NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/dcom/modems-part1/8227

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 4.5 KB

Path: nntp-xfer-2.csn.net!boulder!usenet
From: [e-mail] (Roderick W. Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.dcom.modems,demon.tech.modems
Subject: Re: Is anyone using IBM's new Multimedia Modem?
Date: 17 Mar 1996 17:20:51 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Message-ID: <4ihhlj$[e-mail]>
References: <4i69gs$[e-mail]> <4i6j17$[e-mail]><4i69gs$[e-mail]> <4i6j17$[e-mail]> <4ig7d7$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
NNTP-Posting-Host: tele-anx0243.colorado.edu
X-Newsreader: NeoLogic News for OS/2 [version: 4.5 YO Beta]

[Newsgroups trimmed; some aren't really appropriate, and some were
entered multiple times.]

In message <4ig7d7$[e-mail]> - [e-mail]17 Mar 1996
05:19:35 GMT writes:
>
> >I've got a MMM, and I've got mixed feelings about it. I bought it because I
> >figured it'd have better OS/2 support - well, kind of. No the voice mail
stuff
> >is NOT OS/2, but Windows. If you don't have blue spine warp you *must* boot
to
> >native dos & windows to install the windows/dos support.
>
>   This is a problem?  I look at it as a benefit.  I want my Warp/WinOS2
separate
>   from my DOS/Win.

There are two issues brought up by the original poster:

1) The product doesn't come with native OS/2 fax/TAM software.  Thus, if you
   don't run Windows at all, you're out of luck unless you can get your hands
   on the beta OS/2 fax/TAM software.  Further, even if you've got Windows
   support, an OS/2 fax/TAM program would be superior in some cases, since
   if you want to have the system auto-discriminate between fax, voice, and
   data, with an OS/2 program handling the data side, a Windows fax/TAM
   program will do no good, since the Windows Discriminator can't pass off
   to an OS/2 data program.  (I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that the
   reverse is not true; that is, I'd expect the OS/2 Discriminator to be
   able to handle a DOS or Windows data program.)  The Windows fax/TAM
   software, by all reports, works only with the Windows Discriminator, not
   with the OS/2 Discriminator, so you can't use the OS/2 Discriminator to
   get around this problem.
2) The Windows drivers won't install from OS/2 if you're running OS/2 Warp
   "red spine."  This has two consequences:
   a) If you have Windows on a FAT partition along with DOS, but don't have
      room on FAT partitions for all the Windows drivers, wavetable samples,
      DSP code, etc., you're out of luck.  This is a potentially real concern,
      since all this stuff chews up multiple megabytes of disk space, so if
      you've minimal FAT space, you may be forced to re-partition or play
      games with backups and whatnot to get it all set up.
   b) If you're running a 100% HPFS partition (say, having installed Windows
      with WSetup, or having converted to HPFS using Partition Magic), you're
      100% out of luck, short of playing games with backing up, reformatting,
      and restoring.

Now, IBM doesn't officially support "real" Windows on HPFS, so #2b is an
issue of a person doing something unsupported and then getting burned.  Still,
it's not, IMHO, all that unreasonable a thing for a person to do.  #2a is
something that IBM doesn't forbid, though, and as the practical issues are
very similar to #2b, it's not unreasonable to gripe about the inability to
install the Windows drivers under OS/2.  #1 is of the more general "OS/2 gets
no respect" variety.

IMHO, these are legitimate gripes.  I can't see how these limitations can be
considered an advantage.  If, as you say, you want to keep your DOS/Windows
and Win-OS/2 setups separate, you could do that even if the Windows Mwave
software could be installed from Windows under OS/2, so this limitation
doesn't provide you with any advantage.

In all, these limitations (or at least #2) strike me as part of what I suspect
was a design decision for Mwave software.  The problem, from the design point
of view, is that Mwave requires some very complex software, and it must be
installed just so.  For whatever reason, IBM chose to come up with a very
inflexible installation routine, and they didn't emphasize this inflexibility
sufficiently in the documentation.  The chosen routine will work fine on the
"average" system, but people who deviate from this by very much at all will
have problems.  Sort of like the "easy install" option for OS/2.  A pity the
Mwave people didn't include an "advanced install" option, too, along with
adequate documentation....

                    --Rod Smith
                      [e-mail]