>may be doing this as we speak.  Hopefully they aren't going to wait until Stac
>releases its version before releasing the IBM CSD with data compression.  That
>just wouldn't be very nice :-)  On the other hand, if stac's version can be
>compiled for OS/2 1.X, they may still have a market!

Since this is the decade of copporate alliances, why doesn't IBM lisence
Stacker from Stac?  It would cost alot less per package, and Stac would still
make alot of money, and they could sell their coprocessor cards separately
for those who want extra horsepower.

BTW: Has anyone else noticed that Stacker with a coprocessor card under OS/2
would show a MUCH greater performance boost (even over OS/2s standard
speed boost) than the card would under single-threaded DOS?

-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.apps
From: smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith)
Subject: Re: ftp sites?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 03:58:37 GMT

prs@turing.acs.virginia.edu (Phillip R. Scarr) writes:
>fer9483@tesla.njit.edu writes:
>>Is there an anonymous ftp site where I can grab some OS/2 files?  I want
>>to have some stuff to run when 2.0 arrives in the mail.
>
>novell.com after 5pm MST (or PST, I don't remember)

I don't think novell.com is accessible anymore for OS/2 stuff. 
The main site is now hobbes (see below).

>cnam.cnam.fr is the site where the comp.binaries.os2 files are kept
>(uuencoded though).
>
>wuarchive.wustl.edu has some and ftp.cica.indiana.edu might have some as
>well.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
OS2.FTP.SITES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


This list is from Bill - whirt@cup.portal.com

OS/2 Public domain file archives:

listserv@blekul11.bitnet
	* Location Europe
	* Send "get os-2 filelist" for complete listing
	* Send "get sendme.file os-2" to get file "sendme.file"

funic.funet.fi (128.214.6.100)      
	* Location Finland
	* Files located: /pub/os2/*
	* README for general info of a directory
	  INDEX for complete descriptions of files in a directory
	  00Index.All for a complete index

archive.latrobe.edu.au (131.172.2.2)
	* Location Australia
	* README for general description of archive
	  Index for complete index of files
	* Login: anonymous
	* Files located in /pub/os2/*

msdos.archive.umich.edu (141.211.165.34)
	* Location USA
	* Login: anonymous
	* Files located in /msdos/os2

slug.pws.bull.com (128.35.10.203)
	* comp.binaries.os2

vega.hut.fi (130.233.200.42)
	* os2 directory

hobbes.nmsu.edu
	* Location: New Mexico
	* Login: anonymous
	* Files located in /pub/os2

mtsg.ubc.ca (137.82.27.1)
        * Location Canada
        * AAAINDEX for description of files
        * Login: anonymous
        * Files located in OS2:

------------------

from the OS/2 FAQ file....

hobbes.nmsu.edu             128.123.35.151     pub/os2
mtsg.ubc.ca                 137.82.27.1        os2:
luga.latrobe.edu.au         131.172.2.2        pub/os2
msdos.archive.umich.edu     141.211.164.153    msdos/os2
funic.funet.fi              128.214.6.100      pub/os2
sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de  129.206.100.126    pub/os2
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
From: smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith)
Subject: Re: WIndows 3.1 Apps don't run under OS/2
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 04:19:58 GMT

wjb5106@rigel.tamu.edu (Walter Barnett) writes:

>Eventually, of course, 3.1 compatibility might be an important asset for
>OS/2 but what difference (except to a few braindead applets) if it comes
>now or somewhere down the road? 

Win 3.1 compatibility is important because:

1) Possible boost in Win-OS2 performance (let's hope!).
2) DLL's
3) Compatibility with new apps that use features of 3.1 
4) Market perception.

Number 4 is probably most important, with number 1 running a close
second.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
From: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael D Kretzer)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Questions!
Originator: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Reply-To: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 22:05:17 GMT

From article <1992Apr11.044543.1934@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith):
>>> 4)	Does OS/2 support the Sound Blaster?
>>
>>If you mean 'support' as multimedia support like Windows, no not yet :)
>>However, DOS/Windows programs that use the Sound Blaster run fine and
>>there are even a few OS/2 Soundblaster/SB Pro programs out there
>>(mostly .CMF/.VOC/.MOD/etc. file players and such at the moment)...
> 
> Any native OS/2 Roland programs for the MT-32/LAPC-1 cards?  (OK, I'm
> dreaming :)

Since most of the Soundblaster/Sounblaster Pro programs were written by
myself, no :)  (at least not that I know of).   Anyone know where I can
get MT-32/LAPC-1 technical documentation?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
From: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael D Kretzer)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Questions!
Originator: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Reply-To: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 03:59:24 GMT

From article <52884@mimsy.umd.edu>, by pr@umiacs.umd.edu (Jesus Rodriguez):
> 2)	Can I use the Norton Anti Virus software on OS/2?

Yes, there is no problem with this.  Useful only if you run DOS programs
which might have viruses, since all this anti virus software checks for
is DOS viruses :)

> 3)	How do viruses or can they affect OS/2 and HPFS?

It is more difficult for viruses to infect system files, since they are
protected once the system loads them, however, it certainly isn't
impossible to make an OS/2 virus (it takes a different approach than for
making a DOS virus).  But let's put it this way, I've haven't seen an OS/2 
virus yet... You should take precautions against DOS/Windows viruses, if
this is a concern, but for now you don't need to worry about OS/2 viruses.

> 4)	Does OS/2 support the Sound Blaster?

If you mean 'support' as multimedia support like Windows, no not yet :)
However, DOS/Windows programs that use the Sound Blaster run fine and
there are even a few OS/2 Soundblaster/SB Pro programs out there
(mostly .CMF/.VOC/.MOD/etc. file players and such at the moment)...
From: wjb5106@rigel.tamu.edu (Walter Barnett)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: WIndows 3.1 Apps don't run under OS/2
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:23:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Texas A&M University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Just how important is it that OS/2 provide complete, immediate
compatibility with Windows 3.1?  I can't imagine that very many (if any)
software vendors are going to write applications that won't run on Win-3
(except, perhaps, Microsoft with their applets).  I just got an upgrade
notice for MS-Excel v4.0 for Windows and it requires Win-3.  There is no
mention of Windows v3.1.  It is one thing to take advantage of
additional capabilities (Truetype is the only obvious one) but quite
another to cut yourself off from a large installed base of users.
Eventually, of course, 3.1 compatibility might be an important asset for
OS/2 but what difference (except to a few braindead applets) if it comes
now or somewhere down the road? 
_______________________________________________________________________
Walter Barnett        Aerospace Engineering        Texas A&M University