ChessBase for Windows
Johannes Fuernkranz
is it just me, or does the program crash every other time?
Every third time or so it displays an error message, requests that I
abort it and there goes my game.
Another error, dataitem error, usually appears (I think) when I repeately
enter variations and make them the main line (the button next to the
delete variation button).
Are they already delivering the manual (I haven't called my chess dealer
in quite a while)?
I think ChessAssisant and NicBase should make an "Upgrade from ChessBase"
special offer. This will might get them a lot of new customers (if their
programs compare in functionality, I would like to see a demo first).
Juffi
Andreas Toenne
ChessBase for Windows users,
is it just me, or does the program crash every other time?
What do you expect from a Windoze program? :-)
More serious, CB/Win is one of the few programs that do not crash for
me constantly. I had one crash overall in a month and that was clearly
caused by the analysis module.
Every third time or so it displays an error message, requests that I
abort it and there goes my game.
Another error, dataitem error, usually appears (I think) when I repeately
enter variations and make them the main line (the button next to the
delete variation button).
Try to answer some questions to yourself: do you use other LARGE Windoze
programs and do they crash often also? How much free memory do you have
after starting CB? Did you do clever tricks to your free UMBs or
to your BIOS setups? These are standard questions to standard problems with
Windows.
A simple check: exclude ALL upper memory for EMS if you are running
Windows in 256 color-mode. EMM386 sometimes does not recognize the full
video memory that is needed for SVGA. So video memory and program memory
may overlap -> BOOM. Similar overlappings are possible with other
hardware as well; especially when you use the /highscan option of EMM386.
These problems do not show with plain DOS as you rarely use all UMBs.
Some information about your setup would be helpful!
Are they already delivering the manual (I haven't called my chess dealer
in quite a while)?
No manual? How *OLD* is your CB/Win copy? ChessBase told me that there are
updates for early versions.
Andreas Toenne
P.S. I am currently running a match Fritz3 vs. Genius3. Genius leads
6-1 (two draws) :-)
--
Andreas Toenne Voice: x49 681 5846272
Max-Planck-Institut Office: x49 681 302 5363
fuer Informatik e-mail: ato...@mpi-sb.mpg.de
Im Stadtwald
66123 Saarbruecken, Germany
Ari Kalevi Makela
>What do you expect from a Windoze program? :-)
>More serious, CB/Win is one of the few programs that do not crash for
>me constantly.
According to my experience Windoze does not crash more often than any
other system. However, I have friends whose computers do crash when
Windows is used and they use same programs. I have an impression that
Windoze is very picky when hardware is concerned.
--
Ari K. Makela http://www.helsinki.fi/~arimakel
arim...@cc.helsinki.fi
"Deux fous gagnent toujours, mais trois fous, non!" - Alexander Alekhine
Johannes Fuernkranz
Andreas Toenne <ato...@mpi-sb.mpg.de> wrote:
>
>No manual? How *OLD* is your CB/Win copy? ChessBase told me that there are
>updates for early versions.
>
I think I have the very first version. It looks like beta-test version to me.
Very important information, thanks!
I have called my chess dealer in the mean time and when I told him, he said
he'll get an update, when I give him a detailled description of the errors
I have encountered.
Juffi
Michel Behna
>Subject: ChessBase for Windows
>Date: 1 Nov 1994 13:40:37 GMT
>ChessBase for Windows users,
>is it just me, or does the program crash every other time?
>Every third time or so it displays an error message,
[ Stuff deleted ]
It is only you. I have the product and it runs just fine. I really like it. I
thought I was gonna hate it but I really like it!!! It's so much better than
CB4 and it also allows you to do other stuff via Windows.
Kudos for ChessBase.
Peter Stein
anything worth raving about and several problems have surfaced:
1. The fonts are completely unreadable at high resolution. According to ChessBase
this is easily fixed by installing the fonts that were placed in the CBWIN
directory. I have yet to do that, I don't recall seeing that in the installation
instructions (I guess it must be obvious).
2. The graphical chess board cannot be resized. The installation manual requires
at least VGA resolution, but actually recommends 800x600 or higher. Fine, my
Windows setup at 1280x1024 should be just dandy, right? Wrong! What I discovered
is that CBWIN doesn't correctly scale the graphical board in relation to the
desktop when at 1280x1024 resolution. It is so tiny you develop eye strain after
a little while. There is a board size icon that offers 4 choices of resizing,
but the difference between "small" and "big" is barely perceptible at 1280x1024.
The problem at 800x600 is less pronounced, but still a problem. Moreover Windows
does not allow changing resolutions on-the-fly on a per application basis. So
even if I reconcile myself to CBWIN at 800x600 I would now be stuck with this
resolution for my other (yes ChessBase, people use their computer for things
other than your programs) applications! Why is it not possible to write a
program that allows arbitrary resizing?
Well I'm not quite angry enough to send it back, but Don Maddox better have some
good answers tomorrow.
I know some of the other RGC regulars contemplated getting CBWIN. We'd appreciate
your observations and experiences after getting it installed. If someone has a
solution to problem 2. I'd be most grateful.
Peter Stein
pst...@falcon.depaul.edu
Johannes Fuernkranz
I do like the program as well, althought there are a lot of tiny details
that I find annoying (you cannot enter threats while not being in analysis
mode, you cannot enter exact dates of games, you cannot enter exact ELO
ratings etc). These nitty-gritty details spoil the program a little bit IMHO,
because I don't see any reason for not adding them.
As for my crashes I found out that I have one of the first versions, which
really seems to be a beta-test. The company has delivered new versions of
the program which supposedly are debugged. Of course without notifying the
purchasers of the buggy versions. Customer support is something they'll
never learn. In any case I have filed a complaint at my chess dealer now
and am looking forward to get a bug-free version.
Having worked with ChessBase for Windows for a couple of months now, I'm
also very positive towards the design of the program. The general policy
towards customers of the company, however, is still the worst I have ever
experienced. It is not only the buggy version I have received, but also
their policy of charging extra for all important feature. Most disappointing
was that you cannot use Fritz as an analysis module anymore (you cann
analyse within Fritz 3, but not in CBWin).
Juffi
Peter Rice
I just got it, and had one or two problems. Firstly, the fonts didn't get installed
so I had to add them manually. Now I can't figure out what they did with the ECO
keys from CB4.
Otherwise though it's great. I kept the old CB4 around just in case, but I probably
will never use it again.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Rice | Informatics Division
E-mail: p...@sanger.ac.uk | The Sanger Centre
Tel: (44) 1223 494967 | Hinxton Hall, Hinxton,
Fax: (44) 1223 494919 | Cambs, CB10 1RQ
URL: http://www.sanger.ac.uk/~pmr | England
G.Cambitsis
Please reply in personal adress
Thanks in advance
---
+------------------------------------------------------+
| Gregory A. Cambitsis |
| Centre For Facilities Management |
| University of Strathclyde |
| Graham Hills Building |
| 50 George Street |
| Glasgow G20 8PE |
| SCOTLAND |
| e_mail g.cam...@uk.ac.strathclyde |
| Tel: 041.553 4165 |
| Fax: 041.552 7299 |
| Tel(home):041.946 2323 |
+------------------------------------------------------+
Alexander Hatz
|> I just got it, and had one or two problems. Firstly, the fonts didn't get installed
They are put on the harddisk during installation but Windows won't
use them until you add them manually to the list of installed fonts.
|> so I had to add them manually. Now I can't figure out what they did with the ECO
|> keys from CB4.
Concerning the ECO.EXE shipped with CB4.0 (DOS) ChessBase anounced
that the Windows version is available now. They'll ship it to you
for free together with any other ChessBase-product you buy.
Alex
+-------------------------+--------------------------+
| o | Alexander Hatz |
| | University of Karlsruhe |
| \0/ \\0 | |
| \\ | B | email: s_h...@ira.uka.de |
| 0 // | // 0 | ha...@fzi.de |
| \\ l // | phone: +49-7222/47136 |
| /\ l /\ | fax: +49-7222/53910 |
+-------------------------+--------------------------+
| Software is a place where dreams are planted |
| and nightmares harvested... |
+----------------------------------------------------+
Andy Duplain
Ari Kalevi Makela <arim...@cc.Helsinki.FI> wrote:
>In article <ATOENNE.94...@mpii-mdm.mpi-sb.mpg.de>,
>
>>What do you expect from a Windoze program? :-)
>>More serious, CB/Win is one of the few programs that do not crash for
>>me constantly.
>
>According to my experience Windoze does not crash more often than any
>other system. However, I have friends whose computers do crash when
>Windows is used and they use same programs. I have an impression that
>Windoze is very picky when hardware is concerned.
I have decided to bite the bullett and upgrade from CB4 to CB-f-Win.
I asked Malcolm Pein, the UK ChessBase distributor, about the crash
stories I had heard about and he mentioned that you need Windows 3.1
(NOT 3.0) and 4MB RAM... this seems reasonable to me. Could those
people who have experienced problems with CB-f-Win please comment on
their configs ?
--
Andy Duplain, Syntegra, Brighton, UK. dup...@rtf.bt.co.uk
#define DISCLAIMER "My views and opinions are my own, and not my company's"
Andy Duplain
Johannes Fuernkranz <ju...@ai.univie.ac.at> wrote:
>
>I do like the program as well, althought there are a lot of tiny details
>that I find annoying (you cannot enter threats while not being in analysis
>mode, you cannot enter exact dates of games, you cannot enter exact ELO
>ratings etc). These nitty-gritty details spoil the program a little bit IMHO,
>because I don't see any reason for not adding them.
These are design problems with the file-format, not the program
design. ChessBase obviously don't want to change file-format again
(doing so with the release of CB-f-Win would have been the best time)
so these problems aren't likely to change any time soon.
Johannes Fuernkranz
Alexander Hatz <s_h...@irau29.ira.uka.de> wrote:
>
>Concerning the ECO.EXE shipped with CB4.0 (DOS) ChessBase anounced
>that the Windows version is available now. They'll ship it to you
>for free together with any other ChessBase-product you buy.
>
Juffi
Johannes Fuernkranz
Andy Duplain <dup...@btcs.bt.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I have decided to bite the bullett and upgrade from CB4 to CB-f-Win.
> I asked Malcolm Pein, the UK ChessBase distributor, about the crash
> stories I had heard about and he mentioned that you need Windows 3.1
> (NOT 3.0) and 4MB RAM... this seems reasonable to me. Could those
> people who have experienced problems with CB-f-Win please comment on
> their configs ?
I have both, 3.1 and 4 Meg and it crashes constantly. However, I think that
I have one of the first versions. Apparently they are continuously delivering
new versions that correct bugs from older versions. I was told that I will
get a free upgrade and I'm waiting for it.
My version has a bug that is easily detected: Open a key window with more
keys than fit on the window. Then scroll down, mark a key and do something
with it (like move it to another position). In my version not the marked
key, but the key on that position on page 1 of the key list will be used.
In general I would recommend upgrading from CB4.0 to CB-Win. The latter is
much, much better provided you get a bug-free version (I still have a version
that likes to crash, but I would never use CB4.0 again).
If one doesn't have CB4.0 already, I think he should check out other products
as well.
Juffi
Peter Stein
Johannes Fuernkranz <ju...@ai.univie.ac.at> wrote:
Well I'm glad somebody likes it. I have it and am trying to
come up with some convincing reason for not sending it back.
For those of you who like it, what new features does it contain
above and beyond CB4 and the freely available utilities? So far
I've seen nothing but a cosmetic alteration of a prior product.
Yeah ok, it can handle more games, but what else? The graphics
are really inferior to what was in CB3 and even if you're
willing to discount that you can't resize the board if you're
running at 1280x1024. As usual we have a copy protection scheme
which doesn't allow you to uninstall the program. Oh, did I
mention it will not run when started from OS/2? No I am not
trying to run it under OS/2's WINOS2 I'm trying to run it
under genuine Microsoft Windows 3.1. Well enough of the belly-
aching for now, as I said if someone can provide good reasons
for holding on to it I'm game. I hate returning things.
However, at this point I'm inclined to think the money may be
better spent on CA 1.4.
Peter Stein
pst...@falcon.depaul.edu
Michel Behna
>From: p...@staffa.sanger.ac.uk (Peter Rice)
>Subject: Re: ChessBase for Windows
>Date: 09 Nov 1994 10:40:00 GMT
>In article <mbehna.17...@promus.com> mbe...@promus.com (Michel Behna)
>writes:
>> In article <395ggl$n...@infosrv.edvz.univie.ac.at> ju...@ai.univie.ac.at
>(Johannes Fuernkranz) writes:
>> >From: ju...@ai.univie.ac.at (Johannes Fuernkranz)
>> >Subject: ChessBase for Windows
>> >Date: 1 Nov 1994 13:40:37 GMT
>>
>> >ChessBase for Windows users,
>>
>> >is it just me, or does the program crash every other time?
>> >Every third time or so it displays an error message,
>>
>> [ Stuff deleted ]
>>
>> It is only you. I have the product and it runs just fine. I really like it.
>I
>> thought I was gonna hate it but I really like it!!! It's so much better than
>> CB4 and it also allows you to do other stuff via Windows.
>I just got it, and had one or two problems. Firstly, the fonts didn't get
>installed
>so I had to add them manually. Now I can't figure out what they did with the ECO
>keys from CB4.
As for the fonts, you have to install those manually. I would not call that a
bug, just an incomplete installation routine. The ECO keys should still be
there when you open a database which has the ECO keys. You had to do that in
CB4 anyway. You copied your eco.c[kp]o and then renamed them to like
mainbase.e[ck]o and then went into CB4 and asked to reclassify the keys. WinCB
also allows you to choose what keys (just like CB4 did) you want to use.
Wolfgang Kuechle
NEVER BUY A PROGRAM WITH VERSION 1.0
I love CB4 (and expect to love CB for Windows 2.0) but I
have not enough time to serve as a Beta-Tester.
Wolfgang
Johannes Fuernkranz
Peter Stein <pst...@falcon.depaul.edu> wrote:
>
>Well I'm glad somebody likes it. I have it and am trying to
>come up with some convincing reason for not sending it back.
>For those of you who like it, what new features does it contain
>above and beyond CB4 and the freely available utilities? So far
You can use several databases at once. You can classify games with the
key of a different database. You can search all your databases at once.
You can delete games from within the program. You can make nice printouts
without extra cash and extra utilities...
>I've seen nothing but a cosmetic alteration of a prior product.
>Yeah ok, it can handle more games, but what else? The graphics
>are really inferior to what was in CB3 and even if you're
>willing to discount that you can't resize the board if you're
>running at 1280x1024. As usual we have a copy protection scheme
I'm not surprised by the resizing but you mention. It resizes fine at my
regular VGA, but on the other hand some of the Windows do not fit on the
screen and cannot be moved or resized in order to see the rest of it.
After all they recommend at least 800x600. Sigh.
>which doesn't allow you to uninstall the program. Oh, did I
>mention it will not run when started from OS/2? No I am not
>trying to run it under OS/2's WINOS2 I'm trying to run it
>under genuine Microsoft Windows 3.1. Well enough of the belly-
>aching for now, as I said if someone can provide good reasons
>for holding on to it I'm game. I hate returning things.
>However, at this point I'm inclined to think the money may be
>better spent on CA 1.4.
My point is, as stated previously, if you have CB4, CBWin is definitely
worth the upgrade. If you don't have ChessBase yet, think twice (I haven't
seen any of the other programs, so I cannot comment on their design,
but apparently ChessBase is the most problematic at least in terms of
customer support and bugs).
Juffi
Peter Stein
Usually higher resolution is a good thing, right? Not with ChessBase for Windows.
If you happen to have a video card and monitor combination that produces 1280x1024
resolution on a 17 inch monitor you'll discover that you can't resize the chess
board(s) to a comfortable size. Even if you choose their "big" setting you'll get
serious eye strain from having to look at such a tiny board.
Of course Windoze does not permit running a session at a different resolution from
the desktop, so even if you reconcile yourself to running CBWIN at a lower
resolution you would now be stuck with this resolution for your other applications
as well. Of course if diskspace is no object you could create a separate Windoze
installation just for CBWIN! :-)
Hello ChessBase, here's a tip: OS/2 allows sessions to be run at different resolutions
from the desktop, including the coveted Microsoft Windows 3.1!
Which brings me to my favorite topic, running CBWIN under OS/2. The "under OS/2"
requires some qualification. Before the advent of OS/2 for Windows IBM's WINOS2
was the only way to run Windoze apps under OS/2. This truly is running under OS/2
since WINOS2 is IBM's modification of the Windoze code provided to them by
Microsoft for OS/2. However in the case of OS/2 for Windows the "Windows" code
executed when invoking a Windows application is the true Microsoft Windows code.
CBWIN is advertised as running under Windows 3.1, but if Windows 3.1 is started
from OS/2 CBWIN will not start. So it really doesn't run under Windows 3.1, does
it?
As far as the reports of crashes, I had a GPF myself, but I suspect it was due to
an incorrect DLL. I would find it astonishing that anybody is using Windoze 3.0
at this time. This version is totally unreliable and causes crashes on a regular
basis for any program that has some memory requirements. If you observed crashes
with CBWIN you must have seen them with other programs as well. It does seem
stable when Windoze 3.1 is started from DOS (I have 16 Megs ram).
Now if I could just figure out which new features made the $80 upgrade worth it I
might even be able to make recommendations! :-)
Aside from being able to handle more games and a "kill doubles" function I have not
found anything significantly new and valuable as compared to CB4 or even CB3.
Peter Stein
pst...@falcon.depaul.edu
Michel Behna
>From: pst...@falcon.depaul.edu (Peter Stein)
>Subject: ChessBase for Windows
>Date: Mon, 7 Nov 1994 21:35:19 GMT
>I installed CBWIN last night and took a brief test drive. So far I haven't seen
>anything worth raving about and several problems have surfaced:
>1. The fonts are completely unreadable at high resolution. According to
>ChessBase
> this is easily fixed by installing the fonts that were placed in the CBWIN
> directory. I have yet to do that, I don't recall seeing that in the
>installation
> instructions (I guess it must be obvious).
In Windows, select the Control Panel. Select Fonts in control panel and tell
it to instal the fonts from the directory where you installed CBWIN to. That's
standard Windows stuff. CBWIN could have gone one step further an d done that
for you but it was left out of the installation.
>2. The graphical chess board cannot be resized. The installation manual
>requires at least VGA resolution, but actually recommends 800x600 or
>higher. Fine, my Windows setup at 1280x1024 should be just dandy, right?
>Wrong! What I discovered is that CBWIN doesn't correctly scale the
>graphical board in relation to the desktop when at 1280x1024 resolution. It
>is so tiny you develop eye strain after
> a little while. There is a board size icon that offers 4 choices of resizing,
> but the difference between "small" and "big" is barely perceptible at
>1280x1024.
> The problem at 800x600 is less pronounced, but still a problem. Moreover
>Windows
> does not allow changing resolutions on-the-fly on a per application basis. So
> even if I reconcile myself to CBWIN at 800x600 I would now be stuck with this
> resolution for my other (yes ChessBase, people use their computer for things
> other than your programs) applications! Why is it not possible to write a
> program that allows arbitrary resizing?
[Stuff deleted]
The graphical board can be resized. I have not tried it at 1280x1024 but I
have tried at 800x600. I have a 14" monitor and that's the max I feel
comfortable at reading. There is quite a difference between the size of the
board at small and at big. I would say about 3 times bigger. (quoting from
memory). Changing resolutions on the fly is a Windows problem and not CBWIN
issue. You can always use the Windows Restart program found in the Windows
Resource Kit.
Johannes Fuernkranz
While it is certainly not a pleasant experience to beta-test a program,
I still prefer the buggy features of CBWin to the lack of features of CB4.
Even though the program crashes from time to time, I can work faster than
with CB4. I can't compare it with other products though.
Juffi
Peter Stein
However you choose to qualify changing resolution under Windows
it is a CBWIN issue. Either a driver should have been written to
handle different resolutions or different drivers for different
resolutions. Knowing the Windows limitations wouldn't it be proper
to address the resolution issue via a driver or at least warn
users about limitations of CBWIN? I can accept that my system's
hardware exceeds the expectations of ChessBase, but a "gee that's
too bad" response just doesn't cut it.
>You can always use the Windows Restart program found in the Windows
>Resource Kit.
What are you suggesting? That I restart Windows whenever switching
from CBWIN to another application or vice versa? This is precisely
the problem I'm trying to avoid.
Peter Stein
pst...@falcon.depaul.edu
Michel Behna
>From: pst...@falcon.depaul.edu (Peter Stein)
>In article <39nmui$n...@infosrv.edvz.univie.ac.at>,
>Johannes Fuernkranz <ju...@ai.univie.ac.at> wrote:
>>In article <mbehna.17...@promus.com>,
>>Michel Behna <mbe...@promus.com> wrote:
>>>In article <395ggl$n...@infosrv.edvz.univie.ac.at> ju...@ai.univie.ac.at
>(Johannes Fuernkranz) writes:
>>>>From: ju...@ai.univie.ac.at (Johannes Fuernkranz)
>>>>Subject: ChessBase for Windows
>>>>Date: 1 Nov 1994 13:40:37 GMT
>>>
>>>>ChessBase for Windows users,
>>>
>>>>is it just me, or does the program crash every other time?
>>>>Every third time or so it displays an error message,
>>>
>>>[ Stuff deleted ]
>>>
>>>It is only you. I have the product and it runs just fine. I really like it. I
>>>thought I was gonna hate it but I really like it!!! It's so much better than
>>>CB4 and it also allows you to do other stuff via Windows.
>>>
>>>Kudos for ChessBase.
>>
>>I do like the program as well, althought there are a lot of tiny details
>>that I find annoying (you cannot enter threats while not being in analysis
>>mode, you cannot enter exact dates of games, you cannot enter exact ELO
>>ratings etc). These nitty-gritty details spoil the program a little bit IMHO,
>>because I don't see any reason for not adding them.
You could never enter exact dates of games in ChessBase. :-) Nor exact ELO, +-
5 pts is the best you can do. Nothing new here.
>>As for my crashes I found out that I have one of the first versions, which
>>really seems to be a beta-test. The company has delivered new versions of
>>the program which supposedly are debugged. Of course without notifying the
>>purchasers of the buggy versions. Customer support is something they'll
>>never learn. In any case I have filed a complaint at my chess dealer now
>>and am looking forward to get a bug-free version.
It seems you need to find a more honest supplier of ChessBase products.
>>
>>Having worked with ChessBase for Windows for a couple of months now, I'm
>>also very positive towards the design of the program. The general policy
>>towards customers of the company, however, is still the worst I have ever
>>experienced. It is not only the buggy version I have received, but also
>>their policy of charging extra for all important feature. Most disappointing
>>was that you cannot use Fritz as an analysis module anymore (you cann
>>analyse within Fritz 3, but not in CBWin).
Not true, you can analyze within CBWIN but you need the analysis module.
>> Juffi
>Well I'm glad somebody likes it. I have it and am trying to
>come up with some convincing reason for not sending it back.
>For those of you who like it, what new features does it contain
>above and beyond CB4 and the freely available utilities? So far
>I've seen nothing but a cosmetic alteration of a prior product.
How about being able to look at many games at the same time. How about being
able to remove doubles without needing another utility. How about being able
to edit/create Fritz powerbooks. How about being able to analysis module or an
endgame module to get better analysis. How about being able to access multiple
databases and search themn all for a novelty or whatever else. How about being
able to analyze many games simultaneously.
>Yeah ok, it can handle more games, but what else? The graphics
>are really inferior to what was in CB3 and even if you're
>willing to discount that you can't resize the board if you're
>running at 1280x1024. As usual we have a copy protection scheme
>which doesn't allow you to uninstall the program.
What is the big deal about uninstalling the program. ChessBAse USA will send a
new diskette for $5 to registered users should you need one. So it is
inconvenient but not a problem.
> Oh, did I
>mention it will not run when started from OS/2? No I am not
>trying to run it under OS/2's WINOS2 I'm trying to run it
>under genuine Microsoft Windows 3.1.
Who cares about OS/2? I mean if you're not gonna run it under OS/2 why bring
it up. What's your point? If you can't get it running under Windows 3.1 then
you must be having difficulty reading the manuals. I certainly had no
difficulty running it under Windows 3.1. Maybe you need some help? If so, I am
willing to help you and anyone else for that matter set it up under Windows.
> Well enough of the belly-
>aching for now, as I said if someone can provide good reasons
>for holding on to it I'm game. I hate returning things.
>However, at this point I'm inclined to think the money may be
>better spent on CA 1.4.
>Peter Stein
>pst...@falcon.depaul.edu
It's your money, dude! You're the final judge.
Reid Powell
: Can anybody tell me if Chessbase can be reached on the net?
Nope. Only via Compu$erve: 74722...@compuserve.com
But don't expect a reply. The person allegedly reading messages that
arrive via Internet is not authorized to reply via Internet. Too
expensive is the operative rationale.
Not a great way of doing business, is it?
Lisa Powell
Eric Schiller
CBWin has some good new features. Merging games is very helpful,
multiple database support and so on.
Major annoyances include:
a) the worst interface of any windows program I have ever seen.
Use of icons violates guidelines and common sense all over the place.
Menus have no logic whatsoever behind them.
I suppose that if one gets used to it, eventually proficiency will come.
b) not confoming to Windows interface guidelines and lacking resizable windows
c) Same stupid data format. No precise dates, restrictions on rating ranges,
no way to identify source of ratings, All sorts of information combined on
one field without any standard to enable parsing
d) no pgn support
e) no OLE
f) non-standard font coding
g) no supplied manual for upgrades
h) insufficient indexing of help file
i) no ascii import
j) no windows vrsions of utilities, no bundled utilities
k) no NICbase, CA conversion built in
l) still a bit buggy
m) more cumbersone to perform many functions which were easy before,
like starting a variation.
Of course if you already own CB, CBwin is well worth the upgrade
price. I definitely think it is $80 better than CB4. But if you
don't own a database, it is far too expensive, given what you
have to add on for all the "extras" that should be bundled into
the program in the first place.
They should at least provide toll-free and internet support
for this price.
I think that ChessBAse is the WordPerfect of chess processors.
Those who grew up with it stay with it. But the awkward
data format and lack of cooperation with outside products
may doom it int he end. For example, you can finally write
substantial notes to the games. But CB4 users can't read
them. And every time you write more than 260 characters,
you have to deal with an additional dialog box on exit,
reminding you that CBWin is required to read the note, and
that CB4 users lose out. So when preparing a collection
of annotated games, you have to target your market in
advance.
We'll see how CA does with its Windows version, and will then
have a basis for comparison. Bookup is working on a Windows
version, and DejaVu 2 will have many chess processing features
(for info on DJV and DJV2, e-mail ches...@netcom.com, this is
not the place for me to promote my wares!).
I also think that CB's insistence that all add-ons be
purchased from them will hurt in the long run. Most
Windows programs talk to each other, and with many playing
programs migrating to Windows, why should we have to use
Fritz if we don't want to?
Eric Schiller
Chessworks Unlimited
Jeff while Netscaping
Michel Behna
>From: cfag...@servus14.rus.uni-stuttgart.de (Wolfgang Kuechle)
>Subject: Re: ChessBase for Windows
>Wolfgang
Did you realize that CB4 was version 1.0 of the program? :-) You have a valid
point there and it's up to you to decide if the functionality you would be
getting by using CBWIN is worth the potential hassle.
MARC LONOFF
at and searching more than one database at a time is a non-trivial
advance. Two wonderful ease-of-use advances must be mentioned:
You can use the notation and board screen simultaneously with a vastly
improved variation/line entry with line promotion and deletion. This
makes analysis far more efficient.
You can collect games and notes and compress them simply by pointing and
clicking. Another single click reorganizes the lines for easier viewing.
This compressed game can be exported as a fritz book.
The inclusion of 200,000 games (or more) for $295 shows CB is willing to
begin to meet the competition from CA.
On the negative side, I have not found the doubles killing routine and
the position/material search routines very effective. I have had some
problems working with keys and refine in CBWIN. I have also crashed it a
few times by closing or opening database list and games windows in the
wrong order.
Overall, CBWIN is a significant advance. I would recommend the upgrade
enthusiastically.
-
MARC LONOFF NBB...@prodigy.com
Michel Behna
>From: pst...@falcon.depaul.edu (Peter Stein)
[STUFF DELETED]
>However you choose to qualify changing resolution under Windows
>it is a CBWIN issue. Either a driver should have been written to
>handle different resolutions or different drivers for different
>resolutions. Knowing the Windows limitations wouldn't it be proper
>to address the resolution issue via a driver or at least warn
>users about limitations of CBWIN? I can accept that my system's
>hardware exceeds the expectations of ChessBase, but a "gee that's
>too bad" response just doesn't cut it.
I also would like my alarm clock to brew coffee in the morning and prepare my
dinner at night and do my laundry on Saturday BUT it does not. Does that mean
it "just doesn't cut it"? No, the purpose of ChessBase is to manage a databse
of chess games not to work around limitations of Windows. Let's not lose sight
of what the software was designed to do.
David Gomboc
>>From: pst...@falcon.depaul.edu (Peter Stein)
>>Subject: Re: ChessBase for Windows
>>Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 07:41:06 GMT
>>However you choose to qualify changing resolution under Windows
>>it is a CBWIN issue. Either a driver should have been written to
>>handle different resolutions or different drivers for different
>>resolutions. Knowing the Windows limitations wouldn't it be proper
>>to address the resolution issue via a driver or at least warn
>>users about limitations of CBWIN? I can accept that my system's
>>hardware exceeds the expectations of ChessBase, but a "gee that's
>>too bad" response just doesn't cut it.
>
>I also would like my alarm clock to brew coffee in the morning and prepare my
>dinner at night and do my laundry on Saturday BUT it does not. Does that mean
>it "just doesn't cut it"? No, the purpose of ChessBase is to manage a databse
>of chess games not to work around limitations of Windows. Let's not lose sight
>of what the software was designed to do.
Give me a break. Any Windows code worth cash should be able to handle various
screen sizes. Scaling is very EASY to do; only programmer ineptness makes high
resolution screens unusable for CB-Win. The situation is totally UNANALOGOUS
to asking your alarm clock to make coffee. A person can read the time on a
digital clock from 10 metres away and from 10 millimetres away. CB-Win should
be usable on a display with resolutions of 640x480 and 6400x4800.
--
Dave Gomboc
drgo...@acs.ucalgary.ca
gom...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca
Andy Duplain
David Gomboc <gom...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>>I also would like my alarm clock to brew coffee in the morning and prepare my
>>dinner at night and do my laundry on Saturday BUT it does not. Does that mean
>>it "just doesn't cut it"? No, the purpose of ChessBase is to manage a databse
>>of chess games not to work around limitations of Windows. Let's not lose sight
>>of what the software was designed to do.
>
>Give me a break. Any Windows code worth cash should be able to handle various
>screen sizes. Scaling is very EASY to do; only programmer ineptness makes high
>resolution screens unusable for CB-Win. The situation is totally UNANALOGOUS
>to asking your alarm clock to make coffee. A person can read the time on a
>digital clock from 10 metres away and from 10 millimetres away. CB-Win should
>be usable on a display with resolutions of 640x480 and 6400x4800.
You mean they should have written it so that the board and pieces
are artitarily scalable ? This probably isn't _that_ easy to do and
would assume that the pieces, for example, are held in some sort of
True Type form in order for this to happen -- I don't think it would
work. I received CB-f-Win yesterday and I run Windows in 1024x768
and cannot say the "big" board was a problem -- but a bigger board
certainly would have been OK. I think all Peter needs to do is
make a suggestion to ChessBase or their distributors and see if
anything happens -- this is unlikely with ChessBase, I know, but
there is nothing else to be done.
My initial impression of CB-f-Win, BTW, if very positive and I haven't
had a crash yet.
PS. does anyone know the cost of the "optional" ChessBase diagram
fonts ?
Urban Koistinen
In <CzrnG...@btcs.bt.co.uk> dup...@btcs.bt.co.uk (Andy Duplain) writes:
:In article <3avqkh$q...@linux.cpsc.ucalgary.ca>,
:David Gomboc <gom...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
:>>I also would like my alarm clock to brew coffee in the morning and
:>>prepare my dinner at night and do my laundry on Saturday BUT it does
:>>not. Does that mean it "just doesn't cut it"? No, the purpose of
:>>ChessBase is to manage a databse of chess games not to work around
:>>limitations of Windows. Let's not lose sight of what the software
:>>was designed to do.
:>
:>Give me a break. Any Windows code worth cash should be able to
:>handle various screen sizes. Scaling is very EASY to do; only
:>programmer ineptness makes high resolution screens unusable for CB-Win.
:>The situation is totally UNANALOGOUS to asking your alarm clock to make
:>coffee. A person can read the time on a digital clock from 10 metres
:>away and from 10 millimetres away. CB-Win should
:>be usable on a display with resolutions of 640x480 and 6400x4800.
: You mean they should have written it so that the board and pieces
: are artitarily scalable ? This probably isn't _that_ easy to do and
: would assume that the pieces, for example, are held in some sort of
: True Type form in order for this to happen -- I don't think it would
: work. [text deleted]
As an experiment I did it, using the True Type fonts that come with
Chess Assistant, so I know it does work for me. The hardest part was
figuring out how to tell Windows to use the correct font. After that,
scaling was easy.
--
Urban Koistinen - md85...@nada.kth.se
Stop software patents, interface copyrights: contact l...@uunet.uu.net
Peter Stein
So prior to a system upgrade I now have to experience downtime and fork
over additional money? Why should I be incurring any type of penalty for
improving my hardware when my new hardware still complies with the
requirements of ChessBase? The answer is simple: poorly designed copy
protection. Many copy protection schemes allow you to uninstall the
program, for instance when one might be upgrading their hardware.
However with ChessBase you're stuck, once you install to your hard drive
you better hope things don't change. While I realize there are some people
that only use their computer for ChessBase most of us do not.
>> Oh, did I
>>mention it will not run when started from OS/2? No I am not
>>trying to run it under OS/2's WINOS2 I'm trying to run it
>>under genuine Microsoft Windows 3.1.
>
>Who cares about OS/2? I mean if you're not gonna run it under OS/2 why bring
>it up. What's your point? If you can't get it running under Windows 3.1 then
>you must be having difficulty reading the manuals. I certainly had no
>difficulty running it under Windows 3.1. Maybe you need some help? If so, I am
>willing to help you and anyone else for that matter set it up under Windows.
Since you either have a reading impairment or are unfamiliar with the issues let
me make things crystal clear.
1. There are 2 versions of OS/2. A version which runs Windows programs via IBM's
version of Windows called WINOS2 and a version which runs Windows programs
via Microsoft's Windows.
2. All versions of ChessBase will NOT run under OS/2's WINOS2 or MDOS (the DOS
equivalent).
3. CBWIN runs under Windows 3.1 according to ChessBase.
4. I am using the version of OS/2 that runs Windows programs via Microsoft's
Windows 3.1.
5. CBWIN will not run under Windows 3.1 when started from OS/2.
Ergo there is a problem. I've met all the preconditions for running CBWIN, but
it doesn't. ChessBase has said that it will NOT run under WINOS2, but they have
NEVER said that it will NOT run under Windows (when started from OS/2). Simply
put the product is not functioning as advertised. I can't make it any simpler
than that.
My point in passing was to alert other RGC readers to the fact that OS/2 for
Windows will NOT allow them to run CBWIN (even though it should). Don Maddox
has indicated that ChessBase Germany is asking their copy protection vendor
to produce a OS/2 version, but that will not be forthcoming any time soon.
An interesting tidbit regarding CB4 surfaced in my conversation with Don which
confirms my earlier hypothesis regarding CB4 under OS/2's MDOS. It appears
that there are different versions of CB4 floating around. No, not the program
itself, but the copy protection. Those copies with the newer revision of the
copy protection can according to ChessBase Germany run under OS/2. This would
explain the unusual occurence of Ms. Williams being able to run it under OS/2
while the rest of us could not. As there weren't many people attempting to run
it under OS/2 the odds that she might be the only one with the new copy protection
actually were quite great.
My apologies to Ms. Williams for being such a doubting Thomas! :-)
Peter Stein
pst...@falcon.depaul.edu
Peter Stein
Ditto. As if they would get overwhelmed by Internet mail.
BTW, CompuServ does charge its subscribers extra for
receiving Internet mail. What a crock that is!
>Lisa Powell
Peter Stein
pst...@falcon.depaul.edu
Peter Stein
Putting aside the cheapshot you leveled in the ICB for the moment,
I totally agree with this assessment of CBWIN. We are pretty much on
the same wavelength on this topic.
I do however think you are being unduly generous in suggesting
that $80 is an acceptable upgrade price. Think of all the
software that can be purchased for $80. Entire operating systems
and Internet archives can be had for much less and are of much
greater value. $30 to $40 is reasonable, but $80 is stretching it.
I'm going to give it a fair shake for another 30 days and if by
then I haven't found additional merits it's going back and I'll
return to the "new" CB4 which runs under OS2.
One thing you neglected to mention (and others forget about this too)
is the CBUFF utilities. These utilities solve many of the ChessBase
shortfalls in a very cost effective way: they're free! And if you're
so inclined you can modify the source and build your own utilities.
You seem to have more up-to-date info on CA for Windows. The last
time I chatted with Ralph Dubisch CA 1.4 wasn't even released yet.
I think Ralph may have mentioned the Windows development but couldn't
give a release date. If you, Ralph, or anyone else has more detailed
info on CA for Windows the RGC crowd would certainly be interested
in the scoop.
Do you know of way to utilize the Tilburg font with CBWIN without
having to run an intermediate conversion utility?
Peter Stein
pst...@falcon.depaul.edu
Reid Powell
: >
: >But don't expect a reply. The person allegedly reading messages that
: >arrive via Internet is not authorized to reply via Internet. Too
: >expensive is the operative rationale.
: >
: >Not a great way of doing business, is it?
: Ditto. As if they would get overwhelmed by Internet mail.
: BTW, CompuServ does charge its subscribers extra for
: receiving Internet mail. What a crock that is!
That's why people life me call them Compu$erve. CI$ for short.
Lisa Powell
Michel Behna
> Michel Behna <mbe...@promus.com> wrote:
> >In article <1994Nov13.1...@hal.depaul.edu> pst...@falcon.depaul.edu (Peter Stein) writes:
> >>From: pst...@falcon.depaul.edu (Peter Stein)
> over additional money? Why should I be incurring any type of penalty for
> improving my hardware when my new hardware still complies with the
> requirements of ChessBase? The answer is simple: poorly designed copy
> protection. Many copy protection schemes allow you to uninstall the
> program, for instance when one might be upgrading their hardware.
> However with ChessBase you're stuck, once you install to your hard drive
> you better hope things don't change. While I realize there are some people
> that only use their computer for ChessBase most of us do not.
Let me see, you can somehow manage to upgrade your system without any downtime!!!
That's a neat trick. How do you do it? If you know you are upgrading your system
why not simply at that time order the diskette from ChessBase USA. I doubt that
you cannot afford the $5 "penalty". BTW, you only need to do this if you upgrade
the motherboard/cpu and if you have used your 2 installs.
However, I do not disagree with you that the copy protection is poorly designed
but that is your choice whether to buy or not. If people did not feel the need
to pirate the software, then maybe ChessBase would not be doing this.
>
> >> Oh, did I
> >>mention it will not run when started from OS/2? No I am not
> >>trying to run it under OS/2's WINOS2 I'm trying to run it
> >>under genuine Microsoft Windows 3.1.
Here you state you are trying to run it under "Genuine" (TM) (R) (C) :-)
Microsoft Windows 3.1.
> >Who cares about OS/2? I mean if you're not gonna run it under OS/2 why bring
> >it up. What's your point? If you can't get it running under Windows 3.1 then
> >you must be having difficulty reading the manuals. I certainly had no
> >difficulty running it under Windows 3.1. Maybe you need some help? If so, I am
> >willing to help you and anyone else for that matter set it up under Windows.
>
> Since you either have a reading impairment or are unfamiliar with the issues let
> me make things crystal clear.
>
> 1. There are 2 versions of OS/2. A version which runs Windows programs via IBM's
> version of Windows called WINOS2 and a version which runs Windows programs
> via Microsoft's Windows.
Here you are stating that you are trying to run it in OS/2 for Windows.
Which is it? OS/2 for Windows is not the Genuine (TM) (R) (C) :-) Microsoft Windows
3.1. I have no problems, how come you do? How come others don't? Maybe
it is your setup or your hardware. Regardless, it is limited to your case!
> 3. CBWIN runs under Windows 3.1 according to ChessBase.
AND IT DOES! I can attest to that.
> 4. I am using the version of OS/2 that runs Windows programs via Microsoft's
> Windows 3.1.
> 5. CBWIN will not run under Windows 3.1 when started from OS/2.
Aha, did ChessBase say that CBWin will run under OS/2 for Windows? I don't
think so. You may have read too much into it.:-(
> Ergo there is a problem. I've met all the preconditions for running CBWIN, but
> it doesn't. ChessBase has said that it will NOT run under WINOS2, but they have
> NEVER said that it will NOT run under Windows (when started from OS/2). Simply
> put the product is not functioning as advertised. I can't make it any simpler
> than that.
You have not met all the preconditions. Unless specifically specified by the
manufacturer that CBWIN will run under WINOS2, I would assume the contrary.
> My point in passing was to alert other RGC readers to the fact that OS/2 for
> Windows will NOT allow them to run CBWIN (even though it should). Don Maddox
> has indicated that ChessBase Germany is asking their copy protection vendor
> to produce a OS/2 version, but that will not be forthcoming any time soon.
>
A commendable goal and I applaud you for this.
Peter Stein
Michel Behna <mbe...@postoff.promus.com> wrote:
>> In article <mbehna.18...@promus.com>,
>> Michel Behna <mbe...@promus.com> wrote:
>> >In article <1994Nov13.1...@hal.depaul.edu> pst...@falcon.depaul.edu (Peter Stein) writes:
>> >>From: pst...@falcon.depaul.edu (Peter Stein)
>> So prior to a system upgrade I now have to experience downtime and fork
>> over additional money? Why should I be incurring any type of penalty for
>> improving my hardware when my new hardware still complies with the
>> requirements of ChessBase? The answer is simple: poorly designed copy
>> protection. Many copy protection schemes allow you to uninstall the
>> program, for instance when one might be upgrading their hardware.
>> However with ChessBase you're stuck, once you install to your hard drive
>> you better hope things don't change. While I realize there are some people
>> that only use their computer for ChessBase most of us do not.
>Let me see, you can somehow manage to upgrade your system without any downtime!!!
>That's a neat trick. How do you do it?
We were discussing the impact of having to get additional installs from ChessBase.
I think most readers managed to avoid getting confused.
>If you know you are upgrading your system why not simply at that time order the
>diskette from ChessBase USA.
The point is you don't and even if you did why should you have to schedule upgrades
around ChessBase?
>I doubt that you cannot afford the $5 "penalty".
Whether or not I can afford it is totally irrelevant. How many quality commercial apps
do you know that have this type of copy protection? Is there some convincing reason why
ChessBase couldn't have opted for another protection scheme if indeed it is so essential?
Any additional charges not specified up front are simply out of line to say the least.
Especially on an "upgrade" which is grossly overpriced to begin with.
>BTW, you only need to do this if you upgrade the motherboard/cpu and if you have used your
>2 installs.
Not true. The copy protection code reads CMOS settings. If in the process of upgrading
your system you have to change CMOS settings and ChessBase is restored to a drive of
a different architecture after the upgrade it will not start even though the motherboard
has not changed.
>However, I do not disagree with you that the copy protection is poorly designed
>but that is your choice whether to buy or not. If people did not feel the need
>to pirate the software, then maybe ChessBase would not be doing this.
You're ascribing supernatural powers to the ChessBase company. I don't think they have
any better knowledge of the extent of piracy than you or I. Not that we do. The protection
that is employed is simply a result of doing something without giving it careful
consideration beforehand. Given the size of ChessBase' market I won't begrudge them the
need for copy protection, but having protection and allowing the user to take reasonable
steps to protect his/her investment do not have to be mutually exclusive.
>> >> Oh, did I
>> >>mention it will not run when started from OS/2? No I am not
>> >>trying to run it under OS/2's WINOS2 I'm trying to run it
>> >>under genuine Microsoft Windows 3.1.
>
>Here you state you are trying to run it under "Genuine" (TM) (R) (C) :-)
>Microsoft Windows 3.1.
>
>> >Who cares about OS/2? I mean if you're not gonna run it under OS/2 why bring
>> >it up. What's your point? If you can't get it running under Windows 3.1 then
>> >you must be having difficulty reading the manuals. I certainly had no
>> >difficulty running it under Windows 3.1. Maybe you need some help? If so, I am
>> >willing to help you and anyone else for that matter set it up under Windows.
>>
>> Since you either have a reading impairment or are unfamiliar with the issues let
>> me make things crystal clear.
>>
>> 1. There are 2 versions of OS/2. A version which runs Windows programs via IBM's
>> version of Windows called WINOS2 and a version which runs Windows programs
>> via Microsoft's Windows.
>
>Here you are stating that you are trying to run it in OS/2 for Windows.
>Which is it? OS/2 for Windows is not the Genuine (TM) (R) (C) :-) Microsoft Windows
>3.1.
You're right, "OS/2 for Windows is not the Genuine (TM) (R) (C) :-) Microsoft Windows",
but OS/2 for Windows runs the "Genuine (TM) (R) (C) :-) Microsoft Windows". Is the
distinction still escaping you?
>I have no problems, how come you do? How come others don't?
Ignorance is bliss?
>Maybe
>it is your setup or your hardware. Regardless, it is limited to your case!
>
>> 3. CBWIN runs under Windows 3.1 according to ChessBase.
>
>AND IT DOES! I can attest to that.
>
>> 4. I am using the version of OS/2 that runs Windows programs via Microsoft's
>> Windows 3.1.
>> 5. CBWIN will not run under Windows 3.1 when started from OS/2.
>
>Aha, did ChessBase say that CBWin will run under OS/2 for Windows? I don't
>think so. You may have read too much into it.:-(
Here you simply don't know WTF you're talking about. Due to my extensive
painful experiences with ChessBase products I've made it standard policy to
place a phone call to tech support and get all possible areas of ambiguity
resolved before purchasing the product. I was told that CBWIN absolutely
positively will not run under WINOS2. Fine. Leaving no stone unturned I
then asked if it will run under OS/2 for Windows. The answer I got was
"ChessBase does not officially support that mode, but it may run under
OS/2 for Windows". That certainly is not a clear affirmation that it won't.
The bottom line is they simply didn't know. Since OS/2 for Windows runs
"the Genuine (TM) (R) (C) :-) Microsoft Windows" there is no reason to
presuppose CBWIN wouldn't run.
In fact recent events have shown that ChessBase Germany and the USA office
aren't always in sync. ChessBase Germany was aware that CB4 could run under
OS/2 as far back as a year ago, but neglected to mention this detail to
their USA office thereby shafting their customers who asked for this and
making the USA office look bad in the process.
The point of this little story is that we can't always accept what ChessBase
tells us as immutable truth. It doesn't hurt to think for yourself. Based on
all available evidence there was no reason to believe that CBWIN would not
run under OS/2 for Windows. I guess I was being too generous in believing that
ChessBase couldn't possibly f*ck up all the time.
>> Ergo there is a problem. I've met all the preconditions for running CBWIN, but
>> it doesn't. ChessBase has said that it will NOT run under WINOS2, but they have
>> NEVER said that it will NOT run under Windows (when started from OS/2). Simply
>> put the product is not functioning as advertised. I can't make it any simpler
>> than that.
>
>You have not met all the preconditions. Unless specifically specified by the
>manufacturer that CBWIN will run under WINOS2, I would assume the contrary.
I give up. I've spelled it out as clearly as can be, but you still don't get it.
WINOS2 != OS/2 for Windows
In English, WINOS2 does not equal OS/2 for Windows!
Peter Stein
pst...@falcon.depaul.edu
Chris Roberts #239 @1170
R 34 11/29 00:49 WWIVnet 1170->14131
R 34 11/27 22:50 WWIVNet ->1170
Response To: PSTEIN#FALCON.DEPAUL.EDU
PS>>: Can anybody tell me if Chessbase can be reached on the net?
PS>>
PS>>Nope. Only via Compu$erve: 74722...@compuserve.com
PS>>
PS>>But don't expect a reply. The person allegedly reading messages that
PS>>arrive via Internet is not authorized to reply via Internet. Too
PS>>expensive is the operative rationale.
I sent a Q to CB at compuserve via the internet and got a reply. It was
a friendly reply that said he had just figured out how to access
internet email. It also said that for CB Qs you should call them on the
phone since he was not able (or did he say qualified, I forget) to
provide tech support.
---
SLMR 2.0 Natural Gas Vehicles 4 clean air, economy, & performance
WWIVMail/QWK 4.55 [REGISTERED]: Chess Hotline BBS - @1170 ON WWIVNet
Andy Duplain
Urban Koistinen <md85...@hemul.nada.kth.se> wrote:
>
>: You mean they should have written it so that the board and pieces
>: are artitarily scalable ? This probably isn't _that_ easy to do and
>: would assume that the pieces, for example, are held in some sort of
>: True Type form in order for this to happen -- I don't think it would
>: work. [text deleted]
>
>As an experiment I did it, using the True Type fonts that come with
>Chess Assistant, so I know it does work for me. The hardest part was
>figuring out how to tell Windows to use the correct font. After that,
>scaling was easy.
You wrote a windows program that allowed arbitrary sizing of the
board and pieces and allowed the player to move the pieces by
clicking on them and moving them around ? I doubt it. If so
then please post it.
Peter Stein
I don't seem to be getting all the news articles in chronological order at my
site so please forgive if my interpretation of this thread is off base, but it
seems like it may have been started by my complaint that the board in CBWIN is
not "arbitrarily" resizable.
My exact problem is that the board cannot be resized to a size comfortable for
viewing while running the display at 1280x1024 resolution. ChessBase has confirmed
that this is indeed a problem.
Let me qualify "arbitrarily". This does not mean any value between a lower and
upper bound as in X Windows for example. Although a resizing capability such as
that of X Windows (which of course means the app has to be X) would be ideal I
realize there are difficulties in accomplishing this under Windows. "Arbitrary"
could simply mean that ChessBase arbitrarily determines the members of a set
which covers all resolutions supported by the majority of graphics adaptors.
That set has a finite number of members with appropriate upper and lower bounds
for each supported resolution.
For instance, the user would scale a box to indicate the desired board size.
CBWIN then uses the member of the set which most closely corresponds to the
chosen board size and the resolution. Note that this actually bears vague
similarity to how ChessBase actually did it, but they botched it by not having
enough set members and by not choosing the bounds correctly.
This approach is not at all algorithmically intensive (which seems to be the
objection) and is actually very straight forward. The only problem is that there
is more data to be dealt with. But this isn't really an issue because users
aren't interested in the entire spectrum of resolutions anyway, usually they
would want one that allows CBWIN to be compatible with their other Windows
apps.
Yes, some of this work is going to be tedious (I did it for GNU chess), but it
isn't difficult and it is not unreasonable to expect this in a commercially
available program regardless of the programs market.
Peter Stein
pst...@falcon.depaul.edu
pakk...@altair.bbs.fi
IP>>Maybe
IP>>it is your setup or your hardware. Regardless, it is limited to your case!
IP>>
IP>>> 3. CBWIN runs under Windows 3.1 according to ChessBase.
IP>>
IP>>AND IT DOES! I can attest to that.
IP>>
IP>>> 4. I am using the version of OS/2 that runs Windows programs via
IP>Microsoft's
IP>>> Windows 3.1.
IP>>> 5. CBWIN will not run under Windows 3.1 when started from OS/2.
IP>>
IP>>Aha, did ChessBase say that CBWin will run under OS/2 for Windows? I don't
IP>>think so. You may have read too much into it.:-(
IP>Here you simply don't know WTF you're talking about. Due to my extensive
IP>painful experiences with ChessBase products I've made it standard policy to
IP>place a phone call to tech support and get all possible areas of ambiguity
IP>resolved before purchasing the product. I was told that CBWIN absolutely
IP>positively will not run under WINOS2. Fine. Leaving no stone unturned I
IP>then asked if it will run under OS/2 for Windows. The answer I got was
IP>"ChessBase does not officially support that mode, but it may run under
IP>OS/2 for Windows". That certainly is not a clear affirmation that it won't.
IP>The bottom line is they simply didn't know. Since OS/2 for Windows runs
IP>"the Genuine (TM) (R) (C) :-) Microsoft Windows" there is no reason to
IP>presuppose CBWIN wouldn't run.
I think your problem is that you dont't want to understand that
MS Windows 3.1 != MS Windows 3.1 under OS/2 for Windows
Obviously you have already experienced that (because your CB doesn't
run under OS/2 for Windows), but that's not enough for you...
CB for WINDOWS doens't work under OS/2 for Windows!! Got it?
IP>The point of this little story is that we can't always accept what ChessBase
IP>tells us as immutable truth. It doesn't hurt to think for yourself. Based on
IP>all available evidence there was no reason to believe that CBWIN would not
IP>run under OS/2 for Windows. I guess I was being too generous in believing th
IP>ChessBase couldn't possibly f*ck up all the time.
Unbelievable logic... So where is the "lie" and what is the "truth"??
IP> Ergo there is a problem. I've met all the preconditions for running CBWIN
IP>but it doesn't. ChessBase has said that it will NOT run under WINOS2, but th
IP>have NEVER said that it will NOT run under Windows (when started from OS/2).
So did you first install DOS, then Windows 3.1, and finally CBfW? Doing
so I have never failed so far... THAT is the supported platform, not
some OS/2+Windows or Unix+Windows or WEFOSPW platform.
IP>I give up. I've spelled it out as clearly as can be, but you still don't get
IP>it.
IP>WINOS2 != OS/2 for Windows
IP>In English, WINOS2 does not equal OS/2 for Windows!
IP>Peter Stein
IP>pst...@falcon.depaul.edu
Jukka
--
***************************************************************
* sent via: Altair Online BBS (0600-97755) altair.bbs.fi *
***************************************************************
Peter Stein
pakk...@altair.bbs.fi writes:
Oh but it is. Besides the royalty issue one other motivation for IBM was
to address any possible WINOS2 incompatibilities. If a Windows app was
written to make use of the Windows API it should be perfectly happy under
OS/2 for Windows since from its perspective the OS is Microsoft Windows.
However since Windows is not an operating system there is no way to
compel programmers to make use of system resources in a structured way.
In fact system resources can be directly accessed as is the case with
the copy protection scheme.
Following your logic one would conclude that since 3.1 != NT CBWIN will not
run under NT! It of course is totally ridiculous that any Windows app will
not run under NT (and there are quite a few). And don't laugh - ChessBase
Germany says CBWIN won't run under NT (that's not to say someone won't figure
out a way how)!!
So here we have the comical situation where a subsequent release of Windows
won't even run programs that ran under a prior version. Yet folks are trying
to defend CBWIN's OS/2 shortcoming not on the basis of technical merit, but
just because "MS Windows 3.1 != MS Windows 3.1 under OS/2 for Windows". Hey,
if someone can explain to me why a completely Windows compliant program (i.e.
no API bypass) can't run under the real Windows started from OS/2 I'm all ears.
But you had better do more than parrot the ChessBase line.
>Obviously you have already experienced that (because your CB doesn't
>run under OS/2 for Windows), but that's not enough for you...
>
>CB for WINDOWS doens't work under OS/2 for Windows!! Got it?
Do you have anything constructive to add to this thread?
>IP>The point of this little story is that we can't always accept what ChessBase
>IP>tells us as immutable truth. It doesn't hurt to think for yourself. Based on
>IP>all available evidence there was no reason to believe that CBWIN would not
>IP>run under OS/2 for Windows. I guess I was being too generous in believing th
>IP>ChessBase couldn't possibly f*ck up all the time.
>
>Unbelievable logic... So where is the "lie" and what is the "truth"??
There are 2 issues to need to be addressed here. First, you seem to have
difficulty with the context of "ChessBase". There are 2 entities referred to
as "ChessBase" in this discussion thread, the USA office and the German
headquarters. While I haven't qualified every "ChessBase" reference it should
be apparent from the context which entity is being referred to. Secondly,
you're trying to put words in my mouth with your reference of "lie" and
"truth". Although I've identified 2 instances where I wasn't told the truth
this was due to ignorance and not to dishonesty. It's simply a case of the
US office not being properly informed by Germany and the fault for this
rests squarely with the German office. The points I was trying to make are:
1. Don't take everything the local office says as gospel. Although they are
hard working and try their best they don't always have all the information.
You may have more pertinent information at your disposal than they do.
2. The authors of the product don't seem to have a handle on operating system
issues or the copy protection issue. If they did they would issue clear
and concise statements to their vendors on what works and what doesn't.
Why would you leave your vendors in the dark and risk losing business
unless you don't care or don't know what you're doing?
As someone who has poured a lot of money into ChessBase products I'm really
not sympathetic to these problems any more. The company has had plenty of
time to mature and at this time it is perfectly reasonable to expect clear
and concise answers especially when paying exhorbitant fees for upgrades.
Also when something which is technically feasible (and likely trivial) users
have the right to at least get some form of explanation.
>IP> Ergo there is a problem. I've met all the preconditions for running CBWIN
>IP>but it doesn't. ChessBase has said that it will NOT run under WINOS2, but th
>IP>have NEVER said that it will NOT run under Windows (when started from OS/2).
>
>So did you first install DOS, then Windows 3.1, and finally CBfW? Doing
>so I have never failed so far... THAT is the supported platform, not
>some OS/2+Windows or Unix+Windows or WEFOSPW platform.
Had you been following this thread since its inception rather than chimming
in at the tail end this question/comment would not have been neccessary. I
very clearly stated that the official Microsoft Windows 3.1 was already
installed on my system. Obviously since DOS is required to run Windows it
follows that DOS must already have been installed as well.
Again if a Windows program is truly Windows compliant it should run under
Windows no matter how that Windows is started.
Peter Stein
pst...@falcon.depaul.edu
Michel Behna
>From: pst...@falcon.depaul.edu (Peter Stein)
>In article <3bdgqm$6...@stargate.promus.com>,
>Michel Behna <mbe...@postoff.promus.com> wrote:
>>Let me see, you can somehow manage to upgrade your system without any
>downtime!!!
>>That's a neat trick. How do you do it?
>We were discussing the impact of having to get additional installs from
>ChessBase.
>I think most readers managed to avoid getting confused.
Changing your tune!
Let me see if I understand this:
1) Upgrade system = No downtime
2) Wait on CB_USA to send an upgrade
I suggest this
1) Plan the upgrade
2) Order from CB-USA
3) Upgrade the system
Look, I know it is damn inconvenient but it's not insurmountable. You can work
around it. It's not like you can't live without CB for a week or so. Chill out
man! You're taking this too seriously.
>The point is you don't and even if you did why should you have to schedule
>upgrades around ChessBase?
Because YOU bought the product!!! Ding. Give the man a cigar!
>>I doubt that you cannot afford the $5 "penalty".
>Whether or not I can afford it is totally irrelevant. How many quality
>commercial apps
>do you know that have this type of copy protection? Is there some convincing
>reason why
>ChessBase couldn't have opted for another protection scheme if indeed it is so
>essential?
Hey, I'll be the first to admit that this copy protection stuff is damn
inconvenient but as the old saying goes: "You catch more flies with honey than
...". CB screwed up when they selected this method of copy protection and
so did you when you bought their product. What I suggest is work with them or
stop buying their products.
>Any additional charges not specified up front are simply out of line to say the
>least. Especially on an "upgrade" which is grossly overpriced to begin with.
That is a matter of opinion. You did not have to buy the upgrade. If you have
to ask how much it costs you can't afford it :-)
>>BTW, you only need to do this if you upgrade the motherboard/cpu and if you
>have used your 2 installs.
>Not true. The copy protection code reads CMOS settings. If in the process of
>upgrading
>your system you have to change CMOS settings and ChessBase is restored to a
>drive of
>a different architecture after the upgrade it will not start even though the
>motherboard
>has not changed.
You may be right. I did not have to even though I upgraded my hard drives and
changed my CMOS settings. I think the problem is with the drive for not being
compatible with CB. <Grin> But seriously, it's just an inconvenience.
>>However, I do not disagree with you that the copy protection is poorly
designed>>but that is your choice whether to buy or not. If people did not
feel the need>>to pirate the software, then maybe ChessBase would not be doing
this.
>You're ascribing supernatural powers to the ChessBase company. I don't think
>they have
>any better knowledge of the extent of piracy than you or I. Not that we do. The
>protection
>that is employed is simply a result of doing something without giving it careful
>consideration beforehand. Given the size of ChessBase' market I won't begrudge
>them the
>need for copy protection, but having protection and allowing the user to take
>reasonable
>steps to protect his/her investment do not have to be mutually exclusive.
You need supernatural powers to determine that software you created is in the
hands of people that you have no record of them ever buying it? Call the
psyschic hotline in this case :-) I know of at least half a dozen people who
have CB without ever having bought it. Those same people also have CG2,
MChess, and a host of other playing programs that they wanted to trade me for
my CB data. I said NO!
No, the distinction does not escape me! It does you. "Genuine MS Win" does not
run Win programs and you expect that OS/2 running Genuine MS Win to run them?
:-) Regardless of what claims you or IBM or MS makes about this, I bet you
that none of the above can absolutely guarantee 100 % compatibility.
>>I have no problems, how come you do? How come others don't?
>Ignorance is bliss?
You think that by being ignorant you will find happiness? I run Win 3.1 and I
don't have problems. Remove OS/2 and install Win and install CBWin and then
tell me if it runs or not.
>>Maybe
>>it is your setup or your hardware. Regardless, it is limited to your case!
>>> 3. CBWIN runs under Windows 3.1 according to ChessBase.
>>AND IT DOES! I can attest to that.
>>
>>> 4. I am using the version of OS/2 that runs Windows programs via Microsoft's
>>> Windows 3.1.
>>> 5. CBWIN will not run under Windows 3.1 when started from OS/2.
>>
>>Aha, did ChessBase say that CBWin will run under OS/2 for Windows? I don't
>>think so. You may have read too much into it.:-(
>Here you simply don't know WTF you're talking about. Due to my extensive
>painful experiences with ChessBase products I've made it standard policy to
>place a phone call to tech support and get all possible areas of ambiguity
>resolved before purchasing the product. I was told that CBWIN absolutely
>positively will not run under WINOS2. Fine. Leaving no stone unturned I
>then asked if it will run under OS/2 for Windows. The answer I got was
>"ChessBase does not officially support that mode, but it may run under
>OS/2 for Windows". That certainly is not a clear affirmation that it won't.
>The bottom line is they simply didn't know. Since OS/2 for Windows runs
>"the Genuine (TM) (R) (C) :-) Microsoft Windows" there is no reason to
>presuppose CBWIN wouldn't run.
You're taking this personally. Aren't you? "CB does NOT OFFICIALLY support
that mode but it may run under OS/2 for Win" sounds to me like someone saying
"Hey, I have no idea and I don't even wanna deal with it!". I would
imagine that "NOT OFFICIALLY" is pretty clear. Now, it is up to you to decide
if you want to put up with the hassle of doing this.
>The point of this little story is that we can't always accept what ChessBase
>tells us as immutable truth. It doesn't hurt to think for yourself. Based on
>all available evidence there was no reason to believe that CBWIN would not
>run under OS/2 for Windows. I guess I was being too generous in believing that
>ChessBase couldn't possibly f*ck up all the time.
The only reason to believe that it would not work is "Murphy". Also you did
not ask the right questions: Do you "absolutely guarantee" that CBWIN will
work with my current setup which consists of the following -- OS/2 for Win,
etc...
That's the kind of question I would ask.
>>You have not met all the preconditions. Unless specifically specified by the
>>manufacturer that CBWIN will run under WINOS2, I would assume the contrary.
>I give up. I've spelled it out as clearly as can be, but you still don't get it.
>WINOS2 != OS/2 for Windows
>In English, WINOS2 does not equal OS/2 for Windows!
My fault: I tried to use WINOS2 as a shorthand for OS/2 for Win. Mea Culpa. I
ask forgiveness.
>Peter Stein
>pst...@falcon.depaul.edu
Steven Rix
In article <14396WKKF...@altair.bbs.fi>, pakk...@altair.bbs.fi writes:
->
->I think your problem is that you dont't want to understand that
->
->MS Windows 3.1 != MS Windows 3.1 under OS/2 for Windows
->
->Obviously you have already experienced that (because your CB doesn't
->run under OS/2 for Windows), but that's not enough for you...
->
->IP>The bottom line is they simply didn't know. Since OS/2 for Windows runs
->IP>"the Genuine (TM) (R) (C) :-) Microsoft Windows" there is no reason to
->IP>presuppose CBWIN wouldn't run.
It does seem reasonable to expect that "Windows is Windows". How many
other applications work under MS Windows but not OS/2 for Windows? The
annoying thing, apparently, is that the program itself might well run,
but the copy-protection gets in the way.
->IP> Ergo there is a problem. I've met all the preconditions for running CBWIN
->IP>but it doesn't. ChessBase has said that it will NOT run under WINOS2, but th
->IP>have NEVER said that it will NOT run under Windows (when started from OS/2).
I had a similar problem. I could run a friend's CB2.3 off the disk, but
I couldn't run CB4 at all on my PC (it hung when you tried to start up
using the floppy disk or the installed version). The PC I had was old,
but it met all the requirements listed in the manual (286 or above,
DOS 3 or later, graphics worked okay using Fritz2 or older versions).
I took the PC in to be examined by IM Malcolm Pein (Mr ChessBase UK)
but he broke it (okay, so it was only a blown fuse). In the end I
bought a new PC!
--
Steve Rix
S....@ed.ac.uk http://www.chemeng.ed.ac.uk/people/steve/
pakk...@altair.bbs.fi
IP>>
IP>>I think your problem is that you dont't want to understand that
IP>>
IP>>MS Windows 3.1 != MS Windows 3.1 under OS/2 for Windows
IP>Oh but it is. Besides the royalty issue one other motivation for IBM was
CB runs under Windows 3.11, CB doesn't run under OS/2fW Windows 3.11,
so even a simple mind should realise there is some differences between
those environments...
IP>Following your logic one would conclude that since 3.1 != NT CBWIN will not
IP>run under NT! It of course is totally ridiculous that any Windows app will
IP>not run under NT (and there are quite a few). And don't laugh - ChessBase
IP>Germany says CBWIN won't run under NT (that's not to say someone won't figur
IP>out a way how)!!
Once again you are trying to read betweem lines when there's nothing
to read... If I know that CB doesn't run under any form of OS/2, and
say it, *IT* doesn't mean that CB wouldn't run under NT, all
I said that there is a difference between WIN 3.1 and OS/2fW WIN 3.1,
and CB doesn't run under latter. That's all. Period.
The WIN 3.1 itself might be the same,
but the environment obviously isn't.
IP>So here we have the comical situation where a subsequent release of Windows
IP>won't even run programs that ran under a prior version. Yet folks are trying
IP>to defend CBWIN's OS/2 shortcoming not on the basis of technical merit, but
IP>just because "MS Windows 3.1 != MS Windows 3.1 under OS/2 for Windows". Hey,
IP>if someone can explain to me why a completely Windows compliant program (i.e
IP>no API bypass) can't run under the real Windows started from OS/2 I'm all
IP>ears.
IP>But you had better do more than parrot the ChessBase line.
Who has claimed it's "complete Windows compliant program"?? I think the
copy protection alone makes it "not fully compliant". When I first heard
that the coming CBfW still has the copy protection, I was pretty sure it
wouldn't run under OS/2. But you don't consider this "available
evidence"?
IP>>Obviously you have already experienced that (because your CB doesn't
IP>>run under OS/2 for Windows), but that's not enough for you...
IP>>
IP>>CB for WINDOWS doens't work under OS/2 for Windows!! Got it?
IP>Do you have anything constructive to add to this thread?
I'm just fed up with this whining about CB and OS/2...
What is your point, or what are you trying to prove??
IP>As someone who has poured a lot of money into ChessBase products I'm really
IP>not sympathetic to these problems any more. The company has had plenty of
IP>time to mature and at this time it is perfectly reasonable to expect clear
IP>and concise answers especially when paying exhorbitant fees for upgrades.
IP>Also when something which is technically feasible (and likely trivial) users
IP>have the right to at least get some form of explanation.
IP>>IP> Ergo there is a problem. I've met all the preconditions for running CBW
IP>>IP>but it doesn't. ChessBase has said that it will NOT run under WINOS2, bu
IP>th
IP>>IP>have NEVER said that it will NOT run under Windows (when started from
IP>OS/2).
IP>>
IP>>So did you first install DOS, then Windows 3.1, and finally CBfW? Doing
IP>>so I have never failed so far... THAT is the supported platform, not
IP>>some OS/2+Windows or Unix+Windows or WEFOSPW platform.
IP>Had you been following this thread since its inception rather than chimming
IP>in at the tail end this question/comment would not have been neccessary. I
IP>very clearly stated that the official Microsoft Windows 3.1 was already
IP>installed on my system. Obviously since DOS is required to run Windows it
IP>follows that DOS must already have been installed as well.
So you are trying to run CBfW in DOS/Windows environment, then there
should be no problem... That is the supported platform.
I don't think it's fair that you say they don't tell the truth (i.e.
lie), if they don't list you every possible platform there is where it
doesn't run. More common approach is to tell where it does run, right?`
Michel Behna
>From: pst...@falcon.depaul.edu (Peter Stein)
>Subject: Re: ChessBase for Windows
>pakk...@altair.bbs.fi writes:
>>MS Windows 3.1 != MS Windows 3.1 under OS/2 for Windows
>Oh but it is. Besides the royalty issue one other motivation for IBM was
>to address any possible WINOS2 incompatibilities. If a Windows app was
>written to make use of the Windows API it should be perfectly happy under
>OS/2 for Windows since from its perspective the OS is Microsoft Windows.
If the application was written to follow the Win API. That's a mighty big IF!
Even MS apps don't, so? The point, whether you want to believe or not, is Win
3.1 <> OS/2 for Win. Like it or not, you have to live with it.
>However since Windows is not an operating system there is no way to
>compel programmers to make use of system resources in a structured way.
>In fact system resources can be directly accessed as is the case with
>the copy protection scheme.
>Following your logic one would conclude that since 3.1 != NT CBWIN will not
>run under NT! It of course is totally ridiculous that any Windows app will
>not run under NT (and there are quite a few). And don't laugh - ChessBase
>Germany says CBWIN won't run under NT (that's not to say someone won't figure
>out a way how)!!
>So here we have the comical situation where a subsequent release of Windows
>won't even run programs that ran under a prior version. Yet folks are trying
>to defend CBWIN's OS/2 shortcoming not on the basis of technical merit, but
>just because "MS Windows 3.1 != MS Windows 3.1 under OS/2 for Windows". Hey,
>if someone can explain to me why a completely Windows compliant program (i.e.
>no API bypass) can't run under the real Windows started from OS/2 I'm all ears.
>But you had better do more than parrot the ChessBase line.
Nobody is trying to defend CB. We are trying to explain to you why certain
things won't work. You cannot seem to accept this fact no are you willing.
Since you are such a hotshot programmer, why don't you write your own chess
database and it better work under Win3.1, DOS, OS/2, WinOS2, OS/2 for Win, Win
NT3.1, Win NT3.5, Win 95, Unix, UnixWare, Ultrix, X/Windows, HP-UX, and add
last but not least MacOs 7.0 and 7.5. That should keep you busy for a weekend!
(My God, why is it taking you so long?)
>>Obviously you have already experienced that (because your CB doesn't
>>run under OS/2 for Windows), but that's not enough for you...
>>
>>CB for WINDOWS doens't work under OS/2 for Windows!! Got it?
>Do you have anything constructive to add to this thread?
>>IP>The point of this little story is that we can't always accept what ChessBase
>>IP>tells us as immutable truth. It doesn't hurt to think for yourself. Based on
>>IP>all available evidence there was no reason to believe that CBWIN would not
>>IP>run under OS/2 for Windows. I guess I was being too generous in believing th
>>IP>ChessBase couldn't possibly f*ck up all the time.
>>
>>Unbelievable logic... So where is the "lie" and what is the "truth"??
>There are 2 issues to need to be addressed here. First, you seem to have
>difficulty with the context of "ChessBase". There are 2 entities referred to
>as "ChessBase" in this discussion thread, the USA office and the German
>headquarters. While I haven't qualified every "ChessBase" reference it should
>be apparent from the context which entity is being referred to.
It is not apparent to me so why don't you spell it out. Some of us are not
mind-readers, you know.
>As someone who has poured a lot of money into ChessBase products I'm really
>not sympathetic to these problems any more. The company has had plenty of
>time to mature and at this time it is perfectly reasonable to expect clear
>and concise answers especially when paying exhorbitant fees for upgrades.
You'd think that by now you'd have become smarter and wiser than the rest of
us and stopped spending your money on CB products. SO, pray tell, why do you
still buy their products and continue to whine and bitch? Get a life!
>Also when something which is technically feasible (and likely trivial) users
>have the right to at least get some form of explanation.
Users have no rights. Users are irrelevant, we are ChessBase of Borg :-) Users
have the guarantee that CBWIN will work on Win 3.1 -- that it does. That's
all. Since you seem to hate the product so much, quit using it and annoying
the rest of us who really like it and find it useful.
>>IP> Ergo there is a problem. I've met all the preconditions for running CBWIN
>>IP>but it doesn't. ChessBase has said that it will NOT run under WINOS2, but th
>>IP>have NEVER said that it will NOT run under Windows (when started from OS/2).
>>
>>So did you first install DOS, then Windows 3.1, and finally CBfW? Doing
>>so I have never failed so far... THAT is the supported platform, not
>>some OS/2+Windows or Unix+Windows or WEFOSPW platform.
>Had you been following this thread since its inception rather than chimming
>in at the tail end this question/comment would not have been neccessary. I
>very clearly stated that the official Microsoft Windows 3.1 was already
>installed on my system. Obviously since DOS is required to run Windows it
>follows that DOS must already have been installed as well.
Aha, but did you run it under Win 3.1 WITHOUT OS/2?
>Again if a Windows program is truly Windows compliant it should run under
>Windows no matter how that Windows is started.
If this were a perfect world, we would all be GMs and remember all this stuff
without needing Windows or ChessBase. SO?
>Peter Stein
>pst...@falcon.depaul.edu
Greg Kennedy
: IP>>I think your problem is that you dont't want to understand that
: IP>>MS Windows 3.1 != MS Windows 3.1 under OS/2 for Windows
: I said that there is a difference between WIN 3.1 and OS/2fW WIN 3.1,
: The WIN 3.1 itself might be the same,
: So you are trying to run CBfW in DOS/Windows environment, then there
: IP>Peter Stein
: Jukka
A Question: you two have covered running CB under several types of
Windows and OS/2 configurations so far, but you haven't yet cut to the
bone of this issue. Which should I buy- OS/2 Warp or Windows '95/6? And
if I get _both_, can I then run CB4win under either and which should I
install first?!! I'm thinking that if I try to run Windows '95 in a
window under OS/2 Warp, and then load Genius and MchessPro to analyse in
the background, then start up ChessBase4win, Works, Publisher, and
TiddlywinksPro, I _may_ have a memory and/or speed problem on my 4 meg
386. What do you think? And should I also buy a hard disk drive? So far
I've been getting along ok with just a 360K floppy...
-Baffled
Peter Stein
Even if you wouldn't be considering CBWIN you should consider upgrading
your hardware. A 386 with 4 Meg will not have the horsepower to allow
you to get the most out of analysis programs such as Mchess, Genius, or
whatever. I would recommend at a minimum a 486-DX2/66 with 8 Meg.
OS/2 Warp is a great acquisition even if you can't run CBWIN under it.
It runs the overwhelming majority of Windows and DOS programs with very
few exceptions (CBWIN being one). Considering the price of OS/2 Warp
you can't go wrong by getting it, after the rebate it will cost you
about $55. That price amortized over the year until Windows 95 is
available is surely no great setback. A warning on Windows 95, there is
no guarantee that it will run CBWIN when (if ever) it becomes available.
In fact Windows NT does not run CBWIN!
The only thing certain at this time is that CBWIN will only run under
Windows 3.1 or 3.11 if the Windows session is started from DOS (which
excludes Warp). You probably already have Windows or know someone that
does.
You definitely need a decent sized hard drive. Given the falling prices
of hard drives I would recommend at least a 500 Meg SCSI drive. This
should give you enough space for operating systems, databases, and
programs. If you're going to go whole hog on chess databases a tape
backup is absolutely essential. The Colorado Jumbo 120 is priced under
$100 now, but the 250 meg model is even more practical at another $50.
Hope this helps.
Peter Stein
pst...@falcon.depaul.edu
Peter Stein
Jeff Otto <5764...@vms.csd.mu.edu> wrote:
>1) it is a true 32 bit multithreaded multitasking operating environment that is
>available today - as opposed to Windoze 96.
>2) it runs great on low memory configurations a 4meg system runs equiviantly
>well to a 12 meg system running OS/2 2.1. Everything that I have heard so far
>indicates that Windoze 96 will have similar memory difficulties to OS/2 2.1 -
>namely 8 meg minimum, 16 meg highly recommended.
>3) it runs dos, OS/2 and windoze applications directly from the same desktop
>4) HPFS (high performance file system) allows long names, saves disk space, and
>is faster than FAT systems.
>
>Someone in our department here runs warp on a 386/40 with 8 megs and claims
>that it runs very fast. I ran it for a day on my 486 DX/2 66 where it truly
>screamed...but had to take it back, when I found that I could not install
>windoze 3.1 on a HPFS system. Consequently, I have to wait until mid January
>for Warp with WINOS2.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Jeff
Excellent points, but you made a mistake in taking back Warp. Windows can
be installed on an HPFS partition: you need to first install it on a FAT
partition, back it up and then restore to the HPFS partition. I don't
think you really want WINOS2 anyway, if a Windows program won't run with
Warp for Windows the problem at least can't be blamed on WINOS2. Also
the rebate on Warp for Windows is greater! :-)
Peter Stein
pst...@falcon.depaul.edu
Feng-Hsiung Hsu
preloading Windows and went for OS2 instead. Since the company currently
has 40% of the PC market share in Germany, I would imagine that ChessBase
Corp. now has a very strong incentive to make ChessBase compatible with
OS2:).
Andy Duplain
Peter Stein <pst...@falcon.depaul.edu> wrote:
>
>Following your logic one would conclude that since 3.1 != NT CBWIN will not
>run under NT! It of course is totally ridiculous that any Windows app will
>not run under NT (and there are quite a few). And don't laugh - ChessBase
>Germany says CBWIN won't run under NT (that's not to say someone won't figure
>out a way how)!!
>
>So here we have the comical situation where a subsequent release of Windows
>won't even run programs that ran under a prior version. Yet folks are trying
>to defend CBWIN's OS/2 shortcoming not on the basis of technical merit, but
>just because "MS Windows 3.1 != MS Windows 3.1 under OS/2 for Windows". Hey,
>if someone can explain to me why a completely Windows compliant program (i.e.
>no API bypass) can't run under the real Windows started from OS/2 I'm all ears.
>But you had better do more than parrot the ChessBase line.
You are, of course, correct Peter; any 16-bit application that doesn't
work under OS/2 or WNT should probably be considered "naughty". I
would hope that it's just the copy-protection that stops this
happening and so in theory they may well be inclided to change it (with
little effort) if enough interest is shown in running CBWin under
OS/2 or WNT.
>As someone who has poured a lot of money into ChessBase products I'm really
>not sympathetic to these problems any more. The company has had plenty of
>time to mature and at this time it is perfectly reasonable to expect clear
>and concise answers especially when paying exhorbitant fees for upgrades.
>Also when something which is technically feasible (and likely trivial) users
>have the right to at least get some form of explanation.
hear, hear... what a bunch of f*cking hackers.
>Again if a Windows program is truly Windows compliant it should run under
>Windows no matter how that Windows is started.
An interesting situation will occur when Windows 95 is released.
Likely everyone will upgrade from Windows 3.1 -> Windows 95 and
CBWin won't work (as it uses the same method to run 16-bit apps
as WNT does -- I think). ChessBase will probably be releaseing
CBWin 2.0 by then which couldn't use the same copy-protection
scheme as it won't work on a "proper 32-bit O/S" (and I don't
want to get into any arguments with an OS/2 advocate about
whether W95 _is_ a proper O/S :-)... there is a glimmer of hope!
Andy Duplain
<pakk...@altair.bbs.fi> wrote:
>
>IP>>
>IP>>I think your problem is that you dont't want to understand that
>IP>>
>IP>>MS Windows 3.1 != MS Windows 3.1 under OS/2 for Windows
>
>IP>Oh but it is. Besides the royalty issue one other motivation for IBM was
>
>CB runs under Windows 3.11, CB doesn't run under OS/2fW Windows 3.11,
>so even a simple mind should realise there is some differences between
>those environments...
As Peter has said in a previous article: "what are the differences ?"
OS/2 provides the Windows APIs to the application so in what way
does OS/2 fail ? Please: 1) answer the question, or 2) get the point,
or 3) shut up.
In fact Peter has already answered this question and the answer is
simply the copy-protection; it obviously makes use of resources
outside of the Windows API.
[deleted ]
>The WIN 3.1 itself might be the same,
>but the environment obviously isn't.
But the point is that CBWin is supposed to be a Windows 3.1
application and ChessBase themselves state that they follow the
Windows programming guides (or something like that) in the upgrade
manual. Therefore it is fare to assume that any conforming
Windows 3.1 application will not make assumptions about the
machine architecture and will call the Windows API to do everything;
if it did this then it would doubtless work under OS/2, WNT and W95.
ChessBase never stated in their adverts that it worked only under
_native_ Windows 3.1... probably because they are a bunch of
hackers. A garage operation. None of this is new.
>Who has claimed it's "complete Windows compliant program"?? I think the
>copy protection alone makes it "not fully compliant". When I first heard
>that the coming CBfW still has the copy protection, I was pretty sure it
>wouldn't run under OS/2. But you don't consider this "available
>evidence"?
The adverts don't mention that it has copy-protection and CBWin is
the only Windows program I have _ever_ seen with copy-protection.
Peter can probably run most, if not all, of his existing Windows apps
under OS/2 and he is right to expect CBWin to run as well; the fact
that ChessBase GmbH used a very nasty copy-protection scheme in
order to protect their product shattered this expectation; he has
a right to be annoyed and/or disappointed.
>I'm just fed up with this whining about CB and OS/2...
>What is your point, or what are you trying to prove??
He is simply confirming what we already know: ChessBase are a
bunch of f*cking hackers who don't care about their customers.
Don't get me wrong I like CB-f-Win, it has brilliant functionality,
but I am annoyed about the copy-protection. Also while I'm on the
subject of slagging-off ChessBase; why aren't existing ChessBase
customers sent the 216,000 game CD-ROM automatically, free of charge ?
These games are available with CB-f-W for the price I originally
paid for CB4.0, and I have recently spent another \pounds 65 to
upgrade to CB-f-Win... why aren't I eligable for these games ?
Andy Duplain
I don't think Greg was serious Peter; 360K floppy on an i386 ?
Unlikely.
Chris Roberts #239 @1170
R 34 12/05 01:11 WWIVnet 1170->14131
R 34 12/04 07:44 WWIVNet ->1170
Peter Stein
According to Don Maddox of ChessBase USA, the German headquarters is asking
their copy protection vendor to supply an OS/2 executable. At least that's
some promising news, whether or not it will actually happen remains to be
seen.
Peter Stein
pst...@falcon.depaul.edu
Ed A. Knowles
Peter Stein <pst...@falcon.depaul.edu> wrote:
>
>Following your logic one would conclude that since 3.1 != NT CBWIN will not
>out a way how)!!
>
It's not really ridiculous that a Windows 3.x application will not run under
NT. Windows NT is Microsoft's attempt to break into the world of real 32-bit
multi-tasking, multi-threaded operating systems. Windows 3.0 and WIndows 3.1
were crippled by their reliance on MSDOS, but that compromise was accepted in
order to maintain reasonable backward compatibility. Windows NT has sacrificed
some backward compatibility in order to implement new technology. Quite a
few WIndows 3.1 appliocations won't run under NT and forget about windows 3.0
apps.
>won't even run programs that ran under a prior version. Yet folks are trying
>to defend CBWIN's OS2 shortcoming not on the basis of technical merit, but
>just because "MS Windows 3.1 != MS Windows 3.1 under OS/2 for Windows". Hey,
>if someone can explain to me why a completely Windows compliant program (i.e.
>no API bypass) can't run under the real Windows started from OS/2 I'm all ears.
Unfortunately, this "comical" situation is the rule rather than the exception
with Microsoft. Not that the developer's are blameless: often in order to
provide an application that would actually work under windows (rather than
work so slow as to be useless), developers broke some of Microsoft's "rules".
When I upgraded to WIndows 3.1, a good 50% of my Windows software had to be
trashed.
>But you had better do more than parrot the ChessBase line.
-Ed Knowles
ISRAEL SILVERMAN
PS> OS/2 Warp is a great acquisition even if you can't run CBWIN under
PS> it. It runs the overwhelming majority of Windows and DOS programs
PS> with very few exceptions (CBWIN being one). Considering the price of
PS> OS/2 Warp you can't go wrong by getting it, after the rebate it will
PS> cost you about $55. That price amortized over the year until Windows
PS> 95 is
For someone who is basically a DOS person, is there an advantage to OS/2
Warp? How is its DOS? Is it faster or slower than Dos 6.22? Can I run CA
1.4 and CG2 on it faster?
---
* RM 1.3 02344 * Why be born again, when you can just grow up?
Peter Stein
ISRAEL SILVERMAN <israel.s...@moondog.uucp.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>PS> OS/2 Warp is a great acquisition even if you can't run CBWIN under
>PS> it. It runs the overwhelming majority of Windows and DOS programs
>PS> with very few exceptions (CBWIN being one). Considering the price of
>PS> OS/2 Warp you can't go wrong by getting it, after the rebate it will
>PS> cost you about $55. That price amortized over the year until Windows
>PS> 95 is
>
>
>For someone who is basically a DOS person, is there an advantage to OS/2
>Warp? How is its DOS? Is it faster or slower than Dos 6.22? Can I run CA
>1.4 and CG2 on it faster?
What OS/2 gives you is concurrent execution of programs whether they be DOS,
Windows, or OS/2. Haven't you ever wanted to run another program while your
computer is churning away with something? Well with DOS your choices are
limited: you can let the current program run to its completion or abort it.
The DOS that it gives you is a plain vanilla DOS which is sufficient to run
most DOS applications, but if you need to run a specific version of DOS
there are several mechanisms available for this. I have not had a need to
upgrade beyond DOS 5.0 so I can't offer any comments on 6.22, but all my
DOS apps (with exception of ChessBase of course) run just fine with OS/2's
DOS. I have not noticed any difference in pure DOS speed, but if the system
is heavily loaded execution speeds can suffer, but this is something under
your control. Faster than just 6.22? Probably not "faster", but as fast
with the significant plus of multitasking.
According to Ralph Dubisch CA does run under OS/2. I'm not a CA owner
myself so I can't vouch for its OS/2 performance, but I would consider
Ralph's claim sufficient. As far as Chess Genius I have no idea whether it
would run under OS/2. If it uses a hokey copy protection scheme like
ChessBase perhaps not, but I would consider that unlikely. Again, most
DOS programs run right out of the box with the default OS/2 DOS session
settings. A few programs require minimal tweaking of the session settings,
but programs that don't run at all are the exception.
Peter Stein
pst...@falcon.depaul.edu
Jeff Otto
CA works just fine under OS/2. However, their demo program does not. The CA
demo (unless they have updated it) would only run very limited functions under
OS/2 - even more limited than the demo was supposed to ;-). Fortunately, the
full fledged feature works fine, and I have not noticed any perceptible drops
in its performance while multitasking - that is provided that it is in the
foreground and not the background. Oddly, some of the utilities like findcopy
etc, work just fine in the background. I think this might have something to do
with the graphics mode, in that CA is suspended when not in the foreground,
while its nongraphically oriented utilities work fine in the background. I
have noticed that Bookup also has this suspension problem.
Jeff
ISRAEL SILVERMAN
PS> >For someone who is basically a DOS person, is there an advantage to
PS> OS/2 >Warp? How is its DOS? Is it faster or slower than Dos 6.22?
PS> Can I run CA >1.4 and CG2 on it faster?
PS> What OS/2 gives you is concurrent execution of programs whether they
PS> be DOS, Windows, or OS/2. Haven't you ever wanted to run another
PS> program while your computer is churning away with something? Well
PS> with DOS your choices are limited: you can let the current program
PS> run to its completion or abort it.
I'm used to running either plain dos, or multiple programs under
Desqview. Is it as easy to switch back and forth and do things in OS/2
as in DV? Maybe I'll try it.
Israel.S...@moondog.com
---
* RM 1.3 02344 * I once almost walked along saying Tommie's speech
ISRAEL SILVERMAN
JO> CA works just fine under OS/2. However, their demo program does
JO> not. The CA demo (unless they have updated it) would only run very
JO> limited functions under OS/2 - even more limited than the demo was
JO> supposed to ;-). Fortunately, the full fledged feature works fine,
JO> and I have not noticed any perceptible drops in its performance
JO> while multitasking - that is provided that it is in the foreground
JO> and not the background. Oddly, some of the utilities like findcopy
JO> etc, work just fine in the background. I think this might have
JO> something to do
JO> with the graphics mode, in that CA is suspended when not in the
JO> foreground, while its nongraphically oriented utilities work fine in
JO> the background. I have noticed that Bookup also has this suspension
JO> problem.
HM... What about sorting and indexing and tree'ing in Chess Assistant.
Will they work while in the background? (I ask because a CA window *is*
displayed while those things are there).
Finally, will Pcplus 2.0, the DOS communication program, run in a DOS
window under OS/2? If so, I may just try it, if the attempt is not
irreversible.
Israel.S...@moondog.com
---
* RM 1.3 02344 * Kol ze aino mashal velo chalom, ze nachon kaor bazoharaim
Jeff Otto
The sorting and indexing etc are unfortunately suspended while CA is in the
background. I suspect that if the developers come out with a windows or OS/2
specific version, this will be rectified. As for PCplus, I have never tried it
under OS/2. I did however, run a BBS under OS/2 for quite a while, and have
played around with other communications packages. What I have found is this:
If you use a DOS based transfer program, you run into no problems while sending
files. However, upon recieve, this system gets clogged down, and essentially
all applications except the transfer are suspended. This is fixed by using a
multitasking aware communications program.
As for the reversibility of installing OS/2, that is not a problem. The
version that is currently available (Warp 3.0), installs directly over your
existing DOS machine, leaving you with the option to run either DOS or OS/2 at
your descretion. I ran my system this way (under OS/2 2.1) for quite a while
before I eventually swithed over to an OS/2 only system to take advantage of
the HPFS (High Performance File System). Since then, I have never looked back,
and have no regrets.
Jeff
ISRAEL SILVERMAN
JO> >HM... What about sorting and indexing and tree'ing in Chess
JO> Assistant. > >Will they work while in the background? (I ask because
JO> a CA window *is* >displayed while those things are there).
JO> The sorting and indexing etc are unfortunately suspended while CA is
JO> in the background. I suspect that if the developers come out with a
JO> windows or OS/2 specific version, this will be rectified.
I see this as a problem with OS/2, not CA.
If OS/2 is supposed to create a valid DOS window, and it is also
supposed to have multitasking, why the heck will it not create an
environment sufficiently DOS-like so as to allow CA to think that it
is in a DOS environment even when it is not the front window?
Thanks for the info.
Israel.S...@moondog.com
---
* RM 1.3 02344 * Lawyers get you off
Jeff Otto
I haven't a clue. I don't program and am unfamiliar with the problems
associated with such programming. I do know that Bookup runs into similar
problems.... All I can think is that it has to do with the graphics - and the
program requiring access to the video in order to run... Hopefully, someone
better informed than myself will respond and clarify.
Jeff
Randell Jesup
>JO> The sorting and indexing etc are unfortunately suspended while CA is
>JO> in the background. I suspect that if the developers come out with a
>JO> windows or OS/2 specific version, this will be rectified.
>
> I see this as a problem with OS/2, not CA.
>
>If OS/2 is supposed to create a valid DOS window, and it is also
>supposed to have multitasking, why the heck will it not create an
>environment sufficiently DOS-like so as to allow CA to think that it
>is in a DOS environment even when it is not the front window?
Go into Settings from the menu for the icon, and in Settings go
to Session/DOS Settings. Set DOS_BACKGROUND_EXECUTION to On. Easy.
--
Randell Jesup, Scala US R&D
Randel...@scala.com
Ex-Commodore-Amiga Engineer, class of '94
#include <std/disclaimer>
Jeff Otto
I guess it would be easy if that were the problem. DOS_BACKGROUND_EXECUTION is
set to on. As far as I am aware this is the default. Like I mentioned before,
I suspect this has something to do with the video emulation with ca (and bookup
as well) since neither of these programs - and many others that are heavily
graphically oriented will not run in a window - they require full screen dos.
I am not a programmer, and certainly am not an expert on OS/2, but I have spent
a fair amount of time putzing around trying to get these things to go. From my
experience, OS/2 and windows programs work just fine in the background, while
DOS programs - especially those that are graphically oriented suspend. Why
this is this way is beyond me....if anyone has been able to get these things to
go, I would be quite happy if they would be kind enough to send me their
config.sys as well as the specific settings for that programs session.
Jeff
Kurt Soerensen
israel.s...@moondog.uucp.netcom.com (ISRAEL SILVERMAN) wrote:
>HM... What about sorting and indexing and tree'ing in Chess Assistant.
>
>Will they work while in the background? (I ask because a CA window *is*
>displayed while those things are there).
Yes they will! However you will have to start CA in CGA-mode.
It is my experience, that any graphics dos-program _will_ work in the
background, if started in CGA-mode. I have made a special CGA-Dos-Box
for that purphose.
your sincerely
----------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Soerensen, Denmark E-mail: ku...@login.dknet.dk
FidoNet: 2:236/200.38
----------------------------------------------------------
ISRAEL SILVERMAN
KS> >HM... What about sorting and indexing and tree'ing in Chess
KS> Assistant. > >Will they work while in the background? (I ask because
KS> a CA window *is* >displayed while those things are there).
KS> Yes they will! However you will have to start CA in CGA-mode.
KS> It is my experience, that any graphics dos-program _will_ work in
KS> the background, if started in CGA-mode. I have made a special
KS> CGA-Dos-Box for that purphose.
Thanks. That is very useful.
I have just gotten OS/2..
---