HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stoen@katana.eng.hou.compaq.com (Rick Stoen)
Subject: Re: Some questions about OS/2......
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 18:26:20 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.050135.9505@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith) writes:
> ry01@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (ROBERT YUNG) writes:
>  
> >12) What's MS's C-2 protection? How's it better?
> 
> Can't answer this, though it has to do with protecting files in a
> multiuser situation.  C-2 protection has nothing to do with protecting
> apps from corrupting one another.  You won't see C-2 protection in any
> product of MS until Windows NT gets here sometime next year.

According to PC Week (If you can believe them) Microsoft will not be
including C-2 level security in the first release of NT. Microsoft is
blaming the US Government, saying they have been too slow to certify
it. I guess they must be using Windows. :)

========================================================================
|  Rick Stoen                      |                                   |
|  Systems Engineer                |      Phone: (713) 374-4514        |
|  Compaq Computer Corporation     |      FAX:   (713) 374-7305        |
|  P.O. Box 692000 - M050701       |      EMail: stoen@compaq.com      |
|  Houston, TX 77269-2000          |                                   |
========================================================================
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are my own, and do not reflect
            those of my employer.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: meyer@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Meyer)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 Demo SLOOOOOOOOOOW
Keywords: OS/2 2.0 Demo 
Organization: UIUC College of Agriculture
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 18:43:05 GMT

dano@usl.edu (Dan Stephenson) writes:
>I stopped by an IB dealer this morning to see a demo of OS.2 2.0.
>It was a 386/25 PS/2 with 6 megs.
>And,..it was damn slow.  Maybe the hard drive had an awful access
>time,..
>mayne the VGA xrd was shitty,...but needless to say it was slow.

Probably had the network drivers running -- I'm running OS/2 LAN Requestor
now under 6mb RAM.  Definitely a minimum useable system, as I've tested the
same configuration under 4mbs -- It runs, but a full minute to open a window
is not useable.  Even the documentation states that 6mb with the network 
software is a minimum.

I have a 6mb Machine running GA at home, no network, and it flies compared to 
Windows.  When I run a couple apps, though, the swapping picks up and the 
system slows down.  All machines, work & home are 16mhz PS/2s - slow VGA 
included...

>The employeee who demoed it for me even said 'it's do lots of
>disk-swapping right now.'

Could also have had a few applications running in  the background...

>And I tell you-window redraws was ABYSSMAL! 

Early PS/2 VGA (built-in) adapters were 8-bit -- notoriously slow.  

>I relly want to get OS/2 2.0 and have it work,..but
>even though my 386 is at 33Mhz/no cache and plain old 512 VGA card,
>it only has *4* mgs RAM.

Suggestion -- don't use HPFS until you get your 6th mb.

>I will buy more RAM this summer with my summer job (duhh) if i know it
>will run smoother with more memory,..

It certainly will...

>So hoow much memory SHOULD I have? I was really depressed with the IBM
>dealer even said I ought tol have at LEAST 6 megs,..maybe more.

8mb seems a good level to be at, but more is always better...

Don
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Don Meyer			dlmeyer@uiuc.edu
	 Network Manager, UIUC College of Ag Microcomputer Facility

"He who restricts another's right to self-defense is accomplice to
 any crime committed because of the lack of self defense." 

member: NRA, ISSC, IL Farm Bureau	"Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian!"
From: gt7080a@prism.gatech.EDU (Nathan Laredo)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Microsoft wins  (Yeah, read this for a laugh---)
Date: 10 Apr 92 04:03:01 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

The following is reprinted without permission from the April 1991 issue
of Byte magazine for your enjoyment only. (no lawsuits please)
This is my April 10th birthday news from one year ago today:

   page 27-28, NEWS MICROBYTES
 	"Then the Wall Street Journal reported that Microsoft is "dropping
OS/2," an incorrect assumption that further confused developers and users.
	"Contrary to the "inaccurate speculations" Microsoft says that it
will not abandon OS/2 to focus on 32-bit Windows.  The company maintains 
that it is still working on a portable version of OS/2 called OS/2 3.0
(or OS/2 NT, for new technology) and that it is still working on OS/2
applications."
 
   page 348, HANDS ON
	"Is version 2.0 comming out so soon?  As I write this in mid-
January, well past IBM's self-imposed end-of-1990 deadline for first
shipments of it, most of the betting seems to be that version 2.0
may be many months away from reality and that it still lacks the touted
binary compatability layer for running unmodified Windows 3.0 applications.
	"I've even heard that Microsoft is quietly advision some of its
"strategic partners" not to bother at all with version 2.0 development,
claiming they don't think IBM will have it ready until the end of this year,
only a few months before Microsoft rolls out OS/2 NT (New Technology), the
portable RISC version of OS/2.
	. . .
	"But IBM is going to have to wake up soon and begin the marketing,
promotional, and developer support efforts that are needed to make 
[OS/2 1.3] fly."

The article also suggests that OS/2 1.3 failed because it had "A face
only a mother could love" and didn't include all the free games
like Windows 3.0.  Well OS/2 2.0 by that reasoning should do better
than Windows 3.0 since it includes more games and a prettier interface
that makes everything more pleasant to deal with.

Note the lie Microsoft told.  Note the history that IBM's repeating.

-- 
Nathan Laredo				| gt7080a@prism.gatech.edu
Georgia Institute of Technology		| I'm now accepting donations of
Atlanta, Georgia			| 4MBx9 53ns SIMMS for OS/2 2.0
From: fell@sol.UVic.CA (Stuart Fell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: viruses and OS/2
Date: 7 Apr 92 04:45:11 GMT
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C. CANADA

I am curious.  Are there currently any computer viruses that strike computers
running OS/2?  If so, are there many and what software is available to combat
them?

Also how will DOS programs infected with a virus affect OS/2?  Should you
still run DOS anti-virus programs to check any dos programs running?  Can
you run a background anti-virus checker such as the one that comes with
Central Point Anti-Virus (CPAV)?

anyone with info on this type of stuff please either post it to the net or
send me email at fell.sol.uvic.ca.

Any info is appreciated....
From: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael D Kretzer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Toll Free Support (was: Re: Benefits of OS/2?)
Date: 13 Apr 92 00:42:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: uwm.1992Apr13.004241.18646
Reply-To: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Originator: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

From article <1992Apr12.201915.17831@midway.uchicago.edu>, by sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples):
> 	-  Toll free technical support.  This free support lasts for
> 60 days and extends from the first telephone call.
> 	-  Compatibility guarantee.  If OS/2 2.0 fails to work on your
> machine, and IBM can't make it work, your purchase price is completely
> refunded.

I have to mention that my experience with IBM's support line has been
marvelous.  They are quite helpful in answering even the most insignificant
questions, and instead of wasting your time on hold like most technical
support lines, IBM gives you a number and queues your call to the support
rep immediately, and he/she calls you back when he/she has the time to
handle your questions.  This adds a level of indirection to calling for
questions, but tends to be more efficient than waiting on hold forever :)

In my case I was getting mysterious traps at intermittment intervals.
I called the support line at 10:30PM on Thursday, and got a callback
during the day on Friday.  This call was not helpful in solving my problem,
because all the operator did was take down my machine configuration and
told me (your system isn't on the list of supported systems, I'll have
to transfer you to a Level 2 support person).  I then received a call 
around 3:30PM and the person verified my hardware configuration and 
talked with me for about an hour walking me through testing whether various
things worked or not.  It turned out it was a hardware problem and I ended
up having to order a replacement motherboard (everything tested fine with
DOS Checkit 3.0, by the way...but there was DEFINITELY a hardware problem
when I ran OS/2 2.0...weird).  What surprised me was that I also got a
call on the next day (on a Saturday!), following up on whether there were
any new developments and whether or not I had got things fixed.

Cheers to IBM on their tech support!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael D Kretzer)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 Release: First Impressions
Originator: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Reply-To: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 00:34:14 GMT

From article <40sj3y=.jps@netcom.com>, by jps@netcom.com (John Serafin):
> sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
> 
>>Incidently, CONFIG.SYS commands no longer generate screen output.  The
>>presentation is thus "cleaner" as OS/2 boots.
> 
> These tended to go by too fast to read anyway, but it would be very nice if
> this output could optionally be directed to a file, since it is sometimes
> very valuable in verifying setup and tracking down problems.

I don't think that CONFIG.SYS commands no longer generate screen output,
but rather that IBM took out all screen output unless there are errors.
When CHKDSK finds a 'file allocation error' it DEFINITELY produces output,
and in the process of writing my own device drivers, I have had no problems
doing DosWrite for message output during initialization.

I just think that IBM decided that their device drivers should install
'quietly' unless there are errors...
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: ATI Ultra and OS/2 1.3
Date: 10 Apr 92 20:43:12 GMT
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago

The OS/2 drivers that come with the ATI Graphics Ultra are, I believe,
old.  Don't use them.  Instead, use the 8514/A drivers that come with
OS/2 1.3.

The printed manual has instructions on how your CONFIG.SYS should look
for an 8514/A card with 1 MB (which your Graphics Ultra is).  Change
your CONFIG.SYS to look like the one in the manual, and make sure the
files are unpacked and where CONFIG.SYS expects them.
-- 
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: max@underg.UUCP (Max Cray)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Windoze 3.1 is here.
Keywords: Yesterday(4 April) I saw Windoze 3.1 for sale here.
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 21:12:49 EDT
Organization: Underground Computing Foundation

rfs0838@rigel.tamu.edu (SCHAFFTER, RODNEY FRANK, JR) writes:

> Yesterday(4 April) I saw Windoze 3.1 for sale here.
> $45.99 for the upgrade and $88.00 to buy, and they were going to have a 
> guy from Microstuff here on Monday to answer any Questions.:-(
> 
> IBM, ARE YOU LISTENING?????????????????
> 
> 		WE WANT OUR OS/2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 

I know what you mean. I went to the the comdex rebroadcast in Providence, 
RI. Afterwards they took questions. So I asked, 'How can I get OS/2 2.0 
today?' 'Well there's the 1-800 number..' 'But, that would take 2-4 
weeks...'
 
   I mean I am not asking for anything for free. How come they couldn't set 
up a table and sell a few copies?
   I know, patience, patience...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                            -= Max Cray =-
 Net:     underg%max@uunet.uu.net                         Support
 UUCP:    ...!uunet!underg!max                            Free
 Data:    The Underground Computing Foundation BBS        Software
          401-847-2603 -=- 9600 baud (v.32)               (w/src)
 CI$:     76334,2203
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: What OS/2 v2.0 Has Done for Me
Date: 12 Apr 92 16:13:25 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

I'm totally sold on os/2 v2.0. Using dos I rebooted 50 times a day
because of incompatible device drivers and memory conflicts. Now I use
all my hardware but never reboot. 

Life is Sweet!
-- 
David Feustel N9MYI, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805. (219)482-9631
= Candidate Bush wouldn't recognize principle if he were standing upon it =
From: bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 Live at Comdex
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:47:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: hemlock.1992Apr8.154757.17122
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

In article <92098.211010U25042@uicvm.uic.edu> Bob  Jackiewicz <U25042@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>
>   BTW, they were giving away "OS/2 Monthly" issue two for free. I was
>really surprised that this was there. It looks like a really well put
>together magazine (with some flaws, of course), especially for a new one.
>
>  Brought to you by the sick mind of      University of Illinois at Chicago
>  Bob Jackiewicz, writer of wrongs,                    BITNET: U25042@UICVM
>  wronger of rights; not UIC.                InterNet: U25042@uicvm.uic.edu
>  When DOS grows up it wants to be OS/2

BTW, IBM bought those copies.

Should you have an interest in OS/2 Monthly Magazine, please call
908-985-8358.  I only write for the magazine.  I have not financial interest
in it.

Bert Moshier
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: karu@nevada.edu (N.H.A. KARUNARANTE)
Subject: Re: OS/2 and Norton
Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:38:26 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.154741.9212@fcom.cc.utah.edu> aefros@cc.utah.edu writes:
>
>Hi, all you OS/2 gurus!
>
>I have a question. Will OS/2 DOS emulator be able to run Norton Commander 
>and/or Norton Utilities? I really depend on Norton Commander and cannot
>afford to loose it. Also, is Mr.Norton thinking about porting his wonderful
>products to OS/2? 
>
>Thanks,
>Alexei

Yes, Norton Commander works under OS/2 2.0. I even run it in a
DOS window with video mode restricted to CGA. That gives me over
720k base memory for my DOS apps. Also, Norton Commander's screen
blanker works by blanking just that window when not in use.
Karu.

karu@nevada.edu

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: victor.ng@rose.uucp (victor ng)
Subject: Geoworks in OS/2
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 13:04:14 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.2)


Date Entered: 04-09-92 19:12
Can GeoWorks programs run under OS/2?  Or do you have to run them under
a DOS session?

Vic
---
   OLX 2.1 TD   How do you make Windows faster?  Throw it harder!
   RoseMail 1.70:
From: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael D Kretzer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Setting the path
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:54:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: uwm.1992Apr15.195419.4850
Reply-To: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Originator: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

From article <sridhar.703345176@fir.cs.scarolina.edu>, by sridhar@cs.scarolina.edu (M. A. Sridhar):
> mcover@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark Coverdill) writes:
>>Being a novice to OS/2, having very little documentation and little
>>time to wade through the help system I thought I would ask some of those
>>new user FAQ's :-).
> 
>>I realize the path gets setup in the autoexec.os2 file but how I can I get
>>more than the paltry 137 characters?
> 
> I don't know the answer to this one, but I'd sure like to know!

Using the APPEND command will get you 137 more...(this works for real
DOS also)...any more than that, I don't know what to do...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: ciembron@kinglear.cs.colorado.edu (M. A. Ciembronowicz)
Subject: Verdict on 2.0 ?
Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 06:53:02 GMT

If anybody has purchased GA yet, I'm very interested to know your opinions...
Where 2.0 comes up short, where it really excels, what surprised you about it?
Did you think it was a good value, or does it need significant changes to be
worthwhile?
I'd be interested in hearing about installation, standard use, running 
Windows applications, or anything else related specifically to version 2.0.
Opinions welcomed for the next couple of weeks, if you haven't purchased it
yet, but plan to soon.

Please respond to ciembron@ucsu.Colorado.EDU as I don't read this newsgroup
...yet!

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: victor.ng@rose.uucp (victor ng)
Subject: Ahead Systems SVGA
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:48:21 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.2)


Date Entered: 04-08-92 16:13
Has anyone tried using an Ahed Systems SVGA graphics board with the GA
release yet?  If so what resolutions do the drivers support?

Vic
---
   OLX 2.1 TD   Bugs come in through open Windows.
   RoseMail 1.70:
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: jreynold@nmt.edu (John Reynolds)
Subject: Xtree Gold for OS/2???
Organization: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
Distribution: comp.os.os2.misc
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 22:04:27 GMT

Does anyone have any information concerning Xtree Gold and
OS/2. I use the product for DOS (v2.5) night and day and
swear by it (if anyone has used it they know what I'm 
talking about). I'm just wondering if they're planning to
port to OS/2....it sure would be nice.


-J. Reynolds
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: FREE OS/2 at COMDEX!!!!
From: slam@eve.wright.edu (Sau Chun Lam)
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:01:36 EST
Distribution: na
Organization: Wright State University

I want to go! I want to go! But how much does it cost to get
into Comdex? I don't want to drive there and find out that I have
to be a dealer or something and pay $150!!

C'mon guys, give me the details. I'm planning to leave for
Chicago tomorrow morning (8th April 1992).

Email me details ASAP!

Thanks!


SC Lam - slam@eve.wright.edu
From: rem@buitc.bu.edu (Robert Mee)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS2 2.0 Upgrades
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:10:34 GMT
Reply-To: rem@buitc.bu.edu (Robert Mee)
Organization: Boston University

I recently called IBM (1-800-3IB-MOS2) and they told
me that they are now offering an upgrade to OS/2 v2.0
to existing owners of MS Windows 3.0 for $49. They 
will only take credit card orders and you MUST send
back your WIN3 title page or setup disk within 14 days
of your receipt of OS/2 v2.0 in the mail and they also
said that delivery would be "in about 2 weeks". One more
way to get your machine in the OS/2 door.

FYI
Rob
-- 

Robert Mee     Boston University Information Technology      (rem@bu-it.bu.edu)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: meyer@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Meyer)
Subject: Re: Mathematica or Maple under OS/2 2.0?
Organization: UIUC College of Agriculture
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 18:29:02 GMT

jmp1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JEFFREY MICHAEL PARSONS) writes:

>Does anyone know if these programs run in the OS/2 DOS emulator?  (Its hard
>enough to run them with real DOS!)  Are Wolfram and Waterloo planning OS/2
>versions of these programs?

Mathmatica does not currently run in Win-os2.  It uses the Winmem32.dll, which
is incompatible -- though word from a Wolfram Rep at Comdex was that 'one of
the programmers told him that there were five lines of code that need to be
changed to allow it to run'.  Wolfram is in town here, and I personally know
at least one OS/2 'bigot' who is working for them.  I think I can trust him to
bend a few ears... ;-)

As for Maple, I haven't tried it.  The rule is, if it uses Winmem32.dll, it
won't work in win-os2.  Fortunately, the vast majority of Windoze apps do not
use it.

Don
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Don Meyer			dlmeyer@uiuc.edu
	 Network Manager, UIUC College of Ag Microcomputer Facility

"He who restricts another's right to self-defense is accomplice to
 any crime committed because of the lack of self defense." 

member: NRA, ISSC, IL Farm Bureau	"Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian!"
From: dhanna@nl.oracle.com (Damien Hanna)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: preemptive multi-tasking
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:02:14 GMT
Reply-To: dhanna@nl.oracle.com (Damien Hanna)
Organization: Oracle Europe, De Meern, The Netherlands

Just a brief point please. Time sliced multi-tasking IS preemptive. Preemption
means a running process in interupted somehow by the operating system. The
algorithms it uses to prioritise tasks is irrelevant. OS/2 uses time slicing 
the same as every other MT operating system. It interrupts a task (preempts) and
allows it to run for a fixed period (time slices) and then preempts again. I 
dont know what the confusion over this point is. There was no such thing as
co-operative MT before WINDOWS. Preemption is a word that seems to have grown
up around OS/2 to distinguish its task managemnt from WINDOWS.

DesqView & WINDOWS 3.0 (Enhanced Mode) and pre-emptive systems. I get the 
feeling the guy (Bill ?) who started this has realised he blundered his 
original post and is now trying to cover this ass with semantics.

This is not a flame BTW, just stating the facts.

Damien.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: jps@netcom.com (John Serafin)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 Release: First Impressions
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 16:17:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:

>Incidently, CONFIG.SYS commands no longer generate screen output.  The
>presentation is thus "cleaner" as OS/2 boots.

These tended to go by too fast to read anyway, but it would be very nice if
this output could optionally be directed to a file, since it is sometimes
very valuable in verifying setup and tracking down problems.

-- 
John P. Serafin  |  Operating a bicycle is more like driving than riding.
jps@netcom.com   |  Operating an automobile is more like riding than driving.
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: HPFS and Memory
Date: 12 Apr 92 01:07:40 GMT
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago

In article <1992Apr12.005423.28103@news.Hawaii.Edu> lauch@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Chung Lau) writes:
>In article <1992Apr11.002744.25993@uwm.edu> tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes:
>>HPFS takes up quite a bit of RAM real-estate...especially on 4MB systems.
>>I estimate that the HPFS driver takes about 1/2 MB of memory alone, not
>>including the operating system :)  This is the only reason why you shouldn't
>  HPFS does disk-caching, right??  Is the 512K requirement for the driver
>*alone* or does it include a sizeable amount of ram set aside for
>caching??  

The half megabyte (or so) is for the driver alone, excluding cache.

In other words, you need an extra half megabyte to use HPFS.  You
cannot spare this RAM on a 4 MB machine.
-- 
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.