OS/2 2.1 for the hell of it
mz
is near" for OS/2, and with my still happily using Warp 3 and 4, I
decided to go back in time to find a version of OS/2 that ~would~ maybe
have some problems to make me unhappy. So I pulled out the 2.1 disc and
tried to install.
Excellent! I am having problems and now can mope like so many others.
My PC is an AMD K62 350 on an ASUS P5a with an AGP video card and a SCSI
2920 card. During the installation of 2.1, on the second diskette, I get
a system halt after a long period of no diskette access. Some hex in
there, as well as other stuff. I can't understand any of it. So far so
good. I'm trying to determine if this is circumventable (boo! no moping)
or an insurmountable obstacle (hurray!).
Obviously, this CPU, PCI, and AGP weren't known back in 1993. May I ask
you to speculate on which component might be causing the problem?
Has anyone got 2.x running on a PC like mine? (It's ok to tell me, since
I can mope as long as ~I~ continue to have problems.)
Thanks!
--
Stay open-minded, inquisitive, courageous, just, and compassionate,
and you've done a hard day's work.
Kevin Croxen
I ran 2.1 until a few weeks ago. PCI is no problem. It ran fine
on a K6300, though I haven't heard of anyone running it on a
K62. Since your AGP card also understands VGA, getting the card
up and running at least to 640x480x16 shouldn't be a problem, and
besides, the 2.1 install doesn't go graphical until after the
1st reboot anyway --you're still in character-mode (which
evidently is not a problem since you make it to the second disk)
at the point where the install fails.
2.1 fdisk will fail at the install stage on IDE if a disk is
present larger than 4 Gigs. I'm not certain what the limit is/
was with SCSI, but if I were looking suspiciously at your
system for causes of 2.1 install failure (assuming the damn
8-year-old floppies weren't corrupt) I'd start looking at
your current hard disks and SCSI controller card first. Also
I've never installed the CD version, only the tradition 13-floppy
set --your install could be croaking at the point where the
install routine is attempting to mount the CD. Again the
SCSI controller.
Good luck.
--Kevin
mz
Thanks for your post. I appreciate your sharing your experience.
All my drives are SCSI. I do have floppies A and B, as well as an
LS-120. (And they said it couldn't be done!) But I'm not worried about
LS-120 support at this point.
I think your conjecture about the SCSI card is reasonable. I have two CD
drives - one IDE and one SCSI - and the installation can't find the CD
in either. The .ADD I've been trying is the one I use with Warp 3 & 4.
> I'd start looking at
> your current hard disks and SCSI controller card first. Also
> I've never installed the CD version, only the tradition 13-floppy
> set --your install could be croaking at the point where the
> install routine is attempting to mount the CD. Again the
> SCSI controller.
>
Wow! You are a philosopher, doing the full floppy installation! Maybe
I'll try that too. Remember, the goal of this experiment is to increase
my misery so I can bond with all the mopers in the *.os2.* newsgroups.
;-)
Raphael Tennenbaum
>Hi Kevin,
<snip>
>>your install could be croaking at the point where the
>> install routine is attempting to mount the CD. Again the
>> SCSI controller.
>>
>
>Wow! You are a philosopher, doing the full floppy installation! Maybe
>I'll try that too. Remember, the goal of this experiment is to increase
>my misery so I can bond with all the mopers in the *.os2.* newsgroups.
>;-)
If you do get it installed, you puling whinger :)
I suggest you upgrade to 2.11 via the fixpack (can't
remember what they called them then). 2.1 was way better
than 2.0, but 2.11 was practically gold (practically 3.0, if
I'm not mistaken).
--
Ray Tennenbaum '99 YZF-R6
readme@ http://www.ray-field.com
Richard Steiner
spake unto us, saying:
>Excellent! I am having problems and now can mope like so many others.
Heheheh. <big grin>
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> rste...@visi.com >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Solaris + Win95 + WinNT4 + FreeBSD + DOS
+ VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
All things are possible except skiing thru a revolving door.
Martin Brown
Richard Steiner wrote:
> Here in comp.os.os2.setup.misc, mere_...@my-deja.com (mz)
> spake unto us, saying:
>
> >Excellent! I am having problems and now can mope like so many others.
>
> Heheheh. <big grin>
I have a live (sacrificial) copy of OS/2 2.11 running on a spare box.
Partly with the intention of allowing tests of software on a range of OS/2
platforms back into pre history but mainly because it is still there. I
have always found it to be very reliable and robust apart from not liking
big disks and modern video cards. I booted it again today.
What surprised me is that despite being notionally non Y2k compliant it
remains stable after the rollover shows the correct date and I have yet to
spot it doing anything new or untoward. I would like to be able to
demonstrate at least one significant non Y2k compliant feature.
Any offers for a tame demonstrable Y2k bug in OS/2 2.11 or Warp 3.0 rev
8.210 ?
Regards,
Martin Brown
John Poltorak
Don't know what results you should expect but it's a simple first test...
Try dir /od
>Regards,
>Martin Brown
>
>
Martin Brown
John Poltorak wrote:
Dir works perfectly but displays only 2 digits. Is there a 4 digit switch on dir at
this vintage ?
(if there is I can't find it)
Date sorting /O:+D 00 (2000) comes after 99 (1999) You can't say fairer than that.
I tried most of the other obvious things I could think of and they are all OK.
I was hoping for a visible failure of some sort. (Backup/Restore faults don't count)
Regards,
Martin Brown
Kevin Croxen
Ha! What you mean "the" fixpack? To reap the full benefits
of 2.1x, he'll need no fewer than *3* fixpacks. Plus, to
increase his stated goal of suffering, these packs are *not*
cumulative, and must be installed in order. While the second
and third are quite small (6-ish floppies) the first pack is
a whopping 21 diskettes.
He'll need (from
ftp://service.boulder.ibm.com/ps/products/os2/fixes/v2.1x/english-us/):
First: xr06200a (or just xr06200, if he wants to use the
world's last surviving 5.25 inch floppy drive). This is
the big one.
Second: xr_b098, and finally xr_b108 He really needs
all three to make the WPS (and in particular
winos2) satisfactorily stable for one used to
running, say, Warp 3.
And even though IBM *says* the result is code-
equivalent to 2.11, nevertheless it still won't
run Objectionable Desktop 1.5 (which required
2.11).
But of course OD on top of 2.1 would be too much
suffering to inflict on anyone, no matter how
masochistic...
--Kevin
Kevin Croxen
>Hi Kevin,
>
>Thanks for your post. I appreciate your sharing your experience.
>
>All my drives are SCSI. I do have floppies A and B, as well as an
>LS-120. (And they said it couldn't be done!) But I'm not worried about
>LS-120 support at this point.
>
>I think your conjecture about the SCSI card is reasonable. I have two CD
>drives - one IDE and one SCSI - and the installation can't find the CD
>in either. The .ADD I've been trying is the one I use with Warp 3 & 4.
>> I'd start looking at
>> your current hard disks and SCSI controller card first. Also
>> I've never installed the CD version, only the tradition 13-floppy
>> SCSI controller.
>>
>
>Wow! You are a philosopher, doing the full floppy installation! Maybe
>I'll try that too. Remember, the goal of this experiment is to increase
>my misery so I can bond with all the mopers in the *.os2.* newsgroups.
>;-)
Philosophy has nothing to do with it! :) I never had a machine
with a SCSI CD that 2.1 could read, so I used a diskette install
and hacked in ATAPI support afterwards --it was simply easier than
trying to produce a set of ATAPI-drive aware install diskettes.
Besides it was only 13 diskettes, plus drivers.
On the other hand, I've also done full-floppy installs of Warp 4 on
a CD-less, non-networked laptop, so obviously my perception as to
what is reasonable is already seriously askew and should not be
trusted.
--Kevin
mz
for 2.1x on the IBM ftp server. Damn!
I was disappointed to find a driver update at the Adaptec site. I was
further upset by finding the archive contains all the necessary files to
use the 2920c adaptor with OS/2 2.1, as well as thorough instructions.
Damn it!
Files updated are OS2LDR, AIC7870.ADD, IBMINT13.I13. These must be
replaced on the boot diskettes, and then on the installation drive by
way of a second boot into a DIFFERENT OS/2 installation so I can use
ATTRIB.EXE to yank the old copies of these files. Config.sys must be
tampered with, of course.
Excellent!
But even better, after installing the updates on the partition, there
~is~ a problem. Hurray! I will be with you, O Miserables!
Here's what happens.
The installation routine reads the diskettes, finds the CD in my SCSI CD
ROM, gives me the usual dialogs, loads some files and then does the
first reboot. (I am installing on C:) The mouse cursor appears, then the
OS/2 logo. Next some disk scanning happens, as though CHKDSK is running
through all the drives. Then I get a fatal error (details button shows
there was a problem with Install.exe and DosCall1). The logo is still in
the background, the mouse cursor is still active, and I can even
CTRL+ESC to show the Window list window (empty). But the installation
has halted. This is at disk 5, I think.
I booted to a Warp instance and ran CHKDSK /f on all the drives. Some
errors were fixed, but I still get the same halt.
Anyone have any suggestions about what could be causing this? My hard
disks are all standard SCSI fare, 2.1 GB or less, except for the last
one. It is a 4.3 GB IBM drive, but divided in to 3 partitions, none of
which exceeds 2 GB. Could the big disk's geometry be too much for OS/2
2.1x? Is anyone running 2.1 on a PC with SCSI disks >= 4.3 GB? Or could
it be the routine that follows the disk checking? (Does anyone know what
it is?)
It seems I must abandon the CD install and make the diskettes.
I am in wonderful dark! Perfect! My tears will soon join yours, Noble
Lachrymose Martyrs!
Raphael Tennenbaum <raph...@netnews.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> If you do get it installed, you puling whinger :)
> I suggest you upgrade to 2.11 via the fixpack (can't
> remember what they called them then). 2.1 was way better
> than 2.0, but 2.11 was practically gold (practically 3.0, if
> I'm not mistaken).
Raphael Tennenbaum
>In article <mMYc4oXf...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
>, Raphael Tennenbaum wrote:
>>mere_...@my-deja.com (mz) wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Kevin,
>><snip>
>>>>your install could be croaking at the point where the
>>>> install routine is attempting to mount the CD. Again the
>>>> SCSI controller.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Wow! You are a philosopher, doing the full floppy installation! Maybe
>>>I'll try that too. Remember, the goal of this experiment is to increase
>>>my misery so I can bond with all the mopers in the *.os2.* newsgroups.
>>>;-)
>>
>>If you do get it installed, you puling whinger :)
>>I suggest you upgrade to 2.11 via the fixpack (can't
>>remember what they called them then). 2.1 was way better
>>than 2.0, but 2.11 was practically gold (practically 3.0, if
>>I'm not mistaken).
>>
>>--
>>Ray Tennenbaum '99 YZF-R6
>>readme@ http://www.ray-field.com
>
>Ha! What you mean "the" fixpack? To reap the full benefits
>of 2.1x, he'll need no fewer than *3* fixpacks. Plus, to
>increase his stated goal of suffering, these packs are *not*
>cumulative, and must be installed in order. While the second
>and third are quite small (6-ish floppies) the first pack is
>a whopping 21 diskettes.
>....
>And even though IBM *says* the result is code-
>equivalent to 2.11, nevertheless it still won't
>run Objectionable Desktop 1.5 (which required
>2.11).
>
>But of course OD on top of 2.1 would be too much
>suffering to inflict on anyone, no matter how
>masochistic...
What's a whiny OS/2 thread without some flames?
Of course I knew it takes more than one application of
fixpacks, I wrote the thing back in 1989 as a matter of
fact. And thanks a LOT for the free advertising of OD,
that's just what we need around here. I suspect you're just
Brad Wardell, among others, underneath a pseudonym. Of
course I know there's a Kevin Croxen been posting here for
years, it was just a matter of time before it became clear
that "KC" was actually Tim Martin under an alias.
Not so smart as you think, are you, "Kevin"? See, I just
checked your headers against the DJ Index and last
Wednesday's results at Hialeah and it turns out not only are
you down 6% from last quarter, you haven't finished in the
money in a claiming race in six months.
So if you're looking for a ride to the glue factory, go back
to using Windoze, you TROLL!!!!
:)
Oliver Rick
On Mon, 03 Jan 2000 mz wrote:
> I think your conjecture about the SCSI card is reasonable. I have two CD
> drives - one IDE and one SCSI - and the installation can't find the CD
> in either. The .ADD I've been trying is the one I use with Warp 3 & 4.
There are no IDE CD-ROMs, but ATAPI which is not supported in 2.x. The old
devices like Mitsumi FX001 have a proprietary ATA-like interface, which
require extra drivers. I guess yours is an ATAPI drive.
I don't know what chip come whith the 2920, but you can try to copy the
Warp driver to the second disk, add a BASEDEV line and SET COPYFROMFLOPPY=1
to the CONFIG.SYS on it (or replace ATA stuff with contents of IDEDASD.EXE).
If it doesn't work there is the IBMINT13.I13 as a last chance. It's the
generic INT13 BIOS driver which can access 'direct access devices' (like a
harddisk or a locked removable device (enable in SCSI BIOS) with all the
INT13 limitations. It's slow and the limit is 1024/255/63
cylinders/heads/sectors (8032,5 MB), IIRC. That won't help you, because you
can't access your SCSI CD-ROM.
But:
- Boot OS/2 from diskettes and install Bootmanager on the harddisk and
partition the disk.
- Copy the \OS2IMAGE tree from the 2.1 CD-ROM to harddisk.
- Copy the contents of \OS2IMAGE\DISK_1 to a diskette and label it.
- Add the line SET SOURCEPATH=<driveletter>:\OS2IMAGE to the CONFIG.SYS
on the new diskette.
- Insert the new diskette after the first one (disk 0), instead of the one
that came with the CD (which is for CD installation).
Good luck.
/Olli/
--
IBM OS/2 Warp Update Summary:
http://www.warpupdates.de/english/warpupdates.html
Kevin Croxen
Damn! You've seen through my clever disguise. All this time I've
actually been a paid stardock-surf, sent here to troll this
newsgroup.
Didn't actually get paid in cash, though --it was all in Chauvet
Corp. common stock. (You don't think this will be a problem,
do you?...) :)
Cheers,
--Kevin
jeremy stolfi
install os2 ver 2.0 on my p2 333 with 128 megs of ram and a 10 gig drive i
know os2 cant see above 64 megs of ram but my bios has a setting for os2
boots that allows os2 to only see the first 64 megs of ram i can figure why
i cant get a install now
"mz" <mere_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1e3tpgw.tobtyswgn1kN%mere_...@my-deja.com...
> With so many people sighing heavily and saying that they feel "the end
> is near" for OS/2, and with my still happily using Warp 3 and 4, I
> decided to go back in time to find a version of OS/2 that ~would~ maybe
> have some problems to make me unhappy. So I pulled out the 2.1 disc and
> tried to install.
>
> Excellent! I am having problems and now can mope like so many others.
>
> My PC is an AMD K62 350 on an ASUS P5a with an AGP video card and a SCSI
> 2920 card. During the installation of 2.1, on the second diskette, I get
> a system halt after a long period of no diskette access. Some hex in
> there, as well as other stuff. I can't understand any of it. So far so
> good. I'm trying to determine if this is circumventable (boo! no moping)
> or an insurmountable obstacle (hurray!).
>
> Obviously, this CPU, PCI, and AGP weren't known back in 1993. May I ask
> you to speculate on which component might be causing the problem?
>
> Has anyone got 2.x running on a PC like mine? (It's ok to tell me, since
> I can mope as long as ~I~ continue to have problems.)
>
> Thanks!
>
>
Kevin Croxen
I'm not certain whether even Warp 4's patched install diskettes
currently support more than 8.4 Gigs, though I suppose they must
by now. In your case, both the 2.1 IDE driver and the old version
of fdisk are problematic --I imagine your install is
hanging on disk 2 right when the installation routine attempts to
examine the hard disk. I'm not aware of anyone who's attempted to
hack together 2.1 installation diskettes with support for large drives
(though it could be fun to try). The only other solution I know of
is to make sure all hard disks in your system at install time
are smaller that 4.2 Gigs.
--Kevin
Trevor Hemsley
->I'm not aware of anyone who's attempted to
->hack together 2.1 installation diskettes with support for large drives
->(though it could be fun to try).
I have OS/2 2.1 for Windows installed on a machine with >8GB disks. I
think I had to use only IBM1S506.ADD and IBMIDECD.FLT from IDEDASD.EXE,
not OS2DASD.DMD. It's been so long since I did the install that I don't
remember exactly what it was that I had to do but I know it took a long
time to find out ;-) Kept crashing when it tried to load aic7870.add which
I also had to add to the install set.
Trevor Hemsley, Brighton, UK
(Trevor-...@dial.pipex.com or 75704...@compuserve.com)
Kevin Croxen
now I feel inspired to try a large-disk install of 2.1 myself. Hate
seeing that old 2.1 box sitting on the shelf unused and unloved.
Cheers,
--Kevin
In article <geribeurzfyrlqvnycvc...@news.dial.pipex.com>
Novosad
>now I feel inspired to try a large-disk install of 2.1 myself. Hate
>seeing that old 2.1 box sitting on the shelf unused and unloved.
>
I have an unopened copy up for auction on e-bay.
OS/2 for Windows (NEW)
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=239133797
Steve
mere_...@my-deja.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, OS/2 has been told to die by everyone since
1993. Here it is 2000 and I am still using OS/2. In
fact, I am using it more than ever.
This is because of
- the importance of the Internet, which in many ways
makes the OS you use at home irrelevent, thus
removing "peer pressure" from OS/2 users
- Hobbes and LEO, and the excellent free and
shareware apps that folks around the world are making
- the low price for which I can get great software
from folks who are running to Windows and Linux (I am
finding great stuff for less than the cost of a new
Linux distribution! ;-)
- OS/2's stability and multitasking; on older PC
hardware, it is the best; on new hardware, OS/2
shames Windows EmT and Corel Linux (which I mention
because it has a nice GUI implementation, of the sort
that Linux will need to get onto the desktop)
- fixpaks; thanks, IBM folks!
How I Use OS/2
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I write a lot of documents. I use the Generic
PostScript driver to make PS files, which I then
convert to PDF using GhostScript. (Learning how to
use GhostView and GhostScript is one of the smartest
things I'd ever do, someone in an OS/2 newsgroup told
me. The man was right.)
PDFs are indeed very "portable documents" these days!
For word-processing, I use
- Ami Pro 3
- IBMWorks
- OS/2 text editors
- Netscape Composer
For spreadsheets, I use IBMWorks. I would like to try
Mesa/2, though.
Don't talk to me about StarGantuan-Office. I use it
sparingly, as a bloated MS Office viewer.
I do CGI programming in Perl for intranet and
Internet sites. I run Xitami web server for testing
and Perl 5. I recommend both highly! When I have the
time, I will be setting up Java to start creating
applets in OS/2.
For programming, I use VisualAge C++ 3 with fixes,
Borland C++ for OS/2, and VX-Rexx. I am working on an
OS/2 binary app which I hope to release... as soon as
my university assignments are submitted. (uh oh!)
My most-used OS/2 apps are:
In-Joy 1 (Internet dialer)
Sslurp! (for grabbing entire Web sites; brilliant
app)
Netscape 4.61 (Thanks IBM people!)
The LaunchPad (extremely useful in conjunction
with...)
FileStar/2 2.1x
Zip and Unzip (stable, fast, brilliant for system
backups)
Zipme (has some settings that make it fast for
unzipping to a certain folder on your drive)
GhostView and GhostScript (don't go without 'em)
Gotcha! (screen capturer)
Reversi (hell, when will I stop playing this!)
IBMWorks (free, functional, fast)
Ami Pro 3 (you can get early versions of SmartSuite
used for next to nothing)
FreeLance
Perl (Ilya Z makes the binaries; thanks, Ilya!)
Xitami (my favourite free OS/2 web server)
FaxWorks
Deltree/2 (directory killer)
Go (process viewer and killer)
Acrobat Reader (yes, sometimes)
BackUp Exec (tape backup)
I've just started using Relish, so I can't rank it
yet. I also have DCTIU for transferring images from
my digital camera, but I am still testing it.
In DOS, I still use Paradox 1 as a handy database.
My most-used Win-OS/2 apps are:
Plug-in (superb shell for Windows 3.1 by Planet
Crafters)
PaintShop Pro 3 (I need to try PMView, which I hear
is very good.)
Borland Delphi 1 (runs beautifully)
CorelDraw 3 + 5
I have an old scanner connected to an old Mac. If I
didn't have this bargain hardware, I would want to
use a SCSI scanner with OS/2. How many folks are
doing that successfully?
What Other OSs I Use Occasionally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Corel Debian Linux. It's the neatest Linux I've seen,
but it still sure as hell is no OS/2! I don't see any
greater benefit to me in using Linux. Not even in the
apps. Maybe for testing Perl programs. I would
however rather use Linux than...
Windows. Sometimes I need an application that is only
available in Windows. Usually, this is
- a programming app for when I make Windows code
- my Nikon program for transferring images from my
camera (am testing DCTIU)
- Adaptec programs for making CDs. I can't afford RSJ
for OS/2 at this time. Anyone have anything to say
about CDRecord/2? I am thinking of trying it.
Gee, I only have an AMD 350. How will I run Windows
2005? I will have to buy a flipping Cray...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Luc Van Bogaert
>PaintShop Pro 3 (I need to try PMView, which I hear
>is very good.)
Get PMView and Embellish (free) and get rid of another Win-OS/2 app.
>I have an old scanner connected to an old Mac. If I
>didn't have this bargain hardware, I would want to
>use a SCSI scanner with OS/2. How many folks are
>doing that successfully?
I'm using a SCSI Umax 1220S scanner very succesfully with CFMTwain and PMView
Luc Van Bogaert
Vice President - Warpstock
Visit www.warpstock.org for the most important OS/2 event of the year
Matt Walsh
> If I
>didn't have this bargain hardware, I would want to
>use a SCSI scanner with OS/2. How many folks are
>doing that successfully?
I've got an HP-4p Scan Jet running on Scsi and it runs great under OS/2. I use
Image Scan/2 as my software.
Matt Walsh OS/2 Outpost
El Paso, TX Computin' & Shootin' in the dust.
Daniel Say
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2000 04:45:02 GMT, mere_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >PaintShop Pro 3 (I need to try PMView, which I hear
> >is very good.)
>
> Get PMView and Embellish (free) and get rid of another Win-OS/2 app.
>
> >I have an old scanner connected to an old Mac. If I
> >didn't have this bargain hardware, I would want to
> >use a SCSI scanner with OS/2. How many folks are
> >doing that successfully?
>
> I'm using a SCSI Umax 1220S scanner very succesfully with CFMTwain and PMView
>
> Luc Van Bogaert Vice President - Warpstock
> Visit www.warpstock.org for the most important OS/2 event of the year
-------
But where is OS/2 ocr (Optical character reading) software?
How can I turn books, papers into computer files using only OS/2?
Daniel Say
s...@sfu.ca
DG
s...@sfu.ca (Daniel Say) writes:
<= But where is OS/2 ocr (Optical character reading)
software? How can I turn books, papers into computer
files
Go to eBay and pick up a copy of FaxWorks Pro-- it offers
excellent OCR capabilities that are not in the freebie FaxLite
version. It scores fairly high in the compatibility dept.,
too, allowing you to work with your scanned files in an array
of formats, not only the customary TIF and ASCII text files
but also PCX, DCX, DAT and BMP. Once you Import or Open [or
Paste from the clipboard] your scanned file, you can Save or
Export via the program's built-in OCR function. Any text
captured via OCR can be sent directly to your OS/2 system
clipboard or saved to a text file-- then used again within
almost any app you've got on your computer. And of course you
can edit and fax the material, too, within FaxWorks Pro.
I have found the FaxWorks Pro OCR to be *more* accurate and
flexible than the Xerox OCR package that came with my scanner,
though YMMV. Unlike the scanner software, FaxWorks OCR is
especially good at handling columns, plus it allows me to more
easily pick & choose which areas to scan or skip, speeding up
the OCR process as well as post-OCR editing.
DG
Cornelis Bockemühl
Sad enough, this great OCR capability is strictly for US-english users
only, because no accented letters are supporte - do not even think about
non-latin letters :-(
German language users can improve the OCR results with the quite
intelligent "Optimize OCR" tool:
ftp://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/apps/graphics/scan/optocr.zip
which tries to replace typical, but nonsense "words" like "h6ren" with
e.g. "hören", but an OCR that really recognizes accented characters
would probably do a better job easier, so I am using the above mentioned
Xerox OCR package with WINOS2.
I could also mention the fact that at
they are selling the "famous", but now old and not any more supported
"Recognita" at a reduced price until something in March.
So the point is: OCR applications are a _real_ gap in the application
set available for OS/2 (as powerful vector graphic editors like
CorelDraw are - but this is another issue and discussed here already
many times...).
Greetings,
Cornelis
DG
<cb...@my-deja.com> writes:
<=Sad enough, this great OCR capability is strictly for
US-english users only, because no accented letters are
supporte - do not even think about non-latin letters :-(=>
True enough, I pointed out some of FWP's virtues but didn't
cover [its lack of] language support. Lang. support is sadly
lacking in many other areas-- notice the mangling of your last
name, above. ;-(
I agree with your implied statement that OCR software ought
to offer multilingual support, though I would take the
discussion beyond the German lang. per se. I am indeed in the
USA but _that_ should not imply that I am an "English-only"
OS/2 user. In fact, I recently tangled with German lang. chars
in some materials I had scanned. Nor is German the only lang.
besides English that I work in.
I did try the FaxWorks startup param of "-C <codepage #>"
to use a codepage different from the "850,1004" specified in
my config.sys [which btw seem to give as much multilingual
support as I've needed in _other_ apps]. Changing the codepage
via the params didn't improve the results of FaxWorks OCR. ;-(
I'll try the "Optimize OCR" tool as you suggest. I'd like
to know if you or anybody else has tried changing the codepage
to obtain better results from FWP or from any other OCR
software...?
<=but an OCR that really recognizes accented characters
would probably do a better job easier, so I am using the above
mentioned Xerox OCR package with WINOS2.=>
Just to clarify matters as we try to answer Daniel Say's
question, that "Xerox OCR package" I had mentioned in my own
msg does not work under my WinOS2. Perhaps you are referring
to a different package also by Xerox. Which Xerox OCR software
do you have, and was it just a freebie included w/your scanner
or where did you buy it?
<=So the point is: OCR applications are a _real_ gap in the
application set available for OS/2 (as powerful vector graphic
editors like CorelDraw are - but this is another issue and
discussed here already many times...).=>
If you do count OCR software that runs under WinOS2, then
the app set available for OS/2 is quite large. And why would
you choose _not_ to count it!? It seems a strange way of
measuring OS/2's compatibility and support.
As for CorelDraw... prior discussions here among OS/2ers no
doubt included enthusiastic mentions of TrueSpectra's
PhotoGraphics, a vector/draw app now free for d/l, and many
times smaller and faster than CorelDraw. Back in the good ol'
days [before Corel's slump in the mid-1990s] when Corel was
able to gouge users by charging US$400+ a pop for CorelDraw, I
looked past it and relied on the leaner 'n' meaner
competition. I still do.
Ditto for Adobe. Many OS/2ers rightfully compare Adobe's
pkg with Gimp, which runs fine as an XFree app in OS/2.
Likewise, more scanner support is being added to XFree, and
OCR capability should follow. Given the XFree tradition, such
apps no doubt will offer multilingual support. I intend to use
those OS/2 XFree apps in the future and to support their
developers.
DG
Cornelis Bockemühl
IACT Co-ord. <iact*on-a-spam-free-diet*@techie.com> wrote:
> In message <873e45$22i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> - Cornelis Bockemühl
> <cb...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
> <=Sad enough, this great OCR capability is strictly for
> US-english users only, because no accented letters are
> supporte - do not even think about non-latin letters :-(=>
>
> True enough, I pointed out some of FWP's virtues but didn't
> cover [its lack of] language support. Lang. support is sadly
> lacking in many other areas-- notice the mangling of your last
> name, above. ;-(
>
> I agree with your implied statement that OCR software ought
> to offer multilingual support, though I would take the
> discussion beyond the German lang. per se. I am indeed in the
> USA but _that_ should not imply that I am an "English-only"
> OS/2 user. In fact, I recently tangled with German lang. chars
> in some materials I had scanned. Nor is German the only lang.
> besides English that I work in.
>
> I did try the FaxWorks startup param of "-C <codepage #>"
> to use a codepage different from the "850,1004" specified in
> my config.sys [which btw seem to give as much multilingual
> support as I've needed in _other_ apps]. Changing the codepage
> via the params didn't improve the results of FaxWorks OCR. ;-(
I thought it was not just a matter of codepages, but an OCR package must
also "know" how the letters look like _or_ be able to learn, which both
doesn't seem true for FaxWorks...
> I'll try the "Optimize OCR" tool as you suggest. I'd like
> to know if you or anybody else has tried changing the codepage
> to obtain better results from FWP or from any other OCR
> software...?
>
> <=but an OCR that really recognizes accented characters
> would probably do a better job easier, so I am using the above
> mentioned Xerox OCR package with WINOS2.=>
>
> Just to clarify matters as we try to answer Daniel Say's
> question, that "Xerox OCR package" I had mentioned in my own
> msg does not work under my WinOS2. Perhaps you are referring
> to a different package also by Xerox. Which Xerox OCR software
> do you have, and was it just a freebie included w/your scanner
> or where did you buy it?
Ok, what I am using is a package that came for free with my scanner. It
is from Xerox, but right now I cannot tell you the exact name or version
number. AND: If I say "it works" this doesn't mean I can scan directly
with that app: I have to scan my pages using PMView (with CFM-TWAIN) or
using ImpOS/2, save them as TIF files and then I can do the OCR in a
second step. Works ok for me because I don't do it every day.
> <=So the point is: OCR applications are a _real_ gap in the
> application set available for OS/2 (as powerful vector graphic
> editors like CorelDraw are - but this is another issue and
> discussed here already many times...).=>
>
> If you do count OCR software that runs under WinOS2, then
> the app set available for OS/2 is quite large. And why would
> you choose _not_ to count it!? It seems a strange way of
> measuring OS/2's compatibility and support.
Right, of course, but if I have the choice between a native and a
WINOS/2 app I tend to go for the native one, except it is too far
inferior in terms of features.
> As for CorelDraw... prior discussions here among OS/2ers no
> doubt included enthusiastic mentions of TrueSpectra's
> PhotoGraphics, a vector/draw app now free for d/l, and many
> times smaller and faster than CorelDraw. Back in the good ol'
> days [before Corel's slump in the mid-1990s] when Corel was
> able to gouge users by charging US$400+ a pop for CorelDraw, I
> looked past it and relied on the leaner 'n' meaner
> competition. I still do.
>
> Ditto for Adobe. Many OS/2ers rightfully compare Adobe's
> pkg with Gimp, which runs fine as an XFree app in OS/2.
> Likewise, more scanner support is being added to XFree, and
> OCR capability should follow. Given the XFree tradition, such
> apps no doubt will offer multilingual support. I intend to use
> those OS/2 XFree apps in the future and to support their
> developers.
What I mean is that there is a certain lack in really and fully _vector_
oriented and at the same time powervul graphics programs. CorelDraw5
with WINOS/2 does the job for me (...and the remark above applies of
course!).
There are plenty of _bitmap_ oriented apps around!
(But this is now off topic...)
Greetings,
Cornelis
--
--
Cornelis Bockemühl <cbo...@datacomm.ch>
Author of "PmAs - Astronomy for the Presentation Manager"
http://www.datacomm.ch/cobo
rj friedman
ŻI have an old scanner connected to an old Mac. If I
Żdidn't have this bargain hardware, I would want to
Żuse a SCSI scanner with OS/2. How many folks are
Żdoing that successfully?
My UMAX 1200S with the CFM Twain Drivers using PMView scans
beautifully.
________________________________________________________
[RJ] OS/2 - Live it, or live with it.
rj friedman Team ABW
Taipei, Taiwan r...@yyycomasia.com
To send email - remove the `yyy'
________________________________________________________
Novosad
>Sad enough, this great OCR capability is strictly for US-english users
>only, because no accented letters are supporte - do not even think about
>non-latin letters :-(
>
>Cornelis
Cornelis;
I do not know if the following is of use
to you, but may be of interest.
I am using an HP IIp scanner under Win/OS2.
It works very well in full screen sessions. I
use "Calera WordScan" version 3.1 as well. It
is from a software bundle that came with an-
other HP scanner (which never needed OCR). The
help refers to accented characters (and special
symbols) that are part of the Windows ASCII and
ANSI character sets. They are accessed through
the "Proofing Editor" that allows customization.
I have not used this feature, but if some ques-
tion arises, an if it is in the help file, I'll
try and respond.
Steve
Joseph
ThermoDynamic wrote:
>
> mere_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Using OS/2 More Than Ever!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > Yes, OS/2 has been told to die by everyone since
> > 1993. Here it is 2000 and I am still using OS/2. In
> > fact, I am using it more than ever.
> >
> > This is because of
> > - the importance of the Internet, which in many ways
> > makes the OS you use at home irrelevent, thus
> > removing "peer pressure" from OS/2 users
>
> Tell me when Quake III for Java arrives and doesn't require a bloody
> Cray in order to run it adequately.
Yeah! With W2K you'll only need a 700 Mhz
Pentium.
Hey wise guy, are you sure you're not Endomorphic?
ThermoDynamic
> Using OS/2 More Than Ever!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Yes, OS/2 has been told to die by everyone since
> 1993. Here it is 2000 and I am still using OS/2. In
> fact, I am using it more than ever.
>
> This is because of
> - the importance of the Internet, which in many ways
> makes the OS you use at home irrelevent, thus
> removing "peer pressure" from OS/2 users
Tell me when Quake III for Java arrives and doesn't require a bloody
Cray in order to run it adequately.
> - OS/2's stability and multitasking; on older PC
> hardware, it is the best; on new hardware,
Uh-huh. That single input queue isn't all that spectacular - unless IBM
has properly fixed it since 1997, and I doubt that. :-( Without the
queue, forget multitasking (or even singletasking depending on how buggy
the app is.)
> PaintShop Pro 3 (I need to try PMView, which I hear
> is very good.)
> Borland Delphi 1 (runs beautifully)
> CorelDraw 3 + 5
>
> I have an old scanner connected to an old Mac. If I
> didn't have this bargain hardware, I would want to
> use a SCSI scanner with OS/2. How many folks are
> doing that successfully?
>
> What Other OSs I Use Occasionally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Corel Debian Linux. It's the neatest Linux I've seen,
> but it still sure as hell is no OS/2! I don't see any
> greater benefit to me in using Linux. Not even in the
> apps. Maybe for testing Perl programs. I would
> however rather use Linux than...
> Windows. Sometimes I need an application that is only
> available in Windows. Usually, this is
> - a programming app for when I make Windows code
> - my Nikon program for transferring images from my
> camera (am testing DCTIU)
> - Adaptec programs for making CDs. I can't afford RSJ
> for OS/2 at this time. Anyone have anything to say
> about CDRecord/2? I am thinking of trying it.
>
> Gee, I only have an AMD 350. How will I run Windows
>
> 2005? I will have to buy a flipping Cray...
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Oh if I could only time travel to 1981 and re-live the adventures for
the very first time...
-=- OR -=-
When I make accusations, I try to back them up with some sort of logic
if not illogic. I just don't leave things hanging open making everyone
else
wonder "What sort of dope is he on?!" I make everyone else wonder "He's
on LSD!"
Cornelis Bockemühl
Thanks for the hint!
Actually, I am able to to OCR work using WinOS/2: Virtually _all_ decent
OCR programs support accented characters; Faxworks is just a rare
exception!
I'm just telling (or reminding) this story from time to time ;-) because
I was so much disappointed when I had bought the Pro version of
Faxworks, only to find out that it was unuseable outside the US - and
this limitation was _nowhere_ in the descriptions you could read before
buying! This is (was) just an example of extremely bad business
behaviour!
Greetings,
Cornelis
--
Cornelis Bockemühl <cbo...@datacomm.ch>
Author of "PmAs - Astronomy for the Presentation Manager"
http://www.datacomm.ch/cobo
Mentore #cat# Siesto
>Yes, OS/2 has been told to die by everyone since
>1993. Here it is 2000 and I am still using OS/2. In
>fact, I am using it more than ever.
Me too, now I'm totally MS/environment - free (not using even Win-OS/2,
which is really NOT MS Windows!)
>- Hobbes and LEO, and the excellent free and
>shareware apps that folks around the world are making
Here I totally agree with you.
>- OS/2's stability and multitasking; on older PC
>hardware, it is the best; on new hardware, OS/2
>shames Windows EmT and Corel Linux (which I mention
>because it has a nice GUI implementation, of the sort
>that Linux will need to get onto the desktop)
And don't forget development of drivers to exploit the capabilities of new
hardware, such as Athlons and K6.
>How I Use OS/2
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I write a lot of documents. I use the Generic
>PostScript driver to make PS files, which I then
>convert to PDF using GhostScript. (Learning how to
>use GhostView and GhostScript is one of the smartest
>things I'd ever do, someone in an OS/2 newsgroup told
>me. The man was right.)
>
>PDFs are indeed very "portable documents" these days!
>
>For word-processing, I use
>- Ami Pro 3
>- IBMWorks
>- OS/2 text editors
>- Netscape Composer
>
>For spreadsheets, I use IBMWorks. I would like to try
>Mesa/2, though.
For word processing I use with satisfaction IBM Works and StarOffice 5.1,
while I'm using Works also as a spreadsheet. When I need some simple
drawings I use PM Draw/2, which is simple but really efficient.
Ghostscript/Ghostview comes as an invaluable tool for viewing and
printing... and now I'm using Nota Musica 2.6 to edit and print musical
scores, it's really noteworthy!
>For programming, I use VisualAge C++ 3 with fixes,
>Borland C++ for OS/2, and VX-Rexx. I am working on an
>OS/2 binary app which I hope to release... as soon as
>my university assignments are submitted. (uh oh!)
I have three or four (or FIVE :-) ideas for programs under OS/2: a circuit
schematic editor for use with SPICE, some REXX scripts to
install/uninstall X11 programs for OS/2, and shells (in REXX or VX-REXX
when I will get and learn to use it) to control cdrecord/2 and SANE.
>I've just started using Relish, so I can't rank it
>yet. I also have DCTIU for transferring images from
>my digital camera, but I am still testing it.
Woah, to have a digital camera would be interesting... I would buy a video
grabber, but still haven't got enough money!
>In DOS, I still use Paradox 1 as a handy database.
I use the DOS environment to play some QT files and play with Callus
emulator (SFII).
>PaintShop Pro 3 (I need to try PMView, which I hear
>is very good.)
Try it! It's really good, works also with TWAIN interface drivers and
costs not so much... I'll buy it as soon as possible.
>I have an old scanner connected to an old Mac. If I
>didn't have this bargain hardware, I would want to
>use a SCSI scanner with OS/2. How many folks are
>doing that successfully?
I'm working with the SANE development team, which is available also for
OS/2. In these days I'm trying to make it compatible with my new Agfa
SnapScan 1236s. The project is still under development, but it
already supports many SCSI scanners (especially HP and Mustek).
See http://www.mostang.com.
>What Other OSs I Use Occasionally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>Corel Debian Linux. It's the neatest Linux I've seen,
>but it still sure as hell is no OS/2! I don't see any
>greater benefit to me in using Linux. Not even in the
>apps. Maybe for testing Perl programs. I would
>however rather use Linux than...
>Windows. Sometimes I need an application that is only
>available in Windows. Usually, this is
>- a programming app for when I make Windows code
>- my Nikon program for transferring images from my
>camera (am testing DCTIU)
>- Adaptec programs for making CDs. I can't afford RSJ
>for OS/2 at this time. Anyone have anything to say
>about CDRecord/2? I am thinking of trying it.
Ok: i use only OS/2 and Linux, from Mandrake 6.2 distribution. These tow
OSes work together like no other. OS/2 can read and write ext2fs, Linux
can read and now also write HPFS, no one makes troubles with the other if
you pay just a little attention (and you can inhibit write access on
ext2fs partitions)... Actually I have NO NEED to use Winsuck, for every
use I want for my PC. In fact, I would use my scanner, but this lack is
probably due to my unexperience in OS/2 programming tools (emx).
Oh: try cdrecord /2, it's wonderful in OS/2 and Linux. On my K6 450 with
SCSI card Adaptec UW2940 works as a snap, with CPU load near to 1%!!!!
>Gee, I only have an AMD 350. How will I run Windows
>
>2005? I will have to buy a flipping Cray...
>
BWA ha ha ha ha !!!! Don't even try to think about using it... I say this
for your sake... :-)
--
Mentore Siesto
Team OS/2 Italia
Home page (in allestimento):
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/8592/index.html
Mentore #cat# Siesto
DS > But where is OS/2 ocr (Optical character reading) software?
DS > How can I turn books, papers into computer files using only OS/2?
Actually there are at least two OCR projects, but, sorry, I don't remember
the URLs of them. Try hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/apps/scan.
In the SANE developers mailing list a thread appeared on a working OCR
with free source included, may be this is another OS/2 application idea!
da...@mcnaughtan.com
at 11:01 AM, <iact*on-a-spam-free-diet*@techie.com> (DG) said:
>In message <873e45$22i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> - Cornelis Bockemłhl
><cb...@my-deja.com> writes:
> <=Sad enough, this great OCR capability is strictly for
>US-english users only, because no accented letters are
>supporte - do not even think about non-latin letters :-(=>
> True enough, I pointed out some of FWP's virtues but didn't cover [its
>lack of] language support. Lang. support is sadly lacking in many other
>areas-- notice the mangling of your last name, above. ;-(
> I agree with your implied statement that OCR software ought to offer
>multilingual support, though I would take the
>discussion beyond the German lang. per se. I am indeed in the USA but
>_that_ should not imply that I am an "English-only" OS/2 user. In fact, I
>recently tangled with German lang. chars in some materials I had scanned.
>Nor is German the only lang. besides English that I work in.
For those interested, there is a supplementary programme by Carsten Müller
which corrects the German accents. URL: www.warphouse.de (can't remember
what the file is called)
David
-----------------------------------------------------------
da...@mcnaughtan.com
-----------------------------------------------------------
Buddy Donnelly
>
> Me too, now I'm totally MS/environment - free
Wanna bet?
See GREP "microsoft" string output from \OS2\DLL files at bottom.
--
Good luck,
Buddy
Buddy Donnelly
donn...@tampabay.rr.com
c:\os2\dll>grep "microsoft"
File #0==> EPWCUA.DLL <==
ÌMS Run-Time Library - Copyright (c) 1990, Microsoft lrp
File #1==> EPWPRO.DLL <==
ÌMS Run-Time Library - Copyright (c) 1990, Microsoft Prp
File #2==> EPWSVC16.DLL <==
ÌMS Run-Time Library - Copyright (c) 1990, Microsoft Hrp
File #3==> EPWSVC32.DLL <==
ÌMS Run-Time Library - Copyright (c) 1990, Microsoft Hrp
File #4==> MDMI.DLL <==
File #5==> MODERN.FON <==
(C) Copyright Microsoft 1985
(C) Copyright Microsoft 1985
Microsoft Corporation
Copyright © Microsoft Corp. 1991-1995
Microsoft® Windows® Operating System
File #6==> PMMLE.DLL <==
PMCTLSb(c) Copyright IBM Corp. 1981, 1989. All rights reserved. (c)
Copyright Microsoft Corp. 1981, 1989.
File #7==> PMWPMRI.DLL <==
Microsoft‚b indowBcC” q ‘ .
File #8==> UCDFS.DLL <==
ÌMS Run-Time Library - Copyright (c) 1990, Microsoft $rp
File #9==> UFAT32.DLL <==
ÌMS Run-Time Library - Copyright (c) 1990, Microsoft ¬rp
File #10==> UHPFS.DLL <==
ÌMS Run-Time Library - Copyright (c) 1990, Microsoft Hrp
File #11==> WPPRTMRI.DLL <==
^à (Microsoft Ò<Ò( s 3.1¡Š‹‡ #‡ƒ ,ƒ× •`£ spoolòu‰ŸmubeB+ sabl2X
DG
da...@mcnaughtan.comTue, 01 Feb 2000 11:01:08 +0100 writes:
<=For those interested, there is a supplementary programme
by Carsten Mueller which corrects the German accents.=>
David, thank you, but the first msg posted by C.B. in this
thread already named that program and gave the Hobbes URL. :-)
In message <873e45$22i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> - Cornelis Bockemühl
<cb...@my-deja.com> wrote:
<<German language users can improve the OCR results with
the quite intelligent "Optimize OCR" tool:
ftp://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/apps/graphics/scan/optocr.zip>>
DG
Peter Jespersen
> 1993. Here it is 2000 and I am still using OS/2. In
> fact, I am using it more than ever.
Me too!
Neither Windows or Linux seems to fulfill mu demands!
<snip>
> - OS/2's stability and multitasking; on older PC
> hardware, it is the best; on new hardware, OS/2
> shames Windows EmT and Corel Linux (which I mention
> because it has a nice GUI implementation, of the sort
> that Linux will need to get onto the desktop)
> - fixpaks; thanks, IBM folks!
Well I had s serious stability problem with NC/2 4.61, but I was
advised to use an unofficial patch of the pmmerge, fixing a few
problems (memory leaks and so on)...since then it has been
rock-solid!
Well I've installed Corel Linux and apart from the fact that it
installs LILO in the MBR it got a tendency to install drivers for
almost anything...well except FAT32 wich I really need (Got my
documents on FAT32, this way all of my operating systems got
access and not only with 8+3 filenames)
> How I Use OS/2
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well...I try to use it for everything!
StarOffice and WordPro (For the serious stuff), Med and Borland
C++ for OS/2 (for programming...I'm new to this sport), NC/2 4.61
(browsing the network and USENET-stuff), WarpAMP and Z (MPEG3),
FTPBrowser and Autoget/2 (for downloading)!
On top of that a great amount of small utilities and stuff!
But on my college/school the tendency is to favour MS products,
most likely because of the discounts!
Therefore I have to be able to exchange data with a Windows-only
(Actually it very close to a Microsoft only) environment!
Since the word compatible does not exist in the MS-dictionary,
I'm forced to have a supplemental Windows-installation!
For MS-Word documents I use StarOffice or the MS-Word Viewer and
it works really well!
StarOffice as several great qualities....among them are the
availability on most platforms (BeOS is missing though)!
Which means I've got it installed in MS-Windows, OS/2 and
Linux....great!
It's filters is great...but the price of portability has resulted
an incredible ressource-greediness of the thingie!
When I'm not involved in a project I use OS/2 80% of the time..I
use most of the remaining time exploring Linux!
I have no performance problems when using OS/2 (Got an IBM
6x86MX-300 (233Mhz) processor), but the X on the Corel Linux is
not 100% satisfactory...I guess most of is because of the
FPU-performance of the processor...the Windows quickly sucks like
hell, especially when launching a Win16 application and the
preemptive multitasking of Win9x is suspended in favour of
cooperative!
I must confess...I have no plans of replacing OS/2...today it is
my primary software platform...and something has to go terrible
wrong for that to change (perhaps if hell freezes over :-))
A successor might be BeOS...I must have an objectorientated GUI
:-)
--
Live long and prosper...
Don't hit me. My lawyer's in jail.
Wim Wauters
Peter Jespersen wrote:
> Well I had s serious stability problem with NC/2 4.61, but I was
> advised to use an unofficial patch of the pmmerge, fixing a few
> problems (memory leaks and so on)...since then it has been
> rock-solid!
OK, I'll take your word for it, since you are using Wordpro
too.
I'm still afraid changing pmmerge will brake more than it'll
fix, but getting netscape to behave would be the final step
to the ultimate stable OS (current record: 6 days WITH
netscape usage !!).
There is also "keyboard.dcp" in that archive, I take it it
has to be 'installed' too. What does this file have to do
with pmmerge.dll, I wonder ?
OS/2 forever !
mere_...@my-deja.com
ThermoDynamic <dpc...@pclink.com>, who probably was
a bedwetter, wrote:
> Tell me when Quake III for Java arrives and doesn't
require a bloody
> Cray in order to run it adequately.
So I think what you're saying is that the usefulness
of an OS depends in some part on the availability of
Quake. See your note on "logic and illogic" below,
and accept my humble thanks for the example.
> > - OS/2's stability and multitasking; on older PC
> > hardware, it is the best; on new hardware,
>
> Uh-huh. That single input queue isn't all that
spectacular - unless IBM
> has properly fixed it since 1997, and I doubt that.
:-( Without the
> queue, forget multitasking (or even singletasking
depending on how buggy
> the app is.)
When I am unzipping or zipping massive archives,
cranking out PDFs and still working on a document of
some sort, I am multitasking in a serious way. And
this on a PC that is well behind the front line.
Wintendo MT is pretty lame on older PCs. And Windows
2000 Ready means "at least a 300 MHz CPU", a trunk
load of RAM, and a mouse with a RISC processor. ;-)
The fact that hardware is cheaper these days does not
justify inefficiency.
But you are right - a badly written app will take any
OS down. But that's not the OS's fault. Here I will
give the advantage to Linux.
> Oh if I could only time travel to 1981 and re-live
the adventures for
> the very first time...
>
> -=- OR -=-
>
> When I make accusations, I try to back them up with
some sort of logic
> if not illogic. I just don't leave things hanging
open making everyone
> else
> wonder "What sort of dope is he on?!" I make
everyone else wonder "He's
> on LSD!"
I am glad you posted this. Because, while you are at
your computer posting insults - or playing Quake - we
know there is little chance that you are
impregnating a female with your clearly woeful seed.
Or were you just a being a wretch for a day?
Doug Bissett
<reply_to_th...@please.com> wrote:
> OK, I'll take your word for it, since you are using Wordpro
> too.
>
> I'm still afraid changing pmmerge will brake more than it'll
> fix, but getting netscape to behave would be the final step
> to the ultimate stable OS (current record: 6 days WITH
> netscape usage !!).
>
> There is also "keyboard.dcp" in that archive, I take it it
> has to be 'installed' too. What does this file have to do
> with pmmerge.dll, I wonder ?
>
> OS/2 forever !
>
I also use WordPro, and Approach (but Approach has a couple of real
bad problems) <- first OS/2 warp4 release, I can't imagine spending
more money on those relatively pathetic programs, and no-one has given
me any indication that v1.5 works any better than 1.0, or that it has
any new features that would be of any use to me.
IMO the "fixed" PMMERGE.DLL file fixed a lot more things than it broke
(and there is some indication that it fixed another problem, unrelated
to NS, that I had). I just ignored the keyboard thing, and all seems
to be working quite well. If I did not need to shut down to install a
couple of new things, I would be at about day 25, with no problems,
and the last problem that I had was unrelated to PMMERGE.DLL. (My
programming isn't all that good <g>).
Hope this helps...
******************************
From the PC of Doug Bissett
doug.bissett at attglobal.net
The " at " must be changed to "@"
******************************
leto...@nospam.net
>> Just to clarify matters as we try to answer Daniel Say's
>> question, that "Xerox OCR package" I had mentioned in my own
>> msg does not work under my WinOS2. Perhaps you are referring
>> to a different package also by Xerox. Which Xerox OCR software
>> do you have, and was it just a freebie included w/your scanner
>> or where did you buy it?
>>
>Probably the last Win-16 version of Textbridge Pro, long off the market ..
>. . although you might find one used on Ebay, from Recycled Software, or
>somewhere like that.
The last one was TextBridge 3.1 -- If so, and as a former beta-tester and
user of Textbridge -- and without wanting to start a flame -- I can state
that anyone who thinks the Calera stuff that came in Faxworks Pro is better
then TB 3.1 is simply not believable.
I would have to see the documents that you got the better results with to
figure out why Calera came or seemed to come out better to know why anyone
said it was. The Calera engine was one of two leading OCR packages, until
Textbrigde just about put it out of business because of far better accuracy.
The standard OCR tests conducted by UNLV never found the Calera engine to be
anywhere as accurate as the Xerox engine -- so there is objective support
for the claims.
BTW, TB 3.1 runs fine under Win-OS2 and it runs about 25% faster then the
Win95 version that was released at the same time. All of the W95 whatever
versions are a true 32bit program that will not run under Win-OS2. At the
same time, the OCR engine in ver 3.1 was identical to the Win95 engine. I'm
sure they have worked on the engine in the past few years, and I have not
tested the newer versions, but most of the new stuff looks like nice added
"toys" that are not part of the OCR engine.
_____________
Ed Letourneau <leto...@sover.net>
Glen
> mere_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Using OS/2 More Than Ever!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > Yes, OS/2 has been told to die by everyone since
> > 1993. Here it is 2000 and I am still using OS/2. In
> > fact, I am using it more than ever.
> >
> > This is because of
> > - the importance of the Internet, which in many ways
> > makes the OS you use at home irrelevent, thus
> > removing "peer pressure" from OS/2 users
>
> Tell me when Quake III for Java arrives and doesn't require a bloody
> Cray in order to run it adequately.
>
>
> > - OS/2's stability and multitasking; on older PC
> > hardware, it is the best; on new hardware,
>
> Uh-huh. That single input queue isn't all that spectacular - unless IBM
> has properly fixed it since 1997, and I doubt that. :-( Without the
> queue, forget multitasking (or even singletasking depending on how buggy
> the app is.)
Why would you want multiple input queues? As I posted earlier, SIQ
stands for Synchronous Input Queue, and there is already a "fix" for
it: write proper multi-threaded programs.
> When I make accusations, I try to back them up with some sort of logic
> if not illogic. I just don't leave things hanging open making everyone
> else
> wonder "What sort of dope is he on?!" I make everyone else wonder "He's
> on LSD!"
I eagerly await your logic explaining multiple input queues.
Glen
-<remove Z from my e-mail Address>-
ha...@pacbell.net
>>
>> Uh-huh. That single input queue isn't all that spectacular - unless IBM
>> has properly fixed it since 1997, and I doubt that. :-( Without the
>> queue, forget multitasking (or even singletasking depending on how buggy
>> the app is.)
>
>Why would you want multiple input queues? As I posted earlier, SIQ
>stands for Synchronous Input Queue, and there is already a "fix" for
>it: write proper multi-threaded programs.
>
you are mistaken. Trash your video some day and watch the big black
ugly screen come up saying "ERROR IN SINGLEQ." As well, I have several
articles from old OS/2 magazines including interviews with the lead
developers of parts of the WPS, discussing how the "next version will
redesign the WPS to fix the problems with the single input queue." Never
happened. Happy to send you scans of same . . . why would you want
multiple input queues ? Remember the last time your screen froze solid,
all that worked was the cursor ? You think people buy Watchcat or C-A-D
Commander or any of a half dozen other process killers because the
WPS deals with this problem very well ?
You may have posted your "fix" but I doubt that you'll be able to make
it stick. Though the next time a badly behaved app locks my whole
system up tighter than a drum, will you be headed over to the ISV
with a shotgun to make them recode it ? If not, the WPS has to deal
with the problem - it'd be nice if it did it in a slightly more elegant way
than the Windows Salute.
>
>I eagerly await your logic explaining multiple input queues.
>
>Glen
>-<remove Z from my e-mail Address>-
--
härad ængravvåd
Mooo
>When I am unzipping or zipping massive archives,
>cranking out PDFs and still working on a document of
>some sort, I am multitasking in a serious way. And
>this on a PC that is well behind the front line.
I thought I'd add to this thread with my 2c worth.
On the topic of multitasking, I've noticed fairly recently that my
newer OS/2 apps are not allowing multitasking as I'd expect, and not
even as good as WinNT.
To give examples, Staroffice and Netscape. Do something, nearly
anything - including opening the programs to begin with, and you
simply can't do anything else.
These types of programs, which didnt exist years ago seem to be able
to hog the system entirely. Try saving a big spreadsheet under
Staroffice or downloading a complex page under netscape you'll see
what I mean. Pressing ctl-esc usually elicits no response or maybe
(sometimes) the system will think its locked and close the WPS on you.
In my mind, this is not OS/2's fault. I'm still using Warp 3 and Warp
4 and the programs I've had for years still work well. I think its
the apps themselves, I'm beginning to wonder if they really are not
being optimised correctly.
Not being a programmer, I can only speculate whats going on here. I
thought that preemptive multitasking 'ripped' the focus away from an
application when its time slice ended (all things being equal, such
as priority) and cooperative multitasking (ala win3.1x) had to wait
until the app 'gave' focus back to the system.
Whats going on? For those that doubt, try running say Staroffice
under WinNT - its really fast in comparison to the OS/2 version...not
a bit...a lot! Plus, saving, starting the program etc does not hog
the system, you can switch focus and do other stuff.
As if the lack of a good application base (these days) is not enough,
it seems like those that actually are available are really badly
written.
sigh...
Craig
Glen
> In <y7xHJI5dddgW-p...@dialup217.coruscant.kingston-internet.net>, gl...@rockyhorror.Zkaroo.co.uk (Glen) writes:
>
> >>
> >> Uh-huh. That single input queue isn't all that spectacular - unless IBM
> >> has properly fixed it since 1997, and I doubt that. :-( Without the
> >> queue, forget multitasking (or even singletasking depending on how buggy
> >> the app is.)
> >
> >Why would you want multiple input queues? As I posted earlier, SIQ
> >stands for Synchronous Input Queue, and there is already a "fix" for
> >it: write proper multi-threaded programs.
> >
>
> you are mistaken. Trash your video some day and watch the big black
> ugly screen come up saying "ERROR IN SINGLEQ." As well, I have several
> articles from old OS/2 magazines including interviews with the lead
> developers of parts of the WPS, discussing how the "next version will
> redesign the WPS to fix the problems with the single input queue."
The term "Single Input Queue" isn't wrong, it just doesn't describe
the problem you are referring to. Win32 has a single input queue
also. The difference is how messages taken from the input queue are
processed, ie. synchronously or asynchronously.
> Never
> happened. Happy to send you scans of same . . . why would you want
> multiple input queues ? Remember the last time your screen froze solid,
> all that worked was the cursor ? You think people buy Watchcat or C-A-D
> Commander or any of a half dozen other process killers because the
> WPS deals with this problem very well ?
So you're recomending we have multiple input queues hanging around in
the background, taking up resources, just in case the one we're using
locks up? How many should the average system create? What if all the
input queues lock up? Should OS/2 keep creating more and more?
The point is there is only one keyboard and mouse interfacing with
many applications. It makes no sense to have multiple input queues
when there is only a single user.
>
> You may have posted your "fix" but I doubt that you'll be able to make
> it stick.
I'm afraid I can't take credit for that fix. IBM advised the above
long ago. It also works perfectly, which you'd know if you understood
the PM architecture.
> Though the next time a badly behaved app locks my whole
> system up tighter than a drum, will you be headed over to the ISV
> with a shotgun to make them recode it ?
Making IBM recode the OS, possibly breaking many apps is a better
solution is it?
Joseph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 2-5-00, 9:22:44 AM, za...@omen.com.au (Mooo) wrote regarding Re:
Using OS/2 More Than Ever!:
> mere_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >When I am unzipping or zipping massive archives,
> >cranking out PDFs and still working on a document of
> >some sort, I am multitasking in a serious way. And
> >this on a PC that is well behind the front line.
I run Staroffice and Netscape 4.61 on a 166 with 64MB RAM.
I think you'll see a download in the background doesn't stop when
staroffice is launched. I think the lack of responsiveness when you
want to switch context as the program loads is intentional, something
a programmer can design into an application.
I have also found staroffice saves much faster to native format which
is what I work in UNTIL I am finished and then export (save as) Excel
so I can share the work with a Office user.
I would not think to try Staroffice on NT in 64 MB of RAM. I would
expect a much more responsive OS/2 system IF we OS/2 users needed and
had the computer resources NT/office required.
when_in_la
up tighter than a drum when Netscape or Star Office is invoked simply
do not understand how OS/2 works.
I agree that such behavior can be objectionable and programmers should
in most cases avoid using such devices and simply write better code
that will handle variable timing better, but the bottom line is that
the system keeps doing its thing even if the human interface is partly
blocked.
Over at my buddies house, when he burns a CD on his Windows system, he
doesn't dare even touch the mouse for a couple of hours.
yyyc186.il...@flashcom.net
at 11:09 AM, za...@omen.com.au (Mooo) said:
The problem is those things utilize the java run time and it doesn't play
well.
Roland
>mere_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>When I am unzipping or zipping massive archives,
>>cranking out PDFs and still working on a document of
>>some sort, I am multitasking in a serious way. And
>>this on a PC that is well behind the front line.
>sigh...
>Craig
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
yyy...@flashcom.net To Respond delete ".illegaltospam"
MR/2 Internet Cruiser 1.52
For a Microsoft free univers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ilya Zakharevich
<gl...@rockyhorror.Zkaroo.co.uk>],
who wrote in article <y7xHJI5dddgW-p...@dialup70.tattooine.kingston-internet.net>:
> So you're recomending we have multiple input queues hanging around in
> the background, taking up resources, just in case the one we're using
> locks up? How many should the average system create? What if all the
> input queues lock up? Should OS/2 keep creating more and more?
If this is required to avoid lockups: YES, OF COURSE. User shell
should never lockup on the user irreversibly.
> Making IBM recode the OS, possibly breaking many apps is a better
> solution is it?
It is breaking *all* the applications *now* [though I do not get many
lockups, 3 a year is 3 too many]. Including non-interactive ones,
since one is forced to reboot. And it is not recoding the OS, it is
just user interface shell.
Ilya
Mooo
>I think you'll see a download in the background doesn't stop when=20
>staroffice is launched.
Mmm, yes, good point.
> I think the lack of responsiveness when you=20=
>
>want to switch context as the program loads is intentional, something=20=
>
>a programmer can design into an application.=20
Why would you ever want to do this? Whilst the background tasks do,
in general, keep going, you cant change focus, or do anything else
useful whilst these apps 'do their thing'
>I have also found staroffice saves much faster to native format which=20=
>is what I work in UNTIL I am finished and then export (save as) Excel=20=
>so I can share the work with a Office user.
Yes, it is indeed faster in native format, but still dog slow. What
really interesting here is that the loading and saving is
significantly faster on an NT box, the background downloads still
continue and you can change the focus.
Why would this be (is my roundabout sort of question)? Is NT's
multitasking superior? Or is it, as I suspect, the OS/2 code is not
optimised at all?
>I would not think to try Staroffice on NT in 64 MB of RAM. I would=20
>expect a much more responsive OS/2 system IF we OS/2 users needed and=20=
>had the computer resources NT/office required.
K6400 with 114MB of RAM, ATA33 drives. I stuck the extra ram and CPU
in here because Staroffice was unusable with less.
>> Whats going on? For those that doubt, try running say Staroffice
>> under WinNT - its really fast in comparison to the OS/2 version...not=
>
>> a bit...a lot! Plus, saving, starting the program etc does not hog
>> the system, you can switch focus and do other stuff.
I cant. Not on any of the machines I've tried it on ranging from
233MHz-400MHz, and 64MB-128MB RAM. Even with WSeB. I have some
chance of changing focus only if I press ctl-esc, and its a gamble as
OS/2 often thinks the WPS has locked up if I do this during a
Staroffice (or Netscape) operation.
Cheers,
Craig
Marty
>
> > Though the next time a badly behaved app locks my whole
> > system up tighter than a drum, will you be headed over to the ISV
> > with a shotgun to make them recode it ?
>
> solution is it?
Moving from synchronous to async input queues should not break anything at the
application level.
Marty
>
> mere_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >When I am unzipping or zipping massive archives,
> >cranking out PDFs and still working on a document of
> >some sort, I am multitasking in a serious way. And
> >this on a PC that is well behind the front line.
>
> I thought I'd add to this thread with my 2c worth.
>
> On the topic of multitasking, I've noticed fairly recently that my
> newer OS/2 apps are not allowing multitasking as I'd expect, and not
> even as good as WinNT.
>
> To give examples, Staroffice and Netscape. Do something, nearly
> anything - including opening the programs to begin with, and you
> simply can't do anything else.
>
> These types of programs, which didnt exist years ago seem to be able
> to hog the system entirely.
This is quite true (the Netscape part at least, I don't use SO). I'm
thoroughly convinced that Netscape was coded in such a way as to utilize "back
doors" into the operating system. When Netscape trips up using one of these
back doors, it has horrible and weird effects on the system.
The reason I believe this is because when it has a problem of some kind, it
causes my system to do things that NO OTHER APPLICATION has ever caused my
system to do. For instance, one time when Netscape got messed up, I could no
longer move VIO windows by dragging the titlebars. This condition persisted
until I killed off Netscape. Another example is when it crashed a couple of
times, it took down my internet connection with it, even though I was still
physically connected. I had to reboot to regain connectivity. The latest
thing I've seen it do when it messes up is cause a SYS0008 (not enough memory)
to be issued when I try to launch certain apps even though I have nothing
loaded, persisting until I reboot (no matter how many apps I kill off). So I
don't believe Netscape was written the way a typical app should be written and
I'm not surprised at the way it can block out user interaction when it gets
busy.
Mooo
>You are absolutely correct Joseph. When people say your system locks
>up tighter than a drum when Netscape or Star Office is invoked simply
>do not understand how OS/2 works.
I guess in my case, the question is why does Nt not 'lock up'. I've
subscribed for a long time to the idea that OS/2 has really good
preemptive multitasking, certainly better than any win variant.
Whilst this may indeed be the case, I guess its not a lot of use to us
if the programs we run are so badly written as to nullify this
advantage.
>Over at my buddies house, when he burns a CD on his Windows system, he
>doesn't dare even touch the mouse for a couple of hours.
Hmm, I've not seen this with recent CDR software and NT. Win95 - for
sure, but NT..nope, its a big fat pig of an OS, but it does seem to
multitask reasonably well.
or
maybe it doesnt multitask as well as OS/2, but the programs written
for it have more care and attention lavished upon them so they end up
working better.
As you can tell, I've recently had to have a close look at NT for
various reasons not really related to this topic, and I've been
suprised. Nowhere near ready to give up my favourite OS and jump in
feet first with NT yet...but geez...
Craig
David T. Johnson
>
>
> >> Whats going on? For those that doubt, try running say Staroffice
> >> under WinNT - its really fast in comparison to the OS/2 version...not=
> >
> >> a bit...a lot! Plus, saving, starting the program etc does not hog
> >> the system, you can switch focus and do other stuff.
>
> I cant. Not on any of the machines I've tried it on ranging from
> 233MHz-400MHz, and 64MB-128MB RAM. Even with WSeB. I have some
> chance of changing focus only if I press ctl-esc, and its a gamble as
> OS/2 often thinks the WPS has locked up if I do this during a
> Staroffice (or Netscape) operation.
>
StarOffice 5.1 is slower on OS/2 than Lotus Smartsuite but I have never
had any trouble changing focus or having several multiple applications
in use. In fact, I am using SO right now along with Netscape. Once you
have SO open, it is a little slow with the dialog boxes and menus but
not painfully so. Where it is REALLY slow is in loading and starting.
I have used it on Red Hat Linux and it is slow there as well. I expect
that the relative slowness is related to the development tools and its
design architecture. But overall, a very usable and workable system on
OS/2. I have used it on OS/2 with a P133 and 64 MB and it works just
fine. It has never been so slow that the WPS seems locked up either to
me or OS/2. There must be something broken on your install.
Joseph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 2-5-00, 8:24:40 PM, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote regarding Re:
Using OS/2 More Than Ever!:
How did you determine that a modification wouldn't impact
applications. I recall that my Stardoc OS/2 game is dependent on the SIQ.
Joseph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 2-5-00, 8:10:20 PM, za...@omen.com.au (Mooo) wrote regarding Re:
Using OS/2 More Than Ever!:
> Joseph <jo...@ibm.net> wrote:
> >I think you'll see a download in the background doesn't stop when=20
> >staroffice is launched.
> Mmm, yes, good point.
> > I think the lack of responsiveness when you=20=
> >
> >want to switch context as the program loads is intentional,
something=20=
> >
> >a programmer can design into an application.=20
> Why would you ever want to do this? Whilst the background tasks do,
> in general, keep going, you cant change focus, or do anything else
> useful whilst these apps 'do their thing'
It's an option under windows programming also. The user is presented
with the clock/hour glass. The fellow I would ask for an answer - we
talked about this a long time ago and why it is done - is on vacation
but it's worth my asking again.
> >I have also found staroffice saves much faster to native format
which=20=
> >is what I work in UNTIL I am finished and then export (save as)
Excel=20=
> >so I can share the work with a Office user.
> Yes, it is indeed faster in native format, but still dog slow. What
> really interesting here is that the loading and saving is
> significantly faster on an NT box, the background downloads still
> continue and you can change the focus.
Could be the cache for NT. I don't run the app under NT nor NT.
> Why would this be (is my roundabout sort of question)? Is NT's
> multitasking superior? Or is it, as I suspect, the OS/2 code is not
> optimised at all?
NT's multitasking is not superior - tests with multitasking and
threads show OS/2 to have outstanding multitasking. Priorities for
multitasking can default the foreground task at a high priority and I
think NT has this setting. (background/foreground priorities were set
with DOS/DesqView386)
> >I would not think to try Staroffice on NT in 64 MB of RAM. I
would=20
> >expect a much more responsive OS/2 system IF we OS/2 users needed
and=20=
> >had the computer resources NT/office required.
> K6400 with 114MB of RAM, ATA33 drives. I stuck the extra ram and CPU
> in here because Staroffice was unusable with less.
Interesting. I run it with 64 MB.
> >> Whats going on? For those that doubt, try running say Staroffice
> >> under WinNT - its really fast in comparison to the OS/2
version...not=
> >
> >> a bit...a lot! Plus, saving, starting the program etc does not hog
> >> the system, you can switch focus and do other stuff.
> I cant. Not on any of the machines I've tried it on ranging from
> 233MHz-400MHz, and 64MB-128MB RAM. Even with WSeB. I have some
> chance of changing focus only if I press ctl-esc, and its a gamble as
> OS/2 often thinks the WPS has locked up if I do this during a
> Staroffice (or Netscape) operation.
I often boot with staroffice and there for it is running when I begin
my sessions
Marty
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> On 2-5-00, 8:24:40 PM, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote regarding Re:
> Using OS/2 More Than Ever!:
>
> > >
> > > > Though the next time a badly behaved app locks my whole
> > > > system up tighter than a drum, will you be headed over to the ISV
> > > > with a shotgun to make them recode it ?
> > >
> > > Making IBM recode the OS, possibly breaking many apps is a better
> > > solution is it?
>
> > Moving from synchronous to async input queues should not break
> > anything at the application level.
>
> How did you determine that a modification wouldn't impact
> applications. I recall that my Stardoc OS/2 game is dependent on the SIQ.
I don't see how it could be if it uses the standard API. The application's
message queue will still look the same and function the same, it will just
block less often. Do you recall the specifics on the game in question?
jbr...@aros.net
>As you can tell, I've recently had to have a close look at NT for various
>reasons not really related to this topic, and I've been suprised.
>Nowhere near ready to give up my favourite OS and jump in feet first with
>NT yet...but geez...
NT is better at protecting itself and other apps, so that when one goes
down, it does not take the system with it. However, it does not multitask
well at all, in fact I would not call it multitasking. Its still more like
W3.1 as far as sharing CPU and doing background tasks. I have to use it at
work, and it seldom needs a reset, although the apps crash pretty
regularly.
If you think NT can multitask smoothly, then just open the clock to the
desktop and watch it. It cannot even update the clock on a regular basis.
That is sad.
John
Jack Troughton
>Joseph <jo...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
>>I think you'll see a download in the background doesn't stop when=20
>>staroffice is launched.
>
>Mmm, yes, good point.
>
>
>> I think the lack of responsiveness when you=20=
>>
>>want to switch context as the program loads is intentional, something=20=
>>
>>a programmer can design into an application.=20
>
>Why would you ever want to do this? Whilst the background tasks do,
>in general, keep going, you cant change focus, or do anything else
>useful whilst these apps 'do their thing'
Hmmm... I just tried starting Staroffice and then double-clicking a
desktop icon. The folder popped up well before Staroffice made its
appearance on the scene. Maybe you should try that? I've got a P200
w/ 64MB RAM here.
>>I have also found staroffice saves much faster to native format which=20=
>>is what I work in UNTIL I am finished and then export (save as) Excel=20=
>>so I can share the work with a Office user.
>
>Yes, it is indeed faster in native format, but still dog slow. What
>really interesting here is that the loading and saving is
>significantly faster on an NT box, the background downloads still
>continue and you can change the focus.
I don't seem to be having a problem here with changing focus. Heck,
I'm typing this as it loads up to its desktop.... Now I'm typing as I
load up a big doc.... Now I'm typing as I save the doc. This is all
happening while I'm in swap, too; I've got a lot of apps constantly
running on this box (see sig below); for example, my little personal
website is running in a ram disk. Heh, I'm also listening to some
university in Ohio's radio station over shoutcast:) It isn't even
difficult for me to switch in and out from SO while it's doing
stuff...
Staroffice does steal the focus once it's done starting or loading a
document, which is being badly behaved in my opinion. That's
definitely an app issue, though.
>Why would this be (is my roundabout sort of question)? Is NT's
>multitasking superior? Or is it, as I suspect, the OS/2 code is not
>optimised at all?
I'm willing to bet that it would behave exactly the same on an NT box;
ie- it'll steal the focus once certain activities have completed.
>>I would not think to try Staroffice on NT in 64 MB of RAM. I would=20
>>expect a much more responsive OS/2 system IF we OS/2 users needed and=20=
>>had the computer resources NT/office required.
>
>K6400 with 114MB of RAM, ATA33 drives. I stuck the extra ram and CPU
>in here because Staroffice was unusable with less.
I've got a lot less here, and it's not behaving as you describe. BTW-
have you tried DeScribe? It's really good; its typesetting
capabilities are very very good indeed, putting pretty much all other
wps I've tried to shame.
>>> Whats going on? For those that doubt, try running say Staroffice
>>> under WinNT - its really fast in comparison to the OS/2 version...not=
>>
>>> a bit...a lot! Plus, saving, starting the program etc does not hog
>>> the system, you can switch focus and do other stuff.
>
>I cant. Not on any of the machines I've tried it on ranging from
>233MHz-400MHz, and 64MB-128MB RAM. Even with WSeB. I have some
>chance of changing focus only if I press ctl-esc, and its a gamble as
>OS/2 often thinks the WPS has locked up if I do this during a
>Staroffice (or Netscape) operation.
I don't know Craig; my machine is just not behaving as you say. I'll
grant you that Staroffice is a resource hog, but it sure isn't locking
the focus in the way that you talk about. Which version are you
running? I've got the Sun version (5.1a) here, with all the fixes
applied. Or else perhaps there's some way in which your system could
use some optimization? Do you have the Async Focus Change set on the
User Interface page of the System Properties notebook? I suppose that
might make some difference...
--
----------------------------------------------------------
* Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
* http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
* Montréal PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 2-5-00, 10:03:03 PM, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote regarding Re:
Using OS/2 More Than Ever!:
> Joseph wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> >
> > On 2-5-00, 8:24:40 PM, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote regarding Re:
> > Using OS/2 More Than Ever!:
> >
> > > Glen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Though the next time a badly behaved app locks my whole
> > > > > system up tighter than a drum, will you be headed over to the ISV
> > > > > with a shotgun to make them recode it ?
> > > >
> > > > Making IBM recode the OS, possibly breaking many apps is a better
> > > > solution is it?
> >
> > > Moving from synchronous to async input queues should not break
> > > anything at the application level.
> >
> > How did you determine that a modification wouldn't impact
> > applications. I recall that my Stardoc OS/2 game is dependent on the
SIQ.
> I don't see how it could be if it uses the standard API. The
application's
> message queue will still look the same and function the same, it will
just
> block less often. Do you recall the specifics on the game in
question?
I recall the developer telling us on COOA that the app was built
assuming an SIQ.
Marty
>
> [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to Marty
> <mam...@stny.rr.com>],
> who wrote in article <389C9E17...@stny.rr.com>:
> > I don't see how it could be if it uses the standard API. The application's
> > message queue will still look the same and function the same, it will just
> > block less often. Do you recall the specifics on the game in question?
>
> of WPS. The controller needs a single point to insert/catch
> messages. [Well, *the existing* implementations of such controllers.]
I wasn't discussing single/multiple input queues. I was discussing
synchronous/async input queues. I don't see how switching to an async queue
could break a standard application.
> Another standard example: when you know that a window *is going* to be
> created, you may start typing, though the window is not on screen yet.
> I think many applications depend on this behaviour.
That should be shell-specific behavior. If the window doesn't have the window
focus yet (which it must acknowledge in its message queue) then input should
not be directed toward it. If the shell knows that the app is in a
transitionary state being created, it can enact some special behavior to queue
up the input itself and send later if it wishes to preserve the input. I
think if it's properly done, no applications need to break moving from
synchronous to async input queues.
Joseph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 2-5-00, 6:04:20 PM, "David T. Johnson" <djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote
regarding Re: Using OS/2 More Than Ever!:
> Mooo wrote:
> >
> >
> > >> Whats going on? For those that doubt, try running say Staroffice
> > >> under WinNT - its really fast in comparison to the OS/2
version...not=
> > >
> > >> a bit...a lot! Plus, saving, starting the program etc does not hog
> > >> the system, you can switch focus and do other stuff.
> >
> > I cant. Not on any of the machines I've tried it on ranging from
> > 233MHz-400MHz, and 64MB-128MB RAM. Even with WSeB. I have some
> > chance of changing focus only if I press ctl-esc, and its a gamble as
> > OS/2 often thinks the WPS has locked up if I do this during a
> > Staroffice (or Netscape) operation.
> >
> StarOffice 5.1 is slower on OS/2 than Lotus Smartsuite but I have
never
> had any trouble changing focus or having several multiple applications
> in use. In fact, I am using SO right now along with Netscape. Once
you
> have SO open, it is a little slow with the dialog boxes and menus but
> not painfully so. Where it is REALLY slow is in loading and starting.
> I have used it on Red Hat Linux and it is slow there as well. I
expect
> that the relative slowness is related to the development tools and its
> design architecture. But overall, a very usable and workable system
on
> OS/2. I have used it on OS/2 with a P133 and 64 MB and it works just
> fine. It has never been so slow that the WPS seems locked up either
to
> me or OS/2. There must be something broken on your install.
StarOffice began as a library of cross platform development "APIs"
which the vendor used to build a suite. The suite got so much interest
the vendor began to sell the suite.
The OS/2 version is sitting on an abstraction layer, the API, as are
the other SO versions. While I find it does start slowly, I often
have it begin as OS/2 boots, it runs very well as a tool. SO
files/filters also inter change well with MS Office with the exception
of powerpoint.
Also Powerpoint97 on Windows95 OSR2 with 128MB of RAM will suck up
resources so badly that one cannot use Excel and Word. PPT 97 also
will often crash the system if Netscape 4.61 is running. I don't have
this kind of incompatibilities on OS/2.
I'd like to see a better browser in SO but the rest of the system
including the mail and newsreader are enjoyable. Oh - way to import
netscape address books would be a great addition.
Tansong Isda (d'OS/2 guy)
>
> On the topic of multitasking, I've noticed fairly recently that my
> newer OS/2 apps are not allowing multitasking as I'd expect, and not
> even as good as WinNT.
>
> To give examples, Staroffice and Netscape. Do something, nearly
> anything - including opening the programs to begin with, and you
> simply can't do anything else.
>
> sigh...
>
> Craig
I am not a regular here, but I lurk trying to get as much as
possible from other OS/2 users, but I have tried the combo
of Star-Office and netscape <or with IE on NT on win9X, it
simply can't handle both>...
Those combination tends to lock up on me, the problem is
staroffice itself, it takes over the whole desktop<the whole
GUI processes, once it's open, a whole messload of threads
opens up as well, taxing the computer's resources. I remoced
the program from my computer. It is a good suite,
unfortunately, it is a hog>.
This is just my take nothing against staroffice, netscape I
have to believe is an unfinished program hurriedly put out
there to compete against IE, since they're giving it away.
Marty
>
> It isn't really bad programs as much as poor choices of APIs by the
> program developers for the few programs that do this.
It's so amusing to witness Bobo trying to speak on topics about which he
doesn't have a clue.
David T. Johnson
>
>
> StarOffice began as a library of cross platform development "APIs"
> which the vendor used to build a suite. The suite got so much interest
> the vendor began to sell the suite.
I can see why...it is a really well laid out arrangement.
>
> The OS/2 version is sitting on an abstraction layer, the API, as are
> the other SO versions. While I find it does start slowly, I often
> have it begin as OS/2 boots, it runs very well as a tool. SO
> files/filters also inter change well with MS Office with the exception
> of powerpoint.
>
> Also Powerpoint97 on Windows95 OSR2 with 128MB of RAM will suck up
> resources so badly that one cannot use Excel and Word. PPT 97 also
> will often crash the system if Netscape 4.61 is running. I don't have
> this kind of incompatibilities on OS/2.
I don't either. Star Office is really a workhorse.
Joseph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 2-6-00, 1:26:16 AM, When in LA wrote regarding Re: Using OS/2 More
Than Ever!:
> I have a BM system with NT 4 and Warp 4. I am considering switching
> over but every time I do I find an OS/2 solution that lets me keep
> going. Interestingly the new solutions are turning out to be Java
> solutions. I am running Java ICQ for instance and recently when I
> bought a Palm Pilot, I found a Java pilot solution, but I haven't
> installed it yet. Have my palm pilot backup on the NT system, but
> will look at the Palm java solution if I need it for more than that.
I sync my Palm with a Windows 95 PC but I us it to sync with
http://www.anyday.com. This way I can access my info (address list,
to-do and calendar) from any PC including OS/2 and while on travel.
My wife can also access the calendar which demonstrates why a PC based
paradigm for data storage and access is inferior to a web based model
accessible via multiple devices. If anyday.com goes belly up or
changes then I have my Palm and can sync to another system since the
Palm has a full copy of what I need.
Ilya Zakharevich
<mam...@stny.rr.com>],
who wrote in article <389C9E17...@stny.rr.com>:
> I don't see how it could be if it uses the standard API. The application's
> message queue will still look the same and function the same, it will just
> block less often. Do you recall the specifics on the game in question?
One application which was reported to depend on SIQ is voice control
of WPS. The controller needs a single point to insert/catch
messages. [Well, *the existing* implementations of such controllers.]
Another standard example: when you know that a window *is going* to be
created, you may start typing, though the window is not on screen yet.
I think many applications depend on this behaviour.
Ilya
when_in_la
|When in LA wrote:
|
|>You are absolutely correct Joseph. When people say your system locks
|>up tighter than a drum when Netscape or Star Office is invoked simply
|>do not understand how OS/2 works.
|
|I guess in my case, the question is why does Nt not 'lock up'. I've
|subscribed for a long time to the idea that OS/2 has really good
|preemptive multitasking, certainly better than any win variant.
|
|Whilst this may indeed be the case, I guess its not a lot of use to us
|if the programs we run are so badly written as to nullify this
|advantage.
It does not nullify it where it really counts though. What you want
is dependability first, the ability to multitask on the interface
second and that is the way OS/2 is designed. For the sake of being
able to develop time sensitive programs, IBM gave programmers the
ability to monopolize CPU cycles for system non-time crucial events.
It isn't really bad programs as much as poor choices of APIs by the
program developers for the few programs that do this.
|>Over at my buddies house, when he burns a CD on his Windows system, he
|>doesn't dare even touch the mouse for a couple of hours.
|
|Hmm, I've not seen this with recent CDR software and NT. Win95 - for
|sure, but NT..nope, its a big fat pig of an OS, but it does seem to
|multitask reasonably well.
Never been a problem on OS/2.
|
|or
|
|maybe it doesnt multitask as well as OS/2, but the programs written
|for it have more care and attention lavished upon them so they end up
|working better.
No doubt true in many cases.
|As you can tell, I've recently had to have a close look at NT for
|various reasons not really related to this topic, and I've been
|suprised. Nowhere near ready to give up my favourite OS and jump in
|feet first with NT yet...but geez...
I have a BM system with NT 4 and Warp 4. I am considering switching
Buddy Donnelly
snip
>
> BTW-
> have you tried DeScribe? It's really good; its typesetting
> capabilities are very very good indeed, putting pretty much all other
> wps I've tried to shame.
Mention also that DeScribe is not just very good at typesetting, and
general DTP functions for text-oriented publishing, but is a
Clydesdale of a text manager. The best Unlimited UNDO function I've
ever seen, completely settable to work in conjunction with timed
auto-backups and separately-maintained "snapshots".
And the UNDO isn't just UNDOing text changes step by step, it walks
back to show you Style changes you might have made, all WYSIWYG, as
well as changes in picture elements.
One of the most amazing aspects of UNDO is that you can grab items to
the clipboard while you're someplace backwards in time, then pop back
forward and paste them into the current version however you want. This
kind of memory management would bring other systems to their
electronic knees. What you'd expect from a PC desktop program put
together by the creators of a major newpaper editorial system, used by
the L.A.Times and Washington Post, System Integrators "System 55".
--
Good luck,
Buddy
Buddy Donnelly
donn...@tampabay.rr.com
Ilya Zakharevich
> > One application which was reported to depend on SIQ is voice control
> > of WPS. The controller needs a single point to insert/catch
> > messages. [Well, *the existing* implementations of such controllers.]
>
> synchronous/async input queues.
Me too.
> I don't see how switching to an async queue could break a standard
> application.
SIQ means that until you received focus-change message, all messages
in the system are yours. This is possible to check using the standard
API. It is possible to design an application around this assumption
and implement it via standard API.
[This info is directly from the horse's mouse. I've never coded
anything harder than if (WinPeekMsg()) ....]
Ilya
when_in_la
|
|
|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
|
|On 2-6-00, 1:26:16 AM, When in LA wrote regarding Re: Using OS/2 More
|Than Ever!:
|
|
|> I have a BM system with NT 4 and Warp 4. I am considering switching
|> over but every time I do I find an OS/2 solution that lets me keep
|> going. Interestingly the new solutions are turning out to be Java
|> solutions. I am running Java ICQ for instance and recently when I
|> bought a Palm Pilot, I found a Java pilot solution, but I haven't
|> installed it yet. Have my palm pilot backup on the NT system, but
|> will look at the Palm java solution if I need it for more than that.
|
|I sync my Palm with a Windows 95 PC but I us it to sync with
|http://www.anyday.com. This way I can access my info (address list,
|to-do and calendar) from any PC including OS/2 and while on travel.
|My wife can also access the calendar which demonstrates why a PC based
|paradigm for data storage and access is inferior to a web based model
|accessible via multiple devices. If anyday.com goes belly up or
|changes then I have my Palm and can sync to another system since the
|Palm has a full copy of what I need.
I agree that this is the eventual direction.
Thanks for the info, I will check it out.
Marty
Ok. I have to think about it some more, but it sounds feasible. I know I've
never written an app based on that assumption and I don't quite see the
advantage to doing so, but it is conceivable that it has been done before.
Perhaps this problem could be worked around by emulating this behavior in the
async environment? But could that be done without reverting back to
essentially synchronous operation? Hmmm...
Buddy Donnelly
>
> I sync my Palm with a Windows 95 PC but I us it to sync with
> http://www.anyday.com. This way I can access my info (address list,
> to-do and calendar) from any PC including OS/2 and while on travel.
> My wife can also access the calendar which demonstrates why a PC based
> paradigm for data storage
Storage? I think the operative term is Data Mining.
> and access is inferior to a web based model
> accessible via multiple devices. If anyday.com goes belly up or
> changes then I have my Palm and can sync to another system since the
> Palm has a full copy of what I need.
Why would someone provide day-to-day personal information to a
website? Security begins by not doing obviously insecure things.
Or has this anyday site conquered all possible fears, including those
that pop off the top of my head when I read about this?
Mooo
>It does not nullify it where it really counts though. What you want
>is dependability first,
An admirable quality, and one I've espoused many times.
> the ability to multitask on the interface
>second and that is the way OS/2 is designed.
Hmm, yes, but does having one mean you have to have the other? Can we
not have a dependable back end and a responsive front end? Certainly
most of the OS/2 apps I've used for years seem to be responsive and
have a small footprint. Recently, this has all changed, not the apps
are as big if not bigger than the win32 equivalents, and offer far
worse performance.
>I have a BM system with NT 4 and Warp 4. I am considering switching
>over but every time I do I find an OS/2 solution that lets me keep
>going. Interestingly the new solutions are turning out to be Java
>solutions. I am running Java ICQ for instance and recently when I
>bought a Palm Pilot, I found a Java pilot solution, but I haven't
>installed it yet. Have my palm pilot backup on the NT system, but
>will look at the Palm java solution if I need it for more than that.
Java has not interested me to any degree. I've tried a few things and
a few versions of the JAVA engine but invariably the experience has
crashed my machine totally.
Maybe, with the current state of the nation re modern OS/2
applications IBM is actually on the right (ie, realistic) track. Keep
OS/2 for server, but let it die on the desktop? Certainly, if one
must trade, a dependable back end is a must on a server, whereas the
user interface can be less responsive.
Craig
Mooo
>NT is better at protecting itself and other apps, so that when one goes
>down, it does not take the system with it.
Okay, but not the only thing. Its able to multitask in the way I
think of when I think 'multitask'. ie, I can switch focus at any time
to another application.
My workings with Os/2 over the years used to be able to do this - but
recently not.
A couple of folks in this thread have set me straight. Os/2 does
indeed multitask better. Examples where that ftp does not stop in the
background even though I may seem to be locked out of the WPS.
I'm prepared to go along with the idea the NT does not multitask as
well - for instance, in 1280x1024, moving a large window around the
screen causes dialup networking to drop bytes (smile).
However, theres a lot to be said for making a user feel comfortable I
think. Except for garish examples like above, NT 'feels' like its
multitasking better. When OS/2's WPs locks up for about 30 seconds due
to a Staroffice autosave or some other thing its comforting to know
that all is going well behind the scenes, but really....should I have
to put up with this sort of behaviour?
> However, it does not multitask
>well at all, in fact I would not call it multitasking. Its still more like
>W3.1 as far as sharing CPU and doing background tasks.
Well, I dont think its that bad. I guess with its early roots based
in OS/2 V1.x its got to be a whole lot better than win3.1x's
cooperative multitasking.
I'm coming across as a bit of an NT advocate in this thread, its not
really true. But it annoys me that even though the engine and
suspension 'under the hood' in OS/2 may be the best available, if the
fuel is stuffed you aint going nowhere...
It strikes me that as the 'new' apps for OS/2 start exhibiting this
sort of crummy behaviour that it will just add to the illusion that
OS/2 is inferior in some way, which drives users away, and the cycle
completes. Less users, developers put even less effort into
optimising OS/2 apps, the performace gets even worse, and more users
leave.
sigh...
Craig
Mooo
>I'd like to see a better browser in SO but the rest of the system=20
>including the mail and newsreader are enjoyable. Oh - way to import=20=
>
>netscape address books would be a great addition.
I've had to finally give up on SO 5.1a. I fooled about with it for
about 7 months but it seems to have a knack of leaving native
documents in an unopenable state. This is true of the OS/2 and win32
versions.
What happens is that a document you have just finished working on (and
saved) cannot be opened, SO crashes with an 'unrecoverable error'.
Its a nice free app to tool around with, but for business use, this
sort of behaviour in unacceptable.
I'm looking forward however to new versions, though the current
chatter would seem to indicate that there are compiler problems
preventing a V5.2 for OS/2
Craig
Mooo
>>Why would you ever want to do this? Whilst the background tasks do,
>>in general, keep going, you cant change focus, or do anything else
>>useful whilst these apps 'do their thing'
>
>Hmmm... I just tried starting Staroffice and then double-clicking a
>desktop icon. The folder popped up well before Staroffice made its
>appearance on the scene. Maybe you should try that? I've got a P200
>w/ 64MB RAM here.
I've been working with SO for months and have never been able to do
things like this. My general workhorse machine has 80MB, K6-400.
Started my SO experience on this machine running Warp4, now using WSeB
and its the same.
>>Yes, it is indeed faster in native format, but still dog slow. What
>>really interesting here is that the loading and saving is
>>significantly faster on an NT box, the background downloads still
>>continue and you can change the focus.
>
>I don't seem to be having a problem here with changing focus. Heck,
>I'm typing this as it loads up to its desktop.... Now I'm typing as I
>load up a big doc.... Now I'm typing as I save the doc. This is all
>happening while I'm in swap, too; I've got a lot of apps constantly
>running on this box (see sig below); for example, my little personal
>website is running in a ram disk. Heh, I'm also listening to some
>university in Ohio's radio station over shoutcast:) It isn't even
>difficult for me to switch in and out from SO while it's doing
>stuff...
Really? I've never been able to do this - ever, on any machine I've
tried it on. Have you got OS/2 set up differently to me? I routinely
set things up with DOS/Winos2 installed - perhaps you are running in
protected only mode?
I've run it on heaps of machines too, up to128MB ram, and PIII 400's
>>Why would this be (is my roundabout sort of question)? Is NT's
>>multitasking superior? Or is it, as I suspect, the OS/2 code is not
>>optimised at all?
>
>I'm willing to bet that it would behave exactly the same on an NT box;
>ie- it'll steal the focus once certain activities have completed.
Not that I've noticed so far. Also, saving, loading and launching the
SO application is a lot faster (maybe 2x as fast) on the same machine
running NT as opposed to OS/2 Warp4 or WSeB.
>>K6400 with 114MB of RAM, ATA33 drives. I stuck the extra ram and CPU
>>in here because Staroffice was unusable with less.
>
>I've got a lot less here, and it's not behaving as you describe. BTW-
>have you tried DeScribe? It's really good; its typesetting
>capabilities are very very good indeed, putting pretty much all other
>wps I've tried to shame.
No, I've not tried describe. The company went under before I had a
chance to get a copy. As its not current, I probably wont use it as I
tend to want to use software that I can sell or at least recommend to
my clients.
>>I cant. Not on any of the machines I've tried it on ranging from
>>233MHz-400MHz, and 64MB-128MB RAM. Even with WSeB. I have some
>>chance of changing focus only if I press ctl-esc, and its a gamble as
>>OS/2 often thinks the WPS has locked up if I do this during a
>>Staroffice (or Netscape) operation.
>
>I don't know Craig; my machine is just not behaving as you say. I'll
>grant you that Staroffice is a resource hog, but it sure isn't locking
>the focus in the way that you talk about.
This is news! Anyone else got a comment? I'm very open to the idea
that I may be hampering my OS/2's ability to focus change somehow -
but I've been using and optimising OS/2 for years so it escapes me as
to what I could do.
I use Staoffice as an example here because its possibly the worst
offender. Netscape does the same thing as does Pmmail.
Other things (possibly better written?) like ghostview do not do this,
they seem to act as you'd expect (ie, very nicely thanks) even with
huge documents.
> Which version are you
>running? I've got the Sun version (5.1a) here, with all the fixes
>applied.
I'm also running 5.1a, but am unaware of any fixes.
> Or else perhaps there's some way in which your system could
>use some optimization? Do you have the Async Focus Change set on the
>User Interface page of the System Properties notebook? I suppose that
>might make some difference...
Yes, I do have this set - is it a kludge? I've been running this
option ever since it became available on a fixpack for Warp3 and have
not ever (I think) removed it - perhaps I should get rid of this
option.
Craig
postm...@127.0.0.1
02/06/00
>Why would someone provide day-to-day personal information to a website?
>Security begins by not doing obviously insecure things.
>Or has this anyday site conquered all possible fears, including those
>that pop off the top of my head when I read about this?
This would be my concern as well. Does anyday.com also provide "security"
for all of those hidden files on my Palm Pilot?
--
GK
FrodoJRR at Interaccess dot com
OS/2 Version 4.00 FixPack 12
There are 33 Processes with 123 Threads.
This machine's uptime is 1d 21h 16m 16s 101ms.
Buddy Donnelly
> In <jORXtcYCR8l4-p...@SPHERICALBURN.TAMPABAY.RR.COM>, on
> 02/06/00
> at 04:09 PM, donn...@tampabay.rr.com (Buddy Donnelly) said:
>
> >Why would someone provide day-to-day personal information to a website?
> >Security begins by not doing obviously insecure things.
>
> >Or has this anyday site conquered all possible fears, including those
> >that pop off the top of my head when I read about this?
>
> This would be my concern as well. Does anyday.com also provide "security"
> for all of those hidden files on my Palm Pilot?
This begs the point. (Sorry, no disrespect intended of parties
attendant.)
This begs the point, because I don't even trust ANYDAY.COM or whoever
to have that info in the first place.
Intuit's current tax program offers faster refund "electronic filing"
with the IRS, but of course, the returns have to be uploaded to
Intuit's website. Fuck assurances that might have been acceptable to
the proven known crooks at the IRS, I don't trust Intuit to have that
info in any way, shape or form. So I'll file paper copies and Intuit
be damned.
There's one thing you can trust. "Take it to the bank" as Baretta
(remember him? Stephen J. Cannell, actually) used to say. Corporations
will misuse anything that gets into their hands. Be it products with
established brand names, or economic power (too big to fail) or
private information.
These sites owned by multi-national conglomerates who say, we won't
give this out to other companies? They really mean, companies outside
US. We'll give it to our insurance salesmen to call you, to our
encyclopedia salesmen to call you, whatever.
[I'm sick of the whole thing. There are only two corporations I trust
somewhat anymore, Southwest Airlines and Ben & Jerry's. Anybody know
of any more that have proven, over time, that they won't use *today*
to screw you?]
Will Honea
wrote:
> [I'm sick of the whole thing. There are only two corporations I trust
> somewhat anymore, Southwest Airlines and Ben & Jerry's. Anybody know
> of any more that have proven, over time, that they won't use *today*
> to screw you?]
>
You're two up on me, then, but AMEN! to the sentiment.
--
Will Honea <who...@codenet.net>
Michael Taylor
>
> >As you can tell, I've recently had to have a close look at NT for various
> >reasons not really related to this topic, and I've been suprised.
> >Nowhere near ready to give up my favourite OS and jump in feet first with
> >NT yet...but geez...
>
> well at all, in fact I would not call it multitasking. Its still more like
> work, and it seldom needs a reset, although the apps crash pretty
> regularly.
>
We have NT 4 on most PCs at work except mine which is Warp 4. We all do
the same things. Compiling, Lotus Notes etc. The difference is that whilst
the NT boxes are compiling the users don't do anything else. I, meanwhile,
switch to Notes, browse the net etc with only a slight slowdown.
I didn't realise that NT was so bad until I was working on a problem
at someone elses PC and they did nothing else after starting a compile
(these compiles are full builds and take ten minutes or so). I asked him
and he said there was no point because even if he switched to Notes or
Netscape the response was too slow anyway. We now have SMP boxes and our
boss changed our builds to do things in parallel and thus killed the NT
responsiveness again :-) It only sped up the full NT build time by two
minutes (1 hour 50 minutes!!!).
However the NT boxes tend to stay up longer than my OS/2 box as once a
week I have to reboot as the desktop stops responding or I cannot kill
a task. The NT boxes sometimes have unkillable tasks but they don't have
desktop hangs.
--
Regards, Michael Taylor
Mike mi...@interact.net.au
-------------------------------------------------
Home Page: http://users.interact.net.au/~pmiy
-------------------------------------------------
Ilya Zakharevich
<jgl...@spamgone-borg.com>],
who wrote in article <389e8a22...@news.borg.com>:
> In my opinion, such applications are incorrectly written for a
> multitasking system -- a kludge to work around implementing a more
> robust scheme for sharing resources among applications. I say "break
> them". For a multi-tasking OS, they're worthless programs as written
They function as desired. What makes them worthless?
Ilya
Todd
"Joseph" <jo...@ibm.net> wrote in message news:38965890...@ibm.net...
>
>
> ThermoDynamic wrote:
> >
> > mere_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > Using OS/2 More Than Ever!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >
> > > 1993. Here it is 2000 and I am still using OS/2. In
> > > fact, I am using it more than ever.
> > >
> > > This is because of
> > > - the importance of the Internet, which in many ways
> > > makes the OS you use at home irrelevent, thus
> > > removing "peer pressure" from OS/2 users
> >
> > Tell me when Quake III for Java arrives and doesn't require a bloody
> > Cray in order to run it adequately.
>
> Yeah! With W2K you'll only need a 700 Mhz
> Pentium.
Hmmm... I'm doing just fine with 500 Mhz... and I'm getting *very* high
frame rates with my GeForce 256...
Oh, now I can play D3D games as well... hehe.
W2k is faster than NT... you don't need a faster processor, you can get by
with less than you needed for NT.
-Todd
>
>
> Hey wise guy, are you sure you're not Endomorphic?
Jeff Sumner
anymore, and can't be hacked the same way.
On Sun, 6 Feb 2000 06:27:19, il...@math.ohio-state.edu (Ilya
Zakharevich) wrote:
> [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to Marty
> <mam...@stny.rr.com>],
> who wrote in article <389CCDA5...@stny.rr.com>:
> > > One application which was reported to depend on SIQ is voice control
> > > of WPS. The controller needs a single point to insert/catch
> > > messages. [Well, *the existing* implementations of such controllers.]
> >
> > I wasn't discussing single/multiple input queues. I was discussing
> > synchronous/async input queues.
>
> Me too.
>
> > I don't see how switching to an async queue could break a standard
> > application.
>
> SIQ means that until you received focus-change message, all messages
> in the system are yours. This is possible to check using the standard
> API. It is possible to design an application around this assumption
> and implement it via standard API.
>
> [This info is directly from the horse's mouse. I've never coded
> anything harder than if (WinPeekMsg()) ....]
>
> Ilya
Jeff Sumner
processing in the event handling loop, possibly blocking on device
calls, that allows the application to sieze control of the PM input
queue, and seemingly, the whole system.
The secret solution is to learn Effective Multithreading Techniques
early in one's career and write as if one is on a generous
multitasking system. Don't be rude to the OS!
Kim Cheung
>Easy. If a system has an async queue, hooks don't work the same
>anymore, and can't be hacked the same way.
...that...and a whole lot more.
Imagine an application that's written somewhat serial minded (99% of the
"Windows" style applications, may be?) By using the post message rather
than send message, they can assume (and often do) that certain things occurs
in a certain sequence. Now, all of a sudden, messages are coming at you
left and right, with no control on the sequence at which these messages will
be coming at you, guess how many packages were designed to handle things that
way?
Mentore Siesto
JS >Easy. If a system has an async queue, hooks don't work the same
JS >anymore, and can't be hacked the same way.
JS >
JS >> who wrote in article <389CCDA5...@stny.rr.com>:
JS >> > > One application which was reported to depend on SIQ is voice control
JS >> > > of WPS. The controller needs a single point to insert/catch
JS >> > > messages. [Well, *the existing* implementations of such controllers.]
JS >> >
JS >> > I wasn't discussing single/multiple input queues. I was discussing
JS >> > synchronous/async input queues.
JS >>
JS >> Me too.
JS >>
JS >> > I don't see how switching to an async queue could break a standard
JS >> > application.
JS >>
JS >> SIQ means that until you received focus-change message, all messages
JS >> in the system are yours. This is possible to check using the standard
JS >> API. It is possible to design an application around this assumption
JS >> and implement it via standard API.
In managing the queue, the Client window procedure can mask messages that
are going into its queue. The queue can be set to how many messages you
want (10 being the default), and it is possible to exlude from one to ALL
messages, to be sure the client window procedure will process only the
messages it needs.
--
Mentore Siesto
Team OS/2 Italia
Home page (in allestimento):
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/8592/index.html
J. R. Fox
> >Probably the last Win-16 version of Textbridge Pro, long off the market ..
> >. . although you might find one used on Ebay, from Recycled Software, or
> >somewhere like that.
>
> The last one was TextBridge 3.1 -- If so, and as a former beta-tester and
> user of Textbridge -- and without wanting to start a flame -- I can state
> that anyone who thinks the Calera stuff that came in Faxworks Pro is better
> then TB 3.1 is simply not believable.
>
> I would have to see the documents that you got the better results with to
> figure out why Calera came or seemed to come out better to know why anyone
> said it was. The Calera engine was one of two leading OCR packages, until
> Textbrigde just about put it out of business because of far better accuracy.
> The standard OCR tests conducted by UNLV never found the Calera engine to be
> anywhere as accurate as the Xerox engine -- so there is objective support
> for the claims.
>
> BTW, TB 3.1 runs fine under Win-OS2 and it runs about 25% faster then the
> Win95 version that was released at the same time. All of the W95 whatever
> versions are a true 32bit program that will not run under Win-OS2. At the
> same time, the OCR engine in ver 3.1 was identical to the Win95 engine. I'm
> sure they have worked on the engine in the past few years, and I have not
> tested the newer versions, but most of the new stuff looks like nice added
> "toys" that are not part of the OCR engine.
Interesting info. I could easily be wrong about this, but I think the solo
TextBridge product may have ceased a while back, instead absorbed into the Pagis
Pro Suite of programs, which must be 32 bit and can't possibly run under
Win-OS/2. This could be the only TextBridge successor.
<jfox>
M. Tucker
mi...@interact.net.au (Michael Taylor) wrote:
>jbr...@aros.net writes:
>>
>
>However the NT boxes tend to stay up longer than my OS/2 box as once a
>week I have to reboot as the desktop stops responding or I cannot kill
>a task. The NT boxes sometimes have unkillable tasks but they don't have
>desktop hangs.
>
behavior if you are able to telnet into the OS/2 machine from somewhere
else on the network and kill the offending process with something like
go.exe.
A trick I learned on unix many years ago.
Mark
mark (at) tucker (dot) net
jbr...@aros.net
>>jbr...@aros.net writes:
>>>
>>
>>However the NT boxes tend to stay up longer than my OS/2 box as once a
>>week I have to reboot as the desktop stops responding or I cannot kill
>>a task. The NT boxes sometimes have unkillable tasks but they don't have
>>desktop hangs.
Hey folks, let's watch how we trim out the posts. I didn't say this :-)
However, I tend to agree about NT not hanging up, but OTOH, I do have to
simply shut down and reboot NT twice a week because the swapfile grows out
of sight and won't come back, and the machine turns into molasses until I
shut it down, so there is that, and OS/2 does get hung once a week or so,
so I guess its about a tie from that point of view.
I used to be able to run Warp4 for months without having to reboot, but
since FP12, I see that FM2 locks the system hard at random points. Too bad
as FM2 is was of my favorite OS/2 apps. :(
John
Trevor Hemsley
> In article <c1.2b5.2Tv8Wf$0...@INTERACT.NET.AU>,
> mi...@interact.net.au (Michael Taylor) wrote:
> >jbr...@aros.net writes:
> >>
> >
> >However the NT boxes tend to stay up longer than my OS/2 box as once a
> >week I have to reboot as the desktop stops responding or I cannot kill
> >a task. The NT boxes sometimes have unkillable tasks but they don't have
> >desktop hangs.
> >
> One thing I've noticed recently is that you can recover much of this
> behavior if you are able to telnet into the OS/2 machine from somewhere
> else on the network and kill the offending process with something like
> go.exe.
Or use NET ADMIN \\machinename /C processkiller.exe /pid=123 on
machines that you don't want to run the telnet daemon on but do have
Peer installed.
Removed c.o.o.advocacy from followup list, we get enough overspill as
it is.
--
Trevor Hemsley, Brighton, UK.
Trevor-...@dial.pipex.com or 75704...@compuserve.com
jbr...@aros.net
06:30 PM,
jack.tr...@nospam.videotron.ca (Jack Troughton) said:
>On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 06:18:51, jbr...@aros.net wrote:
>>
>>>>jbr...@aros.net writes:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>However the NT boxes tend to stay up longer than my OS/2 box as once a
>>>>week I have to reboot as the desktop stops responding or I cannot kill
>>>>a task. The NT boxes sometimes have unkillable tasks but they don't have
>>>>desktop hangs.
>>
>>Hey folks, let's watch how we trim out the posts. I didn't say this :-)
>>
>>However, I tend to agree about NT not hanging up, but OTOH, I do have to
>>simply shut down and reboot NT twice a week because the swapfile grows out
>>of sight and won't come back, and the machine turns into molasses until I
>>shut it down, so there is that, and OS/2 does get hung once a week or so,
>>so I guess its about a tie from that point of view.
>>
>>I used to be able to run Warp4 for months without having to reboot, but
>>since FP12, I see that FM2 locks the system hard at random points. Too bad
>>as FM2 is was of my favorite OS/2 apps. :(
>I think that there are some problems with FP12. Maybe you could consider
>backlevelling until the next one comes out?
jbr...@aros.net
>>since FP12, I see that FM2 locks the system hard at random points. Too bad
>>as FM2 is was of my favorite OS/2 apps. :(
>I think that there are some problems with FP12. Maybe you could consider
>backlevelling until the next one comes out?
I thought about that, but I am not sure how to go about it since I deleted
the archive files. Ooops. I would reinstall, but then I have to do the
Java thing as well. Anyone know of a shortcut? :-)
John
Jack Troughton
>
>>>jbr...@aros.net writes:
>>>>
>>>
>>>However the NT boxes tend to stay up longer than my OS/2 box as once a
>>>week I have to reboot as the desktop stops responding or I cannot kill
>>>a task. The NT boxes sometimes have unkillable tasks but they don't have
>>>desktop hangs.
>
>Hey folks, let's watch how we trim out the posts. I didn't say this :-)
>
>However, I tend to agree about NT not hanging up, but OTOH, I do have to
>simply shut down and reboot NT twice a week because the swapfile grows out
>of sight and won't come back, and the machine turns into molasses until I
>shut it down, so there is that, and OS/2 does get hung once a week or so,
>so I guess its about a tie from that point of view.
>
>I used to be able to run Warp4 for months without having to reboot, but
>since FP12, I see that FM2 locks the system hard at random points. Too bad
>as FM2 is was of my favorite OS/2 apps. :(
I think that there are some problems with FP12. Maybe you could
consider backlevelling until the next one comes out?
--
----------------------------------------------------------
* Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
* http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
* Montréal PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
----------------------------------------------------------
Marty
>
> [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to Jeff Glatt
> <jgl...@spamgone-borg.com>],
> who wrote in article <38ac6a31...@news.borg.com>:
>
> > >>In my opinion, such applications are incorrectly written for a
> > >>multitasking system -- a kludge to work around implementing a more
> > >>robust scheme for sharing resources among applications. I say "break
> > >>them". For a multi-tasking OS, they're worthless programs as written
> >
> > >They function as desired. What makes them worthless?
> >
> > can't switch focus to another running program???
>
> What makes you think so? Are you confusing programs which
> (unintentionally) lock the systems with programs which intentionally
> use syncronicity of the queue?
Aren't they often one in the same? If a program which relies on the
synchronicity of the queue has a problem, it can wind up tripping up over
itself and hogging the UI.
Ilya Zakharevich
<mam...@stny.rr.com>],
who wrote in article <38ADCFA6...@stny.rr.com>:
> > What makes you think so? Are you confusing programs which
> > (unintentionally) lock the systems with programs which intentionally
> > use syncronicity of the queue?
>
> Aren't they often one in the same?
Often one? Like what?
> If a program which relies on the
> synchronicity of the queue has a problem, it can wind up tripping up over
> itself and hogging the UI.
I find discussing how a program can trip over itself hardly helpful.
There are *much more* ways than one ;-), so one should not suppose
that a particular way is especially relevant.
AFAIU, programs which use hooks use then *by design*. This would
usually suggest that the design stage did happen, which has a chance
to increase probability of "correctness" a lot. ;-)
Ilya
tam...@my-deja.com
Thanks!
Tamar R.
In article <38974ECA...@image.dk>,
Peter Jespersen <flyw...@image.dk> wrote:
<snip>
> Well I had s serious stability problem with NC/2 4.61, but I
was
> advised to use an unofficial patch of the pmmerge, fixing a
few
> problems (memory leaks and so on)...since then it has been
> rock-solid!
<snip>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tim Martin
> Can you post the link to the pmmerge fix?
>
> > Well I had s serious stability problem with NC/2 4.61, but I
> > was advised to use an unofficial patch of the pmmerge ...
It is sitting on Hobbes:
ftp://hobbes.nmsu.edup/pub/os2/system/patches/warp_4/pmr00052.zip
There is also a Russian Netscape 4.61 patch that improves
overall performance and located here:
http://www.os2.spb.ru/software/internet/netscape/pr3246.zip
Tim Martin
The OS/2 Guy
Warp City, http://warpcity.com
"I WANT My Warp City!"
Gideon Singer
-> tam...@my-deja.com wrote:
->
-> > Can you post the link to the pmmerge fix?
-> >
-> > > Well I had s serious stability problem with NC/2 4.61, but I
-> > > was advised to use an unofficial patch of the pmmerge ...
->
-> It is sitting on Hobbes:
->
-> ftp://hobbes.nmsu.edup/pub/os2/system/patches/warp_4/pmr00052.zip
->
-> There is also a Russian Netscape 4.61 patch that improves
-> overall performance and located here:
->
-> http://www.os2.spb.ru/software/internet/netscape/pr3246.zip
->
-> Tim Martin
-> The OS/2 Guy
-> Warp City, http://warpcity.com
-> "I WANT My Warp City!"
->
Is there a definite benefit to implementing these patches? Has anyone
noticed any improvements?
------
Gideon Singer
Webpage: members.home.net:80/gsinger
Remove the 'nospam' to email