HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dbarker@camins.camosun.bc.ca
Subject: Re: Someone explain this to me...
Organization: Camosun College
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 20:04:39 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.045711.24928@unixg.ubc.ca>, twong@civil.ubc.ca (Thomas Wong) writes:
> I agree. Microsoft has so many people brainwashed and have monoplized th
> e market to such an extend that I'd like to see OS/2 success if not to
> only create a stir in the PC software market. But OS/2 itself is a very
> competent contender and I think most poeple have agreed that it is
> better than Win 3.1, technically and useablilty wise. Even though Win
> 3.1 is a big leap upgrade to make Win 3.0 run better and faster, OS/2 is
> better than the Windows itself to begin with. Anyways, I want to see
> Microsoft get kicked in the butt every once in awhile to create a health
> competitive atmosphere. 

"Kicked in the butt"? I'd like to see MicroSoft put out of business!

It's better for cause of techological
> advancments, better for the end users to get better quality software
> with more power per money, and keeps Microsoft on its toe so as to not
> to think it has a monopoly in its hands. And it gives the end users a
> wakeup call every once in awhile. Microsoft makes good software but not
> always the best. 

Good? Every piece of MS software I've ever used has been rubbish. So
why can't I access my floppy drives from Windows? Why does a "multitasking"
system running in protected mode with hardware (386) which supports
segmented protected memory get "Application has overwritten system memory"
messages (or something very similar)? The whole point about protection
hardware is that you _protect_ against things like this.

frankly I have vowed never again to spend money on a MS product. It took
a lot to make me despise a company more than I have always despised IBM,
but Bill "the nerd" Gates and his crew of incompetents have managed it,
with no difficulty.
<Flame off>
-- 
Deryk Barker
Computer Science Dept.
Camosun College,
Victoria, BC
Canada
From: entropy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C Foard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Dos data recovery
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:04:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: wpi.1992Apr9.200405.28511
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute

From my previous job I have quite a bit of experience in MS-DOS data
recovery. I know there is plenty of people out there needing the service
but I'm not sure what the best way to advertise is. 
What types of methods have people found best for picking up PC consulting
work? 

-- 
Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are 99.44% true.            ------  0<p<1  
Hackers do it for fun.  |  Being Bisexual squares your         \    / therefore
"Profesionals" do it for money. |  probability of not getting   \  / p^2<p and
Managers have others do it for them. |  laid on a saturday night.\/ 1-p^2>1-p
From: kgeikelb@baht.cs.ruu.nl (Klaas Eikelboom)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Formatting problems with msdos 3.0
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:39:47 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands

I have at my home a commedore PC-10 XT (that I use for wordprocessing) with
the commedore's MS-Dos 2.11. Now I want to use a program that runs with
MS-DOS 3.0 and later versions. So I wanted to upgrade my system with IBM's
PC-DOS 3.10. Someone told me that later versions would put a too heavy load
on the XT's 8088 processor. But when I want to format the fixed disk with
the FORMAT of MS-DOS 3.10 the format fails. Now I had the next questions:

-Is the program FDISK that is used to partition the fixed disk before it can
be formatted system dependent. ?  
-Are there other ways to put the system on
the fixed disk? 
-Can a more recent version of MS-DOS solve this problem?
Slows a later (and fatter) version MS-DOS a XT really much down.

Can someone help me?

                   Met vriendelijke groet
                   (kgeikelb@cs.ruu.nl)
--

  
  
  Met vriendelijke groet

  Klaas Eikelboom   email:kgeikelb@praxis.cs.ruu.nl
-- 

  
  
  Met vriendelijke groet
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: twong@civil.ubc.ca (Thomas Wong)
Subject: Re: Someone explain this to me...
Organization: Dept. of Civil Engineering, U.B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 04:57:11 GMT

I agree. Microsoft has so many people brainwashed and have monoplized th
e market to such an extend that I'd like to see OS/2 success if not to
only create a stir in the PC software market. But OS/2 itself is a very
competent contender and I think most poeple have agreed that it is
better than Win 3.1, technically and useablilty wise. Even though Win
3.1 is a big leap upgrade to make Win 3.0 run better and faster, OS/2 is
better than the Windows itself to begin with. Anyways, I want to see
Microsoft get kicked in the butt every once in awhile to create a health
competitive atmosphere. It's better for cause of techological
advancments, better for the end users to get better quality software
with more power per money, and keeps Microsoft on its toe so as to not
to think it has a monopoly in its hands. And it gives the end users a
wakeup call every once in awhile. Microsoft makes good software but not
always the best. But everyone seems to think they do make the best and
praises and buys the products in thinking so. Hence giving Microsft a
sense of false pride as can be seen in a lot of its software compared to
their competitors (from word processors to C compilers). But they keep
outselling the others. And I thik it's time to give Microsoft and its
loyal users a wakeup call.

Organization: Freshman, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.os.msdos.misc
Date: Tue,  7 Apr 1992 14:13:04 -0400 
From: Archie Lee Moberly <am4v+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: How to trick DOS?

>Hi, I have an app program that was hardcoded to look at e:\x\y\z.dat
>unfortunately I donot have e: drive.  Can somebody tell me how to trick
>DOS so I can redirect the program to look to other location.  I read somewhere
>that some had done it, but could not recall how...
> 
>thank you
>glenn jayaputera


Have you tried using the SUBST command?  I use it all the time to access
directories that are otherwise hidden.  

Sample Call:

subst e: c:\temp

Everytime e: is accessed the data is actually referenced to c:\temp.

If the program is located in c:\app, I would reccomend creating 
c:\app\x\y and place z.dat in c:\app\x\y\z.dat.  

Then type subst e: c:\app

NOTE- To cancel a substitution, type subst e: /d

If you have any problems or questions, feel free to send me mail.

Hope this helps,

--Arch Moberly
  am4v+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: heinicke@uwovax.uwo.ca (Allan Heinicke)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: Norton + Superstore/Stacker: OK ??
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:23:12 EST

In article <1992Apr09.074443.19039@donau.et.tudelft.nl>, cornet@duteca3.et.tudelft.nl (Jan-Pieter Cornet) writes:
> heinicke@uwovax.uwo.ca (Allan Heinicke) writes:
> 
>>Is it safe to use (for example) Norton Utilities disk
>>manipulating programs such as Norton Disk Doctor or Calibrate
>>on a disk that has been compressed with Superstor (which is bundled
>>with DR-DOS). 
> 
> There's no problem in running disk manipulating programs on SuperStor
> partitions. I'm not using stacker either, but since it works very very
> similar it should be the same story here.
> ...........
> On the other hand, running things like Calibrate (or Compress) or
> whatever Defragmenting utility, however fast it seems to be, it's
> useless. Why? Oh sure, it runs fine, and it probably wouldn't....

I'm not sure all the bases have been covered. I'm interested in things
like NDD or Calibrate not for use as defragmenters, but as tools to 
check the surface and if necessary lock out bad sectors or do a low
level format in a non-destructive way.  

Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: lindemaj@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Andrew J Lindeman)
Subject: Qemm 6.02 Optimize and Stacker 2.0
Keywords: Qemm 6.02 Optimize Stacker 2.0
Reply-To: lindemaj@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Andrew J Lindeman)
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:04:18 GMT

Okay, if this is a FAQ, please let me know (kindly!)

I just bought Qemm 6.02 and am trying to install it with my Stacked hard drive.   
My problem is that the document which comes with Stacker, showing how to use  
Qemm's Optimize, is applicable to Qemm 5.xx.  It tells what to do in comparison  
with the "steps" in Optimize, but for v5.xx!  I've tried to follow with Qemm  
6.02 guessing where all the "steps" would be, but I haven't had any luck.   
Everytime, when I try and copy some of the files to my unstacked drive, some of  
the files called for aren't there.  Also, Optimize for 6.02 doesn't have the  
"steps" listed on the screen (I'm guessing that 5.xx had "step 1,2,3" on the  
screen when it got to each point.)  If anybody could put together a quick guide  
on what to do, or mail me a copy of the FAQ if it's in there, I would be very  
appreciative!  One other question, where would the best place to put Qemm: my  
DOS drive or my Stacked drive?

Thanks in advance, Andy Lindeman

lindemaj@rosevc.rose-hulman.edu  <- preferred address
lindemaj@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Force 360K drive to read 720K disks
Keywords: 360K to 720K disk drives
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 04:16:42 GMT

nedwards@cygnus.trl.OZ.AU (Nathan Edwards) writes:

<On bying the computer from a university department, the guru set
<up my config.sys file so that the 3.5'' floppy drive would format 
<read and write 720K disks - in fact behave as a 720K drive despite the
<fact that it was a 360K drive. Since then, I managed to trash the hard
<disk. No problem, I thought, I will just re-install everything from my
<backup floppies. But, without the necessary command in my config.sys
<file, my 360K drive cannot read my 720K backup floppies!!!!
<I do not have access to the relavent dos manuals, so I cannot even use 
<that source. I managed to read the backup floppies on the sparc at work
<and thought I had the problem licked: I found the command
<	drivparm=/d:1 /f:2
<but on placing it in the config.sys file and rebooting, it still doesn't
<work!

Ok, the problem is that *some* version of DOS 3.3 have a "bug" with the
way DRIVPARM is handled. Try inserting one to three ctrl-A characters
before the =. They may need to be after it. It's been a *long* time
since I had to deal with this.
-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/56	 Leonard.Erickson@f56.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS address is checked daily. The others infrequently)
From: deitch@gisatl.fidonet.org (David Deitch)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: DOS 5 System Files?
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:15:11 GMT
Organization: Galaxy Information System (GIS) 1:133/411 Atlanta, Ga

On Sat, 11/Apr/92 at 01:27, John Eckert said this to All:

 JE>      When I updated my DOS to version 5.0 (from 3.2) 
 JE> the OLD system files remained in their special places 
 JE> at the very beginning of the hard disk.  Dos 5.0 placed 
 JE> the NEW system files elsewhere on the disk.  
 JE>      
 JE>      Today I re-formatted that hard disk and decided to 
 JE> completely eliminate all vestiges of the old DOS 3.2 from 
 JE> the disk.  To my surprise, when I transferred the system 
 JE> files to make the hard disk bootable, DOS didn't install 
 JE> the new system files at the beginning of the disk.  Though 
 JE> the entire disk was empty, DOS chose to place all new 
 JE> system files in the middle of the disk again.

     DOS 5 no longer requires that DOS files be located at the beginning of 
the disk.  It simply puts them down again.  Your old DOS files really were not 
there anymore - you may have been seeing the deleted versions.  Once 
installed, DOS 5 is the only OS on the HD.

          David Deitch, (GIS) Atlanta
 

--  
----------------------------------------------------------
              __          David Deitch
             /  \         Computer Connection
            /|oo \        Galaxy Information System (GIS)
           (_|  /_)  (jm) FidoNet: 1:133/411
            _`@/_ \    _  UUCP: gatech!warlord!gisatl!deitch
           |     | \   \\ INTERNET: deitch@gisatl.fidonet.org
           | (*) |  \_  ))PHONE: 1-404-671-1039 (voice)
  ______   |__U__| /  \//        1-404-671-1024 (data)
 / FIDO \   _//|| _\   /  US MAIL: 6945B Roswell Rd, NE
(________) (_/(_|(____/            Atlanta, Ga. 30328-2326
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: moore@iastate.edu (Brian J Moore)
Subject: Re: OS/2 v2.0 - Not as great as I thought
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:48:43 GMT

In <it1.703155114@Isis.MsState.Edu> it1@ra.msstate.edu (Tim Tsai) writes:

>ujabanco@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (John Abanco) writes:
>>It was a real pain. And then I spent another 30 minutes installing the
>>next 15 disks. 30 megs of HD space, 8 megs of memory? Sheesh. Windows
>>3.1 only needs 10 Megs of HD space, 4 megs of memory. And I can still
>>run SpeedStor/Dr-DOS and save even more space.

>  People seem to forget that 30 megs of HD space include Windows and
>DOS, not to mention all the applets.  I believe a minimal OS/2 system
>was something like 8 megs.  See comp.os.os2.misc for more details.

Yes, but all of my software (as luck would have it) runs under DOS and Windows,
not OS/2.  I don't have the resources to run out and replace them with PM apps.

>  Tim

-- 
   ________________________________________________________________________
  /                                  /                                    /
 /  Brian J. Moore                  /                  moore@iastate.edu /
/__________________________________/____________________________________/
From: daniel.campbell@cccbbs.UUCP (Daniel Campbell) 
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: RE: HOW MAKE DISKS INVISI
Date: 11 Apr 92 05:13:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS - Cincinnati, OH - 513-752-8248
Reply-To: daniel.campbell@cccbbs.UUCP (Daniel Campbell) 

-> You could try and use the SUBST command. Maybe even add ASSIGN as a
-> backup.
The DOS command ATTRIB can be used to hide files.
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: need to make a bootable floppy from network drive
Keywords: floppy disk images
Date: 7 Apr 92 04:31:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1992Apr7.043108.21979
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

In article <92087.084655SVELIN@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, SVELIN@MAINE.MAINE.EDU
(Sherry Velin) writes:
> 
> Many pardons if this is a FAQ, but how can one create a
> bootable disk for a msdos PC from a Novell network?  Is there a relatively
> painless method?  Here is the scenerio.  A user walks up to
> a machine, inserts disk, selects option from menu that will
> create a bootable specialized disk.  The assumption is that
> the user is a novice, so it needs to be painless for them.

Here's how to do it. First create a directory containing the "hidden"
files. The MAP ROOT a spare drive letter to that directory. Change to
that drive and run SYS. Works like a charm! 

We had a batch file to do that at my last job. Called it "SYSNET". We
put the system files in the ...\MS-DOS\Vx.yy directories (drive X: in
our setup.)

@echo off
map root m:=X: >nul
x:
SYS %1
f:
map delete m: >nul
 
-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/56	 Leonard.Erickson@f56.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS address is checked daily. The others infrequently)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: ujabanco@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (John Abanco)
Subject: OS/2 v2.0 - Not as great as I thought
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 08:03:03 GMT

Well here's my experience with the new OS/2 v2.0:

Went to COMDEX/Chicago on the 9th of april, liked the presentation,
thought "WOW, about time some 32-bit OS came out!". Actually got a free
package of OS/2 by wearing a pin "I Want OS/2" and carrying a blue IBM
bag "OS/2 Delivers".

"Great! I don't have to dish out $99 and I just upgraded my MB to a
386-40". Found out I needed at least 4 MB of RAM. Okay, well 1MB is
really scraping by, so I made the jump to 4 MB. Figured I would've paid
around $100 for OS/2, I'm getting RAM for free.

Installation day: Low-level format 30 Meg HD, Format with DOS 5.0. Break
out the new OS/2 diskettes and start installing. Get through the first 5
disks, tells me to take any disk out of the drive and hit ENTER. I do,
starts booting OS/2, looks nice, then BAM! "Could not find COUNTRY.SYS
in specified path", etc... "SYSTEM HALTED". Have to do a COLD boot, boot
to DOS 5 to see what's up. The file is where it's supposed to be.

The manual says you need 10-30 MB free HD space. I'm giving it
everything. My friend's package of OS/2 (he got one free too) installed
fine on his 65 Meg partition. Guess now I've got to go out and spend
another $300 for a new HD, not to mention a controller.

So my suggestion to anyone planning on going the OS/2 route, make sure
you have a 386-25 (or faster), 5 or 6 Megs of RAM, and at least an 80Meg
HD. If/when I save enough money for a new HD, *THEN* I'll consider going
OS/2. Till then, Windows 3.1 looks like the current winner - 10MB HD
space, 4 Megs of RAM, and pretty decent speed now. BTW, I'm running
Telix 3.15 in one window, 3 Windows apps, and 2 MS-DOS windows both
doing  CHKDSK /V. Hardly any noticeable lag and Windows 3.1 even has
sound board support!

-- 
--My life is such a mess,I end  | INTERNET: ujabanco@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
  up typing.... umop apisdn.    | FIDONET :
        John Abanco             | john.abanco@f769.n115.z1.fidonet.org 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
From: pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 and Stacker
Keywords: windows,stacker
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY, 12866
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 13:59:50 GMT

In article <45436@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> sexonbd@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Benjamin David Sexson (Ben)) writes:
>I use Stacker with Windows 3.0 with no problem.  I would assume it
>would work with 3.1
>				later,Ben Sexson
>				sexonbd@sage.cc.purdue.edu 

Works fine with 3.1.


-- 
Pierre von Kaenel	| Skidmore College	     | pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu
Math & CS Dept.		| Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 | (518)584-5000 Ext 2391

"Baseball is 90% mental, the other half is physical" - Yogi
From: linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 v2.0 - Not as great as I thought
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:42:58 GMT
Organization: NCSU CATT Prog

In article <moore.703183723@pv34c1.vincent.iastate.edu> moore@iastate.edu (Brian J Moore) writes:
>>  People seem to forget that 30 megs of HD space include Windows and
>>DOS, not to mention all the applets.  I believe a minimal OS/2 system
>>was something like 8 megs.  See comp.os.os2.misc for more details.
>
>Yes, but all of my software (as luck would have it) runs under DOS and Windows,
>not OS/2.  I don't have the resources to run out and replace them with PM apps.

You are missing the point.  OS/2 will run any DOS app, any extended DOS app
that uses a DPMI-compliant DOS extender (any DOS app that can run under Windows)
and any Windows app that can be run under Windows standard or real modes.  You
don't need to replace all your apps with PM apps.

While we're at it, how many times do you reboot your machine per day?  If you
reboot your machine to load a different set of device drivers, then you can
run those programs under OS/2 with their particular sets of device drivers just
by clicking on their icons--no reboot is necessary.  In other words, you can
run two completely different DOS environments SIMULTANEOUSLY, each with its
own set of drivers, TSRs, etc.  If you ever reboot because of lockups, under
OS/2 you can just kill the locked-up DOS session and continue with your work.
Finally, if you ever reboot because a Windows or DOS app crashes and Windows
becomes unstable, you can run OS/2 and just kill that offending app and forget
about it.

Even if you only run DOS and Windows programs, OS/2 still provides a better,
more stable environment in which to compute.

John W. Linville



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  John W. Linville                Amateur radio:  KD4KHC                  |
|  #include "std_disclaimer.h"     E-mail:  linville@catt.ncsu.edu         |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jbloom%arrlhq.UUCP@uhasun.hartford.edu (Jon Bloom)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: The uses of Windows? (was Re: Someone explain this to me...)
Date: 13 Apr 1992 19:16:57 GMT
Organization: American Radio Relay League

In comp.os.msdos.misc, Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>As for DOS apps running slowly in DOS Windows - you probably haven't uned your
>PIFs to run as well as they might. A PIF in the background with the default 50
>units of system resource will run like a dog. Up it to 200 and watch the
>difference! It will run like it was on a 4.77m xt. Give it more and it will
>run faster still - slowing down others, but at least you have the option of
>favouring the tasks you want to run well. The only limit is the capacity of
>your processor and the amount of RAM you have.

Another fix for the slowdown in some DOS apps is to disable the
"Dectect idle time" checking in the "advanced" PIF editor window.
One of the users here complained because Borland Sprint took 5 seconds
to do a particular search-and-replace under DOS and *9 minutes* under
Windows 3.0.  Turning off the idle-time check solved that problem.
-------
Jon Bloom, KE3Z                   |  jbloom%arrlhq.UUCP@uhasun.hartford.edu
American Radio Relay League       |  uhasun!arrlhq!jbloom
225 Main St.                      |
Newington, CT 06111               !
From: etl0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (ERIC TODD LANDRIEU)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 v2.0 - Not as great as I thought
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:13:29 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

>>  People seem to forget that 30 megs of HD space include Windows and
>>DOS, not to mention all the applets.  I believe a minimal OS/2 system
>>was something like 8 megs.  See comp.os.os2.misc for more details.
>
>Yes, but all of my software (as luck would have it) runs under DOS and Windows,
>not OS/2.  I don't have the resources to run out and replace them with PM apps.
>
You just made a faux pas... If it runs under DOS and Windows, it would run
under OS/2(with very rare exceptions, such as the newest Mathmatica)... OS.2
will run your DOS and Windows, either as full screen or on the PM desktop.
By the way, the above 8Meg minimum is understated.  Still, the two end up
working to be pretty close when all is done and over with.

                                       Eric Landrieu

                                       
-- 

               ===============================================
               =   Eric Landrieu  =  ETL0@ns1.CC.lehigh.EDU  =
               ===============================================
"Of all the people I've ever met, you're certainly one of them."
                                                 -Ellis Fuls