HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: NT Under SCO Unix
Date: 5 Oct 92 03:52:59 GMT
Reply-To: dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann)
Followup-To: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
Organization: University of Arizona

In article <1992Oct04.025800.1694@ksmith.uucp>, keith@ksmith (Keith Smith) writes:
>I kinda like the SPEED and simplicity of the text based interface.

Exactly what kind of "text-based" interface are you talking about?
Those 80x25 port-holes that pass for text terminals?

>In fact even though I can use X or even windows at work I don't.  I
>just don't ever SEE any business apps running 90% graphics.

I'm a programmer, so the actual graphics capabilities of X are incidental
to me.  However -- the real estate represented by a workstation-sized
screen is pure gold, IMHO.

Being able to open up an emacs window the hight of the screen and see 80 or
100 lines of code at once is simply indespensible.  And being able to have
a shell window open along side my editor window means I don't have to mess
around with ^Z/fg to switch back and forth; in fact, I can see my output
and the code that generated it at the same time.

For a terminal screen sized GUI environment, this is mitigated quite a bit,
but the ability to exploit a multitasking environment windows gives you
is still just as important.

A bit-mapped oriented display also gives you the ability to do desktop
publishing stuff (something that's probably more important to someone
concerned with "buisiness apps").

-- 
What signature?
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions
From: bill@snoopy (Bill Poitras)
Subject: Re: NT Under SCO Unix
Reply-To: bill@msi.com
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:19:41 GMT

Ajay Shah (ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu) wrote:
: jbone@splat.dell.com (Jeff Bone) writes:
: 
: >Aaaargh!  Not this damned argument again!  NT will, supposedly, implement
: >a *strict* subset of UNIX --- POSIX.
: 
: Many people have written that the "POSIX under WNT" may be a con, a
: way to attract software development under the false promise of source
: compatibility with Unix.  Just like the false promises of running DOS
: software.

I have also read that programs that need access to more than one API (ie
POSIX and Win32) will have to be split into two separate programs that
communicate with each other.  That would make porting graphics
applications, harder.  One part would depend on the POSIX stuff, and the
other would be a port of the X stuff to Win32.

--
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Bill Poitras    | Molecular Simulations Inc.    | Tel (408)522-9229       |
| (bill)          | Sunnyvale, CA USA             |                         | 
|                 | FAX (408)732-0831             | bill@msi.com            |
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+

Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
From: tomw@stephanie.megatek.com (Tom Wright)
Subject: FTP site for DOS emulation software for SPARC???
Organization: Megatek Corporation, San Diego, California
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:46:13 GMT

Since this news topic is new, I assume there is no FAQ yet. If there is, and
this is answered in it, my apologies.

Is there any FTP site where I can get software to run MS-DOS programs on my
SPARC Station? My needs are modest. I only want to run a simple screen editor.
It's hard for me to justify paying $500+ for Sun's offering when a) the editor
only cost $59, and b) I could buy a whole PC for $500.

Any help would be appreciated.
From: denis@smoky.ikf.physik.uni-frankfurt.de (Denis Endisch)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
Subject: Re: DOS + F-Keys on ASCII terms
Date: 3 Oct 92 21:14:12 GMT
Organization: Institut fuer Kernphysik, Frankfurt/Main

phil@bts.com (Phil Eschallier) writes:
>i am running isc 386/ix 3.0 (sys5.3.2) ... using their vpix package, i
>can run my peachtree accounting software from the console with no
>troubles.  but when i try to run this software on a vt100 compatable,
>i can't use the function keys (which are essential).

>is there a way for vpix to support function keys from an ascii
>terminal??

Yes, there is:
I found this list in some hidden place in the manual...
Every special key starts with ESC. 
The usage of the <ALT> is really horrible:
for <ALT>-x you have to type: <ESC> a x <ESC> A
If you want to send a ESC to your program, you have to type ESC twice.

keys to use from a ascii-terminal with vpix:
pc-key       terminal-key       pc-key           terminal-key
f1              esc 1           dep. right shift    esc r
f2              esc 2           rel. right shift    esc R
f3              esc 3           caps lock           esc K
f4              esc 4           num lock            esc N
f5              esc 5           scroll lock         esc S
f6              esc 6           home                esc h
f7              esc 7           pg up               esc u
f8              esc 8           pg down             esc d
f9              esc 9           end                 esc e
f10             esc 0           del                 esc d
sys-req         esc s           ins                 esc i
arrow up        esc ^           prtsc               esc p
arrow down      esc v           break               esc b
arrow right     esc >           <-tab               esc tab
arrow left      esc <           - on numeric keypad esc -
depress alt     esc a           + on numeric keypad esc +
release alt     esc A           blank(5) on numeric esc spacebar
depress ctrl    esc c           * under prtsc key   esc *
release ctrl    esc C           rocker key          esc /
dep. left shift esc l           refresh screen      esc ,
rel. left shift esc L

--
Denis Endisch, Institut fuer Kernphysik
August-Euler-Str. 6, 6000 Frankfurt 90, Germany
EMAIL: denis@smoky.ikf.physik.uni-frankfurt.de
From: thdyc@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com (Howard Dyckoff)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
Subject: Re: Word 2.0 for WIN dies under SoftPC 3.0
Keywords: SoftPC MS-Windows
Date: 6 Oct 92 07:04:19 GMT

Gen'l Protection Faults (GPFs) are still a bit too common on MS-Windows.
These are often caused by a conflict over Windows resources or, sorry to 
say, by ISVs not following Windows API ediquette.

Now, I'm talking native MS-Windows.  NT MAY be different.  

I run in to GPFs more frequently when running X-server software and
hog applications like Lotus Notes.  A possible workaround is to load	
the critical apps first and the less important ones last;  check your	
startup group in Windows.  This has fixed GPF problems for me at times.

Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions
From: alistair@microsoft.com (Alistair Banks)
Subject: Re: NT Under SCO Unix
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:57:39 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <BvDCrv.D2o@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.112116.627@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
>>NT's underlying system will look a lot like either Mach or a curious version
>>of VMS.
>
>Okay.  I think I understand what you've said.  Now, I have a question
>for you: Which part of NT is it that doesn't know how to handle
>multiple users?  Is it the actual NT kernel (in which case Unix
>compatibility is more or less hopeless), or is it just the Win32 API?

Both the microkernel and the Win32 subsystem know how to handle multile
users. The piece that won't is the server that managers the screen, being
a part of the Win32 subsystem. So you can have multiple background
tasks with different security IDs, but only one security ID for
interactive processes -- Alistair
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions
From: jkf@Franz.COM (Sean Foderaro)
Subject: Re: NT Under SCO Unix
Organization: Franz Inc., Berkeley, CA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:35:53 GMT


>> I have also read that programs that need access to more than one API (ie
>> POSIX and Win32) will have to be split into two separate programs that
>> communicate with each other.  That would make porting graphics
>> applications, harder.  One part would depend on the POSIX stuff, and the
>> other would be a port of the X stuff to Win32.

 Alternatively you can leave the X stuff unchanged in your application
and just run a server on your machine that listens for the X protocol and 
draws on the screen.  I understand that DEC has already demoed this.

-sean

Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
From: harris@progress.com (John Harris)
Subject: SoftPC 3.0 Access to Novell Networks?
Reply-To: John.Harris@progress.com
Organization: Progress Software Corporation
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:22:04 GMT

We recently installed SoftPC 3.0 on our network and have tried it out on
several Suns, including an ELC, IPX and SparcStation 2.  I've been impressed
with the emulation, but admittedly depressed with the performance.

But the one major drawback I've noted is that we cannot access the files
available to our PC's via our Novell network.  Does anyone out there know
of software or hardware that allows SoftPC to access Novell network disks???

Thanks for your help,

John

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|John Harris                    INTERNET: John.Harris@Progress.com         |
|Progress Software Corporation  AT&T-NET: 617-280-4972                     |
|14 Oak Park                                                               |
|Bedford, MA 01730            DISCLAIMER: {/usr/dlc/disclaimer.i}          |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions
From: ketil@ugle.ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde)
Subject: Porting under UNIX (Was: Re: NT Under SCO Unix)
Reply-To: ketil@ii.uib.no
Organization: student of computer science at the University of Bergen, Norway
	<1992Oct5.101145.18218@cam-orl.co.uk> <id.POUT.QT6@ferranti.com>
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:05:25


Well, maybe it's difficult to write portable code under Unix, I
haven't really tried, but I have ported (compiled) quite a few
applications to our systems.  And I find that there usually is very
little difficulty involved.

Btw, how would you go about without ifdefs?  Say you want to port NT
code (or whatever) to a different architecture.  Now:  how will you
cope with little- or bigendianness, integer size (32bit, 64bit, or
whatever), and probably several other HARDware dependencies.  And we
haven't even touched multiprocessing systems (which seems to be the
future) yet.

Sure, UNIX versions varies, but remember that if Unix had been
produced by *one* vendor from the start, it wouldn't have become what
it is today.



--
 = Ketil Malde                     In real life:  ketil@ii.uib.no =
 = Nuke the whales!                    Honk if you love unicorns! =
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
From: curtis@accnxt1.tamu.edu (Curtis Johnson)
Subject: NeXTPC
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:40:07 GMT

What opinions does anyone in this group have on NeXTPC from NeXT.   
Personally I think that NeXTstep is the best OS on the market as of now  
(That is why I am buying one of the NeXT machines).  I have an EISA 486  
around and don't want to get rid of it.  here are some specs on NeXTPC

Runs on i486DX CPU (Will run on 386 but slow, future support for 486SX)
Minimum of 8MB of RAM (mono), 12MB or RAM (color)
supports IDE, SCSI, SCSI-II
120 MB Hard Drvie needed
SVGA(mono only) needs graphic accelerator to do color
supports EISA and ISA
etc. etc.

I can't remeber too much else, but I believe it is to ship this winter.

I would like to get some opinions on how this will run on a 486,  and if  
you think that it will be a popular OS (Chrysler and Mobil have already  
bought about $14,000,000 worth of copies).


--
Curtis A. Johnson

Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.unix.questions
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: CPU vs. Char based terminals. (was Re: NT Under SCO Unix)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:29:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct04.024949.1590@ksmith.uucp> keith@ksmith.uucp (Keith Smith) writes:
> You would be VERY hard pressed to put together anything more than a TEXT
> based 286 CPU for any $600, and then what is the point?

Of course, you could put together quite a nice GUI-based 68000 CPU for $600,
from a couple of vendors, but that's a horse of a different color.
-- 
Peter da Silva                                          `-_-'
Ferranti Intl. Ctls. Corp.                               'U` 
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012           "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
+1 713 274 5180            "Dat is mijn gezel, en niet bedoeld als een fooi."
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
From: kevinb@utopia.resntl.bhp.com.au (Kevin Black)
Subject: Word 2.0 for WIN dies under SoftPC 3.0
Keywords: SoftPC
Organization: BHP Research - Newcastle Laboratories
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:03:08 GMT

I've been using SoftPC V3.0 now for a couple of months.  The advertising
was tantilising and, given our coporate PC software is WINDOWS/WORD/EXCEL etc,
it looked like it was made to measure.

Two of us here are running Insignia's SoftPC V3.0 on Sparc 2 clones (Goldstar
GWS40s, your standard Korean replica).  Whilst the resources required to run 
SPC seem excessive and the speed is hardly blinding (especially under WINDOWS)
the DOS emulation and functionality of the product is terrific.  We were 
particularly impressed with the ease of installation and the faithful emulation
of DOS.  The ability to set up standard unix directories as as logical volumes 
is also attractive and works exceptionally well.

Now for the downer.  Windows works fine (although slow).  Excel works fine and
so does all of the products I've tried EXCEPT Word 2.0 for Windows, the 
software that I use the most.  It's driving me crazy.  Randomly and frequently
the message:
			Applications Error

		MSWORD caused a general protection fault
		in module KRNL286.EXE at 0001:1003

			   Close

At the moment this fault occurs before the Word logo comes up.  It will occur
within a couple of minutes of starting Word.  The longest I've been able to
keep Word alive is an hour.  I've tried the software on a 'real' Sun Sparc 2
and it behaves the same.  Insignia's work around is to set DOS memory to an odd
number of megabytes, I've tried every possible permutation of main and expanded
memory to no avail.

System configurations as follows:

	Hardware				Software

	Goldstart GWS40 (SSII clone)		SUN OS 4.1.2
	16 Mb memory				Insignia SoftPC V3.0
	425Mb SCSI Drive			MS WINDOWS V3.1
	3.5" Diskette Drive			MS WORD V2.0 for WIN
	19" Monitor 				Excel V4.0 for WIN
	No special graphics			Open Windows V3.0
						
If anyone has suggestions, workarounds etc I'd appreciate you contacting me or
posting to the net.

-------------------------------------------------------------------/\/\---
Kevin Black     Computer Systems Group Leader                     / / /\
                BHP Research - Newcastle Laboratories, Australia / / /  \
Snail   :       P.O. Box 188, Wallsend 2287                     / / / /\ \
Tel     :       +61 49 510434 Fax: +61 49 513740                \ \/ / / /
Internet:       kevinb@resntl.bhp.com.au                         \  / / / 
------------------------------------------------------------------\/\/\/--
From: shwake@nearside.UUCP (Raymond Shwake)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
Subject: Re: Xstation sw under DOS
Keywords: X, DOS
Date: 2 Oct 92 13:31:50 GMT
Organization: A/C International

david@cssnet.UUCP (J. David Schronce) writes:

>I stand by my dedication to DesqView-X.  itt is a truly remarkable 
>product for DOS.
>  
>disclaimer:  just a VERY happy user

and further....

seant@sunfish.ratsys.com (Sean D. True) writes:

>DESQview/X does exactly that. You need:

>	386+ PC with 4MB+ memory
>	hard disk
>	network card
>	network transport software like FTP's PC/TCP
>	DVX
>	DVX network manager

Based on my own experience, Sean - and Quarterdeck - are woefully under-
stating the system requirements. I attempted to run it on my 386/20 with
4 MB of 32-bit memory and it was slow as molasses - and I was using it
on a standalone platform! No TCP/IP, no net manager, no network card to
support. Not only were scaleable windows excruciatingly slow, but it
couldn't even open MS Windows. Adding 2 MB of 16-bit memory on the bus
made for a marginal improvement.

Before even thinking about Desqview/X, I would recommend, at *minimum*,
a 386/33 with *8* MB RAM, plus a math coprocessor. (The latter, which I
didn't have available, should improve handling of window graphics and
scaling.)
-- 

uunet!media!ka3ovk!nearside!shwake			shwake@rsxtech
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions
From: johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall)
Subject: Re: NT Under SCO Unix
Date: 04 Oct 92 22:39:25 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
| In article sarr@sinshan.citi.umich.edu (Sarr J. Blumson) writes:
| > Prices have reached the point where the per desktop (or whatever)
| > advantage of character terminals is sp marginal that it's not worth
| > giving up the things they can't do, except in _very_ special cases.
| 
| Until communication prices drop by several orders of magnitude, I'm not
| willing to give up the things only character terminals *can* do. Things
| like PC-Anywhere to the contrary, a long distance phone connection pretty
| much rules out anything else.

I disagree.  Remote Login to a lan (especially at 9600 baud, but
even 2400 is ok) is sufficient to run the type of remote desktop
that Windows NT imagines.  That is, 100% of the GUI runs locally
while opening pipes or RPC's to other
remote CPU's.  That allows far more sophisticated applications
than a character terminal can support, while not requireing the
bandwidty that an X window solution would require.



-- 
-------------------------
My comments are my own.  They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.

Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
From: peet@locus.com (J. David Peet)
Subject: Re: Dell Unix and Dos Applications...
Keywords: Dell
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 00:15:16 GMT

In article <Bv2zwt.Jt1@gator.rn.com> larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>chews@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (HCE) writes:
>
>>	Hello,  I am getting Dell Unix, and wanted to know how well
>>the Merge package worked with that.  If I am running Unix, can I
>>have a Dos partition (or something similar) where I can run Dos
>>applications like Microsoft Windows 3.1, etc...?  How slow is this
>>going to be?
>
>We run Dell SVR4 4.0 (release 2.2) and merge works very well --
>allthough I haven't tried Windows under it.
>
>Speed isn't too bad --

MS-Windows 3.0 runs in "real mode" with Merge.  "Standard" and "Enhanced"
mode don't work with Merge..
MS-Windows 3.1 does not have "real" mode, only "Standard" and "Enhanced",
so it does not work.  Support for MS-Windows 3.1 in standard mode is planned
for the next major release of Merge, but there is not a date set for it.

-David Peet
From: bsb@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Brett Baumberger)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:21:22 GMT
Subject: Re: Word 2.0 for WIN dies under SoftPC 3.0
Organization: the HP Response Center, Atlanta
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix

Hi,

I've seen this in SoftPC 3.0 running on HP Series 700 machines. Identical
scenario.  I've duplicated it.  Here's what I tell my customers to do
(it works for me!):

   1.  remove smartdrv - no need to buffer the unix filesystem again.

   2.  remove share.exe from autoexec.bat - do you need it??

   3.  remove DOS=HIGH from config.sys

If the GPF occurs during printing, try configuring SoftPC to print to a
file, and then print the file from the DOS prompt or from unix.  OR
configure windows to print to LPT1.DOS and print that file.  Let the net
know if this works for you.

Brett Baumberger
SoftPC Support
From: billa@lynx.cs.washington.edu (William Alford)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
Subject: DOS emulator for Ultrix
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:23:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: beaver.1992Sep28.162343.6961
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering Dept., Univ. of Washington, Seattle
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

I was wondering if anybody could give me pointers to a DOS emulator to
run on Ultrix on a DECstation 5000?  If this has already been discused
or is in an FAQ, my apologies, and could you point me to the archive
that it is in.

Thanks is advance for any help.

--
  Bill Alford                        |
  billa@cs.washington.edu or         |     *your favorite quote here*
  billa@genetics.washington.edu      |
From: dennis@nebulus.ampr.ab.ca (Dennis Breckenridge VE6TCP)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
Subject: Re: DOS applications using MIDI under Unix anyone?
Keywords: MIDI Unix
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:40:59 GMT
Organization: Alchemy Mindworks, Edmonton, Alberta

>In article <Bv05x2.Mvp@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, furio@uiuc.edu (furio ercolessi) writes:
>|> 
>|> Hello!?!? Is anybody here?
>|> Does anybody have any experience on running DOS applications using
>|> MIDI (sequencers, synth editors, etc) in a Unix box?
>|> What variety of Unix ?
>|> Any problem with the interface (IRQ conflicts, driver problems, etc) ?
>|> Is it possible to run multiple DOSes talking to the same MIDI board
>|> (OK this is probably too much) ? 
>|> Thanks!
>|> --
>|> Furio Ercolessi

Running MIDI under DOS would be a disaster. DOS (Simul-Crash or dosmerge)
run at user priority on the UNIX kernel. This means that they are 
pre-emptable. MIDI requires something close to SIMTI timing and would
get somewhat confused if for some period of time, did not get any CPU
cycles. Effectively the MIDI channel would be bursty. There is a UNIX
version of a MIDI driver (for an MPU-401) on the AT&T/USL Toolchest called
keynote. It's quite good but again it lacks the fine resolution required
for timing. There was talk that a SYSVr4 port is forthcoming that 
corrects the timing issues.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis S. Breckenridge         dennis@nebulus.ampr.ab.ca                VE6TCP
                   How can I fail when I have no purpose!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.unix.questions