OS/2 Shareware BBS: 15 Message/15-Message.zip/os2v9104.zip/OS2-9109.003

Text File | 1991-10-24 | 22KB | 466 lines

Subject: OS/2 Discussion Forum 910903
Reply-To: Moderated discussion forum on OS/2 <[e-mail]>

************************************************************************
OS/2 Discussion Forum    Mon, September 16, 1991    Volume 9109 Issue 03

                Relevant addresses :

NEW ADDRESS ||| 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 ADDRESS
                       New files on LISTSERVer
                      program started minimized
                           Query Manager
                         More info on OS/2
                      SOM (System Object Model)
                         OS/2 2.0 comments
                      DISK subsystems for OS/2

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

                  Re: Development tools for OS/2 2.0
              OS/2 2.0 Benchmarking: Free Advice to IBM
                     HEY, IBM, WHERE WAS OS/2???

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

Date:         Wed, 18 Sep 91 12:00:00 +0200
From:         Moderators of the OS/2 Discussion Forum
Subject:      NEW ADDRESS

This is the last issue of the OS/2 Discussion Forum being mailed from
the OS-2 userid.  From next weeks issue on, mail will be sent from the
OS2 userid.  From now on, this userid is available for new Q&A, to be
published in the 910904 issue.
So please, change your nicknames files, authorised mail correspondents
files, and so on ...
All archives will be OS2 LOGyymm in stead of OS-2 LOGyymm, even those
related to the issues sent out before this date.
The filelist for our archive of binaries and text files will be called
OS2 FILELIST from now on, in stead of OS-2 FILELIST.
Separate warnings related to this address change will be mailed to all
NETNEWS gateways, distribution points, the comp.os.os2.* newsgroups and
the NEW-LIST listserv list.
However, as loyal subscribers to this list, which still has over 700
direct subscribtions (a figure which does not include redistribution)
we encourage you to take the opportunitity of this name change to adver-
tise the existance (and the name change) of this digest to all who might
be interested.  Thanks.

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

Date:         Wed, 18 Sep 91 12:00:00 +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.

  filename filetype   Remarks
  -------- --------   -------------------------------
  TCPIP    PLETEMEA   IBM TCP/IP for OS/2 Announcement EMEA
  TCPIP    PLETEUSA   IBM TCP/IP for OS/2 Announcement USA
  FERNWOOD BBSFILES   List of Fernwood BBS files
  IBMNSC   BBSFILES   List of IBM BBS files

* Files distributed via comp.os.os2.bin

  filename filetype   Remarks
  -------- --------   -------------------------------
  FILL_OS2 ZIPXXE     Fill diskettes efficient
  SETBAUD  ZIPXXE     Set baud rate up to 115200 bauds
  STRUTL12 ZIPXXE     Several little utilities v1.2
  TAGOS2   ZIPXXE     PD MARKEXE utility

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 arrange everything for distribution.

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

Date:         Mon, 16 Sep 91 09:54:21 +0200
From:         rda <[e-mail]>
Subject:      program started minimized

Hello,

In OS/2 EE 1.2 when I dragged a file from File Manager to the Kedit (Mansfield)
program in Group Main, the file became immediatly visible in a full screen
session.
Since OS/2 EE 1.3 (and the behavior is the same in the 6.149 beta version of
OS/2 SE 2.0), the session doesn't appear if a full screen but is minimized.
And I must click on the icon to start the edit session in a full screen.

The properties of Kedit program is, in the Group Main:
program title: Kedit full screen
path and file name: D:\UTILES\KEDIT.EXE
parameters: %*
working directory: \
Program type: full screen
Options Initial Window size: normal

Do you have an idee how to solve this awkward behavior ?

Thanks

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

Date:         Mon, 16 Sep 91 12:19:21 MDT
From:         Tomas HOLAN <SOFTH@CSPUNI12>
Subject:      Query Manager

Hi all!
   I am a new participant in this list and i would like to ask you:

   Is here anybody having some experience with OS/2 Query Manager?
   Problem I am solving for long time (reading OS/2 books round and round)
is how can I in procedure invoke some query (OK, it is simple)

   and after this to get information about result of this query?
   ------------------------------------------------------------
   It is enough for me to get COUNT of rows that query found, because.
in my application I only need ask if some item is already in tables.

            I will be very thankfull for some informations

                                                     Bye    Tomik

Tomik HOLAN, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles's University
             Prague, Czechoslovakia   E-MAIL: SOFTH@CSPUNI12

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

Date:     Wed, 11 Sep 91 10:03:43 TUR
From:     Turgut Kalfaoglu <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Info-IBMPC Digest <[e-mail]>
Subject:  More info on OS/2

Here is some info I found, might be interesting:

Date: 5 Sep 91 19:33:03 GMT
Sender: larrys@yktvmv
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM

Here is an interesting article that I noticed on an internal conference
which I received permission to post.  SOM stands for "System Object
Model".  You must remember that the shell is available as a separate
package (separate from the SDK, that is), so this is why you (those of
you who have the SDK) haven't seen it yet.  Enjoy...

----- OS2V2SHL FORUM appended at 16:01:29 on 91/09/05 GMT (by MARCB at BCRVMPC
Subject: SOM (System Object Model)
Ref:     Append at 21:15:05 on 91/09/03 GMT (by VELOCCI at TOROLAB2)

The entire workplace shell is indeed written using the SOM programming
interface.  This means that every object that you see, including
folders, drives, devices, etc., are written using a SOM class
definition, .CSC file, just as the car sample uses.  If you are having
difficulty with the car sample, it may because you have header files out
of sync with the version of the shell that you are trying to run it
on.

As far as support goes, people are working feverishly as we speak on
beefing up the online toolkit documentation, including both the
application programming guide and the technical references, which should
be adequate documentation for anyone trying to write an application to
integrate to the OS/2 2.0 workplace environment.  In addition, the car
sample is being reworked and will soon be part of the OS/2 2.0
toolkit.

Is the SOM-based workplace shell programming interface sound?
Yes, and it has been for many months now.  Can and should people be
programming to these interfaces?  Absolutely.  By the next OS/2 Beta,
the interfaces should be totally frozen and totally documented.  Should
people bypass the workplace shell interfaces and write directly to the
Cary container control and to the Cary drag/drop protocol?  In most
cases, absolutely not.  The container control is great if you want to
use it as a window control, such as a listbox.  If you want to use it as
a folder, you have to use the drag drop protocol yourself and you will
have an awful lot of trouble to go through to let your objects get moved
or copied to other folders, having other objects sit in your folder,
support context menus, settings notebooks, and about a million other
things you have to do to make your objects act consistently with the
rest of the objects in the system.

The programming interfaces, using SOM, were designed specifically to
make it as easy as possible for application writers to write or convert
applications to fit seamlessly into the CUA workplace environment.  By
using the object oriented programming interface (SOM), application
writers don't have to duplicate any function that exists in the system -
they only have to wory about the application specific function that
makes their object different from the object it is derived from.  For
example, if you want a folder that represents another place, a host for
example, all you have to do is subclass the folder and override the
method that is invoked when an object is dropped on it.  The only code
you supply is the code that is application specific, in this case to
upload it to the host, and then you can continue with the default
processing.  You don't have to worry about the drag/drop communication,
inserting items into the container control, direct name edit, context
menus, or  anything else that the standard folder already does for you.

Similarly, if you add a new mouse to the system and it has a wierd
gadget on it, which has special settings that can be set by the user, you
can simply, using SOM, subclass the existing mouse object and easily add
or remove settings notebook pages, add or remove context menu items,
etc, and just worry about supporting the function that you are adding.
If you are skeptical now, it is probably because you have either little
or no documentation now or have encountered a wierd bug that you haven't
received a fix for yet.  These problems will go away VERY soon.

Application writers can and should be writing to the SOM-based workplace
interfaces.  It will make it DRAMATICALLY easier to write CUA
'91-conforming apps than it would be using conventional PM programming.
In addition, their applications will obtain all the major benefits of
object oriented programming including high life-cycle maintainability
and code reusability.

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                    [e-mail]

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

Date: 16 SEP 1991 15:20:10 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: OS/2 2.0 comments

IBM has finally gotten its act together. They July release of 2.0 for the
first time fulfills its promise. I have installed their MOST booting system,
and now prefer running in OS/2 since I can run all my dos programs in
windows at VGA resolution.

The GUI overhead seems to have been eaten by the faster 32-bit code. For
example, the DOS Brief runs in a window of PM as fast as in DOS, full-screen.
Also, the mouse works for all windowed DOS programs, albeit a bit slowly.

Unlike Windows, printer ouput from multiple DOS programs is properly spool-
ed by Print Manager and does not intermix, even when directed to the same
device.

Using Norton's NDOS shell (easily done in OS/2 DOS windows), I get 649 kb
of memory available!!

I tried the high-resolution Trident video drivers on 2.0. The 1024 x 768
16 color driver hangs up frequently. The 256-color one works much better.
However, they are all brain-damaged since they don't support the virtual
VGA PM windows. Graphics can only run full-screen.
I returned to the IBM-supplied VGA driver which supports the new features.
IBM says they will provide super VGA drivers.

There are still some bugs. For me, windows only runs full-screen. More
annoying, it periodically gets garbage rows of pixels spread across the
screen, so it is unusable. It also runs in real-mode only.

It is worth getting the next drop for the $58 IBM is asking.

Jim Rome

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

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 91 23:36:30 CDT
From: "Tim Flansburg" <C487043@UMCVMB>
Subject: DISK subsystems for OS/2

    I am interested in the advantages and disadvantages of using SCSI or IDE dr
ivesunder OS/2 (especially 2.0). In particular such things as efficiecy,whether
 they can support HPFS partitions (I heard for SCSI drives it depends on the dr
iver, therefore very few support it), which SCSI controllers have OS/2 drivers
available. Also I am interested in input on EISA to SCSI controllers (though I
don't know if I am going to go EISA or not). Any comparisons or information wou
ld be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.
Tim

   C487043 at UMCVMB
   C487043 at UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU

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

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Bert Moshier)
Subject: Re: Development tools for OS/2 2.0
Date: 12 Sep 91 22:55:14 GMT
Organization: Cray Research, Inc., Eagan, MN

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Barr3y Jaspan) writes:
>This is probably a very easy question.
>
>What sort of development tools are included in OS/2 2.0?  What needs to be
>purchased separately?  I am asking about things like
>
>o a C compiler
>o an assembler and linker
>o a debugger
>o C header files and libraries
>o documentation of syscalls, executable structures, file system details,
>anything else a software hacker would need
>
>Thanks.
>
>--
>Barr3y Jaspan, [e-mail]

It is my understanding after attending the OS/2 Technical Seminar in Canada
that the following will occur:

   The icon editor is part of OS/2 SE.

   The IBM C Set/2 (32 bit C compiler) lists at $200.

   The IBM Workframe/2 (Workbench/2) lists at $200.  The Workframe/2 includes
   everything you need to do C development which the C Set/2 does not include.
   This includes a debugger for PM applications which itself is a PM
   application.

The Workframe/2 (Workbench/2) permits you to buy components from other
software developers (e.g.: C compiler from Borland or MS, editor from
Mansfield, etc.).  IBM will supply defaults and/or provide their own
offerings - for example:  Default editor: E.EXE or EPM.EXE.

Total list seems to be $400 for the development tools.  Of course no one
needs to pay list and as someone from M.I.T, I expect you will get to
take another 35% off the bottom (I could be wrong, though).

Bert Moshier
Cray Research, Inc.

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

From: [e-mail] (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: OS/2 2.0 Benchmarking: Free Advice to IBM
Date: 16 Sep 91 00:20:40 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

Along the lines of Bert Moshier's comments, I have some free advice to offer
IBM.  Doubtless when OS/2 2.0 is introduced the ever-accurate trade press
will wish to benchmark the new operating system, probably versus DOS and
Windows 3.0 (or Windows 3.1 if released at roughly the same time).

I'd probably do the same thing.  Of course, these benchmarks will be
anything but scientific.  Comparing these two environments will be like
comparing -- well, apples and oranges.  So here's some biased advice on how
to benchmark OS/2 2.0 (i.e. how to cast it in the most favorable light).

(1) When running the comparison, use a large hard disk.  Install OS/2
    with 32-bit HPFS.
(2) Turn on the cache (both writes and reads) and make sure the size is
    equivalent to anything used with DOS + Windows.  Pay particular
    attention to the SMARTDRV settings on the DOS side, because the
    cache size can change depending on whether Windows is active or not.
(3) On the DOS side, allow the hard disk to fragment to an "average"
    level and/or amortize the time it takes to defragment the disk into
    the benchmarks.
(4) Run trials with a 25% full disk, 60% full disk, and 95% full disk.
(5) When running "real world" applications, time to the point where cursor
    control is returned.
(6) Time floppy disk operations while a background task is running.
(7) Time file MOVEs (heh, heh!).
(8) Time two database applications running simultaneously performing the
    same operation.
(9) Perform a benchmark which involves font scaling to test OS/2 2.0's
    ATM against True Type.
(10) Open two command line windows.  Take directory listings of the same
     directory in both the windows.  Time the operation.
(11) Open two DOS applications in windows.  Time their performance on
     standard tasks.
(12) Put a 19,200 bps asynchronous file download in the background.  Time
     any foreground task.  Note any dropped character/retried blocks in
     a footnote (in BIG type :-)).  Conveniently forget to disable extended
     hardware buffering in OS/2. :-)
(13) Perform a tape backup.  Time any foreground task.
(14) Print a heavy graphics file in the background.  Time any foreground
     task.  Report the print time as well.
(15) Perform many benchmarks in directories with ~300 files.

Of course, these suggestions can rub both ways.  It is conceivable that
someone will benchmark a single native mode Windows application and choose
a particular function that requires significant overhead.

My suggestion, then, is for IBM to conduct a bunch of benchmarks and as the
trade publications receive OS/2 2.0 they also receive a booklet listing
IBM's own benchmark results.  These benchmarks will influence them in two
ways: (1) it will suggest benchmarks that they may not have thought of;
(2) they will make some effort to assure that their figures match IBM's.
Better yet, commission an independent lab to conduct tests but specify
which tests should be run.  (Or at least specify tests that should be run
insofar as it doesn't compromise the lab's own feeling of independence.)

Finally, even if the average Windows application runs 2.1% slower,
point out that that isn't a bit deal compared to the functionality
OS/2 brings (and that if you run two Windows applications simultaneously
on average each outperforms Windows by 6.9%).

--
T.F.S.                                          [e-mail]
Timothy F. Sipples                              Department of Economics
"Keeper of the OS/2 FAQ List."                  University of Chicago

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

From: [e-mail] ("Sassan Danesh")
Subject: HEY, IBM, WHERE WAS OS/2???
Date: 16 Sep 91 09:44:12 GMT

References: <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Daniel L'Hommedieu  KD4CYH) writes:
>IBM was showing off a package deal of PC-DOS 4.01/MS-Windows 3.0.  When
>I asked why they weren't even showing OS/2, the lady said something
>like, "The package deal we offer is of Windows and DOS."

The educational package deal has also been debated in an IBM internal
forum. The problem is that the current OS/2 offering (OS/2 1.3) is IMHO
not a good enough platform for the mass education market for reasons of
eg poor DOS support. So if IBM wants to have a presence in the education
market *now*, it needs a Windows offering. Once OS/2 2.0 comes out, it will
be a different story.

My own personal opinion is that we *must* be market-driven. This means
at the moment that we either ignore the mass education market until
OS/2 2.0 is out, or we have a Windows offering.
based offering for the mass market), IBM benefits (by selling the package)

Arguments that this helps Microsoft should get very short shrift. *Both*
companies benefit from such an arrangement. There is no point in cutting
off your nose to spite your face. In a similar vein, if Microsoft really
does slow development of their apps for 32-bit OS/2, they will be hurting
themselves (by giving other s/w houses a bigger opportunity) much more than
IBM.


Sassan Danesh,
Product + Revenue Planning, IBM UK

**********************************************************************
*  Knowledge is Power, Ignorance is Bliss, but Uncertainty is Hell!  *
**********************************************************************

Disclaimer: All my comments are my own and completely independent of my
            employer.

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

END OF OS/2 DISCUSSION FORUM 910903
***********************************