HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: skanga@prism.poly.edu (Shiraz Kanga)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Sarcasm, Confusion, and my Timothy Sipples Post
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:11:04 GMT
Organization: Polytechnic University, New York

Hey al you IBMers out there I think Timothy Sipples deserves a free copy of OS/2
2.0 ASAP. Firstly all his hard work must be rewarded and secondly he would
be able to post first hand info rather than the "I heard about ..." stuff that
he is forced to do now.

Just my honest opinion

Shiraz
-- 
skanga@prism.poly.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          .sigs waste net.band.width
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: harris@morris.catt.ncsu.edu (Michael Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: GA's applets
Date: 7 Apr 92 04:33:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: North Carolina State University

gt0040a@prism.gatech.EDU (Thomas Michael Sorensen) writes:
>They're OK, I like Solitaire quite well in fact- its ending isn't as nice as
>Windows, but the cards resize when you resize the window, there are a variety
>of different ways to play, and you can even cheat! <g>.

On the contrary, I like OS/2's ending better.  I always thought the bouncing
cards were a little wierd.

>The Icon editor works, but could be better.

For an Icon editor, it is pretty good.  (Certainly better than the previous
version and in my opinion, better than the Amiga icon editor and RESEDIT for
the Macintosh.)  Now, if you are comparing it to a paint program... well now,
let's compare apples and apples.

______________________________________________________________________________
     Michael Harris - harris@catt.ncsu.edu or harris@carvm3.vnet.ibm.com
 Vice-President, Computer and Technologies Theme Program, NC State University
(My opinions are my own and do not represent those of NCSU or IBM Corporation)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier)
Subject: Re: OS/2 on 386SX 16MHz?
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:10:18 CDT

In article <1992Apr8.122256.19586@ms.uky.edu> shan@ms.uky.edu (Minghua SHAN) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.113934.28010@trantor.harris-atd.com> mmccolli@ess.harris.com writes:
>>I know that IBM's requirement for OS/2 is a 386SX w/ 4 Megs RAM.  This is the
>>setup that I have right now.  How realistic is IBM's requirements?  I would like
>>to try OS/2 but I don't want to waste my time just to find that I don't have enough
>>memory.
>>
>>I would like more memory, but my mother board is maxed out to 4 Megs.  I need to
>>purchase a memory card for about $100 (with 0K installed). Ugh.
>>
>>Mike McCollister
>>
>>
>I am in exactly the same situation. And, as I understand, it will run
>at a lower speed if more memory is installed (through memory card).
>Is it practicle to run OS/2 on such a system?
>
>shan@s.ms.uky.edu
>

Good question.  A previous poster says YES giving his workload.  Computer
User (a Minneapolis/St. Paul monthly computer news magazine) says a 386-25Mz
with 4MB RAM runs OS/2 2.0 amazingly well.

Of course, how good your performance is on such a machine really depends
upon your workload.

Bert Moshier
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: New OS/2 user needs suggestions.  I LOVE IT!
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:06:45 GMT
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago

In article <1992Apr17.151657.12879@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> cdonnell@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Chris E Donnell) writes:
>I have just installed OS/2 using the HPFS but I only have 4 Mb of ram.  How 
>much faster will it run with 8Mb(40%,100% etc).  I am looking for a good 
>shareware communications package for it similar to telix.  Could anyone tell me
>where to get "must have" shareware and commercial packages for OS/2 2.0GA.  I 
>would really appreciate any comments or suggestions.  Also, where is a good ftp
>site for OS/2 similar to cica for windows?  Thanks!

Either go back to FAT (and REM out the IFS line in your CONFIG.SYS) or
get the 8 MB -- performance will be HUGELY improved.  HPFS is not
practical on a 4 MB system.

TE/2 is a roughly Telix equivalent, although it has its problems.

You can obtain OS/2 freeware/shareware via anonymous ftp from
hobbes.nmsu.edu.
-- 
Timothy F. Sipples       Keeper of the OS/2 Frequently Asked Questions
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu  List, available via anonymous ftp from
Dept. of Economics       128.123.35.151, directory pub/os2/faq, or via
Univ. of Chicago  60637  netmail from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: ddulay@jarthur.claremont.edu (Dan Dulay)
Subject: Egghead
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 04:54:43 GMT


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: andy@huey.jpl.nasa.gov (Andy Poulsen)
Subject: HPFS, file utilities, and partitions...
Organization: JPL Optical Interferometry Group, ...
Distribution: comp
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 19:03:51 GMT

Hello everyone,

I'm currently waiting for my copy of GA (which is my first experience
with OS/2), and i've got a few questions.

I went to one of the roll-out shows for GA, and talked quite a bit to a
guy who has been working with beta releases of 2.0 for a long time, and
he had some interesting things to say about hpfs.  He suggested that
when I install 2.0 that i have an HPFS partition for the OS, another
HPFS partition for the my binaries, and that I use FAT for my data files
since there are no disk utils (unerase, etc) for OS/2.  I've heard about
the undelete under OS/2, but I'm wondering how undelete compares to
quick unerase or something like that.

on a related note, a friend told me about a company which makes os2 disk
utils (unerase, optimize HPFS, etc).  They are called GammaTech, and can
be reached at 405-359-1219.  Does anyone know anything about their
programs?  Are they worth the $125 retail price?  

The guy at the show also said that the reason for having 2 HPFS
partitions is so that for future operating system updates it's easy to
reformat the drive if required.  my questions here are: is this a valid
concern?  and what kind of performance difference does it make having 2
HPFS partitions instead of 1?

thanks in advance!

andy "still waiting for my copy" poulsen

--
andy poulsen                   *
jpl 169-214/pasadena, ca 91109 *      we engineers have a saying:  
(818) 354-8033                 *
andy@huey.jpl.nasa.gov         *    we may be dumb, but we're slow...
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: GateWay 2000 windows 3.0 --> os2 2.0
Date: 5 Apr 92 20:26:01 GMT
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago

In article <lkN7LwQ@uop.uop.edu> mjabar@uop.uop.edu (Mohamed Nazlen Abdul Jabar) writes:
>	I have a gateway 2000 MS windows 3.0 which I got with my
>purchase of Gateway 2000 computer about 6 months ago.
> My question is can I upgrade this old stuff to Great (I think!) OS/2
> 2.0 just $49.90 by sending first page of the windows manual (btw this
> manual is not originally from MS, it was reprinted by Gateway.)

Yes.  Any version -- even Windows 1.x from Zenith is fine.  You just
need to turn in the first page to your manual (or license card).  And
the price is $49.00 plus shipping.  Call 1-800-3-IBM-OS2 (U.S. only)
to order.
-- 
Timothy F. Sipples       Keeper of the OS/2 Frequently Asked Questions
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu  List, available via anonymous ftp from
Dept. of Economics       128.123.35.151, directory pub/os2/faq, or via
Univ. of Chicago  60637  netmail from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: robertt@vcd.hp.com (Bob Taylor)
Subject: Re: An open letter to PC Magazine
Organization: Hewlett-Packard VCD
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 23:06:14 GMT

flusekw@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (william flusek) writes:
: In article <1992Apr13.190429.25307@wes.on.ca> tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen) writes:
: >bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier) writes:
: >> Richard E. Hodges asked me to repost this letter on comp.os.os2.misc and CIS.
: >
: >> Mr. Miller observes that, "From a technical standpoint, OS/2 2.0 does 
: >> appear to be a 'better DOS than DOS.'  Of course, the same can be 
: >> said of DESQview, which is simpler to install, or Windows." This is 
: >> complete nonsense! Does DESQview or Windows allow one to boot 
: >> different versions of DOS simultaneously? Virtualize device drivers? 
: >> Multitask sessions under the control of a preemptive time slice 
: >> multitasking system? Provide true protection between DOS sessions? 
: >
: >Wrong. Windows both virtualizes device drivers and preemptively multitasks
: >DOS sessions.  I believe DESQview also provides preemptive multitasking.
: >
: >[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
: >[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
: >[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
: 
: Wrong again.  Both Windows and DESQview use cooperative multitasking,
: not preemptive multitasking.  For most people, all you have to do is see
: the difference once to truly appreciate preemptive over cooperative.  As
: for virtualizing device drivers, both of the other programs do this,
: they just don't do it as well as OS/2.   (Something else that really
: warrants a demo.  Mere words do not suffice here.)

Bzzzt!
Windows can only cooperative multitask Windows apps., but !can! preemptive
multitask multiple DOS applications (I regularly compile in a DOS
window under Windows 3.1 while working away with no apparent slow
down inside Windows).  Some things don't work as well as under OS/2
(formatting floppies, etc.), but it is preemptive multitasking.

Bob Taylor
HP Vancouver
: 
: 
: Bill Flusek, DOS Systems Specialist, Indiana University
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: hartzman@kilroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Les Hartzman)
Subject: Re: HARDCARD II XL compatible with OS2 2.0?
Followup-To: hartzman@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 15:43:01 GMT

I just got off the phone with Plus/Quantum, and they said they would call me
back about the expected date of the driver.  They gave me a BBS number if I
wanted to check there from time to time: 408-894-3214 (8,1,N).  They supposedly
have drivers up to OS/2 1.3, but are still working on the 2.0 version.

Like you I'm not very pleased about this.  This means I have a new O/S to use,
but no way to use it!  I'm also displeased that Plus/Quantum have not done
anything before now to get a driver out.  How many beta versions of OS/2 have 
there been in the last several months?  This is not very good support or
advanced thinking in my opinion.

I don't imagine IBM has any fix to this problem?  At the very least I'd like
to have my free support on OS/2 extended until I'm actually able to USE the
software.


-- 
Les Hartzman                hartzman@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov
Jet Propulsion Laboratory   M/S 238-528    (818) 354-5964
4800 Oak Grove Dr., Pasadena,  CA.  91109
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Benefits of OS/2?
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:53:56 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <4107@sumax.seattleu.edu> khamer@sumax.seattleu.edu (Little Kenny Hamer) writes:
>
>   DOS:  Each time you want to change what you are working on, you must clean
>         Up your Desk, Put everything away, and start over.
>
>   WIN:  (The way I use it)  Work on one thing at at time, but your desk has
>         everything strewn all over it in a nice, comfy manner.  Easy to
>         switch from task to task.
>
>   OS/2:  Everything all over your desk, and you are doing several tasks 
>          at once.

I work in the third manor.  Typically, compile two or more make files
in two or more windows while editing a source file (or two or three)
in other windows.  I like to open a separate editor window for each
and every source file in my project - minimize the ones I'm not
currently using, and keep the rest open.  Additionally using one
window for compiling, and (maybe) another window with a custom
environment for test-executing.

>So, what does OS/2 have for me?  

Just being a container for all your other OS-dependant programs should
be enough.  Being able to run OS/2 (32 and 16 bit) programs at the
same time as Windows programs, along with DOS programs on one desktop
is a great benefit if you use all three categories of program at once.
Especially the virtual machining abilities.
-- 
David Charlap                   Q:"Where do these stairs go?"
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu          A:"They go up"
----------------------------
Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature to join in!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: CONFIRM: Animation is slow under OS/2?
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 16:56:53 GMT

In article <1992Apr17.045527.29009@cco.caltech.edu> brent@cco.caltech.edu (Brent R. Eubanks) writes:
>I posted a couple of days ago asking about the speed at which graphics
>are displayed under OS/2 2.0.  I am concerned because I want to go to
>OS/2 but I use alot of flight simulations and don't want their
>performance to suffer.  I got the following message in response:
>
>You'd probably want to run the flight simulaters in a DOS full screen
>session.  16 colors does work, but is a little slower.  If the program
>is 256 colors, say goodbye to animation since OS/2 has to dither the 256
>colors to 16 colors (slow).  All of your programs continue to run if you
>run the game in the DOS full screen session (you can have multiple full
>screen sessions).  It helps to set DOS games to no background execution
>so they pause/stop stealing cycles when you switch away from them
>
>This concerns me alot since it suggests that I can't play any
>high-performance simulators (eg: Red Baron, Falcon 3.0, etc) under
>OS/2 2.0.  Could someone please confirm or (hopefully) deny the truth
>of this situation.

No, it works fine (as long as you don't run dozens of other
applications in the background :-)).  What the respondent was
referring to was running animated applications in a DOS window on the
OS/2 desktop.  There's a lot of overhead involved in doing that,
naturally.  So you should run high action, animated DOS games and the
like full screen (just as you do under DOS) for best performance.

Of course, it could be fun to window the game while you go work on
something else, just to keep track of what it is doing.
-- 
Timothy F. Sipples       Keeper of the OS/2 Frequently Asked Questions
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu  List, available via anonymous ftp from
Dept. of Economics       128.123.35.151, directory pub/os2/faq, or via
Univ. of Chicago  60637  netmail from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET.
From: dinda@cae.wisc.edu (Dinda Peter)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Curing Extended Attribute Problems
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:02:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: doug.1992Apr13.190214.3968
Organization: College of Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison

I just recently installed OS/2 2.0 GA on two genuine IBM machines,
a 90 XP 486SX with 12 MB RAM, and a P70 with 8 MB RAM.  Neither machine    
had OS/2 on it before 2.0.   

Both machines are FAT systems.  The 90 exhibited massive numbers of 
"extended attribute claimed, but not owned" errors on CHKDSK, and both
exhibit massive numbers of "crosslinked extended attributes."  I fixed
the previous problem on the 90 by booting the Install Disk and CHKDSK /Fing.

However, CHKDSK /F will *not* cure cross-linked (SYS1342) extended 
attribute errors according to the OS/2 HELP SYS1342 command, which
recommends *copying the files to new names, deleteing the originals,
and renaming the copied files*   Is there any way to avoid this?  After all
it's ridiculous to have bad EAs *immediately after install* and then be
told that the only way to cure the errors is to do major file surgery.  

I distinctly remember this problem with 1.2 and 1.3 and was hoping that
it had finally been cured.
From: bergstro@src.honeywell.com (Pete Bergstrom)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Not all press coverage has been bad...
Date: 17 Apr 92 02:01:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: data.9204170201.AA18113
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center
To: comp.os.os2.misc
Posted-Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 21: 01:43 CDT
Received-Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 20: 58:21 CDT


 spr@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Sebastian P Ruta) writes:

>Why are we all so upset that IBM isn't advertising enough? I have been
>a Mac user for years (quietly enjoying what has been one of the best
>OS's around) and did not mind being amongst a small percentage of the
>computer users out there.  Even if OS/2 doesn't outsell Win, does it
>really matter?  It would seem that at this point there is enough
>interest and support for OS/2 that it's development will not cease,
>and there are plenty of ISV's interested. 

>...  Why does it matter whether we outnumber the Windows users?  If
>anyone *wants* to use Windows, they *deserve* to use it.  You and I
>will shortly have our GA, 2.1 is forthcoming, as are dedicated 32-bit
>apps, etc...  If you have your system, all of the apps you want/need,
>then what is this fuss about? 

Hear, Hear!  Until Tuesday, when the OS/2 celebration in Minneapolis
took place, I had been slightly edgy about OS/2's success, given the
abysmal marketing department and the ultimate shipping screwup yet
this decade.

What I saw was commitment by a number of companies (Lotus, Borland,
others) to a more advanced environment (OS + interface +
connectivity).  While "billy bob" gates runs off to play with
NT and himself, we're going to be finally using our machines at the
level they're capable of.  And, I at least, believe that the course
that IBM is staying might be where my computing needs are heading.  

So, for right now, let's be glad we have this opportunity and just see
what happens.  For now, it seems we're getting a technically good
product at a good price.

>Just MHO.

And mine too -

Pete
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: ffujita@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Frank Fujita)
Subject: CCFD:  comp.os2.announce
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: comp
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:50:13 GMT


This is not official -- as I don't know how to do it or anything,
but I would like to see (but am not willing to moderate) a
moderated OS/2 newsgroup.  Just as the star.trek groups have an
announce group for only the real important stuff, comp.os.os2.misc
is growing as my time is diminishing, and I'm going to have to
discontinue reading it soon.   I'd like to be able to keep abreast
of the neat stuff though.

Frank Fujita
From: des@frogland.inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: OS/2 in UK
Date: 7 Apr 92 13:09:11 GMT
Organization: INMOS architecture group

yes it's here. i zipped up the motorway to the NEC to get a copy
at the Which Computer show and IBM have a big stand there with lots
of machines demo-ing OS/2 v2 and a test drive centre for about 15 people
at a time + they have the OS/2 video presentation with the cartoon
character + an american woman to front it :-) this seemed to be
drawing lots of attention (i.e. it completed blocked an aisle i was
trying to get down).

v2 is on sale there at around the prices previously mentioned here
i think those prices were of os/2 user group members - for non members
the prices are about #5 more (membership is #120 so thats not much
of a big deal discount to encourage members). note, there are no
special show prices. the sales are being done by the OS/2 user group 
and by one distributer rather than IBM itself which leads to some
confusion over what constitues an upgrade (i.e. does DR-DOS count)
and what evidence is required (i offered to let them have the entire
manual from an old dead amstrad ppc that i had but they eventually
decided that the front page might do).

also, microsoft were nowhere to be seen at the show! funny ... i was
expecting a big windows 3.1 stand to compare.

warning: the show is extortionately expensive to get into (#20 unless
you'd already managed to find a way of getting free tickets) ... as they
are clearly trying to stop it being swamped by schoolkids etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
david shepherd: des@inmos.co.uk or des@inmos.com    tel: 0454-616616 x 625
                inmos ltd, 1000 aztec west, almondsbury, bristol, bs12 4sq
		"i speak latin to god,   spanish to men,   french to women 
		 and german to my horse."             - charles v of spain
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: pundsack@vlsi.waterloo.edu (Mark Pundsack)
Subject: Re: hardware cache and OS/2
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 14:19:40 GMT

In article <1574@vall.dsv.su.se> harald@vall.dsv.su.se (Harald Fragner) writes:
>fell@sol.UVic.CA (Stuart Fell) writes:
>
>: I am curious, how will having a small, a large, or no hardware cache on a
>: 40 MHz 386 will affect OS/2.  I currently have a 64K hardware cache (that
>: I can disable if necessary), but I have the option of expanding that up to
>: 256K.  Will this increase/decrease my performance of OS/2???
>
>Unless your cache is really braindead: A small cache is faster than no 
>cache, a large cache is faster than a small cache. However with normal
>speed RAM, at 40 MHz there should be a huge difference between no cache
>and a 64K cache, while the difference between a 64K and a 256K cache
>should be hardly noticeable.
>/Harald

What about having a 64K motherboard cache AND a 64K SCSI cache?  Do
the two partially cancel each other out?

What about a 64K SCSI cache AND smartdrive or an HPFS cache?  Would
the 64K cache be redundant except to speed up new transfers by not
requiring the CPU?

Mark Pundsack

-- 
/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\/~~~~~Interests~~~~~~\
| Mark Pundsack:  pundsack@vlsi.waterloo.edu                 Man-Machine     |
| Disclaimer:  Come on, you didn't believe me did you?    AI,NN,NLP,robotics |
| P.S. Anyone looking for a co-op student?                   Pen-computing   |
From: mrd@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Mark Dobie)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: A few questions...
Date: 15 Apr 92 10:54:50 GMT

In <1992Apr13.164427.15140@convex.com> bros@convex.COM (Andrew Bros) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.025046.4534@samba.oit.unc.edu> j_virkki@upr2.clu.net writes:

>>I am not really interested in having anything like ms-windows, where I'd
>>have to "launch" programs by double-clicking with a mouse, etc. On the
>>other hand, I'd really love to have an environment similar to X on my PC.

A person after my own heart :-)

>>So, can I set up OS/2 so after it boots I get simply (say) 3 windows on
>>my screen, each with a shell (all this defined in whatever would be the
>>equivalent of .xinitrc). Then just move into one of the windows, type, say
>>"wp" and have Word Perfect come up and run there; move to another window
>>and run BC++, etc, etc... Or, would I have to put up with some GUI thing?

Yes, this is all possible. There is no equivalent of .xinitrc, but you
control what gets run at startup and the "clients" remember their own
setup. I guess if you wanted control over *individual* command prompts
at startup (one in a tiny font, say) you might have to make separate
program objects for them. Not sure.

>  I'm a Unix/X person myself, but I don't believe that GUIs are
>inherently evil.  Some are designed so that everything you do must be
>done with a mouse, while others take more open attitude.  Of the major
>personal computer GUIs I'm familiar with, OS/2 is the most usable to
>me.

Well I miss some of the flexibility of X. In WPS you are clicking to
focus. Cut and paste between command prompts is clumsy and made
useless by the carriage return feature.

Dragging is with the right mouse button. I tried configuring it for
the left, but that made multiple selections tricky. I can live with
these though :-)
				Mark.
-- 
Mark Dobie                              M.R.Dobie@uk.ac.soton.ecs (JANET)
University of Southampton		M.R.Dobie@ecs.soton.ac.uk (The World)