HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Jim_Johnson@abcd.Houghton.MI.US (Jim Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: Quality of PC brand, FastMircro, and ComputerDyne 486SX-25 mhz PC
Date: 4 Nov 92 13:14:47 GMT
Organization: Amiga BitSwap Central Dispatch

In a message dated Tue  3 Nov 92 13:11, Chiang@cs.uiuc.edu (sam. H.k. Chian
wrote:

 CHC> One very important factor is COST.  He filters out the ads in
 CHC> computer shopper, [edited]

I am not flaming anyone or any company, but as a note for new computer
buyers, Intel compatible computers are not a commodity item yet.  There is
a great range of prices and quality available on system components.

The old adage "you get what you pay for" is not entirely true, but on the
other hand "bottom price, bottom quality" is almost always true.  After
all, manufacturers and system integrators have to do more than break even
to stay in business, and to push prices to the bottom, corners have to be
cut.  These corners are not always in obvious places either.

A recent article in the November '92 issue of Byte tells how the big name
manufacturers' newer lower cost systems are cutting corners.  You don't
have to buy top of line brand names to get quality, but watch out for
bottom of the line prices.

-- Via DLG Pro v0.995

jim_johnson@abcd.houghton.mi.us
from Calumet, Michigan, USA -the world's former copper mining capital, 
located on Lake Superior and home to America's newest National Park,
** The Keweenaw National Historic Park **
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.apps,comp.os.ms-windows.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.setup,connect.audit
From: mpiet@is.morgan.com (Mark Pietrasanta)
Subject: Re: *** DYING ***:PCNFS 4.0/eXceedw 3.1.1/Windows 3.1
Organization: Morgan Stanley & Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:36:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.175318.2810@visionware.co.uk>, graham@visionware.co.uk 
                                                           ^^^^^^^^^^
(Graham Porter) writes:

|> Excuse me, but did you know that the IDC report of June 1992
|> credits the VisionWare XVision product with a 46.6% market share
|> of the Microsoft Windows based X server market ?
|> 
|> Also this product has been on the market for the last 4 years, it
|> was therefore the first product of its kind and this is reflected 
|> in how robust and feature rich the product is - that's why it's the
|> market leader worldwide !
|> 
|> If you haven't tried it and would like to then please let me know !
|> 
|>             Graham Porter, Distribution Sales Account Manager
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Interesting.  Isn't it true, though, that other vendors (like Hummingbird)
have had X emulators in general (DOS/Windows) longer?  And I think I saw
an article not too long ago that _didn't_ have X-Vision at the top of
the Windows 3.1 emulators in terms of features/functionality.  An example
is in cut/paste abilities between MS Windows and X-Windows, and RSH/REXEC
features.

I don't want to create any kind of war here, I just want to make sure that
we don't present biased opinions and steer people in potentially wrong
directions simply because of a corporate loyalty!  :^)

I would be very interested to see a recent article comparing the latest
versions of X-emulators for Windows 3.1, as I am at some point probably
going to need to look at this again.

-- 
Mark Pietrasanta
----------

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from
mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein

----------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: These responses are my own and in no way reflect the
views of my employer.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: umnoor@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Nasir Ahmed Noor)
Subject: Reclaiming Memory From BIOS setup...
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 06:29:30 GMT


Hi,
My system is a 386DX/40 with 8Meg RAM and 128k Cache. The operating system
is OS/2 2.0.

When system starts up, it reports [familiar tick sound and RAM test] only
7808K. It should, according to my calcs, report 8192K [i.e. 8 Meg].
I tried BIOS setup [<DEL> key]. In the very first screen, where one sets
the date time and HD type etc, base memory is listed as 640K and extended
memory as 7168K. I cant change or reset these values [the 'cursor' won't
go there]. I tried turning video and system shadow off, but it does not
solve the problem. I still see the total system mem tick to only 7808K. How
can I claim the rest of 384K? I looked at all the options available in 
AMI BIOS setup screens but none gives me any clue that it might do the
job.
I would appreciate any help!
Regards,
Nasir Ahemd Noor
umnoor@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: 486's and NeXTSTEP
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 17:34:06 GMT

Brian Rogers writes
> I've often wondered about NeXTSTEP for 486.  How much does
> it cost?  Is it affordable for a Joe Schmoe like me?  For that
> matter, hearing you mention NeXTSTEP in the context of fast,
> LocalBus, ectc. 486's is rather discouraging at times -- My
> wallet cringes.
> 
OK.  First, price.  Nothing has been announced yet.  A $1000 price  
was bandied about at one time (ie competitive with other Unix  
offerings like SCO or Solaris), but latest rumors place it lower than  
that.  I expect to see it in the $700 range.  Before you freak out,  
bear in mind that this includes a whole lot of goodies that you'd  
normally pay extra for.  Multimedia Mail.  A suite of networking  
software including Netware client software.  A variety of apps.   
More.

Second, system requirements.  To get good (ie equivalent to NeXT's  
own hardware) performance, you'll need pretty heavy-duty equipment,  
including fast data buses.  Getting data to your display in  
particular will be a bottleneck.  But to a large extent you can make  
your own price/performance trade-offs.  (Dell and some other makers  
will be selling pre-configured systems with NeXTSTEP pre-installed,  
or you can build your own system by mix and matching components).

The bottom line is that this is a very powerful OS, and it requires  
powerful hardware to run on.  But make no mistake, if you think  
you'll wait for NT and not have to get the same kind of powerful  
hardware, you're wrong.  The only reason all these new OSs can do the  
things they do is by having muscle to back them.  Look at Windows  
3.1; tried running it on a 286 lately?  Yeah, it'll run, but you  
wouldn't want to do it every day.  Ditto on NT; it might run on 386s  
etc, but it won't be pleasant.  Look at OS/2; seen the minimum  
equipment specs?  So yes, NeXTSTEP has high system requirements, but  
so will all other top-of-the-line OSs.

Is it affordable?  That depends on your budget.  Is it worth it?  I  
think definitely.

> Or could I run NeXTSTEP and a plain ol' 386DX-33?

You can pick your own performance with NeXTSTEP (ie put a slower  
graphics card, get slower display) but you cannot, repeat, cannot run  
it on 386.  Period.  It requires a 'true' 486 (ie some cheapo 486  
clones won't work either).

I have a copy of the latest 'Questions and Answers' on NeXTSTEP 486  
that I'll be glad to email a copy of to anyone who requests it.


--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: russ1066@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Russell J Mellon)
Subject: Re: Reclaiming Memory From BIOS setup...
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 11:11:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.233959.3288@rei.com> fox@rei.com (Fuzzy Fox) writes:
>umnoor@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Nasir Ahmed Noor) writes:
>
>>When system starts up, it reports [familiar tick sound and RAM test] only
>>7808K. It should, according to my calcs, report 8192K [i.e. 8 Meg].
>
>The missing 384K is between 640K and 1024K.  This is the area where I/O
>devices (cards, etc.) put their address space.  RAM can only be made to
>appear in this location if you have a Shadow RAM chipset which will put
>it there.  It may be that this address space is inaccessible on your
>system.
>
I have the same problem with my 386-40mhz.  The problem is caused by shadow
RAM.  certain chip sets put 384k of reserved memory ( I don't know what that
is, but it isn't the memory between 640k and 1meg ) in low memory with an I/O
port-selectable method of getting to it.   got this info from QEMM. have to
use the NOSH (no shadow ram) option.  don't worry too much, there ain't much
that can be done.


Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
From: brett@vivaldi.psu.edu (Brett K Lynch)
Subject: IBM 5140 Laptop HELP!
Organization: Penn State Center for Academic Computing
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 17:45:18 GMT


If anyone has ANY information on were to obtain hardware / accessories for
the IBM 5140 Laptop or "convertible laptop", a copy of the information
would be greatly appreciated.

We have already attempted to contact IBM for this information, to no avail...

Specifically, we are looking for a serial / parallel interface, but as I 
said ANY information would prove helpful...

Thanx in advance...

-Brett Lynch

brett@vivaldi.psu.edu
bkl104@psuvm.psu.edu
From: frisk@complex.is (Fridrik Skulason)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: 486 vs. 386
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:09:50 GMT
Organization: Frisk Software International, Iceland

jregehr@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (John David Regehr) writes:

>I think you are correct that the Pentium is a solution waiting for a problem
>that few people have yet.

Don't worry.  I have full faith in Microsoft to come out with something
that will slow any Pentium-based machine down to AT speed.  :-)

-frisk
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
From: Andrew McCallum <andrewm@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: increasing memory...
X-To: DAVID NAUMOWICZ
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:46:00 GMT

From denaumow@vela.acs.oakland.edu (David Naumowicz)
>Stacker (either software version only or with a card for better
>efficiency)-  This will keep all your files in compressed format on
>the harddrive and uncompress them on-the-fly when you need them...  I
>personnally don't use it, but I have some friends who swear by it.
>However, I am not sure if it will work on a 286 machine (I don't see
>why not - but you might want to check into it...)

    Stacker will run on anything down to an 8088.  I know, I've done it.
Slightly slow, but if it give you space some people don't care.

    It won't compress ZIP files.  I've heard that it will actually make them
larger than the origional media wise.

    There is a VERY slow but workable Stacker freeware clone called SQUISH.
If you get it, I suggest you only use it for storing DATA, not programs
since it's pretty slow.

                                                  Andrew
From: walls@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Gerald Walls)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: Why does ctrl-P give "Write Fault Error ...
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:26:36 GMT
Organization: Honeywell Air Transport Systems Division

In article <1992Nov5.045950.24122@sol.UVic.CA> dchivers@engr.UVic.CA writes:
>In article 26297@cbnews.cb.att.com, merchant@cbnews.cb.att.com (shahrukh.s.merchant) writes:
...
>I've had this same problem.  To get out of it without re-booting, hit ^p again
>and select abort.
>
>>My questions:  What is ^P supposed to do?  Where is it documented?
>>Why doesn't it abort?  How can I disable this function?  How can I
>>turn it back on, should I decide that I do want to use it occasionally?
>
>Apparently, ^P toggles a print capture state.  If you are connected to a printer,
>everything typed will be echoed to the printer until ^P is hit again. I can't find any documentation for this in any DOS references that I've looked at. I'm not sure how to disable it but a second ^P will end it.
>
>I hope this is helpful.
>
>Dave
>

I don't think it's a DOS functions.  I believe it is built into
the BIOS.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
id <m0mpFSZ-0000ocC@crash.cts.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 92 02: 38 PST
	id <kb08924@pro-nsdapple.cts.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 92 02: 28 PST
	id <kb13877@pro-storm.cts.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 92 03: 51 CST
From: brogers@pro-storm.cts.com (Brian Rogers)
Subject: 486's and NeXTSTEP
Organization: ProLine [pro-storm] -- Dallas, TX -- 214/644-5113
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 03:31:41 CST

In <1992Nov10.195924.21529@leland.Stanford.EDU>
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) writes:

>Michael C Mccarty writes
>> I keep hearing all of this propaganda that I should buy a
>> 486SX-25 or even a 386-40 and all I can say is 'why?' ....
>> Where is the advantage to buy these machines?
>
>One good reason that you may want to go the 486 way (as long as you  
>also go the LocalBus etc way; which may not be possible on a limited  
>budget) is that you can then use cool things like NeXTSTEP 486 rather  
>than xxxx things like Windows.

I've often wondered about NeXTSTEP for 486.  How much does it cost?  Is it
affordable for a Joe Schmoe like me?  For that matter, hearing you mention
NeXTSTEP in the context of fast, LocalBus, ectc. 486's is rather discouraging
at times -- My wallet cringes.

>Bottom line:  If your budget is limited, stick with 386s, but  
>recognize you're also stuck with Windows/DOS.  If you can afford  
>more, get not just a faster chip but also better components.

There you go talking about "budget" again.  It's such a big word...  But I do
hate being stuck in the DOS world and don't want to haveto deal with Windows.  I
like Multi-Tasking systems and am actually relatively comfortable with
prompts -- so I'm thinking about switching to Coherent.  Is this direction
the way to go if I don't want to have to upgrade 75% of my hardware to the
newest and hottest?  Or could I run NeXTSTEP and a plain ol' 386DX-33?

--------- Brian Rogers ----------------------+----------------------------
Internet: brogers@pro-storm.cts.com          | "Staying Sane is Hard....   o O
  Bitnet: brogers%pro-storm.cts.com@nosc.mil |  Drinking Coffee is Easy!"  ___
---------------------------------------------+----- The Angel of Java ---   U 
 ProLine: brogers@pro-storm                  |
Internet: brogers@pro-storm.cts.com          | "Staying Sane is Hard....
    UUCP: crash!pro-storm!brogers            |  Drinking Coffee is Easy!"
  Bitnet: brogers%pro-storm.cts.com@nosc.mil |
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
From: spicer@sponge.micro.umn.edu (Troy Spicer)
Subject: Re: PC pursuit
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis: Under Grad Workstation Lab.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:15:24 GMT

In <1992Nov11.210829.10562@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>In <1992Nov7.205159.20189@ultb.isc.rit.edu> jhh4889@ultb.isc.rit.edu (J.H. Huebner) writes:

>>At some point in the future I want to connect to the net from South
>>Carolina.
>>There are no convinient connections I know of in S.C. I have found a
>>N.C. board that says it can be accessed by PC Pursuit. What IS PC
>>pursuit? How much does it cost? Where do I sign up? Does distance make
>>a difference or might  I just as well connect to Boston boards?

>>Any help would be appreciated, thanks.

>PC Pursuit is a service offered by GTE Sprint (SprintNet) that allows
>you to buy blocks of non-prime usage for very low fees.  The outdial
>points are anywhere there is a TymeNet node; cities that can be dialed
>into are somewhat restricted (to about 15 or so, as I recall it).
>Prices are by the month; $30 for 30 hours or $50 for 60 hours.
>Distance doesn't matter, so long as where you are calling is local to
>one of the 'Outdial Cities' (the 15 or so places you can connect
>into).  Service is currently restricted to 2400 baud.  Usage during


Your explanation is somewhat incorrect.

First, there are over 40 outdial cities (places you can call to).
There are indial points at nearly every medium city in the country.
     These indials are not TymeNet, they are Telenet (or SprintNet).
 
Your costs are correct.
 
There is a delay of about 1 second at full duplex no matter which city
you call.  This means Z-Modem is a necessity (or other streaming protocol).
 
I used it for over 4 years until I got my 14.4K modem, at which time the
LD cost/byte became equal.  If you are at 2400bps, PCP is definately
worth it.
 

--
|Fiscally Responsible Liberal+---------------------------------------------+
|Troy Spicer --Elec. Engring | "If the tanks a-rockin',                    |  
|spicer@mermaid.micro.umn.edu|  don't come a-knockin' " --MST3K            |
|University of Minnesota     |             "I believe Albert Einstein" --Me|
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: 486's and NeXTSTEP
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:37:51 GMT

In <kb13877@pro-storm.cts.com> brogers@pro-storm.cts.com (Brian Rogers) writes:

>In <1992Nov10.195924.21529@leland.Stanford.EDU>
>spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) writes:

>>Michael C Mccarty writes
>>> I keep hearing all of this propaganda that I should buy a
>>> 486SX-25 or even a 386-40 and all I can say is 'why?' ....
>>> Where is the advantage to buy these machines?
>>
>>One good reason that you may want to go the 486 way (as long as you  
>>also go the LocalBus etc way; which may not be possible on a limited  
>>budget) is that you can then use cool things like NeXTSTEP 486 rather  
>>than xxxx things like Windows.

>I've often wondered about NeXTSTEP for 486.  How much does it cost?  Is it
>affordable for a Joe Schmoe like me?  For that matter, hearing you mention
>NeXTSTEP in the context of fast, LocalBus, ectc. 486's is rather discouraging
>at times -- My wallet cringes.

Not released yet, so who knows about final prices?  

>>Bottom line:  If your budget is limited, stick with 386s, but  
>>recognize you're also stuck with Windows/DOS.  If you can afford  
>>more, get not just a faster chip but also better components.

Strange world, where only DOS/Windows is suitable for i386-class
hardware.  MOST UNIX products will run acceptable (or so I am told) on
a fast i386 machine, given enough memory.  OS/2 is much more sensitive
to quantity of memory than to processor speed, by all reports.  

>There you go talking about "budget" again.  It's such a big word...  But I do
>hate being stuck in the DOS world and don't want to haveto deal with Windows.  I
>like Multi-Tasking systems and am actually relatively comfortable with
>prompts -- so I'm thinking about switching to Coherent.  Is this direction
>the way to go if I don't want to have to upgrade 75% of my hardware to the
>newest and hottest?  Or could I run NeXTSTEP and a plain ol'
>386DX-33?

NeXTSTEP, from what I understand, is targetted specifically for i486
and better.  Given that, I don't think I'd want to run it on an SX
type chip (lousy graphics vectorization due to no math processor).
However, for OS/2 the reported minimum is supposedly a slow 386SX
(given at least 8 MB of memory).  UNIX wants somewhat faster CPUs and
would like you to have a math coprocessor (mostly because of X, which
will use it -- OS/2's PM doesn't, so far as I know, and neither does
Windows). 

Don't believe this "If you buy anything less than a 486SX you are
doomed to DOS/Windows" line.  I'm not convinced that the 486SX is that
much hotter than a fast 386DX anyway.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: Video card/Monitor incompatable???
Date: 11 Nov 92 20:27:29 GMT
Organization: Schlumberger Technologies, ATE division, San Jose, Ca.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Mark Cosham (cosham@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au) wrote:
: In <Bx99pq.HAF@cs.psu.edu> mllang@snobol.cs.psu.edu (Matthew Lang) writes:
: 
: >Hi, I'm having a problem with my video that's driving me crazy.  I have a 
: >SVGA card (True color) based on Cirrus GD-5422 chip and a Packard Bell
: >1024x768 monitor (non-interlaced).  The problem is that the picture shifts on
: >my screen when I switch video modes.  Some examples:
: >640x480 -- looks fine
: >800x600x64k -- Picture is shifted to the right, off the screen
: >800x600x256 -- picture is centered but really small (half-size)
: >etc.
: >I had this problem before so the company said I could try a new video card and
: >this is what I got.  About the same result as before (This is my second card
: >and my second monitor, same problems)  The manufacturer (WANG -- about the 
: >worst service I have ever received said "It's an incompatability between your
: >monitor and the card).  I still find this hard to believe.  Can anyone help???
: >I would appreciate any ideas!!!!
: >Matt 
: 
: Hi.
: 	This is a very common problem, although it is still usable
: normally.   I got a program with my Trident card that allows the
: position (and size) of each individual screen mode to be set and stored
: in a device driver so that the settings are loaded when the computer
: boots.  I don't know if something like this exists for that card though.
: 

Some of the better monitors can compensate automatically. My Nanao 9080i
has a microprocessor that controls the scanning, and has a non-volatile
RAM where the settings I choose for H/V height, position, and pincushion
are saved for each of up to 16 different scanning modes.

Russ Poffenberger               DOMAIN: poffen@sj.ate.slb.com
Schlumberger Technologies ATE   UUCP:   {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!poffen
1601 Technology Drive		CIS:	72401,276
San Jose, Ca. 95110             Voice: (408)437-5254  FAX: (408)437-5246
From: rgaudre@triton.unm.edu (Ron Gaudreau)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: 486 vs. 386
Keywords: prices
Date: 9 Nov 92 11:48:38 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <BxFpHv.8zB@news.orst.edu> schottd@ucs.orst.edu (Derek Schott) writes:
>
>After watching the market trend, I have the funniest feeling that
>everything has about hit rock bottom. A lot of people keep saying 
>that the introduction of the i586 is going to severely cut the
>prices of both the 386 and 486 machines. Although it might drop
>the prices at first, I don't see why it is going to cut them so
>much. People are in business to make money; if the computer 
>markets keep dropping the way they are now, no money is to be 
>made. Don't get me wrong, I'm in the purchasing stage myself, and 
>the lower they get in price, the better. My biggest fear is that
>if I wait too long, some unseen factor (ie trade embargo, stock
>market fluctuations, aliens landing in Sunnyvale CA., etc)
>will cause prices to go back up. 
>
>Anyone got any suggestions on what prices are going to do over the
>next 6 months to a year?
>
>-- 
>=============================================================================
>* Derek Schott                                Mail:schottd@ucs.orst.edu     *
>* Department of Public Safety/OSP             Corvallis OR OSU              *
>=============================================================================

I wouldn't expect the 486 to drop much further even when the Pentium comes
out. The Pentium will be priced high until Intel gears up the new plant
and Intel doesn't want to shoot itself in the foot as far as sales of
the 486. Right now the 486 are being cobbled up as fast as they can make
them. 
-- 
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Ron Gaudreau              | rgaudre@polaris.unm.edu  
    University of New Mexico      |