Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
OS2 Discussion Forum Volume 9201 Issue 03
************************************************************************
OS/2 Discussion Forum Mon, January 20, 1992 Volume 9201 Issue 03
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
bug in 80386 processor
xxencode/xxdecode
Problem with kermit
Feed from the Usenet (UUCP/Internet) comp.os.os2.* newsgroups :
Re: OS2?Ha-ha!
Re: OS/2 Pt/2
os2?ha-ha!
Re: OS2?Ha-ha!
Re: OS2?Ha-ha!
Re: OS2?Ha-ha!
Re: 32-bit DeScribe
Re: OS2?Ha-ha!
Re: OS2?Ha-ha!
NETAPI.DLL for WINOS2
Re: Let's see you sell OS/2 2.0!!!!
OS/2 and Word Perfect for Windows
Re: CSD-5050 ???
At last CVP will work with 2.0!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Jan 20, 1992 12:00:00 +0100
From: Moderators 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
-------- -------- -------------------------------
PCMOU03 ZIPXXE Mouse Systems BUS Mouse driver
PHOENIX ZIPXXE Phoenix File Recovery Utility
PMFLI100 ZIPXXE Player for Autodesk Animator files
Some of the available files come in - what is called - a package. If
you request such package you will automatically receive all necessary
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: 1/17/92 @ 9:21 AM CST
From: Jimmy Dean <CSVCJLD@NNOMED>
Subject: bug in 80386 processor
Larry Margolis (<margoli@watson.IBM.com> writes
> There's a bug in the B1-step Intel 80386 that causes problems, so
> if you have this level processor, OS/2 disables the coprocessor. The
> problem is: When the B1 is used in 80386 mode (32 bits), with paging
> on, and with the coprocessor present, there may occur a microcode
> hang on FNINIT.
For what range of serial numbers does the PS/2 Model 80-41 have
this problem? Is there any way (other than installing OS/2 2.0) to see
if an 80386 has this problem? Where can one get an up-to-date 80386?
On another subject, I keep hearing OS/2 2.0 requires 60 megabytes
of disk space. Must the entire 60 megabytes reside on one drive?
Will two 44 megabyte drives suffice?
-- Jimmy Dean
CSVCJLD@NNOMED
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kh11@prism.gatech.edu (Ken Hall)
Subject: xxencode/xxdecode
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 14:07:52 EST
Does anyone have (or able to make) uuencoded versions of xxencode & xxdecode
for OS/2 that they can mail to me at this address?
Ken
+-------------------------------+
|Ken Hall - Department Manager |
|Financial Data Technology |
|Georgia Institute of Technology|
+-------------------------------+
| Voice: (404) 894-5559 |
| Beeper: (404) 651-0362 |
| FAX: (404) 894-5520 |
+-------------------------------+
|BITNET: GTRI01(KHALL) |
|Internet: kh11@hydra.gatech.edu|
+-------------------------------+
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1992 13:14 GMT +0100
From: Christoph Martin <MARTIN@VIPMZM.Physik.Uni-Mainz.de>
Subject: Problem with kermit
I have a problem using kermit with OS/2.
I downloaded CKO-kermit form BLEKUL11 and installed com01.sys on my
IBM-Compatible and com02.sys on an IBM PS/2. When I run cko I can't get
any connection. I've tried with OS/2 1.3 and 2.0 Beta. If I want to use
MS-Kermit in a DOS-Window with OS/2 2.0 there is the same problem.
The only posibility I habe is to use MS-Kermit in the Dos-Box with OS/2 1.3,
but there is no multitasking, so I can't work in another session while
transfering files. In the Dos-Box is the only place where the COM-drivers
of OS/2 are not used. I have to use the command SETCOM40 COM1=ON to
access the port directly.
What is the problem?
Christoph Martin, University Mainz, Germany
Internet: martin@vipmzm.physik.uni-mainz.de
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feed from the Usenet (UUCP/Internet) comp.os.os2.* newsgroups :
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rcain@netcom.COM (Robert Cain)
Subject: Re: OS2?Ha-ha!
Date: 19 Jan 92 06:14:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
i1neal@exnet.iastate.edu (Neal Rauhauser -- ) writes:
:
: Consider the RT. The RS/6000 is not the first risc machine from
: IBM. The original was killed in the marketing channels to protect
: the midrange clunkers ... which is why Sun Micro, etc ,etc exists
: today. Maybe OS/2 is threatening the midrnage line even as we
: speak :-)
:
Nonsense. The RT simply failed. It did not offer enough bang for the
buck (it was a reduced form of John Cockes germinal risc, the 801 (I guess
that makes it the very first rrisc)) and AIX wasn't yet very competitive.
They vowed not to make the same mistakes with the RS/6000 and judging from
its success I think they kept it. I was there on contract for the RS/6000
and talked with people like Randy Grove who had pivotal roles on both systems
(I think he runs the workstation show now.) so I know of what I speak. The
RS/6000 is a very good example of what IBM can do when it absolutely commits
itself. I see (and also experienced internally) that very same level of
commitment to OS/2.
--
Bob Cain rcain@netcom.com 408-358-2007
"Systems should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mmtl@hobson.cc.flinders.edu.au (T.Lampre)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Pt/2
Date: 20 Jan 92 00:33:29 GMT
Organization: Flinders University of South Australia
In article <1992Jan16.203529.174@vaxsar.vassar.edu>
hishimoda@vaxsar.vassar.edu writes:
>
>points. However, the fact remains that OS2 has a very weak user base; let's
>face it, the ratio between OS2 and Windows/DOS/Macintosh is bound to make
>any OS2-philes cringe. Furthermore, I still believe that OS/2 has been,
I've just returned from a months leave and probably missed a large
part of this thread but I think a small fact I learnt recently at a
Microsoft presentation might be of interest. At that presentation the
senior marketing manager for Windows showed a graph comparing the
relative market penetrations of DOS/Windows, OS/2 and the Macs. I was
surprised to see that OS/2 was marginally higher than the Apple
product. Does that mean that the Mac is a dead end because it hasn't
acheived the same success as DOS & Windows?
The point to look at is the type of user base. The Macs have been
targeted at a specific type of market (corporate/academic) and have
been very successful there. Only now are they trying to attack the
low-end 'home user' sector, where DOS reigns supreme. Sheer numbers
don't neccessarily mean anything without looking at their sources.
Small and 'weak' need not be synonyms.
In that light, OS/2 has had considerable success here in Australia.
Our national bank has a huge network of OS/2 based machines used for
their frontline operations (opening accounts, customer queries etc).
OS/2 was selected because of its user interface and because of its
robustness in a networked environment. This system was launched with
much fanfare as it is considered a world leader in its area.
Ironically, Bill Gates showed up at its launch to bask in the glory!
I don't like flame wars so I apologise for whatever abuse you received
even though your original post was a tad inflammatory. After a month
of 'playing' with the beta (I'm still waiting for some development
tools) I think OS/2 2.0 will be a success. Not the runaway train type
of success of Windows but big enough to inject some real interest and
competition back into the PC industry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "stephen dawson" <stephen.dawson@canrem.uucp>
Subject: os2?ha-ha!
Date: 19 Jan 92 07:01:38 EST
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
NR> Consider the RT. The RS/6000 is not the first risc machine from
NR>IBM. The original was killed in the marketing channels to protect
NR>the midrange clunkers ... which is why Sun Micro, etc ,etc exists
NR>today. Maybe OS/2 is threatening the midrnage line even as we
NR>speak :-)
NR>Point being: lots of money spent doesn't mean IBM is gonna keep it.
But with the recent "independence" that Personal Systems obtained,
the future is very bright! PS got OS/2 development.
To delay competition to the midrange, IBM made OS/2 start as 16 bit,
delayed 386 and 486 machines, and priced them at a premium level.
That seems to be changing. IBM has learned that the competition will
come from outside IBM, and if AS/400 sales are to be lost, it is
better to lose them to a PS/2 running OS/2, than a Compaq running
Windows.
It is desperate times for mini makers. Just ask Ken Olsen!
STEPHEN
^^^^^^^ :-)
Canada Remote Systems : stephen.dawson@canrem.uucp
Entered 01-19-92 at 6:26am in Downsview, Ontario
:DeLuxe2 1.12 #3969 * Why is "abbreviated" such a long word?
--
Canada Remote Systems. Toronto, Ontario
NorthAmeriNet Host
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gess@knex.Gwinnett.COM (Gess Shankar)
Subject: Re: OS2?Ha-ha!
Date: 20 Jan 92 01:54:42 GMT
Organization: Knowledge Exchange, GA
rcain@netcom.COM (Robert Cain) writes:
> i1neal@exnet.iastate.edu (Neal Rauhauser -- ) writes:
> :
> : Consider the RT. The RS/6000 is not the first risc machine from
> : IBM. The original was killed in the marketing channels to protect
> : the midrange clunkers ... which is why Sun Micro, etc ,etc exists
> : today. Maybe OS/2 is threatening the midrnage line even as we
> : speak :-)
> :
>
> Nonsense. The RT simply failed. It did not offer enough bang for the
> buck (it was a reduced form of John Cockes germinal risc, the 801 (I guess
> that makes it the very first rrisc)) and AIX wasn't yet very competitive.
> They vowed not to make the same mistakes with the RS/6000 and judging from
> its success I think they kept it. I was there on contract for the RS/6000
> and talked with people like Randy Grove who had pivotal roles on both systems
> (I think he runs the workstation show now.) so I know of what I speak. The
> RS/6000 is a very good example of what IBM can do when it absolutely commits
> itself. I see (and also experienced internally) that very same level of
> commitment to OS/2.
> --
The RT, PC Jr. and such failures were all hardware products and all
complete within the IBM domain. OS/2, however, is a software product and
an operating system to boot. (no pun intended). In the PC market place, IBM
has not been very strong as far as software is concerned. I would consider
the Desktop Software division a fairly successful operation. But the limited
success was not enough for IBM. Perhaps they expected DisplayWrite sales
to exceed WordPerfect's. But they pulled the plug.
With OS/2, they have to play the part of a software OEM, cajole clone makers,
be present in the retail market including discount operations and mail order
companies. I am not sure that IBM bureaucracy is upto this task, done with
great skill and ruthlessness by Micro$oft. If OS/2 ends up as niche product
used only by large corporations and a server only platform, it may
not be viewed as successful by IBM and tho' making enough dollars to make
other companies drool, IBM may still pull the plug on this one.
For broad-based success in the market place, OS/2 has to be available,
easy to buy, relatively easy to install on varied platforms, enough tools
available for developers, big and small, so that native mode applications
can proliferate. Can IBM meet this challenge ? Will IBM want to be successful
in this environment ? This is the commitment they have to make and keep.
I am impressed by the OS and the amount of work that has gone into it. But
I am not one bit impressed by IBM's performance in getting code to users
and developers. It is evident that the current distribution mechanism via
Hart Graphics is somewhat flawed. No one even seems to acknowledge that
there is a problem. LA version is supposed to be almost production code
and yet IBM is unable or unwilling to set up distribution. Beta testers
are being told that the cost of copying and shipping costs $140.00!! How
much is the GA release going to cost? Where are the margins? And if there
is no broadbased market, where is the volume? So the bean counters will
be busy again, sharpening pencils (or tuning up the spreadsheets)
I presume.
These are some of my concerns and the concern of many small developers,
who have to make hard choices. Developing a good product is one thing, but
making it a market success is another.
GeSS
--
Gess Shankar |<><>|Internet: gess@knex.Gwinnett.COM |<><>|
Knowledge Exchange|<><>|{rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!knex!gess|<><>|
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: azzarito@shark.cse.fau.edu (Doug Azzarito)
Subject: Re: OS2?Ha-ha!
Date: 21 Jan 92 15:43:15 GMT
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton
In article <1558@tuura.UUCP> risto@tuura.UUCP (Risto Lankinen) writes:
>The former(/current?) strategy of IBM has been to keep their mainframe
>systems *incompatible* with their competitors'
..
>Recently, the OS/2 has been at the edge of falling
>into this same category - no matter how technically excellent it could
>be made, it's still an IBM product (possibly running in a number of other
>'clone' computers, but guess what: running thru BIOS to keep the certain
>brand of computers seemingly more efficient... ).
What? OS/2, running through BIOS? Re-check your facts PLEASE! OS/2 runs in
protect mode and often in 32-bit flat mode. No BIOS I've ever seen can
survive there. The only thing BIOS does for OS/2 is help get it off the disk,
then OS/2 takes over.
(But IBM reads the BIOS, detects a clone, and SLOWS DOWN OS/2, right?) ;-)
Regards,
Doug Azzarito
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: risto@tuura.UUCP (Risto Lankinen)
Subject: Re: OS2?Ha-ha!
Date: 23 Jan 92 08:07:49 GMT
Organization: ICL Data Oy
azzarito@shark.cse.fau.edu (Doug Azzarito) writes:
>I myself (Risto) wrote:
>>(possibly running in a number of other
>>'clone' computers, but guess what: running thru BIOS to keep the certain
>>brand of computers seemingly more efficient... ).
>What? OS/2, running through BIOS? Re-check your facts PLEASE!
Hi!
I did. I've got a SCSI HD in my system, which will have to be run thru BIOS.
I never told it would run thru BIOS in every imaginable computer; only those
for which IBM (as the manufacturer of OS/2) has no commercial interest to.
>OS/2 runs in protect mode and often in 32-bit flat mode. No BIOS I've ever
>seen can survive there.
The keyword here is the 'often'. Significant parts of the OS/2 base modules
still seem to be 16-bit code. So it doesn't make much difference, whether
the 16-bit call is made to an OS/2 module or to a BIOS routine, now does it?
In fact, just to have *one* 16-bit call, then all of the thunk mechanism is
going to have to be implemented. Why not use it more than in one occasion,
then? (Besides, OS/2 will have it as long as it supports DOS - how else
can you provide BIOS compatibility for the DOS apps than with 16-bit code?)
>The only thing BIOS does for OS/2 is help get it off the disk, then OS/2
>takes over. (But IBM reads the BIOS, detects a clone, and SLOWS DOWN OS/2,
>right?) ;-)
Not far from what I had in mind. What would you do to boost the hardware
sales in a similar position? ;->
Seriously, I don't think IBM will have much interest to any other devices
but those they're manufacturing or using in their PS-line of computers.
Yes, they've made a 'generic' disk driver (that I have to use for SCSI),
but isn't there some sort of alliance among a number of computer makers,
that obliges IBM to do so. Then, what would be simpler to do than use
what each of those have in common: the BIOS .
You could also argue, that it is each manufacturer's own headache to make
OS/2 drivers for their hardware. True, yes, but that would lead to a
similar instability than with Windows 3.0, where most of the UAE problems
are due to either buggy drivers/applications or an incompatible combinat-
ion of a number of either/both.
Terveisin: Risto Lankinen
This article represents my own opinions; any resemblance to a policy of
an existing company (including my employer) is, at most, coincidental.
--
Risto Lankinen / risto@tuura.icl.fi ***************************************
PC product specialist / ICL Data Oy * 1 2 *
WARNING!!! Your terminal will self- * 2 +1 is PRIME! Now working on 2 +1 *
destruct in one point zero seconds. ***************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: fealon@nadia.stgt.sub.org (Frank Fuchs)
Subject: Re: 32-bit DeScribe
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1992 16:19:35 GMT
Organization: Foxware Systemhaus GmbH
In article <1992Jan21.110043.2510@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE>
rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes:
>In article <1992Jan20.184350.6734@sfu.ca>
itreleav@fraser.sfu.ca (Ian Anthony Treleaven) writes:
>>Has anyone had problems running the 32-bit DeScribe preview/demo for
>>OS/2 2.0? I got it from hobbes.nmsu.edu - a great collection BTW.
>>I'm running 6.177H, so maybe the EXE format has changed. It shows up
>>when I run pstat /c, but it doesn't make it to the Window list.
>
>Same for me. Not even the installation ran. I had to installk it under
>1.3 and the try it under 2.0. I don't think that the EXE format changed.
>
>Kai Uwe Rommel
>
The .exe format didn't change from 167 to 177.
I have to say a few things about DeScribe, however:
After reading this newsgroups proposal for DeScribe as OS/2 Word
Publisher and not being happy with Word for Windows 1.1a (esp.
graphics support) I bought DeScribe 3.0. First looks: fine.
But then: DeScribe is very unstable. I can bring it down in many ways,
all of them reproducable. Although it is very good at graphics, it lacks
certain import/export features, e.g. Word for Windows (it does only
Word 5.0) and AmiPro.
We wanted to convert our seminar papers to the new DeScribe.
I canceled it because of the instability of DeScribe.
TO THE BETA TESTERS OF 32bit DESCRIBE: TEST IT (and I mean TEST).
Hopefully, this version will be more usable and our money invested
correctly (we got a full upgrade to the 32bit version included in our
license of DeScribe 3.0).
What we use currently? You got it: WinWord
(and this from a company that does 90% of the business with OS/2)
P.S.: don't propose TeX, we use it already, but not for the seminars and
not in secretary work.
-- Frank
--
Frank Fuchs (Foxware Systemhaus GmbH), fealon@fealon.stgt.sub.org
-- Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature to join in! --
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rafetmad@cheshire.oxy.edu (David R. Giller)
Subject: Re: OS2?Ha-ha!
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1992 20:37:49 GMT
In article <1992Jan23.192525.4781@rice.edu>
steverod@owlnet.rice.edu (Steven Harold Rodrigues) writes:
>In article <1564@tuura.UUCP> risto@tuura.UUCP (Risto Lankinen) writes:
>>azzarito@shark.cse.fau.edu (Doug Azzarito) writes:
>
>>I did. I've got a SCSI HD in my system, which will have to be run thru BIOS.
>>I never told it would run thru BIOS in every imaginable computer; only those
>>for which IBM (as the manufacturer of OS/2) has no commercial interest to.
How did you determine this?
>>>OS/2 runs in protect mode and often in 32-bit flat mode. No BIOS I've ever
>>>seen can survive there.
>>
>>The keyword here is the 'often'. Significant parts of the OS/2 base modules
>>still seem to be 16-bit code. So it doesn't make much difference, whether
[...]
>Whether it is 16-bit or 32-bit code is irrelevant; the problem is that the
>BIOS is (usually) non-reentrant(IBM's ABIOS for its PS/2's is an exception;
>are there any others?), and this spells doom for a good multitasking system,
>at least as far as I understand things.
>As for supporting DOS, it seems like it would just hook the appropriate
>interrupt vectors, and not touch the BIOS even then.
Yes, this is the point. Almost every SCSI drive I've seen is controlled by
some kind of memory mapping, port control, etc, NOT by the BIOS. The
adaptors that DO have a BIOS (some have none at all) use it to fool DOS
into thinking that the drive is MFM or IDE. In the case of many boards,
you can simply unplug the BIOS, and if you have a real driver for the board,
then it makes no difference except to make the system boot faster. This is
why SCSI support under OS/2 has been so spotty: eash developer has had
to develop its own block driver for OS/2: not an easy task. With the
generic support, now the developers just have to customize, or conform
to a few basic standards.
>>>The only thing BIOS does for OS/2 is help get it off the disk, then OS/2
>>>takes over. (But IBM reads the BIOS, detects a clone, and SLOWS DOWN OS/2,
>>>right?) ;-)
>>
>>Not far from what I had in mind. What would you do to boost the hardware
>>sales in a similar position? ;->
Oh, come on. If this were the case, why would IBM even bother to work with
other companies to get OS/2 working on generic clones?
The simple fact that vestiges of specific support for EISA bus existed in
OS/2 1.3 blows this conspiracy theory out of the water.
>True, the PS/2's have a BIOS that *can* be used in a protected-mode OS. No
>one ever stopped any other manufacturers from writing one; why shouldn't
>OS/2 be allowed to take advantage of the hardware as best it can? While
>we're at it, does this mean that since the XGA has a coprocessor that OS/2's
>video drivers can take advantage of, IBM shouldn't do it, 'because it wouldn't
>be fair'?
This is the exact point. The only way IBM will be able to succeed is if it
can prove that it doesn't need to cheat to have the best packages available
for particular installations. Integration and compatibility with existing
and future clones can only HELP IBM.
>Crippling a software product when run on other machines than your own is
>Bad, true. But allowing it to use features that you designed in is. You
>should be allowed to benefit from your 'foresight'. ^^
Sorry, but 'is' what?
>>You could also argue, that it is each manufacturer's own headache to make
>>OS/2 drivers for their hardware. True, yes, but that would lead to a
>>similar instability than with Windows 3.0, where most of the UAE problems
>>are due to either buggy drivers/applications or an incompatible combinat-
>>ion of a number of either/both.
No, I think, having dealt with Windows drivers, that the problems lie primarily
in the kernel.
>IBM should provide generic drivers that work well for anything. But asking them
>to write drivers that take advantage of all the neato-keen, gee-whiz features
>that attracted you to your chosen peripheral is too much.
Precisely.
>>This article represents my own opinions; any resemblance to a policy of
>>an existing company (including my employer) is, at most, coincidental.
Ditto.
-Dave
--
David Giller, box 134 ---------------------------------- rafetmad@cub.oxy.edu
Occidental College
1600 Campus Road <This space intentionally left blank>
Los Angeles, CA 90041 -------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: OS2?Ha-ha!
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1992 20:55:38 GMT
In article <1564@tuura.UUCP> risto@tuura.UUCP (Risto Lankinen) writes:
>azzarito@shark.cse.fau.edu (Doug Azzarito) writes:
>>What? OS/2, running through BIOS? Re-check your facts PLEASE!
>I did. I've got a SCSI HD in my system, which will have to be run thru BIOS.
>I never told it would run thru BIOS in every imaginable computer; only those
>for which IBM (as the manufacturer of OS/2) has no commercial interest to.
Risto:
OS/2 (starting with version 1.0), after booting, never touches the
BIOS on non-PS/2 machines. The BIOS is irrelevant. Why? The BIOS
was written for real mode. OS/2 operates in protected mode (unless
using the DOS box, in which case DOS programs have access to the
BIOS). (It gets a bit more complicated with OS/2 2.0. Basically OS/2
2.0 virtualizes the real mode BIOS in your machine for the use of DOS
programs. But OS/2 itself doesn't use the BIOS.)
What's different about PS/2s? They use ABIOS, a protected mode BIOS.
The code happens to reside on ROM. Otherwise there's really no
difference. OS/2 needs a device driver for everything in your system.
SCSI adapter/disk, video, keyboard, parallel port, serial port, mouse
.. you name it. These drivers come on OS/2's disks; some drivers
already reside on PS/2 ROMs. You don't perceive any differences
because it isn't particularly relevent where the code is executing.
(In fact, ROM can be slower than RAM for technical reasons, which is
why you have so-called shadowing of ROM, but I digress.)
>>OS/2 runs in protect mode and often in 32-bit flat mode. No BIOS I've ever
>>seen can survive there.
>The keyword here is the 'often'. Significant parts of the OS/2 base modules
>still seem to be 16-bit code. So it doesn't make much difference, whether
>the 16-bit call is made to an OS/2 module or to a BIOS routine, now does it?
>In fact, just to have *one* 16-bit call, then all of the thunk mechanism is
>going to have to be implemented. Why not use it more than in one occasion,
>then? (Besides, OS/2 will have it as long as it supports DOS - how else
>can you provide BIOS compatibility for the DOS apps than with 16-bit code?)
The key difference here is real mode v. protected mode. BIOS is a
real mode creature. DOS programs running under OS/2 in virtual
machines (each of which emulates an 8086 in real mode) can access the
(virtualized) BIOS, but, to reiterate, OS/2 itself operates in
protected mode and, thus, needs device drivers to bypass the BIOS in
every instance. Under OS/2 2.0 you can have DOS-only support for a
device (e.g. a specialized sound card), in which case all your DOS
programs can access the device but OS/2 programs can't. But again I
digress.
>>The only thing BIOS does for OS/2 is help get it off the disk, then OS/2
>>takes over. (But IBM reads the BIOS, detects a clone, and SLOWS DOWN OS/2,
>>right?) ;-)
>Not far from what I had in mind. What would you do to boost the hardware
>sales in a similar position? ;->
Just like Detroit (which sells "Chevies" made in Japan), IBM has
diversified well beyond any simple distinctions. They OEM memory,
disk drives, operating systems (e.g. OS/2), printers, modems, bus
designs, consulting, system maintenance, data processing services,
etc., etc. The PC market is too diverse for one single vendor to ever
control. Thus it is in IBM's best interests to at least get one sale
(OS/2) where possible. Also, IBM's own hardware customers benefit
when there's a wide selection of applications, so IBM is promoting
OS/2 as the industry standard "integrating platform."
No operating system vendor is entirely "clean," however. For example,
Microsoft is already in the applications business (it should not be
surprising to you that the top selling Windows applications by far
come from Redmond) and seriously influencing hardware (MSX, ACE,
Intel, etc).
>Seriously, I don't think IBM will have much interest to any other devices
>but those they're manufacturing or using in their PS-line of computers.
>Yes, they've made a 'generic' disk driver (that I have to use for SCSI),
>but isn't there some sort of alliance among a number of computer makers,
>that obliges IBM to do so. Then, what would be simpler to do than use
>what each of those have in common: the BIOS .
Unless a protected mode BIOS standard emerges some day soon (as IBM
tried to do with ABIOS -- funny how five years later we're all
complaining about device driver problems, isn't it?) (don't hold your
breath), every new operating system (even Windows 3.0 today, to a
large extent) will require a zillion device drivers. Windows NT,
NeXTStep, Solaris, etc., etc., will all require foobar driver for
foobar adapter.
>You could also argue, that it is each manufacturer's own headache to make
>OS/2 drivers for their hardware. True, yes, but that would lead to a
>similar instability than with Windows 3.0, where most of the UAE problems
>are due to either buggy drivers/applications or an incompatible combinat-
>ion of a number of either/both.
Which is why you're almost never buying just hardware (unless it's a
surge protector or something). If you buy a display or disk adapter
you now better (a) make darn sure the driver support is there and
solid for whatever you want to run with; (b) the manufacturer will be
around to support you in the event that something new comes along or
some new problem arises. Doesn't matter what you want to run, be it
DOS (getting increasingly hardware intolerant), Windows, OS/2,
NeXTStep, Solaris, GNU, Unix, or whatever.
Windows already bypasses your BIOS for your display, printer (by
default), serial ports, mouse, keyboard, and perhaps other devices.
It switches into real mode (or a virtual machine) to execute DOS code
and BIOS code (resulting in a substantial slowdown, to say the least).
Microsoft is getting ready to release one new device driver with its
Windows 3.1 to bypass the BIOS even in this area (for Western
Digital-standard MFM, IDE, ESDI, RLL hard disk adapters; i.e. you'll
be left out as an SCSI owner). Perhaps you'll want to consider an
operating system which _doesn't_ rely on the BIOS and will support
your SCSI adapter (Adaptec, Western Digital, ...) out of the box?
In any event, the technical details are a little boring. What you
should bear in mind is the following. Always keep an open mind about
the way you work (e.g. in using a computer). Spend a little time
keeping abreast of developments. Don't get technology for
technology's sake. On the other hand, this industry is moving so fast
that you have to take anyone's promises of future developments with a
ton of salt. Go with what works, and gain first hand experience to
determine what works for you based on personal experience.
In the particular, try OS/2 2.0 in April. Spend some time with it
(using, say, a store machine). Throw whatever you can at it. Try
Windows 3.1 for DOS when it comes out. Which reacts better to the way
you use computers? Which lets you get more work done? Which demands
more time in administration? Which gives you better telephone
support, and on whose dime, should you have a problem? Which helps
prevent those calls in the first place? Which has a support BBS for
news, programs, and tips? Which runs more applications? Which
contains more useful applets? Which company releases bug fixes in
timely fashion, and how difficult are they to get? Which has a
history of free upgrades?
Anyway, apologies for the sermon. Back to discussions re: OS/2
applications.
--
Timothy F. Sipples Keeper of the OS/2 Frequently Asked Questions
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu List, available via anonymous ftp from
Dept. of Economics 130.57.4.1, directory os2/faq, or via netmail
Univ. of Chicago 60637 from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization: K.U.Leuven - Academic Computing Center
Date: Friday, 24 Jan 1992 09:25:08 +01
From: Dirk Rober <FDAAA12@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be>
Subject: NETAPI.DLL for WINOS2
I have the following problem with OS/2 v2 177 & LS 351 :
When I want to use a windows program (Excel Q+E, Object View, ...) that
tries to access my SQL Server the windows program asks for NETAPI.DLL.
The NETAPI.DLL file wich is in \MUGLIB does not work since the program
then can not find the SQL Server. If I use the NETAPI.DLL of DLR,
WINOS2 crashes. This problem has (IMHO) nothing to do with the network
drv file which is defined in the INI file. (Under WIN3 these programs
work if no network is defined in the INI file.)
May be I am doing something wrong ? Has somebody been able to access
SQL Server from WINOS2 ?
But it seems to me that IBM needs to supply a windows NETAPI.DLL which
would allow Windows programs under WINOS2 to access SQL Server.
NETAPI.DLL is normally suppied by the network software - So the file
should have been included in LS. (It is included for a 'normal' DOS
environment which uses DLR and WIN3.
Regards,
Dirk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund)
Subject: Re: Let's see you sell OS/2 2.0!!!!
Date: 17 Jan 92 13:24:38 GMT
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
In article <1992Jan16.223307.20816@midway.uchicago.edu>
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
>Lotus 1-2-3 is available for OS/2 (1-2-3/G). I utilizes
>multi-threading, which means that it can recalculate, run solver or do
>other things in the background while you are doing something else in
>the spreadsheet. It has just been released in an upgraded version 1.1,
>but I do not know what is new from the 1.0 version. 1.1 is written for
>16-bits OS/2, so it will run also on OS/2 1.3. Lotus will probably
>come with a major upgrade some time after GA of OS/2 2.0.
Olav:
Is 1-2-3/G 1.1 actually shipping? I know it was announced, but I
haven't heard anything further (and Lotus Sales, last I checked,
didn't know anything about it).
I happened that I talked with one of the Lotus distributors in Norway
about some other issues less than an hour before I read the questions
about spreadsheet. And I had just asked about the 1-2-3/G upgrade.
They said that they had just got information from Lotus, saying that
1.1 was released. He said it was a 16-bit OS/2 app, and that it do not
have the "Smart Icons" that you have in 1-2-3/W. He did not have it in
stock, and was not too specific about new features. He said that he
was expecting a major upgrade when OS/2 2.0 was released, but I think
that was his own speculations. He could also give me an upgrade price
from 1-2-3/g 1.0.
That is about all that I know. But it is based on information from a
Lotus distributor, who was referring official Lotus information, so I
guess it is true.
Olav Torvund
Oslo, Norway
Olavt@jus.uio.no
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: M.Vaughan@C
Subject: OS/2 and Word Perfect for Windows
Date: 17 Jan 92 17:31:37 GMT
Organization: International Purchasing Office and Dist. Center (IBM)
Folks, here is some information for your use:
---------------------------------------------------------
FURTHER DETAILS ON THE WORDPERFECT FIX IN THE OS/2 V2.0 LAP
DISTRIBUTION:
January 16, 1992
On page 25 of the 'OS/2 Limited Availability Product
Considerations' publication (Distributed with the OS/2 V2.0
Limited Availability Program), a patch procedure for
'WordPerfect for Windows' is defined. This corrects a known
problem running this product in an OS/2 V2.0 system.
The procedure suggests running:
FIXWP (path)WPWINFIL.EXE
Some users are having difficulty finding the FIXWP program.
If you installed OS/2 V2.0 on disk drive C:, FIXWP will be
at: C:\OS2\MDOS\WINOS2\SYSTEM\FIXWP.EXE
The module to be patched is WPWINFIL.EXE. To execute the
fix process, position a command prompt on your Wordperfect
directory containing the WPWINFIL.EXE program, then enter
the command:
C:\OS2\MDOS\WINOS2\SYSTEM\FIXWP.EXE WPWINFIL.EXE
FIXWP.EXE is a temporary fix and will allow you to run. For
a permanent fix from WordPerfect, we recommend you contact
their WordPerfect for Windows Customer Support line at
either of the 800- numbers noted in the publication. For
your convenience, those numbers are 1-800-228-6076 or
1-800-228-1029.
---------------------------------------------------------------
C. M. Vaughan
** All opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily represent **
** that of my employer. **
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wjb5106@rigel.tamu.edu (Walter Barnett)
Subject: Re: CSD-5050 ???
Date: 17 Jan 92 21:07:00 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University
In article <17JAN199212330065@rigel.tamu.edu>,
wjb5106@rigel.tamu.edu (Walter Barnett) writes...
>
>Has the 5050 CSD for OS/2 v1.3 been officially released or are the
>reports about it still coming from insiders?
>
I got many replies saying the CSD is now available.
Thanks.
Walter Barnett Aerospace Engineering Texas A&M University
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organisation: ECP-Paris France
Date: Sunday, 19 Jan 1992 21:33:15 EDT
From: Joel Armengaud <ARMENGAU@FRECP12.BITNET>
Subject: At last CVP will work with 2.0!
IBM has just released on Compuserve a new kernel for 6.177h,
to fix the problem with CVP. I haven't downloaded the file
because Compuserve is very expensive in Europe... But I am sure that
somebody will eventually do it, and post it on comp.binaries.os2 :)
-Joel Armengaud
------------------------------------------------------------------------
END OF OS/2 DISCUSSION FORUM 920103
***********************************
