HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wjb5106@rigel.tamu.edu (Walter Barnett)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: PC Week Summary: 4/6/92
Date: 7 Apr 92 21:18:00 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr7.085201.13452@cheshire.oxy.edu>, rafetmad@cheshire.oxy.edu (David R. Giller) writes...
>In article <1992Apr5.202424.16171@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>1992 OS/2 shipments of 2 to 4 million; Microsoft estimates 200,000,
>>"maybe a little more."
> 
>Oh, come on.  Even if only the 300,000 beta testers that Stac made reference
>to upgrade (they went through all the trouble to get the beta, you BET they

Here's a third hand rumor...

The new issue of OS/2 Magazine (arrived yesterday, April 6) has a note
that sources at IBM report that approximately 3 million copies of OS/2
were pre-sold. 
_______________________________________________________________________
Walter Barnett        Aerospace Engineering        Texas A&M University
From: pierma@linus.umd.edu (Matt Piermarini)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Cant I write to harddisk in Booted DOS window ?
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:37:55 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

In article <ulf.34.703407566@dc.luth.se> ulf@dc.luth.se (Ulf Ruthberg) writes:
>Maybe I am missing something, but I cant write to the C: drive,
>if I boot a DOS-window.
>Should it be like this, if so whats the use of booting DOS in a window?
>
>HELP!
>
>-Ulf
>
>-ulf
There is a device driver called FSFILTER.SYS in the \os2\mdos subdirectory that you will need to include in the config.sys for the DOS you boot.
   


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Subject: Re: Manuals with OS/2 V.2 as shipped.
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 05:46:14 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

Providing them on CD is a good idea but they should still be available
in print because they are one hell of a lot cheaper to produce on a press
than on a bloody laser printer.  And how many have lasers.  I sure as
hell don't wan't to spin them off on my DeskJet and then have to keep them
from away from mere humidity.

Just having them online doesn't hack it in my opinion because they
are too skimpy on theory and procedure in an attempt to conserve space.
Fine as reference, lousy for learning.
-- 
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007

"There are some strings.  They're just not attached."
                                                    Victoria Roberts
From: gmf2@quads.uchicago.edu (gary michael feldman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: SHould I get OS/2?
Date: 5 Apr 92 23:30:52 GMT
Reply-To: gmf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

Hi. I am wondering if I should get OS/2.  I have read over the
FAQ,b ut I'm not sure so I am seeking advice.

I have a Zeos 386sx -16mhz, 2megs of ram, 65 meg HD, and I think
and AMI Bios.  I have DOS 4.01.

I currentlyu use Windows 3.0 and a deskjett 500 pritner.  After
waiting forever for Wordperfect for Windows to come out, I
am frustrated by the many problems i"m having. 

I plan to get another 2 megs of RAM, regardless.  But I am 
wondering if instead of going to DOS 5.o and windows 3.1, 
should I just go to OS/2?  It will only cost 49$!! ANd 
I believe ATM will be included.

My main concerns are how much RAM will I need and will
I get good performance?

What apps can I use under OS/2?  (i.e. will wordperfect for
DOS run and utilize the ATM? WPWin?)

Any comments will be appreciated.

Gary
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: rafetmad@cheshire.oxy.edu (David R. Giller)
Subject: Re: PC Week Summary: 4/6/92
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 08:52:01 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.202424.16171@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Here's a summary of OS/2 news in PC Week's April 6, 1992, issue:
[...]
>OS/2 2.0 makes deadline by minutes.  The final code was posted
>electronically a few minutes before midnight on March 31, and IBM
>delivered disks to many customers the next morning.  Analysts predict
>1992 OS/2 shipments of 2 to 4 million; Microsoft estimates 200,000,
>"maybe a little more."

Oh, come on.  Even if only the 300,000 beta testers that Stac made reference
to upgrade (they went through all the trouble to get the beta, you BET they
are going to upgrade) that's 300,000.  And what about the rush on the 
1-800-3-IBM-OS2 number?  100 operators?  I think that's more than even 2-4
million.

Sorry, personal opinion.

>"Rumor Central," Spencer Katt.  Talks about OS/2 2.0 rollout at New
>York PC Users Group on 3/31.  Speculates that IBM is considering an ad
>in which a man walks through an office full of users staring at
>screens with Windows UAEs.  Also, he speculates that IBM will give
>away certain 32-bit apps for certain users.  User blames Windows 3.1
>for accidentally depositing $7 million into his checking account
>(managed by Quicken) -- purrfectly "golden" Win 3.1 code.  Mentions
>OS/2 2.0 credits screen (with CTRL-ALT-SHIFT-O).

Frankly, I'm pleasently surprised to see both positive OS/2 and negative
Windows press in the same issue.

>Article about ISV support for both Windows 3.1 and OS/2 2.0.

This is of great interest... could someone paraphrase?

-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: pingshan@leland.Stanford.EDU (PINGSHAN WEN)
Subject: Re: A favorable magazine review!  (really!)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: comp
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 04:59:31 GMT

All DOS users now have a very good chance to by a better DOS.
And if someone wants to use Windoze, best under OS/2 2.0's
virtual DOS machine.  Any body knows Standard mode Windoze
is better than enhanced mode.  With OS/2 2.0, who wants
Windoze -- the stupid Micro$oft garbage.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: altman@sbpmt.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman)
Subject: Re: stacker 2.0 status
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:26:48 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.001121.25172@news.Hawaii.Edu> lauch@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Chung Lau) writes:
>  I've got a very confusing email re: Stacker for OS/2,
>
>> Now I'm completely confused. I called 1800 EGGHEAD yesterday and was told
>> they had a version of stacker 2.0 for OS/2. They also said it was going on
>> sale monday. I guess I'll have to call back monday to confirm. I also
>> thought I saw it listed in the sale catalog they sent out for march.
>
>  Anyone can verify with Egghead?
>

According to the Egghead in Commack, NY they have Stacker version 2.0, but
there is no version for OS/2.  When I spoke several months ago with the
Product Development Manager (Frank Cohen (619) 431-0880) about an OS/2 2.0
version he told me that Stac Electronics was not interested in developing
such a product.



--
- Jeff  | Altmania Productions     |================================|
 ~   ~	| 322 Old Town Road        | jaltman    @ ccmail.sunysb.edu |
 * | *	| East Setauket, New York  | altman     @ sbcs.sunysb.edu   |
\_____/	| 11733                    | 71530.3252 @ CompuServe.COM    |
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: timothy.folkins@rose.uucp (timothy folkins)
Subject: S/2 GA & Novell LAN
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 13:04:05 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.2)


Date Entered: 04-08-92 16:08
From: timothy.folkins@rose.uucp (Timothy Folkins)
Subj: OS/2 GA and Novell LAN
Orga: Rose Media

Could someone please give me some information on hooking up a 2.0 GA
workstation to a Novell Netware LAN (286 Advanced v2.15c).

Any help would be appreciated.

regards,
tef


---
   RR 1.60 R001122: #include <std\disclaimer.h>
   RoseMail 1.70:
From: wjames@cse.ucsc.edu (John Amenta)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Advertising:  Robing Hood Arrow
Date: 11 Apr 92 23:06:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: darkstar.32698
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (CE/CIS Boards)
Originator: wjames@mizar



  Am I wrong, or has Microsoft these last few weeks 
  gone on a very impressive, and in my opinion, very 
  well done media blitz? Microsoft's T.V. commercials 
  have appeared extremely strong and competitive to me, 
  with what it would seem, more money and more advertising 
  talent spent by Microsoft than ever before.  And it 
  seems to me, Microsoft is attempting, with its 
  remarkable advertising campaign (and remarkable 
  deceptive one too, but what else is new about 
  advertising ethics these days?) to knock out IBM even 
  before IBM gets into the boxing ring with OS/2.

  Now, if there ever was a Blue Dragon out there which 
  could make some advertising history, IBM is the company 
  that could do it. IBM definitely has a flaming arrow with 
  its new OS/2 2.0, but will IBM make the necessary Robin 
  Hood shot in its future advertising campaign, once OS/2 
  distribution is in full swing?  I think this has to be 
  one of the most critical junctures in IBM history, and I 
  think IBM should risk all to make sure their OS/2 arrow 
  not only hits the mark, but splits the MS Windows shaft 
  right down the middle.  To do this, in my opinion, IBM 
  needs not only to have a good advertising campaign for 
  OS/2, IBM needs to make advertising history with OS/2.  

  I wonder if IBM management sees the necessity for this?  
  Its  one thing to have an organization come out with a 
  new product or a new movie without much fanfare, but 
  another too put the full resources of a company behind 
  a product or movie (take Ben Hur by  MGM for example, 
  or many of the Disney animations).  IBM needs to take 
  this risk with OS/2, because OS/2 does have star quality, 
  and needs star billing.  IBM needs to make a Robin Hood 
  shot with its OS/2 advertising, and should pull out all 
  the stops and all the IBM reserves in order to do it.
                                                             
  
  ------------------------------------
  | John Amenta   wjames@cse.UCSC.edu |
   ------------------------------------------------
  | "The Force is strong in you Luke, but you're  |
  |  not a Jedi yet."                             |
  |                               - Darth Vader   |
   ------------------------------------------------
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Program Groups under 2.0
Date: 17 Apr 92 18:21:40 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
>I have an application that I wrote for OS/2 1.3 that
>makes use of program groups.  For example, I have a
>menu item that will display all the items in a program
>group when the item is selected.  I used this as a way
>of quickly launching applications that I might want
>to access while running my application, without having
>to find the program or group on my desktop.  Here's
>my question, until I rewrite my application, how can
>I accomplish the same thing under 2.0?

You can set a folder up as a "Work Group" or something similar.  The
exact details escape me, but I believe it's somewhere in the folder options.
-- 
Excellent time to become a missing person.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: victor.ng@rose.uucp (victor ng)
Subject: Ahead Systems SVGA
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 05:42:01 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.2)


Date Entered: 04-12-92 22:24
Has anyone tried using an Ahed Systems SVGA graphics board with the GA
release yet?  If so what resolutions do the drivers support?

Vic
---
   OLX 2.1 TD   Bugs come in through open Windows.
   RoseMail 1.70:
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: News from L.A. OS/2 Celebration and COMDEX announcement
Organization: Harvey Mudd College
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 03:49:53 GMT

rafetmad@cheshire.oxy.edu (David R. Giller) writes:

>Windows 3.1 compatibility is done!!

No.  It is just beginning to be re-coded.

>	Difference between 16-and 32-bit applications: one application
>		showed a 40% speedup, just by recompiling.  the two versions
>		were run side-by-side on the same screen.

I noticed that in the Intel demo, "40% faster" means 'runs in
40% less time' (29 sec. vs. 17 sec), not '40% more operations
per unit time'.  That is, 1.67 times as fast, not 1.4 times
as fast.

Is this definition of "% faster" true only of the Intel demo,
or for all the figures we've been hearing about 32-bit beta apps?
If the latter, why not use the more appealing value of 67% faster?

>No shrink-wrap upgrades given out, just upgrade forms.  A few lucky people
>were given GA shrink-wrap code.

AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
(as you can guess, I brought my license, and I wasn't lucky)

Also interesting was going around the test drive tables and seeing
how many programs people left running as minimized (hidden in the
WPS minimized windows folder).  That is, most of the hands-on testing
was going on with half a dozen other apps unknowingly running in the
background (well, OK, they weren't really running because pre-emptive
multi-tasking doesn't give processor time to programs that don't
request it :).
-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu | think of something very clever 
uunet!jarthur!jokim         | to use as a disclaimer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Whitney: Possible FILES=99 Fix
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 03:01:39 GMT

Whitney, I hope you're reading this.  I lost your netmail address.

In any event, to refresh the net's memory, Whitney was attempting to
run an application that complained of not being able to open enough
files.  The application requires FILES=99, but no matter what was
tried it didn't seem to work.

I think I have a bright idea on this one.  It dawned on me that an
application has no convenient way of determining what FILES is set to
under DOS.  So, to get the error message saying "FILES must be set to
at least 99," the application must be getting that information from
somewhere.  That somewhere, I think, is the CONFIG.SYS file.  And, if
my hunch is correct, the application is having trouble scanning down
CONFIG.SYS (which is longer under OS/2) to find the FILES line.

Solution?  Well, the FILES line only has an effect on DOS sessions.
OS/2 doesn't care what order statements appear in CONFIG.SYS (but DOS
does, so any DOS device drivers loaded in CONFIG.SYS should be ordered
correctly).  (OS/2 exception: certain drivers may need to be loaded
after others.)  So, try putting FILES=99 at the very top of your
CONFIG.SYS file -- move it to where the DOS application can see it
first thing.

Stupid programmer's error in the offending application?  You bet.  If
I'm right.

Let us know how it goes, Whitney.
-- 
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: ted@isgtec.com (Ted Richards)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: installation woes
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:02:04 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: ISG Technologies Inc. Mississauga Ont. Canada

mark.nickel@canrem.com (mark nickel) writes:
: I picked up OS2 at Computerfest yesterday and am having some problems
: getting the damn thing(oops I mean FINE PROGRAM) to install.
: 
: First off.... Should the System disk 1 be writeable?  I keep getting
: system error 0037(I think), which tells me that the system cannot
: write A: because the disk is write protected.  I would fix this, but the
: disk doesn't have a write protect switch.
: 
: Inorder to get around this first program, I made a copy of this disk.

You don't need to do this.  Just select "return error code to calling program"
or something similar (the first choice) and the installation will happily
continue.

: 
: My next problem comes with disk two.  After telling OS2 not to format
: my C drive I get a message that it is copying system files.  At this
: point the program hangs....leaving the light of both my A disk and my
: C disk on.
: 
: Reinstalling the config.sys and autoexec.bat on my fixed disk,
: but not erasing the few OS2 files that the previous install attempt
: created, a subsequent attempt gives yields these words of wisdom.
: 
: System Detected an internal processing
: error at location ##0150:2057 - 000c:2057
: 60000, 5013
: 
: 0386000d1
: Internal Revision 6.307, 92/03/01
: The system has stopped. Record location number blah blah blah..
: 
: HHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLPPPPPPPPPPP!
: 
: FWIW I am running a
: 386 33 with 4 megs (intel)
: AMI bios 12/24/90
: Seagate 210 meg drive

I can't help you with this one.  My first attempt at installation failed
(AFTER loading all 15+ diskettes) because I installed into a 30 Mb partition
(just like the example in the Installation Guide!) and there was not enough
room to build a swap file.  The second attempt, into a 40 Mb partion worked.

I don't know if this is signigicant, but I installed into a newly created
E: partition, leaving C: (and D:) untouched.  I have an 8 Mb 486/33 with
a 130 Mb Seagate drive.

--
Ted Richards            ted@isgtec.com             [...!uunet.ca!isgtec!ted]
ISG Technologies Inc.   3030 Orlando Dr. Mississauga  Ont.  Canada   L4V 1S8
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Aldus and OS/2
From: slam@desire.wright.edu
Date: 15 Apr 92 09:58:21 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

Just talked to an Aldus marketing agent not just 30 seconds ago about Aldus's
plans for OS/2. They are planning on an Pagemaker PM 2.0 but it is going to be
"demand-driven". If OS/2 becomes popular they will market it else.......

She came right out and told me that Aldus lost $1M in its prior OS/2
investments and is now basically wary of the OS/2 situation. So guys and gals,
is there going to be a Desktop publishing program for OS/2 2.0???

SC Lam - slam@eve.wright.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: Which DOS?
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 16:49:15 GMT

In article <1992Apr17.032251.13767@rat.csc.calpoly.edu> rteasdal@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Rusty) writes:
>	I recall someone, who seemed both authoritative and credentialled,
>posting a description of 2.0 which said that the version of DOS which was
>included with and installed by it was IBM's licensed version of DOS 5.0.
>	Well, I drifted into the campus computer store today, to find that
>they have OS/2 2.0 running on a PS/2 Model 55SX (although no shrink wrapped 
>copies have arrived). Playing around with it, I opened a DOS window and
>typed "VER" out of curiosity.
>	It promptly said "O/S 2 Version 2.0" or words to that effect.
>I thought for a moment and then tried "EDIT". That was unrecognized, so I
>tried "EDLIN". _That_ worked, to my horror. Is it true, as I was later
>told, that this is actually the evil DOS 4.01? It certainly looks as
>though it is. Will this be addressed by Corrective Service Diskettes at
>some later time?

No.  It is indeed DOS 5.0, modified to run more efficiently under OS/2
2.0.  QBASIC is still there (which EDIT points to) -- try "QBASIC."

I believe some items have been removed.  Notably the DOS 5.0
installation routines (which wouldn't make sense).  Also, some files
have been supplanted with family mode or OS/2 versions, e.g. FORMAT,
which works in both an OS/2 session and a DOS session.
-- 
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: mo@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mohit Goyal)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Will OS/2 succeed?
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:48:34 GMT
Reply-To: mo@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mohit Goyal)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Originator: mo@mickey.cc.utexas.edu

Hello.  After coming back from IBM's OS/2 unveiling here in Austin, I was
pumped up, and firmly believed that OS/2 would replace Windows w/o a doubt,
but then I got home and read a computer magazine, PC/Computing.  In it, John
Dickinson and Jim Seymour pretty much announce that OS/2 v2.0 is dead, is not
capable of being a better Windows than Windows by any standard, and if you must
go with a GUI, get Win3.1 and wait for NT.  Then I talked to some of my Windows
useing friends, and they will not use OS/2 2.0 if it is not as fast as Win3.1,
they don't care about how much better it is technically, they don't want to
wait.  I don't know if OS/2 v2.0 will be faster than Windows 3.1 running 
Windows or DOS programs, I do know that 32-bit apps will *greatly* speed things
up.  I wish they would start getting released.  Anyways, back to my point, I
can not understand why OS/2 gets such bad press, only John Dvorak said anything
positive about OS/2 2.0, and that was that "it needs to succeed" because it 
will help everybody in the long run(by moving us to a 32-bit platform).  The
next issue of PC Magazine will compare 3.1 vs. 2.0 and have reviews of both
products.  I'm assuming that they will be using beta code of both programs
which is too bad, because GA is much better than even 6.304, but nevertheless
I'm interested to see what users the magazines say OS/2 is better for once
they start putting out reviews.  I'm confident they will declare v2.0 the
better product, I will even be disappointed if they say 3.1 is better for
some purposes, because it is not.  OH well, I will shutup now...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc