HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Cant I write to harddisk in Booted DOS window ?
Date: 17 Apr 92 03:50:07 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

jdowdal@wam.umd.edu (John Dowdal) writes:
>In article <rdippold.703452803@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>Has anyone else run into a problem with FSFILTER.SYS not working when
>>MS-DOS 5.0 is the booted system?  No error messages, just wont access
>>drive d:...

>Remember to copy FSFILTER.SYS to a disk that DOS can already access.  If
>you try to load it off of drive D (HPFS), DOS cannot find it until it
>loads FSFILTER.SYS.  

Yeah, it's in the root directory of drive C.  I even tried it with a floppy.
-- 
The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
From: Richard.Ellerbrock@p15.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Richard Ellerbrock)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 "Buglet" Report
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 19:22:00 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 5:7101/22.15 - Novell User Group, Pretoria

In a note of <15 Apr 1992 00:32>, David Feustel wrote:

 >I'd like to see a new Dos Setting added - one that would effectively 
 >specify a private list of commands to be executed as a session-specific
 >autoexec.bat for each session.

You can 'work around' this problem by using 4DOS as the command processor in your DOS sessions. 4DOS allows you to place your AUTOEXEC.BAT file in a directory.

To have multiple configurations, do something like this:

Use F:\4DOS.COM @F:\SESSION1\4DOS.INI /P as your SHELL statement in the settings notebook.

Create a 4DOS.INI file in the F:\SESSION1 directory containing the following line:

AutoExecPath=f:\session1

Place a new AUTOEXEC.BAT file in the F:\SESSION1 directory.


Regards, Richard E.


--  
INTERNET: Richard.Ellerbrock@p15.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: ignacij@meishan (Ignacy Misztal)
Subject: Problems with new ATI drivers
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 22:16:37 GMT

I tried to use a 1024x768 resolution under OS/2 2.0 304e using the
newest ATI drivers. My PC is Gataway 386/33 purchased 2 years ago with
VGA1024 (a generic version of VGA WONDER with 512k) and a CrystalScan
(Tatung) monitor. The screen shows up blueish, less on the top, and somewhat
small. After all applications are loaded, the monitor cannot synchronize
any more and starts shaking. All ATI tests for the card pass flawlessly.
On a similar note, when the monitor is previewing a page in WordPerfect 5.1 
using the 1024x768 resolution, the screen is yellowish but not small 
and is not shaking.
Since 1.3 drivers work more-less with 2.0, is this a driver problem?
Or perhaps ATI does not support its old cards very well?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ignacy Misztal			E-mail: ignacy@uiuc.edu
University of Illinois		Phone: (217) 244-3164
1207 W. Gregory Dr.
Urbana, IL 61801
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley)
Subject: Should I, or shouldn't I...
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab, Pasadena, CA
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 21:47:53 GMT

Seems like it's been about three years now since I played with OS/2 1.1.
M'soft was giving it the hard sell.  It looked like a genuine improvement
over DOS.  Then 1.2 and PM came along; I was ecstatic, I was getting involved 
in UNIX and the X Window System at work, and PM looked like a way to do some
of the same kind of things on my lowly 386SX at home with a minimum cash
outlay.  Trouble was, PM didn't like my monochrome Hercules display.  A 
call to Hercules elicited a promise to notify me when the herc driver for 
PM was available.  Good thing I didn't hold my breath.

Three years have gone by.  I've since upgraded my system to a VGA and more.
I now use ESIX SVR4 and X11R5 for my X Window stuff, Windows 3.0 for the DOS 
stuff (my wife is the primary DOS user any more), and I bought the SDK just 
in case I ever wanted to do anything with Windows.  (I never did.)

Now, OS/2 2.0 is finally a reality.  I've just read through all this groups
back articles here on our system (four days worth) and it's clear that I can 
get the OS for a mere US$49.95+S&H.  But for me, the OS is just a small
slice of the pie.  Is IBM offering equally appealing "upgrade" prices for
software development packages?  How about the SDK?  (Or whatever IBM calls 
it.)  It's probably premature to be asking about GNU's gcc for OS/2 2.0.
Someone posted an article that mentioned X Window System for OS/2.  Is this 
a substitute GUI for OS/2, or just X terminal software that runs on top of 
PM?

I guess what I'm saying is: convince me!  Compared to three years ago, 
there's a lot more choices for Intel hardware now; many with quite a bit 
of appeal.  In the down and dirty department there's Linux, 386BSD, and 
BSD386, and GNU's OS may cease to be myth-ware some time soon.  Berkeley 
4.4 and CMU Mach are alleged to crawl out from under AT&T's rock soon too.
In the Plug-and-Play department there are several inexpensive and rock solid 
versions of UNIX, and then there's NeXT, with their claim of a 386 version 
of NeXTstep in the offing.  The Apple/IBM collaboration (I've drawn a 
momentary blank on its moniker.)  And of course the dirty word, Windows NT
myth-ware.

So, tell me what sets OS/2 apart, what makes it insanely great (to steal
a catch phrase).  In short, why should I plunk down hard earned dollars
to switch?  Yeah, I know it'll run all my DOS and Windows software; my 
existing DOS and Windows already does that.  I know it'll do pre-emptive 
multi-tasking; my UNIX does that.  Eight out of ten of the choices listed
above will allow multiple users?  Will OS/2?  I didn't think so!  What's 
this noise about window origin in the lower left?  Threads?  32-bit address 
space?  They're nice.  Are they worth the additional cash outlay?  

-- 

Kaleb Keithley                               kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov

Not authorized, in any way, shape, or form, to speak for anyone.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: rvinluan@cs.cornell.edu (Rolando Vinluan)
Subject: Wow, flames...!
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 00:42:27 GMT

	Ha! I knew I'd get some flak...but only two so far? Shame, shame.
So this is how it feels to be hated...maybe I should get used to it.

	But guess what guys...the post *was* meant to be 1/2 sarcastic,
and 1/2 the truth (as most jokes are) How do I know? Sorry to say this, but:


	Confessions of a former "marketing droid" (Hey, the other guy used it first.):

	I was an SE for nearly a year.

	I wore a tie every day.

	I sold PS/2's. (And wasn't too bad at it, too.)

	I kept a complete library of reference diskettes.

	I've spent a good few days of my life installing OS/2 1.2 and 1.3.
And trying to get Lan Server 1.x to run as fast as Netware 3.0. (Not possible!)

	Good pay, but I needed more challenge. (No way they'll let you transfer
out of your department so soon!)

	So now, I'm back in school.

	Sure, I'm not currently employed, but I'm happy. Are you?


	(Flame me all you want, guys. I know what I'm talking about.
I wish IBM all the luck in eliminating "deadwood" [as somebody who flamed
me said]. And with OS/2. I wouldn't spend all my time waiting, though.
Of course, what I've said only applies to Marketing people.
And of course, I exaggerated, but blame the guy who originally asked:
"What do these guys do all day?" Couldn't resist making fun of myself.)
From: pebly@VNET.IBM.COM (Bob Pebly)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Upgrading from Windowsestions
Date: 9 Apr 92 14:50:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.9204091448.AA20950
Reply-To: pebly@vnet.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Industrial Sector Division, Boca Raton, FL

In <1992Apr9.114333.10715@ni.umd.edu> Dan Burns writes:
>I am probably upgrade from windows 3.0 to OS/2 2.0 after reading all the
>testimonials in this group, but have a few questions first I hope someone
>can answer for me.
>
>1).  My hard disk currently has 3 partitions (formatted under DOS3.3) The
>first is a 30 meg primary dos, the second is 150 meg extended dos D: - H:
>and the third is a 30 meg Coherent partition.  I can easily clear off 40 or
>50 meg on the extended partition (g: and h:) to make room for OS/2.  Is this
>a feasable solution, and will I still be able to boot my third partition by
>using the bootstrap program that currently exists on my machine for
>Coherent, or will I have to change to the OS/2 bootstrap program, or some
>combination of the two?
>

   I think you can do what you want using OS/2's Boot Manager, but you'll
   need to do a little re-partitioning to install the Boot Manager itself
   (it requires a 1MB partition) and create a logical partition large
   enough for the OS/2 options you want to install.  Your partitions
   would end up looking like this:

      1MB Boot Manager partition
     30MB DOS primary partition
     xxMB Extended logical partition for OS/2
     xxMB Extended logical partition(s)
     30MB Coherent primary partition

   By marking the DOS, OS/2 and Coherent partitions startable and adding
   them to the Boot Manager menu (all done using OS/2's FDISK), you
   would then be able to select which system booted on each IPL and also
   select a default boot partition along with a timeout if no selection
   is made.  The only uncertainty is that I am unfamiliar with Coherent.
   I am assuming that this is just another O/S in its own primary
   partition.

>2).  If I use the FAT file system, as I plan to, will I be able to back up
>the OS/2 system files to my Colorado Jumbo 120 using a DOS window?  Will I
>still be able to backup my DOS/Windows programs using that tape drive and a
>DOS window?
>
>3).  If I install OS/2 2.0, I assume I can get rid of windows, and dos.
>Will I need to re-install my windows apps like WP4WIN, Pagemaker etc...
>Since these programs use the win.ini file, I assume that I will have to
>re-install them, but would MUCH rather not if OS/2 can handle that somehow.

   The OS/2 install process gives you the option of migrating your DOS,
   Windows & OS/2 applications.  The install program optionally searches
   your system for these applications and then lets you choose which to
   migrate.  If install finds a copy of Windows on the system, it will
   give you the option of migrating your existing Windows desktop or
   installing the default Win-OS/2 desktop.  All the questions about
   migration come towards the end of installation after all the diskettes
   have been copied.

Bob Pebly

Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's view, not those of IBM.
From: william flusek <flusekw@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: An open letter to PC Magazine
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 04:26:44 -0500

In article <1992Apr14.044842.1204@cheshire.oxy.edu> rafetmad@cheshire.oxy.edu (David R. Giller) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.173839.16211@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> william flusek <flusekw@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>>In article <1992Apr13.190429.25307@wes.on.ca> tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen) writes:
>>>bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier) writes:
>>>> Mr. Miller observes that, "From a technical standpoint, OS/2 2.0 does 
>>>> appear to be a 'better DOS than DOS.'  Of course, the same can be 
>>>> said of DESQview, which is simpler to install, or Windows." This is 
>>>> complete nonsense! Does DESQview or Windows allow one to boot 
>>>> different versions of DOS simultaneously? Virtualize device drivers? 
>>>> Multitask sessions under the control of a preemptive time slice 
>>>> multitasking system? Provide true protection between DOS sessions? 
>>>
>>>Wrong. Windows both virtualizes device drivers and preemptively multitasks
>>>DOS sessions.  I believe DESQview also provides preemptive multitasking.
>>
>>Wrong again.  Both Windows and DESQview use cooperative multitasking,
>>not preemptive multitasking.  For most people, all you have to do is see
>>the difference once to truly appreciate preemptive over cooperative.  As
>>for virtualizing device drivers, both of the other programs do this,
>>they just don't do it as well as OS/2.   (Something else that really
>>warrants a demo.  Mere words do not suffice here.)
>
>This probably won't stem the tide, but Windows and DESQview do indeed
>preemptively multitask DOS apps.
>
>However, Windows' virtual device driver support is sketchy at best,
>and really isn't trying to be a complete solution like the OS/2 system.

It depends a bit on how you want to define preemptive multitasking, I
guess.  I have always considered it to mean that: 

    a.  The applications were doing prioritized time-slicing.
    b.  That should an application with a high-priority need the 
        CPU, it could preempt a lower priority task.  (even if that
        task is not up next in the schedule.)

In the book _fully powered Windows_, Burton L. Alperson refers to the
multitasking of DOS applications unders Windows as time-slicing
multitasking.  He does this to avoid the controversy of using the term
preemptive, which he says many argue does not apply.  DESQview and
Windows do time-slicing of DOS apps.  Windows does cooperative
multitasking of Windows apps.  

Neither is preemptive multitasking by my definition, nor certainly not
in the sense that OS/2 does it.  It is probably just another issue of
semantics.  I will say that in reading this and other newsgroups, I have
often felt that most folks felt the same definition held.

Bill

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: bill.dehaan@rose.uucp (bill dehaan)
Subject: Co-existence of OS
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 10:58:49 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.2)


Date Entered: 04-11-92 19:02
to: ken@psych.toronto.edu

KS>I would like  to run OS2/2.0  plus a PC  Unix (Interactive, NeXTstep,
KS>Linux  ...)  on  the  same  machine.  Will  the mentioned Unixes (and
KS>others) reside peacefully on the same Hard disk as OS2/2.0?

OS/2 will  co-exist on  a physical  (not logical)  disk with  Unix, yes.
Whether any given Unix will co-exist with OS/2 is up to the Unix. If the
Unix can stand to be on the same disk as DOS, you should be ok. The only
one I have experience with is Esix/386, and it did fine.

KS>Also, since I  haven't purchased the  machine yet, suggestions  on an
KS>ideal 486 configuration is welcome.

For OS/2 8Mb of ram is  minimum; and get BIG hard disk  (400Mb minimum).
Processor speed is less important than fast drives, since both Unix  and
OS/2 are big enough to demand lots of swapping, so the disk access  time
will be the bottleneck, not the processor.

KS>Thanks in advance,
KS>Ken

Good luck.

----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.uucp
Software Consulting and Gator Pit | Usenet  :   bill.dehaan%canrem@uunet.ca
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
---
   SLMR 2.1a   Never show your poker buddies card tricks.
   RoseMail 1.70:
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.misc:11247 comp.windows.ms:12223
From: dwl@watson.ibm.com (David W. Levine)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Win3 --> OS/2 2.0 upgrade for $49!!!
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:26:08 GMT
Reply-To: dwl@watson.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In article <1992Apr07.220513.4006@stiatl.salestech.com>,
iam@stiatl.salestech.com (Ian Mercado) writes:
|> So what exactly is the magical phone number to IBM that will allow us to
|> participate in this wonderful deal also?
|> 
|> Inquiring minds want to know.
|> 
|> Ian
|> 
|> -- 
|> --------   ----   ----   --    |   Ian Mercado: iam@salestech.com    
|
|>    --     -    -  -----  --    |               
emory!slammer!stiatl!iam      |
|>    --    -------- --  -----    |                                     
|
|> -------- --    -- --   ----    |            "I'd rather be flying."  
|

1-800-3-IBM-OS2 

David W. Levine      -- IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
dwl@watson.ibm.com   -- (914) 784-7427 

My Opinions, IBM's hardware. --
From: ARMENGAU@FRECP12.BITNET (Joel Armengaud)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Does anyone have French OS/2 prices?
Date: 7 Apr 92 23:20:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: FRECP12.92098.192044ARMENGAU
 <25962@hydra.Helsinki.FI> <92094.161145TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET>
 <1992Apr5.123423.23884@hsr.no> <92098.162455TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET>
Organisation: ECP-Paris France

Yes Turgut, software in France isquite expensive. Base OS/2 V2 is
around 1600 FF. My boss usually orders software directly from the US.

  -Joel Armengaud
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: jasonc@leland.Stanford.EDU (Jason Campbell)
Subject: Re: HPFS question...
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 04:17:23 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.015048.81334@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> ry01@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (ROBERT YUNG) writes:
>Does HPFS "self-unfrag"??? I remeber reading a long while ago that some new
>file system actually checks itself for fragmentation and tries to correct it.
>Is this true for HPFS or was I reading about Microsoft's "improved" file
>system for NT????

No.  HPFS does not automatically defragment files which have somehow become 
fragmented.  It _does_, however, make every attempt not to fragment files
in the first place.  (Look for chunks of space the right size rather than 
just the next available block, pre-allocate space near the end of a file in
some cases.) 

In practice, fragmentation only becomes the kind of problem it is on FAT
drives with the combination of an almost completely full hard disk and very
frequent small increases in the lengths of files.

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
Organization: Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Vienna, Austria
Date: Saturday, 11 Apr 1992 15:02:17 WUT
From: FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: HELP SYSTEM excellent (Re: Manuals with OS/2 V.2 as shipped.
 <1992Apr5.080143.8368@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
 <1992Apr7.195422.13366@morrow.stanford.edu>
 <"barnacle.e.436:08.03.92.01.07.39"@clarkson.edu>
 <1992Apr8.174221.14918@ryn.mro4.dec.com>

Try the hyperlinked online-32bit-OS/2-help system. It is gorgeous.
It allows you to have **all** the manuals printed right thru OS/2
itself. For the first time in a ledgible and nicely formatted form !!!

Actually, now that this feature is full up and working with GA, I
**prefer** this situation to the one where I would have to buy all
the manuals. Usually, I am just interested in parts of those manuals
and the 32bit OS/2 help-system allows me to just have those parts
printed!

Great stuff, thanks Boca.

---rony
From: prs@turing.acs.virginia.edu (Phillip R. Scarr)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: A question about PROGMAN.EXE and ATM
Date: 11 Apr 92 23:47:20 GMT
Reply-To: prs9k@virginia.edu
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

Just out of curiosity, if you run PROGMAN.EXE (the Windows Program
Manager) as a seamless window, can you then install applications like
Ami Pro or Page Maker which like to find PROGMAN running?  Also, can you
launch windows apps from within this seamless PROGMAN session and are
they then seamless apps?  Ohhhh, how Zen...

Oh, I still haven't heard, do the seamless windows apps use the OS/2 ATM
or not?  I assume they do, but I'd like a definate answer...
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 GA - Impressions, Suggestions, Info
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:42:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: cancun.rdippold.702841335
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

rfs0838@zeus.tamu.edu (SCHAFFTER, RODNEY FRANK, JR) writes:
>Is the Boot Manager partition HPFS or FAT? If it is FAT, will PC Tools
>fix any boot sector damage caused by viruses, etc?

You can always boot the install disks, remove the Boot Manager
partition, then immediately re-install it.
-- 
Anyone attempting to generate random numbers by deterministic means is, of
course, living in a state of sin. -- John Von Neumann
From: adhir@cygnus.umd.edu (Alok Dhir)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Help me install OS/2 on a Clone...
Date: 11 Apr 92 18:39:03 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization

Why don't you get a copy of 'COUNTRY.SYS'? <grin>...
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Borland C++ for OS/2 v.2.0
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:26:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <880506s.703264836@aucs>, 880506s@aucs.acadiau.ca 
(James R. Skinner) writes...
>sidney@borland.com (Sidney Markowitz) writes:
> 
>>asking for things like cross-platform development options. One thing I
>>wonder is, is there any reason to have a PM IDE that generates Windows
>>executables if you can instead have a Windows or DOS compiler that
>>runs in a VDM and can use the same project or make files as the PM
>>version? I'm not hinting at any plans, I'm simply asking for

>Nope I don't think we need a PM IDE that generates Windows executables
>(it would be nice but since the compiler already exist to do this why
>duplicate it?  It would also probably increase the cost.)  All we need 
>is an PM IDE that generates PM, WPS and text programs.

>Anybody disagree?

If this is a wish list, why not a PM IDE which can generate PM, WPS, text, 
DOS, and Windows programs, with the desired output selectable in the Compiler 
Options of the IDE.  

Cost?  Hell, its only money :-)

Jim Dorcey
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: krothman@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Ken Rothman)
Subject: Re: Norton desktop on OS/2-WIN shell?
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 04:28:36 GMT

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 Rothman * krothman@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu * st891075@pip.cc.brandeis.edu *
*      rothman@binah.cc.brandeis.edu * hico2!kadath!krothman@att.att.com      *
*******************************************************************************
*              "Does it seem cold in here to you?" - Van Halen                *
*******************************************************************************