OS/2 Shareware BBS: 15 Message/15-Message.zip/os2v9104.zip/OS2-9107.001

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-04 | 90KB

Date: Thu, 4 Jul 91 14:50:00 +0200
Subject: OS/2 Discussion Forum 910701
Reply-to: Moderated discussion forum on OS/2 <[e-mail]>

************************************************************************
OS/2 Discussion Forum      Mon, July 1, 1991        Volume 9107 Issue 01

                Relevant addresses :

                submissions :              [e-mail] (bitnet)
                                        [e-mail] (domain)
                subscriptions :        [e-mail] (bitnet)
                                    [e-mail] (domain)
                moderator :                [e-mail] (bitnet)
                                        [e-mail] (domain)
************************************************************************

Today's topics:
                       New files on LISTSERVer
                     OS/2 Discussion Forum 910604
                           OS/2 Applications
                    University of Saskatchewan BBS
                         256 color GIFS w/ 8514
                           How to Get Started
                             Gordon Letwin?
                             OS/2 2.0 beta
                    Re: OS/2 Discussion Forum 910604
       NEW List-SOFTREVU, Small Computer Systems Software Review
                      Internet access to Listserv
                     OS/2 graphics Mou-systemcalls
                           OS/2 SCSI Question
                           OS-2 printer driver
                         IBM BBS back in service
                      Multimedia Software Packages
                          ANSI standard REXX.
                   Apple Macintosh in a OS/2 Network
                   FYI:  Bill Gate's "infamous" memo

Feed from the Usenet (UUCP/Internet) comp.os.os2.* newsgroups :

                    Adobe Type 1 fonts for OS/2 ATM
                             PC Expo Demo
                      PC Expo and Some Comments
                       Bill Gates Blasting IBM
         Re: OS/2 2.0 : A Better Windows Than Windows ?????
                             OS/2 Dealers
       Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
                        Getting OS/2 2.0 Beta
                    Re: 8514/xga dumb questions
                      8514/XGA dumb questions
                    RE: VT320 emulator for OS/2
                  New OS/2 v2.0 features (rumored)
                  Building a PC that can run OS/2
               Installation, partitions, master boot
                         PFM/AFM conversion
                Re: New OS/2 v2.0 features (rumored)
                Re: Building a PC that can run OS/2
                  Update: Fernwood OS/2 Collection
                 Re: Viruses problems in OS/2?????

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 01 Jul 91 08:00:00 +0200
From:     Moderators of the OS/2 Discussion Forum
Subject:  New files on LISTSERVer

This is a list of new or updated OS/2 related files available from the
LISTSERV of the OS/2 Discussion Forum at BLEKUL11.

* File donated by D. Rober (FDAAA12@BLEKUL11)

  filename filetype   Remarks
  -------- --------   -------------------------------
  XDEL     ZIPXXE     Extended delete command.

* Files distributed via comp.os.os2.binaries

  filename filetype   Remarks
  -------- --------   -------------------------------
  ADVENTF  ZIPXXE1    Colossal Caves ADVENTURE
  ADVENTF  ZIPXXE2    Colossal Caves ADVENTURE
  ADVENTF  ZIPXXE3    Colossal Caves ADVENTURE
  CHOMP    ZIPXXE     Xchomp (pac-man)
  GNUTINFO ZIPXXE1    GNU TeXinfo package
  GNUTINFO ZIPXXE2    GNU TeXinfo package
  GNUTINFO ZIPXXE3    GNU TeXinfo package
  GNUTINFO ZIPXXE4    GNU TeXinfo package
  GNUTINFO ZIPXXE5    GNU TeXinfo package
  GNUTINFO ZIPXXE6    GNU TeXinfo package
  GNUTINFO ZIPXXE7    GNU TeXinfo package
  GNUTINFO ZIPXXE8    GNU TeXinfo package
  GNUTINFO ZIPXXE9    GNU TeXinfo package
  GNUTINFO ZIPXX10    GNU TeXinfo package
  GNUTINFO ZIPXX11    GNU TeXinfo package
  SEDT40   ZIPXXE1    Screen editor
  SEDT40   ZIPXXE2    Screen editor
  SEDT40   ZIPXXE3    Screen editor
  SEDT40   ZIPXXE4    Screen editor
  SEDT40   ZIPXXE5    Screen editor
  SEDT40   ZIPXXE6    Screen editor
  SEDT40   ZIPXXE7    Screen editor

These files are distributed AS IS, we can not guarantee anything about
their working. These files are all XXencoded ZIP files. To use these
files you must first XXdecode (We recommend our own version of XXdecode
which works under OS/2) and UNZIP (We recommend PKZIP also under OS/2).

We still welcome all OS/2 related files for distribution on our LISTSERV.
Send your files to [e-mail] / [e-mail]
we will arange everything for distribution.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 91 09:24:54 CDT
From: Bertram G. Moshier <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: OS/2 Discussion Forum 910604

Pete:

Yes, it is true that REXX is under consideration for being an ANSI
standard language.  While I don't have the specifics Steve Price at IBM
might - internet address: [e-mail]

Bert Moshier
Cray Research, Inc.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 91 09:30:29 CDT
From: Bertram G. Moshier 612/683-5419 <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: OS/2 Applications

Ian:

Do you know what US customers must do to obatin access to these OS/2
applications?

Thanks in advance.

Bert Moshier
Cray Research, Inc.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1991 10:48 CST
From: "Kevin Lowey - [phone]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: University of Saskatchewan BBS

> Date:     Mon, 17 Jun 91 18:33 MDT
> From:     <GOLDSTEIN_L@UCOLMCC>
> Subject:  OS/2 drivers
>
> The Fernwood BBS at 203-483-0348 and and OS/2 database at 306-966-4857
> are both good sources for hard to find OS/2 drivers and shareware.  They
> operate 24 hours, no use fee, 8 bits 1 stop no parity, 9600 baud for
> Fernwood and 2400 for the other BBS (which is located in Canada).

The (306) number mentioned above is the University of Saskatchewan
Fidonet BBS.  I am the sysop.  The Fidonet node number is 1:140/43
(for all the Fidonet people who are getting this list from my and
other boards).  It is located in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

I recently upgraded to an HST Dual standard 14400 baud modem.

I am currently sending many of the programs in my archives to the
COMP.BINARIES.OS2 newsgroup on Usenet for distribution.

- Kevin Lowey ([e-mail])

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 24 Jun 91 12:57:31 EDT
From:         Mark Siegal <ST802107@BROWNVM>
Subject:      256 color GIFS w/ 8514

Can anyone recommend a PM GIF viewer that will let me see
256 colors with my IBM 8514 display adapter and monitor? Every
PM GIF viewer I have used dithers down to 16 colors. Thanks.

-- Mark

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 24 Jun 91 13:01:28 EST
From:         Ben Romney <V1308G@TEMPLEVM>
Subject:      How to Get Started

I am relatively new to this list and to OS/2.  I am in the process of
purchasing OS/2 1.3 for my IBM compatible.  I am doing this to get
familiar with OS/2 in preparation for the release of OS/2 2.0.
I thought that I would use the various shareware and public domain
software to get familiar with OS/2 before purchasing retail software
and moving my applications over to OS/2.

I am not sure how to get information and files from the OS/2 listserv
down to my PC in a useable manner.  I connect to an IBM mainframe from
my PC and communication with the list is through the IBM mainframe.
XXendcoding and decoding is unfamiliar to me.

Any recommendations and suggestions will be appreciated.  By the way are
there any other OS/2 related lists and discussion groups over Bitnet or
Internet?

Thanks

Ben Romney

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 24 Jun 91 13:01:28 EST
From:         CSVCJLD@NNOMED
Subject:      Gordon Letwin?

     With Microsoft rewriting OS/2 (as OS/2 NT), what has happened to
Gordon Letwin?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 24 Jun 91 13:01:28 EST
From:         C30904@AINUNI01
Subject:      OS/2 2.0 beta

I just wrote a few days ago to the WINDOWS 3.0 Discussion-List, that IBM an-
nounced that EVERYONE, has the opportunity to become a beta-tester simply
by downloading the Code from the IBM-National-BBS.

A few hours later came a disappointing message from a user which tried to
do this via his modem, but unfortunately IBM stopped distribution on
25 april.

Now my question: Is there anyone out there who has got a beta release of
OS/2 2.0 (or maybe higher!); (perhaps downloaded before 25 april) ???

If anybody has I would beg him, to make it available to me, as I'm a real
freak and I would like the thought of being an beta tester by legal means
for the first time.

(The fact of public beta-testing and the number of the BBS, which I can trans-
mit you on demand have been published in PC-PROFESSIONELL the german issue of
PC-MAGAZINE).

I'm looking forward to hearing from you, folks!

SAM   (from Austria)

FILES send to c30904@ainuni01
Mail  send to c30904@ainuni01   or   SAM@ainuni01

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 24 Jun 91 15:47 EDT
From:    "ERIC WEBB"                                 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: OS/2 Discussion Forum 910604

> Eric:
> Thank your for your comments, I found them to be revealing and
> informative.  Just a few comments back:

Certainly, Bert. I have a counterpoint which arises from a minor communication
failure between us. I also have a Cray question which we should take
offline from the OS/2 list. :-)

> Concurrent VM8086 is not a function of PM.  The base operating system
> supports VM8086 as individual sessions.  Concurrent VM8086 sessions
> are to PM like the OS/2 command prompt is to PM.  The lack of
> concurrent VM8086 is not a worst PM point but instead a worst base
> operating point.

You forgot to include my caveat. I too thought the comparisons were more
at the DOS extender (Windows) and OS (OS/2) level. Clearly BYTE directed
the article to the average computer user looking for a GUI. This person
probably wouldn't know the difference between OS functions and interface
functions. Or any layers within.

Knowing the chosen audience as any good author should, BYTE focused only
upon the user interface (without respect to underlying structures or
functions). I don't think you nor I were the intended audience for PM
or Windows. However, I did learn more about NextStep and X GUIs.

I believe you and I would prefer a similar article in the HANDS ON section
which would talk nuts and bolts. Perhaps we will eventually see such a
a treatise.

Sorry about your Windows problems when using Corel Draw. From what I can
gather from the Windows list, this product should work quite well. There
certainly are quite a few postings regarding usage.

I notice you work for Cray. I am educating myself about the Y-MP architecture
used by the EPA. Do you have any comments or reading suggestions on the
Cray Model E IOS? Please send comments to my mailbox, so we don't clutter
the OS/2 list with Crayspeak. Also, are there any Cray Architecture lists
worth a subscription? Thanks for any information!

Eric Webb
EPA National Computer Center
RTP, North Carolina
BITNET -- [e-mail]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 24 Jun 91 17:09:04 EDT
From:         "Jamie (at Brown)" <EL406012@BROWNVM>
Organization: Brown University Computing & Information Services
Subject:      NEW List-SOFTREVU, Small Computer Systems Software Review
                         S O F T R E V U    L I S T

                     * * [e-mail] * *

            (Forum for the Discussion of Small Computer Systems
                    Software Reviews and Related Issues)

MODERATORS:
      Jamie Donnelly IV,   INFOSY10@UCONNVM
      David B. O'Donnell,  [e-mail]
      Elaine Brennan,      [e-mail]

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
     SOFTREVU will provide a forum where users of personal computers an d
  other small computing systems can review, discuss, and examine software
  products.  Cross-platform compatibility issues related to software and
  hardware, with an emphasis placed on software, are also included in this
  forum.  The relevance, intentions, and uses of various software product
  categories, such as

  * Personal Information Managers (PIMs) * Connectivity (communications)
  * Utilities                            * Shells and "Front Ends"
  * Graphics (formats, design packages)  * Object-oriented Software
  * Optical Character Recognition (OCR)  * Programming Language Environments
  * Multimedia products                  * Integrated Packages
  * Desktop Publishing (DTP)             * The three "basics"--Databases,
                                           Spreadsheets and Text Managers

  are also included.  Multimedia-based integration of various application
  categories, discussed from a software perspective, is also encouraged.
  Software Products include new software packages as well as the latest
  upgrades/updates to existing software products/packages.  Members are
  encouraged to share knowledge of existing software packages in addition
  to that of new features being incorporated into upgrades of these
  products.  Members are also encouraged to share knowledge (such as the
  uses, applications, and features) of recently introduced software
  products.  Therefore, members of the list are encouraged to act as
  "consultants" and "enquirers" where appropriate.

     In accordance with current CREN regulations, commercial activity
  (such as the selling of software) will be prohibited.

SCOPE:
     SOFTREVU is intended to cover all microcomputer platforms; such as
  the Apple Macintosh line, Amigas, IBM PS/2 line, PC compatibles, the
  NeXT machines, Sun and SPARC workstations, and the like.  Within the
  scope of these computing platforms, a wide range of software products
  exist.  Any and all of these products are viable discussion topics.
  SOFTREVU does not exist as a topic for issues of ethics in computing -
  see the ETHICS-L list.  However, the merits of software packages, such
  as their user interface, compatibility across disparate computing
  platforms, and the like, are acceptable topics.  List subscribers are
  encouraged to ask questions about software, and to offer up their
  opinions.  In keeping with current CREN (Corporation for Research and
  Educational Networking) and InterNET policies, subscribers are
  prohibited from attempting to sell software over the network.  However,
  the list moderators cannot be held responsible for the actions of list
  subscribers.

     SOFTREVU does not exist as a forum for the discussion of hardware  or
  programming issues except where the relevance to existing or forthcoming
  software is explicit.  Hardware issues should be directed to the
  PCTECH-L and PCSUPT-L lists, which are geared toward discussions of that
  nature.  Programming and/or technical issues should be brought up in any
  of the various lists and special interest groups which are designed for
  this purpose.  Only extremely limited concerns in customization of
  existing software are included, such as writing simple macros, scripts,
  and other modest routines.  With respect to programming languages, the
  merits of the environment package - not the actual language - are
  appropriate for discussion.

MEMBERSHIP:
      Any person who wishes to share knowledge, answer questions and/or
  desires to learn and ask questions is welcome.  Potential members
  include users, consultants, programmers, managers, and the like.  This
  list is intended to bring together people from all backgrounds to share
  information.

GUIDELINES:
     SOFTREVU is a moderated list.  The atmosphere of this list is one  of
  mutual support to all members and advocates cooperation.  Members are
  expected to engage in constructive criticism only.  Subscribers are
  requested to keep personal vendettas off the list.  This is not a forum
  for political or ethical discussions in any capacity; IT IS A FORUM FOr
  THE DISCUSSION OF SOFTWARE.  Problems or complaints should be addressed
  to the list moderators.  Anyone who does not maintain this policy, or is
  generally disruptive to the harmony of this list, will be *removed*.
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   !    PLEASE keep discussions that are *not* directly related to     !
   ! software packages OFF the list, or take them to *private* e-mail  !
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------

RECOMMENDED POSTING METHOD:  * *  VERY IMPORTANT * *
      To enable members to *scan* posted mail for articles relevant to
   *their* operating system (and hardware platform), it is recommended
   that members format the *Subject* line in the header of postings to
   appear as (Subject line) -

     Operating System <Platform> / Software Package <Product Catagory>

ARCHIVING:
     The list will maintain monthly archives of discussions.  These
  archives will be purged periodically, removing outdated material, and to
  save system space and overhead.  Announcements will be made prior to
  major purges, but subscribers should expect purges every few months.  If
  necessary, either local or remote filespace may be set aside for the
  storage of documents of relevance to the list.

ACCESSING THE LIST:
     To subscribe to SOFTREVU send the command,

       SUBSCRIBE SOFTREVU <yourname>

  to LISTSERV@BROWNVM ([e-mail]).  DO NOT SEND LIST
  COMMANDS TO THE LIST.  Send them to the LISTSERV account.
                  -------------------------------
Thank you for your interest in SOFTREVU.  If you have any questions,
please feel free to send e-mail.  [e-mail]    :)

Regards,
Jamie Donnelly

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1991 10:50 CST
From: "Kevin Lowey - [phone]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Internet access to Listserv

Hi,

  Our site has moved from Bitnet onto the Internet.  Does this mean I
no longer have access to the LISTSERV files?  How can I get access to
the LISTSERV files from the Internet?  Is there an anonymous FTP site
which carries these files?

Thanks,
- Kevin Lowey

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 11:33:55 +0100
From: [e-mail]
Subject: OS/2 graphics Mou-systemcalls

Dear OS/2-users,
       I'm trying to convert a DOS-program, written in Fortran,
to OS/2 (v. 1.0.). The DOS-program uses a mouse in graphics mode
via an assembler routine (int 33h). For the moment we assume
the problem is that the equivalent OS/2-Mou-systemcalls are not
supported by the pointer-draw device driver POINTDD.SYS in
GRAPHICS mode. For example MouDrawPtr works fine in text mode
but displays no pointer in any graphics mode.
So my questions are:
-Which device driver should I use to support the mouse in graphics mode
via OS/2-systemcalls ?
-Has sombody a source-code (C,Pascal,Fortran,...) where this is done ?
-Is it possible to use the PMDD.SYS of the presentation manager
for that purpose (if it is, I switch to a higher OS/2 version with PM) ?

I hope this is clear and simple. Perhaps somebody has a clear and simple
answer. Anyway I wish you a nice summertime (or wintertime for some of us).

Dominique Huyskens
Interuniversity Microelectronics Centrum (IMEC)
Leuven, BELGIUM

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Matt Piermarini"  <[e-mail]>
Date:     26 Jun 91 12:57:00 EDT
Subject:  OS/2 SCSI Question
Reply-To: Matt Piermarini <[e-mail]>

I have a 386 clone machine with *both* a RLL and SCSI host adapter.  I have
2 RLL drives and 1 SCSI drive.  The machine boots from one of the RLL drives
and everything is fine, but I can not access the SCSI disk.  I use a device
driver that came with the SCSI adapter to access the drive under DOS.  I was
just curious if OS/2 2.00 (or 1.3 for that matter) has any kind of SCSI
support like this?

Also, are there any FTP sites in N.America that has os2 binaries.  I know of
funic.funet.fi, but it is too slow.

Thanks for any help,
Matt Piermarini
U of Maryland
[e-mail]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 27 Jun 91 15:49:21 CDT
From:         Kevin Scantlan <C8498@UMVMA>
Subject:      OS-2 printer driver

Is there a OS-2 printer driver for a C-Itoh Prowriter Model 8510A?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 16:15:37 CDT
From: Bertram G. Moshier <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: IBM BBS back in service

First to those who don't use the IBM BBS in Altanta, sorry for taking
your time.

To those who use the IBM BBS and missed it while they were having LAN
problems.  The BBS is now back up 24 hours a day!  They found the problem
6/25/91 and have been up without a hitch every since.  30 hours may not
sound like a long time but for this problem it is forever.  Here's
praying it stays that way.

Bert Moshier
Cray Research, Inc.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 01 Jul 91 01:29:50 EDT
From:         "Jamie (SOFTREVU Moderator)" <EL406012@BROWNVM>
Organization: Looney Tunes Adventures
Subject:      Multimedia Software Packages

  I am interested in Multimedia software packages which people think are
impressive, useful, flexible and powerful.  The software can encompass
any form or aspect of multimedia that is considered useful.

  What is the overall goal/objective of this particular software package?
What are your impressions of the product?  What are the notable features?
What are its areas of application?  What are the hardware requirements for
this product??

Thanks,
Jamie Donnelly

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:       Mon, 01 Jul 91 11:24:43 BST
From:       Pete Lucas <[e-mail]>
Subject:    ANSI standard REXX.

I have received several replies to my query on ANSI-standard REXX; for the
benefit of you all, here is a brief summary:-

REXX is being studied by ANSI committee X3J18, the first meeting was
in January, chaired by Brian Marks of IBM Hursley.
REXX 4.0 is being used as the basis; it is likely to be a couple of
years before the committee produces a response.
Mike Cowlishaw (the original inventor of REXX) is heavily involved - the
prpopsed standard will be based heavily on his book 'The REXX Language'
second edition.

Lets hope the deliberations are constructive and that REXX becomes an
industry-standard as soon as possible. Anything to save us from DOS Batch
commands and 'C' shell-scripts!

 Pete Lucas  [e-mail]   [e-mail]   PJML%IA.NWL.AC.UK@UKACRL
 NCS-TLC, Holbrook House, Swindon

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 2 Jul 91 08:15:42 CDT
Reply-To:     Server-Requester Discussion List <[e-mail]>
From:         Christian Kr ppl <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Apple Macintosh in a OS/2 Network

Is anyone using a Apple Macintosh in a OS/2 Network under IBM LANSERVER 1.3?
Which software is needed to use the Macintosh as requester to the lanserver.
Can you help me?
Thanks in advance

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 14:56:19 CDT
From: Bertram G. Moshier 612/683-5419 <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: FYI:  Bill Gate's "infamous" memo

Attached is a copy of the now famous/infamous Bill Gates memo.  I got it
from the OS/2 Shareware BBS.  I don't know who typed it in from a
photocopy as the leadin says.

Bert.

This document was typed from a photocopy.  Some portions of the  memo
were illegible and were left blank.  Please notice, Bill Gates  calls
Windows an operating  system (OS).   Mr. Gates doesn't  even know the
difference.   His statement  is like  calling X-Windows  an operating
system!

Challenges and Strategies
Bill Gates
May 16, 1991
Prologue:  The Reason for this memo

Every year  I set  aside at  least one  "think week"  to get away and
update  myself  on  the  latest  technical  developments-reading  PhD
theses, using  competitive products,  reading books,  newsletters and
anything I can get my hands on.  Several valuable thoughts have  come
out of these retreats (tables for Word, outlining in Excel,  treating
DOS as more of an asset), however the complexity of the industry  and
it's technology means that a lot  of my time is spent just  trying to
keep up  rather than  coming up  with new  product ideas.   It  is no
longer possible for any person, even our "architects", to  understand
everything that  is going  on.   Networking, processors, linguistics,
multimedia, development tools, and user interfaces are just a  subset
of  the  technologies  that  will  effect  Microsoft.   My role is to
understand enough  to set  direction.   I enjoy  these weeks  a great
deal-not because I get away from the issues of running Microsoft  but
rather because I get to think more clearly about how to best lead the
company  away  from  problems  and  towards  opportunities.  A lot of
people choose things for me to read.   By the end of the week  I make
an  effort  to  synthesize  the  best  ideas  and  make our technical
strategy clear.

This year I  decided to write  a memo about  overall strategy to  the
executive  staff.    As  we  have  grown  and faced new challenges my
opportunities  to  speak  to  each  of  you directly has been greatly
reduced.  Even the aspects of our strategy that remain unchanged  are
worth reinforcing.

In  the  same  way  that  DEC's  strategy  for  the  80's was VAX-one
architecture,  one  operating  system-our  strategy  for  the 90's is
Windows-one  evolving  architecture,  a  couple  of  implementations.
Everything we do should focus on making Windows more successful.

A source of inspiration  to me is a  memo by John Walker  of Autodesk
called "Autodesk:  The Final  Days" (copies available from Julie  G.)
It's brilliantly written and incredibly insightful.  John hasn't been
part of Autodesk management for  three years and hasn't attended  any
management meetings for over two  years, so he writes as  an outsider
questioning whether Autodesk is doing  the right things.  By  talking
about how  a large  company slows  down, fails  to invest  enough and
loses  sight  of  what  is  important,  and  by using Microsoft as an
example of how to do some  things correctly he manages to touch  on a
lot of what's  right and wrong  with Microsoft today.   Amazingly his
nightmare scenario to get people to consider what's really  important
is Microsoft deciding  to enter the  CAD market-something we  have no
present thoughts of doing because it would stretch us too thin.   Our
nightmare-IBM "attacking" us in systems software, Novell  "defeating"
us   in   networking   and   more   agile,   lower   cost  structure,
customer-oriented applications competitors getting their Windows  act
together is not a scenario, but a reality.

Recently a  long time  employee mentioned  that we  seem to have more
challenges facing us now than ever before.  Although I agree that  it
feels that way I  can say with confidence  that it has felt  that way
every year for  the last 15.   We decided  to pursue a  broad product
strategy from  the very  beginning of  the company  and that means we
have  a  lot  of  competitors.    Our success is incredible, not just
within  the  software  industry  or  computer industry but within the
history of business, and the combination of this with the  incredibly
competitive nature of our business breeds challenges to our position.
I think  it is  critical to  divide these  challenges into  different
categories.

Category 1

This category contains issues of  great importance but which I  judge
should have little effect on how you do your job in the future.

Apple lawsuit:  This is a  very serious lawsuit.  If the  judge rules
against us, without making it clear what we have to change or asks me
to eliminate  something fundamental  to all  windowing systems  (like
overlapping windows) it  would be disastrous.   At the  very start of
this lawsuit we  decided that Bill  Neukom and I  would give it  very
high priority and that the rest of the executive staff could focus on
their jobs without learning about the complex twists and turns of the
lawsuit.  Microsoft is spending millions to defend features contained
in every popular  windows system on  the market and  to help set  the
boundaries of where copyrights should not be applied.  I think it  is
absurd that the lawsuit is taking  so long and that we are  educating
the third federal judge on the case.   I am pleased with our work  on
this case.   Our view that  we will almost  certainly prevail remains
unchanged.

Federal Trade Commission:   It must  be surprising that  our two most
vbisable problems  are in  this category.   Certainly  I take the FTC
inquiry seriously and I  am sure it will  use up even more  executive
staff time than the Apple lawsuit  has.  However I know we  don't get
unfair  advantages  in  any  of  the  markets  we are in.  As Ruthann
Quindlen  stated  recently  in  InfoWorld  (supported  by  many other
editorials  like  Business  Week's)  our  combination  of products is
similar  to  that  of  every  other  high  technology company and our
success is based  on having great  products.  I  hope we can  quickly
educate the FTC on our business.

Retirement of  key executives:   The  retirement of  Jon Shirley  and
Jeremy Butler-absolutely  two of  the finest  executives anywhere-are
significant losses for  Microsoft.  Last  year's "think week"  was my
worst because Mike  Hallman called me  to say Jeremy  was planning to
retire.  I had Jeremy fly out  and meet with me for hours to  try and
change his  mind.   I am  sure more  people will  be retiring  in the
future.   However, I  am confident  that we  are developing  a lot of
great people internally and that  we are hiring the best  people from
the outside the company.  Just  look at some of the recent  additions
to our executive staff-people like Brad Silverberg, Jeff Raikes,  and
Gary Gigot.  Consider the talent pool right below the executive staff
level-Jim Allchim, Pete Higgins, Patty Stonesifer, Rob Glasser,  Mike
Murray, Mike Brown and so many others.  I love working with people of
this caliber-not only do they do a good job but they keep me doing my
best.  I certainly  have no plans to  back off from my  dedication to
the company.

Printer business unit:  Generally  when we enter a product  category,
we innovate.  Even if our first version is not a winner, we establish
a position from  which we can  make further improvements.   Our entry
into  the  printer  software  business  has  not succeeded.  Steve is
considering what strategy  we should pursue  to make the  best of our
errors.   Our problems  have educated  us to  consider carefully  the
importance  and  synergy  of  doing  new  things.    Offering a cheap
Postscript turned out not only be very hard but completely irrelevant
to helping our other products.  We overestimated the threat of  Adobe
as a competitor and  ended up making them  as "enemy", while we  hurt
our  relationship  with  Hewlett-Packard  and  focused on non-Windows
specific  issues.    Selecting  TrueType  as  our  font  solution and
building it  into the  system was  an excellent  decision despite the
immense   resources   that   has   cost   us.    TrueType-  our  font
format-separate  from  TrueImage-our  Postscript  clone.  Printing is
critical  and  we  will  be  involved  in printing software, but in a
different way than  we have to  dare.  The  caution we have  shown in
making acquisitions is reinforced by this experience.

Category 2

These are problems that are serious, but solving them correctly  will
provide growth so they can be thought of as opportunities.

Dislike of Microsoft/openess:  Our applications have always succeeded
based  on  their  own  merit  rather  than  on some benefit of unfair
knowledge  of  system  software.    We  need  to explain our hardware
neutral approach and the benefits  that has generated for end  users.
We need to have  visable events on a  regular basis where we  solicit
the input of anyone who wants to influence our future direction.   If
we can institutionalize  a process that  the world feels  comfortable
with, we will strenghten our  position incredibly.  This is  going to
require a  lot more  creativity than  even the  "Open Forums"  we are
discussing.   UNIX has  OSF and  X/Open-we also  need clear  ways for
organizations  of  all   types  (hardware,  ISV,   IHV,  corporation,
universities)  to  feel  like  they  have  something  invested in our
approach and can affect our course.

IBM:   IBM is  proposing to  take over  the definition  of PC desktop
operating systems.  This would be a new role for them-their  previous
attempts:   Topview and  the 3270  control program,  did not succeed.
The barriers to their success are not only technical but  structural.
Why are they willing to lose so much money on systems software?   The
answer is that  they have a  plan to design  the operating system  so
that  their  hardware  (MCA)  and  applications  are  tied  in.   Our
disagreements with IBM over OS/2 were that we wanted to push 2.0  and
they wanted to push 1.3.   Now they have switched to the  strategy we
proposed-even  using  our  marketing  slogan  "better  windows   than
Windows."    We  will  not  attack  IBM  as a company even our public
"attacks" on OS/2 will be very professional.  Our strategy is to make
sure  that  we  evolve  the  Windows  API  and get developers to take
advantage of the new features  rapidly, while IBM has a  poor product
with poor Windows functionality.  Amazingly they are not  cooperating
with us on our compatibility approach called WLO, but are trying  the
approach we did not choose of using Windows code itself.  Their  lack
of cooperation limits WLO effectiveness and the Windows approach  has
contractual and technical  problems for them.   We will  do almost no
work specific to OS/2 2.0- we will rely on their 1.3 compatibility to
run our applications and most of our networking software.  Our  focus
is on OS/2 3.0.  If a  customer buys OS/2 2.0, the problem for  us is
that they will expect to  get Extended Edition and perhaps  some PM16
applications that  may not  be on  3.0 so  we will  have "lost"  that
customer.  Other than usability,  making sure Windows is the  winning
OS is our highest  priority.  Eventually we  need to have at  least a
neutral relationship  with IBM.   For  the next  24 months  it may be
fairly cold.  If we do succeed, then we will be done forever with the
poor code, poor design, poor  process, and other overhead that  doing
our best to do what IBM has led to (for the last five years).  We can
emerge as a better and  stronger company where people won't  just say
we are the standard because IBM chose us.  In the large accounts  IBM
will  retain  a  some  of  its  influence-this  is  where our risk is
highest.

Usability/support:   If there  is any  area we  have not  paid enough
attention to it is usability/support.  It is really embarrassing that
people have  to wait  so long  on the  phone to  talk to  us about  a
problems in our  products.  The  number of customers  that get a  bad
impression because  of this  must number  in the  millions worldwide.
Why weren't we hiring  at full speed and  picking new site every  day
for the last three years?  Why did people keep talking about  support
as a profit  center?  The  creation of support  as a channel  hid its
costs from the product groups.  As CEO I take full responsibility for
these mistakes.  Our product can  be far more usable and the  product
groups are focusing on this opportunity-particularly the Windows  and
Windows application groups.  We will spend what it takes to have  the
best support (without an 800 number.)  I think we can cut the  number
of phone calls generated by our products to less than half of what it
is today and use training and  technology to cut the length of  phone
calls.  However, we shouldn't assume  this in our plans to solve  the
problem.  Excel 3, with Word  2 and our EBU products have  started to
move in the right direction.  Hopefully Windows 3.1 will generate lot
less  calls.    The  handwidth  of  communication between the product
groups and PSs is going up  dramatically, but there is still lots  of
room for creativity.   I insist  that we are  able to use  quality of
support as a  sales tool. surveys  like the JD  Power survey done  on
will become important-asking people How many times were you confused?
How many times did  you have to call?   How good was  the service you
received?  Fixing this problem will  cost us a lot of profits  and we
should make that clear to analysts.   With this problem fixed we  can
really start building  some lifetime customers.   Only really  usable
software can be used by the  "rest of the people who have  not bought
PC's", so making software more  usable expands the market.   Likewise
it is the usability of  software that will determine how  many people
decide to  use only  a WORKS-  like product  or move  up to  a larger
package and it will determine how many large packages they can easily
work with.  Usability is  incredible stuff-once it is designed  it is
easy to implement, saves  money, wins ,market share,  makes customers
happier and lets them buy more expensive software!

Networking:  We knew it wasn't going to be easy, but it has been even
harder than we expected to build a position in networking.  You  will
see us backing off on some of the spending level but don't doubt that
we are totally committed to the  business.  Our strategy is to  build
networking into the operating system.  Some of the services will  not
be in  the same  box but  they will  have been designed, evangelized,
implemented  and  tested  as  part  of each operating system release.
What this means is that  we will define operations on  and attributes
of entities like  files, users, machines,  mail, printer or  services
that users  or applications  can have  access to  directly inside the
system software.   Although  we will  allow connections  to different
systems we  will make  ours the  easiest to  use by  some of them and
making all of them seemless.  Architecturing the extensions for these
entities including our evolution of the file system and how we tie in
with  standards   like  Novell   and  DCE   will  be   Jim  Allchim's
responsibility even  though the  implementation of  several of  these
will be in other parts of the  company (for example OS or Mail.)   We
are in a race to  define these extensions because Novell's  dominance
and DCE's popularity could allow them to usurp our role unless we get
a strong message,  good tools and  great implementations done  fairly
quickly.  We will embrace DCE as a weapon against Novell although  we
don't know exactly how to relate to DCE quite yet.  Our strength will
come from Windows, including the advanced implementation based on NT.

Technology:  Technical change is  always a challenge for the  current
companies in a field.  Even if they recognize that a change is taking
place, they are tied to the past.  New companies will move to exploit
the opportunity.  Our gain in applications is in no small part due to
the failure of the  existing leaders to listen  to what we and  other
people were saying about GUL.  Technical change can be a new hardware
platform like NeXT, a new type  of machine like Pen or Multimedia,  a
new  software  platform  like  Patriot  Partners,  a  new category, a
redefinition of a category or a much faster development  methodology.
Many of the changes  that will take place  in PCs can be  anticipated
(performance, memory, screens, motion video), however,  understanding
when and how is still quite complex.  Other changes like linguistics,
reasoning, voice  recognition or  learning are  harder to anticipate.
We will reduce our  technical risk by strengthening  our relationship
with the research  community and having  some projects of  our own in
areas   of   greatest   importance   (development   environments  and
linguistics, for  example.)   Nathan (and  Kay Nishi  before him) has
pointed out that  the transition of  consumer electronics to  digital
form will create platforms with systems software-whether it's a touch
screen organizer or an intelligent TV.  The need to work closely with
Sony,  Philips,  Matsushita,  Thompson  and  other  Japanese consumer
electronics companies will  require people people  in both Tokyo  and
Redmond working with  both the research  and project groups  in these
companies.  We  should have an  annual exchange of  research thinking
with most of these companies similar  to what we want to do  with MIT
or Stanford.   We  have the  opportunity to  do the  best job ever in
combining research  with development  in the  computer field  largely
because no one  has ever done  it very well  (although Sun Apple  are
also working hard on this.)  Nathan's kickoff memo talks about  about
having  the  research  group  use  our  tools  and  including program
management inside the research team.  Our proposition is that all  of
the exciting new  features can be  accommodated as extensions  to the
existing  PC  standard.    Others  propose  that   start-from-scratch
approaches are cleaner and therefore better.  This is the essence  of
the debate with Go, NeXT and Patriot.  To win in this we have to  get
there early before significant development momentum builds up  behind
the incompatable  approach.   The key  to our  Macintosh strategy was
recognizing that the graphics and  process of the PC would  not allow
us to  catch up  soon enough  to prevent  Mac from achieving critical
mass so we supported it.   Sun presents a particular challenge to  us
because  they  have  significant  development  backing  and  high end
features  to  go  with  their  RISC  performance.    ARC  is the most
evolutionary way  to get  to RISC  and it  will require  alot of good
execution by us and others for the strategy to succeed.

Our   evolutionary   proposition   should   be  quite  marketable  to
users-combined with hardware neutrality the message is "Our  software
runs today's software on all  (almost) hardware and both today's  and
tomorrow's software on all (almost) of tomorrow's hardware."

Category 3

This is a category of challenges we face that I don't feel are widely
recognized.

Patents:  If people understood how patents would be granted when most
of  today's  ideas  were  invented,  and  had  taken out patents, the
industry would  be at  a complete  standstill today.   I feel certain
that some large  company will patent  some obvious things  related to
interface, object  orientation, algorithm,  application extension  or
other crucial technique.   If we assume this  company has no need  of
any of our patents then they have a 17 year right to take as much  of
our profits as they want.  The solution to this patent exchanges with
large  companies  and  patenting  as  much  as  we can.  Amazingly we
haven't done any patent exchanges that  I am aware of.  Amazingly  we
haven't found a way to use our licensing position to avoid having our
own customers  cause patent  problems for  us.   I know  these aren't
simple problems but they deserve more effort by both legal and  other
groups.  For example we need to do a patent exchange with HP as  part
of   our   new   relationship.      In  many  application  categories
straightforward thinking ahead allows you to come up with  patentable
ideas.    A  recent  paper  from  the  League for Programming Freedom
(available from the legal department) explains some problems with the
way patents are applied to software.

Ridgity/Pricing:  In the Autodesk memo, Walker talks about the  short
term  thinking  that  high  profitability  can  generate.    He cites
specific examples such as a very conservative approach to giving  out
free software or a desire to maintain fixed percentages for the wrong
reasons.  Microsoft priced  DOS even lower than  we do today to  help
get it established.   I wonder  if we would  be as aggressive  today.
This is not a simplistic advocacy for just lowering our prices -  our
prices in the US are about  where they should be.  However  the price
of success is that people fail to allow the kind of investments  that
will lead to incredible profits in  the future.  For example we  have
gotten  away  without  funding  any  internal  or  external research.
Nathan is working  with me to  put together a  plan that will  end up
costing $10M per year  about two years from  now.  I have  no plan to
reduce our  spending in  some other  category by  $10M.  Microsoft is
good at investing  in new subsidiaries  and even at  investing in new
products (database,  mail, EBU,  networking).   Most of  our rigidity
comes where  we have  a very  profitable product  and when the market
changes.  In these circumstances we should spend more or change less,
but our system locks us into staying the same and losing share.

My  largest  concern  about  price  competition  comes  from Borland.
Organizations smaller than Borland  will not have enough  presence or
credibility to use low price against us broadly.  I think 90% of  the
significant  competition  we  will  face in productivity applications
will come from Lotus,  WordPerfect, Borland, Claris, and  IBM barring
technical innovation by small companies.   It is amazing how  similar
the applications strategies of Microsoft, Lotus, IBM or Microsoft, so
he can  afford to  do things  we would  consider wild.   For  example
Borland  is  considering  not  offering  their Windows word processor
separately  but  integrating  it  with  Quatro for free-the technical
opportunity and value would be  very strong.  This is  very different
than lotus temporarily offering Ami  for free.  Only immense  loyalty
to a product at the  end user level prevents corporations  from using
buying power to cheap site licence. when the US Government DOD  moves
software procurement to  a separate contract,  the price per  user of
software will end up around 0. Why shouldn't some small  organization
price their product at say $1M  for the entire US Government for  all
time?    We  would  if  we  were  small and hungry.  Fortunately most
organizations don't force cheap software on their end users.

Another price concern I have is that companies will eventually equipt
all employees that need software with a full complement of  packages,
and  our  only  revenue  opportunity  will  be  upgrades or ephemeral
information.  Although this problem is over five years away, I  think
it is important to keep in mind.

Summary

Readers of  this memo  may feel  that I  have given  applictaions too
little air time.  I don't  mean to downplay their importance at  all.
Applications have been  the primary engine  of growth (especially  in
International) over the past two years.  Although Windows' success is
necessary for Microsoft applications to succeed it is not sufficient.
Other  ISVs  will  be  there  early  with  good  applications   fully
exploiting the environment (Notes, Ami, Designer), so exploitation is
only half of the job.  The need to "reinvent" categories and the  way
they relate to each other is crucial for all of our applications.   I
will be writing up some of my ideas for big changes in applications.

The  simplest  summary  is  to  repeat  our strategy in it's simplest
form-"Windows- one evolving architecture, a couple of implementations
and  an  immense  number  of  great  applications  from Microsoft and
others."    The  evolution  refers  to  the  addition  of pen, audio,
multimedia, networking, macro  language, .32-bit, advanced  graphics,
setup, a better file system, and  a lot of usability.  The  "a couple
of implementations"  is a  somewhat humorous  references to  the fact
that our NT based versions  and our non-NT versions have  a different
code in  a number  of areas  to allow  us to  have booth the advanced
features  we  want  and  be  fairly  small on the Intel architecture.
Eventually we will  get back to  one implementation but  it will take
four years before  we use NT  for everything.   I would not  use this
simple summary for  outside consumption-there it  would be more  like
"Windows-one  evolving  architecture  with  hardware  freedom for all
users and freedom to chose amongst the largest set of applications."

Although the challenges should make  us quite humble about the  years
to come  I think  our position  (best software  company setting  many
desktop "standards") is an enviable one and our people are the  best.
The opportunity for us if we execute this strategy is incredible.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 12:29:21 EDT
From: Marc Cohen 8/443-3945 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Adobe Type 1 fonts for OS/2 ATM

>]Does anyone know how to get more fonts for Adobe Type Manager
>Have you tried downloading from SIMTEL20 ? There are a lot of PD and
>Shareware Fonts for ATM (for DOS).
>
>]I have
>]talked to dealers who only know about the Mac or Windows version
>]of ATM, and I'm concerned that I won't get all the necessary
>]files.  As I understand it ATM under Windows can make do
>]with less or different font files.
>As far as I know (I will try this in a week or two), Adobe Type 1 Fonts
>are the same for OS/2 as they are for Windows.
>I definitely know they are the same for Windows and Mac (if you kick
>away all the Resourcefork stuff).
>So just try it.
>
>Regards, Michael

ATM type 1 fonts used with OS/2 are defined by two files. The binary
data defining the characters is in a file with an extension of ".PFB".
The metrics information that describe the font itself and the relative
character size information is in a file with an extension of ".AFM". If
you already have the fonts (.PFB files) but not the metrics files (.AFM
files), you can obtain the .AFM files from Adobe. Most sources today
will ship with both files.

Marc L. Cohen                  vnet: MLCOHEN at BCRVMPC1
                           internet: [e-mail]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: PC Expo Demo
Date: 25 Jun 91 23:53:04 GMT
Organization: IBM Research

This is an append I made to an internal newsgroup about what I saw today
at PC Expo.  I do not feel like retyping it, so here it is...

----- OS2ARENA FORUM appended at 22:53:55 on 91/06/25 GMT (by LARRYS at YKTVMV)
..... OS2ARENA FORUM modified at 23:06:08 on 91/06/25 GMT (by LARRYS at YKTVMV)
Subject: PC Expo and Some Comments

Long append...

Having just returned from day 1 of the PC Expo, here are my comments:

OS/2 2.0 Demo (by Joe and Lee):

It was amazing!  Go see it if at all possible!  Before I go into details,
I would like to send a CASE of Scooby snacks to the OS/2 Development
team in Boca, Lee Reiswig, and Joe G. (I can never spell/pronounce his
name).  You guys have done an EXCELLENT job!!!

OS/2 2.0 never made Windows look worse.  Bill Gates does indeed have
something to worry about...

Side by side, two model 70's with 6M of memory each were used to run
1) OS/2 2.0 with some word processor (I want to say DeScribe) and 2)
DOS 5.0 with the same word processor.  Both loaded a 5000+ line file
and repaginated the entire file with a new font.  OS/2 2.0 did the task
in ***HALF*** the time it took Windows to do the task.

The same computers were used in other OS/2 vs. Windows tests:  after
repaginating the document, both computers decided to save under a new
filename, with the intention of opening a new file after doing so.
OS/2 selected "Save as...", entered the filename, and opened the new
file IMMEDIATELY, while Windows selected "Save as...", entered the
filename, and...whoops...no preemptive I/O, so we had to wait on the
Windows computer while OS/2 kept chugging along (incidentally, the
new file had the words "I wonder what the other users are doing now?"

With 2 DOS windowed prompts running on both machines, one had Lotus
123 2.2 loading a 5000 row spreadsheet, another had dBase IV doing a
query on a rather large (cannot remember the size) database, another
windowed prompt was opened and "DIR" was executed.  The OS/2 computer
displayed the directory smoothly while the Windows computer displayed
it quite "jerkily".

Both computers ran "BADAPP", an application intentionally written to
do "the nasty".  On OS/2, you received a notice that an illegal
instruction was attempted to be executed and that it would be killed,
after which OS/2 continued to run smoothly.  However, the Windows
PC displayed the infamous "The application has violated the system
integrity.  Please close all applications, exit Windows, and reboot the
system" message.

Both computers opened a windowed prompt and ran "CHKDSK" to get the
system statistics.  Windows displayed 654xxx bytes usable, 599xxx bytes
free, while OS/2 display 655xxx bytes usable, 647xxx bytes free.

Finally, Lee demonstrated "something you won't see on Windows".  OS/2 2.0
was shown running an OS/2 application, a Windows 3.0 application, a
Windows 2.1 application, and a DOS text-mode application, side-by-side
in 4 DOS windowed command prompts.

Enough Windows bashing from the demo...

DOS applications:  48M per application using the DPMI 1.0 (you read that
right; we are using 1.0 instead of 0.9) spec.  Does your DOS program
require special drivers?  NO PROBLEM.  Lee demonstrated "satisFAXion"
which dialed a FAX machine in the room and sent a FAX document, all in
a DOS window.  Additionally, some popular multi-media application (I
cannot remember the name) played a bunch of MIDI stuff, all in a DOS
window.  Finally, Flight Simulator was run, both full-screen, then in
a DOS window, with no problems, and only a slight performance hit.

Network:  there was a 3 server network running in the room, one server
was an IBM LAN Server, another was a Novell Server, and the other was
a Banyon VINES Unix Server.  Drag a file from VINES, drop it in the
Novell window, no problem.  This REALLY impressed a lot of people.
LDU (Lan Download Utility) was also demonstrated which allows you to
install software, including operating systems, via the LAN.  Finally,
LAN Chess was demonstrated, which is a groupware application allowing
two humans to play each other over the network (Lee did not mention if
| this was shipping with OS/2 2.0 LAN Requestor).  Also, I forgot to
| mention that the Novell Server was running on a Compaq SystemPro.

Workplace shell:  very impressive.  It was demonstrated to run configured
as the Windows shell, the OS/2 1.3 shell, or the Workplace model.
Drag-n-drop went very smoothly, as well as the "automatic associations"
which allowed the user to double-click on a file and have the System
Editor come up automatically with the file loaded.  Some applets were
also shown, Neko and Klondike were actually run with both receiving
quite good responses.  The "Development Folder" was opened, revealing
PM Diary, split up into its various pieces, although none were actually
run.  Incidentally, Klondike and Neko were run from the "Games Folder"
which also had Blox, Scramble, Reversi, and a few other "neato-daddyo"
applications in it.  People seemed to like the idea of having applets
which allow them to get used to the system without actually having to
spend a million bucks for a full-blown OS/2 application.

Also, I would like to give an extra attaboy to the people responsible
for the new Control Panel (now known simply as "Preferences", which I
like because it is more friendly and less techie).  It was very similar
to the NeXT configuration program in that it had different icons for
different areas that can be configured.  Interesting aspect was, under
the mouse section, the "tracking speed" slidebar.

The CONFIG.SYS editor was shown which impressed people, and it was noted
that OS/2 install will AUTOMATICALLY reinstall any applications that
were previously installed, and will update the CONFIG.SYS to include any
device drivers, PATH (and, I imagine, DPATH and LIBPATH) changes, etc.
that were made to previous versions of OS/2.

Graphical Install:  it was impressive, although it wasn't apparent if
it ran outright in PM, or if you had to install the first disk or two
before switching over.

Other points needing to be mentioned:  Joe said that until the end of
the year, there will be $99 upgrade to OS/2 1.3 SE from DOS and $150
outright, with a free upgrade to OS/2 2.0 when it is released.  He
mentioned that this should attract any PC user, even if (s)he only wants
it to multitask DOS applications.

Lee closed the demo by opening a DOS windowed prompt and running
Space Quest 4 with the MIDI output sent to the speakers, since he liked
the music.  It made for a great closing theme.

All in all, the demo was fantastic, exciting, and made me quite proud
to be an IBMer.

=================

IBM had a set of rather large booths, one on the main floor, and one
upstairs.  The former demonstrated IBM products, including a model 95
running the new Intel 50MHz 486, in general, while the latter was
dedicated to OS/2.  The OS/2 booth was good, and I was able to make a
good impression by dressing in jeans and a t-shirt with a collared shirt
over it, and by augmenting what the IBM reps were saying.  I'm saying
this because it turned a few heads to see someone NOT in a pin-stripe.
I *strongly encourage* any other IBMers who plan to go, to do the same.
The things that people wanted to hear are that OS/2 applets are shipped
FREE with OS/2 (note the key word); that they can receive a copy of
2.0 Beta by becoming a member of the Early Experience Program, and that
14 OEMs have signed contracts for support of OS/2 2.0 (or something like
that.  I didn't quite catch everything that was said by the IBM rep
who stated this).  Also in the booth were ISVs with their OS/2 apps
(like CaseWorks with CASE:PM.  I was really impressed...)

Additionally, IBM had a booth next to room 1E08 where the demo was done,
with IBM and other vendors downstairs answering technical questions.
Borland was even there, and today it was announced that Object Vision
will be ported to OS/2 2.0 and should ship by the end of this year.

============

All in all, I had a good time.  The other booths were interesting,
and I didn't see Microsoft anywhere (they must've known I was coming ;).
From the demo, it is QUITE apparent that Bill Gates has a LOT to worry
about, and I think now is the time to start writing letters to the
magazines defending IBM and OS/2 2.0.  The world has a nuclear weapon
coming for it in 4Q91 and it better be ready.

Cheers,
Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q')            [e-mail]
OS/2 Applications and Tools             [e-mail]
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center         [e-mail]
Yorktown Heights, NY

Disclaimer:  The statements and/or opinions stated above are strictly my
own and do not reflect the views of my employer.  Additionally, I have a
reputation for being obnoxious, so don't take any personal attacks too
seriously.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (larrys)
Subject: Bill Gates Blasting IBM
Date: 26 Jun 91 13:07:30 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

Now it is not my place to criticize, but I would like to address a few
things that have been bothering me for quite some time.

I don't like Bill Gates.

His attitude is too self-righteous for his own good.  "Other than
usability, making sure Windows is the winning OS is our highest
priority", said he in the memo leaked to PC Week.  "If we do succeed,
then we will be done forever with the poor code, poor design, poor
process and other overhead that [working with] IBM had led us to."  I am
sick of hearing Bill Gates say stuff like this, so I will ask the one
obvious question:

How come the first version of OS/2 1.3 to NOT be extremely influenced by
Microsoft (i.e. in lines of code) was the first one to really be praised
by the press in terms of function provided, performance, and memory/DASD
required?  It would seem that if Microsoft is so d*@% good, then OS/2
1.0, 1.1, or 1.2 would have been the greatest thing since sliced bread.
But it took 4 versions AND the estrangement of IBM and Microsoft to
produce a good product.

...AND if you thought that was good, see my posting last night about OS/2
2.0, which Microsoft had even less to do with that OS/2 1.3.  Bill Gates,
maybe you ought to sell a few more hundred thousand shares so that you
don't lose too much money (why DID he sell 400,000 shares anyways?).

"Our strategy is to make sure that we evolve the Windows API and get
developers to take advantage of the new features rapidly, while IBM has a
poor product with poor Windows functionality."  1)  Has anyone tried
programming for Windows and then PM?  If you have, then you know what a
nightmare programming for Windows is, compared to PM.  2)  What new
features?  Multithreading?  More memory?  Preemptive multitasking?  OS/2
has it, and has it NOW.  3)  Poor product with poor Windows
functionality?  Just because we don't think the universe revolves around
Windows doesn't mean we have a poor product.  AND with OS/2 2.0 coming
out in 4Q91 and the currently consumers perception that Windows isn't
"all it's cracked up to be", the trend will shift from Windows to OS/2
2.0.

Look, I'm not out to start a holy war about who is better.  Those who
prefer Windows, try OS/2 2.0.  If it isn't a "better Windows than
Windows" or a "better DOS than DOS", then IBM will truly be flushed out
of the PC operating system business and you'll never have to listen to
this again.

Cheers,
Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q')            [e-mail]
OS/2 Applications and Tools             [e-mail]
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center         [e-mail]
Yorktown Heights, NY

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 : A Better Windows Than Windows ?????
Date: 27 Jun 91 15:59:56 GMT
Organization: IBM Research

In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Robert D. Thompson) writes:
>People,
>    I would appreciate an answer to the following,
>     A. I have a Windows Communications Package that can
>        access a total of up to 2 Async. Serial Ports (this
>        is assuming you do not use the mouse).
>     B. I have Digiboards Multiport Board for OS/2 with
>        16 ports.
>     Q. Can the same Windows Communications Application, running
>        under OS/2 2.0 access all 16 ports ?

If the program is written to handle 16 ports, then the answer is yes.
Just because the ports are there doesn't mean that magically a program
written for 2 ports will have an extra 14.

>     Q. Will the performance of the Windows application be
>        better than on an equivalent machine running DOS/Windows ?
>        (i am aware that DLL interfacing reduces the performance,
>        but the question is how much compared to Windows under
>        DOS?)

Okay, here's the scoop.

The DLL library HAS BEEN REMOVED, according to the "Blue Ninja" at PC
Expo, due to poor performance.  SO...They have somehow built the calls
into the system (I did NOT say "kernal").  Expect about an increase of
100% in performance for Windows applications running under OS/2 (versus
its DOS 5.0 and Windows equivalent).  I saw this first hand, so I'm not
just making up numbers.

Cheers,
Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q')            [e-mail]
OS/2 Applications and Tools             [e-mail]
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center         [e-mail]
Yorktown Heights, NY

Disclaimer:  The statements and/or opinions stated above are strictly my
own and do not reflect the views of my employer.  Additionally, I have a
reputation for being obnoxious, so don't take any personal attacks too
seriously.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: OS/2 Dealers
Date: 27 Jun 91 16:28:14 GMT
Organization: IBM Research

The following is from an internal posting in response to my query about
IBM Authorized Dealers...

------------------------------------------

This list consists of those IBM Authorized Dealers who have
volunteered to sell OS/2 to those users who cannot obtain it through
their local dealers.

Note that this list has been officially sanctioned by IBM Business
Practices.

 Last update 6/2/91

 ***********************************
 CBM Computer Center
 198 Moore Drive, Suite 003
 Lexington, KY  40503
 606-276-3579
 ***********************************
 CBM Computer Center
 Tim Harbison
 1776 Snow Road
 Cleveland, Ohio 44134
 Phone [phone]
 Fax [phone]

 Visa, MC, COD...
 ***********************************
 Survival Specialties, Inc.
 H. Stanley Smith
 9 Chestnut Grove Court
 New City, NY  10956-2713
 914-634-6618
 ***********************************
 Connecting Point
 Rhonda Ross
 813 Massachusetts St.
 Lawrence, KS.  66044
 [phone]
 ***********************************
 Egghead Software
 1-800-EGGHEAD
 (Original purchase)
 ***********************************
 800 Software
 800-888-4880
 (Original purchase and update)

Cheers,
Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q')            [e-mail]
OS/2 Applications and Tools             [e-mail]
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center         [e-mail]
Yorktown Heights, NY

Disclaimer:  The statements and/or opinions stated above are strictly my
own and do not reflect the views of my employer.  Additionally, I have a
reputation for being obnoxious, so don't take any personal attacks too
seriously.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Larry Salomon, Jr.)
Subject: Re: SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH OS/2 2.0 INFORMATION...
Date: 1 Jul 91 12:07:06 GMT
Organization: IBM Research
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM

In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Amir D. Kolsky) writes:
>
>A clarifiaction: Windows will not run native means: Windows' API will not
>be executed directly, Windows Apps should run in their own windows
>with the PM screen group, thou they might run in a different one to begin with.
>AmiR.

Amir, not meaning to undermine your attempts to keep the public informed,
but in the interests of avoiding a rout, I should add that this issue is
being investigated and might behave differently at GA time.

Cheers,
Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q')            [e-mail]
OS/2 Applications and Tools             [e-mail]
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center         [e-mail]
Yorktown Heights, NY

Disclaimer:  The statements and/or opinions stated above are strictly my
own and do not reflect the views of my employer.  Additionally, I have a
reputation for being obnoxious, so don't take any personal attacks too
seriously.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Larry Salomon, Jr.)
Subject: Getting OS/2 2.0 Beta
Organization: IBM Research
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 13:18:45

Okay, maybe I did take things too far...Here is a very eloquent posting
to an internal newsgroup which explains a lot of things.  This is NOT an
official IBM announcement, so do not take it as such; however, it
contains a lot of useful information...

> I understand that people might want to "try out" OS/2 2.0, due to many
> rave reviews... but if so, these people should also care enough to be
> willing to "sign up" as IBM customers.  It hardly makes sense to throw
> a zillion pre-release copies of not-totally-right systems software out
> to people we don't even know, who have no direct contact with us, just
> so they can see if they might like it when it's done.
>
> If you, as a concerned IBM'er, care enough to direct them to their IBM
> Branch Office, they can become a "real" IBM customer.  They can then
> quite legitimately request that the Branch Office, via Area Workstation
> Specialist, nominate them for the EEP... providing they can make some
> reasonable case for it; curiosity alone isn't necessarily going to be
> enough.
>
> If their interest doesn't go that far, they shouldn't be in the program
> anyway... they might be much better off with a viewing of some of the
> 2.0-related video tapes, including the impending PC Expo tape.  If you
> want to spread the word, get the tapes yourself and circulate them to
> the people you think might be interested.
>
> The EEP is not a program to satisfy all prospective users' curiosity,
> nor is it intended as a "free trial" for everyone... IBM certainly does
> hope it will continue the OS/2 2.0 marketing effort, but the primary
> interest is in a) helping people get their software ready for cutover
> to "the real thing", and b) getting information back from them on what
> is and isn't working for them.  Neither of these makes any sense unless
> the user is "signed up" with IBM.
>
> Whenever you see a request for the EEP, or anything of the sort, you
> should find out why they want to get 2.0...
>
>   o  If they are an ISV/IHV (Independent Software or Hardware Vendor),
>      they should join the DAP and get in touch with the appropriate IBM
>      support people in Boca or Austin, who will help them get whatever
>      they need.
>
>   o  If they are an IBM customer, they should be working through their
>      local Branch Office support staff to serve their needs.
>
>   o  If they are not currently an IBM customer, they can become one, and
>      progress to case 2 above.
>
>   o  If they don't want to become an IBM customer, they really have no
>      grounds for wanting special treatment from IBM, do they?  We'd like
>      to sell them the software they want... when it's ready for sale.
>
> Remember, OS/2 2.0 is going to be on sale in their local dealer's shop
> in a very few months.

<Name withheld>

Cheers,
Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q')            [e-mail]
OS/2 Applications and Tools             [e-mail]
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center         [e-mail]
Yorktown Heights, NY

Disclaimer:  The statements and/or opinions stated above are strictly my
own and do not reflect the views of my employer.  Additionally, I have a
reputation for being obnoxious, so don't take any personal attacks too
seriously.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 8514/xga dumb questions
Date: 26 Jun 91 12:54:34 GMT
Organization: VAX Cluster, Computer Centre, La Trobe University

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Dan Nater) writes:
> 1)  Please define 8514(/A)    Could one say that 8514 supports 1024x768x256?
> (in os/2)

The 8514/A adapter card with the standard 512KB memory supports 1024x768x16
colours.  With 1MB memory it supports 256 colours.  It works as an
adjunct to the VGA already on a PS/2.  OS/2 1.x supports 16 colours only,
so you will not see more than 16 colours via PM in OS/2.  OS/2 2.0
has a colour model similar to Windows 3.0, so will support more colours
(256 up to 24 bit colour, but this depends on appropriate hardware).

> 2) Please define XGA

XGA is a microchannel-only adapter (and 386 only) that has VGA on-board
plus 640x480x65,536, 1024x768x16 and 1024x768x256 (with full memory).

> 3) My goal is to have a 16inch or larger monitor running 1024x768x(>=16)
>      I  run OS/2 1.3EE and windows 3.0  What should I get.  I'd like to get
>     "The best" setup.........

If you want 256 colours you can't get it from OS/2 PM at present.  OS/2
version 2.0 will have this.  A graphics program that bypasses OS/2 graphics
calls (naughty) can, of course, give you 256 colours, but then would
be specific to the adpater card.

Dr Mark Kosten,        phone: [phone]
Computer Centre,       AARNet (internet): [e-mail]
La Trobe University,
Bundoora, 3083
Australia

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Ken Borgendale)
Subject: 8514/XGA dumb questions
Date: 26 Jun 91 20:06:21 GMT

OS/2 1.x as shipped does support 256 colors on an 8514/A or XGA.  Any
vendor putting out custom cards can also support 256 color mode.  I
am running OS/2 1.3 in 256 colors on a 8514/A.

The XGA is a redesign of the 8514/A to better perform better at
those tasks for which it is actually used.  Improvements were put
in for raster ops used by Windows and OS/2, and for pointer (sprite)
support.  Many of the new 8514/A clones also included some of these
improvements, which is normal since they had several years of
product experience to work with.

OS/2 1.3 fully support XGA.  The current beta 2.0 is missing XGA
support and 256 color support for the 8514/A.  But these drivers are
coming soon.

Ken Borgendale        (Someday I will say something worth disclaiming)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: VT320 emulator for OS/2
Date: 27 Jun 91 13:29:41 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

        The scandinavian data comapany Nokia Data AB has an
        excellent VT320-emulator for OS/2 both as an PM and
        VIO versions. In Norway I'd suggest one to contact
        the local filial.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (john gay)
Subject: New OS/2 v2.0 features (rumored)
Date: 27 Jun 91 23:23:15 GMT
Organization: none

New features rumored to be in OS/2 v2.0 include: (rumored because it was in
the June 24 issue of PC Week - not exactly the most reliable source)

* New FAT file system called Super FAT - a faster running implementation of
  the FAT used in DOS.  Super FAT is completely compatible with current
  files and disks, achieving its speed increase through 32-bit code.
  "It's faster than the HPFS [currently] in 2.0", (Lee) Reiswig (assistant
   general manager of programming at IBM) said, noting that IBM intended to
   boost the speed of HPFS before the release of 2.0.

* A multiboot feature that allows users to choose between multiple operating
  systems, such as DOS, OS/2 1.3 and OS/2 2.0, when they turn on their PCs.

Well, I don't know about the super FAT file system, but I do know that the
multiboot feature was asked for here on the net.  Do ya'll suppose that
somebody is actually listening AND hearing what is said here (other than
Larry).

--
john gay.                      [e-mail]
Like Thoreau, I rejoice that there are owls.  Part of the reason is that
owls eat mice, and thus make a certain number of cats unnecessary, which
is always a plus.  Jeff Duntemann, Dr. Dobb's June '91

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 91 10:15:42 EDT
From: "Ken Borgendale" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Building a PC that can run OS/2

OS/2 is in fact very tolerant of variant hardware, and it is quite
easy to construct a PC which will run OS/2 from parts.  However, it
is possible to get hardware which it will not support.  It is not
possible to test all possible configurations, and IBM does not
claim to do so, and neither does anyone else.

OS/2 is an operating system (unlike DOS which just acts as a
program monitor) and therefore desires to control and exploit
the devices attached to the system.  To do this it requires a
driver for each device.  Other operating systems like Unix also
require this (as does Windows which must do this work because DOS
is not acting as an operating system).  OS/2 ships with a set of
standard device drivers.

When putting devices in a system, you can either use a "clone"
device which exactly matches a standard device, or you can add
a device driver which matches the device.  Problems come up when
you do neither of these.  Most of the "unsupported" device
problems come from clone devices which "almost" match the standard
device.

This is much more of a problem in OS/2 than DOS since OS/2 tries
to exploit the device.  Again Windows does the same thing and
has compatibility problems because of it.  The same is true of
any hardware/software combination.  A graphics program which
exploits features of a video adapter is much more likely to
have compatibility problems than a program which outputs in text
mode.

If you plan to put a system together from pieces, you must be
prepared for some of the parts to be incompatible.  This is true
for hardware and for software.  I have put together several such
systems, and in the last one I found that a video card and disk
adapter which worked fine apart, would not work in the same
machine, although they appeared to have no register/memory conflict.
I had to replace one of them.  The same is true for hardware and
software.  If you don't enjoy this sort of thing, then buy your
system from a dealer who will put it all together for you.

Ken Borgendale  (standard disclaimers and all that)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 91 10:43:01 EDT
From: Ken Borgendale <[e-mail]>
Subject: Installation, partitions, master boot

OS/2 1.x will only install and boot from the C drive.  This is the
first partition on the disk in HPFS or DOS primary format.  If you
already have the partitions defined, and the disks formatted before
calling OS/2 install, and tell it not to do so as part of install,
then the partition table and master book record will be unchanged
as the result of the OS/2 install.

If you have DOS 5.0 on your C drive before installing OS/2 1.2 or
OS/2 1.3, dual boot will be enabled, which allows you to select
DOS or OS/2 by running a program before booting.  (Personally I
leave my system in OS/2 mode and boot DOS from a diskette, but
that is a personal preference).

OS/2 1.x works fine with the Coherent master boot record.

OS/2 2.0 will come with an optional multi-boot capability.  If you
select this option, it will rewrite your master book record.  Thus
you will probably not be able to boot coherent after selecting this
option.  However, if you select this option, you can boot OS/2
from any drive.

This is similar to the problems between Coherent and SCO Unix who
both update the master book record.  Perhaps the various PC
operating systems can get together to produce a multi operating
system master boot record which also allows each of them to
load their bootstrap.  This was the original aim of the partition
table with the active bit.

Ken Borgendale (standard disclaimers since I am only a little obnoxious)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Kenneth Porter)
Subject: PFM/AFM conversion
Date: 30 Jun 91 22:04:55 GMT

For those not aware of the Adobe file server, AFM files for
Adobe fonts can be gotten by email.  The specs for AFM files
are available from the same source.  Send the one-word message
"help" (without the quotes) to [e-mail].  You'll
get back further instructions on use of the file server.  An
AFM->PFM converter was mentioned in comp.lang.postscript recently
called REFONT, which is shareware from someone called Acute Systems.
Of course, for OS/2, you need the reverse process.  The following
was posted to comp.lang.postscript in April:

* Subject: Re: AFM and PFM format, conversion?
* From: [e-mail] (Carl Orthlieb)
* Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated, Mountain View
* Date: 10 Apr 91 20:19:19 GMT

PFM stands for Printer Font Metrics. These are files created by
Microsoft for Windows and contain text metrics for 'soft' fonts.
The installation programs that come with our fonts know how to create these
.PFM files for use under Windows.

Microsoft has allowed us to distribute the 'Printer Font Metrics Files'
specification as hard copy (we don't have an electronic version) and this
is available to all of our registered developers.

You can also call Microsoft and ask for document number
SY0329c-300-R00-1089.
This document is shipped out as part of the documentation for the Microsoft
Windows Device Development Kit (DDK).  Chapter 4 of this document discusses
.PFM files for PostScript Printers.

Hope this helps, Carl 8^)
Ken ([e-mail])

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Larry Salomon, Jr.)
Subject: Re: New OS/2 v2.0 features (rumored)
Date: 1 Jul 91 12:00:13 GMT
Organization: IBM Research
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM

In <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (john gay) writes:
>* A multiboot feature that allows users to choose between multiple operating
>  systems, such as DOS, OS/2 1.3 and OS/2 2.0, when they turn on their PCs.
>
>Well, I don't know about the super FAT file system, but I do know that the
>multiboot feature was asked for here on the net.  Do ya'll suppose that
>somebody is actually listening AND hearing what is said here (other than
>Larry).

Well, believe it or not, us IBMers are not that much different than the
netters, here.  The multiboot option has been asked for ever since dual
boot was introduced.  It's just taken Boca this long to get the time to
implement it!

Regarding your second statement, I have been made aware that upper
management does read the internal shadow of comp.os.os2.misc and one
other OS/2 newsgroup, so they do indeed hear what you have to say (now,
if I can only convince Lee Reiswig - aka the "Blue Ninja" - to POST to
the newsgroups...  ;)

Cheers,
Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q')            [e-mail]
OS/2 Applications and Tools             [e-mail]
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center         [e-mail]
Yorktown Heights, NY

Disclaimer:  The statements and/or opinions stated above are strictly my
own and do not reflect the views of my employer.  Additionally, I have a
reputation for being obnoxious, so don't take any personal attacks too
seriously.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Larry Salomon, Jr.)
Subject: Re: Building a PC that can run OS/2
Date: 1 Jul 91 12:04:15 GMT
Organization: IBM Research
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM

In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Paul Coen) writes:
>And finally :-), is any of this likely to change with OS/2 2.0 -- that's
>what I'm thinking of moving to, once it's finally released.

Since you (apparently ;) didn't catch my append on the OS/2 2.0 demo
given by none-other-than the Blue Ninja himself, I will tell you that
OS/2 2.0's DOS box will be (and already is) better than DOS itself, not
to mention that it runs FASTER that DOS on identical hardware.

Additionally, you can boot any version of DOS going back to (I think)
2.21.  The demo showed three DOS windows on screen, one with DOS 4.0,
another with DOS 5.0, and the last one with DR DOS 5.0.

Cheers,
Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q')            [e-mail]
OS/2 Applications and Tools             [e-mail]
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center         [e-mail]
Yorktown Heights, NY

Disclaimer:  The statements and/or opinions stated above are strictly my
own and do not reflect the views of my employer.  Additionally, I have a
reputation for being obnoxious, so don't take any personal attacks too
seriously.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Update: Fernwood OS/2 Collection
Date: 2 Jul 91 03:06:24 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

Some weeks ago I posted a listing of the files available on Fernwood,
a BBS located in the New Haven, Connecticut, area.  The list generated
quite a few responses, e.g. "Why don't we have that stuff available
here?"

Emmitt Dove, the system operator of that BBS, has been kind enough to
offer to help transfer his entire collection (over 50MB) of files to
the Internet.  I'm sending him about 50 disks, and he will send them
back to me with the entire collection.  I will then transfer the
Fernwood collection to mims-iris.waterloo.edu.

I expect this process will take quite some time, and that the files
will not be available on waterloo until the end of this month (July).
So please be patient -- an announcement will be made in this newsgroup
as soon as the Fernwood collection is available.

Users who are unable to use ftp and who are reading this group through
Usenet will be pleased to know that the moderator of comp.binaries.os2
will be sending the Fernwood collection out over that newsgroup as
time and space permit.  That process should start shortly after the files
have been placed at waterloo later this month and should take quite
some time -- comp.binaries.os2 will have a full queue.

My thanks to those people who have helped in this effort, particularly
the comp.binaries.os2 moderator Mike Tanith and the keeper of the
archives at waterloo.

So who said there was no public domain/shareware software available for
OS/2?  :-)

Stay tuned.

T.F.S.
Timothy F. Sipples                              [e-mail]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Ian Stickland)
Subject: Re: Viruses problems in OS/2?????
Date: 2 Jul 91 08:53:51 GMT
Organization: Kingston Polytechnic

I had an interesting experience with viruses on an OS/2 machine. I first
noticed something dodgy when I couldn't run MORE from the OS/2 command
prompt, but it appeared to work fine from the DOS box. Just to be on the
safe side I ran a virus checker over my C: drive and sure enough MORE.COM
was diagnosed as having been infected with a Jerusalem virus.

OS/2 gave the error SYS1107 when I tried to run MORE, which is the error
that you get when you try and run a DOS application under OS/2. This was
obviously because the virus had inserted it's own DOS header onto the file.
This would appear to give an easy way of spotting a virus ataching itself
to an OS/2 program...

As far as I know it isn't possible for an OS/2 program to change a system
file that is in use, so an OS/2 virus should be **extremely** difficult to
get. I've never heard of any...

Cheers,

Ian Stickland

------------------------------------------------------------------------

END OF OS/2 DISCUSSION FORUM 910701
***********************************