HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jburns@pdxgp1 (John Justin Burns Jr.)
Subject: Re: NT won't co-exist with OS/2?
Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro, Oregon
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:57:03 GMT

In article <HMEYERS.92Dec17102138@mipos2.intel.com> hmeyers@mipos2.intel.com (Harris Meyers) writes:
>
>When OS/2's FDISK creates a boot manager partation it gives it a type
>of hex 0a in the partation table.  It turns out the the October
>release of nt will not boot in this case.  If you patch this byte to
>00 then everything works fine EXCEPT OS/2's FDISK gets confused.  If
>the type byte is 0a you can run OS/2, OS/2's FDISK and DOS, but not
>nt.  If the type byte is 0, you can run OS/2, DOS, and nt, but not
>OS/2's FDISK.
>

So what you are saying is that not only will NT not install with the
BM present, it won't even run?

John
From: goyal@utdallas.edu (MOHIT K GOYAL)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: HELP!  OS/2 Won't Stop Crashing!!!!!
Date: 20 Dec 92 18:04:03 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas


Hello.

I just installed OS/2 on a new machine.

386-40, ISA, 128k cache.
SoundBlaster, 16-bit IDE HDD/FDD controller, Tseng ET4000 card, 8-bit I/O
card.

Maxtor 130meg IDE hd, 1.2meg Teac floppy, 1.44meg Teac floppy.

I installed the Service Pack and the 1024x768 drivers.

Here is what is happening:
About 10 minutes after OS/2 has been loaded, it will crash and give me
a TRAP 0002.

As soon as I hit any key, it becomes a TRAP 000D, and it stays like that.

This happens whether I am just letting OS/2 sit their, if I'm playing
Solitare, using an OS/2 app, a DOS program, etc..
(I don't have WIN-OS/2 installed)

Anyone know how I can fix this problem?

Thanks.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: jld@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (J. L. David)
Subject: C Drive Problems after installing Service Pack
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:22:09 GMT

After happily using the GA without incident for 5 months, I
decided to get the Service Pack and install it on my system.
I've had nothing but problems since.

First, the initial install choked on disk 14 (5.25" disks).
No problem, I reinstalled and then it choked on disk 15
(Device driver disk 1).  The system still booted and appeared
to run except that WINOS2 no longer worked and I seemed to
lose about half the icons I had created.  I then tried to
dual boot back to DRDOS which had always worked.  The system
completely choked.  Not only could I not boot back to DOS,
I couldn't boot OS/2 any longer either.

So, I reinstalled DR-DOS, completely removed every vestige
of OS/2 from my system and started reinstalling OS/2 from
scratch.  Everything went fine.  I reinstalled the Service
Pack.  Everything went fine.  Dual boot works fine.  I'd
lost my configuration, but I can always recreate that.

The first hint of a problem came when I tried to access the
C: drive from within OS/2.  I double-click on the Drives
icon and then double-click on Drive C.  The Tree View window
pops up and then immediately closes.  It lets me access
drives A: and B: without a problem, but C: is lost.  I can
run OS/2 applets with no problem, but I cannot seem to access
my hard drive directly.

The next hint came when I opened a full-screen DOS session to
run VMODE.  No matter what executable program I tried to run
I got:  SYS005:  Access denied.  This is crazy.  I can run
everything normally after booting DOS.  WINOS2 also choked
giving me a "DOS Error 5" (same thing??) no matter what I
tried to run.

Finally, if I try running a DOS executable from an OS/2 command
line (something that always worked in the GA) I get a SYS278
(I think) complaining about the extended attributes.  This,
I believe, is the crux of the problem.  I have a FAT file system
and when I first looked at the OS/2 config.sys I saw the
IFS=... line right on top.  Since that only applies to an
HPFS file system, I REMed it out but the problem persists.

I suspect the EA file is corrupted or did not get built properly
during the reinstall.  If anybody has a clue as to what I can
do to get things working I'd appreciate it.  (CHKDSK /F does
not work from within OS/2 and I'm not sure what it might do to
the EA file if I ran it from DOS).

Thanks in advance.

Jeff David
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Mix of 3-chip and 9-chip simms with OS/2
Date: 17 Dec 1992 11:19:34 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <BzE1Kz.A8F@news.cso.uiuc.edu> nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel) writes:
>Well, if you first say that the RAM is fine even for heavy duty diagnostics,
>but not for OS/2, then say the problem is with RAM, there is ome kind of
>contradiction. It is not like most RAM out there is "mortal" RAM, and there
>is some very privileged, select few RAM chips that are the ultimate in RAM
>chips. All RAM that is in perfect condition are pretty much the same, and getting
>RAM that happens to "work" with OS/2 is pure luck. 

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it's been known to happen that
the RAM had defects that only OS/2 had uncovered; the diagnostic programs are
not as good a diagnostic as simply running OS/2. I don't know why OS/2 is such
a stress test, but it's generally agreed that OS/2 is a better diagnostic for
memory than diagnostic programs.

If replacing RAM would make software errors go away, with no changes to the
software, then there can be no other conclusion but that the RAM was bad. The
converse is not true simply because all software is different and does not
access memory in the same way.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: mlord@bmers63.bnr.ca (Mark Lord)
Subject: Re: VIDEO_MODE_RESTRICTION slows down DOS box
Keywords: VIDEO_MODE_RESTRICTION
Organization: BNR, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 14:53:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.013514.2772@leland.Stanford.EDU> wkn@leland.Stanford.EDU (Ken Neighbors) writes:
>I thought I'd set VIDEO_MODE_RESTRICTION to CGA so that I could get
>96K more of memory for one of my text only DOS apps.  It now runs
>twice as slow (or half as fast :)
>
>Here's some data:
>restriction	mem		time to run
>NONE		655360		16 seconds
>CGA		753664		33 seconds
>MONO		720896		33 seconds

Congratulations.  At least you can use this setting (winos231 beta pack).

With the stock OS/2 2.0 + SPP, this option has no effect at all on
the memory available to DOS.  It does work if the SPP has *not* been installed.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: stoen@katana.pcpd.hou.compaq.com (Rick Stoen)
Subject: Re: Compaq QVision drivers
Organization: Compaq Computer Corporation
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:24:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.145113.12797@nlm.nih.gov>, dabl2@nlm.nih.gov (Don A.B. Lindbergh) writes:

|> BTW your readme with the qvision.zip file at hobbes says SP0406.EXE is a DOS
|> executable.  I didn't find this to be the case.  I went and grabbed the one
|> from the Compaq site just to be sure, but both give a message including
|> something about a 'downed server' when run under 'real' DOS 5.0 (didn't try
|> them in a OS/2 Dos session).  They work fine when run in an OS/2 session.
|> 

Strange..... I just tried running sp0406.exe under DOS 5.0 and didn't
have any problems. As far as I know it does not use any memory other
than than the first 640K, but just in case I tried all combinations I
could think of with EMS, XMS, VCPI, DPMI, frame buffer, no frame
buffer, etc. (sometimes I forget what a pain DOS is).  It does also
run fine from a OS/2 DOS session, but if I run it from an OS/2 session
it creates a DOS window and runs it there. If you can recreate the
error I would be interested in knowing what the exact error message
is.

========================================================================
|  Rick Stoen                      |      Phone: (713) 374-4514        |
|  Compaq Computer Corporation     |      EMail: stoen@compaq.com      |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|      Work hard, rock hard, eat hard, sleep hard, grow big,           |
|      and wear glasses if you need 'em...                             |
|                                The Webb Wilder Credo                 |
========================================================================
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are my own, and do not reflect
            those of my employer.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis) (OS/2)
Subject: Re: VIDEO_MODE_RESTRICTION slows down DOS box
Keywords: VIDEO_MODE_RESTRICTION
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:45:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.145356.27712@bmerh85.bnr.ca> mlord@bmers63.bnr.ca (Mark Lord) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.013514.2772@leland.Stanford.EDU> wkn@leland.Stanford.EDU (Ken Neighbors) writes:
>>I thought I'd set VIDEO_MODE_RESTRICTION to CGA so that I could get
>>96K more of memory for one of my text only DOS apps.  It now runs
>>twice as slow (or half as fast :)
>>
>>Here's some data:
>>restriction	mem		time to run
>>NONE		655360		16 seconds
>>CGA		753664		33 seconds
>>MONO		720896		33 seconds

Hmmm...  on my machine the speed is the same regardless of the mode
restriction.  Do you have some sort of benchmark program that we all
can try out?  What resolution is your PM driver?  (I'm using the 800x600x16
generic driver)

>Congratulations.  At least you can use this setting (winos231 beta pack).
>
>With the stock OS/2 2.0 + SPP, this option has no effect at all on
>the memory available to DOS.  It does work if the SPP has *not* been installed.

I have GA + SP installed, and it works on my machine.

Restriction	Bytes total	Bytes free
NONE		655360		613904
CGA		753664		711952
MONO		720896		679184
(with DOS_HIGH ON I was able to get 736160 bytes free with CGA restriction)

Be sure you have DOS_RMSIZE set to 640.

-- 
==== 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   /pub/os2/all/info/faq :::::  ~--~
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: jurlwin@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU (Jeff Urlwin)
Subject: Re: Where to get the $15 OS/2 CD?
Organization: University of Maine, Department of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:03:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.190902.6128@news.weeg.uiowa.edu> rahayden@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (R Andrew Hayden) writes:
>Subject says it all.
>
>It is my understanding that you can purchase a copy of OS/2 2.0 on CD-ROM
>for $15.  Where do you do this?  (number, address, whatever).

No, OS/2 2.0 is not on the CDROM.

>
>I would like to try out OS/2 to see what's what, but I don't want to spend
>$80 for the Win 3.x to OS/2 upgrade (I just want to see how it works).
>

Jeff



-- 
--------------------------------------
jurlwin@gandalf.umcs.maine.edu

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: buhr@umanitoba.ca (Kevin Andrew Buhr)
Subject: Re: where should SET name=thing go?
Organization: University of Manitoba, Canada
	<1992Dec14.151847.17868@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<Bz9vtp.2uz@knot.ccs.queensu.ca>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:51:10 GMT

In article <Bz9vtp.2uz@knot.ccs.queensu.ca> calvert@QueensU.CA (John
Calvert) writes:
>
>  What do you mean here "specific DOS"?

A VDM session:  this is a feature whereby it is possible to "boot" a
session from drive A and have it run just as if it was run on a normal
8088 machine.  In this way, you could boot an old version of DOS, if
you had a program that wasn't compatible with OS/2's version of DOS,
for example.  You could also run a program that required booting from
a drive, even a program that didn't use DOS, provided that program
didn't try to use any protected mode features.

In this case, of course, the "AUTOEXEC.BAT" that is run is the one on
the floppy disk, if any.

>  If CONFIG.SYS is for OS/2, and AUTOEXEC.BAT is for DOS, where is the
>  normal DOS CONFIG.SYS stuff? 
>
>  Is this all contained in the Settings, Session, DOS Settings for each 
>  application? What if I want to change some config setting for all my
>  DOS appls? Do I have to edit every Settings entry?

Yes, it is contained there.  You'll find the "FILES" and "BUFFERS" and
"DOS_DEVICE" settings, for example, replace their counterparts in the
DOS CONFIG.SYS.

If you'd like to change the settings for programs you create "from now
on", you can change the settings in the program template.  Then, when
you create a new program object, it will have the new defaults.  In
the CSD, there is a "DOS/Windows Settings" icon somewhere in the
System Setup folder.  I believe some settings can be given global
values here.

>  This would be a very messy way do go.

Not particularly.  I think its a smart idea to have separate settings
for each program.  That way, changes to one program's settings won't
have adverse effects on another session.  Under DOS, I don't think
I've ever had application A *benefit* from a change I've made to the
CONFIG.SYS to get application B to run.  Usually, changes I make for
application A's sake cause problems.

There are exceptions, of course.  "DOS=HIGH,UMB" is something I want
for every application.  Luckily, OS/2 lets me put this line in the
OS/2 "CONFIG.SYS" where it influences all the DOS sessions, if I
remember correctly.

Kevin <buhr@ccu.UManitoba.CA>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: BENCHMARKING Windows and OS/2
Followup-To:  comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 00:17:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.224957.3778@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>BENCHMARKING Windows and OS/2
>December 11, 1992
>by Timothy F. Sipples
>
>[This message is available as file winbench.txt, available via
>anonymous ftp from ftp-os2.nmsu.edu on the Internet.  Followups may be
>directed to comp.os.os2.misc, but please redirect subsequent followups
>to comp.os.os2.advocacy as content warrants.]

[I chose a different set of followups.]

...
>Exact numbers are not available to me yet, but on a stock IBM PS/2
>Model 57 with 16 MB of RAM and standard VGA, the relative Winmarks
>were approximately as follows:
>
>Windows 3.1 on DOS 5.02					100%
>OS/2 2.0x, FS Win-OS/2, Not "Optimized"			95%
>Windows NT Beta						40%

There is something very wrong with your benchmark Tim.
Back with the September pre-beta, I might believe this number, and
at that time I dual booted Windows 3.1 because I could not
stand the slowness of the 16-bit Windows compatibility.
But with the October beta (which you used), there is no possible
way that 16-bit graphics runs at 40% of Windows 3.1 speed.
I use this daily, with such programs as a terminal emulator, Visual
Basic, Visual Basic games, MS Word, etc.  By any chance does your
benchmarking suite have sub-category numbers?  If so, look at them,
I suspect you'll find some really slow stuff in a couple of categories
and the rest being normal.

Also, could you make the benchmarking programs available I have two
machines (identical configurations), one running OS/2 2.0 GA and Windows
NT and would like to see what happens on them.

One point, you were very fair about describing what you were testing, but
left out one point that might not be understood by a newcomer.
What you were comparing was an OS/2 beta that is supposed to be out
this month, with a Windows NT beta that is supposed to come out 5-7 months
from now.  Doubtless there will be substantial improvement in the NT
figures.

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                          NeXTStep 486 is for _YOU_!!!!
University of Utah                    Microsoft needs competition, but I want
Center for Software Science          to be one of the many running Windows NT!
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373    :-) :-) :-)  NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: os2man@panix.com (Larry Salomon Jr.)
Subject: Re: Screen savers
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:45:22 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Dec15.151356.4285@crd.ge.com> chalekcl@crd.ge.com (Carl Chalek) writes:

>Are there any PD screen savers for OS/2?  Apparently there aren't any included
>with it.

>Carl Chalek
>GE CRD
>Schenectady, NY

Open the desktop settings and go to the lockup page.  It is a screen saver
that requires a password to restore the desktop.

Cheers,
Q
-- 
"If you choose not to decide, you  | "My other body is in the shop" - seen
 still have made a choice" - Rush  |  on a T-shirt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 & Dos 5.0 floppy problem
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:42:45 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <BzB7Iw.HFq@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> ericwolf@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Eric Wolf) writes:
>Everytime I go to my DOS 5.0 partition (via Boot Manager) and format
>a disk using DOS 5.0 (format a: /f:1440 /u) it works fine.  Then when
>I try to dir the disk I just formatted, I get a general failure reading
>drive A: error.  But if I go to OS/2 and try to read the same disk, it
>works fine.  OS/2 can read and write to these disks no problem but DOS
>can't!!!  DOS always gives the general failure error when OS/2 reads
>them.

Neat.  This sounds like a better problem than the one I have.  My
system can not format 720K disks - attempting to do so results in
unuseable floppies.  However, if another computer formats them to
720K, my system will have no problem reading or writing them.  This is
with the OS/2 format command and with the DOS 5.0 FORMAT command
(booted into a VMB).

I have yet to try booting straight DOS 5.0, so I don't know if it's a
hard or soft error.
-- 
  |)  David Charlap          | .signature confiscated by FBI due to
 /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu | an ongoing investigation into the
((|,)                        | source of these .signature virusses
 ~|~
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: tommy@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Mike Thompson,332,54714,2734927)
Subject: Re: Where to put swapfile (was What is the recommended size ...)
Originator: tommy@snoopy.msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 13:56:40 GMT

From article <1gmsccINN6uq@nestroy.wu-wien.ac.at>, by warmuth@warmuth.wu-wien.ac.at:
> In  <1992Dec15.204609.29849@msc.cornell.edu>  tommy@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Mike Thompson,332,54714,2734927) writes:
>>    ... (stuff deleted)...
>>   (3) Caching the OS/2 swapfile (HPFS) would be a waste of memory
>>    ... (stuff deleted)...

> OS/2 *never* chaches the swapfile.
> It is recomanded to put the swapfile on the most used partition on the
> less used harddisk. So I wouldn't put it in it's own partition.

I can understand putting it on the least used hard disk, but why the
most used partition.  The only justification is to keep the disk read
heads near the actively used data.  With any intelligent caching and
ladder disk sub-system, actual conflicts on write to the disk should
be rare to begin with.  Then again, with 16 Mb of RAM, I don't worry
about the SWAP file doing much thrashing.  Even when testing
development code, I don't think I keep 16 Mb of programs actively
running.

On second topic, how does OS/2 know it is the swapfile.  The disk
sub-systems have a file which happens to be named "swapper.dat".  But
to the driver, it's just a stupid file (I hope!).  Any caching on the
drive will also, to some degree, cache the swap file.  Am I wrong?

-------------
Michael O. Thompson            tommy@msc.cornell.edu
Cornell University             (607) 255-4714

OS/2:  For the few, the proud, the devoted!

-- 
Michael O. Thompson            tommy@msc.cornell.edu
Cornell University             (607) 255-4714

OS/2:  For the few, the proud, the devoted!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: pynq@quads.uchicago.edu (Jeremy Mathers)
Subject: Re: Misc OS/2 questions (especially CSD installation)
Reply-To: pynq@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: D. J. Dougherty & Associates
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:25:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.110425.5825@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> parry@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Tom J Parry) writes:
...
>Great! I had not tried to read them actually. You can't format to > 1.44MB
>under OS/2 though on 1.44MB drives. I am not surprised, really, that OS/2
>does read them. It should simply pick up the extra tracks & sectors form
>the format type. My complaint is really that you can't specify something
>like /F:82 on the format line because it tells you that the drive can't do
>it!

Not surprising.  It's not like any other garden variety FORMAT pgm will
do it.

I assume you can do it under OS/2, in a specific DOS window, using FDFORMAT.
Theoretically, it should work under simulated DOS, as well, right?

************************************************************************
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

	- pynq@quads.uchicago.edu, who is still costing the net
	  hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars, every time he posts -
************************************************************************
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: woc8r@ruby.cs.Virginia.EDU (William Owen Carlson)
Subject: Re: Future of OS/2 and IBM????????????
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:34:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.210437.934@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> ashwath@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ashwath Ram) writes:
>	Hi, netters just a thought. IBM doesn't seem to be doing so hot
>financially they just said they are going to be laying off 25,000
>more people next year this after 40,000 have already been allocated
>to be laid off this year. 

Please be a little more precise.  IBM has NEVER laid anyone off.  Truthfully,
the early retirement plan that they offer is VERY attractive.  Also, the
whole point of their doing this is to make the company leaner (get rid of
some of that famous IBM beauracracy).  Personally, I think that it's a 
good plan, and one that we can't expect to work in one year.  Give it some
time.

___    ___
\  \  /  /       -=Bill Carlson=-
 \  \/  /            
  \    /         INTERNET:  woc8r@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU
   \__/          BITNET:    woc8r@VIRGINIA
-- 
___    ___
\  \  /  /       -=Bill Carlson=-
 \  \/  /            
  \    /         INTERNET:  woc8r@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: ashwath@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ashwath Ram)
Subject: Future of OS/2 and IBM????????????
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 21:04:37 GMT

	Hi, netters just a thought. IBM doesn't seem to be doing so hot
financially they just said they are going to be laying off 25,000
more people next year this after 40,000 have already been allocated
to be laid off this year. Computer market analysts seem to think
that IBM's profitability cannot improve unless global markets which
are in recession improve as 30% of IBM's sales and 45% of their
profits are from abroad. They doing some major reshuffling, what
about the future of OS/2, how does it work into their long term plans.
Will they be able to put in the same sort of resources into its
support that Microsoft can put into NT. IBM has deep pockets so the
impact is not being felt now. could some IBM'er comment on what is
happening to the company and how as a customer I be confident that
I will continue to receive the best operating system.


Thanks,

Ashwath Ram