--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: E2U00051Date: 02/23/97 From: SCOTT LITTLE Time: 04:36pm \/To: C OCTAVA (Read 3 times) Subj: win no operarting system [ Quoting C Octava to David Bowerman ] DB>And you do realize that a FAT cache can be up to 14MB under OS/2? CO> But it cannot be resized dynamically like Win 95 and NT's, can it? Who in their right mind would use FAT when HPFS is just sitting right there ready to be used :) Regards, - SoNiC [ Scott Little (aka. SoNiC) | Fidonet: 3:712/848 ] [ admin@cyberia.asstdc.com.au | www.asstdc.com.au/~cyberia ] --- FMail/Win32 1.22 * Origin: Cyberia <> 02-9534-1702 <> v34+ (3:712/848) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: E2U00052Date: 02/23/97 From: SCOTT LITTLE Time: 04:37pm \/To: MIKE RUSKAI (Read 3 times) Subj: WIN NO OPERARTING SY [ Quoting Mike Ruskai to C Octava ] CO> Surely you must support the fact that OS/2 need a dynamic disk cache. MR> I can't quite agree there. A dynamic cache is useful only on a system MR> running very few tasks, or endowed with excessive memory. The former point is irrelevant. For example, network servers aren't always at 100% load are they. So when they aren't, it's only logical that unused memory should be redirected to the cache to improve the performance of the tasks it is doing. As for the latter point, RAM = Rarely Adequate Memory. I guarantee I could use every byte of 256meg RAM if I had it installed. MR> and NT Server. The former has a static cache, while the latter has a MR> dynamic cache. The former cleans up the floor with the latter. MR> I will, however, entertain the idea of a unified cache. See, the thing is, people don't always run every application they have on their HDD at once. Therefore the free RAM boosts the performance of the 5-10 programs that are running quite coniderably. Regards, - SoNiC [ Scott Little (aka. SoNiC) | Fidonet: 3:712/848 ] [ admin@cyberia.asstdc.com.au | www.asstdc.com.au/~cyberia ] --- FMail/Win32 1.22 * Origin: Cyberia <> 02-9534-1702 <> v34+ (3:712/848) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: E2U00053Date: 02/24/97 From: SCOTT LITTLE Time: 01:19am \/To: ALL (Read 3 times) Subj: Netiquette Due to the number of personal attacks floating around this echo (more often than not, directed at me :), I thought the following might be appropriate. Take particular note of the "BAD RESPONSE" and "BETTER RESPONSE" part. Communication Etiquette in Modern Media Author *Unknown* When involved in communications, especially in computer echos, awareness of certain concepts make the activity more fun for everyone. Two main concepts stand out, primarily because people tend to REACT to negative messages with negative responses. 1. Impersonal responses to personal attacks: Computer communications are almost always written. Due to the fact that words carry only limited information, the noise to information ratio can become very dense, with a sentence the sender considered very mild becoming a hurricane of emotion in the mind of the receiver. Therefore try to keep personal nouns and pronouns, like "you" and "your" out of any message that may cause disagreement among the other members of the echo or net. If necessary to express disagreement with an idea, couching the words of your message in impersonal terms works best. Bad response: "I think you are stupid to think motherboards should just be thrown away rather than fixed." This message may well cause the receiver to respond with some nasty reply, clogging the net with negative personal argument. Better response: "I have always found that motherboards could be fixed." This presents an opposite view, but the receiver will less likely consider it a personal attack. If someone disagrees with you personally, or even attacks you viciously, you have three options on an Echo or Net. You can simply ignore the message rather than responding. You can respond in an impersonal but polite way, not letting the attack affect you at all. Or you can send a message to the Moderator, expressing your unease at the tone or attack of the message you received and let the moderator take care of it. 2. Understanding the Twit: Occasionally, someone joins a net or echo with only one interest, to cause as much uproar as possible. They may simply personally attack every person on the net, or sometimes they attack every idea or subject thread they find, for the same purpose. They are often racist, sexist, nationist, or just plain stupid. If the rest of the members of the net refuse to communicate with the twit, s/he will usually lose interest and stop posting. Sometimes normally reasonable people become twits without realizing it, taking some argument or disagreement past the point of courtesy and drawing in others. The discipline of electronic communication really requires a more detached viewpoint than normal in other communication medias, because the usual subliminal undercurrents of communication one receives in other two-way mediums do not exist. Sarcasm and humor can easily become misunderstood, and cause unintended ill feelings. In electronic mediums, honesty, tact, and straightforwardness are of great significance. Without them, communication can stop cold. [ ed: There's more, but not relevant to this echo ] Regards, - Scott [ admin@cyberia.asstdc.com.au | www.asstdc.com.au/~cyberia ] --- FMail/Win32 1.22 * Origin: Cyberia <> 02-9534-1702 <> v34+ (3:712/848) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: E2U00054Date: 02/24/97 From: GREG HUGHES Time: 12:59am \/To: SCOTT LITTLE (Read 3 times) Subj: win no operarting system Re: win no operarting system > SL> It's both. The optimisation pattern is pull down (both HDD cache and > SL> CDROM cache) and a slider bar for the read ahead buffer/cache size. > DD> Both can also be catered to under OS/2. You can tell it how > DD> much to hold in cache, how far to read ahead, and so on. > Not with the standard HPFS. > Regards, Actually, you can change the settings with the "standard" HPFS. --- VFIDO 7.12 * Origin: PC Online (1:2424/2406) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: E2U00055Date: 02/20/97 From: PETER VAN HOVE Time: 10:59pm \/To: SCOTT LITTLE (Read 3 times) Subj: win no operarting sys 2/ Hello Scott, On Wednesday February 12 1997, Scott Little wrote this to David Desrosiers: SL> Hmm come to think of it, when are OS/2 users going to get a decent file SL> manager? Windows has had one for YEARS. Are you really content with that SL> single window tree + a separate window icon view (or whatever you have set SL> it to)? And when does the almighty 32bit OS get a 32bit CHKDSK, or SL> physical device driver interface? We don't need a file commander I even hated the tink under Win 3.x I use File commander wich is a Norton Commander clone and I can tell you it's much easier to use than The file commander or the new thingy in Win 95 SeeYa Team OS/2, Peter ObTagLine: You're all dead, you just don't know it though. --- GoldED/2 * Origin: ERROR: You are Trying to install WIN95 on a OS/2 PC (2:292/629.2) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: E2U00056Date: 02/23/97 From: MIKE STEPHEN Time: 06:41am \/To: DAVE RAYMOND (Read 3 times) Subj: win no operarting sy DR> Scott, DR> DR> DR> LK>> All the latest games and music utilities are written for higher DR> LK>> end sound cards, like the GUS and GUS PnP (and all cards DR> LK>> compatible DR> DR> SL> Hmm... OS2 and GUS have a lot in common. They are both very good, but DR> SL> try FIND one in the local computer shop. Ain't gonna happen. DR> DR> I have found both. DR> DR> DR> SL> Even under OS2 (Win95 too) wiggling the mouse around causes the CPU DR> SL> usage to go up over 10%-20% and upto 40% sometimes (using Norton's or DR> SL> Win95 and PM Patrol for OS2). DR> DR> Funny, moving the mouse around here shows 1% to 2% usage, DR> with PMPatrol. You will find that with most co-processed video cards, the mouse is under hardware control. (ATI, some S3, Matrox etc). The older dumb frame buffer cards rely on software to rewrite the mouse positions. This is why some video cards use 1% or less for mouse movement and some others use quite a bit. I would guess that you have an accelerated video card? I use an ATI Mach 64 card here and I don't see any bumps in the cpu monitor when I move the mouse, no matter how fast and hard I push it. Mike.... ___ X KWQ/2 1.2e X Pentiums and Deodorants - When being close is all that matters. --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: T-Board - (604) 277-4574 (1:153/908) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: E2U00057Date: 02/22/97 From: GREG COBB Time: 02:57pm \/To: SCOTT LITTLE (Read 3 times) Subj: Cli Hi Scott! Saturday February 22 1997, Scott Little babbled to Greg Cobb: GC>> It turned out that a bent pin on a cache chip caused this. It was GC>> funny though. -> No OS could have avoided that. I'm quite aware of this. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Greg Cobb - gcobb@memphisonline.com -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- --- 2SuaveEd v.0 * Origin: Picture This... Southaven, Ms (601)280-2805 - (1:123/434) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: E2U00058Date: 02/22/97 From: GREG COBB Time: 03:04pm \/To: SCOTT LITTLE (Read 3 times) Subj: Tired Hi Scott! Saturday February 22 1997, Scott Little babbled to David Bowerman: -> I have to first find the launchpad (or warpcenter or whatever) under a maze -> of windows. Then open the folder, and then click one and select make -> another and then select where to put it. And this takes how many seconds? You can have either load from your config.sys when your system boots as well. -> Windows: right click. Everything is there. Everything is where? I mean without a macro utility. I don't get everything when I do a right click on the desktop or an icon. I hope I never get in so much of a hurry where a second or two makes a difference to me. If it did, I'd just start a few seconds earlier. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Greg Cobb - gcobb@memphisonline.com -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- --- 2SuaveEd v.0 * Origin: Picture This... Southaven, Ms (601)280-2805 - (1:123/434) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: E2U00059Date: 02/24/97 From: KYLE HEARN Time: 05:19am \/To: STEVE STEFFLER (Read 3 times) Subj: buggy macs Steve Steffler wrote in a message to Keith Douglas: SS> How? "They're supposed to work right" is about the best SS> tech support I've came across so far. Connectix RAM Doubler SS> is installed on them, and it's a PPC app. As a result, most SS> of the 68k apps we have installed like MS Works and Quark SS> Xpress don't usually load unless we boot without RAM SS> Doubler. I've been pushing to be allowed to disable RAM SS> Doubler, because the way I see it, 24 is a lot of RAM just SS> to run Word Processors and Desktop Publishing programs. SS> However, the school says that it's needed. It causes SS> nothing but problems, and slows general performance down. I SS> think it could be one of the problems, however from what SS> I've heard the 7.5x MacOS is buggy anyway.. MacOS is buggy and has pretty well always been rather buggy. People tolerate it for the ease of use. SS> I asked a friend of mine who has over 30 years experience SS> with computers. He is the network administrator for the SS> Edmonton Coliseum, which is where big time sports events SS> take place, like The Edmonton Oilers of the NHL. The SS> network there has about 50 or so Macs running on a localtalk SS> connection, and about 200 or so PCs on Novell Netware. He SS> has professional training in maintaining Apple machines SS> dating back to the mid-80s, and a decade or so working on SS> LANs with DOS. He has said that the Localtalk network SS> crashes nearly daily for no apparent reason, and there is no SS> comparison between it and the PC network. There really isn't. There isnt much comparison between Netware and Solaris either :-) My sparc10 is under a fairly heavy load yet it has been rebooted once in 3 months and then only to put a bigger UPS under it. --- * Origin: Point well taken. (1:130/911.1008) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 129 OP. SYS DEBATE Ref: E2U00060Date: 02/24/97 From: C OCTAVA Time: 08:37am \/To: SCOTT LITTLE (Read 3 times) Subj: Win No Operarting Sys 2/ On 02-23-97, Scott Little said to C Octava: SL>[ Quoting C Octava to Scott Little ] CO> Don't be so sure. Performance is NTFS VS FAT is not as significant as CO> you think it is. SL>Performance is not what I care about. HPFS is a perfect example of how IBM SL>yet again fail to push a great idea to the limit. HPFS386 is a much more SL>acceptable implementation. However I understand that IBM owe rights to MS SL>for the use of HPFS386? They can only use it in their Lan Server Advanced version, and cannot implement it in their client products. Yeah, I think Microsoft owns some of the rights to it. CO> It'll do better than Win 95, that's for sure, but you'll need anywhere CO> between 32MB to 64MB of RAM. SL>I've been told that it's not terribly great for DOS programs. Or was that SL>a 3.5x problem? All versions of NT don't allow direct access to hardware, which will cause ll DOS games to fail. I am not certain about BBS programs, but you might want to ask around in the Win32 forum. SL>No problem. Post me a copy and I'll try it. I'm not going to pay for it CO> BTW, its a really, REALLY stupid thing to admit you're a software CO> pirate, especially on a public system like FidoNet. SL>Tell me where I said 'pirate copy'? I said post me a copy. That can mean SL>both what you said, and it can also mean post me a licenced copy.\ Good CYA. :) SL>... I think the licence agreement states that one SL>licence can only be used on one machine at a time? This means if you are SL>not using that licence you are free to give the disks to anyone you wish SL>as long as they delete it when they're done with it. CD-ROM. NT is too big to fit on diskettes. :) 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)