HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:39:52 GMT
Organization: Applied Information Systems, Chapel Hill, NC

In article <1992Nov16.164438.27020@njitgw.njit.edu>, dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
> In article <BxsoLo.qF@csfb1.fir.fbc.com> uunet!csfb1!jbrock writes:
>>
>>I'm sorry, but I do a lot of work on an IBM mainframe running VM/CMS,
>>and an application running in a virtual machine just does not crash the
>>system (unless the machine has special privileges), no matter how badly
>>behaved it is.  I can forgive UNIX for being crashable (it's *old*),
>>but I don't think a normal application (as opposed to a device driver
>>or something that touches the hardware directly) should ever be able to
>>crash a fully modern operating system.  We should have *something* to
>>show for all these years of operating system experience, shouldn't we?
> 
> VM/CMS is much more limited.  You don't have the ability to spawn
> additional processes or create additional virtual machines (that
> requires editing system parameter tables and re-IPLing the system).
> Under Unix, any process can spawn additional processes, each getting a
> slice of CPU time.
> 
> This will kill any Unix system:
> 
> 	while (1) fork();
> 
> Such a thing can be done on most multitasking systems, and will kill
> any OS that allows user-level processes to spawn child processes.

Only true if the fork() is allowed to succeed until all system resources
are exhausted.  Some multiuser systems put a quota on the number of
processes each user can create, which prevents one user from hogging
all of the available process slots/system dynamic memory (or however
the particular OS keeps track of multiple processes). 

And even on a single-user OS, you could put limits on the number of
processes (either a limit on the total number of processes or on the
number of processes in a particular process tree).  Obviously you
couldn't start up _new_ processes if a program like this hogged all
the slots, but if you could get to a suitable task manager process
you could kill the offending process(es).

Bruce C. Wright
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8591 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2802
From: 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT: clean design (NoT!) (was Re: OS/2 because! (was NT: Why?)
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:26:27 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1efsf4INN946@mailgzrz.TU-Berlin.DE>, lars@cs.tu-berlin.de (Lars With) writes:
> In article <92282.160301RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>, FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> writes:
> ...
> 
>> So, if I use DOS or Windows, I use 32bit OS/2 as a great multitasker, which
>> even protects the applications from each other. With Win3.1 support (I have
>> a beta) for OS/2, the situtation for Windows-only user improves and encompasses
>> for what is available under plain DOS/Win3.1.
>> 
> 
> You have a beta of Win3.1 support.
> This will exactly be the disadvantage of OS/2:
> If Microsoft releases a new version of Windows, IBM has to write a new support for Windows. Thus an OS/2 Windows support user will always get the latest version of Windows a couple of months later than Windows NT users will get it.
> 
> Lars With (lars@cs.tu-berlin.de) 


	Not completely true.  I mean, features wise you are right on
target, but IBM had to rewrite part of Windows 3.1 to make it DPMI complient.
More over, from what IBM tech has said, they have fixed many of the reported
bugs in Windows 3.1 so what OS/2 users would get is a more stable version
of Windows 3.1.  
						-Brad
From: chandoni@husc8.harvard.edu (John-Marc Chandonia, , , )
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: COMDEX Awards
Date: 20 Nov 92 23:14:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Nov20.181435.17645
Reply-To: chandoni@husc8.harvard.edu
Originator: chandoni@husc8.harvard.edu

rbotimer@max.ct.gmr.com (R Douglas Botimer) writes:
(from an IBM press release)
>  PC/Computing on Sunday named OS/2 2.0 co-winner of the
                                         ---------
>  operating system/environment award as part of its annual
>  "Most Valuable Products" (MVP) awards ceremony.  In
>  selecting OS/2 2.0 for this honor, the editors of
>  PC/Computing stated, "this is the operating system Windows**
>  3.1 should have been."

Co-winner???  What product was the other co-winner... the NT
beta?  Or did this competition include OS's for other machines
(i.e. Nextstep or System 7)?

JMC
-- 
chandoni@husc8.harvard.edu    | I will not yell fire in a crowded classroom
John-Marc Chandonia           | I will not yell fire in a crowded classroom
Graduate Biophysics Program   | I will not yell fire in a crowded classroom 
Harvard University            | I will not yell fire ...
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:16:51 EST
From: <BJT105@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: single-threaded message queue
 <BUHR.92Nov16184637@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <BxuJCH.9w1@csfb1.fir.fbc.com>

>Just for the record (I missed the beating :-) ), has IBM stated any
>intention to eventually fix this single-threaded message queue thing,
>or are they satisfied with this "feature"?
>
>--
>John Brock
>uunet!csfb1!jbrock
>jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com

IBM hasn't been commenting on timetables for things like this, but the
people who are developing PMWIN.DLL, the code in which the system message
queue currently resides, recognise that OS/2 needs multiple message
queues.  Multiple messages queues would require a rewriting of PMWIN,
which will happen anyway because PMWIN needs updating.  It is just a
matter of time until this happens.  Programmers were estimating about
4 months of work for a team of three to complete it .. just so you
can get an idea of the magnitude of the job. It's possible they've
already begun the work, although I don't know.

Bernie
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8556 comp.os.os2.misc:36893
From: mg@tyrolia (Michael Golan)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Organization: Princeton University, Dept. of Computer Science
Date: 17 Nov 92 01:55:21 GMT

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

>This will kill any Unix system:
>	while (1) fork();

Oh please. Why dont you go try it. None of the modern Unix systems I know
of would crash. They will slow down, but will be usable. How many processes
a user is allowed to fork is a system paramater. Just because most systems
are setup so that any single user can use a large chunk of the resource
is not a fault in the design in the OS, nor a bug, nor a crash.
Your friendly system administrator would be happy to stop all of these jobs
and then nuke em.

As for OS/2, it sucks big time. Bad dos programs with stray pointers crash
it often. I develop DOS applications and when I am doing heavy debugging
I tend to reboot OS/2 every few hours. It is just god damn buggy and it seems
IBM can't get it right. I have not yet tried the CSD, I can't get it yet.
Besides, it seems the CSD adds as many bugs as it fixes.
(Dont even think about telling me to waste my time downloading 14 diskettes)

 Michael Golan
 mg@princeton.edu
From: v053qpgh@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Eric W Sarjeant)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Date: 16 Nov 92 04:52:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <BxoLpL.C3p@news.iastate.edu>, TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes...
>In article <1992Nov13.164155.14309@msc.cornell.edu>,
>tommy@msc.cornell.edu (Mike Thompson) writes:
>>
>>Are others getting as frustrated with the OS/2 environment as I.  Or have I
>>just been spoiled by the relative stability of large UNIX environments.  As I
>>said at the beginning, I am working with a company to put out a 32 bit app.
>>But I am getting so frustrated that I wonder if its really worth the continued
>>effort.
> 
>     I'm not a programmer, but I sincerely appreciate you trying to
>put out software in the barren wasteland of OS/2 applications.  From
>what I've heard from others on this and other bboards, programmers
>have had some difficulties programming for OS/2.  As a user, though,
>I have been extremely happy about the lack of crashes on my machine
>(even without the SP) and others have also been impressed with OS/2.
>     Once again, thanks for trying to put out a native OS/2 app.
> 
>Timothy Miller

I am in a similar situation, and I definitely second this motion. OS/2 is
much more stable than any PC multitasking platform I have played with so far.
DESQview was fairly reliable, but the settings tended to be confusing
and programs were not always multitasking. Windows was nice, but 3.0 was
ridden with UAE's and 3.1 gives me more GPF's than I can shake a stick at.
What's even more discouraging, as soon as you get a GPF, just about every
subsequent currently running application will suffer a similar fate.

It's horrible to watch each application close -- one after the other -- with
no immediate means to check the loss of all your current work in process.
Ultimately the user is left with an empty desktop, and you can double click
until your finger turns blue but nothing is going to change your crippled
system. These GPF's can crop up just by starting a DOS prompt, yet this is
one of the most popular ways to multitask today?
==============================================================================
 Eric W. Sarjeant                    | "I am only too conscious that I have no
 sUnyaB                              |  claim to wisdom, great or small..."
 v053qpgh@ubvms.bitnet               |
 sarjeant@aol.com                    |
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: jadpc2
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 12:19:54 -0800
From: Skeptic@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: Re: AmiPro for OS/2
Comment-To: Dan_Cogswell@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: Skeptic@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

> DC> How are you so certain about this?? 

>I'm pretty certain because I don't believe that the product manager
>for Ami Pro for OS/2 would lie when I asked him if they were using
>Mirrors.  He said they were not using Mirrors.  Given that none of
>their other products among 
>1-2-3, Freelance, and cc:Mail will be using Mirrors, why should Ami
>Pro?

 DC> Also, it seems to me, if it WAS using Mirrors, what's taking
Lotus so
 DC> long to get the product out?  If Mirrors is just a layer that
 DC> translates Windows API calls into PM calls, how much change is
needed
 DC> from the Windows version (and should it take this long)?  

Basically you have the right idea about what Mirrors does.  However
you can add OS/2 specific code to an application ported using Mirrors,
such as multithreading and HPFS long file name support.  This would
take some time to do depending on how extensive the changes would be.

 DC> Maybe Mirrors isn't ready yet, or they're having problems with
printing,
 DC> etc., but it seems like the product should at least be in beta by
now
 DC> with a release date given.

I've seen on Fidonet one guy mentioning having the beta of Ami Pro and
I've actually seen it at a Lotus product demo, so it does exist and it
pretty far along in development.  As for ship dates, last I saw in
InfoWorld was that they are talking about first quarter 1993 for Ami
Pro for OS/2.

 DC> All I can say is that I hope the feature set of Ami Pro is the
same (or
 DC> greater) than that of the Windows version.  I can see Lotus
trimming
 DC> things down a bit ala Wordperfect 4.2 for Amiga.

It appears to me that it will be very close in application features
(basically identical) but will use OS/2 features like multithreading
and long file name support.


--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:02:14 GMT

mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) writes:

>In article <mg.721965321@tyrolia> mg@tyrolia (Michael Golan) writes:
>>
>>As for OS/2, it sucks big time. Bad dos programs with stray pointers crash
>>it often. I develop DOS applications and when I am doing heavy debugging
>>I tend to reboot OS/2 every few hours. It is just god damn buggy and it seems

>Please clarify:  give me code that uses stray pointers that causes
>OS/2 to be rebooted every few hours.  Make the code as short as possible.
>I would prefer the source code contained in one source file.  I have
>Borland C++ 2.0 for DOS and Turbo Assembler for DOS.  I prefer C, C++, or
>ASM code, but I can also re-install Turbo Pascal 6.0 for DOS if you give me
>Pascal code.

>These two things I know of can cause OS/2 to crash (not including the
>system bugs that the original poster mentioned):
>   1.  bad device driver (whether badly written, a beta, or mis-installed
>       like using an 8514 driver on an SVGA system)
>   2.  CLI + loop

>A stray pointer can cause the DOS session to crash, but I cannot see how
>it can cause OS/2 to crash.  If the code you give me crashes my machine
>running OS/2, then I will add that to my list above.

If anyone claims stray pointers crashes his/her system the must have
set it up wrong or have faulty hardware. I can't even imagine how
you could set it up wrong, so it must be hardware.
I have been working with software recently that had pointers uninitialised
and the it just gave me a segmentation error and did a core dump.
I didn't even have to kill the session, nor did it kill itself. This
was with GNU gcc, in case you wonder about the core dump.
Today, I was working with Turbo Pascal, and forgot to call the 
constructor of some object. It gave me an illegal instruction errpr
and closed the session.
No system hang ever. In fact, I never had a dos box kill the system
unless it caused a trap, either when undeleting or deleting stuff
or when calling mode co80. I do not know under which circumstances
the latter occurs, but it did twice.


-- 
Erik van Linstee   |   Delft University of Technology   |   I'll be back ... 
----
   We are god, 'cause only we can create the idea of his existence
   in our holy brains...  (Yello)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: NT: clean design (NoT!) (was Re: OS/2 because! (was NT: Why?)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 19 Nov 1992 10:10 EST  

In article <1efsf4INN946@mailgzrz.TU-Berlin.DE>, lars@cs.tu-berlin.de (Lars 
With) writes...

>This will exactly be the disadvantage of OS/2:
>If Microsoft releases a new version of Windows, IBM has to write a new 
>support for Windows. Thus an OS/2 Windows support user will always get the 
>latest version of Windows a couple of months later than Windows NT users 
>will get it.

This raises the question of whether OS/2 will support future versions of 
Windows (including future versions of Windows NT).  My understanding of the 
reason for _current_ OS/2 support of DOS and Windows is to allow the user 
to "switch to" OS/2 without having to give up any of their existing 
software applications.  A potential marketing theory is to provide the user 
with the tools necessary to run their existing software, as well as the 
native OS/2 environment.  As native OS/2 applications enter the market, it 
is anticipated that users will purchase new apps (or upgrade their old ones)
which are designed for 32 bit OS/2, thus eliminating the need to 
incorporate emulation of future Microsoft releases into future versions of 
OS/2.  Personally, I would prefer to see IBM dedicate their resources to 
the evolution of OS/2 rather than re-inventing Microsoft's wheel.

I think that we're going to be faced with an either/or decision: OS/2 or NT 
(at least on the user level).  I do not think that one can reasonably 
expect full NT support within OS/2 or OS/2 support within NT.

Just some opinions (not necessarily mine).

JD
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: shiva@well.sf.ca.us (Kenneth Porter)
Subject: Success stories wanted
Summary: Send to 72631.107@compuserve.com
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:34:05 GMT

I just read Rumor Central in the 11/16 PC Week, and Spencer Katt writes:

> IBM continued to take a bashing over the transom here at Rumor Central
> last week, with customer complaints ranging from Token-Ring adapters
> that can't be installed in Memorex-Telex PCs to installation problems
> with OS/2 2.0. Any IBM success stories out there?

His net address is given as 72631.107@compuserve.com. Any takers?
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8582 comp.os.os2.misc:37029
From: andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy Newman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Date: 19 Nov 92 06:17:29 GMT
Organization: Canon Information Systems Research Australia

cscks@luxury.latrobe.edu.au (Kamal Shaker.) writes:
>
>Well under OS/2 you can get the memory dump of the system
>by creating a dump disk with createdd, then when it crashes
>press control-alt-numlock twice and insert the disk....
>

OhMiGod! Shades of the 370's! (boot from the standalone dump tape
and save core!)

>As for programs... thats up to programming environment isn't it..
No!

>just like it should be, eg Borlands is the best I've seen, but
>it's up to the programmer to decide which one to use....

What if you're not in teh programming environment.
-- 
Andy Newman (andy@research.canon.oz.au)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: COMDEX Awards
Keywords: OS/2 Awards PC Magazine Computing World
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 18:29:44 GMT

In article <93722@rphroy.ph.gmr.com> rbotimer@max.ct.gmr.com (R Douglas Botimer) writes:
>=====================PRESSREL   Recent IBM Press  
>Releases======================
>
> IBM OS/2 2.0 SWEEPS TRIPLE CROWN OF PC INDUSTRY
> November 19, 1992
>
> LAS VEGAS, November 19 . . . IBM's OS/2* 2.0 advanced
> operating system recently received top honors from three
> flagship PC industry publications, including two awards
> presented here at COMDEX/Fall '92.

First off, there's no doubt that even I, a confirmed Windows 3.1 user,
can agree to the technical achievement OS/2 2.x represents (it's only in
reality that it can be a pain, as I learned in my time with OS/2), so 
congrats to IBM.

But I find it quite humorous: when these magazines were critical of
OS/2, they and all their writers were a bunch of bigoted bums.  Now that
OS/2 gets some good press, it's trumpeted among the OS/2 folks.

Guys, if they were bums before, they're bums now.  What this really 
demonstrates to me is that they have been doing their jobs all along,
giving praise when due, criticizing, when appropriate.  If the only
measure of a journalist is how much she or he supports OS/2, we've got a
problem.  Besides, your critics will help you more (to improve the
product, say) than the blind supplication of your rabid zealots (who
are, after, quite off-putting).

Besides, there's room for more than one true way or more than on OS.
I'm holding out for Unix/X windows on an HP95...   

Joe
jmalloy@hamilton.edu
 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Subject: Re: ValuePoints in BusinessWeek
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 08:29:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.234449.19363@zooid.guild.org> Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>In the November 23, 1992 issue of "BusinessWeek" IBM advertises the new
>PS/ValuePoint computers. All models except Model 325T come preinstalled with
>OS/2. They are priced very reasonably and it is nice to see that the other
>models come with 8 Megabytes of RAM preinstalled.
>
>This is a very good move by IBM. Not only in promoting OS/2 but also their new
>computers.
>
>Sincerely,
>Mark K.
>

Looks like the next set of standardization for the low to midrange
is coming on-line. IF IBM is successful in moving the additional
hardware at these prices into the general public, then we can
expect to see a much more rapid acceptance of 32 bit apps, and
OS/2. Also, since nature abhors a vaccuum, programers will be
scrambling to fill the additional space brought on by the void
created from moving from 2-4 meg to 8 meg of RAM as standard issue.


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com (John Brock)
Subject: single-threaded message queue
Reply-To: uunet!csfb1!jbrock
Organization: First Boston Corporation
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 06:00:17 GMT

In article <BUHR.92Nov16184637@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, buhr@umanitoba.ca (Kevin Andrew Buhr) writes:
|> 
|> >  It seems odd that in a multitasking environment one can write any
|> >  application that takes down the whole OS.  Blocked semaphores may
|> >  trap your process, but the scheduler should allow others to run.
|> >  Is it really so hard to preempt a running process?
|> 
|> The single-threaded message queue problem has been beaten to death.
|> This, and operating system bugs, can hang a system so it is unable to
|> preempt processes, as you have seen.  For the most part, OS/2 does a
|> respectable job of keeping things running under adverse conditions, at
|> least in my experience.

Just for the record (I missed the beating :-) ), has IBM stated any
intention to eventually fix this single-threaded message queue thing,
or are they satisfied with this "feature"?

-- 
John Brock
uunet!csfb1!jbrock
jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8545 comp.os.os2.misc:36843
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:19:31 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <BUHR.92Nov16184637@ccu.umanitoba.ca> buhr@umanitoba.ca (Kevin Andrew Buhr) writes:
>
>A little practical advice...  Shut off lazy writes, (can you do this
>on an HPFS partition?  I *think* so.)  and stop the "chkdsk".  I can't
>remember if its possible to ask that the "chkdsk" not be performed.
>If not, try replacing the "chkdsk.exe" executable with something that
>does nothing.

Lazy writes can be shut off by removing the "/LAZY" parameter to
HPFS.IFS and by removing the "/LW" parameter from the DISKCACHE line.
You can prevent the automatic chkdsk by deleting the "/AUTOCHECK"
parameter from HPFS.IFS, but I STRONGLY recommend that you do not do
this.  After an abnormal shutdown (power-off or reset, not
ctrl-alt-del), an HPFS volume will be inaccessible until CHKDSK is run
in it.  By removing this parameter, you will still have to run chkdsk,
only now you'll have to boot a floppy to do this.

>>  Are others getting as frustrated with the OS/2 environment as I.
>>  Or have I just been spoiled by the relative stability of large UNIX
>>  environments.  As I said at the beginning, I am working with a
>>  company to put out a 32 bit app.  But I am getting so frustrated
>>  that I wonder if its really worth the continued effort.

I guess you never wrote a Windows app, either!  It seems to be a fact
of life for all PC platforms.  It shouldn't be, but it is.
-- 
  |)  David Charlap          | .signature confiscated by FBI due to
 /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu | an ongoing investigation into the
((|,)                        | source of these .signature virusses
 ~|~