HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mtichy@fraser.sfu.ca (Martin Tichy)
Subject: 669 uploads
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 08:04:37 GMT

I will be uploading another batch of .669 music files to 
klingon.epas.utoronto.ca (128.100.160.36).  This music format 
was created by Tran of Renaissance.  You can think of .669 
files as enhanced .mod files because they offer 8 channels, 64 
instruments and 128 patterns, among other improvements.  Here 
are the requirements as stated in the documentation of the 669 
composer:

**Begin Quote**

  To run this composer you must have the following hardware:
    1) A 386 or better computer.
    2) 2 megz RAM. (1408k extended).
    3) A VGA card.
    4) A Sound Blaster or a Sound Blaster Pro sound card. (On 
       an SB you will get mono music, on an SBPro you will get 
       stereo).
    5) DOS 3.0 or above.

  When you run this composer, you must not have any memory 
managers or any other programs that run the system in V86 mode, 
and you must not have DOS loaded high. The best configuration 
would be a clean system, but you can experiment to see what 
TSRs and device drivers you can have in memory. Note: Your SB 
or SBP must be on IRQ 3,5, or 7... IRQs 2 and 10 are not 
supported.

**End Quote**

You can also play .669 files on a Gravis UltraSound with the 
P669GU0.ARJ player which can also be found on the same ftp 
site.  These files will probably sound best on a Gravis 
UltraSound.  1MB of RAM on the UltraSound is recommended.  I'm 
not sure but I think all that is required for the GUS version 
of the player is a GUS, a 386 or better and DOS 3.0 or 
better.  I doubt you'll even need a VGA card because the only 
plain text is displayed.

Here are the names of the 669 files contained in this batch:

1SONG92.ZIP
ALUMINUM.ZIP
GROOVES.ARJ
XYPHER.ARJ

READ669.TXT contains the filenames of the first batch of .669 
files I uploaded.  This is because I didn't feel like making 
a .TXT file for everyone of the .669 files I uploaded.  
However, from now on I will do so to make them more 
recognizable.

Oh well, it's going to take forever to upload them at 2400 
bps but I'm going to do it anyway to help out all the GUS 
owners out there.  This batch contains most of the best 
sounding ones.  I urge users who have other .669 files to 
upload them to epas as well.

Look in the \pub\pc\ultrasound\submit directory.
From: mhemy+@cs.cmu.edu (Michael Hemy)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: HELP!...Puzzle#4 Video issues, ATI Ultra Pro LB
Date: 23 Dec 92 22:24:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BzqGwt.Ds1.1
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

Video issues...

Can you explain the following phenomenon? ATI rep could not...

I have a 486 DX2/66 with an ATI Ultra Pro LB. The motherboard supports
shadowing the video BIOS and this feature is enabled. My config.sys
file came configured with "DEVICE=C:\MACH32\RAMBIOS.SYS".
The ATI manual says that you should install
RAMBIOS.SYS in your config.sys file only if you DO NOT have shadowing,
to get the same effect. 

Here is the catch: when I run a program "checkit" (I know it's not the
best but it was on my HDD and I don't have anything else, see Puzzle
#3), I get slower results without the RAMBIOS.SYS file (75% slower!!!)

Questions:

1) Could it be that my shadowing option on the motherboard, even
enabled, does not work? If yes how can I check that?

2) Can there be something about the physical location of the copy of
the VIDEO BIOS? Like shadowing is done above 640K and config.sys puts
it below 640K?

3) Could they be accessed differently (shadow copy versus rambios
copy)?

Any ideas/comments/sugestions appreciated.

-- Michael
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: hama@ecf.toronto.edu (HAMA MELVIN SEIJI)
Subject: Help!  AMI Bios woes...
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 04:52:29 GMT

I know that this has been posted before, but I lost my copy of the beep
error codes for the AMI bios.  My girlfriend's computer is beeping and she 
is starting to get anxious...  If someone could mail or post a list of what
the beeps mean, I would really appreciate it!

Mel Hama
-- 

  "Never trust a junkie" 
			-- Ministry

Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris)
Subject: Re: The maxtor 213 meg drive is NOT 213 megs!
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 17:49:58 GMT

duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan) writes:

>And all this talk of UNformatted capacity is driving me nuts.  Exactly
>how much data can you store on an UNformatted drive?  Sound like 
>0 bytes to me :-).  If you gotta format it to use it...

If you're limiting your discussion to PC-compatible environments, the
unformatted capacity of a drive is not particularly meaningful except
as a first-order approximation, to be used in comparison to other drives'
unformatted capacity spec.

If you are referring to generic environments, or to computer systems which
allow the user to specify the physical record lengths of data on a disk,
then the "unformatted" capacity is a valid measure of the *maximum* 
amount of data which can be stored.  Until the length of the recorded
data blocks is specified, it's the only valid measure of the disk capacity.

Of course, you will achieve the maximum value only if every track on
the drive is formatted to contain exactly one record, and that record
has a length equal to the entire track.  Whenever you start formatting
a track to contain more than one physical record, you will lose some
of the capacity of the drive.  The track will still have the same number
of bytes of data, but some of them are now allocated to the inter-record
gap (IRG), others to the record headers used by the disk to locate the 
data records, and still others to checksums and other administrative
overhead.  The number of bytes lost in this way is a function of the
design of the disk and its controller.

As an example, most IBM mainframe disks allow the user to specify the
physical blocksize of the data on the disk.  For a 3380 disk, each
track has a maximum unkeyed record length of 47476 bytes...but look
at what happens when you start subdividing the real estate:

       Record      # of equal-size      Usable
        size       records per track     bytes
      --------         -----            ------
        47476             1              47476
         9076             5              45480
         4276            10              42760
         2164            18              38952

Formatting the track for 512-byte records would allow 46 records per
track, for a track capacity of 23552 bytes...about a 50% loss from the
unformatted capacity.

The comparison isn't completely valid because the mainframe disk has
to provide functions not necessary on a desktop system where the
block (= "sector") sizes are immutably fixed, but you can see that
the overhead associated with each block can quickly consume a lot of
the "unformatted" capacity when you format for small record sizes.

Now, if we can convince MS to allow DOS to talk (in native mode) to a 
physical disk whose sectors are equal to the cluster size (say, 2048
bytes for a typical hard disk today) then the amount of usable space would
go up by some amount for a disk of given unformatted capacity.

Joe Morris
From: doi@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Daniel Kuan Li Oi)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: NCR Graphics accelerator advice?
Date: 24 Dec 1992 06:16:02 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: tartarus.uwa.edu.au

krostrin@cats.ucsc.edu (Kenneth Robert Ostrin) writes:



>Can someone please tell me what the NCR graphics accelerator board is?  It says
>it has 2megs ram.  Is it 24bit?  How fast is it?  Is it S3 or some other chip?
>Any info would be appreciated.

>Thanks
>Ken

	I just bought a NCR 77C22E SVGA video controllerIt is 2MB though
it purports to have the ability to go up to 4MB.  It has a Sierra
HiColour RAMDAC giving 800*600*16bit resolution. It can go up to
1280*1024*8bit resolution interlaced.  The Winbench program gave a
reading of 3.4 million winmarks at 1024*768*8bit resolution.

	In the manual that came with the board, supposedly it can
support 1024*768 HiColour modes but the best drivers that came with the
board were 800*600*16 bit drivers for win 3.1. Maybe drivers utilizing
the boards capabilities will come out later.  

	Even though the board can support up to 4MB, the extra ram is
used for paging.  The board is XGA compatible as well.

	Hope that this info helps.  All the info came from the manual.

					Daniel Oi
					University of Western Australia


Disclaimer: I'm only a first year. What's your excuse.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: sheldon@iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon)
Subject: Re: Conner 170 meg drives any good?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: comp
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 06:50:25 GMT

In <7227@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> 6500boo@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (William Bushing) writes:

>I was looking at the Maxtor 7213A as the my next hard drive in
>a new system. The Conner 170 meg is now being offered instead
>by my vendor. Any comments on this drive, especially in comparison
>to the Maxtor? thanks in advance.


Conner makes good harddrives.
-- 
sheldon@iastate.edu                Steve Sheldon
Project Vincent                    ICSS Resource Unit
SCO ODT, Arc/Info, Atlas GIS       2142 Agronomy Hall
                                   Iowa State University
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: pjh@mccc.edu (Pete Holsberg)
Subject: InkJet Printers
Organization: The College On The Other Side Of Route One
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:16:45 GMT

I'm faced with making a rather quick decision about an inkjet printer
and my copy of the "printer issue" of PC Magazine is inaccessible!

Can someone tell me the relative merits of the popular inkjets? What
about the color inkjets?

Thanks and happy holidays.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: mtichy@fraser.sfu.ca (Martin Tichy)
Subject: Re: Viewsonic 6FS vs. NEC 3FGx
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 02:25:26 GMT

> Ahum. My NEC 4FG, which has almost the same tube as the 3FG (I've
> checked in the store) has a viewable area of 13.8". This is typical
> for all 15" displays. I don't expect the Viewsonic to do any
> better. But the 3FG
 
I noticed that in the in the fine print of NEC's adds.  My 
question is why do they call them 15" monitors then?  I 
thought the monitor I bought was a 14" monitor.  I measured 
the screen diagonally and it turns out it is more like 13.25 
inches.  This measurement was total glass, if I don't count 
the border it goes down to 12.25 inches.
 
I haven't seen many monitors but I did see the NEC 3fg and was 
totally stunned by it's clarity!  It was hooked up to an ATI 
Ultra Pro.  I have also seen the Viewsonic 5e and hooked up to 
a Tseng ET-4000 and it looked horrible.  Even on equal terms I 
can't imagine any monitor can look as good as one of the NEC 
xFG series.  I know the Viewsonic would have looked better on 
the Ultra Pro but I still can't imagine it looking as good as 
an NEC.
 
Anyways, I'm planning to buy the NEC 5fg.  I believe it can do 
1280x1024 at 74Hz NI.  Is this true?  It costs about $1800 
bucks Canadian locally, the Viewsonic 7 costs about $300 to 
$400 dollars less.  Should I even consider another monitor?  
Magazines tell me that the only thing close to an NEC are the 
Mitsubishi Diamond Scan series.
 
All recommendations are welcomed.  How about some specs too?

Merry X-mas all!
From: s106275@cc.tut.fi (Anssi Saari)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: The maxtor 213 meg drive is NOT 213 megs!
Date: 24 Dec 92 12:46:22 GMT
Organization: Tampere University of Technology, Finland


In <1992Dec24.103209.21401@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> lew@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Kevin A. Lew) writes:

>>>213,000,000 is not 213 megs (213 megs=213*1024*1024)

>213,000,000 bytes *IS* 213 Megabytes.  MS-DOS lists the free space
>you have on your hard drive in bytes.  Since MEGA = 10^6,
>213 Megabytes is 213,000,000 bytes.  In addition, 1 kilobyte is not
>1,024 bytes.  It is 1,000 bytes.  I just studied this stuff in
>a communication networks course and when I was studying for the CS GRE..

>Hope this clarifies things..

No, this is wrong. Here's a quote from the New Hacker's dictionary:

"Confusing 1000 and 1024 (or other powers of 2 and 10 close in magnitude) - for
example, describing a memory in units of 500K or 524K instead of 512K - is a
sure sign of the marketroid."

Of course, you ARE partly right, but not in this issue: one kilometer is 1000
meters, one kilogram is 1000 grams, one megawatt is 1e6 watts etc etc, but
this does not go for bytes. One kilobyte is 1024**1 == 2**10 bytes, one 
megabyte is 1024**2 == 2**20 == 1,048,576 bytes, one gigabyte is 1024**3 ==
1,073,741,824 bytes etc. 

Anssi
From: at608@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bob Rogers)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: RAM/ROM Speed And Shadowing
Date: 3 Jan 1993 00:59:03 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: at608@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bob Rogers)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


I recently bought Quarterdeck's memory manager.  It lets you move ROM code to
RAM for more speed.  Quarterdeck's Manifest program tells me that two areas
of upper memory are slow: A000-AFFF (Manifest calls this "VGA Graphics") and
B800-BFFF ("VGA Text").  When I tell QEMM to shadow the first area, VGA speed
goes _way_ down.  When I try shadowing the second area, the text display 
doesn't display reversed video correctly.  I've got an AMIBIOS, UNI chipset,
and Diamond SpeedStar+ video board (it's a 25mhz. 486sx).  I can move the BIOS
(both video and system) to RAM with no problems.

Can anybody explaine this too me?  I'd like to move as much as possible into
faster memory (the "slow" areas are about 1/3rd the speed of the "fast" areas).

Thanks.
-- 
Bob Rogers            Internet:  at608@cleveland.freenet.edu
From: f88hv@efd.lth.se (Henrik Vallgren)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: Why memory costs doubled
Date: 31 Dec 92 13:47:51 GMT
Reply-To: f88hv@efd.lth.se
Organization: Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden

A few years back, I read a book review in BYTE. The story
of the book was how Sony got into the television set market 
in the US. It's not about unfair trade, it's about short-
sighted american businesses trying to make a quick buck.

Sony offered a US manufacturer to sell tv sets cheaper than 
the US manufacturer could make them. In stead of trying to
cut costs in production, the US manufacturer gladly accepted 
Sony's offer, i e invited Sony into the US market.
A few years passed and Sony learned how the US market worked.
It was time for Sony's next move. They offered the same tv 
sets directly to the stores, just a bit cheaper, and put a 
new label onto their sets. The US "maker" was now almost out
of business.

THIS DISCUSSION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH UNFAIR COMPETITION.
What it's about is how much profit an investor demands out
of his investment. If the japanese always are willing to
accept lower returns than american "businessmen", free trade 
will, justly, result in japanese taking over market after 
market.

In fact, in the same review (I think), it was made clear that
american "businessmen" where only too happy to let go of the
memory market, since profits where too low for them. What has
now occured to them is that memory has become a good way for
asian industries to learn how to produce hightech silicon.
The idiots who gave up the memory market and concentrated on
the highprofit areas will soon fidnd them selves some real
hard competition. To the benefit of us endusers of course.

This discussion is about longterm vs. shortterm investment.
Those not willing to make longterm investments don't belong
in the industry.


Henrik Vallgren
f88hv@efd.lth.se
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: markp@pro-palmtree.socal.com (Mark Panitz)
Subject: Re: cancel 
Organization: The Palmtree BBS - 310/453-8726 - Santa Monica, CA
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 01:16:43 GMT

cancel


-----
UUCP: hatch!pro-palmtree!markp                    The Palmtree BBS
Inet: markp@pro-palmtree.socal.com                310-453-8726 v.32
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: RFD: how about comp.sys.ibm.pc.advocacy?
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:24:37 GMT

In article <1h5k1sINNj9k@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Nan Zou) writes:
>I've been away from the net for a couple of months now, got tangled up
>with school and finals, and when I came back, I see page after page of
>flame wars in comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.  And I got to thinking: isn't it
>about time to create a comp.sys.ibm.pc.advocacy?  So that all the flames
>and debates can go there and leave c.s.i.p.hardware for people who
>wish to discuss hardware topics.  People may think an advocacy group
>will itself generate more flames, while this may be true, at least it'll
>keep the religious flame wars from spilling over to the other groups.
>
>
>-- Nan

While I'm not sure it will keep the OS/2 vs. NT wars from OS/2 and
Windows advocacy groups, it is sure worth a try.  Seconded!

jmalloy@hamilton.edu


Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan)
Subject: Re: The maxtor 213 meg drive is NOT 213 megs!
Reply-To: duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan)
Organization: College of Computing
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 16:35:52 GMT

lew@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Kevin A. Lew) writes:

>>>213,000,000 is not 213 megs (213 megs=213*1024*1024)

>213,000,000 bytes *IS* 213 Megabytes.  MS-DOS lists the free space
>you have on your hard drive in bytes.  Since MEGA = 10^6,
>213 Megabytes is 213,000,000 bytes.  In addition, 1 kilobyte is not
>1,024 bytes.  It is 1,000 bytes.  I just studied this stuff in
>a communication networks course and when I was studying for the CS GRE..

>Hope this clarifies things..

Well, the communication people (computer networking) use the 
1000 convention.  For gigabit networks, they mean 10^9 
(1 billion=1000000000) bits.  However, a kilobyte *is* 1024 
bytes.  They use a different convention than people who design 
memory.  Think about it: your pc with 640K has 655360 bytes, 
not 640000 bytes.

And all this talk of UNformatted capacity is driving me nuts.  Exactly
how much data can you store on an UNformatted drive?  Sound like 
0 bytes to me :-).  If you gotta format it to use it...

-rick


"Random acts of violence just don't do it for me anymore.  Call it 
 maturity.  Bang!  Bang!  Heh, heh." - Cactus Jack, WCW Saturday Night 07/04/92
Rick Duggan | duggan@cc.gatech.edu | CS4804A-C/CS1501 TA - Section C
Office Hours: Tuesday 1:30-3:00 Managment IBM Lab
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: pentangl@spdcc.com (Scott Moir)
Subject: Re: Packard Bell Experiences?
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 13:36:46 GMT

I service IBM compats, and I usually find that Packard Bell does evoke more
groans of dismay from service people than most other machines.. (Leading
Edge seems to be the least favorite, microchannel ones are even worse.)

However.... I own a Packard Bell Legend 386/33 and I am really pleased with it.
I am not sure when it was made, but it is the only Packard Bell that I have 
seen to date with an all Intel board. 47+ chips in the board are from Intel,
and the board is clearly marked as being from Intel. What I -don't- know is
if this is the original board for the machine. (I think it is)

My $0.02

Scott

-- 
Scott Moir  /  Satyr on IRC    ______ # "There's really only one requirement 
pentangl@Ursa-Major.spdcc.com  \ \/ / #  for a Prophet, and you've got it."
B4 f t+ w g k+(+!) s+ m r p+    \/\/  # "What's that?"
also smoir@World.std.com              # "A mouth." - 'God' to J.R.'BoB' Dobbs
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: sheldon@iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon)
Subject: Re: Is there any merit to the 486SX?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 03:07:43 GMT

In <1hv2pqINN8mo@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> schottd@ucs.orst.edu (Derek Schott) writes:

>> Obviously if you're buying a 486SX you don't anticipate needing a math
>>coprocessor, and if you had you'd be buying a 486DX.

>So to answer my question, who needs a math coprocessor anyways?
>What programs really benefit from it, and how much? It sounds like
>one of those things that might benefit certain applications, but 
>hardly be noticable to the average user.

 Mostly your Scientific, mathematical type programs.  Also CAD, and and some
other graphics type programs.  I'm sure it's probably used in raytracing and
such, as well. Large spreadsheet users will benefit also.

 But not the kinds of things your typical home PC user would do.

 Which again, was my point.  The 486SX right now as replaced the 386DX
systems effectively.  They're priced the same, and the 486SX can provide
better performance.

 Obviously people running AutoCAD, MathCAD, FFT programs, etc are going to
be wanting that coprocessor...  But then they're not necessarily home PC
owners either.

-- 
sheldon@iastate.edu                Steve Sheldon
Project Vincent                    ICSS Resource Unit
SCO ODT, Arc/Info, Atlas GIS       2142 Agronomy Hall
                                   Iowa State University
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: jaaps@sci.kun.nl (Jaap Shane)
Subject: Re: Viewsonic 6FS vs. NEC 3FGx
Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 10:20:42 GMT

In <1992Dec21.194354.11399@ultb.isc.rit.edu> yxl5388@ultb.isc.rit.edu (Y.X. Liu) writes:

>In article <85622@ut-emx.uucp> reza@magellan.ae.utexas.edu (Alireza Vali) writes:
>>Hello out there.  I've grown sick & tired of my interlaced, flickering
>>monitor.  The 17" monitors are definitely out of my price range, and 
>>another 14" monitor is out of the question.  Given that, I've been
>>looking at various 15" monitors and have narrowed down my choices to
>>the Viewsonic 6FS and the NEC 3FGx.  The two are identically priced
>>and the specs are somewhat similar so it's time to move from objective
>>to subjective comparisons.  Does anyone have first hand experience 
>>using either or both of these monitors?  If so, I would appreciate any
>>feedback on the subject.  Please respond by e-mail because I will miss
>>all the followups because of the upcoming holidays.  Thanks in advance.
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>Ali R. Vali - reza@magellan.ae.utexas.edu

>Get the Viewsonic. The NEC3FGx has a huge wide border that the actual
>display area is maybe around 13".

Ahum. My NEC 4FG, which has almost the same tube as the 3FG (I've checked
in the store) has a viewable area of 13.8". This is typical for all 15"
displays. I don't expect the Viewsonic to do any better. But the 3FG
will do 1024x768 only interlaced, which the Viewsonic can do NI. In fact,
you should probably compare the Viewsonic to the 4FG. In that case, the 4FG
is technically a better monitor, but the Viewsonic is cheaper and has a
somewhat higher video bandwidth. After some thinking, I decided to pay 
the additional US$100 for the NEC. But I would choose the 6FS over the 3FG.

Talking about viewable area, the SUN I'm writing this on has a 17" Trinitron
tube with, you guessed it, 15.5" viewable diagonal. Same as the NEC 5FG,
viewsonic 7, Nanao 550 and 560 ...

--
----------------------------+------------------------------------------------
Jaap Shane                  | Department of Physical Chemistry,
Internet : jaaps@sci.kun.nl | Catholic University of Nijmegen  
Bitnet   : U627008@HNYKUN11 | Toernooiveld, 6525ED, Nijmegen, The Netherlands