HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chandoni@husc8.harvard.edu (John-Marc Chandonia, , , )
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: Mathematica and OS/2
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:04:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Sep29.140443.15949
Reply-To: chandoni@husc8.harvard.edu
Originator: chandoni@husc8.harvard.edu

sdyck@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Sheldon Dyck) writes:
> I just received an e-mail from Wolfram and they said that they will
> produce a version of Mathematica for OS/2.  The following is the message 
> that I received.  (I hope this clears up some of the rumours.)
[message deleted]

But this will just be a text version, according to earlier rumors.
Isn't the latest Mathematica/DOS DMPI instead of VCPI, and will
therefore run under OS/2?  I don't know myself; I haven't tried this.
If Math/OS2 is really text only, it wouldn't be much faster than
a DMPI DOS version.  Math/PM would be most appreciated, though!

JMC
-- 
chandoni@husc8.harvard.edu    | I will not yell fire in a crowded classroom
John-Marc Chandonia           | I will not yell fire in a crowded classroom
Graduate Biophysics Program   | I will not yell fire in a crowded classroom 
Harvard University            | I will not yell fire ...
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.apps:6685 comp.os.os2.advocacy:6471
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,alt.cd-rom,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc
From: tslee@us.oracle.com (Terry S. Lee)
Subject: Re: CD-ROM Driver and OS/2
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores CA
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 03:40:30 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Sep29.103738.5584@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> schoellhorn@munich@enet.dec.com writes:
>I've a MATSUSHITA SCSI CD-ROM 54XX , AHA1542B.
>Try to patch the cdrom.sys for your manufacture  Id e.g. SONY,
	Someone posted that a /I switch on the cdrom.sys line causes the driver
	to ignore the mfg name.  The /I switch was already placed there by the
	os/2 install in my instance.

	But, I'll try.  I need to switch the mfg in cdrom.sys to SONY.  What
	mfg string am I looking for?  IBM?
>Include in your config.sys
>basedev=os2scsi.dmd
>device=patched_cdrom.sys
>after 
>basedev=aha154x.add
>
>Perhaps it'll work.
>
>My CD-ROM is visible and accessible in a  DOS-BOX and OS/2.
>
>But anyway the actual mscdex does not work in a dos box. 
>( Incorrect dos version, you'll know why)
>But i think the mscdex is required for audio capability only, because the 
>drive appears as a CD-ROM drive in the system.
	Perhaps you can try the /I switch on an unpatched copy.
>
>Don't forget , patching voids your warranty.
>Klaus
>
>My views are my own 
>Fidonet:  2:246/40 
> 


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.editors,comp.os.os2.apps
From: tlihsin@hubcap.clemson.edu (lih-sin the)
Subject: Re: Does VI Exist for OS/2 2.0?
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:59:49 GMT

wcn@cs.brown.edu (Wen-Chun Ni) writes:

>In article <joiner.718252464@exa> joiner@exa.cs.umn.edu (Jay K. Joiner) writes:
>>In <1992Oct04.234209.7642@r-node.gts.org> singh@r-node.gts.org (Rajendra Singh) writes:
>>
>>>Does anyone know if VI exists for OS/2 2.0?  If so, I would appreciate it if
>>>you could tell me where to find it.
>>
>>Look for Elvis on ftp-os2.


>I found the elvis in ftp-os2 very hard to use because it doesn't
>give me the freedom of using function keys like <PGUP>. Anyone
>knows how to enable the features? Thanx!


I think I use stevie from ftp-os2, the PGUP key works fine.

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2:366 comp.os.os2.misc:31998 comp.os.os2.apps:6840 comp.os.os2.programmer:5418
From: stephen@unity.ncsu.edu (Stephen Jackson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: Why not? (Utils dont work in a window - WHY?)
Date: 4 Oct 92 04:37:15 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University Project Unity

I downloaded gnugrep from hobbes.nmsu.edu and it works fine for me in an OS/2 window.  It displays it just
like you would be typing the command in a window on a Unix window...doesn't pop up a DOS window...compress
does the same thing.  Works fine.

Stephen
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,alt.cd-rom,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc
From: schoellhorn@booze.enet.dec.com (Klaus Schoellhorn)
Subject: Re: CD-ROM Driver and OS/2
Reply-To: schoellhorn@munich@enet.dec.com
Organization: DIGITAL Equipment Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 10:37:38 GMT


To: jdecarlo@mitre.org (John DeCarlo)
Cc: 
Reply-To: schoellhorn@munich@enet.dec.com
Subject: Re: CD-ROM Driver and OS/2



In article <jdecarlo.285.717691847@mitre.org> you write:
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,alt.cd-rom,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc
From: jdecarlo@mitre.org (John DeCarlo)
Subject: Re: CD-ROM Driver and OS/2
Yeah, I just had the same problem this weekend.  I have a DAK BSR cdrom (
>sony) that worked on dos, but OS/2 doesn't want to recognize it.
>
>When I boot os/2, i get a cryptic message (complaint?) about SCSI-DD, whatever
>that means.

>Basically, you can't use the SONY_CDU.SYS driver under OS/2 to access your 
>DAK CD-ROM drive.  At least, not under native OS/2.  You can (and I do) use 
>it with a Boot from Drive A type arrangement, which actually boots another 
>version of DOS than the OS/2 MDOS.

>It helps to have a version of MSCDEX.EXE that doesn't need SETVER.

I've a MATSUSHITA SCSI CD-ROM 54XX , AHA1542B.
Try to patch the cdrom.sys for your manufacture  Id e.g. SONY,
Include in your config.sys
basedev=os2scsi.dmd
device=patched_cdrom.sys
after 
basedev=aha154x.add

Perhaps it'll work.

My CD-ROM is visible and accessible in a  DOS-BOX and OS/2.

But anyway the actual mscdex does not work in a dos box. 
( Incorrect dos version, you'll know why)
But i think the mscdex is required for audio capability only, because the 
drive appears as a CD-ROM drive in the system.

Don't forget , patching voids your warranty.
Klaus

My views are my own 
Fidonet:  2:246/40 
 



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.programmer
From: db3l@ans.net (David Bolen)
Subject: Re: Utils dont work in a window - WHY?
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:23:22 GMT
	<unruh.717986584@physics.ubc.ca>
Organization: Advanced Network & Services, Inc. - Elmsford, NY

In article <unruh.717986584@physics.ubc.ca> unruh@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh) writes:

> How does OS2 know if it is an OS2 or a DOS application?

There are flags in the executable header.

>                                                         Why can't DOS
> applications just run in an OS2 window- esp if they do not use
> graphics?

Well, an OS/2 window is attached to an OS/2 session.  Therefore, it
contains none of the DOS emulation support necessary to execute DOS
executables.  You need to start a DOS session for that.  Now, I suppose it
would be possible to start the DOS session in the background, and still
direct output to the OS/2 window the executable was started from.  However,
that would be limited to a small number of DOS applications that used DOS
or BIOS for output, or would entail a decent amount of overhead if it
trapped DOS screen accesses and adjusted them into OS/2 calls.  Plus you
get the overhead for the OS/2 process to talk to the DOS process.

This doesn't mean it can't be done - who knows, maybe IBM is working on it.
It would certainly be nice for all the simple command line DOS utilities
out there.


--
-- David
--
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
 \              David Bolen             \  Internet: db3l@ans.net      /
  |   Advanced Network & Services, Inc.   \   Phone: (914) 789-5327   |
 / 100 Clearbrook Road, Elmsford, NY 10523  \   Fax: (914) 789-5310    \
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------/
From: v053qpgh@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Eric W Sarjeant)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Date: 27 Sep 92 22:04:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep26.131512.23689@news.columbia.edu>, hpw@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Harry P Warren) writes...
>Two brief comments on Timothy F. Sipples' informative summary of the
>Chicago monthly OS/2 User's Group meeting.
> 
>| Since IBM and Apple together control over 50% of the market in
>| personal computers, they hope to promulgate standards more effectively
>| in tandem.
> 
>I find it hard to believe that IBM and Apple together control over 50%
>of the personal computer market. Perhaps 50% of the computers that
>have been manufactured sport the IBM or Apple name but they certainly
>don't control 50% of the market today. In fact, I imagine that Apple
>and IBM's combined sales of 68040 and 486 based machines effectively
>sums to zero when compared with the number of 486 systems sold by the
>likes of Dell and Gateway. I don't see how companies that sell
>yesterday's hardware are going to set tomorrow's standards.
> 
You might want to check your figures on this one. In the PC world, only
1 company (COMPAQ) even comes close to the size of IBM. In fact, COMPAQ
is almost half the size of IBM, other clone manufacturers are many times
smaller than COMPAQ, and unless your chart is detailed enough IBM can
loom happily over all of these...

==============================================================================
 Eric W. Sarjeant                    | "I am only too conscious that I have no
 sUnyaB                              |  claim to wisdom, great or small..."
 v053qpgh@ubvms.bitnet               |
 sarjeant@aol.com                    |
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:16:22 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Sep30.190617.10682@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil
Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.005053.5745@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@midway.uchicago.edu
 writes:
>>In article <1992Sep29.180844.4739@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil
Lafornara) writes:


>
>>I am trying Win-os2 3.1 (Windows 3.1 that will come with os/2 2.01),
>>and it is even faster than the original!!!!!
>
>      I haven't seen benchmarks yet, but it would surprise me if
>it was.
>

I am running it currently.  I have no benchmarks to support myself, but
subjectively, it is a bit faster, particularly with 256 colors.  Mostly the
graphics operations tend to go faster.  As for the actual running of programs,
I haven't seen much difference.  They seem to be approximately equal.  The
32-bit graphics engine does seem to make a noticable difference.


>     I found his assertion (that he knows of a user who has installed
>OS/2 but does not use it) to be quite reasonable and believable.
>I find yours (that you can report 100 cases where Windows is
>installed but not used for every case of OS/2 not in use) to be less
>believable - in fact, I find it to be of the same order as "Elvis
>is alive."

Not everyone who has it uses it.  I have one friend who has it and doesn't use
it, (though the reason is that he can barely figure out DOS) although he doe
plan to use it in the future.
>

>
>                                       -Phil
>
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Phil Lafornara                                         1 Microsoft Way
>philipla@microsoft.com                         Redmond, WA 98052-6399
>Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
>
-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: tdbear@tandon.com (Tom Barrett)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Organization: Tandon Corporation, Moorpark, CA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:30:12 GMT

In article <DOCONNOR.92Oct2081116@potato.sedona.intel.com> doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor) writes:
>
>So what is it Intel has a monopoly on ?  Nothing. Intel just makes the
>best, fastest implementations of the "386" architecture, not the only ones.

Actually, if you are talking 386 and not 486/beyond, AMD makes
the fastest (clockwise)... and it is basically a direct copy
of the Intel since they have a mask-sharing agreement with
you.

-- 
Tom Barrett (TDBear)    tdbear@tandon.com          voice: 805-378-6207
Tandon Corporation      609 Science Drive          Moorpark, CA  93021 
Sr. HW Design Engineer  "War is Peace, No is Yes, And We're All Free!" 
-=>NOTE:  The feed to tdbear@tandon.com may be interrupted in Sept.<=-
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: Silence on the Windoz Front...
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Distribution: "world"
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 09:43:00 GMT

brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>In article <wiegand.717773743@lido16> motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net writes:
>>brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>[Most of chart deleted]
>>
>>>Total for Windows:					=	91.87
>>>Total for OS/2:					=      205.34
>>
>>>Conclusion... OS/2 users must have 22 times *** the number of problems that
>>>Windows users do.  (Think about it... ignoring advocacy postings, most
>>
>>Try again -> 205/92 = 2.2
>Wrong... there is approximately 11X more Windows users than OS/2 users.
>Thus one could expect (all other things being equal) 11X more messages
>about Windows than OS/2.  Thus I said 22X messages per user.  This is of
>course ridiculous...  I don't really believe that OS/2 has 22 times the
>problems of Windows.

You know, you could put some real meat into your argument if you got
the latest copy of the USENET usage report (in one of the news.* groups)
and get the estimated number of readers for the OS/2 groups and the
Windows groups.  It seems to have expired at my site, but you seem to
keep articles for over a month.
-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu | think of something very clever 
uunet!jarthur!jokim         | to use as a disclaimer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ekl@fics.uucp
Subject: Re: Os/2ers whine again
Organization: Kvam data as
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 00:25:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.224845.4553@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <19920826.094220.545@almaden.ibm.com> AV@vnet.ibm.com wrote:
>
>> Also note that the *winner* NT was formerly called OS/2 3.0.
>
>The thing on the PDK disk was formerly called OS/2 3.0?  Can you point
>out which code on the PDK has anything to do with OS/2 please.
>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...

I'll jump in here, referring from the Microsoft Systems Strategy Briefing
Europe 1991; my handouts are from the briefing held at Kista, Sweden,
on February 5th 1991:

Alistair Banks, who is on my slides credited as being Technical
Marketing Manager, Systems ISV Group, but has since risen, and is
now (I believe) a microsoft Vice-president, held a speach titled
"Windows and OS/2 Evolution." From that speach I copy the following
picture with the heading "OS/2 3.0":


                            OS/2 3.0

  +-----------------------------------------------------------+
  |   +---------+   +---------+   +---------+   +---------+   |
  |   |   DOS   |   | Windows |   |   OS2   |   |         |   |
  |   +---------+   +---------+   +---------+   +---------+   |
  |                                                           |
  |   +---------------------------------------------------+   |
  |   |                        NT                         |   |
  |   +---------------------------------------------------+   |
  +-----------------------------------------------------------+

This picture resembles (!) pictures today showing what is known
as Windows/NT.  At that time, it was known as OS/2 3.0. Also, at
that time, NT development had just self-hosted. I pray that "the
thing on the PDK disk" is this same "thing" which was self-hosted
in early 1991; otherwise, we're in for a long wait... ;-)

Another interesting foil is from a speach titled "Systems strategy",
also by Alistair, and at the same occasion:

                          MICROSOFT AND IBM

  * A healthy, long-term relationship
  * To improve development efficiency:
    - DOS, Windowws, OS/2 3.0 at Microsoft
    - OS/2 1.x, 2.x at IBM
    - Primary responsibilities
  * Products are cross-licensed
  * Common multimedia specifications

Beside this foil, I have scribbled the notes "More than ever". God
knows what I was thinking of :-)

I dislike the split between IBM and Microsoft. I can live with that. I
am pissed of that the support for my MS OS/2 tools are gone. I can live
with that, too. But don't come round crying that NT was never called
OS/2 3.0! Leave me out in the cold. BUT ADMIT IT!

Eirik
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS Word for OS/2 Beta in Israel!
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:57:16 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct01.190734.6932@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>This is very interesting, If in fact Microslop is testing a new OS/2 version
>>Word, It would indicate one of two things:
>
>     I think there was probably a miscommunication somewhere.  If
>whichever letter this person received actually said WfW, and he uses
>that abbreviation in his own post, then he is not necessarily talking
>about Word for Windows.

True, MS may be working on Word 6.0.  Since 5.5 was OS/2 (text-mode)
compatible, they may be keeping 6.0 that way.  5.5 made OS/2 FAPI
system calls (in order to be compatible) and it would be expensive to
rewrite all these calls with DOS INT-21 calls.

I wonder what compiler they're using?

-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Silence on the Windoz Front...
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:33:13 GMT

In <1992Sep29.000020.29492@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>Conclusion... OS/2 users must have 22 times *** the number of problems that
>Windows users do.  (Think about it... ignoring advocacy postings, most
>postings are requests for information about how to solve a problem... or
>how you figured out how to solve a problem.)
>There are about (optimistically) 1 million OS/2 users, and about
>(optimistically) 11 million Windows users.
>Another possibility is that Microsoft support is better than IBM's, but
>a tremendous number of OS/2 people assure me that my own personal experiences
>with the two are incorrect and that IBM support is MUCH better than
>Microsoft's.

Well, another possibility for you.  I invariably notice a lot of
postins in .misc that should have been directed to .advocacy,
primarily from OS/2 bashers or Microsoft backers.  This doesn't seem
to happen in the Windows groups.  Funny how that works, huh?  And here
not all that long ago I was blasting one poor guy for continually
posting OS/2 stuff to the Windows groups.


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:22:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: tamsun.1992Sep29.172201.6487
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University

In article <1992Sep28.171757.10965@microsoft.com> adamba@microsoft.com (Adam Barr) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.012811.6658@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>** DCE/RPC.  This offering will solidify and expand across all IBM
>>platforms in this time frame.
>>** POSIX compliance.
>>** C2 certification granted.  (It takes approximately 12 months, and
>>software is certified in combination with hardware.)
>>** Symmetric multiprocessing (SMP).
>>** Portability, based on the OSF/Mach 3.0 kernel.
>
>Call me a cynic, but it sounds like IBM has taken the current NT
>feature list and stated that everything on it will eventually be
>supported in OS/2. So, how is this not FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, AND
>DOUBT in its basest, vilest, lowest, most venal form?
>
>
>- adam

Fear of what?  Uncertainty of what?  Doubt of what?  It seems to me
that IBM is responding to healthy competition by saying they intend to
support features that some (not all) users say they want.  It seems
that IBM has a more obvious way of implementing some of the proposed
features than MS does with NT.  Here I'm specifically refering to C2
security which is a HW/SW combination.  Is MS going to start building
hardware (besides mice).

BTW, does anyone know of any OS/HW combination where the HW and the OS
were not from the same vendor?  I don't know of any, but that doesn't
mean they don't exit.

   -- Bruce

--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
bdubbs@sadis01.sa.aflc.af.mil |  Scrupulous Lawyer
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Silence on the Windoz Front...
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:30:50 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

> 
> Conclusion... OS/2 users must have 22 times *** the number of problems that
> Windows users do.  (Think about it... ignoring advocacy postings, most
> postings are requests for information about how to solve a problem... or
> how you figured out how to solve a problem.)
> There are about (optimistically) 1 million OS/2 users, and about
> (optimistically) 11 million Windows users.
> Another possibility is that Microsoft support is better than IBM's, but
> a tremendous number of OS/2 people assure me that my own personal experiences
> with the two are incorrect and that IBM support is MUCH better than
> Microsoft's.
> 
> ***Yeah, I know... the population distribution of the net will skew things
> towards OS/2 (i.e. probably a greater percentage of OS/2 users have net
> access than Windows users).  Also I notice that pretty well every OS/2
> group has "advocacy" postings -- OS/2 users are more defensive?  Still
> it does appear that a significantly larger per user problem count
> exists for OS/2.
> 
> The one that shocked me the most was the volume in the OS/2 apps group...
> I mean, what would they discuss?  A quick scan of the group reveals that most
> of the traffic is OS/2 installation questions and can I find an app to do
> X questions.  Also a lot of Windows/DOS app -- how do I get it to run stuff.
> How do I do backups is also quite popular.
> 
> Brian
> -- 
> C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
> University of Utah                             United We Stand
> Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
> brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))



	Of course there is a lot more traffic talking about OS/2 than
Windows.

	How much can one talk about a DOS Shell?  

	"Well Biff, today I loaded ANOTHER program!"

						-Brad

=================================
Brad Wardell  **Happy OS/2 2.0 User**
Project Director
Stardock Systems (SDS)
Western Michigan University
=================================


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy