HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: balesej@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Eric J Bales)
Subject: Re: Info-Zip problems...
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:47:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.161602.3701@digi.lonestar.org> kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org (Kevin Gallagher) writes:
>In article <By53Is.379@ucunix.san.uc.edu> balesej@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Eric J Bales) writes:
>>Ever since installing the service pack, I've had problems using Info-Zip
>>to unzip files FTPed from Hobbes.  I know the problem isn't me.  The
>>first file, or sometimes two files, in most archives FTPed are
>>inaccessble for some bizarre reason.  (The rest come out fine, no matter
>>what sort of file they are.)  The error is something like first 1024K
>>of file is not accessible or something of the sort.  What can I do
>>about this?
>>
>>I'm using the latest version of unzip (version 5.0, 32-bit).  I tried the
>>16-bit version and it did the same thing...  Any help would be appreciated.
>
>If you have the boot manager or dual boot installed, copy the zip files over
>to a disk partition accessible when runnin native DOS.  Then boot up DOS and
>see if you can access the files with your DOS version of unzip.  If the
>problem still exists, then you know it is a file transfer problem, not OS/2
>unzip.

I no longer own DOS...  It's not a file transfer problem though, since I
usually transfer files in large groups.  I use mget to get them, and sz *
to send them to my PC.  Most of them work fine.  A few don't...  All of
the IBM utilities that are ZIPped work fine.  It's only the occasional
file put on Hobbes by someone else.  And it's very consistent.  No matter
what I do, or try, the first item in a particular ZIP is not accessible
to me.  Someone has suggested it's because they were ZIPped with a beta
of a new PKzip, which Info-Zip doesn't understand.  Does anyone know where
I might find this thing?  (As I said...  I no longer use DOS, so I haven't
bothered to keep around my list of DOS FTP sites...)

By the way, my system is straight GA, plus SP.  All partitions are HPFS.

-- 
balesej@ucunix.san.uc.edu - atreis@tso.uc.edu		 -Eric Bales-
ebales@ddt.eng.uc.edu - at098@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu
		        -The second dolphin-
Dolphins. Soon you will be one of us, and then you will understand.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8574 comp.os.os2.misc:36982
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
From: cscks@luxury.latrobe.edu.au (Kamal Shaker.)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:13:00 GMT
Organization: La Trobe University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4


sherman@unx.sas.com (Chris Sherman) writes:
: In <1992Nov16.071632.9886@cs.joensuu.fi> jahonen@cs.joensuu.fi (Jarmo Ahonen) writes:
: 
: I would like to know how the different operating systems handle a crash...
: 
: Under MS-DOS, when the system crashes, it just goes away, and you have
: no idea what went wrong.
: 
: Under Unix, if a program or the operating system itself crashes, you get a
: nice core file (usually) that gives you all the information you need to
: track down what happened.  In the case of an operating system, you can send
: this core file to the vender, and maybe a week or two later a patch tape
: will show up.  You system will never crash that way again.  In terms of a
: normal program, you can enter the source level debugger, load in the core
: file, and you can see what the environment looked like at the moment of the
: crash (stack, variables, everything).  It will tell you what line of code
: the program crashed on too.
: 
: Now, how does OS/2 handle crashes?  Windows?  Amiga?  Mac?
: 
: (I have seen on a Mac where a debug window comes up and you can then look
: at hex, but I'm not sure how useful this is in tracing code, or even
: finding out what happened to make it crash).
: 
: I would think that if an operating system preserved the state of everything
: when it died, debugging it would be a heck of alot easier.  I consider the
: core file mechanism to be one of the main reasons why Unix systems are so
: reliable.  When they crash, you can find out exactly why very easily.
: 
: Comments?  Any reason why OS/2 couldn't do something like this? 
: 
: -- 

Well under OS/2 you can get the memory dump of the system
by creating a dump disk with createdd, then when it crashes
press control-alt-numlock twice and insert the disk....

But then I've never gone all the way through with it..
I just use it to get to do a c-a-d....

As for programs... thats up to programming environment isn't it..
just like it should be, eg Borlands is the best I've seen, but
it's up to the programmer to decide which one to use....


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kamal Shaker,        | cscks@luxury.latrobe.edu.au or shaker@latcs1.lat.oz.au
Student Vax Cluster, | %SYSTEM-F-EXQUOTA, Alcohol quota exceeded,
La Trobe Uni,        | stomach dumped.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's enough water on earth to drown the human population 87.6 million times

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: COMDEX Awards
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 01:27:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.234433.6708@beaver.cs.washington.edu> andrewb@lynx.cs.washington.edu (Andrew Berg) writes:
>I've supported Windows for several years (right up until I saw OS/2 2.0) and
>my only real complaint is that _every_ time you reboot in the middle, you 
>have to run checkdisk, and if you forget and just go back into windoze, you
>might as well warm up your backup tapes, because you're gonna need them.

	
	This is downright strange.  I can't figure it out.

	At the system we've got at home my parents run DRDOS6.0
	and Windows 3.1 on a 4 meg 20mhz 386SX machine with 105
	meg seagate harddisk (I know, I know--I didn't buy it!).

	The disk has two partitions--one 16 meg for DOS, editors,
	a permanent windows swap file, utilities (backup, recovery, 
	etc..) and such, and the rest is a stackered drive under
	stacker 2.1.  

	They _routinely_ reset the machine or just plain turn it off 
	when they're done with it or just want to run a different
	program.  This is because they are utterly incompetent 
	when it comes to computers--and they've owned one or another
	of them for almost twelve years now.  They can use Wordperfect,
	and they can play solitare, and they can use Word for Windows. 
	That's IT.

	So when I check their machine (~twice a week) I generally 
	run a chkdsk on the stacker drive, and generally there are
	one or two files with lost chains that I recover, glance at and 
	(normally) delete.  

	the system has been like this for months, and not a problem
	yet.  They've got even worse habits--like resetting out of 
	a dos program running under Windows 3.1 in 386 enhanced mode
	getting to the warning screen--and resetting again.  

	And so far, not a problem.  Oh, one time I had to run
	sdefrag on the stackered drive because it had gotten 
	laden with .tmp files (word for windows or maybe the 
	print manager--I'll figure it out some day) and their
	own files were scattered in and around these things.. 
	but it was no big deal.  

	[Plus, they have screen fonts & a driver for their 
	LJ4 _now_ and I still don't see a reliable _driver_
	for OS/2 let alone screen fonts [though I could convert
	them over with --blech--alltype...]...]

	Then again, they can't format a floppy in the background..
-- 
 Robert Stephen Rodgers  ||  rsrodger@wam.umd.edu  || IRC: Yamanari
 --------NeXTmail-preferred!!--------------------------------------
 Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?          
 Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?  
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jws@iastate.edu (James William Shoemaker)
Subject: Re: PC Week, November 9
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:28:19 GMT


> In some cases, even this may be true.  If my I/O device buffers input, I
> have the choice of processing data as a single byte (interrupt-driven I/O)
> or in chunks (polled I/O).  In many cases, it is more efficient to process
> data in chunks (in some cases one might be required to process data in
> chucks).  Then the choice is to either let the I/O hardware buffer and to
> process the data in chunks or to grab each byte and buffer the data
> manually until enough data is received so processing can be done.  I don't
> know about you, but I would rather let the hardware do the buffering.

	If the device can buffer input, why not tell it to only interrupt you
if the buffer is X% full?  The 16550 works that way.  Just because a device is
interrupt driven doesn't mean it interrupts you every byte, just when it wants
servicing.

				JWS
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8691 comp.os.os2.misc:37458
From: 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: OS/2 not ready for prime time? NOT!
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:21:53 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <mcdonald.531@aries.scs.uiuc.edu>, mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald) writes:
> In article <1992Nov23.022519.10677@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
> 
>>Moreover, the question of whether a given piece of software has bugs
>>which impact your own use is entirely dependent on, well, you
> 
> Exactly. Brevity man, brevity. OS/2 is presently simply not ready for prime 
> time .. it be ready, it has **at a minimum ** to be able to run Windows
> 3.1 programs ... every last one ... properly .. and this includes 
> printing documents which use True Type fonts. Second, it has to **fully**
> support all my video cards at the resolutions and modes I desire to use;
> this includes my ATI Ultra Pro Localbus in all its accelerated modes.
> It should be able to switch modes without rebooting the computer.
> It also has to get the reputation that when some company like ATI 
> comes out with a hot new video card, that card will come with drivers
> for OS/2 ... fully supported ... in the box, just as it does for Windows.
> 

	What?  What version of Windows are YOU using?  Windows 3.1
does NOT come with a zillion graphics drivers by any means.  It comes
with several, more than OS/2 currently does but not by much.  If
you look on a default Windows set up there are only a few drivers
there and 800x600 that they let you use runs extremely slow.
	Secondly, what about NT?  MS has cleary said it will not
run a great deal of Windows 3.0 programs and not all Windows 3.1
programs.  So why would NT be ready for prime time and OS/2 not?  OS/2
will and does run Windows programs a lot better than NT (beta) does
now.   Your ATI Ultra Local Bus video card does not have a driver
that comes with Windows.  ATI provided one with the card buMS didn't.
I might also add that ATI was rather late coming out with Windows
drivers for their cards.  By the way, you have to reboot windows
in order to change video modes and the only reason why you don't have
to reboot is because since Windows isn't an OS it can be reloaded
like any other application/environment.
	So by your own words, NT will nevre be ready for prime time
since it doesn't claim to run every last windows 3.1 program. 


> Actually, we  ... the world ... can easily tell if and when OS/2 
> is a success .... when it meets that last test, its a success. That means
> that manufacturers take it seriously. Today they don't.
> 
> Doug McDonald

	How would you know?  Ijust got off the phone with Radius, makers
of graphics cards and other items of that nature.  They certainly take
OS/2 seriously.  Not to mention Borland, Word Perfect, Lotus, etc. 
	Heck, Microsoft sure takes OS/2 quite seriously.They are
behaving as if they are obsessed with it. 
	The Magazines are treating OS/2 rather seriously too, it won
top awards at Comdex.
	And it is made by the  largest computer company in the world.

						-Brad



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Why does OS/2 loose out in a PC Mag comparison test?  
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:31:18 GMT

low@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Hock-leong Low) writes:
>Hello,
>
>Recent articles in PC Magazine and PC Computing did a comparison
>test between Windows 3.1 and OS/2 2.0.  Many of the results seem
>to favor Windows 3.1--why is that?  Are the editorials bias or
>what?  In one, it states that OS/2 needs max 30Meg HD space and
>Windows max 10Meg...excluding MS-DOS which was never mentioned
>to the reader.  And I'm sure they'll give great appraisals for
>NT when it releases...even though it takes up 30+Meg HD.
>
>:) Jason 

It's a Ziff-Davis publication. Even though in overall options OS/2 beats
Windows and even NT, they have choosen Windows. Microsoft has invested 
a lot into Ziff-Davis hence Microsoft is the favourite. Ziff-Davis is
the same publication that was suited by CBS, for misleading financial
information, inflated sales price, after selling 12 consumer magazines to
CBS for $362.5 Million. CBS is still seeking extensive damages.

Just look on top of PC Magazine, "The independant..." They have started
putting it there very recently. I don't know if they do any quality,
independant reviews. I was really surprised to see, even Microsoft
supporters, claiming the review was not detailed enough and didn't give
any insides to the tests conducted. There is lots of information missing.
Maybe someday they will realise that only quality reporting and not
favouritism sells.

Best Regards,
Mark K.
E-Mail: kovarski@zooid.guild.org

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund)
Subject: Re: COMDEX Awards
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 11:04:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.182944.4050@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:

   But I find it quite humorous: when these magazines were critical of
   OS/2, they and all their writers were a bunch of bigoted bums.  Now that
   OS/2 gets some good press, it's trumpeted among the OS/2 folks.

   Guys, if they were bums before, they're bums now.  What this really 
   demonstrates to me is that they have been doing their jobs all along,
   giving praise when due, criticizing, when appropriate.  If the only
   measure of a journalist is how much she or he supports OS/2, we've got a
   problem.  Besides, your critics will help you more (to improve the
   product, say) than the blind supplication of your rabid zealots (who
   are, after, quite off-putting).

The problems with the journalists are that they follow the market, not
the development. When a program is a success, then they start writing
about it. Journalists should be well informed, independent, unbiased
and critical. But they are not. Journalists who have been applauding
NT for a long time as if it were an existing and successfull piece of
software, they are letting themselves being used by Microsoft. A year
ago the computer magazines was writing much more about NT deveolpment
than about OS/2 development. They deserve no respect at all. If they
had been writing about OS/2 in they same way, it had been just as bad.
The major part of the computer magazines did not report on the
deveolpment of OS/2, and for that reason did not do their job
properly. One reason might be that IBM is not as good as MS on
marketing, but a journalist who want to be taken serioulsy should go
out and get information, and not only reciculate press-releases from
the companies.

When the magazines now write more about OS/2, it does not say anything
about OS/2. But it says something about market attention, and taht is
important. Nothing succeeds like success, and one reason is that the
media will not cover it unless it is either a big success or a big
scandal. I do not respect journalists or computer magazines more
than I did a year ago. But nevertheless, the attention is good for the
product and for us OS/2 users, and it will enhance the success of OS/2.

Olav Torvund
University of Oslo
Norway
Olavt@jus.uio.no

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: hoppie@kub.nl (Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers)
Subject: Re: Windoze point-n-drool interface.  (Workers hate windoze, revolution at 11!  :-)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 09:19:54 GMT
Organization: Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

In article <1992Nov16.085509.26648@umr.edu> ckincy@mcs213f.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) writes:
>And at least the OS/2 interface attempts to appeal to the intellect.
>And, studies prove that OS/2 users go through fewer mice than Windows
>users.  Drool and mice do not mix well.  Drool tends to corrode the
>contacts.
>
>cpk

Aha... finally some scientific proof that OS/2 is better than Windogs?
I would like to see these studies! I've got a whole (well...) university
to convert here. Everyone uses Windogs to multitask WordPerfect and
Lotus 1-2-3... but I need scientific material to convince them...

Jeroen

-- 
Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers, research engineer at     |  Stop connecting computers;
Infolab, Tilburg University, The Netherlands    |  start connecting people!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2)
Subject: Re: COMDEX Awards
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 00:36:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.213610.8366@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>Fans of OS/2, however, point to the advantages it provides over
>Windows: enforced multitasking, an enhanced file allocation table, a
>high-performance file system, a more efficient flat-memory model up
>to 4GM [actually 2.0 is limited to 512K do to the way 1.X back-
                                    ^^^^
>compatibility is handled], and the ability to run 32-bit applicaitons
>as well as Windows and DOS applications. This is the operating
>system Windows should have been.

Oops...  you probably meant to type 512M!!!  I really hope OS/2 2.0
isn't limited to 512K of RAM.  ;)

-- 
====== Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ======
"I believed what I was told, I thought it was a good   .--.
life, I thought I was happy.  Then I found something  (OS/2)
that changed it all..."  --  Anonymous, 2112  [Rush]   ~--~
From: si0_tb90020@debet.nhh.no
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: OS/2 - TE/2 - Chrashing and such (was:Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!)
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:32:31 MET
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Norwegian School of Economics

In article <1992Nov16.185720.6391@gw.wmich.edu>, 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
> 
> 	Well, I just got another Trap 008 error and this system
> is simply OS/2 service pack installed over the GA.  Format Drives,
> install OS/2 GA, install service pack.
> 	I get about 2 hangs a day and 1 trap crash a day.  If anyone
> knows what could cause a Trap 008 maybe that would sove the problem.
> 	TE/2 usually is running when these crashes happen I might
> add.  But It crashes far too much for my tastes.
> 
> 					-Brad

Well, I have read a few of the postings about OS/2 crashing, and a lot
of them seems to have in common that they have been running TE/2 at the
time. Is there anything wrong with TE/2. I don't use it, and don't know
anything about it, but...

It is funny htough to read postings saying that OS/2 hung, and probably
a ctrl-ESC would fix it, paired with a little bitt of patience. I have
found this to be the case quite often.

Or, as on computer magazine showed us...
They started a lot of applications, with a 6 MB machine, and when they
closed one of them down, the screen was just plain grey. No PM. What
happened? Mouse was working OK though. So, they reached for the big red
switch...    -  A little bit of patience would have brought PM back, it
was taken down to free memory...



+------------------+------------------------+---------------------------+
|  Terje Bergesen  |  terjeb@eik.ii.uib.no  | si0_tb90020@debet.nhh.no  |
|                  |  terjeb@viggo.blh.no   |                           |
+------------------+------------------------+---------------------------+
|  My opinions are entirely my own, and not the ones of anybody else I  |
|  know. Any resemblance to any other opinions are pure accidental      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                      BTW: Nuke the Whales                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 support is late
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 18:11:26 GMT

In article <OLAVT.92Nov20161927@ulrik.uio.no> olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund) writes:
>In article <1992Nov20.093958.17197@cam-orl.co.uk> thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:
>   |> Thus an OS/2 Windows support user will always get the latest version
>   |> of Windows a couple of months later than Windows NT users will get it.
>
>   Hmm, so March to December is "a couple of months" is it?
>
>   Advocates here talk about the new features OS/2, but I think it will take IBM
>   a while to get them ready if it takes them 8 months to simply update an
>   existing bit of OS/2 code. After all, advocates keep saying that Windows 3.1
>   is just a bug fix. So why has it taken IBM 8 months to apply a few bug fixes?
>
>It took Microsoft two years to get this bug-fix ready. (In november
>1990 they said that 3.1 would be released early 1991, in november 1992
>they are saying that they will release The Emperors New Technology
>somewhere between april and june 1993 .....
>
Oh, what the heck, it's flame time!  Actually, I'm more careful about
this 'bug-fix' idea.  Wind 3.1 fixed some problems, but it enhanced a
lot.  The OS/2 2.0 service pack fixes bugs, too, and I see now that
there are already some updated files available to fix the bugs in the
bug-fix pack!  You don't have to hate either Microsoft or IBM to realize
that we're dealing with complex systems here using widely disparate
hardware.  There are going to be problems in all such programs, so let
those without sin cast the first stone (and I don't see any non-sinners
around, do you?).

Joe
jmalloy@hamilton.edu
 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: NT: clean design (NoT!) (was Re: OS/2 because! (was NT: Why?)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:50:11 GMT

In article <1efsf4INN946@mailgzrz.TU-Berlin.DE>,
lars@cs.tu-berlin.de (Lars With) writes:
>
>This will exactly be the disadvantage of OS/2:
>If Microsoft releases a new version of Windows, IBM has to write
>a new support for Windows. Thus an OS/2 Windows support user will
>always get the latest version of Windows a couple of months later
>than Windows NT users will get it.
>
>Lars With (lars@cs.tu-berlin.de)

     It depends on what the major vendors do.  Many people are very
happy with Windows 3.1.  If MS decides it's going to come out with a
new version of Windows, many people won't be upgrading (unless it's
free, but let's be realistic).  So, many major vendors won't write
applications which require the new version of Windows (much like
many don't require 3.1 now).  IBM will have 3.1 support before very
many Windows 3.1 specific versions of apps come out (if many do).
I'm talking mainly about major apps, of course.  Another thing is
that many small vendors, who say they want to get to the biggest
possible market, will probably try to make sure their apps will work
under both Windows and Win-OS/2.

     Another factor is that soon (hopefully!), apps for OS/2 will
start popping up, and many people won't even need to use old Windows
apps.

Timothy Miller
Lines: 37