HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: scls_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Scoles)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps,comp.misc
Subject: DR-DOS Installation HORRORS!  HELP....
Summary: Failure of Install Routine
Keywords: dr-dos, hell, ...
Date: 10 Apr 92 20:42:08 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

I need help and it doesn't look like I'm going to get it from DRI.

I got my brand new DR-DOS disks in the mail day before yesterday, and they
were the wrong media.  My A: drive is 3.5", not 5.25", and they sent me 5.25
(even though I had explicitly ordered 3.5 -- a salesperson at the Novell
orders & resolutions place in Buffalo said "they [meaning special coupon
shipments] were all shipped that way".

By various means, I managed to get the diskettes copied onto 3.5" floppies
in a bootable form.  HOWEVER, every time I tried to run the Install routine,
it would get to a certain point and go into a loop that seemed to indicate
that it didn;t recognize the disk it was running off of.

That was only the first of several awful behaviors, but I persisted.  I
installed everything _manually_, and started trying to get everything
configured in a useable fashion.  And lo!  DR-DOS would not load High!

Yes, I did everything by the book, but THE GODDAMNED M*^^&^*&^%^&(^ WON'T
LOAD HIGH!

I was sure that I must be doing something (undocumented but) wrong.  So I
decided to "use the Setup utility", as the manual repeatedly recommends.
THE SETUP UTILITY DOES NOT EXIST.  IT IS NOT ON THE DISKS.  THE SETUP
UTILITY DOES NOT EXIST.  IT IS NOT ON THE DISKS.  [Probably the Install
utility -- which is unable to finish an installation -- creates Setup from
itself when it's done.  Fat lot of help that is.]

So now I'm sitting here with 550K of low memory, which was what I had in th
worst of my DOS 4.01 days, and I don't even dare dream of trying to load
4dos.

And to top it all off, DRI says they'll "try to get back to me within the
next several business days."  I never thought I'd say this, but this makes
DOS 5 (or DOS 4.01, fo rthat matter) seem like nirvana.

Anyway, enough ranting.  If anyone out there has any suggestions about what
might be keeping the Install utility from working right, I'd love it if you
could mail me.  I've already tried modifying the INSTALL.INI file to show
the correct disk type, and it had no effect.  

Hoping you can help me,
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
From: rmorgan@newstand.syr.edu (Morgan)
Subject: Re: A personal perspective on choosing OS/2 2.0
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 11:33:13 EDT


Now everyday I read this section you people cry the same thing.
"I LUV OS/2,
 I LUV WINDOWS/DOS! 
 I LUV 0S/2 and WINDOWS BLOWS
 WINDOWS IS PRACTICAL  & OS/2 is a pipedream! (no pun intended)"

	THIS MUST STOP. IT IS A WASTE OF TIME AND BANDWIDTH.

	In my opinion the average PC user doesn't need multitasking.
When I say average I don't mean HACKERS, SYSOPS, CODERS, or ADMINISTRATORS.
I mean JANE and JOHN DOS. The people who not too long ago used Lotus 123, and
Word Perfect 5.1 for DOS.

	When you say you want to take advantage of your 386/486 with 
4MB to 8MB RAM and your 200MB Hard Drive, I ask you this - WHY did you buy
this "HIGH POWERED" hardware? What was this super application that needed 
4mb of RAM and if is was ******* for windows, then shut up. Windows is a new
Operating Platform. It was designed with the idea that the hardware would
catch up with the software in time, this is the same idea that created Xwindows.
You can not expect a new platform to be perfect neither WINDOWS or OS/2. The
two operating platforms have more things alike than apart, they should coexist.
Remember WINDOWS and OS/2 are the children of Microsoft and IBM. They both
have rights to each others now separate products.
 
	Of course, you all want one system RULE. You want software available
and at a reasonable cost. If it were not for the fact that you wanted your old
applications to work, as well as the new Window-OS/2 apps, the environment could
have been made smaller. OS/2 would be a master of one and not a Jack of all trades. 
	Give both operating platforms time to refine themselves. I will sit 
here on my SPARCstation and watch the infant mature. I also will use 
Windows 3.0 on my PS/2 286 machine, which I added 4mb ram and an 120mb IDE :)
I have enough things with the PS/2 to keep me busy. Anyway learn to use your
applications better, and let the environment fend for itself.
_______________________________________________________________________________
RICHARD MORGAN
rmorgan@sunrise					"Others have labored, and you 
rmorgan@mailbox.syr.edu				  have entered into their  
THE LAB 3-5802					   labors."-John 4:38 
---------------------------SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY----------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
From: tomho@microunity.com (Tom Ho)
Subject: Office automation
Organization: MicroUnity Systems Engineering, Inc.
Distribution: ca
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 01:22:24 GMT

--
     Tom Ho       tomho@microunity.com       (408) 734-8100
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
From: poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger)
Subject: Re: MS C/C++ v7 - need info
Organization: Schlumberger Technologies, ATE division, San Jose, Ca.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 19:45:37 GMT

leadfoot@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Mark Curtis) writes:
: 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

Since these same stores also did upgrades on DOS 5.0 and Windows 3.1, for less
than MS's price, I suspect they will do the upgrades for MSC 7.0 as well.

Russ Poffenberger               DOMAIN: poffen@sj.ate.slb.com
Schlumberger Technologies       UUCP:   {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!poffen
1601 Technology Drive		CIS:	72401,276
San Jose, Ca. 95110             Voice: (408)437-5254  FAX: (408)437-5246
From: ash@mlacus.oz.au (Ash Nallawalla)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 -- Confirm or deny?
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:03:01 GMT
Organization: Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Melbourne

>>sanjeev@cheme.tn.cornell.edu writes:
>>>Hi,
>>>    The latest PC Week has an article that lists over 30 applications
>>>    which will not work on the "@#$!^%$ much improved" Windows 3.1.
>>>    The list includes WP for Windows / BC++ 3.0 / Ami Pro 2.0 and
>>>    Winword 1.1. (Note Word 2.0 will work!)

I have used Win 3.1 since 1 April 92 (the released version) and haven't
yet struck a problem with Winword 1.1 or Winword 2.0 (neither is the 0a
version). 

PS Australian release to my knowledge was 2 April in Brisbane: I got
a review copy to meet a deadline for a user group publication.
-- 
=============================================================================
Ash Nallawalla		Tel: +61 3 550-1638 BH; Fax +61 3 742-4566 
ZL4LM/VK3CIT		Postal: P.O. Box 539, Werribee VIC 3030, Australia
ash@mlacus.oz.au        Contact me if you belong to a PC User Group!
From: linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 -- Confirm or deny?
Date: 7 Apr 92 13:15:51 GMT
Organization: NCSU CATT Prog

In article <1992Apr1.143428.1@qis.dofasco.ca> trembly_j@qis.dofasco.ca (John J. Trembly) writes:
>Hey !  If you don't really want to switch to a new environment you can buy OS2
>Version 2.0 for $79can if you own Windows 3.0, $99can if you own DOS, or
>$199can if you are a new user.  If you are a DOS or WINDOWS user, you send the
>title page from your manual. This will prove to IBM that you own a legitimate
>copy of the software.
>
>-- 
>
>______________________________________________________________________________
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>John J. Trembly					 Dofasco Inc.
>(TREMBLY_J@QIS.DOFASCO.CA)			 1330 Burlington St. East
>(416) 544-3761 X6291				 Hamilton,Ont. L8N 3J5 Canada
>______________________________________________________________________________
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Just in case this confused anyone, the prices quoted above are Canadian.  In 
the US, the priced schedule reads $49 from Windows, $99 from DOS, $139 (?) for
people who don't own either of those, and, of course, free to licensees of any
previous IBM version of OS/2.

John W. Linville


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  John W. Linville                Amateur radio:  KD4KHC                  |
|  #include "std_disclaimer.h"     E-mail:  linville@catt.ncsu.edu         |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: calb@edsi.plexus.COM (Calvin Bolwerk)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
Subject: Re: DR-DOS Installation HORRORS! HELP....
Keywords: dr-dos, hell, ...
Date: 15 Apr 92 09:55:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: edsi.1992Apr15.095507.10754
Organization: Enterprise Data Systems Incorporated, Appleton WI

kniaz@cat6.cs.wisc.edu (Joel Kniaz) writes:


>	Why not try using SUBST to fool the installation utility?
>	That's how I got around the same problem installing 
>	Windows...
>							-JOK

	I believe that the DR-DOS installation requires you to boot from 
the A drive.  If you were to use the SUBST command, you would 
lose it when rebooting.
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps,comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.sys.atari.st,comp.sys.atari.st.tech
From: Roger.Sheppard@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: Atari ST disks <----> IBM DOS disks ???
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 08:54:16 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.050509.24342@qiclab.scn.rain.com> 70465.203@compuserve.com writes:
> CADS_COLE@galluk (Kevin Cole; Washington DC) writes:
> 
> >Greetings.
> 
> >I'm looking for software to either read and write IBM disks on an Atari 1040 ST
> >or read and write Atari ST disks on an IBM PS/2.  Does any such product exist, 
> >and, if so, could anyone here point me towards a source for such a product?
> 
> if you have a double-sided drive on the Atari, just format the disks on
> a PC as normal 720k disks. The Atari will have *no* trouble with them.
> If you have a single sided drive, the person with the PC needs to add
> the following to their CONFIG.SYS (assuming the 3.5" drive is drive b:)
> 
> 	device=driver.sys /d:1 /f:1 /h:1
> 
> This creates a "new" drive letter for the B: drive and tells the
> system that it is a single sided 3.5 drive.
> 
> This all works because the Atari uses MS-DOS directory structures!
> The only catch is that DOS requires the first sector after the index
> hole to be sector 1. The Atari ignores the index hole. That's why
> you need to format the disks on a PC...

This is completly incorrect, the Atari DOES USE THE INDEX HOLE,
please don't post fauls information...


> 
> I "converted" files to PC format for a friend with an Atari for 
> years. His editor never complained about the disks with the manuscripts
> on them...
> -- 
> Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
> CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
> FIDO:   1:105/56	 Leonard.Erickson@f56.n105.z1.fidonet.org
> (The CIS address is checked daily. The others infrequently)


-- 
***  Roger W. Sheppard      *      Roger.Sheppard@bbs.actrix.gen.nz  ***
***  85 Donovan Rd        *    *   GEnie.  R.SHEPPARD5               ***
***  Kapiti                        At least I don't Flicker,         ***
***  New Zealand..          *      not like a dying light globe      ***
Xref: sparky comp.os.msdos.apps:2892 comp.os.msdos.programmer:5391 comp.windows.ms:12732 comp.windows.ms.programmer:5441
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: 14 Apr 92 23:04:52 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.msdos.apps

In article <1992Apr14.140311.20551@progress.com>, briggs@progress.COM (Scott Briggs) writes:
|> dea@informix.com (Robert Dea) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <3535@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> aki@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
|> >>
|> >>
|> >>The best part about MS C/C++ 7.0 is the UPGRADE PRICE.  $139.  I asked
|> >>Microsoft if they wanted a disk or a manual page;  the answer to which was NO.
|> >>According to the MS salesdroid all you need to do to certify an upgrade is to
|> >>sign a (postage paid) card and send it back to them.  Cool.  The Win<>OS/2
|> >>wars are making it cheaper for us regular guys to hack around the PC.
|> >>
|> >>Aki.
|> >>-- 
|> >>/  Phone: 408-662 9664 Fax: 662 9676  |  "Aki" pronounced: Ah-Key. I know  \ 
|> >>\  GENIE: A.KORHONEN  Home: /dev/nul  |  what I'm doing most of the time.  /
|> 
|> 
|> >They did not tell you that if you want printed documentation you need
|> >to come up with an additional $150.00. So if you add the two together
|> >it comes out to $279.00. Not such a good deal after all!!!!
|> 
|> I'm sorry, but your wrong, the $149 (US) upgrade includes ~25 lbs of
|> doc.  This includes, C++ Programmers Guide, C programmers guide, C++ Class
|> library reference, C Library Reference, C tutorial, C++ tutorial, a "Tools" book,
|> etc.
|> 
|> A lot of reading, and from what I've read, extremely well written.
|> 
|> Scott
Yes, but it doesn't come with ALL the documentation that comes in the
regular retail package.  And if you want all the docs it is an extra
$140.  I got this straight from Microsoft.  Four or five of the manuals
are missing, unless you order them for the $140 extra.  These manuals
are included in the retail package.

I was told that the docs are on-line, but I don't have endless disk
space and I want the manuals.  Microsoft included them in the retail
package for a reason.  Why they think upgraders don't need them is
beyond me.

I think it is great that they included the SDK in C7, but not including
all the docs for people who are upgrading isn't reasonable.  I have
C5.1, C6.0, and the win3.0 SDK, but they are only upgrading the C
compiler and SDK owners aren't given a break.  They seem to reason that
C owners are getting the SDK part free so they will not complain.  My
complaint is that they seem to have forgotten those of us with the SDK.
I paid more for the SDK than I did for the damn C compiler.
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
From: michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan)
Subject: Re: $50 for an UPGRADE!!!!!
Organization: Resonex Inc., Sunnyvale CA
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 08:35:48 GMT

In article <92104.232242KECKME@PURCCVM.BITNET> 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.

Oh, but it contains so many wonderful new features!  I mean, just look at
one of the most outstanding features of them all, which they took several
pages to talk about in their 3.1 upgrade glossy --- "Parameter Verification"!

I mean, I couldn't believe my eyes while I was reading about this wonderful
new technology, wherein the Windows kernel will actually check the values
passed to it, and make sure the values are reasonable before acting on them!
What pioneering technology this is!  What foresight the engineers have for
hitting upon what must be the programming breakthrough of the 60's, er, 90's!

Why, for this feature *alone* you should be willing to pay at *least* $50
for the new version of Windows!!!


[Damn.  Now that sarcasm is dripping onto my terminal screen.  Excuse me
while I go get a damp cloth to clean it off...]

;-)

-- 
Michael Bryan	        michael@resonex.com
"This isn't an argument, you're just contradicting me!"  "No I'm not."
From: tbaker@tomspc.UUCP (Thomas Baker)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 -- Confirm or deny?
Date: 6 Apr 92 00:17:50 GMT
Organization: TOM'S PC BBS

jfe@alchemy.tn.cornell.edu (Brian Chung) writes:

> 	What big and expensive dongles?  All you need is about 4 megs of
> RAM in total.  All Macs now come with 2 megs standard.  So all you have to do
> is buy another ~US $100 worth of RAM.  Maybe in Germany, RAMs are expensive,
> but not here.

Actually, it is expensive here as well.  If you want to keep your Apple
warranty intact, you must have an authorized apple dealer install your new
memory.  The only one that was here wanted $80 per meg.


--
tbaker@tomspc.UUCP (Thomas Baker)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
From: eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (Tan Jin Meng @ NUS)
Subject: PCL5 previewer
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 05:26:03 GMT

I was wondering if anyone can point me to a PCL5 (HP laser printers)
previewer. Failing that, how about a PCL5 to Postscript converter?

please e-mail me as I do not read this news group often. I will post any
relevant response back here.

Thanks.
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
From: rice@cray.com (Jonathan Rice)
Subject: Re: Virus Protection Programs
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:38:58 CDT

In article <1992Apr10.033415.6453@access.usask.ca> coulman@cs.Usask.CA writes:
>I'm curious as to which Virus Protection Programs people use (if
>any.  I have only limited experience in the area, but I've tried
>the McAfee VirusScan program, and like it very much.  However, 
>it's also rather expensive (as shareware goes - $85/year...

Fridrik Skulason's F-PROT is a far superior package and is free for
individual non-commercial use.  It is a continual mystery to me that McAfee
stays in business in the face of that competition.  Shows the value of
promotion, I suppose.

The latest version is at oak.oakland.edu:/pub/msdos/trojan-pro/fp-203a.zip
and at other fine archive sites.

-- 
Jonathan C. Rice  |   rice@zizania.cray.com  |  ...uunet!cray!rice
From: phys169@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
Subject: What's best for a portable (was Re: SuperStor 2.0)
Date: 10 Apr 92 12:01:08 +1200
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

In article <quan.702804003@sol>, quan@sol.surv.utas.edu.au (Stephen Quan) writes:
> Personally, I would not use "disk-doubler" on a laptop.  If the harddisk
> on the laptop is not adequate for the amount of work that needs to be
> done, then get an upgrade.  IMHO, "disk-doubler" would only introduce
> more disk-i/o overheads than are necessary, especially in the case of a
> laptop.

Hmmm, not sure about that. Some "disk doublers" seem to access the disk less.
But there still is the problem of needing more memory, and laptops typically
cost more per Mb for RAM (and/or are limited in what you can add, e.g. as far
as battery life if concerned). Besides, if you have a disk fault (more likely
on a portable) it may be harder to recover from if the drive is compressed.

My bet for the best thing for your average laptop is to create a small
partition, with small clusters, for .BAT files and the like, that gobble  too
much space in your average 8-sector clusters or whatever. What I do is have a
ZIP file that gets unpacked into a RAM drive (with size, number of root
entries, etc all carefully worked out) for the little files. That's not
appropriate for everyone, maybe, but I find it very worthwhile (and cheap!).
The whole RAM drive is less than 40Kb (can be extended memory), and the driver
about 2K of upper memory... compare that with Stacker, SuperStore, whatever!

I do like SuperStore, by the way, and use it (well, the cut-down version that
comes with DR-DOS) on my main computer. I keep an area (up to half of the disk)
uncompressed, for /TEMP, compressed archives, etc. Even with that, I'm getting
about twice as much on my disks, with no noticeable speed degradation.

Mark Aitchison, Physics, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.windows.ms,comp.windows.news,comp.windows.misc
From: bbrown@b11.ingr.com (Bailey Brown)
Subject: Does 387 speed up Win 3.1?
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 13:13:32 GMT

I read somewhere that a 387 coprocessor speeds up windows 3.1.
Not just applications like Excel, but windows itself.  
Is this true?   Why would Windows be using floating point
anyway?

------------
Bailey Brown                               "Above all else, confusion reigns."
Intergraph Corporation                                  
bbrown@casca.b11.ingr.com                              Procol Harum
From: gary@hp-ptp.ptp.hp.com (Gary Gross)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 20:37:22 GMT
Subject: Lotus Ready-To-Run Acctng
Organization: HP Pacific Technology Park - Sunnyvale, Ca.
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps

I would be willing to $PAY$ for a copy of Lotus 1A Ready-to-Run 
Accounting. Do you still have a copy hanging around? Thanks in
advance!
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps,comp.os.msdos.misc