Windows Expert/Windows Expert.iso/windownt/week16.zip/WEEK16.MSG

Text File | 1992-10-16 | 448KB | 12,533 lines

#: 12041 S1/Non-tech service
    11-Oct-92  08:37:01
Sb: Address change
Fm: Charles Gallo 74020,3224
To: SYSOP (X)

Hi,
        Who do I report a change of shipping address to. I've gotten the
pre-release, and I want to make sure that the future rels. go to my new
address.

Charles Gallo

There is 1 Reply.


#: 12122 S1/Non-tech service
    12-Oct-92  10:36:48
Sb: #12041-Address change
Fm: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143
To: Charles Gallo 74020,3224 (X)

Hi Charles,

If you did not get the letter they send out, contact Developer Services here
at MS at [phone] and they should be able to take the change of address.
TTYL,

   Steve



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12100 S1/Non-tech service
    11-Oct-92  23:54:28
Sb: #11590-NT BETA
Fm: Jim Ayson 76300,2074
To: Karl Mitschke 73650,150 (X)

Hello Karl. Got your San Mig-drenched message. Maybe I should upload a case or
two <g> Unfortunately, Subic Bay is no more, as you may have heard....
regards, JIM of ADB

#: 12238 S1/Non-tech service
    13-Oct-92  21:38:16
Sb: #11590-NT BETA
Fm: GMS 100063,2012
To: Karl Mitschke 73650,150 (X)

Just pay me a visit at MUNICH. If only for the beer, it is worth a visit!

Gerhard


There is 1 Reply.

#: 12251 S1/Non-tech service
    13-Oct-92  23:18:16
Sb: #12238-NT BETA
Fm: Karl Mitschke 73650,150
To: GMS 100063,2012

I would love to pay a visit... I mean, just look at my name, I am ready for
the beer! I have never travelled in Europe, Hope to take a trip next year, and
I have already done the Asian tour, so I figure it is time to discover my
roots.

Mabey at Octoberfest....

Karl

#: 12212 S1/Non-tech service
    13-Oct-92  15:21:16
Sb: NT registration
Fm: Steve Cramp - C/Systems 70471,137
To: SYSOP (X)

I can't remember if there was a product registration card with NT when I rcvd
it.  Is there supposed to be one, or am I automatically registered by buying
the pkg?  I have a few MS reg cards laying around, so if there is one then if
I had the product code, maybe I could match up to one of them.

Thanks, Steve

#: 12342 S1/Non-tech service
    14-Oct-92  14:58:33
Sb: #12212-NT registration
Fm: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143
To: Steve Cramp - C/Systems 70471,137 (X)

Hi Steve,

Developer Services should have registered you when you ordered the Win32 SDK.
If you do not receive an update, you can contact them to make sure they have
your information correct. You should, however, already be on the list for the
next update. TTYL,

  Steve

#: 12035 S1/Non-tech service
    11-Oct-92  01:51:00
Sb: Recommend Message Tools
Fm: Otto Fung 76260,631
To: Sysop (X)

Hello Sysop,

        I am now under the process helping CIS Forum MSWIN32 to make their
messages available for download weekly, just like what you are doing on this
forum to post WEEK??.ZIP for people to download every week. I've got the
TAPCIS compatable CIS navigator running well now. But I need some suggestion
for a tool that can make my MSWIN32.MSG message file into readable text file
format which threaded messages are group together in one place, just like the
format using in WEEK??.ZIP file. Any suggestion for a TAPCIS tools? I look
into TAPORDER and TAPPET. But still got no idea which one to use. Or there are
something even better than those? Thanks.

        Otto Fung

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12123 S1/Non-tech service
    12-Oct-92  10:36:57
Sb: #12035-Recommend Message Tools
Fm: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143
To: Otto Fung 76260,631 (X)

Hi Otto,

I haven't tried all the tools available, but what I do right now is use Recon
to connect the message threads. Since the message files get too big for Recon,
I first run a program I wrote that splits the messages into files by section
(S1.MSG, S2.MSG,...), run Recon in batch mode to reconnect all the threads in
each section, copy all the sections back together, then run two other programs
that do some filtering (take out my private messages and the funny Recon
characters). Its all in a batch file now and takes about a minute. It  is
around a five stage process and quite a bit of a hack, but it works fine until
I can take the time to throw something more efficient together :-).

I plan to write an app that does all this for me and statistics as well when I
get a chance, but that probably will not happen until after the beta (!).

If you run into any thread reconnection utilities that can handle 500K+ files,
though, let me know. I didn't spend a lot of time hunting for them, so they
already may be out there.

 Talk to you later,

 Steve



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12171 S1/Non-tech service
    12-Oct-92  22:45:48
Sb: #12123-Recommend Message Tools
Fm: Otto Fung 76260,631
To: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143 (X)

Hello,

>> I haven't tried all the tools available, but what I do right now is use
Recon to connect the message threads. Since the message files get too big for
Recon, I first run a program I wrote that splits the messages into files by
section (S1.MSG, S2.MSG,...), run Recon in batch mode to reconnect all the
threads in each section, copy all the sections back together, then run two
other programs that do some filtering (take out my private messages and the
funny Recon  characters). Its all in a batch file now and takes about a
minute. It  is around a five stage process and quite a bit of a hack, but it
works fine until I can take the time to throw something more efficient
together :-). <<

        Good idea. Is it ok to let me try these batch files? I don't feel to
start one from scratch nor want to wait too long. BTW, is there any special
benefits to be a sysop to collect messages for download than regular users
(besides you don't get charged)? Since I am not a sysop on MSWIN32 so I am
afraid that I am missing something big on that forum in order to collect
complete set of messages (like private messages, but that doesn't matter since
private message won't make public anyway.)

        I also have asked for utilities on forum TAPCIS and waiting for some
feedback. But until then, I would like to try your batch files to see if I
could get it started asap. Thanks Steve and I appreciate your help.

        Otto Fung

#: 12210 S1/Non-tech service
    13-Oct-92  14:53:22
Sb: #12171-Recommend Message Tools
Fm: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143
To: Otto Fung 76260,631

Hi Otto,

 > any special benefits to be a sysop to collect messages for
 > download than regular users (besides you don't get charged)?
 > Since I am not a sysop on MSWIN32 so I am afraid that I am
 > missing something big on that forum in order to collect
 > complete set of messages (like private messages, but that doesn't
 > matter since private message won't make public anyway.)

Being a Sysop adds no benefit to this whatsoever. You can do the same thing
and have the added plus (depending on whether you post private messages or
not) of not needing to filter out the private msgs.

I'll be happy to show you what I am doing and the batch file/programs, but
let's continue this via Mail and take it offline. Thanks and I'll talk to you
soon,

  Steve

#: 12410 S1/Non-tech service
    15-Oct-92  06:37:45
Sb: No SDK Letter
Fm: Ron Anderson 72241,113
To: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143 (X)

Steve,

I saw here, awhile back, that a letter was recently sent to all Preliminary
SDK owners as a precursor to shipping the next drop.  I have never received a
letter and I did buy the SDK.  Could you or someone else check to see if I am
in the database?

 Ron Anderson
 IRM/005
 VA Medical Center
 Highland Drive
 Pittsburgh, PA  15206

Thanks much.

Ron

#: 12236 S1/Non-tech service
    13-Oct-92  21:26:45
Sb: WFW anybody?
Fm: Jim Ayson 76300,2074
To: all

I'll try not to stay out of topic for long. But since there have been messages
here talking about connectivity between Windows for Workgroups and NT, I'd
just like to know if there is a forum on CIS that discusses Windows for
Workgroups. Thank you.

Jim of ADB

#: 12460 S1/Non-tech service
    15-Oct-92  12:05:11
Sb: #12236-WFW anybody?
Fm: wiley 70473,1351
To: Jim Ayson 76300,2074

Hi Jim,

Not yet, I'm afraid.  The product group will probably put a forum in after
product release, I think most development issues will stay with the WINSDK
forum, while enduse issues will be out in the more general WINDOWS forums.
I'll put a query in to see what's being planned.

 Stu Wiley
 Developer Service Team

#: 12359 S1/Non-tech service
    14-Oct-92  17:18:49
Sb: Page Fault on Boot
Fm: David Rudisill 72537,3445
To: sysop (X)

I am trying to install Windows NT on a MITEK 486/33 with a Connor 200MB HD and
a Teac 3.5" 1.44MB floppy.
When using the 3.5" boot floppy, it boots and then starts reading "inf
file" from \txtsetup.inf.
It then does a Page Fault and Trap 0000000E at linear address E84539C2
flags=00010046 NoCy Zr IntDis Down Trap Dis and then hangs the machine
(cold boot required).
Using an AMI BIOS.
What's crazy is that I can physically make my 5.25" drive the A drive and it
will boot up, read the file, and install the operating system.
Any ideas?

#: 12482 S1/Non-tech service
    15-Oct-92  14:27:48
Sb: #12359-Page Fault on Boot
Fm: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143
To: David Rudisill 72537,3445

Hi David,

This was a known bug in the 3.5" boot disk that is fixed in the beta version
of the OS, coming your way soon. Thanks!

  Steve

PS: In the future, be sure to post Setup type problems in section 3 - Windows
NT Setup. We have engineers in there waiting specifically for Setup questions.
Thanks!

#: 12131 S1/Non-tech service
    12-Oct-92  12:28:51
Sb: #11677-Intel EtherExpress
Fm: Jonathan Honeyball 100031,2732
To: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143 (X)


Hi Steve,

<<Yes, there will be a way to install (graphical) over the network in the next
release.>>

Does this mean that the terrors of the dos2nt process are now history? It
would be really good if that was the case.

Jon

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12149 S1/Non-tech service
    12-Oct-92  18:40:39
Sb: #12131-Intel EtherExpress
Fm: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143
To: Jonathan Honeyball 100031,2732 (X)


 >Does this mean that the terrors of the dos2nt process are now
 >history? It would be really good if that was the case.

Yes! There is a more run-of-the-mill MS-DOS based install coming in the beta
release. DOS2NT is history (Windows NT support engineers in Section 3 all
breate a collective sigh of relief <g>).

  Steve

#: 12507 S1/Non-tech service
    15-Oct-92  17:38:41
Sb: #12149-Intel EtherExpress
Fm: Alex Bronstein 75070,2452
To: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143 (X)

Hello Steve,

       One nice feature (yes there was one) of dos2nt was that I could inspect
the installation sequence, and redo just one step: the bootblock replacement
for Flexboot, if I wanted to.  This came in handy after a hard disk
corruption, followed by a format + full tape restore, which did not restore
the boot block of course.

       Will there be a way to do such micro-surgery installation in the next
release?

       Thank you,

                               Alex (aka internet:[e-mail])




#: 11914 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  10:52:20
Sb: #11888-MS networking history
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Robert Lauriston 75300,3205 (X)

Robert,

Not surprising, MS only marketed it to OEM's. Kinda like MSCDEX. You just
can't run down to the corner Egghead and buy the latest MS CD-ROM Extension
packages. As to an SDK, MS-NET is really just a redirector and not
'programmable'.

John


#: 11917 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  11:48:11
Sb: BC++/NT EEP
Fm: Timothy H. White 75300,1772
To: David Intersimone

I was told via an email you sent to me that the EEP application forms for
BC++/NT would be sent in September.  I haven't received anything, do you have
an updated status?

TIA,

Timothy

#: 11930 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  13:45:19
Sb: #11887-Basic Information
Fm: Howard Silver 76675,3476
To: Robert Lauriston 75300,3205 (X)

<<
No, the doucument I'm talking about is "A Special Preview of Inside Windows
NT" by Helen Custer.  Maybe it was part of the press material that came with
the SDK rather than the SDK itself.
>>

I remember getting that at the NT conference as part of the big
bag 'o stuff we got when we registered (the big black bag with "NT" logo on
it).

- Howard Silver

#: 11950 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  16:03:12
Sb: #11768-Event Log Errors
Fm: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143
To: Ken Granderson 76307,3571 (X)

Hi Ken,

We do not have any documentation on the Event Viewer error messages yet, but
if you seem to be getting erroneous messages you may want clear the event log
(you may have to log on as Administrator to do it) and see if you can isolate
when they are ocurring. If you could pass on the information in a bug report
(BUGFOR.TXT in Library 3) that would be great. Thanks,

  Steve

#: 11952 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  16:50:51
Sb: #11600-IRQ Sharing
Fm: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143
To: Rex Wheeler 70712,110 (X)

Hi Rex,

I do not think this is in the plans for the final release except for the EISA
architecture machines. If I can get more info (why, etc), I will try to pass
it on. TTYL,

  Steve

#: 11990 S2/General Discussion
    10-Oct-92  07:24:22
Sb: #11791-NT= OS2/3.0
Fm: William F. Zachmann 76004,3657
To: Paul Bradshaw 70003,5145 (X)

Paul,

You apparently have some speculations of your own on this topic.  As of the
moment, I do not.  If you are interested in pursuing this topic, why don't you
do so by spelling out what *you* think about a possible WIN32 API for a
possible future version of OS/2?

Will

#: 11944 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  15:43:03
Sb: #11498-Developer Network CD?
Fm: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143
To: David A. Solomon 71561,3603 (X)

Hi David,

You can both these specs in the MSNET forum.

  MAPI and the MAPI SDK are in several files in Library
  1. Download the MAPI.INF file first for info on the SDK.
  Then you can search on the Keyword MAPI for the others.

  LSAPI is LSAPI.ZIP also in Library 1.


 Steve






There is 1 Reply.

#: 11945 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  15:43:10
Sb: #11680-DOS Games on NT?
Fm: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143
To: Jonathan Villegas 76507,2534 (X)

Hi Jonathan,

I can't say exactly what kind of performance that Windows NT will have for
these types of apps, but from the "for what its worth" department, someone
here has been running the shareware game "Castle Wolfenstein" on one of the
latest builds and it was running rather well. It is just one game, however,
and since many games are "nasty" apps, it will still be difficult to say
exactly what will work, when, and how well.

The best thing to do would be to ask again in a month or two when everyone has
the beta release. The DOS/WOW support in the July release was not completely
tested and should be much better in this release. I'm sure there are some game
players in here that will do the necessary "testing" to find out <g>.

   Steve





There is 1 Reply.

#: 12031 S2/General Discussion
    10-Oct-92  21:39:16
Sb: #11945-DOS Games on NT?
Fm: Jonathan Villegas 76507,2534
To: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143 (X)

Thanx, Steve.  I might've been a little premature here to ask about DOS game
performance on NT.

There are more than a few end users like myself who are itchin' to get
something more promising than OS/2 installed on their machines.

Necessary "testing" indeed!   :-)

        -- Jonathan

#: 12034 S2/General Discussion
    11-Oct-92  01:23:22
Sb: MHO of the whole bit
Fm: Shawn Wallack 72630,555
To: All

The name of the game isn't who designs the best OS, but, who can convince the
most people with the most money that theirs is the more intelligent choice.

Since most people are (forgive me) lemmings, IBM and MS only have to start the
ball rolling.  It's only a matter of which company can catch more people in
its malevelant snowball of public relations and other advertising.

All IBM has to do is put OS/2 on enough computers and in enough mags that it
becomes the de-facto standard for the "next generation" of OS's. However,since
OS/2 is already out, Microsoft must not only convince the masses of the merits
of NT, but also to abandon OS/2.  Then they can enjoy the lemming process,
too.

Convince the right people to switch and they'll convince the others to follow.
That's life.  That's how many products are sold. Think about Win3.1. All it is
is DOS + Win 3.0 + Patches.  But MS convinced the people that it was a new
product, somehow a "generation" above 3.0.  People bought into the story b/c
their friend or asociate or competitor did.  In actuality, MS is employing a
simple marketing strategy.

Coca-Cola introduces New Coke.  Not b/c New Coke tests show that we want a
sweeter drink, but b/c there is a limited amount of shelf space and Coke wants
to occupy as much of it as possible.  The more shelf space they control, the
more likely Coke is to benefit from brand loyalty.  Loyalty means long term
income and longevity.  Since NT will cannibalize other MS OS products, it must
be priced higher than its predecessors in order to be profitable.  MS needs
more products and more shelf space and can't lose if people buy their PR.

Marketing, sales, and PR, not quality, benefit a firm most in 1993.

My Com-Sci BS is from MIT, my EED form Harvard, my MBA from U-Penn.  I worked
12 years in the OS dept at IBM and 4 years at MS helping design and market the
Windows series.  I was a key player in the development NT.  I now own a
one-hundred-million dollar consulting firm in DC.  We work exclusively with
billion dollar MNC's and government agencies.  And if you believe that, I've
got an operating system to sell you.

#: 12023 S2/General Discussion
    10-Oct-92  18:35:45
Sb: #11844-Windows filenames
Fm: Phil Brooks 70632,1112
To: James Ferguson 71477,2345 (X)

 What are HPFS and NTFS??, Also does NT support X windows??, Or if not at the
moment, will it be portable? I also am interested to know about the ability to
use several terminals on one system.

                              Thanks, Phil Brooks

There are 3 Replies.

#: 12058 S2/General Discussion
    11-Oct-92  12:05:10
Sb: #12023-Windows filenames
Fm: John Hall 70750,2341
To: Phil Brooks 70632,1112 (X)

Hi Phil.  [At least I assume you are the same Phil I talked to a while
back.]  This is on File systems.

HPFS is the 'high performance' file system developed for OS/2 here at
MS.  It supports long file names, and a concept called extended attributes --
a limited second data stream you can attach to a file.

NTFS is MS's second crack at a better 'high performance' file system.

Quick Comparison:

file name               8.3 ASCII               254 (DBC)               255
Unicode
file size               2^32                    2^32                    2^64
partition               2^32                    2^41                    2^64
attributes      primitive               extended                extended
further
directories     unsorted                btree           btree
philosophy      simple          powerful                flexible/secure

In particular, NTFS is built to be a secure, transaction oriented
file system which will protect its structures against sudden disruption in the
presence of lazy writes.  An HPFS volume can take hours to repair itself
(worse than Unix) were an NTFS will repair in seconds.

If you want security, you have to use NTFS.
Also, NTFS provides multiple arbitrary length user defined data
streams for each file.  It can support versioning files, but I
am not sure on the status of that capability being exposed/finished.

#: 12060 S2/General Discussion
    11-Oct-92  12:17:06
Sb: #12023-Windows filenames
Fm: John Hall 70750,2341
To: Phil Brooks 70632,1112 (X)

On to other questions:

Does NT support X windows?
        Not from MS, other people are working on it.
Will NT be portable?
        NT runs on Intel and MIPS processors.
     NT will run on Alpha, and probably is somewhere at DEC.
        Other chipsets have been rumored in the press.
        NT also runs on SMP machines, including ones from NCR, Wyse,
        Sequent, and others.
Several terminals on one system:
        MS isn't providing this, mainly because [and this is a
     personal opinion] this capability is no longer needed.
        Consider: if everyone has their own GUI/CPU combination then,
     provided you can communicate with other machines thru RPC,
     Pipes, and sockets why do you *need* to login to something
     emulating an ASCII terminal?

        I believe people will probably develop this interface, anyway.

#: 12074 S2/General Discussion
    11-Oct-92  17:29:47
Sb: #12023-Windows filenames
Fm: David A. Solomon 71561,3603
To: Phil Brooks 70632,1112 (X)

Citrix Systems in Florida is doing multi-user terminal support for NT (this
was publically announced in a joint Microsoft/Citrix press release June 1st).
They did a similar product for OS/2 (and sell that now). If you want more
info, their # is 305-755-0559.

Digital will provide X server capability on Windows NT (their eXcursion
product) -- I know of noone planning X client capability for NT (if anyone
does, I'd appreciate hearing so I can incorporate this in my NT seminar).

   Dave Solomon
   Solomon Software Technologies     (..."Windows NT for VMSers")

#: 12137 S2/General Discussion
    12-Oct-92  13:58:48
Sb: #11872-Profiler Setup
Fm: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143
To: Jim McGiness 74160,1270

Hi Jim,

We have seen that problem before and are trying to narrow it down for a fix
for future versions. Thanks for the feedback!

  Steve

#: 11903 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  10:16:29
Sb: #11825-Windows NT beta update
Fm: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143
To: Mark L. Fendrick 76417,3264 (X)

Hi Mark,

You can contact MS Developer Support Services at [phone] and they
should be able to straighten things out. If you are in Canada, the number is
[phone]. In any other country, contact your subsidiary.

  Steve

#: 11967 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  18:09:58
Sb: #11857-Windows NT beta update
Fm: Dwight Matheny (MS) 70750,2340
To: Paul Fletcher [OWL] 72057,703

Correct, the end of the month date only applies to US customers. It might
apply to int'l customers as well, but you would have to find out from your
local MS office, since I am unfamiliar with their schedules.

-Dwight (MS)

#: 12151 S2/General Discussion
    12-Oct-92  18:41:36
Sb: #11885-Windows NT beta update
Fm: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143
To: Centre File 100015,3565

Hi A.L.,

 > 1.   Developers CD-Rom &

  I know the CDs are going out, but I am not sure what the delay
  will be for international shipments. Consult the folks on the
  MSDNLIB forum, they should be able to answer any MSDN CD
  questions.

 > 2.   NT Beta update.

  These will be going out in the coming weeks. Contact your
  subsidiary for a specific timeframe.

Thats about the best I can do right now. Talk to you later,

  Steve

#: 11953 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  16:58:37
Sb: Case Sensitive PW
Fm: James Ferguson 71477,2345
To: All

Man, I wish the password entry field was NOT case sensitive. I can never
remember whether my caps lock key is on or off. My PW is in uppercase, but it
seems about half the time I have to get the bad password error and try again
after hitting the caps lock key...

-- Jim F.

#: 12152 S2/General Discussion
    12-Oct-92  18:42:17
Sb: #11953-Case Sensitive PW
Fm: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143
To: James Ferguson 71477,2345 (X)

Hi James,

I believe case-sensitivity is a "feature" of Windows NT and is by design, but
I will pass the suggestion on to development so they are aware that you would
prefer it not be. Thanks for the suggestion!

  Steve



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12174 S2/General Discussion
    13-Oct-92  04:27:09
Sb: #12152-Case Sensitive PW
Fm: Anthony Murfet 70602,1634
To: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143 (X)

Actually Steve, it might be better if this "feature" had a toggle, at least
for the password. I can see some instances where case sensitivity might be
required.
                        best...Tony

#: 12194 S2/General Discussion
    13-Oct-92  10:39:32
Sb: #12174-Case Sensitive PW
Fm: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143
To: Anthony Murfet 70602,1634 (X)

Good point, Anthony. I will pass that on as well. Thanks,

  Steve

#: 11901 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  09:53:26
Sb: #11879-NT vs. NetWare
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563 (X)

Paul
 >I had to talk them out of it.

If you didn't talk them into the HP PA you probably shouldn't have done it.

This is the only UNIX box we have found that consistantly beats the RS/6000
for price/performance.

--Ben


There are 3 Replies.

#: 11935 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  14:44:49
Sb: #11901-NT vs. NetWare
Fm: Bill Lee 76366,656
To: Ben Sano 72401,2736 (X)

>This is the only UNIX box we have found that consistantly beats the RS/6000
for price/performance.

What do think about the HP box?  Let's say "price" is *not* an issue, (as you
can see, it's not coming out from my own pocket<g>)  do you still prefer HP
for any particular reasons? (comparing to RS6000s that we're looking into; The
980 and the other new stuff seems pretty good.)

#: 12000 S2/General Discussion
    10-Oct-92  09:22:54
Sb: #11901-NT vs. NetWare
Fm: Raymond Chuang 72441,3652
To: Ben Sano 72401,2736 (X)

Ben,

The HP/Apollo 700 series of workstations using the PA-RISC chipset _is_ a
superb value--a better value than a Sun SPARCstation according to some people.

I sometimes wonder will Microsoft attempt a port of Windows NT into the
PA-RISC platform; I personally think it will happen within two years.

Raymond Chuang

#: 12044 S2/General Discussion
    11-Oct-92  10:03:21
Sb: #11901-NT vs. NetWare
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Ben Sano 72401,2736 (X)

Funny you mentioned that Ben <g>. I *did* talk them into an HP PA 7XXX for
their high end needs. What I did was to eval all their needs and rather than
suggest one box for everbody, appropriate boxes for various needs strung
together via ether for perpheral sharing.  So the recommend is for on HP PA,
two Sun SPARCS (for external compat), and a few 486/66's.

So once again we find ourselves in the odd position of nothing to fight about
<g>.

                                  Paul

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12070 S2/General Discussion
    11-Oct-92  15:44:56
Sb: #12044-NT vs. NetWare
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563 (X)

Paul

No suprise that you picked the HP PA to me, it is a clear leader (not by
much but clearly ahead) at this time for many uses. MIPS HP and the RS/6000
have been very close in that area for the last 3 or 4 years or so. MIPS
machines have lagged recently , possably due to the SGI merger.

I expect these three to stay at the top of the performance heap (although
DEC main join them there or replace MIPS) for a few years more.

--Ben


There is 1 Reply.

#: 12117 S2/General Discussion
    12-Oct-92  09:54:04
Sb: #12070-NT vs. NetWare
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Ben Sano 72401,2736 (X)

Ben:

I don't have my notes handy, but I anecdotally remember that the PA was
significantly ahead of the pack as a number cruncher, which is what one
researcher needed.   I forgot to mention that I also recommended an SGI box
for one who needed to do a lot of 3D rendering.  I think there must be quite a
bit of conflict over at SGI about how or if to forge forward on the MIPS
front. I was surprised at that merger and still don't understand SGI's
strategy in doing it.

The early reports I've been getting on the DEC alpha chip aren't very hopeful.
At this point (rumor central buzzing), I'd say it's not even up to the PA or
actually close.  How this will ride DEC into the year 2001, I don't see it.

                                 Paul

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12121 S2/General Discussion
    12-Oct-92  10:23:19
Sb: #12117-NT vs. NetWare
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563

Paul
I'm getting the same sort of rumors on the Alpha.

Late, slow, runs hot, has problems etc.

Not something I would jump on as long as there are already 3 very good RISC
chips out there.

--Ben

#: 12198 S2/General Discussion
    13-Oct-92  11:11:55
Sb: #12121-NT vs. NetWare
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Ben Sano 72401,2736 (X)

Ben:

Sadly most of my adverse comments about the Alpha are coming from DEC people
using it.  Since DEC has stated this is 'it' for them until the 21st C., I'm
wondering where the company is headed.  I was once so high on DEC. It was the
company that permitted me to break away from the operations shop. A pity.

                                             Paul

#: 12150 S2/General Discussion
    12-Oct-92  18:41:00
Sb: #11855-order now or later?
Fm: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143
To: Rell W. Ambrose 70000,1062

Hi Rell,

Currently the only way to apply to the Windows NT Beta program is to either:

  1) Send a letter to

       Microsoft
       One Microsoft Way
       Redmond, WA 98052

       Attn: Windows NT Beta Program

  2) Send a FAX to 936-7329 also with the note "Attn: Windows
     NT Beta Program" on it.

In either case you should include your name, company name, hardware
configuration and any other relevant information. They prefer typed
applications if possible.

Thanks!

   Steve




There is 1 Reply.

#: 12172 S2/General Discussion
    13-Oct-92  01:18:00
Sb: #12150-order now or later?
Fm: James Ferguson 71477,2345
To: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143 (X)

re: they prefer typed applications..

What, no crayons?<g>

-- Jim F.

#: 12211 S2/General Discussion
    13-Oct-92  14:53:29
Sb: #12172-order now or later?
Fm: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143
To: James Ferguson 71477,2345 (X)

 >re: they prefer typed applications..

 >What, no crayons?<g>

Unfortunately not at this time. We also have asked people not send
Etch-a-Sketchings as these tend to get lost on the way as well <g>.

  Steve

#: 11949 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  16:03:04
Sb: #11827-ATM 2.02
Fm: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143
To: Robert H. Bernard 71210,246 (X)

Hi Robert,

The existing versions of ATM will not work on Windows NT. Adobe will have to
rewrite their drivers to provide ATM support. You may want to contact them to
see if they are working on an update yet.

 TTYL,

  Steve

#: 12272 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  06:23:47
Sb: #11949-ATM 2.02
Fm: Robert H. Bernard 71210,246
To: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143 (X)

Hi Steve,
Two points:
1. Is what you are saying is that the ATM 2.02 (32-bit) that works on  WIN31
isn't compatible with WNINT, and that attempting to install it in NT would
fail?

2. Can you address the problem I had with WINLOGOF.EXE after I called up ATM
(NT)'s control panel and selected DEINSTALL>

Bob


There is 1 Reply.

#: 12279 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  07:44:45
Sb: #12272-ATM 2.02
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: Robert H. Bernard 71210,246

Bob:

To answer your questions for Steve:

1) atm 2.02 will not work in NT.

2) one of the problems with this alpha release is that trying to load
something that does not work in WOW, can cause an internal slowndown or
actually stop the kernel.  At this point, the only way to get things back is
to push the magic button.  This is a known problem & I think I read somewhere
here that it will be fixed in the beta release.

                               bob

#: 11974 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  19:31:13
Sb: #11861-ATM 2.02
Fm: Tim Jones 70750,701
To: Bob Chronister 70363,246 (X)

Hi Robert,

Just for information purposes, what can one get from Adobe Type Manager that
can't be had (built-in) with True Type?  I can manipulate text orientation and
rotation with TT fonts, but have to buy/write special resources to manipulate
the Type 1 fonts in the same fashion.  I'm not trying to start a "debate"
here, I just don't want to miss a feature or ability of Type Manager.

Tim Jones

There are 2 Replies.

#: 12014 S2/General Discussion
    10-Oct-92  11:12:45
Sb: #11974-ATM 2.02
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: Tim Jones 70750,701

Tim:

You have indeed raised an interesting question.  TT vs type 1.  Answer is
fairly simple and most of it is based upon the amount of time that type 1
fonts have been around.  If i design a logo for someone, I use type 1 fonts.
Why, because I can supply special postscript commands and apply shadowing etc.
TT does not avail itself of this as yet.  Sure I can use Makeup etc but let's
face, not the same in my opinion.  Another factor, look at the size of TT
fonts & then look at the size of comparable type 1's.  You will be amazed.
For the professional graphics person, TT is not accepted.  Like you I don't
want to start a debate.  For the end individual user, TT is great.  If that
end user ever decides to enter the big time graphic field, he will find that
many programs either ignore TT (Illustrator for example) or tell you that the
font is not a type 1 and the effect will probably not work (Freehand).  This
might change with time, but as long as postscript sets the standard, unlikely.
In my own case, I have about 200 Type 1 fonts, mostly Adobe but a few Linotype
etc.  All top quality! I also have about 200 TT fonts, most top quality but
some just fun fonts.  I use both.  When I get serious, I use postscript & type
1.  Again, I am not trying to start an argument or debate.  Just giving you my
impression of TT versus type 1.

                               bob

#: 12019 S2/General Discussion
    10-Oct-92  14:57:55
Sb: #11974-ATM 2.02
Fm: Ron Gazaway 70055,652
To: Tim Jones 70750,701

Followin on with Bob Chronister's comments, I'm just laying out my personal
observations and don't wish to get anyone flamed up.

In printing tests of several TT vs Type 1 fonts, I've noticed that the kerning
is often better in the Type 1. Remember, that most of the TT fonts available
have not had the massive tender loving care invested in them as was with Arial
and New Times Roman.

I've found that Type Align produces _much_ better quality output to paper than
Makeup does. I'm using a LaserMaster 800. Perhaps Makeup/TT just doesn't
handle device independence as well? Has anyone tryed Makeup going out to a
service shop for true high resolution on an image setter?

In my case (486dx33), for both screen display and printing, ATM 2.0 is faster
than TT. For this test I use a Write document with about 20 lines, each line
is a larger point size than the previous, ranging from 6pt to 60pt. The Type 1
fonts are finished rendering visibly sooner. I also notice the difference when
printing 'font cataloges' using Fonter or Fontshow.

I am not wholly _against_ TT, I use them when appropriate. But, by default my
system is configured to use Type 1, and TT gets used mainly only for
compatibility with other Win3.1 users (and you can only really count on them
haveing Arial and New Times Roman.)

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12038 S2/General Discussion
    11-Oct-92  07:29:05
Sb: #12019-ATM 2.02
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: Ron Gazaway 70055,652

Ron:

Good comments about TT vs type 1.  I concur completely.  Makeup is ok but is
really not for serious work.  Type align is better but wish the damn thing was
not a standalone product.

Looks like there are at least two of us here <bg>.            bob

#: 12059 S2/General Discussion
    11-Oct-92  12:13:46
Sb: #11861-ATM 2.02
Fm: Robert H. Bernard 71210,246
To: Bob Chronister 70363,246 (X)

The NT I installed from the CD-ROM comes with ATM, but the icon says v1.15,
which on windows is know to be buggy.  Version 2.02 was issued as a
replacement and is said to have a lot of problems corrected (and also the icon
says "32" which I took to mean 32-bit).  That is why I inquired about whether
I could install the 2.02 version on NT in place of the 1.15.
I received a message from Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143 telling me that I
should consult Adobe about new versions.  I suppose with the
Truetype/Postscript competition Microsoft isn't pushing Adobe to do NT work.
When you say "Type 1 support" I presume you mean Type 1 fonts.  Doesn't the
ATM 1.15 that came with NT have type 1 support?
Bob


There is 1 Reply.

#: 12063 S2/General Discussion
    11-Oct-92  15:03:31
Sb: #12059-ATM 2.02
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: Robert H. Bernard 71210,246

ATM came with NT?  Are you certain of this?  I am using 2.02 and nowhere in
the NT install did I see any option for ATM. Point in fact, there is printer
suppport for type 1 fonts (they will print if they are resident in printer)
but there is not any screen support.  Furthermore, non TT fonts in general are
useless in NT.

                               bob

#: 12249 S2/General Discussion
    13-Oct-92  22:57:19
Sb: WinNT
Fm: MICHAEL STEWART 71441,2724
To: Sysop (X)

Would like to get on the Beta team...  How?

#: 12250 S2/General Discussion
    13-Oct-92  22:57:55
Sb: WinNT
Fm: MICHAEL STEWART 71441,2724
To: Sysop (X)

Would like to get on the Beta team...  How?

#: 12302 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  10:26:43
Sb: #12250-WinNT
Fm: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143
To: MICHAEL STEWART 71441,2724

Hi Michael,

Currently the only way to apply to the beta program is to either:

  1) Send a letter to

       Microsoft
       One Microsoft Way
       Redmond, WA 98052

       Attn: Windows NT Beta Program 4/1

  2) Send a FAX to 936-7329 also with the note "Attn: Windows
     NT Beta Program" on it.

In either case you should include your name, company name, hardware
configuration and any other relevant information. We prefer typed applications
if possible.

 Thanks!

   Steve

#: 12326 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  13:02:13
Sb: #11789-Win NT Beta
Fm: Vicente Rodrigo 100040,110
To: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143 (X)

Hi,

I have been reading a lot about the beta testing of Win NT but no message in
this conference tells EXACTLY what to do to be beta tester.
Im very interested. Could you clarify this point?
Thanks a lot.

Vicente Rodrigo,
Editor
Macworld magazine
IDG Communications

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12344 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  15:18:19
Sb: #12326-Win NT Beta
Fm: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143
To: Vicente Rodrigo 100040,110 (X)

Hi Vicente,

Currently the only way to apply to the beta program is to either:

  1) Send a letter to

       Microsoft
       One Microsoft Way
       Redmond, WA 98052

       Attn: Windows NT Beta Program 4/1

  2) Send a FAX to 936-7329 also with the note "Attn: Windows
     NT Beta Program" on it.

In either case you should include your name, company name, hardware
configuration and any other relevant information. We prefer typed applications
if possible.

There may be more ways to apply in the near future, but for now that is all
there is. Thanks!

   Steve

#: 12347 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  15:27:20
Sb: ANSI.SYS available?
Fm: john stoddard 70670,2106
To: sysop (X)

I'm just wondering, is there any way to get an ANSI.SYS or its equivalent
installed, so as to be able to get screen colors via the PROMPT string?

Yes, I know this isn't too earthshaking... just curious...

JS

#: 12153 S2/General Discussion
    12-Oct-92  18:42:50
Sb: #11598-SQL Server/Sybase for NT
Fm: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143
To: Rex Wheeler 70712,110

Hi Rex,

Some additional info - Here is the "official" word on what is going on with
Sybase:

Microsoft and Sybase are jointly developing SQL Server for Windows NT. The
first version for Windows NT will be SQL Server 4.2, which is expected to
enter beta testing in November.

#: 12301 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  10:21:56
Sb: #12153-SQL Server/Sybase for NT
Fm: James McGovern 70724,3262
To: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143 (X)

How does one sign up for this beta ? please enroll me for this one

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12345 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  15:18:26
Sb: #12301-SQL Server/Sybase for NT
Fm: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143
To: James McGovern 70724,3262

Hi James,

Currently the only way to apply to the beta program is to either:

  1) Send a letter to

       Microsoft
       One Microsoft Way
       Redmond, WA 98052

       Attn: Windows NT Beta Program 4/1

  2) Send a FAX to 936-7329 also with the note "Attn: Windows
     NT Beta Program" on it.

In either case you should include your name, company name, hardware
configuration and any other relevant information. We prefer typed applications
if possible.

Thanks!

   Steve

#: 12278 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  07:42:47
Sb: UNICODE Fonts
Fm: Kent Olsen 72360,3035
To: SYSOP (X)

When will UNICODE fonts be available for WinNT?

#: 12394 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  22:58:52
Sb: #12278-UNICODE Fonts
Fm: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143
To: Kent Olsen 72360,3035 (X)

Hi Kent,

We will be shipping a Unicode font and Russian keyboard layout in the next
release of the Win32SDK so developers can get a head start on developing
Unicode enabled applications. For more info, post a message in the Unicode
section (#15) of the MSWIN32 forum as this is their forte. Thanks!

  Steve

#: 11906 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  10:23:28
Sb: Binary Portability
Fm: Andy Champ 100064,2267
To: ALL

Question for MS:

Are there any plans to adopt a portable binary format for NT to allow shipping
of shrink-wrapped apps. on multiple processor types?



There are 3 Replies.

#: 11919 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  11:56:50
Sb: #11906-Binary Portability
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Andy Champ 100064,2267 (X)

Andy
Do you mean a portable binary format like coff or an Arch. Neutral
Distribution Format?

--Ben

#: 12399 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  04:09:34
Sb: #11919-Binary Portability
Fm: Andy Champ 100064,2267
To: Ben Sano 72401,2736 (X)

Ben, ANDF was exactly what I had in mind.  Looks like MS aren't interested in
this - could be a mistake!



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12408 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  05:47:27
Sb: #12399-Binary Portability
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Andy Champ 100064,2267

Andy
 >Could be a mistake

Doubt it. Move from an Intel to an non-Intel version of NT and you have to
buy upgrades. You can set the price to allow you the maximum profit in the
market depending on the relative cost of SMP to RISC hardware. This gives
you profit and flexibility. And ANDF give the customer convinence that is
all.

--Ben

#: 11932 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  14:24:43
Sb: #11906-Binary Portability
Fm: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143
To: Andy Champ 100064,2267 (X)

Hi Andy,

I do not know of any plans for binary compatibility  (for 32-bit apps) across
different processor types in the works. Currently there is source-level
compatibility but you need to recompile for the different CPU architectures.

For additional info on this, check out MSWIN32. Talk to you later,

   Steve

#: 11963 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  17:59:09
Sb: #11906-Binary Portability
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: Andy Champ 100064,2267 (X)

Andy,

<<Are there any plans to adopt a portable binary format for NT to allow
shipping of shrink-wrapped apps. on multiple processor types?>>

There are two current binary formats which are supported right now. First is
DOS & Windows 3.x binaries. It'll run on all NT machines. Secondly ythe WIN32s
subset is portable between Windows 3.x (with WIN32s) and NT on the Intel
processor only.

All other portabilty is limited to source code. You'd need to recompile for
each NT platform.

Art

#: 12293 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  09:18:34
Sb: To NT or not to NT?
Fm: david sinfield 100112,414
To: sysop

We are having trouble planning for the future because straight answers about
hardware configuations for using NT are hard to come by. Can anyone say
categorically how much upgrading we need to do? We currently

have approx 100 users on a Novell network 20 use 386 pc's, some running
Windows 3.1. The other users have other PC's as workstations. The server is a
386 PC.

Should we even be considering NT, or is W 3.1 under DOS on the network here
for the foreseeable future?

To add a level of confusion, it is possible that we may be looking at
connecting a UNIX server running PICK for one of our database applications.
Are there plans for PICK on NT if so when and should we be considering it?
HELP HELP HELP!!!!

#: 12327 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  13:12:58
Sb: #12293-To NT or not to NT?
Fm: John Hall 70750,2341
To: david sinfield 100112,414 (X)

I don't think anyone can do categorical recommendations for your software
environment.

Windows NT is intended to run well on a 386/33 with 8MB of ram.  Of that 8Mb,
we anticipate Windows NT using 6Mb and having 2Mb left to run 2 apps the
size/complexity of Excel without thrashing.

By this standard, the PDC required about 12Mb.  The beta will be smaller, at
least 2-3Mb smaller.  That is before we have done full blown working set
tuning on Windows NT.  Our performance guru is now up to 'quite confident' we
will meet our goals.  The best anyone can do at this point is to point to
someone who generally knows what they are doing, and ask their opinion -- and
I just gave you his.

You might need either a larger machine or a smaller one.  We have Windows NT
running the Beta on a 386Sx/20 with 8Mb now.  I wouldn't want to use it, but
it isn't unuseable and it will get better.

You might be best served with Windows 3.x on your clients, running software
using Win32S, and connecting to a Windows NT server.  I would particularly
urge putting Windows NT and SQL Server on the Server, thus allowing you to
size your server according to your database needs.  (Sql Server for Windows NT
absolutely screams on a SMP box).

#: 12535 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  21:36:04
Sb: #12327-To NT or not to NT?
Fm: Darren K. Pearson 71127,2403
To: John Hall 70750,2341 (X)

John,

Do you work for MS? How do you know so much about the beta version?

Darren

#: 12079 S2/General Discussion
    11-Oct-92  18:49:24
Sb: #11643-When will NT ship?
Fm: Ladislav Nemec 70732,3207
To: Bill Herder 73417,3431

I missed the beginning of the thread. What has poor Clinton to do with the
shipment of WINNT? As a (mild) Clinto supporter, I am slightly annoyed that HE
should be responsible for MS misdeeds. He surely will screw up lots of things
on his own, as all our presidents do, but WINNT? Give him a break.

But, then, I do not know what I am talking about since I missed the thread.
Wasn't Perot a lot of fun tonight?
Regards, LN.

#: 12549 S2/General Discussion
    16-Oct-92  06:05:25
Sb: #12079-When will NT ship?
Fm: Bill Herder 73417,3431
To: Ladislav Nemec 70732,3207

LN,
Sorry, I wasn't really trying to insinuate any association between Clinton and
MS.  I was just responding to a thread that accused members of this forum of
being total Rep. flunkies.  I guess I'm just tired of hearing about how
wonderful Clinton is when my family _knows_ the guy, and I've experienced his
policies first hand!  Maybe when the rest of the country goes through it,
we'll all have learned from the experience.  BTW, I agree that nobody by MS is
responsible for their misdeeds.

Bill

#: 12557 S2/General Discussion
    16-Oct-92  07:48:16
Sb: Freecell
Fm: Teleware, Inc. 73547,3052
To: All

On the lighter side...

Has anyone tried the Freecell game included with NT?  I've become more
addicted to it than the Windows 3.1 Solitaire!  A friend of mine came to visit
the other day and I showed it to them on my home machine and they played for
hours.

So, have you developed any strategy.  I found the strategy hints in the online
help to be lacking to say the least.  Therefore, here are some of my strategy
hints:

1) Move aces up as soon as possible
2) Try to develop "King Columns".  That is, try to get a king at the top of a
column and add to it.  I place of a king, some other higher card.  Once this
is established, add as many cards to it as possible as this type of column
does not lock lower cards (that eventually go to the top).
3) Be careful of putting cards up top that aren't automatically done for you.
For example, if all of your red 4's are up top and you still have some black
3's, you'll only be able to move them by putting them in your temporary blocks
or hope that you get a black ace and 2 up top.

Also, after learning the game, I've built up a record of 22 wins and 11
losses.  Can anyone beat that?   :)

Bruce Terry
Teleware, Inc.

#: 11904 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  10:23:19
Sb: #11587-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Andy Champ 100064,2267
To: Dale Lewallen [PC/C] 76000,21 (X)


>Kahn's statement (as quoted by you) raises an interesting question: as OS/2
>2.0 gets better and better with its Windows 3.1 support, don't you think some
>percentage of current Windows developers will just not write for OS/2 since
>"OS/2 runs my app just fine under WINOS231?"

I've just spent most of this week on an OS/2 2.0 course and I can answer part
of that for you.

It's all in the good old wait icon.  As OS/2 only has a single command queue
(or whatever it's called) to hold kb/mouse data when a Windows App has a good
think the desktop is locked out.  OS/2 apps tend not to do this as they are
multithreaded with one thread pulling in messages and others doing the
thinking.  Of course NT doesn't have this problem as it has multiple queues!

BTW for everyone out there who thinks NT is RAM thirsty -

OS/2 2.0 Minimum RAM 4Mb. BUT if you're on a clone not a PS/2 add another.
Then if you want HPFS add another 2. Total: 7Mb.  And no LAN. If NT really
does get into 8Mb RAM use WON'T be a problem.  PERCEPTION might be - there's a
lot of shouting going on!

Andy.

#: 11905 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  10:23:24
Sb: #11335-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Andy Champ 100064,2267
To: Ben Sano 72401,2736 (X)

>No need to check, you made my point, it will (IMO) be more cost effective to
>move to a RISC machine and update your applications (the BIG advantage of NT
>on multiple CPU's after all) then it will be to move to an SMP X86 machine
>for the forseeable future.

Problem to address here is binary portability.  You can't pick up the BINARY
of an NT/Intel app & run it on an NT/ALpha or NT/Mips machine.   Source might
port easy.  BUT you CAN run it on an NT/Intel SMP box.




There is 1 Reply.

#: 11918 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  11:56:45
Sb: #11905-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Andy Champ 100064,2267 (X)

Andy
If software costs and upgrades in the NT market aren't cheap then NT will
have all the success of UNIX and less.

--Ben

#: 11923 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  13:03:06
Sb: #11868-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mark Vodhanel 72456,463
To: Chuck Ebbert 76306,1226 (X)

 >And if everyone is using the Windows interface, why did IBM just expand
 >to *four* forums here?

'*four* forums'?...., is that supposed to be a lot for a company that dwarfs
MS in size?  How many does MS have?, more than 4, that's for sure...

-Mark

There are 2 Replies.

#: 11977 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  20:53:42
Sb: #11923-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: Mark Vodhanel 72456,463 (X)

Of course, IBM does have more than four CIS fora; it's the OS/2 side that has
expanded from one to four fora in little more than a year.  You know, growing
interest in and use of OS/2 does not necessarily mean diminishment of interest
and prospective use of Windows, in its various flavors; the converse is
equally true.

#: 11982 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  21:49:22
Sb: #11923-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Mark Vodhanel 72456,463 (X)

Mark
How many does MS have for one product?
--Ben


There is 1 Reply.

#: 11999 S2/General Discussion
    10-Oct-92  09:22:50
Sb: #11982-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Raymond Chuang 72441,3652
To: Ben Sano 72401,2736 (X)

Ben,

Psst--Microsoft has these following forums for Windows users:

WINNEW -- for new users
WINADV -- for intermediate and advanced users
WINSDK -- for users of the Microsoft Windows SDK
WINNT -- for Windows NT SDK users
WIN32 -- for Win32 API general questions
MSEXCEL -- for Excel users
MSWORD -- for Word for Windows users

I'm sure there are more forums I've missed, so....

Raymond Chuang


There is 1 Reply.

#: 12011 S2/General Discussion
    10-Oct-92  11:10:36
Sb: #11999-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Raymond Chuang 72441,3652 (X)

Ray
 Seems to be at least 2 product there Ray.

Or are they going to start packing both NT and Win3.1 as a single product?

--Ben

#: 11934 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  14:44:38
Sb: #11868-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Bill Lee 76366,656
To: Chuck Ebbert 76306,1226 (X)

>And if everyone is using the Windows interface, why did IBM just expand to
*four* forums here?

Busy as h*ll, that's why!  This thing is going to surprise a lot of MS hyped
up, Win or die non-believers.

BTW, it has been quite a long while since I used the "Windows interface", It
feels like a step backwards, and it does look kinda ugly to me now.  Well,
just doing my part to check out this Beta code (Win 3.1 under OS/2, that it.)
It is certainly much faster than 3.0.  I didn't quite agree to the Better Win
than Win claim after 3.1's release, but that is changing now (not that it
matters to me).

#: 11954 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  16:59:18
Sb: #11845-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Charles Dort 73117,2174
To: Tom A. Hodges 70550,2540 (X)

Tom,

I'm trying to be respectful, here, but I came to this forum to learn about NT,
and it doesn't help me, and I doubt if it helps anyone else, here, to read
things presented as facts which simply aren't true.

<<I am a product evaluator for a large company>>

I hope they didn't pay you to evaluate the products you listed in your message
here, because your "report" both implies and overtly states some things which
simply aren't true.  Most OS/2 programs currently are "old" versions, not
truly designed for OS/2 2.0.  They just released the OS, after all, a few
months ago.

The most glaring errors you reported were <<WordPerfect OS/2 version is
character based, and far behind their Windows version (version 6) in
features/functionality.>>

Holy cow, Tom!  The only version of WP for OS/2 available at this time isn't
even current!  It's comparable to their DOS version a version ago, 5.0, not
5.1!  And their current Windows version isn't version 6, it's "5.1," even
though in some ways it's obviously 1.0 (for windows).  If you don't know that
WP Corp is furiously working on version 6.0 (for DOS, Windows, and OS/2 2.0)
and hasn't even announced  a definite release date for 6.0 yet, you clearly
didn't find out much about WP's products while doing "product evaluation" for
your company.

<<How many companies are pre-loading Windows on their Systems?  How many are
pre-loading OS/2?>>  Hey, Tom, how many companies pre-loaded Windows on their
systems a few months after 3.0's release?  I don't know, but I'd be willing to
bet that more systems are loaded with  OS/2 2.0 now than were with Windows 3.0
a comparable amount of time after its release.  Does this mean anything; I
don't think so.


     [continued in the reply]

There are 2 Replies.

#: 11955 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  16:59:45
Sb: #11954-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Charles Dort 73117,2174
To: Charles Dort 73117,2174 (X)

     [continued from message number 11954]

<<The USERS (who incidently make the FINAL decisions) are getting VERY used to
the Windows interface very fast.   Most of them run it on their machines at
home.  They Aren't going to want to change to something that looks and feels
as different as OS/2.>>

 Uh, Tom, there were a LOT of users used to and running DOS, who had to work a
little to learn Windows, but did.  I, for one, actually resisted GUIs for a
while; they seemed patronizing and inefficient.  After all, how much
intelligence does it take to learn DEL, COPY, MD, CD, RD, etc.  The Lisa/Mac
procedure of dragging a file to a cartoon of a garbage can seemed like a sad
joke, to me.  But I am now a GUI believer.  And it took me a while to learn
Windows, and it took me a while to learn OS/2's WorkPlace Shell, but after
learning both, OS/2's object-oriented approach is much more intuitive and
useable (at least to me).

I like OS/2 2.0, but I'm not here to talk about OS/2.  I'm here to learn more
about NT.  It sounds like it will be a heck of an OS, and maybe one day I'll
be using it instead (at present, it doesn't sound like it's for me, but I'm
here to learn).  But truly, I think that a few OS/2 fanatics who misrepresent
MS products and a few MS fanatics who misrepresent the OS/2 side, help no one.
I think that Windows is a great product, and that NT sounds amazing.  I'm
using OS/2 2.0 at the moment, but I used DOS once before, and Windows; heck, I
recall punching programs onto a deck of cards and handing them to the 360
system clerk...  Times change, we will all be using different systems at
different times.  Probably none of us can imagine what we'll be doing in 5
years (direct neural links to the net of multi-processors by ESP? <g>).

But, gosh, when there is so much controversy about all this, and so much FUD
and obfustication of the facts, how about not saying something unless you
really know it's true?

Thanks,

Charles

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12098 S2/General Discussion
    11-Oct-92  22:46:54
Sb: #11955-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Phil Brooks 70632,1112
To: Charles Dort 73117,2174 (X)

 Charles, I think you struck a tone in mentioning the punch cards and 360
machines. I remember that paper tape that works with the 300 baud teletype
machines...
 But the real point here is that not matter what happens to Windows and OS/2
things will change. I think it somewhat foolish, as an evaluator for a large
company, to observe what is happening in the market TODAY, and to plan for
TOMORROW. With the pace of change in computing today, this concept is
essential to success. [A
 I personally feel the operating system battle of the future will be between
1. Unix/X-windows (my favorite) 2. Microsoft (NT or other) and 3. IBM/Apple
(Pink). The latter will most likely not gain acceptance unless it runs on the
386/486 clones. As both IBM and Apple also make hardware, that will probably
not happen. A possible forth in the battle is NeXT, as they are developing
their OS for a 486 platform. The only drawback will be the cost, around
1500.00 for the developers package.

                                   Phil Brooks

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12167 S2/General Discussion
    12-Oct-92  20:36:39
Sb: #12098-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Charles Dort 73117,2174
To: Phil Brooks 70632,1112

Phil,

You're right, and I have to say, I'm glad my career isn't on the line trying
to predict what my company will be doing with computers several years from
now!  I don't have a crystal ball!  I recall thinking about my grandmother,
and how she grew up with horses and buggies, her father fought in the "Indian
Wars," and she lived to see men on the moon!

Well, I'm getting to be rather a "graybeard" now, and I actually don't always
like to think about how different the world is now compared to that of my
childhood...  It's a little frightening to thing how quickly things change.

I enjoyed your thoughts,

Charles

#: 12221 S2/General Discussion
    13-Oct-92  17:21:06
Sb: #12167-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Darren Davis 71174,262
To: Charles Dort 73117,2174

I guess the only thing one could add to this comment on the future of
computing is a reminder about the good old days when machines shipped with 16K
and that was more than we could ever use.  Of course, we could always look to
the short-sided nature of the 640K barrier as another example of good planning
for the future.

I will have to argue, however, that there is no way to predict a winner.  I
think that you can choose IBM, Microsoft, Apple, or UNIX and be guaranteed to
benefit from the decision.  It all depends on how much time and talen you are
willing to invest.

I tend to prefere UNIX for power and Microsoft for usability- since I have a
Sun I do not want to give X a usability point although I do have and use
X11R5.  I am hoping that NT might be the dawn of a new portable, expandible
operating system that meets both of these needs.  At the same time, I feel
confident that if I recommend either a Microsoft or UNIX system that I will be
able to keep pace with the future.

Darren

#: 11976 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  19:47:22
Sb: #11954-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Tom A. Hodges 70550,2540
To: Charles Dort 73117,2174 (X)

Wow!... I didn't mean to start something.  Charles, thanks for your comments
on my competence as a product evaluator.
I don't evaluate WP products, someone else does.  But the copy of WordPerfect
for Windows that I have says v6, not v5.1.  The copy of WordPerfect for OS/2
says 5.0 (though I know 5.1 is now avail).  Our users abandoned to OS/2
version months ago, and went back to DOS,  because they wanted features that
5.1 had to offer.  I gave OS/2 2.0 a good rating, it seems to be a solid
system.  I think for those users who allowed themselves to get sucked into
OS/2 1.3 by IBM &  Microsoft, they should upgrade.  For those running Windows,
there's simply not enough justification to move.  The reasons for staying
outweigh the reasons for moving.....  I think that this will prove to be the
trend (personal opinion).  If you start with Windows, you'll stay with it.
And right now, Windows is the number one selling software product in the
World.

Tom

#: 11956 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  17:00:04
Sb: #11880-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Charles Dort 73117,2174
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563 (X)

Paul,

<<I think more *users* fear an OS/HW company than an OS/APPS one.>>

I'm a "user" (physician), not a computer professional, and I fear a company I
can't trust, that says one thing one year, and something grossly different
later.  I'm an "outsider" to the industry, but, for what it's worth, this
"user" finds IBM stodgy, expensive, but by gosh reliable and trustworthy, and
MS exciting and fun (MUCH better at colors, "wallpaper," etc), but more likely
to blow with the wind and mess me up for counting on them.  I find it
reassuring when companies pool their resources and rein in their egos to
produce a great product, and I thought that the IBM/MS partnership was good
for everybody.  I certainly can be wrong on this, but the whole point of your
message and my reply is the users' _perception_, and my possibly incorrect
perception is that MS abandoned a better OS when it thought it could make a
lot of $$ with an inferior one it (DOS/Windows) and hang on till NT was ready,
when MS had promised the world that it was committed to OS/2.  (Just read Bill
Gates' introduction to "Inside OS/2," I have...  Even though I'm not a
computer industry person, I felt let down when I heard MS was abandoning its
agreement and promises, and I am very much less inclined to trust MS again.

Again, before everybody "flames" me, I'm not pretending to know all of the
facts, here, your message was a guess about the perceptions and fears of
users, and I just thought I'd offer you one example of one "real" user's fears
and perceptions.

Charles

There are 2 Replies.

#: 12013 S2/General Discussion
    10-Oct-92  11:12:30
Sb: #11956-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: Charles Dort 73117,2174 (X)

Charles:

Interesting perceptions that you are presenting.  Like you I also work in the
medical profession but on the Academic side.  I also do not like broken
promises and loss of support.  Unlike you, I do not have much faith in IBM.
All repairs on their equipment is exorbitant in price.  their bus system is
proprietary and creates fits to the end smaller user.  In this area, a group
of ex-IBM staff have opened their own business of repair & maintenance and are
replacing big blue in a frightening manner.  Why?  How about the person here
who went out and called the old 800 number to get the old OS2 upgrade. Did not
work.  called back to IBM to solve the problem.  His answer: bios problem.  OK
he paid $80 and got the bios upgrade. Still did not work. Called IBM, got the
old we will call you back answer, 2 months ago!  Now if he were Dupont or Ford
or some other corporate user, his problems would have been solved in a hurry
no doubt.  Again, why? answer is simple, IBM is a large corporate based
company & the service they provide is outstanding to that base.  On the other
hand, the end user is at their mercy.  I am not saying or implying that MS is
absolved of all guilt nor am I implying that IBM is all bad.  Point is: both
have left users in the lurch.  Bet you cannot tell me about all the IBM
software that they simply got rid of, it is an impressive list by the way.
Once more, loss of end support.  Finally the old OS2 argument.  I have read so
much here that I someimes have to bit my tongue. IBM people come over here and
call MS people overzealous bigots. truly amusing.  What are they by the way?
NT or OS2? for most end users neither.  Dos/windows is selling about 1 million
copies per month.  If you were a developer, where would you put your
resources? Answer is very obvious, the resources goes into areas with good
return.  Simple as that. Drug companies make drugs for the same reason.  My
perceptions seem to be different than yours <bg>.                     bob



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12158 S2/General Discussion
    12-Oct-92  20:34:45
Sb: #12013-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Charles Dort 73117,2174
To: Bob Chronister 70363,246 (X)

Bob,

I hate to reply, because you and both have agreed that we're talking mostly
about perceptions, not hard facts, and that we see things differently, so
maybe I shouldn't take up another message slot with "opinion," largely
unsubstantiated.  I certainly agree that there are "bigots" on both sides
(seems too bad, to me, that there are seen to be "sides" at all...), but
clearly not all of us are.  And, honestly, the times I have heard people on
the OS/2 forums being immoderate about MS have mostly been times they were
replying to IBM-bashers.  It's like the chicken and the egg, or most wars; I'm
doing this to you because you did that to me, but you did that to me because I
did the other to you, but I did the other to you because you...

I agreed with you previously that IBM is expensive, and I'll agree now that
they're big and slow, sometimes.  But Holy Smoke (!) are they changing fast!
Maybe not fast enough for you, but think about 4 forums on CIS run by IBM to
support just ONE product of theirs, and probably a dozen of 800 phone numbers
for different kinds of support, and direct sales to end-users with drastic
price cuts.  Have you heard about their new XGA-2 board, which supposedly is
faster than the Compaq screamer and only $300+ dollars?

And I don't know what to do about your complaint about "proprietary."  I
clearly see the advantages for open systems, but can you see the
disadvantages?  What you have right now is absolute chaos for IBM and for MS
as they try to come up with wonderful new OSs, but realize that everybody and
his brother in their garages are making a slightly different way to do what
DOS has always done, but when you try to do it with a new OS, all Hell breaks
loose because they refuse to follow the "rules" that people like MS and IBM
have tried unsuccessfully to promulgate.  I was enraged at PC Mag, once, for

     [continued in the reply]

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12161 S2/General Discussion
    12-Oct-92  20:35:20
Sb: #12158-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Charles Dort 73117,2174
To: Charles Dort 73117,2174 (X)

     [continued from message number 12158]

example, for blasting IBM for trying to standardize things like the bus, and
then, in the same magazine, wistfully glowing over the wonderful
standardization of the Macs, and how this increases everyone's productivity...

I'm not in the industry, but my understanding is that IBM is willing to
license the MCA bus to anyone who wants it, and that over and over again, it's
a better bus than EISA, but that the reason many people are going EISA is to
keep outdated boards which essentially bring the EISA performance back down to
ISA.  What exactly is so wonderful about this idea?  I don't understand why
people don't see that the reason the Macs are major competitors, now, and just
seem to keep growing, is that Apple maintains more control and more
standardization.  So when IBM comes up with a great new bus, and everybody
screams murder and comes up with another one so we can have another VHS-Beta
war which hurts everybody, I don't get the point.  If the ISA boards slow down
the EISA as much as I hear, seems like there is still a choice: new or old;
can't have both.

I don't know.  I'm rambling, and probably rambling ignorantly.  I'll shut up
(for now <g>).

Charles

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12169 S2/General Discussion
    12-Oct-92  21:08:43
Sb: #12161-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: Charles Dort 73117,2174

Charles:

As I stated once before, our basic understandings are the same but our
perceptions are different.  The greatest advantage of the non-MC bus, is the
ability to find decent competition and reasonable products.  Of course IBM is
lowering their prices, reason is obvious, as their laying off 40,000 employees
shows, they were getting their clocks cleaned so to speak.  the handwriting
was on the wall, lower prices or lay off a jillion more folks. Once more, I
have no dislike of Microchannel etc and am aware of its specs; likewise I am
aware of the fact that ISA boards on EISA machines are awful. Several seminal
sages have predicted that 1993 will be the year of the EISA board.  major
vendors are now offering graphic cards in both ISA and EISA forms that are
deadly in speed (ATI graphics Ultra Pro for example). Controlling cards are
now available that are truly scary in capability. Harddrives are approaching
the realm of insanity in burst rates etc.  SCSI boards are now available to
plug & play.  In fact, my last harddrive was a Mac drive.  Just threw away the
software and used old Dos.  To my knowledge, these alternatives are not
available on the microchannel bus.  Reason to me is simple, few want to tackle
the complexities of the system because it is a closed system, ergo, not much
profit.  You seem pessimistic about the EISA bus and optimistic about MC,
conversely, I am optimistic about EISA and indifferent about MC (pardons due
to my rotten rephrase of Camus!).  IBM is improving just to stay viable.  The
rest of the PC world is improving due to incredible competition.  Big
difference.  As in most religious arguments, each of us has our own faith.
Time will tell the final story.  Now: to my lecture in the AM to the neurology
residents and away from our frivolities here <bg>.
bob

#: 12047 S2/General Discussion
    11-Oct-92  10:16:24
Sb: #11956-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Charles Dort 73117,2174 (X)

Charles:

I agree that IBM is a company that has made a rep for staying the course while
MS tends toward a more opportunistic approach. My fear if IBM as a hardware
and OS vendor is if OS/2 catches on, can their developmental people ignore the
corporate good by tailoring it to run best on PS/2's? I think not. Therefore,
my thinking goes, OS/2 has to be a loser one way or another (for my needs).
If it fizzles, it fizzles. If it becomes wildly successful, it'll be bent to
run best on  IBM brand machines.

MS has no parallel stake.  Also I feel MS's going with Windows was in response
to V3.0's unexpected sales success. That is, I don't think they planned on
walking away from OS/2 until the market told them that's what it wanted. You
can call this flighty or cannily supplying what the market started demanding.
Personally I try (in my biz) to supply what my clients want, not what I think
they should have, so I side with MS here, not IBM.

I agree with you that the industry was better with IBM and MS fully
cooperating, but that's not gonna be, so we've gotta take what's out there.  I
feel more comfortable with MS, but it's a users' choice.

                                   Paul

There are 2 Replies.

#: 12165 S2/General Discussion
    12-Oct-92  20:36:10
Sb: #12047-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Charles Dort 73117,2174
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563

Paul,

It's probably 6 of one, half-dozen of an other.  You fear IBM will make OS/2
run better on its one machines.  I fear MS will give it's own apps head-starts
and undocumented calls with its own OS!  Surely you are not unaware of people
who feel that happens now...  My own opinion is that both companies are about
as honest as companies are, and that MS isn't deliberately "cheating" in this
manner, but can you see that the potential is pretty similar on both sides?

And I agree with you, we each feel more comfortable with a different point of
view, but it's a free choice.

I suppose one way I disagree with you, though, is that if we agree that <<the
industry was better with IBM and MS fully cooperating>>, and that MS is the
one who pulled out for short-term gains of $$, then we would agree that MS
made a deliberate choice that was bad for the entire industry!  And I think
you're a little short-sighted in saying that <<I try (in my biz) to supply
what my clients want, not what I think they should have.>>  Think, for
example, of the American car industry in a world where Americans were
demanding gas guzzlers, but the industry could, or should, have seen that
tougher energy times were on the way, and we would _need_ a different type of
car.  The Japanese and the Europeans didn't make cars the Americans wanted
_then_, but through luck or foresight, became better than we at making what
Americans _needed_, and look at what has happened to our automotive industry
and our deficit!  I know it's more complicated than that, but my point is that
if you can figure out a system, whatever it is, which is _better_ than what
your customers are wanting, and you provide it, sooner or later, everybody
realizes your customers are more productive, have a better system, and they're
happy and you're rich!

Unless, of course, we don't really have a free enterprise system, and new
ideas get quashed before they have a chance (Yes, I did see _Tucker, the Man
and His Dream_).

Well, let me get off of my soapbox and shuffle off to bed...

Charles

#: 12203 S2/General Discussion
    13-Oct-92  11:31:40
Sb: #12165-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Charles Dort 73117,2174

Charles:

The entire fru-fru of undoc'd calls is malarky.  Just about anybody who needed
to know what these undoc'd Win calls were and could understand what they might
do, had access to this info.  The press lammed on to this as an issue that
they felt the public could go nuts over.  If there was a serious developer who
felt gigged by this, they weren't IMHO, all that serious.

I feel you are wrong about the car issue. American cars were what most
Americans wanted and that's when they sold well. But American car consumers
changed what they wanted and the car producers didn't respond to the NEW
customer demand.  The Europeans and the Japanese responded to existing demand
not satisfied by Detroit.  They didn't create any demand by producing
something that surprised us.

If anything, the Japanese did create a demand for quality not before seen in
cars, but quality's always a demanded item.  So I feel in responding to what
my clients' demand I'm acting like the Japanese did 15-20 years ago.  I don't
dictate what my clients should want, but ask them and then try and supply it.

                                       Paul

#: 12182 S2/General Discussion
    13-Oct-92  07:00:50
Sb: #12047-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Andy Champ 100064,2267
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563

>My fear if IBM as a hardware and OS vendor is if OS/2 catches on, can their
>developmental people ignore the corporate good by tailoring it to run best
>on PS/2's? I think not. Therefore, my thinking goes, OS/2 has to be a loser
>one way or another (for my needs). If it fizzles, it fizzles. If it becomes
>wildly successful, it'll be bent to run best on IBM brand machines.

For my sins I've just been on an IBM course on OS/2 2.0.  Very interesting,
especially the object-oriented shell.  Be even better if it mapped decently
onto the underlying HW better (example - create a data file with the shell.
Where does it go?  System disk ONLY.  If you put it somewhere else - by clumsy
manipulation - the on-screen icon is a 'shadow' and deleting it doesn't delete
the file hence doesn't free disk space).

However point of my reply was - OS/2 2.0 IS bent for PS/2s.  If you run it on
a clone, we were told, allow another Mb.  I think this is ABIOS support. So
all us IHVs out here are already at a disadvantage wrt IBM when running OS/2.

Andy.

#: 12204 S2/General Discussion
    13-Oct-92  11:34:34
Sb: #12182-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Andy Champ 100064,2267

Thanks for the update, Andy. Then let's add the mysterious lack of support for
over 16mb in any but the PS/2 Model 95's, something IBM calls an oversight.

Any IHV who gives this system any support or who even fails to attack it is a
^&^* fool.   OS/2 is for the PS/2 and you better believe it or live to regret
it.

                                 Paul, making a few enemies

There are 3 Replies.

#: 12245 S2/General Discussion
    13-Oct-92  21:40:17
Sb: #12204-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563

You have seriously missed the boat on this one, Paul.  OS/2 will take
advantage of whatever hardware it runs on.  The fact that no clone vendor
provides its systems with a protected-mode reentrant ABIOS can hardly be IBM's
fault; to counteract the lack, IBM provides a loadable ABIOS for clones, but I
very much doubt that it requires an extra megabyte of memory on clones; more
like an additional 256 KBytes.  If the clones were to build in an ABIOS, I
don't doubt that IBM would support it, just as it supports thousands of clones
by providing an "add-on" ABIOS right now.  Yet because IBM adds a
protected-mode BIOS component to OS/2 for use in systems that don't have a
hardware equivalent, you and others bash IBM for building OS/2 "for the PS/2."
This is bilge, indeed.

Your mention of the alleged lack of support for more than 16 MBytes of memory
demonstrates that you haven't kept current.  Yes, originally OS/2 had limited
support for systems with more than 16 MBytes RAM, but new iterations of the
kernel have resolved most problems.  However, there are some systems with
BIOSs that report onboard memory incorrectly during boot-up, or that have SCSI
hard drives that are accessed using only 24-bit DMA.  For the former, there's
nothing OS/2 can do about faulty hardware design.  For the latter, if the
paging device is accessible via a DMA controller that addresses only 16
MBytes, that's all you'll get directly; the rest will have to be used as a
paging cache.  Note the distinction between paging device and data device, and
note also that those paging disks that are accessed using Programmed I/O
rather than DMA are not subject to this limitation (though PIO has the
disadvantage of not freeing the CPU for other tasks during a disk I/O, thus
limiting the OS's multitasking ability).  OS/2 will support "move-mode" I/O
for DMA data devices, in systems with more than 16 MBytes of memory, as long
as that device doesn't contain the page dataset.  Tell me, does NT use

     [continued in the reply]

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12246 S2/General Discussion
    13-Oct-92  21:40:24
Sb: #12245-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150

     [continued from message number 12245]

"move-mode" in such cases to access the page dataset?  If so, it's gonna be
one slow dog on SCSI systems with only 24-bit DMA addressability.  And I have
seen messages on this forum as well as MSWIN32 detailing problems that NT has
recognizing memory greater than 16 MBytes on several systems.  In short,
OS/2's problems in this area are shared by NT, indeed by any 32-bit OS that
attempts to run on hardware based on a design that originally allowed for only
24-bit addressability, and on systems whose components are more often selected
with cost rather than 32-bit compatibility in mind.

IBM has a compatibility testing lab in Boca, and another one in Austin
(perhaps more) that are used to test OS/2's compatibilty with thousands of
clones.  Their stated goal is to make OS/2 run as well as possible on the
widest possible variety of hardware.  They don't gain bonuses, or market
share, for OS/2 by making sure it runs best only on the PS/2.  That is not how
it works, because PS/2s only account for about 20% of the installed base, and
IBM wants as much of the market as it can get.  IBM has indeed been guilty in
the past of making short-sighted marketing decisions in which their software
supported only their own hardware, but those days are long gone in the OS/2
side of the business.  If you don't want to take my word for it, go ask the
OS/2 developers themselves on OS2USE and OS2SUP.

BTW, you've not made an enemy of me.  I am saddened that this woefully
inaccurate misconception still gets tossed around as though it were revealed
truth, by persons who have not bothered to check their assumptions at the
door, but I am not -- repeat -- not inclined to enmity simply because you are
misinformed.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12252 S2/General Discussion
    13-Oct-92  23:31:25
Sb: #12246-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Karl Mitschke 73650,150
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150

I was wondering.. Call me stupid if you must, but where do you get the
information that "PS/2s only account for about 20% of the installed base"? I
have to question just what you consider the installed base? MCA machines? That
figure would be far higher. Intel '86 based MS Dos pc's? Far lower. Perhaps
you mean OS/2 running machines? I could see that. If you do mean 20% of the
installed base of intel 86er's, I would have to say you are misinformed...






There is 1 Reply.

#: 12288 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  09:08:59
Sb: #12252-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Karl Mitschke 73650,150

Karl,

The numbers I have seen lately match Mercer's, minus 2% * (rounding
difference).

John

#: 12334 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  13:59:20
Sb: #12288-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: John Oellrich 72611,1452 (X)

John:

The sales figures for IBM machines aren't accurate since they only tally sales
from know brands.  A lot of machines are running about with house 'brands' and
they never figure into the sales totals. If you look at total 386 chip sales
vs. total 386 computers shipped, you'll see a big dif. This is the house
brand, or non brand market's share. It's there.

BTW, how can I get some info on that new Starserver?  Can you have a salesman
call?

                                   Paul

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12380 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  20:10:43
Sb: #12334-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563 (X)

Paul,

The StarServer E (mine is an S and discontinued) may still be available thru
NCR. The S is a single processor model, the E SMP (up to 4-486's), pretty
robust (pricey<g>), and really targeted as a UNIX server. I would honestly
look first at NCR's 3450 and 3500 series systems if you are interested in SMP
(and support for NT as well as UNIX). They are later designs and thereby
likely have some cost bennies.

I will try to dig up an NCR tel # if you like.

On IBM's numbers, they typically are soft as well. The only hard numbers are
those sold thru indirect (e.g. reported on StoreBoard) and that is what you
typically see in the trade rags. Those reports that try to factor in IBM's
direct sales are SWAG's (used to be everyone did 2 x indirect).

John

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12434 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  08:49:50
Sb: #12380-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: John Oellrich 72611,1452 (X)

John:

Darn, I forgot about the NCR biz.  I'll have to contact the client who had a
particular desire for AT&T stuff 2 years ago due to a grant. They didn't have
fit between what you vended and what they needed then, but they all of a
sudden see a need for a heavy server.  The need? I finally convinced top
management that the VAX days are ended and it's time to move into the 80's
<g>.

I think we have an NCR rep locally. I'll give them a call. thanks for the
info.

I honestly don't know how to figure sales. Intel sells 30 mill i386 & i 486
chips.  Then add in the Cyrix and the AMD for a few mill more and that's a lot
more chips than total sales from the channels add up to.

Perhaps your 2X is the way to go. Wouldn't that then indicate PS/2's comprise
10% not 20% of the installed? Did I miss something?

                                    Paul

#: 12472 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  13:33:36
Sb: #12434-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563

Paul,

My remeberance is that the 18% I saw is a StoreBoard number and therefore a
rule of thumb multiplier is in order. But not the 2 X. IBM for sometime has
been working on a fulfillment basis for a while. What this means is that an
IBM account rep may make, or qualify, a sale and then turn it over to a local
dealer or VAR for order fulfillment (which would cause these sales to show up
in StoreBoard). This turn over is done if the order doesn't meet a volume or
complexity threshold that would lead to direct IBM fulfillment of the order.
Unfortunately I have no insight to what those thresholds are. AT&T CS used a
similar program, which would lead me to beleive that the multiplier could be
anywhere from 1.3 to 1.7.

John

#: 12371 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  18:45:23
Sb: #12252-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: Karl Mitschke 73650,150 (X)

IBM's PC bread-and-butter from 1987 onward has been the PS/2.  IBM's share of
units sold in the "IBM-compatible" segment has declined during that period,
and currently sits at about 15-16%, down from a high of 25-26% (my
recollection).  Anyway, the numbers I've been seeing in the trade presss
postulate an average 20% installed base (units sold, but I'm not sure via
which channels are included) for IBM since the PS/2's intro; they sell
millions of PS/2s per year.  I may indeed be misformed; if you have better
numbers, I hope you share them.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12393 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  22:26:06
Sb: #12371-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Karl Mitschke 73650,150
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150

Mercer;

I had forgotten just how long IBM has been selling the PS/2's... Please
forgive me, I worked for the government for too long <g>. I was thinking of
'386 PS/2's... I believe Paul Cassel had a good point about the noname
machines being sold, though. That is, I don't believe those get counted, so
the numbers probally go up for non PS/2's.. After seeing some of those
machines, I also don't believe they went through FCC testing.

Karl

#: 12333 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  13:56:02
Sb: #12246-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150 (X)

Whoa, there. I was responding to a message from somebody who said he
*recently* attended an OS/2 developer's conference and *he* came away with the
info about clones needing the extra meg for lacking the ABIOS. As to the 16 mb
limit, I agree that was with the first commercial release of OS/2 2. I kept up
in a halfhearted way with the OS thru the later beta stages (IBM to my shock
invited me to participate in the test) and experienced minor but inconvenient
problems with a variety of non-IBM hardware.  By the time OS/2 2 was released,
we made the decision notto develop for it, but continue with Win only awaiting
NT.  At that point I stopped keeping current with OS/2's slipstream releases.

So in short, yes, I can be way behind the times in OS/2 land.  I just can't
keep up on all the developments.  Frankly, given the nature of the biz I can't
even devote a great deal of time to OSes since we're in a time of rapidly
changing apps, devl. tools, and HW.

OTOH, I have not grown deaf and do question everybody who I know well enough
to know about their technical knowledge and none I've spoken to have any
enthusiasm about OS/2 2. The latest person I know who told me this had a large
advance to write two texts on OS/2 2 programming. He returned the advances
saying the OS wasn't worth his writing effort. He's doing two texts on NT
instead.

[cont on reply]

There are 2 Replies.

#: 12335 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  14:03:01
Sb: #12333-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563 (X)

This author is one I have a great deal of confidence in and one who has
ABSOLUTELY no ax to grind (unlike me).  So I feel fairly safe in my contention
that OS/2 isn't what it should be since by saying that I agree with a lot of
disinterested people who should know.

As to the OS/2 -> PS/2 it was my contention that if the OS made it big THEN
IBM would bend it to work best on their hardware. The reply I got to that
comment was from the fellow who'd attended the OS/2 conference. He said it was
already going in that direction and then I piped up with the 16mb crack.  The
ABIOS comments were his, not mine.

                                       Paul

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12376 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  18:46:19
Sb: #12335-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563 (X)

Your friend the author missed a bet, Paul, just as has Charles Petzold, the
most egregious holdout IMHO; that's ok, though. One person's bad decision
becomes someone else's great opportunity.  OS/2 2.0 books have been topping
various bestseller lists for a couple of months now.  Lots of people have
their (mis)perceptions of OS/2 firmly grounded in its past.  They should look
at what is going on now.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12430 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  08:38:59
Sb: #12376-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150

My friend refused to write the OS/2 book due to his analysis of the OS as
seriously defective.  I don't have the details.  He's having some problems now
and I'll be working with him soon now on a few programming projects where I'll
go into it with him.

The only thing he mentioned specifically about OS/2 was its graphics
performance which he felt was subpar.  Where do you get a list of best selling
computer books? How can you know which sell best? Do you work for a publisher?

                                  Paul

#: 12375 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  18:46:06
Sb: #12333-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563 (X)

Paul, it was you who called people fools if they don't believe IBM will
eventually modify OS/2 to work better on PS/2s, not Andy.  I don't believe as
you do, ergo you have called me a fool.  You may thus expect a rather sharp
response from me.  <I am grinning, btw>

As to Andy's criticisms, he does have an axe to grind:  he is a hardware
vendor, and his systems don't include a protected mode, reentrant ABIOS, like
IBM's.  He could equip his systems with one, and if his market share is
significant enough, he could provide OS/2 device drivers to IBM for shipment
with OS/2 that would take advantage of his ABIOS, or he could provide the
drivers with his hardware if his market share doesn't warrant inclusion with
OS/2 in the shrinkwrap.  Why doesn't he do this?  I don't know.  Instead, he
criticizes IBM for building a better system and exploiting that better
technology in OS/2.

Also, it is clear that IBM is making every effort to see that OS/2 works as
well as possible on the widest range of hardware possible.  That means that
they are attempting to have OS/2 fully exploit PS/2s, but it also fully
exploits EISA hardware as well as other MicroChannel systems.  Both EISA and
MicroChannel will be supported by OS/2 better than will ISA systems, simply
because they are both better architectures than ISA (at least, EISA qualifies
when running EISA adapters).  When IBM finds out about a unique hardware
feature on someone else's system that it is not taking advantage of or is
using poorly or not at all, it has modified OS/2 to exploit that feature,
whenever possible.  Just go over to OS2SUP and browse the list of APARs
accepted for the Service Pak.  These are not all bug fixes; many of them are
"fixes" only in the sense that they cause OS/2 to work better on non-IBM
hardware.



There are 3 Replies.

#: 12391 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  22:08:52
Sb: #12375-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150

Mercer

And remember C&T has a 'non-IBM' ABIOS when the clone makers want to use it.

--Ben

#: 12509 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  18:01:11
Sb: #12391-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: Ben Sano 72401,2736 (X)

  >> remember C&T has a 'non-IBM' ABIOS when the clone makers want to use it.

Thanks, Ben; I had forgotten completely, if the knowledge had ever penetrated
my consciousness.

   Mercer



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12517 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  19:03:26
Sb: #12509-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150

Mercer
It almost trashed the company when OS/2 1.x didn't take off. That is why I
remember it.

--Ben

#: 12400 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  05:29:37
Sb: #12375-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Andy Champ 100064,2267
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150

Hey mercer, I may have an ax (or even an axe) to grind, but perhaps IBM were
thinking as follows:

"We're losing out market share to all these clone machines.  What can we do to
regain the market.  Ahh, got it!  We'll change the design of the system so
that all the clone machines are obsolete, and all the third party vendor cards
don't work & they've got to come to us for new ones.  This'll boost our
sales." (not a quote - just an imaginary spiel)

So they invent a new bus structure and control the market.  Did they H**l. The
world almost entirely ignored MCA and went to the extent of designing a new
32-bit Bus which is really open. (BTW ICL have a cross-licensing arrangement
with IBM which could have got us early MCA if we'd wanted).

Now part of the tricks which IBM did when they invented MCA was to add this
extra ABIOS with some extra functions, perhaps to try and tie IBM OS users to
IBM HW.  Well that didn't work either, and currently IBM have no control on
either the PC market nor the OS market.

Suggesting we fit ABIOS to our machines is suggesting we follow the IBM blue
path, not the way the rest of the world is going.

BTW do you have problems with a shortage of memory space in the 640-1M region?
I do.  And I don't want an ABIOS in there using 64K solely for the use of
OS/2.

in friendly disagreement,
   Andy.



There are 2 Replies.

#: 12414 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  06:48:18
Sb: #12400-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: Andy Champ 100064,2267

AndY:

Bravo.  The idea of an additonal 64k in the UMB is ridiculous if not even
worse.  At present I have 13K free in that space.  Does not take a genius to
realize that an additional 51K up there just for bios is pushing matters a
tad. <bg>

                               bob

#: 12489 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  15:09:05
Sb: #12414-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Bob Chronister 70363,246 (X)

Bob,

When you are running DOS the ABIOS don't necessarily get in the way. I beleive
both QEMM & MAX pack'em up and ship them out the way. And when you are running
protect mode OS the UMB issue becomes moot. Fer example the network no longer
intrudes on the virtual DOS machine's conventional address space. And if you
can ignore virtual DOS machines, Upper Memory becomes a non-entity.

John

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12497 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  15:33:14
Sb: #12489-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: John Oellrich 72611,1452 (X)

John:

Re: Abios

I understand that running in protected mode OS that the abios becomes a
non-entity.  This is ok but regardless of the OS that I end up using, DOS will
be here for awhile.  I deal with it all the time.  Qemm and 386max do not work
well with the large graphic files that I use.  With everything loaded in my
UMB (including the mandatory exclude statements) I have 14K left and 572 free.
that's cutting it mighty close <bg>.

Basic problem is as follows: if a client is running win 3.1 & dos 5.0 & I am
running OS2 or Winnt, what should I tell him if I cannot at least replicate
the problem?  there are probably a hell of a lot more clones than non-clones.
I have had experience with the abios problem & os2.  the results were less
than satisfactory to say the least.  Course when windows is put into ROM, I
will not be a happy camper with that setup <bg>.

                               bob

#: 12435 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  08:51:02
Sb: #12400-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Andy Champ 100064,2267

Andy
 >We'll change the design ...

Not quite right. What most folks didn't notice was the some IBM engineer
stated their stratigy about a year before the introduction of MCA in
Electronics Times (I think, or some other EE trade rag).

They felt that their mistakes with the original ISA machines where that they
hadn't advanced the technology fast enough to keep everyone one step behind
and that they hadn't made aggressive enough efforts to cut costs.

MCA, if adopted, whould have evolved quickly and IBM would have been cutting
its internal costs hoping that when things ended the large capital
investment would have left all but the large Japanese and European companies
on the side line and they would be the low cost producer.

Wouldn't have worked at that time as their administrative overhead was still
too high. If they had cut that they wouldn't have had to do the rest and if
they didn't do that the rest wouldn't have worked for long.

--Ben

#: 12490 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  15:09:13
Sb: #12400-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Andy Champ 100064,2267

Andy,

The raison d'etre was of ABIOS was to provide reentrant BIOS, which would
simplify supporting any multi-tasking OS. Unfortunately, for IBM, they weren't
all that successful. Have you ever noticed all those .BIO files that shipped
with OS/2 1.X? All ABIOS patches. I really doubt that the 1MB number is real,
and if it is ABIOS couldn't justify it completely.

But you can get in similar situations under any environ. If vendor A decised
to provide mirroring, for example, built in to their disk controller, but
vendor B doesn't, vendor A will end up with a smaller memory footprint, better
thruput, but possibly higher cost than vendor B who has to provide X amount of
extra RAM because he decided to let the software take care of it.

John

#: 12513 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  18:19:45
Sb: #12400-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: Andy Champ 100064,2267

For one thing, it's a simple matter to reclaim that extra 64 KBytes of UMB
space when using DOS, as Qualitas (and I believe Quarterdeck) have proven. The
address space is equally easy to reclaim inside a DOS VDM under OS/2, in which
I can routinely provide text mode DOS apps 720 KBytes of region before even
worrying about loading anything high, and in which most device drivers can be
loaded outside the VDM's address space, if they are to be shared by all VDMs.
So, the answer to your question is, "No, I don't have problems with shortage
of memory space in the 640-1M region."  I have problems with DOS, period;
that's why I switched to OS/2.  Now all 640-1M region problems are artifacts
of my past; I have not been constrained at all by such problems, for over a
year now.

#: 12429 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  08:35:54
Sb: #12375-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150

>>fools>>. Goshs <gulp> sorry about that <embarrass>. I got a little carried
away <g>.

I suppose my past difficulties with all things IBM colors my opinions here.
I've never had any access to the company. The only crack in the wall has come
thru IBMOS2 fora here on CIS, and per my other message I'm skeptical that that
signals a change in IBM as a whole.

Again, per another message, I'm gettingt to believe that we see the world thru
lenses shaped by our past experiences. I've always felt kicked about and
bullied by IBM. I've made a minor part of my career defeating them at every
turn. While they continue to prevail overall, I do win most of the battles.
My perception is IBM is out there to crush small guys like me, or if we're
really successful, take us over.  I have no way to comm with them (other than
CIS), they ignore me as a partner, and seem to have interests at odds with
mine.

MS OTOH, has always been, I feel, on the same side as I.  My guess is you have
had radically different experiences, thus we differ as to who's the friend and
enemy. Am I right?

                                   Paul

#: 12514 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  18:19:56
Sb: #12429-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563

Circa 1983/84, I used to believe that MS was on the side of the "small guy"
and I had severe problems with IBM myself.  That changed in 1986, with the
release of the first Windows SDK.  To put it bluntly, that "product" was the
biggest piece of crap I ever worked with.  I could not believe that
professional programmers had developed something so disorganized.  Microsoft
sold it to me directly via a direct solicitation, and I was told by the MS ISV
rep that it was only available from MS at full list, and would never be made
available at a discount either through normal distribution channels or from MS
itself.  Three months after I bought it at $500 from MS, Programmer Connection
had it for $350.  That's when my thinking about MS began to undergo a change.
Nonetheless, I stuck with it, and was rewarded by an even worse product,
though a better price, when the v2.0 SDK was released.  Imagine receiving in
the shipping GA version of the v2 SDK a thick staple-bound booklet of errata
when the docs were provided in loose-leaf format, with the errata booklet
printed in such a way that one couldn't even tear the pages out and insert
them in the proper place in the loose-leaf binders!  I was absolutely
appalled.  Of course, I'm equally appalled by the sparseness of the printed
docs in the OS/2 shrinkwrap; I've not got the Technical Library for v2.0 yet,
so I don't have a judgment to pass there.

So yes, we have arrived at our positions through different experiences.  I got
absolutely no help from MS when I could not get their fershlugginer Dial
support program to work on my Compaq; their "professional" technical support
advice was for me to buy a new computer; there of course could not be anything
wrong with their program, since it worked on their machines.  I eventually did
get a new computer, and new suppliers for my programming software as well.



There are 2 Replies.

#: 12528 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  20:44:39
Sb: #12514-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150

Mercer,

>>fershlugginer Dial<<

Ah, Dial. Fershlugginer is probably much too kind. What I loved is the way
directory structures got hard coded. Found out the hardway that if you moved
the data directory it just crapped out. Also was a real joy to get running
over a modem pool.

John

#: 12541 S2/General Discussion
    16-Oct-92  00:33:37
Sb: #12514-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150

Mercer

I 1985 IBM tried to get me fired, I guess that would count as a trouble, so
you can bet that when I say that IBM has changed I have GOOD reason to say
it and wasn't easy to convince.

--Ben

#: 12258 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  03:25:31
Sb: #12204-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563

Paul,

>>^&^* fool<<

The only fools I know make public assertions like this. There is absolutely
nothing mysterious about >16MB RAM support. It was a design decision based on
24 bit DMA. When we did our initial releases of AT&T UNIX System V 3.X for our
386-AT's it had the same restriction even tho those boxes could support 64MB
of RAM (at that time only the Fed Gov't could afford more than 4MB<g>). Later
(but _years_ ago) we implemented essentially the same buffering scheme. IBM
has also released the same stuff.

Any IHV that doesn't have support for the OS's their customer feels important
is going to not keep their customer for long. In Compaq's case they probably
feel that IBM is supplying enuf support that they don't have to worry their
little heads. But I guarantee ya that if they have nay major customer demand
direct Compaq support for OS/2, that customer will get it, y ou and I just
won't know about it. The smaller OEM that follows Compaq's _public_ lead is
being shmoozed.

John

#: 12336 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  14:09:38
Sb: #12258-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: John Oellrich 72611,1452 (X)

John:

I'm utterly convinced (we likely can't settle this) that if OS/2 becomes a
widescale success, IBM will then bend it to their HW. In that likely case the
IHV who has adopted OS/2 will have been the loser.  Now you might say that IBM
won't do this and I will reply that it will and gosh, we'll be at the circle
forever.  I feel an IHV who goes with OS/2 is at a risk the same fellow who
goes with *ix or NT isn't.

Frankly I see it as good business sense to get all these people to adopt OS/2
2 and then when it succeeds warp it so if you wanna maintain your addiction
(commitment) to the OS, you gotta now go with PS/2's. Or rather if you want
the Extended Edition (remember this one, John?) you gotta buy IBM HW.  Since
it's happened in the recent past, I think it'll happen in the immediate
future.

Now I can't say for certainty it will, but I challenge you to say with
certainty it won't.

                                       Paul

There are 2 Replies.

#: 12372 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  18:45:32
Sb: #12336-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563 (X)

  >>I'm utterly convinced ... that if OS/2 becomes a widescale success,
  >> IBM will then bend it to their HW... Now I can't say for certainty
  >> it will, but I challenge you to say with certainty it won't.

I say with certainty that it won't.  And I say that your contention that EE is
an example of IBM taking a successful software product and bending it to sell
their PS/2s ignores the fact that that tactic was tried and abandoned long
before OS/2, much less EE, became a success, and the poor souls responsible
for the mishandling of the PS/2 and OS/2 EE intro were replaced (not soon
enough, though).  As long ago as 1988 I was running EE on clones at work, with
unquestioning support from IBM.  IBM didn't test on clones back then, and as a
result wouldn't *guarantee* that EE would work on my systems, but it supported
my use of it, and didn't give me any of that "You've got to run EE on IBM HW"
garbage.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12425 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  08:16:50
Sb: #12372-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150

Well we have something that will have to be a wait an see issue.  IBM is a
company spanning many product lines, but with one bottom line. If the PS/2
people feel altering OS/2 to enhance the bottom line will be effective, and
they convince management of that, I say we'll see the corruption of OS/2.  You
seem to feel OS/2 can prevail over what management might see as the benefit of
the corporate whole.  We disagree and I don't know of a mechinism we can call
on to resolve what are essentially unfounded opinions on both sides.

So let's start waiting and seeing <g>.

                                    Paul

#: 12534 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  21:35:57
Sb: #12372-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Darren K. Pearson 71127,2403
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150

Mercer,

Let me relate to you a recent story.

I go a call from a client about a problem they were having getting a 3270
connection to a IBM host computer at the state capital. They originally
purchased a clone and IBM software along with the IBM board as specified in
the docs from the people at the state office. When the setup wasn't working
the client called IBM for tech support. IBM in turn told them that they
would *HAVE* to *BUY* a PS/2 if they wanted the connection. My client
complied with the recommendation and made the purchase. The connection still
didn't work. My client called me in and related the story, and after
reviewing the situation I discovered that the only problem was that they
hadn't purchased the correct board (should have been a SDLC board).

The long and short was that IBM made these poor people buy their hardware
when they sould have been able to access that the real problem was an
incorrect board (I accessed that and I don't even work for IBM). Needless to
say since moving to Missouri I have taken up the state motto "Show me".
That's the only thing that IBM can do for me now. Seems to me that they
always come with the same story with me "buy our equipment (at a premium)
and you won't have any problems (which the client did or they wouldn't have
been paying me as wel as IBM) or suffer for it" to which they still did.

Darren

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12555 S2/General Discussion
    16-Oct-92  07:38:20
Sb: #12534-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Darren K. Pearson 71127,2403

Darren,

I certainly hope your client took appropriate action with IBM, like a letter
directly with Akers with details as a start. All companies have problems with
incompetent or lazy or poorly trained employees. If the consumer doesn't
complain, it don't get fixed. When Windows 3.0 first came out, it seemed to me
that the only answer MS's PSS org knew was 'upgrade your BIOS'.

John

#: 12381 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  20:11:27
Sb: #12336-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563 (X)

Paul,

I have had direct OEM dealings with both IBM & MS. I also product managed DOS,
OS/2 & Windows for AT&T Computer Systems. I have been no more or no less
comfortable in dealing with Boca or Redmond. Sure there is there is the
capability of IBM to warp their code, but it would easy to prove, and probably
make for some fun litigation. Caution is always the rule when dealing with an
outside party because there is rarely, if ever, a 100% match in motives or
needs.

The same holds true with MS. A smaller OEM always has the concern that the
code that they receive is more equal on some larger OEM's box. Windows/386 was
a good example. On a COMPAQ Deskpro/386 it could recover most of the shadow
RAM, giving CPQ a 256KB RAM adavantage. This may not seem like much, but
because of it Win/386 would run in a 2MB Deskpro. Other OEM's needed 2MB +
256KB which realistically translated in to 3 or 4MB at a time when RAM was
$140+ a meg.

There was absolutely nothing sinister here. Compaq was MS's dev partner on
Win/386, they understood their Shadow RAM architecture, and plugged the
necessary code in. I would have done the same thing. I was unhappy that MS did
clearly articulate on how they came up with the 2MB number, but that was an
information issue. I didn't begrudge MS or CPQ the coding (hell CPQ put a ton
of work in the product, they deserved a little reward<g>)

MS continues to use IHV's as development partners on most of their system
software products. Those IHVs have the opportunity to make the best of this
opportunity. MS does its best to keep things level, but there is level and
then there is level. But a non-partner OEM has to be vigilant. Just a fact o'
life.

John

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12438 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  08:55:44
Sb: #12381-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: John Oellrich 72611,1452 (X)

Well, we have nothing to argue about. Only look at it from my personal
experience.  Your positions pack a heck of a lot more wallop than mine have.
And I have had decent response from MS in the past and not a bit of attention
from IBM.

When I *bought* an early OS/2 to eval and couldn't get it to run, I couldn't
rouse anybody at IBM to answer my questions. I got a lot of courtesy, but
never broke thru the layers to a techie who might know the answer.  This was
when I was just me calling as a rep of my tiny company.

But I also consult with Fed, State and local gov's here plus work with the
various colleges and universities. When I call as a rep of one of these
entities, wow! am I royalty. I often still don't get an answer, but I get some
reactions anyway.

Per my messages to Mercer, I think how we see IBM is dependent upon how large
our biz associations have been in the past. Surely you recognize that a ragged
bunch of nerdy programmers such as us don't have the clout with IBM as you do
(did?).

                               Paul

#: 12473 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  13:33:45
Sb: #12438-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563

Paul,

>>Surely you recognize that a ragged bunch of nerdy programmers<<

Funny, thats kinda how my wife refers to me and my compatriots ;->

There is no doubt that IBM has had some very severe problems in birthing OS/2
2.0 & supporting their non-traditional customers (both in the sense of retail
end use, and the PC ISV community as a whole). But considering they have only
really been at it a year, I have been impressed by the lightness of foot they
have demonstrated (I have a lot of experience in 'large ship turning'<g>).
When I called, as an individual, to order the WINOS231 beta, the call was
answered within 3 rings (it was the infamous IBM NDD) and the disks showed up
the next day. No charge.

I don't go as far as WillZ in the IBM vs MS wars. I just feel that many folks
underestimate IBM's determination & capabilities (plus the usefulness of
OS/2). I don't even see a 'winner'. Unless MS really screws up, Windows will
likely remain the largest API socket (ignoring INT21h) in the Intel world, but
that doesn't mean IBM (or Univel or...) has lost. They will only have lost if
they can't achieve a critical mass that allows them to sustain themselves.

John

#: 12282 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  07:59:52
Sb: #12204-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Chuck Ebbert 76306,1226
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563

  Paul, I believe Mercer has already responded with the facts, so I thought
I'd send some excerpts from the list of fixes to be included in the OS/2 2.0
Service Pak:

 PJ03811 FSFILTER DOESN''T ALLOW REDIRECTION UNDER DR DOS
 PJ03838 OAK TECHNOLOGIES VIDEO ROM MACHINES WILL NOT INSTALL
 PJ04211 OS/2 BOOT MANAGER DOES NOT WORK WITH UNIX
 PJ04220 OS/2 SWITCHES SOME CLONES INTO SLOW (NON-TURBO) MODE.
 PJ04284 BASICA HALTS CLONE SYSTEM.
 PJ04664 TSENG 3000 VIDEO BOARDS CAUSE FLICKER AT TOP OF SCREEN.
 PJ05147 IBM1FLPY1.ADD FIXES
 PJ06072 WINDOWING SVGA 1024X768X16 CREATES A BLANK (BLACK) WINDO
 PJ06073 SVGA.EXE IN A WINDOW PRODUCES TRAPS OR ERROREOUS DATA
 PJ06074 CORRUPTED DOS FS IMAGE (EVEREX CARD)
 PJ03677 TSENG ET4000 TC6059AF+ OUT OF S
 PJ03721 APPR: SVGA:OEM SYSTEMS W/ WESTERN DIGITAL
 PJ03785 2.0 INSTALL HANGS ON INSTALL DISK, ZEOS 386SX NOTEBOOK
 PJ03918 USING OS/2 ON ISA MACHINES WITH MORE THAN 16 MEG RAM.
 PJ04070 GENERIC INT 13: SYSTEM DOESN T BOOT IN
 PJ04348 VDISK NEEDS TO WORK ABOVE 16 MEG.
 PJ04736 MODE COMMAND NOT RECOGNIZING 16550 UART
 PJ04904 MOUSE LOSES SYNC ON TOSHIBA LABTOP CONNECTED TO DESKSTAT

  I'd like to point out the first item on the list.  When was the last time
Microsoft fixed their software when errors occurred on DR DOS?????  Try
reporting a problem on Win 3.1 running on DR DOS sometime and see what
happens!

#: 12337 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  14:17:05
Sb: #12282-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Chuck Ebbert 76306,1226 (X)

Over at a private MS forum we went into Win support for DR DOS and a high MS
official explained that since DR DOS is a direct competitor to MS DOS, MS
didn't see any reason to help their competition out. IBM has PC-DOS, OK, but
it isn't in the same league as a product for them as MS DOS is for MS.  Too,
IBM sell their DOS 99% w/their HW, so DR DOS sales don't cut into their
profits any.  Not so MS.

Now let's talk apps software. I've participated with MS on some apps tests and
they've always taken quite seriously competing apps compatiblity. Problems
with, for example, Ami Pro, during the Win 3.1 test were addressed by MS with
the same alacrity as problems with Excel were.

I agree with you that MS won't bother fixing in their software defects they
feel are rooted in poor DR DOS code and I for one don't think they have a
moral or business reason to do so.  Why should they support the coding errors
or DRI/Novell?  If NT works poorly with NetWare, will Novell fix NetWare?
<g>.

                                          Paul

There are 2 Replies.

#: 12354 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  16:46:36
Sb: #12337-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563 (X)

Paul

 You are accusing IBM of possibly doing what MS is already doing here.
Windows and DOS are separate products yet MS is using its control of one to
get control of the other.

How long before we see MS preventing Quattro for Windows because it is 'a
competitor for Excell and they don't see any reason to help their compititon
out.'

It would have happened by now if the FTC wasn't on their case.

If you don't have control of the source code you are vulnerable.

I want both IBM and MS to license the source code to their OS products.

Nothing else will prevent the script you are worrying about.

--Ben



There are 2 Replies.

#: 12411 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  06:43:04
Sb: #12354-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Chuck Ebbert 76306,1226
To: Ben Sano 72401,2736 (X)

>> If you don't have control of the source code you are vulnerable.

Just ask the 3Com people (off the record of course) about the fun they had
with 3+ Open because they did not have control of the OS/2 1.1 source code!

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12444 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  09:10:18
Sb: #12411-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Chuck Ebbert 76306,1226

Chuck

Having control of the source code and having the source code are different
things.

But you need the source code to even have a chance of remaining independent
in most of these areas.

I wish either (or better both) IBM and MS would license the sources for
their OS's.

ATT does after all and I think this should be a model for the industry.

--Ben

#: 12422 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  08:10:20
Sb: #12354-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Ben Sano 72401,2736 (X)

No, the situation with DR DOS and Win 3.1 is quite different.  DR DOS broke
the 'rules' that any OS vendor has the 'right' to lay down.  It then broke on
Win 3.1 when MS altered for the good some features of that OS.  I don't think
MS is required to accomodate all of ISV's shortcuts.

We had a similar dicussion over at DOSBETA when one of the ISV's
participatting had some part of his code broken by DOS 5. He was using undoc'd
calls or some other unconventional methods.  So he wanted MS to "bless his
code" and naturally MS refused (really ignored him).

If QPW bends some rule or another ( I don't know this) and that breaks it on a
later version of Windows, this is BI's problem, not MS"s.

As to MS ever putting in code to sabotage well behaved apps, I don't know of
one case. Can you name one?

                                Paul

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12443 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  09:10:12
Sb: #12422-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563

Paul

MS's originally said that Windows would be a DPMI conformant app.

They don't seem to have kept this promise either.

Can't be because it is impossible, IBM does it with WINOS2.

Must be for some other reason.

Like preventing it running easily on DR-DOS and under OS/2.

--Ben

#: 12377 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  18:46:30
Sb: #12337-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563 (X)

It's obvious that you would view negatively an attempt by IBM to leverage a
hardware sale by ensuring that its software works only, or best, with IBM
hardware.  It's also obvious that you don't view negatively an attempt by MS
to leverage a DOS sale by ensuring that Windows works only, or best, with
MS-DOS.  Does Microsoft ensure that Windows works with IBM's PC-DOS?  You bet,
though this is not hard since the underlying code is essentially identical.
Does PC-DOS compete with MS-DOS?  Yes, indeed.  It didn't used to; Microsoft
changed that with DOS 5.0, when it began shipping shrinkwrap MS-DOS to end
users.  Does IBM pay MS royalties on PC-DOS?  I don't know, but it probably
does.  The fact remains that every sale of PC-DOS represents less revenue to
MS than does a sale of shrinkwrap MS-DOS.  Thus, the argument that MS won't
try to help Windows run on DR-DOS because DR-DOS is a competitor to MS-DOS
hardly demonstrates a logical consistency.



There are 2 Replies.

#: 12433 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  08:44:29
Sb: #12377-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150

Yes, IBM pays royalties on PC-DOS and also OS/2. I think the cost is $20 a pop
for OS/2 but am unclear.  Per my other message, I was at the DR DOS / Win3.1
discussion and the reason for DR DOS failing was unconventional code from DR
DOS.

Now if IBM included identical code in PC-DOS would MS accomdate it? I agree
with you that it likely would but that's because of the large use of PC DOS
and that MS makes money offa it. I'll bet if DRI paid MS royalties on DR DOS,
MS would have a dif attitude toward bending Win to it <g>.

I'm sympathetic to MS because I refuse to support WP products. I recommend
against these products and if my clients insist on using them (only one now),
I say don't come to me when your *&^ gets in a wringer.  Not that WP competes
with me, but I see no need to support products I recommend against.

Call me the most arrogant of the bunch here and I'll likely agree <G>.

                                      Paul

#: 12468 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  13:19:01
Sb: #12433-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Will Zachmann [CANOPUS] 76004,3657
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563

 >Yes, IBM pays royalties on PC-DOS and also OS/2.

Don't bet your life on that statement being literally and exactly true, Paul.

#: 12442 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  09:09:07
Sb: #12377-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mark Vodhanel 72456,463
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150

 >Thus, the argument that MS won't try to help Windows run on DR-DOS because
 >DR-DOS is a competitor to MS-DOS hardly demonstrates a logical consistency.

I do sympathise with users that, for some reason, are determined to run
Windows on top of DR-DOS, but I do feel that it is an utterly masochistic
thing to try to do.  Windows is, after all, an extension of DOS (not DR-DOS),
and I never could understand the reasoning behind those that tend to criticize
MS for not making sure that it was compatible with DR-DOS. I'm not even sure
that there would be any ethical problems if MS had intentionally made Windows
incompatable with DR-DOS.  MS owns both Windows and DOS, and they are both OS
level systems - if MS wants to keep their relationship proprietory, I think
that is their preragative.

-Mark

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12451 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  10:44:40
Sb: #12442-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Mark Vodhanel 72456,463

Mark
Funny I agree that trying to run Windows on top of DR-DOS is an utterly
masochistic thing to try to do.

The only problem is that I feel the same way about trying to run it on
MS-DOS.

--Ben

#: 12495 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  15:19:47
Sb: #12451-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mark Vodhanel 72456,463
To: Ben Sano 72401,2736 (X)

 >The only problem is that I feel the same way about trying to run it
 >(Windows) on MS-DOS.

Then what *do* you run it on?  I know, I bet you're going to say OS2.... <g>
And that is fitting since we were talking about masochistic tendencies <g>.

-Mark






There is 1 Reply.

#: 12518 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  19:03:31
Sb: #12495-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Mark Vodhanel 72456,463 (X)

Mark

I don't run Windows at all. The only application I used, Coral Draw, has
been replaced by an OS/2 version.

--Ben


There is 1 Reply.

#: 12551 S2/General Discussion
    16-Oct-92  06:08:58
Sb: #12518-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: Ben Sano 72401,2736 (X)

Ben:

Sorry to hear about the only windows app being corel draw.  The only dos app I
use is tapcis, the rest of 500 meg of programs etc are windows based. Looks
like that I not failed your programming test but don't even use the same
software.  Guess that is what makes the world go round <bg>.  OS2 would be
totally ridiculous for me to consider.

                               bob

#: 12496 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  15:30:25
Sb: #12451-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: James Ferguson 71477,2345
To: Ben Sano 72401,2736 (X)


Don't you guys ever get tired?

-- Jim F.




There are 2 Replies.

#: 12519 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  19:03:36
Sb: #12496-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: James Ferguson 71477,2345

James
 >Don't you guys ever get tired.

We are sustained by will power and faith in our holy cause.

Plus the practice of being in software development since 1970.

--Ben<Twenty years in crunch mode>

#: 12561 S2/General Discussion
    16-Oct-92  08:16:38
Sb: #12496-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Chuck Ebbert 76306,1226
To: James Ferguson 71477,2345

>> Don't you guys ever get tired?


 The OS wars continue, only the venue changes.  If Will Zachmann starts a
forum maybe all the arguing will move over there.  Of course that would leave
this place pretty slow :)

#: 12387 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  21:12:19
Sb: #12204-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Darren K. Pearson 71127,2403
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563 (X)

Paul,

I made the comment about OS/2 being not so comfortable on other than blue
machines early spring this year. That prediction seems to be paning out.

Darren

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12392 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  22:08:58
Sb: #12387-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Darren K. Pearson 71127,2403

Darren
I for one would be glad if some of the clone mfg. would start using the C&T
ABIOS.

I think it is more likely then that we will ever get to use DR-DOS under
Windows.

--Ben

#: 12491 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  15:09:23
Sb: #12392-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Ben Sano 72401,2736 (X)

Ben,

>>I for one would be glad if some of the clone mfg. would start using the C&T
ABIOS.<<

If it was an ISA or EISA machine it would be shear folly. Rightly or wrongly
system level software makes assumptions as it inits. I am willing to bet you
that if you looked at any protect mode OS that supports MCA it looks for a
signature that says that it is running on a MCA box and presumes that MCA &
ABIOS is there. If it the signature it looks for is the presence of MCA and
sees !MCA, it would probably ignore ABIOS, which would be probably OK (unless
it plays fast & loose with the address space) but tits on a boar hog. If the
it is the presence of ABIOS that is actually checked the assumption that MCA
was out there would likely lead to technically interesting errors ;->

A real life problem that both us & Compaq ran in to was the inclusion of a
PS/2 mouse port on ISA machines. OS/2 1.X barfed all over it (Win 3.0 wasn't
real happy as I remeber either, but it was a much more subtle problem). As we
debugged it for our 1.21 release we found that there was an early decision
made in the boot cycle based on the machine ID. If the ID indicated AT, a
combo of keyboard & mouse drivers was loaded that would eventually corrupt the
data stream out of the 8042. That problem itself was pretty easy to fix (but
there were subsidiary, related problems that weren't). And of course anyone
loading IBM's OS/2 complained about 'compatibility' problems until we could
get fixes out.

It taught me a real lesson on mixing architectural metaphors. The advantage of
ABIOS isn't worth the RAM gain nor the possibility of having to rework a HAL
or an OS2LDR or a unix.

John

#: 12537 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  21:36:14
Sb: #12392-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Darren K. Pearson 71127,2403
To: Ben Sano 72401,2736 (X)

Ben,

Help me understand what the ABIOS is all about, and why the C&T version?

Darren

#: 12257 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  03:25:25
Sb: #12182-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Andy Champ 100064,2267

Andy,

>>I think this is ABIOS support<<

C'mon guy. It is the _hardware_ that is bent, not the operating system. NCR or
Rely all would see the same advantage. And IBM will also need the extra RAM on
their ISA systems.

If the hardware/firmware is more capable, the OS can be less capable.

Oh, and if someone wanted to write a special HAL for an MCA box the could also
take advantage of the ABIOS and get the memory benefit.

John

#: 12401 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  05:29:43
Sb: #12257-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Andy Champ 100064,2267
To: John Oellrich 72611,1452 (X)

John, see my comments to Mercer in this forum.  Also, should I bend my HW to
suit a specialised application (OS/2) or generalise it? If we put ABIOS on our
machines we are ceding control of the PC market to IBM, because then they can
put in ABIOS enhancements that require us to upgrade, and we would of course
lag them by several months. I don't think that control of the market by any
one company is a good thing (unless it's us of course<g>) which is what the
anti-trust laws are all about.

We have to walk a line now in this market between control by one company -
IBM, or MS with DOS - or perhaps even AT&T with Unix <g> - and the good
obtained by having one source for a set of standard interfaces reducing the
devlopment load on apps. writers.

Andy.

BTW - I hereby announce that these comments are my personal opinions and do
not necessarily reflect the views and policies of my company.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12436 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  08:51:07
Sb: #12401-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Andy Champ 100064,2267

Andy
They are my personal opinions too. I just disagree where the main danger at
the moment is comming from.

--Ben

#: 12469 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  13:33:18
Sb: #12401-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Andy Champ 100064,2267

Andy,

Youse pays your money, youse takes your choice. But no, unless you were also
cloning MCA, ABIOS doesn't make sense. In fact it would probably lead to some
real compatibility issues. But we all have been on a compatibilty merry
go-round of one type or another. If it wasn't the original IBM BIOS, it was
the AT bus, or even Compaq early in the life of 386's to a certain extent.

One tends to forget in this 'what if they bend OS/2' scenario is that it would
likely boomerang very quickly on IBM. Particularly with large accounts. I have
watched it in action (it wasn't an intentional bending). IBM can be real
supple when they realize that something they have done on the PC level is
jeopardizing their overall presence in an account.

John

#: 12324 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  12:47:31
Sb: #12047-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Bill Lee 76366,656
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563 (X)

>If it becomes wildly successful, it'll be bent to run best on  IBM brand
machines.

Yeah, one of the typical things that I hear from various folks, among the
group that mumbled "OS/2's dead" last year, "Buy from the people that *knows*
the platform, forget Lotus, Wordperfect" etc, etc.

If I'm not mistaken, it does run better on MCA machines already.  What's the
problem with that?  If I buy an ISA machine, I know what I'm getting, and will
be happy with it. (BTW, OS/2 is running great on Compaqs, Taiwan clones etc.)
And when I start buying MCA machine, I *want* to see the difference as that's
what they touted it should do, a better multi-tasking machine, which DOS and
Win(yuck) couldn't take advantage of.

If you have a F1280, would you just load the standard VGA driver?  If the CAD
software detected a math coprocessor... should it be ignored, just to be fair
to the folks that doesn't have one?

>MS has no parallel stake.

Maybe not on hardware....  I wonder how many undocumented calls in NT will
they take advantage of for a few years before the competitors catches on...

There are 2 Replies.

#: 12339 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  14:22:50
Sb: #12324-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Bill Lee 76366,656

Most of these undoc'd calls in any MS OS are just about public knowledge
before the product leaves beta.  Symantec/Norton hardly had to wait for the
Undoc'd Win book to be out before they took advantage of these calls, for
example.  I was using undoc'd DOS calls for my little diagnostic programs
before the Undoc'd DOS book came out.  So was just about everybody else.

I don't want to lock myself into a system that forces me to a certain brand
HW.  Yah, you're right about video cards, but the video adapter's just a small
part of a computer's cost. We've just about gone to ATI cards here (GULTRA's).
If ATI gets snotty and starts charging too much for driver updates, well,
we'll switch to something else. It's not that big a deal. But changing a whole
system?  That's too much to ask and too much to risk.

Most of the PS/2 OS/2 adherents deny the OS works better on IBM HW. It's
refreshing to hear from one who not only admits it, but revels in it. Thanks
for your comments.

                                    Paul

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12373 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  18:45:43
Sb: #12339-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563 (X)

You misinterpret what Bill Lee was saying, I believe.  His point was that OS/2
works better on MicroChannel machines than it does on ISA systems; I don't
disagree, since MicroChannel is a far superior design specifically intended to
support a multitasking OS, thought the blanket statement that OS/2 runs better
on MicroChannel really needs some qualification.  However, OS/2 also runs
better on EISA systems than it does on ISA systems (at least, those few that
actually run EISA rather than ISA adapters), for exactly the same reasons, and
in the same ways, that it runs better on MicroChannel.  NCR, Reply, ICL and
Olivetti MicroChannel machines (among others) run OS/2 as well as or better
than IBM's.



There are 2 Replies.

#: 12402 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  05:29:51
Sb: #12373-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Andy Champ 100064,2267
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150

Mercer, >> NCR, Reply, ICL and Olivetti MicroChannel machines..

I can't swear I know the whole product line of the others, but I do know that
ICL has NO MCA machines, and never has.

Andy.

#: 12492 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  15:09:31
Sb: #12402-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Andy Champ 100064,2267

Andy,

I can attest to NCR, Olivetti & Reply doing MCA boxes (Olivetti does ISA, MCA
& EISA, they are a real glutton for punishment). Mercer also missed Core (who
essentially reskins the XP's and plugs in their disk subsytems).

John

#: 12510 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  18:01:16
Sb: #12402-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: Andy Champ 100064,2267

As soon as I posted the message I realized I was thinking of Apricot and not
ICL.  That's why I still use pencils with erasers, but they don't work very
well on a glass teletype.

#: 12427 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  08:22:07
Sb: #12373-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150

Perhaps I misunderstood Bill after all in detail, but I do think his overall
thrust was that he felt OS/2 optimize currently for IBM HW and that indicated
a trend toward my unfounded opinion that this trend will continue to give
PS/2's a decided edge in running that OS.

Too, you seem to have had better luck with OS/2 VX and clones. My luck hasn't
been too good.  In the past I didn't have any reliable way to communicate with
IBM techies to resolve these issues.  This complaint of mine largely has
evaporated with the excellent job being done by the OS/2 supporters over at
IBMOS2, but I feel that forum more an expression of a few people's excellent
work than a fundemental change in IBM.

Perhaps because of the different paths our lives have taken you have access to
IBM and I MS. That would account for a lot of our differing opinions.  To me,
IBM is one huge, monolithic, closed book.

                                        Paul

#: 12479 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  14:20:53
Sb: #12427-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Chuck Ebbert 76306,1226
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563

 Paul I just thought I'd mention that there is no IBMOS2 forum any more. When
was the last time you visited???

#: 12515 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  18:20:04
Sb: #12427-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563

  >> I feel that forum more an expression of a few people's excellent
  >> work than a fundemental change in IBM.

I think had you spent more time over there, you would see just how deeply the
changes have gone.  The PS/2 side of the business is divorced from the OS/2
side, and the OS/2 organization has now been given its own marketing and
distribtution support arms, rather than having to rely on the parent corp.
These guys' and gals' salaries and bonuses depend entirely on how well they do
selling OS/2; OS/2's effect on sales of PS/2s does not enter the equation.
Their interests are centered entirely on getting as many copies of OS/2 sold
as possible; that means going well beyond the IBM hardware market to get OS/2
to run on every possible 386+ platform (with RISC, etc., to follow), and they
are the first ones to tell you this.

BTW, IBMOS2 has split into OS2USER and OS2SUPPORT, while OS2DEV has split into
OS2DF1 and OS2DF2.  The splits helped with the scroll rates for a while, but
they seem to be chugging upwards again.

#: 12343 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  15:06:07
Sb: #12324-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: Bill Lee 76366,656

Bill:

  <<what they touted it should do, a better multi-tasking machine, which DOS
and Win(yuck) couldn't take advantage of.>>

  I have seen many of these anti-windows statements.  Just out of curiosity,
what is it that you don't like? If it's program manager & icons, don't use
them.  Instead run metz's taskman, or minshel3 or commandpost etc.  One of the
great advantages of the windows environment, it can accept nearly all
configurations.  I have 4 harddrives & a Bernoulli.  All work fine and I use
command post as my major interface.  I'm really curious, what don't you like?

                               bob



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12355 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  16:46:42
Sb: #12343-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Bob Chronister 70363,246 (X)

Bob
I want support for SOM.

--Ben


There is 1 Reply.

#: 12369 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  18:14:04
Sb: #12355-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: Ben Sano 72401,2736 (X)

Ben:

  <<I want support for SOM.>>

sorry but don't understand your message.  must be old age setting in <bg>.

                               bob



There are 2 Replies.

#: 12403 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  05:29:57
Sb: #12369-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Andy Champ 100064,2267
To: Bob Chronister 70363,246 (X)

SOM? Means start of message on any comms system.  Ah. Doesn't sound right does
it?  Pass the Zimmer frame!



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12415 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  06:48:24
Sb: #12403-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: Andy Champ 100064,2267

Andy:

Well I guess I needed the SOM also. Still have no idea what Ben was talking
about.  Guess we should let the dead stay dead <bg>.

                       bob

#: 12412 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  06:43:10
Sb: #12369-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Chuck Ebbert 76306,1226
To: Bob Chronister 70363,246 (X)

Bob:

  <<I want support for SOM.>>

<sorry but don't understand your message.  must be old age setting in <bg>.>

What *do* you know about object-oriented programming?  Did you know that SOM
provides the ability to create vendor- and language-independent class
libraries?  Or do you program in C (ugh) and ignore C++ and other
developments?




There are 2 Replies.

#: 12417 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  07:03:01
Sb: #12412-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: Chuck Ebbert 76306,1226

Chuck:

Actually I do as little programing as possible. <bg>.  That way, I maintain
what little sanity I have left.  In the past, I used Fortan IV and wrote some
then hefty programs (computerized control of microscope for example). Since
then I have left the writing to others.  Now I can tear apart any program or
operating system in a flash.  Seems I am one of the select few who received
this version of NT without the SDK.  Needless to say I broke it numerous
times. <bg>.  I do have the win 3.1 sdk and am not above dabbling. BUT! I have
more fun being a software consultant and providing an interface between the
programmer and the user.  In lieu of many of the programs out there today, you
guys need all the help you can get <bg>.  I view myself as someone who
attempts to provide insight into correcting unwarranted assumptions <VBG>.

                               bob

#: 12445 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  09:23:23
Sb: #12412-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Chuck Ebbert 76306,1226

Chuck
RE: SOM

Rats you gave it away.

I was trying to see if any of the folks that are telling me how much better
MS is then IBM and NT is then OS/2 had enough experience with both IBM and
OS/2 so I should give their oppinions some credience.

--Ben


There is 1 Reply.

#: 12450 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  10:36:54
Sb: #12445-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: Ben Sano 72401,2736 (X)

ben:

Since I was the one that  you posted that message to me, guess you wanted to
give me a test.  I have stated numerous times that I have little experience
with IBM and OS2 other than trying to configure it on a system and it would
not work.  Was told by IBM that it was a bios problem.  We changed the bios,
still would not work.  Funny thing, he tried to get his money back.  Has been
totally ignored.  I suppose such a thing could happen with MS.  But, I have
never encountered such a callous attitude with MS.  I am not implying that
others have not had the problem but I have.  As a private computer consultant,
IBM treats me like trash and I guess this attitude effects the way I feel
about their products.  If you feel that I am illiterate as far as programming
etc., I learned computerese on a PDP 8 at Stanford more years ago than I would
like to admit.  I then went to a PDP 11, fortran 4, K52, KED etc.  By earliest
experience with an IBM was with the original PC which I thought was garbage in
comparison to the PDP 11. Ounce for ounce and dollar for dollar, I have found
little to cause me to change my mind.  Am truly sorry that I failed your test
<bg> but what the heck, not the first one & probably not the last.  Besides,
we need an ISZ before we get a SOM <VBG>.

                               bob

#: 12480 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  14:20:58
Sb: #12450-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Chuck Ebbert 76306,1226
To: Bob Chronister 70363,246 (X)

Hey, I learned assembler on a PDP-8/e running TSS/8!  Small world isn't it?

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12486 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  15:00:29
Sb: #12480-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: Chuck Ebbert 76306,1226 (X)

If Indeed you learned the same assembler that I did, you should have gotten a
kick out of my ISZ statement to Ben <bg>.  Indeed the world is small.

                               bob

#: 11978 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  20:53:51
Sb: #11845-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: Tom A. Hodges 70550,2540 (X)

Tom, various Lotus, WordPerfect, and Borland developers frequent the OS/2
developers fora.  Lotus is developing full-fledged WPS-compliant, 32-bit
versions of 123, Ami Pro, Freelance, and cc:Mail.  Some or most of these
efforts will be reaching the market late this year or very early 93.  WP Corp.
will be releasing 32-bit WP for OS/2 early in 93, at the same time (or nearly)
as it launches its other versions of WP version 6, which introduces a common
code base for all of its product platforms.  Both of these companies are
putting *very serious* development bucks into OS/2, as well as Windows. They
may be working on NT versions of these apps; however, they will be out with
their 32-bit OS/2 versions first.

Philippe Kahn is currently over in the ZiffNet ZNT:EXEC forum, saying that
Borland won't put any of its app development efforts into 32-bit OS/2 *OR*
Win/NT, until a viable mass market has developed for either one -- not before;
iy got burned on OS/2 v1, and doesn't desire to repeat the experience. Borland
will produce 32-bit developer tools, compilers, etc., and is working on both
OS/2 and Windows-Win/NT versions of these, but the apps will follow only when
the market will provide a revenue flow.  Meantime, since both Win/NT and OS/2
will run DOS and Win16 apps, Borland will put all its app development
resources into DOS and Win16, not the 32-bit OSs.  Borland sees the 32-bit OSs
as being niche, high-end products that won't provide an adequate return on its
*application* (as opposed to *tool*) development dollars for quite some time.
Other companies don't share that view (and have the deep pockets to finance
their desire to be first on the scene), but many do.  In fact, I believe that
most developers of GUI applications will focus on Win16 for the next couple of
years, bypassing Win/NT-Win32 and 32-bit OS/2 until their installed bases
exceed three or four million users, since both environments will run the Win16
binaries.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 11997 S2/General Discussion
    10-Oct-92  09:20:08
Sb: #11978-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Tom A. Hodges 70550,2540
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150 (X)

Mercer, thats' good info to know about Borland, that I wasn't aware of.  I
appreciate that Borland has really good products.  We will basically take a
wait & see attitude.  Our machines don't have enough horsepower or RAM to run
OS/2 2.0 or WIN/NT very well, so we'll wait.  I visit this forum to see how
you folks feel about these two O/Ss, to help us get an idea of where we might
want to be a year from now.  The input has been an education.....

Thanks

#: 11979 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  20:53:58
Sb: #11875-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563 (X)

I don't disagree with you that SMP is a desirable feature in a server OS. What
I disagree with you about is whether it is a useful feature today, in an OS
that is obviously being targeted at a market much wider than simply servers.
NT will have no significant advantage over OS/2 by dint of including SMP when
it's released, because (1) only a vanishingly small number of users will be
able to use that support for the foreseeable future and (2) by the time SMP
becomse affordably implemented in a wide range of consumer systems, OS/2 (and
other OSs) will have long since offered SMP as well.  It is a feature in
search of a market as a component of a desktop user's OS, and will be for
several years.  You would do your users a better service by equipping them
with an OS that works well for them today, and that offers a migration path to
more functional (i.e., SMP) versions once the technology is both available and
affordable.  OS/2 fits this bill, and so does Win16, with much wider app
support than NT offers currently.  I.e., you should not sell your clients NT
today in the expectation that a few years down the road they may actually be
able to use the SMP feature; if you do so, you run the risk of losing
credibility when the users realize that they paid for a feature their hardware
doesn't support, and supports their current apps less well than other
alternatives.  Sell them something that works today, runs their existing apps
today, on the hardware that is available and affordable today.  When the new,
cheap, SMP hardware arrives, they will buy an SMP OS to run on that hardware.
That's also when they will be inclined to upgrade to more powerful apps.

There are 4 Replies.

#: 11991 S2/General Discussion
    10-Oct-92  08:10:52
Sb: #11979-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Bryon Fevens 75070,2155
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150 (X)

Mr Harz
I am afraid that I must disagree with you on this issue of SMP. Off the top of
my pointy little head, I can think of 4 of my clients and about 7 applications
whereby SMP would prove invaluable. It provides for a single point of
processing that has a much greater capability that current single processor
machines. Sure they could move to RISC based machines running UNIX or some
variant. But that UNIX incurrs a much higher support support cost, application
cost, OS cost, connectivty cost etc, it really is not a viable option.
As for for the argument that higher costing hardware will be prohibitive in
adopting SMP as viable, I would argue that the cost of providing comparitve
processing in a Intel environment, added to the cost of support, software
duplication, concurrency assurance development would, at least, equal the cost
of a SMP box.
Your analysis considers only the single instance iron cost, not the cost of
delivery of a complete system.

Respectfully,
Bryon Fevens


There are 2 Replies.

#: 12010 S2/General Discussion
    10-Oct-92  11:10:32
Sb: #11991-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Bryon Fevens 75070,2155 (X)

Bryon
What you will have to justify is running NT on a 3 processor NT box against
running NT on say a R4000 MIPS box.

Why is the Intel box cheaper?

--Ben


There are 2 Replies.

#: 12021 S2/General Discussion
    10-Oct-92  18:12:59
Sb: #12010-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Bryon Fevens 75070,2155
To: Ben Sano 72401,2736 (X)

Mr Sano,

I was really thinking about NT on Intel vs Not NT on Intel and others. The
nice thing about NT is that it should provide for the example you stated. If
the performance was comparable, I would probably go with the MIPS box,
(Assuming SGI doesnt let it quietly die.)

The reality , however, is that for many clients, especially large corporations
and government departments, it is hard enough to get them to buy non intel X86
boxes. To get them to move to a whole new processor is, um, difficult to say
the least.

Thew smartest thing MIPS could do right now ? Get a native DOS and Windows 3.1
for its processor. I have waved the MIPS stats in front of a number of people.
One of there first questions is it run DOS ?

PC technology and the current low cost of hardware, has torn down a great deal
of the single task/single OS mentality towards computers.

Sure putting DOS on is a lobotomy for the MIPS machine, but users today get
the willies when asked to purchase a "closed" architecture. At least with
Intel SMP boxes, there is a bit more comfort from the very fact that it is a
X86, and thus, in the users mind, not so radical a departure.

Respectfully,

Bryon Fevens

#: 12050 S2/General Discussion
    11-Oct-92  10:26:44
Sb: #12010-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Ben Sano 72401,2736 (X)

Ben:

I don't think an R4000 can outperform a 3 processor Intel box if the Intel's
running in parallel.  (3 procesors?)

                                     Paul

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12069 S2/General Discussion
    11-Oct-92  15:44:50
Sb: #12050-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563 (X)

Paul
I'm not sure but on past experience with SMP a three proc machine should
give a speed up of about 2.5 to 2.8 times.

I think that the MIPS R4000 is in the same speed ball park (e.g. >2 times)
thus I think we are going to find the performance about the same (which is why
I picked 3 procs.) , the question is relative prices.

If they are the same or close then SMP will win if SMP costs more then 25%
more then it will probably not IMO.

--Ben



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12116 S2/General Discussion
    12-Oct-92  09:49:37
Sb: #12069-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Ben Sano 72401,2736 (X)

Ben:

I'm not familiar with how a box like the MIPS R4000 compares  in typical
business apps like being a file server or a node for doing accounting. For all
I know the seemingly fast RISC architecture won't come to bear as well as when
it's used as an engineering workstation. I'm not saying it won't, I just don't
know.  I do know that Sun P SPARC's don't do very well as word processors,
performing just about like a i386 when running Word Perfect.  Whether this is
an indication of the processor not efficiently running the task or a poor
implementation of WP, well, I honessttly don't know.

I do know that a multiprocessor Intel setup will work at 1/# of processors
minus some efficiency losses tho.  I'm truly interested in seeing how NT will
run on R4000's, Alphas, PA's (hope) and Intels when doing the types of tasks
my clients need.  It'll be interesting fer sure.

                                   Paul

#: 12085 S2/General Discussion
    11-Oct-92  19:22:08
Sb: #11991-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: Bryon Fevens 75070,2155

Bryon, it all depends on which resource in the system is constrained.  If your
particular application mix consists of several concurrently-executing
processes that need lots of CPU cycles in a given unit of time, more than your
current uniprocessor can provide, then SMP will offer some benefits.  If your
box has a uniprocessor in it that is sitting idle for (relatively) large
amounts of time while it waits for graphics, disk or other device I/O to
complete, SMP is not going to bring much to the party; coprocessors and
accelerators, indeed perhaps just a faster uniprocessor, will be more
appropriate (particularly if you've got a SCSI busmastering disk controller
that allows the CPU to continue processing while disk I/O completes), and far
more cost effective in such situations.

Of course, cost-effectiveness is not a priority to some users.

#: 12049 S2/General Discussion
    11-Oct-92  10:24:52
Sb: #11979-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150 (X)

I feel comfortable selling my clients on an SMP OS even if their current
hardware doesn't support it since I can always u/g their HW for a reasonable
cost should their processing load require it in the future. I don't see myself
losing credibility this way.  My 'defense' is not to recommend a server
configuration that isn't easily upgradable.

I think we're off on a SMP sidetrack here.  The reason for my NT enthusiasm
goes well beyond that one factor.  Perhaps my biggest reason for feeling the
new Win32 bit family will succeed is: easy portablity from Win16; somewhere in
the 32 bit NT family is a product for everybody with net built in; and MS has
had an opportunity to view the field and will pack in any needed feature into
their new OS family.

Now the last part is the most problematic now and I agree it's right now an
article of faith on my part. HOwever it costs me nothing to hope MS will get
NT right. If they do, I'll buy it. IF they don't, I won't.  I'm hardly
committed yet, just doing an early eval with the expectation that NT will be
my OS in the future. If it's a dog, I'm not gonna go with it to protect my
'rep'.

                                      Pal

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12082 S2/General Discussion
    11-Oct-92  19:21:26
Sb: #12049-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563 (X)

OK, I'm more than willing to cease the argument on SMP.  But when you say the
following:

  >> However it costs me nothing to hope MS will get NT right.

I'd just like to point out that it cost many developers and corporations a
heck of a lot when they were hoping, and MS was promising, that MS would get
OS/2 right.  A heck of a lot, not only in terms of money, but in terms of
credibility as well.  You see, they believed MS's promises, and made business
decisions based on those promises, then had to wait for an extra year and a
half for IBM to pick up the pieces and put things right after MS dropped the
ball.  To IBM's credit, it delivered an even more functional product than was
originally promised, one providing features that MS flatly stated were
impossible and beyond the abilities of its best programmers to provide.  But
because IBM essentially had to rewrite OS/2 v2, the result was nearly
catastrophic delays (from my perspective), no matter how wonderful the final
product.  However, IBM has proven that it can "get it right" and deliver on
its strategic promises.  We'll see about Win/NT and MS in the not too distant
future.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12118 S2/General Discussion
    12-Oct-92  10:01:09
Sb: #12082-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150 (X)

I don't think we can predict the future. Nobody I know or remember anticipated
the wild acceptance of Win when v3.0 was introduced in May of 1990.  I took
one look at that and switched my strategy to a Win based one.  Apparently MS
did too and I for one applaud them even if it did mean an ultimate delay in
OS/2's 'real' version which had to come from IBM.

I strongly believe in following the market: delivering what people, buyers,
want, not what I tell them they should have. The market chose Win several
years ago and viewed OS/2 with a huge yawn.  The yawn, for the most part,
remains for OS/2 while Win apps are outselling DOS ones.  That makes Win apps
the largest selling software segment in the world.

Now given this, MS could have plowed ahead with OS/2 delivering a system very
few want, or act flexibly and react to what the market demanded. They and I
chose the latter and I applaud them for it even tho it did create some
disturbing side effects.

It's a coin toss. Do you go with a plan even if the plan turns sour or do you
change to a new plan?  I like the latter, but agree the former path is more
orderly.

                                           Paul

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12156 S2/General Discussion
    12-Oct-92  20:01:31
Sb: #12118-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563

We could argue at length, and only make CIS richer, about our opinions on
whether Win3.0's success was such a surprise to Microsoft.  I think only the
speed of its acceptance was a surprise, and probably not a terribly big one,
because Win3.0 had the feature of a multitasker that users wanted most, namely
good DOS box support; MS knew this, and planned for it.  I think history shows
that MS counted on a Windows success, particularly in the apps area.  It
seems, based on products actually shipped, that MS's OS/2 efforts were
concerned almost entirely with the OS itself, and were not backed by an effort
to produce native OS/2 apps.  One has only to read Bill Gates' effusive
endorsements of OS/2 at the time, including promises that all MS apps and
significant functional enhancements would henceforth ship first in OS/2
versions before appearing in Windows format, then compare MS's efforts at
producing OS/2 apps, to see that Microsoft clearly lacked the courage of its
convictions.  The effort that went into the OS itself even seems suspect,
given the 20/20 nature of hindsight.  When one sees what IBM was able to do
with only one year of control over the code by a programming team that is
truly motivated to produce a superior product, MS's efforts on OS/2 begin to
look like not-so-subtle sabotage.  But as I said, we could argue this point ad
nauseum, and probably never change each other's view.

  >> Do you go with a plan even if the plan turns sour or do you
  >> change to a new plan?

Changing to a new plan could include fixing the problems in OS/2 that needed
fixing, and living up to commitments made, even if painful.  This was clearly
an option available to Microsoft, and one that is at the heart of the IBM
Corp.; it was equally clearly rejected at the highest levels of MS in favor of
a Microsoft-only strategy of expediency.  Unfortunately, the message that was
sent by their actions was that MS's executives cannot be depended upon to
follow through on their promises.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12190 S2/General Discussion
    13-Oct-92  09:09:25
Sb: #12156-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Robert Lauriston 75300,3205
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150

>>including promises that all MS apps and significant functional enhancements
would henceforth ship first in OS/2 versions before appearing in Windows
format<<

I don't believe Microsoft ever said anything about significant functional
enhancements.  When they said in the 11/89 joint MS-IBM statement that they'd
ship apps for OS/2 PM before Windows, they'd already released almost all their
apps for both--which was just one of the many peculiar things about that
statement.

For IBM's part, in the same statement they said they'd make OS/2 run in 3MB.

#: 12241 S2/General Discussion
    13-Oct-92  21:39:29
Sb: #12190-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: Robert Lauriston 75300,3205

My recollection is that MS, B.G. specifically, promised that subsequent to the
agreement, all app releases would occur for OS/2 first, followed by the less
functional Window versions.  The reason that the Windows versions would be
less functional, of course, is that B.G. claimed that MS would add no feature
to Windows that would turn it into another OS/2.  That's the basis of my
phrase "signficant functional enhancements," since such things are manifested
(in a software product, anyway) in new releases of the product.  As to
releasing "almost all their apps for both":  Really?  Only Excel and Word made
the transition to OS/2.  Neither qualifies as a very good OS/2 app; neither
took advantage of OS/2's native features and they were both buggy as could be,
with minimal to non-existent support.

And IBM did make OS/2 run in 3MB; have you heard of OS/2 v1.3?  We can argue
about how well v1.3 runs in 3 MB (considerably better than v2, at any rate),
but they did it, and even got the load point down to 2 MB in certain cases.

#: 12313 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  11:05:38
Sb: #12241-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Robert Lauriston 75300,3205
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150 (X)

I really wish I could find a copy of that famous 11/89 joint statement put out
by Microsoft and IBM.  Since it was drafted specifically to be ambiguous,
people tend to remember it saying different things.  I mostly remember being
impressed by just how tricky the language was. After a close reading and
discussions with various colleagues, I got the impression that the
between-the-lines message was that Microsoft had abandoned OS/2.  For example,
the agreement said that Windows was the appropriate environment for systems
with less than 4MB of RAM, when in fact 4MB of RAM was its practical minimum
requirement.  But by mouthing that nonsense, Microsoft got IBM to drop plans
for PM Lite, and cleared the path for Windows 3.0's unchallenged market
success.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12382 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  21:11:55
Sb: #12313-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Robert Lauriston 75300,3205 (X)

Robert,

It was 2MB for Windows. I have the release somewhere in my files. I just don't
wanna go looking for it. Mercer's recollections match mine to a tee.

John

#: 12259 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  03:25:40
Sb: #12190-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Robert Lauriston 75300,3205

Paul,

>>they'd make OS/2 run in 3MB<<

It wasn't clear, but I think you were implying that they weren't successful.
If that is what you were implying, you are wrong. My little Compaq SLT/286
with 2.5MB of RAM has often run 1.3. Kinda slowly, but so is Windows 3.1 on
that system.

John

#: 12201 S2/General Discussion
    13-Oct-92  11:24:01
Sb: #12156-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150 (X)

You are right: we can't resolve these issues since we aren't privy to all the
inside machinations at either IBM or MS.  I want to make a final shot
nevertheless <g>:  for all we know, the only reason IBM was able to clean OS/2
was that MS *did* take it far enough so IBM could do it.  I think it was Steve
Ballmer (not sure) who loudly stated via Internet that much of what's right
about OS/2 2 is from MS, not IBM.  He might be right or just lobing another
barb. I honestly can't say.

One might also say that MS did live up to its OS/2 commitment vicariously thru
IBM. After all, at one time both companies were committed to Win and OS/2.
Now the effort's split. YOu cannot say MS walked away from an OS/2 committment
w/o saying IBM walked away from the Win commitment. In fact neither walked
away, but rather agreed to split the effort.

What I see MS as having done was to abandon, not OS/2, but rather the OS/2
that had its roots in the 80286.  I agree with them here.  Then when the
divorce happened, they just went whole hog and are now birthing NT. NT was
once called OS/2 3, I belive.

So having said I want to shut this off, I've gone and opened it up all over
again <g, sigh>

                                     Paul

There are 3 Replies.

#: 12222 S2/General Discussion
    13-Oct-92  17:32:15
Sb: #12201-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563

Paul
 >much of what's right about OS/2 2.0 is from MS, not IBM

Any one who believes this has not looked at any other IBM OS.

On the other hand most of what is right about the design of NT is because of
IBM and any thing that is right about its implementation is probably because
of DEC.

--Ben

#: 12329 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  13:37:31
Sb: #12222-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Ben Sano 72401,2736 (X)

Ben:

The only OS from IBM that I have any direct interaction with is MVS and at
that I didn't really get my hands dirty all that much.  I see no similarities
between MVS and OS/2.  Should I?

I don't think DEC had anything to do with NT. If you mean Dave Cutler, well
he's now an employee of MS, not DEC.  I really haven't ever seen anything out
of IBM that I'm terribly impressed with other than some mini's like the 38 and
Silverlake.

                                      Paul

#: 12227 S2/General Discussion
    13-Oct-92  19:05:51
Sb: #12201-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Will Zachmann [CANOPUS] 76004,3657
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563

 >One might also say that MS did live up to its OS/2 commitment vicariously
 >thru IBM. After all, at one time both companies were committed to Win and
 >OS/2.

Surely you jest!  IBM was committed to Windows?  Get serious!  If you do not
work for the Microsoft PR organization, Paul, you ought to apply for a job
there.  You are at least as good at revising history as anyone there is.  IBM
never viewed Windows as anything more than training wheels for OS/2.

Go back and read the promises that both made for OS/2.  Microsoft simply
walked away from the commitments they'd made for over four years!  You want to
believe the promises they've made since then?  I say:  "Good luck to you." IBM
has done a *much* better job keeping the promises Microsoft made between 1987
and 1989 that Microsoft did!

#: 12314 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  11:10:29
Sb: #12227-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Robert Lauriston 75300,3205
To: Will Zachmann [CANOPUS] 76004,3657 (X)

Once again you're using a double standard.  You slam Microsoft for walking
away from OS/2 as if that were some enormous betrayal of trust. Yet you don't
give IBM the same amount of hell for walking away from its applications.
People weren't buying OS/2; people weren't buying IBM apps.  Microsoft drops
OS/2, it's evil; IBM drops its apps, well, that's business.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12383 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  21:12:01
Sb: #12314-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Robert Lauriston 75300,3205 (X)

Robert,

I was affected by both IBM's dissolution of its apps division (I was a Current
user and am now a Commence user) and MS's abandonement of OS/2. There are
subtle, but important distinctions between the two. IBM assured continued
support for all its apps before handing them off (admittedly Current was left
dangling for a bit). MS just sent me a letter saying they were dropping
support of OS/2. They did offer the opportunity for me to get a $750 refund,
or be enrolled in the NT program, but there was no assurance of support by
anyone.

There is also a major difference between the investment an MS OS/2 2.0 SDK
owner made, both in purchasing the product and using the product, compared to
Current or Hollywood.

Probably more problematic was that Ballmer is 'misquoted' in a Jan '91 WSJ and
then 6 months later we find the misquote wasn't. MS at minimum did a piss poor
job on this one.

John

#: 12330 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  13:41:24
Sb: #12227-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Will Zachmann [CANOPUS] 76004,3657 (X)

Oh, hi Will. Thought you'd moved on to greener pastures. Nice to see you back.

If I remember right, when IBM and MS at least pretended to be partners, they
aimed Windows for the lower end and OS/2 for the higher.  I'm sure this is so.
So if one can say after the split became final, MS deserted OS/2, isn't it
fair to say IBM deserted Windows?  Have you seen a late PS/X bundled with
Windows?  I haven't.

If you really think I'd make a good spin doctor for MS, please recommend me to
a friend you have there. I wouldn't mind a change in career <g>. Meanwhile
will your PCW column appear somewhere's else?

                                          Paul

There are 2 Replies.

#: 12349 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  16:05:33
Sb: #12330-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Will Zachmann [CANOPUS] 76004,3657
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563 (X)

 >If I remember right, when IBM and MS at least pretended to be partners,
 >they aimed Windows for the lower end and OS/2 for the higher.  I'm sure
 >this is so.  So if one can say after the split became final, MS deserted
 >OS/2, isn't it fair to say IBM deserted Windows?  Have you seen a late PS/X
 >bundled with Windows?  I haven't.

You don't remember right.  Microsoft tried for years to get IBM to buy into
Windows but IBM never did.  What you probably recall is the attempted joint
IBM/Microsoft statement at Comdex Fall 1989 where IBM joined in a somewhat
lukewarm endorsement for Windows on systems with less than 2MB (or something
like that).  That was also, however, the statement in which Microsoft pledged
to bring out OS/2 versions of applications ahead of Windows versions.

IBM does, by the way, currently offer Windows bundled on its low-end PS/1
personal computers that ship with less than 4MB of memory.  They also provide
Windows 3.0 (and, before long 3.1) support under OS/2 2.0.  I'd say it really
amounts to stretching it (well beyond the bounds of reason and credulity <g>)
to try to claim that IBM has "deserted Windows."

 >If you really think I'd make a good spin doctor for MS, please recommend me
 >to a friend you have there. I wouldn't mind a change in career <g>.

I'm not sure my recommendation would help you much at Microsoft these days! I
do still have friends there (though some of them are kinda irked at me lately
for some mysterious reason <g>) but they aren't in the PR department. If you
are seriously interested, though, I'd suggest you send a resume to Jonathan
Lazarus, VP of Systems Marketing.  Tell him you pick on me all the time
on-line.  That should be more helpful to you than a recommendation from me!
<g>

 >Meanwhile will your PCW column appear somewhere's else?

I have no present plans to do a regular column comparable to my PC Week (or PC
Magazine) columns.  There is a fairly good chance, however, that I'll be
starting up a new forum on Compuserve that will, among other things, serve as
a sort of on-line column/newsletter for me as well as a place for folks to

[More...]

There are 3 Replies.

#: 12350 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  16:05:43
Sb: #12349-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Will Zachmann [CANOPUS] 76004,3657
To: Will Zachmann [CANOPUS] 76004,3657 (X)

[Part 2 of message 12349]

get together to discuss strategic issues in the computer and communications
industry.  We'll also focus on what's hot (or not) in the way of new hardware,
software and communications products (including Windows and Windows NT
products by the way).

It's not a done deal yet, but we've got a general agreement in principle with
CompuServe and are working out the details.  God willin' and the creek don't
rise and you'll have the option to GO CANOPUS and come and torture me all you
want about my horrible views about MSFT and Windows (or whatever) without our
clogging up the forum here for folks who just want to get the technical scoop
on NT (which is, in fact, the reason I came by here in the first place).

All the best,

Will

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12439 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  09:03:53
Sb: #12350-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Will Zachmann [CANOPUS] 76004,3657 (X)

Will:

Yah, perhaps mentioning your name won't be the exact ticket to opening doors
at MS right now <g>.  And yah, it was that IBM and MS agreement or statement
where IBM was gonna use Windows on low end machines that I was stretching into
saying IBM had abandonned Windows. I had to say something! <g>.

I think to refocus this a bit.  Mercer brought something up that I feel is the
pit of this peach.  I don't feel MS had any moral obligation to keeping with
OS/2 when they felt their business interests lay elsewhere. They need to go
where maximum profitablity lies [D [D [D [D [A [A [C [C [C [C [C [C [C [C [C
[C [C [C [C [C [C [C [C [C [C [D [D [DHowever, I"m in agreement with Mercer
and others who say that MS should have, and could have done more to support
those who early on bought into their OS/2 plans.

I think a code converter like Mercer suggests a bit far fetched, but that they
almost offered nothing wasn't right.  Now I guess you and I are on MS's *&&*
list <G>.

I'll be looking forward to CANOPUS if it opens.  If you need a contentious
sysop...perhaps you better look in other places than me <g>. Good luck in
whatever you do.

                                         Paul

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12440 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  09:04:55
Sb: #12439-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563

Will:

The escape sequences in the past message isn't private code, but rather a
burst of line noise. Sorry.

                                         Paul

#: 12464 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  13:18:31
Sb: #12439-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Will Zachmann [CANOPUS] 76004,3657
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563

Paul,

See, my view is that the problem with Microsoft walking away from OS/2
fundamentally is *not* a matter of failing to keep commitments (though it
certainly was that) but rather that it genuinely was *not* in Microsoft's best
business interest to do so.  (Which, by the way, was exactly what I tried to
persuade Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer about back in August of 1990.)

My view is that it really wasn't sound business judgement but a substantial
over-valuation of their own capabilities and under-valuation of IBM's combined
with a heavy does of impatience, immaturity and plain old ego that led
Microsoft to dump OS/2 the way they did.  They then set out to pretty much
re-invent the wheel with NT and thereby set back both themselves and the
industry.

I see it as at least roughly comparable to what IBM did in refusing to support
Ethernet and insisting on "rolling their own" with token ring instead.  I
think that was a dumb move for IBM and one that substantially delayed
acceptance of LANs.  Had IBM jumped on board with Ethernet at the start, IBM
would have owned the LAN market by the late 1980s.  Instead, they divided it
and lost precious opportunities.  I think Microsoft has made a very similar
mistake in trying to kill OS/2 (something they've quite obviously failed to
do) and promote their own alternative exclusively (NT, which will obviously be
significantly late and not terribly competitive with OS/2 as a desktop OS for
a long time).

I'll keep you posted on progress on CIS:CANOPUS (assuming we make progress)
and will certainly keep in mind you offer to help out.

All the best,

Will

#: 12441 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  09:08:58
Sb: #12349-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mark Vodhanel 72456,463
To: Will Zachmann [CANOPUS] 76004,3657 (X)

 >There is a fairly good chance, however, that I'll be starting up a new forum
 >on Compuserve that will, among other things, serve as a sort of on-line
 >column/newsletter for me....

Now that makes sense, you have a proven track record of being able to generate
forum traffic.  I say that with a little smile, but it is, however, very true.

-Mark

#: 12465 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  13:18:37
Sb: #12441-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Will Zachmann [CANOPUS] 76004,3657
To: Mark Vodhanel 72456,463 (X)

Mark,

Thanks!  I *do* know that while some folks like me others don't.  Even the
folks who don't like me often seem to like to argue with me though!  <g> Heck,
you just can't get the juice if you don't squeeze the lemon.

All the best,

Will

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12493 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  15:09:39
Sb: #12465-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Will Zachmann [CANOPUS] 76004,3657 (X)

Will,

>>if you don't squeeze the lemon.<<

Just read your column in the 10/92 Upside. I think a more apropos analogy
would be squeezing the lemon with a 10lb maul. Hard to find the juice to make
lemonade when you are done ;->

John

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12498 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  15:36:10
Sb: #12493-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Will Zachmann [CANOPUS] 76004,3657
To: John Oellrich 72611,1452 (X)

 >Just read your column in the 10/92 Upside. I think a more apropos analogy
 >would be squeezing the lemon with a 10lb maul. Hard to find the juice to
 >make lemonade when you are done ;->

I take it you think I was a bit too wishy-washy and should have expressed my
views in a more vigorous and straightforward manner?  <g>

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12526 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  20:44:18
Sb: #12498-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Will Zachmann [CANOPUS] 76004,3657 (X)

Will,

Yeah, you were beating around the bush as usual. Hey if you want to make it as
a big time prognosticator you got to stop being so mealy mouthed.

John

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12563 S2/General Discussion
    16-Oct-92  08:37:34
Sb: #12526-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Will Zachmann [CANOPUS] 76004,3657
To: John Oellrich 72611,1452

 >Yeah, you were beating around the bush as usual. Hey if you want to make it
 >as a big time prognosticator you got to stop being so mealy mouthed.

I guess yr. right.  I'll try harder in the future.  By the way, was there
anything in that column that you thought would prove wrong?

#: 12454 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  10:58:56
Sb: #12349-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Robert Lauriston 75300,3205
To: Will Zachmann [CANOPUS] 76004,3657 (X)

IBM ships Windows on its low-end PS/1s that ship with less than *8MB* memory.

#: 12466 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  13:18:43
Sb: #12454-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Will Zachmann [CANOPUS] 76004,3657
To: Robert Lauriston 75300,3205 (X)

 >IBM ships Windows on its low-end PS/1s that ship with less than *8MB*
 >memory.

OK.  Sounds fair to me!  <g>

#: 12453 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  10:57:21
Sb: #12330-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Robert Lauriston 75300,3205
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563

When IBM and MS made that 11/89 announcement about Windows for the low end and
OS/2 for the high end, Microsoft was (a) trying to stop IBM from doing PM Lite
and (b) about to release Windows 3.0, which for all practical purposes
required the 4MB they said was the break point at which you'd switch to OS/2.

#: 12455 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  11:00:33
Sb: #12227-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Carl W. Brown 71250,1322
To: Will Zachmann [CANOPUS] 76004,3657 (X)

Will,

I see that IBM & MS had a parting of the ways as to what they saw in the role
of an OS.  Had IBM not picked up OS/2 that MS would have supported it. I
strongly believe that if IBM should announce that it is dropping OS/2 that MS
would add PM support to NT.

I think that one of the major factors that will hurt OS/2 is the decision not
to use the NT engine for OS/2 3.0.  I can not imagine that a new OS can be
designed, written, and shipped in much before 1995.  In the meantime MS will
provide a family of system that will run on smaller and larger system leaving
OS/2 as a orphan system.  This would be only to develop a system that is on
part with the current NT offering.

Yes the Taligent efforts may provide fresh input in the 1996-97 time frame,
but then it may be too late.

Unfortunately I see OS/2 as going the way of DPPX.  It has a lot of things
going for it that you do not see in DOS or Win.  But I see the current users
installing it primarily to run DOS & Win apps.  As such there is not lock in
and they can easily switch.

The question of OS/2 survival will be in the foot race between IBM & MS. Will
IBM have the products to sell first or will MS learn how to sell & support
corporate America.

Carl

#: 12467 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  13:18:52
Sb: #12455-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Will Zachmann [CANOPUS] 76004,3657
To: Carl W. Brown 71250,1322 (X)

Carl,

I see a rather different future.  NT is certainly a very elegant fundamental
design and obviously has some (promised) advantages over OS/2 2.0 in certain
contexts.  Where I see the most critical competitive struggle being fought,
however, is on the typical office desktop.  There, I think OS/2 2.0 has some
substantial advantages over NT and will continue to do so for some time.

First, of course, is that OS/2 2.0 is presently shipping and has been since
last spring.  NT isn't even in beta yet.  Equally important, however, even
when NT does ship (and I'd say mid-summer '93 remains a fairly optimistic
expectation) I think it will have some significant competitive disadvantages
relative to OS/2 2.0.  The two most important are a) it is likely to require
considerably more resources (memory in particular) than OS/2 will at that time
for a comparable job at comparable levels of performance and b) it is likely
to provide significantly worse backward compatibility with 16-bit DOS and also
Windows applications than OS/2 does.  By the time NT ships, I also expect well
have quite a broad range of 32-bit OS/2 applications shipping as well.

Therefore I not only think that OS/2 will easily do well enough at least to
survive handily but I also think it stands an even better chance than does NT
to become the leading successor to DOS on the typical office desktop.

Will

#: 12478 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  14:20:47
Sb: #12455-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Chuck Ebbert 76306,1226
To: Carl W. Brown 71250,1322 (X)

Carl, IBM has said that they will be using the Mach kernel for OS/2 3.0. The
Mach kernel has been out for a while, so what's to write there?  Things like
the 32-bit GPI will be a mere recompile.  I'm not saying it will be simple but
obviously it is not a ground-up rewrite.  And IBM has been demonstrating 3.0
on RS/6000's already so they must be making progress.

#: 12242 S2/General Discussion
    13-Oct-92  21:39:44
Sb: #12201-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563

Yeesh!  Sorry, I'll believe the OS/2 developers any day over Steve Ballmer;
based on his public statements concerning OS/2, and what I personally know
from my own experience, he lacks credibility on the subject.  That's the most
polite way I know of expressing my opinion of him, and his opinions regarding
how much of what is "right" in OS/2 v2 is from MS.  There may be lingering
design concepts inherited from MS, such as the single message queue, but you
have only to read the messages from those who were using the overpriced SDKs
about what happened to the builds they were receiving, to realize that great
changes in code quality, for the better, occurred after IBM took over.

As for IBM "walking away" from Windows:  Say what?  IBM's only expressed
commitment to Windows was to market it; there was never an agreement for IBM
to assist, much less take the lead, in its development, as there had been for
MS in the case of OS/2.  IBM is still marketing Windows, preloaded on many of
its most popular systems, and is in fact including it with every copy of OS/2.
Though IBM never offered its own version of a Windows SDK, IBM still provides
Windows-friendly development tools such as the CUA 91 controls kit, multimedia
toolkit, and Mirrors, whereas MS, with the exception of MASM, dropped its
support of OS/2 as both a development platform and target.  IBM hardly "walked
away from the Win commitment," by any stretch of the imagination.  MS, though,
made promises which it then proceeded to break out of expediency, not need.

You are right about MS not having abandoned OS/2, though.  What it really
tried to do, using methods both foul and fair, and at which it failed utterly,
was to kill OS/2 outright, when it became clear that IBM was not going to play
along with MS's "Windows Everywhere" game plan.

Now that we know where we stand WRT each other (on these issues, anyway <g>),
want to let it drop?  OK by me.

  regards,

    Mercer

#: 12331 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  13:47:29
Sb: #12242-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150 (X)

OK, not point in going on since we at least partly agree we're in areas where
we have to rely on others' remembrances and these are likely colored by self
interest. I'm sure, for example, that me and my ex will have different stories
about our split <g>.

I hadn't realized that IBM bundled Windows w/o OS/2 on any system. Did I read
you right about this? If so, I messged Will Z wrong.  Robert Lauriston did
make a good point that those who slam MS for abandonning OS/2 (if they did)
don't seem to equally slam IBM for deserting their apps biz.  I think that's a
good point.  If IBM can make a sound biz decision about apps, why can't MS do
the same about on OS?

BTW, I'm one who didn't buy the OS/2 SDK mostly due to the 3k price.  I might
be singing a very different tune had I bought into the OS/2 carnival or at any
point put any $ or time into it. So I'm not one who's ox was gored at OS/2's
delay. I early on committed to Win.

                                   Paul

There are 3 Replies.

#: 12356 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  16:46:48
Sb: #12331-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563 (X)

Paul

The low cost PS/1's come with Windows.

--Ben

#: 12357 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  16:46:55
Sb: #12331-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563 (X)

Paul
IBM spent quite a bit of time arranging a complete turn over of its desktop
products to the new suppliers to cause its customers as little trouble as
possible.

MS certainly can't be accused of makeing the transition of OS/2 to IBM as
smooth as it could.

MS's interest in its customers  welfare certainly seems to be less then
IBM's even it this case (which since I am a Xywrite user and thus was
interested in Signiture I had both an interest in and dinged IBM for)

Sorry your accusation doesn't hold up at all.

--Ben


There is 1 Reply.

#: 12423 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  08:13:17
Sb: #12357-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Ben Sano 72401,2736 (X)

Ben:

IBM needs MS products, it's that simple.  I'd forgotten the PS/1 line never
having run into one in my line of work - so I missed that.

I claim the only reason for IBM seeming to accomodate some MS products is
because they need them. MS needs nothing IBM produces, so they can afford to
be rude.


                                          Paul

#: 12374 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  18:45:54
Sb: #12331-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563 (X)

Yes, IBM bundles several models of its PS/1s, notebooks, and low-end (both ISA
and MicroChannel) and UltiMedia (MicroChannel) PS/2s with Windows.  Some of
these promotions are temporary, others are open-ended.  The systems on which
Windows is bundled are low-memory boxes with 4 MBytes or less of RAM, and
generally have 80 MBytes or less of hard disk, though the UltiMedia systems
have larger disks and more memory, generally.  The UltiMedia systems come with
full copies of DOS, Windows and OS/2, and though OS/2 is installed, there are
instructions on how to remove it.  Believe me, IBM comes in for some very
strongly-worded criticism from the OS/2 bigots on the OS/2 fora, who routinely
lambaste IBM for its continuing support of Windows.

As to slamming IBM for abandoning applications, it is not the same thing at
all.  MS walked away from OS/2 and offered those it had misled nothing at all
in the way of options or reparations (oooh! sorry, Steve Ballmer did give
buyers of the SDK a whopping $750 refund; nothing to C compiler or OS/2
toolkit users, though, and nothing to make up for all the time they spent
developing OS/2 apps while MS was beavering away on its Winapp suite).  IBM
did not dispose of any piece of application software until it had worked out
for its users the details of a migration path or transition to new ownership.
When IBM ditched OfficeVision/2, they gave their customers free copies of
Lotus Notes and cc:Mail.  There is a world of difference, not only in scope,
but in kind.  Had IBM been the one to back away from OS/2 (how glad I am that
they did not), you can bet there would have been a migration path, and a tool
to help convert OS/2 code, to the new platform.  Nothing so fair from
Microsoft, though.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12428 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  08:29:19
Sb: #12374-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150

Well IBM's vending of Windows with some systems is only an indication how much
the need MS software to make their systems have any worth to users. I didn't
know that about PS/1's and other low end PS's (but a lot of others have
informed me today about this <G>) since I never have even seen a PS/1 and
can't imagine any use for this system in my line.  So the entire low end of
IBM is a line that I'm utterly ignorant about and I freely admit my lack of
knowledge.

I disagree that MS was wrong in abandonning their OS/2 effort. I agree with
you, however, that a company in their financial shape should have done a lot
more to support developers who bought into their past plans. I'm skeptical
that a tool to convert OS/2 code to Win/NT is a reasonable thing, but we're in
agreement that much more could have, and IMO, should have been done.

I sure know how I'd feel today if MS announced they're dropping Win and NT!

                                Paul

#: 12052 S2/General Discussion
    11-Oct-92  10:48:00
Sb: #11979-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: John Tarbox 71201,2467
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150 (X)

>I don't disagree with you that SMP is a desirable feature in a server OS.
What >I disagree with you about is whether it is a useful feature today, in an
OS >that is obviously being targeted at a market much wider than simply
servers.

    If I might be permitted to add my two cents worth, the thing that I feel
is critical to getting a high-end OS accepted by the mass market is cheap
hardware.  For example if you could upgrade your computer with an extra 8meg
of memory, then nobody would piss and moan about how much memory NT or OS/2
takes.
    For multiprocessing, suppose you could buy a motherboard for less than
$1,000 from a clone maker that had two (2) 486-50s on it? Do you suppose there
are a few (as in the millions) of "power users" who would like to have that on
their desktop?

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12086 S2/General Discussion
    11-Oct-92  19:22:25
Sb: #12052-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: John Tarbox 71201,2467 (X)

Sure, there are lots of people that would love to have a <$1000 dual-CPU
motherboard.  Such boards will probably be available in a few years, as will
SMP versions of OS/2, NT, NextStep, Solaris, AIX, Taligent, and who knows what
other OSs.

But for the single user, the user of a desktop system and not a multi-user
server, SMP is an overblown promise, because (1) the nature of human-machine
interaction is serial, resulting in lots of unused CPU cycles while
interactive apps wait for work and (2) non-interactive background tasks are
usually I/O-bound (they wait relatively long periods for I/O to complete).  To
the extent that (1) your app mix contains a reasonable number of
background-executable tasks, and (2) those tasks are CPU-bound rather than
I/O-bound, SMP will benefit a single user, and the putative <$1000 dual-CPU
motherboard will be a boon.  However, it's doubtful that such a setup will be
cost-effective for quite a few years, because there are already so many free
CPU cycles going begging for work in current designs, even on 386/25 machines.
Most single user systems will benefit far more from coprocessors or
accelerators, either with or without a faster uniprocessor, than from an extra
CPU or three.

Of course, there will always be some users who will pay good money for the
latest "buzztech," regardless of whether they actually see an improvement in
either throughput or performance, just because they have more money than sense
and always want to have "the latest thing."



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12183 S2/General Discussion
    13-Oct-92  07:00:58
Sb: #12086-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Andy Champ 100064,2267
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150

Mercer, you think computer use is serial?  When I came to the DOS world from
Concurrent CP/M I really CURSED not being able to run background compiles, and
not being able to switch out to an editor and edit the source with switching
back to look at the error list, and not having peer-peer networking, and not
having transparent spooling without demolishing system poerformance and..
and...

Give people the multi-tasking system and they'll use it!  Even as I type, I've
got 2 other mail services logged in!

Andy.

#: 12196 S2/General Discussion
    13-Oct-92  10:52:11
Sb: #12183-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Andy Champ 100064,2267

Andy
With common applications (not a large simulation or scientific calculation)
you have to be running about two dozen applications before you start to get
useful performance advantages from SMP.

I find it hard to believe that most folks will be running a task mix which
will allow over 10 threads to be in existance at any one time.

--Ben

#: 12406 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  05:30:18
Sb: #12196-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Andy Champ 100064,2267
To: Ben Sano 72401,2736 (X)

>With common applications (not a large simulation or scientific calculation)
>you have to be running about two dozen applications before you start to get
>useful performance advantages from SMP.

Ben, I have to disagree.  All you need is one CPU bound app. to soak the mill,
and something else you want to run, then Bingo! You have an advantage. May not
be enough to be worth having of course...  it could be that you need 2 dozen
apps. if your apps. spend enough time not CPU bound.  But in that case you're
probably not the kind of person who needs a faster CPU either.

Andy.

#: 12243 S2/General Discussion
    13-Oct-92  21:39:55
Sb: #12183-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: Andy Champ 100064,2267

Andy, my point was that while the user is interacting with foreground apps,
most of the machine's cycles will be available for background processing
without need of an additional processor.  Esp. when coupled with coprocessed
I/O, including video, that decouples the CPU from ongoing I/O operations,
uniprocessors can pump lots of gas.  I forget my original phrasing, but as you
paraphrased, "computer use is serial" insofar as interactive apps generally
spend all of their time waiting for input from the user, and the user can
interact with foreground apps only in a serial manner.  This fact leaves lots
of cycles on a uniprocessor available for background app use, even in a GUI
environment (though co-processed video helps a lot).  If the background apps
are disk-intensive, and the system has co-processed (SCSI) disk I/O, it will
take several background apps running concurrently before SMP will
significantly improve throughput.

And of course there will be the exception that proves any rule.  Most desktop
users of personal computers won't need SMP for quite a while.  That's not to
say the technology might not be successfully marketed in that segment, but SMP
is not the panacea that many would make it out to be, unless you run lots of
tasks.  It has its place, and as it becomes cheaper I have no doubt that it
will become more widespread.  But multi-tasking has nothing, or very little,
to do with SMP.  I'm multitasking right now on a 386/25 with OS/2 v2, much
more smoothly and steadily than I can do with some other multitaskers I might
name, and as I compose this message, there is little to no degradation
noticeable while I compile in one window and download from CIS in another.  In
my case, I'd benefit lots more from an upgrade to a single 486/66DX than I
would from two SMP 386/25s.  I suspect that my case is more generally typical.

#: 12407 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  05:30:22
Sb: #12243-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Andy Champ 100064,2267
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150

Am I imagining it or am I having 4 conversations with you at once?

Anyway, if your uniprocessor system has an intelligent cacheing SCSI
controller and a coprocessor video card, you can call it uniprocessor and I'll
call it Asymmetric Multi-Processing.  Now why can't I have an SMP system and
use a thread for handling intelligent SCSI caching and a thread to do video
blits out of process and retain a nice flexible scheduling system so that when
I'm compiling the video blitter thread is idle and "its CPU" can do something
more useful than twiddle its thumbs? (lots of other examples)

#: 12494 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  15:09:47
Sb: #12407-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Andy Champ 100064,2267

Andy,

>>Anyway, if your uniprocessor system has an intelligent cacheing SCSI
controller and a coprocessor video card, you can call it uniprocessor and I'll
call it Asymmetric Multi-Processing<<

We agree on the definitions. But for its going to be a hard row to how for SMP
to get down to Coprocessed/ASMP'd systems in dollars (or pounds if you prefer)
in the near future. App specific stuff tends to be much more efficient in
absolute thruput, but also cheaper. A system put together right with
coprocessors will allow use of a less powerful processor.

Granted putting it together right is somewhat of a black art. And yeah we will
get to the point where we need both, SMP for the general purpose stuff, and
co-p's for I/O (and likely compression/decompression stuff). But that is still
a fair piece down the road.

John

#: 12511 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  18:01:24
Sb: #12407-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: Andy Champ 100064,2267

Yes, Asymetric Multi-Processing (AMP) is a term frequently used to denote what
I was describing; if you want, we can agree for the purpose of this discussion
to that usage.  It is AMP and not SMP that I see as the cost-effective
architecture for desktop users for some time to come.  Even your
video-conferencing application is as suitable, if not more so, for
implementation via AMP than SMP.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and SMP will be implemented cheaply and *well* at price
points equal to those achievable via AMP, in the near future.  I'd imagine a
more likely scenario to be that as the costs for well-implemented SMP designs
decline, the costs for implementations based on AMP designs will similarly
decline.  Don't forget, the RISC proponents have been predicting the demise of
CISC for many years.  It hasn't happened yet.  I see several parallels to the
SMP/AMP argument.

You know, I also never foreclosed the eventual supremacy of SMP at the
desktop.  All I've maintained is that it's not in the cards for the near term.
When SMP is available in a $1K or $2K desktop system, it will sell, and sell
well.  Whether the users of such systems actually see any
performance/throughput improvement will depend entirely on the quality of the
implementation and the apps they run.  I don't see true utility at the desktop
level for another four or five years.  As for video conferencing becoming a
mainstream app, this is definitely a long-term proposition.  I remember the
industry touting optical disks as the mainstream disk technology on the
immediate horizon, back in 1984 and 1985.  It still hasn't happened.  If the
installed base were much smaller, these great new technologies would be able
to penetrate more quickly, but it's going to be a while before the supporting
technology infrastructure is in place to support some of the things you
discuss.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12527 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  20:44:28
Sb: #12511-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150

Mercer,

>>If the installed base were much smaller, these great new technologies would
be able to penetrate more quickly,<<

I don't think the size of the base that has much to do with it. Its John's
Rule of Thumb that any technology has to be at least two bleading edges out of
date before it becomes mass market. We were in to our second generation of
386's while our customers were still demanding our 8086's. We finally had to
release a 2nd gen 8086 product to support the demands. It still amazes me.

The '286 really didn't whither until the 486 was available. It is surprising
that 486 sales (Intel's chip sales) exceeded 386 before the P5 shipped. But
then again the 386 number Intel reported for sure didn't report any of the 386
clones, and I'd be surprised if it included IBM's licensed 386's.

John

#: 12127 S2/General Discussion
    12-Oct-92  11:23:30
Sb: #11979-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: neil colvin 71650,3517
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150 (X)

I am aware of at least four MAJOR manufacturers who are plannin SMP
motherboard releases in early 93. These machines will be priced VERY
competitively with songle processor machines.  I think that the acceptance of
SMP platforms by "power users", especially with the use that NT makes of SMP
environments, will come much faster than most people think, and will be more
important over the next 5 years than P5 type environments.

There are 2 Replies.

#: 12136 S2/General Discussion
    12-Oct-92  13:58:23
Sb: #12127-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Cohagan 74375,313
To: neil colvin 71650,3517 (X)

Neil-

 |I am aware of at least four MAJOR manufacturers who are plannin SMP
motherboard
 |releases in early 93. These machines will be priced VERY competitively with
 |songle processor machines.
  ^^^^^^^

H'mmmm, let's see.  That'd be a single processor machine with a dongle, right?
:-)

Sorry -- I lost control.
 Bill

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12147 S2/General Discussion
    12-Oct-92  17:33:45
Sb: #12136-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: neil colvin 71650,3517
To: Cohagan 74375,313

Apparently so did my fingers!!

#: 12155 S2/General Discussion
    12-Oct-92  19:49:29
Sb: #12127-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: neil colvin 71650,3517

I don't doubt that SMP motherboards are on the horizon, and that such
motherboards will eventually find their way onto some users' desktops; whether
their designs transcend their putative low cost remains to be seen.  I also
don't doubt that SMP has been grossly oversold except as a multi-user
architecture, and even then it is practicaly useless without very
high-performance and correspondingly expensive I/O subsystems.  Of course, you
may be lucky enough to have multiple compute-bound apps that you need to run
concurrently, that all fit in physical memory, complete with their datasets.
SMP would then be ideal for you on your desktop.  Not many users fit this
profile, but I'm sure that some do.

Just so you don't get the wrong idea, I am not *anti-SMP*.  I am a firm
believer in its utility.  I believe it will make its way into most systems
over the next decade, but it won't be important to desktop users, or desktop
operating systems, for several years, and probably not really until SMP is
completely integrated at the chip level.  It will be important to high-use
multi-user servers as the technology becomes cost-effective in that niche, and
this will happen much faster than it will on the desktop.  This is just my
opinion, and one with which you are free to disagree.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12173 S2/General Discussion
    13-Oct-92  03:52:45
Sb: #12155-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150

Mercer,

>>and one with which you are free to disagree.<<

Boy, I was worried there for a minute that you might start charging ;->


John

#: 12240 S2/General Discussion
    13-Oct-92  21:39:24
Sb: #12173-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: John Oellrich 72611,1452 (X)

  >> ... you might start charging ;->

Hey, that's an excellent idea!  Now all I have to do is figure out how to
collect...

   Mercer

#: 11980 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  20:54:13
Sb: #11874-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563 (X)

Yes, I have both.  Since MS elected to provide a brain-damaged FlexBoot that
won't coexist with OS/2's BootManager, and I need disk compression software
for both environments anyway (my 660 MBytes is just not enough, these days),
I've elected not to install the NT SDK.  Yet.  "Great" tools, btw, is entirely
a subjective judgment.  MS's "great" tools don't do me any good when they
don't support OS/2 development any longer.  IOW, how great is a tool when it
ceases to be useful to its customer?  I did receive a MASM update today that
proclaims it is for MS-DOS and OS/2, so I know that at least one segment of
the MS tools group has not abandoned me.  I think it's not only odd (given
MS's seeming desire to capture every last dollar on the table), but tellingly
sad, that Microsoft not only abandoned me and thousands of others, but that
its reps on CIS last fall told us to our "face" that they didn't want the OS/2
business anymore, and that we should seek out other tool vendors for OS/2
support.  Fortunately, those other tool vendors are plentiful.

BTW, SMP comes for "free" with any app; native NT apps are no more SMP-enabled
than a DOS app.  Depending on design, and what they are doing, multi-threaded
apps may be able to better leverage the presence of multiple processors, but
there is no magic to SMP.  Any app that wants CPU resources will benefit from
SMP, to the extent that additional processors make more CPU cycles available
to it.  SMP is a scheduling issue within the kernel, not an app programming
issue per se.  Adding specific code for multithreading is not exactly a
trivial exercise, either, unless it is being used in a trivial way; useful
multi-threading will usually require a fair amount of retrofitting, or a
rewrite.

Why aren't we all using NextStep or Unix V?  Cost and availability of apps and
the OS, plus their very poor or nonexistent support of existing DOS (and to a
lesser extent, Win) apps.

There are 3 Replies.

#: 12030 S2/General Discussion
    10-Oct-92  20:56:15
Sb: #11980-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Jim Bohannon 72561,2033
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150 (X)

Just a side comment - You can use the NT Flexboot with and OS/2 and a DOS
installation.  How do I know?  You just can't *INSTALL* NT when an OS/2 Boot
Manager is installed. The key is to remove the OS/2 Boot Manager, install NT,
then reinstall the OS/2 Boot Manger.  It works fine assuming you do things in
the right order. I'm using all three on one PC right now.

Let me know if you want and/or need details on this.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12081 S2/General Discussion
    11-Oct-92  19:21:14
Sb: #12030-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: Jim Bohannon 72561,2033 (X)

Thanks, Jim; I've got the instructions, and when I can get a compatible disk
compression utility (at least for OS/2 and DOS, if not also for NT), I'll
undoubtedly give NT a shot.

#: 12051 S2/General Discussion
    11-Oct-92  10:34:58
Sb: #11980-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150 (X)

I was very surprised at MS's dropping of language support for OS/2. I took it
as a slightly irrational burst of patriotism in the wake of the IBM split. My
understanding is that saner councils now apply and MS will re-up support for
OS/2 and even issue some newer apps for it. If they walk away, there are
certain other vendors who'll step into the gap.

Without knowing for sure, I *thought* Flexboot's incompt with OS/2 is a
technical issue, not one that MS intentionally built in. But I don't know for
sure.

I question your contention (if I read you right) that any OS, even DOS will
prosper under a multiprocessor box.  IMO, the OS needs to be tailored to take
advantage of this situation and an OS that isn't can't avail itself of these
'extra clock cycles'.

Most apps, in my experience, have a few bottle necks in them.  These apps can
greatly benefit from a bit of tweaking putting in multithreading just at the
most critical places. This will help perf tremendously w/o having to redo the
entire code to optimal MT perf.  A little can go a long way when you move from
dead serial to even partly MT.

                                      Paul

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12083 S2/General Discussion
    11-Oct-92  19:21:39
Sb: #12051-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563 (X)

My contention was not that any OS, but that just about any application, can
benefit from multiprocessing, if CPU cycles are the constraining resource.  I
very clearly said that the ability of the kernel to schedule work on multiple
processors is the key.  Multi-threaded apps can leverage multiprocessor
availability, but multiple processors are not necessary to support or benefit
from multithreading.  DOS apps running in a VDM can indeed benefit from
multiprocessing, because it is the ability of the OS to schedule processes on
the next available CPU that provides the benefit of SMP, not necessarily that
an app is made up of multiple processes (the expensive way) or threads (the
economical way).  An app that is designed to exploit multiprocessing
intelligently will benefit the most from an MP box, but any app that can be
multitasked, and that includes almost all DOS apps, will also benefit,
assuming the constraining resource is the amount of CPU cycles.  If, on the
other hand, you've got lots of available CPU cycles, but are constrained in
the graphics adapter or disk I/O, SMP is not likely to bring much to the
table.  Coprocessors or accelerators will provide the biggest improvements in
such environments.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12119 S2/General Discussion
    12-Oct-92  10:05:57
Sb: #12083-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150 (X)

Well we agree on SMP now. I misunderstood you a bit there. What I do see is
SMP bringing a lot of benefit to a lot of practical apps since I see servers
being processor bound as nets grow.  Caching controllers can just about
eliminate disk thruput bottlenecks, servers really can't be video bound, so
the only remaining bottleneck is processing speed - or as you like it: cycle
availability.

My opinion: the upshot is that SMP will eliminate the only bottleneck we can't
resolve with currently available HW on a one processor system.

Were I to chose (unlikely) between SMP or MT apps, I'd chose the latter, but
we're gonna get both in NT and if I understand right, in OS/2 3.

                                  Paul

#: 12181 S2/General Discussion
    13-Oct-92  07:00:43
Sb: #11980-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Andy Champ 100064,2267
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150

Mercer, one slight disagreement: If you have a system which is genuinely
running a single app which is single threaded, a second CPU will NOT help as
it will merely idle as the other CPU is running all the work.  If it can do
for example disk cache management it might help a little.  however, a
multi-threaded app might be able to use the second CPU even if it's the only
one on the machine.  for example: If you were ray-tracing with a single
threaded app, which is essentially a CPU-bound operation, the second CPU
wouldn't really help unless the app split into threads which traced
independently and simultaneously.

Most cases, a big machine - especially a server - has some batch workload
which can be carried on in background.  an example might be you'd fire off
your big ray trace job, then run up Compuserve, or solitaire, or something to
pass the time while it was tracing.  Single CPU, you slug your render.
Multiple CPU, a whole lot less impact.

Andy.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12191 S2/General Discussion
    13-Oct-92  09:14:33
Sb: #12181-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Robert Lauriston 75300,3205
To: Andy Champ 100064,2267

A multi-threaded operating system can use SMP even when running a
single-threaded app.

#: 12256 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  03:25:16
Sb: #12191-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Robert Lauriston 75300,3205

Robert,

You are correct that as soon as an OS call is made, the additional processors
can be used, but in Andy's ray tracing example the OS threads would be
'blocked' waiting for something to do. The net gain here would be less than
measurable.

John

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12271 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  05:41:13
Sb: #12256-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: John Oellrich 72611,1452 (X)

John
To take advantage of SMP NT obviously needs support for terminals.

I can't wait to see MS's version of Terminfo.

--Ben


There is 1 Reply.

#: 12276 S2/General Discussion
    14-Oct-92  06:53:22
Sb: #12271-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Ben Sano 72401,2736 (X)

Ben,

What makes ya think they won't just retrofit termio<g>?

I disagree that the 'classic' multi-user model is what will allow SMP to
provide value. As the server moves beyond file & print sharing in to the
application server model it will generate the same less than predicatble use
patterns that is found in timeshare.

John

#: 12404 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  05:30:00
Sb: #12276-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Andy Champ 100064,2267
To: John Oellrich 72611,1452 (X)

John, I completely agree with you (on apps on servers generating work for SMP
that is).  Of course the other thing that'd make it worthwhile would be a
scheduler that could allow you to chuck tasks about the network transparently
to wherever there are free resources. Remembering of course LAN overheads will
often make that not worthwhile.  Now THERE's a project to strain you brain on!



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12437 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  08:51:16
Sb: #12404-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Andy Champ 100064,2267

Andy
 >Now THERE's a project to strain your brain on!

I saw an adaptive network scheduling approach in Trans. of Soft. Eng (IEEE)
a few years ago that was both simple and neat.

Basicly, you try a given number (3 to 5 works about as well as any) of times
to delegate it to another processor, once it has been accepted by another
processor then that processor must finish the task, if you can't delegate it
you get to keep it.

This turns out to be someting like 90% as good as 'perfect' scheduling where
you know the exact character of each task before you dispatch it and needs
only a small number of local tables for each proc. and infrequent updates to
these tables.

It basicly works because if several procs in a row are too busy to accept
the task then it is very likely that EVERY proc. is too busy to accept it.

--Ben

#: 12470 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  13:33:25
Sb: #12404-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Andy Champ 100064,2267

Andy,

Re: Brain Strain

There is quite a bit of work being done on that one already, both within AT&T
and outside.

John

#: 12413 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  06:43:17
Sb: #12276-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Chuck Ebbert 76306,1226
To: John Oellrich 72611,1452 (X)

<< As the server moves beyond file & print sharing in to the application
server model it will generate the same less than predicatble use patterns that
is found in timeshare.>>

 In another thread the Microsoft people are claiming that NT will
automatically and correctly balance its own workload without any intervention.
What do you think of this claim?

#: 12471 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  13:33:30
Sb: #12413-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Chuck Ebbert 76306,1226 (X)

Chuck,

I beleive it and that is why I like NT (and anyother multi-tasking,
multi-threaded, SMP OS) for Application Serving. My point with file & print
serving, is that the work loads are little more predictable, are easily shared
between multiple servers (which would be more expensive, but provide greater
reliabilty & availability) or may even be adequately handled by WFWg or
anyother low-end peer network.

John

#: 12244 S2/General Discussion
    13-Oct-92  21:40:04
Sb: #12181-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: Andy Champ 100064,2267

My point was that an OS that can schedule tasks on several CPUs would allow a
single-threaded DOS app to benefit from SMP, even though the app was oblivious
to the system's multiprocessing capability.  IOW, an app does not have to be
coded explicitly to "take advantage" of SMP, in order to do so (though of
course, an app that lends itself to multi-threading will make better use of an
SMP system if in fact it implements threads).  For this to work, though, there
does have to be sufficient work for the OS to schedule.  Clearly, if there
isn't a shortage of CPU cycles on a particular "side" of an SMP system, you
won't be gaining the benefits of SMP.  Given the delays inherent in most data
processing (having to do with I/O and user "think time") you have to have lots
of tasks competing for, and being delayed because of a shortage of, CPU cycles
before SMP becomes useful.

As for your ray-tracing example, it seems that we are reaching beyond the
realm of the average desktop user.  I'll grant you that, even with a decent
coprocessed video adapter, a cpu-intensive task such as ray-tracing would
benefit from having its own processor.  Or processors, depending on whether
and how well the work can be vectorized.  Something like the Power
Visualization System, for example, that has its own array of i860 processors
sitting attached via a HIPPI bus to an RS/6000, is a very apt use of SMP for
such specialized tasks.  This is not the province of the argument at hand,
though.  I've never argued that SMP didn't have its uses, just that those uses
are not pervasive, esp. at the general level.  The users I must worry about
would benefit far more from having a spell-checker run in the background while
they use WordPerfect, and this can be accomplished quite handily via
multi-threading on a uniprocessor.

#: 12405 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  05:30:09
Sb: #12244-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Andy Champ 100064,2267
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150

>>The users I must worry about would benefit far more from having a
spell-checker run in the background while they use WordPerfect, and this can
be accomplished quite handily via multi-threading on a uniprocessor.

The apps. you are looking at now are apps. which will run quite happily on a
uniprocessor because there is plenty of power there for them. In future I have
no doubt that apps. will get more power hungry.  Now you've given a nice
example of something which can be threaded up & run as two threads on a single
CPU.  Suppose that you wish to run a video conference on your PC? That's
something that's heading for the desktop.  And if you have multiple people
conferencing together you'll eat power like no tomorrow.  Even one-to-one
video calls slice quite nicely into bits for an SMP machine - data compress on
transmission, data de-compress on reception, sound handling, let's have
notepad running as well...

All I'm trying to say is that SMP will have uses on the desktop and that as
IMHO power increases on a uniprocessor get harder at the top end we'll do what
Cray have done and go for multis rather than fast singles.  Maybe a single
RISC processor will do what 2 or 3 486's do now, and maybe that'll continue.
The 486 may even go away - I wouldn't be surprised at all - but even with RISC
I think SMP is the future.

Exactly when is another matter.....

Andy.

#: 11981 S2/General Discussion
    09-Oct-92  21:21:32
Sb: #11727-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Dale Lewallen [PC/C] 76000,21
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150 (X)

Mercer..

You're right.. you weren't quoting but that's what I meant..

Also correct to point out that Win16 developers won't necessarily feel the
need to move to Win32, unless there is a way (as I understand it) for them to
write Win32 code and have it operate _both_ under NT as a 32-bit app, and
under Win 3.1 with the .DLL that will be available at some point..

-Dale

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12080 S2/General Discussion
    11-Oct-92  19:21:04
Sb: #11981-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Mercer Harz 70431,150
To: Dale Lewallen [PC/C] 76000,21

Funny; I thought we'd have to wait for Win4.0 to get Win32 support in Windows.
Win32s may come sooner on Win3.1, but I don't think it's all it's cracked up
to be.  For one thing, it's going to be darned hard (without a heck of a lot
of code bloat) to use Win32s to create a single binary that will cope with the
limitations of Win3.1 and yet fully exploit Win/NT (Win32).  In fact, I think
the effort would be prohibitive.  The easiest, lowest cost thing to do is
simply to continue with Win16 development over the next couple of years, and
then build a true Win32 version that fully exploits its facilities, once the
Win32 market is viable.  Time will tell.

#: 11998 S2/General Discussion
    10-Oct-92  09:22:47
Sb: #11823-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Raymond Chuang 72441,3652
To: Dwight Matheny (MS) 70750,2340 (X)

Dwight,

Actually, I prefer this moniker:

Word for Windows -- WinWord
Windows for Workgroups -- WinGroup
Windows NT -- WinNT

Raymond Chuang

#: 12002 S2/General Discussion
    10-Oct-92  09:30:09
Sb: More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Tom A. Hodges 70550,2540
To: Charles Dort 73117,2174 (X)

Charles,

No offense taken, thanks.
I browse this forum regularly primarily to learn, and probably should keep my
2cents worth out, as we are NOT beta testing Windows NT.  Our machines don't
have enough horsepower to run NT or OS/2 2.0, so we'll wait a bit.  We've
tested OS/2 2.0, and found it to be a solid OS, if you have 8MB RAM, and a
fast machine.  Most of my users, that care enough to comment to me are running
Windows on their machines at home (either that or they have Macs - I have
both), and they want to run it at work.  So far we have no mission critical
apps that require OS/2, so we're letting them run Windows.  Perhaps there will
be a driving reason next year for us to move them over to OS/2 2.0, when we
can 'beef' up their machines.  We'll just have to see.

Cheers, and thanks for the good input.
Tom

#: 12043 S2/General Discussion
    11-Oct-92  10:00:32
Sb: #11889-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Robert Lauriston 75300,3205 (X)

Yah, I meant today.  As you rightly point out some of the earlier releases
left much to be desired. Thus MS and NT have to play catch up with NetWare.
The late LanMan's are quite good, but not selling.

                                  Paul

#: 12094 S2/General Discussion
    11-Oct-92  21:33:12
Sb: #11792-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Tom Sheldon 75470,3702
To: Paul Bradshaw 70003,5145 (X)

They could have called it Workgroups for Windows, but that sounds more like an
advertising slogan.

#: 12110 S2/General Discussion
    12-Oct-92  08:56:21
Sb: More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Tom A. Hodges 70550,2540
To: Mercer Harz 70431,150 (X)

Mercer, thanks for the info.  As I said, another lucky soul in our shop gets
to test & evaluation WP stuff (how exciting, right?).   Yeah, the 6.0 is
definitely a mistake....  It's 5.1, alright.

#: 12189 S2/General Discussion
    13-Oct-92  09:09:19
Sb: #11883-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Chuck Ebbert 76306,1226
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563

<< NT will hold an edge even if OS/2 3 shipped at teh same time. It's app
portablity.  You can move from Win to Win32 or NT in a flash. OS/2's of any
flavors takes a ground up write. >>

Huh?  Are you saying that I'll have to rewrite my 32-bit OS/2 application from
the ground up for OS/2 v3?

#: 12205 S2/General Discussion
    13-Oct-92  11:36:44
Sb: #12189-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Paul Cassel 71250,563
To: Chuck Ebbert 76306,1226 (X)

No, what I meant was existing Win apps can easily port to NT while to port
these to OS/2 is a complete re-write.  My argument was that there are now many
Win apps, we'll see a lot of NT apps concurrently introduced with the OS's
intro.

My comments aren't applicable vis a vis OS/2 2 -> OS/2 3.

                                     Paul

#: 12475 S2/General Discussion
    15-Oct-92  14:15:52
Sb: #12205-More bilge from Willy F.
Fm: Jonathan Honeyball 100031,2732
To: Paul Cassel 71250,563

We might see a lot of NT-recompiled apps appearing at the launch of NT, but I
bet we won't see proper NT apps, that take full advantage of it, for some
time.

Jon

#: 12568 S2/General Discussion
    16-Oct-92  09:21:31
Sb: SystemPro For Sale
Fm: Robert W. Allen 72000,2412
To: Anyone Interested

FOR SALE -- Compaq SystemPro

486/33, 16MB RAM, 840MB IDA Drive Array, 1.44 & 1.2 Floppys,
Compaq/Wangtek 320/525MB Tape Drive.  About 2 years old;
runs perfectly.

Asking *several* thousand dollars less than dealer cost (I am
not a dealer).  If you are interested, please contact VIA EMAIL
so as not to add traffic to this forum.




#: 933 S3/WinNT Setup/non-SDK
    16-Jul-92  10:36:23
Sb:
Fm:
To:

The disk is an IDE 200 MB drive, with a 100 MB (physical) stacker volume
created by Stacker software (version 2.0).  Installation was done using the
DOS2NT bat file when the disk had only minimal DOS files (enough to boot)
outside of the stacker volume.

It can be done.

Regards, Scott B. Suhy[MS]


#: 11899 S3/Windows NT Setup
    09-Oct-92  09:20:19
Sb: #11794-Fatal System error 69
Fm: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225
To: Arthur Kreitman 76060,2677 (X)

Arthur,

We have seen problems with OS/2 and the 1542b using I/O addresses 134/130.  If
you are not already using 334/330 or 234/230 rejumper the card.

We have also seen problems with a DMA speed > 5.0.  We always recommend
lowering it to 5.0.

The adaptec bios NEEDS to be rev E or Greater to work with OS/2 1.31, so I
would also expect the same would be true for Windows NT.

Do you have another supported SCSI card?  If so, I would be curious to see if
the install succeeds if you put the CD on the Adaptec and the HD's on the
other SCSI adapter.  People have reported this is a problem, but we have been
unable to reproduce it.

Regards, Scott B. Suhy[MS]

#: 11928 S3/Windows NT Setup
    09-Oct-92  13:34:13
Sb: #11756-Fatal Error after Setup
Fm: Terence Hosken [MS] 71075,643
To: David Rorabaugh (LTS) 76376,3423 (X)

David,

Currently audio will only function if you are using SCSI 2.  What you describe
could be called "expected behavior" if you are not.

Glad to hear you got the file access working, Regards,
   -- Terence Hosken [MS]

#: 11938 S3/Windows NT Setup
    09-Oct-92  15:04:30
Sb: Page fault on Z386/25
Fm: Terence Hosken [MS] 71075,643
To: Peter Dennett 76470,540

Peter,

If you are getting that error and have already tried everything in the FAQ,
then there is probably nothing else to try.  It sounds as if there is a
hardware incompatibility.  If the problem is not too severe and/or is related
only to the setup program, the DOS2NT meathod of installation may work for
you. If you are confident that the machine "should" work (all components are
on the hardware compatibility list), you should check for interrupt conflicts,
scsi bus termination, etc. Regards,
   -- Terence Hosken [MS]

#: 11933 S3/Windows NT Setup
    09-Oct-92  14:26:23
Sb: Flexboot Priority
Fm: Mark L. Fendrick 76417,3264
To: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143 (X)

Steve,


  Quick question .... I would like to have DOS come up as the default in
Flexboot.  Is it as simple as just swapping lines in BOOT.INI?


Mark

#: 11942 S3/Windows NT Setup
    09-Oct-92  15:33:53
Sb: Flexboot Priority
Fm: Mark L. Fendrick 76417,3264
To: Steve Fait [Microsoft] 75300,3143 (X)

Nevermind ... I found it!

#: 11947 S3/Windows NT Setup
    09-Oct-92  15:55:17
Sb: #11753-Another Fatal Sys Err 69
Fm: Eric Kitchen 70662,3433
To: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613 (X)

   I have left a message for PSI, but still no response. Arthur,
how did you put the controller in WD1003 mode???

                                             Thanks, Eric

There is 1 Reply.

#: 11961 S3/Windows NT Setup
    09-Oct-92  17:49:21
Sb: #11947-Another Fatal Sys Err 69
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: Eric Kitchen 70662,3433

Eric,

<<I have left a message for PSI, but still no response. Arthur, how did you
put the controller in WD1003 mode???>>

The controller I have has a program on the disk that was shipped with the
controller. The application is HS.EXE. If you run the program it offers
several configuration options. The "Update Controller Software" option then
leads to "Change Interface Compatability Mode (SIOS/DTTS)". Folowing that pick
option "DTTS - ISA Compatability Interface Mode". That is the WD1003A
emulation mode.

Art

PS: PSI is very slow to respond. While I like their hardware, their support
leaves a lot to be desired. I think that my next caching controller will be
purchased from UltraStore. I've seen the U;traStore reps here on CIS and many
of the beta forums as well. They were very active during the 3.1 beta.

#: 11959 S3/Windows NT Setup
    09-Oct-92  17:29:40
Sb: COM PORT PROBLEMS
Fm: Terence Hosken [MS] 71075,643
To: paul mariotti 100064,3331 (X)

Paul,

I certainly hope that Windows NT will be able to support IRQ sharing on EISA
machines.  For the time being, IRQ "conflicts" are still something to examine
closely.  IRQ7, the default for the Soundblaster, is also the default for
LPT1.  I think you should try to reasign the Soundblaster for starters.  If it
is still acting strange, see if you can't disable one of the comm ports as a
further test.  It sure sounds like some wires are "crossed".

I hope this helps,
   -- Terence Hosken [MS]



There is 1 Reply.

#: 11988 S3/Windows NT Setup
    10-Oct-92  03:14:04
Sb: #11959-COM PORT PROBLEMS
Fm: paul mariotti 100064,3331
To: Terence Hosken [MS] 71075,643 (X)

I have reassigned the SB and taken out COM3 and COM4 and now the
modem works. I still get signals going to the modem and the SB at the
same time (modem lights flash when SB plays) but at least I have a
modem. Let's hope the Beta cures it.

#: 11958 S3/Windows NT Setup
    09-Oct-92  17:16:03
Sb: NT Setup Question
Fm: Jimmy Truong 75430,345
To: all

Hi, I am trying to run Windows NT setup using NEC Model 36 CD-ROM drive. NT
aborted with "SCSI adapter NOT recognized" error message.  How would I proceed
with a local CD-ROM Setup?



Thanks,  Jimmy



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12004 S3/Windows NT Setup
    10-Oct-92  10:12:14
Sb: #11958-NT Setup Question
Fm: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225
To: Jimmy Truong 75430,345 (X)

Jimmy,

The only SCSI adapters that drivers are currently written for are the
following (read about the DOS2NT install if you have a HD that is not SCSI):
Adaptec AHA-1540b AHA-1542b AHA-1640 AHA-1740

Future Domain TMC-845 TMC-850, TMC-850M(ER) MCS-700 (7) TMC-1660 (8) TMC-1680
(9) TMC-7000EX


IBM IBM SCSI Host Adapter (10)

Maynard 16 Bit SCSI Adapter (11)

NCR NCR 53C700

Regards, Scott B. Suhy[MS]

#: 12006 S3/Windows NT Setup
    10-Oct-92  10:12:29
Sb: #11858-network help needed
Fm: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225
To: brian ford 75300,2327 (X)

Brian,

If you are trying to start LM services over tcpip, you can not do it in this
release. What you need is a file called nbt.sys, which is the netbios mapping
layer. This is what provides the netbios functionality over tcpip. It was not
shippped with the July PDC. Later releases should have that file.

If you want lan manager kind of access, use NetBEUI as your transport.

All the TCPIP utilities should work. The tcpip support in the July release was
primarily for UNIX connectivity.

Regards, Scott B. Suhy[MS]

#: 12007 S3/Windows NT Setup
    10-Oct-92  10:39:18
Sb: #11862-UltraStor 24F 0x69 msg
Fm: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225
To: Charles Hoffman 71477,3612 (X)

Charles,

This basically summarizes all that has been said:

Large ESDI hard drives (greater than 1024 cyl.) can provide us an interesting
support limitations.

Some controller cards get around this by 1024 limitation by implementing a
translation scheme in the onboard controller BIOS. Windows NT (and other
protected mode OS's) must duplicate the code found in these BIOS chips inorder
to duplicate this behavior. Unfortunately, there are many ways of performing
this translation and thus we must incorporate all of these schemes in our
standard AT disk driver.  As you have probably guessed by now, we have not
included such support for all known ESDI translation schemes (24F included).

The following information should work for you if your disk is not greater than
1024 cylndrs.

0.  Backup hard disk contents if anything of any value is presently
    on the disk. 1.  Run EISA setup and set the "ISA" mode selection for this
controller
    to "Enable". 2.  Set Drive Mapping Mode selection to 16 heads / 63 sector
mapping. 3.  Make sure that the SCSI disk is on ID 0. 4.  Run the UltraStor
low-level format utility to format the disk. 5.  Run the system configuration
and set the drive type to "1". 6.  Boot DOS and run FDISK and format as
normally desired.

This will be no longer necessary once a SCSI driver for this card becomes
available for Windows NT.

Regards, Scott B. Suhy[MS]

#: 11936 S3/Windows NT Setup
    09-Oct-92  15:00:15
Sb: WD 8013EP and WindowsNT
Fm: rory mcclure 76244,734
To: Rory Mcclure

I am having trouble configuring the EtherCard Plus (Elite16 8013EP) adapter
card on the pre-release version on WindowsNT. I followed the install
instructions to select the adapter card and its software. However it fails to
to find the adapter card. I know the I/O address and I/R values don't conflict
with any other device on the computer. I have tried to change/fix the problem
thru the control panel/network option, but I am unable to bind (Error message
: Cannot find network adapter)



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12018 S3/Windows NT Setup
    10-Oct-92  14:26:55
Sb: #11936-WD 8013EP and WindowsNT
Fm: H-P Kaelberlah [ML] 100041,1721
To: rory mcclure 76244,734 (X)

Did you use the WDLAN.SYS from CompuServe?

I didn't and used the EP/A driver instead. Oops, machine paniced after
login prompt.

By now, my machine succeeded to do at least a ping to the remote one.
Hopefully, isn't it?

hpk

#: 12008 S3/Windows NT Setup
    10-Oct-92  10:39:23
Sb: #11859-1E + 6B Install Errors
Fm: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225
To: Tom Gentry 76507,3033 (X)

Tom,

Thats great!  Repro. testing is going to work the AST problem this next week.
I'll let you know how it goes.

Keep in touch. --Scott



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12040 S3/Windows NT Setup
    11-Oct-92  07:43:13
Sb: #12008-1E + 6B Install Errors
Fm: Tom Gentry 76507,3033
To: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225 (X)

Scott, thanks for update on AST.  Actually sending this via WinNT/CIM.
Regards, Tom

#: 12046 S3/Windows NT Setup
    11-Oct-92  10:14:36
Sb: #11374-CopySource HD / CD
Fm: Guenther Banholzer 100031,2473
To: na 71075,3225 (X)

Hi Scott, I didn't like DOS2NT, because it forces me to use a FAT-partition
for NT. With the unsupported method of making a copy of the CD, I was able to
put NT with HPFS on C:, OS/2 2.0 with HPFS on D: and DOS with FAT on E:. Boot
selection is done with boot-manager, DOS ignores HPFS and takes E: as C:. This
is (almost) exactly what I wanted. But thanks anyway!

#: 12016 S3/Windows NT Setup
    10-Oct-92  13:48:11
Sb: IDE/SCSI in same system?
Fm: Wim Bonner 72561,3135
To: sysop (X)

I would like to know if anyone has run NT in a machine with Both an IDE drive
and a SCSI Drive? I have a 100 meg conner IDE drive, and I got an adaptec 1542
with a Maxtor LXT213s hooked up inside the machine.  I've got a Toshiba CD Rom
and an Exabyte 8mm tape drive connected to the outside of the adaptec.

I've got NT up and working by telling the bios that the IDE isn't there, which
lets me boot off the larger SCSI drive, but it is not the nicest way of dual
booting the machine.

When the IDE Was enabled, The setup program would lock up after it found the
adaptec and CD rom, and I told it yes, I did want to install. It would then
say i was examining drives, and never come back from that.

I grabbed the Toshiba CD off our sun, so I don't have MSCDEX.  Is there some
way that I can get that without figureing out how to contact Toshiba?

I can't try the DOS2NT install because of the above problem.

Wim

There are 4 Replies.

#: 12025 S3/Windows NT Setup
    10-Oct-92  19:23:55
Sb: #12016-IDE/SCSI in same system?
Fm: Steve Liberty 71450,2341
To: Wim Bonner 72561,3135 (X)

MSCDEX is available here on CIS. Look in the MSL (Microsoft Software Library).
Search on CDROM. Steve

#: 12027 S3/Windows NT Setup
    10-Oct-92  20:11:01
Sb: #12016-IDE/SCSI in same system?
Fm: Clarke 75470,1676
To: Wim Bonner 72561,3135 (X)

Wim, I have both IDE and SCSI drives in my system, I have installed NT twice,
both times with the IDE's present as well as the SCSI's.

The first time I used a FD-850, without problems. The second was with an
Adaptec 1740 in enhanced mode.

All I can say is that it works.

-Clarke


#: 12029 S3/Windows NT Setup
    10-Oct-92  20:38:32
Sb: #12016-IDE/SCSI in same system?
Fm: Scott LaFond 71370,533
To: Wim Bonner 72561,3135 (X)

Wim,

I have a HP Vectra 486/66U with a 250 mb, IDE drive and a
SCSI CD-Rom drive and NT works, but... it doesn't see the Rom
drive since the drivers for it don't exist.

Don't know if that helps... nt does work, flaky, but it works.

#: 12039 S3/Windows NT Setup
    11-Oct-92  07:29:14
Sb: #12016-IDE/SCSI in same system?
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: Wim Bonner 72561,3135 (X)

Wim:

Not desiring to add to the other replies but I have 2 IDE harddrives on a
standard IDE card, a 1542b card, with 2 harddrives, a bernoulli drive, a
wangtec 5525 & a cd-rom.  The bernoulli & wangetk are internal, the rest are
external.  All work fine in win 3.1, dos & NT. (Actually NT recognizes the
Wangtek but does not know what to do with it <bg>).  Souinds to me as if your
IDE controller card is not working properly or is not WD compatible.

                               bob



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12048 S3/Windows NT Setup
    11-Oct-92  10:19:35
Sb: #12039-IDE/SCSI in same system?
Fm: Wim Bonner 72561,3135
To: Bob Chronister 70363,246 (X)

I've heard from a number of people now who have both IDE and SCSI peripherals
all running fine in thier system.

I just now thought of the fact that I've got the floppies connected to the
card the IDE plugs into, and they also connect to a Colorado Memeory systems
Tape Adapter.

Now that I write it out, I don't think it should cause a problem, but just
wondering where your floppies are connected?  The Adaptec, or somewhere else?

I am going to be switching machines (Hopefully) within the next few weeks, so
most of what I'm doing is figuring out what to avoid when I put the stuff in
the new machine.

Wim.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12055 S3/Windows NT Setup
    11-Oct-92  11:35:32
Sb: #12048-IDE/SCSI in same system?
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: Wim Bonner 72561,3135

Wim:

Up to recently, I had the floppies also connected to a tape backup. recently,
I switched to a wangtek SCSI backup and took off my Mountain Unit. I always
have had the floppies connected to the IDE controller & disabled it on the
1542b.

Hope this helps.

                               bob

#: 12064 S3/Windows NT Setup
    11-Oct-92  15:27:23
Sb: #11860-LibPath env variable
Fm: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225
To: neil colvin 71650,3517 (X)

Neil,

You have a good point.  Let me check with development why LibPath does not
operate the same as Path.

Regards, Scott B. Suhy[MS]

#: 12066 S3/Windows NT Setup
    11-Oct-92  15:27:33
Sb: #11860-LibPath env variable
Fm: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225
To: neil colvin 71650,3517 (X)

Neil,

Here is the official word:

'LibPath' is not the same as found under OS/2.  It is only used by the system
to scan for device drivers during startup.

Windows NT uses 'Path' to locate DLLs just like Windows 3.x does.

Regards, Scott B. Suhy[MS]

#: 11965 S3/Windows NT Setup
    09-Oct-92  18:08:27
Sb: #11757-NT Install 1E + 6B Error
Fm: Steve Dirickson 70313,3252
To: Neil Rosenberg 70444,31 (X)

>The answer:  All of these boards work fine, the problem is that WinNT will NOT
>install if your primary hard disk is also a SCSI device.  As soon as I
>installed an IDE hard disk instead (and removed the SCSI hard disk) the GUI
>install worked perfectly, first time. Your logic seems to be intolerant of a
>SCSI hard disk as the boot/install disk.

As you heard (;-) from your other replies, NT will work with *only* SCSI
drives in the system--sometimes.  In my case, using an Adaptec 1542B works
fine (including graphical install), but my Future Domain TMC-1680 won't work
at all.  The problem appears to be with the FD1800.SYS driver.  I posted a
message a few days ago asking if *anyone* has successfully installed NT on a
system with *only* a FD-hosted SCSI drive; so far I haven't received any
replies, though I'm hoping.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12071 S3/Windows NT Setup
    11-Oct-92  15:48:11
Sb: #11965-NT Install 1E + 6B Error
Fm: Neil Rosenberg 70444,31
To: Steve Dirickson 70313,3252 (X)

So many responses, I must have hit a nerve!

I shall look for newer versions of the FD drivers, perhaps this will solve the
problem.

By the way, the FD885 does support booting.

If I have any better results, I will post it.

Thanks ALL!

#: 12087 S3/Windows NT Setup
    11-Oct-92  19:25:36
Sb: #11837-Diamond Speedstar Video?
Fm: Sheldon Fox 70162,3422
To: Tim Jones 70750,701

Tim,

I have a "old" Diamond Speedstart working at 1024x768 mode on NT with a Nanao
Flexscan 9070U display (on a 486/33 from Gateway).  I just followed the
instructions in the Release Notes with the following exception:  The Nanao
doesn't support >50kHz refresh, so I couldn't use the Tx400_x0 files. Turns
out the PDII.SYS file works just fine on with the Speedstar and at a lower
refresh rate which works with the 9070U.  Maybe it will work for you...

Sheldon

#: 12017 S3/Windows NT Setup
    10-Oct-92  13:58:32
Sb: #11853-NT no program manager
Fm: tom lesniewski 73276,41
To: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613 (X)

I have tried different speed options, unfortunately wiht the AST Premium II
you cannot turn off the shadow ram.  I have tried to remove my NIC card. A
20MB paging file was allocated, I have about 5 meg free.  Not much I know but
should the pageing file be growing already, I mean I haven't even gotten a
full start up Yet.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12091 S3/Windows NT Setup
    11-Oct-92  20:40:23
Sb: #12017-NT no program manager
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: tom lesniewski 73276,41 (X)

Tom,

<<A 20MB paging file was allocated, I have about 5 meg free.  Not much I know
but should the pageing file be growing already, I mean I haven't even gotten a
full start up Yet.>>

Well to be perfectly honest I don't know exactly how much of an increase in
the paging file might be needed at startup. But the symptoms you are
experiancing sounds like a memory limitation.

You could try an clear up additional space and see if it helps. Other than
that I can't really think of anything that would help. Maybe someone from MS
might have a few more suggestions.

Art

#: 12020 S3/Windows NT Setup
    10-Oct-92  16:25:23
Sb: #11856-Error in Event Viewer
Fm: Richard J Fennimore 72760,1701
To: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613 (X)

Thanks for trying to help. No I did not try a fresh install (the shot gun
approach). I stuck with the single bullet approach. I used the MSDOS edit and
commented out the drivers with semicolons. Then I followed the directions on
page 50 of the Release Notes: 1. erase \winnt\system\config\*.* 2.copy files
from CD 3.copy win.ini from CD  Then I changed to d:\winnt\system\config ,copy
system.D system and did the triple reboot. The errors from Lance disappeared,
but Elnkii still gives me errors. At this point in time, this is a rather
small annoyance, because all I have to do is to delete the errors in the log.
For the record below is a copy of the section of the registry.ini:

EnabledDrivers
;   Elnkmc
;   Elnk16
;   Ibmtok
;   Lance
;   Ne3200
;   Proteon
;   Wdlan
;

;-------------------------------------------------------------------------
;
; By default your system uses the default settings for ELNKII,UB and La
; (aka DE201) network cards.  You may override those options here.
;
;  MemoryMapped = 0x0 for FALSE, 0x1 for TRUE
;  Transceiver  = 0x1 for External, 0x2 for Internal
;
;Elnkii
;    InterruptNumber = REG_DWORD 0x3
;    IoBaseAddress = REG_DWORD 0x300
;    MemoryMapped = REG_DWORD 0x0
;    Transceiver = REG_DWORD 0x1

;
; Lance01 works with several cards. CardType can be DE201, DE100,
; DecPC, or Decstation. If Decstation is selected, the Slot
; parameter must be specified, with a value of 0, 1, 2, or 6.
;
; CardType should be:
;
;    1 = DE100
;    2 = DE201
;    3 = DECPC
;    4 = DECstation
;
;Lance01
;    CardType = REG_DWORD 2
;    InterruptNumber = REG_DWORD 0x5
;    IoBaseAddress = REG_DWORD 0x1
;    MemoryMappedBaseAddress = REG_DWORD 0xD0000

;
; ElnkMc needs to know the SlotChannel for now. You have to set it to
; the slot number your card is installed in.  Later this will not be
; necessary as ntsetup gets put in.
;

;ElnkMc01
;    SlotNumber = REG_DWORD 3


;
; The Ne3200 section must contain a slotnumber field that must be




There is 1 Reply.

#: 12092 S3/Windows NT Setup
    11-Oct-92  20:44:47
Sb: #12020-Error in Event Viewer
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: Richard J Fennimore 72760,1701

Richard,

<<No I did not try a fresh install (the shot gun approach). I stuck with the
single bullet approach. I used the MSDOS edit and commented out the drivers
with semicolons. Then I followed the directions on page 50 of the Release
Notes: 1. erase \winnt\system\config\*.* 2.copy files from CD 3.copy win.ini
from CD  Then I changed to d:\winnt\system\config ,copy system.D system and
did the triple reboot. The errors from Lance disappeared, but Elnkii still
gives me errors.>>

I experianced the same thing. I had to do a 100% fresh install. But at the
time I did not think about the registry. It might be possible to disable the
NTServer portion of the network services in the registry, but you'd want to
leave the NTWorkstation services active. Not sure if it'll wotk, but you could
try.

I eventually tried the 100% reinstall because I wanted the local workstation
services to work. But I kept getting the 2018 error, and the user manager
would not let me delete user account. I kept getting the message that the
workstation services were not started. A fresh install (deleted all first)
with the registry mods worked fine.

Art

#: 12022 S3/Windows NT Setup
    10-Oct-92  18:32:32
Sb: #11851-Flexboot
Fm: Ken Granderson 76300,2050
To: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613 (X)

Thank you very much for the reply.  I will look into this immediately.

-Ken

P.S. Actually, I have mixed feelings about the CD install.  Although I do
acknowledge the wisdom and benefits of supplying software on CD-ROM, as I am
one of the thousands who do not presently own one of the few NT-compatible
CD-ROM drive/card combos, I would have appreciated the choice of fighting with
stacks of floppies.  I had to borrow someone's CD-ROM to install NT, and I am
relieved to know that I won't have to go back and inconvenience them for it
again.  I plan to buy one of the new Texel double-speed CD-ROM drives in a
couple of weeks.  I have been holding out from spending $400+ on an older
technology drive and then wanting one of these new ones when they finally came
out.


There is 1 Reply.

#: 12093 S3/Windows NT Setup
    11-Oct-92  20:47:33
Sb: #12022-Flexboot
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: Ken Granderson 76300,2050

Ken,

<<Although I do acknowledge the wisdom and benefits of supplying software on
CD-ROM, as I am one of the thousands who do not presently own one of the few
NT-compatible CD-ROM drive/card combos, I would have appreciated the choice of
fighting with stacks of floppies.>>

I think the retail OS will be made available on floppy someday, but I'm not to
sure of the SDK. That's pretty hefty.

As to the non-nt compatible drive... well I also do not have a drive that NT
supports for a graphical install. However the install methods also includes
installation from any DOS or DOS compatible network CD-ROM drive. DOS2NT has
worked for quite a few of us.

Art

#: 12097 S3/Windows NT Setup
    11-Oct-92  22:24:52
Sb: #11776-Tseng ET4000 800x600
Fm: David R. Johnson 72717,3617
To: Sam Karroum [MS] 71075,642 (X)

Just for reference on this subject, I have a STB PowerGraph VGA card, which is
an ET-4000 product, and generally works with generic ET-4000 drivers. Under
WINNT however, using 1024x768 mode, my monitor flickers badly using either the
ET400_70 or ET400_60 drivers, yet works perfectly using the PDII.SYS driver
(the monitor is a Seiko CM1450).  Also, nothing at all displays when I use the
800x600 mode driver and the ET400_XX drivers.  I didn't get a chance to try
800x600 with the PDII.SYS driver, as 1024x768 was what I wanted to begin with.
Perhaps the Tseng et-4000 support needs work?

Just thought I'd toss that in....

#: 12099 S3/Windows NT Setup
    11-Oct-92  23:25:44
Sb: boot error 0x001E
Fm: LaserMaster Corp 76040,246
To: Terence Hosken [MS] 71075,643 (X)

Thanks for getting back.  I solved the problem the next day by (you
guessed...) reinstalling.  I have to use the .BAT install; my drive is not
SCSI.  For some reason, the XCOPY did not get all of the files.  The reinstall
did, however.  Thanks again.

ClayB

#: 12134 S3/Windows NT Setup
    12-Oct-92  12:54:21
Sb: NT Oct/Nov Beta HW List
Fm: Richard George 70640,2614
To: Sysop (X)

Has the NT development team released an updated hardware compatability release
that is updated to include all new drivers that will be included in the late
october/early november second release of the WIN32 SDK or the WINNT Beta (OS
is the same for both so the list for either one should do)?
        In particular, I am interested if drivers for the DTC3290 EISA SCSI-2
controller card and Hercules graphics station gold 24+2 are available.

Thanks,

Richard George

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12159 S3/Windows NT Setup
    12-Oct-92  20:34:58
Sb: #12134-NT Oct/Nov Beta HW List
Fm: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225
To: Richard George 70640,2614

Richard,

A new list has not yet been made available.

Regards, Scott B. Suhy[MS]

#: 12015 S3/Windows NT Setup
    10-Oct-92  13:34:15
Sb: NO MIDI in NT, w/SBPro
Fm: Wim Bonner 72561,3135
To: Terence Hosken [MS] 71075,643 (X)

Can you tell me where to look for info on getting the SB Pro to be recognized
at all?  Mine is set up to the defaults on the Int and IO Port, but I believe
I set it to use DMA 3.   Windows knows how to talk to it.

Wim

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12163 S3/Windows NT Setup
    12-Oct-92  20:35:45
Sb: #12015-NO MIDI in NT, w/SBPro
Fm: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225
To: Wim Bonner 72561,3135

Wim,

Sounds like an interrupt/IO/DMA conflict.  Check out your system. DOS and
Windows are much more forgiving than Windows NT.

Regards, Scott B. Suhy[MS]

#: 12105 S3/Windows NT Setup
    12-Oct-92  07:30:49
Sb: WinNT Setup
Fm: rory mcclure 76244,734
To: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613 (X)

Has anyone gotten Western Digital's EtherCard Plus (8013EP) Card to work with
WinNT? I am unable to bind/configure card from the networks menue of WinNT. I
get the error message "Adapter card not found". I know the card's IR and
address values do not conflict with anything else on the machine. Any
suggestions?

There are 2 Replies.

#: 12166 S3/Windows NT Setup
    12-Oct-92  20:36:25
Sb: #12105-WinNT Setup
Fm: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225
To: rory mcclure 76244,734

Rory,

We currently have drivers for the 8013ep/a, 8013WB, 8013EWC.  Is it one of
these?

Regards, Scott B. Suhy[MS]

#: 12176 S3/Windows NT Setup
    13-Oct-92  05:05:21
Sb: #12105-WinNT Setup
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: rory mcclure 76244,734

Rory,

<<Has anyone gotten Western Digital's EtherCard Plus (8013EP) Card to work
with WinNT?>>

Yes. I have it working here. But you should be warned that the DOS2NT install
method does not configure the control panel network app correctly. You cannot
use it to install the network driver.

There is a new driver here in lib 1 called wdlan.zip. It includes the drivers
and text instruction on how to install it. I reinstalled from scratch (deleted
all of my WINNT and MSTOOLS dirs).

Art

#: 12128 S3/Windows NT Setup
    12-Oct-92  11:54:47
Sb: WINNT & Stacker
Fm: Bob Garsson 72667,3166
To: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613 (X)

>You could install NT on a stacked drive with the DOS2NT.BAT method, >but
would then be unable to boot NT. Stacker uses a DOS device driver >to read a
compressed drive. Until the company makes an NT device >driver you are out of
luck with stacked drives.

PMBI, but I'm still a neophyte on this and I'm not sure what you mean when you
say "NT".

Does your message say that I will not be able to use the new pre-release CD I
just got if I have a stacked drive or is it referring to something else? I'm
getting ready to order the CD Technologies unit and I need to make sure I'm
not wasting my money.

I'd appreciate any clarification you might be able to make. Thanks.

Incidentally, since it's a SCSI unit, doesn't that mean I could add a hard
drive and could I install NT on that?

Thanks!!

Bob




There is 1 Reply.

#: 12177 S3/Windows NT Setup
    13-Oct-92  05:09:24
Sb: #12128-WINNT & Stacker
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: Bob Garsson 72667,3166

Bob,

<<Does your message say that I will not be able to use the new pre-release CD
I just got if I have a stacked drive or is it referring to something else? I'm
getting ready to order the CD Technologies unit and I need to make sure I'm
not wasting my money.>>

What I was saying was that having a stacked drive on your system is fine. But
you cannot install NT to the stacked partition. It must be installed onto a
normal unstacked FAT partition.

<<Incidentally, since it's a SCSI unit, doesn't that mean I could add a hard
drive and could I install NT on that?>>

As long as your SCSI controller is supported by NT you can add additional
drives and install the NT and the SDK on it.

Art

PS: WHen I refer to NT I mean the operating system itself.

#: 11900 S3/Windows NT Setup
    09-Oct-92  09:51:53
Sb: Lan Manager Setup Fails
Fm: Russell 72350,2072
To: ALL

I'm trying to acheive a network setup with a Turbo Depca card, on a Pathworks
4.1 (aka Lan Manager) network.  I used the DOS2NT.bat setup procedure changing
the registry.ini file to enable the lance driver with the DEC021 options set
accordingly.  When I get to the final stage of installation, ie. verifying my
password,  the network binding fails.  As stated in the release notes the
network options in the control panel do not work from the DOS2NT setup.  Is
this a fruitless attempt?  Any suggestions/further questions?

Eager in Olympia...

#: 12179 S3/Windows NT Setup
    13-Oct-92  06:33:04
Sb: #11900-Lan Manager Setup Fails
Fm: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225
To: Russell 72350,2072

Russell,

Could you possibly have an interrupt conflict?

Regards, Scott B. Suhy[MS]

#: 12180 S3/Windows NT Setup
    13-Oct-92  06:33:09
Sb: Startup Failure
Fm: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225
To: DANIEL LOCHER 100042,216

Daniel,

Did you ever get this resolved?

Regards, Scott B. Suhy[MS]

#: 12033 S3/Windows NT Setup
    11-Oct-92  01:08:54
Sb: FD TMC-1680
Fm: Don Perry 76676,1127
To: TECH SUPPORT

I have a Future Domain TMC-1680 SCSI controller which is on the supported list
for the WINNT SDK.  When I try to install the SDK, it tells me that the
controller is unsupported.

A peek at the TXTSETUP.INF file on the setup disk seems to indicate a driver
named "d9,fd1800.sys" is required for the Future Domain 1660/1680 but it
doesn't seem to reside on the diskette.

Where do I get FD1800.sys?


PLEASE HELP!!!!!

Don Perry



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12078 S3/Windows NT Setup
    11-Oct-92  18:13:46
Sb: #12033-FD TMC-1680
Fm: Joseph Hary 72240,2540
To: Don Perry 76676,1127 (X)

you can download it from the libraries on this forum.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12142 S3/Windows NT Setup
    12-Oct-92  14:56:12
Sb: #12078-FD TMC-1680
Fm: Don Perry 76676,1127
To: Joseph Hary 72240,2540 (X)

Any idea why this file was not on the distribution diskettes?

Did I get a bad version?

Should I install the downloaded FD1800.sys on the install diskette and
reinstall??

Thanks for any input!!

Don Perry

#: 12215 S3/Windows NT Setup
    13-Oct-92  16:31:59
Sb: #12142-FD TMC-1680
Fm: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225
To: Don Perry 76676,1127 (X)

Don,

It was make available after the PDC.

Regards, Scott B. Suhy[MS]

#: 11992 S3/Windows NT Setup
    10-Oct-92  08:40:05
Sb: Trantor/NED SCSI Adapter
Fm: Ben Witso 72567,2732
To: all

I am trying to get the NEC/Trantor SCSI Interface card to work with NT.
Trantor has a driver for thier Interface cards and I need to add it to the
Registry. The instructions say to add the appropriate filename to the
Registry. I don't know where to do this. I have NT loaded and running (without
a mouse yet - but I think that's because I have a $12 mouse) and the Trantor
driver copied into the \WINNT\SYSTEM\DRIVERS directory, I just need to know
how to add it to the registry.

Help!

Thanx in advance,
Ben

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12068 S3/Windows NT Setup
    11-Oct-92  15:27:49
Sb: #11992-Trantor/NED SCSI Adapter
Fm: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225
To: Ben Witso 72567,2732

Ben,

When you download their NT-TSL.zip file from their BBS you get a DOC, a Driver
and Some sample INI files. The INI files are intended to show you how to
install the driver manually using the REGEDIT program.

The T128 INI file is as follows:
\registry\machine\system\currentcontrolset\services\t128
    Type = REG_DWORD 0x00000001
    Start = REG_DWORD 0x00000000
    Group = SCSI miniport
    ErrorControl = REG_DWORD 0x00000001
    Tag = REG_DWORD 0x00000004
    Device
        MaximumLogicalUnit = REG_DWORD 0x00000001
        DriverParameter = REG_DWORD 0x00000005

This means create a KEY under Services called 't128' then add the VALUES to
it.

Regards, Scott B. Suhy[MS]

#: 12145 S3/Windows NT Setup
    12-Oct-92  17:11:34
Sb: #12068-Trantor/NED SCSI Adapter
Fm: Sven Schaetzl 100010,2346
To: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225 (X)

Hello!

 >When you download their NT-TSL.zip file from their BBS you get a DOC, a
Driver
 >and Some sample INI files. The INI files are intended to show you how to

Help! I'm calling from Europe so I can't load this file down from an american
BBS. Please put it somewhere here in the libraries.

Thank you in advance...

/Sven.

#: 12216 S3/Windows NT Setup
    13-Oct-92  16:32:04
Sb: #12145-Trantor/NED SCSI Adapter
Fm: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225
To: Sven Schaetzl 100010,2346

Sven,

Sorry Sven I can't upload it to the library.

Regards, Scott B. Suhy[MS]

#: 12003 S3/Windows NT Setup
    10-Oct-92  10:12:02
Sb: #11820-Install AHA-1742A CDR74
Fm: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225
To: James Gildea 73067,363 (X)

James,

Try the card in standard mode and see if it gets recognized.

Let me know. Regards, Scott B. Suhy[MS]




There is 1 Reply.

#: 12125 S3/Windows NT Setup
    12-Oct-92  11:10:52
Sb: #12003-Install AHA-1742A CDR74
Fm: James Gildea 73067,363
To: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225 (X)

I'll try, but as I understand it, standard mode basically emulates the 15xx
board.  If NT supports the 174x, what is the deal?

#: 12217 S3/Windows NT Setup
    13-Oct-92  16:32:07
Sb: #12125-Install AHA-1742A CDR74
Fm: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225
To: James Gildea 73067,363

James,

Your right it should work and does in many machines. However, some people have
had problems and have been successful in standard mode.  Just a suggestion.

Regards, Scott B. Suhy[MS]

#: 11912 S3/Windows NT Setup
    09-Oct-92  10:37:14
Sb: NT Installation Hangs
Fm: Peter von Glahn 71202,1067
To: sysop (X)

I have a Fastdata 486/33 with 16 MB RAM, 2 160 MB IDE disks, a Trident VGA,
and a CD-technologies SCSI cd rom and am haveing problems with the NT
installation.  I first tried the manual installation using a differentCD drive
before the CD-technologies one arrived - no good.  I deleted everything, put
in a new boot sector, and started over using the newdrive and the automatic
installation.  Everything goes fine until thesystem reboots following the
copying of a bunch of files onto the disk (I'm using the c: drive).  I get a
blue screen and a messageabout having 16... KBytes RAM (I forget the number)
and then nothing happens. When I reboot, I'm back into DOS -
looks like the autoboot didn't get loaded.  Any suggestions??

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12005 S3/Windows NT Setup
    10-Oct-92  10:12:24
Sb: #11912-NT Installation Hangs
Fm: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225
To: Peter von Glahn 71202,1067

Peter,

What SCSI adapter are you using? Is there a network card in the system (are
there any adapters in the system that you did not mention)? What is the error
number that you are seeing?

Regards, Scott B. Suhy[MS]

#: 12225 S3/Windows NT Setup
    13-Oct-92  17:57:29
Sb: #12005-NT Installation Hangs
Fm: Peter von Glahn 71202,1067
To: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225 (X)

Scott:

Regarding my inability to get NT running on a Fasdata '486/33:

1)  I'm using the Future Domain TMC-850M SCSI adapter for the
CD ROM.

2)  I have no network cards installed.

3) I don't get any error messages that I can see - when the machine
reboots after loading stuff from the CDROM during the automatic
installation procedure, nothing happens after the screen gets repainted and
the memory size is displayed.

4) The 2 IDE hard disks are connected to an IODE-3290U Disk Controller card
which also supports 2 serial and a parallel port.  I'm using a Logitech serial
mouse connected to Com1.

#: 12223 S3/Windows NT Setup
    13-Oct-92  17:51:23
Sb: Windows NT Installation
Fm: Steve Hull [ECTI] 75030,1352
To: MICROSOFT

Help!

We just installed Windows NT using the DOS2NT approach and are having major
difficulties with Flexboot. It will let us run Windows NT but not DOS. When
the floexboot options come up for Windows NT and DOS, the Windows NT option
works. However, choosing the DOS option does NOT boot DOS. It just brings up
the flexboot menu again. The only way to boot DOS seems to be from a floppy
disk. We followed the instructions for adapting registry.ini and boot.ini and
setting up the paging file. We have installed Windows NT on a logical drive
D:. Boot.ini points to this. We are running DOS 5.0. There seems to be nothing
wrong with the installation. Can anyone help us shed some light on this
problem?

-- Steve




There is 1 Reply.

#: 12269 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  04:32:56
Sb: #12223-Windows NT Installation
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: Steve Hull [ECTI] 75030,1352

Steve,

<<We just installed Windows NT using the DOS2NT approach and are having major
difficulties with Flexboot. It will let us run Windows NT but not DOS. When the
floexboot options come up for Windows NT and DOS, the Windows NT option works.
However, choosing the DOS option does NOT boot DOS. It just brings up the
flexboot menu again.>>

It sounds to me like one of two things is happening. First that the boot.ini
file was edited incorrectly. It should look similar to this for the operating
systems section...

[operating systems]
c:\winnt\ = "Windows NT" /NODEBUG
c:\ = "Compaq DOS 5.0"


Secondly perhaps either your bootsec.dos file is incorrect. Perhaps DOS2NT
was used twice, but the second time it was done from a boot floppy. In this
case when DOS2NT creates bootsec.dos it copied the flexboot boot sect. What
you can do about this is twofold. First in the libs is a program which can
manually create a bootsec.dos and a bootsec.nt file. This will let you save
the nt (flexboot) sector, then you can sys the c: drive, create a bootsec.dos
, then reinstall flexboot, by replacing the boot sector.

Or you can just sys the C: drive and reinstall NT from scratch.

Art

#: 12285 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  08:43:24
Sb: Future Domain Cards
Fm: Richard Clarke 100012,2550
To:  75300,3143

I have a Toshiba CD-ROM attached to a future domain TMC-840 card.

The drivers you uploaded for TMC-1660, 1680, MCS-600, 700 do not work with
this card and I am really keen to get the drive supported.  Until I get the
GUI setup working I do not seem able to get the token ring card working
either.

Do you know if there is (or will be and when?) a driver for the TMC-840?

Thanks

Richard

#: 11931 S3/Windows NT Setup
    09-Oct-92  13:58:37
Sb: #11378-WD1009 ESDI Controller
Fm: Louis Bouchard 72301,3565
To: na 71075,3225 (X)

My hard disk have 1668 cylinders, but I use sector mapping or something like
that, and the system see only 668 cylinders...

If continue to think that the problem is that my hard disk have more than 1024
cylinders, let me know i will reformat my hard disk will less than 1024
cylinders...

Thanks

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12065 S3/Windows NT Setup
    11-Oct-92  15:27:28
Sb: #11931-WD1009 ESDI Controller
Fm: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225
To: Louis Bouchard 72301,3565

Louis,

Is the WD1009 translating the 1668 cyl. to 668?

Regards, Scott B. Suhy[MS]

#: 12286 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  08:50:28
Sb: #12065-WD1009 ESDI Controller
Fm: Louis Bouchard 72301,3565
To: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225 (X)

Yes, my WD1009 Controler is translating the 1668 cyl of my hard disk to 654
cyl. not 668 like I said in my last message.

My current configuration is 654 Cyl, 16 heads, 63 sectors/track (SPT)

Thanks for your help Louis

#: 12231 S3/Windows NT Setup
    13-Oct-92  20:17:09
Sb: Help on NT Installation
Fm: Robert Bruce Bernier 72611,3345
To: winnt

I have tried numerous times to install to no avail. I am using a Everex Step
386/25 with 12Mb of RAM a DPT PM2011/95 ISA SCSI Controller with floppy a NEC
CDR-83M CD-ROM, an ATI8514/Ultra Graphics Card and a Segate ST-4766N Har d
Drive and a Media Vision ProAudio Spectrum 16 sound card.  I used the DOS2NT
batch following the instructions in the Release Notes. I cannont seem to get
past an error message when the system boots The error is Fatal System Error
0x0000069. Please help me out as I want to get on to programming.

There are 2 Replies.

#: 12268 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  04:26:24
Sb: #12231-Help on NT Installation
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: Robert Bruce Bernier 72611,3345

Robert,

<<The error is Fatal System Error
0x0000069. Please help me out as I want to get on to programming.>>

the 0x69 error is a problem communicating with your SCSI adapter or drive.
In you case I believe that the DPT is the problem.
Here's a list of supported configurations...

Disk Controllers

100% Register Compatible with WD1003 - ESDI, IDE, WD1003

Compaq Intelligent Drive Array

SCSI(R)

Adaptec
AHA-1540b
AHA-1542b
AHA-1640
AHA-1740

Future Domain
TMC-845
TMC-850, TMC-850M(ER)
MCS-700 (7)
TMC-1660 (8)
TMC-1680 (9)
TMC-7000EX

IBM
IBM SCSI Host Adapter (10)

Maynard
16 Bit SCSI Adapter (11)

NCR
NCR 53C700

Olivetti
ESC - 1 Adapter

    Built-in SCSI on MIPS ARC/R4000 systems from :
    Acer, MIPS and Olivetti


Art

#: 12290 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  09:09:11
Sb: #12231-Help on NT Installation
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Robert Bruce Bernier 72611,3345

Robert,

I am running NT on an AT&T StarServer S with a DPT PM2012A/90 EISA SCSI Host
Adaptor. Close enuf that you may have success by juggling some stuff. The
first thing I would check is the SCSI ID setting for the CD-ROM. NT doesn't
like it when they are assigned to 0,1, or 7 (2 is a good choice). I don't have
my floppies connected to the SCSI adaptors which may be problematic. If your
system has motherboard support for the floppy I would use it, and then disable
the support on the DPT host adaptor. I don't know what size the ST-4766N is
but if you have to run a driver or use the DPT BIOS to support it under DOS
(over 504MB essentially) you may be able to bypass the SCSI issue all together
by sacrificing some capacity and running in WD1003 emulation mode. Of course
verify there are no interupt conflicts.

John

#: 12296 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  09:34:58
Sb: Fatal error F002
Fm: Bill Slade 76107,427
To: all

I am having problems getting NT to boot on a Zenon 486DX/50 EISA system.
After device drivers are loaded, the blue screen shows:
MICROSOFT WINDOWS NT - Preliminary Release for Developers
MmInit: 20032 Kb Available Memory
*** Fatal System Error: 0x0000F002
*** Fatal system trap - NMI interrupt

AMI diagnostics shows no errors except Real Time Clock interrupt is not
coming. What is going wrong here?

#: 12281 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  07:55:37
Sb: 1E + 6B Errors-AST
Fm: Tom Gentry 76507,3033
To: Scott B. Suhy 71075,3225 (X)

Scott, I got NT to install (graphical) on the office AST 486/33 Tower EISA.
It is ragged, slow, doesn't see my B drive, etc. etc.  Haven't had time to
fool with it, but it did install once.  Having trouble restarting, with some
kind of disk error.  Probably doesn't like the cache on the DPT SCSI.

The key?  MUST DISABLE the 16MB memory limit in the EISA set-up routine.
Have not had a chance to try on the home AST 486/33 E.

But it did install.  I will pass the word to my co-workers and report when
I've had time to play with it.

#: 12305 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  10:33:32
Sb: #12281-1E + 6B Errors-AST
Fm: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225
To: Tom Gentry 76507,3033 (X)

Tom,

You must definitly disable the DPT cache.  It conflicts with the Windows NT
caching as you have suspected.

>>MUST DISABLE the 16MB memory limit in the EISA set-up routine

I have passed this on. Talk about a strang one.  If repro can recreate this
then I will post something on CS that there is a problem here. I will let you
know.

Thanks for the great work! -Scott

#: 12307 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  10:37:47
Sb: NT Bootsector
Fm: Robin Wilson 70703,2221
To: all

Is there any way to manually switch the boot sector from DOS to NT and back? I
downloaded the bootsect.exe file... but it reports that my NT boot floppy has
a DOS boot sector??!!.. it wants a file called bootsect.nt to create the NT
boot sector on my C drive, would it then see the bootsector as NT (because
it's not a floppy??), are there files and a program I can use to manually
switch the sectors and setup the dual boot?

Thanks

#: 11993 S3/Windows NT Setup
    10-Oct-92  08:42:16
Sb: Trantor/NEC SCSI Adapter
Fm: Ben Witso 72567,2732
To: all

I am trying to get the NEC/Trantor SCSI Interface card to work with NT.
Trantor has a driver for thier Interface cards and I need to add it to the
Registry. The instructions say to add the appropriate filename to the
Registry. I don't know where to do this. I have NT loaded and running (without
a mouse yet - but I think that's because I have a $12 mouse) and the Trantor
driver copied into the \WINNT\SYSTEM\DRIVERS directory, I just need to know
how to add it to the registry.

Help!

Thanx in advance,
Ben

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12067 S3/Windows NT Setup
    11-Oct-92  15:27:39
Sb: #11993-Trantor/NEC SCSI Adapter
Fm: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225
To: Ben Witso 72567,2732

Ben,

When you download their NT-TSL.zip file from their BBS you get a DOC, a Driver
and Some sample INI files. The INI files are intended to show you how to
install the driver manually using the REGEDIT program.

The T128 INI file is as follows:
\registry\machine\system\currentcontrolset\services\t128
    Type = REG_DWORD 0x00000001
    Start = REG_DWORD 0x00000000
    Group = SCSI miniport
    ErrorControl = REG_DWORD 0x00000001
    Tag = REG_DWORD 0x00000004
    Device
        MaximumLogicalUnit = REG_DWORD 0x00000001
        DriverParameter = REG_DWORD 0x00000005

This means create a KEY under Services called 't128' then add the VALUES to
it.

Regards, Scott B. Suhy[MS]

#: 12265 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  04:12:09
Sb: #12067-Trantor/NEC SCSI Adapter
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225 (X)

Scott,

<<Group = SCSI miniport>>

you might want to patch this to "Group = REG_SZ SCSI miniport" if you are
going to keep posting from the trantor t128.ini file. It caused me some grief
installing the t128.sys driver when I downloaded the trantor drivers.

Some people would not look at the other registry items to see what they were
doing wrong. Hopefully trantor will update their files as well. I did mention
it to theam on their bbs.

Art

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12289 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  09:09:04
Sb: #12265-Trantor/NEC SCSI Adapter
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613

Art,

Do you have a listing for the interupt settings on the T128? The jumpers
aren't masked on the card nor in the NEC docs. I have checked both Trantors &
Nec's BBS's as well. Or, hope beyond hope, got it to work in polled mode (ala
DOS)?

John

#: 12309 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  10:51:54
Sb: #12289-Trantor/NEC SCSI Adapter
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: John Oellrich 72611,1452 (X)

John,

<<Do you have a listing for the interupt settings on the T128? The jumpers
aren't masked on the card nor in the NEC docs. I have checked both Trantors &
Nec's BBS's as well. Or, hope beyond hope, got it to work in polled mode (ala
DOS)?>>

Here's the jumper settings. I have gotten it to work on IRQ5 (needed for first
boot) then IRQ7 for final.

  . . . . . ___ . . . .     IRQ 5

  . . . . .
 ___ . . .     IRQ 7

Hope that helps. Now for the fun part. First polled mode is not supported.
Don't know if it ever will be. If you need more info let me know.

Art

PS: I forgot. If you do not have it jumpered correctly or the IRQ is used by
another device it will not work. You may get erro 0x1e and the execptetion not
handled. If you do just rename t128.sys to t128.hld and reboot. NT will then
load so you can use regedit.

#: 12054 S3/Windows NT Setup
    11-Oct-92  11:21:10
Sb: #11759-Win16 sys:No response
Fm: Gary J. Walker 100020,1104
To: na 71075,3225 (X)

Scott,

Thanks for that: I can get some Win3.1 applications running now. I had the
dosx line in autoexec.nt - somehow got scrubbed out on both upload to ci$
attempts! - but not the redir line.

WRITE still refuses to do anything: probably my bad luck for picking that as
the example Win3.1 app to try and get running! Problems that still occur look
as if they're mainly (maybe all) down to configuration set-ups: especially
directory paths, location of .ini files, unable to find fonts and so on.
Possibly I should reinstall the important applications through NT itself.

What would be nice, would be if in NT I could somehow point to where my Win
3.1 system is installed, and let NT get on with interpreting the whole setup
of Win3.1 from the Win3.1 .ini's, registry etc. etc. Obviously some
limitations currently in terms of (eg) video card support: but to maintain say
the TT or Adobe setup, even program groups would be rather good.

Regards,
                   Gary

#: 12104 S3/Windows NT Setup
    12-Oct-92  06:59:31
Sb: #11759-Win16 sys:No response
Fm: Paul Ligeski 76636,1166
To: na 71075,3225 (X)

Hi Scott,

I too cannot get a Win 3.1 app to appear.  The dual arrow/hourglass cursor
appears and then returns to the arrow.  I tried the line you suggested:

C:\winnt\system\redir c:\winnt\system\dosx

to no avail.  Any other suggestions?

--Paul

P.S.  I'm running the July release on a AST Bravo 4/33 w/8Mb mem 345Mb HD




There is 1 Reply.

#: 12164 S3/Windows NT Setup
    12-Oct-92  20:35:57
Sb: #12104-Win16 sys:No response
Fm: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225
To: Paul Ligeski 76636,1166

Paul,

When this occurs pull up PVIEW.exe and see if NTVDM is starting as a process.

Did you use DOS2NT or Graphical?

Let me know.

Regards, Scott B. Suhy[MS]

#: 12297 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  09:41:53
Sb: #12164-Win16 sys:No response
Fm: Paul Ligeski 76636,1166
To: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225

Hi Scott,

I do see NTVDM appear in PVIEW.EXE when I start the 3.1 Calculator.  It shows:

ntvdm.exe(112) 0:00:09.195 (CPU time)  82% Priv. 17% user (Priority Normal)
threads 105, 106, 109, 110, 121, 168 (106 is highest priority, 168 is above
normal - all else normal)

But no calculator.

--Paul

P.S.  I did use the graphical install.

#: 12262 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  04:02:32
Sb: #12104-Win16 sys:No response
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: Paul Ligeski 76636,1166 (X)

Paul,

<<I'm running the July release on a AST Bravo 4/33 w/8Mb mem 345Mb HD>>

It could be memory related. The July release requires 12 Mb with 16 Mb
recommended.

Art

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12298 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  09:41:56
Sb: #12262-Win16 sys:No response
Fm: Paul Ligeski 76636,1166
To: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613

Hi Arthur,

<<I'm running the July release on a AST Bravo 4/33 w/8Mb mem 345Mb HD>>

Uhh...that was a typo...I do have 16Mb but still can't get Win 16 apps.

--Paul

#: 12310 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  10:53:24
Sb: #12298-Win16 sys:No response
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: Paul Ligeski 76636,1166

paul,

Well the only other suggestion I have is to reinstall. Somehow I did lose my
win16 capability though DOS apps still worked. I'd been fooling around with
regedit and net drivers, etc. A reinstall cured my problems, maybe it will for
you too.

Art

#: 12332 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  13:49:03
Sb: Error 0x67 on boot
Fm: Jeff Davies 70740,2765
To: All

   After installing NT on my system using DOS2NT.BAT and following the intru
instructions in the printed release notes, I get an error 0x67 when I reboot.
NT loads aot of drivers before the screen turns blue & I get this  this
message:
        Fatal error 0x67
        Configuration initialization failed.

   I have not seen any messages concerning this error message on this forum,
so I'm a little worried. I'm running a Gateway 386-33 with 16meg and an IDE
drive (the contro IDE drive (the controller brand escapes me right now). If
you can give me any if information on this error code, I would appreciate it.

   - Jeff

#: 12351 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  16:14:53
Sb: NT Problems BOOT
Fm: - Visitor 76137,3311
To: all

Help!
        I loaded Windows NT onto my second hard drive, it boots and works
fine, but I am having 2 problems. First:
        It will not boot DOS from the multi boot (of whatever it is called).
Second:
        I have a Diamond SpeedStar VGA and I cannot get higher resolution than
the default 648x480.  I am used to 1024x768, and it is really hard to work in
a lower resolution.

                                Thanks,
                                Michael P. Gowing

#: 12315 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  11:13:34
Sb: #11556-Adaptec 152X support????
Fm: Gary Stebbins 71174,2554
To: Robert Chronister 70363,246 (X)

I also am very interested in seeing the Adaptec 152x series of boards
supported by NT.  I've got the 1522 currently, and would like to not purchase
more hardware (not to mention the drivers required for DOS) at this time.  Any
hope in the near future?

-gary-

There are 2 Replies.

#: 12317 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  11:36:58
Sb: #12315-Adaptec 152X support????
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: Gary Stebbins 71174,2554

gary:

First of all, the drivers for dos have been tremendously simplified. Adaptec
has released a product called EasySCSI. Works great.  Comes with a cd-rom
driver, aspidisk and aspi2 & aspi4dos.  Really a good product.  Will ask them
about the 1522 support & let you know what I find out.

                               bob

#: 12367 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  18:03:17
Sb: #12315-Adaptec 152X support????
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: Gary Stebbins 71174,2554

gary:

here is the story on the 1522.  Not sure that it will be supported on the
forthcoming beta (think it is) but clearly will be supported on either an
additonal beta or the release product.  So speaketh the SCSI Gods <bg>.
Adaptec has a commitmant to NT that is pretty impressive.  EasySCSI will also
make it easy to implement SCSI for dos.

                               bob
Hope this helps.

#: 12275 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  06:43:45
Sb: NT install Locks
Fm: claude bachelet 100111,3557
To: MICROSOFT

i have an OLIVETTI 380-40 with 20Mo of memory and a 202 Mo disk an Hitachi
1750 CD-rom and a FUTURE DOMAIN TMC850 When i try installing with 3.8" boot
disk, the system hangs after ' copying NTDETECT.COM ' I have tried about
everything for the adresse of the tmc850 and have no network or other card in
the machine thanks for your help

#: 12308 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  10:47:35
Sb: #12275-NT install Locks
Fm: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225
To: claude bachelet 100111,3557 (X)

Claude,

Is the TMC card an 850 or 850M.  If it is an 850M I think it can use interrupt
3 or 5.  Have you tried both?

Is the HD SCSI?

Let me know, Scott B. Suhy[MS]




There are 2 Replies.

#: 12378 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  19:05:18
Sb: #12308-NT install Locks
Fm: Issie Chaimovitch 70621,3344
To: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225 (X)

Scott, maybe you can help me out...

I am trying to install NT.  My configuration is: Panasonic CD-ROM drive,
Panasonic SCSI-II controller (Future domain 845 clone, with Future Domain
TMC-950 Chip on it)  200 Meg Hard drive, 3.5" floppy, 5 1/4" floppy, IDE
controller.  (I still only have 4 Meg of memory).

I booted off the floppy, and ran setup ok.  I recognized the TMC-845 Card, and
I reformatted my whole drive. (FAT).  Then I copied all of the files to the
/winnt directory.  After all of the files were copied, the machine re-booted.
(I assume that I am supposed to remove the floppy from the drive before it
boots)  When it started to boot, the machine hangs.

I also noticed that if I run the NTDETECT.COM program (after booting DOS) that
the machine hangs.  I think that this may be the problem.

Thanks

Issie

#: 12395 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  02:21:23
Sb: #12308-NT install Locks
Fm: claude bachelet 100111,3557
To: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225 (X)

thank you for your quick answer, scott,

it is a tmc850 card wired for IRQ 5 the disk is IDE  with an onboard
controller in the olivetty

claude R BACHELET

#: 12089 S3/Windows NT Setup
    11-Oct-92  20:28:57
Sb: Installation tips?
Fm: Roy Green 76350,3172
To: all

I have my CD-Rom, i have my WinNT SDK...

now, what to do.....

my machine currently has DOS 5 on a Stackered 210 mb drive, which currently
has 380mb occupied.  I'm about to buy a new 213mb drive for NT.  How should I
arrange this??  should i make the new drive my boot drive, or can i still boot
from the old Stackered drive (the non-stacked portion having only 1.6meg
free)?

#: 12160 S3/Windows NT Setup
    12-Oct-92  20:35:13
Sb: #12089-Installation tips?
Fm: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225
To: Roy Green 76350,3172

Roy,

We don't support Stacker volumes.  As for unstacked space, this is another
issue.  I have only seen on reply that someone out there has seen it work.
Many people report that it doesn't work.

Here is the working reply:

#: 12409 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  06:18:03
Sb: #12160-Installation tips?
Fm: Roy Green 76350,3172
To: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225

I knew NT didn't support Stacker or stacked volumes, i was just wanting to see
if i could cram enough of NT onto the unstacked portion of the disk to keep
from having to rearrange my disks and change drive references and such.

#: 12266 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  04:18:47
Sb: #12089-Installation tips?
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: Roy Green 76350,3172

Roy,

Well now that you have your CD, CD-ROM drive, and new disk drive go for it...

I took a look. The NT files that are installed in your root boot partition is
only 150 Kb. Sould fit in that 1.6Mb frr that you have left. You can install
NT on the second drive. Just make sure that your second drive has a primary
partition on it. If you make it all extended then NT will do some drive letter
swapping (compared to DOS).

Art

#: 12447 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  09:34:41
Sb: WIN/NT &  OS/2 2.0
Fm: David Lipper 72130,1631
To: sysop (X)

Hi. I just rercieved my beta NT CD-ROM and am anxious to set it up; want to
ask a pertinent question first though. I have a 486-50 with 16 megs RAM, which
I want  to run win/NT, OS/2 2.0, & DOS5 on. Is  this too much to expect, and
if  not, what is my best  approach. I   have about a gig of hard disk in about
12  partitions, currently only DOS 5 is running.  Thanks. - Dave

PS  - btw, I read  in the NT  pamphlet  that this  version will only support
640x480 resoloution (or something like  that) -- I have a trident 8900 (1Meg)
card & I have  trident  drivers for win 3.1 -  can  I  use these   to  get
better  resoloution  ?

#: 11915 S3/Windows NT Setup
    09-Oct-92  10:56:18
Sb: #11795-Hive 'Security' not open
Fm: Sam Karroum [MS] 71075,642
To: David R. Johnson 72717,3617 (X)

David,

>>Is there or will there be a way to install WINNT on its own partition
>without MS-DOS, and boot that partition directly without FlexBoot?

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're asking here. But, if you're asking
if you can bypass FlexBoot, the answer is yes. You have the option to bypass
FlexBoot at any time. This can be accomplished by modifying the BOOT.INI file.
You can either remove the entry "timeout=xx", or set its value to 0, i.e.,
timeout=0. This will cause Windows NT to load the operating system on the
"default=" line. NOTE: BOOT.INI is marked read-only, so make sure to remove
the attribute first.

If the question means do you need MS-DOS to start the setup program, the
answer is of two folds:

  yes if don't have a supported SCSI controller
  no if you'll be installing from a supported SCSI

The beta release will have support for additional SCSI controllers. This will
reduce the need for DOS based setup.

As for MS-DOS and >1024 drives. My experience has been that MS-DOS will
truncate the drive to 1024 cylinders, rather than use the difference between
actual drive cylinder count and 1024 (1224-1024). If with the translation
MS-DOS only sees 200 cylinders, I would say something the translation is doing
that's causing this behavior. I have a 330-Mb ESDI drive with 1124 cylinders
at home. With the translation enabled, MS-DOS sees all of it. With it
disabled, I lose the additional 100 cylinders.

I can't recommend whether or not to move to a supported SCSI solely for the
purpose of installing Windows NT with OS/s MOST utility. Reason being MOST is
not a supported "environment" and would not be able to predict how that would
work.

Hope this helps clearify things.

Sam Karroum [MS]



There is 1 Reply.

#: 11929 S3/Windows NT Setup
    09-Oct-92  13:42:14
Sb: #11915-Hive 'Security' not open
Fm: David R. Johnson 72717,3617
To: Sam Karroum [MS] 71075,642 (X)

Thanks for your response.  I finally got WINNT to work.  The secret is that
the DR-DOS XCOPY command does something different than the MS-DOS 5 XCOPY.
DR-DOS preserves the flags as it copies, and this screwed up the DOS2NT
process.  The secret to getting MS-DOS 5.0 to work with translation on my
system was to directly specify the translation drive parameters in the BIOS
Setup using the user-defined drive types, rather than let the controller BIOS
set the drive parameters using BIOS Setup drive type 1 (as is the default
config for most ESDI controllers).  Anyway, once I installed WINNT using DOS
5.0, I was able to re-install DOS 6.0 and manually modify the DR-DOS boot
sector to include FlexBoot using the same DEBUG command lines DOS2NT.BAT uses.
Of course, I still have to manually activate the MOST partition when I wish to
boot OS/2 2.0, but I can live with that for now.  Let me clarify my other
question about loading WINNT onto a seperate partition:

Normally, I boot either OS/2 2.0, or DR-DOS 6.0.  As you know, I must use MOST
to boot OS/2 2.0.  This worked fine until WINNT came along.  Now, with WINNT
and Flexboot sharing my DOS partition, I can't boot to that partition at all
with MOST active.  To boot DOS or WINNT then, I must use fdisk to deactivate
the MOST partition and activate the DOS partition. FlexBoot then works quite
nicely.  But then to get back to OS/2 2.0, I've got to repeat the process.
Since I switch between OS/2 2.0 and DOS much more than DOS & WINNT, you can
see the problem.  What I'd like to setup, with knowledge that MOST can't boot
WINNT, is DOS in the first partition with no WINNT or Flexboot, WINNT in the
second partition, and then the MOST partition at the end of the disk, and OS/2
2.0 on the second disk.  Then I could use MOST to switch from OS/2 2.0 to DOS
6 for normal operations, and use fdisk to directly activate the WINNT
partition when needed.  Can this be accomplished?

Also, where is the PIF Editor? when I click the icon for it, it says program
not find, and I can't find PIFEDIT.EXE anywhere on the disk.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12126 S3/Windows NT Setup
    12-Oct-92  11:14:51
Sb: #11929-Hive 'Security' not open
Fm: Terence Hosken [MS] 71075,643
To: David R. Johnson 72717,3617 (X)

David,

While we do not support the use of the MOST boot manager, several individuals
have reported some success with a proceedure similar to the following taken
from message 8767:

<<Trick is simple: de-activate the MOST partition (put it at the end of the
volume, I'd add). Install NT on the front partition where you already have
DOS. It'll thus put in Flexboot. Then re-activate the BOot Manager. Boot
Manager will give your the choice of OS/2 or DOS. Selecting DOS gets you
Flexboot. That gives you the choice of NT or DOS. Works great.>>

Since it is unsupported, though, I'm afraid there is not much more I can say
about it.

As far as PIFEDIT, we did not include that utility in the July release.  It
will be included in the upcomming Beta, however.

Regards,
   -- Terence Hosken [MS]





There is 1 Reply.

#: 12129 S3/Windows NT Setup
    12-Oct-92  12:06:47
Sb: #12126-Hive 'Security' not open
Fm: David R. Johnson 72717,3617
To: Terence Hosken [MS] 71075,643 (X)

I originally assumed that the Boot Manager would be able to access FlexBoot,
and that I could boot to DOS or NT through both menus.  However, I've tried
exactly what you described, and it simply doesn't work on my system.  When I
select the DOS/NT partition from Boot Manager, the Portable OS Loader screen
comes up as normal, but then instead of switching to the FlexBoot menu, it
tries to load WINNT directly.  It then fails, reporting that it cant find
NTOSKRNL.EXE.  It seems to be looking in the wrong place for the WINNT
directory (according to the error, it looks in \NT\SYSTEM instead), but I even
tried renaming the WINNT directories to NT, but I still get the same failure.

Thank You however for your input.  Any suggestion as to why MOST and Flex
won't live right on my system?

Will the Windows 3.1 PIFEDIT work on NT PIF's? Since I already have the July
SDK, will I automatically get the next Beta, or must I do something special?

Also, how soon might I expect some basic level of access to a NetWare server?
I am Novell Gold, if that might help to get early copies of the NT
requestor...

Thanks,

Dave

#: 12322 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  12:34:48
Sb: #12129-Hive 'Security' not open
Fm: Terence Hosken [MS] 71075,643
To: David R. Johnson 72717,3617 (X)

David,

The behavior you describe with respect to flexboot jumping straight in is what
I might expect if the boot.ini file is not being found.  Something to consider
is whether the drive letters for your logical drives are the same to Windows
NT as they are to the OS/2 Boot Manager.  Again, though, I simply can't be too
much help at trying to get things working with MOST.

If you are a registered owner of the Preliminary Release, you should
automatically receive the Beta Release.  In fact, you probably should have
received a mailing already.  The following is taken from BETA.TXT in library
1: _____ (We've just mailed a letter to all registered owners for address
confirmation.  If you don't receive the letter in the next two weeks, please
call the Microsoft Developer Services Team at 800-227-4679.) _____ There may
be some odd behavior with the 3.1 PIFEDIT.EXE, but I expect it should work.
An updated version will be included in the Beta Release.

Regards,
   -- Terence Hosken [MS]







There is 1 Reply.

#: 12448 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  10:13:29
Sb: #12322-Hive 'Security' not open
Fm: David R. Johnson 72717,3617
To: Terence Hosken [MS] 71075,643 (X)

I finally got FlexBoot to work with MOST.  The trick is that DOS2NT does not
seem to install FlexBoot correctly.  A client of mine ordered a SCSI CD-ROM,
so I 'tested' it by hooking it up to my computer and re-installing WINNT using
the graphical install.  Now everything works fine... MOST goes into FlexBoot
just as you described, and all the networking functions come up the way they
are supposed to, even TCPIP.

If only I'd been able to do a graphic install in the first place...

Now I have delivered the SCSI CD-ROM to my client, and am left with my own
piece of *$%#%@# Pinnacle Micro drive.  Is there a better install for DOS
CD-ROMs on the Beta CD?  I'd hate to give up what I've gained here.

Thanks for your help

Dave

#: 12188 S3/Windows NT Setup
    13-Oct-92  07:33:13
Sb: #11380-WinNT install prob
Fm: - Visitor 76424,3161
To: na 71075,3225 (X)

It's an IBM SCSI Adapter, using an IBM CDROM unit, so I suppose it is on the
HCL.  I was able to install (I think) using the alternate method (DOS2NT), but
I still have some problems, (no pifedit).  I'm going to the dos/win3.x apps
section to look around, I've go a dos application that requires 6 meg of
exteneded memory space space to run. Matt Brown

#: 12459 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  12:03:18
Sb: #12188-WinNT install prob
Fm: Terence Hosken [MS] 71075,643
To: - Visitor 76424,3161

The PIFEDIT tool was not included with the July release.  You will probably be
able to use a copy of PIFEDIT from Windows 3.1, however. Also, there are some
things that you should expect not to work correctly (eg control panel) after
the DOS2NT installation. Regards,
   -- Terence Hosken [MS]

#: 12458 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  12:02:58
Sb: winnt install
Fm: Larry Desonier 75430,436
To: all

I'm trying to install NT on a 486-50 and am running into some problems The
machine has 32M of mem, a Future Domain CD-ROM and controller, an Iomega
Bernoulli and controller with everything else fairly standard PC config.  The
text part of the installation goes OK but the Win install part has problems
reading the CD.  I noticed in the FAQ file a mention of problems handling more
than one SCSI controller.  Is this what's giving me the problem ?  Is there
any way around this, since I would like to keep my Bernoulli since this is
where I dumped my excess files to make room for the NT files.

#: 12463 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  12:50:30
Sb: #12458-winnt install
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: Larry Desonier 75430,436

larry:

I have a Bernoulli, CD-Rom, Tape backup & 2 harddrives on my adaptec 1542b.
Works great.  NT will not recoognize the bernoulli in native format.  Only
problem with doing it this way is that you cannot read the Bernoulli's on a
system with the standard iomega board. Nt considers it to be a large floppy
and you can chance diskettes etc.

                                       bob

#: 12483 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  14:30:04
Sb: error: 0x69
Fm: Terence Hosken [MS] 71075,643
To: Tom Sullivan 75216,2357

Tom, Sorry for the slow response.  There is no obvious reason that I can think
of why your mouse is not working in DOS apps under Windows NT.  A remote
possibility is that your DOS apps are looking for a specific kind of mouse.
The mouse emulation under Windows NT will look to the DOS application (if it
cares) like an inport mouse.  The question would be, then, how many and what
kind of DOS apps have you tried?  If you have tried a large number and it does
not work in any of them, then we have a strange problem.  I'm not aware of any
critical parameters that should affect this.  Either in the system registry or
in the pif files. Other things you might try: 1.  Probably not the issue, but
if convenient, try a Microsoft Mouse. 2.  Check the autoexec and config files
that exist while you are running Windows NT and clean them up as much as
possible.  There may be TSR conflicts. 3.  Try a reinstall (prefereably a
graphical install, if you can get that to work.) I hope this helps,
   -- Terence Hosken [MS]

#: 12481 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  14:24:40
Sb: NT install
Fm: Issie Chaimovitch 70621,3344
To: Microsoft

Hi there, I am wondering if anyone can help me out.  I am installing NT on a
386-33 system.  I have a TMC-845 Clone card (With Future domain chip), a
Panasonic CD-ROM, and a 200 Meg IDE drive.  (I currently only have 4 Meg of
memory, but want to install it now)  I Boot off of the floppy, and go into the
setup screen.  Setup recognizes the SCSI Card, asks which directory to copy
the files to, and then reboots (After I remove the floppy).  When it reboots,
it comes up in DOS.  Flexboot does not seem to have been installed at all.
Any ideas?

Thanks

Issie

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12487 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  15:00:37
Sb: #12481-NT install
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: Issie Chaimovitch 70621,3344 (X)

Issie:

Basic problem here is that you do not have enough memory.  Soem people have
taken the risky step of trying 8 megs but that is not very successful. To run
on 4, probably totally impossible.

                               bob

#: 12501 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  15:56:26
Sb: Setup hangs
Fm: Terence Hosken [MS] 71075,643
To: Bob Koss 71341,3726

Bob,
  Sorry for the slow reply.  The hanging symptom you describe is, frankly, not
something I've run into before.  Could you please supply some more information
about the hardware you are using.  (System, drive controllers, drives, network
adaptor, mouse, etc...) We do not support the use of OS/2's "MOST" boot
utility.  Some others here have reported success in getting it and Windows
NT's Flexboot to work together, but I'm afraid I can't be too much help there.
I suspect that "sys c:" will not affect MOST, but, again, I'm not too certain.

Regards,
   -- Terence Hosken [MS]

#: 12502 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  15:56:32
Sb: #11528-NT ESDI Install
Fm: Terence Hosken [MS] 71075,643
To: Alex Howard 73310,2237 (X)

Alex, Has anyone gotten back to you?  I checked with Tom but still have not
seen the material you uploaded to us myself.

From what I *do* know about the situation I cannot rule out the possibility
that you have a hardware conflict of some sort.  You mention, for example,
that you have a memory card.  I've seen some situations where an add-in memory
board proved to be a problem... if possible, I'd suggest trying to do without
it as a test.  For that matter, the best bet would be to strip everything you
don't absolutly need out of the system and try a reinstall. I hope this helps,
and I'm sorry for the slow reply. Regards,

  -- Terence Hosken [MS]

#: 12109 S3/Windows NT Setup
    12-Oct-92  08:54:15
Sb: #11817-Two Drive Speed
Fm: Don Cock 72520,1500
To: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225 (X)

Scott,
     I "obtained" a copy of norton SYSINFO and here are the results:

   Single drive system:  71.7
   Dual drive system:    71.3

What is of more interest is that Spinrite shows that the drive that has NT on
the dual drive system is faster than the single drive system, but when the
Norton benchmarks for disk are run, the single drive is faster:

            Rating    Seek     Tract-to-Track      k/sec
Dual Drive   6.1     14.28          1.85           543.7
Single       7.7     12.85          2.25           765.4

Spinrite says:
                Track-to-Track    Full Stroke     Random   Max Data Rate
Dual Drive         2.64             25.60          12.67     1,935,360
Single             0.44             22.10          11.01    11,128,448

Hope this helps,
     DonC



#: 12503 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  15:56:37
Sb: #12109-Two Drive Speed
Fm: Terence Hosken [MS] 71075,643
To: Don Cock 72520,1500

Don,

As Scott said, there are a number of reasons why this might be the case.
Individually the drives on the dual drive machine may be faster, but since
both are being driven by a single controller opperations which require access
to both drives will be as slow or slower than if the opperation required
access to only a single disk.  The length of the PATH environment variable on
each system could come into play as well as the sizes of the directories
listed in each path.  Simply put, it is impossible for me to say why you are
seening the behavior you are without more information and doing even more
tests. I hope this helps,
   -- Terence Hosken [MS]

#: 12504 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  16:46:46
Sb: WINNT Boot Hangs on 16Mb
Fm: Frank Waldner 72550,1162
To: X

I have the same problem booting WINNT, it just hangs in the blue screen after
announcing that it has successfully found 16Mbytes.  Now, I can add a twist!

I took a brand new 127MByte hard drive and a external NEC CDR-74 CD drive and
put it on an identical T128 SCSI and did a successful install on my 386/25
(8Mb) system at home.  I booted dozens of times with no difficulties.  When I
took the hard drive to my office system, it stuck as described.  My office
system is an Everex Step 486/33 (16Mb) and the only difference I can see is
the SoundBlaster that I have at home.  All other hardware was removed from the
486, so that it would be as close as possble to the same config.

I was never able to get DOS2NT to work on the 486!  Was I ever surprised when
the 386 didn't bat an eye!

Any ideas ?

#: 12446 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  09:32:27
Sb: UltraStor 12F Controller
Fm: Michael Klosson 70334,1064
To: C. Straghalis 71005,1655

        I have a Gateway 2000 486/33c with an UltraStor 12F (Rev 2A) ESDI disk
controller and a Seagate model ST4766E ESDI hard drive, on which I attempted
to install the Windows NT SDK (July release).  Despite following the DOS2NT
procedures correctly (I was using an NEC CD-ROM with the T128 SCSI interface),
the operating system exited with a fatal error while trying to build the hard
disk driver.  I understand that the UltraStor controllers have some problems
working correctly with NT if the the number of cylinders on the hard disk is
greater than 1024.
        I have duplicated the information on the drive parameters in the
UltraStor BIOS Setup Menu below (the BIOS version is 2.0); is there a fix that
will allow me to get NT working? Thanks for your help,

                                                        M.K.

Drive 0 Parameters
        Type                    ESDI
        Cylinder                1632
        Head                      15
        Sector                    53
        Precomp                65535
        LandingZone             1632

        One Spare Sector/Trk      NO
        Sector Mapping            63
        Track Mapping        >1.2 GB
        1024 Cyl Truncation       NO

P.S. The user's manual from Gateway is out of date for the UltraStor BIOS I
have, so some of these settings may not be correct even for DOS! If anybody
knows where I can get a detailed and current technical manual for the 12F
Controller I would be grateful.

#: 12512 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  18:10:46
Sb: #12446-UltraStor 12F Controller
Fm: C Straghalis [UltraStor] 71005,1655
To: Michael Klosson 70334,1064 (X)

 Michael,

       One problem might be the translation settings you have set.  What
capacity is the Seagate drive? I din't seem to have that one on my list.

Regards,

 Chris Straghalis
 UltraStor Corp.

#: 12457 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  11:45:56
Sb: Installation Questions
Fm: Jerry Fath 75506,456
To: ALL

Has anyone successfully installed NT on a system with a Mylex DCE376 EISA SCSI
controller?  The release notes claim the process is similar to using a
UltraStor 24F controller, then go on to describe an option in the EISA
configuration file that is not available in my DCE376 config file.  Do I
really have to reformat, or can I use the drive as-is if I stay with the
WD1003 emulation the controller provides?

The installation program also does not recognize my CD ROM drive, although it
is on the supported list (Chinon CDX-431 & Chinon controller).  After reading
the FAQ, I assume this is a problem with having two SCSI controllers in the
machine.  Any experience with this?

Thanks for any and all hints,

Jerry Fath

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12461 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  12:10:58
Sb: #12457-Installation Questions
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: Jerry Fath 75506,456

jerry:

Can't answer the first part of the question but the Chinon CD is supported but
only on a recoginized SCSI controller such as the 1542b etc.  Will not work on
the chinon card.

                                       bob

#: 12524 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  20:06:15
Sb: #12457-Installation Questions
Fm: Keith Carter 71035,1624
To: Jerry Fath 75506,456

Jerry
        Just got it up and running on the Mylex DCE376 SCSI EISA card -
but had to remove the non-dos partition.  Now I'm trying to figure
how to get the cylinders back without conflicting with NT.  Let me know if you
have any luck.

                        Keith

#: 12220 S3/Windows NT Setup
    13-Oct-92  17:14:12
Sb: HELP !!
Fm: Keith Carter 71035,1624
To: MS

        I have an Intel EISA motherboard with a Mylex dce376 SCSI
controller card.  After using dos2nt bat file and carefully editing
all files, it still can't find ntoskrnl.exe when booted.  ??

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12267 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  04:23:19
Sb: #12220-HELP !!
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: Keith Carter 71035,1624 (X)

Keith,

<<After using dos2nt bat file and carefully editing all files, it still can't
find ntoskrnl.exe when booted.>>

How about a bit more info. Hardware software setup for instance. Do you have
IBM's MOST utility installed? If so it can cause the error. Do you have any
other non-dos partitions? Do you have a primary partition on each hard drive?

Also did you edit boot.ini and change the appropriate valuse there?

Art

#: 12299 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  09:48:57
Sb: #12267-HELP !!
Fm: Keith Carter 71035,1624
To: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613 (X)

        No MOST.
        Have one 660 meg Micropolis SCSI hard drive. Used FDISK
to partition first 500 megs into two drives with drive C: the
primary partition. Then used UTIL.EXE from Mylex to create the
third drive and format it.
        Tried installing NT with DOS2NT on drive D: and got the
message, then tried installing on drive E: and got same message.
        Drive E: is recognized using DOS4E.SYS and DCE376DR.EXE.

There are 2 Replies.

#: 12311 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  10:56:50
Sb: #12299-HELP !!
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: Keith Carter 71035,1624 (X)

Keith,

Well you are not using most, but you are using a non-dos partition. Drive E:
is a non-dos partition. That's why you need the device driver. If you can,
remove drive e: completely and try and boot NT. If it works you can try and
format E: with NT's disk manager utility.

Some non-dos partitions will still cause NT to look for it's files on the
wrong logical drive. If all else fails, install NT on drive C:. That's the
most forgiving scenario.

Art

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12328 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  13:28:47
Sb: #12311-HELP !!
Fm: Keith Carter 71035,1624
To: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613 (X)

Art-
        I'll try axing the E: drive and see if it works.
        I have a NEC CDR-83 with the T128 SCSI card.  Are there
drivers, etc. available for it ? Would appreciate BBS #s or
whatever.
                Thanks !

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12360 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  17:20:55
Sb: #12328-HELP !!
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: Keith Carter 71035,1624 (X)

Keith,

<<I have a NEC CDR-83 with the T128 SCSI card.  Are there drivers, etc.
available for it ? Would appreciate BBS #s or whatever.>>

Yes there are drivers available. I don't have the number handy (it's at work)
but I posted a message in section 8 or 10 that did have it. The drivers have
to be installed manually after you get NT up and running.

Let me know how it goes...

Art

#: 12449 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  10:23:15
Sb: #12299-HELP !!
Fm: David R. Johnson 72717,3617
To: Keith Carter 71035,1624

Keith,

Sounds like you've got the same problem I had with DOS2NT.  I found that
installing with DOS2NT would only work if I installed into the first partition
of the first hard drive, with that partition prefferably starting at the first
cylinder of the drive.  FlexBoot doesn't seem to install right with DOS2NT.

While I finally did get DOS2NT to work and boot, I couldn't get all the
networking to function.  I was able to borrow a SCSI CD-ROM destined for a
client (you know, 'product testing' <G>), and install NT using the graphical
install.  Everything works great now, even booting with IBM OS/2 2.0 Boot
Manager (MOST)

Hope this helps,

Dave

#: 12525 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  20:15:36
Sb: #12449-HELP !!
Fm: Keith Carter 71035,1624
To: David R. Johnson 72717,3617

Dave
        Thanks for the suggestions - I got it to run by removing the non-dos
partition on my HD.  And since I'm not hooked up to a network, the rest isn't
critical.  But now have to figure out how to get the partion back.

                Keith

#: 12530 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  20:53:57
Sb: DCE376
Fm: Keith Carter 71035,1624
To: Arther Knowles 71041,2613

Art
        It worked when I removed the non-dos partition! Whew!  Any way to
retrieve the lost cylinders?
        I caught the tail end of the thread on the T128 and missed the BBS
numbers.  Would greatly appreciate you digging up those numbers again.
        Thanks!
                Keith

#: 12531 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  21:14:49
Sb: 0x69 error
Fm: Robert Reinstein 76270,1541
To: sysop (X)

Help! I installed NT (with dos2nt) when i had an ide drive and ran it ok. now
i just threw in a 1 gig scsi (hp) and after installing nt with dos2nt, i
reboot and get a 0x00000069 error. it must be the scsi. what can i do???

#: 12338 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  14:21:52
Sb: Sucess with FD850
Fm: Jim Mac Donald 72350,3026
To: all

Here's a bit of advice for the hapless NT installer.  I have a basic 386 cne
and a FD850 controller with a CD Tech porta-drive (aka toshiba CD-ROM).  I had
some trouble with installation and finally resorted to DOS2NT like everyone
else.  After fiddling around, here's my analysis:

       1.) The NT kernel seems to only work with 16Mb or less of RAM
           Using my standard 20MB produced boot failures.
       2.) When the NT manual directs you to set your CD for SCSI dev. #
           other than 0 or 1, they mean set it to two.  Mine was set
           for 3 and stopped half way through install and timed out when
           I finally did get NT installed.  I moved it down to SCSI device
           # 2 and it worked fine. Sigh.

I hope this information is helpful.

jimm from AMD

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12364 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  17:45:07
Sb: #12338-Sucess with FD850
Fm: Jeff Lundblad 73537,1203
To: Jim Mac Donald 72350,3026 (X)

Jim,

I had NT running with 20Mb RAM, FD850, NEC 83J dev #2. So I don't think there
is a general problem with >16Mb RAM.

I say I HAD it running, 'till my disk drive crashed. :(  I'm waiting for a
replacement drive.

Jeff.




There is 1 Reply.

#: 12418 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  07:17:57
Sb: #12364-Sucess with FD850
Fm: Jim Mac Donald 72350,3026
To: Jeff Lundblad 73537,1203

Hmmm, you've had 20Mb working... that's very curious.  I may have had a SIMM
die.  I have my NT system setup in our hardware lab since my office is a mess.
I'ts possible someone "traded" me some bad RAM for my good RAM.  I'll give it
another try. That dev #2 bit is a bit strange though, especially since the
install program found and started using the drive just fine. It died only
after enough of NT had loaded for it to go graphical.  It started timing out
on the CD only after it got to the small stuff like wav and mid files.  Oh
well.  thanks for the comment.

jimm

#: 12532 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  21:22:43
Sb: #12338-Sucess with FD850
Fm: FORREST A SIMS 70404,1440
To: Jim Mac Donald 72350,3026

I don't think thats the prob with your system, as I have the fd850/cd tech
setup and 32m of ram. The cd is set for #3, and the graphical install went
without a hitch. Also, the motherboard is a standard clone isa bus w/ami bios.
I LOVE NT!!!!

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12533 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  21:24:40
Sb: #12532-Sucess with FD850
Fm: FORREST A SIMS 70404,1440
To: FORREST A SIMS 70404,1440

Oh yeah, the cd audio works great too!

#: 11898 S3/Windows NT Setup
    09-Oct-92  09:20:13
Sb: #11829-TMC840 (sob)
Fm: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225
To: Karl Froelich 71171,2247

Karl,

Compatibility testing has not given the WINNT team a list of the hardware
supported in the next release--believe me we have bugged them about it.

All I can tell you at this point is the following:

Device Driver Requests:

Our standard means of releasing drivers is with our CD releases.  We also
upload fixed, updated, and new drivers to Forum: WinNT, Lib 2.  We are
currently making every attempt to keep this library updated with drivers as
they become available.  If you have hardware that is not currently supported ,
or does not have a driver posted in WinNT, Lib 2; please make a device driver
request by filling out the hwfeed.txt form and mail it to us at
>internet:[e-mail]. Please be aware that because of our support
demands right now, this is a one way alias; we are not likely to respond
directly to you to confirm that we have received your request.


The hardware compatibility list can be found in MSWIN32, Lib 17. 0692hw.txt.
Hwfeed.txt can be found in MSWIN32, Lib 17; or WINNT, Lib 1. In order to send
mail to the address mentioned via CompuServe, you have to:

 * Leave the forum.
 * At any "!" prompt, enter GO MAIL.
 * Mail your request to:
 ">internet:[e-mail]"

Regards, Scott B. Suhy[MS]

#: 12102 S3/Windows NT Setup
    12-Oct-92  05:19:25
Sb: #11829-TMC840 (sob)
Fm: Alex Howard 73310,2237
To: Karl Froelich 71171,2247

Karl,

DOn't feel bad.  I have the 850 and CD Tech drive, and that doesn't install
Graphically, either.  And 2+ months later, we still don't know what the
problem is <g>!

Misery loves company <BG>!

-a.

#: 12263 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  04:06:17
Sb: #12102-TMC840 (sob)
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: Alex Howard 73310,2237

Alex,

<<And 2+ months later, we still don't know what the problem is <g>!>>

Hey at least you can play audio. <g> I finally got the T128 driver for my work
machine. I can access the data on the CD, but no audio. In my case it's
because the CD (NEC-84) is not a SCSI-2 drive.

Say what happened. I thought you were going to call. Have tooo much fun over
the holiday? <BG>

Art

#: 12358 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  17:03:51
Sb: #12263-TMC840 (sob)
Fm: Alex Howard 73310,2237
To: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613 (X)

See, Art ... you have the normal problem with a CD and NT.  Data, but no
audio.

Why didn't I call?  I don't know ... just got too busy, then ended up in an ER
with a badly infected finger, then ... well, I don't even have NT on my 'puter
anymore.  Simply because there's been no bloody help (other than yours and
Todd Albertson) ... specifically from MS, and I need the space on the HD.
'Course, with the problems I'm having with both floppy drives, I may end up
replacing both with one of those that takes up one slot, then getting another
HD to put in the empty spot.

But I just got too pi**ed at the whole situation.  I spent too much $$ to test
this thing, and MS doesn't have any better answer than to send them my
computer.  (Actually, before that, I should send them my CD Rom player and
card.)

Sorry to vomit all over you.  I do appreciate all your help and interest.
What the hey, you're really the only one on the board who seems to care <VBG>!

On a lighter note:  didja see the NY Times Sunday Biz section of 10/4?  Peter
Lewis' article on the Sound System?

-a.

There are 2 Replies.

#: 12363 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  17:26:38
Sb: #12358-TMC840 (sob)
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: Alex Howard 73310,2237 (X)

Alex,

<<On a lighter note:  didja see the NY Times Sunday Biz section of 10/4?
Peter Lewis' article on the Sound System?>>

No. I strickly avoid any paper (news) service. They're just too biased for me.
I want facts not some reportes opinion. The only news I seem to watch is CNN.

<<Sorry to vomit all over you.  I do appreciate all your help and interest.
What the hey, you're really the only one on the board who seems to care <VBG>!
>>

It's no problem for me. Having been there myself I can feel what you are going
thru. Maybe the next release will help solve your problem. There's hope
anyway. <g>

Art

#: 12370 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  18:14:12
Sb: #12358-TMC840 (sob)
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: Alex Howard 73310,2237 (X)

Alex:

here you are wrong.  I care also <bg>.  Art just cares more <VBG>.

                       bob



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12419 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  07:31:13
Sb: #12370-TMC840 (sob)
Fm: Alex Howard 73310,2237
To: Bob Chronister 70363,246 (X)

Thanks, Bob.  I appreciate it <BG>!
-a.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12426 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  08:20:03
Sb: #12419-TMC840 (sob)
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: Alex Howard 73310,2237

Alex:

Anytime, what are friends for <bg>?

                       bob

#: 12292 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  09:15:09
Sb: #12102-TMC840 (sob)
Fm: Karl Froelich 71171,2247
To: Alex Howard 73310,2237

I reckon that we're co-miserating, then. Oh well, so it goes...

#: 12384 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  21:12:05
Sb: #12102-TMC840 (sob)
Fm: Darren K. Pearson 71127,2403
To: Alex Howard 73310,2237 (X)

Alex,

Why don't you just replace the whole computer. Then you have it isolated to
the computer itself.<g>

Darren

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12420 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  07:31:58
Sb: #12384-TMC840 (sob)
Fm: Alex Howard 73310,2237
To: Darren K. Pearson 71127,2403

Darren,

Sure.  Wanna donate a 486/66?  I can give you a wish list if you wanna fill it
<ROFL>!

-a.

#: 12538 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  21:36:21
Sb: #12420-TMC840 (sob)
Fm: Darren K. Pearson 71127,2403
To: Alex Howard 73310,2237 (X)

Sure just call Geno of Vito at....<g>

Darren

#: 12542 S3/Windows NT Setup
    16-Oct-92  01:26:08
Sb: Win/NT, OS/2 1.3 Install
Fm: John Hess 72350,3141
To: sysop (X)

Hi, I have a MS LM 2.1 server running on OS/2 1.3.  We only use this server
ocassionly so I would like to install our Windows/NT onto the same box.  Q:
Can I dual boot Win/NT and OS/2 1.3?. Q: Can I Triple boot Dos 5.0, OS/2 1.3
and Win/NT.  Q: Does Win/NT work on the HPFS? Q: Can I load NT into a differnt
partition and run boot it from there?  Thanks,  John

#: 12546 S3/Windows NT Setup
    16-Oct-92  05:32:58
Sb: NT HANGS
Fm: claude bachelet 100111,3557
To: everyone

i'm trying to install NT on  an OLIVETTI 380-40 it just hangs when copying the
file ntdetect.com or NTLDR if i take the CD out then back in after boot

I have : a TM850 future domain card wired for irq 5 with no PROM the disk is
an IDE 200Mo connected to the inboard controller i have got 20 Mo of memory an
no other expansion board i also setup the machine at slow speed and no cache

thank you

ps : i'm  'typing' from FRANCE

#: 12548 S3/Windows NT Setup
    16-Oct-92  05:47:14
Sb: NT Problems
Fm: - Visitor 76137,3311
To: sysop (X)

I am having a problem with NT.  It will not allow me to boot DOS from the
Portable Boot.  It also keeps plaing this annoying beeping through my
SoundBlaster, making it buisy, and therefore not allowing me to use any of the
MM appletts.  Just so you will know, I installed NT on my Second hard drive.
There is one more problem, I cannot get the higher resolution video drivers to
work for my Diamond SpeesStad video card and a 72MHz NI monitor. Thanks for
the help. PS- When I try to boot dos, the screen clears, and the cursor is
left blinking in the upper left corner of the screen.  Nothing happens after
that, no drive access lights, no action except the flashing of the coursor.

                                Michael P. Gowing

#: 12545 S3/Windows NT Setup
    16-Oct-92  04:05:03
Sb: TEAC FD-505 Install P
Fm: Billy Newport 100030,342
To: ALL

  TEAC FD-505 Install PRoblem

I have a TEAC FD505 twin floppy drive. Its got both 3.5 and 5.25" drives in
one half height unit. DOS BOOTS from 3.5" disk fine.

How-ever, July NT on CD's boot disk boots, read the boot sector and then hangs
no message!!!, incidently, I have the same problem booting OS/2 from the drive
BUT DOS does boot from the floppy.

I had a chinon 3.5" drive before and I installed OS/2 2.0 with no problems on
the machine using AHA1542B + TOSH 3301.

So, its not the machine (motherboard controllers etc), TEAC say if DOS boots
its a software problem. Under OS/2.0 I can read/write and format floppies from
either drive with no problems, I can't try NT yet and I have a spare 200MB
SCSI disk ready for it!!

Are there any other problems similar to this.

#: 12559 S3/Windows NT Setup
    16-Oct-92  08:04:28
Sb: TEAC FD-505 Install P
Fm: Billy Newport 100030,342
To: ALL

  TEAC FD-505 Install PRoblem

I have a TEAC FD505 twin floppy drive. Its got both 3.5 and 5.25" drives in
one half height unit. DOS BOOTS from 3.5" disk fine.

How-ever, July NT on CD's boot disk boots, read the boot sector and then hangs
no message!!!, incidently, I have the same problem booting OS/2 from the drive
BUT DOS does boot from the floppy.

I had a chinon 3.5" drive before and I installed OS/2 2.0 with no problems on
the machine using AHA1542B + TOSH 3301.

So, its not the machine (motherboard controllers etc), TEAC say if DOS boots
its a software problem. Under OS/2.0 I can read/write and format floppies from
either drive with no problems, I can't try NT yet and I have a spare 200MB
SCSI disk ready for it!!

Are there any other problems similar to this.

#: 12148 S3/Windows NT Setup
    12-Oct-92  17:37:32
Sb: #11892-Seagate 3283A
Fm: Amocams/Modular, Inc. 76260,3666
To: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613 (X)

That does seem to be a likely problem, however, with the ST1239A and using the
standard graphical install, I have installed NT on two different machines with
no problems.  By the way, don't bother calling Seagate technical support - I
talked with three different techs and they were no help at all. Thanks for the
info Art. --Bill Block

#: 12260 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  03:53:21
Sb: #12148-Seagate 3283A
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: Amocams/Modular, Inc. 76260,3666

Bill,

<<however, with the ST1239A and using the standard graphical install, I have
installed NT on two different machines with no problems.>>

Since you have used this same type of drive (but maybe not the same revision?)
I'd look at what is different on the machines and go from there.

If I recall correctly you received a 0x69 erorr. If so that is disk & disk
controller related. Since the same drive type has been used on the other
machines I'd still suspect the controller.

One thing I have found about Segate drives is that the model number is not
neccessarily the final word. I had 2 of the 1239A's. One went bad. I sent it
back. They sent me a new 1239A. But this 1239A is faster than the older and
has the IDE connector reversed. Makes me wonder what else changed. I sold the
other 1239A.

Art

#: 12560 S3/Windows NT Setup
    16-Oct-92  08:12:53
Sb: #12260-Seagate 3283A
Fm: Amocams/Modular, Inc. 76260,3666
To: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613

Art, I am not sure if I was clear with my statement.  The 1239 worked on all
machines tried. The 3283 would not work on these same machines - the only
difference being the drive. The original point being that both of these drives
remap their geometry and NT works with one and not the other.  My conclusion
is that unless they use a different technique for this remap, the remap is not
the problem with the 3283. --Bill Block

#: 12261 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  03:57:17
Sb: #12148-Seagate 3283A
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: Amocams/Modular, Inc. 76260,3666

Bill,

I feel a bit silly. You also mentioned that you had performed a graphical
install on other machines with the same drive. Does the machine you are having
problems with also have a SCSI card and CD-ROM drive? Does it also have a SCSI
hard drive as well as the IDE drive?

Just looking for other causes of the 0x69 error. If you have a SCSI card it is
possible that that is the problem. If NT does not recognize the SCSI CD-ROM
properly it could be reporting the 0x69 error for it. If you have a SCSI card
is it on the supported hardware list?

Art

#: 12562 S3/Windows NT Setup
    16-Oct-92  08:33:47
Sb: #12261-Seagate 3283A
Fm: Amocams/Modular, Inc. 76260,3666
To: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613

Art,

I do not have a SCSI hard drive on any of my machines. I have installed NT
using the graphical install on a machine with the 1239A and a Future Domain
850M SCSI controller attached to a Toshiba XM3201 cd-rom. I have also
installed NT using the batch program on a machine with a 1239A and no SCSI
card or cd-rom.  The 1239A works under both conditions.  In the case of the
3283A, I have only tried to do the graphical install (from cd) with (as you
already know) negative results.  The 0x69 error was not unexpected considering
that the blue screen after the first reboot did not see either of the
partitions on the 3283. Since these partitions represented C and D drives, I
am sure the install failed when it was trying to modify the boot sector.  I
was not even trying to install NT on those partitions, but was installing on a
G: partition that was on the 1239A.  The one attempt that I made to install on
the 3283 with the 1239A removed from the system, resulted in an error 0x0A (I
think, it was in an earlier message) when the blue screen attempted to display
partition information.

I hope we get past these problems when the beta release is shipped.

--Bill Block

#: 12270 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  05:31:32
Sb: 0x0000069 InitI/O Error
Fm: Michael R. Ryan 76020,1751
To: sysop (X)

We are experiencing an 0x0000069 Init I/O error when installing WindowsNT. The
platform we are using is a vanilla NCR 3447 with 16 MB RAM. The drive system
uses the NCR SCSI 53C700 Adapter. The hard drive is the Maxtor LXT-213SY.
Please advise if there is anything which you may know which will assist us.
Many Thanks,  Mike Ryan AT&T

#: 12424 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  08:16:06
Sb: #12270-0x0000069 InitI/O Error
Fm: Robert Reinstein 76270,1541
To: Michael R. Ryan 76020,1751 (X)

Hi Mike,

I'm having the same error and look forward to seeing what replies you get. I
had installed NT on my machine and everything was well. I since changed from
IDE to SCSi and now I have that error, so I'll guess the SCSI has something to
do with it.

Hopefully we'll find out soon.

#: 12564 S3/Windows NT Setup
    16-Oct-92  08:39:58
Sb: #12270-0x0000069 InitI/O Error
Fm: Sam Karroum [MS] 71075,642
To: Michael R. Ryan 76020,1751

Michael,

This is a phase one initialization error, which happens when Windows NT tries
to talk with the HD controller.  It can be caused by any number of things.
Things to try:

  - If the card allows, slow down the DMA transfer rate.
  - Make sure both ends of the SCSI bus are terminated.
  - Make sure there are no IRQ, or memory address conflicts.

Also, how many cylinders is the drive?

Regards, Sam Karroum [MS]

#: 12300 S3/Windows NT Setup
    14-Oct-92  09:51:18
Sb: Installing NT for NEC 74
Fm: Marc Goetschalckx 74160,1615
To: ALL

Has anyone installed windows NT from a NEC Intersect 74 CD ROM?  I would
appreciate very much step by step instructions, since currently I can only us
the dos2nt batch file and later on cannot access the CD ROM.  Thanks.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12456 S3/Windows NT Setup
    15-Oct-92  11:13:16
Sb: #12300-Installing NT for NEC 74
Fm: Wayne Robinson 73060,702
To: Marc Goetschalckx 74160,1615

I used a NEC CDR attached to the IBM SCSI port on my PS/2 95.  The
installation worked just fine.

Wayne

#: 12565 S3/Windows NT Setup
    16-Oct-92  08:46:31
Sb: #12300-Installing NT for NEC 74
Fm: Paul Ligeski 76636,1166
To: Marc Goetschalckx 74160,1615

Hi Marc,

I have an Adaptec 1542 and a NEC 74.  I had to set the drive to ID 2 by
flipping DIP switches in the back of the CD-ROM.  The 1542 board had some
problems:  had to remove pin #1 of jumper J6 to disable the BIOS (you don't
need the BIOS if you don't have SCSI hard drives) and I had to remove pin #1
on jumper J8 to disable looking at the floppies.

Adaptec wasn't much help.  The only manual is a reference card (you have to
ask for the user manual) and the package was missing the DOS software.

Hope that helps. --Paul

#: 12042 S3/Windows NT Setup
    11-Oct-92  09:48:06
Sb: Error 0xA on Install
Fm: Thomas F. Schaefer 100041,310
To: All

Help!!

I tried to install NT on my computer using DOS2NT. In step 7 I got a fatal
system error 0xA (IRQL expected to be less or equal) after the reboot.

I would really appreciate all further information about how to continue and
how to get the stuff up and running.

I have a 486/50 with AMI Bios, 16MB Ram, 240MB AT Bus HD, VGA (TSENG),
Hercules (as second display), 4 seriell, 2 parallel, Archive Streamer and
Philips CDRom CDD 461.  Unfortunately I have very little detailled information
about the hardware, most parts can not be further identified, since the
manufacturer is neither in the docu nor on the boards mentioned.

regards
Thomas

#: 12162 S3/Windows NT Setup
    12-Oct-92  20:35:30
Sb: #12042-Error 0xA on Install
Fm: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225
To: Thomas F. Schaefer 100041,310

Thomas,

Generally 0xA resolves to an interrupt conflict.

Regards, Scott B. Suhy[MS]

#: 12567 S3/Windows NT Setup
    16-Oct-92  08:52:50
Sb: #12162-Error 0xA on Install
Fm: Amocams/Modular, Inc. 76260,3666
To: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225 (X)

Scott, I had the exact same error when trying to install on an ST3283A drive
(Seagate 240 MB IDE).  You responded to my message and informed me that there
were no other references to this drive.  I am certain that in my case there is
no interupt conflict.

--Bill Block

#: 12566 S3/Windows NT Setup
    16-Oct-92  08:48:15
Sb: #12042-Error 0xA on Install
Fm: Amocams/Modular, Inc. 76260,3666
To: Thomas F. Schaefer 100041,310

I had the same error when using the graphical install on my ST3283A drive.
This is a 240 MB IDE drive from Seagate. It would be interesting to me to know
if your drive is also an ST3283A.  When I remove this drive and use another
Seagate drive ST1239A 210MB IDE, the problem goes away. There is a thread that
deals with this drive.

--Bill Block




#: 11948 S4/MS-DOS/Win3.x Apps
    09-Oct-92  16:02:15
Sb: Word 4 Win install
Fm: Scott LaFond 71370,533
To: Oscar M. Herrera 71174,1204

Oscar,

How did you get W4W to install into NT? I tried the new icon route and it will
show up in my main group, but when you double click on it, it loads but you
can't see it, or something like that.

Scott


There is 1 Reply.


#: 11975 S4/MS-DOS/Win3.x Apps
    09-Oct-92  19:31:20
Sb: #11948-Word 4 Win install
Fm: Tim Jones 70750,701
To: Scott LaFond 71370,533 (X)

Hi Scott,

I just let NT scan my drives for apps and it found W4W (I'm guessing Word
here).  I just double click the WINWORD icon and there it is.

Tim

#: 12057 S4/MS-DOS/Win3.x Apps
    11-Oct-92  12:03:15
Sb: #11806-NO Win 16 Subsystem
Fm: Gary J. Walker 100020,1104
To: Jay Vernon[Microsoft] 72370,454 (X)

Thanks Jay for the reply.

I should say that I posted a similar message in the winnt / S3 setup area a
couple of days after posting this question. Scott Suhy [MS] responded - mainly
to tell me to try adding a line to autoexec.nt to add winnt\system\redir. I've
got some Win3.1 apps running now: not WRITE though. There are still problems -
which seem to be down to the applications having obviously been installed to
'look' at my Win3.1 directories etc.

In case you did want to reply further (all help appreciated! But I don't want
to duplicate effort too much) --(5/5/91): 2. 16MB ram 3. Adaptec 1542B scsi ctllr: connecting an NEC 5882
hardrive (600MB),
   Archive 150S QIC tape, Tosh 3301 cdrom.
   Video - Trident 8900C vga (1MB mem) + colour monitor:
   2 x 3.5'' floppies.
   Epson FX105 printer(!). Agiler mouse (MS compat). Ext Modem.

Harddisk partitioned - C: and D:

NT 'graphically' installed (NOT dos2nt) -  to  d:/winnt Win3.1 previously
installed to c:/windows3.

After NT installation, tho' NT ran, I had to go into the NT Registry editor to
place a swap file on drive d:. Drive c: only has/had about 10 to 15 MB free.
Drive d: has plenty free.

DOS applications run well. Quattro for Windows runs OK - tho' missing font
support, so does Freelance 4W: one or two others get initiated but bale out
saying some .ini file, or a .exe can't be found (probably the way the dlls are
strewn all over the disks). WinWord doesn't get too far either. As mentioned,
WRITE still just causes a lot of disk activity, then nothing (or at best, the
Win16 Subsystem No response message). Trying WRITE seems to mess things up for
subsequent Win3.1 apps. Even tried running WRITE from an NT cli command line
in the Win3.1 c:/windows directory.

Regards,
        Gary.

#: 12107 S4/MS-DOS/Win3.x Apps
    12-Oct-92  08:34:00
Sb: No DOS or WIN16 Apps
Fm: Jim Bohannon 72561,2033
To: Sysop (X)

I am having the same problem getting DOS or Win16 programs to run on my
system.  NT itself runs fine.  The symptoms are that whenever I try to start a
DOS or Windows program I either get an icon on the bottom of the screen or the
whole display goes black, gets filled with garbage, and then sits there. If I
do an Alt-Tab or Alt-Enter to get back the display or go to the Task Manager
window, the process is shown as "Frozen".  I then have to terminate the
session.  One other clue: I sometimes get the following error:

  Error No 0, [D:\nt\private\mvdm\softpc\hos\src\nt_fulsc.c(637)]

Gee, looks like a source code line number to me... <g>

My system:

  AMD 386/40, 11 Megs of memory (I know that's not a lot for current NT),
  two Connor IDE drives (170Meg each), Sigma VGA Legend (TSENG ET4000
  w/1Meg)

The problem occurs for all Win16 and DOS app.  Any hints or solutions would be
greatly appreciated.

#: 11896 S4/MS-DOS/Win3.x Apps
    09-Oct-92  09:16:23
Sb: Win/DOS Apps wont start
Fm: Jay Vernon[Microsoft] 72370,454
To: HowieFomby 76645,754 (X)

Howie -

How much memory is on your machine? Did you do a graphical install or DOS2NT?

Thanks, Jay Vernon[Microsoft]



There are 2 Replies.

#: 11984 S4/MS-DOS/Win3.x Apps
    10-Oct-92  01:36:39
Sb: #11896-Win/DOS Apps wont start
Fm: HowieFomby 76645,754
To: Jay Vernon[Microsoft] 72370,454 (X)

16 meg, Graphical install. Actually, I also did the manual install, with the
same result. I generally show 4-5 meg free when I try to launch apps. Any
ideas, other than wait a few weeks for the next release?

Thanks, Howard Fomby [Prolifix]

#: 12024 S4/MS-DOS/Win3.x Apps
    10-Oct-92  19:15:00
Sb: #11896-Win/DOS Apps wont start
Fm: Tom Sullivan 75216,2357
To: Jay Vernon[Microsoft] 72370,454 (X)

Windows apps gone!! All of a sudden I cannot launch any windows apps.They were
working before. Now here is what I did in the interium.
Move Windows from c:\windows to D:\windows the win3.1 that is installed now is
WFW. I didn't move any of the apps. Winword left where it was etc. Though that
maybe I should do a reinstall. DOS2NT to use my new ROM D: is a SCSI which
worked before. The apps are on C:\. After the reinstall the Win apps still
don't work. They is a fair amount of disk activity before it stops but no
window. The event log has a 2019 error?
I ran setup it setup some apps some no. DOS apps comeup OK
Confused ????



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12028 S4/MS-DOS/Win3.x Apps
    10-Oct-92  20:34:33
Sb: #12024-Win/DOS Apps wont start
Fm: Scott LaFond 71370,533
To: Tom Sullivan 75216,2357 (X)

I've just set NT up and have this same problem.  I double click on
some icons and there's disk activity, but no result.  Also,
I never seem able to properly terminate a session.  I think the
programs are in memory, but don't show for some reason.

I have a HP Vectra 486/66u, 12MB, 250MB HD (IDE) with a satisfaction
400, and NEC multimedia upgrade kit, thus proaudio spectrum board and
74 ROM drive.

Programs that don't run are WFW, PIF.EXE, haven't tried them all
most other stuff that came with the NT disk runs, but contrary to
the manual, I can't run a CIM session via a DOS window.

I have to reboot and got to 3.1 to get in here.

Any comments welcome

Scott


There is 1 Reply.

#: 12146 S4/MS-DOS/Win3.x Apps
    12-Oct-92  17:18:22
Sb: #12028-Win/DOS Apps wont start
Fm: Tom Sullivan 75216,2357
To: Scott LaFond 71370,533 (X)

Scott: I couldn't get CIM working earlier. I upgraded to the newest Version of
CIM and that fixed it. It maybe WFW that is causing the no WIN program
problem. When I had 3.1 installed on C all the windows apps worked fine on NT.
I'm running WFW on this machine the NT one without at network card, I just
disregard the startup message and the win apps run fine. I think it was about
the time that I installed WFW that the apps stoped running. I spent most of my
time in the last month in WFW and when I got back to NT I noticed it works no
longer. Let me know if this theory is any good. DOS apps still work. Is this
version of NT borrowing a little code from windows?
Tom

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12186 S4/MS-DOS/Win3.x Apps
    13-Oct-92  07:09:33
Sb: #12146-Win/DOS Apps wont start
Fm: Scott LaFond 71370,533
To: Tom Sullivan 75216,2357

Tom,

I finally got dos apps working as well as 16 bit win apps.  I had to add some
things to my config.nt and autoexec.nt files, per Scott Suhy's comments.

Actually, what I found was I didn't even have those two files installed,
somehow dos2nt didn't transfer them.

If you look for Scott's messages on here, you'll see what I mean.

Scott

#: 12264 S4/MS-DOS/Win3.x Apps
    14-Oct-92  04:12:07
Sb: #12186-Win/DOS Apps wont start
Fm: Michael Gerlach 100065,1033
To: Scott LaFond 71370,533 (X)

Scott,

propably, I got the same problems with 16 bit win apps. Unluckily I can't find
Scott Suhy's mail. Could you give me a hint where to find it or even forward
it to me?

Thanx                                 Michael G.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12274 S4/MS-DOS/Win3.x Apps
    14-Oct-92  06:34:35
Sb: #12264-Win/DOS Apps wont start
Fm: Scott LaFond 71370,533
To: Michael Gerlach 100065,1033

Mike,

I didn't save it in file form, just printed it out, so I'll just retype what
he wrote.

If you don't have either config.nt or autoexec.nt in your root directory,
either copy them there from you CD-ROM or create them.  They should contain
the following:

Config.nt device=c:\winnt\system\himem.sys device=c:\winnt\system\keyboard.sys
device=c:\winnt\system\mouse.sys device=c:\winnt\system\emm.sys files=128
shell=c:\winnt\system\command.com /p c:\winnt\system

Autoexec.nt C:\winnt\system\dosx c:\winnt\system\redir c:\winnt\system\dosx

Now, I just noticed on difference, my config.nt starts with "dos=low" so you
may need that as well.  This works for me, albeit flaky, maybe Scott can
comment when he reads this.  This is the best I could patch together from the
messages I read.

Scott

#: 12362 S4/MS-DOS/Win3.x Apps
    14-Oct-92  17:23:35
Sb: #12274-Win/DOS Apps wont start
Fm: Tom Sullivan 75216,2357
To: Scott LaFond 71370,533 (X)

Thanks I'll try the config. I just wonder why it worked when I first Installed
and then just seemed to go away. I got a little lost testing WFW and I may
have messed something up.<g>
Tom

#: 11897 S4/MS-DOS/Win3.x Apps
    09-Oct-92  09:16:29
Sb: Win/DOS Apps wont start
Fm: Jay Vernon[Microsoft] 72370,454
To: HowieFomby 76645,754 (X)

Howie -

I see you have 16mb of memory please disregard my last message. I'm
researching all these incidents.  I've tested many Win 3.1 applications and
almost all Win 3.1 accessories on many different types of hardware platforms
all with 16mb of memory.  I have seen some strange things but never 'all
applications not running', there must be something common about the
machines/installs in this thread, but I haven't seen it yet. I understand
Peter Denk's comments completely, it impossible for you to use your systems.
Any added information would be appreciated.

Thanks, Jay Vernon




There is 1 Reply.

#: 11986 S4/MS-DOS/Win3.x Apps
    10-Oct-92  01:43:52
Sb: #11897-Win/DOS Apps wont start
Fm: HowieFomby 76645,754
To: Jay Vernon[Microsoft] 72370,454 (X)

Jay, these are some odd Korean EISA boards, so maybe I'm being bitten by the
'Buy America' bug this election season. Some strange Phyllis Schaffly pressing
the Abort button or something..<g> <groan>
Other than that, it's all plain vanilla, especially since I ripped out my SB
Pro board and everything else that wasn't on the approved list, and got the
same result.My video (I forget if I mentioned it) is an STB
Evolution board running in VGA mode. I also have an old 2400 baud fax modem
installed. Evry other OS seems to work (MSDOS, OS/1.3, OS/2.0). Hey, I've been
worried about IRQ Conflicts long before Desert Storm (since 1980, actually)
and this'n's got me stumped.

- Howard Fomby [Prolifix]




#: 12247 S5/32-bit Windows Apps
    13-Oct-92  22:05:34
Sb: #11082-winnt better w/EISA?
Fm: Scott A Moore 70461,3575
To: Jim Bublitz 72110,2267

Re: ISA vs EISA

Is pretty much a question for the future. When Eisa cards come out that
address above the 16 meg ISA limit, NT will supposedly be able to correctly
handle them. Also, DMA to and from memory above 16 meg is not possible on an
ISA system.
As an example, they are talking about putting EISA video cards into a "direct
map" mode, where all of the onboard memory is put into the CPU memory map.
Hard to cite a case where it would help currently, however.  Personally, i'm
going with the "1/2" price theory. EISA motherboards cost about twice ISA
motherboards. When EISA motherboards are popular, and consquently there is
reason to have one, the price will be about half. So buy ISA now, then chuck
it for EISA later. It will cost you the same.

                                      [sam]

Oh, sorry ! you wanted someone who knows what they are talking
about !

There is 1 Reply.


#: 12291 S5/32-bit Windows Apps
    14-Oct-92  09:09:18
Sb: #12247-winnt better w/EISA?
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Scott A Moore 70461,3575

Scott,

>>When Eisa cards come out that address above the 16 meg ISA limit<<

When? My DPT EISA Host Adaptor has had the capability to DMA above 16MB for a
couple of years.

John




#: 11939 S6/OS/2, POSIX Apps
    09-Oct-92  15:13:13
Sb: #11890-Installing SQL Server
Fm: Krishnan P [Microsoft] 71075,3222
To: Dan Sullivan 76327,1534 (X)

>I am trying to install SQL Server 4.2 on NT according to the release notes
SQL >Server Programmers Toolkit for Windows NT. When I try to run setup on the
OS/2 >Setup Disk (Developer's System) I get the error from NT "Cannot connect
to OS2 >subsystem". What does this mean, how can I fix it.

You have to enable the OS2 subsystem.

C:\> regedit

    HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE->System->
               CurrentControlSet->Control->
                             SessionManager->SubSystems

Select Required and then add Os2 in there. This should fix you up.


>Thanks in advance Dan

Goodluck,

-Krishnan Parameshwaran [MS]




There are 2 Replies.


#: 11957 S6/OS/2, POSIX Apps
    09-Oct-92  17:09:17
Sb: #11939-Installing SQL Server
Fm: Dan Sullivan 76327,1534
To: Krishnan P [Microsoft] 71075,3222 (X)

I did the regedit as you suggested but still get the cannor connect to OS2
subsystem. I tried running os2ss.exe from the command line but I get a message
saying it cannot be executed. ANy other ideas. I did notice in the registry (I
forget which key) that os2\dll was not included in the list of places to look
for a dll

Thanks in advance Dan

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12026 S6/OS/2, POSIX Apps
    10-Oct-92  20:08:48
Sb: #11957-Installing SQL Server
Fm: Robin Wilson 70703,2221
To: Dan Sullivan 76327,1534 (X)

Hi, I to am having the same problem, trying to run SQLServer 4.2 setup.exe
under NT. I added the Os2 entry to regedit.. but same results, setup will not
run.  Does NT know if the program is Os2?.. so that I should be able to
File|Run it? If I try to run setup from File|Run it tells me to fix my
config.sys (dosx), if I do that, then it just dumps me back into NT, how can
you tell if the "OS2 subsystem" is running/enabled or if its the app's
problem...
Thanks for the help


There is 1 Reply.

#: 12056 S6/OS/2, POSIX Apps
    11-Oct-92  11:37:43
Sb: #12026-Installing SQL Server
Fm: Dan Sullivan 76327,1534
To: Robin Wilson 70703,2221 (X)

I am waiting for the answer to this also. If you use pview you can see that
os2ss.exe is in fact running. I have some other OS2 apps that have the same
problem, Cannot connect to OS2 subsystem. I guess we will have to wait for
someone from MS to see our questions on Monday and give us the answer. In any
case at the end of the month we should be getting the new version of NT.

Dan

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12062 S6/OS/2, POSIX Apps
    11-Oct-92  13:26:42
Sb: #12056-Installing SQL Server
Fm: Robin Wilson 70703,2221
To: Dan Sullivan 76327,1534 (X)

OK, thanks I'll try pview, and stay tuned.

#: 12112 S6/OS/2, POSIX Apps
    12-Oct-92  09:25:08
Sb: #11939-Installing SQL Server
Fm: Marty Steinberg [MS] 72360,564
To: Krishnan P [Microsoft] 71075,3222 (X)

** >I am trying to install SQL Server 4.2 on NT according to the release **
notes SQL >Server Programmers Toolkit for Windows NT. When I try to run **
setup on the OS/2 >Setup Disk (Developer's System) I get the error from ** NT
"Cannot connect to OS2 >subsystem". What does this mean, how can I fix ** it.
** You have to enable the OS2 subsystem. ** C:\> regedit **
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE->System-> **                CurrentControlSet->Control-> **
SessionManager->SubSystems ** Select Required and then add Os2 in there. This
should fix you up.

this is incorrect. do NOT place Os2 in the Required key, it should be in the
Optional key in the subsystems section.

the behaviour you describe sounds like the Os/2 section of the registry may be
corrupted. you need to get to
     HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE->Software->Microsoft and delete the Os/2 Subsystem
section using the Edit.Delete menu command and reboot your machine.

the next time you start an os/2 app, the os/2 subsystem will recreate the
section you deleted.

when installing *any* software you should be logged in as administrator. for
Sql, there's a very long set of messages that describe what's necessary to get
it to install completely and correctly. please read messages #8974,75 for the
details of this procedure.

Marty Steinberg Window NT Os2 Subsystem Team

#: 12287 S6/OS/2, POSIX Apps
    14-Oct-92  08:54:39
Sb: #12112-Installing SQL Server
Fm: Robin Wilson 70703,2221
To: Marty Steinberg [MS] 72360,564

thanks, I'll try it.. also the same thing happens (just dumps you back into
winnt) if I try to run a win16 app.... hopefully the same procedure will fix
that too.. if not I'll be back =)

#: 12295 S6/OS/2, POSIX Apps
    14-Oct-92  09:26:35
Sb: SQL Server
Fm: Robin Wilson 70703,2221
To: Marty Steinberg 72360,564

Help... I'm not getting it.  The local_machine->software->microsoft
in regedit does not have an os2 subsystem section (to delete). When I try to
run setup.exe from the SQL Server install disks with my normal config.sys and
autoexec.bat nt tells me "your configuration is not correct for running dos
and windows (win16) apps". If I change them (autoexec and config) to the nt
versions (just runs !\dosx), then  when i try to run setup nt tells me "you
can't run this program in dos mode"!
It seems to think that setup.exe is a dos program, but if I run it under dos,
dos says "this program requries os2"
Also were the messages you mentioned #897   4,75  , thats the way the message
looked when I read it.
How can you tell which one of the many zip files in the lib to download
to get the right messages??!!
Thanks for all your help, I'm sure this works.. somehow..
also if I need to recreate the registry, how can I do that without
re-installing NT....

#: 12323 S6/OS/2, POSIX Apps
    14-Oct-92  12:46:22
Sb: Running OS2 app
Fm: Dan Sullivan 76327,1534
To: SYSOP (X)

I am trying to run an OS2 character mode application in NT. When I start the
application I get back the error message:

Cannot connect to OS2 subsystem

I have edited the registry to make Os2 required and using pview and I can see
the OS2SS is running. I assume that OS2SS is the OS2 subsystem. Any hints on
what might be wrong?

Thanks in advance Dan

#: 12520 S6/OS/2, POSIX Apps
    15-Oct-92  19:42:36
Sb: #12323-Running OS2 app
Fm: Robin Wilson 70703,2221
To: Dan Sullivan 76327,1534

I also have a problem in this area, when I try to run a win16 or os2 app i am
dumped back into NT...
Any help would be helpfull
thanks




#: 12009 S7/Utilities/Applets
    10-Oct-92  10:54:12
Sb: #11804-xtradrive, IIT
Fm: Fankhauser Gerhard 100041,1275
To: Devlin Spearman(MS) 71075,645 (X)

if i get an answer, i will inform you
thanks


#: 12076 S7/Utilities/Applets
    11-Oct-92  17:38:35
Sb: utilities/applets
Fm: matt maberino 70162,1772
To: winnt

does anyone know what happened to pifedit?  I've got the july release, but
can't find pifedit.  No words in the n6tes about it missing.  - matt

#: 12141 S7/Utilities/Applets
    12-Oct-92  14:50:34
Sb: mep tabbing
Fm: Bob Bogardus 76470,3066
To: Microsoft

mep and tabs don't mix very well.  I set up for Realtabs because when I hit a
tab, I want a tab to show up in the text and the cursor moved to the correct
tab position.  If I begin a new line with tabs, this does not occur.

I don't want white conversion, I just want what-I-type-is-what-I-get. How do I
setup mep to acheive this?

#: 12133 S7/Utilities/Applets
    12-Oct-92  12:53:51
Sb: NLS and IME
Fm: Terry Gibbs 70531,3601
To: Steve Fait 75300,3140

Steve,

We would like to find out what the status is and the plans are for NLS support
in NT. We have attended the SF NT conference and have that release. What is
not clear to us at this point is how we will be able to write a database
application that will support English, Japanese, Chinese and Arabic all at the
same time.

That is where in NT do we go to set up the input sequence (an IME ?, where is
discussed?) and where do we go to setup the rendering. Sure we can write code
to render any language but what services will NT provide. We see a lot of
support in the Apple OS with WorldScript and need that king of OS support in
NT.

Can you pass this to the right NLS people so that they can send me an answer?

Thanks,

Terry


There is 1 Reply.

#: 12170 S7/Utilities/Applets
    12-Oct-92  21:42:58
Sb: #12133-NLS and IME
Fm: Carl W. Brown 71250,1322
To: Terry Gibbs 70531,3601

Terry,

This is better discussed on the MSWIN32 forum which has a UNICODE/NLS section.

I have been told that the Beta version will have the NLS support but that only
US English will be supported.  NT/J will be out about 6 months after the
production NT release.  No word yet on the Western European languages, but I
suspect that 2nd Q 1993 would be a reasonable guess.

Carl - (Not with MS)

#: 12368 S7/Utilities/Applets
    14-Oct-92  18:04:19
Sb: Emacs for WinNT
Fm: Alex Bronstein 75070,2452
To: Glenn Ford 70414,321

Hello,

       You mentionned you used Emacs in a msg a while back.  I am looking for
a 32bit version of it.  Could you tell me the source of the Emacs you're
using?

       Thank you,

                               Alex  (aka internet:[e-mail])




#: 11909 S8/H/W Compatibility
    09-Oct-92  10:29:34
Sb: #11782-R3000 Iris Indigo
Fm: Muzaffer KAL 70324,2553
To: Jay Vernon[Microsoft] 72370,454 (X)

Jay,
what about the final release? any plans to support it then? or any  plans that
SGI ships R3000 Indigos installed with NT sometime in the future?

thanks
Muzaffer


#: 11910 S8/H/W Compatibility
    09-Oct-92  10:30:11
Sb: #11801-R3000 Iris Indigo
Fm: Muzaffer KAL 70324,2553
To: Yuri Diomin 75020,404 (X)

thanks for the info.

Muzaffer

#: 11908 S8/H/W Compatibility
    09-Oct-92  10:27:33
Sb: #11754-CDROM help re IRQs
Fm: Muzaffer KAL 70324,2553
To: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613 (X)

Art,
I have the exact situation WRT eject and audio (TOC error). But under 3.1 I
can play audio. I hope TRANTOR enhances it's driver and MS includes that
driver as one of the compatible drivers in the upcoming beta.

Muzaffer


There is 1 Reply.

#: 11962 S8/H/W Compatibility
    09-Oct-92  17:52:00
Sb: #11908-CDROM help re IRQs
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: Muzaffer KAL 70324,2553 (X)

Muzaffer,

<<But under 3.1 I can play audio. I hope TRANTOR enhances it's driver and MS
includes that driver as one of the compatible drivers in the upcoming beta.>>

I do too. But I'm not sure if it's up to Trantor to write the filter or if it
is NEC. Most NEC CD-ROM kits do use the Trantor T128 SCSI controller though,
so maybe ...

The problem is that the NEC drive is not SCSI-2 complient. If we had a SCSI-2
CD-ROM (like my sony CD-541 at home) I bet the driver would work.

Art

#: 11920 S8/H/W Compatibility
    09-Oct-92  12:13:42
Sb: NT BootDisk
Fm: Kent Gillis 73220,1070
To: ALL

ALL,

I am having trouble booting NT from the bootdisk.  When the NT Setup screen
appears, after a few seconds, garbled numbers get thrown on the screen and the
system hangs. After I reboot the machine I get a Floppy Controller error.

My system is a 486/33 w/ Ultrastor 12C controller (ESDI). Can I use this
controller, if not will a driver be available from Ultrastor or MS.  I would
hate to have to go out and by a new HD/Controller combo just to get this
going.

Kent.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 11966 S8/H/W Compatibility
    09-Oct-92  18:09:53
Sb: #11920-NT BootDisk
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: Kent Gillis 73220,1070

Kent,

<<My system is a 486/33 w/ Ultrastor 12C controller (ESDI). Can I use this
controller, if not will a driver be available from Ultrastor or MS.  I would
hate to have to go out and by a new HD/Controller combo just to get this
going.>>

If the drive is configured with less than 1024 cyls I don't think you'd have
any problems. If over 1024 then the controller/disk has to perform the
translation and be WD1003 compatible.

If I recall correctly, Ultrastore will have drivers available for NT with the
next beta release.

<<After I reboot the machine I get a Floppy Controller error.>>

You might try a few things to see if they help. Things like turning off all
ROM bios shadowing, external caches, turbo mode, etc. Some floppy related
problems have turne out to be speed related.

Art

#: 12072 S8/H/W Compatibility
    11-Oct-92  16:29:23
Sb: #10948-Fut Domain & NEC
Fm: Steve Cramp - C/Systems 70471,137
To: Devlin Spearman(MS) 71075,645 (X)

Devlin,

Both SCSI hard disks and the IDE drive show up under DOS (and the CD).  When I
boot NT it checks the IDE and the second SCSI HD and assigns them to C: and
D:. The first SCSI disk (D: under DOS) never gets checked.  All drives are
formatted under DOS and work fine there.  I have FD's device driver for
multiple drives loaded under DOS.

Steve

#: 12095 S8/H/W Compatibility
    11-Oct-92  21:53:21
Sb: #11743-Toshiba Source
Fm: Bruce Colwell 100026,1210
To: Waldemar Kowalski 70544,52 (X)

Thanks for the info!

#: 12144 S8/H/W Compatibility
    12-Oct-92  16:44:12
Sb: #11702-cd player
Fm: jim holmes 71507,1346
To: Sam Karroum [MS] 71075,642 (X)

In 11702 Sam Karroum writes:

>Jim, > >Only SCSI-II CD drives are supported for audio output with the July
release. >This is being looked into to add support for SCSI-I (if the term
applies :) >for the beta release. > >Regards, Sam Karroum [MS]

The docs for the drive claim it to "Comply with SCSI-2 Working Draft Rev. 10c"
I do seem to get sound, but the level is way down. Any clues? Thanks.

-jlh

#: 12037 S8/H/W Compatibility
    11-Oct-92  04:57:32
Sb: Multimedia wav looping
Fm: Scott LaFond 71370,533
To: Sysop (X)

All,

Just a comment regarding the tiny documentation that comes with the
prerelease (sans docs).  Either in there or I may be recalling something I
downloaded on here, it says that sound boards that start looping a wav file
(repeating a small bit of it over and over) are probably not compatible with
the faster cpu's being shipped today.

I'd just like to point out that my NEC multimedia kit, works just find on my
66mhz HP Vectra under Win 3.1.  When I load NT, sometimes the card is silent,
which makes sense since I don't think the proper drivers exist yet.  Other
times, however, it falls into a sound loop.

My point is I'd hate to think the MS developers are just hanging their hat on
a hardware deficiency.  It would seem to me that my audio card handles the
high speed CPU just fine.  I would guess a proper driver is all that's
missing.

Scott

#: 12195 S8/H/W Compatibility
    13-Oct-92  10:43:20
Sb: #12037-Multimedia wav looping
Fm: Terence Hosken [MS] 71075,643
To: Scott LaFond 71370,533 (X)

Scott,

Here is the text from the FAQ.  Your point is well taken, but please note that
there are a few possible causes for the sound looping. ________ The
SoundBlaster/AudioPro cards are known to have compatibility problems with some
fast 486 systems and some system chip sets.  You may be unable to run such a
device on such a system.

Before surrendering this as solely a hardware problem, you may in fact have an
IRQ or DMA channel conflict with another device.  Either move these setting on
the other device or on the sound card.  The recommended settings for the sound
card is DMA 1, IRQ 7 and port 220h (note however that LPT1 also often uses
this IRQ). If you are unable to resolve the conflict you can disable one of
the devices in the Registry.

The utility REGEDIT can be used to alter the Registry Database.  Note: in many
cases you must be logged on as 'Administrator' to alter some of the Registry
settings.  Hardware configuration settings can be altered under the Registry
branch 'HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE->SYSTEM>ControlSet001->Services'.  The SoundBlaster
can be disabled/enables by changing the entry for the sub-branch
Sndblst->Start to 0x4/0x1.

Warning: REGEDIT is a very powerful utility which will allow you to directly
change your Registry: USE THIS TOOL AT YOUR OWN RISK.  The preferred work
around to this problem is to reinstall with the correct configuration.  Using
REGEDIT incorrectly can put your machine in a state in which you will have to
reinstall to correct.  We do not support REGEDIT, nor the changes you make
with it.  We simply offer it as a faster, but unsupported, fix to this
problem. ______ Regards,
   -- Terence Hosken [MS]

#: 11971 S8/H/W Compatibility
    09-Oct-92  18:13:35
Sb: Future Domain 880?
Fm: Karl Mitschke 73650,150
To: all

I have a chance to buy a Future Domain SCSI Host Adapter, and am wondering if
it is supported with NT July release, and if anyone else uses it.

It is $150.00...

Is that a good deal?

Karl

#: 12197 S8/H/W Compatibility
    13-Oct-92  10:58:55
Sb: #11971-Future Domain 880?
Fm: Terence Hosken [MS] 71075,643
To: Karl Mitschke 73650,150 (X)

Karl,

The Future Domain 880 is not on the July Hardware Compatibility List. Perhaps
someone else out there will have some experience with it.

Regards,
   -- Terence Hosken [MS]



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12200 S8/H/W Compatibility
    13-Oct-92  11:18:41
Sb: #12197-Future Domain 880?
Fm: Karl Mitschke 73650,150
To: Terence Hosken [MS] 71075,643 (X)

Thanks Terence...

Hopefully someone else will jump in here, and have some ideas for me. I just
got my CD ROM drive today, a Toshiba XM-3201, and so am desperatlly seeking a
SCSI Host Adapter.

What's a good Adapter to use with these drives? I don't need floppy support,
and I'll probally never hang a hard drive off of it since I have an Ultrastor
ESDI controller already, but I want a nice FAST SCSI board. (Fast as in
QUICK).

Karl

#: 12214 S8/H/W Compatibility
    13-Oct-92  16:31:30
Sb: Anything New?
Fm: Alex Howard 73310,2237
To: Tom Hazel 72360,1176 (X)

Tom,

I still have not heard anything about the results of studying my MSD and
Registry Reports.  Has anybody looked into them?  Can anything be determined
as to why my CD Rom will not work under NT?

Thanks,

-a.

#: 12341 S8/H/W Compatibility
    14-Oct-92  14:39:52
Sb: T6400DX Plasma Screen
Fm: Michael Hall 72607,3422
To: ALL

Hello,

   I just purchased a Toshiba T6400DX computer to use as a "portable"
   Windows NT system.  The T6400DX is a 486/33DX with 20 Megs of memory
   and a VGA compatible gas plasma screen.  Since Microsoft's hardware
   compatibility list includes a Toshiba 4400SX computer (a 486/25SX)
   I figured that the T6400DX should work... WRONG!

   Well, it only works if a connect an standard VGA monitor to the external
   VGA port.  The plasma screen goes blank as soon as NT switches into
   graphics mode.  Also, the external VGA monitor's picture is slightly
   messed up.  Since Toshiba claims to be VGA compatible, I'm wondering if
   NT's current VGA driver pokes the VGA registers in a slightly non-IBM
   VGA compatible way?  I tried Windows 3.1 on the T6400DX (using the
   standard Win3.1 VGA driver) and the plasma screen works great.

   The T4400SX (which is on Microsoft's list) can be ordered with an LED
   screen instead of a gas plasma screen.  Perhaps Toshiba's LED screen can
   handle the non-standard VGA mode that NT's current driver seems to be
   using.  Does anyone know which screen (LED or gas plasma) Microsoft used
   when testing the T4400SX?

   Perhaps I should have spent the extra $2000 for a color LED display on
   the T6400DX just to run NT! <g>

   Thanks for any info and/or help.  I guess I'll have to wait until the
   next NT release and hope for a new driver.  Can anyone at Microsoft
   comment on this problem?

   Mike Hall

#: 12053 S8/H/W Compatibility
    11-Oct-92  11:10:12
Sb: Mice
Fm: Ben Witso 72567,2732
To: all

Has anyone gotten a mouse other than an MS serial or bus mouse to work with
NT?  I think $89 is a little steep for an MS Mouse and the mice that I
currently have do not work (a TrueMouse and an InfoMouse).  I heard that the
Genius mouse works, but am having trouble finding them locally.

Thanx,
Ben

#: 12346 S8/H/W Compatibility
    14-Oct-92  15:22:02
Sb: #12053-Mice
Fm: Terence Hosken [MS] 71075,643
To: Ben Witso 72567,2732

Ben, I have heard reports that some third party mice do, in fact, work with
Windows NT.  All that is necessary is that the mouse be 100.0% compatible with
the Microsoft mouse.  Some mice advertised to be 100% compatible are actually
only 99%.  That 1% is usually not enough to make a difference, and such a
mouse will probably work fine with other software such as Microsoft Windows.
But the fact that a mouse works with many other products is not a guarantee
that it will work with Windows NT. Unfortunatly, I do not have a list of mice
that have been found to work, but there have been threads mentioning working
non-Microsoft mice here on Compuserve. While not the answer you were looking
for, I hope this helps,
   -- Terence Hosken [MS]

#: 12001 S8/H/W Compatibility
    10-Oct-92  09:29:28
Sb: #11703-Soundblaster CD-ROM
Fm: John A. Gallagher 74216,270
To: Terence Hosken [MS] 71075,643 (X)

TerenceWhile I appreciate your sincerity in this matter, it becomes quite
annoying after a while to only get vague generalities about plans for the
support of a widely accepted product. I understand that companies such as
Creative Labs cannot discuss in full their plans to discuss NT due to
non-disclosure, I had hoped that forums such as this one, where
representatives of Microsoft are aboard, could be more specific about who/what
would be supported, what's being worked on, when it might be available, etc.
It seems noone is even willing to discuss what new devices would be supported
in the next (Beta?) release. People need to make decisions of a monetary
nature as part of this program. It would be good if these decisions were
-informed- ones. I do not understand why a simple question such as "Will it be
supported and when?" should be that difficult to answer? Isn't Microsoft
working with vendors such as CL to get widespread support?

#: 12352 S8/H/W Compatibility
    14-Oct-92  16:44:24
Sb: #12001-Soundblaster CD-ROM
Fm: Terence Hosken [MS] 71075,643
To: John A. Gallagher 74216,270

John,

Believe me, I do understand your frustration.  I am also frustrated because I
recognize your 'need to know' and yet do not have any solid information to
provide.  To understand our perspective, please consider that non-disclosure
agreements are not always one-way.  Also, understand that while we and others
are working on many drivers for many peripheral devices, it is not always
possible to know when suchandsuch a driver will be complete or exactly what
flavors of device it will support until it has been fully developed and
tested. What we *will* do is make information about supported devices
available to you as soon as we know for certain what they will be.  For the
October Beta, at the risk of sounding cliche, that should be pretty soon now.

For the time being, again, your frustration is not falling on deaf ears.

Regards,
   -- Terence Hosken [MS]

#: 12248 S8/H/W Compatibility
    13-Oct-92  22:09:17
Sb: #11149-Soundblaster CD-ROM
Fm: Scott A Moore 70461,3575
To: John A. Gallagher 74216,270

RE: called creative labs.....

Things are getting better !!! When I called CL with that question they said:

               "HUH ?? WASSSST WIN/NT ???"

And the gentleman on the phone asked everyone in the room......

#: 11902 S8/H/W Compatibility
    09-Oct-92  10:16:07
Sb: #11610-NEC CD-ROM
Fm: David P. Krasnow 71161,551
To: Jon Tara 76477,3342 (X)

Jon:

This is a follow-on to my last message (#11891).
I found my device was setup as the NEC default: #1, so I changed it to #2.
Now I get a TRAP 00000010 EXCEPTION when trying to install from CD-ROM.
(I checked the latest HW list and note that the Trantor is not an approved
interface card, but it is a common adaptor, and it's what Zeos gives you with
the "approved" NEC CDR84 drive.)\
Any suggestions, anyone?

---Dave

#: 11913 S8/H/W Compatibility
    09-Oct-92  10:40:30
Sb: #11747-NEC CD-ROM
Fm: Danny Thorpe 76646,1035
To: Jon Tara 76477,3342 (X)

Jon,

  Sorry, I got my numbers mixed up: I have the internal NEC drive, which I
guess makes it an 84 instead of a 74.  There are no jumpers to pull or
switches that pertain to SCSI termination on the CDR84.

  I'm very familiar with the upside down cable connector on the CDR84.  One
fried CDRom drive later, I've learned to insist on SCSI cables with the notch
and not to diddle with hardware at 3am.

  Your original message had a typo, describing the drive as a '1MB' hard disk.
With the data densities of hard disks these days, that would make for a very
small platter!  I agree about the 1G drives, btw.  Money aside, I can't afford
a 50 watt power drain and heat buildup from an additional monster hard disk.
I've had the specs and press release for the Micropolis 2112 for an eternity
now, and I actually saw one (just one) on the wholesaler's racks the other
day. 1G 3.5 inch drive with only a 10 or 12 watt draw.  Sweet!

-Danny

#: 11922 S8/H/W Compatibility
    09-Oct-92  13:03:03
Sb: #11891-NEC CD-ROM
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: David P. Krasnow 71161,551 (X)

David,

The problem is the Trantor adaptor. NT doesn't support it (you can run the
DOS2NT install however). Trantor does have BETA drivers up on their BBS
(1-510-656-5159, 2400 BPS, 8N1).

Final note with a supported host adaptor, under the current NT release, the
CDR-84 works fine as a data device, but not as an audio device. The next NT
release supposedly will support audio.

John

#: 11924 S8/H/W Compatibility
    09-Oct-92  13:13:08
Sb: #11891-NEC CD-ROM
Fm: Sam Karroum [MS] 71075,642
To: David P. Krasnow 71161,551 (X)

David,

Sorry to be bearer of bad news. The Trantor T130 SCSI adaptor is not supported
with the July release of Windows NT. That's why the SETUP program does not
recognize the controllers/CD-ROM.

At this point, the only option to install Windows NT is using the DOS2NT
method.

If you have hardware that is not currently supported, or does not have a
driver posted in WinNT, Lib 2; please make a device driver request by filling
out the hwfeed.txt form and mail it to Microsoft at [e-mail].

Please be aware that because of Microsoft's support demands right now, this is
a one way alias; Microsoft is not likely to respond directly to you to confirm
that they have received your request.

The hardware compatibility list can be found in MSWIN32, Lib 17 on CompuServe
as 0792hw.txt.

Hwfeed.txt can be found on CompuServe in MSWIN32, Lib 17; or WINNT, Lib 1.

Regards, Sam Karroum [MS]





There is 1 Reply.

#: 12036 S8/H/W Compatibility
    11-Oct-92  04:34:57
Sb: #11924-NEC CD-ROM
Fm: David P. Krasnow 71161,551
To: Sam Karroum [MS] 71075,642 (X)

Thanks for the info, Sam (and others who responded on the Trantor
adaptor/CDR-84 problem.)
>...Trantor T130 SCSI adaptor is not supported with the July release of
Windows NT. That's why the SETUP program does not recognize the
controllers/CD-ROM.
        Can you relieve my anxiety regarding the SETUP program and the
soon to be distributed October pre-release of NT?
>...please make a device driver request by filling out the hwfeed.txt form and
mail it to Microsoft...
        I'll do so, but how does one indicate it is a driver request? The
form seems to be an equipment survey form, not a problem report.
regards, Dave

#: 12353 S8/H/W Compatibility
    14-Oct-92  16:44:36
Sb: #12036-NEC CD-ROM
Fm: Terence Hosken [MS] 71075,643
To: David P. Krasnow 71161,551 (X)

David,

If the problem you are having is due to the use of "unsupported" hardware,
then the hwfeed form that Sam mentionted is the appropriate form.  If your
equipment is supported and yet you are still running into a problem (which
does not appear to be the case right now), there is a form in Library 3 called
bugrep.txt which can be used to report the problem.

Regards,
   -- Terence Hosken [MS]

#: 11951 S8/H/W Compatibility
    09-Oct-92  16:10:46
Sb: #11456-NEC CD-ROM
Fm: Scott LaFond 71370,533
To: Ivan Monso 70244,3142 (X)

Ivan,

I've got a NEC CDR-74 and wasn't able to get the NT boot disk to
recognize it.  Thus, I installed NT via the DOS2NT.bat file.

Afterwards, I loaded file manager and indeed, it didn't see the rom drive.

I'll read on here and see if anyone's solved it.

Scott


There is 1 Reply.

#: 11964 S8/H/W Compatibility
    09-Oct-92  18:05:10
Sb: #11951-NEC CD-ROM
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: Scott LaFond 71370,533 (X)

Scott,

<<I'll read on here and see if anyone's solved it.>>

I have the NEC-84 up and running under NT with the beta drivers from Trantor.
I asked on the Trantor BBS, and they said they would upload the drivers here.

Art

PS: The drive only works from a DOS2NT install and requires manually editing
the registry. But it does work for data access.

#: 12108 S8/H/W Compatibility
    12-Oct-92  08:39:49
Sb: #11747-NEC CD-ROM
Fm: Scott LaFond 71370,533
To: Jon Tara 76477,3342 (X)

I have a 74 drive, external with a cable plug inserted it is the only SCSI
device on my system.  It's part of the NEC multimedia upgrade kit thus patches
into a proaudio spectrum soundboard with SCSI port.

Problem is NT won't see this drive for some reason.  I had to install via
dos2nt.  I read somewhere not to make your SCSI device 0 or 1 in order to
haved NT see it.  Can anyone tell me how to change this? I don't see any
obvious utilities to do so.

Thanks,

Scott




There is 1 Reply.

#: 12114 S8/H/W Compatibility
    12-Oct-92  09:37:56
Sb: #12108-NEC CD-ROM
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: Scott LaFond 71370,533 (X)

SCSI addresses are changed by a series of switches on the device.  These
should be detailed in the hardware manual. NT will not currently recognize the
SCSI device that you wish to put the CD on.  This will undoubltedly change
soon but for now, NT will not recognize the controller.

                               bob

#: 12178 S8/H/W Compatibility
    13-Oct-92  06:06:06
Sb: NT boot fails on GECCO
Fm: Kenneth N. Helland 71334,507
To: SYSOP (X)

The NT boot disk fails in a few seconds with a page fault.  Error msg goes
something like: Trap 0E === PAGE FAULT === at linear address E84539C2 ...  My
machine is a GECCO 486-50DX (Free Tech MB) with 16MB, an IDE 213MB Maxtor
disk, standard vga 16-bit graphics card. PC-DOS 4.01 and OS/2 2.0 currently
installed and work fine.

MS called after I sent US Mail ques, said motherboard or monitor is
incompatible.  Is there any chance a future NT release might boot? Should I
badger distributor for a new BIOS. I have tried many of the software bios
switches, pulling unnecessary cards (A/D, serial, parallel) with no change in
error.

Ken

#: 12209 S8/H/W Compatibility
    13-Oct-92  14:38:45
Sb: #12178-NT boot fails on GECCO
Fm: Scott R. McKee 76304,723
To: Kenneth N. Helland 71334,507 (X)

Ken
I have a new 486-50DX with 16 MB from GECCO. I have the ADAPTEC 1542B SCSI
with a 660 MB SCSI HD and am using the ATI Ultra Video card. It runs WINNT
fine. I suspect the fact that you have OS/2 2.0 on the drive is the problem.
One of the libraries has a file from Doug Hamilton on how to put OS/2 2.0
and NT on the same system.
Scott


There is 1 Reply.

#: 12277 S8/H/W Compatibility
    14-Oct-92  07:08:09
Sb: #12209-NT boot fails on GECCO
Fm: Kenneth N. Helland 71334,507
To: Scott R. McKee 76304,723

Scott, I am glad to hear your luck with NT on your GECCO.  I really like the
board and wondered if the OS/2 might have been the problem.  Since I don't
have a simple backup method at present, I wanted to have confidence that NT
would boot and then buy another hard disk for NT.  I like the idea of the
Ultra as well, are you able to use it in higher than standard vga modes yet?
I will look into the library info on OS/2 with NT, that might change my
thinking some as well. ken

#: 12398 S8/H/W Compatibility
    15-Oct-92  04:08:50
Sb: #12277-NT boot fails on GECCO
Fm: Scott R. McKee 76304,723
To: Kenneth N. Helland 71334,507 (X)

Ken
The ultra only goes at 640 X 480 at the moment, but as there has been much
clamoring for higher res with the Ultra, I have no doubt that it will show
up at some point. A guess is that it might show up in the next drop, but
this is truly a guess.
Scott

#: 12130 S8/H/W Compatibility
    12-Oct-92  12:20:32
Sb: #11621-Bernoulli Drive
Fm: John Torrico 70613,3577
To: Robert Chronister 70363,246 (X)

Not meaning to jump in uninvited, but I wouldn't be surprised that NT
recognized the Bernoulli drive... It is a SCSI drive plain and simple. What
WOULD surprise me is if it would support the Bernoulli drive when you change
cartriges (ie: the removability aspects of the device)... This is usually not
the case, and I would expect that you would end up scrambling your cartriges.

John.....



There are 2 Replies.

#: 12143 S8/H/W Compatibility
    12-Oct-92  15:37:13
Sb: #12130-Bernoulli Drive
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: John Torrico 70613,3577 (X)

Actualy, Art Knowles told me that the Bernoulli is supported by NT but I
thought that I had read of problems with it.  As to changing drives,
interesting question.  Since I have both backupped, I will try and see what
happens.  Since all drives are the same size & configuration, I would be
surprised if NT did not just recognize the drive & not the contents.  Will let
you know.

                               bob

#: 12187 S8/H/W Compatibility
    13-Oct-92  07:31:08
Sb: #12130-Bernoulli Drive
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: John Torrico 70613,3577

John:

  Actually tried removing cartridges and changing them.  No problem.  When the
cartridge was in, NT read it.  When out, NT said that there was no drive
present.  Put in new disk, NT read it.  Works fine.

                               bob

#: 12462 S8/H/W Compatibility
    15-Oct-92  12:27:20
Sb: #12187-Bernoulli Drive
Fm: John Torrico 70613,3577
To: Bob Chronister 70363,246

Bob -

That is impressive. Sounds like they put some thought into the removables
after all (seems they are usually the last to be added to a system). Thanks
for the info.

John.....

#: 12499 S8/H/W Compatibility
    15-Oct-92  15:39:39
Sb: T3200SXC and NT
Fm: Michael Williams 75016,1777
To: All

I have sucessfully installed NT on a Toshiba T3200SXC.  But there is something
that the "Portable Bootloader" is doing to my VGA screen, that causes it
problems in VGA graphic modes (text modes are fine).

I get the same symptoms even when choosing to boot DOS.  If I boot DOS
directly (by restoring the boot block), everything's fine.  If I let
Bootloader boot either NT or DOS, I get my VGA graphic modes offset so that I
can't see the top of the screen (and the very bottom of the screen is blank
and then junk).

I suspect that Bootloader is setting or reading a VGA register from which the
Toshiba VGA never recovers.

I will do more experimentation - I'm hoping I can reset the VGA chip myself
and thus "work around" this problem.  If anyone cares to shed some light, it
would be much appreciated.

Thanks!

#: 12505 S8/H/W Compatibility
    15-Oct-92  17:03:50
Sb: Support for SB Pro CD
Fm: Warren Bare 76620,613
To: MS Support

Will the Oct rel of NT support the Sound Blaster Pro CD drive (Panasonic I
think)?

Thanks,
Warren

#: 12396 S8/H/W Compatibility
    15-Oct-92  02:29:26
Sb: #11519-$199 DAK CD-ROM???
Fm: tom campbell 75530,3607
To: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613

I'll probably spring for the one MS distributed ads for. I'll know it's
properly supported that way.

#: 12522 S8/H/W Compatibility
    15-Oct-92  19:55:27
Sb: #12396-$199 DAK CD-ROM???
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: tom campbell 75530,3607

Tom,

<<I'll probably spring for the one MS distributed ads for. I'll know it's
properly supported that way.>>

More or less. <g> There have been a very few (< 5) people who have not gotten
the MS recommended CD packasge to work. No one is sure why though. But it is
still a good CD package. Just make sure you get the Future Domain SCSI instead
of the default trantor SCSI card. The FD supports a graphical install at this
time while the trantor driver has to be installed from DOS2NT. Maybe the
Trantor driver will make the next release, maybe not.

Best of luck...

Art

#: 12397 S8/H/W Compatibility
    15-Oct-92  02:29:59
Sb: #11530-$199 DAK CD-ROM???
Fm: tom campbell 75530,3607
To: Alex Howard 73310,2237 (X)

What kind? How fast? How much?

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12421 S8/H/W Compatibility
    15-Oct-92  07:34:42
Sb: #12397-$199 DAK CD-ROM???
Fm: Alex Howard 73310,2237
To: tom campbell 75530,3607

Tom,

I have the CD Porta Drive from CD Technology.  It comes with the Future Domain
TM850 SCSI controller and is an external drive.  I paid what the coupon
(included with NT) said I would:  $575.00.  I'd even sell it and not charge
you for shipping, just whatever FedEx or UPS charges for COD shipping, cash
only <g>!  Interested?

-a.

#: 12280 S8/H/W Compatibility
    14-Oct-92  07:52:33
Sb: NEC CD & which ISA card
Fm: Mitchell C. Sharp 76376,332
To: ALL

It looks like I will be getting and NEC CD ROM to work with, but I need to
find and ISA card that will be used with the drive. I was thinking about and
Adaptec card, but heard that they were EISA only. Would like something that
supports SCSI 2 (not critical) and Windows NT (critical) Any suggestions?

#: 12536 S8/H/W Compatibility
    15-Oct-92  21:36:09
Sb: #12280-NEC CD & which ISA card
Fm: Darren K. Pearson 71127,2403
To: Mitchell C. Sharp 76376,332

Mitchell,

The only Adaptec that was EISA on the list was the 1740. The 154x's are both
ISA (the 1540b being sans floppy support and the 1542b having floppy
support) and the 1640 is a MCA. Give them a shot as others have had good
luck with them.

Darren

#: 12516 S8/H/W Compatibility
    15-Oct-92  18:20:31
Sb: #11527-SCSI support/IRQ issues
Fm: Terence Hosken [MS] 71075,643
To: Steve Liberty 71450,2341 (X)

Steve,

The Windows NT driver for the Future Domain 845, 850, and 885 makes the
assumption that the controller will be configured for IRQ5.  These are the
only controllers I am aware of with such a restriction.  This will,
unfortunately, continue to be the case in the October Beta release of Windows
NT. Regards,
   -- Terence Hosken [MS]



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12544 S8/H/W Compatibility
    16-Oct-92  03:41:47
Sb: #12516-SCSI support/IRQ issues
Fm: Steve Liberty 71450,2341
To: Terence Hosken [MS] 71075,643 (X)

Thanks for the reply. I have ended up buying the Toshiba 3301b drive and
Adaptec 1542b controller. I assume fom your comments and others I have seen
here that I should have just about no trouble with this setup, right? Will
this configuration support audio (I had heard there were some limitations on
audio thus far)? Steve

#: 12340 S8/H/W Compatibility
    14-Oct-92  14:38:51
Sb: CD-ROM Suggestions?
Fm: Jim Reitz 72561,3300
To: all

        Help!  I would like to purchase a new SCSI CD-ROM drive which is MPC
compliant and completely compatible with Windows NT!  I don't want to pay an
arm and a leg.  Any suggestions from all you NT Gurus?
        I was considering buying a Toshiba Model XM-3301 internal drive, and
an Adaptec 1542 SCSI adaptor.  Does anyone know if this combination works well
with NT?  Does anyone have a suggestion for a better SCSI combination
(preferably at a lower cost than the above combo)?
        Any help would be appreciated. Jim

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12390 S8/H/W Compatibility
    14-Oct-92  22:07:08
Sb: #12340-CD-ROM Suggestions?
Fm: Waldemar Kowalski 70544,52
To: Jim Reitz 72561,3300

This is currently still the most compliant/compatible combo, and can be had
(with really careful shopping) for under $600.  By the way, the XM3301 is also
XA compatible (which means it'll do the new Kodak photo CDs).

For DOS/Windows stuff, check out the CorelSCSI software - it's great!

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12416 S8/H/W Compatibility
    15-Oct-92  06:48:31
Sb: #12390-CD-ROM Suggestions?
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: Waldemar Kowalski 70544,52

You might want to check out the Adaptec easySCSI.  Works great and
automatically I might add.  Did a great job here.

                               bob

#: 12506 S8/H/W Compatibility
    15-Oct-92  17:04:46
Sb: #12416-CD-ROM Suggestions?
Fm: Waldemar Kowalski 70544,52
To: Bob Chronister 70363,246 (X)

Saw your earlier message, and it sounded good.  The CorelSCSI (which is
supposed to be available from Adaptec with the 1542B as the Bus Master Plus
kit) was also pretty much automatic, and what I liked was that it included
software for playing audio CDs under DOS and Windows, as well as tape backup
software for virtually any scsi-based tape drive.

I have no idea - could it be that the CD ROM portion of the Corel stuff is
being marketed as easySCSI?  The driver (loaded after ASPI4DOS) is CUNI_ASP or
something like that.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12552 S8/H/W Compatibility
    16-Oct-92  06:09:06
Sb: #12506-CD-ROM Suggestions?
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: Waldemar Kowalski 70544,52

Actually Easy SCSI is totally different than corelscsi.  Basically it
configures harddrives, removeable drives, and cd-roms.  Most of the premier
tape backup backup programs have their own drivers built in (backit4, sytos +,
etc).  Easy SCSI also has a dos cd-player.  With the plethora of cd-players
for windows (check out the excellent one by Enis Moran), there is really no
need for one IMHO.  Easy SCSI works with all the Adaptec cards upto the 1742
series.  Should be available in a few weeks.  One great app with easy scsi is
show scsi (windows based app that tells you ids etc).

                               bob

#: 12477 S8/H/W Compatibility
    15-Oct-92  14:20:02
Sb: 16mb limit ?
Fm: Carlen Hoppe 72110,2514
To: All

I am trying to better understand the 16mb ceiling that are placed on ISA
systems.  Are all ISA systems incapable of fast memory (DMA) access above the
16mb boundry ?  Are all EISA systems free of this (DMA) limitation ? If there
are exceptions, is there software available that could tell me about the
capabilities of my systems ?

Carlen


There are 2 Replies.

#: 12488 S8/H/W Compatibility
    15-Oct-92  15:00:47
Sb: #12477-16mb limit ?
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: Carlen Hoppe 72110,2514

Carlen:

The ISA can address DMA above 16 meg but only through software paging support.
In other words, all ram above 16 meg is double buffered (moved to the lower 16
& then used).  NT does this very well.  Himem.sys likewise handles it in a
reasonable fashion.  Some systems have a hardware limitation with above 16 meg
of memory. The EISA bus also has a memory limit but it is high enough that
most of us will never worry about it <bg>.

                               bob

#: 12529 S8/H/W Compatibility
    15-Oct-92  20:44:53
Sb: #12477-16mb limit ?
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Carlen Hoppe 72110,2514

Carlen,

Bob Chronister's answer is functionally correct, but not completely accurate.
The AT or ISA bus and its associated DMA (direct memory access) controller
have only 24 address lines. So the maximum address that can be generated in
16MB (2^24). However ISA systems use a seperate memory bus that supports 32
address lines, which is 4GB (2^32) (physically they can use less but in any
case it is likely to be >24).

When a DMA operation is to take place the processor essesentailly passes a
starting memory address and the length of the data to be transferred to the
DMA controller, tells it to do its thing, and goes off to do other things. The
problem comes in when the data to be transferred involves a memory region
above 16MB. If the processor generates an address of 1 with 24 zeros behind it
the DMA controller would only see 24 zeros. Which is the address of a
distinctly different memory region.

To overcome this difference in addressability, the OS (or an underlying device
driver) has to first setup a buffer in a memory region the DMA controller can
address and then move the data to or from its final location. It is a tricky
piece of work, and can have some real hefty perf penalties if the DMA is being
caused by continuous memory overcommitment (paging). On the other hand if it
is just 'normal' I/O the effect of the double buffering is less pronounced. So
on an ISA system it may pay to go way over 16MB of RAM if you are going to go
over it at all.

EISA (and full 32 bit MCA) systems avoid this problem by utilizing a DMA
controller that can address all the RAM the system can support.

John

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12553 S8/H/W Compatibility
    16-Oct-92  06:09:12
Sb: #12529-16mb limit ?
Fm: Bob Chronister 70363,246
To: John Oellrich 72611,1452 (X)

John:

Thanks for clarifying my answer. <bg>.  Most users seem completely baffled by
DMA adresses & indeed the technical side is most confusing.

                               bob



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12556 S8/H/W Compatibility
    16-Oct-92  07:38:26
Sb: #12553-16mb limit ?
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Bob Chronister 70363,246

Bob,

DMA is baffling, I always have to think long and hard before I talk about it.
And even I wasn't completely technically accurate, because it is feasible to
kludge together an otherwise ISA system and have it DMA above 16MB. The
compatibility issues are absolutely frightening, however.

John




#: 11925 S9/File System
    09-Oct-92  13:15:26
Sb: #11737-The Long and Short of it
Fm: Terence Hosken [MS] 71075,643
To: Gary Byers 76377,205 (X)

Gary,

That certainly looks like that is an issue with the pre-release.  The behavior
under the beta may be different, but I don't see a way to avoid all such
possible conflicts. Suppose, for example, when you create a.bbb.ccc.d that we
make the dos name a-1.bbb.  This would fix your situation, but if you were to
then open file "a-1.bbb" thinking it was a different file you'd be back in the
same boat.

If you can think of a good, general solution I'd like to hear it.  (I can't
say anything would come of it, but I'd like to hear it.)

Regards,
   -- Terence Hosken [MS]


#: 11946 S9/File System
    09-Oct-92  15:45:47
Sb: #11682-More than 26 log volumes
Fm: Terence Hosken [MS] 71075,643
To: neil colvin 71650,3517 (X)

Neil,

Internally Windows NT is able to handle large numbers of logical devices. It
is true that, for the time being, we are still limited by the user interface
issue of assigning logical drives to the 26 letters of the alphabet.  I do not
know when, or exactly how this will change, but I expect it will change.
Regards,
   -- Terence Hosken [MS]

#: 12233 S9/File System
    13-Oct-92  20:54:01
Sb: #11840-De-Frag for NT
Fm: Tom Hazel [Microsoft] 72360,1176
To: Carl Byington 74040,1156

Carl,
    If I understand you correctly, your definition is a bit short. A file
system can be defined in many ways but generally has to do with the
methodology in which data is organized on the media. This includes many things
other than storage including the way that the directory structure is
comprised, be it a B-Tree, Link List, or other method. Along with the
organization of the data, you have to consider the overall indexing method
from one data unit to the next that the File System uses. The locations of
files on the physical disk, the built in recovery, indexing, size and
structure of each data unit, etc all must be considered in your definition.
   For example, under FAT you will have 8.3 names, with file size maxes of
2^32 bytes, partitions of 2^32 bytes, unsorted directories and no security
built in for files.
    Under HPFS, you have 254 char file names, 2^32 file sizes max, partitions
of 2^41 bytes, but the directories are stored in B Tree structures comprised
of F-Nodes which each have extended ACLs on them for security. A substatial
difference agreed, but for NTFS you will find that it has over 254 character
Unicode file names and a max of 2^64 bytes for a file size. The partition max
is around 2^64 bytes in size - a substantial increase over HPFS sizes. The
security for NTFS is C2 secure and extremely powerful.
    Agreed that there are many ways to "reduce" fragmentation but as Terry has
pointed out, my earlier comments are incorrect in the effect of eliminating
fragmentation. What I meant was that the file system substantially reduces
fragmentation by preallocating disk space for files before they are written or
by starting new files on different "bands" of the hard disk.  Obviously, you
can build in a auto defragmentation program into the file system but it is
best theoretically for speed to design the file system to first reduce
fragmentation upon creation of the files instead of defraging at a later
stage. Defragmentation can take a long time especially given a large media
device.

[More]

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12234 S9/File System
    13-Oct-92  20:54:08
Sb: #12233-De-Frag for NT
Fm: Tom Hazel [Microsoft] 72360,1176
To: Tom Hazel [Microsoft] 72360,1176 (X)

[Continued]

    The current code that implements these follows a base specification for
the behavior of each of the file systems mentioned and it is this design
specification which determines the deframentation/fragmenting capabilies of
the file system being examined.
   I hope this covers and answers your points, Carl. Your points are good but
I am not sure if you are aware of all the design issues involved with what you
are referring to. If I can answer any other questions, please feel free to
ask.

Tom Hazel [MS]

#: 11987 S9/File System
    10-Oct-92  02:00:34
Sb: #11700-xtradrive, IIT
Fm: Fankhauser Gerhard 100041,1275
To: Tom Hazel [Microsoft] 72360,1176 (X)

tom,

it's a stacker-like product, working on a bios-level, no meta-file, each file
will be compressed; it even works with os/2 v . 2.0
look also to the message from mark c. brooks

regards and thanks


There is 1 Reply.

#: 12113 S9/File System
    12-Oct-92  09:27:01
Sb: #11987-xtradrive, IIT
Fm: Terence Hosken [MS] 71075,643
To: Fankhauser Gerhard 100041,1275

There is a slim chance such a thing might work with DOS applications running
under Windows NT, (a lot depends on exactly how it does what it does and I
don't know enough about the product) but it would certainly require a Windows
NT version to work with anything else. Regards,
   -- Terence Hosken [MS]

#: 12253 S9/File System
    14-Oct-92  01:48:19
Sb: #12113-xtradrive, IIT
Fm: Fankhauser Gerhard 100041,1275
To: Terence Hosken [MS] 71075,643 (X)

terence, thanks, see y l

#: 11911 S9/File System
    09-Oct-92  10:35:56
Sb: #11699-DOS 6? File compression
Fm: Mike Snowden 100021,3015
To: Tom Hazel [Microsoft] 72360,1176 (X)

Mostly, thanks.

On "current" predictions,
    what gets released first, DOS 6 or NT ship 1?

#: 12232 S9/File System
    13-Oct-92  20:53:48
Sb: #11911-DOS 6? File compression
Fm: Tom Hazel [Microsoft] 72360,1176
To: Mike Snowden 100021,3015

Mike,
    Personally, I am not sure but my quess is that MS-DOS 6 will ship before
Windows NT. That is a wild guess because I am not privy to the information
when MS-DOS 6 is going to ship. Windows NT should ship around the second
quarter unless some problems pop up before then. We will just have to wait and
see.

Tom Hazel [MS]

#: 12316 S9/File System
    14-Oct-92  11:28:47
Sb: #11911-DOS 6? File compression
Fm: Tom Hazel [Microsoft] 72360,1176
To: Mike Snowden 100021,3015

Mike,
    Personally, I am not sure but my quess is that MS-DOS 6 will ship before
Windows NT. That is a wild guess because I am not privy to the information
when MS-DOS 6 is going to ship. We will just have to wait and see.

 Tom Hazel [MS]

#: 12431 S9/File System
    15-Oct-92  08:42:05
Sb: C low level IO
Fm: Mark Stevens 100020,2561
To: winnt sysiop

To whom it may concern,
  I think that I have just found two bugs in the low level C IO. It seems that
_open(..) does not set errno at all for a non-existant file. ie.  #include
<ioh.>
      #incluide <fcntl.h>
     main()
      {
      int handle = open "fred", O_RDONLY)
      if (errno) printf("error");
      } forgive the typos and the fact I've included (not) stdio.h and errno.h
but I belive that this should set errno to ENOENT. Also _close seems to be
recursive.  It simply calls itself without doinfg anything useful. Can anyone
confirm this? or help with the lowlevel IO system. Mark Stevens.




#: 12090 S10/Device Drivers
    11-Oct-92  20:29:55
Sb: Rock Ridge CDFS
Fm: Gary Lynch 70751,747
To:  75300,3143 (X)

Does the CD-ROM driver support the Rock Ridge file system? We don't have a
Rock Ridge CD to determine this ourselves.


#: 12139 S10/Device Drivers
    12-Oct-92  14:39:19
Sb: Video in Oct release?
Fm: David J. Plunkett 71163,2122
To: all

What video cards will be supported in the next release?

#: 11960 S10/Device Drivers
    09-Oct-92  17:31:43
Sb: Hardware programming
Fm: Robert Keck 74040,3521
To: ALL

As a university researcher, the MS DOS PC is often the platform of choice for
data acquisition systems because of the wide availability of inexpensive I/O
options, software availability and the ease of designing ISA bus cards.
However MS DOS has its significant limitations and NT seems like an appealing
alternative. However, the question that immediately comes up, is how to
interface the software to the devices. There are several cases: 1)
Manufacturer supplied boards with MS DOS drivers; can a 32 bit application
access these? 2) In house hardware, typically programmed with IN and OUT
instructions. Can this be done from a 32 bit application? (It would be
acceptable for the application to be privileged). 3) In house hardware with
interrupts handled by an application (not a driver). Is there a means of doing
this (e.g. like the VMS connect to interrupt handler)? In all cases, it is
basically acceptable that the device belong to a single application. How much
more difficult would NT be to use for this type of thing than MS DOS? Note
that the case of simply running the application in a 16 bit virtual machine is
not of interest; we typically want and need a flat 32 bit address space. Any
feedback or information on where to find more information would be greatly
appreciated.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 11970 S10/Device Drivers
    09-Oct-92  18:12:38
Sb: #11960-Hardware programming
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: Robert Keck 74040,3521 (X)

Robert,

Since NT is a protected mode OS, and stability and security it's middle names,
I think the only way to do what you want is to write a device driver. Then
your application would call services provided by the device driver.

Art

#: 12224 S10/Device Drivers
    13-Oct-92  17:55:03
Sb: #11970-Hardware programming
Fm: Robert Keck 74040,3521
To: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613 (X)

VMS is a protected mode OS, but it is possible for a privileged image to
directly control hardware. This means such an image can crash the normally
highly robust OS, but sometimes this is an acceptable tradeoff. What I am
trying to learn is exactly what are the options other than write a full
fledged NT device driver.

There are 2 Replies.

#: 12254 S10/Device Drivers
    14-Oct-92  03:04:22
Sb: #12224-Hardware programming
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: Robert Keck 74040,3521

Robert,

<<What I am trying to learn is exactly what are the options other than write a
full fledged NT device driver.>>

I understand your point about VMS. I don't think NT is structured that way.
Your best bet to finding out what you need is to try the MSWIN32 forum. Thats
the development forum. Someone there from MS may be able to give you a more
substantial answer.

Art

#: 12273 S10/Device Drivers
    14-Oct-92  06:31:12
Sb: #12224-Hardware programming
Fm: Brian Merson 73330,3573
To: Robert Keck 74040,3521


>> ... What I am trying to learn is exactly what are the options other than
write a full fledged NT device driver.  <<

Robert,

I'm not sure that there are a lot of options.  The only option I'm sure of is
to write an NT driver.  This is the best option, but also is most likely more
complex than you might desire.  A variation of this (which I'm not sure of
because I haven't yet seen the DDK) would be to write a simple device driver
which memory mapped the I/O space of your device and returned a pointer to
your application.  The application could then write the registers via the
mapped virtual addresses.  The main problem here (aside from a certain lack of
protection) is that the minimum mapping size is most likely 4096 (a page).
Since most devices (e.g., data acq stuff) don't have 4K registers, your
mapping would overlap other devices on the bus and present a security problem.
For this reason, NT may not allow this.  On the other hand, drivers are
trusted components so NT might allow it.  (For the record, I don't recommend
this type of implementation for any commercial work, but it can help you out
in the research lab.)

As for other options, I'm not sure what is available.  It is possible that NT
may provide system service analogous to the VMS service you describe (they
both have the same designers after all <g>), but I have no hard information
about that.  Since the DDK has not yet been officially released, we probably
just have to wait and see.

Brian

#: 12192 S10/Device Drivers
    13-Oct-92  09:14:40
Sb: #11960-Hardware programming
Fm: M. Watanabe [XLsoft] 76350,1457
To: Robert Keck 74040,3521

Write NT device drivers.

Microsoft has a virtualization mechanism which allows the DOS box to access
standard ports like 0x2F8, 0x3F8, etc.  While some developers have said that
they want to write virtualizations for their hardware in and NT DOS subsystem,
they would be far better off to write NT drivers.  If they have enough time
and resources to write virtualizations, then they should spend those resources
writing NT drivers and benefit everyone.

Working DOS drivers will keep on working under DOS.  Let's don't waste our
time and Microsoft's by making them support the very type of programming that
a real OS should prohibit.

Regards...Paul

#: 12226 S10/Device Drivers
    13-Oct-92  18:13:41
Sb: #12192-Hardware programming
Fm: Robert Keck 74040,3521
To: M. Watanabe [XLsoft] 76350,1457

  You miss the point of what I'm asking. In a research environment, where one
is not providing a device to sell, but rather attempting to get ones data with
lowest effort, the effort involved in writing a device driver for any of the
multitasking systems I've used, is simply not worth it. It is generally
easier, to directly manipulate the hardware from a privileged image, and take
the risk that if you make an error you may crash the system. Indeed, for some
high performance applications, the additional overhead imposed by a device
driver may not be acceptable.
  What I'd really like to see, is a summary of ALL the various options for
doing device control under NT (in particular on the Intel platform).

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12283 S10/Device Drivers
    14-Oct-92  07:59:59
Sb: #12226-Hardware programming
Fm: Chuck Ebbert 76306,1226
To: Robert Keck 74040,3521

Are you investigating OS/2 as well?  I believe the IOPL parameter can give
OS/2 tasks the ability to directly manipulate the hardware.

#: 12239 S10/Device Drivers
    13-Oct-92  21:38:27
Sb: #11960-Hardware programming
Fm: GMS 100063,2012
To: Robert Keck 74040,3521

For what you want to do, NT is overkill. Stay with DOS.


#: 11916 S10/Device Drivers
    09-Oct-92  10:56:22
Sb: Logitech Mouse
Fm: Volker Claus 100041,1324
To: ALL

Why does my serial Logitech mouse series 9 not work with NT? Are there Drivers
available?

There is 1 Reply.

#: 11972 S10/Device Drivers
    09-Oct-92  18:15:07
Sb: #11916-Logitech Mouse
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: Volker Claus 100041,1324 (X)

Volker,

<<Why does my serial Logitech mouse series 9 not work with NT? Are there
Drivers available?>>

I'm sorry to be the one to inform you, but this release of NT only supports
100% MS compatible mouse. There are currently no drivers available for the
logitech mouse. I suggest you voice your opinion to logitech and request
support.

It's also possible that the next release of NT may support you mouse, but
you'd have to ask that question from a MS employee.

Art

#: 11985 S10/Device Drivers
    10-Oct-92  01:39:30
Sb: Logitech Mouse
Fm: Volker Claus 100041,1324
To: Arthur Knowles

Thanks for your answer. I knew it, butI thought it couldn't be true. By the
way, I always thought my Logitech Mouse was 100% MS compatible.

#: 12184 S10/Device Drivers
    13-Oct-92  07:01:02
Sb: #11985-Logitech Mouse
Fm: Andy Champ 100064,2267
To: Volker Claus 100041,1324

Volker, we are using a logitech PS/2 mouse OK on NT.  Sorry don;t know which
model - we re-badge it.

Andy.

#: 12325 S10/Device Drivers
    14-Oct-92  12:57:43
Sb: #12184-Logitech Mouse
Fm: Volker Claus 100041,1324
To: Andy Champ 100064,2267 (X)

Andy, I found a solution for my logitech problem. I exchanged my mouse with a
friend who owned a MS mouse (and is not so deeply interested in NT).
Astonishingly, this mouse seems to be 100 % MS compatible. Regards, Volker
from Stuttgart, Germany.

#: 11994 S10/Device Drivers
    10-Oct-92  08:55:37
Sb: Trantor T128
Fm: Ben Witso 72567,2732
To: Trantor Systems 777777,777777

I am trying to get the NEC/Trantor SCSI Interface card to work with NT. I need
to add the driver to the Registry. The instructions say to add the appropriate
filename to the Registry. I don't know where/how to do this. I have NT loaded
and running (without a mouse yet - but I think that's because I have a $12
mouse) and the Trantor driver copied into the \WINNT\SYSTEM\DRIVERS directory,
I just need to know how to add it to the registry.

Help!

Thanx in advance,
Ben

#: 12096 S10/Device Drivers
    11-Oct-92  22:20:40
Sb: #11846-Trantor T128
Fm: Waldemar Kowalski 70544,52
To: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613 (X)

By the way, Art, MediaVision has posted an NT driver (beta) for the PAS16 in
their forum here (GO MEDIAVISION) on CS.  Haven't tried it - my Magitronic
386SX33 mama won't do IRQ's above 7 (I have to ship it back, I believe - may
try the new Orchid VL-486 - it was offered me for under $500 with local bus HD
controller and new series S3 card (23+ million winmarks!), albeit without
CPU.).  Anyway, my PAS16 works at DMA3 IRQ3 under DOS, but totally bombs out
under Windows (works okay on another PC, so it's not the board), and it's time
for a new motherboard.

MV also has the 1.4 beta Windows drivers for the PAS16 family in the same
forum - not available on their BBS, FWIW.

TTYL - wally

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12175 S10/Device Drivers
    13-Oct-92  05:01:54
Sb: #12096-Trantor T128
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: Waldemar Kowalski 70544,52

Wally,

<<By the way, Art, MediaVision has posted an NT driver (beta) for the PAS16 in
their forum here (GO MEDIAVISION) on CS.  Haven't tried it>>

Thanks. I installed the driver this weekend. I now can play wave files and
midi too. <g> Even if it's only the SB portion of the board it's nice to have
it working.

Art

#: 12348 S10/Device Drivers
    14-Oct-92  15:58:03
Sb: #11846-Trantor T128
Fm: Frank Waldner 72550,1162
To: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613 (X)

Great!  I downloaded NT-TSL.ZIP and got it working ... eventually. I must say
that REGEDIT is not too user-friendly (read user hostile). But I finally got
it working.  Thanx

PS.  Any info on plans to make the T128 a supported boot SCSI under
     WIN/NT ?

There are 2 Replies.

#: 12361 S10/Device Drivers
    14-Oct-92  17:22:49
Sb: #12348-Trantor T128
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: Frank Waldner 72550,1162

Frank,

<<Any info on plans to make the T128 a supported boot SCSI under
     WIN/NT ?>>

you'd have to ask Trantor about that.

But I'm glad to hear that you did get it up and running. It took me about 4
tries. <g>

Art

#: 12385 S10/Device Drivers
    14-Oct-92  21:12:10
Sb: #12348-Trantor T128
Fm: John Oellrich 72611,1452
To: Frank Waldner 72550,1162

Frank,

You don't really want to use a T128 (an 8 bit card) to support an HDU, do you?
Running NT? Paging? I don't think so. Wait for the next release to see if at
least some of the lower cost 16-bit adaptors are supported.

John

#: 12432 S10/Device Drivers
    15-Oct-92  08:42:32
Sb: additional drivers
Fm: mike burroughs 71062,1241
To: SYSOP (X)

Is there any driver available for a 512K XGA in a PS/2-90 or do I need to
upgrade to 1Meg.  Also, is there a driver available for the NE/2-32.

Thanks, Mike

#: 12476 S10/Device Drivers
    15-Oct-92  14:18:30
Sb: Printer Addressing
Fm: ASMUND PEDERSEN 72350,743
To: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613 (X)

I like to find out how I can specify one of many paper tray in a Laser Printer
before I start printing from my program. Please, can someone give me a hint of
how I can control/address the Laser Printer paper tray.


Asmund e

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12523 S10/Device Drivers
    15-Oct-92  19:58:38
Sb: #12476-Printer Addressing
Fm: Arthur Knowles 71041,2613
To: ASMUND PEDERSEN 72350,743

Asmund,

<<I like to find out how I can specify one of many paper tray in a Laser
Printer before I start printing from my program. Please, can someone give me a
hint of how I can control/address the Laser Printer paper tray.>>

There are two methods. Method one is application specific. Some word
processors will allow you to mix and match. The first page may come from the
upper tray, while all other pages come from the lower tray. Most apps use page
setup for this. Method two is to use the printer setup to specify the paper
tray.

If this is not clear enough let me know and I'll be more specific.

Art




#: 11895 S11/Network services
    09-Oct-92  09:14:33
Sb: #11568-WinNt -> Lantastic
Fm: Azfar Moazzam - Microsof 72370,453
To: Paul J. Levesque 72621,3477 (X)

>I'm trying to connect a WinNT worhstation to a Lantastic server, can anyone
>tel me if this can succesfuly be done using July release. Can I connect to a
>MS-net server??? Thanks Paul >

Hello Paul, Although LANTastic is a NetBIOS based network you can not connect
the Windows NT Workstation to the Lantastic server. Windows NT uses the LAN
Manager workstation and server services.  All LAN Manager type of networks
(i.e.Microsoft LAN Manager, DEC Pathworks, IBM LAN Server, etc.) use SMB's
(Server Message Blocks) to communicate over the network.

In order to be able to connect to a Lantastic server from Windows NT, Artisoft
will have to write a SMB Server for Lantastic. I am not aware if they have any
such plans. Artisoft will the best to answer that question.

As far as MS-Net is concerned, you should be able to connect to that server
with Windows NT. We have not tested it, but since one can communicate between
a LAN Manager workstation and MS-Net, I would assume the same to hold in the
case of Windows NT. Note that both machines have to be running the same
protocol stack.

Best Regards,

Azfar [MS]


#: 11894 S11/Network services
    09-Oct-92  09:14:22
Sb: #11799-Win NT TCP/IP setup
Fm: Azfar Moazzam - Microsof 72370,453
To: George Halpert 72370,1151 (X)

>Windows NT TCP/IP Network Setup > >We installed Win NT using the express
graphical setup and the Network >Control >Panel was used to install and
configure our network adapter and TCP/IP. > >The adapter card is an EtherLink
II (IRQ=5,I/O=300) and the machine name is >unique. At "net start tcpipsvc"
the result is: "tcpipsvc is starting; tcpipsvc >could not be started" (err
3523). When using ping we received the error >"ICMP >network unreachable". The
same errors have been experienced with Western >Digital WD8003EP and WD8013EP
network adapters.  Does anyone have an idea >what >the problem might be? >
>George Halpert 72370,1151 >

Hello George,

Does the LanManagerWorkstation and LanManagerServer service start? You can
check that by typing "Net Start" on the command prompt? Did you configure IP
address and the subnet masks correctly?

The error message that you are getting from Ping is because the TCP stack is
not configured correctly and since the TcpipSvc has not started the protocol
components are not present to send out an ICMP packet on the wire.

Azfar [MS]




There is 1 Reply.

#: 11926 S11/Network services
    09-Oct-92  13:29:30
Sb: #11894-Win NT TCP/IP setup
Fm: George Halpert 72370,1151
To: Azfar Moazzam - Microsof 72370,453 (X)

No we cannot seem to figure out how to start the LanManagerWorkstation and
LanManagerServer services.  I think we might be missing some documentation or
we have overlooked something.  Can you help?

Regards,

George Halpert

#: 11937 S11/Network services
    09-Oct-92  15:01:42
Sb: #11799-Win NT TCP/IP setup
Fm: LLEWELLYN CHANG 70612,2214
To: George Halpert 72370,1151

I had the same problem. I use another interrupt (3) and the problem cleared
up. You may have another card using interrupt 5 which as the the case with me.

Lew

#: 11940 S11/Network services
    09-Oct-92  15:23:33
Sb: #11708-starting workstation
Fm: Azfar Moazzam - Microsof 72370,453
To: Spencer Frink 71461,1001

Hi Spencer, Please confirm that you don't have a interrupt conflict problem. I
have seen this error come up because of interrupt conflicts. Are there are
other errors in the evenlog? How did you install Windows NT? Did you use
graphical install or DOS2NT?

Azfar [MS]

#: 11941 S11/Network services
    09-Oct-92  15:23:38
Sb: #11744-MIPS and Token Ring
Fm: Azfar Moazzam - Microsof 72370,453
To: John Tarbox 71201,2467 (X)

Hi John, How is going? As far as token ring cards are concerned, the cards
that we are supporting are IBM Token Ring 16/4 and Token Ring 16/4A. The IBM
Tokenring 16/4 card has successfully been tested in MIPS ARC/R4000. The IBM
16/4 is an ISA card.

Best Regards,

Azfar [MS]




There is 1 Reply.

#: 11983 S11/Network services
    09-Oct-92  23:27:33
Sb: #11941-MIPS and Token Ring
Fm: John Tarbox 71201,2467
To: Azfar Moazzam - Microsof 72370,453 (X)

    Hi Azfar, things are going great thanks to your help.  You may have
noticed that 3Com has recently introduced a 16/4 family of token ring cards
based on the IBM chipset.  They have a EISA card that would seem ideal for the
MIPS, could you pass along my recommendation that I would like to see MS test
NT with this card?

#: 12061 S11/Network services
    11-Oct-92  13:04:30
Sb: NT & WINWRK Network
Fm: Ronald E Johnson 72570,2150
To: Azfar Moazzam [MS] 71075,641 (X)

Thany you for your response to my questions on the CONTROL
PANEL-SERVER-SERVICES functions.  I was able to get XACTSRV to start at
start-up.
  RE being able to see the WINWRK machine from the NT machine.  I had both
machines with the same WORKGROUP name and was not able to see the WINWRK
machine from the NT machine. (Was able to share drives etc. just not able to
see them from the menus-list boxes that set up such things.)  It isn't clear
to me what DOMAIN means in the WINWRK context.
  I changed the WINWRK - WORKGROUP name to the same name as the DOMAIN name of
the NT machine.  If NT is started prior to WINWRK,  WINWRK hangs during
startup with the full screen Windows 3.1 logo displayed.  If WINWRK is started
prior to NT, NT reports that the server cannot be started even though WINWRK
can share the NT machine drives.  However, the NT machine cannot share the
WINWRK machine drives.  Intend to study the WINWRK documentation more fully!?
Would appreciate any insights you might offer.
     Ron Johnson

#: 12140 S11/Network services
    12-Oct-92  14:45:20
Sb: TCPIP networking
Fm: Bob Bogardus 76470,3066
To: Microsoft

I am trying to get assistance on setting up NT to network on TCPIP My first
message (#11445) was answered by P. Krishan (#11641).  I reviewed his
comments, but did not get a solution.  I followed with message #11712 with
more info on my problem.


Will someone respond?  Is there more documentation on how NT networks work
with TCPIP?  This may be a very simple configuration problem... thanks

#: 12207 S11/Network services
    13-Oct-92  12:36:14
Sb: NT telnet crash
Fm: H-P Kaelberlah [ML] 100041,1721
To: Azfar Moazzam [MS] 71075,641 (X)

Dear Azfar,

I get sort of kernel panic in connection with telnet interrupt:

invoce telnet through shell -> fine
hit CTRL-C -> telnet leaves properly, shell seems to behave properly
invoce telnet again ->
*** Fatal System Error 0x0...0A ***
*** IRQL expected less or equal

Ethernetcard is SMC8013EPC at I10 /IO280 / MEM CC000
ping + telnet + rpc work.

By the way: From UNIX I'm used to some documentation like
<system administrator's guide & reference>

Where do I find this for Windows NT ?

It's somewhat hard just to scan to all locations within NT FS to
search for possible suggestions on how to set up different system files

f.i. where do I find doc on tcpip.ini etc.

Regards,  Hans-Peter

#: 12208 S11/Network services
    13-Oct-92  12:40:41
Sb: TCP/IP sockets
Fm: Jacob  Avital 71172,2722
To: sysop (X)

Hi
I would like to know if there is any limitation of number of TCP/IP sockets
that I can open on NT. I know for example that the unix SUN Sparc system
limits the number to 64.
Thx Koby

#: 12111 S11/Network services
    12-Oct-92  09:23:47
Sb: New drivers in Beta NT?
Fm: Erik Westgard 71505,341
To: Microsoft

Any plans to support more LAN adapters (StarLAN) in the Beta 10/26 release?

#: 12219 S11/Network services
    13-Oct-92  16:32:21
Sb: #12111-New drivers in Beta NT?
Fm: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225
To: Erik Westgard 71505,341

Erik,

There will be additions to the list.  However, it has not been made public
yet.

Regards, Scott B. Suhy[MS]

#: 12103 S11/Network services
    12-Oct-92  05:59:03
Sb: NT & wfw
Fm: Klaus Wippich 100020,350
To: Sysop (X)

Hallo, I would like to know if it is possible to get a connection between
Windows NT and Windows f. Workgroups by NETDDE. If it is not possible, what
protocol would you suggest for a application to application conversation.
Thank you, Klaus.

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12157 S11/Network services
    12-Oct-92  20:31:20
Sb: #12103-NT & wfw
Fm: Krishnan P [Microsoft] 71075,3222
To: Klaus Wippich 100020,350

>Hallo, I would like to know if it is possible to get a connection between
>Windows NT and Windows f. Workgroups by NETDDE. If it is not possible, what

Yes, you can use WFW and Windows NT to talk to each other. They use Server
Message Blocks to do that.

>protocol would you suggest for a application to application conversation.
>Thank you, Klaus.


Thanks,

-Krishnan Parameshwaran [MS]

#: 12229 S11/Network services
    13-Oct-92  19:31:02
Sb: #12157-NT & wfw
Fm: John Tarbox 71201,2467
To: Krishnan P [Microsoft] 71075,3222 (X)

>>Hallo, I would like to know if it is possible to get a connection between
>>Windows NT and Windows f. Workgroups by NETDDE. If it is not possible, what

>Yes, you can use WFW and Windows NT to talk to each other. They use Server
>Message Blocks to do that.

    I think you missed the point. NetDDE is at a differnt level from SMBs.

#: 12202 S11/Network services
    13-Oct-92  11:28:52
Sb: WS inconsistant state
Fm: Jim Harford 72350,3705
To: all

If I type
        net start workstation, I get the following error message:

                The WS services is in an inconsistent state.  Boot the
                machine before restarting the ws service.

If I type
        net start tcpipsvc,  I get error message 3523 (services cannot
        be started).

If I try to open the network applet, I get the following error message:
                Unable to obtain server service information. Serviec may
                not be active.

My machine configuration is, AST Premium 386/33 with 12 MG memory and 3Com
EtherlinkII/16 adapter card.


There is 1 Reply.

#: 12218 S11/Network services
    13-Oct-92  16:32:15
Sb: #12202-WS inconsistant state
Fm: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225
To: Jim Harford 72350,3705

Jim,

What network card are you using?

Regards, Scott B. Suhy[MS]

#: 12306 S11/Network services
    14-Oct-92  10:36:57
Sb: #12218-WS inconsistant state
Fm: Jim Harford 72350,3705
To: Scott B. Suhy[MS] 71075,3225 (X)

3Com ElinkII-16.  After sending this message we got it working.  We  We are
not certain what the specific problem was, but we removed several conditions
which the documentation warned against, & we're o.k. now.  Thanks.

#: 12474 S11/Network services
    15-Oct-92  13:41:03
Sb: NetBIOS and NT
Fm: Sven Schaetzl 100010,2346
To: SYSOP (X)

Hello!

How can I activate the NETBIOS emulation in Win/NT??? (I've seen the entry in
the registry, but what should I do to install it ?)

How is the emulation implemented? Is it possible to open two commandline-tasks
and send a message from one to an other or is only one netbios-task at a time
possible... (Would be nice for netbios-testing without a network)

Greetings, Sven.

#: 12312 S11/Network services
    14-Oct-92  11:05:10
Sb: #11688-Window on NT from Mac?
Fm: Paul Sutter 70451,1500
To: Krishnan P [Microsoft] 71075,3222 (X)


Krishnan,

Just to clarify... In the X world, the "server" is a display server, that is,
what sits on the end user's desk.

The X client is generally the centralized or else-located machine that
programs actually run on.

So, what is needed is a GDI display driver for NT that is an X *client*, so
that X servers, like MacX, would be able to login to an NT system remotely.

Paul Sutter
Voila! Software

#: 12484 S11/Network services
    15-Oct-92  14:31:46
Sb: #12312-Window on NT from Mac?
Fm: Krishnan P [Microsoft] 71075,3222
To: Paul Sutter 70451,1500


>Krishnan,

>Just to clarify... In the X world, the "server" is a display server, that
>is, >what sits on the end user's desk.

The X server usually interacts with display, mouse, keyboard etc. Basically
any input output device on the local machine. It act's as a consistent
interface to the Xclients which can be either running on the local machine or
the remote machine. It will translate xclient requests (which use the X
protocol) to local display in case of xclient output's. It will also take
keyboard and mouse messages to particular xclients. These clients may either
be local or remote.

>The X client is generally the centralized or else-located machine that
>programs actually run on.

>So, what is needed is a GDI display driver for NT that is an X *client*, so
>that X servers, like MacX, would be able to login to an NT system remotely.

I am working with Bruce Ramsey here within MS to come up with some information
on the above. I will post it once I get it.

>Paul Sutter >Voila! Software


Thanks,

-Krishnan Paramehwaran

#: 12485 S11/Network services
    15-Oct-92  14:33:34
Sb: TCP Streams ?
Fm: Carlen Hoppe 72110,2514
To: All

There has been alot of talk about how Windows NT will support Berkley sockets.
Will there be any official support for a TCP/IP streams layer?
Or will this have to added on by a third party software package ?  I noticed
there was a streams layer in the TCP protocol stack, can  I access this ?

Carlen

#: 12543 S11/Network services
    16-Oct-92  02:20:37
Sb: Networking
Fm: - Visitor 71461,543
To: [e-mail]

To : Microsoft Corp.

Dear Sirs,

  We would like to know more about networking aspect of Windows NT and
  LAN Manager for Windows NT. We need clarification for the following points.

  1. Whether Client portion of LAN manager is present in Windows NT.
     If so, then how to extract it ?. What are the files necessary for
     DOS client and OS/2 Client?.
     If client level support is not present in Windows NT, how to use
     DOS and OS/2 based machines as Windows NT clients.

  2. Does builtin LAN Manager for Windows NT support two Windows NT servers?

  3. Where is it necessary to use LAN Manager for Windows NT?

  4. Whether IPX protocol for NOVELL connectivity will be supported in
     final release of Windows NT?

  5. Whether existing SQL Server and its applications will run on Windows NT,
     without any modifications?

  6. Is it possible to use diskless machines as Windows NT clients?

  7. Where can we get more information about built in LAN Manager for
     Windows NT?

  Thanks.
  NISHA DATE
  Ramco Industries Ltd.
  INDIA.

#: 12547 S11/Network services
    16-Oct-92  05:41:23
Sb: WINNT Server startup
Fm: rory mcclure 76244,734
To: all

Does anyone know why I would get the error message "The service is not
responding to the control function" when trying to start the server from the
Control panel of Windows NT. What can I do to fix the problem?

#: 12558 S11/Network services
    16-Oct-92  07:56:04
Sb: WinNT Client Connect
Fm: rory mcclure 76244,734
To: all

I have WindowsNT server up and running. How can I access/connect to the server
from a client machine? What software if any do I need to install on the client
side?




#: 12318 S12/Printing
    14-Oct-92  12:04:25
Sb: #11836-Printer Problems HP-DJ
Fm: Devlin Spearman(MS) 71075,645
To: Tim Jones 70750,701

What is your hardware configuration?  Did you fill out the bugrep.txt form?


Devlin


#: 12319 S12/Printing
    14-Oct-92  12:04:40
Sb: #11764-Printing CD Documention
Fm: Devlin Spearman(MS) 71075,645
To: Robert H. Bernard 71210,246

There was a problem with printing on postscript printers that should be
corrected in the upcoming beta release.  How is your LWIINT printer connected
to your PC?


Devlin

#: 12321 S12/Printing
    14-Oct-92  12:04:51
Sb: #11517-NT printing problem
Fm: Devlin Spearman(MS) 71075,645
To: Luther Barber 75030,2177

Have you filled out the bugrep.txt file and uploaded it to Lib 3, yet?


Devlin

#: 12320 S12/Printing
    14-Oct-92  12:04:45
Sb: #11739-Printing problem..
Fm: Devlin Spearman(MS) 71075,645
To: Hien Nguyen 71204,254

Did you add/install the printer driver through the print manager?


Devlin

#: 12539 S12/Printing
    15-Oct-92  22:13:20
Sb: #12320-Printing problem..
Fm: Hien Nguyen 71204,254
To: Devlin Spearman(MS) 71075,645 (X)

Yes, I installed the LQ510 driver through print manager.  I even tried to
watch the printer manager re-action when I print a file.  It looks like the
print manager reporting that it sending a file to printer or spooler but
nothing happen after that. By the way I have a sound blaster pro in my system.

Hien




#: 11921 S14/Documentation
    09-Oct-92  12:57:09
Sb: More doc printing probs?
Fm: ALAN FIEGLE 70534,137
To: all

I have had no problems printing the docs so far, but I have problems with
OVR32GDI   The printer gets to the first page of chapter 65 'Pens' and then
tells the PC the printer is full of data.  telling the PC to 'Retry' only
sends mode data to the printer to yield another error.  I have a HPiii SI with
4Mb ram installed.

  Any Ideas?????
Thanks!
73   Ken Linder      KA9RVK


#: 11943 S14/Documentation
    09-Oct-92  15:37:32
Sb: #11787-Real Programmers
Fm: Ralph Page 75030,67
To: Mike Widseth 71151,1430 (X)

Uh, Oh!

The documentation police.

Let me crank up Puff.

#: 12073 S14/Documentation
    11-Oct-92  17:01:06
Sb: Edit Postscript
Fm: Roland Felnhofer 100064,633
To: All

Hallo

I want to view, and print selected page from the 7500 pages NT Doc.
Do you know a utility that allow that?


Roland

#: 12077 S14/Documentation
    11-Oct-92  17:45:15
Sb: "Inside Windows NT"
Fm: Koichi Iikura 72021,217
To: Microsoft Press

When is "Inside Windows NT"(author Helen Custer) going to be published from
Microsoft Press? Koichi Iikura, Japan

There is 1 Reply.

#: 12106 S14/Documentation
    12-Oct-92  08:23:46
Sb: #12077-"Inside Windows NT"
Fm: ALAN FIEGLE 70534,137
To: Koichi Iikura 72021,217

If you are interested, she recently published a good article conserning NT
multitasking in _Window's/DOS Developer's Journal_

73s  Ken Linder   KA9RVK

#: 12185 S14/Documentation
    13-Oct-92  07:01:06
Sb: #12077-"Inside Windows NT"
Fm: Andy Champ 100064,2267
To: Koichi Iikura 72021,217

I thought it was already out.

#: 12213 S14/Documentation
    13-Oct-92  16:09:29
Sb: #11523-Neet Technical NT Docs
Fm: Tripp Lilley 73027,2747
To: Dwight Matheny (MS) 70750,2340 (X)

You might try the comparison article in this month's BYTE... it goes into
nit-picky technical dee-tayl about the OS and what it offers ...

- t.

Tripp Lilley - IBM System Administrator                             |^^  ^^| 2
The MultiMedia Lab of the Colleges of Architecture and Engineering  | |\/| |
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University                 |_|  |_|

#: 11907 S14/Documentation
    09-Oct-92  10:23:34
Sb: #11605-DEC Alpha HAL Spec?
Fm: Andy Champ 100064,2267
To: Randy Wiser 76046,2537 (X)

Randy, on the current CD there's no alpha support let alone documents on it!
Maybe it'll be on the 'september' release.



There is 1 Reply.

#: 12168 S14/Documentation
    12-Oct-92  20:39:13
Sb: #11907-DEC Alpha HAL Spec?
Fm: Randy Wiser 76046,2537
To: Andy Champ 100064,2267 (X)

Thanks for the reply.  I'll wait and see if any Alpha support appears on the
'September' CD.  Just thought someone in this conference might be able to
point me in the right direction.

#: 12228 S14/Documentation
    13-Oct-92  19:26:37
Sb: #12168-DEC Alpha HAL Spec?
Fm: David A. Solomon 71561,3603
To: Randy Wiser 76046,2537

I am 99.9% certain that Alpha support is not on the upcoming 'beta' CD -
 my understanding is that Digital will supply the Alpha version of NT itself
to the folks who will be Alpha PC field test sites, but that for sure the
final Windows NT "product 1" CD (as they call it) will include support for all
3 platforms (Intel, MIPS, and Alpha).

A contact for further Digital information is Bill Storey, Windows NT Program
Office for Digital Equipment Corporation -- email at:
        [e-mail]

#: 11968 S14/Documentation
    09-Oct-92  18:10:01
Sb: #11838-NT "End User" Docs
Fm: Dwight Matheny (MS) 70750,2340
To: Steve Siegel 72630,3704 (X)

I don't know what the docs include, I haven't seen them. For right now they
won't be available for purchase in hard-copy format. We'll take a look at
doing that later on. Right now I'm spending all my time getting the Oct SDK
and DDK out the door.

-Dwight (MS)

#: 11969 S14/Documentation
    09-Oct-92  18:10:05
Sb: #11833-NT "End User" Docs
Fm: Dwight Matheny (MS) 70750,2340
To: James Ferguson 71477,2345 (X)

Write will be there. I don't know if it is 32-bit or 16-bit. We tested several
different formats, and Write came out the best after PostScript.

-Dwight




There is 1 Reply.

#: 12115 S14/Documentation
    12-Oct-92  09:43:06
Sb: #11969-NT "End User" Docs
Fm: Scott Alexander 76556,557
To: Dwight Matheny (MS) 70750,2340 (X)

Thanks for the reply, and it's great news that we not only get them, but can
read them without printing them.  Is this true for other documents on the next
CD-rom also , or will they still only be in postscript form ?

(now if I only had a pioneer 6 disc cd-rom changer ... )




There is 1 Reply.

#: 12124 S14/Documentation
    12-Oct-92  10:47:59
Sb: #12115-NT "End User" Docs
Fm: Dwight Matheny (MS) 70750,2340
To: Scott Alexander 76556,557 (X)

We are working to get ALL of our docs in both PostScript and .WRI on the CD.
We will also have more .HLP files on the October SDK CD.

-Dwight

#: 12284 S14/Documentation
    14-Oct-92  08:35:54
Sb: #12124-NT "End User" Docs
Fm: Brian Moura 76702,1337
To: Dwight Matheny (MS) 70750,2340


Write will be very helpful.

#: 12386 S14/Documentation
    14-Oct-92  21:12:12
Sb: #12124-NT "End User" Docs
Fm: Darren K. Pearson 71127,2403
To: Dwight Matheny (MS) 70750,2340 (X)

Hooray for the .hlp files.

Darren

#: 12032 S14/Documentation
    10-Oct-92  22:01:30
Sb: #11824-NT "End User" Docs
Fm: Darren K. Pearson 71127,2403
To: Dwight Matheny (MS) 70750,2340 (X)

>>Postscript and Write.<<

Sounds great! This is going to make many of us here very happy. How about
getting them also in .hlp format.<g>

Darren