HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: peter@pgeck.sub.org (Peter Gahbler)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Updates in Europe
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:58:44 GMT
Organization: Private site

Hi,
it seems that almost everyone in Europe will be able to get an 
update from Windows or Dos (not IBMDOS) except people in Germany. 
If I am wrong I think the others will also be interested in 
getting an update elsewhere.
So I would like to know conditions for updates in other countries. 
The prices for UK, France, Finnland and Holland have already been 
posted. Perhaps someone could tell the conditions for Denmark 
(would be just one hour to go for me :-) ) and other countries?

Does anyone know whether it will be possible to update for example 
a German Windows in USA or a French MS-DOS in Denmark? Are there 
any limitations?

IBM marketing people? (Please don't tell me national laws forbid 
updates from non-IBM products. It isn't true, at least not for 
Germany. For example to get the new software of Fox I could give 
dBase or something like that in exchange...).

Bye
    Peter
--
Peter Gahbler           UUCP:    peter@pgeck.sub.org
Richard-Vosgerau-Str.3  Fido:    Peter Gahbler, 2:242/300.10
D-2330 Eckernfoerde     voice:   +49 4351 86249
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: gregde@microsoft.com (Greg Demichillie)
Subject: Re: Intelligent users v. Microsoft
Date: 09 Apr 92 19:02:25 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

You know, this whole debate about whether Windows is or is not an
operating system has got to be the silliest thread I've ever
seen.  In fact, it is so silly that it really calls into question
the whole point of the thread.

I mean, no one really gets this worked up over issues this small without
someother motive do they?  

-Greg

Oh, I guess I shouldn't bother with a "not a microsoft spokesman"
disclaimer since it doesn't seem to do any good anyway...


-- 
Greg DeMichillie
Software Design Engineer - Application Frameworks (AFX)
gregde@microsoft.com
From: alanr@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Alan N Rovner)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Video Cards that DO Support OS/2 - SUMMARY
Keywords: (But where can I buy Trident cards?)
Date: 17 Apr 92 19:07:46 GMT

Thanks to all of you who responded to my original posting.  Many of you said
that Trident people are on-the-ball and first with OS/2 drivers and the like.
But as I said under <Keywords> where can I buy a Trident board from?  I've
looked all over the latest PC Magazine, and don't see any reference to Trident
in any of the ads.

Maybe they are like IBM, creating a stealth product :-).  Do they sell direct
only?  For that matter, since I haven't seen any ads, I don't know what type
of cards they offer, and prices, etc.

Again, your help is very useful.

Thanks,
Al Rovner
Tektronix Test & Measurement Group
From: gedge@cm.cf.ac.uk (Geraint A Edwards)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: UK: Upgrade (+other) Info
Date: 13 Apr 92 12:50:19 GMT
Organization: I'm at, not speaking for: Uni of Wales, College of Cardiff
X-Mailer: Cardiff Computing Maths PP Mail Open News Gateway

In the UK, you can upgrade to OS/2 v2.0 from the International
OS/2 User Group, Barton Hse, Cirencester, Gloucs GL7 2EE
Phone: 0285 655888 (ask for OS/2 UG).  I am not a member.

I called on Friday to upgrade from Windows using my credit card.
The woman asked me to send the title page from my Windows manual
and would charge me UKL 50 +VAT+P&P.  I paraphrase:
  "I don't know how much the P&P will be, the packages won't be
   arriving until Monday [13th] so we can weigh them then. Yours
   will be sent on Tuesday or Wednesday." (this week!)

I will post some details about the OS/2 UG when I get the
literature.  Are there any OS/2 BBSs in the UK ?  Does the
IBMPC-UG cater for OS/2 well ?  Compu$erve ?  I'd very much
like a list of native apps, too.

As a student I can (academic) upgrade Windows to 3.1 for UKL
35 when that arrives (CC have ordered), so I might do that too
and compare the two.

I've never seen OS/2, but thanks to Timothy Sipples and the
rest of this group (amongst others), GA should be on it's way.

Gedge "thanks Timothy"
-- 
Geraint A Edwards, Computing PhD student.  From Windows to OS/2 v2.0 - 50 quid.
gedge@cm.cf.ac.uk  gedge%cm.cf.ac.uk@nsf.ac.uk  ...!uunet!mcsun!ukc!cf-cm!gedge
Short quotes save money --- modem user here.  I pay for your graphic .sig's :-(
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: Borland C++ for OS/2 v.2.0
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 13 Apr 1992 09:10 EST  

In article <54263@hydra.gatech.EDU>, gt8080a@prism.gatech.EDU (Henry 'Hank' Harlan Roark III) writes...
>I know Borland is working on a C++ complier for OS/2 v.2.0.  What I want to
>know is will BC++ allow me to, after some porting from one to the other, compile
>code for MS Windoze and OS/2 v.2.0?  I know, I know, Windoze is slooooow, but
>there is a large installed base and if at all possible I would like to
>write my apps for the operating system (OS/2) and the environment (Windoze :).
> 
>For example, I heard to port Mathematica 2.0 from Windoze to OS/2 required 
>a change in five lines of code!!!
> 
>If not, what do I need in order to write apps for both?

As an add-on to this question, will there be an upgrade path (from BC++ 3.0) 
to BC++ for OS/2? (Then the obvious - how much?)

JD
Organization: Youngstown State University
Date: Tuesday, 7 Apr 1992 15:42:06 EDT
From: Bob Quigley <BOB@ysub.ysu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: WINDOWS -> OS/2 2.0 upgrade prices

I have been told by our local IBM business partner that to upgrade from
Windows to OS/2 2.0 you pay the $139 and get a $99 rebate. I had understood
it to be a simple $49 charge. Is this the standard procedure being used
everywhere??

/Bob Quigley (bob@ysu.edu)
From: dg4k+@andrew.cmu.edu (Daniel Brian Greenfield)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Trident and other high-res drivers
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:51:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.Ydsn_g600WBL45FUgB
Organization: Sophomore, English, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Do there exist 64-grayscale 800*600 drivers (for monochrome SVGA) for
OS/2?  Does Trident have one of these?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: IBM!!! Please get it together!!
Organization: Harvey Mudd College
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 18:16:02 GMT

dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:

>And think of it this way - the only other OS for 386's with preemptive
>multitasking and DOS boxes is Unix.  Expect to give up 70MB of disk +
>a swap device disk VOLUME (not swap file, swap volume) and lots more
>memory.  And Unix costs close to $1000 (about the expected price for
>NT, if I remember correctly)

Actually, Coherent runs on a 286 box, has preemptive multitasking,
gives a good facsimile of Unix, takes 6-10MB of disk space, and
costs $100.

Of course it doesn't have all those neat features OS/2 has like a
GUI, Windows and DOS emulation, application base, etc.
-- 
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)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 14:01:03 CST
From: gthome@ausvm1.VNET.IBM.COM
Subject: Re: Sarcasm, Confusion, and my Timothy Sipples Post
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 <1992Apr7.164258.22890@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Frank Fujita writes:
>skanga@prism.poly.edu (Shiraz Kanga) writes:
>     Hey al you IBMers out there I think Timothy Sipples deserves
>     a free copy of OS/2 2.0 ASAP. Firstly all his hard work must
>     be rewarded and secondly he would be able to post first hand
>     info rather than the "I heard about ..." stuff that he is
>     forced to do now.
>
>A free copy of 2.0???  How about 1,000 shares of IBM!
>
>Frank Fujita
>Not affiliated with Tim Sipples in any way, except he helped me
>with my questions.
>
I agree.  Tim has done more work on this newsgroup than anyone, and he does
deserve something.  I will tell you that Tim's name, along with other folks
who are active here have already been talked about with reverence on IBMs
internal newgroups.

Gerry Thome
IBM - Austin
From: reza@Voyager.me.utexas.edu (Alireza Vali)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 Version 2.0 GA, $49 upgrade from windows, $99 from DOS
Date: 10 Apr 92 02:40:29 GMT
Organization: Center for Space Research Imaging Lab, University of Texas at Austin

In article <1992Mar31.165118.20552@watson.ibm.com> dwl@watson.ibm.com writes:
>IBM today began  shipping OS/2* Version 2.0 to customers.  The          
[...]
>Special introductory prices, including a $49 offer for Windows** users
>and a $99 upgrade price for any DOS user, are part of IBM's plan to firmly  
>establish OS/2 2.0 as the PC operating system of the '90s.              

Good enough for me!  I really wanted to give OS/2 2.0 a try, but I would
not have spent $150.  Now, if it were possible to install OS/2 and
DOS+Windows 3.1 on the same machine, that would be great!  This is the 
first time I'm reading this group, so I guess I'll check out the FAQ before
asking too many questions.  Anyway, I think this competative $49 upgrade
path is the smartest move IBM has made in a loooooooooooooooooong time.
I'm one potential Windows -> OS/2 convert they hooked with this offer.

>                                                                        
[...]
>
>In addition, more than 1,000 software vendors are developing 32-bit     
>applications for delivery in 1992, including Lotus, Borland, WordPerfect
>and Novell.  There are also more than 250 development tool products     
>available for OS/2.                                                     

Does this mean Microsoft does not plan development of OS/2 apps?  That
would be very disappointing if I end up with OS/2.  I have a lot invested
in Windows applications.  I'm quite fond of Word 2.0 & Excel 3.0, but
hey... I'm not married to them! :)
If Lotus moves quickly on a PM version of Ami Pro, and Borland does the
same for Quattro Pro, that would work too.

>
[...]
>
>At this moment, over 100 OEM models have passed OS/2 2.0      
>compatibility tests, including models from Compaq, Dell, CompuAdd, AST
>and Tandy.                                                                  

How 'bout Gateway?

>                                                                        
[...]
>
>End of Notice                                                           
>06/29/92                                                                
 ^^^^^^^^????!?!?@?#?$?#?@?
:) :) :)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: apas611@chpc.utexas.edu (David Boles)
Subject: Windows NT and C2 (Was Re: Some questions about OS/2...  )
Organization: The University of Texas System - CHPC
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 01:46:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.192553.26073@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> heiland@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (david.j.heiland) writes:
>>>  
>>> >12) What's MS's C-2 protection? How's it better?
>>> 

C2 security is a level of trustedness described by the DoD's computer
security publication, the "Orange Book".  Essentially C2 is the lowest
level of security that a vendor will try to get approval for.  It re-
quires that the system be able to control access to files and services
depending on the user and that "auditing" be able to be performed on
all security related matters to the granularity of a single user. As a
point of reference, a standard UNIX would not meet C2 but is relatively
easily modified to pass this test.  (The current levels are: C1, C2, B1,
B2, B3, and A1 with the possibility of more levels in the future
left open.)


>>
>>According to PC Week (If you can believe them) Microsoft will not be
>>including C-2 level security in the first release of NT. Microsoft is
>>blaming the US Government, saying they have been too slow to certify
>>it. I guess they must be using Windows. :)
>>
>
>It wouldn't surprise me if it took on the order of two years for the
>government to evaluate NT as C2, of course that doesn't stop MS from
>saying it has C2 features (which include user access controls, object reuse
>protection, passwords, and time and space consuming auditing of a lot of 
>kernel operations).  
>

The NCSC does not evaluate alpha or beta release OS's for security.  For
as low a level as C2, they might evaluate just an OS.  For all levels
above that, you must submit a hardware _and_ software platform for
evaluation and the approval rating is only for that specific combination
of hardware/software.

Microsoft is letting their ignorance show (again ... :-).


Cheers,

David Boles

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.windows.ms
From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Subject: Re: Is OS/2 2.0 faster than Windows??
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 22:52:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

Please, please repeat this on the same machine.  I agree that so far
this is only indicative.  I really appreciate the effort but the results
only tell us that OS/2 is faster very qualitatively.  It appears that
the numbers on the same box should be considerably more impressive. The
Mod 80 is a pig.
-- 
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007

"There are some strings.  They're just not attached."
                                                    Victoria Roberts
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: another OS/2 distributor story
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 08:38:29 GMT

I happened to visit a local software store today, and while there overheard
a customer asking about OS/2.  The salesman said "OS/2?  I don't think that's
out yet.  We haven't received any information from Microsoft about it."  I
felt that I had to say something about this, so I approached the salesman
and explained to him that OS/2 was in fact out, as of March 31, and that
it wasn't released by Microsoft.  He expressed great surprise when I explained
that IBM had released it.  At the time, I was holding a copy of the April 28
PC Magazine, so I pointed to the cover and said he should read the articles
in this issue.  His response was "I'm a Macintosh person."  Sigh.  Some folks
just aren't interested in becoming knowledgable salespeople.  Like an old
roommate of mine once said, "If he knew anything about computers, he wouldn't
be working in a software store."

Oh, by the way, they had lots of Windows 3.1 on the shelf.  No sign of OS/2
anywhere.  I'm confident that it will happen eventually, however, just not
quite as fast as most comp.os.os2.misc readers would like.  Having OS/2 in
short supply is probably good news.  If demand continues to outstrip supply,
then that's good, but only if the supply is high to begin with.  Anybody
know how many copies of OS/2 IBM is cranking out each day?

And while I'm at it, another musing.  With all of the cross-licensing
agreements that IBM and Microsoft have, it seems like both could use the
best of the other's ideas in future versions of OS/2 and Windows NT.  What
will eventually distinguish one product from the other, merely the "look
and feel" of the interface chosen by them?  Or do they still have their
respective trade secrets?
From: Steven.W.K.Chan@TOROVM1.VNET.IBM.COM
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: PC Magazine coverage
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:45:32 GMT
Organization: IBM Canada Ltd.

>
>presentation by the Windows article.  All in all a discouraging result for
>an important edition of the magazine.

I'm not that much of an OS/2 versus Windows bigot, but I was *EXTREMELY*
upset when I pulled this issue out of my mailbox.  I've relied on PC Mag
on several occasions when seeking an impartial review of a product.
Now, with their bias showing so clearly (see Finnegan's column last month
too), I've lost some of my confidence in them.

It'd be nice to see OS/2 2.0 succeed solely to witness PC Mag being
humbled back to impartiality, so we can rely on them again.

Steven Chan                      IBM Canada Ltd.
                                 Finance Industry Support & Development
stchan@torovm1.vnet.ibm.com      Toronto, Ontario     :  (416) 941-6016
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: ford@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com (Dan Ford)
Subject: Re: Painless transition (DOS --> OS/2) ???
Organization: HP Cardiology Business Unit - McMinnville, OR
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1992 19:48:03 GMT


jpa8r@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Joseph P. Allen) writes:
> 
> I also use NCSA Telnet and FTP.  	
> 
> Can I simply continue to use all of these from at least	
> one Dos session in OS/2?  	
> 
> Thank you,
> Joe Allen
> Department of Psychology
> University of Virginia
> Internet: Allen@virginia.edu

  I am using NCSA Telnet as I write this in a window under OS/2 2.0.  I
am currently logged onto an HP Unix machine, and simultaneously (in other
windows) logged onto a LanServer network.  The services available with
Netware are even richer.  

  I also use ftp on a regular basis.

Dan Ford
Hewlett-Packard
McMinnville, OR
Organization: Penn State ACA (American Churl Association)
X-Subliminal-Message: OS/2 2.0 is here.  Call 1-800-3IBMOS2 to order.
X-Curtains-For-Windows: OS/2 2.0 upgrade from Windows: $49
X-PEPSI-Slogan: My butt -- Gotta bite it!
X-Emasculated-Operating-System: UNIX
Date: Wednesday, 15 Apr 1992 14:45:31 EDT
From: Spiro the Spiny Goldfish <MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: IT'S FINALLY STARTED!!!!

Today's USA Today had a two-page OS/2 2.0 spread in the Money section (sounds
like same ad seen elsewhere)
---
Michael E. Dahmus -- mxd118@psuvm.psu.edu, dahmus@cs.psu.edu, or GWPX90D *P*
UNIX:  The perfect operating system for people who don't have to pay for
       their computers.        <* OS/2 2.0 is here! *>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: fell@sol.UVic.CA (Stuart Fell)
Subject: OS/2 applets and it's comm program
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C. CANADA
Distribution: comp
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 21:22:28 GMT

Has anyone used the comm program much that comes with OS/2 2.0??  What
features does it have?  Such as file transfer protocols (sp?) and terminal
emulations???

Would it run better for background file transfers (assuming it has the
proper transfer protocols) than using Crosstalk for Windows in a seamless
window???

I'm one of the hopefulls that hopes to get OS/2 2.0 within two-three weeks...

Stuart Fell
Organization: European Academic Research Network
Date: Friday, 17 Apr 1992 14:47:00 GMT
From: Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 on Minimal HW

I run several programs concurrently on this 386SX/16Mhz with 59MB hard
disk.. Everything works well and smooth. Oh yes, it has 4MB like yours..
-turgut
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 07:41:32 CST
From: gthome@ausvm1.VNET.IBM.COM
Subject: Requestor --> $200!!
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 <1992Apr07.233508.7687@slate.mines.colorado.edu> Charles Marshall writes:
>The latest I heard is that the requestor for OS/2 will be available
>April 30 and will cost $200.  It is a seperate package from OS/2 2.0.
>What?
>Is IBM kidding?  Don't they think it is going to be hard enough to get
>millions of DOS users to switch os's and $50 to $200 bucks a shot?  And
>then they have to pay an extra $200 to connect to there network!  Novell
>is holding 70 to 80 percent of the networked market.  The requestor
>should definitely be included if IBM wants OS/2 to fly in the corporations.
>
>Charles
>
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Charles Marshall            Bitnet: CJMARSHA@FLINT.MINES.COLORADO.EDU
>Information Services        Usenet: CJMARSHA@SLATE.MINES.COLORADO.EDU
>Colorado School of Mines
>
Charles,

You are hearing rumors.  IBM LAN Requestor should retail around $75.00.
I would imagine that there are volume discounts.  I am speaking of IBM
LAN Server/LAN Requestor 2.0.

Gerry Thome
IBM - Austin
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: barrett@aaet.csc.ti.com (Stu Barrett)
Subject: LaMail: Sendmail.cf feature needed
Organization: Texas Instruments Incorporated, Austin, TX
Distribution: comp
Date: 7 Apr 92 08:52:33

Just installed IBM's TCP/IP 1.2.  The CSD's should show up today.  In
the meantime I have a little problem with sendmail that I would like
some help with....

It seems that the standard sendmail.cf file that comes with the
package does does not support the concept of a "mail host".  It will
try and directly connect to the SMTP peer(s) on the address list.  If
you can't get direct internet access to that SMTP peer, sendmail
queues up the mail for later delivery (which will never work).  I can
only DIRECTLY access a very small portion of the internet.  My company
uses mail gateways to access the internet mail.  If the sender can't
directly connect to the SMTP peer, it forwards the mail to a mail
host, which then forwards it to the next mail host, etc.  This is how
we access "foreign" mail domains (e.g. UUCP, compuserve, etc).

Does anyone have an "enchanced" copy of sendmail.cf that understands
the "mail host" concept?  I'm working this with IBM right now, but I
thought that I would ask the OS2 newsgroups for help as well.

If someone could e-mail me a copy of sendmail.cf I would appreciate it.

Send to BARRETT@ADD.ITG.TI.COM or use the signature address below:

Thanks, 

--
	Stu Barrett		Inet: Barrett@aaet.csc.ti.com
	Phone: 512-250-6677	Fax: 512-250-4509
	Tripoli# 1277		NAR# 4341
From: max@underg.UUCP (Max Cray)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: IBM, are you listening? (Was: Windoze 3.1 is here.)
Keywords: Yesterday(4 April) I saw Windoze 3.1 for sale here.
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 22:19:05 EDT
Organization: Underground Computing Foundation

brooke@cco.caltech.edu (Brooke Paul Anderson) writes:

> Remember, we get news faster than most other people on the planet -- we
> know some things before even some IBM employees find out.  Don't be
> too discouraged -- if IBM is spending $40 million on advertising, you
> will eventually see a marketing blitz.

This is true. The IBM Marketdroid was very concerned when I told him I had 
been running the OS/2 2.0 beta for months. I had to explain to him how 
anybody could get a copy from the Atlanta support bbs. It is amazing how 
little they know about what is going on? What do they do all day?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                            -= Max Cray =-
 Net:     underg%max@uunet.uu.net                         Support
 UUCP:    ...!uunet!underg!max                            Free
 Data:    The Underground Computing Foundation BBS        Software
          401-847-2603 -=- 9600 baud (v.32)               (w/src)
 CI$:     76334,2203
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.msdos.misc
From: ujabanco@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (John Abanco)
Subject: Re: os2-dos 2x faster than DOS 3.3 (Re: Is OS/2 2.0-DOS fastter
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 17:14:23 GMT

How about trying DOS 3.3 with a RAM Disk and see how the benchmarks on
that. Given that OS/2 2.0 uses as much RAM for paging kinda like a CACHE
and stores as much info into RAM as possible, give DOS 3.3 a little edge
too by keeping some of the data in a RAM Disk. Just my .00002 cents.

You did say you had 16 MB of memory, right? Whew!

-- 
--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 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~