CICA 1994 April/CICA Shareware for Windows CD-ROM (Walnut Creek CD-ROM)(April 1994).ISO/win3/nt/nt_14.lzh/NT

Text File | 1992-10-17 | 70KB | 1,608 lines

---------------------------------------------
Newsgroup comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
---------------------------------------------

Article 1177 of 1227, Sat 23:30.
Subject: Re: Multiuser NT???
From: [e-mail] (Sean Foderaro)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uunet!franz.com!franz!jkf
Organization: Franz Inc., Berkeley, CA
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 10 Oct 92 22:30:27 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]


>>  And if there is no use "quibbling" about 100 USD why don't
>>  Microsoft give it for free then?

If it were free then people who don't really plan to use it would ask for it
anyway and that means that microsoft would spend a lot more money and wouldn't
gain very much in the way of applications.   Placing a nominal fee on
the software somewhat separates the browsers from the serious folks
and even if browsers order the disk microsoft can recover some of their costs.
[All of the above is purely my opinion, of course.]

The biggest cost of installing NT is upgrading your machine.

Article 1178 of 1227, Sat 23:14.
Subject: Proteon P1990?
From: [e-mail] (Peter Karrer)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!Sirius.dfn.de!chx400!bernina!pkarrer
Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 10 Oct 92 22:14:33 GMT

Has anybody had success with the Proteon P1990 token ring card drivers
included in the prerelease?

I realize that the P1990 is not among the officially supported network
card, but still there's a driver for it.

The network item in the control panel gives me an error message when I
hit the Configure... button. The system log shows some PROTEON.SYS
error messages and a message from NBF saying the card is not properly
configured...

The registry knows that the card is in slot 4, but not very much more.
Browsing through PROTEON.SYS, I find strings like "InterruptNumber",
"Card speed" etc. which I would expect to show up in the registry.
(or rather "I n t e r r u p t N u m b e r", is that Unicode?)

Do I have a chance to make the card work when I add these items manually,
using REGEDIT, to the registry?

Hardware is a Compaq Deskpro 50M with 8M, no special cards except the P1990.


--
Peter Karrer                                   [e-mail]

Article 1179 of 1227, Sun 20:18.
Subject: Re: Multiuser NT???
From: [e-mail] (Steve Riley (UK Windows NT Program Manager))
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uunet!decwrl!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!rdg.dec.com!sac.enet.dec.com!riley
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:18:15 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (Mr News)


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mikael Wahlgren) writes...
}>>> They weren't interested in distributing the Windows NT SDK for free,
}paper documentation it costs about 500 USD though.  Not much that either,
}but as I said before, I simply won't pay Microsoft for any beta/pre-release
}software.  And if there is no use "quibbling" about 100 USD why don't
}Microsoft give it for free then?
}

These sums are undoubtedly just nominal;   which should not
discourage the serious developers, corporate users etc. In actual
fact it should be obvious that this is a significant bargin given
the fact that one ends up with a real V1.0 release {as well as the
beta copies} in the end.

Have YOU considered the cost in other terms of missing out on THE
operating system of the future!!!

-Steve.

- - -
Steve Riley                    (Generic Disclaimer ... I speak for myself only)
Digital Equipment Corporation  Inet: [e-mail]
The Crescent, Jays Close,      X400: C=gb;A=Gold 400;O=digital;P=digital;OU=eur
Basingstoke, Hampshire,        Work: [phone]    Cell: [phone]
England RG22 4BS                FAX: [phone]

Article 1180 of 1227, Mon 11:56.
Subject: Re: Multiuser NT???
From: [e-mail] (Mikael Wahlgren)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!sunic!chalmers.se!dtek.chalmers.se!d9mikael
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg Sweden
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 12 Oct 92 10:56:45 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Steve Riley (UK Windows NT Program Manager)) writes:

>These sums are undoubtedly just nominal;   which should not
>discourage the serious developers, corporate users etc. In actual

Well, anyhow it discourage me.  I simply won't pay for beta/pre-release
software.  I have no problem paying 1000 USD for a released version (if I need
it), but paying 100 USD for a pre-release from Microsoft, is something I
never will do (again).

>Have YOU considered the cost in other terms of missing out on THE
>operating system of the future!!!

Well, I am not quite so sure that it is "THE" operating system.  And I won't
miss it, just because I don't buy the pre-release SDK.

Mikael Wahlgren

Article 1181 of 1227, Mon 15:04.
Subject: Re: Multiuser NT???
From: [e-mail] (Tracy Blomquist)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!convex!news.utdallas.edu!corpgate!bnrgate!bcars267!bcarh829!tracyb
Organization: Bell Northern Research
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 12 Oct 92 14:04:52 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (usenet)

Mikael Wahlgren ([e-mail]) wrote:
: [e-mail] (Steve Riley (UK Windows NT Program Manager)) writes:
:
: >These sums are undoubtedly just nominal;   which should not
: >discourage the serious developers, corporate users etc. In actual
:
: Well, anyhow it discourage me.  I simply won't pay for beta/pre-release
: software.  I have no problem paying 1000 USD for a released version (if I need
: it), but paying 100 USD for a pre-release from Microsoft, is something I
: never will do (again).
:
: >Have YOU considered the cost in other terms of missing out on THE
: >operating system of the future!!!
:
: Well, I am not quite so sure that it is "THE" operating system.  And I won't
: miss it, just because I don't buy the pre-release SDK.
:
: Mikael Wahlgren

I don't understand why you wouldn't just buy the pre-release when it
gets you THE FINAL RELEASE FOR FREE (which is supposed to cost much
more than $100USD).  You said you wouldn't have a problem buying the
final release for up to $1000USD, but why would you throw away up to
$900USD when you can avoid it?

You do know that if you buy the pre-release you get all updates,
including the 1st official release, for FREE don't you?

--
,----------------------,------------------------.---------------------,
| Karl Tracy Blomquist | E-MAIL: [e-mail]  | Fax: [phone] |
| P.S.C. Consultant    | ENVOY: T.BLOMQUIST     | Ph:  1-613-765-4886 |
`----------------------'------------------------'---------------------'
| Bell-Northern Research, P.O.Box 3511, Stn C, Ottawa, Ont., K1Y-4H7  |
`---------------------------------------------------------------------'

Article 1182 of 1227, Mon 15:07.
Subject: Re: MEP editor
From: [e-mail] (Ralf-Peter Rohbeck)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uunet!decwrl!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!rdg.dec.com!uvo.dec.com!kboeng.enet.dec.com!rrohbeck
Organization: Digital Equipment Int. GmbH
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 12 Oct 92 14:07:21 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (News Account)
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>ME (Microsoft Editor) came with C 5.1.  The docs came with it then if you know
>anyone who still has the docs.  Brief was a much better option then, I'm sure
>that hasn't changed.
>
Exactly. It runs nicely in a command window. Just the screen output is kinda
slow.

Ralf-Peter
--
===============================================================================
Ralf-Peter Rohbeck          [e-mail]         Product engineering
Digital Equipment Int. GmbH rrohbeck%kbomfg.enet.dec.com       Disk drive plant
Sudetenstrasse 5/POB 1356   ...!decwrl!kbomfg.dec.com!rrohbeck)      Kaufbeuren
W-8950 Kaufbeuren           (+49) 8341 / 91-4473                        Germany
#include "disclaimer.h"

Article 1183 of 1227, Mon 14:50.
Subject: Re: Fatal System Errors
From: kenyee@sneakers (Ken Yee)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uunet!world!ksr!kenyee@sneakers
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 12 Oct 92 13:50:10 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Lee Hart) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
> > This has also been discussed before, of course you can install NT
after
> > you have installed OS/2 2.0. NT's flexboot just gets a little confused
> > about the drive letters. So change the x:\WINNT to
  Just a followup...changing the bus and DMA speed on my WD7000FASST
  SCSI card did not work.  I still get the 0x69 fatal error.
  Ah well, back to OS/2.  Hope the next NT beta fixes the problem.
  C'est la guerre...

 ken

Article 1184 of 1227, Mon 19:32.
Subject: Re: Telnet Slow
Summary: Telnet is slooooowwwww
From: [e-mail] (Jim Morton [ext 237])
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uknet!doc.ic.ac.uk!agate!ames!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!samsung!transfer!applix!jim
Organization: Applix, Inc., Westboro, MA
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:32:35 GMT

In article <[e-mail]>, Mike Jones writes:
]> I have a 20Mhz 386DX and I find my TCP/IP telnet window about as fast
]> as my 12 Mhz 8086 with a 2400 baud modem.
]>
]> It appears that window scrolling is very slow under Windows.  Is it
]> still slow under the faster 486/33's ?  I have seen X/UNIX running on a
]> 486/33, and it wasn't slow at all.  So, are we talking slow computer,
]> or slow window system/OS ?
]>
]> Mike

I don't think it's the computer - my 486/50 with a fast VGA and ethernet
card runs Win-NT Telnet just like the 2400 baud modem you mention.

--
Jim Morton, Applix Inc., Westboro, MA
...uunet!applix!jim    [e-mail]

Article 1185 of 1227, Mon 19:28.
Subject: Re: Is it time to split this newsgroup?
Summary: newsgroup reorganization
From: [e-mail] (Jim Morton [ext 237])
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uknet!doc.ic.ac.uk!agate!ames!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!samsung!transfer!applix!jim
Organization: Applix, Inc., Westboro, MA
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:28:37 GMT

In article <[e-mail]>, Alistair Banks) writes:
> So I think comp.os.ms-windows.nt.setup or comp.os.ms-windows.stup.win-nt
> might be appropriate - we should think ahead and design a hierarchy that
> can handle windows 3.x series, windows nt, "Modular Windows" series,
> and be ready for other future versions of Windows. In general I
> think its probably best to keep the .setup's together, and the
> programmers sections together, rather than seperate things by the
> particular product packaging, since the product packaging will change
> more often than the pieces of technology contained within those
> products - and I just left our "Windows for Workgroups", how could I?

why don't we use a new heirarchy that mimics the Compu$erve Forums and
subgroups, so when Microsoft officially sanctions Usenet support it will
be easier and intuitive what the parallel newsgroup/forum names are?  :-)

(and that would make it sooo easy to feed into their fancy SQL system!!!)

--
Jim Morton, Applix Inc., Westboro, MA
...uunet!applix!jim    [e-mail]

Article 1186 of 1227, Mon 19:10.
Subject: NT User Beta also on diskettes?
From: [e-mail]
Path: ub4b!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!ira.uka.de!chx400!csghsg5a.bitnet!msieber
Organization: University of St.Gallen, Switzerland
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:10:08 GMT

Since I got no CD-ROM,  I want to know, wheter MS sells the NT-Beta for
users only on CD, or also on3 1/2 inch Disks.

Please email me at:

[e-mail]

Article 1187 of 1227, Mon 22:49.
Subject: POSIX: what it does, what it doesn't do (was Re: NT Under SCO Unix)
From: [e-mail] (Guy Harris)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uunet!auspex-gw!guy
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:49:49 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: comp.unix.dos-under-unix

>|> Many people have written that the "POSIX under WNT" may be a con, a
>|> way to attract software development under the false promise of source
>|> compatibility with Unix.
>
>You are the first person I have heard say so. MS folk have repeatedly promised
>full POSIX compatibilty.

"Full POSIX compatibility", if that means compatibility with 1003.1 and
1003.2, doesn't come close to "source compatibility with UNIX", nor even
with any very interesting *subset* of UNIX.  Many, many interesting UNIX
utilities won't port, unless the "fully POSIX-compatible" system
provides UNIX API's not in POSIX as well.

For example, will NT provide, in its *IX subsystem:

        sockets? (I suspect so, if WinSock looks reasonably like BSD
           sockets.)

        various X11 and X11 toolkit API's (NOTE: not necessarily an X11
           client implementation; it could be something that looks like
           an X11 client *API*, but that talks to the NT window system
           instead.)  Maybe, maybe not.

If NT provides XPG4 compliance, as I've heard claims it will, that
probably comes a *lot* closer to something interesting to UNIX
developers.  Of course, I suspect XPG4 isn't a single monolithic lump,
either - you may not have to supply all the bits of XPG4 to be
compliant, just the required bits and the optional bits you choose to
supply.

XPG4 probably has XTI, which is derived from TLI but provides the same
general capabilities as sockets.  XPG3 has the X11 API, although not the
Xt API nor any particular X toolkit, so XPG4 probably has at least that
as well.  Dunno whether NT, if XPG4-compliant, will provide them,
however.

>BTW, you can't be "source compatible" with Unix, because there is really no
>single thing that is "Unix". Without using a standard layer such as POSIX it
>is very difficult to write sophisticated code that will run on different
>versions of Unix. Take a look at the source to xterm! :-)

And then note that pseudo-ttys, for example, aren't covered by any
current POSIX standard, so a "xterm" written only to current POSIX
standards would look like;

        #include <stdio.h>

        int
        main(int argc, char **argv)
        {
                (void) fprintf(stderr, "Sorry, xterm isn't available\n");
                return 2;
        }

(not to mention the fact that X ain't in any POSIX standard, either).

Article 1188 of 1227, Mon 22:55.
Subject: Re: NT Under SCO Unix
From: [e-mail] (Guy Harris)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uunet!auspex-gw!guy
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.dos-under-unix
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:55:14 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32

>As you pointed out, 286 are cheap: and they are good for text based
>applications. That's why WNT should not restrict itself to graphical
>applications: a minimum to run a window GUI is a good 386

Umm, a minimum to run WNT, GUI or no, is a 386.  I don't think Microsoft
gives a damn about making it run on 286's, and frankly, I suspect
that's the correct decision on their part.

Article 1189 of 1227, Mon 09:35.
Subject: Problem accessing c: stuff
From: [e-mail] (Jacob Levy)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uknet!doc.ic.ac.uk!agate!ames!sun-barr!male.EBay.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!appserv!jyl
Organization: What?! Organization???
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 12 Oct 92 08:35:16 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]

OK, I have a strange problem. As of late last nite I am unable to see any
files on the C: disk. Not from the file manager, nor from a command window.
In a command window I just see the prompt (C:\) but trying cd or any other
command says 'file not found'. I don't have access to any file on C:, it
seems. Not even those in /user/default... Not logged in as Administrator,
neither as Joe Random User. I know the files are there, I can see them when
I am booted in DOS (glad I didnt throw it away after all... :_).

Has anyone seen this before? What is the procedure to restore to a sane
state?

Thanks, --JYL

Article 1190 of 1227, Mon 17:49.
Subject: Re: Re: Telnet Slow
From: [e-mail] (Jacob Levy)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uknet!doc.ic.ac.uk!agate!ames!sun-barr!male.EBay.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!appserv!jyl
Organization: What?! Organization???
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:49:06 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


>I don't think it's the computer - my 486/50 with a fast VGA and ethernet
>card runs Win-NT Telnet just like the 2400 baud modem you mention.

It seems to be the console or COM API. It is as slow as molasses. I noticed
that scrolls take over 100% of the CPU, so it must be doing some real hungo
mungo computations there :-). Guess it is complicated to scroll a window
after all :-).

--JYL

Article 1191 of 1227, Tue 03:26.
Subject: Re: Telnet Slow
From: [e-mail] (Francis Hogle)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uunet!monsoon!fmh
Organization: Monsoon Software, Inc.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 13 Oct 92 02:26:08 GMT

[e-mail] (Mike Jones) writes:

> So, are we talking slow computer, or slow window system/OS ?


Probably SLOW DRIVER.

francis

Article 1192 of 1227, Tue 01:43.
Subject: Re: Multiuser NT???
From: [e-mail] (Alistair Banks)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uunet!microsoft!hexnut!alistair
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:43:12 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tim Glauert) writes:
>
>I suggest that you take three
>experienced NT programmers and give them the task of implementing telnetd,
>rshd and ftpd respectively.

>Then announce that these services
>will form part of the base NT product, or release them into the public domain.

>Can't MS afford a few weeks of programmer time to tackle this problem
>once and for all?

Simply, if we do this, then those guys, by definition, are no longer doing the
thing they were doing before - and importantly, if we do this, then at
one blow we'd stop the third party market from doing a better job, since
the revenue opportunity is lost, or considerably diminished - if we're not
motivated to do a great job of something like this, its much better to let
the 3rd party market do a great job, and let them make money - also, Microsoft
is onto a "loser" each time we implement something that's not a "feature"
but rather an imperfect hack, into our core product. 3rd party companies
get great credit for adding onto our products, while we'd get blasted for
not doing it "right" - As I've explained before, while Windows NT has alot
of the functionality needed for multi-user systems, the graphics server
is lacking some functionality, and the security is lacking some extra features
we want, in its first release. I believe that Microsoft should work on doing
things "right" and encourage a healthy 3rd party market to grow by making
money filling in the pieces

Also, it must be obvious, that if we took "three great programmers" to do
each thing that appears "simple & quick" we'd never get any products out!

>Failing that, how about an effort among some developers to get PD versions of
>these services out as soon as possible?

I'm much more in favour of this second route - There should be public domain
versions, and there should be new and even greater "branded" and supported
versions

Let me know about all such efforts, please -- Alistair

Article 1193 of 1227, Tue 02:04.
Subject: Re: Multiuser NT???
From: [e-mail] (Alistair Banks)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uunet!microsoft!hexnut!alistair
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 13 Oct 92 01:04:37 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mikael Wahlgren) writes:
>And if there is no use "quibbling" about 100 USD why don't
>Microsoft give it for free then?

There always needs to be a "bar" for people to get over - If its a 100% free
and open offer, have you considerred how many university walls would be
plasterred with our cd-roms, just because they look "cool"

We either use non-disclosures as a bar, or else we charge a small amount. The
third option is to have a "qualification program" but those are a large overhead
to administer, and are very rarely "fair" to everyone

We did some research, asked around, and almost everyone agreed that low cost,
with no other hurdles, was the best route.

You sound like the exception - or you're simply too used to "the other model"

-- Alistair

Article 1194 of 1227, Tue 02:10.
Subject: Re: NT Under SCO Unix
From: [e-mail] (Alistair Banks)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uunet!microsoft!hexnut!alistair
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions
Date: 13 Oct 92 01:10:44 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chuck Phillips) writes:
>
>Question: If your hardware has multiple
>graphics screens, can you arbitrarily assign security (i.e., user) IDs to
>each screen?  I'm thinking in terms of a large installation with multiple
>users hanging off a many-processor (or very fast single-processor) CPU.

Although much of the functionality required to do this is in the system,
its not complete in the first Windows NT product release - so the answer
is "No", at least, not yet -- Alistair

Article 1195 of 1227, Tue 09:00.
Subject: Re: Multiuser NT???
From: [e-mail] (Mikael Wahlgren)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!sunic!chalmers.se!dtek.chalmers.se!d9mikael
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg Sweden
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 13 Oct 92 08:00:46 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Alistair Banks) writes:

>>And if there is no use "quibbling" about 100 USD why don't
>>Microsoft give it for free then?

>There always needs to be a "bar" for people to get over - If its a 100% free
>and open offer, have you considerred how many university walls would be
>plasterred with our cd-roms, just because they look "cool"

Agreed.  I do follow your reasoning...

>We either use non-disclosures as a bar, or else we charge a small amount. The
>third option is to have a "qualification program" but those are a large overhe
>to administer, and are very rarely "fair" to everyone
>We did some research, asked around, and almost everyone agreed that low cost,
>with no other hurdles, was the best route.
>You sound like the exception - or you're simply too used to "the other model"

You are right again.  I am used to the "qualification program" (used by IBM).
But I think the best method would be as IBM is doing, having one qualification
program, that is free, for developers with an interesting product, and one
low-charge program for other developers that don't want to go through the
hassle to be qualified for the free program, or don't know why they want it.

I think Microsofts policy, not to give away the Windows NT SDK to anyone,
is flexible enough.  Of course, if Microsoft finds a project they find
interesting and want to encourage, they should be able to give a SDK away
for free.  Obviously they are either not interested in encouraging my
product (OK, if you say so, I will accept that), or they simply can't
understand the low-budget a shareware-program starts with (yes the budget
can increase dramaticly later on, if the program gets enough interest, like
my OS2You project.  I have no problem buying the development tools I need
for that, but I certainly didn't start the project by buying development
tools for 550 USD).

Sincerely
Mikael Wahlgren

Article 1196 of 1227, Tue 10:31.
Subject: Good news on DDK pricing
Keywords: DDK
From: [e-mail] (Ralf-Peter Rohbeck)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!rdg.dec.com!uvo.dec.com!kboeng.enet.dec.com!rrohbeck
Organization: Digital Equipment Int. GmbH
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 13 Oct 92 09:31:14 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (News Account)
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Hey, I'm the first to spread the news :-)

>>Question for all of you. Would you buy a CD only version of the
>>NT DDK??
>>Let me know.
>
>Ralf-Peter,
>
>Thanks for your comment on our pricing/packaging plans for the Windows
>NT Preliminary DDK. In response to your requests and the requests of many
>others we have decided to lower the price for the DDK, and offer a CD-only
>version of the product. In the US, our  pricing will be  consistent
>with our SDK
>pricing. Of couse the DDK price will include updates and the
>final version of the DDK.
>
>The DDK will be available around the end of November. You should be able to
>contact MS Germany starting next week for pricing info.
>
>Again, thanks for your feedback.
>
>Dwight Matheny
>Product Manager- SDKs and DDKs

Ralf-Peter
===============================================================================
Ralf-Peter Rohbeck          [e-mail]         Product engineering
Digital Equipment Int. GmbH rrohbeck%kbomfg.enet.dec.com       Disk drive plant
Sudetenstrasse 5/POB 1356   ...!decwrl!kbomfg.dec.com!rrohbeck)      Kaufbeuren
W-8950 Kaufbeuren           (+49) 8341 / 91-4473                        Germany
#include "disclaimer.h"

Article 1197 of 1227, Tue 12:44.
Subject: Stripping debugging info from a Win32 binary
From: [e-mail] (Paul Butcher)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uunet!pipex!harlqn.co.uk!harlqn!paulb
Organization: Harlequin Ltd, Cambridge, UK
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 13 Oct 92 11:44:43 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News Account)

I'm sure this is just me being stupid, but I can't seem to find a way
to strip debugging information from a Win32 binary.  I know I can "just"
recompile, but I've got about a 2 hour recompilation time at the moment
:-(

Thanks in advance,

PaulB->msgCount++

Article 1198 of 1227, Tue 16:19.
Subject: Re: Stripping debugging info from a Win32 binary
From: [e-mail] (A. Andre Asselin)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uunet!caen!uwm.edu!rpi!assela
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:19:54 GMT

[e-mail] (Paul Butcher) writes:
>I'm sure this is just me being stupid, but I can't seem to find a way
>to strip debugging information from a Win32 binary.  I know I can "just"
>recompile, but I've got about a 2 hour recompilation time at the moment

Paul,
   I'm working on a COFF file dumper for NT, to be released as shareware.
It seems like it'd be a pretty straight forward extension to add what you're
requesting.  If you're interested, I estimate that I'll have something
working by the begining of November.
   As an aside, can't you just relink instead of going through the whole
recompilation process?  I haven't looked closely at the options available for
LINK/COFF, but with the old LINK, you'd only get debugging info in the .EXE
if you specified /CO on the LINK command line.  I'd have thought that that
was the way it still worked.
     Take care..........
                  - Andre Asselin ([e-mail])

Article 1199 of 1227, Tue 18:52.
Subject: Re: Multiuser (was Re: MS's misconduct!)
From: [e-mail] (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uunet!ogicse!uwm.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!Sirius.dfn.de!solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de!root
Organization: Techn. Univ. Clausthal
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:52:05 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (Operator)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)

In  <[e-mail]>  [e-mail] (Kevin Broadey) writes:
> >>>>> In article <[e-mail]>,
> >>>>> "Christoph" == [e-mail] (Christoph
> >>>>> H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>
> Christoph> If I had to decide, between one machine with 5 processors, 5
> Christoph> mice, 5 keyboard and 5 screens or 5 machines with one
> Christoph> screen/mouse/KB/proc each, I probably would prefer the first
> Christoph> solution. If there is only one user logged in a machine with
> Christoph> 5 processors, he could have the full power of all five
> Christoph> processors. Of course you are right, that it makes few sense
> Christoph> to have a machine with 5 keyboard/mice and only one screen.
>
> With NT's built-in networking and RPC capabilities you *have* got one
> machine with 5 processors, 5 mice, 5 keyboards and 5 screens. Or 50, or
> 500.
>
> As someone once said ... the computer *is* the network.
>

Sure? I don't think, that simple multithreaded applications can run
on different machines, if they don't make explicit usage of RPC. And if so,
Shared Memory over the network is definitely slower than on a local machine.
But correct me, if I am wrong.

Christoph
--
Internet: [e-mail]
Bitnet  : HAMPE2 AT DMRHRZ11
Fido    : 2:243/660

Article 1200 of 1227, Tue 18:57.
Subject: Re: NT and Network Cards
From: [e-mail] (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uunet!ogicse!uwm.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!Sirius.dfn.de!solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de!root
Organization: Techn. Univ. Clausthal
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:57:07 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (Operator)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)

In  <[e-mail]>  [e-mail] (Richard Meesters) writes:
> The System:  NCR 3433 (486 33MHz Micro channel)
>                 with an IBM T/R Adapter /A
>
> I've experienced a problem where the system was unable to run any dos programs
> under NT.  When running anything DOS, the system came back with a function
> failed message in a popup window.  This problem goes away when the IBM T/R
> card is removed from the system.
>
> This looks like a conflict in the 640K - 1Meg range of memory.  I had a similar
> problem with OS/2 2.0 (DOS sessions worked, but you couldn't get any Expanded
> memory) which was solved by making the memory settings as contiguous as
> possible in the D0000-DFFFF range (Leaving C0000 areas free for what I think
> must have been the necessary page frame, but I'm guessing).
>
> Does anyone have an explanation for what's happening here?
>
No, but I have exactly the same problem on an IBM Model 90 486/33 with an
IBM Token-Ring card. So we will have to wait for the next release.

Christoph
--
Internet: [e-mail]
Bitnet  : HAMPE2 AT DMRHRZ11
Fido    : 2:243/660

Article 1201 of 1227, Mon 20:57.
Subject: Re: NT Win32 DLL building problem
From: [e-mail] (Ajit Sanzgiri)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uunet!pmafire!news.dell.com!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!sun-barr!olivea!decwrl!nntp1.radiomail.net!cronos!bombay!sanzgiri
Organization: Metaphor Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:57:27 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> Kevin Broadey <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>> undefined".  Why does a library routine expect there to be a "_main"?
>
>I had a similar problem a while ago.  I created a function called "main"
>which did a MessageBox() call to say when it was called and linked it in
>to the DLL.
>
>It has never yet announced that anyone called it...!

        I was plagued by the same problem. It went away when I started putting
        crtdll.lib before $(guilib) on the link command line.
        The way $(guilibs) is defined it links DLLs with the wrong libraries
        unles you stick crtdll.lib in ahead of the other libraries.

        Ajit Sanzgiri
-------------------------------------
CUTE EPIGRAM INSERTED TO KEEP NEWS SERVER HAPPY:
If you want to be successful all you need is lots of confidence coupled with
an equal amount of ignorance. -- Mark Twain (I think).
-------------------------------------

Article 1202 of 1227, Tue 03:05.
Subject: Re: EISA vs local bus
From: [e-mail] (Edward McClanahan)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uknet!stl!bnrgate!corpgate!news.utdallas.edu!hermes.chpc.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!scd.hp.com!hplextra!hpcss01!hpcuhe!edwardm
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 13 Oct 92 02:05:50 GMT

> I'm leaning towards an EISA system anyway, but if the video drivers
> are still going to shuffle data to the card via buffers below 16MB,
> then I might as well get an ISA version of the ATI UltraPro rather
> than an EISA version and save a few $$.

Why not get a VL-BUS version of the new ATI UltraPro?  This card may
not be announced but it is currently being OEM'd through DELL and TriStar(?)
and has supposedly been slated for general release RSN...

Article 1203 of 1227, Tue 23:47.
Subject: Peoples Impatience!
From: [e-mail] (Ryan Mcneilly)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uknet!stl!bnrgate!corpgate!news.utdallas.edu!convex!convex!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!stein.u.washington.edu!ryanm
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:47:14 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

I enjoy reading this news group very much.  However, I have seen small
wars getting started on features not in NT like Unix provides.  I think we
need to look at NT in perspective.  NT is thee first OS designed to
utilize high end machines created by MS.  You can't expect MS to provide
every single utility and feature into a product only 1.5 years (or is it 1
year?) old.

Unix has been around for a long time.  It has had years to develop the
favorite tools and features that I keep hearing about.  NT has had only a
few months (6 to 12) to develop these features and tools.  This is very
quick when they didn't just take unix and rework it.  They started from
scratch adding Unix (powerful) like features into it along with VMS and
Windows features.

I think the biggest heated discusion is on XWindows and Multi-user
interface.  From what I understand (no expert) X has plenty of problems (I
may be wrong) and the Multi-user capability is there just no interface or
daemon has been built to use it.

Another thing is that MS is trying to get competition going for third
party developrs (all of us) to develop what NT doesn't have.  Lets face
it, if MS provided everything where would we be?  I think MS has provided
a balance between base requirements and everything we need.  Also the
competition will provide better products than if MS creates a through
together.

I commend MS in there marketing approach and fairness to all involved in
development.  I think they have come up with a winner and like it (I do
like Unix a lot also!).  Lets keep this in perspective and have patience with
MS.

This is my $.02 worth.  Please no flames or wars.  This is only my
opinion.  Lets keep the discussions civalized!  I don't see the vord
advocacy in this group name!  --Ryan

==========================================================================
  Ryan McNeilly

  Internet: [e-mail]
==========================================================================

Article 1204 of 1227, Wed 00:16.
Subject: Questions on NT
From: [e-mail] (Jason Nadrowski)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uknet!stl!bnrgate!corpgate!news.utdallas.edu!hermes.chpc.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!spool.mu.edu!hri.com!ukma!eng.ufl.edu!alpha.ee.ufl.edu!jason
Organization: EE computer teaching labs
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:16:04 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (Jason Nadrowski)


I'm confused!

When I login and spawn a process; then logout, are all my processes killed?
If so, will this change in the NEAR future?

Is there support for running a process remotely and thus displaying the
result on my screen--similar to rlogin?

Is there (maybe going to be) a feature where I can have the active window
be the one with the cursor over it; thus having the active window as
an underlapping window?

Article 1205 of 1227, Mon 23:49.
Subject: POSIX: what it does, what it doesn't do (was Re: NT Under SCO Unix)
From: [e-mail] (Guy Harris)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!sun4nl!wtrlnd!monly.wlink.nl!news-daemon
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:49:49 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara

>|> Many people have written that the "POSIX under WNT" may be a con, a
>|> way to attract software development under the false promise of source
>|> compatibility with Unix.
>
>You are the first person I have heard say so. MS folk have repeatedly promised
>full POSIX compatibilty.

"Full POSIX compatibility", if that means compatibility with 1003.1 and
1003.2, doesn't come close to "source compatibility with UNIX", nor even
with any very interesting *subset* of UNIX.  Many, many interesting UNIX
utilities won't port, unless the "fully POSIX-compatible" system
provides UNIX API's not in POSIX as well.

For example, will NT provide, in its *IX subsystem:

        sockets? (I suspect so, if WinSock looks reasonably like BSD
           sockets.)

        various X11 and X11 toolkit API's (NOTE: not necessarily an X11
           client implementation; it could be something that looks like
           an X11 client *API*, but that talks to the NT window system
           instead.)  Maybe, maybe not.

If NT provides XPG4 compliance, as I've heard claims it will, that
probably comes a *lot* closer to something interesting to UNIX
developers.  Of course, I suspect XPG4 isn't a single monolithic lump,
either - you may not have to supply all the bits of XPG4 to be
compliant, just the required bits and the optional bits you choose to
supply.

XPG4 probably has XTI, which is derived from TLI but provides the same
general capabilities as sockets.  XPG3 has the X11 API, although not the
Xt API nor any particular X toolkit, so XPG4 probably has at least that
as well.  Dunno whether NT, if XPG4-compliant, will provide them,
however.

>BTW, you can't be "source compatible" with Unix, because there is really no
>single thing that is "Unix". Without using a standard layer such as POSIX it
>is very difficult to write sophisticated code that will run on different
>versions of Unix. Take a look at the source to xterm! :-)

And then note that pseudo-ttys, for example, aren't covered by any
current POSIX standard, so a "xterm" written only to current POSIX
standards would look like;

        #include <stdio.h>

        int
        main(int argc, char **argv)
        {
                (void) fprintf(stderr, "Sorry, xterm isn't available\n");
                return 2;
        }

(not to mention the fact that X ain't in any POSIX standard, either).

Article 1206 of 1227, Mon 23:55.
Subject: NT Under SCO Unix
From: [e-mail] (Guy Harris)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!sun4nl!wtrlnd!monly.wlink.nl!news-daemon
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:55:14 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara

>As you pointed out, 286 are cheap: and they are good for text based
>applications. That's why WNT should not restrict itself to graphical
>applications: a minimum to run a window GUI is a good 386

Umm, a minimum to run WNT, GUI or no, is a 386.  I don't think Microsoft
gives a damn about making it run on 286's, and frankly, I suspect
that's the correct decision on their part.

Article 1207 of 1227, Mon 10:35.
Subject: Problem accessing c: stuff
From: [e-mail] (Jacob Levy)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!sun4nl!wtrlnd!monly.wlink.nl!news-daemon
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 12 Oct 92 09:35:16 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

Organization: What?! Organization???

OK, I have a strange problem. As of late last nite I am unable to see any
files on the C: disk. Not from the file manager, nor from a command window.
In a command window I just see the prompt (C:\) but trying cd or any other
command says 'file not found'. I don't have access to any file on C:, it
seems. Not even those in /user/default... Not logged in as Administrator,
neither as Joe Random User. I know the files are there, I can see them when
I am booted in DOS (glad I didnt throw it away after all... :_).

Has anyone seen this before? What is the procedure to restore to a sane
state?

Thanks, --JYL

Article 1208 of 1227, Mon 18:49.
Subject: Re: Telnet Slow
From: [e-mail] (Jacob Levy)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!sun4nl!wtrlnd!monly.wlink.nl!news-daemon
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:49:06 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

Organization: What?! Organization???


>I don't think it's the computer - my 486/50 with a fast VGA and ethernet
>card runs Win-NT Telnet just like the 2400 baud modem you mention.

It seems to be the console or COM API. It is as slow as molasses. I noticed
that scrolls take over 100% of the CPU, so it must be doing some real hungo
mungo computations there :-). Guess it is complicated to scroll a window
after all :-).

--JYL

Article 1209 of 1227, Tue 00:26.
Subject: Telnet Slow
From: [e-mail] (Francis Hogle)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!sun4nl!wtrlnd!monly.wlink.nl!news-daemon
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:26:08 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

Organization: Monsoon Software, Inc.

[e-mail] (Mike Jones) writes:

> So, are we talking slow computer, or slow window system/OS ?


Probably SLOW DRIVER.

francis

Article 1210 of 1227, Tue 02:43.
Subject: Multiuser NT???
From: [e-mail] (Alistair Banks)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!sun4nl!wtrlnd!monly.wlink.nl!news-daemon
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 13 Oct 92 01:43:12 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tim Glauert) writes:
>
>I suggest that you take three
>experienced NT programmers and give them the task of implementing telnetd,
>rshd and ftpd respectively.

>Then announce that these services
>will form part of the base NT product, or release them into the public domain.

>Can't MS afford a few weeks of programmer time to tackle this problem
>once and for all?

Simply, if we do this, then those guys, by definition, are no longer doing the
thing they were doing before - and importantly, if we do this, then at
one blow we'd stop the third party market from doing a better job, since
the revenue opportunity is lost, or considerably diminished - if we're not
motivated to do a great job of something like this, its much better to let
the 3rd party market do a great job, and let them make money - also, Microsoft
is onto a "loser" each time we implement something that's not a "feature"
but rather an imperfect hack, into our core product. 3rd party companies
get great credit for adding onto our products, while we'd get blasted for
not doing it "right" - As I've explained before, while Windows NT has alot
of the functionality needed for multi-user systems, the graphics server
is lacking some functionality, and the security is lacking some extra features
we want, in its first release. I believe that Microsoft should work on doing
things "right" and encourage a healthy 3rd party market to grow by making
money filling in the pieces

Also, it must be obvious, that if we took "three great programmers" to do
each thing that appears "simple & quick" we'd never get any products out!

>Failing that, how about an effort among some developers to get PD versions of
>these services out as soon as possible?

I'm much more in favour of this second route - There should be public domain
versions, and there should be new and even greater "branded" and supported
versions

Let me know about all such efforts, please -- Alistair

Article 1211 of 1227, Tue 03:04.
Subject: Multiuser NT???
From: [e-mail] (Alistair Banks)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!sun4nl!wtrlnd!monly.wlink.nl!news-daemon
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 13 Oct 92 02:04:37 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mikael Wahlgren) writes:
>And if there is no use "quibbling" about 100 USD why don't
>Microsoft give it for free then?

There always needs to be a "bar" for people to get over - If its a 100% free
and open offer, have you considerred how many university walls would be
plasterred with our cd-roms, just because they look "cool"

We either use non-disclosures as a bar, or else we charge a small amount. The
third option is to have a "qualification program" but those are a large overhead
to administer, and are very rarely "fair" to everyone

We did some research, asked around, and almost everyone agreed that low cost,
with no other hurdles, was the best route.

You sound like the exception - or you're simply too used to "the other model"

-- Alistair

Article 1212 of 1227, Tue 03:10.
Subject: NT Under SCO Unix
From: [e-mail] (Alistair Banks)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!sun4nl!wtrlnd!monly.wlink.nl!news-daemon
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 13 Oct 92 02:10:44 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chuck Phillips) writes:
>
>Question: If your hardware has multiple
>graphics screens, can you arbitrarily assign security (i.e., user) IDs to
>each screen?  I'm thinking in terms of a large installation with multiple
>users hanging off a many-processor (or very fast single-processor) CPU.

Although much of the functionality required to do this is in the system,
its not complete in the first Windows NT product release - so the answer
is "No", at least, not yet -- Alistair

Article 1213 of 1227, Tue 10:00.
Subject: Multiuser NT???
From: [e-mail] (Mikael Wahlgren)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!sun4nl!wtrlnd!monly.wlink.nl!news-daemon
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 13 Oct 92 09:00:46 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

Organization: Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg Sweden

[e-mail] (Alistair Banks) writes:

>>And if there is no use "quibbling" about 100 USD why don't
>>Microsoft give it for free then?

>There always needs to be a "bar" for people to get over - If its a 100% free
>and open offer, have you considerred how many university walls would be
>plasterred with our cd-roms, just because they look "cool"

Agreed.  I do follow your reasoning...

>We either use non-disclosures as a bar, or else we charge a small amount. The
>third option is to have a "qualification program" but those are a large overhe
>to administer, and are very rarely "fair" to everyone
>We did some research, asked around, and almost everyone agreed that low cost,
>with no other hurdles, was the best route.
>You sound like the exception - or you're simply too used to "the other model"

You are right again.  I am used to the "qualification program" (used by IBM).
But I think the best method would be as IBM is doing, having one qualification
program, that is free, for developers with an interesting product, and one
low-charge program for other developers that don't want to go through the
hassle to be qualified for the free program, or don't know why they want it.

I think Microsofts policy, not to give away the Windows NT SDK to anyone,
is flexible enough.  Of course, if Microsoft finds a project they find
interesting and want to encourage, they should be able to give a SDK away
for free.  Obviously they are either not interested in encouraging my
product (OK, if you say so, I will accept that), or they simply can't
understand the low-budget a shareware-program starts with (yes the budget
can increase dramaticly later on, if the program gets enough interest, like
my OS2You project.  I have no problem buying the development tools I need
for that, but I certainly didn't start the project by buying development
tools for 550 USD).

Sincerely
Mikael Wahlgren

Article 1214 of 1227, Tue 11:31.
Subject: Good news on DDK pricing
From: [e-mail] (Ralf-Peter Rohbeck)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!sun4nl!wtrlnd!monly.wlink.nl!news-daemon
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 13 Oct 92 10:31:14 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

Organization: Digital Equipment Int. GmbH


Hey, I'm the first to spread the news :-)

>>Question for all of you. Would you buy a CD only version of the
>>NT DDK??
>>Let me know.
>
>Ralf-Peter,
>
>Thanks for your comment on our pricing/packaging plans for the Windows
>NT Preliminary DDK. In response to your requests and the requests of many
>others we have decided to lower the price for the DDK, and offer a CD-only
>version of the product. In the US, our  pricing will be  consistent
>with our SDK
>pricing. Of couse the DDK price will include updates and the
>final version of the DDK.
>
>The DDK will be available around the end of November. You should be able to
>contact MS Germany starting next week for pricing info.
>
>Again, thanks for your feedback.
>
>Dwight Matheny
>Product Manager- SDKs and DDKs

Ralf-Peter
===============================================================================
Ralf-Peter Rohbeck          [e-mail]         Product engineering
Digital Equipment Int. GmbH rrohbeck%kbomfg.enet.dec.com       Disk drive plant
Sudetenstrasse 5/POB 1356   ...!decwrl!kbomfg.dec.com!rrohbeck)      Kaufbeuren
W-8950 Kaufbeuren           (+49) 8341 / 91-4473                        Germany
#include "disclaimer.h"

Article 1215 of 1227, Wed 09:26.
Subject: Re: Stripping debugging info from a Win32 binary
From: [e-mail] (Paul Butcher)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uunet!pipex!harlqn.co.uk!harlqn!paulb
Organization: Harlequin Ltd, Cambridge, UK
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 14 Oct 92 08:26:13 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News Account)

In article <d0zz3c#@rpi.edu> [e-mail] (A. Andre Asselin) writes:
>[e-mail] (Paul Butcher) writes:
>>I'm sure this is just me being stupid, but I can't seem to find a way
>>to strip debugging information from a Win32 binary.  I know I can "just"
>>recompile, but I've got about a 2 hour recompilation time at the moment
>
> [Stuff about shareware coff dumper deleted]
>   As an aside, can't you just relink instead of going through the whole
>recompilation process?  I haven't looked closely at the options available for
>LINK/COFF, but with the old LINK, you'd only get debugging info in the .EXE
>if you specified /CO on the LINK command line.  I'd have thought that that
>was the way it still worked.

Whoops!  My fault - I should have mentioned this in my original posting.

One of the first things I tried (of course) was linking without debug info
(this is still a pain in the arse - link time is about 10 mins!), but the
.EXE I ended up with wasn't recognised by the OS as an executable!  I tried
this a couple of times with the same result.

It seems that if I want an executable without debug info, I have to have a
load of objects without debug info :-(

If anyone has any idea what's going on here, I'd love to hear about it...

Ta.

PaulB->msgCount++

Article 1216 of 1227, Wed 13:13.
Subject: Re: WIN NT Beta?
From: [e-mail] (Ralf-Peter Rohbeck)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!rdg.dec.com!uvo.dec.com!kboeng.enet.dec.com!rrohbeck
Organization: Digital Equipment Int. GmbH
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 14 Oct 92 12:13:16 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (News Account)
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (D. Kirk Darnell) writes:
>Can someone tell me what the latest news is on the Windows NT beta?
>When will it ship, etc?
Presumably, it'll be identical to the second SDK, minus some tools?
That is, it should appear at the end of October?
Will the preliminary SDK users be beta sites as well?
How will the reporting channels for the beta program look like?
Compu$erve only?
--
===============================================================================
Ralf-Peter Rohbeck          [e-mail]         Product engineering
Digital Equipment Int. GmbH rrohbeck%kbomfg.enet.dec.com       Disk drive plant
Sudetenstrasse 5/POB 1356   ...!decwrl!kbomfg.dec.com!rrohbeck)      Kaufbeuren
W-8950 Kaufbeuren           (+49) 8341 / 91-4473                        Germany
#include "disclaimer.h"

Article 1217 of 1227, Wed 14:20.
Subject: CommonDialog question
From: [e-mail] (Donato Miranda [ext 241])
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uunet!noc.near.net!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!caen!nic.umass.edu!m2c!crackers!transfer!applix!donato
Organization: Applix, Inc., Westboro, MA
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 14 Oct 92 13:20:40 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.misc



ok, i'm using Microsoft SDK, C7.0 under NT.
my question is, can i customize a COmmonDialog (e.g. make it modeless)
without using a resource file.
i'm assuming the OFN_ENABLETEMPLATE flag corresponds to
a dialog template defined in a resource file.
is there a way to do this in memory?
thanks!

donato miranda
[e-mail]

Article 1218 of 1227, Wed 19:01.
Subject: Push/Pop windows
From: [e-mail] (Mike Jones)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uunet!emba-news.uvm.edu!emba-news!jones
Organization: University of Vermont, EMBA Computer Facility
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:01:29 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

Okay, I can pop a window to the top,  is there a way I can push that
window to the back.  I have several windows that overlap, and I would
like to get to one in the middle, put I can't pop it because it is
completely covered by the top window.  How can I get rid of the top
window (short of stowing it).

I am told that there is a way that to "autoraise" a window when the
mouse is moved to it.  Just wondering if there was a way to bind
mousekeys-keybdkeys to perform some other window manager functions.

Thanks,
        Mike.

Article 1219 of 1227, Wed 11:21.
Subject: Future Domain 1680 driver missing?
Keywords: scsi driver
From: [e-mail] (Miron Cuperman)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!rzsun2.informatik.uni-hamburg.de!news.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE!Sirius.dfn.de!dct.zrz.tu-berlin.de!math.fu-berlin.de!news.belwue.de!ira.uka.de!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!uw-beaver!cs.ubc.ca!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!miron
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 14 Oct 92 10:21:01 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

I have a Future Domain 1680 SCSI card.  The setup diskette seems
to be missing the driver for this card.  Windows NT itself fails
to recognize the drives attached to the card.  Does anybody know
why the driver is missing and where I might get it?
--
        Miron Cuperman <[e-mail]>            (NeXTmail ok)

ImmortalCyberComputingLaissezfaire

Article 1220 of 1227, Wed 17:44.
Subject: new Dell BIOS fixes 16meg limit problem
Summary: new BIOS upgrade fixes 16meg limit problem
From: [e-mail] (Jim Morton [ext 237])
Path: ub4b!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!rzsun2.informatik.uni-hamburg.de!news.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE!Sirius.dfn.de!news.belwue.de!ira.uka.de!yale.edu!jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!transfer!applix!jim
Organization: Applix, Inc., Westboro, MA
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:44:56 GMT

while the FAQ said that the Dell 486 A09 BIOS fixed the 16meg max
memory problem, it didn't. BUT: A10 is out and fixes the problem!
I am happily using NT on a 24meg Dell 486 now. For the others who
had the same problem:

    1) Call Dell's support BBS at 512-338-8528  (1200/2400/V.32)
    2) Download 486DA10.EXE or 486PA10.EXE depending on which
       model machine you have. You'll need binary download
       protocol support like X/Y/ZModem, Kermit, etc.
    3) Run the .EXE to unzip the Flash burner and ROM files
    4) Run FLASH.EXE to burn the new BIOS into your flash ROM
       (nice touch, Dell - BIOS chips suck!)
    5) Reboot and rejoice!

psyched,
--
Jim Morton, Applix Inc., Westboro, MA
...uunet!applix!jim    [e-mail]

Article 1221 of 1227, Wed 23:22.
Subject: MS: New Windows NT DDK info
Keywords: DDK
From: [e-mail] (Dwight Matheny)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uunet!microsoft!hexnut!dwightm
Organization: Microsoft
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:22:10 GMT

Thanks to everyone who commented on our pricing/packaging plans
for the Windows NT Preliminary DDK. In response to your requests
we have decided to lower the price for the DDK, and offer a CD-only
version of the product. Here's the new US pricing:

        DDK CD-ROM only-                        $69
        DDK CD-ROM with hard-copy documentation $399

This pricing is consistent with our SDK pricing, and includes updates
and the final version of the DDK. The documentation will be included
on the CD in both Postscript and Write format, and all the device
driver functions will be documented in Winhelp.

The DDK will be available before the end of November. If you are in
the US and  currently own the Win32 SDK, you will be receiving a
mailing on the DDK in mid-November which will include 4 page
product datasheet, and an order coupon. We encourage you to order
via this coupon since we are unable to keep up with extremely high
call volumes the past few weeks. You will receive this coupon in
plenty of time before the product ships.

International customers should contact their local MS office for
ordering, pricing, and  availability information.

One other important change which you should be aware of. Everyone
who purchases the hard-copy documentation for the DDK will receive
the new book "Inside Windows NT" from MS Press. This book will
not be on the CD.

Again, thanks for your feedback.

Dwight Matheny
Product Manager- SDKs and DDKs

Article 1222 of 1227, Thu 01:57.
Subject: Re: Future Domain 1680 driver missing?
From: [e-mail] (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!cs.widener.edu!hela.iti.org!usc!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zazen!doug.cae.wisc.edu!umn.edu!math.fu-berlin.de!Sirius.dfn.de!solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de!root
Organization: Techn. Univ. Clausthal
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:57:35 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (Operator)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)

In  <[e-mail]>  [e-mail] (Miron Cuperman) writes:
> I have a Future Domain 1680 SCSI card.  The setup diskette seems
> to be missing the driver for this card.  Windows NT itself fails
> to recognize the drives attached to the card.  Does anybody know
> why the driver is missing and where I might get it?
> --

There is a bugfix release available on ftp.uu.net in
/vendor/microsoft/compuserve-libs

Christoph
--
Realname: Christoph H. Hochstaetter
Internet: [e-mail]
Bitnet  : HAMPE2 AT DMRHRZ11
Fido    : 2:243/660

Article 1223 of 1227, Thu 05:37.
Subject: Win/NT RPC questions (remote callback,  nesting)
From: [e-mail] (Tal Dayan)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!ames!kronos.arc.nasa.gov!iscnvx!netcomsv!netcom.com!tal
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 15 Oct 92 04:37:40 GMT



This question is concerning Win NT Remote Procedure Call (RPC) tool.

I need to port a distributed client/server system to NT and am looking into
ways of using MS RPC for the interprocess/intersystem communication.

A typical interaction between a client  and a server looks like this

1.  Client establish a connection with the server.

2.  Client requests asynchronous report (in a form of callback function) on
event monitored by the server.

3.  Whenever such an event occurs, the server calls a client function with
parameters that describe the event.

As the callback mechanism of MS RPC is an extension to the DCE/RPC standard,
I would like to avoid it.  To get the callback functionality, the server and
the client establish a be directional RPC connection such that each is both
an RPC server and client (i.e. two .IDL files, one for each direction).  I
have implemented a working prototype and it seems to work.

My questions to you are:

1.  Is this is the 'right'way to have a callback RPC from the server to the
client.

2.  I have tested the prototype with recursive calls (i.e. the client calls
the client which calls the server which ..., up to some termination
condition).  I have found however the maximum nesting level is one even
though the first argument in RpcServerListen() is 30 (max number of remote
calls serviced at the same time.

3.  When the client establish the connection and the reversed connection, it
starts a thread which performs RpcServerListen() and then (remote) call the
server to establish a the reversed connection.  This remote call should be
started only when RpcServerListen() has done the initialization and is ready
for incoming calls.  I could not find however a way to tell when it is ready
to accept the incoming calls.

If you have any other comments/hints regarding RPC or can share your
experience with me, please let me know.

Thanks in advanced

Tal

--

 =======================================================================
 Tal Dayan (TM)             [e-mail]              [e-mail]
 =======================================================================

Article 1224 of 1227, Wed 19:58.
Subject: Re: Proaudio 16 + NEC CD-ROM
From: [e-mail] (Victor Johnson)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uunet!think.com!sdd.hp.com!scd.hp.com!hplextra!hpfcso!vlj
Organization: Dances with Hawks
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:58:54 GMT

> Art Baker writes:
>
> > Michael Bishop writes:
> >
> >My question is:  Will the Windows NT Beta release (scheduled for this
> >October) have support for the Proaudio 16 soundcard?  Will this support
> >also include the SCSI portion of the soundcard so that I can get access
> >to my CD-ROM while running Windows NT?
>
>  A call to Media Vision's technical folks reveals that Media Vision has
> no plans to support the PAS-16 under Windows NT.  It is their opinion
> that their customers should be able to get by with the SoundBlaster
> emulation features of the PAS-16.
>
>  If Trantor writes a driver for the SCSI controller, then at least the
> CD-ROM drive would work under NT.  I don't know what Trantor's plans
> are.
>
>  You might want to give Media Vision a call and register your opinion on
> their decision:
>
>       BBS:    [phone]
>       voice:  [phone]

  I did so to learn that they have recently changed their position.  They
  now claim that they *will* support the ProAudio 16 under Windows NT and
  expect to be releasing drivers in mid '93.

  They have also established a "waiting list" for those wishing to obtain
  the drivers as soon as they are released.  If you want to be put on this
  waiting list, call

         1-800-638-2807

  and traverse the voice-mail menu labyrinth to get to Customer Support.
  They will take your name/address and ostensibly will provide the driver
  when ready for public consumption.

  Cheers,
  Victor Johnson
  --------------

Article 1225 of 1227, Thu 00:13.
Subject: User processes and wiring down memory
From: [e-mail] (Roy D'Souza)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!cs.widener.edu!eff!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!apollo.hp.com!cupnews0.cup.hp.com!scd.hp.com!hplextra!hplred!dsouza
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:13:25 GMT


Page 31 of the 'Programmers Reference: Overviews' states that "..it is not
possible for a process to lock a page so it cannot be swapped out..."

However, the 'Programmer's Reference: Application Programmers Interface,
Part 2', page 347 describes a function in Win32 called 'VirtualLock' which
"...locks the specified range of the processes address space into memory.
This range is present whenever the application is running...."

Is this contradictory, or do I misunderstand the use of lock ("wire in
memory"?) in these cases?

Thanks,

Roy
------------------------------
Roy D'Souza [e-mail]

Article 1226 of 1227, Wed 23:24.
Subject: Re: NT Under SCO Unix
From: [e-mail] (peter da silva)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uunet!kithrup!stanford.edu!agate!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!nuchat!sugar!ficc!peter
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:24:35 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Guy Harris) writes:
> >As you pointed out, 286 are cheap: and they are good for text based
> >applications. That's why WNT should not restrict itself to graphical
> >applications: a minimum to run a window GUI is a good 386

> Umm, a minimum to run WNT, GUI or no, is a 386.  I don't think Microsoft
> gives a damn about making it run on 286's, and frankly, I suspect
> that's the correct decision on their part.

Actually, at least one Microsoft employee has indicated that they don't much
care if it runs on a 386SX, either. I take that to imply that a >16MB memory
requirement is not out of the question.
--
Peter da Silva                                         `-_-'
Ferranti Intl. Ctls. Corp.                              'U`
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012           "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
[phone]                       "Tjener, denne ret er stadig levende."

Article 1227 of 1227, Thu 09:35.
Subject: Re: Multiuser NT???
From: [e-mail] (Alistair Banks)
Path: ub4b!mcsun!uunet!microsoft!hexnut!alistair
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Date: 15 Oct 92 08:35:39 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mikael Wahlgren) writes:
>don't understand the low-budget a shareware-program starts with

We designed the cd-rom only option to be most attractive for developers with
limited budgets, whether developing shareware or not. $69 for final
product and pre-releases, or reasonable equivalent in other countries, set
a new low for comparable products. We have no program to give away the
documents, and instead, are placing emphasis on making the vast amount
of information readable on-line, and printable in sections. You will find
that this has improved further in the imminent "beta" release

-- Alistair