HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gregde@microsoft.com (Greg Demichillie)
Subject: Re: Who's problem \*are\* SVGA drivers?
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:05:03 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Aug18.163234.5088@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.163232.6665@infonode.ingr.com> bbrown@infonode.ingr.com (Bailey Brown) writes:
>>The generic SVGA driver with Win 3.1 is definitely fast, and beats
>>many vendors' own drivers.
>
>I don't think this is anything special.  Did you know that you can get
>800x600x16 on an ordinary VGA board by tweaking some registers?  I did
>it on a PS/2 model 80 using FractInt v15.  I suspect that this is what
>MS did for their driver.
>
>Does anyone out there have Win 3.1 on a standard VGA board (with a
>multisynch monitor) to be able to test this theory?  I suspect that
>even non-sVGA systems can use this driver.  In other words, it's a
>souped-up VGA driver, not a generic sVGA driver.

No, that isn't correct.  It's just that 800x600x16 is the only
video mode that all the SuperVGA chip sets implement in the same
fashion.  Once you go beyond 800x600 or more than 16 colors
everyone goes off in their own direction, making a single driver
impossible.


-Greg

-- 
Greg DeMichillie          
gregde@microsoft.com      -- All opinions are mine, not Microsoft's -- 
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:4144 comp.os.os2.misc:27626
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: More print ads for IBM and OS/2 stuff
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:48:35 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

I've seen three different print ads for IBM-sponsored products in the
last two weeks of Network World (a weekly newspaper-magazine.)

1) The PS/2 model 56 & 57 SLC.  No prices mentioned, but notes that
   you'll be able to eventually upgrade it to a 486SLC2 processor for
   $259.  The ad also states that OS/2 2.0 will be pre-installed on
   it.

2) IBM LAN systems - supporting DOS, Windows or OS/2.  Working over
   EtherNet, Token-Ring, and "over 4,000 server-enabled applications".
   The ad states that IBM supports both LAN Server and NetWare from
   IBM. 

3) Lotus Notes (!) - IBM is supporting Lotus Notes as a "workgroup
   computing solution".  It will run on OS/2 and Windows workstations,
   and will connect across multiple network operating systems.  This
   ad states that IBM has begun an international allieance with Lotus.
   [Does this mean we'll see Ami Pro and 1-2-3 real soon? - Dave]

There have been many OS/2 ads in previous issues.  It's interesting
that they are advertising uses for OS/2 instead of OS/2, itself.
personally, I think this is a good idea - managers won't invest in an
OS that they can't get significant productivity out of.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: cvadrtbc@vmsa.is.csupomona.edu (Srikanth Viswanathan)
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Organization: California Polytechnic University, Pomona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 23:29:00 GMT
X-Posted-From: vmsa.is.csupomona.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Aug19.114009.20723@actrix.gen.nz>, Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes...
>In article <18AUG199210153123@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu> cvadrtbc@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Srikanth Viswanathan) writes:
>> 
>> What is IOPL?  I know it's a setting in the CONFIG.SYS but what does it do?
>> What are the performance implications if I set it to no or yes?  Thanks.
>> 
>> Srikanth
> 
>Try typing "help iopl" at an OS/2 command prompt..........ain't os/2 great?

Ok, how do I install the help so that I can type HELP IOPL? ;)  Thanks
to the many people who replied it!  

Srikanth
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: superVGA  (and misc top-blowing)
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 08:49:45 GMT

In article <SXMRP.13.0@orca.alaska.edu> SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R. Platzke) writes:
> In article <1992Aug13.080540.17580@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
> >From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
> >Subject: Re: superVGA  (and misc top-blowing)
> >Date: 13 Aug 92 08:05:40 GMT
> 
> >In article <1992Aug12.125401.18428@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jensen.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
> >> 
> >> beta.  Borland said at the NT developers conference that they will
> >> have the NT version out within 2 months of NT's release.
> 
> >That should sometime in September next year then......go on! Hold your breath!
> > 
> Come on, every indication is that NT will be available in early 93.  Or maybe
> they could release a beta version in December of 92 without DOS or Windows
> 16 or OS/2 1.3 support and just sell it as an LA release.  Then they could
> promise to have OS/2 2.0 support out in a month or two and delay it until 
> September.  :-o

IBM *is* hemming and hawing over Win3.1 support for a very good reason.
Win-OS/2 *already* has OLE. Win-OS/2 *already* has parameter checking...just
like Win3.1. 
 
If Win-OS/2 becomes *fully* Win3.1 compatible.....then you will be able to run
about 5 more Windows programs while sacrificing 4 or 5 times that number -
because they don't run under Win3.1. 
 
The IBM line is that - at the moment - there is no *real* need for Win3.1
support. They have had it ready for months, but have not released it for this
reason. 
 
The IBMer I spoke to said that Win3.1 support mort will likely be provided in
the next release of OS/2 as a configuration option - either in the settings or
at install time.
 
Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | If you don't vote for MMP on 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  September 19, 1992, then you 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  must like things the way they 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  are.....can I live with YOU?
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of users etc.
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:42:20 GMT
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego

In article <1992Aug15.143047.11306@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>
>We sell Trident SVGA video cards, so SVGA support hasn't been a problem for
>our customers. We sell "normal" printers.....all of which are supported by
>OS/2 (ANY printer with an Epson emulation is catered for, as are any printers
>with HP emulations......plus over 100 others).
> 

Yes, for a few handful of cards OS/2 supports SVGA (somewhat, there have
been problems with > 800x600 resolution).  Supporting Trident is 
unimpressive--it's a slow video card, although a good and stable one.  And
I truly do not blame IBM for the lack of support on OS/2's release--what
I ***DO*** blame them is that they seem to be dragging their feet to 
support other companies in writing OS/2 drivers.  Wondered why the S3
drivers haven't come out?  I got it from a major video card manufacturer
(Orchid) that it's because IBM isn't giving them the video specs in a
timely manner--which is why the F1280 isn't supported yet, or why
the Pro II doesn't support high/resolution/color.

>If you want a stable, multi-tasking OS, then OS/2 wins hands down. But, you
>obviously *like* Windows. That's fine. I don't. No accounting for taste.

If you want to run only 1280x1024 Windows apps, Windows 3.1 serves 
adequately (if you need to always run full-screen WinOS2, why bother?)
From: mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows NT 'Alpha'
Date: 18 Aug 92 03:01:14 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Aug17.232651.23471@tamsun.tamu.edu> bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
>As I read through the posts on this newsgroup, I see many comments
>about the current Windows NT release being an 'Alpha' version.  I
>believe this is a mangling of the term.  In everything I've seen,
>actually quite a bit, the term 'Alpha Test' refers to a controlled
>environment, usually withing the developing organization.  'Beta
>Test' refers to a less controlled environment tested by someone other
>than the original development team.
>
>By the above definitions, the Windows NT version available on CD-ROM
>is a 'Beta' not an 'Alpha'.  If the code causes a lot of errors (I'm
>not saying it does or dosen't), the definition is not affected.  I
>wonder just what the rationale for calling the Windows NT Beta an
>'Alpha' version is?  In any case I don't thing a (possibly) marketing
>issue should change the definition of established software engineering
>terms. 
>
>Please, let's call the Windows NT Beta what it is.

Of course, we could call it SA or 6.0134!  Or we could name it clyde or
dilbert!  Or we could ignore the entire silly debate that is sure to erupt
over this.

-- 
Mark Huth                         * Is it too wild to want to get into 
Mhuth@u.washington.edu            * Space someday?
Compuserve 70346,563              *
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS Gave Up (Was Re: pc week and nt)
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:21:28 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <~1@byu.edu>, earlyd@ee.byu.edu (David Early) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug12.221342.21192@microsoft.com>, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>> In article <n0@byu.edu> earlyd@ee.byu.edu (David Early) writes:
>> >
> ((STUFF DELETED))
>> >
>> >MS didn't 'give' OS/2 to IBM, MS gave up on OS/2 and IBM picked up the ball.
>> >
>> >David Early
>> >earlyd@wombat.ee.byu.edu
>> 
>> MS did not give up on OS/2.  MS gave up working with IBM.  It was kind of like
>                                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> a divorce settlement.  If MS had kep't OS/2, then IBM wouldn't have given it up.
>                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> (Sounds like an 'All or nothing' situation.)
> 
>> IBM wanted the "kids" so MS gave IBM responsability for its portion of the 
>> development and support for OS/2.  Why are y'all complaining that MS dropped
>> you, when in truth, MS said that since MS and IBM couldn't get along any more
>                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> IBM's getting the "kid", so you are going to have to go to IBM for your
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> support of OS/2.  
>> 
>> petesk@microsoft.com
>> My Opinions...
>> 
>> 
> You begin by stating MS didn't give up on OS/2, and then proceed to state(IMO)
> that MS did give up on OS/2.   What are you talking about?  Has MS come out with any new
> OS/2 apps? No.  Are there any plans to?  You'll have to answer that, but I think a new
> Windows app will arrive long before any OS/2 version.  I don't believe (no proof here)
> that MS plans to fully support OS/2 and in fact plans to combat its success.  Is that what
> you call 'not giving up'? 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, to be honest, I don't care if MS gives up on OS/2.  Competition is good, as has
> been stated here before, but it seems to me you are trying to make it look like MS
> came out of the 'divorce' clean as a whistle (no fault) and that IBM is the slimey spouse.
> 
> The complaint that MS dropped OS/2 is not a complaint about support or where 
> we can get it.  It has been used as an illustration of MS's (un)reliability in sticking 
> with their declared direction.  
> 
> And incidentally, in your'divorce', you gave up the 'kid' very quickly.  I'm not sure
> you ever cared about the poor sun-of-a-gun very much.  ;^)
> 
> Dave Early
> earlyd@wombat.ee.byu.edu

	I don't think there is much doubt that MS is the slimey one in this
divorce.  They would have us cripple our 32 bit computers with DOS or Windows
or make us get huge hardware resources so we can use the brain damaged windows
interface with NT that won't even offer me anything more than OS/2 does now.
From: tar@pa.reuter.COM (Dan Tarnower)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: AAARRRGHH!!!!
Keywords: os2 installation
Date: 15 Aug 92 19:28:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Reuter:file Inc  (A Reuter Company) Palo Alto, CA

I have a similar PC, and had similar problems.  The only way I could
get OS/2 to install was to disable the CPU cache.  The IBM rep said
I would be able to re-enable the cache after the install, but that was
a lie.  I shouldn't say he was actually lieing, because he didn't seem
know enough to be sure if he was telling the truth.  However, it was
clear that he was telling me what I wanted to hear.  I intend to call
them back and complain that I still can't enable my cache.
From: alcocer@parc.xerox.com (Dario Alcocer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Will OS/2 2.0 support Windows 386Enh development?
Keywords: windows 386enh sdk
Date: 14 Aug 92 00:17:14 GMT
Organization: Xerox PARC

dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:

>No.  Enhanced mode can't be provided unser OS/2.  Not because of the
>DPMI client, but because Windows 32-bit code requires the process to
>run in kernel-mode.  OS/2 will not allow a user application to run in
>this mode - it violates system integrety.

What exactly do Windows programs do that requires this?  As far
as I know, privileged instructions in apps aren't condoned under
Windows either.  However, if you really want to, I guess you can
have IOPL segments, but this isn't the case with my apps.  I'm
writing stuff above the USER and KERNEL DLL's; my app isn't
"dirty".

>This code will not work under WIN-OS2.  If you structure your program
>properly, you can quickly port it to OS/2 later, though.  If you use
>any CASE tools, you can use the same CASE files for both systems,
>since there are matching products from many vendors.  (eg: CASE:PM and
>CASE:W.  I think Microformatic's GPF system exists for PM and Windows
>as well).

We aren't planning _any_ OS/2 products in the immediate future.
Additionally, my app's U/I requirements probably won't make the
port to CASE:W worthwile; we'd probably have to recode, and
since I'm the only one wanting to develop under OS/2, I don't
think I'd stand a chance on this.  I guess I just wish Win-OS2
were more "plug and play" with respect to Windows development.

Thanks for the information.  Maybe I should just get two
separate machines, and be done with this hodge-podge of
DOS-Windows-OS/2-DPMI-XMS-EMS-HMA-386MAX-QEMM-386Enh-Win32-NT-PM-...

"... ARRRRRRGGGGGH!!"
--
Dario Alcocer      | Internet: alcocer@adoc.xerox.com
Xerox Corporation  | Tel     : +1 415 813-6869
From: rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Release dates ( was Re: superVGA (and misc top-blowing)
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:26:31 GMT
Organization: San Jose State University - Math/CS Dept.

varmint@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Samir Varma) writes:

>In article <1992Aug12.140856.21609@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jensen.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>>I know people that swear that vi/emacs and troff/TeX are the best way to
>>word process too.... I also know these same people haven't checked out
>>the abilities of modern programs.
>>
>>Certain apps are simply better in a GUI environment.

>Dude, 

>This is absolute, unadulterated, bullshit.  I've tried many modern
>WYSIWYG programs, Microsoft Word for Windows, Ami Pro, Word Perfect
>etc. etc.  And, they're all less efficient for getting the job done
>than GNU Emacs/TeX.  If you're a touch typist, there is simply no
>substitute for Emacs (or vi if you're so inclinded) and for serious
>typesetting of theses, books and papers, TeX is the best (especially
>if you are going to have any mathematics whatsoever).  I suspect that
>you've either never spent the considerable time necessary to master
>TeX and Emacs or you just haven't done anything sophisticated with your
>WYSIWYG word processors.

>I suggest that you don't cast aspersions on those who don't make the same
>choices as you---who knows, they might even know a thing or two.

>Samir Varma

A) Read my lips; there are NO (none, nado, zero) Windows based WYSIWYG
   word-processors.  Ami-Pro 3.0 is very close, but there are still
   a few 'gotchas'.

B) vi or emacs and TeX is not word-processing.  It is text-editing and
   formatting.  There is a difference.

C) TeX is not the 'best' typesetting system.  In fact it has become
   so bogged down in the anarchy of everybody creating their own
   macros that is not even very portable.   Many word-processors and
   page-layout programs have more control over the final layout than
   TeX and are infinitely easier to use and support.  And most of
   them have a high degree of inter-site and inter-platform portability.

   For Mathematical typesetting, Framemaker is current technology,
   TeX is an archaic 'religion' whose mantra of 'only/best mathematical
   typesetting system' no longer rings true.
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: WYSIWYG ( was Re: Release dates
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:01:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug13.134242.12778@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, dab6@po.CWRU.Edu 
(Douglas A. Bell) writes...

>I said that dos apps perform better, meaning that they run faster.
>Performance is more than just a pretty screen.  I can get more 
>done with wordperfect 5.1 on the average than just about any windows
>WYSIWYG word processor user.  True, I have worked in a computer lab
>for 4 years and had to help people daily with wordperfect problems,
>but once I learned the wordperfect system, convoluted as it is,
>I found out that it can work faster for an experienced user than
>the current crop of 'WYSIWYG' word processors.  Most of which only
>do a so-so job of showing you what a document will look like while
>working on it, which is hardly WYSIWYG.  

For the most part, "<Shift-F7>, V" in WP 5.1 for DOS is about the only 
WYSIWYG that I need for word processing.  For desktop publishing, I find 
Ventura Publisher (for DOS) to be more than adequate.

>And yes, I have used windows 3.1 and just about every major windows
>wordprocessor.  No, they don't perform better for me.  Why does every
>one assume that if something is good for the neophyte user that it
>must be good for everyone?

When I tried to use MS Word 2.0, I got the impression that I needed three 
hands (I use both on the keyboard when I type + a third hand for the mouse).
Went back to WP 5.1.

JD (who is still trying to figure out why I need 256 colors to produce 
something output to a black and white printer)
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS count, anyone?
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:30:44 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Aug12.014059.712@nuscc.nus.sg> eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (TAN JIN MENG) writes:
>dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>: 
>: Let's see here.  Currently released OS's out are:
>:     MS-DOS 5.0  (with or without Windows 3.1)
>:     OS/2 2.0
>:     OS/2 1.3 (it can still be gotten - for all you '286 owners who
>:               want to use 16-bit PM apps)
>:     Unix (many dialects from various companies)
>:     Mach (with it's BSD unix kernel)
>: 
>: "Coming soon" OS's:
>:     Solaris (Sun-OS Unix for the 386)
>
>I thought this was out already. Minimum req. (I think) are :
>	8 MB RAM and 200MB Harddisk
>

Interesting.  I heard that only the Sparc version was out right now,
and that the Intel-platform version was still "coming soon".
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: unruh@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh)
Subject: Re: TeX an archaic religion?
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:07:14 GMT

rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard M. Warner) writes:

>In article <Zsd-j5B@engin.umich.edu> spexet@engin.umich.edu (Dennis Robert Spexet) writes:
>>From: spexet@engin.umich.edu (Dennis Robert Spexet)
>>Subject: TeX an archaic religion?
>>Date: 18 Aug 92 10:12:14 GMT
>>In article <1992Aug17.162631.26015@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu> rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:
>>>   For Mathematical typesetting, Framemaker is current technology,
>>>   TeX is an archaic 'religion' whose mantra of 'only/best mathematical
>>>   typesetting system' no longer rings true.
>>

>TeX is a religion in the sense that TeX users, like yourself, keep chanting
>the mantra that it is the only way to get the output you want/desire.

>Again, the mantra that TeX is the best/only way is not true.  The truth
>is that it is the way people are doing it, so folks will continue to
>do it that way (for a while).

I have long spouted your lines re TeX. Teh contortions needed to get
stuff onto the page were really too wierd. I even wrote a word processor
( early 80s) to allow me to do math typing without TeX. But...
Teh problem with mathematical typing is that there are so so many
symbols, etc. after a while, typing \alpha is far faster than going up
to some menu with a mouse, and finding the right menu and dragging down
the symbol. Furthermore, TeX formatting is rather non-local, which makes
it very difficult to get the same results as you insert the stuff,
because there isn't enough there yet to know what it is supposed to look
like. 
Thirdly, inertia is important- that's one reason why most science
computing is still done in Fortran. TeX is portable, most places can do
something with your TeX files ( as long as you remember to send your
macros along), not least because it is FREE. Now if Word, or WP were to
send out their stuff free, so that anyone from Ulan Bator to Peoria
could be assured of having a copy, we would all probably switch. Till
then, since the primary purpose of writing papers is to communicate with
others, in a language that they can use, Tex will remain the standard.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: craigdo@microsoft.com (Craig Dowell)
Subject: Replicated data
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:31:44 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

>In article <-159819989@hpopd.pwd.hp.com> yuk@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Yuk Lun Chan) writes:
>>>With the NT system, You can use most advanced Windows software as it comes
>>>out.  And when the main box goes down, everyone can continue to work locally.
>>
>>O.K. Can I still working when all my accessing file dead?

Actually, in replicated systems you can work until the minimum quorum of voting
replications is reached.  You can continue to work in case of a network 
partition (Joe Admin tripped over the repeater and pulled out the drops. :-)
You can continue to work in case of server failure (Jane Admin dumps an iced
latte on the disk controller). 

In the case of a replicated file, a number of copies of your file are
distributed around the network; and if one server dies, you switch to another.
The system deals with the intracacies of ensuring coherency between copies.

Try this with a terminal server :-)

-- Craig



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy