HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: duffy@theory.chem.ubc.ca (Pat Duffy)
Subject: Re: same partition for os/2 and windoze?
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 06:16:32 GMT

In article <JKF.92Apr7172720@frisky.Franz.COM> jkf@Franz.COM (Sean Foderaro) writes:
>
>  I've got Windows 3.1 installed on my hard disk.  Can I install os/2 2.0
>in the same partition of the disk and select either windows or os/2 at 
>bootup time?  

Yes.  Absolutely.  (Of course after you start playing with 2.0GA you'll 
quickly free up all that disk space that DOS/Win took up... :-)
-- 
Patrick Duffy, E-Mail:  duffy@theory.chem.ubc.ca

Hi!  I am a .signature virus.  Copy me into your .signature to join in!
From: sstrazdu@hopi.intel.com (Stephen Strazdus)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Manuals with OS/2 V.2 as shipped.
Date: 12 Apr 92 20:54:04 GMT
Organization: [Western Whiptail Observatory,Intel Corporation], Chandler, AZ

In article <1992Apr9.053634.3692@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith) writes:
>rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:
>>
>>I too am a "manual(s) in my lap" person and definitely want the option. I'll
>>pay more, no problem.  Just give me the frigging option!
>
>YES.  I would at least like the option of paying extra for a good
>set of manuals, even if it cost me $40.  Or how about making the
>manuals available in electronic format for $5 and let the enduser
>print it out?  

There is a huge selection of 3rd party manuals available for just about
every major piece of software on the market.  I'm refering to the couple
rows of computer books at your favorite bookstore.  These are usually
better for reading in bed than the manuals that come with the software.
So it seems to me that the best compromise is using online docs that
come with the software as a technical reference, and buying your
favorite third party user's manual for away from the computer reading.

This way I wouldn't be stuck with 10 inches (25.4 cm) of manuals for
every version of Turbo C I buy, plus I could buy the best manual
available.
--
Steve Strazdus    sstrazdu@sedona.intel.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: bauwens@acs.ucalgary.ca (Luc Bauwens)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 Release: First Impressions
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 02:54:04 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <1992Apr10.164552.9730@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <40sj3y=.jps@netcom.com> jps@netcom.com (John Serafin) writes:
>>sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
>>>Incidently, CONFIG.SYS commands no longer generate screen output.  The
>>>presentation is thus "cleaner" as OS/2 boots.
>>These tended to go by too fast to read anyway, but it would be very nice if
>>this output could optionally be directed to a file, since it is sometimes
>>very valuable in verifying setup and tracking down problems.
>
>Well, it does pause on an error sure enough.  So if there is actually
>a problem you see a lot.
 
Also, if you had a crash or a warm reboot (rather than an 
orderly shutdown), it runs chkdisk on the HPFS partition 
and shows the output.  And if you have a FAT partition, it 
always does a chkdsk of the FAT partition at boot time.
(AT least, that what the LA issue does; I don't imagine 
that would have changed in the GA, would it?) 
 
But pleaaase somebody tell me how to get rid of the 
M character that Softerm puts each time, when in vi on 
the Unix host, and I press Enter...   Else, I'll 
have to return to Terminal in Windows, which does 
not do that stupid ^M  (and also, allows for cut and
paste in Terminal mode...). 
 
Luc B.
From: easyrob@cs.utexas.edu (Robert Depew Reynolds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: IBM OS2TAPE software
Date: 10 Apr 1992 12:15:49 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: coltexo.cs.utexas.edu

Has anybody tried this software with OS/2 2.0??

Robert D. Reynolds
easyrob@cs.utexas.edu
From: sillett@edc3jr.gsph.pitt.edu (Robert L. Sillett)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Speed of WIN-OS/2
Date: 10 Apr 92 03:17:10 GMT
Organization: Epidemiology Data Center, University of Pittsburgh
Originator: sillett@edc3jr.gsph.pitt.edu


In the WIN-OS/2 saga, I've seen Microsoft say many things:

	Summer 91	"Can't run Win30 std. mode under OS/2"

Then IBM gets WIN-OS/2 to work....

	Fall 91		"Seamless Windows won't work"

And then we see Seamless Windows (at least for VGA)

	Spring 92	"Yea, it runs Win30 -- but it's slow as molasses"


Being an avid OS/2 2.0 fan, I take all MS sayings with a grain of
salt.  So this afternoon I ran PC Magazine's Windows Benchmark
(version 1.1) program under Windows 3.0, WIN-OS/2 Full Screen, and
WIN-OS/2 Seamless.  I haven't received GA yet, so I used 6.304e on my
PS/2 16 MHz Model 80 with VGA.

The Winbench program runs a battery of windows drawing routines.
Before I started the benchmarks, I expected Windows 3.0 to blow
WIN-OS/2 away -- in particular seamless WIN-OS/2.  At least on my PC,
seamless WIN-OS/2 seems very, very slow.

On the whole, full-screen WIN-OS/2 is slightly faster than "real"
Windows 3.0.  Seamless WIN-OS/2 is slower than Windows 3.0 across the
board -- most notably in it's appalling slowness drawing dialog boxes.
If IBM could just speed up the dialog boxes and menus, seamless
WIN-OS/2 would be almost as fast as "real Windows."  (Maybe this has
been fixed in GA.)

I'm not posting the results as they're from a beta version; however,
you GA-owners can run your own benchmarks.  All you need to do is grab
winbench.zip from one of the net's archive sites.  I found 5 locations
using an Archie server.  If anyone would like to see my results, just
send me a note.

--- Bob

-- 
| Robert Sillett                  Internet:    sillett@edc3jr.gsph.pitt.edu  |
| Department of Epidemiology      CompuServe:  71251,1407                    |
| University of Pittsburgh        GEnie:       R.SILLETT                     |
| Pittsburgh, PA  15261                                                      |
From: des@frogland.inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Comdex Report: Not :-(
Date: 9 Apr 92 09:06:28 GMT
Organization: INMOS architecture group

In article <1992Apr8.060905.11439@midway.uchicago.edu>, sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
>I can talk about the packaging with some authority.  :-) For your $49
>(or whatever your price) you get
....
>a roll of OS/2 stickers, 
>a flyer from Adobe offering additional typefaces,

huh ... didn't get these in the UK :-)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
david shepherd: des@inmos.co.uk or des@inmos.com    tel: 0454-616616 x 625
                inmos ltd, 1000 aztec west, almondsbury, bristol, bs12 4sq
		"i speak latin to god,   spanish to men,   french to women 
		 and german to my horse."             - charles v of spain
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: woc8r@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU (William Owen Carlson)
Subject: Re: Eggheads see the light
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:06:16 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.235651.8688@cco.caltech.edu> brooke@cco.caltech.edu (Brooke Paul Anderson) writes:
>I called a couple of Egghead Discount Software stores near
>me, and both of them knew what OS/2 v2.0 was and said that
>they would be getting it.  They didn't know exactly when
>(can't blame them for that -- I doubt anyone knows).  This

At the OS/2 rollout event in Charlottesville yesterday, one of the 
IBM employees mentioned that April 15 (tomorrow), they would start
shipping to retail channels.

--
___    ___
\  \  /  /       -=Bill Carlson=-
 \  \/  /            
  \    /         INTERNET:  woc8r@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: free os/2?
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 04:41:09 GMT

becap@cs.mcgill.ca (Brian CAPSON) writes:
>I heard that it was because Microsoft got tired of the shitty code that IBMers
>were always shlepping off on them, and their insistance on special OS/2  

I would have believed this, especially given my past experiences with
IBM software for PCs (DisplayWrite, anyone?).   However, the fact that
1.3, the IBM only version, was so incredibly better than 1.0-1.2 makes
me suspicious of this.

I suspect it was just that Microsoft didn't count on how well Windows
took off, and once it did they figured they didn't need OS/2 any more.
If it sells, they don't really care how crappy it is.
-- 
The four seasons are salt, pepper, mustard, and vinegar.
From: Cliff.Nadler@VNET.IBM.COM
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 Key equivalents
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:44:21 GMT
Reply-To: cnadler@vnet.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Corporation

In <1992Apr13.013603.16275@cco.caltech.edu> Joseph Chiu writes:
>liggio@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Vincent J. Liggio) writes:
>
>>  I was wondering why  IBM decided to go  with the inane key  strokes
>>for cut and paste that exist on  Windoze...   I do not think that Shft-Ins,
>>Ctrl-Ins, and Shft-Del are very intuitive.  Why not go  with using the good
>>old alt key (a la NeXT/Mac fame)...
>>  Are these keys remappable (for all apps as well), since I can never
>>remember the Windows sequence for more than a week.  Why didn't they make a
>>new one for WPS, and then if the user decided to go with the  Win WPS look,
>>then the other key equivs would work instead?
>

One reason for not using the Alt+key combinations is that Alt+ anything
on the numeric keypad puts you into a special mode that takes the number
that you type in (ex. Alt+123 = 123) and send the ASCII character code
for that key instead of the Alt+keys. Since AT machines do not have a
separate cursor key pad, you would be unable to issue the Cut, Paste, and
Copy commands from a system with an AT-style keyboard.

Cliff Nadler
IBM Federal Systems Company
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: frank@unixg.ubc.ca (Murray Frank)
Subject: Computer Magazines
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 03:54:36 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.153112.896@desire.wright.edu> jstewart@desire.wright.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.194013.35344@slate.mines.colorado.edu>, cjmarsha@slate.mines.colorado.edu (Charles Marshall) writes:
>> 
>> Plus, magazine reports are coming out and not exactly praising OS/2.  
>> Here's what PC Magazine had to say:

Given what I had heard on the net, I fully expected to find the April
28, 1992 issue of PC Magazine to be unfair and rather annoying (given
that I am hoping for os/2). Instead I found a rather typical issue.
It is massively more helpful to os/2 than anything IBM has yet 
put into the media that I have seen (not hard since I have yet to see
any IBM ads for os/2). I also found that some people on the net are 
focusing on the negatives while ignoring what may be rather more 
significant in that issue. 

To be specific:

page 95.  Dvorak hardly seems hostile to os/2. "I've been watching how
Microsoft is handling the amazing undercurrent of interest regarding 
os/2." He also seems to be suggesting that Microsoft is about to
make the same mistakes with NT that were made with earlier releases of
os/2. He recommends the os/2 forum on Compuserve. And then says that
by this summer we will know whether os/2 has a big success. (This is
not unreasonable if the rumours that IBM is planing for the marketing
machine to build up to a peak around June or July are true.) He also
admits to a couple of past errors re: os/2. 

page 178. "Debunking the Myths of os/2" Some of these debunked myths
continue to show up as questions here on the net.

page 183. "In Short: This is the os/2 everyone has been waiting
for...."

page 192. Summing up they write "OS/2 2.0 with the Workplace shell is
designed to be a high-powered operating system with an innovative,
object-oriented GUI. IBM promises that this will be the os/2 that we
have been waiting for, solving all the problems of os/2 1.x and adding
more features. IBM is down to the wire in smoothing out the rough
edges of this ambitious operating system. [They were reporting on beta
code, not GA code.] What remains to be seen is whether IBM can
effectively market the product, especially in light of the Windows 3.1
announcement. Still, any user who wants to take full advantage of the
inherent power in their 80386 and 80486 systems will want to try out
os/2 2.0."  

I think that PC Magazine's coverage of os/2 in the April 28 issue has
received rather unfair knocks. Sure there is plenty of coverage of
Windows 3.1 in that issue. That is called serving your market. (Any
guess as to why Windows support is included in os/2? It is not because
IBM wants to help Windows. It is because of customers.) The overall
coverage in that issue is likely to help os/2.

Some people in this forum have half-heartedly suggested that the 
editors of PC Magazine might be receiving payola to hurt os/2's 
chances. I imagine that if anyone actually paid out such money they 
must be looking for a refund by now. :) 




Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: rafetmad@cheshire.oxy.edu (David R. Giller)
Subject: Re: ATM
Keywords: ATM, fonts, small green things from mars
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 03:35:47 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.023233.10302@en.ecn.purdue.edu> terran@en.ecn.purdue.edu (me) writes:
>Hi all.
>This may be a really stupid question but what the heck:
>
>Having never experienced this beast or seen any direct comments regarding it
>I have to wonder: what exactly does ATM do?  Does it (he says hopefully) allow
>plebians such as myself who don't have a postscript printer to print postscript
>anyway?  If not, then what?  I have heard bits about "makes what appears on the
>screen match what comes off the printer" but that seems sort of useless if
>I can't print postscript and am limited to a few built in fonts anyway.

ATM stands for Adobe Type Manager.  It is just that: The typeface manager
portion of Postscript.

What it functionally does is it will, when told a typeface name and a size,
generate the bitmaps needed to make the font at that size.  So all you
need is a single font size, and you can create that font in any size.

The reason this 'makes what appears...etc' is because what is 10 pixels
high on the screen might be 100 pixels on the printer, and simply scaling
the font up pixel-by-pixel results in what is called the 'jaggies'.
ATM will create images of the scaled fonts, and print them as pictures
on your printer, just as a Postscript printer will.  You are not limited
to the built-in fonts, and in fact, they won't be used.  You just get
a font file for the typeface you want, and ATM will handle the printer
for you.

ATM won't make your printer into a Postscript printer.  But, with the
help of ATM, you will be able to scale fonts to the appropriate size,
just like a Postscript printer does, and your output will be of that
much higher-quality.

However, if you want the graphics power of Postscript, you will still need
a postscript printer.

-Dave
-- 
David Giller, Box 134 | Q: How many Oregonians does it take to screw in a light
Occidental College    | bulb?  A: Three.  One to replace the bulb, and two to
1600 Campus Road      | fend off all the Californians trying to share the
Los Angeles, CA 90041 | experience. ---------------------------rafetmad@oxy.edu
From: duffy@theory.chem.ubc.ca (Pat Duffy)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Zoo 2.10
Date: 9 Apr 92 06:07:16 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada

>How the hell do I extract files to a specific directory?

I think this works (at least I have some vague recollection of it working):

1) Change to the directory you'd like your zoo files to be in.

2) Type <zoo path>\zoo x <zoo file path>\<filename>

This should work, and of course the process (and the typing) will be simplified
somewhat if your zoo directory is in the path.
-- 
Patrick Duffy, E-Mail:  duffy@theory.chem.ubc.ca
<.signature virus cleaned with McAfee Scan>
"I wouldn't believe in anything if it weren't for my lucky astrology mood
watch."  - Steve Martin
From: rob@cad4.lbl.gov (Robert J. McNamara)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Zoo 2.10
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:14:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: dog.22585
Reply-To: rob@cad4.lbl.gov (Robert J. McNamara)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.252.177

This is not strictly an OS/2 question, but since so many OS/2 files are 
"zoo"'d, I think this applies more to OS/2 than to DOS:

How the hell do I extract files to a specific directory?
"zoo x foobar.zoo c:\test" would (in pkzip, arj, and lharc) extract the 
contents of "foobar.zoo" into the directory "c:\test", but zoo just 
says "no files matched" (I guess its looking in the archive for 
a file called "c:\test"). Terminating the path with a "\" doesn't help
either.
I've read the manual and it doesn't help much (and none of the examples
illustrate how it's done)

Thanks....

+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Rob McNamara          | Happy! Happy! |  Lankhmar BBS                     |
| rob@cad4.lbl.gov      |   Joy! Joy!   |  1-916-757-6391                   |
| Lawrence Berkeley Lab |               |  1200/2400/9600/14.4k HST/v.32bis |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: prs@turing.acs.virginia.edu (Phillip R. Scarr)
Subject: Re: Paradise OS/2 2.0 Drivers
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 12:53:51 GMT

In article <8kzj#c=.wally@netcom.com> wally@netcom.com (Wally Schwarz) writes:
>From article <1992Apr15.123550.21232@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, by prs@turing.acs.virginia.edu (Phillip R. Scarr):
>> That was 6 months ago.  Things may be a little brighter today (although
>> compared to the folks at Trident, the Paradise people are total
>> neanderthals (not to insult neanderthals, though)).  I have seen rumor
>> of some drivers for 2.0 which may be available this summer MAYBE.  I
>> have trashed my Paradise card in favor of a new Trident card because
>> they have demonstrated a consistent commitment to OS/2 and are the
>> farthest along in driver development.
>> 
>
>A friend of mine is the chief VGA engineer for Western Digital in Mountain 
>View, CA.  According to him, IBM has sub-contracted a company in Texas to write
>the drivers for the Western Digital video chipset cards.  The ball is in IBM's
>hands.  Given that, I doubt if they will ever make it. IBM still refuses to ship
>ANY OS/2 2.0 on 5.25" distribution. What a joke!  Not all DOS programs run in
>the DOS box.

I find this very hard to believe.  Why would IBM want to write drivers
for Paradise???  Microsoft doesn't write drivers, why should IBM?  As
for the distribution on 5.25 inch disks, I'll get you the part number if
you need it.  They will ship on 5.25 if you ask them.

The only DOS programs which don't run are those which use the VCPI
extenders (early versions of PharLap used this).  Almost all vendors
have recompiled their code using DPMI which is 100% OS/2 compatible.

>
>-- 
>Wally Schwarz                               Wally World BBS
>2228 S El Camino Real #40                   415/349-6969/Free Line - 2400bps
>San Mateo, CA 94403                         415/349-8408/Contributor Line
>                                            V.32 and V.32bis available

	-Phil
From: lygre@hsr.no (Eirik Lygre)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Is this really Seamless?
Date: 10 Apr 92 20:18:36 GMT
Organization: Rogaland University Centre

In article <1992Apr10.074128@smltlk.enet.dec.com> yon%smltlk.cbm.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com (David A. Yon) writes:
>Hi,
>
>	I just read the Petzhold article in PC Mag about OS/2 2.0.
>He showed a screen shot of the "Seamless Windows" support.  To me it
>looked like all you could do was run AN ENTIRE WINDOWS DESKTOP inside
>of a scrollable OS/2 PM window.  It looked like you were forced to have
>a Program Manager in each one of these desktops as well.
>
> [stuff deleted]
>
>	Can someone please tell me that this isn't the case?  I
>*really* want to believe in OS/2.  (I've also heard that seamless
>8514 support is out for the time being, and that's a BIG factor
>for me)
>
>--
>David Yon
>yon%smltlk.cbm.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com <--- use this address

Keep believing! Your dreams have come true. Seamless windows really
is supporting win3 (or earlier) windows wrapped in PM windows. I
promise!

Now run down and get yourself a copy. It really is *great*

Eirik Lygre
lygre@hsr.no
From: f1sami@uta.fi (Samu Mielonen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: OS/2 2.0 Upgrade with foregin Windows manual
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:11:51 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: University of Tampere, Finland


I am a very interested in the IBM's upgrade policy for OS/2 2.0 in US, but
as such a procedure (or any similar procedure, for that matter) is not 
available here in Finland, I would like to enquire whether it is possible
to get the upgrade with the Finnish version of Windows 3 (I can send the
first page and the registration card, but I'd rather keep the installation
disks to myself). I should point out that a friend of mine in Philadelphia
has agreed to do this for me, so no overseas mailing would be required by
IBM (I suppose that overseas customers will be serviced after domestic 
market has been successfully covered). 

Please post the answer to this newsgroup also, as there are probably
several others beside me considering this route.

Samu Mielonen, University of Tampere, FINLAND


-- 
Samu Z. Mielonen
f1sami@uta.fi
University of Tampere, dept. of the Flame Wars IV
"Chill at will."
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier)
Subject: Re: Microsoft wins
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:26:55 CDT

In article <2s6uiB2w164w@knex.Gwinnett.COM> gess@knex.Gwinnett.COM (Gess Shankar) writes:
>gthome@ausvm1.VNET.IBM.COM writes:
>
>Recently there were reports in the trade press that the move to get OEMs
>to bundle OS/2 did not meet with much success, due to contractual arrangements
>with Microsoft for MsDos. Most OEMs had to pay for Dos licensing and add on
>the costs of OS/2, which they felt will be too much bear or pass-on.
>
>I fear that Microsoft will have more of a success in getting OEMs to bundle
>Win 3.1, given that OEM is already in for MsDos.
>
>GeSS
>--
>Gess Shankar      |<><>|Internet: gess@knex.Gwinnett.COM                |<><>|
>Knowledge Exchange|<><>|{rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!knex!gess|<><>|

Gess:

IBM announced at COMDEX a clone manufacturer who is now pre-installing OS/2
2.0 on its machine - RELY.

Bert Moshier
From: yleung@athena.mit.edu (Yolanda A Leung)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Need help printing!
Keywords: OS/2 printer problems
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:14:33 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Hi,

I have the GA version installed on my homebrew 386-20mhz, and it runs
fine - except for one important fact.  I can't get the printer to work
in any of the sessions - be it DOS, OS/2 or Win-OS/2.  I have the printer
object which uses the correct driver- for a Panasonic KX-4420 (HP IIP
compatible).  I also tried the HP driver if that is any help, and I
just get one blip on my Ready indicator, then nothing until I get a message
from OS/2 telling me that my printer is not responding.  What gives?  Any
clues?  I figure if it can blip once in response to the start of a job,
there isn't any problem in the connections.  I have it on LPT1, I even
tried setting the timeout higher - to 100.  HELP!

Yoli Leung
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc