HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: x89coulter4@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Reviews of OS/2 Backup Software!!
Date: 1 Sep 92 02:55:30 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University


I am looking for good backup software for OS/2 2.0.  Commercial or Shareware
does not matter.  Preferably with compression (and all the other bells and
whistles we love in backup software).

Please post to comp.os.os2.apps as I am sure others will be interested in
our evaluations of and backup apps.

-- Thanks Much to all who contribute.

-- James --
x89coulter4@gw.wmich.edu
From: maurit@nrtc.nrtc.northrop.com (Mark Aurit <maurit>)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Missing DLL's for Word 2.0?
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:18:43 GMT
Reply-To: maurit@nrtc.nrtc.northrop.com (Mark Aurit <maurit>)
Distribution: na
Organization: Northrop Research & Technology Center, Palos Verdes, CA

Im trying to run WORD for Windows 2.0 under OS2 2.0  and get
the following error msgs: Cannot file file: SHELL.DLL,
and the same error msg for OLECLI.DLL and OLESVR.DLL. Does
anyone know the fix?

Thx, Mark Aurit
maurit@nrtc.northrop.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
From: eliu@ee.ubc.ca
Subject: ATI Ultra advice needed
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 06:20:45 GMT



I am thinking of getting an ATI Ultra to run OS/2. Could any Ultra
user give me some advice? Does the driver in ftp-os2.nmsu.edu work
fine with OS/2?

Any help is appreciated.


Eric

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.programmer,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: unruh@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh)
Subject: Re: IS IBM UK STILL IN THE STONE AGE???
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 00:12:56 GMT

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>In article <714913121.20822@minster.york.ac.uk> george@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
>>>  
>>>  It seems that there are a number of users using AMIPRO V2.0,
>>>  running under WIN/OS2 that have not encountered any problems.
>>>  
>>>  I can only advise you to run the software on an IBM machine to
>>>  ascertain whether or not there is a fault with Hardware instead
>>>  of Software.

...
>     This really gives me the willies.  Is IBM only going to support
>OS/2 on IBM hardware?  And, if so, what would be the implications if
>OS/2 were to dominate the PC operating system market?

Come on! What they were saying was, test AMIPRO V2.0 on a machine that
they were fairly certain did not have hardware problems to see if the
problem was hardware or software. 
Well known debugging techique- isolate the problem before you assume you
know the cause. 
OS2 crashed regularly ( and on particular programs) when
I first installed. It does not do so now. Is this because IBM rewrote
OS2? No, the tag Sram cache chip on my machine was too slow making it
flakey. I suspected that my machine was at fault, not OS2 because so
many people had run it with no trouble. If it is true that lots of
people have no problem with AMIPRO, one suspects either the poster's
hardware, or some fault in the installation.
Bill Unruh
unruh@physics.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.programmer,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bauwens@acs.ucalgary.ca (Luc Bauwens)
Subject: Re: About this Hercules business (Re: IS IBM UK STILL IN THE STONE AGE???)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 15:52:13 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <liuyu.715301119@kramden> liuyu@kramden.nyu.edu (Liuyu) writes:
>
>>About this Hercules business:
>
>Why don't you also include CGA and EGA? Are you implying GUI on CGA is
>much better? If IBM wanted to drop support on low-res video, they should
>have drop them all. 

What's the logic of that statement?  Just because neither Hercules
nor CGA makes much sense, you seem to think that because they
maintain support for CGA, then they should also have supported
Hercules?

If there are two mistakes, say A and B, if they make mistake B,
you say they should have made mistake A too?

At least, they pulled support for one obsolete mode.

(As for EGA, there are still quite a few apps around that
run in EGA mode.  I don't know whether that means that drivers
are needed.  But I dson't think you will find anything around
that runs in Hercules and not in some other mode too....)

Luc B

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2:289 comp.os.os2.apps:5773
From: JAY@wvnvm.wvnet.edu (James Justice)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: Files Requested
Date: 1 Sep 92 12:12:52 GMT
 <65016@cup.portal.com> <mark.715318975@snark>

In article <mark.715318975@snark>, mark@snark.itc.gu.edu.au (Mark Hessling)
says:
>
>THE for OS/2 (much enhanced version of XEDIT for VM/CMS) and very
>similar to Kedit is available for nothing. It is on ftp-os2.nmsu.edu in
>the editor directory or can also be ftp'd from

I have nothing against THE, it is a nice little editor.  THE is a small
subset of XEDIT.  XEDIT has a large number of commands some of which are
not implimented by THE (one example the prefix commands!).  KEDIT is a
truly wonderful superset of XEDIT!  I just recently got version 5 of the
editor and I consider it one of the best editors I have ever used.  Like
XEDIT, it is completely extensible via its REXX interface ( KEX also! ).

I am a VM expert and must have the prefix commands.  I don't know how any
XEDIT user could get along with out them!  KEDIT is a complete implimentation
of XEDIT and a lot more!
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2:279 comp.os.os2.misc:28722
From: ucbked@athena (Earl H. Kinmonth)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: dosv under os2
Date: 31 Aug 1992 13:28:08 GMT
Organization: Centre for Japanese Studies, Univ. of Sheffield
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena.berkeley.edu

the faq for os2 claims you can run multiple dos sessions under
os2 and they need not be the same version.  is this for real? is
it robust?

i want to run dosv, the version of dos marketed by ibm for at and
ps2 bus machines that does on screen display of japanese kanji.

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

(the v is dosv is not, by the way roman numeral 5, it stands for
vga.)

-- 
earl h. kinmonth, centre for japanese studies, university of sheffield,
sheffield, england s10 2tn  jp1ek@sunc.sheffield.ac.uk
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2:251 comp.os.os2.misc:28515
From: exujlg@exu.ericsson.se (Jon L. Gauthier)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Create a directory(object) from DRIVES?
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:12:45 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

Don't laugh - I've got an OS/2 2.0 user (actually, our applications
programming manager) here at work who is new to OS/2.  He asked me
how he could create new directories from within the Drives folder in
the WPS.

"Simple." says I.  "Just click on the upper left button in the window of 
the drive you want it on, select Create Directory, and type in the name of 
the directoryyou want to create."  Of course, I had up to that time used 
only the'real man's' method to create directories - from the command line.

So he tries it, and guess what: no 'Create Directory' menu option.  So I 
look everywhere - command reference, the FAQ, tutorial, and can't find it.
If a programming manager and an network systems manager can't figure it out, 
how are our regular users going to figure it out when we unleash OS/2 on an 
unsuspecting public?  Surely it's so obvious that we can't see the forest 
for the trees!  

Help!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon L. Gauthier                                 Ericsson Network Systems, Inc
EXU/IS/TP Systems Programmer                                  P.O. Box 833875
+1 214 997-0157                                     Richardson, TX 75083-3875

Disclaimer:  "My opinions are my own - my employer would take the 5th on
             everything I say."  Surely it's been said before!...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.programmer,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: kendall@iat.holonet.net (Kendall Willets)
Subject: Re: IS IBM UK STILL IN THE STONE AGE???
Organization: HoloNet (BBS: 510-704-1058)
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 01:06:10 GMT

You'll probably have tenure by the time NT shows up.  I'm surprised you
got amipro to run under Windows 3.1, since it seems less compatible with
windows than OS/2...I had to give up using a tool on 3.1 because it was
inoperable, and there was no fix available.

I'm not surprised at your difficulties with IBM marketing; that portion of
their organization seems least responsive to demand.  I assume the
situation in the UK may be even worse, since you were apparently forced to
communicate with them by mail instead of via the toll-free phone support
which we enjoy.  Most of my problems with OS/2 have been resolved on the
phone within a day or so.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.programmer,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dlparker@dlpinc00.rn.com (David L. Parker)
Subject: Re: IS IBM UK STILL IN THE STONE AGE???
Organization: Automated Data Management Services
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 10:46:19 GMT

In article <64786@cup.portal.com> TomK@cup.portal.com (Tom R Krotchko) writes:
>
>As to waiting for NT, without being insulting, why would you think NT will
>have any more or less problems than OS/2? They're cut from the same
>cloth, so to speak. And surely, one will be as trouble prone as the
>

I'm curious - what do you mean, "... cut from the same cloth..."?  As I  
understand it, NT is based on/derived from the Mach microkernel, which, 
if true would seem to me to represent a complete departure from DOS and
OS/2.
-- 
Dave Parker
Automated Data Management Services, Pleasant Hill, MO 64080-1331
(816) 987-5167/5218 voice/fax
From: martin@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: NT goes Beta...
Date: 27 Aug 92 00:18:58 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

Brain Powell says:
> 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.

Whoever said that hacks can't be stable? X might be stable, but it is,
nonetheless, a hack!

Martin
INTERNET: martin@minster.york.ac.uk
JANET:  martin@uk.ac.york.minster
surface:
        Dr. Martin C. Atkins
        Dept. of Computer Science
        University of York
        Heslington
        York YO1 5DD
        ENGLAND
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: What REXX does
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:16:34 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <Bu07yD.Hw7@rice.edu> amitp@owlnet.rice.edu writes:
>Can someone tell me what REXX does?  I tried reading the online command
>list and it looks like it has loops/input commands like 4-DOS's batch
>command extensions, but I couldn't figure out what REXX is used for.

Procedures Language/2 (aka REXX) is an interpreted language that is
suitable for writing small to medium size applications.  It has some
hooks into PM and WPS, and can access all CMD.EXE functions.  Its code
is generally executed via the CMD.EXE command shell, and REXX programs
have a .CMD extension.  A c-style comment on the first line of a REXX
program indicates that the file is not a "batch file", which is much
simpler.

It can be used simply as an enhanced batch language, or applications
may be written in it.
-- 
   |)  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: ckincy@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: NT Products
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 07:42:44 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

In article <1992Aug31.202727.6357@news.iastate.edu> TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:
>Everybody keeps talking about how NT products are going to be able
>to run on win 3.1 machines.  My question is how are they going to be
>able to do this if they want to be multithreaded?  It seems to me
>that the only way to do this would be to scale down their software
>to run in win 3.1.  If this is true, isn't NT just running windows
>3.1 apps?  Seems pretty pointless to me...

What people neglect to mention about Win32s is what the s means. 
"Subset."  This means you can use selected API calls of Win32 (the NT
API).  However, most NT services will not be available to the Win32s
developer; however, the executables should run under both NT and
non-NT 3.1.  

All Win32s does for people is allow them to continue writing software
for Win 3.1 non-NT while giving them an inroad into Win 3.1 NT.  
Also, it allows them to use 32-bit code under Win 3.1 non-NT.  
This is nothing to be sneezed at.  However, Win32s is a bit overblown
by Microsoft (but then again, what isn't?  For shame, that they should
try to make a few bucks. =)

cpk
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Non-IBM experiences with OS/2?
From: david@dhw68k.cts.com (David H. Wolfskill)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:53:25 GMT
Organization: Wolfskill & Dowling residence; Anaheim, CA (USA)

We have no connectivity to the outside world at work, so my manager
asked me if I would post this inquiry from my machine at home regarding
"real" installations (not affiliated with IBM, as I understand his
meaning) with respect to their experiences with OS/2.

The request seems to be born out of a certain amount of concern:  it
happens that the staff who handle "workstations" at our company have
been encouraging folks who request their assistance to migrate from
PC-DOS to OS/2.  My manager has been sought after by some of the
individuals who have made such a (partial) transition -- as they were
attempting to find some outlet for their frustration.

One individual -- the only one who works for my manager who has
undergone such a transition -- found (much to his chagrin) that his
migration to OS/2 required relocation of the printer that he & a few
others shared, since apparently the upper limit on printer cable
lengths in OS/2 is lower than the corresponding limit in DOS.

The manager of the workstation group happened to ask my manager when he
was going to spring for the "upgrade" to OS/2 for himself and the folks
who work for him (who have PS/2s -- some of us, like me, still use
3270s:  after all, I'm an MVS systems programmer; all of my work is done
on the mainframe).  My manager replied that he wasn't planning on it at
all.  This rather shocked the other manager....  :-}

Thus we have the request to find out about others' experiences.  I
would appreciate mailed responses; I am quite willing to summarize
mailed responses; the probability is fairly high that I will miss
posted ones.  I am also planning to exclude any hints of person- or
site-identification in the summary.  If you have a particular desire
that your response be treated otherwise, please mention that, and I
will attempt to accomodate you.

* Is your site doing anything with respect to OS/2 -- as in avoiding it,
  migrating toward or away from it, or ignoring it?

* Why (not)?

* Is there anything about OS/2 that would cause you to recommend for or
  against its use by persons who are not especially familiar with
  computer science in general or operating system design in particular?

Again, the intent is to learn more about the experiences of individuals
and sites that are not affiliated with IBM (except as customers of
IBM).

(I've tried to keep my personal biases out of this; if there's
sufficient interest, I'll give that matter a passing mention in the
summary.)

Thanks,
david
-- 
David H. Wolfskill			david@dhw68k.cts.com
From: bjorn@ludd.luth.se (Bjorn Fahller)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 Advocacy
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:44:08 GMT
Organization: Lule} H|gskolas datorf|rening ( Ludd )

Things I'd like to see, among others, are:

1. An option to turn off the Alt function of AltGr. It's so annoying when a
   menu drops down, just because you have to use the AltGr when typing odd
   characters on a non-US keyboard.

2. Allow cascadable menues in WPS. No limitations on the depth, plus
   of course, remove the current bugs.

3. dos and windowed OS/2 character mode sessions... Let the user select
   the font on in the settings booklet. Maybe I'm just weird, but I use
   diff. font sizes for diff. programs.

   _
/Bjorn.
-- 
Bjorn Fahller     Phone:              |The opinions above are not necessarily
Trollnasvagen 3A  Intl:+46 920 226870 |those of... Hey! Wait a minute. Do you
S-951 61 Lulea    Natl:0920-22 68 70  |seriously expect Me, a student, to carry
Sweden            << space for rent >>|the official voice of the University?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn)
Subject: Re: TeX an archaic religion?
Reply-To: soh3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago 
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 05:43:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.154142.26947@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu> rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:
>
>Wrong.  TeX is highly device dependent.  The TeX fonts are esthetically
>a mess, and they are real bad at large and small sizes, and merely
>passable in the middle.  TeX output on a 2500 dpi Imagewriter is
>atrocious, that is if you can find an imagewriter that will output it.
>This may be a death knell for TeX, because the latest move in the
>printing world is film-less printing systems with imagewriters that
>make the plates - no film intermediary!  If a large number of printing
>shops move this directions, then TeX-ophiles will not be able to insert
>there low-resolution film into the loop at a these presses, and TeX
>output will be relegated to the older, film-based presses.
>

I do not use TeX regularly, but I think there are times when TeX comes
real handy.  Also I recognize that there are times when other WYSIWYG
word processors perform better.  But I do not generally agree that
TeX output is esthetically worse than output from any of these
word processors.  In fact, TeX fonts are as scalable as PostScript fonts.
If you want 2500 dpi output, you need to generate 2500dpi fonts.
I have seen some books formatted by TeX and printed on a high resolution
typesetters (I don't remember the resolution).  My impression was that
TeX produces even better output on higher resolution printers.  Well,
if you still don't like the fonts, etc., you can readily use PostScript
fonts instead of CM fonts.  No problem with that.  And I think TeX is
highly device independent.  The same file on my pc, I can take it to
school and print it on a LaserWriter from a Sun workstation.  

Min
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 Advocacy
Date: 3 Sep 92 12:25:23 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep2.165014.9932@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Aug28.125701.18179@nuscc.nus.sg> eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (TAN JIN MENG) writes:
>
>>my contribution would be ...
>
>>4) better documentation!!
>
>Oh, God YES!  Do this FIRST!

Before ironing the bugs out of the product?  You've some strange
priorities.  I'd rather have a system that works than a well-written
manual for a buggy system.  

(I'm not implying anything about OS/2's stability here - it's
 rock-steady for the apps I run)

-- 
   |)  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: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Re: Windows NT Shareware Contest for COMDEX 92
Date: 03 Sep 92 17:47:23 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <47470007@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM> glen@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Glen Robinson) writes:
>This is has really gone to far.
>Why don't all of you NT zealots start up comp.os.nt.advocacy and get the
>hell out of here.
>
>Or perhaps comp.os.os2.anti

     Is there something so fragile about OS/2 that it can't
stand up to criticism?  Is it so weak that it can't stand comparison
to Windows NT?
     Besides - if all the NT zealots left, all you'd have here
is a bunch of people patting each other on the back.  No fun.

					-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
From: unruh@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh)
Subject: Re: Tex Advantages (was Re: TeX an archaic religion?)
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 19:39:31 GMT

rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:

>rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes:


>Not the same, by a long shot.  Once I get the PostScript output from
>PageMaker, FrameMaker, WordPerfect, etc. that ouptu file is device
>independent.  I can output that file to ANY PostScript device and get 
That's because printer manufacturers decided for various (good) reasons
to build the postscript converters into their machines. Adobe caught on,
dvi didn't as a page description language. 

>good output.  The dvi file is an intermediate file, *NOT* the final output
>file.  You need to generate an output file for each device.  That is 
 No more intermediate than postscript- see above.
 Teh final output is some god awful bitmap.


>dvitps and dvi2ps that I have seen attempt to rasterize the Adobe fonts
Get dvips It is much faster and beter than either of those!

dvi is simply a different page description language from postscrript's
not different in type at all. If you had a printer which uncerstood dvi
and not postscript, you would have to do exactly the same translations
in the psdvi program as dvips now does. The trouble is that postscript
has as far as I know not nearly the fonts that metafont does. It is thus
hard to impliment a dvips program which only uses the Adobe fonts, and
the printers don't allow enough downloadable fonts to go that way. (ie,
a mf to Adobe translator)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy