HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: os/2 and herc display
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Distribution: comp
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 15:43:31 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.1480.11711@dosgate> "ronald hands" <ronald.hands@canrem.com> writes:
>  I have OS/2 1.3, but I've left it sitting on the shelf because it
>does not work with a monochrome graphics (Hercules) card.
>  However, I was assured by several posters six or eight weeks ago that
>OS/2 2.0 in the GA release *would* work with the Herc display and give
>me the PM environment.  
>  Can anyone who has 2.0 GA confirm whether this is true?
>  I would really prefer to stick with my present card/monitor setup. 
>  (BTW, Windows 3.1 works fine with the Hercules display.  But the
>tutorial requires VGA or better.  Sigh.)

OS/2 2.0 does not appear to support Hercules monochrome graphics.
However, there's a dirt cheap solution.  Get ahold of a card called
the ATI EGA Wonder or the Paradise Monochrome EGA card and put that in
your machine in place of the Hercules card.  That cards emulates all
color EGA modes on your monochrome monitor.  Should set you back no
more than $50 -- post a "WANTED" message in the appropriate Usenet
conference.

Once you've installed OS/2 2.0 (for EGA), select one of the monochrome
color schemes (to make things easier to see and use).  Ditto for
Win-OS/2.
-- 
Timothy F. Sipples       Keeper of the OS/2 Frequently Asked Questions
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu  List, available via anonymous ftp from
Dept. of Economics       128.123.35.151, directory pub/os2/faq, or via
Univ. of Chicago  60637  netmail from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Subject: Re: Manuals with OS/2 V.2 as shipped.
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 02:58:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

gthome@ausvm1.VNET.IBM.COM writes:
:
: How to create the appropriate manuals for a product is under HEAVY DEBATE
: inside IBM.  so many people like manuals so many different ways it is
: next to impossible to make everyone happy.  I myself like manuals online,
: where I can use hot links and hypertext and all that good stuff.
: 
: But, there are times when I want a good book in my hands as well.
: 
: Online pubs make the product cheaper, printed pubs cost $$$ for paper, print
: services, typesetting,...
: 
: So, what's the best, who knows.  Maybe online pubs that customers can print?
: Or online pubs and charge extra if you want printed pubs ??
: 
: Any comments ?
: 

Does the bear shit in the woods? :-)

I too am a "manual(s) in my lap" person and definitely want the option. I'll
pay more, no problem.  Just give me the frigging option!

Bob

-- 
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007

"There are some strings.  They're just not attached."
                                                    Victoria Roberts
From: c2s0860@rigel.tamu.edu (C. S. Suehs)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: What is the best way to network
Date: 17 Apr 92 15:15:00 GMT
Reply-To: css0860@zeus.tamu.edu
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

What is the best way to network to machines.  One is a 386
and the other a 486, both at 33Mhz.  We'll probably run OS/2.

=Steve

---------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Steven Suehs, a Texas A&M University Biochem/Computer Sci Major
whose opinions probably are not shared by Academic Computing Services.
Dick Clark did not say "I think, therefore I am!"  It was Descartes
who walked into a bar and was asked "Have a beer, sire?"
"I think not."  >poof< and he was gone.
 .signature.virus--.signature.reverse.transcriptase
From: dourte@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Louis Dourte)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: System Reqs for 2.0?
Date: 12 Apr 92 15:57:54 GMT
Organization: Universite de Montreal


In article <92102.152803TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET>, TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET (Turgut Kalfaoglu) writes:
|> Reserve about 20-30 MB for OS/2. Yes, your configuration is just fine.
|> Heck, it even runs fine on this 16Mhz, 4MB, 59Mbyte hard disk-ed machine!
|> 
|> -turgut

It's true that OS/2 will run fine in 4MB. However, if you try to run many
applications simultaneously, you will have a lot of disk activity because
you will use virtual memory. In that case, adding some RAM can speed up
things quite a bit. Just 2 or 4 more MB of RAM could make a good difference.
--
Louis Dourte
Departement d'informatique et de recherche operationnelle
Universite de Montreal
e-mail: dourte@IRO.UMontreal.CA
From: Alan_York@mindlink.bc.ca (Alan York)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Microsoft wins
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:22:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: mindlink.11280
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

> FREY, TONY C writes:
> 
> Msg-ID: <6APR199200454278@venus.tamu.edu>
> Posted: 6 Apr 92 05:45:00 GMT
> 
> Org.  : Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
> 
> 
>  Anyone hear about Microsoft signing -> 85 <- PC manufactures to bundle
> Windoze 3.1 with their machines?  Includes 8 of the ten top sellers too,
> (i.e. Dell, Gateway, Zeos, etc.).  This sounds like another one of those
> "I wish we would have thought of that" sayings from IBM.  I felt this
> way when I owned my Amiga, kinda like you're doomed by fate to fail.. Come
> on IBM - GET WITH IT!!!!!
> _________________________________________________
>                          |                       |
> Tony Frey                |  I love OS/2!!        |
> Texas A&M University     |                       |
> TCF9033@VENUS.TAMU.EDU   |  It's what Windows    |
>                          |  should have been!    |
> _________________________|_______________________|


I wonder how much we are now going to have to pay for the bundled software?
And if we can get the bundled software deleted from the order?  This doesn't
seem to be of benefit to the consumer.  Past bundling attempts have not worked.
Our company refuses to buy equipment with bundled stuff.  It just costs us,
costs us and costs us.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 From:  Alan B. York              |  Dynamic Datacorp People
        alan_york@mindlink.bc.ca  |  Vancouver, B.C., Canada    604/294-9193
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: anderson@allvax.enet.dec.com (Dave Anderson)
Subject: Re: Manuals with OS/2 V.2 as shipped.
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  8 APR 92 13:20:21    


In article <"barnacle.e.436:08.03.92.01.07.39"@clarkson.edu>, gthome@ausvm1.VNET.IBM.COM writes...
>How to create the appropriate manuals for a product is under HEAVY DEBATE
>inside IBM.  so many people like manuals so many different ways it is
>next to impossible to make everyone happy.  I myself like manuals online,
>where I can use hot links and hypertext and all that good stuff.
> 
>But, there are times when I want a good book in my hands as well.
> 
>Online pubs make the product cheaper, printed pubs cost $$$ for paper, print
>services, typesetting,...
> 
>So, what's the best, who knows.  Maybe online pubs that customers can print?
>Or online pubs and charge extra if you want printed pubs ??
> 
>Any comments ?

Is the Pope Polish? :-)

I strongly believe that every user should have easy access to the full set of
documentation.  By far the cheapest way of doing this is to make it all 
available on-line, so this should be part of the base product.  (I don't have
a copy of the GA release yet, but I believe that this is already being done.
Great!)

There are a few manuals (e.g., the installation guide) that must be provided to
all purchasers in hard-copy form.  (Those who want to install on multiple
systems should be able to buy right-to-copy licenses without being required to
buy any new media or manuals.) 

The entire documentation set should be available in hard-copy form at extra
cost.  Each manual should be available individually, so that users can buy
only what they need; but also having packaged sets of commonly-requested
manuals at less than the sum of the individual prices is certainly reasonable.

There should be an easy way for any user to print arbitrary small sections of
the online documentation at no extra charge.  This abiliity is sometimes
extremely useful, and individual users (and probably many business users) 
typically won't have the resources available to print more than small amounts
of information.  (The technical issues involved in enforcing 'small amounts'
are left as an exercise... :-)

There should be a way for users with the necessary resources to print all or 
major parts of the on-line documentation, but it's reasonable to charge them
something for doing so.

My $.02,

	Dave
From: cadwell@sumax.seattleu.edu (James A. Cadwell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: X window under os2
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:42:56 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Seattle University, Seattle WA

Greetings OS2 folks,

A Unix user would like to know, does os2 support X window and Motif??
I currently write code under Unix and want to scope out the os2 terf.

Thanks,
Jim
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: pingshan@leland.Stanford.EDU (PINGSHAN WEN)
Subject: Re: ga's applets
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: comp
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 05:43:03 GMT

The bitmaps in Klondike is scalable, not like the Solitaire in Windoze.
That's why in 640x480 mode the image seems not good enough.  But with
Hi-Res mode, like 8514/A driver or Trident 1024x768, Klondike is
great, MUCH MUCH better than the one in Windxxx.
Cheers.
WPS. 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: pingshan@leland.Stanford.EDU (PINGSHAN WEN)
Subject: Trident Virtual Desktop PM Drivers
Keywords: svga virtual desktop
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 19:53:43 GMT

Trident has some new weird stuff posted on their BBS.
The new drivers use 800x600-256 colors or 640x480-256 colors
screen resolutions, but provide 1024x1024 desktop (Workplace shell)
which their called Virtual Desktop.  Users are able to access bigger
desktop by moving mouse cursor out of the physical screen.  The
driver tracks the mouse movement and pans the screen on the desktop.
Ilike my 14 inch monitor works on 800x600 mode while can still access
1024x1024 desktop.  The readme.doc file is modified.  You have to read it
before install.
Oops, their BBS is busy.

WPS S
From: pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: All GUIs are not alike
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:01:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: linus.1992Apr15.140111.23412
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.misc
Organization: Mitre Corporation

In article <1992Apr9.212614.22976@mmm.serc.3m.com>, usdta004@mmm.serc.3m.com
(Timothy S. Shea) wrote:
> 
> The interface is closer to the quality to the Mac.  I have OS/2 2.0 GA
> running on my machine at home.  My roommate does everything on the Mac
> and is DOS/Windows illiterate.  He has had little problems with running
> applications or copying things on the desktop under OS/2 2.0.  He was
> able to get things done on the machine with little pain.  The only realy
> problem was getting used to the two button mouse which he doesn't like
> at all (and I have to admit I hate the idea of a mouse with more than
> one button with a passion).
>  

The interface is very close to the Mac but IMHO it is much better.  It
use a Mac everyday at work and develop software for it.  I have OS/2 running
on my machine at home and prefer the WPS over both System 6 and System
7.  Before I saw the WPS, I thought the Mac interface was the best one
around (even better than the NeXT interface!!! Hi Mike!!! ;-) ).  Now I
know longer believe that.  

--Heeren
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael D Kretzer)
Subject: Re: Is this really Seamless?
Originator: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Reply-To: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:00:33 GMT

From article <1992Apr10.074128@smltlk.enet.dec.com>, by yon%smltlk.cbm.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com (David A. Yon):
> 	I just read the Petzhold article in PC Mag about OS/2 2.0.
> He showed a screen shot of the "Seamless Windows" support.  To me it
> looked like all you could do was run AN ENTIRE WINDOWS DESKTOP inside
> of a scrollable OS/2 PM window.  It looked like you were forced to have
> a Program Manager in each one of these desktops as well.
> 	I ask you... is that really the "Seamless Windows" support 
> that has been so hyped?  If so I'm pretty depressed, and will 
> probably wait for most of my Win apps to be ported to native OS/2
> before switching.  To me, "seamless" meant having individual Windows
> apps, each wrapped in a PM window.  This would be akin to running an
> OpenLook program under the Motif window manager, where inside the
> window it was pure OpenLook Widgets, but it was wrapped with the
> Motif resize handles.

'Seamless windows' is most certainly having 'individual Windows apps, each
wrapped in a PM window'.  The picture you are referring to is showing
how you can STILL run good ol' Windows 3.0 in a DOS window if you wish
(or as a full screen app).

Please don't worry over that...Windows apps run on the WPS desktop in the
'seamless' way you are expecting--no Program Manager needed (the frame
controls even look like Windows 3.0 bitmaps, instead of the PM ones, so
you can readily tell whether an open window is a Windows program or not).

The only 'problem' with seamless Windows at the moment is that drivers
only exist for the VGA and the 8514 as shipped (Trident drivers were
just recently posted to comp.binaries.os2...they are beta drivers, however,
so I do not know how well they work).  8514s suffer from low refresh
rates (typically) and VGA suffers from lack of resolution/colors...
From: ph600faz@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Fred Zeppelin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: DOS differences between LA and GA
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:56:44 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego


	I have just installed the GA of OS/2 V2, And I have found
some incompatability problems with software that seemed to be
compatable with the LA version.  First of all, the DAT player that
comes with the ATI SFX card, which ran somewhat under LA, just
brings down the system in GA.  The dos game Star Control which ran
perfectly under LA will not even run in GA.  Appogees, Commander
KEEN 2 (goodbye galaxy), runs, but the graphics have a slight shake
to them.  I will say that commander keen is running faster on GA,
than under LA.  I tried playing with DOS setting such as idill 
sensitivity, but it did not help at at all for Star control. I am
really puzzled by what could have changed in the DOS sessions since
LA came out.  I do Know that they managed to get Borland C++ 2.0 for
DOS to work, but I can't imagine that fix having the side effect of
these other problems.  MY next step is to try using DOS 5.0 as a 
sessioon under OS/2 ANd see if that will allow any of the programs
to run. I don't expect to get The ATI dat player to function since I
suspect it may have something to do with how it want's to get at the
interupts.  ANyway, If ANyone knows why these programs no longer
work, and If it can be fixed please respond.
	One thing is For sure, Overall GA runs  hell of a lot faster
and smoother than LA.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 16:05:19 CST
From: gthome@ausvm1.VNET.IBM.COM
Subject: Help me correct OS/2 misinformation
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 <17503.29ec2e97@ecs.umass.edu> Bryon Daly, ECE dept, UMass, Amherst writes:
>Hello,
>
>My friend and I just ordered copies of OS/2 v2.0.  He does not have USENET
>access, but you guys might be interested to know that your posts here that I
>showed him were instrumental in getting him interested in trying OS/2.
>(On a strange note: when he called to order his copy, he was quoted 2-3
>weeks to get his copy.  I called a few hours later and was told 4-6 weeks!)
>Hmmm.
>
>Anyway, he sent me the following piece of email, which details some
>misinformation he just got from a Microsoft rep.  Since you guys are the ones
>who actually know the facts the best, I thought you might be able to
>help me straighten these facts out for him.
>
>--------------------
>
>I was just talking to a guy who has heard a few things about OS/2 2.0  He
>is kind of anti OS/2, but he still had some interesting info.  He said
>that is supposedly has a few major bugs, and that is why it is 2-6 weeks
>for delivery.  He also said that the DOS boxes boot up with 4.01, not 5.0.
>I don't think this is accurate because people have said that they got
>Falcon 3.0 to run through OS/2, and that requires 5.0 according to the manual.
>
>Supposedly a friend of his had an IBM rep busy for an entire day trying to get
>a beta version to install on a model 90, but it installed flawlessly on a
>Gateway.  He seemed pretty negative towards it, but he is a distributor for
>Microsoft, so I guess that is to be expected.  He also said performace was
>poor if you had less that 16MB and that it was a real hard disk pig.  I think
>he is exaggerating about the 16MB.  The hard disk pig is to be expected.  I
>think peoples attitudes towards hard disk space must change.  A program like
>WordPerfect for Windows takes 6-8 MB of disk space.  FreeLance for Win takes
>over 10 MB.  Its reasonable to expect an operating system as complex as NT or
>OS/2 to take up 20-30MB.  If you count DOS and Windows, you have to be up to
>around 12-15MB anyway.  Besides, the worse that can happen is you hate OS/2 and
>you have wasted $49.  Big deal.  Talk to you later
>
>---------------------
>
>Thanks for any more reliable information you can supply,
>-Bryon
>
Byron,

The 2-6 week delay mentioned is because it takes a little while to produce
a couple hundred thousand of anything.  Bugs are not holding up shipment.

If anyone finds a bug installing on a IBM PS/2 Model 90 I would be very
suprised.  I installed on my 90 yesterday without problems.  2.0 has
been installed THOUSANDS of times on EVERY PIECE OF IBM HARDWARE.  It should
work fine.

The disk space question has been beat to death.  I will say nothing.

If you still need some help, feel free to email me directly.

Gerry Thome
IBM - Austin
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 15:39:34 CST
From: gthome@ausvm1.VNET.IBM.COM
Subject: Re: OS/2 and Installation
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
<"barnacle.e.764: 09.03.92.16.29.04"@clarkson.edu> 
                  <1992Apr9.212413@masg1.epfl.ch>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc

In <1992Apr9.212413@masg1.epfl.ch> Ceki Gulcu writes:
>In article <"barnacle.e.764:09.03.92.16.29.04"@clarkson.edu>, gthome@ausvm1.VNET.IBM.COM writes:
>
>|> >|> >A while back, I read an announcement from IBM saying that OS/2 2.0 could
>|> >|> >be installed via network. Did anybody try this?
>|> >|>
>|> >|> I don't know the details, but the IBM Austin site has a two diskette
>|> >|> network install for people here.
>|> >
>|> > Wow! This is great news. Do you have an idea how the two "magical" diskettes
>|> > work?
>|> >
>|>
>|> I kind of know how it works.  Its a tool called SRVIFS.  The 2 diskettes are
>|> basically the first two install diskettes from 2.0, with a some simple LAN
>|> NETBIOS redirection code that makes a connection to a server during the boot
>|> of the machine.  Once the install program is initiated, it can handle
>|> running over the network.
>|>
>|> As a matter of fact, the machine I'm typing on now was installed with this
>|> two diskette method.
>|>
>|> Gerry Thome
>|> IBM - Austin
>
>A Billy G. would say: "This is good and bad news". Our network is NFS (TCP/IP)
>based. Thus, the NETBIOS redirection code would not work. Would it be possible
>to boot from the standard diskettes mount the NFS drive and continue installation
>from there? I am sure this is would be possible if the installation was based on
>a modifiable script.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>| GULCU Ceki                            |  "It is not only fine feathers     |
>| e-mail: gulcu@lbdsun6.epfl.ch         |   that make fine birds."           |
>| Swiss Federal Institute of Technology |   AESOP,  6th century BC.          |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature to join in!
>
If one could mount a drive in the space left on the install diskettes, I
guess how the drive redirection was done would not matter.  In that case,
NFS via tcpip would be fine.

Also,  one could run netbios over a tcpip based network.  The network inside
IBM has netbios, tcpip, netware (odi?) and who knows or cares what else
running simultaneously.

Gerry Thome
IBM - Austin
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: Ami pro 2.0 and lotus 123 for os/2???
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 04:28:59 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.040310.15985@acsu.buffalo.edu> kiraly@acsu.buffalo.edu (Gaspar Kiraly) writes:
>Hi, about two months ago I upgraded AMI PRO and 123 for Windows.
>Can I upgrade to OS/2 of these programs from Windows? 
>If you have any information please let me know.

Lotus has 1-2-3/G 1.1 available now, and you can upgrade from 1-2-3/W.
Under the "technology guarantee" I believe the cost is $49.

AmiPro should be available later this year in an OS/2 version.  Same
for 1-2-3/G 2.0 (32-bit 1-2-3).

However, there's no requirement that you upgrade.  AmiPro and 1-2-3/W
will run just fine under OS/2 2.0's WinOS2.

>PS: How come IBM is not advertising os/2 on tv like MS does????????

Good question.  A lot of print ads are coming out right now (I saw a
big spread in PC Week, for example), but I think TV advertising would
be well advised.
-- 
Timothy F. Sipples       Keeper of the OS/2 Frequently Asked Questions
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu  List, available via anonymous ftp from
Dept. of Economics       128.123.35.151, directory pub/os2/faq, or via
Univ. of Chicago  60637  netmail from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: brooke@cco.caltech.edu (Brooke Paul Anderson)
Subject: Re: Video Vendors that DO support OS/2?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 22:26:21 GMT

Trident has the best support for OS/2.  They have drivers out NOW.
Good work Trident -- you beat everyone to the punch.
From: terryh@cae.wisc.edu (Terry Henning)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Diamond Stealth drivers for OS/2?
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:00:16 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison
Originator: terryh@sun-18.cae.wisc.edu

Hi,

I don't think that my previous post made it, but if it did please pardon me
for being redundant.

Anyway, does anyone know for sure whether Diamond will be providing drivers
for their Stealth video card under os2?  I've heard both yes and no and I
want to know for sure.  

Thanks,
Terry

terryh@cae.wisc.edu