root@uisc1.UUCP (Super user) (06/03/88)
In article <1866@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu>, sam@ncsuvx.UUCP writes: > I just got back from the announcement of the Model 70 and Model 50Z PS/2s > given by IBM. They told us that OS/2 was quickly becoming THE OS standard Yes, I've heard that too. The funny thing is that the only people whom I hear this from seem to be working for IBM or want to sell OS2/PS2 machines. I am a DP consultant and (from my grad school days) have many friend in Computer Science R&D. Almost all of them seem to have a wait & see attitude. > I have OS/2 running, but the only application I have is a port of MicroEmacs > that I did myself. I have talked with a handfull of other people that are > in about the same position as I am. Some time ago a guy named Dvorak (sp?) who writes for one of the PC mags wrote a column in which he voiced what almost everybody (or everybody I know anyway) is thinking, and that is that the only reason IBM released OS2 on the 286 was because the 286/OS2 combination forces customers to buy their software all over again. In other words, it was a scam. A rip off. I don't deal with companies that try to rip me off. I installed SCO Xenix at my home and recommended it for our business location where we are using '286 based AT's. So far, short of a few minor problems with SCO was on the whole very willing to solve, we have not regretted this action. From an applications point of view, we have Foxbase (dBASE III+ clone), Pro (Lotus clone, identical in everything I have seen), and full accounting written in dBASE III+ by SBT. > Is anyone doing any OS/2 development? Although a lot of people seem to be making noises about it (SPSS Corp decided to go with OS2 over UNIX/Xenix for 286/386 machines for instance), I haven't seen much actually released. Not anywhere near as much as is being released for UNIX/Xenix anyway. :-) > I am willing to setup an FTPable library of public OS/2 software if there > is a need. But is there? I dunno if there is a need. If I understand your earlier question, it seems to me that there's no software to put into a library. :-) > Otherwise I may just trash it and load unix on my PS/2. Frankly, that's what I did and that's what I would do if I were you. Have a nice day.
news@pmt1.UUCP (Usenet news) (06/05/88)
In article <1866@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu>, sam@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (Whad Upp) writes: > > > I just got back from the announcement of the Model 70 and Model 50Z PS/2s > given by IBM. They told us that OS/2 was quickly becoming THE OS standard, etc. > > I have OS/2 running, but the only application I have is a port of MicroEmacs > that I did myself. I have talked with a handfull of other people that are > in about the same position as I am. > > Is anyone doing any OS/2 development? Are people waiting for the PM to be > released? How about public domain software for OS/2? Is it out there in one > place? > > I am willing to setup an FTPable library of public OS/2 software if there > is a need. But is there? > The problem is much deeper that just waiting for presentations manager. OS/2 is to support large corporate networks using a new communications manager. The OS/2 applications on individual workstations are to be connected by a lan to communications manager. So many of OS/2s first users will be IBMs largest customers. They buy PCs by the thousands or tens of thousands. Consider the plight of a major corporation trying to implement new applications and networks under OS/2 and it is no wonder that things are going so slowly. I have been doing consulting for a large fortune 500 company which is known to be a large IBM account. They want to deploy a huge network and a large number of workstations using PS/2s and OS/2. And of course they want to buy everything from Big Blue. The project has been slipping from day one, and the major reason waiting for the new hardware and OS/2 EE. For instance: We've been waiting for the new communications manager, the one that is to allow us to consolidate our existing networks. OS/2 at this stage is not very useful, and we have to convert existing applications to use it, or wait for other vendors to do conversions. Many third party vendors are taking a wait and see approach. We can't run existing applications in the compatiblity box. We require host communications and the compatibility box switches from real to protected mode which disrupts communications. We're waiting for the lan manager so we can hook application workstations to the network when it becomes available. We're waiting for presentation manager. But since all our existing applications use other windowing software we don't know exactly where windows (sorry, Presentation Manager) fits. It is unclear that PM really has all of the tools to replace the application specific window managers, such as adequate editing and forms handling abilities. The IBM PS/2 model 50 and newly announced variants all seem too expensive for many many thousands of application workstations. Certainly far more expensive than clustering users on Unix systems (say 3-4 user per machine) and hooking the multi-user systems into the lan and network. If using OS/2 we would prefer diskless workstations which can boot from a common file server. While the model 25 is not right for us (does not run OS/2), the model 50 is not diskless. True we read about experimental diskless workstations but, IBM seems to be quiet about them. When (when ?) we get diskless PCs and are able to boot from a file server, the token ring lan appears to be too slow for the load at the current bandwidth. We hear about 16MB lan cards of the future...but where are they? So we had another thought ... lets put our applications under Dos and move them to OS/2 later. This is an attempt to end the waiting game, so we can work on our application backlog and keep our users happy. One problem: the workstations we choose for DOS may not be the correct configuration for OS/2 later on. It appeas that as OS/2 comes nearer, the workstations are being revised so they will be appropriate for the new operating system. That is just what happened with UNIX in 1982, when the first vendors told us it worked just fine without a hard disk, and that it only needed 340K to work properly. New versions of the existing Unix computers appeared within a year. The other problem with DOS is the 640K memory barrier. When you load a PC with DOS and lan manager, you lose lots of memory. Especially if you don't have a network gateway and you also have to add 3270 software in the PC. Ram disk is the obvious choice to ease our memory problems. But we're told by IBM that ram disk is incompatable with newtwork operation. You can lose interrupts when using ram-disk and this is incompatible with doing lan transmissions and handling unsolicited inbound messages. So our most functional applications are squeezed for memory under DOS. We keep reading in the trade press about DOS 3.4, but it was not announced June 2nd as rumored. IBM seems to be justifying OS/2 for applications which need to break the 640K barrier. So is may be that even if DOS 3.4 can break the 640K barrier, it may never be released, because it could remove the obvious reason for using OS/2. We can't use OS/2 because the pieces are not in place and it needs time to mature. We can't use DOS without concern that our existing applications can't grow, and with inadequate memory, performance suffers. Migrating from DOS now to OS/2 later means we risk having to retrofit or replace thousands of workstations over a large geographical area. An with DOS we still need to look for a third party gateway vendor. LU 6.2 has been pretty slow to reach critical mass too. And we wanted to buy from Big Blue. So I think a good part of the reason OS/2 is moving slowly is that there are MANY new pieces and they don't fit together right now. Most standalone workstation users will prefer to stay with DOS due to low price and availavbility of applications. OS/2 workstations are going to take 3-5MB of memory. So just having OS/2 or getting Presentation Manager may not make the market really take off. OS/2 today is likely to appeal for large scale distributed processing and big corporate networks. At least to start out. Many of the candidates for OS/2 are likely to be IBM's best customers - and they are bogged down with problems such as those discussed above. Its going to be slow going no matter what IBM or the trade journals say.
johnm@trsvax.UUCP (06/07/88)
[Person coming to grips with fact that OS2 is a sham deleted :-)] >released? How about public domain software for OS/2? Is it out there in one >place? If there is any out there it is in one place alright. In fact it's probably all on one disk... The reason for the vast quantities of PD and shareware stuff for the PC's is that the machines (at least the low end ones) are cheap and software for development (like Turbo or Quick C) is dirt cheap. Thus anybody can get in on the act in their living room. The same is not true of OS2 and the machines that run it. Just the operating system itself is more than most people want to spend for ANY piece of software. Unless the cost of OS2, the machines to run it, and the development software are suddenly cut in half you can bet that you will NEVER see a significant amount of free software for the system. John Munsch
whitley@usfvax2.EDU (John S. Whitley II) (06/11/88)
In article <216100037@trsvax> johnm@trsvax.UUCP writes: > >[Person coming to grips with fact that OS2 is a sham deleted :-)] > Whoever claimed that OS/2 was a plot by IBM to force all the PS/2 users to pruchase new software was a sniveling jerk. Two points: 1) IBM is out for profit as the ultimate end, but they do not follow the motto: "The end justifies the means" 2) But since when has IBM produced the bulk of sofrware for their personal machines anyway?? They lay the foundation, and the rest is filled in by other software corporations, and by YOU, the private sector. >The reason for the vast quantities of PD and shareware stuff for the PC's is >that the machines (at least the low end ones) are cheap and software for >development (like Turbo or Quick C) is dirt cheap. Thus anybody can get in on >the act in their living room. The same is not true of OS2 and the machines >that run it. Just the operating system itself is more than most people want >to spend for ANY piece of software. Unless the cost of OS2, the machines to run >it, and the development software are suddenly cut in half you can bet that you >will NEVER see a significant amount of free software for the system. Hogwash. You forget that in the time period since the PC's were first announced till now there have been many versions of DOS (1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 2.1, 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, ...) Now figure in the cost of each version, not all of them, just a few major ones. About 500 dollars or up to keep ahead of the game. Now we are presented with OS/2, a big, extremely versatile operating system, which costs about $350 or alot less if you have channels. This operating system is projected to change VERY little over the long haul, i.e. no newer versions every few months. This yields an approximate savings over DOS of about 150 dollars, or more, plus the advantage of no longer being tied down by an aging operating system. Of course there are going to be dollars out of your own pocket, but they darn sure will be worth it several years from now, when DOS takes over CP/M's place in obsolescence. I do not support the idea that any UNIX variant for a PC/PS type machine is suitable. OS/2 with the Presentation Manager and the enforced machine compatability from SAA is specifically designed for use on PS/2 class machines. Unix is a wonderful operating system, but alas, I don't think anyone will create a Unix based standard anywhere near as nice as the OS/2 & Pres. Manager combination(SAA). Besides, the big compiler vendors in the DOS market are making their compilers for OS/2 now, NOT Unix. Turbo C on Unix, I think not! Nor anything with "Microsoft" on the label. I would enjoy dicussion of possibilities concerning the future of Unix and the personal environment, for I could easily be wrong! :-) John Whitley II -- whitley@usfvax2.usf.edu > >John Munsch
pavlov@hscfvax.harvard.edu (G.Pavlov) (06/11/88)
In article <216100037@trsvax>, johnm@trsvax.UUCP writes: > > ..................................Unless the cost of OS2, the machines to run > it, and the development software are suddenly cut in half you can bet that you > will NEVER see a significant amount of free software for the system. > > John Munsch - likewise, we will never see a significant amount of free software for VAXen, SUN, Xenix, et. al....... greg pavlov, fstrf, amherst, ny
txr98@wash08.UUCP (Timothy Reed) (06/12/88)
To assume that os2 will have a static design is pretty foolish - it's more reasonable to think that it will change as much as dos or unix have during the past few years - I'll bet a major rev or version will appear annually, and they'll require minimum configuration upgrades too, so that new revs will cost much more than the upgrade fee. Maybe there isn't a unix user interface as nice as os2's, but I can hang afew people on my xenix at running xenix for the same $$$ as 1 ps2 with os2, source code I write on a vax or tower will compile on the at w/o mods, and the environment, while not as windowed as os2, remains constant, a not-insubstantial point with a large inexperienced user community. true, borland and MS aren't doing alot with unix (cept MS WORD) because compilers come with unix - no point in selling turbo c if the machine already has a c compiler! This os2 thing is a fad (boy aren't those famous last words -:), as small-scale unix systems replace both the fat expensive single user systems and their large expensive compilicated and ill-conceived networks solutions. In article <1084@usfvax2.EDU> whitley@usfvax2.usf.edu.UUCP (John S. Whitley II) writes: >In article <216100037@trsvax> johnm@trsvax.UUCP writes: >>[Person coming to grips with fact that OS2 is a sham deleted :-)] >announced till now there have been many versions of DOS (1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 2.1, >them, just a few major ones. About 500 dollars or up to keep ahead of the >game. Now we are presented with OS/2, a big, extremely versatile operating >system, which costs about $350 or alot less if you have channels. >operating system is projected to change VERY little over the long haul, >anyone will create a Unix based standard anywhere near as nice as the >OS/2 & Pres. Manager combination(SAA). Besides, the big compiler vendors >in the DOS market are making their compilers for OS/2 now, NOT Unix. >Turbo C on Unix, I think not! Nor anything with "Microsoft" on the label.
caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) (06/13/88)
In article <1084@usfvax2.EDU> whitley@usfvax2.usf.edu.UUCP (John S. Whitley II) writes:
:OS/2 & Pres. Manager combination(SAA). Besides, the big compiler vendors
:in the DOS market are making their compilers for OS/2 now, NOT Unix.
:Turbo C on Unix, I think not! Nor anything with "Microsoft" on the label.
The SCO Xenix C compiler *is* the Microsoft C compiler, minus
a few of the bugs that infest the DOS flavors. And since it
is compiled 32 bit, the 386 Xenix compiler runs fast and
doesn't complain about running out of memory when there's 4MB
left on the machine. The Green Hills C compiler is available
for those who aren't satisfied with the default compiler. The
only need for a TurboC is to compile DOS programs wiht non
standard features in the TurboC library. If one really needs
TurboC, it can be run in a DOS partition.
As for hackers and free software, it's hard to say, but
consider: One really wants a 386 box with a good sized disk to
run OS/2, and such a box runs 386 *nix just fine, thank you.
There's a cornucopia of PD Unix software to entice the hacker
(X windows, GNU, Netnews, Nethack, comp.sources.*) and one can
put *nix on one's disk for less $$$ than OS/2 and an "equivalent"
set of "quality" tools.
There is one feature of OS/2 I like. It doesn't have a file system
clean/dirty flag, so one doesn't have to clean the file system
every time one hardware resets the system.root@mjbtn.UUCP (Mark J. Bailey) (06/13/88)
In article <575@hscfvax.harvard.edu>, pavlov@hscfvax.harvard.edu (G.Pavlov) writes: > > - likewise, we will never see a significant amount of free software for VAXen, > SUN, Xenix, et. al....... > Well, what do you call the megabytes of unix sources in unix.sources, misc.sources, alt.sources, pubnet.sources, etc.? While some are not targeted for Xenix, etc., a large number can be compiled on Xenix (my case) and many are top quality, useful tools. This is a PC group, so may be you are unaware of the vast archives on sites like killer and sir-alan. Of course, these are sources not binaries is that is what you are referring to. Mark. -- Mark J. Bailey "Y'all com bak naw, ya hear!" USMAIL: 511 Memorial Blvd., Murfreesboro, TN 37130 ___________________________ VOICE: +1 615 893 4450 / +1 615 896 4153 | JobSoft UUCP: ...!{ames,mit-eddie}!killer!mjbtn!root | Design & Development Co. FIDO: Mark Bailey at Net/Node 1:116/12 | Murfreesboro, TN USA
mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (06/14/88)
> > ..................................Unless the cost of OS2, the machines to run > it, and the development software are suddenly cut in half you can bet that you > will NEVER see a significant amount of free software for the system. > > John Munsch > - likewise, we will never see a significant amount of free software for VAXen, > SUN, Xenix, et. al....... Actually there is another reason you will see less or no free software for those machine and operating systems : they aren't fun to program! All of them are large, clunky, overprotected operating systems. Programming a PC to its full capability is a lot more fun than doing it on a protected-mode multitasking system. On the PC the operating system, what little of it there is, never gets in your way.
pavlov@hscfvax.harvard.edu (G.Pavlov) (06/14/88)
In article <269@mjbtn.UUCP>, root@mjbtn.UUCP (Mark J. Bailey) writes: > In article <575@hscfvax.harvard.edu>, pavlov@hscfvax.harvard.edu (G.Pavlov) writes: > > > - likewise, we will never see a significant amount of free software for VAX > > SUN, Xenix, et. al....... > Well, what do you call the megabytes of unix sources in unix.sources, > misc.sources, alt.sources, pubnet.sources, etc.? While some are not > targeted for Xenix, etc., .............. Sorry, let me fix my original so it is clearer (given what I was responding to, I thought it was obvious): - likewise, we will never see a significant amount of free software for VAX SUN, Xenix, et. al....... :-) :-) > Mark J. Bailey "Y'all com bak naw, ya hear" "Naw. prob'ly get shot for laughin'......"
sam@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (Whad Upp) (06/14/88)
In article <1084@usfvax2.EDU> whitley@usfvax2.usf.edu.UUCP (John S. Whitley II) writes: > > I do not support the idea that any UNIX variant for a PC/PS type machine >is suitable. OS/2 with the Presentation Manager and the enforced machine >compatability from SAA is specifically designed for use on PS/2 class >machines. Unix is a wonderful operating system, but alas, I don't think >anyone will create a Unix based standard anywhere near as nice as the >OS/2 & Pres. Manager combination(SAA). What about every vendor selling X with their UNIX. Even IBM. I don't see where the PM will be much more than MS Windows that is more tightly integrated into OS/2. It doesn't facilitate distributed processing. And it will only run on OS/2 machines. If you want something that is going to be portable to the most platforms write it for UNIX. IBM now has UNIX running on all their machines. Soon AIX will be running on the PS/2. >Besides, the big compiler vendors >in the DOS market are making their compilers for OS/2 now, NOT Unix. >Turbo C on Unix, I think not! Nor anything with "Microsoft" on the label. >I would enjoy dicussion of possibilities concerning the future of Unix and >the personal environment, for I could easily be wrong! :-) > I think that Apple went to UNIX for the Mac II for a good reason. I think IBM has UNIX running on most of their platforms for a good reason. I think that DEC now accepts UNIX, because they have to. I think that every major vendor of UNIX which includes all of them have included X in their next release for a good reason. This is not 1981. UNIX is not without applications. UNIX is the OS of 32 bit workstations. What we have with the new micros is 32 bit workstations. When you talk standards I don't think that OS/2-SAA is valid. Of course, the only reason that OS/2 will evolve is MSDOS. Which is unfortunate, because OS/2 does MSDOS worse than other vendor machines. The Amiga allows DOS to run concurrently within an AmigaDOS window. The Sun 386i will run multiple versions of MSDOS in SunView windows. The Sun solution sounds like a good one - migrate from DOS to UNIX. From an outdated operating system to an already established operating system. You speak of the fall of UNIX. Maybe you should consult HP, DEC, Sun, Apple, MIT, and IBM; for they are heading in the wrong direction. >John Whitley II -- whitley@usfvax2.usf.edu > > ///"Peel back the mountains peel back the sky, Stomp gravity into the floor"//// ///////////////////////REM 'Feeling Gravity's Pull'///////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////Sam/Moore/NCSU Computing Center/Raleigh, NC/sam@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu////////
sam@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (Whad Upp) (06/14/88)
In article <575@hscfvax.harvard.edu> pavlov@hscfvax.harvard.edu (G.Pavlov) writes: >In article <216100037@trsvax>, johnm@trsvax.UUCP writes: >> >> ..................................Unless the cost of OS2, the machines to run >> it, and the development software are suddenly cut in half you can bet that you >> will NEVER see a significant amount of free software for the system. >> >> John Munsch > > > - likewise, we will never see a significant amount of free software for VAXen, > SUN, Xenix, et. al....... > > greg pavlov, fstrf, amherst, ny > The Amiga developers develop the most free software because they have a truely bad system. Anyone that spends much time with an Amiga gets hooked. It is unfortunate that it has not done more, but the reasons for that are obvious. However, the machine can run graphic circles around any other micro on the market. And play sterio music at the same time. And all this while running MSDOS in an AmigaDOS window. The Amiga had multi-tasking years ago. It is a system ahead of it's time - and OS/2s. And don't fool yourself, there is a load of public software for UNIX, and the therefore Sun and Vaxen. The net is full of it. OS/2 on the other hand, is..., well, a... somewhat quite. It may just be a corporate OS like those big mainframe OSs. ///"Peel back the mountains peel back the sky, Stomp gravity into the floor"//// ///////////////////////REM 'Feeling Gravity's Pull'///////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////Sam/Moore/NCSU Computing Center/Raleigh, NC/sam@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu////////
adf@uisc1.UUCP (Andre Franklin) (06/14/88)
In article <693@omen.UUCP>, caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) writes: > In article <1084@usfvax2.EDU> whitley@usfvax2.usf.edu.UUCP (John S. Whitley II) writes: > :OS/2 & Pres. Manager combination(SAA). Besides, the big compiler vendors > :in the DOS market are making their compilers for OS/2 now, NOT Unix. > :Turbo C on Unix, I think not! Nor anything with "Microsoft" on the label. > > The SCO Xenix C compiler *is* the Microsoft C compiler, minus > a few of the bugs that infest the DOS flavors. > > As for hackers and free software, it's hard to say, but > consider: One really wants a 386 box with a good sized disk to > run OS/2, and such a box runs 386 *nix just fine, thank you. > There's a cornucopia of PD Unix software to entice the hacker > (X windows, GNU, Netnews, Nethack, comp.sources.*) and one can > put *nix on one's disk for less $$$ than OS/2 and an "equivalent" > set of "quality" tools. It became obvious very quickly, to me anyway, that Mr. John S. Whitley II is more than likely an IBM employee whose paycheck depends on his success at convincing the public that OS/2 is not the flop and failure which it is rapidly showing itself to be. Let's face it, IBM (or at least it's end-user oriented side) stopped being state of the art when the second computer company entered the market. Releasing its 286-based PS/2 system after competitors had already released working 386 systems showed once again that IBM is nothing but a giant on its way to the graveyard. PS/2 doesn't even come close to UNIX, either in terms of ability (everything it brags about has been available under *NIX for years), cost (*NIX is way cheaper to install and maintain), support (because you are not tied to one supplier whose sole interest is the buck you have many suppliers to select from, which increases competitiveness and quality), or software selection, free and otherwise. IBM will, however, be here a while longer, mostly for the same reason why we still have people grinding out code in Cobol. There are so many people who are somehow tied to IBM's old boy network, that no matter how poor their quality, how overpriced their equipment and support, and how inferior they they may, there will always be fools who will buy because of the label rather than because of true substance. C'est la vie, I suppose. "If stupidity hurt, the vast majority of the human race would do nothing all day but scream!"
johnm@trsvax.UUCP (06/17/88)
/* Written 11:09 am Jun 13, 1988 by mjbtn.UUCP!root in trsvax:comp.sys.ibm.pc */ In article <575@hscfvax.harvard.edu>, pavlov@hscfvax.harvard.edu (G.Pavlov) writes: >> >>- likewise, we will never see a significant amount of free software for VAXen, >> SUN, Xenix, et. al....... >> > >Well, what do you call the megabytes of unix sources in unix.sources, >misc.sources, alt.sources, pubnet.sources, etc.? While some are not >targeted for Xenix, etc., a large number can be compiled on Xenix (my >case) and many are top quality, useful tools. This is a PC group, so >may be you are unaware of the vast archives on sites like killer and >sir-alan. Of course, these are sources not binaries is that is what >you are referring to. I believe that he was being sarcastic when he made the statement and you took it literally. He was trying to point out that there is a lot of free software for machines so expensive that no one individual (typically) can own one. I stand behind my original claim that there will be a dearth of software for OS/2 because I'm not just looking at the quantity of software but the type as well. Things like BBS's, editors, and most games are written by the weekend hackers and are not things that come up in the course of ordinary development. I believe that if you look back over the programs that have come through comp.sources.unix you will find an incredible preponderance (sp?) of development tools, i.e. much less variety than the free software for the PC's today. When the machines are that expensive nobody is going to be writing the a comic book cataloger for it because they can't afford to have one at home. Maybe there will be as much software for OS/2 but it will probably be the tools we use to build things, not the applications. John Munsch
loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) (06/17/88)
In article <45900133@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >> - likewise, we will never see a significant amount of free software for VAXen, >> SUN, Xenix, et. al....... >Actually there is another reason you will see less or no free software for >those machine and operating systems : they aren't fun to program! To each his own, huh? There is nothing fun about programming a PC. It is irritating and frustrating to have to re-invent EVERYTHING. The documentation is vapor and the system is so restrictive that most useful user conveniences are impossible. Want just one example? How about escaping characters on the command line? If you think that there's anything good about PC's, you've never used a real computer. -- CLBrunow - KA5SOF Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083 clb@loci.uucp, loci@killer.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp
tif@cpe.UUCP (06/17/88)
Written 12:50 am Jun 13, 1988 by omen.UUCP!caf in cpe:comp.sy.ibm.pc >There is one feature of OS/2 I like. It doesn't have a file system >clean/dirty flag, so one doesn't have to clean the file system >every time one hardware resets the system. Why not fix the problem instead of making bad habits simpler? *nix machines run for days and weeks and weeks and days without ever needing to be "hardware reset." Yea, I know you're a *nix fan, but I couldn't resist. Paul Chamberlain Computer Product Engineering, Tandy Corp. ihnp4!sys1!cpe!tif