HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jtq1@ra.msstate.edu (Jim Quinlan)
Subject: Re: Stacker and OS/2 2.0
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 03:39:33 GMT

>Don't ask me what they mean when they talk about OS/2 2.0 beta
>testers, but it sounds like good news for all of us who are facing
>losing half of our hard disk moving from DOS and Stacker to OS/2 2.0.

What about those that have those great big drives? (>100MEG)  It would
make the system into a monster!

-- 
Jim Quinlan               *     "Don't tell me you can make a bomb
jtq1@Ra.MsState.Edu       *        from a stick of chewing gum."
jtq1@MSSTATE.BITNET       *           "Why, you got some?"  --  MacGyver
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: aharder@jarthur.claremont.edu (Alan Keith Harder)
Subject: More Trident Troubles
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 22:36:05 GMT

I have a Trident 8900 video card and have been unable to get any 256 color
drivers to run under Windows 3.1.  When I initially installed the driver,
I got a message about an upper memory block at B000, so I added the switch
X=B000-B7FF to my QEMM (6.02) line in config.sys.  This got rid of the error
message.  Now it shows the bootup screen for a while, clears the screen (to
a text mode screen since I see the cursor), accesses the disk a bit more,
then clears the screen and gives me the dos prompt, telling me nothing...
WHAT is the problem??  If anyone has any suggestiong, please send me some
e-mail!
 I am using: Windows 3.1, Stacker 2.0, QEMM 6.02, a Logitech (MS compat)
             mouse, the SMARTDRV that came with win3.1
From: rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: TCP/IP v 1.2 now, or wait for something better?
Summary: Will newer versions be 32-bit (faster)?
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:07:17 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute

I ordered my OS/2 from Windows upgrade last week.  Now I
am trying to figure out how to get my machine to speak
TCP/IP....

The question is this.  Will there be a version of TCP/IP
for OS/2 released soon (one specific to OS/2 2.0)?  I guess
what I am assuming is that a v 2.0 specific TPC/IP package
would be 32-bit rather than 16-bit (plus hopefully have 
some nice additions/improvements)...

Should I buy now or wait?  Will the TCP/IP package get a 
free upgrade like OS/2 has done in the past?

Thanks,
Robert
--
| Robert L. Howard             |    Georgia Tech Research Institute     |
| rhoward@matd.gatech.edu      |    MATD Laboratory                     |
| (404) 528-7165               |    Atlanta, Georgia  30332             |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "See, when the GOVERNMENT spends money, it creates jobs; whereas when |
| the money is left in the hands of TAXPAYERS, God only knows what they |
| do with it.  Bake it into pies, probably.  Anything to avoid creating |
| jobs." -- Dave Barry                                                  |
From: lairdkb@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Sharing DOS machine's COM: ports on LAN Server
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:40:21 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

It seems like it would be close to trivial to use an XT class machine
as a peripheral server on a LAN Server net, but I haven't been able to
find any method that achieves this.

I'd like to be able to use the LAN Server network to link some devices
via 8086 machines.  Currently I'm wanting to be able to have 'cheap'
terminals with LCD's, magstripe readers and thermal printers hanging
off of the Ethernet at several locations.  If the devices could look
like serial devices (net use com8: \\server1\term5), I'd be all set.

Running OS/2 (and peer services) on such a terminal is way too complex
for the desired duty.

Any ideas?

Thanks!

--kyler
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: jarman@ee.ualberta.ca (Andrew Jarman)
Subject: Re: Any OS2 Event in Montreal or Quebec ?
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 04:39:54 GMT

itreleav@fraser.sfu.ca (Ian Anthony Treleaven) writes:

>In article <1992Apr14.021634.13080@cs.mcgill.ca> 
>tennis@cs.mcgill.ca (Pascal Proulx) writes:
>>
>>Hi !
>>One more thing, I would really like to read more comments about people here
>  itreleav@sfu.ca          |                                   -Buckaroo Banzai
Well, here at the U of Eh, some people are already getting their OS/2. I
know this because I asked the campus Micro Store about OS/2, and expected
a few stares.  Instead, the clerk checked the computer, and calmly stated
that they had 2 in stock, but they were already bought (pre ordered).
She claims that the Bookstore will not order in copies without people
placing orders for them.  (This is normal for most odd, non-popular   
programs).  Anyway, I get a free upgrade from 1.3, so I really wasn't
going to buy one, but it was nice to know.  
As far as excitment, there are lots of us here who can't wait, and lots
of other 'semi-converts' (I have been working hard :-) who will wait
and see how good this really is.  (Me, exagerate??! :-)

-- 
/***************************************************************************\
|  Andrew Jarman                 |   Computer Engineering                   |
|  jarman@bode.ee.ualberta.ca    |   University of Alberta, Canada          |
\***************************************************************************/
From: andre@ug.cs.dal.ca (Andre Wong)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Need some ADVISE: OS/2  OR WIN31?
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:42:48 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

I am using a 386/25 with  a 100mb hd and  4 mb ram and am deciding 
to  buy os/2 2.0 or windows 3.1. It seems  that os/2 is much  more
powerful but I doubt if I can  get good results from  my configuration.
I have  heard people saying that running  os/2  with  4mb is such a pain
and is damn  slow when you switching from one application to another.
So  before  i  get  more RAM, would windows 3.1 be faster for my system?
Is  os/2 really that slow with 4mb  ram? Please mail me or post here.  
Thanks in advance.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: OS/2, Unix, DOS 3.3, DOS 5.0, DR DOS 6.0 all at once?
Date: 10 Apr 92 07:23:06 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

I've gotta develop software for several operating systems (OS/2, DOS 3.3,
DOS 5.0, DR DOS 6.0, SCO Unix, Netware 2.1x, Netware 3.1x, Windows 3.0,
and Window 3.1).

I've got a 386 with a 200 meg IDE drive, and a 486 with a 200 meg IDE
drive.  Currently, I'm set up for everything except OS/2, and I'm
trying to figure out how to add OS/2.  Here's the current setup:

386:
	C: bootable 32 meg DOS partition with DOS 3.3.
	D: and E: 32 meg DOS partitions with random stuff.
	Rest of disk: SCO Unix

486:
	C: 32 meg DOS partition
	D: 32 meg DOS partition with MS DOS 5.0, Windows 3.0, and Windows
	3.1.  When I need to work with any of these, I boot a DOS 5.0
	floppy, FORMAT C:/S, XCOPY D: C:/S/E/V, and reboot.
	E: 32 meg DOS partition with DR DOS 6.0.  When I need to work with
	DR DOS, I boot a DR DOS floppy, format C:, and XCOPY E: to C:,
	and then reboot.
	F: All of my DOS, DR DOS, Windows, and Netware projects, plus
	all the tools that I need under all of these systems, such as
	compilers and editors.

	When I have to do Netware stuff, I stick a SCSI disk on and
	do Netware on that.

Other hardware:
	I've got numerous SCSI controllers and SCSI disks lying around.
	However, since SCSI development is what we do, these cannot be
	considered safe (at any time, some project can come up that
	requires using a specific disk for testing, making it unwise
	to try to use the SCSI disks as real development disks).  I
	can use them temporarily if I've got to shuffle things around
	to get all the systems set up.

The constraints:

	SCO Unix won't work on my 486.  (Actually, it will work if the
	486 is run at the slowest clock speed.  This is not acceptable!).

	I need to share certain files between DOS and SCO Unix.  SCO Unix
	can only mount DOS 3.3 partitions.

Unconstraings:

	Almost all of my work with these systems will be edit-compile-
	test cycles (or edit-compile-install-boot cycles, since I'm
	mostly working on device drivers).  I'm probably not going to
	be limited by file system performance, so I don't have to
	install any fast filesystems.  I can stick with a DOS
	file system for OS/2 if that will make the problem easier.

The plan:

	Put OS/2 on the 386.  I've moved almost all of my DOS work to
	the 486, so I can get rid of two of the DOS partitions on the
	386.  I only need a large enough DOS partition there to do
	the stuff that I have to share between DOS and Unix.

The questions:

	Does anyone have any comments on this?  Can I reasonable have
	SCO Unix and OS/2 share a disk?  I would need to be able to
	fairly easily boot either of these systems (or DOS).  I'd
	like to avoid having to boot from a floppy or play fdisk games
	with the active partition when I need to change systems.

	Does anyone have any other suggested layouts for this kind of
	thing?

							Tim Smith
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Trident... The saga continues...
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:53:51 GMT
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago

In article <1992Apr13.134525.28171@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes:
> [OS/2 runs DOS VGA graphics in a Super VGA window]
>>>The exception, of course, is trying to run a program which uses 256
>>>colors on a 16 color desktop.  OS/2 2.0 makes a valliant effort to
>>>dither the colors and run the program, but the results aren't always
>>>aesthetically appealing.
>Windows 3.1 "runs" 16 color VGA graphics programs in a window also.
>However, my tests indicate that neither Windows or OS/2 runs them
>**correctly**. The colors get all screwed up - in particular,
>most of my programs remap the color palette dynamically in or do
>do animation or smooth screen swapping - an example is my VGA version
>of Ephem available on c.scs.uiuc.edu. The colors blink on and
>off at random - incorrectly. Apparently Windows and OS/2 are not letting 
>the program change the color palette. 
>So, in essence, this feature is mostly useless. You can't even cut and paste
>and get the right colors.
>Note: OS/2 claims are based on tests using the last beta.

There's really no way around this.  The PC doesn't have the
sophisticated video hardware of say, oh, the Amiga.  (Well, the
hardware is sophisticated in other ways.)  If you have an application
that changes the palette, run it full screen.  Otherwise every other
color on your screen would be messed up if OS/2 (or Windows) allowed
the application to play with the palette.
-- 
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: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: Re: Manuals with OS/2 V.2 as shipped.
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1992 16:18:49 GMT

gthome@ausvm1.VNET.IBM.COM (Gerry Thome) writes:
> How to create the appropriate manuals for a product is under HEAVY DEBATE
> inside IBM.  [...]
> 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 ??

It may be too late by now ... but I'd like to cast my vote for good printed
documentation.  Sure, I'll use hypertext on occasion, but I really like to
be able to (1) read a manual elsewhere, too, and (2) plop a manual down next
to my keyboard and dedicate my entire screen to whatever I'm working on.

Even Microsoft, who went to online docs for C 6 (printed manuals at extra
cost), has responded to complaints and will include full documentation with
the new C/C++ 7.

[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: Gary.Woodman@anu.edu.au (Gary Woodman)
Subject: Re: OS/2 and AMI Incompatability
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 02:40:50 GMT

In article <"barnacle.e.636:08.03.92.18.56.19"@clarkson.edu> gthome@ausvm1.VNET.IBM.COM writes:

>IBM did show seamless Win3.1 at Comdex yesterday.  IBM stated that the
>Win 3.1 code was not ready for customer ship yet, but they are working
>in it as fast as they can.

Hey, don't you think the team of magicians at Boca deserves a break? :-)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary.Woodman@anu.edu.au         This post made from 100% recycled electrons.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: ted@isgtec.com (Ted Richards)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: DOS Program Icons Under OS/2 - How?
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:38:14 GMT
Organization: ISG Technologies Inc. Mississauga Ont. Canada

rafetmad@cheshire.oxy.edu (David R. Giller) writes:
: In article <2354@isgtec.isgtec.com> ted@isgtec.com (Ted Richards) writes:
: >All my windows programs' icons show up fine under OS/2, but all of the DOS
: >programs that I migrated show up with the simple OS/2 DOS window icon.
: >When I try to change the icon to a "DOS" .ICO file in the program settings
: >box, there is no error, but the icon becomes a blank.  These files came from
: >one of the icon collections on SIMTEL.  They worked fine under Windows 3.0.
: >
: >On the other hand, if I try to read a .ICO file into the Icon Editor,
: >it says the file is not a proper icon.
: 
: While the OS/2 2.0 .BMP format is an extension of the Windows 3.0 format,
: the .ICO format is different  (much more flexible.  But incompatible).
: 
: >Has anyone been able to use these icons under OS/2 2.0 GA?  Is there a utility
: >that converts them to somthing OS/2 will recognize?
: 
: I beleive there is an icon conversion program on hobbes.nmsu.edu.  Anyone
: know its name?

It appears to be cvtico.zoo in the graphics directory.  Thanks to you, 
Timothy Sipples and the others who responded to this.  I wasn't aware 
of this utility.

However this raises an interesting question: if the OS/2 icon format
is different than the Windows 3.0 format, how come the icons for all my
windows applications (including some shareware apps that I had to
manually add to the migration list) show up fine on the desktop?  I
suspect there must be an icon converter hidden inside the Windows
migration code.  Does anyone know if its possible to access this externally?
--
Ted Richards            ted@isgtec.com             [...!uunet.ca!isgtec!ted]
ISG Technologies Inc.   3030 Orlando Dr. Mississauga  Ont.  Canada   L4V 1S8
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: mdw@hojo.larc.nasa.gov (Mike Weisenborn)
Subject: Re: I WANT MY UPGRADE NOWpwd!
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:07:15 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.143951.25471@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.202410.5917@engage.pko.dec.com> ingram@hotair.enet.dec.com
>>
>>	All indications are, OS/2 is available from IBM only. What is this
>>	black hole that they are calling a "retail channel"?
>
>Our local Waldensoftware knows what it is and claims to be screaming at IBM
>for packages to sell. IBM has not delivered.

Funny, our local Waldensoftware (manager!) insists that OS/2 2.0 will not be
released until this Christmas.  "Even all the books about it have been pushed
back" he claims.

"Call IBM!"  I tell him.  I give him the number.

He won't even write it down.  He says that even if it is out (he is totally
unconvinced) that they probably won't carry it because IBM products are 
"traditionally poor sellers".

Hmmmm.  I wonder where he read this (he couldn't tell me) or IF he read
it or if he is just some know-it-all who doesn't even bother to find
out the truth.

I walked out in disgust.  It's one thing to be misinformed but quite another
to act like the customer couldn't possibly be correct.

-- 
Mike Weisenborn
These words are my own opinions.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: hacker@cco.caltech.edu (Jonathan Bruce Hacker)
Subject: OS/2 vs Unix multitasking - what's the diff?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 22:52:28 GMT

I read with interest the article on OS/2 versus Windows 3.0
multi-tasking capabilities. Could some Guru do the same
simplified analysis of OS/2 versus unix.  Do these
two systems multitask in a similar way?  If not, what
are the pros and cons?  Has the state of the art advanced
in the 20 odd years that have elapsed since unix was 
introduced?

Please try to keep it simple!


-- 
Jon Hacker
Caltech, Pasadena CA
hacker@tumbler-ridge.caltech.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: cb@tamarack12.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Subject: Re: manuals with os/2 v.2
In-reply-to: marv.kohn@execnet.com's message of 9 Apr 92 03:44:16 GMT
Organization: pubs
Distribution: comp
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:37:12 CDT

Marv Kohn writes:

   In the OS/2 2.0 box, there is a "Publications Order Form."  It lists
   the "OS/2 2.0 Command Reference," which it claims "provides the same
   information as is provided by the online Command Reference."  Price is
   $37.75.  You can get it by calling 800-426-7282.

I called the above number (which is "PC Books") and the operator didn't
have a clue what I wanted.  She said "let's see, I have the OS/2 LAN Server
1.3, and ...".  She gave me another number (which is an OS/2 support
number, I believe):

       800: 342-6672

At that number, the first two people I talked to still couldn't help me,
but a third person dug up some information about the manual; the price he
quoted, by the way, was $15, leading me to doubt that we were talking about
the same thing, but he was sure this was the right one.  He said that yet
*another* number would also serve as a source for ordering the manual (this
number, I believe, has something to do with PS/2 hardware support):

       800: 772-2227

Trying to be diplomatic, I suggested to this person that IBM had better
tell its operators about OS/2 and this manual, and have some ready to send.
I took this experience as yet another indication that IBM isn't prepared to
push OS/2 big-time.

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com
GEnie: C.BREWSTER7
From: gt1610c@prism.gatech.EDU (MCGAUGH,MICHAEL KENNETH)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: i don't like it!!
Date: 11 Apr 92 21:34:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: hydra.54294
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

Hey all.

I'd just like to add myself to the group of users who absolutely hated
the workplace shell when I first began using 6.304.  It went against
everything that I had become used to with windows and the Mac.  But
after only three days, I would rather do everything by hand that go
without the WPS.  It is the best thing to happen to personal computing
in a long time, IMHO.

Ken.


-- 
M. Ken McGaugh
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt1610c
Internet: gt1610c@prism.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: quan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Tony Quan)
Subject: Anyone received GA in the mail yet?
Originator: quan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:24:59 GMT


Has anyone who ordered GA through the 800 number since March 31 received
it yet?  IBM said 2-4 weeks, so it's possible that someone's gotten it
already.  Please reply by mail so that the group isn't flooded with
"I got it" messages (maybe).  I will post a count in a few days.

--Tony
quan@cs.stanford.edu
From: rafetmad@cheshire.oxy.edu (David R. Giller)
Subject: Re: Which DOS?
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 10:10:22 GMT

In article <1992Apr17.032251.13767@rat.csc.calpoly.edu> rteasdal@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Rusty) writes:
>	I recall someone, who seemed both authoritative and credentialled,
>posting a description of 2.0 which said that the version of DOS which was
>included with and installed by it was IBM's licensed version of DOS 5.0.
>
>	Well, I drifted into the campus computer store today, to find that
>they have OS/2 2.0 running on a PS/2 Model 55SX (although no shrink wrapped 
>copies have arrived). Playing around with it, I opened a DOS window and
>typed "VER" out of curiosity.
>
>	It promptly said "O/S 2 Version 2.0" or words to that effect.
>I thought for a moment and then tried "EDIT". That was unrecognized, so I
>tried "EDLIN". _That_ worked, to my horror. Is it true, as I was later
>told, that this is actually the evil DOS 4.01? It certainly looks as
>though it is. Will this be addressed by Corrective Service Diskettes at
>some later time?

Well, to be truly technically correct, it's not DOS at all, but a DOS
emulator that is specific to OS/2.

However, for all intents and purposes, it is DOS 5.0.  It does all the
upper-memory management that DOS does (better, really), but
doesn't have all the little utilities that DOS came with...they don't
make sense.  You definitely don't, for example, want to MIRROR an OS/2
drive under the DOS box (nor could you), and you want to use OS/2's
undelete instead of the DOS equivalent, etc.  Personally, I'm glad that
EDIT wasn't included; it's a HORRIBLE editor with a user interface that
violates even MS's UI standards.  And for some stupid reason, they
tied QBASIC and EDIT together.  I'm glad I don't have to pay the extra
royalty that IBM would have undoubtedly have paid for QBASIC.
Good riddance to BASIC anyway.  REXX is here.

If you REALLY need dos 5's stuff, you can copy it from your existing DOS.
If you don't already have DOS, why are you missing anything?

-Dave
-- 
David Giller, Box 134 | Q: How many Oregonians does it take to screw in a light
Occidental College    | bulb?  A: Three.  One to replace the bulb, and two to
1600 Campus Road      | fend off all the Californians trying to share the
Los Angeles, CA 90041 | experience. ---------------------------rafetmad@oxy.edu
From: fineberg@eng.uiowa.edu (Sam Fineberg)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Backup programs
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:05:31 GMT
Organization: Department of Elect. and Comp. Engr., University of Iowa, USA.
Originator: fineberg@hitchcock

Is it possible to use DOS backup programs with OS/2 like Fastback or Central 
Point Backup, if so, will they work with HPFS?  I don't like the idea of 
switching back to a normal backup program.  It already takes 55 disks to 
backup my computer with full compression.  Is there a backup program with 
compression for OS/2?

Sam
-- 
Samuel A. Fineberg                 Department of Elect. and Comp. Engr.
fineberg@eng.uiowa.edu             University of Iowa
Voice: (319)335-5962               Iowa City, IA  52242, USA
FAX: (319)335-6028
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc