HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: roger@itl.itd.umich.edu (Roger Espinosa)
Subject: GeoWorks, and EGA
Summary: Won't load driver :-(
Keywords: GeoWorks Pro, IBM AT, EGA, InfoWindows
Organization: Instructional Technology Laboratory, University of Michigan
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 09:43:39 GMT


Hi!

I'm having some trouble getting GeoWorks Pro to recognize the EGA-ness
of the system it's installed on. It's a 1Mb IBM AT, with a standard
IBM EGA board. Additionally, there's hardware stuck onto it to support
the IBM InfoWindow touch screen.

Anytime I set GeoWorks up to use EGA (setup ega), it tells me that it
can't load the video driver. After getting it running under CGA (does 
that make it look like an Apple II or *what*? :-) it constantly
tells me that there's no EGA video device. :-(

Is there any known solution? Known hints? (I'm not very familiar at 
all with this level of detail in the PC/DOS world. I've tried various
settings for the display from the DOS-angle, with both 3.3 and 5.0, 
but nothing seems to change anything.) 

For that matter, I don't even know *how* GeoWorks is attempting to
find the video device. Does the monitor answer back something (as in
"I'm <xxx>-type of monitor", as Mac monitors apparently do), or does
the card say "I'm an EGA card, just outputting a signal?" FYI, GeoWorks
isn't the only application I've encountered that barfs in recognizing
the EGA-ness of the system (on the other hand, PC PaintBrush deals with
it just fine...). Is it the oddness of the InfoWindow monitor causing
a problem? Is it GeoWorks? 

Any help would be *greatly* appreciated!

Roger
roger@trillium.soe.umich.edu

(CGA-GeoWorks will probably still wow the target users of this AT, but
I've never been able to deal with a problem that makes no sense... :-)


Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.pcgeos
From: jeff@eng.umd.edu (Jeffrey Frey)
Subject: An SDK in 1993, did he say?
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 13:15:55 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

I see from the note on the SDK that same will not be available
until 1993.  That might well mean that 3d party applications might
not be available until 1994.

Meanwhile, Microsoft is selling a million copies of Windows a month,
and IBM is selling some OS/2 also.  In 24 months will there be any
computers left (except mine and those of a few others) not lumbering
under Windows, and therefore available for an OS change to GEOS?

Alternatively, who will write programs for an OS with a few hundred
thousand users (maybe even fanatics) when with the same effort programs
can be written for an OS with millions of users?  After all, even 5% of
a market of 30 million is a lot bigger than 5% of a market of 0.3 million.

I guess the usual solution in a case like this would be for GeoWorks to
float a public offering (or raise some more nonpublic capital) and hire
a few more programmers and cut the time scale.  Only GeoWorks can tell us
why they're not doing that, or follo
wing some alternative course to do the same thing.  

And, we assume that at the same time fixes, patches, whatever, to make
Windows more usable, or OS/2 more compact, are being developed.  The
Window for GeoWorks is now, not two years from now.....
From: shawmd@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Michael D Shaw)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.pcgeos
Subject: Re: An SDK in 1993, did he say?
Date: 13 Aug 92 05:09:56 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Aug12.131555.16060@eng.umd.edu> jeff@eng.umd.edu (Jeffrey Frey) writes:
>
>And, we assume that at the same time fixes, patches, whatever, to make
>Windows more usable, or OS/2 more compact, are being developed.  The
>Window for GeoWorks is now, not two years from now.....

HERE! HERE!  Agreed!  Very much agreed!  I'm starting to think that history
may be repeating itself!!(For all those who remember GEOS for the C-64 and
Apple II.)

Mike Shaw
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 13 Aug 1992 07:29:38 CDT
From: tom mckibben 2 <U51773@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.pcgeos
Subject: Re: An SDK in 1993, did he say?
 <1992Aug13.050956.17726@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>

In article <1992Aug13.050956.17726@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>, shawmd@gn.ecn.purdue.edu
(Michael D Shaw) says:
>
>In article <1992Aug12.131555.16060@eng.umd.edu> jeff@eng.umd.edu (Jeffrey
>Frey)
>writes:
>>
>>And, we assume that at the same time fixes, patches, whatever, to make
>>Windows more usable, or OS/2 more compact, are being developed.  The
>>Window for GeoWorks is now, not two years from now.....
>
>HERE! HERE!  Agreed!  Very much agreed!  I'm starting to think that history
>may be repeating itself!!(For all those who remember GEOS for the C-64 and
>Apple II.)
>
>Mike Shaw

HERE! HERE TOO! I also agree! GeoWorks is in imminent danger of becoming
irrelevant. I don't think I (and many others) can wait beyond early 1993 for
third party applications on a wide scale. I sincerely hope that the beta test-
ing IS in fact going on NOW in secret.

It is admirable that GW is interested in releasing bug free software, but as
someone who once worked on a rival student newspaper, I know how dangerous too
much editing can be. We were NEVER able to get the paper out on time! As a
result those who were initially enthusiastic about a new alternative paper lost
heart, and our competition just LAUGHED at us. Our paper folded after just a
few months. The editor just didn't know when to quit polishing and get the
product out WARTS and all.

In the meantime, the competing paper got better because of the competition. And
that is what I believe we are seeing with MS Windows. Eventually they WILL
catch up unless GW 2.0 gets out before the end of 1992 with third party apps in
hot pursuit.

I think it would be a good move to release even some development tools for 1.x
for use by interested hobbyist and shareware writers just for the sake of move-
ment, because on the outside it looks like GW is going nowhere. Technical
superiority is great, but without market share it's a hollow achievement.

tom

thomas mckibben 2   university of illinois at chicago dept. of physics
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
BITNET: MCKIBBEN@UICPHY or U51773@UICVM
Internet: u51773@uicvm.uic.edu or tommck@aol.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Always state the obvious............................
From: pat@berry.Cary.NC.US (Pat Berry)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.pcgeos
Subject: Re: DROP THIS THREAD (was Re: Internal Zmodem in 2.0)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 23:19:12 EDT
Organization: Berry Communications

birchall@pilot.njin.net (Shag) writes:

> pat@berry.Cary.NC.US (Pat Berry) writes:
> 
> >You *have* disseminated a great deal of valuable information in this
> >newsgroup, and I hope you'll continue to do so.  It would be a shame if
> >we lost you because a few of the posters here don't know the difference
> >between enthusiasm and arrogance.
> 
> I said something wrong, I got chastized for it by John, I apologised to John,
> I restated my question using correct wording.  END OF SENTENCE.

All true.  A very gracious apology, by the way.  It takes a lot of
courage to admit you were wrong.

> I personally have better things to do with the bandwidth here than get into
> petty wars with people over ad hominem attacks.  I'd like to point out that
> Pat has yet to comment on the actual _question_ I asked.

I'm sorry you feel this way, but I have to stand by my original
statements, which were neither ad hominem (they didn't address your
character, only your actions) nor an attack.  I merely stated the facts:
that you had urged John Mitchell to violate his nondisclosure agreement
with GeoWorks, and that this was an inappropriate thing to do.

I will admit to hesitating over the use of the word "arrogance".  It did
seem a bit strong to me, but I couldn't think of a more appropriate
term.  If one exists, I apologize for not using it.

It *is* true that I didn't comment on the actual question you asked.  It
was not possible for me to respond to a request for information that I
don't have.

> Please read my _re-worded_ post, and rather than discussing whether or not
> I'm an annoying bastard [which I know I am, so what's the point? ;)], go 
> discuss something constructive.

I did read your reworded post, but not until after my responses were
already out on the net.  Since you withdrew your original statement and
apologized to John, the matter appeared closed, and I didn't think I
should say any more about it.  (The statements you directed to me seemed
to require an answer, however.)

I certainly never called you an annoying bastard, and I don't think you
are one.  Your apology to John showed that quite clearly.

-- 
Pat Berry - Cary, North Carolina, USA   | Dave Barry for President
pat@berry.Cary.NC.US                    |  "He Probably Won't Use
**** Happy user of OS/2 2.0 ****        |     Nuclear Weapons"
From: birchall@pilot.njin.net (Shag)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.pcgeos
Subject: Re: GeoComm and high-speed modems.
Date: 22 Aug 92 19:44:45 GMT
Organization: Screaming in Digital, the Queensryche Net Digest

harvey_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz writes:

>NOT QUITE..... compression rates you have stated above are based on theoretical
>yealds based on good compressible data only.

>Having all those baud rates would still be the ideal, but you don't actually
>NEED them all.

Quite true.  It would probably be far more ergonomic to simply select the
maximum carrier speed, and have the modem [and the software, invisible to
the user] worry about negotiating the best possible carrier speed, compression,
and error-checking protocols.  It would also be quite a bit more intelligent
than the average terminal program software...

So, of course, it would be perfectly typical for GeoWorks to do something like
this! :)

-Shag
-- 

     Freedom belongs to only those without video screens for eyes and mouth.
		- Queensryche
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.pcgeos
From: wilson@hsi.com (John Wilson)
Subject: Re: GeoWorks' future (was Re: An SDK in 1993, did he say?)
Organization: 3M Health Information Systems, Wallingford CT
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:23:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.130636.4269@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> doug-taylor+@osu.edu writes:

[ Some stuff deleted. ]

>For the present, let's look at GeoWorks' situation.  It sounds like
>they are a small company, without the huge programming staff or PR
>budget of a MicroSoft or an IBM.  They may be facing real tradeoffs
>between product quality and getting that product to market in a timely
>manner.  

Don't all software producers?  Our users have a Federally mandated
implementation date (annually), and every year the specifications from the
Feds come in later than we need for the amount of work they imply, or are 
changed at the last minute.  At that point we start having our annual 
"Quality vs. OnTime" argument.  (OnTime has always won, because of our 
marketing approach, and our history with our clients.  Although, Quality is
running a much closer second these days! :-)

>So what do you do if you're Brian Dougherty?  My guess is that you
>take the long-range view.  You figure that if you can't make one
>window of opportunity, you'll make the next.  

Here's where I have to disagree with you Doug.  I don't think that the
gui-interface/os/whatever-we-call-this-market will be that forgiving.  In
what I have seen of computer software markets, the second chance, if it ever 
presents itself, is never as big/good/profitable as the first chance.

>You ally yourself with
>other software companies, like Borland, who (1) produce high-quality
>software; (2) bring products to market quickly; and (3) are also
>threatened by MicroSoft.  You try to forsee new trends, like pen
>computing, that you can edge yourself into.  

As well as keep aligning with hardware manufacturers so that GEOS comes on
the system (like they did with Laser).  I know that I never would have
looked at GEOS (if I even heard of it) if it didn't come with the machine.
Now I won't shut up about how good it is.

>Then I guess you hope
>that high-quality, easy-to-use software will win out over market share
>and marketing hype in the end.

And hope the company is still around to see it when it happens.

>   Doug Taylor                         |   Nothing real can be threatened.
>   The Ohio State University           |   Nothing unreal exists.
>   doug-taylor+@osu.edu                |            - A Course in Miracles


-- 
John H. Wilson                                            "Actually, it's a
Wallingford, Connecticut, USA                              buck and a quarter
wilson@hsi.com -OR- {uunet, yale}!hsi!wilson               quarterstaff..."
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.pcgeos
From: mtichy@fraser.sfu.ca (Martin Tichy)
Subject: Re: (none)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 21:44:09 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.pcgeos
Subject: (none)
From: brian (Brian Smithson)
Date: 16 Aug 92 01:22:30 GMT

rom motcsd!Postmaster Sat Aug 15 11:25:18 1992 remote from grot
Return-Path: <motcsd!Postmaster>
Received: by grot.csd.mot.com (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.4)
	id <m0mJQ0B-0002JUC@grot.csd.mot.com>; Sat, 15 Aug 92 11:25 EDT
Received: by motcsd.csd.mot.com (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.4)
	id <m0mJPhv-00005hC@motcsd.csd.mot.com>; Sat, 15 Aug 92 08:06 PDT
Received: from urbana.mcd.mot.com by udc.urbana.mcd.mot.com (5.61/MCDMAIL IR04 [05/15/91 07:50]/1.34)
	id AA25522; Sat, 15 Aug 92 10:00:30 -0500
Received: from [128.173.4.2] by urbana.mcd.mot.com (5.61/1.34)
	id AA00385; Sat, 15 Aug 92 09:59:38 -0500
Received: from SAUPM00.BITNET by VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 5203; Sat, 15 Aug 92 05:38:49 EDT
Received: from SAUPM00.BITNET (ACDH083) by SAUPM00.BITNET (Mailer R2.08 PTF011)
 with BSMTP id 3909; Sat, 15 Aug 92 12:07:58 SAT
Date:         Sat, 15 Aug 92 12:05:56 SAT
From: NAbil <ACDH083%SAUPM00.BITNET@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
Organization: King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, S.A.
Subject:      Re: Font Editor for Geos...
To: pcgeos-list@grot.csd.mot.com
Message-Id:   <920815.120556.SAT.ACDH083@SAUPM00.BITNET>
X-Acknowledge-To: <ACDH083@SAUPM00.BITNET>



   Thanks.. ludi.

 That was a temporary relief that I can use Nimbus Font Editor!!

 Is there a Nius-Q Font editor in Simtell?

 I can't find the legitimate one in our local Market in Saudi Arabia..
 Thanks in Advance.....

 Nabil
From: sxfield@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.pcgeos
Subject: Product awareness, price-value IMHO
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:32:22 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

When GeoWorks first came out, I read about it in one of the popular magazines. 
This was several years ago.  The product, I seem to remember, listed for
$199.99.  I thought, my, it must do a whole lot for that price...
Recently, I saw an ad for GeoWorks Pro, and it still lists for $199.99,
however, I've seen it advertised for $115 by a discounter.
Well, I purchased GeoWorks Pro, combined with Quattro Pro SE, but I didn't
order it from GeoWorks, nor did I get it from a discounter.  I received in the
mail an offer from GeoWorks for the Pro+Quattro package for $59.95, and that
was the impetus I needed to get on the GeoWorks bandwagon.  The same situation
exists, I believe, for all shoppers who are looking for the best value, whether
it be hardware, software, furniture or automobiles.  I don't know if GeoWorks
is making much money this way, but they are sure getting the product out there
to the public!  The same was said about IBM's OS2 2.0, that they would
practically have to give it away (and the SDK also), just to get it out there
to the users. Well, they are just about doing that by offering an upgrade from
Windows for $49.  I just don't have the big bucks for software (or hardware,
furniture, automobiles) so I have shop around and keep my eye out for bargains. 
If the price is too steep, I just go without.  What I'm trying to say, I guess,
that there is definitely a link between price/value/performance.  On the other
hand, a lot of companies (mostly hardware companies) have started out with
reasonably priced equipment, only to raise the prices once they're established,
often to their demise.  I've heard it said that they had to raise their prices
to be able to pay their people's ever-inflating salaries...  Maybe there's
something to be said about having a higher price initially, and being able to
reduce the price and the margins and still make a buck.  I'm no expert, just an
observer.

Dennis

P.s. can I expect to start seeing some of the GeoWorks utilities, etc.
     appearing at the FTP sites sometime?  Thx, Dennis
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.pcgeos
From: birchall@pilot.njin.net (Shag)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.pcgeos
Subject: Re: Internal ZModem in 2.0?
Keywords: John, you'd better say something.
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:46:58 GMT
Organization: Screaming in Digital, the Queensryche Net Digest

>birchall@pilot.njin.net (Shag) writes:

>> 	And I think our resident GeoWorker should break with his "no comment"
>> policy, and tell us whether GeoWorks is planning to add, or has added, such a
>> creature.

I phrased this _very_ much wrong, and have already apologised to John for it.

What I would like to say is this:

I would _much_ prefer to see ZModem integrated into GeoComm in GEOS 2.0.  The
odds of Geoworks themselves turning out a good product are, at this point,
much better than the odds of a third-party vendor doing so, simply because
Geoworks understand [I hope] their own operating system better than anybody
else!

If it's not going to happen, I'd be really thrilled if Omen wrote a GEOversion
of their popular DSZ program - but it would have to be integrated into GeoComm
[which I don't think they can do] or run alongside GeoComm [which is still
a bit of a kludge.]

I suppose it would be best for someone else out there [Datastorm, Forbin] to
write a GEOversion of their popular DOS/Windows software [Procomm+ and Qmodem
respectively], with a built-in ZModem [if Geoworks isn't putting it in GeoComm
for 2.0].

The problem with this [for me] is that I don't _need_ the creeping featurism
that pervades Procomm+ and Qmodem.  I remember all too well giving up Qmodem
because it just barely fit on a HD floppy.  I don't need it to emulate 666
different terminal types, I don't need k-rad ANSI graphics, I don't need
color [Geoworks looks nice in Greyscale by the way], I don't need support for
the Compuserve-B protocol, I don't want to be able to define 69 different
F-key macros, I don't need an editor, I don't want a DOS window [of course!].
I don't really feel like paying $whatever for a GEOversion of some program,
when all I'm going to use is VT100 emulation, X/Y/Zmodem, and any scripting
language that might be offered.  GeoComm already has all of that except
Zmodem, and I'd sooner give my money to Geoworks for the upgrade to 2.0.

While I'm wish-listing, support for 14.4kbps modems should _really_ be in
there... they're starting to become common now, and it's annoying to not even
be able to specify 14400 baud in a script without getting an error.

Anyway, as a GEOS "Homer," I'd much prefer to see Geoworks themselves do
something about this.  Since GeoComm isn't one of their "big" apps, I'll 
understand if they don't.  I really don't want to bug third-party folks to
write something [since I don't even _have_ their current products!] unless
Geoworks isn't going to do anything about it.

That's why I was hoping to get some sort of answer from someone.

I'd like to point out that for all the finger pointing and scolding y'all
have done... I haven't seen very many attempts to ANSWER THE QUESTION. ;)

-Shag
-- 

     Freedom belongs to only those without video screens for eyes and mouth.
		- Queensryche
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.pcgeos
From: dtaylor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Douglas A Taylor)
Subject: Re: GeoWorks' future (was Re: An SDK in 1993, did he say?)
Reply-To: doug-taylor+@osu.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:50:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.161609.19939@mlb.semi.harris.com> chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com writes:
>     I understand that the beta will be restricted.  My complaint is that the 
>SDK expects you to have two machines, one for development and one for
>debugging.  This seriously restricts the use of the SDK by most people.
>
>     I would also like to see the Sun development kit released.  I would jump
>at the chance to build apps on my Sun and run them on my PC.  Especially if
>they would lose the Motif look and move to OPEN LOOK.

I hear a contradiction in what you've just said.  On one hand, you
don't like the idea of an SDK that requires a current GEOS user to go
out and buy a beefy 386 computer system.  On the other hand, you would
like to see a version of the SDK that requires you to own a Sun
workstation.  Huh?

Maybe GeoWorks is making a mistake in requiring two machines for
application development; time will tell us that.  (Actually, from what
I've heard, a one-machine version of the debugger is on their list of
things to do.  Maybe they've gotten the message from folks like you.
:-)

One thing to remember, though, is that GEOS is still an immature
environment.  This is just the first release of the SDK.  When Windows
was first released, what development tools were available?  Not much.
Joe User could run Windows but couldn't develop much for it.  With the
advent of products like PowerBook and Visual BASIC, the average
Windows user could begin to write the type of shareware apps you see
out on the local BBS.  

I hope GEOS lives to see a similar maturity in development tools.  I
would dearly love to see a third-party release of some sort of
"GeoBASIC" or "PowerBook for GEOS" that an average developer could
use.

BTW, the "Motif look" you evidently dislike is more a function of
GEOS' "specific user interface" than a function of the app itself.
Maybe when the SDK comes out you can write an Open Look UI for GEOS.
I'd be interested in seeing it.

-- 
   Doug Taylor                         |   Nothing real can be threatened.
   The Ohio State University           |   Nothing unreal exists.
   doug-taylor+@osu.edu                |            - A Course in Miracles
From: teddy@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Teddy Iglehart [Ted E. Bear])
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.pcgeos
Subject: pcgoes in pcmag
Date: 23 Aug 92 04:35:59 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

GeoWorks is being attacked again in PCMag.  They
had a competition between integrated packages and
said Goes wasn't allowed because it didn't have
a database.  They then turned around and punched
it for no SDK when comparing to windows.

I sure hope that when the tv program i wrote to
air's the GeoWorks interview that Geos sends
Geos full blown with all the goodies from thhe
ftp sites added, escape, and drdos.  This is
to show what it really does and is capable of.
To show up with the base package i don't think
will hit them back hard enough.

just my two cents
From: johnm@cory.Berkeley.EDU (John D. Mitchell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.pcgeos
Subject: Re: using doc icons on pcgeos rel 1.0
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:27:41 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <1992Aug21.125040.25082@usl.edu> cjl9333@usl.edu (Legrand Chervit J) writes:
>recently a friend of mine purchased a leading edge computer and
>this came bundled with pcgeos rl 1.0. what i would like to know
>if there is a way to use doc icon icons with this release and how
>to do it. i tried the example that came with the icons but geos
>does not recognize them.  

The Doc Icon stuff only (for sure) works with PC/GEOS v1.2 and later.

Have fun,
	John D. Mitchell
	johnm@cory.Berkeley.EDU

P.S.	disclaimer standard include