HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rommel@jonas.gold.sub.org (Kai Uwe Rommel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking
Subject: Re: ibm tcp/ip a ripoff?
Date: 12 Jan 93 13:57:52 GMT
Organization: Private

In article <C0pB29.6Lx@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umcarls9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Carlson) writes:
>In <1iratf$aqq@agate.berkeley.edu> ucbked@athena (Earl H. Kinmonth) writes:
>>c) few ethernet cards supported (compared to wattcp with clarkson
>>packet drivers);
>
>That's why I stick with WD/SMC stuff, its ALWAYS supported.  Perhaps you
>should contact the manufacturer of the card for MAC and NDIS drivers for OS/2?

That's plain wrong. There are *plenty* of NDIS drivers for all kind of
cards for OS/2 LAN manager/server. All of them should work with
TCP/IP. Now, only a few NDIS drivers come with TCP/IP. Check the disk
you got with your network card and you will probably find NDIS drivers
for OS/2 LAN manager/server. Plug that in (and fix protocol.ini
accordingly) and it will most certainly work. I have used quite a
number of cards now (to try them out) this way and all of them worked
although not initially supported by TCP/IP from IBM.

In my archives I have almost 2MB worth of NDIS drivers for network
cards for OS/2. Take a look at ftp-os2.nmsu.edu or uunet (where MS has
drivers for LAN manager for ftp) if your card did not come with one.

>>i) hard to setup (xenix tcp/ip took me about three hours from
>>openning the box to a reliable anonymous ftp service; wattcp took
>>about an hour from loading to basic operation; with os2, i'm
>>still at it weeks later).
>
>It took me about as long to get going as it did to install it and read the
>online docs.  I wasn't setting up for nameservers however.  Which caused
>another problem in that even if the /etc/resolv.conf file exists, it still
>"hangs" looking for a nameserver.

Same here, installation was rather easy, I did never install a TCP/IP
product on a PC before, so I was a beginner here. The nameserver
problem has disappeared, I do *not* have a /tcpip/etc/resolv file.

Kai Uwe Rommel

--
/* Kai Uwe Rommel                                      Muenchen, Germany *
 * rommel@jonas.gold.sub.org                       Phone +49 89 723 4101 *
 * rommel@informatik.tu-muenchen.de                  Fax +49 89 723 7889 */

DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt
handler, and always will be.                -Russell Williams
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 4 Jan 1993 17:07:17 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan4.162944.29921@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>The problem is that clone makers' discounts for paying a royalty for MS-DOS
>>and Windows for every machine they ship are in no way connected with the
>>volume.
>	And that contract is only one of many, and it's in the minority.

Tried to buy a new name-brand clone lately?

>	Want to check that again?  Cyrix and AMD chips aren't selling
>	all that wonderfully--they'd sure be doing better if it weren't for
>	Intel's behavior.

Tell that to the AMD 386/40 in my home machine.

-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of all Fears_
From: z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: <None>
Date: 6 Jan 93 03:52:04 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University


	We have OS/2 2.1 Beta installed and running on a machine, and I must
say it's WIN 3.1 support is very well done. Seamless Windows is very usable,
Multimedia is included. It was quite suprising to run Microsoft's Cinemania
in a Win OS/2 Session, from a Creative Labs CD Rom, with both CD info, and
Sound coming through, the SB Pro OS/2 Driver.  For a Beta, this one is
impressive. True there are bugs, and some things need to be worked out.

Perhaps one of the best things I have heard from IBM, was when John Soyring was
asked if OS/2 2.1 would be shipping in March, Since the Beta Program is
sheduled to end Feb 28th. He replied, That they would not give a firm date, but
Quality was more important.

Advocacy starts here. With the NT release drawing closer, what effect would a
late ( and I speculate, a worst case scenario ) May - June Release of OS/2 2.1
have if 2.1 really is Rock Solid, Better (faster, and  more stable) Windows 
than Windows?

Imagine, you could run Microsoft's Full Motion Video Multimedia, while doing a
Download, running a BBS, doing a Backup, etc....

And It would be possible under OS/2, not Window 3.1, and maybe NT.

While on the Subject of NT vs OS/2, has anyone tried to run Dos games under NT?
anything like Wing Commander II, F-15 Strike Eagle III, etc???

While games may not seem like a reason to choose an OS, I wonder how many home
users would choose OS/2 over NT( assuming home users would buy NT )?

The Video game market is very large, and probably the Fastest Growing segment
in personal computing. It could be a real Factor in Widespread acceptance of
any OS outside of corporate use.

BTW, any of the games mentioned above DO require a system that is already
capable of running OS/2, if you enable all of the features.

When I was at Condex, I tried Microsoft's Full Motion Video under Windows.
Hey, It is a slick product. Just don't try to start Word for Win while it is
running, It Chokes, coughs, and studders.

IBM has a similar Multimedia Package, also very slick, and you can start Word
for Win in a Win OS/2 session, with missing a beat.

BTW Phil, and Herr Malloy. No Cheap, Rude, Crass, or unsubstantiaded rumors in
this post. :)

Michael kupka
From: sl31+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen M. Lacy)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: SGI-GL in Windows NT??
Date: 8 Jan 93 07:14:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.MfHPO8_00WBKQ2Y5pM
Organization: Junior, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.os2.advocacy: 8-Jan-93 Re: SGI-GL in
Windows NT?? by Dan Cogswell@vela.acs.oa 
> >>workstation level, in my opinion.  If NT will have GL standard, I will
> >>most likely be switching over from OS/2.
>  
> >OK...what is SGI-GL, and what's so great about it?
>  
> It's Silicon Graphics Graphics Language.  It's one of the nicest
> graphics languages on the market (so I've heard -- I've never used it).
> What this means is NT will have 3D graphics built-in.  

GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!  SGI-GL without the SGI hardware would be complete
bullshit!  Can you say SLOW?  SGI sounds really nice on paper, but it
only works in hardware, which the PC's of today don't have.  I would
assume that any OS ported to the SGI machines would include GL, or some
variant of equal functionality, so I would expect the SGI version of NT
to have GL, but not all the versions.  

About having 3D graphics built in. Here -- I'll write you an OS/2 DLL
and call it an "operating system extension" Ok, OS/2 has 3-D graphics
built in too, all you have to do is get it from some ftp site (no, I'm
not actually working on this) 

Steve, helping the uninformed.




"I get one last phone call?  Can a dial up and check my mail?"
From: mike.dickson@almac.co.uk (Mike Dickson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for
Date: 5 Jan 93 16:47:00 GMT
Reply-To: mike.dickson@almac.co.uk (Mike Dickson)
Organization: Almac BBS Ltd. +44 (0)324 665371

PL..>F-Fear- Fear that Using OS/2 and DOS on the same machine would be dangerous
PL.. It is.  DOS 6 may make your FAT partitions unreadable by
PL.. OS/2 or other operating systems.

Congratulations, Phil. You may have put lots of people right off using
MS-DOS 6.0, irrespective of whatever the finalised code actually does.

PL..Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.

That may be a good thing. <g>

/\/\ | |< |.                                     mike.dickson@almac.co.uk
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . Real programmers don't have floppy disks.
                                                                     
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: leo@rulhp2.leidenuniv.nl (L. Mekenkamp)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization:  Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science ; Univ. of Leiden ; the Netherlands
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 17:41:01 GMT


>     I honestly don't know if Intel has undocumented stuff on
>their chips, though, so the analogy is not a very tight one.
>
>
>			-Phil
>
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
>philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
>Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
>

Ehhhm, Intel does seem to have some *undocumented* stuff though. Wasn't there
an instruction around that wasn't documented? And how about NeXTSTeP not workingon the Cyrix 486 (cx486DLC & cx486SLC) ?

Leo

Leo Mekenkamp
Leiden University, The Netherlands
Mekenkamp@RulWinWST.Leidenuniv.NL
	     ^^^
Nothing to do with MS, believe me...
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: The Cyrix Issue...
Date: 10 Jan 93 23:34:43 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1993Jan11.023720.22106@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
> In article <1iqhtjINNdav@gap.caltech.edu> scratchy.caltech.edu!kasturi (Tejaswi Kasturi) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan9.012848.3728@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu  
>>(Yamanari) writes:
>>> 	The one that doesn't--or *suppposedly* doesnt (I don't believe
>>> 	it for a second) is NeXT486.  Supposedly, it will only run on
>>> 	a genuine Intel 486SX or DX.  The Cyrix 486slc (?) is a full 
>>> 	80486 sans coprocessor (and Cyrix's external is faster than the
>>> 	DX's internal one).  NS486 will probably run fine--but NeXT
>>> 	says no.
>>
>>The Cyrix 486slc does not have the full Intel 486 Instruction set and thus  
>>will only run 386 capable apps and not 486-specific apps.
>>
>>The name 486slc is a misnomer since it is really just a 386sx with cache  
>>(much like IBM's 386slc chip)
> 
> 	<sigh>
> 
> 	This has been gone over a number of times before.  The Cyrix 486
> 	chips (slc, dlc) have the full 80486 instruction set minus the
> 	FPU instructions.
> 
	What we have here is a basic disagreement.  I have read in numerous
articles that the Cyrix 486 chip is exactly what was said above:
a 386sx with a 2K onchip cache and  a few extra instructions that
are math related.  It is NOT a 486 class processor (in terms of
compatibility).

						-Brad


> 
> -- 
7
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell)
Subject: Re: SGI-GL in Windows NT??
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 15:55:45 GMT

furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod) writes:

>But seriously, what is the necessity of requiring a 3D graphics
>language as part of an OS offering. It's a tool that has it's place
>in apps, but I see no usefulness at this point in time of requiring
>inadequate video hardware to support it. (Silicon Graphics, etc.
>excluded, ofcourse).

I started this whole thread saying, "If NT has GL, I will be switching."
I think it's funny that all these people are telling me I don't need it.
You're right.  I don't need it:  I could implement all the GL functions
myself.  And in about 4 years, I could do something with it.

I'm not arguing that it's a general-purpose feature.  I'm not saying
John Q. Spreadsheet is going to need it but (1) It IS significant to
some people (e.g., myself) and (2) Microsoft is going to hav bragging
rights ("Get your NT now with 3D graphics...").  



-- 
Dan Cogswell               Or as we say in Michigan:  "Dee-troit"
From: scratchy.caltech.edu!kasturi (Tejaswi Kasturi)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: This is an OS/2 newsgroup!
Date: 9 Jan 1993 01:21:29 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: scratchy.caltech.edu
Originator: kasturi@scratchy

Geez, all the articles being posted have very little to do with OS/2!
This is comp.os.os2.advocacy, not alt.flame.microsoft!  If you want to  
bash microsoft, do it in one of the MSDOS or Windows newsgroups, there are  
quite a few to speak of.  Here, speak of the merits of OS/2.

Tej Kasturi
kasturi@cco.caltech.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: 5692330@mcmail.com  (Robert Gammon)
Subject: Re: MS to 'support' OS/2?
Nntp-Software: PC/TCP NNTP
Organization: Texas Instruments Materials and Controls Group
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 12:45:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.174203.9145@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> ucgadkw@ucl.ac.uk (Dominik Wujastyk) writes:

 >> hilmera@storm.CS.ORST.EDU (Andrew Hilmer) writes:
 >> 
 >> >In article <1992Dec28.105039.6803@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> ucgadkw@ucl.ac.uk (Dominik Wujastyk) writes:
 >> >>Yes, Microsoft Word 5.5 for DOS also runs under OS/2 2.0 (and under
 >> >>earlier versions, back to 1.0).  The only difference I can detect
 >> >>is that the "File" menu choice for dropping down to the operating system
 >> >>says "DOS" and "OS/2" respectively when running under the different
 >> >>systems.
 >> 
 >> >I suppose that it is too much to hope that W5.5 would support HPFS
 >> >filenames.  I would rather hunt around and buy a used copy of Word
 >> >than blow two month's rent on Describe... and I am hoping for a
 >> >perfect solution.  Rotsa Ruck, eh?
 >> 
 >> I'm pretty certain MS Word 5.5 doesn't support HPFS under OS/2, since
 >> it is *really* an OS/2 1.x program, and I believe HPFS only came in
 >> with 2.0. (Perhaps I'm wrong about that?)
 >> 

Wrong, HPFS has been a part of OS/2 since at least version 1.2.  I have used
HPFS from 1.21, 1.3 and 2.0 versions of OS/2.  Agreed that Word doesn't 
understand HPFS filenames, M$ programmmers did not code for HPFS filespecs,
only for FAT filespecs.

 >> Also, HPFS isn't mentioned in the docs I have; just memory and the OS 
 >> menu choice.  (And some trivial stuff about installation.)
 >> Dominik


--
Regards,
Robert Gammon
(713)-274-3299       (voice)
(713)-274-2324       (fax)

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: 5692330@mcimail.com  (Robert Gammon)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Nntp-Software: PC/TCP NNTP
Organization: Texas Instruments Materials and Controls Group
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:34:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.220817.1977@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:

 >> In article <1993Jan02.094926.14462@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
 >> >>>
 >> >>>- OS/2 Detected! Due to the size of OS/2 you may wish to delete your OS/2 
 >> >>>files before installing DOS 6.0 -
 >> >
 >> >If DOS is advanced enough to detect the presence of potential
 >> >disk hoggers (what does it do? Keep a database?) it should
 >> >certainly be smart enough to tell if there is room enough.
 >> >If it finds too little room, it should just say so, not
 >> >indicate anything as a potential problem. It is silly to
 >> >give messages like, X detected. If there are many X's which
 >> >one would be the problem? If there are no X's then what to
 >> >do? No piece of software should be a smartass, let the user
 >> >decide what he does and does not need.
 >> >
 >> Well, assuming some sort of nasty conspiracy (about software not even
 >> yet released!) is always mucho fun, but I think there's something else
 >> going on here.  There are a number of people, believe it or not, who try
 >> OS/2 2.0 and decide it's not for them (as I did, though I have hopes for
 >> version 2.1 when it appears next summer (which is, by my experience,
 >> about when IBM will actually ship me a copy!)).  Microsoft has already
 >> had a package deal out in the marketplace for PS/1 (and other True Blue
 >> machines) that are/might be equipped with OS/2 (DOS 5 and Windows 3.1
 >> for a 'package' price).  This wording (which doesn't quite ring true, as
 >> far I as can determine, but who knows?) might just be to alert someone
 >> to make a decision: keep OS/2 or not?
 >> 

One of my co-workers recently bought a 486-33 IBM ValuePoint witht OS/2 2.0 
installed on the hard drive.  This occured in the last two weeks.  In the 
documentation package shipped with the machine was a coupon to return for a
copy of DOS 5 + Windoze.  He thinks that the package is free (although maybe
not, he wasn't very interested in this feature).  Looks like IBM has met M$'s
offer and then some.

--
Regards,
Robert Gammon
(713)-274-3299       (voice)
(713)-274-2324       (fax)

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: philco@microsoft.com (Phillip Cooper)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 05 Jan 93 16:43:03 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <C0750H.DsB@csulb.edu> sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.172229.3466@microsoft.com> philco@microsoft.com (Phillip Cooper) writes:
>>
>>All right, this mis-information being spread is getting a little out of
>>hand.  It is true that *one* type of licensing contract offered to system
>>vendors charges royalties per computer.  It is also true that another
>>type of licensing contract charges royalties per copy of OS sold.  There
>>are many variations of each, and they cover just about every conceivable
>>type of licensing you can imagine.  It is *completely* up to the vendor
>>to choose which contract to use.  If they choose to go with the one charging
>>royalties for each machine sold it is because they get larger volume
>>discounts and the vast, vast majority of customers want MSDOS anyway.  
>>
>>If you don't like it, complain to the hardware vendor that chose this
>>licensing arrangement, rather than one which charges only for each copy
>>of the OS sold.  They are the ones, after all, that made the choice.
>
>  But you are ignoring the possibility that such a tying agreement *may*
>be anti-competitive and illegal under U.S. anti-trust law.
>
>

Tying?? What tying agreement are you talking about?  

Phil Cooper

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bangell@cs.utah.edu (bob angell)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 3 Jan 93 23:48:00 MST

>[I deleted a lot--I hope the attribution is correct.]
>
>|> 
>|> 	Might I offer a suggestion?  Perhaps the 
>|> 	warning was to prevent the user from installing the DOS6 
>|> 	beta using the Stacker-like disk compression program.  This
>|> 	would, quite simply, render OS/2 unusable.  
>
>Really?  I have 260Mb on my system - none of it FAT.  If I took one
>partition--say 20Mb and made it a DOS 6 FAT bootable partition, that
>would make OS/2 unusable?  The compressed FAT partition might not be

what I meant to say was that it would render data-sharing unusable
between the two operating systems....did not mean it would render
OS/2 unusable unless it was set-up as a dual-boot ... then one will
have problems.

>accessable by OS/2, but that hardly makes OS/2 'unusable.'
>
>By the way, besides disk compression, why would I want DOS 6? What are
>the features that make me want to change from OS/2?  Memory management
>is a non issue.  About the only thing I can think of is if I was
>developing software and I wanted to check DOS 6 compatability.
>
>Can anyone suggest advantages for DOS6?
>--
>Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
>bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
>                              |  Scrupulous Lawyer
-Bob-

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris)
Subject: Re: No TrueType Fonts in OS/2 2.1 ?!
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 17:34:29 GMT

rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:

> [ yet another TrueType - vs - PostScript discussion ]

>                          MS's TT engine is slow - very slow.  So slow
>in fact that Corel actually built their own TT rasterizer for CorelDraw
>because their customers were complaining about how slow TT font printing
>was.

I don't have any particular inside info on this issue, but it seems more
likely that the special requirements of Corel -- in particular, the ability
to take a rendered glyph and allow the user to manipulate the individual
primitive elements which are used to produce it -- would require a special
engine for *any* font technology.

Normally, if you want to use the character "A"  on a computer, your program
needs only to manipulate the single ASCII byte 0x41.  In a WYSIWIG system,
you also need to know the vertical and horizontal extent of the rendered
glyph, but that's all: you send the ASCII character to the output device
without any interest in the number or characteristics of the lines and 
curves which are used to construct the glyph.

In Corel, however, you have the ability to manipulate the rendered glyphs
as graphic elements, so there are special requirements placed on the
interface to any scalable fonts...and thus the need for a special driver.

The same comments would apply to Adobe's TypeAlign program as it uses
PostScript T1 fonts.

Comments?

Joe Morris
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: hendrik@vedge.com (Hendrik Boom)
Subject: Re: If things had been different... (was: FCC etc)
Organization: Visual Edge Software Ltd.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:42:59 GMT

insom@galaxy.ucr.edu (Chris Ulrich) writes:
: 
:   Isnt everyone missing the boat with the "Why didnt IBM use the 68k and
: not the (blech) 8088?" argument?  After all, to my knowledge, the 68k
: did not exist in 1981, which is when the PC came out (it might have been

The 68K DID exist when the PC was being designed, and the 68008 was expected real soon then.  Perhaps the real reason was that the 16-bit bus would
have increased the price??

: early 82, but my old PC1 motherboard from a first generation pc, which
: didnt even have roms to support a hard disk, and could only support 544k
: of ram, has roms dated 1981).  
:   The choice of the day was between the Z80, 8086, or 6809.  They
: originally wanted to use the 6809 but motorola was not able to assure
: enough supply.  
:   This is all ancient history, so every one blends all of the early
: eighties together, as if the 68k existed, or was available in supply
: when IBM wanted to ship.  This is not the case.
: chris
: --
: insom@ac.ucr.edu			You wouldnt treat me this 
: insom@ucrvms				way if I were a penguin
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
Try one or more of the following addresses to reply.
at work:	hendrik@vedge.com,  iros1!vedge!hendrik
at home:	uunet!ozrout!topoi!hendrik
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rew3q@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Russell Ellsworth Wolfe)
Subject: Re: 32 Bit HPFS
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:41:13 GMT

sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu  writes:
> setting), a security front end with protection for critical files is a
> good idea; in that case, PC/DACS (Pyramid) is probably the way to go.
> 
Tim,
This is precisly what we are looking for at UVa.  We would like
to have the type of protection that NT affords, I had hoped to
see this under a future version of OS/2.  HAving to 'log on' to
a system with defined rights is the answer to the prayers of
many a frustrated lab supervisor that is trying to keep hard
disks 'clean'.  What is this PC/DACS, and is it for dos, OS/2,
or am I completely misunderstanding its purpose??  Please
answer me by e-mail, if you would.

				Russ Wolfe
				Academic Computing Center
				University of Virginia

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy