Evil :) DOS6 FAT
Steven Pemberton
install 2.1 beta on a new 386dx40 we just purchased.
I thought it'd be easy, just install it on the existing FAT, and dual boot
between OS's.
BUT
I've heard that dos 6 includes an updated FAT *incompatible with dos 5*
Now I'm afraid to install OS/2, just incase it corrupts their HD!
Can anyone tell me if this is true?
Steven Pemberton \o/ 486 NoteBook
------------------------------- | ----------------------------
s...@ogre.apana.org.au / \ OS/2 2.0
Tom J Parry
> Wanting to convert out new Office Manager over to OS/2, I'm keen to
> install 2.1 beta on a new 386dx40 we just purchased.
> I thought it'd be easy, just install it on the existing FAT, and dual boot
> between OS's.
> BUT
> I've heard that dos 6 includes an updated FAT *incompatible with dos 5*
I have also heard this. Apparently, if you boot DOS6 and then DIR a DOS 5
_*FLOPPY*_ (even) you will find some directories missing.
Have Miscro$oft stu$$ed up or are they just complete ba$tard$?
> Now I'm afraid to install OS/2, just incase it corrupts their HD!
> Can anyone tell me if this is true?
Be aware, regardless of whether DOS6 is compatible or not, that if you have
DOUBLESPACE installed, you will not be able to read that disk using OS/2
> Steven Pemberton \o/ 486 NoteBook
> ------------------------------- | ----------------------------
> s...@ogre.apana.org.au / \ OS/2 2.0
--
Tom J Parry.
Your reality is a figment of my imagination.
Barton Wright
: I've heard that dos 6 includes an updated FAT *incompatible with dos 5*
: Now I'm afraid to install OS/2, just in case it corrupts their HD!
: Can anyone tell me if this is true?
Of course it's not true. Whatever your opinion of Microsoft, it's the
world`s most successful software company. Do you think they could have
achieved that milestone by being staffed with idiots?
The DOS 6 FAT is the same as the DOS 5 FAT. The only incompatibilities
between the two versions are due to the use of DOS 6's DoubleSpace utility.
If you DOS 6 was installed with DoubleSpace, there is an un-DoubleSpace
utility which should be used before installing OS/2. If DOS 6 was installed
without DoubleSpace, then (after running CHKDSK, backing everything up,
and, ideally, running a defragmentation program) OS/2 will install
normally onto the same disk.
Lee Preimesberger
#Steven Pemberton (s...@ogre.apana.org.au) wrote:
#> I've heard that dos 6 includes an updated FAT *incompatible with dos 5*
#I have also heard this. Apparently, if you boot DOS6 and then DIR a DOS 5
#_*FLOPPY*_ (even) you will find some directories missing.
Sounds like bullshit to me. :-) I have two IDE drives, one formatted
under DOS 5, the other under DOS 6. They seem to get along quite well - so much
so that I'm down to one meg free again. :-(
---
Lee Preimesberger
st...@jetson.uh.edu ----- Undergraduate Scum ----- University of Houston, USA
Paul Penrod
No, it does not. At least on my system it has never corrupted the
FATs built under DOS 5.0 or DOS 6.0...
...Paul
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Norman Heu
>
>Of course it's not true. Whatever your opinion of Microsoft, it's the
>world`s most successful software company. Do you think they could have
>achieved that milestone by being staffed with idiots?
>
Idiots? No... I don't think they're idiots. However, I was told that
the DOS backup utilities and the Windows backup utilities included
with the DOS6 upgrade are incompatible! A poor decision if you ask me...
--
Norman Heu nh...@wimsey.com
[Vancouver, BC, Canada]
Phil Lafornara
>
>Now I'm afraid to install OS/2, just incase it corrupts their HD!
>Can anyone tell me if this is true?
It's not true.
-Phil
--
Nothing I have posted here is in any way, shape, or form official
Microsoft policy or opinion, and should not be represented as such when
quoted here or in any other forum.
phil...@microsoft.com
Steven Pemberton
> Of course it's not true. Whatever your opinion of Microsoft, it's the
> world`s most successful software company. Do you think they could have
> achieved that milestone by being staffed with idiots?
>
dos FAT filing system they could lock people into Micro$oft OS's, even if they
didn't use dblspace. And by not telling people, OS/2 would be blamed.
I was told, by a trusted friend, that after formating a HD with DOS 6, booting from
a DOS 5 floppy showed his HD to be corrupted, but no problems when booted
from DOS 6.
If they haven't done this, I'm suprised they missed such an obvious move.
> The DOS 6 FAT is the same as the DOS 5 FAT. The only incompatibilities
> between the two versions are due to the use of DOS 6's DoubleSpace utility.
Your opinion.
Have you tried looking?
Although I'm told OS/2 seems to work fine with DOS 6 partitions, I'd like to be
sure.
Has anyone installed OS/2 on a DOS 6 FAT partition?
Steven Pemberton
> >I've heard that dos 6 includes an updated FAT *incompatible with dos 5*
> >
> >Now I'm afraid to install OS/2, just incase it corrupts their HD!
> >Can anyone tell me if this is true?
> No, it does not. At least on my system it has never corrupted the
> FATs built under DOS 5.0 or DOS 6.0...
>
Your saying OS/2 didn't corrupt partitions *formatted* with dos 6?
Thanks for the info.
x90wa...@gw.wmich.edu
My machine at work has DOS 6.0 and OS/2 2.0 in a bootmanager
configuration. I don't have any problem reading the DOS 6.0 partition.
However, I cannot boot DOS 6.0 from OS/2 as I was able to do with DOS 5.0. It
gives an error if I try.
David A. Braun
What do you mean? Microsoft isn't staffed by idiots? ;) There are some
changes in the FAT, intentional or not - on some stupid DOS 6.0 user's
machine, he booted a DOS 5 floppy and found that the HD couldn't be read
properly - wrong and missing directories - No DoubleSpace.
<roland>
Jen Kilmer
>
>I was told that
>the DOS backup utilities and the Windows backup utilities included
>with the DOS6 upgrade are incompatible! A poor decision if you ask me...
Incompatible how?
In one beta, backups created with msbackup could not be restored with
the windows version, and vice versa. This was due to the fact that that
beta was very shortly after the backup utilities were changed to use
doublespace compression instead of Norton's, and the windows compression
library wasn't correct. This was fixed in the release.
Note that BETA backups may not be readable with the released version
(esp early beta backups!) Beta sites have been notified of this.
-jen
--
#include <stdisclaimer> // je...@microsoft.com // msdos testing
Jen Kilmer
>I was told, by a trusted friend, that after formating a HD with
>DOS 6,
which DOS 6?
>booting from
>a DOS 5 floppy showed his HD to be corrupted, but no problems when booted
>from DOS 6.
which DOS 5?
I can induce such strangeness easily. But not using MSDOS 5 & 6.
Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit>
I had a problem with Sim Earth. I went to reinstall it on Dos 6.0 (no
doublespace) and it said there wasn't enough space on drive C. Even though
I had 175 megs free
>
><roland>
Rob Merritt
email:rcme...@cbda9.apgea.army.mil
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
I Disclaimer: My opinions are mine alone, not of my employer, not I
I of my friends and family, and not of a co-worker. I
I I
I "Someone who thinks logically is a nice contrast from the real I
I world" -unknown I
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
Barton Wright
>> ...Whatever your opinion of Microsoft, it's the
>> achieved that milestone by being staffed with idiots?
> Steven Pemberton (s...@ogre.apana.org.au) wrote:
> Actually I thought it sounded like a brilliant maketing stategy. By
> "improving" the dos FAT filing system they could lock people into
> Micro$oft OS's, even if they didn't use dblspace. And by not telling
> people, OS/2 would be blamed.
I get so tired of these puerile conspiracy theories. It`s like watching
Wayne and Garth complain about how the Evil Empire is preventing them
from being famous.
Microsoft is in business to make money. You don't make money by releasing
a new product that has hidden incompatibilities with your previous
standard-setting product. Period. End of story.
> Steven Pemberton (s...@ogre.apana.org.au) wrote:
> I was told by a trusted friend, that after formating a HD with DOS 6,
> booting from a DOS 5 floppy showed his HD to be corrupted, but no
> problems when booted from DOS 6...
Did you consider any non-conspiratorial explanations for this phenonmenon?
Such as maybe your trusted friend installed DoubleSpace and then tried to
DIR his DoubleSpace drive from a DOS 5 diskette that lacked the DoubleSpace
device driver? Sounds like a UHE* to me.
>> bwr...@msi.com wrote:
>> The DOS 6 FAT is the same as the DOS 5 FAT. The only incompatibilities
>> between the two versions are due to the use of DOS 6's DoubleSpace utility.
> Steven Pemberton (s...@ogre.apana.org.au) wrote:
> Your opinion. Have you tried looking?
Of course. Why do you assume I didn't?
__________________________
*UHE: user headspace error
+--------------------+----------------------------+----------------------+
| Barton Wright | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Voice (617) 229-9800 |
| bwr...@msi.com | Burlington, MA 01803-5297 | FAX (617) 229-9899 |
+--------------------+----------------------------+----------------------+
Paul King
>Microsoft is in business to make money. You don't make money by releasing
>a new product that has hidden incompatibilities with your previous
>standard-setting product. Period. End of story.
I have a disk formatted using DOS 6.0 which doesn't read at all under
DOS 5.0 - I didn't use doublespace!
I also have two floppies which are formatted under DOS 5.0 (or earlier)
which read fine under DOS 5 but DOS 6 complains saying something like
incorrect media change on drive A (It has been about 2 weeks since
I tried, so I can't remember exactly). The annoying thing is the two
floppies include one which my trident VGA card drivers came on and one
which my mouse drivers came on. I had to boot DOS 5 from floppy, copy the
files onto my hard disk (I don't use doublespace on it either as I need
access to the drive from OS/2 and Linux) and then boot from harddisk
under DOS 6.
>> Steven Pemberton (s...@ogre.apana.org.au) wrote:
>> I was told by a trusted friend, that after formating a HD with DOS 6,
>> booting from a DOS 5 floppy showed his HD to be corrupted, but no
>> problems when booted from DOS 6...
>Did you consider any non-conspiratorial explanations for this phenonmenon?
>Such as maybe your trusted friend installed DoubleSpace and then tried to
>DIR his DoubleSpace drive from a DOS 5 diskette that lacked the DoubleSpace
>device driver? Sounds like a UHE* to me.
I would be happy to know where I screwed up.
Paul.
--
Paul King _-_|\
Centre for Information Technology and Research, / X
Uni. of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, 4072 \.--._/
ki...@citr.uq.oz.au (ACSNET) v
Joshua Konstadt
:I get so tired of these puerile conspiracy theories. It`s like watching
:Wayne and Garth complain about how the Evil Empire is preventing them
:from being famous.
:
:Microsoft is in business to make money. You don't make money by releasing
:a new product that has hidden incompatibilities with your previous
:standard-setting product. Period. End of story.
Actually, there is precedence for believing this stuff. MS actually
hardwires stuff for incompatibility. What is it, Visual C++ that won't
work with OS/2? Go back to DOS 2.0. Didn't MS want it to break 1-2-3?
There's probably a lot more in this list. I think it would be
interesting to hear more of these MS mythofacts. (And don't think some
of these claims weren't documented by the FTC - if someone has
details, please post.)
Barton Wright
> MS actually hardwires stuff for incompatibility.
Please cite at least one single reproducible, provable example of this claim.
Brett Ferrell
>a new product that has hidden incompatibilities with your previous
>standard-setting product. Period. End of story.
Yea, I would believe that.
--
Brett D. Sherron-Ferrell email@bferrell@uceng.uc.edu
U. of Cincy "Catch the Cats............
College of Engineering ...............If you can"
Dave Guidry
>Joshua Konstadt (jo...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
>> MS actually hardwires stuff for incompatibility.
>
>Please cite at least one single reproducible, provable example of this claim.
The format change for the .ini files between Win3.0 and Win3.1 occurred
after OS/2 2.0 was RELEASED (and Win 3.1 was released within a month). This
had the annoying side effect of making it impossible to migrate your
existing Windoze desktop to your WIN-OS2 desktop.
You didn't ask for a good one, just a reproducable one.
--
David A. Guidry | We must be devious, cunning, inventive...
Distributed Systems Services | ... too bad we're us. -- Raw Toonage
Academic Computing and Network Services|<emp...@nwu.edu><daw...@nuacvm.bitnet>
Mike Timbol
>In article <1993May18.1...@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> bwr...@msi.com writes:
>>Joshua Konstadt (jo...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
>>> MS actually hardwires stuff for incompatibility.
>>
>>Please cite at least one single reproducible, provable example of this claim.
>
>The format change for the .ini files between Win3.0 and Win3.1 occurred
>after OS/2 2.0 was RELEASED (and Win 3.1 was released within a month). This
>had the annoying side effect of making it impossible to migrate your
>existing Windoze desktop to your WIN-OS2 desktop.
>
>You didn't ask for a good one, just a reproducable one.
>--
>David A. Guidry | We must be devious, cunning, inventive...
I think he did want one that was true, however.
OS/2 2.0 went GA on March 30, 1992. That's when the code was done. Windows
3.1 was on people's doorsteps April 6, 1992 -- 6 days later! There is
no possible way that Microsoft changed the .ini format, changed the code
to support it, manufactured the disks, and sent them to customers in those
six days.
- Mike
Barton Wright
>>> MS actually hardwires stuff for incompatibility.
bwright:
>>Please cite at least one single reproducible, provable example of this claim.
> Dave Guidry (daw...@antioch.acns.nwu.edu) wrote:
> The format change for the .ini files between Win3.0 and Win3.1 occurred
> after OS/2 2.0 was RELEASED (and Win 3.1 was released within a month). This
> had the annoying side effect of making it impossible to migrate your
> existing Windoze desktop to your WIN-OS2 desktop.
> You didn't ask for a good one, just a reproducable one.
You *are* kidding, right? Do you honestly believe that Microsoft made
changes to the Win31 .INI files ONLY to create incompatiblities with
OS/2 2.0?
My guesstimate is that Win31 had about a year and a half product cycle, or
possibly as much as two years from the code-freeze date of Win30 to
the freeze date of Win31. If it was two years, then that covered roughly
from March 1990 to March 1992. Guess what was undergoing an almost
three year product cycle at the same time, first at Microsoft and IBM
and later at IBM alone? And IBM has had source code rights for Windows
all along.
If IBM didn't get Win31 compatibility into OS/2 2.0, it sure wasn't
Microsoft's fault. It's a very ambitious and technically challenging design
goal and IBM took the conservative route of aiming only for Win30
compatibility at first release. But of course they knew about the changes
coming in Win31 while coding OS/2 2.0 -- they had the source inhouse
the whole time!
You .edu guys sure don't know much about real-world software development
cycles yet! ;-)
ham...@waikato.ac.nz
> Joshua Konstadt (jo...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
>> MS actually hardwires stuff for incompatibility.
>
> Please cite at least one single reproducible, provable example of this claim.
>
edlin
Try running a copy of edlin, or xcopy or anything else from a DOS distribution
and you will find exactly how microsicks thinks. Backup and restore are also a
good example of how they like to play around.
> +--------------------+----------------------------+----------------------+
> | Barton Wright | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Voice (617) 229-9800 |
> | bwr...@msi.com | Burlington, MA 01803-5297 | FAX (617) 229-9899 |
> +--------------------+----------------------------+----------------------+
--
Trailer courtesy | Hamish Marson, Computer Services, University of Waikato
BOFH.. | ham...@waikato.ac.nz. Fax +64 7 8384066
| Disclaimer: Remember, you heard it here first!
I went to the race track once and bet on a horse that was so good that it took
seven others to beat him!
Paul Petrucelly
> You *are* kidding, right? Do you honestly believe that Microsoft made
> changes to the Win31 .INI files ONLY to create incompatiblities with
> OS/2 2.0?
>
>
> You .edu guys sure don't know much about real-world software development
> cycles yet! ;-)
>
> +--------------------+----------------------------+----------------------+
> | Barton Wright | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Voice (617) 229-9800 |
> | bwr...@msi.com | Burlington, MA 01803-5297 | FAX (617) 229-9899 |
> +--------------------+----------------------------+----------------------+
Yes I do Barton. Face it NTS... NT sucks.... So does DOS ect, ect....
The only reason Microsoft has been kept in check is because of the other
venders out there ie. Borland. The provide good products at resonible
prices.... What was the original price of any of the Turbo products? vs MS products.
MS would like to crush the competion. How long was it before Borland could get
the information it needed to provide Windows support with their compilers.
prp
Ralph Edward James Byers (Dr)
: >>Joshua Konstadt (jo...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
: >>> MS actually hardwires stuff for incompatibility.
:
: bwright:
: >>Please cite at least one single reproducible, provable example of this claim.
:
: > Dave Guidry (daw...@antioch.acns.nwu.edu) wrote:
: > The format change for the .ini files between Win3.0 and Win3.1 occurred
: > after OS/2 2.0 was RELEASED (and Win 3.1 was released within a month). This
: > had the annoying side effect of making it impossible to migrate your
: > existing Windoze desktop to your WIN-OS2 desktop.
:
: > You didn't ask for a good one, just a reproducable one.
:
: You *are* kidding, right? Do you honestly believe that Microsoft made
: changes to the Win31 .INI files ONLY to create incompatiblities with
: OS/2 2.0?
:
: My guesstimate is that Win31 had about a year and a half product cycle, or
: possibly as much as two years from the code-freeze date of Win30 to
: You .edu guys sure don't know much about real-world software development
: cycles yet! ;-)
:
Don't be so sure. If we were talking about an entirely new product, you
might have a point. If it was a brand new MS product, none of us doubt
that it would take a year and a half or two years to get it to market.
However, we're not talking about an entirely new product here, are we.
What we're talking about is a minor modification of a developed product.
That doesn't necessarily take much time. Look at how fast IBM has fixed
various bugs. On average, they haven't taken long.
I could produce a database and statistics program to meet my needs over a
few months, and it would undoubtedly take a couple years to get it to a
point where it would be marketable, but I know that I could make a few
trivial changes in, e.g. the format of the data file, that would render
the program non-functional, and it would only take a few minutes. This
would have the effect of making all my old versions useless and restrict
myself to the new version. You need to bear in mind that there is a big
difference between designing a product (which would involve your
production cycles), and messing with relatively trivial parts of the code
to make all earlier versions of the program incompatible. The latter is
something any able programmer, particularly one who participated in the
design of the program, can do in a flash.
You need to take a little more care in accusing scholars of being ignorant
of the real world. Many of us have indeed worked in the private sector,
if that is your definition of the real world. But I would argue that the
academic community is just as real. Have you taken a look at what is
involved in obtaining funding, managing a large research project,
administering course, etc. ?
: +--------------------+----------------------------+----------------------+
: | Barton Wright | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Voice (617) 229-9800 |
: | bwr...@msi.com | Burlington, MA 01803-5297 | FAX (617) 229-9899 |
: +--------------------+----------------------------+----------------------+
Cheers,
Ted
R.E. Byers, Department of Zoology, National University of Singapore
zoo...@nuscc.nus.sg
Barton Wright
> However, we're not talking about an entirely new product here, are we.
> developed product. That doesn't necessarily take much time...
You make my point for me by presuming that the Win30 to Win31 change
was minor. Here are the facts: Win30 shipped May 23, 1990; Win31 on April
6th, 1992. Assuming that the code-freeze dates were equally prior to
the ship dates in both cases, that leaves 23 calendar months of development.
Does that sound like a "minor modification"?
I was on the Win31 beta and believe me when I tell you that Win31 was
a major rewrite of Win30. But the point was that IBM OS/2 developers
were privy to the Win31 rewrite at the same time that OS/2 2.0 was
in development. They had ample opportunity to support the .INI file
changes. The fact that they didn't was not a Microsoft conspiracy
(the original claim in this thread) but a failure on IBM's part to
anticpate the success of Win31.
> You need to take a little more care in accusing scholars of being ignorant
> of the real world...
I didn't mean to say or imply any such thing, and especially not about
professional scholars. I was digging at the 19-year-old cyberpunks with
a couple of years of CS courses under their belts who think they could
have done a better job rewriting Windows by themselves working over
Easter break.
Golden Richard
flashlight mode), bits of the "flashlight" would be left on the left
edge of the screen. I wondered if this was caused by the Orchid
Farenheit beta drivers I'm using (currently 800x600) so I played
around a bit. Apparently dragging an icon and 'banging' it repeatedly
against the left edge of the screen also leaves bits of trash behind.
I've reported this problem to Orchid and the person I spoke with
promised to file a problem report. I'd appreciate it if anyone else
with a Farenheit (mine's a VLB) and the 800x600 beta drivers would try
this and see if the problem occurs.
--Golden
--
Golden Richard III OSU Dept. of Computer and Information Sciences
gric...@cis.ohio-state.edu (614) 292-0056
ma...@netmanage.com
In article <1993May17.0...@microsoft.com>,
> In article <737514...@ogre.apana.org.au> s...@ogre.apana.org.au
(Steven Pemberton) writes:
> >I was told, by a trusted friend, that after formating a HD with
> >DOS 6,
>
> which DOS 6?
>
> >booting from
> >a DOS 5 floppy showed his HD to be corrupted, but no problems
when booted
> >from DOS 6.
>
> which DOS 5?
What do you mean, which DOS 5/6? Are you denying that MS-DOS is the
overwhelmingly standard DOS, or looking for a beta revision number,
or trying to blame incompatibilites on IBM PC-DOS? Obfuscation is
counterproductive.
-Matt Boersma (ma...@netmanage.com)
Joshua Konstadt
:> MS actually hardwires stuff for incompatibility.
:
:Please cite at least one single reproducible, provable example of this claim.
Now I could be wrong, but I remeber somebody in this group talking
about the fact they couldn't run Vis C++, becuase the prog gave a
message that it wouldn't run under OS/2. If it's true, it sounds like
hardwired incompatibility to me. Though it may not be as devious as
some accusations, it's nonetheless the same thing.
I would be intrested to hear a first hand account, however.
David Early
|>
|> In article <1993May17.0...@microsoft.com>,
|> <je...@microsoft.com> writes:
|> > In article <737514...@ogre.apana.org.au> s...@ogre.apana.org.au
|> (Steven Pemberton) writes:
|> > >I was told, by a trusted friend, that after formating a HD with
|> > >DOS 6,
|> >
|> > which DOS 6?
Considering that IBM DOS 6 has not been released yet (please
correct me if I am wrong), this is a rather stupid question.
Dave Early
Drunk Man
I have two examples:
MS Windows 3.1 was designed to be unable to run ontop of DR Dos 6.0. Digital was forced to release an updated version to run Windows. Note that Windows was, and still is the only app not to run under DR Dos 6.0 . This was a mem.
problem - not a SuperStor problem - so don't say that this was the cause. MS
knows how to deal with competing operating systems...
Also, I do not know all the info, but wasn't Lotus 123 v 2.2 unable to run under DOS 5 because of minor MS changes to the operating system?
No, MS is not above inducing incompatibilities...
0 uAx
a
e
--
==============================================================================
Daniel Lakier djla...@midway.uchicago.edu
Student, University of Chicago 1005 E. 60th St #815, Chicago, Il 60637
==============================================================================
Robert Suh
>To those of you whoei feel that MS is too ethical to induce incompatiblities
>I have two examples:
>
> MS Windows 3.1 was designed to be unable to run ontop of DR Dos 6.0. Digital was forced to release an updated version to run Windows. Note that Windows was, and still is the only app not to run under DR Dos 6.0 . This was a mem.
Umm, this IS NOT esentially true. DR DOS 6.0 emulates MS DOS 3.3, so any application *requiring* MSDOS 5.0 or above will not run on DRDOS 6.0. (I'm not
talking just of memory requirements, but of stacks, etc..) A product that
comes to mind is Interleaf.
Bill Healton
In article <timbolC7...@netcom.com>, tim...@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
writes:
(from my recollection)
IBM was getting source code in drop shipments. The impression I got was that
these shipments were running at least 30-60 days behind. IBM announced OS/2 GA
then the "latest" win3.1 source arrived just a day or two before the win 3.1
boxes started showing up on vendor shelves. The surprising part (especially to
MS was that the IBM programmers in the short time (24-96 hours) they had the
code were able to get a display only version up and running as a preview of
things to come. This is what lead to the speculation of an early win3.1
compatable upgrade.
There were several "last-month" changes that were in the release and MS/IBM
contract apparently specified source to IBM before MS shipment of product, and
they did (just) meet that requirement.
Once again this is my personal recollection of what I heard at the time.
Bill Healton Any Opinions, requests, advise, or offers are strictly
those of the author and do not necessary reflect on the
company I work for.
--
Bill Healton Any Opinions, requests, advise, or offers are strictly
those of the author and do not necessary reflect on the
company I work for.
Phil Lafornara
>I have two examples:
>
> MS Windows 3.1 was designed to be unable to run ontop of DR Dos 6.0. Digital was forced to release an updated version to run Windows. Note that Windows was, and still is the only app not to run under DR Dos 6.0 . This was a mem.
>problem - not a SuperStor problem - so don't say that this was the cause. MS
>knows how to deal with competing operating systems...
a) There is no evidence to indicate that any incompatibility with
DR-DOS was intentional.
b) Why does everyone assume that it is Microsoft's responsibility
to ensure that Windows runs on every competitor's DOS platform?
If the software doesn't run, why isn't that an incompatibility
in DR-DOS?
At any rate, this issue has been well covered in another thread
long ago - if people feel like starting it up again, fine, but I expect
we're just going to hear the same old arguments. "MS broke DR-DOS!"
"No, DR-DOS was incompatible!"
-Phil
--
Nothing I have posted here is in any way, shape, or form official
Microsoft policy or opinion, and should not be represented as such when
quoted here or in any other forum.
phil...@microsoft.com
Rob Windsor
>>>>> MS actually hardwires stuff for incompatibility.
>>>>Please cite at least one single reproducible, provable example of this claim.
Here is another. How about Windows Install puking when it detects DR DOS?
That irrated me beyond end.
Long live OS/2, though. I have it and Windoze left.
-- Rob
Jen Kilmer
><je...@microsoft.com> writes:
>>s...@ogre.apana.org.au (Steven Pemberton) writes:
>> >after formating a HD with DOS 6,
>>
>> which DOS 6?
>>
>> >booting from a DOS 5 floppy showed his HD to be corrupted, but
>> >no problems when booted from DOS 6.
>>
>> which DOS 5?
>
>What do you mean, which DOS 5/6? Are you denying that MS-DOS is the
>overwhelmingly standard DOS, or looking for a beta revision number,
>or trying to blame incompatibilites on IBM PC-DOS?
I initally questioned what was meant by "corrupted". Depending on what
is meant by "corruption", I know three scenarios which could induce
the above. And, yes, I was trying to avoid mentioning DR & IBM unless
I thought they were the cause of this person's experience.
Scenario 0:
Format C: with an older beta of MS-DOS 6. Boot MS-DOS 5. Run a
certain popular disk mainentance utility (no, I will not say which).
It reports that the boot sector is corrupted.
Reason: Originally MS-DOS 6 would put "MSDOS6.0" in the OEM id field
of the boot sector. This popular disk mainantence utility would
report that the boot sector was damaged if running in MS-DOS verision
5 or 6. If you look at the boot sector created by MS-DOS 6 setup,
format, or sys, you will see "MSDOS5.0" in the OEM id field.
Scenario 1:
Format C: with MS-DOS 6. Boot IBM DOS 5. DIR C: reports 'invalid media
type'. Reboot with MS-DOS 6, you're fine. Edit the OEM signature in the
boot sector to be "IBM 5.0", boot IBM DOS 5, you're fine.
Reason: IBM DOS 4 and 5.0 (I haven't tried the currently selling 5.02)
refuses to access any hard drive partition which doesn't have an IBM
OEM signature.
Scanario 2:
Format C: and install DR-DOS 6, installing the DELWATCH utility. Delete
some files. Boot MS-DOS 5. Run CHKDSK. It complains about the "pending
delete" files marked by DELWATCH to allow undeleting.
Reason: MS-DOS doesn't understand DELWATCH.
>Obfuscation is counterproductive.
wasn't trying.
Byers R E James
: Ralph Edward James Byers (Dr) (zoo...@nuscc.nus.sg) wrote:
: > However, we're not talking about an entirely new product here, are we.
: > [Windows 3.1] What we're talking about is a minor modification of a
: > developed product. That doesn't necessarily take much time...
: You make my point for me by presuming that the Win30 to Win31 change
: was minor. Here are the facts: Win30 shipped May 23, 1990; Win31 on April
: 6th, 1992. Assuming that the code-freeze dates were equally prior to
: the ship dates in both cases, that leaves 23 calendar months of development.
: Does that sound like a "minor modification"?
I did not say or imply that the whole thing was a minr change. What I was
talking about, and what was the substance of the discussion as a whole, was
the sort of thing required to make new versions incompatible with older
versions.
: I was on the Win31 beta and believe me when I tell you that Win31 was
: a major rewrite of Win30. But the point was that IBM OS/2 developers
: were privy to the Win31 rewrite at the same time that OS/2 2.0 was
: in development. They had ample opportunity to support the .INI file
: changes. The fact that they didn't was not a Microsoft conspiracy
: (the original claim in this thread) but a failure on IBM's part to
: anticpate the success of Win31.
That depends on how promptly the information is passed on. Another poster
to this discussion indicated that IBM typically received this information
up to two months late. If you make trivial chanes in the format of a
couple files sufficient to make the two versions incompatible and do it a
month before your product, and that of your new competition, is due out,
and you make sure that you send the information too late for your
competitor to use it in his new product, you still have time to ensure
everything is acceptable to you in your product while handicapping your
competition.
: > You need to take a little more care in accusing scholars of being ignorant
: > of the real world...
: I didn't mean to say or imply any such thing, and especially not about
: professional scholars. I was digging at the 19-year-old cyberpunks with
: a couple of years of CS courses under their belts who think they could
: have done a better job rewriting Windows by themselves working over
: Easter break.
I understand. You should try teaching them ;-). But the time many of
them (typically those who don't think they would profit from graduate
study) get to their fourth year, they think they now know soooo much
because of all those years in university that there is nothing left for
them to learn. There are a number of graduate students here who think
that they have now learned so much that they don't need to take any more
courses. It never ends. I guess they have to get old before they realise
how little is really known.
And, to those students out there, no I am not digging at you or saying
this applies to everyone. I am just making an observation about something
that is much too common.
: +--------------------+----------------------------+----------------------+
: | Barton Wright | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Voice (617) 229-9800 |
: | bwr...@msi.com | Burlington, MA 01803-5297 | FAX (617) 229-9899 |
: +--------------------+----------------------------+----------------------+
Cheers,
Ted
R.E. Byers, Department of Zoology, National University of Singapore
The Fed
>wlhe...@kopepc02.delcoelect.com (Bill Healton) writes:
>>>>>> MS actually hardwires stuff for incompatibility.
>>>>>Please cite at least one single reproducible, provable example of this claim.
>Here is another. How about Windows Install puking when it detects DR DOS?
>That irrated me beyond end.
No. You've got it all wrong. DRDOS puked when it sensed Windows. But we
all kno this has been remidied... but DOS is old hat.
>Long live OS/2, though. I have it and Windoze left.
HERE HERE.
--
James B. Federline | Flame all you want; We'll make more!
a.k.a., The Fed. |"All agents defect, and all resistors sell out.
<fede...@staff.tc.umn.edu>| It's the sad truth, Bill." ->from _Naked Lunch_
Bryan Tuttle
>
>In article <timbolC7...@netcom.com>, tim...@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
> writes:
>>
>>I think he did want one that was true, however.
>>OS/2 2.0 went GA on March 30, 1992. That's when the code was done. Windows
>>3.1 was on people's doorsteps April 6, 1992 -- 6 days later! There is
>>no possible way that Microsoft changed the .ini format, changed the code
>>to support it, manufactured the disks, and sent them to customers in those
>>six days.
>>
>> - Mike
>
>(from my recollection)
>IBM was getting source code in drop shipments. The impression I got was that
>these shipments were running at least 30-60 days behind. IBM announced OS/2 GA
>then the "latest" win3.1 source arrived just a day or two before the win 3.1
>boxes started showing up on vendor shelves. The surprising part (especially to
>MS was that the IBM programmers in the short time (24-96 hours) they had the
>code were able to get a display only version up and running as a preview of
>things to come. This is what lead to the speculation of an early win3.1
>compatable upgrade.
This is an interesting observation that seems to be shared by all the OS/2
advocates. Did anyone actually *see* a Win3.1 app running on OS/2 2.0 at the
rollout? As I remember, the only thing anyone saw was Lee R. bring up the
about box from the program manager and show the Windows 3.1 version number.
Anyone with ~1 week of Windows programming experience and a resource editor
can make that happen... It's not possible that IBM wasn't anywhere close to
porting the Win3.1 sources and were showing a mock-up to make people think
they were further then they were, is it? Nah... IBM wouldn't stoop to that
level. IBM is your friend.
Of course, coming from a MS employee I'm sure the above comment will be
treated as sour grapes, but I really am curious. Did anyone have any proof
that it wasn't all smoke and mirrors which backfired when the port took
longer than expected?
Bryan
Heeren Pathak
(Phil Lafornara) wrote:
>
> In article <1993May19.1...@midway.uchicago.edu> djla...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> >To those of you whoei feel that MS is too ethical to induce incompatiblities
> >I have two examples:
> >
> > MS Windows 3.1 was designed to be unable to run ontop of DR Dos 6.0. Digital was forced to release an updated version to run Windows. Note that Windows was, and still is the only app not to run under DR Dos 6.0 . This was a mem.
> >problem - not a SuperStor problem - so don't say that this was the cause. MS
> >knows how to deal with competing operating systems...
>
> a) There is no evidence to indicate that any incompatibility with
> DR-DOS was intentional.
> b) Why does everyone assume that it is Microsoft's responsibility
> to ensure that Windows runs on every competitor's DOS platform?
> If the software doesn't run, why isn't that an incompatibility
> in DR-DOS?
>
Why wasn't the DR-DOS people allowed to be part of the beta testing for
Windows?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heeren Pathak | Millions long for immortality who do
pat...@mitre.org | not know what to do with themselves
Mitre Corporation | on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
(617) 271-7465 | -- Susan Ertz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Mine not Mitre's.
John R. Link
I can produce the same effect as you reported. Little pieces of icons are
left at the left edge of the screen. A quick click on a full screen DOS icon
rewrites the screen and gets rid of the debris.
John
Golden Richard (gric...@cis.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
: I noted recently that while using the Deskpic screen saver (especially
: --Golden
--
J.R. Link - Silicon Valley - OS/2 makes Windows a pane!
CIS: 73727,2001 Internet: jrl...@netcom.com Prodigy GTRD49A
Golden Richard
>Golden -- I'm using the 1280+ with the 1024x768x256 drivers in the 2.1MB and
>I can produce the same effect as you reported. Little pieces of icons are
>left at the left edge of the screen. A quick click on a full screen DOS icon
>rewrites the screen and gets rid of the debris.
>John
I've heard the same from a few other people in mail. It wouldn't hurt
for everyone using the Farenheit drivers to bug Orchid to make sure this
gets fixed. I did report the problem, but single complaints can
sometimes get lost in the shuffle. Another very important thing (for
me) will be VESA SVGA support in DOS sessions. I don't have any word on whether this will be supported, but it would be shame if it weren't.
Cheers,
John Hesse
In article <1993May20.1...@microsoft.com> phil...@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
> ... [stuff]
> b) Why does everyone assume that it is Microsoft's responsibility
> to ensure that Windows runs on every competitor's DOS platform?
> If the software doesn't run, why isn't that an incompatibility
> in DR-DOS?
>
Hear, hear. Mocrosoft, with their limited development and testing
resources, can hardly be expected to support that multitude of "every
competitor's DOS platform." Hell, there's more than I can count on the
middle finger of _both_ hands. Watch....
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Hesse | "No, you can't stay up and watch Dave Letterman," I
jhe...@netcom.com | tell myself. "You know how you hate to get up in the
| morning."
Moss Beach, Calif | "Well, just till the Top-Ten List, en' maybe the first
| guest..." my other self replies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy F. Sipples
>This is an interesting observation that seems to be shared by all the OS/2
>advocates. Did anyone actually *see* a Win3.1 app running on OS/2 2.0 at the
>rollout? As I remember, the only thing anyone saw was Lee R. bring up the
>about box from the program manager and show the Windows 3.1 version number.
>Anyone with ~1 week of Windows programming experience and a resource editor
>can make that happen... It's not possible that IBM wasn't anywhere close to
>porting the Win3.1 sources and were showing a mock-up to make people think
>they were further then they were, is it? Nah... IBM wouldn't stoop to that
>level. IBM is your friend.
Yes. I was at that particular rollout (in fact, I reported it
originally). He did demo Windows applets and the File Manager, as I
recall. I have the demo on tape somewhere, if you're really
interested.
--
Timothy F. Sipples |READ the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0L, available from
si...@kimbark.uchicago.edu|192.153.46.254, anonymous ftp, in /os2/all/info/faq,
Dept. of Econ., Univ. |or from LIST...@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP").
of Chicago, 60637 |[Post to ONE newsgroup only AFTER reading the List.]
A.A. Olowofoyeku
:>If IBM didn't get Win31 compatibility into OS/2 2.0, it sure wasn't
:>Microsoft's fault. It's a very ambitious and technically challenging design
:>goal and IBM took the conservative route of aiming only for Win30
:>compatibility at first release. But of course they knew about the changes
:>coming in Win31 while coding OS/2 2.0 -- they had the source inhouse
:>the whole time!
:>
:>You .edu guys sure don't know much about real-world software development
:>cycles yet! ;-)
Huh? Do I sense some "bash the academics" here? I know that it is now
quite fashionable in the "real" world to bash academics - but all of us
came from the "real" world, and many of us are still involved in
consultancies in your "real" world. Apart from that, a lot of academic
institutions, including mine, have been involved in the development of
commercial software for a long time.
With respect to the current thread - is it true that Windows NT refuses
to install if it discovers OS/2 Boot Manager?
--
Dr. A. Olowofoyeku (The African Chief)
Keele University ( All opinions are personal and do not reflect the)
England. ( views of Keele University)
Email: la...@uk.ac.keele.seq1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Yet will Africa rise again, from decline, decay, and distraint,
her forlorn glory to regain, never, never to fall again".
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Orville R. Weyrich
>
>Microsoft is in business to make money. You don't make money by releasing
>a new product that has hidden incompatibilities with your previous
>standard-setting product. Period. End of story.
Is that why Windows 3.1 runs all earlier Windows apps? NOT!
Is that why MS-DOS 6.0 comes equipped out of the box with backup facilities
to exchange backup disk sets with earlier versions of MS-DOS? NOT!
orville
------------------------------------------- *******************************
Orville R. Weyrich, Jr. Weyrich Computer Consulting
Certified Data Processor POB 5782, Scottsdale, AZ 85261
Certified Systems Professional Voice: (602) 391-0821
Certified Computer Programmer Internet: orv...@weyrich.com
No freedom without responsibility. UUCP: uunet!weyrich!orville
------------------------------------------- *******************************
Orville R. Weyrich
>In article <1993May19.1...@midway.uchicago.edu> djla...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>To those of you whoei feel that MS is too ethical to induce incompatiblities
>>I have two examples:
>>
>> MS Windows 3.1 was designed to be unable to run ontop of DR Dos 6.0. Digital was forced to release an updated version to run Windows. Note that Windows was, and still is the only app not to run under DR Dos 6.0 . This was a mem.
>
>Umm, this IS NOT esentially true. DR DOS 6.0 emulates MS DOS 3.3, so any application *requiring* MSDOS 5.0 or above will not run on DRDOS 6.0. (I'm not
>talking just of memory requirements, but of stacks, etc..) A product that
>comes to mind is Interleaf.
The real question here (and which I don't have an answer for) is whether
the change in memory handling in going from MS DOS 3.3 to MS DOS 5.0
(1) was because of some technical need, (2) was because of some marketing need
(to 'screw' the competition or user base that hasn't paid for an upgrade
lately), (3) was simpley a gratuitous change that was introduced just for the
heck of it, or (4) just happened and Microsoft didn't notice it at all since
it didn't affect the products that they tested (which did not include any
competing products).
This thread has been accusing MS of (2), but (3) and (4) are also
possibilities. (3) and (4) aren't as malicious as (2), but don't speak very
well of MS, either.
So can anyone who seeks to defend MS produce a description of the technical
need that had to be met, so that we can attribute the incompatibility to (1)
and thus exonerate MS?
Wally Bass
>Joshua Konstadt (jo...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
>
>Please cite at least one single reproducible, provable example of this claim.
Although I don't remember the details, there was a flap awhile ago
about Microsoft's Windoze apps using undocumented interfaces (I think
that this was well documented by the press). Certainly, one virtue of
this from Microsoft's point of view is that, unless all of these
undocumented interfaces can be found and implemented by 'OS'
competitors such as IBM and Sun, it makes things like OS/2 and Sun's
WABI (Windoze Applications Binary Interface) appear as if they don't
correctly emulate the Windoze API.
Is this an intent on MS's part? Billy Boy's attitudes and statements
about changing the Windows API so fast that the competitors will never
be able to keep up certainly give me that impression, but there is no
obvious way to prove it (except, perhaps, thru 'discovery' in the
process of a lawsuit).
Wally Bass
ozaG luaP
>In article <1993May18.1...@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>, bwr...@msi.com (Barton Wright) writes:
>> Joshua Konstadt (jo...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
>>> MS actually hardwires stuff for incompatibility.
>>
>> Please cite at least one single reproducible, provable example of this claim.
SCO Unix for some strange reason cannot read drives formatted by
MS-Dos v6.0 Since there are no documented changes to the FAT system, there is
NO, repeat, NO good reason for this. Os/2 still reads said disks, but there
is suddenly something so vastly different about the Dos 6 floppies and hard
drives that SCO Unix no longer can access them. Right. And that was an
accident.
--
/=======================================================================\
| Pain is futile. Anger is irrelevant. + ga...@server.uwindsor.ca |
| Happiness will be assimilated. + -who is this person anyway? |
\=======================================================================/
Nicolai Wadstroem
>
> Barton Wright (bwr...@msi.com) wrote:
> :>If IBM didn't get Win31 compatibility into OS/2 2.0, it sure wasn't
> :>Microsoft's fault. It's a very ambitious and technically challenging design
> :>goal and IBM took the conservative route of aiming only for Win30
> :>compatibility at first release. But of course they knew about the changes
> :>coming in Win31 while coding OS/2 2.0 -- they had the source inhouse
> :>the whole time!
> :>
> :>You .edu guys sure don't know much about real-world software development
> :>cycles yet! ;-)
>
> Huh? Do I sense some "bash the academics" here? I know that it is now
> quite fashionable in the "real" world to bash academics - but all of us
> came from the "real" world, and many of us are still involved in
> consultancies in your "real" world. Apart from that, a lot of academic
> institutions, including mine, have been involved in the development of
> commercial software for a long time.
>
> With respect to the current thread - is it true that Windows NT refuses
> to install if it discovers OS/2 Boot Manager?
Yes, for the October Beta of Windows NT anyway.
If I install Windows NT, and then add the Boot Manager Windows NT refuses
to start! Even if I deactivate the Boot Manager so that the Windows NT
partion is started directly!
If I just delete the Boot Manager, keeping all other partions as they were,
Windows NT starts just fine!
This is a pity, otherwise I would have installed Windows NT on my machine also
in a Boot Manager Config. But it seems MS don't wan't people writing
applications for Windows NT.
(A lot of my projects are quite OS independent, but my primary target is
OS/2 2.x)
Regards,
nicolai
Brian C. Shensky
In a previous article, je...@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) says:
Regarding Visual C++ not running under Win-OS2:
The latest edition of InfoWorld elaborates that Visual C++ uses VxD's --
virtual device drivers -- for which Win-OS2 does not yet have support.
It's the same reason you can't do anything Win32s related with Win-OS2.
Apparently, IBM is "real close now" to supporting VxD's under 2.1.
My guess is a new SP before the end of 1993. Pure speculation. Wishful
thinking.
Just for the -- er -- record.
-Brian
--
Brian C. Shensky 313-649-3909 voice/fax/data she...@umcc.umich.edu
1954 Axtell #4 OS/2 2.1, Oracle RDBMS ak...@yfn.ysu.edu (BEST)
Troy, MI 48084-4421 Occasional ARS N8FSR bq...@cleveland.freenet.edu
** DOS your operating system fit your needs? I bet it DOSn't. Mine does! **
Matt Boersma
In article <1993May21....@microsoft.com>,
> >> which DOS 6?
> >>
> >> >booting from a DOS 5 floppy showed his HD to be corrupted, but
> >> >no problems when booted from DOS 6.
> >>
> >> which DOS 5?
> >
> >What do you mean, which DOS 5/6? Are you denying that MS-DOS is
the
> >overwhelmingly standard DOS, or looking for a beta revision
number,
> >or trying to blame incompatibilites on IBM PC-DOS?
>
> I initally questioned what was meant by "corrupted". Depending on
what
> is meant by "corruption", I know three scenarios which could induce
> the above. And, yes, I was trying to avoid mentioning DR & IBM
unless
> I thought they were the cause of this person's experience.
>
> Scenario 0:
Hmmm. Obviously you've done your homework well. Sorry I didn't
understand your querying the original post.
Thanks for the clear explanation of known DOS (didn't say MS-DOS) 5/6
incompatibilities. I'm impressed that MS folks even frequent these
areas, and also that you are so politic in your postings.
Nonethless, I'm still going to use OS/2 until they pry my cold dead
hand off the mouse :-).
-Matt Boersma
"Hello, I'm Matt Boersma, and I've been off DOS for eleven months."
ozaG luaP
Okay, so if MS is so friendly, why is it that the Ms-Dos6 install
routine disables Boot Manager, without even informing you that it's doing so?
There is NO reason to do this. The install routine does NOT reboot at any
time in the process. If you wish to run the MemMaker, you simply choose the
Dos partition in Boot Manager.
There was even an 8k text file telling you how to remove Os/2. No
mention how (or indeed if) you can add Dos 6 to Os/2. They had a text file
telling you how to add Dos6 to Windows NT for God's sake, and NT is _still_
not out.
Now try using a Dos6 command in a Virtual Dos Boot session of Dos6.
Guess what. You can't use commands like format on your floppies. Guess what.
It bitches about A: being substed or assigned. Only it isn't. Now if that's
not coded to make it not run under Os/2, I'd like to know what it is for. It
used to format Assigned drives. What gives, huh?
Bruce Kitchin
: Okay, so if MS is so friendly, why is it that the Ms-Dos6 install
: routine disables Boot Manager, without even informing you that it's doing so?
: There is NO reason to do this. The install routine does NOT reboot at any
: time in the process. If you wish to run the MemMaker, you simply choose the
: Dos partition in Boot Manager.
: There was even an 8k text file telling you how to remove Os/2. No
: mention how (or indeed if) you can add Dos 6 to Os/2. They had a text file
: telling you how to add Dos6 to Windows NT for God's sake, and NT is _still_
: not out.
: Now try using a Dos6 command in a Virtual Dos Boot session of Dos6.
: Guess what. You can't use commands like format on your floppies. Guess what.
: It bitches about A: being substed or assigned. Only it isn't. Now if that's
: not coded to make it not run under Os/2, I'd like to know what it is for. It
: used to format Assigned drives. What gives, huh?
While I agree with your first two paragraphs, I have a problem with the
third one. I have found that Norton Utilities (DOS) make the same
complaint. so it may have something to do with the way OS/2 is protecting
the system from errant programs. That is just a guess. But if the old
Norton Utilities (and my copy is pretty old) wont touch any of the disks
(hard or floppy), maybe MS has an excuse with DOS 6. OTOH, the business
of disabling bootmanager and telling you only how to get rid of OS/2,
it a bit low.
ne...@nb.rockwell.com
Something to note though that while DOS 6.0 may blow away boot manager, it will
create a dual boot situation if you like. I thought it was kind of funny when
they say something like "upgrade from OS/2 to DOS 6.0."
Happybird(Jim Day)
great...except for one problem I get a message when trying to enter
win/os2 this is that message... Fatal error ox401 or something
similar(it flashes really quick like when you try to run mem(the dos
command))
Oh well I hope someone somewhere out there can help a helpless person
like me :)
Jim
Paul Gallagher
>Did you consider any non-conspiratorial explanations for this phenonmenon?
>Such as maybe your trusted friend installed DoubleSpace and then tried to
>DIR his DoubleSpace drive from a DOS 5 diskette that lacked the DoubleSpace
>device driver? Sounds like a UHE* to me.
Maybe it was a UHE*, but what you describe as an alternative
explanation is just not possible. There is no such thing as a
"doublespace drive" unless the driver is installed, so you can't dir
it.
Regards,
PaulG
----------------------------------------------------------------
/\/\ : Paul Gallagher, PC/Mac Support
/ / /\ : Computer Services Group
/ / / \ : BHP Research - Melbourne Laboratories
/ / / /\ \ : 245 Wellington Rd, Mulgrave, 3170, AUSTRALIA
\ \/ / / / : Phone +61-3-560-7066
\ / / / : E-mail pa...@a1.resmel.bhp.com.au
\/\/\/ :
================================================================
David Charlap
>Guess what. You can't use commands like format on your floppies.
You can't use those commands under any other version of virtual-boot
DOS as well.
>Guess what. It bitches about A: being substed or assigned. Only it
>isn't.
It is if you installed the FSFILTER.SYS driver (which is required to
have full access to your OS/2 hard drive partitions while OS/2 is
running).
Use the OS/2 format command. If you must use the DOS format command,
do this:
FSACCESS !A
FSACCESS !B
To disconnect OS/2's virtual floppy controller from the drives. Note
that performance will probably suffer when you do this.
--
+------------------------+------------------------------------+
| David Charlap | "Apple II forever" - Steve Wozniak |
| dic...@hertz.njit.edu | "I drank what?" - Socrates |
+------------------------+------------------------------------+
Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.
>In article <1993May19.0...@waikato.ac.nz> ham...@waikato.ac.nz writes:
>>In article <1993May18.1...@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>, bwr...@msi.com (Barton Wright) writes:
>>> Joshua Konstadt (jo...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
>>>> MS actually hardwires stuff for incompatibility.
>>>
>>> Please cite at least one single reproducible, provable example of this claim.
>
> SCO Unix for some strange reason cannot read drives formatted by
>MS-Dos v6.0 Since there are no documented changes to the FAT system, there is
>NO, repeat, NO good reason for this. Os/2 still reads said disks, but there
>is suddenly something so vastly different about the Dos 6 floppies and hard
>drives that SCO Unix no longer can access them. Right. And that was an
>accident.
And the most peculiar thing about the above is that MicroSoft owns a
substantial share of SCO. Does their right hand know what their left hand
is up to?
orville
-------------------------------------------------*******************************
Orville R. Weyrich, Jr. Weyrich Computer Consulting
Certified Data Processor POB 5782, Scottsdale, AZ 85261
Certified Systems Professional Voice: (602) 391-0821
Certified Computer Programmer Internet: orv...@weyrich.com
No rights without responsibility. UUCP: uunet!weyrich!orville
-------------------------------------------------*******************************
Let Congress eliminate the deficit by cutting their pork-barrel spending.
Then (and only then) I be happy to pay more taxes to eliminate the debt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taxing one pocket to fill another pocket cannot stimulate the economy, it only
gives the tax collector more power over our lives. The only way to stimulate
the economy is to increase the money supply. The only viable ways to do that
are to eliminate the trade deficit or to free up the funds that are held
hostage by the capital gains tax which is not adjusted for inflation. Tax
imports from countries that have a trade deficit, index the capital gains tax
to inflation, and leave private employers and their employees alone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy F. Sipples
Just use Selective Install to reinstall the Win-OS/2 support, and you
should clear up the problem.
If you are installing OS/2 2.0 on a system that already has Windows
3.1 installed, do not migrate your Windows desktop.