HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 11:47:08 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <NZf-fT#@engin.umich.edu> mongoola@engin.umich.edu (Don Prior) writes:
> In article <1992Aug19.121912.21865@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
> >sticking with Win3.0 because the app he uses won't run under 3.1....he is
> >thinking of moving to OS/2. It's more stable, mulit-tasks better - and it will
> >run his app. I just wish I could remember the name of the damn thing!
> >
> 
> OS/2 cetrtainly doesn't multitask my HI Speed modem better than windows.
> It certainly didn't multitask a combination of windows and dos programs
> better while my modem was cranking...

I use a Supra V32bis modem and the TE/2 comms programm and I have no trouble.
I also had the :

call=mode.com com1:57600,n,8,1,rts=HS,buffer=auto
 
statement at the bottom of my config.sys and that sorted out any problems I
may have had........
 
this info in in the Tips and techniques, the FAQ and some of it is in the
README.
 
Now if you're a Windows user who never reads the documentation......I can see
your problem......:-)

> It certainly didn't run my windows apps better, due to a lack of HI RES
> drivers.

I use 800x600x256 on my 14" monitor. I tried the 1024x768x256 drivers, but the
icons were too small to see...........How hi-res does it have to be before
Windows stops falling over and the multi-tasking improves? I'm going for the
substance i see in OS/2. You seem to prefer the "image" in Windows.
 
That's OK. If you're happy with Windows......I don't mind. Just don't make
me use it....>:-) 

> 
> Anyway, I hope I'll like the update to OS/2 a lot better..
> Waiting for the 32-bit graphics engine was the first good reason I
> heard for not developing drivers..
> Still, that means that people shouldn't switch until they get there
> act together and support the necessary hardware.
> (unless they don't care... I for one, do!)

Yep......better wait until everyone else uses it.....if we all played that
game, we'd still be pre-CP/M! 
 
Boldly going where no HI-RES loving, Windows-phile has gone before!

Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | If you don't vote for MMP on 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  September 19, 1992, then you 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  must like things the way they 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  are.....can I live with YOU?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: gyan@unixg.ubc.ca (Gyan P. Sinha)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 apps (was: I've seen NT...)
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:54:52 GMT



Watcom Fortran/386 is there. For betterr visual look, you can chalk one
more asterisk in the first column.

Gyan P. Sinha
Vancouver.
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HPFS File Names (Was Re: Damned good recovery)
Date: 21 Aug 92 15:40:46 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Aug20.135132.10003@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <Lrf-Y7-@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>...
>>What would be really nice is if you could assign your own 8.3 name to
>>any file and have DOS applications use that filename instead of 
>>simply being blind to the file.  For example, I would like to have
>>some subdirectories which contain only 8.3 names.  Unfortunately all
>>parent directories must also conform to 8.3 names for DOS applications
>
>NT fixes this -- if you are on an NTFS volume, 8.3 names are automatically
>assigned for the long names.

That's not an acceptable solution.  You want him to change operating
systems to fix a problem in the file system.  Why not suggest that he
throw out the PC and get a Mac?  Or a Sun?  Or an RS-6000, they'll
eventually run OS/2, at least.

-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel)
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 11:46:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.073141.16594@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>BTW, the MS presenter also said that Presentation Manager support will be
>incorporated in NT in 1993. Is this recognition that OS/2 V2 is a viable
>market presence?

It would be interesting to know if this means a complete implementation
of the OS/2 1.x (16-bit) API or if this includes support for the 32-bit
OS/2 2.0 API.

If the implement the OS/2 2.0 API, this would provide a way to make
powerful 32-bit applications which run on both platforms.

Kai Uwe Rommel

/* Kai Uwe Rommel --- rommel@informatik.tu-muenchen.de */

DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt
handler, and always will be.                -Russell Williams

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: grumpy@jpradley.jpr.com (Jeff Markel)
Subject: Re: Will OS/2 2.0 support Windows 386Enh development?
Reply-To: grumpy@jpradley.UUCP (Jeff Markel)
Organization: Unix in NYC
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 12:11:20 GMT
Keywords: windows 386enh sdk

In article <alcocer.713751434@nestea> alcocer@parc.xerox.com (Dario Alcocer) writes:
>dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>
>>No.  Enhanced mode can't be provided unser OS/2.  Not because of the
>>DPMI client, but because Windows 32-bit code requires the process to
>>run in kernel-mode.  OS/2 will not allow a user application to run in
>>this mode - it violates system integrety.
>
>What exactly do Windows programs do that requires this?  As far
>as I know, privileged instructions in apps aren't condoned under
>Windows either.  However, if you really want to, I guess you can
>have IOPL segments, but this isn't the case with my apps.  I'm
>writing stuff above the USER and KERNEL DLL's; my app isn't
>"dirty".
>
>>This code will not work under WIN-OS2.  If you structure your program
>>properly, you can quickly port it to OS/2 later, though.  If you use
>>any CASE tools, you can use the same CASE files for both systems,
>>since there are matching products from many vendors.  (eg: CASE:PM and
>>CASE:W.  I think Microformatic's GPF system exists for PM and Windows
>>as well).
>
>We aren't planning _any_ OS/2 products in the immediate future.
>Additionally, my app's U/I requirements probably won't make the
>port to CASE:W worthwile; we'd probably have to recode, and
>since I'm the only one wanting to develop under OS/2, I don't
>think I'd stand a chance on this.  I guess I just wish Win-OS2
>were more "plug and play" with respect to Windows development.
>
>Thanks for the information.  Maybe I should just get two
>separate machines, and be done with this hodge-podge of
>DOS-Windows-OS/2-DPMI-XMS-EMS-HMA-386MAX-QEMM-386Enh-Win32-NT-PM-...
>
>"... ARRRRRRGGGGGH!!"
>--
>Dario Alcocer      | Internet: alcocer@adoc.xerox.com
>Xerox Corporation  | Tel     : +1 415 813-6869

The problem with running apps in 386 Enhanced mode is that 386/486 CPUs
are not self-virtualizing.  A [34]86 can pretend to be a 286 or 8086, but
can't create a virtual 386.  This, in my opinion, is one of the current
generation's great shortcomings.  If the P5 can virtualize the entire
(or at least most) of the [34]86 architecture, then you could have a
true VM OS - imagine running Solaris, NT, DOS, DVX and OS/2 all as 
apps under OS/2 - it boggles the mind.


                        Jeff Markel

Jeffrey Markel | uucp:     jpradley!argos!markel   | Argos Computer Systems Inc
KD2HN          | internet: grumpy@jpradley.jpr.com | 110 W. 32nd Street 
(212)594-5400  | amprnet:  kd2hn@kd2hn.ampr.org    | New York, NY 10001
===============================================================================
	The New World Order is ... "Shoot to kill!"
===============================================================================
From: bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Release dates ( was Re: superVGA  (and misc top-blowing)
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:33:38 GMT
Organization: Applied Information Systems, Chapel Hill, NC

In article <1992Aug12.192727.3841@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
> In a previous article, brian%jensen.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) says:
>>Oh... one other thing... Borland has now said that the compiler for
>>OS/2 will not be available till year's end.  It's about to enter
>>beta.  Borland said at the NT developers conference that they will
>>have the NT version out within 2 months of NT's release.
> 
> Oh, so they will have it out in September '93 ?
> Get real, Borland once said that they would have their OS/2
> complier released at the same time as OS/2 2.0.  Everyone lies
> when it comes to release dates.  Borland is just worse than most.
> It is almost on par with Microsoft.

I think the word "lies" is putting the wrong spin on it.

Programmers and salespeople are both similar to the extent that
both have to be (to some extent) optimists in order to stand their
jobs, which often include a lot of rejection (either by the
customers or by the computer - neither wants to cooperate with
what you want them to do).  Programmers have various rules of
thumb - like "take your worst estimate and double it" - but even
so, project estimation - which must also include guesstimates
about how many "unanticipated" problems will occur and how long
it will take to solve them - is a black art.  And similarly,
sales managers have various rules of thumb about how long the
sales cycle will take with different customers, what percentage
of contacts will result in sales, etc., but again, this is another
black art.

Now put these two professions together, and you are likely for
them to come up with release dates that later turn out to have
been unrealistic.  It isn't that anyone is trying to lie, but it's
in these people's nature to make optimistic assumptions - if they
didn't they wouldn't be able to stand their respective jobs.  If
you want to put it unkindly, they are lying to themselves, but it
isn't a conscious effort to deceive (which is what most people
understand lying to be).

It is up to higher management to try to keep this process from
getting out of hand.  How well that is done will vary from one
company to another, but in most cases (probably over 90%), bad
estimates are released because of this underlying optimism that
management had not been able to contain, and not because of a
conscious effort to lie.

Bruce C. Wright
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: It's Official: 1 Million Copies of OS/2 sold
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:35:30 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <77625@ut-emx.uucp> varmint@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Samir Varma) writes:
>
>So it's finally official.  Today's NYT business section reports that
>IBM has announced 1 Million copies of OS/2 sold and that analysts
>expect 2 to 4 Million total by the end of the year.
>
>Now where are the f**king apps, drivers, utilities etc. etc.?!!!!  Get
>to it vendors (excluding MS, of course).

Why exclude MS?  I'd like them to write some OS/2 2.0 apps.  Namely,
Word 2.0 and Excel 4.0!


-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Damned good recovery
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:28:54 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

> 
> I'm a Mac user who simply follows the competition out of interest, but
> something I wonder about. Isn't OS/2 supposed to come with HPFS which means
> you can use decent filenames that use upper and lower case and spaces, have
> file types attached and can be reasonably long? If so, why are you people
> all using these ridiculous names like SVGADATA.PMI? Do you realize how
> childish thsi makes your OS look? I might at some point switch to OS/2, but
> certainly not while all public evidence I see of it makes it look like ist
> still has all the gorgeous DOS file system features as far as the user is
> concerned.
> 
> Maynard Handley

	The reason for that is because you can use the DOS file system if you
want to to install os/2 onto.  With this in mind, the install files have to
have that silly old 8.3 format.  On my system, for example, I have folders with
names like "Other files" or "Archived Shareware".

					-Brad
From: bill@snoopy (Bill Poitras)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks! (was Re: Windows NT 'Alpha')
Date: 21 Aug 92 02:41:01 GMT
Reply-To: bill@msi.com
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Herb Lam (stsshol@st.unocal.COM) wrote:
: Remember, NT is a brand new OS.  We've been hearing from people on the net
: and elsewhere saying how good or how stable the pre-beta NT is.  Didn't we
: hear the same thing about OS/2?  Then what happened after it was released--
: now you have people criticizing it left and right for taking too much 
: hardware, running too slow, not enough support, etc.  Since I don't have
: the pre-beta NT, I have to take everything I read about how good it is
: right now with a big grain of salt.
: 
: I'm not going to say MS can't get NT out by December, but I would bet that
: if they did, users will run into 10x the problem they have now with OS/2.

It depends how you look at it.  OS/2 was marketted as a better than DOS
platform, which would run DOS and Windows programs.  That is where a lot
of the "problems" are.  The 32-bit OS/2 part works great, except for lack
of drivers, and applications.

Windows NT is being marketted to the Workstation vendors and thier
clients as well as the PC community.  These people are used to buggy
releases of OSes.  As long as the developers can develop a product on it,
they aren't so concerned about the polish and shine.  As for the
interface, Workstations use X, a good system, but large, at times slow
and with more than one look and feel standard.

--
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Bill Poitras    | Molecular Simulations Inc.    | Tel (408)522-9229       |
| (bill)          | Sunnyvale, CA USA             |                         | 
|                 | FAX (408)732-0831             | bill@msi.com            |
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel)
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 08:55:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.000333.12827@wes.on.ca> tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen) writes:
>When the Win32s libraries are released (later this year?), doing 32-bit 
>Windows apps for Windows 3.1 will become very much easier than now.  And
>since the Win32s is not shipped with Windows (the app vendor would ship
>the necessary DLLs), it would not, at least according to the press, be
>covered by the IBM-Microsoft agreements.  Thus IBM would have to reverse
>engineer Win32s without having any access to the source.

BUT, Win32s is a pure protected mode API. I.e. Win32s apps can't make
any DOS or BIOS call or HW access if they should run on both NT and
Windows 3.1. This would allow to write a Win32s mapping layer for OS/2
2.0 PM, no need for a VDM in this case. This would almost make them a
native OS/2 app :-)

I'm sure IBM will write such a thing (if not already working on it) if
it should appear valuable for the market.

Kai Uwe Rommel

/* Kai Uwe Rommel --- rommel@informatik.tu-muenchen.de */

DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt
handler, and always will be.                -Russell Williams
From: AV@vnet.ibm.com (Anton Versteeg)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 14:47:08 CET
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Reply-To: AV@vnet.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Uithoorn - Netherlands
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 3.0

In <1992Aug18.102228.20548@news.Hawaii.Edu> Dave Tholen writes:
>Danny Glasser writes:
>
>> Besides, there were virtually no API changes between OS/2 1.21 and OS/2 1.3
>> (as I recall).  The changes were LADDR support and better performance and
>> usability (and bug fixes).
>
>And Adobe Type Manager and REXX, as I recall.  Maybe some others that have
>slipped my mind.
>

You're right about IBM OS/2 1.3,
but did MS include these two in their version of OS/2 1.3?
Anyone knows?

Anton Versteeg - IBM - Uithoorn Netherlands - TEAMOS2 NL
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Date: 15 Aug 92 01:10:02 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Aug14.031238.18568@msi.com> bill@msi.com writes:
>Michael R. Platzke (SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu) wrote:
>: Well, without starting a flame war, I would point out that NT has
>                                                                ^^^
>: built in networking (limited LANMAN and full TCP/IP), symmetrical (sp?)
>: multiprocessing(okay, not much good on a single cpu 486, but still cool),
>: multiple APIs (Win-16,Win-32,OS/2 1.3,POSIX), built in security (which forms
>: the basis for multiple users), and other goodies.  Yeah, I've heard that
>: the mythical :-) OS/2 2.1 is supposed to have much of this stuff, but when?
>: In regards to that, would someone from an IBM site care to comment on the
>: "offical" feature list of the next OS/2 release (not CSD).  If non-ibm sites
>: wish to chip in, please list source of info (not "well some guy on the net
>: said that ...").
>
>Windows NT has Win-16, Win-32, OS/2 1.3 and POSIX today?  Full networking
>today?  Really?  This is the first I have heard of it.  For you to say
>that Windows NT has those features today, and turn around and call OS/2
>2.1 and its features mythical, is like the pot calling the kettle black.
>Hey at least OS/2 2.0 is a release product.

Back to the "who's product is vaporware argument again."  Well, as has been
said before, If you call NT vaporware, then I can call all of those mythical
apps that will be avaliabe for OS/2 RSN vaporware.  

MS has officially release what is in the first release of NT.  IBM has not
released any information really regarding the next release of OS/2.

All the guy was asking is for people to post about what's planned for the
next version of OS/2.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: pc week and nt
Date: 10 Aug 92 20:46:15 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <65354@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt0059e@prism.gatech.EDU (Garrett Drysdale) writes:
>
>Pete from Microsoft said ... "as for buggy, I don't think so." 
> when  

Please don't miquote me.  I said more to the effect of
"as for buggy, well, I'll take that as name calling"


petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mongoola@engin.umich.edu (Don Prior)
Subject: Re: Hasta la Vista, OS/2
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 20:35:28 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <5919@gemini.cs.nps.navy.mil> rdixon@gemini.cs.nps.navy.mil (robert dixon) writes:

>
>  So, it's back to DOS, and I can multitask during downloads only by
>using two computers, but at least I don't have to look over my
>shoulder for the next "gotcha".
>

Huh?
Why can't you use Desqview or Windows to multitask during downloads?
I have used both (and prefer Windows) and I have a USR Dual Standard
modem, and I get around 1700 cps on compressed files WHILE
multitasking..
Certainly, if you have a 2400 baud modem, it is EASY to multitask
while downloading even with a slow computer.

IF you have a faster modem, you may need a 16550 Uart chip to help, 
but both windows and desqview should be up to the challenge.

As for OS/2... I never got it to multitask my HIGH Speed modem
effectively..  perhaps the new Com Drivers I got from IBM the other
day will help.

Still, I think I'm going to wait for the CSD before I reinstall OS/2.
(BTW: the above multitasking was with DOS apps.. both in windows
and desqview)
From: jvmg9796@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (doc)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: HPFS question
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:40:20 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

Im sorry if this is not the right group to post this in, but I would like
to know what the advantages of the HPFS are (and the disadvantages).  I
dont know much about it, other than that if I have dual boot set up, dos
will not recognize an HPFS-formatted partition.  Ok, but what about an
OS/2 dos compatibility window?  Will dos apps be able to read the HPFS
partition then?  I would assume that if they can, they would only be able
to recognize files which had dos-compatible names (8+3).
So, if my assumptions are correct up to now, then the logical conclusion
would be that unless I am going to run dual boot, there would be no sense
in NOT formatting the partitions HPFS, since dos apps will still be able
to use them in the compatibility window.
Ok, now someone correct me. :)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: os2 support
Date: 15 Aug 92 01:20:59 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Keywords: os2 ms

In article <am6m08l.xtifr@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>
>As far as I know, MS *still* has access to OS/2 code if they want it. 
>And always has.  But I agree that their actions in dropping support for
>the product *do* seem amazing.  I sure *hope* that they have *damn* good
>reasons!!  I have been a big fan of MS for years, but their actions over
>the last year have left a *very* bitter taste in my mouth.  I'd *like*
>to believe that they were justified in what they did, but I have yet to
>hear any substantive comments on this topic from either the MSers or
>IBMers on the group.

Supporting software takes resources.  MS has other more important products
to support (such as NT and Windows).  Moving resources to OS/2 support would
not only take away resources from NT and Windows, but would confuse
the market.  When an ISV comes up and asks "who should I develop for" what
does MS say.  If MS said "Win NT", and then continued to support OS/2 there
would be confusion.  This is my understanding at least.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: CIVENBAH@mizzou1.missouri.edu
Subject: Re: Number of users etc.
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 02:34:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.105922.13684@actrix.gen.nz>
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
 
>The only shelfware "profiles" that I have come across are these:
>
>"I tried to install it on my clone, but it just won't work"
>(a tiny minority.......)
>
>
>"I tried it on my 486/33 with 32 megs of ram and it ran slower that Lords of
>Midnight on a 48K Spectrum!"
>
>"I can't run Ultima VII, so what use is OS/2 anyway?"
>
>"My Grometz/Furtlinger SCSI adpator (only 30 ever made!) won't work with
>OS/2.......so I junked this deficient OS."
>
>Otherwise, every copy I have sold is in active use. We sell one or two each
>day.........we are looking for aps demand. Already, we have sold Lotus 123/G
>V1.1 and MS Word for OS/2.
 
Add  "I used to use Win3.0, but since 3.1 and OS/2 were released at about the
same time, I got both so that I could compare them.  I did.  I now use
Win3.1.  OS/2 just felt too 'rough' with it's many missing details and lack
of things like SVGA drivers, printer drivers, etc.... Windows still gets the
job done admirably well considering all the shortcomings it has (which are
pointed out again and again by every OS/2 user alive, it seems.)"
 
Brian.