HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: froelich@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Bill Froelich)
Subject: Re: DOS app under OS/2
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:00:48 GMT

Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET> writes:

>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

I assume I have Serial Device support enabled since my modem runs under
OS/2, but then again I don't remember seeing this mentioned anywhere.
I did do a full install of OS/2 so I assume it would have set it up for me.

Some more information on the problem.  I also tried Booting a virtual
dos box (v5.0) but am unable to access com ports from it.  Neither my comm 
program (procomm plus 2.01) or the Personal gains program will see serial 
devices under the booted dos.  Is this where you mean serial support has to
be turned on?

I appreciate all teh good suggestions so far, and hopefully one will work.

--Bill Froelich
  froelich@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
From: postma@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (WARREN POSTMA)
Subject: Re: IBM TCP/IP 1.2 for OS/2
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 22:17:59 GMT

I was just in a computer store today in London Ontario.  The sales guys
called OS/2 2.0 a "DOG".  They had it running on a Commodore 486/33 with
a 120 mb hard drive (adequate I guess) and only 4 megs of RAM.  

People aren't going to buy it at $179 canadian if they hear that its
a dog from a Salesperson Who Seems Like the Know What They ARe Talking
About.   Frankly that ticks me off.    Doesn't the 2.0 install program
have measures to make 2.0 run fast in 4 megs?  It took over 4 minutes
to load the Windows CLOCK demo from the Windows Applications folder.

Most of that was hard drive thrashing, presumably from having memory
over-worked.    I didn't see much running except desktop icons for 
IPF (Information, the little italic `i' icon), an icon for a 3.5"
disk (Drive A:)  and the OS/2 System folder.

WhatxxWhat was going on?
From: goodearl@world.std.com (Robert Goodearl)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: 4os2 bug.
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:58:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: world.BMrGLI.FvG
Distribution: comp
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <TNT.92Apr14234102@netcom.com> tnt@netcom.com (Terry Turner) writes:
>just in case those guys are reading this group.
>
>i found a bug in 4os2 piping on hpfs drives...

Terry,

The folks from JP Software do not have news access, however they can be
reached by email.  The address for tech support is 75300.1215@compuserve.com

-- 
Bob Goodearl -- goodearl@world.std.com
Principal Software Engineer, Easel Corporation
From: "andrew makiejewski" <andrew.makiejewski@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: os/2 a dog????
Date: 16 Apr 92 12:17:47 EST
Reply-To: "andrew makiejewski" <andrew.makiejewski@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

to: postma@gaul.csd.uwo.ca

SUBJ: IBM TCP/IP 1.2 for OS/2


WP>   Newsgroup: comp.os.os2.apps
WP>  Message-ID: <1992Apr15.221759.8436@julian.uwo.ca>
WP>     Subject: IBM TCP/IP 1.2 for OS/2

WP> I was just in a computer store today in London Ontario.  The sales guys
WP> called OS/2 2.0 a "DOG".  They had it running on a Commodore 486/33 with
WP> a 120 mb hard drive (adequate I guess) and only 4 megs of RAM.
WP> People aren't going to buy it at $179 canadian if they hear that its
WP> a dog from a Salesperson Who Seems Like the Know What They ARe Talking
WP> About.   Frankly that ticks me off.    Doesn't the 2.0 install program
WP> have measures to make 2.0 run fast in 4 megs?  It took over 4 minutes
WP> to load the Windows CLOCK demo from the Windows Applications folder.
WP> WhatxxWhat was going on?

Hmmm hard to say really. Was he running running OS/2 2.0 GA or was he
running the beta code. The beta code is much slower due to all the
debug code in it. If it was the full release, then something funny
in his setup.

Andrew.                      Andrew.Makiejewski@canrem.uucp 
Entered Apr 16,92 at 11:30:20 on CRS from Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
---
  PMDBM V1.7 #33  One man's Windows are another man's walls.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
From: rshwake@irscscm.UUCP (Ray Shwake)
Subject: Re: Lan Manager questions...
Reply-To: rshwake@irscscm.UUCP (Ray Shwake)
Organization: R|S|X Technical Services, Washington, DC
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 20:00:17 GMT

In article <1992Apr08.023630.21805@microsoft.com> tom@microsoft.com (Tom Mcconnell) writes:
>
>Actually, Microsoft WILL be shipping client software for OS/2 2.0.  What 
>we have not committed to doing is shipping our server for OS/2 2.0. There
>is a good reason for this beyond the politics surrounding us.  The 
>main advantages that OS/2 2.0 gives to normal applications doesn't 
>apply to our server software, the access to 32bit operations.  Microsoft's
>HPFS386 server already runs at r0 fully utilizing the 386 in high-permformance
>386 assembly code, which of course is fully 32bit. 

Sounds to me that the logical approach for those desiring Lan Man server
functionality is to move toward Lan Manager for UN!X. AT&T should have 
already released their UN!X counterpart to Lan Man 2.0 as part of their
StarGROUP series; Hewlett Packard and the other licensees should soon be
following suit.
From: gt8080a@prism.gatech.EDU (Henry 'Hank' Harlan Roark III)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: Your views on OS/2, please
Date: 10 Apr 92 21:24:37 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Apr10.133143.16428@IRO.UMontreal.CA> dourte@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Louis Dourte) writes:
>I suggest you start with the FAQ, which is posted here regurarly. You can also
>get it with anonymous ftp, but I don't remember from where. It contains LOTS

The FAQ can gotten via anonymouse ftp from hobbes.nmsu.edu.

-- 
Henry "Hank" Harlan Roark III | UNIX--An OS for those that don't have to pay.
Georgia Tech                  | OS/2--An OS for those that do have to pay.
gt8080a@prism.gatech.edu      | DOS --An OS for those that don't care.
My views only, not GT's       | Windows--An OS, NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From: rstanton@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Stanton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: What are "database requesters"?
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:00:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: garnet.rstanton.169.702853205
Organization: Haas School of Business, U.C.Berkeley

On the upgrade form it asks how many "database requesters" I have installed 
on my system? What are these, and if I don't know, can I assume I don't have 
to worry?

Thanks

Richard Stanton
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
From: prs@turing.acs.virginia.edu (Phillip R. Scarr)
Subject: Re: Ami Professional for OS/2 2.0
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:12:22 GMT

>Has there actually been "official" word that Ami Professional is being
>prepared for OS/2 2.0?  I gave them a call and they told me that there has
>been nothing announced regarding even "plans" to make such a version!
>
>If there is such a version, does anyone know if they are looking for

I talked to a rep this week at the Charlottesville Roll-Out and they
said that FOR SURE there will be a 32bit version of ALL the Lotus
projects by years end.  They already have a 16bit Lotus 1-2-3/G for
OS/2.  Lotus is totally comitted to AmiPro for OS/2.  Meanwhile, I have
the windows version which loads just fine on the WPS desktop.  It is
pretty cool.

>Stuart Fell
>University of Victoria
>

	-Phil
Organization: European Academic Research Network
Date: Thursday, 9 Apr 1992 14:13:14 GMT
From: Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: OS2 and Stacker.......
 <92099.102055TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET> <1992Apr8.135304.11696@hemlock.cray.com>

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 :)

-turgut
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc
From: heiland@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (david.j.heiland)
Subject: Re: os/2 a dog????  With 4 megs it is.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 15:22:33 GMT

In article <1992Apr17.141409.7874@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
>
>OS/2 on a 16mhz 386sx with 10 meg of memory is better than os/2 on
>a 33mhz 486 with 4 megs, provided everything else is equal.
>

You do mean the WPS don't you?  If not, then I definitely would choose the
10Mb SX to rip through my compiles :):):)

It seems like relatively few people have 8Mb of memory.  I just hope those
with 4Mb who try OS/2 realize that its the lack of memory and not OS/2 that
causes the system to seem slow.  It would be best if IBM said that 4MB just
won't give you a useable system - first impressions last.

Dave Heiland   djh@neptune.att.com

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
From: bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Questions and Answers
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:05:50 CDT

In article <4=jj7lc.rcain@netcom.com> rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:
>M.Vaughan@C writes:
>: |=========================================================================
>: 
>: 
>:   A10: We do not anticipate that a new version of OS/2 will be
>:        required for some time.  Rather, we will continue to enhance
>:        OS/2 2.0 over time by providing regular product
>:        enhancements.
>: 
>
>How is this to be accomplished in detail please?  You know all the usual
>questions: will they appear on my doorstep, will it require detective
>work to know when an enhancement is available, etc.?
>-- 
>Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007
>
>"There are some strings.  They're just not attached."
>                                                    Victoria Roberts

Bob:

Just my take on this from talking to some IBMers.  Things like:

  - Multi-processor support
  - C2
  - Portability
  - etc.

are product enhancements.  As one IBMer (off the record said) multi-processor
support will be a 2.x (2?) feature.
 
Bert Moshier
From: rommel@jonas.sta.sub.org (Kai Uwe Rommel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: GhostScript
Date: 2 Apr 92 21:32:30 GMT
Organization: None.

I have recently copied the latest version of GNU GhostScript, the free
PostScript clone, version 2.4. It does since this release include not
only a normal executable for MS-DOS but also one for 386 (and up)
machines compiled with Watcom C/386 for a DOS extender (from Rational
Systems, DOS/4GW 1.3).

This version can run on a DPMI server and runs fine in an OS/2 2.0 DOS
box. I have enabled the DPMI API and set the limit to 4MB and could
preview some files in VGA mode in a window on PM (I use a 8514/A) and
print them using the type 1 fonts included on one of the OS/2 driver
disks (one needs to create a special fontmap file and take care that
only those are used by the apps creating the PostScript files).

When printing a PostScript file generated by MS Word 5.5, I needed to
raise the memory limit to 6MB because otherwise GhostScript ran out of
memory with only 4MB. So you probably shouldn't try this on a machine
with less than 8MB ...

This shows that DPMI apps *can* successfully run under OS/2 2.0 and that
all these others that don't run are just buggy.

Kai Uwe Rommel


/* Kai Uwe Rommel           Zennerstrasse 1, D-8000 Muenchen 70, Germany *
 * rommel@jonas.bofe.sub.org                       Phone +49 89 723 4101 *
 * rommel@informatik.tu-muenchen.de                  Fax +49 89 723 7889 */

DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt
handler, and always will be.                -Russell Williams
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
From: bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier)
Subject: Re: WordPerfect for OS/2
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:09:21 CDT

In article <1992Apr2.195116.14846@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr2.191622.25850@zip.eecs.umich.edu> tazzzzz@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Kevin Dangoor) writes:
>>According to IBM's list of applications under development for OS/2 2.0,
>>WordPerfect will be making a 32-bit WordPerfect. Does anyone know if this
>>would be a PM program, or a 32-bit character mode program?
>
>It will be a multithreaded, 32-bit port of WordPerfect for Windows
>(i.e. graphical).
>
>There's talk that WordPerfect might incorporate new features in
>WordPerfect for OS/2 2.0 first.  We'll see.
>-- 
>Timothy F. Sipples       Keeper of the OS/2 Frequently Asked Questions
>sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu  List, available via anonymous ftp from
>Dept. of Economics       128.123.35.151, directory pub/os2/faq, or via
>Univ. of Chicago  60637  netmail from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET.

Timothy is correct.  WordPerfect decided against doing the OS/2 2.0 version
at the 5.1 level and is instead doing it at the next level (6.0?).

Bert Moshier

Oh, the product is from the ground up and is a native 32 bit application
and will exploit OS/2 native features.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
From: pre1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Grant Prellwitz)
Subject: Re: Word Perfect for OS/2 PM
Reply-To: pre1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: comp
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 23:18:39 GMT

In article <OLAVT.92Mar30093306@ulrik.uio.no> olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund) writes:
>In some of the OS/2-rollout information, Word Perfect is one company
>that is mentioned. Does anyone have information about when we can
>expect a PM version of WP?
>
>Olav Torvund
>Oslo, Norway
>Olavt@jus.uio.no

At Comdex, WordPerfect was talking about a PM version toward the end of the
year.  They will not be releaseing a 5.1 version; rather, they want to have
a 6.0 version ready for concurrent release with DOS and Windows.  They don't
want to wind up in the same situation they have now where the OS/2 version
is downlevel.

Grant Prellwitz
pre1@ellis.uchicago.edu
From: ssanbeg@visual.spk.wa.us (Scott Sanbeg)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: IBM TCP/IP 1.2 for OS/2
Date: 17 Apr 92 12:17:08 GMT
Organization: The Visual Market Public Access Site - Spokane, WA

In article <1992Apr15.221759.8436@julian.uwo.ca> postma@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (WARREN POSTMA) writes:
>I was just in a computer store today in London Ontario.  The sales guys
>called OS/2 2.0 a "DOG".  They had it running on a Commodore 486/33 with
>a 120 mb hard drive (adequate I guess) and only 4 megs of RAM.  
>
>People aren't going to buy it at $179 canadian if they hear that its
>a dog from a Salesperson Who Seems Like the Know What They ARe Talking

You're right about having memory over-worked. That salesman should, 1. cer-
tainly have more than four megs of ram onboard (v2.0 absolutly requires
3 megs, minimum, so four is just barely enough), and 2. use of the HPFS
creates too much overhead for just four megs of ram. 

We have a shop here in town too, where the bozos are demo-ing v2.0 on
a four meg machine. It's s-l-o-w. Then, too, yet another shop also in
town has loaded it on a 486 with 8 megs of ram, and there, v2.0 is a
real screamer.

The way some of these salespeople are approaching things, you'd think they'd
want OS/2 running on a Commodore 64. Tell that guy that this
is not about making great technological strides without upgrading, at
least, the hardware.
Scott

 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scott Sanbeg, UNIX Systems Administrator     Voice: 509/535-2561
ssanbeg@visual.spk.wa.us (or) visual!ssanbeg@tau-ceti.isc-br.com
Date: Friday, 10 Apr 1992 08:33:35 EDT
From: James Justice <JAY@wvnvm.wvnet.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: IBM TCP/IP 1.2 for OS/2

I have been running OS/2 GA for a few days now.  Great product!  Much
faster than LA and most bugs are fixed.  I would like to post a couple
of bugs that could be either OS/2 or OS/2 TCP/IP 1.2.  Since I am not
sure which, I am going to post to both IBMTCP-L and OS2-L.

I am running OS/2 GA and OS/2 TCP/IP with on CSD.  I have a CSD on
order for OS/2 TCP/IP.

(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.

(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.

(3) I have noticed that the RN program that comes with TCP/IP can under
    some circumstances hang the entire system requiring a boot.  This
    needs fixed.  If RN was not such a toy (limit on size of files
    viewed), many of our users could use OS/2 for EMail (LAMail) and
    RM for Netnews and not have to log onto VM for these trival tasks.
    That would be good.  I would continue to use VM because I support
    the system and use other tools, but a whole class of users could
    more to a PM interface and be better off.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Subject: Windows enhanced mode
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 01:56:49 GMT



I was fooling around with fractal paint for windows and could not get
it to run under os/2.  It looks like it requires enhanced mode.

Is there any way to trick it into running under OS/2 ?

Doug-
--
From: wtw@cellar.org (Bill Warner)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Upgrade:  Prog. Tools & Info Kit
Date: 12 Apr 92 04:49:38 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

Hi -
   I have version 1.3 of IBM's Programming Tools and Information kit
for OS/2 1.3.  Is there an upgrade offered for OS/2 2.0?  I haven't
heard anything from IBM.  Should I call 1-800-3IBM-OS2?

   If anyone knows the story on this, let me know!  Thanks in advance.


Bill Warner

------
wtw@cellar.org (Bill Warner)
The Cellar BBS - (215) 654-9184
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
From: rafetmad@cheshire.oxy.edu (David R. Giller)
Subject: COMDEX presentation again (was Re: OS/2 Questions and Answers)
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 02:05:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.190550.25494@hemlock.cray.com> bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier) writes:
>Just my take on this from talking to some IBMers.  Things like:
>
>  - Multi-processor support
>  - C2
>  - Portability
>  - etc.
>
>are product enhancements.  As one IBMer (off the record said) multi-processor
>support will be a 2.x (2?) feature.

This reminds me: one more thing that was in the presentation (let me try to
remember it exactly).  The following were outlined as OS/2's future direction:

1. portability (this was first on the list)
2. ummm...
3. POSIX compliance
4. C2 security
5. Object-oriented extensions

Also, there seems to be some confusion about the Windows 3.1 that was shown
running under OS/2 at the end of the presentation.  Some (like me) thought
he said that it was done.  Most people at the convention seemed to think so
too, because everyone started clapping.  It could be that because of this,
we heard it wrong.  Is there an official word, or are we not supposed to
know yet (if it is done, it's a pretty well-kept secret!)

One more thing about ES.  It was announced that ES will be shipping in a week,
two weeks ahead of schedule.

See my next post: anyone who wants ES but can't upgrade to it could do me
a favor by buying my copy from me.

-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: barrett@aaet.csc.ti.com (Stu Barrett)
Subject: LaMail: Sendmail.cf feature needed
Organization: Texas Instruments Incorporated, Austin, TX
Distribution: comp
Date: 7 Apr 92 08:55:09

Just installed IBM's TCP/IP 1.2.  The CSD's should show up today.  In
the meantime I have a little problem with sendmail that I would like
some help with....

It seems that the standard sendmail.cf file that comes with the
package does does not support the concept of a "mail host".  It will
try and directly connect to the SMTP peer(s) on the address list.  If
you can't get direct internet access to that SMTP peer, sendmail
queues up the mail for later delivery (which will never work).  I can
only DIRECTLY access a very small portion of the internet.  My company
uses mail gateways to access the internet mail.  If the sender can't
directly connect to the SMTP peer, it forwards the mail to a mail
host, which then forwards it to the next mail host, etc.  This is how
we access "foreign" mail domains (e.g. UUCP, compuserve, etc).

Does anyone have an "enchanced" copy of sendmail.cf that understands
the "mail host" concept?  I'm working this with IBM right now, but I
thought that I would ask the OS2 newsgroups for help as well.

If someone could e-mail me a copy of sendmail.cf I would appreciate it.

Send to BARRETT@ADD.ITG.TI.COM or use the signature address below:

Thanks, 

--
	Stu Barrett		Inet: Barrett@aaet.csc.ti.com
	Phone: 512-250-6677	Fax: 512-250-4509
	Tripoli# 1277		NAR# 4341
From: peter@pgeck.sub.org (Peter Gahbler)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 upgrade prices in germany
Date: 5 Apr 92 19:32:13 GMT
Organization: Private site

zeisset@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Stephan Zeisset) writes:

> IBM Germany charges the following prices for upgrades
> (english version of OS/2 2.0 !):
> DOS users      $175
> OS/2 1.x users $85   (You really get it for free ???)
> no update from windows
> new users      $240 

One completion: DOS means _only_ PC-DOS _not_ MS-DOS.
Someone has been telling that a company selling
computers all over Germany distributed OS/2 2.0 for about 
60$ if you could prove ownership of _any_ Dos... but

that has been on April 1st :-).

Bye
  Peter
From: maynard@selway.umt.edu (Robert L Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: crash.com (was: Re: os2? the situation IBM READ THIS
Summary: Watchdog timer hooked to NMI line.
Date: 4 Apr 92 19:57:10 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: University of Montana, Missoula MT.

The watchdog timer on the MCA machines is hooked to the NMI line.  CLI/STI
instructions don't affect that line at all.  On AT machines it IS possible to
disable NMI's with a write to a port. I *believe* it is port 70h.  CLI/STI affect the IRQ line.  If the timers are hooked ( Via PICS ) to the IRQ line those 
timers can be masked/unmasked with CLI/STI.  I DON'T know if the NMI line can
be disabled on MCA machines. IF so, then a simple modification to "crash.com"
could lock up MCA machines as well.  While MicroSlop might crow about this NOW,
the same technique could be used to disable ANY PC operating system that allowed
user programs to issue CLI/STI and to write to the port address that disables
NMI.

Bob
Organization: European Academic Research Network
Date: Saturday, 11 Apr 1992 15:25:55 GMT
From: Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: Your views on OS/2, please

CONVERT < ms-dos.user > more_efficient.user   !

OS/2 does that!   -turgut
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps