HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael D Kretzer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: PM Terminal Buglets?
Date: 13 Apr 92 01:08:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: uwm.1992Apr13.010853.21094
Reply-To: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Originator: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

From article <1992Apr12.225954.21678@midway.uchicago.edu>, by sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples):
> I kind of like PM Terminal -- I've sort of gotten used to it.
> However, does anyone know how to minimize the terminal session during
> a file transfer?  While dialing?  The session window blocks everything
> on the desktop, and it gets a bit difficult to navigate around while
> PM Terminal is running.  Most odd.

How about selecting "Start Minimized" for your sessions.  This will solve
the dialing problem...I don't know how to fix things during file transfer.

> Actually, there are a number of oddities in PM Terminal.

I've found a few:

1) When downloading/uploading & dialing, you CANNOT move or resize the 
   terminal window.  So if you happened to start the file transfer & the
   window was covering something, it is sometimes difficult (if not
   impossible) to access these icons/windows under the terminal window.
   Why can't you move the window during file transfer?

2) When something is marked, I haven't figured out a key that makes
   softerm 'deselect' the mark besides COPY from the menu.  This wouldn't
   be a problem but when  MARK is selected, the screen freezes :-( 

3) Also, I haven't figured out how to paste into the comm session...it
   is easy enough to copy out of the session, but how do you copy into it?
   I also don't know how to select more than one screenful at a time.

4) You can only select 'Small' or 'Large' for screen fonts...all other
   OS/2 programs usually have a wider variety of font selections.

5) No screen scrollback (I use this feature havily in other comm programs :)

6) Carriage return problems when connecting with Unix systems.  The program
   distinguishes between LF and CR (is there any case where this is a
   benefit?).  The solution is to remap the keyboard so that ENTER/RETURN
   maps to LF...so it isn't 'really' a bug...just a little clunky.

7) Supports ALL of the common file transfer protocols except Zmodem... :-(

8) Overall the interface seems a little 'clunky'...why can't the session
   manager be integrated into the terminal windows?  (everything else in
   OS/2 integrates most functions into one central place, why not PM
   Terminal?).
  

I LOVE the keyboard remap feature and the terminal emulation...they are
WONDEFUL!  But a lot of other things could use a bit of work...

But, hey, what do you expect in an 'applet'?  The PM Terminal 'applet' is
a full-featured communications program in it's own right...and it is
far better than Windows Terminal and such...
From: sidney@borland.com (Sidney Markowitz)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 Release: First Impressions
Organization: Borland International
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 01:53:21 GMT

sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>I miss command history in DOS sessions.  I'd like this to be the
>default.
>
>I also think DIR /OG should be the default.

You should check out 4DOS and 4OS2, both shareware programs available
via ftp from the Simtel20 archives. 4DOS replaces COMMAND.COM and 4OS2
replaces CMD.EXE. They are both from the same vendor and together give
you a common enhanced environment at both the DOS and OS/2 shell
command lines. You get history, command line editing, the ability to
define command aliases (like alias dir `dir /og` if you want),
keystroke macros, extended batch language, and on and on, but as an
extension to your familiar command line environment, not a radical
replacement.

Disclaimer: I have no connection with the authors, J.P. Software,
other than as an enthusiastic customer who highly recommends that you
ftp the files from wsmr-simtel20.army.mil pd:<msdos.4dos> and whatever
the os2 directory there is, or from wuarchive.wustl.edu or
oak.oakland.edu, which have mirror copies of the Simtel20 archives.

 -- sidney markowitz <sidney@borland.com>
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico de Vries.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 V2 isn't being ignored by the press in Vancouver!
Date: 8 Apr 92 07:15:13 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

In <1992Apr7.164931.7409@unixg.ubc.ca> duffy@theory.chem.ubc.ca (Pat Duffy) writes:

>Hi All!

>I just thought I'd let you know (for all of you despairing over the 
>lack of media coverage) that OS/2 is actually getting some coverage in the
>Computer Paper, a free publication with a wide radership in four centres 
>across Canada (of which Vancouver is one and the original).  A brief
>summary of the 3 (count 'em, three!) articles:

>1) OS/2 2.0:  The integrating platform.  Gives a guided tour of the Workplace
>   shell, discusses functionality of same, DOS compatibility, etc.  Very
>   positive.  Sounds like the reviewer has 6.177, because he talks of 
>   "seamless Windows in the future".

Sure hopy they correct that in the next magazine.

>...

>3) Peter Norton talks about OS/2.  Need I say more?

I remember very well some time ago Peter said in BYTE OS/2 was wortless
and would stay so. That was excactly the same moment I lost all trust
in him. But it is interesting to see some of those anti OS/2 people
are changing their minds now.

>So anyway, don't despair - things are looking up!
>-- 
>Patrick Duffy, E-Mail:  duffy@theory.chem.ubc.ca

Nico de Vries
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USENET: nevries@cc.ruu.nl
VOICE : +31-3404-24931
BBS   : +31-30-341401 (Nico De_vries)

IMPORT StdDisclaimer, MyPersonalOpinion;          - O   Place reserved for
Complaints about my spelling to DEV/NUL please.    |    funny joke. Sugestions 
I work for BITECH, I don't SPEAK for BITECH.      \_/   apreciated.
From: pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Customizing the WPS
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:26:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: linus.1992Apr14.152642.4144
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.misc
Organization: Mitre Corporation

In article <JEFF.92Apr13163749@fang.clearpoint.com>, jeff@fang.clearpoint.com
(Jeffrey J. Griglack) wrote:
> 
> 
> I posted this question to comp.os.os2.misc, but I did not get any
> response so here goes:
> 
> I do not have OS/2 2.0 yet, but I played with it at the Boston
> announcement bash.  One of the things that I noticed was that, like
> windows, it appeared that the active window _had_ to be in the
> foreground.  Is there any way to cusomize the setup to allow me to
> have a window recieve input from the keyboard and still be partially
> obscured by another window?
> 
> The reason that I want this is to allow me to have a window become
> active as soon as the mouse is moved into it, without clicking.  This
> is something that I can do on my Sun (running X11R5) and I find that I
> like it.  It makes things a lot faster when switching between tasks on
> the screen.  One of the first programs to be put into the PD on the
> Amiga was NoClick, which allowed the user to make a window active by
> just moving the mouse.
> 

I was at the announcement and got a chance to talk with the developers.
While the current version doesn't support this.  They did say they would
look into supporting this in the next release.

--Heeren
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael D Kretzer)
Subject: Re: 800x600x16
Originator: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Reply-To: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 00:02:43 GMT

From article <cdu6RsG00VIGQR1UV1@andrew.cmu.edu>, by jg3s+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey Michael Gerber):
> Is SVGA 800x600x16 supported in OS/2?  Windows 3.1 (uh, did I say that?)
> has a universal 800x600x16 driver that works with "any" SVGA card.  I
> have a Paridise compatible card and from what I've seen on this BBoard,
> it looks like you can not do more than 320x200x256 (standard VGA)
> without a driver from the card manufacturer.  And since Paridise thinks
> OS/2 is dead, I don't see them coming out with one soon.  
> 
> If there is a universal 800x600x16 driver with OS/2, does it do seemless
> Windows?  

There is not a universal 800x600x16 SVGA driver for the WPS desktop, if that's
what you're asking.  The only SVGA support in GA at the moment is being able
to manage screen switches from full-screen/windowed SVGA screens to WPS (works 
flawlessly with my Tseng ET4000-Plus...I can use the WP 5.1 1024x768x256
driver in fullscreen mode and switch back&forth from WPS to WP 5.1 with no
ill effects).

A generic SVGA driver is supposed to be forthcoming (along with additional
drivers for a variety of boards).
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: tj@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Terry Jones)
Subject: Re: Ready for prime time? (Was Re: OS/2 musings)
Organization: UTCS Public Access
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 19:03:01 GMT

>Still, I personally would rather wait for another three months to
>get an OS/2 2.0 as polished as win3.1 is right now...

Well, you still can wait. And thats not bad advice. Let the guys that
like to live on the bleeding edge take the copies with serial number 1
out of the shrink wrap and try it on every possible hardware configuration
under the sun and report the problems to IBM. No amount of waiting
and testing on IBM's part could equal a couple of months on real machines
in real users hands (some of these users are of course barely able to make
toast using a device as high tech as a toaster) Then you can get yours
including bug fixes later. The way I see it IBM didn't do things very much
differently than Apple did with system 7 (and 7.01 and patches 1.0, 1.1 1.11),
nor different from the way Microsoft released Windows 3.0. 3.1 has the
advantage of being a "point" release whereas 2.0 is a major release. The
net traffic after Windows 3.0 was awsome. Now the same with OS/2 2.0.


tj
From: gt0040a@prism.gatech.EDU (Thomas Michael Sorensen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: PC Week Summary: 4/6/92
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:51:41 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In <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:
>>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

30,000 beta testers- Stac made a multiplication error <g>. MS is truely brain
dead if they think OS/2 will only sell 200000 copies though- the corporations
will eat more than that alone. Add in end users and you have sales in the
millions (mostly corporate).

>1-800-3-IBM-OS2 number?  100 operators?  I think that's more than even 2-4

They have 300 operators right now, are taking approx. 2400 orders a day. They
would have more operators but they're at capacity right now! (As per the OS/2
people in the IBM tower here in Atlanta, where the ordering info is being done).

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

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

I don't know about Win 3.1, but OS/2 2.0 now has over 1000 ISV's developing
over 2500 32-bit apps. Thats up from 10 last April! 250 alone in the last week!
        Tom Sorensen
-- 
Tom Sorensen              gt0040a@prism.gatech.edu
Georgia Tech 
And no, I don't like this .signature.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: cooper@cedar.cis.ohio-state.edu (frank michael cooper)
Subject: Re: Microsoft wins
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Computer and Information Science
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 13:17:54 GMT

In article <"barnacle.e.489:06.03.92.13.04.41"@clarkson.edu> gthome@ausvm1.VNET.IBM.COM writes:
>In <1992Apr6.123648.10528@cis.ohio-state.edu> frank michael cooper writes:
>>In article <6APR199200454278@venus.tamu.edu> tcf9033@venus.tamu.edu (FREY, TONY C) writes:

>>I work for an OEM.  I convinced them to get a hold of IBM and start making
>>an OS/2 bundle available.  Apparently they were given the cold shoulder by
>>IBM, BUT if they were to send several thousand dollars worth of machines
>>down to Boca (I think 6 of every model which they produce if I remember
>>correctly), they would make the list of compatible machines.  NOT EVEN be
>>certified as an OEM.
>>
>>So, the question is why is IBM turning down such an opportunity to really
>>make OS/2 move and shake in the computer industry.  They're holding all of
>>the marbles, and being rather stingy and tenative with them....
>>

>IBM has been trying to get PC makers to bundle 2.0 with their PCs.  I don't
>know any details of any agreements, but 2.0 will be bundled with PCs from
>OEM suppliers.

I don't know where you got this information, but let me pose another question
given this information.

If IBM was/is trying to get PC makers to bundle 2.0 with their PC's,
wouldn't:

	1)  **** IBM ***** be calling PC makers, not PC makers having to
            call IBM for basic information on this bundling?

	2)  IBM make it easier/more enticing for these PC makers?

	

Mike
-- 
==============================================================================
Mike Cooper                                       Sysop, The Ultimex BBS
The Ohio State University                         (614) 846-2360 @ 14400 v32bis
cooper@cis.ohio.state.edu                         SIMTEL20 CD ROM Online
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: prs@turing.acs.virginia.edu (Phillip R. Scarr)
Subject: Re: DOS Program Icons Under OS/2 - How?
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:18:00 GMT

The file you all are looking for to convert Win icons to OS/2 icons is
cvtico.zip|zoo|lzh|arc|whatever and can be found on novell.com.  Which
directory I don't recall, but it is there.  Maybe the graphics
directory.  It works fine.  I converted a bunch of these rad icons which
were originally in .nil (Norton Icon Library) format and I may post them
to comp.binaries.os2 one of these days.

	-Phil
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: OS/2 ad idea
Date: 7 Apr 92 04:46:25 GMT
Organization: Harvey Mudd College

This is just an idea I had.  I'm not a script writer or anything so
bear with me.

Fade in.  Shot of a stadium set up for track and field, crowd cheering
in the background.  Zoom into and pan by runners getting ready in their
starting blocks for the 400m.

Over the loudspeakers:  "On your marks ..."

Lots of dramatic shots of runners getting ready.

"Get set ..."

"[BANG!]"

Runners fly out of blocks and start hopping forward on one leg each.
Lots of short shots showing each runner is hopping on one leg, just
to drive home how ridiculous this is.

Cut to runner on the inside (which is why I picked the 400m), running
with both legs, as he easily cruises past everyone else.

Narrator: "With Windows or DOS, you only utilize half the power of
your computer's 386 or 486 chip. [pause]  Why cripple your hardware
with inferior software?"

Fade to black with OS/2 logo or something colorful which makes it
obvious this is an OS/2 commercial (NOT the bland blue IBM logo).
(Both Microsoft and Apple commercials do this and it looks nice)

Above person running in race could be replaced by cars (2 wheels),
or anything else that has an even number of crucial parts.  Although
I think the runner would be most effective during something like the
Summer Olympics.
-- 
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: itreleav@fraser.sfu.ca (Ian Anthony Treleaven)
Subject: Re: preemptive multi-tasking
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 04:47:52 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.142141.28823@edwards-vax.af.mil> 
crum@edwards-vax.af.mil writes:
>
>  Now I'm confused about this preemptive multi-tasking thing.  Are you saying
>that if I have 4 DOS applications open in MS Windows and 3 are idle in the
>background, that only the forground application will get CPU cycles, and the 3
>in the background will get none as long as they are idle?
>
>  If one of the background DOS applications is a communications program which
>is not receiving anything, then a download begins, will it take CPU cycles 
>from the forground application as needed to prevent loss of data?
>
Good questions to be sure, but...

I think an issue that is being missed recently in all this scheduling talk
is the underlying I/O implementation - DOS is non-reentrant, so I 
would expect that multiple DOS apps under Windows is a moot point if one
is disk I/O intensive.  I believe Win 3.1 is improved in this department, but
there is a parallel make utility for OS/2 that takes advantage of the DMA I/O,
doing parallel compiles of program souce code modules.  It actually can
compile quicker (by 10-15% I hear) due to the fact that the CPU doesn't
have to hold the disk controller's hand while it does its thing.

Schedulers make no difference when you can't schedule anything!

 
-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
  Ian Treleaven            | No matter where you go, there you are.
  itreleav@sfu.ca          |                                   -Buckaroo Banzai
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: karu@nevada.edu (N.H.A. KARUNARANTE)
Subject: Re: An open letter to PC Magazine
Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:53:34 GMT


karu@nevada.edu
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 09:33:02 CST
From: gthome@ausvm1.VNET.IBM.COM
Subject: Re: Paradise OS/2 2.0 Drivers
Reply-To: gthome@ausvm1.VNET.IBM.COM
Organization: IBM - Austin
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 2.0
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc

In <1992Apr16.121129.14292@news.Hawaii.Edu> Dave Tholen writes:
>Wally Schwarz writes:
>
>> IBM still refuses to ship ANY OS/2 2.0 on 5.25" distribution. What a joke!
>
>Am I misinterpreting your post?  The upgrade form sent by IBM specifically
>allows for a choice of 3.5 or 5.25 inch media.  To me that means they at
>least intend to ship 5.25 inch media, though having not seen shrink wrap of
>either, I can't prove that they're currently shipping 5.25 inch media.
>
There was an earlier append that someone in Toronto saw 3.5 and 5.25 versions
of 2.0 on a college bookstore shelf.

Gerry Thome
IBM - Austin
From: merrill@cs.arizona.edu (Darren Merrill)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 Release: First Impressions
Date: 10 Apr 92 23:20:16 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <rdippold.702930585@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>One thing they're missing... (All you OS/2 utilities programmers).  I
>really miss my file name completion.  I can get it under DOS, of
>course, but not under an OS/2 window.  It's incredibly useful.  You
4OS/2, a CMD.EXE replacement does file name completion and a whole bunch
more (like aliasing..).  I believe you can ftp a copy of 4OS/2 from
hobbes.nmsu.edu.  This is a prerelease copy of their product for OS/2 2.0.
I highly recommend it.

-darren

-- 
Darren Merrill
University of Arizona                 merrill@cs.arizona.edu
From: ak@ananke.stgt.sub.org (Andreas Kaiser)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: OS/2 command shells 
Distribution: world
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 18:23:05 GMT


In article <rhoward.703193324@matd> rhoward@matd.gatech.edu writes:

  > Does anyone know anything about the possiblility of a port
  > of TCSH?  That is one great C-shell (with tons o' enhancements)!

There is one single serious problem with porting *any* Unix shell to
OS/2: There is no fork(). Unix shells have forks embedded in the code
which cannot be replaced by spawn..() without rewriting the whole
routines, doing a lot of environment/filedescr/variable/.. management.

Some text in EMX 0.8c (GCC 2.1 for OS/2) announces a fork() for the
next version. Well, I'd be glad, but it's a quite complicated piece of
work.

		Gruss, Andreas

:::::::::::::::::::: subnet:  ak@ananke.stgt.sub.org
:: Andreas Kaiser :: fidonet: 2:241/7220.9
::::::::::::::::::::
From: gt6493c@prism.gatech.EDU (gt6493c FLUHR,ERIC J)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: HPFS logical drive size
Summary: Well FAT, SEE YA!
Date: 9 Apr 92 00:11:29 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

Hello there.  Sorry for the rather basic question, but I've been wondering
about this for a while.
I was told a long time back that you shouldn't divide your hard drive
into partitions longer than 32MB, since performance would be worse the
larger the size over 32 (this is for FAT).  I wasn't sure how to take 
this, since I thought the reason many systems kept to the 32MB limit
was because of DOS < 4.0.  
Is this true?  Thinking about it I can understand why a 120MB logical
drive may, on average, access slower due to the possibility of longer
seek times (only for moderately filled drives, though).
So is formatting a 120MB HPFS drive into smaller drives a good idea,
even though it wouldn't have the same long seek times for a full
drive?
If so, what is a good size?  Right now I am running 3 40MB partitions
under DOS 5.0.

This question is for my (future) copy of GA.  Finally, my Windows will
be put to good use (other than gathering dust).

Thanks,
-- 
Fluhr, Eric J.                           Georgia Institute of Technology
Awesome, Underrated, Developed in Ingolstadt:  Audi, the #1 imported
German car.  Better than a cold Becks, even.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: jeffpar@microsoft.com (Jeff PARSONS)
Subject: Re: Windows as an OS Again
Date: 08 Apr 92 06:17:34 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

I watched most of the IBM OS/2 2.0 introduction that was broadcast via
satellite today, and thought I might point out IBM's own Fernand Sarrat
referred to OS/2 with its integrated DOS and Windows support as "three
operating systems in one".  I have no illusion that this will put an
end to the pointless debate here, I just thought you might be interested.

Another minor observation I made after watching Lee Reiswig demonstrate
the DOS and Windows support was that I couldn't recall anyone using those
tired phrases "better dos than dos" or "better windows than windows".
Not even a demonstration of how OS/2 multitasked disk-intensive apps with
cpu-intensive apps so well ( at least as compared to Windows).  I suspect
Win31 has taken some wind out of those particular sails.

Their demo could have gone a little smoother too.  Lee almost forgot to
demo some cool multimedia software at one point (fun stuff to watch but
not too germane to their purpose I think) and he probably wished he had
forgotten because they tried to start Reversi afterward and it didn't
come up.  One of his early points was that while the OS/2 code was golden
they were running lots of beta code in the form of new 32-bit applications.
I wondered why that really mattered for an environme..  I mean operating
system.. as robust as OS/2.

Jeff Parsons
Not a Microsoft spokesperson
Just a former OS/2 1.x/2.0 developer having a little good-natured fun :)