HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: carlp@frigg.isc-br.com (Carl Paukstis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: HELP ME 2.1 beta install
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:24:54 GMT
Organization: ISC-Bunker Ramo, An Olivetti Company

Sorry to ask this here; I didn's see an ...os2.questions.

I'm a SYSVR4 hacker and network-administration guy.  I run DOS/Windows
for games and some word-processing stuff on my home system.  Our group
at work is looking into OS/2 vs. NT for a new project.  I don't know
OS/2 from shinola, but I thought I'd try it out.

My system is a no-name clone, AMI motherboard & BIOS, 486/33 w/356k
cache, Adaptec 1542B, two 200Mb SCSI disk drives, Mentor (ET4000Turbo)
video card, MAG 17 monitor, SoundBlaster, assorted other junk.

I ftp'd the diskettes.  I always can get through disks 0-5, and get
it booted off the hard disk.  Sometimes, it just fails and sits there
dumbly; sometimes it runs a chkdsk for itself, sometimes after this it
comes up into the installer program.  Sometimes, I can even get it to
eat disks 6 through 9 or 10.  If it gets this far, it always fails
with a SYS2070, and a message about being unable to demand-load some
part of uncompress? (sorry, I have it written down, but it's at home).

Once, I got all the way through disk 19 and setup, but it wanted a
printer driver disk for my TI PS35, but I didn't have any such, and
there was no way to tell it "nevermind, skip to next thing".

I've got my #0 disk drive configured with ~10Mb for DOS; the rest used
to be 386BSD, but I cleared it for OS/2.  I installed the boot
manager, then set the rest of it for HPFS.  After various unsuccesses,
I partitioned the ~190Mb into 40Mb FAT, balance HPFS, and tried doing
the install into the FAT partition.  Works slightly worse, I think.

This "can't demand-load" sounds like either a bad OS bug (unlikely, I
thought, because of all the people here using it with success) or some
kind of marginal hardware-related problem.  I twiddled with various 
options in the AMI chipset setup, including going back to the factory 
defaults (Bad idea - part of Adaptec's ROM does NOT want to be shadowed; 
I proceeded with minimum changes).  

Is there maybe some problem with having a DOS partition first?  I
didn't screw with my first partition.  Known problems with AdaptecSCSI
and my old Rodime drive?  But it works fine with DOS and 386BSD.

Opinions and advice are solicited.
--
Carl Paukstis, RRR&RSG  S.I. 2.27     | "If we were directed from Washington 
 Olivetti North America / Spokane, WA |  when to sow and when to reap, we would 
 Mail: carlp@mail.spk.olivetti.com    |  soon want for bread."
   or: ...uunet!oliveb!isc-br!carlp   |     - Thomas Jefferson
From: z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Next 2.1 Beta is Coming in Feb.
Date: 22 Jan 93 14:35:33 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University


	This might be of interest to OS/2 2.1 beta users.

I talked to our Rep in Boca Raton today about the next level of beta for 2.1.
He said that another level will be released in Feb, as well as another PDK
about the same time.

IBM want's to be sure that 2.1 is Rock Solid, and that's the reason why they
won't give a firm ship date. Great News! The commitment to quality is the best
sign of the new IBM we have seen to date.

Keep the Bug Reports coming in. The more bugs that IBM is aware of now, the
sooner they will be fixed.

In another conversation with one of the developers, I brought up the subject of
32bit PM, and the independant synchronous message queue that NT has. He said
OS/2 will have True 32-bit PM, and independant synchronous message queues later
this year. This is very important, because it will mean that a single PM app
will not be able to HOG PM, or crash PM.

Michael Kupka
From: 177wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is OS/2 a dead end? NO!
Date: 28 Jan 93 16:24:33 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1993Jan28.042141.25635@itsmail1.hamilton.edu>, jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
> In article <1993Jan27.220702.7513@gw.wmich.edu> 177wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>>
>>	Um, Brian, all official OS/2 2.0 beta tests (our company had a
>>couple) were given free upgrades to 2.0.  That statistic was counted and
>>they were put on that log (according to our files) on Feb 15, 1992.  There
>>were thousands of OS/2 2.0 beta tests last year.  Then we have the
>>issue of the 1.x upgraders who flooded the channels upon OS/2's release.
>>Give the point up, it is obvious that there was a tremendous backlog of
>>orders and the 250,000 electronic shipemtn on March 31 is well known.  You
>>of all people should be aware of it.
>>
> 
> I gather, then, that IBM had different policies for those of us
> upgrading from OS/2 1.3!  I bought 1.3 under that program that
> advertised the upgrade to 2.0 for free (I was eager to get 2.0 as soon
> as I might and I foolishly assumed that the upgraders on this program
> would quickly get the release version).  In fact, try as I might, I was
> simply not allowed to place my upgrade offer until I got the form off of
> Compuserve on March 31 and mailed it in, overnight mail, on April 1 (ah,
> yes, the date has a new significance for me now!).  At any rate, I guess
> they must have accepted some people's upgrade orders before release, but
> certainly not all of them...
> 
> 
> jmalloy@hamilton.edu
> 

	You're right, the 1.3 users had to wait for the order form
either receive via mail or electronically.  But this really doesn't matter,
because how many people do you think tried getting 2.0 the day it
came out in anticipatiion?  A LOT of OS/2 1.3 usres flooded the
channel with those forms in the first month of OS/2's release.
This creates an unreleastic view of how well it is selling.  The
debate Brian and I are having is that I contend that normal users
(people who were not waiting for OS/2 to arrive) have begun buying OS/2
more so now than when it was first released.

					-Brad

It is all speculation of course, but still fun to talk about.



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: BUYING OS/2
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 01:29:52 GMT

In article <24JAN199311413127@zeus.tamu.edu> lmp8913@zeus.tamu.edu (PRESTON, LISA M) writes:
> -In article <1993Jan24.172353.19034@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>, gtd543a@sol.crt.columbia.edu (death) writes...
> ->Once you have testing the OS/2 2.1 beta, is there any way you can
> ->get on the registered users list?  Do I have to buy a copy of OS/2 2.0
> ->(which is basically disks and nothing else)?
> ->--
> 	It's worth it to get the stickers.;-)
> 	
> 	Actually the manuals aren't completely useless, and the on-line
> docs are pretty good; it's just that most folks don't bother to read them.
> 
> LISA

Well said, LISA! I find the online docs to be pretty good. Certainly saves on
trees and makes for cheap (even free!) updates.....
 
Steve

-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand |      
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |        Space for rent.
+64 4 478 4714                          |   - cheap rates, nice location. 
**** Happy user of OS/2 b2.1 ****       | 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wcn@cs.brown.edu (Wen-Chun Ni)
Subject: Re: US IBM patents: 13,444
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 23:19:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.015212.28365@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>
>This is in regards to an older discussion, thanks to Thomas Dowling for the
>information. According to the CASSIS disks from US PIO (August 1992), IBM is
>the assignee of 13,444 patents.
>
>The 13,444 is for US patents alone. I was indicated that non-US patents exceed
>20,000.
>


This is exactly the only thing I don't feel comfortable with IBM.



Wen-Chun Ni, wcn@cs.brown.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
  "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition 
	from mediocre minds..."    -- Albert Einstein
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: hwhalen@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Hugh Whalen)
Subject: re: Lee Reiswig speaks!
Organization: Faculty of Administration, University of New Brunswick
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 12:39:25 GMT

In article <dposey.727599220@well.sf.ca.us> dposey@well.sf.ca.us (David Posey) writes:
>
>
>Lee Reiswig addressed a special meeting of the OS/2 Bay Area Users Group
>tonight, in conjunction with the OS/2-Windows Conference in San Jose.
>Approximately 200 people turned up (30 minutes after the show closed) on
>short notice. Mr. Reiswig recapped his 'Strategy Briefing', given earlier
>in the day, and answered many questions.
>

[lots deleted]

>
>6) Advert/marketing budget for '93 is approx $100Million - massive upswing
>   from '92. 'Event' marketing (Fiesta Bowl, etc.) will *not* be the
>   emphasis. Focussed, content-rich print ads should be the norm.
>   The 'OS/2 100' 23-page tear-out section is a good start!
>

[more deleted]

>
>8) The 'OS/2 cost $2Billion to develop' strawman is (direct quote follows)
>   'utter and complete bullsh*t'. [The numbers just don't work out - Mr.
>   Reiswigs annual budget is approx. $400 mil, including many developers
>   not working on OS/2, marketing, etc. Somewhere in the range of $100M
>   to $500M is more likely]
>

Well, this does make more sense althought I have heard the $2 Billion 
dollar figure first in either the trade rags or business press .... I 
think the latter. And no, I'm sure it didn't come from the net first.

I am impressed by the advertising budget. However, one should note that 
if OS/2 sells 2 million units next year this will be $50 per unit of 
advertising cost alone ..... wow!!! Can anybody make a profit on 
software that retails for what $100 (?) when advertising alone eats up 
this much money?

Oh, very interesting post. Thanks for the information.

Hugh Whalen                     | Where all men think alike, no one
Faculty of Administration       | thinks very much.
University of New Brunswick     |               - Walter Lippmann			


DISCLAIMER: Neither UNB nor I care what the other thinks.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak)
Subject: Tidbits Brian missed
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Mitre Corporation
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 17:55:44 GMT


INDEX:
   Doubts grow over the NT package, date
   Beta testers say Microsoft OS lacks enterprise features
			Netware casts shadow over NT

[Computer World: Jan. 25. 1993]

Doubts grow over the NT package, date

In a senario that is increasingly beginning to resemble the early days of
OS/2, Microsoft Corp. appears to be struggling to determine not only how to
present Windows NT but even what Windows NT will be in its first release. 
While Microsoft still insists that Windows NT will ship in the second
quarter will all promised functionality, analysts and users are betting
that the new operating system will either have to be delayed as much as
several months or stripped of some functionality to meet the scheduled ship
date of May or June.

[.....things skipped]

What is apparent, based on the near unaniminty of opinion by ananlysts and
users, is that Microsoft stiil has something of a credibility gap to
bridge.  Despite Microsoft's strong statements to the contrary, observers
still have doubts about the firm's ability to deliver on what it promises.

[.....things skipped]

Indications are that it [NT] will not be [ready], at least not by Windows
World in May, when Microsoft is expected to throw its Windows NT launch
party, according to Jesse Berst, publisher of the Redmond-based "Windows
Watcher" newsletter.

Berst was optimistic that Microsoft could ship Windows NT by June, although
he said the system may be slower than people had expected.

[.....things skipped]


[PC Week: Jan 25, 1993]

Beta testers say Microsoft OS lacks enterprise features

Microsoft Corp's Windows NT may be more network-savy than previous versions
of Windows, but the initial release will lack many of the enterprise
networking capabilities found in competitors' products.

[article contines...]


[End of tidbits]

Note I did leave some articles out that were favorable about NT.  This is
why these 'tidbits' very deceptive.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heeren Pathak                      | Millions long for immortality who do 
pathak@mitre.org                   | not know what to do with themselves
Mitre Corporation                  | on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
(617) 271-7465                     |	               	-- Susan Ertz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Mine not Mitre's.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bill@west.msi.com (Bill Poitras)
Subject: Re: 1993 will be a good year for OS/2
Reply-To: bill@west.msi.com
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:00:58 GMT

Heeren Pathak (pathak@mitre.org) wrote:
: I also think NT will be a big player in the non-Intel Workstation market. 
: A lot of people using SGI's are non-technical users who use an SGI just
: because it has the best graphics around.  Running NT instead of Unix is a
: win since it gives these users access to all the desktop applications
: available for Windows.

Perhaps in native applications.  But SoftPC 3.0 is out for IRIX.  SoftPC
is the same technology used in NT to get DOS+Windows 3.1 compatibility.
You get a 30 day trial for new buyers for indigos.  Also IRIX already has
the workstation software they need.  I know, our company develops it.  At
least for a year or two, the high powered 3D graphics will continue to
only run under IRIX.  If they need the PC compatibility, they can buy
SoftPC.

If enough engineering programs get ported fast enough (I doubt it) then
people MIGHT switch.  But IRIX is a stable multi-user OS with all the GL
support it needs for all of its display hardware.  Even though NT will
have SGI GL, I don't think a DevKit is out yet.  It could be a while
before you see the 3D graphics programs, which the SGI is good for, that
SGI workstation users want.

: Microsoft's track record of release NT, varporous ;-) .  Not matter how
: great OS/2 is technically, it will fail to become a major player unless IBM
: markets it better.  The recent "OS/2 100" ads lend some hope that IBM is
: waking up to this, but they have an uphill battle.

It is an uphill battle.  But IBM won't give up.  There are too many
variables.  They still have a fighting chance.

: I think the 32-bit Workplace aware apps will have a bit impact on OS/2
: sales.  Everything I have heard about the Lotus apps have been impressive. 
: One person who was using the new 1-2-3, Ami Pro and Freelance made a
: comment that "since each app was so seemlessly integrated to the user
: interface, it was almost like using one application instead of three".  If
: other people feel the same way, OS/2 may really take off.

IF they get the advertising and coverage and perhaps free demo programs
and competitive pricing that they need.  People need to know they will do
them some good.

: I think 1993 will be a good year for OS/2 but the battle of the operating
: systems is far from over.  

I agree.
--
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Bill Poitras    | Molecular Simulations Inc.    | Tel (408)522-9229       |
| (bill)          | Sunnyvale, CA USA             |                         | 
|                 | FAX (408)732-0831             | bill@west.msi.com       |
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Over 1,100 OS/2 2.0 apps ship in 92'
Organization: University of Utah Computer Science
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 07:32:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan17.060007.18595@lugb.latrobe.edu.au> DEMOGRB@LUST.LATROBE.EDU.AU (Max!) writes:
>In <1993Jan14.192615.10875@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu writes:
>
...
>> C. Brian Sturgill                          NeXTStep 486 is for _YOU_!!!!
>> University of Utah                    Microsoft needs competition, but I want
>> Center for Software Science          to be one of the many running Windows NT!
>> brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373    :-) :-) :-)  NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679
>                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>By the way, are you paid to advertise for MS, or are you just trying to do
>us a favour ?  I find this blatant and in poor taste.  You are entitled to
>your opinions, but I don't feel advertisements are appropriate here.

No, I'm not paid to advertise for Microsoft. I am, as the saying
usually goes, a satisfied customer. What is it that you find in poor
taste?  Approximately 1/3 of the rather voluminous e-mail I receive
from my participation in the Windows/OS/2 advocacy groups asks me for
this information.  I figure it's just easier on everybody if I provide
it up front.  I also figured it would annoy a certain class of
zealot... apparently it works! :-)

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                          NeXTStep 486 is for _YOU_!!!!
University of Utah                    Microsoft needs competition, but I want
Center for Software Science          to be one of the many running Windows NT!
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373    :-) :-) :-)  NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679
From: lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (BRIAN PAUL VAN LIEU)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.x on the fly compression packages.
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:33:56 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1993Jan25.133400.11108@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu>, pclark@lynx.dac.n
ortheastern.edu (Peter Clark) writes:
>In article <1jvqtjINN28u@harpo.uccs.edu> jmward@blanca (Joel M. Ward) writes:
>>William Siegel (wesiegel@cie.uoregon.edu) wrote:
>>:
>>: I am looking for a package that does on-the-fly file compression,
>>: similar to that done by Superstor 2X for the DOS/Windows environment.
>>:
>>: Please e-mail me the information.
>>
>>      Why doen't you post the information, since that seems like quite a
>>useful idea and I'm sure others would want to see it... (like me!)
>>
>Um, don't they have superstor or stacker for OS/2 yet?  I've heard one
>of em is coming out with a version for quite some time now....?
>
>
>
>--
>Peter Clark - pclark@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu
>            + Empire - it's not just a game, it's an adventure
>            + EMACS is computereez for a torture device
>
    Superstor-not announced.

    Stacker-Maybe summer, but with *no* HPFS (which is a useless product...)

    DCF/2-In production. SHippments delayed because of update for 2.1 code.

    DCF/2 is a full 32 bit app that supports both file formats. Many people on
    these lists have orders for it. Hang around c.o.o.apps for impressions
    when it ships.


                                                    cheers,

                                                    bvl
-- 

  Brian P. Van Lieu
  Lehigh University-AXP
  lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu

            OS/2 2.0...anything else is just a DOS.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: roland@margaret (David A. Braun)
Subject: Re:  OS2: PAS-16 beta drivers? TRANTOR SCSI on PAS drivers???
Organization: Choate Rosemary Hall
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:36:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan18.234333.17718@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu>  
mpearson@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Matthew Pearson) writes:
> Someone mentioned the following..
> 
> 1. There are PAS-16 -beta- drivers for OS2 out there.. if so WHERE ARE
> THEY!! I WANT EM!!!!
> 
> 2. The SCSI on the PAS is a Trantor SCSI interface... if so WHAT model
> is it compatible with.. and are there drivers for OS2 for it.. even in
> BETA?
> 
> I am beta-testing OS2 2.1 and the MMPM/2 2.1 .. I could REALLY use these
> drivers.. EVEN if they are only BETA..
> 
> PLEASE send me ANY info you have on them...
> 
> Matt


Ditto, I am sitting here with a PAS-16 and a Texel CD-ROM that I just bought  
and CAN'T USE!  Also, what about SB compatibility, That's BS from  
MediaVision... I cannot use my PAS-16 as an SB in OS/2... Then what's it worth  
to me??

<roland>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dposey@well.sf.ca.us (David Posey)
Subject: Lee Reiswig speaks!
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 06:53:40 GMT



Lee Reiswig addressed a special meeting of the OS/2 Bay Area Users Group
tonight, in conjunction with the OS/2-Windows Conference in San Jose.
Approximately 200 people turned up (30 minutes after the show closed) on
short notice. Mr. Reiswig recapped his 'Strategy Briefing', given earlier
in the day, and answered many questions.

Note: I did not take extensive notes - I went as an individual developer,
 not a reporter. I thought what he had to say deserves repeating (briefly!).

In no particular order:

1) The 'Workplace Family' strategy continues to be refined and defined. One
   slide showed Workplace (WP) DOS for small machines, including pen-driven,
   WP OS/2 for 'normal' desktops (super client), WP OS for 'high-end'
   desktops/workstations, and WP UNIX at the top end. Mention was made of
   targeting the WP OS and WP UNIX at multiprocessor & parallel systems.

2) The 2.1 beta is shipped with ~213 printer drivers, approx. the same as
   Win3.1. Support is provided for printers released since last spring,
   like HP LJ4, DJ500C, and Lexmark 4029 series (are these supported for
   Win3.1 users by MS?).

3) The 2.1 beta includes video drivers for the top 5 chipsets by volume,
   comprising ~80% of shipping cards. Not S3, ATI and other accelerated
   cards. Mr. Reiswig was apologetic over the lack of drivers, DDK, etc.

4) The DDK is available in limited beta. Bug your IBM contact if you need
   it.

5) Stay tuned for an announcement next week re:DBM. The rumor mill
   suspects 32-bit engine will be unveiled.

6) Advert/marketing budget for '93 is approx $100Million - massive upswing
   from '92. 'Event' marketing (Fiesta Bowl, etc.) will *not* be the
   emphasis. Focussed, content-rich print ads should be the norm.
   The 'OS/2 100' 23-page tear-out section is a good start!

7) IBM polled developers to see where to focus electronic support efforts,
   some time ago. Seventy percent said Compuserve, 50% said Internet,
   less for Fidonet/BBSs. So, IBM focused on Compuserve first, to get their
   feet wet. A greater Internet presence is possible, but was not promised.

8) The 'OS/2 cost $2Billion to develop' strawman is (direct quote follows)
   'utter and complete bullsh*t'. [The numbers just don't work out - Mr.
   Reiswigs annual budget is approx. $400 mil, including many developers
   not working on OS/2, marketing, etc. Somewhere in the range of $100M
   to $500M is more likely]

Mr. Reiswigs reluctance to talk about MS, or even mention them, was notable
- and noble, considering Mr. Gates constant bad-mouthing of IBM.

The presentation was extremely well done - this is not the IBM I knew and
loathed in the mid-80's!

Again, I apologize for any minor inaccuracies, the gist is correct as I
heard it.

Regards,
David
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy