waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
I've been running Dos 6 for about a month.  I was generally impressed with the improvements:  the multiple boot configurations were great, the new commands were nice, and DoubleSpace worked fine (twice as slow for large data transfers, twice as fast for small with SmartDrv).  Until now.  This morning at 4 am while I was working on my research paper, I had to reboot a hung Dos program (that did no disk i/o) from within Windows 3.1. When my machine finished rebooting, I found my windows directory and about two thirds of my other directories were irreversibly corrupted.  I cannot afford problems like this.  I'm returning to Dos 5.  mark
Is this newsgroup archived anywhere beyond the normal expiration dates, say for the last 6 months or more?
In article <kaz.736031654@vincent1.iastate.edu> kaz@iastate.edu (Errington Shroud) writes: >Recently, Windows has starting giving me the error "Sound Blaster Pro: >Requires newer version of Windows 3.1."  It has worked correctly for a long >time, and don't know what the problem could be.  Thanks!   I had this problem when I initially installed my sound blaster pro and here's what the tech support told me.  They told me to look for the files that are stated in the readme file from the win31 subdirectory of the soudblaster directory. Now look in the system.ini file and if any of them say device=xxxxxxx.386 than change it to  device=*xxxxxxx Thats should work. Was your system.ini file erased for some reason? That would be the only reason that I would think that Windoes is giving you the error now.
>  >I downloaded the CompuServe GIF of the month.  A raytraced image of >a golf ball next to a hole.  Very nice, 640x480x256 bitmap, easily >converted to a Windows BMP.  If anyone wants, I could upload a copy >on Cica... >  Please do...and let us know specifics.  (lest I'm the only one on this).  Mickey
In article <1t9ada$og0@fitz.TC.Cornell.EDU> stlombo@eos.acm.rpi.edu (Steve J. Lombardi) writes: >From: stlombo@eos.acm.rpi.edu (Steve J. Lombardi) >Subject: Please help an Amiga user find comfort in Windows >Date: 18 May 1993 00:25:14 GMT >By night I'm an Amiga user. By day I work with windows. I'd be much more  >comfortable in windows if I had Two things. > >1. A good Personal information manager. You know- a calendar, address book, >reminder list etc... rolled into one clean interface. > >2. A good file manager. Microsofts is very poor by my standards. How >about one that has a left and right window and allows file operations  >between them. being able to launch programs from the same interface >would be nice. as well as text reading and graphics viewing. Those >who are familiar with Directory Opus on the Amiga know what I'm >looking for. I have written the file manager HFM, wich has two windows which compare the files in two directorys to find out wether there are equal or  similar files. The 7 most important operations, copy, move, delete, show the file, start a progam, navigate in the directory tree can be invoked by dragging a directory entry with the mouse. This is very convenient, because the selection of the file and the operation to be performed, occur in one move. For bitmap graphic viewing the program vpic can be integrated, for spreadsheat and database files I use the view program from PCTOOLS 7.1. HFM can be configured to use arbitrary viewers to show special data formats. It does also present archives from pkzip etc. as simulated subdirectorys. This filemanager has a somewhat non standart user interface, but it is very convienient to use and is the prefered file manager  in several labs in our university.  The drawback of this filemanager is, it's still a dos program and the development of a windows version has not yet begun. I use the program package run18.zip, where run tells its windows companion sched.exe which windows program should be started. In this way you can start a windows program from a dosbox. The new version 3.19 (to be released soon) includes a new command for automating this windows program start. FTP archives for the mentioned programs (all these archives have several mirror sites) Simtel oak.oakland.edu 141.210.10.117 /filutl/hfm318.zip /gif/vpic60e.zip Garbo garbo.uwasa.fi 128.214.87.1 /dirutil/hfm318.zip CICA ftp.cica.indiana.edu 129.79.20.17  /util/run18.zip -
As the title says...Does anyone know of a Text editor (like notepad) that can handle large text files?....Thanx for any and all help!  ________________________________________________________________________ |       James Burke       |  By reading this you agree not to hold     | |                         |   the writer responsible for any evil      | | jburke@abacus.bates.edu | happening that may befall you at any time. |
Where's an ftp site for Trumpet?  (other than wuarchive, umich,.. something off the beaten path??)
>Now does anyone know if it is possible to use W4WG and Lan Workplace >for DOS at the same time.   >ie Can I access a file on another PC while being logged on to the >mainframe at the same time, simultaneously.  Yup.  We're using both and they work just fine.  Hopefully, someday WFWG will communicate over LWP TCPIP.  Right now we have to load NetBeui.
>    for each_student do >       begin >          Lowest_Score_Found := Max_Possible_Value >          for I := 1 to Number_Of_Assignments do >             begin >                  if Score[I] < Lowest_Score_Found then >                     Lowest_Score_Found := Score[I]  >             end >          Total_Score := SUM(all scores) - Lowest_Score_Found >       end  Couldn't you simply use MIN() as you use SUM() and than subtract it from SUM() ??  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ internet: ffritze@hpwbe007.wad.hp.com phone:    Germany 7243 602296 address:  Fromut FRITZE, Waldbronn Analytic Division R&D, 	  Hewlett Packard Str, D 7517 Waldbronn 2, Germany
In a previous article, peter@psychnet.psychol.utas.edu.au (Peter R. Tattam) says:  >Contact me for details. > >   peter@psychnet.psychol.utas.edu.au > >Peter  This is posted on behalf of Peter Tattam.  There is a North American mirror with the beta test version of WinTrumpet for Winsock.  Please contact me or Peter for details.  Ashok
Has anyone observed this?  If I copy a large, say 800K+ file (a large PKZIP file for instance) to my floppy drive (3.5") under MS Windows 3.1 via either Program Manager or a DOS Shell, the file copied under the DOS shell  has errors whereas the file copied from within Program Manager does not.  The corruption is detected by executing "pkunzip -t b:\file.zip" after  both copies.  The file copied via the DOS shell always shows corruption.   Now here's the kicker:   I have many windows open while doing this; both DOS and WINDOWs apps. Supposedly all WINDOWs' apps share the same time slice, whereas the  DOS apps get their own equal time slice (unless overriden).   So, as an example, I have 5 WINDOWs' apps open, 2 multitasking DOS sessions running, and one execution-execlusive DOS shell iconized (inactive).  Under this  scenario, CPU time is divided into two major slices:  one for all the Windows apps and one slice for the running DOS app.    When copying under Windows PGM MGR, I'll assume the other Windows and DOS tasks are essentially inactive.  Thus PGM MGR gets, say, 80% of the Windows slice and 95% of the execution-background DOS shell's slices.  Thus it gets (.8)(.95)^2 =  .72 or 72% of the total available CPU time.   When copying in a DOS shell, I activate the execute-exclusive mode DOS shell (no other DOS background tasks allowed), full screen, under the Windows task manager.  The CPU time available to this shell would be 80% of the Windows slice (assumming inactive Windows applications) and 100% of the DOS slice:  (1.0)(.8) = .8 or 80% of the total available CPU time.  So why do I get copy errors under DOS if it has the greater amount of CPU time?  Is program manager working in a pre-emptive mode during the floppy  copy?  It must be!    Miscellaneous data:  Running Windows on top of DOS 5.0, qemm 5.x, rapidbios.sys,                      2.0 mbyte smartdrive (no delayed writes), two ramdrives,                       logitech mouse driver 6.2, full 16mbytes motherboard RAM,                      64Kbyte motherboard cache, 386 DX 33 Mhz.                                            Running dos-edit.com TSR in the DOS shell.                       --
In <1993Apr19.211044.28763@guinness.idbsu.edu>, lhighley@gozer.idbsu.edu (Larry Paul Highley)  wrote: >  >  > Is there a utility out there that will let me use filenames longer than > the standard 8.3 format.  If so please email me.  please e-mail me too,  thanks  ...howard hfeldman@infoserv.com  ---------------------------------------------------------------
OK will some one out there tell me why / how DOS 5 can read (I havn't tried writing in case it breaks something) the Win/NT NTFS file system. I thought NTFS was supposed to be better than the FAT system
Hi there,      I plan on upgrading my monitor and video card to 1280x1024. I have     a DX2/66 ISA (no local bus) system. I would appreciate if anyone can      drop me an email of your experience with high-resolution     video board/monitor. Thanks.  -Ming T. Lin
This is in relation to a question concerning changing the registered to:  information of MS-Windows...  In a previous article, 2a42dubinski@vms.csd.mu.edu wrote: >  >	ahh, yes, this is a fun topic.  No, once the name is incribed on the >disk, that is it, it is encoded.  Not even a HEX editor will find it.  You can >write over the "Licensed to:", but you can't change the name underneth it.  I  I can find it with a HEX editor, although I have not tried to overwrite it. Are you sure it can't be?  You may be mistaken about this. (???)  Rob
In article <C51H9M.46p@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, rhc52134@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Richard) writes: |> Geoffrey S. Elbo writes: |>  |> >Yes, and it is the fastest defrag I've ever watched.  It did a 170MB  |> >hard disk in 20 minutes. |>  |> 	I found the MS defrag looks very much like Norton Speedisk. |> Is it just a strip-down version of the later? |>  |> 	I have both Norton Speedisk and Backup, so I was wondering  |> if I need to install MS Backup? |>  |> Richard |>
Is their a pd/freeware hard drive utility that can handle a compressed IDE drive without screwwing it up?  Need to document occasional failures in reading/writing, check overall integrity of disk's hardware and sectors.  I believe that all of my problems with DOS/Windows can be isolated to my drive.  Getting occasional corrupted files, even with smartdrive, 32 bit access turned off. Had these problems under DOS 5.  Only with drive C. Drive D may have had one failure, but that file was under the control of Win/Winword on drive C.  All utilities available to me report no problems. DOS, NDD (NU4.5).  Another symptom, SD took forever on C, and kicked me out with a suspension till NDD run 6 to 8 times.  Thanks.
bferrell@cicada.occ.uc.edu (Brett Ferrell) writes: > In article <1993May13.015407.24313@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilm\ > er) writes: > >found there were actually two surveys. One of randomly selected 						^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >resellers, one of randomly selected users from the 6 upgrade  		    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >registered user database. Both surveys showed a 93% positive > >rating. > > > >-jen  	If JD Power and Associates did the survey, I would like an  	anonymous ftp site to pick it up at.  Only a sucker believes 	an MS released survey results about an MS product.  Ok--assume 	that the results of the survey, whatever they are, are 100% 	honest.  If the results indicated extreme dissatisfaction with 	the product, is MS going to tell us to stop buying MS-DOS 6.0 	because it sux? :-)  Sure....  > *** Would it not be fair to say that the relatively few people who have decided > to purchase 6 would be inclined to like it.  Just as those of us who love OS/2, > most of the people who but them know (more or less) what to expect and are not > disappointed.  I mean, it is nice to know that the people who bought it are  > happy (and important for MS to know) and I don't dispute the accuracy.  I just > would hate to see people extrapolate from that population that DOS 6 is the > next computer revolution.   	Well, these "statistics" are to shut people up and add some 	microscopic weight to MS' arguments.  As I just said, you have 	seen what automakers do.  Who is going to believe Chrysler if 	they tell us, "In a 'random' Chrysler-conducted survey..." 	My theory about certain people is that they are convinced that 	if a point is maintained long enough, it is true.  After all, 	what is the focus of this company?  Information.  Money and 	information.  Technology is, for some, an expedient toward 	these ends.  Why did Bill Gates drop out of college?   	Was it because he couldn't afford it at the time?  Was it 	because (as the WSJ says) he couldn't wait to use what he 	knew to go out and make money?  Bill Gate's answer to this 	question would be highly interesting.  I await it. 	I can't stomach Bill declaring himself a visionary and 	using every available opportunity to build up the cult 	around himself and then having MS sell DOS and Windoze 	as their main stays.      --------------------------------------------- |kenton+@CMU.EDU | OS/2 FIXES BROKEN WINDOWS |
If someone has downloaded the PCTools demo from Compuserve, please upload it to CICA or other FTP site.
In a previous article, mlipsie@rdm09.std.com (Mike Lipsie MPU) says:  >In article <C54yFD.6LD@sunfish.usd.edu> pwiseman@salmon.usd.edu (Cliff) writes: >> >>Your swap file is purged every time you exit windows. If you shut off your  >>computer without exiting windows your swap file remains. 20 Mb is on the large >>side, are you running more applications than you really need to at the same time? > >This is, of course, not true.  The *temporary* swap file is purged >every time you exit windows.  The permanent file is permanent and >can only be changed by adjusting the virtual memory. > >I suspect that either the original poster was "tinkering" and >adjusted the swap file to 20MB (and then forgot about it) or  >somebody "helped" him. > >--  >Mike Lipsie                                (work) mlipsie@ca.merl.com >Mitsubishi Electronic Research Laboratory  (home) mikel@dosbears.UUCP > When I first setup windows using the self load mode It grabbed about 20 megs of swap file space, my 120 meg HD was nearly empty at that time. I deleted windows for a time and recently reloaded, now my HD is nearly full and windows just took 4 megs. I have read somewhere that the best rule of thumb is have your permanent swap file the same size as your regular RAM size.  I have 4 megs of RAM and windows took 4 meg perm swap file.  Works very well. In fact with my available HD space, about 20 megs it won't let me make the swap file any bigger. You should change your virtual mem swap file to 8 megs I think that is what you said your RAM was.  C-ya..... /\/\artin
Somebody help me cure my poor computer before I go insane!  I have a problem with my 486 when running windows that appears to be memory-related.  It's actually not limited to windows, but that's where it causes most of my problems.  Ths machine's 486DX33, 8Meg RAM, 256Kcache, TRIDENT TVGA card, PAS-16 soundcard.  1)  Windows runs REALLY, REALLY slow most of the time.  Slower than on my old 386SX16.  Graphics draws/fills are slow, boots are slow, applications are sluggish, dialog boxes take up to 15 seconds to appear. (Note: some of my other non-windows applications do funny things that appear to be related.  Several run slow, my .mod player crashes the system etc..)  2) Running Borland C++ 3.0 before running windows (or any of the other programs)  COMPLETELY fixes the problem.  Windows will run as fast as I've ever seen it run, easily 10 times faster for graphics than when I don't run BC beforehand.  3)  I don't have a memory manager installed in config.sys.  Installing emm386.exe does not fix the problem- it makes it worse.  After emm386 is installed, running BC will not fix the problem anymore.
In article <1993Apr27.102626.1@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>, cctr132@csc.canterbury.ac.nz (Nick FitzGerald, PC Software Consultant, CSC, UoC, NZ) writes: > In article <1rh2mi$ea4@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, bilan@cps.msu.edu (Thomas J > Bilan) writes: >  >> If I put LASTDRIVE = Z in my config.sys, NETX will run but I can't access >> drive f: to log in to Novell.   >> If I don't put LASTDRIVE = Z in my config.sys I can't access other W4WG  >> drives from the file-manager. >> >> It seems that there should be a way to make NETX work with the LASTDRIVE =  >> statement in my Config.Sys. >  > First off, I haven't used W4WG (but I think that's about to change!). >  > The problem is the LASTDRIVE command and the way NetWare in general (and > in this case NETX in particular) adds drives to the device chain.  > Setting LASTDRIVE=Z means there are no "unassigned" (as opposed to > "unused") drive letters for NetWare to use, as it tacks its drive > mappings -onto the end- of the existing list of drives.  W4WG obviously > attaches its network drives to "existing, unused" drive letters. >  > I'd guess the next thing I'd try is something like LASTDRIVE=M, which on > most machines will leave a fair swathe of drives for W4WG and still > allow up to 13 NetWare drive mappings as well.  W4WG requires DOS drives.  I use LASTDRIVE=J which makes my first Novell drive K and leaves me drives G, H, I and J for W4WG.  My local DOS drives use A-F.
In article <1993May16.143722.4555@samba.oit.unc.edu> dil.admin@mhs.unc.edu (Dave Laudicina) writes: >question. The next question is even if I did want to run OS/2 >and I had this big monster machine to run it on, is there a diverse ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  I think you're deliberatly overstating the requirements for OS/2.   Considering that OS/2 is a multi-threaded true multitasking OS and takes the place of DOS and Windows and more, I actually think the  requirements for OS/2 are very reasoable.  I also think that anyone using Windows 3.1 without 8 megs of RAM, a 386-40, and 200 megs of hard drive space, is beating their head against a wall.  Those are also legitimate requirements for OS/2.  In fact, the requirements  for Windows 3.1 and OS/2 are about equal.
Tim Glauert (thg@cam-orl.co.uk) wrote: : In article <14987@news.duke.edu>, kdb@teer13.acpub.duke.edu (Kurt Bollacker) writes: : |> Tim Glauert (thg@cam-orl.co.uk) wrote: : |> : In article <14957@news.duke.edu>, kdb@sunbar.mc.duke.edu (Kurt Bollacker) writes: : |> : |> None of this changes the fact that MSW3.1 is objectively inferior to its : |> : |> competition. : |>  : |> : Do you mean that MSW3.1 is objectively inferior in _some_ respects (which : |> : is trivially true), that it is objectively inferior in _all_ respecets : |> : (which is trivially false) or do you mean something else? What criteria : |> : have you chosen for your objective assesment? Are you sure that these : |> : criteria are themselves objective? : |>  : |> I believe that enough is inferior to make it overall as a product : |> inferior to its competition-- Apple System 7, OS/2 2.0, NeXTStep 3.0, : |>                               UNIX/Xwindows (pick your favorite flavor).  : In other words, it is your *opinion* that MSW3.1 is inferior to its : competition.  That's not the same as MSW3.1 being objectively inferior.  No.  It is technically inferior to the OS/GUIs that I listed.  I have already described why.  To say briefly:  System 7 --easier to learn and use.  There have been independent studies to             that effect. OS/2     --Can run MSW applications and has more stable multitasking. NeXTSTep --easier to learn, use, and program. More stable multitasking UNIX/X   --As easy to learn and use.  More stable multitasking.  With the prpoer setup, all of these will exchange data with MSW machines as well as MSW machines will amongst themselves, so interoperability is not an issue.  By this criterion, it is inferior.  If you have another, then perhaps I am incorrect.  Do you pick up the glove?
Hi ... can anyone tell me where I can get a copy of updated Canon BJ-200 printer driver for Windows 3.1, if any ? I have ver 1.0 which comes with my BJ-200 printer, I just wonder if there is any newer version.
Anyone know of a good software package that will allow us to keep track of who is printing what and when?  Is there any way to get Print Manager to keep a log?  Is there a Print Manager replacement that will do this?  How about a package that will only allow access to the system for people in a password  file?  I looked at Chastity, but it will let you log in without a password, and doesn't keep tabs of who got on and when.      Any help will be greatly appreciated.
"The Preferred Applications Development Platform" according to 432 of the Fortune 1000 corporations Survey by Sentry Market Research Survey (All percentages)                  1992            1993  Unix              18              28 Mainframe         35              22 DOS & MSW         24              18 OS/2               8              17 Midrange          14              14  This is from `Corporate Computing', May 1993, page 28. It's interesting to see how the greatest vapour-project of the world has not been able to make much of a difference here :-)  Before you think it's a interesting rag, they have this incredibly incompetent article/opinion piece by someone named Robert Ziff which has preposturous statements like "Sun has sold around 300 multiprocessing servers"!!!!!!  (In that case USC has around 4% of all Sun MP servers on earth :-)) He is off by a factor of 50? 100?   I thought of sending them a "factual disaster" email message; they have a column titled "how to contact us" but being silly PCheads they seem to have never heard of the Internet.  These may also be of interest:  World computer market share by broad category (%)                                  1991            1996  DOS, Windows, Netware           37.0            40.0 Unix                            11.6            21.0 IBM Mainframe                   17.4            14.4 VAX/VMS                          3.7             2.6 IBM minis                        4.1             4.0 Macintosh                        3.6             4.6 Other                           22.6            13.4  Totally                 $155 billion  1996 projections are by IDC Source: Unix World, Jan 1993    1993 Unix hardware sales by category                               $billion        installed-base  Workstations                 14.1            3 million Midrange                      7.4            1 million Large-scale                   1.8 PC Unix                       0.6            2 million  Total                        23.9