OS/2 Shareware BBS: 15 Message/15-Message.zip/os2v9104.zip/OS2-9111.002

Text File | 1991-11-13 | 75KB | 1,645 lines

Subject: OS/2 Discussion Forum 911102
Reply-To: Moderated discussion forum on OS/2 <[e-mail]-IN-ADDRESS>

************************************************************************
OS/2 Discussion Forum    Mon, November 11, 1991     Volume 9111 Issue 02

                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
                 Re: Disk drive controllers supported ...
              OS2 VT100 or VT240 emulators, X Window drivers?
                             OS/2 2.0 Courses
               Mid-Atlantic Area Software Solutions Marketing
               OS/2, Netware, TCP/IP, Scientific Applications
                        OS/2 version 2.0 suggestion
                               Re: OS/2 SCSI"
                   OS/2 version 2.0 dedication suggestion
                              A WPS discussion
                   modems and OS/2 version 2.0 drop 6.149

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

       Re: OS2's WorkPlace Shell and Norton Desktop for Windows.
                          DeScribe Demo *ftp*
                            PC-Week and OS/2
                        Re: DeScribe Demo *ftp*
             Memory Limits (was Re: Viruses under OS/2.)
          Re: 18 Mb on a 386sx (was Re: Viruses under OS/2.)
       Re: OS2's WorkPlace Shell and Norton Desktop for Windows.
                             XGA driver
                     Latest Beta Version Number?
                              OS humor
          Re: Another OS/2 article in the NYT (pricing, short)
                       Re: New os2.* Structure?
                     OS/2 2.0 articles in PC Week
                   Re: OS/2 2.0 articles in PC Week
                Maximus BBS on mims-iris.waterloo.edu
                    Fernwood Collection is Here!
              Re: Some thoughts about Os/2 and Windows NT
                         Can't install OS/2
                      Re: Upgrading to OS/2 2.0
               Lotus Freelance for OS/2 installer update
      Has Anyone Received The $750 SDK Refund from Microsoft Yet?
      IBM Announces support of purchasers of MS SDK for OS/2 2.0

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

Date:         Mon, 04 Nov 91 12:00:00 +0100
From:         Moderators of the OS/2 Discussion Forum <OS2MOD@BLEKUL11>
Organization: K.U. Leuven University, Belgium
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.

* OS/2 Frequent Asked Questions

  filename filetype   Remarks
  -------- --------   -------------------------------
  FAQ17    ZIPXXE     OS/2 Frequent Asked Questions v1.7

* Files distributed via comp.os.os2.bin

  filename filetype   Remarks
  -------- --------   -------------------------------
  CPK2_099 PACKAGE    Oberon CommPak/2 DLL
  KERM_TE2 ZIPXXE     Standalone Kermit protocol

Some of the available files come in - what is called - a package.  If
you request such package you will automatically receive all necesarry
files.  The zipxxe (XXencoded ZIP) files that you will receive must be
concatenated into one large ZIPXXE file by means of the COPY command.
(example :  copy x.zipxxe1 + x.zipxxe2 x.zipxxe)

To use this large ZIPXXE file 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) it.

Note: Use PKUNZIP -d to unzip ||

These files are distributed AS IS, we can not guarantee anything about
their working.

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:         Wed, 30 Oct 91 09:59:50 CST
From:         "Richard A. Schafer" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Networking and Computing Systems, Rice University
Subject:      Re: Disk drive controllers supported ...

Regarding Klaus Hahn's comments:

1. CSD 5015 is supposed to fix a number of problems with OS/2 support for
   IDE drives.  I suggest trying to get a copy of OS/2 at that level.
   However, I know of people here at Rice with IDE drives that were able to
   install OS/2 with no problems.

2. OS/2 1.3 *does* support some SCSI drives, as has been thoroughly bashed
   about on the USENET newsgroup.  As I understand it (not having a SCSI
   drive myself), the problem you may be facing is that SCSI device drivers
   are not generic, but vary from SCSI interface to SCSI interface, and the
   IBM driver doesn't currently support some of the commonly used SCSI
   interfaces.  I can't remember for sure, but I think there is support for
   more interfaces in the 2.0 version.

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

Date:         Fri, 1 Nov 1991 09:39 EDT
From:         Erich Schlaikjer <[e-mail]>
Subject:      OS2 VT100 or VT240 emulators, X Window drivers?
Organization: Goldman, Sachs & Co.

Is anyone aware of any good VT100 or VT240 emulators? I have PMCOMM, which
does VT100 badly, and no Regis support. PM far preferred to character mode.

Likewise, are there any PM X-Window drivers available?? I saw an IBM
announcement somewhere that seemed to imply there are, or might be.
Thanks.

Erich Schlaikjer London 774-2412 Home 0923-854-584

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

Date: 06 Nov 91 16:26:35 EST
From: David John Marotta <[e-mail]>
Subject: OS/2 2.0 Courses
Comments: Forwarding note of 11/06/91 14:24:31 from <USIB18TT AT IBMMAIL>

FYI:
David John Marotta, Medical Center Computing, Stacey Hall
Univ of Virginia [phone] wrk INTERNET: [e-mail]
Box 512 Med Cntr [phone] msg   BITNET: djm5g@virginia
C'ville VA 22908 [phone] fax   IBM US: usuvarg8
*** Forwarding note from USIB18TT--IBMMAIL  11/06/91 14:24 ***

To: USUVARG8--IBMMAIL

Message from: Frank Lauffer -- 8/646-3504
 Dept. KC3 Charlottesville, VA
 Office Location is KC3
Subject: Mid-Atlantic Area Software Solutions Marketing
..you said to keep 'em coming.....

 Mid-Atlantic Area Software Solutions Marketing
CEBU: New OS/2 Version 2 Courses Announced
November 6, 1991

WHAT'S NEW?  IBM announces four new courses to help customers to take
             full advantage of the powerful, 32-bit Operating System/2*
             (OS/2*) Version 2 that will be available during the
             first quarter of 1992.  These courses are in addition to
             OS/2 Version 1 to Version 2 Programming Migration (P1041)
             announced on October 2, 1992.

COURSES                                         COURSE
AVAILABLE:   COURSE TITLE:                      CODE:    Length:    TUITION:
             Introduction to DOS for OS/2       P1042    1/2 day     $158
             OS/2 Version 2 Facilities and      P1043      3 days    $945
               Installation Workshop
             Introduction to OS/2 Version 2     P1044      5 days   $1575
               Programming
             Advanced Programming Techniques    P1045      5 days   $1575
               for OS/2 Version 2

             See HONE for complete course descriptions.

TO REGISTER: Call 1-800-IBM-TEACh (1-800-426-8322)
CONTACT:     Larry Downing, 404/980-3362 (T/L 851) or DOWNING at DALVM1
               for information about courses P1042 and P1043.
             Al Christianson, 404/980-3355 (T/L 851) or DEVATAC at DALVM1
               for information about courses P1044 and P1045.

*  Trademark or registered trademark of International Business
   Machines Corporation.

<< PLEASE NOTE NEW NODE:  WASVMIC1   >>

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

Date:    Thu, 7 Nov 1991 11:25:10 -0600 (CST)
From:    "NTET::NTET::JMEEHAN"@NTDOC.NCTNET.GOV
Subject: OS/2, Netware, TCP/IP, Scientific Applications

We are using OS/2 1.3 on a Novell Netware network along with several MS-DOS
machines and a VAX running Netware for VMS.  We have a few questions
related to OS/2, Netware, and TCP/IP:

1. Is anybody else using OS/2 with Netware? With Netware for VMS?

2. Is it possible to run Netware and TCP/IP at the same time on the
   same OS/2 machine with just one ethernet card?

3. Is there any public domain TCP/IP software for OS/2 similar to
   NCSA Telnet for MS-DOS?

We are using OS/2 for data acquisition and analysis in chronobiology,
behavioral testing, and flow cytometry.  If anyone else is using OS/2
for similar scientific applications, we would be very interested in
hearing about their experiences.


Joe Meehan                                Phone:   [phone]
Principal Analyst                         Internet:[e-mail]
Computer Based Systems, Inc.
National Center for Toxicological Research
Jefferson, AR 72079-9502

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 14:26:36 CDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: OS/2 version 2.0 suggestion

I would like to suggest that IBM dedicate OS/2 version 2.0 to the memory
of Gene Roddenberry.

For example:

IBM dedicates OS/2 version 2.0 to the memory of Gene Roddenberry.   Gene
gave  us  all  a  hopeful  vision  of  the  future.    To  some of us an
understanding of how our life's work, computers, can foster the future.

Bert Moshier
Cray Research, Inc.

P.S.  There  is precedence.   Cray dedicated the  7th release of  its VM
Station product to the memory of David Hixson.

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

Date:     Sat, 9 Nov 91 11:35 N
From:     <MAKI@FINKUO>
Subject:  "Re: OS/2 SCSI"

We have good experience with the SCSI-controller SmartConnex PM2001/95 made
by Distributed Processing Technologies (DBT).

We have been able to use that with IBM OS/2 1.3 SE on a Intel 386 PC
without any special drivers. According to the manuals the controller
emulates the WD1003 PC/AT disk controller interface.

Santtu Maki
Ahlstrom Automation
Varkaus, Finland

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 18:54:24 CDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: OS/2 version 2.0 dedication suggestion

Earlier, I suggested that IBM dedicate OS/2 version 2.0 to the memory of
Gene Roddenberry.  I received  a couple of comments and questions, which
I'd like to cover in a general note.

- Gene Roddenberry is the  creator and inspiration behind Star  Trek and
  Star Trek the Next Generation.

- My motive is simple.  Gene gave us all a hopeful vision of the future.
  To some of us an understanding of how our life's work, computers,  can
  foster the future.

- His work goes beyond TV or the movies.  He tried to help all of us see
  a positive future  for mankind.   A future where  all intelligent life
  respects one  another regardless  of how  different or  similar to the
  other person.

- I do not see the dedication as a marketing ploy or gimmick.

  As books have dedications, I envision the OS/2 version 2.0  dedication
  to be simple.

  I am proposing a one or two paragraph dedication located on the inside
  cover of the  2.0 installation instruction  manual.  Again  a possible
  dedication is:

  IBM  dedicates OS/2  version 2.0  to the  memory of  Gene Roddenberry.
  Gene gave us  all a hopeful  vision of the  future.  To  some of us an
  understanding  of  how  our  life's  work,  computers,  can foster the
  future.

**PLEASE NOTE:   ONLY people who already  bought OS/2 or got  an upgrade
  would see the dedication.  IT WOULD NOT BE USED TO SELL OS/2!!!!!!!

Bert Moshier
Cray Research, Inc.

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

Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 20:51:34 CST
From: "Bertram G. Moshier        612/683-5419        " <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: A WPS discussion

FYI:  The following discussion about the Workplace Shell showed up on  the
IBM BBS (404)-835-6600.

Bert Moshier
Cray Research, Inc.

As Bill Zack says:  "Even the  Mac is not that intuitive if you  come from
another  environment.    Remember  in  Star  Trek  IV when Scotty tried to
instruct a Macintosh computer by talking into it's mouse!!"


Message : 5185 (OS/2 Version 2 (Beta Test) )    Date... : 11/ 8/91 (7:39 Pm)
From... : Richard Hodges                        Refer.. : None
To..... : Dave Both                             Sec'ty. : Public
Subject : The Workplace Shell                   Rec'vd. : Yes

Dave:

We have  one machine  setup here  running the  OS/2 2.0  beta.  My initial
reaction to the  Workplace Shell is  disappointment.  I  don't wish to  be
critical, but perhaps  these 'first look'  reactions may be  useful to the
developers.  I understand that the shell is still beta and not all of  the
features are working.  I tried to factor this in to my thinking.

1. The shell lacks organization.  It is interesting that it is so  totally
   free form, but I  feel that many users  will find the complete  lack of
   structure  confusing,  at  least  initially.    Practically every other
   interface I am aware of has some central reference point or focal point
   to launch high level system commands.  On the Mac, there is a menu bar.
   In Windows there is the Program  Manager.  On Desqview there is  a task
   list.  On OS/2 1.3 there is  the Desktop Manager and Group Main.   Note
   that all of  these are clearly  labeled and are  (at least tentatively)
   "anchored" somewhere on the screen.  On the WPS, the icons are floating
   around harum-scarum.

2. The  mechanism for  starting processes  is cumbersome.   One should not
   have to  be digging  down into  two levels  of folders  start a  DOS or
   Windows or OS/2 session.  It should not disappear from the desktop when
   minimized unless the user explicitly requests this behavior.  I realize
   that there is an  option to change this  behavior globally but that  is
   not quite right either.  Some running tasks you would want to appear on
   the desktop, some not.   Moreover, multiple instances of the  same task
   should be listed by number.  For example:  "OS/2 Window #1" "OS/2  Full
   Screen #3" etc.   That way,  a person does  not get confused  by seeing
   several identical icons labeled the same way on the desktop.


Message : 5186 (OS/2 Version 2 (Beta Test) )    Date... : 11/ 8/91 (7:41 Pm)
From... : Richard Hodges                        Refer.. : None
To..... : Dave Both                             Sec'ty. : Public
Subject : The Workplace Shell                   Rec'vd. : Yes

3. There is no file manager.  While I understand the conceptual change  to
   object oriented organization by folders, there are still alot of people
   who don't want to do things this way, and certain tasks for which it is
   not the best approach.  Yes, it  is easier to do things this way  once,
   but it is also the reason that  many of us found the Macintosh to  be a
   labor intensive system.  In effect, this style of doing things makes it
   nearly impossible to automate anything.   The File Manager needs  to be
   upgraded and restored.  I saw the "tree" option, but it is  cumbersome.
   And, again, it is buried in folders.

4. On a cosmetic level, some of the metaphores just seem too literal.  For
   example, the spiral bound notebook look  is too busy.  It looks  clunky
   and crude.  Also, it wastes processing power drawing alot of extraneous
   lines.    The  tree  diagrams  have  HUGE  childlike  icons  stuck   at
   intersection  points.    How  could  I  fit this on a smallish portable
   computer display?   It does not  make efficient use  of precious screen
   real estate.

5. The use  of the left  mouse button is  counter-intuitive.  There  is no
   mouse driven system in  existence that works like  the WPS.  Thus,  any
   person coming  from another  computer system  will immediately  "do the
   wrong thing".

6. The notion of having a system menu pop up whenever you press the  right
   mouse button on blank desktop is hard to get used to.  What happens  if
   someone has so many things open  that they can't even see the  desktop?
   Also, upon  return from  a full  screen session  this thing is floating
   around and I found myself  inadvertently going back to the  full screen
   session.

7. The cascading menu concept  should be used sparingly.   Very sparingly.
   When cascading menus are required to  get the job done, this is  a clue
   that the design is conceptually flawed.

8. There is  a bug that  will not permit  one to drag  icons a distance of
   less than the diameter of the icon.  An error message appears.

I hope this helps.

Richard

Message : 5187 (OS/2 Version 2 (Beta Test) )    Date... : 11/ 8/91 (7:45 Pm)
From... : Richard Hodges                        Refer.. : None
To..... : Dave Both                             Sec'ty. : Public
Subject : WPS Recommendation                    Rec'vd. : Yes

                *** Workplace Shell Recommendation ***


Overall, my impression  is that the  Workplace Shell has  some interesting
ideas and shows promise.  Even discounting the bugs and features that  are
not yet  implemented, I  believe that  IBM should  go back  to the drawing
board and  think of  ways to  simplify and  unify the  concept.   Too many
things are done in non-standard ways.  It is carries the desktop metaphore
out a bit too literally.  There is no central focal point and also no real
theme to it.  In some respects, it seems almost too flexible.  The  Common
User Access  conventions seem  to have  been thrown  out the  window.  The
notion of 'Direct Access' that was evident in earlier versions of OS/2 has
been abandoned.

In a word, the Workplace Shell needs to be streamlined.

Based on the 167 beta, I believe IBM should fall back and use the OS/2 1.3
shell for OS/2 2.0.  Enhance the File Manager add some new categories such
as games - maybe even  spruce up some of the  icons - but use 1.3  for the
first release.  This may seem radical.  Here is why:

1. Windows users (and 1.3 users) will be lost in WPS.

2. WPS will ultimately execute more slowly and require more DASD.

3. It is obviously not nearly ready.  Even if the bugs are fixed.

4. Rushing to  complete the shell  right now, and  getting it wrong,  will
   lock you into something  you don't want.   Hold off and put  the WPS on
   OS/2 2.1.  Wait until you have the kinks ironed out.

5. It  is  more  important  to  keep  DASD  and  Memory  requirements low,
   execution speed and reliability high, and user migration simple than it
   is to show off the latest greatest state-of-the-art technology on  OS/2
   2.0.

While I realize that someone will say  "We are going to have an option  to
use the 1.3 shell when you install" the problem there is that most  people
have  no  idea  what  that  means.    Again, this implies more choices and
confusion.  IBM  is getting to  far in front  of the typical  end users at
this time.

Use the KISS METHOD:  Keep It Simple, Sherlock!

I hope this helps somehow, Dave.

Richard

Message : 5188 (OS/2 Version 2 (Beta Test) )    Date... : 11/ 8/91 (7:47 Pm)
From... : Richard Hodges                        Refer.. : None
To..... : All                                   Sec'ty. : Public
Subject : A little dream...                     Rec'vd. : No

A little dream that came after seeing the Workplace Shell.

I started dreaming about driving a car in which all of the controls on the
dashboard are  stuck on  with magnets.   Nothing  is physically  attached.
Some of  the controls  are kept  in the  glove compartment,  and some  are
actually in a box inside the  glove compartment.  Even the steering  wheel
column can move  every which way.   You can  drive from the  middle of the
front seat if  you want.   Occationally, you hit  a bump and  the controls
shift around, maybe a few fall on the floor.

Sometimes,  I  pull  the  headlight  switch  out  of  the box in the glove
compartment and after I turn on the lights, the switch disappears!  I open
the glove box, then  open the little box  - and it magically  returned!  I
can make it stay on the dashboard, but then my owners manual, screwdriver,
kleenex box and everything else in the glove compartment starts piling  up
on the dashboard.

If I look at the speedometer it  gets very large and I can't see  anything
else on the dashboard.  Maybe sometimes I can see something.

Everything can be changed except that the gearshift is on the left instead
of the right.  That cannot be changed.


Message : 5239 (OS/2 Version 2 (Beta Test) )    Date... : 11/ 9/91 (12:49 Am)
From... : Dave Both                             Refer.. : 5187
To..... : Richard Hodges                        Sec'ty. : Public
Subject : WPS Recommendation                    Rec'vd. : Yes

Richard,  your  message,  as  well  as  others  received here on this same
subject,  will  be  sent  to  folks  who  can  make  the required changes.

Thanks!!

Dave (:>)

Message : 5204 (OS/2 Version 2 (Beta Test) )    Date... : 11/ 8/91 (10:53 Pm)
From... : John Rylander                         Refer.. : 5185
To..... : Richard Hodges                        Sec'ty. : Public
Subject : The Workplace Shell                   Rec'vd. : Yes

Richard,  thanks  for  sharing  your  thoughtful comments on the Workplace
Shell.  IBM  needs constructive criticism  and to hear  from a variety  of
viewpoints, and you articulated your concerns very well, I think.

Message : 5206 (OS/2 Version 2 (Beta Test) )    Date... : 11/ 9/91 (1:6 Am)
From... : Richard Hodges                        Refer.. : 5204
To..... : John Rylander                         Sec'ty. : Public
Subject : The Workplace Shell                   Rec'vd. : Yes

John:  Thanks for your remarks.  I hope that the comments are taken in the
constructive sense that they were intended.  Richard

Message : 5254 (OS/2 Version 2 (Beta Test) )    Date... : 11/ 9/91 (4:30 Pm)
From... : Pr G10007                             Refer.. : 5186
To..... : Richard Hodges                        Sec'ty. : Public
Subject : The Workplace Shell                   Rec'vd. : Yes

It sounds like we could use some tutoring on the use of the new shell.  Is
there any documentation available at  can help.  (this is  really directed
to  "ALL"  but  I  thought  that  I  would  chain it to this thread.)  Any
additional sources or personal experinece would be appreicated.  Oh by the
way, I got my  call from Hart Graphics  last week (# 10745)  so I shouldnt
have long to wait to see fro myself.

Bill Zack

Message : 5263 (OS/2 Version 2 (Beta Test) )    Date... : 11/ 9/91 (10:46 Pm)
From... : Richard Hodges                        Refer.. : 5254
To..... : Pr G10007                             Sec'ty. : Public
Subject : The Workplace Shell                   Rec'vd. : Yes

> It sounds like we could use  some tutoring on the use of the  new shell.
> Is there any documentation available at can help.

Bill,

As I understand it, the only  documentation that exists on WPS is  a short
"getting started"  style pamphlet.   Otherwise,  the documentation  is all
on-line.   There is  a tutorial  that takes  at most  about 15  minutes to
complete.

The very  idea that  we "could  use some  tutoring on  the use  of the new
shell" is itself distressing.  It implies that there is no migration  path
and that the system is not intuitive.

Let me  illustrate this  by relating  my first  experience with a personal
computer.  It was a Macintosh.  At the time, the only computers that I had
used were  IBM and  CDC mainframes  and a  VAX via  VT-100.  I brought the
machine  home,  spent  about  15  minutes  reading  an instruction manual,
plugged  it  in  and  inside  of  an  hour  had already figured out how to
'install' Microsoft Word  and was off  and running.   The system was  very
simple to understand and operate.

I believe that the *intent* of WPS  is to bring this level of ease  of use
to the PC.   After looking  at WPS I  asked myself, "Would  I have had the
same experience with this interface that I did with the Mac?"  The  answer
was obviously  NO.   Even with  fairly extensive  experience with computer
interfaces, I found myself having  trouble running the system.   IMHO, the
operations are confusing.  One guy told me it took him 1/2 hour to  figure
out how to issue the lockup command.  That's not good.

Certainly, there are alot of good  aspects to the technology in the  shell
and the developers are  on the right track.   Problem is that  we are very
short  on  time.    At  this  point,  we  should be looking at a basically
functional system with only minor refinements still needed.  With the WPS,
we appear to  be looking at  a system that  still needs substantial  work.
The conceptual  leap from  Windows to  WPS means  that companies that have
just spent a  ton of money  training people to  use Windows will  be faced
with a  substantial training  cost if  they adopt  OS/2 with  WPS as it is
currently implemented.  OTH, if they  just upgrade to Win 3.1, they  don't
have this additional  cost.  Since  the main applications  people will run
under OS/2  for the  first 6-12  months will  be DOS  & Windows  apps, the
additional object oriented extensions would not be crucial anyway.

Richard

Message : 5278 (OS/2 Version 2 (Beta Test) )    Date... : 11/10/91 (1:51 Pm)
From... : Pr G10007                             Refer.. : 5263
To..... : Richard Hodges                        Sec'ty. : Public
Subject : The Workplace Shell                   Rec'vd. : Yes

Rich,  my  previous  understanding  was  that  the OS/2 1.3 shell would be
bootable  since  the  shell  used  is  specified  in  the  PMSHELL line in
CONFIG.SYS.  (I dont remember where I heard that though)

I dont agree that a user interface  has to be intuitive.  Only that  it be
easily learnable, usable,  predictable and conisistent.   Even the  Mac is
not that  intuitive if  you come  from another  environment.  (remember in
Star Trek IV when Scotty tried to instruct a Macintosh computer by  taking
into it's mouse!!)

The 1.3  Shell does  present a  nice structured  environment which  should
continue to be offered.  In fact, it is similar in function to Wordperfect
Office Shell, Automenu, LaMenu, etc that have been offerd for years in the
DOS world.   All  of these  products make  it easier  for a casual user to
navigate around and get into various applications.

All of them quickly become  onerous after you become an  experienced user.
Perhaps  the  Work  Place  Shell  can  provide  a  better interface for an
experienced user.  At least I hope so.  (The preceeding is of course, only
my own opinion)

Bill Zack

Message : 5304 (OS/2 Version 2 (Beta Test) )    Date... : 11/11/91 (8:40 Am)
From... : Pr G10007                             Refer.. : 5278
To..... : Pr G10007                             Sec'ty. : Public
Subject : The Workplace Shell                   Rec'vd. : No

Oops,  the shll specificationline is PROTSHELL, not PMSHELL. sorry.

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

Date:         Tue, 12 Nov 91 11:44:45 PDT
From:         "Brent A. Blumenstein" <BRENT@FHCRCVM>
Subject:      modems and OS/2 version 2.0 drop 6.149

I am having a strange problem using a modem under OS/2 version 2.0 (6.149).
I am able to use an old Hayes Smartmodem 1200 with Kermit, both DOS version
2.30 and the OS/2 versions available from this list server.  But when I simply
replace the Smartmodem 1200 with a Smartmodem 2400 with factory settings I
find there is no communication between the keyboard and the modem (i.e., the
RD and SD lights do not flash).  And this happens at both 1200 and 2400 baud
and both DOS and OS2 versions of kermit.  When I boot under pure DOS (ver 3.30)
the Smartmodem 2400 works just fine.

I conclude it must be the driver COM.SYS.  Has anyone else encountered this
problem and found a workaround?  Modem settings?  MODE command settings? ...?

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

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: OS2's WorkPlace Shell and Norton Desktop for Windows.
Date: 1 Nov 91 22:19:13 GMT
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of
            IBM

In  <[e-mail]>  [e-mail]
(Jim Howe) writes:
> What bothers me in the current incarnation of WPS is that the ability
> to start multiple copies of an application (or open multiple copies of
> an 'object') is only globally setable.

This is currently being discussed in one of the IBM internal forums.

> For example, I haven't found a way
> to open a folder in a particular way.  Double clicking on the folder
> always opens the Icon view, for example.  Is there a way for me to
> change what the default open view is for an object instance?

I opened the Settings, selected the Menu page, selected Open in the
top listbox, then clicked on Settings and was able to select a default
action (Settings, Icon View, Tree View, or Details View).  After closing
the Settings notebook, double-clicking on the folder or drive opened it
in the selected default view.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), [e-mail] (Internet)

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

From: [e-mail] (Kyler Laird)
Subject: DeScribe Demo *ftp*
Date: 1 Nov 91 13:55:47 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

I put the DeScribe demo on novell.com in the download directory of the
OS/2 section (/pub/os2 ?).  Hope that's the/a proper place for it.

Feel free to move/distribute it.  As the package says, "Give a copy to
a friend!"

The demo is a fairly functional version of v3.0.  I think that this is
their latest.

I wan't as impressed as I'd hoped I would be.  Although it's quicker
than PMWord, I was hoping for some blazing speed.  (Coming from XyWrite
makes all word processors seem like they're crawling.)  Still, it seems
like a good app, and has much better support than PMWord!  The people
at DeScribe were even nice (and excited about the demo being on the net)!

Enjoy!

--kyler

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

From: [e-mail] (Don Clayton)
Subject: PC-Week and OS/2
Date: 1 Nov 91 18:21:29 GMT
Organization: BNR Ottawa, Canada

The following two articles were published in the October 14, 1991 issue
of PC-Week :

  On page 6, "OS/2 2.0 IBM Delays Release To Smooth Edges" :

        "Because beta testers requested full integration of Windows
         on the OS/2 desktop, IBM plans to build the integration into
         the first release, sources said.  Those features include the
         ability to run multiple Windows 3.0 applications in the
         applications' own windows."

Question 1 : On the PM desktop?

  On page 85, Jim Seymore's article :

        "IBM's current fallback on OS/2 2.0-forfeiting the oft-repeated
         claim that OS/2 will 'run Windows apps better than Windows'-is
         only the latest exapmle of Big Blue's remarkably consistant over-
         claim and underdelivery."

Question 2 : If OS/2 runs Windows apps. on the PM desktop then they are
        protect, thus being better than Windows, if it does not than at
        least a bad Windows app. won't take down the whole machine -
        presumably only it's session of Windows - which is still better
        than Windows.  So why is IBM forfeiting it's claim?

Question 3 : Do the PC-Week editors read the articles before they're
        published?

Question 4 : Who's payroll is Seymore on?

Don
Are these the views of BNR - of course not, BNR would never say
        anything that rediculous!
Let's pretend that Catholics and Protestants are friends -
        The Northern Pikes.

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

From: [e-mail] (Kyler Laird)
Subject: Re: DeScribe Demo *ftp*
Date: 2 Nov 91 14:26:33 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(David R. Giller) writes:
>By chance, could someone tell me what filename the demo is under, and in
>what directory?  I found 'describe.zip', but that is obviously something
>different.  And it was there before the announcement.

Ooops!  I was so happy that my machine was running again that I
wasn't complete in my post.

The DeScribe demo (as I transferred it) is on novell.com in the os2/upload
directory in the describe.zip file.  It is 887937 bytes.

If you find a problem with it, tell me, and I'll re-upload it.  This is my
first upload to an ftp site, so I may need some help working things out.

--kyler

P.S.  While I composed this letter, I downloaded describe.zip.  It seems
to be o.k., but I don't have unzip on this system, so I'm not sure.

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

From: [e-mail] (Ian Stickland)
Subject: Memory Limits (was Re: Viruses under OS/2.)
Date: 30 Oct 91 11:13:07 GMT
Organization: Kingston Polytechnic


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Dan Ford) writes:
|> >
|> >Will this also hold true for a 95 with 20MB of RAM with 2.0?  1.3 only uses
|> >16MB of this today, and I was hoping that 2.0 would allow the use of all
|> >20MB.
|>
|>      I don't know where all this disinformation is originating, but the
|> 386sx can address just as much memory as a full blown 386dx--it just takes
|> longer to do it.  That is, ever 32 bit address sent out of the CPU has to be
|> sent out in a 2 step process: first the low 16 bits of address (which is
|> latched), then the high 16 bits (I may have the high and low in reverse
|> order, I don't remember exactly).  In any case, the net result is a 32 bit
|> address, and this is done in hardware, so there is full software
|> compatibility.

Whilst the chip itself may be capable of using the same amount of memory as
a full blown DX, that doesn't mean that your PC will be capable of making
use of the extra address space. For example, take an IBM PS/2 Model 80, this
is a full 386DX machine, yet according to the technical reference it can only
access 16MB of memory as the DMA controller is only 24bit. So whilst it may
be possible to put > 16MB of memory in the machine, you can't use it. This
is true I believe for all PS/2's except the models 90 & 95. It may well be
that this is the problem with the L40SX, I don't know, but the tech ref will
probably spell it out.

I doubt very much that it's a serious design problem in OS/2, rather a
'feeture' of the hardware. I wonder how many machines are out there with
386 chips that won't let you access > 16MB ??? Something else to think about
when buying a machine to run OS/2 2.0...!!!

Ian Stickland.

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

From: [e-mail] (Bert Moshier)
Subject: Re: 18 Mb on a 386sx (was Re: Viruses under OS/2.)
Date: 30 Oct 91 18:00:49 GMT
Organization: Cray Research, Inc., Eagan, MN

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>(Dan Ford) writes...
>>[e-mail] (Michael C Long) writes:
>
>>      I don't know where all this disinformation is originating, but the
>
>don't you mean misinformation (or is it a motorola conspiracy) ?
>
>>386sx can address just as much memory as a full blown 386dx--it just takes
>>longer to do it.  That is, ever 32 bit address sent out of the CPU has to be
>>sent out in a 2 step process: first the low 16 bits of address (which is
>>latched), then the high 16 bits (I may have the high and low in reverse
>>order, I don't remember exactly).  In any case, the net result is a 32 bit
>>address, and this is done in hardware, so there is full software compatibility
>>
>
>Are you sure?  The way I understand the 386sx is that it a 32-bit chip
>with a 16-bit data path and a 24-bit addressing scheme.  A 32-bit value
>is brought in in two 16-bit parts as you suggest and combined internally
>so the software never knows the difference.  However, the net result is
>a 32-bit word not a 32-bit address.  The address of any memory location
>is limited to 24-bits (as was the 286, which was the whole idea behind
>the 386sx--ease of integration with older hardware) and this limits
>access to real memory to 16 Mb.
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Walter Barnett        Aerospace Engineering        Texas A&M University

In the case of the L40SX, I don't think the 386SX is the limiting factor.
The reference disk permits the end-user to configure the system's memory
between conventional and extended (C&E) and expanded memory.

The maximum C&E memory for an 18MB system is : 15.5MB
The minimum expanded memory is               :  2.3MB
The total available memory is                : 17.8MB

As you see the reference disk forces (for whatever reason (e.g.: DMA chip or
the BIOS) that an 18MB L40SX has to have a minimum of 2.3MB of expanded memory.

Bert Moshier
Cray Research, Inc.

Again the original issue is:

  - IBM sold me 18MB of memory
  - DOS can in some way use all 18MB of memory
  - OS/2 version 2.0 ignores the expanded memory (2.3MB)
  - IBM bills OS/2 version 2.0 as a better DOS than DOS
  - IBM must either:

    - have OS/2 version 2.0 use all 18MB of memory.  (This does not mean
      using the expanded memory for running programs.  2.0 could use it like
      VM/HPO on a 3090; use the memory as fast paging or a RAM disk.)

    -or-

    - buy back the unusable memory like what occurs in the mainframe world
      when customers buy parts of memory upgrades.

Bert.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jason Campbell)
Subject: Re: OS2's WorkPlace Shell and Norton Desktop for Windows.
Date: 30 Oct 91 22:58:49 GMT
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Jim Howe) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>writes:
>>
>>Didn't I just say that you *can* use one icon to start multiple copies now,
>>and that you *will* be able to see the icons on the desktop before the final
>>product ships?  The reason it's not the default is because the CUA groups
>
>What bothers me in the current incarnation of WPS is that the ability
>to start multiple copies of an application (or open multiple copies of
>an 'object') is only globally setable.  I would like to be able to
>click on OS/2 Full Screen and have multiple instances of Full Screen
>be opened.  I may not want other applications or objects to behave this
>way.  When dealing with multiple icons, perhaps WPS should put a
>generation number next to the name.  For example, if I opened 3 full
>screen sessions and the icons were on the desktop, the names of the
>icons could be 'Full Screen (1)', 'Full Screen (2)', 'Full Screen (3)'
>as defaults.  Users should be able to assign their own name to individual
>instances.

Great suggestion.  IBMers, please ask that the multi-instances/no multi-
instances have both a global default, and an override in each object's
settings.  After all, virtually everything else can be changed thru the
settings notebook, and allowing a default as well would solve the problems of
people who do want MIs, people who don't, and people who only want a few.
(I personally would only want MIs on the command shells and maybe the system
editor.)

Or, allow a chord menu option "Open another" and let the user choose that as
the default double-click if they desire MIs for that one app.

As for naming instances differently, I think that ability is already there...
try Alt+left on the title bar, or something like that.

>Another problem I have is the amount of screen space occupied by the
>icons.  I changed my view settings to flowed, small icons and small
>font and the amount of space taken up by the objects was far greater
>than it needed to be.  There was simply too much white space between

I think there's an "icon spacing" control in the system folder somewhere, but
I'm not sure where.

It would be a nice addition if the WPS could stagger alternate rows of
icons too.

>effective use of Icons and text but doesn't use up nearly as much screen
>real estate.
Aaaah.  No.
Not until sys 7 was there an acceptable arrangement system built into finder.
(imho), but the one that's in there now does include the nice staggered-rows
feature.


I am really excited by what I see in the WPS.  Most of my concerns about it/
dislikes are from the way it presents old applications.  (i.e. click-me-to
just-start-the-program icons, as opposed to programs written for the WPS with
appropriate context menus, templates, etc.)  They just aren't (and couldn't
have been) designed to fit within the WPS paradigm.  The shell does a pretty
good job of dealing with them now.  The differences will only really become
apparent once true WPS programs are available.

The use of the template concept on a system wide basis is what excites me
most about the WPS.  This is something I think will really help hide the
need for the user to understand the existence of the application versus
the data file.  This is the first GUI I've used which really does mimic the
way I work.  (versus OS/2 1.x, Windows, Finder, and NeXT Step.)

Hoping to seeing the next beta release soon!

Jason.

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)
Subject: XGA driver
Date: 31 Oct 91 00:19:44 GMT

Just a short note to whatever IBMer might be working on the XGA driver for
OS/2 version 2.0.  I ran across the following "feature" (bug?) in the XGA
driver included with OS/2 version 1.3.

If I'm working in a full screen session set to 132 column mode, and a
background program running in an 80 column full screen session issues a
VioPopup (such as a communications program informing you that a file
transfer has completed), the screen goes wild (out of sync).  Once the
popup disappears (it times out in this application after a second or two),
the screen returns to normal, so it's only a minor annoyance at this stage.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Latest Beta Version Number?
Date: 1 Nov 91 17:00:10 GMT
Organization: IBM Canada Ltd.

>Can someone tell me what the latest beta version number is for OS/2 2.0

If you have version 6.167, check that you have the file
FIX_FIND.COM in the \os2\mdos directory.  If you do, then you have
the latest 'F' version of the 6.167 driver.

Steven Chan                      IBM Canada Ltd.
                                 Finance Industry Support & Development
[e-mail]      Toronto, Ontario     :  [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Stephen M Smith)
Subject: OS humor
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1991 00:37:48 GMT

The following was posted in bit.listserv.win3-l as a response to the
OS/2 and NT discussions there, and I just had to share it with you guys.
Since I didn't get permission to post it here, I've withheld the poster's
name (but you can get it in bit.listserv.games-l if you want).

Amid all the discussion about the various systems, a collegue told me
a joke which can be applied here.  In the spirit of fun, and not to
start any "preferencial" banter, I have made it "generic" (sort of like
the generic ethnic group jokes).  Here goes....

A {Insert OS type} developer died in an automobile accident.  When he
arrived at the Pearly Gates, he was told he had a choice of destinations,
Heaven or Hell.  In order to help him make the choice, he was told he
could have a brief glimps of both worlds.

First, he was shown Heaven.  Here everyone was straight laced, sitting in
a beautiful cathedral, singing and listening to sermons.  Next, he was
shown Hell.  Here, to his surprise, men and women were covorting about
in various states of undress, drinking, and in general having a great time
at a continuous party.

Once back at the gates, he decided instantly to go to Hell.  Immediately,
he found himself immersed up to his neck in molten lava, surounded by
tormented souls.

Crying out loud, he asked:  "What happened the the party!".  A voice
answered him with:  "Oh, that was the Demo!".

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

From: [e-mail] (Gideon Yuval)
Subject: Re: Another OS/2 article in the NYT (pricing, short)
Date: 04 Nov 91 16:36:25 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Dave Mooney) writes:
>6.123 is two whole beta versions backlevel.  You've missed 6.149 and
>6.167.  I'm not into conspiracy theories, so I won't comment on your
>reasons why MS is shipping you such relics.  The MS employees on this
>newsgroup insist that MS is an ethical company with great respect for
>investment protection and customer service, so their shipping you such
>ancient drivers is no doubt an egregious oversight.  Gideon?  John?
>Anything further to add?
>
>dave
I forwarded this query around MS, and got back:

--- --- ---

*  From davidma Mon Nov  4 08:18:26 1991
*  To: gideony
*  Subject: os2 stuff
*  Date: Mon Nov 04 08:17:30 1991
*  Status: OR

This is slightly revised - you can send this out

- David

| From gideony Sun Nov  3 08:36:21 1991
| To: davidma
| Subject: doUknow?
(here follows the message I forwarded from NetNews -- deleted
for brevity)
|
Terminology:

  OEM - Original Equipment Manufacturer (eg Compaq, HP, NCR, etc..) They
        license os2 from us.
  OAK - OEM Adaptation Kit. Varies according to degree of license. But in
        principle consists of binaries, tools and source to H/W dependant
        portions of os2 that OEMs may want to adapt to suite os2 to their
        h/w better.

        Apart from pre betas and SDKs shipped out to customers thro' 1990
    and early 1991 the most recent MS shipment to all our OEMs was an os2
    2.0 OAK based on IBMs 6.149b build in early August 1991.

        Compaq definitely got this  build and  we are  in touch  with Jim
    Odum &  Tim Eckermann at Compaq as to  issues with the build which we
    give as feedback to IBM.

        6.149b  was the base for  the IBM EEP1 beta  binary release.  Our
    goal has been to try to ship an OAK out to the OEMs within a month of
    IBM declaring its  'golden' status on  major milestones.   It is true
    that  this has become increasingly difficult to meet as IBM hostility
    towards MS increases.

        IBM has shipped MS the disk images for 6.167f but has yet to give
    us  the source to match.  With each beta 2.0 release IBM is declaring
    more  code 'IBM specific' than  in the past.   This means that things
    that they consider gives  them  a  competitive  advantage  is  source
    cleansed and the  outsiders (MS &  OEMs) only see  binaries.  However
    this  also means that build dependencies have to be fixed so that the
    mix and  match of binaries/code that  we receive builds successfully.

        The source cleansing  process  seems  to  be  taking  longer  and
    longer.   eg 6.167f was ready  for Comdex but we  are two weeks later
    and still haven't had a definite statement as to when we will get the
    code (I have heard 'between 2 weeks / month' from IBM).

        Originally  we intended to base  our next drop of  the SDK on the
    6.167f  source and not ship an OAK.  However this is pointless as IBM
    was not  delivering documentation, wouldn't give  us rights to tools,
    wouldn't give us  whole sections of  code which would  be critical to
    document  and open up to OEMs to see, etc, etc.  They in turn started
    pointing fingers at us saying that we weren't fixing compiler bugs on
    a schedule that met their liking.

        After watching all this, as  a  development  manager,  I  had  to
    recommend not to ship a SDK that we did not have a chance of doing an
    adequate  job.  This due to our inability to ship a complete product.
    I  felt instead that IBM should pick up the ball and deliver on this.
    In fact IBM sort of is doing this already, except for such fiascos as
    the  switch in the  .exe format after  selling a good  number of kits
    <grin>.

        Instead of  the SDK we intend  to ship an OAK  based on 6.167f as
    soon as  we get the source  and after we go  thro' the 'process' with
    IBM  of ensuring that we can binary  compare to their release when we
    or OEMs  build the OAK.  This is  necessary else we cannot claim that
    the code has the IBM system test validification.

David Maritz (MS os2 dev mngr).

--
Gideon Yuval, [e-mail], 206-882-8080 (fax:-883-8101;TWX:160520)

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

From: [e-mail] (Sandy Rockowitz)
Subject: Re: New os2.* Structure?
Date: 8 Nov 91 21:09:54 GMT
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
>
>I'd like to informally propose the following breakdown to see what
>people think:
>
>comp.os.os2             Obsolete; should be deleted.
>comp.os.os2.apps        Same as before.
>comp.os.os2.programmer  Same as before.
>comp.os.os2.newuser     Discusses foobar drivers, compatibility issues
>                        (both software and hardware), etc.  Should be
>                        a friendly forum for learning how to migrate
>                        to OS/2.  Name is readily recognizable and
>                        should provide nice entry point for the huge
>                        number of people now drifting into the os2
>                        newsgroups.
>comp.os.os2.misc        Discusses everything else.
>
> ... thoughtful discussion deleted for brevity...

comp.os.os2.misc has become woefully overloaded as of late.  I no
longer try to keep up with it, but instead just peek occasionally
and wait for the compilation from BLEKUL11.  Having a .newuser group
seems attractive for cutting down on redundant questions, but it may
have the fatal flaw that experienced users don't hang out there to
answer questions.  Does anyone have experience with such a group in
other contexts?  Another approach is to have periodic postings (e.g.
once per week) on each of the newsgroups pointing people to the FAQ.
(And thanks again Tim for taking on this extremely valuable task.)

Given the emotional nature of the topic this may not be workable,
but I'd like to see a separate newsgroup where people can debate
the general merits and market potential of OS/2.  Call it, for
sake of concreteness, comp.os.os2.prognosis.  It's a topic I find
interesting in small doses, but for the most part I'm becoming
weary of repeatedly hearing that "my os can beat up your os".

Sandy Rockowitz
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Stephen M Smith)
Subject: OS/2 2.0 articles in PC Week
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 02:23:17 GMT

Well, for you OS/2 junkies out there here's a summary of the OS/2
articles from PC Week, Nov. 4.  All articles are PARAPHRASED.

"OS/2 2.0 Beta Flexes Its Muscle, but Shell Confuses Users"

Beta testers for OS/2 2.0 6.167 reported that Windows could
now be run in standard mode full-screen without problems.  But there
are three areas that need to be worked on: the HPFS, the installation
process, and the Workplace Shell.

HPFS: The only reference later in the article is to IBM's warning that
mission critical data should not yet be trusted on the HPFS in the beta
release.

Installation: Beta testers said that the installation process does
not handle errors too well.  PC Week reports that the installation
program crashed when they inserted the wrong diskette at one point.

Workplace Shell: 80% of the article is devoted to the Workplace Shell.
According to PC Week, some beta testers find the shell confusing due
to the lack of a menu bar; but PC Week did note that menus pop up by
clicking on objects with the right mouse button.  Other testers
reported that the new shell is more powerful than the one
in OS/2 1.3 and the one in Windows 3.0, for it implements the "drag
and drop" method of desktop manipulation.  Users can manipulate the
objects as they would in the real world.  For example, one may print
a document by dragging its icon to the printer and dropping it on
the printer icon, or delete a file by dragging its icon to the icon
of the "shredder".  In addition, one beta tester noted that one could
change window and icon titles by holding down the ALT key and clicking
the mouse on the title.

PC Week notes that the multitasking architecture of OS/2 was evident
when they ran Windows Excel 3.0 in the background while running
OS/2 tasks in the foreground (there was little performance degradation).

For those of you who have been wanting to see what the new Workplace
Shell looks like, there's a nice screen shot on page 5.

"Lotus Planning OS/2, Unix, Mac Versions of WP"

Lotus Development Corp. has just announced plans to write OS/2, Unix,
and Mac Versions of its Ami Pro 2.0 word processor.  According to Doug
Benson (product manager for the upcoming OS/2 version) Lotus has already
started an in-house version of Ami Pro for OS/2 2.0, and that Lotus
expects to release a beta version in mid-1992, with GA in the third
quarter of 1992.  Benson declined to answer specific questions about
Ami Pro OS/2, but speculated that it would look very, very similar to
Ami Pro 2.0 for Windows.  Benson noted that working with Presentation
Manager would be new for Lotus since the company has not yet dealt with
PM before.

In the concluding paragraph PC Week notes that WordPerfect Corp.
recently announced its intentions of producing an OS/2 version of
WordPerfect.

"Current C 7.0 Beta Lacks Support for OS/2 2.0"

Microsoft Corporation has decided not to included OS/2 2.0 support in
its latest beta version of C 7.0.  From PC Week's article it seems that
Microsoft had earlier made a "blanket commitment" for such support, but
as yet Microsoft is neither confirming nor denying whether C 7.0 will
support future versions of OS/2 (OS/2 2.0 and beyond).  The latest beta
was able to be run under OS/2 1.x and could produce C applications
for OS/2 1.2.  C 7.0 will be able to compile DOS and Windows apps
according to the beta's documentation.  The inability of C 7.0 to
support OS/2 2.0 would mean that many developers who had bargained on
C 7.0's ability to produce multiple platform apps (DOS, Windows, and
OS/2) will be disappointed.

According to the beta's documentation, however, the final version wil
include CodeView Debugger for OS/2, a CodeView for Windows, and a
CodeView for C++.  C 7.0 is scheduled to be released by the end of
this year (1991).

"IBM Readies Development Tools for OS/2"

IBM has announced the following development tools for OS/2 2.0:

Developer's ToolKit ($119): This will allow the user to make and modify
dialogue boxes, bitmaps, fonts, icons, and pointers.  An OS/2 kernal
debugger will be included.

WorkFrame/2 ($90): This is OS/2's PM devlopment environment.  It has an
application programming interface that will allow other companies'
tools to hook into the environment to share program data.

OS/2 2.0 Developer's Workbench ($119 [typo?]): This is the WorkFrame/2
and the Developer's ToolKit bundled together.

C Set/2 ($696): This is IBM's new 32-bit C compiler.  It will include
dynamic and static reentrant run-time libararies and will allow users
to build dynamic link libraries.

C Developer's WorkSet/2 ($895): This is C Set/2 and the Workbench
bundled together.

Developers' Library ($299): A set of manuals which cover OS/2 2.0
programming info; a 3-volume programming guide is part of this package.

These tools will be available upon GA of OS/2 2.0 in March 1992.
For more info, call IBM at 1-800-426-2468.

There's another nice screen shot of the Workplace Shell on page 69.

"Claris Raises the Shade a Bit on Its Windows Strategy"

This is an editorial by Frederic E. Davis.  Frederic Davis says that
Claris' recent purchase of Hollywood (a formerly IBM-owned Windows presentation
graphics program) is rather bizarre.  Dan Eilers (President of Claris)
thickens the plot by a recent telephone conversation in which he
revealed that Claris was working "as quickly as possible" to produce
Mac and OS/2 2.0 versions of Hollywood.  He even intimated that Claris
might also port other apps to OS/2 2.0.

According to Davis, some have speculated that Claris might even port
HyperCard (a multimedia database) to OS/2.

For further speculative insights, read Davis' article.

 Stephen M. Smith    \ __|__ /    " #*&<-[89s]*(k#$@-_=//a2$]'+=.(2_&*%>,,@
<[e-mail]. \   |   /      {7%*@,..":27g)-=,#*:.#,/6&1*.4-,l@#9:-)  "
  ohio-state.edu>    \   |   /
  BTW, WYSInaWYG     \   |   /                            --witty.saying.ARC

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 articles in PC Week
Date: 11 Nov 91 03:28:11 GMT

Stephen M Smith writes:

>Well, for you OS/2 junkies out there here's a summary of the OS/2
>articles from PC Week, Nov. 4.  All articles are PARAPHRASED.

>Benson noted that working with Presentation
>Manager would be new for Lotus since the company has not yet dealt with
>PM before.

Huh?  I thought Lotus 1-2-3/G was a PM program.  Sounds like PC Week's
reporters goofed on this one.

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin Lowey,159 Physics)
Subject: Maximus BBS on mims-iris.waterloo.edu
Date: 11 Nov 91 20:19:13 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan

Hi,

I have just uploaded the new Maximus 2.0 bulletin board and Squishmail
1.0 mai processor to mims-iris.waterloo.edu, in the NEW directory.
This contains both MS-DOS and OS/2 versions of the programs.

I have also notified the COMP.BINARIES.OS2 moderator, so look for it
soon in the COMP.BINARIES.OS2 newsgroup.

This is the file 00README.KVL which I put together that describes the
file names, etc.

Here is the latest versions of the Maximus Bulletin Board for MS-DOS
and OS/2. Some of the files are common to both the MS-DOS and the OS/2
versions.  I converted them from .LZH to .ZOO format, but otherwise I
made no changes to the files.

MS-DOS files: MAX200-1.ZOO MAX200-2.ZOO
OS/2 files:   MAX200P1.ZOO MAX200P2.ZOO
Common Files: MAX200-3.ZOO MAX200-4.ZOO


There is also a new mail processor to go with Max 2.0 called SQUISHMAIL.
I included the DOS and OS/2 versions of this as well:

MS-DOS Version: SQSH_100.ZOO
OS/2 Version:   SQSHP100.ZOO

- Kevin Lowey ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Fernwood Collection is Here!
Date: 11 Nov 91 23:07:26 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

Thanks to the system operator of Fernwood, the Fernwood Collection of
OS/2-related files is now making its way to an ftp site near you.  It
is so large that it will take some time to get through the pipeline
(moderators have to check files, duplicates have to be eliminated,
etc).

For those of you who can't wait, you can obtain the files via
anonymous ftp from novell.com (PLEASE NOTE: do not attempt to access
this site between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time, that's eight
hours behind Greenwich Time, or three hours behind Eastern Time).  The
files are in /os2/fernwood and will slowly move into the regular
directories, comp.binaries.os2, etc.

The master index of Fernwood files should be in a file called
FERNWOS2.ZIP, although I haven't verified this fact.  The file names
and descriptions will be placed in standard index files on novell.com
in time.

Enjoy!  And thanks to all those involved.
--
Timothy F. Sipples                                     [e-mail]
(Keeper of the OS/2 FAQ List, avail. via anonymous     Department of Economics
ftp from mims-iris.waterloo.edu, directory "os2/faq")  Univ. of Chicago  60637

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

From: [e-mail] (Will Estes)
Subject: Re: Some thoughts about Os/2 and Windows NT
Date: 5 Nov 91 03:31:25 GMT
Organization: Mail Group

>   > A gentleman from MS posted an article in comp.windows.programmer(?)
>   > that brags about how MS is keeping to its development plan.

>   So *if* they manage to keep to schedule (which I doubt), they'll be out a
>   year later than OS/2 2.0.  By then, who'll care?

IBM had better care very much if it plans on OS/2 2.0's success being
more than a one-year blip in Microsoft's growth curve.  The reality is
that Microsoft has achieved a substantial penetration into the GUI
market, and that just will not die, no matter how good OS/2 2.0 is.
As with DOS itself, there are millions of people who now have
substantial commitments to applications and who will continue to
upgrade Windows and further entrench themselves in that camp.  If you do
not continue to be a better Windows than Windows for a period of three
or more years, I just don't see how you are realistically going to
convince people that you have a sustained commitment to being the
premier client operating system for PCs.  To be a better Windows than
Windows for only one year and then slowly abandon Windows support somehow
suggests that you think that *everyone* who uses Windows will migrate to
OS/2 2.0 in the course of just one year.  That would seem optimistic.
Plan on supporting Windows 3.0 and 3.1 at minimum, and you may end up
having to support Win-32 applications as well if people adopt a
wait-and-see attitude toward OS/2 2.0.  If you aren't in this to fight
the good fight on a sustained basis for years on end, then why fight at
all?  I hope that OS/2 2.0 is not just a fortunate piece of good luck
that will make it the best PC operating system during 1992.  Rather, I'm
hoping it's the start of a long line of great PC operating systems from
IBM.  It's about time.

Will Estes         Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Rod Macpherson)
Subject: Can't install OS/2
Date: 7 Nov 91 17:45:58 GMT
Organization: Optigraphics Corporation, San Diego, CA

I recently purchased an IBM RS/6000 and tried to install OS/2. One of my
colleages suggested that OS/2 only runs on proprietary hardware; to wit,
Intel 80386 machines.  I thought those days were long over. I guess it's back
to UNIX until Windows NT is ready.

--
Roderick Macpherson. Optigraphics Corporation, San Diego, California.
[e-mail]     Place your add here! Reasonable rates!

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

From: [e-mail] (David McAnally)
Subject: Re: Upgrading to OS/2 2.0
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: 6 Nov 1991 08:27:58 MST

>------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
>Path: mothost!ftpbox!uunet!wupost!csus.edu!ucdavis!csusac!sactoh0!danhaun
>From: [e-mail] (Daniel H. Haun)
>Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
>Subject: Upgrading to OS/2 2.0
>Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>Date: 6 Nov 91 06:06:30 GMT
>Distribution: na
>Organization: Sacramento Public Access Unix
>Lines: 8
>
>..
>I know that it costs nothing to upgrade from OS/2 1.3, but what about from
>OS/2 1.2 EE?
>--
> Daniel Haun  N6QCW    |     INTERNET: [e-mail]
>  3445 Del Mesa Ct.    |     UUCP: ames!pacbell!sactoh0!danhaun
>Sacramento, CA  95821  |
>   [phone]      |   "Operator, give me the number for 911!"
>

Here's the IBM upgrade promotion announcement letter for OS/2 1.x EE to
OS/2 2.0 ES.  Looks free to me (next year).

Regards,
Dave



NUMBER     391-179
DATE       911022
CATEGORY   WS00, WS20
TYPE       Marketing
TITLE      NO-CHARGE UPGRADE PROMOTION FOR OS/2 EXTENDED SERVICES VERSION 1.X TO
           EXTENDED SERVICES WITH DATABASE SERVER FOR OS/2
ABSTRACT          For a limited time only, eligible customers who acquired any
           release of Operating System/2 (R) (OS/2 (R)) Extended Edition
           Version 1.X before April 24, 1992, can receive at no charge:
           o   Upgrades to IBM OS/2 Version 2.0 (84F7586, 3.5-inch; 10G2991,
               5.25-inch)
           o   Upgrades to IBM Extended Services with Database Server for OS/2
               (04G1049, 3.5-inch; 04G1050, 5.25-inch)
           o   "Proof of License for Distributed Feature" certificates for
               Database Client Application Enablers.
                  To qualify for this promotion, eligible customers must acquire
           this upgrade on or after March 27, 1992, but no later than
           August 24, 1992.  Information on how to acquire the upgrade will be
           provided before March 27, 1992.
                  Each eligible customer will receive the following for each
           qualifying location*:
           1.  One complete OS/2 Version 2.0 package containing diskettes and
               documentation
           2.  One complete Extended Services with Database Server for OS/2
               package containing diskettes and documentation
           3.  One OS/2 Version 2.0 "Proof of Additional License" certificate
               and one Extended Services with Database Server for OS/2 "Proof of
               Additional License" certificate for each additional complete
               package, and one for each "Additional License Copy" of OS/2
               Extended Edition Version 1.X being upgraded
           4.  "Proof of License for Distributed Feature" certificates for
               Database Client Application Enablers:  Certificates received will
               equal in number the copies of DOS Database Requester Library
               (DBDRQLIB), up to a maximum of 128 per OS/2 Extended Edition
               Version 1.X license being upgraded.
                  Customers can also receive one OS/2 Version 2.0 User's Guide
           at no charge for each OS/2 Version 2.0 "Proof of Additional License"
           certificate they receive.
                  All IBM customer types, except IBM internal customers, are
           eligible for this promotion, which is offered only for licenses
           granted in the United States and Puerto Rico.
                  IBM reserves the right to modify or withdraw this promotion at
           any time.
            (R) Registered trademark of International Business Machines
              Corporation.
           *  A qualifying location is defined as a single building designated
              by a single mailing address.
PRODNO       84F7586  OS/2 Version 2.0 (3.5-inch)
             10G2991  OS/2 Version 2.0 (5.25-inch)
             04G1049  ES with Database Server for OS/2 (3.5-inch)
             04G1050  ES with Database Server for OS/2 (5.25-inch)
OVERVIEW   "The summary above is the entire text of this announcement."

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

From: William Flusek <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lotus Freelance for OS/2 installer update
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 15:45:06 EST

For those of you with OS/2 2.0 beta versions and a copy of Lotus Freelance
Graphics for OS/2 that won't load in your beta, I have placed a copy of the
patched version of the INSTALL.EXE program provided by Lotus Development
Corportaion on the Novell anonymous FTP site.  It is currently in the
download  directory and should be moving to the  new  directory on the
weekend.  You will just need to replace the INSTALL.EXE file on the INSTALL
disk with this new version and you will be ready to go.

Bill Flusek, Indiana University

Internet:       [e-mail]
Bitnet:         flusekw@iubacs

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

From: [e-mail] (David Feustel)
Subject: Has Anyone Received The $750 SDK Refund from Microsoft Yet?
Date: 9 Nov 91 14:34:38 GMT
Organization: DAFCO - An OS/2 Oasis

I'm still waiting for my $750 OS/2 v2.0 SDK refund from Microsoft.
Has anyone else received theirs yet?
--
David Feustel N9MYI, DAFCO, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805.
[phone] EMAIL: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (David McAnally)
Subject: IBM Announces support of purchasers of MS SDK for OS/2 2.0
Organization: Motorola Inc.
Date: 9 Nov 1991 11:13:07 MST

This announcement was obtained from CIS's IBMOS2 forum.  It also refers
to some disagreement between IBM and MS, on the letter MS sent out.
Personally, I DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR DISAGREEMENTS OR THE FLAMES PASSED
BACK AND FORTH ON THE OS2/WIN NEWS GROUPS. Please, if you want to
discuss "mine's better than your's" and "they didn't live up to whatever",
please, please, take it elsewhere. I read these topices for information
on OS/2, not arguments and flames!

That said, here's the text I obtained from CIS.  I place it here only
for info to those who need support for SDK, NOT TO START AN ARGUMENT!

Regards,
David McAnally
Specialist, Computer Applications

IBM ANNOUNCES SUPPORT FOR PURCHASERS OF THE MICROSOFT SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
KIT FOR OS/2 2.0

IBM believes the letter from Microsoft regarding the lack of key components
for the OS/2 2.0 software development kit from IBM is misleading and
inaccurate.

Since Microsoft is not providing the planned SDK releases, in order to not
further impede application development activity, IBM will make available a
Beta version of a similar set of development tools to current licensees of
the MS SDK at no charge.  IBM will also evaluate a formal product offering
in this area.  More information on this offering will be provided at a
later date.

Included in the beta offering are the following:

 o  IBM OS/2 2.0 Operating System (pre-release level 6.167 or later)

 o  IBM OS/2 2.0 Toolkit (pre-release level)

        - Online documentation of API's, including base operating
          system, Presentation Manager, Workplace Shell, and System
          Object Model (SOM)

 o  IBM OS/2 2.0 C Set/2 (pre-release level)

        - IBM 32-bit OS/2 C compiler
        - IBM 32-bit OS/2 PM debugger
        - Hardcopy documentation

 o  IBM Workframe/2 (pre-release level)

        - Integrated development environment, including project control
          capabilities

 o  Application Design Guide

 o  Other documentation from the OS/2 2.0 Technical Library that may
    be ready

This offering is only available in 3.5" media.  Organizations that
purchased multiple copies will receive a complete package from IBM for each
installation diskette they have.  Those wishing to participate should send
the original installation diskette from their SDK along with company name,
contact name, and address to:

   IBM Expedite Distribution Center             -or-
   P.O. Box 140435                      8000 Shoal Creek Blvd.
   Austin, TX  78714-9871               Austin, TX  78758

This offer is available until March 31, 1992.

Questions and comments about this offering can be address in Section 14 -
Early Code/Expedite in the IBMOS2 forum on CompuServe.  A level of support
will be provided for this offering.  Details will be provided with the Beta
package.

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

END OF OS/2 DISCUSSION FORUM 911102
***********************************