From: das9674@ucs.usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A)
Subject: Re: Move
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern La., Lafayette
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 05:19:22 GMT

In article <C1A1Fy.4no@news.udel.edu> don@chopin.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd) writes:
> das9674@ucs.usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A) writes:
>
>>>C:\Games\Amiga_Port_We_Pretend_We_Invented
>>>
>>>	... oh, sorry - that wouldn't FIT, would it???    8)
>>
>>Sure it would.   OS/2's HPFS allows for 255-char. filename, directories longer 
>     But if it were a game (or anything else, for that matter) that ran under
>DOS or Windows, it wouldn't work on an HPFS partition.  If you want long
>filenames, you have to give up any chance of using non-OS2 apps on that
>partition.  And we all know how few real OS/2 apps there are :-)

Nope, I can run Windows and DOS software under Os/2 *in* an HPFS partition,
easily.  I just used those directory names as an example; they are quite valid,
however, I run Falcon 3.0 uder DOS only, since it is pointless to run a
fighter sim of such magnificence in multitasking OS/2, and because DOS gives
a better framerate (better reason)

>>than the one you cited. Without have to resort to underscores, I'd just
>>use SPACES.  But then again, you Amigans would not KNOW about such 
>>trivial niceties, would you???    8)
>
>     Why not? Spaces are perfectly legal characters in Amiga filenames.

Ach, I thought they were disallowed.  Sorry.   If I remember it right, Skip
made some comment once about using underscores... I thought he meant he
HAD to use them.

>Personally, I usually replace them with underscores just to avoid having to
>put quotes around whole file names, though.

Well, I avoid huge names (ie, over 50) in general, so I don't do TOO
much, either way.

Although, heh heh, I guess  I oughtta figure out wildcards for cd'ing into
those weird-name directories.  Too damn long, often.  Jerry, any ideas?
The online docs are pathetic in this regard.

I agree totally with you folks that FAT is awful.  Now, when I code
fortran for a project, I can have stuff like 

 9-29-92   7:01p       335           0  BB.input data
 9-29-92   7:07p      1286         245  BB.numerical analysis
 9-29-92   7:05p      5056           0  BB.output data
10-27-92  10:05p      4183           0  BB.program
10-09-92  10:56p       554           0  BB.program.no comments
 9-29-92  11:55p       806         365  BB.variable list
 9-29-92   5:04p      1286           0  Beattie-Bridgeman numerical analysis- BR
IEF
 9-29-92   5:33p       779           0  Beattie-Bridgman variable list and defin
ition
 9-29-92   7:17p      7557           0  beattie.txt
        20 file(s)      31514 bytes used
                     11755520 bytes free

[D:\Atext\ENGR300\Beattie-Bridgeman Project]

I mean, wow!  I don't know how I got along without it... it is aggrevating when
I use a Windows program and go back to damn 8.3.  Couldn't program simply
*accept* the filenames other than the 8.3 limited by *FAT*, and let DOS
handle the filename problem rather than the program itself under which you are 
naming the file?!

Now, I hear, Stacker is only making Stacker for OS/2 that uses FAT!  AaarrghghghH!

>>I COULD have cited a directory named "Falcon 3.0 which AMigans do not have"
>>or one called D:\Games\Ultima Underworld  
>>or one called D:\Games\Stunt Island - no Amigans apply.
>
>     I could create a directory called "Under 8 meg multitasking" which would
>be readable by every application I have, no matter what file system I happen
>to be using on that particular device (unless, of course, it's an MS-DOS disk;
>I wouldn't be able to use such a long file name to begin with).  Not to mention
>that when I want to get rid of it, I can do so with a single command... not so
>easy from a stock OS/2 or MS-DOS shell environment (granted it can be easily
>done with File Manager or WPS).

Yeah, that can be a problem.  FAT cannot read HPFS.  Thanksfully, though, the
DOS and Windows software that expect FAT usually do not call on an OS/2-ish
wierd-name directory for stuff.

>>Geez, it sounds like Amigans have found the one last thing  about
>>PCs that they can latch onto and bash.
>
>     Nah, there are plenty of fun things to bash about PCs.

You mean, besides latching onto the placement of the \ on keyboards?

heh ehh, under 8 megs multitasking... it's all relative.

>>Well, you Amigans are guilty, too, then.  Have you ever been told
>>'don't touch that while <such and such> is active, the computer will
>>crash if you do'??
>
>     All the time on the PCs at work :-)

Foul!

>>OS/2, the OS we WERE talking about, doens't have any 640K barrier.  And
>>what does it say for Amigas that MSDOS can run some better applications than
>>an Amiga with NO 640K barrier.  Right, that there is the ol' Amiaa 
>>'I might not have a hard drive or more than a meg, anyway' barrier.  Note:
>>YOU sure don't point things like this out, ad nauseum.
>
>     DOS windows still have a 640K barrier within OS/2.  Of course, you 
>don't have to use DOS at all if you don't want to, so there goes a large
>chunk of those "better applications".

True, the "better applications" aren't here yet.  DeScribe 4.0 got a Runner Up
in PC computing's best Word Processor award, along with Word for Windows.
Ami Pro for Windows beat them all.  Hmm, I wonder how many people will reconsider
OS/2 when Ami pro for OS/2 beats out Word in such contents.

>     Side question: is it true that, depending on what display driver you're
>running, DOS and WINOS2 sessions can limit or prohibit multitasking under OS/2?
>I believe I remember reading that in one of the help files in OS/2 2.1...

Umm, I don't think I know what you are talking about.  Are you talking
about running Windows 3.1 seamless on the OS/2 desktop?  Other than that,
I don't know what you're talking about.

>Don Lloyd           | Publications Editor, AmigaNetwork |AmigaNetwork Voice Mail
>don@chopin.udel.edu | AmigaNetwork BBS (The Original!)  | Info by voice or FAX
-- 
Dan Stephenson   das9674@usl.edu