HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rafetmad@cheshire.oxy.edu (David R. Giller)
Subject: Re: Is OS2/2.0-DOS faster than plain Dos??
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 09:01:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.020118.77818@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> ry01@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (ROBERT YUNG) writes:
>Is DOS in OS2 2.0 faster than plain Dos on the SAME machine? Or is it so
>arkward and slow that I would have to dual-bbot all the time?

Well, if you are running active OS/2 programs in the background while your DOS
program is going on, I'd hardly expect it to go as fast.  However, if the DOS
program is all you are using at the time, I personally don't see any
difference.  In fact, I regularly use OS/2 to run my games, because some of
them lock up enough that running under OS/2 is a big benefit by not requiring
me to go through what is for me a long boot process.  The speed seems to
be the same whether I run under DOS or OS/2.  The exception is Civilization.
On my machine, Civ seems to try to use some kind of special timing which
doesn't work under OS/2.  The fades and animation are terribly slow.

>BTW, Microsoft says that 16-bit windows stuff will actually be slower under NT
>with all the overhead...hmmm. [OS2 users snicker :-]

I beleive that someone posted here that WinOS2 actually beats Windows 3.0
by a modest amount in all functions.  Arto?

>The latest PCmag is trash! The in depth article about OS/2 was okay, but the
>first one with a side-by-side comparison between 3.1 and 2.0 is so biased!!!
>Just look at the top five list to get 3.1 or 2.0.  On the windows side,
>reasons include IDD/OLE, GUI stuff, and basically why people like windows. BUT
>for the OS/2 side, shouldn't they mention the same stuff as the 3.1 side????
>Instead, they have stuff like :"you bought OS2 dev. kit, so you're stuck", or
>"you buy only IBM". What is this garbage!!!!? C'mon! Let's be fair! IMHO.

I don't have my copy yet.  But if they didn't at least mention that OS/2
COMES WITH WINDOWS and all the features there, I'm already disappointed.
The only genuine beefs I can see against it are the size if you have a
small machine (and no serious Windows user does) or the speed of running
individual apps (though I can see no subjective difference).  IBM-Only
shops still have the option of DOS/Windows.  Don't play silly little
games like this.  This is just like listing "You're afraid of anything
new" under the ADVANTAGES to stick with Windows 3.0.  And I think alot
more Windows users will stay with Windows for this reason than will
IBM shops go to OS/2 for theirs.

-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
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Subject: OS/2 on a 4 meg compuadd.
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 00:36:22 GMT



I won a GA copy at the Cleveland roll out today and I was going to demo
it at work in the near future.  The only computers we have that can
be used are some compuadd 386/25's with 4 megs of memory.

1) can anyone offer some hints for optimizing performance on a 4 meg
   computer?  The performance is really lacking.

2) the mouse moves poorly.  The acceleration goes from a crawl to way to
   fast with a lurch as I move the mouse on the screen.  It seems to be the
   compuadd brand serial mouse that is the problem.  I'm using the standard 
   serial mouse driver.  Would some other mouse driver work better?


Doug-
-- 
"We have developed Windows applications, but we didn't inhale."
          -Philippe Kahn, Borland International
From: mrice@ratmask.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Mark.Rice)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Abreviations for novices (me included)
Date: 17 Apr 92 18:16:48 GMT
Organization: NCR Corp

Information about abbreviations follow.  This is meant for those who aren't
familiar with the net and what some acronyms, etc. mean.



I've seen a few questions about abbreviations and have some of my own.
Here are a few abbreviations that I've picked up.  PLEASE correct any
that I may have misunderstood.

ATM	Adobe Type Manager - a font manager included with OS/2 (as is
		with AmiPro).  Windows 3.1 include TrueType in the same manner.
GA	Generally Available (here, it refers to OS/2 2.0 BUT NOT the beta
		copy, rather the real McCoy [damnit Jim (Bill), I'm an
		OS, not a windowing environment! :^) ])
IMO	In my opinion
IMHO	In my humble opinion
BTW	by the way
:)	smile   MANY variations on this one }:)    #:^)    etc.
:(	frown
FAQ	Frequently Asked Questions [list] - the one for os/2 is
	kept by Timothy F. Sipples and available via anonymous ftp
	at 128.123.35.151


Here are ones that I've not figured out yet.  If you know, please
email.  I'll post a summary if enough are puzzled by these things.

RTFM
IFS	as used in the following sentence:
	Someone may eventually write an IFS which will allow soft links
	(as in BSD UNIX).


regards,

mark.rice@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM
-- 
-----
mark rice
mark.rice@ColumbiSC.NCR.COM
Not necessarily the views of NCR.
From: johnson@spectra.com (boyd johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Egghead
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:29:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Spectragraphics Corporation

In article <1992Apr8.155309.17322@hemlock.cray.com> bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.032601.9183@leland.Stanford.EDU> mdknight@leland.Stanford.EDU (Milton Albert Snyder) writes:
>>Egghead told me that they probably would not carry OS/2 2.0 because
>>they could NOT SELL IT FOR A PROFIT.  They stated that IBM would not
>>give them any better pricing than anyone else who called 1-800-3IBMOS2
>>so they would have to sell it for more than IBM does.

That's not a very way to get return customers.  It would be smart of
them to sell it for no profit anticipating future business.
They must have several hundred copies of Windows 3.1 in the front
windows of our local Egghead store along with about 4 foot square
posters in the window advertising it with the CUE card.  They can't be
making much on that deal.

>The Corner Store in Litchfield CT is selling it at a price lower than IBM.
>I don't have the phone number.  Information should have it.

What do you mean by "a price lower than IBM"?  Lower than the suggested
retail price or the Windows upgrade price?
Most people will probably be upgrading from Windows to OS/2 for $49 or
getting the free upgrade from OS/2 1.3.

>BTW, according the Doug Hamilton's column in OS/2 Monthly Magazine
>(second issue) IBM sold 3,000,000 copies of OS/2 to distributers
>who will then sell them at the retail level.

It looks like you're talking suggested retail for the Corner Store.
They should be able to sell it for less than that and still make a
profit.  I don't know what the quantity wholesale price is, though.

-- 
======== Boyd Johnson    nosc!spectra.com!johnson  San Diego, Ca. ========
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: dan@ni.umd.edu (Dan Burns)
Subject: Re: Boot Manager
Followup-To: dan@ni.umd.edu
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 11:31:03 GMT

In article <9204130929.AA17381@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> KENKAHN@PKSMRVM.VNET.IBM.COM (Ken Kahn) writes:
>In <1992Apr12.115220.2800@donau.et.tudelft.nl> Anto Daryanto writes:
>>Can I install Boot Manager on my second harddisk ?
>>
>
>No, it must go on your first hard drive, though it can go anywhere you want
>it; i.e. it doesn't have to be the first partition.


Does this mean that the bootmanager can be installed on a logical partition?
From: goer@ellis.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: OS/2 bugs -> fixes -> end users
Date: 10 Apr 92 03:25:08 GMT
Reply-To: goer@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

I wonder when the optimal time to buy OS/2 would be.  Will
this initial spate of giveaways and presold copies bring about
a quick update (like a 2.0.1), or will the release code be
frozen for a long time now?  How long will the upgrades be in
effect?

Anyone have any (semi-)informed opinions on this?

-- 

   -Richard L. Goerwitz              goer%ellis@uchicago.bitnet
   goer@ellis.uchicago.edu           rutgers!oddjob!ellis!goer
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 Shrinkwrap at Frys!!!
Date: 16 Apr 92 23:54:03 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

Shrinkwrapped OS/2 v 2.0 appeared yesterday at a computer store here in
Fort Wayne.
-- 
David Feustel N9MYI, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805. (219)482-9631
George Bush believes in the "carrot and stick" approach to social problems:
       - give carrots to the rich and stick it to the poor -
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: frank@unixg.ubc.ca (Murray Frank)
Subject: Marketing os/2 to individuals
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:21:35 GMT

Many things are going to determine the long run success or failure of
os/2. The long term success of IBM will depend in part on learning how
to market to end-users. If IBM ever plans to be a serious contender 
in the consumer market it will need to learn from its mistakes. To do 
this it is important to recognize these mistakes as being mistakes. 
One of these mistakes is very clearly on display in this group in the 
last few days. That is, the handling of release dates.

For most purposes it does not really matter whether you announce say
July 1 or August 1 as a release date. BUT once the release date
arrives the consumers expect the product to be available on that date.
IBM is currently generating unnecessary frustration and ill will by
getting this wrong. Microsoft on the other hand is doing it properly
with Windows 3.1. While it is obviously too late to correct this for
os/2 2.0, I trust that for future software releases IBM will not again
unnecessarily antagonize it's customer base.

Related issue. Advance hype focussing on a release date works very
well for Microsoft. Obviously IBM could and should do the same. BUT to
do this, the product must in fact be "Generally Available" on that
date. 

Believe it or not, these things matter. For example, IBM is probably
throwing away thousands of sales to the existing customers by failure
to offer instant access on the "release date". Just read the tone of 
many of the recent postings on this network. Suppose that the free 
upgrade takes about a month by mail, whereas the $50 upgrade had been 
available at Egghead and other such outlets on March 31. I bet that 
literally tens of thousands of copies would have been sold to people 
who are now only going to get the free upgrade. (Free to the customer,
not to IBM.) These people would also have been happier! I realize that 
the concept of "impulse buying" has not applied to many of the sorts 
of products that IBM has marketed in the past. But it applies to the 
sort of market that IBM is now claiming that it wants to go after. 

In other words, IBM HAS SIMPLY THROWN AWAY MONEY NEEDLESSLY. 

Microsoft does it right, IBM got it wrong. While it is clearly too 
late for this time, I hope that IBM can learn from its mistakes. It 
is no accident that Microsoft makes a lot of money from consumers. If 
IBM wants to compete in this market place, they had better recognize 
some of the "little things" that Microsoft does well. The handling of
release dates is one of these "little things".

Murray Frank
Faculty of Commerce
University of British Columbia.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)
Subject: Re: All GUIs are not alike
Reply-To: byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 22:03:06 GMT


OS/2 is far better than Windows, and superior to the Mac.

I use - *daily* - Mac, NeXT, Motif, and OS/2 2.0 PM.

The Macintosh is what I define as a minimally acceptable GUI. 
You notice I don't have Windows anywhere among what I use? 
That's right.  Not acceptable.  I have better way of spending my
time.  I avoid OpenLook also.  It has too many brain-dead things
that get in the way (can you say lame scrollbars?).

I'd put NeXT at the top of my list.  It's polished, pretty, fast,
and gets in the way very little.

I'd put OS/2 & Motif very near each other somewhere in the
middle.  OS/2 has drag-and-drop for setting things, a better
overall look than Motif, and is more user friendly if all I was
was a user and not a developer.  But OS/2's command shell is weak
(REXX is nice, but it isn't quite csh/ksh/sed/awk/grep/find yet...). 

So: (currently)

=====================================================================
^                      ^    ^                          ^            ^
Windows                Mac  OpenLook            Motif & OS/2     NeXT

Scott Byer                                   NeXTMail: byer@adobe.com
Adobe Systems Incorporated               These are *my* opinions, and  
1585 Charleston Road, P.O. Box 7900        do not necessarily reflect
Mountain View, CA 94039-7900             the opinions of my employer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith)
Subject: Re: Need help printing!
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 22:45:27 GMT

fer9483@tesla.njit.edu (Franklin E. Rachel) writes:
>> 
>> Also make sure no other device in the system is using IRQ 7 -- a
>> SoundBlaster, for example. 
>
>What about if you want to run some dos programs that areant smart enough
>to check where the soundblaster is, and use IRQ7 as a default?  Is there
>a way to change the IRQ for the printer?

If you can find a printer card that uses another interrupt, I *think*
you can tell OS/2 about it.

What games do you have that can't find your SB at another IRQ?
I've used my SB at IRQ5 with a dozen different games and they've
all worked fine.  The only one I had to change was the Ultima 7
demo--but for that one I simply had to change one number in the
intro.cfg file that came with the demo.

Steve Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith)
Subject: Re: ga's applets
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: comp
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 03:14:05 GMT

conrad@actrix.gen.nz (Conrad Bullock) writes:
>
>Yes, in 16 colours, Windows solitaire has nicer card bitmaps than OS/2's
>Klondike, but the other day I installed Trident's 256-colour drivers,
>and I must say that I got quite a surprise when I ran Klondike. The 
>picture cards look absolutely beautiful in 256 colours....

Thinking about it now, the colors on the card did look as
though they were being dithered.
From: "bradley grigor" <bradley.grigor@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: i don't like it!!
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:29:33 EST
Reply-To: "bradley grigor" <bradley.grigor@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

I have seen OS/2 2.0 GA and I'm not impressed.  How can I get rid
of the Workplace Shell??  I _really_ don't like it.  Does OS/2
2.0 include the original 1.3 PMSHELL somewhere?  As much as I
hate to say it, Windows 3 (and OS/2 1.3 for that matter) is
aesthetically much nicer and a darn site easier to use.  This is
going to take A LOT of getting used to.

...bag   Newmarket, Ontario, Canada  | RelayNet: ->CRS (Public Key: 7596)
         UUCP: canrem!bradley.grigor | Internet: bradley.grigor@canrem.com
---
  DeLuxe 1.21 #4613  If pills don't work, try rope.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 DOS emulation?
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:24:39 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <35037@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> asher@qtp.ufl.edu (Robert L. Asher) writes:
>I have a question about OS/2 2.0 and it's dos compatability.  I've
>read most of what's been said about commercial software etc...  (I
>ordered OS/2 2.0 the day the 800 number was posted.)  Someone on the
>net said OS/2 emulates DOS.  Our research group has written software
>for the pc which controles many external devices connected via an I/O
>card and a CAMAC crate.  This software uses a TSR type assembly code
>which acts as an experimental cycle clock (ie 18.2Hz), lots of
>interupt calls to DOS, and a DMA enable/disable call to let the CAMAC
>Crate take control of the I/O bus to transfer data.  First, does this
>sound too difficult for OS/2 to handle in a DOS window?  Second, does
>OS/2 have the same types of interupt calls and functions as DOS or
>will I have to get the Developement Stuff to be able to convert our
>DOS version? 

Interesting.  The interrupt calls to DOS are no problems.  The DMA
calls might be.  I think you'd need a device driver of some sort.  It
seems to me that this low level of operation would have the potential
to iolate system integrety without some driver to let OS/2 know what
all those DMA and port instructions are doing.  I might be wrong,
though.

As for the second part: You'll almost certainly need the development
kits.  Interrupts do not exist on the user level in OS/2 programs.
All OS functions are performed by system calls which link to the
system DLL's.  You'd need a driver for your custom hardware to provide
API functions that your OS/2 version of the program would work with.


-- 
David Charlap                   Q:"Where do these stairs go?"
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu          A:"They go up"
----------------------------
Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature to join in!
From: daly@ecs.umass.edu (Bryon Daly, ECE dept, UMass, Amherst)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: preemptive multi-tasking
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:18:04 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.151455.6186@atl.scscom.com>, chris@atl.scscom.com 
(Chris Boaro) writes:
:
: <Discussion of differences between preemptive/cooperative multitasking
:  deleted for bandwidth purposes.>
:
> Now, for simplicity, many people say that preemptive multitasking is "good"
> and cooperative multitasking is "bad". The problem with this is that 
> just because a scheduler is preemptive, doesn't mean that it's efficient.

   True.  But efficiency is not always the primary concern.  So far in this
discussion, everyone has failed to mention what I see as one of the
key points of preemptive vs. cooperative multitasking.  That is: that
sometimes the cooperative tasks fail to cooperate! :-)  In a cooperative
multitasking environment, each process relies on all the other processes'
"good will" in giving up the CPU to the next process within a fair amount
of time.  If one process becomes a CPU hog, or goes off into an endless 
loop which contains no system calls to release the CPU, all the other 
processes are shut out, and there is nothing they can do about it.
Of course, ideally no processes will ever do things like that, but 
the world is not ideal.  Just think of all the Windows programs that put up
the hourglass icon while they calculate something or perform some operation.
You can't do anything but wait until the process finishes and finally
relinquishes the CPU.  I've seen plenty of professional apps that are
less than generous with how they share the CPU time.  Preemptive multitasking
eliminates this concern, since the OS takes the CPU away from the process,
instead of the OS relying on the process to give up the CPU.

Just throwing in a different perspective...
-Bryon
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: dzoey@eng.umd.edu (Joseph Herman)
Subject: Re: Egghead
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 16:59:42 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa
Originator: dzoey@frob.eng.umd.edu


I just stopped by an Egghead in Laurel MD and asked the manager if he was going to stock
OS/2.  He said that he would not stock it until IBM straightened out their pricing. 
He said that customers could by OS/2 from IBM cheaper than Egghead could by OS/2 from IBM. 

To me, this sounded like he wanted all his copies at the Windows upgrade price even if sold
them as non-upgrades.  But since hw suggested I call IBM for a copy, that's what I'll do.
First thing monday, I dial 1-800-3ib-mos2

                                Joe Herman

dzoey@terminus.umd.edu

P.S.  How much discretion does an Egghead manager have over his stock?  Isn't it all
      controlled by the chain?
-- 
"Everything is wonderful until you know something about it."
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: morris@next.csc.cuhk.hk (Morris Kwok)
Subject: Re: Quick'n'fast Novell access
Organization: Computer Services Centre, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 05:48:15 GMT

In article <prao.703284185@hcfmail> prao@ucsb.edu (Parik Rao) writes:
>Sooo... I thought.... why not just open up a DOS box and load IPX and
>NETX?  Sure!  Well, NETX comes up sometimes with the server name, but
>no network drives show up (F:LOGIN, etc).  If I try to "CD SYS:LOGIN"
>from the C:\ drive, I lose C (in the DOS box) but I do get to the novell
>server.  Doesn't help much; I login and get "Unexpected error 9" and
>never make it to my file-server directory.
>
>Am I out in the cold?  Will it be necessary to install the OS2 stuff on
>both the server and the PC's to access it? 
>
>--
>parik rao				                 prao@bluemoon.ucsb.edu
>

I just attended a seminar of OS/2 2.0, the speaker from Boca said that multiple
access to different networks in DOS VMs through one network adapter will be Ok
in June, possibly in form of CSD. What means to me is that you can access Lan
Manager and Netware 3.11 servers simultaneously in DOS sessions. Can anyone
verify this?

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: System Reqs for 2.0?
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 23:20:56 GMT

rteasdal@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Rusty) writes:
>	Okay, I'm close to hooked after reading numerous flattering
>articles about 2.0. What I wonder is whether I've got enough system
>currently to do it justice, given its size.

>	I run a slightly overoscillated 25 Mhz '386 (at 27 Mhz) with
>a 128K cache, 4 megs, and a 120MB 17ms drive. It provides sprightly
>performance running Windows on top of DOS 3.3, even at high (1024 by
>768 noninterlaced) screen resolutions using a ProDesigner II card.

I've got a 33/386 with 8 megs, 64K cache, 106 MB, same card.  Runs
very nice.  I would say your machine is definitely powerful enough,
and you've got enough disk space.  You want more memory, though.  2
more would be good, 4 more would be great.

>	Will this suffice? And how much disk space is required for a     
>full installation with applets and games? Without the applets and games?

18-31 meg depending on what you want to install.

>Will my high-res driver for Windows still work (I'm told that it will
>but want to make sure) when running Windows apps?

I'm pretty sure it will.
-- 
Unqualified superlatives are the worst of all.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: mdivya@world.std.com (Marigowda Divya)
Subject: OS2/EE V1.1 for sale
Summary: OS2/EE V1.1 for sale
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:57:35 GMT

I have two OS2/EE V1.1 for sale at $40.00 each; these are
 complete sets and are eligible for upgrade.  If interested
 please send me mail;
Price does not include shipping; If you live in the Boston
 metropolitan area, you can pick it up from my place.


mdivya (mdivya@world.std.com)
tel: 617/863-5282

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc