HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jar@inel.gov (Jeffry A Rich)
Subject: Re: HPFS
Keywords: os2
Organization: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho
Distribution: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 19:10:10 GMT

This seems to be the ideal location to ask about a HPFS problem.

I had OS/2 running on my 486/33 using HPFS on a 130mb drive. This drive has 2 spots on it that are quite bad. When using FAT with DOS/WINDOWS, I could use PCTOOLS and bypass the bad spots. When I switched over to OS/2 / HPFS, these bad spots manifest themselves in my applications. 

Since the bad spots are in the middle of the disk, they never show up in the operating system itself.

On GENIE, an IBM rep told me that the bad spots are bypassed during the installation (when formatting). Doesn't look like that's happening to me.

Does anyone know of a utility like PCTOOLS for HPFS? Until I can get this fixed, it's back to DOS/WINDOWS for me!

 Regards,
  JR Rich
========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: bcmatusz@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Brian Matusz)
Subject: Re: MicroS*ft can NOT write code! (Was: Can IBM write code?)
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:55:50 GMT

>INT 16 returns its result not only in the AX register but also in the
>Z-FLAG. Now whoever did wrote that, had probably never heard of the flag-saving
>mechanism all INT's use. How can one possibly pass a flag as a parameter,
>when the first thing and INT does is push all flags and the IRET opcode
>restores the previous situation.
>Everyone, who wrote  a function that hooked itself into DOS INT16 will know
>what I am talking about.

Geez ... I hate to make you sound like a fool, but since you've already
done it so eloquently yourself, I'll point out to you that INT 16 has
nothing to do with DOS ... it's in the ROM BIOS, which was written
(originally, of course) by IBM.

Listen, I'm not Microsoft fan (Windows does not perform the functions
I need), nor am I an IBM fan per se (I am using OS/2) ... but what
distresses me MOST about this whole argument "thing" going on in the
advocacy groups is the people who have no intelligence think they're
going to "shed the light on the world".  Your example of INT16 is
perfect ... you have enough knowledge to get yourself pissed off, but
not enough to know who you should be pissed of at.

Try thinking ... you'll like it.

Brad Wilson
(via a friend's account)

--
I do not speak for anybody but me ... anyone who agrees with me is as
stupid as I am! ;-)
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Impressions of the July NT Release
Keywords: NT
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:11:09 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <rdippold.711768386@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>
>They could do the usual and ship an extremely buggy X.0 version and
>claim that they made the deadline, then release a X.0a version in a
>while with most of the bug-fixes to those who bitch about the bugs,
>then a year or so later release version X.1, which is what the product
>should have been all along.

Which is what all the Microsoft advocates are complaining about when
IBM did the same thing.  And OS/2 2.0 (CSD level 0200 - GA) is far
from extremely buggy.  Its bugs are (for the most part) harmless
annoyances.

-- 
   |)  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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin)
Subject: Re: Portable?
Date: 21 Jul 92 22:50:48 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: comp

In article <wiegand.711122759@lido16> motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net writes:
>
>Asm. code thats in anything used for 80X86 specific stuff shouldn't be
>counted. You wouldn't use this stuff when you port to another processor
>anywhy. 

True, in general.  But most of the code that you get to discard has
it's equivalent for the other processor.  So you don't have to manage
the 386's page tables, but you do have to manage someone else's page tables...
So the amount of ASM is still a reasonable measure of porting effort.

In fact, it's faster to port stuff that's just in ASM because of speed
issues then it is to rewrite stuff for a new environment; rewriting introduces
all new bugs, whereas just transcoding stuff avoids many of the bugs you'd
get from all new code.

	Gordon Letwin
	not a spokesperson for anyone

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.apps
From: parry@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Tom J Parry)
Subject: Re: The Ultimate OS/2 FTP Source
Originator: parry@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:51:33 GMT

exujlg@exu.ericsson.se (Jon L. Gauthier) writes:
> 
> I've checked it out (albeit a few days ago, and it is a new system) and it
> was, to be kind, anemic.  ftp-os2 (hobbes) has FAR more files, new patches,
> etc.  I'll check Watson again, just to make sure!

watson is only intended to carry patches and anything else IBM choose to
release.

-- 
Tom J Parry.
Your reality is a figment of my imagination.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:3388 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:1659
From: neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
Date: 30 Jul 92 09:15:26 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland

In article <Bs4CDF.Dvy@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.092625.14155@cs.hw.ac.uk> neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite) writes:
>
>>Look and feel. Mac wins hands down. There is *no* contest.
>
>Ugh. Gag. Spew. I could go on and on about how stupid the 
>Mac GUI feels these days. I could start, for instance, with
>how apps in the background can obscure your drive icons 
>when the Finder is in the foreground. Or how difficult it 
>is to get things out of the way quickly. But I won't, because
>I've done it already at least three times in the last six 
>months.
>

Well at least you get drive icons, which is more than you can say for Windows.

You have to open up the gooky Program Nanager, find the file manager, run
it and find your way to whatever you want. Or find the minimised F.M.
Icon on your desktop.

Get things out of the way quickly ??

Go to the top right of the screen and drap down the program list. Click
the button marked 'Hide XXXX' and the application disappears. When you
want it back, you do the same, only clicking the now grayed out 'Hide XXXX'

I don't seen the problem.

Neil
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bauwens@acs.ucalgary.ca (Luc Bauwens)
Subject: Re: Is NTFS really a new file system?
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 03:01:51 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <1992Jul29.000042.8518@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.110152.1948@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>>
>>I've been HPFS-only for over three months with no problems.....what can be
>>more robust than that?
>> 
>
>      Using it for over four months with no problems?
>
>      Sorry, someone had to say it... :-)
>
>					-Phil
>
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
>philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 

And I am sure that was an official MS position statement, right :-)?

Luc B
From: dinda@cae.wisc.edu (Dinda Peter)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Edlin Angst ( Re: What's wrong with Windows (Re: MS grasping at ...
Date: 25 Jul 92 22:52:49 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering

In article <1992Jul24.170919.20007@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
>In a previous article, ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) says:
>
>>Eh? I LIKE Edlin. For editing short batch files theres nothing
>>quicker.
>>
>This is a joke, no?
>
>If it is not, perhaps Iskandar needs some form of professional help.
>

Bullshit.  The nice thing about edlin is that everyone running DOS
has it, you can write scripts for it, and it's pretty easy to navigate
unknowledgeable users through it over the phone.  For tiny editing jobs 
I use TED on my personal machine, but on many people's machines the choice 
is between EDLIN and WordPerfect.

>
>And nothing is quicker than 'copy con' for making short batch files.

True, but it doesn't do a hot job of editing them, now does it?  (yes,
I have used "COPY /A AUTOEXEC.BAT + CON AUTOEXEC.BAT"
From: kab@s1.gov (Keith Benton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: dvorak, pc magazine
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:56:53 GMT
Reply-To: kab@s1.gov
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

In article 3066@dosgate, "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com> () writes:
>In message <1992Jul25.163710.7228@sygnus.uucp>, Tim Purves writes:
>
>JT>Anyone see the Dvorak column in the August '92 PC Mag?  Something must be
>JT>seriously wrong!!!  He raves about OS/2 2.0.  I just don't get it anymore.
>
>TP>Sorta makes Zacherman look like a lier, no?
>
>TP>Twho theories:
>
>TP>1) This weeks PCMAG is very pro OS/2. ZD did this to make Zacherman look the
>TP>fool. And to prove that he was not censored.
>
>TP>2) Zacherman, was just doing a publicity stunt.
>
>I doubt that Will Zachmann (not Zacherman) quit his job and walked  away
>from more than 50% of his income for a publicity stunt. Zachman has also
>stated many times that his problems were with PC _WEEK_, not PC _MAG_.
>
>----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
>Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.com
>Software Consulting and Gator Pit | I'm a brain in a vat. What about you?
>----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
>---
> ~ SLMR 2.1a ~ Laetrile is the pits.
>--
>Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
>World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

I also read the same article and while Dvorak comes down on the
side of OS/2 he also comes down hard on OS/2 fanatics. Read the
article and maybe some of you OS/2 fanatics will tone down your
attitude a little and let OS/2 sink or swim on its own merits. As
for Zachmann I'm sure that he's not hurting for income.

---
---------------------------------------------------------
|             Keith Benton: kab@s1.gov                  |
| ME!?!? Speak for anyone here!?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA |
|             Standard Disclaimers apply                |
---------------------------------------------------------
From: aci10@eng.cam.ac.uk (A.C. Innes)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Portable?
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:02:41 GMT
Organization: Cambridge University Engineering Department, England

In article <1992Jul26.151507.14399@news.Hawaii.Edu> tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) writes:
>Pete Skelly writes:
[...]
>> I suspect most other SE's will agree with the conclusion, that Bugs have a
>> high probability of being introduced during translation.
>
>An increased probability, yes.  How high it is depends on the talents of the
>programmer.

Could we please drop this thread?  As Pete said, I think everyone will
agree that rewriting tested code (whether translating assembler into
C, or recoding to the specification from scratch) provides an
*opportunity* to introduce errors (both new and "old" ones).  Given
this, I think everyone will also agree that it is *prudent* (ie. good
software engineering practice) to *act as if* errors WILL be
introduced -- in other words, to allow and budget time for finding and
fixing errors, even though the original code had been thoroughly
tested.  How much time should be budgeted is a different question, and
would likely depend on the individual programmer's skill, the
company's programming practices, size and complexity (and
critical-ness) of the code involved, etc.

--
Andrew Innes (aci10@eng.cam.ac.uk)
Engineering Dept.
Cambridge University
Cambridge, England.
From: "richard anstruther" <richard.anstruther@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: put up or shut up
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:20:48 EST
Reply-To: "richard anstruther" <richard.anstruther@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

-> The key phrase here is "if the released projections...are correct".
-> The statements IBM makes to the press about the # of copies sold
-> don't match their royalty statements to us, not by a very large
-> factor. This is not just a matter of closing dates on the statements;
-> even correcting for that there is no match.
->
-> It's my personal opinion that this is one of the reasons that IBM has
-> gone out of it's way to start a pissing match between IBM and
-> Microsoft.  Then IBM can say anything that they want for sales
-> figures and if Microsoft says that it doesn't agree with our royalty
-> statement then IBM hopes that some people will think that Microsoft
-> is just lying because of all the bad blood.

Microsoft's desire to protect its OS monopoly provides ample
incentive to lie, regardless of any personal animosity towards
IBM.  Perhaps MS is lying about the content of the royalty
statements it has received from IBM?  It would just be another
element in its FUD campaign against OS/2.  You can certainly
put the matter to rest by publishing them instead of trying
to cast aspersions on IBM's honesty.

-> Microsoft will start developing for OS/2 when there are close to 2
-> million USERS of OS/2, not just when IBM starts to claim that figure,
-> or not just when 2 million bundled installs have been done.
-> Obviously our apps group, like any other software company, cares
-> about the number of potential customers for the product, not the real
-> or imaginary count of cardboard boxes that have been printed.

That's rich coming from the purveyors of Windows - shelfware of
the decade.  I notice your carefully worded statement already
looks like an attempt to backpedal on BG's statement that MS
would begin to develop for OS/2 when it reached a base of 2 million.
Now when it passes that mark you can claim that people aren't
actually using it, as if all those Windows owners were actually
using Windows, instead of wondering why they can't buy a clone without
getting Windows whether they want it or not.

-> So IBM can say what it wants about OS/2 numbers; if they're playing
-> games this will become clear to ISVs

You mean if they start acting like Microsoft?

-> gordon letwin
-> not speaking for microsoft

Yeah, right.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: nt, an assessment
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Distribution: comp
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 01:48:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.173949.6105@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>Well, there've been two-page ads in every issue of Network World for
>about a month and a half now.  I've seen Workset/2 advertised in Dr.
>Dobb's Journal for about two months now.  I don't get other computer
>mags, so I can't say for sure.  I've yet to see a television ad, but
>I'm not qualified there - I've only seen one MS ad on TV, and there
>were heaps...

IBM had an ad for their SLC line of PS/2s on ABC's Nightline just a
night or two ago.  It immediately caught my eye, and I wasn't looking
for it (good ad, I thus conclude).

What does this have to do with OS/2?  Well, not much, except that the
SLC models come bundled with OS/2.

-- 
Get the OS/2 FREQ. ASKED QUESTIONS LIST | Timothy F. Sipples
from 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp,     | Internet: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu
directory pub/os2/all/faq, or from      | Dept. of Econ., U. Chicago, 60637
LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP"). | Tsongas > Perot > Clinton.  Yay.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Is NTFS really a new file system?
Date: 29 Jul 92 00:00:42 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Jul27.110152.1948@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>
>I've been HPFS-only for over three months with no problems.....what can be
>more robust than that?
> 

      Using it for over four months with no problems?

      Sorry, someone had to say it... :-)

					-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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: What's wrong with Windows (Re: MS grasping at straws?...)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 02:48:08 GMT

In article <dlcogswe.711123254@vela> dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell) writes:

>Oh yeah?  Compare the most popular "operating system" on PCs today with
>the most popular (and only) operating system on Macs or Amigas.  You've
>got the company putting out the worst product MAKING THE MOST MONEY.
>Why?  They were able to ride IBM's coat-tails.

The Mac OS annoys me. The Amiga desktop looks like a toy.

>As far as their application software, if Microshaft is such a innovator,
>then why don't they can't they knock-out the competition?  WordPerfect is
>at least as good as MS-Word and due for an update.  Quatro Pro and 1-2-3
>are just as good as Excel.  So, you tell ME why Microsuck deserves so
>much money.

I suppose you've actually used these packages. Had a good
look at Excel 4 lately? Quattro and 123 pale in comparison.

>IBM Laser Printer 10 vs. HP Laserjet III
>IBM RS/6000 vs. DECstation 5000
>Lexmark keyboards vs. ANY keyboard
>OS/2 2.0 vs. Windows 3.1


IBM Model 55SX vs. any Gateway of the same price.




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
From: hodge@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Portable?
Date: 22 Jul 92 07:29:10 EST
Distribution: comp

In article <1992Jul11.050428.26185@midway.uchicago.edu>, sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
[...]
> Incidently, do yourself a favor with NT: don't bother incorporating
> FAT into the MIPS and Alpha incarnations.  What's the point?
> (Actually, I'm sure someone will come up with an interesting idea as
> to why FAT should be supported on NT/Alpha, NT/MIPS.  Thoughts?)
>    
[...]
  Actually, being able to use "SNEAKERNET" to transfer data between a 
DOS/Windows PC and a MIPS Windows box (when the network is down) will be of
vital importance to some installations.  This will require being able to
read a DOS floppy on a MIPS box.  Perhaps a system utility that copies the
data without requiring system services from the OS would suffice (if it is
even possible in the NT architecture), but transparent FAT access would be
preferred.

++++  Bob Hodge  +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+  I'm looking for Jim Meerbot! Please email me if you know him!   +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: su0911@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (David Salzberg)
Subject: OS/2, DOS, NT (Speculative) -- My Opinions
Organization: State University of New York at Binghamton
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 13:09:31 GMT


Here is my view point.
On my pc (ZEOS 16 Mhz sx, 8 mb ram (4 mb on motherboard), speedstar vga card, 
85 Mb IDE hd)

I use OS/2.  I like OS/2.  I used to use DOS + WIN 3.0., but I only used windows
for word processing (AMI Pro).  I like multitasking -- at work I use unix on Suns 
and I am used to good multitasking.  

For me, windows did not multitask dos applications good enough.  OS/2 was cheap.  I 
figured I would try it (only 49 dollars).  The migration was easy.  After a few weeks, 
I deleted DOS and WIN.


Now, for the meat of my post:  I use OS/2 2.0 because it suits my wants.  I want
stable DOS multitasking.  It does it.  Windows 3.1 didn't.  NT isn't available yet.
I thout about Deskview, but DOS crashes a lot (I do some programming).

Another reason why I am going with OS/2 is the following comparison (I think this is 
correct, if I am wrong, someone will correct me).

		OS/2		Win-3.1		Deskview/x	NT

OS		OS/2		DOS		DOS		NT
GUI		PM		Windows		X windows	Windows?
Shell		WPS		Program Man.	?		??
Bits		32		16		16		32

The point is, windows and deskview are limitied by DOS -- they do extend DOS,
but DOS is still the basis.  OS/2 command line is more stable than DOS.  The 
problems with OS/2  are in the shell -- not the OS or the GUI.  PM is stable.  
OS/2 is stable.  DOS isn't that stable, Windows (3.0 at least), is unstable.
I don't know about Deskview/x.  NT isn't available.  

I also prefer WPS organisation to Prog-man because it is more like Sun's openwin
interface which I use at work.

Therefore, for me, If I want a stable, multitasking operating system that is
available today,  OS/2 is the obvious choice.  For me, 32 bits is not
important yet as I have no 32 bit compilers or applications.  

If NT is better and there is an easy route from what I have at that time,
I will probably move to NT.  But, I can run OS/2 today.

David Salzberg

BTW, I have been running OS/2 2.0 since May 3, and Have only crashed three
times, including while debugging Turbo-C programs that would force a hard reboot
under DOS.