HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy Newman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 17 Nov 92 01:06:51 GMT
Organization: Canon Information Systems Research Australia

petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>I can see you come from the UN*X world, though.  Back in CP/M days,
>and even in DOS, the command shell was considered part of the OS,
>if you will.  On mainframes, it was not.  So I guess this issue depends
>on whether you are a PC biggot, or a mainframe biggot.
>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...

There are mainframe OS's that have the command interpreter buried
within them. Its all a matter of taste. Its nice to be able to pick
and choose but it is also nice to have something integrated into the
system (forgetting other sins commited by such systems.)
-- 
Andy Newman (andy@research.canon.oz.au)
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8531 comp.os.os2.misc:36789
From: ks3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kenton Shaver)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Kernel Roulette
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:54:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.Qf29QLO00VBKE0sUx3
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

pendrith@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Mark Pendrith) writes:
| Since first running OS/2 2.0, I have had four diffrent kernels installed. 
| They are:
| 
| [stuff about bugs in previous kernels]
| 
| The October fix, the much anticipated "Golden" CSD, its very name dripping
| with Homeric promise, was supposed to deliver us from all this evil.  Well,
| the gods hate hubris, and, boy, were the guys who wrote this punished for
| their presumption. The "Golden Turkey" CSD has many quirks and surprises for
| the unwitting, but the most worrying in my experience is the development of
| the the SYS3176 error: A program executed an illegal instruction at xxxxxxx.

I've never gotten this error before (Model 90 XP, 12 MB).

| [...]
|I believe IBM is losing both time and prestige and is in danger of squandering
| an ever decreasing window of opportunity with this sort of blundering. It's
| strange that everyone is asking "Can Microsoft kill off OS/2?" The irony is
| that only IBM can kill OS/2; and continuing to release unstable version after
| unstable version is the way to do it. Let's hope it doesn't happen.

Yeah, the gnu chess shell was not fixed (so that the chess men look
right, nor is the desktop always refreshing itself now.  On the other
hand, look at how many programmers are listed in the OS/2 credits
and, further, consider how many platforms must be supported.  Throw
in a little bureacracy and away we go.  If MS isn't having the exact
same problems (perhaps even to a greater degree) I'm shocked.  Can
you imagine putting together three operating systems and having them
preemptive multitask like OS/2 does?  FOR ME, THE BUGS I HAVE FOUND
HAVE BEEN TRIVIAL, of course I cannot speak for every user.
 
| On the upside, I can happily report that the telephone support from IBM
| (in Australia at least) has been exceptional. [...]

The support that IBM is giving OS/2 is phenominal.  Let's not
forget that MS-DOS 1.0 could not even add correctly and IBM
programmers had to practically re-write the damn thing.

Followups to my message to comp.os.os2.advocacy please.

KWS
========
ks3l+@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: * OS/2 2.0 ATI drivers released *
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 02:57:25 GMT


The OS/2 2.0 ATI drivers have arrived
-------------------------------------

OS/2 2.0 specific drivers for the MACH 8 accelerator cards are currently
available for download at the ATI Bulletin Board System. The Microchannel
version is also available. They can be found under the filenames:

OS2ACC.ZIP -  132077 Kbytes in length
OS2MCA.ZIP -  131574 Kbytes in length (This is the MCA version)

The ATI BBS is located in Toronto, Canada. The number is : (416) 756-4591

Let everybody else know...


Best Regards,
Mark K.
Toronto, Canada
E-Mail: kovarski@zooid.guild.org
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:56:16 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <7889@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu wrote:
> In article <1992Nov16.085907.28213@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> >In article <7870@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu wrote:
> >> So what about those of us who say, "I like my system, because I've tried it
> >> and your system, and your system sucks, and mine doesn't"?
> >You like your system because mine sucks????  I think that would
> >most probably fall under "bigots trying to disguise themselves
> >as advocates".  
> 
> Read what I wrote. I like my system because, after evaluating it and your
> system, I decided that yours sucks and mine doesn't. This isn't just
> randomness, but based on my experience.
Now, in talking to other people about your decision, what is more important
to you?  The fact that your system didn't suck, or the fact that "my" system
did.  If you say both, I'd say you're both an advocate and a bigot 
(I wish there were words that weren't so strong, because at least you
have some logical reasons for why you feel this way.)


> 
> >I like my system because it does what I want it to do, and
> >whether your system sucks or not has no bearing on whether I like
> >my system.
> 
> I went looking for a system that does what I need it to do. I tried your
> system. It failed miserably. If the alternatives are your system and my
> system, and yours sucks, then where am I left, especially if my system does
> the job and does it well?
You seem to be saying that my system sucks more often than saying your
system is good.  I'll let you decide what that means.

btw: "my" system is NT (it's what I prefer at this time for many reasons).

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: COMDEX Awards
Keywords: OS/2 Awards PC Magazine Computing World
Date: 22 Nov 1992 11:32:08 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Nov21.182944.4050@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>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...   

I live and die by my HP95; even so, I'm holding out for a machine that size
that runs OS/2. No pen interface, either; the reason I use mine so heavily is
that I hate using pen and paper. I think it'll take a few years to squeeze
enough horsepower to run OS/2 into that size package, though.

-- 
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.
           "Cat: Four legs and an attitude." -- Jim Reese
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: Workers hate windoze, revolution at 11! : -)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 02:13:10 GMT

In <GERRY.92Nov23151938@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:

>There is a difference between glitz and neat presentation.  To me, a
>neat presentation is one that is done on a laser printer with
>proportional fonts.  Anything less than that is sloppy and detracts
>from what is being said.  This in no way implies that the content of 
>a properly prepared document is superior to the improperly prepared
>document.  However, and I repeat, that anyone who has not mastered
>such simple techmologies as laser printers and proportionally spaced
>fonts probably does not have anything worth reading.

Goodness, there goes Shakespeare and Dickens, right in the crapper. 
After all, neither of them ever mastered the dot matrix printer, let
alone the laser!  :-)

I'm nominating the quote above as the absolutely stupidest thing I've
seen posted on the net this month.  (Although the guy who claimed that
TeX lacks bugs was a strong contender.)  Comments?  :-)
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | "Don't you boys know NICE songs?"
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers |                 -- Mrs. Borg
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sherman@unx.sas.com (Chris Sherman)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 08:24:07 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.

In <1992Nov16.071632.9886@cs.joensuu.fi> jahonen@cs.joensuu.fi (Jarmo Ahonen) writes:

>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.

>Well... I have been able to crash various UNIX machines when 
>programming. 

I would like to know how the different operating systems handle a crash...

Under MS-DOS, when the system crashes, it just goes away, and you have
no idea what went wrong.

Under Unix, if a program or the operating system itself crashes, you get a
nice core file (usually) that gives you all the information you need to
track down what happened.  In the case of an operating system, you can send
this core file to the vender, and maybe a week or two later a patch tape
will show up.  You system will never crash that way again.  In terms of a
normal program, you can enter the source level debugger, load in the core
file, and you can see what the environment looked like at the moment of the
crash (stack, variables, everything).  It will tell you what line of code
the program crashed on too.

Now, how does OS/2 handle crashes?  Windows?  Amiga?  Mac?

(I have seen on a Mac where a debug window comes up and you can then look
at hex, but I'm not sure how useful this is in tracing code, or even
finding out what happened to make it crash).

I would think that if an operating system preserved the state of everything
when it died, debugging it would be a heck of alot easier.  I consider the
core file mechanism to be one of the main reasons why Unix systems are so
reliable.  When they crash, you can find out exactly why very easily.

Comments?  Any reason why OS/2 couldn't do something like this? 

-- 
     ____/     /     /     __  /    _  _/    ____/
    /         /     /     /   /      /     /          Chris Sherman
   /         ___   /        _/      /          /
 _____/   __/   __/   __/ _\    _____/   _____/           sherman@unx.sas.com
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8666 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2872
From: wtw@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (William T Warner)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Workers hate windoze, revolution at 11! : -)
Date: 23 Nov 1992 06:27:52 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu

In article <1992Nov22.022735.8357@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.101921.4839@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>>And nothing looks quite so unprofessional as a letter set in a fixed
>>>>width font printed on a dot matrix printer.  I see that and I say,
>>>
...
> ... it isn't the appearance of printed copy that matters but,
>rather, the substance of what is communicated.  Sure, it's nice to look
>at a neat, well-fontificated presentation, but substance ought to win in
>the battle between illusion and reality in anything that matters (I
>except advertising from this, of course!).

Well, what "ought" to be and what ARE are different.  A document's
appearance is important, and telling;  if someone isn't 
willing to take the effort to produce something decent looking, it probably 
isn't worth much.  It's the "quality" and "pride" issues, I guess...

And, no, I'm not in advertising, but computer science... 

Bill Warner

P.S.  Death to Macintosh "City" fonts...

-- 
Bill Warner      | Worcester Polytechnic Institute, CS graduate program.
wtw@wpi.wpi.edu  | ** Happy OS/2 2.0 user **
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: gilem@aix.rpi.edu (Michael R. Gile)
Subject: os/2 in byte magazine -- planned use of mach kernel!!
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:42:03 GMT

there is an small article on page 38 of dec. byte mag that
says that IBM is planning to come out with a version of os/2
based on the mach kernel!!  James Cannavino, IBM vice pres
& general manager of Personal Systems line basically claims
that the new version will be released in 18 to 24 mos, and
will be able to run dos, windows, os/2 and UNIX programs !!
I only have one question...  why didn't they do this in the 
first place?  If they had done this first place, I would
probably be convinced that os/2 had more of a future, and
would be running it on my machine.

Mike
go IBM!

reprinted from byte w/out permission

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: COMDEX Awards
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 01:53:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.234201.23346@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.213610.8366@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>>No, the co-winner was Windows 3.1, OS/2 is not sophisticated enough
>>to compete with Windows NT yet, nor is Windows NT released yet.
>>I read the PC/Computing article, and it was soundly based.
>>Here's the piece that deals with Windows 3.1 and OS/2 2.0
>>[PC/Computing, December 1992, Page 190]
>...
>
>>Windows: enforced multitasking, an enhanced file allocation table, a
>>high-performance file system, a more efficient flat-memory model up
>>to 4GM [actually 2.0 is limited to 512K do to the way 1.X back-
>                                    ^^^^
>>compatibility is handled], and the ability to run 32-bit applicaitons
>>as well as Windows and DOS applications. This is the operating
>>system Windows should have been.
>
>I hope that was a typo on your part, not PC/Computing's. :)
>It should be 512 Megs, not 512 K.
Oops... I did mean 512 Megs.  When I quote articles stuff in [] is my
comments.  If the article uses [] then they appear as \[\].

>
>Ted


Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                   I strongly encourage you to mail your copy
University of Utah                     of Ross Perot's:  "United We Stand
Center for Software Science            How we can take back our country",
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373        to President-elect Clinton.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: Is OS/2 Easier?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 03:04:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.144550.6518@gw.wmich.edu> 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>
>	Is the WPS easy to use?

...

>	For example, the #1 question I get from people concerning windows:
>"I just loaded program x on my hard drive but where is it now? how do I
>load it?"

     Any windows program with half a brain is going to install itself into
program manager and make it pretty obvious to the user how to load it.

>	I then have to take them through the process of explaining
>that the program manager is just a bunch of pictures representing programs
>on the computer.  They are not really the programs.  Then I have to
>show them how to put a new program in the program manager which means
>(if they have windows 3.1) loading the file mananger and dragging it
>to the program manager or going to file, new item, find it on the hard
>drive and then place it.
>
>	No one ever asks "where's my program" on os/2.  They go to their
>drives and just find it on their hard disk.  If they want to add it
>to their os/2 system folder they just makea  shadow of it but they
>do not have to do that to find it relatively easy.

     What's the difference between finding the program with the file
manager, or finding the program with the drives icon?  (Other than the
fact that the drives icon is slower)

     And which is easier -- dragging an item from the file manager to the
program manager, or finding something with the drives icon and creating
a shadow of it on the desktop?

     I *do* think the WPS is easy to use, but I think this is NOT a good
example of it.  The WPS is nice, and certainly more flexible than the
progman/fileman combination, but there are lots of things it can't do and
lots of things it can do, but they're hard as hell to find out about.

     - Mike

P.S. - Anyone know the answer to any of these questions?:

     1. How do you take a bunch of icons on the desktop and line them up in
        a particular order?
     2. How do you change the automatic spacing of icons on the desktop?
     3. How do you change the environment variables that an OS/2 program on
        the desktop uses without shutting down?
     4. How do you take a DOS image and give it access to drive A:?
     5. How do you change the time/datestamp of a file under OS/2 (i.e.,
        like the "touch" utility does under DOS)?

      Thanks in advance for any answers.
Organization: Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Vienna, Austria
Date: Wednesday, 18 Nov 1992 12:03:49 CET
From: FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: single-threaded message queue
 <BUHR.92Nov16184637@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <BxuJCH.9w1@csfb1.fir.fbc.com>

John:

Yes, IBM stated to change the single-message concept into a localized (as it
is planned for NT), sometimes next year (1st half 93, if I recall correctly).

Additionally, you will find C2-hooks in OS/2, with the appropriate software
to use them, any vendor can file for an official C2-secure OS/2 machine...
(actually, it is possible that the C2-hooks are there in the refresh version
of OS/2 which will contain Windows 3.1 support, sometimes this December or
January).

Additionally, SOM will go LAN utilizing DCE standing to the CORBA-standard...
(try *that* with NT...)

To what it boils down. All the features of NT presently missing in OS/2 will
be available under OS/2 at the same time NT actually ships. But, it will even
have more features, especially regarding LAN-connectivity and integration. As
everyone allways said, no need to be hypnotized by NT and to wait for it, if
a superior product exists already today in the form of OS/2. Just get it,
benefit from it and watch (with amusement) how IBM|Microsoft play catchup, to
the benifit of ourselves, the customers. Besides, Microsoft has been telling
a couple of weeks now, that NT is not meant for the desktop anyway, so you as
a desktop-user won't be able to use NT !

---rony
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: "richard anstruther" <richard.anstruther@canrem.com>
Subject: windows 3.1 support
Reply-To: "richard anstruther" <richard.anstruther@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: comp
Date: 22 Nov 92 11:00:21 EST

Tim Glauvert writes:

-> |> 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.

Really?  OS/2 has Windows 3.0 support today.  NT users don't even
have that, since they don't have NT yet.  Are you predicting
that NT will be released before OS/2 has Windows 3.1 support?

-> Besides, "the latest version of Windows" is Windows NT. Will OS/2
-> have NT support two or three months after NT is released?

Since NT only recently went beta, by that logic OS/2 has Windows
3.1 support, since the beta for that is out too.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.apps
From: mattm@access.digex.com (Matt Mosley)
Subject: Looking for good (usable?) term program for OS/2 2.0
Keywords: terminal, os2, 2.0, 32-bit
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 00:00:54 GMT

I've been looking around, and had no luck so far.

The "Softerm" that comes with OS/2 2.0 is *really* pitiful.  

What I'm looking for is a terminal that supports vt100 emulation (TRUE
vt100, with backspace instead of ^H) and, preferably, zmodem.  Backscroll
would be nice, too.

I don't want anything that's GUI.  Reason?  Because it slows it down
considerably, especially at 14400 baud.  The graphical text can't display
as fast as a plain old text window can.  Full-screen is also NECESSARY -
no pitiful little 80-columns-in-1-inch windows.

Does anything like this exist, or am I looking for too much?

Matt.

-- 
Matt Mosley		\	"Think for yourself, and feel the walls...
mattm@digex.com		 |	 Become sand beneath your feet."
mattm@ai.mit.edu	/	 - Queensryche, 'Anybody Listening?'
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2:454 comp.os.os2.apps:8389
From: 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: Rayshade: Targa-24 viewer?
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:52:39 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1992Nov15.224013.1436@njitgw.njit.edu>, dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
> In article <mortenk.72.721864053@dhhalden.no> mortenk@dhhalden.no (MORTEN KNUDSEN) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov13.114236.7135@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> "leo richardson" <UKI6@DKAUNI2.BITNET> writes:
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>I have Rayshade for OS2.  The readme tells that this program outputs
>>>the Targa-24 format. Where can I get a viewer for Targa-24 pictures?
>>>
>>I think CSHOW will do the trick.
> 
> Doesn't CSHOW quantize the picture down to an 8-bit VGA/sVGA image?
> -- 
>   |)  David Charlap          | .signature confiscated by FBI due to
>  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu | an ongoing investigation into the
> ((|,)                        | source of these .signature virusses
>  ~|~
	No, Cshow will take TGA files.  I use rayShade and Cshow
to see pictures done in 16 million or 32k colors.

					-Brad
p.s you must have the driver though for Cshow.  I have version 8.44 and
use the Tseng hicolor.



Xref: sparky comp.os.os2:471 comp.os.os2.apps:8562
From: shabby@Athena.MIT.EDU (Chris Shabsin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: Looking for good (usable?) term program for OS/2 2.0
Date: 23 Nov 1992 16:22:39 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
NNTP-Posting-Host: kangaroo.mit.edu
In-reply-to: mattm@access.digex.com's message of Mon, 23 Nov 1992 00:00:54 GMT

In article <By56pL.LDJ@access.digex.com> mattm@access.digex.com (Matt Mosley) writes:

   I've been looking around, and had no luck so far.

   The "Softerm" that comes with OS/2 2.0 is *really* pitiful.  

   What I'm looking for is a terminal that supports vt100 emulation (TRUE
   vt100, with backspace instead of ^H) and, preferably, zmodem.  Backscroll
   would be nice, too.

   I don't want anything that's GUI.  Reason?  Because it slows it down
   considerably, especially at 14400 baud.  The graphical text can't display
   as fast as a plain old text window can.  Full-screen is also NECESSARY -
   no pitiful little 80-columns-in-1-inch windows.

   Does anything like this exist, or am I looking for too much?

TE/2 sounds like what you're looking for.  It's available on
ftp-os2.nmsu.edu.  Only problem is, even though it's the best I've
found so far, even in full screen mode it has trouble keeping up with
14.4k with compression, on a 386sx-16 :)  Anyone got a really good,
fast vt100 emulator with zmodem and support for 50 or even 57 line
screen mode for OS/2?  Oh, one other thing, TE/2 has a setup option
for backspace/del, but ^H is theoretically the correct vt100 action.
However, I have it set up as del.  :)

--
-Chris Shabsin
-shabby@athena.mit.edu
-member, SIPB, PWLCSBHNM, MITMB, VWA, MITCC, PWN, LSI
-"You got the power, you got the might, get ready for battle, beat
	that Black Knight!"
					-Black Knight pinball game...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.apps