HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ckincy@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: Non-IBM experiences with OS/2?
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:42:13 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

In article <1992Sep02.183914.28059@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.135325.7248@dhw68k.cts.com> david@dhw68k.cts.com (David H. Wolfskill) writes:
>>
>>One individual -- the only one who works for my manager who has
>>undergone such a transition -- found (much to his chagrin) that his
>>migration to OS/2 required relocation of the printer that he & a few
>>others shared, since apparently the upper limit on printer cable
>>lengths in OS/2 is lower than the corresponding limit in DOS.
>>
>
>     I won't comment on the rest of your post, since I would 
>certainly be accused of bias and trying to sway your company away
>from OS/2, but the above paragraph sounds like a crock to me.
>It reminds me of the story of the knot-in-the-power-cord.

No, this is not silly.

I'm not an EE type, but I have learned that there is an upper
limit on a parallel cord's effectiveness, due to the resistance in 
the wire, etc.  I've been told this limit is 6 feet.  The reason is
(I think) that sync problems occur if the cable gets to be much longer.
This is also why serial doesn't have the same problem.

[I'm assuming that we're talking about parallel printer cables here.]

The reason it's different under DOS than it is under OS/2 is because
when apps talk to the printer under DOS they use all the CPU, whereas
OS/2 multitasks it in just like everyone else.  (This is speculation
on my part, however).

IBM bases its recommendation on testing.  If IBM's tests conclude
that the limit of a parallel cord under OS/2 is 6', then that's what
they recommend.  If you can get a longer one to work, great, but don't
blame IBM if it doesn't.

cpk
From: jreynold@nmt.edu (John Reynolds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Win-OS/2 loads faster than Win 3.1!
Date: 30 Aug 92 17:46:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: nmt.1992Aug30.174627.3153
Organization: New Mexico Tech

> thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>Hello netters,
>
>I am running OS/2 on a 386sx-25 with 6 megs of RAM.  The time to
>start the Win-OS/2 desktop for me is 28 seconds.  After some tweaking
>(thank you Mr. Sipples), it is now 19 seconds.  Out of curiosity,
>I fired up Windows 3.1 (from DOS 5) on a 386dx-25 with 4 megs of
>RAM.  It took 22 seconds!  I couldn't believe it.  For all you
>OS/2 nonbelievers out there--tweak your OS/2!  I did and now my
>Win-OS/2 loads faster than Windows 3.1 on a better machine.  (I
>don't think the RAM difference makes a difference.)
>
So, tell us, What are these "tweaks." I'm an OS/2 believer and
I would like to know how to make it better.

-Jr




-- 
Windows...It's like a stale cookie.
OS/2..."It's like butter" (SNL quote)
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:4707 comp.os.os2.misc:28571
From: thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Win-OS/2 loads faster than Win 3.1!
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:23:52 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

Hello netters,

I am running OS/2 on a 386sx-25 with 6 megs of RAM.  The time to
start the Win-OS/2 desktop for me is 28 seconds.  After some tweaking
(thank you Mr. Sipples), it is now 19 seconds.  Out of curiosity,
I fired up Windows 3.1 (from DOS 5) on a 386dx-25 with 4 megs of
RAM.  It took 22 seconds!  I couldn't believe it.  For all you
OS/2 nonbelievers out there--tweak you OS/2!  I did and now my
Win-OS/2 loads faster than Windows 3.1 on a better machine.  (I
don't think the RAM difference makes a difference.)


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Charles A. Thompson               |  thompson@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu         |
|  University of Kansas              |  thompson@ukanvax.cc.ukans.edu        |
|  _Avid_ SkiBum                     |  OS/2 2.0 is for YOU!!!               |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Look for Recipe Pro(tm), an interactive recipe database, coming soon...   |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: MLONG@isucard.card.iastate.edu
Subject: Re: win-os/2 tweaks
Organization: CARD
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:50:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.153905.17566@news.iastate.edu>                             
TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:                            
                                                                                
>                                                                               
>  Well, I've changed the settings in my win-os/2 sessions, and it              
>loads pretty quick.  My win-os/2 session used to take 21 seconds to            
>load, and now it only takes 11.  I guess I don't have as many icons            
>loading as everybody else does, as everyone else has reported much             
>longer load times.  Now I have a few questions about these tweaks.             
>  1)  Why so little EMS and XMS?  Should I worry about running out             
>      memory?                                                                  
>  2)  Why should I switch the Video_8514A_XGA_IOTRAP to off?  I                
>      thought it was faster with it on!                                        
>  Thanks for the info.                                                         
>                                                                               
Nice to see another Iowa State'er out here.  Answer to #1 is that WINOS2 only   
uses DPMI, not EMS or XMS.  So you want to have these small so that OS/2 does   
not try to allocate this memory which is not needed.                            
Mike Long                                                                       
Iowa State University                                                           
CARD / Economics                                                                
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: Win-OS/2 performance tweaks
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 00:00:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.211138.25682@csc.ti.com>,
fritz@ra.csc.ti.com (Fritz Whittington) writes:
>
>Since I've changed video cards and am using the makeshift ET4000
>drivers, I can no longer run seamlessly.  Perhaps someone with an ATI
>Ultra in 8514/a mode could do some timings.  PageMaker 4.0 in
>particular, when loaded under Windows 3.1, spends quite long periods
>during which there seems to be no disk activity, as if it was involved
>in some memory-intensive relocation/shuffling activity.  (If it's
>doing a lot of calls to malloc(), for instance.)
>--
>Fritz Whittington Texas Instruments, P.O. Box 655474, MS 446 Dallas, TX 75265
>    Shipping address: 13510 North Central Expressway, MS 446 Dallas, TX 75243
>fritz@csc.ti.com             Office: +1 214 995 0397     FAX: +1 214 917 7487
>Since I am not an official TI spokesperson, these opinions contain no spokes.

  Well, actually, I own an ATI Graphics Vantage (same as the Ultra,
except it uses DRAM instead of VRAM) and, sad to say, 8514/a mode
doesn't run seemless windows :-(  I called ATI and asked them about
drivers.  They said they are a "Top Priority," but they also said
that they can't get 1024x768 256 mode to run seemless windows.
They blame IBM.  They told me that *only VGA* can run seemless
windows!  I didn't have the heart to tell them about the Trident
seemless drivers (and I haven't seen them yet, since nodoby I know
here except myself runs OS/2).  Supposedly the next CSD will contain
8514/a seemless drivers.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)
Subject: Re: X is a hack?
Reply-To: byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 00:21:00 GMT

Richard Krehbiel writes

> The command "xlsfonts" will print a list of available
> fonts.  X applications may query the X server to obtain
> a list of fonts.

This is completely inadequate for any end-user
application.  Hitting the user with hundreds of nearly
incomprhensible XLFDs?  XLFDs were hideous to begin with,
they're certainly not something a self-respecting
application would display to a user.  Instead, the
application must either 1) kludge together a displayable
font name or 2) open every font one at a time and search
for a property with the right information.

Then, add on top of this, the desire to have the font
names which would be required by a printer driver for
talking various printer languages.

The support within the X window system for fonts is so
totally inadequate as to be laughable.  I'll only mention
such things as

- integer character widths
- no right-to-left or vertical writing support
- and many more.

Scott Byer                                   NeXTMail: byer@adobe.com
Adobe Systems Incorporated               These are *my* opinions, and  
1585 Charleston Road, P.O. Box 7900        do not necessarily reflect
Mountain View, CA 94039-7900             the opinions of my employer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gt0059e@prism.gatech.EDU (Garrett Drysdale)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT beta schedule slips!
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:20:11 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Aug26.164450.42583@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
->Heard this on the Windows group...
->
->The NT beta schedule has slipped to October (gasp!).  I have a feeling
->that I'll be posting information like this again.
->

Was there ever any doubt?  (Smileys all around for those NT supporters
out there:)

Garrett


-- 
Garrett Drysdale
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt0059e
Internet: gt0059e@prism.gatech.edu
From: gt0059e@prism.gatech.EDU (Garrett Drysdale)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Problems with crashes, tweaks, etc. (was: Re: Win-OS/2 performance tweaks)
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:50:39 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <67481@hydra.gatech.EDU> acsander@kon-tiki.gatech.edu (Alan Sandercock) writes:
->In article <EBU.92Sep2110505@vipunen.hut.fi> ebu@vipunen.hut.fi (Erik Bunn) writes:
->>
->>
->><tweaks deleted>
->>
->>Argh. This finally broke my back.. 
->>After I applied the tweaks, WINOS2 locked up on me. The OS itself was
->>  (original poster text deleted)
->DELETE  MATERIAL 
->>Erik
->Well, I applied the windows tweaks on a session last night and had
->the same thing happen.  My windows program just hung the system with
->exactly the same side effects that you describe above.  This is the
->first problem that I have had with OS/2.  I am running on a 33MHz 486
->with a 230 MByte drive and really had no complaints about the speed of
->getting into windows - at least before I tried these tweaks.  Finally
->I just reinstalled OS/2. There did not seem to be anything else that I
->could do with a frozen mouse and keyboard.   Can anyone help with
->this?
->
->Alan Sandercock
->
->

I beleive there is a way to stop any previously opened programs from
loading during bootup.  It involves holding down some combination of
keys while the computer is booting.  (I briefly looked for the info
but could not find it.)  If anyone knows what the keys are, please
post.

Garrett Drysdale


-- 
Garrett Drysdale
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt0059e
Internet: gt0059e@prism.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: cnadler@vnet.ibm.com (Cliff Nadler)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.3
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 16:55:01 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.11 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: cnadler@vnet.ibm.com (Cliff Nadler)
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

In  <1992Sep2.095057.15396@hellgate.utah.edu>  brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
> In article <1992Sep2.114943.7556@eng.cam.ac.uk> aci10@eng.cam.ac.uk (A.C. Innes) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep1.222800.17703@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
> >>
> >>OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.3
> >[ A feature of NT that is lacking in OS/2 ]
> >>#     Asynchronous I/O
> >>              OS/2 1.X had this feature but for unexplained
> >>              reasons dropped it in 2.0.  While you can do it
> >>              with threads, you can also multi-task in DOS...
> >>              all you have to do is write the code that intercepts
> >>              the timer interrupt and swaps the processes.
> >>              Apparently the 16-bit API DosReadAsynch, DosWriteAsynch
> >>              still exist in thunked form.
> >>              Deitel and Kogan don't mention them... anybody
> >>              know why they're being phased out?
> >
> You are right in that in many cases they are equivalent.  However sometimes
> this can be quite inefficient.
> 
> Let's assume one has a server that reads 1K of data, quickly analyses it
> and stores some value.  Let's suppose it's not unreasonable that the server
> might have to service 100 clients at a time and that the data comes in
> via file handles.
> 
> Threaded approach... fork 100 threads, each has it's own 1K buffer.
> Here you have the overhead of 100 threads and 100 1K buffers.
> 
> Async I/O approach... issue 100 async reads each calling the same routine
> for I/O completion.  Here you need the overhead of recording the 100 async
> reads (8 bytes per?), one thread, and only the number of reads actually
> being done at that instant's worth of 1K buffers (assuming the
> read_is_ready routine allocates the buffer on the stack).

You seem to not understand that the DosReadAsynch and DosWriteAsynch calls
actually created a thread for the real DosRead or DosWrite to wait on, and that
thread would then release the semaphore. Therefore, the Asynch I/O and threaded
approaches are equivalent.

From what I understand, the DosReadAsync and DosWriteAsynch were bad performers,
and that IBM suggest that you create a permanent separate thread for reading
from the file, and communicating with it via semaphores or queues for
performance reasons.

--
Cliff Nadler (cnadler@vnet.ibm.com)
IBM Federal Systems Company - TEAM OS/2

Disclaimer: This post represents the views of the poster, not IBM Corporation.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: spexet@engin.umich.edu (Dennis Robert Spexet)
Subject: Re: Misinformation about os2-dos HW access (was Re: I've seen NT......
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 10:04:38 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Aug27.053459.3853@nuscc.nus.sg> eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (TAN JIN MENG) writes:
>This C2 talk is getting to me.
>
>It's my impression that C2 certification applies to machine and OS
>both. Why is this necessary? Well, one example is given 2 otherwise
>identical machines/OS where one machine has a floppy drive you can boot 
>from and another machine cannot be booted off floppy. Vast difference
>in security here!
>
>All this talk about the ability to turn off/on C2 security is
>counter intuitive also (or for that matter providing a hardware on/off
>switch!). This kind of thing leaves a gaping big hole in security.
>
>I can't believe true C2 level security as discussed here is exactly very
>accurate.

Your are correct in your assessment of the situation.

Yes, C2 certification applies to a hardware/OS combination, not just to
the OS itself.  The various points that appear to have been made in this
discussion is that

1.  NT has (or will) the features on the basic checklist for a C2-level
    security rating on the operating system level.

2.  As for whether or not NT is itself C2-secured, that does not appear to
    have been tested yet.  As you have correctly stated, a formal test
    and ratings process generally involves a hardware/OS combination, and
    not just an OS.  

3.  Since MS and its supporters are running around claiming that NT is
    secured on the C2 level, they should provide some evidence that this
    is really the case.  To me anyway, said evidence would be satisfied by
    a formal rating, which cannot be obtained without a HW/OS test.

>jin meng


-- 
D. Robert Spexet II, N0OKR   Internet:  spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu
Department of Mathematics    BITnet:    user68xr@umichum.bitnet
The University of Michigan   UUCP:      uunet!mailrus!math.lsa.umich.edu!spexet
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ckincy@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: Misinformation about os2-dos HW access
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 20:13:34 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

In article <1992Aug29.185859.16477@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <BUHR.92Aug29192209@ccu.umanitoba.ca> buhr@umanitoba.ca (Kevin Andrew Buhr) writes:
>Question, why do people expect that Microsoft should have an OS, not yet
>released, go through a many-month certification process.
>Would it not make more sense for them to do so after the OS is generally
>available?  Or am I just missing something?
>
>If I were doing it, I probably wouldn't even put version 1.0 through, but
>would let it shake out a bit.

I think that most of us think that Microsoft should be consistent
in its claims.  When Microsoft claims that NT is C2-secure, it is 
misleading.  They are trying to mislead people into thinking that
it's been certified.  It is up to a product's vendor to clearly
state what its product can do.  It's just a matter of ethics.  Anyone
who has taken a technical writing course should know this.  Unfortunately,
many professionals don't know this.

Obviously, expecting Windows 3.1 NT to pass certification in alpha
is absolutely absurd.  Even expecting this in beta would be absurd.  
I doubt that Win 3.1 NT will pass on the first attempt, but MS will
probably get it right eventually.  It's a sound architecture; it's 
just a matter of kicking out the bugs.

cpk
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Keys to recovery  (was Re: Problems with crashes...)
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:03:59 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <67484@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt0059e@prism.gatech.EDU (Garrett Drysdale) writes:
>
>I beleive there is a way to stop any previously opened programs from
>loading during bootup.  It involves holding down some combination of
>keys while the computer is booting.  (I briefly looked for the info
>but could not find it.)  If anyone knows what the keys are, please
>post.

I know it!  When booting, press Ctrl-Shift-F1 to prevent open
programs from autostarting.  Okay, do I win any prizes?  ;)

BTW, when booting, press Alt-F1 to reset your desktop.  WARNING:
This destroys your current setup!  Use it only if you screwed up
your current setup!  See the TNT guide for more info.

I got this from the OS/2 Tips and Techniques file (TNT guide) at
ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (128.123.35.151).  I think it is stored as
os2tnt.zoo in directory /pub/os2/2.0/info.


>Garrett Drysdale
>
>
>-- 
>Garrett Drysdale
>Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
>uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt0059e
>Internet: gt0059e@prism.gatech.edu


-- 
==== Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ====
::   ftp ftp-os2.nmsu.edu (128.123.35.151)    ::  .--.
::   for OS/2 software & information.  Get    :: (OS/2)
:::: the OS/2 FAQL in dir /pub/os2/all/faq :::::  ~--~
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: weinkam@fraser.sfu.ca (James Lawrence Weinkam)
Subject: Re: X is a hack? (was Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks!)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 01:18:40 GMT

discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>Well, although NT is not out yet, nor that the "16 bit Windows support" is
>not done yet--the NT can, potentially, be better at handling Windows 3.1
>than IBM... for the mere reason that Microsoft has all the source code
>for 3.1...

Doesn't IBM also have all the source code for windows 3.1 as part of
their agreement with microsoft.  If so, the windows support in os/2 will
be as good as the support in NT since both will be using the same 
source code.

James
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT features list, Revision 1.4
Date: 3 Sep 92 10:42:51 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <3033@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:
>Let me start with stating this is becoming an interesting list and I
>have learned a lot from it. I do have some problems with it however.
>
>It contains a mix of facts, opinions (of the author) and plans for
>the future. The distinction between those is not made very clear. I

Can you give me some examples of where I'm not being clear... I believe
you, but it's not always easy for me to tell.
As to opinions... well unfortunately it's hard to do such a thing
without opinions.  I am removing some of the more inflammatory stuff
from the next revision (1.5... to be posted this evening)  if I still
have stuff you regard as only opinions send those to me.

>noticed in the discussionss of Brian with others he often ignores
>comment from others on his list. I don't say he is not allowed to

To the best of my knowledge I only ignore those posts that are mostly
bashing.  In terms of content, even the bashing ones get half an
eye (but don't tell them that).  If you can find one, please send
me an example where I've not at least put a "!" beside a point
that was raised in a non-bash fashion.

>be opiniated but I think he should make that much more clear. If
>some of his points is clearly doubted he should at least make a note
>of that in his list. This would make it much more easier to differentiate
>between the different kinds of information in the list.

That is why I added the "!" in 1.3... if someone questions whether
or not the point is valid, I put the "!" beside it.

Note if the "question" takes the form "NT is not out, how can you say this"
then it is ignored.

It is also possible I've accidently ignored points... if you have a good
one, and the update to this list doesn't reflect it, send it again (and
say it's coming again in UPPER CASE).  The volume of stuff I get is
not small.

>
>Nico E. de Vries

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: NT Products
Date: 01 Sep 92 18:02:37 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <92244.211402M05BC@CUNYVM.BITNET> Spartacus at Cuny <M05BC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>
>     I'm curious, since IBM and Microsoft have cross-license agreements.

     The cross-licensing agreement has recently been renegotiated,
and, to be honest, I don't really have a clue where Win32s will fit
into the new agreement.
     At any rate, Win32s will be shipped as a DLL, so IBM could
probably get the rights to redistribute it without too much difficulty.
Another note:  Win32s may require 386enh, which OS/2 doesn't support
yet.  This is an unofficial statement - I'm not working on Win32s
myself.


>Could IBM modified Win32 API for OS/2 so that NT Multitreaded Apps
>designed to work with Win32 would work under OS/2's OS2-WIN
>as true multitreaded applications?

     It would certainly be an interesting problem.  They would need
to rewrite the entire DLL, I would expect, but it could certainly
be done.

					-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.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:4785 comp.os.os2.misc:28787