NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/programm/4561

Text File | 1992-08-29 | 42.5 KB | 1,130 lines

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.programmer:4561 comp.os.os2.advocacy:4725
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!decwrl!csus.edu!netcom.com!msmith
From: [e-mail] (Martin P. Smith)
Subject: Re: IS IBM UK STILL IN THE STONE AGE???
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 19:15:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 1118

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David L. Parker) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom R Krotchko) writes:
>>>
>>>As to waiting for NT, without being insulting, why would you think NT will
>>>have any more or less problems than OS/2? They're cut from the same
>>>cloth, so to speak. And surely, one will be as trouble prone as the
>>>
>>
>>I'm curious - what do you mean, "... cut from the same cloth..."?  As I
>>understand it, NT is based on/derived from the Mach microkernel, which,
>>if true would seem to me to represent a complete departure from DOS and
>>OS/2.
>
>It is not based on Mach (thank God!) but you are right it is a complete
>departure from DOS and OS/2 in the sense it's a total, portable rewrite
>that has a modern microkernel-based design.
>
>Mainly what it inherits for OS/2 is a portion of its API, though NT's
>version is considerably cleaner.
>
>What he was probably referring to is that NT started out to be OS/2 3.0.
>For some odd reason this seems to imply to people that OS/2 2.0 and OS/2
>3.0 were related at the design level.  There's some truth in terms
>of influence on API features, but all accounts I see say that 3.0 was a
>total rewrite.
>
>>--
>>Dave Parker
>>Automated Data Management Services, Pleasant Hill, MO 64080-1331
>>[phone]/5218 voice/fax
>
>
>Brian
>--
>C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
>University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
>Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
>[e-mail]; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: 1024 Cylinders on a hard drive.
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution: comp.os.os2.misc comp.os.os2.programmers
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Dowdal) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Aaron T Dingus) writes:
>>     The only way that OS/2 is going to make it really big is if the
>>average guy gets it at work and at home.
>>     The only way to that is to get him to give up the DOS with Windows
>>environment.
>>     That isn't occuring.
>
>We need to show people what OS/2 can do.  Every person that I've shown OS/2 to,
>who has hardware that's powerful enough to run it, wants it.  I even know a
>MacManiac who find WPS the first PC GUI that's usable.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 people, do something!!!
Summary:
Expires:
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Dowdal) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Aaron T Dingus) writes:
>>     The only way that OS/2 is going to make it really big is if the
>>average guy gets it at work and at home.
>>     The only way to that is to get him to give up the DOS with Windows
>>environment.
>>     That isn't occuring.
>
>We need to show people what OS/2 can do.  Every person that I've shown OS/2 to,
>who has hardware that's powerful enough to run it, wants it.  I even know a
>MacManiac who find WPS the first PC GUI that's usable.


Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc
Subject: Re: Patsco, middle east work?
Summary:
Expires:
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords:


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Formatting a hard disk with more than 1024 cynlinders will os2 do it ???
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution: comp.o.os2.misc comp.os.os2.programmers
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords:
B


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: You CAN format and use a removable device with HPFS BUT .......
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution: comp.os.os2.misc
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords:


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: DosDevIOCtl where are you ?????????
Distribution: comp.os.os2.programmer
Ortinrganization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
OK  probably a dumb question but I am gonna ask anyway. Where the .... is the
 function DosDevIOCtl. I get an unresolved external if I include zee libraries. HELP !!!!!!!

Martin  P. Smith

Ordered 31 March  Canclelled 27 April recieved 4th May way to go IBM.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail]       |  I now have an extra copy of OS2 email if you want
                        |  gdd
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Real Issue
Summary:
Expires:
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords:


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: DeScribe Alpha Four
Summary:
Expires:
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rajesh Krishnan) writes:
>
>Just a few notes from a DeScribe Word Processor 3.0 user (not 32-bit).
>
>It is a decent word processor, with some (but not all ) of the advanced
>features one would expect.  I can do merges, TOC's, style-sheets, etc.
>pretty darn well, but I can't do stuff like tables or counting the
>words in the file.
>
>Overall, I like DeScribe.  Its font handling is very slick, but I admit
>that I have little experience with other GUI Word processors for comparison.
>
>But, the MAIN POINT of this message is a caveat for people deciding to
>get the 32-bit version of DeScribe.  Personally, I'm waiting for the
>Alpha Four version of DeScribe, as demonstrated at the Bay Area OS/2
>Users Group Meeting.  This does for Describe <= 3.0 what 2.0 did
>for OS/2, at least at first glance.  It looks like they've reorganized
>their desktop more along the lines of the OS/2 desktop.  There was a
>scrollable icon bar if I remember correctly.  Great fun.
>
>I'd also be happy to field specific questions as best as a l'il college
>Freshman can.
>
>All I need to do is put in my OS/2 boosting .SIG and I'm done...
>
>   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> / [e-mail]     It's not a system designed to be evil...  \
>|                         just relentlessly efficient.       |
> \ 3-Space: Rajesh Krishnan            - Kevin Scott McGuire      /
>   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>System 7                            OS/2
>Windows 3.1                            The Right Choice
>Windows NT


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: HELP NEEDED: OS/2 installation problem - ZEOS 386SX
Summary:
Expires:
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords: ZEOS OS/2 INSTALLATION 386SX

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Minghua SHAN) writes:
>Hello,
>
>I am having a hard time installing OS/2 2.0 (3.5" version)
>on a ZEOS 386SX. Here is what happened:
>
>Installation disk inserted in A:
>Computer turned on.
>Was told to remove disk from A:, insert disk 1 and press ENTER.
>Installation disk removed, disk 1 inserted, ENTER pressed.
>Disk in A: accessed. Message "Operating System/2 Version 2.0" written
>       at bottom of screen.
>Computer hung.
>
>Does anyone have any solution/suggestion?
>Any help is greatly appreciated.
>
>Here is the system config:
>ZEOS 386SX-16 (bought two years ago).
>AMI BIOS (1989).
>4M DRAM on mainboard.
>RLL hard disk (62M with 34M free).
>Paradise VGA card.
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>Minghua Shan
>
>--
>[e-mail]


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: DeScribe vs MS-Word
Summary:
Expires:
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom R Krotchko) writes:
>Although I paid the $50 to get the Word OS/2, I am seriously tempted by
>the $139 price for Describe.
>
>But given that Lotus is working on Ami Pro, and WP is working on a versio
>for OS/2, are they worth the wait (unanswerable), or is Describe so
>terrific, they're better than Ami Pro or WP.
>
>Finally, what are the new features in the "SE" version I see mentioned?
>
>[e-mail] (Tom R Krotchko)
>sun!portal!cup.Portal.com!Tomk


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Boca 14.4 modem & Quicklink 2 Fax
Summary:
Expires:
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David K. Magee) writes:
>>I am running a Boca 14.4 FaxModem with the QL2Fax software that came with it.
>>In Dos 5, everything works fine, but in OS/2, it sends the cover sheet then hangs up the modem.  Any suggestions?  I have set idle seconds to 60, and sesitivity to 100, but it did no good.
>
>Try reducing MAXWAIT in CONFIG.SYS to 1 -- I'm finding that that's
>doing the trick for communications programs of all kinds.  Shutdown
>and reboot for the change to take effect.
>
>If that doesn't work please post a follow up.
>--
>Get the OS/2 FREQ. ASKED QUESTIONS LIST | Timothy F. Sipples
>from 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp,     | Internet: [e-mail]
>directory pub/os2/all/faq, or from      | VNET Alias: SIPPLES AT BITNET
>[e-mail] (send "HELP"). | Dept. of Econ., U. Chicago, 60637


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: Bitfax for OS/2 and DeScribe
Summary:
Expires:
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords:


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: Bitfax for OS/2 and DeScribe
Summary:
Expires:
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords:


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: Bitfax for OS/2 and DeScribe
Summary:
Expires:
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Thomas Wilkinson) writes:
>[e-mail] writes:
>
>>
>> I finally got a fax modem to try out Bitfax for OS/2. I also am trying the
>> demo of DeScribe 3.0 that I got from hobbes.
>>
>> I can fax from Bitfax, but not from any PM apps. I have tried Describe and th
>> Enhanced Editor in the productivity folder.
>>
>> Describe says it has an error opening the driver - and suggests I re-install
>> it. The EE just "Beep"s and does nothing.
>>
>> Any body else had this problem? I have v0.98h of Bitfax - and I'm not wealthy
>> enough to download the V0.99 from the Keller BBS.
>
>I am a user of describe and a tester of the software that you mention
>above and have no problems with it at all. It works like a charm. Have
>If I remember back that far you have to manually install the drivers in
>the dll sub directories and rename the appropriate driver to fax_a.dll or
>something like this. From the version you mention above there have been
>numerous improvements and I believe the package has been released now so
>. Anyway with the current version the combination that you mention is
>terrific.
>Checked the latest version I am running and it is .99i so you are a long
>way back and I can't remember what was going on with the printer drivers
>back then.
>
>
>Thomas Wilkinson              [e-mail]
>Edmonton Remote Systems:  Celebrating 10 years of service to Northern Alberta


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: DeScribe question
Summary:
Expires:
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joseph Chiu) writes:
>[e-mail] (Fernando Q. Gouvea) writes:
>
>>I just took a look at the DeScribe demo from hobbes, and I'm a bit unhappy
>>with the size of the display. I'm using the Tseng 1024X768 driver, and the
>>type looks *tiny*. I couldn't find a "zoom in" option, but I didn't look
>>too hard. Does anyone know if the real program has something like this in
>>it?
>
>There is a "Zoom" option under the Windows->Zoom... selection.
>
>I have been playing with DeScribe off-and-on for about two weeks now, and
>I still am not sure if I like it.  Some things which I find lacking (or
>haven't discovered in the Demo version) are the lack of footnotes (which
>is supposedly included in the next version of DeScribe), the lack of a
>hot-key to change font/size/style (you need to either move your mouse
>around, or go through ALT->Style->Font->More...->[Tab]->[Font choice]
>from the keyboard (Note: it's a little easier if you have less than 20
>fonts.), no colored text, and the dragging the scroll-bars do not cause
>the text to scroll until the bar is released.
>
>(I know, I'm knitpicking..)
>
>--
>Joseph Chiu, Dept. of Computer Science, Caltech.    [e-mail]
>1-57 California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91126. [phone]
>** Now Running: OS/2 on 486DX50 w/ 8 MB RAM, 245 MB HD (Quantum LPS 240A) **
>And yet, it's still too slow!  But then again, so is the Touchstone Delta...


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Zachmann PC Week Article
Summary:
Expires:
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution: world
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords:


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: gripes.. wps, grrr?!!!
Summary:
Expires:
References: <[e-mail]| <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords: wps, blerg!

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James Lawrence Weinkam) writes:
>[e-mail] (Furry Logic) writes:
>
>>[e-mail] (Helge Hafting) writes:
>
>>|In article <[e-mail]|, [e-mail] (Max C. Pritikin) writes:
>>| |
>>| |     why oh why oh why does it *have* to open my apps back up for
>>| | me??  There is a nice startup folder that i can stick stuff in if i
>>| | *want* them to load.
>>| |
>>| |     HOW CAN I *****PLEASE****** KILL THIS "FEATURE"???????
>>|Easy, just stop your programs before you do a shutdown.  Then they won't
>>|start again.  Doing a shutdown is not supposed to permanently stop any
>>|programs, shutdown is just a feature that allows you to turn your computer
>>|off.  If you want to have a shutdown that also kills all running programs
>>|permanent, then you may create a startup.cmd with some rexx lines that were
>>|posted previously.
>>|I think the main reason that shutdown on other systems traditionally have been
>>|implemented without restoring running programs, is that this is somewhat
>>|difficult to do...
>
>>   Hmmm.... Just recently, when I bring up OS/2, the Task List pops up on
>>the DeskTop. I have tried closing it and shutting down, but it still comes
>>back.
>>   Also, after diddling with some settings with various windows, when I open
>>up "OS/2 System", it opens beneath others windows. Which setting controls
>>this? at least I thought I got everything back to 'normal'... Thanx.
>
>In the readme file that os/2 installs onto your drive I think I saw something
>on how to get os/2 to not start up all the running apps.  I think is was
>something like holding down left-shift, left-alt and f1, but am not sure.
>There was also a way by editing the startup.cmd file.  Take a look at the
>readme file for more info, it was included for this reason, to help you
>in situation where they forgot to put it in the docs.
>
>James


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: What are Shadows for?
Summary:
Expires:
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jay Joiner) writes:
>I believe that a shadow should be used when you want to have access
>via an icon in multiple places on your desktop to an object that should
>have only one open instance at a time.  If you organize your work in
>various folders, you might want to have printer or disk drive icons in
>each folder.  Another example might be a program object that can have
>only one instance running at a time.
>
>Jay Joiner


Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows quicksand
Summary:
Expires:
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (DE Robertson james an 410-740-9172) writes:
>[e-mail] (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>
>>[e-mail] (DE Robertson james an 410-740-9172) writes:
>>>
>>>    Well, OS/2 STILL suffers from the same brain dead approach to window
>>>messages that Windows has - the queue for the window messages can be locked by
>>>an anti-social app, thus locking the entire system - no keyboard input or
>>>mouse input will be accepted.  I can't count the number of times that I've
>>>been infuriated by this behaviour, both in Windows AND in OS/2.
>>>
>
>>This is not a problem in OS/2.  PM will eventually notice that the app isn't
>>responding and give the user a chance to kill it.  Besides, while PM waits,
>>the machine isn't locked up or anything -- background processes continue to
>>run normally.
>
>    Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. The ctrl-alt-del sequence in
>WIN 3.1 seems more reliable, at least in my experience - I use both
>systems on a daily basis at work.  I look at it this way - Windows tends to be
>faster and less annoying to work with. Neither is suitable for
>serious (transaction processing) work. So, if I have to use either, I choose
>the less annoying and faster system. Not to mention the one with a wider
>variety of software to choose from....
>
>James A. Robertson
>
>>>
>>>According
>>>to published reports, NT will not (and current beta versions do not) suffer
>>>from this problem.  From my perspective, this is perhaps the single biggest
>>>flaw in either system.  One poorly written app can effectively lock
>>>either system.  And a warm reboot of an HPFS drive is probably going to
>>>do more damage than a similar reboot of FAT.....
>>>
>
>>Like I said, such a "bad app" will not lock up OS/2.  Windows is another
>>thing entirely.
>
>>>
>>>[e-mail]
>>>
>>--
>>+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
>>| Jerry J. Shekhel  | Molecular Simulations | Time just fades the pages      |
>>| Drummers do it... | Inc.  Waltham, MA USA | in my book of memories.        |
>>|    ... In rhythm! |     [phone]    |              -- Guns N' Roses  |
>>+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
>>|           ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry             |
>>|                            [e-mail]                               |
>>+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+


Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows quicksand
Summary:
Expires:
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Reidar Bjorhovde) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brad Cain) writes:
>>
>>How many times have I heard this:
>>
>>Win 3.1 is only a new file manager and some multimedia stuff... I have
>>win 3.0, I don't need 3.1.
>>
>>Foolishness!
>>
>>I suggest that ANYONE with win 3.0 go and upgrade to 3.1  The SPEED
>>improvement is incredible. (especially if you have a 286)  The SVGA
>>drivers from Microsoft, the new smartdrive, and the new mouse drivers
>>are reason enough to upgrade. (mouse in a dos window, VGA dos apps in
>>a window)
>>
>>I could NEVER go back to slow obnoxious win 3.0!!!!
>>
>
>Better yet,  upgrade and then try going BACK to Windows 3.0!  For a
>while I was using the (buggy) Beta release of Win 3.1 and had to use Win
>3.0 to do a couple of things - boy did that suck.
>
>I guess that just proves that old saying, "You never know what you have
>until you lose it."  (Well, in reverse, of course)
>
>
>
>--
>Ian D. Bjorhovde
>[e-mail]
>Department of Materials Science & Engineering
>University of Pittsburgh


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: Unix-like MORE for OS/2? (yes, I _did RTFFAQ)
Summary:
Expires:
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Reidar Bjorhovde) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>  writes:
>>
>>I'm looking for a unix-like MORE utility for OS/2.  I mean, the kind in
>>which you can enter `more filename' and it will give --more--(26%)
>>prompts.  I've looked through all the "unix-like" utility packages I
>>could find, including the GNU stuff, and I now have just about every
>>imaginable UNIX filter, except for `more'.
>
>Ha ha ->  Even DOS 5 has this command!!
>
>But seriously, I haven't seen anything... I just got OS/2 yesterday
>so I have been reading the manuals and man, the install looks scary...
>Good luck,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Ian D. Bjorhovde
>[e-mail]
>Department of Materials Science & Engineering
>University of Pittsburgh


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: The expensive IBM doc set
Summary:
Expires:
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daryl Biberdorf) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Charlap) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>>Why does IBM charge so much for the hardcopy manual set?
>>Perhaps because it consists of 17 large volumes?
>
>Something that I haven't seen mentioned in this discussion (or I may have
>missed it) is that you don't have to buy all 17 volumes.  Each volume
>has its own IBM publication number, so you can order them separately
>(or so a Team OS/2 member tells me).
>
>Now, would someone who was rich enough to pay the $300 volunteer to
>post the title and publication number (and maybe even a brief
>description) of each volume in the set?  Chances are, most of us will
>only need a handful of volumes to get our job done.
>
>Daryl
>--
>Daryl Biberdorf  N5GJM    [e-mail]  or  [e-mail]
>        "You're not messy.  You're organizationally impaired."
>                _Real_Life_Adventures_, July 3, 1992


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
Summary:
Expires:
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Levis) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lonny McMichael) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Levis) writes:
>>>What does MS consider selling well for OS/2?  Will MS really wait
>>>for OS/2 to have 2 million users before thinking of writing apps
>>>for OS/2?  They would have to catch up to there competition.
>>                                           ^^^^^
>>
>>Look everyone, Mike Levis can't spell either!
>>
>>Lonny
>
>Their is nothing wrong with my spelling.  Let me retype it for you, okay?
>``They would have to catch up to they're competition.''
>Satisfied now?
>
>#8^)   #8^)   #8^)
>
>ObOS/2:  IBM's offer is almost over!   Upgrade to OS/2 2.0 now!
>         Offer ends Friday!   Call 1-800-3IBM-OS2 now!
>         $49 from Windows, $99 from DOS!  Don't miss out!
>
>
>--
>       === Mike Levis    [e-mail] ===
> .--.  ::  Call 1-800-3IBM-OS2 to order OS/2 2.0!!  ::
>(OS/2) ::  Upgrade $49 from Windows, $99 from DOS.  ::
> ~--~  ::: IBM's offer ends July 31, 1992!  Hurry! :::


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Impressions of Windows NT
Summary:
Expires:
References: <y=qmc2#[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John J. Allen) writes:
>[e-mail] (Martin P. Smith) writes:
>: >
>: >Although I'm no Windows NT fan I believe it is a multi-user OS but not
>: >in the traditional sense. I believe that traditional multi-user should
>: >really be called 'simultaneous multi-user' to indicate that the machine
>: >knows about multiple users and can also allow them to use the machine
>: >simultaneously.
>:
>: Give me a Mother F..... break I do not think anybody would seriously think that
>: a system that does not support CONCURRENT  multiple users is a multi user system
>:
>: If multiple user profiles is considered enough to make a system multi user then
>: DOS can be made multi user. Just create a little old routine that stores
>: different autoexec.bats and a baby menu that allows you to enter a name and
>: voila MULTI-USER DOS.
>:
>
>Give me a Mother Fucking Break.
>
>Not if it don't have a protected file system.
>
>Also only my fucking opinion.
>
>So fuck yours anyway.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
Summary:
Expires:
References: <[e-mail]> <dlcogswe.712806067@vela> <[e-mail]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <dlcogswe.712806067@vela> [e-mail] (Dan Cogswell) writes:
>>
>>You're obviously not developing software, then.  How many companies are
>>producing Windows software?  Do you think you can compete with big names
>>like Borland, Lotus, Microsoft, etc.?  50% of a 1 million machine market
>>is a heckuva lot better than 1% of a 10 million machine market.  And
>>even a lowsy OS/2 program can be better than a good Windows
>>program, so you don't even have to try very hard for the market share.
>
>     So your argument here is that small vendors should jump on
>OS/2 development, since none of the big players are?  By this logic,
>I shouldn't buy OS/2, since none of my favorite mass-market apps
>will be developed for it.  If they are, then the small vendors you
>are counseling will be SOL, won't they?
>     Seems like you're shooting your OS/2 advocacy argument in the foot
>here.
>
>
>>We'll see how many people want to dump Ultrix on their MIPS machines to
>>run NT!  You thought a 486 was expensive!  Windows NT turns expensive
>>multi-user workstations into single-user PCs.  Sounds cost-effective to
>>me.
>
>      Where did you get the idea that Windows NT can't support
>multiple users?
>
>
>>Like I said before folks, why ANYBODY is worried that all of a sudden,
>>Microsoft will turn around and produce a GOOD operating system on THEIR
>>FIRST CRACK AT ONE is silly.  They ought to stick with figuring out how
>>to produce a decent app.
>
>     Sigh.  This argument is getting a bit tired as well.
>
>     BTW - why do you think that Windows NT is Microsoft's "first
>crack" at an operating system?
>
>                    -Phil
>
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Phil Lafornara                         1 Microsoft Way
>[e-mail]                Redmond, WA 98052-6399
>Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re:  IBM wouldn't pull support for OS/2, would it?
Summary:
Expires:
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gordon Letwin) writes:
>>I'm very glad to hear this.  A few years ago IBM was selling this really
>>great product called TopView.  It was a windows competitor.  IBM said,
>>"trust us, we're behind this 100%, you should bet the future of your company
>>on developing for TopView".
>
>It wasn't a Windows competitor.  It never had any apps aside from
>those that came with it and the "well-behaved" DOS apps which it could
>run.  I believe that Windows 1.0 could run its apps, as well.
>
>It's a moot point.  Do you know ANYONE who was hurt by IBM's dropping
>TopView?  Every company I know of didn't use it for anything more than
>a curiosity - just like Windows 1.0.
>--
>   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
>  /|_  [e-mail]   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
> ((|,)
>  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Summary:
Expires:
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>Michael R. Platzke ([e-mail]) wrote:
>>: Well, without starting a flame war, I would point out that NT has
>>                                                                ^^^
>>: built in networking (limited LANMAN and full TCP/IP), symmetrical (sp?)
>>: multiprocessing(okay, not much good on a single cpu 486, but still cool),
>>: multiple APIs (Win-16,Win-32,OS/2 1.3,POSIX), built in security (which forms
>>: the basis for multiple users), and other goodies.  Yeah, I've heard that
>>: the mythical :-) OS/2 2.1 is supposed to have much of this stuff, but when?
>>: In regards to that, would someone from an IBM site care to comment on the
>>: "offical" feature list of the next OS/2 release (not CSD).  If non-ibm sites
>>: wish to chip in, please list source of info (not "well some guy on the net
>>: said that ...").
>>
>>Windows NT has Win-16, Win-32, OS/2 1.3 and POSIX today?  Full networking
>>today?  Really?  This is the first I have heard of it.  For you to say
>>that Windows NT has those features today, and turn around and call OS/2
>>2.1 and its features mythical, is like the pot calling the kettle black.
>>Hey at least OS/2 2.0 is a release product.
>
>Back to the "who's product is vaporware argument again."  Well, as has been
>said before, If you call NT vaporware, then I can call all of those mythical
>apps that will be avaliabe for OS/2 RSN vaporware.
>
>MS has officially release what is in the first release of NT.  IBM has not
>released any information really regarding the next release of OS/2.
>
>All the guy was asking is for people to post about what's planned for the
>next version of OS/2.
>
>[e-mail]
>My Opinions...
>
>


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: Problem with QuickLink fax-software.
Summary:
Expires:
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Anto Daryanto) writes:
>Hi,
>
>Has anybody got any luck with fax software QuickLink?
>I didn't. I have Dallas fax/modem 2496 VC and until now I can't
>send any fax. Strange enough, I did send fax but they only receive
>'one' line. This is a DOS program, and if I boot DOS (not 'Boot DOS
>from A:' of OS/2) I can use it without any problem. Other
>utilities from QuickLink did run under DOS-OS/2. No problem.
>
>The error is always at the point that the program sends the first page, and
>it sends only 8% (from the send-fax-windows). After that the program
>stops and gets error SYS3176. I have to kill it.
>
>Anybody has the solutions?
>--
>
>Anto Daryanto
>TU Delft, The Netherlands
>Faculty of Electrical Engineering
>Telecommunication- and Traffic Systems Group
>E-mail: [e-mail]


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: More print ads for IBM and OS/2 stuff
Summary:
Expires:
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Jackson) writes:
>>
>>In article <[e-mail]>,
>>[e-mail] (David Charlap) writes:
>>|> 1) The PS/2 model 56 & 57 SLC.  No prices mentioned, but notes that
>>|>    you'll be able to eventually upgrade it to a 486SLC2 processor for
>>|>    $259.  The ad also states that OS/2 2.0 will be pre-installed on
>>|>    it.
>>Unless of course you live in the UK where the 486SLC upgrade
>>will be #639, which is $1100 !!!!!!   What a bargain !!  :-(  Yes,
>>that's the chip, not the PS/2 which is $1100. I was going to upgrade
>>my 56SLC until I discovered the price.
>
>I wonder how much of the difference is tariffs.  I know that the UK
>has Value-Added taxes, which can double and tripple the price of
>things (especially if it's manufactured in the UK).  Then there is the
>additional shipping and possible government restrictions on exporting
>new technologies.
>
>Does anyone here know about international commerce WRT exporting
>hi-tech items?  I wonder how much is IBM's gouging and how much is
>just the cost of doing international business.
>--
>   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
>  /|_  [e-mail]   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
> ((|,)
>  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: SHORT, USHORT, and other absurdities
Summary:
Expires:
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Walter Bright) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> Kaleb Keithley writes:
>/Question 1: Given the following code fragment...
>/MRESULT EXPENTRY ClientWndProc (
>/    HWND     hwnd,
>/    USHORT   msg,
>     ^^^^^^
>/    MPARAM   mp1,
>/    MPARAM   mp2)
>
>I've never understood this strange urge to #define the basic types.
>Is anyone out there using a compiler where USHORT would be anything
>other than "unsigned short"? How about SHORT being anything other
>than short, or LONG being anything other than long?
>
>They remind me of the old practice (now discredited, after being discovered
>to be useless) of:
>    #define BEGIN {
>    #define END   }
>
>These silly typedefs create a useless layer of obfuscation and another
>potential source of error (I always have to check if SHORT really was
>short!)
>
>Another brain-dead one is:
>    #define FAR far
>The argument I hear is that on systems without far, you can just do:
>    #define FAR
>and it goes away! True, but why cannot one do:
>    #define far
>and achieve just as much portability?
>
>(P.S. I have running code that compiles and runs on 16 bit DOS, 32 bit
>DOS, 16 and 32 bit OS/2, Windows, Windows NT and 68000 Macintoshes.
>Never have I needed those aliases for the basic types.)


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: bernoulli 90 and os/2
Summary:
Expires:
References: <1992Aug23.1480.25557@dosgate>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution: comp
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords:

In article <1992Aug23.1480.25557@dosgate> "andrew makiejewski" <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>A friend of mine has the Bernoulli 90 system and is seriously thinking
>of getting OS/2. I have no idea if OS/2 will work with the unit. He just
>wants to get access to the unit. He also wants to know if the cartridges
>can be formatted in HPFS mode.
>
>Andrew.                      [e-mail]
>Entered Aug 23,92 at 00:46:45 on CRS from Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
>---
> ■ PMDBM  V1.75ß #33 ■
>--
>Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
>World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: New CSD for C Set/2
Summary:
Expires:
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Feustel) writes:
>How many CSDs for C Set/2 have been released? How can they be
>identified? Where can they be obtained? Thanks.
>
>--
>Dave Feustel N9MYI <[e-mail]>
>
>( New .sig under construction. Watch this space! )


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.programmer,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IS IBM UK STILL IN THE STONE AGE???
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David L. Parker) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom R Krotchko) writes:
>>>
>>>As to waiting for NT, without being insulting, why would you think NT will
>>>have any more or less problems than OS/2? They're cut from the same
>>>cloth, so to speak. And surely, one will be as trouble prone as the
>>>
>>
>>I'm curious - what do you mean, "... cut from the same cloth..."?  As I
>>understand it, NT is based on/derived from the Mach microkernel, which,
>>if true would seem to me to represent a complete departure from DOS and
>>OS/2.
>
>It is not based on Mach (thank God!) but you are right it is a complete
>departure from DOS and OS/2 in the sense it's a total, portable rewrite
>that has a modern microkernel-based design.
>
>Mainly what it inherits for OS/2 is a portion of its API, though NT's
>version is considerably cleaner.

Can you provide examples of where the NT API or is this another example
of BRIAN.EXE ( NT version at work ) where just because it is NT it
MUST be cleaner and MUST be better although no facts are provided  to
support the claim.

NT is not based on the MACH kernel but MS took a lot of ideas ( by
their own admission ) from the mach kernel.

I don't know about other folks but the blatant use of BRIAN.EXE is getting
very tiresome.

Martin Smith
[e-mail]



>
>What he was probably referring to is that NT started out to be OS/2 3.0.
>For some odd reason this seems to imply to people that OS/2 2.0 and OS/2
>3.0 were related at the design level.  There's some truth in terms
>of influence on API features, but all accounts I see say that 3.0 was a
>total rewrite.
>
>>--
>>Dave Parker
>>Automated Data Management Services, Pleasant Hill, MO 64080-1331
>>[phone]/5218 voice/fax
>
>
>Brian
>--
>C. Brian Sturgill                       *** OS/2 2.0 is for YOU! ***
>University of Utah                  Microsoft needs some competition, but
>Center for Software Science        -I- want to be one of the many using NT.
>[e-mail]; CIS: 70363,1373           :-) :-) :-)