Well, it's not so much SPOILING as it is a privelige. Actually, I still
name my documents using a relatively short filename (compared to those
supported), like School 1.doc or English Report 1/31/98.doc, etc. not a
short paragraph describing the file.
Tim D. Hotze
-----Original Message-----
From: Allison J Parent <allisonp(a)world.std.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Saturday, January 31, 1998 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: Apple ][+ OS
>
><Well, a 15 character limit's not bad to me at all. Actually, I've gotte
><used to 8 with MS-DOS, which I still use when I want something DONE.
>
>I'm spoiled with VMS that has had EIGHTEEN.EIGHTEEN, yes, 36 character
>file and directory names. The problem is;
>
>VMS_C_COMPILER_NEW.VERSION_TWENTY_ONE can be a pain to type in. ;)
>
>Allison
>
<Well, a 15 character limit's not bad to me at all. Actually, I've gotte
<used to 8 with MS-DOS, which I still use when I want something DONE.
I'm spoiled with VMS that has had EIGHTEEN.EIGHTEEN, yes, 36 character
file and directory names. The problem is;
VMS_C_COMPILER_NEW.VERSION_TWENTY_ONE can be a pain to type in. ;)
Allison
>>Warp Connect was _not_ OS/2 4.0, it was still 3.x as was Merlin (I
>>haven't bought it yet, the local stores no longer bother with IBM at
>>all and I don't mail order software). OS/2 2.x was _just_ OS/2, the
>OK - I stand corrected. BTW Fry's in the SF bay area has been selling
>OS/2 4.0 for quite a while.
Yes, but there is OS/2 Warp 4.0 Connect (or Connect 4.0), which has even
more internet functions.
>>name Warp arrived with 3.0. I don't know what rumour mill came up
>>with the "Borg" name, but it's total bullshit -- OS/2 predates that
>>Trek concept by several years.
>That too is what I thought (I don't follow Trek things at all).
The Borg were introduced in a single episode in 1988 or 1989.
>!> *for the curious: system requirements on the box for Warp 3.0 were
listed as
>!> "Intel 386 SX-compatible of higher; 4 MB minimum of RAM" (<- widely
regarded
>!> as a joke among OS/2 users who knew that 8 MB RAM was a minimally
configured
>!> system).
>!Runs better than Windows 3.1 on a 386/25 with 4 Meg RAM. I assume
>!the above quote was pasted from from somewhere, because you've never
>!used it (OS/2) yourself. Remember, Windows 95 supposedly can run on a
>!4MB system, says my package.
>I ran OS/2 v. 2 on a friends system (and helped him with the memory upgrade
>from 16 to 32 meg). I also ran the Rexx gopher server on version 3 (Warp)
>on a system with 16 Megs of RAM. I never ran Windows 3.1 or Windows 95
>on either machine so I cannot make a direct comparison (Win NT 3.51 was
>running on the latter machine long enough to allow setting up the OS/2
>installation). We also played around with the Voice control on a beta
>release of Merlin (thanks for reminding me of the code name) but that
machine
>was eventually pressed into service running NT (I never saw it after that).
>The advice of "you should have more than 4 MB RAM" was taken from my friend
>(who is still quite the OS/2 zealot) and I thought that I had read it in
the
>paperback version of the OS/2 FAQ as well - but I could easily be mistaken
>about that latter source. I am quite glad to hear that your performance
>was so good with only 4 MB - great OS isn't it?
Actually, OS/2 is pretty good. The only problem is the price: $200 for a
standard package. I think that the 4MB thing comes from a VERY BASIC
INSTALL.
Now, if I could see the OS/2 Warp Server with Windows NT 4.0 (or 5.0!)
support, and the OS/2 Warp with Windows 95 (or 98) support, and have a 10%
or better performance increase, that would probably get some heads turned,
to say the least.
Another great thing is 4.0's *standard* voice support. That (should)
make(s) it popular in the disabled market.
Ciao,
Tim D. Hotze
>At 10:02 AM 2/1/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>Assuming the drive's device number has not been changed from eight, then the
>>correct command is LOAD "*", 8, 1
>
>What's the differenct between "$" and "*"? I've seen both used in this
>context. How does one change a device number? I'm not Commodore expert. The
>only other Commodore product I've had is a C-16, and that seems like ages
>ago.
"$" loads the file directory from the disk, and you use "list" to see
what files are on it. "*" loads the first program on the disk, and I
assume the ,1 is to either load an assembly program, or to automatically
run the file once loaded. The ,8 is the device number - thus try, say,
,9. :)
At least this is as far as my memory goes.
Adam.
On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 22:45:12 -0800 (PST), Tim Shoppa
<shoppa(a)alph02.triumf.ca> wrote:
>>At a very minimum, you need:
>>SWAP.SYS
>>RT11xx.SYS (where "xx" is SL, BL, XM, FB, or something else)
>>TT.SYS (the console handler - not in RT-11 5.6 and later)
>>RK.SYS (the RK05 handler)
>>DIR.SAV
>>PIP.SAV
>>DUP.SAV
>>FORMAT.SAV
>>plus the handlers for any other devices you'll be using
>>The full list of "distribution" files came printed in the RT-11
>>documentation for the version you're using, and varied from version
>>to version. Which version are you using?
When booting the disk pack, I get the following version info:
RT11-SJ V04.00
What do the distribution docs look like? I have boxes of info that I haven't
gone through yet. The guy I got the system from kept everything, so maybe he
has it.
Rich Cini/WUGNET
<nospam_rcini(a)msn.com> (remove nospam_ to use)
ClubWin! Charter Member (6)
MCP Windows 95/Windows Networking
============================================
classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu
Subj: Re: Development, round II
Ward Donald Griffiths III wrote:
>Warp Connect was _not_ OS/2 4.0, it was still 3.x as was Merlin (I
>haven't bought it yet, the local stores no longer bother with IBM at
>all and I don't mail order software). OS/2 2.x was _just_ OS/2, the
OK - I stand corrected. BTW Fry's in the SF bay area has been selling
OS/2 4.0 for quite a while.
>name Warp arrived with 3.0. I don't know what rumour mill came up
>with the "Borg" name, but it's total bullshit -- OS/2 predates that
>Trek concept by several years.
That too is what I thought (I don't follow Trek things at all).
!> *for the curious: system requirements on the box for Warp 3.0 were listed as
!> "Intel 386 SX-compatible of higher; 4 MB minimum of RAM" (<- widely regarded
!> as a joke among OS/2 users who knew that 8 MB RAM was a minimally configured
!> system).
!
!Runs better than Windows 3.1 on a 386/25 with 4 Meg RAM. I assume
!the above quote was pasted from from somewhere, because you've never
!used it (OS/2) yourself. Remember, Windows 95 supposedly can run on a
!4MB system, says my package.
I ran OS/2 v. 2 on a friends system (and helped him with the memory upgrade
>from 16 to 32 meg). I also ran the Rexx gopher server on version 3 (Warp)
on a system with 16 Megs of RAM. I never ran Windows 3.1 or Windows 95
on either machine so I cannot make a direct comparison (Win NT 3.51 was
running on the latter machine long enough to allow setting up the OS/2
installation). We also played around with the Voice control on a beta
release of Merlin (thanks for reminding me of the code name) but that machine
was eventually pressed into service running NT (I never saw it after that).
The advice of "you should have more than 4 MB RAM" was taken from my friend
(who is still quite the OS/2 zealot) and I thought that I had read it in the
paperback version of the OS/2 FAQ as well - but I could easily be mistaken
about that latter source. I am quite glad to hear that your performance
was so good with only 4 MB - great OS isn't it?
Peter Prymmer
classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu
Subj: Re: Re[4]: Development, round II
Tim Hotze wrote:
>I'm actually interested in getting a copy of Warp. Is it true taht there's
>still another version coming out (I've heard rumors...)
> Thanks,
I have seen those rumours posted to this list. But OS/2 Version 4 is great
- why wait?
Peter Prymmer
classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu
Subj: RE: Re[4]: Development, round II
Bob Withers wrote in response to Kip Crosby who wrote in response
to someone else:
>IIRC they started officially calling it Warp with V2.0, the
>first release following the Microsoft/IBM breakup.
That sounds about right to me. I had read somewhere that there was a general
Star Trek theme to code names for OS/2 and the first was "Borg" - but I may
be wrong about that. I have floppy and CD-ROM boxes from IBM on the shelf
above me that have the name "OS/2 Warp Version 3" on them*. OS/2 Version 4
was called "Warp Connect" to emphasize the ease of internet connectivity.
The next version was to have a different Star Trek name altogether but I do
not recall what it was supposed to have been.
Peter Prymmer
*for the curious: system requirements on the box for Warp 3.0 were listed as
"Intel 386 SX-compatible of higher; 4 MB minimum of RAM" (<- widely regarded
as a joke among OS/2 users who knew that 8 MB RAM was a minimally configured
system).
At 09:20 PM 1/30/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Question: when did parallel ports become bi-directional (i.e., useable for
>zip drives and such)?
I've seen bi-directional capability in the BIOS of a GRiD 286 desktop
before. Before that, I can't really say.
>Or, to put it another way, how likely would I be able to (ignoring software
>issues for the moment) hook up my new SyJet drive to say, my m100? What
>about my DG-1?
That would be really cool, but sort of overkill, don'tcha think? I'd be
happy with a 1.44mb or 1.2mb floppy on an M100.
>(P.S., off-topic tip: The Parallel port SyJet is really a SCSI-2 SyJet
>with a fancy cable; if you've already got SCSI, and can maybe use the
>Parallel port feature...)
"What about the parallel version of the EZFlyer 230?" He said, still quite
untopically.
-John Higginbotham-
-limbo.netpath.net-
