HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jon@bai.baylis.COM (Jon Granrose)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.networking
Subject: LAN Manager 2.1
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:35:46 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Baylis Automation Inc. (Scotts Valley, CA)


In article <1992Aug31.151731.6058@nntp.hut.fi> tkorento@vipunen.hut.fi writes:
  > On my job we are running LAN Manager 2.1 under OS2 v1.3.
  > Its a 10 user version and the server is a 386 with 6megs of memory and
  > about 200megs of disk.
  > 
  > Some of my workmates have put the pressure on to upgrade the servers os to
  > v 2.0 since "it is the latest release...".

I am assuming this is Microsoft Lan Manager.  Last I heard there is no
support for an OS/2 2.0 server, only the client software is available (and
that's beta).  So I would keep your server at OS/2 1.3 myself.  If you want
to do any optimization there is a section in the Administrator's manual
on optimizations you can perform.

Jon
--
Jon Granrose (JG102)			jon@baylis.com
Baylis Automation			...!netcomsv.netcom.com!bai!jon
5550 Scotts Valley Dr, Suite 500	voice:	(408) 438-7327
Scotts Valley, CA 95066			fax:	(408) 438-1105
                  "Groovy."  -- Ash, Evil Dead II
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.networking
From: db3l@ans.net (David Bolen)
Subject: Re: PMX use a font server ?
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:10:50 GMT
Organization: Advanced Network & Services, Inc. - Elmsford, NY

In article <tykn_7a.jsuttor@netcom.com> jsuttor@netcom.com (Jeff Suttor) writes:

>Can PMX be told to use a font server to satisfy font requests?

I don't think so.  Font servers arrived with X11R5, and as far as I know, the
PMX base is still X11R4, so it just uses the SNF (server native format) font
files that it locates along the font path (modifiable by XSET [+]fp[+]).

--
-- David
--
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
 \              David Bolen             \  Internet: db3l@ans.net      /
  |   Advanced Network & Services, Inc.   \   Phone: (914) 789-5327   |
 / 100 Clearbrook Road, Elmsford, NY 10523  \   Fax: (914) 789-5310    \
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------/
From: joedust@cyvaned.cyvaned.sub.org (Thomas Lotterer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.networking
Subject: USENET and OS/2 2.0
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:58:44 GMT
Reply-To: joedust@cyvaned.cyvaned.sub.org
Distribution: world
Organization: Cyvaned Systems, Fasanenstr. 2a, W_8047 Karlsfeld, Germany
X-Newsreader: Arn V1.00 beta rel1

Hello World :-)

I'll  try  to set up a USENET Site running under OS/2 2.0 in
the  near  future.   I've  experience with such beasts under
AmigaDOS  and  UNIX but i've really no idea where to get all
pieces of software to do so.

Where  can  i  get packages like uucp, sendmail, elm, cnews,
nn, cron ...  for OS/2?

Yes,  i  know,  i could ask archie, but who can tell me what
versions and releases working together in harmony?

Please help, thanks in advance, Thomas

--
       Thomas Lotterer * Fasanenstr. 2a, W_8047 Karlsfeld, Germany.
      joedust@cyvaned.cyvaned.sub.org joedust@salyko.cubenet.sub.org
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.networking
From: manne@Minsk.docs.uu.se (Magnus L|vkvist)
Subject: Ethernet software?
Keywords: ethernet software
Organization: UDAC, Uppsala, Sweden
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:55:34 GMT

Is there any software which lets me transport files between to PC:s
via Ethernet. The PC:s are of course running OS/2 2.0.

I would of course prefer a real 32-bit app but an old 16-bit OS/2 1.x
app would do. I'd rather not use DOS or Windoze.

/Magnus
From: esmith@hobbes.psych.purdue.edu (Eliot R. Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.networking
Subject: tcp/ip 1.2.1 hangs on booting
Summary: C0000005 error, system hang after CONFIG.SYS
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:24:10 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

TCP/IP version 1.2.1 won't even boot up for me, bombing with a blank
screen and c0000005 error right after processing CONFIG.SYS.  Has
anyone seen this or have any ideas?
--equipment: Gateway 2000 486DX2/50, 8 MB, SMC = WD Ethercard 
Plus Elite 16 network card, ATI Graphics Ultra, 207 MB IDE disk. 
--The machine runs fine under OS/2 2.0 without the TCP/IP.
--The network card runs fine under Sun's PC-NFS 3.5c in a 
virtual DOS machine, so there doesn't seem to be a hardware 
problem.
--PROTOCOL.INI looks reasonable, especially the entries for the
network card's IO address and so on.
--the various drivers loaded in CONFIG.SYS all seem happy,
judging by their screen messages as they load.  Then bang, it's
all over with the c0000005.

IBM called me just a day or two after I filed a bug report on this
and then said they'd get back--but I haven't heard anything in two
weeks now.  Does the net have any wisdom to impart?

Thanks in advance -- Eliot Smith
--
Eliot R. Smith         Dept. of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University
Phone: (317) 494-7709  West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-1364   USA
Domain: esmith@psych.purdue.edu    BITNET: esmith@PURCCVM
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.programmer,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: dosv under os2
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:42:02 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <17t6p8INN5od@agate.berkeley.edu> ucbked@athena (Earl H. Kinmonth) writes:
>the faq for os2 claims you can run multiple dos sessions under
>os2 and they need not be the same version.  is this for real? is
>it robust?

Yes, and yes.  I run DOS 5.0 in virtual machines all the time.

>i want to run dosv, the version of dos marketed by ibm for at and
>ps2 bus machines that does on screen display of japanese kanji.
>this version of dos does nothing more exotic than trap bios
>calls, check if the two byte codes are kanji, and display
>accordingly.  it runs fine on generic us and european market
>machines.  nevertheless, i do not want to shell out for os2 and
>learn its quirks if os2 will not runs dosv.  

It should run, but it may have to run in a full-screen session, if
it's going to use vga graphics.  Some hi-res video drivers (like my
ATI driver) will not map a VGA screen into a window.

-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2:275 comp.os.os2.apps:5704
From: slumos@unlv.edu (Steve Lumos)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: Files Requested
Keywords: Qedit - UUencode
Date: 25 Aug 92 21:31:43 GMT
Organization: UNLV Computer Science

In article <38936.2369220243@crfm.gen.nz> mark@raptor.mercury.gen.nz (Mark Herrick) writes:
>Hi Everybody! .. I Have a small request. If anyone has a copy of Qedit for
>OS/2 (i'm not even sure this exists) can they please Post it on binaries.os2
>also (so that i can post) a copy of UUENCODE for OS/2 .. I have UUDECODE but
>if i want to send things it's not much use.

The OS/2 version of QEdit is not shareware. I just bought a copy
myself and I love it. It is exactally the same as QEdit for DOS 2.15
except that it uses virtual memory so you can edit much larger files.
I don't think that you have to go through SemWare, you can probably
get it through the Programmer's Shop, or Programmer's Paradise, etc.
Retail is $79.00, there is a 50% discount for students (with proof of
course). Here the address right off my invoice:

SemWare
4343 Shallowford Road, Suite C3A
Marietta, GA 30062-5022

Phone: (404) 641-9002

There should be an order form for QEdit for OS/2 in the distribution
for QEdit for DOS as well as one for QEdit TSR.

TTYL - Steve


-- 
Steve Lumos - slumos@cs.unlv.edu
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2:254 comp.os.os2.misc:28536 comp.os.os2.programmer:4530 comp.os.os2.apps:5631 comp.os.os2.advocacy:4686
From: ADUNSMUI@TOROLAB6.VNET.IBM.COM (Al Dunsmuir)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 18:20:40 EDT
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.programmer,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IS IBM UK STILL IN THE STONE AGE???
Organization: IBM Canada Laboratory Ltd, Toronto, CANADA
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 3.0
            <1992Aug28.180020.17109@microsoft.com>

In <1992Aug28.180020.17109@microsoft.com> Phil Lafornara writes:
>In article <714913121.20822@minster.york.ac.uk> george@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
>>>
>>>  It seems that there are a number of users using AMIPRO V2.0,
>>>  running under WIN/OS2 that have not encountered any problems.
>>>
>>>  I can only advise you to run the software on an IBM machine to
>>>  ascertain whether or not there is a fault with Hardware instead
>>>  of Software.
>
>     OK, please don't interpret this as a bash on IBM, as Microsoft
>corporate policy, or as anything more than a gut reaction to reading
>this text.
>
>     This really gives me the willies.  Is IBM only going to support
>OS/2 on IBM hardware?  And, if so, what would be the implications if
>OS/2 were to dominate the PC operating system market?
>
>                       -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.
>

Phil,

  I certainly found your posting worthy of comment.  I forwarded it on to
John Soyring.  The following is his reply, which certainly speaks for itself.

Al Dunsmuir                       Internet: adunsmui@torolab6.vnet.ibm.com
CODE Development II + TEAM OS/2      Voice: (416) 448-3315
IBM Canada Laboratory Ltd, Toronto, CANADA

OS/2 V2: Why settle for anything less?

=========================================================================
To: ADUNSMUI--TOROLAB6 Al Dunsmuir

From:  John A. Soyring      Director, Personal Systems
                            Software Development Programs
                            T/L 678-2400
Subject: Re: IS IBM UK STILL IN THE STONE AGE???

Al,

Please post the following reply under my name to whichever newsgroup this
came from.

"Phil,

What you imply is wrong. IBM is committed to supporting IBM OS/2 2.0 and beyond
on all 386SX and larger PC's worldwide -- from any manufacturer. We will make
our best effort to find the cause of any failures on any of these OS/2-capable
machines, and fix the bug. If we cannot fix the bug, we will offer the
user their money back (see terms and conditions of the IBM OS/2 2.0
license agreement for the legal wording.)

The response given in the UK to the person who posted the original note
was an incorrect response from the local IBM employee. This matter is.
currently being investigated in the UK and the process will be corrected.

John A. Soyring
Director, IBM Software Development Programs
(I am an official IBM spokesman)"

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.programmer,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: IS IBM UK STILL IN THE STONE AGE???
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 00:53:53 GMT

Please note the follow up.

In article <liuyu.715128721@kramden> liuyu@kramden.nyu.edu (Liuyu) writes:
>Oh yeah. It is very easy to blame old hardwares. But do you see other big 
>companies not supporting for Herc? All major companies support Herc except IBM.

First let me say that I agree with you, that IBM's OS/2 2.0 should
support Hercules.  LAN servers, for example, don't really need color
monitors.

However, in my original reply I did point out that the remedy is as
little as $25 away, which is not likely to break anyone's bank
account.

Also, I disagree with your assertion.  Most games, including those
from the major players, do not support Hercules (increasingly VGA is
the minimum, never mind CGA or EGA).  Windows NT probably will not
support Hercules (it certainly isn't on the SDK compatibility list).
A number of mainstream applications from major vendors do not support
Hercules.

How do I know?  Because up until about 18 months ago I was using
Hercules, and it was limiting.  Lots of programs I wanted to run
didn't.  Oh, Windows does support Hercules, but rather clumsily.  One
has to use EGA screen fonts, and the results are often less than
satisfactory.  I ran it, but I wasn't thrilled with it.  Icons look
stretched out; letters look squished.

>ps, I think Hercules came after CGA.

It did, and it was a brilliant hack.

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | The OS/2 FREQ. ASKED QUESTIONS LIST is avail. from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/faq.
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | Or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP").
of Chicago, 60637       | Clinton's Arkansas: 49th in Per Capita Tax Burden
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.programmer,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: IS IBM UK STILL IN THE STONE AGE???
Date: 29 Aug 92 13:27:09 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <64910@cup.portal.com> TomK@cup.portal.com (Tom R Krotchko) writes:
>>I'm curious, what do you mean, "Cut from the same cloth..."
>
>[...]
>
>Two things:
>
>1) NT will be running Windows applications (3.x type) *not* as
>native NT apps, but will do a similar "windows within NT" trick
>used by OS/2. That means there will be the same type of compatibility
>problems with Windows 3.1 executables running under NT as currently
>exist under OS/2

This is somewhat true... programs that go directly at hardware will have
problems... of course most Windows programs don't do that.
This will be more of a problem with DOS programs.  So far I've
not found one 16-bit Windows program that will not run under NT, but
then I've not tried anything wierd like Norton Backup that plays
games with the floppy disk drives to "lock" them.

>
>2) its a *WHOLE NEW OS*. There will be the same type of bugs in
>NT (and perhaps worse, since OS/2 has gone through several revisions)
>as now exist in OS/2
Strange... OS/2 was extremely buggy and unstable in it's early incarnations
(1.2 was awful!, and I'm told earlier versions were worse).
I've worked with NT enough already to know it's more stable that 1.2
was... I guess a miracle has occured!  Shall we take this a sign that
NT has been blessed? :-)

>
>Finally, it appears to me that the "Windows" in "Windows NT" is
>purely a marketing move; the only thing Windows NT has in common
>with Windows 3.1 is they both run on Intel chips and both are made
>by Microsoft.

Your last paragraph is simply wrong, Windows and Windows NT share
a huge number of common API calls.  More importantly they share
common API semantics... it's much easier to put Windows on Windows NT
that to do so under OS/2 as OS/2 has to have both its native API and
its Windows API-support, adding fatness.  Also you leave out the
Win32s stuff that allows Windows NT binaries to run under Windows
(without some of the features of course).  If you can run NT binaries
under Windows 3.1, then how can you say they "don't have anything in common".

>
>TomK@cup.portal.com
>Tom Krotchko

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2:269 comp.os.os2.misc:28614 comp.os.os2.programmer:4567 comp.os.os2.apps:5671 comp.os.os2.advocacy:4734
From: kevinlu@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Kevin Lu)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.programmer,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IS IBM UK STILL IN THE STONE AGE???
Date: 30 Aug 92 04:35:08 GMT
Organization: Monash University General Access Unix
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Liuyu (liuyu@kramden.nyu.edu) wrote:
: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
: 
: >In article <liuyu.715061158@kramden> liuyu@kramden.nyu.edu (Liuyu) writes:
: >> 
: 
: Oh yeah. It is very easy to blame old hardwares. But do you see other big 
: companies not supporting for Herc? All major companies support Herc except IBM.
: So don't give me my hardware is older than yours! It's a standard video card 
: from another company. IBM is even supporting a less capable CGA card.
: You get no color in 640*200. Are you saying GUI will work better on CGA?? Maybe
: two years later IBM might drop support on outdated VGA. I doubt it will happen
: because it is a IBM standard. IBM only support its own standard.
: If you haven't seen Windows on a Herc, it is your lack of experience. I've 
: tried and it worked very well. It was a lot better than those low quality VGA
: monitors which costed more and had a dot pitch size of your eyeball.
: You are right no one is selling CGA anymore. But I still see mail orders sell
: Hercules (maybe you don't see this since you don't live in US).
: Then why is IBM only supporting its own outdated standard video cards?
: If I had all the money, I would move on to a better hardware. 
:  
: Time to support all standards.
:  
: ps, I think Hercules came after CGA.


I thought IBM did support Herc, although that was only if you had it
attached as a second display...

Still wondering

  +----------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
  |  Kevin Lu                              | Monash University             |
  |  Email: kevinlu@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au  | Clayton, Victoria             |
  |                                        | Australia                     |
 
   
   
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.programmer,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ckincy@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: IS IBM UK STILL IN THE STONE AGE???
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 20:02:46 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

>Oh yeah. It is very easy to blame old hardwares. But do you see other big 
>companies not supporting for Herc? All major companies support Herc except IBM.
>So don't give me my hardware is older than yours! It's a standard video card 
>from another company. IBM is even supporting a less capable CGA card.
>You get no color in 640*200. Are you saying GUI will work better on CGA?? Maybe
>two years later IBM might drop support on outdated VGA. I doubt it will happen
>because it is a IBM standard. IBM only support its own standard.
>If you haven't seen Windows on a Herc, it is your lack of experience. I've 
>tried and it worked very well. It was a lot better than those low quality VGA
>monitors which costed more and had a dot pitch size of your eyeball.
>You are right no one is selling CGA anymore. But I still see mail orders sell
>Hercules (maybe you don't see this since you don't live in US).
>Then why is IBM only supporting its own outdated standard video cards?
>If I had all the money, I would move on to a better hardware. 

IBM does not have the resources to write drivers for everyone's 
video cards.  Apparently, what they have done is to support their own
products, and leave the responsibility of support to the manufacturers
of the video cards.  This may have been a mistake, but that's the
only way IBM could do it.

You think Microsoft wrote the Herc driver for Windows?  Heh.  Yeah,
right.  Herc wrote it.  If Herc refuses to write an OS/2 driver, well
that's Herc screwing over their own customers, it's not IBM's fault.

>Time to support all standards.

I agree.  Herc should support OS/2.  They don't.

cpk







Xref: sparky comp.os.os2:262 comp.os.os2.misc:28579 comp.os.os2.programmer:4552 comp.os.os2.apps:5650 comp.os.os2.advocacy:4711
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.programmer,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IS IBM UK STILL IN THE STONE AGE???
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 08:41:50 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <liuyu.715061158@kramden> liuyu@kramden.nyu.edu (Liuyu) writes:
> 
> I don't think it's silly. Not everyone knows IBM doesn't support the standard
> mono graphics Hercules card when almost every other software companies write
> their own Herc driver for their software. IBM expects Hercules to write it.
> Does IBM write VGA driver for other software, ie wordperfect, lotus, Windows,
> and bunch of others? Does these companies expect IBM to write drivers for them
> since it's IBM's hardware? Of course not. VGA is a standard so is Hercules.
> I don't think IBM wanted to support a standard from other vendors.
> I think you should check the facts out first.

Certainly no one in New Zealand has been selling brand new systems with Herc
mono for a while now. GUI's don't work terribly well on Herc monitors. I have
never seen Windows on a herc monitor..........
 
OS/2 will work just fine on the computer the herc monitor/card are used with -
just get a CGA/EGA/VGA setup and away you go! No one sells CGA anymore,
either - or EGA for that matter. Herc predates both.......
 
Time to move on.

Steve

-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | If you don't vote for MMP on 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  September 19, 1992, then you 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  must like things the way they 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  are.....can I live with YOU?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.programmer,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: IS IBM UK STILL IN THE STONE AGE???
Date: 29 Aug 92 21:38:57 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <19920828.152833.12@almaden.ibm.com> ADUNSMUI@TOROLAB6.VNET.IBM.COM (Al Dunsmuir) writes:
>
>  I certainly found your posting worthy of comment.  I forwarded it on to
>John Soyring.  The following is his reply, which certainly speaks for itself.
>
>OS/2 V2: Why settle for anything less?
>
>From:  John A. Soyring      Director, Personal Systems
>                            Software Development Programs
>                            T/L 678-2400
>Subject: Re: IS IBM UK STILL IN THE STONE AGE???
>
>[well-reasoned, intelligent, informative, and downright helpful
> mail text deleted here]

     Very, very nice response here - my hat's off to IBM on this
one.

					-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.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2:298 comp.os.os2.misc:28936 comp.os.os2.programmer:4659 comp.os.os2.apps:5798 comp.os.os2.advocacy:4860
From: dmm@vnet.ibm.com (dave)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 22:59:02 EDT
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.programmer,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: About this Hercules business (Re: IS IBM UK STILL IN THE STONE AGE???)
Organization: IBM Canada Lab
News-Software: UReply 3.0
X-X-From: dmm@vnet.ibm.com (Dave Mooney)

Pleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseplease
edit the Newsgroups: line before sending anything more on this thread.
The horse is long since dead, and it didn't belong in .programmer, .misc,
or .apps in the first place.  The comp.os.os2 groups grow very quickly,
so for the benefit of use all, please direct threads into the appropriate
group.  Please.

dave
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.programmer,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.advocacy