HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Open Systems Today-- Desktop Wars Pick Up Steam
Summary: Style, Not Substance, Gives Windows the Early Edge
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:50:19 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute

From Open Systems Today, 13 April

Desktop Wars Pick Up Steam
    Style, Not Substance, Gives Windows the Early Edge

By Paul Kapustka

Chicago-- Style won out over substance last week when IBM and Microsoft
launched the first volleys in the war over control of the
next-generation users' desktop at the joint Comdex/Spring-Windows World
show here.

Long-awaited and long-expected, the two companies' current flagship
desktop products-- IBM's OS/2 2.0 operating system and Microsoft's
Version 3.1 of Windows-- were finally rolled out in presentations that
relied more on marketing savy than technical attributes.
:
Both Windows 3.1 and OS/2 2.0 offer greatly simplified network
connectivity and features that ease application interoperability and
access to databases.  But the hands down winner last week was Microsoft
and Windows, which isn't even an operating system, but rather an
application whose main task is to give DOS a graphical user interface.

The blitz of Windows-related hype (which included demonstrations of
Windows NT) was loud enough to drown out IBM, which actually delivered
on its promise to build a 32-bit, multitasking OS with a graphical face
of its own.  Though IBM's offering for the dominant desktop world of
Intel PCs was the functional winner on paper, the momentum behind
Windows and the promises of Windows NT may have already made OS/2 2.0 a
paper tiger.

[rest of article ommitted]

Copied without permission

Robert
--
| Robert L. Howard             |    Georgia Tech Research Institute     |
| rhoward@matd.gatech.edu      |    MATD Laboratory                     |
| (404) 528-7165               |    Atlanta, Georgia  30332             |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "See, when the GOVERNMENT spends money, it creates jobs; whereas when |
| the money is left in the hands of TAXPAYERS, God only knows what they |
| do with it.  Bake it into pies, probably.  Anything to avoid creating |
| jobs." -- Dave Barry                                                  |
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 Release: First Impressions
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 11:03:00 GMT

Timothy Sipples writes:

> I have had the opportunity to work with the OS/2 2.0 shrinkwrapped
> copy for some time now, and, overall, the product looks great.  It has
> been extremely stable -- no unexpected crashes -- and relatively bug
> free.

Any expected crashes?

> I still get a strange noise from the hard disk when I boot up.  It is
> about a second of a grating or whining noise -- quite strange.  Any
> idea if that is normal?

I had a 20 Mbyte Miniscribe hard disk in an old Compaq Portable II that
also made a grating noise on power up (not boot up).  Might be a similar
thing.  Never sounded very good, but never resulted in any problem
either.

> All my former applications seem to be working fine (save Microsoft
> Word for Presentation Manager; but I knew that; anyone have the
> replacement DLL for that?).

Which one?  The DLL that Microsoft originally shipped with Word that
made Word break under the original release of OS/2 1.3 or the replacement?
Why would you need the replacement DLL for Word under OS/2 2.0?  Don't
tell me that the 16-bit OS/2 support code went back to the original level
of OS/2 1.3 rather than the CSD 5050 level.  If it's at the CSD 5050
level, you shouldn't need the replacement DLL, I would think.  Even
with the replacement DLL, Word was still buggy; maybe that's the problem.
My solution was to get DeScribe.  Have yet to see half of a line of text
disappear on me when a font or point size was changed, like Word did to
me on a regular basis.

> On my 100% HPFS setup the installation program dropped a DISKCACHE
> line into CONFIG.SYS.  That probably shouldn't happen -- one doesn't
> need a FAT cache with all HPFS.

Unless you use floppy disk a lot, or if you use a RAM disk like I do
to speed up compilers that like to write intermediate files.  Both use FAT.
Seems a bit strange to use a cache for a RAM disk, but I've heard rumors
of problems that occurred when accessing an FAT drive without any diskcache,
though I haven't encountered any myself.  Probably wouldn't hurt to have a
small FAT cache.  That may be why the installation program puts it there.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.windows.ms
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: Is OS/2 2.0 faster than Windows??
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 19:46:47 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.175705.10643@wes.on.ca> tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen) writes:
>			WINOS2		WINOS2		Windows	
>			full-screen	seamless	3.1
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>BitBlt			1.1		1.2		1.0	
>Arcs			1.2		1.5		1.0
>Lines			1.1		1.8		1.0
>Area fills		1.1		2.6		1.0
>Rectangles		1.1		1.3		1.0
>Patterns		0.9		1.1		0.9
>Text & fonts		2.2		2.3		1.1
>StretchBlt		1.2		1.2		1.0
>Images			0.6		1.4		1.0
>Dialog Boxes		1.2		2.7		0.6
>Rubber Banding		1.1		2.6		1.0
>Scrolling		1.0		0.2		1.0
>Erasing		1.0		0.2		1.0
>Clipping		1.1		2.7		1.1
>Average	(unweighted)	1.1		1.6		1.0
>All numbers indicate times relative to Windows 3.0; lower numbers indicate
>better performance.  All tests run using 640x480, 16 colours.  Each set of
>tests included a Windows 3.0 test as well as the WINOS2 or Windows 3.1 test.
>Each subsystem time indicates composite performance of individual tests.

This is pretty darn impressive when you think about it.  (I also
expected better numbers for Windows 3.1, what with all the talk of
improved performance.)  The scrolling numbers are particularly
surprising.

However, aside from the criticism about how you performed the tests
(which may or may not be valid), these benchmarks leave out an
extremely important aspect of performance, namely disk I/O.  This area
is one in which OS/2 excels (or at least I'd expect it to) either with
FAT (because of 32-bit recoding) or HPFS (because of in-built
performance features).

And, of course, the general caveat applies, namely benchmarks are
benchmarks.
-- 
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.
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions about OS/2......
Date: 16 Apr 92 12:46:06 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <JEFF.92Apr15182804@fang.clearpoint.com> jeff@fang.clearpoint.com writes:
>
>Does OS/2 support the concept of soft links (like BSD)?

Not under HPFS or FAT.  I don't think there's anything inherent in the
system to prohibit it, though.  Someone may eventually write an IFS
which allows them.
-- 
David Charlap                   Q:"Where do these stairs go?"
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu          A:"They go up"
----------------------------
Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature to join in!
From: teverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (Toby Everett)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Is OS/2 2.0-DOS faster than plain DOS??
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:11:25 GMT
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711

In article <1992Apr13.150639.2984@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> u1665462@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au writes:
>In article <1992Apr12.165225.478@muddcs.claremont.edu>, teverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (Toby Everett) writes:

>I presume you were running OS/2 GA? Or Windows 3.1 beta vs. OS/2 6.304e beta? 
	Yes.  GA.  It's the most recent  beta for 3.1 as far as I can tell.  I
haven't taken the time to install the release copy.

>This result is as I predicted: OS/2 video is still 16-bit, so it suffers when it
>has to run WinOS/2 emulation. I would bet on the 32-bit engine though... Of
>course, more interesting would be to run a WPS video benchmark: after all, the
>ultimate purpose of OS/2 is to run future 32-bit apps, and DOS + WinOS/2 is 
>just a bonus... 
	I have one, but it's version 1.0, and it uses different units and
tests.  If I can find a comparable version, I could compare better between
Win and OS/2.  IT seemed faster watching it run, and it was 16 bit. :)

>BTW, did you test Windows 3.0?
	I don't particularly want to take the time to install that POS back
on my machine.  Win 3.1's File Manager is actually usable :).

        --Toby Everett
        --teverett@jarthur.claremont.edu
        --"I'm rooting for Boca.  How about you?"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: GD.SAR@forsythe.stanford.edu (Sandy Rockowitz)
Subject: Re: Norton desktop on OS/2-WIN shell?
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 23:44:26 GMT

In article <krothman.702620916@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu>,
krothman@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Ken Rothman) writes:
>I seem to be a bit confused.
>
>Do Windows apps run directly on the OS/2 desktop independently or in a Windows "section" such as Program Manager running in an OS/2 Window?
>
>Could someone clear up this little tidbit?

Ken,

Your confusion is understandable, because loosely speaking the
answer is both.  You can:
  a) Run a Windows application in a window on your Workplace shell
desktop.  This is called "seamless Windows".
  b) Switch to running Windows as your desktop with the Program
Manager.

You also, I would think, should be able to run Windows full screen
with some other program as your main program, but I have not
gotten this to work.

Sandy Rockowitz
gd.sar@forsythe.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: teverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (Toby Everett)
Subject: Re: Some questions about OS/2......
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 16:33:32 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.045643.4061@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.023800.67016@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> ry01@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (ROBERT YUNG) writes:
>>9) Can I enlarge an application on screen? Like a magnifying glass. Great for
>>Ultima Underworld if possible! Just have the playing field on screen.
>
>Not yet.  Sounds like a good idea for shareware, doesn't it?
If you run the program in an onscreen DOS box, yes.  Check out a utility on
hobbes.nmsu.edu in pub/os2/graphics (I think) called BITMAP.  It puts a little
window in the corner of the screen that magnifies what ever the cursor is 
pointing at.
k
        --Toby Everett
        --teverett@jarthur.claremont.edu
        --"I'm rooting for Boca.  How about you?"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: burton@asdsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton)
Subject: YADQ (yet another dumb question) 
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:58:34 GMT

Well perhaps its actually two questions and not one...

1. I have a 386/33 AMI BIOS 4 MB machine that I'm currently running with
   DOS 5.0 and Desqview-386. I've been reading all the posts about OS/2
   with interest, and wondering if it would do me any good...The main reason
   I'm using Desqview is because I need multitasking, and I'd like access to 
   *all* the memory on the machine. The *other* reason I'm using Desqview is
   that I'm *still* using a CGA adaptor & display. I know, I *should* go out
   and get a super duper spiffy SVGA card and display, but unfortunately I
   can't afford to drop 750-1000 dollars when my current setup works just
   fine for what I'm using it for (Latex, ghostscript, Wordperfect, BC++,
   Quicken, PCPLUS, ... ). So, the question becomes, what, given my current
   hardware, would be the advantages of going to OS/2 ? would it be $100
   worth of advantages?

2. At work, I'm going to be getting a 486/33 machine w/ 8MB and SVGA. I would
   like to get OS/2 for that machine, *except* for one problem. That machine
   will be connected to a network (ethernet) which has several thousand other machines
   on it, many of which are UNIX boxes with X11 R4 or R5 on it. The machine I
   would be getting *must* have X11 capability. I have three primary choices.
   a) run UNIX on the 486, b) run DOS, c) run OS/2. UNIX has X11 support already,
   DOS has X11 servers available (Desqview/X, eXceed, ...). Are there any X11 
   servers available for OS/2 (Not DOS or Windows applications running under
   OS/2, I'm looking for an OS/2 specific application) ?

any help would be appreciated...

John
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| John Burton                                                        |
| G & A Technical Software                                           |
| jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov                                       |
| burton@asdsun.larc.nasa.gov                                        |
| jcburt@cs.wm.edu                                                   |
|                                                                    |
| Disclaimer: Hey, what can I say...These are *my* views, not those  |
|             of anyone else, be they employer, school, or government|
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: rafetmad@cheshire.oxy.edu (David R. Giller)
Subject: Re: DOS Program Icons Under OS/2 - How?
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:28:22 GMT

In article <2354@isgtec.isgtec.com> ted@isgtec.com (Ted Richards) writes:
>All my windows programs' icons show up fine under OS/2, but all of the DOS
>programs that I migrated show up with the simple OS/2 DOS window icon.
>When I try to change the icon to a "DOS" .ICO file in the program settings
>box, there is no error, but the icon becomes a blank.  These files came from
>one of the icon collections on SIMTEL.  They worked fine under Windows 3.0.
>
>On the other hand, if I try to read a .ICO file into the Icon Editor,
>it says the file is not a proper icon.

While the OS/2 2.0 .BMP format is an extension of the Windows 3.0 format,
the .ICO format is different  (much more flexible.  But incompatible).

>Has anyone been able to use these icons under OS/2 2.0 GA?  Is there a utility
>that converts them to somthing OS/2 will recognize?

I beleive there is an icon conversion program on hobbes.nmsu.edu.  Anyone
know its name?

-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.misc
From: wcn@cs.brown.edu (Wen-Chun Ni)
Subject: Re: Mathematica or Maple under OS/2 2.0?
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 20:44:08 GMT

In article <1992Apr17.184223.9006@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr17.182902.7617@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> meyer@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Meyer) writes:
>>As for Maple, I haven't tried it.  The rule is, if it uses Winmem32.dll, it
>>won't work in win-os2.  Fortunately, the vast majority of Windoze apps do not
>>use it.
>
>Reports are that the latest versions of Maple, MatLab, and an
>apparently forthcoming Mathematica 2.1 for Windows will all operate
>under OS/2 2.0.

Is there anyone out there knows the current price of Maple(for PC)? I use
the Sparc (SunOS) version and is very satisfied with it. Thanx!



Wen-Chun Ni
From: des@frogland.inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Marketing..
Date: 6 Apr 92 10:04:16 GMT
Organization: INMOS architecture group

In article <1992Apr03.201239.7544@microsoft.com>, gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin) writes:
>The great majority of UAEs are caused by errors in applications.  It's
>an extremely valuable feature to be able to tell the user which app caused
>the problem.  The user can then correlate how he's using that app with the
>error.  He can describe and maybe get a fix from the vendor, or he
>could use a different approach to what he was doing and thus avoid the
>bug, and at the very minimum he can either not run that app or run that
>app by itself when there's nothing else to loose from a crash.

and given a report in the UK PC Magazine some of the apps that
cause errors are bits of MS-DOS 5 :-) 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: itreleav@fraser.sfu.ca (Ian Anthony Treleaven)
Subject: Re: Any OS2 Event in Montreal or Quebec ?
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 21:10:31 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.021634.13080@cs.mcgill.ca> 
tennis@cs.mcgill.ca (Pascal Proulx) writes:
>
>Hi !
>
>As a student of the School Of Computer Science of McGILL, I can tell you
>that a lot of my friends (including ME!!!) are very excited about the new
>version of OS2 that IBM just released. But we would really like to know if
>IBM in the US or IBM Canada has plans of giving demonstrations of their
>new software here in Montreal, or elsewhere in the Quebec province ?
>
>We would also like to know if IBM is going to give some presentations in the
>Universities (McGILL more particularly :) )
>
>One more thing, I would really like to read more comments about people here
>in Canada about OS2 2.0, I'm sure that there are a lot out there as excited
>as we are about this latest IBM breakthrough !!!

I know a _lot_ of students and others at Simon Fraser University are looking
forward to OS/2 2.0 - especially due to the value to cost ratio.  
Now if we could only go out an buy/upgrade!  I would like IBM to at least send
one copy to the computer store here so that I can tell people where to go see
OS/2 2.0 rather than taking my word for all its great features.
-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
  Ian Treleaven            | No matter where you go, there you are.
  itreleav@sfu.ca          |                                   -Buckaroo Banzai
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: usdta004@mmm.serc.3m.com (Timothy S. Shea)
Subject: Re: All GUIs are not alike
Organization: 3M - St. Paul, MN  55144-1000 US
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 21:26:14 GMT

From article <CB.92Apr9134843@tamarack12.timbuk>, by cb@tamarack12.timbuk (Chris Brewster):
> 
> My wife has been using MS Windows at work and recently added a Mac to her
> work environment (it's a fragmented environment where she needs both).  She
> was amazed at how much better the Mac interface is than Windows--more
> instinctive, more direct, fewer steps, etc.  (I have limited experience
> with either, so I have no opinion.)  So I'm wondering: how does the new
> OS/2 interface compare with these?  Is the interface closer in quality to
> Windows or to the Mac?
>

The interface is closer to the quality to the Mac.  I have OS/2 2.0 GA
running on my machine at home.  My roommate does everything on the Mac
and is DOS/Windows illiterate.  He has had little problems with running
applications or copying things on the desktop under OS/2 2.0.  He was
able to get things done on the machine with little pain.  The only realy
problem was getting used to the two button mouse which he doesn't like
at all (and I have to admit I hate the idea of a mouse with more than
one button with a passion).
 
-- 
  internet: usdta004@3m.com             timothy shea 
compuserve: 76300,1230                  Minnesota Mining and Meeting
From: adhir@cygnus.umd.edu (Alok Dhir)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: mathematica with os2
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:22:21 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.151346.12319@muddcs.claremont.edu>  
teverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (Toby Everett) writes:
> In article <1992Apr6.042727.3479@cs.rose-hulman.edu>  
bakercb@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Craig B Baker) writes:
> >I own Mathematica for Windows which requires enhanced mode
> >Is there any way that I could run it under os2. Even some fancy trick  
> >would be worth it.  
> 	What I have heard, and this is just a unconfirmed rumor, so I  
would
> appreciate more information from someone who knows, is that Mathematica  
2.1
> will probably run under WinOS/2.  The current beta test version  
supposedly 
> only needs five lines of code changed to run under WinOS/2.  More  
information,
> please.
>         --Toby Everett
>         --teverett@jarthur.claremont.edu
>         --"I'm rooting for Boca.  How about you?"

I think it might be a good idea to keep say 20 or 30 megs formatted as FAT  
on which you could install DOS5.0 so that for the odd app that needs  
perfect compatibility, you can boot into DOS5.0 and run Win3.0 from there  
in enhanced mode.  Now if there was only a device driver that would allow  
dos to read/write to HPFS partitions, this setup would be perefect so you  
would only need the partition to be large enough to hold DOS.  Comments?

						- Al
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: ballard@ucs.ubc.ca (Alan Ballard)
Subject: Re: I give up!
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:28:22 GMT

In <1992Apr8.071538.21968@news.Hawaii.Edu> tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) writes:

>The 'finger' command responds with "In real life:  ???", so microsoft.com
>doesn't know who user bgates is.  Seems like a well done hoax.
 
Actually, microsoft.com is just a mail gateway (really
ingate.microsoft.com), which probably forwards mail to a variety of
other machines based on alias or sendmail.cf or other files.  There may
well be a bgates on some machine internal to microsoft... finger
wouldn't tell you anything.  

But I'm sure it is a hoax just the same. 
-- 
Alan Ballard                   | Internet: ballard@ucs.ubc.ca
University Computing Services  |   Bitnet: USERAB1@UBCMTSG
University of British Columbia |    Phone: 604-822-3074
Vancouver B.C. Canada V6T 1Z2  |      Fax: 604-822-5116
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: prs9k@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Phillip Ruxton Scarr)
Subject: A few questions on ATM and WINAPPS
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 12:25:16 GMT

I have a few questions for you os2.gods regarding ATM, fonts and windows
apps.

	1) How do I convert my ATM-Windows fonts for ATM-OS/2?

	2) When running Windows apps on the WPS, will they find the
	   OS/2 ATM or do I have to have the Windows version running
	   too?  If so, that must mean that I have to duplicate ALL
	   my fonts for both ATM OS/2 and ATM Windows.  That sucks.

	3) When running Windows in a full-screen session, do I need to
	   have ATM Windows running?

	4) When printing from a Windows APP on the WPS, does it call the
	   print manager or does OS/2 handle the call and use its own
	   print manager?

I know I'll think of more questions, but these are a start.  I'd also
like to hear from folks who are using the Trident 800x600x16 seamless
driver to hear how robust it is.

	-Phil
--
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the aquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-
industrial complex.  The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will exist."
From: drkszk@ocf.berkeley.edu (Derek Suzuki)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: TDW and OS/2
Date: 10 Apr 1992 06:31:24 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: monsoon.berkeley.edu
Keywords: Turbo Debugger TDW Borland

	Can anyone tell me whether Turbo Debugger for Windows works under
GA?  I do still need to develop for Windows (at least until I can afford
BC++ for OS/2).

Derek Suzuki
drkszk@ocf.berkeley.edu