HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hsr4@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: Simulating keyboard input
Date: 13 Apr 92 10:32:21 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAXcluster

In article <1992Apr9.144708.25747@unx.sas.com>, sasegb@toklas.unx.sas.com (Elizabeth Brownrigg) writes:
> DOS 5.0:
> 
> I've got a screen saver program that's initialized in my
> autoexec.bat file during startup.  The program displays
> an introductory screen that disappears only when it receives
> input from the keyboard.  I'd like to put a statement
> in my autoexec.bat file that simulates a keystroke from
> the keyboard, so I don't have to hit a key to get the
> program to finish loading, and the rest of the autoexec statements
> to be executed.
> 
> Is there any way I can do this?
> 
> Thanks for your help.

If you like experimenting with DOS commands in batch files, one route is to
redirect a keypress with perhaps ECHO.  This falls down if your receiving
application does sneaky things like flushing the keyboard buffer before
settling down to scan for a keypress.

There is also a PD utility called KEY-FAKE which sounds as though it might do 
what you want.  As I recall, it's a TSR which can be programmed to send single
or multiple key sequences (to bypass that annoying intro screen in dBASE III+,
for example, without having to wait for timeout).

It should be available in archives your side of The Pond; otherwise, it's
available from Lancaster University archives (ftp - Internet 148.88.64.2,
login anonymous, password pdsoft unless instructed otherwise).  The file is
codenamed e568 and can be found in micros/ibmpc/dos/e/e568.  I haven't checked
recently, but there will be more than one file.

If you can't obtain it, let me know and I'll provide it for you.

Hope this helps.
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Peter G. Q. Brooks HSR4@UK.AC.OX.VAX |   "If we get the technology right,  |
| Health Services Research Unit        |  then for male pattern baldness it  |
| Dept of Public Health & Primary Care |   could be a case of 'Gone today,   |
| University of Oxford                 |       Hair tomorrow...'"  Anon      |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,alt.msdos.programmer,comp.os.msdos.programmer
From: adingus@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Aaron T Dingus)
Subject: Programmer running out of memory
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 01:02:28 GMT

If anyone out there can help me it would be greatly appreciated.

If have an old Turbo Pascal (v 3.011A), and I have been writing some
stuff that maxes out the memory capabilities of the .COM files it can
create.

The reason for this is mainly the huge amount of data I have been using.

I usually just declare the variables regularly.  I am wondering,
however, if I could absolute address them to some area of memory that
is not being used for anything or is being wasted by the compiler's
inefficency.

If want to be careful about this, I don't want to over write
anything important.

If anyone out there knows how to max out .COM files like this, or has
any suggestions, please feel free to drop me a line.

Thanks.

-ATD
-- 
Aaron T. Dingus
Professional Athelete
The Ohio State Univeristy
adingus@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
From: nathan engle <nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Error while running at 33 Mhz
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 11:43:39 -0500

roy schmidt <rschmidt@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>> MDS128@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>>I've been having a problem running at 33 Mhz but not at 16 Mhz on my 386.
>
>If you are mechanically/electronically adept, pop the hood and take a
>look.  Your RAM should be 60 ns or better (better being smaller) refresh
>rate.

    I run a 33MHz 386 at home at 0 wait states with 70ns SIMMs (which I
believe is the recommended access time listed in the manual for the
motherboard). If the system was running even intermittently for a couple
days at 33MHz then I'd be tempted to try simply reseating the SIMMs. In
my experience intermittent problems like this one are almost always due
to poor contact or dirty connectors. After all, the RAM still works at
the slower speed and it worked for a while at the higher speed. I'd bet
my money on it being a SIMM that was jarred loose during shipping, or a
connection that's been affected by dust or (more likely) humidity.

>Maybe you can't afford to send it in, but if you paid for the computer,
>you probably can't afford *not* to send it in for repairs.

    Hear, hear. Something like this is probably even covered by the
warantee so it's a good idea to get it taken care of before the warantee
runs out.

-- 
Nathan Engle             Software Juggler
Indiana University       Dept of Psychology
nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Multiple Graphics Cards on a PC?
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 04:12:32 GMT

mike@x.co.uk (Mike Moore) writes:

>I have a particularly specialised need in that I would *really* like to
>be able to have two video cards attached to a single PC bus, each card
>controlling independently addressable monitors.

It's easy, with some restrictions.

If you have (for example) a VGA monitor, your second monitor can *only*
be a TTL Monochrome monitor attached to a Hercules Compatible graphics
card. Ditto if your primary monitor is EGA (with EGA or CGA monitor)

It gets weireder if you have something like VGA mono, or EGA mono. I
think that then you can only use a *CGA* as the second screen...

Note that you can only use the *first* graphics screen on the Hercules card
unless your VGA card will disable the overlapped address space (B800)

The only card I know of that does this is the Hercules VGA card.

You can switch from the color monitor to the mono monitor by typing
	MODE MONO
at a DOS prompt. And you can switch in the other direction with
	MODE CO80
(note: C-Oh-8-Zero)

It's a bit trickier under program control...

-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/56	 Leonard.Erickson@f56.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS address is checked daily. The others infrequently)
From: mglacy@lamar.ColoState.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Redirect lpt1 to <file>
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:45:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

Please excuse if this is an FAQ: I'd like a generic way to redirect
output from an application from lpt1|2 to a file.  Obviously, many
(e.g., word-processing) programs provide this feature, but I'd
like some way to do this when the application does not provide
for such redcirection. I can't figure out any standard DOS
way to do this; I'd thought of some trick involving tweaking
port addresses or something.  Does anyone have any ideas
or pointers?  (E-Mail or postings are fine).

Thanks.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mike Lacy  Dept. of Sociology  Colo. State Univ.   Fort Collins CO 80523
Opinions and truth-claims offered above are mine, not my employer's.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: jdz1@Ra.MsState.Edu (John D. Zitterkopf)
Subject: Stack config settings, Does it Work?
Organization: Mississippi State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 04:50:56 GMT
Expires: Sat, 8 Aug 1992 05:00:00 GMT

Hi, 
	I was looking in my Quick reference for MS-DOS and I noticed that 
when I placed the following commands in my config.sys file, DOS5.0 didn't
like it!!!!! 
	stacks=1,128
What's wrong with it? Does anyone else mess with it? What advantages would
stacks=0,0 have? What are ALL the allowed settings for this command?

Thanks,
P.S. Please E-mail to me...

John

--
 ____________   _------_  |||IBM & |      EE majors Do it Best 8-)
  --------\\ ] ~-______-~ |||Atari |~~~~~~~~~John D. Zitterkopf~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     (~~~~~\\|_(__ ~~    / | \Rules!jdz1@ra.MsState.edu  jdz1@MsState.bitnet
      \______| (        /  |  \    |   MLzitter@Arrakis.EE.Msstate.edu 
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: ramzi@tigger.Colorado.EDU (Ramzi Al-Majid)
Subject: HIMEM/EMM386
Keywords: n
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 20:47:57 GMT



how can i load drivers and other things in high memory using himem/emm386 ?

i loaded both himem and emm386 using the device command in config.sys but
how do i load the mouse driver, doskey, adn the antivirus for example in
high memory???

thanks

-- 
Computer Science Department	arpanet : ramzi@cs.colorado.edu
Univ. of Colorado - Boulder	bitnet  : ramzi@boulder.bitnet
Campus Box # 430		csnet   : ramzi@boulder.csnet
Boulder, Co 80309-430		uucp    : {ncar|nbires}!boulder!ramzi
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: Microsoft (Was Re: Someone explain this to me...)
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:02:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: lims01.14APR199213022170
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <2185@transfer.stratus.com>, jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com 
writes...
>Frankly, I have used Microsoft products and 
>found them to be, by and large, solid products and, in at least
>a couple of cases (Word for Windows, Word for DOS, Excel) the best
>of class.

I guess that I'll put my flame-thrower back in its holster and simply state 
"Your Mileage May Vary."

JD
(while muttering "Word for DOS - best of class????")
From: johnson@spectra.com (boyd johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 Question
Date: 12 Apr 92 07:35:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: spectra.1992Apr12.073543.25680
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.misc
Organization: Spectragraphics Corporation

In article <1992Apr12.014247.27405@cco.caltech.edu> brent@cco.caltech.edu (Brent R. Eubanks) writes:
>I have a single question -- please post a reply here:
>
>Can you do true multitasking of DOS boxes with OS/2?   Can I, for
>example, use Telix to download files in one window, unzip them at the
>msdos command line in another window, and run a newly aquired
>application in the third.

Yes.
I haven't used OS/2 personally, but according to the IBM rep I talked to
at the OS/2 rollout last week this is no problem.
I saw a combination of DOS windows, DOS applications and Windows
applications running concurrently in different OS/2 windows.
According to him you won't get the hangs & disconnects you'll get if you
try downloading and doing something else while in MS-Windows.

This really should be in the OS/2 groups.
I've redirected follow-ups to comp.os.os2.misc

-- 
======== Boyd Johnson    nosc!spectra.com!johnson  San Diego, Ca. ========
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.os.msdos.apps
From: xdab@kimbark.uchicago.edu (David Baird)
Subject: Leading Edge > Mac Word 5
Reply-To: xdab@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 02:34:51 GMT

I am a Macintosh user who has an unusual (at least for me) request
that the net DOS experts may be able to help me with.

I have a customer who wrote her dissertation on a Leading Edge DOS box
using the "Leading Edge" software provided by the manufacturer. But
this software can not do the formatting necessary for a University of
Chicago dissertation and we need to get the files translated to Word 5
on a Mac.

Does any one know where I can obtain a translator for these files. If
necessary, I can use DOS software to translate to a more mainstream
format before I finish bringing them into Word 5, if such a beast
exits and there is no Mac solution.

Please reply via e-mail. IThanks for your help!

-- 
X=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=X
X            David Baird                   xdab@midway.uchicago.edu   X
X        University of Chicago               d-baird@uchicago.edu     X
X   University Computing Organizations           (312) 702-7161       X
From: ujabanco@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (John Abanco)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 v2.0 - Not as great as I thought
Date: 13 Apr 92 04:58:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: uxa.1992Apr13.045813.22049
Organization: Educational Computing Network

=> You have discovered the biggest problem with OS/2. Many strange
=> errors occur when os/2 has insufficient memory. These errors occur
=> rarely after installation is complete.
=> 
                
Nope. Turned out that there was some conflict with my hard drive and the
software. It's really an installation flaw. I had to make a diskcopy of
DISK1, edit the CONFIG.SYS to REM one line out, reboot, etc.

It was a real pain. And then I spent another 30 minutes installing the
next 15 disks. 30 megs of HD space, 8 megs of memory? Sheesh. Windows
3.1 only needs 10 Megs of HD space, 4 megs of memory. And I can still
run SpeedStor/Dr-DOS and save even more space.


-- 
--My life is such a mess,I end  | INTERNET: ujabanco@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
  up typing.... umop apisdn.    | FIDONET :
        John Abanco             | john.abanco@f769.n115.z1.fidonet.org 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: dat1130@diku.dk (Klaus Petersen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: trouble with Siemens 9021 pageprinter
Keywords: printer
Date: 13 Apr 92 10:50:46 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen


Hello there.....

I hope someone can help me....
I have to connect a Siemens 9021 printer, to some custom applications
and WORDSTAR version unknown...... ( I haven't even seen the setup yet:-)

Can YOU tell me, if the printer can emulate ANY wellknown printers
as proprinter or laserjet etc....

All help would be appriciated... Thanx....

Take Care out there

Klaus Petersen.  CSC-student U of Copenhagen, Denmark
email : klpe@freja.diku.dk
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: The uses of Windows? (was Re: Someone explain this to me...)
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 00:32:56 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Apr13.153950.24649@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant) writes:
> From article <1992Apr13.005048.17603@actrix.gen.nz>, by Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz:
> >> ....
> > I use Windows on a 386. I like being able to do several tasks at the same time
> > - like download a large file from a BBS, while I'm writing a letter in
> > Microsoft Word and printing labels or reports for a local voluntary
> > organisation I do work for. Without Windows, I would have to do these things
> > one after the other (except maybe the printing)....
> 
> You don't need Windows for that!  I run an XT clone!  COMM (a.k.a.
> ByteComm) downloads files in the background, and meanwhile I have most
> of conventional RAM free to do anything else I want, as long as it
> doesn't use the COM port.  Alternatively, I can load DoubleDos, and
> run any of a variety of communications programs in one partition,
> while using Microsoft Word 4.0 (which runs easily in about 256K) in
> the other.  I can even download, print, and interact with DOS, all at
> the same time, using neither Windows nor a 5-digit processor!

I guess the main thing here is that under Windows, EACH of these tasks has
almost 600K available to it, unlike running partitions on an XT, where you can
only divide up the available 640K.
 
Memory is the thing, you see.
 
Steve

-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | "But the glory kept shining
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  and bright in my eyes, 
Ph. +64 4 478-4714  /                   |  And the stars going round in 
FAX between 6am and 1pm Eastern ST      |  my head." R. L. S.
From: yap@minnie.cs.su.OZ.AU (9029357- Peter Burn- Yet another Plague)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: dosshell
Keywords: dosshell
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:23:58 GMT

I have just installed MS DOS 5.0 on our no frills 386-sx machine.
However, while dosshell worked fine on DOS 4.0(1?), when run now
it kills the keyboard... The computer responds to NOTHING typed on
the keyboard, even if you exit from dosshell, until the machine is
re-started. The mouse still works tho.

Does anybody have any suggestions ???

thanks in advance.
Peter
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: brent@cco.caltech.edu (Brent R. Eubanks)
Subject: OS/2 2.0 Question
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 01:42:47 GMT

I have a single question -- please post a reply here:

Can you do true multitasking of DOS boxes with OS/2?   Can I, for
example, use Telix to download files in one window, unzip them at the
msdos command line in another window, and run a newly aquired
application in the third.


-- 
Brent Eubanks                "The meek shall inherit the Earth --
brent@cco.caltech.edu         The rest of us will go to the stars." -- R.H.
--
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: bdj@engr.uark.edu (Bryan D. Jones)
Subject: Re: Anyone have this DOS5/emm386 prob?
Organization: University of Arkansas
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:10:44 GMT

jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris) writes:

>umalexa9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Edward W. Alexander) writes:
>
>>Brief overview:  Every so often i run into certain problems with DOS 5.0
>>		I am running the DOSSHELL and the whole thing completely
>>		locks up.  
>
>Do you have the fixed version of DOSSWAP.EXE?  For MS-DOS systems, the
>fixed copy of the file is dated 6-19-91.  I don't recall the exact
>symptom list, but since it involves DOSSHELL you should make sure that
>you've got it installed before spending too much time chasing down other
>avenues.
>
>Joe Morris

Sometimes I have the same problem.  The date on my copy of DOSSWAP.EXE is
04-09-91.  What should I do?

-- 
____________________
Bryan D. Jones     |       Only The Insane Have The Strength To Prosper.
bdj@engr.uark.edu  |        Only Those Who Prosper Truly Judge What is Sane.
WARHAMMER 40K RULZ |            
-------------------|       PREPARE FOR ASSIMILATION INTO THE BORG ENTITY.
                           RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.  EXCUSES ARE IRRELEVANT. 
                                 ___
                    ___....-----'---`-----....___
              =========================================
                     ___`---..._______...---'___      
                    (___)      _|_|_|_      (___)
                      \\____.-'_.---._`-.____//
                       `~~~~`.__`---'__.'~~~~'
                                ~~~~~


Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: moore@iastate.edu (Brian J Moore)
Subject: Re: OS/2 v2.0 - Not as great as I thought
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 19:42:42 GMT

In <1992Apr13.174258.16673@ncsu.edu> linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville) writes:

>In article <moore.703183723@pv34c1.vincent.iastate.edu> moore@iastate.edu (Brian J Moore) writes:
>>>  People seem to forget that 30 megs of HD space include Windows and
>>>DOS, not to mention all the applets.  I believe a minimal OS/2 system
>>>was something like 8 megs.  See comp.os.os2.misc for more details.
>>
>>Yes, but all of my software (as luck would have it) runs under DOS and Windows,
>>not OS/2.  I don't have the resources to run out and replace them with PM apps.

>You are missing the point.  OS/2 will run any DOS app, any extended DOS app
>that uses a DPMI-compliant DOS extender (any DOS app that can run under Windows)
>and any Windows app that can be run under Windows standard or real modes.  You
>don't need to replace all your apps with PM apps.

I know that, but if I don't replace them, then I can't just install the 8meg
version of OS/2, I need the DOS/Windows compat, which is more disk space.

>While we're at it, how many times do you reboot your machine per day?  If you

Only reason I ever do this is because of games, which, if I ran OS/2, I would
run under DOS anyway.

>reboot your machine to load a different set of device drivers, then you can
>run those programs under OS/2 with their particular sets of device drivers just

>Finally, if you ever reboot because a Windows or DOS app crashes and Windows
>becomes unstable, you can run OS/2 and just kill that offending app and forget
>about it.

>Even if you only run DOS and Windows programs, OS/2 still provides a better,
>more stable environment in which to compute.

The only problem I have had with 3.1 is I had to change the DMA buffer size.  I
was playing around too much with the soundblaster in a DOS window.  It hasn't
happened since.

I know alot of people complain about Windows, but with 4 Meg I've never filled
memory, resources, or had a UAE since I installed 3.1, but I didn't have many
problems before with 3.0.  I'm not saying it won't do it, I'm just not as
attracted to a 'better windows than windows' offer.  I also want to use
1024x768 (32-bits), and I don't think OS/2 will do that yet will it?

-- 
   ________________________________________________________________________
  /                                  /                                    /
 /  Brian J. Moore                  /                  moore@iastate.edu /
/__________________________________/____________________________________/
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: jknepley@isis.cs.du.edu (Ranseus (Jim Knepley))
Subject: Someone explain this to me...
Summary: Microsoft has the industry by the balls
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 00:58:23 GMT

Ah, the benefits of having a subscription to PC Magazine.  I get the issues
before most people on the street.  If you don't know, the April 28, 1992
issue is dedicated specifically to Windows 3.1; and what an issue it is...

The mood for the entire issue is set on the cover:
"Windows 3.1 -- Everything you need to know to upgrade
             -- Special Pullout: 217 Windows files explained
             -- Complete Compatibility Guide
             -- 44 Tips and Tricks

OS/2 2.0
Terrific Technology, but can it compete?"

Is that a loaded question or what?

The issue is one big cheer for Microsoft, and condemnation toward IBM for
not being able to run Windows 3.0 apps in 386 Enhanced mode.  I'll admit,
IBM was asking for it when they said "A better Windows that Windows," but
this is rediculous! 

"Windows Enters Its Prime; OS/2 is a Fascinating Technology but a dubious
challenger."

"Windows 3.1 brings more of everything"

"OS/2 2.0: Does it fulfill the promise?"

The OS/2 article goes on to offer high praise of OS/2 for being "stable" and
"especially good at multitasking."

The Windows article quotes "If you want multitasking, DESQView does a better
job with DOS applications."
I can find many people who think that DESQView does a very POOR job of multi-
tasking (try using a floppy during a download); and Windows is worse?!?

I don't care to use either program (DR DOS 6.0 and DESQView for me), but I
grow tired of the constant media attention that Microsoft gets over what
are COMPLETELY SUPERIOR products.  There's a reason Mac users laugh at
Windows, and it ain't the cute icons.  It was all the same with DR DOS,
and people believed Microsoft.  Folks, the time for action has come.  Boycott
Microsoft for the useless egomaniacs that they are (well, Bill Gates
specifically).  Maybe they'll get the message...

Flames forwarded to /DEV/NULL, but I'd like to hear _educated_ opinions
even if they are contrary to my own.

Jim

Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc