HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dposey@well.sf.ca.us (David Posey)
Subject: Re: Win bigots wait for NT...and wait..and wait
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:50:52 GMT

In <1992Dec12.082639.18197@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>In article <1992Dec11.195631.7299@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>>In article <1992Dec9.124657.18326@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>> In article <1992Dec9.054415.13627@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>>> >Every registered OS/2 user in New Zealand received a letter about the Service
>>> >Pack about 2 weeks ago. 
>>> 
>>> 	Interesting then, isn't it, that no on in the US that I 
>>> 	know has.
>>
>>Well, to be fair...there may only be 4,000 OS/2 users in NZ (pop. 3.5
>>million).
>> 
>>In the US, you would have the vast bulk of the 2 million copies. That's one
>>hell of a lot of letters and stamps.....:-)
>> 

>     I heard they had to stop sending them out when Lee Reiswig's
>tongue dried out.  Last word was that he was going to take a short
>break, have some Gatorade, and get right back to it.

>				-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.

So MS's secret to filling the channel is a bunch of Olympic tongues, eh?
That explains a lot!

-David
From: f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rude behavior on this group.
Date: 12 Dec 92 06:37:58 GMT
 <1992Dec10.154850.21295@Celestial.COM> <11DEC199209480237@moose.cccs.umn.edu> <8084@lib.tmc.edu>
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67700241

In article <8084@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <11DEC199209480237@moose.cccs.umn.edu> rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Dec10.154850.21295@Celestial.COM>, ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones) writes:
>>> [re: practice of bundling new computers with Windows]
>>>
>>> It seems that a lot of people are attacking this practice.  The following is
>>> quoted from yesterdays (Dec. 9, 1992) Seattle Times.
> [...]
>>> Microsoft contracts give significatn price breaks to large-volume
>>> manufacturers who agree to install DOS on every machine they sell.
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>The FTC's concern was not with the practice or even the pricing; but rather, 
>>the length of the contract involved. Microsoft doesn't prevent you from
>>shipping another OS with your machine.
> 
> Sure looks like they do...or at least require you to install DOS, even if you
> do ship another OS. Kinda makes it hard for a vendor to preinstall OS/2 if
> they're required to preinstall DOS.

I don't know how the FTC case will shake out, so I will leave it for now.

But if it is true that MS's ability to make those kinds of contracts is the
issue, then I contend IBM should've been thinking about making those same
kinds of contracts.  That would at least balance the scales out in the
marketplace, so that some computers would be bundled with Windows+DOS, 
others with OS/2, and the FTC could investigate each equally for unfair
trade practices.  :-)

Of course IBM didn't do this, because it was beneath them.  With 16 times
the revenue of MS, they certainly COULD have done this....
-- 
Greg "Mockingbird" Franklin  "People that are really very weird can get into
f67700241@ccit.arizona.edu   sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact
Keep circulating the tapes.      on history." -- Dan Quayle, on Malcolm X

"Father yes son, I want to kill you.  Mother, I want to----WUAAAAAAAAAAARGH!"
	-- Jim Morrison, waxing poetic on family values
"The President scores much better than Bill Clinton."
	-- Dan, comparing Bush's record of marital infidelity to Clinton's
From: Joe@twistor.dialix.oz.au (Joe Katnic)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re:  NT, OS/2, and Marketing
Distribution: world
Date: 13 Dec 92 22:01:49 PST
Organization: Not an Organization

In article <1992Dec10.123058.28161@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> hwhalen@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Hugh Whalen) writes:
>
>Hmmm, very interesting. I did not know this. I *will* read these books. 
>Perhaps, I will change my mind .... until that time you have given me 
>something to think about. Would anyone else care to comment whether or 
>not IBM support was better in the 60's and 70's and the number, and 
>quality of apps for IBM vs. the other computer manufacturers. I'm afraid 
>I'm too young :) to have experienced this myself.
>
   I can't comment about 60's but..
   I think that there is a reason missing from the argument.

   During the 60's and 70's IBM's 360 and then 370 range of mainframes
   were brought out. This allowed businesses to upgrade the power of
   their processors and keep the same software.

   This in turn planted the thought, that the software has a lifetime
   beyond the lifetime of the machine. Because of this, software was
   written (IN HOUSE) that was designed to last many years. As a 
   consequence, the investment in the design could be much larger.
   It was. It got to the point that the software investment became
   vital to keep. 

   Because of this huge inhouse software investment, the thought of
   moving to a non-IBM machine would mean a conversion of the software.
   This was often too expensive to contemplate. 

   Only recently with CASE tools and generic applications (DB etc)
   are applications being moved to other platforms. Notably down?
   right? sizing to departmental systems or onto lan pc's. 

--
Joe Katnic  Perth, Western Australia  Joe@twistor.DIALix.oz.au      _--_|\ 
                                   (ALT: jkatnic@DIALiz.oz.au)     /      \
"A search for the ultimate              Phone: (+619) 474 3939 --->\_.--._/
 mathematical reality inevitably                                         v 
 creates fairy tales, not science".. E.J. Lerner.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re:  More Controversial Topics
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:46:11 GMT

In article <8114@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.012521.10340@netcom.com> timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:
>>In article <Joe.007r@twistor.dialix.oz.au> Joe@twistor.dialix.oz.au (Joe Katnic) writes:
>>>        How many OS's has IBM produced that do S-M-P ?
>>>            Answer: MVS, VM, DOS/VSE, AIX, OS/2 = 5.
>>For a PC?  None.
>
>Why should they produce an OS that would not have a machine to run on?

Actually, there are a number of machines that could concievably run
an SMP version of OS/2.  It's just that they're a bit expensive at this
point (i.e., more than you or I could afford).

>IBM has quite a bit of SMP experience. MS has little to none. There's a
>learning curve there...
...
>Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL

OK, there's some important things to keep in mind here.  IBM is very, very
large.  The fact that they produced an SMP OS some time in the past does
not necessarily mean that they could easily do it with OS/2.  How many
of the people working on OS/2 formerly worked on the four systems mentioned
above?  Same thing goes for Microsoft.  Just because they produced
edlin at some time in the past does not mean anything for NT (as some
people have implied).

I would imagine that IBM would move people around so that the necessary
experience would be in the right place, but Microsoft can do similar things.
The fact that they (MS), as a company, had little or no SMP experience
before NT doesn't mean that the people they hired from CMU don't have
the necessary experience.  (In fact, you could probably argue that the
people from CMU have more *relevant* experience for this particular case
than the people from IBM that worked on MVS and VM.)

     - Mike 

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: pendrith@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Mark Pendrith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!
Date: 20 Dec 92 14:53:17 GMT
Reply-To: pendrith@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Mark Pendrith)
Organization: unsw

In article <1992Dec17.045118.19640@netcom.com> olson30@netcom.com (John Sully) writes:
>
>The boot process is really quite simple and any program which has to
>load the partition boot block of another OS has to do essentially the
>same thing.  These steps are as follows:
>
>	1.  Read the fdisk table at the end of sector 0 of the HD.
>	2.  Read the first block of the partition you wish to boot.
>	    This should be loaded at 0x7C00 and is the last element
>	    of the partition structure.  It is also found as a funky
>	    cylinder/head/sector address, but this is more direct, but
>	    only if you have a loader which can do the appropriate 
>	    translations.
>	3.  Make sure it has the "magic number" 0xAA55 at location 510.
>	4.  Copy the entry from the fdisk table for this partition to
>	    a known location in memory.  Set DS:EDI to point to this
>	    location.
>	5.  Futz with the structure as DS:EDI and mark the in memory.*
>	    copy as active, 0x80 (at some offset, I forget exactly).
>	6.  Set your code segement to 0 and push the new CS (0) and
>	    IP (7C00) on the stack and do an lret (you have to be in
>	    real mode here).
>
>	*   The code in the master boot block will only boot the
>	    partition marked as active in the fdisk partition table
>	    so it does not perform this step.
>
>Once you have made it to 0:7c00 and are executing the partition boot
>code, it must load the rest of itself (you only got the first 512 bytes,
>now you have to get the rest) and begins executing.  Since the environment
>presented by the master boot block is fairly primitive when compared with
>the environment needed by a protected mode kernel such as NT, much setup
>has to be done by the partition boot code before the kernel is loaded and
>started executing.  
>
>I do not see how simply having OS/2 boot manager on the system can
>*possibly* affect NT's boot loader.  In fact, I do not see how having
>the NT partition boot record loaded by OS/2 boot manager can possibly
>affect it's operation.  
>
>[...]
>
>John
>

i wish to complain about the content of the above post. it was informed,
coherent, technically interesting, and even potentially useful... in short, 
just the sort of stuff that has no place in an advocacy group.

it's guys like you that advocacy groups a bad name.

- Mark

pendrith@cs.unsw.oz.au
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mph@plasma.apana.org.au (Martin Peter Howell)
Subject: Re: The Bottom Line
Organization: APANA site, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:26:06 GMT

brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>I use both OS/2 2.0 GA and NT daily, I have programmed heavily
>under 2.0 GA and moderately under NT.  I assure you I understand both
>environments well, and OS/2 does not measure up.  I refer you to
>the list I made of OS/2 vs NT features a few months ago if you
>want more information.

Yes, NT will have a superior API than OS/2, but users don't care
about API's, they want applications and I think they are likely
to grab the first working system that comes along.  Although NT
applications will probably be superior for this reason NT is
going to be at least a year behind OS/2; weather it can catch up
remains to be seen. 


-Martin.
mph@plasma.apana.org.au
From: George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows NT humor
Date: 15 Dec 92 13:38:08 GMT
Reply-To: George_Marengo@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Comment-To: Joseph_T._Malloy@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

JM>'seamless', was just lamentably bad.  The only public demonstration
I
JM>saw of OS/2 (in a reseller's shop on a very different machine, seen
just
JM>a few weeks ago) didn't suggest to me that my perceptions were
wrong.  i
JM>can't argue with my own experience!

 I agree wholeheartedly that the WinOS2 in GA is about on par with
Windows3.0, and both are slow compared to Windows3.1 (or the beta
WinOS231)
Any OS/2 user who thinks that WinOS2 is nearly as fast as Win3.1
either
cannot see, doesn't want to see, or simply never ran Win3.1. 
___
 * MR/2 1.32 NR * Everyone is entitled to my opinion.

--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
From: pgleason@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Pat Gleason)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ATI support of OS/2
Date: 17 Dec 92 22:48:35 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1goeefINNk9v@pacific.cs.ubc.ca> tedc@cs.ubc.ca (Ted Chen) writes:

>recommend and use the stock 8514/a drivers to get the high resolution modes.

Make that HIGH RESOLUTION MODE. The IBM 8514/a standard only supports 
1024x768 (no 800x600).
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu (D. Robert Spexet II)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Windows NT will fail -----
Date: 12 Dec 1992 19:42:39 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan, Mathematics Department, Ann Arbor
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: supernova.math.lsa.umich.edu

In article <1992Dec11.162632.1046@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>A paradigm shift is one thing, but the mere fact of a paradigm shift
>does not make the shift good.  The WPS is, in my opinion, a fine example
>of making a bad thing worse.  If IBM were smart, they'd cajole Symantec
>into making a Norton Desktop for OS/2 that looks just like the ND for
>Windows.  I might even be tempted to try OS/2 again if that were
>available.

Symantec has just released Norton Commander for OS/2.  This is supposed to
look and work just like Norton Desktop for Windows.

I shall have to examine it myself.

>
>jmalloy@hamilton.edu
>


-- 
D. Robert Spexet II, N0OKR   Internet:  spexet@umich.edu, dspexet@attmail.com
Department of Mathematics    BITnet:    user68xr@umichum.bitnet
The University of Michigan   UUCP:      uunet!mailrus!math.lsa.umich.edu!spexet
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109    ATTMail:   !dspexet
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: OS/2 and NT at Comdex
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:16:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.000053.12305@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.005716.27186@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:

>>a useful utility, or even a big snazzy program (not a game), who's to
>>say that the business user of OS/2 won't buy it (or his system manager)
>>if it's useful on that desktop?  Business people need some of the same
>>programs we desktop users need as well.
>
>****** NEW PART HERE*****
>I'm sorry, I didn't make make myself clear.  I differientiate the 
>server and developer desktop users from the _general_ desktop user, a major
>subset of which is the business desktop user.
>OS/2 1.X did reasonably well on servers and developer desktops, but failed
>in the _general_ desktop area.  Mainstream app development is aimed
>at the _general_ desktop, and my claim here is that the lack of ISV
>support means that the size of this general desktop population is too
>small.  I am estimating the size of that population to be 300,000 to
>600,000.

That's entirely possible, based on the run-down you gave.
I'd say the error bars on that are *way* big, probably around 100%, since
this is all based on from the hip figuring, but I'd say it would serve as
an educated guess.

>
>
>>
>>>One also has to take into account the number that will leave OS/2 for
>>>NT when it comes out.  NT _will_ have apps when it comes out, and this
>>>is a tremendous draw for desktop users.
>>
>>It will be far less of a draw for the desktop user than for the business
>>user.  I'm a pretty standard desktop user, and I can't run NT, nor likely
>>will be able to when it comes out.  I don't need networking.  I don't need
>>SMP.  I don't need to login to my personal system.  I don't have the
>>cash or desire to run the system when OS/2 offers all I desire now for
>>less cost in terms of software *and* hardware.  Unless it can draw me away
>>from OS/2, or even Windows 3.1, NT will not be a desktop success.  It's
>>a very high-end system.
>
>Yes you can't now, but a year or two from now your new machine will run
>it easily.  In fact I very much suspect you'll be able to buy it bundled
>with your new machine.

In a year or two, my next computer purchase will easily run NT, yes.
(Make it two years, I'm a little poor).  If it has more appeal then,
then I'll go with it.

It'll be a different ball-game then.  We'll see what changes have come
about in OS/2, NT, Nextstep, Solaris, etc...

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.)
Subject: Re: Future of OS/2 and IBM????????????
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:54:37 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <0fA8UB600VojQ2ZzgX@andrew.cmu.edu> Jason Ari Goldstein <jg3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>I am not sure of all the details, but this sounds like a pretty logical
>arguement as to the nature of the layoffs.  Besides, I wouldn't be
>worried until they start laying off large amounts of people from their
>research sites (eg. T.J. Watson).  By my prediction, that should occur
>in approximately 7 more years, but that is a different story...

According to some trade mag (either PC Week or Infoworld, I can't remember),
a large R&D cutback is part of this recent round of chop-chops.

I don't know why they have to lay them off; they already get rid of the good
people **BY FIRING THEM** (those who are in the know will understand that
comment).

Cheers,
Q
-- 
"If you choose not to decide, you  | "My other body is in the shop" - seen
 still have made a choice" - Rush  |  on a T-shirt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Here's some Advocacy for you.
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:33:04 GMT

In article <1gh6jjINN9mg@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> gupw@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Paul Wagland) writes:
> OK, I'll explain what I mean.  Creative Labs have already released a
> driver for their SoundBlaster CD interface, Trident have already
> released 32bit drivers for their cards.

	Is CL putting that on the package?  Putting those drivers in
	the box?

	<I hope not, I need someone else to complain about>
 
	Oo, Trident.  There's high technology.  
 
	:-(


-- 
	"If you can't eat sand, why the hell are you living in a desert?"


	Nuclear redevelopment for a better world!
From: gupw@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Paul Wagland)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Mutating typos -----
Date: 12 Dec 1992 14:55:11 +0800
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: uniwa.uwa.edu.au

rbotimer@max.ct.gmr.com (R Douglas Botimer) writes:

>In article <1992Dec11.150930.1366@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)  
>writes:
>:
>:	Make that "1/2 windows 1/2 OS/2 halfbreed version *2*.5".
>:
>:	I realize it's an obvious typo and could go without correction,
>:	but in this group (as with all advocacy groups) I don't think
>:	I can trust the reader to figure this out for himself.
>:
>Thank you, Yamanari.  So that's why you are here informing us and correcting  
>the misinformation being spread about OS/2!  WE CAN'T BE TRUSTED TO FIGURE  
>THINGS OUT FOR OURSELVES!  LIGHTBULB! Damn it's nice to know that that the an  
>NT peddler, of obvious superior intellect, is benevolently trying to keep us  
>foolish OS/2 users from hurting ourselves.  Well, I guess that's the missionary

I don't think that's what he meant you know.

And Don't flame me, I go for OS/2.  What I think he was saying was that
he didn't want someone to think he was talking a product that was not
yet released, which someone would of inevitably jumped down his throat
about.  I mean look at you.
-- 
Paul Wagland            | These opinions are mine and no-one elses
gupw@uniwa.uwa.edu.au   | Bingy Bingy Bingy Frogs Go round and round
------------------------+     -- Another silly quote from me  :-)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Steven R Jacobs)
Subject: Re: Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!
In-reply-to: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu's message of Tue, 15 Dec 92 09:11:08 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
	<1992Dec15.062001.14820@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<1992Dec15.091108.25482@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Date: 15 Dec 92 07:11:14

In article <1992Dec15.091108.25482@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.062001.14820@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Dec15.051348.22687@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>   ...
>>The fact is that neither represents code that will be delivered at any
>>date that is cast in stone.  IBM has announced no date whatsoever on
>>that code, and Microsoft has said, "First half, 1993" -- or
>>thereabouts.
>   ...
>
> Sorry, Tim, but IBM has set a date.
>
> Here is an excerpt from "ibmplans.txt" on ftp-os2.nmsu.edu.  It
> is a part of an IBM document detailing IBMs near-future plans for OS/2
> (and a little MS bashing as well).
>
>>  1992 OS/2 PRODUCT PLANS
>> 
>>       There will be a lot happening in the OS/2 product line through
>>  the remainder of 1992.
>> 
>>  ENHANCEMENTS TO THE BASE PRODUCT
>>       In the fall:   32-bit graphics engine; Windows 3.1; device
>>  drivers to support XGA, SVGA, and 8514 displays in seamless mode.

Funny, I don't see any announced *date* in there.

> Now I believe the claim by OS/2 fans has been that if IBM gives a date
> that they mean that date, so I can only assume that the release
> of this beta should occur on or before Dec. 15.

Come off it, Brian.   If someone else took a clip from a file talking
about MS plans (especially a source as "official" as a non-MS FTP site)
and tried to attribute an actual DATE from general terms such as "fall"
and "end of year", you'd be jumping all over them.  Try to be reasonable.
--
Steve Jacobs  ({bellcore,hplabs,uunet}!utah-cs!jacobs, jacobs@cs.utah.edu)
"Don't worry, I just have these harmless pocket rockets...."
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: What about OS/2 2.1?
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:54:22 GMT

In article <1gl54kINNgee@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
>>A new version of the Beta Win3.1 has been floating around internally within
>>IBM for some time now.  I don't know if this beta has been released for
>>general consumption.
>This new beta is also supposed to be able to run windows enhanced mode
>applications such as mathematica.

Pure rumor, it should be noted.  A rather interesting rumor, but a
rumor nonetheless.

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0h, available from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]