HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jpole@world.std.com (Jamie C Pole)
Subject: Re: CMS Stuff...
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 20:23:54 GMT

  The hardware I had problems with was from CMS Enhancements (Not Colorado
Memory Systems - Good Stuff) in California.  They use a closed-door
architecture that makes their products incompatible with anything else. 
For example, I was trying to use 3 CMS LANStack Disk Subsystems with an
Adaptec controller, and Novell was gonna make me CompSurf the drives.  On
the other hand, you could buy Micropolis subsystems and hook them to an
Adaptec or Ultrastor controller, and they work fine.  With these people,
you have no choice but to buy all of their products if you expect any kind
of future compatibility...





						Jamie



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
From: rjones@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ronald Jones)
Subject: Re: CMS Tape OS/2 avail today
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:46:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.200534.4733@spcvxb.spc.edu> benezra_a@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:
>I just ordered CMS OS/2 backup program from Colorado. It was released today.
>Price is $99 and I paid $6.50 extra for Fedex 2nd day. Here's hopin'
>Alan Benezra

Can anyone give me their address and phone number?


-- 
 < Ron Jones                   |    E-mail:       rj+@osu.edu   > 
 < The Ohio State University   |    Office:      (614) 292-1665 >
 < 338 West Tenth Avenue       |    FAX:(9-5PM)  (614) 292-7151 > 
 < Columbus, Ohio 43210        |        "eschew obfuscation"    >      
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
From: user@gst-soft.demon.co.uk (user)
Subject: OS/2 2.1 beta and Philips CDD521
Organization: GST Software Products
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 10:30:02 +0000


Can anybody shed any light on why I cannot get either OS/2 2.0 or
the new beta to recognise my Philips CDD521 SCSI drive? I have tried
both the CDROM.SYS driver and the generic CDROM_G.SYS driver that are
supplied on the disk but both fail to find a SCSI device.

I am running on a 486DX2 with 16Mb RAM, 1.2GB SCSI hard disk driven
from an Adaptec 1542B. (The 521 is hung off the 1542B set to address
4). I actually have two ADA1542B cards in the system, one is set to
provide a BIOS so that I can boot (with the disk and CD-ROM on it)
while the other is not currently used.

Please help - I'm going mad here........

Reply to simon@gst-soft.demon.co.uk NOT the other address listed
elsewhere or simply to here!

Thanks for ANY information/help.

Simon @ GST
From: p7z092@rick.cs.ubc.ca (Anthony Jang)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Wayne Gretzky Hockey 3
Date: 24 Dec 1992 21:13:43 -0800
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gambier.rick.cs.ubc.ca


Does anybody know the dos settings for WGH3?  If so, what are they?

Tony
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
From: sthiagar@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (sivasailam thiagarajan)
Subject: *FAST* GIF viewer for OS/2 PM available on Hobbes
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 14:40:11 GMT

This is to announce the availability of PMView BETA version 0.71a, a
program for displaying BMPs and GIFs under OS/2 2.0 PM. The final
version of PMView will be shareware with a $20 registration fee, but
the BETA versions are freeware. PMView requires OS/2 2.0 since it was
written from the ground up as a 32-bit app. A 256-color screen driver
that supports Palette Manager calls is *strongly* recommended;
examples of such are the XGA and ET4000 SuperVGA drivers from the
recent SPP (CSD level 6055), and the latest 32-bit Trident SVGA
drivers.

I didn't write PMView, so I have no qualms about calling it the
fastest GIF viewer I've ever seen. Since the author, Peter Nielsen,
says he spent "literally hundreds of hours" fine-tuning the GIF
decoding routines in 80486 assembly, I wouldn't be surprised if it's
the fastest GIF viewer on the planet.

PMView BETA version 0.71a is available as pmview.zip on Hobbes in the
pub/uploads directory. I've requested that it eventually be moved to
pub/os2/2.0/graphics.

If you have any questions or comments, you can e-mail me or Peter; the
addresses are in PMVIEW.DOC. However, please be aware that Peter's on
vacation right now, and I'm leaving from Dec 24 - Jan 4.

Happy holidays!

Raja Thiagarajan
(sthiagar@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu)
From: ucbked@athena (Earl H. Kinmonth)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: japanese lang word processor
Date: 24 Dec 1992 18:18:09 GMT
Organization: Centre for Japanese Studies, Univ. of Sheffield
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena.berkeley.edu

In article <TNT.92Dec23225535@netcom.com> tnt@netcom.com (Terry Turner) writes:
>is there a japanese lang word processor  availale for os2.
>
>has anyone ported nemacs?
>-- 
>terry
>	tnt@netcom.com

since when is nemacs a word processor (in the usual sense of that
term)?

a check of recent japanese computer magazines did not reveal any
os-2 specific japanese word processors.

as an alternative, you can run dos/v (and possibly drdos/v) under
os-2 and under this run one of the several major japanese word
processors that have been ported to *dos/v.  for example, one of
my colleagues runs dos/v under os-2.  he uses dos/v ports of
ichitaro and word perfect 5.1J.  njstar and moke also run under
generic dos run under os-2.  another alternative is jwp.  this
requires a windows 3.* environment.

please relay any information you receive on this subject.  i am
building a faq on japanese on *dos*/os-2.
-- 
earl h. kinmonth, centre for japanese studies, university of sheffield,
sheffield, england s10 2tn  jp1ek@sunc.sheffield.ac.uk
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
From: kendall@iat.holonet.net (Kendall Willets)
Subject: Re: any good database app development products??
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 07:04:52 GMT

Matesys makes a product called Objectview that runs on PM or Windoze, or
at least it will.  We've been using it to prototype some screens, and it
seems adequate.  I've heard other people say they like it, too.

I think it supports dBase and Sybase, and I know it supports Oracle.
From: benezra_a@spcvxb.spc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: CMS Tape OS/2 avail today
Date: 22 Dec 92 01:05:34 GMT
Organization: St. Peter's College, US

I just ordered CMS OS/2 backup program from Colorado. It was released today.
Price is $99 and I paid $6.50 extra for Fedex 2nd day. Here's hopin'
Alan Benezra
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2:505 comp.os.os2.apps:9746 comp.os.os2.misc:40719
From: clemens@faui8a.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Clemens Beckstein)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: My CD-ROM is not working!
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 09:15:38 GMT
Organization: Regionales Rechenzentrum Erlangen
NNTP-Posting-Host: faui8a.informatik.uni-erlangen.de

fiv2@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Fidel I Villa) writes:

>------------------
>I finally received 2.1 beta and my CD-ROM is still not working under
>  OS/2. (Works fine under plain DOS 5.0 NOT in OS/2 DOS session)

>   Setup: Toshiba XM3301
>   Controller: Future Domain
>   Other devices: Tape Back-up, Modem

>   Suppose to be OS/2 supports this without hassle but NO.

>   I am hesitant of running the beta install in plain DOS 5.0 (image). Has 
>anybody ever done this?   

>   My CDROM.SYS is still dated 3/30/92 despite I had installed the SP's. Any
>newer version.

>   Please help. I would like use OS/2 2.1.

I suggest you use the new CD-ROM support IBM has released as BETA maybe
4 weeks ago.  You can find it on hobbes or on software.watson.ibm.com
(in the ews directory) --- a ZIP called somewhat like OS2CDROM.ZIP

The new drivers are using OS2ASPI and support audio as well...

- Clemens
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2:508 comp.os.os2.misc:40879
From: fiv2@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Fidel I Villa)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: SYSINS.ZIP where to get it?
Date: 2 Jan 93 02:35:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University

My CD-ROM is finally working, well not quite. Thanks to all those who
responded. When I tried to install the Postal Database (DOS-based), my 
software said CD-ROM drive is not found. What?

By the way, I am running OS/2 2.1 beta. OS/2 recognizes it. I can go to
drive F: (the CD drive) and issue dir command under a DOS session. I cannot
simply copy the files because it is also installing some control files/programs
which are compressed. Drive F: had been the configuration of the CD even
when I didn't have OS/2. Is my drive setup relevant?

Former : C - Fat; D - Fat; E - Fat; F- CD
Current: C - Boot Manager, DOS, HPFS; D - FAT; E - HPFS; F - CD

Page 1 of the installation said you need SYSINS.ZIP when you have two disk 
controllers. Well, I have IDE for the harddisks and SCSI for the CD-ROM. 
The instruction may apply to me. I called IBM BBS but it's not in there.
Please somebody put it in hobbes or anywhere else. This may solve the
problem.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 22:17:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.070442.20836@microsoft.com> robertre@microsoft.com (Robert Reichel ms2) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.031448.13378@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>>IBM was forced by the FTC to provide competitors with the specs for their
>>systems in order that the competitiors be able to compete. Otherwise, the
>>Amdahl and Hitachi Data systems plug-compatible mainframes would be
>>inpossible. This action was a major factor in the case against IBM being
>>dropped. It is very unlikely that this action would have been taken by IBM had
>>the case never been brought. 
>
>So?  Suppose this had never happened.  Would IBM be on its current
>downward slide?  Yes.  Would Microsoft be the Microsoft of today?
>Yes.  Would we be having this discussion?  Of course.
>
>The point is that IBM's impending loss of dominance in the computer
>industry is not due to the FTC swooping in and saving the day.  They
>mishandled the microcomputer revolution and imploded all on their own.
>
>The continual rapid mutation of the computer industry makes the entire
>notion of a "monopoly" on some aspect ridiculous.  Does anyone really
>think that DOS in its current form will continue to dominate the market 
>5 years from now?  Competition in the OS market is much more intense
>now than it was 5 years ago, and I personally expect that trend to
>continue.  Any one of SunOS-NextStep-OS/2-Nt-Solaris-Pink-etc could
>be the next DOS, though it is more likely that they will just each
>end up with some share of the high-end market.

  Another straw-man defense of MS. I don't know of any official (i.e.
governmental) accustation or examination as to the fact that MS is
a monopoly or is monopolizing the marketplace. It is merely suspected
of engaging in some anti-competitive practices which are in violation
of US anti-trust law and which it *does* have the economic strength
to enforce.

-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:10:04 GMT

In <1992Dec20.052923.23904@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

>In article <BzHGFA.Boo@utdallas.edu>, goyal@utdallas.edu (MOHIT K GOYAL) writes:

>|> REDMOND, WASHINGTON, U.S.A., 1992 DEC 18 (NB) -- Business Week
>|> magazine, in its December 28th issue, says FTC investigators have 
>|> concluded that the software company has engaged in anticompetitive 
>|> actions. The magazine also reports that the investigators are 
>|> preparing recommendations as to how to proceed against the company.

>Well you can kiss American leadership in operating systems out goodbye.
>Once the Federal Goverment starts trying to enforce "fairness" you know
>its all over.  No matter that the entire Japanese economy is structured
>in an "anticompetitive" way.  No matter that software is one of the last
>remaining strong points of the American economy.  No matter that American
>programmers are trying to compete with programmers in Eastern Europe who
>are thrilled to work for $300 a month.  Nope--we've got to tear into and
>destroy one of our strongest companies.

>How Bill Gates runs his business is nobody's business but Bill Gates's.

>|> Rival software companies have complained publicly and apparently to
>|> the Federal Trade Commission that Microsoft uses "predatory
>|> practices" in selling its operating systems. 

>Yep, that's the good ol' American way of doing business alright.  If you can't
>compete with someone, just get the Federal Goverment to break up their 
>company.  The real "predatory practices" going on here are those vultures
>of rival companies who are waiting to pick the bones of what's left of
>Microsoft after the FTC's guts the carcass.

You have not been a victem of Microsoft'a predatory practices.  Just see
what happens if you come up with a clever inovation that might really cut
into thier profit.  I have worked for such a company.  We just talk to a few
companies about what we wanted to do and within 30 days got a letter from
the Microsoft legal department that said,
"Just try it, and we will sue you out of existance."
Our lawyer told us we were well with in our rights BUT we could not afford
the legal assult.  Two years later, Microsoft came out with the product.
Nice gut, that Gates.
-- 
INTERNET:  ray@Celestial.COM   Ray A. Jones; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!ray   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!ray   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
The probability of one or more spelling errors in this missive approaches
From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 3 Jan 1993 05:31:10 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuron.tamu.edu

In article <1993Jan2.232815.7083@gw.wmich.edu> x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
|
|	Let's get real for a moment, if that were the case, then would
|it be SOOOO difficult for MS to write the following message:
|	"OS/2 detected on hard disk, the compression program included
|with DOS 6.0 is not compatible with OS/2, you might consider deleting OS.2
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|before proceeding."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why put this in at all?  If any type of warning is necessary, the
first part above is all thats needed.

Secondly, how about "UNIX detected.....", "Solaris detected..." etc.

   -- Bruce
--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
                              |  Scrupulous Lawyer
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11320 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3587
From: francis@ese.ogi.edu (Francis Moraes)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: SMALL Excerpt from "Windows Sources"
Date: 30 Dec 92 02:25:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.47798
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute - Department of Env. Science and Eng.

In reference to a post by chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClellen)
timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) writes:

>If you look closely, you'll see that [Petzold] says you'll want,
>not NEED, 8 megs.
>And I'd say that he's right.  I really don't see how you can make any
>comparisons between OS/2 performance and NT performance, since your
>comments show your obvious ignorance of NT.  First there's Steve Withers
>proclaiming that NT requires 90 megs (but at least he's tried it), and
>now you say it takes up "alot [sic] of that 100 meg HD, if not all".
>The truth is that OS/2 takes up about 30 MB, excluding swap space.  NT
>takes up, suprise [sic]!, about 30 MB, excluding swap space.  It does require
>more physical memory, but definitely not the 16 megs you suggest.

This brings up a few points:

1. Certainly one would want at least 8 meg of ram to run OS/2 well. The
   NT users on this group have made it clear that one would want 16 meg
   of ram to run NT. Are you stating that this is wrong and that one
   can run NT well with 8 meg of ram? If not then I don't see the
   problem; NT _does_ require more ram than OS/2.

2. The two systems require approximately the same amount of hard-disk
   space. I seem to remember someone posting that NT required quite
   a large swap file. How large is this file? On my OS/2 system it
   is generally about 3 meg.

3. Why is it that a non-NT user cannot express opinions regarding NT
   comparisons with OS/2. I have learned a lot about NT from reading
   this newsgroup (more than I have about OS/2 in fact) and I expect
   that others have too (like the original poster, who may be wrong
   about some things but seems to have been generally correct).

4. People who add "sic" to other people's posts should make sure they
   have no spelling or usage mistakes in their own posts. :)

>I don't see why certain people persist in spreading this misinformation
>and trying to discredit people like Petzold who simply don't share your [sic]
>narrow viewpoint.  But I suppose that if you say them often enough,
>you'll start to believe them.

I don't think people are _trying_ to spread misinformation about NT;
everyone has biases, even me, and I'm almost prefect [sic]. :)

Francis Moraes
From: brackin5483@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:43:59 -0600
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

I got one question.  When Windows becomes the only operating system out there(
according to Bill) and Microsoft drives everyone else producing Windows
softwere in to bankruptcy.  Then what will happen to prices of operating
systems and application software, once Microsoft has established a monopoly?

        It might be a little late to seperate Microsoft into to different
divisions them.

Just my opinion.
Chris
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11100 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3514
From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Date: 29 Dec 1992 21:00:24 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuron.tamu.edu

In article <1992Dec29.194407.13490@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|In article <1hpr2dINN80o@tamsun.tamu.edu>, bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
|
||> How about the situation when they charge more than the minimum for a
||> "reasonable" profit, but not enough for someone else to afford the R&D
||> costs to enter the market.  Startup costs, before you have a product
||> and before you have name recognition, are not negligible.  This
||> situation keeps prices high and the end consumer pays.
|
||> You will probably ask: What is "reasonable"?  A fair question. 
|
|Under your scenario above (where Standard Oil keeps prices low enough that
|others are discoureged from entring the market) I would say that Standard Oil
|was charging a reasonable price.  If nobody can beat your price, then you've
|certainly got a reasonable price.

Actually, I wasn't talking about Standard Oil, I was talking about MS.
The cost of duplicating software is negligible.  The cost of
developing is high.  If one company has deep pockets and no controls,
the potential exists for that company to dump the product (software) for a
period of time until the competitor goes out of business and then
raise the prices again.

Has MS done this?  You bet.  How much was OS/2 1.0?  Answer: $325.
Why so much?  No competition.  How much was the original OS/2 PDK? 
Answer: $2600.  Same reason.  Did IBM go along? Yup. They were
partners, not competitors then.

If I have an obsolete IBM XT running MS-DOS 5.0, why should I be
forced to buy another license? Is my existing one invalid?  I
certainly can transfer the applications, why not the OS?  The license
agreements may be beneficial to some, but should those of us who don't
need to get a new license be forced to buy one?

Dumping of any product at such a low price to put competitors out of
business or prevent them from entering the business hurts the
consumer.  Look beyond today.  If competitors are eliminated, we all
lose. 

   -- Bruce
--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
                              |  Scrupulous Lawyer
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:48:13 GMT

In <29DEC199210143369@moose.cccs.umn.edu> rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu (RICHARD HOFFBECK) writes:

>In article <1992Dec28.235054.0201318@locus.com>, lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:
>> For this reason, I feel that if these reports are true (and I know that
>> Windows 3.1 violates the DPMI standards promilgated by MS from other
>> reliable sources), I can indeed blame MS.  

>My impression was that the problem is that Windows doesn't impliment the entire
>DPMI standard, not that it doesn't conform to the standard.

Hmmm, I thought it was BOTH.  It doesn't meet the standard (1.0) -- it
only meets the 0.9 'pre-standard' standard.  It also doesn't check if
there is another DPMI server present (I don't know if 0.9 required
that, but it's so obvious a requirement that I would think that it
would have).

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy