--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: E2T00169Date: 02/20/97 From: C OCTAVA Time: 12:42pm \/To: DAVID DESROSIERS (Read 3 times) Subj: Test Results On 02-18-97, David Desrosiers said to Rogier Meurs: RM> Does OS/2 support NTFS? (read/write) DD>I believe it now does, but again, Windows no longer supports writes DD>to HPFS, so that point is moot now. Win NT 4.0 doesn't support HPFS AT ALL, but you can still get it to work with the NT 3.51 driver. Kroagnon, internet: kroagnon@starnetinc.com ___ *Durango b197 #NR* DurangoMail for Windows NT/95 --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: COMM Port OS/2 juge.com 204.89.247.1 (281) 980-9671 (1:106/2000) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: E2T00170Date: 02/20/97 From: C OCTAVA Time: 12:58pm \/To: SCOTT LITTLE (Read 3 times) Subj: win no operarting sy On 02-18-97, Scott Little said to Leon Kiriliuk: SL>Never happened to me, but it's annoying how it asks you to click SAVE SL>twice for every file where in NS I can right click->save and it prompts me SL>no further. You can change this default behavior with both browsers. With Internet Explorer you can skip one of the "save" dialogs, and with Navigator you can select (a ZIP file, say) to "save to disk" instead of "ask user". You can do with with Netscape/2 as well. Kroagnon, internet: kroagnon@starnetinc.com ___ *Durango b197 #NR* DurangoMail for Windows NT/95 --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: COMM Port OS/2 juge.com 204.89.247.1 (281) 980-9671 (1:106/2000) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: E2T00171Date: 02/20/97 From: C OCTAVA Time: 01:03pm \/To: DENIS TONN (Read 3 times) Subj: win no operarting sy On 02-18-97, Denis Tonn said to Rogier Meurs: CO> I also invite any debate on any possible 16-bit operating system code CO> in Windows NT. RM> Don't think anyone will find even 2 bytes of 16-bit code in Windows NT. DT>Actually, there is some 16 bit code used in the WOW interface DT>thunking and for support of VDMs. Very little real "work" gets done in DT>this code and it is a very short code path. The question I'm trying to ask is whether there is any 16-bit operating ystem code used in Windows NT in both booting and running Win32 applications, just as I asked for OS/2 running 32-bit OS/2 applications. I am not asking about the 16-bit Win16, DOS, and OS/2 subsystems. Kroagnon, internet: kroagnon@starnetinc.com ___ *Durango b197 #NR* DurangoMail for Windows NT/95 --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: COMM Port OS/2 juge.com 204.89.247.1 (281) 980-9671 (1:106/2000) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: E2T00172Date: 02/20/97 From: C OCTAVA Time: 01:13pm \/To: KEITH DOUGLAS (Read 3 times) Subj: win no operarting system On 02-17-97, Keith Douglas said to Scott Little: SL> computer system. If I learned it, I could install & remove SL> software, hardware, SL> drivers, operating systems, edit system files, reorganise my SL> HDD etc. If I KD>Mac users do this too, you know. Keith, what is a "Apple Disk Driver"? I saw several references to this on Infoworld's review of MacOS 7.6 but I don't understand exactly what it is. It is said that every "disk" requires one. I could take guesses based on what's available on x86, but that wouldn't be wise. :) Kroagnon, internet: kroagnon@starnetinc.com ___ *Durango b197 #NR* DurangoMail for Windows NT/95 --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: COMM Port OS/2 juge.com 204.89.247.1 (281) 980-9671 (1:106/2000) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: E2T00173Date: 02/20/97 From: C OCTAVA Time: 01:16pm \/To: DAVID BOWERMAN (Read 3 times) Subj: win no operarting system On 02-17-97, David Bowerman said to Rogier Meurs: DB>And you do realize that a FAT cache can be up to 14MB under OS/2? But it cannot be resized dynamically like Win 95 and NT's, can it? Kroagnon, internet: kroagnon@starnetinc.com ___ *Durango b197 #NR* DurangoMail for Windows NT/95 --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: COMM Port OS/2 juge.com 204.89.247.1 (281) 980-9671 (1:106/2000) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: E2T00174Date: 02/19/97 From: JERRY LAPHAM Time: 09:29pm \/To: ROD SAVAGE (Read 3 times) Subj: Bill Gates on OS/2! ROD SAVAGE said to DAVID BOWERMAN in the OS-DEBATE conference on 02-16-1997: RS> Since you just want to ask questions, I will tell Scott that the real RS> story is that when IBM came to MS, they did not even know that MS did RS> not have an OS. If my recollection of Stephen Manes' biography of Bill Gates is correct (and Manes knows what he's talking about), IBM came to Bill Gates for (1) MS BASIC and (2) assistance with getting in touch will Gary Kildall. RS> Kildall I think, who must have been an eccentric, like his OS. He RS> sent them away because they had papers to sign, and he was'nt into that RS> or something. He was spooked by the standard, but very one-sided non disclosure agreeement that IBM required be signed before they would talk business. Gates' dad was/is a lawyer and his mother was on a national charity board with some IBM exec(s), so he didn't hesitate. RS> Without the OS Bill Gates could not make the biggest sale his Basic would -ever- RS> make, IBM intended to buy MS BASIC in any case. RS> so he went across town to Seatle RS> Computers, and bought all the rights to a clone of CP/M off them called RS> QDOS, for Quick and Dirty Operating System, for the mythical $50,000, RS> and then 'licenced' it to IBM, for $50 a copy, I'm pretty sure that (according to Manes) he sold DOS to IBM for a lump sum, but was smart enough to retain the rights to sell it to other OEMs. Remember, in those days a sale consisted in supplying the source code, which the OEM had to modify to fit his hardware. DEC's or TI's or Zenith's DOS had to be a lot different than IBM's because their hardware wasn't compatible. The OEM not only modified the software, but produced the disks and manuals and put their own name on it. MS never sold DOS to the general public until version 5.0. -Jerry --- KWQ/2 1.2i Avoid repetitive strain injury. Don't do it so often. --- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0676 * Origin: * Modem Zone BBS * Middletown, Ohio * 513-424-7794 (1:110/970) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: E2T00175Date: 02/17/97 From: NEIL WALKER Time: 09:54pm \/To: SCOTT LITTLE (Read 3 times) Subj: win no operarting sy Hello Scott! Wednesday February 12 1997 22:10, Scott Little wrote to Leon Kiriliuk: SL> Since when did we claim Win95 to be 100% 32bit? Since when is MSDOS SL> 32bit? Win95 doesn't have a Win95 (like OS/2 has an OS/2 box). Win95 SL> is only 32bit as far as the GUI goes. Beyond that, it's all 16bit :( Scott, your lack of knowledge of your own favourite operating system never ceases to amaze me. Are you not aware of Windows 95's 32 bit console mode? No wonder you couldn't get to grips with OS/2! Be lucky, Neil --- GoldED/2 3.00.Alpha2+ * Origin: The Electric Pigeon, Telford, UK <01952 414247> (2:2500/509) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: E2T00176Date: 02/17/97 From: NEIL WALKER Time: 09:59pm \/To: SCOTT LITTLE (Read 3 times) Subj: Test Results Hello Scott! Thursday February 13 1997 01:34, Scott Little wrote to David Bowerman: DB>> That OS/2 is capable of spawning a 32 bit BBS program from a 32 bit DB>> mailer? An action that Windows 95 is incapable of? SL> Nope. 32bit apps can run 32bit apps in shells, or they can spawn new SL> ones. Windows cannot spawn a 32 bit BBS from a 32 bit mailer *and* keep the port open. Be lucky, Neil --- GoldED/2 3.00.Alpha2+ * Origin: The Electric Pigeon, Telford, UK <01952 414247> (2:2500/509) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: E2T00177Date: 02/19/97 From: JACK STEIN Time: 11:39pm \/To: SCOTT LITTLE (Read 3 times) Subj: TO ITS KNEES! Scott Little wrote in a message to David Desrosiers: SL> Absolute crud. If I can't install it and reboot without it SL> crashing, how the hell am I going to configure the damn SL> thing? If you can't install it without crashing, and can't configure "the damn thing" then HOW can you say OS/2 is the only system that won't run on your overclocked system? Seems your opinions on OS/2 are more than a little off the wall if you can't get it to run. Not saying thats unnatural, I'd dislike something I couldn't get working too, but then I'd blame it on me, my hardware or something besides the OS that I obviously was unable to get working right. Those of us who HAVE gotten it to work right, and learned about how it works, are extremly happy with the system. Those like you and BW and so on that couldn't, for whatever reason, lose, its as simple as that. You do realize that OS/2 "zealots" didn't get that way because the system won't boot w/o crashing, won't open a folder w/o crashing and so on. The fact is the overwhelmng majority of OS/2 people have experience, generally LOTS of it in several OS, including DOS/WIN, and almost NO ONE dislikes DOS/WIN crap because Gates is rich, "it's the OS stupid" some polititions might say. Show me some OS/2 "Zealots" that bitch about UNIX for example? Won't find many, if any at all. It's because most OS/2 people know Unix is a great OS, not crapola like MS pushes on the public. The same goes for Unix people, they dislike DOS/WIN for the most part, consider it crap, but they don't cap on OS/2 much at all. Scan though days, months or years of OS-debate crap, and you will see most every argument for DOS/WIN is either due to software availability, or bogus attempts at making OS/2 look bad, such as you saying you can't get it to run correctly. Trust me, OS/2 runs great on my system, and on David Bowermans, and Denis, and Mikes and on and on... we wouldn't run it at all if it didn't. You can't get it to work, tough cookies for you, but that's not how it is for most people, just those too dumb, too unlucky or something, but it's not the OS. Jack --- timEd/2-B11 * Origin: Jack's Free Lunch 4OS2 USR16.8 Pgh Pa (412)492-0822 (1:129/171) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: E2T00178Date: 02/20/97 From: JACK STEIN Time: 12:18am \/To: SCOTT LITTLE (Read 3 times) Subj: Tired Scott Little wrote in a message to Greg Cobb: -> What you describe isn't hotkeys. That is keyboard navigation. GC> And the difference?? (In your own words, and please exclude the words GC> moron and dumb) :) SL> A hotkey is a single key combination (2-3 keys pressed at SL> once) that directly activates a program/set of programs, SL> URL, drive or whatever else. SL> I don't mean ALT-ESC and arrow keys around the desktop. I just have to hit the first letter of the object on the desktop, and enter and it runs, same with the running application menu, first letter and enter and I instantly switch to it. If thats too complex for you, you have a problem. OS/2 has total flexability around this kind of stuff, and for those with any interest, there are tons of freeware and shareware utilities that add to the already broad selection of methods to move around and use the system. Complaints such as these are totally due to lack of knowledge on your part. Jack --- timEd/2-B11 * Origin: Jack's Free Lunch 4OS2 USR16.8 Pgh Pa (412)492-0822 (1:129/171)