HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: jadpc2
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 12:23:56 -0800
From: Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: Lotus and Computer Associates
Comment-To: Heeren_Pathak@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

> This is probably why Computer Associates is working hard at porting
so
> many of their applications to 32-bit OS/2, also.  They realize there
> is a market opportunity to become a #1 or #2 supplier on a new
> operating system platform.

 HP> Note:  This is the strategy that MS was able to use on the Mac &
Windows. 
 HP> MS Word, Excel, & Powerpoint have enough of the marketshare to
pretty much
 HP> smash the rest of the competition.  The reason that MS 
 HP> got this marketshare
 HP> was that they were the only company that had a robust product.

I think that Lotus and Computer Associates are both going to end up
having large chunks of the OS/2 software market and Microsoft is going
to be shut out.  Even though Microsoft has OS/2 1.x versions of Word
and Excel 3.0 available, given how they seem to break with every OS/2
update and Excel for OS/2 doesn't even have a working help system, who
would buy the things, especially with Microsoft doing its best to kill
OS/2?  It would be like buying food from your chief enemy who then
takes the profits to build guns to threaten or kill you.

There was a review of Describe 4.0 in PC Week and another article
where somebody who has both Describe 4.0 and Ami Pro for OS/2 beta. 
This guy said he liked Describe 4.0 better than Ami Pro.  I've been
using Describe 3.0 and it is pretty good, but I'm looking forward to
receiving the free 4.0 update.
Ami Pro for Windows looks great and if the Ami Pro for OS/2 version
ends up being similar but uses OS/2 features well, I might consider
switching to that.
Anyhow, it is great to know that in just a few more months there will
be enough OS/2 apps that people will have some choices.


--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8506 comp.os.os2.misc:36676
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:44:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: njitgw.1992Nov16.164438.27020
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <BxsoLo.qF@csfb1.fir.fbc.com> uunet!csfb1!jbrock writes:
>
>I'm sorry, but I do a lot of work on an IBM mainframe running VM/CMS,
>and an application running in a virtual machine just does not crash the
>system (unless the machine has special privileges), no matter how badly
>behaved it is.  I can forgive UNIX for being crashable (it's *old*),
>but I don't think a normal application (as opposed to a device driver
>or something that touches the hardware directly) should ever be able to
>crash a fully modern operating system.  We should have *something* to
>show for all these years of operating system experience, shouldn't we?

VM/CMS is much more limited.  You don't have the ability to spawn
additional processes or create additional virtual machines (that
requires editing system parameter tables and re-IPLing the system).
Under Unix, any process can spawn additional processes, each getting a
slice of CPU time.

This will kill any Unix system:

	while (1) fork();

Such a thing can be done on most multitasking systems, and will kill
any OS that allows user-level processes to spawn child processes.
-- 
  |)  David Charlap          | .signature confiscated by FBI due to
 /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu | an ongoing investigation into the
((|,)                        | source of these .signature virusses
 ~|~
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: janovetz@meibm4.cen.uiuc.edu (Jacob W Janovetz)
Subject: Bug? Virus? Feature? -- Big mistake.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:51:43 GMT

   I posted a note earlier about 'chkdsk' giving errors sometimes if it is 
just run on a clean slate as a Full Screen session.  I screwed up.  Here's
what happened.  When I have nothing going in OS/2, the swap file appears
to be around 2 meg.  However, when I run OS/2 Full Screen, OS/2 tries to
extend the swap file to 4 meg (or so).  However, since I have the HPFS
thing and Lazy Writes on, it doesn't do this until about 5-6 seconds
AFTER the Full Screen session is loaded.  SOooo, if I load the full screen
session, then wait about 5 seconds (when the disk is accessed for a short
time), then do a chkdsk, all is good and dandy.  Thanks to those who replied,
but I figured out my mistake last night...  However, I did get one reply 
about Virus Software.
    Would someone please post a list of good virus scanners for OS/2.  One
of them mentioned in my mail was one from IBM which can scan the boot
sector every so often, in the background.  That type of thing would be
great, but I assume IBM is 'selling' this one...  Please post where I can
get this stuff...  Thanks,

      /
   / * /    Jake Janovetz
  *   *

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2)
Subject: Re: how I crashed OS/2 (I think ?)
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.misc
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 06:03:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.020124.6574@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> bennie@ennex5.eng.utsa.edu (Bennie Pierce) writes:
>
>	I've read several posts about crashing OS/2 and most of the
>methods seemed rather artifical (such as hanging in a loop forking  
>processes).  However, while doing some very late night C programming I  
>think I managed to crash an OS/2 full screen session.
>
>	I was rewriting a simple DOS program that had screen control in  
>it.  I decided to use the ANSI handling in the OS/2 full screen to control 
>the screen.  I mistakenly entered something like : 
>	fputs ("\x1B[k", stdin);    
>                         ******   (compiled with C Set/2)
>
>	Upon running the program, my screen hung, I pressed a few keys to
>see if it was waiting for input and the machine began to squeal.   
>Ctrl-Break did nothing neither did Break or Ctrl-C.  So I rebooted by  
>C-A-D, after the system came up the the dektop had some screwed-up icons  
>and I couldn't run my DOS full screen session from the desktop.  I booted  
>from diskette and replaced OS2.INI with a backup copy and everything was  
>OK.  Was the system crashed or just a hung session ?  How do you  
>terminated a full screen session ?

I don't have C Set/2 so I cannot duplicate your crash.

To kill any session (Full Screen, Windowed, or PM) press Control-Escape
to get the Window List.  Select the name of the crashed program (using the
mouse or cursor keys) and press Delete.

For more information about this, you can read FAQ #15 of the FAQL 2.0g.
Follow up to comp.os.os2.misc .
 
-- 
==== Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ====
::   ftp ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (128.123.35.151)    ::  .--.
::   for OS/2 software & information.  Get    :: (OS/2)
:::: the OS/2 FAQL in dir /pub/os2/all/faq :::::  ~--~
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: MN OS/2 EUG December Meet
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:12:01 -0600

                      Minnesota OS/2 End-user Group
                             December Meeting

Reservations requested:  Please call 612/397-6444 and register using
                         course code OS2.

When:   December 17, 1992 - 19:00 (7PM CDT) to 22:00 (10PM CDT)

Where:  IBM Building
        650 Third Avenue South (First Bank Place)
        Minneapolis, MN   55402

Agenda: Business Meeting
        Questions and Answers
        Vendor Presentation
                IBM presents Borg!

         Bob Brickweg will present a time (in the very near future)
         when the Next Generation and Borg are working together - in
         peace, harmony, and for the benefit of all computing kind.

         All kidding aside, come and see OS/2 2.01!  See the major
         performance improvements (Yes Virgina, end-users can use OS/2
         with only 4 MB RAM), complete Windows 3.1 support, and other
         new and exciting features.

        Member Presentation
                None (yet) scheduled.  Would you like to present?

Refreshments provided.

Door Prize:  Copies of OS/2 Professional Magazine.
             DCF/2 (if it arrives in time).
             Other possible items.

Directions:  The IBM Building location is on Third Avenue South between
South Sixth Street and South Seventh Street.  IBM and First Bank share
the same building (First Bank Place).  You might ask directions when
registering.

Note:  Only two entrances are open - 6th Street and the skyway.

Parking:  Several parking ramps exist.

  Northstar Center - One block West of IBM.
  IBM/First Bank - Parking is expensive ($6.00 plus).
  Pillsbury Center - One and an half blocks North of IBM.
  Hennepin County Govt. Center - $2.00 after 4PM, last time I used it.


 * Origin: (1:282/115)
From: bjorn@ludd.luth.se (Bjorn Fahller)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 - TE/2 - Chrashing and such (was: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!)
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:46:15 GMT
Organization: Lule} Tekniska H|gskolas Datorf|rening - Ludd

In <1992Nov17.173231.900@debet.nhh.no> si0_tb90020@debet.nhh.no writes:
>Well, I have read a few of the postings about OS/2 crashing, and a lot
>of them seems to have in common that they have been running TE/2 at the
>time. Is there anything wrong with TE/2. I don't use it, and don't know
>anything about it, but...

It shouldn't matter if there's something wrong with TE/2 or not. Ideally
I should be able to feed the poor processor any random kind of instructions
and the operating system should still go on. If there's something wrong
with it (TE/2) the program should be shut down, nothing else should happen.
Probably the ideal won't be here too soon, but one should be able to get
closer than what OS/2 is today.

Sometimes, as you say, a pressine CTRL-ESC and a little patience does it.
Sometimes, however, OS/2 dies. I mean die. Hangs up rock solid. Nothing
to do at all. Big red one. CTRL-ALT-DEL beeps at best. Admittedly this
isn't very usual. It's only happened to me twise. Unfortunately both
after installing the CSD.

   _
/Bjorn.
-- 
Bjorn Fahller     Phone:              |The opinions above are not necessarily
Trollnasvagen 3A  Intl:+46 920 226870 |those of... Hey! Wait a minute. Do you
S-951 61 Lulea    Natl:0920-22 68 70  |seriously expect Me, a student, to carry
Sweden            << space for rent >>|the official voice of the University?
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8507 comp.os.os2.misc:36678
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:52:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: njitgw.1992Nov16.165239.27181
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <&c#@byu.edu> earlyd@newt.ee.byu.edu (David Early) writes:
>WAIT A MINUTE!

You too!

>I have a Trident 8900C w/1meg, and I assume that this is a SVGA
>chip set.  I also installed the 8514 drivers from Hobbes that
>give 1024-768 resolution and have been impressed and
>how much FASTER this driver is compared to the old 800-600
>Trident driver retrieved from hobbes about 3 months ago.

If this worked, then your board has an 8514/a processor on board.
8514/a drivers will not work on anything without an 8514/a processor. 

>I'm not sure I agree that 8514 drivers don't like SVGA chips...
>I think the drivers have to emulate the 8514 better...

The drivers don't emulate anything.  All 8514/a processing is in
hardware on the board.  That's why it's so fast.  The older Trident
drivers you speak of use ordinary sVGA modes, and have to move massive
quantities of pixels about.  The 8514/a driver assumes that the
hardware can do this on its own, and just sends commands around.


-- 
  |)  David Charlap          | .signature confiscated by FBI due to
 /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu | an ongoing investigation into the
((|,)                        | source of these .signature virusses
 ~|~
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rmk@frog.CRDS.COM (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Workers hate windoze, revolution at 11!  :-)
Date: 18 Nov 92 06:24:21 GMT
Organization: Charles River Data Systems

In article <GERRY.92Nov13123205@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>Loo, I don't want to insult your mon, but she's pretty stupid.  With
>the exception of TeX, which I assume she doesn't use, no text based
>editor even comes close to looking as good as the worst windows based
>editor.   Some people are still living in the dark ages, and think of
>computers as typewriters with built in spell checkers.  Luckily, that
>breed will soon die off.


i don't think that I agree with that.  In the world of business,
the average business letter uses a fairly straight PICA or ELITE
font.  Letters of this type can easily be done with an 80286, a
copy of multimate, and a daisywheel printer.  Or a laser or 24 pin
dot matrix printer if you want to use bold, etc.

There is nothing more stupid to look at than a document prepared by
someone who feels that they have to use 47 different fonts in 12
different sizes to get their point across.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: si0_tb90020@debet.nhh.no
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: os/2 in byte magazine -- planned use of mach kernel!!
Date: 23 Nov 92 15:57:21 MET
Organization: Norwegian School of Economics

In article <8+y1_sh@rpi.edu>, gilem@aix.rpi.edu (Michael R. Gile) writes:
> there is an small article on page 38 of dec. byte mag that
> says that IBM is planning to come out with a version of os/2
> based on the mach kernel!!  James Cannavino, IBM vice pres
> & general manager of Personal Systems line basically claims
> that the new version will be released in 18 to 24 mos, and
> will be able to run dos, windows, os/2 and UNIX programs !!
> I only have one question...  why didn't they do this in the 
> first place?  If they had done this first place, I would
> probably be convinced that os/2 had more of a future, and
> would be running it on my machine.
> 
> Mike
> go IBM!
> 
> reprinted from byte w/out permission
> 
Has been rumours about this for a long time. There are a few drawbacks
to this though.

Though the Mach kernel is a nice peace of software, it is not very
efficient. It was not created to be. And to have a OS based on the Mach
kernel, you either need to rewrite it a lot (like NeXT), or you will
need lots of processing power (when you want to run OS/2, DOS, Windwos
and Unix on top of Mach).

When this version of OS/2 comes out - be ready to buy the latest in
processor, RAM, and HD. Probably 486 and better, lots of RAM (16 as a
minimum ans so on).

What would have happended to OS/2 if it had such hardware demands now?

+------------------+------------------------+---------------------------+
|  Terje Bergesen  |  terjeb@eik.ii.uib.no  | si0_tb90020@debet.nhh.no  |
|                  |  terjeb@viggo.blh.no   |                           |
+------------------+------------------------+---------------------------+
|  My opinions are entirely my own, and not the ones of anybody else I  |
|  know. Any resemblance to any other opinions are pure accidental      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                      BTW: Nuke the Whales                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: Workers hate windoze, revolution at 11! : -)
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 02:27:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.101921.4839@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>And nothing looks quite so unprofessional as a letter set in a fixed
>>>width font printed on a dot matrix printer.  I see that and I say,
>>
>>Gee, you must have a real problem with places that use TYPEWRITERS.
>
>Which typewriters used dot matrix?
>
>--Tim Smith

If you've never seen a typewriter that printed its characters with a dot
matrix print head, you haven't seen many typewriters!  I have
(somewhere, it's no longer in use) an old Brother battery operated,
portable typewriter that I got in, I think 1982 for a specific purpose,
which it suited well.  It had a 16 character type ahead buffer and a
small LCD window that let you see characters (and make changes) before
printing them.  The print head was, what, maybe 7 pins and the maximum
character width was maybe 5 characters (I'm estimating on this, guided
by my recollection that the darn thing didn't do descenders!).  But it
was indeed a typewriter and it did indeed put output to paper (fax-like
thermal paper needed no ribbon, plain paper did) with a dot matrix head.

Now, I know of no business that used this sort of thing, but I'll repeat
myself: it isn't the appearance of printed copy that matters but,
rather, the substance of what is communicated.  Sure, it's nice to look
at a neat, well-fontificated presentation, but substance ought to win in
the battle between illusion and reality in anything that matters (I
except advertising from this, of course!).

jmalloy@hamilton.edu
 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: COMDEX Awards
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:47:56 GMT

Chris Waters writes:

>>	Windows is a joke to install.  run setup, swap disks.  No 
>>	matter who you are or what your system is, I doubt you'll
>>	fail to install--_properly_--on the first attempt.

> Gee, never worked in customer support, have you?  I'll grant that anyone
> with half a brain could probably install it.  But there's a lot of peole
> out there buying computers who seem to lack any central nervous system. 

Yep.  How about the user who called support because the instructions said
to press any key.  She couldn't find the key labeled 'Any'.  How about the
one who couldn't get the program to install properly because the second
floppy was forced into the drive along with the first floppy.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8696 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2880
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 support is late
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:39:16 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

>thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:
>>Besides, "the latest version of Windows" is Windows NT. Will OS/2 have NT
>>support two or three months after NT is released?

The current estimates are IBM will support Win32 BEFORE NT is released.

Nico E. de Vries  (nevries@cc.ruu.nl) |------------------*   AA   III  PPP
_ This text is supplied AS IS, no warranties of any kind |  A  A   I   P  P
| apply. No rights can be derived from this text. This   |  AAAA   I   PPP
| text is likely to contain spelling and grammar errors. |  A  A   I   P
*---------------------------( Donate to GreenPeace! )----*  A  A  III  P

To get (many) ==> LOSSLESS DATA COMPRESSION SOURCES <== get lds_10.zip at 
garbo.uwasa.fi /pc/programming. Make files for Borland C are included. 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jdecarlo@mitre.org (John DeCarlo)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean  VA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:18:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.173144.23610@ms.uky.edu>
 jedwards@ms.uky.edu (Jonathan Edwards) writes:

>OS/2 and the scheduler aren't hung, the workplace shell is.  Programs
>running in the background will still get timeslices.  (Small consolation
>perhaps.)
>
>The way it is supposed to work is as follows:  if you hit Ctrl-Esc and
>the app that currently has the focus doesn't respond within a "reasonable"
>amount of time, a popup is supposed to appear giving you the option of
>killing the app.  I don't know the exact definition of "reasonable"
>(although in my experience it seems to be "just long enough for the average
>person to conclude the machine is hung solid and turn the power off") and
>I don't know how to adjust the timeout...

That happened to me last night, more-or-less.  I did something that turned 
the screen black, so I hit Ctrl-Esc.  Nothing happened for a few minutes so 
I went to bed (it was *very* late).

In the morning, I belatedly thought about my BBS and wondered if I had 
crashed the machine.  Turns out that though the screen was still black and 
the keyboard didn't respond, the BBS and a few other processes had been 
chugging away quite nicely and successfully the rest of the night and into 
the morning.

That's the kind of thing that keeps me using OS/2 and not DOS/Windows.

John DeCarlo, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA--My views are my own
Fidonet:  1:109/131  Internet:  jdecarlo@mitre.org
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak)
Subject: Re: os/2 in byte magazine -- planned use of mach kernel!!
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Mitre Corporation
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:28:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.155721.904@debet.nhh.no>, si0_tb90020@debet.nhh.no
wrote:
> 
> In article <8+y1_sh@rpi.edu>, gilem@aix.rpi.edu (Michael R. Gile) writes:
> > there is an small article on page 38 of dec. byte mag that
> > says that IBM is planning to come out with a version of os/2
> > based on the mach kernel!!  James Cannavino, IBM vice pres
> > & general manager of Personal Systems line basically claims
> > that the new version will be released in 18 to 24 mos, and
> > will be able to run dos, windows, os/2 and UNIX programs !!
> > I only have one question...  why didn't they do this in the 
> > first place?  If they had done this first place, I would
> > probably be convinced that os/2 had more of a future, and
> > would be running it on my machine.
> > 
> > Mike
> > go IBM!
> > 
> > reprinted from byte w/out permission
> > 
> Has been rumours about this for a long time. There are a few drawbacks
> to this though.
> 
> Though the Mach kernel is a nice peace of software, it is not very
> efficient. It was not created to be. And to have a OS based on the Mach
> kernel, you either need to rewrite it a lot (like NeXT), or you will
> need lots of processing power (when you want to run OS/2, DOS, Windwos
> and Unix on top of Mach).

While the orginal version of Mach wasn't very efficient, I am not sure if
it is fair to classify Mach 3.0 in the same manner.  The work NeXT did on
improving Mach was given back to CMU and incorporated by the development
team.  OSF was writing OSF/1 using the Mach microkernel and they have also
spent a lot of time improving it.  I believe that the Mach microkernel that
will be used in future version of OS/2/AIX will be quite good and probably
as good or maybe even better than the NT kernel.  After all, the Mach
kernel has been around for years and several commericial organizations (not
to mention countless universities) have tested/debugged and otherwise used
the kernel.  That experience can go a lot way in having a stable kernel.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heeren Pathak                      | Millions long for immortality who do 
pathak@mitre.org                   | not know what to do with themselves
Mitre Corporation                  | on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
(617) 271-7465                     |	               	-- Susan Ertz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Mine not Mitre's.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8518 comp.os.os2.misc:36750