HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.5
Date: 4 Sep 92 10:26:40 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Sep4.163606.838@debet.nhh.no> si0_tb90020@debet.nhh.no writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.234501.28636@hellgate.utah.edu>, brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
>writes:
>
>> #	An NT user can change their initial environment without
>> 	having to reboot for it to take effect.
>> 		Under NT if a user want to do the equivalent of
>> 		changing their PATH environment in config.sys,
>> 		they go to the Control Panel, make the edit,
>> 		then logout and back in again.  This is
>> 		much faster than waiting through a reboot.
>> 
>
>Under DOS:
>
>It is no problem to change the environment on the fly. Just do it. You
>only have to remember to make the same changes to the systems files for
>it to have effect at bootup.
>
>It is no problem under to chage the path from:
>c:\dos;c:\windows;
>to
>c:\dos;c:\windows;c:\borland;c:\msc700;
>on the fly on a DOS computer. What is your point here?
>
>If you want examples, I guess most computermagazines have written an
>"addpath" utility in a batch file once upon a time. If you want to make
>the same changes to have a permanent effect, you also will have to change
>this in your AUTOEXEC.BAT
>
>So again...am I missing your point here.
>
>If you want to do it on UNIX, you edit the .cshrc (in a csh environment)
>or the .login, and do a 'source .login' / 'source .cshrc'
>
>Actually, with good written TSR's that test if they have been installed
>already, you really could just edit autoexec.bat and write 'autoexec' in
>DOS too...

You are thinking only of the command line.  I'm talking about the
system as a whole.  OS/2 has the rather annoying feature that if you
need to change PATH such that all programs such as the WPS knows about it,
you must reboot before it can take effect.  Nearly every package
I've installed say as it exits to reboot because there is no better way
to get the job done.

>
>Terje Bergesen : SI0_TB90020@debet.nhh.no : terjeb@obelix.blh.no


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           :-) :-) :-)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Win-OS/2 performance tweaks
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:22:23 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep1.190039.42710@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>
>Well, I've been asked to run winos2.com (to start Win-OS/2) from a 
>DOS fullscreen session to make it fair with Windows 3.1, which loads
>with DOS already loaded.  Previously, I loaded the Win-OS/2 program
>object, which loads DOS first and the Win-OS/2.  
>
>From an optimized DOS fullscreen session (on the same system as above--
>the 386-25sx), winos2.com took 16 seconds to load Win-OS/2.  Three
>seconds less that before.  Not bad for an sx.  I will hopefully be
>running OS/2 on a 486 with 8 megs in the near future (2-3 weeks).
>When this occurs, I can post some benchmarks for applications for 
>OS/2 and Windows 3.1.  Note:  these benchmarks will be with an 
>optimized OS/2, not the OS/2 that comes out of the box.  I hope
>to get OS/2 really close to Windows 3.1 in application performance,
>or even surpass it.  We'll see.  If I get some results from my 
>meddlings with OS/2's myriad of settings, I'll try to incorporate
>them into an Optimization FAQ.  

Don't forget, to be fair, you should run Windows on a "tweaked" copy
of DOS.  Meaning that HIMEM, EMM386, and SMARTDRV should be installed
with proper parameters.  I found that Windows performance gan vary
greatly depending on these (especially smartdrv caching).  After all,
if you don't want to use an "out of the box" OS/2 session, you
shouldn't use an "out of the box" DOS/Windows environment.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "TELEPHONE, n.  An Invention of the devil which
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   abrogates some of the advantages of making a
 ((|,)                          disagreeable person keep his distance."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bpowell@osc.edu (Brian Powell)
Subject: Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks! (was Re: Windows NT 'Alpha')
Organization: The Ohio Supercomputer Center
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:07:08 GMT

Brian Sturgill (brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu) wrote:
: ...
: a "real" system.  X is a hack, so no Unix ever really fit the bill.
: OS/2 2.0 came close, but it is not multi-user enough, and I'm not about
: ...

X is a hack?  If X11R5 is a hack, it is by far the best, most stable
and robust hack I've ever seen.  I've NEVER crashed an X11 session on
my Sun SPARCstation, and I sometimes do some pretty strange things on
it.  Compared to Windoze, X11 is stability incarnate :-) Even OS/2
(a very stable PC system, IMHO) can't match the stability of X11.

-- Brian
-- 

o------------------------The Ohio Supercomputer Center------------------------o
|  Brian S. Powell                                           bpowell@osc.edu  |
o------------------------"My other computer is a CRAY"------------------------o
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ckincy@mcs213d.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: NT vs OS/2 features (was Re: Misinformation about os2-dos HW access)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 02:54:54 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

In article <1992Sep01.181607.4094@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.082343.28146@umr.edu> ckincy@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep01.010548.11230@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>     "Better?"  I don't think I can prove that - it's a nebulous
>term.  I can comment on why I think symmetric multiprocessing is
>more desirable - it can be used on any task, not just (in the
>multiprocessing OS/2 case) network I/O.  A good OS can utilize
>any number of processors to solve any task.
>     Besides, it's just better.  So there.

That's true...but this can be done with asymmetric processing as well.
If you think about it, asymmetric and symmetric balance out risks/
benefits wise.

[Device driver]
>     If by "works" you mean "runs", it does.
>     If by "works" you mean "makes driver-writing easy", I really
>don't know.

Well, give half-a-point to Phil. =)

>>I'd like to see a easy-to-write printer driver.  Also, I've heard
>>trouble with installing printer drivers under NT.
>
>      Come now - it's not even in beta yet...

Then you shouldn't send the drivers with NT if they don't work!
Silly, silly Microsoft.

>>Remember, in NT a printer is not a device when it comes to driver.
>>Hmmmmm.  
>
>       Error parsing sentence.
>       Segmentation fault(core dumped)

What I meant to say is that the DDK (from what I understand) does not
support printer driver development.  That's a separate thing, Unidriver
I think.

There's another great Microsoft idea that doesn't quite work.  Fix it.
Of course, y'all don't have far to go on that one.

[registry]
>      The registry works now, but as I said - it's a bit confusing.
>And modifying it can be a real pain in the ass.  Just figuring
>out which setting to modify can take a while.
>      All in all, though, editing the registry is an administrator-
>level task, and probably won't be done all that often.

Ah, a trade off.  I recognize tradeoffs. =)

>      Don't know about thunks - probably couldn't tell you if I
>did.

Thunk is a chunk of code that converts from 16-bit-mode to 32-bit-mode.
It's added to the code when it is run through the subsystem (the entry
and exit to the API call).

>      Is there any other way?  Almost certainly.  Are those other
>ways better?  Possibly.

So you don't know.  That's ok.  No, really, it is. =)

>>Wow.  Never thought I'd hear you say that.  *grin*
>
>     Why not?  I've tried to be honest on this group...

Well, tried.  =)  Nah, c'mon, Phil, did you forget to eat that 
chunk of rocksalt that I gave you?!

[FAT vs HPFS]
>     I think the current caching schemes are optimized for FAT.

Well, that's acceptable.  Besides, you guys will want to push your
newest stuff while keeping your installed base.  I wouldn't expect
anything different.

cpk
From: ahummel@ems.cdc.com (H. Austin Hummel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: OS/2 and Window 3.1 undocumented calls
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:14:11 GMT
Reply-To: you@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of CDC

In today copy of InfoWorld an artical talked about undocumented calls
that Microsoft is using for it products (exel, Word for Win 2.0, etc)

My question: Does any one have excel or Microsoft Word for Windows 2.0
running under OS/2?
From: liuyu@kramden.nyu.edu (Liuyu)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IS IBM UK STILL IN THE STONE AGE???
Date: 1 Sep 92 22:19:43 GMT
Organization: New York University

discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>In article <liuyu.715302746@kramden> liuyu@kramden.nyu.edu (Liuyu) writes:
>>sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
>>
>>>>Not to put too fine a point on it but $25 for a video card doesn't cut it,
>>>>you still need a monitor to go with it.

>Yes and new monochrome monitors are going for about $50 these days.  And people
>still buy them--if all that is necessary is regular text work.

>>
>>>No, that is not correct.  I refer you to my original reply to the
>>>person asking about Hercules support under OS/2.
>>
>>>(Hint: get an ATI EGA Wonder or Paradise Monochrome EGA card.)

>Very good.  I have one of those too.  The problem is that they are rather
>expensive: might as well get a Trident VGA ($60) and an el-cheapo monitor
>($200).

>>
>>When I have something that should have worked, why in the world should I waste
>>my money on another obsolete video? I'm asking for Herc support, not EGA 
>>support. I want a FREE driver.
>>If I upgrade, I get at least a SVGA. So I get my money worth.

>I totally agree with this.  One of the reasons I was really pleased with
>Windows is that I have two systems on my network that are configured with
>monochrome monitors (hercules).  When I put Windows on the network, all my
>systems worked.  Albeit, it was a little cumbersome on the Herc systems,
>but I didn't have to spend another $600 upgrading.

>Heck, I agree that a set standard such as HGC should be supported by a 
>GUI--especially if that GUI supports ancients such as CGA and EGA.  


Hey, at least one guy agrees with me <g>.....
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: Microsoft bashing (was: Re: Some more misconceptions...)
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:59:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.182226.16745@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>
>There it is again.  I know you were just trying to logically reason this
>out, so this isn't a flame.  What you overlooked is whether it is ethical
>for a company to bolster its near-monopoly status in PC operating systems
>by not developing for competing operating systems.  The FTC was interested
>in breaking Microsoft into two companies - an operating system company,
>and an applications company - when it got whiff that the latter branch
>may have been getting preferential treatment (relative to competing app
>companies) from the former branch.  Shouldn't the reverse be true?  Isn't
>it unfair for companies making competing OSes if MS witholds applications
>from those OSes simply because they compete with DOS/Windows?

Well, although I don't condone the ethical stand that Microsoft has obviously
made, I do see their point: is it ethical for an Automobile manufacturer to
make automobile parts that can only fit on their models?  Is it ethical
for Mormons to only allow other Mormons into the temple?  Is it ethical
that MOST developers for the PC are only supporting DOS or Windows?

Microsoft, obviously, is doing what American companies are supposed to do:
look out for the company's interests... and do the utmost for the
shareholders.  Microsoft has probably sat down long and hard and weighed
the benefits/disadvantages of supporting DOS, Windows, and OS/2--and
have concluded that it wasn't fiscally advantageous to support OS/2.

If you don't like it, don't buy Microsoft's products... by someone else's (and
give some other American company the chance to become a major corporation).
As in REAL politics, your dollar is the best vote you can cast.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ekl@fics.uucp
Subject: Re: X is a hack?
Organization: Kvam data as
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 23:23:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.174255.2025@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>Why is printer support necessarily a GUI feature?  The Mac system,
>>Windows, etc. are more than just GUIs.  Printer support is simply not
>>within the domain of X.  I take it you're saying it should be.
>
>Ah... I see, X defines GUI, not Macintosh, Windows, Xerox or others that
>came before X.  One of the original major purposes of GUI was to do WYSIWYG
>software.  Printer support is essential if you want to do WYSIWYG.
>
>Brian

In a strict sence (and this is .advocacy -- we are *very* strict), X is
not a GUI. "Mechanics, not policy" was mentioned in another posting, and
this phrase is essential to understand when discussing X.

X is meant to provide a networkable, device-independent way of interacting
with a display and associated input devices. Printing is not in the scope
of X, since X is only the display part of a gui.

However, I can agree with you if you say that Motif or Open Look should
have printer support. And, in those terms, they fall short.

Eirik
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: richk@grebyn.com (Richard Krehbiel)
Subject: Re: X is a hack? (was Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks!)
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 03:24:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.195452.941@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.171756.17033@msi.com> bill@msi.com writes:
>>Brian Sturgill (brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu) wrote:
>>: In article <47470005@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM> glen@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Glen Robinson) writes:
>>: a "real" system.  X is a hack, so no Unix ever really fit the bill.
>>
>>1) Why is X a hack?
>It's a glue-on on top of Unix (i.e. it's not well integrated).  I purports

This is a feature, not a bug. :-)  The fact that X is not tightly
integrated with Unix is what makes it possible to have X on VMS, X on
OS/2, X on Windows, X on DOS, X on Mac, X on NeXT, X on Amiga...

-- 
Richard Krehbiel                                 richk@grebyn.com
OS/2 2.0 will do for me until AmigaDOS for the 386 comes along...
From: eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (TAN JIN MENG)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Brian, your bias is showing ( was Re: OS/2 vs NT features
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:40:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: nuscc.1992Sep3.164040.11566
Organization: National University of Singapore

dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
: In article <1992Sep02.184426.28244@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
: >>>	All but 60K kernel is pageable. (Microkernel design)
: >>
: >>So will installable file system code be pagable?
: >
: >      I really, really like this question.  :-)
: >      I can't answer it, but it did give me grins.  Of course,
: >IFS code isn't technically part of the kernel, is it?
: 
: The IFS code may well be pageable.  But it'll probably never get paged
: out anyway, since it is necessary for so many critical features (quite
: probably for the paging process!) that something else will get paged
: out first.

Come to think of it - how can the file system code be pageable? I need
the file system to page in needed blocks! For that matter - is the cache
pageable - makes no sense if I allow this (though unlike the previous
case is not impossible just wierd!).

jin meng
: -- 
:    |)  David Charlap           "TELEPHONE, n.  An Invention of the devil which
:   /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   abrogates some of the advantages of making a
:  ((|,)                          disagreeable person keep his distance."
:   ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: Brian, your bias is showing ( was Re: OS/2 vs NT features
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:28:39 GMT

eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (TAN JIN MENG) writes:

>Come to think of it - how can the file system code be pageable? I need
>the file system to page in needed blocks! For that matter - is the cache
>pageable - makes no sense if I allow this (though unlike the previous
>case is not impossible just wierd!).

Actually its not impossible if the hardware supports it (I don't believe
Intel micro do). You need a two level address lookup with a small page
table that is always present. This is used to page the main page table.
This is somewhat slower than a single level lookup, but can be usefull
for computers with very large memories where the page tables are too
large to keep in memory.

>jin meng
>: -- 
>:    |)  David Charlap           "TELEPHONE, n.  An Invention of the devil which
>:   /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   abrogates some of the advantages of making a
>:  ((|,)                          disagreeable person keep his distance."
>:   ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: orville%weyrich@tnet.com (Orville R. Weyrich)
Subject: Re: What and how I'd like to see c.o.o.a advocate.
Reply-To: tnet.com!weyrich!orville
Organization: Weyrich Computer Consulting
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 13:53:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.184356.4893@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.072320.687@weyrich.UUCP> tnet.com!weyrich!orville writes:
>
>>>>IBM Direct could have a bundle of 2 software sets and 2 ethernet
>>>>cards like Novell does with NetWare Lite. 
>>>
>>>If nobody sues them for unfair competition, it would be a great idea.
>>
>>If IBM uses a similar pricing structure, how could anybody successfully
>>sue them?
>
>Because, even though they don't have a majority of the market, they
>are seen as a powerful force (and they are in some areas).  If they
>appear to favor one brand of ethernet hardware (even their own), it
>could cause problems.  The other board vendors will accuse them of
>stealing away the market.

There is a long road from an accusation to a SUCCESSFUL law suit. In any
event, the ideal would be for IBM to make the software available to any/
all board manufacturers that wanted to do such a bundle.

orville

--------------------------------------       **********************************
Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.                          Weyrich Computer Consulting
Certified Data Processor                       POB 5782, Scottsdale, AZ 85261
Certified Systems Professional                      Voice: (602) 391-0821
Certified Computer Programmer                Internet: orville%weyrich@tnet.com
--------------------------------------       **********************************
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: rjones@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ronald Jones)
Subject: Re: Win-OS/2 performance tweaks
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:02:36 GMT

Something to keep in mind when doing these loadtime "benchmarks":

Time to load Word in Win-OS/2 = 25 sec

Close Word

Time to reload Word in Win-OS/2 = 12 sec

No other programs running! 2 MB of HPFS cache.


-- 
 < Ron Jones                   |    E-mail:       rj+@osu.edu   > 
 < The Ohio State University   |    Office:      (614) 292-1665 >
 < 338 West Tenth Avenue       |    FAX:(9-5PM)  (614) 292-7151 > 
 < Columbus, Ohio 43210        |        "eschew obfuscation"    >      
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IS IBM UK STILL IN THE STONE AGE???
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:28:06 GMT
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego

In article <liuyu.715302746@kramden> liuyu@kramden.nyu.edu (Liuyu) writes:
>sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
>
>>>Not to put too fine a point on it but $25 for a video card doesn't cut it,
>>>you still need a monitor to go with it.

Yes and new monochrome monitors are going for about $50 these days.  And people
still buy them--if all that is necessary is regular text work.

>
>>No, that is not correct.  I refer you to my original reply to the
>>person asking about Hercules support under OS/2.
>
>>(Hint: get an ATI EGA Wonder or Paradise Monochrome EGA card.)

Very good.  I have one of those too.  The problem is that they are rather
expensive: might as well get a Trident VGA ($60) and an el-cheapo monitor
($200).

>
>When I have something that should have worked, why in the world should I waste
>my money on another obsolete video? I'm asking for Herc support, not EGA 
>support. I want a FREE driver.
>If I upgrade, I get at least a SVGA. So I get my money worth.

I totally agree with this.  One of the reasons I was really pleased with
Windows is that I have two systems on my network that are configured with
monochrome monitors (hercules).  When I put Windows on the network, all my
systems worked.  Albeit, it was a little cumbersome on the Herc systems,
but I didn't have to spend another $600 upgrading.

Heck, I agree that a set standard such as HGC should be supported by a 
GUI--especially if that GUI supports ancients such as CGA and EGA.  

Just MY opinion.

Joe
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel)
Subject: Re: Win-OS/2 loads faster than Win 3.1!
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY, 12866
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 14:35:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.202352.42641@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>Hello netters,
>
>I am running OS/2 on a 386sx-25 with 6 megs of RAM.  The time to
>start the Win-OS/2 desktop for me is 28 seconds.  After some tweaking
>(thank you Mr. Sipples), it is now 19 seconds.  Out of curiosity,
>I fired up Windows 3.1 (from DOS 5) on a 386dx-25 with 4 megs of
>RAM.  It took 22 seconds!  I couldn't believe it.  For all you
>OS/2 nonbelievers out there--tweak you OS/2!

And what, pray tell, are the magic incantations that you used to speed
things up?



-- 
Pierre von Kaenel	| Skidmore College	     | pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu
Math & CS Dept.		| Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 | (518)584-5000 Ext 2391
When asked his position on euthanasia, our local state rep. responded:
"I support youth all over the world."