NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/sys/ibm/pc/digest/191

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-26 | 12.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!ucbvax!WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL!Info-IBMPC
From: [e-mail] ("Info-IBMPC Digest")
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.digest
Subject: Info-IBMPC Digest V92 #201
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Dec 92 10:32:14 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Distribution: world
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 256
Approved: [e-mail]
X-Unparsable-Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 01:18:59 GMT+1

Info-IBMPC Digest           Fri, 25 Dec 92       Volume 92 : Issue 201

Today's Editor:
         Gregory Hicks - Rota Spain <[e-mail]>

Today's Topics:
        Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!
           Comments on OS/2 after first two weeks of usage

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <[e-mail]>

Send requests of an administrative nature (addition to, deletion from
the distribution list, et al) to: <[e-mail]>

Addition and Deletion requests for UK readers should be sent to:
<[e-mail]>

Archives of past issues of the Info-IBMPC Digest are available by FTP
ONLY from WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL in directory PD2:<ARCHIVES.IBMPC>.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:05:48 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Zahariadis) writes:
>>Yep. If you read Tim's benchmark article you'll see that is exactly what
>>they did to get everything on the same machine. Maybe someone will post the
>>details?
> I nominate Timothy Sipples! Anyone wanna second that?
> Come on chief! Let us in on the details. The net is waiting in agony.
> (imagine thriller music in the background etc.) :-)

Here's a reply I sent by mail to someone who inquired about the exact
procedure.  I normally don't editorialize to such a great extent, but
this move really gets me going.

Consider this company's behavior before you decide to do business with
them, OK?  And please restrict your followup.

>> To install Windows NT
>> Beta and OS/2 2.0x on the same hard disk required zeroing out the ID
>> of the OS/2 Boot Manager partition.  Windows NT Beta includes a specific
>> check which is deliberately designed to refuse installation if OS/2
>> Boot Manager is present on the hard disk.  (OS/2 2.0x includes no such
>> NT check.)  Zeroing out the Boot Manager ID renders NT Beta installable
>> while preserving OS/2 Boot Manager capabilities.

Feel free to post the following if you think it useful.  If you do,
just quote entirely, unchanged, and with attribution (although you can
add your own comments if you like).

I only alluded to the method because I was not the one who performed
it, nor did I ask all that much about it.

The point I was trying to convey (rather than a technical point) was
that this was a real cheap shot on the part of Microsoft, and a stupid
one as well, since it can do nothing but hurt them.  There is
deliberate code in NT Beta which causes the install to abort if OS/2
Boot Manager is present -- that is clear enough.  In my opinion if the
company wants to preclude its customers from having the freedom to
make intelligent choices within the marketplace, then we should feel
free not to choose NT.  I personally don't like doing business with a
company (no matter which one) that pulls stunts like this one, and I
know many people who share my opinion.  What's next, the Microsoft
Word install program tampering with the Borland Quattro executables to
produce incorrect math results?

[Actually, and distressingly enough, there are some other ID checks in
other Microsoft products, it seems.  When and if I know more I'll post
more.  The word sleazy comes to mind.]

My suggestion to Microsoft would be to concentrate on delivering a
viable product rather than trying to diminish its value and tarnish
its own corporate reputation.  It has a long way to go.

Now, that said, the method as described to me was automated by an IBM
utility that has been floating around internally at the company.  But
you can perform the same task without such a tool.  First, install
OS/2 2.0 with Boot Manager.  Leave some spare space for another
partition.  Using a sector editor like the ones found in Norton
Utilities and the GammaTech Utilities, look for the Boot Manager
partition ID.  (It is exactly here where the technical aspects are a
bit hazy, but I'll try to elaborate.  Each partition on your hard
drive should have a partition ID -- I believe in something close to
plain text -- which identifies the partition to FDISK and FDISKPM.
You can run FDISKPM to list the partition IDs.)  You need to zap this
OS/2 Boot Manager partition ID to all zeros.  When you rerun FDISKPM,
it should show that partition as "free space," but that's OK, because
the boot sector will still point to the partition and start it when
you start the system.  (Just don't destroy it, or you lose Boot
Manager.)

Then, assuming you have some free disk space left over, you can go
ahead and install NT.  (Make sure it doesn't attempt to overwrite
anything.)  You can install NT's "Boot Manager"-like facility (that
rather unattractive plain text screen menu that says "Windows NT" or
"Previous Operating System" -- that last bit is real amusing.  Why not
"Other Operating System"?  I guess marketing was in on that one.  But
I digress.)  Then you can go back to Boot Manager (with FDISKPM) and
add that partition as an option to your Boot Manager menu.  When you
select that option with Boot Manager, you are then thrown into the NT
menu, and you can select either NT or "Previous Operating System."
(I'm assuming FAT here, and DOS or something as the so-called Previous
Operating System in the same partition.)

I suppose someone can flesh out the technical details a bit better
based on experience.  But, increasingly, the slogan, "NT: Why Bother?"
is hitting home.

--
Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0h, available from
[e-mail] | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from [e-mail] (send "HELP")
of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]
--
Internet:       [e-mail]             Voice:          617-641-3739

"I am NOT a Teddy Bear.  *sniff* I'm a plush polar bear.  Goodnight Teddy
 is a teddy bear, but I'm not."                 - Snuffles P. Bear

------------------------------

Date: 8 Dec 92 05:22:42 GMT
From: "Timothy F. Sipples" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comments on OS/2 after first two weeks of usage

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Calvert) writes:
>I'd like some reaction to my experiences using OS/2 for two weeks.
>First here is why I bought it:
>- run disk formats and copies in background
>- run telcom and fax in background
>- swap between appl quickly and without interference
>- use uncrippled filenames
>- all objects are graphical down to individual files
>- seamless memory management
>- <PrintScn> from Procomm works (unlike Windows)
>- print to fax or printer from any application

All good points.

>Here are my comments:
>- floppy disk access is painfully slow, many times won't recognize
>my DOS disk

There was a rather nasty problem with the OS/2 2.0 GA floppy driver
(but only on the odd clone system).  These problems seem to have been
cleared up with the Service Pak.  Or, you can apply the floppy patch
individually by getting ahold of the IBM1FLPY patch, available via
anonymous ftp from software.watson.ibm.com.

>- com ports are screwed, only some of my DOS telcom and fax software
>runs, usually locks if I swap

The best course of action is to switch to OS/2 communications
software.  Failing that, boosting IDLE_SENSITIVITY to 100 in the DOS
Settings often helps a lot (to give the communications software some
more CPU).

Bear in mind that you are asking an awful lot of any multitasking
operating system when running DOS communications and FAX software.
Such software was specifically designed NOT to multitask -- it hogs
the CPU and won't let go, often polling for keyboard input.  It also
must bypass BIOS routines to use the COM port efficiently.

I wasn't thrilled with DOS communications software under Windows (I
just couldn't get worry free background transfers), and switching to a
Windows communications program often made things worse.  So OS/2, in
my opinion, is at least no worse in running DOS communications
software.  I am, however, extremely happy with OS/2 communications
software.  Meaning I can do reliable background communications,
something I wasn't able to do before.  (I understand Desqview makes a
good effort in this regard, but I found it to be less robust than
OS/2.)

If you do feel like going with OS/2 communications software, there's
quite a bit available.  Check ftp-os2.nmsu.edu via anonymous ftp.
There's even some freeware FAX software, would you believe.  (Although
it isn't as elegant as the commercial software -- not to take anything
away from the author's efforts.  I use PMFax, myself, which is
terrific.)

>- still using FAT so haven't played with filenames yet

Oh, you'll like long filenames, I think.

>- graphical objects nice
>- memory management nice, but thrashed to death with less then 8M

True.  The Service Pak helps a bit, and the improvements continue in
this area, as the code gets tighter.  (The same thing happened in the
span from OS/2 1.1 to 1.3 -- 1.3 was positively svelte, by today's
standards.)

>- <PrintScrn> from Procomm works

Try windowing it, then placing your mouse pointer within the ProComm
window.  Hit PrintScreen.  Then, try positioning your mouse pointer on
the desktop background, and hit PrintScreen.  Clever, isn't it?
(Well, I was impressed.)  (Note: this output will take a bit of time
if you have a slow printer.)

>- my fax software doesn't work, WordPerfect prints an extra page

The WordPerfect extra page is pretty easily fixed.  First, make sure
WordPerfect is printing to port LPT1.OS2 (assuming you are printing to
parallel port 1).  (That's an old trick that works when using
WordPerfect to print over a LAN, and the same applies to OS/2.  It
forces WordPerfect to go through the BIOS to print, which, believe it
or not, causes OS/2 to handle the printing much quicker.)

I don't know what printer you have (and you should post a followup
with that information, since there's a bit more information if you are
using a DeskJet), but in most printer drivers there's a setup option
labeled "Form Feed: Always, Conditional, or None."  The default is
Conditional.  Switching it to None solves that extra form feed.  You
access these settings by going to your print object, clicking on it
with mouse button two, selecting Open -> Settings, then flipping
through the pages (clicking on that black arrow in the lower right)
until you find the Job Properties button.  Click on that, and you
should have the appropriate setting.

As for the FAX software, see above.  However, you can try boosting
IDLE_SENSITIVITY to 100 in the DOS Settings for your FAX software
program object.  Also, try changing PRIORITY_DISK_IO in CONFIG.SYS to
NO.  Also, try zeroing/disabling XMS, DPMI, and EMS in that session's
DOS Settings.  And turn VIDEO_RETRACE_EMULATION off.

Finally, make sure you are using hardware handshaking -- it helps
quite a bit.  (A buffered UART is extremely helpful, too; i.e. the
16550AFN.)

>Conclusion: I'm about to switch back to DOS to save time and
>headaches. I'll give the support line another week or two but
>their return calls have slowed to about one every 4 days and
>I can't wait that long.

Hope I was of some help, anyway.

Glad you posted -- there are a lot of people here ready to offer
advice.

--
Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0h, available from
[e-mail] | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from [e-mail] (send "HELP")
of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]



------------------------------

End of Info-IBMPC Digest V92 #201
*********************************
-------