classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu
Subj: Re: Development, round II
Tim Hotze wrote:
!>>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.
OK clearly the rumour I reported was worthless as OS/2 dates from 87
(or do I have that wrong as well?:-)
! Another great thing is 4.0's *standard* voice support. That (should)
!make(s) it popular in the disabled market.
I knew a grad student who - in his twenties - had arthritis so severe that
excessive typing for him was out of the question. The voice navigable
desktop was of great benefit to him. Before that he used a collection of
standalone apps including a wordprocessor (from IBM) that really did not
impede his data input speed one bit. I asked him to "type" some latex as
demo and was quite favorably impressed. I've heard some folks point to the
current round of voice recognition software as being the final success of one
of those long outstanding AI research problems. It is interesting to see IBM
take such a "quiet" lead with it.
Peter Prymmer
WTB cheapo laptop...anyone have 286 or 8088? Don't want anything
collectible, just functional.
I'd love a Grid -- do they run regular DOS?
manney(a)nwohio.com
<Snip>
> > sounded more gentile. Anyway, about two thousand on/off cycles later,
>
> I wonder what a Jewish head crash sounds like?
>
> Sam
Parts are cut off.
manney
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
