Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
OS2 Discussion Forum Volume 9207 Issue 02 - Part II
From @pucc.Princeton.EDU:OS2@BLEKUL11.BITNET Fri Jul 17 08:59:12 1992
Received: by csd4.csd.uwm.edu; id AA16661; Fri, 17 Jul 92 08:57:59 -0500
Message-Id: <9207171357.AA16661@csd4.csd.uwm.edu>
Received: from FRMOP11.CNUSC.FR by pucc.Princeton.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
with BSMTP id 5731; Fri, 17 Jul 92 09:51:42 EDT
Received: from FRMOP11 by FRMOP11.CNUSC.FR (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 6948;
Fri, 17 Jul 92 15:49:03 GMT
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 92 15:43:34 +0200
Reply-To: "Moderated discussion forum on OS/2" <OS2%BLEKUL11.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Sender: "Moderated discussion forum on OS/2" <OS2%BLEKUL11.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
From: "Moderator of the OS/2 Discussion Forum" <OS2MOD%BLEKUL11.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Subject: OS/2 Discussion Forum 920702 - Part II
To: Multiple recipients of <OS2%BLEKUL11.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Status: OR
OS/2 DISCUSSION FORUM 920702 - Part II
**************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 23:12:49 EDT
Reply-To: "IBM OS/2 Unedited Discussion List" <OS2-L@FRORS12>
From: "Edward S. Pierce" <ilay8169@EMORYU1.CC.EMORY.EDU>
Subject: Re: Que's Using OS/2 2.0
On Tue, 14 Jul 1992, Carl Forde wrote:
>
>
> Que has a new book out called Using OS/2 2.0. My local computer store
> is back ordered because of demand. :-) Has anyone read this book, have
> an opinion on it? Other recomendations?
>
> Have fun,
> Carl Forde phonenet: 604-360-7130
> VM Database and Development Support bitnet : CFORDE@BCSC02
> British Columbia Systems Corporation internet: cforde@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca
Check out *Inside OS/2 2.0* by Minasi, et al. from New Riders Publishing
instead of the QUE book. I have both and like *Inside* much better: it
goes a little more in depth than the QUE book. While the QUE book is geared
more toward the average computer user the NRP book has some stuff that
will reward the more ambitious user. For instance, there is some good
material on networking OS/2. Also, there is a decent introduction to REXX
in the NRP book while the QUE book barely mentions REXX. Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Edward
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Edward Pierce
<ilay8169@unix.cc.emory.edu>
<ilay8169@emoryu1.bitnet>
Philosophy Dept/Emory University
Atlanta, GA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 92 20:41:01 EDT
Reply-To: "IBM OS/2 Unedited Discussion List" <OS2-L@FRORS12>
From: Jim Casstevens <DMISJRC@UMVMA>
Subject: FTP site for bug fixes
This note was posted on Compuserve:
Sb: #IBM Anonomous FTP addr.
Fm: Irv Spalten
SYSOPY 76711,175
To: all.
The FTP site that one can get all fixes that are here on the Internet is
software.watson.ibm.com
Files are in pub\os2
If you have ANY problems with the connection, please contact
nrt@watson.ibm.com
Irv
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 92 00:16:32 EDT
Reply-To: "IBM OS/2 Unedited Discussion List" <OS2-L@FRORS12>
From: "Edward S. Pierce" <ilay8169@EMORYU1.CC.EMORY.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ati-Ultra and OS/2
On Thu, 16 Jul 1992, CSCON134@UOFT02.BITNET : INDIANA JONES (JOHN HEIDEN) wrote:
> > I recently received my copy of OS/2 2.0 and was wonder whether anyone had
> > any information on resolutions higher than VGA and drivers for the ATI in
> > OS/2. Any betas around. Any suggestions, comments, problems.
> >
> > P.S. - Should I just leave it in VGA resolution with the default drivers.
> >
> > - Mike McNamara
> > - css544480@manvax.cc.mancol.edu
> ==============================================================================
> I'd like to know basically the same thing.
>
> I have OS/2 2.0 now, and it seems to run nicely with one or two reservations
> on my system.
>
> But I'm thinking about getting either the ATI Graphics Ultra or Graphics
> Vantage. What can I expect if I should either of these? What kind of
> drivers? What kind of performance will I get? How do I set the system
> up for this? That sort of thing. Anyone care to shed some light on
> this for me?
I have been happily using the ATI Graphics Ultra for about three month
now. Although ATI has no 2.0 specific video drivers the Ultra's hardware is
compatible with IBM's 8514/a specification. This means the OS/2 installer
will automatically set you up with a 1024x768 screen display. Perhaps
the only drawback is that there is no 800x600 (more realistic for most PC
displays) because IBM did not include this resolution in the 8514/a
specification. The big plus is that the 8514/a driver that ships with
OS/2 *does* make use of the co-processor that makes the ATI so fast.
Eventually, ATI will ship 800x600 and 1024x768 drivers that will
outperform the 8514/a that come with OS/2. Also, the fact that the Ultra
has a built-in VGA chipset make it a very compatible and flexible card.
The ATI Graphics Vantage is the same card as the Graphics Ultra except for
the fact that the video memory is DRAM rather than VRAM. VRAM is faster
than the DRAM and consequently is worth the extra money. This is
especially the case when you consider the overhead of a GUI like the WPS.
Take Care,
Edward
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Edward Pierce
<ilay8169@unix.cc.emory.edu>
<ilay8169@emoryu1.bitnet>
Philosophy Dept/Emory University
Atlanta, GA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feed from the Usenet (UUPC/Internet) comp.os.os2.* newsgroups :
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Zachmann resigns, Wash Post, Media Note
Date: 10 Jul 1992 16:57:51 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston
In article 003134FDAAA12@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be, FDAAA12@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be (Dirk
Rober) quotes the Microsoft Systems Journal's recent editorial:
>"There are a few industry pundits trying to ruin your peace of mind, telling
> you you're developing for the wrong operating system. Take the high-profile
> columnist who decrees every week that OS/2 2.0 is looking better and better
> and Windows 3.1 is a flop. Pretty strong opinions from somebody who's rumored
> never to have installed either on his machine. Obviously, he's been out in the
> sun too long."
Wow. Not only are they willing to apply pre$$ure to have him silenced by his
employer, but they are also apparently willing to libel him in an effort to
damage his credibility.
I decided a long time ago not to do business with companies that engaged in
sleazy tactics...and Microsoft is aching to get added to that list.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu | adequately be explained by a .sig virus.
"[...] have you noticed how many people have joined you on the back of
Rosinante to help subdue this particular windmill?" -- Dan Herrick
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ekl@fics.uucp
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: SQL Server 1.1 under OS/2 2.0 ?
Date: 12 Jul 92 23:10:21 GMT
Organization: Kvam data as
In article <1992Jul12.161806.27422@trentu.ca> xtpw@trentu.ca (Peter Wood) writes
>Hey there,
>
>Has anyone out there tried running SQL Server 1.1 under OS/2 2.0 ? We
>have it running under Compaq OS/2 1.21, acting as a d/base server for
>our netware 3.11 users. Even though I think I'd wait until the new
>Requestor has the kinks ironed out of it in any case, I'd be curious
>as to whether we need to wait for a 32-bit upgrade before upgrading
>the operating system.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Pete
>
>--
>Pete Wood
>Fleming Data Research
>Sir Sandford Fleming College xtpw@blaze.trentu.ca
>Peterborough, ON pwood@trentu.ca
>Canada wood@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca
I use SQLServer 1.1 under os/2 2.0. However, due to some slight
network trouble, I run it as a standalone datbase engine. No trouble
so far, whatsoever.
I do not have any performace numbers; I use it for compatibility
testing only.
Eirik Lygre
ekl@fics.uucp
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: When comes Stacker (SuperStor)?
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1992 16:39:55 GMT
In article <1992Jul9.090201.3230@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> "tbk" <UKJP@DKAUNI2.BITNET
>Does anybody know when Stacker for OS/2 (or SuperStor for OS/2) will
>appear? Will it support FAT or HPFS (or both)?
Stac Electronics, currently in beta with their Stacker for OS/2,
projects a December/January availability for the product.
It should support both, but contact Stac Electronics for details
(and/or participation in the beta program).
--
Get the OS/2 FREQ. ASKED QUESTIONS LIST | Timothy F. Sipples
from 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, | Internet: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu
directory pub/os2/all/faq, or from | IBM VNET Alias: SIPPLES AT BITNET
LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP"). | Dept. of Econ., U. Chicago, 60637
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
From: mikek@seas.smu.edu (Michael Kaply)
Subject: Re: Windows Multimedia Extensions
Organization: School of Engineering and applied science; S.M.U.; Dallas, Tx
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1992 17:15:58 GMT
In article <5411@umriscc.isc.umr.edu> sdrumm@mcs213e.cs.umr.edu (Scott Drumm) wr
>Does anybody know of the Windows Multi-Media Extensions Kit functions under a
>Win-OS/2 session? Also, has anyone tried the OS/2 Multimedia Package that
>IBM shipped this week?
>
> --Scott
> (sdrumm@cs.umr.edu)
Yes the MM extensions for Window 3.0 function fine in Win-OS2. There is one
special thing you have to do to install them and it is documented in the
README.
I have used MMPM/2 and it is a very powerful set of tools. The applets that
it ships with are not up to par with the Win MM applets, but the capabilities
of the software itself are amazing and easy to implement and use.
Mike Kaply
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: danni@vnet.ibm.com
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 92 13:42:46 CET
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: ATM Fonts, How to use with OS/2
In <1992Jul1.152145.7561@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> Andreas Spiegl writes:
>Hi,
>How can I use Adobe Type Manager Fonts with OS/2. I don't mean with WIN-OS,
>but within the WPS, for example (like text fonts in windows),
>or within texteditors, word processors.
>Is there a possibility?
>
>Thanks,
> Andy
>
>--
>
>------------
>Andreas Spiegl, CS Student, Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany
>E-Mail: Spiegl@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.de
>
To install additional fonts, open the font palette in the system-setup
folder.Select the EDIT FONT option,and then add Adobe Type I
fonts.You'll be able to use these fonts,in all PM-programs that allow
font selection, e.g. the system editor.You can also customize your
desktop using the new fonts.If you have ATM fonts with .pfm files,
you'll need a publicly available utility called pfm2afm which will
create the necessary .afm files.Hope this helps,
Felix.
Felix Dannegger E-Mail: danni@vnet.ibm.com
Munich, Germany Alternate: danni@salyko.doit.sub.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: creating a DOS session
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1992 22:23:35 GMT
In article <1992Jul11.194900.26878@physics.ucla.edu> hsr@physics.ucla.edu (Haris
>I have installed the C set/2 toolkit and verified that the sample code works.
>Then I turned my attention to the most pressing need I had: being able to
>launch dos sessions with specific DOS_SETTINGS, without the WPS installed.
>[I like to work with cmd.exe as my workplace].
>I went through the references, and couldn't find anything to suggest how
>one did that. Not a mention. There were ways to start DOS sessions, but they
>didn't have the ability to pass the settings desired.
>So ... is there anyway to do this? Or do I just live with the default
>DOS box?
Evidently there is -- someone just did it. Look for STARTD, available
via anonymous ftp from ftp-os2.nmsu.edu. Source code is included.
This program will start DOS programs with the ability to set DOS
settings.
--
Get the OS/2 FREQ. ASKED QUESTIONS LIST | Timothy F. Sipples
from 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, | Internet: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu
directory pub/os2/all/faq, or from | Dept. of Econ., U. Chicago, 60637
LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP"). | H. Ross Perot in '92!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ccusekh@prism.gatech.EDU (Kevin Hodge)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: "new" books about OS/2 2.0
Date: 13 Jul 92 16:04:00 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
In article <63214@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccusekh@prism.gatech.EDU (Kevin Hodge) write
>inside. It turns out that VNR actually has an OS/2 series and near as
>I can tell, they are all about version 2.0. I did not copy the titles
>but they were on such subjects as: programming PM GPI graphics,
>programming device drivers, learning to program the presentation manager,
>Client/Server programming, C-programming in 2.0, and a couple of titles
>that had to do with extended services (e.g., database performance).
>VNR's address is:
> Van Nostrand Reinhold
> attention: Computer Science Products Manager
> 115 Fifth Avenue
> New York, NY 10003
Just to follow up on this,
I got Van Nostrand Reinhold's
toll-free number from our
campus bookstore.
1-800-926-2665
If you call them, they will
send you a catalog of their
new books. The OS/2 titles
are included.
--
Kevin A. Hodge | "I'll show you a life of the mind!"
Engineering Psychology | Madman Mundt
Georgia Tech |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: phillips@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (William J Phillips)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: CD-ROMs in DOS windows?
Date: 12 Jul 92 20:54:31 GMT
Organization: Technical University of Nova Scotia, Halifax, N.S.
In article <1992Jul8.085855.20667@ousrvr.oulu.fi> ppi@phoenix.oulu.fi (Pekka Pie
>I have an internal non-SCSI CD-ROM drive (Hitachi). I know that currently
>OS/2 supports only SCSI devices but I still would expect to be able
>to access the drive in a DOS session or in a WIN-OS/2. The problem seems
>to be in MSCDEX.EXE. Whatever I do I constantly get "incorrect DOS version"
>message. The CD-ROM driver (HITACHIA.SYS) loads nicely so Im able to acces
>my Grolier Encyclopedia in a DOS window. That's because Grolier calls the
>driver directly. Unfortunately there seems to be no way to use for example
>the Microsoft Multimedia Bookshelf except to boot DOS. Or is there?
>
>Pekka Pietilainen
>Univ. of Oulu
>ppi@eero.oulu.fi
I had the same problem with MSCDEX.EXE. My solution is:
1. patch mscdex.exe so that the version check always succeeds. In
my driver this check is done at address 3bef with the code:
mov ah,30
int 21
I changed this to
mov ah,0a
mov al,30
remember that to debug an .exe file you have to change it's extension
to something other than .exe.
You would think you can get around this with setver.exe but you can't
for some reason.
2. make a boot disk which calls the patched mscdex.exe. My autoexec.bat
and config.sys on the boot disk are:
c:\cdrom\mscdex /e /d:mscd521 /l:d /m:15
prompt $P$G
path=c:\nc;c:\dos;c:\util;c:\emtex;
SET TEMP=C:\tcpip\TMP
set comspec=c:\dos\command.com
set dircmd= /l /w /o /a /p
loadhigh c:\dos\doskey.com /insert
c:\os2\mdos\mouse.com
c:\
device=fsfilter.sys
device=c:\os2\mdos\himem.sys
device=c:\os2\mdos\emm386.sys x=c800-c9ff
dos=high,umb
files=30
buffers=24
shell=c:\dos\command.com c:\dos /e:512 /p
devicehigh=c:\cdrom\cdmke.sys /d:mscd521
STACKS=9,256
It is essential that fsfilter.sys be the first thing in config.sys
3. Make an image of the boot disk using vmdisk in an OS2 window. Then use
this image as the startup drive in your dos settings.
For example,
vmdisk a: c:\cdrom\cdrom.img
then make c:\cdrom\cdrom.img your startup drive in the dos settings.
Bill Phillips
Dept. of Applied Math
Tech Univ of Nova Scotia
Halifax, NS, Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: CONFIG.SYS questions
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1992 17:11:42 GMT
In article <1992Jul12.152015.19397@cs.yale.edu> gouvea@beastie.colby.edu (Fernan
>I've been trying to figure out what all the lines in CONFIG.SYS do. The
>first redbook gives some info, but a few questions go unanswered:
>1) What is the EPATH for? All the book says is that it is "an environment
>variable used by OS/2 applications", which is sort of obvious.
It is used by EPM (the Enhanced Editor) to look for associated files.
>2) How does one determine ideal settings for the FILES, BUFFERS, and
>DISKCACHE lines? I currently have FILES=20, BUFFERS=30, and
>DISKCACHE=1024,LW,128,AC:CDEF. I have 12MB physical memory.
Looks fine. FILES and BUFFERS are DOS-related. I would increase to
FILES=50 -- it certainly can't hurt, and it takes up very little
memory. BUFFERS beyond about 20 does very little on most systems --
30 is just fine. Your DISKCACHE is probably about right, too.
>3) The book suggests that the line DEVICE=C:\OS2\APPS\SASYNCDA.SYS is
>needed for terminal programs to work. Mine is REMed out, and TE/2 is
>working fine. What gives? How did the line get REMed out in the first
>place?
The documentation was being a little too emphatic on that point. That
device driver is mainly for networked environments, where it does
count.
--
Get the OS/2 FREQ. ASKED QUESTIONS LIST | Timothy F. Sipples
from 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, | Internet: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu
directory pub/os2/all/faq, or from | Dept. of Econ., U. Chicago, 60637
LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP"). | H. Ross Perot in '92!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: It won't SHUTDOWN!
Date: 13 Jul 92 15:30:22 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.
In article <92194.072927RKKISTLE@MTUS5.BITNET> RKKISTLE@MTUS5.BITNET (Robb) writ
>OS/2 is completely ignoring me when I select Shutdown from the menu.
>It asks if I'm sure, and warns if there are any other sessions open, but
>it never actually closes the WPS or tells me it is save to shut down.
>The system just keeps running like normal. WHY?
The SHUTDOWN sequence doesn't work the way you think. Here's what it
does:
1) It sends a message to all apps notifying them that a shutdown is
about to occur. This is where you get the "do you want to close
the session" messages for your command-line and DOS sessions.
Other apps (like Excel for OS/2) may issue their own warnings and
ask to save files, etc.
2) Once every program has responded to this message, it begins
terminating applications by sending them a "kill" message. I think
this message is WM_TERMINATE, but I could be wrong.
3) When the apps are all finished terminating, shutdown is complete.
The file systems are then flushed and terminated, and you get the
"completed" dialog box
Anyhow, an application can't ignore the "kill" message - it will be
forced out if it doesn't respond soon enough. The first message,
though (I think it's WM_SHUTDOWN) can cause problems. Since the apps
get this message in sequence, an application which refuses to return
from the message will suspend the shutdown process. When this app
finally responds or is killed, shutdown will continue.
If an app returns a "don't shutdown yet" (like when you click "no" for
killing a DOS box) then the shutdown process is prematurely
terminated. Note that apps that have already received the WM_SHUTDOWN
message will probably have self-terminated by now.
While shutdown is proceding, apps continue to function (including
WPS). In theory, you could have a program which spawns additional
copies of itself effectively halting the shutdown. (if the shutdown
messages aren't getting though as fast as the new programs are being
started) Also, interruptions in the message stream (which can happen
sometimes) will "suspend" the first stage of the shutdown process.
When you press CTRL-ALT-DEL, the system jumps directly to step 2 of
the shutdown process - applications are killed, systems are closed,
and it reboots.
--
|) David Charlap "I don't even represent myself
/|_ dic5340@hertz.njit.edu sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
((|,)
~|~ Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: stan.spotts@satalink.com (Stan Spotts)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: MORE ZACHMANN MESSAGES
Date: 9 Jul 92 22:48:00 GMT
Organization: SataLink Info Systems - Huntingdon Valley, PA - 215-364-3324
06-Jul-92 08:28:53
Sb: Independence Declaration
Fm: William F. Zachmann 72241,43
Eric,
PC Week, in effect, required that I narrow my focus to Windows
and related issues last fall -- *not* to OS/2. Your recollection
of what I said over on IBMOS2 is incorrect. It was made clear
to me that unless I agreed to do that, my column would have
been dropped at the end of last year. I agreed to do so with
the understanding that OS/2 was a related issue and that I could
continue to write about both (and Unix as well).
When I did so, however, I began to have problems. On April 23
PC Week Editor in Chief Sam Whitmore said I was "losing my
credibility" because of my "lack of objectivity" in what I was
writing about Windows and OS/2. He made it clear that he did
not want me to continue writing the sort of stuff I'd been
writing about Windows and OS/2. He several times mentioned
Carole Patton's column and its fate with the clear implication
(clear to me, at least) that my column would suffer a similar
fate if I did not shape up.
It was upon returning from that meeting with Sam that I received
the phone call from the individual at Microsoft who told me about
how they'd recently heard that I was going to be taking a more
favorable view of Microsoft and of Windows in my column. In
response to Sam's pressure, I wrote the May 4, 1992 column
where I pointed out some problems and limitations with OS/2.
I had no problem getting that column printed.
Two weeks later, I intentionally and deliberately wrote a column
for the May 18, 1992 issue in which I discussed a very similar
set of problems with Windows 3.1. I received a phone call from
PC Week Editor Eric Lundquist saying the column "didn't work"
for him and asking me to write another on another topic. I had
a lengthy discussion with him in which I refused to do so and
argued that my column should run as submitted.
He finally agreed to mark it up with his problems/objections.
While a virtually idential column about OS/2 had gone through
without difficulty two weeks before, Eric was all over this one
like ants at a picnic questioning my statements. I stood my
ground and the column was eventually, but quite obviously
reluctantly, printed.
That's a little bit more of the background about why I feel it is
necessary to leave.
Will
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
Subject: Re: Cheap way to get into programming on OS/2 2.0?
Date: 13 Jul 92 16:25:17 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.
In article <1992Jul13.102633.309@weyrich.UUCP> tnet.com!weyrich!orville writes:
>I understand that IBM wants about $1000 for their CSET/2 for OS/2 2.0.
Nope. It's about $300 for that plus the toolkit plus the workframe.
>I understand that Microsoft C++ explicitly doesn't work under OS/2
>2.0
It will run, but it won't create OS/2 executables. If you can find
it, Microsoft C 6.0 will produce OS/2 1.2 executables. This is good
for a start until you get a 32-bit compiler. You can do quite a bit
with the 16-bit API's, even though you have to worry about memory
models and pointer sizes and stuff.
>I understand that Borland will have a 32-bit compiler for OS/2 around XMAS.
Borland C++ for OS/2 2.0 is in beta testing now. A winter release
seems plausable, although I don't have anything official right now.
If you call Borland's order line, you can get on a mailing list for
info when its available.
Borland currently has released ObjectVision 2.0 for OS/2 2.0. It
should be available in stores or direct from Borland. It bears a list
price of $249.95, and is available for an introductary price of
$99.95.
Borland's order line is: 1-800-331-0877, extension 1024
>I understand that g++ works on OS/2, but I don't have a compiler to
>bootstrap it with (I think that I would need to bootstrap it from
>source code ... is there a place to get it all compiled and ready to
>drop in to OS/2?)
You don't need to bootstrap it. It is available as executables from
ftp-os2.nmsu.edu. It is a .zoo archive of approximately 2.5MB in
size. You can download the zoo archiver from ftp-os2.nmsu.edu as
well.
--
|) David Charlap "I don't even represent myself
/|_ dic5340@hertz.njit.edu sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
((|,)
~|~ Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: psyhtjs@unicorn.nott.ac.uk (T.Sneath)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: The UK perspective on OS/2 2.0
Date: 14 Jul 92 11:52:52 GMT
Organization: Cripps Computing Centre, University of Nottingham
You may be interested to read this extract from the British Computer Shopper
Magazine on OS/2.
Computer Shopper UK reports: (Aug. 1992)
"I tried OS/2 2.0 on two different hardware setups: a 33MHz 80486 machine
with 8Mb Ram and a 25MHz 80386 machine with 6Mb Ram. Both used the same
100Mb 18ms seek time IDE hard disk.
"The 486 machine was certainly faster, and when running OS/2 2 it felt much
like using a Unix workstation of a couple of years ago. The 386 machine was
noticeably slower, but still quite usable. I can't prove this theory, but
I suspect that the amount of Ram available may have much more impact than
absolute processor speed. So, for example, as an OS/2 machine you may be
better off buying a 40MHz 386 with 16Mb Ram than a 25MHz 486 with only
4Mb....
"[We used] a PC benchmarking program currently being developed for Shopper.
This program does some very low-level hardware access - such as changing the
frequency at which the clock interrupts occurs - yet still runs in a VDM.
This implies a profound level of compatibility....
"Using the benchmarking program mentioned earlier showed that simple
processor and memory performance in a VDM was about 10 percent worse than
on the same machine running Dos 5 (with Qemm 6 and a 1Mb SMARTDrive cache).
However, simulated application benchmarks ran up to 50 percent faster!
Presumably this is down to improved hard disk handling under OS/2....
"As you may have gathered by now, I'm generally very impressed by OS/2 2.0.
At the time of writing I've been using it for almost all of my computing for
about a month. Apart from one crash due to lack of disk space, as described
above, OS/2 2 felt very solid. The virtual Dos machines are very good, and
can cope with very badly behaved programs....
"It is my opinion that OS/2 2 is superior to Windows at the moment. Whether
this will still be true when Windows NT arrives I can't tell, since I have
yet to see Windows NT working.... But the initial conclusion must be that
IBM has done a good job in revising OS/2 1 to produce OS/2 2, and for the
first time in almost 10 years Microsoft has some real competition in the PC
operating system market."
This all seems very positive. But the comments page of the magazine is far
more sceptical on OS/2...
"The life and times of IBM's so far ill-fated PC operating system, OS/2, is
beginning to resemble a B-movie. First we had OS/2 1.0 which, at its launch,
was billed along the lines of: 'If you liked watching Dos, you'll love the
new high-budget OS/2 1.0.' Sadly for IBM, there were few takers for this
incomplete and hardware-intensive release. The lead actor, the OS/2's GUI
Presentation Manager ('just call me PM!'), didn't even appear in OS/2 1.0,
which was a nasty, text-based piece of work. Mind you, the subsequent
addition of PM didn't make much difference.
"IBM's line on version 2 of OS/2 really does smack of movie hyperbole:
'OS/2 is back, and this time it's serious!' Eat your hearts out, Sly and
Arnie. However, as Microsoft shifts millions of copies of Windows 3.1 and
prepares to launch a full-blown challenger to OS/2 in the shape of NT,
things are getting serious for IBM. And to a large extent it's IBM's own
fault."
The UK's PC Magazine (both this and Computer Shopper are totally different
products to the US versions, having compared them myself) gives the edge
to Windows 3.1 over OS/2 2.0 in a comparative review in the August issue.
It says "OS/2 is just too big, too slow, too clumsy, too buggy and too
incompatible - despite its superior multitasking and technical advancement."
However, Windows 3.1 does not get a firm recommendation either. It says that
saying Windows 3.1 is less prone to crashes than 3.0 is like "saying that
strychnine is less poisonous than arsenic." Despite this, Windows 3.1 is
the "Editor's Choice" (for Editor, read "Microsoft" ? :-)
In Dvorak's monthly "Letter from America" however, he writes "Personally,
I've chosen OS/2 because it runs DOS programs quite fast and all at once. I
know that you guys in England can hardly find a copy. If you can, buy it!
But not unless you have a fast 386/486 and 16 megs!"
He says that in a conference on CompuServe, he asked whether there was
anything one operating system could do that the other couldn't. (Perhaps
someone should send him Steve Smith's list of 100+ things OS/2 can do which
Windows can't... :-) He says that he was most impressed by the response
from someone who worked in the support department of Lotus, who told him
that OS/2 allowed him to have all of Lotus' products running at once. If
he had a query, he would just bring up a window with the program running
immediately - something that Windows couldn't do...
The PC Plus magazine also fails to recommend OS/2, saying that it is slow,
and a lot of hassle generally. However PC Answers praises its technological
achievements and recommends it for high-powered PCs (interesting, since they
are both from the same company).
Generally, I think the UK is more luke-warm about OS/2 2.0 than America,
if the amount of net traffic is anything to go by. I can keep up with
comp.os.ms-windows.misc and comp.windows.ms, but comp.os.os2.misc is much
larger than the two combined, despite the fact that the Windows groups
contain a great deal of crossposted material.
The lack of interest in the UK seems to be due to the high prices for
OS/2 2.0 from IBM UK. They charge $167 for OS/2 (at a 1.85:1 exchange rate)
as a 'first-time' purchase, $120 as an upgrade from DOS, $93 as an upgrade
from Windows, and $74 as an upgrade from OS/2 1.x. This last price in
particular has disgruntled many UK OS/2 users, who object to having to pay
for what is a free upgrade in the US. Maybe someone from IBM US would care
to comment?
Regards,
Tim Sneath
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
| "Woke up in my clothes again this morning..." - Sting |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| psyhtjs@uk.ac.nott.ccc.unicorn | |
| tjs@uk.ac.nott.cs | Jesus is Lord! |
| psyhtjs@uk.ac.nott.ccc.vax | |
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
From: simpson@altair.math.uiuc.edu (Stephen Simpson)
Subject: Mathematica for OS/2
Organization: Department of Mathematics, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1992 19:27:36 GMT
Here is a copy of my recent posting to comp.os.os2.misc, in reply to
varmint@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu's message of 10 Jul 92 00:52:51 GMT.
> Since many people have wanted to know about Mathematica for OS/2
> and several have made pronouncements that there would be such a
> beast, I decided to find out for myself. Here's the official word
> from Paul Katula, Technical Support Manager for Wolfram Research:
>
> "To set the record straight, Wolfram Research does not intend to
> develop a version of Mathematica that support (sic) OS/2 directly.
> We are concentrating our efforts toward Windows NT, but I cannot
> speculate on a release date."
By sending mail to info@wri.com, I learned that Wolfram Research does
indeed plan to release an OS/2 version of Mathematica. A Wolfram
official told me that WRI is waiting for IBM to resolve some questions
regarding 32-bit support. However, he would not tell me whether there
is any plan to release a Presentation Manager version of Mathematica.
It appears that WRI had been expecting OS/2 2.0 to provide
WINMEM32.DLL services, thus making it possible to run the Windows
version of Mathematica. When WINMEM32.DLL services did not
materialize, WRI decided to wait and see. So far as I can tell, WRI
has no plan for a Presentation Manager port. Perhaps this will change
if 32-bit OS/2 reaches a certain installed base.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hank@ducvax.auburn.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Os2You, m2zmodem mini review
Date: 15 Jul 92 01:52:29 GMT
This is a short review of the ShareWare package Os2You, along with
m2zmodem. This review is based on somewhat limited testing, but I
have not seen any reviews of these packages.
Os2You is designed to permit remote use (via LAN, modem, or direct
link) of a machine running OS2 1.2 -- 2.0. m2zmodem can be used
separately or with Os2You to provide zmodem transfers (m2zmodem has
additional capabilities as a terminal program or under a BBS setup--I
did not evaluate these). Os2You has ymodem built-in, and, if the
supplied terminal programs are used, the transfer is "automatic" at
the terminal end (I did not test the ymodem feature).
I had tested m2zmodem as a x/y/zmodem external program for Kai Uwe
Rommel's port of CKermit 5A(179). I was eventually successful, but
there does seem to be some hardware conflicts: Here's what I know for
(i) OS2 1.3 on Zenith 286, and (ii) OS2 2.0 on 386SX:
1. m2zmodem 2.11 and OS2 1.3 on com3 with com16450.sys driver does
NOT work.
2. m2zmodem 2.09 and OS2 1.3 on com3 with com16450.sys driver
DOES work.
3. m2zmodem 2.09 and OS2 2.0 on com1 does NOT work
(can't even get the help screen).
4. m2zmodem 2.11 and OS2 2.0 on com1 DOES work.
m2zmodem does slow the other windows considerably on OS2 2.0 and my
386SX-- much more than some other zmodem programs tested (and
transfer times are comparable). Transfers were at 2400 baud.
Back to Os2You. I tested ver 2.7 on OS2 1.3 and 2.0 (the machines
mentioned above). Again, my testing was somewhat brief, and I did not
explore the DOS-box capabilities. I did not test on a LAN, but I did
test the named-pipe capability.
Documentation is by an inf file (use the OS2 view), and is very nicely
done. The package seems very complete and very professional.
For initial testing, I used the named-pipe feature (usually used on a
LAN) so that I could test using just one machine. Os2You includes
lanterm2, which understands named-pipes. Setup is very easy. Once
installed, Os2You waits for a connection (you can still use the
machine). The response is very fast using this kind of setup (and it
should be).
Setting for a modem connection is also very easy. Response time at
2400 baud was as good as could be expected. Os2You does do some
intelligent writes to save time.
You cannot, of course, run PM programs. For running text programs,
Os2You worked very well. m2zmodem is easily used in Os2You for file
transfers. (Os2You also includes Ymodem built-in.) Security is
provided via usernames and passwords.
Os2You is from:
M Wahlgren Software Dev.
Kransen 4E
S-416 72 Gothenburg
Sweden
Fax: +46 31 196417
Phone: +46 31 196074
Specification Amount Price Sum
========================================= ====== ===== ===========
Os2You remote software (first 1-9) ______ 500 __________
Os2You remote software (following 10-19) ______ 400 __________
Os2You remote software (following 20-) ______ 300 __________
Os2You for Sysops (for BBS use only) ______ 250 __________
Os2You/M2Zmodem file transfer option ______ 300 __________
WinTerm Windows 3.0 terminal program ______ 300 __________
All prices are in SEK (Swedish crown). One USD is about 6 SEK.
The price for Os2You is about $80 and $50 for M2Zmodem. The
prices are valid for orders until August 1992. For orders after
that, please request the current prices.
The unregistered version prints a message when the terminal program
does a login. Other than this, the ShareWare version permits a
complete evaluation. I do not have any connections with this product.
My testing was mainly one of curiosity, as we do not have need of
this product yet (although it might be nice to be able to log to my
home machine from school...).
Please note again that my tests were far from exhaustive.
--darrel hankerson hank@ducvax.auburn.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: duffy@theory.chem.ubc.ca (Pat Duffy)
Subject: A little primer for running DOS comm programs.
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 06:29:28 GMT
Hi All,
I just mailed this to someone who was asking and thought it might be of
general interest. I've edited it a bit, but the basic information is still
the same. I hope someone finds it useful.
Here's the basic primer on DOS sessions and communication:
1) Have you adjusted the DOS settings for your application? If not, here are
the settings I use for Telix 3.15:
COM_HOLD ON
EMS_MEMORY_LIMIT 0
XMS_MEMORY_LIMIT 0
DPMI_MEMORY_LIMIT 0
IDLE_SENSITIVITY 100
IDLE_SECONDS 0
BACKGROUND_EXECUTION ON
DOS_BREAK ON
DOS_FCBS 0
DOS_FCBS_KEEP 0
DOS_UMB OFF
(These aren't in the order they appear in the settings list.)
Note that in order for these changes to be effective, you must start the
program from the icon of the program and not from some command line session
you may be in.
2) Do you have a 16550 in your I/O card (a buffered UART)? To find out,
open up an OS/2 command line (windowed or full-screen) and type the
command
mode com1
or
mode com2
and have a look at the results. If there is an 'auto' or 'on' beside the
'buffer' variable, then you do. If you don't have one, I highly recommend
one; it will help communications a lot and is a cheap upgrade (about $10
or so).
3) Have you issued a 'mode' command in your config.sys? If you have a
2400 V.42bis modem, you might put:
CALL=C:\OS2\MODE.COM COM2:9600,N,8,1,,RTS=HS,DSR=HS,OCTS=ON,BUFFER=AUTO
if your modem is on com2 (change the drive according to where your OS/2 is
installed, and the number of the com port depending on where your modem is).
Anyway, with all these modifications, I can do Zmodem downloads with Telix
3.15 in the background and get 1600cps (I have a 14.4k fax/modem).
--
Patrick Duffy, E-Mail: duffy@theory.chem.ubc.ca
"An activist is not someone who complains that the river is dirty. An activist
is someone who cleans it up." U.S. Presidential candidate Ross Perot
------------------------------------------------------------------------
END OF OS/2 DISCUSSION FORUM 920702 - Part II
*********************************************
