HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kl@isr.harvard.edu (Kun Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: A Practical Question of OS/2 Performance
Date: 10 Apr 92 09:25:43 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

Hello, OS/2 users,
I am sorry for cross posting this by accident.

I am new to this group and thinking about moving to OS/2. I just upgraded
to Windows 3.1 and disappointed. I am basically a DOS 5.0 user. I don't run
any Win3 applications other than the ones provied with the pacakage. I use
WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS, Quattro Pro 4.0 for DOS, PCtools 7.1 for DOS, and
some other utilities. Whenever I tried to run these applications in Windows
things were not smooth. It has not been reliable, cursor movement has been
jumpy, screen scroll has been jumpy, and most of all floppy access has been
too slow from the DOS applications. I've also used Desqview. This is not so
much an exception either. All my movements in applications were jumpy. 
Will these symptoms disappear if I use OS/2?

As an average PC user, it is nice to have a multitasking environment
with a reliable performance. I don't even ask for super fast OS or a
fancy GUI. What I, like most people I know, want to do is to write my
materials and do some calculations at the same time. Windows and Desqview did
not provide me this function with reliability and tolerable level of 
smoothness. I hope OS/2 can give me a multitasking environment for my DOS
applications with smooth cursor movement, mouse movement, screen scroll,
tolerable floppy drive access speed through  DOS application's gateway to
DOS prompt, and no sudden crash or freez..

BTW, I am using a Dataworld 386DX - 20MHz, 4M RAM, 40M Conner drive (I
know I have to upgrade the drive), and a 14" VGA color monitor with 
Orchid ProDesigner Plus w/ 512K. Would you recommend an upgrade of the
motherboard? 

Thanks in advance.
--
Kun Lee 
Dept of Sociology, Harvard Univ, Cambridge, MA 02138
InterNet: kl@isr.harvard.edu		 BITNET: kl@harvunxw
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: PM Terminal Buglets?
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:59:54 GMT
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago

I kind of like PM Terminal -- I've sort of gotten used to it.
However, does anyone know how to minimize the terminal session during
a file transfer?  While dialing?  The session window blocks everything
on the desktop, and it gets a bit difficult to navigate around while
PM Terminal is running.  Most odd.

Actually, there are a number of oddities in PM Terminal.
-- 
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.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.misc:11806 comp.windows.ms:12661
From: ttoronyi@CS.UWindsor.Ca (Tibor Toronyi)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Win3 --> OS/2 2.0 upgrade for $49!!!
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:47:33 GMT
Followup-To: comp.windows.ms
Organization: School of Computer Science, Univ. of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

Hi there.

    This question was asked before, but not quite.  I've heard of the getting
OS2 2.0 by mailing in the first disk or page of Windows x.x but the phone
number is for U.S. customers.  Anybody have a number for us Canadians? EH!

Post or Email

Thanx in advance

T. Toronyi
ttoronyi@cs.uwindsor.ca
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: jasonc@leland.Stanford.EDU (Jason Campbell)
Subject: Re: HPFS, file utilities, and partitions...
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: comp
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 03:59:18 GMT

In article <ANDY.92Apr11110351@huey.jpl.nasa.gov> andy@huey.jpl.nasa.gov (Andy Poulsen) writes:
>The guy at the show also said that the reason for having 2 HPFS
>partitions is so that for future operating system updates it's easy to
>reformat the drive if required.  my questions here are: is this a valid
>concern?  and what kind of performance difference does it make having 2
>HPFS partitions instead of 1?

For beta users this was a _big_ concern, as each new code drop required a 
reformat.  I don't think this will ever (Makes me shake to say that, almost...)
be the case for public (GA) releases.

If you've got enough disk to use two partitions (divides your free space, and
makes it harder to use) you should have enough RAM to prevent big-time
swapping (at least 8mb), and performance won't suffer too much.


Jason.


-- 
Jason Campbell | not talking for SU | "OS/2...saving the world thru software!"
1->  jasonc@leland.Stanford.EDU |2->  Prodigy: KSJB81e |3->  (415)497-3937
"Let us not go gently into the endless winter night..." -- Rush
From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Microsoft wins
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:55:04 GMT
Reply-To: bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Texas A&M University

In article <6APR199200454278@venus.tamu.edu>, tcf9033@venus.tamu.edu (FREY, TONY C) writes:
|> 
|>  Anyone hear about Microsoft signing -> 85 <- PC manufactures to bundle
|> Windoze 3.1 with their machines?  Includes 8 of the ten top sellers too,
|> (i.e. Dell, Gateway, Zeos, etc.).  This sounds like another one of those
|> "I wish we would have thought of that" sayings from IBM.  I felt this
|> way when I owned my Amiga, kinda like you're doomed by fate to fail.. Come
|> on IBM - GET WITH IT!!!!! 


Maybe thats equivalent to including EDLIN.  Throw in someing thats not
worth anything.

    -- Bruce


-- 
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Will Artifical Intelligence ever overcome
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  natural stupidity?
bdubbs@sadis01.sa.aflc.af.mil |
From: danb@obdient.chi.il.us (Dan Bremner)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 Speed and manuals (and a comment)
Date: 15 Apr 92 10:30:09 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Obedient Software Corp, Wheaton IL

Keywords: win3.0 win3.1 speed manuals

In article <1992Apr11.023452.9995@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> timbol@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Mike Timbol) writes:
>
>Oh, something marginally related that you all might want to be aware of...
>
>This doesn't apply to everybody, but I've heard many *MANY* people
>insult Microsoft and Windows on this group and in comp.windows.ms
>(Micro$oft, Microshaft, Mafiasoft, Windoze, etc...).  While many
>people may be unhappy with Microsoft and Windows, it does NOT help
>win people over to the OS/2 camp unless they are already unhappy
>with Windows.  Personally, I think Windows is pretty good (hasn't
>ever crashed on me), but I'm interested in OS/2 because it sounds
>BETTER.  Anyway, just thought you might want to know.

Well said, Mike.  I've been following various threads in this group for
a few weeks now, and I agree.  I use both Win 3.0 and the Mac (as well
as DOS, Unix, AOS/VS...) and I think the Mac's interface is miles ahead
of MS Windows, which is one of the reasons I'm interested in trying OS/2
after hearing so many good things about it.  However, that doesn't mean
I hate Microsoft or Windows.  If you are trying to advocate OS/2 as an
OS that is worth using, it's great to point out its strengths, and even
focus on its advantages over the DOS/Windows combo, but name-calling
and sarcasm don't prove much.  (Even though it *is* fun sometimes :-) ).

[off my soapbox now]

I do have a question for you OS/2 gurus, though:  I'm looking at possibly
purchasing a new system soon, and I was wondering if anyone has experience
with and/or knows of any problems with OS/2 and the ATI Ultra 8514/A video
card.  It looks like a good graphics accelerator, but I don't want to buy
it and then have compatibility problems.  Similar question regarding
those new 50 MHZ 486 DX2 "clock-doubler" chips.  Anything I should be
prepared for?

Thanks in advance,

Dan

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: oneel@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Bruce Oneel )
Subject: Size of os/2 2.0, or, will 2 30 meg drives be ok
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:44:25 GMT

Hi,
  My system has 2 30 meg rll drives.  Will OS/2 install on this ok?  Does
it require more than 30 meg while it is installing and then drop back to 30
meg once installed?

Thanks!

bruce

--
Bruce O'Neel              oneel@heasfs.gsfc.nasa.gov
NASA/GSFC/STX/Code 664
From: crum@edwards-vax.af.mil
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: preemptive multi-tasking
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:21:41 GMT
Organization: IFAST - EDWARDS Air Force Base


  Now I'm confused about this preemptive multi-tasking thing.  Are you saying
that if I have 4 DOS applications open in MS Windows and 3 are idle in the
background, that only the forground application will get CPU cycles, and the 3
in the background will get none as long as they are idle?

  If one of the background DOS applications is a communications program which
is not receiving anything, then a download begins, will it take CPU cycles 
from the forground application as needed to prevent loss of data?

Please explain.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.windows.ms
From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: Re: Is OS/2 2.0 faster than Windows??
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 00:51:57 GMT

mcintyre@cs.rpi.edu (David McIntyre) writes:
> tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen) writes:
>> WINOS2 tests run on: PS/2 Model 80 16MHz w/ 80387; IBM VGA; 8 MB memory
>> Win3.1 tests run on: 386/40; Tseng ET4000 VGA (640x480x16); 8 MB memory

> As far as I'm concerned, this negates any value of these numbers.  How
> can you compare these values when they were done on different machines
> with different video boards?  This is nonsense....

READ THE ARTICLE, PEOPLE!  I did NOT compare raw numbers from machine to
machine, but rather ratios.  That is, the PS/2 was used to obtain the
OS/2 to 3.0 speed ratios, and the 386/40 to obtain the 3.1 to 3.0 speed
ratios.  It may not be ideal, but it's not nonsense, either.

I will admit to an error of omission, though: I forgot to mention that the
versions tested were OS/2 6.304E (from early March) and Windows 3.1 61d
(from mid-December).  I expect release versions of each to be somewhat faster.

Maybe someone could run the PC Mag benchmarks on an identical machines
with actual release code?

[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: anderson@allvax.enet.dec.com (Dave Anderson)
Subject: Re: Manuals with OS/2 V.2 as shipped.
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  9 APR 92 18:17:27    


In article <1992Apr09.013723.23537@ecst.csuchico.edu>, bsmith@ecst.csuchico.edu (Charles Bennett Smith) writes...
>In article <1992Apr8.174221.14918@ryn.mro4.dec.com> anderson@allvax.enet.dec.com (Dave Anderson) writes:
>>
>>There should be an easy way for any user to print arbitrary small sections of
>>the online documentation at no extra charge.  This abiliity is sometimes
>>extremely useful, and individual users (and probably many business users) 
>>typically won't have the resources available to print more than small amounts
>>of information.  (The technical issues involved in enforcing 'small amounts'
>>are left as an exercise... :-)
> 
>Why "enforce" anything?  Sun supplies all of their docs on a CD-ROM, and they
>give the users the rights to laser-print any and/or all docs.  If you already
>have paid for the docs (on-line) shouldn't you have the right to view them on
>paper as well as on screen?
> 
>>
>>There should be a way for users with the necessary resources to print all or 
>>major parts of the on-line documentation, but it's reasonable to charge them
>>something for doing so.
> 
>There should not be a charge for this.  After all, it is MY laser printer, MY
>paper, MY toner, and MY time that is being used to make the printed copies.
>IBM (or any other computer manufacturer for that matter) is not doing the
>work to produce the printed version, so why should I pay them for it (unless
>ofcourse you are proposing that they reimburse me for the printing costs)?

And it's IBM's copyright.  There's more to the cost of a book than just the
costs of printing and distribution.  I don't expect to have the resources to do
any extensive printing of the on-line documentation, and certainly don't want
to subsidize those who do -- I want the price of the base product (including
complete on-line documentation) to be kept as low as possible.  I distinguish
between limited and extensive printing because I believe that the ability to do
limited printing at no charge is necessary to make the on-line documentation
really usable, regardless of how the question of extensive printing is handled. 

	Dave
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: des@frogland.inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd)
Subject: Re: Some questions about OS/2......
Organization: INMOS architecture group
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 16:58:48 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.050135.9505@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith) writes:
>ry01@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (ROBERT YUNG) writes:
>>12) What's MS's C-2 protection? How's it better?
>
>Can't answer this, though it has to do with protecting files in a
>multiuser situation.  C-2 protection has nothing to do with protecting
>apps from corrupting one another.  You won't see C-2 protection in any
>product of MS until Windows NT gets here sometime next year.

C2 is one of the grades of system security as laid down by the DoD.
Basically it makes statements about who can access what files on
a machine and what applications can access what. i gather this
may have implications for all the neat OLE etc mechanisms as
it may be possible to send data through OLE links to somewhere
were it oughtn't to got.

you almost certainly do not want C2. your employer may think
s/he needs it. if so you will end up fighting tooth and nail to
prevent them imposing it due to performance hits. (SGS-THOMSON,
our parent company, have a rather narrow view of security at times
which we have to "workaround").

MS, and IBM, are talking loudly about C2 because in certain government
and co-orporate sectors it will become a pre-requisite for any
system evaluation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
david shepherd: des@inmos.co.uk or des@inmos.com    tel: 0454-616616 x 625
                inmos ltd, 1000 aztec west, almondsbury, bristol, bs12 4sq
		"i speak latin to god,   spanish to men,   french to women 
		 and german to my horse."             - charles v of spain
From: traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: "EA DATA.SF" ?
Date: 13 Apr 92 09:19:31 GMT
Organization: BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK

In article <kui6lfINNfp8@coltexo.cs.utexas.edu> easyrob@cs.utexas.edu (Robert Depew Reynolds) writes:
>
>The down fall of OS/2 total DOS compatability caused by a simple " ".
>
>Wouldn't all DOS programs back up the EA information if the file had only
>been called "EA_DATA.SF" and remained marked as a hidden system file??
>
>This decision must have been made late at night by some very tired, over
>worked programmer in Boca.  Don't you just hate when that happens!??
>

I could be totally wrong here but I think EA DATA holds cluster information.
This means that it doesn't matter what the file is called, if you start
moving things around it screws up.


-- 
Michael Traub
BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@rtf.bt.co.uk
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: First Impressions
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 15:59:30 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Apr17.172634.23082@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>, gkm@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (gary.k.mc nees) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr16.210704.2884@watson.ibm.com> larrys@watson.ibm.com writes:
|> >In <1992Apr16.193514.6502@news.larc.nasa.gov>, mdw@hojo.larc.nasa.gov (Mike Weisenborn) writes:
|> >>
|> >
|> >>Does anyone else have trouble moving an icon 'just a little bit'?  If you
|> >>move it over just a few pixels then WPS thinks you are trying to drop it
|> >>onto itself and it ends up going right back where it was.  Another nitpick.
|> >>And this one would definitely benefit by gridding the placement of icons.
|> >
|>This is actually a VERY GOOD FEATURE. Under windows when one double clicked
|>an ICON the ICON would move a little unless you have a very steady hand, and
|>the exact placement of the ICON DRIVES for example would be lost. This doesn't
|>happen under OS/2. If you want to move the ICON just a little, simply first
|>move it to a location on the desktop somewhat removed and then put it back 
|>into the exact location you want it.
|> 

However, in OS/2 you use one mouse button to activate (double-click) and
another to move.  Therefore the problem you describe shouldn't happen.
I would like to be able to simply click on the object with the right
mouse button and drag it a little or a lot to get it where I want it.
I don't want to have to move it twice.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: woan@exeter.austin.ibm.com (Ronald S. Woan)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Help with Bootmanager
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:23:57 GMT
Reply-To: woan@cactus.org
Organization: Austin School of Hard Knocks

smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith) writes:
>> pebly@vnet.ibm.com writes:
>>  Boot Manager partition
>>  Primary partition (C: - FAT)
>>  Extended logical partition (D: - HPFS)
>This is exactly what I want.  But will the FAT partition be accessible
>under OS/2 2.0 after I boot OS/2 from the D: drive?

Yes as long as you remember not to make the OS/2 partition a primary
partition.
-- 
+-----All Views Expressed Are My Own And Are Not Necessarily Shared By------+
+------------------------------My Employer----------------------------------+
+ Ronald S. Woan                       woan@cactus.org or woan@vnet.ibm.com +
+ other email addresses             Prodigy: XTCR74A Compuserve: 73530,2537 +
-- 
+-----All Views Expressed Are My Own And Are Not Necessarily Shared By------+
+------------------------------My Employer----------------------------------+
+ Ronald S. Woan                       woan@cactus.org or woan@vnet.ibm.com +
+ other email addresses             Prodigy: XTCR74A Compuserve: 73530,2537 +
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: cropley@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (andrew peter.cropley)
Subject: NSC HELP LINE??
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:39:03 GMT



Does anyone one have a contact number at the NSC BBS?

Forgot my password (Yeah I know, dumb). They used to have a
number to call but it was displayed during the login sequence
after you got past the password check.

  Thanks
      Andy 



 ..!att!somerset!nook!andy
 ..!att!cbnewsf!cropley
From: ccmk@lure.latrobe.edu.au
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: More OS/2 v3 & NT rumours
Date: 17 Apr 92 07:25:28 GMT
Organization: VAX Cluster, Computer Centre, La Trobe University

While we are on the subject of Windows NT rumours...

The Australian version of PC Week states that while IBM and Microsoft
are publicly battling it out there is a level at which they are more
or less talking - and this level of communication is being kept alive
by those who see the two companies being a little closer than they
have been over the past year or so.  They apparently have re-signed an
agreement about sharing 3.1 and OS/2 2.0 code (so IBM can have the
latest 3.1 code to incorporate it in 2.0, and MS can finally ship OEM
versions of 2.0 as per their own agreements).

The rumour is that some executives in both camps are a little scared
about a complete breakaway from each other, given their historical
significance to each other and to the industry, and there is pressure
internally for Windows NT to become once again OS/2 v3.  This does not
mean NT renounces anything, merely that it includes the necessary OS/2
and PM APIs.  The guff is that MS may sell Windows NT and IBM sell
OS/2 v3, but the maximum difference between the two will be that v3
will be a super-set of NT.  Or, perhaps, they will be essentially the
same.

My view is that if this scenario comes to pass then both companies
will win big, particularly IBM, who will be both in the ACE and
PowerPC group. The big loser may be SUN and perhaps the slavish
followers of ACE, which looks shakier every day.

Mark Kosten
(ccmk@latrobe.edu.au)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: s6883289@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Peter Hawkins)
Subject: Re: HPFS and Memory
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 20:10:01 GMT


>Well, I tried (foolishly).  Reason?  The HPFS driver itself occupies
>500K or so.  Imagine having to keep that much code in memory whenever
>you do a disk read/write to a HPFS partition.  On a 4 MB system, you
>just don't have that much RAM to give up.  That 500K is more useful to
>OS/2 for running applications on a 4 MB machine.  Once you get to an 8
>MB machine, then IBM suggests that HPFS is a good idea.  At 6 MB or
>below, stick with FAT.

looks like i have to upgrade my 4meg machine.... but is 6meg really enough?
basically, i want HPFS and i don't have much $$$ to get extra ram.....

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Subject: Re: Norton desktop on OS/2-WIN shell?
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 22:05:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

A fifo deldir solution is much more robust than one that relies on
stuff left lying around in the "unallocated" parts of the file system.
-- 
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007

"There are some strings.  They're just not attached."
                                                    Victoria Roberts
From: johnson@spectra.com (boyd johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Sarcasm, Confusion, and my Timothy Sipples Post
Date: 10 Apr 92 23:02:12 GMT
Organization: Spectragraphics Corporation

In article <1992Apr8.032310.5490@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <"barnacle.e.538:07.03.92.23.51.44"@clarkson.edu> gthome@ausvm1.VNET.IBM.COM writes:
>>In <1992Apr7.164258.22890@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Frank Fujita writes:
>>>skanga@prism.poly.edu (Shiraz Kanga) writes:
>>>     Hey al you IBMers out there I think Timothy Sipples deserves
>>>     a free copy of OS/2 2.0 ASAP. Firstly all his hard work must
>>>     be rewarded and secondly he would be able to post first hand
>>>     info rather than the "I heard about ..." stuff that he is
>>>     forced to do now.
>>>A free copy of 2.0???  How about 1,000 shares of IBM!
>>>Frank Fujita
>>>Not affiliated with Tim Sipples in any way, except he helped me
>>>with my questions.
>>I agree.  Tim has done more work on this newsgroup than anyone, and he does
>>deserve something.  I will tell you that Tim's name, along with other folks
>>who are active here have already been talked about with reverence on IBMs
>>internal newgroups.
>>Gerry Thome
>>IBM - Austin
>
>Well thanks everyone, I really appreciate it.
>
>However, GA has hit my hard disk.  Shrinkwrapped copy and all -- with
>printed manuals.  I'm using PM Terminal at the moment, in fact.

OK, IBM, how about getting Tim copies of the add-ons?  I'm just getting
familiar with OS/2 and I'm not sure of the packages, but I'm sure Tim 
could be a great benefit if he got copies of Extended Edition, TCP/IP 
and the C developers kit?

-- 
======== Boyd Johnson    nosc!spectra.com!johnson  San Diego, Ca. ========