Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
OS2 Discussion Forum Volume 9201 Issue 01
************************************************************************
OS/2 Discussion Forum Mon, January 06, 1992 Volume 9201 Issue 01
Relevant addresses :
submissions : OS2@BLEKUL11.BITNET (bitnet)
OS2@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be (domain)
subscriptions : LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (bitnet)
LISTSERV@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be (domain)
moderator : OS2MOD@BLEKUL11.BITNET (bitnet)
os2mod@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be (domain)
************************************************************************
Today's topics:
New files on LISTSERVer
OS2 1.3 and 2.0 bugs.
send and receive progs
SCSI Support
request
Feed from the Usenet (UUCP/Internet) comp.os.os2.* newsgroups :
Novell and OS/2 (Yippie!)
Re: Where Is OS/2 In IBM's New Organizational Structure?
WP for OS/2 preview on XGA
Re: Mr. OS/2 and Mr. Windows: two talkative men...
OS2YOU 2.51 SZ.CMD fix
Re: OS/2 is secure?
Update on OS/2 Magazine
Re: Can't run DOS under 6.149!
Re: OS/2 and STACKER?
The comp.binaries.os2 archive site is back!
Re: FYI: Letter to editor
Re: Workplace Shell = OS/2 Death
6.177h (AKA LA version) makes year-end!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: XGA Driver
Re: Full Screen Graphics?
IBM BBS OS/2 2.0 beta information (update)
Re: Neat trick in OS/2 windoze
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 6 January 1992, 12:00:00 +0100
From: Moderator of the OS/2 Discussion Forum <OS2MOD@BLEKUL11>
Subject: New files on LISTSERVer
This is a list of new or updated OS/2 related files available from the
LISTSERV of the OS/2 Discussion Forum at BLEKUL11.
* Files distributed via comp.binaries.os2
filename filetype Remarks
-------- -------- -------------------------------
AFP_120 PACKAGE AreaFix v1.20 for BBS
ATKEY ZIPXXE Turns NumLock off
BINKP240 PACKAGE BinkleyTerm (terminal pgm/mail interface)
BJ21 ZIPXXE Black Jack
BKUPINI PACKAGE Utility for INI files.
CHECKER4 PACKAGE Checkers for PM (Ch. Petzold)
CL386PFX ZIPXXE MS CL386 prefix replacement (ASM)
DILUTIL PACKAGE File Utilities
DMAIL101 ZIPXXE DragonMail v1.01 for BBS
ECHOMON ZIPXXE Two monitors utility
EF_WDAY ZIPXXE a DAY of the WEEK type of subclassed WC_ENTRYFIELD
GNUC167 PACKAGE GNU 32-bit C compiler for OS/2 v2.0
M_EXT23 ZIPXXE MS Editor extension v2.3
UE311-2 PACKAGE Micro Emacs v3.11
Some of the available files come in - what is called - a package. If
you request such package you will automatically receive all necesarry
files. The zipxxe (XXencoded ZIP) files that you will receive must be
concatenated into one large ZIPXXE file by means of the COPY command.
(example : copy x.zipxxe1 + x.zipxxe2 x.zipxxe)
To use this large ZIPXXE file you must first XXdecode (We recommend our
own version of XXdecode which works under OS/2) and UNZIP (We recommend
PKZIP also under OS/2) it.
Note: Use PKUNZIP -d to unzip !!
These files are distributed AS IS, we can not guarantee anything about
their working.
We still welcome all OS/2 related files for distribution on our LISTSERV.
Send your files to OS2@BLEKUL11.BITNET / OS2@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be
we will arrange everything for distribution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2 January 92, 17:29:50 ITA
From: CMSVITT at IBGUNIV
Subject: OS2 1.3 and 2.0 bugs.
Happy Year to all.
Do it exist a list of 'wormy' (bugs?) of any version of OS2?
That could be useful.
Thanx.
Moriggia Vittorio
Centro di Calcolo
Universita' di Bergamo
ITALIA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 92 17:25:16 CST
From: patrick mckane <PMCKANE1@UA1VM>
Subject: send and receive progs
?QUERY?
does anyone know of the existance of files for "sending" and
"receiving", using os/2, down a modem line to a 3270 w/tso? there are progs
that come with the ibm os/2, but these are only for using a 3270 gateway card
and will not work across a modem. i have dos versions of these but i need
progs for os/2.
thanks in advance for your reply
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1992 15:25 EST
From: ACSGHK@UMASSD.BITNET
Subject: SCSI Support
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, MA, USA
After several talks with Adaptec, they claimed that they may write
a driver for OS/2 2.0 this summer for the 1522 model. It does not look
too promissing. Has anyone sucessfully installed OS/2 any any SCSI
system? If so, can you please let me know of some manufactures that
currently support OS/2 and your recomendations. I have a 486 33 MHz ISA
based machine. Thanks.
Gregory Koester | Bitnet: ACSGHK@UMASSD.BITNET
Undergraduate/Computer Science Major | Internet: ACSGHK@UMASSD.EDU
Academic Computing Services | University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
My views are my own, and not necessarly of my employer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 92 15:17:17 -0500
From: olds@helix.nih.gov (James Olds)
Subject: request
Hi, I am running a compaq 386/25 with nine MB of RAM and a 110 MB
hard drive. Currently I have OS2 v2.1 running on the machine and I
am looking for two things:
1) an ftp-able program which would enable me to have a slighly nicer
Program manager interface....something sort of like Norton Desktop
for windows.
2) A way to get the mouse (Microsoft systems) to run in the DOS box
so that I can use Windows.
3) A way to kluge the machine into allowing me to use Windows in
at least standard mode in the DOS box.
Help for any of these questions would be greatly appreciated.
Please e-mail me directly and I will summarize.
Jim Olds
NINDS NIH
olds@helix.nih.gov
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feed from the Usenet (UUCP/Internet) comp.os.os2.* newsgroups :
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: prs@turing.acs.virginia.edu (Phillip R. Scarr)
Subject: Novell and OS/2 (Yippie!)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 16:02:29 GMT
>From NewsBytes:
PROVO, UTAH, U.S.A., 1991 DEC 18 (NB) -- Novell claims it is now
ready to ship version 2.0 of its Netware Services for IBM's OS/2
operating system.
According to the company, Netware Services for OS/2 includes
Netware Management Map, a new OS/2-based Netware
management application, as well as the Netware Requester for
OS/2 announced earlier this year.
Netware Management Map is designed to reduce the time required
to manage Netware by automatically recognizing all Netware nodes
on the network. Once the nodes are recognized, the software creates
a graphical display, or map, of the internet using icons to represent
the network servers, communications servers, cable segments,
routers, and workstations.
Novell says the Management Map can reduce network downtime,
since it continuously monitors the network, updating the graphical
display with the on-line/off-line status of each node.
Selection of any icon will display the configuration data,
statistics and other resources data without having to physically
access the server. The map can also be used to maintain a
physical inventory.
Network Requester for OS/2 2.0 provides users with transparent
access to all features of Netware and its services, including file,
print, database, network management, communications, and
messaging.
The Requester uses icons to represent desktop utilities, and what
Novell calls an enhanced installation program, which simplifies the
installation process. Both utilize IBM's Presentation Manager.
The Requester supports OS/2 distributed applications such as
Notes from Lotus, and SQL Server from Microsoft and Sybase.
Novell says that customers using DOS, Macintosh PCs, PCs
running under OS/2, or Windows and Unix workstations can access
those applications in their native computing environment.
The Requester reportedly can run over 1,000 simultaneous named
pipe connections, support high-performance 32-bit adapter cards
and support all OS/2 application programming interfaces.
Netware Services for OS/2 version 2.0 has a suggested retail price
of $200. Novell's Michael Adams told Newsbytes that it will begin
shipping at the same time IBM puts OS/2 release 2.0 on the market,
which according to Adams is expected to be in March of 1992.
(Jim Mallory/19911218/press contact: Michael Adams, Novell,
801-429-5809)
--
(--)== prs9k@virginia.edu === Phil Scarr === Department of Anthropology ==(--)
"Believing, with Max Weber, that man is an animal suspended
in webs of significance he himself has spun, I take culture
to be those webs, and the analysis of it to be therefore
not an experimental science in search of law but an
interpretive one in search of meaning." -C. Geertz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: stephens@red240sx.austin.ibm.com (Alan Stephens)
Subject: Re: Where Is OS/2 In IBM's New Organizational Structure?
Date: 17 Dec 91 17:46:09 GMT
Organization: IBM Personal Systems Programming, Austin
> >With IBM's recent reorganization into multiple, autonomous business
> >units, I am curious who now owns OS/2? What other product lines is that
> >group chartered with?
>
> Gugliemi (sp?) is in charge of the division responsible for OS/2. It
> is one of four or five branches under Entry Systems.
Ok, I'd like to clear up the confusion. OS/2 is/was/will be developed
by the Personal Systems Line of Business (PS LOB). The "reorganization" cited
has had very little effect on OS/2 development. The head of the PS LOB is
Jim Cannavino. Reporting to Mr. Cannavino is Leland (Lee) Reiswig, Asst.
General Manager and Director of Programming. Lee heads up software development
for PS. Reporting to Lee are Tommy Steele, Director of the PS Programming
Center in Boca Raton, Florida (where the OS/2 base is primarily developed), and
Donna Van Fleet, Director of the PS Programming Center in Austin, TX (where
Extended Services and Lan Server are developed). This is the same organization
that was in place prior to the "reorganization."
BTW, Joe Guglielmi is responsible for the marketing of the PS products, and
reports directly to Jim Cannavino--he's a peer of Lee Reiswig (both are
Asst. GM's).
Regards,
Alan
Alan Stephens Surface Mail: IBM Austin
IBM Personal Systems Programming Ctr. Bldg. 901, Zip 9151
internet: stephens@ausvm1.vnet.ibm.com 11400 Burnet Rd.
IBMMAIL: IBMMAIL(USIB2PQL) Austin, TX 78758
Disclaimer: the thoughts expressed in this post are, of course, my own.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ccmk@lure.latrobe.edu.au
Subject: WP for OS/2 preview on XGA
Date: 29 Dec 91 06:36:03 GMT
Organization: VAX Cluster, Computer Centre, La Trobe University
Just some updated info regarding a query I posted here some time ago.
It was about using WP 5.0 for OS/2 preview on an IBM model 90.
It turns out only *one* video mode for WP preview works with XGA -
VGA mono mode. WP said they know about the problem and might fix it
if enough people complained. I said forget it - with any luck the
PM version will be out soon. The help guy on the other end didn't
know about this bit, unfortunately.
So, if anyone out there uses WP for OS/2 on an XGA system - now you
know why it doesn't preview!
Dr Mark Kosten, phone: +61 3 479-1500
Computer Centre, AARNet (internet): ccmk@lure.latrobe.edu.au
La Trobe University,
Bundoora, 3083
Australia
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization: Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Vienna, Austria
Date: Friday, 20 Dec 1991 11:32:25 WUT
From: FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>
Subject: Re: Mr. OS/2 and Mr. Windows: two talkative men...
Jeff:
My "flames" were soundly based on information Mr. Gates and Microsoft
gave to the public via the press.
The very point is, and I agree with you that that has nothing to do
with technical merits or whatsoever, that long-term-strategy declara-
tions of Microsoft do not mean a thing! Now, if you are deciding
investments in a company one refers to such strategy-declarations in
order to give the board a sound explanations as an MIS manager (e.g.
"see, Microsoft and IBM the two driving forces say that the long-term
strategy will be OS/2...") for standardizing on OS/2 you get in
troubles if all of a sudden Microsoft turns around 180 degrees.
At the last OS/2 user group meeting in Austria there were a couple of
MIS-managers who were very angry about Microsoft, because
a) they did not stick on their own long-term-strategies by dropping
OS/2 support,
b) Microsoft did pull Word4PM from the market and declared that
there will not be any port of future Excel and Word versions to
OS/2.
They, again, were angry because they relied on long-term perspectives
given by Microsoft. Some of those MIS explained how cumbersome it will
be to change Excel to Lotus1-2-3 and Word to Describe or AmiPro or
WordPerfect, because of the investment in software and training. They
estimate it will take two to three years ! They do it, because (unfor-
tunately) they had to learn that one ***cannot rely*** on Microsoft's
commitments !
IBM on the other hand has been sticking to its declared long-term
strategy, so a customer can truly ***rely*** on their statements.
This definitely is a big difference between the cultures of both
companies and allows MIS-managers to build long-term strategies of
their own which hold. Of course, IBM is a company which learned in
the past decades because of their mainframes how important long-
term-strategies are for the customers and how important it is to
stick with them.
Jeff, if you are interested about the background of my ***flames***, just
take your time and read Microsoft and IBM statements since 1987 on the
issue of OS/2. Read in the same timeframe publications in which the
long-term strategies were published like Datamation, Computerworld,
PC-Magazine (which became almost the speaker's horn of Microsoft),
Byte-Magazine and the like (I can name additional newspapers and magazines
in the U.S. and in Europe for German speaking countries).
I have been following those magazines and newspapers and announcements since
1984 (this is because I work in the MIS department of a business oriented
University, so this information is quite important).
So this concludes: IBM and Microsoft built an excellent PC-operating system
as the successor to DOS. Due to the market situation (80286 predominant then,
very expensive memory) it was not that successful as both companies expected.
The biggest problem, in my opinion was that 87 the introduction of OS/2 and
PS/2 caused the phenomenon (which IBM did not mind then) that OS/2 would run
on PS/2 only. IBM concentrated on beefing up OS/2 with connectivity-software
for their mainframe shops ("OS/2 extended edition") and sold OS/2 directly to
their customers. Microsoft took the OEM support in its hand. Unfortunately,
if a new OS/2 version was announced Microsoft's OEMs could release it in the
average only half a year after IBM, which led to a unfavorable situation to
those OEMs not really being able to compete with IBM, so they kept their
support as low as possible (in most cases it dropped to null). In addition
OS/2 was very buggy up to 1.21 and 1.3 and lacking up to those versions
the support of the most important printers. The planned release of 32bit
OS/2 would have had a new impact in the PC-arena, because it would be the
first version running on 386-architecture and just because of this it would
have been a sure success being the only earnest PC-contender.
Now in this situation Microsoft had a tremendeous success with Windows 3.0,
which is being controlled by Microsoft only and which beefs up Microsoft
pockets only (remember Windows was there since 1985 and a lame duck until
1990 when version 3.0) appeared. Before the release of Windows 3.0 (where
it was not clear whether it would be a big success or not) Mr. Gates and
Microsoft all of a sudden started to talk about an OS/2 version 3.0 (at that
time version 1.3 was not on the market and no publicly announced specs for
version 2.0 were announced !!!) dubbed "NT" - new technology. This was
clearly done by Microsoft to offset a possible contender to Windows 3.0 -
OS/2 1.3 ("OS/2 light"). So, Microsoft projected that on the OS/2 side all
versions would be of "old technology", because only OS/2 version 3.0 would
be of "new technology", a version of which it was clear that it would not
be available for years !
Excellent from Microsoft's marketing point of view. Disastreous, if one
looks at it from an ethics point of view. The alleged future was all of
a sudden turned into "old technology", all statements about OS/2 being the
road to the future by Microsoft were in reality wiped out in the beginning
of 1990. Thereafter, Microsoft did everything possible to become the only
player in PC-operating systems by confusing the market in respect to OS/2.
In April 91 when IBM announced the features 32bit OS/2 would have regarding
DOS and ***Windows*** apps, they said "it can't be done". Now the company
which wrote Windows told people it cannot be done on which one has to rely
because everyone knows that Microsoft is a good company. Later in the summer,
when they saw it could be done they started to drop any support for OS/2
stepwise (e.g. pulling Word4PM, declaring no future apps of Microsoft will
be ported to OS/2 knowing that most of the people are using Microsoft apps,
pulling the support for OS/2 developper !!!).
In the meantime Windows 3.1 was postponed again to the same date 32bit
OS/2 will hit the market. Now Windows 3.1 was supposed to come a couple
of months after Windows 3.0 hit the market (i.e. 1990 !), then it was post-
poned to the middle of 1991, then to the end of 1991 and now (what a
coincidence) it will hit the market end of March 1992. Clearly, this is
another attempt by Microsoft to keep the customers unsecure, because
Microsoft tries to state that 32bit OS/2 cannot possibly support Win3.1
features (attempting to project again that OS/2 is a little outdated).
It's an old marketing strategy to fight a contender by insecuring the
market, so customers get into the waiting room.
Jeff, the next thing which makes me angry, is the "angel's"
role or "virgin" role Microsoft employees try to fill sometimes. The
message on an emotional basis is "hey, we are no bad guys, we do every-
thing which is good for you, we cannot do anything against other bad
influences, you are misunderstanding us, ...". Basically, disinformation
is the key in order to unsecure the market, in order to offset 32bit OS/2.
(E.g. "32bit OS/2 is not a true 32bit operating system, the kernel is
written on 16bit only" - official Microsoft statement in October 1991 at
the OS/2 user group meeting...).
Now, do not get me wrong. I do not want to generalize in that every
Microsoft employee is "bad" or whatever. I think Microsoft has excellent
employees. At the moment I just am offended by Microsoft politics: One
as a customer cannot rely on Microsoft statements, Microsoft has no
long-term-strategies, Microsoft tries to insecure customers with politics
which I regard unfair and unethical. Microsoft allegedly uses non-documented
Windows-APIs for their apps, which give MS apps an unfair advantage to
contenders in that area too (Jeff, no one so far at Microsoft was able
to stand up and declare officially that that would not be true!).
Jeff, if we were talking about technology, comparing DOS/Windows to OS/2,
both of us would agree that OS/2 version 1.3 is superior to Windows 3.0.
Talking about 32bit OS/2 hitting March 92 the market the same time Win3.1
does, both of us would agree that 32bit OS/2 beats the shit out of Windows
in any respects. The APIs in Win3.1 not present in 32bit OS/2 by then (if
any) will be there, if needed by applications exploiting those APIs (OLE
is operable already in 6.167F OS/2 !).
Regarding NT. It is marketed to be a server system developped by Microsoft
and IBM, now primarily developped by Microsoft. To my knowledge there is
one IBM team at your place working on it too. Now, at least Microsoft in
Germany tells the press it will arrive in the mid 92, but it is more likely
at the end of 92. It will run not on home-PCs but on high-end servers.
Users have the choice of Win3.1 or 32bit OS/2 for their home PCs. Knowing
both betas, it is a question of marketing whether by then DOS/Windows
is substituted by 32bit OS/2 or not. DOS-users with 386 machines surely
will migrate to 32bit OS/2.
At this moment we could proceed to speculate the impact of 32bit OS/2 on the
market further (on apps side, on Microsoft apps-contenders etc.). We could
discuss the future developments of 32bit OS/2 (portability to other platforms,
C2 security, etc.).
---rony
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mike Kretzer)
Subject: OS2YOU 2.51 SZ.CMD fix
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 19:12:40 GMT
Kevin Lowey says:
Hi,
A person reported to me that the file SZ.CMD in the latest OS2YOU
release (2.51) was screwed up. I contacted the author and notified
him of this. He believes the HPFS sparse allocation error hit him,
and apologises for the problem. He then sent the following correct
version of the file.
Below is the correct SZ.CMD file:
========================= cut here ================================
@echo off
if not exist %1 goto err
M2Zmodem -f 1 -h -s %1
goto end
:err
ECHO No files to transfer
:end
======================== cut here ================================
Before you flame me for the recent problems in OS2YOU 2.51, please
keep in mind that I only pass it on. I didn't write it. #8-)
-Kevin Lowey
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Kunzman <jim@tct.uucp>
Subject: Re: OS/2 is secure?
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1991 15:28:46 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL
According to mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green):
>In article <1991Dec13.151909.4337@njitgw.njit.edu>
>dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>>In article <1991Dec12.221807.12579@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
>>mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green) writes:
>>>
>>>Sounds good to me, but....
>>>When will OS/2 have file protection by user and group?
>>>When will OS/2 have login capability?
>>>
>>>This is required for real security!
>>
>>Not unless someone at IBM decides that OS/2 should be a multi-user
>>system. Right now, it is single-user, multi-programming. The
>>protection and login abilities you speak of aren't needed unless
>>you have multiple users accessing the system at once.
>>
>>By the way, if you're on a LAN, file servers do have protection by
>>user and group with login capability. Either Novell servers (not
>>really OS/2) or LAN-Manager servers (which are OS/2 workstations
>>with some extra software running in the background) can be used.
>
>This is fine for big businesses, but hardly for a typical family setup.
>I have often heard users of Windows 3.0 complaining that it is too easy for
>their 3 year old to use this computer. While this shows how easy a GUI is
>to use, their children are constantly changing environment settings, and have
>them worried that they will soon begin deleting files as quickly as they can
>shout "No!" I don't think that locking the computer is the best solution.
>The children should have access to their own environment and their own files,
>but should be denied access to their parents'! This would solve the problem,
>once and for all. Why shouldn't I be able to run one environment for myself,
>and another for friends, whom I don't want messing with anything they didn't
>make themselves? Don't tell me I need two OS/2 partitions to accomplish this;
>I am not that rich! At the very least, how about an option or "init" that
>disallows changing system settings, and another that disallows deleting files,
>unless the password is known?
>
> * * * * * * ================== Internet mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
>* * * * * * * = Meir I. Green == or Internet mig@asteroids.cs.columbia.edu
> * * * * * * ================== UUCP Bang! ...rutgers!columbia!cunixb!mig
>* * * * * * * ================== Amateur Radio N2JPG@W2XO.PA.USA.NOAM
Many recent posts have stated that OS/2 should provide security for users.
I would like to make a few comments:
1. IBM has stated publicly that OS/2 will have C2 security in a
future release.
2. IBM has also stated publicly their intention to provide POSIX
compliance in a future OS/2 release.
3. Anyone who believes that their is such a thing as a low cost,
low effort security system that cannot be easily broken does
not understand security.
4. Physical security (removable media) is the best way to provide
security, but with dedication and lots of money even this
security can be broken unless all emissions from the computer
are reduced below background noise levels. Of course distance
rules also apply here.
5. In absence of 4, use a network server with mountable file
systems and don't store sensitive files on local machines.
Still, anyone with root access can access your sensitive
files (I believe this will change under POSIX.).
6. For home systems, use item 4 if you require security until
IBM provides C2.
7. Any dedicated cracker can probably penetrate a low-cost
network (Ethernet Arcnet, etc.) unless some form of
hardware/software encryption/decryption method is used.
The amount of effort required is not very great.
8. In spite of 7, many large companies are moving toward
diskless workstations or diskfull workstations that only
store non-sensitive files. All sensitive files are stored
on central servers. Sun Microsystems is an example.
9. If all you want to do is guard against accidental file erasure,
then get a backup system. They are reasonably priced (e.g.
street price under $200 for an Irwin system) and an absolute
requirement for all systems -- even DOS users. Remember, the
Norton Utilities do nothing for broken drives!
10. There are no easy solutions to the security problem. Each
system has unique requirements, and practically all known
security systems are vulnerable in one or more ways. The
only thing you can do is make the effort required to
penetrate your system not worth the effort.
Yes, OS/2 needs better security. IBM and Microsoft have both pledged security
features for OS/2 and Windows NT respectively. But that does not mean that
that either system will not provide security from the dedicated cracker.
The best you can do is make it more difficult to penetrate.
--
Jim Kunzman at Teltronics/TCT <jim@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!jim>
Running DOS/Windows on an Intel 80386 is like racing a dragster
fitted with emission control equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier)
Subject: Update on OS/2 Magazine
Date: 20 Dec 91 21:04:09 GMT
Organization: Cray Research, inc
I just finished talking to Joel Siragher who is starting a new OS/2
publication. He is looking at a 1/22/91 release date (1 week delay).
We discussed the layout and the front cover. Interesting highlights:
- Cover will be color!
- The articles are turning out to be programming oriented.
- The columns are not programming oriented.
I won't tell you what the cover looks like. It is very very appropriate and I
can hardly wait to get my copy!
I sent in my column (Watching OS/2).
Again, I encourage you to risk $36.00/year and get a subscription!
JDS Publishing
c/o Joel Siragher
P.O. Box 4351
Highland Park, NJ 08904
Bert Moshier
MN OS/2 End-user Group
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Can't run DOS under 6.149!
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views,
not necessarily those of IBM
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1991 18:02:46 GMT
In <29808@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> lairdkb@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird)
writes:
> I thought I'd demo OS/2 v 2.0 Beta 6.149 on my Dell laptop (16MHz 386SX,
> 4/40MB)
> after OS/2 1.3 trashed the partition (grrr!). So far, I have been unable to
> use command.com in any form (window/fullscreen). I've turned off everything I
> can in the DOS Options, but no changes - EXCEPT when I exclude the region
> FFFFFFFF.
Try not loading DOS high. I.e., if your CONFIG.SYS contains
DOS=HIGH,UMB
change it to
DOS=LOW,NOUMB
Do the same for the DOS Properties of the VDM you're trying to open.
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI at YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier)
Subject: Re: OS/2 and STACKER?
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 25 Dec 91 13:38:39 CST
In article <1991Dec23.110857.1@qis.dofasco.ca>
collis_m@qis.dofasco.ca (Mark Collis) writes:
>One question that I've yet to have heard anything about...
>
>I'm currently running Stacker on my DOS system right now (it's cheaper than
>a new hard drive). I know that DR.DOS 6.0 has a form of data compression
>built into the OS, and I was wondering if OS/2 2.0 has used this as well.
>
>The basic question is if anyone knows if the Stacker Compression Card will
>work under OS/2 and if I'll even need it. If not, my old 80 meg is history,
>and a 200+meg hard drive will have to be added to my wish list.
>
> Mark
>
The Fall '92 release of OS/2 (this will be the ** second ** '92 release) will
have a data compression feature built into the kernel.
The Stacker Compression Card will not work for the OS/2 boot disk nor for disks
containing OS/2 data. I believe you can use it in a DOS session to access a
DOS only drive. I could be wrong but I kind of remember reading this was
possible. I strongly suggest you contact the Stacker company and put in your
request for OS/2 2.0 support.
Bert Moshier
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mike Kretzer)
Subject: The comp.binaries.os2 archive site is back!
Date: 26 Dec 91 20:57:22 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
The new official comp.binaries.os2 archive site is hobbes.nmsu.edu. We
are still in need of an east coast OS/2 site, but comp.binaries.os2 archives
will be kept at hobbes.nmsu.edu.
We intend not only to archive comp.binaries.os2 posts, but also mirror
binaries available from novell.com and other OS/2 sites. Also, the
OS/2 FAQ is available from the /pub/os2/faq directory.
It will take some time to transfer the software from the old archive
site, but look forward to seeing all the old favoriates and the new
Fernwood archives at hobbes.nmsu.edu in the upcoming weeks...
--Your comp.binaries.os2 moderator
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ccmk@lure.latrobe.edu.au
Subject: Re: FYI: Letter to editor
Date: 28 Dec 91 09:21:41 GMT
Organization: VAX Cluster, Computer Centre, La Trobe University
In article <1991Dec27.121745.13343@hemlock.cray.com>,
bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier) writes:
> In article <1991Dec27.153339.20792@macc.wisc.edu>
>dinda@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Peter A. Dinda - MIC@MACC - 608/263/7744) writs:
>>In article <1991Dec26.120038.29014@hemlock.cray.com>,
>>bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier) writes...
>>>My grapevine says IBM will have two OS/2 releases in 1992. The second
>>>release (Fall '92, OS/2 2.1) will include over a dozen new features.
>>>These new features will include:
>>>
>>> OS/2 end-users being able to run Macintosh software seamlessly on
>>> the Workplace Shell.
>>>...
>>
>>Bert,
>>
>> Where did you hear this "Mac software in WPS" rumour? Unless you're
>>talking about supporting the Mac API and therefore supporting recompiled
>>Mac programs, I think you've been hearing some misinformation. Even with
>>regard to supporting the Mac API and GUI, this will be a POWER-PC capability,
>>not, to the best of my knowledge, an OS/2 capability. The rest of your
>>rumours look plausible.
> Peter:
>
> I heard about this from an IBM customer who just returned from a private
> Boca briefing. He was very specific about the release time frame and that
> it was part of OS/2.
>
> I forgot to asking him about implementation. I have a phone call into
> several IBMers on this feature's implementation. My guess is:
>
> A) Mac emulator - not likely
> B) Coprocessor board - possible
> C) X-Windows like implmentation - possible
I have had IBM people talk to me about Mac emulation on an IBM PS/2
for a few years now. In all cases it was by using a bus-master
board with a 68000 and Mac ROM. This is not to say this is how it'll
be done regarding Bert's info, just that IBM have definitely being
doing it this way for a while as a "demonstration of technology". Given
this info, it is possible Mac programs might be able to run in a PM
window in the way the Motion card does now in a PM window. Even
cut and paste would be possible using existing technology. However,
perhaps they'll perfect sharing of clipboards/files/etc. Certainly
the HPFS file system could handle resource/data forks, icons, file types
and almost all file names combinations.
Dr Mark Kosten, phone: +61 3 479-1500
Computer Centre, AARNet (internet): ccmk@lure.latrobe.edu.au
La Trobe University,
Bundoora, 3083
Australia
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald)
Subject: Re: Workplace Shell = OS/2 Death
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1991 21:31:34 GMT
In article <1991Dec30.183800.29434@watson.ibm.com>
dwl@watson.ibm.com (David W. Levine) writes:
>You will find a lot of your hopes answered in the next WPS you see.
>There is a "Minimized icon viewer" which can be turned on to show you
>the active programs. You can also have them show up on the desktop. (Marked
>visually to show them as different from program launching icons.
>
>For what it's worth, a lot of your concerns have been discussed by
>internal testers. These concerns are being looked at by the folks who
>work with the workplace shell. Keep posting them, they are being passed on
>to people who can do things about them.
>
> - David
Yes, but form what we have seen posted, the "folks who work with the workplace
shell" have litte if any say about what the use interface looks like.
That is determined by their superiors at IBM who, apparently, so
not care about anything outside IBM (like customers or possible customers).
A similar case was given where these types of people vetoed good looking
icons in favor of dull drab ones, to match the IBM corporate profile.
Doug McDonald
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier)
Subject: 6.177h (AKA LA version) makes year-end!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Date: 30 Dec 91 22:13:33 GMT
Organization: Cray Research, inc
I just talked to my System Engineer and he has a copy of 6.177h (AKA LA
version) coming. It should be in my hands on 12/31/91!
THIS SAYS THAT IBM IS KEEPING THEIR ANNOUNCED PROMISES! Please note I
used the word announced. Lee Reiswig's word on getting OS/2 completely
out by year end were aways qualified words. He says that he was not making
an official announcement and that these dates are internal targets.
6.177h (AKA LA version) comes on 20 disks. What do you expect after all it
is DOS, Windows, Adobe Type Manager, REXX, hypertext help, OS/2 1.3,
applications (monthly planner, charting, drawing, tune editor, PM editor, etc),
games (32 bit Chess, solitary, tetris, etc), includes Windows applications,
etc?
Extended Services comes on 12 disks (4 Database Manager).
Bert Moshier
Cray Research, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier)
Subject: Re: XGA Driver
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 2 Jan 92 12:20:24 CST
In article <19920102091026vdhart@isil02.isi.kfa-juelich.de>
vdhart@isil02.isi.kfa-juelich.de (andre van der hart) writes:
>Hi OS/2 Fans
>I am new in this group, however I read the news already for a long time.
>I have a IBM PS/2 Model 95 with a build-in XGA adapter.
>When I install the OS/2 2.0 6.167 version the installation programm recognizes
>the XGA adapter, but the operating system uses it only in VGA mode.
>Does somewhere exist a XGA driver with the 1024x768 resolution and the 256
>colors?
>Thanks in advance.
6.177h (AKA the LA version) supports XGA in with 16 bit PM code. The GA version
will have all new XGA 32 bit drivers written for the new 32 bit PM code.
Bert Moshier
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel)
Subject: Re: Full Screen Graphics?
Organization: Polygen Corporation, Waltham, MA
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1992 20:19:13 GMT
mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes:
>
>HAs anybody actually done it - run a VGA 640x480x16 color program
>that changes the color palette dynamically in a window on the PM
>desktop of a system with a 600x800 or 768x1024 super VGA screen?
>If it works, how slow is it?
>
No, but I have seen 320x200x256 color graphics (Wing Commander II) running
on my friend's OS/2 beta in a VGA window. That's right -- it was converting
the 256-color graphics to 16 colors ON THE FLY. Considering that, its
speed was not bad at all (on a 386/33)! Sound Blaster support was working,
too!
Can't wait for GA,
--
| JERRY J. SHEKHEL | POLYGEN CORPORATION | When I was young, I had to walk |
| Drummers do it... | Waltham, MA USA | to school and back every day -- |
| ... In rhythm! | (617) 890-2175 | 20 miles, uphill both ways. |
| ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry |
| jerry@polygen.com |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier)
Subject: IBM BBS OS/2 2.0 beta information (update)
Organization: Cray Research, inc
Date: 6 Jan 92 10:44:59 CST
FYI: This is the lastest information on the IBM BBS concerning their
making OS/2 2.0 (6.177h) available. I am simply copying this information.
Bert Moshier.
Beginning immediately, we are making available an additional but
limited number of licenses for the OS/2 EEP beta code. This version
will be the 6.177 version which is, essentially, EEP version 6f.167
with a number of fixes included which will make it easier for us to
support the additional number of copies. No additional function over
the 6f.167 version is included.
In addition, users who have previously ordered the OS/2 2.00 EEP code
from this BBS, and who have received version 6f.167, will receive
version 6.177 without further action required. Your credit card will
be charged for this shipment. If you do NOT wish to receive 6.177,
call 800-IBM-3040 and tell the operator that you are calling about the
Atlanta BBS beta program and that you do not wish to receive version
6.177. You have until about January 16th to do this.
The cost of the OS/2 Limited Availability code is about $85 for all,
whether ordering for the first time or if you already have a previous
version. When we have an exact price, which will depend upon the
number of diskettes, we will post it here.
We will provide limited support via the NSC BBS for this EEP program
as follows:
We will provide Conference 6, OS/2 2.00 (Beta), for you to report
problems with the OS/2 2.00 code and to ask questions. We will accept
reports of problems and send them to the OS/2 development group. We
will try on a best effort basis to answer your questions, but cannot
guarantee to answer any or all of them.
Your system must have a specific minimum configuration to work
properly with OS/2 2.00. You will need an Intel(R) 80386 or 80386SX
processor or higher. You will also need 4Mb or more of RAM, and a
hard drive of 60Mb or larger.
You must reside in the USA to be eligible for this EEP program.
TO ORDER:
Type OS/2 Beta at the command line and follow prompts to place your order.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Neat trick in OS/2 windoze
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views,
not necessarily those of IBM
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1992 21:43:36 GMT
In <1992Jan4.163932.20303@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
>
> In an OS/2 2.0 windows session, if you hold down f3 while typing 'win3'
> and then press back space, it calls up the screen with the names of all
> of the microsoft windows developers, just like it does in regualr windows.
In the beta versions, yes. In the LA version, no.
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
END OF OS/2 DISCUSSION FORUM 920101
***********************************
