wuu@cbnewsj.att.com (john.t.wuu) (04/09/91)
Netlanders Is there a sysv/386 can do "dos-under-unix"(Simul-task) ? Thank you for your input ! John Wuu P.S. Apologies if the question has been asked before. -- John T. Wuu wuu@mink.att.com ******** Standard Disclaimer :-) ***********
urban@cbnewsl.att.com (john.urban) (04/25/91)
In article <1991Apr11.152848.2637@drolet.CAM.ORG> drolet@drolet.CAM.ORG (Jean-Jacques Drolet) writes: >In <1991Apr8.205831.29459@cbnewsj.att.com> wuu@cbnewsj.att.com (john.t.wuu) writes: > > >>Netlanders > >> Is there a sysv/386 can do "dos-under-unix"(Simul-task) ? >> Thank you for your input ! > > >> John Wuu > >>P.S. Apologies if the question has been asked before. >>-- > >>John T. Wuu wuu@mink.att.com > >>******** Standard Disclaimer :-) *********** > >Yes, SCO Unix, SCO Xenix, ESIX and ISC Unix can all run multiple concurrent >DOS sessions under Unix with optional software packages such as VP/ix and >DOS Merge. >-- >Jean-Jacques P. Drolet | Snail: 2631 boul. Liegeois, Sainte-Foy >National Optics Institute | Quebec, Canada, G1W 1Z5 >Phone: +1 418 657 7006 | Internet: drolet@drolet.CAM.ORG >Home phone: +1 418 651 3796 | UUCP: uunet!drolet!drolet Besides SCO, ESIX and ISC, AT&T also sees UNIX System V/386 that works with Simul-Task 386. Simul-Task is AT&T's value added (and less buggy) version of VP/ix. Sincerely, John Urban
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (04/26/91)
urban@cbnewsl.att.com (john.urban) writes: >Besides SCO, ESIX and ISC, AT&T also sees UNIX System V/386 that works >with Simul-Task 386. Simul-Task is AT&T's value added (and less buggy) >version of VP/ix. what is buggy about VP/ix? We have the latest release here, and to date everything we have tried with it worked just fine. -- Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287 (HST/PEP/V.32/v.42bis) regional UUCP mapping coordinator {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) (04/26/91)
In article <1991Apr25.173734.16964@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: > >what is buggy about VP/ix? We have the latest release here, and to >date everything we have tried with it worked just fine. By the "latest release" do you mean v1.2? The "bugs" reported by so many of us may be due to the fact that many of us are running VP/ix on NON-ISC OS's. ISC undoubtedly uses only ISC unix to test the VP/ix product. -- bill@unixland.uucp The Think_Tank BBS & Public Access Unix ...!uunet!think!unixland!bill ...!{uunet,bloom-beacon,esegue}!world!unixland!bill 508-655-3848 (2400) 508-651-8723 (9600-HST) 508-651-8733 (9600-PEP-V32)
les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) (04/26/91)
In article <1991Apr25.173734.16964@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >what is buggy about VP/ix? We have the latest release here, and to >date everything we have tried with it worked just fine. Can you finally run Wordperfect 5.0/5.1 with all the files on the unix file system? Les Mikesell les@chinet.chi.il.us
pjh@mccc.edu (Pete Holsberg) (04/27/91)
In article <1991Apr11.152848.2637@drolet.CAM.ORG> drolet@drolet.CAM.ORG (Jean-Jacques Drolet) writes:
=Yes, SCO Unix, SCO Xenix, ESIX and ISC Unix can all run multiple concurrent
=DOS sessions under Unix with optional software packages such as VP/ix and
=DOS Merge.
Don't forget AT&T and Microport!
Pete
--
Prof. Peter J. Holsberg Mercer County Community College
Voice: 609-586-4800 Engineering Technology, Computers and Math
UUCP:...!princeton!mccc!pjh 1200 Old Trenton Road, Trenton, NJ 08690
Internet: pjh@mccc.edu Trenton Computer Festival -- 4/20-21/91larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (04/28/91)
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: >By the "latest release" do you mean v1.2? >The "bugs" reported by so many of us may be due to the fact that many of >us are running VP/ix on NON-ISC OS's. ISC undoubtedly uses only ISC unix >to test the VP/ix product. well, I would do the same thing - they want to sell packages - not add-on products - when we looked at operating systems, we look at the whole ball of wax -- Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287/317-251-7391 HST/PEP/V.32/v.32bis/v.42bis regional UUCP mapping coordinator {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (04/28/91)
les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes: >Can you finally run Wordperfect 5.0/5.1 with all the files on the >unix file system? I don't know - we run Wordperfect 5.0 (the latest release) under UNIX without ANY problems at all.. -- Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287/317-251-7391 HST/PEP/V.32/v.32bis/v.42bis regional UUCP mapping coordinator {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}
rcbarn@rw6.urc.tue.nl (Raymond Nijssen) (04/29/91)
les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes: >In article <1991Apr25.173734.16964@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >>what is buggy about VP/ix? We have the latest release here, and to >>date everything we have tried with it worked just fine. > >Can you finally run Wordperfect 5.0/5.1 with all the files on the >unix file system? I think VP/ix is not to blame for this. WP however distinguishes between 'real' drives and 'networked' devices; it won't work properly with the latter, presumably just because this enables WP Corp. (why do I address those people politely while they cripple people's minds with their trashware) to sell a version capable of running in a network as a separately priced (read: more expensive, but actually the same) product. -- | Raymond X.T. Nijssen | Eindhoven Univ. of Technology | | raymond@es.ele.tue.nl | EH 7.13, PO 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands | | "Don't put that on the wall in a tax-payer supported museum!" Pat Buchanan |
jad@nyama.UUCP (04/30/91)
In <1991Apr26.042805.26981@chinet.chi.il.us>, les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes: >In article <1991Apr25.173734.16964@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: > >>what is buggy about VP/ix? We have the latest release here, and to >>date everything we have tried with it worked just fine. > >Can you finally run Wordperfect 5.0/5.1 with all the files on the >unix file system? As far as I understand this is not a bug, it's a feature of Wordperfect. If you run the network version of Wordperfect, and you install it as a network, then it will work. Wordperfect tries to be very smart and if it sees a non-local dos drive (ie. unix fs) it just dumps on you... -- Jose Dias jad@nyama.UUCP Who me? I didn't say anything! -- Jose Dias jad@nyama.UUCP Who me? I didn't say anything!
rwhite@nusdecs.uucp (Robert White) (05/01/91)
In article <rcbarn.672944319@rw6.urc.tue.nl> rcbarn@urc.tue.nl writes: >I think VP/ix is not to blame for this. WP however distinguishes between >'real' drives and 'networked' devices; it won't work properly with the latter, >presumably just because this enables WP Corp. (why do I address those people >politely while they cripple people's minds with their trashware) to sell >a version capable of running in a network as a separately priced (read: more >expensive, but actually the same) product. Actually there is no separate and more expensive WP for use in a network environment. The same package is used but the netsetup program is then run after a normal installation. The wordperfect problem under VP/ix seems to stem from the tendency of WP to do marginally illegal things to it's own files. To demonstrate the activity, run fastopen and then edit a few of your least favorite files... There wont be much left. the problems seem to stem from going through the FAT directly, which dosn't really work under VP/ix unless you are using a real(tm) MSDOS partition. (e.g. not even the single-file virtual drives.) I don't know what network feature WP is looking for on a real(tm) network that it dosn't find on a VP/ix "network" drive, but I would suspect it has something to do with resource names or something. Sympotms indicate something like that to me because of the garbage preceeding each printed output request. Maybe the netbios name calls are beign used and the lack of such names is confusing the program. If not where do all the ^@^@^@s come from? Rob.
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (05/01/91)
In article <1991Apr26.042805.26981@chinet.chi.il.us> les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes: > Can you finally run Wordperfect 5.0/5.1 with all the files on the > unix file system? Funny. We do that on a PC clone from an rlogin on a SSII with no problem. Under Merge/386. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
dave@pmafire.inel.gov (Dave Remien) (05/01/91)
In article <1991Apr30.171445.22045@nusdecs.uucp> rwhite@nusdecs.uucp (Robert White) writes: >In article <rcbarn.672944319@rw6.urc.tue.nl> rcbarn@urc.tue.nl writes: >>I think VP/ix is not to blame for this. WP however distinguishes between >>'real' drives and 'networked' devices; it won't work properly with the latter, >>presumably just because this enables WP Corp. (why do I address those people >>politely while they cripple people's minds with their trashware) to sell >>a version capable of running in a network as a separately priced (read: more >>expensive, but actually the same) product. > >Actually there is no separate and more expensive WP for use in a network >environment. The same package is used but the netsetup program is then >run after a normal installation. The wordperfect problem under VP/ix >seems to stem from the tendency of WP to do marginally illegal things >to it's own files. > WP isn't the only offender in this behavior; we've had Symantec's Q&A mutter about being on a networked drive (under DOSMerge in the UNIX file system) just before annihilating whatever it is that's being worked on. Works OK on a DOS partition, also; same as WP. DOSMerge includes a command to switch the UNIX file system from appearing as a network drive to a local drive, but that didn't help. -- Dave Remien +*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+ WINCO Computer Engineering Group dave@pmafire.inel.gov or rzd@inel.gov "Dave Barry for President"
les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) (05/01/91)
In article <rcbarn.672944319@rw6.urc.tue.nl> rcbarn@urc.tue.nl writes: >>Can you finally run Wordperfect 5.0/5.1 with all the files on the >>unix file system? >I think VP/ix is not to blame for this. WP however distinguishes between >'real' drives and 'networked' devices; it won't work properly with the latter, >presumably just because this enables WP Corp. (why do I address those people >politely while they cripple people's minds with their trashware) to sell >a version capable of running in a network as a separately priced (read: more >expensive, but actually the same) product. No, that's not the case at all. WP is designed to work on a network and does it very well. In fact, I have a 386 running unix working as file server for dos clients using AT&T's StarGroup software and everything works fine from a DOS client. However, if I run DOS under VP/ix on the same machine, same files, same copy of WP, etc., it won't work. It does work under VP/ix if all the files are on a real DOS partition of the hard drive. WP 4.2 worked normally (but who wants to run that?). I suspect it has something to do with VP/ix not properly translating a 0-length write from dos into a request to truncate the file at the current position. And by the way, I don't think you would be insulting WP if you had used their nifty table editor in 5.1 (unless you are just mad about how much time it took to learn how to do it the old ways). Les Mikesell les@chinet.chi.il.us
grant@bluemoon.uucp (Grant DeLorean) (05/01/91)
rwhite@nusdecs.uucp (Robert White) writes: >In article <rcbarn.672944319@rw6.urc.tue.nl> rcbarn@urc.tue.nl writes: >>I think VP/ix is not to blame for this. WP however distinguishes between >>'real' drives and 'networked' devices; it won't work properly with the latter, >>presumably just because this enables WP Corp. (why do I address those people >>politely while they cripple people's minds with their trashware) to sell >>a version capable of running in a network as a separately priced (read: more >>expensive, but actually the same) product. >Actually there is no separate and more expensive WP for use in a network >environment. The same package is used but the netsetup program is then >run after a normal installation. The wordperfect problem under VP/ix >seems to stem from the tendency of WP to do marginally illegal things >to it's own files. Someone has to ask... Why not just get the the UNIX version of WP and be done with it? No problems, no hassles and actually less cost than having enough DOS version licenses to have several people legally using it at once. It is also less strain on system resources since there isn't the VP/ix overhead to deal with. I don't get why so many people are anxious to slam WP, the company provides good support free of charge (at least the UNIX division) and a product that does what it is supposed to do and does it well. I won't even go into the fact that the folks complaining probably bought one DOS license and are complaining about it not supporting 10 users at once over a network... -- \ Grant DeLorean (grant@bluemoon) {n8emr|nstar}!bluemoon!grant / "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."-C.A. Beard
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (05/04/91)
grant@bluemoon.uucp (Grant DeLorean) writes: > Why not just get the the UNIX version of WP and be done with it? No problems, >no hassles and actually less cost than having enough DOS version licenses >to have several people legally using it at once. It is also less strain >on system resources since there isn't the VP/ix overhead to deal with. I I agree :) I actually made it through this last semester using WP 5.0 for UNIX on this machine >don't get why so many people are anxious to slam WP, the company provides >good support free of charge (at least the UNIX division) and a product >that does what it is supposed to do and does it well. I won't even go >into the fact that the folks complaining probably bought one DOS license >and are complaining about it not supporting 10 users at once over a >network... Single user WP for UNIX is the same price as single user WP DOS. Support, as you mentioned is free. I called about the "viewing printed pages under the print menu" not working, and I had a replacement copy of WP in my hands 4 days later. I'm quite pleased with the Unix release of Word Perfect. -- Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287/317-251-7391 HST/PEP/V.32/v.32bis/v.42bis regional UUCP mapping coordinator {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}
pss610@unhd.unh.edu (Paul S Secinaro) (05/06/91)
In article <1991May01.141751.2332@bluemoon.uucp> grant@bluemoon.uucp (Grant DeLorean) writes: > > Someone has to ask... > > Why not just get the the UNIX version of WP and be done with it? No problems, >no hassles and actually less cost than having enough DOS version licenses >to have several people legally using it at once. It is also less strain >on system resources since there isn't the VP/ix overhead to deal with. I >don't get why so many people are anxious to slam WP, the company provides >good support free of charge (at least the UNIX division) and a product >that does what it is supposed to do and does it well. I won't even go >into the fact that the folks complaining probably bought one DOS license >and are complaining about it not supporting 10 users at once over a >network... What's the latest version of WP for UNIX? I've seen reviews of 5.0 for UNIX at a time when 5.1 for DOS was out for quite a while (this was a some months ago). IMHO, 5.1 is *much* better than 5.0. Even minimal mouse support makes a big difference, and technical users will find the equation editor invaluable. I would have trouble switching back to 5.0 after using 5.1. This might be one reason why WP users are reluctant to switch. If there is a newer version out, then I'd have to agree with your message. VP/ix is something of a CPU hog (at least the ancient version I'm using is). I use it only when necessary, and if I have to do a lot of work with a DOS app, I usually just reboot from the DOS partition (my system is single user, so I have that luxury). -- Paul S. Secinaro University of New Hampsire pss610@unhd.unh.edu p_secinaro@unhh.unh.edu
les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) (05/06/91)
In article <1991May01.141751.2332@bluemoon.uucp> grant@bluemoon.uucp (Grant DeLorean) writes: > Why not just get the the UNIX version of WP and be done with it? No problems, >no hassles and actually less cost than having enough DOS version licenses >to have several people legally using it at once. Since I brought the issue up this time around, I'll explain a bit more. We have an AT&T starlan network with around 100 PC's connected to a few unix machines acting as fileservers. I use a 386 machine under unix for development that can RFS mount the directories available in the production servers. If VP/ix worked correctly, I could run WP on my own machine to test setups and help users with problems without needing a second machine in my office to run DOS. As it turns out, I do need the second machine. >It is also less strain >on system resources since there isn't the VP/ix overhead to deal with. Right, I wouldn't think about real production under VP/ix. However, the network solution is even better given the PC's on the desktops. We run about 35 users per server - I don't think that would be comfortable doing terminal emulation with the unix version. And in any case the unix version wasn't available at the time we installed the network, and many of the users still need to run other programs that are only available for DOS and to integrate the output of those programs with their wordprocessor. >I don't get why so many people are anxious to slam WP, the company provides >good support free of charge (at least the UNIX division) and a product >that does what it is supposed to do and does it well. I wasn't slamming WP at all (though I have encountered some other problems with it...). In this case the problem is with VP/ix aka AT&T's Simultask. The Locus DOS Merge product doesn't appear to have the same trouble. >I won't even go >into the fact that the folks complaining probably bought one DOS license >and are complaining about it not supporting 10 users at once over a >network... And just as well you didn't because we do in fact have a DOS license for everyone who uses it, and it does in fact support them over a network. Les Mikesell les@chinet.chi.il.us
grant@bluemoon.uucp (Grant DeLorean) (05/06/91)
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >I agree :) I actually made it through this last semester using WP 5.0 >for UNIX on this machine My wife has finally figured out how to use her account just to get to it here. :-) -- \ Grant DeLorean (grant@bluemoon) {n8emr|nstar}!bluemoon!grant / "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."-C.A. Beard
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (05/06/91)
pss610@unhd.unh.edu (Paul S Secinaro) writes: >What's the latest version of WP for UNIX? I've seen reviews of 5.0 for UNIX at 5.0 -- Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287/317-251-7391 HST/PEP/V.32/v.32bis/v.42bis regional UUCP mapping coordinator {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}
urban@cbnewsl.att.com (john.urban) (05/07/91)
In article <1991May05.210547.4613@chinet.chi.il.us> les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes: >In article <1991May01.141751.2332@bluemoon.uucp> grant@bluemoon.uucp (Grant DeLorean) writes: >> Why not just get the the UNIX version of WP and be done with it? No problems, >>no hassles and actually less cost than having enough DOS version licenses >>to have several people legally using it at once. > >Since I brought the issue up this time around, I'll explain a bit more. >We have an AT&T starlan network with around 100 PC's connected to a >few unix machines acting as fileservers. I use a 386 machine under unix for >development that can RFS mount the directories available in the production >servers. If VP/ix worked correctly, I could run WP on my own machine >to test setups and help users with problems without needing a second >machine in my office to run DOS. As it turns out, I do need the >second machine. I talked(mail'ed actually) to Les and he tells me that he has: UNIX System V/386 Release 3.2.1 and Simul-Task 386 Version 2.0 The current version of Smul-Task is Version 3.01. ALOT of networking problems have been fixed since 2.0. Somethings that work under 3.01 that did not work in 2.0 are: Simul-Task over telnet, rlogin and script Also Simul-Task over NFS and RFS has become also more robust. [ Deleted stuff ] >I wasn't slamming WP at all (though I have encountered some other problems >with it...). In this case the problem is with VP/ix aka AT&T's Simultask. >The Locus DOS Merge product doesn't appear to have the same trouble. > [ Deleted stuff ] Sincerely, John Urban
shawn@jpradley.jpr.com (Shawn Blair) (05/11/91)
In article <1991May04.132518.15217@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >grant@bluemoon.uucp (Grant DeLorean) writes: > >>don't get why so many people are anxious to slam WP, the company provides >>good support free of charge (at least the UNIX division) and a product >>that does what it is supposed to do and does it well. I won't even go >>into the fact that the folks complaining probably bought one DOS license >>and are complaining about it not supporting 10 users at once over a >>network... > >Single user WP for UNIX is the same price as single user WP DOS. Support, >as you mentioned is free. I called about the "viewing printed pages >under the print menu" not working, and I had a replacement copy of WP in >my hands 4 days later. I'm quite pleased with the Unix release of Word >Perfect. > I haven't used WP for unix as yet, but I've experienced their support on other non-DOS platforms. I have half a dozen Data General machines running various versions of WP accross the country. We have never had any problems getting good support from WordPerfect on any type of equipment. (The revs do drag behind a bit though :( ) A particular revision may not be so super, but WP has THE best support organization I've run accross. Shawn. -- _______________________________________________________________________________ -- Shawn R. Blair ~ shawn@jpr.com -- -- ...murphy!jpradley!rpmc!{srblair!}shawn (hourly) -- -- uunet!sir-alan!admiral!rpmc!{srblair!}shawn (weekly) --