brian@NCoast.ORG (Brian Keith Gaiser) (02/15/91)
In article <23638@netcom.COM> resnicks@netcom.COM (Steve Resnick) writes: >In article <21787.27b47dd7@cluster@ukc.ac.uk> cur022%cluster@ukc.ac.uk (Bob Eager) writes: >>In article <23245@netcom.COM>, resnicks@netcom.COM (Steve Resnick) writes: >> >>Is it? Do you have proof? I am sure it is mostly C. Anyway, UNIX has *some* >>assembler too....I speak as a UNIX user of 16 years. >> > Looks more like C to me. Imagine doing all that structure manipulation > in assembler! Ugh! > > > Actually, alot of OS/2 V1.0 to V2.0 is assembler, and 286 at that. This is the reason that OS/2 is not more *portable* accross platforms. OS/2 Version 3.0 is supposed to be mostly written in C. This opens the product up to the RISC and other non-intel platforms. Disclaimer : "That's what I heard !" -- --------- THE GIZZ ---------- | | | Brian Gaiser 216/292-0400 | | x3471 |
bbb@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (03/02/91)
Can anyone give me any ideas for solving a problem with os 1.1 (Its old but all i have!) Trying to get 1.1 (Zeniths oem release) ported to a 386 clone. Every thing works alright except the com ports in the protected mode. DOS boxs works fine. Watching the modem lights i can see DTR coming high but no data is sent. The boot up messages look fine , says it installed com1 and com2. the only com driver i have is COM01.SYS. Any ideas? E-mail please as I dont check the groups real often. Thanks BB
goldman@mbcl.rutgers.edu (03/31/91)
In article <10599@uwm.edu>, tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael Kretzer) writes: > Help! I need three serial ports, but OS/2 only seems to recognize two! > How can I get around this. I have a mouse, a modem card, and a digitizer > (for AutoCAD), but I have been unable to use all three at once! What can > I do? Is there some sort of patch floating about that will fix this > problem? > > Confused and Frustrated, > Mike > > tanith@csd4.csd.uwm.edu Mike, If you have a bus mouse, set it to respond to com3. That's what I do; I use a microsoft mouse on com3 & don't have any problems. Adrian -- Adrian Goldman | Internet: Goldman@MBCL.Rutgers.Edu Molecular Biology Computing Laboratory | Bitnet: Goldman@BioVAX Waksman Insitute, | Phone: (908) 932-4864 Rutgers University, | Fax: (908) 932-5735 Piscataway, NJ 08855 USA |
mondomon@athena.mit.edu (Allan S. MacKinnon) (04/16/91)
Interesting article in the New York Times today about IBM's stance on OS/2. Has the sleeper awakened? -Allan MacKinnon
jwohl@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (Jeremy Wohl) (04/17/91)
In article <1991Apr15.174111.8105@athena.mit.edu> mondomon@athena.mit.edu (Allan S. MacKinnon) writes: > >Interesting article in the New York Times today about IBM's stance on >OS/2. Has the sleeper awakened? Please summarize. Thanks. -- Jeremy Wohl / wohl@max.physics.sunysb.edu / jwohl@csserv1.ic.sunysb.edu
flusekw@ucs.indiana.edu (WILLIAM FRANKLIN FLUSEK) (04/17/91)
From bronze!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!gatech!udel!sbcs!eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu!jwohl Tue Apr 16 18:12:21 EST 1991 Article 932 of comp.os.os2.misc: Path: bronze!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!gatech!udel!sbcs!eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu!jwohl >From: jwohl@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (Jeremy Wohl) Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc Subject: Re: <None> Message-ID: <1991Apr16.200813.1776@sbcs.sunysb.edu> Date: 16 Apr 91 20:08:13 GMT References: <1991Apr15.174111.8105@athena.mit.edu> Sender: usenet@sbcs.sunysb.edu (Usenet poster) Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook Lines: 10 >In article <1991Apr15.174111.8105@athena.mit.edu> mondomon@athena.mit.edu (Allan S. MacKinnon) writes: >> >>Interesting article in the New York Times today about IBM's stance on >>OS/2. Has the sleeper awakened? > >Please summarize. > >Thanks. >-- >Jeremy Wohl / wohl@max.physics.sunysb.edu / jwohl@csserv1.ic.sunysb.edu > My summary is a bit long, but somewhat shorter than the actual article. If I comment on the article, it will be in a seperate posting. ========================= The Article =========================== New York Times: April 15, 1991 pages C1 and C4 Title: A 10-Year Alliance Fades as I.B.M. Tackles Microsoft IBM has been pushed out of the PC and software spotlight by its software partner MS. IBM has begun a lobbying and marketing campaign to promote OS/2. At issue is who produces the better PC OS. IBM has the immediate goal of countering the industry perception that OS/2 has been outmanuevered by MS Windows. IBM is bringing forward a new version of OS/2 that will not only do everything that Windows currently does but as much as the version of OS/2 that MS will not have out for at least a year. IBM hopes to convince the industry that it is wasting time wating for MS to complete OS/2 3.0. Winning over developers and users who have already purchased in excess of 3 million copies of OS/2 may be tough for IBM. It must first overcome the perception that the 300,000 copies of OS/2 sold to date are failures. "Selling OS/2, even with a good public relations agency, is going to be very hard for I.B.M." said Richard Schaffer, publisher of Technologic, a computer industry newsletter. "Microsoft has put I.B.M. in a box." In the effort to revive the reputation of OS/2 IBM will be undertaking significant improvements in the program. The current version, for the most part, runs only software designed for its graphical user interface. The new OS/2, IBM says, will also be able to run programs that rely on the older DOS operating system, as Windows can. The new OS/2 will be able to run several DOS programs at the same time as well as running software designed for Windows, along the way converting them to look like software designed for the Presentation Manager. "We want to make Windows a non-issue for our customers," Joseph Guglielmi, I.B.M.'s general manager of market and business development for its PS/2 computers, said recently. "OS/2 will be the preferred path for a large class of customers." A problem for IBM will be reaching beyond its largest corporate customers and influencing the millions of PC users. At the meetings this week, IBM will not have a finished version of the new OS/2, which may reinforce industry contentions that IBM cannot deliver on its software promises. "One of I.B.M.'s biggest single problems is a significant lack of credibility in terms of the software they have delivered," said Seymour Merrin, president of Merrin Information Services, a Palo Alto, Calif., consulting firm. The new advances that IBM is boasting of include being able to process 32 bits of data at a time, rather than 16. This also means that it will require the use of a 386 processor and not a 286 processor. OS's increasingly have become a battleground. MS-DOS, developed in 1981 by MS under contract to IBM, has become the world most popular operating system with 60 million users. MS-DOS has severe limits including only running a single program at a time and limited capacity. Many industry analysts say that the design failings of MS-DOS have significantly retarded innovation in the computer industry. In 1987, IBM and MS jointly introduced OS/2, saying it would be the wave of the future. The two companies argued that the ability to run several programs at once was worth the shift to more powerful and expensive computers. But last year the IBM-MS alliance faltered. Convinced that OS/2 had failed, MS shifted to a more evolutionary approach based on Windows, trying to convince users that Windows would require less expensive investments in hardware. IBM refused to endorse Windows, and executives on both sides acknowledged the strained relationship. MS officials agree that both companies still share many interests, but differ on how widely accepted the new version of OS/2 will be. "The real issue is where the line is drawn," said Steven A. Ballmer, senior vice president for systems software at MS. "Frankly, I think the customers can pick and that's great. The people can choose." The rift deepened last week when 21 companies, including MS and Compaq - but not IBM - said that they would base their products on two new operating systems. Those being the new version of OS/2 being developed by MS and a new version of the more sophisticated Unix system. IBM is returning fire by lining up software developers to support its OS/2. This is to address one of OS/2's biggest hurdles, the perception that no major effort is being made to develop software to run with the program. The biggest winner in all of this may be Apple Computer Inc., which has recently reduced prices and plans to ship System 7.0 next month. That will have features that the IBM and IBM-compatible systems still lack - for customers willing to switch. ================================= Thats it. Bill Flusek, Indiana University Internet: flusekw@ucs.indiana.edu Bitnet: flusekw@iubacs
jwohl@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (Jeremy Wohl) (04/18/91)
In article <1991Apr16.231837.11736@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> flusekw@ucs.indiana.edu (WILLIAM FRANKLIN FLUSEK) writes: > > [New York Times' article deleted] > Hmm. I thought v3.0 would be the next step after v2.[01X]. This article leaves me in doubt. Does anyone know if the API sets (those for OS/2) will be in/compatible? -- Jeremy Wohl / wohl@max.physics.sunysb.edu / jwohl@csserv1.ic.sunysb.edu
mullens@jamsun.ic.ornl.gov (James A. Mullens) (05/06/91)
OS/2 1.3 installation bombed on my machine, possibly because of the small size of the virtual disk installed when the installation disk boots. I was installing 1.3SE over 1.2SE on a vanilla AT clone from a popular manufacturer. The 5.25" version of the installation disk was booted, questions were answered, and file copying began. The installation program crashed after a period of copying files from installation disk 1. Drive C had 7.7 Mb left after the aborted installation. The error message was: trap 000D AX = 0200 BX = 0001 CX = 0000 DX = 0000 BP = F780 SI = 039B DI = 08EA DS = 03E0 ES = 0000 FLG = 2046 CS = 01F8 IP = 6583 SS = 0038 SP = F760 MSW = FFFB CSLIM = 9752 SSLIM = F4E9 DSLIM = 0E07 ELSIM = *** CSACC = 9B SSACC = 97 DSACC = 93 ESACC = ** ERRCD = 0000 ERLIM = **** ERACC = ** The system detected an internal processing error at location #0228:361F Contact a service representative. The last entry of the installation log left behind was the unpacking of A:\DOSRFICO.DL@, which showed "0 copied, 1 unpacked". I tried installation twice with identical results. Looking around I noticed that a virtual disk "H" was being used in the file copying/unpacking operation and that it was only 130 Kb, suspiciously small. I doubled the size (see CONFIG.SYS on the installation disk) and 1.3 installed without error. jim mullens mullens@jamsun.ic.ornl.gov
tshea@vax1.mankato.msus.edu (06/15/91)
We have a PS/2 80 hre with 10 megs of memory, two internal ESDI HD's, and a IBM
32 bit SCSI card. The machine is running SO/2 1.3 (not 1.3.1) and normmally
has just a CD ROM drive hooked up to it using the IBM device drivers. I added
a Maxtor 355meg SCSI drive to the change. The reference diskette had no
problem with the drive. I even did a low level format. I boot up OS/2 1.3 and
the SCSI driver (vers 1.0) only recongnizes the CD ROM drive. Also the second
ESDI drive is gone. I go into FDISKPM and it shows two drives. The first ESDI
drive (which is the boot drive) and the SCSI HD but I can't do anything to the
SCSI HD.
Doesn't anybody have an suggestions on what could be wrong...
tim shea
Intinc.
3M,cin
new address --> tshea@3M.com