HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: narpet@cs.mcgill.ca (Greg WARD)
Subject: Re: program to send dial code to modem
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 13:05:31 GMT

In article <s30jrINN2ek@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> kentiler@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Kent Iler) writes:
>  Is there a way to have a program dial a modem?  For example, I want
>to dial 1-800-NEC-INFO, I want to create a program in which I can
>just type NEC-INFO and the program will translate the letters to numbers
>and transfer it to the modem.  Thanks.

Your best bet (ie. easiest solution) is probably to just write a script
file for your comm. program of choice (Telix for me, but apparently ProComm
and Telemate both have quite adequate script languages). 

Failing that, there exists a small set of utilities that go under the name
of DOSMODEM.{ARC,ZIP,whatever}.  This contains assembler source to two
small but useful programs -- DTR.COM, which enables/disables DTR on the modem
(the necessity of doing this seems to vary by modem), and AT.COM which sends
AT commands to the modem.  You type, eg., AT H1 at the DOS prompt at and
AT sends "AT", then the command line string -- "H1" in this case -- to the
modem.  Biggest drawback is that these only support COM1 and 2, but that
should be fairly easily fixed because the source is right there.

I downloaded DOSMODEM several years ago from a BBS, so if you can't
find them through ftp (or don't have access) lemme know and I can mail
the source to you.

		Greg Ward (narpet@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca)
From: valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu (Doug Dougherty)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
Subject: Re: A personal perspective on choosing OS/2 2.0
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:10:34 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

John W. Linville obviously hadn't read my post to the end when he wrote
the following.  Nevertheless, ...


>First of all, Desqview it not really a GUI.  (You basically excluded Desqview/X
>which I have heard of, but have yet to see.)

True.  I thought it was clear that I was stretching.  Nevertheless, for
now I think DV is about the only choice.  Windows is trash - Windows NT
is but a gleam in Bill Gates's eye - DV/X isn't quite ready - OS/2 might
well be it.  I just haven't tried it yet.  Is it really shipping?

>Do you know what else meets those criteria?  OS/2!  I'll go you one better:
>OS/2 doesn't rely on DOS, so there is no 640K barrier (or obstacle, since 
>you can work around the 640K barrier under DOS, you just have to jump through
>hoops to do it).

If you had read to the end before responding, you would see that I agree.
(For what it is worth, let me ask you this: Suppose I have an app that
trashes the serial ports [both of them] as part of its initialization.
Can I get back the use of my serial mouse after this happens?  Neither
DV/X nor Windows can do it.  DV Classic can.)

>>What am I am here to ask is this: "Given the typical independent computer user

>I don't think that WPS looks much like Windows, and they sure don't act alike.

Yes, but you're obviously not Joe Sixpack.

>To me, all you have to do is open 2-3 DOS apps and notice how Windows nearly 
>dies while OS/2 chugs on.  There are lots of neat things to demonstrate the
>difference, and they are all more/less appropriate depending on who you are
>showing them to.

I don't think Joe/Jane Sixpack can see any of them.
Let me be clear: You know they're there - I know they're there (there is
no disagreement between you & me)

>Windows doesn't run any of the OS/2 programs I use or have written.

>Formatting in the background is just one example of how to kill Windows in a 
>way that doesn't bother OS/2.

Clearly so.  But try selling that to Joe Sixpack.

>>But what chance does any of this have, vis a vie the Joe Sixpacks of
>>the computer world, against the massive media blitz offered up by
>>MicroSoft?

>Do you buy Coke or Pepsi based on which one has the cutest ads?  I buy the
>one that tastes best.

I'm a Dr. Pepper man, myself.  I can't imagine anyone buying either
Coke *or* Pepsi based on the taste (yecch!).  So, clearly, advertising works.

>>My girlfriend says that OS/2 isn't sexy.  I think she's right.

>I never had a wet-dream about Windows.  As far as which one has the nicer
>interface, I think the WPS is a lot prettier than that tired old Windows 
>interface.

Nor I.  But, unfortunately, I think many people have.


What is WPS?
****************************************************************************
The Slug		valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu

Lowery's Law:
	If it jams -- force it.  If it breaks, it needed replacing
	anyway.

(THis [sic] message should be assumed to have been smiley captioned for the
humor impaired)
From: aaron@clark.edu (Aaron Auseth)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 and Packet drivers
Date: 9 Apr 92 00:33:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: clark.1992Apr9.003307.13450
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

In article <thomasg.462@epx.hscs.umn.edu> thomasg@epx.hscs.umn.edu (Thomas Gasser) writes:
>Hello all in Windows 3.1 land
>I have received my copy of Windows 3.1 :-).  My question has to do with the 
>IPX.OBJ that comes with it.  
>I am running on a Novell Netware 2.2 network using Ethernet cards and version
>of the packet drivers.  Is there a way to make a new packet driver IPX with
>this OBJ or has someone already done this.  I am currently using the PDIPX 
>from INTEL.  When I set up Windows it told me that there are compatabilty 
>problems with my version of IPX and 3.1.
>Thanks alot for your help.

I'm not exactly sure what your asking.  To use the IPX.obj file you got with
windows 3.1 you simply replace the ipx.obj file on your WSGEN or SHELLGEN
disks that you got with Netware 2.2.  (make a backup!!)  Then remake your
IPX.COM shell.  I'm not sure what PDIPX is?  If it does something special
(like support two protocall stacks) then you will have to contact INTEL for
the upgrade.
Xref: sparky comp.os.msdos.apps:2920 comp.os.msdos.programmer:5430 comp.windows.ms:12880 comp.windows.ms.programmer:5485
From: leadfoot@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Mark Curtis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps,comp.os.msdos.programmer,comp.windows.ms,comp.windows.ms.programmer
Subject: Re: MS C/C++ v7 - need info
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:56:02 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.msdos.apps

In article <jcmorris.703347559@mwunix>, jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris) writes:
|> I called MS yesterday since after seeing all of these postings I was
|> wondering why I haven't seen any upgrade notices.  The MS response is
|> that the upgrade offers will be shipped late this week.
|> 
|> While I was on the phone, I asked about the issues in this thread.  The
|> response was:
|> 
|>  * The upgrade to C7 includes the SDK code.
|> 
|>  * The upgrade to C7 includes the printed manuals for the C language
|>    component (I didn't think to verify that they've put the library
|>    reference back into the base product...).  It comes with machine-readable
|>    documentation for the SDK, but no hard copy.
|> 
|>  * The SDK hard copy manuals will cost $150
|> 
|>  * There is *no* break offered to users who have both C6 and SDK 3.0.
|> 
|> So far, this matches what has already appeared in this thread.  Now...
|> 
|>  * Registered users of the 3.0 SDK will be sent an upgrade offer for the
|>    SDK only.  This upgrade will be $150, and *will* include the printed
|>    SDK documentation.
|> 
|>  * Within the next two weeks registered DDK users will receive an upgrade
|>    solicitation.  I didn't get the price for this.
|> 
|> Note that according to this if you have both C6 and SDK 3.0 you can
|> either upgrade C6 to C7 and buy the extra SDK manuals, or upgrade C6
|> to C6 and upgrade SDK 3.0 to SDK 3.1 for the same price (possibly plus
|> an additional $6 or so for shipping the upgraded SDK).
|> 
Or do what I will end up doing.  Go to Egghead, CompUSA, and Fry's and
just get the whole damn retail package.  Noone pays full retail if they
have half a brain.  Borland C++3.0 + AF is only $309 around here, so
C7 shouldn't be much different.  That way you don't pay shipping, don't
have to wait for UPS, and either way you pay tax.  And you know you are
getting the real thing, not a half assed upgrade.  And microsoft gets
less money, because they have to sell it to the retailer for less.  They
love direct upgrades, no middle man to pay.  I have stopped ordering
upgrades direct, it isn't worth it.  Egghead or CompUSA always charges
less that Microsoft and you don't pay shipping, plus you don't have to
wait.  Your card doesn't get charged until you get your stuff.

Mark
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
From: rice@cray.com (Jonathan Rice)
Subject: Re: Virus Protection Programs
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:28:40 CDT

In article <3536@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> jjwebb@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
>How so is [F-PROT] far superior to McAfee's? Is there a BBS from 
>which it can be downloaded? If so, what's the number? How's the support?
>McAfee's is outstanding. Has the CSA tested F-PROT? If so, how did it
>measure up against the other virus detection programs?
>More information would be appreciated ... 'far superior' is such a
>nebulous specification. Thanks in advance.

You're quite correct that "far superior" is nebulous.  When I evaluated the
competing antiviral products, in early 1990, I found F-PROT easier to
install, easier to use, and better regarded for its efficacy than SCAN & co.
Since I am not equipped to sling a couple of hundred different viruses at
such products, I relied on comp.virus; I encourage you to read that group for
informed opinions.  In the two years that I've owned an IBMish machine,
F-PROT updates have been timely and easy to install.  Support via e-mail has
been excellent, if you will accept that I can measure it (given that I've
had no problems with the product and only one request for an enhancement
(answered in less than a day)).  Someone wrote to ask me which package is
faster.  I could only answer that F-PROT's resident checker is imperceptible
and that scanning diskettes is fast enough not to be of concern; timing tests
aren't particularly interesting to me since I don't see a problem.

Nothing in comp.virus over the last two years has made me doubt that F-PROT
remains as good as or better than McAfee's tools when it comes to correct
identification and disinfection.  (I am not in the camp that holds that
disinfection should never be practiced.)  You ask in particular if "the CSA"
has tested F-PROT -- do you mean the National Computer Security Association?
It is not by any stretch of the imagination an impartial organization, and
McAfee's connection with it does not strike me as a distant one.  Its
February reviews, which according to one report were funded by McAfee,
omitted both F-PROT and Dr. Solomon, two serious and deserving products.
There have been several comparative reviews on comp.virus, which you ought to
be able to find at archive sites.

Finally, if you're accustomed to comparing price/performance ratios,
something obvious should strike you right away :o)

I pointed to an FTP location in the article you quote.  If you can't FTP,
watch for periodic postings about use of mail servers, or write to
w8sdz@wsmr-simtel20.army.mil for help.

-- 
Jonathan C. Rice  |   rice@zizania.cray.com  |  ...uunet!cray!rice
From: 478clifton@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
Subject: Re: Speedstar (ET4000) drivers for WordPerfect 5.1?
Date: 6 Apr 92 01:05:51 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1992Apr1.133415.1776@nic.unh.edu>, pss1@kepler.unh.edu (Paul S Secinaro) writes:
> Does anyone know if there are updated ET4000 drivers for WordPerfect
> 5.1?  The drivers that came with our Diamond Speedstar cards are
> *really* buggy in the 800x600 modes.  Use of the equation editor
> causes a hard lockup after a few minutes, and print preview crashes a
> lot too.
> 
> P.S.  It is almost impossible for me to call any vendor BBS numbers,
> so FTP is essential.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Paul S.
> -- 
> Paul Secinaro            | Synthetic Vision and Pattern Analysis Lab
> pss1@kepler.unh.edu      | Dept. of Computer and Electrical Engineering
> p_secinaro@unhh.unh.edu  | University of New Hampshire

Wait, let me guess, you've got a mouse driver installed on you system?
Anyway, the fix to your problem is to switch to the 256 color drivers
that came with the card. The 16 color drivers are *very* buggy and are
even worse if you also have a mouse driver resident. This is straight
from a Diamond tech rep.

Hope this helps.

Doug.
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps,comp.misc
From: meyer@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Meyer)
Subject: Re: OS/2 - How much memory are you guys using?
Organization: UIUC College of Agriculture
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 16:58:02 GMT

ujabanco@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (John Abanco) writes:
>I've got 4 Megs. I installed my free copy (from COMDEX) on my machine
>once, and found disk access HORENDOUS. Someone told me that you need 6
>Megs to do okay, and 8 Megs to run it good. 

Well, I'm running the last beta version on a 6mb machine, with the LAN
Requestor and TCP/IP software loaded, with acceptable performance.  This setup
is aking to running Base only in 4.5mb.  I'm installing the GA version on
another 6mb machine now, we'll see how much of an improvement there is.

I've run this setup on 4mb as well, and performance was horrendous, but it
did run, and run reliably.  The minimum recommendation is 6mb when running
LAN software, so trying it at 4mb was well below the recommended level.

>So my question is to those people out there running OS/2 v2.0 right now.
>How much memory do *you* have on your machine, and how often does it do
>disk access after you get the OS/2 Workplace Shell (WPS)?

There's really no way for me to quantify this.  All I can state are my 
impressions, and these for the final beta version:  OS/2 performs better 
(faster) on my machine with 6mb than Win 3.0 did when I only had 4mb.  And
I can actually compile in a DOS session without running out of memory under
OS/2.

And best of all, my machine no longer crashes 2-3 times a day as it did under
Win3.  Actually, I just checked - this machine has been 'up' for 5 days 12
hours, since I last rebooted to change configurations.

> My friend said that you need 8 Megs to run Virtual Memory
>mode. 

Your friend is wrong, Virtual Memory is functional at any memory level.  It is
just used more at the lower levels, which causes the increased disk activity.

Also, did you use the HPFS file system with only 4mb RAM?  This driver
supposedly uses .5mb itself, with it's tables and all.  So if you went with
a FAT only system until you can upgrade your memory level, this alone should
increase the performance.  My testing was 100% HPFS, so I was really
pushing the envelope at 4mb.

Hope this helps,
Don
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Don Meyer			dlmeyer@uiuc.edu
	 Network Manager, UIUC College of Ag Microcomputer Facility

"He who restricts another's right to self-defense is accomplice to
 any crime committed because of the lack of self defense." 

member: NRA, ISSC, IL Farm Bureau	"Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian!"
From: IFF291@DJUKFA11.BITNET (Stephan Petersen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
Subject: Help: 80x25 screen hardcopy on HP PaintJet
Date: 11 Apr 92 17:07:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: DJUKFA11.92102.170947IFF291
Organization: KFA  Forschungszentrum Juelich


I need to print out a screen hardcopy (Textmode 80x25, color!) on a HP
PaintJet-compatible printer (DEC LA520). How do I get the printout (on
overheadfilm) big & nice enough?? The standard printscreen routine
doesn't print in color, and if I save the textscreen to a file and
convert it to a PCX image or something like that, the printout is just
too small. If I enlarge it, the quality gets too bad.


Are there any PaintJet printer drivers / hardcopy routines to replace
the standard printscreen routine?

Is there any program that lets you convert a saved textmode screen to a
_real big_ graphics image, so that the resulting printout is big enough?

Did anybody else find a decent workaround for this problem?

Any help is appreciated!


+------------------------------------------------+
| Stephan Petersen                               |
|                                                |
| Bitnet/EARN: IFF291@DJUKFA11                   |
| Internet:    IFF291@zam001.zam.kfa-juelich.de  |
+------------------------------------------------+
From: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
Subject: Re: $50 for an UPGRADE!!!!!
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:52:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: IASTATE.1992Apr14.155205
Reply-To: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Organization: Iowa State University

In article <92105.082129CDF1@psuvm.psu.edu>, Carl Fago <CDF1@psuvm.psu.edu>
writes:
> Considering the sales of Windows 3.1 I think the question should be phrased
> a bit differently... "When are the _consumers_ going to realize they've
> been had?"
> 
> Microsoft seems to be doing a good job in that they are making good money
> on the "$10 patch" for $50.

	I think I was had.  I'm not impressed (with Win 3.1), and may start to
seriously consider OS/2.  The only problem with that is that it is an IBM 
product, and they have a horrible track record where operating systems are 
concerned.  (How many failed RISCs?)

> 
>  *-=Carl=-*  INTERNET - cdf1@psuvm.psu.edu    | Be wary of strong drink.    
|
>              DELPHI - WULFGAR  GEnie - C.FAGO1| It can make you shoot at tax
|
>  Carl Fago   State College, PA                | collectors -- and miss!     
|
> 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner          Department of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu             Iowa State University 
                            Ames, IA 50011
Xref: sparky comp.os.msdos.apps:2815 comp.binaries.ibm.pc.wanted:3071
From: ATMAS@ASUACAD.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.wanted
Subject: whereis The Software Bottling Co?
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:45:36 GMT
Organization: Arizona State University

We have a great little program here that allows us to custom design text
based user-interface screens and then generates the source code complete
with value checking and screen navigation.  We have the Turbo Pascal
version and we'd like to get one for Borland C++.  The problem is we
can't find the company.  The name of the program is SoftCode and it
was marketed by The Software Bottling Company in Maspeth, NY.  I've
tried calling them but there is no answer although information still
has the number registered to them.  Our documentation is dated 1988 and
it's possible that they called it quits between then and now.  Does
anyone out there know what became of SoftCode or The Software Bottling
Co?  Alternatively, can someone suggest a similar program?  I'm not
really interested in moving to a sophisticated GUI, SoftCode is/was
elegant in its simplicity.

Thanks in advance,

Mike
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
From: jsanchez@polari.com
Subject: Re: MSCDEX - microsoft cd driver site???
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 12:58:53 GMT

The latest version (2.2 I think) is on the Microsoft BBS at (206)637-9009
and I am VERY surprised that M/S did not know that...
Good Luck and keep us posted.
-- 
Jim Sanchez 
Hughes LAN Systems - Bellevue, WA (206)646-4999
Internet: jim@hls.com OR jsanchez%polari@uunet.uu.net
UUCP: ..!uunet!polari!jsanchez
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
From: dorsai@iear.arts.rpi.edu (gregory d moncreaff)
Subject: Re: $50 for an UPGRADE!!!!!
Organization: the committee for asethetic deletions
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:35:05 GMT

 KECKME@PURCCVM.BITNET (Michael Keck) writes:

>What really, really bugs me about Microsoft is they are charging $50 for
>a patch.   Going from 3.0 to 3.1 is not a $50 improvement!!  Going from
>3.0 to 4.0 is a $50 improvement!!  A .1 version upgrade is a $10 PATCH.
>
>How many times is Microsoft going to shoot themselves in the foot until
>they realize, "Oh my, what have we done now?!?!"

i don't think that most people believe that windows 3.1 is a patch

a patch is a minor change to fix an individual problem
when microsoft shipped 3.0a (or 3.01 if you like numbers) to
correct certain network problems, that was a patch

upgrades are distinguished by "super new improved" hype as well
as additional features and better efficiency. windows 3.1 is 
faster, offers slightly better application protection, more
infomative error messages, a rewritten file manager, window 
caption wrapping when iconosized, a better contol panel, esp
with reguards to setting up swapfiles and drivers, and a
report of free memory/system resources from every msoft
about box, better file dialog boxes and associations. it also
has new functionality such as screen savers, limited multimedia
support (sound recorder application and associating sound
with system events) a character map utility that helps finding
characters in a font, and true type fonts (goodbye atm) also
provided is better font sizing in dos text windows and
easier Alt-Tab switching

windows 3.1 is hardly a patch

g
-its all right to be an extremist but occasionaly you've got
to let the pendulum swing through center.
From: etl0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (ERIC TODD LANDRIEU)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
Subject: Re: XMS+EMS!=total contiguous extended mem!!??
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:00:38 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

>
>A typical output from 'mem' is:
>
>   1048576 bytes total EMS memory
>   1048576 bytes free EMS memory
>
>   3145728 bytes total contiguous extended memory
>         0 bytes available contiguous extended memory
>   1048576 bytes available XMS memory
>           MS-DOS resident in High Memory Area
>
>Would that be some sort of addressing problem?? How do I get back
>the last 1M memory??
>
You might check to see what else is running as device drivers/TSRs.  If you
have a disk cache or RAM disk, either of them would use up sone of your upper
memory.  From the looks of your info, I'd say you have a 1MB disk cache
running up there.
                                      Eric Landrieu

                                      
-- 

               ===============================================
               =   Eric Landrieu  =  ETL0@ns1.CC.lehigh.EDU  =
               ===============================================
"Of all the people I've ever met, you're certainly one of them."
                                                 -Ellis Fuls
From: valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu (Doug Dougherty)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
Subject: Re: Is Lotus Agenda dead?
Keywords: Lotus, Agenda
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:37:14 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

johnson@epoch.enet.dec.com (Pete Johnson) writes:

>I have been using Lotus Agenda for some time now and I never hear any
>discussions about it.  For that matter, I don't hear much about any PIM's at
>all, although I know there are some out there that are purported to be good.

>Does anyone know if Lotus will follow Agenda with anything, or if there's a
>similar application out there that merges the best of Agenda with the best of
>Pack-Rat and/or Current?

(My SO wrote this.  I tried to send it email, but it bounced)

Unfortunately, the only discussion I've found on Agenda is on CompuServe
LotusB forum.  There are rumors of an Agenda for Windows, but Lotus
refuses
to confirm or deny them.

Agenda is my favorite program and I use it for everything (Actually, I'm
not "valley", but valley's girlfriend.  Valley himself would never sink
to using something as "friendly" as Agenda.)  

Lotus claims that it will continue to support Agenda and that it is not
dead.

I don't know of anything else like Agenda, or any plans for it.
-Carol W.-

****************************************************************************
The Slug		valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu

Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip
around the Sun.

(THis [sic] message should be assumed to have been smiley captioned for the
humor impaired)
****************************************************************************
The Slug		valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu

"He's trying to give up drinking, but his girlfriend hasn't left him yet."

(THis [sic] message should be assumed to have been smiley captioned for the
humor impaired)