HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hoppie@kub.nl (Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers)
Subject: Re: DOS not operating system, film at 11. : -)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 11:12:19 GMT
Organization: Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

In article <1992Nov14.022950.29092@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>Of course, I have my own theory about GUI's for the average person. I
>proceed from the observed fact (in my experience on the average liberal
>arts college campus) that most people neither need nor really want
>multitasking.  Most people do one thing, stop, do another, an go back,
>perhaps, to the first job.  (I'm not suggesting this is the *best* way
>to computer, only that this is how most real live end-users work). 

Alright, we start over again :-)

Imagine a user who runs WordPerfect, then decides to look at a
spreadsheet. Quit WP, enter Lotus, quit Lotus, enter WP again. For
her/him, this is a natural way to work WITH A ONE-TASK-ONLY COMPUTER!
(no, no, no, do NOT start a flame about multi tasking versus task
swapping PLEASE!). Naturally (s)he will continue this way if nobody
tells her/him that her machine *can* leave one task sitting in the
background. 

But I'm absolutely 100% convinced that this is *not* a natural way to
work as a human being. Ever seen my desk? :-)

And in my experience, most people really are amazed
at first when confronted with a multi-tasker/swapper and then
immediately realize "Hey, now *that's* handy" and cannot go back to
monotasking ever since.

 
Jeroen

-- 
Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers, research engineer at     |  Stop connecting computers;
Infolab, Tilburg University, The Netherlands    |  start connecting people!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: janovetz@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Jacob W Janovetz)
Subject: CHKDSK problems-> Bug? Virus? Feature?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 00:38:21 GMT

   Please try this at home.

   1) Reboot OS/2 to a completely empty workplace (ie no processes)
   2) Open a OS/2 Full Screen c:\ session.
   3) Run chkdsk
   4) exit OS/2 Full Screen
   5) Open a OS/2 Full Screen c:\ session.  (Yes, again)
   6) Run chkdsk

The above is really (probably) only applicable to a single partitioned HPFS
hard drive.  Here's what happened to me.

  I have a 486dx/50 8Meg ram, 210Meg Maxtor IDE Hard Drive, Diamond Speedstar
graphics card, running OS/2 v.2.0 with CSD and Tseng 4000 800x600 support all
installed.
  I ran the chkdsk and noted 2 'CHKDSK fixed a disk allocation error' (or
something very close to that)  Then, I exited OS/2 and did the chkdsk again.
I got the same 2 errors.  CHKDSK DID say it FIXED those errors, but they pop
up again.  If I run CHKDSK *TWICE* in the SAME OS/2 SESSION one right after
the other, the first chkdsk gives the errors, the second doesn't.  I did this
again and OS/2 gave me a SYS2070 error, I continued, and OS/2 was brought down
to a crawl. (Not even functional).  Then, I tried to reboot to no avail.  So,
I got out the ol' Install disks and tried a 'chkdsk /f:3' off of the second
install disk.  This took about 15 minutes.  I reboot and all goes fine,,
except that the chkdsk thing described above still happens.  
  I called IBM Tech Support.  I told the guy I THOUGHT this COULD be a virus,
because of the lost allocation units, but that it doesn't seem to characteristic
of a virus in some ways because SCAN_OS2 from McAfee didn't detect squat and
neither did about 4 other virus things.  He told me that I should change the
following in my config.sys:

     MAX_WAIT = 3       to       MAX_WAIT = 1
     THREADS = 256      to       THREADS = 512
    
  I think that's it.  Anyhow, this little 'fix' fixed the SYS2070 error, I 
think.,  I stil have to do some more tests.  But, the chkdsk thing still goes
on.  What I want to know is:

  - Am I worrying entirely too much over two allocation units that recur a lot
    or could this be the beginning of a long string of corruptions to my HD?
  - Is there a REALLY good PD/ShareWare virus scanner for OS/2 that I can use
    that would be better than McAfee's?  Also, while I'm on the subject, I 
    would like one that boots with OS/2 and stays in memory (TSR like) so it
    monitors boot sectors, DOS, Win-OS/2, and OS/2 sessions and even the
    memory...  (thanks)
  - Is this a bug in OS/2, chkdsk, or anything else?
  - Is there a fix?

  Any info would be helpful.  Thank you very much...

      /
   / * /   Jake Janovetz
  *   *
From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: Workers hate windoze, revolution at 11!  :-)
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 19:25:52 GMT

In article <GERRY.92Nov13123205@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>Loo, I don't want to insult your mon, but she's pretty stupid.  With
>the exception of TeX, which I assume she doesn't use, no text based
>editor even comes close to looking as good as the worst windows based
>editor.   Some people are still living in the dark ages, and think of
>computers as typewriters with built in spell checkers.  Luckily, that
>breed will soon die off.
>
Gerry-

	Do you really need to be so abusive to make a point?  Besides
which, you're not even right.  Sure, a windows-based editor may look
better (I agree, although this is, of course, purely subjective), may
having bit-mapped fonts and the overhead of a GUI also makes it slower.
I write some pretty long documents at times, and find that most Windows
based word processors are S-L-O-W at scrolling through them, catching
characters as I type them, etc.  DOS text mode ones are better at this,
since they don't have to deal with the graphics.  A quandary?  Well, it
was, but I find that OS/2 scrolls its windows fast enough for me, so I
get the look and the speed.  But nonetheless, the case can be made for
individuals preferring character based-apps, and there is no need to
insult their intelligence because of it.
-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: My impression of NT Beta. . .
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 03:24:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov24.011715.5814@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>
>	Anyone want an honor bet on this--within one (1) month
>	of NT shipping there will be at least 5 heavy-duty applications 
>	(for _nt_ not just Win32) and up-to-date drivers for ATI,
>	Diamond, S3, NCR, Western Digital, etc.. cards.
>
>	Plus, I'm willing to bet that NT will install _out_of_the_box_
>	on machines that OS/2 seems to barf on.  

I'll most certainly take you up on that one:).  Seriously, I think you're 
dreaming.  We'll see however, in several months.

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: Bug? Virus? Feature? -- Big mistake.
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:45:59 GMT

In article <By6n28.HLq@news.cso.uiuc.edu> janovetz@meibm4.cen.uiuc.edu (Jacob W Janovetz) writes:
>   I posted a note earlier about 'chkdsk' giving errors sometimes if it is 
>just run on a clean slate as a Full Screen session.  I screwed up.  Here's
>what happened.  When I have nothing going in OS/2, the swap file appears
>to be around 2 meg.  However, when I run OS/2 Full Screen, OS/2 tries to
>extend the swap file to 4 meg (or so).  However, since I have the HPFS
>thing and Lazy Writes on, it doesn't do this until about 5-6 seconds
>AFTER the Full Screen session is loaded.  SOooo, if I load the full screen
>session, then wait about 5 seconds (when the disk is accessed for a short
>time), then do a chkdsk, all is good and dandy.  Thanks to those who replied,
>but I figured out my mistake last night...  However, I did get one reply 
>about Virus Software.

Uhh, I wouldn't say that's your mistake, that's a bug.  Lazy Writing should
be transparent to the user.  If you are experiencing problems with software
because of Lazy Writing, *please* report it to IBM.  Either chkdsk or the
cache should be watching out for a mistake like that.  LW should be quirkless.

Ted
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Date: 15 Nov 1992 21:36:17 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Nov13.091208.29456@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>advocates: "I like my system"
>bigots:    "Your system sucks"

So what about those of us who say, "I like my system, because I've tried it
and your system, and your system sucks, and mine doesn't"?
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
           "Cat: Four legs and an attitude." -- Jim Reese
From: 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: COMDEX Awards
Date: 21 Nov 92 23:13:35 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1992Nov21.213610.8366@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
> In article <1992Nov20.181435.17645@husc3.harvard.edu> chandoni@husc8.harvard.edu writes:
>>rbotimer@max.ct.gmr.com (R Douglas Botimer) writes:
>>(from an IBM press release)
>>>  PC/Computing on Sunday named OS/2 2.0 co-winner of the
>>                                         ---------
>>>  operating system/environment award as part of its annual
>>>  "Most Valuable Products" (MVP) awards ceremony.  In
>>>  selecting OS/2 2.0 for this honor, the editors of
>>>  PC/Computing stated, "this is the operating system Windows**
>>>  3.1 should have been."
>>
>>Co-winner???  What product was the other co-winner... the NT
>>beta?  Or did this competition include OS's for other machines
>>(i.e. Nextstep or System 7)?
> 
> No, the co-winner was Windows 3.1, OS/2 is not sophisticated enough
> to compete with Windows NT yet, nor is Windows NT released yet.
> I read the PC/Computing article, and it was soundly based.

	Not "sophisticated" enough?  Come now, that's nonsense.
It is not a released product and that is why it was not mentioned.
Even if it was thrown out the door right now it would not likely have
beaten out OS/2 2.0.  They would probably have said something along the
lines of: "A great technological piece of software but without reliable
DOS support and unremarkable Windows support, NT is clearly for a niche."
	Now when NT is released and perhaps gains more of its future
features and such, I imagine that we will see NT going for the award.

						-Brad


> 
> Brian
> -- 
> C. Brian Sturgill                   I strongly encourage you to mail your copy
> University of Utah                     of Ross Perot's:  "United We Stand
> Center for Software Science            How we can take back our country",
> brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373        to President-elect Clinton.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: kcurtis@nizki.engin.umich.edu (Keith Curtis)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 21:00:23 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Originator: kcurtis@nizki.engin.umich.edu


> In article <1992Nov13.091208.29456@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> >advocates: "I like my system"
> >bigots:    "Your system sucks"
> 
> So what about those of us who say, "I like my system, because I've tried it
> and your system, and your system sucks, and mine doesn't"?

>You like your system because mine sucks????  I think that would
>most probably fall under "bigots trying to disguise themselves
>as advocates".  

>I like my system because it does what I want it to do, and
>whether your system sucks or not has no bearing on whether I like
>my system.


-------------
Now granted there is a fine line between an advocate and a bigot--
Lets follow the logic of an advocate under Pete's def:
Advocate: I like my system.
	  I didn't like your system.  Your system can't do what I want to do very well.
	  Your system is bad--in fact it sucks!  Thats why I'm using my system.

I would call him merely an advocate of his system, albeit a strong one, but Pete would say he's a bigot...



Well, here is my definition of advocate versus bigot:

Advocate--I like my system--yours sucks.
Bigot--Everyone in the world should be using my system.



>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...

-Keith
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: OS/2 Beta
From: aleung@uwpg02.uwinnipeg.ca
Date: 17 NOV 92 02:06:40 CST
Organization: University of Winnipeg

Where I can get a copy of OS/2 Beta ?
Thanks!
Alan/
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: jadpc2
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 12:35:52 -0800
From: Skeptic@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: Re: Mirrors and Ami Pro
Comment-To: Brian_Sturgill@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: Skeptic@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

S>Really?  Then how come the product manager for AmiPro for OS/2 says
it
S>doesn't use Mirrors?  Perhaps this could have something to do with
S>your information being *INCORRECT*?

 BS> Look I'm only quoting the Micrografx rep at the OS/2 
 BS> developers conference.
 BS> The Micrografx rep EXPLICITLY stated that Lotus was using Mirrors
for
 BS> AmiPro and many of their other products.  He could be lying, he
could
 BS> could be misinformed, or (what I think most likely) he is right.

I don't think you personally or the Micrografx guy are try to pull the
wool over anybody's eyes, just that the information is incorrect.

 BS> _I_ at least have the courtesy to let people see what my sources
for the
 BS> information are.  Would you like to elaborate on where your
information
 BS> comes from?  I mean if you've got access to the guy personally,
then
 BS> great, your information source would be better than mine.
 BS> I find it very unlikely that the Micrografx rep would explicitly
lie.

I find it unlikely that Doug Benson, the product manager for Ami Pro
for OS/2, would lie.  Since I asked him if Ami Pro for OS/2 uses
Mirrors when standing about two feet away from him, I do not think
that he misunderstood me, either, especially when he continued on
talking about how Ami Pro for OS/2 development had started in summer
1992.  As far as Doug and the other Lotus people have indicated, the
upcoming 32-bit OS/2 versions of 1-2-3, Freelance, Ami Pro, and
cc:Mail are all native OS/2 apps and do not use Mirrors in any way.
The new cc:Mail in particular appears to be a substantial (maybe
total?) rewrite with tight WPS integration.



--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: weinkam@fraser.sfu.ca (James Lawrence Weinkam)
Subject: Re: Bug? Virus? Feature? -- Big mistake.
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:00:02 GMT

I believe that this was a bug in os/2 that has been fixed.  Does it report
the 2 errors being in the file swapper.dat, if so it has been fixed, and
installing the SP will correct the problem.  If not, I do not know what
the problem is since I do not get any errors when I run chkdsk on my
system.  

James Weinkam
From: lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (m.l. gore)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 support is late
Date: 20 Nov 92 13:53:42 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

>|> Thus an OS/2 Windows support user will always get the latest version
>|> of Windows a couple of months later than Windows NT users will get it.
>
>Hmm, so March to December is "a couple of months" is it?
>
>Advocates here talk about the new features OS/2, but I think it will take IBM
>a while to get them ready if it takes them 8 months to simply update an
>existing bit of OS/2 code. After all, advocates keep saying that Windows 3.1
>is just a bug fix. So why has it taken IBM 8 months to apply a few bug fixes?
>
>Besides, "the latest version of Windows" is Windows NT. Will OS/2 have NT
>support two or three months after NT is released?
>

    The latest version of Windows is 3.1. NT is a complete OS that has yet to
    be released. Lets stick to facts.

    To me, the real issue of support, and how quickly IBM can crack out an
    update, points at the exact nature of the cross-liscence agreement with
    MS. DOes IBM get source code all the time? IS the code delayed? Or do they
    have to wait until a product is released to view the code?

    IBM had to rewrite much to produce WINOS2. Sure, its looks like windows,
    but is it really? When I used the beta, I noticed that WINOS2 3.1 was not
    just a 'bug fix', but rather an enhancement of 3.0. The most obvious
    difference being pure speed.

    I don't know why people continue to complain that OS/2 failed to support
    3.1 on time. How wany native 3.1 app are there now, that won't run under
    3.0? If you wnat to put OS/2 down, you yell that they don't support 3.1,
    and complain about lack of native OS/2 apps. Sounds fishy to me...is there
an MS rep around here =}

                                            later,

                                            bvl
-- 

  Lehigh University-AXP
  lbv2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu

            OS/2 2.0...anything else is just a DOS.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: ckincy@mcs213f.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Windoze point-n-drool interface.  (Workers hate windoze, revolution at 11!  :-)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 08:55:09 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

In article <1992Nov15.192552.626@grebyn.com> mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli) writes:
>In article <GERRY.92Nov13123205@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>>Loo, I don't want to insult your mon, but she's pretty stupid.  With
                                   ^^^
>>the exception of TeX, which I assume she doesn't use, no text based
>>editor even comes close to looking as good as the worst windows based
>>editor.   Some people are still living in the dark ages, and think of
>>computers as typewriters with built in spell checkers.  Luckily, that
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^forget to use yours?
>>breed will soon die off.
>>

Gee, Gerry, most of us thought that those people that found 
Microsoft's "point-and-drool" interface to be superior would eventually
die off.  

Well, one can only hope.  But then we'd have to rmgroup comp.
ms-windows.advocacy.  And that would be a sad thing.  Because
then I'd lose a source of rib-tickling entertainment.

Computers are tools, bonehead.  Would you drool into a powersaw?
Didn't think so.  Although, I'm sure it would save the net bandwidth
if you did.
 
>Gerry-
>	Do you really need to be so abusive to make a point?  Besides
>which, you're not even right.  Sure, a windows-based editor may look
>better (I agree, although this is, of course, purely subjective), may
>having bit-mapped fonts and the overhead of a GUI also makes it slower.
>I write some pretty long documents at times, and find that most Windows
>based word processors are S-L-O-W at scrolling through them, catching
>characters as I type them, etc.  DOS text mode ones are better at this,
>since they don't have to deal with the graphics.  A quandary?  Well, it
>was, but I find that OS/2 scrolls its windows fast enough for me, so I
>get the look and the speed.  But nonetheless, the case can be made for
>individuals preferring character based-apps, and there is no need to
>insult their intelligence because of it.

And at least the OS/2 interface attempts to appeal to the intellect.
And, studies prove that OS/2 users go through fewer mice than Windows
users.  Drool and mice do not mix well.  Drool tends to corrode the
contacts.
 
Do drool stains invalidate Microsoft licenses?  I surely hope not.

cpk
No, you folks don't deserve smileys.  
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: 880506s@dragon.acadiau.ca (James R. Skinner)
Subject: Re: Jerry Pournelle (BYTE Mag) Gives Lukewarm Review of OS/2 2.0
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 18:02:40 GMT

akodama@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Arthur Kodama) writes:

>Anyone read Jerry Pournelle's latest column in BYTE Magazine?  His
>review of OS/2 2.0 may surprise those of you who a few months ago
>ragged on him for putting OS/2 2.0 on the backburner simply becuz
>he couldn't boot the OS/2 2.0 installation disks from his 5.25" drive
>A:.

I two was VERY suprised.  I found that he gave a very relistic review of
OS/2, saying that it was a better DOS and DOS but not a better Windows 
than windows at lest not yet...

>He finally got around to reviewing OS/2 2.0 this month and gave a
>decent review, considering he's the applications type that typically
>stick to their Windows citing the fact that it has the most support.

I expected him to give it a bad review but he really seem to do a fair
job.  My view of him was changed a little by the review...

-- 

-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
        James Robie Skinner        |     Jodrey School of Computer Science        James.Skinner@dragon.acadiau.ca  |  Acadia University, Wolfville, NS, Canada
-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com (John Brock)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Reply-To: uunet!csfb1!jbrock
Organization: First Boston Corporation
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 05:58:35 GMT

In article <gnash.721870994@ee.uts.EDU.AU>, gnash@ee.uts.edu.au (Greg Nash) writes:
|> 
|> >It seems odd that in a multitasking environment one can write any application
|> >that can crash the whole OS.  
|> 
|> How about Unix? I have a friend that wrote a 2-line program (of course could
|> have compressed it to 1 line) that has brought down every unix system he
|> has tried it on (with permission. half a dozen different breeds/versions
|> of unix when I last heard, a couple of years ago).  I'm not excusing OS/2
|> for being crashable despite claims to the contrary, but it doesn't shock
|> me that it happens.  I wonder if anyone will ever crash NT?
|> 
|>  -- Greg Nash

I'm sorry, but I do a lot of work on an IBM mainframe running VM/CMS,
and an application running in a virtual machine just does not crash the
system (unless the machine has special privileges), no matter how badly
behaved it is.  I can forgive UNIX for being crashable (it's *old*),
but I don't think a normal application (as opposed to a device driver
or something that touches the hardware directly) should ever be able to
crash a fully modern operating system.  We should have *something* to
show for all these years of operating system experience, shouldn't we?

-- 
John Brock
uunet!csfb1!jbrock
jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: OS/2 is NOT Crashproof!
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 02:25:19 GMT

Note the followup, please.

In article <mcdonald.527@aries.scs.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald) writes:
>OS/2 later   .... never tried it, don't intend to until its bug free

That really doesn't seem to be all that realistic.  Every nontrivial
piece of software is bound to have bugs of one sort or another.
Windows 3.1 has numerous bugs, OS/2 2.0 has bugs, NT will have bugs,
Unix has bugs, DOS has bugs -- there are bugs all over.

Moreover, the question of whether a given piece of software has bugs
which impact your own use is entirely dependent on, well, you (meaning
your hardware, your software, and your patterns of use).  If OS/2 is
something you believe may be of potential value, well, there's no use
acting like an ostrich.  Give it a spin -- there's a money back
guarantee, after all.  And there's almost zero correlation between how
a beta behaves in a sample of one and how the final product does.

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0g, available from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8554 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2736