HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keith@novell.com (Keith Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.novell
Subject: Re: Windows for Workgroups and ODI?
Date: 12 Jan 93 00:03:39 GMT
Organization: Connectivity Products Division, Novell Inc.

In article <C0ps5B.CAA@world.std.com> nectar@world.std.com (Jacques A Vidrine) writes:
>Ok, I have ODINSUP.

Well, make sure you have the latest one out of DOSUP6.ZIP.

>I need to run Windows for Workgroups using this so that I can use LAN 
>Workplace for DOS concurrently with WfWg. I basically have the following:
>
>CONFIG.SYS:
>DEVICE=protman.dos
>DEVICE=workgrp.sys
>DEVICE=msipx.sys

You must understand that this is coming from someone who, to the best of
his knowledge, has never been in the same building as a copy of W4W but....
I would take a guess that MSIPX.SYS is something to do with Microsofts IPX 
over NDIS effort? If this is the case, I'd blow away the above 
'device=msipx.sys' line and start using the ODI based IPX to get NetWare 
connectivity. Then:

>AUTOEXEC.BAT:
>LSL
>TCTOKSH         ; Thomas-Conrad MLID v2.00
>ODINSUP
>NET START
>MSIPX
>NETX

Would become:

LSL
TCTOKSH
ODINSUP         (for the benefit of the NDIS based W4W)
IPXODI          (IPX for ODI drivers)
{B}NETX
TCPIP           (LAN WorkPlace ODI based TCP/IP stack)
NET START       (Now start your W4W stuff to sit on ODINSUP)

I'm also assuming W4W runs over NDIS 2.0 and doesn't require some new 
incarnation of the NDIS spec that ODINSUP doesn't support yet.

Keith





-
Keith Brown                                        Phone: 408-473-8308
Novell San Jose Development Center                   Fax: 408-473-8990
2180 Fortune Drive, San Jose, CA 95131               Net: keith@sjf.novell.COM
Newsgroups: comp.sys.novell
From: chanr@wm-mercer.ca (Russell Chan )
Subject: Novell NFS w/ UNIX problems
Organization: William M. Mercer Limited, Toronto, Canada
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:45:14 GMT

Greetings Novellers!

I am having a problem with a Novell server running NFS which is mounted
to a UNIX machine (HP 9K/827).  The problem is this:
-user home directories are placed on the NFS machine.
-casual usage (nothing heavy) works fine.
-Heavy disk usage causes early file termination problems - ie/ a report
 	being generated gets cut off midway.
-The NFS server has an error message something to the effect of:
	Can't write file to cache  (some other stuff after...)
-I doubled the buffer sizes and the problem still occurred.
-As a result I have had to move my users back onto a very crowded file
system  :-(.

Anyone got any ideas or similar experiences?

Russell Chan (chanr@wm-mercer.ca  or wm-mercer.ca!chanr@uunet)
William M. Mercer Ltd.
Toronto, Canada.
From: krgrose@koala.berkeley.edu (Karl R. Grose)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.novell
Subject: Re: Is a drop-box directory possible with MSDOS 5.0?
Followup-To: comp.sys.novell
Date: 4 Jan 1993 18:38:32 GMT
Organization: U.C. College of Natural Resources
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: koala.berkeley.edu
Keywords: directory access rights, drop-box

I would like to emulate the DOS 3/4 behavior for DOS 5 users so that
they needn't bother with file attributes to protect files they submit to
target directory.

Fred Grose (krgrose@insect.berkeley.edu)
From: jmbrown@netcom.com (John M. Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.novell
Subject: Novell wide area connection
Keywords: Novell WAN
Date: 6 Jan 93 22:14:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

Ok, I am interested in connecting two local area networks together.  The
distance between the LAN's is over 1000+ miles and this connection needs
to be real-time. (CLose as pos.)  We need to share files and data in
a secure fashion...

One idea was to have two internet addrs and do rmounts via NFS!?!???!???

Please submit your idea to me via email and I will post a follow-up


I am looking for good solid connections

thanks in advance.....


jmbrown@netcom.com
Diagsoft, Inc.
(408) 438-8247
Xref: sparky comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:16365 comp.os.ms-windows.misc:5951 comp.os.ms-windows.apps:6684
From: neoptole@usc.edu (Eleftherios Neoptolemou)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.apps
Subject: Windows Terminal Problem.
Date: 6 Jan 1993 00:43:10 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu


Hi!
It's been 4 months now that I've been trying to find a 
solution to this problem but I had no success. Maybe
someone can give me a clue.
Well, I have an IBM PS/2, 50z (a 286-machine) and I'm
running windows 3.1. I have an old version of procomm (v.2.4.2)
which is working perfectly. When I tried to run the
windows terminal it seems that the software doesn't
communicate with the modem and also anything I type
doesn't appear on the screen. 
I tried all sorts of tricks. I disconnected the mouse
in case it conflicts with the comm-1 port. I removed
the expanded memory card to check for any interference.
I called IBM and they washed their hands. I called
Microsoft and they tried (for more than 1/2 an hour)
to find any problem. Still no solution. I also got a 
new RS-232 in case there is a bad connection. When I had
windows 3.0 version the  windows terminal was working
fine. I also changed the modem (got it from a friend of mine)
and still the old procomm software is working fine
but I can do nothing with windows terminal.
I also got procomm plus for windows and it also does not
operate with the modem. Furthermore as soon as I go into
procomm plus the icon for the telephone indicates than
the receiver is off hook but nothing happens. No dialing
occurs. The screen also doesn't reflect what I type on
the keyboard, the only thing I see is an "A"!
It is really frustrating, and I would really appreciate
if someone could give me an advice (since neither
IBM who makes the computer nor MICROSOFT who wrote
the software are capable to  help)
Thanks,
E. Neoptolemou

(neoptole@scf.usc.edu)


Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
From: sasghw@pica.unx.sas.com (Greg Wust)
Subject: Re: PKZip > 1.1:  Why bother?!?!
Originator: sasghw@pica.unx.sas.com
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:50:23 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <93006.36581.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>, J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
|>    I've been reading about the problems and rumors surrounding PKZip 2.04 and
|> PKZip 3.05.  Some say they have viruses, some have said there is a trojan in
|> it, and so on.  My question is this:
|>
|>    I've had PK 1.1 for two years now.  There have been no problems with it.
|> Why, in light of all problems and rumors flying around, would anyone consider
|> abandoning the old and trusty version for one which may be bad?  Even if the
|> new versions were clean, the peace of mind I'd lose while running it wouldbe
|> rather significant.
|>
|>    What wonderful new advances are in the newer versions (1.93, 2.04, 3.05)
|> of PKZip?  Better compression, perhaps?  How much better?  Or is it just a
|> desire to have the "latest release" regardless of its impact (or potential
|> impact)?
|>
 Tim,

My understanding of, at least 1.93, is that it now matches coding so 
that a zip is transportable across platforms.  If you use 1.93 and zip
something (say a TIFF file or text) and then send it to someone on a
Unix box, he can use ZIP 5.0 (the Unix version) to unzip it cleanly.
This is not true of PKZIP which is restricted to PC's only.  ZIP has
been ported to Unix, VM, Mac, and many others making compressed file
exchange more like it always should have been, transparent to original
platform.  This is especially important with graphic files which can be
readily used under any of the platforms (unlike executables which rely
on operating systems).

Using both 1.1 and 1.93 of PKZIP, I have found no decrease in sizing or
increase in speeds - only compatibility to where I don't care who zipped
it, I can now unzip it!  And, no bugs or virus's in this one (don't know
about 2.x or 3.x).

Greg
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Wust                              SAS Institute Inc
Publications Programmer                SAS Campus Drive, Cary NC 27513
sasghw@unx.sas.com   x7012             919-677-8000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: Disappearing UMB's, get this.
Date: 5 Jan 93 10:51:21 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering

joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott) writes:

>linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:


>>The funniest thing happened to me. Yesterday, when I booted my
>>dos partition, I noticed I had no UMB's. I was rather surprised,
>>since I hadn't changed anything since I last used dos.
>>And behold, the himem.sys and emm386.exe settings were still
>>ok, yet, from the dos prompt (4dos or command.com) I could not
>>see any UMB's, emm386 repports 0 bytes available/free UMB
>>but a correct UMB start segment (C800), SI repports no UMB server
>>present, BUT the drivers in DEVICEHIGH's were loaded high and
>>functioning!!!

>Are you sure they were up high?

Yes. mem/c doesn't show them, the memory isn't missing from
the base 640k, but yet they work, so they are loaded.

>>How's that for a mysterie. Has my processor maybe gone off DOS
>>after having been running OS/2 for a while now :-) ?
>>I reinstalled DOS, reformatted c: disected config.sys, and what
>>else. No indication of failure. OS/2 runs fine, checkit confirms
>>the system board to be ok, yet, NO UMB's.
>>My suspicion is rather arroused though, by the fact that SI,
>>repports different memory sizes in the various info screens.
>>It finds 638 to be useable by DOS, yet 640 to be available.

>Sounds like some of your BIOS settings may have been changed, such as the ones
>for shadow RAM.  How much RAM is in your system?

17Mb, and the BIOS settings are ok.
I pulled out the original dos disks yesterday, and that confirmed the
fact that it must be a virus. I have no idea where it came from and
a virus scan did not reveal a thing.
It's pretty persistent though. I tried putting back my original setup
piece by piece and when I finally got to 4dos, it broke again.
Doing a sys c: from the original disks doesn't solve it, only
reformatting did. It seems to infect more than just the command
shell.


>-JTT

>Good .sig, by the way.  Crazy, isn't it?  We invent a God, and then pretend
>he/she/it invented us.
>I guess there are those who never outgrow the need for a "Father" figure,
>who will surely make everything all right somehow, someday, somewhere...

Over the rainbow... Yes, my thoughts exactly, except so many intelligent
people seem to disagree. One thing  I will never understand I guess.

Erik
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
From: mbrousse@cs.ulowell.edu (Marc Brousseau)
Subject: Re: weird cable
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Lowell Computer Science
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 01:22:49 GMT

In article <Jade.0s0o@qube.OCUnix.On.Ca> Jade@qube.OCUnix.On.Ca (Jade) writes:
>I have got this external 5.25 drive.  But with it I got this really weird
>cable that I haven't seen before.  It has 37 pins (or very close to that
>number) and they won't plug into any computer I have seen.  I don't know
>much about the external drive but I was wondering what it would take to get
>this hooked up to my system.  Has anyone ever run across a cable like this?

I've got an external 5.25 drive hooked up to an IBM PS2-30/286 with a cable
like that - the drive is an Translator, and the cable goes from the drive
to a plug in card on the PS2 bus; that's about all I know about it - do you
have the card?
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
From: umliu014@ccu.umanitoba.ca (David Ying-Wai Liu)
Subject: Re: Does PC Tools Backup support QIC-02 tape backup yet?
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:30:22 GMT

>	Norton Backup / Norton Desktop 2.0
>	PC Tools 5/6/7/8
>	Fastback / Fastback Plus
 But do you know which software QIC-02 tape backup?

David Liu
umliu014@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Xref: sparky comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:16333 alt.znet.pc:40 comp.os.msdos.desqview:4150 comp.os.msdos.apps:6000 comp.dcom.lans.ethernet:2906
From: scul4000@w142zrz.zrz.tu-berlin.de ("Schultheiss)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,alt.znet.pc,comp.os.msdos.desqview,comp.os.msdos.apps,comp.dcom.lans.ethernet
Subject: Can that work ?
Date: 5 Jan 1993 11:43:09 GMT
Organization: ZRZ/TU-Berlin
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: w142zrz.zrz.tu-berlin.de

Is there anybody who has some experience with the configuration shown
below ? Any hint to troubles and bugs would be appreciated.

+------------------+ [8-12 MB]             [8 MB] +-------------------+
|        |         |                              |         |         |
|  DOS-  | Open    |                              |  DOS-   | Open    |
| Progs  | Access 4|                              | Progs   | Access 4|
|        |         |                              |         |         |
|........|.........|                              |.........|.........|
|   DesqView386    |                              |    DesqView386    |
+------------------+----------+       +-----------+-------------------+
|  LANtastic 4+    | Ethernet |~~~~~~~| Ethernet  |   LANtastic 4+    |
+------------------+----------+       +-----------+-------------------+
|     DOS 5.0      |                              |      DOS 5.0      |
+------------------+                              +-------------------+
      [486 DX]                                           [386 DX]

Thanx in advance.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
 o     o         O  O       Q              o       Werner Schultheiss
<\_v_Y_/>       <_\/_>     <_>            /\_/\_
/\  |  <\       / \< \     / \           schultheiss@zrz.tu-berlin.de
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: PKZIP 2.04c Uploaded to wuarchive
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 10:39:50 GMT

I have uploaded PKZip 2.04c to wuarchive.wustl.edu in the
pub/MSDOS_UPLOADS directory.  It's pkz204c.exe and pkz204c.txt.

Before any flames start, this is downloaded directly from the PKWare
BBS.  So is this announcement:

From the PKWare BBS at 1-414-354-8670:
 
Last Update: 01/04/93
*********************************************************************
*******  PKZIP 2.04c is shipping. Please allow 7-10 business  *******
*******  days to process and ship orders. It will appear on   *******
*******  BBS's shortly here after.                            *******
*********************************************************************
 
 Do not trust or use any version of PKZIP other than 1.10,1.93, and 
 2.04c. All other versions currently circulating on BBS's are fakes.  
 These fake programs should be considered hostile and not be trusted, 
 they may contain viruses, trojans, or other tricks.  
 
 PLEASE DO NOT LEAVE MESSAGES ASKING FOR INFORMATION ABOUT BUSINESS,
 CURRENT ORDERS,UPGRADES,ADDRESS CHANGES/CORRECTIONS,ETC AS THE BBS
 IS NOT SETUP TO HANDLE THESE. IT IS MORE EFFICIENT TO CALL THE OFFICE 
 AND TALK TO A CUSTOMER REPRESENATIVE. OUR NUMBER IS 414-354-8699
 WE APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT. 

-- 
Drive carefully.  We're overstocked.  -- Sign in junkyard
From: nsus_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Nick Susch)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: pkz204c question (not virus or hack question)
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:23:20 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <SLAMBERG.93Jan11160307@mato.cc.lut.fi> slamberg@lut.fi (Samu Lamberg) writes:

>You should override using dpmi with a switch when using windows if any
>problems appear. I suggest reading the manual.doc.

>If you make a program which works fine in most cases and make a switch
>to be used in other cases, your program doesn't have a bug. Neither
>has pkzip.

But if you have a program that automatically detects DPMI, and uses it if it
finds it, but causes memory problems when it does, you have a bug. It
doesn't cause problems outside of windows because nothing is emulating DPMI.
It seems to me that the way pkzip2.04 uses DPMI is buggy, I should not have
to tell it not to work with DPMI, it should be able to handle it, but it
can't.

Other then that though, I really like the new version, especially the
multiple disk thing. Makes it really easy to store big zip files!

--
They say there is strangeness too dangerous | /\/ick Susch - U. of Rochester
In our theatres and bookstore shelves,      | nick@blaise.cif.rochester.edu
That those who know what's best for us      |    or
Must rise and save us from ourselves.       | nsus_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
				   -RUSH   	
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
From: ychung@cayley.uwaterloo.ca (Young Chung)
Subject: 3-chip SIMMs and parity error
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:36:57 GMT

I recently added 4MB to my system to get 8MB memory.  Those SIMMs I got had 
3 chips instead of normal 9 (1Mb simm) but I thought 1Mb is 1Mb.  I installed
the chip in my machine, boot up, no problem.  I run OS/2 then I get parity
error.  So I installed the chips on my brother's machine and run Windows.
Parity error!

What I'd like to know is that is it the bios or the motherboard?
I'm assuming that the chip is not the problem.

I heard that the old bios do not like the 3chip simms.  Would my problem be
solved if I got a new bios?  If so, how recent should it be?


----------
Young :-) ychung@napier.uwaterloo.ca  3@#j3kdi$#%98sk30dskf@#sd.as..3k/sdf3lkdf
 ......##,3@!!!,#@##?P}{ -- I'm a .signature Virus!! --.

Xref: sparky comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:16554 comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer:772
From: j1w@icf.hrb.com (Doug ('Oscar') Works)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer
Subject: Help: Need anagram maker & good editor
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:51:28 EST
Organization: HRB Systems, Inc.

Hey folks,

  I am looking for:  1) a PC-based anagram maker 
                        (Turbo C or Turbo Pascal), and

                     2) a decent PC editor.

  I sort of like EDT keypad definitions, but if you're gonna make fun of me
and tell me to use vi, at least make a convincing argument :]

  Reply by e-mail to J1W@ICF.HRB.COM.  Any help would be appreciated.  Thanks!

                                                    - Doug

................................................................................
................................................................................
....    |         "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep,             ....
....  --+--              to gain what he cannot lose."                      ....
....    |                                           - Jim Elliot            ....
....    |                                                                   ....
.......................  Internet: j1w@icf.hrb.com .............................
................................................................................
    J. Douglas Works * HRB Systems, Inc. * State College, PA  16804  USA


Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
From: sknkwrks@sonny-boy.cs.unlv.edu (Scott Alfter)
Subject: Re: PKZip > 1.1:  Why bother?!?!
Organization: Skunk Works Software Co.
Date: 07 Jan 93 03:45:12 GMT

In article <C0G9w0.Dwr@unx.sas.com> sasghw@pica.unx.sas.com (Greg Wust) writes:
>My understanding of, at least 1.93, is that it now matches coding so 
>that a zip is transportable across platforms.  If you use 1.93 and zip
>something (say a TIFF file or text) and then send it to someone on a
>Unix box, he can use ZIP 5.0 (the Unix version) to unzip it cleanly.
>This is not true of PKZIP which is restricted to PC's only.  ZIP has
>been ported to Unix, VM, Mac, and many others making compressed file
>exchange more like it always should have been, transparent to original
>platform.  This is especially important with graphic files which can be
>readily used under any of the platforms (unlike executables which rely
>on operating systems).

Say again?  I have sound files, text files, and other stuff on my BBS
in ZIP files.  Most of the files were created on a UNIX box,
downloaded to an Apple II, and passed on to my BBS (which runs on a
286).  All three machines have no problems dealing with ZIP
archives...whatever's inside, it'll unpack into usable form.

For IBM/clone-specific files (such as programs), though, other
compressors offer better performance than PKZIP.  I usually use ARJ
for those files.  Combine ZIP and ARJ with GIF, JPEG, and ShrinkIt (an
Apple II-specific archive format), and I have only five different
archive types on my system.

  _/_   Scott Alfter                             Internet: sknkwrks@cs.unlv.edu
 / v \  Call the Skunk Works BBS today!           Ask me about SoftDAC--digital
(IIGS(  (702) 894-9619 300-14400 V.32bis          audio for your Apple IIe/IIc!
 \_^_/  --==## "Apple II Forever" is a trademark of Apple Computer, Inc. ##==--
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
From: jlars@pro-storm.cts.com (John Larson)
Subject: Re: Star SG-10 Dot Matrix Printer : HELP.
Organization: ProLine [Pro-Storm] -- Dallas, TX -- 214/644-5113
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 00:00:35 CST

This is straight from the Gemini Manual concerning the 4 switches 
 
     DIP switches 3&4 should be turned off on your Gemini,
and the other 2 may be set according to your operational requirements.
     Switch 2 should be set to off if you want Gemini to print every time
it recieves a CR code; set it to ON if you wish to have the CR ignored and
printing only when the buffer is full.
     That was from the Tech notes for the IBM

Description of the Switches themselves
    
1   No Paper Detect
2   Buffer Full
3   Bit Select   (On 7 Bits)   Off 8 Bits
4   Auto Line feed

   Hope this helps  
 

ProLine:  jlars@pro-storm
Internet: jlars@pro-storm.cts.com
UUCP:     crash!pro-storm!jlars
Bitnet:   jlars%pro-storm.cts.com@nosc.mil
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
From: pkim@gagme.chi.il.us (Peter Kim)
Subject: Re: The Canon BJ-200 any experiences?
Originator: pkim@gagme
Organization: Gagme Public Access UNIX, Chicago, Illinois.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 06:48:55 GMT

In article <C0FDur.7qJ@newsserver.technet.sg> mathias@solomon.technet.sg (Mathias Koerber) writes:
>MUNN THOMAS JOSEPH (munn@a.cs.okstate.edu) wrote:
>: I am planning on buying a printer, and have narrowed my choice down to
>: two models:  The Canon bj-200 and the Hp-deskjet 500.  I have had
>: extensive experince with the deskjet, but I really like the reviews
>: I have seen on the bj 200.  Of especial importance to me is the relitive
>: speed that the printer can manage under windows, and does it come with
>: a windows driver?
>I faced the same choice and took the BJ-200. Very nice, quite fast and to my eyes the quelity is better than that from a DJ500, but that might be subjective
>since I own the BJ-200 and my brother the DJ500 :-)
>
>The DJ-200 wan't packed with a Windows driver, but the dealer here copied
>a driver disk for me. The driver on it seems OK.

After standing before HP deskjet 500 and BJ-200 for an hour, I bought BJ-200
and I am quite happy with the choice. BJ-200 has a better DPI (360x360 vs.
300x300), more compact, faster, and cheaper by about $50. However, a lot of
people were purchasing HP deskjet 500c by paying about $150 more than BJ-200
and about $100 more than HP deskjet 500.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc