HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: v347jqdy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Albert B Hanneman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
Subject: mathcad
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:50:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


   I was thinking about buying mathcad and I was wondering if anyone
had anything good/bad to say about it.  Right now I am an engineering
student and it looks like it could make labs and reports much easier.
I see there is a DOS version and a windows version, is there much of
a difference between the two of them?  

   Also I was wondering about the various compression utilities.  I see
there is a discusion about stacker going on now.  I have a 386 notebook
with a 60meg harddrive and I was wondering if stacker or disk doubler
would be worth buying...


         ______________________________________________          
         Albert B. Hanneman       V347JQDY@ubvms.bitnet
         Aerospace Engineering          SUNY at Buffalo
         ----------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky comp.os.msdos.apps:4736 comp.bbs.waffle:2377
From: roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps,comp.bbs.waffle
Subject: Re: Stacker's TRUE compression ratio
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 11:31:17 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN

steve@presoft.com (Steve Kohlenberger) writes:

> pynq@quads.uchicago.edu (George Jetson) writes:
> 
> > In article <q1yyqB1w165w@Garg.Campbell.CA.US> Bob Van Cleef <revc@Garg.Camp
> >
> > It turns out that uuencodes compress about as well as pure binary.
> > I.e., I think if you uuencode something then compress the result,
> > you end up with a ZIP that is *bigger* than the original binary.
> 
> This is a ZIP limitation.  UUENCODE expands the data in a relatively
> simple and repeating way.  ZIP is unable to compress it much further
> because it assumes that the 'data' playing field is relatively flat.

This is a problem with compression algorithms in general, not simply
with ZIP.  I've tried similar experiments with compress, zoo and lharc.
None will successfully compress a compressed file, uuencoded or not, in
the general case.  (there will alway be _some_ compressed files that will
recompress with good results, but those are few and far between, and I'd
like to stick to the general case here)

> The algorythms were not expecting hacked bytes from a previously
> compressed format.

The UUENCODE expansion doesn't really enter into the situation.
Compressed data is compressed data, regardless of the representation of
that data.  The problem is that the data is being compressed twice.  Try
zipping a .zip file, and you'll see that, in most cases, zip will refuse
to do other than store it.  You can force compress to compress the file
by using a pipe (like 'cat file | compress > outfile').  Try that on a
previously compressed file (or a uuencoded binary) and see what kind of
results you get.
--
Roy M. Silvernail --    [my machine ] "Sometimes, you're the windshield....
roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu  [my opinions]            sometimes, you're the bug!"
cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu  [my $0.0275 ]                      --Mark Knopfler
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
From: lochocki@hercules.uucp (Joe Lochocki)
Subject: Re: Word Processors for DOS (not Windows) - What's out there?
Organization: Calspan Advanced Technology Center
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 12:59:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.180954.21771@PA.dec.com> reisert@sttng.mlo.dec.com (Jim Reisert) writes:
>
>I am in the market for a DOS-based (not Windows) word processor.
>What's out there?
>
>	- Word 5.5
>	- WordPerfect 5.1
>	- Ami Pro (is there a non-windows version?)
>	- Others like MultiMate, WordStar, etc.
>
>What do people recommend for ease of learning/use?  The software will
>probably just be used to create straight text, no fancy graphics, etc.
>What are latest versions?
>
>Thanks - Jim
>
Something simple, cheap, and pretty effective is a copy of Wordstar.  I
use ver. 5.0 which I got in a bundle from DAK.  I think you can still
buy ver 5.5 from them for $9.95 plus s&h.  Despite the bad rap it has
pull down menus and probably the best wysiwyg in the DOS wordprocessing
world.  If you do anything fancier than text you might also want to
check out their $10.00 desktop publisher...I have that too and the
combination is fairly powerful.  Our Mac fanciers look at some of my
publications and say that they could not have done any better.


Joe Lochocki (I am not a DAK employee...just real cheap.)
From: jtw@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (jui-tai.wang)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
Subject: Re: Paradox 4.0 upgrade
Date: 15 Sep 92 23:34:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <92259.154354DJLQC@CUNYVM.BITNET>, D Leavitt <DJLQC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
> In article <shopsis.2@panther.adelphi.edu>, shopsis@panther.adelphi.edu (Charles
> Shopsis) says:
> >
> >update data on the tables that are shared on the LAN, will that data still
> >be readable by Paradox 3.5?  The stuff I've read about 4.0 in advertisements
> 
> According to the preliminary reviews that appeared before Paradox 4.0 shipped,
> the new version stores data in a different format than 3.5.  Check this out
> since it sounds like 3.5 can't read 4.0
> 
I have just installed Paradox 4.0 to my PC. It will read table from Paradox
3.5, but 3.5 will NOT read table from 4.0.

Also, 4.0 will NOT read procedure libraries from 3.5: you need to convert the
library to 4.0 format. It also means 3.5 will NOT read library generated
by 4.0.

One more catch: if you ever use the Data Entry Toolkit, forget it in
4.0. 4.0 have used the "event model" of "wait" to replace the
"DoWait()" module. My application written using DoWait will work (since
DoWait is actually written with echo()/getchar() based PAL model), but
I will not be able to properly (without sweat to twise codes in to toolkit)
update my DPA script, so I'm in the process to convert my scripts to
use the "event based" "wait" now.

Richard Wang
standard disclaimer included.
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps,comp.sys.ibm.pc
From: ferdie@coyote.datalog.com (fred jarvis)
Subject: Using one PC as external drive of another PC (summary)
Organization: Datalog Consulting, Tucson, AZ
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 09:13:17 GMT

   A few weeks ago, I asked for suggestions for connecting a PC
via serial or parallel ports to the first PC, using the drives
of the second as additional drives of the first using regular
DOS commands. No remote control was needed. Regular file
transfer between the two machines via menus was not needed. (I
use the free PC Magazine utility ZCOPY for that purpose.)

*  Several people suggested "$25 Network", 1-800-628-7992. They
have a small ad at the back of Dr. Dobbs. I purchased this
software and have been using it for a few weeks and have
generally been pleased with it. The setup is not as user-friendly
as with more expensive products, but it is adequate. Once set up
(via device drivers & TSR's), the $25 Network sits quietly in the
background and hasn't interfered with anything I've used so far
(mostly BC++). I haven't tried it with Windows. My main complaint
is that serial ports are slow, 115Kb/sec max (half that on my
PS2). I am pleased enough with the results that I am now
considering a more expensive parallel port solution. One
possibility is "Little Big Lan" by the same company, which is
$75, but that is expensive enough that I am also looking at some
of the competition.

   Other responses to my original question suggested:
* Laplink, vsn 3 or greater, which has a device driver DD
which would serve the purpose. However, one response indicated
that the most recent version no longer comes with DD, because
of their product DeskLink.
* DeskLink (also from Traveling Software). A respondent said this
software is "perfect, except uses >140kb resident memory"
* Brooklyn Bridge. The current version uses either a serial or
parallel connection.
* FastLynx. This is a menu driven product, but apparently has a
command-line mode as well.
* UNET shareware. I haven't found out anything more about this.
* Microsoft INTERLNK.EXE, INTERSVR.EXE. This software seems to
be available only to manufacturers of OEM products using ROM DOS.

Followup question:  Any experience with Brooklyn Bridge or
FastLynx, using parallel connection and DOS commands?

Fred Jarvis   ferdie@coyote.datalog.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
From: komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Mark Komarinski)
Subject: Re: Anyone used these SIMTEL or Sources CD-ROMs?
Keywords: Not an advertisement.
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 04:03:19 GMT

GeraldR@sunfish.ratsys.com (Gerald Ruderman) writes:

>In article <27171@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> rcw@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Robert White) writes:

>>In the back of this month's PC magazine, there is a little itty bitty
>>add from Walnut Creek Software advertising the following CD-ROMS:

>>SIMTEL20: 6000 + MS DOS programs - want 25 bux
>>Source: 600+ megs of C, pascal   - want 40 bux

>>Seems like a good ide and deal, but would like to hear any first hand 
>>opinions.

I have the simtel-20 disk and am QUITE impressed.  I have limited access
to a player, but for $25 for that much information it's definately
worth it.

-Mark
--
- Mark Komarinski - komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
[MIME mail welcome]
Credo quia absurdum est - "I believe because it is absurd"

Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
From: kellys@orac.holonet.net (Kelly Schwarzhoff)
Subject: Memory test software
Organization: HoloNet (BBS: 510-704-1058)
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 03:35:48 GMT

Does anyone know of a good PD/Shareware memory test program?  The reason is that
I recently upgrade from 4 MB to 8 MB because I was going to install OS/2.  It
worked fine with DOS (the new memory), but when I tried to install OS/2 OS/2
puked. After talking to numerous people I found out it was the new memory
and I'm now installing it with just the old 4 MB and it appears to be working.
So...I want to figure out what happened instead of replacing ALL of them.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Schwarzhoff
Internet: kellys@orac.holonet.net   Fidonet: 1:161/445.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: manager@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
Subject: Looking for a Lotus v2.2 postscript printer driver
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:59:46 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

I am looking for a postscript printer driver for Lotus-1-2-3 v2.2.
If you know where such a thing is could you plase send me a E-Mail 
message saying how and where to get it from.

Eric Raine
System Manager
Brandon University
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

EMAIL: manager@BrandonU.CA
Xref: sparky comp.os.msdos.apps:4703 comp.bbs.waffle:2322
From: andyross@infopls.chi.il.us (Andrew Rossmann)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps,comp.bbs.waffle
Subject: Re: Stacker's TRUE compression ratio
Date: 11 Sep 92 00:16:21 GMT
Organization: INFOPLUS support, Wheeling, IL

nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:

> harddisk 1:2 compression is quite normal. For lots of small files,
> and/or large databases etc 1:4 compression is not uncommon. Does the
> harddisk contain lots of .ARC .ARJ .ZOO etc files (compressed ones)
> than the ratio will get lower because compressed files can not
> be recompressed.

  My Stacker volume is pure text. I moved all of the uuencoded binaries
groups onto a 'normal' drive.

--
Andrew Rossmann            | Sysop of Infoplus BBS, +1 708 537 0247
andyross@infopls.chi.il.us | Infoplus Support, latest version available
 uunet!infopls!andyross    | by logging in as infoplus. [v32bis/v42bis]
                      NO new taxes...NO new gambling
From: stern@mble.philips.be
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
Subject: Theodor A. Kaldis E-mail address ?
Date: 7 Sep 92 11:04:06 MEWT
X-From: stern@mble.philips.be
X-Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.wanted
Followup-To: comp.os.msdos.apps,comp.sys.ibm.pc.wanted

X-Date: 7 Sep 92 11:00:03 MEWT
X-Organization: MBLE , Brussels, Belgium

Does anybody know if Theodore A. Kaldis is reachable via E-mail ?
He is the author of the fabulous QUUDCD program.

Thanks,

Marc Stern  --  <stern@mble.philips.be>
-- 

--  Marc Stern  <stern@mble.philips.be>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
From: pynq@quads.uchicago.edu (George Jetson)
Subject: Re: Telix, Z-Modem and Unix
Reply-To: pynq@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: D. J. Dougherty & Associates
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:25:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.161450.14633@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> chena@crs.cl.msu.edu (Antony Chen) writes:
>wright@epx.cis.umn.edu (Mark Wright) writes:
>
>>I've been thinking about switching from procomm to telix to take advantage
>>of Z-Modem, which seems to be much faster that the Kermit I usually use.

>Heavens no!  Don't give up and don't go back to Kermit.  I use Qmodem 5.0
>and I run Zmodem on NeXT, Apollo, and Sun platforms and haven't had any
>problems.  I just type sz <file1> <file2> and so on...it works just fine.
>BTW, make sure you have a binary pathway to send your files.  Your dial-in

Agreed.  If you are accessing your Unix host via some sort of terminal
server, you may be interested in hearing about my experiences with
terminal servers:
	1) On one terminal server, it was necessary to use the 'e'
	   option to sz.  This option tells it to escape all control
	   characters.  I never took the time to figure out what that
	   meant, but it did solve the problem.
	2) On the terminal server I now use, I have to issue the command
	   "ter dow", (i.e., "terminal download") before connecting to the
	   Unix host.  This command puts the terminal into 8 bit mode.
	   (Allah only knows why 8 bit mode isn't the default - I am
	   sure they just do it this way to make it easier to tell the
	   men from the boys...)

************************************************************************
A note to new readers:  the weasely :-) symbol is frowned upon in this
group.  Any questions, see Phil Gustafson who will gladly rearrange your
diodes for you.
			- From the AFU FAQ -

	- pynq@quads.uchicago.edu, who is still costing the net
	  hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars, every time he posts -
************************************************************************
From: rob@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Robert Rittenhouse)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
Subject: Re: PC SQL databases?
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:32:48 GMT
Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida

adam@research.nj.nec.com (Adam Porter) writes:
> 
> Can anyone recommend a reasonably-priced database package for the PC?
> If not, how about an unreasonably-priced one?
> 
> Thanks...
> ==========================================================================
> Adam Porter, Assistant System Administrator       adam@research.nj.nec.com  
> NEC Research Institute:609/951-2568  4 Independence Way,Princeton,NJ,08540

R:base, IMHO, is the best PC SQL implementation. Usual database 
prices.  SSQL (available from Simtel, I think) is a shareware SQL 
package good for learning. 
Rob R.
From: Deon.Strydom@p16.f1.n7104.z5.fidonet.org (Deon Strydom)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
Subject: Stacker's TRUE compression ratio
Date: 13 Sep 92 07:38:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: catpe.2220.2AB37856
Organization: FidoNet node 5:7104/1.16 - The Catalyst BBS 1, Port Elizabeth

In a message of <Sep 09 20:54>, Andrew Rossmann (5:7104/2) wrote to All:

 AR> What I would like to know is what kind of 'true' ratios others are 
 AR> getting.

Hi Andrew,
I use Doubledisk ver 2.6, not Stacker.  I've got two ST-251's, one of which is completely compressed.  On this disk is applications (including First Publ, Windows, Lotus, etc), data, my Fidonet Point and newsreader as well as mail and more than 7Meg of graphics files (.PCX, .TIF, .WPG).

This what DDINFO reports on my drive:
===========================================================================
DDINFO - DoubleDisk Information utility Ver. 2.6 

Drive F: (file D:\DUBLDISK.000)  Maximum Capacity: 128M  Volume is: DD_1       

  42,577,920  Bytes Physical Extended-Disk size
      57,344  Bytes Reserved by DOS
     180,224  Bytes Reserved by DoubleDisk
  62,988,288  Bytes in 3245 DOS files, compressed to 34,409,984  Bytes
   7,923,712  Physical Bytes free on Extended-Disk

         45%  Average compression ratio ( 1.8 : 1)
  14,504,541  Bytes Projected Free Space
===========================================================================

MS-DOS 5.00's /S switch reports 59387982 bytes, but as explained in an earlier posting, the difference is due to DoubleDisk (and Stacker?) counting ACTUAL space used (including slack).

BTW, I've tested DD with small files, and although CHKDSK says that 8K clusters are used, DD actually uses 512Byte clusters internally.

Groetnis (=cheers)
Deon


--  
INTERNET: Deon.Strydom@p16.f1.n7104.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-1122 HST or +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.
From: jleon@usc.edu (Juan Carlos Leon)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
Subject: NDOS & 4DOS (Any difference?) <--- THANK YOU!
Date: 9 Sep 1992 18:38:19 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

I want to say thanks to everybody who answered my question, now I've
downloaded 4DOS 4.01 and all of you were right, this version is better
and i'll register it when I finish to test it.

Thank you again!

Juan Leon

Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
From: claude@bauv106.bauv.unibw-muenchen.de (Claude Frantz (RZ))
Subject: Print screen to LaserJet II or III
Keywords: Print Screen LaserJet printer
Organization: Universitaet der Bundeswehr Muenchen (Germany)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 05:55:25 GMT

Hello World !

Can you inform me about software packages allowing to print the
screen to the LaserJet ? This question is related to the graphics
mode and text mode of modern graphics adapter cards ?

Where can I find these packages ? What is your experience with
them ?

Thanks for your advice.
Claude
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
From: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (T. Scott Thompson)
Subject: Re: kermit adds ~500 bytes to a downloaded *.ZIP file
Reply-To: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Organization: Economics Department, University of Minnesota
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 19:43:56 GMT

tony2@prefect.uucp (21131-gozdz) writes:

>I apologize for asking such a basic question, but the
>title says all. Of course, the file cannot be unpacked.
>I'm using Procomm Plus 1.1B to download the file from a
>UNIX machine, to which the file was in turn downloaded from
>ftp.cica.indiana.edu (the size here was the same).
>The file type in Procomm is set to binary; the ASCII
>value of the 8th byte quote character is set to 38.
>What gives?

You have to set the UNIX kermit program for binary too.  How you do
this varies from machine to machine, I suspect.  Here, on a Sun system
you must give the kermit command as something like...

                 kermit -i <other options....>

Do a "man kermit" to find out what you need on your system.
--
T. Scott Thompson              email:  thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Department of Economics        phone:  (612) 625-0119
University of Minnesota        fax:    (612) 624-0209
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps,comp.sys.ibm.pc
From: m14430@mwunix.mitre.org (Lawrence Larson)
Subject: Re: Using one PC as external drive of another PC (summary)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:21:26 GMT

ferdie@coyote.datalog.com (fred jarvis) writes:

>* FastLynx. This is a menu driven product, but apparently has a
>command-line mode as well.

>Followup question:  Any experience with Brooklyn Bridge or
>FastLynx, using parallel connection and DOS commands?

FastLynx comes with another driver called EBOX which is completely
separate from FastLynx menu-driven or command-line modes. It provides
exactly what you want through either the serial or parallel ports; it
also provides printer routing to a printer on either box. I have used
it to interconnect two machines for several years, and haven't found
anything yet that would make it burp, including Windows 3.1. I've
even used it in both directions simultaneously - something they used
to say didn't work. Email if you need any details...

-- Larry

Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
From: chad@quality.ta.ford.com (Chad Childers)
Subject: Reading WordImPerfect files with graphics
Originator: chad@pms035
X-Disclaimer: Not an official spokesman for Ford Tech Affairs
Reply-To: Chad Childers <chad@quality.ta.ford.com>
Organization: Technical Affairs, Ford Motor Company
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:00:29 GMT

Does anyone sell an application or subroutine to simply view WP files?  It
would be simple if we were just talking text, but there are associated
graphics as well that we want to be able to view.  Any hints or suggestions
for doing this sort of graphics-with-text for distribution would be
appreciated.
-- 
Chad Childers                            Work: chad@quality.ta.ford.com
FMEAplus Project Leader                  Home: chad@deep.mi.org
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
From: kim@m44.unm.edu
Subject: Re: Word Processors for DOS (not Windows) - What's out there?
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 21:49:44 GMT
Organization: UNM Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM
Reply-To: kim@m44.unm.edu

In article <1992Sep9.180954.21771@PA.dec.com>, reisert@sttng.mlo.dec.com (Jim Reisert) writes:
>
>I am in the market for a DOS-based (not Windows) word processor.
>What's out there?


For plain text stuff, you may want to look at some of the shareware offerings. 
One of the better known and developed (I've been told) is PC-Write.  The
Shareware evaluation version can be found on Simtel20 in msdos/editors.  I've
never tried it.  I am used to MS Word, but I've grown rather fond of Galaxy
Lite, another shareware editor.  It is rather limited in features, but it has
the advantage of being very, very small.  Evaluation version also to be found
on Simtel20.  Shareware is a nice way to get a good look at the software before
deciding to buy.  In addition, the prices are very low compared with regular
mainstream software.

Daniel Kim
KIM@FLOVAX.LANL.GOV
From: Deon.Strydom@p16.f1.n7104.z5.fidonet.org (Deon Strydom)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps
Subject: Re: Stacker's TRUE compression ratio
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 06:59:44 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 5:7104/1.16 - The Catalyst BBS 1, Port Elizabeth

In a message of <Sep 09 21:01>, Pat Cain (5:7104/2) wrote to All:

 PC> DoubleDisk's ddinfo (notice difference in sizeof(files)):

 PC>   15,921,152  Bytes in 4224 DOS files, compressed to 10,044,928  
 PC> Bytes

Hi Pat,
The difference is due to DoubleDisk (and Stacker?) giving the actual physical space used, including slack, in this statistics.  The point is that although DOS 5 tells you that you've used only 11 Meg, it's more due to have filled clusters, etc.

Groetnis (=cheers)


--  
INTERNET: Deon.Strydom@p16.f1.n7104.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-1122 HST or +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps