johnm@trsvax.UUCP (01/04/89)
>From Ted Holden, HTE: An interesting topic of conversation because it will cause us all to look at areas that we might not otherwise be familiar with and allows us to share our own favorite "discoveries". Unfortunately, that is a preface to a few quibbles that I have with your lists: > The Zortech C++ compiler, baseline version 1.07 Amen, brother. > The little $180-$250 hand scanners advertised now in virtually > all PC magazines Can't agree less here. I had a chance to use "The complete hand scanner" and I was woefully disappointed. I have high hopes for some of the extremely cheap flatbed scanners where the camera moves above it though. Those could be adapted with colored filters in front of the lens arrangement in order to get RGB input if the precision of the lens movement is sufficient to line up different scans. Unfortunately, that is flat out impossible with the hand scanners. Instead of this I would suggest Borland's new Turbo Debugger. It's remote debugging capabilities have changed my programming life. > The NeXt computer Amen, again. > The Compuserve GIF format for graphics interchange Another disagreement. I'm a GIF developer and I can tell you that in their classic style Compu$erve has screwed us again... Previously, developers of GIF programs received free online time in the PICS area which meant that all pictures were free to them. This was only reasonable since CI$ was profitting from the many freeware and shareware GIF viewers that its developers were generating. However, they decided that that was "too generous" and PICS was broken off from the areas that contain the main body of GIF files. A few are still available for "testing" but developers are expected to pay for anything else. As a result, the GIF decoder that I'm almost finished with for Tandy 1000 class machines and the one I'm starting now for Amiga's will both have restrictions preventing their uploading to Compu$erve. I would expect to see a sharp dropoff in future support for the format due to this "incredibly wise" move on their part. Instead of this I would suggest the proliferation (sp?) of good quality inexpensive 2400 baud modems. I just recently bought a Supra 2400 baud external for just $144 and I couldn't be happier with it. I can only hope that the trend continues. My only additions to your list of "bests" would be: Telix 3.11 - This is the most incredible piece of shareware I have ever had a chance to use and as a telecom package it leaves Procomm+ in its dust. Desqview & QEMM - It changed my programming environment entirely. If you have extended memory in your 386 machine you can multitask 90% of the programs you encounter. As a heavy Amiga user I find it almost a necessity to be able to multitask and anything less is an incredible frustration. John Munsch
malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy) (01/06/89)
In article <216100074@trsvax> johnm@trsvax.UUCP writes: >My only additions to your list of "bests" would be: > >Telix 3.11 - This is the most incredible piece of shareware I have ever had a >chance to use and as a telecom package it leaves Procomm+ in its dust. I got a copy of Telix to look over -- and wiped it off my disk fifteen minutes later as being worthless. Why? My modem is on COM4. Telix, in its infinite wisdom, requires the modem to be either COM1 or COM2. I agree that Telix is an incredible piece of software . . . but not in the sense that you mean. Certainly it's not worth calling one of the "best" products of the year. Sean Malloy Navy Personnel Research & Development Center San Diego, CA 92152-6800 malloy@nprdc.arpa
mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (01/07/89)
My vote for one of the ten best products of the year is actually a category: real, genuine, 32-bit 386 compilers that generate code that runs under DOS. I am referring to Metaware High C (which I haven't used) and MicroWay NDPC and NDP Fortran, which I have. These totally destroy the notion of a PC as a toy! I now have ALL my old "mainframe" (actually, VMS) stuff converted to my PC, and it all runs faster and better. AND, what a pleasure that, while the compiled products run in "protected mode" none of the "protection" is actually turned on! I can still write direct to the screen and trap interrupts. A real big thanks to Phar LAp and to Microway. Doug McDonald
smvorkoetter@watmum.waterloo.edu (Stefan M. Vorkoetter) (01/09/89)
In article <1284@skinner.nprdc.arpa> malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy) writes: >In article <216100074@trsvax> johnm@trsvax.UUCP writes: >>Telix 3.11 - This is the most incredible piece of shareware I have ever had a >>chance to use and as a telecom package it leaves Procomm+ in its dust. >I got a copy of Telix to look over -- and wiped it off my disk fifteen >minutes later as being worthless. Why? My modem is on COM4. Telix, in >its infinite wisdom, requires the modem to be either COM1 or COM2. I First, I market my own COM software, so I would be the last to push Telix on people :-). I have seen Telix however and it is a good product. My COM software, and many others, do not support COM3 or COM4, since there is no definition of COM3 or COM4. The addresses and interrupt vectors used depend entirely on the board you are using. With no standard, it is hard to write a program that will use them. Granted, the addressess of each installed COM port are supposed to appear in some place in the BIOS data area (I forget where exactly), but this is not always so. And it doesn't tell you anything about interrupts. Just thought I'd add my 2 cents worth. Stefan Vorkoetter (smvorkoetter@watmum.waterloo.edu)
dmurdoch@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (D.J. Murdoch - Statistics) (01/09/89)
In article <7593@watcgl.waterloo.edu> smvorkoetter@watmum.waterloo.edu (Stefan M. Vorkoetter) writes: >In article <1284@skinner.nprdc.arpa> malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy) writes: >>In article <216100074@trsvax> johnm@trsvax.UUCP writes: > >>>Telix 3.11 - This is the most incredible piece of shareware I have ever had a >>>chance to use and as a telecom package it leaves Procomm+ in its dust. > >>I got a copy of Telix to look over -- and wiped it off my disk fifteen >>minutes later as being worthless. Why? My modem is on COM4. Telix, in >>its infinite wisdom, requires the modem to be either COM1 or COM2. I The current version of Telix (v3.11) supports COM1 to COM8. Because the last 6 are non-standard, it lets you choose the I/O addresses and IRQ lines for each, if the default values don't work. Telix? I'm soaking in it now.
hazela@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Jose Reynaldo Setti) (01/09/89)
>>>Telix 3.11 - This is the most incredible piece of shareware I have ever had a >>>chance to use and as a telecom package it leaves Procomm+ in its dust. > >>I got a copy of Telix to look over -- and wiped it off my disk fifteen >>minutes later as being worthless. Why? My modem is on COM4. Telix, in >>its infinite wisdom, requires the modem to be either COM1 or COM2. I > >First, I market my own COM software, so I would be the last to push >Telix on people :-). I have seen Telix however and it is a good product. >My COM software, and many others, do not support COM3 or COM4, since >there is no definition of COM3 or COM4. The addresses and interrupt Telix 3.11 is able to use any COM port. From COM1 to COM8. (I've never heard of COM5 - COM8. Have you?) I don't have anything to do with Telix. In fact, I was trying to get Procomm when somebody gave me a copy of Telix to try. I'm still trying to digest everything, including the SALT script language that comes with it. And of course, being able to support up to COM8 means nothing, it could still be a piece of garbage. J.Setti The Transport Group Civil Engineering Dept. UofWaterloo Waterloo, Ontario - Canada
andrew@dgbt.uucp (Andrew Patrick) (01/13/89)
I am a PROCOMM user who has looked at TELIX briefly. As far as I
could tell, there is no way to get TELIX to wrap lines that run off
the edge of the screen. Am I mistaken on the lack of a line wrap
feature? It seems like a huge ommision.
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
Andrew Patrick, Ph.D. Communications Research Centre
(613) 990-4675 Dept. of Communications, Canada
andrew@crcmar.UUCP ...utzoo!bnr-vpa!bnr-rsc!crcmar!andrew
BITNET: andrew@doccrc INTERNET: andrew@dgbt.crc.dnd.ca
N.B. We are changing from crcmar.UUCP to dgbt.UUCP, but the maps have
yet to be updated.
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) (01/15/89)
As quoted from <1284@skinner.nprdc.arpa> by malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy): +--------------- | In article <216100074@trsvax> johnm@trsvax.UUCP writes: | >My only additions to your list of "bests" would be: | > | >Telix 3.11 - This is the most incredible piece of shareware I have ever had a | >chance to use and as a telecom package it leaves Procomm+ in its dust. | | I got a copy of Telix to look over -- and wiped it off my disk fifteen | minutes later as being worthless. Why? My modem is on COM4. Telix, in | its infinite wisdom, requires the modem to be either COM1 or COM2. I +--------------- You're running an out-of-date version. I've got Telix 3.00; aside from a few problems I have with chat mode and the fact that non-destructive backspace default isn't saved (I hope both are fixed in Telix 3.11, which I intend to get ASAP), it's a great program. It supports COM1-COM8. (Yes, I said COM*8*.) ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@ncoast.org (soon) uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu Send comp.sources.misc submissions to comp-sources-misc@<backbone> NCoast Public Access UN*X - (216) 781-6201, 300/1200/2400 baud, login: makeuser
mju@m-net.UUCP (Marc Unangst) (01/16/89)
In article <1284@skinner.nprdc.arpa> malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy) writes: >I got a copy of Telix to look over -- and wiped it off my disk fifteen >minutes later as being worthless. Why? My modem is on COM4. Telix, in >its infinite wisdom, requires the modem to be either COM1 or COM2. I >agree that Telix is an incredible piece of software . . . but not in >the sense that you mean. Certainly it's not worth calling one of the >"best" products of the year. (I would have sent this in mail, but I feel that it is important enough to post.) What version of Telix did you try? Earlier versions of Telix may have only supported COM1 and COM2, but v3.11 supports COM1-8, and also supports modifying the starting address and IRQ line. -- Marc Unangst UUCP: mju@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us UUCP path: ...!uunet!mailrus!clip!m-net!mju Internet: mju%m-net@cardiology.ummc.umich.edu